ML20140G733
| ML20140G733 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1986 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V23-N01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V23-N1, NUDOCS 8604030276 | |
| Download: ML20140G733 (58) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- _- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ - _ . _ __ _. - . _ __ _. _. e - . l NUREG-0750 Vol. 23, No.1 Pages 1-47
~~~
' ~~ ' ' * + u'~'~~^~'~~~~*~~~~~
r ' T'_~ r, i ,-
..+
*r**,g #
6 'g' NUCLEAR REGULATORi 4 l 4 1 COMMISSION ISSUANCES .J . . . o,. . . - r.
., .L
!'s.!
I
~
~ ' January 198.6.,.
.c .
.... ~ . .
v .. . e t
,. .:c. " . '- ,
s -[ *s
,;[,'.' 't ' . . .b ~h.
i , l ysREGuz :l ~ 3- _- s. ".
- w. _.
4g . <
'" ... .v.
,- - . , t' 1*J.
{. 3- ['I .'s, ),I ';[1 ,j o t , , 4 r o ' g- E
~
y - + r O. ~ t (.4[t j :
-Q . .
1
% 4+s /
s s . . ( e O 8604030276 060331 PDR NUREO PDR 0750 R
"
- 4 % , ;
I i i I I, Available from i i Superintendent of Documents
, U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 4 hardbound editions for this publication.
Single copies of this publication I are available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 l I l Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Technical Information and Document Control, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555 (301/492-8925) or (301/492-75661 l l l
--,a --,, - --- , , - - - - - ,-r -,r--- - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ---
, . . . ~ y Y,' ,;'i l
. . c.$3.
, E. , . -
.y 6 :-. A
,s-.. . . . ,
-*I
' -w .>. .
\
'.u...
I ,.
. ~ x .a .z. . . .: .w. .. ... .
l . ; I ; l - - I NUREG-0750 E. . . !' Vol. 23, No.1 q. Pages 1-47
- .; ]
- m. :
i j g
,d. .
l
. ~. .
': NUCLEAR REGULATORY
..w~h,..
,. . r. .e. .x.. . i
;ws& - '
t COMMISSION ISSUANCES e.<. - -
, em ~,.;
. y, . . y~.y_ '
-1 9.y -
~
--!.. i January 1986 e
. W f;x. . . -
,f'F- N.i ,
. 7 J ,: ,
'y gg, - c s . . ,
,l
.; .' . ; . . . . r-
;'1 '
.u ,.
-)
. j s . . - .
6 A
'".,. {
,:S '.
.'s ~
! This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
. ;; 7 ' . 5.-. 4 Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Boards (LBP), the 7 .-; ./6 ,. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and
," l, the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
y
- The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein
'i are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-
, . dent legal significance.
. . . l t
\
] ,
> 4 {
,, .c - ..j
~
' ~ U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i j Prepared by the Division of Technical Information and Document Control,
; Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20tE;5
- , (301/492-8925)
\
! i i
-- -- - , -.m,...
h
' " 3. e *g .
3,',,r.- (- s 1 s .,
- , ' \ *,2' <m.L f .- '. g1
- ' ' ~ ,
.iv - A^. .,(
3> s. n . 4
....'.r
~
h .OP s,. , ~ d i,.
! ; y'y - . s * < - $3y .v <. ,- C
,.;,.....r*.c,-
,y r'i.,.',..b
.*s- g *. ,..e.+,,g. ..? ,
t.
= ;- .
. l. :1. .p) ,..- *
-N %D;<.,. y .,, a
- Se% *
. ; f.* . .Ii<#4 s 7 9~ *
,p/.* ., ,
t'*,
-t ,
4 ,
'*g'n,. , 2. K y. , . *. *.- . , . .e
.- w .
- s#
-t.' e -
. 4
. ;g . p= r ,. . .l 'g t. ' , , 8"6 ' ar,. ,
4
~ ., m- ,
.- ,. 'a ,
:n."je ) . ,
u m . . ~ . , G..s.
...p.+.: gat . ..
g
% ...a~..u p / A'.e v .t.
i
-: gl: .
' :' i '
* ~
.;z. ' h.p*. '
fi &f i 'Nr n m ;\..', [. ], * " , w . p.s, y*j;Rl;'E a> d s.y;: kWw(,v ks'% .,:m, N$3 .- g 7@Ny g h._k e. ~ :" M $.L
.- ,' Aq
' (-~ 'v. . A. ,w. . ,w'
.ua s.
.. . - ww s.mg N- ;
'5*en-s ,
' 4
,. 3 Ng -
w G.W/:*g.y ~t ~ m.
~
h c,pe u .p .s . .- ea . _ .2 -u' .ct . $ e .e + + 'a.a N
- 4 t .cd. , '.
. e. , -
;-.*> s' ,!
+ . * . !* t f 1
- y * ."y .
.,<.9,
,,,j s ' . { ^.g., *S v ?n
. J2 14'l M .i S}7,1 #
e r [ ,.2.a." :':<
, .. % ).C9. ~
s i M r' #.h a _ y.;.J.? '4[~ 2 (*- ; g :.,A, 'W* 1
.r
.- 4
&8 .as , .s *'**8W e
g
%.- '.iO9; 1.
- a' ( c c".7. w*,;
~ m. n.n, >x.~.g . . y. -
r-
+' Q "r ( kr y,
. . . , M' 44t,'s.- * - Q.1+i,
.y g; 4-W.. ~, ,
COMMISSIONERS
; .g.:n; W M.~.EY r,.mw n
.? ; At' ?N 'W Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman M.,
J O b'g9 n Wh Thomas M. Roberts
*.F
-Q.E;pl CN V M; F,. James K. Asselstine
- g. / , d. . .. .e.e9d .
,-; Frederick M. Bemthal Lando W. Zech, Jr.
..: >. , ~ .W 2..,1 m.. s
- 3. v> q.u. i t-1
, . m ..
y . s ,,
..f.,'."4.*
c..
. ,. ~v >
.. . . e,m.,
,x .
m
.T.
.s.. n.w:V..r
.,L ,e -
ea Gq'tg; m.p..,*,. .
..t;.
m* . .r._. ; g,*u J .h;u <; , : .
.,M
.,,v.- w., . by .n
- . .. ~+. y ; A.
.?
.y';', ,:? (3: t:w;llm[
- L :.. , .: M
../.* .
; #T ,p* ,.,
f, .
.. s . .,
4 %.k
,mc r ~ .7
. . u.
w .
, f. Og3-.:?*' ' J ' G -*p"G
- rs. .. - .
-n p ' , s ~t .*',t .m+ ,.7 - (. . .a.
r;* .;-. 9 r.: %yn *? r.gy
* *' ,_L.
w ; ;.J ( e. I y: o, , ..e- , n.; e' s% . . . , . ..s. w. }.
, , s
.V. s Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal Panel 43.c ' ,%i.y, .. ,0h
" B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
..,. v.V.m'7T. .
.'.t- < e
( .* I #
-.e
'-c ) . ,s.
,4' v,
'n
. . .* e
t.' .
y, '*T'*f; f+,.y + ,n.wr . - -
, , < , . .tt, i
l*?WW s . w w(*w. ? ll,.; >'-?, e ' lr Q 1s ti. ~,.. z.f?E f >' w
- s. . M.. .,s' . d,.g,q r'.e
#' .t., ..pp. .. - o.@t
* ' * % r .4 . . < 3v..- y .
.4. .g v- - ' -t
.u' . W. ? *
* .. ; p ;- Q , . ? f- A
,, . . , ., 4<r'4 s .3','. '.'s M.. >.Q ,' f _ [ ji ,
.~.
.,,1 4,
e
,r E / gh .e" g
,f s 5' 6 -
o
/
e
,,i^
6 e '. ,.* # e
%E F .(, * ,
5.p. -f ..
- p' cn. ,
y ,
,e'
) 's
.J e
*' 2
*- - . . - - ~~ -- s- ~ - *
- m-~ ~ ** ~ ' ' * "
- n**~~'* **'*f*
L..' ..,.r...., .. m m. e., ; 7. .v
,I . _ . , ,. e . .
[ ' % '. ~ a 4 a 0 ,)
- t * = r >
l
.x'. . . . .
U
, n. ;; , ; ..;%, n %,,
.L': 2 . . :
.p c.g ' ,
', E '
_, . c; ,
+ >
- a
, .'f;.>~,: -t.
t
. ..,--.-...=w..
*- c %
,: ; i . . , e ... a .., .
9
.l 4
CONTENTS
, i '. N, t
.- r .i
! ' r. <: 4 Issuance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Ti . ~. J. .,.. . 'O
- q ,
s . . w.
,4..,x;n.+s
. a ,
1 LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3)
.u P '.o- , . : ;, e.~ ,.' . .,.;; u
- a Docket 50-382-OL
'.c
~;'// . , T. . .sg_ , MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, CLI-86-1, January 30,1986. 1 s.
.% #,%:3
,' :,q>-
.;: m. :
ce q' ,q.Q;y'y: e m :,a.1'. Jp'. .
< Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards
; w ; ::_.
c .. u.,'.;.' y. ,3 ,; C e ., . .. - . LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
, %'C ' 2. ' . %,
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Docket 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Plannin;;) VM,. i ' l- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER,
.n- . ., *
- h. . '.' s . ...:'
ALAB-827, January 9,1986. .. . . 9
'3%i
- o= y;4g,2.:;ss,1,;, -_,:. ;
, ,, . .gbp.g.' .7 4 ;.;' PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
. , ,. s. .. '
. eOf ;ra : ' d,. .',i (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2) u...me
, . p.o. y _ . :S Dockets 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL J 'I ;f_C MEMORANDUM AND ORDER,
, fc
@ . ' f ; ,',. , ALAB-828, January 16, 1986. ... .. . . 13
- , - Cm~ ;
y,,
' Issuances of the Atomic Safety end Licensing Boards u.-
'. ;.M .:r -" . < N7 ; a 59Z1
,- y;1
- u... ..
-dd{. % . .{ ,- PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY c !i - (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3)
Docket 50-133-OLA ( ASLBP No. 77-357-07-LA) 2/; (Amendment to Facility Operating License)
'^'
if '- ' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TERMINATING PROCEEDING, LBP-861, January 14, 1986 . 25
. 'O, ' - cc , s,.
- .U- -if PRECISION MATERIALS CORPORATION r..
.,.3 (Mine Hill, New Jersey Irradiator Facility)
- f. .
. . y, c]3 Docket 30-22063 (ASLBP No. 85-512-02-ML) r- ." ,'
*j -
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, " s
~
'.1, LBP-86-2, January 28,1986. .. . . . 28 g " . .
. ' y
. a p
t
,. -' ? * ~' u.- .e r
. .]
4 a 1
. ,6 i 111 1
J
. . . . - . , . , ...m.,
. .. , ,- ,. ,. sp, .. . , , , , ,
e
I;h n:h.&'d.= r IBA ~. ,
-i;
, , . _~;. , -
,y:D .....
