Text

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for November 1983. Pages 1,139-1,301
	ML20088A852
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/30/1983
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V18-N05, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V18-N5, NUDOCS 8404130221
	Download: ML20088A852 (167)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:_ -. _ ~ n ;,1 ,m1*,,'" ,.m_ -s,. m - .m ( I i NUREG-0750 .P. .+.., ._. :. l ~ - - - :V. = '. -. + ~. ,.m +~r x ,,d'%a Vol.18, No. 5 ..,. ;p. f ;.7 u A%w, s - i ..i + -. mg.- o.1.p J.ga;XM";A v :s:3d4 ;*,v d A4,,-j ;* oca ' % w*.

i,.%'..g Pag.

r, t v -.

i

~ 1 es 11 9.v~.p -.3g-130.1 B. m# t( M*s, f 6,.4g. Yg.[6., r m . r t P,up p,g i4-M i Z. ,%t ay"T *-., f ? f Q'+* A",4:. # S. m.m<Y. [W* d 8N.d.. ',.I[t M-.* S-s?- N-v +, 1 H vy w Q.w,

v ab)% ; _

i .'2.4*. W W. M,..Ji[I [ _Y[a. d. e f _4'.J.[s.N.._ ~$,C ~N $ b,g Y_#'h' 3+ 5 y 1 d C, 4 s m. ~ k ? vfy t e .J $'. K, :p ' m ' > -,f '^'. d e". t Y ', s 8 - ~.

p. s

,.? ',,', 4% 2 4; % .y m,

g; 4.

.t . 3i _, y< 4,~-;4 z, C*,#y'4mi >'Jh U* ].. y y l

+7j ;

,_,;. < :c m.,,1 .--w

.%Qs 4

, W M jl - - T,y 4w uw -,,e r m-1 . a, ,L. c. _mm.m%&, w <. '3 Q&>%%h%3 ' JfW '" Q ' %ijG= .a e --!.f A i4

m;

. ir

4 s.

t .3 ? -;'.4 I = a .;a ..s I-.% .4

)

9 6 .a ~3 ? i I 1 , a. 'a ., ~ ' f e i 6 .c ,i ,4 2&$$kW y; WEN 55NWW-$WWh&g%m.&as{W5!.) ~ U ww%hm y.s,u%w,4.. n w w ...w.4paeg m r.i,s.,c&.a,g,3 m,, .m.. i et w+ Le.e..u,. p e. - 'm, + + s t S. . W-m. 5 qt&.x w%}],I,@)?,m..6,VMi.,oX $fe.?, [hiOi:M&;qQ;y?gm:g * "tw;W%n-l M .:4 ,d nx+f F,p -v~3.=~Agx.?/yv h a n ; % w..t %m% y n c %m e + n wq+ tq w,id,,rs-A %.,; y~t.w. A..,m A )

s..,,,,96 g nelse..:r:#r.

k =-

d..% r:

gna 7 7 g a ra

,g.7; w .g:. p /. a u,c m,e.7 z z w.n g 6@$hv,4,.O.>%f8Cr, ,k} r. k Om,,# T. mN.g&b.&u o&rp,,Wo..m,,4w w ..,.e ~ M;T$QIQ C &:[? s,.:ia.: w. H +f m.;g,.q 3yg Q.-t 3r.p % ga.> ~ e,.p?l,,,,a w :w,% we -m: w" ; ;,g n

a

-- t 1-r a p < _ %,.;,J,: ,,,3,s.. 4 1 s i 4y. : 4.,,.;;. p p p.y,pya : 6,4.,r.g. f;s n: u,,. on, w s 3;pg.3m;"y.gf g

. ag y}c L 7 a; ~. - v:n = 4

. ;;w w y y.., s ,,,o. ..,,;p;, y y;; a.7**pp,<#y;+w/:q +,.n w~ >, ~19,gM '. - -.. ~ u e

;;W.;;.',,.y. 9, A. --

c S4 r + ~, ; ; h \\ m. '

y.

1,,v :

.: ' q,. <c; ,g 3, c t*y m e;u,4'p*;._>.,. .Q,,. n.w,. g.,}y~ Qsgy Q y [ w ,s. y.,. 7. y r y,.y;,qy y,,, Q;... ,. s n.+,

u. nm. ~.

W ,3 / 9 ( p.? M W % e p p ;f," % n g,,,,.y p PDR NUREQ - ~ ' O 8404130221 831130 ~

ll 07S0 R PDR

,,...y Kimim e

SundW h 'Me **

'"N 'M

.u ~ r .I. e s ~ ~ '.2 <>c....., ;,+ .3 ., c o . n 21l,16 i.. ' f-Q3 *..F', n ;,' - NUREG-0750 Vol.18, No. 5 kM. ~ Pages 1139-1301 h ,.4.. .c. b,M....

c.g y s;
.,m. .n n, v;.: w q[,. n. ..e. Gr %. I. .x .. i:
. 4u. m..
9 PdY.r.w,%h.,,.e.. . C This report includes the issuances received during the specified period M.. .d- ', ~.s from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal mQJC@g,4'l..,. n - Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the f,M.flW9A c,
..$U0 A ~
q% f.dk[U.FMW,,- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and M.3./. the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM). p c. - - n% ' - ' .m 91 6 [, %. ~ M. ~U @g;...._..$ t,.. The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein e ~- are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-gj:"3.g g. g n.. - Y. A..;sn. x.~.gp n c m.K iFg<" dent legal significance. c n. m. l '... i.#'i 3 ( d.,.k O N. *.,* ,f-**- '"b.'y5.. .4'~. . ' F.[%Dq"l(l : _%n,2. 8 7 (p y v ?.Y.y: Q +... ;-(.. Q ..,,.:f.,. \\ a.,.qv.? n. A */q*'.G,g,.:r? w. M' g., A,j, . g. au z ,. j. g., ., v ~,,. 1 r,,, t , g.-,:: _ .g_,.- c.:. -. ] m:. s.,' WJ ' .s ^ N MY; A3 5* U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j:n e.. 7ss.. w. ~ r-. r w 3t.y n.: y n. ;: a,4.~ w;' i ,, 3, e s.. .c .n>< .q ffy. y:: c;,.., jy s;, f M x,~-- b,, - SY;.%[3,.-/ 4 'M Wc g,. ~ Prtpared by the Division of Technical information and Document Control, f '7 7 I Mfice of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20556 (301/492-8925) t ~ -...a 3- %p.?. -, ', *.. -m.' ; -.o WW^ W... s 5:, a k. +. s. (6 4.; .,,) c i I.T .. d ; '/.'.8. $. W' - i'.., ' i ,h, a ( ' 1 r.,, ~..3 %. / 3 c... i .;m* 3r '~, r i .,Q.4 n.c+ '. '.; -, n %s, V^, 0.. '. ~ %. ". ,._f. %..f,, *.s*,, L. t. t s-p.. r,. <.j,3#7
i. i..'.'. 4.m@.... ','..y C,, ) ', e.
t-s s .,. ~ " : '.&, s b. r* t';...j ' y. ".! 2 M ":W.., W:171., Q.<.. n: M r.
r. './ a
f,+ h}.. u '.;.'. s*,. r.
y i; ' .,2 ,; ', ?, E 3 -.. e 7 -- w.e.y.. my.,., g. g r t.j. .g. ?.y.e-p.e >- .-p c.
z. --an 3'
e , - ap_- .* m m,- ,. p, e.y%.7 e,,. - 9 3 +-g,
w... n
?o t - n .~f_,, T ~ ~.
' ' j, [&lh' ; :;,,[,7,,.L.. g...
'".Y. s" , -: ' q,. v _. p.',.,.' e 2.. a*p> p < *' 5.. e v,,.. g? f.f*[ .;. ;,i:lM* v. ,[O:f ' s '.' \\:;Llf,3' f E _ [ ; -_ x - O ff
~
l* e ~ -^ l ~..;7 [ C._ W.a; wf sgi. vy ,m :?xl,,,,
s., -. v.
-, p. x ss.._ '.o , '..[3,,. W.. [, A. ', - -- '_[ p ' g , '*i .1 ..w N ' i (( , : f q .t e 4, 'k I, ,, g. ge rs t ..ca. . i i h -v b er, ,m 6-..--+ e-. - -. < <,., -. -. - - - ~ -,. -
u-8efo s.
,. *i v.- -s*r+----.*-w-
< f. m, < a.a. ;q y,,. ~ c +.. w.,,9c,. q.t N -M em- .. ~. .o - ws;q .,n, .M- %,. a,,. v -... ge -,.w.w. 's m,
w..w-
...v !:n:f;a%&+s.p,,,&., ,. m,?.Q..u. n?n; s,.. v. .e:a.. w mgp:...T:yy< g.. ~ n ,,,.i,..n.. nqn m::u.@.,.tl&. y u .p.... :x+.. . -)we@w. c.r.gc.M. w - s
v9 u.,,,r. Mw,. g$
$N.h rM ..cr,., ~. n
r:
.c Q .T; .u j e D,h: w$'$f,h s a.. , ~. k~ h, 5 ?$*. 'h hh?$h WY: 5.k5 l, ".. %M...,.,...- m,., a w.i,.s.:,s. '.W.,
6
.. ;. a f .p a m&. e.v..y.W. @v. %it. ns.M cMD 1.%a. ~. n. ,'..s 2 %...: c .,vi;y$ ::, 3.a.s. ~%,u,Wn. m.w y.m% Ma.p. v.m : lA;;. T.b *4:4 9-: y.. WM 4%p mh.m c A ..-a.e s ~e -. w. ~ o c + a...s Fuz.. s m p.$.*dM;se,r.,;M; e 9.ad n% a y p.p.c.y M s. f:;%N.hs.Q x%,R,,94,4ffW;.Mym[ijK.Mg.y - s :n. g,h ww d?%M'f@h4:;EN k
m. w'.3%,,; g-A., + 4 W &m&,;.m.,M,.?i@
PM.g~M. d
w..,g,p%pyFI% wf f Qn GS
,,b. v% '{ W. . n..... ',.. .i m.: u.2iu a n. %s: w,. a.., & gM &wMm. - p .A ...e - ;< n..e.. w;. 2 ws a
s. +a >
n
c..
-.; % W .em>. gh.% n.nr. 2Q dMA .W. n3 h:h'E W h'5:49@gm
(.'c.6 T s %.,.'k-TM
@m:r M W+ n,m?cm q%pp.~ 6-;;,p; b).,6: w u.? W =. 5.w%N.&m mw 4 s ~. :. c 4 & m?M,h'e w %ags.m$;?Q. MR.Q % y ....,h,$y +; r. WLL W:: Q: m :n. w?W.w.e m b h D M M f$*$% h 7,8.h.15:h {. Y. m, w ' 'N.4 g hhh Yh 'k ' T'WJ QT'.'*d?f:. %nq) W yrh, k. , g~ p w. _+,.. r.. y, %q c-;,e w
x. - s.
J. $ a.y -,m.. s..) 3 s MiMn:%.Y;y.y.s.~;:..,eg@,u. em. M.w.'6 M.g . b Y M..N., i . -C.Ia%e$s. m.a$!x.&:n'*.x, . -Nf hhj9ktWnQ yN hhp.,a!m>#V'b'jy. t-V' r + 'Wl f' yk . k. .,;4M-)M,M..g~2 wt,wiw$p'.v.M.W~h %s . s .,q! fk h
n w
COMMISSIONERS Mt h Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman NQ?M.36WWth,j h%q
"/v?f@@ht)Mj@N8k!j Victor Gilinsky kf Q'W Wg&cpq Mh, ~5Tl Thomas M. Roberts
' T ' M,(h q j e @d N m & %.L. 9 7 James K. Asselstine c dpWi f 7 Frederick M. Bemthal 1 hm.~.9'@r#MWQw:ql,CQ4QHW'% "% rl c
ACR.:C% 2 W%fMG %%W 6,;
ha f,,
,,b.f 1('l'. M k :Q *j\\ g w ph.. n.gQ *y;p
.gl.ysu? ' ~.. y& Z.f,N m}&.y, s7h<nN 4%.p)*~t.hN~w%'
figh4Mi41 1
r
d U
.d x .q a 'hr-w..a 8 . f:,l*i < :* '. &,c'.;w:4b.y',x,.e g.h..: csR{ mm"'7.1. +.yff.4% :, ;g
J r*
s g 3 A. 5 a l. n $ng. 3m er* T-.* r L u , ~. yM
J,My$ f bE ' 3 Len f.. t.:,:,
.-t* a .' m r &p p 4 6 *h.. s.. 4 WwW'*MM :w;9%gm. 1 k Jbt*Q5 M.t b e n; .g ,..d:8;e.p'.n%,.;p$.fape.vd:Q,F.},~Q s.;,, & t - % v *,'%
f ll:x' y( w u,m.v
.w s - f fr' p~ p; 's..W+Y %p 5 fi ? t-v.'. ;.,. V, W+,Mel.5 <~" ,. Ar n g W. +.. s.t.o. J, rw m, "p.. p e
v. pr j
.,. Uf,,["Q,'7 N.dpp}y% f'; $ [lg.*9,.-Q,7: - . %, ; V,Gp, *;M.C;.%;['.m.: ; ; Of .Q4g-!t. kip h ,.c, q%.r,.,9.;pm A,%.hy ywp,g,y*l yp w m<m' n.;. ;.. x. v q. n ,} ' = 3. m: p a , :: t.4 p
i. c

l. w'y.:,9 %

4. ;,^g*p '..
+y,Mg' a c. <M - i. #. a-c , 1 g
. e se
,, g,n.+ 24 t '. at s =. i 6,..a p-eh4'M D ..j'.. C <,*" ;,N. p-3.,- %.hU,f. 'e ? J , z r m.g o pg g%,'s,M;e. y%.h , m fy e. k. hhh Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel W-@M@h%@h
' G.y.% OMijG @y? @ hbk
'..-hQ t:4f B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel J.f .&%f . p. n W.% %.~A~R
.l n.
. - M. MM.n.i q p.-g f..,,.W*;py. m
**QG.,*"14JL,..q 24;,n,kf
., ? Q i"%. m. s..:'f C4. ,..3...s o, 3 - -. '.. y 6 .# ' [ *,. A , '{ [. [ # $. k f; $ p

c
. :, $.,,,,eMMC,E' ';.) hp*x. +..f *
i s
-m u.n .n e . w t. s f.9, r,,T, h.. i[. '. A
r e,.n r +-v n' %;w. ;-p g*
.,.,,..,,7.k = ,,1 Ng '^ 5[ ,..,I E f .)y* j !.q' ', ", y,,[g.Q.gQ =,.,lgl-{~4.Q 4, g.g e .\\ 4 m.x . 4
., m :;. p,. t, ;6:,7 &,%,
p
.R. Q. bw~&., ;f.MQW. h.M.s(&+4 ' f#M,D. P. > T.i.,.i ',; &.ap f,.fph'g y h.4 M
Q. p:
s., a gmq ..O $w'h.D,f,. *i&.. h."a..h'hk'& . W.,m p,.<m wwm, ~g;e...n@,t .s,.%[m; *
vb~.0e3 },j,,s'Q f}qg'fR Q ))

qs
.-.. s Wy rd .u _ ~ <,. m n' s,
W.
f.cy' v y ,,~1 ( ' $
v. -
y x.,.. (;. ~',. m.Q.,ey Q. pi,Jh%g.pgmg] p.g ay i .m.:. ~. . d. ' '
T Q.=_v g.
3 .e. .~.y.g hQ 4 ( ~ Rp 2 2 v;.': p.p;..'.wy..~ : p, g.,o '~~.
V ~~" E.~~'r'Wr@
p, cs,~yme;q,---n. 3-r vm &p'n.~gl7:q.W4;:.;- 5: r .Q... ;. c_ T . +,q:;>;,;g %g.gg, 31
3. w n.p 3:w..g> y,

.gm.y> g y c :.;. 4;

m
. -.v...qg4.... o..q., a.m~4.pfs, g ;; 4 g s , g..-!m. 3.j. n.,g.f.,e,.4_7 .us.,, ... 9 o e, m. ;....
i.. m.
, 7 j,.'[ } ; 4l 0.) j {g e?.. Q,.* V,.=,4((b'.lw&.:bj,jQ *p'+k,lEj':hy.ma[fh. ?? u y,, f;lp 1,hfll_,,i,41 , yp. ;, g% 6 q ge N e $lf ' %.c 'l'Q, 2 + ;. w, n 5 s. y ag:+y;w.ny;g; a 3.e;g.ggwy u:g;g;.;.wg.~nm. w:+a. : 7 pg.n;, y,u ~ , ~ 2 - 1,. 4 .. mp,y, .w .u t
.c s,.#, m~J ., Q. ' ;p..*. - '.;w. ..... u,: e.'v _,.y m .3, _ s W e_ .~ ,.w ~ 3 a... e. . w-.. - :
c,

.,,,
y,.
K s.
v.c. y C.; - .X .^;,. Y f.'g-. : ^ b 9 g Jan. g . f.. a" ' e m.* %[.,v s.-. I t- .r. ii L ' ..s s@.m.mL.VV * ',h MM 4 CONTENTS m O.&.2,e:'.l, , _v' Issuances of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission J.F.. W. e; - w y?r.O.,' 1 NRC CONCURRENCE IN HIGH LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY ~; -.J..'.. SAFETY GUIDELINES UNDER THE NUCLEAR 6 ~ WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982
"..

a. 7 L
n p, Put,. L. 97-425 (Proposed 10 C.F.R. Part 960) <W'yg mA /. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, M.D&M MN.C. - $N%yl3dM,ub;,6,9 W Tk m CLI-83 26, August 24,1983...... 1139 fm.&.W.n.', M.. r.n;w,-c.m. n; f , w_ j y 3 - r. 4.v m ^ ys: u '.. M, m f$G - M - f PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY d...E,.,eQ.,y)%e.m '2/ ~T. m ? E d. _ (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) W AA Dockets 50 275, 50-323 W._aM. W W.,:. m..-.:.m ^ k r. n %'"#W - N. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Mt.JW : I ' *.; - w hk @w.w'*;.[.Q 'f; FM.h CLI 83 27, November 8,1983.. 1146 s , y* .. s. rt. M .6.. s 'I .s .w f.$'f)yd y 4 M SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al M; Q..A,n b ;
P r
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) C 3 1 Dockets 50-361-OL,50 362-OL kiM(:Z:W, C s. O.", DER, CLI-83-28, November 18, 1983.. 1155 ['Q Q Q.1 # 7 i J 1 1 " < t. f by;fh&..n:/., ~ e ,W:7>y: g w W.qS. N.n.A+g.,_s : ;yk N 2 e .c TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, er al. %pp.7gl,3 -t t. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Units 1 and 2) Dockets 50-445, 50-446 p 5y n'l.J " ' W.T;e@ynmC..., p ORDER, CLI-83 30, November 29, 1983. 1164 C NW.ie "f -?.r e kpc,c,,,,~.4.~ : + . u. ,.=o
,.u o,,
y . m 1 ~: 5 yQ, r yn; WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 4g%..&,gtgq.gG;,7 F N.mW..w at. + "41.W:, ; g,: (Point Beach Ndear Plant, Unit 1)
M.m.W,:..+60,n}WCQn
y. gO.
Docket 50-266-OLA 2 hT N - n c. ORDER, CLI 83-29, November 22, 1983. 1159 e r ~- h@khhh, y:y!i,;y, ? m MkhM:.N ' UO : e
h. Aq.*.N.Q. h.f.h;:
) Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards li+ nu%c%.w.;~;MW -
bn IM.W.M..a b?mS
. g. 3 ... f2. l<,, s7* i 4 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSillRE, et al. y,e @/ Wr t W~. N. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) W~6.l.w?? 4.%q.,. c Dockets 50-443-OL, 50-444-OL f.5.4 MG HN;6<. -. 9 s MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, v%x.,tdM C.'o/r ' 1 . s.,s... c. .- c.. %em e ALAB-748, November 16,1983................. 1184 L; WW... !6 7.< a us :-;* * ' '., &MVSh[
[ V a v.~. %; ['$..;? %.._ z,.
w a...-;F.. -
a. 4*
c - g 4 [" 9. e<9. :.. g. / 2.'[ g 'O g g t h+ :.( r C x p * '
s' -*r"Yh W y.k/<2**a4

i*
g';'gg C r, t' @-'.,.Q '&. A* '.~. W$, ll,'%& +.* G.Q..,7. : a.: :. v .?R. 4.-f$ E,-.,v.-, ." V 3k $ h s. p%K'*'y kQ ;' ! lii
l....X.;a*f'o dQ.
f,' './. ./.'".,,4r ^ '.#. s. ~* s g s... b'lv%g p v. a-. m~Q M..g p.%: & W V**
' M 4-
?. J w 1 , 4.y;;, cw' y M$fN}$.M.M,,,.I.?fQM. c..u. n.3s.., w . 4., c U 5'W $ l pw m W m^ (y ap:m 2 :%%;?# %.+ ,,, u' ..~.&.,.?'m nylM.Qi.y n., n.n. t ; *
y~ < h,l :,-~;.*Qf' ";.5+.% Y ; ;
~";;.m--w,.x-. 4.y%s.:q.h h ;,r.m. ..l$ l !.
f '
, y ? y, y ',:-? f,)4.t. Q- }[. (.,q?. f../Ly -s 3.. -.v--. e .--,-.i .r ~w~~ , ~ 3.w-. r. 'l, ..p \\ . ep 1s R
n i ;NJ' :
. e.M.s.,R.3,..-O'h;Q.d.l cpy@. ~T:D. O.L ' [,. V,[f.b. ' C 12 de.$..d..y.g. m,1M. MW . hN .s 2 M ( ',." !,w..; N. s ?; s.
,g$ '..
s ?5,, g, * ;,h -;.f.,...[, ,[ .Ud.._',,N t I[*'!, ,,. g.. e,.,. p *.h,...,j,, m, ' .. s,1 . ~9 ^ l 4 >;.', < Q. n. h v.* (i} k.,w".~.*Q 3. ,,,?,. b ).. <. m , h.f.4
'r, n'.T f, r. Q %
u., 3.~ 2.;g"; n '. m% ?^ .,t.* r g .*-e m'e. :'fptK.y:.,..h p i g. '. n., ; 4 s
7..
z m, "*> ^ l u r y M*7 ( - < u
m&W.&5g_aw% ,,, n;... WW,..Q,CQ$.!:Qi%QQ..~ c$3OMg,w&Ny& ..,c. u y.gh m Y. & 7 2 W W' W S M ; D M D % M.M @ ~ M %m Ww a <2 w ay w p:M.N pM s# 4 _ 1 . GiW MM NNNMhM$dME dW d F e N W M M F M' & W %;;;fnw?s %.x % % t m m & ' W n & @ L 3 rw &M 3 a w&w.hC% ..cr.5pne@ G/QJy m'fg, ey "1>yI2p.M h J[;{:@w.gp% wh t.wu - AD@p gpw e . ~N.mw%y.s6,n.m-@@r.vdiQW(hYh. &w ed M s !hNMM b h DQ!gTOR$ps.JQ;p%,y$h Y,:: gM$%y.vgb;m? w ;:u n m ?+Q$.d,9 %4: m j .q MF f h dIh PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) MEW 89F qld,,m%.Ms@Mh MM .w d. Dockets 50-443-OL, 50-444-OL
b; -e%$[g..M- &
gew.... w ,N y ~M MM N,k,h.M[,b] g 3 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, AM W ALAB-749, November 28,1983..... 1195 ,m%13$y.g$y@9lN'*?'fQ%v~W-% yptM M 91 !? e%qqr.mwp#4! y . mf 6 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY b dmWA@Ydh[@Qh ] NN N $Q Docket STN 50-483-OL (Callaway Plant, Unit 1) t ?D46PM:Np YrMp#Th'dk hM@MMM"dMMfE%MFM@ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ^'^8-'So Nove=ber 29, 1983.. 1205 W# && m$h. :,g.wMi $ %thW; wnw 5 Ms4 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY Np p$[d @h p & w (Callaway P: ant, Um,t 1) u f CD p NMSN Docket STN 50-483-OL M Yb +h j h MEMORANDUM, ALAB-750A, December 9,1983...... 1218 hskh NS DJ5YMQN 6,.A.W&#dM. %evMM.m-g%#g WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al. su.y . # p g- @t e. p ? $yi d.q m %@#p ygsq y@gi -s 44 ef (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3) -QWqd,QW p _g Docket 50-508-OL an~ s pWP$p. q%g ev,Gp:?.%eg$.W<%.w@g%m;c.4 2;f f DECISION, ALAB-747, November 15,1983....... 1167 v d k.; p t t.g en#, m A.b y f jim,ee@O#if!h;p p n @m * % 4.Q y:,d.M; e ;$ ewg @4 %s ggw TEM-? M sh issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards WM-a @W;: n,%,$yrd. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. w Q, avwt. Q E f M M }' $ ) g $ MM Q " Q[$@S@d@@AA: Qd (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) , ng,WSMl W.My Dockets 50-440-OL, 50-441-OL bdkls.g.WM[M.M.p.? gag 9 M M d..h h fiTUEM h $9 N MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, i MM4 LBP-83-74, November 10, 1983. 1241 M@hoW@;.Q,d;g$pMQ3M 'O m y. Wr uJL O CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. M @Q@%@2$73 M i@Q@ W A.T.D, N$98 b (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) Ofm..Wf.,6%...g~hh ^hhh-}@h h hf5$h Dockets 50-440-OL, 50-441-OL 3 g.s
w 9 m.
MEMORANDUM, LBP-83-75, November 15, 1983..... 1254 nw
y. ~ e m. &m..v. m ;. w g ~y w :g. a, w.s mm%.e, ty s
y - ~. .v n w .+ 9 4'r?"W P.% LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ' '..@#5 %m. W4. w,a m+i.; g.y @
m.
p v.w.w M.yzs N (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Um.t 1) ~y - ( f.,oj ?..;~'td.G.v. W W-Docket 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning Proceeding) 'W r ww ..: ;h M,. NM MEMORANDUM AND ORDER,
f. $, ~' ?.s. N,, h p?. _M U M.,p%'. d # M Cj@M LBP-83-72, November 1,1983....
1221 .e.U .,, g., n %y. . ; o. .s Gru i e Q~,. M,'s.. e %.. 'yM... - c., 1 y.
r' o
. R,,c W g 't. UMW@@3bh' d'g h@g.4'$ c.: r(N d+d hffj" i [*-Cr k ' .b 3, JM, %,M*.,@$ $W@ n% % n @4.-n n m%@ %M $P p'Mf% @a.e nh MWW 3 . w, 4,,. #.- s..~ ,m... 4- ' ' * ;c. "s.c nc yn:,.s.,s/*m ~~. +,n.: Q.yf f y ?~g*g.;f; K.;T [p~y .y ~&y W'g.g.n.q p '; [ + ^ " U'gy. t 1 '@ g ,,,,0,s. m.;, ; ;; yR. y .ytp" m.Q k j
3; W:. p' y.'.p
,..m...;",, n .n.,. '/,,,4,,kt . u,..my.y. #..-'4.. m;.'Q h Q 6 &" afA s. n, g,.y*--m. ~..,,, ;,,. M ', gy[f ytf%,b,. [. Q _g ~J ] " j. 4 ,.g .m*.th Mi. c.
.'..f"..
{ y. 1 ' N :d" yJ'ai.;g,Q z Q.'), ". g., e
" j.
,,y~ g [,' 4 [, }Q,h.W.;Q &, g.g,Qgj .-+,g ,g c : } [ f ':.;;f; OQ ?ff,p;p f ) , 4y ', yyQgg&Q,:.ggw*Q{mypww a.m.:q ~ w...pg;\\:.l.[,, o q g ,c wp.m.n i, 4p m. :.- ?: mymw uy s.w.v A.m$p.fG'i,.'Qy:p,w;,9;$ww. Qpg, t - ' + ww .y n pg.p,'.3 h6 2@ 3?dMQd ,7.m. . :j.;,'. a. .,m u. t Qy L c
,.n, n. ~,,.. ..in W _ . n,.L ' ~ 1 k.*. 7ty h,f
&-l '
. '_ j - s r ..g 4 4 ~ *; i9 N a g. a 0v: . ~'- &f ') 2.- f.y '. - .x,' ..a.'
.w d.g w

z

3,
,ysw 7. .y.. .c ..~ r,.a:,. g.a
.ip r
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. H;.M/A '.P-(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) MMT ^... Docket 50-289 (ASLBP No. 83-491-04-OL A) N..,M. W y (Steam Generator Repair) A.c MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. p% Pr LBP-83-76, November 29.1983 1266 v. - ~ ..y t +. i m, ..& v, . 5, ROCHESTER G AS & ELECTRIC CORPORATION ~ e (R.E. Ginna Nuclear Plant, Unit 1) L... w. 4.Ws. M.. ye ~ Docket 50-244-OLA (ASLBP No. 79-427-07-OLA) g j g g g. g. .y [ g. Q. $[Wup.;WpW.f C -hMT YW,M* i f MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, U" tm mN,w,;W; w, *;, -:... u.. -* 1. [O LBP-83 73, November 7,1983 1231 i 9 + R.; &q ' MA@gs*. . ", (;; z - ,.m% &e - s y*, M' W ,. ~
l' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al.
.W,q W.. '" %M. d. W.. :,F,{ % 't) O s (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Units 1 and 2) i.' w 6-t M %ww.e r. Dockets 50-445,50-446 (Application for Operating License) m /f. ?sa%,,J g ~ n ". W 2-SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER. j LBP-83-75A, November 25, 1983. 1260 N @,3 f./ W. ~ o.
m.., w.,a ~. p

f.. # *
. y,- .n -h r .s 8 y +. t 8y . L: _. m JJ J W.. 7 s,e u.F%r.,r 1
.3
~ '8 4 gg Issuances of Directors' Decisions , v. ;n v. m # e a, o +/. O N ~ c...
v.3 m,.
. 'M no. v. k,,g RM.~. ,* F.m CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. L.s,.4 @m&,en f. M M; $ @Q'M;, W Q.jh b (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2) 4 } Dockets 50-440, 50-44I (10 C.F.R. s 2.206) Mgf3% M- .. QR Fc. .K ', y. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. s 2.206, s { DD-8317, November 15, 1983.. 1289 PW6,.cp.m%pm my.e.-.c< F W m ..TT o p u n.& 4u.,. g-1
-.,m.
.w
m. 3
.< c,, %. .4 . s MM M 7'(4.i T, na.f,':. ,'m /. e GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION ] (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units I and 2) I.WMG% T.% 'T,9 '. .. t 98-
.Y dM.- c.
i @g.Q @~bM....".. ~.v, 'l Dockets 50-289, 50 320 (10 C.F.R. s 2 206) N..n..pu,p - Q, W. M. p A.. sa m INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. M i .m . Q 3. j 2.206, DD-83-18 November 18, 1983 1296 @-[m'M..d. ~. f..>
y gy
.,..'m..'./..
4Qq f7 J
,p M 4%. pd. I Pf i,'i *:, Q N.i T a a.. 9.c:7 BWW, ; ..v :a';, s ?,mw.- . @ex. s.,.*w '% % -m y p ]6 "7 4d 8 g*+ c N}4"g.', . 5%'yd:[ -[ f My77 +[Q,sy[I%R &.. g p g @;%.E ?y m $*;.;',,v.m &ci,. .Am f .JQ... ,7 '? l i e.M.w.W:'.! h. v ? +.. . s. u n ;a.,.. v .g ..~. 1 . ;~.* W" M m;. 5 p.{f. y 0'*/. d,#.E"y.: &. ng y.M Loz a.u 6.' $[ ~L. D..&.:,g;.. m,.~. : n O ., m. ~,,. '.N a'y, f0f.f;f. - -?p /s.I a.. < o a 3 F 'f*MQf%.'Wf,,.. '.y M :,1,. d'} " %, %4.M:w?+6.s,A %. :%. <,;:. ~ ' ' >p.- QQ@- -.m4e...g.<*. - t v 4 e.43.%. b 6.7,'0.e.. p M r Av v,;i M y ;Lr Y a n. ;w i kNb..th. - - .9.. '.. cY$ m w; . w' ' ;@n&W -i G3W.'mlVl OT.'.W.)*e3 " lc' ?r h-. M,.W.,. p.M. %.. a.'. W.7 1 li s %,en.5l.~., g&.,. e @h..Q. _f.,M.,a.,,.
5.,
n, w.., s, p... 3.
e. }n..
j t y , f @ *Q, @f.,' M C" N llg m '- @7 n.J.Q3:%g'*'6 p%.%,s,.aw Ldi&. h = mp L,. >u #w,.,m @W.,pa.; '. m. : - q m,m vm%'.., lv -..v.- m..
w
.r.,e. w% .,. m w.s. - mf .v. ' O y *ei.r 4.c - f* N,p -7.,,p% 3 %. t " .v ~3 p. ,p x y,y ..w 1.t n- .._ Xd --u S q' ;;t.:n . ~.. -e 1-s: + s.... # Vf th. ub. :;is..# W,...L~,.i p; 's < 4 ~ - o ' c. , & J Q.o v h ' 4^
s g si) s,.3,, *. f. 'M' 4; w -e.e'.. h...y9 3,.-
Q..A rye ,.n, v , 'c-s c..,..',$;. A ~ ': -., - <* e z ,, e ,.~ ~.a %.,s. rv a g &.c%._ .+ ~, - e yd. r f. _ cs. A p.4 o /u,,. W s. r.- s s e -,..s.p 1 ., c oy3. M, p.p. 3.,, e.. a p-4. f. ' :.s.. t. p & - - e,
n.
--.am y.f( W.w',.J.p. _ '.* y., 1,..A;.' c.x 43 ;, +a 2 f.'.
g.
...L. ; "r e. L. 3 H;;6 V. .. w+ t.,...M-w>y ';r "e. 9..< r~ 'AL , b..u <., - m n.; .C - ~
s,;;.
,t ' q d a, ,e ., n.Mse,i. r t 4- .w s 's. . d.N. 4., g 9 -....-,---2.xs-- t-- L--. 1- -u-
s + s -s -.. -r s J .-t = d 9 r
E,', !
'C. .. ~. COmmlSSIOn .' ~ e e lssuances t .-.?-, y, .i {,,.* , Gw., 2 'A .is.
g_ y.
1* % ' -r, Y s e; g -s e ,~ e's, > y.,. .,...v .s. . -. - w. .,~w.:t:; ='- ;... ~ ,1.
1 l
l
$'. :,W % ', - -k.
.,pe. +. \\ ,; s t.
s l
t,. n %~-, , t..,f. 6 a
t ' i,-
O C s - s. ,A
' s
e l
4 ,',.k. t (. 4_ ) &'x..L- x... +.> st+ .e, , 0 ( t.*1/a bf',.' -J l . 0- .wj. l
* *h ;_-..-
c9.. A 1 . J'e#,, V U.no,. ',. * ,.4' 4' ' " p *
ij s
g,...t g 'g, 2. -* 't 'j 8 . as%,7 5 ~ g m... $,',
G,' f i ' '[
c. + L..,s. ' M g g .~~.4,. ... ~.. g >g *y P Q..,, .l 7? i ,. 4(5 %y.. '. B A I - q d. 4,
g
. Oe ., l W -.l' y h;'q p r s s .t.., r 8" 5.4s.+ ?*s.'*'.<s. A... q*. < ;. Q p :- w L. g, .,. gwc,,.p w b '*hY E Q^.'f,Y n:yn,, 6,.~. s..,., - i g. 3., . l f,.. .4< ;g #,.. ..c..
Ahv.k ' *, f.I l'
_e: t. k., n., ,-a...
m.a(
.3 0' 9, g,- T
A.
g. y i '.
w.
'4 - 4. -s. e.. ~.,
u. ~
aw g '*'a.
e. ,,a .4 g,4, h .9' ed, i 3 .(.t y -~~..dm,:, yg.<.:,. :. e. f
w a* '\\
+ i. y* ,,ag, P j D' f. i,, . u... n x, L',* 4 s.
??,.i-
'o!$g*.,s - ,s t - 4..,. s,..%.,u' ,/. s y s. , b y t.- .he f y, .d. a + .a>,
. t. s. $,< i
'e,g '.e.Q.c.a,%. 6,. ',b a vg,,.- n. ~ d' U = i ',"'[ I + E# 4 l.. i, ^,.4'.gs ? ".*c-4 _ ( v g ef* .g g
$.gE

'75,*y....T';,,.,
1, g ~ ,,e S, -v,... '? ve,, ,' e/' c ' mak 'k J ae'4 g
. f' v,.,,

e.f 4
,I y P N' i[. Is
89 h
.;?s, r',
g' p
T
'7
.s .;+. p,, -/ (- ,,.*I. .ft .,.m,.k..,....,-_.
a. /..,,,, ;
8 7 -g g, f 9* %'+t - '/ =,. g 4 f.. g '.a 3g s,.p..
,j g,.,.7a
,,,t.-/s e a. '.~3.d r ,..I,.*'. w. g h.*,~*' j ',i9 ,r , - - + sg{. a., j .gg,**,, ' r s s q.,s g.4r +3 ,,f',. .'4f.., g 9 ,a,'. , +,
f. g., e'
. 4" 4..l 4. s 'g' ,.g
-9,,
J p
. g t,'a,4
~. a ., ', ',.,j', s 9, +.l., ' f,. ' 4 * . * ; a*.. -'[. s n 4, 2 '. u y . g' .*j+y O d', 5 .a ( 9 5 p dd -(.' y g, 4i. m a.a.-- --.____-.__..--n.
J u. ~~ .- o .j ~ V ,9' i s ~ y ,,~,c. y ,t >\\ d ,l y: \\ i a .u .m, s '?"3 -) F s - Cite as 18 NRC 1139 (1983) CLI-83 28 i. ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS: I r * '. g r +Q/. ~ Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman f Victor Gilinsky %. W y y 5 hp I' f $;^,<,[i'q h' ', f ,y',.] Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine
c. 0.... '

A n
..s f.9..y35.,5 ". CM. 'r -W ' n. - Frederick M. Bernthat t... ...a-...,_. 4, *, m ,.>;%q 3-w, K ,"F e! ...o.3 .. - ;u*, .s,<. a y, - _ - w. ' In the Matter of Pub. L. 97-425 i M.._ ' A .s ~' e
.3.-
,1.-- Proposed 10 C.F.R. Part 980 if. a ; - r l T .:.F ,[ . a.. .a.c,1 NHC CONCURRENCEIN HIGH LEVEL t-4 i. s . 7.. i S WASTE REPOSITORY SAFETY ? ~ .//if; '.0, ~ 9,t.U... > N((N[. y ,4 7 N.; .Pf_;-;.p.y.. GUIDELINES UNDER THE NUCLEAR f ,,( ,m i.,. ~- ,, g. y 5, j. y{.],~f WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982 August 24,1983 y, n 7, .~ . x.. - f. .... e a y'.... s n . 1. ~. e:..q. w,- @ $...#.M in response to a petition requesting the institution of a notice- ,c v. W and-comment rulemaking proceeding on the Commission's statutory I.1.v..' ,,,67 s* concurrence in the Department of Energy's Guidelines for Recommen- . /' .. W &W dation of Sites for Nuclear Waste Repositories contained in proposed 10 M.! ' M' e . [" [@.,5 k 5 'f(. M.,k. C.F.R. Part 960, the Commission finds that there is no legal obligation [# C ~~ 4T'. to provide such opportunity for notice and comment on its concurrence p **.', i in the guidelines. Nonetheless, the Commission decides to provide an
J.
m l..'..','s. .3.y...~ g ; i:f - opportunity to representatives of interested groups to present their t.J,. 2 '. views on the guidelines to the Commission at a public meeting. Q,-7pg& y j s L,. s.~ y::.+ -y'; e, ?. 9 NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT: COMMISSION ACTION i' J '. ' ?.. P ' AS RULEMAKING 77 .& 1 - ~ ty ,:a The Commission's concurrence under Section ll2(a) of the Nuclear h~~ W iI.. / < '.1 Waste Policy Act of 1982 does not constitute a rulemaking action under hC Q' ah, ^ cither the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Administra-
eva.
.. : t ',' tive Procedure Act. ,w .t. ..,. ~, **, .. e ~+. r - w.. /.,, ',? 0* _.l r tu y h,U, J 7 1139 w. ..m. 6,a, 4 '%.,7/y n"' P } l '. i .g g #4. ",. I W3 ?.,. e fl..
f( L.
n' A h s, 4* +
y
-g.<3,f' t.l < Y p s / w, .p 'bM.,,9,, s... s u
s. e
.r. . k
s.f l.i ( /
8,. MW t#F" ** ' *-%
f-s.p'"-***K*T-'d..[9p"=pye8lr v-=.g & Mayst
' #.- -[ I'91P *1^ ' * *.g *'t ' '*C
e '*'"i M *"[ [%"'F,,,,, ( e k I 's [^Y ',, ' ',

4 F* *ME *l'8
. aCy, a,',f,.f jf-b g.[87 G ).*. j $, / y ', P. ix x.,' .+. M D; M i. p,, T' . m n..,,n,. .--i,~fi- .~,, s.C S "/ ^ ~.a .. w.-. - n l $yf { t_ 'g.sl{f$. ', j U ;., f L*Q.f$i y i ... y ;. ,,;<u. n y< a. ...s.s ;;n. n,,m, m..m '. i
g...;q... -
g: a .g. - c; ,,3 %. & ~<. s s.-,: c 9 5 % * {, ' ' & 4l h _ ,c#4.m. r,, s
.g s
^ s. .-as
/ 5f M'
'^6I , ' ' * ~.5 ' & ' ') y,., =. 'Y p* ,s./,% M yk *'. I s,' i g e. v'.' t, s ~
D.k (9 9 r ? bl
i -
h'I -p .u-h$hhSk M&WMQQG%d@&?.db., ~ @Y hhhhb y Q P M g G M ? $ g, khhfb DQ%%y%M:: n::y#MM.%MW sM;;;M.C:?ie@tMyh;%. r %%9d W A Jg%m:#%%m " Q: 1
u t
% piny f, U Pf p g .wweA myM D yN "M N M.ym.;*".*W..w w y u p p.c D M: is p W W+ M,. % g..;, w[ M z,A:.,p p: w, & h:w%yS .s ?' NWMNMN TM Qnkn f.4 A.;,f4.W+mm,g.+m: &m c 2 ...r w, -n .r p. w w o : M g r. W ; a.re,r. n.. m.,,q/ p r # t m,:u e
e. m y, m,,
e .&n.
u. p. ~.. e.a s ;.%.
a .a + m >,...s.; n. c *... . w.y %,$w f qdh' f;2;. M.
,ys.3. yJig

n. n@w%~.iDfi.w.c W '.9M&s,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 7 5 ~ 5, ) * !.y;.wM lW' h;flA%<t:rl.':%W.nT,~*[ h. h... the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission") to in- - h_Uh. On June 21, 1983, the Yakima Indian Nation ("Yakima") petitioned
m...-
W wS.- cM .s +c 'd o' W.iy, 7 " -- p P J j.L ~ stitute a notice-and-comment rulemak.mg proceeding on the Commis- ,,.., W,- u.a e%. rm. mmp. n4., p.H., 7,9y@N.s' 'T ^.~J+';.OUMN;@t'~ ?*- d'#,M/ N:M' Y sion's statutory concurrence in the Department of Energy's (" DOE") %M~$N;N General Guidelines for Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear Waste
%.i l$s MQ Repositories,10 C.F.R. Part 960 (" Siting Guidelines"). For the reasons
.,9 y. w e...s,%;@.% lW m gM
.0, discussed below, the Commission has determined that its concurrence lN role under Section 112(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 19828
~ @fyt @ D.l. 6,.@ N M"yh $ y. M @ M$, I MDb g pf ("NWPA") does not constitute a rulemaking action under either the .y %y%glD..,g @3u W @m Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (" Atomic Energy Act") or the $@p,. % @..%@g,%,, q,;,j.,, Q.r. 4 }.p hgg Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Accordingly, the Commission 9 n &;s%w$.. .g. ! .v. %.r W t W:yFM7 4 finds that there is no legal obligation to provide an opportunity for ghr4*F. Rips /gW.%.(hJ$;g.s fn M c. ma not,ce and comment on the NRC,s concurrence or non concurrence in x t i
4. M h.M k M $ Y,ihh.g..#y DOE's Siting Guidelines. However, the Commission recognizes the i
t uti W M K d high level of public interest and concern regarding DOE's Siting Guide-Mhg.g'#Qy@e.m, @%e ily%,t-lines and, therefore, will provide an opportumty for a h.mited number of 1 . w. ~ rM . $$%,dg M.Nh>I$IMM@!.;f ey.?Mp;.4. W.Md.idg:$g t i representatives of various groups to address the Commission regarding BOA DOE's Siting Guidelines. ' M.qn g 5.4".mM, Nv Wq m .. T ;YN,. T G %r9tMW. W < nAL m w-,..oy.s. gn..- w. cu j? < { *3 f.,&
n~
~ o,..u.a M p 7tr 4 MW, e, g,@e..,<,4,, BACKGROUND y'M@rW $u ws&y%ylW@,y 8 r -mmm:p m, XQR pi5M yg.k $'y Section 112(a) of NWPA,42 U.S.C. l 10,132(a), directs the Secretary @ W W S Mn @&..@d 9. M ',W.j d 'h of Energy (" Secretary") to issue general guidelines for the recommenda-9?r,.t V'c.. ,Ra.,.f;' tion of sites for geologic high-level radioactive waste repositories follow-7 W He.@,q..,N.pa. m ;p...,iW,. P. - .m i ygt,3; W p f:.Q Mh. l;.W$.4'Ar,p,pNW.*,gk Ehhh by the NRC. On February 7,1983, DOE issued proposed guidelines for 'W ing consultatic... ith various federal agencies and states and concurrence s.4 i h '. T dq2 comment. 48 Fed. Reg. 5670. Subsequently, DOE conducted five public p$ 4@Ml M@45 % e Cf,$ Bf M ' @Q Jg.k $'%2 hearings around the country. 48 Fed. Reg. 6549 (1983). as amended, 48 MM[dkM/$NgM@(hl,;hN.h h Fed. Reg. 8289 (1983). Due to the volume and nature of public $8h8?hs rg 7YMg comments, DOE assembled a task force which redrafted the proposed M.A. %.c..I. M i %.m",4 6JFetAWdD. K guidelines and decided to extend the comment period to July 7,1983, kh5MA SNT.Q.4S%.e%@);@4@Q,q: W h$/4, even though that extension caused DOE to miss the statutory deadh.ne W:4MM.h. p p for issuing final Siting Guidelines. 48 Fed. Reg. 26,441 (1983).
t r 1 y - e m d. ws, e.
1J The NRC initiated its concurrence process soon after DOE published .m.n. c.w. 1,. M9 h. Q Qa va"9/ O,, w;P lts proposed Siting Guidelines. See SECY 83121 (March 31,1983). On .~ g. ,m n.g... 7 7.;@NL.E* 4; y m i April 7,1983, the NRC staff provided DOE with extensive comments , d H.. O. xw . f,:'v@'. t%.&. ;, :S,f, on the proposed Siting Guidelines. DOE agreed to provide NRC with W @A y.E^ L.t ;d,, '. f f .c t.. y ,3 7. g. n..,;v ,un p .yY. e., s.a5/ * .. r.&- Q *: r y'[,,",Y Q}% i w V*' dd'! L A. %.;%1,b Pfd.M;.. ' pQ,% j.i j
x. 4 ;w.?.; 6., y. - P <*
O Q.rrt; f r,:- i 42 U.s.C l to.132(at (w,;, % r'Q:.h Q* r t n*dr..; n.:2.:i/v G m: r.. e
[k.4G :'? LY?> a;fW.f &;4 h"$.$&. w#3ls, jlm "I h f.
Q ]c QA @,T
134, e
& c.w w n.,,.e,~: HM.w.w-w: y rw;?'.. y ;:.wsr $f * {.f :h*f ',f Q M.9: m)l +bx W.'m e!Qg:wwe m*%e 6, Q:y;,j, > &.( f j;. M 5.; My > y. w. _r.n Q, m $ e p;,.,;5.-. 6 p W,t.. ~ ] e. w. %u. q .m?)y:xW;ta. p,q.M;M4 )d ~.v - ej y% ~7
2-
. q L.l4y.'.... -._. [., i

~.M,, r.;"M. e
.- f 9p[m*"/ a 6' 4 ,v.w.,..,.-2,,. . %s m v m. 9.,p 3. y. a r,s.: m ~ c. p} &p. m,.h; g'> yv.. w.',4, mn-vr . r7-~. g\\
V
-*4. 9,o,,,;j;. g.'g p ;3'f,,, w ; as... y rn ' :. s.*s,f.;.t,, ,g. W : .q.
y..
tK. ? u -.w.s
.. y
.1; ~.,', @m:g'x &,.,9 y ;, 4 s;,e ,, s ~en c .m ,,c e, > R $..'>y ' y.< lb.g,f ;g W n',f Q'y &g, ;;;";.i.E k ' &[ y $2%,; $, 4 ;.*; M y a 7, W.mpf &:5 #,.;;v %c.W Q $. W & k >'&O Q%fXK.hN h W W,h'$ fif 6 ?5Y f 8?fg'$i M x g +l;1. M Q,n m n J m m%U.L. MO.;m w BgWyynw m,.m w..m p. iy u.ma.Q a.y : l,+ m.c -a. w.g - e mn w ' a., w v2; , ;m 2.. m:. w. + ~
,: w w a<:.w, w r w w q..n.4 -.-
m.. c c t.._. +m.
m. e.
1,.y w:
9 4 / / f .s copies of all public comments as they are submitted to DOE so that the rr s NRC staff can review those comments independently and expeditiously. On June 20,1983, the NRC staff provided the Commission with a sum-mary of the comments received by DOE. SECY-83-241. DOE has also provided to NRC a draft of DOE's Responses to Public Comments dated May 27, 1983. Representatives from DOE briefed members of the NRC staff and Commission offices on June 27, 1983. On August 2, 1983, DOE provided the NRC staff with draft final guidelines for further review. Thus, the NRC has had complete access to DOE's public com-ment procedures on the proposed Siting Guidelines. .-.-f.-s y,.. 4
a w:n,,
g; - m ". YAKIMA PETITION h in .cr,. _c.; i, V....," m

2m m, y u'
.E J i '9 2W' ' Although the Yakima Petition is somewhat unclear, it appears to be - d, [c #..~ ~ " [ @' l 7 7,W premised on the contention that NRC's statutory concurrence role I. T k.; < L/
h. '
.+,' '" i / makes the DOE Siting Guidelines into a rule jointly issued by NRC and ? J < *Q. Ni ,. J v 1., DOE. Moreover, the Yakimas somewhat inconsistently contend that NRC concurrence is itself a rulemaking for which notice and opportunity I C JN.^ Mr comment must be provided.2 Finally, the Yakimas contend that the W 29
- m-
/* - d,,. Mi Commission must seek comments directed to NRC responsibilities to l,
.n
.-t 9: ! S M'h - ? make an independent judgment on the Siting Guidelines, and that com-r' ments to DOE cannot serve that purpose. The only examples of NRC re-M ~ ' 'A N ~ t 4 M [D[ d s d.E.7/ sponsibility identified by the Yakima is the Commission's consideration ' ? h;Z ~' of alternatives for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy l ' D ;@ , d 7.7,' N. 3 :.. Act of 1969 ("NEPA"). Under Section ll4(f) of NWPA, 42 U.S.C. j. : 'i 'N (. Qlp44 7;; d ',.-V.9 %.M.J ", ) 10,134(f) DOE will use the Siting Guidelines to identify a proposed ~,
- 4 c P.y%n F. g.h ' ' y" ;',;g, r.u., N
. m repository site and its alternatises for the purposes of NEPA. Section ..,.e u.a...a. gy.g'igft;g ll4(f) also directs the Commission to adopt DOE's Environmental ~ U. wx/@M 6;~ lL l'f NN. : :;n.J. impact Statement ("EIS") to the extent practicable. The Yakimas are [M[ ',I concerned that such an adoption of DOE's EIS by the NRC will bind the ^ + DOE's application of the Siting Guidelines in the same manner that >:2 ' 'c EPQ$'- Commission's construction authorization proceeding on a repository to ~ db.W,1 Commission proceedings are bound by Commission rules.2 ', ' N. .1 L["n. 6,? @ - ~ ~, i. L., {G..> 2 The iaumas contend that NRC concurrence in doe's sitmg Guidelmes is the same as NRC adoption of mdustrv deseloped standards as a rule That this analogy is mcorrect is clear from the differences be-V = tween doe's pubhc procedures for issuing siting Guidehnes and an induury group's hmited pnvale P~ procedures for adopang standards doe has provided hybrid noiece and comment procedures that 30 i 4 beyond the statutory masimum that would be required if section 5$) of the APA were opphcable, an in- } 'i! ; s s ,',' " ' ' ~ dustry group does not subject 'iscif to even the mos minimal of pubhc participation procedures. Thus, r-1 there is no parallel between this situation and the NRC's use of rulemakms to adopt industry standards. I ' i' 3 The )akimas also contend that they should have an opportunity to comment to the NRC on the con- / ~ 3-l sisiency of DOE's sitmg Guidehnes with N RC's technical smns crneria m 10 CT R Part 60. smce it is doe's sitmg Guidelmes that are involved it appears that such comments should be directed to doe in m ~ -4 ICemnnued)
)
j', 4-f J :' 1141 M ). g. .I. f.i .M 3 (; s 1;$ g
q,.

"m i,
<a
.r.
y. , a ?.' d f ll ,, *.f {A'l
6, 1}
n* ' t n ,p .y x ~ :. r,
..g.,.....,...
i QdEih '.*,f,'" 3. - ',, ;,. W ! [.,',Q.*,,.;.. " _
**', g.3, * -
^ ~ 't, ~'- [ f Q ;f. v. f,, ' - ;; ul q f,-j;A[l^)g'., ;* ? 't. f; (, +.
e s
K.6-w (... '$ * ~ 6. ~ ~
h,. I i l k.h$ h.g.gus:am... jng%wm.. h.c.. kh.k,?:k hh:
h. -h k 'h : {,
?Y q. . u A; 4;,4,; w-n;w r.,y w &.a,.e %>,Q,.y m. O.(. n
Y;@g

;
3 + 3 v:.
w
~,.o IY Y & ~b. : 4.um..$, p i g. %.w.M%".9*w y &n.wa.w.,,m% h 5 k. M% e. %e y w: m g:q:W4:t.w c m' - (Qg,,::-3' ~ M4.rW1,5:.;.%gn"wv3w4,2 m - ~..)m %.g :. y '
ye n h m;

n ' -
p .. y.
7 gNy.4 f u.sL %:W AW
~ n 2: 6 %.,m,,. X.:(Mq ;..,~ ~ /,. ; ~ _,.....:. x, 9
w. :
ry.m.; 4
t wv. :

w....o..%J o
,. L. a,4 y:- m e:.s .:w w ', a p;.\\ enp. S,.,,p,% w n
r. m. )
wn Y:M. x w. % :.. W. aa.Cj .S a m f. g-y ?.,. ;,. 3-n.,...:,
,s., + k%..
; ;q4 s-
%. 4.,. p...4.- .M,-,'R... L. + l..,c, J, W. g. ~ r-s@t. COMMISSION DECISION -'e e.. . A. .,gQ:t'[.-o..^ f. n,'~,,& ..,a 'Q s-g ^.g'Jy*78. %,M f.I For the reasons stated below, the Commission finds that the NRC's ' ydE g 7 QM ' concurrence responsibility is not rulemaking and does not require notice [t ' I,; M. j,9 0 MW,. 7.0.. ..m,M..,e.,,l.d and opportunity for public comment. However, the Commission will Vr 3 give representatives of various groups an opportunity to comment on N g h,. r p r p.J. p " M g } 3,N,,. w. j",.Y4.. F ',1. " %j the Siting Guidelines as describcd below. C7 ff M f Section ll2(a) of NWPA does not specify any procedures for Com- ,7 g.c. p
9. y 7.g ~,
.d y: 7; mission concurrence in DOE Siting Guidelines. A review of other stat-utes providing for one agency's concurrence in another agency's actions ^,. g Q,. m g. %g e j ;;Jf;;@y.4 "N...R shows that such concurrence has never been considered rulemaking.' ni.i 7 ic W* [%s,d N p k; ??)k M'Sd . $ l.d.J.y* Q')/.> ** s NE. - The reason that concurrence has never been considered a separate ^ 'f i W' 4 n - M..' n . ;y rulemaking follows directly from the purpose of public opportunity for s d@v. _y($$'.2MM.M@YMog.$.m y..$M.f; an opportunity to criticize projected agency action and allows an agency ffM h*%.M W.N M. notice and comment. Notice and comment provides interested parties p M,,m s;,P d e. g, m ;,T 4g f Q g @ to benefit from the views of others before a rule is Gxed in Gnal form. v.n c y $ 3 M.W.4 w [g M !b p p'.'o <r,w @@WL%w%w.m. s,&o... hrM* W$n Council ofSouthern Mountains, Inc. v. Donovan. 635 F.2d $73, $80 (D.C. w w% w-C.ir.1981). Where one agency is concurring in another agency,s action, M..~iD.,y$.yM. s. D9:<..M T
K 6 it is not the act of concurrence but the underlying substantive rule that yL. W..R.+O h4.. %, G.v.r @,;m. e. M, a pd
.d '.i. p;pMM C d,. W. is ofinterest to the public. Where the agency promulgating the substan-u3 JJ _l $. M.Q, M E/.. ' tive rule has provided for public notice and comment, that agency has /a %,..:'6,)3 a gW M.e h4 M had the benefit of the public's views in formulating a final rule. The b' }'b@Q@d@g>M.M@7.$f'M.j 7% agency with concurrence responsibility also has the benefit of those ..;Q@gf%w,,.$.. Uc.'.;, t, views because they are a matter of public record. Accordingly, the inter- .- e. -.Q,. T. #_iO M...e d W. pretation of concurrence responsibility as a separate rulemaking requir. .. - a %S$g gbj ing another round of public notice and comment would be redundant , e f P*..i O.3 a. G ;agc. . r.f y V. c M c '.t b My i.V 1 ) M c4 and wasteful of limited resources.5 o 6Q,'/...,[a;.W3-t: .Q M Q _a;;g' m) This analysis is applicable to the current situation. DOE has provided g ng;qp[;3., %q o A s. 3 %,.,, u ., emm pu bh.c participation procedures that exceed the minimum that would be A Q Q Q M N g/.tg @?,pe; p,4Q;9pyw,MM;p j required if the APA were applicable to the promulgation of Siting .pya, qg3 4.M 2 O. fM Guidelines. The Yakimas have not identified any issues on which it y.3 e w6 l
q. m,,'S d. M l:$ d Sh; W O R Y @l r, p'd d' m.J.4phWy,g v y,
would be appropriate to comment to NRC but not DOE. Even if the -, p., Siting Guidelines were treated in the NRC's construction authorization . W%:.y.s@w@ m :.s 9.. M M 4*N $ g p W W /c.m m.: -.q @g 4 proceeding as suggested by the Yakimas, there would be no comments
3 to NRC that would not have already been made to DOE. It is DOE's se-9g.M;ME ' den $N)..
.; Sh. : ;r.%, % 0 1." lection criteria that will be applied to alternative sites. There is nothing p.c y A, ,,.r...t .1 y,A n. a s. . y %. ...y, , g c, ',1 a.
n.,.
j ; ~C.- + ..q. 7 ' T.. an errort to get Dot to conform to esisting NRC regulations, once those comments have been provided i , a ?, p', w .o ' D Q,Q.,.,...,(*.i.% .;.. g N J to doe. they will also automatically come before the NRC. ,. g gf s.., 4 These other statutes are reuewed in Appendit A. $Esen if the siting Guidehnes could be considered a pintly issued rule, it does not follow that each ? l 5ij _ yy 4" 29, 4 1]*.[; y3. x....6.e. )k (,, _' .i "... agency must separately seelt pubhc comment on one pint action. o .3:w,, y: _ %s .y r n y.,.?v Q[:m/,. g"N" ',r?Nd;w.:f '. 1 l' Qv % C u @; g ; y gg41 m gs.2.g... eQa ' x a.g; y 1:. . <, ;/_,y.,..
-,v
,.t { ? y,y= a,.'{, W / f p.,l. 4.Y
y. 'Z c
m. ,,[ - /; ,5 ! ;,h< ,' g
L 6
( bi . ?? -. ;. . 3.. 't Q @--cu:.:' f. ? !,' ;W..'. ,gy s';A ..fc q-s n ;,n. m m n : g. g;;, y.:.n.q.Q. n ,c. ,c c .c -
.>7.;.;;..;f. * *".; 7 'g M. _ ~

qW ', *
' t.l ". $.E Qr h.y',,.W K.,;,[,'m lu. 3l - :.Q.. ' % ;:p. .w ]s ',d'* e 3 ;,. s.yr. v :p p. g.g ;j, u, i. - . 4y.W ma 3 , ; cf.,. 3, ,y ' 6 ;, g %.:M.., y... g &;4 Q.., .,3, y ,s %,c'Dp. 4,.. A a.m v. 3 3 ', * = 10 7. ', ' '/. 1. ('g ' : y y .t.- j,,,. O.. '~ v n.n
..e<
~ 4 f,+.W ". "y %],y.., n,y., ;nw n+n :
O ", G.w h* N ;(, -
M.*Q.lb 5% gpfd/:h .., y....J
~
e' . /l.., rw 2*
\\,%, {.
.; w:y % l ?., q .y. p;l. a <,.
3. t.-
c + .;p
9. q.
.~ .g.,. ; >,&q ::w W,p. u,- .y . that oral presentations are sometimes helpful in crystallizing the central l - w:ea m. > :v. '.,.,. c issues important to various interested groups. In the present case, {.., g; - f y ', y,, t s t moreover, a number of organizations and individuals have already /,, ? ', f j5, ', M fjir'A *;{' Es f ' d. t. E, y-demonstrated their interest in the subject by submitting comments to fe a DOE on the draft guidelines. In summarizing the comments, the NRC ? s,,., ' * * "= '. ' ',','~! u *'..@ staff divided the commenters into seven classes: (1) federal agencies; ,y,' ',,., s (2) state governments; (3) local governments; (4) industry; (5) public F.,. [.' i ', ;.. ?[ ' interest groups; (6) Indian tribes; and (7) individuals. H-l 2; Accordingly, the Commission will hold a public meeting at which ,i t J., ..f' ' ? b 7-W.%.;," 'jA those organizations and individuals which have previously commented on the DOE Draft Siting Guidelines may present their views to the Com-s ;. mission concerning NRC's concurrence or non concurrence in those hf" ^ Y. f.1 - ,.4-guidelines, and on the guidelines themselves. The Commission strongly i' W,.;;l/ t. $ . f.. ? encourages commenters to consolidate their presentations. The oppor-y $9M ' ', ' ! ' s. ' g;. '. ;} Cy <I,., i / I tunity to participate will also be extended to DOE. The meeting will be Z n ME 2 held at the NRC's headquarters at 1717 li Street, N.W., Washington, D C., in approximately 30 days. The prec.se date and time, as well as the Y..C $ @,I [ I @ U d ' ~ 'i' s [ (;.[ . ;{['j;- fq',. . gpffg$y,i, Q. g.,; d.;, amount of time which will be allotted to the various classes of - '63 7; commenters, will be set forth in a further order, to be issued shortly by c. the Commission's Secretary. !j ,s It is so ORDERED. "{,.',..;, - r- ~ g., For the Commission * " / '. ' f, 8 8, S AMUEL 1. CillLK Secretary of the Commission Dated at Washington, D.C., N-this 24th day of August 1983. e. 'comminioner Roberts was not present and did nos participate in this at teon ,[ .4 .", i _. k 9 ~ ' /t. g Yh p 0,i, g,;,., 7,,m.7 . n... -.' ' e, m., n ', g. [,.'.+. ( ,'.;( < s + q[ IE, O y 5 a .s. e
~~g. e+. s or.q. h~~
i

,,, d p,
~~. ;- (, }* , p., egv ; Mf ,.,.'F , <. f i. ?2 ~ { g%(44*; Q ;4,M,%~~
~~h] '., '.'h.y,0.Mh' M,~~
~~j ~ kid 5 y < ' M.y > n /j. asp; ,.p$.g%* v.g, i.f.Q I, . '.M."., ,hg %.' q,-l (4 v1',M.. s ^~~
~~f+s~~
?,M y lQ..Rfm, g'l Y.* - F.%. )g i. ./ v, 4 j?, jl;&;). ' +i,, f k,3,,.1Qi - QP& r h.h,.]'.R *M'.g N:f m.s&ge,,, -9>' W '- O ' NK,.: r Tirq p . ) *M - 1 ,.? . ?.~.e. ,%_f.y .s y ' o o -s c, k, 'e .'.$hh,h I-fb th[.$ 9 D.M, z :s.f; * ' *[?; O ri
~~~ f {t, Q.a g ',,,v'"I+*lI' %.9 n.~~
~~J t; s, y 3 s,, kh ,x [ [' M,w: a. y [ m p, w @ w[ I '" d -., _[a. ' e p y way ~ :.. NNY'Nb [Wf!9M' C?d$@.NM s'MOdb I .,,e. i ' ' ?; 6 . (,;( {,gg-~~
~~(Q,~~
~~l e. a' 3 ~ e" 4 .v%. t-3 7.. g $' ",." '..j.' f m' ,-,,w [~~
,a
~~~a .n '.A' t ', Q ') s - V a '] w:. A. n .,a ,,a ' y ' ! y t.., - s; 'y T ' j y[ },.j{,.} APPENDIX A s,.:,, .. 5 A. .(..P~~
~~A M' '~~
Survey of Statutory Concurrence Provisions mic 4 4 4 w. ,'.m - g;p<. Ny g4 Statutory concurrence provisions similar to that in Section ll2(a) " ~ T'& '. sy 'fJg.C have been used for more than twenty years.' A survey of the case law a [ +,, c [ f,, for some twenty-six statutory concurrence provisions revealed no deci-sions which raised the issue of procedures for concurrence. Indeed, the
%/
lU, ,7 only case in which a concurrence provision was contested involved the -,.iNJ. identity of the agency official who was required to concur, rather than , g j. M&),C the procedure to be used for concurrence.3 A few of the statutory provi-e ..y sions surveyed are discussed below. For none of them did the concurring .*"'.w p, N. 3 w,,.,. . N1 agency provide separate procedures for public participation on the / % Hj.Y, r,, .s l..@ j:,,, Mr Agny;/ s - : concurrence. T-@ Under 13 U.S.C. j 302 (1962), the Secretary of Commerce must have ,9.Y d
~~k. Y M. [,~~
,j~,'.7.%%@gt9 y,W, the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury in order to promulgate d,3.ky/,Mmp: ;c 'C', rules concerning the collection and publ.ication of foreign trade statistics. c s.,, .?p. p 4 .h - ;g.. ; 9M w; /] In practice, this is accomplished by inclusion of a statement of concur-i r,,. [.%Q gi.'
~~j 4 ;~~
~~rence in the federal Re ister notice for proposed and Gnal rules. The . ( /M.gPf t.TjUc, W.. '-,~~
~~;V Secretary of Commerce anducts the rulemaking and receives and arm g8~~
.". f lyzes public comments. The Secretary of Treasury reviews the proposed fqN y [;% C-h q : q'i ', 4 ",;;$ ' 7,d., or final rule and signs a statement following the rule which reads, "I ,i (signed) Secretary, Department of the Treasury." See, e.g., 47 , :s gg f: f s + g.$W ' concur: c.,B*> wJ. ':,,,,, + Fed. Reg. 2122, 2124 (1982). ?,7 '.' ?; Under Section 501(a) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation s f J 'i. ' Act of 1977,30 U.S.C. ) 1251, the Secretary of the Interior is to promul-s ,i E rE ,'O, gate regulations governing the procedure and performance standards for .y q., M. ' /,,, Q ^ ', surface coal mining and reclamation. The concurrence of the Admin- ,% W Jg :. J istrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is required with respect 7,1 x T / >f(S.cy,.@; 1 ' ' ". 4.a m c. i.- to the regulations relating to air or water quality standards promulgated M3 g. ,C-)$' under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Clean Air Act. 7 _h'y Tg!,9p ("[,. f.. ..f.:;.6 /M On December 13, 1977, the OfGce of Surface Mining Reclamation and 4 Enforcement, Department of the Interior, published its Gnal rules under , d y[ y jqj,, v f - .,;jf t;N that statutory provision. The administrator of the EPA concurred in i . W. d.> ? Ay 1 f! d those rules by means of a letter to the Secretary ofInterior. See 42 Fed. , S. J.p_y N, %,C 7 9 i,3.p. '. .4 pc <,s., - T' .\\ i I fee. e e.13 U s C.1302 41962) ("R ules. fesulations and orders. or amendments thereto leontermes the collection and publisation n( fore'sn trade usoitul shall have the concurrence of the secretary of l the treasury prior to premutgation lby the se6tetary of Commertel"L t 2 se, $,va, ymm, g,,uf,,,,, ta,rerm 452 F. supo 327. 3313610 D C.1978) (conuruir's section ] $16(at of the surface %ning Conitol and Retlamation Att of 1977.10 U s C 612664a) whwh prrivides lhai tules dire 6ted to the surfase etreLit of underground rmmns "shall not be promulgated until the ,/* secretary (or the interiorl has votained the eritten concurrence of the head of the department whis't ad. mminers (the rederai coat Wne llealih and safey ht of IMil .'*,t. ,g ~ O 4.. g 4 h,, '- 9'f, [ - [f '. ((44 ~,,,v,*, , ' '.pa.< .a 2 g 9, .a, 4 '* } 4 .4 /' i '..
~~W '.'~~
~~- r ~ 9,.,,- g g p/ Ox f f,, /~~
n
~~.w; ;.. , L;t, s',., ' , I,1~~
Q.
~~'s l', W"4 l 5, ; ' ', ',, ' ', + t_.". .t R.' ,,,.Y ,.,-( l f # ',t ; u h 's t* j~~
~~l n,.(.r y g n~~
[.* s I m~, ', x [ ,/(** i o g, 3,- 4,, 4. 3 y 3pn : ,( i
9 g-4
~~t m~~
~~.. ~~~
~~n..,~~
~~w. s.-, s. c ?.. y .44 ,.,.-,i _+~~
r_
~~,r- + c, x. 3 4-l a..- ,. G v. a e.~~
~~'.c n.~~
,f.. . +, ~. n. .~, w .x ~. ~ . m.. ... m. s g ,, c ~, ~- gy .y. m. ; m,. '. y n m ~- t 'w.<o. L .: R. Reg. 62,639 (1977).2 The EPA did not solicit public comments before . w "...h. I 4 ~ .l ~ 1 J.' U .c., it. . N-providmg its concurrence. 'm ^ m,. s ,. %4 Under 15 U.S.C. { 4020, part of the Export Trading Company Act of < fn & Q T. ,0 M7 1982, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to promulgate, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, such regulations as are necessary h rc ' A -f! to carry out the purposes of the Act. Under another part of that Act,15 C, ,', 9C {[ U.S.C. ( 4017, the Secretary may issue, with the concurrence of the At- $,;. ' 'g ? . '. gM ' . g. torney General, guidelines to promote greater certainty regarding the ap- ' M,.l.i.' P. Q,~. M.; 2 W 7,. $,F E S W Q.d$w$ ~,p3,.1.n"P-plication of the antitrust laws to export trade. The issuance of those v w: P[y M dj$.0:ff/.g%%;@$3.b guidelines is expressly exempt from notice and-comment rulemaking .MM procedures under 5 U.S.C. } 5$3, whereas the promulgation of regula-(jig,bi $jf QQQgt /3 g$wV!MM5. vf P. tions under Section 4020 is not. The legislative history does not indicate .JgM/M*MC l.!. the reasons for treating the regulations differently from the guidelines, $e% CdzjM but the dichotomy suggests that the antitrust guidelines, as opposed to ?,v %e ?.. y 4r'w W..u m. , Mw%wp, n W&N,.dM.. . C.g%My@ general rules, were not considered an appropriate matter for pubh.c c E % Q:.;. y@G O O g, % m. m. %. s:s 3 3 participation. Neither statutory provision makes any reference to public e. .M M.6, participation in the Attorney General's concurrence. ~ y,. . :?. %.. . a; n.: n,, n.a.. t>. -.s a, y b ~; ~ e,,,. y
~~a..&,, * %. * ;~~
~~, a.y*> a % v,,.d >f <.g ,t, ', ;t ; y.. J....- '[f.. %.c? !. a\\. Ad.;;,& y.,? - f,,m,f.,, 5 % l '?~~
~~4 3~~
1 m7. ;, % 's ...e,._.. .. h.b. " '*i s D[1-. ^ .w........ +. ~,... v.,.q.ew<: r. , <,. ~. ;,w.. w., 5,f4y,q4 qm.7 - e - em y A :?@'.h. 9. p* '%l1,;.ifh h. rc 1 . 5. r%r yQ* WWh.i.+TW I.E.+)'. v v4 p; i w A..; n-. 3
W W, m

z. m.,... y 4.,:
~~< c.,,.,s..v v N. n..s ' Y W Q.. m.a m.,-_..,. f'i'.,:f, &,ff,w&. u.f. N f f. m a ~ >.a .v +.~ N .. s w~~
~~<-l m m y.Q~~
~~m.f. " a eM L'c,*',s b. ') ;...' &,.~~
~~<, e.m. f, N t,s gM. mv p.a.,.< 2%.*R.t'; W,%qn^ s '.,w,9;V W ?*%:.. f %.,.,s srs. r w,, s* 3 G m g..~~
~~.f W~~
~~& p W, p. g (E. k X Q Q., [W.: Q'N W a% f}O. Q Mr. w.r.!,n.,. w n4. ~ <a,.w. p. s - ..a. s Migh,., EJ'*h~ l':k.f 4 T h.,' ? .M w r.~~
h 3

^ p
~~%m.., e.:~~
~~t.,~~
~~. x,, q s.,, ',. s~~
~~},o :s,9 m.. w. 4 ~;; - m.s j a, ' d., 1+ h ... s - "- [b ,,*., %,;.W.n:. " h.', t,'.. f; e 'r rs >?' u.4~~
~~. J,~~
~~v' yas. .p.5rv e y... w e 4, .y ' n,., l- ..s..~~
w.
~~S ~ .? .w c..q ~ ., y ,,e.- . :.n s t -.,,<., d g *j. L '. r ~ r f.,, f, (. . t s + ,l-.. t l g. s n a ,r p ,.i~~
~~i..~~
~~+ g,,A m;. g e. 1 4 ~ y - l, * ).~~
Q.',.C 3 The secretary of Asriculture and the Chief of Engineers of the Corps or Engineers provided similar let-g ters of concurrence. as required under sections $l0(d) and $l$1n respectnety, of the surface Mming o -
~~r+b I' -s A ct. ,)W a,'=E' ..?~~
~~i u~~
~~3;> ' lp ~,,. 2 e. p 3 '-t '9 ....s./- sn y. ,.',," e * .,e t ,.t; 1145 ' ' %. F. y m W ,.e.'....,I 6 ~, v.- ...s s 3 4.f p. b* . [* [ tg k'a~.. ilY*. ;,' Q 2~~
~~s s~~
~~o e~~
~~. vf 1 w d. S.; 2 i~~
sa
f. 9 hh4,"4.. k *m.,h n',, m.; -.. y' '+
~~v, g .,+"*~,* j.. ' g] ,y I '"# ", 9 '7 ~T 7. '., h rs=l ,. @>, 9., m'. '., p ;. 3,,, %'.%.,$ ;, ' %,,.* s.~~
f,
~~.,'*L F* , R j.l,/,q m.. ~ i..d e 7,,-. .,.s. , c. " s, .~j s* q t s,~~
~~T l-~~
~~.- i ^. .s. . f.,,. g s J ,e~~
~~g.-~~
~~',. f, b..,n v + ,s i ,,w ,~4.',,. ,,1.J 4'.y, f. ,s g + t,',1,,.e1, y , c. v. 3 - -l . E,., e,. s 1 1 s> t ,. -4 p7F. .O .o+ 'y .h. i = .3' g~~
~~9.,~~
r; e. e t.. p ,n>- .a
i.c7:m'qw;p, ug ; - ; -,aj g.q:%,;;r.,< u M3$, fdM$m@q.~%j.N;%fy;.,.g;, g.w - ' .N.l.["# h k %p K.< g n: . c gm Q-M: 4: . r; y u;h ; g.p.:
~~w;n~~
~~\\ hdig.g i .$.u-h ).. M:5MM$%$g44 ) d.[.,.~~
~~d. 5,~.,$.p:t.~~
~~6 M g m,9 W : ly.m ad bpay' th.'p'.$.g;,3 ;g*..:? 4.g m... -r v g Wd m y y s, mp 3RM'.@w;;&w.;s.rwyyp.gaw. Kg.ymyypygp.,.. p 4, ,+r. :f,;;3 h .pr.gu.gW,q&+m...wp:~~
~~q p F q n t; y :g -~~
~~q 9$WN. D.d.h: ]9[:e~~
~~c. 9o n, n, :.~~
~~@S:r :WWW4*MMM5MVir;MWW..:M - & -Qg;]~ 7,.M^N ff,'.y'/jM,gre. 9:,;b;lyM. ;.&p. 4:: ~ c.mx 4 f3 1 ,m.u s .f; Q'f,f:.kh @.,(. fv.. ;x. . c,,.; m y,.: w <. :3. g?:$. m.a.,d ?~~
~~Q%i~~
~~^W ' ', p osM m sg 4 g . g .o:~~q'm..,,. .a:. 6, u . ~..;. - w, w's vyf,3,.. y,..,13,'q m :y'. ?.: * .r ., ^ gs y h:~~
~~v. 4 ;;~~
~~,~ , ~ s. 3. g 3.r q.9 ,..Q~~
p.
~~., 4.%., ?, ', % ..m! m m:wt.~~
~~,;cn.3~~
~~.s m .s.yw;*L Cite as la NRC 1146 (1983) CL1 83-27~~
~~M-7 f~~
~~Td[Q+ :,c s.A! -;4.w %.u.jp%p:w@qM N .. '%fn19 i Q.D ? 5: MEM N 7.r V,g T* Mf k.',.~~
f. 4 -" @l?." -- '; E

'2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hh Nh UNITED STATES OF AMERICA b
~~.v.'..f1., r Pcd(,, @/%.M.xa..a~o.'.~giQ,$?y 4,.@ t,,. * ~', p 4.,.. w. ~ - .,...g..~~
~~r. v ;,.~~
~~y. -~~
~~g..,,,., 9 :.-.y v ~ s. 7 gc., '. /w k.1, COMMISSIONERS: s '. "3:.". y 4,- a w-s. ,, ( q.. a~~
~~n. a,r.w~~
.s _.j'M; NM2. M,2Q b Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman M.:r. ~- Q,7,,, s.~ W Victor Gilinsky NM;fth, [ ' G y,} 2'.d.M.FN....QQ4@'445e*AJMi@M .P,#l. jshM "w., M James K. Asselstine Thomas M. Roberts My((f.j; '%7@j$Mhih Frederick M. Bernthal gkp'.9 s. &;. > wlMQgif.+;m$ y m:. M %QNXpd:k i;).fr.W..r.c:g.v, s &h%.W: ev,u'Y Yh W$u W%.Jr w M nu in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 275 bdI M8a.a:..m& x ~, '.BH;f.Ww:w:W hc 4.,n@9g f.v 4. M N W M.N - C.e Y.4 50-323 3,9 ym:- .s / m& u g; 3y y : r1 m.m:aM.6.y n nmM p M @. s r ve'.j.. k. . wu.. .s. ,. < $. ; :.:.n!@'d PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ww m: pln,s. QU.g a 'n; b ;..M M,v ',J*f, M3 t 2,n.,3,.%;O.4 e- .,1. '.- COMPANY r .m 44.p;' w.s ;: c .. e W,$,rMM %n 'j[QQ Qj (Diablo Canyon Nuclear ~~ Mw.W.h 4,%~i -h, Q,5 n : f ~ r% y :f 9 d h y, P.*c;N M: 0 Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) November 8,1983
~~W 1 W, K : M ;)f s~~
J q;v.why@m M.vm.% ;. e. 4.;,.'bl.7 3 g.Pr;p,. g s,gy g;g. Nfh. $ 4, t.T. i, @ d - j,.. @ g ',,; f,f.,.s,fi i .,C M. -. 3i ~.y~y.'! y ;- i p,,, L ;p * * +.., 4.,h,a _ - r o,. f.Q Upon consideration of (1) the licensee,s request for partial rem. state- ,. y a q a, o n .n c D.,* N.'fi.d ment of its low-power license for Unit 1 (suspended in CL1-81-30,14 ' N', N / -'~Q1)M.,j:p NRC 950 (1981)) to allow it to load fuel and perform pre-criticality test-7s t@FE M @,$ S y s % %'t4'Ed d [N M. ^ ing at that unit; (2) the licensee's request for an extension of the term VV
~~t,i. _ M W@ 997"WV of its low-power license; and (3) the intervenors' request for a separate~~
~~.a v M%y. z.. 1 c r. w f.U adjudicatory hearing on both matters, the Commission decides to rein-qiN Q' YN, ie%'!g,h Q, g T.7, _~~
~~2 AMb state the license to authorize fuel loading and pre-criticality testing and~~
' t?,w ?.J ;c#.wM.- i% X4.;h.,p$,pS e ms+ 1,; c y 3 .,~y < n ~ p.;;;.s N deny both hearing requests. Also, the Commission announces that with h,2. %y.h5: d b.bh,7.,.,ihMM?M regard to criticality and low power operation, the license suspension will 9.s.. :...~.c. q v gyay;.9,,, ;.'r..r' continue. ~ :, n ,,., s x .,y w,. y g., 4, t. m e. e. .u a -. e.s , m.w.;,r.m e. I Sg o sC MEMORANDUM AND ORDER t g o , c.i g '. _ u g % e a s This matter comes before the Commission on licensee PaciGc Gas ..N. 0 and Electric Company's ("PG&E" or " licensee") request for reinstate- ...p..,::, x;; ,~ A, ., 9 : s.o, ~.. y S1,[E
~~b..t~~
C

4'., - 2 :. L.
~~O, a s~~
~~. Yi. c.~~
~~.t .y { i.?;{.,'m. s .&.*. b.%:L y.Nw: e)~~
~~;s o~~
~~s, t, p W.- WN. 1146 m&.., L..,. -.c ..v,.2 4 :../. '#e. n. M. s e n ,' Y, E e} f4 4. d %* n _ e~~
c
~~? N~~
~~bg8~~
~~. '~.* I 6 yg,.. +..~~
~~,n.,~~
~~D.j./ d {.. '> '.1 *l ( / * > [' gq j, ', ,*,,l',,., i*p p' PU'M. @s,,Y 0.19,$. W, * '. W, i.~~
~~9 Widp,13.,;y. '.j Y [c :.a.,.o.., $.~~
~~.k. c , y >' : $...,.. y. ~,:e + =>*. ~. rr.*-ty, wwr o y e we - e s zse, e. ~ p.. ,.m m ;,r=s .s r m,~~
~~en.,'~~
~~4 g ~p~~
~~q r ';k.,y ;, 4 >,' t * *; N,, :~ ',' :';.f;,',a ; { y [,! OW..h,..,., '.;:g*[..y~~
~~.r -..J.Q:yv,"e ',Q ] " y 7 - ? t, Rj .e s J },. . [s. b.<,4. a.;* f, { g.J,,w, yQ 4 ' [ ' ;f.% & p r ..lgvj~~
,s
~~.,&.j$ll..j.;}.b.%fe.l,9. &lQ-)[f Qi $ks&,.r.&g: > c,.,*Q.by-J.}b y 'sy u w - Q p qs, e;;s a ?Q,),, ' s.,.; q,h j,~~
~~, J s,~~
~~,.,.m. 8 i;,~ -.',% ., y g., '. p.... +., m q.4.,., ;@&_ &N. "y). I; +x' eJ.n.. e t u. :'.'u., -My r. - -w m n.,, q.. m.s.v e.,9*r>--,~~
u. *
- 7 3 7 vQ &, ( e.'(s ' n,,, #e, ,. e,..sv s... s u b p, g,,, 1 ~v..? n .,,,,~q,-. r. i 9-qY3 4 'W m m. ., y. . >. r .y a - 2,. ~,. ? 'm . i s; r:f:.. ? - ~ ~ - ,;., m : ,,s, e r , 3..,.M. <: .V. - :, a- ~.. c,; +. e. 9.& n" ..,./.,+,w,:,7,gg4,q,7..,, ht.. 9., h. ...s,..,'g. -3 3 g, r y ~
1 m. . a. Q: f.Q::q ..c L' ~ <^* 'K::. a ,y a u,, Q -Q yy;;. > - ' '. z. r _ s _ w %,; p *, ; } *;%c,.., - _,,a a .f l ... o z._ ~ :.: a,.,v,; -a, . y(, .'y3., s ,n.... n c i .m., W. '.g, n ? pa ,~;' f,y +. d e '.j; - b,. 1 *' t _ Q:L. ~,.a. m -70 s m yz 4 y d.~d O M.. l ment of its license to load fuel and conduct pre-criticality tests at Diablo $. M N.:.M.NS, MfD n u y Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, and on Joint Intervenors' requests g( q.% ' W.Sc( Sjg c: : fy r ) for adjudicatory hearings on lifting the suspension and extending the
~~p. 9 y 7.J:N 3. 4 :-C:.k r fi;' $ '~~
~~.M. 7m. ~.,f. FM M.g? Q% Q,.;~,, 1 term of the originallicense to load fuel and conduct low-power tests. .L wW - p m,.- w: '. ": y._? +..,,M.. y.um%f~~
::..)

.. C Q
",~ j
===1. Background=== __:u ^:.:y 7' 4;;J-:s-a 9 O: 1 On September 21, 1981, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission k s M.... ./.L J.A.4W. ),., - E,, ~ 3 'QN.f.8% [.3% 3. s.;A,d @h M@ j ("NRC" or " Commission") authorized issuance of Facility Operating 'fMF Q Q J4g @/ M S.f M License No. DPR 76, a license to load fuel and conduct low power tests Md U@s'M1Nf 3ch bd M;W I (at up to 5% of rated power) at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Qfd; l Unit 1. CLI 8122,14 NRC 598. The NRC staff issued the license on g g M gg M}@ 6 l September 22,1981. Soon thereafter, the licensee, Pacine Gas and Elec-g 6 g J 4 s.. Q ggy@ w pu.. 4 l tric Company reported the discovery of an error in the seismic design of 43,p&@fgim jz%@ d N; j the plant. Following the discovery of additional errors in seismic design, .;M 39, 7N j the NRC staffidentined serious weaknesses in PG&E's quality assurance ..M ij M M ~ 3: S Y M.[v[y $ 9 @/@ Tif I program. Accordingly, on November 19, 1981, the Commission sus-W cme ? pended PG&E's license to load fuel and conduct low power tests %d: 2 @$13 $ @$ p,fli p yh 5 % M g% (low power license) pending the satisfactory completion of an indepen-l dent Design Verincation Program (IDVP). CL1-8130,14 NRC 950. . V Y,T...,a'*ff..W mc A, FW.. - W, w,@. ..., ~ s After a substantial effort spanning almost two years, the IDVP has .C sv M WG M,'d.V,M.m;N.%g %. ~ w. .. W W ' been completed and the results have been submitted in a four volume mm. - 7 5 ye i Q.V'WNa.
~~Cwp, Final Report detailing the review of seismic and non-seismic design and 4~~
M@MNQUhNMd3NNPN j design quality assurance, the analysis of identified errors, and corrective D T 4 3.... W /f.l # ?* T 3 % k. actions taken or proposed The IDVP also addressed brie 0y several $Mk.M.fy;j@2. edi,%p [G%rpe S J.m. c 4 4q 1 issues associated with construction quality assurance. The NRC staff's $@hM@ 7(Myf@hd%/$$W ) review of the IDVP Final Report as it pertains to issues relevant to fuel i loading is contained in Safety Evaluation Report Supplements 18 and N MW#; y@!3*[.WSd!W 19, issued in August and October 1983, respectively. On the basis of its yj-M.hV M[fi'.d[;;M@[hgB[N$ review of the IDVP Final Report, PG&E's separate design and construc-Y [72' l h;'iWM d tion review program and the physical modi 0 cations resulting from both !;$.t . Mfh9 MM 'C. programs, the NRC staff has recommended reinstatement of PG&E's h:@.8 p.g;,'Q;a%dg: %g,Ng license to load fuel and perform pre-criticality testing at Diablo Canyon t.@ h U d@$, 77 ? j Unit 1. On October 28,1983, the Commission convened a public meet- ? .f_6 %.Q;Nj /igP Q J ing to discuss the staff recommendation and received the comments of $;Q;$ NRC staff, the IDVP lead contractor, PG&E, and the Joint Intervenors j in the operating license proceeding. l:5 ^79.QQMty [L m,.., { ; 4.
~~M) y Q '. Q~~
~~d [ ' - ;;i; j~~
Meanwhile, Joint Intervenors have requested formal adjudicatory gg. i hearings (1) prior to a Commission decision whether to lift the suspen-8 a { c.M, t, Mh; y k ; i ',.V '-Q ;O[g'c...th2 sion of the license to load fuel and conduct low power tests at Diablo Canyon, and (2) on PG&E's request for an extension of the term ofits j${Q 1 .6 , ilF'%c.QW-i l. r l low power license until September 22,1984. The low-power license had ,n< gh J/j .'; X'..M'f y%. =~**W'". I L. t .l.)+: 'ys ,t % ! y;r,,pg,p.'aip l y ;.
~~m:J;;m :n w~~
~~w ,,4,. 1 1147 e'- + e-m 1 y m., -r. m 3~~
~~1 *Nhf.h**(4 I.,~~
~~F,,. .a : e ~,o.f n.~~
~~v. 4 %. :. v..~~
f,. js Y '.n'Ik pM,,....yy,9, s 4 Nh.N. ( s' a.,'. n >~ r. ~ f._ A h ..(N,[?((, ' ". !u,. v..~,., .. m . w. ( \\.,, Aja'.4 gh{ Q; t.),%m+.;l .., a ad,, ?r.s e n ! '~ w==y- . f. m**,.e,-.i.= o ' of' {, < j. .mne graw -w. s
~~e aa-e.e~~
-a-*.e .,.Q:N.*L. c.- ,7 ' J ':. q ; &, J p' l:1972% g ?& y l', - J. Q. 1,.. sy J 4.s :,&y y,. ,s '.6,M:D +W '. * : tp i'%. %', Q:n r ;:p~ y;g%(, d t Q'.[A ', ~<lu O / re Q-1 x*%Q l %:, ; 2 %; a ;&, , W,,: '<> /,,3 I 'y'
~~,', w. w;+&w l~~
~~~et ~. 1 -W~~
~~s;pw. yaw m~~
~~. s.'.~w. -wu u=-- s &y my A,.,;.%l.6,; p mspn o,..g k,.. m w s,&p; p);s - *,ggy,N~~
~~-vgW a' Q~~
~~y M. Q.' g.nm.5.m:e 4.a%~y of:s%g? Q P*h &m; q pwh~~
~~. q 4 y ig%pM~~
~~, y6 WM ~ v 1~~
j.l [ b j h;y' O '~* @ d j.h )h%',,g M i@f f f f f.0$ %d% originally been issued for a term of one year under the expectation that 6 i*?4 )%u '4 fuel loading and low-power testing would be completed well within the s. y 2,.1@%. %j~MRy-MGW initial one-year period. Q n J@. 7 9... & 9.4.,~ m & p ;p # ~. pg. .n~
~~h&Mn &..g yrp.pdag.;.,~~
~~W-2. Hearing Requests C@.e.g.pggA}q ..v.s +.. ' $..$.yW.g.Wj a-p y L l gl.Y Q. a. Hearing on Lifting the Suspension~~
y. +

u....
., }Il The Ccmmission declared its policy with regard to formal adjudicatory g g.2 da.J, Q WI b [3 3 d Syy k QM hM hearings on enforcement actions in Public Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Wh7Ca-Q[L 5 Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CL180-10,11 NRC '$'3N;b'3Ih h Nkh 438 (1980). The Commission therein stated its belief that the "public i, Q health and safety is best served by concentrating inspection and enforce- ,M' MNdN85'y$h A. ' O.? W :
~~fg ment resources on actual field inspections and related scientific and engi-~~
$M:/ 9$92M@gf.W.p%N@$ neering work, as opposed to the conduct of legal proceedings." 11 NRC M,. a. ~. S.,',..A@&. 4 O y.5 $,y@m,f-M%ytg. M.. Q. g%.g....t.,. j,w 4t%' at 441. In accord with this policy, the order suspending PG&E's low-y: A .i $c.9,-p-b.My k power license did not provide for any adjudicatory hearing prior to lifting le o 4 - a s.w the suspension. Th. h.mitation was withm. the Commission,s authon.ty. is g.-
~~9. p. ? g g,a w a. w %~~
Bel /orrt v. NRC, No. 821932 (D.C. Cir., October 7,1983) (amended gRg 4,.q.n ~,, .y opinion). Joint Intervenors are not entitled to a hearing as a matter of , ce_u., . m m,g,y.;,.: <.<4.. m.e-n -,, 4 ; o&w;gcQ' statutory right; their request for an adjudicatory he ring on the lifting of 5 , ; %.4 A s m d N.;I.1.Edhhh.Q-pk, uih,r.Q~.3 % the suspension is denied. (.. f. m. y,,, Jfy.~.W,. <Q. &&p..: .u r l;y.., M.y g.. y b. License Extension Hearing Request
~~f. @r: % f'K.w. Q.~~
~~C' C M.l.7M.%"%e~.y.ifQi PG&E's low power license was issued on September 22,1981 with an ~ 1 M M,..., h..D @.:., -~~
~~e.v expiration date of September 22, 1982. As noted, inclusion of this expi-~~
- 4b y.y it a, v. s O. b m'g. O @.;'t @f'U m ration date was based on the assumption that fuelloading and low power _4 .s o ,c/ de. ps :i k.. Q.c e ;%m.a rcs; ;.yQ@d'T q.[(*2 k f testing would be completed well before this time. There was no safety . d M M n M d $g $ $j;g t $; S-sigmlicance or bas.is m the adj. d.u icatory record for h.miting the term of ,ts% -,: o siw eg>.pW the low power license to one year. However, because of the Commis-2/0$M. pM4D%fGM$; sion's suspension of the license, PG&E has not initiated the authorized M';" ' MW : 9 M f,Y[' Q i Q j M h M [if%7 % activities and the time would have expired absent PG&E's timely request MWWl M for a renewal. Thus, a modification of the expiration date would merely g.L 6 7 d %@ # n $ $ h G;g ( N ?Pc h shift in time the period during which the licensed activities are .g ', $y W. [ /i M..,,AQ M. u;l authorized, without expanding either the length of time or the substan- .y. w,,.. < - m ,c. ; w.;, e.e. tive nature of the authon.zation. .s,-@.v. [ MND- ' in CLI 82 39 (16 NRC 1712 (1982)), the Commission responded to a p (.y. similar request for hearing submitted by Joint Intervenors relating to ,c ' - 1 vQ ;( PG&E's 1982 request for a license extension. The Commission noted .. s. g... T; l": that the license extension request was subsumed within the scope of the 9 ' r,5.[yj - 4 J@ ongoing license application and initial licensing proceeding and there "..'1 4.. 7 was no right to a separate hearing on the request. We adhere to this .b.'.g'.";; @ C 1 3 # h
~~b b~~
~~g 1.,m.~L;, #s;:g g @. n q9 4 ? 1-u a ' ' '%ll :.;.g g.K x.).; f Q 1,f n";' }p o ' Y- ? ~ ~. a l; 4~~
~~c..*;.%;. Qj['.l$.f, I.~~
~~.l5.4 p>l % g ','$ s p Q * &. (.f N s r? -*g* .p. ; ..g 4.- 4. y },. ' %;- W u;q %. n.v ' ' p!.. ;,.6 ^ &, :n : .X " +< .; yy. 6 p e 4 n n.,r f' '. g .y{h # a e g g [ I I' 4 6 / %g. A'*.<,,. ',~~
b.......,;.. e,. m

'.s f
,g
~~f. s t,A3.,,....'~~
~~,.q,, a .w r ,,rirr. g y s;cf, p... e.f$ c~.4, fn yew 4.. ...e m; 2 .y. s ,] d ' h,,......' '.k 's s V .... m, s.,[ y, p.: y g'l.;qw.y,w ; Q,. E.g ',.,~~
~~w. u.,, j,~~
,) '.,+.,,,. p,, 7>.a., e q. a 7..m....~,... ', n. <g. j F g.. w q.. m."...,,,'54 ( p n,;;'3@y,pU,%.,_ W,. r,. y. 4 u. mc 4,. . o1.,.c, p.ty- .. s. ,.e,, s.,,y .s o.. . 97 .O- .r t.Mey m.n., n,: c, r.. r pa ; .x, M. 4.uQ,q q.g.gt.pgq:, 3._ c , v- ... ;, ; z.
~~g m.;~~
v m.
p - s e_ _.2.. ,v e ~ ' 3 a9. ~. nN er s.m..,e.. a, principle. However, the hearing record recently has been reopened by I-M W W a / T~ the Appeal Board in the initial licensing proceeding on issues pertaining ,, 2 s to design quahty assurance and related IDVP conclusions. [' m .W' This case is therefore similar to that which occurs when, on appeal from an initial licensing decision, it is decided that further hearings must - - '~^j-be held to complete the adjudicatory record. In such a case the validity of the license pending the completion of the hearings and decision F 1,;. depends on a balancing of the equities and a consideration of possible l 'f., ', 5'c:y ; g prejudice to further action required as a result of the reopened 'W t 5;; h wm proceeding. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station. 3 &.i,i'1D;;D,N W h ?} N. %y.;M i,@g^ f %. - 3> %r,m.I Units I and 2), CLI-77-8,5 NRC 503 (1977). This test is distinguishable a a ;, 3. . m- %~ g.4 7{y % s.. '.J from the more stringent test in l'irginia Ferroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Federal r ...p p M.- V. mi v Power Commission, 259 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir.1958) and 10 C.F.R. .gsg{ ((. Q+~. { }} ) 2.788 which is used in ruling on stays pending appellate review. .c. ,%. m - N .., - 't = \\.; 4... fg W. s +T- .W, 4 't ' ' '; !:W %: cs> y. ya.w s.,w:' d i < '-- (1) Fuel Loadmg and Pre-Criticaltry Testing The risk to public health and safety from fuel loading and pre- '?d. ~ e
~~f..~~
... 1 ' W:02A - ,~ ~ "J y [.... <t.cality testing is extremely low since no self-sustaining nuclear chain w E y "g ' ', . g' , O reaction will take place under the terms of the license and therefore no U ..[ %,,[/ @j lsy?-121' * *. M. k@N 7. radioactive Ossion products will be produced. A review of the pleadings i J.c.
'~
on Joint intervenors' two hearing requests reveals no signincant safety m- ' Q,,$. ? n. w,]. concerns material to fuel loading and pre-criticality testing. This should ff.l'<, ," M;Q. not be surprising since the IDVP and related efforts focus on plant sys. . '., - A i " 7 s / f % & c'r tems engineered to handle the hazards associated with radioactive Assion C' E -... '..N,M N.ibl6'WW 9+ ?.i,. W,.7.[i ^ Y products and, as stated above, no such fission products will be produced. 'MW" While Joint intervenors have professed concern that this limited authori-s m..,. s.aw, ., 2y. s zation would generate momentum in the direction of further a y; N,.e w Qm .e., e.g .a.m.o s authorizations, the Commission emphasizes that this action m no way c a e,.3 / ',: M 4 5;, Mle...epg.ag.p .~ kns"C. &.DRyg prejudices future decisions. See Power Reactor Derclopment Corp. r. Inter- '7 t& M. national Union of Electrical. Radio and Machine it'orkers, 367 U.S. 396 ' c .. u. w', % j, ;ns'.ygg.dg;' n or a (1961). The plant itself will not be altered by fuel loading and pre-1
~~lg,,d, M;QO;; g g $~~
criticality testing, and no resources will be committed irrevocably to fur-v. lg (J.y'g[$4-ther authorizations. Safety issues material to additional authorizations m A,0.&g,M e %,N. will be considered by the Commission at a later date when the licensing 'e @a%.. 4 ~ A: documentation for these later stages is complete. ";D IINb Since there are no signincant safety issues material to fuel loading and , T, $h,Did.7 pre criticality testing, and there will be no prejudice to future Commis- !l-r g %,y sion decisions, a consideration of the equities favors denial of the Joint i , : Q ;fi'- m Intervenors' request to defer the decision on the licensee's request for ,p reinstatement and extension of the license to load fuel and conduct pre- ,~ ~M'J f ypc& ~., .e x. criticality testing pending the holding of a hearmg on the licensee *s .22 request. Joint Intervenors' request, therefore, is denied. t , 7' . y- @x. f.'., r, ., G. 9: t .y 39 . j' ' e i .s 1149 a l 'Y f ' a. #.. ,w.~~p ,,R., s ,h, r j$.\\?' i ) e l .h ? * %, ; ~. .p-3 e m' / '.~26.. w. ' '. _ y J; 1..,< r: ..,~.,#, e,y 3 %*t, i e i ,,m..oy,-m,. for f p-vp e ry...+- m+. - e w. n-w. e,.ar j K. },..: .. q t.3 a. [ ' l;j : 4,.
~~:g, j & '~~
c. A 1 - a g' T -' ,,i t e g ,'[ 8 .' + s . g,%y - 2 ' '3 t s r .*p.,, a 4 . [l ]? e 4 * ,'y '[. e ,y,,., ,],
.,..- - -, n .... w.,,,. Y k2 h kkh kb h' E % $ f-M ) h W f k p.5Ns. y # d W w w [ y,ff.W@ii%g y bp m.$ n@ n@g w$@l M 7"' /M ggg &Nh;h YNWA ik f @ n W.s.; uh W Wg+ &e g g yrM c 6 m b ; y, C s M 1 g., n Q.p % 4p. pqp.. g
w.,'

i. ~,1yn,.-
wh.ns u. Nhh b$,. m e n, @a m. h,i g.cr,h. h .um mic e. mm a Qa (2) Criticality and Low-Power Operation %g3&&r...o%fA,0.:fi.go,~.o M2$QMgy%3A a?$y@*$gg4! The licensee at this time has applied to the Commission only for fuel 4.# w /jWei'.GQgbN4k,]. imgg loading and pre criticality testing. However, with regard to criticality and E;s.f $$-S M !h*T gy QQ low power operation, we believe that the equities in this case favor con-s w W w.x i ' tinued suspension of that part of the license. The Commission will revisit . g g-.E MM M , 3.g.y o, A.. cnw f n%,e ;, 7 f f.,:,,F @m., y.st.; p,f the issue.of continued suspension pending completion of the reopened Q7 N w.. hearing after the licensee submits the required and remaining documen. p:p.. f.sc . y.m ~. ($h.hc,62.f#h.$h[. p.9;p$$N.$ ? t t 'hb,2GM.#/MM S @k@$,f,}p:$ tation in support of criticality and low power operation and we have the r M staff's evaluation. The concern which supported the original license sus-qM. Rgh QAG pension was not purely procedural or a matter of clarifying some uncer- ' Y h ; %,9. N, h el p g; g g % tain part of the record. Serious and substantive safety concerns relating $M'h to design quality assurance led to the license suspension. These same W N e @ M y ;f M h g ic M;rkjy N h safety concerns are now the subject of adjudicatory hearings before the O S@1W7/hQpid[W*: 3 .S$% %m Appeal Board. The license suspension and order requiring further hear-kh,bJ ?hW NT p ings recognizes that the adjudicatory record may not now include essen- ,4 tial Gndings on design quality assurance. In the special circumstances of MQ N.f:.dQtg gp%p)h MW.WV.hdh 9 5 h*M this case, the Commission may well choose to await the conclusion and ph E,"?ffbMp'Aff.a y3t.h decision in the Appeal Board hearir'gs before reaching any decision on <M(( N h (kk{ further lifting of the license suspension and further extending the validi-h h i C,... &,ff %. f Ik s@:. @. N% w,. ml}# w.$ 9, c. Hearings on Additionalissues %lgW..yy,j@kk hhh7' h Joint Intervenors stated at the October 28th meeting before the Com-7 rjg.4?pht mission that the hearings before the Appeal Board satisned their desire ..;.. w,, n..r a.s. r y%., g. k: y, N; %. for additional hearings insofar as design quality assurance issues are .c.ov 6,p%x.y<10 w.. 4 nee .x.n. y r m concerned. We recognize that they seek to raise other issues as well. 56, $ ?? QWf, 76 ? 'g<i"N ch.Qh.Q.Q 2Ohf They have already been afforded the opportunity to raise construction ^&J M df94.A Qt/f N,M quality assurance issues. On October 24, 1983 the Appeal Board denied $@[DMikNMIkb]$ ihg N Joint Intervenors' request to hold further hearings on this matter. M@Q M M *$ M A N M Vh,M y Nevertheless, if there are other issues material to reinstating an extend- ,@M[M,.[yW/.h,thfy!4 ;j5 $ % g g h g $ ed license authorizing criticality and low power testing which Joint Inter-venors have not had a prior opportunity to raise, then the Appeal Board W e 2*&%m,$e*M...g.pQ, ped.. h h.r .,D 1 should conduct further proceedings as appropriate. N,..N'. E p O } d',; 8 Cpi $ iy.w&.~y%.4.ZS yfQ M.y
~~j. Q 3.~~
Decision to I.lft Suspension in Part -1 m .;.q. , p.r; y p..g.:M Upon consideration of the reports, analyses and comments referred to ,~ M-sp ;; SLW above, the Commission has decided to reinstate PG&E's license to au-4c 1 Of. MS. //g.v .f c u.y
~~v.,~~
c thorize fuel loading and pre-criticality testing at Diablo Canyon Unit 1. [ hh @KJ@f. ..,.C f[ The Commission has determined that the results of the IDVP provide N..m.Q;,4;,y,g m&&g&%~ & .., Q :q f 'l C w e.%.sdyg %r.9 % y ' ' W; x J.y,8;&.d-@Q%.NW'%,y 4..AH.WT 1150 -Qij R e n iW m, 1fy.y'4V b $,s W 4:(l!N V,n. .,, t ~?u +y . &.q; - m.p +./ -ey"Q,.3**
5%, 4

g.e d s; f G.
ll { v, kf.g 9 D -. m a&'% m. a.@ *.. y/f e.#!T.. ?$f' 1-f'y /. ** **p $ f"'n' FC ' ' ~*1i M*N*.. .. *v, w e *,. :. T f h.A 9w.. ** .4 ya 1m- '.r. i =.w*
~~-44,+~~
. n. w w.w. '5"? -' ? N. 5' ? * / h Y;l 0-?$...Y'l$'.h. Q -~ '4 p s .j, s w :..+..: :.: :l.k,. r };QC.y q.fy "Q F*1}Q'lX&,r p&.an@.:A p.J' ?.g'.'a m c .. n Y; [; W" .' bfW LWi arys.m' & ', N 2**- a g m,..m. ~ Spe: %.g&.w,:f.. M+..w. m'*'h h *, r.
~~n. :,n Qo Q4.q,'QQ c.f.f*y..K.... ;.m. 'Ka w.j $. s Q.~~
~~Q Q h i ~hr yp .n .. a q.: n, n '.. p/ ' ' ' .v~~
~~n..et;g~~
~~{w. a s.g].m n,.:. .{ i ,I' Ap.. -Q 'q, [,a ', w~~
~~g. c ~.~~
.. ~ r..., - .,y.,ygg. ;g,, g _g .,ap;. -8 ,x
e H 1 J i w. ...w ~. - +.[ ' ~ reasonable assurances of protection of the public health and safety inso-t 1 far as these limited activities are concerned. More detailed reasons for 1,. f" this conclusion are set forth in NRC staffs Safety Evaluation Report 1 Supplements 18 and 19 and the staff memorandum to the Commission, { ~ dated November 7,1983, regarding unresolved IDVP items. Thus, the p~, i. f licensee is hereby authorized to conduct activities included within i modes 5 and 6, as described in the Technical Specifications for Diablo i ~ Canyon L . u. - ^ ' a...' - v ... 3. o r :4 6 rc. z ja:~. a m., s n ' I N M,,. N hf @u,U U A 4. Additional Matters w, m W -e s - M M5 ~ On October 20,1983, Joint intervenors requested the Commission to revoke PG&E's license or continue the suspension on the basis of (1) , Jkdh/MYhdi, n[,[ . G.h;Wgf W] h.,5 j.O,.s Whl, PG&E's asserted failure to submit to the NRC a 1977 audit report criti- , fM.fQ ; yf ; f; p, % v;. cizing the construction quality assurance program of a construction con- .,s D.N. k.Y ',4"St6 * ~ tractor at Diablo Canyon, and (2) substantise concerns regarding the ad- ~,- -0e . R,f t F in e. v, Me "9 f-C', p * *:'W' K Dg/ equacy of construction quality assurance at Diablo Canyon raised by the ,D ~*" 1977 report. The substantive concerns were placed before the Appeal p 1 r t. - / Board as a supplement to joint Intervenors' motion to reopen the record on construction quality assurance issues. On October 24,1983, the f., . > T,, s. M, , 'f ! b.. 4.'. M.'I Appeal Board denied the motion to reopen on construction quality 9.,[h.//, '@. M.y' Q T'. ' ' .7 ~ ' c ' C f' a i assurance. The Appeal Board opinion setting forth the basis for its deci. g " #, E sion will issue as soon as practicable. Meanwhile, PG&E has responded to Joint intervenors' motion before the Commission. Upon considera-w. WJ 0Z?. Wi.j';;df. X1 tion of the motion and response, the Commission has decided to refer . # l.", / " ? I > 4 3 > C N. ~h:j0[i (@7 M..$ T. $ % M .h : ' the matter to the NRC staff for consideration as a petition for enforce-g fYQ?[l. %[fd[N)Jf Mf[NM ment action under 10 C.F.R. t 2.206. The Commission does not believe /j this matter has any health and safety significance for fuel loading and - W N "'J pre criticality testing. Prior to authorizing criticality and low power B..M..D.e,.,US. $o. .M.. D.4 %@..,d N,; M tf.2. testing, however, the Commission expects a status report from the staff /,. y a, N iiWW,h'f M.M.;s,,;jph'p M ' s e,.v:O addressmg these matters. w- %NM4'g On October 31, 1983, joint intervenors petitioned the Commission for review of the Appeal Board's October 24, 1983 Order (unpublished) 'M,,,. '$a i M, g I.Nr 4. GMD,'4C,,f kx /* N W h y p?,' denying the motion to reopen the record regarding construction quality 4 . s gn,<_ assurance. The Commission does not intend to rule on this petition r '. M / 1.y.. pin
~~7.E.Y,h~~
. sd until the issuance of the Appeal Board opinion in support of its order J/Mid;. and the parties' substantive response thereto. The Commission does not %[', ' M,'. 'l N >;-I J S l M ' believe that resolution of this matter is necessary at this time because of J p . g"'.~ fN 3.;2'i, Q.h *
~~2,'i 7 3 the limited health and safety significance of fuel loading and pre.~~
j 'C' criticality testing. t Also pending before the Commission is Joint Intervenors' petition for l' . MlNpQ'/'J:f @;% i i }n., 'N .., p,.{.;;p, review of ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983), the Appeal Board affirmation W 1 g m~ s s e 1 ..f..,, _n s ,p.,1'4,'.p W a> ti h' '.
~~m,;p-. M@ '~~
~~' m,7 \\ Q. 1151 c Svb }, 4 , s v >< r..,W~~
~~t..~~
t*
~~,... -Q,~~
~~h ;s ~ r , s J,.q .h :;f, b 3~~
~~' d,,'s...~~
~~4 49, c 3,,. ., v.~~
, [ Q;

's s+
~~7 i. ...y l ,. '. 1W.$V f x.; y v g ..--.~----.I 3 ^ + s h;, p,' 4. ~#* . = ~ ~~ w.. , my-wwr,. y - .q --eg.--e.e-g.4 .y e j~~
~~s <~~
- ;,(. ' y 3.. ..t~ s ~. .f (,., s % i i, i s m e ; s Y i b., s[l 4 -[= -} e
g,. - .,s _ c x v.; m.,,. v.,,- e 'm, 4:;":.W. &- a. F Lq..' %y -,Q<' % '~tl76 am.k.@. Aa,.%m%. m,% W.!wng U:,p> c o % : w'.
~~w. (,h.c.. y.~. 3 v..:~~
~~..,:v. o. a.~~
~~4.r;w. a %.~~
~~O, wyy%n g.R.44..# M vh ^ .q. s.. a _ - ~.,, e 3 w S ;nw. p,....:w'm 1 Y .?4.f~~
~~MM avW t~~
& h% &&$ MS&ON&$kN&&N&?W$A?%WM.W5kJ&0.. j:&&&@h%@%5 W Y; 4-Gc9%y>N+0VMWQ GM#MsMSMW M . iT.42 >& w %w p &.w n. %m %ye- & n f z g. %:.y $ n M R : g._. 4 %. Vn %q!. :. ;;y ;vJ O Qw we . ' W ; g r,f: m w yn a Q: q.png gy, n.g t h r, .w. M '- - a.M,w% Y w ,1.,,e - o M,^ c % p ?ji. W m b w;,. A; A.;,,p s.a M e m
~~m +-~~
~~e a.y,p ea hN e, 4 way~~
~~gQ.x" n~~
~~,B - s%yy.yr .%~~
~~r? C<. # !c w.~~
. g..c.e";*s ; ,h ye.%,;g,,A 4,v. g. g,a....yp, G~. M. ty.,i y a s. e w ... yp%..R ... 4.*'st.,,Q.. s a p'a s.jy t., ' % :+..* ',x - J _ T.4* P .4 .s g .r. - m. v,. ... ~ y y i of'.ssues other than quality assurance addressed in the Licensing Board's . g G ysNM j6.W.!.l.?. HIT.4 M low power decision, LBP-8121,14 NRC 107 09311. Again, the Com. N$h3h bih ~ mis. ion does not believe ll at resolution of this matter is necessary at 4:W NywM'4%:%. this time because of the limited health and safety sigmlicance of fuel 9: . m ; m,6...,,
~~o.,.~~
-f g,2G'.FW";. M.h $D Q;le@r.;dc4 y loading and pre-criticality tesurg. a p f: Finally, joint Intervenors have filed bcfore both the Appeal Board 4.'. y ;; 7 g.c.,w.,m., 4 ~. s.k m. < s , a,f.,,;. W v.s tmv M +, a71:f a ' and the Commission a motion to revive their request for a stay of the a ~ h, f. :q, u j,. y +. - 8M' q,,.. d. low power license. By letter dated November 4,1983, Joint Intervenors r - ns 7 A m p.- Q.o ;y.Q.UgJC '!M.m,4 oM requested the Com;nission to cons.' der the stay request concurrent with .,.+h,n e,.? its decision on lifting the suspension. The Commission p crers mstead 9,.- W.J -4 @w ' WP,W,,N;M,$.d, p/.S. @K N7.i,e.S.... S t to allow the Appeal Board to consider initially the stay request. The J d".b,f'.} Commission expects the Appeal Board to t'ule expedif.omly on joint in. s *, J.WAWWW.wiW M EJ %r' J ' rs. n k.tM. Q. a~y . 6Pe d,: %,. tervenors, st.,y request. MA;44 . #h; hkdh.@/J E.'WM%!hMMMpd views of Comm.ssioner Asselstine are attached. -fRMW Commissioner Gilinsky abstained from this decision. The additional ' ky rO @g.?V.C W~ lt is so ORDERED. MfW c...TF.s Z t.,. y a 3 ' ; s..,...,.. f m s v. . q.e q.,yp y.,/p m ;g t,n.p... ~ . i 68ED);y W.F'tQ.:d,l;QWN.ffl,y N For the Commission 7v O... ;.Q,.;.,. }m' :.,;. T as%,& ' {g. 3> x; .. 3..r.,:.vn ...w, , w pema, .. x. g e y 4,. 2.f,y e.. y ,v..+ *q.,.,s,.- ' g.s ysy,W,y s i.. Ag,g. ...f3 S AMUEL J. CillLK y.u $,-,.; h;.,a. y,n aN. %a; n yy c .l-
~~ych Secretary of the Commission~~
~~'",4 "Z N.fJW,p.M:fo A y &, / w *I %n ' G:Q '.:y..s 2 Me s.M. r.;c~~
~~m..u,. N'.),)7@M. v.@L ? M.7.I C~~
~~Q' Dated at Washington, D.C., the 8th day of November 190. e g, u. <. y.~~
~~n. m~~
~~, n. n. ~.. n..m, . 3 m, ,r s .q".. m. u. y, e, r y i r,., y' .s..., ,<,[. g,' 'q .$'T~~
~~, f~~
[ Va s.,J > + 9.,[ ~, ~j ' h,.. \\ -h..MkP.s,.hr,p+;/ s ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF COM.\\llSSIONER ASSELSTINE ML dh >v- .w A., h "., gg* p1',,, s 4,',, s ? ",e e a ,,e i 's! .g VJp,7 h, Q pf[,l;Mg4 a i support the Commission's order authorizing fuel loading and pre. c,,/;ta'.M 4:q ?</ e, p T a J.r.h.% i NNY cruicality testing at Diablo Canyon Unit I at this time for three reasons. WEhy,$1%@N.Y@MQ g t,.f.'dMd.\\g.DN A.'Q.Qg, y, criticality testing is very low, and there do not appear to be signilicant [ First, the risk to the oublic health and safety from fuelloading and pre. . J.r..gM,Wp 3!:y,4;;.u.,dp,p,,G55 g',Q:g. M unresolved safety issues material to these activities. Sceand, fuel loading {A J.Ag'"7 3Y.f and pre. criticality testing can l>e undertaken without foreciosing future .f. Q.,'.j :;3c ify." uptions or prejudicing future Commission decisions regardmg further . V y . s.g.: 4 plant reviews or modifications should such actions be necessary. Third, + / 3v.t..]
~~s.. '.g3 (m apptoval of fuel loading and pre criticality testing, if properly restricted,~~
,...g.i 3 .g A 7 .Y 9 does not amount to a prejudgment of the sigmficant design quality assur. f. (' ',h[,( <:,f,y%.,'.'h l ance issues material to operation of the plant that are now being adju. dicated in the reopened hearings before our Appeal Board. For these .y. W t.e. 's. %(a. Y*y$,.,,f, 6.','ql, t'o.? . q ,.el g' Q. ,e A.', ',l * {, ,.4 / f, ;', qt '.' 9 j . o ;4 y 4.{t h 'g,.e #4.Q <" a' a .,.... /,... ; M. f.)9 7 9,.s % w 1 n .~j m,s . ?M.Wu i152 a s. ' "1 ^ f T*, '&'t. ~ffs f f : a 3 a, s y f y:l$ 'P5 . f., ',,,. q,- 6 O' ' '\\g q
f,f& *
~~= 4.,],' ) h p. j 'g?.W, * { ' : s. ? '. y, Q h%,. y.V ' e 4 +?.-~~
~~L.;',A, t. '~~
~~sI ? g. j * ; g W,. .p ru= gi ,g,*, 7- , e== ?.- s. ty T. se 4 4 ,i . g ,4 e., 4.,- '.,,,i 9*- e i, w t s, e' 1, .A f. .e w' ' " ' 4,. p,~~
~~s. f,,~~
~~,f,, 6% I + + i = '; y,. se ,,.y . a .,7 7, y. n y *r.f,;,,-ig. t q.l c~~
~~y,,.,,.~~
~~.e 4~~
~~4.,~~
~~. ',, c h. p ',.,. s t <,~~
9
~~.se a .xy, 8 -,c ,. er. s. 9, N M. [ [ k,*,., [n,,.,,f. s, iA9 I# , q. " -...a 6% ,,,,.b I-~# e 4 ' : + <. g p. s ~n 4 .~ ra . */.;., y) v,1,( 7 3 p,.o .... t;;;.. 1.= r + f ,s~~
~~' ~'~~
V.
m ', +. ..c-s' .o .) c - ~ 1 s. p c cp 4 e i v' b d,,.y : G' reasons, I am prepared to authorize fuel loading and pre-criticality testing ..y g - g r s, at Diablo Canyon Unit I at this time.
~~, = '~~
K 'l JL, Although I support the Commission's order todas, I would have gone C V[. ' ', f ' ~ ;. i -I'^ ~ ~ farther in the treatment of a related issue. That issue is whether the Commission is prepared to consider further requests from the licensee 9~, ^ J; for authorization to operate the Diablo Canyon Unit I reactor before our [s.. [%'y l Appeal lloard reaches a decision on the design quality assurance issues now being considered, and any other issues that may be admitted. in the M, , n '...s n-ongoing hearings in San Luis Obispo. In my judgment, ite Commission l '7, g.W,.y ( Q ;; (q ; $g O g, ;.j. y g@QMQg,Mli 5).f;@ 7 should put all parties on notice now that it is unwilling to entertain fur. p. ther requests from the licensee for authorization to operate Unit I of the f @ M*FNcD W QWE'W;? % f Diablo Canyon plant until the Appeal Board has reached a decision in hW
~~4 N. +. w ~,.aN, a. 9 N, U. *.., i N. a ~.%~~
the reopened proceeding. 2 n. i In my view, the special circumstances of this case demand that we Q D g @ Q 'q p,y,j % 'D ? M, ~, E await the Appeal Board's decision before allowing the Diablo Canyon Ty%n Q,4;S@l 'y" s g y,W4 ..M N ; plant to go critical and to operate at any power lesel. Although the Com. M ' p..Tt ~. jff;,M ~ j'y 't 7 2<['1',, mission has characterized its November 19, 1981 decision to suspend the Diablo Canyon license as an enforcement action, it is important to (: % '+,,y,v:.*- . h.. '. ! 'e' 4J'W remember that the Commission's order suspending the license came i i h'ly2,, c&',,,,,4 (f jf,.. ; . U.{,.?. Q. 4
~~L., than two months after the Commission's original decision authoriz.~~
Ing a low power license for the Diablo Canyon plant. The Commission's p$.O.,W,(6U:.Qi. kg suspension order recognized the existence of signincant safety issues Eb .e +g y :.W e' related to the seismic design of the plant and concluded that these issues ,7- {; M W N W : ,.a I' were of suf0cient importance to require the immediate halt of fuelload. AM ..n ~aa w w., p ing and any operation of the plant, even at low power levels. Moreover, ,;.", m. fUf.:.%y.?y@f*M,[c x.;c. 99l,'y g.,q l the Commisuon's suspension order called into question a substantial 0,'Fk* g - h l portion of the basis for the NRC's original licensing decision for the SW + - / 4, w,E .wr,f w 59 .. w$ pl. int. As the Commission's order noted, 4 %n f p l,- g;; ! E, "H)p: w?SMgllG Q;: &. :,K v%%.r,rts ? re f, X r5 J M ;.g, ;. p h ME S.f. W ; O,.r; r .W' This new information indnales that. contrary to statemems made in PGAE's operat-l n s %.s.n,..m A, u..r.. sp J.. ? <. y.9. rV r u ing inerne appination ceridin structures, systems, and components important to a C* e o r,"> i.i w.+. e. ,.,'o~ N (; T Qy k..'by g %.. x..v m. g y safety at the plant may not te properly designed to withstand the efrects of
, 4.g

,ja fQ.g,, ;W. g;1,*glc earthquakes and rurther endnates that uolations or NRC's regulaitons in 10 C.F R.
$ P Q l W M D 5 W 's V f y N e Part 30. Appendas li have otturred llad ihn inroimaison been known to the Com-fs '.? N D}h MN.D[f,hp'N)h.Q((.T.' M 'l ' rnisuon on or prior to September 22.19sI, Faolity Lnense No. DPR 4 would not i;fQf: M.f.$ .) k[';g 'f have been issued until the questions raised had been resobed ei&* Q W '.Qf.F :.q'q.,7.. % s,.; 4 f.P. n.sd. '. s. L i CLI.8130,14 NRC at 951. '.. *.M.7,.%u.,MlA '. A'M. g.a s im .. e. '1 -. N., e@m s It is also beyond question that significant design quality assurance i " Wl,y.. s .pm .w y y; p p,-. b'! M. 4 7 issues relevant and material to plant operation remain in dispute between c.sg ,,v p., j r the parties to the proceeding. The design quaht assurance contentions .M Y..;/i,M...JWJW './ r-m.,pg raised by the Joint Intervenors and the Governor of California are sub. (. M'g.);# lrWOl@f1 Ap r stanti.it f.ictual disputes that cover a broad range of questions regarding yw.4..,.5..,3,.; N .l. L ' 's A.l. 6. g 4 ',, W.., v. x... - + s*;?.Y. the scope of the design quality assurance problems at the plant and the M lh.;;,<f>,4+<?,*i s h 3: i *@ W \\: !M ** ,,L,f % a ya Y >[> ? ] n ,,w <~,,y o r. ., l q.;.g;, y My y 44 ', m g.' 1853 g ci E. n
~~n r c n~~
~~<a 3. , '. y,,e E (c, [d' y,,%) +; y *+itl j ,,, 'y x a >,, $ ' ' / d',.', e.. s , ; e :x ,,.i J. ,. g.,. i + *{~qs4 ;j = < p.p, ' * ?, fy~~
~~l.1 Y~~
~~dJl.[/ y, ;;~~

~~de.1 '. Q *!,,1 $ *; lj,. q'< u.p..,+,~~
4 l.l 3 ,' q . < Vf ' e G., 'n ; % >,.. 'f. l* !<; p. i,, *** ~ "' *'""""'" M.'""**9*T'*'*'."***'r*.'*1'V' I '. ( $r[> .re*.'.R""*W***' f * *1 ' " i.* ' J#' , l, c,.? p;4 - j v .'.A4' i1M.?* . 59; *l,ej 9'f ~l,.",- ),{,
~~',\\~~
.....t.fEl"' 3 t a t 6 J', s t ,3 s 2 l s y., Q,r. * [ f ^ 9 ~' p 7, P %e v .!, ' b < qj \\* ?, je g1l 9l,.f { t, s t .e n. y
.y _. 3 ;.,,,,3, q A.j,4 g,g 9,;,3 @h$fdh*gp'gs,@e h 5 M @iS &yg.ff g;q ig71 Qg MN.M,Vd:d ;$ AgjiWMQg PTp.@d@IN.M%M4f5'Mh.pMUMk ~. M h.x % W 3 w. A. 4 I sak,h&%m$p%@iM% g st 1$: qu g g M lY MN@b C$p&,M$pRp S, Y$NM&dN? Qi W.f$ yk r~cM@tTg@Wgp den A E MR
~~.hW s~~
60 vpfyg 6 W.p tt!Mg &w bM.Jupspygg W% Mbkg N N I Rs #q&.mhfh..n'-MV M. N.. hw.5 k N.s 4'?'hd. p,M g$.MMg&n'c '.%@,,%. gh ,W W N, M W.# #. %g M 4.[1...f..@h;.(~%jy' A adequacy of the design review and corrective programs. These questions Q@ go to the very heart of the Commission's judgment on the adequacy of hIfgfS+v :,,7 g'Wv plant design to assure the protection of the public health and safety. As M ..h m
e..hw Ji$M WMM*4N,3MD's,qg the Appeal Board decision reopening the record on these issues noted, p d.&w% w A s s,T WA -"M'$ 7l both the licensee and the NRC staff agreed that the Joint Intervenors FMNA
- i 4 ,.#w. W e p w @:* M, M and the Governor of California presented sufficient new information on AW% _k these design quality assurance issues to meet the test for reopening the t MINS MIPMkfi.8I @N.h b h[gif/ W @ '9{ & d@[ M k NN2NdN proceeding. MdMhh3 M$ In my view, the ongoing hearing before the Appeal Board is the dh Mdi;$ proper forum for resolving these factual disputes between the parties. hj g ( j The Appeal Board's decision based upon the adjudicatory record, rather i than brief presentations before the Commission,' will provide the neces-Mb4.hN i$ h h 5 [ 5 I ( h 7:a*g Py4gW%WM J v gd.M Grgv.AS.4Je[@*{['d@k.? sary basis for a Commission decision on whether to allow operation of the plant. Because a Commission decision to allow low-power operation h 'M' Njkh $T%$ in advance of the Appeal Board decision would foreclose options for any D Mh$ necessary further reviews and modifications of the plant and would pre-M M ;I judice further Commission decisions on the issues in the reopened &p/%g@}h/$MWSM,&w@y 9 7WmiTQ$g hearing, I believe that the special circumstances of this case require that T@.W M we await the Appeal Board's decision before considering any further lift-hh he%g. Sh [ I k[ n J@s +5 g:r,y,n. m' p.k MCo v .. a we m _m;c c.n.4 m' m,, &* %,d%'.., i..M MSWipv&y.5MGM.,4*J t . hw$*f w'TSO K..,,7%.~*g' *w. ;4WW~@y@o@. ~g> .o w m 'esmf%. :,3g -w y - fJ - c.,.. h w. w.mwunw w.y
~~m. v. m ; y n. wjh db; k h' (hy m, g hi M h M k,~~
~~k7 4 eg.pugg h'. Y@u m. s.. M $y m ;..r m p p& )l f ; 3r w S:..'f..W,.d 'h h .n.f.e. h kih f A er~~
m,

yspi@w., WiEW%n v.. y m.
~~.J a~~
~~W r M.-Q f..% py$g,gagst4.QyQi%w 2;.%q~~
~~.q S .y i~~~
~~<W.~~
~~'~.p.> M y# q. k 4 V. ~ $p/pdiM; t c e~~
~~i. C t.~~
rg e c b m /. M S N..s.%'T 4.N 'N' h,h $e.,g ' a[is;3; Ch q T m .n M 4;&w&k.g?.L:x; m,% 1;'@g$.N, p$qlh AW c.a&.w.w.&X%e '.%^b< W 4 " M.cs, 4+ t %, w gL-M gb .,.n.p be ,e . p g %..y@jv@p.,s,.y m~ < :& = ,s.; yo l 4
~
~~.... Q,&.. s--n *:,% % < > c ' ~~~
~~g. i,.1,, m,![.~~
(. E S. e g.e w' +. ..k%[N,,.m.,.m,.n.nnn,\\ .v; w . s. a n an .[: W 'q'M @W Q sy;d[=h-T* h*h*rAr Q w 'b g.hr \\ l >+ t% \\ 4% *%.1;,w.Q&%.6 J;. E*4 m,f;.as.. hah lYYY .. hmf'hh l..,gm AO.q 4 e ' n; h ; Q G.h d $ p Q w a n e .a yw',*.. v p %v fit W6FW 1154 l_f? M.% % %. p@ m y { g % n@ y',@a p o.v. m@
~~. n i v C3 p~~
~~' g4.;,. 4 .. a:c.v.: m w.u.r.g o.%,. a c3 n 3+ gi~~
y
~~... g 4 -,,$? % ?.<. m SY1' *hm e($$r*f >.,&&V :f ? >%~~
~~W YWi&v$$$&; h%.m~~
~~%y w.w. ' .s. 4""*i'%w**C.**%'=.. T.%s" 7., p.' "'.W.n., *~ '.. '.S,* 'N.. p% e".v ' p.',A.a..-- ,~~~
V
~~., p ^ (~~
~~h.g y h.e. 3. f. hi,5,. '..S;~~
~ -T. 7,.GT*7. _..%, ~, ' N M;...7' *{A. ?.,Q. { g #.',.-Q%aM. 1 nw .f 4 3 . * *, e.. s'. s;. J .',..f ,aa4(b./L.. x,*q' 7 s.;p 'w"g. o. - e s \\,, J e )5 g, -e : ,, h f E **8I;.-'. .. *. e,W - (*. ( ;
]'
~~8' 2 o-,- cr W i4 s, ',.i ~# .a 4'C,Y&&Q $hk f,,bQh[.f *3','kl$hf.h 4 E- ) g sd *. D 'M#1. A* w&w 'm?f)w.n lik.hjk].# Q{ 9 pm %# 4 q~~
~~te ki~~
,,e . k' Q.-' "*J _ i *. % g.l,. g ~% f,fh h,, wge& f' a. m.. m.,. m *n,. w. wp w& a v.%, ,.%.n,.g, pc r,w:w,ww w w+..w m. p n; e' M w m n.~. 3,w.y;.3.~; zy;cygg,g g:ym.,p;as.3.,.qg...p;g.;;g w:y... ; r w.m.. yy3 yz. g ~ ~ . 7 pt s, ;, + , u: r w-w 9.; 3 w3.m,=.:;.4g.. p, 3 y , y..,, yy..c..w.m... 3,,, w ~. ~a w, n.a n
i - F 1 s - 3... j j - .,n h.s.n.. o. .._ u c r ~ ,C 4..,' 4 s 2 ~., + -r r. +. ~ . ~ ... c... w 9. 2...,.,.. .. m. -. 2. ~ .a.
~~g..~~
~~+ y A i- [N ~ 6 [*.'**, 'Pf -. h - w,...s e ^,. * .i. ' Cite as 18 NRC 1155 (1983) CLl 83-28~~
~~, rm,, - w,..j s L.. _ g c~~
~~..2 ~ * > ,', f }...*.,;;-.~..-.,...~~
~~, < Q.Qr.~~
~~s s 4 Y. UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA + NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .);.,. c <n '. ~' '..o~~
~~,.w,~~
~~?.m 0-1'M,w. j :. c-r i .N-COMMISSIONERS: t.*.' .; ~ + 5 y 4 4 *&., s;- . w.~~
~~s (~~
~~.W4 NW i..[ ', y @s m @;<' M. g T. f r~~
Q"y...CX Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman

No.gA. W.....O P..o+
~~2 Victor Gilinsky u t % v 2 g;s p.q y;; @. p..,. g...s /,. Thomas M. Roberts .,, n 4.. nm., ....,. w.. ,,3. ;n.p W.2.g/ W+JM~ :v*;.Q.0.,.9 James K. Asselstine .mr~~
~~t.. e v,. M"m.,. w'M,T.. a u2.S. W M~~
~~N Frederick M. Bernthat Wym.m .e 3~~
~~e... Q ' d ^ p* *,r..~~
~~'.e Q";"&&,t l W a - i+y" , Q g *'l;l;@q.. Q::.d e X.~ 4 wo r s ' ~ x - ~*'. m% r hy 3.i L 7 - 4 ..rw. p,. x. s. v.......~~
~~q;h'g;G.f g $s.'7:~~
~~. s m' e.. s M, M.M -M.' $%.M. ',p,' ; { in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-361 OL 1. m 50-362 OL n. e m,... ~p ;. ....c. o m. '.7.b-w,4..,x : Q. A,.,..,.'. g s. .:2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON~~
~~.~.~~
~~s n..a .e. A.~ %v "i,t. i Z./ b~~
~~w N.u 9.~~
w 1' COMP ANY, et af. @ b W7,C fM..,. l W>. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating A g,& P q y;.ww e.r i 189%Wp.Lh..i..N e * '- <,.eQ.t Station, Units 2 and 3) November 18,1983 - -a @ Mlw#..M D W h. %w g w. .~ W M,f-. %.-x. w./s. p Wxn~ c. %,.2', g: 4 4. a~, a s .. m. @e. M. w@. m y ,n.v NMN.n!%. The Commission determines, pursuant to its immediate effectiveness ., g.. <,Q M.,, W,.- $ '< c ' g review under 10 C.F.R. f 2.764(0, that the Licensing Board's resolution 7MQbSQ.@MU%.$%E;1 mwyn.m@@grM *.G. of the issues in LBP-83-47,18 NRC 228 (1983) related to the applicants' hMMG M compliance with 10 C.F.R. { 50.47(b)(12) regarding arrangements for m medical services for members of the public, does not present the type of Wm r. W WWa -wb W.apa,x 4.. w.t i $b.a3p'M M;$i@M.M O:"OrMp Wmg y' ? safety problem wh. h would require a stay of the dec..ision's ic WW@MN di ' % efTectiveness. The Commission, therefore, rules that the decision may M $a$h:sl.,n>8.M M M go into elTect. k kn o.S.n.<.EN b M. m e .m, h. ty.x. ?.2.M,C - r A. n+ .c p, ;,- y.. I $. %.m,M. @,e w., a$i?S.w.m,3. $, w N ORDER o. M: 4 s.wh.g%.; y.W:n 3.w G,h;bw :n.. y y.sy 5, y y ;,v. b M G h fif d p f M @5 2 M b ? On July 16, 1982, the Commission acting pursuant to 10 C.F.R. St. D... e'9PN..UM... m'd.m e} J M 6 2.764(0, decided that the Licensing Board's decisions resolving con-a w sr Mr.*coc.R..M*&a#w?m%W 9 N -tested issues in favor of full. power operating licenses for San Onofre Units 2 and 3 may go into effect pending appellate review (CLI 82-14, .y.gQ.QQ,Q/j~y...s [.; - v.c wn y. p. : y. % @2 :Q c..%:p.6 - pt: p g:s s.%. 4 );pu:u.y:~n.;. %- w?-. !,A - . v.. , u a, } v gb,u. p,,.w:.6.x* - m.R.,.Q - V,;f ;, .-.3.' -s~. a.g, 6 y
~~..fk A, o!~~
~~v 4,.ygs. s...m ty o.~~
~~s'*ir'w o i c~~
~~4. ** am l~~
~~11 5 M 'u* p s..e an *p. 49':~~
e
.n.

;g,1. +,* 4. n y-# ' q
~~~/ [ s b)#).ba- .V. k 3 .: &v% P, ; N $ ~, ~ ' S i-(,.. $:N +.5,d h.I N T'.v' @ 3 lf:<. s ,.' ' '..., ~ >> gnq h,.y w[~,,[~h4 l I, N.- - y )~~
~~m....~~
~~.., w .,r p*.. ~. O /W'[.M-4 i"* *., -d. St.s ?f ! Q' sy' q,v. a O g y ~.,. \\, j* 34 qa -~~
~~q. * /..~~
~~.. m s.t z.u, g .c:y q:,:( s;.23. 3[r.*k.J 4f?.p,y[, ,g > wy,% .y.n - -...z w-- .n.,,n..,- _ -...,.......,,s , y~~
~~w. p n,w.... n.~~
~~,,,,r~~
~~.o .,a~~
r:
~~,fw' '.y* ) ".*~.)t c=j):Q?-f (,"y:~~
~~5, _;g'ph d..'+y. ' ~ Q.*,:. ?,~~
~~WC W. s 's Ma r .y -n .M..~~
~~W1, b %<..:,. *,4. 6. :.,, f.~~
~~g 't ,,Y, ,..n g: - s w .-w.,.,....c~~
~~s. s w.~~
~~4 7#:~~
... + .ei,'", tN, e.1. T,*,, f [., F y - 7, *
~~f.] " '.1' *N. ".#~~
~~' 7F .,/., k.* *[- ,f '8-9 P'~~
8 8

