ML20135H535
| ML20135H535 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/31/1985 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V21-N06, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V21-N6, NUDOCS 8509230739 | |
| Download: ML20135H535 (215) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. _ _ _ . . . _ _ __ NUREG-0750 Vol. 21, No o Pages 1%91786 NUCLEAR REGULATORY : COMMISSION ISSUANCES June 1985 l This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLl), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal , Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM). i The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-dent legal significance. 1
. 1 Prepared by the Division of Technical Information and Document Control, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Segulatory Commission, Washirgton, D.C. 20555 (301/492-8925) 8509230739 850831 l PDR NUREQ
! 0750 R PDR t
. _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ .. . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . ~ _ _ _ . ,_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ , . _ _ . _ . _
COMMISSIONERS Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal Lando W. Zech, Jr. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeel Panel B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel l
; =yw p
- g %; :.8 vm. . %.n.:.L....n y . m . W i* %:. v . . <-m&
- M. .~ . ~ .': * .
. m.
- v. . .s ,...w M .Y s :,n
..u.pm. .;:r,.:
2....x. wv.- .-
. m.. ..,.r.- r~..
-.t -
@L%.)@'Urf. M. .%%.R@:MQ:ww.; ,r,, ..c. % :.a n. . '
~
a
<.m.%w.%j
. n. n., .c,.
f z
.a.. . ... .. .m
. e . :. 7 . .v c.ma.. .. : .
- .r. w ,.;- . :.v : v. . ....
av ~4.
.;-.w, v. .r .;c m_4. ,p. ~.m . ws..n
. ,w:
1 .,e. .x .
. . . . = __ . . . .. . . . . _ . ...._.....a
- .MEb'9
~
w.. v..44,,.,.s . M.., .- gw :. p , ... ~c. D. s..... y-.s$ s,.:
~.
. M; >: P'V.:. w_O '.. a
-:6. . 2. .m. ..::&,Ah-@e%.. > . - is,' '.' ' *';; +s..: '.2. .. L. .
ik7.W. ..$2.MM,.%W o - m% . . .c.M s; *@.] - .~ CONTENTS f.h Me kk" M. .4 %:w'O.<.M.k(s w .: pm. w ;
.,;M'.E9*'l D .d Issuances ).M. of theM:...Q Nuclear Regulatory Q z Commission 3g, c.w.$..,.p.+n. ,d.ly;
'pf + n WW.W. m.LIGHTING COMPANY m , ... _.s : e. . ,.
W' . . . %. .l-P: '. .-- LONG ISLAND 5 NAkhh (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station)
.@khb ic 'thf M n.4.G .4h ingg Docket W B h . W QCLI 85-12, June 20,1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ORDER, 50-322-OL-4 1587 m; m.'.~.Mi.m..y WM.a On hn.%.gey i w
J1v%. Q$.Mj% . .wf+.h v. w Mce M e; .. i . , PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
h%f (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2)
N
..>../M'Ti*d$$@N'5'N'5ffM M,, w w.M
. y #;+VQ.;!
i M'@n -W Dockets 50-352-OL,50 353-OL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, M W.c
#Q W@ @W yw @ %.r.-gjgggggg$M;y .
CLI 85-il, June 1 1, 19 8 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8 5
' y 7. A m e r V M . %
i<W.MF-M .WAMM$7 ' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. MMd! ^ bM*!h~fif (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,' Unit 1)
'.4t/;h7 D
%IwGg'pM T4
.,!.@p64E-Y-d -
Docket 50-206 DENIAL OF W@h REQUEST FOR HEARING AND REQUEST kD.'h - M.h;MIM FOR STAY, CLI 85-10, February l'9; 1985. . . . . . . . . . .".s . . 1569 M.NJf
. V' 6. M )T
?&
GI,M W 5 5Uf M1 g;.
@NYM@9y fN MDP%*p.#.j.Y: uM..f;-Qwp .W Issuances of the Atossic Safety and Licenslag Appeal Boards r M..m. ~ wu O .$: <... M. .
p.~ wY F.3.e&D+;%,
. M . d.$ w.y LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
.:M"3%:. I$$,N,:p e;u..,,. ;p&yy . .,Ey/;jj
.g.;n.,y. ... , .4,( (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Eph. ~i'W4 p Docket 50-322-OL
+* r. .f.. T * --W 8 . . .<69[g !d'*. g.4 %,M
;,= p:cN-W ,
.,..m t:d.'; 7 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, A LAB-810, June 19,1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1616
~ 1.7.
. ,..w7.. ,.e.c.p; .M%
o w, s . .x;.c.,n.M ...
;s,. ... f.~.W..;.:.5'.
t-* '-.. ... a._y. ,. a U
-3.J.Wr .. .. . M J ?. -
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
<.w.y:7..cg. a@j:. . g 4. , Si.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2)
,J . .?. ,1. , V ' .s O .. -
Dockets 50-275-OL,50-323 OL
..r?.c -M f ...'. ..
- s. 97 33 y.m:rygg:.e.v m.. .. .'/. 4 DECISION, ALAB 811, June 27,1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1622
.r. s u. . . . . .
.. c:c
. M.;. 4.g..
. ,, . '-z -g:(:. e .. .
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2)
,$".l.J c. Q . $ h; $, Q $ '4 e.:.7 -M$fyMQDockets 50 352-OL,50 353 OL W.p:lgJ,.';j,%. .,:MPp . MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, T+.Pm.p; y.N.&@n . A.h.7. , . "A .W.
; i ~.
. -.: LAB-808, June 11,1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1595 wvs ,g .,n,,n] w v. .. ^. . . . ,. A.
3- 4.,. s.
.r.
.,.m,;.g w....m.x ...
. +.: .> . n.. . .. .. ,. ..
- h ;.~t4 w M e . ..
M. . .s . , ,n , uen, . .,s u,, : .. +., . . .s. ,.
!C:.. ;
.nG ;
l..W.
&c r:f;p f:%y,. M 7 kM.H.Q g t *W"Q :t'jm., &1 f'.i'R T .;. $.. .
. a "9,.V, .
.: .e .~.
' p. %n'.@w?A p.O ;-%; . .., . '.
- 4. -
~
. .%9 . "l. .
ggg 4.q..;; ....:..%..
~
- y. .3 . >.
f .. . . .b,?E.;,t.g.n.%.
; :" ~ . y 4...3.e. M... .. ... . . .
9..,.. . e vr , . ,,. . .. m,.. . , m. .r. .t g;,*p,..
, w m.e. . ,te.
, m,,o. .s. , * ..-u,,.--, * . ,
- n. ,
u v, ., -
- 's .d $*" .Tl.i **
G,v? : .:.
. t '. r,.*
l, . , ty , ', ; .
*'*T.kY' y;.,
k 'AfN , > 2 4 w *; . l ,J.c.:3 : o.. .f. ., *
.;;c ;- - *
, .. gn..'a.v z.",l4 q [
r... , .y .,
. - ,l
~
.s
,r. .. t a:-. n. ...r. r. ;,. . s, , .,;,. . c: ".. . . .
w_: . .:..- ,v..
.m .._ -; -. .ss.
- - .~ _-- . . . . <
. . s
. m. s.. .,
y ,,(q.;c , - PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY M6;.:- 3;. :- ; (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2)
, . . . : M M'?_ 7 K./ Dockets 50-352-OL,50-353-OL
. - .. ....,.,,:. I..w . f.ww, ;~E. .c '.. fg DECISION, ALAB-809, June 17,1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 1. ;- 1'.g< ..)s . c; 1605
..s- ;
u z '. - . :.:: . .,\ z ;. - r "% - .'[, Jo [".g.; . .M.yy Q. . .: : ,x; .,, Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards f.OM:; m:. .:.n..$, A;.,.
- g. . . ..
. s..'. 1c & ,3 ,. ..*:.m :. d. .2'2'"WsW':-M:M,f[d, %A.8D$8i% .Tk.% .7.M[
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2)
. 'c r- 1.', 7 % .. C. ; Zh Dockets 50-456, 50-457 L yh ,,.K::$5.bMD 1:M;c.h tL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADMITTING ROREM ET AL.
, l 7.;'.r ". j '"'.N. .o ..-..t>^. .+ ..Q . . E'.;,f
. M M g,5, AMENDED QUALITY ASSURANCE CONTENTION,
. . .4..t .:.N-%. .f,c.4.@; - . rt. :.;. .. . ...,+, LBP 85-20, June 21,1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1732
.. s. .:<.' . N. ~:t t - w . f. w ,. . ..
. 'V ~ ~ .
. . M-.;w,.w.s .a .,. c
..g.w
-e.
- a. *
,:. ;.%,,'.,. .n. .:?'W..<.
.e . - HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al.
u . .c. .
- v. - -; l'" .;at <. ra. .-
- .g .3 ;p:. 7./,.*
...t., e. , -. lq. ., (South Texas Project, Units I and 2) c . c . .R.4. e.i.k.'e.rt.,.ry.;;. . g. .. . . . -
Dockets STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499 OL
- ' ".V t -i (ASLBP No. 79-421-07-OL)
' LIT ~ M '. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER,
~
X @C@;( 'Tp L B P 19, J une 18, 19 8 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .".,. . . . 1707 p.;:'s 9. . m .9
^
.,.. a m ., .
'. ; 1rf.M...: .
w+
.: . LONG ISi.AND LIGHTING COMPANY M. .
'.'.'pd*h* S ' W.y.i.E.; ~ ,? >,j Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
(Shoreharn
'd.N , ..i <[.:.SMf n'.4 . .i. ;
Docket 50-322-OL h .* . 7.::' f ' " 'E PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON EMERGENCY DIESEL
.q'U3.$ r.
. . .?c. .M, . ,
. r.
GENERATORS, LBP-85-18, June 14,1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1637
. ,. . w;... :., r.m. s ; . . .. ....
- . .. y p p ;c .p.c , . i. METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.
% ....s.g.,n. . .
-'. C. ".
. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
*. - 7f,.':7. .gi . 'd." Docket 50-289-SP (ASLBP No. 79-429-09-SP)
. . g. ,. A 1; o . v;;' .:. (Restart Remand on Management-Training)
,- ,,:';,-, y y #7 ,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER APPROVING PLAN FOR
. - T.w .. .. . ,, ,'c.. ; ..";,J.
REVISING LICENSED OPERATOR TRAINING
-'yt { .'i;. PROGRAM, LBP 85-21, June 24,1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i.WM '.' T '~ Y.'N);*... 1751 1 y.g. 2.n *;<, ..
't- -
' ' .;g, ,
., _ ; % .f;(
. , . (;;'y r r* : .a e~
...,..-Q.
'.M,;N; W, o y. I.J! *::s **-
. . .- ' .; :,;,..,. h-1 if."
.;.,,,,. c e, q -
* ..< .: 'w* '. e i, el:y,7. g;g.. . .
- 4. ;,p:
-.n....s ; i.<'..'.*.p.,.
, c ': .e: c -f.*:o
. . ..u. . ', > .:
- e, * - :.:..+ . ; . :: '.
- v-p , ;-
4.;.,i n., y t- .%.- , - r,1 * ; ,r, ..
.. , 4; % c - 4. ,' :+; :. .. *', .;'. . , . &y '.
. ,:,-,1.".y.v.:;
. 4....
* . g
' . ~. j p -* '6; ,. -
- :e p .
r ;g;.;b.e. .q.ye.. .v. r. e.,... ' .. . ". t.;. ; ~ q.-
..} # :* w ?^.: l ,. *
- ,-S -
.. W.ty. .;.~ , . . . , "-:j),y.e -
.. ly
. ':. . <l..
. .y.., y ". 4 . :a.y .. c, .
v
. ~ j;>$. ,S'a..
%. '.g' ., .; . ;
-..-sg.,...,
- -- w. - y- --. g
. . .* 9 ,-
* , r L , g.- f.
.c,.
, ' ..*..?. ulL,s s, >.
~..d 9:.
.c -
,( . .:w ' ~ , u.,. '
- r !' . ',:'.. x.-
. .. . . ; ; ,; r,.. . ". ;,; .; . r c- . - - - --- -
h(A . .
%)M- - . k'D '* ; 'l..y 3. V' y .,
SM'.*db
,.f %f Mf .e.Y ?
Nccl$ & %;*2. fS +. . \'@q. . N'?<; .~.
& Y Q W.;,;. - ~
a n . c, N&;d W'NU>&. ,h .W.h)%. : )g+Q.: i... .. . ,. %. .; 4 ~- R M 'n. -
. ~ * '
W.'.b.f.$$r;;5M.. y ,v.%[.;-W~ ~ ;;n. M-- 6 -
, . , s .
~ ~ - ~ ~ '~~~ - -- - --~'
v .Q4 .L.Y,:.r. u Q. .. .
~ ~ ^ - ~ ' ' - ' - - - - '
%.s m.-s W. . Ap'q'W pQ"./.%*r .I .i. .; . ;0..y' ,. 3 M.:=
&. .,y:n*. w. o. .. .<-
. f .
.: i.... .. .
o ... . .;. iY, #y .r ..- o .. T 4.:~,em.;m;m;.wsv.v:
.s.. -n 2%
;>j w :M.mW. -.o
.s.-.4- .<,cs;>-
,? +
4 . ,c.<.4 We w w w s 4.2
- MNjpR. m.,. .M%J, M WOR : @yW+ Issuance of Director,s Decision
.m.. sc . ' %& Tohu amgf. .p: .s .c . #> ,'-a n :. s.w . c:n :
WWm. +M. ,, m. p.n. .. w, . r .;u., . .. .- .m .v. - DUKE .. POWER COMPANY, et al
?A,s.9,.mw, Vg 4.W,.e. 3 g.
%.a - 9 6. W~
s.%. T;. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2) w m .R~A. s yf.q% q D.Y We_~.'j%d@d[c 2% a@0NM Dockets 50-413, 50-414 DIRECTOR *S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. f 2.206, e2 M.p w-M.% fs w.,9.t y.3g% D D-8 5-9, J u ne 4, 198 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5 9
%. <;.,.s,, .r.a y % . . .~acWNSwUp q- vv.s g... ,
Issuances of Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking PIh SG NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. k h h [?QN$M.@-) QQ nW ,ceAG
'Uk.7 Docket PRM-20-7 DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING T?$d$ V f > M@ M N E % M 9 d 51 DPRM 85 2, March 29,1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1781 55@5: .m..R. - e.
r @Y hub .$, Y. M S h . k.NUCLEAR L k % RADIATION CONSULTANTS . MM,4h.g. ' K .&<rji % . Docket PRM 35-5 m6M3?"* h @ ,.. hfh%'y P d + g .,j, g. t..P.p E4d!FM DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING DPRM-85-1, February 12, 19 8 5 . .' .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . J. , . . 1777 g C.= w%- 9 - w.peMy,p3 +.c t:
%'yg:P"
. . g.&r.:.: %
l',Q?
.- y. 2. g. . j4IDipw m .. s'-*W'v.%.w&.
a 8YI
- 8' T;/ m..Q. e.h, . WY ...,%$ ' 7,.*.#* .Ag:".*.p r > o- P.*
+
N. .g
,n-=
, , v..
,Y.E.-
p'o'n%. .n "?Wm; 1* n . N. , y-3.,*;. .".%"> 7tg
.: Q SN &.- Ry; -;.s Q; .' & 4 %jy.u nJ4* - y -
st ' . WteWlh'dM$N.f WM%. ;
' 'ts
- lc y
%. ~'".;&;5."g.lli.*%..:{.,$y&y t . . ,.*-:-u
.w- a~ar%., g. .~:
g'k!EV.;4::,M!$. *Q
.wv.A.t.m..
..p C ,- .,;
s
.U:
..$r!.y m .
?^i.%j%. f' ~4
$[4, .[ r . J h. $d(.h. @C*,$t"I. ..
g 4
- 9.-
'... A.,G, ,Q .yg.:
i L. '-
. '* .L,h,;,
- a:...t*%
-n . ..*; .. v.. ;C. r*; . . , . . " .n
.'M- = ,.; .'6 .--* NM.y M 6,,. yS m, . :: .4)d. **% ,e.'. !
; . * . 4
" . va .
2.% e w. a- ac .; . . r n ~ a
.,;(.3",y.^' :
%..' . y e v M c
- Q '*;f . W ,:.%. ., 5; , ,.'. . n
,.",[ .s n :: .: '
*4
.m..;k .. , Oeia'.Q *$.*L'7'I'[. .
.,._%.. 3 .y ..'M..D d...
.! D.
*'l-f. .Ac '-; <. y IR' 1,?* ,$
v *&.4: trH&[P. W]&, .*fw .
. , - y . . -,.y m. , .- .~,.v,
%.,W.e...Q.;*d.a.,;f.$.[~.'M*f5.f&, p
- w u f..r . M. Y ** . . . .
. m$,6,.,l:'ry.a-?'%w *': ~C 2.Q..4, m. '...'q. -
d
'.,*V. .a,.s.-
. .yA utw G.1.,Wh,M
;p. ,::u. .. . , - ?. 3. .
. .cwp.m
-n W : %q.Rs.,',L;,.1.. v-. 2 ..
. nr~ -.c %';; :$:.:., ..~ss.. W. . -. . a ' . .m. ,.. ~
' jy. 1 & rs.
;. v~. ,4;r%. ,a.
m.g:2 .
* %. m .
. 4f. -
r %e .h*.4.9 . J.. 4,. . . a ~3 4,
% p~,>m v$af.p:*< Dy./e.
. e #. ' . rS
~ p* r .qg. .c,y 7-,.,=-N;,w. .4 g,3 / es
., e}.h;yp .-
A A -3w-
*f..,.gi .g rA4.r3 fn ,.,. se&& :4. .s -..Q:2., m .. ./',-
s
. - * . .. 6 e -..Na
, ,y.,... %.,n.. ; 3s a .
. ..,,,f,.
.r S , y up q :*G. t
[, so l ,
,~
,%.'* . m 1, ??
*- * *e. *
- .'f: . ' Y
;:.:n:D.%s.W
. ..u. ;. S. .. a , *t. ..'. m.<piw .. %. '.
- ~ *.
. ., % s* ;, .[ .,*(<,
.[
m.< ,. . . g$ *. p?~>e;'; Q*,Mf*la* *? . x,,w. < m ~ ,r .-f.0,. e, .=. Y*o..:.* . . . 'h., % v'l*1 ?'.'*l,,.r.f,]wml
- q. . %~.o..*.. V 'u ,%
.. a. ,
tC Q '.* y ; . . >
; w v..
.'t',. , .. r- ~ - - - . . - - -------u-.--.- - - .. . . . .
Q: L* .- 7' 9 '*,.k' . Q.**,'M's -[: h: * .e
- f. .
f.. .. nLpr . ." ,&.u;pc f* it*Lt
=Na a . l ~;p
^":;.sIM-1i*7,54.U'J8q,.M.s f. .'j4l.. , 5 ., f .' *. ' , ~*'9
- i.
.
- j'- -
g,, , * * ?~,; b'j.*:0Y: ** . * *
* .. M y. '
,A... y>wn. . , .n. A _ .:.s, X. ,prf@ J *.gm.F. .;g 5
@;$ .;:q.y
.. p*.v.- . 2.L %
a: p. V, .ta. '. :i. ., . . . '
' ;3;w
..,'*n.
- 1 -
- n
. L..g N'b , Y.xy$ 50?l. -N&.r.?.r:. . J.,... - .. , ,. -'%' *.h' a.%,.) .v j! 9 n.. + Q.,. wuK . M,.y
- i.+*yy'9.d.; '*
. ;w * * %. . . -% er.s. :~~ . . .
..;74 3. .e. . b,g..,, .
.% v.., ;c.7- .
r M /.%',; k '. '?p*%;[,* r.s *b . .7a.- s .,< ' ?,.* 5'
*=.., .s 7 &^^ ~ ' ~ --- ~ ^ ~ ~~~ ~ * ~ - ~ ~ ~ ' *' ~ " ' * * ~ ~ *
- e *~ y m4 .e; sc . ',), ' , %..
.:g . . -w A M ? % m,. )..O'Qtv ,2..g't.%W;: '. %rti. *l: h
- n
, .e h
- p. ::;
. . ,s ; *. l ' - f n . ,.n '
. " a .* , . .
.]"; .dek [ e'
) ...'
.d. .W'v7l' ' $**kh. f=
m' , ., . 2
- w. . ..(...;.N .a
, .,: : 7 g.f * [ ..) IW v+.g a,., r.,y. gy.-. v( ,. E ' .i f,s"); . a'[ * ,
.W**r
. A .; \.u.Nj r-g; . . w.=Q? . . -- y f. ~y t '. .. o.?: w, .f .. ' -
=n$4 ,.
'.a, ,, .,y, c.. ..%.;4h .- -. ai6,,m e gs,W. .,y.
.p. t.Q,.s.%
- w d, .
. , em . . W1;.k,;w!M. : :. .. n
..h.*;>. m ... w ...,.
. %. g
- g. }'rpf.1**A>: v.[.#. .W:d, s :. ?,< @*
' yi C.
.. ..e.
.w-
,,n.w5v
>. wq%lsM.* ,t 4Q)> >: '- ~. ,
3 3 - :- s. . .m,w. . ..i .. s r. . ...,m . f;,,4m. ge.m comm.ission s~w_,g@Y S.dRW W'EM t.Qf M@Wp. CQ issuances - M;G.M9,,.e%'x. 4 %...?. % !. C$9')?? .
- am.c.w,..v. .H.m.e.
. :: n. s.
s , 1 .. n. rp-e.v.~e.., g%
. ,.. .. ..7.y>.% p,Q. %. .i,.. ,3 + -
n.p:
.'r.,s,h.
'.z .n,
.. m.~~, v,# w.. vw . mm e....%u J.Sp . w ..p &,thw a/, h;A . ,9, ,e,d .,
5
?:v.;,qA. w n.~. 4* 2,.s . Aq 1..w,.D .. s w, M s,. % -
w,. vn . *.,.2v.- 4. .eyt d y.y J" *'7.2 . & tp.r%.e % a g ,e,e-> % c% y. %,# sx;
%0. .26 L #
& a=
d.tv%,r::.Q';' e . 'o mapw i.r%q,.r:A., 2 4~
.u,.' 4. %:di. W. A. Q
"./ W *J x.;t.svQ.@,.3 .tp .v vg. *,m 'MWS
.g e g 4
.s k -
-c.qwIee.:: w.e. *N.',,. %y 4,.44;m .
e g ." %,;$ N.M+ 1~., mc n n. . :~ ,.- d, ,, w.-. = MTM V2 9 . 4fY.;.y ' w %x.s.v.E~i-W.7)pC. ' ~ R-p w*v. -. .y Wu .-.. a w '%n .'. .;yln* <.h um 5%. ~- - .%.*.a'.%:&.: -
,$457 W m - g. %,* W.1rc .?-= s9..Megv' *ss
.;4'.!,b,%.
*.F *k* -g, a
M.n.$gP
- ff r *-ev % 1 "t.'*sM**
b Wd . M, K .4.9g' e. .
?*O * **T*J'78 M* - s.;rf~'9f/. Ft #.'l**
3Eg'.'s6Wiih', "iF* j Das*-
;bNs ~Y
*$*. .,g~p.,'e s .
, h. . W.. Y. ..Y.p?.&>! 9.e.
. g...J,
, Q Jtes
,th y+Jf ..,3"--
2 .. ae
. ,1, f
,*m?u'
.;pf c4 V $'. N -M 74?,** [W;F'D' p.m. I n:., ..,;. .,
; h
%#at/**/'I. Dei r*
s
/..M. 3.,3.D ",.'a*N,.;.,*b, .7*'f.j' .6@v N.f.t ~g j . ,, .y's$y.M.,'
s** .
..9 d,- .
g
* *,. , s. .w- N *t.'.e*z .si,. o o r Q.e M**%.; . . <0* . - .-
. .c" .. ..~.*v
- w--M":;.n .g. :5 '.. > ss e= a., ;'.M. . .$. . ,,*n s
; t,, }.8.=s. d. . . ,
. ,a'~/ 37 1. > e ,4, . . v e
, , .w'of -* .. , 1, ,.-. ' ->g4; 6
e L.s.,.
. 4. ..3q.w. :. i.
. ; .a " .1' *g f ;.*D.,r.f, **It.,(.,, k. , Re. {'g.
- 14*; g*. ". .
e . , .* s e~ v
. :. '; ^r *.;.N; ,.7%.'y v .-a., aNs 2- .>%'.'.,"-
- w. ->
;m ; ,,o.. N. 2.. rG g 7. y*- ,.;- . .w, .* .w :D'. .s .
. . . . ..,',: v'.
- g * :* . r .,i ,;
- 1..
.' . u.,.,w*
. . e..:.'.,;;c,% , n;.s. ' 'r-~..," , ,' .. ,..w c.c .,,.g.t
- .<. Q.r.t.; * ;' . ; Ay: . 'y:.*.1.,.*s*. -
, .?.%
> >.*. %q=**g*?
%: l.';.
* .; ..:
- V*.,.;.. ../ .% , ;. _
e c.t .i.e g ...,,....s
;j : n :M. , . - ./ -+ g
. . -;* .R , . .s,p. t ?:' v%;. . . s ,- : .r
.- s, 1
. .s s.
.. n.~, n ,
~.'%.;..,e, L. **%A.%,
~~ . m. . .;pa-~.t-e.:;
. . ' .,~
.~ .;.
1
- 1. , ;*
.g *.
; g.> . . . . . c.r , ~. ,7...*ae.?..~,.'
mp~m <o. .n. .w . . .
- G
,w .... .
~. m- e.n+ . ..w. w . + . :::..w. . .. a . " w. . .
*4 UOM'a. Nf,[. 4 g; , .. ',* . 4 i . - -
*m. .%p;< ,1Qs ,ta. '..~. . f ' ,?. . 4 ;* ,, ..,
e r. 3
.a R.#7 %
.tc
'm *'
g ,, g,..~
. ; . ., '.'f $y.
A t'-%, ..>&*$'-g M.s.. y
'.% Qb.,
c, Q. .,)ik(C,.y*u* 4: 4 .-.Q}
,s . M. .Y?h A.lp:.i::.-. .*';'
~
.,. .?
L?. *.
,';*:.y' t',.-N ' .:
.- . e.,,7-n,
. 4. - 6 ,.. F ,
.+..;,.-..-- m ~. < G. ** %.. -
. ~. 4:
%;. n +g. .d.,",*, #.*W:%.h.c 2
7,A ;,9, -.G 4,
%r v * -
* -v.'
~ . . > . . -e- ., i
. . . .Q/5.v / .; ;~ . -
'/
+. q . .- . . . - . . . c ._ .,,
- p*2;b:Q>%?.
.t
. . ' . . , --y >9 v..
- k.c. f; . '. -
. . '~ '
- v. -
.f. q.v 'E.,.,c)
. . . . W.*
,.5.
. . . D. 1' . ' . ,,..
? .,
eD n '. ... . . -
, 1 ,.c*s .f.h.s...,
gg& VMh' 'I ks. -k ' h.'h ktC.7
~ M;..~..x% m o :..y.4.W. + :s
. x& O m.;-n . -.----..- -....,...-
.N....m. a. p.;. 'w ,.- ,
. c -
*Vy ?/,M N: . ..
,,5 y, ' s Q n ,e . ,'9?
'":'.Ca,? )*:.f. 4 .M*.lgl . ' ..
~:.*- .'. ' ~
.a.*' no h c , *. s . g ; *t., *-J.. r'
-3.,,~ * >
- d. .'.%a- ,.g . 4e
..g.,y.y:w ;. ?~' . w ~;. .a.i. %. , ,,.
'MWi: .l :'
@r.c..N1..,;g,0.M../;}.},y.. m .~ . n. .,
.w .; cr:; m.. .:.;,.. e_, ,n ..
y.;;. 6;, c s ~ c.c.
.: . :.:; > . . > '. .n. .
..p..
,h 'b.Ik
, ! [ ~ #*E_ Y "' .
- Y W. 1;q,.p b..h.;'b. .. ' .:;. .C. :%. ., ' . .r. . - .
M X\.S.. , L * :. W : ?
". -- L M ~ - -- - --- - . ; d--- - --- - -- - - - - - - ~ ~ - - ~ - * ~ * "
9, 2. x . ...r..,.T.a c.g, : '.K :. :
, 3 -ye w . . e. .- .m y.f ., .7 : ,:.c.s ~w m- ,
t
. : W; wr';% - %-ry ; %.-; : g.a, m y.. ... .b. y .
c.-
~,OA. yTrA.%. ,.w % c,.....-...-s 7 O
+ y n. - .-f '.
y w%.m. ..J -. .c Uyt, ; ;.Q ?"!..
. Mit..&q: 5 ' ~.W* ' . '.'.;:. :;;c'-L " s : f Cite W_;.7 "cf.;L .Q, Qy&a; as 21 NRC 1569 (1985) CLI-85 10 ,
'k *] &g. f.&d. CN
, w ,4.;.- 3
@?c,$n .+,N,. % ' f i@M f. %- x ..g e .,,;.;; n. m.. g 3 4 w . . o , . s. 7.M, r d y .. . p .;. ; w UNITED STATES OF AMERICA d.%p3,um.+:.h,M@~agl{::tEW.s .o.... n.w q .. e . --w, cr4:s;wy. mp .St.M . m. E.C'lF. NUCLEAR.REGULATORY
. q , COMMISSION Q;*1 x,.. W~ Q
.~ ,g,. , Q- &,? J Q ?:;i W ; Q %. Q . Q
, w m : p s@:>.D.,g; -
COMMISSIONERS:
.e# +/c_e. MWws(L: y ,m/dff.
.s.t.
e.p.. T.46,bm o - a a ,.~t.hgg,..p T.vy;:,M. w,ym %. e ..g r sea . . .2.,. ' M . r..y y';..,. t.. 3. ,_.;
$! .;y@;~~Mr%w.q$N,f::,',,..y. g'-M . Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
,%'*.d.,/'A6M. M. IM' .br. ..PM. n? sD. P'g" W.,gJames Thomas M. Roberts
$.,$<. s~g,. 3 *:c,L%g;r. -
Q '. 99<%;. W: k p- ' '" o@.4 Wv s K. Asselstine ehavs JI. c-wrn.e.w 3%u Frederick M. Semthat R4 ^gYg*&,{.
+;~-N WIk'W,Qd.M.,.Ae v / .. '..5.$j, d m3
*WrA.+ ,. c .,%
F Q7 Lando W. Zech, Jr.
&.# h 9.43w efW%.. h r w$.c nW.h.,,$.s.e 3.TO%. Y wag hh.w.h.. #.4
.h.;
-a
- j. .$. hs.., y>n '.',.::,@q .a.
m.o -x c p;s.,r.Ps~;;&.r r6..(%.,~a . : Q. n
- 2 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-206 c- gy@.n :yn m,n .n4 E . !b fh/poCh.$. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON -
~
COMPANY, et al hpk,,I/$@EUN.1;.%..p..fM,;;2gh TdW
.~~ $ $ M $ $ dif-3U % N #5 MQ (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stenon, unen)
@8$
Penevery t o, t oss h Wn}tr,.w W %Wy, @m.x% e.w .@:MW n. .
'8W6n,, p 9.@M,kh@w.ew, Mk II$5-j The Commission denies a request for a hearing on an order condition-h;M,c r @NNIOUM. ; $'.$MM.M;-gMM qWp $.
hm ally Onofre NuclearFAN Generating Station ~Unit I and refuses to stay resumed rescinding a previous suspension of tne operating license for San operation of the facility. The Commission concludes that the rescinded M'MMDDi
.9s/ % 2 U suspension order, which imposed certain seismic upgradings as a condi-tion for resumed operation, did not amend the San Onofre license and I',.6@.'"%.*'dT,'i$Ni
.g, j ..
! M. 5'., M. ...e.4. .. .M. c. ...k?.. .
therefore may be lifted without the procedural steps, including olTer of a
. c. . . . .;y .yys,t :g.; j .3 . . .., ., _ f. : hearing, required for a license amendment.
" %"Mri.e&;;v -2 M..;;r.??~i%;%r.?:' .'.
- w. u : y,- ~. , :. . :1. ;
y4,c .Lj OPERATING LICENSE: CONFIRMATORY ORDERS
;[d:6. 1 r: . e p-.lM.
Y. '.%.? s . ... Y. ,' M.% i
. $ r?q
.Y j Z O;Angorder that does not expand a licensee's authority under its operat-M.iM3.. .m.
.s.,
3 x.p . .c . 6 . ~c. . t
, ing license or direct the licensee to take action inconsistent with or not Awr -
iW M w @r .~.~
. .. :'l,..
f., . 3. 7.c. 9,: . s already authorized by the existing license need not be treated as a ~ ht'..ay= q. *- license amendment.
.: >., s,.n%*. +.w: ,; ..., v.- ' .~.. n ....:.. . .
-; e
- p: ',Q * * *i Q *-
n .s .4*f..$.,- .. ..r .. :... oh:.,..] F.J. , e
. ';<.~.
". ~
.y==,Q
. , . *.m t . i... J# , . . .
e 4.,.4f f.,n . J'"'. .c..,* '. Q..
.. e % O ,
. .* ;"* . se . s . e.
< ~. e , ..{x . . < ,1. * :*,. A ...;,. *.. .. yn ., ,
p m;p.:*r'y.n
. s -. .g..cr: ~.:4,,in*
,,7,*-
..g. ,~
..v . ..
~v
.a. -
. . g . 4 . - ..;y ,..
g'. 2 ?2
..V ..:v" 1569
"[ r
. . h. ~ *. 7 - '
..('.**
- p %y:-*F4
~~ f*1 * " k, .,*y, /,- .
,. .;3
' . ,;..W.a , y :..g4.'~;.y V.. . *
.?,
,f-4.7 4.C .9tri- .
>;x: m.;n. ,, .~ i q. ' .,n.'. .c <#- f.-:g*;*- %., , T. w, -
-?-
.@d. .
'*.,..m..-
. ;;* , */*I . :.', *,1' .P"# .. i*>.J $ ' e*-**
,r*W*-"**"**a-
,s.,..[_.e.. . . , - . -.. y.,
* * * - *--*,e --s T - * ***
...===j uwe
. .e
[ 3 .Y ! g g
. g g,
. , . ;%.~ ;
<Q
.3 ,'< , >.='
,G ,s I. .*
~
'em*~
jg ,.3
- . :rt;:
,, 5 n .- % .' , ,, . .. -..
- ~ > ?. s.-
+ :,
.v, . .H ,
i -
, :y .
[, . g.. ,.. . ,... . t. i % 1,X .* e.. +. :. /. r 6
, ..ov.. . . .W, t t,,,>. w. +r m. % .W< ~ <:.
? . ,:. ~~ ' . ..
.. - . . a -- e ' -- m u.= ..- a.:a --*
..c.. m. . .
e , . .. c.::.n3 . , . %. 3
- n. . .
,3 . m. .f ,q.. ..
gc,rz- ~ i ..;';,...
@ .@c.. W 7.:.,., . OPERATING LICENSE: SUSPENSION
[... %. a. . . . .c. q.gt %., y.+ :
. . $,.<-n'N;:y A license suspension is an action which can be entirely distinct from a
. x a.w y..,. p p Q'? 9.:3 M R.c..,... = ..
- r.-
.k license amendment.
n9 .. gM. .. .m.:.,s..;' a Cwy(.?,..;,;
~w.$1 ~
,. $'!.f T
.,@.8. M.M.N,. .. . , , . .. OPERATING LICENSE: AUTHORIZATION FOR 7 0 $. .t .s-.t. '
; VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS MfhC:s:,2:GMQiRC" .;.f@
W@#I.E',h;%.l%
. *- .:i.; 64 eM%$h .
.,.A.su.QWW^*(.4.e ap 6&
A licensee's voluntary commitment to make a plant safer than its license . requires does not contradict the license or in general call for addi-e, $. 4.. .,,.::tj.w ....z.n . ;-: -c x s
, . , .4 '. . e? tional authorization.
. . 7: , s . y .-
gpgc.
; s..i m w.n
. w. s . ..
+ #.. .
-w n.n.
.a .. .g>
P. 7 f, t;
,rv. .u. g;.g..y E9 f y t %~ W.. g.hc.p <. . x V H j
OPERATING LICENSE: COMMISSION DISCRETION
'd-@A.m.1..
s ,
^ i.~.3If8 .Mp <,T 4n.:. v. .J WHETHER TO AMEND 9.f:.t. m & . 5 J*: The decision whether to incorporate into the license a cutback in licen-M Ii 5^../ S [}[ A 2g-I55 %' '
.,.. w $ orM see authority i the imposition tion and intent, rather than statutory compulsion.
of new burdens is one of agency discre-
.w:.
.. .,;.R.
,.... ~.
;..?. ,:;g@s .
.. .+. ,<.@,>.:
.. . w..'+;M . ,.
- n$t..c,k( i:n.+ '.f. ;c.
M9 3 .,m
~ . -
; %j;$$$n h DENIAL OF REQUEST Fd'R HEARING AND
~ ~
- %'M:
- .c. :..6-Cev . . qc.p.-:-OWhifQ .q --:Cc" REQUEST FOR STAY
~: J u
,.; :.m.3.~rm.:#? :.m.m '.m*%.g,rp/ ..
j(m. s f.
/., . g u .:LM:t . ,., . f. ' s .. '..
On December 7,1984, the Sierra Club, the Southern California Alli-CfE.J.6:$tMiy ance for Survival Resources Center, and Tim Carpenter (" Petitioners")
~
D .j;i.%.-ichQ. 7 . " . " filed before the Commission a request for a hearing on an order issued
;J N..i, dt$$ M "." N D,h['[.s . g ..j. November 21,1984, by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and entitled " Contingent Rescission of Suspension" (hereinafter " November t p' 1, .c MG6rh . wN 1984 Order"). The November 1984 Order lifted the suspension of opera-
- .h tion of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. I that had been
. v&.. ,.ps %. .. ,W; ., ";@l +.h@ l . . d'T }
imposed by an earlier NRC Staff order issued on August i1,1982. The
. ik d.S $ M,t ..r.'.
'.," W iOg
.O Petitioners also requested that the Commission stay the November 1984 e c ??h Order pending completion of the requested hearing, thereby shutting w: b. y'h.@ gfP.3 .3)g down the facility. The San Onofre Unit 1 Licensees, Southern California
'.77.'"'.iO%sp;![f..* % Edison Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company, and the i*' $fDDN.69 .UN.]
U. '. NRC Staff opposed the request for a hearing and stay.
. NA N ~ ~84;' The Petitioners filed a lengthy " Reply to Opposition" on December
- .D.;4q q p,,.s..,.:.
, g.y .rw,;. .. M O : R. .'.
.4 18, 1984, whereupon the Commission authorized the filing of further
~t',
, . , , . w .. .g 3..c. . .
<e ".
. . opposing briefs by January 9,1985. The Staff and the Licensees then re-9 , y.'; y sponded in detail to the Petitioners' " Reply to Opposition." Having care-
..st'3::g.g
.~. .% ~ ,,.T %. ;.
M..z .
,Me>;Mk, ~. fully 9.1considered all this material, the Commission concludes for the rea-
. . .g * :s. : ** .
*
- c . '.. sh, f;-
.. *;. 3.*
*. ...w. . o e ,7.,4 ,, . ,.h'.. p '.1. c.
e . .,***,
-*1; ., .w. y. .',*;C.A.
c W'... . .
- L *.'a.7/h,
.U. h h s
. .,c S
- -., s]. : .. .
1570
.. '.~r
. . .: .f . q -l.--- &e.e
-. ?' . e. -G. -_
-: .:8": :. }. *:. .ej' y 'o.. -r4
+,..,.a
- 9. c. . '.. ".Q, s.(A G;.;;;,; u ;, .'x.
*< sQ. 4. ..
. ,,.. . --, - ;- - , -, . o e, e 7 y
'T
, X.j N' r s, *y
%, . p ., .;: . :g . p; - .. :-
f, p\.. ,.
..w. , y . ;n _ . .,
..e-e 4
6*,
*f *4 '. ' *E.) , f r',
~
. *b *. '-
a" ,, ... 3.Jp 4
'* *f :
- e. '
7 , ;-
.\
~ ,.*. _ _ _ ' . . , _ ' ' .,
*~
'%~ ~ " *
. ' ;f.' ,
$ ;6 f
, 4l,
k.u..'.5:k' ,n ? wN..' h.
.. . w.m ,5
-ecC :. ,.:...- ..
C' , 3.,7 ,q
. s. .
5
.a e cm&- .:.. .W*f:~.v.me.;:,
s.MW.,4 u . .5 7 y& ., - rp%.. ?e3
- 9. ,.. . . .
. - . y' *Ma,u 4 p
~. ;y:. o n. v. ;:' )Q .Q.2.: . -
- . *l; *
.L c
y* ;y:;m .c.' vf W,. . p..- :.:
. . . . . ~ . _ . . . ... . . . . -. : :. : - : s
- v. ~,,.;.~..
, ; -W~ :, ._.....e ~ .q**,sn
%. . ...?,,. x. ..e' v % :,:% ..*,.*'I. n ,K .: ; !
.- ; :4.: a. ....~.:.2. .. . ,q.+ w(.l< -
r ..a ,h.y. k',k.hh -- .l:hf. ' de. . ~.n:.. +r: . .J:6v.:, ;-<- : . A,W;ac' rc,. .k. . , .y . C: .-G,,_ i '..Q:,:, x h.:r.:.;J,.4, sons given below that the request for hearing and the request for a stay M 5 should be denied. J@ e$.O8 ) : my .: 4t h. . %.+
. t
$.MGK,h.y.7'-W.. IN.EM~ ...$,Mv.M. ,. 6.-.
? . :-
A- y m. h I. BACKGROUND
~ @n WQ S.6 0. p <;."S.s s;:n. m' g ,d ?..
- k. Wi*"MM-M.g'.r
- u. 4.4. 4.g.,.,.4. .s. . s hWWM 3:nUW5DQtM San Onofre Unit 1, located on the Southern California coast near m e. m. ,,.< o.e c%.%
2.e.r,;..,
- . o Oceanside, is one of the older nuclear generating facilities, having re-ceived an operating license in 1967. As part of a Systematic Evaluation bdhmh[g5NN/M s Egy.WQ:.)r. W ".-i. hp $ W P
.$r.3[:
y. Program ("SEP") the Staff has been reevaluating eleven older operating plants, including San Onofre Unit 1. In particular, pursuant to the SEP M.*? . >
.inF#y h.SMa:7.M .u.~.=. . . .
C the Staff has been rrevaluating the capability of the facility to withstand M fq %6 g/([%g dp .,#g. %.u4g$:iM, earthquakes. The original seismic design basis for San Onofre Unit I re-j'M.) quired that the plant be able to shut down safely following a 0.5g Hous-3F D M 5NM VMpQ.5;$M p h'd ner spectrum earthquake, in current terminology. See Safety Evaluation Report, Return to Service Plan, San Onofre Generating Station, Unit 1, hN J
@i q.4 ri d d'wee e'ID.IUNW* .. ?'.6 :
*gplC.N lg[$,y)
Docket No. 50-206, November 1984 ("SER"). In May 1982, during a plant outage, the Stati became concerned be-
- u. .g cause of unexpectedly high stresses reported during reevaluation of cer-Ap k N.h h.Jf,,W'4!&.5W,.5[?ah
- tain piping systems and mechanical equipment that San Onofre Unit i
,
- Mh $h.IJ.; might not meet its original 0.5g design basis. The Licensees proposed to M e N7 O N'$3 %.MM%P -
E M..'@h ' D AT $.,<. t the Staff by letters of June 15 and 24,1982, that, instead of undertaking costly analysis to reconfirm that the plant met its original 0.5g design v.s@W.7..w.
$.w.e.- 3 q .e..?. @i u w '
- U.. eg ' %..gmum.,.
m r :.- basis, the Licensees would instead commit to maintaining the plant in a 9 G'eM t c M. , ' shutdown condition until completion of a program initiated in 1973 to A'QW.g;MdM;**;y%,,,,%. M gW $< upgrade the plant to 0.67s, which is the seis'mic criterion applied to 358:h q 9.% M W 0 M Units 2 and 3 that were later built at the same site. The Staff agreed that NN!$bMM.Mi.~ M & -9 yMk .1:'. completion of the 0.67s upgrade program would resolve Staff concerns g g .1 . about whether San Onofre Unit I met its original design basis. Accord-R79.ihp, M W;W:~. N M p.:**g** . . ingly, on August 11,1982, the Staff issued an " Order Confirming Licen- $@fff,Q'.7,We%Cg:.M
';2 ,
see Commitments on Seismic Upgrading" (hereinafter " August 1982 Order"), which required that the Licensees ' ,. d : .J.S.,;&.f.;;; c , M....n g. .^u, . D. . .., i pLG - c. c; p ; ?., %.n.v:.: H.1::
$;kb.M.[k[.fh,T@k i , - ,;. maintaan San Onofre LJnit I in the shus. lawn condition until modificanons desenbed Q.Q.Cl 't.9J: ./ . f ; M :. , . in their submittal dated June 15. 1982 as supplemented by letter dated June 24 E ',,. 1992 are completed and NRC approval is obtained for restart.
w,Q
. . ., &I, M .. -'4'S
,2. :n:.;-b.U f p, 3 . .w:ff. . s, = -%
.y.9*.',
p r..~.M:~ M. i:.gV.,. .M. wr.1.n : m e .4. /4.#.. . . 47 Fed. Reg. 36,058 (Aug.18,1982).
.: Since the August 1982 Order was issued the Licensees have completed N.3,,iW.W h.sW,4.r.i; .'+.f
~ i. , # ._ ..,
.y , c;
$ b . M E d.,'hMM..' t.f,? . 9.
- S. . a substantial part but not all of the committed.to modifications. As the w(rk progressed it appears that the costs of the modification, together M
m% p m$'.+rs M M., 2 * *W . M W.S.t{x& s*'.*,.:. .. x.v. %'m f,A -t e '- :. b t.
".. with the costs of the extended shutdown, were found to be greater than 4.% ~R.,iK,g.Q).U ? 1.*'*L?**.$.'* .> :.- 9 SL- - 2E.':$'p .
. p ljf.y?x l .?, y,;'W-? ,
-.u_n ff.*.ll, l ...,-
.jj ?;Ldp*_
,l, , -
.. ; 1571
. s
[ ~, % - :,e - % / . * -* . .
- k. ! . *e _[ #',, . , , ; .1 . " [- -
t1 ,J- ,,, . Lf'..'k-MjY ' m: : 75.h.(QM*87 p&,:f.-n.*V.'m'_.' '.i'$ '.'.~h.p&: &w . . .
. v. 9 y ~;.. .:. c w . .
'l;x -
d' . . & .h,(z . I-g y, (. . ; - . .t c ' r f - 3.K.? r. , . 3 ',
----.=v.--- -.~..c---.-m--~-----,.....m,,3..,..,.
; *~; ~ v.x ~ :
- 1 :h i ' , ' ~ ~
?
. .Q .c'c , . . nQ~
ir - . n w. :' ' -
' , , - - - *n '
?.. y. Fq ; . ;.i.::m' p -
- y. ,,; *. n.- 'i. ._ .i~.3..Q <. 2. K =.
. ~; .. ;p
.a -
%:t . cg -
s7 (% j; : < %,-... -;';g ' 'f *.3 *i. s , #-
, i t .? .
, , . ~,_ -
.i
.c - '. "
9 .i ls.M: u ~ ~ . e?.-;-' -
- 2. ;: .... .- .
. .s .
* , a a :. . .
4: .:,'- ~
.-..w-. _- . .--.. ..a.;: w _ - . .n ~ .u. . c-- ~
- p. N.' .
,o,' ,
, .m . .
i
.fr<- . ,. ,
1
.'.a..l-f. . ,: Q:.V :. :: '
.Gy.e" .A: - ,
- : W. .n. ,. c;;o C , the Licensees originally estimated.' In late 1983 the Licensees began to 4;&,. ' ..- . .
~* m explore with the StalT tise possibility that, consistent with NRC regula-
;& S Y. . . . s, 3, [. hb's . ;~
.w."J.! .. .. ' . yfy.r tions and adequate protection of public health and safety, San Onofre e...z.y r . ..;
E.. w.
# .m -
. e . . u..
m q
-4 , m. .._ W ... e . .. 3. J . .
.n.,. t e.u. ; V, f.p.". pW...M.
u Unit I might be returned to service for a limited period while the re. maining upgrades needed to reach 0.67g are being completed. W.+g m s .:...:- . 4 f M *,.n.- In the November 1984 Order, " Contingent Rescission of Suspension," h.y9p.,;, Q gVis,p.If'v.@. , ..- the StafT noted "that there is reasonable assurance that operation of San Onofre Unit I can be resumed prior to completion of the seismic reeval-f.S. N@SNhN$$ d
% d.@h,j;Qih t
! . untion program without posing an undue risk to public health and h gEMh5'.~'. ~f B }; g k[ .A k cI [h _. safety." The Staff stated further "that the licensee has reasonably estab-lished the seismic capability of the systems which would provide the Jg.4::.% w "n -tv W A$'.ll^. capability to achieve and maintain a hot standby condition in the event l
$N DlY$@N~N' of a 0.67g modified Housner spectrum earthquake." Moreover, with re-
$~f. 4l. . ~. P M 5.c$',k.3 [dM @h
~
spect to other systems, the StafT stated that "available information indi-M. .:.M. ,W,. ...'-l.b: b; v .,,..f.- cates that the plant should withstand a 0.5g seismic event, and may e** .:. #
.. 9 .:*. p.; y - c . ,..s .
s even withs.tand larger events without substantial damage." The Staff T R,O K. ;. g5 g .;s ,l 3 . ;.7.;c.