, = : m.;@m.g. ny ..m: ~.(m,e w. . v. .
'W;1 L
. . i. .. ,,
,J L
.w ,M.1 y.
', >.,s-
.# t
,MY.),f '. - . . . .'/m. ?? . 2.mue. - . . t
, i
# ' . s [ . ;. , ~
- .,- i . q g
4's '%m.)) W.? .m... p r ye , g:m . .m.m y pQ: .q((G w. jgg.,x,t m.g ., ns,. c ..m.. yyp e,n'h-M..M.v
/v.I'D -G,a c
., 4- -
' g.vir J. -
p m..w w . w ,... w p x q ey, s .> .. .a .. . - .
. . %m 3. . 2., t .
4
. . . ., .> q.. e . ~ i-w ....w sn%,;E; n=.c: >. 3,.;~3.G.w i o m .w,:,.y .
. .:'e : - =Am;._h , :: ..
- m. ~ m.e. n T . t. a wn%:: yea.. "
. -n ' 1.v
- n. c . c .
~. >
, 5#9w=:vy g ae g. p< & _ . -
- w. . m. ..s.;. m..a.n s.
~
.r ,
v.
' ~ "%2 , i Q x y ty :. c. .m w . & .p:. 'i ,*i t w j! . , .;.;w,k. .kQh
- c. 3 '
e- _drs, , M.+$,nr w&3 4 M.;%w hMd c ?. ew u.,@:y.,
- m. l.
Issuance of the Administrative Law Judge M
$:d 5 KENNETH L. BURTON
[ f~:;. U @W i[ @ @y'rO* D@ ,.M:tMM@%[k!$I
.b Docket 55-60575 (ASLBP No. 86-515-01-SP) (Senior Operator License for Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3)
" w~f Y.M,( NPNi%yhi h ORDER TERMINATING PROCEEDING, F; q.a Q Aw%.-:n.tSU OWQSW.ym a. ALJ-86-1, January 27,1986... . . .. .. . . 31
.%c .:d
. ^ .! .v M
,. .% ~m* g U.y.Mf. g e?.'d4 f w, r.#.:,.:Q. 7p. .. Z, pe @w ; 9. .Wy:Jup Y
q
$ h.b Nh$ Issuances of Directors' Decisions
,h.b" m,,. .c m,w.
- x. u ghe n:p)r[=ma .em a e:s me N. dM%g ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1) c.iiC @h'4'M.MO ,
G ,$ &d W C@@94 Docket 50-313 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.206, [D%Fcca@.Nfq'@d@5fN
, .R
.+.-
D.I;[k.$h@x@eM P ;m JM/ o: w rg %- DD-85-19, January 29, 1986 . .. . . .... . 33
- t w 4;o.s.a, . .e. .c .-
- c. .
?w,a.., 4. M. -#s .4 N : . .n. ..p DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al.
py %;Q..s.fcA.-p;e. F.A@.w. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1,2, and 3)
@-Dd[lM.QTg.@N@..,. + vf f;W Dockets . g82 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.206, I ;'J,3. 6~w M ROi.M:.4ugh.s:::e M Ct/M M,.g.@ 33 e gy,7:.gv.,dur:;tgw.-?.; .
DD-85-19, January 29, 1986 . . . . . .. . .. .
<>i, m. .,
-.a..w. ; ,.y .. .,n.wn. . g, y;. .s.
c e *~ y, ,c.,.s 0 .v.,,,( W.a.:
..J.zllil;'1; j'- FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
^
' ~ (Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant)
- . h ' . . .J '
, . . / ; .,
.e Docket 50-302
...,s.,.,.,,.e 7pg- N. . .-; . yn .c DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.206,
;;.g; r, eq
'< .d g . T F a n,,.. , &g - e DD-85-19, January 29, 1986 . 33
( .. .. >a q: sm g%. c .. 3:o . . . . + . . , m;q , . . , gy; , 3,p ./ ~. . . y. J.4.g,$.%!M,.. w; GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION v
. . e;
~
s _ f ,. " ,4;n. ,.
.~
p n (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
- m. e.
[ - . !. 'y% ;,.6.q:$d. .
.&,. a . 'g:w'#W~? Docket 50 2?9 DIRECTOR'S DECISION Q.?.SIUNDER @M M l 2.206, 10 C.F.R.
- ,A @. 19 33
[ S.) . "; ' " .1.,. C..:y NM 'O. ; h. @..;. DD-85-19, gld January 29, 1986 . .. . . . .. . . . ! .' : ~ , ., e . 4 ..%
, u. q..
, c , ; ,. :
gr g... ~9
,- ;, , s. .
Nep PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY t w;,.c , . c:<' a .- ..e C.1:w. i .. W,.:n, . ;w.:. ,>:g. y v. >
.m m
(Limerick Generating Station, Um.t 1) b.y.7p ....d.4 +
%Wo,.Z.. p yr. .: 4w n% w,'.., T. w ' Docket 50-352 l .#a:'$s 'YT:' Q.@ ?pJ: W DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.206, M{Zll?
p- qsf:.y .g,i, c- {gy?7 g .&, . , . DD-86-1, January 21, 1986 . . . . . 39 ( ;,.., ,
- v. . . :.. .; . . s+-. ;. . ,:y.q s
. . ;p p-
# .>'ir. '.,"i g
. of
, _ - 1 . , E .
, ,# '*p ,
*
- L t . ,. . _ .l s .
, . . '. "'I I^'."
,.e s.,
.4 p
4 , ,
., ..* i t [*'
* , .,e.
.e
. . - . - . , - ..y..
~ * .-_..,--.,.,_....-.... .. , . - . , . . - - - - . .
. s
- I
\
Y t
h
** . + "P ."~r r' *
..*c.- .,
hf4.'[ g,r. [ 6. .g[h
, , ,.d. ~, ,$ e , u. .
, ,. - g . c.y 9
- 4 9, . ',w.< 'p.
..'.,.t. > .3 ',,.s.....
~, . m, g . u . . , n
. e a> c
. . w w@:. @ . ;
- L;. q . I. , ~ ;. ,O :. m n ' , y .T ' < ,
. ,' , . [,1, '?' , 7" ,# "p*.. l ('! * ". .Q.,w.,.a,u.
pg. ', 'gRQ
'j;.9 4(y,, - j, .',.w
'3. 'y, + -( y i
'!l,_ ;p,y _,./' ,'>q f,.s.?'.3. p%. *;g ',, Q y p s .
.g.
n,*
, ,7 , . g
~ < ' , .n. Q 1 t a,y w
, s.j,. ,
Y '.W. y' j *lt,.. . 1 . o f *.
- , :; v- '_,e* 4 .s ,' ~. 3 -
.+- .' , t). y, - *.tt'#
,s s ,
7,4. (,, - i I s
. - , ,-. 'tw. w- *~ #
- s. r=. .6'g.
. g
* * ~ - * $a
*, 4 4. y .4
- t. T
- A. - . t *1,..s UN' *.e . # '
w...',,.,..,, ,.,_ b[ wo w .y., g;,
, ; .g. .-.c
..u.-
a c .
.$,.<*".,-S e?-
.A.,3 9. ... a ,c . c
~,.,. .6 .. ..
y s . . , , +
,s,9.,' r .g ,,f
. .m.x. .
s,
~.d e ~ , , -- --; .
; ' ,s ) %, s. - 3 '.; . ,,
e
. .. . , . . , . . '..s.
- w. . , .. J,,y* ~, 3. ...
o., ' e. : ._ w --
.4..,* s. .
.. . . . :.w :. /.m
*1"
- U. _, * .'l _ N;\' : ,
,p, m r..
.v., ,os _ .ns3e ., v.,v .-i. v.
t _, ., e f,
, _-f a e x-
- 2 % .g M R d X @ . lj SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
[ . h..c,. i: (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station) S,.
.g?,:.. .. ~N;(xajg, p.C s
,d C A.
.A ( O Docket 50-312 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. j 2.206, M.@. - .g.mM.. ;g.M,. M r're.4,5%- "
DD-85-19, January 29,1986. . ...... ........... ..... 33 M e *' . I" ( ", . *-$ -
- l-$ , % - ( =
-s gmr i;A;h. y., cg,..*t?*
red. -,e:. j g' c *t f < s+7 ,Q. . v' 3 , . . - ",, f', p
- 9. #ew v. , r **- - -
(~
,.-W.t...y 1.b,> s
> .__. < y. . g~. f,J p?5. . +p w.- , r
- St. a, r
. N p * . . d y'.s ,*
y, f .-.e. . '.'.% n , e. . 'Q ., .:, 2 ; 2 r q;y'. w .
**, ,i d.,a, . 4 w g ' . r. . .t,'."=.6'.p..,$.'..r..E s ,. w eq -.(*.v *N yf. d .a* .* m., Q.**4* .
g i
. e- ^- $,h s; ,. s.,f ',9,.
e- s 4*d'.*'a*. '- l .:n . *
\. ,e *. :. -
~.
- y.,' q- ?e:y A
'[g-]
r2 n ,7 -,3'. a(:z - t,t) <; ,)s.; .'s. ,..
; Q i.,
W W.;M+.'W+.ft'y.,1 * %j%,p N-l f,G %. '.: '. , ~W'l:'x%,l ..z.,
..' , ' * <* i . Q.'K'.w ,
.b ' -
, *R
."Q-.&.W
*?;& 2 5?.Y .dv.4
- * ++ v
. A ,3 J.7 " a '.t * . . . . .
~'y %-.o9
'b. w' N, .J'. '
-pe.s * ~a<.~_-+d.z s;
,.,.y 7.b V.,y< . :n +: , %, **. s:1,
,_./Cv*~, 8 ,~ , s
\
..s3 y . t. s s.*.%,**-.a4., < - . . ,- . ;t,..F.. f.y .. .,h J
+
*a y C.~.. e.tm,; m ,,w,,.q.,'. . - , - *:.. .%r.
*IIM ';@ .'.M kk.r' n o,C',]v I on-[%*'.,# .. r 7. .. Jh, ...;<. / ,
.3 :, n. w , - r~
,. .? - .,
- e. *e _f . . hd , ai V; .,e.n. ra ss . ' . >..,t.".%.*
*,7~. *s'<**.f' e
*. s. . .
,y ? .) . * +. .s. .a.
*%. U *l *
,}c ; :. iv . ,
c'- . ,s . w , . R .', g' <3 ;*
- r
-- ;p
,4. yy ab y['e.,
.A .D. .r.'~.,4. 7, ".:yim. q.,'
o ,.
< . '.# " =.6. . q> xt .t,.';* b , .J l ex.e:s g:%.e e. .;
,., vp;lk,*-K ?*,lK ,. q.n 7,.qn, x:... yy.; r .r , ...,. { %.Q.
