ML20115A794
| ML20115A794 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1965 |
| From: | Hobbs F US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210150096 | |
| Download: ML20115A794 (7) | |
Text
- _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
9 9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
01enn T. Seaborg, Chaiman James T. Ramey Gerald F. Tape Mary I. Bunting In the Matter of JERSEY CENTRAL PCWER AND LIGIC CCXPANY OYSTER CREEK DOCKET NO. 50-219 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NO. 1 DECISION Our order of February 18, 1965, affirmed the atomic safety and licensing board's authority to require later presentation to
.it of additional evidence concerning certain safety questions, but granted the regulatory staff's petition to review the question of whether th?s requirement departed significantly from our poli-cies and pro < 3dures, and so constituted an abuse of the board's discretion. We hold that it did not.
PRC TJ.
Bo 101 c;, t u (
- 12. v A k T wy w e c gc.
9210150096 920520 N PDR ORG NRCHIST NRCHIST PDR
l
~- -+
O O The atomic safety and licensing boards were established to bring to bear on decisions in reactor licensing cases the judgment of technically qualified experts, and to expedite procedures. Background and guidance as to the legislative history and the Commission's views as to its approach in the conduct of hearings and in making decisions entrusted to them was given in the statement of considerations published with the regulations establishing the boards (27 F.R. 12184, December 8, 1962) and in meetings with members of the panel from which the boards are drawn.
We wished to encourage the boards to satisfy themselves expeditiously that a thorough evaluation of the application has been conducted, and that the proposed construction permit or license is consistent with this evaluation, Commission pplicy, and the public health and safety. Thus, instead of spelling out detailed procedures and criteria, we intentionally left considerable discretion to the board, indicating that "The Commission intends to adopt from time to time any further amendments e its regulations which experience in the operation of atomic atfety and licensing boards may indicate as being necessary
.d desirable." 27 F.R. 12164. We believe that we
O O may soon have enough experience to provide more detailed guidance in regulations specifying the information required of the appli-cant at the construction permit stage. The staff has been study-ing this matter, and we are now reviewing it with the help of a panel established to consicer this and other licensing questions.
We expect this effort will result in the publication of more detailed regulations in a few months. In the light of this approach, we do not believe that the board in this case so de-parted from our policy and practice as to constitute an abuse of discretion.
The board's role in cases such as this is derived from 10 CFR 5 50.35, which prescribes the findings for a provisional construction permit. It must be found that the applicant has deecribed the proposed design of the facility, including but not limited to the principal architectural and engineering criteria for the design, and has identified the major features on which further technical information is required; that this technical information w: '.1 be supplied; and tnat the applicant has proposed and will conc.ct t. research and development program reasonably designed to esolve any safety questions requiring research and 9
9 9
.4.
development. It must also be found that on the basis of these findings there is reasonable asuurance that the safety quebtions will be satisfactorily resolved and that the proposed facility can be constructed and operated at the site selected without undue risk to public health and safety.
It is thus apparent that Section 50.35 does not require tnat all design details of the facility cast be supplied, nor that at the construction permit stage every cafety question shall actually have been sat;stactorily resolved.
The board considers the expert analyses, notes any safety ques.1ons that remain unresolved, evaluates the research and development program proposed to resolve them, and thereupon comes to an over-all Judgment as to whether there is reasonable assurance that the safety issues will be resolved and the proposed facility can be constructed and operated safely. This judgment of the board 1E incorporated in its initial decision which, sut.ect to tht review by the Commission, becomes the decision of ne agenc. Adr.inistrative Procedure Act, S 8(a), 5 U.S.c.
s 1007(a).
f
. 5 We note that the findings required by the current Section 50.35 are more specific than they were before the section was revised in Decenber 1962, but also that they do not require the detailed findings necessary for an operating license. In its consideration of the cose we would expect that the P0ard would give weight to the expert testimony of the regulatory staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
In this case, we have considered the issue regarding the thermal characteristics of the core and each of the eleven specific items as to which the board has required more information, and fin'd all could reasonably be considered relevant to the finding of reason-able assurance the board must make. We affirm the decision of the board and accept its material findings and conclusions.
Whether we would ourselves have required every item of informa-tion requested is not in question; we do not consider whether our decision might be different if the board should require information about any of the items in excessive detail at this stage of the pr :eedings. Neither do we join in every observa-tion the board aas made; in particular, we do not join in the
I 9
S
. board's speculation concerning the possibility that the appli-cant would subordinate public health and safety to economic considerations.
Finally, we repeat our earlier reminder that the time specified by the board for submitting the additional evidence may be extended on a showing of good cause. Jersey Central may wish to apply to the board for such an extension.
It is therefore ORDERED, this 6th day of May,1965, that:
1.
The exceptions of the regulatory staff are denied.
2.
The initial decision of the atomic safety and licensing board dated December 4,1964, is affirmed.
By the Commission. Commissioner Palfrey, being absent, did not participate in the decisic'n, but participated in preliminary conferences and joined in preparation of the decision.
Dated:
May 6, 1965.
01r6m:t_)
P. T. Hobbs Acting Secretary W
- =.
'w-g M7E I
l q sea m l
e l
atetasesetmuuas e
entseer. ses l
we
,7 ante 4, aush, asessamme l
a~
uts.es d ameneur as seduceentled a me espeetsson esammans to the ams ponymee W steeman, to ese hees Am Backeter Summoday (engest mood seems to be smesse6 eene da supper-eos and sessended &a aseme den am st peL%
mondesesse w eso. nstemely sker had. Se esse && the4r estamatoy empessaansees se au meme esnak she esteerte Pe a,se she see Suomesase Buy sees.
e.uma en mess.deu tt aseos sensesyssopmee.
same besudenden.
So adeses seestead page one pney sa aw h aten use esos by sees ed the endes Se SW schemed sentag_etus asneemt ap meensho4 and een a M
- h. Se st&& Assumed empene of tease semes heemse she teamdastes ammen.
men sagessess an eensees d&sestnesed by St.
ehas NOIS As commesteta l/ i i
senseannetty,1 dage seem enday.
em a teos ed seus an 1
- 1. 8.F. Sammtene skap S/38 s.%
4/3D
- 1. SJ, Suesteer A/S W
/
8, ashamma gushaus
- 4. m hm metase,a 5 and es
- 5. Estesse aseesho.
S
/,
- v. s. Messen,ask at,eteneeste. a
,p,ff((fy p
~ " *
= "-
l r
s b/l Q.f\\Q n
/"a a/
7,,*,,,
...... -.... - - - -.. - -...