. y.py. .. . g.,
- . , > i.w
. sv. ;.4.,. .4ggg I-w aw;- .'
;.:*q**'
\ *q % f '*. ,
documented these conclusions in an accompanying Safety Evaluation Report (SER). Concluding on the basis of this evaluation that public i : s'. <5 .-'J.lf.3. @ ; M - health and safety no longer required suspension of plant operation, the 7 1'D. ..f:,-[.!$jydO
.c~
Staff rescinded the suspension of operation imposed by the August 1982 _ . .e . Order, "provided that the remainder of the seismic reevaluation program
'J - e.f MM.!; . Aw.$, WO t
yf.- and the resulting plant modification are completed by the end of the
'. - s ? 4 :FDMM.u ..fp < M.fD : next refueling outage" or that the Licensees submit an adequate justifi- ~~ '. .
- d5f. ;qg. g";.y.@ L .. cation for an extension of time. November 1984 Order at 4,5. The plant
. [- D.~ resumed operation shortly thereafter. On December 7,1984, the Com-m *;.' pm. .g.y:g,;.5.CQM.27' mission received the Petitioners' request for a hearing on the November
,. r .N. .%. . . T. . 7.. d* 2. . 7 " 1984 Order and a request for a stay of that order.2
. s' .~. . . ...
..- ~
- 9 ~.;.t. :M.sMf;x.63:. ?.is.f. .e . .
II. THE PETITIONERS' REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON [ J. .gl.i
. . :, . . Mz. 'M THE NOVEMBER 1984 ORDER
- t. .. ..- . .N. s. *;'
;-.. 1, sc... l .... - t ..-5,q. . .T
- c. .i. At the outset we are confronted by the Petitioners' claim that the
; g o.;.4~ .7. .%. .e.. .. n. ..->-
November 1984 Order is a license amendment and that the Commission
. " f:' 8 N [ $ U g. h. - .i '
.J , is therefore obliged as a matter of law to ofter a hearing on the order to
. e>
.i l -~ :. ,, g*:.~~~.o#.r... . ef 2 :.4 %e :
- . . p- ' 7': e ..y. . s.hyy.,M .MWG2%.ky. @ x. s y P..
Q :. '$ - ;,
. v ;- .
a
. . . .'. :l' D *M @y. 6*rf qu;r;;/ ~7*l *jf3%.'. ues i The ,Commemnon unexpected costs of an entended shoulown included a requirement by the Cahforma Pubbe Uuh.
that saa onofre Unia 1 enhor be returned to full service er January I.1985, or re.
.h.'.i ,g- d* *l . ** . !.' .- W!y"; e.' Z. .dg.gc, ".<f;G.G.W'f[r.by. .e i' ' moved from the Laconnese* rese base.
2 In an order deaed December 10.1984 (unputhshed). the Commission denied the Penuoners' request
.f- ,J .L for a decioson as earty as December 12. 1964 but agreed to an expedaad schedule for fahns responses. ~~I . '. ..V./.'ff.$[7Mf' . Y[jht ' *ht.L~
on December 18. 1984, the Petsuoners riled a tengthy " Reply to Opposinon." which sreatly expanded a
.". c . 4 ~;.%rN. s ,* W.* -
, -* usca thest ofissnel arguments. The Comnusson thereupon allowed oppoeng pernes unut January 9
. n - .,v.w.+ w w g**M . .s;. .:" .a, j . . .
[935. to respond to ilus reply.
. . , .t.-. .. m,s,
. .w. .- y:, w r ..-
. . ;y. . ,. w .. . _. .
- 1. . ..
Y. s- ...,#. . 1572~ n :::: .
. ..n
~..wW+;a ~.. . ..o.. - . .,.
.> XA.ca y :: - v
.a v . y.:e .
f 4. ~;'..Q.:c. .?Ar;.y '[. _
* . :- y.
- L'3. Q - < -
+, ; -
;:- ? . ~
~
,. . . S v,..
, :.. y . 'e.f. :".9.,- _ .,-
%- , *f ;. , " ~ % l . . .-
, . . utt -
w... p ,*,k7 .**$* g .,D n.
# y* 4,
-t .
f .. ,.]*-_ '
.l
-* ~ '
. h. ?~% h'i1+
' * * * ~
.: , . , .v, , , . -, -
yx.;a.:. . .. s.w,s . . :.
~
.= .
n&y.n. .
- .. a: a . - .
,jG.J .y' G. . . , . , ,
X;i y < .u .1
.L. i', '- ,
y.. .%,..$. .;;; ;?. ; "~M*Q..t',y6 s ; ', -
"5. .: ".
- f. ' - . ~ .
" ~
?*.-
-* ~~~~ -~- ~ -
v :
* " - ~ ^ ~ --
.:_ . , . .. +
v. _<. ,.m.%. ..W:w
- n. . y., :n.' ,
..~ ...-
m _ . s.e.. , , v .
'.. ,s.; X. . .
.t : . p.
- m. x. .. a . s, y . v. .. . . .
x.r . . .
- a. ;., ..; , ...::m;m a y.A. m.' I.:;3, interested persons.8 Since the November 1984 Order does temporarily M W.6Mj relieve the Licensees of certain burdens imposed by the August 1982 M,,..P. ,
. 'y9/Q6. / ;e. s gK% .'. e;M.. g.. ?..g.b.f.,ahJe ..%. .. -1;
.m
" Order Confirming Licensee Commitments on Seismic Upgradings"
} LW9 and authorizes operation of San Onofre Unit I before all the conditions h.,.:.w&M ids 0 #J.7.@ $./k'A Tyf:. : "'i: . /*"' of that earlier order have been met, the Petitioners are correct that the
% Id D M M !Ep{/Sfd$$g November 1984 Order would be a license amendment if the August bj'i?5.#$$,'phkMf?! M.S$T4 '--!d%@
1982 Order had amended the San Onofre operating license. If, however, the conditions for further operations imposed by the August 1982 Order @ N.fM.T.Ndh were not made part of the license by that order, then the Commission (K".M... k.,.gd R %.* TM .gT f. ~ Mr@M @,g
\ 9,.9M MM' N . $ '
-. v can modify or suspend those conditions simply by a subsequent order
.g u.v.e .S ' - without going through the procedural steps required for a license amend-D.d..TWF M@s_ 3, N.g{C? o;4?.' 4 '.D. ment. In short, unless the August 1982 Order was itself a license amend-
;.: ment, the November 1984 Order rescinding it in part need not be treated a
T,%w~#tNpb F.%.M4. 3.( % J ; m)&'e + Tg,.a ... A, F N procedurally as a license amendment on which interested persons would be entitled to a hearing.
.S'.
@NMgsOX.it- @W +MMkK.-d.Q'*m dkd . M [n.,M.'.1d ;p $ 6,, '. .c ' The Commission has concluded that the August 1982 Order confirm-ing the Licensees' commitment to complete the 0.67g upgrade program M8, 5 w;.4..%.$ u:N e6 MWD $'. prior to restarting San Onofre Unit I did not amend the San Onofre Unit mp%,w?:,wW :. WS 1 license. Accordm. gly, the Commission rejects the Petitioners, argument b@p'4,JA W that the conditional rescission of that order'must be treated as a license f w .M-hbQ- X ' M g.. W... .:.M. q'b W . 3 amendment. The August 1982 Order in no way expanded the Licensees' M.n.a .-s . A x e.r yM;wpdq..W-- a .- m authority under their 1967 operating license, nor did it authorize or MS R direct the Licensees to take actions inconsistent with or not already au-W@ d8.D..x.5...MMM [N M, -
$$$ki thorized by their existing license. Instead, as a detailed examination M8*Q '
kh y..pMM epj:@4ys[.M@*?:license suspension, an action which can be entirely distinct from an
, shows, the order cut back on the Licensees' authority and was in efTect a MWy.$ M MM., 2. amendment.'
wi-d,. :<,.t.ey yW.~,c%.~.n . . _ ,
.x ;*m
*:.a A ..w..3
. ~ y , .~.., L. *;. *8
-4 zs . . ,,,...t,,~ -e-
. u< ., .w .. ....n.. . "; 5,' ; M. w' c
. ,@, i. r.,.*: ... .$
,a , -* .
- J secuon 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 U.s.C. $ 2239(as, states W,7 4 , ".. 5
. .. g;;.f
. , -{ M 'J; . f. sy*;*J "Q' - e' .-. In any proceeding under this Act, for the granung, suspendmg, revokang, or amendmg of any IKense . . . the Commissaon shall grant a hesnns upon the request of any person whose mterest
\ * ' " ~} ' , , l,-] > ,lp'./. %,? '., , ,
may be afTected by the proceedmg.
.4 ' - 9 . ' ( ;"?, . J.-* .'..- Q ' # .
Afradavits of the Peuuoners appear to estabhsh that in all probabehty they would quahfy as mterested 7.,7-q,sy-. i . Lyy 4 y'i M %. . 12
.5 .*. persons by virtue of remdence and acuvines in the vicinsty of the san Or:ofre facihty.
N ;;>p . ' / ' ~ ' ' , i i. " , 4The Peutsoners object to the charactenrapon of the August 1982 order as anythmg other than a r
- 9.c 'j:<
- a,' L.,s.. .$ -;s-. ;. pst -,./, ... , , 'l .- 1*ense amendment an part because of various asserted discrepancies between the form of the order and
. the requirements of the Commismon's regulauons goversung enforcement orders.10 C.F R. Part 2. The y' f h' O ' $
I X;'.r .- . .,",4; - Commisson sees such discrepancies as bemde the point. It does not fonow that :( the August 1982 , U c'. p
' .. iC . ,
I.74 t ,FN..I. "'; , *
~
i'[ .
,- order dad not meet all the formal requirements of an enforcement order :: would then have been a hcerse amendment. This is peruculatty so ence the order dad not meet the procedural requirements for
.a.4i ff g ,; y M.1
- _ */ t
- r J4 , ' a IKense amendrnent either, e.g., the pnor nouce and olTer of a hearms to interested persons required y"Z + . . . ~. '. .y 7 ; .T '" * [ '"4 - by { 189a of the Atomic Energy Act were not mcluded m the order. an omissaon whwh would have re.
': ?.15 h P' . .
.~..%.,, quered an esplanauon and jusursauon if the order had been mtended to amend the hcense. See 10
,.. gP"f* y' g ;,.';,*' -." <*'*r/-/ G . C.F.R. ( 2.204. FinaHr. if there were defects in the form of the order they might or might not have f.L".'-1 been prejudsial to the Lsensees, but they were not so for the Peuuoners. Thus the Peuuoners have no
{ M."lC N '.'*d $y jp {; g-O I D[ *(' standans to compiaan of these alleged defects and they cannot use them as a basis for transformmg the
% ie*". W,* . '. nature of the order to the dtsadvantage of the Licensees.
. .,..Q *- ,J.
t .%. ",C ,7, n. v .. . ,., ;$.. ...s,*;;.f. t... , l 1573
. , I
,L' e*g .s *%. 8* (M. *'.. g h 6
, " $;. ' f$.
- x.:.-
, /w ,- *
'P., ,
I
' ' ~ * "
,3, re., .3 ,
..\.
i - .
. y ;- 3 , * , ,
n . - . . .- - -
, . . . . . . . . ._ . .2 -
.6 , . * ;
.;i.
....e...-.
,. .t .u.
. . ,P.f ' p 3-y
- <.sc.n ,, ,
. n .. :- .c
.. g . - .
.p : . . . : .. ..
. n.,~. m. n
%. 2.,, &. ;.Q-.& '
-- . , sa~
% ~~
S 'im ' @?;., p, .* . .. . .
, . , 9 e*.n. 2- p. r,. s ,V:. t ?. M W g:. r ." q.. p 3 .
- ~ _ m. e ,,.,-
o .. ,- ..;
~-
.f ~p n +
^ ,
y M..q:m: . ' 7, m-Qi 3 o
\
?.". . M.. .M
~Wh3 : ,
- i. ]:. .
.,1.4.*'.-- c.. i
..:p. *^*f,.,.~.
6
+
.. . . .s{'. %. .
f i.'. F. s; Y; 7itd;%[t"I./O. k' <,khf *k:Q-:.y.;' .'l ' .6'5. 7'l::k';p,.'h,.[ r,.. .
. The San Onofre Unit I operating license required that the plant be built and operated so as to withstand earthquakes of 0.5g ground acceler-4%2d , S.7 .D. 'r ation. The Licensees' voluntary commitment to upgrade the plant to MQ:M.g
'.~A $ f- f !:ci f.L';.r.
C 4 j,r M; MM.NMf Nr.c 0.67: was in efrect a commitment to make the plant safer than its license required. Such an action neither contradicted the existing license
% M $ i;N P.. Dt N 3' M nor did it in general call for additional authorization. Similarly, the
-k.k h@ND[F.uq x l hf [h A "!d.J--l%;;41 Licensecs', decision to keep the plant shut down during the upgrading was an action within the terms ofits existing license, since a shutdown T
' $- M I$ is obviously a mode of operation allowable under the Atomic Energy t.s Y'g % 4 Ms 1 7 $.hbhi;b.[Sl['h T!N[f[%Act without additional authorization. By confirming the Licensees' com-mitment to these actions, thereby making them enforceable by the Com-ew j)e W .f g.?.r.CJld? M [.% ;F.'k:f.E yY k Ny @$N N.iN8,.
. u. -
mission, the Staffs order of August II,1982, thus had the effect of sus-pending the 1%7 operating license, which otherwise would have permit-N
. sig Q.UU@UM MQ M','g.4 [4[ ted continued operation prior to completion of the 0.67: upgrade, but it
.M 6. D did not amend the license or otherwise foreclose the possibility that the h i.: <:M.,o........c)7.
.y.
., ,. m'0,9.. ?_'. .M.'... -O. M. . Licensees' original authority could be promptly restored upon reconsid-cration by the Commission or upon a finding that circumstances no
~%ne. n%:R Wrtc.e.a
. 'l<n.,,3.+pw;, ./:
. i ., . -
yr . .. pW5f?' longer warranted the additional restrictions imposed by the August 1982
.mQ.. s 7W j r. l.9;",1Q'M,y.. .
.- Order. The Commission's ability to suspend a license in this manner
,g.. c., p t 24 9 :M,y
,. .s . .
and later lift the suspension is a necessary part ofits regulatory capability
,.di.;cW .q q.
- c. 7.-m.
. Z ; -. '. im. c . . ;p
. .: m. a ,. r e . m.- c,1.s,c.- .m m,
k
;M, .gg#.. :. .9,i to act quickly in protection of health and safety, without being deterred by concern that prompt action against a licensee may prove difficult to v .n- g.w.h M.~4. f ~. 73 t.R R.;YdPp.h'fyjfh,4 undo later when the need for it has passed.8 ,
p
@. h #.-. 6,
~
T, ., rc dT.rgxfg.O, f In sum, then, the August 1982 Order was a suspension of the San Q..c. f~x ' m O T.J.' ?. gpWry . g Onofre Unit I license. The conditions specified for lifting the suspension did 30 beyond the conditions for operation already in the license, but the order did not formally amend the license to incorporate the added d@($L3'M JJ:M i' 7.(.;.Q :pjj. gQ gg y conditions. Accordingly, the Staff remained free to relax those condi-
', @.:.([. ..M *: UY-k. v- .Ahh3h,n' tions if it later perceived they were excessive or no longer required. As
>:. .,2 - - . , . .
?. p. :. u... . .' :y 7 '.:- .r" ,y. t.3.y, ;,i .-
- bg, j .. . .
. '.ek. ;; . .- t . ( ; , ,y ", . i. ! * * -
%. n, --;p . ,,. .
,f "'. .
.,e - ... . z;n.o e g * . .c.c p s.:# ",
. * - ? t .v.- ?.
..'3~ ,
O.; a .,- M@a a& J 3 Thee is not to soy that it would never be appropriese to mcorporese into the license a cutback on licen.
.49 w..
,'r J ; [. y
; ; . *'.<N,: ** 79 NGg;[, f,6#.2.J' 3 'e see authority or inspomason of new burdens 6 The decimon is one of agency decreuon and intent howev.
, ; * "eef.6g 4 .
s 7...
.f m [. d .. . '
er, rather than natusory compuimon. Thus the Commammon could have chosen as a matter of discretson f y. 4 . . . R.2, to put the "Oveer ConArrmag Licenses Commatrnents on Semmic Upgradms" into the form of an order V. C-
'a,6.; h-I/>QE rnsdifying the beenes, includens therewnh the appropnaes noiste and oder of a heenng to mierested pet.
$Yf. t,"7.f. .M i'.'* # ..if4 N',q' ]h,W h{, M ,,..-d '% r;*,;i;,wf 43gry@;[
sons as reguared by f Ig9e. but is se obvious from the form of the order that this wee not the intenuon. L 8ecause of the putlec inserest in the saatue of San Onofre Umt !. at the time the August II.1982 con-
, - ;b ;.W%.% J-K .. ;,*
firmosory order was iemand the Dwecaer of the OfMce of Nuclear Reactor Regulataon issued a " Letter to
*.c* '4[-- 'i y M5 @[O .K.- %M n,.--@? ~
.lyj-; ;,.[4i Caisformes Rondenes" deernbeng the conArmatory oroer. Nothms in this leuer suggested that the Licen.
fj M ', . ; sees' commstment to entend the San Onofre ouisse unut the 0.67 upgrade was completed was bems
' r - D ,~ . ..,. , ,
~~.:. '(; ", -
e Mf.g~ M*{h,,p}e@r
.i .g *.y
. & g ,k'$g made part of the hcense. Any persons beheving that the commitment should have been made part of the Sen Onofre hcenes could have peutioned the NRC so to amend the hcense.10 C.F.A. ( 2.206. The
- @cx . r' ... ~.
%A *O 3 '
l
* .~' 13 d*.j, D'. N+*3$. N,)7; . 2.206 procedure was well known to meeressed cinzens, who had previously filed such petsuons seeking a '
.N+.,7.
.- a a..'J'.?ge-s *.o A ..
- d. f,y.r .g' rr., .A} -,
suspenmon or revocation of the San Onofre license. No pentoons for an amendment incorpersang the Licensess' -- ~ t were received. l C.s, ..Q *[, Q g.
.. , e..
,.,.,[*w%".*f< ;A . *4is,(.* j .
i,, .. .. -*
-'-mis,,,Mg*
~
v, , ~;,.. - .f
. .. 7 '. ) i i N. . .@, ,.
.. 1574
, a *
*~
~l f _ + -
" $ ~. @' '-.%.j . .,..* E$ .t..b.; r, Laq.M '*kQpQp 'O :*(..
l ,ll. -. 4.h.lh. s- ,
;.-$.-f','&t:$*k.Yl.
.c.m..._
~
s',.
'> ,,,,./
x% _ ' % .;g.?' '
- l% ;,? ( , '
.,;} . *
. _.-- .. ., _ ., ,a
, , ., ; ',, , , p, ," ' >
- G l,y j
- lK/.,f :" ' -. '
,Yl . *,* L . ,
. -N
.s.*d :r
- ll .% 2 . ' '*
- j' ',
.. - . ,
- R.. ',. r* a ~ ,?
*' a e
*lGl *:a .*_
.y ~ . -> .. ' ;.yp,, .; ; j p .;,...
.i'
. , -.q. '. ey,y;p' ' ' l, .
- , C. ,:.
; 4 '
~ , _ s. . -
.. .. ,I ~
b
- $d.[.
mij2 . .
,7f . .
n
.1[ ' .
.q~
j%y
.. ~ . ... . . . .s
- w. n. .- a.., s.
.y. w v. . :. , . . . c.x: .
;2-mo ., wn: ~s . . m
'<.^.e s 9y .;,?..ns;.9.8 .
,WK %, w.. .p:m: . . - ;y ;c. .
, .- c.F.
.a. . . . , ,
.. .s-W;w .~c t .-..-.~---.----.~.-.-...---a----".
~
,m-
~-%
. .;.,S.. .
- Y .^ ? .. :. ..n
. : p.: ;p;;:4_.y?..,.q:gr . v..
' * , .: :q;- ..
u..-t , w. ,~ m. v ,ck . y3. :. w= * - h - --
,. 4. wm:,%.
J e
- p. mg.p;U' , .M T.:.7an:,exercise . of that authority, the November 1984 Order lifted the sus-Pv;i;. 1. b ,N.q N.M u u: ~.$ S pension, temporarily restoring to the Licensees the authority they w,d,O. '..
A.5lM...W25 V'86
- 9. %
g.% .N..e .-
' - : . possessed under their original license.' It also temporarily and condition-
.Td5$."M ally rescinded the new operating requirements which the Staff had im-
@hM95k
;I. dhd@g@M1..*
.. h 5 W ' J.
N? posed as an act of regulatory discretion in its August 1982 Order but had not made part of the license. W P.e.? M @ W N;d M .. nQ7 Ed- NNM There is no statutory requirement for the Commission to offer a hear-h//N%9f4p$dM k WY c:iE NM ing on such an order. It is well established that the hearing requirements h[$-%IlhMr.,N'g @h 5 N k' N$Nh5MG/EY .-
;g;g't77 of j 189a do not apply when the Commission lifts a suspension.' Son Luis Obispo Mofhersfor Peace v. NRC. 751 F.2d 1287,1314 (D.C. Cir.
1984). Similarly, the categories of agency action specifically enumerated (;(g/.f.%.e.
.2 O pW nd4 f. w W I.4.w@.@,4...?
m
- w. !!: .. .
v. in j 189a for which an offer of a hearing is required do not include the rescission of an order imposing extra-license requirements. Where Con-hkh.9[l',;.it'M, 8 d 3 gress has made the statutory hearing requirements explicit, further Sd, Dg h.d
?.$M k k' $k[',$$
's @[O.5.: 4_%@M;E D h@ ti$'o X 5 C V implicit requirements should not be read into the language of j 189a. "if a particular form of Commission action does not fall within one of the eight categories set forth in the section, no hearing need be granted by
@Mh?[b'g$3-p
? r- the Commission." Id. Accordingly, the Commission is not obliged by M@$%.
- $.5 om*
{2 l ._ 3' law to offer the Petitioners a hearing on the November 21,-1,984 " Con-Rb7g-ba: s.wawpt.fW.W,. W ~ ' gi.2e > *: .*. a +- . tingent Rescission of Suspension."
,k.[, d[it;W.sd~b[4g
~ Y.h.s . . .
ageft.Wp,, WMdM'J%...d.~. p- f .y c ;-
. .,. y21,1934 III. THE PETITIONERS' REQUEST FOR A STAY OF THE
~ ~ORDER M. . ,. y,h,;
a w:. u .2
.TT - -
NOVEMBER
-;h &)ff J. *&..%.5eDQP.;..#19 s e .- a ,,. A.
Y N' .<
., In view of the Commission's conclusion that the November 1984
.O ,. Order was not a license amendment and that the order has complied t/ DEN %E'NN. .- $ ; . with all procedural requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, there is no N!Md;,i'W.M , .'.G. .I , , , , ongoing proceeding with respect to San Onofre Unit 1. Accordingly, the Y.swr %.. ~.i N. R.'. W. ,
- ' Petitioners' request that the Commission stay the order, thereby shut-ly; e . . .
- -y.. - ting down the plant, is properly before the agency only if viewed as a pe-
..i;.M .,. y,,; T y:,., ...;M..g.
~
- .._.! . .m.
. . , , ,- ( e....
e
. . . . 6s.~ 'w.-7 ., 7R ,
. e .r ., ,.
f.'.T:
'".-*9 .,,); ' .] . 2 . ..,
4
~F eConatory to the Peutsonore* www we do not see in the stairs 1984 sea any admission that san
, g' ;-( ', , ; onehe Uma I as now opereung with a smaller mergin of safety then its 1967 hcense required. Rather, it 7.* ,F*", "
,. :. ,'L
- is the seeH's peessson that in view of the entenssve upgreshag already acheeved, the margan of seesmic y#.% f..@.h--jkQ
. [, ';
. ^P.y safety hee been increased even retenve to whos the seen behewed thea mergin to be in November 1981
. y.4' '4".e P . , v ,* / 9 ,- .
u . . y'.h-
=
- l. .q pnor to the dissovery of the lugh sisse vahase whsch aroused the see4's concern regardeng whether the
- j. . ' l D' 7.[ %
- 2 ' ' '. ongened isceomas bene was sessened. See 1 14 of Af5devet of Chnseoeher 1. Gnntes, asseched to the
. ' 7,7l;y'.((.f.l.PS-
- T. ., , . M 'J1]Zij' "NRC sanffs Response to sierre Club, es si, *s ' Reply to rwa-a= *
- 4' ~,1- ;; , ,,- '.'..i 7 As a metier of descretsen the Commenon may o#er a heenng pnor to hfung a license _ _ _ . ..
$1 * 'M ,D '
Thee se the coures the Commesmon (cilowed wnh regard to the restert of Three Miis Island. Urut 1. The g g..,,
- o - : '.' 7 . -M. . ,,,'.? "" ' 4-.*';.. -
- %' Commesmos decamen to requwe a formel heenne pnor to TMI.! ressert wee based on the part cular car.
c y c ,i. v. . .
- of that case and did not essethsh an esency regiarement for heennes on the hfung of hcense
*4
-; ' ;,< %.w.y / ' 7 g.dQ'
. ? ' "~ J ! . 4 I,$.y . .:. '
* ;.s.
suspenmon. The Commasson hee generally densed such requeses. Ser. a.f., the Commesmon's hfung of the suspenson of the Diebec Canyon low-power opereune hcense. Perde Gas sad Ehenrer Ca (Diablo
.: J G -Q.,na yy 43in R-:t,@WM'p', .. -.
c, u .
;.. .s Canyon Nuclest Power Ptent. Unite i and 2). CLI-84 5.19 NRC 953 (1984). eT4. See Law o6eps umnerife,ensre unC.s ,e.
(.,. . , , . ,, 3... ..,
^. c l
. .. ~:. . ::;
gggg
# g # % .* *.,
. O h y
- I
.......e ..
*e .
,e . . *
.ww.2 ,,,,:yn
..~.,
.t,
# .-[
.;~,
_, m. e
. , e t .
5
,'*x .
1 ; i f f ,,, , - t
,;3
. e ; ~v m-
.e
. ,,..r.
y , .; , (' i .,1Aj.?
<e.
# - - . 3: ..&.
* ,1
.'..'i**
t
, * * ' l }* .e.
- S * 'q ..
~ *.
, f,, C
, -g=
) v
- 5 g g. - '
* *4 y
, , , _ _.,__j__ .*
= ..=~ u. .- -
. . . a. ,
. . s a ,. . - y . . ,. . . o
,.. .x n
L
.2 % c..
'jk ;;w. .s'g
.w.:.
n- + -
- s. .
t .. .. s: ; . O iy
. w .. .
i.
._ >.s.." u.e
.... .n: .
y _ . '.- ._' .
> __.____t_..a L. *. + R W ~ v '"*5 l m -
, s. . .
.v,,#.:y.. .m. 1
. . . ~... .wr. e , -.
. ~.
~
, ,. er ,' ,8 +
.j, *. .l
. ,m..s'* Q.g I.
.sk.3..
< . e
...v_.s w.
, . ..n,-. . .
.. .,.. . ,.c.
%.579,&2
. 9 ' . 9; yr$ tition for enforcement action filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. f 2.206.8 Such
..? 'ff.'j'@ -C '
' 'Si Y-a request for an immediate shutdown could be granted, even if a license NDDM-N.s ls k h I2 b.@ Y;f.~;.l
$b$.*N. .. '-
violation could be demonstrated, only in cases of willfulness or of im-M W i $r!.~'y . f.* b d: iE. .:,;FA. k @ 5 :8 w ;y.' . mediate threat to public health and safety. See Petitionfor Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-78 6, 7 NRC 400,404 (1978) (citing the Admin-istrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ) 558(b)). In the present case the Qd$t't@dh..h;h@;. Mii M *$*'N'
~s
.v:- Tih
$2Mhd3 e A.WK .w-GQ'?'?! NRC Staff has specifically found that the operation authorized by the order presents no undue risk to public health and safety.' The Commis-D/r.M...i Me ... pMDCE T
1.s.,. M@,.q#.N.g @-f K.W '*?.'/ . ;%N: sion finds that the Staff has given a reasonable explanation of this finding in the SER and the papers filed with regard to the Petitioners' requests.
!'y r &h;TrMs.4.dR/.3[;t &M R$1; - . .$ $f:
U.-h.?. 9 . Based on this material the Commission denies the request for a stay. pfy'th. ..33.W.+.. .k.yM.i$f..$,9 . .
%s. /fY CONCLUSION G A. N'Xc F.h. w$b.,.:[:,L.'.%..' . . d.?.e c. %, g.,
M %-m.1Nbt,h e .
<p.y-Q - .
.W. ;."f@@. U.f.l.*'E.ff' a g , +;~. . &. A g.y#S, For the reasons given above, the Request for Hearing and Request for n.o. e W,. .c . ,,.v y . .
11 Stay is denied.
. rs +. r .a 19J 6.
Q%@k. %y :4 u,4:9. ..'p .sen..v . >M.h'a~~.W:-mfg h.W' S '6 Commissionerk.d.}q.d Asselstine j@, disapproved this order and his separate views are attached. The additional views of Chairman Palladino and ME l'd. .c 4 . ~ . , . np.y..'.';M@6 Commissioners Roberts, Bernthal, and Zech are also attached. u .:,....:i:L..:.+& pM.n.my. w --
,,a.:.- .c+ , 7; ,. ., >
s;.m.m. mw It is so ORDERED. - -
\ * / W, y.an: &
Y.D,
.r. .
r.f;v,. w '
*t le'mh!? '.g;,:f'@'(* Nig
- ,x.: For the Commission m.:Yy
- y. l,y. : ,. m. s< ,. : n.; w ...t::
y . . w**.,ta n.:s: pM g,.Lw e ,.q.v. g,- w syg s,._ A..u .
. . . ;n: , zy - .
u
. ;. ..ww. x. &w..q&y r. ,r w
. . ..- w. .:%w. -
W,@ Q M[s;?.C.ye, SAMUEL L CHILK 7O.@..' 59 J@$i
@;p ~>..
,. d;MtQ Secretary of the Commission v ..sy. . a . 5,..: ..w . . : -- . f . . ...,.. ~ a QW. c. . 'i . ' .@'ry.lp. .
. 1.9c,:v.n-9 m:qf..E ,
Dated at Washington, D.C., s D. .c . ...h.W.' R . r . . .9 eg
. . - )$ $u V', 3b ;. O p .? s . this 19th day of February 1985.
. .eW .b, < . , . . ; >*.. .!. ~. ..p.t
; a
, ..5 ;. %'- j :. s. % # .?-
",.* * )D: *[j(.,j? ,'. I j ; ;h.:, ,'y;
- 8 The provison for filing peutsons for enforcement action pursuant to ( 2.206 does not accord dncovery
?,'.;8 ;, (ty N; ' **";[
, , , , ;'~,'lff. , . '
j .'; .- w.A no . rights. although the granung of a 2.206 petsuon maght lead to a formal adfudscauon in which discovery would be avestable. There being no such proceeding involvmg San Onofre Unit I, the Peanoners' dis.
. N"l, ;a. .;.R... . , .~,. . f?.+ . . ,"3.r . W.c :]%.m.}.M. r ?'i ?.f
.*v 'g @$..t.
c- c,overy requests filed in connocuen with their hasnns and stay request are not in order.
* .s.9*? N. - Thee bems so. it is questsonshie whether the Peutsoners' cleam that restart of San Onotre Uma 1 must L*M,(#, .. ..h.~;,f :i% .
, . ,Q . .h. .rl,,[.h',[,,,9.7 ; ' he preceded by an environmental review under the Nanonal Environmental Pohcy Act." even if correct.
u.I '.s.'l4'. MWN$, k *h ""' t would Justafy the immediate suspennen of a Iscense unut such a review is performed, partscularly en the s' . // ' " ,$.? aheense of any attempt by the Petitsoners to show that resumed opereuon of San Onorre Unit I will
; . ,j d . ~ . ' , ' " . fr,6ly; A3.y;;,6 M;Snf*
~ -
. ;;;J cause environmentalimenets not already analyzed by the agency. Q' Wiscoasm v. Wemoverer. 745 F.2d te . " l1 412 (7th Cir.1984); Aasate e. Amhet $80 F.2d 405 (D.C. Car.). voresed aperr == other troemds sue nom.
e,#.Q.
- c. .T:s. ml
**. . 4%*;4.r.} *
- f., w e.(f~7 <c.s' y $, v.,k. 4 g
- q... . W,ssyri, og and Ges Ass's v. Ansste 439 U.s, 922 (1978). In any event. the Commismon rejects the
, *l g' ?,'.,.N.. 'f :!1t.w ,,fs. . /
vC.'r.'k. f.pr.~ .. A ?.'$.A, a W d$'c*-M Clasm that the contingent resciasson order required a pnor NEPA analysia. The order empiy restored the enamus ese pnot to the 1982 suspenson order, permsttang San Onofre I to resume en operauon with no
+ 4. ; ,
.~ ::* : MIN anucipased change in the environmental empacts whsch were evaluated and found acceptab6e in a Final
' *.(5.,*
j . E
- g_*." ,[d* <h' . j@J,'*i .. . 'o*s ;.< Environmental
~,...s- 7 . <%. , , -.
. staaement issued in october 1973. The Peunoners have suggested no reason why those
- , . . v.
. i h A., vp ,. t,'.4, . J .
impacts would be changed by the November 21.1984 order and none is apparent. n .,2 ::4' ?..>*/ g. m' g 4. .'%+ . ", g%o... ,,, r* r * .
.*e.a..A J......
**c ^+*.*, . .s
.3 r ,.;,; w -: ..
.. .:-9 m . Q :p.*.'
. ;, , .. q? .-.*.., -* : g y , .~; . 1576
,';;.u.5.: . . - . y c:. " ). -
. .'.;t. , ,-
,, A,4 . . ,- .
, . ,. . . g v3 .
.s ~* " ' . ,
- g; :. w
.w..i .n n,.,4-2.mp;D.,w a: p ~.. .,
, ,,.%x% ;.;..F.,b.---
. ! , *s, e.
n'h^,* ' ' .,$;h ?;*;f .
}_ q ' y
* . ., * % en
.J w
^;,,,g.r.u.
w.
, tc .W . :.'.k ., ',.g.,,.
. fh'b'*f.f:
. s 6P*
~ #~
*%k ~' '
. N. , ' ., p.
'~~'~~'*T*.'*~
.,"m x ' ' *
' .i ,Q, *'
, - e ,s . ; .
- r. '
W . , ,
" '\.:,
' *4 .L .* v.v, .;.r; >v i t.+ V.,
;ll : =
~l:,
!.u -N. .Q. ; .'w < f..r;.y $ h*',jdY i
.e . J * '. b._-__.
*f.:,.=
N, .; ..
, . ~
7* . . i' ; Mf - h_ W ' S
.< 1
i... . - . . - . . _ _ . - . _ . . . . - - - . .. ..
+ ..~
M yxk p' %. l. .
*l.. ,5. 3. } '. '
.,..c..
Y,.'.'.. .~ . m ;;c.. u.., , w :.. . ,. A &~h.f. .W $05 .b 5 g,. . y .)>$;'% $ h~h.0f'$%C ?. ' ~ ' . ~ . . A. ' fL).ES'. ,.Y.l* :00; ~' - -- - - -~- - - ------~~~-A---l"-
$ &..N.m y. .y s .. .. . . . . ..
-:. . ..,U.xO<.
h .,. :*. f.Y,: . . . ' :9..jQ v. 9.ifi A A . y~.e.J D T ^ .J.. U?.'- 2R.s .:; ':* 'hQ."..Y,R*w:re b q ?Q q:~
.?A. ~w& L !: c. 9.w DISSENTING VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE e'y-(,sM,l'.6;m . wp?. 91. J.i,y..'..xy.
r . .. 9 w Y..:. :=.M m . n . ~~ . w . 9.t.e ~a The central legal question presented by Petitioners' request for a hear-Sj@Jfd$' dM~@.Q .Q@$i.% f.2,i f..,1c. . M .. . ing is whether the Commission's November 1984 " Contingent Recission d'NN.fIMd DM..'i .c. . of Suspension" is a license amendment. Ifit is an amendment, the Com-mission is most probably required by j 189 of the Atomic Energy Act dh t%,,(k -E.dZh $ p,N. 5 s (AEA) to provide an opportunity for a prior hearing ifit cannot make a U@$ Mc:..S M g.g-g6 CM , M gpe [6 h.WhQ Wf:nzrA,,.r%.T ,n "no significant hazards consideration" finding. Whether the Commis-sion's November 1984 Order amends the license depends upon whether A -: . k-M the Commission's original shutdown order of August 1982 was an h.a p%; M.$.M.35 - g.,. WW.9 7.:Qv' rM r,.'.7;C . - ' f h, w . At:W.G M,' amendment. If the 1982 order was merely a license suspension and not an amendment, then the 1984 order merely lifts the suspension and no
> %. , ,'h ->
'm 7 r.%qMi $
. mv.s .^ y.K.M.A I,g cpportunity for a hearbs is required. San Luis Obispo Mothersfor Peace k d ,3 h ,,. v. NRC,751 F.2d 1287,1314 (D.C. Cir.1984).
The Commission has concluded that the August 1982 Order did not JE ' W$'W4S8 EN. ' @NMN'-{i" M "'7 - fwd'6Id.~ .QD. '- l amend the San Onofre I license. The Commission says that the 1982 Order is not an amendment because the pttrpose of the upgrade to 0.67g l@A.g $ @1 7 A g., A@Q.w @~.,;. C-b.%$ G . g~.. was to make the plant safer and that action neither contradicted the ex-
.%g ? ~. e zw..3- e t...
.1 isting license nor did it call for additional authorization. See p.1574,
$2sh$:$yd5 -
.' ' % ; . .'. - supra. We are told that allowing the plant to operate in the iriterim until the upgrade is completed was within the terms of the existing authority 5.D$$ddU. -^ .1/? %[ J.* so that the requirement in the 1982 order that the plant remain shut hi S$N@M N@
$hh% M hyf^18 '
,..-C, '
h h h [yj[g ; 4 $ y. y' down pending completion was a license suspension, not a license amend-ment. The Commission majority says that it has complete discretion, then, to relax any part of the order at any time. Id. According to the
- 36. N W ff
".S '
t .N; Commission, it could have decided to incorporate the thange in authori- $@M @- M S
$Q%i$F M@ df " 07' M N i[ h h ""
?. ty into the license, but again that decision is the Commission's. The Commission has, then, according to the majority, complete discretion to
[.N2:jyMI~rg#d7(. b'9$ *'N *;. "',' ^. . label its actions as cit.er amendments or suspensions. Id. O M... .. W,g 7.. .? '". : I cannot agree with tha Commission's conclusions. I sympathize with l..
~
t
- 7; O ' ..
the majority's desire to retain maximum enforcement and regulatory 4 ". 'e'~;.'.mf. ,.c ";!i . ..;flexibility. I too believe that our enforcement process should not Si ?+;b . J
= .. .
'become
.fe,freighted . . with overly complex procedural requirements. On the 45;s.,' M's# a.if.e ,.; . 3 .; y other hand, I do not believe that the Commission has complete and un-
'.2.W 3 h.Q u ;;.
. y fettered discretion to determine when procedural rights accrue to inter.
ested parties and when they do not. I do not believe that the Commis- ' M'. MN[I.N@.Vd;Y' f: ~G' j , w/ '2. igt *1 sion is correct when it seemingly asserts that any time the Commission , 1.v . w ,' 7 M M . .~~J 'f 21 goes beyond existing license to require an upgrade or safety improve-
.N ment the Commission has carte blanche to label that action an amend-
'j,.g;uty d '.3[* "' y22. x q.'
. [.N .
ment or a suspension, and that that label is dispositive for purposes of ' .*gh'is. , aMMi ..
,.. .,1 ~
determining whether the action triggers hearing rights on the part of third parties. 7h.hN. p. i..m%$$h.D 1.[@ -
.v: 3 >a _ ,
J
~ .', . -
. G. - -
1577 c4* ,p .
- ,'_ y a,
""[ ~
s.* a ,.4." e>
.[ .
- p e, l + 'g ((.f ..g
*N I-
.+; .g./." ~ i d * ~,,
- l. : . , f.y'.; w ..,. . h*.*
, , i.'w .
L .s.,.: , W, 'l .; ',%-) T ' p .i - .
. ,,,p.,,,,,
..9.;;
g -
- ,, p g , ,.
.N - ,, .g"g, g .%
, ~ [ ., , , t ' . .;? ., c p;.'*h --
3 3 .
. r. ' .
- n. m.., +
- l % M., .s o. . .+ , ;. . '
. . " " - ..'AQ* ..n.
. - + +a %' *..,,';,];*f $ .
; ~ .. ,
$l. .,$ - '
,._..n - :. . , . -- - ..a S: : :---: " ~ ~ - .
- .. ..? ,
',. .: yy s.g,.. '
/....,.: a .. .
.p h.' .
' g.l.'4.:,W ;, .Qg
./
f.f/-w. .. . f 3 ..fM".f
;i.
Unfortunately, the available law on the issue of what constitutes a f :.' f 7.
%.[fhE5 v M .J:. :., . [.
M.q,.c,2 #" . , -$.:. $M[ s. license amendment is somewhat less than clear. In addition, the courts do not appear to have specifically addressed the issue presented by this q w.p :~.; :. .. 7 v.es.w r. -* .r:: p :;. M.'a ..case. The latest discussion oflicense suspensions and amendments ap-J A M $:S!E - pears in the Diablo Canyon case decided in December 1984 by the D.C. E$QWFQ.~W, N NOM;I'NMi[$5.],), Circuit. San Luis Obispo Mothersfor Peace. supra. The court decided that g,N:W J:6. JO# .12 the Commission'.s decision to lift the suspension of the Diablo Canyon M'N fp NM.M..MMfSN-dM.%Mr j "n .Mh v..:..e. .w? : dn. E.aEM.f-did not explain, however, how one determines whether a particular
. >. a .
license did not trigger hearing rights under i 189 of the AEA. The court
%gM:N.u '.,,'.:.$.$.n N.~,g -" %aI . .
Commission action is an amendment or a suspension. The court said M.N-
- v. . . m. ,. v.. v only that: "The lifting of a susperuion does nothing to alter the original W'. . %. . a. M ., 'w.p . ; , c. .. x.. ..1. ."
M*..e,M- . nx n . . . terms of the l.icense; indeed, it removes a significant impediment to the enforcement of those terms." Id. at 1314. The court also appeared not to
~'.';EN
. .h. :. Y. -u.,.,i;;d..,'.E.M . g# .', @a .
object to the statement it quoted from the Sholly8 case that an amend-
.'. 7@. .+v A 7p;F. 9.f . r,M :.4 6..r- . . tic.5i75 W *W- T'-'M'F:'
ment is something which " granted the licensee authority to do some-thing that it otherwise could not have done under existing authority " QtF.l{'T;,yf.'.@: i!gy' .: . 'pr%:.;yY.Wk.Q@B~-
. i 4 r$..
San Luis Obispo Mothersfor Peace at 1313. S'. .W The Diablo Canyon case appears not to address the situation in the % , C .i;>z' i f p Q.v:.{ l. San Onofre I case, i.e., an order which requires additional measures pm s .. . I : . . . N gy.p .y _. f . - 4." ' .,4 mgm:6 beyond the license requirements. The Diablo Canyon court said that Ef.n. v.; . . (F . where Commission action allows a licensee to do something it is not au-
-.r' ?.. O.w
. .7. e'7. .
p A:e - thorized to do under existing licensing authority, e.g., relaxes a license
,E ' 1- [ U. .E k@$ :.' , 2 '/ : $jh,wQMc requirement, that action amends the license and triggers f 189 hearing (m., . -
.a. -MW;lNM.
- r. 4 M r.
rights. And, where the Commission action suspends a license because a licensee is found not to be in compliance with its license and then the X y;IJ P~ .a$. D,,C.s. . >.* M. <,-ig s - Commission, aner determining that the licensee is in compliance, lifts l';;g W , Klif.1 % W.m ... /pe that suspension, third parties do not have a statutory right to a hearing.
@@O. .~..a.Iq.)g,<. . ,
M' #Nt '
";7 -' In the latter case, the Commission's action in lifting the suspension does not create a right to litigate the Commission's determination that the
.W , . T.6 , ; Q f '- 7 7 ?
- licensee is in compliance with the terms of the suspension order. Howev.
' ?l: ..
. .. . ~/.'.5'A '". ! ? -/
'- er, the Court did not address the two questions relevant to the San P r;,. L"
- g " - ,
--#<;I.C-:.,w}J..j..
'. .w - 7. . . ~. . . e.
Onofre situation: (1) whether and under what circumstances addition-al, new requirements beyond what the license recuires amend the "l . - .'. ;M.: g,.
.y h r. N ~
.fp ' .$.. 3- M.l' license, and (2) what Commission action with regard to these new re-
, ~
.. quirements triggers a right to a hearing.
3rN.;
... f : V, : s fy . ' ..,c ' '.:v e
'3.W.,;
. . g@.r.
3 r:J
- .. ..v.
,r. .J The ;.;. Commission
" .p.~ urges that in the case of a safety improvement whether a Commission action amends the license or merely suspends it d'
~ f y ' M Q' 7.. faiy[r 2.". u ..loV.,i. ;. a.gW :.M ;$' y
.....s %
depends solely on Commission intent and the label the Commission at-taches to the action. There does not appear to be any reliable law on this
' yn.y.,
'M. . 4f.J %,TA*-*A'.f~; --
C. ,
' %, ; spi:.y?ff' 4:.g.: .
- . ~.; . . . q9.QSQ .i .. a..,i... ,. . . . 4 i
- N;3D g..'i.~
. . p? <M;C']*.,. i;; , , , '
8 sM5 v. NnC. 651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir.19807. wecsud se onwr smae.103 s
.g- s .., r "- ;v . A. .sn L'.y;. . 9*V.-:.M.r.*
;, * ,1. g .
.-...~g. .,.
s . 1578
.~ ,
l
. 3. ..
.,., . t.. ;
~
. ..e.,
. .
'..l.&. * $a . * ;- K gi j h *$Y,, -h3 % v ..k
, ,' ' S ;
. v . h' ,[* 'p "?;. ..Y ~' *
' ,,,,,g,g.y,..,,,.y.,-
- y
~m;- ; . ,
'k ' -
. . *Y- A ,[ * ' -
- m,. e. p %. .
sl.
.-...~f . ; d .:l p. . ,..E;.;I ' ..( - s . > l.=; i
,, l e ~
qn a..-
,',..t-
, . . .; 7- '
4 4 ,e . '
. ~..
w a ,
8--
,# 7 .. . . . - _ .__ _ _ . . _ ' .*Nv. . ' , , .-. '
- mm . r..
'M<c, .
. y -.y y . . , ,
. .: , . . O i.S.:&;.W,:%.;: M z. .. . .a:r.. - .
e :v:n pn ..g..;;n,...M.; y .
- w. p - ' .a,
' y ~d ., . ' y 3': . .s %.c .f:...:. ...- i.,. . . : -:.i:: u . J C: -
a . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ ,u _ . ;,;..z ;..a .; . ,. ._ k.Q,..:' ~p:. .J: W ' . r w
'.p,..: " -. - c1 eR.s . .
- .2. y . .M. . . . .:f -% .: ,
h N?@wv. 2 9.'o M M A M .f.J'- 4f.Mll9' us..m& - - subject which interprets the AEA. In Sholly, the Court indicated that d..t.-R.- r d , N. . . c. ",. ', . '. !$ Congress intended that "any significant change in the licensing status of
;-9! @%..T,_3
,Mhh-
%..p .1. -gIR ? N. .c. ; IE 7
a nuclear power plant" gave rise to an opportunity to in:ervene before 3.JW.q*,y
- K'SNM Yl# :'t. .". I.-l.' . , N/. that change could occur. 651 F.2d at 791. However, the Diablo Canyon M 4 -?fM.J s. &. Court cast doubt on the continued validity of that statement. The Court fi<4 W2RMO-N said that this dictum in Sholly was " inadequate precedent for the propo-M@%.rjt!:%[Nc- W. AWQ.: : /JD NMM.M M k'WF TV: G.-:
sition that any significant change in the licensing status of a nuclear power plant triggers the procedural protection of section 189(a)." San Luis Obispo Mothersfor Peace,121 F.2d at 1314. The Court did not ex-khh - p,.Q.-2.d.YINM ~ 1.E plain, however, what standard should apply for determining when a license is amended. It only said that a license suspension does not alter gk.p p@ [ h. n p ),d." y *lM' W A :TY ; $ the terms of the license. To the best of my knowledge, no other case in-
;_1 NAe.A.%m*bh . .% .p- w ;. ;g 6+ . [h,,.
terpreting the Atomic Energy Act sheds substantial light on this issue. Although it does not deal with f 189 of the AEA, a case in which the y m ;s..-_ v ; f: ?; 3 .4.9
,...;.p?"^W. -
D.C. Circuit interpreted the hearing requirement of the Communications 3,kYg[ i e - ~A..05@@ I. ~ Ui
. Act of 1934 may be helpful. Temmer v. FCC, 743 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir.