7, a
~~3 .(, * ? m'*1?, ,"'.t*, .*-*.wi, y .,1, 4 *. k.#,..... C~~
~~, s, 3~~
~~, -;..~.'s., . j~~
~~.t p~~
~~~., - e > c ,~ .o m, M., 3 ;, S.[,$ ( e' f };,+ *;' 4-m ~ M;'. e e., {.r. / .,.-v 'l.' b -Qj f.1."; ]. ' t-n ,~.M'...g', n. . e ; > ~. ; ^t ~. . + ~ II *.% D &. > *g;.n.*, * ', ', t'~~
C.
,,,..*. Y ' ' ...* f [:., ! / ""
~~2 y ',N I tvfi~~
= -;r - ~. 4 e y y ; - i s, A Moe,h J--
, n p.w,o w.g yp,..;;3y;,ypg.. ... _a& w.m ;GQ,g.w 3M. ~ .r h k$ ' h: ?$b ' 2 k [hh M M.! g @ D M M N M s M M N' m 4.t c &. y % % &hSMNbh$k . y,,.. Q u W ty,,m.S Q A*39 m%.M?;G.pilyqg.? kyg. t . hth N b Y: ? h m m 4t'd.,;J.Wf.*e(W $.hg&mA. mw,hr? # ' m @W'4 M QUG,,4- ~ +,%w .. w e o n
c
~~&s.Aw..%v,,,wt.s :y.,w:f p.;Qf.Q,pDi&.y d ,W M %Q.% Q J1 pqpq a.y.y.W g~ / rq h t.t %: w ,ugs t a-WW-Qyg.h,.$@n!,%+@ ;j;g%g%q%w -> %%%v Et y~~
~~h M t g;,~~
grar..h 16 NRC 24).' In addition, the Commission decided that it would later n ';g.f p s. w d.-- @;, #. W.;.5.e $:> M y~Wyt%y 4:c p fpp$%s offsite medical arrangements issue retained by the Licensing Board. Be-M.s. Xk g.,e A ..w y conduct an immediate effectiveness review of any future decision on the m 4 +. g' P%y.3 '.-qM q:g. w. gspg cause of an apparent disagreement between the Licensing Board and the W 9 y.A e NMS$e w. M,w.M@8.k, w.g.cc ;, Appeal Board regafding the scope of these arrangements required by 10 MMEMkNNE0k Jj.'h,M'M,n w kS M h C.F.R. ) 50.47(b)(12),2 in. Commission directed certification to it of if~/A~T,7_3Mi,p @%.u(h,:.;p, e.hMM@ m:. M d4Wj,.., two questions bearing on the proper rope. CLI 82-27,16 NRC 883 h w., w. a,. u w m..m..c. ; c. +e x.
~~t. l982).s~~
.m :p n M+h.w w.,. 8 4 % e,..s y, M it +'M,y,fg On April 4,1983, the Commission decided the certified questions and g w. w tyf M,Eld d M if 4 M. @d d 4 .f7 clarified the interpretation to be given 10 C.F.R. j 50.47(b)(12). h(W[Q@h@fh$YW/i@k$D$% N@DMNM8'h.O CLI-8310,17 NRC 528 (1983). Rather than decide the specific issues %:M.h reflected in the San Onofre record, the Commission gave generic guid-M.h&'4k.O*fMMd5 ance on the certified questions and directed the Licensing Board to take h'y%N any further action it deemed necessary to comply with its decision. After %g, WMWgD@ffe$dfg/fd,'$.sy lk hh! Yh@DT briefing by the parties and supplementation of the record pursuant to gfd
~~>Qb? @Ih;h I~~
~~I procedures agreed upon by the Board and parties, the Licensing Board Nhh.~~
h%f issued a Memorandum and Order on August 12,1983 (LBP 83-47,18 g)d M c;p. c m$ d@ % g %.;. %e. a%@u .t. dp%M NRC 228). That decision interpreted and applied the Commission's y%.v.wp m .L guidance.in CLI-83-10, and concluded that the requirements of 10 s&o M% h w,m.;m%m MPQ.M%.o%wls/N& Q,e. b M % Q+ g C.F.R. } 50.47(b)(12) are fully satisfied and that no further proceedings dd. a.pEiw > m%. m4N;;. or license conditions concerning med.ical services arrangements are by m m m ra w,c~ m p; M necessary. t-x,. w p y %p q.m,. a6E. g. av r-hl W.* g q % E N.j, dgf.W in accordance with CLI 82-14 and the provisinns of 10 C.F.R. r e Q M.,, w %, W + g q ~,y g f m. A d.. NSM6FH%$.,t W3E l 2.764(f), the Commission has reviewed the Licensing Board's August a n n .,,. q 12,1983 decision. We have concluded that the Licensing Board's resolu-1 Mp.8, 6 .'7MQ;kO.T*ffkYf bh tion of the issues related to applicants' compliance with 10 C.F.R.
~~f. @h M M [W M Q M W[$ d:j, M MTM.N h.~~
50.47(b)(12) regarding arrangements for medical services for members TQq. gg$p of the public in its decision does not present the type of safety problem N N @M $ h M $ M. h f(I/ff*jfs p@ h which would require the stay of the decision's effectiveness. Accordingly, that decision may go into effect without prejudice, f 5 M ', W Q 1l f k ' M. &[ h M >p @M q d. 9.lpihi R W WW. N&M f @ M %.i, M.h&S+ d*%& 3 V. $./' MI.G Q.pM *;;,M }tp(* h.* 5%nynet W+(d r& 3 cc t-J,$ h J W. ((. M M.;'. [S M S. W p$ @ Q i d y p, M 5'd ? & J K[ h. N NN@ g re. $ :d MsN M 5[f.}DY M'3;[.g.y$g& hh4.M]. The Commission's decision did nr,t authonse issuance or the requested rull-power licenses unta the I
M
.w 4 NRC stafr bnered the Commission on cenain urCDntested issues. The stafr bnered the Commission and c.. ,% sfy. ' %%8.OS[(I' h" : t on July 28.1982 the Commismon authonzed the stalt to issue a rull. power hcense ror Unit 2 with speci. .. t.i W ty ' gY:- b
~~t y,,MQ m~~
. ^* J.b T M ried conditions. This license was issued on september 7.1982. A tow-power hcense was issued ror Unit .h. P Q;*,*43 7 7 m jf pggy 4;.43.c.;'* 3 3 on November 15. 1932, and the stafr bnefed the Commiss on on rull power opercion on september (o.% 16.1983. This hcense was issued on sepiember 16.1983 after Commission authoruation. .,67@ * / Q6
~~R&_..i !?/%-(~~
~~.;7 ,j.. ' 2 The Appeal Board noted its disagreement with the poution taken by the Licensins Board in ,.16 pM 4; l(f,J"k;Iff.. 7 * > i.w b. U' <.,f, !, g; -h Mx.g.Mo;3. e.py.q/.g:.~~
~~g M ;g-W fa mg9 m.J. gg,,6 y'.~ n.~~
~~e i. ' c,; ' c 7.~~
~~s,.~~
~~r,, 4, vre q o e . r gr 3 f k? f , n.g.mnw.,h we,g.y.en,,,aga g z g.:.s.,em. g gx 3;. . %, _s _, y.... __ y;-~~
~~m. c.,~~
t q_. w. u _m m
s d s l<
g.
~~g. 9 ~y .u; .C.,. e ~:~~
q
~~...m . ~ 2 r ~. l e' x. Mg y,o.5,~~
~~V, +,w, ',~~
--_.y" s .g. however, to any subsequent appellate review by the Appeal Board and .c the Commission of the Licensing Board's resolution of these issues.* Uw.' ~W jf ^. Commissioner Roberts' separate views are attached. ,- q ~. ' ~m. It is so ORDERED. s,; ,m. For the Commission .W o. , ;w;. ,.:m:. c e .f ra g.I# r E.' *i \\ 5 r g S' 7 g g lyq. S.'. Mp;;.M,'y.QO'd@M $3.Neg 'm 6% Uohn C. Hon) f for SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission TNMdMNAM.,Gli l 4 ya p.,y%Q' k% ";Q > l' wy m, e
~~r. -.~~
~~NM ;GQ.y d~~
~~,' ~ !Q@fg% x'jpg7,- 2 $ sMGTQWe ( Dated at Washington, D.C., this 18th day of November 1983. .;,..x. .wg..,- F. <.?W.,.:: ;.s. e,,,,. .w. v j w'5*v. -~~
~~..rv~;.. : p*>-~~
N:4. QlfM;, r ,w 2 w .x 3a W G. W 'If W,'t; -M;R~ ;i ^ ki .~ ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ROBERTS ...w !. s N; d. N, W' W.b.,.m. 0... g Nb / Because the LicensinE Board and the Appeal Board in this proceedin8 M. V @ k
~~i had interpreted the requirements of 10 C.F.R. i 50.47(b)(12) different-e~~
.c ly, the Commission, with Commissioners Asselstine and Gilinsky .ky?. .h ^ %. Q *,3 M Q@M N T A ' ~ g.% dissenting provided generic guidance on the interpretation of those re- $3 ;M L En MFD. gjK ' quirements in CLI-83-10. Having provided such guidance in CLI 83-10, in this immediate effectiveness order we should have obviated disputes kng,O@%M.MQ Edi N$M$Y$N.' b ' ' based on differing interpretations of that guidance by informing the %i.%'M iQ.M@bi, Boards and the parties of the Commission majority's conclusion that the $.:$$N9M@$ Licensing Board has correctly interpreted our generic guidance. An ex-hM C Or tensive review of the record was not necessary to reach such a h M M W.i.Q:f 6 $Mkh.Nk@O,. - D Y conclusion. Only a reading of the Licensing Board's eight-page memo-idhdNMh@h@f;f t 'N' randum and order was required. I believe that in these circumstances in-l*. forming the Boards and the parties of the Commission majority's conclu-
~~6. W $@ b @. D E h~~
' # i [ E~ sion regarding the Licensing Board's interpretation of our generic guid-h% I$N. N S/M. '. M ance would have been appropriate, would have eliminated the need for b d...~. %.: M. g %a..-h e. further expenditure of time and effort to deal with disputes about the in-
~~s e~~
~~3 w e, u&.@,. v w v.w%m.,... ' terpretation of our guidance, and would not have violated either the 0;., m.wj $ i;%%llQW'Q R* %"*. Y'a '-- :x&q:s4 y+..~~
r. Va.;t.W.e

3. %j J.J.d ^%gM;QN@N[c@Q
+ysA p y' ..Lu Q ?".". (JJ 8 in AL AB-717.17 NRC 346 (1983L the Appeal Board afntmet subsect to certain license conditions, e.;* kP3.Q%g.jeffiM.Qj'.gq , s.. g. ~" rcy,N ' ~,2 the Licensms Board's decisions authormng the tssuance of fun. power operating liceftset for san onofre. ['[.,-jQ."(Wy ;. ;g;.,13pp%g$g g -. i .f O nets 2 and 3. This deunion addressed all issues raised on appeal encept the ofrsite medical arrangements g Q q. f .,,,4 T, - g. 7 scsue which was retamed by the Licensms Board and later occame the suhfect of the Commissaon review [. LW[.a (p :g 77M-g.-,.M+ s.y., j$ , '. N [. noted above. By order dated June 21.1983 (unpublished) the Commisuon declined to review .gg [- l AL AB 717.
~~a. -J.5~~
[pU .k .."$['C..9. _,.... '..: * < * # fg' Y k i' b* J..d ?"QO.%^ #Q ? "[&.Yf E ' b.i p. * ?;.1 M,- f. r#'n{Q %.}; M. m% ge g'. p' W .'- A. 1157 = we 7.r .K, s '*ay :..Q.4 :.., s W q.h $sl W ;;} b% % c 2 fz n' p 4 9 -
~~. - Q, s~~~
~~f .h~~
i:
-f~ T.l.' ~. d r cza. f.mSPqd!q@s gp?g.v-7M ;. &.J W w i .k:. . (a- &: <.. u @ :::U., W :ey: tw W c r ' n.=. y e a. g ; z g.y%-w.> j.4 %%n...y *,..,, f i is3 n y n i. e ~. m -.-.- r.7., w g ,.n v m y n. a,. - -c . a, m 3 n,.., _g wK A. c2 2 V 'M R.N M L.$ Cf.*r. w g,w@ p% g. 3.a.g-{w~~, M .e u w. - r .t J - U ," ?E j :.. 6 Kic... i . + ~ q 'a. A..,.4
~~n. 4 - v.~~
9't,.. ,. r,.s w -4,j ?id*. ,-r , 3., .e ' *1 y, ..s.). Q.si' j. _" ' -+ + er, . c c m.< %g g y,' c g . q q d. q.. %...'e.,, 4. g. a e v. 4: .s .u s t ) g 6 a :' y,. ~. n -. g,;. a 5 N 1, ,g 4 = ,a C ~. y_
$%W4 "%SkQ%m,,,=.p$7@febM,Mdri . me:ww.- ix u.IeyM' Y,hs dh W7dd.
~~u eMp $~~
~~ft:Qpi,,b( dQ-c ' E@ M M k %@ %., d t - J..nm M & n;W M D;g!.b.q q$py M.,[ L @i $m@,c,623 $ $ M,,2.w% H. fW in @ Lg @hlW Q E.f>vQF s :9.x 9Q4 ..b,. s.;%c Q~~
- fg..;G'.ffqp>;g.h.

h. m m&m.)m..~.:r G ; f Q, p;'c y Qg w
~~.y c w*. c r.y ..y asy ' C,q m.9 c'f 4 q :y ty& s n u f!7@Q&i%@EQhp$$67. 3 Id $h I $ %^, *: me i he m u j$ &;;,p,{;g& $ W i &Pv~~
~~$sur;g;nMQ:;p%R~~
.r 9,:n a. Mb lg thN .&H & M 6* * &t' h h letter or the spirit of our "immediate efTectiveness" procedures. The MB yu &. 4 n.' [+ h4q h +h I N ;. N 8 M" M d[ $ [d h Licensing Board's application of our generic guidance to the facts in this h proceeding would have remained to be dealt with by the Appeal Board hiYE,@fG4C?,J'h
~~AW:~~
~~in its review of the record. h. h, m. hk ' %m,y.+ h,b.._t,.$wf.':._@..._.%n.m*H IM m M pt 2 + m .5 y;?sp % fdy.Q.y u r.. D ef~~
~~t. :,'>M Q' gr~~
/ t< dr&Z>y ~ r@ ps y i?.4? N p S 4'; D; R. M Q g g ~ fijg. Q wemmsg w hh$ k @ M &a w? @ n's.g f.:- p.v'!, ~e5RdM, $fd$ n@4a n, 9 *3 .h.;g, g,y n ' w ,g; . n.g * - M(, ; w]w(* u. ;.y.., i,r t*Q:t < g' . 4..%=. b nr v c p h N h .q,4;L.. - yy . k 9 3 y w* 5gish f A WI b/.i,WyAw v"%.. 3 f 4 #..;w. c.M" M as i e 6 ge ,r Wih. h[h FE mk mu s A w) a w[ o. m&.p y.s.owp.). M m. mp hh? '8Mk ww ykh.s 4. _kh,hh.w?.%MMk,t.* R h.2
~~YWP,~~
,s .4 mi.?,pf %,y.P sJ&WW ,j[s W:i,.4.. +Cu?N+:(&'h 1& o %ds& Q G;is JE E': 4 W & We%n.. .,.n gM M' o n w'%ys.b),fjd. -.@* i ,g. 8 r ,f M % N $p;f i e.~ .c ag, +. 1 d b W ;.Fpn;/ w, M d n f WMW AMW.:.yn s t.w4a..A m..wm wr i..Mth.E-4 ~+. h N.M*4( %'w. a ibc 9m s%W%% d*qM'.g*h,*iw.i 40A ' q :n.w.2 A h
~~y >,~ M et rJ m:d m@: w.bk..e g; W p Q :%r Q M 4. y& M M':0M y%g pg k.W,5wy,$,$yh. $.,3 j $wG h~~
~~hW,kA.b5h w h. )2 7 ~ wn n.n .: y e. 4~.>.Q $;Q 3 % N f~~
~~K Qi 1,.~,W.~~
~~.k n. W % g _&a %$a >p i N 4 6 % r @% y;.1*M Q u m w,.E k w+ > dB.., w,. n g g$lb-e nw.W. h.m:w::.nym.mm.sy 5.* M e e 4~~
~~s*$, h.+; n?,n$NY'.N.N.f,.,'$l$n.~?~~
D .f, hN(le ^ $kf ' 9 J.W8 MiWwh,;a? ' i r.G9.M{'t,; 'c;D *.c l R T% MQ.q*t4?,,'JD$ ?QC#:M.; Q .'tY b- .w.m@..yw.m m. m..m.T% 'h*f.;pstQ: h'M F,, <*k M M*' 4/. N.*;e@ 8 , whr:* q'r. .h k4 Ird;/.hMjbhN.y,. n y; C.p;~;W
~~N/$q)D[~~
~~h 3. $w.Me&lw: ~m4w.WS$$M$MH $4T 1158 W &..n:n.n m-T % $9 C W M.,.,f.% % n ~.Mc~~
~~$,.k '~~
~~A. p s"h. 4 %[l,,f:~r. p &'4: &.v J rp, Qw'. &.(a ve .uy~~
.o
~~%-Yr .7 A' w n NehdC.h .(. .d W h. W ol Y.i f Wl M~~
~~%"[* s w ? p;.; W Y, " p. %. W ly.S) Q< J ;=..n,~~
~~,p a;. g; p-.,,, y,%. s; m },l ml & h &. D'. R ~' u, W Q,L 2 % - Q %. $ .c.. W %.W,p.> ,,. ~$yp!j? f.;H;n.,.N.m.. &,.Wk'l.. %.fy Q ;~~
~~?.R ggd~~
~~,.a., _. n n.,.y.,- m.,, n e m. D*?.;:W i,:. *i Q Q.f .N.. in. Bk e.1.Q,,M,&.n.. l w.w . w.< nw. Q-w w:pg..,. . w'?A. 9m,m* m.f.1 ..# - f 'm.. y. a., n. <; s.~ %g,n;Q. g,; '.,% w -f, f.'s. ,y. i,~~
~~k is e.~~
~~? su v (m+M ihfi.?%,em y$w.;.h,.m.. M yMw M"'D$r@w {m$,M; +,.(, *.. . o~~
~~h a.~~
t E> ~Y s s s n /C s _ ~ et * .N /e e. Q.. f.t + m.fi. 4, e f 1r.[; "g,.., w ..' v.... g p.y vg ?Q - . 'f%,s j.. q o. ~%. :.%Q. 4.~Q: % M'g. T a... %.+. y ?.4 x% 94.f,,Q Mpfnf 'yp*..N 6Q I j u- ... Rpp.C [Y-**Mhh*/D$,w.?g.. q s <..f. .g ,N N., y .:r u :. y ~g .w-8 'pua v$;t w T.e.m.+e , d., v e ~ .,~.n ~y. w n.:u. w;W~..* 7 k 5 m,. v. - u,/ , n'..$y..f.m,n &. m. -s n.nn.-w m a.r,, , n,, n: x. 2 m., q a.g,gy~g,q y. 9_a, k.,q,z. f.a.g g_g v,gge%,. p:_,,\\s.n.~ y p.sy n;.,m.,c... :._.q s,__ y a* w. q <ep t;p z<.,*,. s.D }_q l sj gy yn.v.f e,,tsn..& ..y* .u e g AR&. q Ar- ~ { '.;. w.. 9 3,, _,m ...p. ~,. w _y -v
s . w. 3se , %. a.3 c4 s
~~ys.:~~
~~. s~~
L<
~~7 o _.x. f ', y. Nq ..w .m t s I.. n. J w m ,,,s.u.'.: e.w u.~~
~~._. v. n.~~
s
*+
~~v .I -, -P -=s. ~s. n Cite as 18 NRC 1159 (1983) CLl 83 29 1 ' s.6. '.,7 ' ' - u. t r., Li n~~
i?
7, -- y, c-r [- ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i r s.,,,.,. - g._ - y a n COMMISSIONERS: g L V..m fu. 16... d.p. ~- w a,.m,.. Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman a 4 D @A* d M i. P i ' '=-c 'd $- A. *.,., Victor Gilinsky 04i %? - Lja;.?p??py.ss,. a" . /. '. -
s
..s.W W. W.- A. - "v.. Thomas M. Roberts .~ w e,.W W Q ;2,/v,:+.U.3. c. James K. Asselstine 76 :. ,T'-t, 6 w .c. n Frederick M. Bernthal =t ( b,:.*;h 'W a.1 '. ,.,p.y y ys .e vw.s..., g.. e yr .;~ w.+., 2 9,., u, d,9o c. J' a.'^ 1 @.? M. Docket No. 50 266-OLA 2 In the Matter of v.; ~ 4. k '. Ldyc 4
~~dim ~~~
h.Y._; '..a WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER .~ m.N>w<r. W. _ h s, s.. e.. COMPANY .v , Jr..-., 9.,. t (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, c 5 November 22,1983 @ './ l. gps ;. y.x .t Unit 1) m,y..k:~ -s u p%g: - Jy(% e y O. j* W ",,' ....m...'" .
~~C, !..:. ;S f.~~
gm q a..m. .. e. ORDER m.x.,m. n... e.. m*.. q,. . s, -Cz.:. 3..- '..,...g- .., w s. W.,W. M..r s,;W - y.h,!,.W ,.u..u. +y.T.9 w 'u .~ Intervenor Wisconsin's Environmental Decade has petitioned for t W %S.n. i M <. d2 ' 'M ,i. Commission review of the Appeal Board decision ALAB-719,17 NRC fM0MlNl'N. $[u.A h. 4 -.. ;; ff.f~ 387 (1983). The time for the Commission to act on the petition, as M.y.M.,Mi-7...'lg g '.1.' 7 . 2 extended, has expired and the petition is therefore deemed denied 1 under 10 C.F.R. { ' 786(b)(5). w,,e h ~.& a .c s N'.,. 2 ";;.'L,. y - h,;.wA[g[.w@Nkh.h. [.' / . ~; ;... .. w p/: - ~ 9-nm~~ me,,, k s.m. v..on. e. m. j+ so - .vv
~~a. ww n.r - e.~~
~~f.' r'. -ja .\\ x' ??fn :C W'f & :.'.".. S-~.- ~., . 3 -~ W n;Wein- ^ t , i.- c.% -f r@am* +4 +.. s t 3 .u. . m,. y y l._1 ' > ?'C ', M W eq. -..v.~~
~~4.. :in. x'. n~~
~~+ Cm,m.:y. .e p - .w:., ,3 p w ',g m?-.*'W. i .,.a, .r -.7 -..:i.d,;w-w-: . "mx. u L,.n.,,% M3 * - .s ,w e. . a w, m g& t.6MM. - t~n w. ~ ~ p y.. :c,,&.. f M.,s:~~
~~n.. '~~
~~.r p. . ye gyps w, erd u,%.. e -. u.t. .-m..,.- +q y. g,, .w _;. ~. vs ~ [.. e n v.~. A. - o m. - <f: , :.- -;cmm..N<Q R n e ;-,.~~
~~es yA. 1. W.-m, m.,. s~~
~~.fe ,., - Tw m,,- 1159 1 - :: V %-r~~
~~v. s s~~
~~l F ).N f *.,.~~
e' 5, j, y D g ~ m? <.. Y * $.': i ** *Y. T. Na T*Uo,,,N. q; V N 7;.% > n ,j s '. ~ m ,, m ( , t. ,. a v 3.h,..,.. p, p. ; - - w - r i -^,, (.%.9.p:,:)..q.,q .-l $ ~ @,.k/@ M $p.. @ '.. :Vj d(.' ^ *; ';,Q - N. ' *,*. - .l ..,w.p,.g . v, _.. g. e. ? e. v;a e. y y:, .y ~ ~..,..... .~.a,.,-.,,..,..+e ';f: -.~
~~~ ' '.{.~~
~~gj,2~~
~~I t-J~&-~~
~~a ;;4.";..*J 3 0. K:(a-:i:rq- @y s:> %;.M,' Jj $* e.* P,0., h. _., N 1 ^ '. Q < ' _. &t '~~
s vy w e v-

-+ -
~~., 4 ;. s." 3 ', 5. E~~
--v*
~~.j[,",$l M., [-b* - e '..- e. .. ~ s~~
~~6 e'&%~~
~~e . u o ? _**m Q ^ N *) -f k A m: ( . A-3 c. s *,. ,, - r.<, - 'O-_ V, A'k ' n,e t-i ce 4 ,.n e 3,-_ u.'a,.,- )ya .c~~
~~m s~~
~~,. r. c.,.,% *s, -c. ; A.. - J u. 4.- v -s g p a ~~~
~~_y__,~~
g .as.. ~-
~... ;< && %.wn%ww:M.O * ~ =." ' " M M g& ' h hh k h .I hI' f E f-l l '.fhffhE ,hlN fh f 2 4 S h WEA?f5?-. N " . - ' ' h'2;NN$$.mm&n.mgWKW WM WM %'.d m. u m%,., n e4 M WW ~ ' ~ ~WA gp-n. JaMf',9Qppig4n M 4 bh w W, *W,. MN
~~WM %%m e MM%Mtud %umW "~ e Ne d~~
~~v~a y n-~~
~ -W kkrighE!kW0N?k ' LA%& b e g& w g$@x n$m e u s y 4 8dal[Qgq:;. &v.va g s: An.p.n,fV f WW 4 G a, y:.fny.;;f%p&,wp.y - e.= n a m A g g gex;pvy W,y # ih M Y hih N M.S.C W 2g M pJM Q % The dissenting views of Commissioners Asselstine and Gilinsky are % W' p ? Q.' Q@@ N Y %c y>h M h a? Mg w & p @ attached.' yPW{t &. dhhM ' 4p gr%y q.g p M, .N3g For the Commission w wm.hh.M 4 gww I ff hb h f MN.D.m 4Wr.5dN!.M 1pq{$: *, mm w ? SAMUEL J. CHILK [ 9 @p 9.. ~. Q,.. c., g. A f &; [.X W.MMif @e%.ny(M,.p.t . p WN.-
~~a.,~~
Secretary of the Commission , c'W u r .O!W 3wA .s Dated at Washington, D.C., s&q.w[ ? nen., a,QQtq}Qq'%ga _,,.]p, ",i . m :ynw f , @m ~Q : .g r,e m ps.V ee.a... m SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE m%m.@v.w.@m, w.M;9@gsqa m .w
~~w..~~
m. .g.3 5 Mft WWW Q $ M %*2@,5$ @m% t 4 f The Commission's decision not to review ALAB-719 is unfortunate [W 4@.m WM.W MAMieg Jg. g.i.Zd M.. OM P4 because it allows two decisions of dubious legality to stand. The Com-p mm g! mission,s policy on the use of sanctions specifically reserves dismissal gN:: g? from the proceeding for the most severe cases of offensive conduct. The hh Niph.. '('VW (qg h$$.f.g conduct of the intervenor in this case, Wisconsin s Environmental .+, ~ h h p4+ h Decade (Decade), clearly did not meet that standard. The Licensing h('i,0MMEhk$q. MS Aj Board abused its discretion in dismissing Decade from the proceeding, $lydJ W M $ gig g$kft @ M;W@ and the Appeal Board should have reversed the Licensing Board s M@Ps 9?$$fg!pf@%.mN.sQ. N@v..+@ff $$3.hgyt decision. The Commission should take review to correct these errors. 4 hME A Licensing Board has broad discretion in using sanctions to manage ~. Qd.w$gdM,cd,,S [~ Mh$k" jNN. N. .S. the conduct of a proceeding. That discretion is not unlimited, however, W:; s 4 n m kNDpy and the Commission has provided the following guidance to the Boards M h..$+M f k $ on the application of sanctions:
~~eJ h.e Jbhbfk. %g.,s"N*[oh9NN@4 in selecting a sanction, boards should consider the relative importance of the unmet p.s~~

7[hh,D.WWMMQW..;dp% obligation, its potential for harm to other parties or the orderly conduct of the M w @M M MnMEfFpn arac =* dias. -nether 't= accurreac= i= =a '=ai=ted 'acideat or = aari ar = a=ttera at %:T Q st M D D h'r m g p y @ Qh party, and all of the circumstances. Boards should attempt to tailor sanctions to miti-M.ki dah httpy behavior, the importance of the safety or environmental concerns raised by the N h h.M".4Q~aYvfys %y,$,@WQA W5 c w %qh..., m w.. hE'JhthMN /g gate the harm caused by the failure of a party to fulfillits obligations and bring dy. g 6 about improved future compliance. V 9
~~.y.;.., p~~
~~..g --.s s 4. &c. A% s ( S % 45) A *f( @ $ [*.d % p f Mf%.*g #. h ~h V, .x..&*. e . p y 9 .g., ,;d.w .. - {.M;n.Q.aN G e'.94 * (. d. >@tf ' J~~
~~Although dissents from a demal of review may set forth strongly held views of a Commissioner. they V~~
~~N [Q. y,[y.N. k,". 3 W are or no legal sismficance. sd.V ' p d;h.y g., 9 d @ g@ g@ b) In addinon. these dissents are potennally misleading. Because the Commission masonty provides no 'd ig c yM p:pp,.~~
~~on the record" explanation of the reasons for not accepung review. the dissenter's arguments in favor Q'Gt~~
. ATN./fl dpWi.;?7 .Q $ = 3,,,% M.I ~ y s 9.*Q[@-i.hgj'Q.3] of Commission review are not answered. Dissents onen do not set forth reasons for denyms review and p therefore an mcomplete record of the Commission's decissonal process is provided.
~~..e. ' w w m& f Q~~
~~? Y.w% w. m W:l'mk QQK& -g f:1.: . j g },e [ ' r,'; Qp;3,;Q.d4.m, +3 4h.ww.J; 11 w f.;.om. ., m..w.m y., t.,. , g%,.~~
~~5 e~~
gr ,, s. v.< c.-.. $ h,... ; - .s f*, lt ,y ?, . y..o.n.4M3 .l ,. z..' - Q l e p M y..,'j w.:.HQ.(x r O "',r,;Q.i?M, N.Y.l.,T.+.M eQ<;T 7.N.,M,S [* I. \\ ~ i Y', r ' ..,4. , ' w, ' - . y q, -J W, C s v v,r-a w. r 1> - /.n : 3 J.sy.,.;,.; g. y,m.x. a.., m, g,,,,, am u.'y =~ o ,.w,, 9 , v.. ; r s.c
~~/A.J C.; n';ifj;W' g.u:e".s;- ge.~~
~~3 ;, p sp.c 3 3 m.- *. pys p.ny,p ,. ; Q% P i :".. ((y(a - - g.c,m g;,,y s ,:: q u.gp m n.~~
~~4u j~~
,,.. - :e,N.4...,'M4[.ag4.'fWi.hig[ff![$f]' N,.ej i f4 : I A ' 4 ;[ I,[F' { mw - - w a#,m._ a.m.m._.mm m ~w%w e m_u m m-m m
L; g .j.g, s 7 + ~ ~ i, g >w-t. .n: O i Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13 ('; 'n ,- u NRC 452,454 (1981) (46 Fed. Reg. 28,533 (1981)). J,.,. After balancing all of these factors, the Board must then choose from V the spectrum of sanctions available to it. Dismissal from the proceeding is limited to only the most severe cases of misconduct. /d. [' 4 Decade's conduct in this proceeding was willful and merited some l i sanction. flowever, it did not, as the Licensing Board concluded, merit '.,i the ultimate sanction of dismissal. In affirming the Licensing Board F, .j.1 s decision, the Appeal Board reasoned that since there was no other con-M.c,.. '
~~f. f f ;. _ ' - ' ~~~
hh,a%.A2 M h ','.- $, it,. veniently available sanction listed in the Commission's policy g .Q p '" T-g @f,li[j';' l' ;g.; C statement, and since Decade's conduct was willful, the Licensing Board had no choice but to dismiss Decade from the proceeding. This reason-M4,, _ E# ' " ~~~ .fy ; w.. -
~~k. %~~
A : m 4 ",N F.* l, ing is fallacious, and such an approach to the imposition of sanctions is '~. -4 clearly not in accord with the Commission's policy statement or Com-Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAD-678,15 NRC 1400 (1982); Public Service j,. ?9 mission precedent. See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power fs .4 ,1 f' ~. Co. o/New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-488,8 NRC 187 (1978); CLI-81-8,13 NRC at 454 (46 Fed. Reg. 28,533), i s d; [ - ~' ~ ~ } .pra. l A balancing of the factors in the Commission's policy statement s. ] demonstrates clearly that dismissal was inappropriate and constituted an R.' y@.g .<,c _,g ~ 3;. abuse of discretion by the Licensing Board. Attendance at the Special t 't Prehearing Conference was an important obligation not lightly to be ig-noted by Decade, and Decade's failure to appear at the scheduled con-i 'E hu .P WJ y (f ^ - ' .y f ference hindered the orderly conduct of the proceeding. flowever, the g(? j D ? Licensing Board's analysis of the potential for harm to the other parties 0%ay / y ' d>'k -'4 h;@kYJ', ',., %m. Q.W ~ < %~ is questionable. The only party seriously harmed by Decade's failure to 4 A.. s Q: p. ^ appear was Decade. The fact that there was no one representing Decade g;t.
~~3 g.g) s M4 p"fy [ h,',~~
1 to support its contentions can hardly be considered harmful to the NRC 2 -,e-~' A.' staff or the licensee. Any potential harm from being unable to negotiate M. + v s -', ';,s 'V,/ ' _c ~~ with Decade - for example, to narrow contentions - is minor at best. 4 e*,... N . ~. With regard to the third factor, Decade's failure to appear was not a n.;m 3 - g s c 7~ part of a pattern of misconduct. Although the Licensing Board noted Q V f - R, e.. Q C 4 - Lh.A %.W &.. I 4 Ws. qy".Su i, '; - one other instance in which Decade had failed to appear in an NRC K r W.gA.c 3^.2.p.
~~5..,.'~~
proceeding, the Board concluded that Decade's nonappearance at the Special Prehearing Conference "was not a part of a pattern of disregard % Q ip. C ,* for this Board or the Commission." LBP-82-108,16 NRC 1811,1815 T' A... s is M '. ' 'W ' (1982). The Licensing Board also found Decade to be "a cooperative .; j. ; p,4@. 9%l.Mw ;; WJ... - ,,p Q ~ party that has not engaged in objectionable tactics." /d. '~ 1 M. '- ' i - Y ' ' In weighing the fourth factor in the policy statement, the importance FJ7. of the safety or environmental concerns raised by the party, both the h t [' Q[** M2h [MD' Licensing Board and the Appeal Board found that there was no basis for %g.,,. %j,, t. .,';7 fy-Decade's contentions. Both Boards concluded, therefore, that there was
~~v. T..~~
~~. :, e * % X., U,p: s ., y . ;g s v. } Y~~
~~p. ) :.l ' Q- %l ' 4.W,l^.~~
~~' O*; '^l ,, ?. Yl pMi '.. ' Ol' 2 1161 i, W - .E .'.- Q * 't-m e1 , 1*r..~~
l V_j."rk

- - - :: ' L ll.. -
L' .l t f h ' \\ j -&T ' ? ?S$.l: ? 4'. M. ' ~h;? ./.Q.;-. : .,vb O. ,g fWso g cp,_' : f?? 6 j ,;,j.7 j. 4 s y ....-g ..,7.y..-.,,, . p s g.g.6 g. 4., m: < n s w.. :. -,.. <. s;um. mg,q, ep; W ;'-lf.. l,,@
~~5..~~
~~' JJ.Y,j.< ;p(# ;. -P - -+"g. p p j g y,%;-. m, 7, y.i ;, ' ' > g,g,_.'*:. r' 7 6 -Q ;-Q;w,i ., q;44 c + r. R.j.:,;g,, M -: 1 ^& W, W. n ~ 'f ,/r. a. '.,. a m, c x-a ~ 9,[.Y U [* _.g~~
[
g
{
~~41 .3 ; [ = . ~ '~~
q:
_e
c c e r.../ ;.Mw.ww.mm w.m, - e. k A ~ lQfh-mr g^6; 1, 6 J & i gg g, no safety or environmental significance to Decade's concerns and -x r weighed that factor against Decade. However, both Boards then proceed-b Mh, y ^ ,d ed to ask the staff and licensee to supplement the record on issues which h['hfehM*A$#Pe@h *.. were in substance the same as those raised in Decade's contentions 3(a)
~~/.dM and 3(b). Since the Boards thought the substance of contentions 3(a)~~
."r? W.g* "i '~ and 3(b) required further inquiry, the Boards in effect supplied a basis gdh$st.pbM,,gf d Mit.y for those contentions, and the contentions should have been admitted. gg. h.a Thus, the Boards acknowledged that the points raised by Decade were yM@gk .4 h 'Dg,p.r- )' W ~% worth pursuing. Yet, they denied Decade the opportunity to participate because its points were not well founded. Clearly, the Boards should j have weighed this factor in favor of the intervenor. Furthermore, the al-vA' N6 .v f g v8 s 'c f ternative ground cited by the Boards for dismissal - the absence of well-hkf founded contentions - is, by the same token, insufficient. ip%TM DhM O p$ M % hfh} M @ h Ak :.t % A W M % e i. ? e Finally, in examining the totality of the circumstances, I believe that n CI we must consider the conduct of the Licensing Board itself. The Board @[N d @$ @$ PNMMM%jN ' ~ k refused to hold the conference at a time which would accommodate 8 n kkh h Decade's last minute scheduling problem even though all of the other .\\ P % M
~~p,'".y.[~~
parties agreed to a scheduling change. The only apparent reason for the h W Board's refusal was its desire to put the conference off until the next 7tY f M.p y a gby. %~'y morning when everyone would be " fresh of mind" after a good night's v n Myggj 7 N M. & p$ @. g. W rest. While Decade s representative might have better explamed the Mg" scheduling problem to the Board, the Board's handling of the situation hhN(f c j and unwillingness to meet for a few hours after dinner was not a model h - gg K of reasonable behavior and clearly contributed to Decade's failure to h j%@{g W appear.Tr. 1881-83. The blame cannot, therefore, rest solely on Decade. _, oJ@Wf6q% 7% kI?y 'd,E[Dfh Sh Under all the circumstances, dismissal of Decade was an abuse of O discretion, and was clearly a departure from Commission precedent. See %@$5&bbM?f;M6M7kjM $?h N Q i Byron and Seabrook, supra. In both the Byron and Seabrook cases, the h yg %gl dQQq conduct of the sanctioned parties was egregious, and much more ob- &ig(f /3IM8 structive than Decade's. Yet, they were not dismissed from the SN$Jh.#(EWM/h 'M M@$ Wi.gyA M proceeding. dDM> J d h.h;..[f'Nk. kdh /, DhJh A further departure from precedent is the Licensing Board's sua YhG., fp sponte dismissal of Decade from the proceeding No board has, sua sponte and w,thout notice or opportunity for argument, dismissed a b -WW 6'.M4w 4: i 6 Mh.e.w@g
~~b N.~~
~~party from a Commission proceeding, except in cases where the interve-~~
~~3. b f~~
m%e g nor has failed to appear at several hearings or failed to file several papers MMM W - -7 ? Q((M h dbb.;r p@ %@ h[%M7 g.4 For the foregoing reasons, I believe that the Licensing Board and lid O so as to suggest that the intervenor had abandoned its contentions. W W ti W M.dh h ik j[MihhQf.$ Appeal Board decisions misapplied the Commission's policy statement, g incorrectly dismissed the contentions, and departed significantly from ]G 4.W W O R M-vQ.:f.K~f y y g f6? M.4:pc N ip.M.r,N Commission precedent. The Commission should not permit these deci-
~~.% a,.., uQd& W.P.mmam~~
~~, m.; W...y -m% ygM4n@x.... W sions to stand. G: y.mr. gq.qy ae~~
~~v 4~~
n m+ n n. . v.p y ;,wu,, g;@np : WMgYrga,, w*.',.M..,c@.. ~4,p m; Q -.my N t M M w w M p% g y$th fysm x l $- M'OQ: ..pi 4 n M. m pdWMMWB@w@@ .wwwom ge .c l_l i.e j @ - g g g% g. g g;3.. Q.h M M W i M@ @%le 'I s gmmm 3bwwems$$m $m$$m.my m a m m s w e m w n w n n w e 4 g w. m m. w M Q: mg M Qu MM i -n n.
~~n..~~
msawmm n g m.. p ~ g~ g-g m a, gn a n m;s m., g g+. g g g>y ~ gg gg me a , a. 9
J 2 u. .a.'. ar.w~ y, s . ~ ~~ SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER GILINSKY ~ I T =._, t 1 agree with the views of Commissioner Asselstme. Y - Y <a
~~v. e e...~~
~~-. 3 ,.' s,. r e. .A,,.* r .. : u, w 3, . s 2.... s,- -. *. i.. - -. m......3, ..wm~~
~~y..-.... _...m.~~
~~-.1 -.wy,, .,t.~~
m,
~~..,,e,~,',q' - -.\\. ~ s s ,a_.. +.. ~ + e ~ b, . + o. .s .a 1.. 3 s 1, I ( s c- -s g. Y^ x' *. -:. i* a. -G... O + - ;p; v-~~
~~. e s~~
~~_.,,m, . +,...u.-- c,..., y. .~ e ,b. . x.., c.~~
~~e.,, a.,~~
~~. ~ -~~
~~s.. ' '.; :..'.~~
~~r '. y .,d-. m,~ y;, tt .r,r;m., : u- , m e :.-, 1 s.. -. g. r.... ,,c,.-t*. > i =t .s -.4,.,.,x,.a.. [. -,,. L..q q.,..., -;. },~~
~~+,2.<.~~
~~yp..m_ .s y...xy. '. ~,_ o. J- -, -( -~~
~~g c.~~
~~. e.,: ,,,. x.y..-(u ,,;, y~~
~~i..~~
~~r. . wc,,.. '..,m.- 4 j g.,I .n, ..,.s'.-(c q. 4e. * * - -,..;:.g'. t3-#m,c.~~
~~..r,~~
~~.t s. .f , y. y n, ;v ;,. . ~...,.. ;' 4~~
~~x.;;sg# '--~~
y. :. 0, ( m,; w ~.v,n, w,, ~. y,- y e c. y'. (., 1 L#^' ... 'N, f,7., ,u...,,.u.' , 7. ;. m t u s...,, c h. .p:.> M, e "L< p; i bf k 7-s . ' W.$ . - -,. g .,_,7,..S -,.m.x < - ?~.a :...c...,.. v%g. 1163 .d^ 'g"- } 7 q'j ,.,,,'m,*.- 6 * '8 _t.. - 4. -4
~~e..~~
~~S' ep e~~
~~p..~~
~~r>-.. 5~~
~~s =~~
~~. g y ~" i .v-v I f; ' - g. 4 s~~
k*
~~.N. ,c-- - y *.. ;. s f:. .~ -, gn,.,, c. I? e ,. 9: y.'9 ph,,;,h.,.w. g~~
~~. r,~~
~~,-.-y.a..--.-.,..-.., .y ~ s s. 1, ....,q ',,y_,,-,. 4 ws::f;}e;;g ;. .J 4 g. u~~
~~.,a,n,-,.y-,~..y.,,_.._#.~7 3.,,.9 y~~
~~....p.:y:v y, y,,3 y V.J %, ;., s ye., 8 .a- _h 'j,* k g'. ..,,,7.- 1. ,t~~
~~y_ j. W~~
_ "(-l, 4 'b .< bl ; 3, b.. .r e'- 2 s . -, i. ; y 4... : + 4 e _ n n b ,e.y D> ,S.- '.#[ 'g. 4 2 f 4 - ~.w., M 9 g 3 g .' ~ - - 5 ,2 .. m.- w ,,,p. s m . p,
r-- ,,. 7 m c w - w 7.~. .1 ,... m _.m ? - ~ 5 N 2..,.N., fWE,W'W5&. W;W$g
~~QQ5 2.a%.n. &..$Q&s,..e~~
~~&,p r;b, % h $.tR W.a %yh. Yy.Ua- .% ~ ~xp,v,.ahm.&,..m.'%y,, :&.,.[.T.. t.$u..&;ww %+.. z~~
~~yy.& g-s q. 4 4 %,.4e.w. &,.~~
t r%..:.- w ,m a w s .gQ4,g y yga?.:.s 4, % %g&;gspl%.m.%. . -e 3 . d 15., smp w g 4.%gTogArg.f;;3 .C h a.m n w p~ w.w Wj w.sx:g,;q w e W;n ";.- .Ly M D,e$ @Q g& n ,! q d.f. g '@ . Mgy er:m;p o wq( f,g %w: f
+
m %~wp* y &,Wq;:-ww QM G .s.9 W $ $ ? W k l h'y.W M M 4 dy.%;t g j W M. s MsM "W'p# h "w:h M;+W6n,.s.M.qm%g443 &qu.u*W%ydO N ;.O R n4 pew <. 4. s n,.gs.%. q ~.; p. g mQt w . x. . v 7 fh,Mikf.pWW Ap $hh 7.gWU$fWr gN w4.7., h.. %.sw.m.w,e.e,. em.3.e 4
~~.. g m,r.S S b.3, g-W y',.g '* '3' r[r,s.R*p.g 7,<~~
~~A,An >. :. A %. y q, & cM4 ; t e* ~~~
~~v... r wa~~
' Q,WSw#g,;;['kd@dQOf%. AffM% WWf.#pTW. Cite as 18 NRC 1164 (1983) CLI 83-30 4 A"N:k. e Se.d.dd [m%y&wr&gw.m&* f': y jf&l?gW~&gQ) p.s. c &= dfC g? 4Mhg n. D:+ h.g#a e s&y ACw. W M.M ":p.i. W %: %.xi,f./ W f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA qe .JWO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m 4% f.* m
~~w w. m.w~~
.'ty*A@q @w@6@m&w.WSQ;# h un gWuMM n. .gh L M',p.19 4 .qq.q. s 3 k COMMISSIONERS: $ '.N A .A aw!.w&.&.w;ma.CNbi Yh%YiQyN,d m e 3.5 6/D b Y h'3% g% Ci+$ g?5 % Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman k hhh ff h0Dfb Victor Gilinsky L.h h. f:Y.;f NNN'h~k$ y % e t@g%j~ g" Q,heh & & d y re.@ Y Thomas M. Roberts 'i$1% MdddDMQ pg$fa James K. Asselstine .; @,%%hghgR $lcM i Frederick M. Bernthal ,. ~g %w.4mn 'w..%as%. %;,wg"% pm&
~~v. 29~~
~~.~s. w;bppmMzp~gd;L: 4 %.f.mqpfg w vs ,.: e,m uu. p.e S N h,g h,;nd w w. % y.M d M.p' M 7' N h a h,;N ;h N ~ N%. MD,y. em 77 in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-445~~
~~l 50-446 hjygg$f b I~~
Q TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ' Nf[*DNNj.,Ngy/ N @ g M M M.M W -f Whk.G COMPANY, et al. N bh hh. kNj (Comanche Peak Steam Electric . h G-j Q 4 % hlQ'k N5?h $hE gJA dfiP.M Station, Units 1 and 2) November 29,1983 d ?'0'.5 $ 'h h h $f..c l-p.h; gw.w; sea.M.f.e.,.%,pm.@M
~~p. t e.~~
MNg dM. N5MN.p. %s ;,. 9..+ryM. MOD /.;D The Commission dismisses for mootness its grant of review of s .gt, yggs-f%. gv. .T t.. ~.y.. =' W- ., % e $m?. fC. w..,- 4.., w M.< -.dMa,T.,e h M MphWfs ALAB-714.17 NRC 86 (1983), and vacates ALAB-714 and a'l underly-n f.d@.b.,MW, d.,#cFu-N W M rt S I gm c..c~~ u x m v mg Licensing Board orders and decisions ordering the staff ta disclose Nt k 'd >+J. MW "WN:gNMTNaWhDb'ly investigation. +6 4 m s ,m...a%.m..;.M.4; e,. y,sp.pe.r.%..<m.u.x,o<, mA 3m .g-p m,m,p, n?&., v n@ y pl;Mi M a.q.,(AG'Way k.",w'b.t &2
~~s: ufw k 1.$m.~~
eA OMe -Q CWA i u mu ORDER @A. W w; @ h o. 6 g p & g,9;,,M t: M ' w.%Mt Mid Agapy k hk .,kh h4*E This Order concludes the Commission's review of the Atomic Safety ,9 $. Z..-. w+ @r_. W.. k,p %. M, g.); W. @.- h.. Wh and Licensing Appeal Board's (" Appeal Board") decision in ALAB-714, . o. - ,m.m., g. ;., ~Ya.n.P.%M, 17 NRC 86 (1983). The Appeal Board's decision had left standing an (.a..."y, M. s .y.y %, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") order e ,,a+ % 7;Ff.M]Q .,, T.], j iy ? n ;'" (LBP 82 87,16 NRC 1195) requiring the NRC staff to disclose the " ~$'~; '. W identities of individuals interviewed in the course of an investigation $[p. / J. 5 ;- .~ # w mN T pr. ~ '.$. ey...} into the discharge of Charles A. Atchison as a Quality Control Inspector <f .-.as -~ .. s /. +%* m .*is =.s . 7; ' .. %:4 s, %_f q'$} m"? '.h&l'A
~~l ;. N Y... ~ (a[ W~e~~
~~.n.. s e. .m v-Q [*,,4% j ';' ' Ng ',. ] 2 ..[ yy s -.w: M, y W>,6id:pv;;y.yy; a.A n 4 11o,4~~
J.

W fM$;. gy'N%v'*&$: !
~~,4 m v. ye h6;d L) y ~.&'.%*):' N, ??N...b:: y..yhl~,$ &. 8 ..me +~~
~~m. 7.~~
a t '. ? *
~~ll.'.*,%.;.a. b N.~~
~~-:~.,.af.g,,,- f J.* c,. ( - - V'8 t %. ~4 n [( [ g_,* Q T.-\\ f~~
~~f; Y~~
I.
~~p.,#~~
~~g ';ft E; N. hE~~
~~., ;,s 7 a y,1 ] y D4 e.%. s. *. g'~d ",.['.i. ' g-d . s. t %.; .,-m..~ T s.,', .... - g[ ~~~
I
~ - - - -("O.;.,e e b g Y ^, _ ' --~vw~.~r.~-----,-~mwr-1-,--.... --,,- -m m, q~k U +.\\ *[ Y[.d=h." [.: '((,m "(, n.a: p. ,s. ' kI q(?" ., Af- ),', - VI f- #,y. Q4 y.i ;..g...n. ~ ; um ~. '*k-3..+;.u; :.;;n;m. ?.
h
~~. -'} w *13-q,%,..u.y:.z,.4gf, n+, e;. n... ..g ;. 9..~~
~~7. m m.... m s. e..g g q.,~~
~~,m y: y~~
~~m s~~
~~, f,1 p;yS.x'.9 4<,~~
+
~~p .. mv.p., 7:, >W > c y,,.. s y, : Q - .~ +.. . %Q~~
~~u n g. i.l-&~~
~~. c... '. c - - ;v q..,p. , c -;;;,q..". 3. %.#~~
~~:, a u,_3..,:;;q. r s &~~
~~,.Q.. 9 e.g$w$.:'-_~e% q r.g c. y - p: y z r ; a c c....~~
~~2 s-i~~
~~W b; &w;,v &,q* y.~;~.~~
v s %w;&.y.p.:.A a ;..;m.~x, h w.' f.:8_, s f=,. L ' w ~. n. 4 . - t;?'o.. : N. c .O ~ ..y x e.,4.'. "' :: *,'. q'.; J ~, 3T, - -o wu .;y'- r N ' ".~. y.:. % < f. w}l%.,,, :.?.,m,r...:w n '?Jm.m. q 'y 9, %..y n;f %;a u;.g Q. M,)> .s.. %.'. i.e w - w ' ?
~~i..~~
f W.T. qh k s.:..,. m.. n. n (;. ;. m ..u ..y f t
.'{.., [ ,~, s s ^._ r ,.c. 3 -c. + x. e-6 x n..:. m,. m . - e. -s 7_ c. ... ~ . y n ..m; A m. for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. On June 30,1983 the .l . ',. ~. _. , VJ " f <. ;"*, Commission took review of ALAB-714 in view of the exceptional policy 1;
f
( i activities. CLI-83-18,17 NRC 1037 (1983). However, the Commission T importance of informant confidentiality in the Commission's regulatory I-4 deferred specifying the issues for review on the ground that they could t.-
f
.r be defined more appropriately either after the conclusion of a pending generic review of informant confidentiality issues or the occurrence of .m O ,..,O.,. circumstances warranting ditTerent Commission action. The Commission 6;[b;7 4 FG.Q:4 v W " P 5,..;; also asked the Licensing Board to advise the Commission whether fur-OM:' ther proceedings would involve the identification of NRC staff I N.M [M T's.((, S N O 9: 59:! interviewees.
~~.cY ;T Z" " "ki~~
$'.y;]%'^l1 > e On July 6,1983, the Licensing Board informed the Commission that '; 5 Li' %,y.y u [ j ('%Qy,, X, '4 it would not pursue any questions concerning the identities of the 1.,'..V.f. people interviewed for the preparation of Staff Exhibit 199 regarding the y .c f.... .c ' ?, 1 11 - 4 i discharge of hir. Atchison. On the same day, the Licensing Board accord- [ fPf l '" - I d. ;;b,, J ^ ed collateral estoppel effect to a decision by the Secretary of Labor who i. / %gG' found that hir. Atchison had been discharged for reporting a quality I' 7;,, .a. .~ K- %,; assurance deficiency. LBP-83-34,18 NRC 36 (1983). These Licensing
~~, r e.:.:'M N"'_'~~
V Board actions moot the staff's appeal of ALAB-714. The circumstances ? /-p ? ',:9 leading to hir. Atchison's discharge are no longer at issue, and the v. . g '. _. C ','. %..,U. ..s. Licensing Board has no intention of inquiring into the identities of the 'm y ,s
s.,, - M. :. G. W stafl's interviewees.
a A [ 4. 8.A P;w S y. 1 v In view of these developments, the controversy is no longer a " live" '. ; 9.1 C 1 m SN: one and the Commission has now determined to dismiss the grant of i~ '. _,N ~ s c e. - VQ.6,On review. htoreover, because the issue raised by ALAB-714 will not be j af,,., reviewed by the Commissian, ALAB-714 and all Licensing Board orders e,.,. J., i, Wn;.tl M ' and decisions ordering or authorizing the staff to disclose the identities j'.,' '[. ; cg, ' M 'j~.[ -.J f M 6 [k of interviewees are vacated. See cases cited in Tennessee Valley Authority N %.'d' s ',,', @ -E 4 DQ" ' c,i.g (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3), CL1-82 26,16 NRC E..H. 2 '. M. nW.. Of A y > lc .'CW.c M ':0 4 C i 'i J ~ I' ' ? MW Z $N -05'5 - 880, 881 (1982). I It is so ORDERED. Y F. . -i ,f . e t* r w -: . m.:~4q.,. c 4 ..c c-q a b. For the Commission v. 4, f a. 1, ~, o.r.:: (e.oge.g. w n.m..k - n. 4. m,;; u. u, + -7 c...,:u, ;.. a m, ae. ~~ 2 - -: 4 v
~~=L. A.w...~~
~~n: u, ~.,a +m n,.<qc 5.j-Qn #,n. n a 73 < 7,%. '.. yen ' - < n X ,g;.p.r-p. t.. v.? W W S.S, - Uohn C. Hoyle) 'l.~~
~~W. m..m~~

~~v-for SAh1UEL J. CHILK 8' < ~ '~~
~~U.M.~~
a g"..[ ,i-1,NM,Y : Secretary of the Commission 'l n n%.s. ...;.cs.mt,, u.y 1 e,cy$;g@%p.; ,s.p;. O x :L h.?.O. V.r JA. 04 El s Dated at Washington, D.C., w b s.e. ' y e*o r.y., g.C s th. 29th day of November 1983. 4 - "e .:u C 4, e, A.y X is u y;
yw% p-c

.v..,.:.;.o.
2
~~.s,~~
~~.J.t.." f s.. .',7,,-,s e. + i .',$4 (* * 'l3' E '[9 *.~~
.h
( h^ ? .;.-,'. Qi.r C s/*
(
c,
~~, v,g. 2*,[g (Y , #U 'W ' [W:. E,a, s. gh .' y ']-' .( ^ Q. & s..; ; Wl3; ? r:,,'.,;-Q -' t,. 7 r,.A a 1165 .W fWM ' '~~
~~...w -~~
~~n m_ L.3w. g3 y. . ;. a i ,-N ,,, m,; .,-r !t 1.,. g., .V.*,h* ,.~.r,.J',CL,,, + t E,.l l b ~ e,'m.~~
~~f$;.~~
~~o ,. mt.:s..%e..g E~~
~~,x..~~
~~w-a~~
~~,k .*.gs'. 4~~
~~y m.~~
~~, z.;;; ; y;,-y :.m %g. y,y.g 3 , c ; ~x.;,..n _ ~Y y L e.s g ! g~~
v.. g..

,- -
~~4 -. 7., -.,,3 n.v, x-., c., -.,.:,9 v. , w;; g yk: s..-: x, .3 %.7., f ',py y:f.' ; x.. + y#_w'. q s ;:. r p . u~. a.~~
~~z b-.~~
~~r ~ q v,- ~ g.$.. v.;, !.:1.Q*gy,*.&o:.. q.~= - ;p g. .y,.,., d...q. ,l. j g:.y '4, a~~
~~4 q~~
- A...- s. m E.. 3. 'O'~ ' ' E E[.4 t. ) -:g ~, ;y : w.a w.c@ ymm&. +- o ..= m, 7 y _, ' %w, .fe 3 s. .~.e w. y.; s -4 -~.. .m.- ,-,.r. ,... -+
l l l 1 Y t f 4 I .mk',
~~b.,7 l~~
~~o b 4 I ~ Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal -v ~ ~ Boards issuances ,k,. ,4 n, >. w; : &,, v., .. s.. 5 - ...,y ll V J-N '7 ; 3-l~~
~~G; W~~
~~ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING APPEAL PANEL c s F ' , s i - .i g + - Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairmari .~. 3 j l Dr. John H. Buck, Vice Chairman GI ~' * '. g, '. ~ *.. ' ',,' ' 7~~
~~i s~~
~~j Dr. W. Reed Johnson 7 r Thomas S. Moore l M.- Chnstine N. Kohl + Gary J. Edies ^' Dr. Reginald L Gotchy g8 M. Howard A. Wilber w .~ t ?1m-M F* 'h, v. .' t. : ^m, n e,,* + ,. ~ s -s ,.3 s, ~ ,v..-~~
~~d. a.~~
~~' , s - $.,' y)_ "yp, , y f'\\, ,y e +, =' ' y j .., " t.( .C O J. J. J ,.g t ~ -e. .l - -'c' y; , et* .s ,A,..s [ t'-, r,;Q w'* ' 1 j.,, ,,,.=u, = %. :';f.~~
~~~ _ - -u.~~
~~I l a.. - w& i ^ )e f .:4, I 4 ,.. ~.a., ', - -' 9 * 'W ".e , y j 5,-.'s.' y 'La-- ~ y l .s, '~, ,'1 e ' O. i...,. d' ~ >< j ..s J m-' ' "~~
~~'m*'.',,,, ',,~~
~~s. J +~~
}
J m ~,, I I.^.J.',.I f,* * * *
~~y ; ? "",,~~
~~/ ,'q*= l A g s' n,. .. -. = s h. a l- .,,* sg '.c e.',.('~..,'. 8 '8 n '[ s',.'-{ [%. r w-m. su g.. ++0.,p .*, * **, d. "3 I j.' q ^ ' ;. w:' ' ^ ~;.., 9;, - :' ~ &; w < s,;-~~
~~pt; s '3 -~~
~~W c,- t.,, ~ s A. A}.pb ASo~~
~~^Eyt~~
~~,;i....;...' u..,. .m s. 3 :. - ns ' f... c,,_ v?. ~. a -- ~ ,M. ~..q,.., ,* *4 :. '.Q',~~
j%
~~N '. *, ';;v. ': ,' t } ~ 4 - [ g:. g s TJ - ' i '. f i. 1 k. - 99 y e-t ( .,s. vt 4 g , >.di,,p_. v A +N. e.,. v~~
~~v -~~
~~N w=e - - - _ -*wa-==- ,. Z.L .,1 ..g., m~~
~~v =witf==T~~
-.m e*tN* w g 9-,, s. ,, = *, * ,5 w.; p: :. _apgr esig*e* " ' ' l '*' - : f w *, q %.,.- V'e~ + -' a e-w-*- _ j ..q ; 'Qs 3.m,,3+,- ~ . s -w + \\.~' . I e g .f u, E,*.n.,*- s s s' (( +*,.' 4. d. *~;. J,,, * ..~..
-x
~~,'.., ~~~
F
~~>,w," ~ ,. ~ -.-[ %'ggn,"., :(. '-.. ~, --y r J s 'm~~
~~w (*f'-~~
~~.i , %*,,'w'a, 4 8 f~~
~~g.jy O. ~; *.~~
~~e'W,q~~
*. - yJ.
~~c.--t y s. - 7,. e e 4 = Q4 ' ', tag-9., 'T*e4vh.,~~

~~m v~~

4-, ~ v w A s,-g...,
? T. - 1 ,s .s ~. ? ...c. , 9.h. A ^ r Cite as 18 NRC 1167 (1983) ALAB 747 ~,. - ~ y "~. - M.. ' / s.. w 3a..- ..x. .s r v 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA H 7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g U P' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD ,.c t. '..,.Q.
~~. D.,.,~ j. _~~
Administrative Judges: g 7. ...- >.>... m. m. Y*^ !# ~..,, W %"w'. f. f. *f,&e 4 >e n Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman ({.,:lGQ[g'6,,, ;5 g .[ ' < r. a ? +g ,%. W, Gary J. Edles E. ~.M,,t l'. i / ',,, .t Howard A.Wilber . w y. y... - -i,,% 'i. % , j.. ~ ~, .. ~ _. m.. s---E. .,: { " a 4 Y % V 4 M W2"%' ..N ~ In the Matter of Docket No. 50 508 OL ~
~~o. m.~~
..g.. WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ![.- /' ' dJ r. '? E '.. 4 ' -W .iUPPLY SYSTEM, et at ... A T:. ',,, .-w..., (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3) November 15,1983 E -- &..',9.C. E, \\,... -' T ~ M74.c, '. r . a: :..m. w...*
~~n.,~~
~~D V '.#.,- -- ' . i 4,.. -.- .u -P,- ..,.,s,,- %, w'p,,etu.~~
~~q:.; ;,~~
~~[ s .n.,, . y e....e..,...n..,.w,r..v,, u:: mm > ~. s. c n. - m.-~~
x

y ~.M;tM 9

,4 N
~~s..', r. q The Appeal Board vacates the Licensing Board's grant of a late-filed 3 2@[ FC ; ~ ~ $ ~ the purpose of requiring a further showing on the extent to wh. h inter-H.~~
~~. M g.S. ' 7s f., -~~
~~T, ,S petition to intervene and remands the rnatter to the Licensing Board for r-w s os~~
~~e. -~~
m . cq y ic ,p a.e.W W '." '.d.C'-W: vention by the petitioner may reasonably be expected to assist in devel-t4 .m % j e.vv., m % w. : Oping a sound record. r:; 7,.h,.y:. m..X, p,v-;3:.s w" . n.~ o.<.e m.e v 2, ws <4 w. q- &,rw s.y y% 7 v. . y.~ - -.or. ~.. x r .a RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTIMELY INTERVENTION -NM,. M. :..j m..%., M J,M. E.N f,. m - c PETITIONS M,". - ?
~~W> m%.:,. 9..~~
'A ~ i w.... . I.e, # . '.s. . v# f g.. 'O ,r st yy.. r .,,%g .g. The five factors governing the acceptance of a late-filed intervention L 7. '. ' 2; g ,..e 7 W'l '--1 u. a s. /b. e,Q i k.' k.u.'. ?- ,; u w unm petition are as follows:
~~m e v a-rm F L w?>i.%.4*2lC.:g) Q.4 Wwl.T W;:r.4 Y r.~~
~~i B ... d- ,,o. ;E. .:m%,:. ? ',. ' T,* s.k ',~~
r..,4 (i) Good cause. if any, for failure to file on tirne.

k. > sm.O -
.z &~.C. W. M. R- .n.-+ n ' }:,,.....A,*C,,: % - d.~ ..y,e..A", .'f -M...r. ? ' (ii) The availabihty of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be l- ~ -f - y y ? -MXr protected. .%. 1.- P5. +ng ;g T,.W,%,. 7. c A. E. w. .e e e (iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected '1 l E.- v, v- . W.,c,,. P,g .D;
~~f. ih.7.. f.,@..W. y e _2. 7 W,d~~
%. ~.M. V.Q.%. b.g,UA to assist in developing a sound record. Wp y r.x..6m# 9. (iv) The extent to which the petitioner,s interest will be represented by existing 6 "c - W.om .W.d, e.- F.*r,%y y. prg: ' parttts- ~ u'm p* 4, -: * '# s p
*Y t
^
^.
~~w W!.Pj4 s';' T ,,MRp.y" A;*. :. s ._s .e 79,- m p. . Om. ~ v,3 p,. w%.. <;... : i J., .: yQ F NWn;g;.:& v - ,f,~~
wN g.g :qm. s..y*
~~% v.. e..y a. ~ p, n.%. ?~~
~~$ x. n.,~~
~~7..~~
~~Q' Q~~
~~+ ~- se -' ^ x u- ....,,.s .,. '%.;;'aj. ,e., : CQ L.$,:.e' '.2.3m' *[l.;*Qc.4 t> 3 '?J '+; %%s?' n L." 1I67 m.. J,s.m;. s, e. s y 3,--> g q. ; y . e, -~~
~~ls &.p:. f,~~
, i(f.. _.. -,9..: a. n ^ EP P, d*
~~j.,.~~
.- Ji.,*' }y ' .*._,, *
~~jT g j y b * '~~
~~,^r. .' ', },y :. W p s. 'J A~~
~~7 ib.y,...~~
~~G.,.,, r _,. ge w. l Q Q+.:... u.a.1-7~n: .y yr.; % @+ e ~. ~.. ~ N.4 l~~
~~a. 2 - c.f t,,.,~~
~~.~-A... --*3.E' Yh*'.l w.es, mW:. w W'....Wj~~
~~b).*,,V. -- Y l~~
~~? l.=fr'? $r, 4 ." ( gy u,. e ; : sy m ;. y. - - ;.;.v ~ -~ ve-- r- ~.~.m + <.-v~;.. p q~~
~~3?*Q,g ),.%&'.Nk,. h -f '.c~~
~~} s ;.b f {* ^ ' l s. ..n, m. .+ ..,..,.~s.;... 4, i~~
~~, A,'./~~
~~.a.e.. 's~~
^-
~~e. ...:u.. ar ?y~ r.,. g-i,., * ~ [ s t ..r.. - > _o. + - a ~ g..Q Q.,..,Q. y.. L~~
~~J.;.~,~~
~~a, j g i ^Ww,x, ' .?-.;a,. l~~
~~( r~~
.N mp 2 ^- - 2.- l f fA s r . N" ^* I .( . f ;f,, h'.4.- 'v.4,.,,, -,{'.,j).w w ; 4 p' = M.6 n E 3. .-3..,- .o 5 A. e k .o.a __a
T 7bc..a,., "" ~ N ' ; '. u - o..w s. 4. = 2, 'o [ -4Q ,4..[c -.h. 2;. m.. <.... -
~~4 fkf bYb e~~
sh.,4N..N:if%p/n e5 fig. Kea t KaNlQ*j .TND*[A 'h4NCy,e'Mr ' ' 'igt M .Nk $ k. I= k r.,4.a. y.gJ $....:p.g&p;h g% pe.?WW.WS&Wb;6%BM, d..2 M % w;r4%, - l y. u m gwy ji% irdy.;uM ,r.% wi (v) The extent to which the petitioner,s participatiort wiH broaden the issues or 7 % f*M.c,%,% % v. Mhhhk:g;$ fkkdly'j d%?M $ypj.p/ V 5 delay the proceeding. Th, c.eM,w.c ne m.> m... he;.w.1 a;m^ h,qw-ww% r.. w x;;:n. %. W, p a.wM: RW.Q 4 m,Q 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1). ,.x,c s... n V M.: h. e Q%m.,; c gbd tt ..s., y.m4 y wm,gs m g.mp rmp pp. NM..M..dMMM@,..kw.gce awgn .m k@h@Mpl.,R{fN,h.,M$;y$hQ $.en-$ .68 RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTI51ELY INTERVENTION . + d,. vh;. h.. w n % M. d WMW PETITIONS (LICENSING BOARD DISCRETION) p.,
~~h. d.4.NhNhM(j N.@p$, w,,~~
k Q d The licensing boards have broad discretion in determining whether to 4 Wi $4e grant an untimely intervention petition. Nuclear fue/ Services. Inc. (West % M[W M ' dkij Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLi-75-4,1 NRC 273,275 (1975). ~ e-Mcbytw2ANK i.h ym c-my p% . g. M k @: n p[3 3 $ I M M 2$ $ g/[ ~s 6 i RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERVENTION PETITION vRjf4? (BURDEN ON APPEAL) c quy%g%.%@QM&%Mp w Jd W % One who seeks to overturn a licensing board's grant of a late petition d,d W MOfd@M N N h M 4 ,4 MIMMtYdM to intervene has a substantial burden on appeal. It is not enough for that $, 398 % M t A .i party to establish simply that the licensing board might justifiably have g N g.rge q %.<N h S. y'yg }gi-MhMhNN concluded that the totality of the circumstances bearing upon the five g m. bDdhhMMpjNMNM, lateness factors tipped the scales in favor of denial of the petition. In p.p9y p s WifdMt@.w3.&W@wh h E N N 'j Q i @ j M % order to decree that outcome, the appeal board must be persuaded that a 9T reasonable mind could reach no other result. w..p#p m%e. p u.A.o%.o.. e n c w .w NM.... $,,Nd. m.y dr9.MM_, Mp, A[$N2Nh.gnm gW: ,, e y .. Ry.%r. CIN., n g.p 4 % m.. %> %- o . M. m;Z m .M Q RULES OF PRACTICE: RESPONSIBILITIES OF COUNSEL M, .N$h A lawyer citing legal authority to an adjudicatory board in support of a V dT f position, with knowledge of other applicable authority adverse to that p* p FNd. M"iUM@Hpa% position, has a clear professional obligation to inform the board of the eyNf 3d M r.1
~~f. -~~
gg;y;y existence of such adverse authority. See Rule 3.3(a)(3) of the ABA ..g.n?; y~S,.,-c. g c.4..% a.. m @g N.f n RWDM Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983). gW. VM.R.SL. m9@f 14.w.%n:rg.ga.g 3; ~,q:,&.p#, ;, u.. amO. .s ,s g, w w m.g~ a@n,, CO,. ~Q,, Jf..q;n.e%@..t,s RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTlalELY INTERVENTION m,; n .N YMMY PETITIONS (RELATION TO 2.206 PETITION) g.pf.fh' M W @D@ %@M.I.MMW & 6M V?@% A petition under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 is not an adequate substitute for par-j,' y N y ]q'-M.p. h[ k %gsiF M F'h?d%(fj$." kyy f W F M/ [5 M % M ticipation in an adjudicatory proceeding concerned with the grant or d k h T denial ab initio of an application for an operating license. , ' %g;q-t..3:.Q g g, ..e a ' .y: ~ e w. c>. y (:N l ~. 4{ hg; :j,,. 1 f ..f W 4 J - RULES OF PRACTICE: NONT131ELY INTERVENTION ~ 'y ;. PETITIONS , ' - H.. ' ;.4 gg.','g7g..f, A late petitioner for intervention should set forth in the petition, with s .n . >,x ~ E. M S.y:;UM.g,M M, as much particularity as possible, the precise issues it plans to cover, its s . 9 ,L r a ..<.r
~~g..g,3:a %,.mq. e -p..,9.. ;... s;c.y~~
,.j pa -: nc - %,, n,,>3. - e %.w... g,. .u e s4 a s . 3,: g.w. b:g. '$= l,' f., %m-(%,&.,a n a.- g,w e.s w .u e.m,- 1168 i. , _.o. .~g w m i]. .Q f:Q Q,o.g.m.;Q, x .w .. + '., g p.g.l' ! 3 4,'- 7j,,.-
w'.*
~~3 hf. / ) ' ~ N' k .Y};el l'~~
* *f y
~~~e - W.? Q.j , g. [.'y; ::,, a. y? c '...,,, e 9 s m. r.n.--m 7-.q-? ;c,,,, g., p.g gyg., 4,, ->,.,.-.y .y., y n, p ..,. m y. .~..n..g.,,,n..,.q,.c,..,~.,, ,,c-, an r, - :\\yy c.r,~~
~~2..c g,.~~
~~-~ ...~~
~~n ; q s., j.,. c -.~~
~~g,g g..; 4,.~~
~~4. g; q j g.;. ;.;.. g -- ..y,- j y, L,. .". g,. s b. ) -&..., Q%l(,9...),?,'?,'.i,. %?: ? $ &.!,} n*. $. ! $. 2. 5 5.. Y_ Q O h t.. +. _. ' 3.. A - Q.... l $ a!;:o.* 4gR y'%.. - '#m s. m~~
~
~~m ...,.., -,. ~.m -f y- - e" -9 - y.M.q g ;.. 4.,e.; ge;.e.<., ,.( m g4 gf ..g _r .Y c.'[ . n,,.g~..,. f... g. r m e, c ; }. % 2 - v ,s ,W .j,..v f.eg - t, ,S V"' g .;u '. A... y' k o e ^< Ml.' l f~~
~~q o.a g. 9.,.,..., ^. q~~
~~?~ . J e,, , w. .V W ,;,l f f.kE._ j ':'l.\\' % J. x m ~ 4.. d.; f f si.f:0.;. } ~ ',5 ^.~~
~~?" Y. N '~~
~~'y C'~~
~~<.'mz M e y~~
g m .4 m
V 5 g j ~ m.<... :.a ..as., ..,3,...y. c. a. .t .3 e s - . < _. ~, y i y,. ?
&p.,,%

; w;~ '
~~prospective witnesses and a summary of their proposed testimony. Mis-~~
~~'g.j ' *,..-~~
~~.O {f M~~
J
.'1 Pf c sissippi Power d Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ~ ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725,1730 (1982), oring Summer. ALAB-642,13 NRC 881, 894 (1981), an'd sub nom. Fairfield Unored Action v. NRC, 679 h -} . L.; F.2d 261 (D.C. Cir.1982); Detroir Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy i Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-476,7 NRC 759,764 (1978).
?
~~- >.f, N ^ p , = $ > ;<~ ~' RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTIMELY INTERVENTION PETITIONS~~
~~i... 6.. e/,~~
~~.m ~ @2;'7% $? ' ~ ' 7, w.1 [ $hkh'[ U h [~ The question under the fifth factor of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a) is whether,~~
~~y. '.~~
by filing late, the petitioner has occasioned a potential for delay in the completion of the proceeding that would not have been present had the QMr, c ' f.. ,fb y p$ ' -/M,( ' filing been timely. Cf. Long Island Lightmg Co. Gamesport Nuclear is o Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-292,2 NRC 631,650 n.25 (1975). M+O%,. 7. n ~- L-
~~3... mm p. g :w.,~~
~~R m:y.~~
'7 RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTIMELY INTERVENTION W*
- e k, .W ".','., y"'. s i,'.c ~ a-n PETITIONS G. ;.w s;w w Although the ability to contribute to the development of a sound M...: /C @u. E.>.M,g.'. - r .. e -..r. w;.. ...ccc u ~ record is important in the determination of all late petitions, it assumes 31 y g-n.. g,.- - s. J. p3: ' ,r. z. s -%q V<* x..~... W m greater importance in cases in wh. h the grant or den. l of the petition ic ia "'C; M.,( W,b &..z a,a Sp..ur.. a p i s 2.Mh'.pN l'h;.Y k N4' C R -4 will also decide whether there is to be any adjudicatory hearing. See Ten-f[ nessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), @.I.MR' P. .M-iQ&y. (W 's > ALAB-413,5 NRC 1418,1422 (1977). Q 3..:-, u.y y. - >.z; *h.. l,'.,,n.-, v. s.: 4 -,[.i :. n-9, t7% 3, < c.,m.,. 4 av.-:' '.n~l.1w ~ ;,n e w..- 3 % % @ [..:e,Iv(~ n.jjdc5' . 72 5 APPEARANCES .,c.< g*'9... . m m,. w.,,, 4.w ' T.;~ l -} h *,. -% '7x , fr'd.l Q...W,,.,T.:
~
v'
[
~~. T .JC 9 M. @. f M... -. i Nicholas S. Reynolds and Sanford L. Hartman, Washington, D C., for .L 4;@..y --.i the applicant, Washington Public Power Supply System. R$.AQ 5.p,y? -k. k. h ~g .q. e. r +~~
~~g..~~
m.m h, N,. I 4 m>n.C,e ' #.,k.., n-,1 .a. MM k Nina Bell. Portland, Oregon, for the petitioner, Coalition for Safe V ~ v Power. w m:.,3 n..... ~ w 6.s... y;~ 3.-:.. A. w. n s,., m: .o. wn. W M %,w w ;.4.:c /.. g,. C, % ;.s.y.- - .j.g. s. .x T.. Vw.O.M, Donald F. Hassell for the Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission staff. -n. <v n W,tlh . 'f O,'l h. f f ~ c . -f
~~Y.'~~
~~2 .3-m., a. w&. i"a - p('u m.M i .t. ,...w' y 'o,.[- e g#.4 "1e "i.. '.n '2 ' 4 h.. -y W.~~
j.
~~, s e L.. A.$ . - f.e Nw m g h L.gs T r,r- ~y u' y: y'".a R, M -so M$.+ f[ } w. MM,[.W[-. 4 %an'd y. " M' %* A f s;.. T.k; D,4. m.34% Gm-p) 6.j e. m~~
* '.M.' i, N 5. ?.A "*4,.p. % g O-M U
~~h A ^..... ,A' W q *i,i q ; "' Q f !., ' * *, 9. ,e. / "J r, , -f:D t Q. n ; J.'s ;f,,x'.a-K W.f?' ' YQ -~~
~~i Z- 'f~~
~~%'1 *? c:.,.l* ~s~~
& + a

..Q J., ^
N' ?t V r N 1#,.L v N, ',,, Di H W.G. W%.*-f A(W@.~. 4 fin ;%:6(e:.9 -'gh.ff-O N ?? - 1169 V,, N...'M ' W. 2 E W... < ' u n* 6.. '. '.j ;. 6 s m. a.w.4, f', 9 ,J. g, g. f '. _.f~ -b, '.1^k -,- L r .12.n.2 fM;( V N; *. 9, + - 3.- n %.9 - ',:.,.y y.. s l .Y: ^lf.x*,. m* m).. - m.... v. uv:.. ~. ' . ?
~~Q %L&y,. l.~~
~~' i :y;;;m ~.> g, :,, 2R~~
~~L,.Q.p.N ;~.?'F. %~~
',,.. ^. ' ~, ;ff*a." w b -'l .0 f. W Y Q Qs4&p:p' & f Y h .,.,Q l...>~f;c m.y.v.,A . ~. 'yg..x-(['5M."WV~Q.~ O ll. :. k Q',lQ MCW Q '.^w% ' <w sg >n.4. ~.%,w. w .&4,
~~g Qf Qf. +&,s pu, r y[. c <L f,,Q:c[p gy~~
~~.c 9.. 4 r~~
.w
~~+ mu ~. g. . b :- .m 37 m. a.Let~~
~~i; e~~
~~,f i;l ? }W., c~~
~~5,guQ~~
~~j' L~~
~~_Q. ~,, p -n.' , -Q. +1 4. a u ...a. m a m.-_l J ' ~ .., =, f m'y~~
Q;
~~- 2 n.n r.y g..a y* ' '., ~,, ;; t 2 w .q. 'z ,*1 , i e~~
~~i a,*,~~
~~g. W., ^ ,_g '+ f '4 -' A h a j). [ kI I ,). I E !.s -, .,y Q,y} f;%-.y;'-y . ; q% -f;~~
~~5. ; n bC,~~
~- r r_. g g ,( .O M
n~ ~,.,,. ([b.[2 C fTAWq .Db N -J. bkh hNh. i RMNM9Wyf4h:$NMkN ke-4@&&%U:%Q4@.Wh {'m'M@T ?#s@@p i-h @k b N(kR%g'"h N &MGEWMH@$lfMM@qg".
~~gwMiT.~~
~~g&& h.7269.m: ~5i $@f@A w tim 8&.W% k:Q m %q%lln%.fGyp% M *% 26 w~~
~~W M ' Ww w.w. m.w w w%ag & w & % %.c. w; b;g.~~
~~kAmmdAb i ve ~ w w.p y F 4% % W 4 4,d W.A.~~
e.
.%p ws a w s.pg r.g 9M C h M E5 u M ~ W " M w m Lab 'WMW>ithG# W W r:w.m W4gg,x v h. tk N I ~M& mad m hk 4&:3 DECISION N Ti# M M.c w % cjk *' % M !q WQ We are once again confronted with a challenge to Licensing Board si e hd*
~~Y [d action on a tardy petition for leave to intervene in a licensing~~
~~$MQg$:[i % vM['.y'...w?_7.1~~
@ pad *@ d% N proceeding. See Long /Sland Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power w n,kM9.p p@N N,M,h.N3.MMkM.7.y.Qb..p%{$$M#d

b u %e Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743,18 NRC 387,413-14 (1983) (Appendix).
M oo o j MMW.Tg Mg y,j Here, the late petitioner is the Coalition for Safe Power (Coalition). On ikMk February 22, 1983, it sought intervention in this operating license pro-Wp.TMmMM AW} W9:m,! ceeding involving the WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3.8 This was some h [k ( Mhn*k@,,M;%$MikwAltM~pg}s four months after the October 15,1982 deadline prescribed in the notice 9 of opportunity for hearing published in the federalRegister.2 4K..wl@a F&%q.$cPgt&#p; In an unpublished April 21,1983 memorandum and order, the Licens-r.y;; de.wgag*_ y$J ing Board determined both (1) that the Coalition possessed the requisite W.r yc r pp kb,hjdE$.MQ[MMhhgh)W M d.Vfd[;h k p hfgg M M$i 4.$hM z standing to intervene; and (2) that the live factors governing the accept-Nk.).ifMlI ance of a belated petition did not, on balance, call for the denial ofinter-A' vention in this instance.8 Subsequently, in an unpublished September NWNU. iMMy#-pd 27,1983 memorandum and order, the Board passed upon the Coalition's h M [ h h f[ @rN -kE proposed contentions and admitted several of them to the proceeding. NS@h.. i*'D85,[.[N%[jk gyk>.? q MM.k N 5dhih ! The applicant appeals from this result under 10 C.F.R. 2.714a.' The $$h? appeal is confined to the claim that the petition should have been denied N!%gw$kh.i'd d5 ?.d4j.6 O because of its untimeliness.5 In response, both the Coalition and the .,
~~A,M@~~
c% w W W'pV;Q $WF NRC stalT maintain that the Licensing Board did not abuse its discretion h&% w? &a..% t.Ab.w$;...v'".6L M.s.W)M.we@;ny}g M.s.% .. r M d) in granting the petition despite its lateness. Those parties thus urge u m R 5fk&.mQs f$sk f, affirmance. 3 p,ew. #W...% u,,miysNNu-e.p.W%.I For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the grant of the petition . co. e % h9..y A ' Y % m.j [M @s ? M;p3,' % M.7W[Mh.w w.,q t 7 V 1.. M $1Q4M M and remand the matter to the Licensing Board for the purpose of requir-my d gv ing the Coalition to make a further showing with regard to the extent to a, $$ '.MN@ca, N,.WN'?f$ MDb which its participation in the proceeding "may reasonably be expected to
~~Y.h'$&fh{~~
~~f 0~~
~~cip% +r58;u n#,h4.;:ly(Addfsskh"g'i E fy nects ihar ~. was actually Gled four days therearter~~
~~g%'~~
' Althoush the Coalition's petition oss dated February 18. the accompanymg cert Gcate of service re. +. Q M e ? g.v: T 1 C.W J.N;,5 [T$ g M*$ b M g@gr3%.d'd 2 Sec 4? Fed. Reg. 40.736,40.737 (1982L No intervention petitions were filed by. hat desdiine and !;'*E. M M v: f Mf$-
g
$h 3 Those five factors, set forth m to C F R. 2.714(a)I t), are as follows-none but the Coahtion's has been unumely submitted. (k k. S$2*. rM 'O ' p (s) Good cause. if any, for fadure to Gie on time. g QW.qQ'I l (ii) The asadabelity of other means whereby the petsuoner's interest will be protected. hdhMQ1. % Nig, h( (in) The extent to which the petiuoner's parucipauon may reasonably be expected to assist m de-Qsd.nf e 7.9 'h$d,}M4;g W ~ [ k M M ;p,. The entent to which the peuuoner's interest will be represented by exisung parties. a -4.G L f pe .f veloping a sound record. r .. ' L% ', ' '.d;M.s."?y* M.*1f $lM' p[73[;;}$}g[QJt% SeiM $ W. (iv) .J. 1 7 y gVJ (v) The entent to which the petitioner's participation wHl broaden the issues or delay the ,fy[f ? *Y L;g; [,,. y[w 3h-% D 4 The appisant is the % ashinston Pubhc Power supply System. It Gled the operstms hcerise application t ).. proceeding. 'l*' r fI
~~(Mg Q$~~
~~on behalf ofitself and the other co-owners of the nudear facihty. - V@7 ;g[b,; 9'g. *n dQ;;;%;g g, ; ys.~~
g.
.sif g..h SAs above noted. the Licensmg Board addressed this matter in its Apnl 21 memorandum and order. 4 i %p' ~4.18 I:'. Nonetheless. the apphcant was obbged to await (as it did) the Board's september 27 ruhng on the Coaii. . u 4m.:, 3.;,@j. 5(Q *I,h.dN#A/T.,M '.,' y(k '.. s ' ;
~~r. Ugf M.v. hl tion's proposed contentions before taking its appeal See Cmensatt Gas and Orctre Co (Wilham H.~~
~~y 7;.Q a~~
*M::*g/.$(,f
'+ Zimmer Nuclear Power stauon). ALAB.595.11 NRC 860. 863 66 (1980L ,p* .t R y j t.w ;..%g.w W M,N.q s, W d @ p 4 WR.,. 5. a.;i,uW gW.cpA.ep"ww.._.;c %.my .h D ,.p+ c..: M,.:pi.u.31 n,,. ;y,.%.,n. 3.tsw ,m,.g..# : w g,q N. t1 1170 m..u .p. v,::p :m. wf,w %W' N ;) g!%:y >i,Q.0W QWsQ'%e.$
~~- a.M Or aw. '; m.s'r 7; ~~~
y n ? N ', M. w My ..m W4 i ie w s +t.:@, sf, W k 'd:Q%;n, f',G j:$. A.~. o m gy armst +,,': . y ;& h ;% d. W :W. ; i[ q' W~ s..;; W y. c &:A v Q Tl;. p$(f,f, w. e 1 L M ~.N.] ag&Gff'&Q@Q [}Q *. . f?;,f U.t. & f fj ( (}((?$f;.:g}[:,_ ,f m g.,' 9 y. 4 4 g g y[: [ %. & p g ~*i:: p. % (: .l i g g.37:9gy 99. y;_ 3a-4,;.w ~
~~Mi.~~
m
~~'.c.; w.n % '. p~~

~~..W:w;F.w&p-;y'y&.M[$n;'.9; -- < M. 7:x >s ^*)E'&y. +.y!.y ..p yp..~~
pp
?. w.17 3 W$aqm y([ V & QQ W iSd; ;' 'y.n..,.y.~ W ?? D.n Qp x q p?l n?O ,.g a . m : nv.:h : n.; n. a ;N >y:;;.$!w:~cr;1 d-W. M. i $.,s - ;;q$W,p:r % %.l ' *[q'.?*.gy.w.9+g ;p.., A. : N M. :w. a;m.;a. ,y u
~~w2-yye wy.u ; :,tt mw w u p,~~
w v ~_ ':x y 6 M.: % M i n n ;p',;. y-39
t ~ . ~. - ~ _ ' 1 ., j C 4 4, , R. - 2<..
~~, -,qgx q~~
~~-., y,,. - 0,. X: /. ) &.. q ' ww. 1~~
~~y g...~~
y *;. y' $I. e. (. assist in developing a sound record."* Should that showing be found [ ? ~ '. dV 4' ~1 7c; J, satisfactory by the Licensing Board, the grant of the petition is then to y a, f' c:- .a, ' be reinstated. <s - ' ~ .m
~~u... r - ~~~
~~.w w. - s %,2 . ** U~~
~~w. y:.. m i~~
~~I. '4' - z... N ~~, i 1 j The Commission long ago referred to the " broad discretion" conferred by Section 2.714(a) upon licensing boards in the fulfillment of their re- ! '. - l%< :,~~
s ' ' I Wld: -

G sponsibility to decide whether a particular intervention petition should
+. m._g..., m Y.J,... p ~ be rejected because of untimeliness. Nuclear fuel Services. Inc. (West WR .w. + J' 2l@ ? d.P .c ' 9gl p{ My@ M*,t a U. ' Valley Reprocessing Plant), CL175 4,1 NRC 273, 275 (1975). .. 4&9. Q I Accordingly, as we recently had occasion to observe, "neither this Board Q f-3 - 9 9 %'N M.' - %fy -;.Q nor the Commission has been readily disposed to substitute itsjudgment for that of the Licensing Board insofar as the outcome of the balancing ,u,Nf .7 cf N La. . V '.m...nAC' .24 i of the Section 2.714(a) llateness) factors is concerned." Shoreham.
~~+ t c~~
$ ;{isk N ',@ Q[ f,'df,c T ALAB-743, supra,18 NRC at 395-96 (footnote omitted). It follows that the applicant has a substantial burden on this appeal. It 4 ',,, S;;d [.. ;r - j is not enough for it to establish simply that the Licensing Board might
~~9. W s 9.. /.$... 2, $%;C 1.,. e7 t~~
.&y n justifiably have concluded that the totality of the circumstances bearing ~ ~ se ip fjg,.m;l $r@..R.. <, n: < ] ',9 @.. a.- w.. .s .~ ~.;. - n. i upon the five lateness factors tipped the scales in favor of denial of the petition. In order to decree that outcome, we must be persuaded that a iQ.-l: jf%.j.jp.g Qfp,,$,ff t reasonable mmd could reach no other result. r - c. 1 6 W M w: + k[a e : sm h[]/Q.py{ygry[]Yq.f: M [h. It is within this framework that we now turn to the Licensing Board's analysis of the lateness factors and the applicant's attack upon that p. Q, y & T q ~.h < W~.; ; f.;e. n s analys,s. s h
~~p. -, ; n..~~
~~.,w y. y.y, o ~;,.q o + v.., ,c s.~~
~~p. icy g*;e.". &*d+;k M :.u.sg: -~~
~~C^M i ' 4 W' 11* ' M* u' .t -,= M W9M W'~W' Q V y.s p ;; 4..; *. t" M:' w n.nw n. 3.' m.W.'y m* A E~~
~~t.:7. 47 4,, ~ - V m~~
@,.. d, M*g-W "vW. W,.Ji. +W /) A. In its petition, the Coalition asserted that "la] combination of rea- ^7 .v ., n a -.,c MC"'.I 9% TWMM@w.Q sons" explained the four-month tardiness: (1) the publication in the M. Rrf yfA?W.gf.MQ federalRegister of the notice of opportunity for hearing' had been over. looked because, at the time, the Coalition was otherwise engaged in a WW'l3. @MN.h 6 FOS [$@i's. iU MM % M M @M M I M M @D discrete NRC licensing proceeding; (2) the Coalition had expected that $hS3 b5h@kyh.f;DQQW the notice would also be published in a Portland, Oregon, newspaper (but it was not); (3) the Coalition had cause to assume that one of its W %! WA Qhl M3.4{.g ~[> g; [y: l. .Y.y members (a Mr. Durce) would be informed by the NRC of both the docketing of the operating license application and the opportunity for a a,4 4 -g y., w. [,. $w @ [ &.~ % u M.E's % Q s Md Q$ hearing on it (but he was not); (4) after belatedly learning of the notice t.'Je $ & y y $' ,.M T
~~i M.( g,x%~~
II.Y JI' /Y5 H.Nh&:kUl,5$&h RQ[s ;OM 'Gy.yg.3hp3 0 This is the third or the secuen 2.714(a) Lateness ractors see note 3. were NQi 'see nou 2.urra u.a v.m;m&w:;%m;;a ~tMl.,. mm.n m.9 W M. c &.*, s'.i & y v;<j (.hR* %: Gh'4'p ' N, D' *CM5Mlf f,ffmlQ1 l . M. %e,+. * *W'A 1171 W M, (;;; y $.W % s. W',4 Q h .;2
~~y*4, s~~
~~. ?.~~

-'?.

*, ',.,j.~w t;lgm,'$*
. gr pu m c k;;M, n.P : xnig:f-Cw(:yQ.;g;w -o:. .w. ngM pr 6y% 1 w-n:. > ~.u;,.... mq e ~... ' Q, *p*. s:;?,M, r-A@,3 p gM - - w e ;~ p~ v, .c..,;,R.. x..n;s-?.Qw~e f:er; O 4,,, .;;v.p,. x w:v. ,,;n..... -,.ets ;s,4 L*y,..,;p... a
~~4..M.~~
~~.;,J.. : r yA i~~
~~y-u)f 1.g ;?** b.(~~~
~~.., -,s+ . s e%. >t..,.y-r qq r w c' 'g? "l. s.'_'^ l. s .s ll$...,. ?l a. w '?; g q,; q.% u s a ....r j.. f,,0 A, l * *,,.~.c.',r -J.-.,. s.. f.~~
,x
~~. g. -j.&.1.,,,rp T j,1 [ y. 4., , c;,, K' p. /,. r. y,.,,. e.7 -# ,S g, g'c ' *-, . f;,;,, w*gj - ^ f,% c,..- -' Q' <2 ,m.. w i.. v.,W g. o 4 -)-~~
~~2 s.~~
~~jf r s . g e [. p..' ., '.., g ,4 A ,. f,;4 * ..,., s. s j :.f .ue , b n. 'K w g l -.,.-y.- c, g> y,. '~~
e
_e hr 3, :_ ~ ~ l ' _ 4 ,m. y%) 'j%~R;Y;; ' Q ~ ).i'ydQ:Q.f.f-){ j WJ, ..y @.ng,. S,- :' %'. p y,. g g y. -.... ~
s s z. Q g &QS.5}S.% m&w&. W $p % y W asy.&m p&. i & Q Q Q y o Q g e; & w &. ~ W M N. . ' llAQ$rl. m ,4
~~y m~~
~~$.g4,mv$$$s$ m&,m !,4. "l5. r$..,m&w.bQf, ?wiQ.Ag; $Y"$;NW,~~
~~-p q W h YI h. h h. M G Mp& i.~~
~~.n%:a &W.nO &af Q &$) CdM .,.nR.y(a?%P.g,,EQ, M.$ w ~ c. Qf*i;%d@h@fh%p$@$ff$&;c9&n - w&WM2-XMLM.~% w 0 Nh & $ &, %QY& m~~
~~1 Dhh 1~~
, h &5h NS MS$M$%{$ l W M.$A. Q W hiMC M! b; D"" ~$~7i M 'y @^ @' " M* M % 4 w M M L:L u Q.% ^ ^ ' M@Q@uM W#;FMNM g %EML:9?g%q. fQQfk.yM:f.%m.36 f.fsjlyg;Ac; Q f/, Q. W h*w' p!v u~ n%kyW y ageop R s i > p* g. m.vg} Md we , e f,,% .S ;,RR.fff gfko -w;M '
~~h. w~~
.Mdt;,AR @d5N.MWiMM)b Y' t,. d !fMS of opportunity for hearing, the Coalition waited another two months to $b file the intervention petition because news reports had indicated that the h U h,. C % 9 @M M M.4, %,? N;% M e M9 facility would be terminated "due to financial problems."' ' $ f, $ k The Licensing Board found this explanation unsatisfactory and hence @.N % [ M M@ i3% D.% d M @ dN determined that the first lateness factor - the existence of good cause ? M@fk?O@E9@GMW,MM@$ NOJ$ for failure to Gle on time - weighed against granting the petition.' The M M/%x + ew u@ 'M M K applicant, of course, does not dispute that determination. It maintains, ./.MMGM;Wg@%rA u^glJUAJJR e a.J however, that the Licensing Board did not attach sufTicient sigmficance My.WM M.WM $hl}$ to the fact that the Coalition " intentionally" had delayed filing the peti-7dM'.dN4dh$*lMMPe2;N tion for another two months after the notice of opportunity for hearing k came to its attentionM Additionally, it complains" of the Licensing 4 W y g g @([fk (( h jhfff, k Jyh M;h, h,
~~h. N N Board's observation that, although the absence of " good cause for the psVgyQ Q fMMifD late filing... placed a heavier burden on [ thel Coalition with respect~~
' &NWiQA,q[E bhihhM d$dMd to the other factors," the " fact that the lateness in making the filing is measured in months rather than years reduced the level of the burden k M h Ef.M@h $ N8.bb@M/pw$w$)$.,MM d GM [the Coalition) had to meet."n MRN DCQQWM,< r, 9 . s% i We disagree with the applicant on both counts. True enough, the Coa- &,.3 m.., e.9./,;% 4,.y,.J/.7 5,JW, WW lition should have filed the intervention petition promptly upon its dis-w,... DN.ha. h c very that the deadline established in the FederalRegister notice had al-N,N5Ndd.M~M?%F~,.h.y{m. uan e+ M CMQ M f ready arrived. But the applicant's repeated characterization of the fa, lure i %Mp@lNW:W to have done so as " willful"" cannot serve to obscure the fact that an QMh/hbN.@$i @MW M%i,k5 honest error of judgment is all that reasonably can be laid at the Coali-
~~3. N M k.Q g[ N tion's doorstep. As the applicant can scarcely dispute, even today the~~
.N T. future progress of this project is far from certain.l* Although the Coali-GM.? ;s %g' QM%Q!D dG$$)fM:yg tion inappropriately relied upon erroneous news reports of impending c.qN.NC Mi+%T; %W project termination (at the very least it should have sought verification i [Q 'f' W M, T h p $ M @Q h UWb M of the accuracy of those reports), there is nothing before us to suggest 'A,J M RNM MffkNf96YM that the reliance was in the teeth of contrary information and, thus, in N5fhh hhh hj $ bad faith. In the circumstances, we see no reason why the Coalition's 5 rW mistake should have enhanced its burden on the other lateness factors." "[9F$w AkM/W[g Q Similarly, we find no fault with the significance attached by the Licens- ..)(3.[Q.%$$hk W A N} e y ) % $.$ & % @y )eti & g %m !U?AsN ing Board to the extent of the Coalition's tardiness. Manifestly, as the ~~, t M. A!.Q.. V;4 "4. sf ;%px ' h M.. Me' n'
~~G ~b y b;~ A J3' W g %. W{ %.u $ *h... 9+ h. %..~~
~~.:% ?-fQ Mk'A W. 4n -= 8 a > J/~u 1A[y +/ Md d k ,Imervention petition at 5-6. g .* g~~
~~x. "t.sg % %~~
~~p g x April 21 memorandum and order at to in this connection. the Licensing Board pomted out. mrer h C'MmMrqcg(9ygg(k af :~~
alw. that the notics of opportunity for heanns had been pubhshed not only m the fedrrol Arcsier but. m l M y M h d 'jy% T N)y,M y' y y %, to Appbcant's Br. (oct. 12.1983) at 7 9 as well, m three newspapers m the state of % ashmston (where the facihty is locatedL The Board further M' ;,T.Y@.g7 - V a. ;. h p, .4, yg noted that one of those newspapers is pubhshed en the very commumty ahere Mr. Durce resides. ..,; 4 g, L s .g. %.gl, c }* ;, y-..,. * - 47 at II u 4 9 10. ,,2 "_ c.-. A e*y + g3 f, ' I ' f,r.'.1, " April 21 memorandum and order at 16 ,~, r.. ,r f ;#" Q' 'f (g1','. V, cZ.f (([*],t '. 'y#y* $ 13 Appheant's Br. at9.12,1) 14. 'N 1/- .I 14 w discuss this matter further m a later portion of this opmion. rp (178 79, mfra, e f y [.. - F' '.Q m
( ff M Nor do me believe that the Coahtion's pnor mvolvement m NRC hcensms proceedmss hncludmg thme pertinent to this apphcant's facihties) mcreases the gravity of the Judgmental error. We therefore g h@ '.3, 4 2 u yc, 5;
~~3[ a % {J 7-J 7g yy ! 2'9.-s.;I refect the 4pphcant's msistence IBr. at 10-128 to the contrary. b .a : - R Q& 5% Q, y Q.*;/.y;u mc.L ' ' u..~~
~~.g<*~;'~~
~~u t w... 4,..n. o .,,c .,, + pa q-5.e-E. mm n e.. ,4 1 .w e: @sv-h,, I m. G.pygqQ ;) 1172 7, e -y :~ < w.w h,6_M Q ,;g 7'~~
~~cwi'#a.g. N - i, 'f j~~
~~. V pi ! '. r~~
4
~~^^ i ", u v e r y*4;q'~~
~~s s %.~~
!,,; *,q,,x a,, t .s Q W Y ', s j. o c.. .y ,y g.< ' +. ' Ny 7 j .".C I - I ' 3."7 4 M,W'7 ' ' "' ' ~ ~ 'i l ~'",'~/' , ' v: .:,g- ).. Vf. g] e '*7. M. ' MI'. s u y... m.. ?.. .y ... i..- m sx ,s ....,.
~~X V c ps.,>~~
~~.P'=- =~~
~~1*<-t.\\~~
~~.3, 3.q - J ,.2t4 '7 % 4 g~~
~~m.Q'~~
~~^' %,.;im. '.S " s ..y s. -*i s~~
_t
.z

p ~ w - ;
~~u ,_s~~
~~c. ~~~
~~.eA' s. g. i.*g sN s .. _ j. s t , n,, w %1 W y n, - gag 3 y . o. ,;r .js q,. ,,s. o~~
~~s p~~
,n y.,,, g.b _j i s
3 e t p._ 4 b,: ~ ^ ., = - .t, '.q 1: 4 a.m ...y,e. ~ -.., m,. .~. ',..,,. ' '.. 2,.6, _.s . J. G./. : ? 'y
:a
.m Licensing Board itself recognized, even a four month uq/uSfffied delay in - y;7 Q . 7 ;; j. .] ( ; ~ ..sp. , t;. f w. ,._. 1:4 seeking intervention is not to be ignored. See Shoreham, ALAB-743, s -a m m,p -. g j'. je. wpra 18 NRC at 398 99. But it does not follow that, for the purpose of ( 'N .?.: M determining how compelling a showing must be made on the other Sec-y J '(Ec;} _ j.# N 7, tion 2.714(a) factors, a delay of that length must be equated with one ex-g cs'. L.@ '"%r tending over a period of years. In the final analysis, as Shoreham also 7M'W. explains, whether measured in months or years the true importance of ' > Q.j, the tardiness will generally hinge upon the posture of the proceeding at i.~' ,c7% ~ 5. J s-m. the time the petition surfaces. This is assuredly the case here. x 'l.% fM 1 The short of the matter is that we concur fully in the Licensing ' D. 1 *T. f M N.l M $.id 4N Board's treatment of the first (good cause) lateness factor. In common M with that Board, we conclude that the petition was inexcusably late and ,.g..g
~~r. m4;N.... m-MW.w%f;y~~
~~,. x. c. K. ?.Q f6fm p g.w @ that that consideration increased (but not exceptionally so) the showing~~
~~. ' s i~~
+ 7. that the Coalition was required to make on the other factors." . J,_[N g@@hy g f. We consider the second and fourth lateness factors together. The %p U.s' f J).; B. ' ' S ~' ' Licensing Board found both of these factors to weigh in favor of a grant y# ' " P ~' O.,O f. ~S..: N.e - 2.i ', yW of the petition. The applicant maintains, however, that each points in P et#M'C "W'W U FMIMAD E[g(W.f((9 kk!;M the other direction. Because the Coalition is the only petitioner for intervention in this proceeding, should its petition be denied there will be no adjudicatory .y4-g jQ.%;f, consideration of the operating license application. Thus, there would .N, n n%M N wf MM~.i d. ~&X-i
~~7W;::.im, v '.~~
not appear to be any " existing" party to whom the Coalition might look n. 1 %yWN% s for representation of its interest (the fourth factor). Nor is it immediately .h% M hP@hh %. U O f. %'# obvious what other means for the protection of its interest might be W h M. We Q@74Q ag+.. o M. y..s m,.. available to the Coalition (the second factor). 2 e.a%uwm ~ 9 We are told by the applicant, however, that it was the Coalition's . J,. r. ms - Wg.v.,y,,q. g.,.-,,M i burden to demonstrate that the NRC staff cannot (or will not) represent
~~s. w [?n y~~
~~. ;m W/s. its interest and that that burden was not met." In this connection, our at- '$ j>fh , gk. h % @6 vy g $c O M lF f.; f .O ' V . gg3$! O F .v. 6 -NA - Eo ah .: y &'. % g-W .e T ?~~
~~K **3 Q~~
~ m]%glL - j,Q*{. ",M . # Tf e$ ..g. y 9 ljcf. ' eWh V j g 1 A-4g"& C' 9.T TNb((.~ %h. y dlN Ib See pp i11S-SO.mireOne addiuonal obsersanon is m order A certam amount of hypertiole is, of course, an inevitable in. 1p y S II gredient of advocacy. But when carried to an enreme. 6L does not assist the advocate's case;if anything. < eQ [W4 T 'k hj[7@ch%p6,. ,Ff 'y. M it dmerses it in this mstance, we found most unhelpful a numtier of patent estravagancies m the apph-D. y. I J [5 4 6 g ;,p ;WW;;2M.c hi#% Yi cant's argument on the first factor For example. there is atmolutely no basis in the record 'k {'% W c. A Se ID y[N$i? @MM3 jWf@p'N eMi yMNMW N phcant's Br si 13 Nor was it fair commentary to suggest that. *'asmply because" the Coahuon was only r M four months late. the Licensms Board minimized'sts burden on the other four factors and "sent a 'g' f.Q 'My Mf.Qd Q g, cleat message to anyone contemplatmg intervennon before the NRC that the failure to file a timely in- ~ il 21 memo-hhk, M4,.h%MW% W tervenuon petition carries with it sittually no penalty " /J. al 13.14. As ss clear from its Apr A*-P * 'aM i [yg-f,.7 h5[ jf Q3d' @,h.h[re M randum and order read as a whole the Board did neither. 18 lt is only m the construction permit proceedmg that an adiudscatory hearms is held in the absence of rir p[W. ((M,- ?O. a. D'd1' any mtervenors. See secuon 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 U.s.C.2239. x g%%f.f/d@. j f ~ My l' Apphcant's Br at 34 36. Any such representauon necessarily would have to be undertaken in the h @% M $ h.% M-N h course of the staffs review of the operstmg hcense apphcat on, a review mandated irr SNM}Y ) 4'. W + 4 W 7;a l @- A,.,
~~@s'h y~~
-i summer Nuclear stauon. Unit 1). ALAB 642.13 NRC 881. 895 (1981). efd sub som. TerfirW Usert G @;N4 k.4.:iM.r*g & w.s # h #g em. i Q .4rren v. A AC. 679 F.2d 261 (D C. Cir.1952). ,s n. Few I ?O;h&y&y.Nh;u..Y W,&&jhN o. c. q T ' 3, wAw,gh m N.M Mr.. s%.3 ig L' }, %p mSM.y umn si MA 4NMP.mW&g2.wm. m 3 <am g-w \\ g II73 np+%w..% -wy* %u., vo L +. y. n,.A. ww w %y,;7 j m+ a y M ce&w e ..Wp,9 g' v(ff a n W. @m y.%.dlw&y% X ,,m,,. ( p l r
~~c Aww g~~
~~n& ?$ f. m.X. p m$$ &, OhD Sh y-+ '? .m m y ,g,n...m.~~
d
~~.g .'i';r l g s~mg w .a ..c.v ~r.,, yg, y p-Q q u y-p, mu%,._m.y 37 . m -, _s R.. w m, m - ry y*. a Q Gr, yvf,.,a.mp.,. n . fg. s.... s ap~~
.~g. +

w. x
~~,.w. 7,g...y wv n. n m p w.~~
~
~ en ,g .. q;p. 3,p,. 4 4, g g g,gwj y 1 y 7 3 A. w,. _s QyfDQyy .s n: - M Aya s. s s p. .~t, K-s r : '* % f.& g y:' m &g g4 3 h.cy w + - ~, , q < '.. f.,A+ ?.g: ,q r 42.,3 . ;+ w y gy.; T, y-y g, 7 . y pr w '3.. .9., s.
g.
~~>~. ?W f.'.}Q,,.Q Q,-g^af; y, gj4 .; Q. ) ; g'V l};.,, A, . 44, ct~ u [ w** r., 79 W:c,?.Qg q; 7 >., %.p f*. ' og _ i *;,.- + _ +,~~
~~q... g7 wg~~
~~y.,g,j.9%,g.~~
n 4M h'-hOs % %, % g 4.g ufiC %&_$.y %n:n:,9 p:% g.f%% %g&.MS9 D C Wg:smV b %N W- % W. - WR SMI h %Mvh8C&.. ' Qg&%+h.ApQ qQt4 r9 jQg w up.a.y m p c.;q.m.smy. rd. a,A gg w" e w p i p t %m e.u w - h. y,g p &. A. w % g ; & &. e y % e; N. g i h.Q~d44g Q q p y. y qV ? 2 mwmD wppa eaw wp t ? n a mw w n %s w a W ,m: 7.v.w.e. hygg Q.MLQt,,. Qgn ~
~~pg;.,p n....~~
~~s.y w&y, %e. m.~~
~~a. bn . w ? f h h k k #g.g:,. q A, f i.g.fc.'.p qs ' -.. a%wgm qq f y w av w.n.w w. y v v v:n m. yg f(w. ~ ~,. &, % w&., &w 7 m. z d%.e.W h @ 9a;f 4 y a $ _e s%g SL.e~~
~~&wlH.f,om(!5y in&Q~~
~~T M:$ k. b h N Ih( M h h tention is directed to the Licensing Board's decision in Consolidated~~
$rW.h9fM/"$?q$(@dM M N Edison Co. ofNew York (Indian Point, Unit No. 2), LBP-82-1,15 NRC NhhMd%hES 37, 41 (1982). Further, according to the applicant, the Licensing Board h k.$ M h.$p-![ N th h M h 8 erred in concluding that the Coalition could not adequately protect its h$Nh(W*M;Od[6.k,b.h[?, 0h.g M4%& j 4 413&*- interest through a request under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 that the Director of M Nuclear Reactor Regulation institute a show cause proceeding.20 in this %h$hMhMI.T@Cj$hf &-;% Qfy$ h.& Q regard, the applicant points to Washington Public Power Supply System 7%#d M (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos.1 & 2), CL182-29,16 NRC 1221, f % g[hi k k@$ tttil."h % $y{ @'pyh 1228-29 (1982) and Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power MG8Ahh Plant, Unit 2), ALAB 707,16 NRC 1760,1766-69 (1982). J/N.9g.N@Q dy& %+ e.7?f M b ;*.;/ ud 1. In placing heavy reliance on Indian Point. LBP-821, supra, for the Q icy,M M! h d h@J g.w p b h M 3 % %.w% frQ$ $.36,. proposition that, absen; a showing to the contrary,.t.is to be presumed i $$y y;<%g@l,$hM.hrl@g%.l,j g that the staff will adequately represent the Coalition's interest, the appli-MN:i[8 T Up cant failed to refer to four other Licensing Board decisions cutting Mkkl$ M$hS3&N:&fh&N against its position. See Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. V.t.@.F3[$db.Q@hy%(s}dlplgg$7/8 Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-79-22,10 NRC 213,215 (1979); florida g p d% Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 M;$ fd Qyig M and 4), LBP 79-21,10 NRC 183,194-95 (1979); Wi3consin PublicService M?.;'j$%M6D@k&&s.M MW Corp. (Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant), LBP-78-24, 8 NRC 78, 84 k @m@ N h id 2 4f1 N $ $f % y$ f@ p; Q jfff:.th?$(W N (1978); South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear A g S W W W.3 N W Station, Unit 1), LBP-78-6, 7 NRC 209, 213 (1978). In each of those NMM cases, the Licensing Board granted either a tardy intervention petition or W w,p W &j@&y &k.Ft M EMfM;;& 9 %MMW d late-filed contentions in circumstances where a difTerent outcome would n. SIw&% bMw-4 have precluded any hearing on the issues sought to be raised. In the $2d%$3.%.n%.'x:M@9*.yc.' ym.:!p@. Q9c". int dTg i 7hMWf course of reaching that result, each Board explicitly determined that, be-
~~! M h 4 f d D $~~
~~cause it was not to be assumed that the petitioner's interest would be ad-A my @O 7.- W Mx.:%r ~. @s u.,g v-p Moes.w, W equately represented by the staff, the fourth factor favored the grant of t~~
~~r. W p: m.&z Vy Wisg,Q Ws @M $n;d.n~~
~~, n&g.yWInfhhg~~
.q In three of those cases, the staff explicitly declined to endorse the

s. +hp.~
n o m g e P intervention.28 i; @MM$$@h6MMW @;91 h D N N :U h.4 % notion that its ability to represent adequately a private party's interest TNM 3 @.YK cx,7C+.p/Tg. can be presumed.22 But that does not affect their pertinence here. Before @P"/dC%g@,2 : D h =%'A7ML h.Q.s %,p;"'" 'd@h, y A 20A pplicant's Br. at 15 18. n'. kMk Yd M* f Ajl[N y #. N ]b' Q;.[Ywt% %[,*S' O % fd.g 1If aware of these doctmons, applicant s counsel had a clear professional obligation to inform us of /iG. Mb.g*k4 %f. N.Mk4.; ? ABA Modet Code of Professional Responsibihty. EC 7 23. DR 7106(B)(1) (1982). we will therefore r their entstence. See Rule 3.3(a)(3) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983), replacmg @Q [. g;?! u
~~h. 4 y',. h 7 p.h 3 yb ? [ h.. g L' 4. 'e;1 %'v r ^5 j -g,,*, gp %~~
assume that the decisions somehow escaped their attenison. But, inasmuch as counsel seemingly encoun. s b tered little difficulty in locating the decision in ladsan Post (in which proceeding their firm was not .c,, ( , ?h y%*y 'M,.; C,,f'cy ii ' ;.'F; L )$ 9 i, 3 Q,.?.j ' ( y' involved), it is difficult to understand why a reasonable research effort would not hkewise have uncow. cred the other four decissons on the particular point. l, b ' S 6*g,E vf y
~~8 -E "~~
.'n L f"[y, (;Miy $p,%%. ' 22 n Twary Post. the statt"noted that tthe peutioner) failed to enplain why his anterest. as well as that i Qi"> Mi of the general pubhc. will not be etTectively served by the NRC, which has the statutory responsibihty b h%hf;',jji[M Q. Y. J; > recognized that there i* room for the advancement ofindividuahzed interests in these proceedings, and ' W 'y1'*% I,gy,% p..W $ T D [?;34i y;.. ( M N4 for ensurms the pubhc health and safety and protection of the environment. Nevertheless [the stafil , f. @f *, D concluded that the fourth factor weighs in favor of (pletsuoner." 10 N RC at 194. sA ' Nif y. 77, ' f
~~. '&Qt*2.% T5M y *W-YP.W.M ~.4 e'*{~~
~~d ? IGmrinuedl , w.L >. M, };.y* 7 ..W 'M.y,.~. J..Mm 3. n e 9>5.r b[d,$-Q.y. m ' fr.! G.~q~~
l
~~..,,y ~.. %. q o' M'.h 1 n f}.a Qt ~q. ,r l.'.',.M~S%eT,r%w g g;f;fn.W,yp pWW&r p 9[. S:&g m$x&> s.;-, c&y.,h...w y,1~~
~~kL,9 s ~ y qy 1174 oe O'~~

~~m&: mWW m. vM- ? uM ' }M. m...,,%. . !f*'wp;i/. J'M*v:'.J u y'!+$Q %&? WQ.* p y + %9&ssy =.Q~~
~~7g'4JN....J.Q o.u h y!~~
~~W 4GC, '.fi N. K~~
~~h ';f &';.p ;x. s.., ;. y - Q(,1h%@&Q?.i~~
~~.~m L. u O, g m,A.. .:,,s.,- a.*-- 4.e. i . p l3}.*,~ 9,v?;o p:w,. s y' - ...,y* 'f::?,* s,3 ' p K Q'y.9 7g-nlW. + m.."Gl% $...Z*>g-A'Q@QY ; Q ..y* 3.;.~~
~~;,y %,.. ;_,s py.c. w.m.~...%~~
~~, m. 1 -~..~....e. g ;.. .s.-~~
~~v. + '*, :3' ?~~
~~<sa vm. '.g p. w : l 4.%. ~ _m {.[;y %$g" +7. <;,,4:. .-5 g ^; g ,.yvt s-y..<g , m 4-4... ..g m,, p T.W .: F'it: y i n w .z a . Kl - Q-*j.4 Q~;.y,~~
:. o Aen..

n. ~?' % O:.
.;,.> > &.'* Wv.a ~.: w ;'c X '?,.-l ~.~.!.:-,M,' , ;%.rN *m ,,,: s w . w. h; & N ',u..,.. A' - 'Wln'.l p m - %* ~. ' " ^ ,Q.3 ', ' ~ w m.g? -x% @sMTM.? O , &~.,m.' 3.aL. g: *^\\ k l..< ' M r%., -,-> > m& " W:]z'. 'x .r. Vi Xy itMQ&..g*y'.t'.: 5*' a a.e -
~~g. q^f, a,. m. 4' % ;. m 6~~
~~h :~~
>ag - /e: 1 g.y;.. ag j Q Y.g,;f..,' -.,14 L,, *- G. i, n i ' L.*f. p v =,.',,a.i 'e v h, y v._ Qj,i ', *,yf.l:i_3,.C ..g.y.g. m 3 > '%e. f: -,,. k.~ 7 .,s.,, s 4-s i t. c; m.-s. y.d 7 '" .Y-a fr e ..g. e _m,
f .. c.. . _a z, .,yS O g 6,' .m,, Q J ~, the Board below, the staff acknowledged that "there may not be any la .~n, other... party which might afford protection to (the ~ fs - j ',,'4 - [ t_ Coalition's) interest."22 Before us, the staff was even more direct on the y matter: "It is not at all clear that the [s]taff can represent the private -'A %.'..e. d. i.t*.. E., l interests of the Coalition."2' 6 ~ r... ,s, .? e ~ % a if the staff is not prepared to say that it will represent the particular IT ~ V/ 4 - interest of the Coalition (as opposed to the general public interest), we see no reason why the Licensing Board should have assumed such t,'..,'.. + a ggO M.< W representation. It need be added only that, had the staff remained silent mc O / O MrG x.+A j.r - - s. .y m n.y :1 ..e.H.Ja.Nv: w% r.y.@y. on the subject, our assessment on the fourth factor would have been no w-Q M. g g T g. W. e w. y & m ;p; s
~~m. s,~~
m pmm g different. The annals c' iC adjudications reflect that the position gschg. ~.~,.%. W, %m.4pr M.~.3.- M~q taken by staff on a specinc safety or environmental issue (in the fulnll-FW N; W D.%., r ment ofits role as the protector of the general public interest) often is at &"4 ' O " QM M_ Mm..WMW, -W- . o M ^^ y # odds with the views espoused by an intervenor seeking to vindicate pp.H.Q p' T.,' ,,1K ~g;. @, -@edS either its personal interest or its independent perception respecting 1A where the public interest lies. Indeed,.it was doubtless in recognition of i.L m f f $qn %,, ~? M,'
~~w g~~
fy.W the potential for such divergence that the Congress elected to provide N #2 j' M ]. hearing rights to private citizens and organizations in Section 189 of the ~ ~. u. M, x. m. G. %. s n %. \\mmic Energy Act of 1954. as amended,42 U.S.C. 2239.25 W . M i;i W 9. b..' 1 w 0-M,/5 g;.-i.L '_ C,, - s. A *..M %c. - We are similariv unconvinced that the Section 2.206 remedy is an py.?fLpyj,n.. Y... w.,,.A E m 2 n.y adequate substitute for participation in an adjudicatory proceeding con-p -- 7ffg N cerned with the grant or denial ab inifio of an application for an operating w.M % mw* V MV y '. c.. m@.' &. V:r.p.;.,,A.:..y s r.c c e n s. y l C f y / '>.+;.jp g.)Q W h .; Q R e f V ;','$ R>.f-Q< h. .r X; a&W' < C )r.. F,.. ,W. , 1. -,% .p. ip-W.. ,l N " ',- k o.. 7[3,.,,- q In Aewawye. the LKensing Board took note of the apphcant's argument that the "peutioners have [, produced no factual basis to support the conclusion that their interests are not adequately represemed @ ? E Mid D.;Dy' ^ > N$ f C,.* 4 I '". s.- 7 .f c tf the staff The Board went on to observe that the staff had stated that the Board "should not assume {>K "h ~ 8mi GT T ^ G ' . ~, y,.~,; }q l j i f d;g' ;'..(- that et will represent the petsuoners' concerns " $ NRC at 84 in Summer the apphcant argued that the representauon factor weighed against grant of the late peti. ci 4.iQ .r7-e s 3 non because the stafr *always has the obhgauon of protectmg the pubhc health and safety whether a WMW * ' eff *,e4" S O M Z N JA ' D' t Mr.p" i M.k,$Y ;.uW.MW'W.G NJ. hearms is held or not." In response, the Board pointed out that the staff had conceded that the factor J-M,'" 9:a' yt tM-G tf .2 M C1%.rq weighed in the petsuoner's favor " presumably with full knowledge that tplenisoner s individuahred '!*.h M.< ' 53+ M' interests may belier de advanced by him " 7 N RC at 213 1 ;# ?,% @$N'MPTD M@W'Y K ' f M WHY J 23 staff Response to t'numely Peuuon to intervene filed by the Coahison for safe Power (Mar.14, YQ M;G09. V 19su.si13 24 staff Br.10ct. 27.1983) at 19 n 68. G...s a'. /.'i.J S M+ N.w $s:d_ c'.J.N. n.* B.y Oe ..M N W M s y.a. 25 r The fourth factor could be read, of course, as referrms to the representauon of the reunoner's inter-M. 3' : -M" Wr. M ',.'O V 4 FM A fh b Y. J$ W-XT-6 est by eusims parues to an adjudicatory proceedmg so read. the fourth factor mould always be in the N w q z m '%. *.d. < - r J ~2 UD e... % W[4 W.,. ;Je.',..s
~~m..~ :.e x < a A-<-~~
~~petruoner's favor m circumstances where. as here, the demal of its peution would leave no proceedmg -v-~~
w.7 p.f;..G.4 L%.JJ' g-f,, } '?, ((.;M g.hW.p.'y. Q ?G. y ip, % ('

c snd thus no parties to it As the apptwant correctly notes, the same is likely true if, although qualifymg as an "esisting party" 17 6 - ] {,..jd h l) [,p?.7 A d*'i;g y..-f T
~~g '.3/~~
i despite the lack of an adeudicatory proceedmg. the staff nonetheless is not regarded as a representauve 7,,., p .h of the interest of the peutioner All this means, however, is that en cases where there are no other fl? - ~ ] 2 ~ *' ;,Q l } d.g' A /.Wij.1@:; f.1;; PQf; meersenors. the fourth factor may almays favor a grant of a late intersenuon petinon. That consideration 3 -;.",. c 4 ;,.V does not disturb us inasmuch as et is compelled by the terms of the regalauon. Moreover, if the apph- ' C A.C u rrJ/~. ;;fy h Qeh". - N Jhh'f[ ($ [p.) M.1. A f ^ ^ cant's thesis mere accepted. the probable result would be that m M cases the fourth factor would weigh {...,,, M. cj ' 1
~~p in favor of dental of the petitton This is because it would be virtua4y impossible for a late pettuoner to~~
\\ik J gJ f [,9 QQg :, oyg, g",-Q.u@.hlfj bre.g ascertam. in advance of filmg ns petsuon, precisely what conclusions the staff review will reach on any ,'( J parucular safety or envircnmental issue Without such knowledge. the peuuoner could scarcely fulfill 6 ,N4c.,.
7. (..

A i. '..,
the burden (that the apptwant would impose upon it) of estabhshing afrirmauvely that the staff review Q g, ] ^ ',;* ;.y ? f y -[., ',.,- mill not adequately represent it on those issues affecung its interest. y W J.-1*w / 'VMp 6 th." * *Q, - fy*,2jh 3 3 4... m. z.,;r -. - p,. g:y. m,,; y y y e , s..e. s n. \\ Wy p +~..g
~~w :<M. y% D.b. g cW m.~~
~~ym. f psq%.S y 1175 [e. i .m".WW !. D.. s.iY ~Jw. w {,,.,...,M _ m. 65 1J'.,i* i* W W M..#.: --j 4... i h.\\ C[M & h ;%ukM.,]h.NMIM}.h'f*)d., m, em geme.W ; - ~ Yh 5~~
~~p.,; d.~~
~~'[+b n'k.,,. 4' 7 w$ $*.'{,Y Q [ s w en. b y'k E $ 12 DQ;. 'Q,,a h-Q 9 3 ',&' %%. w.,; y + w..p.;jte n =; y;p&f l Q Q.;G Q f-G:,* .-~~<.y... ,p e- -~q p;m,Q4l e ' ' ',:;m y :i - -~~
~~m s~~
~~-z .s gx.g;w ; ; +- ,.* y ~ >"~~
~~,~.A- ' %.~~
- " y' ~ + pq 7 Q, e. s.. _ qqhf.refcq .Q~_z,:,.s., 2 .xm. n ..v. - u r . n ~.$ 4 r* ? /a f4 2N ,['" v f* g# S ,",+.,..h .b d V* ,ea.".#,;.- wg r~ ,,,e . $,4 7, h,N# ? ',_ y.e#s.", qu *y. g - 1 g. g -,' - +.. y p} ' -, 4,.? .a,., + e, g ^ ~d .-n ,a. 3~-'.*,4, , ;.4 y ([:.,, ' (*,. l, ,W- _~-' ,4_, s + . e. r '- . e,y,. ', m. .. s g..c Q., ' o
m.w m, w y. g v., w a,. ,+ &%q %MgkM4M2i EMd M .n.%. a s:Ani %Bf29Q@p&zw:m.cm#ggm%gMmum%s.g:n., 2 u s s; w n & w.o: g. n ~ r e r ; % p ~ .m m..s s a r s:a m 9
~~% n.3V%'M w p % w.w.~~
Wa i h m:www.a M k %y& rkw,p@@:M;w p%gGSWN;&pW $w%yB72.wwMs+:w. w - Q- %an ) b O Mw g e %. w_ N w w k e. S w4 WPw wwwwe-w:M.: c: WlWWD..mw.ma$n%' v ww%W4M 4 MM M M - WWWJMWWMd 9 pr.hel M @M / g, w. M@ M p m, s w M, m % C J w
~~Ed k~~
1 pM6 g@%ydk . nLwn n m-~d Awww:w.w~p@L:n -wmmm' maak; r4 - m. ex e . ;.:,. m-u J. } W Wn M&r" S.;t*.*] puM4%.16M.:em%~&w?@vmg@s&..> . @.Fa MS e, nrm..., %WW %%yiW &@[%..m%9,9, ~rx.1.d..v g .,x n %. M kNMM license. Among other things, all that Section 2.206 allows is a request of %y 4M E M N(([;b-i-W 5 p ;p Wthe Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation that he institute a show N. A'D T k .b cause proceeding tooking to the possible modification, suspension or h' N. ~.. a,,n.9. n w w.n e w Wm 4.v..U revocation of a license or the taking of.such other action as may be w.,p; a 4e .x pv.tym...w N 4,F C V ~ 4.. p.:%,r; $.q.s.w w ; 9 m m ;n y,r $..g y 8 %.1. x proper." If the request is dem. d, the Commission may on its own .ww e %g;Q! M -M motion review the Director,s dectston to determme if he abused his m. m -,s vae GnjM@vW.p'sQ54R.; ~M@.[4[,,d.!W'W@Jy4W4: j discretion. The requester may not, however, file a petition or other re-N lhp_4M quest for review.10 C.F.R. 2.206(c). 4 gng = M3 .-n mm mg.a.: On the face ofit, this procedure can hardly be equated with the ability W W d fy'.G Q EM @T.M( g $5 to litigate issues in an adjudicatory setting, accompanied by a nght of MGNM xld W D @N [ p j $ MMMM4 appeal to this Board and an entitlement to petition for Commission NhfI hhp N.NSMW NbGMO.MEpM review if dissatisfied with the appellate result. And neither the Commis- $h.g;%.MMr%dhpM@MQ{ sion's decision in WPPSS 1 & 2, CL182-29, supra, nor our decision in 9 f a,.s W&v*%M W r %.+rB, f.A fermi. ALAB-707, supra, suggests otherwise. U ' %n., y m Q 8tB C mM in WPPSS / & 2, the Commission was not faced with a late interven-
~~5Nk.JyMMM..p j gj${C tion petition and thus was not called upon to consider the Section w~~
-a hhhh 2.714(a) factors. Instead, the issue at hand was the proper scope of a pro-f$1rpj% @$ y" M g[G W 9.'vjMG NM.p3f%g%i[d ;M'43% HWY ceeding on an application for the extension of a construction permit. 2* The Commission's discussion of the Section 2.206 procedure was in the . $ ir. j' h 3 $ h %k7.I context of determining the remedy available to one who desires to put "$@MMMMNME@%@M8fRM Ekd. F its health, safety and environmental concerns before the agency in ad-N Wf M hWR W8M vance of the commencement of the operating license proceeding. p$g.Q[?? 4. ;M.M$.,@_2/.~Eijd.. %. h. ? 4 .hbbMddMdC For its part, fermi did involve a late intervention petition (filed by a U. %( D. A h N,,M. Michigan county). But we did not there hold that the availability of the g W W. 7. Section 2.206 remedy meant that the second factor disfavored .. n.2. m.a w M.., 4,u o D~MN*Hg%g,. !$.$~ V 3.: Mh. s
~~n.,~~
intervention. To the contrary, we explicitly found in the County's favor MQEQM. W Po w ? A e.: M J >.WR c Xy "the lack of availability of other means to protect its interest (factor h b k kt' M 3 fh}d M M, two) - the fact that absent admission to this licensing proceeding it is not assured of an adjudicatory hearing on the claims it seeks to raise." IJMMM.YN!.I.i@hdNMM@i. @qMMY 7% y $@%g 16 NRC at 1767 (footnote omitted). Nonetheless, because on balance k other factors " point [ed] decisively against the grant of the County's r$d.N. h(*Dj g Ih h L C Mg petition," we concluded that the Licensing Board denial ofit "was plain-EMI%.N,M.pA W E MM .$s'. M.. m $1jp%+M M. n s., G QF +M ly not an abuse of discretion." lbid. This left the question as to what was 1 i
~~s s.~~
WWWMONg to be done with the "potentially significant issues" that had been raised . %Ma m ma.wu;; NWW#6.- by the County. Our answer was a referral of the petition to the Director G,.rWiWQ..;.1.S dw%V.M.~jg+du. e .e. T %dGa T.g' tion 2.206 petition. Id. at 1767-69. In short, the availability of the Section fMW 4 4 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with the request that he treat it as a Sec- " N.." O..J.' i 9 "G[# .m @ $ *' M x
~~p. +. $,.,M;!t.~~
p: - m. q,. 5,,W 2.206 remedy was not invoked by us in connection with our appraisal of . 4~;. the second lateness factor but, rather, only following a determination ,P ,/y, p -4 g ,d.Nh[Og. )- [.f#: I~ih that, all five factors considered, the Licensing Board had not erred in ,qn p' u /, * %y W. h yt. M+4cc%.1.: m.. ' ,4.,.,m,, ', c_. -@, d,. ..c 4 * < e ). J... - ;% g 'j y..f' f.t Q %.s; .w ^ ,~.3'- y. ., f f L'* '),,g. * " w. yf <.3' qI..g,y.nt 9:f t *. b,.-].-
... 3 y %jc,,, ;g %. P - 4 i*%., w;,,q n.3 e r Q

. a.dW "4 W %.
i.tW LU .dn arc.w.,p o un.~ g y. ,T w:,u e.<.tv _.,, 1176 w .,, w - g t<#,,g An. 2., cu..g i.<.....<8),' s m w,7 y w c., a i v.r v.. < n'%*.?'u& .([ a.. ::,'.~. x. q *W,,,f J g. i s..k p * % * '- .a .y ,g '$ : ' ', '1 % ?,.f s _'% ' A,*.h, b:l v .?. v +4 < w%r ; 'f.i 1 4p.6 >,3,wg g$ jn., j,.g;L,.; NJ % s'- : g l+l.lj& 7 z,.. l,u / W %.3 a w. #./ ?,%,.~l.,Q'g<;p Q,,,:. # y J) ut2-n. ' ' Q C _ ;pt2Q,od 5 f y; a ' v p,,'*;n.e,i y
~~s.,~~
~~.g, = y r o.,w ~e...a -m.y< } 8 t s a, - y ~ y,;y ~ : - ',.e. u~. ~. ,n -'l 4 ..y. ;., W'.' y ' y~~
~~) :~'-~~
~~4 I J - f= w z E 9 z '. ~, .W- : ' - : gyp.,.... (.- 'W ] (* #f ' - [.., (.p.s s * * '. '9 ~ r;, b.. v..i W :. ;,, v .w., q.: Ay s. :.L ~ q4,. (.."c &., g. r, +y m ,L~~
W,,.,,"

. t.
~~pr; -~~
~~w :~~
~~s .-m ?.[ ::-% .;a.p 2~~
~~.s. t.~~
~~J: [s-114 5% 4(. N.N y.y.. W !(. -v zt; f,3' r .r u -~.e b '. i@g y' q f .. - ' %;; q.q:.q' ; 5 ;,,.y.~,b. ,,.,114..,, W * "A.-~~
-L:'a9' y

n

~~m,; k:.V W yW N;"s, jQ %g[* z ~'. .'f..f~~
~~1. J ! ;, ?~~
e _ s. p. -[ C..> .r~ ,q:7 v ~. x w w
<w~%.d t 5 .4.* ,A ' c N declining to allow the County to intervene belatedly in the adjudicatory U' ~ ,s A s ~ '2,7 j y, proceeding.8The Licensing Board found that the Coalition had made a ^- C. "its par-f, f "A " sufficient" (albeit not the " strongest" possible) showing that 2 N d 7 ticipation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a soun L - ' Q, ' ,' }' 2' record" and that therefore the third lateness factor weighs in its favor. ,} 4 We agree with the applicant that this finding is of very dubious validity. ^ L <s E, h, ,+ A r-
~~- }' ;~~
~~- -- ;M.' 9 y The Board was told simply that: y..L [ % f 7 Qh( b'~~
x.
presentmg G% -y The Coahtion has previously participated in several NRC proceedings: .y;1:g tp.Qy; sq e, Qy,g.{7at[QQ.fphqjefs.Qf/ g d conducting j witnesses m the Trojan Spent Fuel Pool Licensing Amendment case an Q, extensive cross examination in the Trojan Control Buildmg Licensing Amendmentd by the Staff. The Co - ' Oyf3.ch$;.h.'%.Z Y E A C c which led to additional technical specifications to be impose Qy Mj.$N Q@D.fg ?
~~9,.,~~
~~h has agreed to [MQ'-Q7 tion has, at present, a former WPPSS qualny assurance worker w o~~
k
~~,< gj ? 7 <j,~~
~~M gy',g";y ;' d k~~
ith ,4 participate in this proceeding. The Coahtion is also in the process of wor ing w f Q?,' - other intervenors in the region to identify other expert witnesses in the areas o m,, d ? s x - :( - g% ;. - ,4;A radaanon. healtn physics, geology, seismology, hydrology, engineering, fisheries an .g 4 j ,j 2s
~~,e C.M,D $;~n?,W'S.,~~
p.N ..i. nuclear safety): - & > J. ?P .3 efd. S ~ W .U. ~N C..<?.. i.~ r u# C_,, - Under our prior decisions, this was manifestly inadequate.2'Almost .f M &; M . [ set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans h-y$$@[g',(('M7[Ql-
~~ld the third factor, "[w} hen a petitioner addresses this criterion it shou E v ( (c. xVd::%ddj h.~~
to cover, identify its prospective witnesses, and summarize their pro-V. & '$ M ;jf@ y M W,4 posed testimony." Messissippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear biM Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725,1730 (1982), citing h yh %? @g Mg;WyjWT 13 NRC at 894; Detroit Edison Co, b' Q 2.Wa$.. c,1,8 a sf.-l.jj Summer, ALAB 642, supra, (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-476, 7 NRC 759, l.~ f,yg:,A.ef In our very recent opinion in Shoreham, ALAB-743, supra, .m 5-A . v g;3 m h t dy 'i M. nM i. M, r M.. 764 (1978). we took note of that observation m the course of ruling that t e ar W 5.4~J :., c,. 6 ~f,u, ,~
~~n n~~
h petitioner there (an organization) had failed to sustain its burden on t e w < z4 6. p, ~W + o .n '. MW ' m - a+i.r; N W 5. c m. w a.....e. factor.18 NRC at 399 400.Shoreham also addressed the significance of the fact that j.c C.. hm~9;Wvqyyg/g;Wh. ~,,' ~ petitioner's members had participated many years earlier in the construc-k M $. w.Q.&%,y... +$. 7q e~, '. ' w
~~r, M~~
~~p,:)r p e % y,:ap'; V.O! W..:..g.,~~
~~4 w~~
~~>. B.. %.s T DM-n.,;7 "'# r~~
~~ft.~~
edr t f j,gg Qg'.q'g.gQ.g. 44.y..f 3 4;;... rW 4x q 7 gG. jf C 6 d to at by 26 Needless to say,if the avadabihty of the section 2.206 remedy had the sismficance attributeUnder the apphcant %.:,g.g,; 92, m f M the applicant here, the second facsor would lose all possible meamns j.[-N$N hh;fN Ml^f ' Y ~' -t a L.7 73 N.y g ;p; Q.nM..M sq e'.i - 5 c.~' - remedy as at the disposat of ewry late petitioner. , f[@/ yC.et. S'% J <-Y; L-Aprd 21 memorandum and order at 1214. 4 sy. QO,. C ~ 27 ,dG4 ~ [, " M ,J i. ' - before the t.h ens-Is Intervention pentson at L8. in its appellate brief tat L8). the Coalition endeavors to espand upon what was putd decided on the basis of the Licensmg ~% G7M S W k'4 """i . "u
~~e5; d -~~
29ing Board Because. however, appeals must be considered an (V k 4 P[i?,' [' jM. M.rd $# D ! '.._ Are EWmr Board record, we normally do not consider assertions of fact not presented below. see Pwra 1 0981). For this 1,c;gpl~.,h W g#94',).cM % S: G 5a (North Coast Nuclear Plant. Umt 1), ALAB444,14 NRC 14,. 6 l hem Iot Licensms reason, we have not passed upon the Coahtson's new representations but eave t
~~7l,-' %y 7.%. @. ~. a - ; W ;. n : '~~
1i: 7 + %.n. Power Authorirv Board evaluation (should they be ressnerted before that Board on the remand). l QQ.QfQg[..&e[. -y ev:e, 3 ; 7. .M ,w :~ r N- .c,w.; tw.. y V 4.n-C ?,<.. r m n e .7 N ) M +Q d V.k;b j,i,S*L. C&. e 1177 '[' A' !.a. t ?. m.;+e W > ;;- r ;.s !. *W;& :- <-s g i %. 7..A f [ %:d%.-. bx - - +[, n.n * ' '* k' i +, u *'~ s h.s%.;M[fy - 3'[-y'78{%[ ' nJ x t & r-n Rl,e.r. F
~~f. $ % ;~~
~ w ~~~~n.e-r~. m. - e,-~,.dy Q:.l.3@;yp. .:; Q ',; f, _ :y my M,,,;,_;;M ~ ;q.c 9.m.. m S u#. s w. w g.y n - q, -- m ~y,.~.gry.~e ~ -,-m. - ~ Q.7 - , ',? d. T4YD C H%,' ; :- $:m M,g.s.hD '7'. ' O. s-c, .s ; 1,
~~.; w c!., _~~
~~4-.~~
~~c C *,~~
~~y. c .'. q, ,e ,a q 7x x <. y; f.. g~i;;;.Q,y.- 5 yg g ,,' A y4. s ( c- . }L ,av y f_ ~ .e- ~,. c Sr. m 7 ,1 v . M ".g. ', 3e/ ,. A . / i.-., ' eg,, ^ (='~~
~~.q:~~
.( ,,~ ', c 3 ^ *
~~Lb,~~
, ; c ~. ' i f a. g .f,.g.' '4 C' iW I
, ~. e., -,~..bh L 'J@fk@i$g.k,b . lN N M h k hlh ifN$NMNN re>g. MES$Ds$M@22 MM Ms g +s3RsHi#M ? 4#s~.%'ngMykh M m n.
~~97 Nd#5 w~~
~~nn w> g 4g.m.n. %* m. ~m. %cA. ar.n / .s,c. 9 m .w~~
~~n. a.f.h~,s.*vQ n-v p.gi ww w~~
~~{ g, ds DM ~ gWMg h tion permit proceeding for the same facility. We concluded that little )[.fff47kN;hh-%Qh*[$$hi@ M weight should attach to that consideration because (1) there was nothing~~
~~g@y hNMf'$z tb N~~
M% before us dat would permit the conclusion that the participation in the nhppfDj;. construction permit proceeding made a substantial contribution to the tdMp;dQ.hps.M h,d% k b (!d MMME posed to litigate in the operating license proceeding bore no resemblance &t n development of the record; and (2) the issues that the petitioner pro-i MM!%$y,k3.y].d,y,. GNfg3?Oi Mw % : f M 'j W y. r to any issue that might have confronted the Licensing Board in the con- @$$;%jM/M@y sjcy ypga'.;hk @%gAic%w,3 J dd struction permit proceeding. Id. at 400-01. MM.#hM@ji Ng gd We need not undertake to examine the now closed records in the two M RA##hp@h.gk MS Trojan licensing proceedings cited by the Coalition. Even were such an M/N examination to reflect that the Coalition made a significant contribution khh Mkhf N.M to the development of those records, the question would remain whether %y Q Tr &c.y m@ y%< p G w.9 3(.i @p s a similar contribution is likely in this case. In common with the Shore-4 ~? ip 0 Mr,y.W4fDJig j. 9 m$p,f. ham petitioner, the Coalition has not claimed, let alone demonstrated, 9 h)d,9fM@yG3%pLQ g that the issues it proposes to litigate here bear any relationship to those p@fyy$1 d[Mgf%h&MG.hk [Mid[M O M presented in the Trojan cases.38 Absent such t demonstration, it was in-b h@$-k@! /hh cumbent upon the Coalition to explain why an inference favorable to it M M on the third factor nevertheless could be drawn from the fact of past in-
~~h k M 4;TM h DQ@h h@Mf$d%@I volvement in our proceedings. This, too, was not attempted below.~~
bhh D. Moving on to the fifth lateness factor, we find ourselves in agree-D@M[;MMMM$MYl.#g ment with the Licensing Board's conclusion that it weighs against the f w 4 Coalition but not sigmficantly so.2' Obviously, a grant of intervention E$gw gc#pM+IM~ h?Ne.;aMM.c$%m@a,y@smn% MP.k re w MM will broaden the issues because, to repeat, there would be no hearing at mm all if the petition were den. d. It is not equally apparent, however, that, ie ehe y em fU.h i<Nh$k ?fhh@h),gh had the petition been filed by the October 15,1982 deadline, the Coali-k% M tion's issues would or could have been heard and decided more expedi- %I.khri N,%p%MpdM,M*hN"'((rM 61 4 ' h @N j, W NA tiously than is now possible. On the contrary, the facts before us strongly d st.ggest that the lateness of the petition has not ofitself delayed the prog-eg,aj.d.7 mmh 5.kM" w ' G,k-;. n ress of the proceeding. o NhhNf Mhh3NN$h On this score, applicant's counsel advised the Licensing Board by July h5kMM)M29IQMM.M*@h MMN MUM 12, 1983 letter of "an immediate construction delay of WNP 3 until an J assured source of funding for continued construction can be obtained. MM$kT gpfg@@gQjgg@%2P3q; Attached to that communication was an undated confirmatory letter Q M M.lM.M MM.WMY/W@O !;$p".h '< i.' sent by an official of the applicant to the Director of Nuclear Reactor % M h: Regulation. The Director was advised that the applicant would " attempt ..N.t j k$. hN @%% M -i to preserve [ construction) capability for a reasonably efficient restart [. 3..( p., %.p f @ A. f w o @ M., M jl during the next 3 to 9 months by retaining the key class I contractors" 4,y y-JJ @ A,.y a. 74.--- gnen s3.:.' 9 > 3, y ;. ;p s "3 ...t ..y P,./3 f M M ()' ~ -w ~, 7 '., ' t f ;.N d >Si y 's -t 30 That no such relationship can be assurned is clear from the nature or the questions posed and decided L , L ;.y * *. /?, .' y N.i in the two Donre proceedingt See Porr4 rad Gearre/ Elrcrrr Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant). ALAB-524. 9 ~.4.. ^% V
~~4.i($.[Q.e;o$ f ' i l ? [*3 7- @ d j'*.- 9 W.~~
NRC 65. and ALAB.534. 9 NRC 287 (1979) (controi budding); at.. ALAB-531. 9 NRC 263 (1979) -' T'J @ . i> <gy e, f4;diA, (spent ruel tool capacity espanssord. c Ys w.w a:.w,.w.,;,en;. w.mm.ww:,?g. n a.,n^3 n.s.;; .m %WUM
~~nh.n fM &&.s 2 f 2 %'C ~O L*;.f M.N MNTl$d,'*,%M.g%W. ExQhk.i$jQh y4 ert.%~~
~~Y. II78 M. A e;. w g. W f M. R < b. @y-U %., p:q GO .- g m w..Q:. & p'\\. D,t.y v/<....~ Q.. i u \\; &... %w:n.- [ ~.l.l.. Q a ,..),.. z.w -. x. m~~
~~l l~~
~~?. !.( >.au, e n.v.w.,e u;y 4;,.o' $n n % %W-Wch.7.'J.C lg ':d o, n b.N Wf' M gigs k~~
~~D bi? t.' I '-~~
~~'h .I. > ~ c;A[g '~~
9,.~.- %

3. m % W W 'i M t;.~v v g m :.7: m y g: eu.- v -
~~- L :;.}1,yg (pt ~ w m n.- q p H, y.7 %eyg;s p@p;w.l?4z%+q:m::y w y z. .R. Q g ; Q,,y.,cscy y:pp;qn. .o4.;-~~
~~. ;.., y... ;~~
~~., w..x. yg w 1.; q: < p:p sp.5..y-s x3. y;y.x r g~~
~~y. y; y...;;n,~z.. ;;;a w.~~
~~w a. a w8 ,m s, _7 b5 .. 1....: . ;. ~ng s N - EYs b ,%. ~, C:: M v. c.'h." [, d$ '** J-a d.[c# h..Qm'$..[;;'- ,.z,,._...,c,','22, '. ' =. [-- .. w .s % ( C 1~~
~~m ;.y[t e.~~
. -l*: 3. g qw:.' x;..V Q,,: w y# p,f i* r- ,1 p $]4.,'y y,, p,;,,n.;;.4. : - 7.x ~;, c g;w. 4.p qs.w, m~ os: a w m. ,s. ny ** m ; i ~ ~~ . n, a i- - ~. ; +. n~ ]* * .:n ~ ;. -.. <. z r. ~ lq~ ~ < -'21 ' a y,,' Qd.k } [ *-)7. m,iTi+ ~
~~[ _~~
~~,J ng [t.' ^ ,p '}f P' o 43 s . + & g -sy .-. pe A s q -- + si e.' .J.:,,..... : -... _.,,,~~
~~4 l~~
r I ~ w 'f. et b v i G., -. s t [,,.**, e. '.,- s c.;. ~,,w -r v. I and that it would " continue to seek to remove the impediments prevent-a We ; ..a ing further financing of WNP-3 in arder to resume project construction .n%, f,... '.. A ' ?. >. ? activities.,, i 4 w Approximately one month later, at the special prehearing conference y ~i convened to consider the Coalition's proposed contentions, applicant's 4e.s- . f - C.. m counsel provided the Licensing Board with a further oral report on the [4 :,' ;
P,
~~status of construction. According to counsel: [w: y., '.t -m ~..~~
~~z.. c.. p. ?,.~~
~~1 ,.a Q.. r, ( . e..~~
~~w. ~~~
3y. - s-7 On July 8th a one year wind down construction was commenced. The project is in if y% (((M M %5 p.T d.l-Q (, ' s . SG ec, e the process, in the early process of coming down from construction. The projected ,3, i E Q,. k,yp.6$p. ggg.;hijy!>pe.q;kgd~ n outside hmits of the construction deferralis three years. The Supply System is hope-f6 M' ful and optamistic that a financial plan can be organized in the near future such that W Q c ..o w,. the delay period will be much shorter than three years. The plant is 75 percent ~- c . E Aw p f,f474s,i w.. J w-g,lb>g((,h]Q)$$QM ~ (N' Q 2 f MNQ :S1"I Q.h,. g complete, they were constructing at a rate of two percent a month when they %3d2k.V; ' d f.Wp stopped construction. The Supply System's inten: ion is to restart construction at the carhest possible time, and to complete the project at the earliest possible time.M 's ;$..,.M%' [}fa * *N.v.< k!,> ' u ' 7. h, ? ? " p . 1. %,a A.cE ' u f ~.. .,y; y, c'W' M' 5,-A.,.'. s a 4 gM,c! W Q s.5.'. M'.~a i Given these developments, it should come as no surprise that the 3 ag " ?, 2.,5 m 9 m.n .v staff seemingly is attaching a low degree of priority to the safety and en- ,.w.c ^ ,%, N ~. &. s .,M.. ', i K.o n' W~' T,r..' ' ' %, d. ),. 'W m ,c ~~ vironmental review of the operating license application for this facility. n. .. m m o
~~>,% < F W_ >, hR N %MM in ' hat connection we take ofGcial notice of the content of the September W-~~
,M'. bN.[..NN, y ... ^ 1983 Regulatory Licensing Status Summary Report (NUREG 0580, + >~.m-R.Q]Mh,5. B.,Z w M M.c,d.n>.- r u Vol.12, No. 9). It appears at page 2 31 of that document that, as of p % g.. J. 2 m" s . N : %. P M.gl- .m September 30, 1983, the contemplated dates of issuance of the staft's . W..y,~ 9: %d]gg;* TMWN(;k[N..t C- ~' '".e~ hy5 p%.
~~gQN, nnat environmental statement and safety evaluation report were April 6 and August 9,1984, respectively.~~
~~W W. 4. % Ms... g #.m.% <,O;4P.A. t. .# 9 Ne s it follows that, even if the Coalition had Oled its petition on time, it is W M_ $ (";$y.. n% 4 F,,' @ x r~~
~~s.. n.r doubtful at best that the adjudicatory hearing would have commenced F~~
~~M /4 .N... W., 'iny earlier than the latter part of 1984. In any event, it is a virtual cer-~~
~~u. lc. v.~4 @w.. ~ ; e V W. W..~~
s : gh. MW[w. @. r#A . - m tamty that the Anal curtain would not - indeed could not - have fallen 4?94l/ N f.%' e r 41h $ydh*h. on the proceeding in advance of the public availability of the safety eval-uation report. h^.khf5M. a., r % u J[-@'o -6.NG
- w hMh N All in all, the situation at bar does not difier materially from that in W h E M. p m.Y,o %.. @w -:,.C 3. 7-KM Greenwood. ALAB-476, supra. That decision involved an intervention Mks e pgy.gg.Ws
"-p.<f. m petition that had been filed in a construction permit proceeding more . i.. 3.D y@a WtpeWM.f@:%, m@ than two and one half years after the prescribed deadline. Notwithstand-d L'A p e. n... h.:,.~ W, q+ r W-w,v. w. s. ing the extreme - and unjustified - tardiness, we held that the delay W up o. " '~~n a ,w z .n ,m factor did not loom large. This was because the applicant had suspended p,JJ. $ @.h @ y.%[< w% 7, awre 4 n a YiMh O.Qi "the engineering and licensing efroit" in connection with the project in light of a then inabili:y to finance construction 7 NRC at 762. $ Q,, n G,.V. ..m.x
~~"g,6,j $y m y,Q 3 N;w';;.[ fey,wv.~~
~~m,~,:. m.n.? v".y 7f3**'f e ,k J d. ~.T'd p p~~
4