- W . . f , .-%.a,.y
;.. % . g,a . . 4.w.,
r -
, 3 , A, . . ,, %..4..
_ w.a , u..... , .. i + ,- C#. -+: ,s,- i . - -
~ 2 :c;g : . e . .~ . a , w w:.m J .y, .;
$'9n ~y > ..+p. :q a 's M 2 y v.:D. :. w.
,. py?[.*r .k5-N-A'*((ii Js,%* lJC.. .hh- .,
.l,.,'fM. . - g k [ $..nYD "l s' t ,_ fW J *
- m3s
, n s w. t .
%, g 4 i
Y Q-M* . .h,-. , ,s'. ._."['*. d".. ..t Qle
, gw = c v % 4
. .,,,* f.[. *
'h... . T $'.*,i ,c. Ms
'.) , v..-
- T.s'. '.~2.*~,r,*..',?.l 2 ,, e.
w,.., v..a.t is g* W # mi
A
. o. s
,+,2,,
- k m , .). 46 _m, n m .<p.,..
,r ,. 4
- e. s }. ,.h .~
,.w a r . ',-uq . .. h. ,;J <
. . , c3 ,. ,
*y :
',i, ?T e a' !.eQ.k,.M .e Nf. d
,....,-p.,*
i 5
< $ -t,.3 -
g ' c- ,'. - . ,, .a-. .. t r..t d'.* ..#.s M., s,.4 m W. ./' .@4 } 5
, ; % [ M.%, g ,-,i. 6 *r., , ' . , , ,,
.. . :w, . .. h -
3;' '- *: . x- , , , q . q,*,. Q i
*., , ~ -
.7s,~ .9
$ t
- e of' h'". M ; .:./ *.- /- 0% '2*O .L. , $.'. .. ,*4 J ' O M. ,
.1.-r," 1 3.] M 3 s ,k- .g fin ,'S;' .: I
~;%
.e.eu._,. 's-
'v'4n-/3' gy; : W,a e[sM :ps M.;;p&[4' . 4 8- o *W
,s ., ,v
,4 -
- * .%. .. M.,-;4,. .,a+ ya .s . 3,~
= y ..d . . es + .
e 6:t . ; .,',':~"- ' t ..-s-'a.J ~. 93- Q.t}'.g.?,, T...M e,:,"'- g e: ._.o -,
- p
',.v.'...; * *a r *~ e.*lnt6m[ p.et;,,* ,J
, ecl;, ...- ,
t . g t , n ;s . .Lg
, ,..?.E; j'*' -
gftf.P #%R 4th, #,(# y% ,.e *Q ,
, ,. i* eA. .3 ib..o ,
., ~ , ' *
- y , %. , , , > . ,,r.-;.; we *.g+.;
c.
.. <- . , . ym Se v
- a4 vj,&.p ay
. r*, -, ,,. , * . . , -- - - 1
, ?fp o.m ;Q.4*
y ;w. . ./,;.., / .- ,; . O-a ' v .. . n..+ - g s k.
" ,. , 1 '
*. * .,, ,- \ , * ' '
yt**.,. ,-J.,- w , ,.?',* ~
,; so- . , , <w .;, .- ' .,. a :
+ !N.> --..ze,.,.
,-..,.,,.,'\,v,..,..*z.gg,.* r j6 . .j" .R' 4 4 *~
f ~.*. < . .": yy ."..
*. .~. rno,.,r a 4 Y .,_
*/r A'- .i..;%..s'.;** t /9 f .,;p 'fr 9 ' # ),. .
I g& e
}, . .
44# ,,7 g: .w o <- - e . 4 N ,t 4- 3**yp . f- n :- 4 *
; t
, 4. .*% : , a y, . . , . .' ' . ,.rk:. A k.4. ,v n. ,.WY -- c
. y; ., + -
/ c' *. yt , e A.,.e. A ,* "s -
J.. :>=1 ,.,
- A.,.. ' . 3 -
..g
.I A..n,,a
.-gu,-A j >g .
; , +. ' m .Sp n c,
- x- . . .. .! . .: cc -
. . * .s.,. ,-m c s.>
i .r:: <. ~ zi -
,, ^~, . ., - * -
\
1 ,- ny -
. . ,. -na ,i .,
'f ,e- f . * * *,g* 4
'*, . ~ 4 '
'y. y
.,g s vg .2 1
d.' I
.,,- . ,m- ; . -,: b. ,
s .- a 1 w , . . - - ,Ih, .9 e4 ,, [ 4 g
. y g*g.- o' #
l*' f'N '9
* , +.s+ .
-s3 .,
,,.,}-. .M)
A'-(1 _ y . , . . , -y, .
'-7 %.'
.x%'.
+ -*
3 i e 4 J
,;, ' _ ? . . .; .
, . < . ',,).. ,
>_i x - 2 - ,
, , se-~ me. - e n , . n-se..,.- ~
P -'a g,. I _ ,, 9 +> 4 -
) & ,
, or ,
e ,s
+
g - . - . . - .,
,s .^-==5 . $ -.
s . Jg' g n
,.,6 , g e
' . a
,.,.+.t.*.*.s.
<u,-.*s
.m s . L . s , ,.
c .< s ce za s,- o., .,
.p. -
> ,; ) ~ ,y . ,
c*},r . - t.s
. +- ,
p<. . e;f
,. %; , n-w-*".f, x ,. ,.u,e .m. ' c. c %%e
- 3. , '; 4 . ~ < . .w r.rs-
}g .a ,'A
.- m. #y,
- *g g 'y< ,,
- yn . '
k y, a 2.v.*,. e ): i,..g;r. +% ,' d, .* y..s-
- t r
_ . a e a . . . o .,.,r s'. ns~ 4
. ".h,$J
. .s,5a . sys3 1;. ,,
;- .t. ,G-s,C * . ... . ei .. . *, .. . .. t <
,. .- k Y,.g's,. . 9
..,s,.4+. , ,f ,,,* 4 a j u (
,- o
.,,,e,.-- , . ' ,',.p s i .Y,, ,.),, , g. . %.,, n* * ~. g. . 5 s :,-., 6 4 3 ,-
,g', ,e"d . '.Q.r . 3Q*.M . y t:4 s v.M ~ e. 3 t , '- *
-.*p.-
J * - s s
*q q' ,K'A 1 t a ,
$ ,. _ y ,v J 6 .' ...-M. g. , ,f ...
%;<. ', w -
t O.%'6,4 c m' cW'c 'whw- 'm r = s o.jo;;p . .: . .i , ,^ , ,
. . e .-;; . .
p *K b..*3;f- I::.(gfnf
. .Q7p,m.' h**
- n .-
(,,e,,..gy v. > ; r.y .
'.- -- u w. e ~. ,.
O , w. s
-u.~
s., w M a i . ~sA % &
> . . .c
. ; -- -~A
.s a/p 9,' n% 's?
i
< f:W mp'tg T'L:L l ,
e W hu'",+, .yp&. ..A # i.. i l }[ll +[}""'"*[ ', Qg H.-
,'s s* v [.
.s' g .3< w~ - u ,,1. r wD" s 't< 4. r *
.p fv. $ 3
., %". ,v. ~
.s .-
5,,.- . -* o*-5"b g y(A
.*t *
; @I "! o",%n uV,.
,,.,e 6- . f -
. 4. 4' - -mi.;,
1 " b. y , 'l} y . s., _'Qij ly' , h' %w'd,:+h,'sy;f A
,kW.~ . . y ,e. .ew.
+
-. 9,eme y. %e.wy,=9 ' <. 3. . m
.6 yh );* d.Q #5f kl .k I'=s :
h.... N .t. NMA .i[ ,
.'h'r w .48 1..
' 1
- O.s .. **v.,g e,4 .
*NIkW.m. .
, h i,
,,.,.0 % 'l.k.%, %"j
(* M
%.h.h ,..y, 4(*3'* $I *M*,',,
e* i!N* 3 4 #:e tN 4?,,1 e, g, ,,.*-* b2'Q.# '
- sNY,,h,k *<la ,.4f.g .% ,. .,rY U. , ,'",- Q.
,f. *p L_ a 9. ,e<. . ,"
'e,f.+.g'._.3.. g W. ,, ;
- G ,' 't
}y*'e.*yW.$
a. W.. $= xc%'T. ,\. ,> . . * , w' a%', r
,*s ,a** .*, o.,+% @# -n.r.a 4 .p'i.'.,.$. -n.;.. .(p+/ h s', u:,,.,-q*g *V y
/ f g.W'e f - a ?f - C N?am $ ar'7 w ,e
. .g.
*-a.= y' J 3 *
?,, M
,4; p *p, .e.,,E. ."-. /;s. W 'h.y o ', 4g' . ;I p , .n ,n.,f
.'*Q.
h , >t . 4,."e. ,g ..re< p
.s .E
*\ d .. < *p M.t e,t % *,'s 4 e, ii-
&. **fe, t
lW'c , . **, k. q. ^q n? f. f f l'$. Qu~
- v. _ .4 u,, s..p*,,4,-- s ,n* yle.e i y 7y,,N.:. 4
,4 y' - w5. {*64.cp[e , ,.
k, 'T
.n; W. Q Q-4. eff;;*t'Je[~'O, n.s * *P, . y ,a h',(
p }V Qy.3 *lhbW .OD, -
,.D.Q. ,
n- n, +,. nu .-n n>. . -. n..
.*NYO.m.~.W "y wN'fr s.u s '
* - rsw . .* *g>,A[.'
w, e . O
. WJ b b f =>5 a e'. l' s - h"gr. S gf,
,;h ,*c-(. 4 hy4A ** '/ jy V. p. #
- 4'
- h.(,A ,5 }. = '9' A~
g M M -[D s-
,;;y* W. ,*m ye ,,vry. M =2'*,' g j.;, #. ,. s 3
Q v- % e*? Q .
- h,,p.p#EN?pB*%. .'s.
p% s,f*9:;,;J;,'yf:h
'0 W p, ,. ,,y'[, N
-e r-p:%;h
? e V; c<Y :^;w,% %.
, cy; q'.
- n' c w'w${.
.,l . ' . ' *;. . w p' *p-l- v.l9. 4 T {. .D,, y n . :,
/.,;j '.'y e. .;ys ... R ; >5,i 1,A , -*':e. .z "t #. . :.. e
-p -.-r. . ,4 g **4; *%,,
4e s ? .N ; 9 a
. t } *. gi 4*, ,e. s
- s. , ., _ y U./ Q '5 ~l-f;.'av< . * -
, . f.r; j -l'-}'bQ
. < g., ( ' -m.+ , t$:
-r L. q, 3,.
..,5 +&. .s * . ', *; x,> ,*r*I .es * , . , e. , . **t.
' 1e
- f. 3 i n.