1984). The Court held that where a license is granted subject to certain
@%@.%@jtG':h., '@' ,
M 'y '8_ E' .'2
- e:tpress conditions set forth in the license and the regulations, and the W/py.WWC,- ~a lic:n.we then fails to meet those conditions, action by the FCC to MW;IWFM V.n '. 7 revoke the license is not a " license moilification," but rath~er the en-hfiOM.T.$'".6[..:h p .... 5 :f .4; l ', 1
[1 forcement of the original license conditions. The Court said that whether the license has been modified depends upon whether agency action 3 #1@hfh.1y N. , N@Mg}W' "substantially affe:ted" an unconditional right conferred by the license.
" ?. < / '.: . Id. at 927-28. The Court also said that the label attached to the agency Ig@!p{y.-$."
ii&p.d M r ' t R .22.: [ ' 7 ' : - action was not dispositive and that a reviewing court "must look beyond
/.,@ $ W % '. d' ._ M - ! .i the form of the license document and beyond the language employed by .. ,,M.. . n ,a$$,'. . , m. . ;., . -7 -
the FCC to describe its action." M at 927. W.
?
$ " "
- The Temmer standard is consistent witti the court's Diablo Canyon de-
'M9.QaW .%.QQg. . '.'/; 4 :p ' 'I 9 -
cision. I hesitate, however, to make general pronouncements about
- t. f.- e. . . . . .
c.. 7 ;
.t .'.'.' . M. , .
when an upgrade to a plant constitutes an amend ent of the license. I
.'f ^ '.. 9- ,
I . J Tc; ;. ? am also reluctant to conclude that the Staff has no exibility to alter its
.; W g W '.~- . ,. decision about what change is needed at some later time. Such an abso-
- f^,'
; .: lute rule could only lead to a reluctance on the part of the Staff to issue
' .Ew. r, ... ' .?.. ." ..n? . .;, l7 . 2. .. g. . - ,.. i.f.y enforcement orders because they do not want to get " locked into" a po-
..:J j:Na .. ? . f/ <, y :
m .c sition. I think this issue is best handled on a case-by-case basis to ensure
'NJf Jf[J,iYj cg. .
reasonable enforcement flexibility. However, for lack of something Q.;j.g..g c -.RQf' . [ . t-?.y: .% better I have used the Temmer standard as guidance in concluding that
. ;; g.- d i [ " W .1 M e'f[c 8'
~
the 1982 order for San Onofre I amended the license. The order at issue
- e .g .., , :3 here was a substantial change to a fundamental part of the license, the
. ,. .&. . l # - - . . ' . seismic design basis. Further, the Commission's order prohibited opera-
.d.,;
l.' ;
~';
' M/@. f., 6;;.y.
s f .. tion of the facility until the changes were completed. Thus, the order C . . g . g 4" don substantially affected a condition of the license. I therefore conclude n.:; p ,..V . , . p. .- :- . c 3.3 .g:7 c , . .-
,4,w ,2
,.IT ' , . * ..
'N ' ' ' *
+",' .' f jj])
- g .. ..
e a o* - l~. ;f.Cf".* R ,;. . 3N;% - j i- * ,-, ... l s;xyW,F:. ' ; :.~.Q..n.k v.Mi .; 75.'.
, ,, :f t :, .: y . .. . : 2 v
, y. . ,'
, .g p p .
- f ', - , .
, .; 7,. , . . . , ,
l - --
,g ., .
n .,
- 6 -
y, ,
.. '. tc., .
s :: nN _.
'* ".h',~*.. **
* *' "~.. -f N~., ,,
~ ' . o
,, --;~ .
~.,. . gu. .g.y.
1,.- ,
- m. .
- - . =. -
.n - - .
- n. .
. :mp * . ' '-,, <m ,
,.rsg.,.
'4
. . w, ..
.%m.'.
- . ; & p. . . g. .e, ... . .. .-
,M .
n , -4%Q:
.. t .
+ - .
.s y. .. . ;i.w, y .u.. .W 5.a.J.,0. A.;m i:;; i'!
.M., . ; 7,+::o, s O j. . .
~~- -- " - ~;--- -. - - ;- - :- AM =~ ' ' ' d~"'^. -
\
\
- " . [ .$' -' * *
; . [%"M. -
. s.
?p ;;x.
- s - -
.f,.W;;.: .A.m.w.a:. .
u <.E P. J. .
- .,g,$.
4,. . s . 9. '" n ; that the 1982 order amended the San Onofre I license. By removing the
.W.g..A'O'. -. : #.2.q :,. y condition that the plant remain shut down while the modifications were
.#~..
i 3N%, b$.j$ @n.Myb gy N. in progress, the 1984 order amended the license again.
. 4
-,hi W' hD m. .g m rtr ,c;; r g @r $wamendment However, deciding that a particular Commission action is a license
~
r.M. . sT-Q .. .W,. N-s -
. . s .E., .R
.c.urightsdoes hearing not end the inquiry. We must also determine what accrue. A case with some relevance to this issue is Bellotti M M.;M c i N , U ,5 R . $ ;.. -
- v. NRC, 725 F.2d 1380 (D.C. Cir.1983). In Bellotti, the Commission 9~
h
.w " b.j'b,65@MM.07.n-h, Q.
%3kh D@MI issued an Order Modifying License which amended Boston Edison's Pil-grim operating license to require development of a plan for reappraisal
^I.'$[N
-, ;;p.
. .: e n s:-n e-
,.O ?[( h .h' f - M. %~fM. y .,.(,.g.;.[.E.'
, and improvement of management functions. The Attorney General of Massachusetts petitioned to intervene in the enforcement proceeding
,,' .v-7- W '.fi..
TI M N;m: .z ,. W . 3.i n ; W Mr.? and asked to litigate various issues related to compliance with the Com- ! ngf; $ 'RJ.N h #k.f/.W.X '.mission order. The Court held that the Commission could properly deny t .ap 4
*$ ' M /I M@ ' d. $k.h f' ;f the petition to intervene because the issues the Attorney General wanted to litigate went beyond the scope of the hearing as defined by y .pg .n J*r. T.0131>.
.. .%M..zs. . r- , . 3 *... ... . 8* ? the Commission's amendment order. The Court said:
.ecp '.#, C. ;. .f.i .' : .'~l. :.a.@. . . .A. , . ',4
; p .4 ,,
+ '.' h..g O.- ..fg. The Commission's power to defm' e the scope of a proceedmg will lead to the denial
; M ., ' M,> ?
m 'f ' . .,w , .. - . of intervenuon only when the Commission amends a license to require additional
%. .Q t
.y .
;,, : . J .~ .
- 3. ,.3,-
.; ,N6 'g c@.4 ?, t .
.,.,.{ ..
or better safety measures. Then, one who, like petiuoner Bellotti, wishes to htigate [g#. i ,.
. ; . [. . - I.s ~u
* . ?,$d4 ,rz.Q ,4: " the need for suit more safety measures. perhapsincibding the closing of th4 facility, u :. @::.,,7 wdl be remitted to section 2.206's peution procedures.
4y;% *. a.g - . %. ,.:n.gth p r .m . - c' % Gr;;i.e : GW,
'. *^ g a$.Qy 725 F.2d at 1383. The Court says, then, that even where the Commis-
%A
, . C.g /.Q nyj!.7.;W..-
- sion amends a license to require additional or better safety measures it
- A i." 'c.C.. p f., W....K $,g@'
@g.,5 $ 7. M c .
.~ .Q:
- Q can deny a hearing on that amendment to third parties. However, the
;- , ,f. t . :Miq*=.Q' d - Court went on to say:
, . . . ; '.U.e? , tg E. If, on the other hand. the Commiseson proposes to amend a license to remove a re.
p; p . 'x- i.c.r,'U.'.y[{,3Q .g
,h) Y
- A. y;.,. <p,
, .*' p %c y.s.;g. .j striction upon the licensee, the scope of the proceeding is defined by that proposal and section 189(a) permits public perucipation to oppose that relaxauon. The upshot
+ , ,- '; .;7 'a.*,7 km
* .', . is that automatic partimpeuon at a hearing may be detued only when the Commes-
.g n ,' * .Q * .3 'I'f ;g
.[', ~ f~
- soon is seeking to make a facility's operation safer. Punk pornciparen as automarse
~.
. . 'L. l*< '*. .,.. ';j'%.y
..,.. _ .wN.n.
. n . ;-:; '. ,
mrh respect se allCommesma actens that are poornnally harmfulto the puMk health and weVare.
'g. .' h . ' y
< ~ .g - -[~
." f d', ';
s c- M, 3.g9 Id. (emphasis added). This language is extremely broad and if read lit-
, ,p . p g .- V.-c M,g'* . erally suggests that the need for a hearing depends upon whether the
.iCN;'.:f ?h,;&(5$.hdD.h' k, -
' proposed agency " action" has the potential for increasing or decreasing K"..'
' j;;6 ~ .MS'd- '^*f4'N.F-Q'f'h .
public safety; if the latter, the public has an automatic right to a hearing.
. id - '/ .
If that test is applied to the San Onofre I case the public had no right to
~.n- . yfif.W.^$,': g E ^$'9;' ,
a hearing on the issuance of the August 11, 1982 Order because it in-U .* .$%.;:dM.t.:f.
.- ~r A : volved a safety improvement. The public would also have no right to a Y .. -Y'. -
.:. . . .v.n<.pt:g%i.::~;.M.'ge > 3,y ,
,y hearing on whether the terms of the order had been satisfied, but would y&. :' " ' s .
' . .'. 'l'$. ,
.$@lN. j$ U C
. ..,y . . .w . .
. 3 .y . .o
.. . . 163d
.o m .
- m. . ., <
.. < ,y .
. c... .
L .. ~ 1 ? . ... .
~lJ;.p.
'. ,.s-< y %..,:tM. - ". . i ..tf: i:]} ,Q:}&
#.. w... .
,i5. .}.v, ; y
. * . ; .4, p'w $'
- .. 'l,'.y.'.. ,,,3 y ,'ff
r60
,~,'.,, . - g
' .,, *S. n;- N
',K ;::MQ g -} u l *s y . . .-( f, 'y. . ,,* a ** **''*;
' 3 y, . *;'
.a ... -
. ,. f. N .' ,, ' " *
.t . ,,,L* ----.,l-5 ** p *rj .
,.- * - ' ~ .. *') ,. se, ""
f .g . . i
* .p .
q: = *
. j< .&. f * !,TW ;.',s
- -, ;Y'. : a.c * ,7 ; 6f. y, .i ',
..' % ..G.
l Yl. L*.
' . , ...* ,['
'. T.T . . ' . ~i' ,y., ' ~.
?
. .. m .. _. __ _ _ _ _ . _ . .. ._ ,
a g.s)
.: , ~v .- .. , .
.. ~ ,
; ,V, ;f -
. , 'f. ' .. ;; j
- ~ .. .
- . a u
.y&.n l..2Mx . .+
*u.o-
?.: .d:i.n.: @ @1.hb:.'W.:,T n - .i : - -
. .s,.g. ,
.W . . . . w.J . .. 4,.- :s .
** ,1,cD -
- 8 , . . . * * ~ . * .*
j
- - - - - - - - " " " "^ ,, , ,
p 4. .: <.5~L
?
. y w . a..' . ~~ *'... \
.b ; :o y V U.} f . " *
& 'f {'
.> . .. n . . x. = ,.x.y:% w ,, :. .
~ p-g ~:: n-., .. .r x y : e e.m p , - .
a ..m Wl. ~%'.L.mq) , M'fl.. ?.m;. . . . -~. - have an automatic right to a hearing if the NRC were to relax the re-
" YNOO3Idhb.bI.[ -f$ , . quirements of that order.
6 MM.5MfS$4. >l[. i % is. g' It is not clear what weight we ought to give the Court's language be-c;$.!dy:W6M.';M -T< . + cause it appears to be dictum. Also, I cannot believe that the D.C. Cir-3MM'.m. .df..T. N2 p e< Dd../M.a n ' .. cuit intended the anomalous situation described above. A basis for the
. % .' . O,
,'d. .
Court's decision was the desire to maintain enforcement ficxibility in N... . at,Mw ,,,.W , 2.5-3. w::. M. . .
. e:4,g d.M....W@K ..d.w.qi.:n.procedural :
~ .g.;M,drequirements.tId.-356, at 1382. The .n.dd?.*w' the agency by not encumbering the enforcement process with numerous Court obviously was con-Qn A, wc-h &.M. cerned about discouraging the use of orders because the Commission W . M TA N~ G N i M Pf i :e & feared it would be " locked in." On the other hand, the Court obviously 7.q:p'M did not mean to exclude all public participation on enforcement matters 2,. J.N.%-:4 .?G.. 9:
h k ).$QOS.%-d.? pA g % , M; rr . .< / Q.;c M.<. N. .."' especially where amendments to the license were involved. Again, I hesitate to generalize because of the impact such generaliza-p.t.UM' FM tions could have on the agency's enforcement flexibility. However, in dNS$.E..@tyM S INN? ?@$: S this case, I believe that the modifications to the license and the issues in-M...$dU . y@ s... m W Q g g . b. g:.q 9 .f ? S -: f.. ni.'r.'. . .
.p.. W .' Y. %- . .
J'-S e volved are significant enough that a relaxation of the conditions imposed by the 1982 order triggers the hearing requirement of f 189. Indeed, kWhiM*g. ~ 4.'. - . these issues are of sufficient importance that even if a hearing is not
%$8-hy;,g. N legally required the Commission should have granted a hearing as a
. spW>. y:. ..wm . . .. < , ' J't.J. @L C ' .r- ~ ~ -,'- matter of discretion.
. .. ~
e.9 t . W . :.,.T' AM . h.,G. . C,-.k:%'.i - Setting these procedural issues to one side, however, I have other,
- w. :.:.a.~S.%c.. .
s~
. w . -;Md/: w."4~ '.
; .o- . ,
nonprocedural concerns about the decision to allow restart of San C %p. 4,cpy; e.v ,W.. .:,. . q;:y.. . 3 .:.5.. m .. . Onofre 1 at this time. The decision to put the Licensees, commitments 5.G. ja; r . N.4.Q.. - ' tQ % < D - into order form was based partly on an apparent reluctance by Southern A@j{t.- /{.%tNQ. g::: A Q ..f;. . y California Edison (SCE) to complete the upgrade in a timely manner W'#.Y3.~kd!: I and because of a concern that the plant did not even meet the existing.
^ qM.m. , Q ,d .c .,F,xm%. ag:t O,.W[.4 .. Q-
- ., . %W- 6.#y:.
licensing requirement that the plant meet the seismic design basis of 0.5g. I am unable to agree to an alteration of the order because I do not s 7.w;u
.l-;.:. ....; Y. M/Y. , . W.3.'- .:,f.y
- .T '
believe these concerns have been adequately resolved. As long as the Oy .'3 -
~ .-7 ".? plant is permitted to operate, there is little incentive for SCE to complete 1
~
q ' t . . . . g ,.7 7,,: ' . .. the upgrade. In fact, the schedule for completion of the modifications
,1
-/.. c. , ., d ',.
%j set out in the Commission's Contingent Recission Order seems to re-F..'.,,,....*.y... , . ..
' - .l .a,. . .h.. -. f.. .s quire little in the way of timely completion. Further, I am extremely un-
'.( / y ' . .
comfortable with the Staffs finding that the plant is " reasonably likely"
,c ; . . 3 .:w, .W. ' F
~
-l 25.. ' [ '. .j .. to withstand an earthquake with ground motions of 0.5g. This does not M: M: Q.% .,:, a ., :3 O. d -g[ @g ,
appear to be the same standard the StafT would normally apply to issues
;, . - . r.q d... ** . e 7 9.o.s.W such as this. Thus, the Staff seems to be accepting a lesser margin of M,6.G'2l'*
n,, 3 3.p e y ,Q.g safety in determining whether the plant now meets its original seismic _- ;. ' $- .;.f. - - M c.fM A design basis than it requires in other cases. This is particularly troubling
/
3.c ' f ' Q . n.g p-
- : y:;,d, J 7.[* $.
t.% in view of the Staffs conclusion that the correct seismic design basis for the San Onofre site is in fact 0.67g rather than the 0.5g figure adopted
. .w m.. .. . .
. g ,; T. at the time oflicensing San Onofre 1.
-eg.. .. ..g&y.*;'c). ;
e.,.' J; %'.r.E.
.;p_ .:n.: . ,
.....f* *. y .1
(-. . 1 i .
- U,q * - ,
- .y ., 1581 l ,
^.
- w
, . . . , , ...{.' '$.,.
' ~
p g s. .
,,- .- -- *[ Y
.,p
.. . '%e y 3~3 _ m.
' .~h ;.' 2. G_ ^ *
..- , - - - .n. ,. ,,.,..n... _
p.,,,
; ~* fii q ".
.(
- 7 '
,i
. . 3- " -
[ g .; - . -
,, ,7
, t . -
.4.r.L' . .n .~ *'
f-
+. Y. :- .:+.
,m" .?v'; ., ;
o.
- , , ,( l .-.
.- . , ' . , - , y, , z.;.
...s... _
v~ .: , . - .. ., . - . .- . - , ' -
_ .. . . ~ -
',;.I ; ' . - ,, ;j, ,
- K.s , *
^
s i s .' s m' d . s ;,
.+ ~
- ,, j*
s'.v
. 6
. %*:, . s
~
,s m m. .
'5 *8..
~f...
4* l .,
' o ..
- E )/.${,,;f .S r. a h 5 . , _ . , , . - - - - -
.- . M '*
e.* ba.*=M* . =.ad M *=E** C .
*f p ..
,. 3. t'..;.,
- N .:. g.t...
, p W *
- .,. a
?
. ..f..
-,.4 (L u ocm
- w,.,.t.%
. . n. .
t 3 a e. * * # c.
~
- 0 ' [ 5..'lD' Finally, I am concerned by the fact that the motivating factor for the
%pNQfhkg.d.MN;% _;W,?,
U,a , f :.e. f Commission's relaxation ofits 1982 order was originally not a determi-Mf- T3 L7.N.b54M. nation that the changes are no longer necessary, but that it is too expen-M.$.Nh8f@s e *Qe:S .w' i. '. .<.. -i e-;jM'Q.$:M".'dkE@%[, ^ r- 3%w sive to keep the plant shut down while they are made. As I have said before, I do not believe that the financial difficulties of Licensees should M.p. n,, . 7+*yg.ediC ; W Qw. m.- Q'S be a factor m our decisions whether to relax safety requirements. M. n .y+f~ 'f@M%hi'W x . . f-MW
. In conclusion, I believe the Cemdssion's 1982 order modified the
%,; l1$-~7 g. . San Onofre I license and that the 1984 order was a further amendment
%'C.m Jf T.D.h.M~
$i .
R .,.3$3?I ty Nthe% of license.$$-Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act requires that a
?.: T W-.y 2
% $ W
.y;tlf , M. M
!.Q B GfM.3.J T M s November
%'3 @ D hearing be held in this case. I voted not to allow restart of Unit 1 in of 1984, and I would now grant the Sierra Club's request for
.M.:. h, 2M
- w. . m . .,M..8 a stay of the Commission's decision.
Nfl%y~.;'g'ZQ&'#E$\Msri]iy.p.W.T
%':Q.
ww e M 4i ; w.. - a 7 :;,; y s.Q!M
~ o .
, e MlC;@$WI' M . h :MM.N3 W f2 [,1 ' C M;d & 1% =COMMISSIONERS t.v. h i~.MA Wi $;.$ AVIEWS ADDITIONAL ~w OF CHAIRMAN PALLADINO AND ROBERTS, BERNTHAL AND ZECH IN fh(($hIbM.
cro - . Nb/(@y{ig$v..,.f.w.i , SAN ONOFRE 1 Nh:ahw . *V;
- C,e .h&*k~ h 5+ 9'Tmt! Commissioner Asselstine states in his. dissent (at p.1582) that "the GN Q :- - r motivating factor for the Commission's relaxation ofits 1982 order was
[WE ..#7W.f.AL WJd ~ d J.YNN.M originally not a determination that the changes are no longer necessary,
?'h[..
. m . . .&. v. :: m ,v ? m.
.N. :N .5.7
. . , s.u . .n M fd f,;. N but that made.,,
$..-- it is too Xexpensive
..#$ to keep the plant shut down while they are f @. J " 4.".f.MwgW. I5 b
M.(M#7<k@. b .:.d'}?
. ' g.. ~;d . -> .@.f.;;.
This statement is not correct. The correct and complete explanation of the Commission's ',1 j @@@. position is set M forth in its previous statement in the
;!p3. n.m, .--tj 9. . .;4 .-' r .'. 4.W55- .?.k.e..k.y d, . " .
n ~ San Onofre 1 proceeding which has not heretofore been publicly issued:
- 7. ,.. .g . .i .D?. #."' W. % - a?.. ,,
, S..c- *, u .;'r?u*.W *
,.3,. .
w .*. .
;.34, r ,/ #. ,. ..s
.W,. . Considerms all relevant circumstances, the Commission has decided that the J *> ' N..Y.5 . .': . ..i. ,3 .. e. .
?',MQ.S. : ,jfer , l.M..- 70';,S.t y-.M y :
August 1932 order should not be read as havmg amended the license to operate the
. San Onofre I reactor. The essence of the rationale for this conclusson is:
-2. ;t.,y, .. . ::. .? . ,r . ..i . ., ; # ,.. '
,V. 4.,w. .-
,1; s ;
-~ - G :<. t . , ~, r
,.-r,".. First, the Comniission beheves that it needs the enforcement nexieilhv. that
- i. f .. f . J .7. ' '. orders give it, and it is concerned that treating the August 1982 order as an G.}[i ' ' . ..'j.: [ . T J i M -
amendment will discourage the practice of making licensee commitments legally
' .sW:.G -t U'i "... f: ~7 m ' d'. d s Qi p .#- Q binding. Second, there is no contemporaneous information which suggests that
'.1.; '.N ,- W ./
' j.f.*d*"p-h[.3rg y the August 1982 order was intended to amend the license. Indeed, the order re.
r suited from a voluntary agreement by the Licensees to forego the submission of ,+l' J.,i. $ h. . O . Q . 4ll7." id'.J .@ 7q~$ g y' [: , @A y w{ M d..
.,g47 5 . '.c' ' .? pg . . p/ @;"f,v additional techmcal data demonstrauns quahAcation of all safety systems to 0.5g and to instead modify the facility to a 0.67s level Had this voluntary agreement e ".7,;,g;'. ;.<N- : . . Offif .@yy;4;p .,4 "W * .
'd.'!f. .*t.%e:j'.y.M'336 not been otTered and had the Licensees submitted data conGrming qualification 4.."M, sc.J
.$. g', 'A f. v. ifff. .w M- y !.* @. .'.;
j of equipment to 0.St. the normal SEP upgrading process would have gone for. werd without any necessaty for a plant shutdown order. Thus, the order merely 2 6 . 't . . .. .. - - Nica,Q-ib.2.lb.f. suspended authority to operate pending mod:Gcations to the facility and approval y
',.:v, si ;p'
.m ,% -., .~ '*
- .- ~ 0-. ;. /'.J ygac.%y> .
;,Q.D'h!7,45, J-m, by the NRC to restart. No provision of the license itself was modined.
1
- - ,/
J. x
.e-
; t. -, ;
w -(. . v.;.
, . 4 ..: w . ,' . - .
g5g1
. g
*.r, a
- . . - .~ . -
. n. . L . '? . .Q...w-fC ; .gQ'..r. . . ?}.l. . . . : %. .Q.u.e ;p ':h--.,
- pl ~ ~ . ,Jao.rW. .
s ?%r ,s g*d; e* We,
^
&. .&.,, W,.3. s wl. . ^ -f ?,& ~ - Y. s &.. '* A2 *
,~,,,a
- 1. -^ . 55 ,. .s -
. ., .. , ,c ,
- s. /A ,. .; 6 .ne
,- - r-, < ' -. . w - -- '.
e
.u..
-r*:.% t . - . :. 4 s ~y i y . . *g,..
. n..
i?' . j ': W
. =.: . .
.v. ,'f...q .,k., -
. ,. . ' ';. rph
.. * %., ' ? ~.
- s '
.r'+ m - t ' W n ' , . ". . , . , . ' ,
##1'
! ;. .'.. '# ' f . ,~;/. .; J."7 .'[ +-[^ G'"T"4 'EsD .
**#.- . ..-#*= ,e.r '*
, y }' -,,.-i,'.,..'J.~.
f,
g;. ,,g "w. [.f, , *'
* ~ . c ? [.
' . .y._ & [ *
- r.s . _
s
. ., Q'; .,- ?"C *: *.4 *4 (,
' ' Q .; 3d ", ^'.r ; ] ]:.. **; .7:** . GN '
d ,' u ,- . 4 '-
- - - - - - , i #
V.: : . . m.
- m :*, &. s .n : .v
' s
,:y . . . ... - -
.... $ . N. [.7 1 ~ -
s
'.'.fk"'M7h...h. y M.*,
, w ,.-.,;.5 . > > 6 .
- v. . ' a. .y. .: ;., # ,
- n .
u_.____.._._.__: *
.. : ;.m 2 2 n;2 _.
.e .
f,' . .~,..'.- ' 'y% yc ;f., al.. '). ..-..x ./* y,f* ,h ..n.~ J . ',
. 7. , . .. :- .
_y 2 s. . 3
,V.)%:C. U: Q LQ..n4- f- s
' y3;P.' Y, .F.uy .:.wl. :4 a .v ED; m *M6's @,.:. ..C, (:-
'V fJ. v. '--d y t . - ' The staff is directed to handle the restart matter procedurally according to the
~# N %.N.h
' #II .. ~ h foregoing conclusion. The staff pdor to authorizing restart must first make all of the D MD %'ii.D 7 ~[ 'T
W. '
required safety findings as it does in any other similar situation. The basis for ap-W JXWEh@INb'$' G 1 f.D ' '7 , i
' . U f ;C . proval ' H of restart would be that continued suspensson of the authonty to operate is no longer required adequately to protect public health and safety, rw. J.CW'.Y;,
..:-rr
, S,ij - c. H . e
?'b ;M.:. .l w[;-i.p' 1
.- . af
,"../,* f p . w w 31.M y @,~ .u ; .v .w W: .v. - .- Commissioner Asselstine subsequently indicated that he did not support this Conunisuon sin HeMehhefoHoMng swement oHen 4.;g r gyN-pfpyv.c., -
i {. 4 F:, < .: I do not support the Commission decision to allow San Onofre I to return to service W,N.p%.yJ.Wr.M.:(.; u.. p ~. W, a . . .
"~%.+W'r% -dh /
- r. .
W Q.M M.m7y,#4,.. Y '9N.M,; MayE .1.* .C:.y at this time. I am in essential agreement with the points raised in the November 5. 1984 memorandum from the Office of the General Counsel regarding San Onofre I hk
- -S rs.e 9. y % y p h yhM%h hh] restart. Specifically, I believe that the changes to the operation and design of the plant that were included in NRC's confirmatory order of August II,1982 were so 2.sC . .
K.v;u.%.wd.qh., -m W- 4 #. ; .-*c;.6.
.d. m: sWO.;p
. . %. W,T .!,s,l substantial that they must be considered an amendment to the license. Therefore, hj hkik' JN,Yh/Qfg d'.d .-WgyJb-.~h W,d.M: .'", J7. ~. 36 the subsequent order relaxing those changes must also be considered a license amendment. In addition, I am troubled by the Commission's reliance on the
@ 2: *V 6*f *. J Jd > - economic impact on the licenses of the California Public Utilities Commission's
$50N f b tp[i .-.
k! e M# h.h[2:^c.yy$' ' ruling as the basis for refaxing the safety requiremems caDod for by the August 1932 confirmatory order. I beheve that in the context of this case, reliance on such M,hh.yh;p.udN,6NN: 3'! . ~ .
' economic impacts to relax safety requirements is inappropriate. Finally, I am con.
< GI
;L r. . . . r cerned about the reductions in the margin of safety'for this plant that a're, involved f,5.y.?W.$ s.:fd . -j. '.Mr.r.M.e$, . :.f..' ;'.~ . g. ..L.. in the relaxation of the August 1982 order.
-: p .;m.e '".3 4 , . .
s
.- ;wml:.m.
- x. ,
~ -.
e,.. s
%%r.Wu.2%,,s ~.. N : #
The Commission has provided thefollowing response to Commissioner Assel-
- & %:Wt& :
- 1 "..' ; % ;* y..
~.: .;& -: -
.; c. .-:N: O
'..h stine's comments:
.s-:2.@- gWM %Q xsh . ' .- * ' WD..,O% *' . . M, . C- - 2.E.7e fg d, 4 The Commiseen believes it is important that the bases for its decision on the pro-
. 1;v? y"! N ,$, . .'g. 9.( : - ceduralissue concerning restart of San Onofre I be accurately understood.
. , . , e.. .w ..
.'..-4C. . .
-7.MM, Rf . s-K.%z . i .W.
The action of the majority is consistent with the advice given to the Commission by
^
i" A ;- T/
'h ? .-.. ' , ~ ~ ,'% "- p as Office of the General Counsel That office advised the Commission, both orally p.+i +;- h'V_s.?.i. S.l f, ..t.',Q
, , 'i "i g and in wriung at the public meeting of the Commission on November 21, that the ii ] ' %4lf.
[ -
', . }l, Commission had the legal authority to decide the proceduralissue (i.e., whether the August 1982 confirmatory order should be construed to be an amendment) as it l
.. . h . . , . . . .. .
- s.c
' * :. .. $- 1.- .. " '- F , .. ', ;
chose to do as a matter of regulatory policy, s.. -
. . ~$~ - .
p -"h. '*
^ . 6.(,; ,' .
,[ N '.s.; y As to the equities involved, given the Califorma PUC order, the NRC was caued upon in keepmg with its broad statutory responsabiliues and in fairness to the licen-
. _- A .:;.7.c ' M.y .
q . _ . . -,. p, - ,- see, to determme promptly whether or not restart could be authorized consistent
. .g.
y .* r H. , c.1 '_ _..
-f7.s.d-- with the protection of public health and safety. While the Commission was aware of H
t'.-
- 7. .i M. as .$. .gh.. p ? . } ; .e .
. W j.7.. p.,C; w s.
the PUC action and the need for a umely NRC decision, the resumption of opera-l _. p.W 4.V, , .~9,C E-er tions at San Onofre I was authortred by NRC on the basis of a technical judgment
- 5. . . y( *.j , , . ; .'. g .g. .g p. d.y
. that there is reasonable assurance that such operation during comp 6etion of seismic
"" O. .. .!'.'S., g. g
,. ~.i '" s ,j. .,"7 .- . reevaluauon does not pose undue risit to public health and safety. The Commission j- - ? i .f . _ .~ .T. t' ";'.9 decisson on the procedural issue was grounded on policy considerauons relevant to
!., -,, ... ..:. .~' the Commission's licenssng and enforcement responsibiliues and, as noted above. t ~ . f . .n. .
- c: ' . in .
' ' ' " .T/. -
;.p,y .e. 9. . t#. the legal autho.ity which was available in the circumstances.
i e.
- ~ . ..:. :-
x.; - s.. . s .. ..
- 3a . ,c
*'y %m . . .a c * ~ ....y'..
[
,. .g .
; ,;; * . > *.i
. . ' j.- r * ( .,
.a.
. -. ....m- .
- c. .c... %.
.j
..s .
,.c .
s .
. M -
W_- i 1583 y,.
. . W.!
G . /.. . y g 5- e, '. . *
.O Jt.. W.. i . ? ... , . ;. J,
$)m u ,c.. .
. . .s
. . r,, , . < , M , w .. j
( g ",. *. . #.Y.? ' .J. ..
. s.
^
.. p .; L
.f
- - . ._ q, g
,.-.J
. , . ' . . 't..g; ,, .
,.s .- ,.
i .- ,
~
.-----,--~.-.-,--~,,m..-..m ,s ,- . * ." - . .
MS.# , l s $ l* f $
- m. r ..~S..
. : ' ".s'. . .
s -
,,y w l> . -
,-r 1.
. ._ _ _...m .
,2l ~~ ^ '
' G .f*
.ps 4. . , - , ;.
. . , u
, q, ... ,h
. v
. . ' s. 9
-m
~....~s.: , ' * . .: p .' .r . .. w 7
g.g C*Q 'f;;t% e *w - d. .
*\
* ~ z ., i , g, 3,. '.4 ~ .. ... -e- gg':..d'.,r
.**s a J. e , y . . . s. .,s'., ,> -
i ."., ' t j . *.e. be>7 .'g, d.'f .l, .
.. - , , $a; A
.D....'.,".,..,'%.>.[" 7'. .-", ' '
k.'.*
- 4.
v , - , ;
~ . .me w - -
4 ,,- . . - L.j'[j,p.. ' Q.'1 1 * ' .
', .h ^g*j , . < - . [d . a ,, e
- v. . . s . . w . , e* % .
a 1 , . . . .;.
, ', ..~jt Q,M' . . v.'. '*LL*. -%'L,.h
*.~. . 4QF.W A.,.-:.y' x "
L '.. "
* ; . ,-f. .
; p/MpS$1:.e&+
y~.m .- .m . . .- h. .
.h; ' .
7 :" Finally, havmg made that legal and policy decision, the Commission directed that
;n '* d . 46 .
?. . w.. ,M. . ,e.*k , .r . . .
4 v ?2.%ng . . . . " . ' 7 3 g . . e.m.;. o.E '[s . M ,(~ n the stafT, prior to authorizing restart, make all the required safety findings that it
. r,c .
. 8 must in any similar situsuon. It is the Commission's understanding that staffis satis.
'.% R .,.wh .Am .- h,sM...1., t ..f.. 2...e. 4, .v.i,.,@. <. . ,..M. fled that all systems necessary to achieve a hot standby condition have been upgrad.
p ;,y p.u%wb;'
.y, ed to 0.67g, thereby making the plant substantially safer than it was when originally .'h Sf N-% '[ NNN/i DAM %QD"9.-]S-?I.
2
? :.
.;%g; licensed. As to the upgrade of remaining safety systems, while seismic evaluation
.-C.' .
continues, operauon of San Onofre Unit I at this time rests on an NRC judgment
$7@r .dQN QWte:dQ " W.k :1. MP@.'. .'jf.Ng*j similar to the judgment to be made in other Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP)
+4'.% ~. 3%.'!?Q.W.6d.M cass. That SEP judgment addresses the question whether, under the specific car. hN,46 h )1- ." $.*Y .h cumstances of a particular case, operating authority must be suspended while issues
~fC,'M/ 7g
N? hWN 7;'j ?.j?
,'.3 D.'@g hMdhK $ %
concerning plant design are addressed. Staff has presented to the Commission its technicaljudgment that, consistent with D h '*.h% DN73.hD I.'.) .D protection of public health and safety, the margin of safety is reasonable and ade- ,.Mh+M'e.- r4 gN.N$D'k.-d.h.
;$h. M4r :- s e ci.b M.[ $j W quate to authorize restart of San Onofre I and that continued suspension of operat.
ing authority is not necessary. The Commission finds no basis upon which to contra. my.% p .# t~ y O *o.. m .c',ip.R . ff. y % r.. v n . .f;,. vene staffs technical finding favorable to that restart.
$.s;w.A' s7.py.~. u %. . ..ve? : s g..M.. ;.,.;M.w. . ..
. ,.e ,
- m.<. u. .:g"r . .; .
%.m. y e .nn' .:.J. p% j 5 . . .em p*.e , A-r.z Irgg; . a.** $:; y
,..s;r. a p*..,q.c v. a u :' . : ~. a .
""' fCh i..;eQ. .*.,~Q.h.,:;f .
',... . . )h. .$.51 ..,
e
- z n...r q %,;- . .-. ....s
. . n. ..r .. - , , . ..
, .... .m. ,. :
. g m.~.m. . ,
. m .v, ~.- ...r.a.a .
._a c *. .
. . ;w .
.,.<;-.,u-.
.,:~.es,,Ae
.2. % w, wr r ..,, . . .. ~ . . .:
r
. .f
.w m. . .g.m.,
.m e.....e . .$f
;.h *s'.., '.-I.$. .
;; Y "3 .
~ 4 q*uv& A. * . , ^ s ,
- a ', . . .. .,* G L *.e'g
... ;~ G' . *n.v v . ,1 * -: nn. .~):'?.'
c-- .h"
- e. g.m;fyr]'C
*- *s--wo :d*%p
%D,p*t?OJi+l. l-
. ,':P-**. -.T~ -,C%.*vy .ca' I y **q*.9 %
a ,,, r.j@' hoy...g.w . 5 W, rp .?+, :p s.'.'g) l5
- s. . s7g, % w q;*t*
M . . " . c.
.q :
- m. p
+.3.'&*+G
(?.' . v.t._p
;,o M @ :. %4 :T : - "-
W
- C?% % .'.6P, ^ ' , -
j;,' hJ .'4
- 7. . _ .Q * .Pf.e. '
Yh.Sk((h .
';Y, * ' .7 hh**.D
*v
- a-
- a. q: 3,.) g>. n. s. ..n . ., . , ,;t,r.c.g ...n.;.q- : u. / >s s 4* .
*E F s.%.'.L g. .f&L.~ - . . , .' Q. . . & .-*~,4 G .<N,.&r
. nW.~. . . .,s;s.
, . :-. .C. . . ..-.. , , .. . e.r N. ';
- 0 ~. 2 s
.:1:. .;,. .:@ .. . M;. :;. :.m, .- ,,c.p:. , ,.. .d.:. -.
n,r.iv. 4>.
; *. , ..' r.
s .
..O . ,. .,;. . .s.
- 4. c.,.e.
, ~ . ~ , , -y4 :. . .- .s s .e ::,. ;. ..;
T.. x. .:
.2. y u& -- w- .;>:'e;.
.m.. w.
, Q. .;r,., ,.y~w.',
c w
'. . :* ._,..].> ' *
. , l * ' *.f. i ). g .Q .
9 q a;.y ...e
, . . C.!;:
..s. @ :; m. u. M y .M.. iu. Q..,,,.g .
<- .m.73.+. .<
D 4 ..,,..s.. n. w..e*: e *
. . e. n,. s. W.*,u p
,* m V.
* -s. l y* .
f.
. ( s.,9.h.1.
,. s .,y
.d.
a: *N..
- r. p.J
' *:w. g.-+ ge
- s. .c. 4.y1,3 . ,
w - v .p. C. .. . w . ...; . . c. . . .<< .. .n , e p a .s.g.. ., ..
- n. ;,., . . ~a.wf,,,.4
., e.( - %y.
a.n.. :
. lJ ^*j ?~ *'f. . ' .~ ~,. '* **N .?.:,' Q$.S.,w.&..$.
- v. . s. v.:a . ..
. ~ .v. u..mfed. y . .m.' NN
.-39.Sg.a
, .. y G .' ; ** ., y t' m. .pQ,.
' ', y7. .. .3 -.W
- g he gl.
' s q <'r , e .
,. . . u...:'. ..
- n . 4 .j : q, .;,L:g^ g
?- f.I*
$ ,~; , y3.
s"*., . " ' . ' .
.'I 1k .Y 7 *7* .
*,g..,".#** *
.
- Q#"M . f of e r .,I.,y-w*,
- af
'"/ Z.*[' .
- h.;
',1 '*#* 'q M[".~ d. f.'ij
- T.' *. i ~ ~ ~f*
3
.,'.;* .,\. . . A ". -
-t 7 .7
. .'* %. ..4-
,..D,7 J .rg .J..u. c
+ fgi 1584
!~ .
. . . . y : 4 '. . * . . , 2:.7,; .
, c -.. . ,..
.y . , . -
** ? e W.
- r. .. l$
% .*Y
..w..",u ,.g ,, .%~... ? s'#j.)w '.$*$ <Y .s ~. '. ,e
" 'j,r.-*l L*'. 4' . , ' ' * * * * ~
k.s ..' l:v,4* '!. Qo.*k.f.' fGO'sN. .
.. r '
.n. 'g : %
( f. n***,p .3, J[q.y;,9
- ',9'q. ?y
~ V . h
'f w %. r.
gn 3.l .; Q
" . . .c [.
__ . , . _ - , _ n .
- y. c,_,..
py*
, , , ,._y"m l-,t , ' ; M:, ,
. *; : ,- '* ;. A . *,. , " . > :; -
e%- ' ~ -- *
. .A ,
i - ~g.. ,
,4 . , - '<. s .,.s *
.f,.
. \ ' .2 " s .I,1, '. p
;' ' . % ; ,. .Z ,,
+
~ "* * ' ' '%
A
~, ,, . ..
l,0 + S .p. N h...l./ ,_ '
. ' q i,. * *
- uw.
.a
]',a' .~. ,. ,' ..'9t'.,Y ,
, % . .h Q' , ,a . .
.r
- .. . , . . - . .. ~ - . . . . - . . .. - _ - . . . - . . . , . . -. . ..
.' 4.e. .
s .
~ ' '
.m., ,
. . Q '.'. M '
.s. ," i.*' m
. N *]f.'
ac
. <, , . . .x _.
. (, >, ,. g.
qr y. . . - I i'. oy ' .1. ,'.l*. h,i..p,,,n c.p*.' +',.,. b,t / .;5.'k.9 .b.c.h..m:slc.. s- 7 .j.J,.'T..,1 M..,.
,S.~..,
.p.- :,
. v .. , c .
s s-. .f v; .
,.a , : w . . - , . . ..(f,- 3; . . 4 . r .
Q ." , * . . ." cs: 1,. . . . ,,- . . . . . . r . ,; . , .' .;. 2L . ' a. J., .'. ,a.
~ _ . ~ . . . . _ . _
. . . .:, ...;.. , . y :. .~.; -
,a 4 4 .
<!.[S ! ;*!,?-
h,.'i, . . . . p;- .- I, . 'O , 7.. .;,.:p. r
= . v. . . \. . .
.z , y :: ~,.;... . v->. .cy s>. .'.'y.,
., t.
- p. &wy . ., . w-:
e .- . w.m, :.e. : s..:y.t m..t.:. . w... :1. ., ...o ..n
,e...
.. . me. v. u.:.
'y.
- s....,w.(*i- d M @ 3,.'N '
., : 1 Cite as 21 NRC 1585 (1985) CLI 85-11 R..w..Aw.s 9-9 6AiW,QM.ve%c .,?:,.. : .@ .
- w. . n,ce..,2;1m^J%
M7'#%.:n .g.$.$.0'...K N.-:. . . " ,, - . . L
;. . y r..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'.i.?.E M y @, /L k * .J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w:.st. .n.r.y%.g%.,
.. h .~em r V>.. .j;%..n ,, x :, . v".'c;;7-M. . ' .a. y.
, m , m-w vgt., ..
h;.e:::)NkW=3& hbhf'Yb,.x.y. .?h$Y$,.5E C0MMl88lCNERS:
$M hyMz.-MMln w 00%.%'Nc, Cikf - e ~ m-W S
-.hf,kM f'
'ms,,pr.f.W.o. . . h5k..,k,: .,.N. c - Nunzio J. Palladin3, Chairman 2 '.. ..;S'M Ny .g.h.;.
i %g88.AM,$.i's... % - Thomas M. R4erts v@. gr.:fg James K. Asstistine
* , p,mse,tek M. somthes g- .vpr, m.:b w n... .m- -- M E d -;;, T HsmW>:A Lando W. Zech, Jr.
.J..m eg,. . . c ..,..p.: ,2;:: *-f ..u.
,..g . %uev.
~y. -;;..d;
. e ?. .
.m..:. y .
w, ., .,.:x. v -p
.e. .e.v ww . ,.
.. y..
a -.
- .m,,.,..
w
-, . . : m:e .,.-
v-m, .s., .
... . . . e. . . .
kS~' In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-382-OL 4. Mf-M, ga,hN,. . p.. g rc.. #J N d!, h..'$ - .
.Eh. ,(..O.D...'.. 50-353-OL
-.m M.ipphrWW
,. :W s . . a , . '. * *
~W . ?
w.-fei;?yp$..f t ..t... PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY M..9 qM6W w P ' N M.' (Limrick Generating Station,
$$D$.$$a'l'. ..m., .,t.s ~4 .
- g.w
.;.y. .4n.e f
.- - . > z.r . w. m. . . g . i .
; .r.
f.l.i.p$p..p,.7 unns 1 and 2) June 11,1ess e ,y hw.W ,.a, ,- 3. .; .
- r. .g, : ,n. o. ; * , . . r. ' . . .' 4 - ...t.*.g, ' , .
%, .. %.@-- . a*Ef.k; . a -n .i.3.mg-.,.o.F. ~ . : s.M.;J .:
- n. ... y,M ..-.
o # M.< . (* 7,w y . The Commission declines to make effective a Licensing Board authori-
glA'.f.gb+j% E e k ; i 7-17.5 zat. ion for . issuance of a full-power operating license for the Limerick 7.N$6E h N.h-l. ' i) 7[.,. :,
' Generating Station (unpublished Order of May 24, 1985) because the d.!?f M ,Ty3) 'w.e, .~.~ .13 authorization relied on a Licensing Board grant of an exemption from 7 9.M NM. ., '.T ,Y - ', ; #p the emergency planning regulations raising important questions regard-
'- '.'J923 M . _g
'] c .,.,f,.y c , .. .: .
ing Intervenors' hearing rights which had not yet been resolved. _. . W, ,. .w .n Q.
, . . . . . s.s...:_. , . . .. , .
.,..~.~...._,.. .
~, ; .. m. , :
, ~@ Qs-@ypmFM .
. . , MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
. ,. ;s. -.. m. w : . ..._..
.n.. . . . , , :, x..v,,.,4.. - x..
n =... e. , .,... . - v:- ..e. . t c.. . .
. . . .m.
'f. f;T. ', By this Memorandum and Order, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
"$1.Z@$pj.
..rs q- , .dy. ,' '.d.-: [~"%,
, h ,/. ("NRC" or " Commission") declines to make effective at this time the
[ 'i: g , $ % 'l . 9 ' @ I'l$ f M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (" Licensing Board") Order of May
.~ ~ ~ '
. w .. : c T
, }li .. ~ c. . ' f,f.gf'd. .
. 24,1985 (unpublished), which, together with prior Licensing Board de-
,*y*.,,s... *g
-v-
~ . . . , " ., . 2 93. e * .g ,
K ,l.,::*- G.. K. . f . L. c: .'. &. .,l 2
-._.,...,.;.....s.
y c . 4. , ,~ . . . - ... ,.w;-:s...
.~
..~
;s~.~.
.<.. y.. . . _ ,-
- ... . ~~ .. . . . - -
- ,y u.
6 1585 _.1 A*..-- . p D .,y g . f '-O
+
f ,g.Q - ' . .
- f,. *;. i 'Is ". k M' . } " * *
. m .; v
- S[* *-['I'#." h.'~ %8
,,. I;h'[ g , g L.* * *
... . . ~ t-%; - 'Y"b.
.; 4. ' ; a ,,
. ['
,g [ F
- k.. 1 -***---*-'"""-'*----r&"~rr--*-"~w,.~;. se - , ar+ - ---- y
' " " .;,',s , ..w
, i..
- . , a
- c n.. -
- 4 . . . .,
I T ,. # , , 8' . . ., ,,.O,.4.' ._ *f,, - #p.
,.a... *
. s
. . +
r r
., z. . * ,
- p. ~ ~ ei s ,. . ;-
, . .r
.2 ; =. n , :. . ., ,
~
. . . m- _.
. . .- . . ~ . - - . -
3, . ' . . ., .. -
.. 'af'.
., J
',r' ,.
%.c .-
(f ' . g; Ga" . . . .-f * > - r, . ~)c.ly;& 7; .,;2 yI; %. -..,..pa. Y-g, - *l,- si
.?
.c *, e . ' h.*' -._S.ply$ - T M 'c *N
- e s .s ~
*.c , W
. \, .
. , :'.;.m - .~ . . .
.-* . r,W':1
.y~'.* :
'...%..- ,, - - - - . - ~ - - =. s. .-.s~*... a
. ~4
*L*..=~~*
- at 3 h- *~
=;9UlM# .'" .
.V
[.'t.
.; J.1,.
't . ' O ,Q>.3* **:*.. .e ,
. . i.m . .
m...<?,..v.;.
- .. n: y . .. % .cj :*- s .,
. . .s y 9. a . . Vy4 s s
.. *;.[.. .e c=a.s y *r- ,
.. , c. < *
.ww.,p, . : .n.: .p " .
. . . : . L:
...v%..