- ;;..
.?
~~4 v.j ef., _ L %,~~
~~'.: e. I G-d*4 h. 3 fD.~~
~~k,t* Y.'*g.- 9,% t,.;?~~
?N t.. M, m,. r ;, o p.9 - '

. 7 pp.
~~, s ~,, D - G 7..'. -.g, :* gw.;p n, .F s., J2 Tr. % 57. M U r p w%~~
~~c. D., m.,.. %e~~
~~. ( g..'- u.5 3 8 g p, (y/ Qe v'" zw t 4. Q.c., & &> > N;. g,.,.. +., w e 1..q.W cc>.'- J.?.g4 g.' '.t. e v..g%M/l4.y.&g:$'.., - s a >.s ~~,"r J.e M f.. e p..-x;-R. -t 1179 a t $.M:..y * r~~
~~< {.c (T3 W A '- ' % A,'* v,y '.' g y n,-~~
~~u ,7~~
~~s W~~
~~-$ b SY "h6l hhY h?h'O c? - ? l e,c' s.M e n e,y Ne M k $ m %[n. ,,c~ 4 q- ,,!? C *a4 *- .d p ~~~
~~nwn)m[?[f 4 ),K,C.. M,o s,%M[v &j.~~
~~g A '. a# mwymn7.pyg,y;u:g&@$. a.n')W.g y.g ^? 3 M,y j> q %)f$ dy > mpy W h k ~-~- p n y. m w --v. -v, e ;- - -.e .. w. ~ , m' -~~
~~n. 3 7 q.g, s ;y..e 33~~
~~.wm ~9,(.; p m. 3~.wy; ';.:1.,.a..e; w.-~~
~~b..~~
~~-. e ;y,. - 4 n 3 x.... ;e. .aAur, h,tg <r c sW~- mru g ~ ,. s. n. r 8 .~ a c;.,*s. , n. _ g,r ..h ,,-+<q--3 ^.,g...s,.yb ss (+~~
~~q ;.~~
~~w/ 7,., y 3...c%,.,,.... gy, m. y e .. ",' w q-q. ; O,, ' ',,.. a. 5 4 3-R e. .,s o~~
3.
s
~~.C, ys, er # s" ^r N [~~
. g ;; f. )

.,. N. N c'{s
-LK ".y ~ q [w... . - c.v w wz'e. l *, s ~ ,,.r .:v: .,~ s tj., +.., .u s i ,,.,.a n a * - = ~~ ~ ~ - '
_& %;n,..exn
3. M.I'j'g

i.... ; U.. J
?. t ;7,,9 YW$,MQw;h,y,N5' $h,.f;;';.$m tWg!h$;.c. +:, s:.f f.. +, - f- ? $..f' h h k h,$ju w:h::,,';I & ,.m nd ry n nn v: ' v v. 5$th $b hY,c**EWb Sh.??5" e NY2bhMIthkbi$NNQrf.bhh.hh %%w;?^2,43 ? NNNMM hMMh$NNbdNhN&w,w%g*&.I@ MyhWQ "M
~~& & %g t % cq w y'a w FktQ K; yy.Mh@&MM?d,&NW* $y 6 A~~
QCQEV..& H MQWQ 9 m &#4h WYp - Au % %w a& : N 3. % je$ % p rg,m w :m. m# 4.q*ik.. M /bE Me A wmh 2 Nd>mgA,a;Sh cw.k, gc g % a.m% 4'N %4 MMM M Ad'M d.],idgu.yjMmvk e Cu Qw Cx yey x-W W iG M R' W.t w &o M..- p m R&MWp+M;>. ~: MWW4 9y. hC A'A-- w qw.wc%S.Ar rm.gmw t Q v y %,,m;s w;dld M.Ap M: Q xMm%p%a.g w ay W 4,;W W; Wn M;w. t MQ M?%g'?.% ; mN:+c%,;w u pg Mh,pco,. s, dQfNMWX6*D:4??bh.i
~~h'd)bfM.gR$p?$hy%yg;. B.'.~~
d To be 'sure, in~ view of that action, the Greenwood applicant had ac-h %WWA.dpMW:@h ;g@h quiesced in a suspension of the licensing proceeding. But that considera-4 tion doe' not provide a crucial distinction. It matters not whether the k kh @i.i,kN E.k N@hh s ? % Y M N.Q M
~~il.;>M consequence of an applicant's cessation of work on a nuclear project is k~~
hhhNDhA$f,.R an agreed upon, and indefinite, formal halt to the proceeding (as in Greenwood) or, instead, simply a more leisurely staff pre hearing review Idhfl:NNT; hidNh.I,J y4.3. %.9.,.,m ..g;-p,.?.vry4 W:., process (as here). In either circumstance, the pivotal question is whether
~~1. qA.. s.ggA4. <.,.,y 4 A w. A g-g,,c c w.y, an addjtlon31 Consequence of the cessation of work on the project is that t.<~~
z g grg ge. M.~;.j.Ogr. m...y [,i'pM; M.%..~ s >Z the late petition is not apt to be a contributor to delay in the progress .y - .M.6$Vh.M and completion of a hearing on the license application. In this case, as in g M[ N D M % 'E58;M @h h. M yjg j'gf-ff Greenwood, that question requires an affirmative answer. C M h r. D ; M M M @ y M ;j Finally,,'.e applicant stresses that, if the Coedition were denied f hy. intervention, the adjudicatory proceeding would now be st an end. (Br. f.$hMM%6/Nh/d[@jM c ?.i at 37.) We regard that happenstance to be irrelevant. For purposes of f/&pfyMP.h49 S N M M S M ji S @fpi p@ g. the fifth fatter, the question is whether, by filing bte, the Cc:alition has MN.9DI hhQM { [.j occasioned a potential for delay in the completion of the proceeding that would not have been present had the filing been timely. Cf. Long Island 'W.hb$y& YhNh&$ .s p:. yhe Lighting Co. (Jarpesport Nuclear Power Station, Umts. and 2), NM.q,b.h,#;g$MIDD7trN.Mr N ALAB 292,2 NRC 631,650 n.25 (1970." M M N; 'N:.yb:M EdQ. g.d M $ d 4;; y A.,3. m : w,.c. ~ r n.. 4, %.:.,, 4
~~.n y r~~
iI L.' wu y w.q.9);Q.M.y;q m,% ap m,,pqy;n.3Q,,n. 4 2 t sy .m.p yf,, 'Y% - 3.- In sum, we concur in the Licensing Board's appraisal of four of the 3 %.%y!iOM%.. ,Mgfe{$7 M tive lateness factors. In most instances, such a broad area of agreement -74 AM CThf W.QQ MNf;Z$OJf$ would lead to an aflirmance of the result be:ow - particularly given the 1 y, qj y l m p, a M W, M @ prevailing " abuse of discretion" appellate review standard. Here. g /e,z.~ wc P-e. ~ s, $,'.., A % n.e 4,,.~ however, we have concluded that a ditTerent course is warranted. . A. ~m, .a n. r, ,,..wg,%.D As seen, our disagreement with the Licensing Board pertains to the m G' 4;;, $g:y e-, W ej Q,.Pf.i Qa,a&., J.C. sufficiency of the Cosiltion's showing on the third factor - its abi'ity to a 7 .;3. g.w,'5 w. u*s:m. ps,f contribute to the development of a sound record. Although that factor is r m r % -v 7 a mp gg., sM;s g.. ygeg important in the determination of all late petitions, we th,nk it assumes w;~ nw i a. ,c~.. e yet greater importance in cases, such as that at bar, in which the grant or 0, 'e _....,, 4 i. & : y y..M ;.9%; - denial of the petition will a!so decide whether there is to be any adjudica-g qyp*',p. Q. v.%y, M.@ y.,/@p-Quc,gy 3 g p: ioem
~~if;g~~
-tory hearing. See Tennessee Valley Authonty (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, / ..~ - -@ %g'f % y'$ o. g$ g id Mi,Q g,$ 7/ s;g j Units 1 and 2), ALAB 413, 5 NRC 1418,1422 (1977). Stated w %. <e,;,"p m r.g :,:.< g; . r '< j ss .1 v ...w, fp y
~~j.,,. A, Q,3..l~~
~~'.i.~~
~~d.,* j,o e.7 M 33 n this connection, there is no ment to tres asp 6 cant's reha. ice upon Cread Gu(f. ALAB.704, supra i~~
~~. f4 + ; ',,. J.~~
g
'~ , d, '. 4 There. the intenention petition bad been 9ted almost four years late and more than a month arter the e issuance or a low power ostratmg hcense rcr the Grand Guit racdity. It was in this contest that we . A ! f,,. ', ' ays ,sQq i stated that "it is manifest to es t' tat the grant of an inter soon petition at t44s, cry lose hour. afree the [., E,, ',, A - - G i,, * ' Dwerror of.vucitar Reactor Meruteren has ass,rd a kw wer A ronung kcrase m an uwerstedproverdmt. ,, ' ~ =, v vN,.
~~r:,~~
f wdl perforce broaden the now non.etistent aJbadicatory is*ues and delay conclusion of the proceeding." ., M.h s n {. ;, q$ fge '..e.e.g Q, g.[..g c-o, g., 16 NRC at 1730 (emphasis supphedL Asjust seen, the situation in the ceae at har is markedly difrerent. ,t.. g g g."i 7, -,,..- ,..~ ~z. .gr-w. 1-L w v n e. ,m ( * ',, e ' * > ^ ' ' s o f y' , M* MS.q(f,M, g
.o

w'np..p,i-Q,n'l'NY{ k') }q q;.W, y:% 3....w"ftys-
~~'.,Q 'q,%,% 1180 v - $. 4. ' *;; j ef L 4.; ) e : 4 m 35.24 y "*J r. e, .ec.s , f ', ' a'., " *.. *O*. A g~~
~~8,~. /g 3~~
~~, c, , b n: >,. : w* r ;,;, c ' > - c a a.. ;~~
~~n. ',~~
~~i. ,.~< %.r+'r.:. .'Q. s n p. 3_. +e y . ;.~,. ' s L, '.,.. Y N;:d,,,['g 4,,i 4, Cs $ .: L 1 * = *, {g?)' h*":,,!' h_.M] A~~
~~2.. c:~~~
~~g s e - m,, ng r.S e y m p q. 3 ~w~~~c.3 c.- 3,e 3 m m;.. re. w. s sQ;.r L . ' x; T M. y. ; : m -n n (4 m,._. r._.,4.. v - g ~,. r... - ~., v.,,,. 4 y. e w. / N.s.~~
~~. '. 7 ; *s '. f.r.;W9 )~~
~~'t,: f..' . ; ; m: 'r.'y e,~~
~~x %.. nf w : '(,f,:~~
';a ,L 'd .; n , u / e m '. - 'y'. 's;:,., - W -y< . ;1 e s a 'i t^' ' K :a' r,, n. (" ' e..,, ., s.v ,n _.c .s 1... .y ;~ l ~ .,,t.,y. b'a'I -', Ci os - .y.. j $ $.% /E b , f.'. N'w# 'a.... ' [ N ' c v. y,.,c,~'-- h t w w j.', ',# .
f
~~.N',.,., e '" ' ,s .g e,<u f.~~
r, n -

J
~~,.a y 3 *s # 'c,, ',4~~
~~s. -.. r. +~~
~~t - u.' v 'v 5 a . ss ,.c.L t .;v= ,. g 4e hig~~
~~s, y,g5~~
~~++ 5 -f; 2 j. ( 'y * /,- g~~
J l' ' ' ***
~~gg, v' *.. i N. c, 4 d v;~~
g
..4* s e t
,+ r 1 J + '. 4 s w - t- , JcN i ~,.~,. ~ otherwise, there appears to us to be no reason to allow an inexcusably e'
~~E A. ~, a belated intervention petition to trigger a hearing unless there is cause to~~
. I'l ; * " ^ believe that the petitioner not only proposes to raise at least one substan-sN k tial safety or environmental issue but, as well, is equipped to ma e a i d..,. N t . ~ pCi worthwhile contribution on it. We accordingly vacate the relevant portion of the Licensing Board's N,. v' Apnl 21 memorandum and order and remand the intervention petition ddi. (Z' to that Board with instructions to require the Coalition to make an a ~ %..,.,, a s, h ing t tional showing on the third factor? Should the Board find the s ow _ c-p # s.m c . o 1 - , f O e:f illu-to cure the deficiencies we have discerned in the cursory and un M M M M % % + h" h y A N: h minating recitation on the third factor contained in the Coalition's h{4. #pi [Q.g g Q[' a %.9 @yg p%. petition, the grant of intervention is to be reinstated. Otherwise, inter-7 W.g:: .d vention is to be denied. In either event, any further appeal to us mustE ~ d... C. s ,e, -< V:i$1.f..,.. s rest on a clear demonstration of an unmistakable abuse of discretion on C,., - 4 c.4 4 C &" " i! M b 2>. y6gy ' " the Licensing Board's part. In exercising its discretion, the Licensing Board will, of course, apply 9:.xq2% &q.. >Y-Mb
Shoreham, i

d.. J.9. "..,.5 ' K E l. W.. a...
~~.m the guidance provided in Grand Gulf, ALAB-704, supra: E yp m AL AB-743, supra; and this opinion. To the extent that the Coalition con-MQ. g, (, 5 y~~
. 4 d

' '
m i i i proceedings, tinues to rely on its participation in other NRC l cens ng has been y g4",+ J K,, g A the Board should wish to satisfy itself that enough information li di@t ~s s provided to enable the drawmg of an informed inference that the Coa - f W.5 f.;',' y ' M.X.MN - I f M 7' &m tion can and will make a valuable contribution in this proceeding. nso ar Yfi?% @7Nh. [M[$Mj; as the discharge of its Grand Gulf obligation is concerned (see p.1177, b M Y @' jM pM.g supra), the Coalition should both (1) identify speciDeally at least one wit-kh lM J~ M I N , O.M, ' ness it intends to present; and (2) provide sufDeient detail respecting b %.b _ Ng'r m-d T that witness' proposed testimony to permit the Board to reach a reasone O.M. !.'~ S .n... ,a. c .<-wfg;c'76 % M.s.m* conclusion on the likely worth of that testimony on one or more of the .,. ' M e M ss d'W s 7.F TW. .~ contentions admitted to the proceeding in the Board's September 27 Y W d >' - Y. J b' d M I l i,. V. W,,+.;.4 f+ ; w f a,. k f,.. ..../ g memorandum and order. l. a. 4 n,- e m' fgc. a v 46. N f 6 'T S fth ' hh[hMNjh. M5 7 %,"1 The Licensing Board's April 21, 1983 memorandum and order is ~
~~C OV d ulti-vacated insofar as it addressed the third Section 2.714(a) factor an byF N. Fx%.,'". 3 wf. _ a y y~~
~~mately concluded that the Coalition's intervention petition should not %.gg., j ~ ' '. t w y .v,.j 4 - ?v f. A. m <~~
~~h..p&.y..~~
~~.+ + rt D;,. # :a r & >W.m E.g., Q '_?y@ N g; % - U4, '.4 gcce. ;N, 3 % ',Q. w d ?~~
~~L 1 3> %rw Q.. ? j..M ys4 P y_q q r '~~
~~y Q.. ^* ; G.! ( 9a ? ry,/'t -4 . ;. $ 7 i ! 1. -N v. p,V ,l4l Df i # { h, Q. '~~
4
.? But the circumstances or i:.QJ . vv ".R 7@% hM. t *, g.'% #j '[; 7 A sirmias opportunity was not prended to the late pet tioner in $4ereArmces tiecause (although not record- ~ M. /c. n 34 that case were cetterely dinerem. w need not now catalog the di erened m At ABJ4D the Sno r '. e h t her chent
~~.,J A [. 1 4.] c.~~
~~..yyp, s d . ~,., was prepared to rest on the third factor showing that had been ma elater did) that it was msufricient.s. ( q,u T.~~
~~. 'M V i '~~
~~4 enh an orsortumty to t elster that showmg were we to hold as we m$eW % v< , '.m 7 \\ ^,. 4 ~, g, p' :&q-4 p..~~
~~y. y! E.w w'm.~~
~~"y! &...,-m 7,. . c. A; .4.s 1& j.. ,w, V.. pW'.'V 1181 4 T.' ,., g s,~~
~~k..,.~~
~~.e N . 7 [' "',k "%.q. f, $ _.i c. s 2.*. e.. f, ,.., -N~~C Q M 'Q W. M.psu.k n ' & fg ;;fp *-,~~
~~y. w._ m,.~~
~~f }; Q. m;%g. p 4~~
~~-l Y~~
~~Q .m, % g y s.~~
~~s K,o h?$~~
~~. m. ..,g*,, ..., y,.,g. .~ . u.; ,f f. .,9 M;. ; A. I '. ,y AT & g,., -*. 7. W. n e.* g ' t n, p's u.,e.~~
~~, 'g sa..~~
~~'y ;. p. '\\ '+q..- nQQ* ~ Me .. N s , Qy%. ;-v., ' j 5" s ,. ; } j JD y } e ). . to s s ~. m: '_. t ,,ks ,a c .g.p.. c us a~~
.;, ~..; g{

Q
~~&h ,J:.ee ?yn :, ; i, Q,'~.. -:,., : s y, 'n ...- +:, y-m . rb: W4VA*h* lQj~~
~~n, ~.~~
~~y n,,,, ; :.~~
~~4. &.~.& u(lTi%:,e, g i s~~
~~h .W Y~~
~~Y YY m? k.kh kl m$.a :b~~
. W Q. m;. w -a>.$, m : Y(h ' u.4,g ep.rQ.;W, ,W ? w : 2 p.svla. w e x', 4 - A.,n ~.ww.s.s sm/%,; ' nm .,~ QV&.,3 (%#r.s{5.gm@.hfl 7 an ,,ahw::ify.g;p$ ? Mv. Dy$lb $ h ! h k N h @W = M ;.,*; M 3.:* k:h.b$$n%C .& r.W+ >W ~ Kr.:m C p. m-A.y=w&Y N h % A 1;:A m.M # % o %m % a v. m.n A &.ts p g ; g fo W@py % 3-Q: W 1 i i %e w w b.w y wdh p m. 'p4.w..g,&c.y ra p <si. pm - - a.mv w~ m r mv g.,.45tfb a e.d.m_, u -nw A..d? :,.ss R &eq,% Q Q u % d&. 1;; $.yE cM.L?/GQ. M W-wA M F 9 % p H W
~~yry trF M & '*4gi %.g k.p w.q, Wb-w. 9 m a a~~
Qs w& m? m 1 MW tMW g m+w ea m?&m.~Q,.w.W w.cn.. h %ge%g R.,Q p w w N, 4 ww yN @N M b p h k h,fk(fh M M I; &[g v be denied because of its untimeliness. The cause is remanded for further nny % a. [G 9,/M };M! % Q x 2 p g Q :2 M h. h..n."'7 3.T M., s,. M tg
~~M proceedings consistent with this opinion.~~
Ph -w: it is so ORDERED. y g y. n y@ f FOR THE AFPEAL BOARD {';may.% w% %%~%v & m g %n' p}*46 ,s %g t;OJM (&y2N W4 MO i.r J.s h; a.' 4 4 p. W M G 4 Ai.>p w!, w m u k.U. p % K*U p.c. q iR p C. Jean Shoemaker gdM. M @hn JCM S..g M I M, N-.+. W $.<..s v, $. w % n@ 8 M.. J@ s4 4 Secretary to the y Appeal Board M k,d@MM %YVNN.i .MM@85M.YY@e[NMihi $ N ' $ $ $ i$ Opinion of Mr. Edles, concurring: hk.$$ w@w,h5hNh, gim.M*h.$I I join in the Board's opinion but offer two brief observations. First, I
~~.6 %w.6 $~~
t
w.
n s.u s m <g,. agree that on remand the Coalition should provide sufficient detail re-Q M t. M;,. @%.3 6 M W $.>, m. @$ $ y$e Mbdy[,M.g>wu..w@'6 R.q Mp meeting any affirmative case it plans to present. This will permit the s $.wm db.g4i i.icensing Board to make a reasoned decision as to the likely value of the 4 Weps t . c e, g,7 j@$hn petitioner's participation. But I do not read our opinion as imposing an > k N h ki Y f.N M a, M. M b M g 'Dd'h absolute requirement that every late intervenor must put forth an af-A:r yN. firmative case.
~~9. pa st w,a M., w'o W.m y~~
, N M.7 y,.n v uc, 4 a. m. e.. m. % p.l Q M g E Our cases clearly recognize that cross-examination can be an especially JMe!4M-93 dhM WGU valuable tool in the development of a full record and that an intervenor D')2f 3M;Wsq!SN.,,.n; f@wdervw. u 4c,7*% may even establish.ts entire case through.ts use. Louisiana Power and i i cn.p $I '.7%iwhr;b M+. n,4 % m. 62"h M i4 M, %N8 @M M Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 ffDa M NRC 1076,1096 n.30 (1983). And we have at least suggested that the . MiVQj.WM'me,ng.&y m i ,/ N4 7 4 4..; ability to cross-examine effectively is a relevant considerat,on when con-OR'db.W NFW,f/h.Mj sidering a petition to intervene late. See Summer, ALAB-642, supra,13 ,M;b h.2N NI.['M G C Qi'S,LM'fD. q@yW.ce v%AMA..Y) Y NRC at 892-93.t Despite the generallanguage in our Grand Gulf opinion - MM and the majority opinion in Shoreham about the need to identify wit- ,J -.n ; 4c: ymp. p1
~~a n.~~
nesses and summarize their proposed testimony, we were not called r,~ %apr p.vv...sN W.$..yW 7 4.:.a M.' M M Pitt.W.... N..o3m .em Mi.< upon in either of these cases (or in this case) to consider an argument mms.b.MM.' \\M$yNEdM@d] regarding the role of cross-examination as an element of the factor three
~~b..y.MOffe.M,'.$r$WyJQra..,r. yA evaluanon.2 Although I suspect it will be easier to satisfy a licensing s~~
~~.#4 . gW :A:Q. e b.., ?y 3*.Y Vg:*'Qf:sd grf aWi Q w b 'l~Q. Jy w h!,ylhY$h4NZ?Wffh?l .C M.1A. . u.3w .i-5 ?* ^'h. .?l.N$. -s ewu~s.wrym~~
~~WA ww y... +~~
, n* p p.y p y' L,cp D y,4p,3, Q,f Jy%s r.w,,}.g W) iIn the Summer case, the prospective entervenor fell short of demonstrating that it could contnbute to . t y m.,.m :..a. 5 14 je,, 5 M ".p[;.- j the record sufDciently, whether by way of witnesses or in combination with an abdity to cross-examine. @ 4 u.1 - 2., *. ,[ Lp 2 In the Shoreham case, the petitioner did not senously argue that its ability to cross-examme was critical l,{. +4 s , p.[f g[Q;,J:p[;l,i.y,, ', rf. W Qk. F,u R.[:. y j. 7 to its presentation. Although ! noted in my essenting opimon that the ability to ask questions on cross. t
~~-: w--, d examination was a matter to be evaluated in determimns whether the petsuoner could make a useful s, g "~~
sy ,g. .M(( /[,.,' .* g:s. , S..;; y #:j petitioner's presentation) focused on the petitioner's ability to contnbute to the record through the pres-N 5 contnbution to the record (see 18 NRC at 407) the masonty plainly (and quite reasonably, given the 4.n/ *%.@: u$b. N' $5. f G'Cfl Age $.y3@p.p; s-j - % g&.y;g, s C"4 3 entation of testamcay and the introduction of afDrmative evidence (af. at 399 402). 7 v N *h. a:: 1. L m.?:..... 4 - i.s5 L ;s; . ~d . E-7 dN)A : ' D-9 )sk i[d,;*M,,W..Y:.%).Wl- ' e. ~ t. P: ,a z " ?. : W.-at ',i b=Ni i .I F1 e g'.tr g w'**% f W: WQ vt; is.4... 'v x I* M. ',A.]YJ x. [,M, A6s *< g. + >y.g t,.p.*. @)*'M.e,wr'++d (p, kk ~ m..
'm#.#. b*
-,5 ,41..,-%4,3c m.. d ...,h ,Q.sff %p, Q.%).,,. a. A' ~f -s N Q-: .W'.c.M r Wf*fV t &- L I W.C Ri:P , cpWLO %w. %f9l@%;.p%M< l-w _y..s; ; ,Ar m t 4,..u & F y.9y,"h:l. -e%m w:, :w',3. N.n ;W:.Jm. n.m, p,, ys(E pli.h -.,,,,ym.,-* g A' ' ^pj@/.G'MqQi .w. . ~g;'",.. i *;'i.6,M.;,. 9,r.p,y:;y;y. ype+p ; ; e s,,:9; y. -q; n Q f[*..l %w m i4 1-
~~5.,s i~~
~~-m m. 3..,.,, v.mcv.,m, -.r +..,s.g...,,p w~~
y% * *

G ~o r,%.,,.. J;. 6

a % ~.b, n.
~~g p? *g.4. ;f.&.;..,y;:.~~
, t x

,,9.Al; p%%;.pg hy;wMy

',,'ys l.w;-~
4 Lf ~ e 4 .;:. ;:.t ,.9 s;ygc ,y+ ~ ~ i' ' ' * -. =. I.f f.'s.Qfk[g -qe u)5. a.l '.. 't) '$; '.5, k, sd.T: ' f.f$'.o 'f.4 :h !:; $ N**%. l M h* '. $ h.*[ 4;; * ~ ~ W M &s,. Q f.fw.. t n&w.:'w% &,; - l_.
~~w c^ :~~
~~!j A ?;M'~~
~~< m., [..,.. Q,w[y[&.-~~
t u* RQQ M./e~Q-.. y) ;&. 7 a.-Q.,x:n?y,,y cl' j f j?m..;>.n?&h. rm:.,n,, Q,: ~f ,.n. :&,.-. Q M .2 .~ u .a. .m,m n, .w mav .. a. n u .g. f ? f gR J - _l , m.m. m yy.., $. a;~:u. ,,e:L}&. y;.", ^'I Q::%.hm&,.h5fQ ' ;N- ;w
Q
~~$6.f.tk Y .? L '.e.q n q, q, er, e s g. .p, g .g.; ^-~~
~~i.. v c~~
x c.
2 y, board where a late intervenor plans to put forth an affirmative case (the ~ Coalition, for example, has already indicated its intention to present at least one witr;ess), we do not rule out the possibility that some future late intervenor may be able to prevail on factor three by reliance on cross-examination, either alone or in combination with an affirmative presentation. Second, I agree that a petitioner's track record in other proceedings may be considered in evaluating whether it is likely to contribute effec-C N' tively in a later case. I also agree that, in this case, the Coalition has thus k:.. c I k.. N. D'y. .f. far failed to make a satisfactory connection between its past participation Q..,g y,j gpM$ igg.,G glp Q-(:y Q y..j.g.. M y&q;$ g.y and the likelihood that it will participate constructively in this m '..,. M6 ; i P-proceeding. But our opinion today should not be read as foreciosing reli-Uc-4
~~g..~~
e <3(.s w; = m-s. ance on a track record where the issues on wh. h a petitioner participated p. 4,.;.;,35 e .p. ic . l. ;~., <uccessfully in the past have no resemblance to the issues to be confront-f..Ie ?. e-m .s . v ed in the new case. L 1mn 7,.- ,...s -,.e -; c. -J;~ Obviously a demonstration of ability to participate constructively w.ll (c.. ~ - i . g. f r.s.; m g' Y F.;."d, be easier where the issues are identical or, at least, similar. Such demon-C 1 + .stration of similarity of the issues may even be required in some factual f'+ ' i' D .., 4 ; K N ; *W re. tt ngs. There may be cases, however, in which a prospective participant / d i d$ O.$,M.WiF possesses generalized knowledge on scientific and environmental issues ?,~ s j ' ' dbp@ and asks us to consider its participation on other issues in other cases as W, y,. ..,g y .c N, y 4'.. S~- w w,,;.. n#.2 W 9L an illustration of its ability to marshall its resources, recruit any expertise ,v.I. ; ; 4. w.. & . @~.1 t n: ~
~~:s e.~~
~~~..,W. m. ay.. p T it may need, and participate efTectively on matters of interest to it. w p A balancing of the five factors is, in the final analysis, a highly judg-i~~
~~f. ~ ' #% %g.3.M%vE w ~~~
~. - , N..t~ m.y e. yg fg,P.g'MCMn M R1> mental appraisal in which the adequacy of a presentation on any of the v-factors will depend on the specific facts of each case. We are not attempt- < W :p # s,7 h. m. W> Q;6 y .y. ing to circumscribe in advance the Licensing Board's ability to rely on V-.-w w. mm s . m,.~" c.V. O ;;f g. M ~p. 7 cny information that could genuinely assist in that appraisal. r. ' 4
~~N I'.~~
~~"N ND.h ,,M . 'y.,$. [.'.9 . /'N '.,; 5- %[ , O. +., 7 n, W f.. > j 4' J' .O .u .c+..- ,.: a.s ,. m_. e b.-'..O'..g',,- .9 ., &., ' " :[ q",.Y' P.& [(*+ stj: t 4 i,, .4 m m F' {% 3(( ^, { t ~ 4~~
.

. ~ * %.g.
~~. c. n+.1 ,E. - 1~~
~~, D. e,%If.f,. i d.gy W P. - -. -~~
. g.; 9. % *
~~-f y#j.y ?~~
~~- m -& % r a e ' ' y# ' ( 's.,s a ".[' o -ct g . N y. g y'e9- . p.w. sn~~
~*

v Yf 5.A,f.
~~(( b s '\\. [,I,Q '9. ' r.,l ( *.-f.*,3... ',, .:7 M A-NT.O ' ;~~
~~. w~~
~~.Q A4 ~ s. ~,...w r, M,~k '" mm. r ..y ,g 1, + , ?. x' ' L..' + DI t' 4 w. m f, ;w (',.:q ,Q..y.g$-f 1,$.,%9 V.** , A~~
'f
~~) .q - 6 p+ . c., ,- ; g., .. MQ.-l3 '~~
~~y ]l: h' l%~~
~~Jh; }', 'M, sl-f'- " : a~~
;^
~~. - *4 J$ Z I,~~
~~,. s. %.: f =~~
~~@*-Q.% t 'y.p.)t >.~. n. n.& t,- Q -~. w- ,s~ .9; , ~~~
7 N IN t

ql's,, h @.D.
~~? .~.. '. {n., ~g 1 .,?e g W';,%;s-.(. g f i ' 'vE 4.< n e W ? Sk.. ... Qo ~..- .3 ~~~
~~'-. y..rd,Q.~~
9y
~~/g% % f 'p l }7;f[)j{'.$ $. f_ t .R~~
~~v.,~~
~~y%, r3%.. 7j .. *q .g ,v.4.-~~
~~e.,n9 :. _..,. -~~
'.po,F** g.:-v , g4*f '-), a. W +. c.f':,6. 6. 4,- .e.;'s z'O. !. - ^ ?-%,* p, ((, i +. '-?$.i.b' ).k[*N('. ^ p 'TS- +., -. hy N. *. ;.'. ,I ~ "z -.i. ; * \\ ':; e., - l R.n ed.?- {- ^ 1181 p t, .... n ':.n. - +. ~ - -m,; w, - ~ ~., n, u,9 -v. a y.n;g -q~.u i. M '. o t,,.,-:3.w :.h.a.,-*o.#-*rf,. 9, y. -- + p,:A y_ n M ' ~, . e . A "< 4. yc f [ 4."h. .?... ' ..*-? r *- s i 4 p 1- .c 'JQ4 (DM. m,Q.h/.t.[c,kk"-[. 'hd ; 'f*M1. s "$s.' k 7 .,,. n..~, n%, g. m.. 42m., 9. ~A p.. ay.wa.g <. r:. n g 4 u, a , x ..g Myg 2 Y..g y.1.g'g,, J- .. w q[ g':,.g, g,y gv,.,,,-Q.a7 g:.g.})y.gy; w ym. yr.mypv,yy -e;.y-,qqyz., narmm -. - ~ . m a. ,2 Y.. f..r.y m.g:.w.m n.s.w w,. . ~., n L; '.z. u.... g m.: : n,.-. .~ v m~.. . *..c.%, 2. - w~. c
~~4.v.h,~~
-.::;,'. ! t, .... * %w:.w c s ./g., m Q' a 1, n ?. S,..';( *.,~"x.w?e,'.',8 9 ;e a ...e f* #% g4',h A . f, - i *',' [ / #7 k ,..,-p~. h- ~, t. " '.m; 8;- m 'r g 4w ? . a. ~ q a..u w pl** % m,*f :< e . a a, u ;+ ,p n c.- 2, c W W s c 34.1 m ,. y e.,.s ,.,.ma.. '.i e 's. +.wr h y ^ [ [ =
~~fl.~~
~~4 ' s' r A., Q s,.,g"'.j Mpw" M g' ; e,N* g g, r .( 3.f, '., .'j. .r_,- + .y : i.a.- ., y ; ', D Y ' d' h,f f ?. j, .~~
g 3 '.

e y
g = .m.. 9 - ~ - - " 4_..% 2_ A
y p% p... - w y ; ~&.. 4-Q. c. a..: n. -- - w > e. s,.. .m.. .w, s. .., p.. ;. ,n., w-m, ~.- .v ..2g ,n. .w L,.Q*gh;i ,dwq* ;;m?Ay& :'lfw%py mc.w,%e.,',;J.M,." '.,9 " '<&. . ?) &,. u'O.k: n9 ~,.& . xv9..f. l'l U:',&,.!R',sru...Q?k n 2.- lWr '*,. ? 8 4 -~v wu.mn! +W,gm. ~ c - f, '-l-:%G ,.,s? h..,?)k, l. - iQ ',-Q:s:7.y.v q . m, m; y 1..:; Ai;'~; ~ +.. u a. .n. n. y. a.:.n W q;,p,. k.x g,~ m.+ ~., a - w m.. W; n m., s
~~ms ym wJ,.%r:p.m&.~~
~~w.W u :sa n.r:cn .m ;m r4%a%;4%n& M.w: ~ mw ~ .m..~ v.~~
~~Ww*w:my.w.,n www-:%p%m..s. 3. ~ %w w u~~
~~c A d #i"..yp%..n! c.su.t'X~~
~~' &:* n Vt'LU.V;.w:.~s g g. &:m., &.r.~~
~~w 4;lgere.+**sy&m.g. 6 v MOMrp' ;W1.w.rt.;.c;n~g&-Q **~.T'g*c> Q:.;::h. y;~~
~~w W,..~~
~~s.a.:,::W": @N 1 ' }., )%.g&m r, g.:c. w.y%.*. ^- a A a w..A~~
~~c 95-' e~~
~~.,s' ! > glm,>w::'my k g. Q % %. .w 4 r -np eM. ~, ;W,1~~
y: ~ :;,g. ?;
~~'4 n f~~
~~e Q. em.&, dy;. :Q't; y~~
~~A + q. Q.,7 m: .V. m.k p wy;;>nc%g w W.%g/*.4ga;q ~- -r:m w v-Ma..+w:W*m.;pJ.W;m.Q: u q x.. t yn1 .&.m,:b.a i*:[ A.g,..Q:. ~p ym~~
~~. e. w.,7~~
.;; y n,... w3.,r, r d., g w, g #7 4, g n P'.,1 C. %,.. as w}n. n; f grp..w.,g 5:ec;'* yp ', a.,-[s. g,/, %..fA, f2 ,. e n,. sm a co.4 m u gf e p .ww. .u.~.. x....e...:.y:., c / M &.%.E,.y u M M.:e #e.y j M
~~W l 6 M,S @e m:~~
~~w 9%,:.u cite as 18 NRC 1184 (1983) ALA8-748 .4. x.r...m,.m n.~~
p.

h, Q W &e w%G U a&a,%@ Q

. n;;.$,s &m' &.s. m &
~~Q 4 '%j, Mmq$.44.W:.,,*.,.Mf: GJf.'..,; @g W JG.., A. p. m Q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y%. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION re.v,g. .g g., d~~
. c4 e M, s;;~.m m f. r ;>.G1px,p

wwp. af.y.n *.: ~,: R:.?a% y m4 W
~~n ) 2.. m.%'s,,M.k,p.!n 2;o.. a w m +v .a n ,. b.. a. 0 %.. ;w-g:.,a e,. w y a c. '.,h. p.v*~' -y ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD g.w. v.:.i. w. v -. w.~~
%y

; N.,*f e
?. *',. * '.y sf%, - .t**
4
~~? m.y,.;. m....-) %.g.f'.i < g w % %.. : Q.h..f, v:. r. ,a~~
~~M. 1, h,j.*,v f. $ M;; G @G.. %.> g?.li@y *n..~~
f ; Yd. M y .j NsW.. u n ? Administrative Judges: -t!.; M{ a m.%g*1 w. .m. u. n.a c s.;;g ,a W.x:., d'O c$c.%~... c.% l; y,I. [4, N, m. W M K)jyy Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman y~ Wi.;%y 3 - cs 4 9 = T: @M g M. iR* 4 J-gly.@.A"k Gary J. Edles h %,p..; Wm.',..' W ~w ( ax ,. i,..,.J... g Howard A.Wilber m.v.m..:. 3 .s, . c y: T/ w ..p 3 c s
~~c. w.. u p~~. m;;~~~~
~~y .n. gQ NEW H AMPSHIRE, et al.~~
~~m,.w c.~~
= 4;, fWQ;.8 A h." 1, A...;W9v? (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) November 16,1983 w 'ft % % g ?.. Q, G h; p w,r.e,.s .. wcs &,O.v e. s. c l N.W di %...,,,.,.. -v. 'j [, ,y ;.. .j. - I, iL '.'(. ...s. -., r ,2~ % f.j n : f r W & 1.},,,dQ 4 The Appeal Board affirms an order by a Licensing Board judge denying .. "f.; 7. a party's motion for recusal of the judge for bias or the appearance of i - n.,p.., ..g. ;.p y~
~~.c.~~
< % y M... ~,. .~ .y aq,,., partiality. ~ ..m tc M .C n 9,. z,.y y N c.'w. M... y ~ %. M. o.. M.n, 4;,.s.W - ..,.4,3 m c . sc s Qlf..N,,4u,. 'p RULES OF PRACTICE: MOTION FOR RECUSAL (OR ,lf'Q W'.g %ff. W .? %+ DISQUALIFICATION) W: -,.; R s.;.:,.w Nf6. ;+ n.,. q+ ~.a... s .M W M.4 @y @%nn,&:. w.hjh lt.h.W % $g3
~~w..~~
%g,pgrG, A motion seeking recusal of a member of the Commission or one of v.M.a. :.. +. ?g d r.?: its adjudicatory boards is to be determined by the individual rather than .hhh hkj by the Commission or the full board. Pac //?c Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo k M, s @h h' W b -6.a.% g y M [jy' O Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-80-6,11 NRC 411 ' Q.gg{,rQM')4.Y hiY (1980); Houston Lighting & Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and -r t
~~m yg p.- q.m p'.5.~~
~~2), ALAB-672,15 NRC 677, 683 (1982), rev'd on other grounds.~~
~~.+.'<~~
~~. A., CLI-82-9,15 NRC 1363 (1982). , w.s. .1 . ~ w,;, ~ ,#. +a. .3~~
3
~~'n4 (-,.. y%. .. y e f. 4.f 4 j. .-..+c.s. f ~.~~
~~y,f f... g,~~
p g %. :... - }, 4 a j 7 w ~.. ji t o m,.. e n& e.; 4 4 . u,,e W, o v ~.n* .e *,.4. - , 4;:- Q p y., ) j gk. _ ' &' w _ m,,3 s 2 L w):3 . x.m.,s...t.e. .1,3.' N y; a u. A.. % :t (.v.4 L. ~ , - (,4 wM ...y. gn v - .a 7 W.- m W M R.g. R M ;i W.;.x,e, #[.[ D hy 6 # : g. 4,w. Q lf.W,$..w& ~;: h .I ~[$v Y[/. V Ih T) 3 M.* lfw%m p,~,g.M.f wn, >..4.m.s 1184 V j QU ay@ g .w x a, ,,..~.:t..s J.' wy v
~~Q'&~~
~~,..'*..c~..,,.g.,.i L.g yl. 3,q.4 }, Y;'-hf '. p.;pw.. -. -; g,; <.n;d~~
~~c. p~~
~~} 'Y q."~Q+l'*. %.m ~s. m. Nn? w:f:, '..f r '<...W.{,.., n.I i 1 c s~~
~~9. o.1%, v..~~
~~.g. e;-':. w, I~~
~~p i,., m.~~
}5 .Y $d-fs$ [ U f,TW gM-F Y.y K K ,g.- Q* e. p* a: - ,a^ ?' n , * :e* ';i;..- g: g./, .%4 3g d " V ~;. '" q kt a;- %%.,n k ^ K'Q e.,; n 4: ; 2 : le.. l 9 y : y(.;cip : &n?~.. y , ~ v,.y;6. A :.A : g % Qe.,,. ** . &'., 1 -,.%p. p L'.. : ;n:. p; ;' m' sqr-x g.g --.,.e Y E :g*y r. y,. 3. N ;.. < d & r.Q- *::m O @y W ,,'f.; :d, l:. - lm-s..u:. ;
~~x. '., n:w.'W.,::.rlr.. w.,s.y.. u.,,. V 8 W z W~~
~~.N R O~~
~~m. r..W..;.~~
. wA. w +: w y. ,m-or ; wra::, .,,y%,- ..L w my, ~. g~4.% w;4 ~ e.n,.,j 4.:-n # >. $.... e w. 4 ,4 ,.. 2 . ~ -. , ~.. - s ,Y 5. ,.g /cy',7e.,r.o[.} g. N p 4. .e,.L-tm g r. 5 i.7 ...s.r,;- .y,,'.+z m y vs.
~~-- - w m'. -~~
~~A[ ,e T 9 e 3 g: '..-.~~
~~g.. s.~~
~~I, M ' e gm'. Id.,Agm E 5.'~~
~~pr.qt..'gm.j y.p: ;w' 4,~~
~~w-M*- 4:-27 y e.:,.a. l . ;,0., .i, T,,,,* wJ' , > s 5 ,e. <s.o + 3 ;p a; s. m a .. p n.a ~ o* a.,~~
~~, - ~. p '.. j.~~
..w .. ~m ,s p,4 s (, y, u e p..g ~- _ ~ -,,,,,... f r. ., ~
S. e. ~ T ,..- T RULES OF PRACTICE: MOTION FOE hCUML (OR J DISQUALIFICATION) Disqualifying bias or prejudice in administrative proceedings, as in the federal courts, must generally be extrajudic:a:. Houston Lighting and i Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), CL1-82-9, supra, at 1365. ..v. i. RULES OF PRACTICE: MOTION FOR RECUSAL (OR
~~b. -~~
~~.m ' : +.W ; P ~ iu. $. - w, N M,@ A~~
L.
g v 7 DISQUALIFICATION) jp. . m. w x ..M.!WMN,..Mw%M. 8.. M%' r.' #.tk,f;.;iQP;T..M.9,. There may be an exception to the general rule thtt disqualifying bias . ~. 7 must be extrajudicial where judicial conduct demonstrates " pervasive 7 .Y s m u.m.o ng, n.c.;; #c W 7,r, s& P W...W...g. %, w.-p bias and prejudice.,, Pervasive bias and prejudice, however, m.volves .e more than " states, glares and scowls" or " occasional outbursts toward ..&. C ?s D; r> e 3 m u 7~q s.w.d,- M... ,..q, ;p. 'i %w* w.,._ m. counsel during a long tn. l,, or intemperate and impatient remarks by I,g. n q p a a.b 4,_ ,. 1, g. m. .y the j. dge. /d. at 1366. c:3 ' t../ cr .e..i; g ; y.;;NW u .. m m e r. m., y;;n,n ;jq mz p: w,.:q y v. L _> w. pi: ;;g y N, 9 ':: RULES OF PRACTICE: MOTION FOR RECUSAL (OR W.l- .a w.... N - W W L . M.,.a, M..%.. ~.. v M. DISQUALIFICATION) y @ f O.Q f T... s. .,J,,;. ..S. ...,/ ;.,. u g . a " Qf N,..,..,.1.;tg, $,E f ,c .. m : :.... s '.) y % f;'; M Q ;f.6. 2 $ g. M, A disqualification or recusal motion must also be based on an invasion Q; of the movant's own rights. One cannot seek the disqualification or recu- $@% @, M M M fiQ @ iM/%%$6fQ$p [ sal of a judge to protect the interests of another party. PugetSoundPower and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), l J.. G ' %_ 37. &m.. " ::.j. % eL1r'Q/ G. $- ALAB-556,10 NRC 30, 32-33 (1979). A party requesting disqualifica-p
~~M,i G /~~
D M..e, N:.-@7.'.:.W,M;G,h W~&> tion or recusal may attempt to establish by reference to ajudge's overall n n v-m. M -/v a y.VM b conduct that a pervasive climate of prejudice exists in which a fair hear-M+ MIN [uwpn.. p?r.fr#d k ing cannot be obtained by the movant. !*h
w,
~~,n..:.. r mu.... ; c% %{:': 4.%Q. r.q u~~
>~
~~. r;..x L a PW.- 4::.s.: n d~~
,7;a.%1rh r.:p,;&r %m,.%. 'y% q

w. ~. y.;u wg..',
~~.yn.- 1 e ,+:*n~~
~~. s.,~~
~~p a. - rs n m.n.g29QgQ.MMg?~~
~~.if,gi APPEARANCES t.~~
a< SWa.~. i:W M;..c. bN. A s -....hr ml.y.MSh. >l%y$ h. MM. g g; g g..M Robert A. Brckus, Manchester, New Hampshire, for the intervenor, r. m em N u Seacoast Anti-Pollution League. vg.ry :, e,mL.($;.6ph,, j gggg: U. o J E q$ 3 ; 9 t @ W; n r $.. m .yQ e.
~~2. a Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., and R.K. Gad 111, Boston, Massachusetts, for w-,.,,., w,,,./.A. ~ d.r, $.>~~
~~W the applicants, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. s. w ..( s..s. w m.r,Ne sq.W 2 .w w.r.% 1y c~~
~~- n. /;>@&SM M.;;p~~
%4 MQ Roy P. Lessy and William F. Patterson, Jr., for the Nuclear Regulatory %g;W;: Commission staff. ..y: w m.gm, m, p, :-c 4. w~;:.uqc,e ~t.g p. 1 W.m.,;0,:.. a.;- Ly~z.,., g.m.. ; < v s, a .. n., sn , i. h.c +1. 5 e q ~
~~a,,7~~
~~.s , s, w. 4.e.a.*..is.],9.y.g4w h~~
~~e.f.~~
~~y ;;; Y,r:,-. x.o,. Lc... < ~....., p,y:~~
~~... y.g.~~
~~. g.4.. ..,..a,. r~n,. 4 m 'g...L.V ; w. m, m.. _q: m. 8.e(;s ,.,y ,.y,.21-g hs u n --. n W,.., w W~~
'e
~~, c.+ v.;.~~
~~a. a w a s~~
~~>;.a. g a,~~
s.,.T

h~' p':
~~WWW :. G.w..&@e.W 1185 m . %.n.yy,. w, w-y ;. s ~ s.,... .'c#*7q*.* * *, a...N -' z p.te., &. ii k .,pN '., e,i - a '[ [ s ..,} M,.i 'r.w#. r~~
~~<j..~~
~~t.;~~
~~f. y,',c:.h p}4. :. n$g?'.?rt,;~~
~~.. -,%,.Wt.T *, j -'i.~~
~~5. % o y. v. x. d~~
~~[4.p. s '. ')~~
f
~~,a 2..s.. g 3.. . $4 Ali r: O '~ b w m as,,h.,e y, m.5x., m:. m -.e~~
~~v. :.:...~~
~~e a,e p y g,5.,.zy~.gp< x,'.mm.mpm.;&.v.p.J..u,p. y y n. y h,u.psg.gL +pg;n. 4 ,. sy m,8 rm s,t;c w ..2 .sw.m, Y~~
u.
~~s..s... n.,..m. ' '~~
~~n n.wa e w8~~
~~.. a~. .'; ss.N'.I-t. .,.u..~~
,n
~~. 9 - Q* :%, ",.K* ~ :.'g:. q:?'.',g ' \\'...n.., ww.p[ ' .,I %,-, :;e [9 g f ..s m;. - 7:w. ,,s. 1,~~
~~m..~~
~~g3 'ig g.' fa-k 4 "..Y"$'y.k I I* l ) ' d 1 ,4l \\., IE.~~
~~,de i~~
~~twn.,u';.,pf{q",g [- s.w ' ~ a. : c ;. u,'..e/.e f' ' ; - et ,'.j >-.9 g iv~~
~~% y %:c.::~~
~~n..~~
~~.rn-g Ext,W;;f;W.tf,y;, yi. e;qs c v. ,s.. G"n.,, s%.,,.. G r m... y f.:49, N g h,.#ps.z %\\;,. <, s-r 2. e, t... > ;;~ M J-~~
u.
~~gx-> t ; ;,. y p.,,. n. -,.r, k. +. 4 <I.~~
~~5. ~--~~
~~,[g c ,, G, e,8,,~~
~~rc Q,*,, t,;~~
~~4 . i N~~
~~. L, O~~
~~= ".. ;.~~
~~g.g. # y p:~~
~~4 ' y,i. -m', el e 7 ...'.sp f. , j w-7.. %.c. i r%, - m.s.m },..,%., g. -*,.a a. ,1;;. s. o~~
~~,'., g y y Qii~~
~~., yyl L. *; jp. r j-c m n a g - r --s~~
j
._s
Q &.,S n. y - g' plmyl:s
~~y 37 m.p -~~
~~w.y y&.. ,-,w,, ( .., i-V. f.,, ,-~~
~~m.....~~
~~O ' t'. liD,, d'f? O , f.,.* % -.'.M [.l}~~
W A ' '.s.l

[ f Y O.* *-:.
~~g. +,o ) . u. v ,. v -m .. n W P;...-4 mbW, :w wgM..,esccpA. h. W.m MW,, WM.,.O p g,.n@> 7@.;-;.,p%:". A.f si/5;w%q:s:e.,4e~~
m. c ; n@7@^2 y. wW vv CM4.y@y

.;'q'9 9t g ; A g.
QM
~~v:% Mr.q;..;!.h :~~
agse , y n.,:..- - < n w@ wh m :o :g. q 3 ..m E.FeW ME.y 'C.? T.Wp44.W % .y t W:m h O:p. E A A, W$. f.: ;;.y" 1.+d.%,,.-y".1 1 W 7 f rX 1%g% y w/' Qh::.L. w?.- O.^ }.:;"%ulA &sv;nn p' ,'2 - W p. y;J w -- n -: o:.a m - A.. :--*"=- = %-w 'L^" '797+q,3 ; = " " - ". W:2n 2., f ;4 ug.m.%e.... v, m. w g&.x.L. > r c. m m 3 ..m, e -. y ;r .t,y .. v. : mww.. ca.g %y;.i : ;y y r',% n q j 4 a i
~~ipfy 1~~
~~%.$..'.. g ~ * &. ~. M,~~
y'M';:..,f, s.. p '.

7.~ /,

a.
. <a N,;d. A. ri i %, m p% $,., g : W.y 3 " m.c.,.cl & MEMORANDUM AND ORDER M.E. 21 c. , g W. A. w.~r w.o ;. - ~.., s G o.,, (w. m.w&q. A e :W.s /Mbhly%*2 'J %d 7.y < On October 7,1983, intervenor Seacoast Anti-Pollution League dp.W <. ^ p g,;ij' $j f. W.."..v.'.lfr. A: h $ s. 2. h (SAPL) filed a motion under 10 C.F.R. } 2.704(c) calling upon Admin- . r;Tr T - strative Judge Helen F. Hoyt to recuse herself from serving as Chairman . y. ,%p n + c ' w ..J n .n.e" of the Licensing Board in this operating license proceeding.' At the . " s.fe U.., '- y;<;e.U.,f, g.. - ~~. n . v.. '.. ' _ 1M> same time, SAPL asked the Licensing Board to stay further proceedings ~ j ;, -y.y y j f '(.'j y l @ k /' 7 %.r. 1,il M~'JT- [. [dM- [ pending review and appellate disposition of the recusal motion. The gist 'N .y of SAPL's allegations is that the Licensing Board Chairman, through a .Le G. WhW l', ' a? dq$. ~W. s.,;2 series of actions and remarks, has demonstrated hostility toward SAPL .T.. " p..yt s(.., and the other intervenors. SAPL maintains that such hostility is a mani- 'Q t yW.y
~~F,,,p. y 4',.~~
~~n . r festation of bias. SAPL further contends that Judge Hoyt's conduct es-~~
~~, T y@gM.ggy, ).k tablishes the appearance of partiality, independently warranting her y.~~
~~- if, 'g,.3;~~
7
%g Nin: e.;;.y {,w.g.ry,s - '1 *r Jyp M, u e u. ,a g recusal. 4-y,.J,7 g.7 The applicants and the NRC staff filed answers to SAPL's motion. c.y..n 7,3j;re g,~.,, ,,4 4 They claim, to begin with, that recusal or disqualification is not justified
~~a.;p~~
. JpA.b;RST%.,G c.y.py, i.m - f';*j] di M1 under Commission precedent because the allegations of bias stem entire- ,[9.;?M,ySd;X >l< $ '3 }O% y ly from the judge's conduct during the course of the proceedings rather .AO#6W ..N than from an extrajudicial source. They contend, moreover, that Judge . 's ..~ m. .c . O.: a,,, Hoyt,s conduct in the context of a hotly contested proceeding represents g.,.> .p- ?, essentially a need to assert administrative authority over the 7+ y, g. 'g 7; .? ~ ( 7 - preceedings. The applicants assert, in this regard, that Judge Hoyt's ac-M.y$ J- ' ' ji tions were proper and fully consistent with the need to maintain order M.[ d. '. 'J'9 ~2 and pr:scrve th: dignity of the proceeding while the staff claims that the Board's actions followed the management techniques specified by the ( ^ Commission in its Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452 (1981). V;;',s ~ m. On October 21, 1983, the Licensing Board denied SAPL's request to %.. A.,. 77,D
j ' (*
~~^ Mh stay further proceedings. On November 2,1983, Judge Hoyt issued an .V order denying SAPL's motion that she step down. As mandated by 10 ~'~~
~~0, x~~
'; N n, ,.y 3' C.F.R. j 2.704(c), Judge Hoyt referred the motion to us for review. Con- , o . VN, M v n.T/.,, - N., 9' s'*.M.,g;.'... " M sistent with our standard practice in matters of this kind, we embarked n_p n .n., v i y-
~~- g~~
,,g TI. ! :*Qrr*'n h r. 'Mb NJ.iMl'h O y : L.ynF n ng:::y W r ~. ~. m* s.p y,, 4.y M ;, ; d p 1..;.j-d s. a gs + .y-... .y . l, s m.; .u ,,. g. s t sAPL preperly directed its motion to Judge Hoyt rather thart the Licensms Board. A motion seeking recusal of a member of the Commission or one ofits adjudicatory boards is to be determined by the indi. l vidual rather than by the Commission or the rull board Fact /ir Cas ad Ewrtrar Co. (Diablo Canyon '~' 'c'"' Nuclear Power P! ant. Umts I and 2), CLI-80 6. Il NRC 411 (1980). Houston L,shtrns a Poi,cr Co. .'4'.** (South Texas Project, Umts I and 2). ALAB.672.15 NRC 677,683 (1982), revd on other secuws. .q . "y. ,e CLI 82-9,15 NRC 1363 (1982). A copy or Jud.e Hoyt's decision is attached as an appendit to this ,~ opinton. r, r 7, s/ *
~~1 t,(,~~
~~e{ , '. 8 s'S, . - s. . m.- n (c =I. [~~
~~' j '.f.~~
~~'( -' *, D[ NAY,]"[:yNd 1186 $' d M ).3 J ;r 4 ,. + - u ; y -jg%.,~~
~~t... Q~~
~~'.3-. ' ' * *....'h' ',"j b ,'a.,,1 i s ? 3~~
~~,' r '.e !~~
~~), .',,.ar e.. s ..o.'q,'a~~
~~. 3...f.g'a -,??~~
~~}. 'w;.~~
~~u s'~~
~~'e r ~. ', - %1 9 ~ - -c-ei L~~
~~(,..,~~
~~,. *#..,_7,',,,, ,4 ...m T i 'a .p. w.. /.;; 2w v s .u. ,e uh; '.\\, . g. s '-~~
~~f9 (q~~
~~(,, ? 5, {g ,?~~
~~; i.,,~~
~~,.f., f' a y[ 'lC ,, $ :l l-y4.r] ?. "['r- .-_ N ',03,f',;" +Q S., s O p Y j E O ag g n~~
~~~ ^, L ; r.~~
~~,,':.g g. m. n.g.;.;)g;,*y ..g q p gs.j ~ s. ,., n -.. :5,.,e,a. m 3.,, s.., ;.;g.,;, t,q:.g 7 ; ; r: 9., c s - g. 7 3. 4 s , p; g e ..g. y. ..j,. r-~~
~~7..g :: %~~
.w r;; j' v L'
=, ( -~,,,c,. d, (r.R .w. e r \\ o _.g. + ..l- ,'j-WM c'4 t y u. 2; ff . _.. x ? -- - c -- a-u ~, ,E. .n -,, y
~~a.,.~~
~~u., ? ~., , ' si ~ .x ..,:.w~~
~~p ~<.;~~
~~m; s %.c. 4 . m..;,~~
v=
immediately upon a review of the documents filed below. After review-ME ' ' -p "f. n.,^ ',Q .a ,M ing those documents, we affirm Judge Hoyt's decision.2 c .-2: ~ W ' s 4 ~ i - Gsneral Principles ..M, ~ Q. ~ The Commission recently had occasion to examine the standard to be - - Wv g .. } 2y f.. applied in our proceedings when the disqualification or recusal of a E ;.c 4 ,y. presiding judge is requested. In Houston Lightmg and Power Co. (South ab, ;p,h p N ga y,m, l}(fy8%%gM 2d W,' - Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), CLI 82-9,15 NRC 1363,1365 (1982), the g gj}4: Commission stated: i n.;Js % V'g &.k.,*g,D ' p@ p.-4.s'. M %f .m r,h.9@; 7.a. M.; q.. 49 h.? Z, s J in the federal courts. disquahfying bias or prejudice of a trialjudge must genera lty e3 .w s Pg.% sfpk p. A. e,;,g M e be extra. judicial As the Supreme Court has held. "the alleged bias and prejudice to $QK ;k{dy?.%g% ffh N2-hMh'I. be disquahfymg must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on i
~~l. /.~~~
the merits on some basis other than what the judge has learned from his participa. M y[,hC3 iQ.Q ison in the case " .The same standard apphes to presiding officers in administra. "yl ,.,f m,Q.c < 2 i M teve proceedings.,. Indeed, the Commission has expressly adopted this rule, hold-fj%gygkg Edd3g % h.9%p^-[J[h ing that "Prehminary assessments, made on the record. during the course of an ad-Y { g *gfy h Q Q g',3 judicatory proceedmg - based solely upon apphcation of the decision-maker's judg. g-7 i ment to material properly before him in the proceeding - do not compel disqualifi. h. f fy.dy p p.y .y cauen as a matter of hw. " l citations omitted). $,.,Q. gf$m$g) gw, tA;..q % Q M,, L., g y.; ip %w.,m , - 3 a >., w .en. ~,n, F e ;9 -
~~p. M. up m @s; 9,g %~~
~~c w - r M.. 2 i W %.%/ )$Q QQg/Phpg@:j The Commission nonetheless suggested that there may be an exception gsph i~~
~~M L.~~
~~to this general rule where judicial conduct demonstrates " pervasive bias .O5h: d%A @$y$0' and prejudice." Id. at 1366. To constitute such pervasive bias and &WR~~
~~b. M f M M i d N d d ff f M~~
%dh[&fQhyff&&[i prejudice, however, a judge's conduct must be more than " stares, glares and scowls" or " occasional outbursts toward counsel during a long U trial." Id. See also Hamm v. Members of Board of Regents of State of b bn@M M W @ k.M r h%bM/A florida. 708 F.2d 647,651 (llth Cir.1983) (friction between the court y.hh.M}h81Phy$$@%8h DU d and counsel, including intemperate and impatient remarks by the judge in a proceeding of short duration, does not constitute pervasive bias), WM5AMVSD.W.MAM - reh's denied. 715 F.2d 580 (llth Cir.1983). %g$g%[sh,khh YMEA' $hQ ' A disqualiikation or recusal motion must also be based on an invasion F;$ ypQ of the movant's own rights. One cannot seek the disqualification or recu-i MAMt .Mf iN %@W $@Q@%@h sal of a judge to protect the interests of another party. Puget Se id Power
~~,2 lM~~
%fE.% and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), $hRQ ALAB-556,10 NRC 30,32 33 (1979). A party requesting disqualifica-i}W4g$6fg.6 p p7; EN tion or recusal, however, may attempt to establish by reference to a UMNSMivMQj$p.iQ)pp{fc judge's overall conduct that a pervasive climate of prejudice exists in vW6' l which a fair hearing cannot be obtained by tne movant. Similarly,it may % Sin Qy g. @[ M M@m +R#m % gf*c %'P M M Oy R $g".Yf )Sby fWp,tgQ i d p*L $y$3 @p A4[y;.c.A p. Apggggg Q 2 on ocioher n. i9:3,intervenor Attorney Generat Francis X. Bellotti of the Commonwealth of Massa-chosetts also riled a motion for disquahfication and recusal that was received by Judge Hoyt on October
~~31. Judse Hoyi s decision notes ihai she miends io rule separately on that motion, and we shalt review v m2; sg p;n~g s.p +~~
pg Wppy%gh?xg%.wp:w.lg,y her dec.on sep.raiety as. cit s w ep w, w m u. s u a m ;4LV; Q.g.7 '! sbb. h*J-@. M. I. . d C...,j kSet {gh'h +J.. W ,w e 4 - %g m. v.. Y&.lf.w.k.Q ~Yh.,f:f.!$&n% CWMn n'. f5D.'# W~.w+Q. h,N ? 'e* )~y n e 1187 MN e ~. i*b (h*l$.% W Yp*.cy aq. e ws.f $.l.M.>-e mes kWeh h.Y.
~~5 **S..~~
f. yl m.f*e%...;%.g( &l %.:g w $ f n.1.xym= ggu 6 m p' Q.b m.y Ms 3:,.n.

p....m N e - Y.y & p.g S. w:
~~Q f **.l g" IJ L w .-W.wp$.': sa~~
*QTD M
W. MJ NJP % % M w,py.4.f T 1.nM M.. p.n . v.,.v - ~ ~.,,.;un'..w sty,v.N ~ M 4 ,.,e -, m ~,., x 4, m....,.., :. m -- ny,sA.g g , nn_,. m n- ._yjg.y, p@g3~4 Q. 4.,p j.,79.g.MW, r..%~4t-. u. 9m M. yi %g 3%p., s., y
~~N W,A,.,%..,n,.f M,pg$5%,r.re n.w, 3.r.~~
~~sg%~y A,%ye[M..g.n.GM. g. w% M.s.e 4 N&, A, mW. + A r n~~
~~1..~~
sb.. .o e t< >,. s r ...W.,qc 1. :;g . A"%.. m. t 4 .. s.O: _ y .u .g v; ,,,r r ;<. v &w. ~h,..%.~p u c *.y qq;.h t;p..q.,p* m%.g,4.,.&. n . nu y y. %p s s.~". 4.,A W;y?.q,..,%..M,s ?.,..,. % > ., a ,C. , +. y. v y e' + [jA '. s,,aq r
~~n. -~~
~~s 9,M @,.g.. 7 V[ g$ \\;; y, y#gm ry a,~~
~~1. ".,. -~~
~~, lum y p# -h [ kg nup[ysyW y. +. ,n 4h' y O[.. 4.&. pg,EN%# .,[.. s'*'$ N# i i hg ? v M,. W p,g Q f, i g .e y y,,, % N,.~~
~~' = M& r+pW; y:. Qff(.l;).4;lp 1.. ; -~~
x N, l,",MW}2 j'y@ J-}.1? wMr W' ; Q.Q M 'bg g T .ryy. .; Dwc w aa;f: yf; 't y ~ n w. ~
p. 7,- n'5ll $,' m. f D & ??. y ;.,.,? 'f.' M,;";+fM q ',jd, ", i&.0,,*[-%u. a,,. y.,...W.gN&.a b. o $ ].) ; f. &;..d7Q"$*','-;&.<.c,W r.c;:z, ~ GIS*'.~-2 V - Y%.'. y:,T*? s - m ? y.,, m. PI: ~N s t. - )g A.f ;%
~~%92 W Q~~
~~,l ? _ ' a[, '., l f l 'i, ffj!R* l,'.,. (n' Q Q ', w. y,:;;G,; g, my*. + .-x w y;.f%ip;Q~~
~~%..w. Q.. b: M m.: w * '. A.g g%.q., e:;., 4"m,1%p%.,%.Q. [i:rJCG,;M'M.~~
~~3Yn f:.ty.; . :y~~
~~w. ym&g. h'%@ GMAGMf, g gA..,i x*,.e,...m.,w c.~~~
~,.s . ;,, a r ' K:.L L&,m .a w w 5Tf:f.'&%$w. : u g &*N,.,,y ' g,..y$y.$,x, p ; . p;,q ; y gegl 4A .it y?f W f p& n,,. m. nsy h, .mp,q.:., 'u.g.o ,: m_ .m m. V4 i & $hXf&; % W W Ml~a & % W,: u:s . b'S;* 1.h f r N h.$ f% .'e A" ni& M N~s%w,2.,.M. %. %!: 1 %,.h. --..,,, a,r4 ... z. r...MW;W,.. ;. : t.,n,.W m 1?r':L'M.F, mo
~~dQh, Wp.,* 0:~~
Pn
~~!V.,: y,,,. ',',~l7~~
~~-.m V. g"'hy y;'.;g.rg,a% %.*S.a;=,, ~ v - m. n.c..-~~
~~.Qf~~
~~, ' ;p; ., g 4~~
* ;.* w

N.5 l '
~~'f ' .d. I'v S ' n. c,. t. x.~~
~~:- c;~~
~~.b y. y.n,. ~;.. w attempt to demonstrate a pattern of bias toward a class of participants of N D h'. ) M. N r m % x,$ m.m b N h.N' N.v-,,;.a, <3.N/ S.N;%,1%te% 'k~~
k.
which it is a member (e.g., all intervenors). m_ e.g m,p.,.y@r. wm,%m.,p w,d, / 9 ~ ~ - M. 8,, A. .g. The Instant Case a .w 4 e:q$'.... ~ w& M. %g y-p. @g g . v.g. m. o m. . W.+%. eg s - SAPL does not assert that any of the underlying allegations of bias - &%Y,gQwM'%y,,.'. [Nikh.$.NI emanate from extrajudicial sources. All of the examples of alleged hos- %...- o f f.i'JWt% M',g glW, ~' q;$w%p.v@- a., 4;. MJt., c, n.yt d ;3gw. tility to SAPL and other m. tervenors involve rulings, conduct or remarks m 4,, t s.... , f.. .a ~. 9 NM by the Licensing Board Chairrr.an m. response to matters that arose g M' M9 QMyh.M during the administrative proceedings in this case. This being so, we J. M.y.p..@D,izf.h8 must agree with Judge Hoyt and the opposing parties that no basis for DM@M @lkh@ $ 5,Q4*"Q.g.m M idf-disqualification has been established under the general rule applied in QgqEhgf Commission proceedings.8 Indeed, SAPL concedes as much when it sug- , (,M.y[,g? #:;"$O gests that the Commission's South Texas decision is erroneous, that the 5hc M@[4 rg[g6@4, TD.M@d[y~[g$yK
~~q. v Commission should now abandon its precedent and " adopt a higher~~
[, f M standard of judicial conduct than those required by the courts," and that .[7'E u;,hT[NWM'f;Myy? it wishes to preserve this issue for appeal.' As SAPL recognizes, any 7,v t ed;m.:.cn.ru..p.Q:gMC[t ZMG M6M change in the governing standard for recusal or disqualification rests v n.: s . g. , t. 4c with the Commission, not this board. i " 4U.. G. m. 2.g:. N. '-35l :,j,y?. )..G_,4@3 kW SAPL claims, nonetheless, that the instant proceeding "is indeed an m. %. 4 .m b .y.. +..'. t., r, y,fT.,M. extreme case, where the evidence of bias and hostility is not occasional, . c' WN dr N ... ' f. ,f. ~ 7 p3Re% but common and persistent."5 Presumably, therefore, SAPL believes ?;, T (.4 3.> ' i. j ) @ gy that disqualification or recusal is required under the exception to the f I.j z g, fe,mp;; - general rule referred to by the Commission in its South Texas opinion. W,, n+ ~2 C, Wr-M~ We disagree. ,,.w t., '.. c.M' ~ " We have carefully canvassed the materials submitted by SAPL in con-Q'gK nection with its motion. (No useful purpose would be served, however, ? a.:a 7., y y, 7 .P W. by reciting the various events that make up the allegations of bias.) We i .,F' Qy M6 are additionally familiar with the context of the litigation by virtue of ' s,Q ?, s d our earlier rulings on requests by SAPL and other intervenors for direct- ' -.. A.;,, o %.T ri!Mf@);%g ..,..e.s ed certification of various Licensing Board rulings. See ALAB-731,17 ph a P ' Q;,.Q, Si,Q,,7 *'O jQ@d*W;,get ~ 'q . R. j,@,,, /. NRC 1073 (1983); ALAB-734,18 NRC 11 (1983); and ALAB-737,18 w n. ~ M y,.6fp.h. t ft NRC 168 (1983) (two motions). The record plainly reveals a series of y~ ",,< s' #, M. disputes between the intervenors and the Licensing Board Chairman, .,' W;7 s,y:M. 9..n,l f%,. qf WM, y%g '.,o. q, s carried on at times in a framework of confrontation rather than delibera- ,@.3* ;%NMMyjgysg]p A tive discussion, and punctuated by sarcasm and angry words. It is clear m,y t ..s. s a s,,..SA (;d ~' 't .y 3 in reaching l'er decision. Judge Hoyt did not atternpt to separate sAPL's charges of tnas toward it ~ a r' y from that directed toward other parties. % e follow the same approach. In our wew, sAPL has included ',[ . M>., allegaisons of tHas toward other intervenors in an effort to portray a chmate of hostihty rather than to ,~ a treak on behalf of other parties. jf,/ ,.M .[.g-. ' Q($.,[
~~sAPL's Motion for Disquahfication of Judge Hoyt (oct. 7,198D at 2,8.~~
~~\\, g >f,f 5 y. at 2. ..- ; 4...',n,.. s~~
~~. 7.,, W;* wqe.~~
~~a g... u,p4.a,g",.p(. <. ;.i.. y ..%.,,p*s,q g. ~ ' ;; . n< i,r e =n v .p ..r-ev m.Y,N .- %.? a . A,w,..., g r,r m. =. e w ,v, gc g 4, N W. *n. n~~
~~a. gv g p;y..<~~
~~I188 a . e M.P, .,p z y l j 0h m u..- -. m. .,. nn N. e,,.: 2 m~, ' w-w e,..., 1 a _~~
~~r. ;.~~
~~d'; ? fj ,de,464, y,.', {.g ? i~~
2
~~, p yy # 'r,~~
~~.f T a',~~
'+ e e., y] , A 5.< ' s ', e,% 3 s. . b.1,,. -'.'o .. -,,i ., ~ - m~ '! 3 q v. rs.;r44.,p,,-,. - , y. 7 '- - 3,4 -- na. y*. a 3 3.ber...% 0 w c %* f,.r,j y,5. y,,p e.s g w..;.,,"* m. p* f -, q.w.. p..,,m%.,f ; 4,.,,,.,.y;,.,. a a. w. m. 4 4 . - i, m. ,- w ' ( r,' r. m- ,, f,qn;*, W sy P ;, 9 3:x; W,a..q,;{fp m;b.7_v.g p;n q q A g g.g. mpg g ; [.,,
~~c. -~~
/ l-9,,. %- ' q y. 1 y;, v f.% ; p.;p.qy *
~~Q<g,y,,.;jg; [-y?f. 'Gyfp.Q.g.~~
~~m q, y,, y c_3 f; - ..Q. .g3~~
J

3,n
.~
ym a,;p;5.;g.y.!g,w

:y..vg:m*g 4.: a.p%.'g.
.g;;gf; Q>,s 4,,Q,. % , x>. .~:;.. y! m ~7.... e. M' w n. e.. p ,s u4 w. ,. /, , y 4:s,.p*r., qq A.'. y,g,4 y .p ,.,t, e, .-4 ,4. w v. s ,;.;;- n u e ,. ~, ' y c, q .s a,.. m
. ~ r 's ,. z j *], ^,.'a %s : w ;, 7-m ~., . g>w.,. ,r. .r. t, e yy s. e. .'c ~ ;, b. u:. [ ;--t,-p-n g. ..x< :: y. -.x. . a.. :i s that this proceeding is one in which the tension level is high. Bt:t we ' Q ^ '?. M Y m cannot conclude on the basis of the information before us that any of ff9/J M m, X N: ( the events discussed by SAPL, independently or collectively, rise to the n'" J level of demonstrating a preconceived opinion on the merits or a show-y
~,
~: J ing of pervasive bias or prejudice by the Licensing Board Chairman. 4.+ The November 2,1983 order of Judge Hoyt is affrmed. !.!. ' 7,$ '. It is so ORDERED. ' e { f,.g,* 4 -.w%,j.MKe A.,, ~ y, W:w-FOR THE APPEAL BOARD ,e a w+ ,,-....~u, E. p? ,n~ mr g,Agww" ... : v & gp w.. u.:a m y&pv.z'N'R y"4[+.? %l
~~P;vps.m" 4~~
O QdO 3 W' 3fM4!.NfGDFN8M;W m~w b%g MPM C. Jean Shoemaker M@%@bph$py?; a ;z M Q Secretary to the }mch,MMW, F Z,.,9W;,p<N i mv:1:m e g. p.. - Appeal Board W cm.mmgMw e W.~d'c, bg4 T.:c f f. <. b g Wu kh gh... & @4 b khk:NbMN"!, ". y 5% Y,.j:d. >.T y %z. Opinion of Mr. Rosenthal, concurring: ~ m.+ 4.,. J: q w$ @ Q.,%es L:= y( % H g.
~~U M~~
g. ' [. Xi: g<. 4 @4 w e, c5 I join fully in the foregoing opinion. Given the Commission's South .s, wnp g g;,. q.qg}gg:c g,.g.g y. p;c.N Texas decision, there,s scant room for doubt that none of the averments q, $ yf d 4 : W8; g%w, i 4: g h%pm%,$h@y1;gg:py; in the SAPL motion provides a legally sufficient basis for requiring Judge Hoyt to step aside. Nonetheless, I cannot leave the motion with-W shro gr.by)%.g#g$g. m, m N out expressing my concern respecting the setting in which it was present-f [MMN4%SW:t WM M dM% ^dQZ:.WW .DQ m$un vy ed to us. This proceeding involves significant health and safety issues having qw sm[, pmpgpo@.. NW. ~. undeniable. implications in terms of not merely the individual interests h hh M'.))., b d N % fp @M @ of the applicants and intervenots, but the broader public interest as well. i M '," 3 W As thus scarcely necessitates elaboration, from beginning to end the pro-q% 5 %.. W [; $, %kfytud" y.
~~7 e,id ceeding should have as its focus the development of a full evidentiary record on those issues, which in turn will allow the Licensing Board Q $@4g%~~
i (and reviewing appellate tribunals) to make an informed appraisal of the Ot% M.h@lQ$ @WM competing claims of the parties. To this point, however, much of the M Wg%{Mhh[kgf$i.h.?,$ j h D 3, d focus regrettably has been elsewhere. j As even a casual examination of what has transpired below to date ghggGygg. and to makes apparent, there has been constant and unseemly verbal,th any-AW-RW . 's.. ~^> @M W M M,,P %;c;4 ~.N. ,l a lesser extent written - warfare on matters having little to do wi r m. . S'M$gEGP-M@Mp M@MS a thing of true substance. I need not freight this opinion with a recitation sM .M MED of illustrative examples. It is enough to note that the majority of the QTi@ghMh@WMMNM 4f actors on the scene - representatives of parties as well as the Licensing h 'y gk $ g g6 M.$Q Board itself - have indulged in their fair share of the untoward Mpdd.m.m. sh
u
~~.x &.N* %.w&-f.'f,W v&o!'f= +' -['&[1 .{ commentary. .'V N. +& v %.s. s ~n, rnm1 ..w w. ~ t p& G W [ G'y ?l G 2,. PS 5 -f -., g.,rQg 1189~~
~~YWWQ.~~
j f Yy fG ly.W.f .. n.,.,2;x~.4 Q,,a .mwgg e, d ' ' ? R, gb-n.m.* %sh' ) 4 m4 +.-,w.. ., w T.d s ' 9 f.a3 w a;-: e f*, T ?. m&C1,S*, a j g g r.y <g,lf?{ Ma.l sf ;* t p.A - -me s..w.g& w, [k15 .[ 1D - w d, y.NN*'N M:[jgW; w (( %uh. y= h. &. -{ 9' - 'g'***.4*.M T C w i " '#:. ] 7g *"O5 FQ'n a@f
6%y([' *J9 ]Ty ?' ? * * ' *"Y *[*'%,:
~~[ ,y a:m V m,u.m 1.,f, T qf nr.g.m.?/w.m.g.:Dsypf.::. p.3 b W . 'f*, ' .s e n.bb. '. y & m::'f Q ~';' }m n: q : ~: } L. W f.,? f. y} _3 :;r]3 4 ; i o,, s ofm.: .Mww p! :~. m,"* . w. gn y%.~~
~~i;,,~~
n e :.. .s. 6&,}Qr%QQ$.n,mC,tr ~;~c r .m . m.x. g. : y~..:Q :. -:7)o?.c.;,. ;, O..W,..e.f.O.: g j,vy;,, ' o y w w e,, p c. .n . ~.,,.., < Q, b g:m - g ** yn e4 Q ,,.,,y;.m..,g,, m.c,,., n 4, S.Pp.t, s v ;; ' ;., '.;.? 4 g b u.c.., m. b$ e , n...
~~,w-~~
lQ

6.. /s
~~~ T '.a ..s ..r.. s... y L..u; ms.g n s % i. 3.,.,.., y. ,s y ..g% ; :,., p 9,_, _~~
~~Qg ja, jQ,~~
~~.p*a .l -s^ y,,* 9 w~~
1
~~%3 '7,., oo .c.>, ,., i r c~~
~~.we or.., -~~
~~-%3, .~ = e~~
v
._,_n -o
.,,,..p_y ( e r b.. ,p s, + . s.g .~.,. . % *..~t.,' 3.,,.%...f.x, y;,q. g;C.[p';.W y'a.y:.r.' 2 - n m. m;s[ p; e ', Q C? * * *- l,, $., - u q: ?' W: O. ;.%. +: hj-t .ya., 4.. ' : ;,j,. C; s - - +- g _. g .~ - %c <~ .,3 9 7 q w ;n /s. e. 1. ~ n, +,~.: n a p; nya ;.;J.- qgm s,. m, - ~, &,,. - p,^,f . 4; -:.. - r,aj. x L y .s r. qn;m.,..;m.h'{m, j h, y*n
,s; %..

..
~~\\ . du > :: v; ~ ~ y ~,. w:y. - '..n+ a p*y, '? h O *h a y:. ;. z n - r ..&.P* 5 ~x mw ei1 e,$ Y'T"?.,., W A-l %. y< h e.' yy g ?.~. x ~,,~~
~~n -,y,*V y u).~~
mp c.z g' fmg' % A. y r* T ' a^ e bl /t ' M.e m@;ag.r.p;,$py'("5h yb...w$m .Y' %sr.s*c, y'p e _r yy'p,w:3-kpry; :p&g::;Q 'MQG.,;My.m"Me;n:u m n,,.ye.;a. y;,>p.m$.w: w',C T -:..o c. " ";. 1 M.. o - f.m p: S<. :e dM DS MMS 7 f M,P.9 '59 g _.c- ' ^ ^'g ' ' * " * = ~ ~ ' ' ~ ww A ","uWA nf.s.;gw . WQy V . N;:,.@',.9. 3 $ 9 %.w.f;..v. g..a. Md,.9p. k a -. 2, s. ..t @Wd.m.. s e r .gy T.M , ':4.; : g;.. M.: q. m.ty r & i
~~.w. m.~~
.w .,-~,:n- .m,+*M_AA n.., s'? - ~ .h & U.'& " W 8 OA e,, 5 '.. *,,~Y ' j.pl g ' K.N ; % M.. s m o h...<.*.'.+.340$p;Pp. '%'. ; !! is of no present moment whether any specific instance of incivility ,s .c , y<ff. h.g.5. ~ f;M'#,d*L:6@ig was provoked by what had been said or done by someone else. Rather, ,' 1 $, y>~ p ? "' Q R h @ y $ j $ @ h, % all that is now of importance is that the bickering and personalized at-pp .gg. .4 M tacks come to an immediate halt. Even in a hotly contested proceeding,
~~... g%@6. b.;4.*w e rd 1~~
c.;. -. nm. s f u..m. tWJMs there is no reason why legitimate disagreement on a particular matter .J.L..g,p W. A p.g@. _o 7 j must or should ripen into a confrontation of such dimensions that it can u;s%M. y~yMgyM@g M. -jf,.$m?%;'j 7 : 1_. - -r O,.m,9%y m.f.# t. ' - f.1 be productive only of ill will and suspicion. This proceeding deserves G; s :ge,?.,' j. c-ny
~~J recognition of that fact by all concerned.~~
~~c ~s. n;:n.s y;g;a(A,.,y. m j. .w ,,. A g . er -....w- .>.. q,. myn,y,g. g m. , ~ -. c y,o .. v ,,.., + .. :,v,;p.- < 3;,. .f >x. n.ngum. n. w-~~
~~%>.c n.s~~
~~.n,... - - x r. w g .v, MWMr;:.OnMM... APPENDIX .R E ' .;, " ll,H,. % W i %;. %, g.yl,~ C>p;; m % g s y2 G~~
~~y pq?g~~
~ 3>* n ~ ap r p $.*i " ~ 44Q-@w$qjy@Mv@NM'd.. ' < ~ s-C;Mg-dp gg? UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' " ~. i.' d NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jf;p n-f,3 t, f. Q $Rd.&g.Q %[w?%q 4 .Q ,,y>. m.L 6 :-K.. < 3%Q 4 :..jihlf.3;y)4 p;g.w ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '. le. p . y bJ T ,s. A y . c.. Q. V M :%. sx ;,M y.:u.. h..,c a Mn
e
- p e. %%<.' M '%.,y g&..%.,$3g;$ Before Administrative Judge: . -p^ mci > y.r,.w.r e. 3 .e.. .,u s L. 1f'.:;;?: .?. W M., 4. -W.;Q$.'M .s c#.R.c.,.g@Ns...o,.g*. e c,', Helen F. Hoyt ..M., 1,.e . n.s; y ( ***,./{s- /' lcv q ;4.. -7 . m. >,m,. m.v,,w, n';,a f. 3 y 7 w; c , -,7%,w-f$, a. eiap$m. .9 In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 443 OL 9 4 50 444 0L
~~3... : n,.3. : eag;q r /., g ? y *,'s.94.S q,,~~
(ASL8P No. 82 47102 OL) , n - r;E ~ m.se 1% ~.pI' _g . ; N '- Q + e ~ % J',&; 'Mf;W'lJ@@M ".f. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY a.,.m ;$ '." $ 4, %w g &.]. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. urn % e - -v .,. *, Q %.,:yd.h.. A (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) November 2,1983
~~$. 5~~
+ ~ ,p ;._, >...k .e_.=;; .~,'(; n W.'.',." h :-l.. %. C.*"'%a.lp;, g t,..g, ~1* -a l' 4 b. .. J., d. 'f... e 4 c' p %,,^ R ',7..Q 3.Wdm.g)g%g .s ~ Ty W% ;g .~ .t; J : a n~ -. 4 ?:. p W..t y.;.:. h. g. mq ORDER W mu - -3;? o :l.cp.<.. gym w.m;. <.. w y m;
. g p.., e,j

1. INTRODUCTION n
.y ..,..-C,. . :+/do On October 7,1983, the Seabrook Anti Pollution League (SAPL) ~Y ~ 7 -2 S:.iM.,RI,~"..'W.w.j. filed a Motion with the Licensing Board requesting that Judge Hoyt dis-Q#3 qualify herself from the Seabrook licensing proceeding pursuant to 10 . a w...- u...* u.. J-C.F.R. { 2.704(c). The Motion alleges that this Judge's conduct towards ., m ; 7.<, a MG - w.o. : q. ; s.v ~ ,C W.
i,

M l&
~~q'%, d s h g % v[q .. wv e. n.. - *, sp .. u ;.. n -As ? s -m.. y',.,.y m n. a .s w .a.~~
~~.,n.~~
~~. v.. .;.s..Q l' y ;f..e $,., @e+.m m, .N.u. - x w. w. 1190 , y&;. /q.%., 7. '}* Q Q ,. f' ';Y' } f ...*i.n, ,, e s ~ ,,I 'K~~
~~g g[, g[ ' ['m.~~
~~~ e.. - y [' A. *,w 9 ,' + e s [ p ,, f ' f ^ h~~
~~>.e. {;l" *t J. % $,,I; '. j' a*4~~
~~.'1 s,- ,- ~, E,, [] 5 vrw m);;n yc'}, 3;Qgg a .4' m.;,,~.v:gr wym.-- m-m.,v, m. a 37g 39 g,q:yQM.; .,:3, l- ~ - *m s~~
~~y..~~
~~,s.~~
~~....n. d.hm,.; n '~~
~~f..,~: m.n,~ w, %, n.,w> w.,. : p :. m,. 4r ,.e ,. m,.w .a. N*.y /q;4.ggg gg;gy' p, 2:f J;j,Na'yQ,r,4.3.. s ;.,g' z' .y i$. ,,ea ;;,..a b. m 9.g.s .g' Leg'.?~~
~~41 ; y-[:,M.rg p(Q }gQQQ., '..,,~~
~~es L, P t - =og =,2 e. = s v. cQ~~
~~9. :~~
~~,gje 7 y3,ya ' ~ - n,. s.s.a,7;g y q,? y+,.gn W~ &. p., o. x., ,g ,,s sg:. z- . _. m.:n.s,.;n;M gu: -x. n a,q. w w,~~
~~n. >w.,~~
n.1. .+L 4.. - wp-5 t
.2 c . I + jt I counsel for the Intervenors and representatives ofinterested municipali-4 a ties during the Seabrook evidentiary heanngs shows bias and prejudice 4. against these parties, in violation of the standards of conduct set forth in a 20 U.S C. % 455(a) and the Commission's decision in Houston Lightmg ~ and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), CLI-82 9,15 NRC " ~ A# ' 1363 (1982). Appended to the Motion are affidasits and portions of the 'd; hearing transcript which purport to document instances of 1"as on the 2 y part of this judge. ~ C 4 7 %.. e.Md 5: Applicants filed an Answer to SAPL's motion on October 24, 1983,
~~6. 5I, #'.,,,.y.. sca y '.. e:A.g.. W. M.N<,~~
~~~ v -s \\~*- refuting SAPL's interpretation of the incidents cited and arguing that [V:w:~~
~~r.... e s N~~
MM. DNN 8M..u.MW;N.4 w 2 : S.g u;w ' this Judge's conduct was motivated by the necessity of preserving order rn. during the proceeding and not by prejudice against the Intervenors' ,;.f g. y ;ct-jf g. k,Mr,M<.. :<..n +Oo.f Jgg y T,,.Wp4s;,x.W,' case. Staff filed its Response on October 31, 1983. Like Applicants, the i? rW.E. M . e... A M_O,.x..S 4, e.,, _.T. 2. '?, ,,W...A Staff opposed SAPL's Motion for Recusal and gave its interpretation of .%. s E..at' ' 7.%, e r each instance of alleged bias. Staff includes an extended discussion of Q.f />,5 ', e'g'W.L ; A,.. T ol .r ; . c. e., ~ ?;. } ; the proper legal standard to apply in cases of recusal. s @;. g'... yy-0;. p, y.g g7.y ' g._ YD"b. a.MN l 'tv, ids @n.%, II. Tile LEGAL STANDARDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF A LICENSING BOARD JUDGE k %~ N,9 ;,.-- 1< m.a..f. w W.t.a ,f.. W,,,h,; w W N. v.p1 y
~~m. :.. w.e ; :n >~~
e WN.+. M. e d.@., g~$MM,g.,m The Commission has recently set forth the standards for disqualifica-Mip; fg#g 9 4q My W,[3 W N; % 6'Mfdjit & M c tion of a Licensing Board member in Houston Lighting and Power Co. .r ?. M (South Texas Project, Units I and 2), CLI 82 9,15 NRC 1363 (1982). F w:q.g;.W. A m:W.W W W ; c' A. f The Commission applied the current federal court standards which re-w g . ma.. a' 1;,@ ;, p ; N f @, K Q 7 p : quire that, to be disqualifying, the bias or prejudice must derive from an M Q (. &;g.y g gg g###<;NMhi extra. judicial source and result in an opinion on the ments of an issue in p-P;:s v 1.- the case based on something other than what the judge has learned from }f[9: MN 1 3,.: Q h @N @ F'~$.$. M ;) his participation. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966). This standard has previously been applied to presiding officers in administrative proceedings. Duffield v. Charleston Area hiedical W DM&f' c.a : n '.b y Center. Inc.,503 F.2d 512 (4th Cir.1974). !$ { M N 7.T. Y-(('.1 '# Y h*. 28 U.S.C. 6 455(a) requires a federal judge to " disqualify himself in Qiffs i.., id.12. ( p/:%g@y%@ ;.g'i.e.; 'M any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be 7, p d i dA; 2. J. questioned." As the Commission noted in its South Texas opinion, the gWQ)?g@My, y$ 74' 'gcC$ p %W D 2'l'. objective standard set forth in this statute does not alter the requirement that the conduct leading to disqualification be limited to extra-judicial .Jp4 drev.b AM _ l d r. W.3 conduct.15 NRC at 1367, citing In Re /BAf Corp., 618 F.2d 923,929
~~h. g T p g lf g, Ml:{; f : j~~
~~T~].~~
~~$ 1 g). ;~~
(2d. Cir.1980); Johnson v. Trueblood, 629 F.2d 287, 291-92 (3d Cir. Q% Qi,M g..{.Q 1980); Philhps v. Joint Legislative Committee on Performance and Expendi. f[IM,w< : D7 * *g.y((Q '. y$%-Wh&: ture Review of the State of Afississippi, 637 F.2d 1014,1020 (5th Cir.
~~k. n.e,. d~~
~~, 3..,. ,.x._ 1981). Thus, siatements or conduct based solely on perceptions formed d i'i~~
~~p. n.~~
~~, ~.. LA::f.w.f:;c"/ a.,,,,, t : - ~ -JM n. W': m~' W~ +,-* 3 , y e r [g.uvN,.~~
~~s. o:f.', 'Wb',ry $ $'+~~
~~? 2 v. % Q'N -, '. 3.: .s 1191 p. h-s ;QW %. i mo e. o : W',s. ' *ie' h f.'.' s yf 4 4 '..,,,'- ! li17 ', c f N,, 1 ~~' ..n r p y %:[ J.s: wly.f'; J,'.~~
~~?y. p,, R,~y~~
~~. c :. .s f~~
~~,n &~~
n%, *, .,. ois h;a).Ys?[7 %, -.... ._-f* b-Y-); 'W.. ? f..l f~h, # w .e m .h *. j .,.r. 4%" y,.,7 2 [ g 38 *
~~j$;w:t{y;.;gr.p %'.e?y)Ei'g*.g, '?s., h)p%., h.T *u,0~~
~~>m,..,.~,,.m-,m..'g ..C . - - 7 3., n, ~ v.y ..~, Jl .Jf m.,, 7~~
~~y.J.;t y.y,G't ?.~~
~~yf.M f.~~
~~..v i !j, lw~~
~~.",....?,:. s ..m ?3.(;i. _ f; g.: 6{ <r y %';;_-i.H'('% f.~ p s,~~
~~t. %~~
hp:lf..>.g Mfg 6p'3 m> - q.}39.,.(4.;;f,N./.fg+. p w: pp,9 i, " 3.s., ~, rlw.+w.p y/..),5 y.Q ;g%.[u.,3.,@e 'p- ,e V < y.. "q 6... y;pf .,c s .~ w a., , s..o , o..,3 y '.1 e~e o,. .L. .... x.yl ,?, v n.., w ;A.. M ;.2 g.q.;z.:y% c.,*s'. r ;, q >.- , :m;. 2 + s s.g, .5 A m. . c.m.x, p. ,~ ,<,9.,,, ~ o c. J.m, %Mjr3.w.... + ? o ,u m .. ;..;. ; h ' ~ y y, ,,., f : s F %.,. y w / v;. - ' q w..r e ? ? n. . };t &c - -d:r.r Q',-^*'T...+ g.,, t a n d - m. 2 ?+., - 1 , Q ' " e,. '.#% ', 'w',# V. , w ;t.)},k.., ..s .p,. 4" 's "qf, '**l , - %,. y . 'd 4 4 1A ,.w s ]
~~ , ~, _, Q,bj F ,x *kg,k.c:'N?h ;&.G N w :- % n-s,a,% m ;. M.5"*L:, tc.j -.? NA\\: hk f19.m: :? Q+/su?%.! N Y;*.h -- ..r .. s ..% N %' >*. L.y, e % p;t t . r> v
1
~~.:n y Nsp # 7; , y.4.g, y%[r:. w* 7,33.M: Q s,: -~~
~~3. C.. a.7,~~
~~~. ? 1:J' < 3 %;%. ~.u%G MM^%.k;ii'$M'y 2 z[b,.m J A ty. 9y .,b e. ~,. .m W.. a M*.;'*. h@f a;4 2Hy:EG+&,, y s&fMJV.W. Q ;(n,.eJyf,[.. y y YQ~~
~~M f~~
~~,Qg.;.w < %.. p. ; n 9 s m Q W ;,,,,..%:c . y; ~-K 'M' M gip q n M $;'y%qs. s % $* J.gl M,.r. d N cL, -lh f' I' w A~~
~~._,;,,yd.*1._ nu'&f~~
~~'Q ykh;; &,. * ~ s.il J'.*h%y*Mte:. a.% &s ff:ty+,. %: v~~
~~r. W,&j.yk~~

~~d 2 +~~
~~g% p.Q f~~
~~p 2:~~
u a w.;u w'Q u?n

wAV~C')4 %p &wf?,
1 m,,r. .Q4W 7 . % M n g y6,. a.i.{ % '6' %. %;I:, W i Am. .n %:,/'%g.&,5-jd.,3 y @ fq L-9 I-2 h 'during a proceeding may not form a basis for disqualification on the { M M M dM4'MMP$$d[h .f '( ground of prejudice. South rexas,15 NRC at 1366. /BM. supra, at 928. -!i I $ I MMMd.NM[G. df. J v MMM.m.y$w$.n@k III. SAPL'S MOTION M.%fd s n mm,,:pg s s~ m. =hdMMN..un,...hg;,,p,g, r Sy&y.gm@%e% Wu o,:h. [vS d y a) Standing m f J4# ef; SAPL's Motion for Disquali0 cation claims prejudice not only against WWFpg,9.s/a.s%&a,y&n counsel for SAPL, but against counsel for the Commonwealth of 3- %.2. w. h.~ = 9. R % y,y T ? Mk 5~hhMDh) Massachusetts, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) and the New Hampshire Attorney General's Of0ce, and representatives e = f M - @ $i Q T f % h ? @ W h 5 of interested municipalities. Counsel for the Commonwealth of Massa-i j T?g deMb MP%M$kyW @@ chusetts and NECNP filed afndavits which accompanied the motion. No kM named Intervenor joined in SAPL's motion for disqualification.' Under g h' 4.j{b h[ N k h ($ $ ( h @Q NRC procedure, a party has no standing to move for disqualification of a ,-.(A*Q,"yf,/p @A,-@$i'%g/gg y iga;,W h judge based on an invasion of the rights of another party. Fuger Sound . W... p:u $ w @M M.N W @ %w dM "A Q gTN w m v Power and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), m. f.4 m i i y '~ s '# @N5 yg ALAB 556,10 NRC 30,32 33 (1979).Thus, only those portions of the instant motion which address this Judge's conduct toward SAPL need ' NMMDdkh gg / be considered under NRC practice. W.F.;; S D.Q g h h y g g L 'MNM%%sdj[46%458{dhh@ Although SAPL has no standing to raise charges of bias against any MM other party, there is no need in this instance to dismiss the concerns . M tJ A. $@57ds/:/i M M M.. raised on a procedural technicality. It is in the best interest of all to ad- %y'a4 yss ,dg~ C.. w3.d4;<t //.dN iM,m6~4 dress SAPL's charges on the merits. ~ pc
~~m %.w~~
< < wg.w g.&,gP.;@, w~jg;g o.:, ' -, g y p.g b) The Judge's Authority to Regulate the Proceedings Q@NN h?k;'DMQggg, Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the presiding officer has ,.k[M,h7.$+%,an;jd.<drt$A.s. the duty to conduct a fair and impartial hearing according to law, to take ~ M c appropriate action to avoid delay, and to mainta.m order.10 C.F.R. ~,C.c$y$y.h ,M i 2.714. That presiding officer has all powers necessary to achieve those 1;d @h & M'?/4 3@@$g p
~~-QM D'~~
MMM ends, including the power to regulate the course of the hearing and the .g J bb [j h h h conduct of the participants.10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(e). Where it is necessary 'd4'9Md% % Qy$htQig M%j,hig to the orderly conduct of a proceeding, the presiding officer may WM reprimand, censure or suspend from participation in a proceeding any ' datf#@,.MMg, QN.g,.. party or representative of a party who refuses to comply with the Board's T.,jd %N,J M, 4a. gy;,9 .,a. Mnf.M.. a. s .' s directions, or who is guilty of d.isorderly, disruptive or contemptuous 4 conduct.10 C.F.R. 5 2.713(c)(1). t/. g, 5 n, nT:Wf 4..Y ,, em Qib ; @ 7 t',4.& n. O.. y.',it ;
~~!t is noted that on October 31.1983. immediately pnor to the issuance or this order I received Attorney a,..,,W g,,,y".u.fg[, $, i *.~~
97 A p.o r.. General Francts X. Bellotta's Motion for Disquahfication and Recusal of Judge Helen F. Hoys and N.+ ,ti Motion for Reconsideration or Judge Hoyt's Ruling on Monon for summary Disposition and Monon
o, q,$ g a ' iP:TW = *.. f

3. #
~~, ? -f 1%.. *Q... N.(,.s j > 4 ad.g41Q ror Reheantig. Mas:AO's rnotions will be treated in a separate order. H .M .,4 w< . %[y$,bbeh. Q. 4~~
~~)c w. '..k,.~~
~~ix w J .l + yOMd%d 1192 ~' r mom'" nem~~
~~b., A ';4,m f~~
~~~: ~ ,.>. p.m =*'s: t J > $. p&g*/Ow y' Leg g j i.;. - ~.~~
~~O g,3 s~~
~~.y. .s,.'. .. 4 c,w. / 12 ;~~
b
~~,E* /g Vd~~
~s

I..--j, w.
~~.s. .~.,r . a : y7 n -t .=.t=-*9 ] 98#***, ~ $ p** **w M* .A~~
}
~~SS *** *, (*.~~
~~9 "" W~~
'**'+9 e ,n - m y p '.,,.: ^.. /. d :'~ w( yf;;w"*.o. pr b Q:.1,Z _&, g. >m, , {i' (( '.ni e.: % ~ '^f 46%. n s i' yW -,'. J< Y h Q, 3,-',., M-m c;*O1!...% S 4 g P Ai ~, M&' r-y n.ga c.g 4 w- ..t; N'~'mr&N%L Q,,cy=6
C.
3, +Q.f,. Q, j l:lM q'"y..@jv'f.%R}.QQfgy ,f su.pv om.Q. -f. Q w .* ~ yna W;<v:;%f: M s ' ; :' ~; p .A V z Qg.:xg. , l ). ,y n. s ~ y,. n w s.yyg. n.g.. ;~;99.pn..n. ~,, - > ; ;n;"g ;',;. x,., c e.$.s. ~,., + Jaq yg, y,, ~
m
?tv 1 .Q 2 ~,
1 , i ~ .j ] S l , aF 1 m.a - >x n A Judge must have the discretion to exercise these powers in order to W. _ facilitate the efficient reception of relevant evidence in a manner consis- ~ V^ Sj ' ', tent with fundamental fairness to all parties. A judge is given broad lati- ~ t'; tude to assert these powers when he perceives the conduct of any party . hy., to be disruptive of the orderly presentation of evidence. ,~ , j@ This judge's conduct in this proceeding has been consistent with ,.1 1- - 4 ~ these goals. In its Statement of Pohcy on Conduct of Licensmg Proceedmgs. CLl418,13 NRC 452 (198D the Commission has specified that it ex-r
c(
9.: .m ) pects judges to actively manage their hearings and to impose sanctions _. ;.s NW ycf[V W:'-PCT ' where parties fail to fulfill their obligations. To sit silently in the back-f w ' 0,J.wS i.k %.y @g (g e.f mg ?,' ground of a proceeding while the parties place anything they wish on the y .2, WWy %y/f%.y ' d ?mcf;, record is to default on one's duty to implement this Commission's [ "; f ;j W[,; h ' N' d > g policy. As the Staff points out in its brief, what SAPL sees as bias is no ' p '. ] f. Q more than carrying out one's obligation to "run a tight ship," as the ,.f ;r ' S..L MA...p 9 i s; ~1 _ f ? '. - N ~ 4-7 M@. Commission expressly desires. The Seabrook proceeding is a complex and tendentious case. As can 4e
~~N W..~~
be discerned from the tenor of the briefs, the tone of this proceeding .S h ' t.,,. [* ca.. [, J fn'. %1, 7 has at times been acrimonious. A judge must take pains in such a situa. - :~ ~.a ' 7,A :' ]s .g y non that a record is developed which speciDeally addresses the conten- ~s.; m .?. _ ',.d.- + tions at issue, and is not replete with extraneous accusations and w h x .+i's,@-Q t' Q g.J.R, 'c ,,'w..2i. Mr' ne$'g#, M. [.M,MJ WE speeches. ( This judge has no bias in favor of or against any party or any party's d substantive position on the merits of any issue. The Licensing Board's %.9 admission of many contentions into this proceeding renects its determi. 7 $,. %a V.e % < 1 ) " @ P... Q~ dr.,9. aM' nation to give a full and fair hearing to the Intervenors' legitimate T,,. concerns. Indeed, SAPL's brief does not point to any instance where Q, t .. m...f N % q p.+ 7 kah; K[ d. , $ M y M'c[ this judge's conduct in supervising the proceeding renects a predetermi-@.#( g. Q M W[ Y'( l'S nation of the merits of the case for the simple reason that there has not K yet been a judgment formulated on any issue before the Board. SAPL ' c.. 7 M.,,W.,3',. .,;W., seems, rather, to be under the mistaken impression that a judge has no right to regulate the speech of the parties. This contradicts the plain ., ' 2/c JX'yv A 3, intent of 10 C.F.R. (( 2.713(c)(D and 2.714. What SAPL misinterprets E '.,,,1 ~ C Z i y Fg c.; r -n+y. ; 1,..U N'4 x w y ^ s' N, WsJ as bias is nothing more than an exercise of these powers. N ".(.' SAPL also makes the argument (which it notes but does not rely on) D.. a. n .. < ',;.%.r.r... : , '..c:;6. w m ~.. f., W v.. that bias was demonstrated because " Judge Hoyt's rulings with respect ^ C.QM 4 uf em ' Zu ' D, &'N,..u.4 -,N M.c P.L to evidentiary and other matters in the hearings conducted on emergency D 9: in favor of Applicants and Staff wy m. gf s to date have been planning respectively " (S APL Motion at 23.) It is well-settled that the appearance ' 4_
~~' gli.~~
f'- f.s,' of bias under 28 U.S.C. { 455(a) cannot be shown by adverse rulings ,4. j 'Q_ made on the merits. In re /BM, 618 F.2d at 929. As judge Mulligan 43,.. f,; y, p i, q" A. 7 b, # : jf.fj, "A trial judge must be free to make rulings on the 4 4 VW~q, stated in that case: merits without the apprehension that if he makes a disproportionate ,a.~, .c 4 r N J's'g-e-.c r, i,, 35 ? +,- -n ?. .s A f D:*y.. m ';c P,y =>
~~c. :~~
~~G$ / /,b~~
~~1893 h~~
gn; q a a c. ,c,,9.. a,, g, <.c e... ~' J -'. e[* ,e. y 3.a d Ma%,.,".y];;y% .g. .:Q.: ..w~,.., .'{u"g( y$q,,,e, ..] ' j[- ~1,T V -..s m, m -,y 4qgg .,. e 1, O,"* y,, :,. "t , %. g, 1g,w4,,,t.r,,. u 9, $ %.,*. * ....m a t .: :;. y ;7*. - e s. e...,O v. g.,,' m,,, y,,
~~v.- v.~~
~~<j .# ? ' ' ^ ~ ~ ~ l. ' '., f. w,,. k. ;a. ?^i* y s...., r c ,e .~~
~~a.a t.,_ ;Q ' m,l 7. Y.; m$ j <.~~
~~W f-Q.; h...- s~s s n '~ i 1 ,Y, 'c s .N *.,. L.,, y {.,,..h t ' 4 j 'f; Q;,f ' y~~
~~gr y 3%~~
~~j. t.1 3 ~w qa 5~~
r
~~' Qly.g: : ' '%. c ? * / r r -d.- ' ~ ,.v, ,4 1 .s a~~
~~e. &~~
~~v :' Q- '-. g;.~~
^ '.W *
~~. y.?'. r ~ :(p s3 1~~
~~q, q;~~
a a 21
-. - e m,l.n, \\ ,a.g N.* &n *'- m. m Q .gejk. % .a i,
~~g.f;.f%j %*Q3lft f?dh~~
~~%*hh hhs' q'& %'.*s*':lq % oeOL *,W.g.g )I.56 h.h.}h; c. -k. -, M+7 W W $y.M W.'% @hfMh '[ly&PCpMid M klf Nhf.'% sn ?: '.' m MQ MNhhkff QW+ f:. V: %M Wr .... ? *,. -. .ev. gj.w.m.,,'g,a y;, 1 J.~~
~~7. ?r+., Qn. %,,&n f *.%; :~~
~~p W.. g.c: n ae,ye...p.n; n, n. u;g+ w.g W:.C~~
~~m. t., o, <c mgg.~~
~~q.,. g.y y.. p n.+.c g~~
~~w,&,r%~~
~~2 y y*.y p *.*r N *k%; r u 4, w,. f A t s ~ -s. - h.s i* [- =~ [~~
~~s. I 5~~
~~Yg, <(t%W :y.,$. &^+sh,d % %p ~*h'ds.f.~~
-n.w -~._.u s +m M &,.dDw% p.N ru@.f0 W $ & m Q M 4 _ J.(*m $yw$a$hhhYkt h RM. pa%. Xm$.r:m:.$&q@Nhk4N't M.e+h$'b Q,. %,y* *,"V? &.*,..yMV.,.%'d.y.m.. :,.M.,@W~. y N4 +s .m wa d F /'.~ys'L;f>K .i.rR,~M r,w d)J. i s M,WQ.n$y .m w a. number in favor of one litigant, he may have created the impression of Nhg,. M@~, n% r MJ..g&jQ,h;w@9f%e. pa%., I@M DM*S bias. Judicial independence cannot be subservient to a statistical study of s tn ww.pr wardwwh mh the calls he made during the contest.,, Id. NYM(M/h.M *,e m.m?.M'MN*lm W 7 M T*M dWIM N h in denying this motion, I am not without knowledge of what a judge is egm -td WA NM 'Mk.M M2 and what one must do.in the execution of the office. For anyone not oc-S 8 l2 hM%*' 41%.WM/[hW-[@.., ANWh cupying the position, it must be difficult to identify with the sense of re- .l r e py,($ 7 M l- ) sponsibility carried by a judge m decision making. It is, indeed, power
~~$h b~~
NN Mh73, but it is something else - it is public responsibility given to a few and it S'3 $% M'M.'ph h d.; cannot be shared, its power must be protected, its independence h (( M IO f' y N@ h @I' / N td Mi Gh: h assured, its dignity defended and its integrity demanded. DbE: AD f For the reasons cited in this Order, SAPL's Motion for Disqualifica- 'hN[SW'hS"* h .df [ k N[ ?$ tion of Judge Hoyt is dented. The matter is referred to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal %.M$,Mgig,p.C h $,yg%4 Board pursuant to 10 C.F.R. ! 2.704(c). B y&e
p w..%f2j, y'

c... hen w
~~.Wlf b.fs d'e,t' ~ Y G+T*?!,L :T t fp%,;$% w.c Wu.%y. ~T~~
~~Q m f. p wQiQ 9&*M.pZ/>h,e q.sp?(;@b p.e Helen F. Hoyt W~~
M7,4.,@ hNIEh w g g e <.N d d ff/3 .fM ADMINISTRATlVE JUDGE p> w..cW nppy. g., w&p ry$f'~ h.sp .pw e Q:4 P dp. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, M h. Q.ifD W ; M. M W dQAMpp$ this 2nd day of November 1983. Q'y!!$ $UM;MNhOh6bNhMUD M M 4n. Wm"d;f.s ep,w, wee $u?ir QvMpGM.x.W@:yWM:tfq? f..m'9 v ne- -4 , :>q f!G. Nf.9 h r ws -n&.g, N;g.khW.WWE fh;;hs, n : Yrs %ygp&f'r.r: n rs .g,y.py c< ~. "l 'W N N!V v t "n'W;,'gezq*m. f *.%dv Q+W q o cd J.,"
~~W ; 4,'9 Lv y %T Q f % w;% p x e~~
~~. P. M,< n @ $ m. ! N f M Y. M. $@u = m p @ A @ %v % d...p % ~ d, N.s e Tw M%W E e.i @y.ms.s.m.ru.h&ykkNh&@ &YW Y M EC M M,E bY ysh m. a.v n d 9o A.y 7 p'ig g% d Qf.n.: w.m.w.p.,w, eg .r m~~
. e ',

" W.'
~~.f 1 ' e J M ;tp@?'.lQ. %.>:y ny s m,;~~
~~c. ps -.m %.p.?4.: *h/. t - 6~~w,y,]~~
~~- n p ,.,. :;., e. a. u, .,>..a i-* 5.w., W - u.w ... U, V.% y <a V. t-M* e@** f y i4 %, j, g2. =tt Y y -fif y (?.,%y%M: Q,% O ;*fi,p,,..,;;.1R.1y&'- };&y~~
~~J,.1edy5' s%/3 @u 4 N.;.y 9~~
~~A 4 fn .) ~ l.~~
~~p. 'r:~~
y*a c 7ge u 4 i N: I h k.4,b h'W h M b @iW;;;Nf6TY8 . JD e, co. a. h "..Ww M WM$M$M. = . n-n., 4.., i.,. w .Jq r} s g ': ?.. . v r., g, 4v m r % N. x. y *); { y &. w;My k Q,.a,:} l.,- f 'i > ~ l 8 s ' v " r f. 2y./ g g
~~g yy g,, p 4~~
,Q*i-Q'7.;w 2'(.G < '... u f,y y..'g q.Try g.14. g Q<g . 4 c,.* y. g i,. Je +y M. s.3 4,9,. y,$, g;g [' W-p.., g., g. ,, y.,,,. m c,,,-- %. ai..yi<..t L r .e n 3* ss 1 < !.?,, 4.. r :p ,..... ne 7 .3 ? ~++,
~~) //2 k 2~~
a
~~n. m].,wce.~~
~~77, f,k) 5t ~ I *- b -y f 2 5, J ', th. "I*# 8,.";d )*' .h Al'**' 'I GA 1Ar.. f.,: w['#~~
~~u U.. '.Q.p;~~
~~.w-4 M,; 'eY Q.W" Q%.O$ J, s >v.f~~
Ny*p %a &.*
~~, m .mc f-g$ :s.,f:v' '.c' N)s,' : r .wt 'n.- a o p. . #.% 4 , i.s p.:,.L,.". p##' %....;W.#g g s,'.m, - n. V y;m,,rys s. 4 4~~
~~p J.pE -~~
~~gA ,er3~~
~~<,.n. a. v m ** Q~~

s Wi',w' 3 ; QW. r a-m.Nw.,th. $c tc @ M: ". 3 -w Wib ? + : g 3o.p m. N.4 ;.,M., M. N*,- q. L ..w$ nw a. .s, t.A,, - h *'.. r M, . a n,,,'gm,,, w ,s.- t ,,a '+ e $3, 4 ,e. +,,g,,p,,.., e- ,, u.., .y '*e
[. F m r-5 l ,4 y ,p ,n-.u~ 3 s + .s .s .e
?,
~~+ . m. ;. n e,. n :. n,.1~~
~~p' gr~~
~~.~ e. .g -y ~ig,- Cite as 18 NRC 1195 (1983) ALAB 749~~
~~s.. v..~~
-a u. n 3,f',.- )r ..v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,.s u mt NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u / - d O< I ~ .; :. +: w. . ~. m.. x.., 4e 1 t .,w.- $. s i s M-~ j s W..- - ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD n< . -a:a r..... -,.... a.. u. Q.:<.. u...... ~_ m, ~. v. .n +..Orn ~...,
~~v..v. :/.,5 ' ?.D.,u./ J T san $m $, $~~
~~Administrative Judges: F$I~~
~~u. ' r m 4.~~
A w .-- M@,s.,,. .,9 r m *. s%<s3;.. ,. n 7.. @v'.U,.w et w.p$m..M. p 4 M W4W. h.y,4..;w.m$~Ng scg h rTat wF #l, me-s 3..a,g. u n Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman vs~. g L W @gi@O,,.s V R_ ArWM.. ;f cM M, Gary J. Edles C . _.~9: '.~ Howard A.Wilber ....t V -sgD g,. c w. y :,,.,. s y . r... Q, -c .c. w,.. ..v.4 s~ -~n.@; s~g,,q;m t = c xe.3m.., . w.m. m-.. y@+.ts, ,g n g p M, W /A.,r-dm, n.u .,u w w . a M.g 9'W.,p m n - Y 6 0;v@T.hc,Am, ?M, N.M, Y a,Y d l,. n. N+.s WP - Y. t N. @y in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 443 OL e. Le ,A 50 444 OL .w($,,; M.p <w~l. ; q. x, 4
~~.m ' G :,~~
~~r.e., y $,,..,,e@p, Q f W.Q4.g % + - .c . c, v.,%.. s~~
USLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF k.W4~... v@' Ct., < EC

;.L,.. &.' J, f..,.
f. NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. 'h. .. ~, Geabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) November 28,1983 . &r, o.. <,e-w. u. y. se<,,,. s.. +,,., ,,..m. v ty p;p : n%.g,, m, 3 p s.. w,c d.P ~g.w m ).e% y2: y we,7.. -. c. o, r. s. .N i N W M W M( M;b :.s M h.,g M 1,?,l.h McM. The Appeal Board affirms the decision by a Licensing Board judge MMW W6 denying a second motion for recusal or disqualification of the judge in u. e w. g ;w s.22 ~ M~ n y p g-W g.v c x re. 6.x p., .,m s., w....yp %.p this operating license proceeding. Q. - w: g "..-@: W ~ W,:,%. e. w e c, w,. sM.yn s MA.e.; m .G..
g,
~~i. e A~~
p ' n., ? JI @. a.1.s.t.. N w - -- W .- W RULES OF PRACTICE: MOTION FOR RECUSAL (OR r. .M W DISQUALIFICATION) N h. e n.9}y@f Q,.&..e... m.. mm' v ~ A s q :s .t; w ,2 ' ' j, gQQ: The standard for disqualification. enunciated by the Commission in Houston Lighting and Pow Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2h p W;)QIf?r Q.ug.hF
~~f. W[. x W. 4 ~~~
GE r ss,$.Q. i.r i ',t: n ~s.. s:'.~K.. ~ CLI 82 9,15 NRC 1363 (1982), is thr.t a disqualifying bias must ordi-s z3 + plie ,*g qP, f.$p@y.; nirily stem from an extrajudicial source, rather than a judge's conduct Wi W J . M.:. w.e.e & during the course of a proceeding. ML b g& .^r.., +.,n.w .. g m-m t,g,.., ><,,.Ee ' '. ,c m, p.+ >-',s e . [, 2,e b. '., s ' ~. ? ' 'El,'c A Y %q,.
~~r F M(,wh,y r41 E!'N 6, {i J' - Q Q~~
~~+* V. (;n?yl.a." M.,::x.C.%.*:p. 3., ~. ; p, 9 4,. r,1~~
~~w s~~
~~....r~*,,e~~
~~.n n2 6. !,, t A'N.w? M u,~~
~~/. h. f i.s..-: nsu r vg m'. < ;* 'N. % z f ;, ; u M < !.. ow A J' ' W s: w n 3..* ***'l Y * .v . +4 ;,.'a 8**# # #47 g.; j w k. - g v. s2,Q q.~~
)."[ "pf"~j,fjA A
~~e4 g' <l~ a.. p. i,h)..s*- ' 4.;. ,, s (~ T[y'). "2 ' N.. e.Q. Q:ie M L; ' ' ' / +C., a, p p. t 4 e, h ~ n .,) % l ;_ },' ,s~~
~~'./*f._t~~
~~.e2 f,*g y l-W * +. C,,, { %.f_4, ' k, ' A ' p, 3 ' g, V'.. )A '; w~~
~~'j:]Q[>'.~~
~~l . j ' P:.Y ' M's ). r~~
~~?? u,J MJ a~~
~~,.,. m g, y @..;.. C $. k t :l @;~~
~~' W c 99 ;~~
~~, z w p., 1195 r<, f~~
k
~~s j. &'l.?., b 5 ? A Y,. j. 'N~~
~~? s' Q.'1,. * .1 ;,. % 4.c v *,.t .,.4se p W.~~
~~N*,A '.r.~~
~~4 J , 11.. - sV e. n .~~
~~h 44;[y ],.N..,{Q~~
~~. b $.g '.p'. g .'w' / -4 -v..,c, 4 4/.>4 y 'M,'.,g g a, 7 @*owdLN ".. 'c.} [ I ' 7 hg ') E .c.s.. n~.*,y - 4. }_b'A ] A, w.<h,::, 9 *.m. q. h n &e %. L f~~
~~e ;, 3 -' $'g, g s,,~~
%-:.: p * . r
~~87. %~~
g m. 7.;;* A..y'T.Q. n,.f. c,").U3,T F A' P g ;c,E. g a.W.V N.,@9.. x.jq T.fW,*. r, w yr. Y ~. v(.,W,(,t srm L
~~s e~~
~~p ~ r. vin. n a .n., e-Q- }' PW p: 5 .W . 7;* ^ ' ' -Q y 3. ." p 4.: p: p b. / ' s;".y' a,K @< a. c h ..y Q gr _,, R e._.~~
p y cw *
~~, ;.\\,; p yp@4f,Qq%.g e.M:n. r,y.s.% r;., . ; l .1 ,dp gy,3.. t .y Q LLr yy - A.w.<d.v, # c 4 1 - W t. c e g a.,,,q /.....,.~~
~~>;z 3 c-.~~
~~c r .e u ,.m.., s o = s m iM m j' - .. h..c=. !k / ', ^ v, ( [.Mk.,N k., ~m.k.,. .e. U~~
~~3 f d 5 (+I 3~~
= /.*, ?, W.s' o,4 ( < *.w' * ., ^ q.. ye,aq4.. ; g g a.4<;gP.* - y.w' p (, m ', y *. a a y'.. . '.y' e,- A..,.e ' . - A,h - e. 4 .a b r , ;.. gm g. o .x 7g 1 -. ,u.,4
+ ,n. . is ap wtc i ., %& &%v%& \\ l.- c.3 _,g c.e s - 3 MJh&m f,m t.hUY.?R,,, ..,. s&,&.&: r - ~ :- % y,. X13**d0i W f*$"1 4< ~ i# 4 L- ':. = _ ?c' ' ' ' ' M,* L '% s: '.1, %"%' '.
'8
~~.M e'4 1 q,:. w. v&, ;p. *.% ',., i, + 'e w G %' G s ' yN. M& CS r*-~~
~~@w)W3,.& n?.~~
4:_ ., r,0' ' ~ ~ +. K'.,2 %y+ ~. n%,. s~n a p. @ r.)fy'.4}*3 d.W n. Q $W #' s-p 'M +. m&,;,y 7l* S.M, x. 3%,C w: s ~.s i ~ -*n :ymwr v
~~:s / %;,%.y p. W *Q 9 7.h ~f.rfa,.,.::: &. 1y..a q: c.L * < N &a&W.4 m..:&~~
.=
~~p..>.r.yt:.~~
~~pg. ^ r -. ~ '. w.~4. W :.;:g> g % ; y ya~gm~~
~~M'.% A m a"~~
~~. '. : i. 2 - ~. > - e.- .e f~- d s > Jw n Q;. p ;. 7 > '. ', %..~~
~~y.. ~ ; W <~~
m u. ~ p m m b.9... ~ %, c. m,.,e ye.; w v.,, v.._c w.%x <. za.#;.e~ -;r. = , F g,,n.e.n.,u~. +. u. e,, w. n1.w.pl0Mf j w.%. - s ~ : -.i g 5 v: s a - ( ~- - N 7 Te4,eww mp ew w M%:&w%,@q "h {.[m llh('N&. # 5..kp~W'h e %% k.W ~ Q w t ..?u e r ue< ? A s
~~rDfCW, f~~
.% m,,W'.,*
~~a.. e v~~
~~,~ - Q. ! &,e.dl_m.. ,b.,w n :..',~,-,j .~ +1 . v 2,e. n. p' w.,, s, v~~
~~4....~~
n,. ~m. a 3 G r,W ..f GPL.'c] RULES OF PRACTICE: MOTION FOR RECUSAL (OR g 3 6, 4 1 M[. d y h @* W s* u + 2s: g/cfsa DISQUALIFICATION) Weg %. ;,;b'@/'.9 - 6 eM.b*M M #p.cm,4 w. ; w; z Section 2.704(c) of 10 C.F.R. requires a licensing board judge who -i h M..,.,h. W l 9 u.' N-denies a motion for disqualification of the judge to refer the motion to 'MM m. ,~*e ~ , w.. p > @W. k@. yl9 W h... d h' [~ '.. M M.s NM. m ti y V.i !*%~ the Commission or Appeal Board. r
~~a. y m,y,. %>j.1.e @;m., -...~~
~~x% m.,. %..l<,w )p. s j. >4m. :-. v.., y ,;;g - RULES OF PRACTICE: AIOTION FOR RECUSAL (OR~~
~~p. wl n. 4 :1 @ ;. A - @.,, m,.; g 1.~~
gu.,..... mrc; h,f g g,,. m,t. y, gr~.. DISQUALIFICATION) s sn w 1 4 y$qlnJ;bN, 2$.NNih,n..,... aw. 3a kb Motions for disqualification or recusal must be filed in a timely fashion h: krppa - 1.c., once the m. formation giving rise to such a claim is available to Cer.dIi.M;MJL@MOdM@g Q47.- y hC'4 the movant. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ED Mylq.. ALAB-101,6 AEC 60,63 (1973); Afarcus v. Director. Office of Workers' !d. WQ$. W Compensation Programs. 548 F.2d 1044,1051 (D.C. Cir.1976). See also l 6SW M$$1 4@M h $'kfM4@Mh @ N Qd.DMJMM$M Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units I i N"fMiMWj$y$GM/$(IfPs@f ?f irWT !?s and 2), ALAB.556,10 NRC 30,32 n.6 (1979). U5k hQ h%;A FM!dQMM@'7@}+M 2. mp%gr mrMap;.,g V N RULES OF PRACTICE: SiOTION FOR RECUSAL (OR ' S.'.+9.0..,. ys$c$. -M., e$.n,@g'z. rg; f M..: DISQUALIFICATION) ~ x m m. . f$jqg Aj b To demonstrate bias flowing from extrajudicial sources, a party must o g e,. QlQ,M,gfi;{S')itt:jglyl$h7 $U,6#, -M? identify a personal connection, relationship or extrajudicial incident %;w.Qf jM % W? which accounts for the alleged personal animus of the judge. In re /BAf 'Q [WE . E. .M,hT[.C;[f.,, u;c - Corp.,618 F.2d 923,928 (2d Cir.1980). .,,m <4 . a.m. wof, ..,.7, < v,.
~~m. :~~
~~['.?$;h.;;h...'.d~,,[Mgo$: ;gf,.j RULES OF PRACTICE: SiOTION FOR RECUSAL (OR b.t... i/ 6..."S DISQUALIFICATION) -9n~~
~~yA; Wbg@$.Q;p~~
~ $ my. M. .v f..O.W @m.. M;r Rulings, conduct, or remarks in response to matters that arise during M^d, '$s'/l%'3.xy g.p@g/'AW94 4hWd.h.a w r,,,,..p$ s% v, $dMt MM. administrative proceedings are not extrajudicial. ALAB-748,18 NRC 1138(1983),
~~Q.um..~~
j1'. . e.% Q~M]Q,iG...y;,. m .s Y@,'$al-K:;..$G. ;y..;+ITN. wddi&.%@Wi"%*. 9'Q, :. n ~v QeOf'&. .A %p qqq.YM.4,@b*lP &@; N N' APPEARANCES la.K pn,,. a. u :sd MN e WAM Stargaret A. Zaleski, Boston, Massachusetts, for Attorney General 3 f.n . q.ycy.N A.;c.. w. e J: _ < #.., Wr.., ". 4 :p;*3. n....1J. Francis X. Bellotti of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 3 u. w.;., s. ~ w 7 p.1 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., and R.K. Gad lit, Boston, Massachusetts, for
~~%y p.# c.N v. a,.,.p%'!%. m yp.,. 3 the applicants, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.~~
Co W Vq#, .m ,m.ms 1h ^ ' Q*K.3Q O '. -Q4 p fLQ.) Roy P. Lessy and William F. Patterson, Jr., for the Nuclear Regulatory , :%.@s,..a.:.A.m@g Whpu '%y,6%~!s, t N. t .. <. n: n p i 9.m l Ccmmission staff. .. vp%. 5@. q/:g'24RW ~.f,.,.+p:w. JgS. 6Q: yp4e W.p.. W O ;g . m v)n%.,.- gg96 gfp U -,.w 7; _ 7. . g. m _g. 4,g g g p,.m.d.., ;.? 5.Q+:#; v.,3.r.w;y;y.- r t 4 Y T m'J'M;f; W1* *e;; 6M.. >/ ' , it I. 'a ,: W- ., %.ap, .g'. n , { r' a P '. Y Y ^ 7 /' d i. 6, g. .'. f: < !..b hf?h!$${.Y:$} N YO. '7 s. m ?u?,:,,l: %; S, w',,d.ll;- n.
~~c".. a ;~~
~~-r::smpeo.;nry~~
M., :T f 41":y*f;'*T
~~',r'W.**.a~,- 'r, n.~~
~~.~ - i > m 8 ',. p%+w v.a,. 'f ' T.r'[p:,*"".'t *"~~
~~, > s'~~
~~'.. %:.',g,% e % N ; ;. fl yl:^;~~
~~o n~~
~~, w.. w p::,. ~N, '.v i _~ .p. w. ' w' y;9 t %.QA"gQ.:;RY. g' p J;' x w La N,- %.t sL-~~
~~s. +:' t '~~
~~r c %,h ',w;. M+. .+..~~
O
~~( 1 +,. < +. 3, g'; f. a. , '.,.. ', A. s' c. ;vc. r. Q. v.k,b.,c'M / Q', w :~~
~~p.c~~
~~.w ( y. s' n ; %.,. ~. :Q. g, *n. v,9. q&.n !".l.fDg wy, 4 j.y. y*M.m. g ., Q,* e~~
s
~~, 9, '1f ) f, f . h., ', n. ~ L7. ;,~~
~~w. 9.,,(,;~~
~~/- ,,, p;.s. %w~~
~~f. ?~~
+W m .a p: f...; y :*n .v., ,e y ?. w A.,. m.e 3 x. p n7.. }3,.w'm.w.s.p m,3.,g: y,.y;..w;[L.y :t 9,.(. p >,... e - r; ,.e - ~ .g. s- -;..;c .m,, g:;,,,:u - :n... 3 m ., s.,, uo,cj,.5 ~cc. a a . ; y, : z. q3 .9 7.;_., ;~, s; < 4.., 4;p.. v .~ -a _ ~ b i* m__m..,. --^ -e.i.__.._m.. -d------ A
~. L, ,%3 .~ .. y w e 'n F 5 - y w g
~~f9,~~
~~' ~ .c , ~., ,;m._ m _ s w.. ,4 .' +;,pcy. - ps, ,2~~
~~< L.,',~~
~~,r - I,.r 7.14 m,,,. 'i-p,. 1 s a ] 'W*l,m:. n.. D * ' 'l. Q .T i E,,l%p,M,.m a.,A.: 'd. : u W-, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER~~
~~u..-~~
~~p. 9,x, .. q;... u%2 / m m , N < *$, m.M ~ n ~ .,.m',', fyg, 4..m, 3 On October 28. 1983, Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti of the 'Ll 4~~
~~f '.j. g Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.~~
! i. . gd [, Q, W QO;, (, %,E %M t, V. - 7 f'? 6 2.704(c), a motion calling for the recusal or disqualification of Admin-e istrative Judge llelen F. Iloyt as Chairman of the Licensing Board in ((k. -. v./< MW ' ,'E. s.shd,MMj.9 this operating license proceeding. 3r .. /: g+.g%rj$@ps['gjQQf gi;g This is the second time that a party to the proceeding has asked that Judge Hoyt step down. On October 7, the Seacoast Anti Pollution 4 M h.dh *fMQ@r League (SAPL) filed a motion that was denied by Judge Hoyt in an %g%RWGT QQ/,BffMph% order issued on November 2. We recently affirmed that order in 6l$EW,kg. g.W"6 @ N4'$1;pW i ALAB-748,18 NRC 1184 (1983). Our opinion relied on the standard f;. Qg gud m.y,g ,h,As. g%g a . e';M.ml 3'bgU.m.'@W% for disqualification enunciated by the Commission in Houston Lighting .L M and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), Cl.!-82 9,15 NRC v. ..x c as n
~~v. -~~
mv@p VWQg ,g ppp M4@]@R$%p* Q 1363 (1982) - i.e., that a disqualifying bias must ordinarily stem from %j. S'.C G M ]; an extrajudicial source, rather than a judge's conduct during the course of a proceeding. We obsersed that all of the underlying allegations of 4.. :W @#A: a n. e;@.W W bias presented by SAPL emanated from rulings, conduct, or remarks by L JF.,. ~. n.J. M ',V,. .fo. w W Wnu Me..-. R Judge lloyt in connection with matters that arose during the course of yp!./.p WggMy%g n m mv m . g the proceeding. We recognized that there may be a limited exception to .c 3.Wg%gi.TJ @QQigg.p the general rule that bias must stem from an extrajudicial source where s, y A v. h;%q ? M W $$RW 9R WW"pg such bias is pervasive but found that none of the events relied on to por-tray Judge licyt's supposed bias actually demonstrated a preconceived po p.p; n A Q.f. peg % N.4 mW r y,w.g opinion on the merits or a showing of perva!.ive bias or prejudice. e$ 5: @w ;.,d i M.'/ f % % d % M (
~~cw g~~
Attorney General Bellotti claims that Judge lloyt has exhibited such $ i @y$ $ $ M M h @SWi$ personal animosity and bias toward counsel for the Commonwealth and JFJ(DV%;${% FN other intervenors and town representatives that a fair proceeding is c M M6,.,fy@dy%@&jQM impossible.' In response, the NRC staff and the applicants argue, as a q m t.. 3 p v &y: g 'gh g afg preliminary matter, that the recusal request is untimely. yn addit. ion, es:pg d 84i),p M they assert that, as with the SAPL claim, all of the examples of alleged $~ d. M S : M T T T p F4 @ c,*i bias and hostility involve rulings, conduct, or remarks during the course M.MVh2 WN. wp,W. p.MM.A.,63%gg O of the proceeding that are thus not extrajudicial. Neither the staff nor met ym ep 4 q/ m< C h f. o. &,. W ,.g e % g the applicants believe that anything that has taken place thus far rises to the level of pervasive bias against the Attorney General, so as to justify M e .~x w myocation of the exception to the general rule that bias must stem from s p...g m c w e.g n S. w&.y .w %~pQp( AU,v. 61, c.M62py*Afd an extrajudicial source. In the staf!'s judgment, "the record reveals that h h h.,M'@ W P M M ER:M a Judge Hoyt was implementing the Commission's Statement o/Pohey on kl.hhhm h_e ;,%.Jb '4.dh'%. .w, e. .,w. m .. 3: u ., 9 W ; 9 g ~. K e"- M [AyD Q'd 'dJ W IAttorney General Bellotti's motion mas accompan ed by an afridavit. es was the earlier sAPL motion. v. .f %$f3Muf.f".6.% 10 C F R. 6 2.704(et such aftJavit is required even ir the motion is grounded wholly upon metters or TMM. A MM@IID1*'- A. v ".*F.b 6a -TS publ,c record $re lkirost Edaose Co (Greenwood Energy Cemer. Umts 2 and 3). ALAB.225. 8 AEC p M* OJM. ? I;*n.7 W (i(. y 3,n' 3.[g(;W.K.. *p.e.-4 379. 380 (1974)- ' eM. s - % *;d '>f v.g,w .sp ._ r u &, %y y.. %% p.s *: O s l Mf}[&%Qy ?l; [h 4 h{;..g.C.hi(',Y# y ;g ; e, N 1197 g u he s i._ w.. m e.u w e, Q g g$ & & G% };/b.fr 4 7.f.f M. 7 3.N Jf&, V h*?il IUh&fl&.Qh t A.>rJ,y' y m ; & n.9 y ~nh0.$YIW n. e m n. _ m q.. (i *.yr w&#2,..Wr e;y&.~, e 4+ . ya 4 wYW y.4, Gy i.: p v \\ gn
~~4. g;eg~~
~~.g yy ... e,, e my~~
~~7. -ya g. ;5;;sq. <.gg,.y p,yg,,,.p p 2 p,. m p.;i n. g.g.x.~~
~~. ~-v ~.w-e wn-wyr.e e ms g.n y. .g.q:.g.:g.;.yg sy e .n.g~t.,,: ' 1 n,as,. ;t - :n~~
~~pyy,;p fi~~
~~$ y*p 3.... ,p smp 9,t. .nf _,z , q.; s .y, v, r. ; g. p.. 3,:g;...~ p.g.g gg y ,;y j p p p,:q g y.y.y.; Q;3.f.2 y ;4 g k~~
~~l.. Q.v ; g n. p g y. p ; W y,~~
~~. a, w w,w::n,, G..w,g.p%.p;.y..s %u,4;yy N.m.., y; s .? :a , g,. 2 .., g,. QQ ~.s~~
~~.. w n q ~~~
ce + s w.n.n. :.e. L.g y ~., .,q:4w*.n;.3. p;m h: o w% v u w:.m,..*..,. e. . + i s n 3 e s .n. ^g i : g. L n,; - c;e,:.. - %gy f , p;Q:-ly;f; $.3,,,. gf.'nr y f:.je. m '.._ ym 4.Q.,L ';g,e r. a *>. v 3 yh, N.F+,.. ~,$ t ,. m s %,. j.& $' 'Q4 Y < s, s-a
~~? W. '~~
'.a &.,,, +,, N'\\ Mt Q. 'o... . n 3_gy33,l.3 . -l. -[, i.l*w. i:?'. '".'m,,& :. ( y.%, m m ;., e .r,, ~ m
en. j J. 4 \\ a.; M w:ry 2 7 c. k,; y.;,,,.; + 3... #e.., . ~,. ~, v* y T,N4: ,s 2.+ c w. w%.; W. %. ' N.; ' 'wW: ~ ,r.. f hyt.gH yg% .-. 9, %.o e. a a, P "'m,> p-Y ; v-L J 1H-(y v:rean a . h;*%)-'*;*,, ...M ~- i T f: ~ ' s. J s m, --, 4 n.yg n a m.. F..,- " a gs s w &: W. &nm .x , n y - %w:lq.* w, Hq-r.,gn,
~~r 2.~~
~~m W Q$. y~.,y.kk.m_v.~. w, ? s.:&:,....MM, 2 *.hi' -.me a a; .u"n ;a +a w s~~
?
'hp n A,i,Q "$M-(;t.Q. 1He v.:. .e - QlQ N,-M. ?kWS A# .,, '. &f ',.L '.ln:y%@.&&,;. W,%q : &y/ y y s ~ d: 6 ' r.; ~ .,, -, a m.. g.%ys p.+.m - W9 %vM h n d. W.W m gy n n 7a w ;w*,- h eci.gu,.A A w 4:.C.2 m& wA ? Me6J p 3 Mu.. %. # w.Wy M r/.m,m %w %n %q .a w= M. Ms - m %,,q:QM?.WMQ&: W M:'.W % MW W: q%%W 4 3,% p,; R A i. y % T, w j f k> g$ $d. h f,,;. h.;,..? ' + -c 3 . &q. h@g$h,.esf ';t-s r %g. g)' h('..w. v"h.c.3 i h, k'g*)h [M$ / M,vis. ' b S" Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI 818,13 NRC 452 (1981), while "QJ. 2/ attempting to preside over a complex, hotly-contested proceeding. 2 s ?- y o. Judge Hoyt denied the Attorney General's motion in an order issued kMMM[hMMf7 d on November 22, 1983) As required by 10 C.F.R. s 2.704(c), she yrgyM(i.A:b,.piDs # WO./. 7-referred the motion to us and, in accordance with our standard practice, .9/gn m nn - w . 2 e we have promptly reviewed her decision on the basis of the existing w f+v e Qg d. wdM;$;C..,,a va W+.,,. - n; g.. c record and the filings submitted to her by the parties. We affirm. Mt%'+5MM,@p! 4 M@,. $ycy'Re$Mf4 @ Va&,.a /, V:, ' A 1. The applicants and the staff assert that the Attorney General's r m J 4/- % i. motion was not timely filed. Judge Hoyt declined to rest her decision on hMY;5s$%WD. ; Nhhik.MY( that ground and we similarly rest our determination on a review of the substance of the Attorney General's claims. But we pause briefly en .'.W e A n;p-4a. g h. 6 Yb My7%jj.M'Mr. M pkW WA he.C m' W.C route to our review of the merits to note our concern that the motion $.4%[g . 5 A was not Gled with any apparent sense of urgency. M@h8,,. %:r(GU,%,q..w.~g4,ay yN.gD"M.p Motions for disqualification or recusal must be filed in a timely 4 $W3: 4y p? . M. M fashion. The courts have construed the timeliness requirement to mean r. M N@ % $6'd %7M W m +.m that motions must be submitted "as soon as practicable after a party has AdnW@p.@Mc.M.MMMk,% M reasonable cause to believe that grounds for disqualification exist."* We e%vM40 have likewise held that a claim of bias must be raised "once the informa-wf +.g w w wt w y, % n e p.3 p. wm mi n v yt
~
wl: P tion giving rise to such a claim is available to.. [the movant}.,,5 To be TM.dN $[idNNh@R.d6RQ'E.%-5M.D.hl kEM OfM sure, the most common illustration of a lack of timeliness is where a party files its motion after rendition of an unfavorable decision on the p' i % y..n g s: & q? M N. D. + V W% QNiy? f merits by the allegedly biased official.* But any delay in filing a motion in a M 1&t gyri $ gggg for disqualification or recusal necessarily casts a cloud over the proceed-t Wi@.~ f.5%s-4."A WR ;W Z 'lu ings and increases the likelihood of delay in the ultimate completion of GN Q S. M d T,9..$iWN the case in the event recusal or disqualification is warranted and a new 2M Q...,p,, ?, "hWM,3. M ' hp. @.yN/* H decisional ollicer must be appointed. Thus, we insist that all requests for s ~ I ' ;,; x3 SNie.y%w w <. 4-t.j. disqualification or recusal be filed promptly.' 3.Q6 ( g b. ..,o,- e -. ~, .ii. 6 a.' . w. y 3 p7 g .mn %,a) ,/ y m,, N, w q ;. bp mp*h;.sh' ;@.y %,c y,.' y .N % s P E N M
~~hy Q:rfC.@?cm.G y W.Tlyg g '.4 M,,QN.~~
2 Response of the NRC staffin opposetion to Mauschusetts' Attorney General's Monon to Disquahfy ,/ g. T(6 p...'M.M;.gr /.QW(Qfk$ ppa y Judge Hoyt iNovember 17.1983) at 4. M%%WIDQgh As part of his monon. the Attorney General asked the Licensing Board to reconsider its ruhns *sth 3 ,j'Q Q'y J.,.A g {k Ng k k;, h h d' I'*h'f.n g.'.N*. Qp ,j MQ respect to the Apphcants' Twenty-First Monon for summary Disposinon regarding Contentions .W .e.n.. 'T Mts a N & NECNP 111.12 and 13. and to rehear the contennons. He seeks reconsderat on and rehearing of these ,s. U k' d.#.b.NdY?. f.%.. >. - C .d.7 f contentsons because he beheves that the Licensing Board's earlier ruhnss were influenced by Judge l W -U A C hWMJdKMI#4[E'.;Mb htN. t'@ E M ti %Judge Helen H. Hoyt and Motion for Reconsideranon of Judge's Hoyt's Ruhng on Mot on for summary Hoyt's alleged bias. Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti s Monon for Disquahricanon and Recusal of %rQrM,p %E'3$%
~~F M Disposition and Monon for Reheanns (october 28.1983) at i.3 and Memorandum in support of the~~
. '8 '. % [% 41.% % @*h.W.g n,;g. g.mM. 4. 5_O. M..b.[/.MOh S' wMM Monon at 12,4143. Judge Hoyt properly addressed only the recusal request. The compemon requests Q D' /(q.y*w-for reconsiderauon and reheanng require acunn by the enure Board and are pending ( A copy of Judge 4,* '.g,A..., :4. 5 / l',s. 4., e Hoyt's deoseon is attached as Appendim A to this opimon ) s y u i .,. p s..', pp. ([(#.
~~4'.N., p.- g~~
~~--n V.i(y~~
~~Afanis v. Arrrior. @c of Workers'Comprasara e Prorrems. $48 F 2d 1044.10$1 (D C. Cir.1976).~~
.v .aa., c. 5 c,,, ,,, p,,, ca # y,dland Plant. Umis I and 2). AL AB.101. 6 AEC 60. 63 (1973) D. < a.i v - . ' ~j.,.* f,. -4 e Sec. e r, Gehme y 77C. 682 F 2d $$4. 364 ($th Cir.1982)..crr. dr=ed.103 s Ct. l$21 (1943), and .s. i 'f S,a > .,,. ? 4 . A ;.f.. - (),,UK... j, y,.MW, ;.. cases cited there. Common =eatr4 Ed. son Co. (Z.on sianon. Unus I and 2). ALAR.226, 8 AEC 381, W yL -l.M, .j 384 86 (19748 and cases cited there. ? u d{);*.37 }b72 [W,. g M $. 4 %.... G,* s.. 13,;., S,c, e,, fi.,c, L.,4 po.c,and Lar4r Co (skagit Nuclear Power Projer'. Unus I and 2). ALAB.$$6 ] .y 4.. 7 n '.j 10 NRC 30. 32 n 6 (1979) (monon Gled more than sin weeks after the Board order on which it was 3 Yy'Je p.Md'%;Mf'ng predicated, and after a hearms had already commenced. held unumely) 6 W ~+:.-73 o'j".e, M.; c m. r u ar 6, m.e o.
m... y y :.. m y,,'? s'n gf mb-f[. h..,fn%[p'f.~ Q,u.jtQ),;' '..';,..%,, q;M:a
~~[, k* 5hh~.!d;.~&*. %Y.' Ah:. 4~~
~~n 1198~~
~~? j[ s rW. R...n..c x.. 3. o.. 4.., c~~
~~, C 'm J. ?' i %...~~
~~. 9 * 't j . -*Q 4 cr' / w. is<* 1%) p ..e . * / '.p;p i. 9, V4;t y -4.g g Qs. v./;. y ,4 i ..st *4 , t,.~~
~~e. t....,.,. 8 3 y-3 e~~
.4
~~'4 Y.~~
Id# W 9 -[ 4ha, ** jg a %.., M ' 'e .,j 'g.. I [*. s , .5 0
~~n.,..~~
~~x ..n,..,gr*, ~.. e.;. w :,.m.y..y. g..w -. ww.. - mm.,bn;y.g 1,.. 4 s - .m.~~
~~y. A ',~~
~~.N,. . h-e,-s s y. ,u,~~
~~Q 2~~
~~, i "- y'~~
{M;O i iv4'[ b **- d % Q,[#.M, 'J

M i.
~~c' yjf. . ( 8} /. . ", ".4S [' p ,I'.*.- (,r', - [Q [+b:r,.;;(,.'45 Q h* }= g M ?..* E# ,3 W, c~~
~~3.. }.f;,<~~
~~a.:,?: p (?.g,r[:g >; gg.., ** 9 - - y,,~~
~~g..~~
~~yy ,.} ; : e, .' e y, ' ,N3~~
.L,

y, 'w+, y
~~,, :,,, % y.,......'. R _ z.. + .G,4 M, pg L e',, ?.< r ~..!.'$s%?> g.y.g . D / *[. gi.a e u,.. up,Vy ~%g-P =,. ': i.ttd C W Q.' 3 .7 w y ;,1., gg~~
~~'C-~~
'[ 4,M. y y; ~..g q,y 1 e-it- .h.t, 6p q v' /i i "g . 7 f, s,+p. , n, t I ,~ ~. , +
i O P s x. ', p. a,
~~1 All the events that constitute the bases for the claim of oias took place~~
- j-, - _ 4 during the round of evidentiary hearings that ended on August 31, [' -T' 1983 ' Yet the motion for disquahncation was not Gled until October 28 - almost two months later, and three weeks after the motion filed by in-m'" tervenor Scacoast Anti Pollution League. During that two month j period, the Board was called upon to rule on various procedural P-requests. Given that a grant of the motion to recuse or disqualify would ,r' 7v> call these rulings into question and, more importantly, necessitate the r f ' f. 1 4, ?,$[g@}{h.,.,. appointment of a new Licensing Board Chairman, the Attorney General .3 d. '.W. 3 had an obligation to move more quickly. y @V J M )- ~ t 4 : y $, $. 3Q ,,.jK The Attorney General offers but a limited explanation for the failure W. 6... ' s-to file promptly, lie states that 19 kf Q .- O r f - p. 4' J ay lg' d. ~ laln additional reason for Cling this Motion is the Answer Gled by the Apphcants in _ i.$. - l P ?$f ",
~~,(y y'~~
13 @%< '&. ' W P. f:(1 N. ' f r. f *3 response to S APL's Moison for Disquahncation of Judge Ho>t That Answer y. . asserts that S APL may not raise, in the nrst instance examples of bias and preju-dice agamst the Commonwealth. That situation is cured by the Ghng of this Motion? [;N'. ' Y]rg g,,, s J'" ,c ~ ..,, ~., m We Ond that justincation inadequate. Beyond that, the Attorney General 2. V,. ,,$n2 2 t... e - ~.. ~ J iracterizes the purported need to respond to the applicants' answer as N].v"@c.#7p,.>
~~h. n.,. w -..~ w..,",~~
merely "an additional reason" for filing. Nowhere does he explain why .l U. C,.'. P o y gi,g.l3, N. c.;c he waited nearly two months to raise what are plainly his t)asic concerns J 'lJ. p e ver Judge lloyt's continued participation in this case. .p9 fa!.CM'fn s:, 2Q.hh. - WW Y D. 2. The Attorney General claims that bias "has pervaded the entire proceeding.. Ile offers seven speci0c illustrations in an effort to tkUk "'8 demonstrate such bias." Most of them are the same ones earlier FQ.QL4.$ g..~ ; reviewed in connection with the SAPL motion.82 All are associated with
~~97jd,Qe[.M7lj ",~~
1, ~ [J.W,3N,;7F%* :&. 7l z,*l ' Jg.. E Judge lloyt's conduct of the proceeding. This being so, we And, as we W Q.r chy, b !? '- i-y .' i.pp.N. SJ O. f ... l. L l %y, 'li? Jr.. r s i l fq? '{ f,.(. W ]
y.. w, -

g.. w

.y j ty. 3. w.!!,.
~~..r. c - - r ,e... (. < q. > -p 8Anxmg the irwidents rehed on by the Attorney Generai is the enpulsion or Mr Guy Chichester. rep.~~
~~'...f., i '.. / V MC >[h G,. -~~
~~resentative of the Town or Rye. on August 26 The espulsion was conrirmed in a Luensms Board order [f s. 3.,, '~~
~~'K@ l f.yp'.J. $pl p.j~~
~~.a issued on seriember 8.1983 tunpublishedt . f g Lye v.9 ,.,n...17..HM..f;.B;/./>fc ' Attorney General Bellottis Motion. siirre, at 3~~
~~1T'N-.. @ +'"?.S bh m.*.Y. ' O 'w#~~
10/4 at 2 +4 ',4 6 m a,,B.m ,s " Ar IIln this Connection. the staff afgues that the Attorfiey General may nol assert Claims or bias on behair Y.',h 7' lf h ,'^, of another party. Judge Hoyt also indgates that the Allofne) General has no stanJms to seek disaushfL ". A', ~~ ~ colum based on On intas300 or the rights of another party. citing $4arst. Supra. note 7, ahhough she electa /,\\ p.h, $ "
b[
's e . s 3 ~9l [9Y* ## ~ ' ed to Cof sider all allegations in reaching her decision we retterate too points that we made m our ear. d*' i. c fj.N-C 'f * '.i..Q % 3 [j ~. % l' ' her opinion in this case First, a party requesting disquahncation or tecusal may attempt to estabhsh tn rQference to a Judge's overall conduct that a pervasive chmate or prejudice esists in which a ratt hearms f.Q.'I.'.P i.'.'* " v,. -,oe connot te obtained 19 the party complainmg second. a complamma party enar attempt to demonstrait ,1 M 3;l w o paisern of bias toward a class of participants or which it is a member. AL AB448. supra.18 NRC at .. - - t... w, - tiens: 1 5.,- .i 4 g'WOS O [ 9 *i',, .g', ,,f* I ,5 *. 'g 7.gh a * *[~c h [, 'd1 L, ." v g: - _q p. O. fv 3
~~i.. g!~~
~~1199 e ' A G,.A' V." M u, ',3. ;, (;'f 4 2 e q 1,,, 4 -r a e g g"e~~
~~3-6 p'. N,f.y M;~~
~~b,. (.,~~
~~i, m; a.~~
t.
~~.. a, M (f. 4 t,1 m~~
~~l a,. ,e ..;..m p y:. ' p. y.;;.y n.y.y ; _, j w q. f. ~ ; .m 4 - w-- r -.~, %. w... n... 4~ 3,,,p,. g q Z i..,, g. W. .u, /v +. e~~
~~3. ~..~~
~~,3 4 p)r; ^. ".-.,r - - -,, y - . - s v. m)% s ~ ) ;. -~~
~~),, ;,. '.~~
~~^ +.ry. y*.. , 3). a, -.1. a, *y. Q. 2._~~
~~. J,.\\.. (.7 %;.,-. { g,eo,~~
~~m c s g ,J.*a V. u .u.<.. < y. v. w., 2~~
~~i o,~~
~~s .,. - 7 % 3u.:i.,m..., ' r gt ; ,'.,,-i,. ,p..J! M ",,'#.' $."?.> Y.s.. i.. '(s ~ .hfif' M c '. } \\..~ f * : * ? ' y.3 f., 2~~
~~:~~'~~
,1 , - ' q '. N j y:;*g' r j e fy f h n.'.. y;:. n va c ws - '.~,uv : J' N " ".*]. N. j h. *' G, "' ? i'. < ',,. d v/ ,.@, 9 e s . >, s$. 3 (-%; o y ' u s;j q; - q ; gr.' >s a .o .t ; ,q. .c ,., w, eM I' s .s
~~s...~~
~~'1 M. n g,, [+ ( 'm,~~
~~i Q ', 4 Q..~~
f 4 4 6 n_
. p. *D Q 30 % Q.<.'-k &]l, Q .,k),*, a* N. ? %.,..a j s.w~,.m.w&m.tyj.- ~.m.,N. Y a'sq y . -l.(, , N..w.gs ; c,r*4. a., y;f.,+..N.', J"',~ )s*N'"_,U f* N [ m ey} 2. . m ~3., n&.,
~~v..~~
~~,w va 9:; q t .~ .m,e f h.* Y$ hf : ?~ek'? ' 4 ..Y i~~
~~.y W.~~
P M ;r;n.m'mw.. ug.:h ~l h h b M ; d; & ^f Db;bix. c w & p,$- w*^ %M%p. : m. v r @,fwp;Nbrn,,;kN.n 'm. ry [x,. m b.+2r7: k b o + b Nr5 fNh ~ =n. a%. p+. g.,w v.i,J.a*.- 4 rn.a: chwLt.h.?w?a:nww y. d he 4,-,.s!p"q:, yaw,. w y+; . ? w emx, wr rp
~~; o-.~~
~~w i. q m., m a n.,2 3 :.u m., m w yu~~
~~w #5 ypc..~~
e*
~~f. iw @W%~~
cr,d ?,,@"MWp&w%;nst & q.MC & "WMTM,, Vdj8:24y ~ 1 . w ..x; A gQm N x. w.w c. >tg.W %. ; % s W H i . 4 :.m <, ;:, o wp a ,1:. - ww*.,w ; +d,_:*,y [. ;.', q*s. ch + g n.... ' ' ' ' 3 g';z > >j' e 3 3 L'*. * - g,.* ^
~~q. 4,0.w, n.y g~~
r u w. ~ [. at,,c) % y.D $ [p.1E 7jfM*$ .,, s, r,% L 3t .s . g n., Y did in connection with the earlier SAPL motion, that no basis for disqua-Of[N'Q 'J-M O lification has been established under the general rule annou iced by the h,C ff @' $$ f-
~~y. -~~
~~Commission in its South Texas opinion.u~~
~~2.,% G Q.~~
~~f '/N .ld q J '- fi ; - s ',..~~
~~17. ' ; rd The Attorney General contends, alternatively, that Juose Hoyt's con-N a @ g. G Q w. M... y. m (~ 3.. pe; U duct either is extrajudicial because it is " unnecessary and inappropriate~~
~~% Q. to the judicial process," or exhibits hostility, bias and prejudice sufficient %p. 9 -...~~
~~e.. $7 -}$~~
. j.3,D.D' S.y g.p N,M T.1
~~r 6~~
to constitute pervasive bias which need not be extrajudicial to be -,; @r p";$g G..y ".Ql c .. '.. f..& S./ disqualifying." We reject both assertions. L,. [h[$[j.f..g;Q$;.i;M%)4 .g K. i'. First, matters cannot be considered extrajudicial even if they are, as 7 h 'O M the movant charges, " unnecessary" or " inappropriate." Matters are ex. h, y $.C O *. di QU.MW% :$ trajudicial when they do not relate to the judge's official duties in the q%s,@8. 9,e;Tu;y;9'.;f?!N'72 case. To demonstrate bias flowing from extrajudicial sources, a party A@.d ,. g y. w.W,,e. must " identify... [a] personal connection, relationsh.ip or extrajudicial i 7 ; w, w, , c ' 9. Q w. Ms.., u.r%p. '+;~a n,.5.Q.i$,, gi incident which accounts for the alleged personal animus of the v ,m s < y$m 4 a hp@hA.i;.f. b. Q ... judge."H The fact that s judge's actions are, for example, erroneous, h y W I; N!M b 3 @N y h h
~~h h $ $," [% O @ D@ % p NM h~~
superfluous, or even improvident, does not, without more, demonstrate bias of an extrajudicial origin. As we noted in ALAB 748, rulings, V % &.Q h/M & M N.DyQ,b% conduct, or remarks in response to matters that arise during administra-N$hNdhMiMd tive proceedings are not extrajudicial. Mk? mmh,2l M.hrh. @h@g / Wie d';q.$ MK:M. M Second, we cannot conclude that the incidents referred to by the At- [bh, torney General, whether considered separately or in combination, NQ.QM demonstrate pervasive bias or prejudice by the Licensing Board M.MNfh @p.e.,o,.p$py;,w2.M,k;4, myWN,.t. i Chairman. Without attempting to address the merits of any of the ? .a n p<.p 2.... p. q ? g g.; q., ~ omag. allegations, we note that three of the seven examples of alleged b,ias in-4 T ' j a n ; e,G,0 k2 volve adverse rulings by the Licensing Board Chairman. Three other iy.f,wRc'O, yD
~~Ay,JM;. M~~
'%h.M' Yy' 'd'hMP examples involve supposed violations of administrative procedure and .Qr.T.h ', ',. rM~Uy'MG.,E thus also constitute essentially charges of legal error. The remaining W $o example involses allegedly intemperate remarks directed at counsel or f'{) N*M M % dip % N@M*,M "4@:[,W.9. y Q, $ j % 'd $ @y7 .y 79 representatives. These matters simply do not reflect pervasive bias war-6; h. [M ranting recusal or disqualification." h h. Y& Sh ' Ms3Q M 2: f d Wg# M:df.Mb'M'v w;fVh~ag.;gggp)pm4 %.Q k- - d.s. J' % ) Q. 4,9,5 l 4 h WhtQ.N h.T" i. & @*f)I' W,(! % We % lM M H 4 Q 3. y( M 13 Much of the memorandum Aled in support or the Attorney General's motion 6s taken up mth an
b. *q Q$*
g argument that the standard for review esta66 shed by the Commiseson in the Sour 4 rares case is too $h,$%Q,s.;Q,gf.v.Q ,-1 g, ;; 4', f N 4r.. narrow. Memorandum in support of Attorney General Bellottis Motion, sapes. at 215. Any request for I - 4 Qf yT 4, W. %. ' 6 - -,, i ; g */; %g.m ?,.. a change in that standard must be addressed to the Commission. ,4 f
~~1.. ; C m * *.~~
3>
~~q 1y 7~~
* +;.,M A%'rj,;
n s yr ' %?' % Q t'Id at ll.16 ),*N ;, ~,'.? M ] ;,_' ',[' 7 ,,,*?, is g', H n se /8V Corp. 614 F 2d 923,928 (2J Cir.1980). I C' * -,.. ;5'>v le il NRC at list. The court 6n the ISM case noted that in-court conduct and rulings may in some cir. 4, U. ' cumstances be relevant to establish estraiudicial prejudice. /e re /sseraersonal Ausmess Mechmes Corp. f M,.t ', + j,],?.Y h.,,.. j. q',')M'*';N supre. 618 F 2d at 928 n 6. It is sutYicient to noie here inst the Attorney General does not attempt to [. D I,7 %.f,7i.; % df*,*,N ?. f.y,Il g[/* ' [ D
~~M A ' da 1 '~~
~~demonstrate that the Licensing Board Chairman's conduct during the admimstrative proceedings is y a, V~~
A[
' ' M # O', motivated by personal prejudice that stems from an entraiudicial source. 4.* h*1. 6;I*J'h' N 'fe[y[; % p,2 * ;.,. y'. W.:k,' ".%s?, r,6 A[ .y i %+.$ p O if /d a1929 32, ALAB.144, supre,18 NRC at list, t189 js'h;M);.n *-. t?'g. m,m, ypr.x, . m..sb q,.. % .,n s'97 4} N&&.WXW.;;.s:;,,. p :t.$s? E zh.. r kg; .4 a:e% % 16'7, -- p$p,y,;e.pm.eky@m;,; ,c y, w,.- y +, =c t; A Af. 1200
~~g,% 9 Wi /Q < ' xgdy.~,~~
~~.,;,i .--+w.3 .. c,. '. 4.fM~i, [ k'~~
s
~~},. . 4. ]. / te Q, 9 ; /* a.w/',,-}Af.o r,V, 4.> i. k, ;n,,w,W /p.L' b. i g; p$. g,.:' y,s; 3 6 @,..y, g } n w ,.1:e ;~~
.m y w

s - n,,
~~3,.; j O c/ D# j a f s~~
,., y x.*
~~w r,yp~~
~~y,,;~~~
~~r y 3.. :% y b. , 9. gw, .+y, m. ~ y. p ,.,n ,m,,,, y..,,, p. ,(.,. r',' 1 ,[ k 'e , * [,, ;-[,. ./ 7 [ '*h,.. ',,.,.... s.. 3. ;. p..r .g.,.,..y a.'..;. n,,.: pu +. m p',. ',.. f~~
E
~~[ .'y, g, '. 8'. f,,i ,e a a.,%.,,,m.p.,s.,,mv.: q~ %m a.c mi~~
~~,y ;,~~
~~I s 9 :. 3.v:. e. :~~
~~k [ f,.~~
~~qlf f.~~
~~r p. t - ~, - + v .s a, y' n],}q:ggf.QGtp n,i;3,., ' i; n' '. ;,tff,y.gy~ ;' ; 7v s b QC L e_ 'l f.Y~~
* ~
h. bR. I's . 4pgq %s,y,yll:e & t;,r.,w ? , q.,. 2~:f * ? k h m* o*'., < .g.,.:. .~ n y f.%. %; h M ?, f Q $e.. ,,;.;.:gx6.~,e ' my;j s,: ; - ,n ~ y 4, j g c y. 9 ;. g. g %,- - st.., ' F ]>,y g:# y .v 4
y - ~
~~c.,~~
~~s ~ _' y' Y ( ~ .. + s 1 J~~
~~.. '1~~
~~~ - ~,,*, a.; The November 22,1983 order of Judge Hoyt is affirmed.~~
. #, b-. ;*
~~3 p a,...N..,7^;~ N ' /. -... WM_ .. ~, it is so ORDERED. e,.. - FOR THE APPEAL BOARD ?." D.~~
~~t.,.~~
~~.,,,s.. d w. Of 1 W; - C. Jean Shoemaker d' .~ Secretary to the M.,b.,4 ^. j 1 1 Appeal Board o 'g:3,=%, w-E.1 M~~
~~4 M M.N N h y. %. w n.,~~
~~UL & 9 g.h Wd, s...'yM.... re.V.,5.. i ' A, ; w a.: n ~ . n.,.: s. ~w -.e.. + i .e~~
~~m. K. 3.~A @ N.s. w APPENDIX A W~~
~~w1' Wr.x~~
~~y..G..% '.;W. xg. :, gh.h. Af.n:y. : ;-~~
~~,L .y.,.-c.s:. n yn,. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1;f t_ ' ' ~ Q,.[-Ne -~~
~~M,'~~
~~f'%... NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , Ws;;;w'M; l.4 F... ',.g,% ;. m ~ s i 3.. a.s.,. v..._. e s.', ,j ,s, .r .*:..A r+ p ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6 ? C, i., N, e.M,r N c. as.g.~, ~ s 'i '~~
~~r. 3 g. J. 7.,- Q ) q,5 j..~~
L-
~~d '~~
~.
~~27 a s. a ;; W N. N,,., ? ,s s r~~
~~g.. >~~
~~a Before Administrative Judge: i ~ W 1W2,, ;&, a,,. ' J.Q.,)% K. w & . c+#l., ' \\ s.~~
~~c. o~~
~~' sf. ~et~~
R.
~~% U.*. Ez. A.:~~
~~i KO':m:~~
3.a ; y W.):.. V. c G, E '.. i N a w. ^ Helen F. Hoyt M. wy .c + : zm.c p w .p:... j 1.@.S.gMM,U a .P o m. ... a;y,h..,,y:e m9c e e r s i [j/g g"g $a,. o.....{ y.QW 3 _ u.je, .; c. c up.g,3 v e in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 443 0L y fl,W. R. iC& A. J,a ' M. M
~~7. : '; '~~
50 444 0L n W 6*. % E P . -- n.1 (ASLBP No. 82 47102 OL) f +.y.%c.-.2 %u.,. e.: m, :m. 6. .Y,. 2.a t Ia y. WgN !' W y n ;; qhit.. a.. w y PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ..C.g,3pt s 4 z. 6-hg r/ g,g@ 'f , '~_ NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. p a>W,mL@.w~ Q- . M..,,y D M W-. -r. (Seatwook Station, Units 1 and 2) November 22,1983 ~ .p u. ,, f p.,4.c. *w<, A z v .-c +vy p L< d v w~.o.. e.. xWM wr. .;,W.. n.w. ed w% a ~ r w,.. ' ORDER W+,w. % :<m~w.!P. ul ,.M+,+ 7., ' - >>,.g.... u ,., : w *. ,n 3
d.e*
t , v. .m.f a., :- . ~ 1 n m..c,, : y: ,s -ps ry I- ,-t s,c m,o., c ~ t. r.~, o.. ~.. y.7 ;* ,e I.'.%.e r. e c W' $,s%.%. :v. T 5 %,.. e ,a, g: m }{M.E/ ' j @. e e s On October 28, 1983 Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General for the ^ Commonwealth of Massachusetts (MassAG) filed (D Attorney General R9 W 7,.s t p's' p,. sh y :Vy".. c's. ym y ,a,. ,1 ,,N* r-+ g I .; h,. 'j e y+* w =
~~w.q;g. ypey!v~~
~~,s.... v s v ;c..M.s e m Q,i., e ? p 'B. f g .r ,%4 r. .w 4* M 1201 Ny t.- t ;ww3 c s. A4..., * -o'r r,. 1. ~ ,,' t e.4.W4./4 g ; C' *. '?~~
r-
~~.s +- ' + WM:'m -c;<'(. ~^ y, u..L'*u, '. %.j '. . J' n', ' r ' &*N.y:-Ql s.l.W > * ^;4.: [, K. ^ [ ' ?,~~~
~~1 if, fis,f~~
~~[.c, I>,3 ~.' 1 N '. x u.x ].p.*isf., w.e ~. t. g l - < in m~~
~~w. m N, w.:. m W..n. w.~~
~~- e g .l g.s c. *.9,G.. 3.. -,. ~6 ; <n,% &n. #.:. s.~~
~~m....o~~
.3 - ,v a ,vg n., ,'!.>9. %Q;g 't p';g @... ,,,,6 i., y* ,m...,+w. s,.. . J gW,..,, g, 3 ( g,,&(> g y 'qm.,.3,, .,@ y a ' ' 4. y., q ...y __..,cr,, I Ma p v p. ' v' 7,. + 2 ".w, A, -,... .n 9. <t. 3 [ ' ' ' : 4,t ' 'g ' s J. *,.G. 3. r $ 1f ry 4 ' Q ,,,.J , p. g ? yn \\f ;;.,, *. ? ,..Jo'.!y< -Q, a. ? 4 o,y. , p e, & 7.s. n, ~.e. c %,,.a w*.v. s y. s ^pc .4, >"t. 4,j. a ? g ', e. 2._., ,--. x~ .a' >t'.**.. ~ r a'Y.y, ~ ,vu. a 'a'. sy.*L;e?.r y< H,e - t,. :. V r: 4
~~l,w 3~~
\\ ~ g Q .+o % e,. j a. f M',%st s. ..,y v .A.' -. ~. e % i,t ' 'V.,. - - y.s c. ,c a, g r re I.A %. e'.g g?.,,v. c.g.ny,v.,, g ,n,' w. 4 ..xcc e;4 e s m- ,k. ^, . %"*,s i + 5- .w, .. t o,. - . 3. ,4 4 m j s, w s
~~c s,.#.,~~
r,
~~,s,,,~~
~~&g4 .. # t O y' g f, j d [ ;.f + w ,s-o.. b..., mi s.. ' N,,,,L.. .f ; :- 1 r J '. c. f.*_ ,s, , - ~.,-~~
~~s. -~~
m .y., ..g; 3, y : I g '., -,. p& A ,F sNy ,, s - /. .-, s. g s g y. t y - o._ t .a
v ,~_..scw n.;r $.~, ; &, $ $ $ y M;. G. & g q & q N N t; M.% g WNi $h,:AQQgr W.l;%SQ' 2 Qy@%f.W ? R < 4, ^ v .Q{%: *, * ~ g ,'f.h Q% & n. . ~ \\.:Afc b:9. j Y h h h 'h$h bI5?:qkSY?$ ?$k hikk$h l$ &, n& gr+,T?$.W r @ ^ % W. W : lQU.NSW8!$u.h$y 'hm f 240 W 4'qQ &',.. p 4 7,%w~.v. ;.3,,y..g. w;' ^&,', ,- n.; m&,.n,c-v&.:;Q9,pg$-~ t>f'%.,p-O .,x.:g, R. m.. v.m,% &a,7 %z n_,t w,.L., w ' n.;y m W n m m a. . :q m. @,1WByM.-.%s: %; k. .' L. ; 531 W. n. 5 W..i,R..@;nmml& W;. N ..p.(2md n ,.s
.u
..,,. e3 .i.g;gf u w _w ',,i a ;j,, Y,a e . h.w. r.&..)v7.m 4.m.saAbp m. 9.- A..,.,, ' " + +c ,s 4,. Jay %j-;.pyn:y ~,.M Q t W g.?j.': y >* f, w j 6 - 4 4 G y,4 y ,s h o 9..v m'A;. d;c'9 Q,'s 'A' ')~ 1m,,;. u 7 ,r e L. ih,.y.. 'y ,.svy 6 h ' *r ... W( ;p. % g 4, 8 .;;.s z,, p.; N [MN/[q.Yf 7 64h,.gj: - ON Francis X. Bellotti's Motion for Disqualification and Recusal of Judge 4.- gjk j'%p.: Yd Helen F. Hoyt and Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Hoyt's Ruling e. -c; _f g j p ,. y, pf on hiotion for Summary Disposition and Slotion for Rchearing, and (2) A ,.+G4., e. s a ' ,,1 m [ m J ~^,9"y, y W f. Y,, x[ ? Niemorandum in support of the three motions. y The recusal motion a!!eges that this Judge exhibited personal animosi-Q:M:g s -..A.; J
,/
m.n ,.71 ty and bias toward the Commonwealth's counsel and town representa- , g..r ~ p. 3. 2 a ' (* $, n.%a. N. y - K:;f, 7,* W 1 2 ": tives and that a " full and fair proceeding is impossible. Appended to . M., 'W - '.f. a ;4 yl.% 7 ' $ the Niemorandum in support is the Affidavit of Jo Ann Shotwell.' M,h' ) 6 */. Yned ?.py$ _ d Applicants filed an Answer to Massachusetts' Attorney General's + k g ; i j lc/, e @ @[ $ h [ .p y y 3. 5 iS Storion to Disqualify Judge Helen F. Hoyt on November 8,1983, oppos- [, ing StassAG's Afotion. Applicants argue that MassAG's motion is, in $/Oj J GMJ/.%ffj?ry$;'%gb.;m Z 3 part, a response to Applicants' response to SAPL's motion for recusal of W. 5,1.d i2'. M K M, G this Judge. The latter motion was denied on November 2,1983 and the NRMy 31,QWh;dk;t pyin.?.wy. &.q O!/u./q,,f M..S} denial aflirmed by the Appeal Board in Public Service Co. of New Hamp-p e : q j' _ w shire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 748,18 NRC 1184 n w. o&r (1983). hhh h kh%;q"M$ A-wgL M iw.g pWL. On November 17, 1983, NRC Staff filed its Opposition to MassAG Mph,D$@hM[MNMS$p.pMF.$p/p gn hiotion to Disqualify Judge Hoyt. The Staff argued that MassAG's 'MflgW MhM t motion is based on many of the matters already adjudicated in SAPL's
~~b.?g,1.?plN@;MGgh%..S motion. StafT also discussed, in detail, each of the alleged instances of 4~~
~~f bias to the extent that they had not been considered in the ruling on . ^ 7? @,.";;..; W O> M, N.gd. W @@6. ,w, w. N, a.%rg.stL,.u./.~~
~~m a T 9 j kM, '$)k'NMkt).$l v W Q. 1 g. b g% % #;?~~
s:, ?N d, SAPL's motion. 7.Mgj Although MassAG has no standing to move disqualification of a judge / . d based on an invasion of the rights of another party (Paget Sound /%er 15 ' 7 %;y,W Q. g ; and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 ant! 2), .1[ T.. M@M%y/Cg$ M7 ') M MNpz ALAB-556,10 NRC 30,32 33 (1979)), it is in the best interest of all to ,- Q. i t ' A@%:<..W?m%. '6:&. ar. f address all Af assAG's charges and not to stand on a procedural m .J. M _4;4 :m if 4, . ' w y,: UM technicality' x.c,..'.h~ w :s n > p; p W. o0 t.n. %ak ;,a.s A. @4: p. w.. o ve 3 e t:.,n.m.,M. y. 3 W d'y,N.4TN-Np, h II. THE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF Nibh, v.r.g'fjM.%p[p,q% c.w g}%d,M.pdg.. N A LICENSING BOARD JUDGE b h .O' (f@Mf. k.N The legal standards have been set forth by this Judge in the ruling of .gN.cy. W "NME.%.;$,d November 2,1983 on SAPL's motion and are adopted and restated u,4c;M@&@#.$a$Vi Q w v g h'IC *
~~Y O.y. W;y$ &;.$. %.vt,n;y &.s m g f.]$*.n:,;~~
~~5 C i W W H. D g c.@~ A r. + 'i,w t i 'ts , ; p ;( 'n,. :f,~~
~~7.,,.,,~~
a b W ' 4 ',.. y ing Board member in Houston Lightmg and Poi fr Co. (South Texas Project. (Jnits ! ,,3 ~ '.t N.y -4..o. y .'i*, c, t s , N.%' s,5%.yie *,4;'W.8 ;g <.1:., y i + .l.y , ; c. J M, 3,. s c.a uh.. W. g;;, I This Order mili address only the Motion ror Recusal. Monon ror Reconsideration or the Board's c'. , '. w b6 $ ' \\ 6.* .?
~~j ruhns on summary disposinon and the Monon for a Reheanns require acuan by the Board, and thus are h M.g,M.i @aM '.4J. i'lp' (y.~~
~~not proper subjects for this order. /.lp g s o a, - p, ,.f.. e y. 5 e. .s-e m g. { s c..z.., w%x 3m.M. & a ;.p?~.....y -o $. m. w@. 4 c a, u, :. &y~~
~~.y L >.~,~~
~~q ...m a u. W:%,.,x3@t-. :,a. 1202 .~;e.y . +.p.N n.g%,g,4.vn. n.'c ,o v .-: Y.(.g$.50. &...].$.N+ikQ'1M^n e ss\\ y' l ?,D.',' l y A v. j,. w w : g, a ' 3: e n Q..aN;.yq, y q , ;~~
~~N.y plp n 7 Q g 7, y. A;?'.y,j '. 4~~
.,y:, w- . +, 1 /.. < ' p,..,jf, a N, r.,4 c. .~[ wg.'e$ ;,/, a w .m' /.4%.,/.[p. ~. M.,:. Q = f C.* h. r,*g1.'@.,, q g <w a c '- ,n s l ,A,, f.h'~Y.< (x. Yc. l} t v,uf * ? -r.~ n lg. i s'f,l j', ~ # O,W ,. 3,o on*.,*-
~~e 3 y-*rwp:m w.x < * ;.. ; e e.5; n q..~~
t ~ ; 7 ynn. p* **.:*
~~m;.r,*..s-r.~~
~~9 -- 7 x .'f. %p % m >9. ha c. y. m., ,3 -4;r. +*^. s~~
~~6m - y,-~~
~~s :~ m ;,,..'a A,. ,4 ,. e.* q. + ;,~~
s.
h.l*p4 * -" ?.h&f..,,. f j O. $ h.e. . n.r .o t,, 95 Wh ', ' \\,k.. i f.*e. x,. )Y;~y h.w.;?; a, ? * -.. Q.;w* - :.m.,,'..5 k c.,ftY:'k,* O D &- s, u.E: . w4 ?.i.N.n'lsV' /..w. ' $i ? I N f ac. f;[i \\ q,, e n ,a Q.Y x.y A, % N,.s n %m.}'ph v u *on ?. / L .w. @ It?O, y'% [. -lv.: * :s. ng., %. M %y.s -Q . i Q 4 'c ' .v W-s :oa:.;;% r y s.- c 4: d' / D). -.?:< ,$y;y M i1,7% @ % x.'p?f N ['"i %;1: ^ fi U: .h Stf c.. < WWW.q2 ' p A S,,; gig t.; ,. m M. e,. e,'"- e . 7 o, % h.., v.x.t@g g,g.... ;,.j 7,pg,. -.A%.,> v
~~y %,.y~~
, t. ;. w s... c 7 .a s ,) ....Q* 1 G y: e 3 .Y .e
4. .n r. ~ ~ ~ A j**".4 1 9 o' ~~ s e a a + J [ ~ .r. p {"
~~:.s 1~~
~~o Q_ -, a. f'...y.;, 3 5: } and 2), Ct.l.82-9,15 N RC 136311982). The Commissson arphed the current federal~~
~~y. s {..N. 'c.~~
4
~~s. ~~~
court standards which require that, to be disquahfying. the bias or prejudice must 6p'.,7..[ Ly ; i *. *
~~derive from an entra.judicul source and result in an opinion on the merits of an 4MP t[ $ U; assue in the caw based on something other than what the Judge has learned from his~~
$gx 7 \\-- ~ partscipatson. (insed Soarcs t Grinnett Corp., 384 U.S. 563. 583 (1966) This standard /,1 has previously been apphed to presiding ofTicers an administrative proceedings lluf. ?( y' ~ field v. Charleston Area MedacciCenter. Inc. 503 F.2d 512 (4th Csr. I974). .} 28 U.S C. { 455(a) requires a federaljudge to disquahfy himself in any proceed-ing in which his impartiality rn ght reasonably be questioned " As the Commission Z ;.l-, noted an its South Trads opinion, the objective standard set forth in this statute does M.J, %., -j-m i c g $ <"S% g g[p$$g?.?fCJ-not alter the requirement that the conduct leading to disquahfication be limited to . q?, eatra-fudicial conduct.15 NRC at 1367, orans In Re IBM Corp. 618 F.2d 923. 929 Nkf. M d W M 8 ' &, m - .a. fW$tW'0;' b Q b D'lN.+ ' * (2d Cir.1980); Johnson v. Trurblood. 629 F.2d 287,291-92 (3rd Cir.1980); Phiftsps ' ~
~~v. Joint Leststatn.e Committer on Performance and Erpenditure Renew of the Stow of vl? $s "* OS,d~gg;..'*.~ Y..g!'ep.g.,~~
';[ ], .EM.' Mississippi. 637 F.2d 1014.1020 (5th Cir.1981). Thus, statements or conduct based p y solely on perceptions formed during a proceeding may not form a basis for disqualifi-g.pgpf. cateon on the ground of prejudice. South Texas, t5 NRC at 1366. IBM supra, at 928. w'.&,g 3ylt g g W,.' -'..V ; e r +..> u. w w,~,..sm s. <~ n.u m .. ~. - s.w.rm.- n!. a v d' 4 d %.*,p ; ',. m(..,,_. a * [" ('., l 9o rs em ::w.y, 1; Ill. MASSAG'S MOTION
~~,7; n 9 ;,~~
~ r::,a p.m ,'4. MassAG's brief fails to establish how either the Commonwealth or bd)N L toe Towns admitted under 2.715(c) were prejudiced or biased by the ac-d,b W(.67$ - L ^ e. g'u.'{'%Ij'.g]p., s i j.{.j ' tions of this Judge in conducting the proceedings. Each of the various 6 r %.9mm, Ne W acts complained of were part of this Judge's action in presiding over the e,
~~c. 4 p'.WDf.cM.N C'-~~
t..WMW. u.i. t,,x. M.. hearing. The rules of this Commission are clear that the presiding ofTicer d s r f4, ..s,y.c. %,.C -3.t W,. t.1 W E., has all powers necessary to regulate the course of the hearing and the 9 ,wg ':d ..n y I conduct of the participants.10 C.F.R. ) 2.718(e). The telephone communication to the Chairman of the Selectmen of h d*,3
~~M W N 'p '~~
~~+ .b.Tddkjh[ l .g' Rye, N.H. by this Judge on August 29, 1983 is not technically an ex~~
~~S.A %g n%i.D Q M.,"~~
~ %?O v, :; s - < parte communication. In order for a communication to violate this Com-g a? r. .c mission,s rule against ex parte communications, the communication .;;m. gA4;mb y:c lg; GR;)%$f.g&l,- o d: L must concern a " substantive matter." Puerto Rico Water Resources Au-y thority (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-313,3 NRC 94,96 g,g%%~ggg, - v yi (1976). The communication complained of did not involve a "substan-p;d t).ig E.f g g ..t,* f' t',%,%@y$yl%*my.),7 tive matter at issue in the proceeding." 10 C.F.R. 9 2.780(a)(2). It dealt gG;. . $g 2 i Mh rather with a procedural matter. The action was made necessary by the [ M; *?MN'i N'FN;[%.$'! M M, A exigencies created by conducting a hearing far away from one's admin-f, QQ $Ni[o
~~h. M istrative base of operations. It was and, indeed, is imperative that a~~
~~' j~~
~~J.. J f,~~
~~presiding officer take those actions which, although extraordinary, will ensure basic fairness to all.~~
~~r...#, UN.,c:Q,2 l~~
~~i .- n The reasons set forth herein form the basis for denial of MassAG's~~
~~M, 4. '~~
~~(J.P ;/.iM;g@./.. p* 4 $ $ r,. ' E e2 9L M, u c. motion for disqualification and recusal of this Judge. pr m .., ;..A, yy., y~~
~~" :.'Th,Q;;f.t%' :y u Q.~~
~~'j, z i l3 ?~~
u...a