'*a.. 9 ; ;4 '
l, g * .,; s> , 4
; ' ;@' s 3 p%y 78 Y-gs p. Q* . f ' . ' , ' ' s D*',[(-* , ' " *h*v
- m}' / *.e # ^ *- Q g -a a,.,,-)'
..s " .t.tis t. ' . ..'v* ,. y g-qd-,-
....s,,3.-
s a oe e -
- n ~3 y, < .@e ,- , .-. ".ll : .'2
*1
- j. , -
A
< i
,a- - ,, ,.
d '
.% e- J -
,'?' * * ' % ' n ,
, *&E..> t ,
e.w* : s s.' ".'t~..,., .
-O.-. ** *
.f .o sML, *1 g y f '.st ' * *.o
}u <e -
p' ~. A o a w
.\1
- J
*
- 6- ,, t /P ..
- m. w .
. , m .a , . , y -
1 .
. W st ' 6' / p /e .4: - a't *
-'7,
*v *v..,-7* *M,, 3 ,, y'.z.';. , ,. *
,I,
- Ry 4n].Q,. . Q., s . 'y
- n5y, 'Q4.-*r
- E
~ ', t
,, m ,iz.u[~;, Yw,y , ,. , ,~, ' y
,= 3 *.g ;6 / ,-
.t' r
.,. " . ' ' '
- s,
.* e *.t.eu , ? , , 6. >>? ,o' F -
4,* . Q w o%+,ti" ." < s e ..
,. *
- t*3,7.
. m. ,, , -- -
g .
' '*? *, ;.1 M.*f*] ((
- 7 g ). ,y.i 1 ' ,.
, . . c,.
J
'(
sg F
.a J e., .,
g 8 g I y gg
-9
.s ,
. s ;(; - ' ;, #--..t s -
r..,
.g
,, 'is m (..' < . . , ..3....i- ==
#',,^ f .., - ,
% ',f ,3
-e ..- . .( . ,4, s - p ,
.'.).,,,.,.M.',4,-
.,s..
r
,e. .<
.sy-,.
s **J,p f A d. : " Y " & % 4
.4g rt# .
g .. . 3 f . s, k.' , - ,, -
, , q w,
-l { > $ l <
..s'." 4';
m e,
."{l*<'
^
- -% *^ y '
5 e
, lg.'. .I ). .
.,v 1
g -. .
. > a
- L
' V }; *
//" y f 9 A > ^\ t P
Di
, 3,, ,, .
,). ,-,-
.- e q..
.ns s*#*.
..-n~ - . - - . . , . . - . . n- - . . .
.3
- da ., ,
8 a f I
J
-u. .
- m. y X
.r,.
....... y
,.T,.*[
. , , , e
', -.g' . . ,
g
',,n* 4.*a,-# : , ..
, = .
. - -. .- s g n'.'<* %
2.
=- . . = . . . .u. -
. s.
' ' ie ,, , { rJ,/ ,
. ~ . . ..
.,' 4 ,:..
p'\
,p -~.R.,3.u-it f g
. . w . - 4 '. . ' .,[. ,g
+ .
. T .1,. 'cJ. .' s . . . .c : - * - g ', y , _
=.
h4 ,p , . b* # '5 # ^ g
,; - - l -Q 'A r .
; ,n v . .
. c
~ ,
s v*.y..,.r
.,s..., u..4 . - , ea
..s. ._. .
OmmlSSIOn v #. r~9E. . . E R. _ Q.$f..Lp.y .
;6_. ,
..gz - ?" . e. ,. _
ISSUanCBS
. D...
r* e r p.
;g
- D %v - ' % ,e5
.m - <
.u't' s.Af,' m yi,..-y , +' x, y : , T. sh '
' b . ., y , ;, , t *;n
,-l. . s w .
a
.,- . , ,m ? E .s, r
g- *y l 4 .'.' , ( , v.
,- .. t '.
. v.6 s {t
; 4 < :.4w-. 7, . . , , ,
,' ,, .r*
, A s . i L" m 1-# '"
.r
'4 .' '.[ , ,,..s ."r ' ' '
r ..-A..it
. ;^+ :: . ,,. .
s a ,
? .de
-..~,. -
, b ,,##.35 <- . . -
**; h '.
',4'
. #..W".. 7 .
'$ , S s,',
~-l;-. .<4 '
_-<- .-s ,c's
- f. ,, , . .
t* e n
. ,q
-.t. .
1
'm34 ,. d *
, 't e
[ T
".l , i A h ' , .I
~
.s D 1
, ,\m h
. G's *. .tv', -
.-p.
#*, 9 4-r.
.t , , , .v .- <.-
'4 '* ,
(- 6 ^
, 4 e
't d m ee
*e a .4
. r .'"r gy...
e e i o ,,
, . r. .
;e e ,, --
-~z,,..e' ,
- s. 6
# -9%
7
#/ 4 A m-.*# .
's y b 4
.- - 9
> ,. r .
;, ij- i. , . .
~ [ '. s g %a o'
nh'-
- v. e s -
ye g"a P' y' F h e .kJ $
-qa, -
- ,...e k g
(
- a yEgr. ,,
Y 4.
/
1 - 4 f g j f
# ~
{ .
. J.
0 5 em en. ..~-~en wp. m .e .w. ,m.,,. .,,,e. . , , ,
s, s .- .
, a y..e <s .
m..,
. m ;.r e .
,'
- i;.. .b. . ? . 3, i * , , -
o '.
%,.' '.9ls . k:hv.g '. ;i:
+- .s ,w,. <
.c > -
0
,~?.
n . . .
~ *:+ .s * .&.s s
- n l* ' r
- ,h,m. ;:.!,'.'n?g' 4 :, .e;...'.R A 'D.m%. .'w' q~. - ;anv 7.a; ~: ; ~
~
- ^m '. *
..., ,:, ~+ L ,
- 4' L '
i , ~ - .; , . ..
@+@wf.Q:.v,.MMk?.+Q; v ~:. M, . xM..s.t . .~. v. .w;w, .
" ?c,~
- . ,, > s ' ,
, , ~ -. .m .
't -@@. . ., p : ~n. '- '
c.d2. w uk.;_e 4 a! 2 m.m.: aaa.3.' m2e. .._A m.. ':p m tv. 3 My L
- m. , j
- q;;;C:%:n o:':
,m ,
f.{y.h.;p..p
.W .
?O3:):nW,
- w. : w L h .:.gfc,. . ..
- Q.a.,b.k; ' , Y.:+. .u kk l+ .Y.u. ,:. .;~.
h wk,k';'f ' a . x~ a .n. p. -
\
'A, b,w. .: . , .. :~ r@ma.-3NJ@W. ,7' Cite as 23 NRC 1 (1986) CLI-86-1
<:m$,f.d%s.
.,wu w-n '.
.N@y %I,%.,a,5.yA.sWp;.y.M%d.n :w: -
.y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M..r..n kWig . n . .,g n. .a.'wW s
', 4 Q W ', n w v.M U. @,m ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- WF.c p g<
+VG c .,:. ,
n.W M.ob 'u.MQ;JQy^ z 3bre'y: 4.W*:.%L I'h.e 5Y pj- Tf f O+ 2.%.'Q5.'.I?MMt$8p;d:.F;E ~v COMMISSIONERS:
;.Q%
..c, 2.1.i ap r.y*:::m d
$t^; % :A* 3. m., Y ?)):ljk.m. :; p~'Q;;C%,n.c
.:yA j.g.n .x j; Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
'. ( Thomas M. Roberts M. M.
A ;*f"@m;e;s.:At 4 %.. ..a"@.pn.h, .::-,7.C , f?P.t I James K. Asselstine .sv~ .2 p,- c ~a%m&y%.. . M . Mc.@, m. . .M.. m @, . . a Frederick M. Semthal
- d. jidom, mW .#s%0. e*4qetw < w .,
m?- S'k.s , " Lando W. Zech, Jr. Q.s.y..!@4.. . y i Wty.*,M.-:. # % ;-: Ni' a.L ... . *, +.; . .A.j v.,1. 'u, : J. w
".? m .r -
L:d.:::a.w;. ' v:c U-6..:,} . CJ. r n
/~.. - ,;n g.nc s. a. - ?. .>>y x .
c.- f,..: m y#g ;. 'q, g . m/ f p @ jff, 2 ,
,' In the Matter of Docket No. 50-382 OL
. . w- r,. .
,; . gi.- . M,' ::$ &l.' 3 ' , . ., -
. J' i ; .' M /-i16, - ; l LOUISIANA POW 4R & LIGHT
.4,,h,j: 9:.e.f iw$g ii. Wv.%. - : COMPANY T'{,%%,x v l7.9 (Waterferd Steam Electric P ,T6,%,/.
w:/ EM. f.,...m av ... , y Mi:.Qf ii C M ' W W ^ ? ;.'; 1 Station, Unit 3) January 30,1986
.. , n,:q an _
.. . c-i .n -
;.s ' - ~
d
'h The Commission denies the remaining aspect of Joint Intervenors'
- af .;.- , motion to reopen the record in this operating license proceeding on o., ,.
g "2 , management character and competence. The Commission finds that
.f r , . '
Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen, which is based on the pendency of
.- .a c :< g. ,,, 7 y: p-n ongoing investigations of the Office ofInvestigations, does not meet the R ' .!' .W. Q *
% heavy burden required to rerpen a closed record.
. .Q, my .. ," - f_ .4 , . ,}
.y
,p,,, . - qui g , < r..s. . ~.v;w.r
- w. .... .. w~,. .~
' "cV , ., f. -
RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD p.Nr' :,.M :
~c e .
lga.;:+;, l ' ' ; , ', < Q;:., ? 4 ' c.>
,- y t.. The standards for reopening a closed record require consideration of
' g,5;.
. c; h- ;
, , , f three factors: (1) whether the motion to reopen is timely; (2) whether
}; P, f c. .l.. I Q. J. . '. the information raises a significant safety (or environmental) concern;
. . x. .
. . . ;- ,o. . 7.a .. . . -1 and (3) whether the information might have led the Licensing Board to
. . +1
, ;<f - .; > C/ ' 1 . '.1 reach a different result. See, e.g., Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile
. ,.j
. gc* ., ~ ,,m '
Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI.85-2,21 NRC 282,311 (1985). pg. ,
~ - ' . . , ..a. ~
.j 's % )
# =
4 0
,g 4 g
1 1
's -
c,. >
, q.,. -w ,
g 4 4 ,
- fy i .c'.w.., .mega.,v,ey.,,g,g., . , . , , , , , , , , _p,
, p, _
4 % 1 i
. .1 E 6 .>. h; g;j q
; , , - :.w '.
.- , b, ? ' h .V,n.tp
' .': .,. ' ' , Ju.
. : '. E- - ,
~ '
. : '.], , -%. ,
a -+
' s.;;: ' 2 ;
~.,.
. f ,,y.