M.~ ..p!'Jf;i,$.$f ,+ - q.g a.e ' ' s - 4.- cisions in this proceeding,8 authorind the Director, Nuclear Reactor f .1. : ,: M ' 9 A:C. 9 . A..
., - .v .
..p '.Q Regulation (" Director") to issue to the Applicant Philadelphia Electric
.Mhh.vw ..,W W K .?M d ; .? y ..W.Q Company ("PECo") a full power operating license for the Limerick li. Generating Station (" Limerick"). The Commission finds that important M M.M$$$;.%i'X.dP;;--f.M S- M MA questions regarding the hearing rights of the inmates of the State Correc.
@%;JE .n c@GrMS.)9'D ,0? W c E' . M tional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania, have not yet been 7dI C
).$$hJ t'M f MENN3M.N 5$D b[.'E E.5 % .c?;.i M 2. K. G h Yh resolved.
..%ON.. M.
Accordingly, the Commission directs the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board"), consistent with conducting a fair and b S ':?" T.0,M thorough proceeding, to consider expeditiously the issue of the propriety k f?!' $4 MD k kM .!- b % $. j $ $ f.hQft of granting an exemption during the pendency of contentions filed by
- t. the Graterford inmates. Should the Appeal Board find that the grant of T@Nd br 32 D Yi f.c...$
$yyv,h%$~S.k M S b. r D-W.W.d:
,M. :.# ,.N!.D.
'.e;q:h.M.N h an exemption denied the Graterford inmates their rights to a hearing, the Appeal Board should take whatever steps are necessary to preserve
+.W,.g. .NM. .J., u., and give expeditious effect to those rights. Once this matter is resolved, v.qp, . . ;- ,. .; .c;: ".s:. . 3 N .*.- %.1.. T k., either by the Appeal Board's finding that a grant of an exemption was 3 u.. 3 s dg,.wa -"*A. .MM .J.JM, 4-?. :6.9 :.h . ,
proper, or, if the Appeal Board finds that grant of an exemption was g 9%QM*f.Nf *:-?'.'.i *hf.$.- improper, by a Licensing Board decision on the contentions, the Com. M.p.-dy;c .m.~jh&L %.i -x
. 7 f, i,f mission will again consider the issuance of a full. power operating license
.. . c.1 -. . a' .c.?. ',E, for this facility. . -
M.;.c.a. :i.p.f *
.+' w..
;f., m. %. ...,.e hs.r T.,
z. It is so ORDERED.
.m%.' . - 2
- d. h.r a.:.N.2 N.r.s 4 . :.
'dIj'I M,.M .<M..
2 For the Commission
.@8
$.e.r.o $g . .M. N..A w enE*DidM
- . + ;f::n
. . n.,.n . , . .
M. u 3g s9?.'r,.. Wn, .. . <+ e.;-.. .
- e. . ~ , . .
UbysEpy .c. .Z: W;d;.f SAMUEL J. CHILK
@ .w.;,, g4.g:. 7 w~. .J.;y.;,l.g . r; Secretary of the Commission L.<-L.'.. = vg)
. ~ . . .
^ ; Ll-;;,.. a . - v -~ * ~v; .-<..
.: ,,W m. T pA
- a. - ,. 9. . ,.
~. . . ' . - . ,. 9 ;..,;t x q Dated at Washington, D.C.,
. . 3. . M.* 4 t, ~T. fi 4
.. .. this !Ith day of June 1985.
, . . .. ./e ... . ' ' .,..sa;
- u. . . ..-..r% .
.s. x. : . .;
~
.. . i. .
.m c:. . , . . .e.,.: :. ,. ..r 4 . . . .x:
.i?,;J. .. .m . . ,:l., ~. : :i..
- - ... . . ~.. ...;
. .. ;. .. %,., ~;.W-Q , e g r, n ., . ' di.$.- . i.l',' ....; k:t%p.t 4.h.$
.+
[ k b N.,J . J, ' '
. .. . . y r .'., g:, * ...;c.'.
3.,
'. .*,,.A
' ~+~.* l&yy. h
- e'. .,* : w'. .; i1.. : ,., ,. a- s
, ;; .[h :s .
4* .# 8
**% ..' *. _ .. o: ^#
j 4 . .,e, r(,. 2 _ 3 [Q[ h .m.7.. <_
. . .. .#*. *. .*:..y . . ..;'.
. , . . r>.w.
..... y
'J V . . f. 1 Partant inmal Decmons LSP.84 31, 20 NRC 446 (1984). L8P.8514. 2! NRC 1219 (1985) and f n. ' .iF-W / ,r;*.;'S MI: A: LSP.43.II.17 NRC 413 (1983). efd a part ed reairwed a port ALA8 735,20 NRC 848 (1984). re.
,i@"..,'i
; . i.g. 7 , :',- ty *pj,.,.'fp. spoded so. AsLSP No. 81465-07-OL (unpubhshed order. Nov. 8.1984) ord. ALAB.404. 21 NRC
. ;.3 l s y;%. . %we " q.7.s 587 (1985).
- s. . .. - - u -.
.o. ..,.,..('.
. s
.::p::
- .g v-.. ~
- 3. ,. ; i;7... -. .::yu,.
. yr y,[ "9,'*
..'. . 7.; - . , * * ' ' :. ,
.. ; n~. . ~ . . ..... 1586
- s. .
.t
,-{--
m m h
+
,7 , *
,pr e . . y.
.,y. g. ., ,,,
. m. e
. 3. ,+. . n- .e .; p. r . , '.. [
** ~s%~TG-M.. <,~',.V'. .%
veFM - -
,a /
y i , . . ! '. g e ,y.* q , ..
~, ,
--- - - --~ = - -
, f" . 2 -- n. -- - .- .c v7. ,7,
- j~
.. - y s
' . , . s. ,
r' ' . .
'5, ., - ,
e . * ' * , i .,
, d */ S
.3 1 en4 .
' ' a j.=,
.(($ '. -. * , d'
.r.
8 *
*>.93-
_' 7 p g ,d . . ,.*g . '
"N
. _ w. . - _ _ ..,.A___-.-- . . . . . . - ~ . . =s.-. .. . . . - . . . . ~ . .
s 1 < u.,*
> ..,.,,,. e - . , ,
. -[. , '.'.,. ,
.b,1 bl s .,, i r . ,
. v. .1\
~ ;,.gj *,;c
't.",,,, - 'e '~
- e. . e .ae-
- 4,1 /" '.Y. . 7<.,';?--c
\ s':sS
~-
L W,. . , Q:g 2, . Y.g.'R', '. E! 'p o.,
, ..... . , . - . . ~. -
o .- . .
.y
. I
'Q .f ; . " *..ay[ -
. . , . . . . _ a..n__ . ..... .. ,;..,,, _ u. . u ,,.:.;.s. :.'.. ~.h: . . - ' ----=F v I Q)s., *y.^,;lQ
.~- e.
^
- y. ' i (n.l .=.".".4.,:..*%.
, j .,- g.
.e.e g.
* , ._s*>1._'. *.* . g.R. +
a s,
,s. !. n[, (c*f'.
a s ysT.- p.'.. ..,N'
.J.,-
l yJ 7. ( l . f g.' q y ^J.* *
.*W ..t.
- 1. z .m . s.u . y .
- w M..q, e< v 4. .Q.. e.G - ' ., r,. .-.. .. .,'
. .'. . c c Cite a 21 NRC 1587 (1985) CLI 85-12 g
..,v.ym..am;. .-w3 .- . . ~ .
!. . ~.m
.. .@w.;.,5 .
M: p[,-hijld,E r. ',
-Q;s 'l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V;rsm(ha M <' ;+-ygH s ';p'TW- c.. A.+.-::p ..
' ~ 4. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M Wh*EkiMk.'c 4 \lM;S
.i .[ N -< :. , . - b,{ COMMISSIONERS:
. ma. . w,. . - *..s.. : ,.3,.%g)
.m. .. .e.<
w ;.e . n . n. yn.r r .~w>... ,...,.;~. r. . . ,;
. . w ., . ... c- ' #v <..m% -
pa p. h, n. , :,1.t y
,,.m 1 ,-
q Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
,a,.,,y)tm. .s.
Y,m'f f ' . +s } *.1 'e . . gr...W s5
. . %..-.w.4 $
. ; ~ .k. .n. ,x.i.. . y,...
Thomas M. noemets ( g,$y#.: 3 -.-W.69.. (... , f u.4 5M '."....yu,-~. . . Lf: ;.,' f.*4.. . .,,
.w . . o 1
- 9. . . . 3W - Frederick M. Bernthal
.:.. *. g&.. T..';.g.
%. h. w-h Lando W. Zech, Jr.
v 4 o,yy A,0*. w. 2 e-...,.
. .'; '.Q ', y( % ,. ,
. , g p- . , .
.. . . e.
. * . 4 ', % .r,a,..;:;;
z.,ga
,... g y', ,** ,- "'V ' .* ,
o.t ;j ef.. et + - - k..,m'c%ag TJ/je.M, s . .-;, .f.ja .y/.. .j'. . ,.M,.s
'.'f..U5N, in the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 p 2<. -
L; w%r.c
~
. .s w.4 wr. . .. 2. .s e;Gr
- 1"Q.E.y 4' - -
. J?O LONG ISLAND LIOMTING - -
~
' ' ~
f.fD.:
, vPJ . .;' .
1/ '
.. . :4 .M. ., & .. COMPANY c2.f.
<., m s!,c,'?-. ,.
- S. i .,W~h. S.. . .. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) June 20,1988
.':Wp. b p -*' cr. y. .r
. c.;g.c y. -
+:q, % ye~ w ;- .
s:- , -*A; . ' % s :.n.: : . :.%c-.
~Q* f'u. }m*&;.
e n
~ , r?M,g *. .y^. ( -: Q,~s 'G. <u'EA k *$-nt, >
.'[' ,NE.D~/-M The Commission reaffirms the holding of CLI 84-9,19 NRC 1323 M'6.W@M x.
~ 'J .T
.j.. W ...3 ?,j M.s . (1984), that where an environmental impact statement has been pre-d_ . .. . . i,,- ' . (,.. 1.E .. .,
Pared for full-power operation, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require the Commission to prepare a supplemental en-
-).D@.6'Q.'.
.4.~-i.'.
.',h,iN
!).y . ' ,;E40. 7.M'i J.M- ,c a
vironmental impact statement ("SEIS") which weighs the costs and
; . .c.. a; c; ,
~
M. . ,. , ., benefits oflow-power operation on the assumption that there will never p, . .w <.-
..- be full-power operation.
. v - g. . ..
. n ~
..~
- ,J. .,
~.7. ,.. .
~-. '. 1. NEPA: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (NEED
.,7 . . "...p.y. ^. "r ' *
.n; . .
o-FOR LOW-POWER TESTING) i ,-% '
; ..' 'd -
( '-. ' .g;ple; u("' ,, N- ,- Even if full-power operation is uncertain, the benefit to be gained
.s E.i-
.5
^
; f . ' d .U.
1. G. c M, Q - f from low-power operation (i.e., early identification of problems to
, ,. %. e. y~. g. ; -n. . . assure that full-power operation will not be delayed, if and when it is au-J,s y 7 :. '. . f.n v.~ ,..W~;,. m. 3
.: thorized) is enough to permit a finding that the benefits of low power
......g,g...,'
..~f...' . $ operation outweigh its costs.
i *".*.t . . . . e *j' : ** 9
. R,-
-. lj. ..-[.
- .L* %. .
.'t; W ~ ,
- , f. ,s,
' .*. , .,, *f \ *: m. *s-
, ,,J : . g s
***;~,'* ; %.- ...
. * *9 ','*" .l.W . ? ,l L-;. W
, . n '.;~4. el , *,'. .
. m .5. % .y
.j* ***:
. j. '
\, ' , . " , ,y . , ..
., g' , , .
. 1587 e
*'
- g ' . ' * . . " , . ". -
- e. .
X. (.n.y.; :. . . .s .- *
. ' ~. 7. ,.y y. '. +y '.<.
- ' ,~
l - . , . , .4 ,8 .j s , , [ ~g U e; ,,
- ? e-.=-e ca. , --*.=-1*-
- , 7.u c ,-'r = y-* :S* % - - -?se *--
a <- ,
'e
? .
- 1 y t,Q-+ j 4. .. f ,
m
.g ,,,,. r ,, y ,
? ' .,.. ~:
- ,, ~ ~
[ ?. . . . x. > ., . i
, .,.~, @ a 4 ,, n- -
- . - ~ .. . .
i
- +.u ;m. ,,.<:xw. ; - .. ,
'g. y;p.; ..y.
, . i.
. 4. . ,
- s. 9'm< :, '
L. e r
,, s .m. . 3 H.
.n . . u. . ~~ u .s
.&ci( . , Y 6;s v n:' r m - 7 ; y,: . mlr , j XWMM 4,%t::*s.3m.+:/ :
,. :v
+
+ - H&N,i:
. . J:26 3 Q.l.l .4*
- o. %.H '2::.o:M
%yy& Q.$;p'W: Q R;W:.: . lY - '
u- -- c = sh'..' ~ N-l- ,'
- - - - - - - - " :a : --~:. U ^ ' l i:,-
t~=h.. . M. m?s*e 7. .!p: t p.MWW::l* dWi@ MM -
-, . - . c
. i f.. wd, .e.:. w ..
.m,v v.g...;g. r ..* .:.- cs.n.:-..r . -
y- 4' J q. g
.n..~.v .., ,
m .:g. sQi:c :o . W;gs.yl.nLY. ei W JJ. .p.v U' .w . .;r ~ . ,,' ~:.. ..& FEDERAL PREEMPTION rs:;M4W,%f+%*::s.cy.;,q ~ .% Q ph l While parties are entitled to challenge the sufficiency of radiological 3 k . M M.%%D T@M MM"W/Mgp$@i P',. h . Wemergency
;J 'R.T.i % x:- preparedness for a nuclear power plant, the Commission's ul-timate finding on the adequacy of preparedness is controlling.
Ek~yQb ' =Y':Q%~.h^.$y ;H .c r x: ee . e. -g:;pps,.;=.
,s p n :.tp p#. M.g;s.n p, . w w M, D.
- b. .%p#S;=a es v&'. *- y . r r.i. F. A;.- -@.u.:. ~ - . , ;., .
ORDER
% L'$ " >Wr&. w..m,.&ym. i .-;,fW-a' - NdhtM M,%p. %
On March 6,1985, the State of New York and Suffo lk County filed a w
" Renewal of Request for NRC Supplementation of the Shoreham FEIS P
g , x.a. M dY,ey. ?1*,:.'<qo, w.N,.M, . N.itp.Sf: h h..a 2w n
..: ,.c:
M as Required by NEPA." For the reasons set forth below, we deny the re-quest.' In support of their request, Intervenors assert that because of the fa< F W- '.N.%. , s.%'D7;Q6.~Y,!..f.4 2 uncertainty of full power operation due to the State and County's refusal
- .c.
G . w.+.m .
..w
- to participate in emergency planning, the Commission is required under e
4 y%n.se.-k.e~...19# s..
- " .2 r.s 4;MM'CD'14,D e
..W.s.s. e 11C W.hf the National Environmental Policy Act~ to supplement the 1977 Shore-ham Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In that EIS, the Commission weighed the costs and beinefits of full power operation. In-
[h.:c.qn.6M[M. ~.3.l[J.N,$5.#y Y'NSYIN
. y4 3 g tervenors in essence argue in their Request that because of a. decision by a New York Supreme Court adverse to LILCO on emergency planning
$& [M A .T.2:fMj-gJ T ..> .y$;.c.MK "Mi'#;4,y issues, it is reasonably foreseeable that Shoreham will never operate at N 10 full power.2 Thus, Intervenors contend, because low-power testing will
- N A F,t @ h$h' g [ chhhk'*Q.'y(dc$@Mg%
D K, u 7* further irradiate the core and contaminate the remainder of the primary coolant system without the compensating benefits of full-power opera- @3 %..ffd7;g ., W ~g$
. '.fM gM ..y,1g@ ;..gcq. [
tion, i.e., generation of electricity, the EIS should be supplemented to assess the costs and benefits oflow-power testing assuming no full-power C.N$N 1, d.lMMW operation. It is unclear whether Suffolk County continues to press this
.'.' U. Q- . Tf-i&7' p.' argument, however. The Suffolk County Attorney told us in a June 4
.w,M.m!yT.,Q.5.,p:* : c o; ;.@.WC ' % , * . ,.wy:&;h; u!
. - e. s oral argument that the County will begin to participate in the Shoreham Y.
. ' J.'7 ? . .
.... /. * .f,; *
'. g.1.u -ih. Q .Q- ,, emergency planning process, that full-power operation is possible, and
@. ' ' yy%;d,~.
~
that the Commission is not required under NEPA to prepare an SEIS for
.'f'$'p!G,P IAg.MM.fl
'C. 7'Sr. -Q' low-power operation of Shoreham. On the other hand, at the same oral argument, some County legislators asserted that this is not "the Coun-
'c.dEh.N.:n r
MI;.m e y y A. NgMn,.w.~ M.M9hs
". if N ~..v.9 S 41 .. %-
ty's" position.
, ,W . d ~.; ;, ..<* . .. w ~
g.;s. :n ';',2Qr4 vd .
..s. .C, e y 7%- % n.Q l: ,. a s' ...,*
% y.-;$c.,.CQ
+.l%'g'lF.p? .
~8.*-
p.
.g y
.!~@ j.OdOf
, a.
--s-.* '
.f"b:.c m .:ip. w.; .y ;y*:;s..a y.-
- s-
.*.Wef.,
. Q .L F - .. 4 .4 Q- =.py;y;..% <.4*.{s.[ ., g[:p,;(g)s.
'** i On Novemtier 20.1984, sufroek County Gled a Peution for Review of ALAS 488. In as Peuuon. suf.
. glN,f 0."".-- ;/ ;./g/ C .: '
folk also roguessed the Comfmseson to reconender CLI.84.9 our eartner decision not to prepers an sEls. 7/W.' '[*MU * '.'[.[." y g8th:.@
<e 9_,W: . i-7; Qp G.9 The Commission dochned to reconsider CLI.84.9 in the coment of the Peuuon for Review. Letter of Apnl 18.1985, from s. Cl;.lk to H. Brown. That decmon was not a denial of Intervenors' March 6 re.
n .7 : p 'i *h'. Q *. ., quest. Innervenors renewed thest NEFA argumente in their -Peution for Reconadereuon of CL185.l.
.g M deced May 7.1985, at 41.
ShA . x. >..kU. f.'h((,$'.[ p,b %J,. A ;N.$8".IgI$
# 5'" 'h "'ne, there has aies been a Federal Disanct Court decimon adverse to LILCo.
. , . .se : a . . ,: .~ . . f: : .L,e u..
m '. . 7: .. . . -
.m q y g g ,. ~ .v.
. 4c; :.t
.q<.Y; . s..
.. 1588
'.'y; mr ~~
.i.;.e-
~ Ih [.: u. f ; + .;el ar; . A; k_.t ** , -
f ,'.*'. s .,w gt . f f:n.n.a
. ,%[., T. 4 , . ,y,.a. m,,,; . .w ;a , , .m i V.
k
.+ ~ ' .:,e . n
- . . * ;~~':.* :~" . . n --
n wa.nl.n?%.
*p M. ,n \; G, w, Q ., *;. . *. ,G. * ' 'M i . M
,g cz
~ *
. m*':n ;.n;' ~'.qn:.,;s
. .'- . .n
%' * : a .,M T -;-- > , ,S h . . ,
a.,'y. *W y .
~;
'y;y , ! .'~:Q :.: . .
.Q.,N-fw.
,*.f. s - . p , ,
.. l ,. .~ ';- *^
> %':v;. .
,,,3 :.e;. . ) a. **p% a.'*s'u.. Pt ", , 'y f/ -,.7 s
- r. I"f*l ;,,1. *, * *
- f .
- 4 ;' *- ., ' . . . -
** c.{ f . . **. = d:tj**-
- . . _ .. ,, 4
l
^
? l , l, .
-,- ~~.:
.. g.
7 . . _ .,_ .,, . , j.m *- i l W. - . l Ml, '
~
s
~ . i; . r -
,"m .- '
y,. _ n 1, 7 Regardless of what is "the County's" position, for reasons we have , N .? ~ ~. . Wiir ? . given earlier, we do not believe that uncertainty over the pending full-i.h.';: .N . , . .; .;
. - 3 * . /,'-
. power issues mandates a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
- W -
.y4u3 .
or some renewed cost / benefit analysis. See CLI 84-9,19 NRC 1323
$, *S. r7 : . . . ' 3.'f.: ,e.;M. . .. .
(1984); 10 C.F.R. j St.92(a). While the New York State and Federal x,,;g .. . . f.,i .s.': a. court decisions affect the degree of uncertainty over whether Shoreham h(.;N[S.,55" @A : ' MM. o/-D'? will get a full-power license, so do many other interlocutory events, the 3'r.k;R.l'W-Pi M~S'
.D County's apparent change of position being just one recent example.
- ~ :MVT The present uncertainty over Shoreham's full power license is not a new F{g;.f(f;,
5; , ~ '.-;l .'.y'hkh. " ,' factor outside the range of possibilities initially considerec by the Com-J" -
..;.n
- s. s . . .. . .
c y <. mission when it determined that the EIS for full power orcration satis-A, .. s ,, y. . .l F. -
, gy t*.b . - fied NEPA despite the pendency of Shoreham contested isst.es.
.' 6$h.D
,(%.pd ~ ? Moreover, the " uncertainty" which the Intervenors percei te regarding
.c t v
~
5MS eventual full power operation of Shoreham stems from ther view that
].' ! . , ". 4 ~.,.;-7)9/ adequate emergency planning cannot be achieved, even with t'icir coop-T , [ ' .% 7.jQ '.f f ' eration. Accordingly, the Intervenors have (at least until 'ecently)
'_, f'Myg,..
- /? - . refused to cooperate in the plan, apparently as a way to prevent any fur-
~
-%O ,
ther steps toward what they regard as a quixotic venture. r i ., We note that our Licensing Board in its decision of April 17, 1985 h, [h.fs's,
..fpy@
(LBP 85-12,21 NRC 644), has found th'at an adequate emergency plan
% M9 is in fact achievable if the State and County participate in emergency w
- ' ' }g , -S.
planning, as rdt other local and State jurisdictions have done when so called upon. Like any litigants before us, these Intervenors may chal-n-
.' . kM' . ,'M.d.[9 -
lenge the adequacy of this Board's determination, but they may not simply substitute their own judgment for the Commission's regarding
- " h, ; %'Th..L ' ~'
what the public health and safety requires for licensing the operation of
, ' .; ^Td.:.ky - ^
- a nuclear power plant. Congress has entrusted the protection of public P health and safety in matters concerning nuclear power to the Commis-
?--9./ n'"
. ' ?. , .. sion, not to Suffolk County or New York State. See Pacific Gas & Electric
. ~
Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission,
- I')l.[. .' 461 U.S.190, 205 (1983). Accordingly, we believe that the County and
~
the State must recognize that when a health and safety issue has been
~
- t J^'- x '
, ~ . ,, %~'" ? ~-*' fully litigated before the Commission, the Commission's final judgment, t
jyf.9 ' subject to judicial review, must be the controlling determination, even if some continue to disagree with it. s- . ,
. ..r~..nn .4 .f.
. : S c f,; . -
- 3. .
Thus, while we express no opinion concerning the Board's decision
. 4 ...
' while it remains under administrative review, we are confident that if 2, '[$; ,'f.: . 2f.by .
* " the Commission upholds the Licensing Board's finding that an adequate
.4- -
6 . emergency plan is feasible with State and local participation, the State
!i tib;., * '.] and County will accede to that judgment and will provide the participa-
. ,?. Yfc.'.7.';; - J 'y tion needed to make the plan successful. In short, we shall not take as
#.. .' W. . .. .N. . : ..
'2 1589 3
, ., - s.2 . .,, :i
. .*g. ;.~.,
\ l
~,y n;
' '~ 1, .
m-_..._-,..,_p,,,....,.,. ._
- x. ,p
= .
, 'd..
I. -
- g. .. ; c. , , .
.. e - >
4.-
- - gy . . > - .
. ..t..,..
n . ~. , ; . :,- .;>. ,; t Q W;? .;W: * - v... .
' ." {' . ..W..g g .M.Q '$.6;. )
- k. * .i y l
-M**[ [. *I' ' ' <
., [ )
-x.a: w .c. 2 . t :;n .
.~..--.2.M---~-----, .<
% ^;C,, N. . u.';. '. '.g .- q', .," -
? -
kj.,a t - . . . . '
'; N ) ?.,[' '-.h,*: *
.l ~
.QU 4.}hb $3 ' .' , .
&::!* Of;% ;.}c'4
- j. .
'4 p.*c.L (%.a..S p* -L
. U.-
,W e.p.p E' ~4+A. .pA'[4.pf,.$g li '. d. %,;
~ . . n ..y . ., .. ,
an element of uncertainty in the eventual full-power operation of Shore-MJ.l.p,.W1,QFid M 5: jy .n .:j. *.h A. .g:~ - ham the possibility that either the State or the County will refuse to ys%.@ Q4 h$[5.b.,qc~ @fiS
.w 4fg3 ,9.p,.N. -:w M.g w cooperate with LILCO on the basis of their own conception of what radi-ological public health and safety requires, rather than on the findings of m-wt.p.
u-en. ,.s , ~:. ~..nw . a:.<.. . . ?. 4 57- w 3.;r,y the Commission. im GF.a - 1 Furthermore, even were we required to perform some cost / benefit W .,3,M@A.y.W{Ca%$ jQ.UJ ((2O analysis at this interim stage of these proceedings, we would not say that 9
?2 iP64 Y y .f P.jM7 the uncertainty of Shoreham full power operation is so great that it W@L w ..,.
. .d.Q. M. .:,%[.V.r
.: :1.'7. v$y[,
necessitates avoidance of the environmental effects oflow power testing. Ni .
. .J. Vap t.A'j. The environmental elTects of low-power testing are well known, i.e., . % r ,s y M7MMU:QC.$g moderate irradiation of the core and contamination of the remainder of E
D$,M:hiN5 f,1 f the primary coolant system, with no significant impact on the surround-
,. .z.g.h&y.p G ?gj ing environment by releases of effluents during normal operation. These ffW.QGMQp effects of low power testing are subsumed in the FEIS's analysis of the d%.il.?.Ogilc". ant.pd f far greater, but nonetheless very small impacts from full-power opera-
.$ .?!:p. f.WV. :..' '. TJ tion. In our view, the benefits of low-power operation clearly outweigh
.- .fli
. .w.,
;... m.s- e.. s .,p.
.. .~
.'r;. the environmental costs.
. .. J-.{'J. 7 O " ,
The pnmary benefit of early low power operation is that it will allow 5
,. p[ . .s]j ,1 o,'~' N p1, the early discovery and correction of unforeseen but possible problems
- g which may prevent or delay full-powe"ogieration at an en6rmous ex-I). Mi p.,.[ S G-Q {fif
[ h@$ [i M : Q pMPgG J.
'J.. QcQ ;@.i f,l';
pense to LILCO and/or its customers.3 Thus, early low-power testing greatly increases the possibility that if and when the plant is ready for full-power operation, the benefits of that operation will be realized with-d56Cb4 ~ F.'"WC M'4 .t out delay. This benefit does not require speculation over the outcome of
$*@h;$h;;' . M.[.~ '9 : MI.h; the full power proceeding. So long as an applicant is willing to invest the vsd M M a .'I" N T.[ 'U;g substantial effort and money necessary to attempt to obtain a full power
[ EOi~((N.g license, the possibility of full-power operation at a future date gives sub-Y@MUY$h
#MN4.
diff.:
%$q s,d'... y .7.s-W.WA
-f i .
,f ..
3 . , '-
.: M stantial value to low-power testing. Moreover, whenever a low power motion has been filed where full power issues are also pending (a common occurrence), there is always uncertainty over the outcome of
@iY-( 5 3. ,.. hf , jn [4,l.Q- the full-power proceeding. Delaying the low-power license until that un-
-l;. .'. 9 ,
. : ?. certainty is climinated irretrievably deprives the applicant and its cus-
..', E.T . 7L .9c ~ f T,M
$!-W.e . tomers of the substantial benefits of early low-power testing.
'.pth.m :. .
.u.. d@ ,. ':eM, . .j - . W.. . ,i,. ?'.N To refuse to authorize low power operation whenever there is uncer-N.- tainty over whether full power operation will be authorized would
;-7'?.$.
${ r. d,p..p }.p .M. i .;, ;'C %, ,.
$'4*fr~gyn Wp'M' ff.$$]s ignore Commission regulations which allow low-power operation when there is reasonable assurance that it will present no undue risk to the
[.
, , yD.
.. . - v.
n;. e..N c. h- '*. .
~r $
?.1.-v/: .ft.y
.h. h @M: a.7l:. h. m, public health and safety notwithstanding the pendency of full power
, $ '.-7... '? .?.E.%Bfj
- g. .., p.< y 3 We now the low-power iest preereme for recendy hcensed reactors how idenu6ed promems which f .J J. : Q. how innen many monihe to correct and consequendy how detered fun-pr operauon. Al Palo ei SrM s.
.+
- j. .~3*f .y.4;> #US[*[..
- MQ.h .q.: a . .:w 3/.:x$.w
. w , M. verde. a pressurued =ewr rescer, for ewnew. e cooiene pum, de n promem idenuned dunns inia.:
se,une won awrtyearsocorreen.
.-n. v." . e
-. .. m
- g D A. ;,i 'L+.1 .. .
.u
-w...;-..
- . 9 ' 1590
- p. y w b
,l
,j*- j* ,.
* * ~
. . -n. , e . .,b.t')* .
5" . -
." M89.d! . . . ' .. f.~~ .w g a : a.~ .h .
W-$. ' ' . NB
.,, e W[. ,:' .n
.5.;.,,,., W. '. w -g .
mr,
- v.m w . w~-mr N I. ~,. . &
.3 a- -
.,[.,',.
e
, s Q r.: , Q f g 7 { .-
, et *
. ,J*
). -
- ky - N
,,,?*[ "
s
,,n , , .
n -..?
, . m. ,,n . ~ ,,
.,.. . . - + -
. i ,
- .
- x-
. .. . c a e, , , , _ ;3 .; ~ .~ .
..s . >:, 3- > _~_ ..u. -
+
u_ .
*D- + . . . + --=.We-Gm..g-g -sehM.4-....g*'66.
#.M.r.--.. . .ea- .oi.e 4 .ir .-
.m. .
~
- e. - ' ..
-j ' '
n
= ,
,.: J; : ;&k $Q yN '7, ;&.W. ' W a;
-~-.-....-...w.-- . < ... . a. . : . . ....-.
.~., ;
- ,v - .
g7, . Q..c@:c.. '
. my -
VT issues.10 C.F.R. f 50.57(c). This regulation is premised on the idea that
- - , ' . lt:p. ' .
- ., y the inherent benefits of early low-power testing outweigh the uncertainty that a full power license may be denied. We see no reason to refuse to
.a.y . .X.y. ' .- recognize this premise in this case. In short, the sooner low-power test-A , M.[," ~ ,
ing is begun, the greater the probability that it will serve the purpose for J y,,' - W,'.j4 7 , which it is intended, i.e., to facilitate the earliest possible full power op-T, x .:,:,. 3 .-a q.Q v - :1 - eration of the plant in the event that the Commission finds reasonable l C 4 @pe f @A [5$hi.- assurance that full-power operation will present no undue risk to the
. -..- ', -f, rr ? '
@(,;"y1;"5 (* . ..
.1 q dh 3 public health and safety.
Accordingly, we again deny Intervenors' request to delay Shoreham 1.-," - . ~ W.b, '*.x E s.
;t 7' low-power operation pending the preparation of an SEIS.
\']1.S;: ' * - Commissioner Asselstine disapproved this Order and provided the at-T %- ,'.".& M,d,,MO,5 ip 't s' ...l[.
~
.4 tached separate views. In response to the separate views of Commission-R.. Jyt?':>.F. ' j:l er Asselstine regarding the value oflow-power testing, we point out that
, 1 ;. . f i .~ .fp'~".4 the principal benefits of low power testing are threefold: (1) testing f,' , 7,. , -; -$@ .
y ',- and evaluation of plant systems which cannot be tested or operated at _ J%%f jO ..- J . zero power conditions, (2) evaluation, assessment and familitrization A- n.. V .r , ,.
.
- with technical specifications and implementing procedures for the opera- >
.,' y, tion of the plant while at low power, (3) operator and plant staff experi-
[,gQ .gy g. ,
ence on the actual plant in a critical but stilllow-power operation.
During low power testing, plant systems such as control systems, tur-4
*';.c(.t.q..
~
1 pf 5N y bines and electric power conversion systems, and other steam-driven
.i v. ,
J-S'F " equipment can be tested and functionally evaluated. Also during low-2 h M, 'I power testing, core physics calculations, basic thermal-hydraulic per-1-
'3;% . 1 formance, and other core operating parameters can be further verified.
' QMU ' If necessary, repairs or modifications of equipment and operating proce-
~
lI GEP* :^ ,- dures may be made. Low-power testing provides an opportunity to
. A c assess technical specifications and implement procedures which cannot
' hjk.g'J.T. . "5 be accomplished at zero power. The low power test program affords the N C. ?,
l- ' operator and plant stali valuable experience in the actual operation of the plant and of the plant systems interactions, which otherwise cannot
. ! be totally compensated for by simulator training. Low power test pro-l
' ;;([- *
' ', d grams for recently licensed BWRs have provided invaluable experience 6 -
c y ..j. - -: to the plant staff and enabled testing of plant systems. For example, at
;, /, % , , ,
Limerick the turbine and power conversion systems were successfully
,. . - - '; G-ff: ?. u
. . tested, and experience was gained at Grand Gulf and Limerick on imple-
~.'$..c
!J'S menting the technical specifications. In addition, historically, plant
. '. f,9M.h . -fd equipment testing led to the identification and timely correction of f.. ::p, M 3lp.
. ,; g equipment and procedural problems.
- m<
i ' > ;C . i . ., e
# ' S E' l.
. , . . - - . . k. .rs'.:
5 * - o , u ~1 1591 l
. . s . . , ' -Q' s..* .- . . , ,
ll~f '.
= . .
,I*.E, '.7 J .y* ".
' ',6,,
, .. . . , .'..T'* >
- ; */
.u . . ,., ,
-y......,,.y y.,_
4 , - r .3 , 88w ,
' \, , . e
' ~
r
- _n' -
***?
lA , ,
n,y..j s;: .q; .q-u .; y.%. M.:. 2. ::. % ,. ; 's a.
- y. , , ,
..,;- *x
. .W. . ..c..; Jb;2-
- x. -
.. - .y ,.
- i - * * ^ * .
.f.if %h.i !.MU +:ct.g. . ..,_L ;:
. ' r. ? '.
. m,
- p.s.eQW. W . . .,:c ~m:
r e. h&., . y..,
. . " . - + .Y . ."
.1
' , e . :M;.%.MjN - };"
n
- y v .m u. w C.,.w. y ~..n.. . ;n.;ra;::s ; p.g;y. :.....n
. .a = . ~ .... - . . - ~ a.a : . u <
.~~<
. . .w. ..-
- < .:;w .
.. x .y 3 v:6.%! - .. .
, . ~ . . . .
.. m. > .1.O.
>.c.. .:
- s
. $.g%-
.: >. :p.:,n,e. .
.n,. ,W .y
- . .w.:O e.
m.i , N
! 'g.m.'W.4
- 4.
- 2 4.4,. . **g, s M' .c.?}"@"4', p/ '.
5.: . 4 *Ls .b.3e.
.E ' . n. %@ %c M f,f!.3th Q 1' It is so ORDERED.
2M M.2;.'.g..p ,-:yy.%f*iC :: *. .V uf
- yvi..4:> *
.A v m..e ;p:. W wT.m g.p,i.
h'. 6~.. .g..;. 9 '.. For the Commission 4Q '^ly@;@y P .W
.c. u,.2Wp.
- b,- m ;; -.f;t.
e
@xg ; ,p v w;r:v.w. . .ia . v. . . . . r. 0. .
z... s.s.t.;a..a g u..%-" n . c:n. iG c. SAMUEL J. CHILK .i.pf li .r .. ~.A ,.:: . . .'M di Secretary of the Commission 3.#,$1,._" 2n . ,.,- E. M S'.c F.. vn e. t'ty'M'5M .. M[*715i?$@@T Dated at Washington, D.C., TS.dM .cr . , ef.N,..s.~4./p.
- w. ,.< .s..c @. .W this 20th day of June 1985.
. ' ~ 1d
...' )
y ., v- .
-&..M;,g%9 m:V
- ct ' >, # .Fu . @c .w ,u.e ,.cM , $. 6 % ;.t i...
n SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE .qpw e
. 2 ;. e r
.f ,*DPt st.4,. M M MG'er ,'. *a!.;,re.r.m.
. %. . .y.
.i JW
.?' . ,w; e, . . ,%.7.t The Shoreham case is unique. In no other case have the State and mw % .gp w ~ -m -
'rA N -4 7'# @ .f- t p :- .. . local governments refused to participate in emergency planning and pre-mM, s, g g ... -
~
7., J paredness. In no other case have both State and Federal courts found _ m. M,"J25. h, ,. 7,+:d ~h
.J, g.M.. . .;:
. .M. e. '; .7 ;" . that, in the absence of governmental'. participation in emergency re-y b . egg,. . Ec. f .
E M. sponse, the utility does not have the legal authority to carry out portions of its emergency plan. Before a full power operating license can be Aq$O^kbiMEd' h?h /d .3d' -7:'J$[.MQ[- 'h !i for Shoreham, the Commission must be able to find that "there issued bhhd4M"j.C4[':.l16@9;,;,.W ikh4TE h W '~' MF,$; *: . # :.y is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and wW be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." 10 C.F.R. j 50.47(a)(1) (emphasis added). Absent participation by the State and N,,.% h< i d 72. S di d$i?.WM County in emergency planning and preparedness, the Commission is un-
;;., Qy.@
[N?M[$gS*g$;c Mi i "S; W' '76@ likely to be able to make such a finding. There is then a reasonable likelihood, which is much more likely than $$yJ.$'NC&-N f.h&
.W 'ft d when the original E5 for Shoreham was completed, that Shoreham NfMkT!M
~
might never receive a full-power license. Given this change in circum-1.N. ~ M .Fs 4.. .% , . ~. .j,r. '. r.
.f.' $.j 'g .e q.+.5.. % t.-i R . [ .,M, stances, .Q.a,. the Commission should perform an environmental evaluation,
>!-;;.@ e.Wr . r ic. ~ /w 9 including a cost / benefit balance, of the issuance of only a low power T; license. The somewhat crude weighing of costs and benefits in the Com-C CN..n.b~74. MfE.??M.t/M})'I. e,W $. .C. . . . . .
. . n 3.N$'.i
'$. , Y. . ,'. ' mission's order is clearly not sufficient.
The Commission's response to this is threefold. First, the Commission 2Ms_We.@r.M,.&,A cec. e.a:!f. ^ .?,.;wys.;. .s ;.. % ^. c - ... 3.,
- pt ny. u .
..e
..> says that it will not consider as an element of uncertainty the refusal of
?n .r;;--54;e-g.g v~ 'IN.f ;.$ 3..y:-,w x the State and County to participate in emergency planning and prepared- [Qd%[r(ff.Es%g $$.Ll .;.;N 'XIMi.!.:dm }yNAf ness for Shoreham. The Commission has confidence that, if the Com-mission finds that an adequate emergency plan is feasible with State and local participation, the State and County will accede to that judgment @M:'-.'d.;h .%. $$$;.b . .: + fyOM' and will in fact participate in emergency planning and preparedness. The k '- 9.% g,$MM g.j' , .i Y.,,.,K,9Q.v ... M.e
';. h.
a> n.-v. y3.h . y '. . ..
.pd@M/E',4nn
.. .v 2J ' .f i, .. .. ., . .% .. 1592
...,...,t..
. . :.. . t
..c
. . . w v. . . .
[ n .w . ,h j'i'[a $h d. i
. n . :. w.,;
Q$Lh& : 'M*W.8y;~f$a?.V**Q-M.*f(',..,,y.
- .M'g W.wi ~ ' y, ? a:.:.4;q ^. ,, .;
. f. a.- -
w .n ' ~
- t. -
CTT'p?n .
- ;.y..rr. . 7, ,;.; .n * ..,w 4;J. %,b . .,, . .* . --
. , . ~,w-'" .
- "I . ;
,y-
,.. , * * . . M .~; f
- Qf,..I'
. v. , .d;,. '
g- , %. %.;.'.d: ', . 'Q . . ,n' . : ;,.
~ .C , *
,, j r . . ,;. . f.*4 t
, ./ .;. ./(..*v<) m;
- d r .: . , c.* 4 , <*.'*k.o g g, -
y ., . ' . q..
, s. - '
'?.- ,, .
_ . _ . . ~ _ . _ . . ___ . _ , . . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . ,. - .
~ ., .
- ~. ,n ~
. . ~
-T ' ; ,.
n . w 2
, - % ;,;.;~ T .=:..'X % 'p % .:
~
-- . _ . . . ~ . . - - . - . :: :... ....m...--...: . . ....:=
f4~m .; " Commission's reasoning is overly optimistic at best, at worst simply ig-pi c7.M , .I . nores reality. The Commission refuses to take the statements of the
, . y .( m .
,7 fT State and County at face value,' but prefers to rest its decision on some
.p/ _ ,'
.7 .. i y i "
hope that the State and County will "see the light." Further, if the Com-
, j. ,Q , . -
c, mission intends to rely, in the face of continued State and County refus-
- RM. Z f v.13 als to participate, on the Commission's confidence that should an
- y $
- 1 si3%.4[ . ? P b . emergency occur the State and local governments will in fact participate
.?' " c ;. [QS,'!; .
,y$ in an emergency response, that confidence would hardly support a find-c., ?L (.y .. P.- .t -7 ing that the emergency plan will be carried out. And, if the State and
<' .9/ ,: . 7. J.f,ig d, ," .I County do not participate in planning and drills, the Commission's confi-
-a
.,a
;- ' . y,qer-?-
- f. . (Q dence certainly would not support a finding that the State and local governments can adequately carry out the plan. The Commission's re-
. ~.J8-P.c.c s
- J M U's.,Ge Q~..;.;pf*j *
~
s .. fusal to recognize the State and County unwillingness to participate as 7 4'; lgT P *
' ,:i E creating uncertainty about the likelihood of full-power operation at 1 .p . . >; .9... - C.M , .6 Shoreham is unfathomable.
T 6, ., c. yli .N .. gi The Commission next claims that unce tainty about the issuance of a
'i:' .. 3,D, % ._ m , , i ;g full power license for Shoreham is not a new factor outside the range of
. . .. t.C ' ~i y possibilities initially considered by the Commission when it determined 1 ..
1 that the EIS for full-power operation satisfied the National Environmen-2 1 M$.' ?.5.$ . 'E~$ tal Policy Act (NEPA) despite the pendency of Shoreham contested w-M$ n- Q issues. Obviously there is a possibility in every contested OL proceeding
.n M;.i
. . F ( "' ' ~
f g. that some issue might arise that would prevent the issuance of a license to operate the plant. However, the Shoreham case is not a case where, 3
. %y " -
4 before the licensing proceecing has begun and without more informa-MT; , ,e tion, the Commission is being asked to consider in the abstract whether
- g.3'l.P(, . '
some issue might possibly prevent operation of the plant. Rather, in this
- t. A [,5 ' -: 7. case we have significant new information which indicates that there f'9 s . .;. . . might in fact be a bar to full-power operation. The question is whether
. . *.- .'. '.; ; . , . , . '$.. , . - in light of this new information the Commission should first consider the costs and benefits of that action before permitting contamination of
~~
' -' the plant. I believe that reasoned decisionmaking requires no less. And,
+' the caselaw indicates that the Commission may be legally required to do
~ . . ' . ' , .,~ *
- so. See Environmental Defense Fund. Inc. v. itndrus. 619 F.2d 1368, I377
.O M-L . M 1.* e
- (9th Cir.1982).
.9 . . -
1
.. . , . 5 .I[b.".',k . .f
<.+..
C. R ,J.,;.?
. . .e . . I Further. the Commsanion seems to base its confidence on the statements of the County Attorney that
*- - ^ C' j;. .-4 : , .4 yl','
Suto6k County wdl begin to perucipate and upon the sutoik County Execuuve's agreement with
,p.y, ,;.,,. '. . y,;y1, .. LtLCo to do so. I am not wdims to be guste as opumssuc as the Commission majonty is on this score:
,, ' 7l7 . , '. ; f- (, ', . there as a despute between the Execuuve and the Legislature on the Execuuve's authonty to carry out
. . , . (; P W , . ;y - the agreement and en fact a New York state court has recently nuihried the agreement at the request of r .* i 1.,
..,N. the County Legasiature; the state has not entered into the agreement of agreed to perucipate in the
. ; ,c p' ,- .. L q.9 ....e -
drdl; and, even af the agreement is ulumstely upheld, there is nothing in the agreement which prohibits
..o{.. .,2.y- ,, y * . , ,T*~ J . s
- 4 the County from hugsung the results or the emergency dnlL This dispute could go on for quite some
'; -. -* + * .
.,,j,...
~j
.g,, <g Inme.
1
. :d 1593
.i 4
l Y ., -
'~
. ;, :y'
^ g, ,- ~
. . _ . . .,,,_.y.._..,-.___--._...v............
3 m. . , 1/ .
-, . ., , ., . ' .-. - -, - u .
a
.v ,
) '.7 , ., ,J "f.$.f ,
~.s.
- N,
.{
M; *. ;y *, .'
. <> .f. e. , r
.a #
7 " .i
<9. l.
*c p
,,a..;, . . . . , ' , .=.b r,.g...\
it O % !. .. * . .} . . t
,,~.s * - ,,, ....'. } .fs I .
- s. Yj@s' n*"2.T>f. \*. .), f. %..4.R. 7
- 4- M g
- N. .N%*f s . .
' a" +-
~" W -l.)2 F # p QB 1 @., ~,; . . ~y 't, ". .",W. 4.<,r . $,2, . ~
.-<. , G'
- i. . a . q, m:. . ~
*i 2 *
. .* d,,fl.
> .. ' *'Ev3 *. $ *
- p [6*W. y ..'.
r*.j " *
---- =** - -+- .a. - + w . -*- --e..-- ~= Da.a.d4 4 2 M
- l '
O;/*yy* Q .' . 33 s ! l
,, W X. T:$ g.e. V" C.V.U. .!W':*W' 7 - .
4
.,
- y.s. o . t= . i. .,; J %c ;L, *f~ W {Q. *
- g. -
; i
; w.t.ur.
...s . . g.y Q,S e r.-*p . v.1%, . . -
- ,. j
..a.,.
m p,.p%e ,m3.;, y.a.c..e . . .. mp$4WN . - .. m
. M,M. .. * - *
.. Finally, even though it says it is not required to do so, the Commis- i
@ M/' N 8 4 1 $ %'.'.h F G -
sion.then proceeds to conduct a crude balancing of the costs and benefits 73s.
-~
h@4@%TY <..
- N of permitting the plant to operate at low power. The Commission says
.'9Q.7'8 F
p ).WU. 4? "' i $ f/M. i P..- #' M. ,; (!.li4.'" M N Ey'%..,.. .' . D. that the costs have already been considered because they are subsumed within the greater efTects of full power operation. And, according to the
'M.,. r. . .'sw. .C :
Commission, the substantial benefits of low-power testing clearly out-M5M RM..W.9.,Ith,$g MM'/S
- W@M $WhMP%. .% weigh the a%.$.;'ba.
costs. Under normal.. . circumstances have a point. However, this case is unique. New circumstances have the Commission might yn .s hQ{-$ '.'jQ).' arisen which prevent the Commission from assuming that full power op-M $@ %k8 kg%@d,5?N!yN'M.y$-i.f.% M. DE3 M h'$ N M;f efTects oflow-power operation are subsumed T in those of full power oper. cration will occur. Thus, the Commission cannot merely assert that the ation. Further, the benefits cited by the Commission 2 assume that there
' 2 @N T.d' 4T % _2ijk aib.9 Ol.P'.bR- J~-' W" M . Q will,p be full g*power M .. operation. If there will not be full-power operation, then there is no benefit to the early identification of problems which the d..W.$'hr..h.M.NNUh 4.As@J(Tyt,tpGh d T Ef., ' s '
Commission identifies as the primary benefit oflow-power opemtion. Clearly, the Commission's balancing was not a careful one. The Com-E M h M M O d 3.7. D 2 iA.i mission should carefully and in detail consider the costs, benefits and MghTJQk.7 %: . , { ;.'- - likelihood of Shoreham never being permitted to exceed 5% of power. M: i;,. Mm.%jh'khil9 w-s* .s - . . . . " The superficial, hurried effort reflected in the Commission's, order does ,
.ms .Q . - .M" . s .t >2?', not amount to a reasoned consideration 6f the issue.
b.- c. M</* *@. @P.yw- wy,.a . .. p :. ,i . *
- r * *wt g. . .s.
, g.
,, s* ...?,*..,.