s.
}*, y. % ' m q.; ;,.w.. < - - ', (.. : g. e, sea c,../o 4 y;,,p%y, v,. ,e-p g*,, Mf: ' 3. 1203 L A e ;. s w-1.. y ll P* ;l%y,<:*.x. = r.' z 3 ',.:,: <W g vg. : h V l, -y. W .vs- ?:t K *' ( g, F., '. %vv *+.o q.f n
~~.;. U J,~~
~~vn .4f'fsj {~~
f,.Q.Y4,4y" Q.,; ~) y (d

i ",
~~4 kw. g v "f P# * * ; e"*f :'.'. 'y'.s~~
~~w, *af~~
~~/ ' D, %*',, * .,,.,d,,y ,=***g es've* t *** *-,7* y*g*l** ? -a y *.' I, k,*y,.e % ss v "~~
~~CA"f.~~
~~- f. < %i. 7..q,.~ :,y ' * - W'..7 c' '.. gh.d(I 'l h D G ;. Y: ',G.c.h y' q;g,'@' Q /g..u. Q ;bh~!,'.s.. ; e a< C W. W.~~
~~s,,, - t, p e a y** gwr*-.~~
. t.g. ;er'=* yy* V l*.,;;;s % M f & ' s.W '3 =^ ? , O g.g; w.: M. < g-' .t n './J w % y'g, : hi%jk? ' y v %. C -: n s,,.., $ ,Li*wC,rlf..Q.;;c.g .~x.in:o c,, vw?h\\f')5Q;'&.ws#, ~; w ; y p,y no: f.W s!R4,;? .W* ', M h$ l
r'
~~'j.* .& *~ rf _ ' .p.2< l~ t .} :~~
~~m wwy,; -~~
~~~ .:hQhf?,'h&$w.$[.'E I i* ' : [ ' lc lw.~~
~~c,,~~
~~.g f' }}a p(' 7. 9.9.. .9m ,,1 . e, w.,.T,. a u,~~
~~' ' ' i. ;., p.~~
f v.> +. c. ,2 1. . *,,.. g g 4 . s' .8 * * - p ,., (, J' "' i, .Q 3 s v:_a w. =..
r, wn ; a. r -...,ee . A,. m. ~.. %-,.a,.%w : v3 y.n::,.m*Wh,%. y 5,. h cm.g,g e w. n m m, w<. ... ;w;r a r .g s rU m g e..y,+l,,,g x.c,+. nw:,.. mn .+ ~. t +. ' 9 'pfd,. M..; g : w Ql, M.5 S W.. f _ gy.g w \\ c.o ', Jr. d.w,N.. -, -y c eA y;i;r,WW ^.;r, . y k q% w g(. P 3 . g Qw QA ;%. d[4;M;- g.M..h.M M,.l;g n;+gc w r%;; ; ;.,r c, ~ ~ w,z.,, 9 :, g. p
~~m. q;. o y. y e 4*. 3>. J. ; 7, e,, n. ;. m, m- *,w. ?,.s p,p 5,9~a.w.~~
~~,L.s. +~~
~~Le x - -.~~
~~..,~. :.,,.9,g ,m s: . n..,.,. ~, ~ y y - e ..,,n,,.n..,.~~
~~x.,.% % Q&e&q,.&,.s,.-., r,n,g x,.,.n~ - Q W.n Q : %' Q 4, D Q,.,..,w&.--~~
n [ 'l.',*.; 2.e k ;.? K ; f,.~. , e ;.,,, - r -.,. -S s w ..alQf24 Q. Q *. n, e,,. > ~~ n.,,..,, m s ) .W. - - - u . q- -- - e q, v..,, ws ;, _,., u n .r, 4- -.e p. n/s.. ..L- + e,e s, ;. ,r, ..m_.1%.#.,. ,g3 ,y.,... y p,, w >,.a o.. .,1 ,;. a. :,..m. p. w,r .v,. 4 .; p .L., , m '3 /Nr >*. 3 t . -. x." '.. v;: -*q, g... s ') y, y,. 1, , s p. 1 s. ~s r.
~~r 3~~
~~g ,2.Nr The matter is referred to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal ,.p 2 V. 3,M[4..[7 ' , 4.l. 6 Board pursuant to 10 C.F.R.{ 2.704(c).~~
~~w.,m,~~
~~,-3 , +..,. r~~
~~u...%,'i'r. i v.~~
w. 4 .~6,. r- :,p't.re. c,,; w:. ' ~ n;. r. .a - , w. :w Helen F. Hoyt ? ^ ~ r ;. ~. z.,-.s. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ' - t x. v, y, ;f.,. :~* t. 7,% er Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, -.r. %.,;1.- this 22nd day of November 1983. < ;g :.f r {a.,j - 4 ms f,w.,- .*4' ,,4 .s. , g.s #- ,p A.,,, w*i g(.
~~lf 4p ' A.~~
' u.' y :+ 4, t[ +. s, e, [, V" *,. V 'n.,,t ', a C, ,8 i 4. j#j hi 6 WE [ g 'ie'- .: b,n.1, 8' 4 * * '? #j #.. *- -- '..1, .as 9, ,.o, r,' ', fga,.. t i <d w .v. - ?, - > f,'.i., g, g,tp y.%g,.m,.y...,, r,* m 17
1
~~~. N.-c r 4., aP r , %,.fA y w. p,y;7, m. i a. +g Y w< enu? Q@w*d,% n' ' e.,'N";th,..;C.Y, *' N. . y % a',17:f c.M,1.?, n.*., ,] " d [ M d. -, ^ d,(8 a f panneri" 8.- - n - .~ .c 'O.,,.,... 8~~
I/*
~~,,,g{ ,W .g .. * ?'s I,*,'.#i,,d4 ;,o i g (....v a f, Y.l' / y~~
~~> 'I $ r -,~~
~~.s ,h.. -g .? si ;. ",,*,, .[, N % F i ? otn .a~~
~~.,.y, 4~~
~~P' r. gs , W ? (;;, su ybl n, s.,.. .~ - '.p tb . ? *y: s '.., %e,y. dk v*. ~.%, m..*. _ 4~~
~~o, o.~~
~~e. ,,,.y .,,,.s e ,;l,'r 'W- '%.9 j. j4b*- .C ' 9,,. ' d.* ** r'P, 4 g M. f c,~~
~~w..~~
s
~~.i gs4 3~~
~~y ' ' R.'.' p g~~
~~p 3 - e a ,1,~.*. ? f*' A ('N, T [, ,, 'T e,,,.s n.- '.p'*** '.N * ? l4 r '. - Q Y de.. I. O, a '.* 1'y', ' ij J'. 2 a^ # v w.. *, ~ Y ;.. % ;,., .,f.h ' -...t,'~~
~~l w.~~
~~'8 ,.6,- = n j - g-g e - 4 M#.,.. e 'd e, ,6 ,r+ ..i.-*sg %s. <.-/* .e I* ,,t.- ,i g . 1~~
~~.-d~~
~~4Fgh* D.8~~
! i, n. ).,,4 .p )s.. W" T g >,c.+..g ^g. f -a p*
y1
~~.e.,* a Js , y +,, ; [.? h. .%.. h w~~
~~g L,? u.4.~~
, O. .. ~ e,,. 3 ~e, h,' s. L '" 4. - %,s*, ; > ').- y,, }, n - 4 s.. g we E n y '.'~a ' e'st.,*.+.,s +. ' W.* ",4 lt*
~~4, \\.,a,,,~~
,s% g'.,f y gj % f -f : b ", . +*+ ng. ',',/ %. d 4&.*mv.d*T C / s * ! .e 4 > % w,p 4 J 4., e y - Q L. 4 - t,f; e,. 4'.m..** f e %', gj e e A, y. 4 :f49 *, i./ ' Op , f,# 3 5 g 4,[4 * - 6 - 4 3e a iy "] R 4 e u. -
~~w.,. n.. u,~~
~~.~.,, re L Gr-l y, f y.c .'n%+ 1..M n s,,.,Q,, L,C ' ", r.'s 'm~~
i;
~~- t, p H C@aM,,, .M,o - C Y:. n %,. %,dh s.*. 'e. QN.3 T, 4,, *g,, t, [,1s + g *. ' 'p. i. ' *[. 'N* I* ( ' y~~
* * " l*-
w s + g ,e. 3 - 3 o J., x. t.e ./ } . '8 ;,4 q,v, s ,7 p t 9 q g .[' g ,m4 4 9 v w.h' 3 N $,, e '=s, b 3, a,z s >l, %.{ ' v.,p,+,s,. ,,%* y4 e I %. g[. ',4 m,': #m. -L:.;& %... A i t204 ,u, ,. < - y, v.,.. - $, e' 8,,tA a ig, s g t.. +9 a j
~~rD 4r We,~~
~~,, {j e-z m, w.-a. r. 7., ,o ' ~ l. . cc . e 'e, m. <ge~~
~~"'N' s.~~
~~,3 j.jp., .'s a n.s e. s - 3 -s ,-_, f,. :a : s%. d,,~~
~~,*<is -,.i 6-ie~~
~~..m 6 *, a e pp.,* t*y,st e - powy t,sr e,*, g *-~~
~~n et. y $ -~~
~~,y g a. 1++* '. - w, j o', [ec,(, m, -~~
*** ** '9P' ', n },
~~, 3, .t r ar *, ,.3.g u. 9 y...r g g. r .,,',,y, g4 . p . g, w, t '. q,.,. s s ? t. s ,. ; ;...ng,s' 9,, ,,, ;,,,,,.%* _-. c. 7" ~ y s . [ '* " *. '~~
~~,.a~~
~~~ b,, g,, %, N,,. ' = g, -,Ia 'ft ** ., " ]' ' ',. m. 4~~
~~, j ;. w ' j b.~~
~~hec. ','se . f, * , ). ,1 ' 'p, ~ ^. &,, n.s.Q,, f f eh,. ,' 4 7..' e'~~
~~'.l, 33,~~
~~e .2 ,%'1 s.,g.,_' . ',t~~
~~2 QQ *g,,j 3.g'..y ;~~
~~.s. a~~
~~y -~~
,~,s.,,..,,,_ .y M. y.. s,, J.}.. '. a ,s e . s,, y e. -e"., y ',,,, 4, e, j ' g, .t s.. m <v,%u r6.- , A 4 sy. s s + c J,; m.w .ssJ3*, e ~ uJ R n ', r,4..a v '.s' ,= ,I- .*e',- s+- s,p *?, s i ^* j s c c4, .e 4 k. g.a p4 ^.n u 4g' { j g> j '/< L m s i
1,., o r ,~,w r .;2 q ct
~~_ s.,~~
~~/.4 e . m e s % f Cite as 18 NRC 1205 (1983) ALAS.750 v. 4'- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t' ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD [ n~~
~~u,. 3r ~~~
'" + Administrative Jadges: }m..,. 9: .-y, ,ph;w' ^L l l._ - ^, ' fW.'a l9,.,,. U. 8 >.c., L.e,, .1 ~ --. A -C. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman .y ([.d,i< ',4[.w [9. L.b s - ' ' r.", M. Gary J. Edles d b. A.:,.$,b,.s 7 Dr. Reginald L Gotchy r g '- f ;. rec ,, m r , ;N* r f.. - p '. y., s ,..7.- 'M. a f.
e:
~~..q ~ - ? ..y p- . s. ,.T~~
~~9..~~
Docket No. STN 50 483 OL y ,5 'M W- -, u 2 o. 3, 4 In the Matter of b.s... Y b. -~ v UNION ELECTRIC COMP ANY November 29,1983 a 'f [Lv",,?.',...,,... .s .v.. ss (Callaway Plant, Unit 1) 2 w s ., a w., e.e,...
.3 g,

' y n ?.. g.,,
~~Qw.~,~~
~~mw r~~
s . ~,... b - N ,W i"/J.. M a ..m Treatmg a petition for reconsideration of an Appeal Board decision as d;,bW.. '. " N.M - a motion to reopen the record, the Appeal Board denies the rnotion for t N3.s p -9 " 1. K ~.., failure to satisfactorily demonstrate that the supporting information is 2 N, n. - ? . ; ".., '.. ' r . s,.. e,.' likely to lead to a different result in the case. . g...,. 3 ; s. 3.g, .,,,3,, v .g. r u .e: ,' Sf t. W,,.a. gR/.. 1 " %. ~. p.7'f.. J aje, a 5 RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD w ,-u
~~r a'~~
~~s q b'p% 3'. i A !.y(;G. - f . 6jj.7 m% To justify a reopening of the record, a petitioner must satisfy a tripar-g, ,fq,~~
~~e r~~
tite test as follows: ,W w,,. :. - @. ' i s .ff,.ig'p f ~ a 9,;, 4 '. s s c (1) is the monon timely? (2) Does it address signWicant safety or environmental j j M %g..C8 j, k issues? 0) Might a different result have been reached had the newly proffered
~~s. C &?N..w. i / !..6. l.h >~~
~~q 7 m-y- ,r. V r.r u. . w ~.g; : w materut been considered initialty' -~- - 4 .,e. n.j;~~
~~MfNQ, Metropohtan Ednon Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.~~
~~6 4.. 1), ALAB 738,18 NRC 177,180 (1983), quoting Pacylc Gas and Electric 77 s.- S Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 598, .R W:~~
3

n i
~~.a - + 1I NRC 876,879 (1980). , w-a y. p. 4 v . 4 pm, c :~~
~~,,w~~
~~,.a .[4 .g.. p t.< " y.4 ... y h.y3 R. W 1205 pg. & 3. p',m ; n.','39. (.w, : ..3.,y*.... ".. v .' :.6,,~~
~~,c lw' ',~e~~
~~.s .y o ,,"g '., G ' t. y,{ e.'gf [f~~
~~c.,~~
~~.. w.a.. v ,t l,M f y ?. *p s f.. ; q g l .\\,'e p,. w,yi., e z*e; ~41,' ' y 7,,,,T...., ' *'T * ** P****% * *"*" *'."*Q t* * * ?.T a 'G. '.~~
~~u, t~~
~~4 ,.,z ;.:y,,~~
",*'P/*s*'""'**T*P'*'*,:-

b;',+
~~3,,... D. fe gg 7E, . /~~
~~5. u.* pl v (s*. Ag 'y y..F4 y 'yy.,~~
~~l: _e,gJ,,.,.f f 9,, ' ;,y, .4,,. o.*p- [, n e,, 4 ' y,, 4..... ,y _ + ~. k #m. ,y.y s; n ww .a..~~
.+
~~,s .,,7.~~.* a' ['. s',..Y k .'.,,p',.. 8 p- ) 9 t. m.... w m. J.., ; /, **9.,, _. w,.~~
~~7. e..,.<~~
~~s ,g e. e 4, 's 4 o v. e 4. m%j,, w.,p d e -g. s a e t~~
~~s. v ;..,~~
~~w, .3,.',*.a e jf.,.,,*..._g *,,.y..., s, e,. * +.,.,.,,*3,,.* a . a * ~ 5 A 6'vi j (* 5 .a ' I,, ' .?. ~% M, m.,,.. h. . a j, ,q 'T 'h~~
~~^ 'I s.,~~
~~. + -~~
~~y i, g.~~
~~c.w. a ;.~~
~~i p. N.. ., 14 y, % sq, y . Q. %...- <.) ; ." y,,...! -- \\ .y.. - ' y, . s - + .,fk ..t 5 nr. s., V,. r e. k, g. s ., c .~ r~~
~~l_$g g~~
y
c &,, m x.. n n,u,..& ~, rd/ ^ AQ 'j,, * , jV s. n. d C _ S [l 4. //j '.;;,N Gi f.X::!Q,:M,.QQ&.. 3*'N!W l5h '.gW . *,.4 %'3 s .sT,,
~~...X u,VQ}$l&;,7m.f%Q,M &. l:'.l, h.~~
e r A ,k 'G ; ~,. . n .:'yn ', n.,.:#,W'?* M.w.t W,., x c.m...,..c..y v.m'r.h. ,, * ~. ?~ ~,...,.. r e&. m ; w.. +.- ,. q,,_ b' W W,3.<-r,,,. w, W &.a. m %.7 g. & w. &;.;r g.qlt'e.,.,. ',::,r,G W.. . ~%
~~e. m y.' v~~
~~.<l.~~
~~.yrryWf *%.M~~
~~. 9 uY. g.~..~~
~~n. ~r .e m W f g+: ye,.:.se.QwA.HQ, s. ..p?@!YQt'Q fC %y,M.yy::::b,pp^iQ %s@ ~ ',' '~?. ~ [ W ~,. -gM % 1 r ..w CF %' u,, A 4 y rg!Q%'9,, *Qw;;i.y ::p;*w m.Q><{iae ; q' x s w. ..w ygk yfx n p r.~~
ff

.T
~~'_$n.$.84 )1 % s,ea*a. &N .'~ 4 **4 x n:vt~~
~~4,w 'M., nS s. *b.~~
~~w'.y v rv % m.,.u. 4 N J'n ~w.~~
~~=m w~~
~~r,n' m : p: p'%)'A g'a.a.wed,s.n.~~
~~L? e ksM m.,. ac.? 1' s.* 4 .. s. , n . g; , c.s 'eNNNA 3.;tfrf f e %Y' >J... ap ag . m; ..g. y,~; M., n..g e,~~
~~z.,~~
~~r .,f,,, + u p P ;., o .. e(... <y p;, n ..y, .j n %.,%.v. A.* m . y::. -r . N.:,.%-. J,.;:w v :Q.,0.Q~~
~~ppf RULES OF PRACTICE: RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES 7~-; p... -~~
~~.y. - r ',.,x,._ ,..W, jp jmj Parties in an appellate proceeding are obligated to submit to the ,v~~
~~.= + y r.if.;'.~~
..,-.e .i .q.. <;6 Appeal Board new information that is relevant and material to the mat-f,' ] ' ',f [i(Wg.U..; MT.h.' , M Plant Units 1,2 and 3), ALAB 677,15 NRC 1387,1394 (1982). . G. i. n., ters being adjudicated. Tennessee Valley Authorrey (Browns Ferry Nuclear ,,'{.- ~ p '. 7 .. mt..y ', >. ; '. 7l .....s ~ X.. RULES OF PRACTICE: RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES w. W ' g? 'Q> .p n - y ;n - 1WO If a party has doubts about whether to disclose information to the YJ' c J.(,Nh;[.NM Appeal Board, it should do so because the ultimate decision with regard )/.,,; [.,J .' " q ;I%'P-" W < to materiality is for the decisionmaker, not the parties. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB.691,16 NRC 897, 914 J '+ *- e.c.., w S (1982). M., c W, w w.G,. 4,W,, .,...,c. .c
~~@.-QDfL~~
.Q (*, . <%/.pa OPERATING LICENSES: RESPONSIBILITY OF .f,,, .cs g{. d. g' l: s, t r ig ' y ' y.: r q:; 4,.7 p-j;j&n, g,c*;$ BOARDSt STAFF , ed. W, p;,gle.,f,v@n,.. ' ). 7", s. '..i L &.. s 'm~ n.w The responsibility for the examination of safety issues is divided be- .y y j, ;.. n r,:../ 3 , ;. 4.t tween the Commission's adjudicatory boards and its staff. Generally U ', ~.. h@',f . N d,I speaking, at the operating license stage the role of the boards is limited J , C.1:
~~M.Z "A. J.. -~~
' y; to resolving contested matters properly placed in issue in a case. Conso- !.:;+ c : ' y ;. c,.4;Q < "f ;gG lidated Edison Co. of New 1'ork (Indian Point, Units 1, 2 and 3), .t w, .y y, u.i q' ALAB 319,3 NRC 188,189 90 (1976). The staff must make decisions ed
~~,7..~~
.p>, , n,,G (, 9,. 4 ;p.4 on a wide range of safety matters not placed in litigation, and has a fur-4 .~~.- . ;. ;.,(.d.. ther responsibility to se erintend the safety of individual applicants and . r.e . ?.., a c.,.! g licensees on an ongoing easis. y, ;.; p. ) ,. L;.. c.(.. c, .) RULES OF PRACTICE: SHOW-CAUSE PROCEEDING .2 .+ ['O,I,h M S [ M [hh, A party that wishes to raise health, safety or environmentalissues but b s,J,.? Q
~~A6;g~~
.,. NW:FCp is unable to do so in a pending adjudication may file a request with the ( c.', '. Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 asking %' ",e*y,W b.p. 4..,, . s %.w..,s c's. N M.; the Director to institute a show cause proceeding to address those g ,3gf, 7,7.r- .y ! s a,,. ~ e s o issues. Detroir Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), Wy yo, -, .;.q.ej@. y.* QA ALAB 707,16 NRC 1760,1767 (1982). s, n , 1..,,e1 1 y,. . s.g ) s ~ , m,. .a, 44 'l APPEARANCES 4 4. Kenneth M. Chackes, St. Louis, Missouri, for the joint intervenors s Coalition for the Environment, St. Louis Region; Missourians for ' 4 Safe Energy; and the Crawdad Alliance. v. ~;,.f a., yy ,,yy v,.1 1206 a, 7,, ,s. i .,W .j .d } ') i* ,y c ' 4 l. s l %. ', l- 'l ' ? l* ? r; [ f y,. Q, *d.. ; ,. - ~ m e,,e.r ree.,.m y <,.. w =w -n -
s
~~<"r*' +.s e r-m er e,ct-g* ,. *: a. , q.~~
~~' p S., j 7~~
~~fa t A,,..,.,.~~
~~.ac~~
~~..V =/, ...N- ,t -[, 0 e e "jg "* h; ',' ,.t t h. , c'~~
4
.is I [ '.N,*,. e - ..f n j);..N.2'. '. ~1 '.'.'.r q ~, a ,f .., - :l. o.. sn /.J,.qM. ~ /~ . s f..*. a e i - *.,,'j_. p s. . ; p'd.. q'$,.da ' K y *, +, ) A. r y%, . i Y M,c' ,e .5 K 1 a*\\ ?.rd' Q j
g
.Q y*-
r Thomas A. Baxter and Richard E. Galen, Washington, D.C., for the applicant Union Electric Company. David A. Repka and Robert G. Perlis for the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission staff. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l* p.. l,~ ~% 4 ly..- ,7, ,,c, D Board decision that found that there had been no general breakdown in , f,- ( -$, in an opinion issued on September 14, 1983, we afntmed a Licensing .7 y, n;y quality assurance procedures at the Callaway plant, that various identi- . 'f, g' fied construction defects had been remedied, and that there was reasona-l,, +; ,ii ble assurance that the facihty could be operated safely.' On September 2'i,1983, the Intersenors' filed what they denominated a petition for p 1, < consideration of our decision. In actuality, however, it is more akin to a motion to reopen the record and should be so treated. Intervenors do 7., not point to any error per se in the decision. Rather, their request that we reconsider the result is predicated on "new evidence regarding the b' f- ~ 3 ',? F n s f, f .. d -- adequacy of Applicant's quality assurance program. ."' The "new evi- . i>M dence" is an Integrated Design Inspection Program (IDIP) report pre-i' ' '~ pared by the NRC OfDee of Inspection and Enforcement (l&E). This f . T s e.: ' report summarizes the results of an inspection of the Callaway plant con-
~~1. -~~
~~'M M% ducted by I&E personnel in November and December,1982, as part of a [. rg~~
~~t. p [jf.et gj -~~
generic program to measure certain quality assurance objectives.* f. wr M., Y ;;f 2,Q%:*. To jutify a reopening of the record, a petitioner must satisfy a tripar-P ? ^ 4 Y; p,k:0 r ,i-tite test as follows: b' . g x. w-., t. (1) is the motion timely 912) Does it address significant safety or environmental ,j I' .4 issues' (3) Misht a different result have been reached had the newly proffered g *, material been considered initially ,i h, (,.,~ ' ' h s* - ^., e< 1 AL AB 140.18 NRC 343, afft LBP-82109,16 NRC 1826 (1982) ki
~~1. 4 "~~
~~3 coalition for the Environment. st Louis Resion. Missourians for safe Energy, and the Craedad i4 Alliance 3 Peiiima for Reconsideration (september 23.1983) si 1~~
At our request, answers to the petiteen were rated by the appluant and the NRC stafr. we asked spe-carically thai the app'icant and the staff address in addition to the merits of Iniervenors' etsims, the question of whether enher of them was under en obligation to eall the ingpecuon report to our attention Il
'a at the time o(issuance Order of september 27.1983 at 2 (unpubbshed) 5Herrepohree forme Co (Three Mile Island Nuc6 ear sintion. Unit No l), ALAB 738,18 NRC 177, 180 (19833 evomie /* oar reqA C,as sad twerr Ce (Diab 6o Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umta I and
~~2) AL Ab-598,11 NRC 876. 879 (1980) l.~~
~~4 i~~
~~I. (' . 4_ v 7 f; 1207 if~~
~~i..~~
~~5 h* g e w e. '6 % L. e- = r w-.e v +, m -tie eopp *oes-~~
T'***.]*
~~g '[lI,, .f..). ') ' ,e ' - J~~
~~1. <.,,.. w, f a~~
~~.i - 7 ,. s a.., y s... .(.,," ~.., 4;. . \\ [,, '~~
d A "c i, '..,,

8,
~~a. ' U g,~~
a.
~~;, p.~~
s : ,'55 \\q. E ,[ i ',',A. o j e s m o 4
~ .,; y y, ,.n _.,, n, r ~R l g 5,,1).Q f.& $ *;&Q(h.,1KL;"q.n&; &:.,,.g&
~~N & ?.;) M y l g f?j }' % j;ht Q,~~
~~'sl. & kl-h f & *&)f l& . f ^.'} I . GGLg;.., a" d e W'&l ; $'k 6',% "M &.W %:%-,9 .1 ~ 'r (~~
N

h % W N 'y M b IE 4 A.+/.[.h U?$. u,' j~'hfY7.I;p,b nM A.#a.'. ^ ~u^ ~m*m" ~~,:s"nw"""~Q* 9,$N,w~~r.OTN* 8 dd YY p"hj g" ~. m D
~~3.?.@.j t~~
~~g. ne r.~~
"~ ~ c. a ~wnw{kMW;.9:']'G $.%Sy.M m, ( Q:Q W. m2 8.$g.Mppf 9 *,:M'8 h ? c.s & n.. f. j, .c: 4.ur..u-; g% o.y x,m *5..p w y v.r ,n e ,, y e e t.,y :},.q n;a.+ u.,Crd W h.c%lD.(,., gw.m ,,,,;n '4-. '. 7* f w. ,y 7'.g/d/ g y.@y 4p, - In our judgment, the Intervenors have not satisfied the third element of ' t,W9,;,y,M e mp n. rj,7 Jg 9.g.ff 'M )'h the test for reopening. The petition is therefore denied. We discuss each O /.-
~~PC e~3 /(".W D?a. $.,[q,g,.et. ri R~~
wh of the a.lements separately. (Y d~;.h p;%a,-*., y : Gyeg;g. y #g e ~ a . ? L. p.4, p% % W.y;%, 44 y II. -y. + A. f 0 ...y.g..v.. 4:, s.y %%.w.g,,,w, .r .gm . g;.g.m.... a. o. 4( s.v.m.s. ,a, .m m. .w.W. A. Tlineliness 3p,n N..c ~.b,., The Intervenors represent that "[tlhe subject report came to . a W.
~~ly f.@, hg.3.,$,,M,nQTf~~
~~< 5. _sm a ^f' i ... [theirl attention too late to allow for analysis and submission to the Q W@M m[P c. ck... ..Q~~
h MQ Appeal Board prior to its decision... "* The IkE report was dated

o. -
?,NEJM$g$h[kfyMWCa%fh April 4,1983. Although the staff suggests that it was mailed to the local f. Public Document Room on that date,' the letter transmitting the report " m <[' U M d *, M p d to the applicant states that it "will be placco in the NRC Public Docu- @. M;Mr . G;, y Tf 3. ment Room unless you ' notify this v# ice, by telephone, within !$ days
~~i'e. M.MQ^ ?;MgpQ'4$~~
f QQb of the date of this letter and submit written a;. plication to withhold infor-k 'd mation contained herein within 30 day's 'of the date of this letter."' The - j,..? h @fip 3'..*UMU,[c'i,d@A:t@c.p. 7 . w wf n. ga report was thereafter placed in the central Public Document Room in y p. y - 4 c. . i.,.p..... i g.., e..m.rp. %,g.c ;,.> g cfi. f., r Washington on May 9,1983. It was thus Jivailable for public inspection 7. . ~ W/.e :- ww :g.. c lly .k more than a month before oral argument on the Intersenors' appeal, '.. ~ ^p 5 6@,,%. u, M ; E. 4-and some four months before the filing of the Intervenors' petition for w. f %. j J@y'Mq M. .if :. To m M t% reconsideration. In any event, the applicant responded to the report by t py,pg{y., y,, .p @ l, f gfN,1., @gf%()jk[t,,%', tpyf vg letter dated June 15,1983. That letter.vas acknowledged by C.E. Nore.
~~ffg lius of the NRC Region lil\\n a leuer, dated July 21. A service list at-tached to Mr. Norelius' letter indicates that a copy of the Jt.ly 21 v pi O~~
~~o '. p y g. J.k :q, p, g,9,, acknowledgement,; along Mth a copy of the applicant's June 15~~
~~p. '~~
~~< p',~~
~~f. u (4'..? 'a ",,i.d ?~~
communication, was medied to Ms. Kay Drey. who was one of the partic. ,g. .e:N,!.,9 g(;MdM $.i, @@g. E ipants for the Intervec' ors in this case.' The inttrvenors thus appear to have received actual notice of the report at least two months before they
~~p. a '.?,*.l Q: ;M o. W]' @l h.a f[," $ ( D M,; %~~
14 '[,MM fpi:%%.m filed their petition. W 4 s ..n t y +.. p J.'. ( ', e. QcJ t It may be tht! t!'e Intervenors did not obta'n a copy of the report in 'd,':a 7,3.Q %;L M[n.,Q gs W mtd A Mt4 sulTicient time to review it for presentation to us in advance of the June (Q.4l} M+7 M g gg,4 g%.,g g' M pg 22 oral argument or the Sept 9mber p hsuance of our dec..ision. Parties ',"lm$ ,'.,ty hM. ggyp requesting a reopening of t!ie peorJ, however, have an obligation to NT give us ample itiformation so tnat we can determine whether the request 7./HM c p;'MM,w.q.Mgha /', ' % fA* i&p" is timely. The petition before ui does not de so. It merely sets forth the . 3,,. q,4, +,,y,, p.W'.p;.4 g .y d, 1 ~y 1.ei A, ,t,,,,, i ,~ 'f kd (d 0 Ptuhon I0r Rect'nWerstle.1418 , A p N S.. f sisfr Wespones eolmenenors' rei hon te Reconsidsrauon (october 12.198D st 2 n.2. ,?E .,,8 + 7.y M. l. 4,e Appskaat 6 Itdt ponse to Joint intervenors' Peuuon for Recensdetanon (october 12.198H. Es. 5 . 7)... a. C ' ( ' habit A. lettai of Rshard C oeYaunt Director.Offke oflaspecuon and Enforcement to Union Electrw '+' 3
~~,,g4%)h Co'openF ( Apr 14. l'8h.~~
~~h 'a(' . g.u $ 'see Appucant's aespones, Bihetut C~~
l
~~.. f - M h, j.]. Q ' h. g& hh f .m.' g% ;.lq $p'h 2A s~~
~~ym s.i~~
~~~ 3 C }, ;'Q t;fl,!M%) 1268 4 y1 i . -, r""., ' '.m s e ,J. (*.'N 3 4 ,.. Q.{~~
j
( s \\ ,p e e A*y...,, 1 (f;y 3 \\ { Y l* hdh.. Y <;(. w. f.. s , j 6, m;,9,.fgy V g-.. _. _. _, '...... a g.^ _{ -.,8;, g ( s,.. g, + f. 7. c ;,. ' 4.,4 c '/;, ., m. s y ',4 ( 5. N.e,,y. a. w...,; M. 'n .....s k r.. 4. j.-s.1,4 r..W* . [,. sg',, , j,#, ' . ~' N.3 ..e .' V,, ss .I,t.' ,,ii,,...,... 4,,* .'. a q A <-s a . W,.,.. ,3... m -c .,a# 2, .c . at, a
*.j e.4 4e.M '?. f,U ej),
~~. r ..g~~
.e
~~( 'e 8 i L ,,, A l (. 6 t~~
~~' ' 't. / '~~
~~.,.4 . N ll~~
~~j$ E.~~
~~m.m.. u yv ;w g'9l y 'A.}.'* * ;, ',,. ' g lc'g.*. ', ' 4.. T. h.',y, NLs, s /M[.7:.nlc&.,'. ,h A. . S.N.v1 ; 'j (,.w.jg ~.dr,1 m,, 9 - el ' ,,., ). ? 'y. -[. .s h).~~
v D.J f... O kr D W % l

;&
~~T p. i. m.u. ,lQ. @m'". t n %~~
~~M O.w*t x~~
.,'c.- .r r -~ N J'. (, Is c-m
~ _., -.. /._ J.- N e .' N, 4, s s. i .e. a + _ S.s ~.. -7. c. y u._ 4.
j,
~~,2c.... ,e g ,iA .,( ,' r g, .. :. a. ( s ~...- 1, x- ) c.,~~
~~n. g-iew the report, w..j.Q '~~
s peti'ioners' opinion that they lacked sufficient time to revNo third -4?, y N d need not element of the tripartite test for reopening the recor, we ah reach the question of timelmess in this case. i Significance of the issue li ~ The petition and the underlying I&E report relate to the issue of qua - H. ^ r to recognize that [
~~4 (q'; 2 j~~
~~,y ty assurance. Both the staff and the applicant appeasome qu l h ugh we do l~~
~~% qty &;py?~~
,a {pf ' f fficient safety n not suggest that all quality assurance matters will be o sut purposes that d'M Q k.,,y M '. R.J.~ l O\\ significance to justify reopening, we assume for presen i test for reopening. .. y
~~L.. *7 y m:M : W i.:%.;~~
9, the petition meets the second prong of the tripart te y , u q. UiW #,;,.,V 7:W y ~; ya v W 'ws @.., m $w. < M. ,D m.. ,, :,S *. N N 1 Y.w%. +;'si: '}. G. Likelihood of a Different Result n ~ h the The third element of the test for reopening the record - whet er u : ss - ; a..., ', - - / C. 'N.t,y > m. ~E.9 y/...M '- s l is the most .0 new information could have led to a different resu t - uments in this ' < +.'y, M i g 'j k(( % ? important. The intervenors make essentially two arg E$ b r of defi-I' i ~ ' ' regard. First, they claim that the I&E report reveals a num e i qf I. i that there has [ f.,, l ciencies that now call into question the general conclus on. g cg"hg; % 25Q " i l t been no pervasive breakdown in quality assurance at the Callaway p e & K, ' t d t Second, they contend that certain of these alleged deficiencit. suppor he NW'gy.;l,%p$g,p AtQyQ. 4 , ~ fi ll failed to prove the '. ' j ( t? their argument that the applicant has speci ca y + h SAdl2 piping .jf M. ? f.' ' 7 safety of the structural steel embedded plates and t eus M,.MW@QK dw ti fied the re-1 } n f their motion be t -, g,. wWgp,y n,. j quirement that the information submitted in sup e t o cyS ..f 7-i ,w Nun ' l p,,(,' ? l y5; [.4 W M 7, 1 likely to lead to a different result in the case. hh[hhig,7,f;f .. J: i <.? >,, N reached in ALAB 740 and LBP 82109 that the ap (() '- 7.j"$QO$,M [ *., Alleged Persesire BreeMown ~n ,,W l i ,. ' ~ L j _,) p M w];g:0 qX &,, truction J i DQJ'7 [' b e of safety. To J ' e, % i ' f', " l,J.,p quality assurance program provides reasonable assuranc lity of begin with, the report focuses on the design process and the qua [i,, l J '"J, 1 issues ! *,. p$ design activities, rather than on the construerton quality assurance result, there is no f that were litigated below by the Intervenors. As adirect c s h Licens-y. l s m .G s* : ' .f i.
m,
~~2'.H,. 2 'r. : ', ~, %,s.a s 7', 4. , ".~~
~~L f'l g,%.~~
~~+ ' ' i ; ' ~. p (:'y _J ll f g b [ IJ 7 4 1 L b ; 4.."- I h,44.i. p* r~~
~~A*f~~
~~.' q fc. ' ', = '*- 1289 f< c., lt[>,,Lc[q e i '*l- .[ !..,,...t a* (.. , x ,,. 9' ,a ~ ,o' -e~e~~ .s, ?'~~
~~\\;4, f.N [i J

,, ',, $ q y -~~*']~v!n y
~~y. w-m-~r=; .s ' ]_. 7~~
~~f... *, ',. S W.; Q; l ~,. o ' {l ;M p,;,?~~
~~w W n I~~
~~3. i~go,~~
]
~~f . p rs. - y ~'M'k*sL*; c q ' *. sQ !r,, &.L y Gn,.w 1 .' Y g};.' p%)&k-,, t. Q Ql,, ' + Y. s 'h,,, ' r , t* s "#,5b h. j.? &.',,s' e t y ,) % m.6 +:.d w~~
~~m p; y.,% f";..'~~
~~o., u,m KW a ' ;' y:9 j &T'L~~f' 4 u. s y~~
~~y p,~~
i ,f, ,s, 7 .i y 5 4;; f,t,u q u _.s 3,,,c q.,p 1,3 ,', J. q', ' > .!; A. 1 m L? , 'gy j g6- - ,9 h u .s 'l e a .,1._ ~~a , ~ ~ ~ ' ~ - ~ _,., ^ - - - ' - - -. ' ' ' - - - ~.
a~ - ( w l w. W h l U :'l Y & If &v.. <. y o. W : p L~. % h. D y.'.rv 2..w ?.r. Q e& y$.s;n;L k.-Jy &nL A W Lr U.;.\\ f, 3,. W m. a y,,(.~Tw. y$@x.w:%% Q.4;.. -.. m mm a:pL.s.: +,m.m, p. 7. p.- 3 7 .m.,'.w.ck.m3y?.ypfu,;yr.;.yx(gp:%J;! .n:.,y n.. kW,aJ.tf.m:&: o ,f. 3 @c?g *QQ&.Q p4 6 .s..~ v - eu .. > ~ ., b ' Q.>,q: ,%Q.id V Q..gg W ;D:>n :y:.- M...~Wn ~, y., ;.6 g,,%:w% s p. p ~g: y % w e m z.: w;*;. 9.s m W w e f. W w. s. e.s w m.n. y r..~ m.m 7, J ,,.ww v Ms.y ~N,f'M.. %W. m '.;,7.y', W'.kf,-', s. 6V N,p q >;,% p y-cra m W.1.m:1:,.1 M;. m.n.,2 > W,cn. 4,:t.W%p-,. g. m.d,y,. ua Q m. = a.a;h.1p y ' ',g 4'9 g,. ;*m & m.4 ; y.fi.phy }:k..v. M*n any n M . m t.'i p% -~"r 6 .... ~ c.. ' If*p^, - # w; p,4 4,.? g *,m.,,,.g $ p {m"t !* P .D' '.%.7,. > ; g"3 .;,.w. p.O. s. w %,k y,y -~~ ~,.pg 'ewy :*- k
~~,,,*4h hy, 't~~
~~.y jylapy ge j~~
~~1, v~~
~~c '-wanJy p y.. v.c;.,' w.,9 c,g.c. g. m ~ V~~
~~3,.,~~
~~p g..,n.L ,, cm.. 3 2 q ,. @~M..M.,yg-g%;. . %. g.f M.,w,@ u..My dv s .,n e cf -;<. .y y, s.g.W; .; s y s. g o.;.y. g.\\ q,o s (;h l =~~
s. e p. mz :;* g.ga. a 9;, f y$

v-1,,- i ~? 's. d.., ;gM( ?.m&, Q.,
~~~ - -. n: y 9' ,. y. s 3.$.' in'/C;%w$,'d@@h'y,.e?'p'j ing Board and us.S Nevertneless, the report does explore various ap-v QP '$'.g;?fs'$~~
~~di.i proaches and undertakings by the applicant, such as its procedures, a. my gj,1,3fgg,;.,gs 3 3 recordkeeping, training, and inspection, which might have been conduct-~~
~~, *. C -. y a,. m.p~~
s
~;ljy.,.j,.g$> 'sg;g,, g, / conclusions in the report might provide a useful and additional insight .g R;" >.,,T.i ed in a similar f ashion at the construction stage. If so, the Gndings and e 'g J M 6,.N.ee Sf di 74 into the construction quality assurance process." m.'.6khh', W ,.,; eg;MO,n g c c% Assuming for present purposes that the report bears on our earlier S ^ conclusion, we are unable to find that it warrants a change in that a 3 .+ -...a$.G.f%sd. conclusion. The Intervenors observe that the report contains "29 nega. TE,M ?[k;@$,.;~+@ji%$ 'lUMOM
~~m..~~
4.
~~N' tive Gndings,12 unresolved iteins and 9 observations for licensee con-~~
~ s i.4 I M. N D. M l'U g b$ $'7.7. s.m'[,."$ ~$ sideration regarding the design process and activities for the auxiliary . f. fA, ci.g,.. ~O.c.,.~ feedwater system."" Such information must be evaluated in the context m6. u r s y; 7 g.y v. of the report's overall conclusions. As a threshold matter. I&E states that .-; %. 9 ?.M W W X y/. '%n 7: dug.V..:.2... ! ' MS p4 c m . G.W/. we found many design actions that were being well ewcuted.. They are not jf, s 'phf$k'(.[' ,h[ y.h h flagged and numbered in the text nor listed at the front of this report since follow up is not required.. - QT)). A.4,f.W4g:py.dpi N ~, m k :. . x4f aC *',f;[j.* v.y ;;;\\?).t t pyy i. +-..
~~,*.ww.cm.~~
~~I&E summarizes its conclusions as follows: . x.h'j ;w&@g-G* %,w.d. c 3 J:; y ,J .~ l $..,.,.. ; , w.,. <- 9 s '.s u ' d h a M (,~~
~~.e ~ y N@g{-].~~
Although the inspection sampled a very sma!! part of the design effort, the team did "..yM,$rQ MQ,J l $ review hundreds of specific items. The most significant &ficiencies are summarized '..'f4.* 5 y@ y#p..,L.N,Nk. - N,. %'% .%. l~' as IOllows: s4
~~s q c~~
e s % tt , .'Q.w;. s.. nt -
\\
eQ %gs sdlf y-n.<; M s,. J (D There was a lack of formal control over Sechtel's use of plant design f _Q .s r ~:, w c,.:,.f/.y 4 r; , y '. T m,.:e n,.,M newsletters. Thus, these newsletters, which descriued acceptable modeling s, ., - ~ +,.
~~7.~.+.w; W, and stress analysts techruques, were not being applied uniformly to project r.~~
o .,,0.. l4.3 jp[9 7.y 1 Jg 3 .t e pr n ;-; y vd..'., design work (Section J.l.2L au...<.. Si 4 . e,,,. * *^ &e, cf f#. ]% l',. s lrf h.M .,M y T.) t .y \\ t n.< s 'bl'.,, _ -.,.? The intervenors do not request that the record be reopened to conseder deEgn quahty assurance 10 '), -[ 'T( 'Q'Y;1n.41."^ r/.. ,3 '3. c Q, Qa7 issues. If they did, they would be required to sat sfy both the critena for reopemns the record and the T "U ',a. ' Q.g.g;7l[5 M.' c.(.%.'g standards for admitting late-fiied contenuons. Panfic Gas and Drur Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear
~~",/% %.~~
~~14 Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI 82 39,16 NRC 1712,171415 flesh. m l.. ?,.M,;', p It For this reason, we beneve that the decision by the sta# and de apohcant not to appnse us of the~~
~~,4.e o-~~
~~-., w:Ng 1_ ~ _34;g.+ A N ., /.. o.* [(.x &,. m.,,,. u t~~
. ch report was a close one. Both the staN and an apphcant are obuga;ed to submit new infor riation dat is

yd 5 Y[j[
relevant and matenal to the matters bemg adjudicated. Trurssee Va#ry Authonry iBrowns Ferry Nucle-I. ? 1 ' l j. DN *,,.W"E,.d[L['f;,*g R g 'l"' .. $. g. e.? Q;,{,5 er Plant, Units I,2 and 3). ALAB-677,15 NRC 1387,1394 (1982). As we observed in Consumers S~. g y ;$. p [. 87 3..D Q.$g,<, %:
~~.4 fo cr Co. (Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-691,16 NRC 897,914 (1982) "if a party has doubts i i ;. Ng tp,1 Y~~
about whether to disclose me. 9 anon, it should do so... This is because the ulumate decision with f.D,,.,p % M..r,. 'r[@',Q.:..,.M regard to materiahty ' tt, decisionmalter, not the parties " After reviewing the contems of the ,;5.s-4%j - report, we find ourselve. --ment with the stalT and the apphcant that the new information would
~~t s '~~
m"'"
~~N q q (? k'M. 4 %~~
~~r',ot have af ected the outcorts~~
4
~~c. . ];A. b,. 7 3,.7 ,;. se, r a, ,~ 3 yg Q Petition for Reconsiderauon at 12. "Negauve findings~~
~~include such nems as procedure violations.~~
i -; c. s errors and mconsistencies some followup acuon by the hcensee is required for MtC sta# evaluauon. .t J' c> 'V 3 < "4 s " Unresolved items' are quesuors for which the mspection team did not develop enough mformauon to 4 4 4 '. ', ' ~. ,, 3 reach a cont'. asion. Some henses response regardics these items must be presented for NRC staff i. -Q evaiuauon. " Observations" reflect items that the staff considered appropnaie to call to the apphcant's ab
~~", ;Si @~~
..] tention but for which there is no resstatory requirement. See Report of Integrated Design inspecuon 3, ' t.1.,j j' 50-483/82-22 of Callaway Plam Umt I t Apnl 4.1983 ) at 1 1 to 12 ("lAE Report"), attached to Peti- .D,;U...;'E 'q. h,i non for Reconsidera. ion. 4 fy nu oe v. 7cMq:o y.g g,c 9.;; .< jT py . ;b s e Qm % 2. y ; g g P pf h m i
, r

;.:.
~~A... W 1110 ~ ..-r.g,,.)? n, u. g (; w na ,f~~
,n
~~.' _ ~., n r . ' '.,,s TIO,*g 1 % l J 4' : ~ ~ ';.. ;. s. 4', ,+4 e '3. i. i y 4. - * ; t. [ S,~~
~~Q:? : y y* v_*i~~
~~'^.s,,'./< 4 ,.w } y .f.% & .3. Q, <e a,.a. e% ~.s 4 e.nr.n.;..~~
~~,m n.~~
~~m..-- y ;.7..m ~,, .r., u . +',', 7 L.; ^, - ...p... ,,._,m,., y., 2 - ..N-'.- ' c'~~
~~T r.~~
~~a-g A,,, $l' g-17~ . [ * {.s, 1.. ~t t , Wg.*, Xct. s c" f A.,, . s e, ,y e s - p y I;;;, ,'s -y, .* A, s *.;<"..: p' - ~ ~ f - y ,, ~ , ; 7,;,. ,s e - - s,~~
~~' x (.'f,^~~
. %;",,, Q. '. - @ q f,,,g{,,.f. g ..,,,,,,g...g, ], ~ N.s ', '4 f gy ,y',a +=, \\ Q*. - ~ ~.Q t j, l - %~.\\, T .'.( ? l ck
~~f. w. p.;&..,.. j,,}'.. >'i.??ff,,.',~~
~~':&'3 f'{.l{n x&4-. c,w, ' Y, a,,7 ,o,. .w; cj. c' J _. w. .._ "d.. . & y ;- -.3. <y < [..fI".~~
~~n. ' he.** ^,;'~~
s s N "~e F4 3,:, 3.' ,...,.?- N. } (,, y' - w.
s + . - 4 e r
}
h'f,' s r J' r- ,-n.- - ?y n o - - ~ ~ j...v 4' t f,.:,4 i . ) .,...x. s a. am, y% > =Q 4 s 4 ..a 4%, ' - S,-. " t.<'s (2) The auxiliary feedwater pump turbme exhaust pipe was not classiGed as s.s n a Seismic Category I and safety grade throughout its entire length. No justiG-
~~% e g~~
cation avadabic. This represented incomplete detailed analysis to support ..:t.., pump operabahty requirements A similar classincation was identined in two i, s. ~. *n:p, ..et other systems (Section 2 4). r
~~0) The abihiy of motor controllers to withstand fault currents had not been~~
~ 'g.4 M".f considered or assured This represented an instarm of improper detaded design (Section 5.2). 1,. n.,s. (p..,> .o ....t, 4 %k,M'; $'.1 (4) The team identined needs for improvement m control of the design process
~~. j.. y '.. % ; A.p~~
.7 u r ~# 3 f.,, bt $o.UE%9 9.&. v..Q 'Nl v t:W]k Nk.5'N. Q r ~' y' at Bechtel in certain areas such as those related to high energy hne break i N N# 9 analyses (Section 2.4), guidance for two design groups (Sections 3.1.4 and r.,;t,@M., n.P fMw Y, L.' r d ], iM _fi 3.21), interface deGnitions (Section 4.4) and baseplate design (Section 4.5). c. t% r. p. -w > m, a. m.. r y ~. .v s LT N M..c. P.. O.N '.,%,' < @. y w (5) Three mstances were identined where specinc FSAR commitments were j g.$ M %s.M.JR.p[Q.".Q x s not met, one of which inwohed the turbme exhaust pipe discussed abt ve p;7.f;,-At*.; d d Wl x;.@* y.bQ;*n,, i (Sections 2.3,2 4, and 6.2). D. y.O. ;. N 9,& u i....u. m. af.).- s ~,. s g ;n.w, g. 3 . am,, 3.. -. v.....a-w wr., Prompt attentiors is needed for the resolution of these specinc deGesencies and ta ' M; Ym%; ^ *:3. l'N f 62' ! ',,L ' W.MM. ~ f g* " M.'k, d W'- , E-h.,.l'j ' ;p others ident Ged m the folios,ang sections lloweser, the team concludes that these '% 2 ^ ! ui , - [ digj,p '. stems are not indicative of any persasive breakdown in the design process.
~~r r;~~
'
~~M '; -~~
V ' w i M d,

2.QR$y./, j s
~~-,,:.{'.,'l{ /{,~~
J.
'/ With the exception of the matters identified m the Gndings and an instance of delay ,s ~ ' ', M. g,.%. ? m resolvmg a design issue (Observation 4 l), the team considered the general pro-6'.:, c.?. -T ',I..-)7 I,.. I. '.-- ' .I. ject management to be a strengt% Several utihtees' staffs were involved in the devel-r g >E; m #L, M.;G jV:S g
~~d, J, :., ~ ' -~~
~~w. %~~
-t q. opment of design criteria and guidance. Effective follow-up and project management v. 7. m,. y,s .M?/@ '3-assistance were provided by NPl. Bechtel utihzed a competent project organization u f@$ W.g[M?.} MM.t... l' , e v '. O..r#.~: n. O u A.' ', to execute the detailed design work. Interfaces, includ ng those with Westmghouse, f 2 .B;,,4.. %@;. 4% . y *'C, p.. were generally well controlled as evidenced by the consistency of design documents. (d ,'.,,. 4, y @"i, (p; fQ'r.vQ,.3 f g' P. g Nearly all the deladed design information reviewed was adequate and consistent,in. f' ON//~% e*.p dicating a controlled design process.I' g i'.M 0. MY r n&. y a.n.:&w&.. hk.$..N,&.c.$.:.~& W w q m/ @ W pM @hdh32%@fM@M$$.$ The letter transmitting the report to the applicant reiterates that no per. Ms vasive breakdown in the design process was identified. And, as we dis-M6 W , ',; &w.,1.W p ? w.t? ;J ' c ~E.* @#. p,m..,., M A "- J ' ~ cuss later, we have reviewed each of the specific matters called to our at-s n-c .,cR tention by the Intervenors and find that they are readily expla.ined and pose no safety threat. In our judgment, the I&E Report, considered in MMY f. 7 7 MM '.T- . (W[ N@9 [.,.#~..:v ?.'-W.>[.s.
~~g.g?.],~~
a ,h6 its entirety, is broadly supportive of the Licensing Board's determination 3f {..m - a m,N N.M, N, (which we affirmed) that, despite specific deficiencies that were ad-i t- .e , y u. y dressed and resolved, there is no pervasive pattern of quality assurance 'C + r?',37? breakdown at the Callaway plant. '?~- w< v .y ? f[.. ' .s[ .i. ~,, .... ~. y" Do.t ' ~.".'?..1 . >,m, .y# % a n. ,,...3c. , ~ ,s- , 2 -- r,w; gy - a p. <,.s. .,~, h "' '4.* *.a. 3/. ' ;:C+M Mid. ai l4 to l.$. L i,<'.,. ~l o}.7~ .s ii TX @N ' '4d.,. 1211 5' tm .., ~, '2 9 ^ + c 6 ,~ 3,: c;,1 - N p.. q c.
~~7 ; y ; N g~~
~~(* g. .c lG 1 a 4.m 3;,.. J.,. %,' y% sf ?,...j ' n1~~
~~2. M lc.Qg i it.4' ' N &t.;;.- A q l.U.. -~~
~~-e-y ,r :~~
~~s. y,y... :...<~~
--n: .n ;' -., --- - ~ m - y ' ,,w. p,p., 4: .-. J 7,.We '. ;7 e,,.. w. n. g w. e y -- ~.e. -- r m; -c .y 4.. 4,. P., n. s. c c.s n,:J y :W:..?. c., 1 . t..' c~ v'n. r.s.,, -n .'^ s. %. s~."t' .r y ~-6 .L ,~ f ? M'- '"r. s.. e.".
~~y. s a.~~
n .a n . r r ,7 yg.: * .. e e ,e ~ 'T M.rg.. y ' q.f m@l. 'g . Sg ^ ' ' ' h'f .-e, s e r, ' (,.,. f y [ 5' +5 8' y, ' " 7t? m ~/ : 7<. W 7.;y;. }Q;i%K.'MM' W J[ s u..' P g., w$f'# i l } C,., dy 6 - - y,', o ,.. s n' . ' I s k .,'.s / (.'-* g ~ y q { s q -t ',u n.v. ; _ c ~
,..g .,..y, ~,,y v a, %y; >W l Q ;3 y.. y.W,4 w V ;;r.7%. 'n;& K'::-.?Gg% s4 : C ; - y :.c' m.. .C.' z .+w g,: ...,; t " d..,.. q g::: :.hy,,<._',&$,,.M...yW. Q,. y;:.y:m, p, ;;a ,.?6 s y. : v. n; .m + a ~.v,w ~ N,t..m.,m.,,xm.,.u. a.,M..,.7 MOM.%:::,@m,r1- @m., m m., s.y 'W, ;..,....M9 C3. 6~y.:' ~,:_ 9,w;v., E 'W 3 T - l _. S. W G M. s M N.:y.+. ,h. : e .m y .. g, m,. s yn.. : n o... + pg %,q..m. g,. -p,k n,: m, - T g.:,,. 3 w:~.;.w/ y.g' ;.n y/ %n;w.5eg r *? 4;m&. y a y eryW.sv 4 q.y m.i ..p,.yw.x,.n: v-a;r .g;.. v g. . gg. ,x L. 4 n. .. zg % mm:,,::su.~e..r ~" . R. yfu p , M, w D :: Y;T ..x x-a.u d er n.
~~> 'g; r-5:*6^~.w~~
~~^ A '~ f.s,; -(:v.o.,g;% yra,, ', c --".~ ~ " v. m %'.,M W Q W;.: 3,w..w.m.~s%g,.9 i.,migy% 4 + t +d.g...j., .m., a. w,.y' 9l j 4 t '8 ma <.3. ~.p.y.h. P ;j .6. 0 - n, + n,., A,7 ?,,,~~
4.;.p t.~.c.; s.c.. 1 s,

,. w p.S i
. w,,....,e. y:. .u. v. .~... n w.. :. 4.p* + ; a.w ~.. n.... p. m s p.. p%m. m.'a&.. s ~ w - m .. #..K q. i. wp :. M 2. Specific tlkgations y:m. g ?MM.[e.. -[ ' N'hi?$g We do not find that the information contained in the I&E Report calls m M.'.?. U,.7., v a 7 ;;gi.;; JA G r,? into question the safety of either the embedded plates or the SA-312 e. N2 .n .,@,. @l.9d; & a g('~-yfg:.. M: g .,..... ~. piping used at Callaway. y ..< >~,n D~ :l:%,
m. 6.m x.7,

.v..
,y, : 4 y, s. W ~;;;,~.l & QWli& a. Embedded Steel Plates y;so,. '+.yn,.G. m. [ ' m.1,~,..h.!h. .. ~j;2N'; O %< ;j port their claim that the " Applicant has failed to prove the safety of the jf-JE The Intervenors 9oint to findings in the I&E Report that allegedly sup-b.W' g&EdMP/ cdh,jM'9 -4,.EU h ,h h.;y."c;[ $ N Mfh*h(( ..e. m
~~f % N M~~
several hundred structural steel plates that were embedded in concrete before welding defects were discovered."" They further contend that W '/ g f e.d. g b 9y "Q2M the plates are inadequate to support the loads imposed on them. They make live arguments to support their claim. We discuss each in turn. N,y Mffy,?.,j 'f:'],[v..R,e.w,sy M., g e. First, the Intervenors cla.im that Unresolved item 3-1, which notes a 4,m.., 4.~ .m- '> M l 'g.r. p, u. g y n 9,. m. s m.;. .r. g c vv.~. n,. 9$a$..,[WQ.WWI2id.,Q possible "non-conservatism" in the calculation of loads due to seismic e w . Q ; M...; W @ c % e ra97If.W Njk'"3 anchor movements, undermines the finding that the embeds installed 4 before certain welding defects were discovered are safe. Our review of i %. . %ge%. .M [m)p[4.e.W >;p9.- w + i
w
[f.: the report indicates that the "non-conservatism," if it exists, deals only '[3.h @ S.$Sg h.%.Mj.%' y.A with the computer program used to calculate the loads on pipes and pipe c.c R,y ' g M.d supports, not loads on the embedded steel plates themselves. As pointed O.._ :, 0;lpf.Mv.F@.fw. h.;-M, i.f.. out in the applicant's response, a separate analysis is used to determine ~ ? . e: m S c ;&. ~ y a. 3,, W, 9N gc me N,,, T,e
~~q. n ;t m.~%mM, the load on the plates." Any "non-conservatism" would not affect that~~
. M p ut m~ ~ 97.gq.. M g n.p-i:@u separate analysis. Moreover, on their appeal, and even in the Petition a , 7,.M s *: .S./h.$.$ for Reconsideration, the Intervenors expressed concern essentially with JM 'T,?*.%@/.49;[1,K@T 7 the safety of the manually-welded embedded plates installed before the , :JJWy&.'jj h.(- g $ h 4 June 1977 discovery of the defects." While the loads imposed on the J piping are a part of the overall load imposed on the embedded plates, it p, q,7 @J N @o - i.g g'.. i c, E h Q ,4. .r appears that even the pipe anchors that may be subject to the <., << zg.,...,c; g;g@. L.!;J,., yA. w..>M/e.s@e[5#pg., "non-conservatism" are attached to embeds that are machinemelded and .,,,....' hb.[ M. :8 were installed afer June 1977, when the welding defects in the embeds . j' ? ,w ._ gh;%c.M,. .o v .~ M were first discovered.'8 in sum, we do not believe that any supposed c.J..dyW e;m..,~ Q.e @a w"$ O. h. p..,,:. T<: t,.-.: a. . c; m. ,non-conservatism,,.in the calculation of loads due to seismic anchor . 3 3; c;g.p d>nre.m;4.q;p,;wC.y r ,.; :h M:.. k..FN;WQMy m vements calls into question the safety of the manually-welded es vs a. M Mc3 W d %,q %,.,h g.Dy 9.$g e embeds. Q,WW 4.5 c., w' t Second, the Intervenors allege that l&E found "that the loads imposed r, f.. qa.s. 99.. 4 7 M,ap>W.R3,w.Q., .e' o %.2 by the floors of the auxiliary building, which in some cases are supported s ,.;W.,1 4 .(.. '., y, ~ A. s s.p..e.- ,. i 15Petmon for Reconsiderauen at 2. ,r. o.h, . y,,.,4 3 g J.,.c,. '; q' ,3. See Applicanfs Respome at 10. and Exhibit D. AMdavit of Eugene w. Thomas (october !1.19835 w 4 .: % :s : ?:n[. an 2.
~~= l... <;. [ ',, l TM}c."./' l s~~
I? Sir ALAB.740, supre.18 NRC at 35156. (. f U.(1[6q'.)' Q' j f {'s 5,e Applicanfs Response at 10. and Exhibit D. Amdavit of Eusenew. Thomas (october 11.198D 14 1, 4 '-. at 2. w,e,Hz :! s. .~ ry4) h.::,.:- w. y:... ;s ~,. a ~.". m. y....u &.w,.. m 4'.n;s.k %g m s' 4, ~ ./ s r v.w: yv. 1212 4., M.4 A.,,N W;Q de,.i,/ .s.r m.a .f, * - V. p % 7,y ;.. s -s. - n.. s
'd
., .[ ^ ' ~ <- . q}". -g 4.' . : ; g gym. '. q 4.g' - ~ ~ -- - r- ~~ m :.- ,6 6: , '. W 'm :n g2 r y m m,. ;. e.m.. r, ,. r: .m 'n c , - f g :. ~ v x ,_y',' J', ; y ~ p ( . g '.w'.;,.g.f;n : x.: ~ . '.ff;q e .3, 3. ,g .N,'-' ,"g'L v.. .a s .am',... s...
e
~~[0 . ~., ' --i '". g A I -l gi1X., (9 ~' q= g. s.. u,.i";g^p.,l-y '. "((f., 7 j[y'.c].~~
~~w s..~~
e- ,'s'M '~, .[~. ^ ,P i $,-[, ,,,. u.r [w.,.. ~, .,~. g ), s. l "'?**.' 1 se
4 xm- .t w,. ~,.. j.; p m,. e. 7,. s ay.,,
~.
. n:.;,;,% m ~ ,.c, m ,~ 2, 'j n }e.._ ' p,7 ^ *, ...o . s., 3. c J.. "s .. - L. w_:, .w 7.:,, - .. a.. :~,=. a. 5.7, n > - f. v .1 4 .,.s,z. w s y. , 6,; s ....p,p,:',~ -.;c n =, ..-l g p =aw* .w. .... +.,.,/ ...] ,, c,. 49's l_~ -,l j
~~a. '.9'~~
.y ~ n r. g c;g g,W u..~a.., tan.: s,.y,'d.( d " ^ e" '. e, cal-w y/ fr:% by embedded plates installed before the discovery of defects, were ~m h that the ' 't.J,. 6 '; ;G ~ i/dy$.d. M@#j,W L j- - s..; culated incorrectly during the original design of the plant suc s w (uy.,. 7 y h t had been m.;p. vt as built loads ' exceeded the original (seismic) spectra t a,,,,, hey point fur. m. N:~.w m:m f x ,g W ove p< w ~.. - c m~ V,p% ; y fp t -3 X a . eQ used m. design, by s. mficant amounts in some cases. ig. mmunicate the ..,.i b. -f s ~@N3'm ther to an alleged " failure of Applicant and Bechtel to co.nerea S$'.'y $. 1j@ < ;.4 7 ' -- -., %s.v..y.w hm m m. l is ip v p h i systems and pm f;.p to evaluate the effects of the greater loads upon t e r %g;.;. N.$f6pi 4, t p.j. 4 ;31, ? ~ u @%. igg [.yg*.4 components.,,, fM ' 6, - p5,ghfd%yg.pM;&N E,.a The 1&E Report notes that fM*"V'@h MMMFJ/::ZMW]: E"v%.k d tions ] Bechtel had calculated revised Door response spectra using ac h fTN, Nm.%qn'.W'i..W,%w{.g.... p -My l ectra n p 'agq m cases... Revised spec. g fp/gygpt.8yg ty,gQpNg i g h that had been used in design, by significant amounts in somesuch as mechanical and MAI.PM,gg%y,g Qps tra had not yet been sent to the other disciphne groups. electric. to evalua stems and pg pN m ;, gggg;v.y(Mg y.gy%g;;T g g,
~~3 3 3: r g y 3~~
components... 2t Q.ggg l i mic l'j p @g w^ Q ( 4 g. w @d y As we interpreted the report,it did not conclude that the origina se s e. ,.9, ognized f .AQj Q response spectra were calculated incorrectly. Moreover, we rec Qm.%n.R. g@ h difference between Q.$W%h'fy that there was no necessary safety signincance to t e y g.: Q i g y p l we were con-the design spectra and the actual spectra. Nonethe ess,cerne t s.; mE M., -.. s J h fety a I,3 g y. n h M.i. ' l. M...5 A $. E d in the signincance, if any, of the differences between the spectra use D..d7s a. M MJ N';, WA.%g$n sn,. w l d that, as of w. 4 original design and the revised spectra. And we were troub e g 4 li oups had not t t y. m the date of the l&E inspection, the relevant discip ne grbeen s.WjGRJh9hd.%L gg7gg i d d/2%' ? MX. 9M.M. G;y&-. %w#y.n..~W,@ h 6 8.g# @p h m., us as to an order requiring the applicant and the NRC staff to report to determining v. what has been done since the I&E inspection with respect todesign loads, and w :gM G. ;
~~p w.~~
2@ ..l.g S p %.Q W W py,M v 1%c if the loads imposed by the revised spectra excee I the I enors to com-w the safety implications, if any. We also invited the nterv gn h N N d @;g. M X ment on the reports.22 Responses by the applicant and the staff were ..,a, %gQ: M7?fM Died on November 4,1983, and by the Intervenors o "M L%S$
~~e M.g~~
~~$EM[MMM[$E M h i itiated a f;h$,$ affidavits, indicate that since the I&E inspection Bechtel J.eL q f %db. y% M M % W se Ed jfff ff .N h~~
~~wm%p$-I~~
> "w w' 'asMT'R'hf- [* t# QA A 6 *NM s .Y2 " * *' <?. ~ ? '.M%.gr. !3 (l -9,fM;?,% M .14 . $,' O h i @' ef.Mf.G*@* % -l' Peution for Reconsideranon at 2 r l report or a statement {i ~..M m. C g% .W-sT 28 IAE Report at 4-9. Intervenors' argument regarding the omission frorn the inaort carries rr weight !>.".M'- ? O id, O.s'D .7 20 Il at M .,j V , _ t 'J; N;N "M %M I iS 1 f sume that IAE was ab6e to or concern by an NRC inspector contamed in an earher dra t repsab. sect to cha -(61 m. si' m g resolve its concern dunns preparanon of the rinal report. - e.. 45..,,J ,.a =
~~..a,~~
~~-% - g p g;+$ %y;M M l jr< 22 Order of october 20,1983 (unpubhshedL y,.:,' .r -1_ q s 2 1, t . Y f [r.!. n? e [.M 9 ,r n.-an ,n. v* O. ~ h m L }.j ".~, h n-)8 1213~~
~~c.,~~
~~t. .m.- -at " o I 4.. y.~- 7 34 . g'.. '. e- ,i g ;. \\E , L,.+ M;s$g y+ ;a. ;' n hc .arr.. + t._, .:.3. [ g;g.. %,% s.)M.. ~. rs. ~ 4". /t U 'b./ /I.g. u. Y w=a e r q-D. M y; $;~. y~~
~~'f yp e~~
~~"{ - tt A;s. 4%c..e . e.,. m.i~~
~~m 4;.-~~
y;. - - **= -.~*rei--am'*- % ?'-qM.'. b .d; ,h ,4. g,, C s.? g 4. g. Jg . pg.,.g.m.:.. a.w. w%. w.v--m ;- 3 - e,. v..Mi pe.m +g ar**-swe y* t;a. ; f (*p;r,g{g;qw*s e a v m. N j 6 y.y ;'[-j,p 'T. h,Q S] m pp 4
2 V y.; $y.g g g;n,:q[: g m% QYA*
~~w-e* ff <; ..Q'..w- ?y;7 y,~~
~~6.'f f:" : P M ;; %.; a mpWw. < _.g~~
~~.-t m h;& < ~; A p .. z.. pyp. %.k?~~
~~v. %.,~~
~~.. a m %e., s. w ;.y.a-~~
q
,y M. j m,..;,f .n... ,. w..,.... w #;yc,j...a %. , e.[;.m'd[Q2[ w..s;f.u. 4..y a.e.. W e... ~,a_ie y- ~,~1 n ya ,,4 e g.fy q g m y+. a 9.m + .. + r. .h $ 0}y* $,*.,y s ,, r. ;,q;g g.A g.a w s.1 m. . at y e' w . rt e. N ', g > ~ ,v
1. a, : *
~~.Wp 4 q .y .e..rv e w.3 w gg.m. 9 3 %,4,.4.. ;g, g. ;y%% W 5 & y.T.Q Ml,6 &:n $ y ?> & c Rft..x : :i Q - nr %;ry d.n_ q h h O.. M d'E Md.S @y;&p Q );Q;%@y.r.n %;m.. g mn ~ -;;.,,.m,-y,- q.p W - gw~~
~~ng~~~
.,y n -Q p c MMM%he hNeNNN. &.% 'n/M VM 'u 2 MM.ric- ; Q.%.,Ml 'y 2 y %g h WiW 9li.%? c fkjgM G %x Mll.;y.b,Q ' M.f.W),.jMI ~ %., %. g.r Wy.;.&..M. m. c-MGwW%m,u%, lng #gdY4%slW.: g@.m,.;p.& Mn.Q:..?.@& m:V. f,,;;n p.W, W,M&r es% W m W 7.n nm ma-a.4m)pw
~~3. %,,m.im..s.~~
4, urn m m.. /. w.n y.n e.,A y ce,,w_,g. w a.; w a H. M, x,% #c,p# %p: w.s q# w...,. 3. w. n, y .e.m.. .s en 3 .m M g.;&o w . p .~..; gn. g tw.% w,.;g ~;.q.g%y ga .$ M v e.4 p c. m.,.vg A g;w. p p .g *, w.o q y $a ~
~~m..~~
.m s lQ*gr w ; 3 i .v ,if. lie h ky d,. } h/i.% l f.TQM@[ie..\\ L. *. t W.' t / C 9p:@$.'M :Mj CM spectra. That review is approximately half Gnished and no design defi-N,.dD ;.[kOO $ NlM[M ciencies hase been uncovered. Importantly, the review is complete as it [j $;$:, relates to all of the manually-welded embeds, and Bechtel advises that ,, y w,<:: w 7 4. 7 w..;. $-T) there are no load increases on any of these plates as a result of the M i d g g.. - @(. k hy r @ s .. g.y "as-built" floor response spectrum curves. The applicant and the staff %E g,q s.;y /.pjQ' [ 77; Q $.4.$ claim that there is no safety significance to the embeds resultins from st:w e.J.;.. 9 the change in response spectra.23 .,n +, y w m.m m'ag.x w: v,m The Intervenors contend, however, that nothing in the submissions H... -~. y.M3y,@a v ws
~~u. 7~~
,:m .m ". j f. : n ~- an . m,'.M W. -. 4 A by the applicant or the staff permit independent verification of Bechtel's i s. . m.# .. ;;. map G Nig determination that the changes.in design spectra have no safety @ M.@ '.$,M & M.E.%v .a 1 ,M .C W. significance. The Intervenors urge us to require additional information Wn%gl y., 3 y 6,.;.W.W,.g:M%%,b.'MM.[$ and appoint an independent expert, if necessary, to determine the safety [ s .M ' of the manually welded embeds.za .s... x.e We are satisfied that there is no current basis for reopening the record
~~a. p, q.,.; g. g&u.u_.%m,, v.,~~
~~9..-~~
~~9. u /, L. &w! M M M i k g 7 t C,3. '~~
w or deferring decision. The I&E Report does not itself call into question '.s W M 9:% Q W ;%cf.h the safety of the embeds. Bechtel's representations, coupled with the S.r & i2.'/* .h u@A*-W '**: h4 "/% N g'.3 p >h KMf;d 5f p%jfQ Q.QK:g %Qg$p,. ' staff's judgment that Bechtel's program should ensure adequate resolu-d :.QC.g Qg;M W tion of the matter, resolve the concerns that prompted our October 20 y[ order. The Bechtel review will be completed by the end of the year, at f$m ;Py .. r m w. p. a...w n m.,.wn. M which time the staff will evaluate its results.25 The staff shall make a p 1.; p -gy. a.
~~v.. /- -~~
TQ O .j. copy of its final report available to the Intervenors promptly upon its +. f..A. m,. : n %g.Cy tm;MA.p,,W,6@,,. 1 g - c: g Na he 3;g..4 completion. In the circumstances, we see no reason to retain jurisdiction , @wr.IC/ff.M. ~.@s:.7DWEi., over this phase of the proceeding; rather, we leave to the staff resolution aggMW M;; 9.pdggqi hye. of any matters that may arise in the future. See Duquesne Light Co. e r p. %.r w ,n.
~~m V.~~
(Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-408,5 NRC 1383,1386 . %y,m, m#w.f.M va G G, ;. e awa% x ..w.. .,. v., %.4.~-.,1 (1977).,* ~. m rf. A y 7 -< 7 % *'.M t Third, the Intervenors refer to Unresolved item No. 4-2, which found [. [ M.Y M.d W $,,#$ M.e-[ that the field inspection " indicated that the load transfer path used in M' y@;K@,.g;jggp@ggjjg y the design calculations did not reflect actual conditions."27 Specifically, [ M:.*.?h.,). 6 Q.N MM-? 7'JC design calculations assumed that a pipe stanchion would be " centered O $,,& M,H.p:dN( ~ over and connected to two embedded plates which would share the .<4,~.~,,> . y ;,;,,..~ e -m.. n ..-.f'... . c.. ......% g. 't 3, s
~~T, G %~~
. t. ? ? , $? .g . awM. -ZW :. l. 23Apphcant's Response to the Appeal Board's Memorandum and order of october 20.1983. at 3. and ,-f. w "r,f p. A.d o '.. $ r m./..T 9':.p..b;. c. ' f ' [,.5,,,y'd,'c[yl%fd.[f{yq %,W.M ' 'W q. YU .!DM $'D Affidavit of Eugene W. Thomas (November 3.1983) at 6-7. NRC staft Response to Appeal Board ^ C,m i n e Memorandum and Order of October 20.1983 at 4. g 7' 7'? 2a Joint Intervenors' Comments Regardmg Responses to Appeal Board's Memorandum and Order of Y "i., %, j '$. M.%'6. ;f. ' % @ M(;Q _r october 20.1983 (November 15.1983) at 1. 4 r 25NRC sta!t Response to Appeal Board Memorandum and Order of October 20.1983, and Affidavit of 7-
~~m., g.~~
.o - = Denms P. Albson (November 4.1983) at 3. Mc M n this connection. we do not endorse the intersenor's suggesuon that our disposition of this issue 'N '* I constitutes a delegauon of responsibility to Bechtcl. On the mformation before us, we are sausfied that i V N7
~~1. -~~
~~the embeds are safe and that nothmg in the I&E Report suggests the contrary. We are also confident , ' ;'[ % ". i Jc j ~'~~
~~c.b <~~
~~that the stafr can pursue any safety concerns that might arise as part of its ongoing mspection 0,,. .c'c '" g responsibthties. 'rjM ' j 27 '. s. 4 g. ftg_.~~
~~. h '.,.,'.fs 4~+~~
~~N,., .e~. 4 ; s_ .: y e n IAE Report at 4-16. q ~v 7, '.4.. %.,.g. p%,, ~i ?-3. 47* Ty q.. r. , W wM,:.u.yG'M W hV.x%.. .h V. E.Q . Q 5"'b_.~~
~~., s~~
., i I g. * ' [ 1214 , m.N <- ; wm 1.3 3 9 -un ' 7 r ij,f, t f ' ? v.- 7 d, Q k *,'.. ';c,Y 3. f ? ,T 1 <~ + PE - p y \\;.;- .nn- /., _= ;*
Mi
~~.' M 4 ] 2 y.vn ~<n : ..y' y i .e.- v..h *,, .._.._S^'['*.';y.__,.._...._ '. _ _., 2 ."c,,. -....,,",'..,f y.,.,, '~~
~~f..~~
s d, - ..Ut, ( a ,t .y. y, ,.-n w s-c s s m, p e w. Q> ,....i ,n, s,. 2. ,1..s p. -.,.. s. '.L. @. 2 g.j g.' %, > 4.=- 2 a.ya < :' - ) ..,,,..w. s s s.'.' n e-le. s g,,* <? '-~,ss "} l,* MW-g ;.M.U - - ~. , e','J.- ]' V f. = n + 1 s w ~, ,,...,J h Y ' .y - [ E' .r
).gVQ J.

3 "-
~~9? t{ '_j. w.? ' _a. n. y '.'+q yjt @ :/~~
M ' 1

., :s Ngef,g.- ' #.i;...
~~~ nw a ~. n,2 ?. 4,a. - ;~~
~~j 7 7. ;* gy. g~~
~~. k =*t ,.g a - p' $.' h... m-, ;y.g r .g _ j,t _=Oy- =. ', s, * 'I' '. g.g' #. '7,,, i,, a g l._-_'- l' '._.__li' h._[ i i___ L w __'__m__i 1 x _['ig[___~~
=-
~~- w:., u ~ r ~,w n......y;r. L: >~ v , ;, n, - 'a~,.J 2. v,:n.: ? .. : n~.v 2 y n 2;R;3 :.. .) ;.~~
e

s.
~~..t~~
~~.w- ..ex; ;.,,.. -.. s. .-x,.u. ,y.,~~
,~
~~m n e e m. ~,,,.e,,... ~, -t ../ : t 4.~~
~~w. -~~
~~4 + =. a w. m ~...o ., : / :;., i p- - ~ < m.. y g.e e. _.3 ~~~
a. ' ~ '

p;;,
~~~ u~~
~~n. p y ;;*ym., f., p~;, -~~
e <,,.. ~,. ~ n..n l t g v r... ^.4. " M,. W;.--e, ; ' m - 49:'4A ..gst i > b Nl9[9. '.T JMb@jMEkbMi, load." In fact, the stanchion had been mislocated. The mislocation re-sulted in the load being placed on a single embed only. I&E notes that [ 3,' D.DSW M,W-' Y. ':MM -,.a.. Bechtel personnel subsequently revised their calculation to reflect the as-h N J..M J @ k. - - ::r, t., A A W.. -, w S,W ~, :# M.~.. ~ . w 't.,y,..>. l built condition and found that the load carrying capacity in the single 3-plate was adequate (a finding with which I&E does not appear to M, ?.. c.,W.h. TQ i W QcS.Te@..?. W C. ..y..t. s.. w disagree). I&E concludes that further evaluations should be conducted ).7% W M> to determine if similar instances of disagreements between design and . M,,. ,...' M Y.,.S...%m m. ~ 1 ' 'N , a, 1. s t. - m *w.D. ^ "~',. & e, as-built conditions exist elsewhere. In this regard, we note that the appli-w - g%c. M Vc w e.S,n,.e 9' ~<J %a u -.. :. n. m r cant's response indicates that such review will be conducted on all other (jhjM.h5M{:h&WK?k;jyy?M remaining anchors and necessary modifications will be made to ensure pkf$g,AMN%WMd)g.p that the civil design requirements are met.2: Thus, I&E's concerns %p O W W., g fA M.p,3 M. 6 appear to have been satisfied. fg Fourth, the Intervenors claim that the report supports their argument M:g that the embedded plates were improperly selected. They point to I&E's GQ.MM[;YAjDNQ9/!E' k7 ;M.n Q..+.7.x. D M. M ? WM,..*T@WAM?i ygg W,g,. -DPWU-h observation that "no specific design calculations existed for embedded 6 .wa (E plates to document the basis for their selection and placement on design W W 5st, .W/ >-me gQQyg. m.wg' Q .c drawings designating the type of plate for use at a given location,"2' and it seems clear that the inspection uncovered inadequacies in paperwork. Mit, J 7@/Wpg.Mg#G p-y IR E was nonetheless able to conclude that "a controlled process for iW % Q.i.Q N M.,$ these selections had been in effect.")* Furthermore, I&E noted that b yd.E l.. i%[Mf%hTg.% $R $ M)D.NS.4 W 5f;g[y K "lo]nly one instance was identified where there was a question of why the original designer had selected a particular type of plate."2I I&E as-Q@Vf ;q@]pp, 1 sumed that the selection was "a judgment call" because "it was unlikely g y &W e g ig;:3.g g { j -/g j that the refined analysis which was performed during our inspection was ,.g@MipgyQ@M.;. e; g:f z% in fact performed originally to support the selection."321&E pointed otit .g.%5;. *.9$yc$!g.@M.@W erm K pQfpgf:p. that "the niore refined analysis did support the original design, validating S.>- @.. W, $. b..c.s, wc y$W the judgment.. made by the original designer."32 I&E's overall conclu. v a m r 6G ymA W t-q. sions regarding the selection process were as follows: ' W-ph., yl,9M WL %*L c.Q.l:?.Q:c.fh RE-QMik L wf%?C9.%~?;fF%w f.%dy-WKkWg%[s'-Xk!Wd W: Qjh$ In summary, there existed excellent evidence of the interface action between the ) plant design groups..and the Civil Group on the examples reviewed. There ap-Y W/kf&Ny: ->W $,$W@f %.;dhdtdNg$.?4bi if 'h YBQ i d l peared to be good coordination of the necessary information from one group to hh, d M jhlkl
~~i. f. Q '*; %a - Q,J g y Q p M j p [~~
another .Overall, there was evidence that when an interface problem was i identified, management had taken corrective action and the inspector was able to f, yj . Q: ~j$%;[.%f;tMd'%(f7N6lLU ';'] %?.4 see how the coordination process had improved although the written procedures l%5Fl?.N;'QS'kN j might not in every case reflect the actual functioning process as a requirement.. 34 ', l2^ l%
9
~~_;y?h.Q..~~
~~. e&y;g$s.M.'l g % y4 ^~~
3

h p tyyc!il% p :s: m.'y
~~(- .w n 1 y- .r 23 $,e Applicant's Response. Exhibit B. ~ - - 7' f.,*W,,,N.M NNA.'.R. C wr .-ci :y,gq-Q.pl@'Q.r..(4,:q,. N. , ~. 2'See l&E Report at 411. % m.f. w,~y;m.n.- w.w w.:g . W so is.~~
~~p. -~~
.m y 1&E Reps a 4-18. p zg* g Jg,g, [. . u #.. % e c%.. -.. - r.:q " Id. d; m. e + 3.:b nf1,.?- cW:g.5 ... :. y ; M j.C:st W n:yy;\\ v M14 u 411 so s-1s. V. '6 W.n. % ~ c.g y::m:,.., r ~ ,. Y [ k }.i x v w: m g a?,[f*[*hQ k;., 'Ncm f; ; $.,m 7 w l' w .a. @DP' .W6 i 1215 p-y. " E 7 e,r.. ).h m. t.m,,..a r'~.+ 4 ., i lh> :.,f k, -& hI
+i
?:j,hh I ,ha p r ~M - ' ,.... - ~ m,.w ". urn m .g g >~~ y3e..,.+..m,.s ~ m ylQf ' ^ (*$ h ?' Q hy,, kY ,. Y$0? N' : ?. - ~ ys't.. Yy + a, A '-;.p@,:%'.t , sy,-f.2:.'*f.&. 2f,l ~a#. c ; :.r3 &. g i y;g ...&n* en ~ e m -ww - --~-- *-=~~w n mwo-o--w-~~~~=~-~ m m w z,y w ,v.s.~,',. ~- w: wls w;=:*j ~ yV .?;,G. ~ [:Q ;Q: -; -pq'".pW, y -l:;a W^%n :.y' '? , l';. ::.; e '.
~~grg~~
,;' 4 . ja. ~.s,g: '.. G.; p ;.. ; y ?n. m,q 6 & F fy Q. W g s C2 ? - 9 W ACi y. .4 m...mw..y p.n. ~, O L(:. c 2:- y.a x. n.. :w. wn y; p, n.:x. ,. a;,... :. y. 7 c,. 3- . x u.n..: m v a, n .,,- % a.Q m.u p a.
~~; h W:,s e.M. p._ ns r~~
~~u>. n.ey Q. g..,:. m' s n.&'..w r n m. _w a>: llT wf ;q.~ w w.~~
~~r..:~~
~~. + ~. n y .*.,, 3 u,;' Af,,,.m. m - 27 e %,.,, & i'. ~ s, -L <: f. ,- 4 % *h~~
~~a. v..~~
~~,";[.,.% 6 %M W -4 p:m' ~4*c O .I' n ..~.k4"- ~.c.~~
d
~~.'" g r } p. * [? ' 1-.. i.,.,N ' ~ -N , #, r? :* ASS.Q 9G ;g'ag.~ 91 K, ';h,,. ' e f. Q#...J ...Cf y',..; e. y ,y ...L g~~
~~-, g,', e~~
. S f 9' R x. :r 4, q.:E.;;d.32L ;;1 *? s ;': (..< Q. f;2 >- .-Q ~ n, 'T i ~ * * * ' + * ~. l@ g% Wrv-O, % w _Q 'g. p-., b-,, * - n. _,,_. m y ,a., e
r x $5$, ;., : c mw.f;m w m:/:m &hk hr bk k b b h..EY.5&W L WW MFWM{ R ~b Y@jm@w,.%i% wm.cM Q W t kti UbEN5Y~f% p% M p$ Wh 2;. %g h.& M' ~ % % fki W K M P M i &p+Q:w n-F yH g&f m.m .gdh W g$4 ~ b5 I$h:g;E W h+% p% m% g MfW= N N iYk? m% n %Rc ?+%1. [,v%p s e +A 9.d4& w%' @p p :4.cn? %, qla+4~MMTdNh,Wp ng.A 4* m 3 ,s ,qew,,ye. + @N' Ap,g,'s'%YM@h;4,$g@M.h 4$5&G3 y h WQ. D 4R@phd In our view, the I&E Report does not support the Intervenors' claim .y 0, that the embedded plates were improperly selected. Finally, the Intervenors claim that the I&E Report reminds the appli-hN!dh.hMN.NM; $jhp % q cant of various construction alternatives identified during plant design O@hM@MW'HQF.dyQ@j% y%gt M;,2W that may be employed where " legitimate question exists as to the safety $ Ep M % M$U k'k. tM I s-J of the embedded plates.. "25 The Intervenors appear to suggest that Nk[kN b[lh.hMh;kMhN,Q hh,$'F g such alternatives should now be used at Callaway. The I&E Report Nihs75WyNdfp,; found, however, that the design assumptions were valid and that the =8[M N %f f analyses had been conducted in accordance with appropriate procedures. M~dh..F.p$@W$gd>pfhD.NSj %;Jby# g?1 3 The Licensing Board found, moreover, and we agreed, that the safety of . hy$ @ g~ %g : D 4 f' % T the embedded plates had not been genuinely called into question (a con-r 2,B. M -ie_ 7 h %mq .;p~w,4.;; m @, p p, 4 %%iJ clusion with which the Intervenors obviously disagree). Thus, there is g s tr 4*. b w@eg.T&g n reason now to employ the various design options noted.in the I&E U;aN m q W[ 8 4 % W Q M S M.eY M. g Report. m %n'hy.k*m %.w% [. Mrb.ex.y QffA .M e d M Rf 4/ bWt ' D. 9 p %w. u v h* %.W P @ & m; &;r q $p +% % e% e; wt .;w b. SA-3H Piping b.g 9 @y %M.: n,;f. p- %..g q f &q.m.: y'f W. 7 3-4 yW; The Intervenors point.to an allegedly " improper calculation of pres- ?R$s$p$,9@Ai@W/$d@gc4Nd$g&y.Q sure within piping."3' The I&E Report does, indeed, discuss an improper h Q, m s< ,. n s d 4 w.N yD calculation. However, as noted in the affidavit submitted by the yg e me#-.@w ~ M,9.9. c v v. .a4 applicant, the piping in question is not SA-312 pipe which was the sub-Mi #cN.- g ^m$h;: q, hh$ -.w.. 4 fj ject of the Intervenors' argument on appeal, but rather SA 106 GR. B f;Q %QM. _.. M.2 piping.37 Perhaps more important, the I&E Report itself found no similar M.arfy,. M irQ wg %w f 3 ~ M or systematic errors elsewhere and concluded that these small underpres-WMQ@'.,4fgtw.9.y,u..M' M4fd(Jji 41 pay @s W p M. MM....'#7 M Q @f. $ f T +M M M M @ji @O.?;@y,: g.,. g3 e n 4 f sure predictions had no effect on the safety of the design.38 As a result, we conclude that the Intervenors have failed to demonstrate that this MM i finding by I&E is material to the issues we considered in ALAB-740. @ N g w.;r w 4hh.gwhW.@.:g a .[ bsk hNkM, hry-3 , e:t.n n. q.. N p;p m m.+; g w gig m N.q:9g 4.n, r$, vsycb 7'*V:.r .n W.T.n .n.., p'..
~~,m,~~

~~7 m o h. P.#g~~
~~M %' W py.y dy ?rt~gpf@d 3.Q C.~~
M.L,@gt A u $ f$$NIh$f / 4@k[rfQ The responsibility for the examination of safety issues is divided be-tween the Commission's adjudicatory boards and its staff. Generally '4%..@'.h$4CP speaking, at the operating license stage the role of the boards is limited MWy kkSIYhIt OW Ih[EI 4 to resolving contested matters properly placed in issue in a case. Conso-hk{M+R. pe;,r.; ff hfQ$$ L j lidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Units 1, 2 and 3), MQ.9 ALAB-319,3 NRC 188,189-90 (1976). The staff must make decisions En.MX W.f .+cp p.m@p&@y.l.g .v v .. % ? ;, Qy hW, : .:r Zel ' < %;g*y **.W'-?u. L' q ',a .. g _.'-, ',,. ;: : ' a ;j .r g-
~~g g. v.~~
.!;g N N Uid, at 4-It. ?, l.. " W,3W q 36Peuuon ror Reconsiderauon at 4. See IAE Report at 2 5. V.@l-@l? WyQ,CN$n;ggl@$ .c'. %% cp mY 37 s,e Apphcant's Response. Exhibit E. Afridavit orJohn D. Hurd. (october 11.1983). {"f@we@NL'M&$p~ w%.m. w,. 1%.n.p;p MY o.;43 38 lAE Report at 2 5 to 2-6.
~~3eam.t,~~
~~OfY% S.. $hhY ,4.<;r'hfe,b 4.f2 :im;;w p y[w.f!' A;;g 1216 e p.:p.u:~ &.; sw.h:.y ..z m Yg .EA$ $ f h. mm);$..&~~
~~w -;,hd '.'~~
~~i m: xy. :w! ,% *'h !m~~
~~I h -? r Y:~~
~~b YA~~
~~.h.~~
~~. b=*.s".s&. W... ^ f<~.?.Q...(. u*'.~: &.. &a n<;.j .4 e o r 7 . g 4 II . J J 'l f~~
~~4 j80~~
~~. f-' ., m"ogT ". n).p'.;g'. 2 w. v*. , d.r=4.q :-(v-o e-mg ~? -.w. ssp.c.2.w.- r%*W** *2,wWyr.Wr**rt:W"p.m m V, e =w -~ ".*:ve,. v., a { k.'[;~~
~~7.[.~~
~~he eh ' a '.M *s. w' >l 2 ..% '9 ".:,r,f i 2 ;cJ ? .,,4** . f k.y ~ i *..e.- k,s. .,jg ]. y., %, . V.Le. % e. a n,,. :-,.4..g... m., w' w s'., 2..c,^.%<,u: N .[',,~~
84.I*
~~8,". ..'g 4 c pg. . '..r.,.' e m~~
~~w....-~~
~~w w mn.n y;;4& r .. -vn p ,.v .w- ,.v. .,. -.2 w-Q<. n, e g.. p.y.3.,, J. u, + q-2~~
~~.,,yy.~~
~~.b9 :.; e p%. f,.. m ;&,, g. .s. <r ..,,_m's'.... o ~~ /, e .M n ,., 0 'Q' i- -g* 4 N '~~
~~f ** 7.- s J,n ' '4:[ f _3 QQ' O ', my p.,. s.. (s.oh'.%"-~~
1,' + w. +.. r . i r e -'M fv .s,,..ty - W-3.m/ me,.g;. ... ;.e. u,':'qg' #* '., *g: c ( '4 Je ' D J d C, +.* * *',' \\' 'y' "j\\ '0 f"' . 'c O"j 'y p&',,. a* .g'..,.y T*
~~c r~~
~~4 .. ;ln, '; e,m,m.,yo e,,.',$g$ E~~
~~..g 3. - w, A ;* g.~~
~~(..3h-s .1,,.. ' e. y r~~
p-.*
~~p 3.w-:,,. s :u. y n L:w;Qggwy.L*Qg;g :.,:p 4cm.~%:,.69p%e.: a. w;;Q A r.m.,..,:.s. m.~ c,. my ;m-T4. ,p ts*'- w w';3. m',< 4,,4 ,p,.~~
~~c. n. ~m~~
. ;. e ..a.. Q g &,. am.m d w w .g c p V Y '**** 7 m -. .c ; e y ~y f; yp,.. ..... p: n F.f'.,a %:i..R .; N:,:..,. t :. ' u M ~a m - p.g..h.gi::3 av L n B.,r ,4 .w-w x. .mgw ..m.m-y-:.m.m;;. e 4gf. QaQ;, gg g qp ym m.y.. ,~<y:~p
m o ,2. %. i c - w. .3, .m.. : 3.: ,.n s .,-yw,..-..,. .. u.. n...
W,s. q; >. s/.,:, 9.. K.

s. e
~~-a ~~~
~~. ~~~
~~L.._ .,.c x. ...,e... ,a y-7.:~. y>, -w- .sn ca , 'W:, *.... - u...s. ,n ," {; _g< ~ i --g ~ m # mm.~~
~~;y.,.~~
~~Jy@. n.i; ?..2;' 1.s,/.3:M3 .t .e,~~
G.
/ s . w s ; m. n,- [. F c N:YS.:.Q' 2 ". @B W}d j $ ? g d ;. D -ya-( 1 i d has a fur-on a wide range of safety matters not placed in litigat on, anf individual applicants and E., M..,,,[.'$. w$YS@> r,. 6 - A. ther responsibility to superintend the safety o lted in the ..+m .m &A/m4..g;A.m.. licensees on an ongoing basis. The I&E inspection that resu W
~~e ndertaken in t~ -~~
. z e, M. 1 J m O m. _. W : %,..M. a. M. yy. %... r report brought to our attention by the Intervenors was u + n C. c'.% $. w -Q A : fC s the exercise of' :ese more general responsibilities.We have review M A;
~~W M,. Y., n % :?~~
~~i con. L M.hjhY,.w P ~, N... W.;W, Fa$- r ening of the nection with it and are satisfied that nothing warrants a reop M..p I. M...... D.,T W h.L, r V Nun J We have not at-m~~
~~k...e_~~
m record to examine the matters litigated in this case. findings, unresolved items e Q N.. w% d p M.. ? n.e M . ~ :. s... i M. W~ @w #s-tempted to evaluate the merits of the variousor observations inclu lution 1 j F4 em m %o.g.&g.y 9 g.v %g g g.AA .jJp4 ggf s F ; ppg &f;5hggfqMf@Wi .s 7 a? nybs by the staff." jp b 6 d fS M 2f M The petition for reconsideration is denied. d 4 G P M. q g#(5h 3?O Q lt is so ORDERED. $hS S$!E,. YY.x b.,R.m,www;&:.v.ym Q FOR THE APPEAL BOARD n .:n x. -~ .G w y rq@$y%v w aqme g,.p.~, w y w.m v c.u. s p.y m M OTM-9MdWW u. .m W.g h.,;;<& A. M. M : wW h,n 4yped.;;s WW k} 7.g+f %.:. i U:b9 w.g m . ?n%Yg%s ..m ;p u-.. C. Jean Shoemaker r,. y, v.- A, s.A e% -
~~L., ?~~
g% gi., g,,f...kr.,4.q Q ;p..N42 Secretary to the A. Mv.Y, 6 kY.-.~ !'".pp, N.;.c ef~.%. f'M.,;x ' M i.y;y*=" ,g Appeal Board M/M.5 9Qf ,C; y V:q;f*..Z:.Ne q.,d s o ~e* N.g:.w% '?[..Q"w.m.%. $w - v.m, m ~w.r %.-. uU 4 s n-r' w f p%.-e %m % W ;, M,;, y,q
m
~~. t. ';. , v/. ~+" :gM, 4.. 1 r.M.,.e4.~. : f i~~
~~-m;q q..g ICst Ik'~~
~~.h. ywq4 y#QWhfal&N :.g%~~
k;p

,pg Pf F.
~~. t, W;y,. ly~;.<- d;p*v,p so j t 3][gl .. ; *%@R$ & yX7Efs&-kT.i.h~~
f
.e n. r EE.A m m.ar.qu1. c. r p.-:. m,,.m%r y 4:nvwp& g,Y' m ypve -; %Ak '- gk h f .. -yyM >u ~ fb h. 7h$ N. W W x.. &r.Q?.- 'h.; %. w :>m;g g M,&.: Q: 3,.. ..Ma.%v.y -p M... w c..] .n u-g WW W ,s c ~. h;g W,i wW: :h*@Wl% ",~ '&. - .W S &W.% f15CN%ic ,s. W Yf $ ?v /$6OEfW. erb 4Q30-f
~~h. WP..H D~~
~~%up1%$C $ mf5%./ p<&~$F~~
~~9. R,~~
~~W A. G yli M u 5% r.**4fc e W f:Q-GM PiD?@.sQ %ik%itR.G s !' ).i GT! V.,,, w. 4.. d.eA.J: d.w@ W;vh.3.: 3~ ...TM%a 1& n N I#. Y Y e## e m' a w -4~~
~~E d %A5~~
{M.,O.[r.%;gN: s Qg s/My%ggg.N._ g eJ-l +L. l;t.! l -' EThss does not mean. however. that the Intervenors are for fp y H M.wf?p s.4 W@@M d tal sssues but is unable to do so in a pendmg a - i l?# s M JIM M hum.Y..m-r Nuclear Reactor Regulauon under 10 C.F.R. j 2.206those issu l f,+. / M.,44.d.kI)%.:.,: m.: 4 party that wishes to raise health, safety or environmen 1 ~.; / t: h.; e s... Jud canon may file a request with the Director o Wm..:n n 'j n %: n 3 ?nl,w MWW estm3 the Director to msmute a proceedms to addressAtomic Power Plant. Unn 2). f.Wanna.m 7 0 !?67 0982). b Wl w> m, w w v e r.- ++ w f 's'Q G. p'1 ^4 w-n.p..q.:p[g
~~Y;f ewvh W~~
~~M tg.W s ,a~~
~~e. Vh,d. k,..A. w.h - n. h g.~~
~~1217 r,a,.s a , Y ' h $M.R ;.$Yh&&' 's B%'Y h[~.. X+p;&n. u.;N-?MD v,. m.H w eW. w.x , c a w#,*.,i*d ' h#.", M h- ;',.k"gQ ; va '.;f*/ -*.g -p" g. -%gp., n N g% n# k ~m.h'*d, ;k*a.t'kg' $. (g}- 1.~~
~~W E~~
~~h ~pMM*?, h, hh a$w% ^s.g ' :[ .k / B-w~~
~~W.Q.q i mn.. y..> p..,,.. d} h,y.o m &.~~
~~v 49 - h i N m s m' k.kh hh - ~......~~
~~m f6*:~~
~~.R g~~
5
~ =. - ~ -w - ~ m- .g4 d .,1 9 [ w, h hh[k) n, 4. 4,n p..jp waw 4 &vy'w %.Y ':,9 Ym, )pm.:~ .~ L m. ,.a. s. 7 L;. .w. <:M.. Q. gs %,[,u... rq,.y. y,:._ ;..e. s, g,.gm,,N w.7., _; 4< y,.,w. - g ~m.J,N.,
~~c -~~
~~i bh~~
~~k. khh,.. n~~
~~Nab-#,'(; 1 3~~
~~4,.. .g[ .- a 3y .u w :4-( .,g g y, p, .. M.c.,f., [g., s., _&$d.T ,,.w '.e?y c a.-6 .o m ,,,g*- ,.. ;; y' (" s.l. . m e.w;s m. e .. M_ _.. "s i _f ,gsy#~~
~~._~~~
. ' Nf' E, 5.p t.3l.yg.J.W. 4 <g b.;g, s i '<y y w,.q;~4vg,yy, e. M,- e <: q -y.M.. g : g y.s..: q A e.. ,,',. n, 'w'.. U g; ry,,s c + bf'I ,, g < !~ gg e.c*.- ?.ggy 'n f.,7d t,,,;r; [ g r n .h, = s,
~~r y..w w y~~
~ ..h.".. '?,.. t g .,t;w. s,,<^ _E% ,f% "E O_ .m .. J g.~ -p' t q ' s~ ?e - f '1 m.,, ~.A.~
-v : - - \\v- ~a, e ,n,.- .. n. g d.D$N*,?/'Y b'Y ,h "N w' Oww..w$u' m'.J Mr Wq % 6/N -h/N . - ~ %,y,so y?.b.)m~e s: w({. v. w 8'[s,. b < ' %. ? / &.@lMf:Q Q {Q M +6 s.,:. w.s p,p%;f4 % y.a;;y;+m -..,l3Q,,'s-@ Mm ./,pw.. %ew.g.+m.z .wm m .w,:: p.,f .. y. .u.m y... c m$%$ .,Rwxfp M.

~~ESNE@$NyM,;n m s. WP:&:.m.~~

[ wi W5.N: f.S * '%. m. ! +w it-wsy v.-f 3,,::. a yM;. ps.jN B 1 i pW ..u. ." N s n/ @W y " Y,, m,N N,,- Administrative Judges: .m S-p M. W SFg. m'. e: ,. (lV..f%.,f, /g 9pd
4. Q Wm.-

g w.yp:; q gqg J.YQ { }.;G.,f. p;,4 ,wa q. Q vyy pp n Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 1 i g a.,n 4 .* n. -+w-K'h.n.mm.y,,,Sm,o 90.., s r w,msocg.n .e., p% Gary J. Edles .A p.,7, w h y.., M.q3 3. x. ' p' y NWSJ'"DNjs@%,/a w!v.fs-TJ)t/Q.,d Dr. Reginald L Gotchy W.. 'pnw.f.,p,p + a;~US,'f.';'Q%q.m.c!4 wv Q tQ 9.,', y > M ' .-Q W. m q.:n sm -re e

p

m.

p p.3 : y-. 9,:.p.r-m. cpw.fi:,,m,s't v.y

~~.% "k5@w u,MM,d4.m% %; D ' M.,. dW in the Matter of Docket No. STN 50-483-OL 5 w , ? w\\p,a,m,L qv~~

~~a. s.~~

~~.p :m g .y .l h ,,y UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY ?.@M@l@QhhD.h:4.?).ygM f,y (Callaway Plant, Unit 1) December 9,1983 .U wMdh ypt..s)ff.QMyQMp M@ 'm %:p .h. 3.i&O$M&&A29'%RQ)%?Q~~

~~SBNR' 2EdMhhfqM:N The Appeal Board supplements its previous memorandum denying G~~

M.b.:.M... )w$M:6.s@p:... 841$.h $a[cM..s M the intervenors' reopening motion (ALAB-750,18 NRC 1205), in re- ... qm@O - W a:.<.W qs . #e : m;. m. %. w. a. ;q A' n,,,e + w. A,.r. C %. m n, ..pc.x,j sponse to a letter from the applicant suggesting possible misunderstand-b ,y 5;g r..m, m. .,a it submitted earlier by the applicant mg by the Appeal Board of an affidav. s. WrWh;%..c'e.v. 4. cy-@%u sM ;. -4_4.@:c.mm .. n w q - . e ;W.7. ws a; - 7s ; - e,:A in connection with its motion. 'g V~ywe,a);,?.%,&o }} [j 1 .., #,.mrW s k.a @% ; ':&.nQ@w,${y,%,9 Q&p,,h @s.h;.;'s; o SQ.#,.$.w( U,6, s.L h . W(. '[.'" 1 s% pj hjg :OOeA.1>&y pa 2 f . lf m@.,m u@ m @ A MEMORANDUM Nk.h h$ hy $ y,W.s.g. d... @.m%, g c..m. $. 4:g g .M W In ALAB-740, we aflirmed a Licensing Board decision dealing with p %p;J.;JW(' f[t hfMh%y , W ng.g, various quality assurance matters raised m. this operating license h ;4r? 4W %:,MgMWi&,$p$;:, 8w,hk)$M proceeding.8 In the course of our appellate review, we rejected the claim Qf$ ( of the Joint Intervenors that certain manually welded embedded plates 3,}?.",$2<.K 's Oc VC: were unsafe. Thereafter, in ALAB-750, we denied a petition filed by the

~~s: 4 ;.e ; _..%..~~

Joint Intervenors seeking essentially to reopen the record to take into ac- 'a. s count an Integrated Design Inspection Program (IDIP) report prepared .23,,...J,3gj., J:,' ~a sc ff...a. 7' .s e. , w y ':, /zu ".Vy 3.,% ~

~~..Q.~~

~~n y 'J Uh 69.n,...Q.. x;,, s z. f * ' Pg N,,qy, Q G i >g 5 $ YQll%. 1 M G.,;.,j,%.il.[1 118 NRC 343 (19'D.4/J's LBP-82109,16 NRC 1826 (198D. s,wp. '5w, ; v.,y : 4.a, e. w {s u p / M 1 ~~~

~~q /,;.: a,n n~~

~~' EQ/, 2 "/. Q @.' q ;c.y y ; w e<gMd 1218 'q!% :f f f;';y* 59:QqQg.y c r ; y p e. %)-,4,l'.y (.M:g-p~~

~~s, t.,~~

~~,s... v m.s.,~~

~~l J.-;g*.p;s.,e ' ~..s?:~~

~~', ' ~ .'M +* G M s 7 ' M *;' h.ad v; e..., '. ' ~5, V ?, ,.d.~~

~~'._.. ? iy~~

~~) al & % 4 > ff ',., f _ }.'Ql* E 't ,.,"*S*** "[. j ( f' ). Q: L . c v, pa.-, v.;.7,.,. x. . - 7.:. p.m e-,.,,,.,. .y , zy m.,;~~

n m :,*

sg % y$e..;.p ;;se.: s..,. ,_.,t ,;....- f ; Q.,.l. _ W w. '.B... y r*

ltl'.. ~ _. '* \\ n, f,., ; ? -. w a. m_, % -.*

~~i ,y . :.;.g...x. p. ,r. .. '. 4'.',y " _,,. [ ", ". t] [.. '~~

~~i ;.. u; c,.~~

~~,f. 4 '.( .i:-~~

~~w.,~~

~~, 4.s.g g nm< jv.7 f-m n. c ~ ea y .~ Q .s. s. . ;s., * ', t {'+l,'y h*?'~~

s

~~- a t e.,.. s ' i-w j.m.~~

~~1. ^ " '~~

~~-. _t. ,,m ,N 7 t v1 % .g.. Q., W., y :.;.K...%. '., ' - p aS, - z W e, y l s,.. s.1. m.% u v.s a-m s p.o; s ..,o 7,. y, 1 p;w, 2 3;. - =. M@#f .z~~

~~" ER~~
~~,~2K7. Q 2 @ i.g C~~

by the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement.2 In deciding not to G.3 reopen the record, we addressed, among other things, the reference in [66: " >g?Td.c, y + 1 yj J *~ '.h the report to an alleged '*non-conservatism" in a computer program p8,jhM ' ~, ).((M, a used to calculate loads due to seismic anchor movements. On that score, 7 we concluded that the non-conservatism would not affect the analysis of p g..@' W 7.qq,,yt the loads on the manually welded embedded plates that were the subject d.gQWT;C A7b, of litigation in this proceeding because that analysis was undertaken W NY S,. k(,}0.z g [%..+..af. _'s.'/.m/l [ dry ,.g. separately. We also observed that the pipe anchors that might be subject Y.,p.!A, b.m g to the purported non-conservatism were not attached to the manually M F p. s hl/ M,p g/A' @gg welded plates. Thus, we determined that there was no present basis for ggg g. g altering the ultimate conclusion reached m ALAB-740. @y,gg~49g$%q/gy;*.Y g. M. Our decision on these points rested in part on our reading of an af- %Q$ g-ppby C~- fidavit submitted by the applicant in connection with its opposition to a reopening.3 in a letter dated December 6,1983, applicant's counsel ad-QMMl.)fQg.@g.Q-F.. vises us that we may have misread that affidavit. M-'fMFJ:WWW W : C kM@.WhNdM(k,'j.. First, although the affidavit indicated that the computer program and @.Rd .MYRN 7'. 4. '

~~the analysis of the loads on the embeds are separate, we are told that~~

~~$dd 7M@,M.-% O ? that was not meant to suggest that they were unrelewd. Because the d@l.M2@MMiM Q g Q 7,? 3. @. N. ~ 4~~

~~i. t,! c:.;!,d,.f.+dM. ~.M.~~

E' M.~. loads due to seismic anchor movements are combine sith other loads to provide a total load definition for the pipe rutraints, a non-O.c '.y@fQQ conservatism in the computer program, if it exists, might also affect the analysis performed to determine the total load on the embedded plates. %m#. & pr MMM:M.%g.yn,y.. e >4 MN 4; i.T < ? t k$g M@;w@ldyf%D$}Q;:i$. 1-The applicant argues, however, that its methodology does not involve a % MQ d. BW r d6 h non-conservatism, and indicates that its documentation for such conclu-sion will soon be submitted to the NRC staff (with copies to us and the ES.YWh@l!$ddMMMW.t-? N M M M N f b..y. oM N.M.&,e@w gn~6,.L.TM parties). , -gf@.M&i. mun 6 m M-g pWM As for our observation that the pipe anchors possibly subject to the h is W g y q q : W jg % g.t; M Aym..- purported non-conservatism were not attached to the manually welded .c WN2$ MhW h ff @h[j@ig {WpMb%QMWM[j$@h& plates, the applicant informs us that we were in error. This is so because p the reference in the affidavit was limited to the six pipe anchors that are the subject of Unresolved item 4 2 listed in the report. (We assumed yW'M kNM.CMM [, 6Mk.d7p'a$h?g (;.~ that the same was also true of the pipe anchors referred to in Unresolved hfi' g 4ss [' p%g@fhg{h,k((Q item 31, which was the focus of the Joint Intervenors' petition.) We f Mdpp$t have been further advised, however, that the embedded plates referred Q to in Unresolved item 3-1 are not used for pipe supports and thus are

~~s WR... eQ!Mf WM..,.S +@4MWMW not, in any event, directly related to the Joint Intervenors' concerns.~~

W @ y. Wl p 3 n P+.;gp3 1 p. .c . y We appreciate the applicant's bringing these matters to our attention. 6@ @$: h.c W j We are also satisfied, however, that nothing in the applicant's submis-N(;2'*}c[.$. g;'}$.h;.%r.g%wh;. m: '.e.m 'a y. m \\ o.W r - gd v i t eu,,d.g w pw;y7..w.F]t.%.e: ' M.; l b.~.r M. dw s. D '.@ @&'d, M Y Aj, W l d cht.C @G A Q y W:W.Wt 5< 218 NRC 1205 t1983). g h.: g.y iff.p--. 3 Apphcant's Response to Jomt Imervenors' Peuuon for Reconsideranon toct. 12, 1983). Exhities D hMg 4.?-W &y.%;gf*'g q ( Afrulavit or Eugene W. Thomas) at 3. y .~ QIX.c -Q. %[ p -s w A W y n.o.m.1 .?- ,f. <e w " e s : Q'# D W W,$h..IIf;h t']Q'IL% ] A h.*- F-Q - A h I " N.D y;;y:g % y @.y g qq,p.;,;q M 1g . g n:W.ags-w.c;y K p ~ t:.Ih. Wg(d.)& gy.~... <:v:y.eg.L.e,:,.y 3 khhh .h s.w?. u =: y w

~~g..~~

~~b i GiU"$w wa w a n n ' i~~

~~w. 1~~

~~, y;n.y :/ : y + W:'g;.mggep., MQ,:;<&$ 4 AUQ ppqu y;,y x : o y m m g,9 y - :: g,. 7-y ~.y. wy>. ~g~~

~~s..~~

~~u g.. .. nn; h *J. m.q&)w..g:s.w Q.4?;W,R ~. ..6;)$. m.-@' '! N';'.yQ:r-Q,@y&pG.: MO 2 c. r s f M. kr.f* :: k 3h % l % e. r '^'~~

~~, w; u.Q;.n;.~~
~~s.,.~~

~~n W' ~Y, ,a ;Q, n :ll;;l&.%Q:s%.f$ }=!y: yWu =G wn nig-Aw pm n s-t ~ 7.N.' Q.,(g...f..Nt. '& _.. Q .M... ,y~~

~~1..~~

',~~s.,*l .m .,, g.. g.e, .,..g 3...s -lj 'Kr.fl.y[Jf] hk % ':.y; ?{ ,. g?,. g k -; f Q_ .h r? " w.pgN.yg.g,p _ c q. glyd sv s l % y ;,./ i n ,c.n. l p r.,.." m r z_ ,. m u w m.,. m.7 m = 2..,..w FMk db h WW$N$Si bN$0N.NM@ $NkN hy/MlbhQ-%hY$&Wh

~~h. WSNW22&l;dh h'~~

k 5 $5?&h!bN&b 6$$$$$W i%$YN QAh2n4 W M WM'?;M M SM M W:W@h&%ph.Rv2W 3 YiM$ @7&N W5Q# WWMOWl%py&ddeN Mb MM&t$c eMp is Dp W.p. M qp A w[QhAN M@ Q M;M: NDWWWOAhtE W e d m w e W & a wl.$$F$5GW.W M-M DNdQM:8N pg4$f Wihms M 'I.m.Nb.k h@ h w % w E kN 5 h e

~~p y h y m 4 m~ Q p.g, f~~

f I -mqsg,c n w.g.b 9.:a 4,.s Wm u;- a. .,r % :[.70@$db'5 % M M, ['p. hy,. .qygw Nd N NNbhb Mkd d h sion requires a change in the ultimate result reached in ALAB-750. Be-cause the staff has the matter under review, a final resolution of the $g W dNT4'$f%A ;hg question of the purported non-conservatism has not been reached. % Mi & M/% E kidjMRb4 Thus, it is possible that new information bearing upon the safety of the '9 k$Nhj [ manually welded embeds will be forthcoming. But, particularly given the 'MNd jfA1 stafTs monitoring on an ongoing basis of the construction and operation y p T,fg.Q@ M NJ$/ Q q?qq%*6p.AWdid of individual nuclear facilities, the potential for new developments affect- .Na 'm. N Yh.K.; f;.W.R.w.q*,M:4NN,.,,M, Ml 5 ON e%. m ing litigated issues always exists. Litigation must nevertheless at some rv !+ M w '*-- b2 point come to an end. In the instant case, the applicant has indicated its .WF dr F.C wt . tent to provide a copy ofits upcoming comments to the Jomt Interve-v. ef m M ; M Q s, W &LP; a " w w e-tn J [N QA,$5 hhQ NK?M5NC nors and we have already directed the staff to make available to the Joint Intervenors a copy of its final report promptly upon its h $ b. h D A; MNN.Df.MNMQ'.3 p j completion.* Any new developments can be brought to the attention of 0' d @ N N $ d i D @ f A A3 h g4-4 Ai gm WU96 either the Commission (if it still has jurisdiciion over this proceeding at M@fg## h the time) or the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. See generally M WMNF$75M-[dMD M Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, TyMM.WrW bhN fp $tV of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Units 1 and 2), ALAB-551,9 NRC 704,707 (1979); Public Service Co. I3;NGM. iNYW!MMM?gdW@M ALAB-530,9 NRC 261,262 (1979); Public Service Co. ofNew Hampshire Y9, M~sv.v.w.s#d h p M,y:& n*g g W p w 4' y.g.w g . -..,n. 9%.@yt (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 513, 8 NRC 694, 695-96 3 .cpw m a . s r ... M g, e e (1978). y

~~gsp'd.SQf'/$&%tjd$,..e$4 h>tSI WG U,,e-$$@,.f.d, d$v,$,$r,. h FORTHE APPEAL BOARD~~

&w %x.nzy c.,m:y%,.m.:g.%'j '..wgg. e. p 5.;m.o J Wp. e %: % u y. Of ".S U,,wA m Uc. 4. 3 a g, W3. 7.w vp. : g g~yygt . M w u ~w k:y J. a 23 C. Jean Shoemaker n Q, m... a.n. m sn. v a y t M 'J M J g g M i $p.. g.+ Secretary to the s:d;w $..%,p.$q:@wa;4yeye#c:tWp,,%,_..c m Appea1 Bcard y. ys m. ~ i.* g JW A WM. Ce M*;'9.c 6

~

~~.w r':. m - m a1!N Q lY-j &.e;&., n,.YC*f,t.g mhI 3,4 N hkh&.&h9h&kY,.hlg&.;S'U hh.g6Apk$$hNf*h s ,t~~

p,

~~-n pm I {h kf; b j $h$ @S E G. M O M k M 4 # M W:59&. b_M#$.n.. %+n.N wg&, M 4~~

~~u. s a~~

~~'. ~ i y;'. a e g~~

~~.* 2.~ ~ ~y 'i,v s { s'DM.Yg.,y+.WQ,, *iQQ);s y_,, h',g~~

~ ;_ {;" 2 ' 4.,;,Q ' g s,. ~. a:.e ,~-g'.. ,- r en. .,' N'*,i / ' %, ; iQ ,' s [ .9N:,..d;.. 3 a. ' y =w- , g..; N.. =', : 6 ' .s h (. b' 'f(s.,,h...,%.[t 8 , q., _ y2'. G r f&y..L.~a > u,.y., .,..g., n.'.l, W_v_ .8

a

~~^ p Dg ;A;,3-S ~* 'ld$$ d~~

~~S" ^L^83. sur.s mc a m a :6;4i? M,&h &l~~

~~$ '?l* % ' f % ', Opp N s ' %W:Rn 4 %.n g e :, c.~~

~~y. m.. / '# p"A,va-g ';e f y %,d'M }M -."",-~~

~~" 1;ww 2 g j~~

~~e;p, n.u -~~

~~a. m g.; g 1220 q..yy r.3N @w,w.i#$::u. g@.gg.w.m.. j, m..:y QMy .s , e,.. ~ .. w e b [ [. I 1.( ' ) sf) f '* h ." M,~~

Q[,

'*;7;v;~ s + !- y

~~'g 1w c:y ."d k 5\\*- . E MVge,.%.MMQ.!~~

y - '3..y ~ 3. 3..;;gn p qpw!

q w}yJ y ' ' f},Q;.y.&':f ?.%;3[ pp v?,. _f.'." y,- ;g ag a. v. p -

~~--s m y ;,...~ c-,- .. w y .g.,,.n-g. m s . we - - ..,e. 7".r y e _. ' } G_ f.ly'Q Q'd;I) g: j C.QQ ( *.- ( ,..y Q m.j 73 + s 4 T W ':~~

Gy

~~._Qd. vu -r,w$,kmn im,a~~

~~l; 5 f.. g'~. L' h. h. w.. n; 4 w a s m g ;h. a m m m u eh. ~$a.u,h~5ff.h.g.j '-~~

~~,: w :.. e a. k,? U. c; l '.f 5 Yhb' m.'a n. $ :, f,Ay5p y =% g.. %. ~'f. ' *" y [_.;r ? _,. L ~ 'y 4'.. ? *;y q,,, x,.,. - & Q, h ",, .f,.g[a; \\ r., j,, w-g 4,,';Q.fM..Q'^C,.' ' 1,i~~