S;@p! J. . . fr . - ,
. :t' , , - -
jy
;g#
spy : ,. ~ 1'-
. , X_
, CQ i . .,. Lf
.1. . _ Jgh.d
,~
t $ 3 v i s l
~
- c.
%. . n. .
, . . % d., RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD
/. L' .. , y .; . A ' e:.c.
s ' R .. " .
- - ';; -+ ~; f The burden of satisfying the reopening requirements is a heavy one.
O e > - See, e.g., Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, w.7 y ; ..<j s,j; , ' . , Unit 1), ALAB-462,7 NRC'320,338 (1978); Duke Power Co. (Catawba t Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-359, 4 NRC 619, 620-21
$3, .Ja r
.1;.;; ; At"y * . : ;_ M..i (1976). Bare allegations or the simple submission of new contentions are not enough to meet these standards. Paci/7c Gas and Electric Co.
<3 .,'.-:@t.' , ....
- yw i,j ..s.; .'. '. g .. M' i- $3.cG:OW4;
.x n .." (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 815,13 . 3.' .
NRC 361,363 (1981).
, , q e g. ' ,:. Td',S w':.N,, ;.M.
~..
9 r. :s. , +.3 '
. . .m 1
a 7. 7,. 3., , .4
- U!,- RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD
- 0Wyf s py ,j 'll4:g: '
.t,..j s.M,
'J.E;; Cly (SPECIFICITY)
*~ ' '
' '7 -
At a minimum, the new material in support of a motion to reopen m
.' D-' ' must be set forth with a degree of particularity in excess of the basis and specificity requirements contained in 10 C.F.R. ( 2.714(b) for admissible
. ~
'i o. .{m
.1 contentions. It must be tantamount to evidence and possess the attri-
..,-; J.
? 'si Pf' butes set forth in 10 C.F.R. { 2.743(c) defining admissible evidence for
' c5,. ,',
l-l s y-De-adjudicatory proceedings. Specifically, the new evidence supporting the
?',J motion must be relevant, material and reliable. Pacific Gas and Electric
;t
[.'
- f.
. .':S-[ )Qg Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-775, q [9 .< 3;3;;
~<- ~. .
19 NRC l36i,1366-67, affd sub nom. San Luis Obispo Slothersfor Peace
~
C .4 v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.1984), vacated in part and reh'g en banc granted on other grounds,760 F.2d 1320 (1985). Information that in-
,.,.33 .
,s t .dk A vestigations are under way by itself does not meet this standard.
. .y;:n.sthwp , y a ..
' ; " h. .:4 j ..
RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD
,c " ' " A movant in seeking to meet the heavy burden required to justify
, fg; . ( .j. reopening a closed record is not entitled to engage in discovery in order
- . .,, dQ ,; c to support the motion. Rather, the issue in each case is whether the
. wg .. . S -
available information meets the standards for reopening. Sferropolitan
' - . - (,.:% j . ,
Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-7, 21 l' - GFdN NRC 1104,1106 (1985). It is not the duty of the adjudicatory boards to
, 11
?1 J':lq{.5. .N search for evidence that might fill in gaps in the moving party's u --
2 - p.g. . ;; pt,. submissions. w q. 3. i w ,
- ,.a -
, .e. <
RULES OF PRACTICE: RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTIES 1., -
- ' i , ', . T,3 w ,
_ . of. ,- g.. The Commission's Policy Statement on Investigations, inspections, V i '. . y'z- '
. c. . . M ' a and Adjudicatory Proceedings,49 Fed. Reg. 36,032 (Sept.13,1984), ad.
F
~
. . - L. r. ' 4
?
..c 4
, , m
'"^*-**'
- I
-.v-... - . '
,. .-...,7..-f-<,...--
l
.. . ~ . , . . c, ;. .
- ,,5' , ,. . ,
- ( 7. ,. -s: <y~," ': %. _ ,o &
G. ..;. e
~ v;;.-:m *. ~ -
a:,r
- w.
s , i y - : e 9 y::;y.9.w;_. p,.y), a
. .2 , + , ,
- s. ~ v.' . g, . 9.L..> -
, . < '>,- ,t
.:~'.c
-9.;7.M 3 s:,$:Q:: /, . ,
% , c' ', ,
-- a ,_ ...a.-a- e.c. m. - W
'@?.g p A : 1l;' .t
-.u- =-
m-W"'al v' L,'sQ
... . ;s , *; % ";
}
gf/i.G.M.%.a -
~
'o., r a .w
' n' .l ,\ W Q.U.Q C '
;,A w L.,~
, .w' Q .f.b R. .
), ?$f,M%yR,.;' hk: j?gM}] dresses the con 6ict between the duty to disclose investigation or inspec-
. 5 Myi$2:7, 94. tion information to the boards and parties and the need to protect that j.".% information. The provisions of that Policy Statement come into play
, c',c. 3.w N{:
* ?/N$'
.+ Nh('q[h,M..h h kl only when Staff or 01 have new information material and relevant to any " issue in controversy in the proceeding." Previously uncontested
,!tb'.N d k [.Q M. issues raised in a motion to reopen are not " issues in controversy in a proceeding" unless and until both the motion to reopen is granted and
L$,'NGS, LOW rQQ
- ..p; kJ :M3$p MH
. - <M D T.*
the contention is admitted. m pt m 9"JM Z ' ,ys",M J. wd. ua ,.. g .P -y. W. h wk;,jd.s,ddj@$ t: OPERATING LICENSE HEARINGS: SUA SPONTE ISSUES Boards have the authority to examine issues not placed in controversy
- .c
$V-, MQd$g&M7:; .l $l6p ;ni; $Mjn,, Mep.p Qc by the parties only where specinc facts are brought to their attention in-
.A , - c.Qyp/./ g: dicatmg that there is a serious safety, environmental, or common de-
".@,fj.,g.,719,1;g.9..j
- g. [, r fense and security matter. See 10 C.F.R. ( 2.760a; Texas Utilities q Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2),
c . qp y,Q, ,, j"Z
- .- . . e> q , .
<; 0 ~0
'a CLI-81-24,14 NRC 614, 615 (1981). The mere pendency of 01 investi-m _:c , gg. gations by themselves does not raise a serious safety matter.
..n c .,
,r .
t s 'n
..n , f~ ,a: am
.:y.l
,W ;;( Q h .r;. z.y'p* w: y.pa n
?,8w:c:.n. 4
..p n'n t ?q, r .w. _ -
. .;W w 2 W.v .y. .: - . n.w.+l*Q. e.e., ows. n. .
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
? -( , ' .Q h 'i , , .
- g. .
;' On July 11, 1985, the Appeal Board issued ALAB-812, which denied
.'- J the fifth and Gnal motion to reopen Gled in this proceeding "in all re-
- 1 ..
.. spects save one: insofar as the motion raises issues that may relate to y . 7. ;> n . g>.
, ,f . .M' matters under investigation by OI, we [the Appeal Boardi are unable to y g; _ ', : n p ';y .;= .% . rule and therefore leave that part of the motion for the Commission's
.-:q
~
j resolution." 22 NRC 5,13 (1985) (footnote omittedL As explained f , , ,4 , below, the Commission has decided to deny the remaining portion of
.y .. . i ,',. J A. d 1.. ,,
the motion to reopen.' _ ,s... g. J- - 7 , s, ,- ! .y e,. , n
. . . , 5. . .
, a.
i s (.
'.t.,-' I.
w.y
"', ' ,4 % Joint Intervenors on November 8,1984, moved the Appeal Board to
[i j y - .
;<'; / Rd reopen the record of this proceeding on three new contentions. The
- ,' i yh - %, .. . . .
J;l ' b ] Appeal Board denied the motion to reopen on two of the proposed con-tentions. The third proposed contention sought reopening on the charac-s,, 3,
, - Z'Q,.'. eft;' }j
- 1. i
.% .,, . #cJ
,a .. ., 3
- s
, j
.j l Joint Intervenors have requested the Commmson to review MAB.812 Neither or the mues raned by Joint intervenors meets the standard set forth in 10 C F R t 2 78MhM4 for Commmion review.
.j
*q Joint intervenors' request is therefore denied c l
) J 4
a 4
.- -. ...~.y.~.. . . ~ . . - - . . . . , , , , ,y 1
1 5 l l
p,..y y-,fy3. , vn ,
.,4
- 7; .
z ,
,a. , - .. (.
.w .w.
, ,. ., . ., u.
. (.u.yf.;3
.c w.cmn.
Q
,e , .4, ; fp,
. .. m.a :
...,. y -
. ' _.. 3
. 3,.d
,, , , ; ;...."'r?
. ' .a
-( 9. ' ,
- n . .y; . m; . - ,
Atu,.%c,%w. 5 ).
- 7.,p v; ,
.%< a9,,e %... %
. . 4
- ' - cg, y m ..
s.
- w. . .wc s - i. . . .
a3. m
. . q.cm.
y v ,, ,
.#.; y ;v.
s .
/c J .:,
- 3. +L. .. , y . >
p 4.y> i : > . M. u .~' - .,
;..rs ,c , . . s m v 4<. r% ~
5,- v- , x = n. y m_ /.t' ^
~ wun ,
- - . . ' ... _ ..: = ; a ;. w w - a + : -
.. 3. .
- L . ..' -. .'t .s G ; .
- ;i & :. .
,3: . ~ . . ...
c,r-Y,. - x .y W; .. ter and competence of Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L). As summarized by the Appeal Board, Joint Intervenors charged that fy A' .q;g.S. 5.D.i LP&L's lack of character and competence was demonstrated in essential. J,<
~$%MWE ly six ways. The Appeal Board concluded that five of the six charges did NM7fM.N'ff. .
'~ not, either individually or collectively, raise a significant safety issue. On
'7 e q.c '.l M.f.f.Qy.,M Q the sixth charge - that pending investigations by the NRC's Office of ON Q yQ:.$dIh,' investigations (01) into allegations of falsification of records and harass-ment of quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) personnel at the site hp
;p'
. , Nj,:.r.s7k.f..W.] c. Q3 T@g. g?: *f;$;t J-M demonstrate a lack of character and competence - the Appeal Board
- s. + =g. 4 4 g4 found that the state of the record did not permit a judgment one way or
-(.
, ' ,7 0'% 'N. $f@f.Q Oi the other. 22 NRC at 45.
%, -t
'iz. t..:P.. %. cOMbgg,jW The Appeal Board, "[blecause of the dearth of publicly available infor-mation concerning Ol's investigations, . . . [hadl solicited more details NJY 5$ (('M.p[yjyg
-DM ;e T , - directly from OI." Id. at 46. The Appeal Board stated that it was unable to obtain " complete, usable information" from OI, and therefore that it M' ' p,M,6.E.Qlc. vp. "took the unusual step of reviewing some of the investigatise documents
[itselfl, in the NRC Regional Office where they are located." Id. at
' % [
'?.6 %g /,$ (l, MlI.{,.
y, f c<'O',. 46-47. The Appeal Board, noting that nothing it had seen had given it "cause for significant concern about the integrity of LP&L's manage-
.7 L /.d.MQ,h,.,9.'.%. 15 r
; w
., . , , ,w, -w . . -g. n. w- .