\ d t. Q w.e & m.. v ' . . ~~ s'?,,. .. : s .. *
-4..,.d . .sW5 u"7-t-
. 2e:k%Ay& * . * - . /.% . 4- - ,
7:7.! ':6.y. .Q&y#. ;.' - i~ k ... . .
~
f" ' , * ' C: 4.~. ^:G U u mm :.e.y/.*.m. .:'gy< .hp .A.-
*s W; M
. p;.;,s N. . <.
.. y .4 e.f *.. ; ,. m.w .
m.R W g ry; h. V.3' ?-F..
&p}A.
- 9.~z. a*:p;ls.
., .l u.. . c.., . ." ., ! ~. %
- An:.
. .s e
.r
![w.m.N.x%.h.,p'ms
.t N y Mj" *IY- t;-
.-s.,.~.I
.5 ,.; ; 2 vmu4. s.. ag :-. < .
s .
, .,3.,.ty, . e ~ -
* '@. w %. A l i. .n.
. . .G.. ..
R.;.'i~U.
.. i. . . , ' t f. .i,*.,. ,
n ' " 7'g.:;.
< %. . s ..1.en. .,. g .3 .
s =. _. c_;Q o i .'M.. ' X. s.{ &. .
-i
. . q; g:.,.. .g.y
...~..N...
i?
, .?.; ,3.r1.<
. y .. . ..
^
. % 2.~~
~ , r. .- w s ..y. w y.*. . . ,.
~, s.g.o .:
.. : . q._
.,..,(.
, ,g;y.
t
.< n, . : ,.....,.,i Y~.
[U*I,.%[i; @.Y..2" M g. p.q }' '.h.7,i
,, a
; , t:y '.; -t 7.&
.)};~-?~Q, f.'
r ,i n. . .,,n s Q. ,n>:.f '.',;;V.n
. .r- . ...} *.,. p.J % , *,.g*;G.< ,
- x > . ,e . .s L9.: nrp,r
.* y ,fi~eX .
'.1* 3. ;;.s Y
~, s. * ;; gW;w:..% a y a. ~<. a m
7ELO. * *ff.~.f-5;M
;; 9[i*,,-2
'-[%;;s % Y~;$'l $ 4"J h 2 Even the Con mnemon's aseened benefits of low-power tesu% are ovmtated. An operaung hcense
*: -Of?; ~; s .'.$.K limited to 5% of rated power is of Enned vuhty to the opersect of a boshng water reactor (8WR) such i;y.,*'.; O M U.f'*..'i 9 ,4~,gi,1,
-- * as shorehem. Little teaung can be accomplished at that power level that cannot also be completed with.
;5. ,' , y. , .. . " . y y . ,, A out taking the reactor beyond cold enucality. To do substant al teoung cl 6 SWR plant the operators
'. ;;:pddM .f.e.-W: a. f -: y.-<. g .
g'gr.' ; , . ' '. 5- lJ.G ~.'
/
mus be able io i no the piani io 20% or more or rued power. Further, the raio verde expenence in early idenunceuen of probleme does not support the Comrt won's argument. The design problems
; '. -['* ?.* .O~. 4 l
,*.I._-
- d i ... O< cited by the C . at raio Verde were discovered dunng the hot functional tests of the plant well 3:. '. 6 01; *;9' b?f'; J ,, *.E d., /~NMW ,f
.,'. c,d', *f before e low-power hcense wee issued. These enenom tests have already been comp 4eted at Shoreham.
. - .q -
,M.,.,m.
-U; ;.
.*+- <
%..o..
v
- ,., . +w .. ;-
n %. ~ '~- { V } $ *%.ig' .a,.~..o
.~..
. ~
1594
.:" . ' . .l . * * . ,*
y ,; 9' g.7 v.: - J ..
. ** m.g ,$qe;J. T. p.j. w,&. :,,,. ?- ".j;. ; ,,;'~., ,.
,,g3 ' [a, I %'E*vj.
., **2.
.:s .. 2, .
1 '
. f.*h'I *
- 7. ' .' '.
. ..> . ./ ,
,-I,# j ,e s s. z.t.. ; . , . . .d,f ( *
.m._ N P "a t< ; y.'w J -e*84p*"**~***".e4 er == , +- -*g=,.u.
** - g,s y.g
,. - , ~ s* .sQ' ; %. *J
- 3p y. yer.g
*,t y,
[ ;
- . ' f. ' ,"*i s f ' g. % y 4 , ' . ' m s ,
., * : y, .
.D" 5. .cf ,' M-; *'$. ,
-M . , , _. i ' , ;.g ...; '> .
.,.~
, Tdl, s. .
, s
. ; . 0; ? ;'b ,, o, ,,
41.ys
.. E}l v.- G* 3.. rP, , g 4-J ". s .- *s/
, ,'*- E 1 f. ,
Q ,*. y
- - ---~~ .- - - - - --- - ---
- n. .; .w.
. . . , , ,. ?
. <. .+.
d
- - -c. ..v. ,
n,.e.:..' . . e-:
, : . r.. .
- .:n-
=*9a,..
~. ., . 4 ,
1
..~
. u4,_
.y =-
- . a ~ : u~f?ith a m w - -: - .. .
i.r . Atomic Safety and . T'. a . we.rr: .
- . ~ ,
v L.icensing Appeal
?+3
. . . .. 5.r..
.m .
. ..y 3@.. w.. ;
g._g, . -..:,
~a . .#
Boards issuances
,. . ;.:.v..,..,
. . . . .. ....s, .
~ - :- .
. -F w: ..r.
.<;s,,~.::Q..- t .; .
- j. .- ...q.yR $7 .' ;;.y ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING APPEAL PANEL
- ,, , - e . ~ ' a .. ...
o ..v,,
,< t m.; . -
.y.' . , ,
.J .- - - - *
-: Alan s. Rosenthal, chenman
- ;:- . .@'p. 5. -
. .+ :. . - or, w. need Johnson
- . jc ' , .
Thomas S. Moore
.". .P ~ - -
Chrtsdne N. Kohl . .
~ D.M.? ;, . .- Gary J. Edes . .
f .". .y. 4w. Or. Reginald L Gotchy ns. .y i_.:.. . . po
..'. .c.t..=*. .- o
,d A. weber
' ' . ".e* *t,' .p ,
*)
. , t 1. , o. :- . *. a >..
.e s > r* . ,
e *'"p*. I.') b a
* ., ; , ,ez 1 ' * ' ~
= k, r'
- .~ ?fohrl:'. ,l
.c w .. .
,. . L -
. . ., y, ;. . .,
a
- v. "; .
.5.
r ;".
. 'f. '. , aP.' 7,4 . . , y
, e
.g
..,;. ,7 . -i 3 N,* *
-,.7 4
, g G
.e
<-*e,4 j S
~
,- . 4. . .
*'.' n a ,
**Q
, s, T',..* .; .y .* ' ..
e.' ...,*r.C -*
~
g9* A.
..n1 '
- x .- . .*=.
.',s..
.=e-$ Y :;? J' ~ V'
. . . . .. . y ;- .- . . ,
_s
..4 ff,.4 - - 4'-.'.-- .. -
**'.****'.*4 -~ -
, . ~,- . "? ,.,.-gy, M '.** :-
'.r;*
p- ? s- .
* ..* 4..,.* . , *
~
.wp:,1 - -
me . = m,.,.,.,.....-
,. ,..,l...[+ %* =",w *'* *
< '.Z:.
.- . -" .%, *'.ll*
i
., ~.,.,9, 1
,*ep 9
e
*. y . F '_"U
- j q , / +
- e OP*- *f,,
A., ' 5' S ',.p a e "# g .-%* __, ..y _ - _ - - . . . .
..3.c.. . ..
e
* ., > " 9
. "-
- g p Y t
$lne.
, T. ; .- - ,
- . c . , , , .
..g -
- u; ,,. . . .. .c: ., . e . A ; ,p ..;L :.. ';.y
.r;;s !< W.i., a: . . ,,;- '.
~
p..+
, . ;. . C;. .
~,.c....
-. z_ . - . . =-.-sa l*. ,. ',
",1 - _
- . s .
, .[ '
W. _ *h r,
..s,. /.
L.,
- v .: i. , -
?
- .,,.. ;7.6. ;:,: ,,:; .
W J., . . c: 1' Cite as 21 NRC 1595 (1985) ALAB 808 s f.. a-
.. . ; y
-,.;: . . . ?. :i;,G4 Q..%:..;; '[;;x.L .* ~,'.
. . + . ..
%.j;.
A; c'. -_ ::u, .;'i: _., sv_e , q. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' . '. :. -e. .,9.y
, . g * *,
c; .. *A e -p e" -sf. ';.we ,s , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i1-t* 2;.3 ['." ,$- '.3 , i ' i. * . - pi*. . * - i
.? ..~.
; . . e4, l*l. , , w,. ,, ., .J J . 2 la,g .is. .,j-
, .ef....,*,,,,*2,. ';]g*
- ..?-c.;%. . .M...5.ygn. q.p a,A f ; " A..
. .rS 7 d.-5... 9. .'.
;N's,9..: ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
. ~ . .M,e. ,a., .s :. . . $v.'r-;:es.y. g
..a*.**-.
c . g y j 1 qq . ... ,.t _s, _.m. ., s /] .* y n. . e r... .,=l > . 1.*..,4 * ,b a n i;*: y;, y 'y. ., , . . f[..n.s.r Administrative Judges: y:.h, n, . D.N.m; h... ,.? h. .t,i h,s k, mti k;., ', M. 2
;;.. . . w
.. m - m.-n, a.,. %... w
- c. ..n..
s .. ..
~
.s .. . .. :- - -. .n. .
_:. 4 r..(s. g*, b. : Christine N. Kohl, Chairman L'ip Grc+8.f. ';,. k T 6, r.'.@, ;.M,.'.h,.W. . .
...M o -
s . a.,. ,g .?, 7 Gary J. Edles
- d. .. . ,
. y . n+. . *s W 3. ',h.u;,. b a,i'M. *h.e. ; . .[;E , N
', ' r Dr. Regineid L Gotchy
, ; = . J. ., -
-d *N ~ ~ ".-[ . / i;g. =%[;;., = , ,
. . ' . ..,'5* n..*..M+'
g.. .
. va.-..:, . .. .
..-- ~. ~ n .. , . y j :13 yy ee *'*C.
O J. , s;. >Q.e*4 M..
;~ ._ , in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-382-OL c
. . - ,: y.p%c 0.s? ' ? +-.- .
. 50 353-OL
.~ - _- ~,c. , ~
. . 24. 4 %c.- %..<
~
. - c, .
- PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY A: [< ; '. .., . pS,s 7. ~..f A,'. . iM .
s r
- - . .%;'s. (Limerick Generating Station,
', i.;- . V;, .t ,.. , M..$aT p:#: Ic - Units 1 and 2) June 11,1985 c
..v. . . . m. .m ., . ..,,w . . -
.,, . .r . .
- . --- w3;;- .n ;, m;. y ;..'
.t
.
- a_'*
-2 .& ..p-i."'a. .
- . . w' . -cr vt 4;f., .- -
The Appegl Board d6nies intervenor's motion for a stay of the Licens-
, .t ;--- QEfy.$d^ ing Board's third partial initial decision in this operating license proceed.
[ ,,.
- y -;;g.g i '.
ing (LBP-8514,21 NRC 1219), which resolved certain offsite emergen-4.
.m-m .2 l
- 7. ;. .y-
..,n.y . cy planning issues in favor of the applicant.
- . . ;
- i. #.... e , . .g .
.._..s..-
l . , ,
.T. ;. w,' , .-
RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION
+. _ - .- -, . . ,.e
- u. ; ;. . t . .
. e .- Under the Commission,s Rules of Practice, a party may seek a stay of 4 ..z.... ,c,.,y,ff . '. .. .j' :-
- . .? ,- "a decision or action." 10 C.F.R. j 2.788(a). See 42 Fed. Reg. 22,128,
.., . . , t e ; g.;-W V... .
22,129 (1977). Thus, outright denial or dismissal of a stay motion on l- "; { .j.; - the ground that the decision is merely passive would not appear to be i l J ~t ..?./. p).:;2.;W6 @jh7(~
. p..x .
%,- C.m.y ..
justified.
. .,-. y :hi '
1
.M.y.3 . n.n... a. ,c .#,.*. ',~.D J. RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION
, <.-.r,my' ,m. ,
.. . :.g ..c . m,;t.
= ..
l . f6lp f. ;; i;;'- 10 C.F.R. j 2.788(0 explicitly authorizes the filing of a request to stay
- (~[ h, hhF.x W 'h',b.bj'd.
a licensing board decision before either that licensing board or an appeal l
.. 4 l b
..?
,.'- - ! 1595
*.,'i d. I ' ' , , .i '[. ,, . ., ,. g.
4 ] .i ' '
.[ $ .
.6
' ~.1.
{y
.Q.y h . , , _
- -' . .'# c.
~ 4 ',
L a: . *
..j.p'.".
O
~ .. r
.- e , . , * '. .
4
* * *6^
m g
,',' f 4 N
.d-
% O
h.d.4.T.hy. o r. e e, m.9 , .. 3 A.d 5-- e
.* l'
.. .. c.'
f , A h $$$kh hbiE $ % 0 '& ' ' -
* ^' ~
~.W. . .w.x. , v+.n.&.w :.:. ..-..c :: .... . . . - . .
N. .T :s e oT*
- g. e. AT+2@<v.r J. s, ar..,
;. . ..S & ,N. . w.r. M 'M*. . ,, .
.-..a..".-
s
- f. ,,, .
A t '
. .....c.. .. ..
eo
;r 4--~.----.+----~J~
o.f:
. o. .vn -..w.,...,.,.
j ;,; .% i~'.'., llz.,(*..~...u.-e };,F 2 ? ,5; *l ,'l l , , p . .
- n. i.- ;@C.&.. .., ..< p N. W
.....- e. .;.. . .T. ~ -t 9 .
i;fy.% Q ::s;: % Te* yin>,3,d v m;c;
%.E~ y..m ;,p$ &Y.e.;
t .
- '"' W;.c.c. '. .
N# jd%4'cMMW U*5df,IINNMkh* ^; board, but not both at the same time. See also 10 C.F.R. f 2.721(d); 42
. Fed. Reg. at 22,129.
M.;;.%.gMy.
~ . -M. 4sg..,; .z.sq....W. 8.e+w%.. r-q%?M @.
5"frx ..'M..y@eNiike M - RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION f.eg r g [Mgh.e h g g;g ;;; [.a 7tyg ~p.g y .+ y...y uforth r Stay motions are decided by weighing the following four factors set L.3. g. .*.-d&.ve. c.u.y m. .. . -.v in 10 C.F.R. f 2.788(e): s
.,np. . e.u, . . .
~
r, /. @ y c.K;p g sc.E'o:P*b p-.y.r.sw f
- w. .t* 9,%n. :/Wg %.,. q 4 w+ Mm. ~.
4%uM, C.+ a' 7
.*g.p ' *h ~vad(1)onWhether the moving party has made a strong showing that it is likely to pre.
the merits; [.; ~reW.
$ J.M .
1 (2) Whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted; %j.% mig'$.kJs8V Me.[4 % M).J. .y ' ' h
? */
e ~
, Z. t (J) Whether the granting of a stay would harm other parties; and (4) Where the pubhc interest lies.
5.<- F BMG*W N *W*.My*Q J.Qdh.t 6% 4 .f. ~ X g@ M 2%' $.."%. g.,./.**4.?@b.p. ^* MRULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION .h.A.u N pk.g.b.r g.ss$h @ ." 5g, h, . :{ (IRREPARABLE INJURY) .rg;y.#.c.y r. p 1 D .f. : PA The second factor of 10 C.F.R. f 2.788(e), irreparable harm, is often -> gW .td'R.'.p ' 4cA.a . ...g,c,,m*c. . #. w ., the most important in deciding whether a stay is warranted. Philadelphia dhi . W[. . Electric Co. (Limerick Genera *ing Station,' Units I and 2), ALAB-789, h$cpw,b.N.hhk[g.4e i %. 20 NRC 1443.,1446 (1984). a, ~My QTP r h M/ SPA.x.wTA@.;.?!.R <mw@%.gOPERATING LICENSE PROCEDURE: RESPONSIBILITY OF D:.;ei.hkM.M:>[h@m:m y- fPw::b i8b, W:: '.2 : 7$ NRC STAFF 4g M 7 e The delegation to the NRC staff of post. hearing verification of certain .M.N8!WW:4:~. r.. W ~D, g# b,,d 2,2 . R s& 7 -Jj- s h @ i?J h . a . Splanning measures can be proper, depending on exactly what emergency
- h. W w is left for verification. See Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford W.S.m.W ,ipc .N.,%:q)w,eh... * "f.c.t. .-Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076,1103-07
..N Y~.Mj~b. 52 @ E d;. % .N ,'.M J d Steam M.W 6 f,,rWX::.~*. y;.e.t;+:p' W:S % (1983)*
- v. p- , . .
m :.p:.,.:. c ..
.'-M.
v.. ;,v:. m.. .. ..d.P *
. -. .L.e.
1; v
.. . - . . ,~ y&... m . . .. .
~.
c 1::.T.:T'.-:n." 9f,. < rf~Qd. 4 P '.' *;.n '..
. 'n
- -' -;: EMERGENCY PLANNING: PREDICTIVE FINDINGS
.W.2..M.
v QQu . .,b. ,.aW M. M@r . . "- V: s The
,n. predictive nature of findings is the essence of litigation in the W,Y;.F.$. v . .+.
M..%_ T.4.O,e .a .R
.. .'8;*2:.f. emergency O.'. C.'!!;Dp. planning area. Thus, an emergency plan need not be final,
. .s v just sufficiently developed to provide reasonable assurance that adequate u..n..
4:S Wgt.. .:.f M, @ T* 7. !$ ;C.".?.i -f#. 4 , 4 ,.protective
%w measures %e# Jcan.'andawill be taken in an emergency. See id. at m ,.w.~. . . . ,4. .
,:.07.m.,
.u.4 . . . r.w.
r . g .: e.v.9 . M,: i103 04.
% w. .5? 2. ;* * ..
i.-f.-op. .;;;. c . : . a . *
- r:lV. . ~ ~ .n. . . c .u': .. sr . . '. .*
.nyos r~ ?. ~..-~ ,
^
.o.
- s WC M.=,p.;, @ . x'..:
J.:W m@a :.
.. .,..";;i; y
,. ._s ..,
. g.a .s 3 h*ty.
; . ...y .r.
. p .- w:
yj. * . : . -9g^ ~ y *.',t, , g
. 8 s ' . 4%, 3 -
L,,a M y,..;,si.Y 9:. *:r.: *k w'$ , . .y .c.*. ..&> **-
. .g.;;$$ .k.. .h- sp '_ -
- .~.
,f.... -v -: n . (.- .
.'....o.*.;--
. < . ; r.-A . ~ . - .
.r
*. .] #5 4 *q . **. , f- {. :.fq aF f**'[* ~ - " * ;
-- ,.- i. .. ,, .1.7,. . . ' .. .. 15 %
.e . .
; . . .L : :. 9.;~.u.,gf. ..M.QtA* ..4...
3.y. . ~ , ;; , ..
-.A O$: . $Y.?VhI"**bW:6*:~. f 4W,8 b. C.
%*M* '.p,.psM f.'J;.g gg 6.M.,
, . . .; .-7. - f.. .y-* . .. . 9
. .. 4
% p * . . . . . : n. ' *
- ll?.[(,, h. ., jf,p. . . 7,"f. ,5 .t ..:11
- h. 1
- n. ..~ ,
******~~'*"'**'"*"'Q""**'""*?f'f**.4 J . c. . &, ',r. . .r
* .n .
. . 0 ,.
3
", ]. b.':Y. ;. . .'. *, *M*'-r* = s '"'.- 6 >
...*t m,
. .n -~ . .. ' -
s ,*
, i .s r. -q y*. m L';;.':rw*. ,
; ~7 ,.., ',.
- * ;:q * * '
- i _;_
,a. '.'
.j [d .e .. . . - '**' . ./ 4. irk V, y 4 .
^
*). $ ,, - ;,
e.i. '<r.w, * .
, p,F O ($i j,* g* i,s , ,
^
w a p.
- f ** * ,
, , . s
l ., ,. .. , ( . .
~ . ~ -- . '.,:... , : . l. .'. .+ W '*, .
.:;a;,. ,.
'. - N
.s -
- t. ;. 1
..). A.}-l ~
.52 Z . OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS: ENVIRONMENTAL
. . ;. . . : p .' .: . .-
..- . i ~.. _.,. AND SAFETY ISSUES
. ., . v. .t- ..
, .w. 2...yg.g. ; , .y In comparison with low-power authorization, different and more seri-
{' , M P'T '- . . ous considerations pertain to full-power authorization. See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2),
.,. ~ .MM._ -. ,
CLI-84-5,19 NRC 953,959-60 (1984).
$L.dS@hm,. d ['- :ih...;;M:a M.
- 3. .:t; ,: - m
.. u .,:. . e ,.j .. W : . y
~.
~
c.:n k.c. 3-
- m e, p.,7.O; ,-1.- -
.' E. RULES OF PRACTICE: CONSOLIDATION
.v:.:
- . u .-;:. p .in:.:, - . "w-
.@;Mh .
. By Commission rule and policy, consolidation ofintervenors with the Oy.:.-f
'k' -
:'W9.l:?l ' nyi,*.Y i': ' *6. 71$
- f...Thf-S.}f - H f. 7i same interest is acceptable and encouraged, providing that no undue prejudice results.10 C.F.R. f 2.715a; Statement of Policy on Conduct of
'. i. .' y J
'd.*h.,I.k.
.- e ' .D.i
. o Liccasing Proceedings. CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,455 (1981).
.g,,. ,, v..~.g'pp.-:,4..?
"'),c. f.- Y 1. i! , - :. -
RULES OF PRACTICE: CROSS-EXAMINATION J-1 .. G. . .
. . '.W. Z.!~#.,
. . . , -m. . *.,P.-W y.
(LIMITATION) y~ - i Limitations on cross-examination ar.e. appropriate in certain circum-
.?,
M';),p_, g,3 stances and, even where improper, actualprejudice must be 'hown to es-
- . , . p;G:4- ,
M tablish reversible error. Waterford,17 NRC at 1096.
, . v. up.r.:wn. . . ,; 4
, . arm ,q {. * "A '* - ; f* ,m,.,a 71 5 .; ,-
.Y@j.ft.wp " ' M:
EVIDENCE: ADMISSIBILITY (SPONSORSHIP BY EXPERT)
. ,. ,..,g.v.. .
r; / =.'- . 4 Exclusion of evidence for lack of sponsoring testimony is consistent
~~
- i.vd. ?s.G. . /- with NRC precedent. See Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear
.,... . . +. - .. c y_ - ,; -
Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-669,15 NRC 453,477 (1982).
... s.
... . . p .-
s.
.-a w : .':< --1 , . * - [!
.'T
- . ,, e -
OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS: ECONOMIC ISSUES s Rate issues and the like are not cognizable under the Atomic Energy 5 ,.A.- '
.i Act, which is concerned with protection of the public health and safety
~c
,....,:.. 1 4. ~ J
. from radiological hazards. State utility commissions, and in some in-
. ' dW ;.1 ...
#,I t~.[. stances the Feddral Energy Regulatory Commission, exercise economic
. j-%j.t- ?J- f,'l., regulatoryjurisdiction.
, f .i . W. ;;S r a** .tr. :* ** *. * **r.'.
- . ..q,.'.
. . n .; n .
. J. .y i':.yn,. '
- )-
- .w. .,. q: ;. . ,.t: . , o . '/ - - - ., n:
RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION
...n:, .
5 .-N . c. .( For stay purposes, it is often necessary and appropriate to take into ac-
~ :J.R
. ~ ".
- .. f.J. f-1 ; ; .A , . count various matters not actually litigated in the proceeding - provid-
'J j ing proper documentation is supplied. See 10 C.F.R. I 2.788(b)(4).
- .;:.. . a.
.i-'-
.$. . c. ,-9. f;,'*;t.
P
,t o f se 7. l , *g
*. * $cl *1
.--y ?'Q,.-._
, s; ,
, .
- 1. - t?. :r)._ , . . ,. ,
i 4 JJ .
~~l 1597
,'l'-
. je f$ f, **[N-
* - ,a ' * - t .A .
s_ 7
- 4 .I
, . . c .
. b .' * . [ ,9 *
~
.' , * ' ' " ' ~ ~ ' " ~ l'.
e -
* . . * ,.'p. *-
.,j . ,
.', . 4 - .
-_ ____--_-_____-______L-_. :- _ _- _ _ _ _
- e .y t
- p. .(./c,,t. :, o.: o ,
% .%g[e.g. ..r.~....P. e"
~
y..
'..C.-
$ W'fi'; .??G:.4
.$.i 3 /f c s ". E h,.,%, ..
, . ~d.'N.'.) .- .,'~ .
.m.'.
w
- w. s..%m : % w.- s w .m J<-...
- ,c . .
W: &.: .>.y&. , ,e- f=- w... sl;::a~f.?. . . rc h~ . s-
'$.:~.".^6 ? ; ' N? *ll ms- t
- . . : : . : ~ .. .....-..e-...
-' .-~~---~~.~~L*--*N'".Y c w.* zy 9.Q,N.
n
~
n . r -> ;/.~.,;,. m
. - - i.
s
%?7, n .xa-e. t . : '
~=gr r-h6z.%. c ~'r,ED. . .M.3..m :.$..,c%. /. "~ r .rWep i$ -(.'.*i. . ,/, W D by ;- . c .. 1 < ,
9- v p. -@ l... 1 U. r K.. a
- a. i1 )'.,,;.c p . - .
y,ys ;.w,. s.s<S 2 ut
.S. ,,.: :.n. k .sA.-s ac . s- . w= y= g. ,.p. ,y -, , 4. . . , a .'
.: x -
&m @pfc:pv.=NDbmMDjL ' RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION icN A A .1- @%f.ce. A cpg.*p g m.., S 2 azun.~. M&Hwk.a.-;e rg
- q. r <. Under the third stay criterion, the Commission has in the past taken
- .- w . e.e.
9-F.iM..,. e.5. .n. pH. : W+$,.,a;x .v . into account the economic harm that an applicant might sufTer if a stay w ,,n w .p . %n.: T-QM: PY %% #'M$$$$g,.1 kygh@@.X: ofits license is granted. See, e.g., Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), CLI-85-3, 21 NRC 471, 477 (1985);
. h??
- 7 Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2),
M M.g% s N.,.Wen M, .T'47$; - _Wf ALAB-404,5 NRC 1185,1188 (1977). & .u *' % ,. & W.+ . %. p.h. _ W*_%,% F my - L '% w .n w mp.. y %g ,w c fyr cgu
%y., @ied:
.n
, ,$; y R, fc?p ? w . APPEARANCES
. g ps%e.., $,cag,wr'3 h
,.g g,hyrdew>
w W6 a.cr , Phyllis Zitzer, Pottstown, Pennsylvania, for intervenor Limen,ck Ecolo-II ^
- QQj. aY.fk.f.$~W@ .
h *
'n .Op@ Troy B. Conner, Jr., Robert M. Raden and Nils N. Nichols, Washing-L
~ 3x *a;w @ ' ..W 7 . _ L. 4.sr p' d.#.>& % ton, D.C., for applicant Philadelphs Electric Company.
se g.p. . :- ! $e , w 1.g ?,.d.5,$$.$NS 0 $d". 1 Donald F. Hassell and Joseph Rutherg for the Nuclear-Regulatory
- Commission staff.
. .[hhfMY. - Ih~'b... -
- * .s 4 -
w .m$w$ g-..%;f Msw.m"'.N..m.h,, . h.- p..u, % .n - '
- ~
N E$d..f. s(.y. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Nkc.sc.u..k.h2& n*.N Y w=.--m gMA[w.IM:p 2
- e. ...M :
j wy 2 n.
- .c.m.
M7. . ' C
.?
M. N. r,... cA uv M. yt . Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action (LEA) has moved for a stay of t , M~ q>- &y k, M*..a..'>p. .;,:.z.a 3 @. h ,..E;.
~
,w . ue5 ;r the Licensing Board's third partial initial decision (PID) in this proceed- !*h d Ty.%; < pfff+3@,,,! ?'s.-R :. M c. ing, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC 1219 (1985).8 In that decision, the Licensing
-~. 3.g ,.:.;M.M Ii.C'idy'NM;4*F; .@~ * ,r,.M.9; c
. cv ..hi Board resolved all remaining offsite emergency planning issues (except
%t G nw *x .7 for those raised by another intervenor, the inmates of the State Correc. ?'&(3,T.Wff pf..";f hy../QL.s?.,/c. t.. '.
. tional Institution at Graterford) in favor of applicant Philadelphia Elec-
% d l. ' ~
, y. 9. -M. . .k.. , ,i,E]Ms,n .,,.M. -. . 5'.i
, . , tric Company (PECo) and imposed two license conditions.2 PECo and
~2.c& .-yza.. (:- _.,*.: .
- c. .ag:e c w .%.. x .- v.s,, a.
., :mph.. c: ,y,.4. m. .q . .Mr.,;.
* ,&.s.3~ : W. ., * * ..
%'$ &.l S N.nt.y .' c -? >?- ;;
j.A.lhI.hA.MJ.4 (( d / 'f V* Id ): ki , . ! 3 LEA riled its motaan for stay on May 16.1985, and supplemented it with a rihns on May 20. In an un. hihE/.CD,h.* EM*MI~'d-h 0$Its YS$.5 'f pubhshed order assued on May 22. we accepted the supp6ement as umely. D[g$.
- ry ... ~i , M .Wf(,.p,3^. ..' c '2i .
e ' -%' ,;A .i Q, I Because of the outstandans tasues concermns the inmates, the Board's decision did not contain an au-gg%'S D W.' l'?t ;%.';J'-N.'d y, i .u t . .JJ;j .J thonzat on for the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon (NRR) to assue an operaung hcense to
. ' J'f*n.*7.'t PECo. The NRC stafr argues that, in the absence of such an authonzation, there is no Board "acuorf' g#p. .y., , i ' , that LEA can seek to stay; it thus urges us to deny the mot on on that ground. Obviously, if no immedi. .$T. puf 4ff.*f.'. 4.*-. ". yI.;-'M' ;l[.M. ~ , ,,,6.Q'.." ' * .~7',,, [*'- ate action will come to pass as a result of a decision it wdl be quite difrecult for a movant to show the ir.
reparable harm that is required for a stay. See p.1599, sa/re. But under the Commission's Rules of Prac. I '#E. NJ .V '.'N,,'
- 4 - >- h '.',~I,.p Q0I G'4N Q@d',. ,.' .;.' ..
uce. a party may seek a stay of "a decision or acuon." 10 C.F R. ) 2.78s(a). See 42 Fed. Reg. 22.128 DM. g e p.e.v.r. l,I/T. ff w' .wr . . ;, . .. 22.129 (1977). Thus, outnght denial or dismissal of a stay monon on the ground that the decision s. mereiy p.estve would not appear to be;usufied.
'N . *
.c$*-f y ~s{.h . * ' ~ , %.Y. b,. <.-- N0*'****O w.w.
f, p.p, ".y: m,aMpku.e,p.
.. g : L.,',.s.<
...~..,;-
. . . . .3., . .
- y. ;. ,n.. x,.y. p. ... .+
v m. . .
.~. -
,39g
-v.t,' ' .
~. . c.? l' ' . * * :. I.;
sga:.1,.. m . w.. n. +e ~.n e < .,~ ..&.. rA.5.,:':i . ,. 9 . +w#.y;g
. . ~ ,
3J 'y p-w s.y.pu . .,. . j ;*- ':..
.ta.& ..W . mf. Yt [.d^ c ., *4,.Ie"L.JTfC,.ri' .-A- 75. *S ~. a
. . ,w
.h h ,2 .
. fh,.. .Y ?4c.> -
-~~v'- ~.w " , .- ~ ~ ~~~~ ""~ -
', . .. 7.
' 2.a v,..*?.. .~
. . , , .- ' '~" " *' "K.'.',**"';r~m
%*.,- ~l ' 'Y f..l;, .rs.s ?.G , vp *,m -<< l .*' .'....vlt
-c,y '- Z.p ,l~ a; -.%',. . .
v
'- g.,4,. L
* *.....W '
,v..
- n. .r. ,. s 4 . , .. : av & ~
- a v -
m,.+ , 7.g ,, p . % u .my.- + r,m,*A . @< :rW. . - ..,
(
- .:.=.-. -.- - . . -
4 ,..g
.t ; * ,
. ., a g
.w. ,
- v. .
.~, m <
. . , . . -s , . . . -, ;3.
J : ~^ . f. ; r. , o. 1/
.u.:.4 .:
' ^ ,
s.e . m , 1
...:......-. c . . : a. .. - - -- ~ w- .---- -
. i: .
- e.,, f n , ;. ,..
- . ;. ?. , ,. ....;
,. ',, , p .cc: , 7 . -: S- the NRC staff oppose the motion for stay.) For the reasons explained u.
,f.Dlb..v, .% 'f,I
. t. w:.:s,.. . :u below, we decline to stay LBP-85-14.
.',j..,..-*
[. 4
.si ':
'.-g;O.W. % ?Q.? ' i . ' >
,3[,' : ,\
, :y : C' .
C.? ; .. A.
..r s s ..a .~. .m, ...~:n . _... . ~. &... w ... ...
QN.i-S; %..QQ. . ' d* :.f.: Stay motions are decided by weighing the following four factors set
?1 . J ' '.w(* .. ..[.
F.%.6
.e
. .- s. t.
f a'?,'%. t.v
- .T.W .+;?
,r.
forth in 10 C.F.R. f 2.788(e): d is, y ;;% .'
....r..<.e..:.m y;. :: n . ,. - ..
, i. p' C g. , /c.,ju.[-pf.5
.. . (1) Whether the movmg party has made a strong showing that it is liitely to pre.
i.;;. . A "
' O.}".?ikM'*.R.' ' ?, h ! vail on the mertts;
.c, ~ ' .
.,V..>.%..,.
s
- y, .4.Q.* .. t. g. ly
- I [ .
(2) Whether the party will be irreparably iryured unless a stay is granted; t ,,'
@. ....: . ,,. ^. . .,,t9.. :i (3) Whether the granting of a stay would harm other parues; and e .. i.
', c ,- , ,, . ' ,,.f.itp. 1, M. .c.
Q.?..f y;o ... (4) Where the public interest lies.
..s. ;,G
{
- v. .., ; . m
..v,< a- . . . 3., a.>.. c ;ep.,@. ..
w;
. ., /q.i, e .- ' ' g.
- . . ~;,p .7,m Further, as we noted just last fall in addressing several earlier stay mo-y c. . , c. ' Q.,., A.. , j.Q. : ...m
. tions filed in this proceeding, the second factor, irreparable harm, is
' @.e 1 [ ..' W!Mr.y/.. q-p . ., *r
. often the most important in deciding whether a stay is warranted.
'. ' u J. .q.. ;1M .9.- '. ALAB-789,20 NRC 1443,1446 (1984), and cases cited. We now con-
. i . W.4 . :.+- . sider each factor in turn.
.. ..w m.~:;ew-c c .
.u
- . f.M.c.. id- ., l :2
., c. ,
. ... . c.
. . m .
.w,,l -: :.; %
m.
, , , B.
1.;m. .. .- d.. - )A ; l'
. .9. ., 5l: %at;,. M...r 9 0 ,.?
+ . .
.' ' . fMr: '
- 1. Presumably in an effort to make a strong showing that it is likely
? Q f..i, M..CS #. to prevail on the merits, LEA raises several substantive arguments in
. ~ ', . .y, y.% t , ..
. connection with LBP.85-14.* LEA assigns the following errors to the
- u. ..r ..
^
.O. ..c Licensing Board's decision. First, the Board improperly delegated to the
> Q . R l;m .',.ff!:;.1 ; E M.. " . _ 1 staff the responsibility of verifying compliance with the two license con-
- 3. .>>
l-QGM"[ S,.eK
'5-y7
.' ditions imposed by the Board concerning (a) traffic control in the King of Prussia area, and (b) municipal staffing needs during a radiological
- 7. 4 3: _ .
' . y. ..
e s - .c.'%
- e. . e Se that as it may, events sutiesquent to the fihng of the stay motion (but preceding the staff's stay
, ~- ri " . . h.al=? M, .JY.Jj . '- oppostoon) have put more teeth into LSP-45.l4. In an unpublishe(order assiaed May 24.1985, the
. o . . Licenans Board granted PECo's request for an exempnen from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 50.47
.c gi; f f'?.y<y l-f .; .
insofar as the issues raised by the mmates are concerned. The Scard thereby authonzed the Director of [- 'x. y ,, , .i *MM,W 'N NRR to issue an opereune hcenes to PECo notwithstandmg the conunued hugauon of the inmates' pro-a N*ff$g', 6*e* N. 5 g * . D"D "* posed oGmee emergency pisanang contentions. Appeals from and monons to stay the May 24 order have
..,. been filed and will be addressed in due course. The doctmon here is hmeted solely to the issues raised in
, p 7;, gyp *ia?'.%;:v.".
1 '.i,3 4 w --*J'. . ;=: {J. .. LENS May 16 and 20 stay papers.
. - N,.1,gv ,. .1. . . ..
. y
...h.iv. 3 PECo and the semir filed their responses to the monon on May 28 and June 4.1995, respecuvely.
',. - f M h+ .s-y /Q
/' . - F.Q*%
PECo argues that under several NRC cases. LEA should have minally sought a stay from the Licens. [ ins Board. The cases PECo cites however, were superseded eight years ago when the Commission pro.
.,.'", N.gp ac.; q$h,. $ - ..y,-),
1 7;.M ?[.[ A, mulgated 10 C.F.R. l 2.788(n. That provision emphcitly authonzes the fihng of a request to stay a hcens.
~* ' * k seg board decisson before either that hcenmng board or an apposi board, but not both at the same time.
'II U YlDt' " k . ; ,,,. 'g a.. O See edse 10 C.F.R. t 2.721(d); 42 Fed. Res. at 22.129.
, 7;y.$. .; s,, .
.A.. 4 Many of I. ens arguments are not presented clearly enough for us to address rneaningfully. The prob.
(*.'a'J gy. .W M . w.:. .' lem is worsened by LENS feelure, m all but a few mstances, to cue to the poruons of the Licenang 5"..Q' g ~J .f .Jr ~ af'.%r.Q. Board's 306.pnge decimon to which it cepects. We therefore discuss the poents we find most discermble.
.g .. y; .-
./..- .
- . n 1599
~
e ,s.,-j. 2: . c'" . -
,,., . s
.. * *g . . . . .
. J ;r. -4 ,'yg Q,) ' ~
,g 1 '. .(
=.
Ml*
.<s.; -
,., .. ., ,y, . ., - .m. . ,., ,.
, 1 .p- 1.t t . . . . ,- '
.l
. u : . .y, - . L -1 .
-
- a
)
.e.' 9 p
- g s ,, - *
, .%, . *
- 1 s.,
_ -___:____. ________-__-.____w._____ _ _ _ . _
;QwNp;p:;. C v.sV , ., '., .,
x-P . ;, C, M_iUAM.W*.9%7 m n.n.9. 9
;.; a.<-:.
w
.... m.,rm.EiM w . .
' E sr. J,
$ '??d e,.'
'1(;'K 4 . pg s ..e ,
Y,4$N. p.v. .. . - -;., w.y
' ' 4 s
& meg 2M,. .am+G.: j.. = vTE w ,MMU'b,. c.'
L
~f*
M O-YQQa.ccww.Wrim . .,n'.w;7p * . e..
.~~
<~
h . h* wj.h.;f.m .w
-M.r.%.jd-W.fM@h6%s/m#c fs:~f.. .
Fe.L.%.m... J. . m:ww.
.~:,# :p%::wAh'Q p..u
- W ~.~ .
?&%. e. .i Q. . m. ,2..m.:;.-%s,. l41*s . %:f. .'w(g 8
s
~.y.n
<u. .. w.ms -- . u
!d$IIRMM " e. .h~.
i*U.*. .w[W.:.WAqWhW[ S emergency. On the latter point, LEA claims that the Board ignored con-cerns expressed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's W'64 W 3FC F. L .M (FEMA) witness. Second, the Board's predictive finding of reasonable
. m.nm a
- g. ..m.% pig %e r.: .
- "n assurance - that local governments (particularly Montgomery County)
[+d s p,3d[%c [
,, -' F j"[j and school districts will, in good faith and in accordance with state law, adopt and implement final, adequate radiological emergency response y y plans (RERPs) - is not justified. To support its claim, LEA refers to
[.. g p.j+@dgg& s yj several recent FEMA memoranda identifying inadequacies in the plans.
~ >
E Third, LEA asserts that the record greatly understates the number of d '- - "[, " transport-dependent" persons. Fourth, LEA incorporates by general q j N' %j.e reference the entire brief in support of its pending appeal from the w Licensing Board's second partial initial decision, LBP-84-31, 20 NRC fj'I " 446 (1984). Finally, in connection with the third PID, LEA complains
.d
,Yg# g % about several of the Licensing Board's procedural rulings as well - to
[. gj.*
+' wit: the consolidation of LEA and another intervenor on one conten-
~' ~ j.G tion; the imposition of time limits on cross-examination; and the exclu-W sion of certain evidence concerning traffic control.
W p 4.. t Qi, LEA has not made the required " strong" showing on any ofits argu-
- s %rJ 4W-M.,
p $' ments. First, the delegation to the staff of post-hearing verification of
;. certain emergency planning measures can be proper, depending on
~'
k
,. ..,.? G t* exactly what is left for verification. See Louisiana Power and Light Co.
- t. 4gg py bg (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076, fgg$ 1103-07 (1983). Here, the Board conditioned the issuance of the operat-u- '3?A
#' 4*
e ing license on verification of sufficient traffic control in the King of Prus-2.". , , ,. { " sia ares, and FEMA's satisfaction with municipal emergency staffing. $N ' d%- _[ @w .,?E.N ,f b Q m C W E According to the record - which LEA does not seriously challenge - the. former can be accomplished without problem by the establishment
$thfkk S,.-qh.s n. k@~ ~
hih(h7]
.i w. D . :n h5MN of a comparatively few additional traffic control points beyond the boundary of the emergency planning zone (EPZ). See LBP-85-14, 21 W.M '.'. @.--s ~b. p~cW7 * .a...%:. NRC at 1254. 9,QAccordingO to a recent FEMA memorandum (more recent V%.$'M@G.W -g-)5?pd*p-f than those on which LEA relies), determination of these points is now NNkh EN$hgM3 .
under way. Memorandum to E. L. Jordan from R. W. Krimm (May 21, Odi%bPd-
$%yd@y[M%yOy.M gMi#, 1985) at 2 3 (attached to letter to Licensing Board from D. F. Hassell (May 22,1985)) [hereafter, " FEMA Memorandum"]. As for the h
M.f m S. q .1,w. n ,. w'OM .. 0 .g.; . W Ji'.'@M municipal staffing !.W needs, subsequent to the Board's decision, FEMA QJf g; determm. ed that " adequate staffing now exists in all risk municipalities NM?d.M.j@@.e$h..&q*.A;.C..?
$*ftTh~3.@O i~4M.' .. *.4 yifMggg; .-
DE"Mh,fd.. .l to respond to a radiological emergency over an extended period of time." Id. at 3. Thus, any concerns in this regard expressed by the @ "$MTf M,. 6 il%g~ 4 ; K R W S E J.
.".~ e; M.: w
- d % T .
FEMA witness at the hearing appear to be resolved. See LBP-85-14, 21 NRC at 1366. ( n-
"B.M :FwQ'-g;al .m.e y. LEA's arguments about the adoptability and implementation of the
$/A sin g municipal RERPs are likewise unconvincing. As LEA seems to acknowl-f*$ps~;kl(b % W. .,G oW9.;w 'h &q.vM a;. W. .
- ? . f.f'" Y M ' i. @, &, D$W .W..p;4.T- Q A b -
4 p . .'? - W: d u: w'[. 1600 w,y.7.. mowaw :.y. . h *D u.W.&.p*.&g.$'. s h.mJu w yymbe&?~-Y5?'*:'M gg!.s ,
-m ..
m f.*.n . . ;
?-w?.,, . , k'?Ih: --
. 1., ,.a
, . .; . . ; 1 ..
Y . :s;,; h:. .;i: Ni
'~ ~'~* ~ '"*~ ~ '"~ " ~~' B . ?w .'IT , i
%g. n,,f h:se er'" s$,,,%y :='w+h,..ff. ' i.
- . .m .
.: s .
x.u ; *. . J
.. - , . +
.. c. .'b m %::
-tQ %.<z;$w :e-m,w ::m.e .'o?n. ' J:e
?
m a' ,2 a:
l> 1 . s.
..r , - .
.; o .
.y W
l , c. ; 1.t .; . '
,. s
.. t r. ., . .',:n:gVjzy.5.g. A M1c.A r e- ?
< < %, -h l.:.
-;.( ... _ .
I ,
' I" 2
.u . . . . . ..- l 4 +.
W , .; .m . ps: r ,q. . : . - X ~, . L'J /?cX ; - Il[- '
@?.I@gcI. Q. , ~.[.
h. edge, the predictive nature of findings is the essence oflitigation in the emergency planning area. The plan need not be final,just sufficiently de- [f . . . :. . . / > % . /lff 7 s 5 y' v. veloped to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective meas-g . c.? ' ' ures can and will be taken in an emergency. See Waterford.17 NRC at [ ~ j.F,. 5. .. ylQ.g('[ (if I.I [. J . # 1103-04. Although only a few of the local jurisdictions involved here gM(U[ M. , .'.g;.Mn .
. 2.';pj. .
have actually adopted " final" versions of their plans so far, draft plans yMC . 4."..C exist for all entities (including Montgomery County) and were intro- @ % %*.:4*% 3p.s'M/ @ .^6[ duced into evidence at the hearing. They have been reviewed by 3D.M@kM ;
.;d 7 g $ v.,N y'. y Q fjcN- N / b. '
Q7..ctn YN * . ' . FEMA, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and other officials.8 There is no credible reason to believe that the RERPs will not be adopted fol-3[.. Whl 1;J ['Q":$M ript/c . W~ .t.d..,S: M.P@.' mally in the future, although it is expected that they will undergo further revision, given the very nature of emergency planning. See LBP 85-14, M. 4. s
~'. ..'<l.M..phtJ.e s .w. . .
j , u/T/ L 21 NRC at 1369-1402. LEA has given us no cause, in its stay motion, to V:.; doubt the Licensing Board's reasonable assurance finding. Cf Detroit
. SJ: .i *. ".f * ;
U.hT M I'; yr.T1,%, M" .W)., O,. Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-730,17
. ,. >M'5 9D. r?; NRC 1057,1067 (1983). LEA's objection to the survey method used to
%~. '- ,g? +' b...'..ifi. j}'Ryg[p.iM.1
~
gf
-g- >:!.
determine transport-dependent individuals is also unavailing. The Board has adequately explained the discrepancies between the survey and Je$ census data. See LBP-8514,21 NRC at 1245-47.
<Y;' -
f Q.:2 '
'N.
. ?'f.ph. Insofar as LEA refers us generally to 'its ' fully briefed argu'ments on
%. , (;gTJf M $ .' ? N appeal from the Licensing Board's second PID, it fails to make a strong i M 'l . .. showing that it is likely to prevail.* We are not yet prepared to rule on
,'.O. , .
.. :; .. ,., y. q,.tig. _,e
,.c.u .Q'$ *: . ,the merits of LEA's appeal from the second PID. Our study of the
- c. / v. - y ; g .c matter thus far, however, reveals no error that would warrant a stay
~ - PfW - here, in connection with possible full-power operation.
M. With respect to LEA's procedural objections, we see no obvious error 3:%y'
,, w ,1 -A >
in the Board's rulings. By Commission rule and policy, consolidation of H' ',' @ ~ ...O intervenors with the same interest is acceptable and encouraged, provid-
\, '
". f *'S. W $'t ,
l ing, of course, that no undue prejudice results.10 C.F.R. I 2.715a; State-
. . *Q ^~ j \ \. ment of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings. CLI-81-8,13 NRC 1;, { '.;.. 452, 455 (1981). Limitations on cross-examination are also appropriate
..e in certain circumstances and, even where improper, actual prejudice e.' ',i. ... .? . ,, '. .
m
; . : pg ,
must be shown to establish reversible error. Waterford.17 NRC atT096a..'
- t
. ic" ' s.: .q .;r*.:4 W - -
-Q; .: *.y .(*>. L \
a 2-:.1 -.i 4'; - -
< . . . ' ' .;.'#3 5 '; . .: *
' "[% : *.t IMomens and preparednese donciencies eerher HlenufIed by FEMA have now been corrected to
*..' ;J ' k*: ' 7y {.# ?.'tb ..y . U 's ? FEMA's neuefection. See FEM A Memorandum et 12.
. ,- ; " . M C. 6 LEA con property resse ergumente concermns the Board's second PID here, in the context of its re.