~~~ ;;, ;,., ~~~

~~Q: M (* .'flyl'..r' ? T, '~~

~~. :. ';. (.,,.i~~

~~.,y, p% 47'gC di.!'.'..k:,,$M; 6}.g.[j;W Q q. Q '~i".,'~~

~~. _; g%.~~

~~,..m x' - - ^ 4 mz _ht e.tmm; p+j.= '. q.sen. y.c pjfq. gy.s.p ; s,., < - C . ;f n.' ..s . my 3;y,Af4e c m, & ?~,- c: 3 +q..- v. c q:p. f ,y ...-,.m --o num o - s O l F A - l s~~

i I

, ;- l e.-

. =.#, k w ?,_ _ t - *~ g y s .,-'Z' s a E l w -#~, Atomic Safety W.: ~ _ ~ and Licensing Wc ~ m m Boards issuances W O u.. v. @~.'a.% n;.m, u w AM,M;4 C.x w:.s 3 ;.:s; m&. R. V.m u 1- .W 2 n ~ .c ' . *! t, '> 4, R.,}Lf. M... x..,. @@,, %. :.%.sdn W.:gG: ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL .o.. s..r -w .~ B. Paul Cotter,

~~Chairman gu-:T =..R:.~~

~ \\ i Robert M. Lazo, 'Vice Chairman (Executive) e ,M,; ;;y..p-Q.'?,,,. y ,4. n, W.. *s,'. e - Frederick J, Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical) g w c, g )%: y Members . d%& ' .F NM .,y, a., v. ' "..,,. ae Dr. George C. Anderson Andrew C. Goodhope Dr. M. Stanley Livingston .Q, *).j'.- Charles Bechhooter* Herbert Grossman* Dr. Emmoth A. Luebke* X W O.. : A W.. a. Peter B. Bloch* Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Dr. Kennth A. McCollom 3 ; @c;'dprp,f.g~ '. 7 - e. 4 m %. M M. G 4 ;,, Lawrence Brenner* Jerry Harbour

Morton B. Margulies*

~~cy Glenn O. Bnght* Dr. David L Hetrick Gary L. Milhollin 7S,.?.M.d.J.;.., '. -7L:--,. < sk..'.? l ",f^%.%. #@%.<,4r...= A <w. " ' Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Emest E. Hill Marshall E. Miller~~

~~r c.-~~

~~- ~ 2. James H. Carpenter~~

Dr. Robert L. Holton Dr. Peter A. Morris

g.f.. g"yQg, 4 W,Qpy@y.~. ;U...;M,n,W,i

~~,%,s. % Fn.s-o w.. S". Hugh K. Clark Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Oscar H. Paris~~

~~M /gg::{(~~

~~Dr. Richard F. Cole~~

Helen F. Hoyt*

Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Dr. Frederick R. Cowan Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. Paul W. Purdom MWEM6fD AN#W" 4: 4 $5kjIk%.Nlh*;$ kb ~ ~ %; 7 Valentine B. Deale Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. David R. Schink fi"y;g (( }{3 0@[. e,.. a.;. g {j..].. Dr. Donald P. de Sylva James L. Kelley* tvan W. Smith

~~W/<.~~

~~W, A. %.E< w+. .n ~. Dr. Michael A. Duggan Jerry R. Khne* Dr. Martin J. Steindler j 3-~~

~~/$,;0 &r".? W@;J{/%, :)N '-N :,..' '~~

Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. James C. Lamb lli Dr. Quentin J. Stober MQd;Q:q Dr. Harry Foreman James A. Laurenson* Seymour Wenner fp.Ggig@!;:%[-c. G'M;.j //.ii p -- J _., 5" g, - Richard F. Foster Gustava A. Linenberger* John F. Wolf @ add @df8R M:3;'.t'; POT- ~" ' M i John H Frye til' Dr. Linda W. Little Sheidon J. Wolfe* l. James P. Gleason

~~.g'th.W,. m.A._.s g [7.e.~~

~~.mp + - - -~~

~~v7 -~~

~~g f=:Q G.s 3.., d., W,... -, v-y. wm~~

~~t. >,, _.~~

~~,f..'. [ '.3 . T4 s.. - .[#- l f;& WC. >h & a:.;) ,7) - ~':. l~~

~~_.A Q,..,. v. *, q';.7;, '.. *:.,~~

~~, - ~,, m. .n.,..h.m.;1 g..:.. u..,,.. _..,,.,.r-._,,. u e' e,~~

1

~~~. 2, ' +p,f*. r. c- ..w g Ni.Y @ R tU C?\\ 19?N's Y - W c,: 3~ Q'.i. r. rr$ 7 % % % . y~ s. . n. m ; w.;:. o. ' nc.,.n.p t. a .., F. M. A,g. - ~s~~

e EN'..

+:<y;.,'=,.
~~Permanent panel members~~

~~,s :.s*,. s.. :.<: W l w ,w:e. y., - ,--_.',4,. 3 :*4 , /._ ;g ;, t_f,:: .w. + ~ -r.% 4%...: c ~, [, ^ '- Ah i -@.N t * ',' d - ~..., mC 2 -,.> . < p..;. - L : :, =.f~~

~~g.. v g h -..bmqg e -~~

~~' Y qu 'D .n o 9~~

3,

3 4...

~~3 3 3_,; q y y:~%;~.y_ m**y; g.. ..l p, r1 ',.---,nn--~-. y' 'n.#.*,_;* 'n.yg.- ., f.;,_ h. =. _, ; ~.* ~.. s.""- ~~~

~~p+.~~

~~'y., E p.g...s E . 5 .. u.. w. .f.r.,,, i -p ,..;1.,4._,,. <,1.g .{e 1 '. p' t ,,g,. { $*[ i ' W,~~

e

~~',,.l 7 - ./ t s ..,.e Wu.;. g i l r .c. 2 . :. ' + .j . y-, i --~ ye' - - - .,__,w-- 4 F i '..s. .,y.. p. l Af , q, r t - l y. s~~

~~v s~~

...~u ..r.. .s ~ ~ m y - e~. s I .....,,.:p y . ~ - s es .s Cite as 18 NRC 1221 (1983) LBP-83 72 x.h - m:r p - ,..:.~ qa UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E' s [ ~ 2. ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD y:i. ,.?e~. - . i. - j. ,.. ~ ; e.

~~cq.~~

~~e.t ~ Before Administrative Judges: v.w.i:N....J.4.,.,a-. :.o... ;y,?..,..-,,~~

~~r.,~~

~~y o s .? - ;.W M " '.~~

~~e ',.~~

~~4.W 46 %ps.. .,s." k.: h, Q Q.h... ~ b : 2'. ~ # d-James A. Laurenson, Chairman . n .~ s .sa ,..# ] Ui-T " {4..,6., %.:..-. M V;g y ' Q Dr. Jerry R. Kline l' w Mr. Frederick J. Shon t.~~

~~w. e a > : - r s~~

~~..x w .m },x. A; 3 2~~

y.,-' <*

~~'y. ,. -~n.,.-m. m s~~

~~w.,; y..;.1;/....-,~~

c [;..f. M : W, ic - M. In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322 OL-3 (Emergency Planning Proceeding) Uv 4,l, y;;^ ' T > ~ ' w a.+. ;v %., s s.,. iu> -S J-., LONG ISLAND LIGHTING !O. 2. v.WO.<,,. N,M, .. 7 - ' i- ' ' ~ ~ COMPANY s.# - c + u.%s (Shoreham Nuclear Power leMSc.Q@ij.-, M/ ' s ' ' o . ^. b^M'6>s%.EN$$' M Station, Unit 1) November 1,1983 sW t .+ m.t.: .c,..x v,1r.. 3 3...!. , ~, t.... # ~* 4? - r-r f ~. 2.A p.a.* HM.c.W M,M N # WN...S. m m.s%p;,,, -'39."_ - M Mf O' -I' Licensing Board sustains FEMA's claim of " executive privilege" pro-j$ gggg+., ~ m.m Q 7 '.;. " ji.'[:. tection from compelled production of certain documents created by that g@g.f-gg.:-Q. _ '. .f - ~_ agency, while granting motion to compel as to certain factual portions of the documents. S R.Q. Q g @,b. y Q.. M W s @ g+'V rs. o % ;7,.#w.. - t,_ . ex m s. m p$;w#.dg;m m4 yQ4.wQ. W M.6.s.M'.e ' 3.,.}mwh *Q ;", RULES OF PRACTICE: DISCOVERY; ASSERTION OF . ms,s. w n-r ,/ ^ PRIVILEGE 2 f/M@yMQ?N ";'-.%x 1 . q iW v..,. W

r
~~dj,.3.%av~~

.jj;g '*.S -~-Y yx.L-q: = a 3 ';- Claim for protection of " executive privilege" for certain Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) documents was not properly invoked where it: (1) was not asserted by the head of the agency; (2) M/MMMMS D&r W . 6.3.X MF.. '.. ~ ~ M,,."

~~s.s,4@A[WY [~~

did not specifically describe the documents sought to be withheld; (3) 2 G M. y 9e. - did not state precise reasons for preserving confidentiality as to the 6i iS4 p@Q $[- 9 M %3[D specific documents; and (4) was not accompanied by the documents . s... g..M.~IddIdW Q QE M W %, 7 ' themselves, under seal, for possible in camera inspection by the Board. e .1 ]O ? n:. United States v. Capital Service, Inc., 89 F.R.D. 578 (E.D. Wis.1981). %gg%gw.u'iL%y, .Q.g 4, m 2 -sv - n w.W.

~~.W M..f at.w+ p,.s--~~

g.p?L.aw ,c., v..- - w .y9?: 9 G,.s -?. s ~. .S... p%c.epg-Mv%f,VqJ4 - -t' -~c. 'm, -; ,m ; ; 1221 .. w~ w ; yh'v.' - ..m.,. m p;.Y: s y a.e.g N eu:#. :.. 3 a,- ...,57, ..s p s7 a. m b.26.:Q 6'h & h:Vt: " ^ *. r ~ 9 t.'M M. ..? b -. m:-.. %:rb,?py. K.,w..,.T..$,c> s ~ z - . r.. 3.. s. H.4agg s. s :::.y R,./ q

~.....;

t. -

~~4 {%u.&..w s cts m, ^e w.g'a p.,h&. m... 4,.2 1~~

.?* g'N l ex.; M

r, i

~~4Q,.K.Jf[c.,f _e,~ ...a), ;;l ' *... < t.3;. 3,. ,T,, l~ .,,f 3 _...m.. -g'r .7,. .=.@,..J.,'" ~ map gp*** Q ; w.~~

~~s' b~~

~~4 e ~ .j y j Q Q,.gi.s 4 y im-e '... ? a,, -Qs % f,.. Q7. -i.n... n..., v. c...,.~~

~~c..~~

~~.m, 2' E. *" s, 9. ,. w r r .u..- c ""V#? l. e. ', +,, 5, s ...c' ,- e y.. ,.v'L*--~~

~~- b.~~

~~S,, ,>'j),;.s~~

~~l} \\ cl Q !:~~

~~q> r r43 '. "V' s ~l, , i./. a " ".; ".'.., 'r cb..., Lf [.l 2, L . ?ry .. + g- -,, p.- .'... ?tq ,:,. J a m .,h . =. b _7m. N hff*tY[ N C E~~

& h k &

Y Q h $l.h $?$ h0;iY.$ e.Y & @Y.

~~pi$pp?5sM@k),@h h '!?N M s W@mmesaggM. W M Q%2ATMNh M h M N h"%~M k ^$N["52 M*M$@.D hbMId D M 6MGbNA3ytee - = " * - - hgq$:& 73 k..n N ::m/ $ $.m s.1 @% @$w$ w'. @,d h 4Mw M q$$@Qx 4.w~~

~~My.g. ;$m.eG.,s w~~

6 . ;,~;,a -.J M W. a. h M. h .. u.--3. 4 :.n.%9y.o ' * , p ' g. y..g. bJ r hk E h-However, FEMA was given a fifteen-day extension of time to properly DddhMbh,,EM Ei $ w w s., .. dM assert the privilege. m W%g u @y y Mk y m %,w.mnngd.g%.m.s *. m.o< n s GA t. %..s. ,V s wa .w - f#$f@. RULES OF PRACTICE: DISCOVERY; EXECUTIVE Wh$hf.Mh PRIVILEGE N N. [m g.. M. A S'.% p @*:.c w (:. n pl.m&,phbhM$y@ggy,fM. nal use can be characterized as " policy formulation," where the docu- - 4 p t M t p. G Regardless of whether certain documents created by FEMA for inter-ikbd QWMd:,.M, w W[m:x n.~g.I@h..@5Al-6 y W. ee t.M. O ments consist of advisory opinions, recommendations or deliberations in 3 6 hd the agency's decision-making process they are entitled to " executive Mbkl Nh ks b hh()hdh privilege" pr tection from compelled production pursuant to discovery W M > W, ..c. w.. a c.r a w q,n.v.yrn m w wr,,6 6,snuw.. e,M+; request

~~Q....w mma ws~~

.,v.,v;r a;; s,1,@. q!: w rn . y:. n.y 2, A,.y m k d n i G S M 4 ] P D...; h.f: A. 9. k, w m w: m 37 - ~ RULES OF PRACTICE: DISCOVERY; EXECUTIVE @114 p h MM tj.1;/@. :+M. -Q,1 "M*1,jpsW. Q. w p i% i n n MM PRIVILEGE MEM.N.44W 4[$@R.tegi-g L.#74Q %f%% $5 Where Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) claims pro-hN $47 tection of " executive privilege" for certain of its documents because " MI.MkMN@.9l*kh G 6d?hd kk"fh{N#5Y %$.Y their disclosure would have a " chilling effect" on the Agency's decision-hh N making process, the available privilege is a qualified one subject to bal- $4Mid'$@@d%@$N)Nk$M%$ b fb. ancing of FEMA's need for the privilege against the requesting party's Ef N. b 4I* h Q@$ 1% need for the documents. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear

~~h. i@h0h~~

~~%hi Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1144 (1982). MM. %m#c%. m w e.gemmp:~~

~~w. &m h, %v.. &p 1 t~~

~~i.. t n v. : + r.. .a MMnyMdtf J $&W.@@$nN Mfij@$@R 4hM5Q MEMORANDUM AND ORDER m,m;..."sps.@M.e JMW',$....~?..g!$W-s,, 7;d, .e, ,9..,g:.g%yn,.g,s.M.vAW RULING ON SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION TO COMPEL y m~~

s.

~~e FEMA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS~~

~~www,~~

.+k.. e yp ...s,,a. nmu w. w.%,s p:,m.. y ,y e . p. p qn p.4,.,m,2.s;; w.. x u. x m*.ag W M C/;m W,g/iW T:&i& O.W 9.%y M$4 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY QWWQNW [*.%@DNM$hhg $hh $Mhy%MM On September 19,1983, Suffolk County (the County) filed a " Motion ~ 'S g.Pg to Compel Discovery from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management %SD,bMM;g@$ Y((Mhj. Agency)." Some matters raised in that motion have been settled by the , M h M M $ y $,[, h;h. ([fM g f.? ',Q M 71kM'Nhh. parties. However, as relevant here, the County requested discovery of \\/ff the following: (1) all drafts of the Memorandum dated June 23, 1983 _f from Richard W. Krimm, Assistant Associate Director of FEMA to

~~.s v., O,,,,m~~

.. n w Edward L. Jordan of the NRC; (2) all drafts of a letter dated August 29, '~ .. r ;Q.. <..-g 1983 from Jeffrey S. Bragg, Executive Deputy Director of FEMA to s.' - ;, A. - >? e "$ t - % W g.<Q.,i, >, r-n, J .I William J. Dircks, Executive Director of Operations of NRC; and (3) i . 4...e,,: ) written mstructions from Gary D. Johnson, Executive Officer of FEMA ,-1: m: j - .,~ a

~~g,,.~~

h { k& h v &n, & h;k{S S Q 1 $ 2l %m.s p%.qsM3 1222 .g .. t : 7 % kWW%;.. A;%%;% ., J. Q:.d.,.Q]<w 9: Q M,a. % e.. Q.. m ,*. T..,: ' s. m . f'a. m. y ..s;;..w', Q;.. 'A 7 e s,rf.y y,'& ;- y..t* . L,., ; C y' 'j f.% t E..@p; ~.';'" O $;. +] Iw +- $ j :.4 -1 . Y ';Qe.4. j;' q;.

~~D p..:.g;,~~

~~3.. .~ Y.*T * " (T *. Qw".% Y *5 N' "'* *W ~~~ ~W~'**"" q' *,*y:"'*' / * ; . W) - ef.y'*f i h. p :L h*l ^ <.*.,'..4.T.*;'. .. ~ ~"W W ^ 2.,{ . ~~~

~~J, ) K,~~

~~'$ Q ,Q :!i,, m' p.,' ;....%x q'*:~ -(' (':.r@: '..x,$l L \\- y ..,; n,,,.... '.e~~

~~,..x.,:/,.;+wx.., w; m,,;: m.w.~~

~~g.. . n. r;..-,. - w y ., -C' f.', ; w. ', #,,-.. ( A'( ~ ,4~~

\\* h.'. _..yd f. -'

N 5%i

.~

,{ c.A'. i[.D.*d'v.y k,-. d [ [ <,,(4.[I y*,,p

,y

e d M, [ 4

g...n wy,..... e s

~~,";[. g., ',,,'4. t ' ".j.,, .;s... j M-6 d l s . s.. 3 '8 ,'v. y .y e.s .w-~~

~~~#,~~

A .,e 'Y, b 4 .N. ~,7%. gl o W> T; g;;,' M. 4 y W hM. pg.y;,.p,p ;u :.... :M. 9.c_w.yy v w.p:.I." Ay.I,,,'.4. ' g: -., a+ ensue-+, '3 - YJ. , @. h U. k.3 '. "' * * #-l'l..,f..,: @ Q' S. f* b ,, Y< -?i , ' V.k*.:.. s 7.* pr.g';; ,w & i

~~s*** ?a;n n-g~~

~~,t n g :n v .o s n - y-g p.;.: y~. k. c ,. c w'.- ,s n.. ; t. } . _,.%p yy ;p. e _,,e. N,,_ ;:.. %._. ww,.4> .g [-. o _.s. r., w. ,j, / ~ ~ ,. i.+ j L. .1 p " c..~~

s.

~~,e a, ) IV f.) l .Nl r_ r~~

~~s..~~

~ > ...,4 =...'.. ~ - -. :_. 5 Y: M di g prepara- ~,M \\ to Fred Sharrocks, Senior Program Manager at FEMA regar n 3 f om William . O; "- '. 7' tion of a draft FEM A response to the July 22,198 letter r h, ' '. ~ J. Dircks of the NRC. FEM A filed a response to the County's On Septimber 21, 1983. ' ~ ~ motion wherein FEMA asserted that the above listed docum j !?. no authority in support of its position.we held a Discovery Conference in E%- ' c U~ y On September 26, 1983, Washington, D.C. Efforts to settle this discovery dispute b 1.. . e:1 m ihy %@g.y.;,I J 't'Mfk% Q ; had not properly invoked the claim of " executive privilege." However, p$g(>,;n-f M. g 4 y'j. m FEM A was given a period of fifteen days to perfect the claim of privilege j'7 %.gf. 5 2,, q by completing the following: head of the agency, /.e., Louis O. Giuffrida, Directo /.g. ', y" be Ml ,y f rving the , J[N '. - c-must specifically describe and designate the documents sought to e{ withheld; (3) the claim must state the precise reasons or prese '5, %..l. [W ' ' s m i h ex-confidentiality of the documents; and (4) the documents for wh c f the s', ecutive privilege was claimed must be submitted under seal ~. Oe- . [ [U 89 F.R.D. the parties' attention to United States v. Capitol Service, Inc.,P 578 (E.D. Wis.1981). The Board also informed NRC Staff that its ters m 590). M t.^ concurrence with FEMA's position was " wholly insufficie p * 's .e' ,y. 6, @.v. O y-2 N ~ 'M'

~~d....~~

of privilege. (Tr. 602), FEMA submitted another response to the - 51 y U s. f N On October 12, 1983, County's motion to compel discovery. Of the three disputed items listedmot L"-@_f.; jf, S , C..- - 1 m. .N3.... 19, 1983 3 , N ; W, ~ ~/ Q in the County's September of executive privilege as to items 1 and 2. FEMA did not M ff.: 'M ' -l 4. a M g.f l t N = WM g - -v w privilege for the following documents: {-k2 , 6l, .J, b:, ,k'# g 4 ff of 7 .O A. Those sections of a Briefing Paper on Shoreham prepared by t g.w > a]{:., ~ ",.,,.[ ^**fw. + 4 . ~. u 'n n~ 7 tion of issues and recommendations. M., N... ' M > a-5. n. '. =- s. ~._ m"s7 'Sc?G s B. Memorandum for Richard W. Krimm from Gary Johnson, Executive Ofncer ksuy f vi q.t TV in the Office of Natural and Technological Hazards dated June 7,1983 concern- !.'. ? * [ ? e,.f,g e;.g '[,de.,. y ,-u,.; a r. ~~.0 ,g ' ' -a L; ing the response of FEM A to the NRC request of June 1,1983 pg M 2l % 3 C. Draft letter, never maHed, prepared for signature of Louis O. Giuffrida by the hy., ..hj[ e 4 f staff of the office of Natural and Technological Hazards in anticipation o a re- .g&g (";q,,%h y ' - 7 f:' -: nn. P quest by NRC for a FEM A review of the I.ILCO Transition lan. w :c.y ,,@Ml,w 'M ".c,y:lh W " s; ..W g: D. Portions of Status Report on Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant dealing with opin. t; ".~.. .e 6 he .t Y.J. d'. F s,g ,( hYL' ions of staff. [ s@f, M* N -We- _. $'5 w,f,'- 1223 t ~ * [. ". h: -". - o..- 2 _y ^ ,"a ,,. -. u% *.. r. 4, N.6, {, ': s e=*-w- - ,e

=rer5*

- ~ v* w "-rT e W i."; - r, p ;, .. ~ ve. -e e -r Q;p pw yQ+g;Q.fgsy);..;g ;~.. y q ' ~ s:f. ~ . y u,. =9.O.e 9 y yt n . q. n,a w 4' c.x... ;w b._g Q v w y e., y; p.y: b,,., -y. .y.v,, g, 2.z A- ^p g3 s g : 7' sfy: gg .gp.q }j_.. _,.. *'2. ,, n ay:s>' c +. m -n-x,x#.. , x S r 1;.. n<~'.~.,.. - y;.. a n I w r. 8 "J _9 W-h m .x. + s: 7 .-;.4,},, .m c 4 . U, 9 c..' ../* p My,.h m ~< .m,.m_ ?. -wa. H. m ; gre a.. g,. w ;.7 s. ,m ;, u wy.ypew ,,, o.-wp m k ? ;Y. 5. 1 $ $ p@ g@ W,$g % p / w #l d'a.$'b m N m.% c V W'h f w'2:R, N % g'g Ms %y $, p mw g.a m25 m sw* -a .m&4. 7.w,.M

~~6.q ifJ Mii p~~

~~GW p hqQY;h.#ds,p&g%&.%et 'y-a w-Q &y~~

~~Wpf gs a&y9 w~~

~~w. m.a u 4 5 i& {c 3 u M V i> W v h. M W 0 f h b',fy,. 6 GWWM$1.&ml&h'AW CWs y .~' ?L.~~

~~5$W.~~

% @h fc V t;" M.;M[f d.h{ L .h YM&,%'gr$&.khk,W. W ~ f }}. xn,,.y.9 %, ' s$.. W.i;r'tn ~ w f.,n.rA h.C .v nn mi WP c e.4 y%n u. l y! aM.. . i. ve M M w[k, d dbhh h M q :: M W.b!$2N&.m $f.%q.:-l&, bEW @wy'h@:AfM m;g;kM'NN'N,DihD:

~~s.. [MO - M W-M M.6 F E. Analysis of a hypothetical question concernins Lit.CO, New York State and y~~

1 d Suffolk County response to an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power e W 41 3,,'i "- $@F d p %.~S.A %; h.' %y@Wl @@9 W.,,yg V.g *%;MwW W@m% W W$ J A W 9?pr Q i% y%)%M d hy h The FEMA claim of privilege was made by its Director, Louis O. 4U M h z.O.A Giuffrida. His affidavit states that he personally examined the documents

~~m..gMW g n4 c(.,Q &n % % cM $.y d W C W f%,f S in controversy and concluded that their production would be contrary to ge s.w.y, s mu mM@y :w%~~

~~pm ha:w N9 the publ.ic interest. He asserted that the seven categories of documents b > ~T.is;r.:v.W,,%.gw%n .p~~

~~%,MtBC..~~

mm p ys n e-yb4 " consist of intra-departmental memoranda and communications contain-J A $d'$ Nyh ing opinions, recommendations and deliberations pertaining to deci-h idf % g g g $ hh~b5 hhffb h @Mh 5. M Yh sions" subsequently made by FEMA. He went on to say that the disclo-sure of these documents "will have a chilling effect on the ability of this M[d;@MkNME@MyfbW7<E'Ms % pW>p#, $yf4 w.g% agency to receive in written format the comments, concerns and opin-wdT h$g ions of our staff." Affidavit of Louis O. Giuffrida at 3. N 7 @ h h hh k [ h.j h l b.k h j .Y On October 19,1983, Suffolk County filed a Supplemental Response Mh gg in support of its motion to compel production of the documents. The

~~h. hg%W '.s.b!Ci MM*g qgg g~~

County first claims that the Affidavit of Director Giuffrida is defective %T$s g WTiiG3 wi because it is unsigned. The County also asserts that FEMA failed to e%gg 8C6MW6 4 M comply with the criteria listed by the Board at the Discovery N [t $.s.4D M M,pp g. MEN M MN 88 Conference. Finally, the County asserts that the doctrine of " executive bc wb 4; %e w o privilege" is not available to FEMA because that agency is not engaged 5 M:# pre 35,4sg g~M %esg[ ffd -MQQ. D*M f -:@M 8 .r; in policy formation. The County claims that FEMA "is engaged only in %m ! #.5 gd g@ w'C p % @5 @ Y. p. MT d M.M,g WT DM e WA. gv rendering its factual findings." Suffolk County Supplemental Response f Mu 4 h dW at 10. Thus, the County's argument goes, " executive privilege" may % fdfGR 4W only be asserted in connection with policy formulation and since FEMA Q Q plp.i &,g g. n; w wQ . c;;n M;%%&p@ g M W -hi @d b w@ M Oj ey M3 formulates no policy in connection with the documents in controversy M& - yp here, it is not entitled to claim privilege. WhMN[db [$W@bDU@MQ 9 %M$1% JM In spite of the Board's prior characterization of the NRC Staff position $NME M M on this issue as " wholly inadequate," NRC Staff elected not to respond w t y n%%w%n,y.m.h. h N[$ I( to FEMA's claim of executive privilege. ~4% p!% g$pm@2&GtLM%y%p&pg QQQ

~~& gly 2 pr4 ME d.y ef.M M~~

II' ISSUES 8%me.wM hW 'fd? & NM**[ph[.h h bth.n & a ww I$NbhM g Whether discovery of the documents in question is precluded by the 3i MWddh.gj doctrine of " executive privilege" and whether FEMA properly invoked ,M. N f iTMk .4% 8My " executive privilege" in this matter. w mey$.c. w w@.m$ m wp: f?pt k s h

~~'t:k f~~

f! @;g%j dAsM.R2Wu%,f III. APPLICABLE LAW G:. + s.M X f.. D : % 4.s. d >' h'" M 1: <,.C..~E p.g t,c s~%. R? ? The scope of discovery in NRC proceedings is quite broad. The perti-7 ; y, W,: N.~..~ a.y.q elM oO.. ..rg *y, %. 4,;..t W,.%.m e cm. R. eW nent rule is as follows: 44 [ ge ; a#s n (4cQ.tA.c4-g g V'MC M:::'Mry# j1:f&:;;% n%W:,&q. .y kM

~~py nb~~

=d C.ar m 4 4. c:g% y d.s j y;,bw*$ Q,, W M 4.d..y,g 4 / 7%AM r tg:1 c s 3 .a w.c ...s e 1224 2d, 4.w w -+,m g%em,.,gy, ' p re g w g 4 %.v ? q 4;& W. e,t g 3 2 , ~ n. w. w b. h. c >s.m h.. p, ] Y -,%. / 5 $Uiq Wl:..~m.. n{ ,... s 4 &r $ ~% _w-4.;+f b h) 2l%f:n.:@:p:c2{c*Q; 2%.<. wl l t _.3, c:.NW: 25 . y: ps. sy . g f' S~p,i;g.;m w m.;;;r y ;,. -

a

..w.. y J.L ~.y uc ny;q;r.y:r~ e e.w--~. y: p.my.y j JQ::n,$m:'w?MrNGidMDYiMM;id's+$$y.::~y :.- y-~;z,:c.tmm=yMMpTRM'pmyy- "M MQM('tM7. MMN" M M n 6 #w w w w m.. G.;2 Q 1 $ N,Q4 4t w m u n n. a g w. w % w: M h % w-l d~ m g w ymem ww b.na M,wk$.nM&M4:::y,m. '.M,. M., b M-M M.w MN b.mW ceH% nw 4/Mp;:w f}& Wixr... x r wnaw aw - ~ ..m m _ ~ / A w

.m

n..
~~'f. : ' ?~~

f *. n l L', ~ , c 't l 1 f;. s s e, s. I p , ~ - .? w ~~. t r ?' .t fd* !. a s.g. ..s ' M ?n " w'"{. Parties may obtam discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant ~ ' N 7" - to the subject matter mvolved m the proceeding.. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the hearmg if the information ~ / 'k sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to tha discovery of admissible evidence. f. a' 10 C.F.R.5 2.740(b)(1). (Emphasis supplied.) ~ ,y: t Although not cited by any party to this dispute, the prior Licensing Board in the instant matter was called upon to decide whether the County could prevent disclosure of some of its documents because of ~. a y, #7 ; - r,, _ p.: ' " executive privilege." In Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear }gQ.yg.,b,.,($ g JL; ". i y*{ Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1144 (1982), the County .' J I ii. pp.m ggK.'S,E

3. p i opposed LILCO's discovery requests for emergency planning documents pq because of, inter alia, executive privilege of the County. The Licensing y,?- *s A y.',. f f;-

n ' N.

Board summarized the applicable law concerning " executive privilege" j;g ' ' v.m. ij.@.. -(- l,':p 7c ,7 as follows: r- _K ? o m s', The executive privilege is a qualified privilege, and does not attach to purely factu-F' 'Y ' i al commumcations, or to severable factual portions of communications, the di clo-i sure of which would not compromise military or state secrets. EPA v. Mink 410 t s = '.,. U.S., at 87 88; Smith. supra. 403 F. Supp.. at 1015. Furthermore, even communica-L 4. 'i' oons which fall withm the protection of the privilege may be disclosed upon an ap-p' ~ i."' S propriate showing of need. United States t Leggert d Platt, Inc. 542 F.2d 655, 658-659 (6th Cir.1976), cert. denied. 430 U.S. 945 (1977). See also Smith. 403 F. Supp., at 1015-1016. In determming the need of a htigant seeking the production of {m 9,y,

~~g;,%.,.;;j~~

~~,.(,.,'s' 3 .;f .,.p i documents covered by the executive privilege. an objective balancing test is p. 1. = ' g e%..~~

~~1. '.~~

employed, weighing the importance of the documents to the party seeking their pro-S'f '[ ' "' ' ? l ';7%s ^ duction and the availability elsewhere of the information contamed in the docu- ,e ' j. ~ ' ' y ", l ments agamst the government interest in secrecy. Leggert & Plair, supra. 542 F.2d, at t; 'f. V" 658-659 M '. ;. ; w ~< W W XW y 2,,1..y.-y ' v:- ..x.,..+, ~ wl ~ f u . ~.. e c: ~ . ~. =: ~..u j;.(Ye.c. /d. at i164-65. It is clear that executive privilege in connection with q-s.-t - o. 6 .. j M,. O.: M $i '. ' A ~ state secrets or military secrets, the disclosure of which would threaten c ~ i - :'j ' W. .P.;;,. p* 4, national security, is a matter of absolute privilege. See Kinoy v. Mitchell, h &( ; T' '.9 W d; 67 F.R.D.1 (S.D.N.Y.1975). However, since the only claim of execu-

~~k.g jd;^~~

y.g.c ;. y s ? [ [ y.' M -.[ tive privilege asserted by FEM A here is that disclosure of the documents k' F'" 'q. would be harmful to the decision making process of the agency, we M. 7,.% QQ.7..3Q . [1 g agree with the statement of the prior licensing board in Shoreham that /2p N.7 '.% f C TdG q[<t x this is a " qualified privilege." y y. G'if.' ' ]g ff As pertinent here, " executive privilege" has been described by several f -., A J ':,#M. : Fi ' 1

~~other names: deliberative process of government privilege, govern-ji~~

'~ ~#,-i FN... J :, .'g. ~ ' ..M' mental functions privilege, and intra-governmental documents privilege. b.m .. Q 1 1(f..C ~ E t-l The case law discussing this privilege has also considered exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(5). This stat- - 14.lM A,M M. "

~~... s nq~ ',.v.,~~

utory provision exempts from required disclosure " inter-agency or intra-E...~7 .' 4 7 $F '7'T i j ' ~.f# . : > %a a-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to be ' FM - 1_ V / 4l$:%.....;,, j - q ge Ray c cw l Q,

f:

~~c '. M.Y ".Q e. a~~

f

~~,k ' T. M v;g g., ~ , g "E' - P '.,. ' ,g. ..g a u.,. y-4~~

~~..sN a d,,,.. ; W,.~~

~~Y.- r-1225 ,i l.' h * ..p. ; :,,' s N '. ['.* '.,.O_ 4 - s s g QQ< 7 -M Q..J.yy n:.m n o x ,_c p',f +,,w:.' L N *b-(.lu-(z '..%., ' D,,h. m. . v...,.,m w. ~. - ~. y~~

~~v..e m 7 --.e n~~

.g m; . m,.e .y. a J., a,Q h. g &;y ;m:n-3 g,c. p u w.; p:.-.7. -::y:?.y :,;.q M r y,g7 N h,*.[ f,g g[ g ~.!* Q.j'@ Q.Q. %,.;;5^, ' 7, % nc;33 4 p g. g* -/ '} !.. g gp*

~~y,.9 m.-~~

~~% 39 m m, lkQfy Q !J y y{' n ..g,,:;q7. 5 '. "." 3ygg - g Jf 7 - -i., W;,,- g f. v. ,,,lq.S : i , m,.. &M~~

V

~~':l... S ., ~ ,} 0.L,9;ylu , Q ; I: l - ', f - g I'- l -e .c ..t, +. n y nm x a, m, m p. 4 .. ~. s 4, r k i-- _'.;,. 1. e _1~~

~~q y O ;~~

n. e.. m - ,:,.s, n;. x g: - .e x g n.w. s_, .u @nn.%w%e n.t@e~&. r,,.pn,..n, sw, cwgG%;j~il;..e.an,w.; KQ q nq0k;;p.4.,cW,g w*. Q f. w: W <y n f.,gy;&_ u .'mA wn. M N p. y ...<.m; g y1, ..;mWM ,,.. r%,p,s.Ng@w; x.pdr..w.;L, %r?'m' py;m.w% p., ,4 p ~ w hyA g-.w u a M n y. y c -q e wr he eAs k Y ~Qs W,p:vM;W;.,y. tem; WWs%n.,f@^%,gq>.Q9mph iph q.r% p Q5bn. %r~ CWfm:wa r~~ w ;>pg:.1, c.v.%y;@g9g' ' y;Ps-@~ re. Qby NQ m2MyrhqW S C i Op: w?. r e w.q.W.A Q A & W % & W # ^~ p^'~e~ ~ ' ~w^~ w" " ~ ~ W. M .nwe " ~ ~ ~ ~ '" Y fpN:N.f! rqd.cm.3;.$.%w#Mk h q 4,y g, M4h'2@WhfYhM.%@.#ff% iQ'E64% W $N N h h M h b! F a private party in litigation with the agency." This provision has been in-f terpreted by the courts in harmony with the doctrine of" executive privi-9.N Np M M fj % ufiq% g.}$ lege" so that deliberative materials produced in the administrative "3 p.'. U' MDM$$M'h Th decision-making process are protected from disclosure while purely s't di @ g M g, h @ g d h. factual materials are not protected from disclosure. See Branch v. Phillips k. hkIbMhhig$ Petroleum Co., 638 F.2d 873 (5th Cir.1981). Agency documents which iy$ %ld Y m.JMi$rMr#MMhp. reflect advisory opinions, recommendations, or deliberations fall within Q yDQMM@M$$$g.f " executive privilege." Capitol Service, supra, at 582. The reason for pro-Mh.kfdh' ]N. M h M k[ h M d M y'?$ h.$$ g ( tecting the confidentiality of communications between high government 5MNM flicials and those who advise and assist them is to achieve the goal of Y.h D $ %M receiving the most candid advice without regard for appearances or self ,;.,Ga%gN$hihi.s 4 u, MMMrd. 'M.u...u.N. h.k>k: U tddh interest of the adviser. United States v. Nixon. 418 U.S. 683,705 (1974). AML6Md.h',h5@[CNM[&@g;.ed.. ; f.S M. %Q$Me$sWE The U.S. Supreme Court in EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973), set i 3M forth rules for separating factual material from " deliberative informa-M M@M Qdy $p@%.ff N @M h tion" through in camera inspection, in cases brought pursuant to the O/ $.NefW d& M Freedom of Information Act. The same procedure has been followed in $@hk.bhh$$:.(Rh@g&R " executive privilege" cases. Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss, Jena, M6MMMDMihM 40 F.R.D. 318 (D.D.C.1966), aff'd on opinion below, 384 F.2d 979 ?;m. @4f.M,% &t (p~ - *pl*%g* t,sW'.*:? M N yg 3 4 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied 389 U.S. 952 (1967). '. 4 A*: W 9 t 1 .D g. s qwyQw c M & ry ?,,. M%W,pS h.b. b., $?rD%j u M hrI N N. Mi d i C

?"

(Clourts should not hesitate to make a private examination of disputed materials { Q % d h* h M D M N'$'r @ h % M upon a reasonable showing that it can serve a purpose truly useful to a party actually 'N Mt] or potentially entitled to some discovery... Irr comtra inspection in executive pnv. 9YNN8 M @ '$2 $ 2 @ ).kT M k;)si'2i ilege cases is appropriate where it appears with reasonable clarity that the party seek. Os[h. %f

~~9*j Q ~.y ing production is entit!cd to access to some of the materials demanded. Examination~~

%$[$h' h[h%*.[',% hr3hd[f in this type of situation enables the separation of what should be disclosed from .%.l h7# - M:.. M7Ny]M.+d A4 A y a.@fE w %wm s?m..q:n.lKW6N " 2:p what should not be revealed. , W'9rf. lp.Wg@9Q.. e%g.m@M Myn ,4i%c 2 ts $E;M ,h Id. at 331. {s xc?;.9.f Qg .. r. N, M... n. w &.4 m );.m c.. s. u%.4 s. -rp. Wipfq ps.,;%~2 n%.u Mw q$ %:me tm# % p._ u$h..ghitNh9g IV. OPINION f'M Q %.ykitRqN W M Q; h 5 M Q-U;#%,.y/%QGQR@Ma;[g We begin our e / sis and review of th.is controversy by assessitig the affidavit of FEM.. Director, Louis O. Giuffrida, in the light of our an- ..#N4$hMMIUw,%'%q$ ~S$wh TQWjQlWM nounced prerequisites and the County's objections. First, we note that hA(hM[kNu M W. M gs w M,d N.Jk,,..@.% g m.s%g}hh our copy of the affidavit is signed by Director Giuffrida and his signature l is notarized. There is no reason to doubt the validity of the signature. .,y...g.p. u.,;. v w. R.0- % $ $ @;g,_.'{, ,.4.. w. u. y y 4 in v . m.' g g h. _%m..Q.2 Accordingly, the County's objection that the affidavit is de?ctive be-g - y. m i g g, g gs.. lfi :;; cause it is unsigned will be overruled. w d,M Second, the County claims that the FEMA affidavit should be rejected . hd.%.N.;.D(f./d%ig%@M{ f because it fails to comply with the criteria established for that affidavit . O.., - gg77 ;g,6 by the Board during the Discovery Conference. We find that FEMA S, : m wWo.w. h. p' w+.w a.~ b*- af g-J Q, . s t ".' r

' ~ q. ; p,

.Lq:,m q.>1 9

~~+ eg~~

~~N.t,f;,j;,. y 3. w.g-ch t,;.q) p.g%;;,;,p.~'L.~~

~~dp s.sW- .g i.. %. ; e.c.. , %. e g., p.% .4~~

~~% s. N h k h. m' M,$ f.a.N. g. w.~~

~~M,. s _Ny" g h. [ 1226 w. 4 m e 'N W 'i e S Q.,QQ '7 S M. b N G.. M M~$>4/M,pG.M. b,.9,.m ,d m. MM.. y L:':".@G..W...w.w@W,.ylMh hh). , ? [ ) ".-[.A. NN[M %WQy b. .L'R. ?,~~

* ) e,

.,,i.'*4'.'.*. a s..o.m..~; g ;. % y V.* W'""*S**';"*

~~F"ViP*g*'f4 &#Y *4';T*S*'*'Wy*,'". NC ** "QP _4 v.~~

m W:: w Q,.;#. , m .ym. "?* " -{ "; /J'.W PC* y,"Wr**1*C "' 7 *- W. T a. g., 3 > : y i 4 .h, 4 ? ID -4 +.". 7 ; g~ 9sj Q 3.. y y (.Q,.a; q' ' Q ; g y y " y 3.. Q. l;.ll,.;3. q s.~l Q.h:,y n& : IE '[ k. 1 - p~.+.,.3_. ;> ::- [Q'g';~;.. ; lM,p - %,k( -.,.. .. ~, .=.. n[N.n v.x. ;.., 7 ,,w-4,

~,

f

~~ft.~~

~~. ~..w. '~~~

~~[a b~~

~~,.. Y [fy,~~

NN

~~,.2 - V. * 'g {. V%: v, :wm. m_.m p :%..a,c,- y e ;.,. wy. w,1:g:- n,..m;,;1,;. m. m~~

~~., m, y9 wwo v;+;; ~ > w.g. n,.s~~

~~. y.;.n. a ,,:.#.y#.4 'Lh M 55.%. g 3c;.e "A 1 Q.d...%.o ,y o-m w, w c.... e,m M y /,. e.: W..,m.#. F;;.I-%'m P. 3 ,,i +. 6~~

~~W -Wh /".G @29A h-T./?~~

"S%. $.M@@fd 4 3M. ,N,. W'? M dMJ J* : SW.'. K.W J W is;.. .. - ' y c,' c. R. A.i 7 .;f 7 - ma .a w &mmmg x.ru-w y.x w y s;m m, 4 o _Y .o . o <. 2 >f - n. u,. .,.e 4 l w .. : ;9 .-a, 'm.,>, .~_q ~ .-q J') T ve ncy. The Giuffrida af-M.Y' ? i @N, [ ' - q i./'4$, l Director Louis O. Giuffrida is the head of his age be withheld. The af- . a. , f]9;p, 4 [_

~~' M f~~

fidavit describes the seven documents sought tofidavit ass ally examined the L' f 7 6.. ( / documents in controversy and invoked "execut vnd deliberations pe d communications con-I ^ -? x.... [ disclosure of " intra departmental memoranda andisclosure of the docume '1. ' JP c /" taining opinions, recommendations, asions" of FEMA. lie further state ^ bility of FEMA to receive writtenWe find that, for the L t/.. _.. ~~ h would have a " chilling effect" on t e a

~

( -7 '." ' _ FEMA documents are de- .u m.; e.y comments and opinions in the future. , ; e R.,h.. e.. p. $ - i,, X.,^: fidentiality is articulated. t$- : c.M. '.";,V., M, /2,'n.,g e asserting " executive privilege," the seven Pf 7 der concerning the a scribed and the reason for preserving conHence, we 6nd that W .. M~. [LG ww ..!?W @ w ;*, . m, f. W.r. (.'.. W,.. '.. ,- w l~ -n prerequisites of the claim of executive pr v Mi;9 doctrine of " executive I...cf. 1 ' ' eS; Wc ~ .e iNg996.NIy d 1 folk County to the FEMA affidavit are overrule.se the privilege is only a {'_' (.i f j '9 O,SN This leads us to the County's claim that thenications regarding policy f ' W.'" privilege" is not available to FEM A becau %"2

~~M5,[ ~ '~~

~~formulation in this~~

F

, M.i p.: C [. C "3 ble to protect against disclosure of commuformulation and F [; ;.c. g li ^ X.~w..M* the agency's decision-matter. We find that the County is mistaken. y limited to policy formulation but extends tomaking proces l Corp. v. United States, t

~~),,~~

~~~ S~~

~~2 &s, T 3 M;.s~~

~~~ Ix C. t.*p 'G..h s yl-g 157 F. Supp. 939 (Ct. Cl.1958), Justice Ree f '. C.> ',../ ;d;'kTR 5 13' N. 3 [ ',ffh?h *,@ [~~~

~~h. " - [$[ '.V4$~[;Q.,g$.~~

~~nation held, i stratwe reasoning process that contracts with Kaiser and Reynolds.Theefficiency, term~~

~~9. % /~~

The document sought here was a part of the adm ni . g d >> k7 - jfg { /f +%g ' - reached the conclusion embodied m the [ ?,y.; s -7 f confidentialintra agency advisory opin-h' 7f ; ' objective facts, such as the cost, condnion, ~"3., 1 =...x. +4,.K %&7n,n ~.; l ng to that class of governmental docu-u ;,. A mm. . %m7 ;;,, erwise available. So far as the disclosure oions is concerned. we conclud u s . ;y =.piQfM/ h_n* 1 y' , N f' y# D p MG ' ., 4 ments that are pnvileged. 7 MhMd7 f tual material is not by. : M N.a While we agree with the County that purely acto distinguish " policy formula- [ O 1 '.l,'5IU:> M 6. ' W W. .s id. at 946. %.. E -, M N f. s} ' " or " administrative reasoning." As long privileged, it is unproductive to attempt .~m N.. . '..:3;.o M dM i t of advisory opinions, tecom-tion" from " decision-making f i ion making process, we %.m privilege." Thus, the rd U-6E M%MW.U@.: as the documents in controversy cons s mendations or deliberations in the agency dec s 85 FEMA's assertion of M 'W i h M $ @W ?$...$,A i find that they fall within the doctrine of "execut vef policy formula W.'. &..E. N. M= O.e,f. d County's argument that we should not consi er k'J. C. ' '.u g.QfEf,.g.!'r : w privilege, for failure to specify the type o ing its claim of the exis-r ;;; 9 (i s p; Q ygcQ4 We 7.ukR1%o., b Although we find in favor of FEMA concernthat does not end the matter. pg;p;.sjy; mwJ.{ j.e t is rejected. o qq. Mq' . T - - <pJ W., g

~~r..~~

~~, '.*c.m* tence of " executive privilege" here, c,...' O.% M. S W:, , m p;;. c.p.m3.. b:Jha l ?; $* -c.[&;.: 4.ug n. N,wi's ". ,. Y.;j?*P' .~sy-H ~~~

m 1227 f,.= &. 7 k*

~~-]. tb.$,A&%?Q n' s :. y-q Q.1:; e c ..g. m,,; p+,: t,.,n.' e g x , ap .s i 4: pr7 -4. pg y %E C n i ~~o -y t i q _ _';)Sp. :,,. Q 7.g &;.- _+b. g~~

~~.4 y~~

' q v; % my 3.g s m n =e**w =m y. y 4*.g ]_.,;49j p g;g. .m.ut^M?*yky MR v. + m* w--. -,===~ryv*=v1r-=. =we=ev=~rs=~e~ J %?,;j.M g'N W,.lyy,g,v.., .s. ~ :, 3 x. ; T Q ~ 4 m,n; Q,,<,p y :.y .;y &,Q Qy*Q 'Q . ~ ~ - %l\\, m.

^

~~,.4 %,.7,n h. q% g,.W.{, ', p'g. y : Q u* p,n L 1 J y., l%W;Q, ,. m. m Q g 3 W,; ?* ' % ; e O 9.m. m.efy.. 7 y ~ u n y: f. ,u , ~,. Kfr 1 * ? " p'., hw . ~. L j-~~

~~Q y~~

~ t p:n ; j. %,9 %j'I. ] lr,.S n y ? D'Df*f :9.y G;W.y < M ~- l e 1 _ o,Lu .dy*F h v- / _3; 2 a, 'n a' M Q.. m' r ,. J,4.Djdgg. y. 4: s a, -, '., ' U ms@., c.,y.. t ':A'- m ff.. + ie v i: b, 7'; O-Vi ,.n,.. ^ * - Ll: w. A - - % RJ M.~. 4, ~ x9 x

~

s' 4 ~q - t. r c... ~ =. Q.'edh&.0:W2 g ; ): g v ~ g.4 9 n, &y g;.Q Q [ d ?; ; @ . ;g% %,QtitQQ:j.}26'Q. y 36'N G:: VwM:g.%:%e:: &. y. y .7 yy(:b.9,pp pgg;gg ; y . ?,:,b. m.; M.h h -)?h,i, w,.y.,a*r.w ~ v %n ) 4.:w.,. 4,y %.g~w$[I k h,f['3[.n r m 1 N h [.h b .f. h "E h ~Y kffkk'.h((} k ww:w Ch ...gp,, xW e . - s -n.a fv p.. .A y..n. p

~~n, ap y~~

~~n cr . m W. W. m e.u % g. e,...g.: wy;~~

m n.W.y

.^ p Q Mp n, vn%m,.,"p

.7,AN;.y,A,..N& u..,m.pp a.44p;p&u%g, y:

~~.~. pp:, m c.h gg. 2 2 < :a.9 u - - ~ &.a-~w-~W%.m 4 M.~ .ney ? C44pd ,?.b. w.Ny.W;,4 ~9h M. h' wL u: re,m#wnm. WM,1p.t.ex..s.kw: m%.u~~

~~y,,,p~c.Z.7 e~~

w 4.,- o s js~ se t -w=-- --s . ; dq:.v6M;.aWX gdO H esed r.wwM :q.<nw.s.g.'m.#p mfF .,,3 u m.~ ; u . 4,. ww..:e.@. 4. wpm,.<,q . m mv M.... me n* @.~ h.,..,. . N~ x,,u.. M;DM..f, %,.,.7.N,.,.1 I: .~

~~a. Lt I~~

~~n s. , L. * -..e g. m. m 2~~

~~..+~~

~~.' Y.'.f*,A' Q,M. R*I".&~~

~~vy*f.Ff fa?~~

.@e. 4 e "}$ @ M y F M' d. % % 7 p q f .k have previously stated that the privilege is a qualified one. This requires i $, J:.%%y;;#@. Mf}M vl ' 6q us to balance the need for the privilege against the need of the County N $&.$ hY5 hh h to have the documents. With this standard in mind, we begin our review ~ iM,f ug&/J;.x' W.EM}$.@h5[$gi c3, g of Director Giuffrida's affidavit asserting " executive privilege" for y %:C. Q U. %MMYfkik d seven d cuments. We shall discuss them in the order listed therein. ,. A.v.;,gg r,c..y?pg%^;We9s?); V qmggm e "(a.) All drafts of a memorandum...." .c .w.w.y w V M....w,Q.MC WQ.m..e,MMhg v,,,,y At the outset we note that the Snal version of this memorandum, ,y.... M mws. Q% C.d.*M.i r$ M[fWM/k%%h.4 .kN'in $UN2 from FEMA to NRC on June 23, 1983, is public information which has M'A.M M been served on all parties. We Gnd that the drafts which led up to the ?w gthpiMi D' Qg d.7%,&J.4 :.'g@g:s... w. p g.@gy. M.w% + Gnal product are privileged and the County has failed to establish com- > m.my;-#yW;y$Pg 7N/%@ r n pelling reasons for disclosure. We see no reason to examine the drafts. W ::;,.4 (f@k';h m g @.- ,,.f Q.Q.. p The County's motion to compel production of these drafts is DENIED. .2. a qm , ;; g. w ;n m % gs %;t. p &y:q q:s q>Dp@qn;wy%p. .x 4 - -::n ;3 &'W W W Q Qd.. n.. ?g.W ;i y .g "(b.) All drafts of a letter...." ..h ,. #,y,a'~f.3.W...m,.v. x.p,,e..s,,c.v. a.., w-m...: %.. W. m.m.,p.'.., c.3. t.,#pp&%..., < - t? e Again we note that the final version of the letter drafted August 29, p. % w <, .Ng.":Cd J.;. P,g.' P.my%.,t.s M WA y n v. p y.. 1983 from FEMA to NRC is publicly available. We see no reason to v. e ,r.qq.pg:s?. W, y examine these drafts. For the same reasons listed concerning drafts of ... e. the memorandum above, we DENY the County's motion to compel pro- / T ? M@;..,.. n. @m.,,'$..,. 'V,;Np;G~ %%g%@r,.,w$g .n .J QG*'qf duction of these documents. ? M 4.. _ n., m,M.s,w,am :t,p arp#s.E r. u m s ,e..t. m... m n m...y QR.M 4.QL.M @y-QWsm. - 3,A M i'i e <m.,.a. n.~r s ~ n '.Q:py -Q U"i f "(c.) Those sections of a Briefing Paper on Shoreham prepared yTEN g,' $M@g $m!7lp$:hty $Q.7, Q by the Staff... for... Regional Director... detailing his staff's identification of issues and recommendatio.is." .o , s q.. .agy. _ _ > / l *JG

~~QAl.g%W-We Gnd this to be the type of opinion and recommendation squarely~~

.2 0'$v:f 4. g@. My-, g.,if;ts g;7.j$ QS5...; ? q.. ^ MS protected by the privilege. The County again failed to establish any com-y M h fdQ/ M S N Zw,< r,elling need for the document which would sufGce to overcome the M _ ; k.Q b2,. ; > et. 'M@s:g#,s ;.;#'.<M gy(bpX(Q@A $h privilege. We found no reason to examine this document. FEMA's P .gpM%p4 claim of" executive privilege" is SUSTAINED. NNr.@Q L %;.;;y1. t #.w.. ,,p;5A a n.

~~c.. -.~~

w s V. 7 W '/ W,K. Q~f W s:MW%g.j e "(d.) Memorandum... dated June 7,1983 concerning the $M3&2fMfM@44.g 1r#s%wg.m Q M y d 'f 4 @A response of FEMA to the NRC request of June 1,1983." , N? s" %'i'p?:a&9;g%Q -g% ,8 g r. 3?.M97 9 Although we previously found that FEMA had properly identined this ,F-rediyg@j'S'-WR$p document for a claim of privilege, FEMA's description of the memoran- .?gQ.;- ' 4;'Q dum led us to believe that part of it may be discoverable. Accordingly, 4 C'.,W;;.7. - O ' JW W yyt ? we unsealed the documents and examined this memorandum. We Gnd el .~gg -77.gqp& that the memorandum contains factual material which can be separated e G....u. : ..+n.. . 4.0 %f ; X?; g from the privileged material. Prior to the last paragraph on page 1, the i ~

~~w. s.~~

m wd, x.# e%. m. Aa.,..s ww s.g,w 4 g ?y .e-.. hl ,_,g,.. ,,.,,., ely' y: - ~ sg 1g e,.;Q,,, %.Qm,;A,y, .E n,3 e 2 ). .~, p.;p, 3,:. 4 xc* E g;W... ?.. t N., o m ,.,9,,.,i g pmO o .a. [h./d39 W h ',, i, {,,g j,6 i G.b.,,,0.[h u.}qi @,a,,. ".c[y. L [ g.' j "4 *)$ .n

~~v vt.~~

~~4 gs ....e m ..y 3 y~~

4 = p ew7);.*,.," Mj C

.,~D e w--h f '"'jA . ;;y gy W*.'* Q.;& ; 4,' ~ * * \\y l 6." '-[. ~ , r. sil. 6.: l ..,. n.. ?.. 6, .w~.. w w' g, p; y...i(..sw %.7 ~ p. .m-9- ~ f 4; \\ 4 } g.7.]* , q '_, - j; ym ---,c..~v.pp j.r; m m.7f: m-5,'-P.m :tm7f: ump 2'-r'.73 mn.~.. - aj 0

Qs

,4.;;:.y.(;,, f Q h f ^ * * :-y:.,.'y7. & w m w p y. Q,.,;{ W Q y;Q,'];; M-

~~3 "^u.:p ' ~ -.h D p.- .:n -w; pic.;. - i.ul M9,%:'.@3;&.c. '$.2 ; %3le~~

~~m WLS ~~~

'~':#w A c"^ W%.,2' ". l -S r.,. : ; s' .L... 2. ..t m MC - a ,.z. , c r ?.. . e p R,:. dj.y '<, ~ *.d.! ~ ' y [ p u. .41 . [: ; -,. s!Q. j.b,'(. w.<_ v * ?*'*-**- - l, 7,2,,.c.,% A ; X ; q ~ f,.M 'O ? ~ . c,. %,, - Q: a .G - ~ i % ,r r .s,. a ' .' v. ". 'M .",c. gk.a, .i ..u~*~ L *'. l~ n c .s , k. s .-.=

~~ey. M- ':~~

~~sn. .2- .f + 4 r~~

~~.'s~~

~~.y ...m'*'-,;'j _, 'y*Qf '.'. 7 >v .m. m ; 4 -* t:* ^ y r r.. 's .n, y -., s u _n ,y ?- c. n~~

w..

.c s

~~4 1.n y"' i L /M / 4.v. ; memorandum contains orily factual, non-privileged matter. Beginning with the last paragraph on the first page, the remainder of the memoran-J ~ j ['% - I f~ ^.~~

?.

dum is privileged. The County has not established a compelling reason for disclosure of the privileged material. To clarify this matter, FEMA shall produce a copy of the June 7,1983 memorandum from Gary D. 3 Johnson to Richard W. Krimm through the paragraph ending with the a phrase, "in preparation of FEMA's response to NRC." As to the remain- ' ~ der of that memorandum, FEM A's claim of privilege is SUSTAINED. t .2 i': y; e q..,-,. 7:p g;j.y % z.1;N ;W;'J@n. . m y yvr: m ',. f dr. s "(e.) Draft letter, never mailed...." For the reasons stated in connection with draft memoranda and draft .S, w%w.

.. a r'w,

w. ~~

~~? letters in parts (a.) and (b.), supra. we uphold FEMA's claim of execu- ,',' ~t 7,,' a :, " C '. y.. ~ - O, '2 tive privilege and find no reason to review this document. ...k.~~

y

'? 'n.' ,\\-- ' ?[~y 'Q.O,l[ *1 "(f.) Portions of Status Report...." ~ p. c s. - V M ' c',5,,. "(q.) Analysis of a hypothetical question...." f l Df la connection with these two documents, we concluded that the docu- ' '., ; _ cA 3ll g~." QfA ~2 ments in question should be reviewed in order to balance the competing '? ,., M, ;.g'.h.g.,. interests. Accordingly, the Board examined the portions of the status F '., 'T,.. M... W. E Q~ -. document contained discoverable factual material and that both docu-E , ~ .~.. Ja'CE M. eM.. m report and analysis of a hypothetical question and concluded that neither P ~ M. N, S W iMW,,..% - s. ments contained opinions, deliberations and recommendations which L_ ..... u..m. ..s ~ -> - J 34 4 should be withheld. FEMA's claim of " executive privilege" as to these I8 ?.[ x %.,4.f7.J. n,'% ~ ' t-W.. e .. ~. G: -f.. ' KR, m

~~items is SUSTAINED.~~

... _ c S,:Y,d S i 'T(9$8 @9i R y. t' 2M: In addition to the documents described above, Suffolk County, in its ... ~ ='( T, M EE' Motion to Compel Discovery from FEM A, requested production of writ- ^ ' b <4,." . %f-ten instructions from Gary D. Johnson of FEMA to Fred Sharrocks of "$~Qg.T. FEMA concerning preparation of a draft response to a letter from NRC. [ p ' i- ..c., FEMA has not asserted " executive privilege" or otherwise objected to E.

f_

'.4 ~ 2 1 c $ 7j >.." the production of this material. Accordingly, Suffolk County's motion to W E, W. s,.f W; V, ' _.: WCT s q! g]e.;.g,.gg ; w.3 4. q. : ;' compel production of these written instructions is GRANTED. (.m f.a h ~

~~.. g&. ~.y?q;.m.;~~

~.. ".'. *q .p y3 W '3. u-w: / ;; n . x.:j.,- @~PZa.:SXWh "..WO'm V. ORDER .? S %: P- "-- c.- a.. w. - a : m.,; q.< WHEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that FEMA shall submit to Suffolk y- - 7 7 Q Q;s +Qg.J :igs:,y l,, County the following documents: (1) Page 1 of a memorandum dated i;ji'.;:. M e,rg./,9 % % M 9 7 p $3'yg;S'?., W M @ %]l.K.. June 7,1983 from Gary D. Johnson to Richard W. Krimm through the f. y ' ; ff:..f 2 ' 'Fl paragraph ending with the phrase, "in preparation of FEMA's response m 'a..e.y M.w. PW. ' '-w.,,. y to NRC"; and (2) written instructions from Gary D. Johnson to Fred ' -7. t,e. p q u. - c_ .s,,a.. ;,.. - y.k:..v;%+.W.

~~e..,,,~~

~~u, . ~...s., m sg, -5 y I 7 ' . g .. a = g 1229 M-,, T. 'm ';W %.. A J' "., ~. r., .,..( : g. ~., c ^Y^ s ?;, s '.~~

~~rj u. s.-~~

~~p.(ta e s~~

.f

',k g,..iw(&_~ 4. '* *v) *.u gf *

~~k..$~~

~~tb.,.* ?^.' y o 'x* {.t~~

~~'*e..~%~~

~~of;j, ;. p %i i~~

~~h.. t,'f.$~~

~~e ? && Gh.'s *Q:;.:hlU A EE,~~

.pg.7.jT.g. l(P g&.f.f %

,1 gJ

M 3" C,7~'nyv ~~' C*'

~~_ y .r '"V"';q*v*~T'7* ' - 3;& * \\j .~ j g;c k. j.q'. , q i hjW, , f A;~~

~~gg a@f':,q.,;.c.? '.g' y P m-4;-~~

~~n .M..~~

~~q. g~~

- l: W ~)g:,'QMP ' q~ )g;,y, .i 1 * .. 2 * ;; h ~ 1. : f k yj 't ' ".f ^ : -.':- a , m, { W: y.( y gg py ym.,u y >w .. ~ . a,' 3, a' ....., y. ... 7, g.g. u.;. sg % b *

g

~~-.g -? ~ '39 .,.. g., .t : 1 ~ ~ . h hyhhf h W N h h - h p& W h $ h Y h 5 k $ h &. &:: w.c. h, M. m @% M s j M p$ % ,, 3 &. e w. f M M,"$W$hW'IS&;%'ds&stMl,%%2W {W sQWTidl.k%C,QAQ y gn p~~

~~WhNidNA'*)Mh *$wnf.Q.gg~~

.a,4..yr. .SA T 15 k Mjf.i;r;j)M465 id $ M h'4M%jt/Ef;WE%.y!*M9%n'M % g%M @ M ""~ ~ -- ^ n 19s.&.&o.g.. S?$ yeq.q: c.w? &v ml?o?khkh h5hk h u-m 9 .e.A g ~%Jz n,, ~.,c.:.m n c,s. k $$ t 3.M.. DNM.&y ;,%s.e:.Ma. d*%w:a N U 4 N Mhs$. Y p. ?bb'N: 't wy y: n.. .m i WJ5.*$$ -@Q Sharrocks concerning preparation of a FEMA response to a July 22, q;. e.r e. e.o,,, %. #. s.xd. 9, +. &y$.y$;yM g 74 .w-m.- & M. Le.m, 1983 letter from William J. Dircks of NRC. w 4 4t 4.W3/@S.m $$m:

~~n. w~~

. M/; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as to all other documents for which s. bM N#y&gg.g " executive privilege" was claimed, as identified in the Suffolk County d@N. Q:@':.:'$Md/%skQc4.g? /4 Motion to Compel Discovery from FEMA and the October 12, 1983 N"%t.W$fkDE@$8NN{$8M3 FEMA response, the FEM A claim of " executive privilege" is SUS. J ~ ~. m.. $. Q %:..$ h ?,L TAINED and the Motion to Compel Discovery is DENIED. $-QE%qpQ'g%c y@.. ';f.d. 2:,. w MM% < r.u.4.. %fy. vt.y -f W f Yyg . *kg. '. & w (m,;% 7'r hf wN.,m m & M Mc-6 7y,pM s FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND e .? 4 J FM LICENSING BOARD ' *{,y'.fi'"C'kV_;dk,y; \\Ml.MY).$a,g&,f:)d#.t @-c4 m..W.7.lg-w ~ t-n..4~kh:,m.. e. tf'% f .g . '....m,. tQp.m;:,?.;%W:h .m- .u

~~4. h s.~~

~~w-w .~ Q:% 'e%e%$QEWM-w 'b~~

~~ssi M$.. ~r.4% m@MM.s 4@m,,Ay@we,M h^r W~~

James A. Laurenson, Chairman @LM.nh f9 'N ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 9.4 ng? W. dyQ@p.$ n.g.,.am M:~ c - .e M. g t.g ^pg M & W n n..:y.; &.ys.} % y y iE.G r @ @ @ MMgri Bethesda, Maryland .r gyti; g. p~ > Wr. ',h.. Vf ( W., ;.~,p m.y.. n..K op.;g.i. 9,' b N 5NJ

~~~'.5 4~~
~~,s ;,;.e. w*y. w. : o.ef,5.,,. w, ',_:.g.p.,c> ),,a, C.=.~~

~~+Lt.,.* M.: Q A g ow ny n.. ~ ~.., y,s 1 ~.1.. q^v iiv..< .>g+ e <. ,,~~

~~N* 'f a',~~

~~'A c w.. eg g~~

~~nv _~~

~~N-y ' I,r .4.,,( *. T. M c~~

~

~~sY S: h1 w' wm*PM.gw%@h2@.5,WM,... ye 2mm f j.' %M.D M::"'. Z f ' Th&...be.yJs Q $,g. m m w. p'.G...Q,. W,%.; p&. r %g.9,g).~. .~~~

~~g. :1:M~~
y

q L~, 4,

~~p k k 4 d.fY 95 *.y. n ..n..~~

~~k j~~

~~r-4 jr 8 Q e w.:e.p; h,% a.Re. c'? u& t,pr c-M.,.y? gs 4 s ~.w p~~

~~tv *' t.:. c.~~

~~.T '... C.A,. t JT (H - w. # 6'.q y Ap % y$ ' } l$ w:ss.h {y: a 'N,h ff ? W~~

{'$'

l g f,

4.p,yp;.b ,x g4 0 n:~.: y N.4.., ? A,, s. n. w [o P f m e..'.*[: f.. ,7-2 ,..O N*'q':nr _ ' *MM., o.-c ;./-Q.M r rp;.%:?',9 % j%: j'. r q:;4 z. 9 .',k, ; e n : A ; s. 9 m 7.. W.$.pf. a.w@;f:,..o.r;.?.t d93 E'<T~p.t ny 3. - T Ji ; GN'hh%3.y4:ef..y ;:q'%, r M,' M 5

~~%g y;y~~

~~'yy C M,y>(:W,%, %.~~

~~h. &' @, y't;if}. %; W.a, 4 u.7~~

~~,n n: ;. . 42 W. W#N@MMMgywMW E MS47 s % W.s WM .w AJ. w..... W. r%-. m.,q.,p.., g,,.(p,,j,n,. g, ma4 -,.,.s w 5 0 v., s.., y 7...j, .p~~

~~ry,,,~~

~~, q; y,.t.wi-p,'.',s.' f.ili, Q, (. 6 3..,* y ;V: y;,e'+M. W... g '.g M. q' N' /~'.M.7:q, t >t ,yw 3 w r -.s . c s M m,, ~ , A 4;I 4.7 "g # *.,.;,.y., 3 ^l, l e . s ? 'f. 7,'i N 'Q,, ~~~

~~g.,~~

1

~~..W~y /,'v~~~

~~,*o b e4~~

~~M.,~~

~~'..m' ' i t.;;J.f.#,. s4' ' - ; A '%>*r.1 W;,;A'-g e.?:3 4,h d,~~

~~4 U JC... J. %,y*.'s../y ( DM,,Q3 m,,,g? ?', +f, G,~~

~~.e-~~

~~'n n: >:w.%,?; },:l*f)d:~~

~~.n 3~~

~~lN+q j ?.~~

~~.i ann.le v:.g ;p[:if.;<. 4,* <3.3 g...,;, ~ f.., Q" A / 4 g.. c '8-r .n .u - a,s f..* 9.~Q.'g. n lA r.:g.f.Q.pJ . ~% ,9.,s &.~~

~ Qo,,* :o.m.L W
.~,

g c,hef RM.FX. E,R . Ih. - 4' 1230 e,WWW.(;!%.,a-QW.wW@&@@W1W ;7*. g. 4,y,t, pk f.d . Ap y s ye-* f +Q /t.. A c..4.f;.g%. ys.(* o e' y % s ,,.~e ty, ./s. * .m .3:;.s...,,f '. Q e . ~. n. e e 4,,;,g s>a..s.,4 .y - a .t.% g. s.. y r,. # : r-Q ,..r ,-:h:M::) ' e f,*l*I -;;Q T %* Gl C*:; W :%vv;3~~nmv mm.; * : r: wrv:pm *:;~ aw:~rm.m;n r m v.m '& ' ~ -.

~~v. ~ g; ; a.~~

~~m ' ;., ' *.m,',-;q:F: ' l.. P',,: ,. r w ?.,m.w.....w, y:;.y.y n g. ;> 4 n.,.y;m,,,.,t,, e.3 >#. /;;y:n. y: x.m,y_ apM ' Q 'i' 2::l m,l,. ...f Ip%'.yf*Q.!;:4 ' m Q ~-7: ~ w~~

~~w m a..~~

~~y. ,s %s . _. e.,, e f -r s-u .r. J, _.g.,,-~~

~~'4>~~

~~~ ,..+,..,q*. w; j,,..3, A-v- ,..m~~

~~t g',3, e,~~

~~...,.t J.# ,.. - -....ggy ge L/. 3 a ,....1 g. s... ..,e~~

~~s.,.k.~~

p+ J. ;_. - A. = 4.,.. ; 3. - .,N a .-(, ,.,a 5 ,.,-.p,.s.. , ty s # a ,; N,* ,s 9 , i,...3J,_,.. n . - c e. q F. ;sg[p - sf "# ey.. 3,,. .c, .s ,,;,,....,a.A,>.(,,,,', *..,, .,(. -.,. f u -r --4 , a <%,.. ' ,l e' M,,y%,.,**,.' .ec e.'j. +- e '.. f (,

r

~~,,.,p,, g p. e'~~

~~.q4 si~~

~~,e..4, Q,,,.,, S$..,~,, .. o 3 1*.:.e c 3.. -....- . s e. *' s. ,r,i, a e,. y .. k. ".p* > c; P. g;s*,1 H,,g,+. W, .e., - l. y- ~..... M 557, 2.4.,n*# .3 a ye n.,~ . p.,.*-, y. Q. N.~~

~~+ _~~

~~g.;.,,s.,. , s 7' r , s gy _. .; - ~ - r w y,'.S o. r. c . *. --.- e e m.- e. t',~~

~~f g i ** u..n e~~

a g .m. r 1 \\ 1 I J l ~ 2 l 1 l .u ;. 3 l 1 mm LBP 83-73 t ...:m g:Q, m l Cite as 18 NRC 1231 (1983) ~, ; 9; ( . ~.,, _ i O S,.> # UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s i- + ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD 5 e s~ f ?- e- ..s e. Before Administrative Judges: [ g. f' c . Rh.u $ f 7, M;,,, 2.. W 4 * -am ? J, x

~~M @ D,d j d,% ', '~~

Hert ett Grossman, Chairman y ',' ; ' x % %. m c + Dr. Richard F. Cole ~ ~. .c q .x; v, r r- *, Dr. Emmoth A. Luebke n3 c g + , _ y; c y _ r, ~. y H g. 1 g v s gl fE e Docket No. 50 244 OLA g3 . "4JF;'O.,

~~1..,~~

(" O In the Matter of (ASL8P No.79 427-07 0LA) +' % f ;: . ~. 1 2 ~ u,, s k( 'd M T E N 'm.,..a. _.. o.- ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC t '. T:.; ;;J i' ? i. -.M,,i'qeJ.;; - s 2 '" 4.. P'c CORPORATION f. +<,s, o :y np.- dm%f,....W. $G. m. s, (R.E. Ginna Nuclear Plant, November 7,1983 s&. 4 . r: m. ~ -m %.y:.,.4 ; mc,..,. s mmm Unit 1) n y.3 G: m g,g a ~=~ e ~/ L..( ; i. ~ wg,.%..? n, M. ; N The Licensing Board determines that a further notice of opportunity d, V..C!T - iN- >D.5 3 6.,. Li y. " 9. for intervention should be issued to supersede one issued over ten years b'.g@.'h. k. N before in this proceeding which had been held in abeyance pending a f.Q dy D ',$l6

~~lengthy NRI %ff review mostly conducted under the Sy~~

~~. :.; 7E g ;* qf.- g,4p?s. M'4 f w M.,e c N. sanctions against Applicant and NRC Staff, and a reimbu a ; m. -.,. ?,A %, h -~~

v W

~p.v fe!,..'.'.s.-O, v;/.

~~3 i.". x l l5 ;.'.~~

pl-f

m,4. gb.$ s.-t. Gj :
~~R, i advance of certain Applicant-Staff technical meetings.~~

~~, M$..e fr,D.c <-Sdd, f~~

~~W'.'~~

~~E 4 f w:;, ;~~

~~7 '.u s t a e~~

~~/ - ( G "s (y !./ RENOTICING AN OPPORTUNITY D@f.h@..w@.,,Q @. RULES OF PRACTICE: . m. y.,, [Nm J/,n .,1 c, M:....,E" .. s~~

~~f. '~~

FOR HEARING .. W Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NR h,.,'l.S..wM W k n m.. y W .a.+ n W Gj 'J. td@p. a proceeding held in % st MM+J,,,. J'.: ty,:w (1979) and ALAB-539, 9 NRC 422 (1979), d where the dk> Qr 1 abeyance pending a lengthy Staff review must be renotice J'S, y, sD Q_%am, m.x% n}3 .+[ s.Ol.Y, N b- ',:s >. "? ** ,'"N,'o ~ l' , p.;

~~b. h,T?~~

z ,'b. c$ )J 'O w% ., ~ w e.m s 1231 '*- m' w;: g. w.,p _} - g - i 7 y;p;. :m F 3 Q ~~. p.: C..,.v..ei, u vr / J.. _ N I t. f. t t Y. m" g.f, '. j e b,' 5; ' e ~...~. [. ~ =%. ~,J... \\ " a +e + +, v-**~~*h).**?*(.

~~. z..,.,~~

~~c ;- 3 >s Y,/ 6.,j 'Et . =..~~

4. ;3g..A, - g; s.q;,,.,.y';,. . g

~~. >.s . {,'4g* et ~ ~.. ' ..,vwe=,,.-~,~-*.2 ,2 mm=.*w,m s~ e=~ r -~~

g,
~~s. g../~~

~~-:s - y; -.e-w,, ,,w-,-. +.p m l' r, + t.4., _ j? (, y w h. ;; a a y m w-. -o.r< -~~

'*^, *

~~.: _ Q,n.: .c . j 4. f ^,[ ww,..m., n, n... # 3, 'o.;y y, y; A m m..,. n_, c,.. . ~ - r. 9,- . A :, 4 8>~~

(*

~~1~ ., i.8 '~~

~~n. n..* w.... m.vt.'~~

~~~.y.. * /. '* gM, 0'< Ja - a.. 4 a'*ta. >%; ; y; ;, a, r~~

~~~ ;,,,'& '. A.,7' m,?. m y r g ;' '~~

~~' '--~ i qs 1 s R.. ~ ~ y,,, s ~ '=na .v ,r?A ~. 7,,. 4,4:i..:.,....,.v g, g O",g. 3 y m .z. ..'e..- ..-;v.,4,. .,i; < d z.;r.y y' I, ('- "v.+,a c-~~

~~.y..~~

~~~ ', ~_ c, s '...\\. -.f.~~

~~- maux -~~

~~a ..J. .r . s ,. n,y %.m.m:pg%py., R.m..<.,..x.y;p,Q .,,p;::p Mli:c:g,y_Q...,~y.a: j'. ajiMM [,.W g.:.; W.d. . L,...>.e 4.g._a-;g,.. '/ ~. - .. q ,a-+- 2,j. 3. -..-.: .u ;-R~~

~~s., p~~

.u

D;;y. 2,r/ Et9, L;;$.W.

~%'6.a'x,.W5JMj,#.. D.m. a~p;,m s. w
L"M. p*

~~3, - c .r} N ..m . ' 7f a s m . v 4 , ~f t.~~

~~J,. ;~~

~~.j' r ) ; 4 Q* a.w.~ f "y. mm. M L.,5;g h i.l#7 -%. A>~ w mw 2u;Y. s. /;W1-Ly 3.,M.7;..g: m'< '.pn' J qw.s :.3.m. M.p ' t.Y: i.. p. 4 J..~~

~~73-; G9;.y~~

' y: y$$k$&Wh.m.6% i t h h f $5$ h p$ $ $;wp.ac ~v..; q. 4 ;. W h: &,k$h&hf5EW&&.!5?5 l' Y.?kW a>g c;m s:. .o h0 i r.x.p.yax%,p ud:om:n V}@p&uw~ 4.m;r m. u%;v%w* p.,.g-#N>w+me:.nw :,. w..pnMN u.: n-.;a n(3.m2 iMg; wag,QR..:;. n 1;;m.w4.m \\ m, m j,6.,h w G m,-~. y.;,; g; g4 q qn,.y r.q. m. _. y,n w .c W w wa n-m n N mp me- -ww- .x

~~a w.s h~~~

~~~n 1 ms.a-9 1-5., 1 W..u &...np, n:n,,. <,..,.v rn,.wp. w: y.. n, n n. ~ gR$y@jg ~;kgh.g,...n ey a . p d.ge .W:,W;W7')m:ne 'c%@.n, n*p;ge,@yy*2,j's;. i w.wa. %.m;.;..p:ga.W p~~

y 9.gy% mpg;y,'g; %Qi.g

p, b

.p m,99.:m e py i? & SIN.d.hbf.hh hiNb h original notice of an opportunity for hearing had been issued over ten W i. y..E <x-N AMNM years before. 4 N.1. A h;J'.d.m [1 w' w; W.f.2'Jd9.t &,% :g,i 1.& %. M+ dig,d

~~e..;~~

~~gM: , %,,.,s w.,,a. 4 )Mks$,,f. m $s, w ~.g;<W~$,E.W E i &.n u @o a.e~~

~~e W.~~

~~l:;O.')m RULES OF PRACTICE: RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES~~

~~7. w & g:~~

4wR:wnw6%;:;24; pap % m.yc$. idX.4wwx;m.#a$r/<& n.w.W" In the absence of any willful violations of Applicant's or Staff's MM.Wh W2 pny.q.m.wwy. .....y. ,. m.,, g-.-w;,w. Me,_:kM i.n-d!:s :5 obh.gations to the Licensing Board or Intervenor with regard to giving r m. R... m.md advance notice of Applicant-Staff techm. cal meetings and transmitting ~y+C,m.; 94. n.i P,;Nc.:.x.Mw..:> ;W.9, .,2. m,. W+sp,;;y%;. mm @:. 2. y. relevant documents, no sanctions will be impo<ed.

~~m. we ~~~

~~1 .m.. a]j -,g;A,,.mh~~

.

vi--;;y-%,u;.g&g:9,.e4

~~,*..Q %m:. a. M. x,.~~

~~i p<.,~~

q, fl ,eq . f h h.W.w, M COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 9 h $. m.0 M.m.c. p!- W 7 R $ $,.. M.e,g. g.q O R $; y.)I d M W TO PARTICIPANTS -nw gm m t.wv.. c.k. .,.cwy.w n m ,t M.;%a:m m.su,p.g m s. .wwv n e. The Commission lacks the legal authority to provide financial assist- , 7-v; Mq'.m,wpwa :.3.n,psw% c ance to intervenors, having been barred from doing so in successive MQ,.yl'%;ncy;sq qhq.d .g!QMMr.r appropriations acts. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear I N N h M f $ p' $ $ $ M;;f./ ~lf ' M WMhM($$p.u% hNkh$ N Station, Unit 1), CLI-80-19,11 NRC 700 (1980); Pub. L. 97 88, f 502 (Dec. 4,1981); Pub. L. 97-377, f 512(0 (Dec. 21,1981). e W m,.;.4 p-W m.g. ;p.r a. .M- . y e. n.g ; x-se 4 @c. e;m.,NM,4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER , %$m.u.rc%q,y eo s%,.. ,w ..w. m.s, W M M u e $@$0.Q M/$ h M, % @l< M f.y y.NJ1 5W "$QMOdh (Requiring Staff's Draft of Further Notice of Opportunity for N.+NO Qi Hearing and Ruling on Intervenor Requests) m,W w e,1 @h.,.,,M. y% % r 2 cffy.y. jg y q.; p@*n. %. 7 %. W 5 y, -@M,.f. d %M% MEMORANDUM 'g. ig .y M 9Mi%q.Q.d;M M W.9/d f. ,MM W. %,ME;,i.MMM@fM ddMO The Ginna plant received a provisional operating license on September ~%j@$$gp@9@%f $4,Dfgp & Q bpm 9',h for conversion of the provisional license to a full term operating license f. 19, 1969, and began commercial operation in July 1970. An application . 5 ' g/, J,iW@.m'u N.w;p/.6.4 4. W S MNC was submitted by the Applicant, Rochester Gas and Electric .m s w- .f;6 bs Corporation, and was noticed at 37 Fed. Reg. 26,144 (1972). The MD@$$[;hhM@Mkk@-.Jfsphy.@1.Wj$N.@M@ p$tFq $i 4j 5 Intervenor, Mr. Michael L. Slade, was admitted to the proceeding by an h71/ $3$ y Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order on June 8,1973. NM$[M Since that time, the Applicant has made some major modifications to % 96 W h M 6'R M MT@W WA$@h the Ginna plant. In 1974, the revetment was upgraded. In 1975, in re-

~~d. b [ d s v.7. M M.f ?.' fa,hf 'JY G hh]~~

3dy D W'#'l sponse to concerns raised on pipe break outside containment, a standby auxiSary feedwater system and housing structure was constructed. In 0 1974, to improve steam generator reliability, the Applicant started all-t.; i. L.7 e .. ( g ' '. f..j. volatile treatment for secondary coolant. Safety Evaluation Report, Octo- ,.y { .s . u, g., ;_... e :, ber 23,1980, at 1-5. s c. w, . s , ' 1 !, ~. [p,. 3.,,$:lh. [...d di cf.(9..h .mC.e "?d ? J ' y In 1975, because of a large backlog of unresolved generic issues that were relevant to the operation of provisionally licensed plants, the NRC

~~n., * ;n's.r w,.@.,4<r,~~

~~,, M.W ??;;!g;..it s. _ w..., .2.. ~ - s aq~~

y

c.y

~~. y ; ap s.r.m _y;39 .,,w ' L o 1232 f.. M O,..n v.! m w r* , &. s.. < h #.:. W e,;p.- ;. m.,,n g,.-~~

~~w n,~~

~~M,A 6 .a.,, 5-g 3 L g. t.;.1 -i, W' i; i ' .7 g * ' < p q,~. A ; S. 3~~

~~,, Q,") ? %w; 3 C~~

~~. I : 3 '.W ' 3' M f;. ..r. .f ^ * :i '. y' /;?y.m~~

~~.g., y q.t64~~

~~..,:y y e.;5ge:. K ,:W : ~s ', v... . _ Lo.; yn K.e 4'. K } ; %'""'.* T s ...:a c. O'.* 3 *,. 4 . *" W~~

~~C*m*f. q-'t r.'* M *'w ? t'q*.W.vln,7 m ~ ~y s c..,~~

m .:e vn a ..-... G.. y.f..i n[z., g . r - , :y; m.v.1; 7 v3s,. ;* q g;!,n ; p .. ' ' '...- + ^ n + . b.. u.; p".,,,,. t. - p 7 yg ,W ,m;,. .e ,w . 4 .s A .., g? D:;.N } i s g* 1,v '. g% l., c' 3 3 ?s

]

~~' f. -)*',?.',,- .t gQ' (g T $. ' w 'r~~

~~+ *.~~

~~l#. ? C ".>. 4 % ' 9 -F , 3, b. -,.. p f..'.., ,,'..C a w~~

~~7..~~

~~4 A,# h O-e u .,.N'gj i9 ' g #* "Je *W 5_~~

a

~~}q,,3./ "',y,, ,' N. t y ..3 (.- + ,4 [ e. 1 4 8 of h.j b 'P y ) -,. m m' - / .' g # -~ m"... :...;W.. ? %,, ( sL[ ,. ~., j, ,j ' -4 "o. ',' ej;. /* 4 8 L, I._ y w i l~~

~~l i~~

~~i .f. x .. ~.; .w ~~~

~

~~-? cp. g~~

v

..c . r; Staff stopped its review of provisional operating license (POL) conver- -f b:. ,l -"s 3 s sions and set out to establish the scope of review needed to support the 7 (. '- 1 y full-term conversions. In or around 1977, the Commission included the M e' POL facilities in Phase 2 of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP). The SEP was established to apply advances in technology and licensing ^ requirements (generally referred to as "backfitting") to older plants. /d.

a

7 at 1-2. T Although the Intervenor was admitted in 1973 and his contentions ad-i mitted in 1977, the proceeding has been held in abeyance because of the ', M,... h, h..:4.,,.M<, * ~ (e'.M,.,'?,.%ww lengthy Staff review. Staff is currently completing its review and began JJ . g c. issuing its final safety reports m. December 1982. Its latest issuance, . 34 Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0944), was issued in October 1983. g% AJ, y p.- p JS < C,.- With a view towards resuming the proceedings now that Staff is C,n ? ; N'S f#: fl.D-Q@ ^O.,,. c.M4 completing its review, the Board ordered the parties to confer with each other and submit status reports by July 15, 1983. Included in the y y',' }. ?< V'

~~r. L.~~

~~/ Board's order was a request that the parties state their respective posi-q'. 2% m.;;.< ~ tions with regard to whether the Board is required to, or in any event~~

~~% " ' [,~~

4 j 'Y#1 4 should, renotice an opportunity for intervention and request for hearing. " ;~< s' -Q ( g, '3 N 901rd Order of June 15,1983 (unpublished). The parties timely re- {;r/1, 'M '-R ,M e 5 WN ~', :.gj.c;v.# 2'i / munded to the Board's order and stated their respective positions: In-b, tervenor was in favor of renoticing; Applicant and Staff were opposed. b-:P ' .' MOXe' _ d.',1.4.y,3 The parties appear to agree that the proceeding should resume at about N E, ?', ^ N. #..R., h., f. ~ < i.',. Q p ; :% h.1,6., ? W., h[.A O.. k E g;Osa @...][I+be 7 = 4./ j9 the time the Staff issues its final major document which we assume to be the October 1983 Safety Evaluation Report, although a supplement to the SER will issue after the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe- .L ' $,' 3. +l7, ~ ' < f.C .b n @ j.%,yj.yDg." quards has reviewed the Ginna application for a full-term operating s hcense. ifl } ' $ &! m,3.%g.( '_,Mty';d,. Q@ b '$M. M'MS3T'%Qi.(-il We determine that a renoticing of the opportunity for hearing is neces-NN';.. - ? 'f. sary and require Staff to prepare a draft of notice with the inclusion of %f3N WUY.y:h dFM:M.- certain references. We deny other requests made by Intervenor in his + . yp,+- g; m < d.,.'.i.~;y..Q .r- .n y;+f.c4 7 - status report. ry m 3 n y,;, .;.[w.. 7: -... .,g:,._ ,r y, M.w : ec g' * 'f 2 il:y's ?"* g. n :.~ ,Q y'.,%Olj., ~ a , ?';., m{:1 e;g f ' Renoticing an Gyportunity to Intervene M:M..w &m.. ;p%p..N.i.$, d. %..

~~f.,~~

~~., 3:e n. n.o m /M in our order of June 15, 1983, we referred the parties to Houston % % s. Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit~~

-d 7 N '.S P.%WNP

M 1), ALAB-539,9 NRC 422 (1979.), in formulating their respective posi-N-. C h..)>M... nME,G'. *ME6 r.

.l % - ~, lf. n" ?.S S,. c c tions on whether the Board should renotice an opportunity for m intervention. In that decision, the Appeal Board indicated (at 425) that a Ii R Q F M @'-d W;'i-M;IP b Ot.W,, M,,W,,M &.>.W dd 9.M4dd.1 delay in the proceeding of "perhaps 5 to 10 years" due to a postpone-M.. ', N. ~ N.,. ment of construction would cause the original notice to become s " manifestly stale" so that the proceeding could not be resurrected under ,y,g,,. g%:':g%jy..2%&.Q:.k . f. ~; . g l. K,%;:l f_ !.Q }:,%y.; ' y J.,4 n%.Q+,.x3F;w;%kQ o ;. n v m. : g. :;up,

~~yi, 1233~~

~~. s a:w:.4.qd.nu4 m;;;~~

g

~~.r y.g'h,s & < J W}iy%g,' 7,.; ..y.;x, g~~

?*

~~' f.g3 1 a J. -'r k^. .r c.:g. ~ r.p. :: t 5 ^. .x . p-r. 2 EfE o f,? )h.]e.,~'.%,. Q g. l (c' y'. . m,Y. t..,, n~~

~~.. ' >+ ?.~~

y

~~4 -' 47 Q dya,D.;9~~

~~.~ =k m.[ /#4.. f .,:~.,-.'...*q*,. ,... ; ' g.w;:p'.,, :g%,.~~

~~. ~ e;Q -. -;..i*.,e,;M-~~
~~~=~. ;* qs f,, c p.. ag(;** g,;;y;b..y < ? e w~~

~~? s;; s.X Q..,i' ~,..# '9 ., : :..* ~.. 3 *: ~ M' w '- ~~~

~~n~~s ~ r~~**??-*u**;~.p *~~m s?.~~

~~'..%: ~p g v.a~~

~~e.,~~

~~- u , ~ y,. ~ .f.,, ;- _Q. ? y M w~~

~~r.,~~

~~am 4 ,o m. ,..C ..g P.%. 5. ' g. : y..,.->. p y.. ..q. m.f..y3 ;*. q'. Q A. .S.:n& G ;@liw' e.:k.D,p, 0.; ~,. ;2 ; ~, m.... ; f~ 1,., ::e '. Q~~

~~. y r~~

~~s.ty . -Q -,z_ z ~. ;.;... : ., 3-[>,,T .2 W M dg.[Q yQ. QU Q.Q ...;y ny p -. g's ^~; t u. 1 ~ ,',x,-,.;, .u r,.1;..- y,.. ;; :,y~~

~~3, gA. -~~

~~V s~~

~~f. A N c...,. s y,~~

~~v- . **- M;.2. - w. N'. ', a,,,. ' ', " L .- : 4. ,p %., 5fQ :.m, %86 ~ s ,-m/ .y~~

~~; p ","; gq'y:~~

~~L 2 5 ~ , tg.. $.i 9 w. <w. .~ fl.?;Q;. l,,f^g~~

n.
s.

.r

~~9. g..xy m_... ;,,.~~

~~f s s 4 m a, ?Y & G-..c ~ $v.,e %h w :k= ', 'T &N M UM,GM 3 W W. .y n n w, t.m,r M.M: . H.~~

~~d@ 6.:~~

.. ~ 7.1. .2 e.& ~.e. : m... m .w &- + .. c .u . g..,x c,. + . e./,#v...r.n -m cW* q, !w/ *. v.y$v w:;,,. - ~..u*. - - + w-grM www* 4.- 3- ~. -: w-4 %, *W':' .3 g: - ~:- M? M w m s:m , 9ts..qk":.~3~ A.w,u.n %::>>& p,t:w.q;. [yk.y n.Qwj. ;@b. - - u - s x-y - y., Ts ~, n ;- s

~~c:.... 'M.-~~

s~-- y ..ff-y,,,. p ;' L :- 3:,; Qd ,:f f Vs-s % h a" W .m w;.c L - u w. w.. ?.n - N: e .w Q;pd.4,.,w%m:m.yy;.W.y. m:. y %s 4.m.f' Qvd.yP. u+%.m%gr%n un.m.cm. ;3 1 o y W yM:-;;w .~m i.:n. m :: ~ a w.m;<;y@.6 . ;s. c:. . m' <.m,. -p m m ey ,e. v x;,w w.:n z.wwg.g:new; ,x m : s >s ayw:m n D'~~AONY'wyUY,yp&g ^m" W~"gIY ^ A O MO-a qe, O-n es .;,.7e h&i &'hk&$.$... %& "~-W' ' ' ~ %;k.%,sQ @:R~C.'@M@:? %%:. M. e;.m.a,.,p y 3 Wi&: @o e r, %,,...,,%,L.3,w,?% L J J ' '. ni y Qk Vllr%p%y*,.y ;h^ w:'?.%t

~~.s AYO Y' H~~

a fw;e ; W:m, M T, am y t.m.,.w~ r.. <.<n:.s: ?.:y;4m.. m.;y.. ' ;.%,$... r m, y, - M 9i9;M;WS M @d57My 6 its aegis. In the instant proceeding, the notice of opportunity for hearing F;: N@$$J was issued in 1972, over 10 years ago. Resuming this proceeding under PMhiN $.%.Q. "".,:,@. @.s,.e 'f.. G.:!h., n. @, m,7@$ the aegis of that notice would appear to violate the Appeal Board's p declaration. a w:..

~~w. e.~~

- a.y%:.,YN in opposing a renoticing of the opportunity for hearing, Staff and Ap- [( 'F,.Q d Q ( M " % k# M g. %.,f )n : 3,i P @ )4$'f,j;7.M; plicant both refer to the Appeal Board's declaration as "dicra." Staff Re-H- -!. :,P.w.%-

~~r x~~

,'~. n... p[p '.g., sponse at 4-5; Applicant's Memorandum at 2-3. We do not agree. s. g k, W-x. wM MMM., in Allens Creek, the Applicant in a construction permit proceeding in- [ t, ./ iFTP - Tm..cM formed the Licensing Board that construction of the facility was indefi-6 .. %. w; L /. d K. M. -a .em. 7c.. nitely deferred. Nonetheless, at the Applicant's urging, the Licensing g p: Q,.:ig,>M ;., T M,Q W 91g> h Mi:9 p: - F, C.m.:. A.. 2 g an..myw P @gidhM Board issued a partial initial decision on some, but not all, of the issues '3N.MNr$ heard. The Appeal Board affirmed. More than a year and a halflater, the h k D @ M T J @/ M @!" y.6;y M Applicant apprised the Licensing Board that it wished to move ahead y ? v.e $.Q %@ M Q}4 .d f;'(2,. D.% 4< 6 with its application as recently amended. The amendment called for the 5 4.NM e@,:,,NM l! .f .u.A 2 9 b ph. QM reduction of the proposed facility from two units to one.

~~t W,,$Q@^%>. C.d.5GL;ps!Z.'fMg~~

~~..S~~

~~M A,. 3 9P In response, approximately four years after the original notice of g~~

I..cf M J dc M @. M O W @,... M d @@ Mpq hearing, the Licensing Board issued a " Notice of Intervention t Procedures," which invited the filing of new intervention petitions limit M, w?M.y f5 W.j ed in scope to contentions which either arose from proposed changes m.- ,.w w. t ' g. ~,0,.. l,m c, q.%.,.;. g, WT , 3.f k2M, g;; p' d'- Mk.i.- plant design or were based upon evidence or information not available j, '.;y;S: NC prior to the Appeal Board's affirmance of the partialinitial decision. p 6:,p, %.W + s:c,. J. M j %. g @W. P s.v in Allens Creek ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 386-87 (1979), the Appeal i 9Qhv?~$;$g M../.J..g: W; 7 n.,:.r. w,G;... cj(g g Board held that the limitations placed upon contentions were "too ~. W j;U;:6. p?.(ig... Q:.. W: [ AM,%.. restrictive." According to the Board, no contention could properly be .m m - a.C ~ --

~~9 k. 0, MC ;,, f '~~

N. -.., gg.f,.' rejected simply because it did not arise from proposed plant design -d '( ;/.,y changes and was not based upon either new evidence or information. @'Cf.g 'I @ [';q f 3 a df,'. Rather, the only proper limitation was upon any prospective relitigation iz.' $.,<. W. of issues that had already been thoroughly explored at the prior hearing m.o. - N 3 W Q $ 4 O ; d D..c ;;! ";. Q. and dealt with in the partial initial decision. The Appeal Board remanded n

~~s p%C T~~

.X ~ the cause to the Licensing Board for further proceedings in light of its ( lh', ]? X6,7 ,$[} (, 5 Mk'.^;~ s N' determination. In ALAB-539, supra, the Appeal Board was requested to V N. reconsider its disapproval of the Licensing Board's limitation upon new i . ;yWk ?.y.WM;@ Q1S C s%' wii' X?M@4.I. 1* interventions, but reaffirmed its decision to remand with the language hh .Nd: [ hl that a notice aged "perhaps 5 to 10 years" is " manifestly stale." y p M.;eM.9=s., u js>,, ; ;M,..n Staff's characterization of the Appeal Board's stat ment regarding a s. t , &;%s,,...';Dm ..w) ? W.- JJW* notice becoming manifestly stale as " dicta" is ir. accurate. Staff's L ML ',, A '.m g, .W-characterization apparently is based upon its erroneous belief (Staff's 5 .' M." Response at 4) that, in Allens Creek, the " Appeal Board ruled that the li, ' [Licensingl Board's limitation to changes in the design was proper." 9.; b. Had the Appeal Board actually so ruled, Staff might be correct with !: /* !! k ,s v; d,.y +;l m W. ,w ,~w regard to its dicta characterization Such a ruling would be consistent I Y. ,j.,fc,7. ) with the position that the mere passage of time does not alford the right { ~ M. e.

~~c. lp#@.&... ~.., * ' ' -~~

~~g ,A. m , 'm.. - %u c .. yy,. .. n.. w ~ v ms x, c, $, ~ ; ; * '-? '-l&. t. s Q v :.W'W. i 7 1s sq. n e n. p,w.. s s. s q;w %; g34 e s,e. g,,". e .s'~~

~~(A.. ~. '~~

~~s ~... : s - .n. .. it s' v, Q V '**';*'4,.,',.'..!g ,,s A E. ' y4 y , v s.. ,4a' .: p .q. ,'. m.+ . n o.,,,, e 9 ,~.v.].. g a ;> s g.c.y.;j. .. c g u. ,,,.m~~

~~2. m c. m" 4r... w. -~~

~~-.e j. ;M y .e 3 At Q y(.4;.<'- y {'u,... > 4,7...-. ;,.. ,.._.y.,,. ,7.,._., o, 7,~~

7...- 3

..r n e

~~a r .c u u y., s..,,. J ,,-<,..v ..{ 3 3, : < m.i. g p , C.: i y~~

,y >?~,,.., +,, ~;.

e ~

~~~g, ? vr 5 y. 8~~

~~'. ;y.-~ ; %.e s~~

~~~ ~s. y 3 ~ (*.. f t p1- 'a' .. gt f 2 3.; 3:.93 & y[ ?y, 3 g* ~,., xQ.~.[ :@J ^Q. 3.g, }, .:A l . m.e,...'~~

~~~ ' '~~

~~J s /.;, .p. y', ~ + . m.i p w. /-,~~

~~-p,~~

~~.s. 4, s, _4 - r ;.,.. .l_ 1 - - .c 9e .1 i -a 4 g b.. j. '_ 'y'. '- ~ s U ,~ 9+ M 2 ~ ~..w::~~

~~j.. y :.~~

~~3 ' u..a. s s-I t . - :.o,. '.;; ~ . e.- .:,,i +. . s. .. i s.y -w j m ., y y, ~ .y .,.o < 7,, ? 4.j i .. - f. s.Q j.f, p. ; the Appeal Board did~~

~~b..., V6' 1.~~

~~J o the new peti-p g , ; ~ 7..'..'..y-to new interventions and sco entions. However,not uphold that L t ' i 17. ? ! ' Q '.. U, ".,,5 r T. - ' K.-~~

~~w.. < %~~

~~, # f C(;Dj ,u tioners could not be restricted to design changesObviously, it w that ' se. ~ ~.~~

~~gi7FJ, X y justified a renoticing of the pro hese new matters) Rather,:the s~~

B,S ~ ., y &.., - en.-. W, ' ~ s .9.x,.nC -4 ALAB-539 at 424-A N 9,. J.Q. x. permitted a limitation of coatents ..tice (see m ". N-c ~ ll the raising of passage of time " vitiated" the origand required the issuance of a new n JM' A p: -1 .%. y fy 2ft:!$d T - id d any issues that had not yet been actually heard and dec e. [ y;% +? @%g. QQF4 . 9.. Memo- .3 A fyN " dicta" correct) Contrary to Applicent's argument (Applicant s dM. ~Mpa W~ sh 'N M i f "whether randum at 2), Allens Creek, did not invo've the quest on o ' r. T.W: .Ns - w$ y v i 'F .v @mion of cer-l! y. t SM.m.R. M.yN,,W+WR 1 the renotice had been sufficiently clear to preclude cotC at an earlier stage < of L M.;f A ~ ;r;M;V-J,. '4 .v s ,m m,,,7g 4 jth tain issues that had been brought before the NR 51 ti decided by the J1W. 7( g 4 M yg Q7%.M the proceeding." As discussed above, the ques on f [.-j MQ d and decideo 6,., Appeal Board was whether issues that had nor been hear [@E n: ^ WFJ WDM io'n Neause they -O at an cari!er stage could be precluded from consideratl Board's decision that 947 Wy% ,~' .f W:f! ~ @@aN I O M:d were not based upon new matters. The Appea Wid d the ear-y issues could be raised even if they could have been ra M i i al I'hi.n g?gg 47g82 pt' EQ notice had been vitiated by the passage of time) Staff's and A p9;'Cr ' Ti ' M. ND2N;h M bChh. 2MMW Staff attempts to QN %}%Ms%+9 proceeding frorn Allens Creek are unpersuasive." contrast" p has been p E' Q Q $ R W Q'9 i i dal operating pending remains the same - the conversion of the prov s o hwilh Allens license (POL) to a full-term operating license (FTOL) ' 4,gl:' @ dQ@$y% .T 4 i 7 tion plans in H, % : @~.,;MM.. h.. b significantly. Staff Response at 5. But, while the constru

~~WG. - W. n@. mM:MW5 i~~

~~did g Qs, 3,.,,~~

~~sy h the same u~~

~~rA not. It remained the granting of a construction permit, muc W :n . - md,y 'qv M.$_ c%n fh POL to an ( (f% $Mn#a : m. W s as the nature of this action remains the conversion o t e~~

~~$'f[{[Q'f@.h[fhy%. ^~~

g".,@M/.. FTOL. Nor are we as certain as Staff that the proposed changes in con W g -yg m g ;gy;f.% p?j @j p g@ W f two to struction plans in Allens Creek of reducing the nu: lea s ,e 5.f; Rp. ih lth and e

~~.N T.MT'O!CM.. A~~

+[wnW[y $w,Vik@ .j f interventions g s'M M-f-q,s @y.c @ a p hp%ry safety or the environment as to warrant a new round o l t (see SER, Octo-mggdi?M s m-than the major modifications made to the Ginna p anber 19 w , N,M? @M l t, opera-W-Qy. M @.;T,(3 p.t M P M. '53ri' MM ~ w . ypa m y9-n,,a. rp % tions by the passage of time (suct. asNhe e ec c s m.f.f 9 p. c N . o $ yf q-N D.Ni ~ s wc 7 s y ' p ;7. d y %,;p;: j.'*k & n s ra' $$p.D f.Jp $ L I; 71 u os dacrum (see sour 4 Carehoa Eircirir t.n^ w O MQQ% j M. [..@w

~~a Ahhough, as discussed above. the A#rns Creek declaration was n) LBP.82 55,16 NRC 225,268 80 (19 8~~

4 y-W 9, O'- 1N %u'y&(y y n.;.,, . en g! y decidme hether 80 rollow authoritatswe g and Gas Co. (Vergil C. summer Nuetest staison. Umt 1. 1 w yg heensms board's arter.si.e.ract discussion or its (Wemma m y%Jyggqc..pp.wg-O a.; g : w a w e (;p?, N holdmss or Appeat Board darrun W. L l;W[. o!f g1 mn i W,3 b,4W.MN. % v .w % m q# a y$'? 1.w f-y * $M 5s'y 6 z e '& lMQh. \\.* $', y%(Q .r Q t' &.i C"? 0 Q u' 1;- w / m 1235 f V.d W p&q&. a:f wm ?, U% .. un.mp e. ,>s u..e, w wa&m,.x,u h ..y y t lt, q q:.... a V: n& %* J D 4 g 5. ? &... &, n &, _e k 4 WWy r >%g,. m$;R ,s n ? f ~ ..v Y y ~ W fa~ pw,.J. K.m =. n.;y &a%. v,wn..g.. n.pg.p., ;;,.,P ~ w m mNsg* ^J $tyrgj$4@g%%.@ - w v _1. g s;.., n:n W.r$y$ mj y 7 <,,..c 9 ggi+pey.V.gu y . wv n < w..y M, x'

~.

~~n,,. g Wg@g?Q ;g:p@g~g~Q:, 34 . % q..p y J.s,4.,~}.,,,gy. g,gg+Kn,,.y?,p p ~ * - m ,e. ~..~~

~~gy hy y, 1,,.~~
~,

,.A.. ,~ ,).j.s~?'r$ ;;,%p., ~,;[.p.r ~ Q g_.;.;g. 33 @.q m p,~. . _ c7 . A.g,,W m y -dg : + Pe.fs-r s Y .4 _ w <. _.. n. Gi., -w ~.., e ..L ,y.~ 1 A 7. m. ...~:- ( em*7 : '^p, p ;. ~ p. t s).Q,1l m,,m,. 9 f s ;.,, w...;...,,,. c.r % g...., s..;..%.m:,,,e%a' s.;2-s :, +- L ~.v'. n66...?&. v"$w..G. 6. Wa. -h ~ch. r p, . - w,. ^ w

o

~~:'.:. ;7..:1 >.~~

~.

~~3: e .~%4 ...-:; - a .?.lm : ~ c, i ,5 /~~

~~,RE',j4~~

- $t..S f.W, - >: : :... $ .W..h [., *

~~n;,s e u,',,,k: p,.w. & +;,. - '.' s *e ~*' Q(a* $ h,! SD. s'"a l:; Y :.~~

~~',A.~~

~~s. **l,, *1 N. Mw...:. v..' s n k m:; m,, m :r ~ ".s...~~

~~- ~ l, t'. ?,n!. l.',. [ 2.+ ( [. s e v~~

~~s..~~

r -.r.. ~ m a..v w:n o%.,..::W.; : w ..;.g.~' h ~ RN h. w& &w~ N k N,' k Y: w& f.:;:%: W kJh ?- y m,.,$.$$W(m?me:;.w: c w% e w u Y N.b N ' N ! i ll; %p d:

~~$l$'N$~~

~~N 5'. s.:n g y 6,,,y. gag y q..m. g.w.y :. v y:9.a,q w&.y;; n; a..n y.;e y y, m.%mw. .~ w 3.c w;n,qq n; g .a _ y,. c. .% q,.:~~

m.

~~s .w,.m ' ' - - -,.g. m, y~~

~~y. m; AW.ha/w J. awn ;.w m/.A.,~~

~~=A 4.r.ea.s.ai'# .'f. Q r' 4 N-p-^-^ m. w ,d.g. .v . y. ' M ".s-erssa.. *. f M '. AG~~

~~d."f,.[-M}g,,gy. A~~

~~..tj, e,.l* f,,1, -~~o $ s Q:... '.s'. ',>fg-b ' w n, m & W Y. w,.;~~

~~m'4g.h y.s3~~

.r gn ~zyM.~,wm% y mfy. eg . v. .a lm,.c;.~ig).W,.,p. 6 uyt 2 p q: ..o..mm w. . ~ w. g.ms y/.q*:s: %{.c.c.,m:.n@h$ '. m; [;... :: 9:n.r. m.a ..4 f%'d.wQ reliability). Furthermcre, Staff's and Applicant's (see Applicant's e M@@'.NM: . N M ; M % ? Jr; M M W ; d A Memorandum at 3) attempts to distinguish AIIens Creek from this case 4 @Gfi2.MJ. h 0,i;/-W:,%E on the grounds that the basic features of the Ginna plant have not been /. N.1.M.$Q[;q[+8W ;MM altered while the Allens Creek project had undergone significant design [Wp,g:r;5.d3b5k,Q:nwa.dm/:#gy ?, hhihN,k kMh changes continues to ignore the critical holding in Allens Creek, W:W2.. ALAB-535 and ALAB-539, that the contentions raised in the new peti- ..+ y. v.f. m~ 5..m.r.. q.' m u % p;, nM.%.&.c...J-

~~,n tions to intervene could not be limited to the design changes.2 al"~~

.'.'.7 s. . " d,. A We are also unpersuaded that there is no policy reason to renotice this n. a '; y y.9 /M, ~ ~pp f.,.@/ i WWFD ';%a proceeding, as Applicant argues (Memorandum at 5-7). At the time the g<....y ; t D.x$h.N. 1.u ,'YMN, M1M,.fMI$ original notice was issued in 1972, there was little public interest in envi-M'.S.uu;W.,.2,,r.,.7,.w~G.2,;.c,..uls..v/ M y-.i W.. ronmental or public health and safety issues involving nuclear power. y~; Q ;. W l-W:M i, @ d. N.g g Mw Many issues have crystalh. zed since that time, including some from the /?.SA:y operating experience of the Ginna plant. Moreover, significant numbers %f %2O y.i.P@y,Q._M:;'4....';q .., N 7.,. :7e, e. s.q .H of persons have been born or have reached their majority in the vicinity r 3 - y we a p 6.~3 y p g:$v/,; y29; g v ;:p gl of the Ginna plant, or have moved into that area, during the period of ,.s 1. dormancy of this proceeding after the March 1974 prehearing b;M~28 '??)$. 9.Il.i.l&. % h. M. W. q'y p,% 9g. 7.j ff! M.<F> d.g. <M. t

~~c. f. 7'.y %{ d M~~

conference, which was the last real opportunity for residents of the area e .i g to become involved. To deprive these persons of the opportunity to par-fq N'f'@Q.M[R 3 2 M.,q. g. i A ticipate in the matter of the issuance of the operating license for the h. ',. %>,:.M. . b@l. -N 1.a :. V,n .? Ginna plant would appear to violate the spirit of Section 189 of the j: r n$ M..uM %' %<~ Atomic Energy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. f 2239), which permits

~~/..~~

~~d. , S, Napw.;f:.h.,wy-), ~. m -xw sy, u. .r. public participation by. terested persons. .yW.m. m e1.,s -. #ga .a . p' _v. h,, M :s[ %.s.p '...<.y___'y.... : w ;, o-;4, ' p<..y,g_.%. -%.mb ,n %:~~

~~x ;,~~

~~~ - w,,. %.. e.u., - pg r,.': ; - ', Content of the New Notice , 7;,. -,.-. u, u~~

~~c. m..~~

c ~..m. <.wv.-.c m. 4 in his response to the Board's order of June 15, 1983, Intervenor s, c. <;gx- / ' $ l~,*' R Michael L. Slade requested that, in the event of a renoticing of the .':9 ;w <. X M,, q, 9 opportunity for hearing, the notice include information in addition to Jy g *

p. ' 'v.M,

.#,.m

x;.

what is usually included. The additional information he suggests '~ ..; - q.g, y-. includes: (1) a history of the plant's operations; (2) a summary of all e .n';; y [., , ;f. ,-%C formal and informal contentions about the plant; (3) a list of all fp 9(3K '< 7,g, j (.zf y. exceptions from current NRC standards granted to the facility; (4) an ? ~ ~ M ~ n,. y. itemization of all present NRC requirements that did not exist at the M

~~1. '. A. 8d, ':I~~

..y[. f. M. n.CjN?..i[y time of the original application; and (5) a certification from the Staff and 4 -N. X-v: %:N J..Qf Applicant that the local pubh.c document room collection is complete p 7,. Qi . - t;., y un p*. "?d and a listing of all documents on file. l N., s e By Order of August 18,1983 (unpublished), we required Staff and Ap-plicant to reply to Intervenor's request. Staffindicated in reply that Inter-9: m .y. .C ' 1, ' C,, i (, ' ' c J.} ,4 2Although stafr and Applicant have cited a number or other cases A#ces Crert (ALAB-535 and s.6-t- - n3 - ALAB-539. apre), is the only one that deals directly with the efrect of the passage of time on a notice s . N,3 of opportunity to intervene. . g;. 1; -.., w,i., (,.. + .,-a- ,....y .t _t ' i*

~~ji(~~

~~,,1.L~~

~~q A~~

~~t 9 w g g, .) . ; %.i g. 's * [.1 ^ 1% ' ~,.,#g; Re T: ".;Q...W 1236 ,; y -: g rs r 2, . ^ ': 4 - (a ;. - ,, ~ 1 A ~ e ' 4 5%, g, - - L~~

'u

4 e *

.4 ,,-*. ; l _ o ., b 3 y + - a s + ga.>- n y s q.v.; y -. 9, r ~.n q.,. 7 - m.-., jc. .r .. < g, .t 3, w 4 ,'J,,-e l.,

p. ".~. - * *

~~,-y j t, p ,4 E ..~s~~

~~fT A~~

~~J M-t t.. 1 3., q ,./_,.- i.., v n 3.- ,a a - ;s -..( - '~~

~~i. -~~

s . r. .'#* s :. ? .a ~ . ;),. - ;. . '.j : ^ 4 .y 2. .~ q a e .i 2.2....... n: .w u v c,.u ~ e .4 a g g9 'f_ - eq - :, ...,s a ,ns u:,< w e. .g :. g, .v. .y ~.. n .p,: y venor items (1), (3) and (4) are summarized and publicly available in E, 'W,M. U.. ; ; '. ' s NRC documents issued pursuant to the Systematic Evaluation Program. W.;MM, a ' - QrJ# It points out that the inclusion of the detailed and voluminous material .V ".U./, Q...'.. f,,?'

~~u..,~~

yd ~ . s requested by Intervenor in the notice could make it confusing., Staff sug-g ?+. gests that if a further notice is deemed necessary, it would be sumcient , y-Y,f 7E _., g., + ~ 7., W:,:'(i. , A.. Q A p:- ' - l1 to reference the documents containing that requested information in the ~ _.; # W~ '.N "M:.. ! '.'x%F a notice. We agree and will require Staff to draft a proposed notice that J.t '. : ". w-Ji would reference those materials. ~ a- .* M91l.A; .a % M. 4 With regard to item (2), requiring a summary of all formal and infor ' W f..*'.N& - 3MM%,%ih [ug@GQ/(M-M$$h(f.jf[ ty %%y$ Mikfj$ hhT mal contentions, we agree with Applicant (Reply at 3) th,2t the formal contentions are already part of the record and that only the Intervenor &j fMMyh can know what he is referring to as " informal contentions." IfIntervenor kR MyM$.g @ @@. W M.MYMi f M[W W( is requesting that we include in the notice a suggestion of issues that might be raised by potential petitioners to intervene, we see no authority f, T[WtW JM[jd? M4ff .f MaM' N b 1M or justification for taking such an action.

W

@C %M*M.t.-M. M., '1:3Q.Q$$d3lg Finally, with regard to item (5), a certification of completeness and a listing of all documents contained in the Local Public Document Room, Ai.?,R.. F?M.s-D t, s p gg E<.a.j p-fg W da WF}f;. z 'Q.WQ.-C 4.g..g.Q[Qf": we agree with Staff (Reply at 9-10) that this action is unnecessary, e npensive, and burdensome. Staffindicates that the NRC LPDR Stsff re-F E ~ $ s. ~ [d 5 d % d'M $ $ i Y cently completed an annual visit to the Ginna LFDR and that the collec-- tion appeared to be in order. Furthermore, StaiTindicates that the collec- [ ,'O fdM,xc:MM...c;.V &. E e d.p. p p ~g /f h. M,- 4. W p,D.s a [u<W.n tion meludes an unofficial listing of Ginna documents taken from the n g chronological sheets of the NRC Central Files Room and a cumulative .g?%.:MQ;".g;gygjpgfi{ computer accession list of all documents dating from September 1978, m w.R;.W 9 % g! W h e n k M S when the computerized document control system began. / bid. In the ab- @ %'f(+' 9.- #,,, 4. i. M;. J

~~Mj $ y 7 $ $~~

dgM[ib. Ml. sence of any specific allegations with regard to irregularities in the 7-T. W:s. . M.s.W'*. W h. - J LPDR, we accept the existing systemc as described by Staff, as being y %y a p:s.-.:.~ %. f. q'$. 'a!d x.@a, p @y,,. k,f n $. .. 6'.T r adequate. .n h l tyC.yr-:3%y'i.'mp&y.g,;;37s p V;g-Qg :, -L s. :. -z jMyh,fMM (M$349f QySQ$&;}M ~,p Intervenor Complaints About Applicant-Staff Meetings h.i@gg' %nn-yh@w. 3 g->.c. yng a w Intervenor complains that it has not received transcripts or other Qi 3 Cl .jp records of all meetings between Staff and Applicant as required by a py,@h d W @M h ;hR $ 1 stipulation between the parties. In addition, he alleges that these meet-gy g' Mg ings have been held in or around Washington, rather than in the neigh-I;Q M J y.N..,Ne.WaW9N.Mcqq borhood of the site, and that he has received notice of some of these Z A. fM w K g u ~. - meetings only after the meetings have occurred. He requests, as a remedy, that he be provided with all transcriptions and memoranda per-t.c,. #. g,M,, Vv.~ %.s M-m:, p.. W4, w .? &.M'; WM /e taining to all Staff-Applicant meetings, that the Staff and Applicant be @W/'4{dCf[M$e@@g byg y i. Qg fined, and that they share the costs of all expenses for travel, food, d N.?. W T h[....3h,$. : $m..M:--.,s.v f;}f.M.,.Nf. lodging, and compensation for loss of salary to all those on the notifica-tion list who have been aggrieved in the past by lack of appropriate .+u.~ W.- w-9 wa. : ew-w'ye.a h.s.n:',Q n.M,v.%. J .th v- < y%.gy.,.t N.A.. s.. m y t.T., 7 .4;.. R W - >4 )* .r i, L,,.m, ... ed a q?.4..f* h W Dll.:;l.O#. A DY M :g7 M.y;%w' u+MMk"'- f pt,.%.'5,y,a g i: 4, &' .s.G r,p,q.;r d@h$$k!?:h'$kf0W'W.r'A. ?;&. 1237 J. v >%:7;b'W.n gs 49M,a. f%g'[Gl%,5K" .a '.j [., [F kM.6* b.,hd '1 de y b,b..I * [h

d.

~~A-1 M ch d,M,%5.%D,.y.y. w@,W.;[4.w;1SM.. N 90 h M',M.l s r -% v .m li GW:MW:#N8M::h%9.i q;.pglMQ:.y:m-- ;~mppu;g:pH.ym,ys%M:k y a.,.w s. N2:R%%.i.W W %t ggqpty m.W-M% - - m.~~

~~3' mr, y~~

~~.py m+5 9- - rp mm p m , m.-& mr., sy.. w. y,p;3.s & u m,e q w ~,g &y mq. m.eag.w.y.,. m w:, p.. .r,, n;~~

~~,,.u.~~

~~m :* s. q g wr c . y;.; .nm. a, v,~~

~~r m;s.. n..y.=.y.v.. gr a,,,.g. ;;w,....,_,s. y.., f,. o g~~

. r p4 g/g;-^.;. !lW,., %,,(-[;d *. Q [,*

~~,.. g q,~~

~~q.+ c e p ;- g %.7,. :. y ~ A-: , M M,~~

~~/ C d ".j s4.I M-~~

~~,f 4 ,",.q-s h b f ? 'l v W, x M.g.r4. , (w I'*.*.c @yp%,, / ,M . &pf( O. ; - J, 5, 7 ygg.gg %e.,,;g d, q,,7.q~~

~~44,cq;w -~~

~~-s 6 M' - 7. g. -, eo.. g q.~~

~~- i_ixJhw_1mn > t m L N.-~~

~~-W' t. ~ ~ ' .m-7 a. . e f. m% . r Q NMNN! n',.Qp. g-M%.+ 4.. .. m: , ~M, G f 4:. ~ w. w.V @n.$%.~lM M. a *i n~~

~~4 %~~

~~a. x~~

~~l -~~
~~7.. +u *c4. 3D, m~~

~~s. c. W;n.n.x'sh;t ~.. h,R.,,, m f p. M{ qW w s.,:v2q %n o. m.. d YJ N Et.d M NIMMN as; .-t~~

~

t

w :..g:b& % r A; yh. g%_.. w.3n,nJyK'f
o >. m wsp; r

.gQy w y;:w%w:mn i hsn a.h5 N k, m. h. % . m r wy w NNNM$t NYdbdNN!;b;&jyHM;gpc~nm.;q:y9 - W W,. W Q M f M @, m@ k b 3 N ..v~. w [bz (y.y&>.x e w yQ ,A w me awa 5$$bh. ggf.g5IAhbMN.ih.T ,,.. h.. h, .,R. Y., ~, h, w yk y Y y, : y.g - =eL L ,<* n.. y ;.,.. n e ' '.T[d'W.d,, w,$Mhws""+rNhw.. :.N.g#hy...lw h. g y.. S w u mt- ,x nm. . -. M... 7M;f y ' m y'r, %, %*Crry. m" $L+ a, mc n. a., ,Y.*, q 3 dg.g.g '. :.q Q?'"'U.M \\ .Y.M $e p. M.i. W S.. M..,.a~. O.,g.u N W M U N. ^, %.,2'- W. N Y Board does not grant his request, Inte m. p '4% n.WMW~%u ,w

W

:.'. 2 y )1
W

J e l',l .g w $Md f e.? F@. l d h. K a;, m r,f G.. y$ y / W.. @M M lf the Staff or Applicant is a party. Interveno ~ a we MM bge; md. Q wy&f h z g -t n From Applicant ~s. WW g w,.na.e ~.1V n :- NbNMhbbMhkQp%g tween the parties,,'s and Staffs replies it appears that the " stipu w. referred to is an informal agreement made between 6 %.6fM M N Intervenor and Applicant's law Grm in February of 19 M$CMMJi$p$[GMdWM'rygGQ as s:s was not a party, pursuant to which intervenor was to receive c 4{. a 'y;WMg:g;~:&U:"s-W G 7.W/p NRC. Applicant indicates (Reply at 2) xmw p es of 43 W g, w%;g,w.c & m,K W.4: g 9.m v F MN$MY .t pG gnQ Oy T.$$.N$hf4k with that agreement. While not party to the stipulation St pe -1 Copies of all NRC-generated documents on the Ginna d 4W%ph-M g ,. s ifIl$YSN Y f $h a y mailed to Intervenor and to others on the tec ocket have been ht -[ N N h b. b: $g $ ycyp t s 1973 in accordance with NRC policy. Staff Reply at 4. / wm cyM4~ s whh least two occasions, due to the need for hM$ M R@/Nf dfD@g$$$ M5Y d6 a gyg'

~~f. M NMQ ing matter affecting the restart of the facility ti Mj;dpMMf:,m$@M.,wM, T@E MM j.e a cens-MMdd t9f p~~

forts in the future to notify the Intervenor o 4mp. M M M M ~ Mv, ef-W" y$sj3p% N 4 %g.PMEM'f,g? N means (telephone, mailgram, telegram eek in I. J L..h. j y g e.< IS..M. %h y.if e M7M.W %,g,gy4(p;O$.,.n@304.. ,@.e@.de a m W. M @ f. rangements are such that advance notice is impractical The

qK._MMif ng the costs to 4 M O qk g@ @M e,,fi,. E.% @g We see nothing in what has been told to us by the parties y y.T y e 3 e, q-justify the imposition of sanctions agamst StalT or Applic Y [ at would - r; p,,, g x " W pp.o = =.., do not treat lightly breaches ofinformal agr N%. .q. . o scov. 4 @p #,~- g;r. p b.c '@,-. ,o o g7 but if any occurred in this case, they appear to have been .r' jf #.. - -f M.N.;;p:# W 4-X, pg. e parties, uM... e W A yk S'Nd.f Sd ne failures in communication are bound to g a vertent. g:@, g' 3
f.M lengthly period in which this proceeding was held in abey n;&g ?:.y:,@.w v,?Qf Wy, y,7 r ng the

~~)pt% I.wY~~

~~A.-~~

~~C notifications of meetings and all relevan h.Nfhy~~

e. We are Ry@_ nf,py.::,K, N.. x n.o y.,

;3 7.s :

~~fgi p Q% gds;g UN meetings. g@ W , [.N.,g se yW M~~

W O J.g @J' tions to the Board or intervenor, we cannot i

W M i@{ Q;<

Q n Qqp;ag k W.p: o ga-j, o,;,. > >Q;;.;-I'TG Moreover, we are unaware of any obligation of Staff to h 'f ' s pose sanctions. $.f.j the contrary, Staff has every reason to minimiz m gg ngs El V; X'P Y~N 6;b . n .... ; J, a W1 g ( [- limiting the travel and work disruption ofits technical staff A M.d SQ:$f;.t Q { ~., l,m..?Q:l, ;. and prehearings in this proceeding, on the other hand, wil 1

lll earings piW y-hy[NM e

q.a. e., s@r, dWMMM

{O.&,#gj$ y* *. e A* s n& f, M -.-~6 +...- f*-jfy m sg nas y n. M_.:; a w. a. y, ?,'? }> ':1 c i 7. @ C, h.S.M.~n.uww. m FW (>,.h 5.@ Q.ki$f M,n n,.;c t I x<- g [ .~,g y x I i,+",# . m p; o'.h :> lt!; %._.}u,. '[ 'XLm.: y ll.nq .y ~. ~ y x, m, n. ;- h, a.,, . s.. 6 ,j +v d , ~gQ.b..m'~ k,'y: <,;l. Q',"g.;,s V;123ld:*. 6 % % :,p&y.77g77., .,l'- ..e -- Nr 1~ v

~~f y4..~~

~~Y ')gi4[ t Nyy.jy f * '; '.'.'.;;:Ml :!% y 5 Q:'a y.4 g l' % Y^7 ,,m,p,,,..,;, ,m L.f }.'" 4 7,.,_. ... s,. :.. w y j.:9,.;.,,.. ;..,,w n.. - w. v e :.:.. l .:,%:~~

y.

~~w, ~.. ;*2 *. ?y ^ f Ky.f:', g .j ,g,,. ?;m. m W, 'g.-a r.; n l . n i k@y, , w, - s e S.: dA , i- .,.f,::w :;,s','.x yc.h..:~~

~~&y,<~~

.,., e. w.a. w.Q Q. m:: p N.,.::y & ^. 2 a .. tj -e ' f 1;., +. ~ ; y **

~~n.;~~

~~..y L }.* ^ ~_.,o. g N <. r..- +. :. ? .'n, g x.. n.... q. '[. .:..n~~

~~.,,f.~~

~~,.w.4,c:; % C;pm.y#-. -~~~

6.,, 5 g

x s_ g n -c

,? 4' ~ i[* ' ( e' 'J y ' <. : ? a... l " m m_ r. .~;.**

,y. n

J. ; s v* g.:.

~~. g tyk' y ~~~

~~-(. ~~~

~~.....; }.;w: a. r y&. k_ ,.~/' n.,_,,,_, Q~~

p?

~~v a 4'- q .8* w ~.,. * -.[ ^ - ' - [ '; '[. ""-I k, c ~ . '. 9. % 7 ~ t7; p .<9 ,9-e e F J ,y w.; ' . J- -1 \\ n. s: s-4 w;z a. - u .r.~~

=

~~' h, ' w... i ~ ~. - .l .,.,e.:~~

n

~~.,,s f A,.- 4Qg 4 'T m Atomic Energy Act 'f.4;.Q: p.;.? - ',..,i g ;h.. ~ 4.. .. {..., s 2,7 h near the facility in furtherance of the policy of t eblic particioation. ~ N d.M I(; M S D; '$ c' 7 @ J~~

t. '.;.m X. e<M..~N M M-"?

. 4

+

~~e for itself and and the underlying regulations to encourage puAlthough Intervenor M y W.~~

~ P. [@@j%g.[ > k N$'/ 4 J others on the notification list who wish to be presbetween Staff a M , M D64 k the legal authority M3 Metropohran Edison Co. [?. a. 9ftppW$;.;yVQ x.M f? - '~ '; v DF~'O f' 3 e fMM-to provide financial assistance to interven LI 80-19,11 NRC 700 i ~ doing so in successive appropriations acts. O fD.M/c4 M9.W'fMgN Q@ (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), C b L. 97-377, j 512(f) p[MgM-@d%$d63FJ@ (1980); Pub. L. 97 88, { 502 (Dec. 4,1981); Pu.Intervenor must persuade th Congress, not the ~ t JOEJ 1 (Dec. 21,1982). -@3dMhMhM947E%% D.FM est that this Licensing Board, to supply the funding. Board remove itself as biased from this proceeding iWe s MM'Q$f[gM38@kj$@7M. TMM etings between NRC technical P8QME 6 PJ MNM.MM 9 rtially on his requests, tervenor's requests with regard to the mestaff and Applicant. We are cM:%w.AT'6.:M,9;54$y A.V./f.!J. w f,4 ??! h @m%,3 TNlU M MjM'. r..M m .Y i m's d F and that is all that is required of a licensing boar. sq \\ &*h,C f WW h@D h; [? d ..y w > g;, 4;% q h % aw,.~ w ,,y?,hsirp.qw w. $~ m. m

~~,,n.~~

IWm@Qy /j:TWQ'fMSy,d yfM ORDER d id ation of the hif[MM@pW.hh$$.;. k For all of the foregoing reasons and based upon a cons erf November 1983 R entire record in this matter, it is, this 7th day o h[@g 7.M..e;s ' f, ,M'd:,WW..w _.ic posed That Staff (and any other party that so desires) draft a pro b;# v.S. sM.v,.- 3W w.. p ORDERED l form but containing, in 2 bd, e.. @ 'g. ; W.J, N.%.mf..m $;.y-4 M notice of opportunity for hearmg in the usuat Ginna documents that QJ dMS (1) m s(,j.f4: E TM#.w.w%v:,W, addition, specific citations to the pertinen D N. n.n@W~ n#_$ y+y@ f ll exceptions a a history of the plant's operations, a listing o a c f ~~ :M. _ f_. ~. i. i itemization m n

~~4. ?....f from current NRC standards granted to the facility, and an 4,.a tr;'V.%yM:r f the contain:~~

~~M iM. WWW-ist at the time o of all present NRC requirements that did not exBoard by November 23, g M:i,$m 9.w.~~

~~J g %. %..v (W h g!' M M h original application, to be submitted to the Mg d4 9 0.s. $m -i [-.~~

i hich M.ED e That Applicant and Staff continue the arrangements to wding notification o MyJ ,mmpgnX,M,1 > m e",JTWri945.p ;,p;y&* - m 1983; f . L b.og,s.;. ,m they have committed themselves regar I tervenor;and r> W. (2) n;*-Q,. - n:s,.;,wg; w&?m ~l,K. /. y:6;f*n:%g (, .w a .x,2; w,..c _G. w the transmittal of relevant documents to n 1:9 t" . f . m m. M m. w n 4 - ;' I a w.e.% w% v. S n: v%,-Q *Y-Q Q*J o f e.* g &;.: A n.; ' 4.WSQ. - ~ s .%.: n,. y~ s..y E.V.;tl6 ;&.. ;.5.;7,,23,.p':bl?'r.:Jk ,a V,4.W h.; &,eir w % u ,,p .Q ~.9r. L: A - ra.w e%%e :v:::yp.: w tw;. ;m%):*$/gw/~@p m/tNIN % fa Q G f m *s _ M M, m-:.N.7 q)?;-j'p g "c. ,f,! A-uu rW;* .. a u.. Qm,..r r:y:ss. r. ~ .- ~ '? ,. ~,-Qf ' v. m*;M; 6. b *'::\\ ~

~~as.~~

~~n,. .FM,g'p&. No'bs-eQo *.a v t v w":%. m~~

~~ev s^~~

f

~~2'. % fWa'Y+'e.i 123h~~

~~.a , + ' .., &n'..&.,hk'* 'fi.iS $. $N..r es-r$~~

~~D N.Ml~~
[

~~O, W..< Qi. hN.,.f. f.;,Q., +:.[ '~~

~~k..~~
~~i H~~

~~,l '. .,s h*E,$ l co YJ .f e*".g.),, 4*3.,jpp Q., Qgg%pn p:rg,.s.m,, pmw {gg a.5 e-+, s -q:q , g;,,..: y.:P. yJfg.w%*g;Q,,guf.;3,e.p:.p.d .4,,...n ~~~ - ~ ~ m ~ ~ y m,S m., 4~~

~~. e.~~

~~hQ h.,ff.'{. fm.e' 0AR.~~

g y

9u5.,;,;,.g>.. I,;l; ;;p,,,h.g e ;g~g y,j /ge.g,,i.

,+ u A - m y g - :%.; g ;:n,.: m nw.+. :pp n. n s.YQ jys_f)$$c.e,m h,y I r n"' e gy;;7 p,.. &$&ew&Mgn.,l1?&.A s.a.c.hw _, '~ y : .g .. ~ :, e.n 'j f. )?.f',h? l llff... em:% Q,i. ,.g i %e e 5,. p.x.. g.yg.w + y.mlf,. u.,. n 7q m-s z ( p.&.,._,S ;?{

~~l R ' &.,..,.cQ&n&, a.,h.n'.; f...d;m, w,14.%~~

s

~~e..g ~~~

~~N'; .w . m{,t'.w '. s W W,y f , j ' j,y.,,. m. i~~

~~Q.. W,,s s. g u3.4~~

~~.',,P? g em . y* n g.g(fds *_yl#) i..,.%' ..;e,~~

w

~~.Q,w '..'f**'. ~ '_ ;l g;p 'h . m'. w' ;fia,..r t - ; n. u e g,.f y..q . ~. a ' L t);; 7 't y . s a7~~

~~"5-l ct~~

~~--r' ~ c WA_ _1..u. - _ n.a w s .e ) l;,. .'-:M' W <= % ' W,QW- ".W,- n. ..c. %,'p"% U...~.':x ; Q ;,y m., 3 -@ : g. c :. m,.r g yU m @ q $,. x m p $ $n @ b.w p p .L~~

~~44,--~~

...e %m,Qijkhi$9.38.IUsfr sM.w$i.S,,. M+7h4% WP,%,$w$u wr-:,m %w:hiM$.n'N:@$;d+MQM ~ MJN @;.y~NUj~W.y: fffR,$n ^d.O. 4 wy .r = m .~ e >.e: W..p.m c.,M%; s$fWi%,;:y m m n. dM $FgMWlp5GM n d i gWWsNyM.DG&% % 2 m % & &2. W ** s% cfKM$.g%m..{g.g;: W4%%iM Apqug h u. qQ..GMgigQ%w St V.u.p%%}S.L'ESE$i2Gh.E$%?itM.'E p f.y.4, Q pd f. f 4. e g.r.w n* h W c Q&W4 WW.;M% %%dG kWh?:f.wykw.Y$h.g?.Ni"G.: MNN .i .$MMW"M2WWMBGU u.,e,&A m .~ s ^l M+:.g-e w d4;hm w}& ;i.C & m'

~~n.K.-Gf.7 % M [&;.& % 2 @W F.?.,#l,.Q W M~~

~~t st cq:1 w m.s.W ww.:A.A f *: ; pm.;p, A., fD.dOp n %.y%;,.~~

~~n. -~~

s >M <qs,.g~is.c,9 ..wa ~ w.~ ;*m, e.. c.y wm,. r, .4 w+ ;... ma s5:nyk,c. ~,mcoQ.;~,.;.p.g:m.+.wwy m;p.j. C4 p..e:z::: ww y..s , m. y p.%.4..g y s .-M',h.N bbMM.RQyyk (3) That all further requests made by Intervenor in his status report W M,M: @M. h $ dE N NM. f g ME of July 15, 1983, including sanctions against the other parties, reim-m.8 Wd- ..m % s%, alm. :e.c.c%y@e.p. - bursement of expenses and the recusal of this Board, are denied. /.. n.- m. m.. x q m m.2. w 4.s, M i v ..m..?, w.~.vms. y...n. M.Mp: W M r$s W @ @'$$.N;.m. c Q h3M% THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND M1 k *.f Q.*M' Qws??/rrf,n r.9M. :s.f s.M. ),w.i'.Y """8'" " ^^ m ~~ m a-w ~,: nw.n:ws wn -t-w $@$ @,W I W W y$$ $ @ M Q W.ij! (f;., i f,N.MWZiM.h N$

~~d,$.$hMQ @MNh.~~

M8hk Herbert Grossman, Chairman iC ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE . A W%. ww%,4p.&.w. W.N.a.m.g.~$$.,f Ss l I-%QC v s i eA ,n. rc Qiv @t: y ; m,.w w % %:.w:l w.A J m%.9,Y :- Q v.;fM. m$, @. ' t*bc.- #.1.:. m .z.xQ ' M. M-4.:. n p? %.,' ci.I. ,c $.

~~4 Richard F. Cole~~

~~@A.'W W M +pn; M.v. n.f.A w,r.3-,. w+ M n-w. g W:Us ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE .w fpr 4(%.pfft. DIM, :- p lD' ,.g;.4y e,,.. , u."[]W h C*,cMtW@M@dF&gf, i~~

~~,v?g e.ywh m%~~

.M U, n..sk,,.NhM/hh':fgf%Q)hM., - m$y:. p. - ) k Emmeth A. Luebke Sh,5.N3M?i w.6M+.g.% w:,.;.nm: i i$$M ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE m.: w~ ~.u. .e u 6.n ,,. <, N @w @;; W, @%,a w e@q. u m 'u, # p 4 N,sy.m M .s Bethesda, Maryland 5 hy. M.:,q., A.hfhNhn..,.mh,..h,M b -n s..w N mc,w,:9.n%,,m p:c. pv.As g;t ..t,. x.. m..... y ~M A g>s.A ci ae m.w?.-.w' w -t c ,r .c :q.o.x .? .. e w. w w~. u a.. n. e n. n.D'L.g ydi.ps%M ]: P'7., P.N, sWw *; a em r ' "%s i:my ~~:s:fw : m:r$p:;w, g ;,M .MGd Q,d$.Q n n s w,.,h..~..,< %,.wy.wl,,. p.,. n,.w.,, w c.w. .o .,,-.y I.Q

~~a...~~

~~' l Y l $ d5~~

~~)l s~~

~~,Y. ..i..,....m.o.,.,r,..=,.~.,... m,:,. w, s... a w ,a.; yx.4.,.?. &c o....m$gmy;%p..,w. e + gr g. e..- - ..y.,.+ g. r~~

~~w q,.~~

~~mm. - . ~&?N~~

~~W%$.?4*&~~

~~y Hu f Mgh;m%W,Q% .:M4QM, ny.higW.g$;hiWAM90%$fWin G.. ;m.&.y n.y,>MS,WWWMMMm m,.y_.Ww =~a. L,n p. e , m,9m 7... y...~~

~~o, t..c c~~

~~.; gym. :c. ~.,.. m. sy;.;g./m., y. ; a n wa .v -l 4 .. Az.? ku;u. ~ U'l ' . :. w ', ... w w ~, ;, es. s.r, m:.~~

.. .c -.. r, , m.~g -u.w :
,.,. 6

~~. s'aM. . '4 L N,, m", '.m'* " s Q ?jf he < r+. *;"~~

~~p ~N ' + 1 N5~~

~~.( s 4- - y . r. c e5M. n%, x.~~

M.:~.1. w:'.

wtmy.1a_q m,hg

'y.a%., ?..

~~U...m. m,.%....MR u'~~

~~hi. &.Ws w/~~

~~1240 T~~

~O s.Wn.M qn s kQ.Q W.wv4

plg.ay@;,i W s

~~~ 17h..,M,g9,2/.M,%, g: p.a s . q%. f @f.@q e ..5 [v #N< ;. i ~- be~~

. ; M.X; N+,,. l,.?ds'*.M.,.

q ny M, : 3..,ylW.M.