.)2.m .
wfM . , ment,,, also stated that it could not " rule out all possible grounds for q Joint Intervenors' charges." Id. at 47. e $ ,pg g@gg.g,'p, ,, In view of Ol's opposition to release ofinformation to the parties, the AO ,p.,TA@TI Q?'9 Appeal Board found that it had no expectation of getting adequate infor-
. ,Q>f.Q.W, x[v- ' y ._ mation from OI which it could share with the parties within a reasonable
' f < 4'sQ. .,
period of time. Since it could not rely on information not available to
$ UN'o.d';.fyy d.W 136
-M ch the parties, the Appeal Board found that "neither a denial nor a grant of
-V M ,[A c $....$ g 5.
. y&,a ,M~ the motion to reopen would be sustainable or fair." Id. The Appeal
~
7, . u%g g.m q . <$ Board, concluding that only the Commission could obtain full access to information developed by OI, left the matter for the Commission to _ V , . f,).M.Q., ..o: ".' resolve. m: ;x.. q. ~. . Nm.A.? .. . , J
..s. . .a *,. h, < n ,
y
. i .p.
t h . .:W.
.y ..- t: 4MHay W 2:.' . g'~'.q'.. ** II.
a.s-Q N.r..; C.'i , 'M,m .M.
. ?fgy ; ~q The Appeal Board's actions in seeking information from 01 and then
- M@7 .. .e,uN.v/bl.@7 referring one portion of the motion to reopen to the Commission present i .#c.. c$ 4G - n, f.. N.4
,' ., ,>L f 5.Mp,
~
'" .7 two issues for the Commission to resolve: (1) Does the remaining por-tion of Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen meet the Commission's :
.gv , ' , -< . '.
M.y C .'" ^Q, ' . 1, ' . V. standards for reopening; and (2) did the Appeal Board have the authority to seek additional information from 01 before ruling on the motion to
~ pR E j j?. ,; -
7 N.? , - - reopen? We will address each issue in turn. H. .,er ? The standards for reopening a closed record require consideration of
- , am ,.,,'..f,.^ .
three factors: (1) whether the motion to reopen is timely; (2) whether i i.L b .
,e -. ,
d
. 4
=
s b b 4 y . { f 4 a w .= 3=- -ae 7 .- 9 p.g p69 ea p
..*.Wir*-W**g"P-..$. *f r ,,8'y.e -
^ M We k
[ .V < t , ;,.4 l l 1 ' 4 s
** . I' ',
- y l.
.1,. '.5 ,
_ _ _ . - . , ~ . _ - . _ , - _ . - . _ _ ~-
, % ' 1; . ,m -
JF . > 1 . ] V ~ ;,G 1 j.: gr. , 'j . q, ' n
,Q Lq -'
,y,. y;ggefgy - .s 2 b. . 4 ,
,. F - .,o w 3
,. W'M:.J;3.c.pW.
. ~}c: .s.,p:;yc. ,
i - > mKuum. ;- ..,. . w:. -
. : p'% . . y J' pm ~ ' *? ,
Q:
,, .. n
} Q g.W:y:ff;a q;f'y?'y~f;; $f Maa. u.s.,w...:. .: . . <
,.- . a -.- .a. w 2.x, .
.a a .- .a g:
m 1 . I c- <
\ . .
Y the information raises a signiGeant safety (or environmental) concern; and (3) whether the information might have led the Licensing Board to 4 M reach a different result. See, e.g., Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile i Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-2, 21 NRC 282, 311 (1985).
~
.g j
sy The burden of satisfying the reopening requirements is a heavy one.
- j. sy {L See, e.g., Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, i
'. .m: . 3Mi Unit 1), ALAB-462,7 NRC 320,338 (1978); Duke Power Co. (Catawba j- 1g$h Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-359, 4 NRC 619, 620-21 J.; .Mj (1976). "[ Blare allegations or simple submission of new contentions"
,. N . N. . M 2 are not enough to meet these standards. Paci/7c Gas and Electric Co.
! . M (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 81-5,13 i
. D[,M..g(( ,,-
NRC 361,363 (1981).
' ~KW .!' W < % ,
f.& At a nmimum . . the new material m support of a motion to reopen must be set forth with a degree of particularity in excess of the basis and speedicity requirements
* , , y ^ " dy '
contamed in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) for admissible contentions. Such supportmg mfor.
, ?/" -
. ~/i 1.d.; ,A , mation must be more than mere allegations. it must be tantamount to evidence
**MN . . [andl possess the attributes set forth m 10 C.F.R. 2.743(c) definmg admissible ll ' . 5 $ ,Y evidence for adjudicatory proceedmss. Specifically. the new evidence supportmg the motion must be " relevant material. and rehable."
gv),7 -j M
- x];w,,
ay..a
- _'h.b;4.% i '
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units l ~UGEQ , I and 2), ALAB 775,19 NRC 1361,1366 67, affd sub nom. San Luis
' y'B . &
' }Af Obispo Mothersfor Peace v. NRC,15l F.2d i287 (D.C. Cir. I984), vacat-ed in part and reh'g en banc granted on other grounds 760 F.2d i320 i ?h 4 (1985) (footnote omitted). '
The only aspect of Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen left before the l ( n; Z,E.'c N;d'h s. S Commission is the assertion that the existence of 01 investigations into j
-
- 7 lR J, M allegations of falsification of records and harassment of QA/QC person-4 '
nel demonstrates a fundamental lack of character and competence in '
- ' ? .2 * >
M',' . LP&L. The Commission finds that Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen, l 1 : &-E which is based on the pendency of ongoing 01 investigations. does not
,['; , g,Q meet the heavy burden required to reopen a closed record.
- - ,;. ; m ; .. 01 conducts investigations of licensees and licensees' contractors to j . 7 'x - F '
determine whether there has been a violation of NRC requirements in-
+
L';. . volving wrongdoing. The bare pendency of an investigation does not in-iM y;. a } .,] dicate that there is a substantive problem, or even that there has been a
; J ?? %.O,j Qf;: ' violation. Nor does it indicate that an allegation raises a significant safety ,-
~
- 16. 7hr }lD.T'
"'F , ' O.; . , M issue. The pendency of an 01 investigation indicates only that there is an allegation that is being investigated. The material proffered by Joint in-
- c
$4 tervenors, i.e., that investigations are under way, certainly is not "tanta-
' f .' .M mount to evidence," and is not the type of " relevant, material, and relia-5' I
l % 8 y j _"'. -, 5 sa I' , ! ; y. .- , - . . . , . . - . - . ,. . - . . - . . - . .-. . - . . i
,c__ -
, , , . - . - . , - , _ , , . , . - _ , . _ . , , _ _ . - _ , - - _, ,., _ - _.-- --- ..--m~,,,-,.- --
H - . e .
.c. ,
e ,
;y.,' -.,
. . *, y Q % : f..7,% '
. . 7. g.,
' < >.9%. . u, g,.-);. , .GQ
, , ,.Ntjg 7m ,
K Q. :.f ., r .. .. *
- se '.~.'
'jh r.
'-r
,T Y'
' W, , hkQ
'((,* M,P,4 N Q ,Q, %/ <M / *.s3. h,Q $[9h5m'.'v%-)9.'
. ; ,}
_'4 e'4 7Q[,' .'
~4 ;.J V v
',;1 a . 3. y1, f.g, e.T ,.* ,
N Oe. %'i s,- f ' .[, w r ., My j C j .f. ; %~ $.Sg.5 p - . _, : .t .o
- a. , ; ~
W,$ c .C.. . p, y.A >g 9 '",, . 4,. 6 _ 3; .
d q 3,. s
', - . , qwalw.m,.m.w.
+ t cyy n u m.-
m.., r.w .M .l !:'(..- y^ .cr ,
. y y'w - n. ' 9 fy ; - ..w ? ri ' ,
m3.m '
, ,r
- c
*"., .' j 4 ,',,y
* ..f.YL m.i &.b'..+ n: .. :9 ", Q* (.~ J. .s . + s ~y*, !. -
-c ; y f..st(
~ .t-n -,s r
; p, , . ..
'^ ^
,g-....g ',- -"' ~ " # ' h i " b a "g.M *^"
- L," '.. ',
l eW- -. s p,,..r ..* ,
, , ~ cu.
. %... A,( .
"'*~***"U'~*g,
. Ws?.l c-
~ 4 QQ
..,,r.
j h. 4,] . ( ' --
, , ..,.x
. : ~ ~. ;q c y
c
. 7. - :l' :' . q: .
~. , m ,.'* s_.
s tQiv -e, r. [ $e
.. .,c , . m a,.' , ,- r ,..
- w. 3
. .q. . yw - z. 1. g-ig f.W D/.
ble" new information required to reopen a record.2 See Diablo Canyon, fn ., . . l9 supra, ALAB 775,19 NRC at 1366-67.
<Oc. $. p .o?N.
m q- a.,$v .V,M:.bU .g. , -; 6 ; .r.x.
~
. ,. , ; 4 gjnce Joint InterVenors' motion to reopen by itself does not meet the F. ...GMiff . y ,. m ... N . W M. M W + t Commission's standards for reopening,3 the Commission must address
' )f :;N.%g,[.O M $. M.. .N,3-M. .. whether the Appeal Board had the authority to look at information de-veloped by 01 before ruling on the motion.
,$9.AWp21 %. M.#73 ~ t a A movant in secking to meet the heavy burden required to justify M9%WM,N %:9.pp Mh:f.. .>./ - .
reopemng a closed record "is not entitled to engage in discovery in MghW M' ann,$.,,e . F4 ~ q p;?n - g@.g'$- order to support [ thel . motion . . . Rather, the issue in each case is M, >tM~ h- ... .. & ~ F whether the available information meets the standards for reopen-n t W. ;p e g ~ m B . g .( ,
$p$yyADN ' j,'. JMS *. ; ing . . . ." Metropolitan Edison Co.'(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-7,21 NRC 1104,1106 (1985). It is not the duty of the w:_ AN?;W .'i Y.W FN .MM[N adjudicatory boards to search for evidence that might fill in gaps in the f $$Mb bM $@ ' )i MQW - moving party's submissions. Accordingly, in this sense it is not neces-sary, as the Appeal Board's decision may suggest, to " rule out all possi-USN,N,3.iY.4h MS - 3, ble grounds for joint Intervenors' charges." ALAB-812, supra,22 NRC x 4NCSN
- 56. i F@ .; G.;w %. u w.f; &.v..f. ;-y5:q. %.-
f, . N, at 47.
' Here, rather than a party seeking to engage in discovery, the Appeal N.