~ .e: .?
quest to sesy the Soord's third PID. LEA's two earher requests to stay. in e!Tect, the second PID were
.* .'*i-..- ' ,
4..-; Q@Jc.. .,
.CJ
' ';"f *' ".
domed by both the Commesmon and usL See Commesonon order of February 19.1983 (unpubhshed);
. y?".C.. D 'l c 5;; . Appui Board Memorandum and order of November 23.1984 (unpubiashed). But those mouone were f- /.' 1.'.
- h./ .,J;
. filed in an assempt to enjoen the bmposer operation authonzed by the second PID. Different and more N.
%- ~3 ,C./;
sonous cunenderatione ports to full-power authortzeuon. See Ascific Gas and Elecerse Co. (Diablo
, ' % _Q. .?' * * #Q Canyon Nucteer Power Plans. Unets I and 2). CLI 84-5.19 NRC 953,959-60 (1984). LEA may thus renew its eerher concerne inso(at u mer pertain to the Soord's therd PID. the penulumste decision i .h
- ag N;c
? v q.j.' : . '; O.Q' %[
before ruil-power authonsauen. 4 *r
.~ s:
e 3
-.J.. ri a
,~,o
.-c
'. }m .'.
>. b m' ' 3., f
* . .l
+
=
< e . ,o es, , . ___ T.,3 ,*
n
~ ,
'Af f,, f
, . . .t
- . L -
*) , * '. , .
.;= * *
,j ,
- ' " ~
$ h k . h .N.k W ? $' *' /* >~
u '
'AY!l WMi9%.W.R f.'.? + . ' *:.? C
- e.
d %&KM g% .p m.nh p"' L ' gc 5;;s .w _% , W * * . . . W..c
.w.w M ,7,.+
- _
& .Q;tM;ghh . . , .
~ 's 'r 4
~~ . , ~~ , ,. s . u. e .
'* W' m.% w.%
t.v. mum:4 . .
"::d M .w.v: ,v.,. : h nwnW
- @M 44"$h M. W @D.~+:$ M G T
~
ennN. 3 ; $$.4M? ~ .c.. . - : -+- ~22 Id m -
; m w .Ag
- w. 2*n-m W r>a4 <
V ' a *: w% mcQ s..c~rp.m,w ::WWy . e WW . U.k. s. y.. D yh h%ygMMD.M sMNRd%%! .-h[$-AC -
...(&l LEA has not shown how the various procedural restrictions imposed by
, M$Rd M6W bi M % #.40hl% . the Licensing Board - as explained in its decision, LBP-85-14,21 NRC ~ peu .u,M.. y't.M 4;p,f.*.C: n h.? at 1233 have resulted in actual prejudice to its case. As for LEA's A y-g@g.93g% 4
.Q~ evidence on trafYic control, the Board's decision to exclude it for lack of i.yis.g.
sponsoring testimony is consistent with NRC precedent. Id. at 1241-42. W .e See Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-669,15 NRC 453,477 (1982).
.-.g y . 2. LEA's arguments of irreparable harm are rather generalized and s
.i? qY7," unpersuasive. For example, LEA contends that its interest in lawful deci-
@$ i>. sionmaking has been irreparably injured by violations of the National m
d b.. Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and un-NG$
.h specified regulations. Our response is equally general: if such violations have occurred, they can be corrected in due course through the appeal 5
m M.$
.c process and do not, without a specific showing, cause irreparable harm
. c.
so as to warrant a stay pendente lite. l ww.~ . .,j. INN... LllA also asserts that the risk to the public from an accident at Limer-1 c. Py.cr ick is greater than at any other plant in the United States, except for one h . g gf ] (Indian Point). Funher, LEA asserts that full power operation may for-i
..W3p'- M: ever render mitigating design alternatives. neither cost-effective nor
- f. O feasible (largely due to worker radiation exposure). But the premise of 1
' F;- .
ND'%
%g%ffc,g J.
- LEA's concern - the high risk to the public from operation of Limerick ba. ., .
- is based on an erroneous understanding of the probabilistic risk as- , ? ,. ; - he sessment (PRA) for Limerick. One of the few plant-specific PRAs, it b:. % e it.., . ?? 1 7 g,", shows that timerick's range of risk is about the same as that of other 4 ' (14y .e7 f s'>
7-# plants, especially those located in high population density areas, and is not undue. See NUREG-0974, Final Environmental Statement (April C. ; _~g $ kT h@N"T 4,g!EP k 1984) at 5-115 to 5-126. See also NUREG-1068, Review Insights on the Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the Limerick Generating Station
- h. ~&.hN$.hf$ pp. .p C'/4$fpWh'NN'T".y '/4T.-C.-
(August 1984), attached to Board Notification No. 84-147 (September 17, 1984). Moreover, although full power operation unquestionably en-M 3 t $ h 5. j f Ed 9 tails greater risks than low-power operation or testing (see note 6, h b h 2 M .I5 bio..MPjbn&r M $}?" F.fquh #
.?.c $. N h supra), LEA fails to identify a specific risk not already considered and a
&W9%.2;Ge.*
. w - A rr3. p m .r.t .hmM..* y- n - 7.-.
'o .
- Y-;
corresponding, real (rather than theoretical) design alternative to miti-gate i.t. MMJji$5.%$h'@i$$3E.;.lM:.Mi.W:r6 rGd MW; M N. M.pN
- 3. LEA asserts, without ofTering any suptiorting afYidavits or docu-mentation, that a stay would cause no adverse economic impact because i
p g,k.eg.-#cho - . Ik f a there is sufficient electricity available to PECo elsewhere at a cheaper cost. It also argues that, m any event, PECo s economic interests cannot 87 hEUWM:iG[h[5?:.ME[-$g Fr
'l properly be considered in light of our holding in ALAB-789,20 NRC at 1447, that such matters "are not within the proper scope ofissues litigat-v;bs e % &Ms. A9 %A.
.h@hE[kh. #r 'v& .Ry@Q@M ed in NRC proceedings." If economic interests were cognizable, howev-h,MMCfG$'M7!M%d-P$%
M@,#.M$9Mi[- NE.5.?.$.s
> . .K-o e.3 % q.7, p . x.*d?.?&,kf.b1
.s ;.
.n . - ,
M$.Y.:.,0.
/. .". : c%.v . *
.a 1602
! [I4 - , - .. .
I5hW h fF W Q'i%.#2.%:: C ?".**Q@y-l.k'W'h.~,,?r:$b'%g%GT;hM h.C-C b !. *:% is'.
. .~$nw.s%$&Y. h N , h ,h. .
a.- v h.4: sp~gua..
?. / . . , . =
.c ... ~~ "~'~ ~'"~~~v ** ~ ~~'%~*T'W
~.
k.ONN. UN . D. . N y.t* .
- 1
- s. p ;y./ M.9 ,.~ M. W .
- %hli UW , .h5MSN. ^J. .
',m b$' n f.Q n z.h:k.
1 * ' '
.C,;, . .
--p$$
~
. N/@Gi
. * .r fh?kY$
'^, ~ ,
lr 5 - -
-- ? J-
.- .- , ~ . ..+- : ? .c . Li ,, .a ' ..; n.; . .
. ; ry- . - . . . . . .. . ;.,.y y .; .g n .
.+4 , g, - ,
t
._ _ . ._. - . _ _ _ - _ . - . . _. - ; . . .a~.- .
~ . - - .
,. c. .s.' . . -
. Q % .. .'. .
,s -
- p; er, in LEA's view they would be outweighed as a general principle by
, ' y2 if Gy , '
public health and safety concerns. s A [ c. . > $ c 3:.M Y. ' ,.\h. .j LEA has misconstrued our statement of long standing Commission Y 'j- ik 9 precedent in ALAB-789. Rate issues and the like are not cognizable
.&.[ D , . Y.D"'s ., ' g,r'/. W -
under the Atomic Energy Act, which is concerned with protection of the .t., , l. .
' y .d%E ,. '.2. . . . public health and safety from radiological hazards. State utility commis-
. !6, .J.sN: f.yn sions, and in some instances the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis-M.
M .'S ../-g M, A' .& ,k^t.S. < M.D Mc N b .' d.f"
..s s ston, exercise economic regulatory jurisdiction. f.or stay purposes, how- ..B :> ever, it is often necessary and appropriate to take into account various 1%.3 c.;ry%. F .' ..%.$9 % 77 matters not actually litigated in the proceeding - providing proper docu- .'M r.&. . E.P.4-i. . % ,? '
mentation is supplied. See 10 C.F.R. f 2.788(b)(4). Thus, under the
. ~c g9. t 2, ; i,J., c.v.*M.H., y ..,. . 4 third stay criterion, the Commission has in the past taken into account
./p 9% ; , .$M(W 'c y:1 J' the economic harm that an applicant might suffer if a stay of its license
'w (. :'1 . q. is granted. See, e.g., Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Elec-G.: b. Ne$;:.U.CM 19B 7'~, .
tric Station, Unit 3), CL1-85-3,21 NRC 471,477 (1985); florida Power - : 9. - q, +-r% .c: ... , . . .
& Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-404,5
. 2 ,'..?. d .d . W ig' y' K . NRC 1185,1188 (1977). Furthermore, refusal to consider economic
~ ~ . .,/ v :7' -
harm would effectively eliminate the third stay criterion insofar as an ap-
-.@SQf
. , plicant's interest is concerned, because the harm most likely to be in-
~
197. fL' curred by a utility (paying financing costs on a completely constructed,
;h #
c., , ' Y" 'k % . 2 c but not yet operating, plant) is monetary. That is not to say, however, that this is or should be the principal basis on which stay decisions are
' .,'u. .
,, %)d. f. '{'y@ i ' ,. ,
based. Indeed, it is but one of the criteria that must be weighed under y ; 37.^_' . 10 C.F.R. f 2.788(e). Accordingly, PECo has called to our attention, if .
- - . NQ -
and we give it due weight, the March 14,1985, affidavit of V. S. Boyer,
,7 .
- ,Q.$ p.gf. <.
PECo's Senior Vice President, stating that delays in full power operation will cost $49 million per month, including $15 million in fuel costs
% ; . . . % ..s .
e _ passed on to customers.' A ' '- . 4.2 , '1 4. Under the fourth stay criterion, LEA simply summarizes its other
. mj
~
arguments, in an effort to show that a stay is in the public interest.
,, . Given that it has failed to make a strong showing of likely success on
~."..-:'.,..
. the merits, y,=m - " togabQh irreparable harm, and to counter PECo's aver-
?u..% ; , 4 .
- w- . A ) < fj. h- . [_.: ,q
, a >laj. : *-
~
. = = = - *
:p
- c - 4 ,.. .. .
' s.
~
.C# J. ., e
' ~D I This affidavit was previously filed as an attachment to a letter to the Licensms Board from M. J. Wet-g b. Y, " . ' .g: ;V t' $ [ ' _
.. .'., y terhahn (March 18. i985). amendans an earher monon filed with that Board.
* ,- C, 1 '** '7 : / .;; *, ;-
.' 74 '7..2 C< 9i
- nf-LEA argues that any economic harm to PECo is speculauve, mesmuch as full-power tesung and oper.
anon of Lamenet will not be possible m the comms months due to msufficient water for coohnt pur.
. K Ge. i ~ '; . ' '
posen The current status of the water supply PECo needs to operate at full power however is uncertam. g;e; W.,, All that we are aware of is that the Delaware River Basm Commission recently approved m 'part.
..'~',.. .?. .T
' s ;.,;y PEco's request for certam rehef that would temporanly enhance the amoum of water available for ocar.
.L. .f 5t
; .,',.@i . .' .
, +W. anon of Limenck this summer. See letter to s. Chilk from T. B. Conner. Jr. Uune 10. I985). Enclosure.
But it is worth nouns that. if LEA is correct in its claims, the tact of water and consequent mability to D - *l[;*[ f. < '; DS E operate the plant in the immediate future necessanly undercut LEA's claims under the second stay cn.
* # .-lJ.,
.;- C
. '/* j J .
,u. ' *
.[., fQ': .s tenon, o(irreparable harm to its own interest.
*y * -
~
1603 p ,, g ' o
.. ,,8 #,- f,.
,.}, .'# *5,",
^* .,
- '_ r G.)'
*k.
s.
-. %.. ~
_,.,g,$.,......,.......~,~.,.,. ,
- r. s, .
.~ T .
s ,.g
* . 1,
. g Ne * .
r .
m a.c'm# f
.J
- y'x.% .,'.k.
- *a n.- . . ' . a .? '.c .d. ,*x.c.- ' u. .g , ., :...- .<' .- .
~ . '
r s 4 u.. .h. .mm
.%. s.c. ~: , ... ..eme
. . : ? .t, .- '.
...e ~.~ .. .. v u
.O ~
j ' ; r..x,* ;. ,
- _--h 4.9-9 o e f , ,,
& 2*MQQy' @,4=lqW.pC . . , ;.r-: -~ ksY1.4%.v.wW-DWtM,. .4%= ; u
~' *
' M.;c:mA % "
wGw %~A.e;; ;>.v:.2F N'. . .W.; rne: .v.tf v. cs - - . W :
.8. 0.2 a v ;. . r f.<. h.. 9 :G l ,.' -
---- - ' - ~ ~ ~ - - - - -----~~ " S IM.n ..T.M. :1. 6.,ra ~W.p-sy~.
m i d M'6..'.9.'. u ;v
.~
. D,.. ,s .'. v. . I' ?r .'be '-
" 'y
,I 5 h. v': .1.
\
w :. ' . , mw *' .c. ? %+%.. +t. W M ; u%..,...,,,. e,%**' r .p dQh ;p &' *: ~ .. . =~. 5 L Wm. - . n .s., ,W.w :dg + 2 -s . w .c;:r.a..p. .e z: ~+ !w%% 6',.. .:e e .
. T. S... TM;c:~% ',~1..m:3% Nhe.
W.. *,w;Myc. ?~ s ment of economic harm if a stay is granted, LEA's final argument m:M,,%.@..g. M%. %$hu;.,m .
.y'
, A.p*CEWi?@.
Q Q r
.c %.m,;i;Cv necessarily fails p h.
m p,N; %y , as well. g'Z,:'t ?&m.R.n%.= L;p.;. yy;; 9 3 y.gJ.<, . . w.,n.,,u*a t
.- N 1 .- 3. . ~ !.. e
. -~%
$_ Q,.$
er h . l? LEA's motion for a stay of the Licensing Board's third partial initial 3 @ y decision, LBP 8514, is denied.8 It is so ORDERED. $. m S @ h.%g N"hdNh.Jp@M$%gs $6dMi$mM .E FOR THE APPEAL BOARD MW$WS$ 5 MAG Jean Shoemaker 9 6%%Nk;pfMO'4 CMM: Secretary to the m (. .4 p WN s%af .,V p d,4;Nm* - 4Md W.e . .;,w .ess., .- i Appeal Board w> [ mj *. ~ mn.r.)h,; . Mr. Edles did not participate in this memorandum and order.
- u. . . .
b- 5 m%.,;x.15;.m/.:.V.p: ./ ew .%*hW. c.w~. .- .. n d. r+ eez a..T.:.spd+' r +@g:
$.- g , $. n
,it; v e
.,?y. ~ff.lp..i.p. 9 ?~
, p tk. .v. y .f-v . . . u . ..F m,f.
*T-p h, a &, %.p.,~ ,s..gh :r..
w$n k g f., ?s w;;. - s .. $ y,})~i.em %s.Q. Am&$$h, ~>. i
,$M: yy %"
9 p mya h. . . mu :.- 4.hy' [.m t'%7 a ' =1 p..., C -
.bk A Jd M.a5h nQ *<.'* d.,J.y" f.bb*[de .. .b .w -
- 'k
? % k.wr.'.$ % % W .v BE:3 MA .a...M &@m@# w4 . -n.: .-ye @ q. b %cGXD;v
~'- *
. a -/m. e- ~
N[!. '. .. .',M;g,g+'$g,,hM.Lr inew '. r
- 3'W.:]* gO,e 'e- .
'-i;;..u:.
4 C **.: . .
-. 4:: s r+J~W.cm, ... ,;;*. <:v ,, r. .,r,4 .
4
..,om.
- c. .-A. p. Wca a
. , y .e . pm.J.eLy 4 .e . ..;p s,r... a . .~.*
> . ~ -. -
k3; 'e^=;.-j ~<.; N.. .. .N.. Q",'" ,x& .....e..n,... a 1gf. q. ,. .g .
,. '... .Q.'
. . .. s ** . -
l?y f u. .) '" Q;.*} f, Q [:~y Q ':f. .
+
. ' ,,;.,.,,4
, .gw v:. . ~. e.p g. : ,
. ~a . ..s.q . s.g* p. . , ~.a.
- e. .
. ..(... bw , . A. .-
- u. . ..p
.r ~. .,{ . ,s er.~; . s .y *$ *. + .4.+ ;. ; %,. .
J p.E, . ; w ,.,3,
.-.. e
, ~5 e
~
1 y.,. 3 t c' . N g ,h a r. , . '.;&. ..y - f,, u'C. . y a2.?w.%W:< ,.il4.V.y)6.i,O'., .
.s.. .r,~* c. . s*w,~.:s ;.y-p.
.-.u..V,. '.'\.*f. .pq~.'.,.
.; 2 / ,. 4 -;'
I v.u, a.r.";f . , .c%. m v .-e < . ne.s -
.-~..~. .i. i---.~. :;y;Q,. 4- w.,.m.;:tc..
' pu,: s.$ ~,,.l p% n a.mc.s .'.. .., *g,' -
...-.7 y
; r .s. J.~Q. y1:
.. "..,'y %. 9v%. r -,f. 7. ,9 ;.
5.;v.. ..
-QO,QCjiW4 :Rs h ,*.. .:v !.
;M,
. .p.';. ' % .
. v:. : . . ' .'. f, :'
~
- s-m -
.r .-s. . ~ ,. - n , . . ;. ~ ~. . $ L ;w'R.4".4g).g'.%:N.
k,d*%Q .' ; % ~.~ 74.r.'.[h aQ ; j.r . 8 We stress, however, that the denial of this stav mouon is without prejudece to the ments of the pending appeals from both the second and third PIDS. as well as the pending appeals and stay requests in connec.
'! b 'T. % p Q' ,
i@D ~M .h Mv jjg
., //A i ..g..
T dW [: (if..*J. judgrnent 8y w 9.r here f M c N.
- gby.thesfGhnss ume and apphcanon of the stay entena.
tion with the Licensng Board's May 24 exempuon order (sre note 2. agre). LAe all stay decissons, our is necessanly circumscnbed
.. .e kgh; ., I'.4. .*"-1.g *[ )C - s .M ',f ' .sw o . ,
' M *' -: - * *
'i I .[d (
*n- * = , *> *.C-.,U. .s.."*>~ '/.55'.Q i I .' ,,. ,
m . : ?&
- t ... > , .
. *. s '. ,s.s,.,..
., . r . - ?,'
.,e
~
, ' ~
a .6.- : j ". ._ :
....,.... 160/
.. 4.,.; ; . ~ . . , . s # .- :. .
n
.. C.c,. . ,: g, .>, w '.' ?v.- ., . .',,. * .7
. ' . - Q., . . fr.'.::s.<.i.,<..w..
, g;.r
- f. f.ml.4,-l .u Q W.s " .'.ii:.Q. o < . . 7,,;.i..
$% 4 * + Jz. W.-. . r< f.Q, . . . Q.;f.,,..'. . ? ;p &. m & q,,s.,'c % $ 0..*$, l.,
%; q: '.L;g t
. -; . y . E., , . . . , . . . , . , . .
l .;.....+.
- l. a. *v
,v
., .o;. ,~ hu. .m,.
.3 ,
n,.
,. , -- a .
e . , , . . w. ' ' [ ' '._~ ] .. q .
- r. .,-n.,
, ^
t 4 * *. - - '5,.s g""
' / j .S b j J. . . , 4 *- .G=h ,
..*y ,. s
. w\ ~
i.h4 ;O. .wa /*- '**#- 'A.ys. . cJ... *,- 2., *
- . g' k
[s,f:T..
' " " i G * ' 1.'. N 'I'*
. . . - 2 .- -.:. w .:
-.a..
.- l
;c
~
.1.
,~ zf. i .},
.s.. .
,.s .
l
~.
.e.:w .. ~, u .. . ..,y::.
s ,.u..;.
. c .:n m . - ra n. ' .
- p.y' x,..
c.4,.y J*,.
. y .n l .
..~.,.4,
~
- .; $: .. ~ - . i t s.,.. -
- y . n'* '. . .
Q .. s( 5, 9,. - Cite as 21 NRC 1605 (1985) ALA8-809
... ,.x- lM[. Q: ..~
w c.
- c. .
...+ .
. .. .. . . . . .;W F .. ' . * :.e-
. - - n. . .
,: ,/.D .... y ', -, ~
g,g:. .c -, g .-@ :..
~
,.;.. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
< ./C - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.'. x ..,
, .! n ;
- ;; fyq##34- .. w .w,g ,-
.n..
2 .
..:c- .. . . . . - ',Tp4::@. .. :d i d 93.v :.U.;:.-ff4-:'vt :.W . ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
.g. .. . .. , .n. / -a.-~ a:. ', .t -r8w A.:.a.%. . ' . :
- =* ~ _ ., *n @; . s 2,.
.1 w
.~.xg.y
- -ty s
. t' .
. ~.
3.. ,. .. k. .b;,.:,N ; .. 'a ,'.. ,yf.f1,.As e A. N...-. N.,..~ . ,,. '. ~ Administrative Judges:
. , + : - c- ,
.ny
,- .. .: . . y,. ; . . , . , . . . : ~,, ; e
- e. :
~
. ' ~. ' c .
. .'..s%;9 f; p' t. . . . A..
N,4c
.~
9 dim .Odi 7":,. a _M,..
/..(. 4 . . ~ ~ Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Gary J. Edles G...n.. c W;@ W., 4ie li,J. ..3N Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy
.p..,...~..~ .c.,.v.
.,; . .:p. .; .
m.,; 3 ... . %. . s .3.
. . u-3* -m. . :.
_ . . ., . . ' . ' .* . ......o'.'*'..,[ ..
<;. "7
... . _ .. s. o,.,. g, e g,.c. -
In the Metter of Docket Nos. 50-352 0L
-' ~
.~
* ' d. _,Q.m-p . >
50-383-OL
- s . :
m . ..
., y. n . .. ..
@ p +:;./M ... g
~
, . . , . . PNILADELPNIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 1 . . '? ' $N%t . l'- (Liniericit Generating Station, f.... .['. . . . , . N 'p [N-$ i :. .,, -
Units 1 and 2) June 17,1985
. '.r.
- y. h . .:w .e. -r ;'.%~M.!!: *-
. - . ' . . : r.',,,
e
'%l.5 * .,.
~
.s ., ,
.- .-c,.:,'. . , .
.s.
. . , WM, i ".* -
The Appeal Board vacates and remands two Licensing Board orders
-ypte? '
d ~ granting applicant an exemption from certain requirements of 10 C.F.R.
' _ ' r. . s yl ,i,3ff - 4 5 50.47 and authorizing the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to
,.3 .
.- pt.3. .pi ' it . ssue a full-power operating license to PECo. The Board finds that the
^ '4 . Licensing Board failed to apply the proper standards for granting the ex-
?. V , ~ n ._. -
emption and that its decision lacks a reasoned basis. J g w", x , . ..- . .,
' ~
. , p.;,13../..-(r . ...?, . .
..;*.s EMERGENCY PLANNING: REQUIREMENTS
.~n m ~ .,. .:.
- v. 4 .r;.! ; ;. . _: '
. 10 C.F.R. f 50.47 ocnbodies the NRC's emergency planning require-
. ,, u. s. .- l;.9C.t.%s.
' ,. f ments. It requires a findin's of " reasonable assurance that adequate pro- -<
- < .' .;; >;y. ., . f. . .
.; - 0 7
- - '....i .f..P, ,
tective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological dS
' ~
.$..,.I,.:...,..h.. ' ' G. . emergency" before issuance of an operating license.
. .w r...,..%...,..... . .
-n . ' ,
.c a ,:.
u zw;.?:.pw. .
.. ,,; w + .. ..T
- REGULATIONS: EXEMPTIONS
- .~
l ' ,. - f, tx..;.ii.%. ~ ..D.'.f:p"s- ' 4 The principal authority for granting exemptions from any of the 10
..m
, ,i i. 'W -
C.F.R. Part 50 requirements for an operating license is found in 10
.e e -<
,' 1605 9 ..,,..*
k e . . , I. glJ ..
,'.(,. f. .,
*4 --
[
,. ' /. -
...'+
,. '. 4 e
,ary.. ,
-y
-wo 7 wa-e.-w ,
g g. g , a s.,.,
,b
g [, ( y 6 g * . '.
- eY * 'e.,y
.,. s . .
. .i p l
>l*
[ . - _~ . .-
4 }.1MMjN@ftprMM. ..- d.EE2U .' - eth,rilLCO.h - '. h[%>.m.a ~ g.. g . E. k Wii ~;;M,p. if'N %.
- : 2.. .
' ' ml%.... -. .' %.+.:k , N *
~
^
g . - :n '
.-....u...
k.4:g:n%.a ynt3: . :e c.p?.-e. ..,,a ~ . . . ~ . ....-- - - - - - - . . W-.--" s& ; y.ff;%r.x..Q. :
.a.G ?..cm*.t.CW -2 g , ~ g..;=.,; q l.:.<
s.p.w m;ny.: %wW.e)em~.s
- a -Se M:n:.&..m, r..>.
.u,
- e s
.,s .i. c ,.
. -: ~
sm+ WD h *y ; k* &- a,9ff:h[MGM.M: ?$$j%SN.hiN'Nh?'*N.N$Nk; kMK k we4'k.3%A?."-M.M,QQ C.F.R. J 50.12(a). By its very terms, this provision and the criteria speci-fied in it must be addressed before any exemption from Part 50 require-R 'WW.. h k l5 hdj"k. hWQ;"' d ( b NuclearcanStation, ments be authorized. See Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Unit 1), CL1-84-19,20 NRC 1055,1059 n.7 (1984). a f9~&W.-..e.nw.4 'r:,4;n4. ire
'Yy~. Q. gfL)- P s
JS" P l REGULATIONS: EXEMPTIONS b,., *3 2 ' M. . a.g.T. J-
- g. ,,% -
Where an applicant seeks an exemption from the requirements of 10 SA .k.<5M$hb,8. E '- 'M C.F.R. l 50.47, the standards of both 10 C.F.R. jj 50.12(a) and hh$"'th:(3 2,hfhY ., bhhh V
. .f 50.47(c)(1) must be satisfied.
g# >' .,3 - L 'c #: RiST1@f0Mr,% REGULATIONS: EXEMPTIONS fy 3h7;*g --Q
~ ~
& m4; y)
[ .-
,.t x .p$;%4.
^
t r;- The exemption authority in 10 C.F.R. f 50.12 is " extraordinary" and T. H" 1 e
"available . . . only in the presence of exceptional circumstances." Long
.f.::.hmp
? 'w,,, **
- z. . d. -
/s/and Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-
~ d.
l . x.a
- 84-8,19 NRC 1154,1156 n.3 (1984).
b a ~ M.c ..Fm-%., :. A'" W$ M.m ev
.gp.; y, 8: c..t9 oY ,4.. W. w- y6.L.. REGULATIONS: EXEMPTIONS
.m 3:.e p i$ Through the exemption reguistions, the Commission has recognized k [sd!9[ddry.dg%pMDAh gdfpM gmN that some circumstances might warrant license issuance despite an appli-g.[hs$$
( I u cant's inability to satisfy all regulatory requirements. Before such ex-traordinary relief ,s i authorized, however, an applicant must show that it ' $b r d. SUM @$' M % 4d' j% g. dij'i@?.3.Nfff#,:? f isjustified under the appropriate NRC standards. T.!.E. # % d$! %p? n . a. LICENSING BOARD: RESPONSIBILITIE'S u
~ ggg. m.f *t
.y+Wy.v es ss rr T +.r'.f'.",t.$s.- ?.o.:
- g. A .. eJ. & v.&...
Merely listingy. the ..wh.). parties' filingsy:W.. and noting.'thet,extensive briefing of a
- .N 0 4 /. .$II.WT& W d..h'/JMA;j. N.dst.jW;$- +. matter is not a substitute for the reasoned decisionmaking contemplated by the Administrative Procedure Act,5 U.S.C. i 557(c). See Louisiana
.$k kkI-Q@$iM2N Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), $?M 8'.;.6.OJ cg W;.':;.sh d? M EiT.~: .
iM ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076,1087 n.12 (1983).
.S ENN
$.%m[h;:yd@N.f"I h.
.f.<f
%ySM.. R fM
.!.M. :E5=d.6D.c.m'GWjhM+6'@.S.E F SMhh*;IYe%h, REGULATIONS: EXEMPTIONS Both 10 C.F.R. ff 50.12(a) and 50.47(c)(1) presuppose identification f:
M.hSh;r.',l-Q...$!b.,TIjS$2;. t'#M4?)L.. J5 .~.,7.:7. ~.Q. v. .:.1.~.
. A n,.o.
of the particular respects in which an applicant is unable to comply with the regulatory requirements from which it seeks an exemption. n i.,;m,.jk . wm.g m
- e. :v: .:: >.. n. m. . ,4.,q. :n. m e. A
....n v %*
N.4 % 0% &...W .. Qf.',Q.i&.$. . ,.Cfp. hs ?'. m.... ~ %'(. M.a.,. t $ y$; t y . Q* .. .%. . h.. v.h -r.:N Q: ; '<. .<? .di.v*.;;{;~;- L C-m .:.'.: ~. W . ' 4. ... . 1606
&":.h #
- a. .
(f 'E..'-l ' . ' d ; _ h. sh
- m. '* m'u'.,
?.p .
ub'.MN',,M.
..L= .s , e. e v 7 {. ,. m '
- m mM./ . . , v.s .-.. "' ~ . M , .' NkD l
.h b kl 'Y"h$
7.#M.M.irI w -- M-; f . ;.E.N* hN. < .5 i k. 7 . - -*v m --~~ ~ ~ N '- - " -- 5 7
.-x gr y(:.. 2 . $Q. .b. ,v, ..'. ,,.
- y, ; -
W
. * - . . , . . ~ .
*.,f..
. '* I*
.. f. # ,
j , .. f, h ' "s
* . .4 &f , .j* f[.[.';N, C,'A . . " : : .W h1; e,' , , - -. ~"~
u.t [ f' .7'.
& k &:Q%f.;;".-?2G%% OE.>
t %. - *
. \
.. r- .
. ,; . .,;( . y._ .h; % ' yx . m
,~. - .w . .
. - - . .. - . .- - -. ~ . . , ... ... .. - . ..
l r 1
' - i
. q... - '
- e. r
.s
^
--4 -
.'.- APPEARANCES w.v .
.c ~, ...r
..a , , .. .
4 . -); . .: . 1 n,W. ' . , Angus R. Love, Norristown, Pennsylvania, for intervenors, inmates of
.M,~. ' ' , ef' . i the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania.
.e ~f...
,c.. ;
. + , _ ;_
.~..v. .
.L* . .l.. ; : s , . . . . ...J.
.C. ,. ;8, . U. ..q. ' J. :
.. Franic R. Romano, Ambler, Pennsylvania, for intervenor, Air and
? q. l. , " . . cp ,c WS.%g.r. : - . - . i.R Water Pollution Patrol.
.~., , uy 2 . ,;.Wr:.;..f, , -
+ .u. ; . ,
.".,f.'.{/6.M . ,. %
M;r. Robert L. Anthony, Moylan, Pennsylvania, intervenor pro se and for in-4.5 2;. ' ; 2 .'. - .;.. s,. .
..: 9.l.A . tervenor, Friends of the Earth.
; . :;-. np . ,,.2.... -. -
-i Troy B. Conner, Jr., Robert M. Rader, and Nils N. Nichols, Washing-
-U ~
-G,e.j.j%f:Zl-lg
.9. .,m , ,.., , . .
4 Ti?. ".' . -Q/,*.E ton, D.C., for applicant, Philadelphia Electric Company. s.m
.e . .".v:.:d
. . :..
- 7 c
+
,y , - ..
.%. . ..O , . .. a. 5. ... w
- h.7 , . , . Joseph Rutberg, Donald F. Hassell, and Nathene A. Wright for the 1- -
. '. _ c.p.n5--iM...
. .:. N Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
s*w
,_ n m . q .- g ..,,,. .
.c,,.u .;;; -
t -
~
G.. ' , -.3
,'+31.
-E. w .s.
DECISION- -
.- a . f;$ p -;. ,t " +
s ' @. : w %,..~@ :. , . Three intervenor groups - the inmates of the State Correctional Insti-
.~
- . -' . . :;fhe. tution at Graterford, Pennsylvania; Air and Water Pollution Patrol ff $. ,
^
(AWPP); and Robert L. Anthony / Friends of the Earth (Anthony /F0E) F ' -
- have appealed from the Licensing Board's May 24, 1985, order in
.$p$-
h, '$,. , , this operating license proceeding. That order implements the Board's
- g. - .
May 9,1985, order, which granted applicant Philadelphia Electric
.s~
, . . .g. , 7, Company (PECo) an exemption from certain requirements of 10 C.F.R.
- }[ . - f. ^ .
f 50.47. The Board there concluded that possible continued liQation of j
?. issues raised by the inmates in connection with the emergency evacua-l ' '. ,, Q ~ tion plan for the Graterford facility should not bar full power license au-
- . T. .
- .1: , . .3 . thorization for Limerick. Thus, the Licensing Board authorized the
. ' #M. '
. 63. . Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to issue a full power
. 3
- .. operating license to PECo.'
* : s ,.C .g.4 e k 4, .Q . "
}l .. p, ,
.-+.
~ ' . '. $.t',; , , , v c
;'.y 3 *
..~;,f.,'y .
m].
,. ,,~ ~ ;Y,.
' ). ' ' g .
- ) .':
as
- -]
f I several earlier decisions also supphed the necessary bases for full. power lacense authorizaten. In
. '. l;1., L8P-83.ll 17 NRC 413 (1983), the Licensing Board ruled favorably to PECo on issues relating to the
*~- .., , ,. [J .t;L'[ *. .*. 7:' supplementary cooling water system (sCws) for Lamencet we amrmed most of that decision but re.
* ,, , 1 "T. . ; . .g. . ..-D,-, manded in part in ALAS.785. 20 NRC $48 (1984). on remand. the Licensing Board issued its Memo.
F l +'2 ,. i , , ;-"' . randum and order or November 8.1984 (unpublished), which we amtmed in ALAB.804,21 NRC 587 W ~ (;'. ' '.[1.
^ *
,EJ; - (1985), finally resolving all contested sCws issues In L8P.44 31,20 NRC 446 (1984). and LBP.8514
.s
* .,l y}.", (Contmurd) l
.~ .
1607
.f' 0, .
5
+k ,
o -
- gg . '.
- q'. ____,._..__.,.._7,.,.......-,. . .
- . ~
f ,
/
e ~ \ w,n.?,p:m::%.a;e. m.. .L .
.i.. .
. .,: w : .;. .
. , . . _.-w y4. m:m.a.%. .
.~ -. .
~.. :..
~t .g. ,.w. ,x. e .;. . .
- - W. &nM ' %.. m -s.f.
1M.;Q.fy*];',.Q*% f ~. MNob.W> Gk ' '. NY. - - * . . . .
. ,M/ g
. 4 :nfm.W: %,'d Q n- .*
. f.
, D.4,...M.. "W '-ssv M 7 ., /
- ^ '
5% ' c*N.MMM.p.MMC'3 wWWP.c? : A# e t.' .- 17 * - - - - " - " - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ' ~
.c g : v-VM
.u .:.: wy:n.:. . ,w z
.u.6.m~ ~
=
.y?: w; .. v
~.m .a . ' c .,.
- s. '-9
-~
r , x. x. .w..py ;n..1..ss.. ,. w.. .. w.w.<.n. w e.s.n-c q g. : .. .;.a. . s tip_p of a s. -l. ~ ' fQ,p;,;f , s ;?.*.,.l 3' r 4, %' 4- 19 sy Ordinarily, the Commission would now undertake its so-called "im-O.rliy.'.hg.R
=
Q.4 Q g%,OlT. ' W@w, V 5 %;.4.,.P. g.W mediate = efTectiveness" T,Q review. See 10 C.F.R. ! 2.764. But because "im-M.%%g9 k $$.E % %Ei.'h 3 @d portant questions regarding the hearing rights of the inmates . . . have hKC fpafo$33:" l,% not yet been resolved," the Commission has declined to make the R. ky\ ]%g,,'Mf8fi@M!i Licensing Board's license authorization effective at this time. pggt CL1-85-11,21 NRC 1585,1585-86 (1985). In this connection, the Com-p~~ i . .p'IEib9.R o 4 4 .ga gN,.SM
,.3 mission directed us to expedite our consideration of the pending appeals 2&Ff w from the Licensing Board's exemption order, and we have acted accord-kdh N'hh y ingly. See id. at 1586.2 N As explained below, the Licensing Board failed to apply the proper lk6$kMhM'9)hh.h.[.h MW hpgDj standards for granting an exemption. Further, the Board's decision lacks M.
QP dTh thgg8NW mh Mec a reasoned basis. We therefore vacate the Licensing Board's May 9 and o ihM&e$4Jw
,J.s2.'.'y.n. Q,
~
., y.h .
-v C.
May 24,1985, orders and remand for further action in accordance with this opimon. $.w..* e.Wu%w.g.ge$ W. Q ;. ? kyW [ TNkhk,@q~ tu. ' I. w ig5 N +W, W - 2. N,@h 6hNkW.a..hnd N@; p b, g . g;%3% p%hh We need not belabor the background of the inmates' effo'rts to litigate their concerns about the adequacy of the evacuation plan for Graterford, J
,w..
-ff g which is located within the emergency planning zone for Limerick. A
$. A.:.W.u..$}'~rW.Mm ff%. En. .- M MW ;,iggg..v.- w .
.5.pg .m rW few details, however, are useful to put the instant dispute in perspective.
%g.c.s-%,k.hh, Mk MM ,;.$ g +o.c,i@. Although the inmat".s were admitted as intervenors to this proceeding in 1982, the emergen;y plan they sought to challenge did not exist and was Mb@hhNS$f hYM5d@hMvN2MD Nh]' [hh not made availabi-, to them until December 1984 - shortly before the last of the scheduled hearings on PECo's operating license application S.,.,u. kW$.6fVgh. ge... o.
# W~ 3 5';lstic- e t?2 w# @w,,er.2.. p.r.vc G..,.iwas due to be completed. The inmates acted promptly and in accordance with prior Licensing Board orders to ,, reactivate,, and to preserve their .
%b3.M b.hN.M'.'i4'Wh.W [i M M W /C 's $ 0f}::' F , , ,,
interest in the case. As explained in ALAB-806,21 NRC 1183 (1985), ri h N.@MW@Q/4 ka .Q.ifRn ' ~. M52i'fddc however, these efforts were initially unsuccessful. But after two appeals, the inmates were reinstated and given the opportunity to file revised contentions. Id. at 1193-94. The inmates did so on May 13,1985.
. f,f4.'sM. ,.....n
.. . l.g.Q '.'.l-h,; i. 't.;%*,:MI.1 - us.. ' In the meantime (but shortly after the inmates renewed their interest S v,. ! ;r. 'd. " in this proceeding), PECo filed a motion with the Licensing Board, pur-
..[.M_. 4n'#. k N,r.W. .t.M. ."'2'.W.%. $, ?, J' .'% , .i i;.}
a.b.f T'C;/ J. suant to 10 C.F.R. ! 50.12. The motion sought an exemption from 10
- 3. .W'l,w<%.
.s
* +c,
..< .;. a
.,I %.* rw .:.. r,. 4 2 c..b e
,;W*.m..
.r.:. . " W.w .
t 7. s r.,
,*,r ,? ..: e:
.n, f .D., .k. Wm? .*.a*
.e. m . , . .,..s
- f. *. ,.
e c g;4k. -. W
,19'sf ,., e ., ~s %. f., y y #.:Y ') - * '. f . - (,a * * .
A.C,,. .
- e, .
,,,3 f ,' -
y.Y..*.f4' e..- '
- '.[Qi)Oh
*Sf?'f . * - - 1'Lc- ~ -
s - kQr...f' , * .,Ncd ,
- ~e ** j' *. ,
..',..p....-
' 21 NRC 1219 (1985), the Leenang Board resolved issues relaung to low power operauon and onsite and offsite emergency planrung. We densed monons to stay these dectssons m ALAB 789. 20 NRC 1443
- - . (1984). and ALAS-808, 21 NRC 1$95 (1985), but appeals from both L8P.84.)I and L8P.4514 are Ah'%g%rs=e..f..*Qp.
F'
,gef r.i N C.'- %c.v' M#~d..;J e U "* a- -
C.(2*T '-'*I(b.'
;,,l,.. r~'x p ,
pendang. 2 M.#*e M 'g/ n... .Y S " p Pnor to the imece of CLI.85.ll, we had shortened the briefing schedule for these appeals. Appeal M c- A [. q 8,W ,'s C'. M @*" p c.My Board orders of June J and $.1985 (unpubhshed). In I.shs of the Commission's direstive however, we Q % &p% Q, 'e IQl' '
- w:W: ,, f .* '-. , ' '>.,,**'.y.*. ' .W=.
,. p,'.' .h;I ~
.i.
further abbrenated the time for filing repty briefs. Appeat Board order of June 12.1983 (unpubbshed). s
,y;:.n.
L,;. ' 24,, Mt. . u. ,n. * ..'...w,..- + '". . ~
...;m.g.<..;.
'd W'.
* ~'
- ^- :
- 7. .A.s. , .. :. ',
- d. .;,
' ,. , _ . L.L. .-s. -
l608 1 7? .' ~ . W ,y?. %*ff'*' * - .
' Q ?'"'*: s. . _ , . . . i.- r;"
kkl;l**- s~.-Q, ,r ';n9'.. .. C ' ~ * . '. *. -::.,s R",!,*' '.
-;. dMM p; @ ;i.u. @s #i,.-J; . :. w' *l. WAWE .:
Q. :Tf ; j :': & ' ' ;.'.L,-- .' f q
? w.D'f .. nd . _ '.
. m - -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ;
..hW h n m , .:.{l ,;; ; iC
* ' *.~. 1c
=
~~.-
?, r E
- ..l
. _W$ .* , 1 y.'g:f &y'E.Q, : .,~ .
- s e -m. }'..,, ' ._^ , .
.. . . - - .: . w__. .. - - -
i j . K Q. . f.Y'r lp f3;3
> ~ E =s.-
' ~'
~
.. %.{ . G:
m; ,... s..
. -=..u_..-...._..._< ._
i h.,1 . . A. , t. 3.,
~
.llr..
, y: +'..A .
( ..
- 5. ~i C.F.R. { 50.47 insofar as that regulation would require Board considera-
[ '. ' J. i k,. ..
.Q' tion, before a full power license could be issued, of any contentions e> raised by the inmates.8 The inmates, the Commonwealth of Pennsylva-
.' Q:y(
/_..
. -::[: ,;x< M' p.U- Y.".] c'c- '
nia, AWPP, and Anthony / FOE opposed the grant of an exemption. See Q, O ' Graterford Inrr.ates' Motion in Opposition (March 13,1985); Common-
.J.r,j [1, 4 ; - f.!/Ql$ .h.# $ ' . .il wealth of Pem sylvania Response (March 18,1985); Letter to Licensing
- /d}{M. .M 23%ci.
W ,T Board from F. R. Romano (AWPP) (March 15, 1985); Anthony / FOE $ " A 9. W . ','O i W.ff..rcc Y Motion in Opposition (March 15, 1985). The NRC staff argued that it
'j .
N ;.'.3 7 - Y '. " was premature for the Board to consider the exemption request until a %'f,-@M.M
, g,;.
C',: . T j g.7,t,yq:.$ , c W M. . 7 .". % .,
..m .
determination was made that the inmates have at least one admissible contention. See NRC StafiResponse (March 18,1985).
.W...._ t k , y ; 4- g .. p cd * ". a s Subsequently - after ALAB-806 reinstated the inmates as intervenors W
- ig%, . ' .',. J. 4
' -J: .'df- but before they filed revised contentions - the Licensing Board ad-7...'.'t ..< .. .s ...,g.n.c3f .r ....-, ,V..t ..i. . :.; - . i. a, ,'.
dressed PECo's exemption request. The Board first determined that the i j.Q1. c . j 'W':97 ' 7j+" ~ s' matter was ripe for disposition because it believed litigation of the in-
~. y , c7.. '?fi :.. 3 '. mates' concerns was inevitable and PECo should not have to be penal- ' J' N ; e.,..L.5.Q,lf.; %.: ized by the resultant delay. Licensing Board Order of May 9,1985 (un-c ,
- w. published) at 2 3, 4. Relying solely on 10 C.F.R. { 50.47(c)(1), the
';@hf.i:
- 'f. ' Board also concluded that an exemption was warranted. /d. .at 3 8. But
, ]g3 M' while the Board appeared to grant PECo's motion, its May 9-order did F 4 . -E ',. , MT.A '( _ ~ not include the customary language that authorizes the Director of NRR
, t (. . .4 to issue a license. Further, the Board called for additional comments. Id.
e : .fy@/.: 1 . . : . t s.a a.M. at 8. ]. . l 3' ' Once again, the inmates appealed. We dismissed the appeal without ) -
- J I.E. j!${r.[- ? , prejudice, finding the Licensing Board's May 9 order to be "merely
'., ( M9. ..
tentative or proposed." Appeal Board Memorandum and Order of May 21,1985 (unpublished) at 2. Three days later, the Licensing Board
- a 'i.f,% ' ' 9, y'r f
issued another order " implementing its grant of applicant's motion for t ' c2' * % , d. exemption." Licensing Board Order of May 24,1985 (unpublished).
.2# . C. That order listed all of the pleadings that had been filed in connection
..~: 3;,. [ [ ' ~
with PECo's exemption request, but contained no significant new discus-
-J./T '
. c. . sion. It reiterated, however, the Board's earlier conclusion that the crite-ria of 10 C.F.R. { 50.47(c)(1) had been met, and it explicitly authorized i
J-; T' ~ ~ V. }:
- .[. ' - .
4*,1[C:
- j. , 3:V M ';.'
the Director of NRR to issue a full-power license to operate Limerick.
; . v,c.lr, J. Id. at 5-6. The appeals now before us of the inmates (their fourth in as y'l.
e,, h many months), AWPP, and Anthony / FOE followed.* PECo opposes the t .
. W O+'W:f.y
. . e, :- .y .
i
. . e w ,: e s. 3 . :.
! . ~ $ h ' . *., .
"*+. N* * 'd
{ , W .. ; ..! i aer a
- )secuon 50.47 embod.e ihe sac e emer ency pi.nnias re ,emena is re res . nadin or ree.
sonat6s assurance that adequaes prosecuve measures con and wdl be taken in the event of a redsological t i ,',
. ' "; ,@ ; 44 +*-l."',.
*- emergency" before teouence of an opereung license.
4 , 1,5 @j,j. . 'J- -~ . ; 4AwPP sad Anthony / FOE both rases several argumense thes do not rolese to the esempuon issue that
'.a ..l['d ,* ; @./ : ' # ; ,. , to before us here on appeal. We need not and do not addrous such arguments. Further,in www of the de.
(Coasmesss0
, ,. -[ . ] - 47.l '
'y ' .' ,
' a. f.-[
, S. . ,. 1
- T
~ ..) 1609 I
- l l ? ^ % y l, , ._ . .f } -
. u.
t
, <,. ;g * .
y,. . , .g . .
- s. '.**,.,. ~,* , di *
-~.,.
. ; ,,_,,- . .g .
- 9. ,
- a
~- v
+ . . , . e *
~,,
\
- - _ _ ._._. .__-________.__.__._ .._.______._..~.,._.__._,_..'. _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
4 whc) . ..,Lt. m ;i h.;. @e% xWM q ej &iWW M .< .:e. ,.; . .'
.: M; -
3 h l - Mh.
- .w?. !W*2% N$I %Mm M h DbN& ' I E ~ ' -
~
F
".&m$. A .&, l';; . . @&. &. g.'i.. 3. $ S' ' '
.a.a--------'""'-~~"" ^"
.a h,n+a%.$m?$.
.'*.k, .T.fdd E'i.t2.7.; y ll ' .::: T' . ~ *$
- .VmN.,W.'Y,. ' -!,:. -: .:' K 4 i#
, .1 .'
i& m r, ',: I L wa u.x s..
. . ;=..,.'.',I.
- n. .s. 4 . -
. v -*.. m.>...syn v..u,
- .,s.. M
-:.. x
@f W N. ; y , J. e.u..._w..
- eiW.Q::' s.c a. :.E P .~ appeals and urges afTirmance of the Board's hiay 9 and 24 decisions. The W Q . Q* .g,, W'. Q f$N. P. NRC staff argues that the Board's ruling is erroneous in certain respects A%.,c.,
n r 6m%.
~
. d_e / p-.,t.l:-. . but it nevertheless opposes the appeals.