4 +., L y "p' I I. ',." *q '.M.h;. h'#. W. . Ni/^ - ) $ 5 *[;.. u '.we J.'.Q:% $'S') k .T3 > b, W,. s a,%,.?MMWWiM.,,,W;W:.C.&w.wn. m,-Q ...,? ,m. rn*:,6 ?,- i ']h'p.. v. x m:.,y.. ,.e.G. 5%v, H'ie ' -., w -~ m n p.w w w.w m m e m n -... m ~..~* l.C;~ ' hg..~v.s., s;; isy f*p f.. ',(,.'- s y ;G L.J ..->;.m%>.e!.nlx. %; 2 ~. o. ~ = - Q. n. r.~ '.? r.1 'Q.. ;y,f fv 1 *~ O,..%., p".,4.3:; d,.

~~M. y k (-~~

~~i ' Y Y.* ' #.,['ig h VJL. h;',;.Q~~

~~s. v:%..Jt 2, ':~~

w;%. . ; ey- $ " i e OP ~ I 4 N M,. ft 'y f*

~~b,),I,.~~

~~,'TN. g;.h..W~~

~~.a E~~

c /, $', + j e. ,g.*[ ,r M.N Jg J c-+.,[...>,'(%,,y 'a," r"' . %>.K..,g, g.,++n.E;feg M: p;,._ n 4 f...f3-t -J < a., m,3.y r.:tw, .ie g ....q,d.fi.3 " gs; ' p ::g'.. u ~:-v y _..n r I.- 3'$p k Q ig>j,6 N,M,/ Y :'i.u- %g 'N% ., n,3 4M yfw.. - i WZ S . h, 4g W;m 4 ) %v % & ; y. ~ 1 7 +4 . - J '~ &e ;. ,5 A. ~, O "..[:#2 t **q y,s../., m..

~~s.. ;. 7,,,vP-~~

~~+ m. w p: <**S .n~~

W.c M*

~~~ Gr%arG.8~~

~~n.. ;~~

~~.n. s. w M., ofw%%.. .. %,.. m %. *3.v. .[u_.a:w ,L &,,# , s '.,,'.;., ' ~~+ e#. k.. _' @, O .,*t-4% 4 . / Np* '..,2 D.y'. '.' * ' .. J' O..f e 9'~~

~~1a 'l~~

~~.-1 t. v.... -~~

~~WE}. 4~~

'N

9 ;*

~~..i *.*, 'd.c. u ', m' [..... ; eq m.u. > a~~

~~'. ;. 3, ~~~

~~tyd z y , U.,.~.s. r g.g g : n. m'4 k.+:. TL ~ .m a ,n ,. R : ', ; _:*. %,., 't c ,.,u,, t~~

~~y y e~~

~~-t- + t. -,6_ .. e. . ~ -.._. p.,.; w 3~~

~~m. 1c 3~~

~~a. y_ u c n t .. -. ~ ( w. s a 1 .,1-s.~~

~~s..~~

~~n M s l 5 (, + w ..m 2.,. 4,e c. _ v.. t... ". .i - m~..s -..x' >Q:e s.. a, s .~..: 7.r W., ',,,. N #... f~~

~~w..~~

~~,t .s Cite as 18 NRC 1241 (1983) LBP-83 74 e ir ~ - w a. ~ / .. t: L~~

~~v ; w -~~

~~w1. y v.r,, e L,-.,. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Q. .iv i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,..,- Q,;3,'. i4 m,.. P~~

~~g..y~~

. y.: n, - e. l ,,.3' 1.,. -. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h,%.% 3W..'.... c.w. . -pw ::;.lWq:s ~ M..q. L c P..*M. caw %..,3,..d. :w,t.$.. 4,. 4 o.z..,..., W 9.,7, s v. .mm# ~ . 3. - - w s v -.r Before Administrative Judges: .s AQ1TW i .x %..

~~m. v.,~~

~~m-a~~

~~A.,.&. / a.~~

~~a tu :. - .: n ~ m.ma. g g%.m M.ar..wm*r ,,,.yu:.m.a: w:; ~ e ~ n.w.. n n. ~ .,w s+ 4.s<.w.,,,n. r gg;.ggqc;@c,g:g.-.,v,.v. w w ...e wy Peter B. Bloch, Chairman~~

~~y. 7-Q '~~

S,.A M M.. M O.C G:N J A.. Dr. Jerry R. Kline pe M,e. n. D'w@;; :. ATM.$.- --.'" % M,aS 'f y M.w m %w-+, w ... ~ Mr. Glenn O. Bright v c m r .s. a m.. m-a . t,g. g.?.( + * & {, ln %w" i, P ^ .. +. ' ?w " 2 mc

~~s D. }. ; - c i~~

~~f. L.%m& 4-;,.a M. M ' %e~M $~ M ? p * - . rR ;~p] : L;~~

~~,y.W '~~

.Y

~~N.y g.;f~~

~~.y ..i.,~~

~~uQi, in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 440 0L~~

~~%N.;p.3 g %k.h.W, y <.., . m~~

~~MM M'~~

/n.4 a.fN. 50-441 -OL y .,,c..~. .n ~ a: ;.. Ma. - r N M,r.. ;>. Q_mm;s.. np4:f..*y n's W@m;. , w. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING f'dd,w.M:,.s,, d. w~.. > w*J J A,% d. _ - w. ..~ n e. @m. < W. COMPANY, et al. ...- M #l ,9 e n.!v.@.s. m.t (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, 6, n,..<4 n Q. w$ lk. N, %. $ m'k Q n - W -;P w n ~ Units 1 & 2) November 10,1983 Q)

~~,7 t.~~

- x. u., .7f ;y.v\\ p ?:M...W.c.,#m,.g:p,wk: m he n n Lw. m ~. a,. -- %c. a, ...w~....m;....e.-. - ,. ~. M.. }gdy$y.~.; y,wg m a.z r ~,'gfjd.. NCg@y.j . c~ y;,g. ..?,.1 , (f. ./ W :h; G .. a n-The Licensing Board examines filings submitted in response to a $y.,9.e. S.. A.?.R:. @( gyf Board decision reopening the record to receive written evidence on two quality assurance allegations. The Board concludes that the new filings t&, ,.e.hm.. im. y+.je.. ox., s, s, place the Board,s concerns in perspective and persuade.t that: (1) .n i AQJ 1 : v, ;<x. p~M MN r q .n d v c. ~t..~ L.K. Comstock did not have a pervasive practice of using uncertified 1<4%n M MS.%..@$)Wr" N ) $$$2M$Y flM quality assurance inspectors, and (2) that although the frequency of C.p ' 4,uW.15[N,RM..~e meeting of the applicant's Quality Assurance Advisory Committee did

~~i. % &:? re y s-m.m m 4~~

.w.v. not fulfill applicant,s own internal gu.delines, th.is deficiency does not %g@#ge%n. 2'.3.;5 M,.M g... _v. +m. i . rR-& - w. y cast serious doubt on the adequacy of applicant,s quality assurance f q e ;.. a,. s L. 39.m:ph.p..n..w: w!# x'.' x% %n,'., program. .y mtm o v e n y m.:? m ' : - ,_Rg.. ^;r,., p :n. t-n,m. \\ pW W, &n - %, s.&n& v.:w M-(;,s e q,,c,;%'T~g. n. . :.y : g.t.,.n.g a. .w. 4y.- w ...o q ,r..m. m QUALITY ASSURANCE: PROGRAM COMMITMENTS 1MM% ir m w. n., w?!u ~ .v. ..Q e %@$9XiMe,h, y?!pePm.. m Applicant must meet each ofits quality assurance commitments, even M. W Q if some of the elements of its program might initially have been .M k,p=,;m,1,., w.Q2e.g.4,W.'. " add-ons" that were not required by the regulations. W w...,,'},.,).-2 a. w y e , yx;,.. :3,g %.r .c: 7 .h, :m. e $r m.w,.c..Qtli yd., f:;2, ;

~~s *g g e -~~

' Q 4 *. y . M.,.s.-y. .c..p. A~Q.._' E n x.>.,? '.. './.y <. 3 r-A.e, s N.4 M...a'g"s N. d h. a. -V w c " M.(W n,& .'. g M. f W.. g.. ' i.*; d'C r' i .,v.,. ~ k.- ,-N. b.;. V'. p A y c ,.f.,' *'. l N

p*

s,.. hA ? H..t. f Y. s,. ..a t. ~F ^..*r # 9 7.- n en 3 r. . - V,-w. C.8. ...*3*.>A t f:p4[,n f. a g T .s.o n g,: /' e, ' N .,.r I~ ... -Fe s.. L.W,. m, f.,s+ k v.,, y+[: f.t -r . %.h, y G.,s,F %,.,f,,s Q. 9.. Y p

~~i% :~~

~~6 f.;* ', W&i:.W U f ....y'f*'4.,;[Qj f #[,.s *F.., em,. + ; 0%'k * '. J, t~.. A.. s9 ',p-ry.ic ~ h ::4 --a v.y.~~

s;.M. p% D. 6.,r M. W

. W h.L &

~~br _. k .h e a r. ~4. n-c ~,. w -c w...~~

~~n.Ma v., ~s.~~

~~c n . >.e Wih % d's:.).. - Q %. < y,. 9,%#%Q s~~

~~Q(,~~

~~.c .a' )N, y.. $.?: a. , e .,_..p.-n-..-3.,,~~.g. . - m ~ m n v~.- p.eg ~ u.:,.s.,..;..c. Arv %c,,.e-e~~

7. m.n g g.n % *M}#,' +>;p.%.,c y s. L,M..,s.

',,% lr.M. K.y; Q*
~~3 g.n%~~

~~.l~. 3. c m.q>A.2 ; ;y.x*,.A.* .ri >% gg:T fy ,., ~..,, w..,%. a. a:. J. \\ ?Q~,. :,f,.f. o&s,s,. - f.. a. g vs.,. P.,,, yr.- y.n.s.r. n \\ r ; ew. s.. c a.y:.& y~~

~~G. m,.-~~

~~v s a. r v,o,.'. , r. ' c, / s.o r f-,.w.,,.. ,A.y ? ^ $ _,l,,..w..m..'; Y. G,.Qs.... . emt~~

m

~~.4 ~ ., ', ~ gf.Q,l'-lQ 'Qu.N '),L ... ~ %-G - r. <e. -]* # %,.,. Q : f.f r~~

~~p,..a~~

~~..%'e.%.~',,. . u q.4 .s. f . ~.. N., c ,.,,f.' -.2y~~~

=

~~S g~~

~~g..to ;,,.~~

~~, 8/ y 'y .. -j.- ,,'mN "' 3[4 .J',.y.." f'.-k.g k.. 4 y. g'*.S q., ,g m ,f~~

+

[

~~[ 9 e,, 9 N.., ,v. .; 4.p- - e. .,.,t + 9, t. @.. + so...,. r-3., ,.,.a' "'t, _*.; t ; -;,.y.,-.'- +' . ~. o e- .m g ) ..J 'g g 4 e s, r g 9 s,m s s a s rg g. .m 'f,.' k~~

(

_g'. e, "_O __O'. .l7 8' t m f i . w. ;?;y.;. w., u p..: m. q :,:a?. m, .. w.s w v. J.?W.,;. L - e:,.m:....Q : } }.. W, %.y p;;x.;' g:, @,,: W : :g.. ~n.. %r,:... m:. y*&: x.Q ? G :y & < v.s._ s; .C.g.z:!by .:k,. .:p + +: W@m.s, Yy%p: q:n ;.p: a,cr._. .m M.%j d M M E Ml6?.' p ; Q.: f &y'.7.W ;; A y.e p. 13 N, p.:.,v ! y; gNgg?.mIP W,

w. y

g : @n : y ;:

~~[ ';:y'f :C:Q g.q.,,,;; my.ny: M WE @W@$$@WMQ;py%,q,% y .7 f h M. 92~~

, r

.g Q,

~~.g @uMN$ M M &GEIM M WW..-;..,##4 4Z + & w:;n..a :n :n o:4, m.m-n~~

, m

:4:%n. y;y m,y%. ;n.. vQ, v

.w

~~w. 7..~~

~~J., lY:; g e iw o . Q.. .s g &, W.. , 4: -v .,%.. U. l.-+q .~OW pc,~~

~~. g. 9.yt.~~

~~$.y~~

~~t. q,p pf. g y,. 3. -. ' 7.,w, p,9-~~
~~~ u~~

~~?, A.t, m ~ a,;,c l a , - t, ., e,$ c~~

~~., a,.~~

~~o hi[W.M;;f, M.W~NMQ e?. 8M .m~ L.: p@; MM,.g.N.sh.,,H.O:1. RULES OF PRACTICE: MOTION TO HOLD OPEN j.$' y THE RECORD p,rt/, ;9 a-~~

~~. n s if i 4. p, p,~~

~~> :e:p a , y sw *n @. x, W Q > 2,M... Q,a,;,,., W: @g;,4y N,.[ The record on quality assurance may not be held open because a partyB@'.~~

~~r. m. V:.~~

N A e w. t. Wc.F.,f,.. 3 gp, hopes to be able to obtain witnesses in the future. m :. ,.,. w x m..d '. :< g.a., u,... .s. xy n:1 g 5. y ; ,M e.. m+;> p w W], N;c.4:;p.., m. a@w:w:;; .n -y t e,.~ cs b:T.h A 6

-

n.-

f. TECHNICAL ISSUE DISCUSSED /:.-i'4Ll; e , c.. f.>{.;a.gq; yy-[6j.f '. *y,y t.TJ? ," g>: ^ *;. - , :G.h h; :,~o;Y"jY{- b7 >, Wm.;;* Quality Assurance (Inspector Certification). %_3 ,'c #d%. a.. s 5.. *

~~. g.~~

s, .x A w.n -c. ,,G,- .~m l$[ p t l S Q@ f Q, g_.. $./. b% .:G"'; ',"f R h Nh04.hrf. y..J y M;MS QM MEMORANDUM AND ORDER M . g.?) f @g. d %s.1 (& :N, tHR: c g@& 7 y ,. w,,iM ty (Dismissing Additional Quality Assurance Issues and Closing the , TJ v h[ q /W ...a :. 7 a..e,, Quality Assurance Record) - s 3 m., ONM..... igdh g.W 'l.P d 147$ V.n,n. p.wr, .W M n.w. D j.D@;.';bM' On August 18, 1983 the Board reopened the quality assurance record . d. _ A... m i in this proceeding to receive additional evidence on two issues that had $[iWn

O

~~...,,o.. g, 4.:d GMJ N .M. v ; e. 4., %. . a~~

p.

8, e +;

W. N 4 ,ys M,0.m; M,.# p ~.9. been brought to its attention by the Ohio Citizens for Responsible e , y (,:f U,g %. M W.j Energy ("OCRE"). LBP-83-52,18 NRC 256 (1983). OCRE alleged S ~ F n _ a.; several deficiencies at Perry, based on newly found documents; the j , 7;p; 7 w- @.y :Q ,, q @%@? Board accepted two: (1) that electrical inspections at Perry had been eg; &. -;;p;ji performed by unqualified inspectors in 1981 and that the inspections . c j $ ' ;M' NS(M ph @@CM they performed were mvalid and (2) that Cleveland Electric illuminating p.,, ly-y] g ~ .7 O Company, et al's (applicant) Quality Assurance Advisory Committee 3. 7...% g t

K.

had met only twice in 1981 when it was required to meet quarterly and $"~' ';-x 1 ~ ';' that this was a period in which applicant was troubled with numerous EU,. ' 2 y, ' -.,',m j,.,,- quality assurance (QA) deficiencies in the area of electrical construction. .-';j~ g.- ,.;.,. ; 4, . The Board has examined the additional evidence submitted by all par-SQ. > S.MR@k ties to this proceeding and concludes that the discrepancies alleged by hc 6a$f ,7.s a y,s ..-^ . % y. M [.;[] M OCRE did not constitute a breakdown of applicant's QA program or loss of control over its electrical contractor, L.K. Comstock, and that these F;f6% y 3:. f o i ;'J NZ issues do not raise significant questions of safety in the electrical area at pj$f g , c, A,y y.,W; N.z,e q,. Perry. Accordingly, we dismiss the two issues and close the QA record. fA @p?.g- . (+..w

~~h s~~

~~A4N. 9.4.-..cpu .;.p. c;p-Q;R m. .w ~,- f. - -M. vg m s;w. p dpyR my~. a,g y ?. g;wy s. I. BACKGROUND thQ M.e f ~. [,y..n~~

~~p,,' ', -~~

~~17 '..S. <u*~ q_ Q~ ,.e r o. #..'j,; Hearings on quality assurance at Perry were held in Painesville, Ohio, l g ~.x May 24-27,1983. The record was closed on quality assurance at the con-U..~..~~

~~E '~~

clusion of the hearing and all parties filed proposed findings of fact and p[?;g ? . " ( 7, M - '~ a' conclusions oflaw as required. The Board has not as yet issued a partial initial decision on QA contentions. W ;;; ?' 's .a a w.~ ~ *.. 1,'J F..a, .+. ,;. A,P..;

s. n h 5 ~ * *;* Q y.'* *'k' m, S ' ',.., e,l y*

~~y p,~~

~~0. K :<'ye W~~

w s m.y c s: -;%r : y': :{%qQ-m .e I2k2 >m;. :4 W V N' . :. nu .s ,. a. q. e m. l) v . w, N @6E '( (~, a[J. WsQ cz, %).%.fQ. ie m 4.27.:. P..?4;& o '[@' D ~ m <z. ~~.,.;, ; - ; n ,;x., y. 44 gw. .t _+ - l-'f-m y &. { ~ '[v

~~_3 y Q@f,)~ ps, y...~~
~~m....~~

l

~~'~-~~

p . p ?,- ;.V P gs %' ;4.%y,,,,. e.g ( :i._., kJ ne a w'\\ y.gs. w nm-m;w ~:~x y ~ v w w n...nc q-t. + *

~~.:! y.s~~

~~,ug.w. :_g ;www;y g.,, m.g g,p' kin,. .a .y - w-o - r .v,~.: w.~. 7 m. -,p A .'W t , ~p,,. w-. s~~

~~5.. ;~~

.., A _ ' ^ 1 ' ' ' 4 ; J.,'.yv 3 6 M@.w@3. -M.~; -.!'c,M.,.Jg ,, y> g..e.. f, r-n 3 cp.3 g., w .s g.:n. y. Jff 6k , + ma c, ~, . ~ ;w(:., -.-es,; y;_ q n,s-e .y m.,3 3 x,,xQp.y .y- .n g }C ~,q.n ;;% y y,,J...;,. "r.,.. . ny 8 C.yiy'.3.s g.,.; W Q ;g i e y c' m l ,s o;., ,..J'..:,. + .e 3e . > %. w.. s.9, ' c.%s., mA. ? s.% M. g.ppmth u e + -s( D ? dj ~ i.] N.'3[,~ - } dh 7 c-j-

9

~, d!b 's Y [v I's [m 2 .Y' [ 1 \\ 1 r 1 Y /- d based on ( "]. (, OCRE filed a motion to reopen the recores and appli-information it had obtained concerning a number of QA ssuComstock. The staff of i On July 13,1983 y cant's control over its electrical contractor L.K.(staf0 and applicant opposed i, - I the Nuclear Regulatory Commissionfirst, that OCRE did not raise sig-I.. uality assurance; b reopening the record for two reasons:nificant safety issues which could alter t ,.i _. ' i secondly, that the Gling was untimely since the nd could have been found by F M to OCRE, was not newly generated anOCRE either on discovery from th FOIA request [ h.s ', ..~.p ? .n Z yf ~ n.~4p'%.- g ;P @,y e QQhhg$$$],,'g" @MQ@: i to the staff at an earlier date. The (Sun 0ower) generally supported the motion to reopen.The Board d timely. fg. i d two issues ',. C. *~.J.#..,e .Q. g,j fi; The Board found, however, that OCRE's filing had ra se y'.,7.. f.W W ' ~~ li i l addressed or dis-s M' l regarding QA at Perry which had not been exp c t yclosed at the f[ fA w l~,. $ on the safety of vje o ' ' n" i i; i R ,~1S electric work at Perry. Neither applicant's nor stah Board's concerns for plant $Nj"" N 5 ik].M[ "~#' to reopen were sufficiently detailed to lay t e rd reopened for the y {g,.;?; safety to rest. The Board, therefore, ordered the reco on two QA H~ 23j d limited purpose of receiving additional written evi ence ^ "iA E issues which had been brought to our attention by OCR. ki m # e ;/. ^ W, m r, , t,pg G

~~pi j m -c2; g. ;~~

~~s Tile ISSUE OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR ']WM.,. c,W.a@.y.fbip.yd.; Mc 3 ~~~

Q'?,.TS n

s..

>f- . o . ~ II. CERTIFICATION B t' Q f ll W n W.'O... eport OCRE's motion to reopen the record was founded in part on a rhich stated that in pi$ x y$ e M 4 ']"pl. f j [ yc.-.- ,ft c'.h9 @p ;,K written by an L.K. Comstock Task Force w6 of 22 Comstock electrica @.% ~ % ' M A Nj $(" @* ' ined for the in-spections they performed and that inspectionlevel I inspectors we f~,R

f. l.Wd before being N a3' Ws

v. *y 4h

,f~ CN 7:hg[/C: 7 7 'L. suomitted as required by written procedures. formed prior to January p "?.qq ;i = ~ * %w.; N G: went on to say that all electrical inspections per1,1982 should be b; MW" M '[2.hdh'@4'.', Attach-a 1.W.%.. a t ~c M, l s 1981 time . j... frame which was the focus of scrutiny of L.K. Comstock Q[fh..,... ;M. f.M/v,;.w. ~;NC ment 3.) M A problems "m at the hearing. Although the shortage of electrical nspethe hearing, the question of rl3 m &,f' '% $%n: ctors during that .i s gg i W 4% 7 VW:f'% b time period was discussed at some length at biguously disclosed by [d. -[.,7^,]R w@.F ' their qualincation or certincation was never unam _,- Ae.6 e may exist an inac- !/*/ '/ 9'i3.[?4.M h j either applictnt or staff. Thus, OCRE fears that t ercurate reco X n b,.x.'x Q^.7> yg,g d the Board may

~~7. > f q~~

~~3u - 5 V >+- 9 x. c~s have been misled by the omission. ,v .7.,> +~~

g.

~~., +-i . ?. *..v% l 7.,. ~ ~ m:<& g~~

~~s. r. A,~~
~~J, ~. :~q.u:;J, j f r~~

~~";n = i ic.. ,y 1213 v, .q Mt w. 2't- -';Q.g.K. w e . 9._ ~~"' - r.,3; A 3. s3 7y 3,'..;d. 4 s g _N;- e 'C .'ft . Wf s,,* .$ ' 8 '.' w~~~

~~i...~~

~~d[., 9 ? -j '.., gf.~,,.,'*y]E;jr p., .g U *. & , f* 3" .,. -., -, --~ e.7,; 7. + ~m :- v.,.,.. f ..-..ws. y.7 ~~ -l [. },'~~

~~N' 1~~

~~,e f 'W Q q; p? Qh,3 s.,p-g h.S Q? Q,w;4;. A :;W.54f.W.a -N ..,..-,.7 ' '[ ,, 4 g f ' ' A ;-t 2asc y..f.pq.g'.;'.dli ,,f;"f{r* r.t,~~

*p!y-@ -

~~-i;,M.R. y,.d,, ? j'. '..a,9 a c.p y %m! n f.- ,;..h , e - e ,y, , s 9 ".. T '~~

~~g g.~~

~~5N e, ;,, g*r s~~

y,

~~[' '5.' ".e N { Q - o3.. .,~p .q;: n ' 4 t v;,, =' ..m,; A '~~

~~9.i J~~

~~' '[,, 7 .,, ' % ;.; g':M f?,,it .a f e, Jg-s :r ' : > a f[w ~,f.. b[<./'. i 9 t % ' '.. . [ '., U 1: p, w' :. [ s. ,' c >c -' y' y+*- 3, ~.,g. <m ',.. m,, y _ f.. ~~~

9

.J ,e o _ g, y y37.o 8 v y -,, m m F . ' s y#a m:;.p,pm.. xm .. -..3 t w... - n , a%, >, r.J. - p.:. . 3: : p em fx-.;; g- ^ l. nL-l Q-.. : ? '2. w, &, l:... ~ ,\\CQ (.p.y.Oi%~y.'; ' 7. 'l,' > ' 7 x.. v'::. - -n ~ ,+ ,' a q' f. .a r. .,1' . g,"y - f ,%. ',.x.*gj .'. f ' *,,* /j f.. ?,. r, M ;" ~f> 3._ M.,

qwl4}9,m,.9 m;.(

;-9r p.i?&eg.;:&* r 'G'.

~~1 ",,e~~

~~<rs vf'~~
~~,;ut b~~

~~- - Q f. ' '; JJ~~

~~',r, - M,~~

~~4 5. n... ef.w LQ%W;.,,. ; w;;:. yyy s 'M m,.~~

~~n..~~

~~.y ~ p m~~

~~v y,...~~

~~c f hM.N.b,NIN$ M$1bNd/ni;$ ;h.bfh_[ 212. Y,'ht.AEi kb -[ ',. g , s %r~~

~~Jy.] }', h.p(.-~~

~~, ~,.:&mb.n(w;.u -3.j e -- ~ yp::?- q '3~~

3;

yim_

~~-:g..;c.m ~. ' l' f l j., Q * ' i k;M@%s @f~~

n QA

:~

~~In response to the order to reopen applicant submitted the affidavit of . / n f M ,.4;" L',... @y# Gary L. Leidich who was a witness at the QA hearing and who is its~~

_ <

,.; N g Senior Engineer, Nuclear Construction and Engineering Section.

, /[NM/AMM' h (Leidich Affidavit, September 19, 1983) 4. g W - A p % ; W 9. 9.d.u[* W.. ) i ~ Mr. Leidich stated that Comstock developed a certification program .~. .::.MCpf;'ed for its inspection personnel prior to the initiation of safety-related electri- '?,,,.,m N,,p;j Qg DQj cal work. The program was consistent with applicable Perry specifications .. v.;. " @ p.1.,.J.a and ANSI N45.2.6 standards and was reviewed by the CEI Project Or- .uY ., ~ ', m. t c..., -, s. T

~~, ; Mg,;yj,7.$~~

~~ganization QA personnel prior to implementation.~~

~~[, '~~

~~? MM.W The certification program sets forth standards for inspector certifica-~~

~~(' % M$g i~~

<_QOf;fa'O@ $j tion which include consideration of education, training, and experience. U W;.h, Completion of proficiency testing is also considered. Certification is i] ,'.N h g %p granted at three levels, designated as level I, II or 111; these correspond to increasing levels of inspector responsibility and authority. The certifi-h.E gggggs@M.. 'a. 7.CW, e#wg cation does not grant a general authority to inspect but is restricted to 54 ,.s-v -n- .,5);M W N task. specific areas such as receipt, equipment, installation, calibration, ,...",J. .M8f$.. iga.M.._ tray / conduit installation cable pulling and many others. Certification in Q ..l g f g h any task area requires proficiency in the procedures apph. cable to that m ' ' ^ - i , f ' ' S 4 9 @w. %n x.Jsims.h; d area and approval of the Project Organization. An inspector may be .s 41 generally qualified by virtue of education and training under this scheme . @., eW=Ae9f. Applicant conducted seven audits between 1978 and 1982 of inspector a s and yet not be certified in specific task areas. J,. .. jul M a 19 , @ jjY$ $gggd;j certifications. These audits turned up instances ofinspector certification w: W e %. discrepancies which applicant considered to be insignificant in number r < r pas] and kind and which involved no safety deficiencies. ig;4.fg g rNM In March 1982, at applicant's direction, Comstock conducted a com- $,, j prehensive internal audit of its QA program which included a review of T( R;O/ M,y inspector certification. The Comstock audit found a small number of e. . D...gt4% inspector certification discrepancies and raised questions about the com- '. m'JJW.9.b.,yl ~~' pleteness of inspection documentation. The audit concluded that further w a. .7 g assessment was needed. Comstock,s response was to set up a task force ~ T'uCM$>; under the direction of its corporate QA manager, with the broad charter Q V ] ]., *, ' N.JMG/SM 3 f. iL. 7/ ^ ' to perform a comprehensive review of Comstock QA documentation. '.. e. g.).<':,' M M y Mh The task force worked from Apri!-December 1982. It was this task force .;4W WAM-j that produced the August 6,1982 letter which was attached to OCRE's Y% date. motion to reopen. This was a preliminary report of its findings to that i :W s m"u 'j The full task force review continued and finally covered approximately 30,000 records. It ultimately found 190 discrepancies m certification that m,q involved 15 inspectors out of 110 that had been employed by Comstock ~ - (g in the 1978-1982 period. The fifteen inspectors were qualified and the 4 M majority of their inspections were conducted within the area of their s <, ...;rr j _N -. -m w,,. ~.m ..., O ' < e.,,,[ ~ - f y .5 ,. 4-h, [ W~p 'd{ y:. : 1244 i bgmv: i e y c ,v c Y.. f' ;.,. y. 4.... p.: 4 ..s .4 ..A +jD b c. .3 .y. v m. ? '., f ' ; N.' ' I ,,7"' "'*'s"W"Y$f. 'M"

[ T*

'T.i-* .F*.0%***f4'rg*"*"'D

~~F 5 % =~~

~~.D*s* au.* d. .pi=. g9 es u e [ y y f, U.,, fY!) Ql,.l*i. ( ,c:A,~~

f,'
\\ y "~'..y~.,s

~~. v >.% ~,* l*1 >, ; J. .m ftt y~~

~~u. p.y'A.~~

~~.g.o..g, .a g e ~.. -......;., gi g (g e i 1/ ; [ '.. y .n g g* ,8' ..,[e , W.., ;'.y% p' g*p p%% g' ;/,,7:p >,:s f,, '*P4 - -t Q ' p /.L;q _ l a ,. qr a.~~

~~..o~~
~~n,, <,:w...,c u y.~~

~~g: ,...;tc%gb m.+; p. Q,..~~

~~33 s~~

~~u .4~~

-~

~~d f*', y 'l ^- ' 1 -m- .g" 4 e ..,.y . a. ; we . g 4 o ,w u.- A4, g a 3 J" 3" L ;. - ~ A.. ~ .g, s > trw .,6, . ~, s~~

w

~~.y. ,s , x. .s.s ,: /.~~

r.
y..

v . s m- .1 ,,.i.L q ;e.-v l;v .p' n ^ certifications. The discrepancies arose because these inspectors had Q - e f iq :7... 1'5 ~. *> @T.C'. ,a;: ' 7j completed some inspections outside their task certifications. The ,i e'C discrepancies, while not proper procedure, were mitigated by the fact

~~e. ?. r...~~

~~T. u that the inspectors performed inspections that were common to two or E-m~~

~~GnN more certification area checklists. The technical knowledge required to y~~

~~n.' ...-, -.p. ^~~

~~e.. n n~~

~~inspect in the area out.>ide the inspector's certification was the same as ip' g~~

~~c or similar to that required for tasks for which the inspector was certified.~~

~~i.7~~

~~fd..Uy;M79 h i F G Y.g Thus Comstock believed that the inspectors were proficient in the in-iRN.ME! Q D C'-D N G @~~

%[%g:$@d%j.N[ENh.MM@@ spections they performed even though the inspectors did not have the MA% T? N 3Rd M required task certification in the areas identified. i M W % DdM?. @$ $ ;k In response to the task force findings, applicant issued a corrective 2M action request (CAR 83-02) which required that Comstock discontinue $ Q d?~$ M % h@[%y@sDyp{@7 the practice of mspectors signing common checklist items outside their g.'Vjg%%$ Q dMs area of certifications. Engineering reviews and reinspections of all in-spectable items were then performed without finding safety deficiencies. J.s %? gdF@N,Q @MWg@7.y!,' (Twenty-nine out of thirty-five electrical penetrations were no longer ac-Q.!Q g cessible and could not be reinspected.) The certification deficiencies in- '.. ' i . ' d.', 3.. 0 9 W.W volved uncomplicated matters such as torquing, cleanliness and cosmetic C. w'A ' W +W h M. M...~.A.C.t. 4:..,. n" d...- m.- n.. WVV v p. m%. w A, q., w. w J -, unage, for which the inspectors were proficient even though they were N.,, :w_m ';.,%o e . v nd.W ? ^- vn.. p : M 9. n y $ m W ' W W~'/. W, a n y@. cut certified for the checklist in question. Applicant, therefore, conclud- ... M. :. m? e Myd$n? 'dp ed that further reinspection was not required. Final acceptance testing of 9. TW%W%.WpDM%g,Wjy6$9 Q, Q[ Q Q._Q the penetrations will be performed, which will provide added assurance ii of adequacy. $%N pdFp$ IM YN h.w.d,M@QJQ M Among the discrepancies involving electricalinspections by the Com-AD'PMA F# %%R*M s. E k b.N N.N - stock task force were about 35 instances where inspection records a'. w- @M % ( % h M ; D 6 generated by level I m.spectors did not have acceptance signatures from .% sn. m %w g.. m,:ae-s w c y L p n,is M ijkIMY level 11 inspectors, as required. CEI was aware of this matter from its own audits and it issued a corrective action request (CAR 82-21) in iMMMMM'h q& M f M.Mg&.g.3fO @%q; mfg R %QM August 1982. mm hg.p;f t m.ggg. gq y e The Comstock task force periodically sent memos and letters to appli. Q M G g g? h@M yp%J3 g cant while it was performing its work. While the task force had docu. M.yLf;tig p. D(~MQQO. $M,p,p1h D f; t mented its findings informally, no formal nonconformance reports were issued since the reviews had not revealed hardware problems. Applicant M%gn@SQf@$[Qh%$g, N $$Qg[Uh kept a close overview of the work as it was being performed; l' > wever, it %f#.Ap%d@Q $@J @( [%[%.% G p9NMp .M did not plan a review of the task force findings until the end of the task force review. The staffissued a notice of violation for failure to issue cor-W/j iWIMdhds.M$ h rective action documents (Inspection Report 50-440/83 06; 50 441/83 06, March 16,1983). Applicant agreed that the task force r%.&.m $.p@gW@MMQPW NU; M g@ mmc ;;,~;47 ;%y%.. @ findings should be documented in nonconformance reports and this was n n,y n pdg.Q fd p 3 done (Inspection Report, 50-440/83-08; 50-441/83-08, May 16,1983). 6;w-M. 2....M. g t 3.e p e c c.,- ; 3sm,:,g wpe.@e,. s. Applicant also placed the findings on the Project Orgam.zat. ion Surveil-o Ybh .h.M' : u$. ~,M.n du lance inspection Reports (SIRS) to ensure proper resolution. This re-fSdd.a@%.. O;i. :..,.,

~~Q. L w a.se-.n., y:*.~.~~

~~.n u~~

~~p a t -~~

~~l.,dTN S'f.4*..L a g'$kE$hh.eV, e >q.~~

~~Q... y* c p~~

~~h m A, $ Y 1245 nM - Yy, v.~ v.=hr ~%9p.zM ^Q&.a $.h+h;n; A+s n e: n" r.J p . -;c h$k Y. h5Y - t~~

.

wy&.;.<.: :., ', d-:.x m>% g r,,~:%..g.

~~.a w .,e s., w't Wb. N W &']W c ? y ., y ~, b * ^,n~~

.h

. N

'*k h Ad'S' %.p).W.%, p%l&y$w % / n.MN" W W.' i !.J;:@' .M !a . ~ n:z@Cl-7 Nvy ;.WT= !t f w f6.1 %: w M.4C.y~5. M d w24.t. m& ya gq/ n N l'. ,,..g...-,... ~ 7 v.c .t ~.g, y -m p m m m.v m, w, u, ! ((g.n }f y'N y . 'n , y.' : N. r 'jg ] ]$ n(. .I-hf I ; c g . 3,y m, 3 ;b;:&. w,g..,;.y g 4.~w f. _ v~ a. g g Q. ~ ~- .n g n. _.y. .qyr, ~ g W, g

~~p g py~,,.y..;. e,.~~

~~e n ,nw .~,. j - Q 4 +:.. w v:,n. g N g g.;.y 3;;>,p..., -. %y.: 3m~~

~~.v.- m,~~

~~qip p gi.Q g~~

( y,;m M @ n e M m m.-g w.m - s.m,. yy, q.,.

~..

~~y ..v w .gg k Csh ^ 0h, yn g.a..,g.p.,,.y !.lft... r ~. ~ r e .v r e l TJ f $~~

g.

~~lf ..y ~ &p' um.yA$1J#h ml.h ? f W%W W W..~~

~~a. v h W Q:'58$'~~

~~cm N..~~

~~3.3,.~~

~~lb j & k&iG O.:& W . ct.d; t m,%.p a ces -A~~

~~2...w M y q!@e,q;d N U M N M j k M M M h k N 5? M - $;:s 8~~
~~y: '1 f.M:;%.~~

J u M N.. /m'n G W ' b @MMY .Qvd m r. w r,:37.m:%&(c%n;C;;&~.;;,.;gn&.~r.W :p%$m.ww w%r .m..;.%,.i g !idggy~ , Ng2,%c &. W W: 1;'WAM.i g.;:Whwi. : ?? ~ =uk:.c M arn Y~ J "$ kh.:.~ w.w:lw w: p.s&. g 7.m%q$f.6% n hfbYr ' h-Y O4 ? M. mw:y - ',' W @ h M Q p.s,.; W m. &);'w %.g.i ~ c - +. QQn , Mm..NWpq z.pp,79gJh n %.jcm Qny.p0g e c N; A f,. ja.sfe.;y MWW z.p., r. .S 949 2 m g M;J q= na v., c';- W. p,3.shb.g. w v.. ; y ..nm.ym.ma,.y.c Q $h f mains a staff open item pending verification of disposition of NRs and <k hum)M S1Rs.

w. c,

s...a. w khb The Board would not ordinarily reopen a closed record to take addi-Dh2 Mh h$kh@hk j '..OY MAiH4:My Mojyn tional evidence on common documentation discrepancies. In this case, Dh6h!%%$

however, the signature discrepancies and tardy nonconformance reports I [ U i M A N N '$'$ D@h 5I @ @;i"? D were part of the larger question of whether Comstock conducted electri-k .i cal inspections using unqualified personnel and whether the issue WW W;fg%[g&% p%':N should have been disclosed at our hearing, which focused explicitly on 4Q % $l,7,' R %.@5 . '.s. M. ;4 wh'k the ability of Comstock and CEI to conduct electrical inspections during .x$.y;&*%..b. NW. m. cmy.s Jj .y g p c g the same time frame. We conclude, however, that the documentation arGW,y@ %4 de xf@g,y* 4_'s @. 2 uw s problems discussed here occurred with far more limited frequency than 3 $17 7(.?Y,Ti r% p,,% W. *D t Q Sj M 'r k I we thought when we reopened the record. Furthermore, these problems W it have been corrected and have no implications bearing on the safety of ,N LD$p b[Shhh?@ s /k'f the plant. p. g*-, k;u'ff-@%gDpVg@g p M W.M& eb6 in response to the order to reopen the record the staff filed the affida-V .v ewn gpp;.3 m,.mM v t of James E. Konklin who is Chief of Reactor Projects Section of the ~%+.g,,sgg,7yan gp2 NRC Region Ill Office and who testified at the hearing. (Konklin 97 m hdf s Affidavit, September 29, 1983.) Mr. Konklin stated that the staff has ', M h' N. 6 h ff9 h k M g / $g @g $jm y@w y,.m.gg.s mW.. nor has it found deficiencies in hardware that were overlooked either in reviewed a sample of the reinspection reports and found no irregularities M$$M vA. o.w y.-m. N W M %. the initial inspections or the reinspections. Applicant's corrective actions .C...C.+ C J,2.m,w;c4 3@.pyk,5}}M> s, W Q are beitig implemented effectively. c -e 'Y' d % (u ..[* n w.h.s%:M m.;yhe&M. The staff believes that the inspector certification discrepancies were %2d - M.. a _M,w;N.w w'N[ mistakes and not intentional wrongdoing since there is no reason to sus-S. MM J .m;w ' aw q.:,.w pect that any inspections were intentionally conducted in areas where e a "@%;@WE inspectors were not certified. This is based on the facts that there was MSDM%M% only a small percentage of hardware items involved, no significant defi-r.. 2:$ '. ciencies were found on reinspection and Comstock discovered and .~..,f.'.a%@7.~% h %.h d.. n.. Ap.v,3.;p.&g a~1 Q.; R d ' d i 4W reported the irregularities. The Board accepts that the inspector certifica- ,.3 tion discrepancies were error and not wrongdo.ing, m the absence of any .fJ ^ V ZW@Eg,,d?Qd.nsMs.IQ;y$k gg NV contrary information. 3,x ). 7 4 r.. Applicant reviews inspector certifications at the time of component or N k N;fM k h@ir;.^r%r.@,.d p, .<+n n , >. v a h system turnover by the contractor. That had not been done at the time W.f]. NN d,hflhf,5Mh73 "Wg%pp@M$$%d$g sgk,f the Comstock task force found the inspection report discrepancies. The h2 staff also audits inspector certifications. Neither applicant nor staff audits yg~7 u g 4; discovered the discrepancies; however, the final turnover reviews would , q.. n,o 4,g.,ggg<;.g#s 3 y. /+ g .g. ~.;,g have given applicant another opportunity to discover discrepancies had p w. p -.C "W S that not been caught by Comstock. j. OCRE replied only in a limited way to applicant's explanation of cir-M.' M/.h h / I cumstances surrounding the inspector certification issue. They cited a ,, f m g.M. m., r.W n N & c . N J. FM.,@3.WMKy:Wh, recent NRC order imposing a civil monetary penalty on the Niagra i J $W[,. >. s s 7 3 Q'@' Mohawk Power Company for a violation involving the use of uncertified 1 wm.e qs,$v;l.. y>Jgy AW..g%m no... At ,Q. g [ 't.- ih 12

~~n.. f, ww:m.wgg A y/98, % q.w. 9., v,9. 3* 9. ;...~~

~~e d kv 44 e 4 [ k' h, +~~

* ? *? \\ #,.d.y 4 *fw. h[ " M

~~.g ()j y K, 9 ,. y.,; 4.h; w 4 , *.;s.z,, ~ q :;..:, Q 34,3,y< %~~~

~~p 9: m a.~~

~~.. y ., m rn .g , -' y y pc P a l.d.1[x, Q-Q;3 m%e.,m%i[M,,.'~ mllW.l"y < s:;;.~i.,.g.ap@;.Ctq2~~

~~&. w.;..,,,o w 'p-QV Q*W.'~~

~~M'W Q; y,w;.Q &',~. u m w.. w - aa . L. sc 3:c p . 4 Q:_. yg;,; u. g y,f . - ~.,. -~ g g,;7.y 4.. c ~ s. l ,~. .,- a ^m. w.,,g, Q,c .,.T.= _ g **. t 'r a a.w %.~~

~~Q, y.,~,'\\,.s. '".,,fs. a -} ;, Q'; s.yo~~

?_Q. j<.. y t Q - &y [j i.. p' $* *, G h.e ylp{y(..'}., aW.,[j :}d'l.l y;q A. l-,. r? s ,en. f' * * ..m v* t . f.; # o iJ % ?f;-(f ,y , -Qh G.#.;l..&, y?! -;M,. . c.. 'y;'Tthp a $[g*, @ p,.d Q;q,. ; }{1 y rGl

e

~~, N,M; L _o~~

~~p is~~
~~4. wpm.4g~~

~~. Q,ff,9 i ;* x a~~

~~g: u y;.y~~

~~...n, ~..~~

~~8 lw s m a~~

v1. .y. ,4 e y..- g a. .3 J. = k o m' *. , 4 ( .'.m- ~ 2. " G :, n.. t L ..- !.'.x ^ ^ W. e -. < s.~ .8 e.~- a -ssd... [ x - f ~ .n. ~ ;, y. .~-h" 4 _.gAQQ,,, ;$,.+.pN~.e 1 3 4 inspectors. However, OCRE recognized that the penalty in that case was ]!;W 7 s.' 1',; y??., assessed because it involved falsification of records under circumstances ' 4 '; where supervision was aware of this practice and failed to take appropri-i.h ~ VO ate action to discontinue it. 48 Fed. Reg. 40,582 (1983). The issue of fal-

a

~~?.; silication of documents has not been alleged in Perry. Thus the Niagra ( ' H' Mohawk case does not apply to the case before us. ,.1... v...f? 6-7 w;r. l~~

~~?s.~~

~~- jy. ^J".mZ o j OCRE states that it has no further evidence to present concerning the S 3.. .. Z.. " L.~~

~~7. :,E: ~ %~~

~,, f f..~ issues and recommends that no further hearings on this contention be d.: ; '.$[ C.n@d.+G.MC.,J 9% o. ,.. ~ QhR held. OCRE complains strongly, however, that the Board must now take j. M$g5k;pw,;[$%5 i the word of the applicant, who has a significant stake in the outcome, M MhMigg${%Q$g@]; in J;W9W9@ and of the staff, which usually sides with applicant. They complain that the witnesses who were required to tell the whole truth at the hearing SqjgG%wQg$$W.q failed to mention the certification issue even though it was known to ap-Q4g:gl'.Qg@m.g%w Q.,,.w?'%w plicant and staff at the time of the hearing. Rev. fj&g%,AW.. i .?Ms; Y pt The Board reopened the record for the limited purpose of receiving .e

~~e. m. n::~~

ygg %gg;-@q.Meh.. y&rs%g;g$(h{,p['[q rh.%h.0e written evidence on these matters precisely because it was uncertain as ,w.. ,N!9;hh$ p to whether there had been full disclosure at the hearing on a possibly im-Qg portant matter concerning applicant's control over Comstock's QA - s h" i 8.5.g GMp@%w;mQ p *D,W:dM.~. N6%:d d' ymgram. W 5J Our review of the evidence before us leads us to believe that the %: y p.;Qi .c p!M.e t #n f,:41%gfn W. m.a L issues raised by the task force letter attached to OCRE,s motion to .Q m3 g A'g g4gg.g.y.g'TA reopen the record were.in the nature of isolated discrepancies in an oth-9 g. W. g. w k.. @..e4 f, g g u M8A&CW ' : wum.p&a+ WM Md%w~,9 npQ erwise functional inspector certification program. The Comstock task ~,>wr 4A 9ed ..P_ pgwe . ewg force ult.imately found only 190 discrepancies out of about 30,000 g7/g i- @e%@b 4%g#gg;$.g records they examined. The nature of the discrepancies was of small sig-q M7WV .Nc N W @$}hkJh % nificance to safety since the inspectors had signed off on items for which N %jsSN.NNh1 g$ [h@kNgg,g,^ig$ki they were proficient though not formally certified to perform. This cir-cumstance arose out of what is apparently an artifact of the certification ggg tg system wherein inspectors become certified to specific checklists of Wl.g g,.Sp@M g :Mg:4.$g.g Mpr$ p g%g &.g. $q items in each of several subj,ect areas. Not every inspector is certified to g. inspect against every checklist even though different checklists may c+.w w.d .: Mn.~ i have specific items in common. In this case inspectors who were certified w p. M. g.., m,%M e 7 i v, w w FM..a ?@. my?;@um,:w% M to one list inspected the same or similar items from another list for it' W. v 'v. o.ty, @3&:. which they were not formally certified. While we do not approve of that .z%... a wi A Q*fbg. h[ f'd j procedure, we have no reason to think that it produced serious safety A 3 .u .ne. s 1 ] Q.x m ugggg%n.g3 ;;gy; concerns. . O PM C WA.EW;eg3hMM[.Q We are satisfied that the applicant or Comstock conducted reinspec. tions or reviews of items from which there were discrepant inspection Qjl$@@KQQ $3%;$$$%@MP (yh&h yjg records without finding serious safety deficiencies. We are also satisfied M 'f,$d WQ @M &' N;# N IF k E!E W that applicant conducted audits of its own of Comstock inspections and N P, M..Mi -. b. was aware that there were a small number ofinspector certification dis-crepancies in the years 19781982 and that its overview ultimately led to I ~,~ ~ w'.y?. w :..+ m s x c y y by'g$..l'.,,% -QgQQ::g~P,W %l. . A. & psi;;; sy, P Q.V:wpy& 4 ..L e-ti# G D. m m:f a w :MWWdWO Q$it ~a.w3 1247 .f x ". Q 3, & w.., m:; %:QiW QA.Wy,V.i. w w

~~A.mg..%.~~
gN,, y*M N[y.b,;z
n..,:.n
,,p~...., - n. n,. m ~. ~.!.,B 4m. y', p ;;, m' X..,'", [r.,s*: D m.e a: se ' Q ' l..*..l_. M,p'. Q.~ n: n; ~ Q..> f.v" ~Q.m, W...g br,;. q -m p29 s pss q, . w q : y,, d,,.M., v 2 ....+4 y #y. :C,c. O. m:M g%p.t.ww. c. .cy .v..;.3-a s, 7 c ;;La,-y y.. &.g;4:n,.p%g.f:q. gd M. %. .-.A a thu,. t:y; y ; ? " A... 3 ' 1 l '. ~. .,u. ,, >.. ;
4 Y qq.p%. ;.S. 5p.;
% n,., ~ ...,:z, .:g ; v > +<- w;m r..%gf.w+: ;. py%*g /x@M,1 w; ..,L p.,l;-yn.. ;:-m.n.g; , i v, ? ' 'c c. g n : n.c .a t.*;r , A cya'9 : ,y . M, ;', n. 1 m. ~. M ;, W.'+b'. W.j p %.;c. u n -. g.N ? 0t.. k t c. 3.,-w, A.g p o 3 ... g-
g.g.
vy... : m. ;,o gy .N .r. v..a,, m.... W., "~,;a,,#.. nq g. f.s y..,#m. ,4, s s .p. q. m w..,.p7 g. g.g,pg.g.g m 6 s ..,,v .m.. r- - 1 g. ,_ g't N.y p; >p!'s.gl '.Wh ;g*,W,g-4., gg m t. < ,y 3' t' ,, g
y. m pg :
. u c...p.g. pq,
m.,
o y Qq.4: uWypidhS h MANM%5MYN]@$2% d%W; AM;;hyi;.. e .:; g d [; g e.~. c.>.n & k t! &s % m % ;#. S i n; w$. W ly$ m% W l,a:- ve?n#Q Rt 4r
+
~ A ey44@yi h FikQ2$ tG p a n W @N h ydM % e m& %e e w &;6 m e. m: m m. sqv? p w w$ W 4 hy&: wp m pWh "' A M W.ans qM s m N h -. a&g& N kd? gg g% g$5 $ $ $ Y " # # " gM7&C e f D@nMM I.$.Nh a Whe;. i t%w wcs $wgQ.g % - QplM:.h:m% %.eMM994$f'?MW m a . :e( sm, Q* i N rO ' g.
J W

Y

N Med F, u
? pF ji+# 1 the comprehensive review by Comstock which brought the magnitude Wb P.R of certification deficiencies into focus. f 'b"g %uh ? % NM M h.gg'MNkNkBMMWdhd subject but not bringing it more forcibly to the attention of the Board My h Applicant believes that it was correct in introducing evidence on this i.ihh MMdNk5pS g/ during the hearing since they had already been addressed at the time of NWddh the hearing without finding matters of safety concern. (Notice of C)M Q,;[p[ y[i,yU[ h' M M h g$ hM[ M-ek9M M Violation, ff. Tr.1619.) Furthermore, the adequacy of the resolution y g g' N[* % !ps HM gMy was not challenged in the hearing. The Board is aware that large numbers of nonconf rmance reports have been issued and closed out routinely jp I n during construction of Perry. The vast majority of these reports were un-y gp%. % challenged and therefore went unexamined by us in the hearing. This is .s r., M jh
i$by U d
consistent with our own summary disposition order, which instructed N& $!h f!.Ngdh/pMMD.} PDM parties that we wished to receive evidence concerning whether there was a breakdown of the electncal QA program at Perry or evidence concern-y#- g%e x g ,.p.W ing whether CEI had lost effective control over its contractor Comstock. ne y. e w.e (t%' ~ g IJ$. McM We explicitly instructed the parties that we did not wish to review lists ^ ?y ,g??..s W@$ M d .y .'M of individual discrepancies unless they were pertinent to those k,;'$% hem.w&[%%MD.x questions. Thus we find it difficult now to fault applicant for following y%:k3 jOFy 4. q f M. 3,f%SpAMId$f*MMy,c f our instructions. m QA8/;i Neither do we fault OCRE for bringing this matter to our attention. b.YI ME*Wk@9M.YFh-h7[$% hAOT@P' t-v. Certainly the wording of the preliminary task force findings was suffi-J/$ YT $@ ^ $y5) cient to raise doubt in the Board's mind as to whether there were serious $? hhkf[kMDMhTf unresolved questions regarding electrical inspector certification and $ d d h A Td </Sjf M M $ g h@E 3 g whether important information had been withheld from us at the q gw.;MgplSi% gym hearing. This is particularly so since the certification deficiencies oc- , '%>[f[$[(M;fhdIffh M h't Mk curred during the same time period and with the same contractor that re-W4?p WQQg ceived close scrutiny at the hearing on other subjects. On balance we O M Q " @ M $ k i M + M H O.6 A would have preferred the applicant to have exercised discretion to have O D j; $; $@ ft hy discussed these matters more fully at the hearing simply because there is .k UJhe%;M F d potentially a close connection between the difficulty of hiring inspectors , %,'i MUN.d@n*D$NGM[f"!Mh~W'$ ' '%Cf and their degree of qualification. For all the Board could know from the fdNM M2 li' hearing record, there could well be the possibility that untrained inspec- 'hkk&%gh' m@hty# k,, fd tors might be used because of the difficulty in hiring trained inspectors
y y

m. 1981.
a nQ4 (GOA g t% g w., ' 6b /*: Such a hypothesis might seem plausible when developed from frag- . -[yfize D9. M64MW i
6.%y w:yqn@N.e.. 2 dyN. w.# '
l mentary or prelimm.ary information. We are now satisfied that.that hy. MybWym mP m N kM pothesis is false based on examination of a more complete record. We 2% y j,9 %,#, w3 y v., ? . m.!Q4.n find that applicant has adequately expla.med the documentat. ion discre- %;;.d Fwn% 'l$g.ggy$ pancies regarding certification of electrical inspectors and cosignatures of . '.V h e. d d'7.j $ g G Ni @W &@h p @; %d. , { fg:f e.'lT.V ". /gf 7' K: yy level 11 inspectors on inspection documents. There is no basis in the 2, M EJ. p f $ record for believing that these QA discrepancies caused a potentially s. h m* .My&' y!f. Q=)Qjgy.Qf, fy.& v - <+,...% .. ; - e y.s. s.tg.y' M x ', ~ % 0% w &;c W W.f*WA,;fy&(2l 7( "
fii,2 8jMP 4
(a.. M f.sra g g ; :W.L; p % *n&w# 6.t;;pg;p':
M?Gt ?
Lk,(~>- Q w; p :., ' jf. &l 7 gy; gyp.m-Qgg4tiggg;fgjy3;y ;. g.;gw,, J, y ' 1 5: - y m. p. m m g.,. g,, 7 7, y. ,.y. .y.m.,,,,..__. pg;p;gQQ ~ s 9_,j,y;,g . v. s y. ung%. y-,%npg,4..; - %.;f; v. ~; g;,o g;f.,9w.p p? q 7 3 g, b Q,Q,%.w..p.d.V'*p$p?MA. i #%.. ~:m:.c, s;s...w;ne ; g: ;. *. $:x
w. m
,j 7gg .i~ L.c sv . a; oy,.. yp.~,hg.,g.v cww;y g:m.g%y;;.pqq~g9 p.L .h :gyg;wyymc,WgAWF{Jf;s.g}g%p. ww=;g; 44.v.;,; .,c~ y N - 0 q. pi 4JWgg r g.y
4. pg v
a i m uq m n . ~ ym. ;n.y. g. / :-%z yg. yc . s_. _.m- +u v ',7 rY. s ( .y~ n, .t t .,a w-t n = 'c: r x w ,s. u,n.. took reasonable steps to discover and correct the inspector .f y v discrepancies. This matter was resolved within the applicant's organiza. tion prior to the QA hearing; that resolution was not directly challenged and no signincant safety deficiencies were found; therefore, the applicant q ~b did nothing improper by not bringing it to our attention at the hearing . ~ + mi. even though it would have been better to do so. ~' e ~ +....o
a
' d;n. 2,, pi.F? i i ~.0 lyn. III. TIIE ISSUE OF TIIE QUALITY ASSURANCE ADVISORY JJ. FMS W M N'N h M i N 4 9 Q G.y d e a ?. Y. M. M C COMMITTEE MEETING FREQUENCY IN 1981 WN h @f.'?,yW@hh[ h ff?ff.N OCRE's motion to reopen the QA record included an unsigned list of items, apparently prepared by an NRC staff member, detailing a number W YD % WS. M-:fM@.t.QM;.M of denciencies in the Perry QA program. The Board concluded that this c-N. !;-O R - nw .~v list, being unsigned and undated, was not evidence but that it did raise E f,f *iG, n M;f;yG@D_J,,M.i. OQ. 7 h ' ,s,.2.
q+DJQgd S)%'.~c. w one issue which in our view required further explanation. The notes
,J W . s. stated that applicant's Quality Assurance Advisory Committee (QAAC) @W / y-c ^ met only twice in 1981, when applicable procedures required it to meet ['
g,j%$.n'? r r Q,
quarterly, and that the committee did not conduct meaningful reviews. ^ < i $' g1 O The functions of the QAAC were discussed in the QA hearing; p;[% . Q. f ' 4,},c,.4 f. [..d ' 1 C QWh
k." ~.$ "' "g.
however, these issues were not brought to our attention by either the 6" f staff or applicant. It appeared to the Board that staff notes suggesting a f djf.'%%%MQMy;$dD c failure of an important advisory committee to meet with the required fre-j' B ? M C P " M O ;),P n M %
.j g s I %
%$gM;M quency or to conduct meaningful reviews when it did meet required fur-ther explanation. In particular the Board found questionable a staff state- '4M y 3.1 Q}@ff.M M $T's ,. -i,$:Q:MQ Q;.. ment at the hearing that the QAAC was required to meet quarterly with-Q /"/Ys.b M9. 4M6WrM9%g@n/n out revealing that in fact it had met only twice in 1981. F y e.,. *w. v m :,'s wn j m pM P In response to the Board order to reopen the record the applicant sub-e We ' T.%.,y;W;n. 4. v-fr?... x..%.,.u. Dc5;,:. ,t M. r. Wm.r a. 0.,A x 7 mitted the Amdavit of Mr. Murray Edleman, and the staff submitted n.v M 7 .pn e h ... 5R @. w c the Affidavits of Mr. James E. Konklin, John Streeter and Thomas E. M W:J..:.E M D i '. y ". T.,_ y &p h,Q Vandel. Q.g@j..#: me .L:. A c U V.. 3 Mr. Edleman stated that the QAAC was created in June 1978 follow-my y; G y r ' y.Wpy,@'Ag.,g2 g ing NRC's February 1978 immediate action letter. The QAAC functions , N;41. @fyY;f.g;h WQTy independently of applicant's monthly and quarterly QA review process. y. g @:,%.c its purpose is not to duplicate these other QA review processes but to $Q@.i'{$y Q 2 $gt7.!g advise management on significant QA policy issues. Applicant considers l i- . M' h%gt,y nfs W the QAAC to be a positive element of the overall QA program but not h%,c@%p$Q^ Q ", fy ";,.h.'.Ok.h@ one that is required by any regulation. ,',M Q f; s h jgS[y( The QAAC functions by conducting formal meetings which consist of site tours, interviews and formal discussion of agenda items. Additionally t" : : y+W. U +2.,.+ MTg. ~ J., T committee members work outside of the formal meetings by reviewing ,: %..... 4.gMMAW. n.g g,,er' ,.+ m,. 9' ? # Q j, M. M fc','.0.;c[ P QA program documents in their home offices. t f ..,, n,, U'*:.. " ',, %, / .. ~... y,,m. @.. s .f t ^g A r. fac+.. .w g ~ r ,&M, Y,? '?g. ' ' e..*:, A$ p @.. + ., 2..',. '... &.s.Q' '.Q N n -x r.,. L W l'. h~m. 3. s. s , **Qdh3 '[(.b .fi g.: 1249
L,x p(.y"m.N.M,,,C 1
' ~ ' 'P+ 7 . y n, ; w c.;.
s
', s;.Qff* M *Q),.'$x ; m, T gj f.jp*,W..e ;(. f *f g;, v','m1s.m.yye.mm.ko.e. I- .o .^ ';. M,' t. e %,<*h, v. s. '.,e. f N.g^".f'.? '.n e?,e,,.Q"' iN p. ' p,, s : h,1 -. <r 2 g.., f x .dN. g. w.. TN,~3*t,q, + :. t,. %e. w .,.,c,, *,,,,, ., =.. - pa ~n 2 s.u ,,y n . :w n ; ;. ;.;,y &,qw,m.f.Y'.h;qq, y,d. N M .* w,. mw ; ----
m**-". *.m*",.~: ~ 'g.p* e 4 wyk.u.q%~%m.v:.1 4 ',"O
,,.,.~w-.y... ,,f., ...,-g
,. n.
2 y r.us. c; m.. ~.;. q, m., r~.x g. .g.:y 7 .s.w go;4 ;y54 y.4..c t ., [ 6 ~, g_ [.t, l ]pp - +.y r j s ,z ag ~. 3.x ~ % c.,- ; "- i . s. g., . s 3,,; ., % g: 33., y gy,p ..,9' g q. ,, o...o,,,f.9.r,,,c,;g,q.;4,3,g; 4 p* 4 (.. S,.s c w,,. c.: w% '.~~4 y,. # e t. j, s n w ,f '(,./..,'s yg_l 8 'e a ' , ~;~.m*/ a.,l y'* %.% >.n ; -, g ~, *,1 % w l, f.;, .. 4 <g ,3g ~ 3
. f, e

j. -
j f ', s r e. .A - 4 ; t,. i,- ,n aS. s .:s a_N,, 9. _ c ~ u..=. > ~ -~ y e M... D.. dM w y M... Mw % ..m ; m.y %;pu::W.;DQ. .r.;:. ~ Mh;kV~h;,~.k.y %,1sh.\\ kN!~UkMh s ., 4 9i3 h,,3. q+: w% q .. ay% y. f } [ h h h h ;, %;pfp d, ~. 9%. '~ ,a..c%. &4:%w%.q..y.w m;,p.M.-[;Mhk 1 % s nA . s.a..h.,[s k;lin dk, p: u .. s 14 m g Np' g&y wa a. y %n %a.n.y g ? L ? % m.g. y; n.ga.u rg *,,m. ~.cy% QQ'4 Mih M M,';MM %w' <.s ?, x n. p. . y Wo. ,M;yd ? me r %wwnMAm mcp:th.9.ww'4.& ;WO:hP:r-D %" %=W:yW n ean r y sparNupy wk a4 n %m. %a.q. iy iW*.vs:p n WMW.$w:anzu;. i.PMWWF
A yM@p k:@o@n wh i
w 3i ~ :.q&q;.y;&w:,wd&gur@ amk pp u L f Y& jyhYk&?$$p.gY:&W t.v @&yMJjVMd g.M.,t ;,p %pg n.,:n@., ::@.r;s.. :WM s m c e.e n.;3.e n;, w:, W Dk.R9.h, e.aG, WN n ,n The QAAC held six formal meetings in 1978, eight in 1979 an % g % 9 ",N~ $ h M W@,. s. Wi . O?W ,m in 1980. In 1981 the committee held two formal meetings but a NANNM.J$hWMN.W[7
gh ducted site visits to three other nuclear sites. Its sc 7d h[f/?y S % d$! h,%.[
.e $ N k h 1/3 % 1981 meeting was postponed to January 1982. In 1982 the co + held seven meetings in addition to the January meeting. So far in N,y t dW;M:liAT,'. M$cy;t the Committee has met seven times. The Perry QA program req(' @dn#f:Q,$QQ@M# ' ment is that the QAAC should meet quarterly, although there was a @M ' g% % n 9 1 R % F.4:" M ;.6. wa d h %..!- ~ n. m. w M N 7 1 brief period of confusion in 1982 when it was not clear whethe A M W ;:nf ra p .,u.m E s.... wW &'W gram requirement was for two or four meetings per year. That confusio ., % q / @ @y -m 3ly!$ p, w %@ m& lasted about two months and was cleared up in favor of the q [p t, aVS f.. s r, %'hh g%g.3?Mikp.. l schedule. y8 f p k sd$&5 M g g@f g EJ The staff cited a noncompliance regarding applicant's failure to m E,, ,,%fD@hhhE% hg..@f its 1981 QAAC program requirements, in inspection reports d E MWD Mn9' 25, 1983. 8 ' MOM Mr. Konklin of the staft's Region III Omce stated his belief g M. m p % a %; d$g @f! @s.$ ipMy@W[D$ N%.Wijp that if the QAAC had met more often in 1981 it is possible that so 9 VJM g&W the problems with electrical contractor performance then existing W hii$ WWMh $cM h6 have been identified and corrected sooner. However, the staff be E /. J.aw@.@Qe eMp8p 9p that since early 1982 the Perry site organization's auditing and e M@ rep://@DUMM6WM: ,y K% ment program has had significant improvement. 4 N,i
h. M *M h %cr., $ 1?di$ $...j @M The Board questioned, in its order to reopen, whether the NRC p
a h-Qs members who first prepared the notes which OCRE attached to its w$ c u i @ c.y?.q.Dq.ysse%,q;m.-d.w p3 B m,d. hi e w4 motion to reopen the record had any more information to disclose and o m ~ n.ksg qw., m a. ;y$l i WM%y....p. whether they were now satisfied with the resolution of this matt @ @Q@ j. 9 tp:!$ h;f; W; joint aflidavit John Streeter and Thomas E. Vandel both of the N w 3W$$ %y [f.g pf[$M@MCM::'A.n ' Region Ill Office, stated that they had prepared the document ff$ M,$d. y j s M tion as preliminary inspection findings which ultimately led to is 'y. j p V,:.;Q, of the July 25, 1983 l? M h[E{ M;b.N 3 inspection reports citing applicant f 77,s.I US ing the acceptability of the QAAC and neithe
y. D.$@/R"edgfhMN with N
f% Sd ' j I M..1 w.3.~w$,,Q+ Qw.; g %g.g. dence that bears unfavorably on the degree of management com t 4 .~s, y;pm. M.;%w;p. ,eg y(J%y As,s.: p, to QA at Perry, 'NetMN. .E. g, g q OCRE, for its part, had no further factual assistance to give the $y y. %.W:JJpM ? 2pfMMMl}Rg.3 $QO,'$MM MM%f%k and was not able to offer an alternative interpretation to that of t $p( c.
SPnM cant or stafTregarding the QAAC activities in 1981.
Nh-@QQ.K@f{ Q)y:i The Board finds that CEl's QAAC performance during 1981 was d E hj cient regaryng its frecency of meeting and that this deficiency h h E$ M.40y g J NL , angggy%gh.g!y% added sigmficance since it occurred during a period when CEI was .g , f y.Lp,n p 7 9 7 having significant QA problems with its electrical contractor, L.K. C
gy i p. D,? M i y @ E ?"H "
stock Co. The staff citation of a noncompliance, coming as it did pr 1983, is both reassuring and disturbing. We are reassured, o s MQS j,3p%gy@l,,l that staffinspections ultimately found the discrepancy. We are dist jD l.;, A ONJN-MD'M72 i k# , p.y yw QW;'!) cu..g. WiMh. d?: that that discovery was made some two years after the discrep b. 4".'A N A.m@&;&%w g.;n ~ ~ ~. ge e.
t. f.d;
.yt Qt W.Q
c g; p.3%;
M@fy w&y%fM@r.%4;Q.M'<.4i g y g g#yd;ijMgd h.$ $h g s 1250 4 k W[Ts
~" 9 S. w*.
w;:, '.w* %m" '. ' v, ..y y
qa,,
f S V, f .&. *( w. 'y ,E_q : f... ; y A, 9 9 rw }. p. p* [ '.f. d, J' f ' y ,'.c i 4 -m 4 .? t 3 'a *,* $2j h .~,.,, a n,... .b z, .x ,( s W'
y. w&
s,a.m. ' :. '.m. s.,e m. S$' Y D r $' ',. t,3.
I. e... [~..w ";"
s. 'y: / i .s + =t* 8,t,. . m.a = ... r. s Y e* . 3d.b, h ? b' m' # .. xy. + V "m{4 ' ig'y,fC,6;@w%($K. :M$h,.g,N.( / s Y dd'M. b3 ~ 'J g yz g.' S1% u .*p4.u.
.'e x,-

s...w,. :7c.,.a. <w% '-
o .A giy.# h af f[ Sf' . 4 ;.,{@g sd
. < ' s' l 3
3 %. q M, o _y } y,7f .y. T c' mw ____-"-------"-_________.L_y - - - - - ' ' ~ ^ . s 1 g -. 4 .f.- .v i i +
u _
i } c -. d- 'r? occurred. This seems to be too late to have practical effect on the appli-
i cant's QA program, and it gives the appearance of having no more pur-
.~ pose than creating a paper record. We emphasize here that we expect ap-plicant's and staff's programs to provide a genuine assurance of quality e in the physical plant as well as to provide complete and correct documen-M - ~ tation of activities. Applicant's view of the QA AC is that it is a valuable effort which is an [ W:- '. o+ 7,,, ~ l J' extra or add-on to the overall QA program but that it is not mandated by b any regulation. That characterization invites the conclusion that QAAC gfd"jk., _ + /0 I J 'M.L kQ,0 lp..,M.Md. W N T,F+ ; O activities should be regarded as being in a separate category that is not g;.!ggggp.Jmegg#,j-fQ lw w w.y.. g ~~- subject to the usual rigorous standards imposed on a QA program. The g I?.4-@ b~M N U.jp~fplj $'? b J > w- ~6 staff apparently sees the QAAC as being, in practice, an integral part of y c u.m &p. Q[ 1 @~f ' Q Q{ 9 .M applicant's QA program whether or not it is specifically mandated by ,- %.9h $p 6 Q.Q. i. l;Wf*/JN' ' $~T '. f regulations. The staff believes the QAAC should be subject to rigorous scrutiny like any other program element. V M A 19 F.-~ ,i.i.-%si N...,ae W-,4:. 8e, tsp The Board finds that as a practical matter the QAAC has become an s M ", 1 -~% integral part of applicant's QA program even though not mandated by o [:$QQ Qb & ~
e regulation and even though the applicant might have chosen some other

MM Las of implementing its QA program. As long as the QAAC program D.y

g Id/ " fM;GGl VM[ gy, 4;,e W
exists and is playing a role in the overall QA program at Perry, it must h p M.3 N M, ' (W,. g ,,H be subject to the same high standards of performance as the rest of the SQ.d:'Q'Q'syd';.M program. To the extent that there is misunderstanding on that matter be-M M &. p v %.. : M... %>-- N.:, e. N A tween staff and applicant we expect them to act aflirmatively to develop a+, {Wa,?.@>.:- Q "s.fgl} g y., a:. .f.K a common understanding of the role and performance standards applica- .P ?>" .? - cr-ble to the QAAC. $gN.% : D d.i k f @7 j. [% O ' The deficiency in meeting frequency that occurred in 1981 is an isolat- $2F%lW ' g s.@ f,, E % ed event since the QAAC met or exceeded the Perry program require- ., 27 '.$ytcW ments for meetings in each of the other years from 1978 to the present. -%g.n@,..h.uW fP Mw.A..%v WO. M We see nothing in this event that in itself would tend to cast doubt on m n. .g G.Q,$g ~ l %.s - the overall strength of the Perry QA program. Nevertheless this matter should have been disclosed at the hearing since it is closely linked to f M. M.k%'MP 3D .,w',d m MW.%m ML. h, w ' ;.. subjects that were discussed and it was not resolved, at least as far as y..m.gtfM. S.M. ~ ':$u...1 S M M ;. 7 w' g ' E staff was concerned, when the hearing was held. None of the parties gr-M i!M g 4 h T h M k:. % m 'i.; have brought to our attention any safety deliciencies in the physical mMg plant that are traceable to the QAAC performance in 1981. Indeed the YZ%.g;~,= f.f.s.hh%, ',7M.. ?.4. 4', QAAC role as a policy advisor to management on QA matters is such ._ 4m a c; /:. ...... sv.mp; yeh., '.w., y... that we think it unlikely that there would exist a simple relat.ionsh.ip be-w. .* y ~ s c6 6 cm, # c,.n zRmE. . =. tween events that occur in the physical plant and actions taken by the . y *m committee. There are other parts of applicant's QA organization that n$. n.J M%,2..J pi g+N c: ;., - o. ., w.. - v.i > m,. ~. . +wo @ '. p, vrt;;e a n . ivi tend to the discovery and disposition of ind.. dual construction . s,n.
v. n nr. <og g,g.;
7- ~ discrepancies. q.',, s } %, ' 1,,.
f>f>
i.,, Q..d i '.. .# I [y (eg l, 5,.;'.,g[ ~b; f. ',: ;; f '.*,fE,g.x ' T ; ', ..k t. ,lv ? 'd.;' t ,qy, A%,1,y{e ". b, s? ' w". / a " "' M;,h -...b. ;';, .A ,3 r< 1251 e a .? .cv 5[.. 5'* '..e ..n ,w:. n.s. a.,,., ,.f. i .y ~ ., +. - . n',; +- ,',g'f.Ai D .y^,,wl *:. ' ', 'd '. sl:. {f,. m ~.$ dm... ?.%.. s,. m (, m. sp<< v%.,, 1 e'.. g <,pl'h. g* y ;.y{.?.'[(e.,} A jg [3] '.'.',s" 3 N.'- N, '?..4 e' .,,. M ' ner e.if o.r*- ..,e
o 4 g,.-
c. s> a p. q(] ~d J .y ; .-4.v7-.,..f.&...y.,,.,,...,,.., .,m,.,,, s ;, g y.,
s, y.-
e 4 y, e 3.e. .-.d T M A - 4,qw* 4 ' * , a. m,v.w. Q'emm n 3 3+ ,a Yc 3
,'d v 4..y;, j."< g.,,f g.,P 3 " r,, ; ; a -7
. A.p g, i3.t.. g ;,r..g,'..#s. ; ? ,n ', q / w a,..
3
~ ( "8 ja , g f j fw.g %.,y. g,#,.,y<, r ' p,., A q.. < x + [ag-4 g . o, 3.,. x e. -- - ag ./ W,, o,, - .g. 4y,' 4;o A .e,t.s,{u. %j-r . :. r.y _ :r, g 1
3..'
m'. ;, >. - v. ~.. a ,s. io.' y,- s< u- w .y
m.:.O.:.g.h.. m'm.n.,.W.
. m : .,e m.+: L.. 4 . mkv ,. m ,] !w!n-f,.4)**y,%+.m.x.n?.aW. W s... ,. n...,... .w w** n .i, .'. ::;p;- n a e?la ; n .1 M* Q,.yr y ' s....*n y 4..;,jr~ A 'L '..'n 4. .Ky.a W. o <1 c .a. .>;ogy,Y.-.,.. ~., : y ?, v, % m+ $ $~. Q.,u ml. @;.,. ~.;..... V W
U., z &.
?M, E ff0. W%'Tn.fw.4c.NW.M&.e.%~$:ns u lr. Oy: . t. W '1 .g.
<~,.
.. w . p v 1>v m+. g;gj. m. 9... g n.r w m - 1, a. 4.,.,a.w p Jj'.. Q,.w.x n,ff;nm.,.. s.
v.. - :
~. a. y.n,... x. m r. .- -=.,v w ci x,.c, c w. w u .n .:p, m..n... r. : 1 .& u ~.m : a ;, - .;;-J...;:y.;7:!'*y gQ%,~ jM'myQQ @;m,: ~ p ,h <QQ f C, ;:~) - .:yG Q.w ,. ':z.y - 3., H 'j-y~@w$V. s:!Mt.p.~r*M&m d% - --s.~ u - % u,%.m2.%- ~@ M.-~ic% W~W W C& W.
n M '.:.J. f # -
w ..N : '. 4. p n.e.s we m.:w' '&mJ--~~
-. o. -
~ ~ w w -.
7

m n
f'afh n,9,? lf.l. - v q, -na., ,w.3 - Q w w ! &:: % fx hl%.4.; m a n., m}.?," k g:.y'f}y:;. si m ?. x,
m. wr: J% :d*;.w;N:.n m
w n.g ' y.4 7 *',p gn, -.,,,---. ,.a ., % P'.,.: n ,y ~g~., ~ 4 3 ,,s N.
y e
,;,. n
~.
. ~, : e...
p ;M. ' s ; 5

. 4:-.
,r + a v ?g. p q l,s s R. a. } . " A y+ -, f. e .j -t @, ;,,. 4 .. w+ A. %... m. yl.....p s a i, n v .m. e. J,A;5~.2
s.
o IV. OCRE REQUEST TO HOLD OPEN THE QA RECORD .?r- . m. . w..n...s. c, n m,.m.. v - W,, %.. .~U .a f. 31 jc..lWg - l '- /v,_. '.<, OCRE in its Reply to Applicant's and Staft's Affidavits Concerning 3 G..r.m~.~M,. w - a f:hg-$MME%,$1 cF M L' 4 *4 urges the Board to hold the QA record open because OCRE is conduct- "W the Motion to Reopen the QA Record (OCRE Reply, October 7,1983) C r. $ S MTd[iY/NM.JU,.m M D ', y, 3:l ing a campaign encouraging Perry workers to come forth with $;@bh[E.').RP k ~ . i '* "':[ $g:4'Q1;M l ;* ', Q information. They argue that construction is not complete at Perry, that . s1-it is likely that further QA deficiencies will occur and that because of the h N$ . I. fuel loading schedule there is no compelling reason for closing the ~,f M '/ ? J.fd.dt y*[3.S record. h k,
l 2!@Nl[.. (Q,@[%yMt.d,? Tp..\\,y[bh., h.it,..
.e p v.M Mi In its October 24,1983 answer to the OCRE request, applicant points .Se v-. r l out that the Board had denied a similar motion in a telephone conference V, w%f.h.N. w;f?.y.'>d,YM/MM.(@/MT, j @S %5MWf $fi call of May 9,1983. The basis for denial was that OCRE had identified J..:y~PDgQe,.Mye$..., ?...i. !4W mR'q' 4 1 no witnesses. The Board made clear that a motion to reopen the record m. .%. Q / s @.,rw,$d...i WWe < could be made if there is grounds for it in the future. d @d W@ @J # d D[@ @@R 6.C@$rM $ @
r. m{
The Board concludes that its reasoning set forth in May 1983 remains S M%gw&g M9 valid in November 1983. OCRE still has identified no witnesses. Its re-quest to hold open the QA record is denied. s;-%m.,,a&p v.wg e.;.2s.g< :4Ng'-l yv et mm t - Q:awlt.y. y' s@~r:n "..$,..sg&.). %p.,, Mjk,t:,,:@.*:yu m %, %.46 V. CONCLUSION
x. t n.% M. a.,..
N ~- nm k'hkd,M;%%3t e r ;,.y.t.igl@< F,.,iQP3.@. N $NMh.h;;] ~ 1W t a,y .,.y. p,_ k'MN We conclude after review of the additional evidence filed by the par-f,.H.i:M w p, e,v, ties in this reopened proceeding that the issues of adequacy of electrical .c. @j. Q,Q M: M V/P 4.( ? t.( A A, M inspector certification and of performt.nce of CEl's QAAC in 1981 con- ..g ; d [ ', M %. D % " s~Qg?ip.gl.jQ.jfis{;pkf'C. gy, stituted discrepancies in an otherwise functional QA program at Perry. ,L As such, these episodes are cumulative to what has already been accept- .e; n *e t >.7 i : s G..:. ; ~ N ?. Wha; ed by all parties, namely, that there were a substantial number of QA 0 N ee 3.. -~,. w m .f g.ww:.s. ga p,.; ,,. ;.. r* m/d. problems m. the electrical area at Perry m. 1981. ,y, .u d.".. dijiOffDgl. :p%$m 3@.~.3 7.q?p d?;t 6 /2$ The test of a QA program, however, lies not only in its ability to n.9,d,b, n,v. w n....M. YAW.%Q,,,@. M lW.Nf.e,W Mp ~@ pM/6Q.(3 cessfully so that they are remedied and that assurance of safe construe. uncover discrepancies in QA but also in its ability to cope with them suc. ~ . gpr;f W,M @ MNkh,,.N.MA:q.hg N;:yWMVM;;m ;We+ 'hb.yM%gM tion can ultimately be found. g. For these two issues we conclude that the full QA procedure worked gi eff ).@ haw *MQ properly and that no unsafe condition in the Perry plant has resulted M$NMktNIMh:@MQM from the discrepancies that were found. The issues which led the Board . QM f -/[e3,M 4?., Q.l V TR.': M to reopen this QA proceeding are therefore dismissed. There is no y.uQ. y/ %q genuine issue of fact raised by these filings and no need to take further l. . <+ c,,'N-testimony on these matters. 1.b .N~.. ~... ,, 3 ,',.,.. [\\ J IL. #s s e Q M...t,'#*~.,f a ' ' -., w l'. $( '..t, A.,, ; j- r 4 - M 1.: 4
44' r
3; Uy'. ~ ,,*,t- .. p. /e r. . h.., ^y",,... M y% ~ /,yM Q;.;s .fM Y-a--w [ * ? f';; & o,,d,,*l., ', o ' J.h {l- *,; e , +y-lp.,*,,',... i, 5' ' y tv.> Q. . &s ~. Wi'p. 2.,, ; J d ',. ~ .w n ' ' ',,f . y. p.. ,j ' W.i'O [,h*,'[p J e.- .9 4 y ;j;h .d M .I bN 9f.JT[ ? r * %^ V s',t 1252 g.gf r. d 4. -.s. . p cy; l.,, c. .q i.S QY Y;..'Qd[* 6, :.,V'&%e y r; v x.,k.} e e v,
T j'.
.,.t.,- .i- ,w -,, A ' u t.: 4 7,, ~* ' 'T, ; e g..
e,,yr, 3,

3
'. t s c,,,,.g f.] 1(. j p. y>.' [ . e* "\\ .. l. [ ** s m,, y * '. g '~l %.. ~;,..fh.d < p; --
M*. d
.. U,y L s-a . f, p + g -,y#j.te.. m.s-. ~a,.*--,+..y- ~~,.. : ;,y,, y y..
r.,,, r..
...",,.s\\ _, *, j Vp ;+. ^ w l ' (Q ~ z w. c :g.. c r. s,. m,., w.r., e. ;. a n. :.. .z .? ~.3. s,
m. x,,,.a. s s.,..
...a b 5 E , g' y,*e. m e , agm g, j o. ,m.w.;m.,.w sn u,g.?,., . h::.q. :-;, %..,m ".. 'm
P. p ;b a
~..a a. j C;yggg jl. .n a y ;.:f.- L,v=....- -. s~:, +- 'x, s. q .: u.n - t : .c m. . s .:, n.,., "L ? ',y,y *?.if,tM. t W,s:.x.e.. .. g, m. n. v:c. - +
e..
,m 0
k..a 7
z. ')g 1
g
,s. " t ', e, ,.x n. + ' t h~,t, c.G q%w fyt 6 p, y g a ,, ~ c E ~ 42 ..o q, ...g' ,. Q. } 1v e 3; _ c w . 3 e c ~g Q4 5,a.. 'cE - +. ,a e a, ..n,.. .. v. ; s, ~ '.3. ~ .s ~ ..1 ..s ~
/ a <.~

n.;
,= m ~ gy -:.M : 3' c.
,. e.,,.. n o c.,.
~,F,, i. wW i. ?C. 'w.. .m :..yc b (- 'C O - VI. ORDER .i_t ?I. .e. For all of the foregoing reasons and after reviewing the full record in c>
u m
this reopened proceeding, it is, this 10th day of November 1983, ,c ~ '. ...N
9
' d, 4,%,,.W ORDERED l .#.U u V. 9 = 1. That the issues of inspector certification at Perry and performance 4, .u-k w :,' C... ;:,s. ~ u sv....%y% q. p.c...w p g..j . f. of Cleveland Electric illuminating Company's Quality Assurance Adviso-7c g ^ ry Committee are dismissed, and j,p ; 7 2. That the record of the quality assurance portion of this proceeding g g g M.$ 0' g g,y% h p ' (@m%et'S/M.eh.bi?.,@.y.:rp h x@yr be closed effective this date. w .e yf$$:tW:u a.m d@QM$$4%.,q.C,j7-1:
/,
M WBKQ@ THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND pe...:p,.s:,.%>,n..Qu m w.f @ Mar %...x.a % gM LICENSING BOARD f x. .v n a M @g-y r - eg 9 at c.gww , ;n~ w.n d,d a s$q h.. g,4.: AM;M 6,p g,g.fg; g g,g M g N W p.pMW d Peter B. Bloch, Chairman .Qg!'hyg ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE u sc., ' ',p f...v. 2,a. (.,, ?n..Q,;. .. w ,' s 3.g., (. .,a 3-l Y & #.ph WV s.s % - y V 8TT. a.),d-i W ; ,:m: w!4 '.N $ GG.m e.b'Q u p:. w~ m Q 9, - uy - W,u.y,.m,MW.n,,3@v. r WQ M.w M m.M Glenn O. Bright C C M.,. M. M. e" M &,0 m .w, ~. nO ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE i&y m .-N --v r
.VQQG % t,it%.+y'%Q;m. n+&
4 W c.y n m? mv Qf A M . W.N.;. w ft . M n? %r' W; %. g.,q s %. W av nw.: m.e EMN,.u.w [t v.%g %gg g9 e$4s W M N.1, g %p k j g.. Dr. Jerry R. Kline ,A,wv ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE g. .c3 *-!!.4;*%q. M W.F.?*MA e* d.e .e i n 1.C.
9-*
Q i.R l' % N; &.s NQ.Gzf: Q&^ .iS%WNA k. ?.*h %.'.w.g %='t%tJlt.Y,n; C-~ J." Q % k
4j. 4'.(.,c ~od,. s.
f *.. ; A. M.e. ' - %.. v, %,,e s. -c 'v .~" (s 'Cy A' Yf '.. $,] ** f: - r ) Fh N M3... tp. M o.Ur,1,p % c@e.:y3 . s..sy %' a. 41 a t
',g#. -
M,. t w n 9.J v r. 2 t J'A Lim. #;AMT- @c,P.%.a.. 7 .%.,1. s ,-.u ,,g 3 V 4, w ..v.. c y ~>. ~sg n e + +. 7 N h ($ w n, n. n" _n$.e*pg.m yg* m..,G," w v: w.M 6 4 O V v.p%AM.J $@g&.%yt.u..' y b.v&t JAlQ W. ' s v'^' W;&, y*s yQ&,$. 63 %y 4* ? 4 r Qs* nea a mp : w$Qa&a@*). y k, '.),:c p% M - vj4* wM, s ~j + }.; %#t4.m.,m. 4. #.r.. ..y f de.; ., g., ] p ,..~o 3.f. {.'[k,-kN % *p'es/ 'd,..t p v p;Y.M..i p*f(3'[#(;f fM":/ O{T-M g w. w. y% > Mk I M h5 M,JSN."W MphhkM. i% p -'e g s..,.. aU.D e.e m% m,y + w cTA.. w.?*b.., m,, N.H t'. $,~.., ('
e. 5

4s F W 9.e *7.n 'm+/ a.','.

m w
x n p g/f:.y.g.:.,. - .. v n m,.y.- + bi3 g W C N <f 9 $ wg.,46-# u.',g%A' 4..y<. 3 f W'*g y p;wd,Wy; e *p .m. 4 W1 v." Wh mW -- ~ O e.\\ +Gm RGrf:Mi '.L'.Y W_.]v.{e*9. $ ; 1253 ( , y 4.y - x. r- -. )t - 42 !., P.u y M 9.y.swe w*We M.. g**'p+:.] ..,*m-n ,' i..,V % --t.e m + s.'.r -Aa r3 's ,./*. g.: + )* 6 \\y d f.s
s.,,
4 h.s... ei.eW& J.& y.$, e,idW&,Va(, .%k hO wf.g. ...Jw .n t w b*..e... v.s kr,g',A'l* ~s%t so,J J.1,. n %n N ' > K jfy y h.%,4 -.ep; E 4 *1 .,.# : a ,y a w, jQ. s L ar e-rn m ,f';Qf.M'? Mp:y'.Z*y73'NQ, n;Q-! QNygg;9. n w p,7.gergid,)w ,;7*,,0 g y *v'q 4% 7 ht ( y%..*'7' ; * '-W"':. y .f.". 9y+4y.rgy <.t i 4 =.5e.Jh a r. %.y . v s m.,y,s c s..e T.. <., N: ..y v,z as wE - w...w#y. s.w . n n x v.. n . ^ ; w, p '.4.,,t , x3 +7. A..p.. - ,. m i.! % f.n.;g &p.:.4.p,Ap#.m. 4 -e .s..,4, . W.. .r.* - - i .g. m.me a, e m.t... 6 .s, e
x t.
a,s a o%.w.- ... g.% 4,.,..c.y; g,o.. ,... v s.u e s. gce < y4..q, % p.N,w.M g, gr p.....c,1 s .I.e % # n7. s 9 q. s _. ;s. e q;, ~j,, i &c.
c. 4.y/. r.5 4..
,.n t k e.g jce.t.x ' p.y..m;.., n, g s,e s,'. ., p,., c +};w.c-,..n,,.a 8,y e. 3 a.,. +v,.o,,..,. 4 , z m.-~.u.g + y m; u.y
.A a

a..
u. N. 5, - :.. n.,,.u. g.o : ,3 m2 .4 -.a. s
z. m..,. t.,
v., ., u m...,
c. <, v

p.,:y
.9., ~.i. O 8% ,. Aha g f,
I+..-(
f
y b
~ .k f j* p *' 4
. 9.h v'
~.?:Q. 8 O ' : ) Q;,.. e. 'M.q+ s . s,. -. y a ty *m. N, ~s h w f/ y*p***ge. g 3*. ;b..i;*;,j. j n e.g. r t. %, ? - j ?w,p.\\ & a.A,,p. ..#c aVT y. ;;;.. g,p 4,4 W 4. O 4 1 J i, c i p... ., V ~ 3 s te . m. w-v- p .m - 1 2 3_; . s _.s y _ _ - -s w v v .z . c. m,?..y;. g,,..,n::.;4. y[*m,.w g. : p.;_.._;g i.c..n[. A.y ..,n.y J - b% @.. ;.,.,.,.,/ r ,w s.e m., +. s. w y <, = y.x.,. -..,,e,
Q Q;; h.y,,
>e w. u g~n 47 {,y.I[. Q x. 'D '*.. J.*?"M-py: Q[p~Q$ e ],[ ' ' ' j= }.i,, ' ' ' 3 =1.rf [. .[ffl'Q'a (..,s +'u.Qp n :);by(..pp.:.x q[r% &,y J: [;,R, ~ ..,. 9.. <[ ' t c, ; p.n. Q y.Q.+' q.i M. 3 x,.;,;.. m. S.'.s.;. M g } ?Ym.. w_ -.,, W7:u en...y e. u Y.r.,h $ ? & m.%;*l s M. hf05.. !hKW:k gw%w.u p+,;y%ws~ s?:Y O:. u;m l? l6W $ $ v {p(;. Nh&z :.,$,fk. . ? { .Nk - u. ) g ~."h e.: n:7.- i '. ;.q c ',.., 4-.m't:. c.my. ez , 29 g f tw..: .n.. --= u,u4.:w...',W. 2 %.,,3y 'j::gr.w.p as .W7. : M .*.w: ?.a-9 n,:M.r,m g.< s x: 4 N.Q:r;m ; e,.,,.d,. ..a, .>v. '.; + c:& c .&, x,. v -p i. ..,.,; s,;.. ~. s ; n .w:. ~,. y -~p~- a
=.>w,~y
.. a.. o,1c Du-r -e
w; 'r.. w r.

[p w;
y' 7.*. " s., }. s,k I.3.. 5., y y y m. n . r. Y J -.. ~ h,s; % eQ:q',.g.M. &,,, o, Q*,9y ;; g. . g 4', Q. %. M r*.t,.;&' W. j, d D,QTW':5,$ fl l. ,4;. ^ 'g 1 y + h,t i
q,; qu;- ;.,t, y,yg,

lz m* c 9..,.s.c,...., +
,y.. r;.- ', 'm s-3 .,.. e ~ e ., 4.;,, v. e,g /. e 3e.
m. g,,g
. ~ +, v. 1 q.=,.- m Am ..s... .! n,7. % ~ y-;f<., c%:~... .a e %< , w l %.. MMM.W4J.y Cite as 18 NRC 1254 (1983) L8P 83 75 .; m.;v. m;g;; , gi. 'a-m..w..
? r
.~, g g y.,,- yp....: ~. w '.g.g., ;Q ? m '. .,g, S, "'. * '{; TP.M, w'id. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
s. i c
3:g C/. ..-L. Ot NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p.m. n. ;;%.,. a.% - M) : r,i. 9.,. 4.,.3r. ;,,.p
g
. g,. ,...,y.,, .a. -9 n aw.~.,, ,<r.-.. s . a w. -b. g...; ?.
; L
, A,.,<.,,,,j;n.,, s. . A.M ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD mr. a y - .m. v a r;, ; f w ,.. y ;[ r ' m.. 3, m. ,1:.:om u a '> p.,.., '. A:,T ;r; Before Administrative Judges: 4 M p..,.. ,a ' Qb ih7! ? ; *Y,y.,,W '1.": C')QL*:.6 V 7 ; ' M.~ s%".%. o.s.r O*e e % p %. 9 u N M,&.N., M.M,.[M..,. I1..L. M,k![M.p,.,p s 4 hb h) [ q h W. M $ m p ?.
p Peter s. stoch, Chairman

h hg6j Dr. Jerry R. Kline W
N5% Mr. Glenn O. Bright qc % .Vt% 1j'e ff W M W ";7'. y;#,ig,7u QQSg*% M"2 gQMy
. W m G - 9 SQ.;.u.pWX@QWWuW"d;&'nt
[j } h in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 440 0L .. h. &.-;V h '#9[5 r ,&.., y:.5. c;?m?. f:; '$..$,,tc.; qQv
n..
nw so.443.oL .v.,. y.a. 2i.,.1.,,m,ec ?1l &.. ~ 4 r.N %, e %p%h..M ~ d.M..M.. 4.W:.s.p %,y.r.r ~ y %. g: .w, ..,.,s. .,.gp >.y < w,.. .g w.,.,. . F. r CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING .,;w.,.m$. m ,,-m. Mg,M2.2'i i. COMPANY, ei al. , j'MM.d,@W$h; i (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, f e.,.$, * *. - f, O,..M.',p%,4.@.f,,. c._, ,fe s.y. d. Units 1 & 2) November 15,1983 w ~. m. ~.,w >.g ., w , t, s.,. t.-, : %.3.r x-. y ,r., .J.au , m A.
m.., ;..
,,.. e., .~
w. M,. w& m.s u n a;>ygy+
.w + f, % [ f.' y. Q T.X.J %.i,i., i. 'f; c./MM:f After making preliminary inquiries, the Licensing Board decides not 4l.:.. gQ to raise sua sponte the question of whether or not reactor operators are f.g$..,7.,?.E.y,7(Mp, ;%..,.,,.,.,. > '.. J.W@.4 s; % M%# *gis.Oll Q.y adequately trained to discriminate between reactor failures and different [t?@hMh hhN-hh.7 kinds of instrument failures. The Board is satisfied that measures pres. N .'Mhh@.l$%pp$$fy@%'fpIC.QR)AN HY[E;;6 $%MW f Ml ently applied to operator training by the applicant are satisfactory to MM@f f% avoid substantial safety problems at this time and that high priority Q. pp research programs are under way in order to improve the operator's A Q.y :, ;Jw,,.Gq.,.., p Q&M%g. er 4,.,w. Aym.@j @a#.,,.<.., p,x,+ y M @ M ability to discriminate reactor failures from instrument failures. . mna .n W. W.rNN 9.7.ps.p@w.$. %c {'WV/. QC /O MTFT W RULES OF PRACTICE: SUA SPONTE QUESTION
~
4. ,m.,,
v. _ x pq'~ Q. 7.,. + 7.JiRVf.T, d. '
When applicant's and staft's filings persuade the Board that it was not -s. .. 1,,.. s a.s. o. '.w.qf, g. .c ;N,... Justified m. its prelimmary concerns about a possible serious safety issue. 4:. m.. y. :, w g. 7 5, y: \\_ y.. 1..j.R,z. iN,,. the Board abould dismiss its own concern and not declare a sua sponte .e .,g
issue, m? n h f.% Q x,...
n., n,. n. s. c. .., v ?- : ~.. 'y a'y,;.y,;;y .: p. ps,y ??,':.g .u - y, t ,1: ea ..i. it ] ;' - .*'N, ,. i 1. h..\\...d l ^ 9 ', t s,.. ... g $
4M

y.'.
a. .,$...~.7'i. ) j. A L.di.r-N u,6,L,' 3 g e o' ,.- t,i c 1. r 9' ' ' (. l pq
i c h h > f'
,- y;,s);W-f;. &,:* ? T.'Z l -l'I "p*y m.h,f". y tM M,...Q.Ck,bM. P 1 r .. y p< .I w * ' ' ',g p.4 g 3,;Q.w,,,, , : 1," p / p /* '
a

,1 ij
' d f, (a y T* 28' q.,. p.... s. y. od ;.' f. f e ' em b. .< /.e t,.i ' a.. ,r.3,4 p.,,_.. g ~,E,. ,4 ' '$.' h,4. 7 t.., s".P s ', Q .;*: ~ ^ - L,Q'h & j m -~ ? gr.-r-N,,: j_k, f. f.AQQ:&&l*,0fQl3- --.-~y r - ----u., :.'._... f; <u. -.. --.~ --, plmyfpp.ny e rry^,. f KMh ; > - Q'; ,y yy g m;. w. y::r.a g p $: n ',) p,, - :.: s Q q. ;b,, hitf }( 4 v, <. y _ ~., m.s,;.,y.g.:.'. y..g g . m.,, 2.x,;-:yypg1.R.#u .... a, m.. . d n y,.,g *v.w.,(u. *,, % ;, <
m.y,4,,..
...ry. s .. g, . '. >. # lj'. q.K,.
,* '3

6,
..(.. ., Q'l ;... 1- ...r .;m ;.; < y. %,f.
~r;.*, n.y, t.
a,. . y .q t, y sg,2% e s.,.s s ?.V;.Qu ' h :l'tfi. *, y' j,Q, % f.. ;;9l: '{,y_.ln y ... ~. ~.
e tr.
.Y, . ; s &. '. N.t *,N' ' ~ ,,~j,,l:, s.. w. ~ v 5
.h !,Q
_ ] ?.
e h*T { l:
pf '. ', QL
s..
in <M [,
'N.,, Q;W @ i ),g ag,

3.. c *. '
'A (' a .s .n.- ,,px.. .x'. ~
a..
j e, e a k 4 m w >.. m N,._ ' w' l \\ MEMORANDUM (In Which the Board Declines to Raise an Issue Sua Sponre)
r..
'l i in a telephone conference call with the parties held May 9,1983 the ~\\- Board informed the parties that it was considering whether to raise an issue sua sponte concerning training of control room operators on ~ .a ~ ~- a simulators. The Board wanted to know whether such training included l E W g ' j"l.. simulated experience with instrument failure which would permit opera-j@pg@gI[j.y,f C/;Qgg4 G7 , _ 7 ftu 1;d,jQ,,MfM d tors to distinguish between instrument failure and transients. Before taking such a step, however, the Board requested the parties to 7F file responses to two questions, the answers to which would assist the c. >97 MM@ N-
; % W E' 4
MWi Board in its decision. The Board posed the following questions: N, - d 5. 6n. O. P ' I U v. 7.a c..- - u. r M
1. To what extent does the simulator training for operators of the
.sW1 0;t*b hh'%N< Perry reactors include training in differentiating different kinds M of instrument failures from transient or accident conditions. N,@V&....N: ' 'Ey N W.c . 1. ~ Y. # .~
2. To the extent that some kinds of instrument failures are not v.

g. ' A[
,M' W ; 3 ;.fl R simulated during training, please explain whether the omission is detrimental to the safe operations of the reactors. %[- J. ~ 1i-.... _. - W ; W c./n'% p@n,'4 'O .lq 2L : On June 13, 1983 the staff responded by filing the aflidavit of David m" O l 'a,. , m H. Shum, who is a systems engineer in the Licensee Qualification k.W.Q.N
f;M
'US Q Branch, Division of Human Factors Safety, Office of Nuclear Reactor . N:., h.e y*f e mWa, tiU M,.n. q.. Y,, ; C Wdi p; W c G, g G 6 Q,, ( N. m. 4, o Regulation of NRC. The applicant filed on July 15, 1983 the affidavit of Anthony F. M.. M..,AK.3 A*.. F,M. 4llf ? M S W J-'3$ [ Silskoski, who is a trained engineer and who holds the position of Train- ,n As; W ' %.7 ;- : ing Unit Supervisor, Perry Plant Department. $[jkl OCRE submitted arguments and documentation in favor of raising a Wi&. W". 't^ p *W '* M,@7.r.< E' M. 4.. P $ 7'0' sua sponte issue on August 1,1983. Sunflower did not respond. c h /.- ra t i v.A.M.., d.o m# */ \\m/; .M, d""" In this memorandum the Board considers the statements of all parties D .D $ #. % d ~ who responded, as well as its own limited research on the subject, and ',i n,X,fy 3;' ' . (, ' {.R. S QC..f:Md s m concludes that the issue of simulator training of reactor operators at gygf.'. ;' Perry should not be raised sua sponte. We set forth our reasoning below. , s,y-: ~ 5.m.v. >@, QtO*N ',.4'L., c... Q_.' y ~< ,,y s ' % 4eq
m - ;. W. *, s
) I'd.M. - E N 4, a '.. /, ' % t@
1. TIIE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS r

h w

w. a w.

- ~_r,;nu..
I,,., ..,w r W : N. : &s g. %<. '. -i w 6:8 - s e k M.,Q 1 7 1 The staff in its brief statement pointed out that the Commission has -~. ,,j.. ,f sQ.m. no requirements for applicants or licensees to describe in detail how ~ . W '.N ' ~ N. - f x.' - reactor operators are being trained to differentiate between instrument p'.MTJ M,, i failures and transients and accidents. The question of instrument failure f3 NMS 'M huh.M/'k'D N> m $' t. * ' ? in the control room is, however, approached through redundancy of '. h ",;, p, instrumentation. In the event of total failure of instruments monitoring yA a particular parameter, operators are trained to rely on other instruments Q M.s ;-..g : k..: ~;3u.
..r a
N y 3.. . :..a y 2 7..,'. 3.c : p;'.,J9. ' ' s % '. -m :s? o L. ' a . _. ;. y, ? y 1255 ~, }.,;5 g}. S [ f p
/. 4...
jra k' - a 'r? .s ~ t 'l,
'l v4 L
' h, ' E s.z ~. L. t.' r i .~.?-,-.,- , _ f * %'.'eTi s,% 3' m:. pl * *i';, ; b) *..
sel
..r \\ v } l e, f[. ' e y,+ ,.,L;
w. e v - 7m.,.'o, @ypp-j,...
.. m. m ~ L a; m a:'s,8.w;'. f.. q - s v:e ~. ryr y v m ~ ~-~-. wg e, m. w; s _.. m?. l.[ '..p' O -';.a. n
m m 2 9 5'. % @e l Q ;.s '. G,.N,C. "..
f1 v - ~ . Ji f.M. N i W A.< M* n :. w nc. t .c. ,, t.e r.' P.,., - 2 -;. p}* < d 7, +.. - l.,, e L J s.\\ + r. ~ m n. m;,.r~,f. 4.k,s n '. .s. ., Li 9 6 : 7 :..-.<q t -( ,- +o
..,. y./. -
..$.+ +. ,l _w t _A .w- .w s . q. m. - A i,p i e ~.,.,u,@ e,;E % ;, ' .5W . 3,
39 ?
m.~, p ". i6 e p, i lg { g,- Q" , v ;h s ' ;' R' ' _ a - y 4 s ~g ,. /; ' .,.g- , '," ? ),, s 14 73 . y 4, 4, r .f r y < ,,s,, r, e r t - % ~u u. '~A Nd'tgj& _ _ y v- .n ~ ~< r. yw.. x.:.m _ipp.eyy y.s 9 s w a y,;,, ;, n.y Y;-%k' b?. ~ i.? tW'M:rWt.l&&~Ad .*:..y,Q L:Ph"- 5. *'U ?.M. 'WsN&&i % yM& n h.,Mgi%Q $', ' w. ^( J @J: *2w mem ' M y.Q.mpu%n; g%s & %:t ~ ~ -,. ou.. Nffy RQiM g5 M 4h h i % % ) p:{.h 6w % w.%*;TS. n
f ff U
. R$ ' &. $(.?Wil5 *W E b. >n*NU$.m.N'*,YfhNWAenp + 54 A s,M.m H.Q-n. m.w. h' :.~sw :p-mm.,n%w 4. m .m:w - .n u m. g4 G4 g.tMir*,. k,p.f., h,..., h,S:Yh?YYYEhYQQ.% @NYgg. $5b w w hkk. p? u nq -w n i ._ % ; ph .n. w.s..w. r'. ; :- '.c.7 /.%'f g.g q T w %s, vs, e, w--
v. ~e>y -J, b.,k r
i s sp- .a &'l Y hym4fY.!, ] ,Y / N $ Y '&.? N5hEMWNkla..d.5' ' Nj&.i ^ 'N'm W N n. ] N: ',f; .W, . Q T.O. v: ;wa,. x,>> s.'. s. ', e's .4: .s ..,..,'.+>,.. J... ., g m,. 4.~ ; g,..y.4 -r v.4. g h,ogryJ M.1
h. ;j-g[h).g*g{
..c, that monitor different parameters to determine that a transient or acci-gt .G** c A.e dent has occurred. n; 4c-A erif T-4 p,s y
7. n

s,
.m . ; v %.,:M.. y:,. ' % : m %/,?. p c os %.F. WM.. The applicant, in a more detailed filing, stated three ways in which 9 n., - (... S 'R,. ;e'i > >;. <g Perry operators are being trained to distinguish instrument failure from ec h tf Q v I " y y % ; p. M,h.fQ transients or accidents. g M.g,. X., m.2W'qJ4 T..' %.
1. Perry instruments have more than one display channel, provid-r 3e.
e s, g :.gp;.,...g;#; i.yl;,sm. u,.~s.;, 3.,A: ing redundant displays of critical parameters. Power is supplied .a n.. . '..,~.e. m;,.,-.d. wa M - to these channels from separate power sources or buses. A rou-Ih_ ~ d.-f..,s, c(q~.Mh.gn.%.. u N ; Gp,;.gJg.h.3 ..r tine part of simulator training is the simulated failure of each > ; m gp%.- ..m;. bus and combination of buses culminating in station blackout. N..h,tfgp@WA*gh:gW:.. 1.- \\ ..s,.s ~......... D'% 9 NEM?p*p'N g $j Operators are trained to compare readings on one type or N range ofinstrumentation with readings on redundant or related M(.N,M@ pWMihfn%w;41 MMM in:truments to ascertain whether readings are aberrant. k .. ; myp g Sn n.:n@N M hh cess computer. The computer displays various plant parameters M
t. i.
.'q%g.p w. cw
2. Operators also receive simulator training on failure of the proc.
Nh 6MW f/'". sh meluding reactor power, reactor water level and reactor system M(9 WMN.s.y.;"dh;} 15 - 4h pressure on CRT displays. The simulated failure freezes the W.y M 'y :' 4. &y 4 7tl#:.d CRT display parameters while actual plant parameters continue e a+penwdy L m.am. em to vary. This scenario is used to train operators to detect instru-my p.q9.m,, (ppe s1 .y e3 - q. w 9 @< M M h; y y k lL/ b u-o p. E. y. s . 4 ment abnormalities or failures by frequently comparing and .b
r. hhhh i.N:f contrasting key displayed parameters with alternate channels gMdj?Pf.4 w.e.W A &.c.A!&.. h a:
h, p and related instrumentation. ywq:w; g,g. yppq,dp
3. Operators are trained on simulators to recognize instrument
.m e t y 7:W.w. g$;%@gg@gQg %g lW.@ WQgdM;g.g4gp2G..\\.Q$. %:pc.ggy,g/?,gp-Q.4 error caused by a simulated small break LOCA in the dry well, which causes erroneous pressure readings in the control rod MC . gia drive hydraulic system. w N.4 ShWQe w. @ OCRE's response criticized both stafTs and applicant's reasoning and h,4.c w e ;. $ f.4.M: p m$e, g n,.e. m% < ,. myw 4 j then went on to supply additionalinformat. ion related to. instrument fail- , p. ; w<. m&QQ#: >q%W @wagt ure to indicate correct reactor pressure vessel water level and human fail- .,,...s; . s v ..s mm Mf Ob$f%ME k;$i.(h @M M M ure to respond correctly to instrument indications. hhN NMbhgy The thrust of OCRE's criticism of the applicant's response is that the t first two scenarios would be easy to diagnose and that the third is KW M.R@@p;S;W4*M@h NQM fn fpd hg@.,%.p! 3: insignificant. We need not resolve these subsidiary issues, however, N. kkk ,Q Mnce our interest is limited to knowing whether operators are being M &[d@ % #dNig W %%,y g tram, ed on simulators to recognize situations where they could be misled M M: mmh.hh%$gd into taking incorrect actions by either total or partial instrument failure. y.f; <m iW/, ', Applicant s filing is responsive, in part, to that concern. R - ; E m n.q s qf 7 C 'fi ,' WitW OCRE also supplied us with a lengthy discussion and excerpts from a . [.c D M % 4.c N[8. M m 3;'[,. . Y p ;( Q y General Electric Topical Report, NEDO 29.934, " Emergency Procedure Guidelines BWR l 6" as well as excerpts from staff documents which A p Q N J g 4.... Z M V C ~ 3 detail current prob! cms in measuring reactor pressure vessel water level. .M.&.va:.Q. ~i;[.[; mhdy:d;A,...y.((), The thrust of the stalidiscussion on these documents is that there exists 5t .x %m ,e.. . %~ w%;..., vm. _M*[Q $,, &+%. ' N f'" y %Q.N; ',&$Ab. w>-. pg,,nm,. : q.p%:y&,f, #- "*4. b f*. e .t q p & Y~~- &".; g y ~. 0y,.gg.;p+ ~ w;. p;.y g gggg -..,4. s.. p,..v{'?y f, f'Q-ce.#g'.Q f A ' g[y,Q,.y. v . x.. m. w. ,s. '*M jt , y y, ~'* % : ' ' %,:.;% pf,,*gl,f:j*. n - a , %./ g %.. ,k.hy, s qP'.,
i 'M * *. U N 6'M b *% *(.g*'
.. *
g
':pf jJQlNWpp/sf' "Q.C'l. '7'4 4.? 'n 4.,f.@[N % 'L .*M Au,w , n.Y_ y A. m.w w.~ m, ;,r: g y.7.y.,yJ.y.v.7. m-- g ,,y v.u.g.. g -.- g mw.
4
% : s {.Q, w.y.,'hQ.g.,sts.u. ;,. ~.. - ~ .. a.? .,x;Nt.. s ;: y*,' f,....A..n y.. ..,.c., r ( p., a~. >. w. &. ^n ~ :Q.;.m,-g::yl..;Q... ;d(_ ;.p;. M. % a/..;..'.q,-W S '.;<.. 2 M;rn p,, .? wiso <, yh. . u . ~ a v. u -, e .v ww .Q .qy =, C.. .,.w r z 4,6.Q. l*... u,V k. m$(-\\ f';' .m...s, a. ; c 5; t p !'i'.lsll,i". f,: &" ?Atf;N Y, ~ 'a % s -y w,A r ' Q. u. q. m..g.. c.c..f ?", .&.T %'d 1 c r. .e - @ m M,h>f.W,f.( M ' A ;" '. A - W' u.;W ??% ymW.';M' :'Q!L !.*.-
.3 3 V, 1
.wMw:
a, a: T 7
, f: W Y q:- L:w M'.g,9.w.JW.1%m,.7 W ' p:.:: Xf.. %, c tg;rc : +w% 2.E W.:.:~T:_ : WL ' c,*'.p,% m, 'dq~[f Q: &,,W ' n; W ', )! r2 C ~ h y_r. p h .. ym.. 'r- ~. ~ n y ~ M.. O i,. 9 m r 2 . - " p'. ~r. ~ the possibility of false high-water level indications due to leaks in the reference leg and this can affect control of feedwater and high-pressure ECCS. In one scenario with decreased levelin the reference leg and pres-sure vessel water level rapidly decreasing, the operator could be con- 'A fronted with both high-and low-level alarms simultaneously. This infor- ,,c r and solve pressure vessel water level indicator problems. ' ' [< ( f mation comes from staff documents that reflect attempts to diagnose g i. We do not accept this argument on behalf of raising a sua sponte issue ~: Slei,# i s e ; (fg3Mg.k.pipyh(.] gl.'j.y since it involves a question of system design that is not encompassed by ,{.g. p gcj-g the questions we posed. Furthermore, OCRE's documentation shows W Q F@M. 4.x cfA.W. :. f-< a that the staff and industry are aware of the problem and are addressing r.kW.p.cq e e.a M', Ms.: ~ N.W ' WNf[4..[ y-. g {( y it. Whether the solution they ultimately develop will be adequate or not N h. Mf'; Kr ~J : is a matter we cannot address now. We believe that it would be both
2. %.K @% Q.;.,
beyond our jurisdiction and devoid of technical merit for us to attempt to second-guess the process by which the technical staff reaches its con-Q'JW,f d " - M - j;3,. *$' clusions while that process is going forward. We do not have the authori-h8d f;c.J., a y f... ' F 4; I S. ~01 ty to supervise the staff development efforts. 7,'#"." w g y ]- u OCRE also provided us with excerpts from published documents ',, ' ( ,j-u, ""ich question human reliability in the control room. These documents
r. W w
M. -' ~' + point out the likelihood that operators will not follow written procedures 1..WM%. ',4 Q.b:6.I j acy:.i 3 ,%NM 4- %,'o p"d@;Y~cf in the event of an emergency. Two kinds of operator error are discussed. v-W @Sh' h ~.';*; N '.; f k @ @ [,M D The first is an attack on the applicant's and stafi's reliance on redundan-cy of instrumentation to avoid error. There exists the possibility that an p v.n,e_f t ' O. ' ':M.,&s,.,J g.N: P:WJt 6 operator will focus exclusively on the malfunctioning instrument and w..;, rn. take m. appropriate ac.tions even though other redundant and correctly m. [c q;> ( (1 Mj.f. 6.[ 2%,3 $f nv 3,.y. y[ 7, W 5'.,./ 1 w dicating instruments exist. The second raises the possibility that opera-js. % R.f tors will not believe their instruments when in fact they indicate an
b. ;@w-.
@, MC ' j,,.. p.,.7, {f@.-@Aj'? N 4 f, ?.,;cV ', d'y emergency condition. The operators are said to have a bias towards keep-iag a plant on line which will lead them to either discount emergency t + mdications which are true or accept normal indications when they are .y 7, g%y .,c. false. These issues are within the scope of our questions. However, for (* $. 'll_..
L,.,.
~ ' -n the reasons stated below, we will not raise them sua sponte. y, ;.;:,n,, uc, m t g.y.,,w; :,, he,y,Mes' o f w J f. ' *, M,1 c; 4 E
11. TIIE BOARD ANALYSIS yt..

t"'; y, g < ~; 17,[ ' '
M..'- K, ! c,i e, .
N, ~,.. R. "i :. ? 6 e
w CC.. s.. Lwfu The Board consulted NUREG-0985, Volume 1, U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commission lluman Factors Plan (August 1983), to determine the S.,, M x.m '. m'. DW m - p d.3@2. ', f G, 's-j. current regulatory status of operator training on simulators. The plan is W_.i S..~., l a systematic and comprehensive approach for addressing human factors if44 m ayy I,-c.T p Q" 7.'*'. 9 T concerns important to nuclear safety in the 19831985 time frame. J; ', N b ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' We learn from the plan that NRC attentbn to training of plant opera. f.E, M,. ? tors is mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, { 306. Pub. m-v..dlr; }*..s^ G l . f.,
'.w 1257 E' q.?. f.
y.. Q' j) , /.. ',. 4. A,, o, g +
e,
,'g-g ,.6.- P i. j ' W.' a . ry..:a e V n.;,, ....,.,.. N",4 :. .-;r.,2* ?;., m. o, .?. ., 4,, w, v, g. u s.a* A;. u i . a.t . v,.. ;4..,..,m~, * - .. s..,.,,,.3. w ".... + ,.-,.~.,,.,h..,.g.,Q~' S g ',g,.,,$ t' l, ji }; * ", < sf. .C, . _[., 17. ' ^
aa.%6,.. ',l *.4Sf,, Aj9 ;a. y. T._ '

y [' o,,, q;,
i.'% e e y... 7 , l /p.c bp*>.c. 9, (4.,. g, a s7o. + .+ . +*
v. : e,,*
f, - j'
:.h. Q;.'1'.
s s ,~ v. .; f s %),/ l;;(),, / c e,W, }" / *[ ' V.o;,,f; g.?'i,. ek, ,,[ ; '.,,, 'y. t.
; i-s
,.u-~... 4* s. ,/g s-'.' - s,' ?' ', -
T
, q, y., p}; p,,,... ,..c;v -"J-6 .g ?c n 'L._
1. bs =L,
_i=A - f ..e a J - c e s.y $.g 2,..... 3 Q S & l. W " % l $ h f N .;y.yy,", [ f.. p 9.g% %;g %. p.& e 7. #. s.m &gy&,4 l.,m.n, . Y m gy. e... o < * ;%,y *w%;s g, 3&~ g:;,%.'l$fy&.;. jh, Q: {t Q a.j4.,&je}v.'wDi.5:h. TE ; y. ;.4.,gQ.g.:..gm;,;.q ffk l ' '., e p %..P.y~ h. -. y.y. 2 g is g y.y f,f N *% ,n c .4 q.
C'm. y j y,a

,w w)M.b x.
l: ' ~ ,P Q:Q36%ji-3.@Y?:>: i + w M -n i &r&,.Q n'$i} hyWh.P.??$ lW I.D i:Q '. f '.' J; 1 .g. s (..W;9.m&@3m. MMw.v i vpm. A:}. ~ c&.ww%sg. gmu;gyf =4; nK e...p:.r. M MW.% v-y ,<,-7 y = E. ' e a C .- 94 g We/f 1,4[ %;,R, . - a. y n.3 L . w-p - QK.:.[ o q_p s + ..g], -f t g;.w2Q4 L. No. 97-425. The plan, which contains a specific program element ~ ' 'g4 ~'. gj directed to research on operator training, has been adjusted to comply ri_ ,/co /p with provisions of the act. The goal of the traimng element of the plan is ', 'u... Ni the development of training regulations, guidance and evaluation criteria ~ ~C.'., @f@$.0KQ7 through investigation or application of several key elements, including (.cco, ' 7"% "the role of simulators and their requisite fidelity and type in training m ; ;w. programs" (High Priority) (at 17). Among the end products of this pro-s ..e v s ' . " Wf gram will be "a definition of the role of simulators in training" and \\, ; WU " regulatory guidance for simulator certification." Ml % g ; We also learn that INPO has undertaken a major program to ensure e#. J the adequacy of utility training programs. This includes development of 3.[MWpjt i ','y N. ..y ,MD f an accreditation process for utility training programs and development ,^ 1+1 - j yy ipy,g a L , qp, w. of guidelines and criteria for training and qualifications for both licensed .,, cR8f. - [. ' ' and non-licensed personnel. 'dk>MS M g W M ;, h M.:[N hy. f I M,C..U" ',. Q/@ ~ f The Board concludes from review of NUREG-0985 that there current-kb' er ly exists a systematic and comprehensive effort both within NRC and in- .(l$ . IWeh dustry to develop regulations, guidelines and criteria applicable to the /,.GGMYE %. ' $46-problems of .ctor safety presented by human factors. That effort spe- - [ NTMMid' [h, 9.d.' W cifically incluoes a program element on operator training. The specific ".Mki.$f', [ ' q 2*[ T high priority goals of that program element include definition of the role V&%'b ~6 F, of simulators in training. This program is broader and more comprehen-J.lW,.,.. N. w g p^. _ y.... ( M. 7, sive in scope than the narrow issues which we contemplated in our ques. .;VQ.QM . r , y f.r,.c.,, e ' 7... _ q..W., - 7' W.. tions to the parties. Clearly this is not a subject which has escaped the at- % S. .t . % // ;> ' s tention of Congress, the Commission or the industry. We are compelled E '$ ' +.b(c % 2$ 1.W: r q .."C to the conclusion that no long term safety benefit could be obtained by 7 g, A ,.. n' A: vQ raising the issues we have specified sua sponte. Given the comprehensive n - l and systematic nature of the Commission program, there would appear e;- 5.Jg X, . ', ' 5 M,,,. N P / 2 J, , J.. j to be a potential for harm in adjudicating and attempting to resolve a @f(,.Mlg,'.+ 'Y single narrowly framed question that is encompassed by the larger pro- &,. 8,.,,,.f,g. i ' 'N ' " ' 'y jy c % 9,,,....,,., We also have adequate assurance of the safety implications of current - c 4,o, gram now in progress.
t. y c
44 ' ],( practice in operator training. Staff and applicant report that the potential M,' M p C, ,_ t, 7 5 y q '. p.:.,,- t s. C for instrument failure is accounted for through redundancy of instru. o , g g*? J men...' [;. . - ~ +. i PC ' /. mentation or through additional separate channels of related information Mb # \\' ieh in the control room. This is confirmed in NUREG-0737, Appendix B, where a detailed account of post TMI requirement for accident-7M4 - momtonng mstrumentation is given. 4 The applicant states that its simulator training program provides for training of operators to scan redundant and related instruments in order to confirm the true status of the reactor. This training apparently pro-c
f vides operators with training in how to relate instruments to other 1
instruments reflecting the same process. Therefore, it gives operators an .M.'. st 9 .u .-m c., m ~ g 1258 a., s ,.,,A s n k 4-
j',.
s,
i

A s,
a
r.

y 7
l ;;;." ,Y s a' : T. sv. ..c %~N ". l
(f**
~.; ':', 9s 4 ,.4 S.Y. (*,+~ s e J + s v. ,4$ 4 -./. 4 e t.', y ,t,{ 'N Q4; % ?. '.,A -Ji?. d' o ' y,
f.*
.eg. . * **[ , 4., - gi f
ny m-y C-
. ) :y,, .y, ? c <4,y* + 1, 7 % }. -)- p g g E k., '
};f [
.e,' / >. ~ g . u.- .L. ;w s &j a..t.r, u,... c. + s. . r. v v. A-e s a.p.t._ w c.... 6,, ~.,, < . n, ,I ~. .t o
a...
.c
i ;
,, 3.~ 3 g _ s. --,...c. ~ ~,.a. g w
s. w.,:
u/..r. v - m i .;.. ", d.lQ%,'.. .f_~ {,O - (M j Q 9, overall conceptual framework in which to understand individual instru. {[f ' 4 ment failures. The program also provides some simulator training on large-scale instrument failures, ', /< .Q a l fM !. :7 % ? > We see no serious safety question in applicant's present program, , ^ i ? 4 M[' n'y. E' - de t i though near term incremental improvements in training might be
f.
" Q.c possible. It would therefore be inappropriate for us to litigate possible ( '( j D 6% 6^! . W ;C. i [ improvements in operator training. The possibility of such improvement N. c< (E.N. J.'.'-MT[N@0 ]'[M l might be the stuff from which admissible contentions are fashioned, but 0g
Dl they are not the ingredients of a sua sponte issue.
GQR p %@'h f@,/qj@dQM % l 11 would be improper for us to speculate now on what the future p l-Q M,s;Q>T. $ $0Ma might bring in the way of improvements to operator training or in the 3 role that simulators might ultimately play in training. It is sufficient to ,...,. :.,,,3, 4, m,, m. ,u m. A...,g ggg'.g.gigg.g,$gs.g+ i conclude that current practice provides reasonable assurance of safety p-om.?a.b.p,g, p w yM.Wjb,W U.M. p.m-<A. .. r.,. l and that long. term improvements are being studied. The mandate oflaw a s..
w.
9.s m.s. m,.:m/mp/ W. and the systematic and comprehensive development programs now in m '1., p. c,G. g. J. y g. g m ey: m.m 17, ' < W,g. place give reasonable assurance that if improvements in operator training f.;Mhlgj%.$,jjp gM.';l';. fly ;'g are possible they will be forthcoming. g 5:- C;M 3 y.@Mul%gffS;>"j%. j For all of the foregoing reasons, the Board concludes that the ques. V'VJy.R ;y ' p jy : tions it has been considering do not raise a serious matter of public l health and safety. Accordingly, we shall not raise the matter of simulator p".pgjQ.g,g f.47,y; t Rn.MgJ'<. J.ydybq: pS training of reactor operators as a sua sponte issue in this case.
q.. w &.n. M'@w.gbi n;Q.O s u.: n.d.c.. :g n
l %y% .Q;;Ajp;gp 4 : ::c e d p@;; g:*4.p.9 p %+, % k. w Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND Q4' N" d LICENSING BOARD o, m,j w %' y u,n q. w %y, y... s u,. y, ,;;- y, +f H @ X..a v % el.4.r;./ u.'
n..,
W '.,.:iQM.Y,,c .i A i .c t' 1 fF '} M M E @. 4,l-tcd u ;< 3.;6p; i Peter B. Bloch, Chairman 4 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE %,n#,W.%,,. n iy..w. m. p:. ; s.:.d4 n.,. m n.s. u.. &r,.. ;
- 3.m,r. o... g-4 jD m, a.:.
r
.rn r f.
q
e. ~. % 4.em.:, e.u. b,,.,. >
+ 1 ,1. ;.w. ,.a .,s, e 9,4. u- ^ J.e' ur L m.w:> 3 +- 4 2
W./W ' 7".X.C CJJh;:@2,4,,%,.
M3W ~ + Glenn O. Bright M1 W '4 Z, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE V. :... _ ~ +,, r. m. >,., e k,y l % c.1. ,.6 . p, - s v. g, g p f'P.M.4.;.,y ( E Q ? [, . t.3 N.,, Q:."S.&h. t &0 ".i. %et M.. ' i 'N l.% Dr. Jerry R. Kline 4 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE M *C*? ^ "p; V 4:.M ;KM " ". ', , ~ s. t-s..; 4.~ . zy., p 1
s..
' l t, yj -.., f *,.y,, n, W, " s,' .,-. p.. s n*i ~gn %ff UV,s,: @ @t !~' P % p 4" "9* .W,@%.,Wt*f,W,j.D Dated at Bethesda. Maryland, TN' 2 R jld November 15,1983. s. l; ,,, l* i, i *. a' iy yL, ::g ; b ' L l,. e t ..~ % i 7.d - y J ' % * .a. .. s {,; c A;.m, t,,, '5 5 's ,e+ , :M; m. u
.:',:M '8 i ;2n. m.ea '4?
{ + Y> 4 :* e;fe/ W 7,a ;t.,q,;
t 4 e j,. ' &
iu n 1259 y.g.., 4 g;. ~,,
*.3. x,,.p..;.
. q,t. n. :? e t.. n r:.A g.,. ) 6 4'
.' 3 (S'
~,u ui [ >p 4;.,.. M,.. I' , 4 ).t ,.M 4 4 ..y, Y 6,. ' ', p h,'W .g I~ 4 -N $% Q^ _ q g."e.i.W. f j,f..',,, e"
s S..I L
1 y 1 n. 1 g, 40 9 G s',J.., W n:. *.~,.m %', sm u;. l f ph*ww m.m/M.?.[. d'n.n m.,', +., w ~. 1 1y s s;.9;****Q Q f q. .., gg ~* lN? rt: W y"*t" y * rn'~'v r
F'*~ G *c[?
.} e .t*. l ). x'f G,g. - '. w ' 1 *[a, )k,M,,!**u%.,g.p;;'+.n[4,-Q !,. %,{ QI a n .r. ,., ).i.*/ ~ l. j g %- !u.:. .m ~,t f** ~-p g i g** m.c. 4 y. s' o. gef.p,: g,.y,. p t ^...,'. 5, j w, y e.sz.1 c,e ,72+v. W M:.f, %. s. y.. p g ').W Q @m.,.M.is,f'.Th.'n 4..+ g. R-J W.M '. ~ %,, 8 s
{p
.&*w V @ c,V ^i. *., x.% - g. q; m) y y v. ..o., D 1 .'. %,f,'* '., - r I. J .g ,,~. i di, . p,.i.e.m s.r.v., w yw...n... v n m,.,. .m us a gs, ,u+. . ],$ 5 ,. s 4,. n. <c. n. +[l' 2 a. /,H *[ l [! - .j '*N 'h ~. s I b yw.._. w, w,.w,,, u.m. a ...,s. 9 . 3 :.- .,,w.- i w, .* w.:. o q, v...u s ..r; ..f. . y.,, p...J.u v ~;T o.e. w. q,. .c s, + im>~.w a W ' w &m g e;%,y&m.%;m n H. @.gWq,m s.~.~w.. - , sc,.ne:,;,c;,,, ew,.y s.#w,e.%. g.g. w.. v.p .m.m.w.s n:
e.
f a nb; g s,s e s n..,.;,o n-n . t w. v,,v.x.eg :., v, ,; w.o-g r g ,1, .nn m ..s.. m. y.., .,z o. f ^ 5 h I ., j,.,s.ey..[.:.~,.,s.jn, y 4.p3..p,n;+y z. l ML: a.w,uqgg. Mg, p3 4.n m.gga.a o,,,w , ~.. _, ~. 9,. m g,4 "'u;y' y= 2M+. ,q r.,s .,gs n a...m,.,;,y e,m w... w :n.% m ... ~... s, e a t.. s m c G,w;f,% f i >q...,.. e p A s.&SA.G,1L;2,ag&, y ;wp m.Me%.4%x:n.w,, 9=,y. mp,, - +: !.d eryihy ~ M x .iry1 '. 'y sistwmt
~yz
,v, c,.,y,., %.7.., :p ^. g q 3, ~y - 9.y,;. }. ,.gs g
W G sj ', h,; q (%,% :', Q~.W,.//&,,p.0,s.e
.., p %,/ m:. ai *% e "i. .4w m, ..JML ' y (.. n ' y,*.1 p ',.:... 9c.%s ::; e y 7, y,9 . w. c...o: n4 i,.. y}: e m, u;,. c .y.r
.g.
. ~ y hk,j ~' ;M d'.,.;[, ?.
2. e ; yz.7,.
4 7 . M r. ,r, .c Cite as 18 NRC 1260 (1983) L5P 83 75A f*y..,. n')
k,},9s
..a, k s y.'., _q-j.g /g 7 % ":iW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s d 1 4.My.~ .. M NUCL7AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9 $a ' p,- &, > 4,):. Q :,p.l, .s .,,..p }lf.f,1 2'~ g f. q.y. q ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 'e. e. M, (. f %sq,3
u.. ; ; p
- = 7 *. v s ..,..q,,,.
*.a
. cp ~,,
r,g,9 p; ? ~ &,p*,"* 6 V
Sefore Administrative Judges: s %g,
n %]..
QD . q,a. $u,',w-y' M;A@g,Mr' J G, m g.m p.,*, a. '. 3 n:' w., W fr. .p p m fg. {y ay, f. g< fy@ 5 ;,,fp%p' Peter B. Bloch, Chairman n j. j". %. Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom .a w 1, Av y '.N*. g w t :.%'9a rd, n, . m,, x.. t 3 .. e,jr Dr. Walter H. Jordan 4 . a. t ..a,. 1. s s a, n,1 s. n. a..W '.. y 2..., AQ%u . w; m s.. w w.
u m g..

p ~ n..w,o by
. 7~ &.n ~, [;,. r -. 4 .w. r @W;i: uMw w g;;;. %.?. f f.F. ;.u. ~, . b, s...:.p,1 m.4 A py M ? % 4., y WMsn in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 445 ~ ~.. cAv v~ W L .h M '; WM 50 446 Q Q,"~~ f k V ' [k '[J;%$ (Application for i[. /, "' Qi'y 1QQq Operating License) G ,,.j q M r.u. ;;;,., '* ey - ~., m 7 .Nl. MW,h;p,] L
. W, l $ p. ~.?. M. L. %.
M.
w. -

g TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
}hj.]; '; ..Q{.{4 " g.M%h.4q .+ COMPANY, et al.
o. '. y '
r % yaw. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric 7 } "[, , SD ~ I,M Station, Units 1 and 2) November 25,1983 .R.% w y y 3 ,in G o '. 4 UpQ , n.:: %.,.~, .,. e
.4..,
-, W_, - ; c, ~ w, v,., -.b...., ~c '. 4 sk ..C %:;r ; The Licensing Board declines to adrnit a late filed contention on hot ~ Oh?M[ghSMkh functional testing because: (1) the five criteria for late filing, on OM.$,[D m,,' M Q 9 D % Yt.:.5 M ? MS.NE.'d%#f balance, are not satisfied, and (2) the contention is not concrete or litiga-gjFC,Q,5 0 : ble beca'use it fails to specify any safety problem related to the hot func.
c. ; m[.7',,

N' Vl,M,,.. 'e W [Md'ddM~
tional testing program that is the focus of the contention. p mm.y:y.p;n:$ py;&:y[g e T.K.f ... f.:. f Y )>'Jli'D,[.5.n,$c. .YM.e N.,, m,,, D,h..'+]. RULES OF PRACTICE: LATE. FILED CONTENTIONS , i, h ' O [ ,.,. s 1 ', i. )4 .e 7 7 "X Y;j p'. h.I late contention shall not be admitted if it is so poorly organized that its / e ~. J' E 'l consideration in the proceeding would cause undue delay. o 1 4, y 8 e "i s wt.;. .( .J,. @,q 4 .,. ~.> 3,",; w:, a y ..n /M. " x,.s d ~ 7 0 r:- 1260 ' l3' $ *: s* ,,.y .,,,y '{ & 9 w n.A +, *. ' .-g 9 44 t...
...l.j o.jop,,,
.*,4. > +.
' d *,
, ' M '3 Q
W '" '*?***'* % "* W.R'*"fl
? Q ' +~~ "' * * ' { Y ;" "* *? y, }}}; ' f, ,s q 1.* s :.. .,., y; ;c,.,. 4, :*~*y : w g,, y r.n v :. ;,n ; -. s,y ; w.. r. 5 J .y c J ',
r..
,p.., :,.'4%,,'M ^:';, m M's;c'<.. ~l; ',,. #,*r u.,% e, ,', W yM * /.. .?,,, ~F f. Y.. ,,, A; y,. 6..- u ,:s t ' c: g.*. Cr ; T '", : * ^). ,.V. s.,... +' n 'ly 'e s ~,i:, ..vl v ,L' 'e - * : b.'*' p' qn
? ~m. g, n~ l } -w lV * ?* -. L * ' 'e3. ' ' *
- u o- <D' e, r ( p -v ,,' n' ' '
k b,,.. / /,,