,l.jd ,y UN
;m M,.m 4 : h.e;d w -
b %p $hdhf 2.%EMNd. Board itself in effect sought discovery. Given what we have said about the movant's burden to support a reopening motion, there are two possi-ble sources of authority for the Appeal Board's actions: (1) the Com-yW. " , q4'y$. .M.p.n ~(. , . , , mission's Policy Statement on Investigations, inspections, and Adjudica-
' f 43., %fM,Q$g' $3Qg ;' tory Proceedings, 49 Fed. Reg. 36,032 (Sept.13,198 0; and (2) the JQ. , D " ' M-;;;.7-n
. p .v.- .
M U wg yl 3 . . l .y :. ~
< ? W. M
- E?.MP.WV 2" ;, 3,
(< YYf% i
*M i*y '[: a
. W -[*@9.Q.
- ,pg M. % 'e .Q.,(e "
2 Jomt Intervenors in their motion to reopen refer to a transcnpt of a meetmg between staff and 01 per-w$,'"M; ;M>p: 2 sonnet and ofricers of LP&L and to an article from the Wa# Sirrer /ournal The transenpi of the meeting
'* % 7 ,. 1 Q[<
- d d"C does not contain probative mformanon regardmg Ol's mvesugauens. The claim based on the Wa# Sirrer
,',. Journal that 01 is ready to refer **over four cases' to the Department of Jusuce indicates nothms shout
! ' . '3? u 4.*@p~.y ,
how those cases bear on the current management and operanon of Waterford. The Appeal Board noted
.- /i' -h ' .
that it is also mcorrect. See ALAB 812. supra. 22 N RC at 47 n.52. Moreover, hearsay based on a news-
'" _lp'G- h 'A ;Q"q g (Y p , '. W'J..
paper article does not constitute the kmd of evidence that can support a reopenmg monon. The Appeal Board also grouped one other Joint intervenors* charge - that LP&L took retaliatory fs .y '. g ' W C /.w p "%
- 4 .- acuon agamst QA personnel who adhered sanctly to QA procedures - with the charges based on ol's m.
.,ih; 3 ., vestiganons. /4. at 45 n.49 The arndavit Joint intervenors cite to support this charge pnmanly addresses e 7 ,
~[pla' i
,. " <2,. ' '<[/',,1. .p[g- p , *9 M +*
;s -
alleged QA de6ciencscs. The Appeal Board demed that portion of Jomt intervenors' motion to reopen which dealt with alleged QA denciencies. The remamms poruon of the affidavit deatmg with the alleged
,.7 f.)
L.?(..m ,j%,JQT.[ [3 W @ ternmauon. is not sufHcient by itself to raise a sigmGcant safety concern which might have led the 1.icensms Board to reach a ditYerent conclusion. i .
- g 'yi,M.
3 O.-c,5
* ; 'gtS P . '%/.5 , ;y The Commission also notes m this regard that the Appeal Board, even after reviewmg information de-
.39( veloped by of. stated "lnlothms we have seen gives us cause for sigmficant concern about the mtegrity Oj . Q ., je',N a,:I.W-byt*p .f of LP&L's management " /d. at 47. If there was no cause for concern, even after reviewing of mforma-0
,. . V %M .h ..
- g 2C ' ./ 3 Y,d uon. then aforriors it follows that the standards for reopemns were not met.
31n addition. Jomt Intervenors' monon to reopen raises previously uncontested issues, and therefore j ' must also sausfy the Commission's standards for admittmg late Gled contenuons, which are contamed
*(J"' , ,' 'y a m 10 C.F R. ( 2.714(aHI). Ser rearrally. e s.. Pars /ic Gar and Decirst Co. (Diablo Car' yon Nuclear 4 -
A- ' .< _k Power Plant. Units I and 21. CLI.82 39.16 NRC 1712.1714 l$ (1932). %nce the Cummission Gnds that the remaimns portion of Joint intervenors' monon does not meet the standards for reopemng,it t '. t- , need not address whether the mouon meets the standards for late 6 led contentions. ! + , , m%
'Y
~
E 6 l t , l ' ,;, _i \'
. - . . - . , , y ., , . . _ ,
- 1. -
yj ei c 1 [ j
, 8. ' t t
u .X, . e' ,.t-lr.' ,6, ' . N, , w , _l 'h '
,_ f y, ,l -
}'
. A_ , . e . ; GA.,. . #.w . sm. .. e, -*, ,,
. _ ,s t . k .3,,yl- T*T* Q, l,~ f. ~. [*. ' ] *.
.,, .,( e s
- y'Q L 4. ,$9]+j.. m p . "$6 T, '-
A . U
- e" ',. . -
q
' m
.;t.x .' ~
's u,'aa -
m , m g-- g ,y y % g Qy;;; n '~ f< ";;. yam; w,a, w;, ,,, ' ' Q. j- _ I i j Board's authority sua sponte to pursue uncontested issues. We will dis-cuss each in turn. The Commission's Policy Statement on investigations, inspections, ] 4 and Adjudicatory Proceedings addresses the conflict between the duty to disclose investigation or inspection information to the boards and parties and the need to protect that information. The Commission in that Policy Statement provides in certain circumstances for ex parte in camera pres-entations by 01 or the NRC Staff"[w] hen staff or 01 believes that it has a duty in a particular case to provide an adjudicatory board with informa-y tion concerning an inspector or investigation, or when a board requests such information. . . ." /d. at 36,033. However, these provisions come - into play only when Staff or 01 have new information "which is consid-
'~
ered material and relevant to any issue in controversy in the proceeding."
/d. at 36,032 (emphasis added). Previously uncontested issues raised in a motion to reopen are not " issues in controversy in a proceeding" such t
that the Policy Statement would come into play unless and until both the motion to reopen is granted and the contention is admitted.* Nor did the Appeal Board here have the authority sua sponte to seek
. t to obtain information relevant to the motion to reopen. Boards have the authority to examine issues not placed in controversy by the parties only
] where specific facts are brought to their attention indicating that there is a serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security 3
1 matter. See 10 C.F.R. 1 2.760a; Texas Utilities Generating Co.
'l (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), CLI 81-24,14 d NRC 614, 615 (1981). The Appeal Board made no such finding here, and none could have been made because, as explained above, the mere
; i pendency of 01 investigations by themselves here - the basic specific
"- ' ?.' ' '
fact brought to the Appeal Board's attention - does not raise a serious safety matter. Accordingly, the Board had no authority to pursue this (( J. matter as it did.5
\ . ;
.):
, a
, 4 Accordingly, since the motion to reopen in this case involved a previously uncontested issue, the staff
. ' . ,. ( y had no " duty" to inform the Appeal Hoard that of had mformation "matenal and relevant
- to the q
., motion to reopen. and the fact that the staff advised the Appeal Board that of had m(ormaunn "related ;
" - ' ' h ,, , to" the motion to reopen did not give the Appeal Board the authority under the Pohey 5tatement to re.
i
,c"~ quest of to produce that enformation.
IAt an operatmg hcense: hearms, a board passes only on issues put in contest The decision as to all a- 4 other matters which need to be addressed pnor to issuance of the hcense is the responsibihty of the 1 Commission and stafr outside or the adjudicatory contest. r
-l The Commission will, of course. outside of this proceeding take whatever action is appropriate once of completes its mvesiigations. and. if of develops mformanon impacting on the pubhc health and j safety dunng its investigauon. the Commission will take appropriate action at that time
- 1. =
4
) 7 i
- -- . m. ., e . 3 m. 7. . , . , , . , r -
,...,..,,,,w, ,
c ..,y ., 1 ,
. e{Q-
.w ,., . ..; . . . . . i. m. , .. .
)
e ' }. .'g'flp'r..i.,
; $n. h '.' i;
' . : .. .n f .$', !.v.N& . . .y ,.s
. .s ,
*y.3l . , y' 2. ,:,/ ',?..a _ ,
c.'.
/ .: . .: .m ., e . ..
. ' , 'X M,';{ . r, ;nv.'
,? sM Mcg, 4:,%;M'N -
c .- : ..
- . . ., . i , -
7.1 Mm :ph. ,:. n W J 6:y;m
'r , c, a .- .; :m . '
- ~
. y ,; .
s.. Kgy,- 9 .,e,
- . ~ ; ' - ( y.n w :; g yy;y '*,y,J.- ,
.; ;4 ;i.1" . n ' >t..,,,. 9';i.~*.;,31:m y'*y.n .m , , w . .
s s ~ s ',. " y
~ . .
, . y / ..
.t <.
e
....J_..._,
' N m__._.n_ di.: C a ,;s.x, a - - . ..
- .7q 3.h,- 1.y; ,
^ *
;c .
. x '_ ,- (.Q*; Q , g .,
.c . ,
,. ~ :. . .; . ; ,.; '
% ', ~ .r'. _\;>,
- :f., .m m -
,. III,
. :n ~ s .vv=r:c c ;;<::. 44 ,
,. s.: v .
' ' '#m nQ: . . . . ,-d . + .f M - - .
In conclusion, that portion of Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen
;gs y
. s
;.7
' I which the Appeal Board referred to the Commission fails on its face to T:. QQ. . . . .;$@jy 4
gg 2.,; w.p.. e ~f;. T:^ meet the standards for reopening a closed record. In addition, the Appeal Board here did not have the authority to seek additionalinforma-
. , .. /.y i> : , ;. .-N
'4 d ~ ~ ; .' tion from 01 bearing on the motion to reopen. Accordingly, the remain-
, .+ w . .
ing portion of the motion to reopen is denied.* V+.d.xyj'J, c> c;. . .:..w:; iL;%',,.; 4, 3 .fC.M.:pp3. ,,@fs e
- 4 .
Chairman Palladino and Commissioner Asselstine disapproved this
, w6- n.~. ~. - -
* ' N. .',.$:6p+M MjW, ..W: ,i .Q, t'.9. 0 g . Order. The dissenting views of Chairman Palladino, with which Commis-
..c4*. g g . + p.<...-
y . p,,,.f. ;y."f.%,'M... sioner Asselstine agrees, are attached. lt is so ORDERED. f .w. %<~.'m.Wl.3:./ , 9 N; R M . t: .<e-:. . m j .j. . . . ., ,, . ,
'%. s ,J .. 4,f p, *,p ,
i For the Commission
~^ '
- n . p.J 1
,s- ,
m . '. .
- +.%,
f.
*l M, .^ .-. r,.
.c
- n. .. . ; y q
- :n c
. ' ,,*;i ;
.7 sw. #
S AMUEL J. CHILK
,:.;7. s. m..,,~
. , ~
, ., . V,.. ',
Secretary of the Commission c.' ', W ?
- y. g .t,4., .f g;f.. e,'.W,. ,,;m". .:V.s ;.
S .