.yy.M
. ' s;'cir$W!.W@%m~#.p.*...,%. r 4
W. .u 6K v g m~.
%:ewh;% rW 4.M
+ ;,VQ e.m.a%q v II. A. The principal authoiity for granting exemptions from any of the hm , yE$+hhj@hrhM*h-;N{j F.; . 10 C.F.R. Part 50 requirements for an operating license is found in 10 M..~.1 4m f g~.g.L 3
> n C.F.R. f 50.12(a). It provides, in pertinent part (emphasis added):
@. .-sbw -a Y. $.h ,y,ab.d WMMg/h The Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own
.[~A... .%f-y.f5 I [ sb4 N h -N6%X hhh initsative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulanons in this pan M w%c*.dNfby kbMb as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger hfe or property or the
& n, ,a.. common defense and secunty and are otherwtse in the pubhcinterest. * *
- 1.@~. 'S%f .
% ,, ig8;' *yA4
M.W U tt h ..,t7 M*;W'D*; v.yr:J . ws u& m~- W By its very terms, this provision and the criteria specified in it must be m.. . . g. am...w addressed before any exemption from Part 50 requirements can be au- &+ i f.G ,
~
. _fs::q,,.,
r Q" y&g$i?pQNfQ thorized. Even if this were not so clear from the face of the provision, Commission precedent makes that point manifest. See Mississippi Power
,,% 793--M d Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-19,20 NRC
[4'# b & '*"*Q[ihkQ
- 4. M M (e 1055,1059 n.7 (1984).5 Indeed, PECo's motion for exemption acknowl-edges that the requirements of 10 C.F.R. f 50.12(a) must be satisfied in kh k;gg$"[n$g$
.~i ndM.
MM[ Eh;d. Ass y;eh . N w%g y & Nb order for an exemption to lie. See Applicant's hiotion for Exemption (February 7,1985) at I,5-16.* N!.(gj$ Despite the clear command of this regulation, the Licensing Board h . % h @x.n twice explicitly refused to address the requirements of section 50.12(a). 1..hw. w. h..mtv$he
.e.2 kbf$
y-~ .pn - R .3 -t b b tjjgrgy
. e Instead, the Board applied only 10 C.F.R. f 50.47(c)(1). That regulation 3,#,,,h,2..
provides:
;lW , y;4%
.. q&::- Wi i.
,. 3
.s. au w.-
Q: 4;g, f e."-g.J. *
. -pI T@.3. e. .w
,;m,.yf.N':*p;f i .i 3; ~.AN .
y,":Q.,,"'. f . 7~.t.l. c u .e.-..h.I $<
.; .*51.dO,i-
. . : c & -;QF eve Failure to meet the applicable temergency rianning) standards set forth in paragraph (b) of this section may result in the Commeston declining to issue an operatsng w:,.
. - ,g q:-wy:u..sA 9.y%gy@,aB. a >;. ..... - :-g..q.'W.J y *
- g. B p'rJ* : ' " My.~. "
Y;f)E*N.
; ,7 :. .C.a.; s:
N D,j'd;.j -D- y.f e %'3l.g.;'-kf s s. Q,cto appeal the Scard's exempuos dectmon anasmuch as their axpressed interests and p canon we reach on the inmates' appeal. we need not decide whether AwPP and Anthony / foe nen have standing P.N* b' .['#.- -
, p 6 *, ,;;.
.c participerson in this procuding have been pnmanly with regard to other issues.
5 m [. *7M/ 7 7,t.~~Cr,Q* M'# [ N 2 N J$.,,' 4*c A recent Nouce of Proposed Rula sing on speu.~.: Esempuons also matuts clear that 10 C.F.R.
$* If M ) 50.12 in its current form a .Ludies the general cntena for an enempoon. See 50 Fed. Res.16.506 .. b'*Q*'*h.
n.1
-r hd.MS
;n 4 'I.M0(J' J a '/>k*' d
'.Y'q .$'%g".
0985). The purpose of this pending rulemaking is tSc!arify certaan stancards now apperently apphe
';- ';e .T .?:!sr.d'.*f. ,y.;",$ . ."hN.Y.Q.? i.Q a matter of stafr prsctace, but not expressly.reDeeted in the regulauon itself. See note 4. mfra. Because g&j.'g.g' M M ," .>.":
. ' . y %. m Z .
the rule proposed in the notre as just that proposed - /C of course, does not apply here. (The Lxens. t M d 6 Q M M/ @ **E26#?,3"'.;;n,13*/*', N .'.; ing Board's suggesuon that the affective date of the proposed rule was May 25.1985 is incorrect; that _q1 -g{y* & k?7r, * * '.- ' , .g
. N. . a? , , was the due date for rahng comshents on the proposed rule. See Lacenang Board order of May 9 at 3; 50
; .~t ; -J., >*.' , ,m
,; h..;- "' j?g : - Fed. Res. at 16.506.) Nonetheless, the discussaan in the nonce provides usefulinsght on the apph and purpose of the rule in its eassung form. See note 7. m/re.
ye -['b/y t aN"Y? 7.h' i;*P G.;*.lM ;. 2 jW Jr T . - 6 PECo'sp-*'j'@r lal bnef on appeal for the most part. conously overtooks this fact. To advance one 6' argu-
~yWW-.W ~&;
DSM *b' J ments. however PECo cites the recent Nouce o(Proposed Rulemaains for 10 C.F R. ) 50.12 iser note 3' 8"Fe). Apphcant's 8nef Uune 13.1985) at 29 30. MCM.@f ..,h.:,n, 'C D hk'y ;.*k;(h..,;. b . X";&.w
.. -y
$. $p .' ? y.* Q'
.;E;.3f i, e, , % ,' ?
; T "
W'V ' .. %.x. 'r ~
- C
. h M '; ; A j.$,Y.). fW 'r 1610 9g.- :.,, x,, ..cA. . .
-s.<*
.- ..,.,..~&
s ;,.~'",'- * *.,,.'.e . Q.f'f'i
- - n.N. n'*&*
,,"j *
..a
- w. .a ..u L.,~. a_ ...x,,..
j . 8
- s e
, .C .;i;[fE, m:,. ::w M .wn.: . s . .'. s,d,/1*7;4?'.p?..
h% m?,.%';; :. : M";&:v.: f ;4 T ,
- ?W".::. -~ -
? .' _
~
, ~ ~ m ' ~ ~ ~*'~~~ " *~~ v :
n v:,.y'a.Lc.; c .;.se, > : %. ,s v 1
.:;*&
- y'y , t.$_ M -<!-f
'.t .7 .-s y ' ,.
~.,3*~ ;..
. u
' Q,5j'y/'n ?l q' '~ '*d; .:* '
* -s'* ' " . '
- 1*
~'*iT' '
~
* . . ,_ q ,.
1 . ,.,. ., s .
; f ' . ~ , .". s.,m., t y. . . %
.p*v .eE .s.',..;.n 6
>s:..
.;ra .*
;rs . - . .
p -*
. u - ~ . ~ '
- a. +
m _. ...e
.~ ' -
i' 's .
- 7. :
N t
, . Ec ,
3 . . .;,. .. . J ..q. ^ .
. , ./... 1.,,
, - i. - - license; however, the applicant will have an opportunity to demonstrate to the satis.
* .' . t.D:I. "
t.a fl' ( -
,e faction of the Commission that deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in question, that adequate interim compensaung actions have been or will be
.. u .
..a.
.. w. .O . y; -
].. .... taken promptly. or that there are other compelling reasons to permit plant operation.
N2 " :y; .: ' . a * .Q.. yr . aF,, ? -
,+ '
in the Board's view, this was the only standard it need apply because,
%+, cu. .
' .'t:ip.-@h
. m.
- n;y k? q.m P D..?b, 4;,h .g 7[ M .[y Q.;s.
I. W.: ? MCf
.YM-Mk::i,
..,;;PMp
. .9
. .:. . ,d . :.
. f-when an applicant seeks an exemption of one of the Commission's regulauonsl.1 then the Board should look first to any provisions within the regulation from which
(';' y '-~ @ , ('gyi.j'. 9 . the exemption is sought. . .We need not look cisewhere in the regulauons and '
..,.[fj.7y .I i' $ ' 'Th' .d.[d , , ' indeed have not considered the use of 10 CFR { 50.12.
" .f. ..
4.l, ?. M. .M. /pb . ..s. ,1. .i..,T.q.C.* ~ Q, .
'~: s Licensing Board Order of May 9 at 4.
- r. u 7 . '
dp7 .. T .-!" In dismissing the inmates' interlocutory appeal from that order, we
.. p$l' n*M%$ '.: ,r '"
- f. . M W .' -ds N.
- N: h.N.2Frf '
referred to "the exemption criteria of both 10 C.F.R. (( 50.12(a) and 50.47(c)(1) (as well as pertinent case law)." Appeal Board Order of May
& N .; , - c .t.:.M : .
- ,. f 21 at 2 (emphasis added). Given the tentative nature ofits decision, we i b i T..; : 96/% .9~
1 thus assumed that the Licensing Board would reconsider the propriety
. , j7- 7 "
^ ~
. : ,. of a~pplying only the criteria of section 50.47(c)(1). Apparently our as.
. $$$' ~~ -"
sumption was not justified. For, in its. implementing order, the Board emphatically reiterated its view that it need and did consifier only 10 7 %.'i.p.
.: ~ ' :.
. v- t ;-
.4WfQ
'l' @ % Q ,'
e L C.F.R. ! 50.47(c)(1). Licensing Board Order of May 24 at I & n.l. We agree with the Board that it is proper to apply 10 C.F.R.
.* 4.1J* MO N, ^ "'
{ 50.47(c)(1) here, where PECo seeks an exemption from other require.
. p t'
.pffcp e -
ments of section 50.47. But there is no basis for not applying the more U ,- general exemption standards of 10 C.F.R. l 50.12(a) as well. Nothing in 7' n. ?,V.%jw[s.
' .; ~ these provisions makes them either mutually ' exclusive or mutually
. . < '; J .' " < inclusive.' There may well be some overlap in certain of the criteria
. M.+?. '- (e.g., consideration of the "public interest" under section 50.12(a) and 3 -
'. . 7, > [ : ; ,P,. , of "other compelling reasons to permit plant operation" under section V" . .' . 50.47(c)(1)). But for the most part, the four conjunctive factors of sec.
~
. 'e . tion 50.12(a) - i.e., authorization under law, no endangerment to life
- .c .
1 or property, no endangerment to the common defense and security, and
, .N ? '.T ' N.' the public interest - are distinct from the three disjunctive factors to be
+ N. ge .,[...;; . .7, .' considered under section 50.47(c)(1) - i.e., the significance of the
...ss ..
as
* . ~ J . . .* a . ;- ..
v.
. M,.s..,e ' u !.
*E, 1[ < < * .- , ],~.1 - s h 7 Presumably, ir the Commission miended secuon 50.47f CHI) to provide the sole standard by which to conssder esempnons in the emergency planmns aree. et would have said so espectady durms one of the
*F ;+* '* pc;*4 , ..d s . .,j many recent occasions on which amendment of the emergency planmns regulauons was under consider.
;.c .j . ,
f., .
-/ ; - i,/ anon. In this regard, we note that the Commission's recent Pohey statement on 10 C.F.R. l
. - tl.' .M - , T. f., b y./ 50.47(bHl2p discusses secuon 50.47(CHI). but makes no mennon of secuon 50.12. See 50 Fed. Res.
.',7, 7
. - 20.892. 20.893 94 (1985). But the Commisseon's silence - in a Pohey statement addrewed to a court
;'.'. f i 9(% ,*.l,'.
7 *>
- j *:
.'. romand mvolvmg a specific provtsson or the emergency planning regulanons not mvolved here -
<i 7 ^ .; . ' ' # .,* ,
,. '-:*.
- cannot reasonably be construed as an mtset to toed the requsrements of the long standmg secuan 50.12.
., 4 ~ ;.y % . .' : s- Compere 50 Fed. Res. at 16.500.16.509 (stressing that general cruena of secuan 50.12 should always
. ~ .C*i ' .
- f .
- .f /.;f* be evalueted).
,1.. z'
= .
..g
^
1611 l, $. \;d..
,.,$. . e
./- .
j ' .. , v.
# # ".t--
l i . ; [. \ -'.. . ", s , ; .
* . g _ __
- p. _-. .,- ,.. _ ..... - .. ,_,. . , .. _ ....-.. _.... .
i . * - *
- 9 l s # -
' ' .; 'f..
. . j - ,.
n 1 ',,.
- 1
, 9 e c --
. - , . + - - - , - m
p, .<.e t * - wp q s.. o .o
..s.m iN h'5 m'.
a . - '
.w k. . , g. -.vs. .. . ; .v.u.4..w.;
r.. . m .s. . ,4. .~0s J , .. m.. -w. * . b
,.1{4 s- G R M.f f , W..w - . L'b#W2:
RMx.4,;;='.%IM %rg. n:m . -
~ a. > -
r i G W* .q. ' '
.V
%w&yh.; uB Mw.$%.&Q.Y;: ' ^ s.,.N.w:$.mggM.n.v.u: n.n .;;. . ups . w.n ..:. e.. .. . . -
.!> .. t ..?n . g n.m&C2 W.:. V -&
%Ty$75M.
/ '
h j$ M d.w.5 *.'.NS @W.9.i. MSiQhU plan's deficiencies, adequacy and promptness of interim compensating l b P. ..'h.,F h .h actions, and existence of other compelling reasons for plant operation.8 L pg w : k'.bkI* f.4 g c. W J b. w. Q 3...
- w, .m. .. . . ;y. ,v.. w.:.
.:. , The Licensing Board's failure to apply the requirements of both regula-
\. s tions to PECo's exemption request is reversible error, requiring a
- 4. m. .m.s@%:%9'f?e-:w.s.,
k.G + W M N,, tt rg remand.'
.m In addition to the proper standards themselves, the Licensing Board L*
gs .
W:m -W w w d,c should also take account of the intended purpose of both regulations.
Es J For instance, according to the Statement of Consideration accompanying M.I$'Esh44 U $h. ep,y.NWsM.,,,
!h%E certain amendments of the emergency planning regulations, the types of gp M's S:$ghp '
g deficiencies to which 10 C.F.R. { 50.47(c) is addressed are those "that n W,%tg?.v.hD Nfh d h6e h.bjg. N&kh.h3}%gNF ~ \?g .M
.y d 4.;w only tellect the actualstate ofpreparedness which may br easily remedied
. . . [and} should not delay licensing action." 47 Fed. Reg. 30,232, 30,234 (1982) (ernphasis added). With respect to 10 C.F.R. { 50.12, just YYh8 d Q Ag g g
$'SpW[d@i%'$#
i.',D ' last year the Cotamission described that authority as " extraordinary" and "available . . . only in the presence of exceptional circumstances." j "y-i _C ' p.$ . 7
,Q Long Island Lighting Ca. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
d, Yh ^ 4:'M'W 8I
#fg,@M g CLI 84-8,19 NRC 1154,1156 n.3 (1984). While observing that such,a
" discretionary" decision should reflect,the equities of the s,ituation, the
%~ jKn$y.gga.r.KW Commission also stated that "these equities.do not apply to the requisite RC g% %r findings on public health and safety and common defense and security."
%. , c ~L,p, g; yMN% nw Ibid.i*
.m
%pA h,umm Md% .$ In weighing the factors specified in both 10 C.F.R. (( 50.12(a) and N Mk hgh.b 50.47(c)(1), the Licensing Board should also be mindful of the special MM N T ,ph%k.hEh%$$f / # 6 / M I Ne.M@.V d . g. N circumstances here involved. This is the only contested licensing pro.
ceeding, of which we are aware, in which issues have been raised con-TM '. t.g.sfb/rM30
/:2[f ,FI?y*M.Tf@gis-% fdn cerning the adequacy of the evacuation plan for a maximum security MG.7% k *p.? h . $"?C*.nv':7.* M*i8 The factors set out m 10 C.F A. 6 50.47(c)(1) - e s.. interim compenssung acuons - may well be
. . .Je.Q-A@f ., M VT
- NN'4. /A*N" ,$M[V,'.';.' one ares enere the statrs entsung prerraw vu.e-vis the granung of exempuans is already reflected in
.b/s1JJ m -;c
'.D N:f@.$.*,hd*/,*? Q --j;: -[. yh the regulauons The Commission's pendmg ruiemaking on exempuans (note 5. supret u miended io ctanfy and to coddy such pracuce insofar as exempoons from any reguistory requirement are concerned.
..? Q ' f f .r.F ~c & .. Q :r *, .
See. , t., 50 Fed. Res. at i6,508.
'PECo never squarely addresses the realissue before us here - whether the Lcensing Board apphed
#pr: M
.V
.12Jg f,W m &@,2f"jf;/U.P yfK7 n. A .' M-6.q.
% ' v - 4 ;58 6Onofre the M.'g[* Q ,4.y';
correct standards in ruhng on PECo*s exempuon request. It cues Southem CahArms Edisse Co. tsan
% [y'
- Nuclear Genersung stauon. Umts 2 and 3). ALA8 640.16 NRC 127 (1982), and its progeny, fqq Mf"$.P'h%"[j,kE
*S Pg ',CDf 6.., ./' .;
. '[ ,A;*;y*,
' /* *
/ however. implying that that dectsson holds that only 10 C.F R. t 50 47(c)(l) need be consadered when g a3 v.kh
.;*;"J.'.fjf. .a*/U. in exempoon for emergency pian deficiencies is under conaderanon. See Appas cant's Brief at 13. 26,
. e. ::~- Adi /.4 62. Sao oso/re rehee on 10 C.F R. t 50 47(c)(1) but makes no mennon of 10 C.F.R. t 50.12. But that hdrX.'f?M'> ' e@' '%'~ l fact is neither surpriang not samfcant. Unnke PECo here. the appucants in Sen ono/re did not eapress.
d;,y, MlD4'{M.l}4 ly*
. % Ml.'
*y;
- i f
- r' 'Os '
ty seek an "enempuon* from hcenang requirements pursuant to secuon 5012. Hence. that issue was JM ahM[ N$
'fM 'N '. .,a not before us. Also unhke here, no outstanding contenuons remained to be conssdered. Instead the f A.. . , . . ,
'Q issues before us were whether there was support in the record for the Licenang Board's reasonable
*I M;JM1?[%,.
;. m - d+,.N s #*d,,.[4- [', ' y,,,,.'. assurance fendang. and whether a hcense condsuon requiring apphcant to remedy certaan deficier.cses
[$ ,v h ". r ( ,M b*, within as months of full-power operauon was permissib6e. 18 tn Shorehem. the Commnmon imposed several specific requirements on apphcant that were not et.
,7-d
s "A .
.fgF*h h.M'.4./ . .8~-.-g .y .**N7*.-f'ig a
V{h phcitly embodied m secuon 50.12(a). It later clanfeed that those requirements pertamed only to the T* .$ *We , Shorv4em case. See Grand G=(f. 20 NRC at 1059 n.7. There is no reason to assume. however that the Commnmon's remeral comments about secuon 50.12, noted above. do not penam here. d@ .w 7MY.n.w,
.e.,.,a@c9j@$::;$4Nb'fT[Y.h[d .
. .D -m
. . .: .~. x, ,.x. . .
..;u. s: r ~.. . ..; .
.. e.twy .. .-.M,
.ct pm.w%,. f'. 1612
.+n
- .v. c
+kWKLy;69:. Q.s 4.y.f wh.yysta L .w .. g.m. J...sn %.:. m. .;.:. ... m..y".. g c, M. . fr.q?.u,.rf. g : .::~i .. . .;',. . .3~2' m ., - - ~ ~ ~ - - -
--~:2. -n
- .1,- S ,. y.e:t.;:e . ..
1h W
, 5,.Q / g.77 eup,7*;
. , - +f.,. .? .m.,
',,.b -
. 0. . h -l. * *
;.- '.' , ^ y * '
,e .~ n ~ s s
, _.q
- y. .
. .v . . , M.-h.9 y.y. . . , ~
,-:.;w: , ,.__
Q.fs 3, ..;7 -. . . = .
., . . , , , g 1.,.9. p v .y m: ..
;g , ,
...._._.____._...........c.._.L.:a ..a .c.. . _. . . 1.m . m.
n:w;c-1 y.g<, 1-
.s .,gs. :;.u. , = . ,.M.':'. f "
- ll:. . -l f;*)
- 6 . . .
fy , .- y.2 p . ,;. 4 _. ,. . ,, -.y. prison, with a population of over 2,000, located within a plant's 10 mile
$.*D.h 7' :<
@@~$ .< cc:. e [: , . emergency planning zone.88 On the other hand, the exemption is not a h*p:ff,, . ; _. . A Mff,;f';
" request for a permanent deviation from the emergency planning require-
[EI. , ' . . , ' . . I*),Z7:l ments; it is intended to apply only during Licensing Board consideration nf'. .
. A . ':.b. ;. . ,_ of the inmates' admitted contentions.
We do not decide or suggest that no exemption would be warranted in
' r. {C..C.
W$sy,,,/ . .'7f'
. .. . . .S.pyW, L.. . . .
. . . ,I.g- y. '.4
.. r this case.82 We simply identify the various factors that the Licensing T. :
W b- . 7 -;E..nV .:;.. J.L . Board is obliged to consider upon remand. Serious questions have been
> M.y, : :. , .; .3 V' .
raised and they deserve serious and full consideration by that Board.83 a ').yff ,.- q 3 , ', E T [${. q. . B. The Licensing Board's exemption decision was also premature: p'7 -]Y '.7.h2 ' M.a the Board put the proverbial cart before the horse. In our Order of May p '>!/ 1.d;.t.Tj W *g 21 at 2, we stated that "we do not understand how the Board could prop- {j$.p.b.
. C. ' t , '. ..:. .. .~. .
' >K.M 3 -
.m
. l71 .
erly weigh the exemption criteria . . . before it has determined whether L , "' . . ' . ' . 1 any exemption will even be necessary - i.e., whether the inmates have
! .;.L D, .cW,%.g:-*0.
; N. . D.. '"
D *.i~ f jd.e(S,;dQ. prolTered an admissible contention (footnote omittedi." We still find that to be the case. m .!
.s.o ... > , ..
..;% W,'f- 5*;y a" /- Until one or more contentions have been admitted, the sprevk, poten-tial emergency plan deficiencies that warrant further adjudication are not Qf
% M.... .W
'. '; a known. Both 10 C.F.R. }{ 50.12(a) and 50.47(c)(1) presuppose identifi-M' I cation of the particular respects in whTch"an applicant is ' unable to
(- l " . ~ '. '*ih..QlC. M3 comply with the regulatory requirements from which it seeks an exemp-tion. Indeed, only after the asserted deficiencies in the Graterford evacu-l t Sy M ;$% ',.t .
~
;/ @,3 4 r .g '
ation plan are defined, can PECo logically attempt to satisfy the various
+.' .c 3 -
exemption criteria of the regulations.
~ ,...M,.<;.7/
~
The futility of addressing these criteria, before the specific context in M 5M b:.y Q: which they are to apply is known, is evident from the Licensing Board's r ' -,"*3.$fl . d decision. For example, in considering the significance of the plan defi-lf ;.T? / ciencies and the adequacy of interim compensating actions, the Board
'?
~
- f. " '* ~ P could make only generalized statements about the overall adequacy of
- - ,. 1m
.: a y 3r.
. . .... .~ . . -
,. ; ,$k 18 The adequacy of piene to evacusse prisoners wee liussied in the Westr/e,d proceeding. That case, i
* . . r. -
4 .- . [I however. involved only two county jeste with en everage pnsen poputauon of $$ persone. See Lommens
- i heer and Lehr Ca (Weterford Sesem Electnc Stauon. Omt 3). lap.42.l00,16 NRC 1550.1566.1584
" . I?"r'd ?"
e.. .* f ' ..V.) (19s2). , . .7*,j.* - . :4 I2 Thua. to the essent the inmates and other inservenors argue that the
- reasonable assureswe" Gndans t <at .S. <*i 4 7 .t
- l
.-
- Qf,'M.i. #
- requered for lesense issuense ces never to lawAstly made before consulereuon of the inmetee* conten.
, ;**' .g [. ". j g,iQ'7l * ..-
. .. ; . ,. /-
. "* 3 tiene to a==9a===a we diesgree. In the Grst piece, a grant of an esemption does not dopnve us inmates of their nght to be heard (et a formel hearing. af necesenry, or through untien Ghnss) on their admises.
,.e . 'D . M.A.j
~
.e... ,,,
.11 see - _ _ Second, through the esempuca reguieuen - whsch no party here challenges per se -
the Commessen hee ressenseed that some circumesances might warrant hcense issuance densite an apph. j- . yby .9;.,p y %' *
" .l cent's instehty to sateefy all regulosory requirements. Before such entreerthnery rehefis authonted, how.
! / ~*,f. I NW .. E . .y ever, as opptscent must show that is to juenGed under the appropnose NRC saandards.
.* ((/
- NN.*.. ',i'[ '(. 13 Merely hasang the pense ' Ghnen and noung the entenesve bnenne of the metter - as the Licenseng l
- . ,? O;. .W. .,* - C- * .- f.
seerd did in its May 24 order - is not a sutsutute for the reasoned decimonmaking contemplated by
, .'. B ;QV'* the Adaienesueeve Procedure Act. $ U.S.C. t $57(c). See Loesswas hwer and Lehr Co. (Waterford i~ d.*4) ', { * , ' .i - Steen Electnc Seenon. Unet 3). Al.As.732.17 NRC 1076,1087 n.1218983).
. ?~ ..
J. ! i 4 '.3. 4
! 1613
- t . . .d 7 i,' 1 [ :l ,* ,; s' , i*
- ~
n, ..,..>,u ). .g, t.;
- y. .: a . . . ,
. . . . .. 4, -n ,, -.,., - .
.. .*,, .q
-y> , .,
, . , e- ,..
, r, *
.., '4 -
. , i
,,j ,, -~. ,' . .
i,
- - w. - . __._-1..__; -__. 2_ __-- , . , _ ._.._,_. _ . _ _ . . _ . _ , . . _ . _ _ _ . _ - . . . . , _.__ . 2 _
n L 3.g., ; g.r:,.y .Ysprn.. g fM t:' A..f % $[ D. -. c.~ .. w.wg MTsaw?.'W. m ... .
^~
' 1 * ~ '
. ' ' ~
W 4 493MM
*C
%m..rn$m.ee .. e...t:..g4:<gN @6 W R.W b-4-r.c"Z d "H F
*h*M%c4:.i: sy:;"* n.c.m.;m.n..
u . s.n? W,. - ~' h i W * '> G$2%. f.ii):QMg f ,. c.$dQ1- .WW:.( the plan and the outcome of several remedial emergency response exer-n...
- i. N5"k.Q$ h((. cises at Graterford. See Licensing Board Order of May 9 at 5-7. But e g.sg given that the Commission's regulations require intervenors to set forth h wG *
/[f3[%'#g$E@[Wi %
h.y[fg;d. 'pd j reasonably specific contentions and bases (see 10 C.F.R. f 2.714(b)), g %(G.* $p. h the reasons for granting an exemption despite the pendency oflitigation of those contentions should be equally specific. ,,; f [M., l ) We appreciate the Board's desire to handle this matter - arising so late in the proceeding - as efliciently and expeditiously as possible. In
- v. TP ad;%&,i MJ ^ Cf Y 7-$ some instances, procedural shortcuts and innovations can serve a useful purpose without working a hardship on any party. The Licensing Board 3fSt. o N . h"4$ - A* in this very proceeding did so earlier in connection with the considera-tion of certain environmental issues, and we affirmed. See ALAB-785,
.h g "
% .J h --
A note 1, supra, 20 NRC at 862 66. The shortcuts taken in this instance, however, cannot be justified and, unfortunately, have only led to more, M~ D. ~ W@{,2h.: a, rather than less, legal wrangling and delay. @ s@/ M In an order issued just last week, the Licensing Board ruled on the n :. e.nf revised contentions submitted by the inmates. The Board determined cf - ..g~:i, Fd %, that two parts of a proposed contention are admissible - those concern- @[6b[9,[h .sp
-, an ing the training of civilian personnel in'volved in the emergency response
~
,d T p"DM plan, and the methodology for determining the estimated time of evacu-lt , d h 7M
'.v. 54
'hf $M%j ation. Licensing Board Order of June 12,1985 (unpublished). The Board can now properly consider PECo's exemption request in the con-
[, MMj@f. , t.~- f text of the two litigable issues identified in its June 12 order.'* We think 1 3.~ - M.@,1 7 q._&. m' w #.Un
'iE -
M. s c- d, M if it only fair, however, that the parties be given an opportunity to reassert their positions in light of our holdings here.'8 In order to avoid further
'G. Lea, hi FWT7 p%g6M,%g O
.. delay, we set forth below a schedule for future filings on this matter.
.wm. m
-g.n.%Mm$.x)
@t S $ p@($g c ..- . .'.j~Mc'%
. n ' % %'g ? nae 3.
A r e L. 6 9 W M. $[ %: N QMWGS.: ~.r.$.c.:.m.ir., The Licensing Board's orders of May 9 and May 24,1985, are vacated. and this matter is remanded to the Board for further action consistent evffig?.h.;,
.'.SYhWi &h5'*D Q with this decision.8* If PECo intends to renew its request for an cump-
? .! h 0 hWN $ 'S8l,.N.. $, W:[.{.2 tion, its motion should be received by the Licensing Board and the parties
. m'M NfJ *RM847c ~~ N *
- Y q no later than June H,1985. Responses to that motion should be received
' wi:M
,,.%*3!y Q'l.% .Mi $ .Q:-A . :f *"& i M
> sW. * * .' ~ . k' ;.'0.* a~*
iMu5
.,Jh$ktb.M k-hh.Q N# 'i~4 J 14 We make no judgment as to whether these or any of the inmates' proposed contentsons are admissa-3~' U b;.2
- s. - ~ A~k*%.-a. ,7g-M.,*J lN.-M Wh ...'. ,"~i.?,6 N.M/; / lHe. Moreover. we have made no eNort, in light of the Board's June 12 order, to apply the esemption cntena of 10 C.2 R. H 50.12(a) and 50 4HcH D ourselves. Like the Commission in s
[ M ?.' NWr rjh.@0 W';*;'W ' % OT *Q
.'.M at 1855 :a. we are " extremely reluctant to assume the functions of an exisung Licensing Board of S p aEfdk'-8 ~
W p% . I.7 7','. b . g y"
' n.} 4 p J" .
- y. 6* npihns 13 5 a factual record, aneiyring is and making the initial determinauon based on the record."
; "r" . 8 2*. ' Much of PEco's are the sta#'s bnefs on appeat is devoted to showing *hy the asserted deficiencies L-g #
- hN[HQi 'I. l V. ,. h. . 'm;,,;h.I,y
.i*.., .
i in the emergency plan for oraterford are not significant. This is the type of argument more property dressed to the Lscensing Board on romand.
- f.b' T,*% y;5,[ My.*,,hMh,, ~.
~7 .
Wyo. le 8ecause we have thus ruled on the ments of the appeals, vocaung the Licensang Board de A
-n.
J ew+6 ~ Y8N
.n m . .
f' g!U.'hb .u . . .w, [kh, suthertzed hcense issuance, we need not address the requests of the inmates and Anthony / foe for a
'""d'"8"'"'*
-} * . - . ,....,.7.*.
' 3 . ' %;,.l. J t,% .. ., . ' ' .i .
s M,,. wwp
- s. saa , . . ~ 9. .s.,$ g. , . .
ac. .. hhf.y{~ r s Y. u wy! b$ h. Yhf*.f,p,
$h{FT.f.*rjn.W 8+ . "- 4 G...-Q Qd , ;*g q M y- R2
QY.a:e: W!
- s:":p +X',.kV .:. : . Y,%
- l
;-. . . j. l " %Ti . "* y ;V * . . , -Mr~ ~~;= :.'"~~
~
- ' ~~ ~ ~. .r*M' " ~~~ "' ~***~~~M*'"
ew r Q. W',%r.u. c , .n, .7; 1;u,w. _3
.. c, . . . .
. . :-m. c.e s.1 . i. ,
y s. - v..
, .... ~ .
~
~ . . ~ . .<
.s, .. , _,
. . ,... c. ,
2.9 .:,n : 5 n - i *.+. .: L
. ; s.g .s . .
.' , . . ,. ..,,.,t.r w.,...
. ~ , , ~a..
- s. :. ... -. . .,
&x, . .-.1- . - i. ,,.::.f-...~, $.. . . .
by the Licensing Board and mailed to the other parties 11 days later. The N M,N .. . My f;P
.'.. Licensing Board is directed to consider the matter expeditiously, " con-sistent with conducting a fair and thorough proceeding." See CLI.
. . T. :.s pn .,
.-. 0.N.. . . w, .,. v5 7
c$.>.;,6 M ,. 4..Af. .+n...'.. a
," , e: ,. . 85-11, 21 NRC at 1586. Any appeals from (and requests to stay) the 9.~ , ., .
/. ; . .,.( , . Licensing Board's ruling, accompanied by supporting briefs, are to be re-
.'(:. U. . .,f. :.& * .j:' y..Mi.
- ..S'::;&,.. . . . .
;* . sjSl-lR'.bs.; . ,. ceived by us and the other parties 14 days after service of the Licensing
.@ .s Board's decision. Reply briefs are to be received by us and mailed to the 1.* . s.sl%*'.,'%fy! *
' @, ^} ?.6.
;M ..:2*.;t... $. Q .**' otherparties 10 days thereafter.
.r ,v .., n ~ .:~
w,..' a.c. . ,:_SWQ..f
- s. .
. ..w..u.f. .::.a . ye -
It is so ORDERED.
- . m. .= ..,... . . s,.. g. ,. p,. . . .:.
N. dn [f. M,:*,14i,V.$ . fY5Ef d $g$ M FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
. ,i.4; * '
?p - a 'E.y:w-,r'd j7/1 av , *; .
.. ~,. ?, 3 w. .^ J.a. -.
,e st v
,,. . .,...r..*,
. %.. - .- . W -.,
.n,
.; .' .:-.:p. . .. r ,.4..;,
.w ,eg ., . ,
r ,
, -f * . ,. ; , . ..e. w w m .:n t ':~.
- . %'. .t m;. ~...;a.fm. .,. *., s C. leen Shoemaker
. n w.. .s.'.:;s .. . M. , .6.. . r
- _ U.... w ..t:s..ig r.i m. .,, Secretary to the Appeal Board f.',OhsVf M .?'..A.y
.. . , ..sg.
$_ Q .C ?,< S.s c
i 5- ., 1... u..dp.u.g.s...y. -*.ry. ,. . - Mr. Edles did not participate in this decision. ,
. . t
* .a .
,-' '-Ye'y< s. c.sgtf: .y. . .. 3
, . . .i : :r ,.Al at c .
(* , i, , ; v' [. ; ,,.&k&I;.Q. J. ,' . ;-
. % _ .. . L s.n;
. ~ :
,- e e.. : -1,p' ,- & .i.'.* W : . ' . '.
. . . - - u 1. .? * * .;n * '~
,:,.3,: 'u m.n> mp: .ti.'.
*.'...,m.-,, '*(
s . wm*Vf
?l .z,;&'Y;??;,;!:.
V s , . . ' '
.. - ;*w .pt n.. ' . ., . : c. &s. 2 ;
, , ,. .. . , : w.
. :7 a .u. a. *;f..a.r. .t :' ;
,..,s. .. ,
, ;p,-. ..t- r.m,.*n ., +
- , s. .._; . .:
. . . - ,* L;, ..
. ;. ?, . .
l :
. . t . y* .m W.:c' as
<'l
,.'..-%, .,5 .*L . ;' "h~!,* ok l
, a ., ..5,s : vf t. , . 7, 4.., ,
.. e., . *.
.. - t
. . e, - .;.t L., y <
.,; . , .;.<. . c. .
e ,
. . .* a w- . :. . ;
8..
. . . . ~.'e-
,; . i . 3 rs'.* .,.n ,.
tJ..IW
-Q. -g.: y % .d '. .* ,
, ,*. , . sa
. . , . ., ~: ',, : .~ %
. t'l r .., t.a j. 4 <j:R ck 2 .*.
- : ' , * *cyq/ , :: i. t F' >..T .<.: '..
. ), * "ww 4 * ..
.T'
+
. -,,. l .* e..:. . : .+ *:sf *$,;r,e,' [
* .. ,s>*. . . go ,
n, .. .> = . ,, ~*. :y
, .. .r.1 p .n.~e,.~.%.*
Jn, ; . 3.y e.x5..n ,,; y ., '..., . .-
., . w
, . .o ".. - A.
- %, *;p,9, s.L * ?. s*i,s. b .s .2,4"4 M. . *h .*.i:.r',..
w* e .. g. :g 14' ** ,
. : ) *l.3 e : . .;Q. n , '. % . ,
.* < ; c; . % o.s. . .;.V;p .,.n ; : .. .
, '? e f.*. t .-k.*ji? .. a
.e... . * '...
-.e%. .
- l. , .. .
l . a. . 1615
- ~
.l *
.,,..,..,?n.
{ I L . , l l1s .Yl
.. , f s' $ '.'6-t t
'-U
;, pf.; a,,y%} ..y ;y! 4 . '. * .:
** i
[.-
. .- . 'a.... .
e L
- . y es.M.
- s. tm.. e . ,' .+. -
- 7. .,.........-,,.3,.,,.. -. . . . , . , . . . . . _ ,* , , , ,-
* *s"
,,., . .' -e- ^
. ,t l- 4 .t . < > ., #.
[ ..' 4 ' g i d ',e', g b, )
. .$~ . i
*'..%.....?., ',
[
* - *: ;s
- i
*: 4
. . > y 9 ," i .
'.1.
- 1
.t ..Q . .m - i8 .a....s* , , . .., **
m f'p. fin.<.W.- v.hn.@': ef"?J?" . : 17:T ' *
. .,. - ..3 l
$$.h.'S[$b.h;g,M:,b *F " '. .( ' l ':. . s M - Q '* f ?'.4,R. % ,, '- : . w _.. %**n... u.WrWl.'4;%Q.W .25 v-
.h/ *7 s:V U' d' kt * . . . . #
??Y ,
k
;MJ..fM !s@d %'s 4 7 :%D - ' d 't '"'o.- . . '
W*[%.' M j>%?',T-.,{M 'Q:
-2 &- .u g 9'+3'.f.; % d -P --V' '- ^., , ; . ' l, - '- ~ ~ < ' - - - -- - -
. .:r%W.
T: 4h %,e M - - " - ~ * " - ~
" s 6;... ~' .i-M,U W:. .6-.M
- .T..~ 1.. wq n 1,Lic * ~# *w.. >T W%,. rr ,. T 4 ,> ..%.s.....L~
R.v. %'n M
..s
#e p K:W :.4.. .? &:,:~
n - V; .. - ) m . - :. c. - A - ,t*g i. ,m-m%epEp.V..:M r>* -
%. .. . n.wws.x n: t.;a:e.
. . .w p .+ + .w u . . .
i x. ..: v;W y pMsq.gw a.n,m. .5 g,p..Ny ;rn -*w . w A, : ;< p,:p:.
. . ~ . .
i.t :. y~. ..;.. ,M. . c. ., - m.mw c. m. m . .~. Cite as 21 NRC 1618 (1985) ALA8 810 vg . . ..,.a. md. . . .w o. .w. m,L:.w
.c se.. .m
,e -
$w$ Y # ~I Mi%g b . - ..@$5N{u + .@N.
; @tf m. Mr!NN.h.L~.: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 ..,g.v 45,: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s* J; ==]V,i.,1yb';9sg@,a.
;j e.*
. &* 'k6+yN.hM, &DjSWS:lTry)i 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL 80ARD
$w 25tti-b
. J ' W:'.;
"2***.it#
i%R*25 .ea.w .
}. &.w;.,;Arp '
. i h,. . r ~w ;a - . ., - A.$.g.* y - m y '.k n
- y. W e w , g:% WL/eg . ,- .,, .., . . Administrative Judges:
' W--W4:#. , egg i n?-f-%@.
. qW/fc.m.e.
-.%y g.
M.,a h Nhi Alan S. Rosethal, Chairman K'gsg"fh N
- Gary J. ? dies Ih*7."'
w ;. a ae S....p.@
"hu -dg-n- ifs.. Howard A. Vitt er
.. s N-
*i. g. . . .v.3.g
% A
. W. W s'5*Ny.x.n: vm s..*
. . ag,..
e..,. *> r y%>.,.m,A,- m e M, w .a% ~, A . in the Matter of
$? Ak.: W **$h $,;^ j Docket No. 50-322 0L
?.d*r.h,,./.s: p 1 Wi'$$$$
,. M rs .w: w LONG ISLAND LIGHTING - -
y,o,,n. %" 2,.s nc mf.w Q ,.. @w " COMPANY %. 6 g,gg"@-Np$- (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, M3>{ : 57 &e.. e
. ,.m., -. Yin.M.rp,;m.
r.=,5,:-4 c,, m .$ 6,: c Unit 1) June 19,1985
.if'" . v ;%w.M+v4<w .,. pb.y',
.< Qfx?+d
.. .v." n s.m.. .y.mA. w.: wy.., w4: ~
.;;x. 4 pi se.w.m Mhib;st;4,y x.i d.p The Appeal Board denies intervenors' motion for a stay of the effec-M.N .. 6 % M[ h . b Ih g p. %% M . M: tivenessf. MLicensing of the W NBoard's fM S.Y@g'$ayg. partial initial decision in this operating , license proceeding authorizing the issuance of a low power license for 4 . Qi #"W, Q.is...s.8_p?p,: 7 .. @_ the Shoreham facility. The Appeal Board, however, continues a pre-
.T- #' M M, @Mt.' M NX Qr(". .M.c.
's't*S
. ..M: .. %L.$f,(:$' 4 Q Q y g& ;.;,-
viously granted emergency stay for a brief additional period to afford in-tervenors the opportunity to seek relief from the Commission.
. - . . .. m ...)f-
' = y *
,, .'p . .?S!.
- lt$. $E-i . s f. .o ' es
- m. .e%.;,ys.V:.k.,;w .y .
{A ,j;"u';n.)&. ,. .5 L'*...h,.:.1;<.. g . ,n .3,%,".s .7
?* k* v. .
- h
.s. s s,ey = RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION
'l. n?~}
.; ?g % .>ty **P}.*' w*j Q'.;& *
,.V-10 C.F.R. f 2.788(e) requires that claims of entitlement to a stay be
'W. .
5'OM. c
.qpt p;3
'f' &e.@f.M
$.,dk..s.%.S i?
.. - a %.i .:'%OM.W. assessed '. ~Mi in the context of four A' criteria:
q, h7kW'Nbidk.I".s~~E W. (1) Whether the moving party has made a strong showing that it is likely to pre. M&sm@he%bt.::. c DT4'4-W M.*8/.'h.,j[':p
.,I' d vail on the merits; M.N * ; ,,%.. *. *S5(k,k a-? ;;l M.di% M Q) Whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted;
- 0) Whether the granting of a stay would harm other parties; and
, A.P%. r (4) Where the public interest hes.
*w;u * ';A'g,,s " M"% .A*rs &f .g[9$ ,.f' fad,
#pl9.'t.A*n'!
S, -.
'.MD* g m c,'c,.g
* =t .. '
- A'W e
.M .S. N ." hh $
.G_.h'1)* l$A sa.,v .73'WEW,7'*d}:d..'<*['D
.w * , 'l .,
~ 9 *s.<g' :. . . ,:rn-. .. ' . ,*L.-
.. e . ,,;:.
.: gs:W9 M. '"
n g w?.," .p. T. W N ~~; %.o
.- 1616
- - G , ;. ~ - ^ ..,c...
2/.f7 ). q;.. i.v?#.:.- . ;'^ A h., f .*TI ,.-# * ** e dp:4 %w.g. p o se?,,,N. w.Q.m, ,*. .'%m. ga &y,'. .a S, eap* .. t i m.
.- x, v -..; QT. i r. e n.,.. g'
- t. . .. - A .,.-....,-.m.--.
....-s.--
t M..** 7.js l f* fl'
.: . c
'w.
.?.. c- <r ;
n::. pp':dy):fh>.. ..p 4+s ,. -
";. s ;, .c "
r[C. . 2&. D.%,J :;* '
. . . ~ " - -6
- 3 ct 9 e~? . m =' .s' .*
- w
'p?. N "2'!Et,. '., . n* :. OM . .. *
. .f '.; W 7,1 l.r . 5 o
wf.& pr;i; %..:' ---
-o *
~
.x. - . .- .- . .- - . . - . . ==
** 0'
. .. .,.;m c . m . . ~.. . ,y ,.
. v. .: .
.. .. , .am.n . ..,. ~, .- ..c..... ;n,. . r
- M, < w
=
- - u.. . : :. . . . . u i
, wl , .~ . -
..- .. v.y -.1,
.s.
. ag e ..
oe m a' f4 i **
- e .: .
- 4. 3 ** , 3j ~
.&. e.- m. - APPEAL BOARD: SCOPE OF REVIEW W. . , . '* *: :cs.@h..
dj "J7;: . ,
, M s':- ?. . s. .m lt is not within the province of the Appeal Board to passjudgment, for t."( i; .tM
[M;).C Q ~ .;;. 1.R stay purposes or otherwise, upon the correctness of Commission rulings. k3.i.hM.~' . .* i.[ .. . . .r.3 _m.,. Msr.
. ;,d.lW
,',.,...*/'..
.j):Q-?d.. ,:. :p .:Q n . . w .' . i t-s.. .' ..>
sp.. :v'..: . . .
.g. ,7d g". . 'T f iE RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION w
M5@. gw (IRREPARABLE INJURY) Ji.$; .n.v..r. ,28.3f.i." ,
- iThf [li.('7:
c. M.Td@e.:.gN '~l- ..r- u. 5 The potential mooting of an appeal does not per se constitute irrepara-ble injury; it also must be established that the activity that will take place C ;,'[.;.y.@'ct .x, 'g.(:+7].-p(;ig $-r[ , , , ,. in the absence of a stay will bring about concrete harm. Duke Power Co. k... s. s g. t
.o ~:x,m.... g. ?,9.V .C. .
- p. fA. C, . (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-794, 20 NRC 1630, v.g.Q..sr'pM~.g.-y.
*. g .ge- A. 4 i , v, cYEW.af
. c.
. 1635 (1984).
s."y: , ..
. . s.
e . p- y i:- i. .., ,. W . .. p= *.;.'t ,.:. . . s* -. .a jd
- y. Qg.f-yk.n'~[/p:V
. n ..s . ,:.. i .:
- s. .
-[
' RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION
' Y;g '..j 'C,,'Q.R.].?.'; SQ, j.$ . }.f If the movant for a stay fails to meet its burden on the first two section 2.788(e) factors, it is unnecesssry to dwell long on whether a stay would
. L.. W,. e. .' ...
"..t t . - .} ,
cause serious injury to the applicant or to delve deeply into public inter-est considerations. Duke Power Co. (Carawba Nuclear Station, Units 1
. j. . -3.. . ,
fy r . g ,.c@r. 4' $p,p'1. t;?, , " . W:
%. m and 2), ALAB-794,20 NRC 1630,1635 (1984).
.- . ; :. 7.q;:1.,.:.. . ~
.4.
.. . .;. ef.~a'mWs .
.n .. ,
' s. ' /(^ . 1 4.<.
W c'j s.f,. - RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION y,.:-
' .Ms'JPS;T .
The function of the Appeal Board in passing upon stay motions is to
- - _- . ' {.MS:,My.y?f determine, on an application of the four section 2.788(e) factors, wheth-
, v ~ r. - /j' G . ,r er the movant has established an entitlement to the sought relief.
x . ..~ :, :.m. ..
. e,.e . . . ..
4
~ , 7A . .g . . .T.,i., F.Q.,
M...
. . . m .:.*t ; ..;
N APPEARANCES x, ... .. .- f,,.. . "_ . r s&; Herbert H. Brown, Lawrence Coe Lanpher and Karls J. Letsche, v.;i;.M....ra-
-?.( Washington, D.C., for the intervenor Suffolk County.
. .. .n . r
- N.
' ... Y.M. "W.: -
. , .n. ,ift.i v .
Fabian G. Palomino, Albany, New York, for the intervenor State of
.- , ~~ ,,. , '.f . c.ry w.
- 2. C. . . . New York.
.t * ; . > 4 , y j... ; y ;-
dh~ Donald P. Irwla and Robert M. Rolfe, Richmond, Virginia, for the ap-
. 'M.[ W.$.sfr. :L
..-:.i?.; . . . i.T... c 4. . .
, plicant Long Island Lighting Company.
f .a e . 7, , . :~s ., s.,,: ,. > ., .
. . . 2.ii:;; (;C.. . . .J
.f.., Robert G. Perils for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stafT.
m . ,
, . , .-m..e
',a' f.*[a , S fy' a / Y [
, . . ~ . *. .- n tl. , , 'e;?
I s'
..-s'-
? --
; . 1617
. . . ".!d.j . ,- G ,<, . .7. . ) q, . ' , . , . . . . .,g..
m .:y4 v^: '. 1 '.
.- .r +-. o. .~t.. .
. s.4 d -
, ,^v *#,
.I* . ,e[ ,. . ,. k, pp *.P .PauP*. ,me-o*-.+=.-e-.,y;,7......'