N
'[ ) N: h w :, n;;h,&.g(., O *'[. ' .. ~. a< e o.% e yu., ,~ c^
[.
^ e y ,n 7 y
l., f.f.ryng'
. Q Q..k
,e e
,.>~ L. L_ J.
t
^ .. + 7 : - s. .. r m..c. y 3.. ,...m.
... h.
A,, ~ aa vW s Sir,' y. .: M. 7:. ;s
wn,y
.a RULES OF PRACTICE: BASIS FOR CONTENTION f - , DjQ',2g. '_ ', ai *i ' s - m
7 A contention about hot functional testing is not admissible merely be-
'. ; ; 9 9ff, ?,., c..ie _c; y qM >- cause it lists dozens ofitems omitted from the plant's system during test-5: ing and dozens of other items found to be problems during the test. - - L .f t._B,.,. D. *h. ' These omissions and problems were known to and documented by the .s.. . ;...- <..w '.(. , i.. <;. s applicant. Merely listing these items does not give rise to any safety
>. T _. 4w.~ 4 *;R " ?...s, >
.~ ., M a (,bm,. -....p r ~;, issue concerning the plant. Ilence, the list, unsupported by any basis for x. a..
t..
wir, m !, g.gg; p',g'@k,:g%qg believing a safety problem exists, does not establish the basis for a gig. j!^ ' MW.p((fk.WMgy.fy?C*T Contention, WN S.%; w> E E M M; Q f' N S C.- 7.b h ? D ^ m @f d i,8ql @: p p@.m g... q q h.A !G b ff. g..91 f SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER $ n, @ W #l' @W 4 0 G 7 9 .G.a-g r (Late Contention on Hot Functional Testing) 6 +Wwy,.g:.NW J+ : r r,.0 ;, y,; '; *~.% f:'m.p.n ~ q y s J. h
v..
~ . g!: h, - M i
h.,..'

d',ma *.vf V L ~*T'.pf g ':
a, A Special Prehearing Conference was held by telephone on November (S ' 3 ; f % c.jdp(w, et r.'.T ...S 16, 1983 for the purpose of considering the admissibility of a late fl.y.Qf,T;W, lity,.W t i '(5 i motention, filed by Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE), (.Q,q:Q concerning hot functional testing and other testing.' We find that the
b 10.@Q;M.,Mi%.Tf;M
. % dA~,. T. f9.4.2.. late contention does not meet the five factors for late filing, set forth in d 7".@M4
M EJ#
10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(l), as most recently explicated by an Atomic %.y O M.p:Qf,j% Q; Q, M,-d;j M.QjQQ-Qf) hf-Q Q4 Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747,18 NRC 1167 D /'MJJh,,..M....cW:;,%..c?.y.3-rN. (1983) (Lateness Decision). Consequently, we have decided that the y', W.%m : W,M...??.N 2.m W ~~ n x <? J.%. M,:. 3. ;;tM. im At .., ~. -w contention shall not be admitted. In addition, we have decided that the L.94. A~a %. Motion does not raise any concerns that we need to declare an issue by y '*.+' 4,,;MA,,N@< ce.%m 4@n.W. ~n w f .t ourselves (sua sponte). [r~p4.[gg((.y Tly.Y%g . %,,pinw. m.s 9:. g.M, w ,47 m,y;.y. q a g I. REVIEW OF LATENESS FACTORS . R J.y'. WW ',T,.?.., - M "."?w,tr,. O..N3,* V E.gl<. li-w. i b-a. : 2 We find that CASE had good cause for late filing its contention, con-2*' , f". N N (M $ ',. 4, ', M
XUj? sf0MM r
sequently its burden with respect to other factors is somewhat .MM c.!' Q % {@'M diminished. Applicant and staff point out that the hot functional tests '4%'$;M Wg. were performed on February 24 to May 27,1983 and that an Inspection W IC.
M.Ly N ! 9 Q, 6MN W WP.,
mr. and Enforcement Report (l&E Report 83 08) was received by CASE on ye ('1 f f ',1 April 29,1983 (CASE Exhibit 828; Tr. 7000). However, hot functional J ld.s i. u. S m ,,' d W 'Y M. ' [ N N.m a testing is not a part of this proceeding, so neither discovery nor cross-d;.s'N
f. : :M &* 0;. 3, ;,.. s V ',?.
t,[ K 7"a ,,,f !. {*.fD *?lN *.f.,ll,i. >: ? s.. a w; 6 CAsrs Monon was riled on October 13. 1983 Both Tesas Unbues Generanns Company. ct at .4;*' W* ' (. ;,' *,,, '*1, lappinand and the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commimon (stafD have made hmely answers. We Ct " >c
f'. : '
. = shall refer to these documents as the Mohon. Appl cant's Response and staffs Response. i 3 p;,a. " ' e.,., q.,s, ,f . C ,,, < ' 'ep f.] e ,- g s . ~ g, 9 'q s 2 V'. L; $ **j,^,,.,,?,5?
}
t.** _q* a.,4,,',u.- .:,s j.) * - 5. f - a . q;,,, -- <y 3 5 ,,n p N..'t 1261 s,
M '4-..n l'8, s
s s* Q. 4 .. ", 3 :..G ....., s ..e sm h. 9e -i *
h;i a,,. 2 N g
' d', e d* 1 h*q)4.W >' J. ;' AM, W.'. N5 'f&f Q.'h. 7 h:'C,
d,f 70 '; " U/
.p, #. <.. 4.-4 .. y-1[e.".?; ;l.,....g. ..w m.,p.:.3.;~ ;py:n7(;.gqq npppy;j.W,%;;Q& .,,. v&g.nDfy .' QY ,%i y x- , w '. c..WN. 3wghgm qm, j t e " y u..- .u my.wW.s - ~.- r. ..f*.y; ..m.7. ; *,_ r. ;,m.m,.s.- k.[\\ff., ;v. A g. 4:e r y."ec. <" f;p r p.w.y ~U 5 t .c s. f j%
)
? '5 i ~ ", x\\* * } * ~ kf ], .u n .<u u & i.-_. x. .. ; n;n . k * ;.l * ~?k. W. &, si &,s t.(& ?.,WeW Y l j l '. 3'. x'% *. 4 ~.,,
?Q.!. &. ',
..y l t qv,, ,:r... ..D, u iy

L 4.:
2; -_a___ _ _ _ - _ _ =_ -.M x"_3' h u. ,.y.._.., ..s ,m '[ ~'fQ'&A.m,Q,?:qf,%y%w. * *; :, wm, m,. e ~qnm;ik. b.}n;.4+.<%g+ .:. Q:M% d M , * ) Y., n,., d'Q aww g e,.p~ w.Laj. Q J. y,^ Q: &~ w=Q. Q Q q . w
a. x a,.-
sn., nan w~ . 9 .r v tg. O.+x, c ?:' j %p.Qy&,.o,&f5Q ?. 4. 4... :: .s. i v Ra'9ly&m &v,;d,& Q .% Q %.%.g 'V. W, y "'* QK.f:& $$$'kll;. y.2yp&G
M.pgp< %4y;$Y,.g?g? " WW %mg,%,&. m;.-:
n ~, Q qig Q.'( Ml? y.s:.~ ' ~ ' i;, q%yc,a%!%y.mQsm y py 2 'jyqayn -
n...~.y~
M ' W M N A N 2 '? y Nfh;N h :$ g, b.$ q$ $ ?@QE.$,w,'y%jf. .p-w,M-y 3 r, W &w;.y. y;p., z.:: 2: . d5:A w E b ct.! w 7.g: y v%.}. Q' m. .w r m
, f fU
' y*- y m:' %,. Q+ 3 ik % Qi&.q $. V;;,' l % 6 -:: c p ..
Q:A[ ~,:. m:... y,5e sW Q
,iw,3 . - e. w. s.;.4; q ge ; e. M',;,4_ r y, n.s s t ,a
' 1 '.
? f ', :q -., -Q ll Q.b ( e e'., 3 W. e,.g.g%n,.. dWfr%*^ examination 2 concerning these matters was in order. Therefore, it would
VM

W ".rAyJ-l;'S appear that the only method which CASE might have used within the j
.m . ~. ":9.,y 4 qq:/4;M NRC context was a request for the applicant to provide the information voluntarily, since most of the information consists of applicant's Tk;-M,MN ' M1 records. This might have produced the information CASE sought in a M,. O C ( - y.- - - Q,.Hb 3 c.' ~ . p<. %,-;y s 8 %.m more timely fashion than it received it. However, CASE chose on 7.' ' f; f@i., y. ',,$; - $' % August 12,1983, to pursue discovery rights in unrelated rate hearings.
4. f '.
6N 1 We find that although CASE might have sought information about r-v 4.p.,.m the hot functional testing from the applicant there was nothing about the en t, pt,c&~#,c p.-
9.u, 7
information available to CASE that suggested serious deficiencies in hot 4 .. t q.y.g g,., y ag . M 4 %.? : functional testing and applicant has not been notably receptive to volun- % w/.:fi;,/.tp:! W w.d. tarily surrendering information since discovery has been closed. .S m,., p rJ-M%.. MA ~ m,q %,s c.x- -3 /:4 < f. 7 w,qN. ~. e Consequently, it was reasonable for CASE to pursue the information in c& J 'n &. f;W j n,s wP.]pE; u @d x the way it chose. Furthermore, the information was obtained in fairly ex-M j;f . , ' c - m, i es a
w n. m peditious fashion.
t,g 1
g

xlp,.-f f.ep;;pg W
The second and fourth lateness factors work in favor of CASE. There . ;.. e g o w.w.,y= W,.,A . y. ~a 4 4 Is no other means to protect its mterests and no party to represent its ..m. .-a. ..s .m, S 1 wn:y,.
x/,.s.y.e,.
e.y.x. u .~ l,~cisch,p Interests., s i,M f g,, - in m;d The third factor also works for CASE. Its expert testimony by engi-
r. Q<.. s ;~.
.,f. M. ...g., s*..y'm g. ~.9,9 M. neers Mark Walsh and Jack Doyle has raised frequent, serious issues .w l,*. QL.g lO!g/59!,1,% concerning the adequacy of design of this plant. It also has demonstrated , ( : - g.@g,- y 'Ja. id$ notable success in obtaining information from informants, several of t, ,yJ :"' d..yj g'Nk whom have produced important information adverse to applicant. q,.,q ,..qgyp ypng%..;WS flowever, the fifth factor (delaying the proceeding) works heavily ,,, 7M;. S.;. /d pMk against CASE. Its contention is a rambling affair with eleven different m. ]. ) wgt-W points, single spaced on almost two full pages of the Motion.'It asserts, g ;,, - without basis, that ill will befall the public either because applicant did ,;g'[l. M) I. W $ not have certain components connected to its system during hot func- "*J ,.1, 9 J., f,Q. 9.k'@,9$QM tional testing or because of unremedied defects discovered during hot .2 i.-,f w'.' W N. functional testing. It discusses, without any analytical differentiation or d fxn, - .y G., v. .:J.; g. w y %, g g-i;Q sense of priority, dozens of specific omissions and problems. - p , 'v' ~ ' ' We do not find these omissions or the discovery of problems to have s . e d r, I; J>,J., %,.o,y Z , j.n Mtj,. ~.,, ;w,p, A,,,p? . v;- g.x been startling or disturbing. The staff states that the plant cannot load J ->;.pg. igygj,N..m4, M.Q~fuel unless staff is satisfied that it is safe to go to power. The staff must y;,...t w ,y... d, g{n,c y y p. s.v: W, f-~ . -l be satisfied that it is safe to load fuel even though certain items have not
Mlrl e
. y.. p.f ;v. .s%.,*p Y. W 9 44 o o. .s. s :m> q' r.,.o ~ .q,, !g; f ..t* i 3 stairs witness Mr. Taylor. testiried that he was unaware or any probierns discovered durins hot func. 3 .9 tional testing that related to the issues CASE had raised in this proceedirts. Motion at 910. staff Re. ' 'A sponse at 4 4 3 Lateness Decision.18 NRC at i173 75. 8 Motion at 13. N [ r... ,,: 7.s..j.y r ~. t us
r. t "E
6 .T,, 'd
g
-[ 4 'f' -_g, .} A
s s a f
W8F'9 9 P'*yWI N,_ _ _

e e+. =ev.
. = + ou y. g- .s, ,.gg.,g9,., .,,,g z 'r. + ~ s y.
i M i

:*.,
' ~ ' .we a. ,. ~ - 't* r,y ,g ; y + p'f., g, f 'A.,; q.2,..,g @, L qfl. .y v ~ G.;. +' t. %' y ,~ ~' ',.f j' ff D.i, i. % p.[.
w. Q, '., q, y,.
sf 9 - 4 w,.j. .,. 3 4y s, < ~ '* y,- ~ s . j f. '~ r y ,s .g
t..
,,,.,.v7. % > q-. > o, ,m s-
~~
.u ? a. ( 2 d.p.,' g\\ ~ s r s 5 ' p j. ,.2 i s y. A,3 f ,\\ 's ..*s J .e% A .s received hot functional tenng. It alto must be sure that 2ach of the g ,'; y~. N..~$. d..N V problem areas has been resolved! s Under these circumstarwes, we consider the any attempt to litigate P 1 ', the CASE contention would be both endless :.nd fruitless. TUs contrasts (p ) ,,Q 't to other CASE filings, such as the proposed findmgs on Walsh/Doyle ,1 ~. ~ matters, that have been coraparatively well organiqi and focused. We ? ?. O,.., . e suspect that this lack of fows comes from the fd tha: CASE has not j, .mtiAn- _ identined any specine safety problems rebted to, hs contention and it may also be attributable to the immenso energies that b is citihn's 65ME - ?$ J7 s r." ,c. 49 o M.d h @@;ESN. M..g$:[g'p.M. 9 ;.. < w. *. g .v.. I group is already exerting with respect to other already admitted math s. 4 f QN94.N, /M. e@g.... g +. tpg . gy:g gg We are convinced that admNion of this contendon would undow 4gp:L broaden the issues and delay the proceeding. Because of this peerry h., we Gnd the overall balance to lean against CASE. The conten ion shall i S$QQ7 g/ - rgQf % /w
v;a
. 3. +.....P m l# e~c.n m.., m +F,, ;;.q
g e..e not be adtmtted.
y 3,
y.. p' t.).,
sn. O t..a L. f i 1
A l w*

'tu II. BASIS
%c ~
4. '.'
om-m.a 3, % w cMa ' .. c. h a, i ,4 - TC, A.Y a P '34 We are also constrained to reject CASE's Motion because it seeks to p 4 W,.. @e *;."" ? c. i, uise an issue which is not concrete or litigable. Phdadelphia Electric Co. -,- s ~. sw ~1-:4, ~ (Peach Bottoni Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),, ALAB.216, 8 d 5 9.w AEC 13, 20-21 (1974) (listing five factors, of which this is the fifth). ..;9 N Wu., The purpose of a licensing pr6cceding is to determine compliance with , f.w@a$u, %my e ~hQS.~.; e +1 Q., n safety or environmental regulations. The purpose of a contention is to W %MM/"*, W: 'M M * ? e. NN[d9%%5@*c.$ raise some safety or environmental question concerning the plant. This ,, Y$lI(NN[@@UN. i, Y$P contention does not do that. It contains a very detWied description of k7) 5'5 omissions of equipment during hot funcional testing, but it does not
[ U.Z 0;Gjhi
@;h give a basis for believing that any of those omissipns has safety 6$y.df E - V6 V significance. Similarly, it points out problems found byipplicant during 'W ' "g,e, "f jy hQ ] %g,..Qr Op[o its own test, but it does not provide any basis for believing that the dis-covery of these problems indicates some safety deGeiency in the con. L y - + m
&. % st

p W 'f p,,<,_,
t struction of the plant. , -.. W *,'. 4 4 @@t DY U Thus, this contention is without a basis set forth with reasonable 'G D,,, N. k Y.. M.. N.., N. l. h.3. t specificity.10 CE.R. l 2.714.* n
' ' G.:.'
l ;:9 4}L, j ...,.u. ,. (,%h-g f~ Wpm ,.i A,',.. ' b'n, h ;*:. s &;d, W, M. p +'...,. hdN. - ' Y R., % N.' 4 - u. 5 stafTs Response attached Kelley AIGdavit at 4 on page 4 or his afTidavit. Mr Kelley used language . C,'" Y ^" ?$ %*./
3i %, '
that confuses the Board He apparently foresees pertnetting startup tests with fuel m order to test items -1 e' I > q
y M,
that were identi6ed during the HFT that do F. ave safeiv significante but that are " inherently mcapable 'b
hb e
, '[.. N, of resolution" unless a power 5evelis achieved we do not know what items he is referring to. However. ., L ~ i ', Mio' I s.# we espect that the staff would not permit sny te,,ta to be done at power if those tests would cause a sub-l.7[', ', ~ ' I '..' O[. ? stantial safety risk if we are wrong m Pma espetsuori. me require immediate notification. , ; 'i N. f'.' 4 5cc Orwwed Orr#rar //tummerms Co (Perryluclear Poner Plant. Units 1 & 21 LBP.8124.14 NRC ', S % f e',. J'.5 g 3?,.: : + 175 (1981) ai 184 Uscior 51,21012 (quality assurance contention admitied only because mtervenor ~ '.' i
W 'n%.
~ J a# =as able to show that mdividual quality assurance de'iciencies t.ad amounted M e substantial problem, - - r4 fcr. nam.m V ~ ,e'
+ +y,p...
~ t. \\ f ? s*b' g.. p,. s..vtc ,.y,, v y. ~ ~ 1263 t d "y,
g. :
1 o'". 4.: :. W., n.: y a,;y.. e \\ 1-s
g,<
-n', ,I r PS v v ,4* '*{_ fka ,'" $ k -A t 4 ;Q,. < ,.4 ,. ' t y,.' y.:. r: y s'- -L -.e e n. o / 4...8 p g
)
V '2 ' R ~' '..),L Q'f. ',,%a. j,4M tq~ ;1 a,,'. e l .N ,
A, = -
j,. 3 'z* T A..g... "y.l, 'v fi ...,.h -M -N' , w ' i.. 'y y.. n,.--. ,,.. -.~.m. ~ _.~1;.. r3
7. y... a...
w. w -. + p e a , Q < :.. y 'p%;; ;s;. 'd' M.) t.'. t.4. s7 U q / f ',., (
g 4.. D'* 4if 7 ' O[. u.e' ' @.
.m . n >. y,. fg g p ;, o . 7;. '.', *. p% c,- yM. ; .t. %., .M.
g>, y..;e4 &.;.)1%
7-
r.. o...
n.. u:g. y1%! q.. n :. 2
k. +,
".4 % G.' p;s : yf r a, t ece,e .e ~*a.. K. ) 9 u :v, '- % '., '.'o. f q,'s.^ , /. e ; %'* r;JQ- . r; 4. u p.,f.:.'*. n 1o' 8e* ru
g-g
, \\..; c s s y s w e., ; w. a. ~* 9 ff., f g.
-.r k
<v + 4 4., 7 s pq.g y w >f.. { }.., ~ 5g .f#
y a ',
,' QJY.-6,d.g,,A g (. ; ,,v.
,"v y,j.
((' .y [ y,.
.. +
i r- [ .,, [ - u eAa y, +gw + .m.n. y s.Q %.N.. a w. s 4. s W ' @s
..... o s ic
-2., s xc , ~.; - ~; . w ,;. o Mf ~, n.,q? L. W* t :. f&*;. '.y.q, .:: - :Q;.f., * ~,, (' ~ ' + C JL.K %m^Q.y Gf,% <:.. ;.P > _ c.;p ;,,, '..- 3~ .f ' w e. w.z.ws v a 9.;u): m;.... 's.. ~/ y ?,. a y ;. ~. ~,, - 3,~ q y%ypx,Q %ey,.4.,a f.g. ,,.v . p,y 9.. +. n n'.g;..- : s... ...~q.p,'s ~y. ' r.s y : * ? .. h.. g ~ ma .ne e,.. t, MN , y;.g 'e ys.; '.}:$ - q- ,,. a, ;!_,, _ x:,m, 3 .;,;'a n.3,: a..~ e -Q' 4.. u..~.n. s x. 3.a**,,.,,r wy .g %.,sn. 1 u n e ; e.w w, : ;..:- c.,p > n, q,w..w./ r..- n. . m u .,, n., s.&
f,;,
m.- w y.% Q q 9 l%n. i.' h a w. ?, V f Q p.g/@ M,n,s h. M M = M w. %g %.fnP '.z.~, b*s m ..c @,t.,:r' M i 'l. % V % % /. m m; ? @ q,1**,, . v.w, g,,..&m 'dhdt.m.aM2mM C - "M&Ng;KWWn,yN"h.M ,W G. . u.. - L..,.,, :.Q g,
a i,
,,f 2,., ~. 'N
.%Q 6
. x..,.':: m r .,. e. w. >,n: + n. g.; %.,! ' c a <.g ,..en,y n.., m /.. .% n,.# 4 QV:a?.:4 'y PQM ,r:: n;m U: ' y4, 8 '[*j%Q:[ /' eh )* . 3 :. .e y k, ubc*. f .,a; M.. *
a,w,,., c,;,,
-i tr.. ..*?m
.; o

w.,,M g 33 n.y P, W GW-Q III. IMPORTANT SAFETY QUESTION
-:.;.y xg.p,. y,..,w m ::,': V vy c y. a ;.ws,yy::,:;;n ; , ~9,'. < x;;,;.",, O.. n o d h ",E,.. 1 M in the course of the Special Prehearing Conference, we asked CASE Y A,;; g.g y..g '3 to identify important safetv questions contained withm its contention. .l C y1.7,. :h.gggg The one item CASE identified appears at the top of page 39 of its .a.j}.h . j g;;, m.1,.i'yeg.. - tempts because of. " numerous leaks,, m. the steam generators. However, 6V Motion and relates to a steam generator test, that required three at-r x. .f.7 ./ J 7.Q~12fy.ry.;U the Board has no reason to believe this to indicate improper installation . e. G.@?y" ogy. M~ ' WF or quality assurance with respect to the generators and we have no .~ M.M'.a6.;M;'Q.N.C ,1 @3 f4 *i.
M reason to believe that the problem will not be corrected. Consequently,
,,.,' 'J, ',.J, P,. < g. j.4. m. &. :.., !. dbhs. W we are not prepared to declare this to be an important safety issue. m m . r,1. ;N., The Board also expressed its concern that the problem area, " thermal ~ J. a. . V S p [ y f.p'F $n.. expansion,'" might indicate that applicant had not properly designed its 7k-pipes and supports to acccunt for thermal expansion. This concern was j' ', J.,&,$')h's,s% ), J,p %..;f. xu.p%- t cc. allayed, however, when applicant assured us that the results of the hot p. ~ 2 W @, : d k. M ,,y .My 9 p:,.. functional tests are utilized by the designers of the pipes and supports. q; v. - n, .(. M.. ' M.2.m ?e:,i,.P [l W WM Applicant stated that "[ilf the support needs to be moved, it is moved. J Ifit has to be modified, it is modified. And if such changes are required, . is. 3 ;. 4,;4s9) then the analysis is rerun."' Based on this assurance, we do not believe Ugd.m.dQM,9:@$. t o f k that the thermal expansion question is relevant to the admitted quality ' e g. -w e.. c assurance contention. ,p~s.s.y.,.m&.. .u, ;Wm .,,,, ~ .o .w m,- t
m.M... y.
. ~, v%.3 . r > .w;. -:4 c;<f(dg($)M%q x ~ .t n /j - ' f IV. RELEVANCE TO QUALITY ASSURANCE ,ww.nt;m;x m I P 3f.9l.M^." y.& gQ,.Nl At the present time, we do not see any relevance of the hot functional test findings to the admitted quality assurance contention. However, it is f.UM8 r. E d. ., % N _, e,* v.h possible that these tests may have discovered problems that should have I s - 3 lW W,g"p,.g,G, m4. @q 'r1-been detected in applicant's quality assurance program. Hence, the test j ..v... provides a perspective from which to judge that program; and we would s P, 3, ;.vy r,9fcp, expect applicant and staff to be alert to impiications about quality assur-1' [ ' flrijf[..J.,h.3.Ech 3 ance that might oe derived from applicant's deficiency reports (TDis). Ni".N,T;'o ;W W ',p'N d, MM%h38 Should those implications become apparent, they would be relevant to j., -n 4 ,] ~- the admitted contention and th: Board would expect to be promptly and c.$ '.[.. %.4 Mbf.h h fully apprised of the development. f
.,m.,.g+ g.L. ry t
.e,.
m.,
..s s. 5w i 9,#
f g;, 4
. m W. ( ) *. i
g,,,9 9. ior :p*l

i
[ g.,. M. y,' ,..y19 s. . s. e s.,.g l' l:( 1 .i aung a sia:T reportl IndmJul problems found in th( course of a testmg program only mdgate that the
, '

Q -t program is workmg. Unless there is additions baus. dncovered problems are not m themselves grounds
.l'%. for admist#3 a comention. ,,U; 6.1; $ Motion at 9. orme Inspettion Report $0 445/83 08 t Aprd 29.1981) at I. 4 ', } P, a Tr 9167 See also the immediaiety followmg dialogue beimeen Mr Reynolds and Judge Bloch. A 'r., '[; f ;*'A [ / t , ;,. i.c.,c
e ypg,;g %;
7 9 1264 . t,,%. q t c , %{ 4l ' sit
tj s
~ .~ ~ (: j ..p;4 r..- ,,o f
4
, -. - 7.,. y s, I 1 h f j ~ e N r * ,,'y. ' - e, p rr g, + s 4:, i f f f i^, k
A..,'
,.ir.. } d. f g
p
.a. l,s 1 T',, \\. ' " " 7..n,.* s... ~ .j -.. '. < P. m.; 3 r a. -.1,,, .s Q. V,{y &. %.. ~ ,y, g ,,_g; o ) ~. l -g.z L a -.,-1, 4 -} 7'W ,.r>v. f v.,. '- 2 3, a a J .3, 1 g,* ~ / 'A m
-)
.'s
)_
p* (+ "....~g g >L c ..a qe ) .f. +. t,, ;. g",,,,..e > : ~ t7 4., _ 4.... , n' m .s... i b; .?_ ~*.. ' ',.
w>'
'; S,. s d.' ;; D
i.. s
% '.,.}. s,, ~.., ;. _ ~=,t'.g ..- l 1., :. v*@;gu.. ?,.;G.,,-@'e. a e.M,. ya,.,... _. e 1 F C w '. c, . c 4.,,.~ . ~. @4-Q,v.n.y 3g~ww.. w.: PMf@s 9.a.,M.W ' ' ,.,p .r. s4 ~ ORDER 4 ,.7, ..y,.; s: ., m,,nx, m, n, s + i if, y q.% - - For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the enure
k. ;~u;,iqpg,.~
i record in this matter, it is, this 23rd day of Novernber 1983, WQ n ?a... WW '. N - ORDERED S W M.M.,. M. ~,i ..W. 4 ;.. n. y..:.M ? m.. ., 2 ' py,,%m That the October 13, 1983 Motion of Citizens Association for Sound r Energy, concerning the admissieri of a new contention about hot func. v w &g Q...., a$ p.g y.,Q;;.,J y ; tional testing, is den,ed. i ~.n p f. %. W. w.re,m ' %,3, p+. % m M 2w ' m .s.- .% -w.SAr.s wMp#,k.p@72.9&p c r....,,,... 3.. w yc~ FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND .?v....e 4 id ..v,..,eCr W.C
s.,<... g *

s g pM O.c W M L A h MP'O.J-*=...h..w n _. s v LICENSING BOARD
% M @4,. u. )&g.hv;p'" %g' tV gU% V ~.4 W.+% &g MQi Y~~b v NWM M @k WM, e'h., ; w '7.'s 1 ' f T C'f' *,%jk-j%'. s.T >*$ y.,.* *. 6--m3 e w.m - sy
a..
O g" K, ,? toy. g , h [Y.idp a Peter B. Bloch, Chairman j M@ W W [. % M ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE p,.,,.i..,A.*r. r W M %..c' . b..., $. %. ., w..-4, y 1 -- .,o,7 p g .a v.Dl-V. - 4.,. lQ., e.
<.e.+ e.,,
.g 7; m.q ;m.1 r k., &g(yz.A:.s ~." - '.e' -d M,,; q.. id % i, um.ck a wm. a c.-r F/c @. M.,c.M :c J s,.h i, %p* s.. u =--ve s c.' :d.
g* m., %y

a. 3 O
rs ., e; Walter H. Jordan (by PBB) y Q..t.M$$%.;'.k@Qh.. W h@r.a.g0gC: W R~" ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE t .3.. pv f
WP;VU p.
m. 4 N hhb kb %. M#. %y.g,xg.w % ~ M MR$ NNI.f Pd.F$@WsM[M.. Y. Kenneth A. McCollom (by PBB) M ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE d 7 - ..O W.s m yxk+J-m%g.. -.M.4 n. m p, m, ; L, u.x - Bethesda, Maryland p,v #3:n+4 & W, W sv N,w w.:g ..n.: s,.- N Mv 0. o: W-m.m u .q '7qe#g 4 y .l."<'*, 1 d *4.- 4 s 3#'*, 4., 4,$'# h D b.&~.M.~.4@T*".'& ,y
.g, Y
h G..E., ;'W -[. 4'.tg f;%' MT c a[sy* I M.. t A..". -rC gs l_ % I e W.s 3 4
m r%.3 f,
dt w&,v.f -[w. <'.'5.= $ % w%. &,'lfl., f (*.U. 'W.C.&.% CAf.'f.g'.
a..e :.'a~
l Ia/:N n s %.: Yp.m.,.p;, .%? s... ;dg a e}*p/ 5:y
f..pg.,..; / V -,
e
4
.w . a. + p 8 D(t k RN h 5 *[h h@ W -W hV. ih[ h5~i b ~ :.VQ@M4 6g,x@%j.+. s%.g.:pp,.g Y..',. l,[p nQa;ffwWM.Mu;; .n
n
,K.y eq 1-* {4 A. w % a'4 .m m *y' ^ m g _,y.G e. e... , n e.. ~. le'T N',.d eW% M ',4 % er V hhf s h y!S ^n;&f.Q.i0hb$lf.ff, ;>% Q g ' ' flk.Q.. '" 4 w r. . j. ih mn z. e.x..m E7 %N,N #. % g,.M-w *.f.V.c,~.n,W.-ej.f.J'?...'o 0 := ie U* . s ,?.. .~
*;3;...t, ** p5 s - -
-yz. e x,
p' s..
4a..* A 5 /* V.b? n ?.yn n&'%W9**Q'yx*gy'p ' W.. y 3 s. , e ';.. i.* k. s ' s-WY. W.Qh t' Q. jf
Cp <qh+ 'R..d l#
4~ f:.R Y. _. fM"6 - Qs.c + x,;r s(,& w e.p.h.a @. w g~W:f t: y r.f. < t, Ms; a - i M.' s
.. b,,' p% 4

" R M,s K
+n . r.v ' ve a .//- I ; 4\\ e 4Y e' hf +. ^b FN. '4A h g &*w.&.4'Mj!&~x.QffNWl.U.$; lR* &!
vm.m y.y..y. ;g -a n.
. n$ 2 @ _fo. O. %n w @ m .i M.,GM: - 1265 p u(-Wl: w MG.;di? f M$n -t*W'Q* :.@ v$h D. 7. c. d ,c
hpl[.7(h$me$,n.nm "-l[;g:
QVAT n.A g,;*V'. r. v. u w,;b D M h m c.
s
~ / N hk '.g.nqgw ge:6:&W}.tp=;%% W.#h n.e W@:d'@~j;%y.%$ R MW AM. g.tg cq8y, e..s w #y.3, A.a %w. ~;;.w& s sw Q.,;
n n,,
h C &&>Q: ?W1 ',M' Mm.+m,,.m~.mm%m ~M.$w4 % sw w w w R w vn v r*wn -*~ v;:.W':W q tt u p 4 Q* =.v% n.... *T ry .. + - Q W -m pen.- Q.yt.s;: m %.gy .W. 5mn:aw. c h:a y 4 . w.m M - 94 w. n ;,.p? m%m .4 c:.% v% wae %' o e e.
,.* < n m. n-q.a ' w;,- %m. ;.w.;p.,gd.hw vs%.g;. s,
7+m.yV:,MM tmsg% M~ ~ ,G W p wm :7.;;;- O.4[;, M yp'f. a: m. w.. Q..,s,. %;y a s m
w **,n Jp~ e.n.-
m& nu m .u,y m m. , ;;pm.m:. u m. g. ~.;:r s wmgQ m %7 &L'14 % D.. % + y.+'. Y s*r ?.P:;$gf.x, VV n:. p.+% - M.p y' a. Q "**!;m s w &.... 4 w. w. %.; .r; p. x-n:u p r%A.yMW. br: 3 1 , -.V.W:: e'. M.;? M m~.4. y ;' - -s qs e f. s.n.;y yg w",.L Mp.pm ? <;.3M -p v c&.~. ,.y n. 'i Aja:p w -y t, % %' W Ry :ny. m 3pm., y+y,:n /' Q*. m f - ?m,. W- %u y ~ Y,,~.-6.,M;w. o.c'S: Q c,.gl&w. w. n
" Ma# *Q-.3: a',yQ...,at 4.:h'4 u as m
..t~ 9 s,. .?& w ..,...'",Q:} h ly+%n,f

u-
. +r 9 -.'~ s.- 3sa fy f %yY 9 . n: Q & & Y Y's-~1 W * ^ ' *,, '. ' V-Q.::.. W W Wam&drE v W Ne #NC-
. m e

m..
,e, g..w..m 4,..:q...er., w-r ~'-~. .y zi 3.yp:.s 4..m&.4-p,1: .3. > y.4, L j;.)y;;~Z;yyy:h;w$m Q f.D.g;:w. - Q,3..
sy,L ;,
.c:.w=
a a f e, :..(
...,.. y. .c;.,.,. _ s ;,,.y. 9@. n..,fM*f,%y tgg.OQh;;W.f;v{p&j&;g&n_n..,f 'b%>.SMl0.Q% L, i Q ,, C $::r.f.t$'h. WQ:k:',j?,*:{,Q'W'? j y 2 epr .y ny: m.Q.9.g y ;, :..,:..3 m.., 3 )h w..q.m.. w y Wm[,.:n m., xy. A :,. ,L.,. y.,. %w, A. h.,. $ y ;.y; v.,. s ;a. #s. w- %... n.e.~m,w %.v : c.:. g$ h db i s,,4,_W r. ,,..A;pm
s q.;

o-na.
w . y..s. m. w Q 4 M. e~.;
m. _-
e w,.,.. - . WM%,,e, .n. PQ.. v.
y. a my@;c yn~p.p., DRfe%x%.bt;i+%
h i 7 M. U:&&s . v%v AMhhhN;&&FhMW1MhMUM 's!! g%W.D n u
& L.
m ewMr n,.v. nh; & p r: 6&w.% &[%s$.QM;;)i&M'$.WK nM t? m
q. Aes s.," *< H.s,.,;;s &m. mlV. ~% r?,?,+Q; y Q. %..:
,, d,;p. ?~ r +..
V.e.
e > s. ,a4,,.w.n. :t,.;.r,y,w.;~m qm.+.,..A,n%.;-;r.c : .4,. w W.3 A..% y -@.,,. n...3.&g ;,r. ;.e y s ,,~ r..; r.. a. m.<j n.y.s.,r.ga .. :p m.c, .ew w > w,;. p: y p&r%g;.,Q<,4.dNM@y..gjQQ* ogg,o !g%.;sp.M w a , d Cite as 18 NRC 1266 (1983) L5P-83-78 QN.;;;f p: ..v :M'k,d?EM: M.Q ks: L /a-v ...a.%q .x .d,3[G '.. J ' r::,
7.;%,,,
~;- ...%,y? 'pN.d-y@f."W,W; MN,?A:k. C' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .k ,dh N s' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,.,,.%q g:w;.&ms.,c.4;.pe..P.w q. ,,.y 4 ,,,t a. rn y ~. f , q r, ~. n, t. y p y.s.v;. a.p v> v .. w. n q, ,. n. n.. -., m.c .y.. e a ..y. .. w g w.;. s.f.. m..,, y$ 3,.. . " ; 7 (4. "A',.d *fy,,.e,e;-a .,i m ,gi.4,,1R ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
4 3g o
,o m s
YMhN.hN$.k$kM5 k
,kMi/*MN%$"MdMdhMN Before Administrative Judges: .f. ~, i.,,,o,. ce d,. %.f, b. ,s l *. +;e.w.p.%a m.. mq,. ... m y y. w..,,,......,,. , +v,.,.n
. w.p w

;. m.w r.:.w 4,.
e .h C%.f.fW'ihQdj@;:.=r.[@:'; rny A&.Jfffij.TrMtIbi?.;M. . Mwx Q ' GQM dy'i'p Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman W h* y.f t M .T Dr. David L Hetrick .j @%?'@CM$sd$5:$M. r. u.(Q,$;N,%.4 ~s%p, r 5M v( Dr. James C. Lamb, til n a%y%.b:w: p;4, f w.'w ~M. w; n,,Jn. m a.p%pg w m... cm W; .R&m .- M. s
- a Q ue.w y,:J sjE m 3;/ @%y Q s n:
n. ags ;v :72 p' g,,;y MM.'9 In the Matter of Docket No. 50 289 r%r:M&5 . gg . M:..; 4 w. %. e -- A,a 8 &.9 < ,a M3NW%s)w%w:?j%g.Myh Yl %@f -,je@...-,$ h (Steam Generator Repair) == ica M&. Q.pA,4. p, (ASL8P No. 83 491-04 OLA) y
& Q, $. &p :
e s w~ , %.D1N$p:W,,d:&fy@',hp l'U;b.$ QN ~ .kg.S Cfg.f 5 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, .M,N.MhMh h [$GhiM. etal Wi@ @, k M N@k.k.${
MC

[MQ@M.wSM2@y,,@.g..
(Three Mile Island Nuclear [21 M Q:3.5.Q;W. Station, Unit No.1) November 29,1983 i$c. hd a ..S.,.. pp wv.wjn n. n.=((.4[ h , r.t..h, E,.,, h.j ;. y..,. %w qw. v, n.: n... m n ;, s~ w. m. 5 ..-e..
-W..aW;,

Phe;dWr;d;. c The Licensing Board issues a memorandum and order wh. h, inter m.
ic ' hiN,hhNk' m::6hhhhh alia, rules upon the admissibility of contentions. M,& ; M yg.g q%;.6.n e..kg,: y wr;;;;s.L &,,&;hh[hMhd M N;Ik h ih. . Q. .yy u q N RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS w.. h+ 2 h.h. w w.a. % 4.I N.e-e e v a b. ihNN.c Nh There are five purposes for the basis-for-contention requirement in 10 f C.F.R. f 2.714. M684@A.,n%cMM'g&.p 4 N 2 %. ": ;v p.d.s. h. ...S.,ca.p%M., S,See.,, p-M;@@q.e. m.w$.y, Ap>. % p %. .sw O M. m $.a; 9. m'typ. $ @ n / G : = W MPFg E RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS n . - d. ; " '.,J t .Q The degree of specificity required involves the exercise of judgment ~'. .... : y W; S;e.e'.W,.e 1.- -m,3l?g: h by Licensing Boards on a case-by case basis. .s. a xs C,. _,g%;'.*^y .... i.a d. .g ,.,u a c m (Y'.bk".c ' $ f dy [h s.A:w,.. i m..we wc m, p.:, v ' '., '. p*3.$p*;2I,h.f-g..Nb 'Mh'!~9,% ANMb:$ , ' ' ' sa .l%M +,* W- ~ .2.; m,.. u..ge.v,d .,* /t q%)(J' y *%(y %a(* k, Q.p.'b w *:' AY ) M 4 v4* i l* s '..r. '. 'Y ~ w ..a.'p .O, ? h Oa
S.p.w.%f, y%
1266 a,.-
e. t yc w...,.

.f*' n p.
l. Qg. ~ ~ g.g ;fqlQ Q:4; m,;.w*s:.W 'q f.* y.....a. ..-y .. D , F e..Q Q:g la,:.; 3 q r, ..c- .n. , _3,2..a,.T W...t.#,. 'A e..n..f.v.,c *,', .s-i
s.,
, =. e o ./%,g'x g'.-~,~w.w'sy.[ .. < i / j f W'M.,,,.# . / [**g n - s .p-l~~~~ 7 q.7 7 7,v :ce.m.:n-r;'~.rs;m n w-*~.-py m... ' ' # ; q,3
;}[*Q;{$,
jq._ ;5 ' N, # ? l W ;[}' O j a'. i.^ T.,'.j:f ',..l,% ?,n'hy * % ' ~'
(
..~,,. x .. v .: w . ;g'f D.3 a.. %n..,.g*xz,,i'p','w - i,.. -, , < '.. '.,.9,t..- y w_ s. l. ';r ' ..e~ c&y;.s..: L Q,;;: ',
y p
., Q L,,.:;, %f}
'" i
~. < ... '.. lq.
*..

b:.
s t ~, , y, r.;,. 4. p, g.c -y w.. sy. .s
s. ~
L. %y,f;ix 4,,,g^ .,g , <,.., y -~ ;
..g

. m.y. ; g.
.'u.'. g'u {%q.5,.g.q yw. Q.p.n. 7 35 & Q;,;;3; y ;.,7,y, g, a z n s j.'. ',,, %,L g p,;T.ry :g, g g> m : q s g .y. . ; 7,..
v,Q q,
. w %.f. 53 .s* - a;g a., y; ~., s.
. v.; y; p. w s,y.u.,n. y.w ~,. p. y% s y y%:>g, y..
.;ygy..p,y 4.;v.m. y. y3. r:;. [ + y ..:= m:n : ;cnwg,y:+c a o; , a y~, 4 ~ I h J 1 .,y
- 2.

9 ' i. ONS m-e.. ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTI ,[.1.2 %[ >',. -~ tition to detail the evidenceh[jf +.[?w. Y.. E a ? RULES OF PRACTICE: itted, a 10 C.F.R. s 2.714 does not requde the pe port of the contentions. Once admotion for summa W' : j, ' i. which will be offered in sup a.- contention may be the subject of a m .k.. ', - y. 1 s. suant to { 2.749. TIONS ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTEN ,g k.%..J. ho prepared documents are RULES OF PRACTICE: gM' N y@ ' W:!e':a o - t The thrust of a contention should be The qualifications of those individuals w Nw a.a.~a n:-MQ w '1 clusions of those individuals. not proper subjects of contentions. directed to contesting t M).s, Mn g g n. &.l.., w.,[u .m w. f u. %E cg ..p ; M.:. y y i v., MM.w,y'[a IONS ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENT M,. y;$. <w;.y: mw %*y< A % :. z
.~,
M w.v. .n;: RULES OF PRACTICE: i d upon a misundersMnding or[2 z.p,,.p&m,~ ~. :,%m..s ? -.. ~, ' s. .w-.
w.

s ].. 'q ? ^.-;.T,.-
-4 ; j,. E",j. ' ,1 A contention lacks bases if it is prem se. h are being contested. .#.g t. 94 V[.' ' V w% @ w...N ,,* n l . a:.- error with respect to the details whic C w -u s IONS ., a w.4a [% 1 a ci ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENT generic issue, that matter $, ;,$.. M,y4. % [....m WW m= RULES OF PRACTICE: u,. w t.? Q W, 4.i.. %. --'i' -< ..... a ' p., Even if a matter is under consideration as aluded in a contested pro in1 g hr~; @ R M ; S ~ 9, '. i' .v. p as a subject of a contention is not prec I m'* *m"g.ag Q.,
t s
(i g,, N[.,, JURISDICTION OF BOARDS ~
M.
?- ,h i ghy/dgig' ' c g j risdiction to explore matters g y % w ;...:,. ' q 3 RULES OF PRACTICE:d by the notice of opportunity forg A Licensing Board does not have u beyond those which are embrace
a. m.n_.~.e p,a g - j g A (MEMM i:. >
y e; W {] CHALLENGE TO COMMISSION %%2,?v2 F.~' ~ a.cM. g
hearing, kmn.'&,g;g7 '
GS 5 -. ".N RULES OF PRACTICE: i imum, certain requirements .m... W f y - j, K@c L n. REGULATIONS y@ g,Q'f g g g w M Af have been met, a contention assert-sho T If a regulation provides that, as a m n {, lig me :.s. k+. fo# - must be met and those requirements %:sa k.y. d M W.k. w; ing that a different analysis or technique ..m.:... ? - 3 regulations.
y l. War ~..m bH because it attacks the Commission s i
% *h; m e .h, m em r ' ;;., p-mhN' a,. y y, 6.,c-I.. , + py ;
s.. y:a
'*[ah/g' s _ ^ @kQ%h.,. [ *. -."..w -
kt f, bh*
-t s^ a t s%, w e '[f. :*m .. _L, s
Wrj
., a m , 2. v,.x e.; .n> o m, s.;4, g q -..P, ,e?.' w[s, \\* w [' s -..[e .,,(,' .g A. [p -Y._* q[.m %>i \\.[. # .,w. c.,$ e.,. j
,h,,n-? O ';
} 267 . a:. y i i ~e w". L '
r.
W .W.-O : .. fo )N.rjy,,%pg? ' h' ,. **. g? e k.a.p%,y? w y- ...t*
t. j- !,6 k %
y,., r. - w wo l r Q:. j# s W,.;e.c w '413- ,.,73 [e h, / 4,p --x ,1(W. g 3 m w;..f.c A. ...g e - wr e t f.a. . r ycm ;gte.g,<, o
. n, V
,5 m y, s h'. ="= m..:. p.. m T.'
' - ',^y' m.Py-c -.
%y-w. m[ S g, y> 0..['p..gm,yjy,,. ', n,n >*u7 + ,;q..,. n.f. r.,v ~ m -9r p. c. e* ,r J g r
.,,.**;. 'q <.% p s' - 'c.+n., -: %..,. <.
s. \\;v .l l
q
_ ay y/ QP,gyy.g;,;.d2i' <.. - u,m.a'sy A j+.g. ~ %... i'
w..
9._.
b = w.-a yv.u.. n c

g & w -
w.W: a :&[ *; f s'.s:. ~s ;y Q~~*:r%.Q u u , y\\ "a '.y,, 3 ..g, o.m.n 1
-w w. q.
g..
af r;9,; %.?.}.g y* 7 *%;%l? R g

e 1 g g a g..
e
~;t+
d - @q : n k , c:n g:? = N (, .i
>..,' P %_1

N W M g. g. ; h< g. h," y.. ~y ;;.w s.
e pc. A.. .v.- G :, ',t?
c. a,
, n. ?. y
w
',f&va ..g
a e;.
'.q-s s.
e; 'y. +,
S ~ wyscb.y.. rq(. .-w .m.W.r. Qr,_ s y1, ~ m,,4. 1,.ma. - p~s. ,m >'*y&l W.,.c };,X > e s,n. ..,4.. [ M r ' + - 9. g.y 'fi
f. el' n
.,.
g t' ' r ;s G'f r s%.~,. v.
.. e;. f g ps.:,;t m ye ,p. -N. E. v fr , ~. y. g. A3 '[f'a _ : * *a +i - 2, 3V- ,_ ' $, R;,r k. - ); w'z % o -. y ~x - 9 *b:*,Q s z'A .s: 1 v o ' s. # x. M - y., $ m. . ^.s c %,' b m[ t d x. - ~, w., .n. 39p a.n:. m. m.m2,, t nsyny:.p;w: n,;;e.g, w;m:.p:;n&'p::e.%s%m;Mmw;%;..p. m ncbsw y;m.x v.. n w ~x:n 4..v.a%q .;.. mm -. qqw.r .a. g w.s m ::. w~, ::~.c m Mr
&. h.m:MM.. s.yJ;:wm,M$.v.mx.J.w&+p:g r:gm,&y;.g.,: ww.y w; x.4.y W4i%;~w/. n

n. h.y m..~..
w.n n 7 wq.s f ~, ep pyp; ug.ww. m,p.a.w,.:, / o.,. 3.w;+% ynherr;y4;a4g%,~Qq., ~p%g.+,$yu MM.e'e..yM1@ .v .t w
r. w -.
-+,m c ,e ery 7%g.W MYNA g
Ci

Mh

y., u, w: 4.p, m
%m. c e.f it e >'44 % y.g. pA s p p dMhs:p* a.iw.7=kl;&w;1h.WeMwhkr.,:.2Msw.w..wA.,m*K 4-w y w @a,.^~>n; w,q n. q s s -= uw.s we. .w ng .w %dky ky W 4.1.g & - y v 4.,c.%,f,- E t'p i W m. a s,. \\ 2 @* ? .. W s, M w.n/e. w,s:/.; % p& o % g % y&, & %p<r &. Vv i es., x NW, pM e w Mi.w.v;%.hQ> W e Aa,%.~. W m:a.fG h ef n ,n.-a.m.. 4 n.ga ~ p.g ymg:- m t7 8.v 1 y %. u s. w%. ym .r m .-a M @d M d $j,. @g $ p g,d. M @. e.. p,1.m, ey/W 3.... .o %M8 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
6
.::MN' j d$?.$}.5[h (Ruling on Contentions) . m p:p.:m.v.m.n mq
m. s. w$ 9 % M::
w. 4.w,/n
,.2

+
MM@SQ@S$. d.$ E Memorandum M&Q 'N$.".W.m,b/M.M.Q.t@8. a.
.5 f.W QMg Ye ugM I.
BACKGROUND N.p.J;a.w;.aq.p y g, A.y:W. W.+jytm,vW; tem qb u k@ "r,f d N@a w,ss #.;N.g E. w,.m..~4.. m..k.d
m,..<g, &. ~ W a

W.. -
.I, Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing on Issuance of Amendment to .,n 1 . 'M Q.M-F W MT6,M. S Facility Operating License issued on August 8,1983, Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. (TMIA) and the Joint Petitioners (Ms. Jane Lee, Mr. NM MMdc$% fQW,/ yW.@h@idAW.: Norman Aamodt, Dr. Bruce Mo! holt) filed their proposed contentions 9$$yW$%;IN%kh[dEf[W MSpM on September 21,1983. The Licensee and the NRC Staff filed their re-M:G JQf Xt spective responses on October 6,1983. During the course of the V4 M W[c.h M M { 2.751a special prehearing conference held on October 17,1983, the DM.6*N8M;kDN'[ hydd?M $5M.h P % d [N AU -di Board heard oral argument upon the admissibility of the proposed ipM$ D contentions, and it granted Dr. Molholt's request to withdraw his m.4 W M M f Q.f a &m, %p n.h E petition for leave to intervene as one of the Joint Petitioners. mapreMnem. u wiCM
b. e$kN.ev.w.t.- 39 p.m p.h 4 Nkhh.gg H.
DISGSSION OF I EGAI, NNNES wt Mkk.NNU"G.M'2LGWj,y I IM k hk Section 2.714(b) requires that the bases for each contention be set M WP forth with reasonable specificity. In Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach g M.. M.,, @%, @. s A e W yg e W C $ f M 4. g $ Q h MM by m R tdf2.sGNfvy Bottorr Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216,8 AEC 13, g.!i 20-21 (1974), the Appeal Board stated that the purposes of the basis- ,hk h 'hi hhh) f} f r-c ntention requirement in i 2.714 were: m w x v sec.,. N W s D sex s y.a w . NhM
l. to help assure that the hearing process is not improperly invoked. for example, N

N. p <'?N.M.. ;[.[g., e fa%p%g :fc $a to attack statutory requirements or regulations; i
?a,fkm, 'e .o r ;; y&,,a,,JmQ<!q.y4%p ig.r
[s % [Jg.Wg 4 #T i Qpy.4'

-;M,.:y.M/<+/,
x w y. s.e
2. to help assure that other parties are sufficiently put on notice so that they will
' t l, r.? k'h@;%'b$.'V DO 4.Q h: .AD know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose;' N [h y I. % g h'.N i [ D*:h j*k"*6 d M M/%h :hhhl;l$fhfW$Mh:/. ',J'#'h@ & f.Q ,&j h
3. to assure that the proposed issues are proper for adjudication in the particular
' y'd(? h proceedirig - i.e.. generalized views of what applicable policies ought to be are d.c.T W J 1s Q j @, f. j $ y p #.JvddiMW.@/@p: fO not proper for adjudication; 1.v$4/MSM @1%. ~;..M. %.44,MN$;Q4..%N;iMM.p#
4. to assure that the contentions apply to the facility at bar; ano
.. <49.a.. ' v.w'. %w-:.q Wyy, Q p Q , y?? f. f,y9%.,m,;n p .J.J?erQ f .qvQ4 w s ,/r w@g, a., '?, >..,y p,,. u ".,rg. 6.m. - .. w s *? ss v.L pqL. wy3,7q%nyQ :y W. qQ, g ;, s... %," l ], ~.'sa ",.g, L a.
u.,

s. W.m.
r h y,i.J.. w- ', j ',. w 7 .. ', ~.:4
Modified Memorandum and Order (Partiany Grantms Licensee's Mouon ror Reconsideration) data,d t.,gfw g$g/F l~ ? p.u

n sqTfM C;.
'- ( .V Ff W-M M 't4 January 9.1984 (unpubhshed). N f D,4 ,,.j;; ;,;WM[".'f.j$d,l r-
g.
j S N h,; M f.f [ %9: i See also Kenses Gas and Electre Co. (wolt Creek Generating station, tJnit No.1). ALAB-279. I .U. GM ,gM N RC 559. 576 (1975),
f.G y@1%.;.:. g,f I $.i.1:.r f_$;__T.c,di M. g*' Of
,G %r L ' L.;:+ i,.: M .,f W. ... f* i.j y g.4 s, .y-r ; p E f. m,v; an.:4:;w ~f:m m :.vM,g.p.K.&QC Q (~; p Q- -s. 5 p!
y,
. e..
m.
.'5 'y p-A vh .l is,' O k. j^~ *f.s;' :*ah %w
3*
.+."( 1 - SQL Q. J..:.' )*~. =6..jf ^.c a r [X pf.4 <*;l,f:'?.%p p ' .e;':.;.c,::,L"- M %.? Q% ~ ' ~~' C'~.~. ", '*gs":'~ "": MK;'.;;;,.'.7, 7 n m ;?;;'.~ -;Yy;-@ 'T..W.S -Mcw a ; R ::' g. *;.y . % i,e - .p- .' w.. r ep: <! m.y ..,,y a ,qe- -* r <,,., #3. e W;. ,v m,.,,'e 5 ~ .e. .3 6 .g...... e.w .s. s: . ;4.. ,.p. - m.- . o . y y y- ,g>. ~.. ~.,.q . : s._. 8.. ;., ,,.-.s .g*( O e. <^ 7 [ e, ,y =' i' " '5,( g. E~ g y. n.
:pw&-ymgdype;gw. Agy;. 32 3.-ucg g;;i..
4 yv _ y c;c.:.w e s e. m :-u., -., e. &. ~,. e, 4,,s 6 , h.,.,y,.u. s. .c %s..**y;MS. e c v,-. y ..w.yc.~ t Sg"s%z:.*x:{N' ;y y. e ;,9 mL'%.'M..c.s.0,* : ' i..s , f "R.. l. t.,.R,,d 2.,. &.(. *q'. + W.,.m. :* s. '.n s r ".A n r l' .p .4 %c* % r] 'y. tir.: "-*y y 4 a ~ 4 a
r_ v y-7 4 e
t ..f ,nw*7.4'.% b '-J .*c 7..,J-ff. { p ', r + 1 j . ^y J
y t
,q ,p. "ry .s .? J.a..,. ' y. -, 'l e v 1 %
\\
a.
N-3 u
. x.; -.a .:.A: a q e.., r t., m ^,9 ' .. e -. ,,.. p N ,s "4 "4-* slg c,- ,. a
5. to assure that there has been sufficient foundation assisned for the contentions c n 2.;c to warrant further exploration.
{ Y ,f~_ Further, with respect to the degree of specificity required, the Appeal Board noted in the Peach Bottom decision that this involves the exercise ~ " ' of judgment on a case by-case basis. Moreover, the Appeal Board stated that j 2.714 does not require the petition to detail the evidence which will be offered in support of the contentions.2 j.J.d,, ^- Finally, Public Senice Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Q.M., y ap? ,y.y@K(}c.j,dQb,.f. Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316,3 NRC 167 (1976), holds that a %Q vg%g ifU i Licensing Board does not have jurisdiction to explore matters beyond Q.3a wQ. those which are embraced by the notice of opportunity for hearings.2 ~. m;;.y.....,...u_.y , w. 4.~. cN..-. n w a
n. w.r.. w.,m.m

L.
v?g:h. - -: .r.%t n u s.g#s 4< 4? - - e. - P -+ r-N. r n f f: ^*. -. M@- ! ? %. im p III. RULINGS ON CONTENTIONS > iA L .....- e y :y &: p =g: f, < < -g. i Gr - Q @m u,y.g;f-n,j y j'y,p. gig 7 4..j, f x g. .. w A. TMIA s-c W '.g'...'.t %, W;.D Contention 1 reads as follows: W.Q<o 3 t,.v-g t. p y -.1;,.
3. g. ~
e ,.s,. . g Neither Licensee nor the NRC Staff have demonstrated that the kinetic expansion Myf.gd.'W1iW Y'l ,. x:.M k..qM' W - o .v.- 5 ' 'i ' $. $ E,,g,: 1,r,.", m' G. '. M.m. steam generator tube repair technique, combmed with selective tube plugging, pro-e s.. tgg,4 Q. gSQ 7f vides reasonable assurance that the operation of TMI-I with the as-repaired steam h.c.yd ). k _.3" S.h'.. i,. tf~.d.',.^* generator can be conducted without endangerms the health and safety of the public, ' V., ? ; 'b .h.tt S hy&.%, Q J f]>M... Q. pg.K for the following reasons? ipf s ,s s i .)M.,y$h {'y h',*AK ~ Q..y%l,hf -
a. Post repair and plant performance testmg and analysis includmg the techniques used, empirical information collected, and data evaluation and proposed i:Ws.M6 df M[j.j @@
V' r./ license conditions are inadequate to provide sufficient assurance that tube h3.$;Q;f - i t'. [ 3' ~ d
f QW4}N,M ruptures, includmg but not limited to those which could result upon restart, a M%hW J%,9 R
p . MW".%
7. W, ' 'N. ',
i J turbme trip at maximum power, thermal shock from inadvertent actuation of ggg,;.,.
,.'c,.; 'y, W*N Q.4 n
,n s. e n. emergency feedwater at high power or followmg rapid cooldown after a LOCA. ,d 4. p. . Wn, will be detected in time and prevented to avoid endangering the health and W @[h[t.[ (l(jp U h,1. .y' oj..b 2 hy 'f*f%fg- :(f.. safety of the public through release of radiation into the environment beyond 7 h . l,,-r
1.
ul.- &, \\ a ' M i: permissible limits. t w,,)&.~ 4 'e s .k l y...DNN.')[ 7~ N.,N>yp w h]ch%y'M'p;jM. J.'.h.n As written, subpart a. lacked basis because no reason was advanced in <w hs )hf. J h.f0-O a' ' ?'T - support of the allegation that the testing and analysis were inadequate. A For that reason, the Licensee and the StafT concurred in opposing its ad-mission as an issue in controversy (Licensee's Response at 9-11; Stafrs ggg Wl7 4 w&. h. j m n.. *.f,:. Si m
g) f ' ',
5-j - 2h also Msuum rewr 4 Leet Co. (Grand Gutr Nuclear statum. Units I and 2'. ALAB 130. 6 ., & ", %M5 : ... M. ..m.,, 2 0 %, h
q, M:
%-M ~ : " --> AEC 423. 426 (1973); #eusion Lehrms ed rewr Co. (Ahens Creek Nuclear Generatins station. Unit l). ALAB-590.11 NRC 542 (1980). MA 1 d' : s. 'd 2 h aho rivr&rW Geners/ Ewrre Co. (Trojen N uclear Pl.nt). ALAB.$34. 9 NRC 287,289 n 6 (1979). CMM '1 'I 'N 'O 4 This miroductory wordma or TMIA Contention I will not be renerated nt/re with respect to subparts [.y/y .;k,J' b throust c. e.g,3 g.;,., ,p g.; r v. Wy?},%. *f 4,-Op'". -7';i. 3 --f, y', '[ , : 4+.dT.c:*4l.r g Md : y 7
q s
n 12y }xm,.N:aCah' c* "X Kz.'j ,.?^i =7
u m
m u G.1.k.9?W c..[N g[% % - r.;d n .p .M ^ a .s -[l*[jM '7' .f P.~*2 * [h.*E)- - n: y .,i t g
s.1; p rWf.v.<.Q.

g. s..
!^
)
. [' h.d.. p s. g'E 1 J :ntM' Q.;:.4.m ),, e ~ J .j.? f 's .g - = . ~4 k pMy r W, - :.MyQ,,&. ro t- ~ L.
n ;.< W.W~N

:F Y,v(*r ~g;;. p+g.~s;q &r y%.n m
, ~ 3tn u,mw 3 rw&w 7*s=.=n.~ w.-omsnm-w -m~= ..v gn a.hy-yd,% M$.;4x W w y~4 7.y:^W +s v ya M. nh 3 e M.; MS - WW n - m " w. w n w : & w,d.W Q yg.G49-da MuR45 C* f dF, w.w &.%.,z MW ~ ~ C:.. . 1 QW %s %< n .o..c.w.cy g A<n ,e y<.M. y,,m, ~ v n.L w .x e , 7 x. w %.e.v./.,.x. h.._ p. g c...;...b* e-e m.e- @y - - S.q . c.. .fv ev s.... + e, b, sd @...-s a 4 yN[$'[.hy - c -a - w.p ( ,.I, QM' ) nhw. Ni t qm/M[(MEM.My,N a , ~. t.w WKEM;.D@4.m _ I.- i M ~i &:, o A,. EM Mvp. Mmm e ;yp:. ,a,.v gp.s. m. x.wg x a 1 m wmn m ewm-m m r u m m. ~um 1 ..w m e,,..m,;n m - . m :Q..;4;4p h,f.}&%@ Y Ml*&go.;,,O... & :QMm " ' f*& g;N]lf l& &; ff,W:f.Q.J,(2,]f 9: g.?j%@% n@gqq@&3 M Am I 5i
,,*w>
q- --. *.. .WN W 'b?q 5 EM. w @@h d,.wmb w;;MM. kQW'og:d%nMbdMGem&&o@% s pp cMw%m@ " y., k.f%s &m p % a.a g e m @h.j m7.# d'"g y WD h W u m-Py W 43 i r, F.e4 v WgA9 .w nw w k.3,g. Mb1st&;imM:nM M'd22Mu.&e&M&% m m meem w ggW; .i b ,h lQM&,* t.Sb k.4 W ]5.Q;:iw/ M;6(,e @&we'6.Q:'.y,,L'i,qi;**: wg 4 4 W W W;st W. x F ~.m<W.v et.s.g u. rm.,.n. m; w,r1 m 4.. v. q~ g a 1.g..r.ee.,yW:w;.~gw&r V :p;s.,.M,y q;g n &.q e.~n m y y % m q(%. 6,,,? -% n=n ;..q. .Mf m. = we, o,&., v e*. -. 4 , rf.,g.1. *,. 3. *.et:,4,.>,r, #3 ~ w~9. 4, c.y0q:,Ma.h c Q . v:... ,, or igr.y%~4 g p n. Response at 5). During the course of the special prehearing conference, n-a UNp.y r, M M.MdQMQ$u.unn;oce:p tA c. W u/Mi g % a w TMIA fa. led to particularize any bases in support of this specific i /* ,'$7 contention.5 However, TMIA's representative did state that "[t]he basis W K W M 'j wffi;w.f+M.W.g.y3 for that conte stion really is the fact that the data supplied is inadequate 4W' l A Ww, rb,?,,:rg,gy. <y+ @@p Qg.,w.d ,me u. . e.w .a MQ$ ,e hf
y. B.3g for us to make a determination,, (Tr. 39).
4 We admit this subpart. As stated in the SER, the technical evaluation wws .~ m o p 9 A..,,. $q, %.g D g. g % .) g report prepared by the Staff's consultant, the Franklin Research Center, N- [,ij.. d,w,,$.y w%,g,e, gy was not attached thereto, and, as reflected in note 5, supra, two of the .4.ym. 44y M hhw. p. Licensees' TDRs were not made available for TMIA's review. We con-MNNk$Yi@8;p?i;Gie./.h[gN'.h,3 p .~. m h ig clude that this subpart is as reasonably specific as was possible under e,M.f.WEVip;; y [ h3g se ekcusances i ' ~ l
b. Because of the enormous number of tubes in both steam generators which l).5i',Md;$31NYeDN. 7Q'.Q;f have undergone this repair process, (I) the possibility of a simultaneous rup-
,((fM'NNfl.*fN.M ((N N'h [' '", M h h*$. 4 i" M ture in each steam generator, which would force the operator to accomplish f k d/$,b#5hh*g;q'M [$d cooldown and depressurization using at least one faulted steam generator, re-x sulting in release of radiattort into the environment beyond permissible levels.
M.@,k"n*.M.<f 6k,.

%' d% 94hMMW "isn't an incredible event, (sec. September 19,1982 memorandum from Paul i
.' ap. R g.*4% g;f. #U@*%..e.r'&:y.c.6.~'AM.! ' 97:q y $hewmon, then Chairman of the ACRS). O) and could lead to a sequence of ..n mo W r~s.M..qq!y/M..m..w%Wy,@4jgj-j events not encompassed by emergency procedures. O) and in the course of a Me.5 w.J. .F/MPl .s. J>d. LOCA. such a scenario could create essentially uncoolable conditions. A M A.. w# $Y M ?N N,,<1.p h.1 s$n #g-Q 4 W.$.3-4fgsMQ,Ods! g M gc.k .% w ex hMhw The Licensee objects in that the subpart b. lacks a basis since Dr. M:pMN y $g ejh @ & W y 4@pj (erh [A y Wz t Shewmon's memorandum does not reflect that his concern about the ,N@NMd5-three scenarios arose due to the enormous number of tubes in both M@ % ?? Q $ p$ D.4@%@s.J.s. gM g/Wg .w g.w steam generators wh. h have undergone this repair process. It asserts ic w a M e M;p .a. w w. n.s W. 9e @ yy4w-.c;.,M hcg that the memorandum merely reflects a concern over a generic problem r W"N..mM;., concernmg all B&W steam generators and the possibil.ity of simultaneous s rm N,p @, : s p.4 .v e N w& w w:.w. W.m. mm.g; tube ruptures in both generators, and thus th.is subcontent. ion is unrelat-e.- uq:.w M..e ca 'hhh ed to the etTicacy of the repair program (Licensee's Response at 11 14). JM.h.,J:..c,mjCj k ..f5DS..~M.. 44.gp$.%;3;4M~. m@ . wy. e Wh.le not opposing the first two parts of th.is subpart.in its written i _;;m m. m 4mps %m,. .y $@'d. submission, the Staff, after understanding TMIA's position at oral m*#g, gMp.m.#y,3W hyMpWMMa.,t. S + .. e'&g,, e tL aP'.Rf argument, suggested that it "may have been too hasty" in the way it 4 W. h.e,G +h5 o. g s y. Qc t.pf m 5trj<jpd's.#y'W.ig% read this subpart and appeared to agree with the Licensee (Tr. 44,49). J % g# 8/ TMIA made it clear that it "is not interested in litigating multiple R/ $ ff W W W M M S $' Dl f h '? htube ruptures occurring in the same generator at the same time, but just h Nhfhj h in simultaneous generators" (Tr. 45). W.Q*i N,,, Z1QW,&&.& 50
,,9 Qey % 3x,.t.~ v W?.y+nllQ ?:
. P.;. !QW .m y? mc m Acyt$: *p gg g W l ;.. -. Q 1 5 ' &n'n.s..) ', + p % '.y
Q.'.* $ M h
',,7) ~,
y;
. ;u;,3,, S n passms, we note that, in some mstances. TMIA provided erroneous citations or railed to site vari. ';M I 'M N C '. i ous sections or the sER and attachments. Also, although it corrected its error in a letter of october 20. c V, g:h %;q=,W - t sc.. 2.%g 6 ; /.c ", 'J +. s -7 %,M 1983, the 1.icensee represented at the conference that its Techmcal Document Reports (TDRs) 388 and .$g 417 had been available in the public document room. All concerned are notMed that citauons should be $*,Mft./4 D c 1. !. 1 -C'[L e;itIy((. j **i8.bMd.'de *i.vRi@,ErN{ Yh J f complete and accurate and that representauons to the Board should be well-founded. c . g. v.e 3.z. g.2 w, , F.R,.v}p;',t v'Q*/s.nf_m,.f:i:VQf 4 -- :, ;,. ' Sn.y. .p t: n'a ;%. g r9- & g, )lg.C W :3 4, y: p m.,g >k.c %,.p. m ; c'Q', N11 . n. , x, :::q<:.& 1270 ~ , :n p.w. _.y ; zw di;;,p,.% .N """ ' ' g Q'.m], 'y i
M g ",f ju..,.,". c.i

r
-e .a p ?. 3-, p ;3 <;.- +?.y ly- , % ; s. 'f :3 wQ 's ") ., - Q. : Z i,- * -, hl:Y p l r :,5.(f tr. ;h., f.'I s N U '.,. " %/.[' '" l.
q
/
}w w ~q 9-- pn3 g:.e.7-~ ~~. ~- >.g;. g -w,.
..,.-,,,. g..
a, V,3-.y.
3. m,.:
...., ~ -1
~ -./
,...y_- l, %.. ?.. a. .. n; %,:; '.l;y*;Qv!(. lM,y;,' *,l4w: rc..:,,';, ', ',* *.' .~r ~ _[ ' s W. =.sq # ,ys, -.._ [ ',}:~.',f,,, . $.' go, s,,1. 4. f p* ~ }. l ?_ n 2 w: g. e% ~ ' ;- x .... A l,,. f t ';2,- s,., .g.: _ ( ~. < q..,,. s' e, ~,u,, Vhj.5,,y&, Q L.. Q [,gwq.%
q,R, m' ) &[~-l (l%,, c.r%y.. Aww._-.
.,.&_, ~,., y ;,;; n .eq ,m ~-Q ir, g 2.' % .? ,. N*: *;.E';K.~.&'f:'.fk'f;r :.t .e, .ff 4$:. . e ; .a (- p - s., J m.. w, g; a. e,, g,w',,., m. %pd 5.#.c ;r,g, _.,, +,,, , i ;,
a. -
s.n.. v,. [; * *'.
[
e.j'..,,p, f F -y-p. ,hs, ,,4 4 4
,'a s
I 9**D'hh.',.= ,.sq - (. @b ( '*,? ,,A q 'e,
3 f
8, g.., E 8' . ' ' [ ' ' > ), ki}.(" , f "P
i a.4
, %,s.. .,e ,...j mmrg m 3d 3 S '. u ; c Ms, ..J t s s s./. ,N" ~ ' at , *; - j., .? y 4,4. n. - . / g '.,. <.- r y: ; _ I., *. w, -,--~,,, ,t.. m. v; e e. L L. s; c y. av (.
g..
,-.. s,. ;-.. %s - np-g" ,h i h reasonable This subpart is admitted since its bases are set forth w t based merely upon s u %[ "; .1 g i specificity.* We are not prepared to draw conclus ons ts cited by the Dr. Shewmon's memorandum or upon the other documen er, even if the Licensee and TMIA at page 51 of the transcript. Moreovi under consideratio 1-Jf subject of simultaneously faulted steam generators ss the subject of a con- " " ' ^ K4 as a generic issue, admissibility of such an isse a d proceeding. Gulf States Ut!/ities444,6 NRC 760 ^ + tention is not precluded in a contesteCo. (River Bend Station, Uni 'cf - x
[ j f (1977). Finally, it appears that this subpart is re abecause of the great number of
) ly _ 1 it ? M )) < 4MNfGr ossibility of a simultane-the repair program in alleging that, repaired tubes in both generators, ;bere is t e pld result in the release of hs%s - U )M h .,M+ w) h..% W@ M ON / 7 c w
gg ous rupture in each steam generator which wou

d. b N.c,.
' QJ'/ip.fy.p ' 3 .g;tp, MC, ppg ['hj ;!_ wt radiation beyond permissible levels. quiring plugging, and choice of G l.d = 1 7 f 1, C.7 y c Y ' 9 l Wl.y
c. The type of plus used, the number of tubes reby Licensee to plug 66 degraded tubes.

g M
'f7 h' ' M U dNhT M i h the as-repaired steam genera- ,'m*f tubes to be plugged, including failure .... e n-@.. -p' O.p+p?[ t. % _ M.i. %',A f ;%',.~@Y., ]gW d ngering the health and safety of thef ence which plugge supported a conclusion that plant operation w t n i M J l t& for can not be conducted without en a
2.
. e ss. w 4.,,XM2;b, %~. M. Z.,WM. public, considerms among other things inter erhave in the plant's a s-b,L. id nts. 9 c,,, s N ' ' tv,.- w.,.. 1 e of lack of h.ff, ' l 7 9 4',G@S $N MA The Licensee and the Staff opposed this subpart becausnse at 14-18; S W Wt.,.N bases for the assertions therein (Licensee's Respo l ined that it was D,KJol %./a .n D D@%g6h,. ne. .,L Response at 6-7). During the conference, TMIA exp as d but rather was c ng.$ % / YQ:U c- ? mmh Id.,d,q kN.N' not really concerned about the type of plug u ecerned th d the tubes, the plugs .WR _'J iM" h y@Cgf;$g'? lNeiA. ~ HfhyyGW ~ 16,1983 revised would not be able to hold and give a go Mg, rt of May
S
,.p pggn/ that, while the third. party review group repoits earlier opin 983, the former report g% 6.Tl*MMfppMf a M t d that, by virtue of the was not clear why the group was satis ie sh" TI %5hyyD$5[ ,i M not have to be plugged. Finally, TMIA asser esheer num i greater possibility d fMg Q
f. $j'21,'~
,7,,,) W.e @g t W W5pbe f 53 56,58). The Staff rested up the report of May 16, p..,f A,~,'I $ N Mci,.'D M (Tr. 55). The Licensee, in effect, urged (1) that of leakage (Tr. d rty review group f4 M.. s %W s - Syb$M g 1983 clearly set forth the reason why the thir -pabes would not present fC, > ';.CW,2SRG@&c~ 7 .~ 3 4M d concluded that the decision not to plug degrade tuexpansion took place at capabilities of the plugs I@ML.> 1, ' ' ' % N** t,x ' 2" p? i a safety risk, and (2) that, because the kinet csorae sixt
.y Q O*
^ v li l&j ; , - y,,.. - i.%s, ' sL,. .n ~ g 58 59). 1a s:; s' + wou!d not be adversely affected (Tr. 55, y, (C Tl y?; . ; g 3 4.,9 / - t* p~ e ,p <% ; *q;s' 6h is not our function to and we do not rea QA'. y .,[*. ; ., g; ;< ch the merits or this or or any other consension.for summary desposition g: 7".,i
94-s-;
t, g,2 .: 3.,, _w %(Q subsequenth mth respect to an> admated contention, ariy pany may move f f Practice ^ > ;Q - - w C:,w.K pursuam to ) 2 749 of the Commission's Rules o k: h_ _ 2,h > c.. ig S y ' ', y M, p? }' r, f. q.,, p ~'. y( s,..,,, y -1 }27} Q.- (.2 1- -n',,.h J. w' n b .Ve W n
~
,y p* ' 9,.;
j'E
y,,<t - n: t< .^ -
w!!
~ N ~ 3*
Q~ l " '
. g, ;. @.- n go WTQMn ;:.4~~9 %;;WT@ ? M '% ;2 . f, _ u,.. ~
fl
..y
g, W ? 1,1 p

n. 3 w w w m %;;; & % M.
-. ;w u. ? C y %, s g( m.% > ;f :W f'~y+%N,%'% W &: fL ~ i.- -Q 3 YQ~W'"Y w 4 QW ~ u w *hh,:s 2.WPQ: ~Md'h. 6~7 W k*T T
T' ~ ~:,
q,3,6,,'y ~ J g af %n .y Wr '$YMMly;[MF,% m,M;2' ? Q [:f' %MJW E s4%%p;w:w;Q+vt.,o ..(s u'? f 2 .u - i y.,m +. "+sutt a 3 - r a' %,. ap, ; ls i; m.. %
y'.. n N,*
7 w;mw%s 5 [ s s ..'Ey;$, $ ? [,
^
, %y ? W S ) ,] $s N i j ;p. n n m'l. > _ x.y" - <$.A:,P.pp.sps: 3 + ~M. %Yly['y ~ r 4%;-2 ,% so Di } .,,,,q,,. x + y. 7-
1 4
W.+, p p @.m;3 4,.y/ w..l,n,w, 4,g;,,,, 9 ;M~~ - ~ ~. '.. .,,. y .p. m 4 @,.pp:.gr,p y g95 c. n,,, 3 i ppm yg.,ygL
x.,.
q -y e.G p f m q q,z y m z.
.y,
W .... m y,1;;.q.. v pgS , %(mgptiHWfs'Qthq
s. f.~m%.w y%;%
W a%gm%w m..d' 'z mqf.W.%. p: m.,g,a. v. m,;;;m. w :. q ) g "., :.: f.~ -a. _ ;
G.,
ng
namus,
.p..:a v. n., -. w. ..,. mw -n a :,.
.w y
L. y *..- ; m. v u M, 6,t.- %g;Q c.m, w f. . n...,. : .%... a. w.., w. ~. s ww c,/s ~,, ;.;i+: y,3, y v JM. g. 1%**n pr. -:.g.$ w e. w. w. a 3 .Q %2.a,sg.W.;
v i%, Q y.', M. M % g m g. p g-a M L A; q c u.a
-4: y p SEiithh.h;s.m.;niu2xt. W wf& d M h ath w/$p m...,,n,cw~m.mpWm!+q; p n v.: 4.,.s,,a.J..f I %. ' !.y . h. { (<> f. g l jy' r. a f .!f ...pkb g g m m.;om ;.n;
y. q.;, Wn;n,. w. a3 np w y y
~,:; p.g.f.3g*,ww e,
. i s, y >

, u-
-.A p';n..x,g p p , ;._. /.,,J p, , y.. L y .n,, y
t.
o .s.., v A.i d. 9. H,.,t....c.. N,., 4' l / gf. s1.qM.,, y.eAs stated in note 6, supm, we do not reach and decide the merits of > *.:q L t. -( + o T' '.f ..e N A. W ... c, '. W'.:n.t M.- s.M R.W w,.W) .N.. 2 s contentions at this stage of the proceeding. We are satisfied that the e n A,~,,,. ,"v- .~.w.p, v.J sftygl.& M.*#n qthat which they will have to defend against or oppose, and that sufficient m ue Licensee and the Staff are sufficiently apprised at least generally as to m .~;. w . i. P g%,;p. 3 ; _@JC m
q. s M7 fWi i
e. gyA;@, Mg foundation has been laid to warrant further examination. This subpart is W w. g %. s m.m.tv mh-y;- admitted. - W y.
.Agy Wrw%.w
'
E,, a:g fg, p+@jygpMj e-
.g. me .n .g
d. Neither the " Report of Third Party Review of Three Mile Island, Unit 1.
[ k 9 M;T.,.re.,.4;'w M, %@. G D h d q.IN, g., A[ '. #,Q: Steam Generator Repair" nor the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report 2, kh.gf f' M (NUREG.1019) are credible documents in their evaluation of the kinetic ex. e g,3-vg J.., s. M f, s. Wy L,.,. W:f;.'m.-& " capabilities, and thus can not be used as a basis for conclusion that the repairs
w..
pansion repair technique, including leak tightness and load carrying ..PW J /e N 3 .e s N @h $ R'( ",@k ~ @M hk insure safe plant operation, because of the reports' inherent inconsistencies, [ ] \\. ./ y-g$g5,Q$g.l their failure to provide data or calculations to support their evaluations, 3 Qd']M;j?.lfj!My e.."% i assumptions, and conclusions, and the fact that those individuals partic:pating _,W'y; @M in the Licensee and NRC reviews tack proper qualification to render an expert 4 MQ., o.e.gg,i K , q~ M -;. y c. p.,,~W gM.um.@
opinion on this issue, as evidenced for example by the fact that their basic as-
.'C i C 2;j g, y @a,,M $ [g M f..,g g,q . 9 s c.- .w s-a sumptions and conclusions rest improperly on linear fracture mechanics theory i. + ] Mf3'd'22g @4.',@ @~ gN MWF,d T; g ggg as opposed to non-linear theory, axial symmetric stress analysis which would CJ g '.rc ; e + a r4.. qA not be applicable to all cracks, failure to analyze crack resistance on the basis of h, toughness as opposed to hardness which has no relation to crack resistance. %, ' [N ',!.7.N 's NM ,l 4 and failure to differentiate in their analysis between the effects of thermal _ ?; v.. R e' s.e u.e %g'R.M, M.. r K '1 t+ w';.j, g yJ Q., %.C e... m,]. 4: t .u ll.V. M. * ' =/s, G .cr stress on small versus large cracks. .-p% y. lG..f.. .m.d *tiv %g h*f v i s 4 n1 +n
m?
, M.p w.ED.3 /./p.<CNNM. D.NMS' The Licensee and Staff agreed that this subpart should be rejected for V p f p @h, [.. +.. q h g. %. n v r G 8WYMF tQM?q y.g failing to provide any basis having the specificity required to support it 7 .M 37.'gf M.d (Licensee's Response at 18-24; Staft's Response at 7-8). With respect to - q.;o .g@g;T M, -@e.~N the " reports' inherent inconsistencies, " both assert that TMIA r ,. w. m.
N ' %. %.. mp/WWg 1 %,dyMMQ failed to identify any of them.
c.,. s ~ 4 . M ; d<, i. 'M, $..,W9] In the prehearing conference, TMIA explained that the "inconsis- 'f..fy.y :':, W.4 9 i N. J9 3,b n d tencies" referred to by it as its first basis relate to concerns expressed by M N>J.~/. W;O'p;n.hy$ 85 M jj MW aMs the Staff's consultants and by the Licensee's third-party review [ - gg.7M consultants which were either discussed inadequately or not at all in the
%v.
L ,~ 4. c W WM..s. c My$e n s d&s,e c.@:, - . MfMS W-SER. TMIA identified specific areas which it felt showed those g e ~ m.u' .~ fgg inconsistencies, and stated in response to a Board question that given L 'O 'N'( ?,$y E.AQQMs sufficient time more specifics could be provided (Tr. 61, 67-68). pg f,, w.LlM,Q, / 7.3.9.g :d? y$am/s,@2m4.g J
y....,M., v,S W
h Licensee's further statements indicated uncertainty as to whether or not a m . n.. d K;.m . ge 4 one inconsistency noted by TMIA actually was true (Tr. 64). Th.is y W,,. p A.%-Q @,n @.n. Q* : fm syv%.n,p? M.J.. p u n 4% portion of the subpart.is adm.itted. c.7* ]' - ' MK:FW" No additional details were supplied by TMIA during the prehearing ,m 9-w " M-conference about "their failure to provide data or calculations to support I; i 'j their evaluations, assumptions, and conclusions. Licensee and Staff = s y . }, g'~1 conclude that this second basis does not cite specific instances and E ~Y should be rejected because of impermissible vagueness (Licensee's Re- ) ~ 3. g., m 1 3 y. 7.,~ 1, sponse at 19; StafTs Response at 8). In response to a Board question, c. w. , j ,t.. e + s g g - 7~ p uu ' 9> ~z Mmg. 1272 ,s - g s ~. g l ~m 4.-- i j N* y_,.~.,...,.... .,-,,.;, -...:.n ....,,.;.. g,n - '.q-' ,_.n :.- 2.z ; ~. ,.9 + .}} L~ 5 u >,S
'. e' E *;.g'*

'.s'
= s, 1 s, x y k 2,, . -. Y I +. *. y 'M ' ~ " -(,J [ \\".4. 's+ ; ?-. p.'f b C, pa p' - L. ' '" u. - + i - Ny ! s ~ ,s s s . g 4... -..,. - ... = -+ ._me.. 7.,. .v. n.. ~u.,. w,-g. g: .;+ , en.. w qw- .3 ~r ...s. .f...A, r p.N ...:. i r-': s- ~., .a x_r g -.4 ) 9 s. .v 1 c TMIA stated that this part of the contention refers to different parts of . _, ~
~
this or other TMIA contentions discussed elsewhere in the prehearing u; conference (Tr. 69). As such this basis is duplicative, vague and without value in this proceeding. We conclude that it does not provide reasona- ~'
ble specificity or put the participants on notice concerning areas in which
~ they would have to respond. Thus, we reject this portion of the subpart. The third basis presented by TMIA for this contention is: "those (, indisiduals participating in the Licensee and NRC reviews lack proper qualincation to render an expert opinion on this issue,. followed by v(,[. 5k: _4 specine examples purporting to show errors that caused TMIA to reach b ,' g #l;g.IiQg, :;[1 M:f,q M.y that conclusion. Licensee argued that the expert qualiDeations of review- ,' W u p g Q 3 Q Q- " '^ @. ',,7 %.$.g@q: 9.. [ ',4 ers are not proper subjects for contentions and responded directly to the ,<t. Mc y" pj 5 'tg areas of alleged deGeiencies. With respect to the example of the use of the linear fracture mechanics ., l __ j,g' yg.. agpiQ,..S.'L . *7 theory, Licensee stated that use of that technique is mandated by a Com-J F ' fe wig W W W'~< C mission regulation,10 C.F.R. 6 50.55a(g), which requires that compo- [I 3%v[_ AOg a; ' d@ nents of the reactor coolant pressure boundary must meet the criteria of . y, gM 9, ASME Code Section XI, " Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear N ' y. ~. ' f
" 4.,
Power Plant Components" (Licensee's Response at 21-22) and that this ] ' E ' M.l'. J;, ?.. allegation constitutes an attack on the Commission's regulations which
/ '
l' is precluded by 10 C.F.R. j 2.758. Staff concurs that the technique is set Y ;$D. W - .'~' "M<' . A f ' AD[M .}' forth in the ASME Code and is referenced in 10 C.F.R. Part 50 (Tr. 66). ~ - [ [ g[6.f? % ].(- TMI A did not respond to these specific arguments in the prehearing d i conference. Rather TMIA stated that, from discussions with knowl-f,g edgeable people, it appeared that the non-linear theory is the proper P~ y,j. ., j analysis to utilize and that these types of cracks would not respond in a - $$y q' R Y f"% n linear fashion (Tr. 62-63, 66 67). We agree with the Licensee that the h P M44p%5;9, @ ', @ Pg., M M N. h 1Wh qualiGcations of reviewers should not be the subject of a contention be- ~5 06-W E 1 h cause their expertise may be questioned during voir dire and/or cross- ' ).P ' i. % D r(3'j."p [ @ [ 5 Y W,s d k"o examination and, most importantly, because the thrust of a contention ' ~ m ' l* should be directed to contesting the analyses and conclusions of such individuals. Moreover, we conclude that the use of the linear fracture _ a ' _f Q f. ^ _ q..,',
MU rnechanics theory is acceptable under the regulations and that TMIA',
N ' ' 'D. _# C 4. ' '. MO example constitutes an impermissible attack on j 50.55a(g). Section 50.55a(a)(2) provides that as a minimum the components specified in ',.1T~" ~ ?. r paragraph (g) of that section shall meet the criteria of ASME Code Sec-v, tion XI. TMIA does not contend that the minimum requirement of this -M ^ - regulation has not been met. Thus, in asserting that a different analysis .x or technique should be utilized, this example does attack the Commis-sion's regulations and is rejected. f ,' { ]. - =^ .c ~ With respect to the three other examples cited by TMIA, Licensee 's argued that TMIA has failed to suggest why axial symmetric stress analy-m:: ,'f u V 1273 .~, '1 k 1- .s. s +- 4 .w. ,M g I .g.$ /*' = .] .ipeg.agem-.= dess 4 g r , epw 7 - ..ee, g g.pg.a y. ap we wys y g* em= + 4 = .*99'99'em .***.neM.e sq.e=e se aey* eig gy*e f> s 74.. m /,. C.- 3 + -. y g.a t: -;-., s - + .,..y + x: 3:. ' i g,w g;, %,, e - ; - e g g '~r,~ s., ,w;. c.s; y *,.. i s -i .Jvr ..../ .;-l ? .~: y. ,,-Tp,, m;,,J; w,,- - -d x.' '~ ,w - tr c. s c m ? (, - a \\ z 4," 1- -5; c 9 ).iN,9$,; 3<
$. g
- 3
'.S C
, N ,s g! "s" 7 [ 2m.
1mi _._
e d w
m. 7 ~n m
-pr m. - ca x v .c-- ~- w- .--.7----r.- Abg--m. m-- p1
[YY fhN' d$f#.y.7.4W&H
&%WU ME M 7 M" Q:-n /+ g # &.E.< owr % c..fyf($W!t4gf f.,.5 Q **Y' %{)yf t. M yj & W y W. f'l2 ud D f M-W , ml!.}m'% d - ..'.m 2.%, &' ;.v w.:e.&. my m ))* .{M;p / %&.r..a p s s would not be applicable or what types of cracks have not been proper- %(Q@Emb%k hlp.$@ ly analyzed and indicates that Licensee did consider both symmetric and MMNOhD Dh asymmetric stresses (Licensee's Response at 22). TMIA's objection fdN#Med.%&M to: " failure to analyze crack resistance on the basis of toughness as op-M,h,4n$[P@@Ms j MS posed to hardness which has no relation to crack resistance.." is N@M pap.Ey9dP countered by the Licensee which stated that it did not use any method NN[:hl%4$[9;h[UMM[k4M %MS.QM Nhh of calculation, but derived the values empirically, and thus that the AT i/jhjM material properties, including toughness, are inherent in the values uti-M lized (Licensee's Response at 23). Licensee also states that TMIA is in %$.d%$%p[g*$IWM WW8/MMb Q error in the statement concerning " failure to differentiate in their analy-NMMDNk kW4 sis between the effects of thermal stress on small versus large cracks" Nk$k kk h IdYh because a linear fracture mechanics analysis and other calculations were dN 6 d M $ % c N h,W M@$$ % g $g j% M $ performed to address these matters (Licensee's Response at 23-24). The dkh Staff merely states that TMIA has not explained its assertions and has 5 Ch@NhdDMfk[MMfgg NMN failed to put the parties on notice as to why the analyses are believed to h 7h WME be in error (Staff's Response at 8). The statements made by TMIA y gsw m/ @ M. m# $m 4 m : g.w o n e@figg pgy Q during the course of the special prehearing conference marginally pro-e T% vide reasonably specific bases to support the main contention discount-A M '. K p M [D7 %@ Q g S M MM AM M MMM ing credibility of the documents in their evaluation of the kinetic expan- $dM $fhfh>kS IM sion repair technique (Tr. 20,63). )NNk kY h As indicated in the discussion above, certain portions of this subpart tiMW#hNtNMd,M. hM If 5 are rejected and certain wording should be modified, leaving a subpart w%rmw&q%qc 4 1 wim t wh. h we feel provides reasonable specificity and direction to the ic .pW W O W @F My @ g h. DNM;g!M N.yk parties. We conclude that the surviving portions of this subpart meet the MiMfh.M% khff requirements of { 2.714(b). $, n &m,g@r$$. 5hMNfMih< h2.$JD Contention 1, subpart d. is partially admitted, and reads as follows: po c.g a Q2ey py%Q m m g&y g.+
,.s k

d. Neither the " Report of Third Party Review of Three Mile Island, Unit t,
,hhNN 6[hi'[h A. h. $s ng e. Steam Generator Repair nor the Staf"s Safety Evaluation Report e cp m .m p m. k'h WUREG-1019) are credible documents in theit evaluation of the kinetic ex-v n,w.gyhy.kNb h TQgg 441p,6 pansion repair technique, including leak tightness and load carrying ,7 NN$jhDh$M/ M%[M capabilities, and thus can not be used as a basis for conclusion that the repairs h .h4WTMNr /$u insure safe plant operation, because of the reports' inherent inconsistencies. be- $DEMMMk.Mkk)h *hdigM symmetric stress analysis which wou.d not be applicable to all cracks, because MM$$ h FMh cause the basic assumptions and conclusions therem rest improperly on axial rf P {hfM of the failure to analyze crack resistance on the basis of toughness as opposed NPjM M N W W N M Q@ d % h[N .MkM4} to hardness which has no relation to crack resistance, and because of the failure to differentiate in their analysis between the effects of thermal stress on small NMI*)DM.y g%$hM d.g versus large cracks. 4 g3.,. gg.4 7 y,.._ h ~%l % v,.wJ.#(.4 7 *, g, y : 3. J jgw m ww.s.2: . ;.m ,y . j i p jV. Aw y ' ';.p, [* N-J N ' G..,.g ,,J $;a
'l
^ 3 l 7 n, l p(e - (.;
r j
Q,.g ?l] y&r,'y.Y_...r;;
G'
_.2 m-1 ef .b _.d.' f* j '. } iv> '= v ~ S j f j,. lg ,, 3..t. s :. s.. ~ ~ m s.,. e. ' ',.z i ~%
L.n -

llW~

l -
s a, }'.~ 'y l'. y , :?. ,.is
etr-
' ~ y % 5 s 'd *,.,' Y; z q"3,,')Q .a l" ,,Q q; ; K%. L ' ' 'p 1 ' 9. An* a. &e.f.s)% A tw, v. d qa+ g *.
e.'
a s ,rf.. n34 &^.% p %Q W [ L* +.e. w # .m _w m. ame.m c - > - ~, ty, % % "*.]":Cw ' T r.:ss R* ^$ ;:y r
7qp, 4*-. v h
x .-A
n.-
WS.,y &? f %.b l ;.Q Mh.y Y Y' -V , s. b 4, "., 1 ...c c m ; ; n. 3^ :: .y w.. * ~,>p , ; ~../ y.Y ' g.*:,;g.c.ygg* y. 7.q 5.~.mme.g._* .~ o '.s;..r. Q.9 x 7 , M*p ;.w ya w* n g 33;. ~ ~r. n m . : er s
7..y.[.Q...
~ /. - Q % 7:'."l, - Ls. ?. W.:.. # G yi: z.%; y*en.s; V 7,.,".. , i -c ~x: p3 u % m ' o,, T.3 ~, p?
g Kg,

.g, V ; fN/-, e *%s 4-, g }..-...d_,g m
2 ,.---y 8
r',-_,. g,*r3."
,_..s L J p;., ?..g 7e. ,.9.c i s,y' . s q(,, c - e 5,. 4-dW ,. ;$ p ',. - s - .q' .; <7 v . - L'* _. kl"],ygK A715h:%T'$l% % jjnk y@y.Ag,.. :b;% 4 p' d..] l}.,:M ', X(, s.g %;' l ~, Wh ' Z,, L$ W I - x ~ r e 2 ~... Qig 4Q ].@ k=Wr~ ~g.$ **g?I'v %y Jh. ~ ', =c ...'.m N % - w wm /1~ d V @ylg. p ;,'i'. m [ W G.r. v.e: M' M. , y. ~W A w' Q: m ' J.,y. N. ~c y, %w e J %.? Vl' %;. -C M. 6 A ii - a, ~wdv7y: r. ... g.4 : > ~ ...ej.. g.5. p p, sa m wg ~y y( a-wg
+.. '
cd;._y p,>+' y S g g 4 *f .."<w _3 -u l 7 s f t p, m ~) :n s 9 Q 9 y : a:,' tive repair process.
%.fN

'c.. &
re. Lt., removal
e. Neither the staff nor the Licensee considered any altername
-, ' y: . a ,a# . p t g _ n; s. of the steam generators.' posed g .f In its written submission, the Licensee, in substance, oph t alternative r '"'W 6 C -( ' ' N [" " f admission of this subpart because the mere act t a 4 nerators might be l' processes might be utilized or that the steam geResponse at 24-25). [< a %f replaced is irrelevant as a matter of law (Licensee s ~yg Response at In substance, the Staff concurred with the Licens asserted ll _ c: F.'.. '- ~.s F Q ' E & g %, e e.f'i/ip that TMIA erred in that the Licensee an DMgh lides presented at an ' ~ Ubh Mr/V,,wM,T~..- alternative repair methods as is evidenced by sApril 7 " and " rolling' , 1% La..m@g;g3p p.y Room. During the 2 -17 gg options and are available in the Public Document sw.i, s 9l.Q. w.3t.,l y W Zw d d that the risks "Nl
5. h g special prehearing conference, TMIA merely respon et least discussed m
[ P, u. ' W... j %j are so great that it is irresponsible not to have a .a ddressing the u gf,;v...... O:L . yj{., y replacement of the steam generators, and, in not aLi w y 4 Vl.i l n tive ~. tyc 'N+ P' b? 'G nb L. h,. 70). repair methods had indeed been considered (Tr. 69-W p@W Jg h ld be .g.: s, '1 .wy noted that the Licensee alone bears the risk - it wif the Board co qv . Q,s.f .C.. w n x.e d m to reactivate the two steam generator unitsits proposed k i method cy. ';. kW ')M.. w. . q 7L ll do not have 9% ~ y MN1 endangers the health and safety of the public. Fina y, we 9
k. g;W,.h-d those 7,W;,jf s jurisdiction to explore matters such as these which are beyonity for
' em.. he..
c. :
which are embraced by the notice of opportun n - t " v gJ' ~4.. s.f;- P :. E *; W Z.4 + ~ p..~ I lN sub-part is rejected. P,[,c.krMkb~ 7 - _~ Contention 2 asserts: ,'i 46 h corrosion which ? r and systems, will not @Mh5M[M,'Fkhh@5 Neither Licensee nor the NRC staff has demonstrated that t e darnaged the steam generator and other RCS components T TPWM. tt cking either the steam b ', i J' PW[.~K reinitiate during plant operation and rapidly progress. a aboundary, thus providing no d generator or elsewhere in the primary pressurereasonable assura lth and safety of the public, g,.' I 1 with the as-repaired steam l/Q g g, . s,w. n_ hh generator can be conducted without endangering t e ea
v., h ~ ',
MN& r 4 h, - M' }%'f 4,._ for the following reasons.s of initiation or the e y
M

a. There is no assurance that the causative agent or the sourced have been prope

b..
? N j 2 s conditions under which initiation originally occurre, identified
'~
s a+: + i ent has been 3 .C.....~ m'. o L nt ra. TM1A explamed that the phrase removal ' r '. -, p,.,v f ' Here and with respect to Contenuon 2. subpart b. rators mth two new umtsmth respect to subparts of steam generators meant replacement of the steam gene 8 This miro E , M # derated ot/re t .e
b. and C.
~ ' h4 w t.'<*%, 1275 Q -V.
t
. g 9 ,w 4 q t o,., l },. ' J ' l -3 '~ W . m
b; 7 v...
.c ~ 't .,' c v. ,w-7' r 7~.. n _,Q ~ ?c., e [ ,, ". 7d,, ~,, P
=>;
=
f**"P" L'*,
K.: .m v'. e t,.: mar'*Wa*(****"'NN"***5**p**** ' m.+'$g,. v .m.

sQ w:
s
' ~, ; y ;,?

p -9. _ O l7-m e w 79.f r
" w- %.-m
.sc-f:."* % gl' j','
J.s o[ - - e; u, - % -s qtyg%'lo u f' ;. p. + e ~ ,- m,. - c 5 ( n,e%~ -y,. . LA e w ; ;r~*au ;9\\ J s ~ 1h a"e;_ -,; l.O ' t h
J' ' \\ ll*'*.'. ' l ":

y c
s 2 ? [( 7 y., WA .Jy, ' 3 &g4 w'.. \\ + b @ (q;w%, N,s S. .E / a h,. * ,.- 3 /4./ e i +=..y n g..,, - m,. g
AA -
,,,,.. 7,m. r --
y
,o m ~ ,c, k :W.M k.u y,].. b M: ~ &Pp.3,. ~ ww. % + k h '$.w y' s*i@, '.[M... $' w# c g.M ra. pM W..,.e /r %c; e n ~ .b :a m,b w?w %W,hdf(hi'.N'c h U$ '..i,M D$YU.k J.. wuw. TJM.g- [. _N. N h Q - u m,.4.M6o J- ?; &; 4-s .,.,w. w... W*m. w'f,n mm m 4.- uqrs~m % . ~. J .Pw %v e n . ~ - w.ww a o.. q . A.g; v v&j, %w.a ~. -v y+ 4:; 5 ~h e y-JLv.,,. g m y ,&m@d N ~..w.w :s &y::QV4g:. n,.g%.J;... V.efr,. '.? cf. *.~ e k + v,y~+g ;:R,.d:.. s ap-w n mew a .. -. ~. a . ;.;.7;$.g. s.,% w WW3..-Mw :.W ' M. qxp.y ; 4R>d. p J
r-w,.; w y %
. :, u ; **p., p. 2 4f s.i s: '.y. p. e @W. g.f.c .4. W.P 5;;.L.p % 4 un L ~9Ap%r <. we;rM 9 s?q.v '% rc.y - .7.,y.
Y Q 4 R::s q W W W;yg g..%y'.:.I:p.: M.7,
? MMrs.%y..
mqy E DS : f:
yg;
g gg r
?MQW A - b. ~ rf& .. ed p ypM h qhw3y. @. M-% M -,gd.. n. %e... !e %.,q.Jg.. n.,w.m.4 md;A# .64.Clww.L:mha14h. M W . tu.a w s 4 Q, ;, y-m 4* S'W.'Mt.h #?,'O M M M,f' %e. ' M h " e.m n.+rw.
y j,.x

.p:g.s,y d'n+)yp.c))*.p: :.e:?s du p a.it.st p 1d m.
y QQ q.:; %q. 4 y'a K.* }{" g, flth e. & f f,fg:p4) 2 e Y hk .?W-s4% W .iil h.p@g@$h[hd@M MDM} fM%hM:h/7'( W'. Md d. y removed from the system, and underminmg the reliability of any proposed -~W bd h clean-up process, procedures meant to climmate the corrosive environment, MC gD hd 6M' or the reliability of the Licensee and stalT stress analysis as to when corrosion .'f.i,yw.hh.4.1-4NM"s"'w. n/ 'i,WP. M. eP:' W, M M [t N. k. Q" %. M,c.. b,* O p. I. Q ? could reoccur. 8 E c.r.. ,. y M d h. - udfM. gp%'n I'.f Mf u a Q The Licensee and the Staff concur that subpart a. should be rejected dW@n'sY, h. N yi 4 s JM..,4.[.s:w%W'M& GZ2d because it fails to set forth a basis with reasonable specificity - they p A a?.x.~ argue that, despite the extensive analyses in the SER and its -o.. a JHa ,,.M.v wWn J&M. , ;y,w..$, *v, m vu, yv opWygqMQ,ft.a.:, e d u v mq rcW4W e9 attachments, TMIA failed to discuss this data or to provide any explana- . w as n mm, ,.g ~-EW,:.0 tion why these analyses are incorrect or inadequate (Licensee's Re-k h 5 [4S T'?[?h M # y O 4M$hhb5k.$ sponse at 25 26; Staff's Response at 9-10). The Licensee, however. ) F WT agreed that this subpart fell within the scope of the Notice of Opportuni-MW$g$'MW4/$Ub8D ty for Hearing (Tr. 82). y During the course of the special prehearing conference, TMIA did W U 4 ls n eJ W E j. W W., &.6 %. M '3 give bases for its concern - it cited portions of the SER and of attach-M M. M M. 1 M NM ments thereto which, according to TMIA, evidenced that the causative M.,. N,.W.t.M$9 IN., a%ys. w yym Qt MQfdMs agent has not been conclusively determined, that the remainder of the 4.W %M sulfur left after the cleaning process has been completed might present a M$h@y$ Web %QcWC j'd?M2W$1h@yd.M.MW;%, jd f problem, and thus that the corrosion might reinitiate (Tr. 71-72). bMM We conclude that TMIA has now set forth bases in support with rea-N..hb.f:,,h:-w.p$ps.wm5i m@n ;.m M MN.MNh Mh sonable speciGcity, and we admit subpart a. g n n $h hr ^fQ s h:,'h !N-.k AJWg(k@7.lk). "$ ky.4WNl r ff M b.t. The Staffs own consultant on this issue. R.L. Dillon ' believes that the risk as. NW.%" N.W.y O [f c%pa-,;D. D9C% ND sociated with cleaning, tr., that a relatively large inventory of sulfur com-8>r ue. mA M
jQg%m., yQ y#
n v,Mq:gdj pounds will be put into solution, are greater than simply "livmg with a large S @@h apy%$W igMQ' y %y. j inventory in the system." supporting a conclusion that the only two possibilities ' N.NM GWL".lWg.% -~
q. 94 being considered by the Licensee and StatT pose substantial risk that corrosion g sn??%w%1 w w w:
hk (#s,, e
gg.1
)dh < - e.Nh;$;a :..n.s..w,0 7 c..;g., !:@I; - - m. i will reinitiate. g9m N + c. w; iN +7 .. k$h'.j p.d h h
2. Even if the proposed cicanmg process presented no risks. there is no assurance vpg..%
4e that the proposed process can remove more than 50-80% of the contamination. [x u.y a?$,NM.%.fa.Qs . k k .,L +.Mk.. a.,.E thus there can be no assurance that the contamination which would be left x.M,hh;d # M%EOQM%h,.n i.; &.e u c after the process is complete will not cause remitiation. ((h.4 <g &';ON D h N% krM m n w wQx.u.:A., n.r. : Q M 'f M t3
3. Neither the StalT nor the Licensee considered any alternative process, including Npyhy Q.Ms.
sw q:nh % &.f.ithN(N MM V'c % the one alternative which presents no risk of corrosion reinitiation. Lt., remov- $M i%. %m% hGk alof the steam generators. pM M I.po%UMW$h4 4 6 h W M d e d: W; h g w M1 ? g With respect to subpart b.1, the Licensee and Staff argue that, while % gg.g&p;q@%My@g%egfBy MMM% Dr. Dillon had prospectively opined that the risk in the cleaning process
q ;.g v.p,; 4 3y;.t; @p ii y ;-G ggi/ Li to chemically convert the metal sulGdes on the tubing into soluble sul-y.
fates presented a risk that corrosion would reinitiate, the cleaning proc-a> f k i ~ s l ' + ,..,' ' e' ,.4 = ' - - ,;- ~ .s p. .is ^ c . s ' During the conference. TMIA acknowledged that R.I Dmon should have been cited rather than .4 Paul Wu (Tr. 85L
y V '[
'.i . t a = *
a
-k ,9' g % o. m m
x.,w.,le.:.p-s, m. 4
..y m.m. w g235 . s y,s e,,v - f f. ' w r ~ f Y,E ! N"b .n*, s -..,* L , 7,'.e.; ye
d,
.,. o, j - .7
gQ O [ r 1-
, ', y j,.s ',i.; g vs. n ...,y - M,. C. ~ m I t ' g.p. .. s.q ~ . a.:j. s, ~.. ..p . 1e 4. ..,. ~. y we.. e,.c..r -. 9 7., .;.y m. %. c, 4 -. g;.m., ...m m... p.m.. 3-x; m q ' ' ',s _y+ 40 ( { 'tV f*, ~ * *
^
7P1 i y
4
...'C. 5 s '7;-.,a ..v. g s,m.
.4:
et .y s
3 f
,vr., 'i.' L, pt*,. y[ Od' I :. = y( '.h.
f
.#,y_ 71 -5 ,\\ ja s'
v,%..%..
u%. . -e*, W. 3... " ***. n ' ;:.;' - q* l' : I /~. ~- s s 4 ,In.&Q;L &,.& Q% ". ~ ' ~i,a,5 ~ Q:. h .. ; y.. ,1- ,~, C. 's ,'y,,
s.. L b.' N.W
~ j,. ...w ~. x, ' A w. ;7. /*N. w., p. 5..g.n_., '.: s c s. -. P a,,4.(;, f 4. " _y? 3 ,.s .> b 'a' e s t '.y g *p,.% W + .e r 7.v ' s i s. v.. a
0. ;
t s - >:Q _ Y -, .+ j e +. r m u. + .... -... - 3c, ~.. ., d I , 't / g. Q., .g, w:. O. ,' e:'. .. ' ' l ,a , 7.y n..
n -

s y -, _, w.. ;e
. r. f m v.s ~.. a.n.+.,, j.A,w. l. .5 .t- :r-u ' h~ 'Q M.C.e.p W @'i?. %,. d 9M:EK L.;.; 2 - ~ ess was completed and subsequent testing showed no evidence of corro-sive attack. They urge that this subpart should be rejected because no ,L. ..' S A, - ~ 1,.... factual basis has been advanced challenging the results of the cleaning E' y.f.y? U g.] fq, m.g process and the testing which are reflected in the Licensee's Technical r L. ' n y@f M [d._MP... YC '1 J.. * ' M,... i h e Report 008 (TR-008) and in the SER (Licensee's Response at 28; t.;& Staff's Respor'se at 9). TMI A responded by arguing that since Mr. N CM s '-. 4. ' '; i J.W ' MM ? Wp'. W.#.' Dillon had raised real concerns, the c!canup process should be explored .Y. at the hearing (Tr. 85 89). This subpart is admitted. As stated t~W ~..' +. .m m m, e s.. z previously, we do not reach the merits of a proposed contention. If Ap-h.A +%ssy@$@W:g.%, p.h Q,q.,g;'p%. t. 2 ',i plicant and/or Stali firmly believe that there is no genuine issue of mate-kT.Qh$d%.h? .. ff.h. rial fact, they may proceed vis the summary disposition route pursuant to { 2.749. OMGdDe &iMD TM W;W. c k@O.MNN$O;bi35MMhMIk; With respect to subpart b.2, the Staff recommended that it be admitted QMMhh%Ofd%:D because an adequate factual basis had been advanced, and stated that to WNW.hWiWF"WWMW:N. address conclusions in the SER would be to discuss the merits which m mM, n, e.,o. w e, m ~m v.ould be improper (Staff's Response at 11; Tr. 93,95). The Licensee A f A. m% :S ^.r> M.S;.~.
u..R..
2.# '%... u ' A a ~. 3
P ',
disagrees with the StafT and urges that this subpart should be rejected be-o cause it does not take into account the conclusions in the SER and the '.N,N d M,6;5 M'Y, M M. P.'... N. p .M..~ +N TR-008 (Licensee's Response at 28; Tr. 94-95). We find that this sub-Ut. O O
T'

flV Q f M W s j',;*
J '.,. '. 7p:;. gy r trt is admissible since an adequate factual basis has been asserted, and since we do not reach the merits at this stage of the proceeding. D E,WMMM-N. i.-? 4 W s
u. -
w Subpart b.3, which is similar to TMIA Contention 1, subpart e., supra, g 4'g y,,,s, necyJ,G6rd:-QQ.Q:,h,h:,7 is rejected because the mere fact that alternatives to the cleanup process W W W M M M. n.,. g," M. ->'S. W, L G. a :ur, - - sa,. :@MSD:%: might be utilized or that the steam generators might be replaced is irrele- ';7-d @ Ob M,9df.4 % J. -w r.k...$, @,S 2
3. %
.1. 3. 9. W q. g A. sant as a matter of law, and because we do not have jurisdiction to ex- + @f.. M. n, c piore matters such as these wh. h exceed those which are embraced by ic .M t +m w w- . 4 hg.yL;~.md.gwy.4.s.w,sh :S h 2_ the notice of opportunity of hearing. J Qh&D h:'$:[?f@.Nfh/MN@%y' tf f.%%24Wi p54M.E.1
c. Neither the " Report of Third Party Review of Three Mile Island, Unit t, A'MM;.
Steam Generator Repair" nor the Staffs Safety Evaluation Report %7.iff Q.i.;, (NUREG-1019) are credible documents in their evaluation of the causative agent, cleanup, or procedures to prevent contaminant reintroduction, and thus pg,7t;gy.%,...f.pl4
3. k g.cq n-p gf can not be used as a basis for conclusion that the repairs insure safe plant
(-1. N e;b c;K'.((; (y .gMj'%g[f,N f operation, because of the reports' mherent inconsistencies, their failure to pro-k j' 4 .{- [f , [ p.g9;-. # D,Q,.9@ vide data or calculations to support their evaluations, assumptions, and conclu- .#y ygg. s.,W. m -i 5 g d/ h.. M.. M sions and the fact that those individuals participating in the Licensee and NRC K.$. e Y ~~ .. g. m reviews lack proper qualification to render an expert opinion on this issue, as [ ? M*U:MfM.rW D. evidenced for example by the fact that their basic assumptions and conclusions 5 l $'m' 7 Q,. Qg,y~p.,p< ' 1/m..;<.. Q.K n-v "-..n n rest improperly on imcar fracture mechanics theory as opposed to non-hnear r-theory, axial symmetric stress analysis which would not be apphcable to all ~ M W Mig;d%'i.f.Q.g %p#$' ' .i J;,.d. 4- @ M i; i [Dfh f.3 cracks, failure to analyze crack resistance on the basia of toughness as opposed ' s,hlik.1 M f.%.N"M.5[hh@"M h i 2 4M^ to hardness which has no relation to crack resistance, and failure to differenti-M [ fin M h ate m their analysis between the effects of thermal stress on small versus large q. 'Dif d % "'-3'IN."'M' M.r-2 D ' cracks. E. ?'.) .h 1 ?.O'W W.E -i. bv.c.:.m.iE,f.', f*f ~
e.,.,. ; ; i c,..
...n c. c, s .e x -s h 3L' 'y dO }, g., d' g. p. % [w: '.i,p 2.G < xf gq:S: c..- Wpp. V,:. :. ~, ; gy%zg,.. p> . % : W.
W W -a-.
1277 2 % > ::?., ~ s.v.,.g g.w q. e. ; n lj. n
A.f ;::. '. n ",2:n Y&W.3 ' 3
.C %.., <g a&. y g.~0 Y,l~% G. ~... w ep
.y.
u.% m > y.-w:,4. Y a.g;: m nx 7;y ,y _;, + e .,w WCf.e p,,. pr $,,,f g[, '+ y., r;. 4.. g," 4<~ @ ' -w;aey.u.'.nggl*;l,o... P$rg;-g s,a ...y m y,. hEDt[.h[k # h k$.) Ah52 [
i...:.g 43 :y,q.:.Q %.(i 9.Uc.p;e.: g,
. ;,_k..... ~m., ~ -. m.,,,.. . - -. ~ ~,. --..<w>,-m. . n ;q . r. w...m ;a, n ,~ ,.p .s n. a.. w. s n'l,+m,,.y, 5 g - w w.- a x+w w w~. n .a... .,.y ~. h 5 M 'q ;
p + " ' q
. ),x*r. J..p '.,:: '.s. j;4p fV; W W f Q ~- a h*:t ;%' a'< n ~ - - . >.. s n.: .. n:: m ~ e-n ,.. q j.y i e a g_> ;
Zs Q._
2 2 - " M X Q b.m@ m. X -.,.. Q j Q m &j p g b 4 $ &y 3 % p y$ $il & 5TfftlC & " Y.-...
Q,34 y.
w .. w w., n > - s y. ik $_ M,Q %ygQ.;ll,Q g.N;.. 4.jp. %iQv w,e.g.3 . b %. W.4w, ..,, _ vp 7 M Q y Ti k M... n : e.s %.r.- ~.M M M j:p~M,DE +!- e s.a ~%.M W.%w,,A Q Q Wh?R& e w, w%.,-Ae p, g 4 n%:n. w.~,;~M. y W mU s.%m .g # n~m M ?s pv.% M m. egiW m tfin U k & W &@ & % $hn $ $@ y@ W Wi$b @M5W h%d8%m #- w.SN
v. d jffE y
a
eff &CM.5%W#6WW 6&$E$b hh %$pT.hMk.h.%%$
.Nd,!&@md%@fp%d%gM;p$$ @MM e9 A s ?. }%MkQ . ~,. 8%M. A:gph;Lg >.n * % hwc.e% - w% w G 9.,P m M M:a % t / y-ps M / @ %yc & wQ.fk.y$y e J ( The wording of this subpart is essentially the same as that of TMIA Pa P 6.ysiZ L g. f4 c'{ PCWjM7 Contention 1, subpart d., but is directed to an evaluation of the caus M3 i%~ Mm {' W tA N Mo.p efg,. y agent, cleanup, or procedures to prevent contaminant reintroduction p p im Q.; NMM'N: NMb: MIN $h rather than being directed to an evaluation of the kinetic expansion l repair technique. The Licensee and Staff addressed this contentio D MM%MMkb38hy i briefly, referring to their earlier objections to Contention I, subpar Wh %( g g $. k@ h ? 8 $ h N h( % A 2.NhkUk .$l M and indicated that the same objections would be operative here i M hh h vp. df/gpp (Licensee's Response at 29; Staff's Response at 12). (, ge+. @ $/N f Dff; h N. W @h @g @g r$$ Discussion of this proposed subpart in the prehearing conference w m.ppsG#FMF6#W limited and differed from the earlier discussion of Contention 1, sub {( L M-o,- d., principally in clarification of certain details of TMIA's views concern- %,Q h @m.wp.p#{di;3%
%g4~
4 9% F& ing the cleanup and related matters Licensee rested on ,E k$,kbhI h @M A! N 2 positions stated h carlier for Contention 1, subpart d., and Staff repeated its ob r 'fe"c' ten N$5' * * '" '""#*# '"** '"' '"""*'* jections to [
. dhmMv..G..,4..eGib-M@Q(Ms.@74.m
.w e 9,M f $$hMS We find that this subpart suffers from the same infirmities that were $p%gg:4pDhg%. %. M., A. discussed in our ruling upon Contention 1, subpart d. Thus, here corr Cam f -Jan sponding portions of this subpart are rejected and certairs wording N, d% h%yg $3L. Mg modified, for the same reasons. The remainder of this subpart is admit-My(N[h,k[hW-VM4MOMyN MT 4& U ted for the same reasons as stated in our discussion of C h %.A;t gQ+,kM +%nMy W@%.g?.skg;e 4. 9 % @ $2 h D M' subpart d. As partially admitted, Contention 2, subpart c. reads as follows: k p .u d. .pyg4 gn M :. M dkhh Yih. 7 NMWh[g MQ 7 n:
c. Neither the " Report of Third Party Review of Three Mile Island, Unit 1 MA Steam Generator Repair"
'$* M E. h d $ h R 3 %ct.6*'ic T4rgc v 4.caghYhbd7 (NUREG-1019) are credible documents in their evaluatio nor the Staft's Safety Evaluation Report rv 3 h[hM k h6k[(.'h h W,f } g, % N MM MN agent, cleanup, or procedures to prevent contaminant reintroduction, and thus Q @M can not be used as a basis for conclusion that the repairs insure safe plant operation, because of the reports' inherent inconsistencies, because the basic k@
> g. 3.v.N' mmh

i

Q4,q f gf Yh[{kh NM k@ MUM 8h assumphons and conclusions therein rest improperly on axial symmetric stress 4%* r C b
kb 2 hk h. analysis which would not be applicable to all cracks, because of the failure t hh %[:h M~,..h h@ h D $M[- g? h analyze crack resistance on the basis of toughness as opposed to hardnets %4 MN.qfW dy%rigMy%;p?M.f which has no relation to crack resistance, and because of the failure to dif- ,$.h 4 ,hgM.f mh%. l*R ferentiate in their analysis between the effects of thermal stress on smal g' M W $ &y wp bq &.f@U y h,%y"?R h & f &y@ n. W versus tarse cracks. P.. "I .w-N Q*ygsMW mp.y Q % G Nh,kug$: $n. h hbdNh W lw0?h hM&O@k $k k @$y?MRQQ& W9:W~? ~ .;c ' 4g m. >u. n. -.a.v .n* . W. t A gv ..'3 l ^;;, e a.'- i - . f * ):'.X: _q* ?f - _, , ' l y A :. ? Q,, l } ::; (, y y'ib..., e ;.y /. . r ,,. p;p - .3:j f D'.- '.f ' vb .m s:- t ..,,.] - ; + 1 ' b ;, - ' fi,% i.,, y, { ' ") *
y ),.;Q
X. s ,.,, g y I-N4 '-; ; 5
y s(
'w [ % y lW 7 v \\ +, '= ;j.,,,. ; ,,a . m.... .p Q: v, '<.&,L)> RUT % r.q*W W c .0p,q,..e,'. Q' % M ' M,y}. a p n n.ar. S v. Q*pcn.-,i.f. e.y f fg,q.i'Qb' 121g L% ' h %uf. Ifids w v L: t u ~ G. L,. p. , - m .ny hy c f: o m&v.a. , %.m ??.& *.4.&n% $,..5ks [',,N.<a a .o.. o. D N:!.?* %' Ni ;,,Q ? o Tv ;S y ,--Ql. &,t,Q - $_j5 y m:. :
34
) O rt/. .%.~ j . :qp;{ u.:. L ' p 4.4, f. #4 (g.,p, lr/# 7 M*= " ' vl, ,. K Q*; 0.JV(y=J.,%q &y.e r.r-rg- 'n.j,,pm e ep.m" rm' y..,....m:.- y '. + c % e-R ' ,Q x' -f. 4 %,, m~p +; Q- . q w y; *% s- . -. 3 p... n,,.. ..p '13 [ [.. r ' ..,..a. . & ~_ a +.. 4:n,,4, f- .;.,:5.= v g,2.. w%.; M "- ., 7 G'. ? Q.h 7?,: ' f 3 hE-/.y ~. k I T'\\ s W)
h N [.b, m
- b i~ W ' -- - u.n -,. v ev... y -;..y;f.3,.~.,3,3 3-(;,':p? f-Q,f fa
i. E ' s-YP
' ;.. w. ? %a m~;}W[mW n, %,[v.~ B i*.7*W W'am'f':<Qqf,.. /. , v. m y .e, - . g, ~ $- t. a
. m q
q'.%q w h;k b* n, y, hj.Y;b # N ? i < %:! %m w% cn&m W*~ "<'n&y.u.y, v.2;,,;j s g .e.w)[5 L/l
.;,p' m.; ;, x

a y. n m.. ;y reyyp"g.c.m U+4., p

' w h.m.w v.e,h;y
~, Na**,C N h( 3 y WSN y: t e , g::...., . % y p; ng y s m,) '. .( % GC g n. fr$:','.g.,3, o y, s.c owg g.e.vg-y9 .s m '! $h 'i ' + ' ,v, - y n ;;;f a g;&..g g.y.,p.; P
1. 4
,. Jg,.x y,. f j,, m:- p: ?.m c ~,. 9, D, ;., W. f, ,u a, a' / , ;;, y;. a :y:~.:..L ~ r < +,. T .. ~ >, a m./., a p'- c - y r +r-L vc + ' ; '1,4 ' fi.*.e. %... '.:. " '., D,;, E' ' '. 1-a JN .I -; w I;:c y; % % :.y I Ma, e, y l h f. V U.. .,,f. ', c J Mh t y l$ frF Joint Petitioners Q '(Jgg;h.d f f.c y '- 1 ' 7A( Contention 1, as restated, reads as follows:b repair program can assu jp q,,h B. ' *y
Q
/. 4- -"
f.
f6 #6 ~ '; he environmental conditions attendant Lee ~ There is no assurance that the steam generator tu e UN.W, yl4 - c. h.... Y;p Q.y2b k C [ [h. ~ N nce is 0 h.p - T be permitted to restart before such assura integrity of the tubes and their joints under t repair program are deficient:" M. S, . +W to operation. TMbl shall not b h e >; V ' f ",. 9 i s' - ' f i f Provided. The following elements o the blished to warrant reli- ~3 i, I.V={ ' o.,e% @... Q.~ ' [ ~ Q W The emcacy oflithium addition is not adequately estainduced intergranular stres J JN" dfQ. ance on this method to prevent sulfur
.r I hiM D ' <!.84; M L '.f,.M.!,., m Y.- ? @
J <Lz%D9 jhNw #s _ y,wMd l T 1 **i cracking UGSCC). echanism by which this occurs is . 22@<r &.%- lN d5 M.N $ to SER Pg. 6(v0 "..The mnot fully u firmly established." IN [ M h h@ i @ M 'hjD3h n A@ME h~ M l $$4 of Staff's consultants MQ@i@;$g$MQ in the written restatement, the Jointto the SER pre ~r bstance stated that, while ( Attachment 4 to SER at 6(vi)), which in su W Myj 7 tachment pi> @ Q M STS @S: .M, some evidence exists that the addition oism by which this occurs is not ?M W I^ blished. The Licen-17,w,p..c < of sulfur induced IGSCC, the mechanfully understood, nor i U.,' g. J S ' ' @v. 2 y g.g4(:@ $g,g]m ? w-gc ~ h - Le., that the pro-W W. ? - % @lJ i see and Staff argue in their respect veNovember 4,1983, t [ W@ w sph g h e W W.s 7: b e _ 1 posed subpart erroneously implies that
v..p.
.W?A h $[/*~ ^S[y% g:gQigM V: ac h. y '.A@N.g@h.,y ecji p ved h.MQyQ.) sa. n
17. 1983, the Board appro 6>4:
staff counset would consult with the Joint Petitioners nce on October N (j Q Q f Q; Q ' Q [4 ' nAh ?tTW M nph m f 'O Durms the course of the special prehearing csn ere l1 Qfy d report the results. L censee's counsers sussesuon that he and thePeuponers' proposed Contenuon I and )i, letter .M.. JtM gK% qt ;Q&g. g' A MG.
21. 1983 ble to scree J'/
NN d that he and the Joint Peuuoners had been una Order of October and that. about some further resoluuen of Joint 24.1983 (see .j% k -/ k y.fp- %y" b C 7 yMihd.7Wf,Q
M g Licensee stood on its previously advanced objecuons, if any, to the Board by Octoberdated October 20. Licensee's counsel advise tenuons, the j
JJMQO.a yP;2 fy Joint Petitioners submitted a revision of their con ~ g .. Q on a revision of Contennon I, that the h.i M AeDg.@Zf/Ry M h ch presented y,.e@[th[N . ~ ' 'f if, as they advised they might do, the bmitted a Restatement of Contennons w iseptember 21, $d* qp jf g@agg$.gpM. yty;Wi f.rS ,- 4, f,(i 4ds: Contenuons I,2 and 3 previously proposed onn which were denved Licensee would respond en wnung22.1983, the Joint Petitioners su TM nts on % <,g.% 23 ! pj ydQ$$1g,.m@yy W Q Q Q.7
7' On October a single Contention I in lieu of their ents. In their responses, respectivelystaff did not object to the 1983, and stated therein that bnef bases were give P-Md4G.$hmQU.pO
]gph5,-Np discussed yb@p[;(?,d4.TiWg'[?M;7rf October 17th, with appropnate citauons to docum d three contentions; however, for the reasonsf restated Conten- ' hg;k% ?>. 3 31 and November 4.1983 the Licensee and the d jUkQdhyj [pWg? I A" f October 6.1983, they opposed the admission oChairman and the other Contention I en beu of the previously propose [ - (j M*!?MJd'Q g'g';mAQ[.g d 14.1983. Mr. Aamodt notified the stafra responses since i therein and in their earlier responses o g. had set forth everything that they had wanted ot wish to rep
/
+f My grhy/,M;. November a gMJ[, d'l'h'g.2( d to state. p she Joint Peuuoners failed to file Lion I in a confertoce call on Mh' M parues that the bot Peuuoners di n k this informal ap. -y g,:.{. 87!S not strangers to NRC practices and proceedings,d Contenuon 8. This one time w p4 . l, nyy e;@7.?Q their Restatement of Contenuons proceeding is in an early staged no objecuons, and (J)1,'.Pf 4e i p' y;. ,1W @yh
y fyy6. f.(fMS. :
ted contennon because (1) the Althnugh they are a monon for leave to fue their restateproach and permes the fibng of the resta if -M. p @h g g i: Q ] S (2) the Licensee and the staff registere e during the special pre. o !%i-ts that were presented for the first um nd the Staff to ad. J i and no untoward delay will result.because, sn baht of the discurreve argumen ill be the first opportunity for the Licensee a y j r ys C d attre ' (restated) Contenuen I will not be reiterate f hl[w & +, s heartns conference (Tr.116 59) this w m 1 .s..- ments. dress kno*fedgeably the Joen Petitioners' arguil This entroductory wording u - :. sm 29mo%-syqp s e ML b;W#v, j ML w n. . J. M,M M e. z A.,mugW.:re.p m n gh (5). ,'-~1 with respect to subparts (2) throu ge _.v. , / r ,)' [. * * 't [4...,. pw. ps o.a.,w, u:.- W..&. .g 1279 . n.. *:wl. +W;%. _p , a <m.w::n& h.%j,l' s, m _.A 5%* n y > z u,
j CS?,.
u u' .y,. f. i n. m% p kRyd.:y. y. n..p .Q%.. ; l v -,s %i a g s g., .~.,.R p.m m.c,y y Q w'gpg. 4, ., c 4 - qY n ~.m %. i,;y. g ;-G p,r. $ 73 p w ;;, g w u- ~.g. g.,,1., .m. ....nn W-i - v.4 q e*pm i i. V.
m..
j.mm.- .ya S.,Q. m.g , c-
}a.
s o. ...m~~- -, ' : A. o ~~ ,,..yJON.DDs..fj,cpQ. hrn:,&<;m.:y s y m ;
4
~ 0 y g.p wy 3 & ' J, ;Gx M.s, u n y y.t. 1'~ '.~- m c g 0%...-M*w ..gwp_ 9 m(. h bh. v~p e ~ ,,s ay ..;v r :n,,.DD..'[u.n[8M.,.,qkD m - y:. ' ' L ,.,,, g gR. - ,Q <F j *,J. i ps~ 1 . ~. ~..w : n&a * ,f. ,s n. t. p.. o - p s .~
o. Q c
.C
N
~ 7.r,3, 7.a[ n
g. w %.A..
1. .U 2m._ ,R.,_ ! N Y $*W lY. g w. #, y .% y ;y g ' f
x 'y ". < - w;- m
< g >. s D r,, g n.w Th 'm; + e . W;. w'r,, 3.y V _. T p.' ' l ';*t " 4 -agd2 Q n . -. 4 ,'. - c .,4 - y& .3,.3 .w. -~ m 9y.. g- -. A, 4.: y. e. z n , y' &R. I t y, ; g.,..'., ~ ^ t'% .y 5 .. "4.. y ,.y, .x,, .,, g, ..,M....g. 5 .,7.T 3 s. &t, e..... w W,9 1 y-4f. Q @. 3.f,$g g. . 'g C ly.:. p i%..e ;"'g,My, J.. W '. N. $ 5 7 ',p,,,M[; % c,ffi g. W k.m & 2 % %n y.s u M n. r,% y ' - p
4, y
x 29 J M M.:M y.:gQ.x ~w, !@%c w.m:.X f,2.n~ p.Qy:g~Eh%c)-Q.QQQIj$i.dQ':m w emw& 7 +p ..p i ss.w / m&a.,.y.WM Rg r Mk X ~ mgm.Mwmw w. \\ Pr f g w- % p:;# q; 3p g %,a u n,q w ;,.,-;.- g.5p g [G m cn f. m.n;.y w ag w % u$ W ; pe. g:. i pw % n,,g s4L9 .g-cwvm b &g g v'
w. n.h -
tyygg&q o,k { W <h k k.h! h Y h $'. f A&,. g%.~%,%. p *im. sQ..u.~eM..,p;Q' t u.&{W.sg,[dsnW a.R.h k s'.We.si.s: 2:brLYs2 luc.;"M 05%dhkw& hA2kl.uidE.aM'MULN. h
e. 'Q, A'

PN'%
%1 l+ i Wx r g%g;rm.a',a.Q' %,?.% h.% - @W,y..slS a & w,*,.;, y p 4. q & y Mgy%fp L.% A % MW g /;;; p[4,w'th,'.y'%a 4 g'gQWfi.y+ [j n%]4 A ;,*;.[y;xc. q w.,w 'g, s
l 6
q .p g,. 4 .q N.k exclusively relying on the addition of lithium to inhibit sulfur induced hh [" %#R$9 MlS % M M @N 6 $c s #B W (( M d L IGSCC. Since the SER and TR-008 explain that the Licensee developed g M M Q @,k, [ d NhN and implemented a detailed program'2 to provide the requisite assurance F $;' eld that the sulfur concentration during operation will remain below the %G(%/ hkh hhMMk level needed to initiate IGSCC, they assett'that the addition oflithium MMQMQ]M%W/MM)M is merely an " additional assurance" or " backup" against the recurrence MA.$.M q h;NNI6 34 hh M.%g of sulfur-induced IGSCC. While conceding that the addition oflithium e%% m ,w. y M MA might not be an effective inhibitor, they state that the other primary q,$N.D$[M It',@@m%.&q ww w w. means of protection as set forth in the Licensee,s detailed program will w G:.C 4 x M$DMC).%@@W @N k provide the necessary assurance of safety (Licensee's Response at 3-4; jj$ Staff's Response at 3-4). This subpart is premised upon an erroneous un- ~ .I.N. h hh.h5hFjp@@& f.*g*c.$dg ; derstanding of the details of the repair program. Accordingly it is rejected @w q.gfejr.,,M D %MPGq'%g.,7 gg because oflack of basis - no foundation has been laid to warrant further e M @% e., g %. y. 6 - 3yk examination. w ~ w >4 Q*r;h N.f. y. 9 +3ya.j. ac.t~: Q M.h:~ 9 a.6. w,g d e.Ind. m$ h b k h. 9 y v? Wwbk17hb 'N @v,'t5hM (2) Active forms of sulfur can be generated from presumably benign sulfur re-f 6 9 Awg 7.n yyyQpgg,. s;gggQg&gg n~ a ~ y m m i...a maining on the tubes after cleaning.
M.W ;yph.Wp.e$& A fn
- Attachment 3 to SER, Pg. 6,3rd Para "Ifit has not been shown that SCC 4%qc% 4,., as@.mc +. m,y; p%..%..a w e +# #. y '.q . q.y a *m. e > 4 .c wnm., m:% p :.p.ml@m h - r.! fM W. W.rlf bF-M does occur in low temperature solutions, neither has it been shown that it M i, Y w, h.f(Mgd:MC$@y <Q;O,;,Ty.,f,npt ~ h i c.L t. y nataj does not.,, g n W. @ $ d C N p. W M $ h;? - Third Party Review, May 16,1983, Pg. 5 last sentence 2nd para. t [k M a p b#.ND lh.. l[J.M.w.h~.Yh' Nk .There was (and is) no quantitative measure of the potential for .i E wy: A k N3, w. reactivation. y y&y w 9; c x,3,9 y n,g W ft f Ik,h;h , hh h gy,$ $ $ g.% @W$Meiy The Joint Petitioners challenge the efficacy of the Licensee's cleaning MM[id7NM.7:MMM process. While agreeing that " active forms of sulfur can be generated , M$ $6 ^ O,1 :@ Mpf.Cy from presumably benign sulfur remaining on the tubes after cleaning," p bsy.pq the Licensee and Staff assert that the SER and the TR-008 explain that ' lQ;W.K. r,@. u,. p{,. Q pp$. n.'. g, l.,.. 5:ih, it is unnecessary to completely remove the sulfur because the low levels NM,w.+.pc. gi ca gg y *,;p.w@d9;9 g.%,f %. s.N;e. w C, C. w :N, hwg.. M .. u NW-of sulfur in solution remaining in the coolant do not have a significant e m corrosive effect, and that any sulfur remaining on tube surfaces after r fe%M..,ghN. 9@ @,O,t'. $. %._. EN '..M. FWi#pk h_, cleaning will be released so slowly that there will be more than ample s m %s 4 MW time to prevent buildup of corrosive sulfur concentrations. They advance l other arguments based upon various other findings or conclusions in the M A @s + @ gO W. %,,-@.z. W 4 Q @ m mn .- 5s.g y i SER and TR-008 (Licensee's Response at 4-6; Stafi's Response at 4-5), % D M M &w S lWD,Mdh. gM $$@p d U.%. M $ @g j gj@@h M. dM.,.i,h,@] M 3 The subpart is admitted since a basis has been advanced with reasonable @ M d M, u specificity. Whether the particular concern of the Joint Petitioners is g ~ .s c x -l,e, '.- f-l '.:;.O;. . ~l,W, T, &^&q.qKj,5 -nD s ,. +. .yY) ^7.'~ ,. g. 3,<..,'..4 4g .._ r C i ' ~.
Q I2 Citmg the sER and TR-008. the Licensee explains that this program included (1) a cleaning proces.
'., ' - " K ~? M NMj N-[. M which removed sufUcient quant ties of sulfur to ehminate the potential for future corrosion,0) tabora. L 'y tory corrosion tests which venfied that corroston will not remmate under operating conditions. and (3) 1,{ \\ ' '.. Q 3;J 7.. imposmon of administrative comrols to prevent further introduction of contaminants. .v m v [ s c.. m..m < -.p.; . ~,e m.; n~,:s. v, n, a g2go .,- hgr yp,n. wm. ,e.? y ;,. g.., .6y s d' f. O S F. y' g j ( '.Q., fi*o' &; s.a(.r%. f &., ~' ' <~ r m ., ) 1.g r..s. 3 'l Y % ^ ' ',,. ):., p. n ~
G-c
-,-{.. {, ~Y',: \\ p> -lE< v i d. '3 ] T ... M M ^#
% a

{.*9 p'7y P
4*
a. -
h y .,9 4 .a;
. : ~.
j' m.;;= .y c g y [ ;. 3; 3. j l y.: -, '. ; y c hg.; f;-9 m.. f WW ; c g. .u w. .. q. 7, -, - . ~ - ,o 4
u. 4
% s v. . - +,+, T. - : 7-7.,
.q. -
, t.h :C..o(j'.M.. s ' _ WM,... (* 7 +. m. ' _ -6.. t y e, 6, Q' j. '... r' s i }.6 .t, p .e -,.,,+ s f .- -.c 9x . ;;. N,. c - c-y y(c6 ^ . r, ,, ~_p t Q. c '.
1. e
'*g.;, '. f ..- (c P. , c -I- ' q ' w. O.,H, <. ?, p ' ~ LW .wrb s a- --. ccy,, i n.. ; c' g&.&,k ' *:3.y. Qe --.,,%s 'e s e .J. O l ' ' ,gf ;
f */ i &%~ -'.'#
~ i4- + ^
5. "p'

_ 7M:s M.

,. G k. 3 m.
W.s ~ p' v%"Ng# .r s'.. ,e
t.. il *
} - 2 w - m m - y. +:- u _
,Lx. p h, -
. w,3. i,:.. ..c ~n w ,5 e?m - <?- Ux w ~.% ? V z. > m- - M m(. -; w + m., u.., s y,,- .z,: s.- ..; g. .p w' w.y a-.m ./. -: :. - -.. ~. .u .i.._. a r ~1
'.u., w.. m..

a.,
n m.. .2 -.. u v - w. 'w- + ~..- o 5.. 3 .-[, ^ s.. > ~..e.r, 3. n
t. %.- g-:. n' :..'.;<
w r..k li?- 3 i*-s ,1 L %.,y b.m..OS.UF7 A; ;p. t., ' Justified must he left for consideration when the merits of the controver-4/. w sy are reached. wwg.,- e - m :.m V;.. g 33 y~ i,.;~.# yr. 7 '~,h _a
f. _
c. v.- o (3) Morph. logica; changes in the inner tube surface. remote from the expanJed M l' U.} y M;b, $- [ ~ ;, g .. r .s,. JM 7.,nQ,s joints, could reasonably be presumed to be precursors ofIGSCC. . ;; c i g,: . v u-n ^ ~' - Pg. 81 of GPUN Topical Report 008 "Most extensive IG A is in the vicinity WQs,~~,. ,,.-0 of magr cracks " .. G+ r.. s
n. r...<.,,, w.... -m.m. #.
.s Y.Ud ; VM .by_d.W@$DCdMN-). - t I The Staff objects because the Joint Petitioners merely presume that M[.MM6MI(jjfg* $.i +R. inorphological changes could be precursors ofIGSCC, and because they {f fjh{ $ do not specify wherein Licensee's methods of inhibiting and detecting the progression from corrosion precursors to actual tube cracks are inad-og,.wc q %vw..M W w [:f Q.' c: % g g. p ? g} y p % 9 M t :, Q p,Qp. equate (Staff's Response at 5 6). While acknowledging that surface intergranular attack (IG A) was present on tubes remote from the p kd@JMQbM %.. e q. cracking the Licensee objects in that Joint Petitioners have ignored the s ' q: testing evidence in the TR-008 which suggests that IG A will not h ; M G jgM 2 [ _m, progress to become IGSCC (Licensee's Response at 6). We find that the ,/p;3;j g g p %; p y *- basis for the Joint Petitioners' concern has been set forth with PM C W: Afm I-w M..WW"vM6 es ~ 'MM .U. M N.. D.. u s. M... reasonable specificity. At this stage of the proceeding we do not look at d. MC R A. the evidence. Accordingly, this subpart is admitted. f;f ; Od?.Y GU:3r.:Fa e.'$-W * ~ -1d;i.O? %"~y g@'2 4 % i.W M-E. Q ;IO N. (4a) The effect of dynamic stress on less than 40% thru wall cracks has only ,[ I' M '.;^ M N N M M W [0 W N* been demonstrated through calculations with no experimental verifi. vm c whAvMye cation'o d n%'P.w'Ti N
0. -
mp.y.:u q:<. m c-n.. hNMYjhj yh,h:. nW@$ - Attachment 3 to SER Pg. 7 last sentence ". Fracture mechanics @$d.'lWy@j;E -pf f. calculation of residual tube properties in circumferentially cracked tubes are W
'%'4.N c'
k* hDf ~@&Mhy'8N@A.k F presently unsupported by experimentaldata." k,, &.b?' y i f t g%y%f[d. p y%. QW q.. M WW: ggj QQ;.WN.-g;$f Both the Licensee and Staff assert that in fact the key input parameters u-; gpg MQ used in the calculations were experimentally verified (Licensee s Re-b,j A m@.M9p.WE $yq/ 7 $#MM W.3.Q.1 sponse at 6 7; Staffs Response at 6). Having reviewed TR-008 at 84 and ., e mpw. 4 Figure IX,-4, we agree and reject this subpart because, being in error, it ecc; .ywgp.rw N hM$,$ip h hgh A d'm @N- % gy q @cn. lacks a basis, and thus there is no foundation warranting further exploration. f: L.., %rVf.MM4 $q' f ti*M:%. W.M % +- q M.,-#f 4 hh s W_M.d hGQ /<g).$. gly %ey c q f g y: (4b) E. C. testing, though highly reproducible, cannot be rehed upon to accurate. C
1.-
%.%g.f.f :v? ly auess depth of penetration, ,g.f .g
yJ w, M ;y g m c.
s>y. 4 .n. y h: 4 3 X D.p Q,t-Q $[ rep @Wli'::9@m ED 4.l3.- .. y iM. %'Jffd T d pd.x r .y.<W. w - s3 %n; z. w p. %.-..e r .*:, c s p.::..n z N....'q.;n.,.w>, &. ~ < Em.,. : m r n... .p g,; - 9.c. .. +.m p,rn - - 83 This subpert. as submitted, read "itlhe effect or dynamic stress on less than 40% thru mall cracks has
[,
( ' f,,. " only been demonstrated empirically with no experimental serification." Assummg that joint Petitioners gh g fa 4.D 13, - #2u
4WfgNg.N. Qc q.. p# y

p$. y;.. W.%5+:r'y^MwbE.6% meant to say "through calculations" (Tr 146), we have mserted those words m heu or"empmcally." -M W %Y
w qs Tm,i 4 L '-' '
J. nTEW.C U ". 'e.k". p .;a,y. $W-p.?.-b,$: J:r.: a'x3hc-~ f, t s. .A-waw%:;.w. - i c 34 C M W.C M, n.eMWJ W..y ~ M.. o&
t. +W..,h; 1281 n..,.m c e,
~ \\ 7, [ b' F N [ tN;.w @M Q p@WP.d. w@W.e .-d ', h,,*
4) :: n :.v t. v > q.::n.
W. MY e'V. fw; e% a v.ns. ~ pie.i N?,i V ' L r .e o a n. 2 x : kJu & r t g.9. n.#. W.y W:'s,. ~.gs, 2.. C ~ W . m.< K [p 7 y <. y.g e t *?
w.
MG e >n %. m.a.n.,X,Q. 7..g $v-wqq..v v."h. d T ' 7h ....e-..- ,.~--3 ,-a-- 4. .& *..d? N E lQY[*~.0^ .r _f G ....-,f: 5
nl I g,
1<'. -y ..' W:p.K. y: h.h %.J.? Q i*$'W- Q i M S :/@y :r:%. /d Q W M Q:n.x @$ td lh k M. M. A: m* A i .Vw.w. m ~ ' m ... wca g y..,g .u..,,,9..x n. wn;g; ;q.. wm .r.L,.. + e m 7 y ;L ~z hp h.Y ft%,. y ..ki "
Q,,:.
c. /.'.bi. b.T < ;&g , S. .Q - l '. , '.s 31% h .(n[R(*n.,17 h ! f Qk.y y' " Si 4: Y W. ' r .gj-j ^, lj$,U; -- fy.$ a y J. C-j' l, ', { s. 'A J j, -m,'.*- . zn, 4 ~w
., aw
.c. .t. ) 1 - .i4. f.v. s.s' 4 a.. %.r #]!Ayy 4j., . ( ' t' d. W., g ; /., _
g.;C ?
m w,,.j.
i.,..-J.<.2.-.. ' y ; d -,' 1.* o

+
< s $.-
w. 4 *
.V;
3..
~ j ,'i-'? e a.- 1 -'*2:-- .n. 4x 'e L .n ~ ^ :-s n.; e Y -i'J C1 2-Ft 's ^ c, e S 1 jr +. na g,g ~ ~ - c: x.~ = m mwwm%m[YAhN"NhMgd [hM &pqqm%wW. v.ng Ng?,;.u.s q,;;hp::%% .&;+,3M h@sNhM
u Mm,@s W%g W
.m. n c m b ew., w y 'iQ M%@fdyh N M. h b h 5 M b @ N@ u* p 5 NIN5 %@ p,e .m:< 4 M m$ T %
w *b d E$ pU m
hhhhkNMb WWMWW&W.b C$ hf'* gw$N ~r.WWh DE.$ sh A 2fa w%:y.i$d. V %ry
O MW., m.
e MikYMI* mk. y.ef, p >*&s iH vy + x " U N 'E WM A m WW >3 QQ
u. o.
~.r.o pWQ o~.9 Q& [hd.Q. h ! Q} 1? b N m. v&@ % b p W. M s 9 [l W W k s, R: $W.%&WW M g. W - SER, pg.13. last para. "E. C. measurements... Ondi M MMI$@o:^ W r Q o r $ y,, [g w W a %n 40% thru wati... all exceeeed 50% with th h fqMyg M eater than MOMpNkd e majority 100% thru wall." hr.hihUh The complete paragraph at page 13 of the SER f i ceeding basis for this subpart was condensed, reads as foll p@.r.5%@;1$1,ydyphQ"%bd@$$YM hhh 7..;hU F , rom which the pre-G t /r Q. QK ffM QM J ows: depth of the indications in the tJTS transitionThe lic h f% 3I khh [' asurements of the through. wall U nNhMkhldU'.YMMhqhWg;h%p[;g[^Q through-wall. and hence tubes with such i di j zone regions as greater than 40% tubes. Metallurgical examination conducted bn cations were characterizad as de C WVv.M4fz?Q: Q through-wall, with the majority 100% thservice confirmed tha h' M f wj k p* % Qg b b k kt-rough-wall one region all exceeded 50% j ujQOW hMhb;'[h;rQt.GN }k Both the Licensee and the Staff assert that the re WWF R bI. $Nh @@ N b M k M @h h y g% ^current tests indicated greater than 40% thr fk:f[ t% gpd:MqggAhpry s, in that eddy-examinations confirmed this ("all exceeded 50% MMMMMMMishF-Ngh A y a, and metallurgical D 100%...") (Licensee's Response at 8; Staffs R . with the majority k.D hhNMhk ihk W$ MpfM. u $. h@4.j~h the preferred basis for subpart (4b) inde d i esponse at 7). We agree which questions or challenges the accuracy a,#m m. n e M.O!/$qwdch ww$ M 4K p"A N. M h g gv ys as been set forth V.M[f,A%Q/J.;';.;wh@w;M,qr:ig> Ntesting, this subpart ts rej. pp r reliability of eddy-current {g i Q.gh Q 'gdk y .h% ected. j w:.s. n..@r.n,M@w.w.+Mgw Nidf m.M.,. -w P - pyu a%s. pN MY (4c) The effect of creep has not been evaluated in the c ~x x m .j. %. g ? m@ S<. W**k m, M.u M. y m.. u qualiGcation tests. expanded joint laboratory f.Qa eb g u v p w.*A m. S M.r e w m.m yc; M. w, 5:T pd ;FN.uA no basis has been set forth with reasonab o %p.- 7 ', ~ Aw n S.s. w W: 4 . m.m e'.hyy~ sp.n M. w,g g n 9 n W+u.ew,Wd A.4 ~- s subpart because Response at 9-10; Staffs Response at 7 8) s w% g Mr ?!b, m$s.,pWp m yy ecificity (Licensee's have been advanced for the allegation that th. We agree that no re . M;* o%n [ h 5 M: h h M k2[h h rejected. It does not sufficiently put the Licens A%wMf$ib%h) '? U and the subpart is U. i h'w, 9ME$hkh. h,hifM to that which generally they would ha and Staff on notice as E.M~ pan: p., A.. y pb' 7. 4' " M.%g%%mg: and lacks sufficient foundation to warrant fu thve to defend again P.N -W W er.nw,dm p' M.;e:Ly".9:* A.q subpart is rej.ected, r V N-W N.T m M S h N. d N@{ [M [h b. Q ig G 2
l -% dQ(
(5) er exploration. This s, w.@ h ferms of sulfur have not been studied in relatio tT &- M..%rH p;m.. p AWM f MLk s y p @h ;W@J Q % g%gp agents other than active DMM Mf d n o the initiation ofIGSCC. p G. n. c g h.'* w. k $.4 g M Q Synergistic effects have not been considered. M~MD "Oc W i,Y.h@A WWe p.e g$I % ' :[jV.8 4K WJM.4 dMJM - Third Party Review, February J-I 1 " i ~ " Carbonates in the presence of oxida'tts at high18.1983 pg. 9 Recom ?['s.9a mg Q *e J OGA and IGSCC of INCONEL 600. Other conttemperature can produce ~ ~ ' w mendation I r Gd' C r E.,:4.M . ? :!> % % * ;m.! w.G, Q;;d phosphorus) can also induce IGSCC."
N.'
^* &f aminants Head, mercury. '2lD . y% . Q 'Ml
W r & ;ln l 1,* Q> &<,
c. ' 'OE - 1
m. v a ;Q p
..'}^J C,}f3? ~l
p.( f K.Gg[
O *Q g %, J A. w%g 9f og. %' [. g' s./+ y.M[f[ M r.tW.r .y 2 *;~;;$ Q l
m F.._
.u .,'tK M Q.N %" k 7* A-F %, r,;ee.. NeS 1 i wd,aQ, nif ,. [v v;j..* ,' 7 3, M 4 ,i ,., 3 ;(m...,,:((W s,h M }E:h ", ,.Q&.n.2[ y- ? m,- ,W -. g;y .a s i +m . '}s n {'?,< ' ;.,} g y*N +., M*4 ,rrw^p eypew.*a w
4. g.
.i . Q,.-e ~K*M. s3y M '.
.yst /:3 - 3 .p y g.gy. Q Q g)t y-s m y e.w.g.. v p.h g-yo& Wi*l w*k..y.y w ev..g,*y y. m,. e,y% %K& S$ t *. e x., .. v.y w q,.+- ,? m > S.(w.$;; + jj.;pg; c *u g :
. w; y
, 9,, %,.g.p. - ~~n M N-m.,1- .d. t. . V. 3 **.. y > ; 4; o; g' 2. ' _. Q '_ ' 'e,
.m'. ",.7g.4 m m.y 2 %

ll h ' T i^
o 4 ...4 y,.\\ ; A '*A'Y .s. .wc .,, f ;s i s m, mo.e w m}h s L n (.. - w.. c . s b X 3 ty-Af ?w an h. J y.. .m.# . kfh: h,iy n'~ s .p',. c. g'; 7. 9 .,'7 '. M&(,, ),i 'ls -
' A'J,=:.Q;:y.Q, n w:.w r m. m e. s
. &3 p* ,5 t .a-n;s* Q,. g.?
)...
. n, r.e a,i" 7*h_ ? ' *L ; g.
f
.w ..y.z,.. a. x-
3 'd
.s q .s .r. 7 [., [ .I.*f Q $a.. "%. s % l. s:, I' 1 J'[K 4 '-lm s ' %,.x p m...d, n ;; e k ?. * * w - i v .w, ^J'", . n/ y Qw ,a ..--s ..,-,g* - M.: s =4'.m[e.- fy. N" 2 -q : "G& ~:,*,';Q~;)e.1 wa . y.e r '^9 ' e.
~- ]$' #. j-s
.. ([ 94. " p g. r . f,g, ' 2
L, '; &.

W h,7 -4

* - ~
+ +* r ... f I a 4 <,.s,' I 4 - j;: s a , NA.a r > ~., ?,
u. c e u 2 7

v. s..
m. . Wo.M., -d>< q'~:. ', x,. . b w* <l./ e 7,r.., : m ;,.. Le ~ 3.. n '",s w. ", o ;.. - /
3. - -
2 v, b u l w z y n; . m., ; + w
,r.

c. >,
~
p - 9,.s
...,.,,:..w. : n.. w. .o w., ? a
.;e..
w.
m. u.c.... s ww
- :zt;;- .. w m,. e.. #
s _,
h'., f. w .g. . u. g (tl' ' ; ~' l, A G j' - 4 w: y j, 3 "Further Comments" M., d', l s %l @,' 16, 1983, pg.nd to be tr.e major impurity near tubeO.-w[.., j.Y. s. ...r.. y n - y.- ;.7 Party Review, May f i ur ignorance, ' pi cp3..,,-
- - 9 ;.:.,.
Thsrd, carbonaceous material was ou failure, and may have played a role in the failure which, n o ~ w n,' j'- e.. we do not understand E73.W '. -',_j', ^ -T Petitioners E,jM .a Here, as in TMIA Contention 2, subpart a., sup-a, Jointlf r may have V ~ ', 2 ~ ^ ~ l contend that causative agents other than su u f these chemi- } M} $n g. '.1.::?_ IGSCC. They are also concerned that synergistic effects o and the Staff urge i cals were not considered (Tr.14145). The L censeti w attachments
s. 2.
A..~, w E.$.r. u,$g@NM,y i.Mgl. M W- ^, i.f.. : ~n that there is nothing in the Third Party Rev ee or are present in sufficient that lead, mercury or phosphorous werStafTs Response at 8-9). d to consider syner-Ah A,7MQtM % s%gW[MJ ' H quantities to induce 1GSCC, and that there is no nee$ Q, <,_ ',' Ny' *,'.? gistic effects (Licensee's Response at 10-12;We find that f th with reasona-gd .'J ~ D e. $ n g?$; U '...i 4 ble specificity. As stated many times before, wemerits. M f.9m.b.?.n<s.m< ' matters raised by h# ~ J i h T' - yCN-i L.U Q: f.,,. n 'n y ' the Joint Petitioners, we are also nteres f the administrative controls i Q m Y '. the purpose for and the expected efficacy o lans to initiate to guard h./.M-s - -. which, according to TR-008, the Licensee p l ding carbon. This sub-h;geA9 V -n i against the introduction of all contaminants, nc u m ; M.. ;,' W p@ -@?~ ~ s 'i part is admitted. ssive fatigue stress will not gh?
4. There is no assurance that beyond design compreh ll not be permitted to restart
@[c.gJ -M < 'M,
y
.i a p,m./e ; _ f%' predispose the OTSG tubes to IGSCC.TMI-l s a , ~ e, w. [p;WWw w - V. a before such assurance is provided.H N; .ipf S t mber 21, [- The basis that was ofTered in the written submission of ep !kh[ k.<.-lMJ [k[ $ M *[ '7 % ~ [i G tubes."
E 1983, is as follows:nificant analysis of operational stresses in the OTS 6 19 NQ4hg K <'g ;,.,
~ j Ma in their written responses submitted on October,l form.The contention
{fgM 3:eE 4.- f 4 M 1
J" ii and the Staff addressed Contention 4 in its or g na "did not predispose" in WQC t .jf,M 9 w contention, and the ffhhNh. 5)~M.') 'J . 37 as originally submitted contained the phrase f4 place of "will not predispose." It is in fact a neLicensee b p S @.. W. n a%Q M> W &p :. h: es, a y hb:N.4. Y:sM as amended during the d in tne past, but WM%< 4ikS$.c s conference, no longer addressed corrosion that occurrefuturv events. Also, The contention, k ..%p3-p J~ W was instead directed to sreculation about i a3 quoted above is vague D;. ifh:v@M/MN -A ~ the contention is amended or not, the bas s rate specific sections Mid.' $. i and lacking in specificity because it does not enumei , x,n v; ld have been per- . %q~W * +O '. IN N 41.
(mQ* ll}l,
.Q ' lp. .g@.;QQ g, & x iq %. W.Y c y g c ?, Q*% y3p* th 's Q,n.. l Lr.e._ n a f. ~'.:.4 s .p*
m

+ u x. .2 MM. e ' qqq., ls, V, l' As amended by Jomt Peponers at Tr. I NgfW+
e. D.,n.m H
v v' my;i r.,.. MW:p;xg1:x ; n. g .e-- Q.2
.a-1283
..g g.., W 3.C;.7 . I f. '3-'.~ f,,n s v: ".,(., A s y'* Y. F' L;.h 'r '.- ). ~ f R ,s , p.: L
dC' y ;,* + R.A *
)(%;_.p % M. 'a.M.'.s-u <.~ r >. t ?, y
w
,.3, '. j., yg. p.4.g g.g- ;. V w w, yv['Q,}.m.', ~, 15h,, -v; a.sO, 7 e -w % L. t; r , 5m.,. 4"my* = w: yW?q.yg:.:,p[14( -w -l - 3 i ' s yy%.hry*g.g-d A.sv eg; ., ~,. _ mdy%yr,.M.p;QqQ.g Q. b u eg:g 3 y m>&g.a g &g ^ .y. p.,:. g 0v m. 4, y Q
b. -
w,pv g c'TF ' *.m[pf{e -~-p. t 2 e m s yi J 4 . ~.r [ . m.f ~541).-Q [. f y N,f w g ;y, A. 4 5 .z- .e f Q i yh f r-s. y iif,*f, m; Vg a w
A,,3 u}>.n;- Q p Q g y g g,y g~ Q Q Q r
(' s ' .xs w .[.-C h '..*d 1,, - g g g n% M .y ~ 4
m.",,g.,,,
.f-( s;7.g.m,y,f",*nIbh. N j,(;. ~. l.n /,t % yq../ ;*
y,

q/ g
^
2..,',.p.
f {gy p ~ t . M.h. 'jf;Q .~"";s.'c*; v -,' gg T . f x.;
i. s
.,3 E a ~! -e s ,~,% g.
... g,
~ ,E y ,w", 7 ,,,'C ' ' t 9,,. ~. - a .r. a g g,., s. w q =,r.x c4:.Q. r. y ~ f Q.Wp:epo png3 ngv,.n.c.xv. n&gMQ;.;@y&p,.4sm%%n.3 w.. .>, 4r.u :
a..s.4 e. _ n, a ; ;i J, 6.-
M; %. n:/ x c
tG i,c. & P;]p %, % p aMy Mg s u w@.~g W..

n R
w d:[ln$n k g n..e qM 2&QMM!Q;w 4 %.p& 4 Wk&y.N M y. 2 c % 36 . M $ h N I 4 d M, M f$ h b d A T O M M S M. nND M+;D.M QM.Q arya,M.,W MUWC%WgMQ&+f#:t% 6.j M pa, m QED &QM fy W GB%m% g .n mw%m.;rm%:yw# GC W m nu 4 n p., w y w,~ w.w y ww mmm.a.Jm n e. n4 n,M W.&-w. %m., x, p n km M +4C9%<Q:L MMpg?w ' %g dei ;;.d&vR?w,xp& %., Q u !.,swi'N p.f,&q r5 &.W :m.{. ewKM w am ~ h$kk hN I 4 :r M g d # d v.1 N 4 W W * %. Dd$hMDM N formed nor does it cite discussions of stress analysis that are regarded as IE41.@Q @M.% w 9:;g %m$ g p not significant. i."r9;. gpe., @bb.., AQpay%a WN<<.W @4, e- !*GWR%Ag.Wy@ During the special prehearing conference, the Joint Petitioners were A.w%,MrM >N~# 'NM given an opportunity to provide support for the amended contention. tvfQ q> w.c ;' vw iA K .n m"4u-W ,,v M r+. F. f w W. M.. n, a tz ~a: a - wDJ A cct " %"D w. e.~.= e M Mr. Aamodt stated: i@,y%;'7,2 4.s.. Q.w.%.%,@m. g
hM-W w4 4. - t,a.1 w.
w .. ee ~~- W.ywr ..a %- N. % hb g a, c+. i .MN.hf I noted that the tubes as did the writer in the reports here, that the tubes which h@A.M.Jh. p'.%hNh .M have fractured and have lost their pretension will be subject to a maximum compres-s%,MijM.f.dol%M 'y 's 5 h hMM.N ? sive loading in the order of 1025 pounds (Tr.159). 49c%Wwp[g. f[b @sh. Wgk.h hWMN$ h e%J4 M7'pg {bl#WEMWjN4%y$gg Continuing, Mr. Aamodt recounted a personal experience with " fatigue h( $INhg cracking of metallic sheets oflong-line cables" and stated: Q:M< %g;.~&,fXYpN$~ Qf?M $p %b W when we diminished the maximum compressive load, we diminished the rate of ,.m%.4k/g.wQ A ww.i.J& 4.A[MNM@.Jw? QQ.S Nfg %y. c w p the onset of cracking, and that just made me think that we might have a similar h M N h hh? k-p Problem here and it was worth throwing in. T;M,.5G:hv4MWQ$Nw% k j p [; [fj Following oral responses by the Licensee and the Staff, Mr. Aamodt
*.Myn?.WQ?nWS.WG/C&{g-f closed his arguments on Contention 4 by stating

n q w%y%w.g;y.w &.% % T.4 % QwM 9mU Mp g. m. o ty@@f.$MyM c4[KQ.Wp[W9'j %ihN hhd. Q.$ But in any event. I feel that it is a fait statement that these very differently loaded MM.j samples, differently from the others that have been considered have been ignored [ 6- ?*O?P9fkF'WP 7.0%fMP l and that a new mechanism might exist and that evaluation of that mechanism *s N f h,ji impact on safe operation should be examined (Tr.160. .& Wl.kI%%M%.'k.n ip %
M.n$.<.;y.f f.,1}d5.e a &@n@m%n i
i Illi The assertions that "we might have a si nitar problem here" and "a Fa.d new mechanism might exist" cannot reasonably be accepted as suffi-egg mc .cc w,. ciently specific. However, Mr. Aamodt,s statement that the fractured h,a.y m.m.g+% ew a.,x.. ~m.w, m.w %s.u 5 GW+%g., r.& tubes "will be subject to a maximum compressive loading in the order 7 %.f.%_ WW QM.M..hg44gf O $T1M,.a.w.N ;M M g @ f @. h g. h. M. 1h g$qpq6 .M
r. w.-
of 1025 pounds" has, at least superficially, the appearance of a serious m% -W f allegat. ion. QW jfM73$ hj[hh. M The statement is attributed to "the writer in the reports here." We p f nd the following in the SER at 20:15 (i k k The licensee has recently indicated that during the kinetic expansion process. an es-M b % t h h M D % [M. h M BtMgg5% unexpanded tubes which had corrosion-caused full circumferential cracks. For tubes timated 600 tubes lost pre-tension due to siisht downward movement of as yet //$ h M k g )iU @h'? d8 hk D,.%.%c.w%u pd e m b o, hd@%cM which have lost pre-tension. this would result in a maximum cold compressive load 4.bd 5 a%
m., y pg Q,a s.v.:.J av% c a r %.3 Q.k e a,% %
w,. Q n6 Mr.d *W, f q @e N-3 N s- .., ' p" 7 - m.g Q;EN 5 f ' ~ v' ISThis paragraph in the sER has been modined in a supplement to the SER (NUREG-1019. supp. No. g'M Yh. s Q ".e W,.. M
l. at 7 8). which the stafr recently issued under date of November D.1982. It now states that 16 lbs.
g J t.M O,Jr. ; h k M "is insignincant compared to the 800 lbs. necessary to cause initiaison or tube bowing and 10M lbs. t f eu p u. y Y5 T, N4%., b,%ht. necessary berore the lateral displacement or the tube would result in contact wuh adjacent tubes." Furthermore, the phrase "and approximately 1500 lbs. estimateJ to cause tube buckhng' has been . ' ' f #j'W Qff WA 4... c # 'y'J ^ 3@ :.17 1'N 4 : deleted, and the concluding sentence or the paragraph has been modiGed slighdy. These modifications m 3P-'. n c.%y.:tM 7.% F "- &;. M ' '1 ' Id. . f/ p ?.9C J re*c.M., - %.4 ~% i do not affect our subsequent conclusions. q v. 0 n p VW.,W,f)l W M.%.f...~G sh glf -%w e , 1 %M- ,A,.:s} h(. w .e ,.p4 2 ;.t s ):'L,. y 0 ag,'., J -*..,4.x. f 9 1..'%. m.-.x%.r.u. O Q. J' rVg v & . 3 G .,.c s*
.L
,w 5 . { " j e i
N.; s, d ' ["iNQ: a.C M* %, d.? A s.hb I[,' 3 < 61
,s-n. Q. ' y ' 'a.,., W'[YI x .s.4 x r a 4 ' M -J.l? w p' 'n m.g. n. 77; m.p y,9 0 + ' ~zo,
' e. ;( :.b? % ~.QJ '* ~.*:
f
c e
s - .Q F,? [.y...&'. Qj% y N - [Q' I,'b [ I,- ~ ' ,.,.,(,3.@., '. s. .~...;. q.; M M Q ] % Q M 7.,N p 7 "* ", O T.- 7 ?.,lT*'. %' %..f G 'Qli W <1:
- f. '^g qs,..)&,} g-.
+4a.- . y ,\\ TS :,.a.~ ..e .v ^ ,E s. ' '.
f. '
l }. ' m y;m.cx'}
L

m.... W a y Q g y.. 3-p

.ygqq ; _ 'y ;
j m. r K+ gr 'f 3 . +. y, 9 ~b y - m t- ,4 s g. q s.[. w... w[4-e. ' 3. y %. j y_,[ * ' ' g c*-. ~ n. % - s, .. %.4. w.p.;Q ',e* . 's -m *.<.c 3 e x. .-.c:, ' S,o. h 4, [*' 4
~ ".f e
'.p s s' f gQ [ ,,_ * \\,, } h i. *., [ 4* 4%' k . 7 w.{a,h. !,, e..~. ,3..%. ~,. ( N, f g'd '.' T,. fr + *
'. g; 4.
3 ^ cn. ; :.' +,,. _ ~. m.,m'4....s. n. g :.s,.,., -g, ~ .1.m. ., L s,;._
*. 4;
., n. g 7 s e~w ,e, v ,_n + s <y g =4..y... ,s g w ...p
a.
. k,...., s.; : p n. = ;; -. .m s .s - .v v ++. g .'( .r '.rI. V .4 .{ _. ~ ~.__ -.... _ _ s ,,.G -.v '. 'n. $ ? s.. s ny. i ~ 3 y ,( t. u..
o..
. 7:. J + +.. - 3 m. . a.. ..c.. '.s e e ;.
?.
t 4- - 9, 4. '<. - ..y ).g as +.,,,..
N
., -a of 16 pounds. Although this deviates from the hcensee's repair goal, it is insignifi- .., Ds ..~ ~5 as N-a i ~ *...' ,-. f e ,. w. cant compared to the 1025 pounds necessary to cause tube bowing and approximate-ty 1500 pounds estimated to cause tube buckhng Therefore. reasonable assurance is 7%> ' *.7 provided that the repaired tubes are not in significant compression while cold and Q e will not buckle during hot operations. 't c. TR-008 contains a discussion of transient and accident loads on tubes J w< .c that have lost all vr part of the preload (pre tension). It is concluded u f -'., that, for such a tube,875 lbs. is the maximum compressive design basis j
64 J 4
load expected under normal, transient, or accident conditions. - ?. J. c. ~c e., ' ~" m.. L. ' . W g.c:.5m y j, d. y'[3.' Nry,:T,. [. ;C.j i Moreover, this Topical Report at 54 states that "Iflor conservatism, an 4 i.t evaluation was performed of the ability of a tube to withstand 1025 lbs. o, # b., &. C,% y gn.. N., g.a :.; M '.VS F of compressive load. . TSG:m,C " .. 3s The quotations from the SER and TR-008, supra, are included here N i T', p ~ N,., 7, i. because they are possible sources of Mr. Aamodt's assertion about a ~ ? * < ~ 4. ': :* N.O[ . M maximum compressive loading in the order of 1025 lbs. We have not s l been able to locate other possible sources of the assertion. It appears to ,' = j' i. .l . 9.: ; ' ^ us that it would be a misinterpretation of either quotation to conclude n. that the tubes b questwn will be subject to 1025 lbs.
. - l,R i* -
,.g'u 'L f EM Moreover, the dynamic stresses discussed in the quotations refer to [e ouasional or rare transient events, not to the repetition or cyclic i q.s., stresses usually associated with metal fatigue. However, the contention 4p },Y is concerned with " compressive fatigue stress." In addition, the Joint k, '), ... [ ' u? ~ Petitioners have made no attempt to connect " compressive fatigue ,; M YJ .; - ~ jdj.
c., _ W f ', '- ~;*I. ?_.
stress" with IGSCC, though this would appear to be the ultimate con- '.A - . r, 7 '. -T N.F.. .Q '....5 1.^.?O. - "5, 1 lC. C 3.....k.'. cern of the contention. We conclude that the assertion about a compres-D ~
c.,
.sive load of 1025 lbs., whatever its source, has not been connected with ~; '.Wsi.r
a..- W." J..v. ;s".
the contention.
t.. - L'q,,,7 fQ, QRM N m
.7f % D';..G-in summary, we find that (1) the assertion about stress analysis in the
M.
.ick,3;4 SER is vague and lacking in reasonable specificity, (2) the assertions D that "we might have a similar problem here" and "a new mechanism @ % - ~ 41 m7 "f@. M l'[ ',. ] J M Ti ,.fj.Q " 7 6y @ R might exist" are entirely speculative, (3) the allegation of a compressive 7 ', Qg -j load of 1025 lbs. is not supported, (4) the Joint Petitioners have not con-nected the compressive load of 1025 lbs. with fatigue stress, and (5) no 9i sg.$1cMf?f T.- ' ^ [: ;.%
connection has been made between compressive fatigue stress and k,, p$g%,*.g..j:0 %$ch '
C " 4@$:[MiW.'O."J'#f : 7IM.[.??' WWM IGSCC. Accordingly, Contention 4, as amended, is rejected. h[Sk $. Even if we were to assume that the repairs at present were adequate, there is ' ,l G .U 2 b... ". 9. Y.,.. 'li I.'d ?;V no assurance that beensee possesses the requisite competence and integrity to M,~.
b
' L 7. ~ ^* protect, maintain and monitor the integr ty of OTSG of Unit 1.
f..
- f.M, gy.' ' [ "[(.;.; jf t ; twn ;.w ; n. ,wc w f.
75 N

Nh,[! K[h.%.
[,M .hbIh/ b ~ in their written submissions the Licensee and the StatT concur that YM this contention should be dismissed because it exceeds the scope of the
n wn n.. m;..:.w.
0. E.f-- A u
7l~.n.' m :;.~.,

~ n w yy s
O h.[v -< N s',pl ?; k.* N ,, _ l , y %*L* .) D*** l jQ h' W WW* 1285 t, + -/ .y w, n s ' '.. Qg,,%, l }% w t ,s. e.,. - - f ;.,.. p i;. ,. P t4 d.-
g.
., }..' s s' r l,.
e. *%
.;.4:1. 1n mv s -. s 'se ....s . m. v .m.,_. -. . - ~.,.. - -.s.- T / fC d M .h. e _k(,. > m, _ J m, 'g. * : ;.m&g, 4:32%
t ; g+. ~y; s t u.,

:~.a.1:h:yg e -p q?. y ; s..
pg 1,g _. .,,.--.-.,,,.,,_tyy. /- y.m.g y f.w. g.g.g;g.y _.e. ,y ' J.. ', ?.c ;) g. p. g n. g -.wg.g .,.q:..;( t, u.;c& . a m agg.:.x,y.,; 4.;., z ,a . L a. : p n ;? ' > q <. n; f,;n y, ::.e
w w d u _.,
.g wa. .ywy. c: q -- s"N.3m n.A.p.g. g s- ~ ,e : + *. ,:+
..)-
y ;a
q; j;]. %- cgf *f y We# 3.s nn ;
e_ '.'.* l. ;_ ' e~~a, m j (t.y l.g s 1'.. ~.' lw s f Ry ,.'^2 4 ~ T; o .,j n.m q ': m' c r. ,',e /- e.g u.e .N,'. *,, y b I'd. ~ D 'A ,'--~' ?*i '. y- _j 2 - "w '. y: ".5-
r'-
a .. ~. ',,,,7 o J' '. cC L. +- . s- - M.n: i J !.Q, %DU%: y- ~n , c. / + . s a,. ~ "p av.sm:.. ~..e,, 3' i = fp gg;zo.,. ~,. y..; p +.... 7 %;g, q. .r. 4 ~..e ;. W w: - ;i, 5 .. a. s.u.o
y v
'Q. .s. :- m w ?;, g w~ :e:v, ~,L. 37.".. &., f.... n . Er. ~ .va. g;& q: p *n_o n ,M c %r..,;n.p A. g.
l j.Q s; M *i W P.., e%,,;ig &n m..yz^

.g.
g s.. _2 ~ y L 4 ~. :.?.; .n y nn. m.:-n,a y o ;c - : L c3 p ../, , q,.y :.4;n g. s.w m,;; n ,..,y y .%:$g...wrm,Q.w:;3. m m,s. J:;;a-;%a ;.w L.u.i z... w m 4 ,n ~. n.m,. h.o - ya. o c 5 ~&so: %n ;y:p 7 -s s y -2 ~ N., o.S,.. W~M w:..- -.'#: $ @ U.y 4,m :m:: ; :.
m m, cw,
2; w O . a. W,., < N.@ : QSe, ?r.$,. fD f.f:pr,e .a e Mi$/ i[@@3 M./? db..,+y# proceeding and because the issue of management m. w g..,p,
c. g o
E.,; M;c... n:Of.3%wy P. w pctency is pending before the Commission, the Appeal B tegrity and com-7,.( GN. h@.j/@,g@Wm-i,$M Licensing Board (Licensee's Response at 14-15; Staff's R
h.$.
oard and a 17-18). During the oral argument, Joint Petitioners were " N pM;N.jb., . d.J.v.o, nse at t jf TOT O to concede that they (the Licensee and the Staffl w M:0 u e willing T e 163). Moreover, the Joint Petitioners agree { . y .,.w.e.m.,~g.[Mb.; kg" a,...u 7m y. 2 7 db NMfg>';; ' w%, ng (Tr. tion between the remainder of their oral argument a d h ,y, ^[ no connec-7 DDM.fYD (Tr.165). n t e contention "h;ch "m 2' , l$. l .N The contention is rejected. We do not have jurisdiction to gy$. fy'Qf eMQ.Mf:.: F for Hearing published at 48 Fed. Reg. matters beyo 1# Ni.M C.. ;s .y! ( explore El~Q M M Qff#' $ g.y;Wy 7yJN h@E nty Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-53424,231 (1983) Portl . E 'MW and General ' ' 'M (1979); Public Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hi!I N9 NRC 287, 2 .:S .f 5 QK f ? ;$$., f, p.~ 4".,gg": ? Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316,3 NRC 167 (1976) Thuclea h 1 .t n '3. B ij;ll pi.[' 9.$. m.<, %n @ @ thorized the Licensing Board to determine the ad at notice au-e A ' Q C M..d n J m..scP equacy of the Licen-M "[clontentions shall be limited to matters w
MdhNW" c%'jff g4PIQMMNN N
7.g j I-at Licensee's competence and integrity. Furth M .Q M {: e amend- '. s 1. g.2.M' MF ('^ e the M M 'l management ' f.f f A M:# M : h competency and integrity is pending before the $? e censee's the Notice to the Parties in Metropolitan Ediso .9 S - )QJ. 3 ?,- $., M., s N.. J s . ee especially ? Nuclear Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-289-SP wher io. (Three C1 - ',$.., O.V.g~?Ey,4EJ @ f.... 7,1983, the Commission stated that upon completion of h i / I ' ~ 6' [pfY:$ K8 e n, on October tions of the NRC Office of Investigation or p t e investi a-8 will be made on the need to reopen the record of t'te TMI Ierha x Y. '/"g -,- G / 'a ? l. ceeding and to conduct further hearings on some v all of th - restart pro-4 'O.~, g ment competence and integrity issues addressed in thi:e inv _' ~ '.g e manage- ~ 71 _ M-w ?' 4, # /,
6. Tnere is no assurance that the repairs of the OTSG will.
ons. l y,.. s.3 ]y-7,:@ f fy p _,g ( - under transient conditions. U.; j y y - V(.,, . I maintain their integrity ,'4 ~ [M' q ber 21,1983,In their supplement to their petition for leave to inte pp,s. ry-p"f f.;( } j, ' the Joint Petitioners barrenly stated that ne of Septem-NO MN of adequate analysis of tube integrity during transients In th @h 4 gs $. f the SER is void RN,N$;5L.Q 6, 'if. $; W1h responses the Licensee and the StafTopposed the admissio e r written tention because it failed to meet the basis-with r 52 L n of this con-7 .s iH 'fyI [ ' } e quirement ofi 2.714(b) (Licensee's Response at 15; Staff's R-19). During the special prehearing conference the Joint P tii f~ i esponse at not prepared to argue or to support this contention (Tr 167) e : oners were 1 O,f. a ~ d , c. .m . c,l h .,a. y s 1286 ?g ? s l ws 0 ',_L .'e ~.#. i ,.b m
s.
k. .#0 g i .+ ". .e p .n . ( } 9 s b m a ...m.- q r, _ m. ._7,.- ., 7.,..-.- - y ;.u - s, - ,3 ;~ l .~
' 'f x _.
.y,c. m.
~.
u+ .. c.g. e ~ ~"i. ..s O, .if y _f- 'L 7 _en ~ 4 cn - 4 ..~._ '"d p8 + e a s b ..w z. s s N d 4 ,) b .w g ..y..., ,... _. a n, I f ',, (,- ~ [. .s g f'. - rT -} N:: i h rea. The contention is rejected because it fails to set forth bases w t Q. V N? 1.+ WN,D. ER analysis are not p;tyd sonable specincity - i.e., the inadequacies of the S g. M%pg ff are not sufli-d~ ' explained with some specificity. The Licensee and the Sta fs {M,, J-c ll what they 't F ..c will have to defend against or oppose. Further, a s ). has not been laid to warrant further examination. 1 ' L"=; .- va; M. ORDER ,'.? O. ~ s s' ,s !$.h..~C ' g.A. '. %g fQ v d as Subparts a., b. and c. of TMIA's Contention I are admitted s reworded. Su t'. g@ig.. f.;. d '. $, ' y? ',. My. d .s i issues in controversy. Subpart d. is partially adm tte a
4 5 s/f

s @ Q [p W k' Y ;NffM 1.
. IiC'l $.c ".s. .1,5 d itted. j Subparts a., and b.! and b.2 of TMIA's Contention 2 are a m (M[%7 Q* ' ~ eV yQ, part c. is rejected. d f Subpart c. is partially admitted as reworded. Subpart b.3 is rejecte. j $p ?% Subparts (2), (3), and (5) of Joint Petitioners
Contention I, as # J.T!
Eg 7bM Ot <$N{Q j (4c) are rejected. I~ restated, are admitted. Subparts (1), (4a), (4b), and 2. O 7.' ~ "
d Joint Petitioners

Contentions 4 (as amended),5, and
{ ., ;, / ', <e. [ N.W'I [ 1 R.j:_.. .g.[. [ 3. file no later than January 31,1984.By no later than February 8,1984, any party,
p', '
N j g:q y,j. Ms A i, O...M.A f M m a motion for summary disposition pursuant to 10 C.F..s 4 f the ,.es W:.y Any such mo-yp
M " J.;4%WA%.'.-
contentions which will be the subjects of such a motion.J[. T%j' ~ y l[, M f d Q ' later than February J W $*lp,_ tions for summary disposition must be filed by no ' WV ly; N. '.J,M... n:,:.e W ', February 3 A section 2.752 prehearing conference will be held onat s...' m.,. n.,6 '- I ,~P & &. a *. 24,1984. ~'4,. ,W: b ent 2.% [.y*' W Q@gMN U. <'x. 5. .~: U N J.;5j 9. R Q @ i 27, 1984 h it Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. f 2.714a(c), this Order, to the extent t at @ fc..4... s. Otder. ?,.h *fyy
g 1 and 2, supra, rules upon the admissibility of contentions in paragraphs gl?Ct9;f W uf'h a
.*? 6. vening parties in w# df @:? ('hS 2.f4$WM i and admits TMIA and the Joint Petitioners as nter d/or the Staff to 1.,y ". I'% paragraph 7, irt/ra, may be appealed by the Licensee and within ten (10) days T '!:d' . x y'. , i[d. a.W... M. p a mo. 4 *q@ the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boarafter service of (TMIA and the m x* 4Ng N a , 7.NVA:f. r.>J.f,,(, 7@A fy * + -c
4. x
..~v t .s
a. p; ?
. F t m.. a.>
n.f

.a~rq ? *'.T'.; s lw. y
~... \\ 4,' .+,s y % T. i.f.d: M; %. k.W f M .C4
D'
'Q .. Y, , Wl:.* .a e,;y,.
m.,. :r ;,y, ~ >. 'l,t. :
Y* ..~ Q. f sa. .o
: g.:,n=, m q w*.
%a s n. - m. )C:. ~.
j. p, 1..
.."y4. . We ~. 2#.. .. "., w.. s + .w.4 .,h,j { (,, (( w .I** 6 b e j f @a -,. y F @ q.,y@ -g as I / ( ~ '_ h. m." p 4 : 6
b sr..
,,',.("._
' > M W % ll W. k W M
%,.. q v f.r.;:
p. g. o s w? 4 s

a;.,.n pm - m;r,
y ~~ a v. 1187 5 '#p.. 4..g.. ?swf[,,mg'. ,,. x s.. fpi .r .s g -s. m,1 ..,a.... p,* ~a 4 9 w ,-*.p, m ; M::y~ ;y < g, -. ~.:..;p.p:.; ly >i Wb'.q:. 2 -:Q,%:, v uy;< %g > :. %m: w.j;a ? y y
. 2 u a

.- -~ ~.m
~, w . ;.. ;yE'?..,.:
x. r.. r.,w...
u t t w. m... - r n~..,: X y .yQ$.%.c!, Q y Q ;Q & s ?% 5.. 1 ,~~.~em-y. y W, s- ..VA w 9 ,9 L . ;- q,f '* Wyz".y jl,'.< da;y].c.,j i,,M Q g-. Q (k Q Q
t ni ma u
3.- y - v :- p m..z~.~,. ~, '.w... w..; w..
w.... g Rf s. n..
s,', m .w .e a:.. , y )- f,,s,y t e.. ~@ < E Q l _,a f'.:;: ? G u.,.,f, ) Q f;['3R.., ', m lL y . -~m .-y. .pp.3%;& C. %j Q;f:%%y%wp}% y ?p.m. : V: ... g 44
yl 3 M. ;, - g,,.
0 f y:,- y .x~ t M ~ R.l j ; ^ L.. . - w, ., : W. ..w a .m+ i / e s; sq.- V M p;% &{' ',', j!.. < ~ 3 :. t.-.n, K..b.4: ?,: y.% _ e.m.;,.p;jy gqhg .. y. ~, L -l s* :.-: .. w.. % y; L < V. , 'Q( p.. .', e.g*'yn. 'T 4, , G ; Q~, *.w. ;-' y:'l[.(f M. G r ?,/. ",. ; - . j* L' 's o ~, - .L..:;. ~ g.n #.. t w v {.
~,, -.
e' y;
c. f,..i'W ' ?,.;-9 X'e,;.
.,s . e.:a. s s n .y ;' v-O
^
^t-- 1 [ L, _ - w n -- 4, ; ' :W. y.. s b.1 ' c._.. p w v. s .,,.,..._.a s 4 m p{m% W.o,.c m;&.46W W.m.M M4 ?,W Q. c 4 4- -9 - W?u.m? E:P:RQ?Q., 9 ..N.w+.n W:QQv%&MQWCQg% .R M..'in Y WP;g,;W:% % p.y$N;;me% ghm.?4%p:.y+,q..p%y.: y::%e %WDL ,mK h..bz:{ 4 gn;M M .WLw.p.ac qM a yQ z-p v. . p.p.m : hhb'h$w hktNShkrbm %:a..%gy NM M5S$h$ 74, phew y'.mW:%u;%s%y;p:y M a n& W&%Mh 4G:d2.M.q.d%naEmn%Mm@ cQ% ow Wy. w wy = nh.W W . n.ymi - A&,am.Me-%
.x.
a, vym:W4 4 c...w; a-w >,12;.s m.wM.- T. W.%o,t ~ J'. b,.7 - 64** w b g.s..m 3 m g.~4,,.3 f. >. w,y.., t.. g,.r.%.rk, N pf 4 ;i
2.. w %c,.
- 3. s J.e WW4;.zf;RT,,:
g. g. M,aw c m"f,)gNsg

4 I
t
~
.(h i W %q@#n w :,ynw(4.m pm
9.%,,%.. %
. MMMM. w sW6W .n.a.v r N$ga.# ~h.u $$p$fD.w: ~.~ % QpO'.Nh. 3 Ehl Joint Petitioners) may not so appeal because some of their contentions S-s$$/E h t% have been admitted as issues in controversy - see section 2.714a(b). 9.g@:rmpw y:p4y.f W y.3 W f. %. p.iW
7. TMIA and Joint Petitioners are admitted as intervening parties.
pw ,Mc., p q;%.n m W Q; n$ N m&y,[,w%y y p%m i M, so[2.+0Mk,4.h. :.52hh. g,3.,4 N,gJ..T+ N THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND b .a o, LICENSING BOARD n - bf.'f* *
v, **e'" V
y M, w+m,1,(,;# *r%, m; p.+ ,h. g?. ,w-5 ~./. v. W
N %'

J If o' *f
- m,.n. e.. ./ 4 " M ... :c w.m% ,...,r s :t.s g e, q..p.. .t.+ w~..;. 4 5.z 9 e.n u 3 4 m: m nr p .. m...p;g.:.y ;;%a, e w, f. M.G W.' @g a/ G, @ M.:, 3.; N. c g~ %: n.i_ s. ,,9-W dMrl David L. Hetrick w W 6, y %. %g.,g tg,"..n@es.$ 6. W F M G.d L ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE W W ; p, w+.. m.m) 34, M g.. p-% s;b g % g n i ... y%. e.~A w~ g e- . s. s 3 &s.:.p y;g.&.mj @.. Q.;. %~.Q ~4 *b: &y" W: w,.s.n.,. ns.W,. >..i. h..c.. fA g n. &.,$
.,c% ;n y* w k%+ lp 4.% 4,n t. s n
.g.m.- g..x.q3 James C. Lamb III - n.m g s.c m 2 y.,a,.. m. y..,.,# ~3 m,? g-.3 g g 3 1 w &.q r- .w. 7 -4 m y - ~ %5p%... vn.... X@n. o.. Qy gg. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE a.*x*, p: p #. q.n ; ye. m-W %w;gM f,g TN.y;. v~..- a. .b.A s;,M 4~e n M *% % % Q %.N f g M. m b ~r~ty w/n.W;...p.5. %p s w& n <! &p! a ' m .f, wglq;a3.W Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman . M. p*'M{p p'..";&n"- in', *'*.*uty;h f ADMINISTR ATIVE JUDGE I b- ' N *
s i t-.
s')' ' v - 1 ** *
M.y.p,MD n >.*
s " ~ Mf W J)d-W. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, Y.h ~h.F.h.bk,h5h.s!"Sh.%. .Q $,1.. g v this 29th day of November 1983. Nr &a,nl Q.&rgeh.H $,S&.. *:WQf2.N.xW w 5 e o n;~a. W.. %..c %. w #x. %. N.9r.w.n. m p. m eyqw,,.u % .m>mg %se th.+1 .c 5 s- .. g m"e w. #>e;T <*,",W. % -. ' g e. e.4 n *]M,.a$.sq.M - - U M 9 , 4.,v ?A.w@.,,,, ps 3,-. s .,,. -,. %.p'G & J., w *s..s.,*,1",/.m A;M JY m.j. ...e.., + fk5k ~ $. 'N. [) %. A, s =".J s s. + . N. 3..*
v.,
m. n -, o. ywe.Ln,s q,4'
. m.,gg,4.yp r
~. g ,,,A ,.. A,%w . g. ? *., y +. '7_,,, t eqq t.h [?'fW Y $ -e i .g,,.# ~l,.R ,(si.$ f N' ~ ~ h*oh ,.m,.,,w.y.. m.w b. r.. s...; u %
3 @ *' D.. ; ;
~n,. t . t*(D, sq.y y* h' A t.
4*
gq js.Q'w '.p? w+. + M74' t c-v ..,,, ;3..- ) % , ', g 'y'
we,i ;a,.,a t.,, \\r 3
.8 . '.f. e, y,4. J.. h : u r,1. t ,. - r.. ...b-l M..'. p @Jf: N.d.);!{*','h6.? E't,%:..a n..6.Jf,$ }'9N'f?)' .n e j ', /. %,,,A^. e p i'.N.v ,,- r 4.( pn #'y
s.-
... s .6 f*-
-e 4
w-** -u4 ..,i. r, w 3 '..e g,- ,r* (;4' f,.r. i / fo. ,. 's .e, a,., 3p,M s. s n g h ;. /*. "' ' % :(s))3 9.v. xx 3 f[m ,.h ...n -:\\.k a.*t. 3 ,7)( Ff '.4.j i.fd 'u=- s.'g d p ya pc* a; V. %. 2 Ni; W 3 w.e2 q ,.c n. 1l%.A z:y4 7 I' / N,. 4+ f.h,'ly',( Ud, G,o ww'i.d.'d E,.'.M,.'* *. 3
=9
, - ~ o, _. 2.g' 6 1 n. -+f.- g- .a;.,, y ' *,., }.1 s ,i . - -7sj e. &.' s g w -
4
..g- ,.gQt s> : t '..S.~..
4 y
. ' *, ~.- - c.. ~ , i 8 , q v k j s ; *.,,' 3.3. / h ;. ' s
&~
,.):. F. [J L;*-~** .l M,, 0,. ,',,.,?a~ v,_
1nr, e ' ' '." "' 4,
.t ^ 4 y., y " f [g e g$ q '".I -,, y ,, ' i, ;,7 5
n.
m- .q' 4 %y e, ; t. v .N.;;.);3& # P M jhqpf $ 4 @ M,.pf;.q,W]
y., p. <,
,a.v;h. * ' ~, '., a W *... 4,w t g, .N. _..=..r, f 1288 .x. s,. gem '.h,:A. g+-::3, q.,;e.; y g m [,e= g :.,. q '. > m " vt.** -, ~... .c 4*8 me.., q, w s < w..m. ) Y,Sff- ] E 5 ~# :lyl.., a ', [l l ' j,. .',; :? Q y_ .,.n'.*. v !* ? '. s - s s -?.,,,n,. ;
3.

3.*
s e p . ' @ ; (* e,',7.s.,,,j*'s.
y
., d /+* yhpe,. i g..,y,;. ;,a . 4 >,j ,4 es m.-rpep.. n +, . e f.. A m - ;. 3.~..g,n.t.e, c.,s. 7,m u m.w., v.,m m 7--, m.,.;..s ~,y..- f _. ww,,,
r. e(y.,,
s A, nr m m.;- 73c.. 3j y m .',g.'y w .v : 'd.' l{, [ -. r i 6d'. j { [j ' ..p' m ,y -e 4 a m s .q
~
, - a,- .y, ., n Q p.- .'.\\..., _. -e; [{- l,, 3. s ; <~., ~ t-p. r x .,..e... u _, ~ m. ,f'=. f , x..]% + Y y y g
., o@. %l ~,. -.
}l'Q.L.,1-v + f.. s. K '. a.**,n,, a t ~ s ,,n-s 1 w.
e e.s e n
.r.< ..n T 'I ..p, .s} .s g g -'t 2 ,9 g /. t A.,,,.,.."'-( -g 0 g 4 b d 4 I , a T 4 '9%=
to 9
l l 1 e l i -t.e... I g* -'.c .-_y I 2 5 i Directors'
i Dec..isions
~ " ' ~ 1 Under T_ ,4 o t h..m...l h, -.l 10 CFR 2.206
. t. a.
+ ~
y.
<gi.H y 'y(<. ( f g , s ' v,+
t 'i e-'
D $4 4 e ) , - * -ag6* M_*
s.,,
e-s- w1.' ~ Y O
d f e g
y-l .l -- g 1 -4 .-a e9",L"(+y 1 3,. l .J l j ,,. ;~ w /-,
-l i
,. ?. ~: I s so z ,f-l9,=' ~ .w 1 .,-s . - +. : k. :. I e* n -. e >.v..~ l s .:* -4* ~,- 6.y'A, sa n l - s. .Y p . 4 '4 r-. ~.-zg g .:=*,.v-%'- -e.. l C *. ' I; e e. 1 j'* I l'. -*,on. -_.,. -,,j
I T
,,,-t.,,, (- g;a E *
h(
r'p '== '.,_ I J -s s ..,... ~... e g, ~:, ' w' =O *,, A '-,,,t W t>
,y4
^ f y .W J,,, ..e. 4 .,. --4 4.,y g ,dg g .4* W g w '.8-_ p. '1} e ,r e. g- ,'g 'S 48*', 4,, 4-f p *:$.7(,.,.. :. >: ^,. -c.
~. -
v.',. a n y. e .. v r, .:_ t - r j~g .-{..-~ 4.- .,.,e*. r ,y 4 A A' , *.' /.'., ,"."-Q.e-,{ 't O' g 8' 9 f 1 'g - g * * *g.s _ "I p, "*Y,. T. ?d' " p,),,, g 9 .Ya 4 I s - s r,' -v'.o.C,. > ~. = et j' d' s, D,, 5 =-m-4 _",' s,i'",s-4 >1 9 * %, * .. s 's r f _'>s. a
-r i, - -

-. ~ ~.
<.~p s 4 * ,e m y 6,%, fM - ps, l a.ll-h*[',*kfk. a -Q f E " *. 9-
a-
~. '~\\,~ s. - s j h * "', *, ' s, u -*.*, g - ,.g., s o* l s '2.-J { 4* 4 ,5-6 /W u" Ek Di. == e', l eW
1
= =* es S + t" N1,g,4,. l i ,s s 5 I a ' s >, ~ e, eE g . _ 4, r n v9= -st,* g .p?a ~ l e, s , ',L. 4 m ".i., '
',,. - _ -. 4 y.o.O
-h**, g ,.e".gg,4'g/% g.9 8 8 .u ,=. b - e f# 9'.a,3-, q A.. $- ,a7, f. ' A $ p,* N ) ,s ,,,3 =*
~
4" &: 'mm.uy, ~ '. kg.. *;. ' ' - T >;s ::,T;<.kgg : e - -s u - ;agQ V-L 3.. ..Y 7..~._..,n < ',\\ ' %g- &_'s:;53,'y,.'QM % ' ~ _\\ -R. . 'e. W . g.% . q p. o - d ,.. : ~;; V. n' 9 > g'
c. 'v p.* w',}. I e r
- p e,
i jp'
.g,,q . g;,- - . 'I e s s-r 3 -3 t s ' h A'."'.,,( y p*, 4 ,'r' g , ~ ~,*' g -'-'*/. ,,*=4".*, I R F4 -e,,4,*
b-s.
s .,a f* ..,".g,,,.] y --.--,, .. A-. . _, '. m'c. ; _o ,, J. ., ',,,,.Q .M. l 4 ,F 6 + 4 n; v:r %y...?.g.* - j.i. .,g 4 w. -+ ^ -.. p L .u e,. ~ DD 8317 _ ( 3-96, Cite as 18 NRC 1289 (1983) - h.p? p.f r.c; M e i .., a %,, t' ? t.g e
W
^- .' c;- w.,.. -i. UNITED ST ATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y. .' j e': g ~ ,.-_? g CEMENT 4 m OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFOR g .s .~.. e L Richard C. DeYoung, Director f, '4
J:..'

ht
} < c.,:- e n: s7-u g,";r ,Qv - n. .;N t w9 4.. w y.y}, - * - .g o 9 ". W~ m.F..&:p'ESS L.2 Docket Nos. 50 440 y .V .~. 7 r. py'.T t.;p q-50 441 f - z, M::n:,c.v q . s in the Matter o (10 C.F.R. l 2.206)
c. '
y n ~ 'F i.i I. < - ~- ^ + Y N_'V mik,. i i 1 . d $.. %n. n,.,.,* G CLEVELAND ELECTRfC ILLUMIN ATIN f' <- u . CM.. f a ' - ~. ~ MT.. -. ~ m. n g. e e .. ~ COMPANY, et al. November 15,1983 W,,..,..,,. F. .,n- -.x.- w . +. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, NU3,. r: n. ? ;.;. Units 1 & 2) ye c;. ~ s -. jE,. . 3w,.. %, N f r Responsible Energv. >..,J V 22.! d e w ?f MD$ m .w.... In response to a request by the Ohio Citizens obe taken against Clevelan M .Uff@7@85,ZM,.G,,R ?# I t ments made during the h[b,v,A$c, that substantial enforcement actionIlluminating Company fo - 2, 4,,i. n. - Q, O P.,, 7 r material false statement
c, licensing review for the Per y Nuclear c
Inspection and Enforcement concluded that alevel of the violation, the -,s,.~m.w /.W; %. -; n, 1., $6 ?1 l ', s. ..ys. i . g.y had been made but that, given the sever ty ,,, 'W.?llY&::,, up. DY Violation. t, x.M,.~.&.,MQ* . ~,.g~3..~ , ~.. appropriate sanction was a Notice of g r .a. g @' #N.iy W D w q r ws -.n.,*
w. ~,
-f.z A,, C.F.R. 9 2.206
Qg
.n 3 .,n i .M; 5 ~ .t .t , -. M.f : (*.~, Q.J :,ib. W i '.p'..Y. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 K i, 6.. M cwl m O h w? i,. license proceeding for j L, During the course of the ongoing operating (CEI) Perry Nuclear Powe m .Q7 Rf g.y gfy,% %V a c. %m lf of the Ohio Citizens for Cleveland Electric illuminating Company's ?.s WP 1em EM At NW O'A : $ ig before the Atomic Safety Plant (PNPP), Ms. Susan L. Hiatt, on behaRespon m. N+ M, d.~~ 1 c 4 UN;8 ry disposition and dismissal ofNe m .%.~- fl v g ~. O.%@yQ ;.h'.'QQ that CEI had made material a seh and Licensing Board (ASLB) for summa ~~ . M.. ..s, Q. p%y. i the license application on the bas sstatements in its apph ici n w >;;. w.: a
t ?,..
.mQp
i.y z..gl h.,,++ n vc
~~ v Am": c i
s'.h. = ;w n..
.;M ~*...; Q in.s,.,. s p3 vegetation along transmission lines. Y.i w gaa yi .-.c w c wp c w g; e s r,9:.vp,pm :.g.,.g/ Mb, n h* YQ,y y &lW. ; ~ }
e. f

ed, f j".h
.T p'l*: M; p : e# 5 l % ; c 1289 c .y; i t
s e
. yv ' ' p %: '..'.
n >
y', y. w. ' ?Q: qi t" s 1 a h .c. s.k. 4 a 'y l,. W
..: r G,
?, A _,,, Rl- )..%.'& ). ; ~ pyI s; y QG MC L
']l[f* hEk
.. V' d* *g'"..;.;, s /.1 N. f.[ s 3 f }..l, r +.m -.-M ', N,N - ~ ,, *[ j d,N; p'.d.c ... ~ ..r m'
;). ' * * ' '
"C. ) Yk,Q.' 'Ok.[hs, ~ -- r -vv, .,.n.c m. -,,..k ; '.., ' + %.,4 x T 'h'[j + l %.. 3 'Ye yt ,,p-h LY ' "- J h?? " gfl.A"[.Z,;y s. U# p W * -(f*..* j %* h4l'fL )n nn*en-s .3 ~%:g.% d' .. ~ *. s , + o. ,hk ? [ l j .;^ - &N Y 5.e.a v&.. Q.{??Qi.q.?g; o ;;l4 7 n
s'. -
'f( l' y .w.w + " & M > r V* 'L.7, '4* I di., r ~ . em.3,f, '.g ,.. '.,. ; 9 U s r cy; e ^ I e e o M = Q(.4.
t. +.ti. ; p, w J.
+- ?- z QN: - 7
y
, 5 ; y, h..f g-(j* Qg&...f l.Q.9 'l ~,' S p, W. l ' ' ~,, Q 'f.,;., ' Q ),, .l r '4 ", N. (,,r ~ .a [;J., tg & &g 4.h [, %. . w 7;%,, e ..s' % .t., y l ; ,.[.. g $. ; &, Q .4; ,c l' w.- y ~ c * .3 , y[m' - w 9', L, Ts%h.g. '~ -. m. "u ~ .3. n g p 2A.A> e u. -n ,-r u. 5M,q n@d}y a%ed.y%,r-v:.,l.W.V,.sw?, io~ ;.NW.(.. M;Dnh.? V:\\%'h%w#'$ z c., - -.----.----. ~ -- Y..,&Q NW W%n d&k k My &MQ W. x m:.d-c:2 M:iM:: @, A:., w%w%g::.a.w& &.v. e @ w y. 4 &G::.. y k pq M bW w :,.. A sr w Ac n s w .z,c p~e AM. Q. W/X5*W;f.@x%q.n;4@%;w&w&, w&;c p.$"w&M&kHW:&v.C &is,$&w :u:5.%d n W 9::.j@DKn,W % AR aWWW c,< N;Mvv&g % w.Wk QM&y./w Aw:" MN?. W$I W&MWi&'i W. QW1 w% %g @7 al%w 97 7 h,. ww.k.w:g?Mf. n&u h a.a@:.a.je:.i.Qe?%MWM w. k' 4'M L g.i'?r 4 ry Mw mk%:s.g&w& &n%.,,;%u&- +&. a. q'w:.! +
~
3~ mm .w.wmd. m. k. 3r 4: A&w,s4 7.. ~y s iW: q A@w,n:Q.ph.+.d W wp. g Op
tw.
~w, ** i.t>,.m. mu,m, %.e.w.<,w.mn.n,w, ?,.m, ~ ..,.n... ,, y m,w?:A..g,,,. nk y a,..k, m n. c w .q. ~.. a. .g ..e . y w:., e.1, np ~; ~.c. m :,aa,y., e m.s s.;. y; C m: s,.-y iJ77 ;.s.w.;w;9[9.mp #.. O v..'uc4 W@w@e@9;r.D@p.r$~ .s '.3EK M. fWi W %di .M MTA, #.s%. gmy,O N &M.hi that the motion was directed at an issue not permitted before the Board m% and consequently denied the motion. The Board, however, asked the y f,A,, W.mWM!#4 f P7 % y%%E.w.p#qwM.0...v.m.. a %. f 9 S.7(g NRC StafT to provide OCRE,s documentation to the appropriate persons ~ QWi4p'9.DJo,T..M.+4 pM W yd f &.@%)n.~%d.,g:$@ for consideration as a petition for enforcement action under 10 C.F.R. Am. M;7.% d w-c. m .mC.u ic, i 2..,06. Notice of receipt of the petition for handling as a 2.206 request [ftI.pM k UM'h'Di%g'30 M ?dh M was published in the Federal Register on June 14, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 8$ h - k h 3ld f[ D;3,.w.d,a.c.h. ~ bg f, fj%%$$ f 27,327). OCRE supplemented its petition by letter dated July 5,1983. Q% OCRE contenas that information given in response to a staff question is M $, m m o.. ;+gr./.S$ w.. on use of herbicides along transmission l,ne right-of-ways, and used by - yw~Nr.:M j;l5. . T $ M. m; g~/ Q $ p c i m.. .~ the staff in preparing the Draft and Final Environmental Statements, P.% W 'M N:&M'g. M.M was subsequently contradicted in a submission by the licensee to the M M M f.m hM )p, @%x$. h k Nh Ohio Power Siting Board. The licensee did not change the information , p $. g c. d ]n., M C M.: s',e,,,f
M %.
previously provided to the NRC. Thus, OCRE contends, the licensee pfM .u 4 My 9 %nwg; made a material false statement either in its original statement to the s w e c U$M~.%@, fv}f%NM: DAD _d;.v;,gm e.sr.- M d,u .M M,g i.7 Commission or by its failure to correct it. Consequently, OCRE requests Qd Wj; NN that the licensee's operating license application be dismissed, its con- +WF 4Wp%.Me%@.g.pM.~ Mil struction permit be revoked or a civil penalty be assessed. For the rea-Sid.,.e,fp, mr:dw.m n@.. wg$.:.MD,,e; sons set forth below, OCRE's request for action is denied. f nm 9 W N,a,M.y @x w vg;.f. gn:.@y. ppw%. qq y.en;c..w w9.; A M. m ,m.,q., e. r . sym. A4 BACKGROUND NM.G. y@.a
n..
. ~. ~.. rw .g. .uw.y. ;.w n m?.q.yM.ge*E%:l*V*t*%; I_s.N: N N N M D $ f O @.Q g @ % <,. M? 2 Prior to granting a construction permit to CEl' for the Perry facilities, $8@Mkh0N, wp;Nd%;EMfiQm, 4: @ % i e c s;N k b h d M. d @M[j.NDMjd@ the Commission prepared a Final Environmental Statement (issued April 1974). In that statement, the Commission discussed the proposed 3, f-methods for mittal clearing and maintenance of transmission line right-j. M[$7'*9$.ND.S.;@V@$iE5MMMk.1 U *j q; sZj of-ways for the licensee's two proposed lines - the hedonia-Inland Qi$.W W F L.d GO line and the Perry-Hanna line. CEI indicated in Section.. 9 and Appen- ,q; T M M N. fiih,p d, i dix B3.9 of its Environmental Report for its construction permit that, g, ..g g. g.g..g.f-when permitted and where feasible, it would use herbicides on selected t. 3e w ~gp.m D: M..OMM.@gs ...w. 5 p. 9 q t.7 D.he/C M Neh n plants as a basal spray before cutting. Where such use was not feasible,
s. g. g M ' s X % '.T Q W O mechanical clearing would be used. The Environmental Report indicated cc
_ Y sMiM 9 M M W M M S@ that, in service areas of Ohio Edison, herbicides would be used for M>.b@hhsdj.hbh: clearing, with extra care taken in certain areas and in compliance with all h %K: G% eithW regulations. (FES-CP, f 2.2.1.2, at 5 22 and 5 23). The Commission ,.M.eQ..$h[$N...v.@Nk'D@'h%h M;@. hM found no significant effects from such proposed practices and imposed nh.,%,, :b..o$.ih no specific limitations on use of the herbicides when the construction wt-c-
3.4.~w.

g <m'G c,.-.
>.c a.. @,. permit was issued. w* m .g - e.x m-3 ~s 9 s >.r y _.' yz.y
J;,Q
'.:g Q g:m; + y, py.y w F r ,m 3 4. - 3 I S.7 -3~ "s 7. ?% g Xi CEI is the apphcant. acting as asent for the other co-owners Duquesne Lisht Company. ohio Edison + I l ;. /. { r ' , tt -t ~ Company and Toledo Edison Company. CEI is responsible for all submittats to the NRC and for con. m
) M,C ;*[
J N Q.- *
p. '.YM struction and operation of the PNPP facihey. other co-owners have responsibihties for those portions of J ' ;,
/ >,.. M. l, the distnbution system oft site withm their respective service areas. ~Y' \\*S 1 .s ,. rkm,9 ::)3 ,; y, ..y . :.. g3. s:;
N - q ql. Ys ; Y k.
. f& . -v, 'm-3.[-p prz. 4:;:j9W,i' T$M.$p%@4gs .g l d m.._ g. ;;p,: y19e %%.9 ,e ..s.... a.:.;p-J, N@;%. 'Mh IQ .N .. & :.m.:
p.1-94 p
m u-
e.
..:I i'% g.%y.g.s. , ~d2~.3 ; g i.} .)t -y 4,s.y.,s...., * **... ( ;- O 3 + .v -;, S 4 n A j% f.s N. 'f* f f' ~ hh qfb A +p,. m'.',, -.* J3 e S '. i 'M f5 '.[*'..',6CQ ~ ;' QQ*7%K",nR""~*y[;y Q * ' yW'2 3:mmK.yq;r~q;pqw gy.m.*,:pn.? . ;i: Q' gn / 9 w y. - e : L,.~;3,...n: n ~ q .,'^ ~ '.,.,' g .s-; ,~ ' ' M :(?.,Q W ::w.b'*]Q $ $gw ~, 7lr,~'].,<. 5
w. a -
g ..a ' 5; x,e,C, n* j',..q.'.).:,.-y : l.' *p 5..,,.:
.D ^.
gy ( m 4 -w ~ .mv =.y,.s m.g. y <n.l-
m..[.~
IX rt
ist M :
P p-v,... w'.,;., ' .r .,. e ,..m
v. o.m.. a..:
y. . a. y -
y.,,.,

4-s,

<qe~w., s y -', 's ff.' ? hl *? ' 9 ',5 ,_.e~ ^ '. k. }% - i !. T' O..Q,. ',, ' ', ' 4 Y .~ , '. Ne . i:j,., '^ * * ~ ~- l
._,,n*y 9 & & s] W fr? h:.' Q.f 'g%,
& :. M ' ~ }.:. n...- Q", }% ?;.;;.. b ' Q': : .y 4 v.":~
a. (:, f.

; +; P.. 9
4 L ;.?
~:.. z. y:,,5,.g -vm . :m- > ; ',. ~ ~< Ws, s,.% W,g q..... y~- . ~. ~.% ;;-/..s _ * ~-
,~ ^,
e O' 9 ._.T ' ' M.'
M v
m., _.]_ '4 g 7 k F s .er t >^4.- E 4 ) , b.Q Q: gy; Q.y 4 q.;.. m..
W.;., m.
f( i.M..%.:f'..p.g % f ' . e. - w The applicant submitted its PNPP Environmental Report - Opera, ting M'$$ 4 '9, 4- "4$ License Stage (ER-OL) on June 20, 1980. It was docketed on June 19, 1981. The staff then initiated its operating license environmental review. The applicant indicated in Section 5.5 of the ER-OL that, "[tlhe opera-My-tion and maintenance methods for the transmission system are un-chariged from those described in the ER-CP. The estimated effects of ' ;y n the operation and maintenance of the transmission system are also O.. unchanged." ER-OL at 5.5-1. In section 2.2 of the ER-OL, the applicant ",.. ' M'., f' ".. A 3;' also reported the results of its construction monitoring program and of W W La ;.#." ' 1 + 7,,a., s ., s@,g g.' W, - f.,M.: s, s.
c. a terrestrial ecology studies conducted on site between March and October 1972. In Section 2.2.2.2.3, the applicant indicated that the spotted turtle iQdgy,u u, WR
.M-(Clemmys guttata), a species listed as " endangered" by the State of H ' M r" - S.. ", ". g., * .A. s.. n,, y ., ~ Ohio, had been found on site in several locations, including the trans- ! J'.: 9.. P *. ~ ,. a. m i..v.... W ^ s mission corridor in the southeastern part of the site. W.6. ;_h. e., X" N s .W. b..F. As part of its environmental analysis for the operating license review, 2 5...',., wT "' [T . e, the NRC staff posed a number of questions to the applicant. On July 31, N Q.;j',~,m,. / u-fC f",ifv t.@; a'R... ".^ < 1981, the staff asked the applicant to "lpirovide an assessment of the ef. 'P Mi J N ' m. ,- y J". y ',1 c. %a.h.h...cb fects of transmission line maintenance procedures on the spotted turtle g 3 e 4..Q;N % A $@O..-i Q (C/cmmys guttata). Indicate whether herbicides will be used along any A ~ 5 7: '. E .c IS, 'fMM.v;7 US%%.d6. portions of the Perry transmission line." Question 290.08. The appli-fr. ' IJ cant's response on November 20,1981 was " lilt is not the policy of CEI Fll#$$ ME MM@F dhMM 2 fIMYa.I to use herbicides for vegetation control along the Perry transmission Q n y@iO Yk " $'I W W :m.,.T,m n.. lines. CEI cuts the vegetation with a bush hog. To date, there have not Q O D,,..,.'7 e A, o y/ W e' been any apparent effects on the spotted turtle." s &Mc . m 3 >$ M M: b j/yy-M y'm. y,M in January 1982, the Ohio Power Siting Board denied hint applicants, .D s F. a,, Ln.,' %.w.. v w y CEI and Ohio Edison, a certifica'e of environmental compatibility and . bn . U.,a+ n,.'-- * . nA.p~.. t g; M_ K igiK.Q public need for the Perry-Hanna transmission line. in its Draft Environmental Statement, issued in March 1982, and its p ei; h @M : fQMk,@)MEM ;. ' 7M Q' z.gb<.o/w,g$h Q $$y.{ Final Environmental Statement, NUREG-0884, issued in August 1982, f F W v ' 29: - the staff described the facility and rela' ' environment for areas where s.k.y.QhyAp.,. ,:m. m;Q N:.. m additional or changed information existed and any changes in the stafl's up yp. hg@hiQy@p,hf$l4'M ..qq;g..gcib evaluation of the environmental effects of operating the PNPP facility in . GS i, MAP light of information gained since the FES-CP was i: sued in April 1974. $:!.7,z ,$ yd g W 332M,M!y;' The staff noted in the FES that the Perry Macedonia-Inland line was under construction but that the originally proposed Perry Hanna line i.1:(f, i Gi;p pp'.QM 'dg7{ g.: %(j'K.Q/,.. g @@ W D had been denied approval by the Ohio Power Siting Board. The staff stated that, when final alignments for the Perry Hanna line are approved Nih;,N. M.w. ??+fWM'. ;;p by the State, the applicant will be required to provide a description and rb t aw analyses of any changes pursuant to conditions of the cor.struction ko s' f 61;%+Jw%.wn-um, - m,, ;:'
Wg &;w.7sQ:m
= s w W L hd.dM: x,hMh3['cMM NjhN w. a... .z .W m m. r-3 K...n... ,. p%.e% % / AW "%.-Q y-Mq,. '*-Q, 2
g. o
,.y .1 I'> v N.p-% %pgyl,. y R:(MW.D%iMg ?f. p'@.:p 3 9. ; e.3: P e p.: g 3.,. 3.; n : p ;,e @y g. m+, g m. r:m,... +.. u, p m w ,c 1291 %ppyy:, . 3 %A:q;g Q Q;
4 ; M+;
,. y g.EG c a ti f &: gW_g; q e 7' "0
y ;. M' !"fp.Q'%
,m, ,[.,- 4 p s/,*',@ h, w,".'.,.y~G g]m f.xv 4 %.E .= k( 7 p K . w:. .n - c. - 9 f* 9 w m, -, - w ~ %w --+-- -- m m;- w.-.w,;;w,.. n.e. :g.gg.4w..g. -, y, r.e xv m - ww ..ng.>3. u.nu, a.m. .ws;> 9 7,y ~.. w. . w, w y m.n g. +;4. s y: q:.,p y _. ;.g;4 o.r. y, x.a.y,s..,p ; w, q..1.+;.a q4 y;y.g:. t n.,... g 9,.:. r. eq. y q, ;.. < 1 3.:. qq,:a. p%. y.,, y, y. ,g. a g < >.w a Jg w n s p ~ w m. g *;%,. m w:.*w, m?.e.nJ M [q*b.*yCS*p %w., c .a , > j;,%... r 4,..g 0, ',~. r. - .,,/
e. <.Q: w'.,,,.t~,
- i.o ,;V W gJ y s t 6 a ..,. q -. e.... c .u r qn*.,o., F. -#T - r2 6, \\*
M.
'..a ~. 4U.E' [ k '# 4 Q' 7,% .S N. A'.ed Y h t p.-,4,g"y. ...,4.,'.. g..;.4.. j,, f [ % ;Fo., g y g g .j './ '
-3

$. w]4.,
e Y L .s v .e ;< 2..s ~. 4 .:rp o, y - a .m.a. J_ q P ^ '1 Ia'- p y u-7 + .h % [$ *_ ' ([' q # l w; Ei. 1 M ' *f_j
e.., p. g,
ye,.; , v.g. z.< 7 ~ v. bh?k:.u w;.3.wDiki&.%...h.n&u x ;$. pp'W.w?&. m. 4n,;., v.t.. w..f..w$nu.qw .r .s vmr .a .g;m.,y,,. <.:...n a ,.v y hpQn2y,sm,?QW;@GMM&.nlh.$.7'h:c.ba%y%M~%p _h.. 24n% w m. b.m$.e &. $$f.ffr. &, h,.,. h& ..w n:s, e M:.m.o w g.Z M ay WM&MMO:>%w.p:,w.W^ ^.4,+Q4hWyM.W7:45%%~ ~b m. e 4@p ?;"6%m ;Ea. .g AW ZM MNQiG MMMWGM MiAKW W^ & &yN"EMAN W- ~g %'^ M-O% 4 n.%-w QMV '3 %gy&Mb~:n &p.g 4., y9 Wg % K @r;%: " W"V"M X" *YG%.% i M: su & Mn % M.4 @ ^ ^ MDG -'~ &W %phQ:.%: -%.2
Q Mwim

ssQM W W;A;&p W.w)
W F M' e 4 b w e r h. wd,. M..Nexu.. .- mm;epn.n. mu g. >.p,g +y,7m ~.a s.r cu 9.. w v,r.e,. O.r # e - mt. g . s, m .e %y &w:w %m s m.w w;2:,nd. W w g, p r. n WwM
w..
J Gw yc pso;;ch.:M.3,y w .w:w. v. nis Mb N:. dhM MlMfM i permit.: NUREG-0884, j 4.2.7, at 4-10. The staff also discussed the M E h ih $ Q d M M'stdl W presence of the spotted turtle on site and noted that it was the staf1's un-I %c e. 4w b 'Aw %.% 4 derstanding that the applicant was currently discussing with the Division f;?mp M $Ns0h.y ,m,F p MiR@w,%Rp$$wp$ of Wildlife of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources habitat require-ie M-4740 ments and methods of protection. NUREG-0884, f 4.3.7.2, at 4-25. g.~ %
F ).@b. h@@i M.. k b
"$ ? ' In its discussion of environmental consequences, the staff summarized k.d. t'hfdT5E WMN as follows:
n. g. d.n ae W
r( 1>,.a q s m,yyy.Q., %h
h. Qh,%;c:w:
v p h%.M%kQdQN7.3 Maintenance procedures for vegetative control along the PNPP transmission lines DMhD?]hNk?[M M will consist of periodical mechanical cutting employing a bush hog. The applicant in-
Y.@ h fa& Kf M M ?f Ei,. 4[ 7.h@g Jg dicates thSt it is not his policy to use herbicides for vegetation control along the dlb.@h.Q z.m.A64? $1y va m. 4, %,4 PNPP transmission lines. Thus, it is the staff's evaluation that adverse impacts from QOf b
w. g.. c<gsg the maintenance activities will be minimal. h h[%as%:d, D ;C,.f.7). M ;0 k.# g % w M,%, 3 rh. %; u. - dbM M CM.~ gg e%.w;M*4.ed.W ag s
44 A mpWg p f.
tN NUREG-0884 at 5-8. rA h $NkN NN.hh With respect to any impacts of PNPP operation on the spotted tuttie, i/hM7$Fd 57%$fy the staff found that to date, the spotted turtle's habitat has not been af-MO b M iYh M D3 @: h M y O fected by activities at PNPP and that the applicant was discussing the ND j.yyyj possible effects of future construction and operating activities on the h Yhf h',#b.g@hh! ygpMhpMd M W turtle with the State of Ohio. W MWi. M%u$$R_v In October 1982, CEI and Ohio Edision filed an amended application
, A@p%s.ag.w.,
W@,[l 'MWC.MM,. @-w@Q$p$ 'Msll f. before the Ohio Power Siting Board for the Perry-Hanna transmission p line. In the amended application, as in their original 1978 application, W,fME.m /gg.j$ %h the applicants stated they would use a number of herbicides and de-W p;w, g&: @o e J M. S.e.: ~W Q %, h.:. e. M ..A W-. n~;pr scribed the methods of application and chemical components of those to , W,,.uJ m@6 w:~.h. ;.tn, -o 7+. # v.m.u 3 w Y, be used. U@h. O,c.s..>1,p.t$ $D-,S 1 @y. -.. v. &. $)- ~..,.. u.,.,.r.. m : e.,. es. .w pw c . u-::. m#wem w O,N.N ANALYSIS @ %gWSM %pd#.Y!tulM Rf D@M MfM M M Q @W-$:-Q G!%t @M M<.W.W% G tion 290.08 concerning the use of herbicides or its failure to correct the il0 yyQ The issue is whether the applicant's statement in its response to Ques-Y M 3~ D Y, k Q f % % 5s M % h stafi's conclusions in the FES on maintenance procedures is a " material M,g. p$,M [q w g'hN!N.M W M I@fhQ %. m ,f.g.s MW@ false statement," and, if so, what enforcement ' action, if any, is ' a. s n w N M 5 6. M if' M ,pQ appropriate. ? w:mQ h. c rnw -hM'[5$rp 6%i N -Nh, C ^.h,e s.b'. 6t'53,r.w$.%.s* w'. s j ~.Q.c - ; ten <( A. *d-4.a c=.*w;/.fd ' .h $kA1 c..C 4 ar s 2.~ o &m, cv e. yye
M r..m #.. s, ';r
,The construction permits state: ,_'?N y g g',b M'C,'? (',b.(;4Mu h < M.,v.h /c<Q.pj'Q~M ",q.y Before engaging in a construct on activity that may result in a significant adverse environmen-talimpact that was not evaluated or that is significantly greater than esatuated in the Final En. p 1 - ^ g - g '1'); vironmental Statement. Apphcants shall provide written notificauon to the Director. Division M.WM . kl. f.ih, v. of site safety and Environmental Analysis; and ' J W. U 77. C.; f.! a G%, < $.,.'TJ * '.d.M If unexpected harmful efTects or eviderice of irreversMe damage are detected dunns facility ' %g?" { $ L; 1.f '7 , S,,. - . v.'U ; construction. Appucants shall provide to the Commission an acceptable analysis of the problem and a plan of action to eliminate or significantly reduce the harmful efrects or damage. tScr. ,,, W[ d k,4..!Q, f;.f /.
t..%'.t e.-
....V..<' License Conditions F.6 & F.7 construction perrmi number of CPPR-148 & CPPR.1491 !?.T..Jy, ! 4; 5
e:. 9.&; c.A e. d.
e; ud%q:.r. . -...,.WWW $i
m p.wg.
.WS.a w ~ s ~, h,N.ph. M Nh N Nbh@h M. R 1292 = u a. g.n n. w w. sw.my'lw%x: nu nwm .n., % w r,f @ p 4 G :lL ^ %"I,'m.NW[f.RY r. 2 Y.y: cuyQ W.MW-1, ',SA t, r;f.W C_ h r. N .; e ' ?.w. g,. g,g A~.M..
M-4 t
c %.,0 , Yk.. a" ! h , N e' 5 -f, h:?l~ n> h I . n;7 m _ w <7.n m: a.. . ;"'., _, :vw.n:' e x. a,. s a n %.. ct--*y=-cyw,j 4. 4 ,a svyv s
g 9 W W:w Q.~ p..;m.:nq.- M.i w c.m
..e..,.
w;
+ ..:y m. s, g nn. w.
m..,m en:e<
.. m%p.; xm en ?- <w ,u y-W;^ p 9 a + r" :. a ,y a g m. p g $ :.gW. m.g;;26.w:f p, q, p.g;x2 p 4 m. ugsyr.qtet W; NA N P, m.m.g-Q.K: 4mc yr,..;. -p / g_ w~ch~, y._w - k. Pc @,s; ;.g in o.,.. .s w ....c ,.z s.:,, ;m:. m.m. y ;.y 2.b .,pgn..,: x. y c>~... w '
n. ~
m.-4 gqu9tM. g.~ s.!c ,;..,,.. - p. L.. c, k - n,,. a .c xW yw v .y.- %m : m %l.h. ...hk$ DENN,,.
p
.c., s.'~f$..-m' W. ?m'p / ~M 8. $,.??h_.g$ &.u&?{,hbYl_Wh'g@ Yh. h_k.YW$...$. S ? I }'. l . ?.y y- _m. . g%gffg.g m q{gf y ; y, d.Q.h.5 Qg Q gi m . 7_ -, .p'j m N ~ ~ - L ? ~.. . :c m d p s. ,w., e 4 y 3
..w n
v ~' 9 z. Mv'.. s. -,"C-,', A
I"*.

p.,
. g.m,, 4,:, - 7-. '~ 1 -7 y~... x y N-n.. .7.. ,6 ( ' _ fk ^! <39 2-M. B;d.c ' " C..,a> '. 4 * ' N. i for material false statements derives from section 186 of the Atom Vl W.IN il_j. ,x%g-u,s e . c., r;., a; 3 v .c. m ,,7.c t t~Q.. 7 ' 9 i.'.J ' .q-h ~ '.C y. .s. J + 1954, as amended: statement in the apphcat#on or ^ . a tt',"'-; e fl t Any bcense may be revoked for any material a se182, or because of conditions revealed .;c :s -w.,e j t record, or inspection or other ~m,- %'~ any statement of fact required under section V - u;. >:.3. -
?.s:' x to grant a hcense on an origi-by such apphcstion or statement of fact or any repor.means which wo e
p ~ I ' ' O EC f ~' N J.., - - J5i O:' N 6.'C. W: d.O
.$i na nai apphcation..
iW,.hk., W.w u a p 5.. 0 :~.YwM. ialfalse Mb 42 U.S.C. l 2236(a).The Commission addressed the meaning of the term W--. m ~n%cA..w. gur . w. ~/ N m P 0 (1976), affd. 571 statement" in its decision in Virginia Bearic an UG b @;,,i W@ ? W $[/$dt. Y-c' Power Station. Units 1 and 2), CL176-22,4 NRC 48 VEPCO, the Com- .i, a F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) (hereinafter VEPCO). Inmiss , ; u '.y. Nj,y!.. ^ pass material n .. %A:.W@% N' c. wn,a 1 .-c. ',M. V 3, g. y @1 m, fli A ~, omissions. 4 NRC at 489-91. Knowledge of a s ty86. With respect to the Jg y uy.6,;v j -n a
s. y n.e%p.g:ps JA liability for a material false statement. 4 NRC at 4 mater u
-.x_.. :.w, s~..;,...s
j.myzeg
.r ..u t ;.., g g q&v =l cC4.7 y e> %p'M,'Le Q[O d5 Ijj,M ' [%h[3%y'#1 of material data, we '_hK 2' S ' i By readtng material false statements to encompass omiss onstrivial, is forwardd to the fc 3
- w. M w y,:g,s,,
do not suggest that unless all information. howeverit penalties An omission must be material .q, 1;,c%'g 3ygg Q;f y; .r y $1 yffe:-isfli-$:s'_9. -%,MfM f..M,Mi% . IDieterminanons of mate- - - ~ - agency the appbcant will be subject to civ186 into play.f the contex!in whichinformation y N to the hcenssng process to bring Section involved. Materiahty depends t,pon
5N. 'h. wpm, N:s y gu g My 3 Y
w rwhty require careful, common-sense judgments o g&. S.. Q&&. 7~Ju M, @?. A..d'p? appears and the stage of the hcensing processor capabelny to innuence a reasonable izy Q.py Y %y:;;Q:Q whether information has a natural tendency s hi; h Q M % $:Qj!4j{MJ agency enpert. W R:4? n g,
m g+ f 9.. M li t's response 5
Sm r : g.G g Q The first question to be addressed is whether the app canher pertinent info ?. t 4 NRC at 491. %g@M3ffgh@QQf&Q h the effects of transmis. .pl6 to Question 290.08 was false or w et fid omitted. The staff asked the applicant to assess tted turtle and to state dd; yM%5f LMWMOf WsPa h sion line maintenance procedures on t e spoportion of the Perry trans-8Mty. MM8 MOM ?!. w' '. y ls to the NRC and whether herbicides would be used along any g@h.s. g @ b'h i mission lines. CEl, the entity responsible for subm ttaf ih regard to its .D <C@', i 7M@g; Q dpS;f@pfQg 4 own practices but did not address the practices oto use herbicides along the Perry y ;. 'd We QT&gg:MT%fM However, CEI omitted the tesponse that CEl's policy was not %d b,p@MMM5Mk: transmission lines was true as far as it went. fact that the o bi ides to main-MdVIMD@$Q[M f .i M .l n, C h.1%4M:MYd@ M M % by the Commission, both tain portions of the transmission line corrservice areas. Un prM ._ / h w~ M; W,. 4;,.: 1;;Q ' M g ' NM rn.ys m+s.* Q W,3 c the applicant's initial incomplete statem MM
q"r;g Vy e
%+x dh 4%g fa:r4 g mym:.2.p-:4w*g f}+MM'y ea m 5 hk nw ,. w w. s. a. y? %,3-y r ? ;;4 1293 , s %., n.=v.ct(,9'a'n y p.9 m;;;9,y g(. t m..:. e m e! p .? Q V.:* A.*',; Q_ h. N". u-, qpA.s. [p : A. gI.p#.p+. )(.y%:-ye.: m y. ,.,4p < "d.'.myPa V c h. %9.%.% ,-n; g l
y' % >.-
4*.ake%.) i h n-p y Q.
v...n.1,4 KIN-w P ~** P C N '"'I 7 I5' W y s.m.1 w. c' w,.s M =D.
.A.. 4 m.s? a w w phs mha$s e$ h. x a , ps dM q j, u%'7 ^.[ N ENh h e .m n phD, n [r D.w k [nh. v*W"[T.~?"~'T*"'T r,C,, e M m.nw w hD.m,$$..".y,m#.ipMQ nN j' .y wyw.g. w ww.gn.
nhjpfngw w g.
l w, a,,...~,M."m. m" d N d. s*<.,.
g. m'L: y 3,w%n y,a..
p ;+-= w\\;vy..' N /*"i.y?f,; + fy mn Y r s ;g. , m-y..g.,,.g+3 A W '.f C-p w~ ' - [;.'^ t g t y.3 g, m;f. 7.,n. g,, g g f,.~ <ga; m a. '-#' ? ;,j P; J nLe 'g , d 0:n (. ~ i. .%. c,. . ~' ?? u n r;U ;:%Q4 k.f1,.:e N,N:.*_'.W &. :;.4 A.~ y: ,.,v~ 4 .- c.y,1 ,, j, m,oe. ~* p,, .. -[cf,v mi , " ~ - ',, +. 2. x.o. : fp,4,;.;Qn.- n g@,p;. k Q.y .u p.' ww 4 ~ ,..n, v a.* y
).
cs h s. sy ,* - 4 y :A: magg, %, .-. %ag ,ci. g,. e ,c M9M . cm. :. .,,., _ '~.... _ 9 .u.v. e. :,., o . u .... m. m: p: m....... g: :;. a. ~. p$ I$g.;.:.wpRyl:f64yQl% - p,..
c

u. m,.,
. mg. . n p.a... O ^ &, *y _.g. ~ .,;i n. y ~ 6tl.C: .NN;c{ ?Mg,h%Q,9;i "/M @$.7 '.~a S. fS.&rM:.y MJF. Gj L' W W W.B Q h />:. W n &..vlf M @y$.7,M : W Q:5 g$ lQV~.y.!:[ ';b ':% % lT Q W. ,b W 3 G.~. l.; ? M].l:m.QW~.x Wyr.? ' ' ' - : w M >y 5 e n. y.e ; w % u.4 m% g g d m*.%q d;,.. m.+ 8 ,4.p:xpq('d?M&63, s M G x .. r.>.,p m .a +,p$Y.Y.sww& J.W. NN ~.Q1b4 Q~~m eu$9"'Ms.%hh*h$;.'? . : * $;~*l f? R? i j-W -j --~ -s u - + x - ~~ a--- & Q. >.i vU:n (",%,.M.A.q.5 n;%,G:';$(pg4 il .3 x
p,. g. h%"w.m. # c,s -
. b .2 .. w : j u..P ..I m b., , p i w l. *' v' :,. ?.g.le*,3 Y,. M T %k;., -....,:,., A'.v.:%. s. L a D*t * $ ^ , wn..t m ..a~m sr. s. L.%.. wny y,.,,7,.y y. %.y y.f.g. > e w. ;9 n. y g.m-h.g u ,,p., .-;.j. r Q,@fiFh.d;6.f.L..Wdt d,gyJ <Q.l i.,, ' n.,A,.'d' ~ T '.Q,,gs question and the failure to correct the staff's use of the statement in the .a M.. FES are " false statements" by omission. m.?#;M W MnM. The second question is whether these omissions are " material," in b;D<.. W'n.'.$..,i 8M,: . c% - in m 5.T/'M Q M; s.,, the sense of having the capability to influence a reasonable agency 7, y 2 '; ". y;y. W M(.. g.y g y Q.y; Sg expert or cause him or her to inquire further. With respect to the general EMd%?@@S 4p.;$NWQh @Q issue of the use of herbicides for transmission line maintenance, the
g g staff had previously evaiuated the practice in its FES-CP and concluded
( g.p g#el'q.fjrGj;;W.. f..$.w;Q that the environmental impact would not be significant. This conclusion 3,; f f j, gl.' 1 $;,..- m. g.,,;. v .w$ .uo .r ' c. m%;.. was based upon m. formation supplied by the applicant in the ER-OL. W'.. y. .z .y 4 c. o ..m 4 13,1j'; sJy:g; d ;. W N The applicant hd correctly stated in the ER-OL that transmission line s wg;, W H maintenance v.ould be as stated in the ER-CP, i.e., by use of herbicides. f., u.,a, ~y. y.y e. 4ic'p$gg This statement was correct because some co-owners intended to use ,;~ ;-. L. v y . ; 4 'x n. W. y $ yl y %..
('h M
.Mg ' ' d ' 7 f.c W y$$7%@dgg herbicides. The staff apparently did not notice the discrepancy between the ER-OL and the response to Question 290.08. It relied on the re-e.-c ;, L.,, i E,FW M%f< C.J'M.Ti sponse to Question 290.08 and included that information in its discus-s y - p r. w a ,. n.y. > 7.,,.;, w,.x, q u.,.y. s,s,q ~ ;N--., W. sion m the FES. n. ...wj .r ~ n.3. ;Ap M R;.G. MLf4 If the applicant had told the staff reviewer in response to Question $ 7 ( y [Z^ M,$ @.7 Sph 290.08 that it intended to use herbicides along some transmission line My f t.d '.,e - O M@k[W'.dWi*h .Lf.w 49 f right-of. ways, the reviewer would then have tried to determine whether , y y.g g.y j. b y.M%g;.rl.W M% 7 the use of specific herbicides to be applied would be detrimental to the c, w spotted turtle or its habitat. If no specific information was available, or . '. Q,- (W. f,y'.... 9.. ld.p..@4% the information indicated a detrimental impact, the staff would have con- .; ~. ), ; " - a, ~; z. t,. y g..;g ;CNbe 1, ".4d.m;;7";y @,.f:p." ?,. @y7-suited with the State specialist on the spotted turtle for specific .,.. ~ ..n. recommendations. Thus, the omissions were material because, had accu- ^ 7:A,>f af.%M rate information been provided, the staff would have taken additional g; x- . ";.. a.w.~'.t w 0 actions. 4 2 .,s c s '"6" ".Jd After determining that the licensee made a material false statement, g ;. W] d .[ ' y :p '; the Director examined what enforcement action would be appropriate m. yz a o.., .v: # u e. under the Commission's Enforcement Policy,10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appen- ..c . w ,. ;e s:. - c. a dix C. The Enforcement Pol. icy provides for categorization of violations ,c .c v. p a,. ~ - A (;W.nd. s p under one of five Severity Levels depending upon the safety and regula- . ; yy; i '.x_ .. a y,W.g,f MT/2N;N$q;5M@[ 4 7g tory significance of the violation. 4 3yg A The applicant's initial incomplete statement and its failure to correct
1 z e.
$hN the staff's use of the statement in the FES have not had any significant M y t: l' g '[. J. 7 ~' d h,g '_ f.. M,ce;53,. % $w $p regulatory impact. The staff's review of the transmission lines for the w.: N 33:f g;l %,(j.#j shf3 u %$;lshz O'4. .g. PNPP is not yet complete. The Perry-Hanna line (the only I!ne where %.i( '. $g.% herbicides may be used) has not yet been approved and, therefore, any .~ ,;2 ey;p.:._, M. % impact of the use of herbicides on the spotted turtle or its habitat off site .. w . e s -.c ; .q , ic' ' ]u .is speculative. Moreover, the State reviewers who have the expertise in .g this area (since it is a State-listed endangered species) have had accurate g..- v> s f..f - 4 NX
4. ;,
information on the use of herbicides. Who. 'Jtility applies for a permit ~, u:: s yi from the Ohio Power Siting Board, tr.y Department of Natural ,t
.~...
1.+ T.s.,d '.._:', ; 's 3. y .u. t ' " q.;..~h.;'h ), n~ sf w.d 1294 <y * :r L-s,...'%r v. 5, s., j. s. A. s 4 ~* .-7 a m..,..g.%w.m@@., e v.e R.Q.s.H. 3 q, rhy., f.f r
f f* Q

H, s a.
$g
..3, s 'I b.i,
Z)m.m,'%,. 4 M..-y. lj Mi
~
q
..c .a . y l n.; yy ' f s ,.3 :... c e.'.' ",' k + jbM {,.p-h .? [ '. ~~ ~ ..'ya c.'_.,y.Q:. 1 + g s " j 5 -.C' 4.' N ' $.' ;/ (. '*'~7'/[", ]. (.-- T' q t, f.947,g ry:: y. g.,c.;9. f.g, p,,. ~e , :. %.,:.x,.-a.v %y C i,%w . 4. : - v Q...a n. e. a. . 3 -.; n. - _~ ' "p:a. s>r,..., ,~ ,A..., g m %.y3 ,.fyn., .s p- }.,.,,Mpw op@ygg 'r 'e, m. 1 ae; MW .wM W & M,W W _ \\ 3,..V t- ;f:, l . Qv; gg.g;g%gggyf;gy ~R .i. <,.,3. g.W:pw'%+g gnwq:9g;pg;fjpgy
~

-: 9 ; Y:.-.. *

jg c
W& ,.y;9gQ4GW.q ga y3:' M p.,, 37;.fg g.: g ff<'$fg).g.f g'.pp;gggg q. 7 _' - 3., }'
r M, '
2;i b h L a : l J 1 P .~ ? ',
~,

c.e 7 _.... a y. .n. ~ ~ ;, : a.. e v g,. +,. .n .c.. z \\ ' ~ _ay.; -r n. t
. r,c.r-'
-;fe.
m.4.,**
_3..,,
Y s,
,, C
x 1
.- J y..
+.
Resources, Division of Wildlife, reviews the request to determine its en- $ /dr' y [ '~ .g dh ;/ A.,y. 'p"
br vironmental consequences. Once the Ohio Power Siting Board approves t
/... cM u-a transmission line route, the NRC will rely on its conclusions regarding -M. -
d N N -

@

?, O.. 4 '
~.. the environmental consequences of the route for the State's endangered , ?; 1 - M 7 1. .g. g jf p species such as the spotted turtle. Thus, the environmental conse-quences of herbicide usage at Perry are being adequately considered and .q.g..lgf g._ y r,.Q' . j%57 ?-- e' the applicant's false statement has not impeded that consideratiort T '. Wi $. N .m s.m There is no indication that this was other than an isolated occurrence . ~ .a .%, 0 ;;4i @M. u.~u.. or that there was any intent on the part of the applicant to mislead the ~ , G~;..,,,,j e g,. j g:,Ef d:~,4 %.. a, f. m % em g y;: , -. m Commission or gain any economic advantage. Counsel for the applicant %s. - ~/ -.7 ;e;. ps wv..~ m t%e.;..,. 4,, t( e~ &. ~gp,%. M, g.e':w$..n. Wj.7 has indicated that apparently when CEI reviewed the DES, it did not 4
p....
n notice that the stafT had broadened CEI's response to include all the -(. -J.g (-3 Q:; Qi . S L r.gMW3QR$.QQ@9 transmission lines rather than just CEl's portion alone.2 Thus, the Direc-p@. tot has concluded that this violation should be categorized as a Severity N.,f WW, :g;. ;'C/ *S&, %,p g.a.,.4 l '. E // 7 f.! y %. %; rp%. e. m.:. M...,. e c W LevelIV violation. -.. a. ec..g@$ A Notice of Violation will be issued to the applicant following the f ~ %;i " T!ji,[@Mb'W M'//. 1 ~Q.c.,q~ M' @%K@ F' Commission's review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. s 2.206(c). The p[Qyppgi(4M..n;% Notice of Violation will require the applicant to respond and describe its fG!p.
p. M Ms:' d bWh corrective actions to prevent similar occurrences in the future. OCRE's

e. m h...1 request for other enforcement actions is denied.
( m
n. m,.e,nx n,p w,,.;m..
w w- , 'e G.gg,f.(,'f}Q;'.y g e.,;f{;j'{?;[ n FOR THE NUCLEAR j ;' gg; .g
w. d h,.o. s,W;;q. w.n REGULATORY COMMISSION
. %. a%.WO/yNw*.. f.M ,.r % ~%,> &.f: g:, r ' ~ *.'/, v.. A. M,u.WZ e, r:. :% <.
* '

s.W.-

.f:
. i..s. P.- } :.. .x ,y ,e -; y; g 7.s..h 3.. ,3 4.m; w. e, p.; yn. 0 -n w., ; ~ v:. Fp..;.,.: aw ... c u..-o,.. - ~ s r f. t. ;yYT.5;$.$$R Richard C. DeYoung, Director v m
,p g,;'

. Q. m:p g.,%ga.s

g. %
.wQo a.. Office ofInspection and p,% ; <,.e,-%a y%. Wk: m. ?9 W.. %., s , G,,,yn Enforcement Ch wMg, M;tg. 10:- r y y w;;.y;.w.m:w <.m. 4.y g. o e y sl.. Dw' *.,% =-k y
Q
-M J.W : ,C - W.s&pe.:
s T w v' f
.i .w Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, M6.m.7.c3 r@ C / r%s Ap.w, a ngy.m+9lml y this 15th day of N,ovember 1983. wW. .. %2.amW.F% N :-k *.M n D *,V' 4 : %, h' f 4t.d '?k.4 4# ' %pM1,.d'fM :.'.d5. 1 {&.;w;p~ ~e&: N ng&;*4. i3%,:(.. ' 4:p:w.g?;Qs.n ,.N. N -ei J .was vla y a - c8 ~- ..ep -A w,.w.w n :;.r.m..w-w..c-. e
a'%W. :.rgu%m.,.c;&g,pty; 4 ) g;.
as .; p /....~,. t. g m..d. s:.1$.;A;. u c f,.; ~ *;. % s.n,, '.7.R.,w:,.: v..u a ac
s. v/ -f.g
. - e%,g. ? ' y u m'.,g,,:.- w a :. s;. f.~=: y '.@n 7. %aw 2%.,;. w, s., %, : w.m .r e,en :;n.,.3. y f c % a,;,t m.n%
w w..
~ ..:r n:; +. e e W:y"O. '%'T'W-r ....,.f,....i.,,=.,~.q,. ;._,.. 'M.: s 2. 4. s:'. :. .h y - .,,.t.,, a
^. y ? Lyn.~ >:s u.:
. e'. p-a., 'n wa.m .s. a
2..n:., 4.g:(?'.'.;;.pf 6.m. > -& ;..W~ *v
..c p;,; m..
W

P % c u s NWW ~{.49.w<;!::0&gp1
? *.v.. 7 w. ,e -
n
@p, y;ScQ,R6:: 5 \\- h $$ k h Y $$ h piY h hh.L Y v.- 27.yg.<..< v...:n., e q .= m.c: n .m gy@gg. j.!.h,y.Nj%r 3Orwia=f Orcrrr Emmamar ce (Perry Nuclear Power Plam. LJnits I A 21. Docket hos 50-440 and EG
,g.7..
~ dim gg. bl),g;g',$/~;.. ; 50-441, transenpi of Telephone conference. May 9,1983. Tr. 845-47 ya.p;;ggytj';; %+.lsf.H:g c: N i 4%..w..j@.,, r..W.o.. e.m%,s-9, 4%,@$. ~.$..*Qtw 1 x...v. m. 4u. -d .x c
u., h. s'...$. : u, %s y
.. 4.sQ'lm&+L ~ \\. ?,.: - y"., R.@n.:.4@'%* .,.Q,? ' p. :d.#~ p s. M.; wn v. 4 y V.e.Cf2?q':.gCW;.wm;fih,dd..w% s'. 3.wu.or, a W W: g2k9 >HMV 6vhn.-RMQ:w.y.Fe%4 Yik~;.u www..r: g%A y i }. %.'. Q.y h. b Q.-V.T*.i,,5.T Q :~ . A.h..e/h h. D. s.,..,%e;he. ,t y Nd .y s y q'v.
7,. *m' y Q;'nc*T$.3.~, y-***. y.*-w 2 *- Q ~
, ~.', *
Q f '; { o"l.$*Q.y },}p,'*.x,. f.:g.&.x,;..
C f- ,?f*%:d. g p .j.,$,f, 1 . ~ - ~ .z e - w a..,.. g i.n.:. c- -':. w.s>m:% f,.f.e PL,y; W, 3.w. _ y -. 4. ,. a v - m&;a,q. +~.mg. 2 y _ygp.ya:.:' >m .r e. .;:.p : h': Q b Q. %g.,dq;ps. %y&gifjg;;q;pri.,p.g.f% wp c
L g,? $%nn w?Q'Q.!;xl,f.p,n

U:9 y-?. y. q:. w: W '. R Rf. Q y. .. f: .u.n.; y.<_y.a:mm,4 c;;m w-e w? ,s. 7.. .. w< ,.t. g.py g., p p,..;g ( Wn.n.4,3y .p g .c- ,yn m.gy.jm.$,r-- gy. kw.g@g .x .p fygpqQk:ps ,,u. m.;4.:,s Q,. . p.Q, - j -.3 4 ;cF-i.i Q W. ~
c. *.
. ~,,c:.-q.. M. f. ~p%. w g ~4 . w. 4: y ~ ./ ,.c. '. ~* ::n *w: '.: .n G @y.;;m; i x.g.;;z gy;,p,7 4. -a ~ h m,.g 9m ~
a
.<.,;t ;.?.w.y
n s.
4 m~ ~ . O ; +e.ntm.z. m.2 w m n -:
y
.m ~ < m. m 3 = x q _s_ mn. %- w. m _. .a e:s. _u .v-i_.s :. +. s.ww ..a.1 f ^. *, U .s ...w mus:p,.,.
s..g. >-n-m, J j !? A g g y +.; Y.
n.WQ 2
c. w

M w
-4 ~ 2p% ' Y l b-h~ w a a n..,m,.~g+Qcy.:r;M'@&M%% y :Q@%g;g.%/y&4 %Q.;.?. 7w 'sl-f h icw G \\ n u. fffh>* .e, x.' ; p ;m *
' ~ ';
e Q.Aggy. 7 - ; ; WRgg < w:.%: ~s A. g ; n;, w w <.<.: u s c w, : v.y / *a.,. yt t 4m pw m snw~. v.ip:p '.. e ...~3, ^~ p. 2 ~ p.% > n".in:lll&w,: cyp. gn %m,, A6y g,yg a=a_.a -: % Aj. +~ a e ys,pp g)] hQ Sb <,s,.p w w :e n.Q.m y Q. yn h.., u. y %c.~ %',%,yh,A ' YNMpmha ~ = N.
s. y aw w m h. w>
m f ? Dg.pa v <>3,s.g 4g&.sV. AwhL e,.&, yg, u: >;,.c m.,et .$$y er -e. .m 2em ,.y,,%, dWM@yA q$.v".f,p9g gh.. g $',,y g- ,g # n c e,
c. g.~.s

s.,>,,, e, c.
3,y3, 53t .,.y.a .1 -t ,~ ,m.eyq 6 ;m. r r$w,pn. 4. - - Q' n.a /.Mw@p?M@t@Q $/m ~..n.q# Cite as 18 NRC 1296 (1983) .? 1 M.a go M$p I . 'Q W 1j 4 r K 4pf4 DD-83 18 ?* ' p.M. v<;m.%,pA1.MWf6t ;r l4;n..A} UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,v p
i..
,w v / NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m s pp4 4.?.. g M.: Q. W M[hh kNh h ', m./, M.,,d *;. W Q i &,Y Yj"a. $, m OFFlh & NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULA w ~ .W. n %$$ 5 h-1.y f ft. y2. a . Q Y. b'r a. f f y*M y ;.W w;,p'.5,h y n U5f& @g m % e..,f W r S W W $.;f Harold R. Denton, Director W . v 9 .n wup *4 ~. gw. W,.4.,4.y f .7, i hh h r
W
.,, v s y,r%.P t b% & 6 wpm /N in the Matter of ?.$' ~ w t.,$.ym.M y Mupp&q % t ii f Docket Nos. 50-289 [o-a m mm@m&yx.p&g ymQ: q n vy
e
? ' ? NU e , M..m.O. pa.- dk WMJP.V13 x 50-320 6 ?- U. ~n. @4 a,gM., p p h %@m GENERAL. PUBUC UTILITIES ( 0 C.F.R. I 2.206) 4 4a .. ~,j A a M/ NM - n.W MsGgMd.W NUCLEAR CORPORATION A Mk ~ ' 77 d,Rw.Th& n;p pW5IkiMNN% (Three Mile Island Nuclear w . c. n:3 : t.~ + &.s M, v &+ W;M..p& Station, Units 1 and 2) "2 P n;,.; e 'p:-.. np %.W s.j +a r.n.. a.. .m s N M M ~ N @ W yg% g.m.. - A4 November 18,1983 h p h. WG Un rW / M5..g4?
3 b; @ h@cM M M @h$ ph wo The Director of the OfQe of Nuclear React gjn
.A. MWM petition by Randy King, on behalf of the Thor Regulation de Ao q p.4X g:- ' .h g%QUk/jkhMM Interest Resource Center and others to the ~ ~ - ree Mile Island Public IS load test of the TMI Unit 2 polar crane or ot i AMd ayagm.n.ng,q alk,.WM ~. %. see from conducting a w .,*N., Wmp'. (O, use. s ". 3, 4.@,b - N erwise qualifying the crane 3/ d.. :; +- g wm . 4%:.n4 t&f .,, 3.,,,. 9 ;gm%p @m%w".M.W!y gf .cw mn. m m. @fE M s ' A. W INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECISION c,a o U..- ygg v.7 m:L,- z ~.yg,:! y .w
w. 7 y-Q.uw_
10 C.F.R. s 2.2M EM Q
N.l:
5NNNE %f -Q.;$D% @Mk sion dated MarchBy letter to Chairman Palladino of the Nuc Wg
?QMb@M@@
[T' E, b.m z pp;. Island Public Interest Resource Center and othRan @m;:q: 23, 1983, y 8 Md@WC[MM, $@? b O a o the Three Mile .c y gjM.f,,,Q,,R:] to as TMI-PIRC, or the petitioners) ers (hereinafter referred t .o '
',7
" halt all work at TMI Units 1 requested that the Commission M.S necessary for safety." TMI-PIP.C based its requestand 2 imm '.. Nf. i, Richard D. Parks concerning implementation of h on the allegations of ~. < program and related areas at the Three Mile I l 3 un t e quality assurance + p _ j.[:x ^. f s and Nuclear Station. m n , ; m' - ;~- .',4,. y p' e s, u-a ,( n
.. - i ', 4 <
.,',a. 'a [. y =. *. .'s F., f.. m4 A:: . +< g> u n"' 4 jg n v , ~ m. x. W }l; 9 W, F , m.~f g 1 f, n,'a,,
-. e'
? ,m
c-....x,...y y l
+ [ r o g g
p. y..
sp,a,-4 - *~ :.:.",:m ~., r, c. s' c' '#f h.. .t*'* I
n. k. p' r.... m-- m~.j *e.~~
-.n ~w~. - e f L.y'. ?,. ,r ,1, g, .e 'Fg *p,e
'b-
~- m.>.y'.,.y ,g y ^3 vs%:,.;glsp )
M' #e.
g 4 8-D.. n +. ~ fn. <. - - -*.,..e y" 1 wr ~r.,. , n .- i
7 m*-
A '...g % p: ;, s ' u y pu;. ra"'. s - - ' .'c .. t., .e s . :j w u 1 - *.. s , My.,. M.g.w; n; 4.. : e p eu n -+.7 1, > n_y sy 9 un m- ..f I r
4. 9 5 m. ;fj c.3.. j;*4o.n,
gb f' a.- 8 3 u .w. n '. r, .. ~. ' ~ %;w.:a,g-y:n.-p7,. - nn t p .,. ha:2 s y T n~ y:. s ~ 2 &"[
M w.T. g %. a m.@7, 4.m.r.,3.w. Ap
.y G ~.. :hp, e. e ,lf-6 f M.9.s N j,;p.. ;.,].; 1 g e v g. 'k AR .-. m. 9. p.y ur
s...
4.' 2 +m*,n.:e,f * * ? .;.,,, + + ; V.. p)., .M 3;;.n.m,g, M,.., q y / b.g { ,a, ' y~. ,*h t.
p.. g.y.
, e t s., 3 ~ % i; ~g-Js*
q w;4.:.Ax M,g %.a
..q^- .h pen ;<ew. .w m,' ^ M "W 'O k a-~ \\
n-
+,.. ; fg 4 "(o e3 \\*,"pP i I.A y e 1 .w; y., P,',-_ a ['j o.y b " N. @['s. e ,8 s ., e __.i #' M""' ' [ *. ' b "s m* -p '[ J P *'t M ' N .4 ..%.e a-M '- ',e 0 f. 8 3...g., ^ L ~... ^ + ,>s ~ .m." --.c .a 4m (t s, s, ~ c ^' 's l';' ' 7,[1? p t would be ..u d that its letterf h Com- ~N$- On May 17,1983, TMI.PIRC was informe pursuant to 10 C.F.R.j 2.206 o t euest for immediate action h pe M X j7lJ43 l@{.l., 1. 2,i .%,s 5 i i i treated as a request for act on ers were informed that a prelim.s indicated that ? 'c., T::: mission's regulations, and that its req M i ~_ 'C been denied. At that time, the petit on nt of risk to workers and the t DMi. O R,_..,.. i nary assessment of the Parks allegat ondid not materially cha f m - [ M I M,, n -' ^- 2 cleanup activities or the licensee's e -Given the subs .i. . - _ * ^. 7.3 5 I public associated with the Unitforts to ready Unit I for possible res TMI Unit 2, and the fact that Unit 1 k m 1,'_g@Q 9. d @ .q _s k at !' 7 &.. ordering an immediate halt to all worcessary for safety, did W% M.E * " oversight of activities conducted at h @ M;. @ h' h M $ d((.1 [ was not authorized to operate,TM1, with the exception of maintenance i te at that time. TMI-PIRC was alsof Investig M %[.' NM. M@$@Q.,f IDWQ: NDW $hdj appear to be necessary or appropr a d be s and consequently, action woulin light of the gyy i1.Wi@Fge informed that the NRC's Office oan inquiry into the Parks allegat 6 i t within a reasonable time by" 4MA;kNDj$@MW %;# QpibiTWi@ k d other pertinent information. 01 re-Parks alleg k 99 G taken on the TMI.PIRC reques ? results ot' the 01 investigation an M f9f 4 M /kije:h' M. h leased an interim report dealing with t e blic on September ff has lp: \\,MS%(b.M[Mw71 F f he interim report is ongoing, the sta 1,1983, which was released to the pu M ?. R.- Parks allegations as they relate to aeffort, refurbish . T A ' K,s M.~ 8 M; @.2s-though the staff's review o t fUin 4 evaluated the nndings regarding themajor aspect of the TM ' N$.Ud,fN96,M v tis ated herein, the petitioners' requesthe NRC prohibit the }p,(y: % x. f W[,iG, W W V v;w :.. polar crane. For the reasons st t, O,,M. @. *,... - y. w.x% yw - M denied to the extent that it seeks to havefrom conducting i 2 polar crane. %,/ @f n. M. y. n; 6. : M.y; ,n,,x.y.,.w.. t n ,. Q M @T ? $ 94.,c >y JJ.. - - n.m - g rpv. n THE P ARKS ALLEG ATIONS d$j J,. m N'l gG ft$@hD%$@T(A. er at TMI Unit 2, provided Richard D. Parks, a senior start up eng ne Thomas Devine, Legal Director of theMarch 21,1 i M.NE E3.iG 'h y $ $gS K@b 4li M P % ;w % @ $ $d!Q .s NW i a signed, sworn affidavit toGovernment Accountability Project, on i Commission by letter from Thomas Dev neP ks' c I Sp f11.f@$>.p%-@J.$..,,d.y.y O' which was provided to thedated March 23,1983, contained Mr. ar TMI Unit 2. Several allegations werenagement c ~ ' E pg Y,,M g@ : g( @ij,.J.~ g N d cies in the recovery program at
e...
W charged with no longer having a pbE made concerning a breakdown of TMI ma i
g.Mm;g s for cleanup act.vities due to its at.
td%~FM n,p $$;%;bjBM.pe< d istrative procedures. The licensee was (, y $@ i.. h h dules." Work requests regarding t e p$'M&y-3. @gk.g% working, systematic review proces dequate because the request did notdocum gp tempt to meet " unrealistic sc e rp polar crane were alleged to be ina lr yp g&w?,p$v$c&m$hYW i ns and changes regarding the po aclassifie:1 a cover engineering functions or e ], ym.m Y, w:(9 /'2 assurance. Furthermore, modificat owere alleged to be intentiona i <.4 p,q j l . * %q g%w?mh.. q4 :. MtxM s f w ' ~ ' %j V;h me% m p%, s c r crane s.uM w. cg.5 %,,,, g YA*D&}O.l Ytw &2$. &'. ,,,6.e . {Q Q 3' / i h ,j K** L U %.; N k h M N }}g7 Wj L hbkNwgmkN QM a=! LEE l;w.&_lg%g.m:%..' .U y wW wg
y.s R.
.f. w : Q y.p.m, y,, n. y3 ,.g q . pu. g4 ~ gv;g ..,a Qn . g. g* .n ~~
., w n, n.np,,,,.y. s%'hb'l[Q.}}gkvy y
g ,u u e .a.. .x, ~ h D. .g.y M m. j j i. w$q d y p[ y m u a ~...y lq\\yQ '; i zy .e .'e'. ~ q v p,,, ,..r ~., }%, a *ljQ*g.'l%,y:g3[."[y. ,.~~-(
j;jjff.
%s;Y y wd ..~ n wn t ..,-.s - e. .,y q: ~~ :_~,,< ww g nQ 3.!.Gqq h;p' .qgv :9.??f.& - ~ n g[y 1 y [ m[ ( M a;,7n,1, L( e s. ?.h~4;,x: :mW. q l y -^ a.h +
7
. n-yL
y. y,.Q. ; Yi e...

n

,l{ij y
.m !i+ , ;.y a.Q ',; n ' ~ .G
~ ~

)
~ s -,c -. ^ q. - w~~
.l n
.nM h g g. g f p.y c.~.,q . m ;; ;,a < z y:::y ' ey:$... a; w. ~. ,^ w..w w -Q .g4.<. c.
l,;.,
Of pW> p, c W.., ~ r;
A

. :.Cy y&>,.. :.;g [:'Ry: <c >.,,. /,, n.
9 % c ? n'.:p y ;a >h f k .p y % g3;; L m 'h, %.a. S $;if$hWhh .Y,6h..;;$lQ$kUl f.hff I,W97, % $@g @?C N'g:h.bj%:.Q*y&;.w.,;Q,Q.gt y;p ;n.9,c.:p. '. f'. ). t u W ;.w y p; %g R.y.-y @ f Q Q Q M g f;;5 y q~~ -Qpg xhm.u v w&v...
m..,
?:.m p. . n .y s s
g.s.:f m.P. q @ k 9. w: ? O 5 :t.C W M, %m y.
S q%. n %::w: g f b: + M * "U" " d z..- L&MwM#Mc dMM l 1 Li 9%gM m3.- ww fMv3 W.y w.%>.:m %./p :i;&w.n@y.-;e%,&g. %%. Mtb5.gJv y:b .?:4WiW ,4 AQ. < Rk:. .a.s.;3*OW;A r n; w.e.m.,uMW n.em:n' c. e + m:4. W f ; 78 l8 L*pi. 1)-$mQ,'; . j!Z ",, M NM76ddVN@MNh.frgu%MMI.%Qid$p($k@ L $,yp safetyso as to circumvent administrative procedures. Technical Specifi-k5 D h cation violations were also alleged. As to polar crane testing itself, Mr. MAIM IM ih.f Parks alleged that load test procedures had not been developed in accor- ,. W e % p8?;@ 5 E 244pp$p dance with applicable administrative procedures, and that the polar '.NbhENN.$INhIN.M crane refurbishment violated quality assurance with dissimilar replace-4 %b NCw,,T.@,My$.I, aS$'*
6. dPW6cg 6 M ment of parts of the polar crane. Mr. Parks also alleged that the polar
.M.Q g 8 n. iL 4?b.. et.W erane safety evaluation report prepared by General Pubh.c Utih.. ties WQ;W'M.y;%s +M.,. W " W;.ea: w'n. w %y. %. m F.5. D'M h.@ M '6.3h Nuclear Corporation (the licensee) was inadequate because significant , 2 s. Q@..Mi r w sc @mtyn.A deficiencies were not address (.d or resolved. The allegations also focused W. m .$;N h M M. h; Y.biM,Nd;ff> M i$$ on concerns in both the quality assurance and quality control area. In M.sMk@.M/Cd[%%yhk h particular, continuous quality assurance viocitions were said to be evi-hd DIN %M $ denced by numerous quality deficiency reports and inadequate %.@N*bW@T/ '2 h%Mit-2/ corrective action. Furthermore, it was alleged that the management of WIMM.S$EMbN 3%6'* the Bechtel Power Corporation, project director of the cleanup effort, DdkiMTkhkh improperly exerted influence on safety evaluation reports. ..myw M:.g w.%% p*..g$ ~ .@@M E W M 6h 2 M @I.e whhNh.h $$k3NNb TW OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT .r.a h w. %.. g mg >. W.> N ; M.v M W... g n &.0: m-m
.m
~ WW W.i The 01 interim report released on September 1,1983 substantiated Mk s#b %. M. $ h [g @b M..N E N,.' U M.. w w ;.t h +s k. md many of the Parks allegations. Both procedural control violations and L i gf $/.$p/M g M # % m vf onsite management deficiencies were identilled by the 01 m.vestigation. ?D " fg$;l,%g$Q@4%@[Q%g N According to 01, the procedural control violations included noncompli- 'i ba'3. 6. 8 N,Y. W in @% h D M g%. Q d f ance with the licensee's administrative procedures, and misclassification w of activities, which resulted in the failure to follow quality assurance "' 'M:Q,;',%w e?p @& e,f 5.ho.4, 5..,d procedures which would otherwise be required. 01 attributed its findings
. m.,h b.,%gy4, @;y,,e r,es,w.;c m.e <w/d.
concernmg deficiencies m the onsite management organization to several a 7c ~ .e -c o 4 ,e, ~12.r.w;.: g n ~.a k ad: factors, meludm.g madequate communication between the various as-w2. w .A[hMQdlfhM ~* W @C N@ % $ M g M i @[ h ] i pects of the licensee's organization, the failure of the quality i?; G assurance / quality control department to receive proper management /? fb$ ctg.e, ' d support, and the lack of an effective administrative procedures training ,v p e v,. . fL .. %- V 4. e % a; y: n~. q.,.., fr }*m)) W3.p*d, m g $.x';.a%.
. L program.
.e, .; e ~ h ,W W. y;
J.'
j hk.*. kI! REFURBISHMENT OF THE POLAR CRANE . 9 0 M t'. M W. W i';f C g j& f.
t:t p.,.,.: q; - n.*G%.g;;g mu %.v.4 n
? iC k@gfdz The staff has given significant attention to the issue of refurbishing 3%?e.db M,M M M,ygff. g %g S-%.s',ggefg. the TMI Unit 2 polar crane and the validity of the Parks allegations rela. ~, ' %..m;7., . lT.. :~W 7,.'..?.m,.,r. a tive to the polar crane. Since the polar crane is a prerequisite for major s T .n. m.y -y g.y activities leading to the defueling of the damaged core, its refurbishment f..iifbd and requalification was recognized as essential to further progress in the ( s.. 3 .Av. W ;,r.Qy 7+4 9 cleanup. Accordingly, in the spring of 1982, the staff developed criteria tsp -/ p@r;
y y.- g.3- @

n,4Y
., m for the refurbishment of the crane and forwarded those criteria to the c ie W,, w. m" "ms,- s. m b,. 9g . Ag.' R ave MQ.z[*h/ij Id. .he.h ei e .q. . w. -., y,7.p,,,. pig.p.WN. g I298 ,.m. v.. w..: a: s,.. w sq.c. n .c . m., m,w. . ;r i *,jNd',5 D.* "x. m, tn. ,\\\\y 'm U"%,.p ~',y., ' - =. ;* f. '.,e's 4.*f[3 *W s s%. i ? ~ M % f -X. .,7 ; q 'p.; Q s a (, s l, Q C;.h: @,3, p;aT~T*[Q [% 7. ] Q @ % g g e g:, 7 % {C" K] "'I". 7 M 'y fc "?g _ W-wa :N m. M:; - ga.,c+ ;,. ~_ ; .,m ry .w %y .y c ..Q. ' cg.. E& -*f &ww.; q., _ _ + ,1pyg.; ?g,. W. ; r. ;. - Jo._ i, ; :O :' C N,
s UQ
~, e$% h' %Q ~ wp .u,, s q. n. y.j, 3.. .s -s.g;g.w,..q~: y .. :, - m.~.cqwg.w%wp,. 4. c ,me u. v a
8-
.<s. .. : ;,p. e
g.. n w ~,r.<ma. %>a ;n. u,
..,.;>.y.r.w.- r > m . %a. w.:.,w ;;. n.:s,$. :. g.s m;M...;.-: <.:~ r-n
+
n. m.-
m..
~., n,. y> ..c ) W f-~dYQ.?w Y. W. ~m: .; a ~ = ,.w. c u ~
' Ul
,,#^ [, \\ '~ A W Q l* k ).,
Q
.s L. m*. 5i d 1, Q. , -} _A,L.b. c- <c.a ~n 0 ' -- - ' - - - - - - ~ ' 7-"-"~- 'F--~ m gg y .,.a n. 1:~ ~ ~ J. y .,1 E~ s G, gr ~. 9- ~., .-y l l Q ^. 's* e, j * ?. ^ d & [6,. 1.~.' ; % c. - %.;..,~ +,..,. , ~... y c. 'w i :, M. Ag licensee. On February 18,1983, the licensee submitted its safety evalua- $.Ji M i,'. W.. NM5dl' I N9' tion report for the polar crane load test, a critical procedure in requalify-ing the polar crane for use. The licensee's submittal stated that the only 4'2 8.* M. Y~ component that is mandatorily covered by the quality assurance plan is , f/%?bh[,' - %. ;d j the polar crane structure. The staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal 4@yy%g( <, ..D; f ~ L. C,t';@@p Gi s MX "'.3.q).7f7 and veriGed that the licensee did comply with the requirements of that plan. The stafT had already initiated its own safety review of the proposed M ..G %., l(. "%: : M.S, p.., R.,,",..v A.d..i,. f" 1.. v e. load test when the Parks allegations came to light. Upon the Commis-W~ Ve a- -c w ,. @g,f:A,g.f.1 j; ' wCg + = sion's directive to 01 to evaluate the Parks allegations, the staff deferred y l D[. M M Od3$te'M 0MMMhfisgl its safety review of those polar crane load test issues associated with the QMN'h allegations, although reviews of the detailed load test and operating NdDS N N k.m $ procedures continued forward. ss @e ~.i Q M Q Q g. K., Upon receipt of the interim Ol findings, and in view of the administra-M@hg;$$3Mrab4WpaD[Afy tive and procedural deficiencies in the refurbishment program identified sp@,]sMGM,%@g;p.Q by the OI report, the staff held a public meeting wiQ the licensee in W/WWW M / Middletown, Pennsylvania, on September 27, 1983 to discuss the programs, including the managerial controls employed throughout the fih Y;ff7 hM5%$U Jb.....,-$ k M. m g.m@'a Q W. 4. 9f.. d. i refurbishment. At the meeting, the licensee was informed that additional Nf i m.m ". ] ylp ,g a n.- ?. %g< -Q information would be needed to provide assurance that the refurbish- ~,; - 44 3
f. g yt: M i. % W @ $ p. Q i g D. [ '
ment had the proper management controls and quality workmanship. ,f Wha '.y -j Q,%$$ The information requested included assurances by the licensee that: @ @C # 3 M M P M b d M i J,;"? ZfN (1) the quality assurance organization would independently review the (! . l polar crane refurbishment activities and that any identified deficiencies would be corrected, (2) modifications to the polar crane involving 9lMdMdkkh($hM.M.9 ' "unlike kind" components would be evaluated and reviewed in accor-ZI.' MEZ4%WMMMM $ $ 1.d.'MM,.M.nhm.9.M.Q:.Q* M @. @ 'E M &f.- W
dt,5,. V dance with applicable administrative procedures, (3) all polar crane test.
4 2. ing would be performed in accordance with applicable administrative @/f$, j#- s .,4..jJ.6.M.e$... $. "G2
r. i

$f%.< Tc!
W ~. g
.d;b procedures and with the cognizance or approval (for tests performed by
) %. , N:s.u e.. w .w. other groups) of the Test %,orking Group, and (4) all personnel includ- < m.w:. w Ms,N44.m.en.z. v ~%.gr ~, m p.i_g.Wd.v%nQjyy y-v.H. e.y -v.- uf Qn EJ ing contractors, involved with polar crane activities were adequately tra,ned in the licensee's administrative and procedural requirements. i GR-@gy g@j;b.G@h $J;$g %g %y)7 g. This request was formalized in a letter to the licensee dated September ((f,$$ g .D p l %@yf((g@M@GFG $f .3 20,1983. The licensee responded to this request by letters dated October
gTi l1,1983 and October 19, 1983, outlining a program for completion of M;@M(, NMM%
the necessary actions. All deficiencies have now been adequately correct-Pg ed and training will be completed before the crane is used. hfyMJp;- @E@2MFQ@OR*M g Q igy;W M The staff has also conducted an independent review to assure polar N.x:M. _. x M.m._,5:%.%Q @,j review was not whether the correct administrative controls were used in " M C W # '7.'wwl w C-f %.~. c% crane safety during testing and operation. The primary focus of the W b ?,./, '. v x - ].....,,:n.e @% g$ $,.c . ~...- M. y @M @ p @x :t4 Q Wpp7 the refurbishment program, but whether the procedures actually utilized d during the refurbishment program revealed any health and safety con- %w.... a ig [pgMgQS; 7 ,aQ m 5 y u.m 5 kJ? :7Q$D,C Ol 1 -ifQ.N D %l-MV gf, i * {'_'l % h o &, &.. M,4.E'O % * $. y % W N , r 7 F*W,.h. *2. aj y,. C. %..-s.vpu,. /* X",04.,'% WWh.g %.,wMy:%w ~ o E.g.# M v. ?,q.ft .g & 7Q-4. k U.s/M*b.W' *)f,,,.3;y,7
s.:;.(yG y
@Y 2 M$.99MQ9 1299 '-e % f s-L *el%effi,, Qy - b2 k 'h W M N f W'5 ig? @w &* $. % W+QMi% pn, .4 e.W~.w@RW;We%"lQ,Ab.:5g: %;:P.WlAnW
.9W c ci" y -c y; p %.. @p a.'. x p r ;
r-M .M h.T; .,st
p. 3at,-
4 n,.. w. z ?? Y fh ? 5 . mg@u;May&QT yty,Uy'.p;M ;l.c %,f,g., ' ig = .~. ~,.n v v uwe - m- .w, .=-~7. ~me rgar,. 2
8. y _:{
c-u;; ;- r.w,,, g:.W.; w" ; ql[11.q,. 3 - p.pn ;. M.. hr
m 4; y., Q Q q' g lf;;y ? 4 &m y.,,* %a' h y # f ;&p

e v,
+,x % 9. ~ ).f.y[;_m js - ; Q.^
Q p ' n. e
<,4 V,.m.p. B. n;fsp*QW y%yx,,n%Jr%..~d%;, ;WW: rs.- M %,R. W. yp.,, ' ; >n%, A.. - ,Q .:y;..=% 'a.M i p,- f. a/.y p.a +. j g 4'g..~rgLy Q,9 ;; yy j;3 #Q,,...,. y v ^ w-ve , g n f ' e, ' l.- .. i .i ' C '. m Qc 1".r, m...Q..,,.',cj..e m <;2,1[t, y - C gW VWidPW' W 2- , q', ;. 3 M..... v s.M n@g W;a. . ; m 'u - i-0 m t.;J%, .n. -..... A.~- s .'v
A. y,p

i x.x c
4. ,c a,.d,.,qj;pf.;.>y ;., sim. .y..* u..,, .w. ^ y. p,.;7,. 7__hy. + g M _., _ 3, '_ e_ _ feg, y g g.. A3 g,_ Q d ( f ~ 7 ,n .,.a.. .. y y*g .w. v g,s.- g. n. .+.. jj4 -.4 NS, 'e. 3' ..s.. "Z ./K '.. e S i is r u . ye,; 3 v.s ~~ G';.sh '.!:: Mf@fyGlx$%W "( s, l$ ??& s&^ i:.. L.) '.Q ~* '.-:M,m..g ~..,. '\\
I~a
, y~, p ' g. d.V % ?. $ M 5 : @l 4 5 w;,; y R, ' )! Q ;.s.../ O n. Q ': y D -.D. a ~ f ' t ~:QW@y y ?s > u
. e o a e
n x. f NS. +,M$N.?.S, f ,.&yC f.99.7 L -G. .y Bi ~ .4 + $9 % A M $H(Q@MM@T%f ' L ::% ~ ', W M Q h'if W i % U h J. D MId MSM.v:DW4g.,7UEN$.m.4%M N ' [l n m &%ym ,-V.%Yf.9 c m :p q &. g y., p !t W;e.y nd ~-
4mm w-

iAWb, 4cm y
e.p p~p Q s.~)IMM,p'cgJ@e:W.%a/w.Mj'.m.. ~
'MMW E
WM MT m m. M. n *,. v.y.b e,b:e ~-.,:o,.:. ; / V o.}IENNYh$$Ds.7.W$b l r r o ~-
~
. p*'@- nM o ] a + :. r-w M T M, n,%s. O d,f. M-w,1J dWW. Mn .Q 1.. D.,* cerns related to the crane itself (i.e., to determine whether there was a
n. Nf @n Nx.
hardware problem in addition to administrative discrepancies). s. M.dr,45 ig MNNNNhjfd@%5k: M6 The program utilized by Bechtel in refurbishing the polar cran in-5 h57:M$ I volved the use of " work packages" and Bechtel administrative proce-A n$ $ k N@ $ s s, W : M pw A Qf,6?f. dures to control, perform, and document the work in the crane N bhhk h refurbishment. The program incorporated the Bechtel Design Engineer-I* A%/ :fy$h'NhkhbF@ll' M M M f6f;fdQ9N b ing Organization for engineering review and assistance. Prior to M'NN'M implementation, the bulk of the work packages were reviewed by the
f. @n g!,-6f $ $,A y ? y' g-$@@ h.. ;,
.g NRC onsite staff. The refurbishment work was planned and scheduled NhMM'Ih $2I @N%p6N p? on a daily basis and strict control was maintamed over reactor building g y kn entries. Personnel were trained prior to the performance of in-3d?kk.hMNj I@Mid containment work and equipment was staged for the planned activities. ' Wu.s. M.w.x@w.dM..mg M dM /n. Activities in the building were monitoreo by closed-circuit television f Mh'hM#85)h@4.m?fm..?4m.n.w' D % M G, pd Q M a and radio communication. With regard to the work actually performed,
O the stafT review of the work packages indicated they were technically ade-

. ; w & h..,! g ?,n./,h b,n. d. h N h C
3 NW quate and the quality of the work was such that no significant rework n, ....m. was necessary. ,..n...n ... c.s,M?5%m. m W. - - w -,. W;M NW.M"1,s.Wg;gL,,a ~kM.' WW7h sw m For various aspects of the refurb. hment and requalification program, %.VV"qqs% R@k$$d@[M$5f[Q,kh kMQ Bechtel employed technical expc ise from U.S. Crane Certification $1MM3dkNi% Bureau, Inc., Whiting Corporation (the crane manufacturer) and the McQM United Engineers and Constructors. Additionally, Bechtel employed the .. M S. @W 4;f @g! d y;$@EI M 2 g-WW d.~fWW. services of a former Whiting employee for quality assurance support. -jd@.M k %g gM@M$$d.D M .3M U.S. Crane was the prime overseer for the refurbishment program while { '. Whiting performed an evaluation of the crane runway rails. United Engi-T' W3. ~dj N5. w'%m'-MMNM.M.h..W.7.r neers and Constructors participated in the electrical refurbishment of 1 m 6s ~ .,N,,,%, w,, e, b M. ~.r..% M. w.sE. w%. % the crane. Thus, Bechtel had considerable technical support from compa-0 m r ~ g T. nies having special skills for the refurbishment program to ensure a safe y %.,/. y ;..t $ _ g. .ff., f s.. +r..h. y q,. y, g- . a s a-
p. f.g g..
crane for the requalification test. w >q;vgM.;e .7 f.; ; W p ? W. Q G;F; y $ f g % O ..n r .i ~n ~ In addition to the technical expertise employed on the procedures and
.;J
,3[:
9) M. W %gfgM6 h.
controls utilized to refurbish the crane, actual verification of the adequa-M~O h cy of the work performed was demonstrated by functional and operability M.h M h @h N @U N ' h@.% Mj h l testing of the crane and its separate components (such as the brakes, '...i mew %,y.m$MMM%ih M motors, and power supplies). As each functional part was refurbished, it A% ho ^?f;".h,'gg...#,w 4M4..gS was functionally tested to demonstrate its performance capability. gg y4M[q[AW1.Mh@;g@f%me.m.; NM;s .,.y.MQ Further, at the end of the refurbishment program, the crane was opera-D tionally tested as a complete system to demonstrate the functional . N.M. D. s.b $h.h.9 m.c..t p /.#.n~ 4 4Q: j performance, under no-load conditions, of all operating entities of the .& y: ..,;e.;p m crane. The operational testing was successful and demonstrated the 4 s..wa M e.4:
; M R.p

y: g. y,.- m

. m w-t '. :v+..l $.. m. ;..

.m
.e crane was capalle of performing its required functions. The staff's O.: - 27 c,. c
Y,,
,s-g E(
v
.;+. ' ,'y . D ~g . "[ " .y*,, ' * [ i* $... E*[Q.h f e ,/ )
.3.,p.

n.4.,,v ;((V. }[- > L.w'. r:-*n..,
. j :.. t ,,x,.. y .?3m n p pg".,,K, ... x a p. "?f %; f i 9 .f 9 ..yc- +,.1%g,.,) u .1 ,s 7Q, ; g a ~.. i:wcm, .v ; a f y n. w.f. H e-. r ... -r t.h. .f. c g.-. 1. 9 :,%: L' ,.,4sq & Q W. (- % [*/&Q Q:C.QtEQ&yy,Q ~gA 9.. . : W %: g d - I '$pMk $3 d) 1300 s. y. z. m
4w.
, s. $.;j%. ' 2 $,. %puy' h'%.:h. ~; Q',s.' .. ~, l' f Q.: , f,; d. :..~<r .c .J Q* 1 lA's a g /-a- ,u s' ._.. y ; ( rw Y. (:? z p.. ' ~l( < m- [ t. 3 : ~ s. ? .x.,1.e* e - c' a o if. d w e.c.m}If ?. (; n.:w.. + - w.a.w ..,, P ' < : %,. y, . a * ;n.. i:g#. ..,nsw. . y. ..a ? ..,:. -..s.. m.y fA%c;-r .g . ;.f.:. r:,'?: :*yhW% n 3 ~q. M-%:2,.*.,;1 a :na ':w.:. p o:%,.;)g. 9 ,, * : <.. g,. i h ',.m,,,s.v,s.- (p.c. ::y;&.s9-c.fe ~ yd. ; ~ a.s <,,, ~. NF _., g%,..,. s- ~ c. s :..,e.,,.,.a,,..,,. 7,,. c i a v,, ., c., mm - 2 .e, ~,. :, A.g ,p, ,a 4 -m o s n,
3-
,, !' _ Q m 2. $ '**q c.. m, m- ' n.,a; 3..,.q s v .q 7 g. g.o. g. M. p,: g; ; g,.c g ,,s..;..,C. 9 g x~;; 3 .).. , a*,..; . m. ut..;;.p 's g 9 g,i; 9. w e.,. 7. A c. u.ty:, 4, p: a :.: n. r. c. .~y : ..i,. +.. ': p,y y.pr<. Da #y):: &c 4 ..:m o.. x h.-. ne. 1.1w-4: s.y _, ?# c. a u. t 4. s.. . n.2: = - e >. f ,y: q.y y.,.-p. v y x. m r ~ .w ~ q ~ ' .6.. ~ .,,..s j .p. n., 4 = 3 : ..-.s. . ~ - \\ s. .. ~. l l'." @ =>;syT! %.,.:c. a,'- .s. expert crane consultant was a direct observer of portions of the limited . L,. c /; e, $"; y. t is, s.! Q. h 'p ;,9, O Z, , g%.'.- f,. f d'. Q, : operational testing of the crane.'Accordingly, I have concluded that, notwithstanding the identif {S. M 2?. ' procedural deficiencies in the refurbishment of the polar crane, the pro-3, - 1.w 'w. u gram utmred to refurb. h, test and operationally verify a work. qffF, N mg crane .,.9 is h the was technically sufficient and provides reasonable assurance t at n O f--.fu M W l y< V -! crane is safe for the conduct of the requalification test. Furthermore, the m . uw.3
m. n..

, e. ~.s y; - y licensee has taken action to correct the quahty assurance deficiencies Dr. n : q S p w ? ~,, -> b.x.1:,
identified by Mr. Parks and substantiated by the 01 report. Therefore, R f#'MM.On+ ! J re.,. r1 hbE. Q,45':l kt .O N
$.w de l w 3
r - the petitioners' request is denied in part to the extent that it see s ohave v,t. 2c Q g V. I ? %e$@Vk@NQNM.hD.A M 8 % #.# M DL. TMI Unit 2 polar crane or otherwise qualifying that crane for use. The S.NN%,,ig@@e ,i& . s.,5 M..,p yYis ig*W,9.C. p. staff will, however, continue to evaluate the merits of Parks' allegations 4 4 Mgg .;bT. M M and the 01 findings regarding those allegations. The staff reserves judg-M-y, w v M.. e ) W ' A. W -o ment as to whether enforcement action is appropriate concerning the ?d.r i R e c j @N,f.gI3 @%"M.S.. @....M...,id.M allegations and findings related to this matter. I will issue a final decision ~ M e. R,.,....Wi.;.. 9W,.".C i the with regard to the remaining aspects of the petitioners' request upon 9-n:/~fft.WMw i * % %..e)Uf. C .u completion of the staff's evaluation.A copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretar $M, p@s -
v. M..e.C,6 l

n
~, ?. w v~c.. m, / sion',s review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206(c) of the Commis- .s P*. c& - 4 a... m, J e %.,?. w., t %- + q- ~b. ' ~., w
r. m. d.,. m n%~,. w m.7
.yw,. - s.s. w. w-pn a,.a~.~: m,. - % 2i -(. t 3 .u. -, c.. v. sion s regulation. .a m n y.: ~.a.. n. ~. :.w. u -W.w:,,.: p.; / ';;g..m.%e .c. @ - gW. :1
M
<m%y,,Mp@@dpMJ?MpO' X. a mm 7dgi Edson G. Case, Acting Director MQQ@$. 9.n.,*,W, F,%.~~ f.; y.. a.. R.; g 5 yiM Office of Nuclear Reactor 1y ;;;a&y w. ..g: ' Regulation rW. '.Q .;s Wj@m r ppgd;q .r.- w.. m,.p.. ,. n y. v @o m l Q G ' % % p $ 9 g @$ 5' (g W ld Dated at 3ethesda, Maryland,
c. o,.. wiW: i :w etQ
%. m wt. '3.. ,.z.c :gr%k. c e% y y; this 18th day of November 1983. 7 y':M.;%..:,% Q n, x w;,, &:.'c > p; n Y W ".H ';; -h * 'i~f. ;-w,w. t &::s c a; 7 :,. a :n,.,m
WQ.^.
( y,l4.Q i :&%Wl.,s%iR'.} %PQ'h* ~ & y. g4
h Ws
" ;,:. 9: - N.i a%f.: Ay;y.Q:,., yn?.m .s~., i w ng r;rA=s Lw s,~ m,..../ M ?: w n ; p. s..-s r ~ c. n W,p., n... r. y-a.a m a.:w:s n, r s - w. v . 'r y,>.Qs ' s
f$;k?.$?tkh[?[h}gh

2..
% q$$$) h*iW'.f, h:.1.- y. yj:$.%. g s., y,r, hp.,:j <24 .sy m -1% r-.7,% j) 1.,n~ 'e s. r.' +s W % v4, T' % - Y An a-f.i$ < ~-. Di$ U )p N~ % Q "r[. W Q -h*.l?: 9 SA* N. <;b 9 "di-M 4 --;.f4'c M j k '.-3 4? gM;4f y41le
Further details concermns the stafrs review are found in the Ofnce of Nuclear R fMDS*f tf/3u r y m...
pg;. g.g;q w g;+4&;p*i k.'.~.%; Pl
W movemser QM

P g 2X,A+%';W cra<. Loa reu. ma Recrea<mter unfor une reare umwaw staam umt :1s.19:n. This r UmT y-
.M y. : Nw, J Wj v.w. M,b s &N %-m ' 'ht.., m.3 - <Q' ' !"R 'R*u* .L h.f g', h;;.s i U.. M% M':.,w W,. W attungton. DC 20$$5. 6 %. :a.;'.yy'i' 7.;. n.![% ru y e, gI n @, M s. w: m:V'dCM[/W't /& y* g6 wm :.w,.. g 7,.w:. s,w~t, ep . :, v ; m. -M&o;/. *.%.t.e,. 1301 ,,s.N.. T. E+.4 i 8=,,t 3 i,. ((M,, 5,,eN*ffid' M [F,ijh%b...k,Vy(%'9 A . %Q [J
'*N NeA _f y - *-
4 L. .. ;. o. y,..~,,. EN'O #.M'. ' wa#=' w,* dm'SH
1 y ;***
.s& / : ,.c m' N, s 7 % jan %..,e y
w p? s. s'M '@; >..'.<W m.;. m s.v D:
s M ev. v, f~ 4.Q . n, - sw en,i$v<4 k kh ? ~T'v*'".+**Y"l*'QT*P~***r*"~qw"'C vW'y:. *~'.'Y,', v. M* .w a,i n. .h . h;, f..h fi.m ;
"~*~'#*'**
-'o'~7., "X,.~';* ~ nwt f +*7* .f h ,g,,ua4<..wey.m. w&, au., w. .x.. s.,.. a,Q,., %. p:.m, m.,,, n>r.o..'t = ...w. 9 ,( .l._;trh; ll.. ~ m ww t f tk'l.?'h?.Y:u ... WGh;;e. &$ 'f m. p s:.w m.., it& i. .~ hf"y)m,p., Y . s&. =.n,s..~.
c
..f.,,r8 ; 3 c. t,, w; t. .e p a.- .n n ' n;a %(:g 2lR. /. cy 8. y x-Q 2,- q b.,.. s :.=,.:. .w.ph., m. _ k,' g,. my.
7. ~
~6l a ,t
p. A.%,, 4.f w; ?., ;.,~
. M.,.q. : % m 8 .o .' -.... ? c < W q,f y%m.i.8.,g,Q~ [u. 4. p, - ,,f. S.f' r . Y g,. 4 { y f, 7.:q.+." n. g. o
*/ g
.4 3.. -W .w, *. . ;
b o, t

q...

a s'
ms
p l:4 2.~.%. f si. %Q' ~;,
4p ~~n e ya m u. k ~ u*
+
8L.+^ a s_s,, - sa u_ -E .jcj j y '}}

ML20088A852

Text

Navigation menu

Search