,7 '
. 1.
.r.. +, ,
. 'fg, . , : ,'. . .-
'. . s - ,
. , 4 *C
~- .
. . . 's.
. , W c.6 1 e QU if'%"Nh.4 3-yc.-hhD's , '[' ,.. / ' ' '
- S;M.},g 5 MbkN.D.,t'b*' b 4ww.yh , w. W4 E "
hNhk.hkhf@.hhhM.NbdM w m:w. wW ..a :a . 3 '
. m
- ,.w.L.v.m W:.4e@: .e p&::%m m w .; m" - --e.-
m.. =M T.i ^ - 2"- "--- - "----
.$.O r.
MW ';2pq : %n &clx:i g.(~ h
.:. .s2-;
M@Am..M W Wgb4MK;s:s f? cc" . , -'y".N .
.: mD 'F M A % .r.ym. ..w s ;w.2M@~M;;@;.n.k.4%
T giShM ^?'N*t' w.! W : ' ' ?^$+%;
% .w h OW,Abd: y, y .d%.D W. k..y'.'.-- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
- .hlW
$..?,Qt Wp Ygw b
.$ 5?
<;&.M%$f "
~%.fq.z.;';.b'Y&.y,#:$
g V ' b.7tQ M.k. Before us is the joint motion of intervenors Suffolk County and the (
~
EIp$F$[; i dMQ@M61EYs[T L State of New York for a stay pendente lite of the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's June 14, 1985 partial initial decision in this operating r M
~
-dMM license proceeding involving the Shoreham nuclear facility.' In that deci-4 %h8'Midh sion, the Board addressed the issue of whether the Transamerica Delaval (TDI) diesel generators now installed at the facility can be relied upon 1
i.C.WD2 $. Nh,[MC, ?.'wp:hl#yg867:
* . % Y h gi5 9
(. Elk to satisfy the regulatory requirement of an onsite alternating current electric power system meeting certain standards.2 Subject to several qual-i'[M 5 I .?
.M5.5f +M'#M$h ifications, the Licensing Board answered this question affirmatively. Ac-
#/.3 M. %. ,.@6Q s r. O'd' ~ -
'e 9
cordingly, it authorized the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to ti permii the facility to operate at levels up to five percent of rated power.2 MifS[...# W
@e7
.R '
.Q,.s, 4@$.h..
24 m , m.:< e- yM.-.-.,-J Upon the receipt of the intervenors' motion, the Board Chairman en-tered an exparte stay to preserve the status quo pending the considera-ff . .cp>(;}h J i tion of the motion following the filing of the responses of the other par-
$.g% f ,W *gfW-g ties.* Those responses are now in hand. Both the applicant and the NRC &,x mc 4 .. .,/d: .r a stalToppose the relief requested.
p*g,W. u
+p .4,. 4 -
. 4.
th,er. W' w As required by 10 C.F.R. 2.788(e), we have assessed the intervenors' u, < y. m . g ;
.g j claim of entitlement to a stay in the context of the four familiar criteria: $#t y"jye.&sKJQ3 J.- .
- 0) Whether the moving party has made a strong showing that it is likely to pre-MA lM"['[y[, e .I p ini,,e, f[fg@$kdtQ vaal on the ments:
I.$yM.:bR.[m r.
' * ' '1%Q.E.M
. . . ' ' t? @" da?f 8 JN d-4'./7M M '~M'S/
. ye t . , ...
c U) Whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted; U) Whether the granting of a stay would harm other parties; and (4) Where the pubic interest lies. M.h u , y Mg Mr mm @' q ,i W . + f. e. W 's)
- d. .. v.w:. .bc . ,
D,
- r.
,Y. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that that claim is without
$ 7,9 E..,.c.n EM ./Mp.W t W :n h
.. o .
4 9 [S:.g. &; @N..~. +w W. e$ merit. We are, however, continuing our emergency stay for a brief addi-tional period to allow the intervenors to seek relief from the Commission
'fC M;. g- $ . 6...$ d
~GW.. m . . .m .L,W*r';si T e _
. t hey are so m.cl.ined.
Ig.
~;* :y yq. .. ,fy.T...,gJ.. ~1, ^ ^' :s ' i. . I&. p.N'[Ww=:h':. W ~
q ~*. ,.
. M ';'.C.,,y:e.
, l.
*w i,s9' '. .; %gy:.'i .
.,y<. .. ,e :. . ,, , '.z.x
*i* e %'#,fp @M .D. . d '.r- N* b -$.M.;...iftj&:.cjl c' y ' .>
c~. rg a y y Q n .r o; ; .
- d. 4;..> *M.-ph.V g - >.,* ;v#9y.'w~ X. W'M'A*
u.i w.,,.:.
. .p .:;'V.qQ
.h . .w
. . l:- L'
- See L8P.85 58. 2l NRC l631 s;,.p;kY hf ,. 9,hh*N 2
'4 w , FlW ;.$.'.>'e.h.A74 w . . das A.
That requirement is contained in Generat Demen Cruerion (GDC) 17.10 C.F.R. Part 50. Appen. l / y M 3'.Q '8$*,$ ".,*;!_..I.M.,')'M ; 2 1.8P-85-18. 21 NRC at 1704. As mauers now stand. the Shoreham facihty has an authonration ihai MMcP," h M'749 ~. %'2 . $. ' i-h, N .. '
' entends only to fuel toe &ns, precrmcahey tesung, and co64 cnucahey tesnes. See CLI 84 21. 20 NRC 1437 0944L These activines have been uniformly referred to in this proceeding as Phases I and II of
;'d4 @'t ~l'$TJfM-M
>? i.E 1 . . . .. low.p wer operauon. The June 14 decmon authonzed Phases lit and Iv of such operanon.
%.n.@.W.?afM
- 9. v !-~[ 4;f'M@ W , h-d W ' p b>l:d'. -9 c.
4 -
'4 , g.d'~f*M: r. .4 ~ s' .. ~ y.{- 'See order of June 17. 1985 tunpubhshed). entered by the Board Chairman, in the absence or a quorum. under the authoney of 10 C.F R. 2.787(b)(D. That order also provided that the responses to
$.S.h, j' 8EJ 'M vC?M1$*$ M*f g
'U.'7N. & ;s).;%(M y & W -',%.;? D" the may motion were to be in the hands of the Board by this mormns.
m
.? nN,
. .eyMh,w: 4.m;-p.e. ~.dr.;ui.m.p ..., ye d' ...ca. - .3; s-:A , n.=W .w% g .p. ..: .
> >Yg r f['Q.:y*MW
.x><
.s I618 1 l
. . ._ . :~
g cw s ..,.r_ :. r.c o)' )m. q w... , g_. e.y.m.
- v. , ,, .:
. . .pi;., ;, m. , ' " .-
- X,,.;h'$
M':
.- vs 9 ~; 1. . - -.
n -- ---~-
' r)9% . *
- R,*.**Tr' ;;,%w *.:= l :~P.~ -
r ; ; '.
+. ~
i "yf.f,Gt'r.t r $nl.t *Ae. G. ~.:. ..o t, a;,,: ,} < 4..%, * *..
* * )
b$4,.,%d '.w 4
.k. .y/ Q E ' ~%~,: :7 4*i, ' , .<*i'e7
. ; J I.
;^ h '- ' > s-
=
-l
.s,
- e 4 'f .
Wy- h*g.*,i!:.. v.cm,:J, u; >. ~ < >v- ' ,.
~
.g , r: .' 'c-e
',: y:< r:n. .
. : . s.s , .:O.c.
... e:e -
.s m 7 -: -
. m. , ,- ,
' - ~ '
.. m . - _ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . d. :. . ' . - . - -
> .3,, . s -l Ju
.t 7:q y ,
~ s c,, ;g i' .
*'s, .,
f l?ig+* " I,, w,. ,
. m.... /. ,'., 7,N g .
..s
- 4. . . ,
, c tc ; I.
- y. ' 4.t.
. @, Q c;9.i ~.
. .J.,i Q, .
c . 'V' . . v: A. In addressing the first section 2.788(e) factor, the intervenors 6,a '. . -
.! 9 .m :- barely mention the June 14 partial initial decision. All we are told is that
- ~
- n. .
;;,p. < ' 4
,O"j . ' .i}. the Licensing Board committed " serious substantive and procedural"
%,y .;' ' -
i
. .9 crrors in, later alla its interpretation and application of the governing
- d. f'f &..$,st...;.yf <-ld 9 a. General Design Criterion and its exclusion of certain evidence proffered s
!f :$7. X 9.c.e .
^ ..- . .s.M g, ..7 .,\
by the County and State.* That representation, without further detail, is (i.9;.t ,y.h s.r. . .6 D. plainly insufficient to constitute the required " strong showing" that the
.y 3 , ... l ; , N . : y .K*p {* ;Q:f, :. ? .1 intervenors are likely to prevail on an appeal from the June 14 decision.'
-f.kd. * .M y ,wt..
aC f.. , ' **
7:,' .
- . The intervenors' main assertion, however, is that the Commission
- l'<; .$. W
^ '
erred when, in response to a question certified by us, it held a year ago
$6.% %
1h. 1 "?)C..'y
., l..
f that the issuance of a supplemental environmental impact statement is
'[.!. ,. 0
' . l.', ',p;. 2 [ . ., N.9'J." 'i.
0- '*
.,,.< . ' not a prerequisite to low power Shoreham operation.8 Needless to say,
. : f' that assertion is addressed to the wrong forum. It is not within our prov-
. (. G' ' . ' 3
'fl .7 ~ "," l' ince to pass judgment, for stay purposes or otherwise, upon the correct-
. . [6. ~(.G$. .l ness of Commission rulings. Nor, contrary to the intervenors' apparent
. .M ,, . , ,. ' l . belief, can we attach significance to the fact that the Commission
' % . g }.t ' $, determination in question is now pending judicial review by the. Court of
.J.5 Wyf. Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.' As the intervenors ac.
', f. y.f'M,'N , '.
.a knowledge,88 the Commission denied their earlier request to withhold a
.r,.
' 7
.- ,fr . jfN;Ri ..
Iow Power license pending the outcome of that review. Although they
'/".E' : ~ (ip % ,, so on to insist that developments since that denial reinforce the founda-m.. R.x. . . ' tion for their claim that the National Environmental Policy Act required
.. $#y *l the issuance of a supplemental environmental impact statement, we en-te.rtain substantial doubt that that is so. Be that as it may, it is for the
' 2" PJ" ,'* :
, Commission and/or the Court of Appeals - not us - to assess what
"/-. ' . ,' . . .. 7. )~.Of'.S' impact, if any, recent events (both those cited by the intervenors and
> .,s '
y-c.,i, those not mentioned) might have upon the val!dity of the Commission
- ** determination that they have challenged.
. ~ . _ ,
B. There is no better footing to the intervenors' claim that they will
- . , .e., ..'," . . . . J; suffer irreparabic injury if a stay is not granted (the second section
;. .i . , ., : e... .. c%. .
,,s.. -
2.788(e) factor). In advancing that claim, the intervenors do not assert,
. . . c. ,es . , .
.L_ . ..- q* .c. t k A ;. .-
-- d.
'..yap. .,. f t h. ea . .' . . ], 85w now 2. mye.
,; . ".y. #.
- 5udoek County and $taes or New Yort Monon for stay or Low Power License (luew l7,1985)
'.*j]M*~.f*..., .J.b.
(herenner "Inservenors' Motson") as 6 7. T :".j / '.d I Sw Dna Feew Ca (Catautie Nuclear Stanon, Unus I and 2). ALAS.794. 20 NRC 1630,1632 33
, ,._r. .. - -
(19e4).
; - ,. ,, .. d ' . -
- M 8ALAB.769.19 NRC 993 (1984); CLI.84 9, [9 NRC l323, j)23 23 ([984),
'6*. . .'"*
.* ' 'Sw Cuomo v. MC. No. 831042 (D C. Cir., Gled Jan. 18. 1983). It is our understanding that the
. . ) . ' ? * .' . - ' .-
, ,S brwr.ng or the entervenors' peutwo for review is aimost comp 6eie. but the Cot.4 of Appeals has not as
. . igi ^ ,p yet scheduled the matter for oral argument.
en 18:nwrvenor Mononet).
. , - ~. . ,
d t
, 1619 4
r
,q ,'~ f.
~
. *
- j ?i. . **-
l
.o<y( .. . ~. -c ;,-......~...p.3.;,....-.. . .-. -, .
. 4 -
. ~ ., **
. 6' , O b $
_ m_ _ . . _ .~. fM:M .:'C .:,?.^%.y'*!.,Uf.&&,jk2&@sq*.%.S /. +
~.? ..J j . ,.?.
. f,.,.i v. 2 yw . w ,y mf,%. . . '. ** .m
. c.
. s c .a ..Mc %. #
$Q.yj;y, .b ,9'. 1 y'.J R s Q;7:. n,::
^
&?*C;4
.E 3 g?P f M.MW.'MWM$n@9.;%,.p$;.4f.:.;;,g; r
WW ~ q ..
~-
WW ' Q N ~.1 J.Y.7 ' '-
. M/MT- .?.h w $ r m f Q^y Q Q i. h) MM3 - .
. .- . ~ - . . -- - :-.. " .-. - ..a
&x.&$,$. e$4.-gi.rl.1..il W . W :' E x.*;
M.C* .}..;gpe
~
, . . , , wtan .
sw *L*, %.?-+:;y* &g E J,.:,T.c. ... Nh, .k.
' ,we. g.k...# spa. k...M. *%iQ .
. Y('g& . gH g; N .NDW c* k let alone demonstrate, that operation of the facility at levels up to five percent of rated power would pose a threat to the public health and I., Qg safety." Rather, the asserted irreparable injury is the potential mooting
'. F$ ..
, *g%.llyyg:Ns e of their pending petition forjudicial review of the Commission's decision j'g' e c-> -
G v that a supplemental environmental impact statement is not required. As we had recent occasion to observe in denying a stay in the Catawba fym Proceeding, the potential mooting of an appeal does not per se constitute
. . Ogp
&: irreparable irduty; it also must be established that the activity that will M@k..[g[;. in g j M g;f M take place in the absence of a stay will bring about concrete harm.'2
'8Ihh
. %Q?M.#
^
5, _jrM-F
-FR' T Indeed, if the rule were otherwise, it would rarely be possible for an ad.
Judicatory decision to take efrect until all appellate remedies had been
.Eh
t'i'.[t.y-g h '4h, <*. k
" " ' exhausted - an obviously untenable result. Thus, in the absence (as here) of the slightest showing of an actual threat to the public health
* ),f f '
,7,; " .4 .
and safety (or irreparable environmental damage) stemming from low-Mh$
.mr.'k.[
., wer Shoreham operation, the mootness consideration cannot carry the Wgg;,
- cAh gy W Y
C. As also observed in Catawba, if the movant for a stay fails to meet its burden on the first two section 2.788(e) factors, it is unneces-(.h hkM sary to " dwell long on whether a stay would cause serious injury to the
., applicant" or to " delve deeply into public interest considerations."o 3.
Am grgy ,
~%@YJfh g
.u :n& Here, as there, it suffices to say that
. $ *? d
$ * . W;,,r . "
- M even when viewed in its most favorable light, the intervenors' presentation on Mf
#'k * [.N Ehkl$kN.
- those factors does not approach belancms the shortcommes of their case on the other two factors. Indeed. standmg by itself, the intervenors' failure to demonstrate N! N 1%'*3,y'{M %$(M.{ .
that they might be irreparably injured in the absence of a stay is enough to call for h.',hi,M' W8v,'
-% WE 4m CSmeW r.: gwd Ihk'7Q M M.e$ P.f.6 the donalof their apphcotson.
Y fMW7$M,@@%. M w .mm. .u ief.I$7 g II. NM. @m. 2_.,. :>.~..D. 3 .....-tj ,.I.,M,-M. .. . 'J.YN Intervenors call our attention to the fact that, on the same day they
. ; gy' *g .
filed their stay motion with us, they sought an emergency stay of the ef. W '. fectiveness of the June 14 partial initial decision from the Court of Ap-
. .M$. . .C.n..u..%g
,4.C..':
9.;;?C* /,
.m,.+.
7 c2 peals aN..s2. for the District yM?.T of Columbia Y.: Circuit.Np..M.,. According to intervenors, that
; , ., r. , &. p*. :./.,
n
.. W i'P*9 }p.s. ~ .- ; c M ....@-y..f.(*f
~, .e .
.:a.e ,Ard ~;q, W ~e N, P/.
,*d # r 1* I* . *;
- H The sier messon is escompensed by the unesened and undated somt statamene or Dele o. Sndenbeush
.+'*
[,. QQM f,qfLT #.7q.Y *'.v'*h,g*[ end ofegory C. Minor. Apart front the fact that it is not rehod upon by the intervenors in connection g.
. N.i KTp N;'.s. ,; * .
with their irrepareole injury argument, our inspecuon or this document has dieslooed noihrns to suggest that intresoung the power level o.' the facihty to Gwe percent might be mjunous to the general public. j' T.f k .f." D' .e4 7. . . . 'i['.f*N N,;g. tN. , /#2Q4 ; (Under ese Phase 11 authority (sse nose J suprel. the facility is now authonzed to operaie at levels up to 0.001 pertens orreesd power. Sse lap.44-45,20 NRC i14), t34). I384 (1984) )
.Wp. [s'$att . '
M.H 5 $'GM7.k . * @, . ,7.M. .h h U.. j @y ;h 1220 NRC es 16)$. w m-Qr&ty y
, _ , , , 4 f* Inad. 'I 4*T, s.h,;%.h. ' 2 e ..:k)p.h.1
- h.'y):'J N, .. T A lN....G a '.f,f$:Q' . y . .+x . *
% . k;;?'&,V , Q*.*. lc L. .-
*2 3 h(O.'1 3.* y,r,J . * %
1620
;7..:.gheQQ.A.i@l 3 %. ;.C **
~'
$$ h* f.' Y'.
UM .x..4 .. g.m f j:d.5T"
- . ';.p?
El%g& un r M$.A,M@6/.b;bs**;} M. v + , w'.'.Y;m' . . - , , -
- - . - - - - ~
v.-- - b{'N.:p.ffy.M:c&Q:Q,.W.dk. . W ,, v. .,
, J'. . i ** .
~~.
..w m i W *. $...a.ty,n ,4 o,G. . W*%'.C_
vA 4.
- v. . .~,,,'%',"..
u ~,v-
,' ~
' he._&p - vin.. -
* . :. .'m, - .
.m . m. _ _ . _ . _.. .. .
s: .. y .' 9.-
,.r..e-..'
3O. n3p.s rr,; ? +,. * , .
.c,a'
., ' ,. fa;-
.%.,+sy ti':f- ., . .;i. .
l- .{cvn .-
-+
- _ . m_._. . . . . . .
......u.. . . _. . . . . .
, ., ...; . n. . .
6, o.:n...
. ; 1, . .- , . . , . .. .
sn :. . , L .
- r, .a 'c .
4:+,;iz. . .
.~ . , g:- ;' %.
i1 - ; .f, . . , W. development merits our grant of a stay to at least July 2 even should we Q:. - ;& r
. gjj , , ~ ' ':y find that the " traditional stay criteria" are not satisfied." The significance g
. , , . - .t
. ... . .p. , . ";: ; . . ; .
'.",- of the reference to July 2 is that the intervenors apparently have asked l,.j !? ' j. . e.t * , ~ , . " (.: .,dii.
;; the Court of Appeals to rule (if necessary) upon their emergency stay WP. motion by that date.
A,0 ;,W. i.
- n. .y 'e ,..1 ~. . .
., 17 9 '~
S. .
. As we see i.t, our (unction in passing upon stay motions is to deter-
":.-9. .a . ; . .r. ,. ; . J f M c. k. mine, on an application of the four section 2.788(e) factors, whether the (6 C.-dTT,s;. k., .,.v. %.A'. "E.pJ . . :..g. ./f.W:,f,2&; ca .
"' v. .:
- p. D . . . 3 movant has established an entitlement to the sought relief. We have
.1 . . . ,' .N.M.,
.t .
- . now discharged that function ~ here and reached a conclusion adverse tc.
@. ..m a.. . ':;,.: ~. :e.: . ..j 'i.go ti a .
s S. .. the motion. Whether the effectiveness of the June 14 decision should, 7.Q '. . , m.je.,t-J.x;W.
':4. tc . @... i ,% , nonetheless be withheld for an additional period to accommodate possi-jd W i't , V.@%g ) l Q. .
ble judicial action is, in our view, a question appropriate, at least in this
%.[$-:.
. ' ggi ;.5 -:v/
*1 case, for response in the first instance by the Commission itself.
To this end, we will briefly extend the June 17,1985 emergency stay
.n W M. ;%9, ,c.p-n. h:..~.j .,p.2.-@, ,
M h;g$ . entered by the Board Chairman. That stay will remain in effect until5:00 9, N c', ~.. J :jy T .q.- p.m. on /une 20, 1985. If, prior to that time, the intervenors have a
'.YBM i .' ..';.'; ' My@g ?.ic'
'-~
renewal of their stay motion in the hands of the Commission, the 7 ' ; .' MgD.M . i
, emergency stay will be automatically extended to 5:00 p.m. on June 15, ,
, . - WP.$e. ' .~,;. s, 1985, assuming that the Commission does not direct othetwise in the
.. .i% ., . -:. . terim.
in u.U.f *.~ 31:.r. 46 ;::.
,$. .g%,%. .q . , It is so ORDERED.
- ; .. ~
2
. . .wf:n-s3 .' .
. .. ;w pIf.
- FOR THE APPEAL BOARD c . g'" ..$, .
4 &,ae mas t.. -
.3... :.a,-
. . c. .
'/ .y*. .
a +y.W:.*s C. Jean Shoemaker Secretary to the g#' .. u O '.'JME,5.'N *'
. r.
V3:. .. . - Appeal Board
. .&. ,q.. . ;-:m.x. ~.,
, ;. - :. +
i; m
. .; . - ,I, iya
. =., .
Mr. Edles did not participate in the consideration or disposition of this
.-r .-
. matter.
..r w .
.c.,..- .
.1
. . ~ . .
.ws;f(. . .:- ;
' l- J.
.9 ylg . - .
.. .. . v."
d , .c s-- ,Q y n,M... ; y-f
... . ... .q. . . ,,; ., ~... , J l . W..r;:;;-
'; ".;:w. wh;.-p; ;;, . -Q T.
;; . . %... .;;W:
. 3.Q,: .
..~.
- i. . ;b. , g.+ u. . ..'-. . .
r a. +,:-..)
,;./h .w nq ..:..
l am...7..,-t .:. :.. + .
.fV.q :.7
. . .- M. q . %..: . :- , '.- e.:5;., us n.,,,,o 3 3.
g *
- p. ,
. *3.
*f 1621 a . . - . .
s . .. .I % m. , .. ,...:n.m ,s.. a
.v;
, - . '&. ,, ,,l *,=. }* .*e. '
.s * { . '. *Q
.g.. es p . , , . , , , , , ,
, o '
e .e9 'M' ' l* l "-
- e
.~..g. *
* .. .s . ., .: ,
4 h 4 ,
,,,,. y _ . , , .
Y$$@$.,x.g.w&. vg-A Wpe. ...;.W....n. . n.. . . . . , ~~ W. _ilW w :m:%m.a :mM+c. s: . h h ,w;' ;chNkhM.^
^ ~
h$h.g.hbYkbk.h$ l
#y2, ygwwwrw h N-- S ~=--'--" -
" -- - -- --'*"~ " ~
c., e.. n.s
- 4* 3. . w /s. %w;fn w c.w~.e w n. M
. . . r..
n: ?,.:n -
.q KQv,'J,Q n"f. w M *T'-e, k:u ,Af.f'[fvN.t.' w .s
?,
;.*/*,'i. A
. G":'d, N @ w$. M . 4 p % @d' 2 .,e a o'sv'as&.
n A x.M .w @. mpc. $n..+w 2 NRC ie22 oses AtAs.su s-A. p;M.wuM' d' r8 [f% 4'%.M !'h s, y., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f.h%,,,%gSd.$$;>f&. ~.
. ye.$, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- :. m . . -. ~.
.mh'p-b: - 5,. ~ ~ . . . QEa"*';.w~.%(.$.M 'L
" Q~ b er M.s-maw ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
- u. j$' e.
.i. .w. q.pfem, .m#.r~ M ~s,,"' .grd g nw:.s..,m hh , N h h Administrative Judges:
-@ggtp y My $a-pg.- N. wt 3 Thomas S. Moore, Chairman
. W'4-@.);Q;M'RE.T . .. ,N
'f.'.V.
~~%e ,. QSX-.g%~.,,
h
^
Cw
.- V Dr. W. Reed Johnson . sk ,- .. . . . - #
u,;gg 4 .w,# .t
.ff{y'.'b Q 3rg.wp id,, ' .i.t?
,g \ 's
-W VVq "c';dS@
m ' cM69 m-u*u @w :-< w -:.. w+ e e " Mwkg ..t .t-Q la the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-275 0L s r. . .m.. v. xMf.my/c -- . ~w . 50 323 0L 7 1 * '* YI 3,.; M.I9$). U r. l M"yd,.,.21QM6Nf PACIFIC GAS AND ELECT 5lC m ]$mP.,r,gr;y.in,yp .Mi . p q COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Mi M f .' % ~' j g _.- Q,m@d 4 , Plant,
&; 4,;h Units 1 andJ 2) 1M4,#$, June 27,1985 r% w:, .1 -
wM .r.wG . M.m . (./ W+W;b.e~$.g. 3 l. z. 3-M M $3/ qN4 y$ % $ 1.., T/$$ % $$q"I h M 1 The@$ Appeal $ Board +finds(.%,$ in this reopened operating license proceeding that the Licensee's Unit 2 verification program is sufficient to establish Ghk$$hMkit c G .$ that the design of Diablo Canyon, Unit 2, meets its licensing criteria and
% s.
v.a % M>d.c.q.Ad
;:y 4'5 WEWW . M.adequate provides ((W confidence that the Unit 2 safety-related structures,
# ,F:, Ry-.w.e.4.
, g g.:f $ b.~h.r g i p.;p m.y. y. L, A;;n.t
,. esystems v. M...,m and components are designed to perform satisfactonly in serv-
.f ..
ice. The Appeal Board therefore concludes that there is reasonable assur-Tb.f ance that Unit 2 can be operated without endangering the health and
. F %' f$5.5.p'Rf%C$fiMyg%%%
'..'$.%d .
safety of the public and the license authorization granted to the Director M
.. 9
. . , e--W7] .;wc .m u ff!T.';;:m.m:
s:q .r - .. w... t
-. y-gn..",>-cof; NRR by the Licensing Board's initial decision remains efTective.
.. tii .C % EQf? e j.**$.Y.&W':T .*!
~4,~.y' N!..U-@,;KMTNN *i,'Q~
,'-i. M hb h2N OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS: PREDICTIVE 2N D N h f@ h.h@d.?.ggj FINDINGS Predictive findings are a legitimate component of the Commission's Md.hheQd(h.$h.NM Di 6 licensing process. That process contemplates that operating license pro-fSMDI
" 6;$ M 'ydh.r,6'YgJ 8 M.'.[P.-$iE M 'I M M k M ./
ceedings generally will be completed before construction of the facility is finished in order to avoid unnecessary and costly delays in plant opera-
?.$4* W & W g
-- i!62) v.m tion. See Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings.
..n.
g.,R*h &m;+T4.M.,y:h4'*i@e-%.%g r w n w..
$* r.A 1 Q5.".*4 uM1N, ip.-%is'J
.m.,1.a . , g$W3.&ir 8 P :' g . w Y h ![ \ "
K
*:.sS,-
.. A b
^r' f. s JM,53 6..MMD.O;
- u. *,- 4 ff - N; '... 1622
.v *
. Lit Q"*' L .r.L ' t . o.h ? , . . .%'
*9J h.,?. - - '<.,
? n-.;-([dlpNtl;
- tf ? 't&,.
.. V;.hf. a * %; ' 9 -
hNihNIIb p pfl~ q% }eH y m, ig chwh @yY@ D b. h m .,n,,.L}q
- y. w.iQ n 7.L M r4.y ,,p W;u .
~w .C'.
,z ,,;! %.9 i Q.. M. V.r=+: . ,Ti _e.--- - - . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. 's % : :,J >'. ' q.,.
s , s. -
,< ' ~~~. *-~~ n ~ *~~'~' ~~"* ~ :
; %.1. M'.f.'..u*,b?.N.' . sk * . AC 'm* ;; O ,.?~
*..y
..s'. ** ..
q f*** . q *,' +4 - , - .e r .E . ShlS.,.-g&,.j ; g's & .S$.Y ' T"? ~.'*'Y'* 9*. . . .1.**.*y,t e .
'h Y$ . cc . { s * '* ~A ,
. h.. ;, . , hh 'N I" '
s
- a
.-, , . - :, N ;
. n -
/..r an . :..
. . c,;
. . 1 ...
',,e.
r
, . ~ . .
.._..~.:.-....... - - -..~ -:- '
- - --. w .- 1 --~~;
s - u
+. . j- . . -
CLI-818,13 NRC 452 (l981). See also Pacyic Gas and Electric Co. i'.~ M. :.';;f , .. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 653,16
.'.., ; .' - sI h *N . , ,'
NRC 55, 79 (1981), reprinted (with protected security plan information
- ;; ' : .: ..v. -i
._, , . m
- '.- deleted) as an attachment to CLI.8219,16 NRC 53 (1982); Pacvic Gas s p,edNSi.
-' . and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2),
.9 : - ... 'G y.t,f. ....-
; W .E'. - ALAB-781,20 NRC 819,834 35 (1984).
Y..
<* e , .y.;;WN.y.x-: .*MN
- W ' :.G. ' " - l L' 9.< d p w vi t-... ~. 'i 7- ~ .
.a .".2; OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS: ROLE OF STAFF
'j T- ""
? W Yi"rh; .: c: "
.QgAg.: C@.' (;' .
,u Supervision of a party's compliance with a commitment is left to the stafT. If one party is dissatisfied with ;he way another party has fulfilled a
.N ' ,1-f , gi.g::.9
~
iJ ,, ' . :. ...?.- :{
. ., - commitment the matter may, in appropriate circumstances, be brought
'. m; . C, .f.i ;4Q.W. 2. ?., . .' ' ,*g. ^i..;;;' -.
back to the licensing board. Pacyic Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon
. ..- . Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 781,20 NRC 819,835 n.58
. . ,. , a -. .. .f t
.3."
(1984).
.~..
. v n : T. o.... .
,.' .~-
t
~
'll f" . *4
,;~ . . .a. r-
- ~..clT}
UW
',^**
.. I. APPEARANCES i,.%g;?:
' s.. .,
1:g.3,.. MA . ' ' ' ' c .- . Joel R. Reynolds, John R. Phlllips, Eric"R. Havian and 'Ethan P.
..- < * .(Nh$1p ,,
Schulman, Los Angeles, California, and David S. Fleischaker,
.c O.n. . .c_
'. /- . ..fC.%.' y Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the San Luis Obispo Mothers for
. . m R.
.... .;;; s'g..g r . . - Peace, et al., j. .omt intervenors.
- Q.61: M:- ,
John K. Van De Kamp, Attorney General of the State of California, I @.4.f ' 4 -
. Andron Sheridan Ordin, Michael J. Strumwasser, Susan L.
7 6. SW Durbin and Peter H. Kaufman, Los Angeles, California, for r* *.
+3f
- u,:.m .,. .m,
, .,-j
,t
- George Deukmejian, Governor of the State of California.
?,,5.' ".,, " 4 4. . Robert Obibach, Philly A. Crane, Jr., Richard F. Locke and Dan G.
. JE.' [ .
Lubbock, San Francisco, California, and Arthur C. Gehr, Bruce
, .,.- Norton and Thomas A. Scarduzio, Jr., Phoenix, Arizona, for
-. .- . ' . ..P.L* '"' '
. n .,:-
ff. f Pacific Gas and Electric Company, applicant.
~
.t . c.- .
.l~f W.>; .9n $j.d,c.b...,. c
. , . g-w
- Lawrence J. Chandler and Henry J. McGurren for the Nuclear Regula-
~
J.. ...r,.,.,... . 'n@. tory Commission staff.
- y . .
v, .
.. , w; ,~
~
- 4 %. j 2 .,': . .~;
;~ _o.. - -n . a ~ .x,. llu..
. , , .g. .
.n: 'i:,-
. ; , -. n. .
.x . .... .t:
. . . i ;m.&. , e .- . . . . ,
- . . : . m ,. :- .; &..
~:- ,,n.~.
~
, . ..M .-- ~.; w %,. .. ....:ws.g.m. .
.g u
-:- 1623
** : .e
..--~' . . .
! f r. ' .le s
- 5. -
.. ~~ is.:, ':,%l .
. :lQ- l - .
r- ; >
., .. ;e ..
, .n.......-.,..,
$ [
N.. .f
.= b
- N' y d
i . l , . ~.. . , L _ . .
.4 .% ... v.w.,..p ,.
~
m 's , a .7.
. . 3 . '
. ~.;n' ;.' '
- .n w 21 3:.mm. ~. .- :. -
w re:d .. h,M.x.z hdh,fN ' .a ::
% .w:#.. &.&;h;y,(..q.7&-Q,4% ;N y..v- n~ w.iv x . :e-3gcR' ? - .
,. -1 ,
- u. ,..w.
. .W.m,pr%~%.
%g*u . %.;. ,g;.9 +s.:n. . . r, ,
*~ .
v.,... nw ..jI A e
~ ' ^
^****'**~******-* A -~ ' * - * - - -
- ~ - -*-~~~d**-*OA**
l tl. . e - N, q.
, @cg. DEW @[,',IQ,D.; .M%E'liMMR'!,d:9 .
n .. . n,M...N..yW: *Wn. .Y'L
.mlW..w.:.
a.y ..~r. m :. . s.h.d.%m...x.m . J W,&.. s-w
~
.- ~
DECISION M .m$.a iy s,. @; C %
@m ,W :d9m%S W e;,c h
,</.'i
)c::%l; M' @8 Rf ~. *' gM.m
- e
- W .%f
*g;. l %,.TM In ALAB-763, we set forth our findings of fact and conclusions oflaw
% W h 4 5Y h y on the contested issues concerning the adequacy of the design of Diablo 3 QdgM q& M Canyon Unit 1 in this reopened operating license proceeding. We then specifically deferred our findings on those same issues for Unit 2 and, in heg q-s. ,b.
,,, - . J'7;d D [ %
efTect, stayed the full power license authorization for that unit granted
'Wgsp r p> .,. pe-np.. 79 gpynA previously by the Licensing Board's initial decision 2 until we made our s
findings with respect to Unit 2.3 This decision contains our findings on Y, kg'U%rh m Mg .r.p N h-#p!#h%yd g - , a,,r Diablo Canyon, Unit 2. i L
- "E*& wE J
',hg;g.h'
- 4p'e. 4 h'$&'$d mfd The detailed history of the reopened Diablo Canyon operating license proceeding is recited in ALAB-763 and need not be repeated fully here.d dr}M$'5%,
$ s-g'VW[][k@ y For present purposes, it suffices to note that, shortly after the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) issued a low power license for M; 'M-N@-W Diablo Canyon, Unit 1, the Commission suspended it. The' Commission M w4 ' v ,a.. @ d. W acted after Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) reported errors in -g, g . the assignment of a number of seismic design spectra for the Unit I con- %n;[fy.4 I '
]hMgj$g.> h,p$@M:,
T h.' tainment and the NRC staff found significant weaknesses in theiimple-mentation of PG&E's design quality assurance program. The Commis-D.'Q M ,.q.9.. N l sion then directed PG&E to undertake an independent design verifica-f$$$4':U"p, - 7'
- MM I
tion program of certain seismic related design activities. In addition, the
.. .y.'F-$.w.;w.r gM.
,. or hh.:.C/i agency staffinstructed PGAE to provide it with the results of a further
%#hm'Oo.:;gur r ap-
%.Ar#gitt,w .- 7. .
design verification program so that the staff would be able to determine
%MG.7.; whether to recommend operation above low power. As pointed out in N ? W/r;'1%.,g@h.M.
N.bbh.[ [hh),E ALAB-763, PG&E's " verification efforts expanded far beyond those
.Z G U;E 3$F-.~U..hl.' 4 9:,C@y.W-
$,' originally envisioned and took more than two years to complete just for Unit 1.s
. .- w. ..n
. yw . .
. ..Y M $cf~M.
, ;$* While the design verification efforts were ongoing, we granted the mo-
' ' c.y.o.W.
.- R.AR,,, IT :# P.,,?.,M, !.f@. . __,%<
tions of the Q.. joint intervenors and the Governor of California to reopen
.,r ,w.m
~:s.. :. <h4 ;.:;y .: g$.U;gE'*-dW'N; ;. r&5 E&01. Qy.W d4;d'*#/ g~~-M 7.,'2 1p at
'P?'+,x
': y$~nd.'14'v,L' 5%ji,y.
- 119 NRC 571 (1984).
J ., : *QW, ~QM/ h: ~ # *i ' 2 tsp.32 70.16 NRC 756 (1982).
- .
- M at 5 3
.j~dp.s' MW M 'y f *.M ' '% **.
- S 14. at 574.
? Q-hM ,r 7h.g.hd'M.N E,',t**
- N
~D. . . The structure or PG&E's venncauon prosrams is set torth in ALA8 763, d at $78-42. Those detads wdl not be repeated other than to note that PO&E's venficauon efrorts included an Independent Design Q?j. f'@ l* 8.&";r%p ?,P 'e. venAcanon Program (IDVP) uuhams the services orindependent compemes and an intemal Techmcal
[h.,('k$j?*
.a .p,7.,j i y " ' .P -
Prosram (ITP) compnsed or PGAE employees and those or PG&E's compicuon manager. Bechtel
*M t='-W 17' ,,
i b@ (' .. Power Corporsuor:. See aho d at 580 n.42. m e.p 4 Au . eA=jyM, ]n.e'L.; :]. 47W ...
.a .;,k,e Ww,~3., .'..u m:c . ..n
- o. .
1gi +; m r,n. g c,n_ . O&%ykq.s:w$a:;M:cx.. n .y- / ~ . % . 1624 ,- .I YNh: h kt'M r...m 5:,w~D'h s %a - n..m.m:-? aw a.. ,:,:. - .e. ~s. m+;.~ ~ .. 9,.g$fwh: v$.u N . sma. ,&S.:. N:?..=..=. '
,Y '
L <'~-- ~ ~ = ^* ~ '
'"' *~
~'m rW . N.. W, : % !. , . . . , . ...* . ., r%. :%' '::
$G.7.&s' k'.?.'*d yyG..ft.. 'e$a %. m .
,er .
.- r .. -
r E ?- S ' .. P WI?; ^
- UpN N e.MTe?,1.l.. T?
- S, ' '? '
=
.' .%;l*'
^
2 - '
.*-_ - _ _ _ _ i_
a
. k..
~ ;.: . . :: -
. - . - . . . . . - - . s.-
b
^ ~ [. .
the operating license proceeding on the issue of the adequacy of l gy . , - e, '
'q . f PG&E's design quality assurance program. We also acceded to the re-
- la quest of the parties that we preside over the reopened proceeding. Al-
'.. .r ;
though the evidet.cc supporting the reopening motions consisted largely
~ '. .s.y{y.
,,,f . "3-{. ' .o -
of the program deficiencies that had led to the suspension of the Unit I
- c. ~
c . 4 Jg nr'. . license, the focus of the reopened proceeding necessarily went beyond the past shortcomings in PG&E's design quality assurance program to
,, I.h.c. J. .' - % n %; ..., f.ih;pfNri. hb 1 W.7 . el :. . - .
questions of whether PG&E's design verification efTorts were sufficient 7_. . . .%: fR '-' 9 to substantiate the design of the Diablo Canyon facility. And, because
- .-i .. - (i.'G.geg.cc ,'1 .
the designs of Units I and 2 were nearly identical, the contested issues
; ]. f ;p g ,A Q.'
"f].i . In the proceeding - as well as the parties' direct evidence and cross-
]*. .*f.[*g ; .(~*,
f.; - ; . ,.. , :P a . examination - pertained, with few exceptions, to both units generally. {,,
. "- Trial of the contested issues consumed fifteen hearing days and, after 7 '..
..'.;'S ,
55N'- ] ;,
;.);.i'L. v ". $,- -
. -; the joint intervenors and the Governor waived a number of issues by their failure to file proposed findings of fact on them, twenty two issues
# L,- , ( .. ., .j, , .d ,
.,.., remained in dispute.'
S'.,--
~ -
ji ;j. ,. . ' ;. -l.. In order to avoid any unnecessary delay in the full power licensing of Nce' ,. Unit 1, we severed our findings on the contested issues for Unit 2 from
- W,
. . . .- .L -
those in ALAB-763 on Unit i even though most of the issues and the MQ 1. . record evidence addressed both Diablo Canyon units without differentia-
,. . .?MM ,
ai tion. As noted in that decision, PG&E's verification program for Unit 2,
,?,; .M. -4.r. ' . ' unlike the completed program for Unit 1, was still under way at the time
~
. . v. . J.f.w v...nf. 'J .'
- of the hearing and the staff had not finally reviewed PG&E's findings in
. ' . . . @tW a safety evaluation report supplement.' On our own initiative, therefore,
, [ - - ~ Mh ,
we deferred our analysis of the evidence with respect to each contested
'~ - - ,, 3'lj.'s , , issue for Unit 2 and published our findings on just Unit 1.
, - .e.jf - , In ALAB-763, we found in favor of PG&E on all but one of the con.
i.. -. .
' %j. .
tested issues. With respect to that issue, involving the possible jet im-3 ,,.
., J . *L.
3.'s_, pingement effects of three lines inside the Unit I containment, we at-
. ., , ty , 4 ., , tached a condition to the Licensing Board's full power license authoriza.
P
. ,, f.; .. - '
. - tion requiring the analysis of those lines.8 In addition, we included a
.c 7 ' .
second condition to ensure that PG&E incorporated an appropriate
] ,,; y, . - b, technical specification for the component cooling water system.' In light v . i mi,i j.~ . . x- 0 .'- > of our findings on the contested issues, we then found that PG&E's 94 1 ..
verification program established that the design of Unit I adequately
?hi *f.,';. .
s N [.li met its licensing criteria, and that any significant design deficiencies re-
" ,? .: .-v. m.v. y*]t J - .;J ' $.. sulting from past defects in PG&E's design quality assurance program
. i '-l . - Q .
~
* ' G l.
4, 6 /d at $76 77 & nn.l$.19. 20 & 21. The contested issues are set out in Appendas A to ALA8 763 af.
, i . *.' 79,, fC.,.
.s..
$ U-
-'.',r".>, at 62125.
7/d at 582.
, 1,
- W ' - *
[ : . ':' g 8/d at 60243. 689.
- * { h e, @ ',- ' . .. .$5f. ' /d at 6I819.
n J. oi 1 1625 l \ . .. t x ;----
- l. a_ .
i .-
, ;. ; p. . * - .'
, . c. .
= - . , .. - . . y . .r , ; . , . , _ . . . _ . . , . _ . - . . ... _
e
- e s ..~
5-3W -W.%.:.+ .. . .
~ > . w s.,N.t ~,e@g. .i:. w :.. n ..:,y .3.. ,.m@NM. .$$@M8;W;5$1f ,
c.su ~r ....:. . -
~ ~
4,sj %. pp%. w-wg"cai.?1 x: .' ve Gef .
,iv.qm: 'q:~m.9w s#^ q;. ; se- - - .
BWQu%r.. -A M-A;v u -N y O.2,
- c .:.
=~~~". ---~~-------:--"----
1
. h-l4 ,;.*L..$,'M,m rm Qgm.f@Qe W; .. ,Vg.,j.,$. P.O N - . f:
.';,:.'T26 M 1 ,
em hcQ Q rf T :
?.b>29 * " 'knW.@.n*h?V:w$n'.U.. a . %w wQA
%,hM[4(k$b[Ih$hh.
.p,.~' 'TfD. e'.4. W~~.FM,.
E. had been rem,:cied.Thus, we concluded that with respect to the design of Unit 1 "there is reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated
-q# $.9 ]
A Q -..
. p.- v.p:a
;. without endangering the health and safety of the public."'8 h 4 ?' e M.- s
#Nas. Ny
't e +' > 4- 4 II.
C - w;.'k
.pg l
( -
= A. After the Commission declined to review our findings on Unit
^
k' 4j 1,82 we gave the parties a new opportunity to demonstrate that further h[iN. ly M hj,$s3 hearings on the design verification of Unit 2 were needed. In particular,
' f %*#
-- ' we directed any party claiming the need for further hearings to "specify
'M@+h~~'.
- I f which of the issues decided in ALAB-763 cannot be resolved with re-
$'- B- >- , spect to Unit 2 on the existing record and fully explain why the record ir evidence is insumcient."t3 2h.43 ~,,/4
$.. The Governor of California has not responded to our order, while x -
? 1 PGAE and the staff assert that the existing evidentiary record is sum-
$m. N' cient to resolve all contested issues for Unit 2. The joint intervenors, 7'g y;~.5 ,
on the other hand, claim further hearings are needed but, contrary to M. . =- 4 ,, our instructions, they neither identify the issues that cannot be resolved g' - %g,,e on the present record nor explain why theevidence on eacit such issue
's '
is inadequate. Instead, they argue generally that PG&E has failed to
--~
? .j v 'j meet its burden of proof because the current record was compiled while
'a'- c-g m PGAE's Unit 2 verification efforts were still ongoing. They assert that
.g K .,
,E p the record is therefore insufficient and establishes only the scope of the
$f.3 g ' 4Ch' Unit 2 verification program, not the final results of those efforts. Accord-
@Lpp -r ing to the joint intervenors, the end results of the Unit 2 verification pro-Q p
- Lf! '
. v. %s.g..ir rJL gram are an essential prerequisite to any determination concerning the 9kd'MS$in kWg. -4.3+:,/c$
,e*
adequacy of the Unit 2 design, In further support of their argument,
$$WW$if W I: 5.Fb:, D' $.Q4 ggg f%
they claim that the two Diablo Canyon units were designed by the same organization using a deficient design quality assurance program, and the
- ,1
$'IMyfeN,@Q@*.D.g$MN'6
.".i,.?.1,' M.. : M # . c^.f 8/.. M.t, 3 y Q IDVP only verified the sufficiency of the design of Unit 1. not Unit 2.
They also assen that the two units are not identical in numerous re-
.' T h. U.e .M%nK, M spects, the possibility exists that undiscovered errors in Unit I may be
.{.@J.s.9@/!$
W J?C P'aJag N E M". f*FiW'A f y. %g@M0.?y%y, yj present in Unit 2, and the ITP verification program is insufficient by itself to provide assurance of the adequacy of the Unit 2 design. Thus, 9.g.-w? r -T.% %. M M. .
~.
^ P l M[* e
, %%* S 9 .c
.&..r
. . '** ~s$ -... ' . - 'Q.G..
D. % . . . o".A K
- Qt ?: . : -m-]M
- 7. ,O g b.l% & s/ :N{. f.p[4 k'* II M I. d [ ' f ~'{-g.,.h&% '~ '*
3.Q*Q~.~A ~ 12 cg.g.84-14. 20 N RC 28s (1984). WM $(7h;;,,;,',.e., 13 order o(september lo.1984 (unpubiahed) ai 2.
.I "h2.W;),;1 N' * '
i 34 See PGAE's Response to Appent Board order of september 10.1984 (september 28.1984); PGaE's
.h 'N'-f * ., ; ..*7^N . . M$ t Reply to Jomt Iniervenors' Respones (october 10. 1984); NRC sian's Response to Appeal Boar (s g**? b Re.fil.A order of september 10.1984 (september 28.1984); NRC stafTs Answer to Jomi intervenors' Response f, 4-9 (october 9.1984).
$"h5r. 5 &;gm.e W v *;.~.~;.m y g-:.Ub 2 $ ?..K; w pw.. l i.tS ' ~
\
A22
*c ,.9,f DN M M>,n M e.4e.M.. .,' e.~-9 .? : 74 1626 n.r ?.a.s., e ,.
cv
- c .c - n. w-san.m.v:.+:. - ..-
G-
, ~M w au D.~.n.
W
. .n. ~
a 3 %n ,~.
* .- k-ff
- l t tT..n 2.% -
E fy; v-a 0,"N uy5r W:x.WT' U-m.-
% :n ISM l S.*L.x* N. v .
,7.
-- ~ ;-
,W^
c-
----------r-~~r.
w * - - m
"" g &,)2*$l*&p ff Wen.;-}m%y _W '$R.i ?f.".M g' , ";p,,f *,',,:.Y k ,' Y'_
,, u..
l ':' k 7. ?? fb $ 'N ~
'Y ' ' D
.. - t
- f. . . m . . .
- ~
w : ~; . .'- n .;, . . y . - a rs.? . M*. n;:
.. .c ;9 &- - - , < 'h .> :.: .
- lCn * '
. :.s.
,y
_..___..m..-.._._.__.._.a _ _ ._ __. w _ t. _.. G _ t' c , . . . 0 . ..r-}}