. .V , m: . ~ .
l
- y. . ;~
.e: L -
m.~;. m;:n(f. @ ~ ..C' Dated at Washington, D.C., M c-9 4f 9:3; y.'a 47 t ., ,
.s. , . ,( .
this 30th day of January 1986.
. . u . ge. g : .
.z..y ,c .. i
~.,
y.?.aq<>. v.. * ; qp . ..' w..
*T- u ?c+.a..f 'U's, '4 -
. n.;. .~. DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN PALLADINO
.?e.
-: d. a ~
G,~.4:42;.i*fPf.w.-, g ..,,
.'yc, .
sg.. .*<,eb. . a.. ,M+'Q g 3, s ,;- . .y'.,f .n, s
- g. -
I would have preferred that the Commission postpone ru'ing on the
'.y. , P$,,p [ d,' . _ 7, . '
- motion to reopen and request clarincation from the Appeal Board in
;f, if ,
order to determine exactly what type ofinformation the Board wished to 7 .T - obtain from 01. Upon reply from the Board, the Commission then could
. Q. g . .
have determined whether or not to remand the motion to the Appeal
- - J J ,0 % '
Board, with appropriate instructions, or take some other action. In addi-Wh
,c . ,- -
tion, I do not agree with the statement in the Order that the NRC Staff
.c; s . @ ', y '
- ~' had no duty to inform the Appeal Board of the 01 information. I believe S '
that statement is not consistent with the Board Notincation policy as im-
]:1,.,2 A'. k,i, ..
Ca. ?R w
;J M. .".c
.. W , ' " '.
r, . c f P ;f ' . ,M '.S. O -?j '.. ' , plemented by the NRC StalT.
+ . . ~ .. . . . . 5
J .e,,.Q*> ',
.y
% I .f~.
, ,4i ,*
. ? ' l} , s
,?. ~ i 6 The Commisson, in view of its decision that the standards for reoremns are not met, need not address a
whether the Appeal Board had JurisdKtion over this remaining aspect of the motion to reopen. g i a . , , . . . . - . . . . - w , y-e e e - ~ ~ -** - - ** fa#f' t* *' **%* Y **J"*1 k-
?
f 8 4*' *
# P
. . ,x : .
m. ig.*
'z.e - ,..M
, .c n. ,. .w. . .. .
.(. ' '; ..,. * '..
.... 'c.
..- u, -
li . k..., ', a a it .'". . 'lj.3g. . . - .c /
; ..;,;. ;.n;. ;
. L m_a '. e .1Jues.12 s da13ALZ 7 'i>._ . 3..;.' ab.
i, i
-i
~ '
Atomic Safety and
~
~
Licensing Appeal
. . y 9 Boards issuances l
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. W. Reed Johnson Thomme S. Moore Christine N. Kohl 3g !
, Gary J. Edies Dr. Reginald L Gotchy Howerd A. Wilber 8
1 . s n s 6
.. I i
1 1 l I e i
,' f e M- .i ', .'. r . >
~
- i
.,41 - d. . . . ,.
F* '.
., L . .sn(:V;h'! ..T." l 2 s, T,. Si{WQ,..p&{l 3.(.(,.Y. 9m. 3 c '
l1.. .. ;T1,n;jh; v.., s
. . ;'s ,- *;
. Q::.;7.;;,qf'f?:','.'.0,,%,4,2.-
. .g i .; t .Wf >
.. , a. . . < . 43- g , 0,
~ . _ .._ - - .. ~ . w .L.: . . a:. M'aha ,'duaGh2ud.u:Juss~c.r v-
. 1 Cite as 23 NRC 9 (1986) ALAB-827 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
* ~
Administrative Judges: Alan 8. Rosenthal, Chairman Gary J. Edles Howard A.Wilber 1 i in the Matter of Docket No. 50 322 OL 3 (Emergency Planning) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreharn Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) January g,1988
~'
The Appeal Board denies the intervenors' request for leave to file a ,' 20-page briefin addition to the 100-page joint brief already Gled by them. RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEFS The Commission's regulations impose a 70 page limit on appellate briefs. A motion requesting an increase in this page limit for good cause may be made, but such a motion must be submitted at least seven days in advance of the due date for 61ing the brief.10 C.F.R. y 2.762(e). RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW Not every error of a hearing board justifies an appellate remedy. t I 9 i l s
' .. w;. % ref W x.; y: a % e w,.
. y.- q . ,
= .;e ', ^ . . .l: -' - ',.,.
. /. '
.,;.:.c:n!
^:'~, . fag:y?{Lf ~n,5.Q ;
< t;[* , *.'q. ;p ,
ij
~
p J ,
^:
MI Q'n , p W' .', ff: " C ' O '
-~ - ,. , , ,
w .....z_- . . . . . .=. - A A .:.'A RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW Appellate review is not intended to offer losing parties a forum for
' simply renewing claims presented to, but rejected by, the trial tribunal.
RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW Proceedings on appeal are intended to focus on signincant matters,
>j not every colorable claim of error. See generally Jones v. Barnes,463 U.S.
745,752 53 (1983) (the purpose of an appellate presentation is to select a the most promising issues for review). See also Id. at 761 (Brennan and Marshall, JJ., dissenting) (good appellate advocacy demands selectivity among arguments).
- i MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1
The Commission's regulations impose a 70 page limit on appellate briefs.8 Intervenors SulTolk County and the State of New York sought E leave to Gle a 165 page consolidated brief in support of their appeals W from one of the Licensing Board's partial initial decisions in the
- } emergency planning phase of this operating license proceeding.2 In an
- ,p unpublished May 15,1985 order, we authorized the County and State to nie either a consolidated brief not to exceed 100 pages or separate
,,- 70 patic briefs in accordance with the regulations. Thereafter, the parties moved for reconsideration of our May 15 order; specifically, they sought leave to Gle separate briefs not to exceed 100 pages each. We denied
~
that request in an unpublished October 3,1985 order. The County and the State, together with the intervenor Town of Southhampton, have Gled a 100-page consolidated brief. In a footnote contained in the brief, the intervenors now request leave to Gle another 20 page brief to address additionalissues. We deny the request. We see no justification for any further enlargement of the page limit. ! In accordance with our earlier orders, the two intervening parties had 1 the option of filing separate briefs (with an aggregate total of 140 pages)
> or a consolidated brief not to exceed 100 pages. They selected the latter 4
i 10 C F R 6 2.762fe) 25,e LBP-8512,21 NRC 644 (1985) [ j ' ' to l l w-o w **----- . - - . ; re.c e* e, u - E ' l e
^ ' < - ,
). ' Q A , ,. - ' gg'zg.$ Qj;3
'~
.. F
- 3. pV , :. QQfMQ ,^ ' ,
h , '-[i.N f[hb
. , ' :t 4 s ,,
, f yr. :? . ;. A f i d I, S; .;yQ ,p n ..
3y
.' ?,c.: p f ys
- . . . ~ .. M x.' L .c m m na:an .
l i t
. h y - '. j option and we see no reason why they should not be bound by their elec.
N '
*
- tion.2 The intervenors aver that, despite their efTorts to produce a concise
,1 _ *
- h. A M product, the additional issues could not be covered within the 100.page 1;P '
,, t ,
W" ,
, limit.4 They argue, in this connection, that "no signiGeant error" in the
~J . g _.C: -i . I Licensing Board's decision should escape appellate review. But, contrary
~K '- i ( .J. .'r, ibc/[ / to intervenors' apparent belief, not every error justifies an appellate remedy. Our experience, both generally and with respect to earlier ap-
?[ Q * . .,..;;3 '
- .gl , 'k<l.s
- peals in this very case, satisfies us that every assertion of error does not
^C translate into grounds for reversal of Licensing Board determinations.5 s .
- i. -' i~S.. c, . .,f -
, :y, ,- .;- ,
- Equally important, the number of pages contained in the appellate briefs 7, ' does not bear any necessary relationship to the substance of the issues c
~
raised. Appellate review is not intended to offer losing parties a forum for simply renewing claims presented to, but rejected by, the trial tribunal. j To be sure, NRC licensing proceedings ordinarily involve lengthy evi-g dentiary records and present numerous complicated and detailed techni-i cal issues for resolution. In recognition of that fact, the Commission, in
! contrast with many federal agencies, has provided two levels of appellate j review, and appeal boards frequently examine in some depth a wide range of tect'nical and legal matters. But that does not alter the funda-mental purpose of appellate review. Proceedings on appeal are intended to focus on signiGcant matters, not every colorable claim of error.* We expect advocates to cull the issues and arguments to be pursued on appeal.
+ *
. g,,r ,, ,'
F ;' c . ,.-
,' .f,/ ,
, s. j
' 1
[ i 3 We note, in addition, that the most recent request for additional pages was not riled wven days in ad. vance of the due date for rilms the bnef as required by 10 C F R t 2.762(et The request could be sum.
. marily denied on that ground Moreover, the "monon" e contained in a footnote. There is no indication on the race of the bner, in the Table of Contents, or,indeed, in the Conclusson section that wts out the
, prayer for rehef, tha the miervenors seek any enlargement of the page limit. We espect an alTermauve
'* - request for rehef. such as an apphcanon for enlargement of the page limit, to be wt out prominently.
D . * <.- g,,- ' Cf Du&c Poore Co. (Cherokee Nuclear stauon. Units 1. 2. and 31. ALAB.417. 7 NRC 70 (1978L 4Those nsues include the evacuauon of the tranet. dependent populanon and the identirication and a nouficahon of the handicapped and the deaf sultnik County, flate of New York, and Town of south. hampton Snef on Appeal of Licenwns Board Apnl 17,1985 Parnal Iniual Decimon on Emergency Plan. ning (oct, 23. 1995) at I n.l. The intervenors nonetheless appear to have referred to thew neues, at least in part, elwehere in the bnef. M st 79 5See, e t. ALAB.788,20 NRC 1802,11$1 (1984L
- See erwrddy lears v. Aerars. 463 U.s. 741,7$2 33 (19838 (the purpow of an appellate prewntauon is !
to select the most prominns issues for review) See ahn ad at 761 (Brennan and Marshall. JJ . diswnt. I ang) Igood appellate advocacy demands selectivity among argumentst l 1I i I
._.~-_. . _ ..._ _..._ . . . . . . , , _ . - , , , _ . . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , _ _
* \
\
, J d
.s / .u. .v.Q~Wf%p< %'M> P x..s.,. iy@M$tWMm .1 - - . .s . , .
n . 4.c .. sug .,&...... . . , a..e.,,y.
'. s. .r. .s w.%.:.. ..e, , -
. ,h[,+**tD.y,) '.w '*,j y.. .!.-r , . .N.*L,',', . .
.' ' .. ~ * *
' ss ,. S r
+- ' = 4 % '
y , x'. ....' ~ -
- g. w'op[.M
. .g. 7 @t- .on'{#, .x -
. . ,. s ~
~- . <
M... t.s, c,.a:. ;:v 'h _ne en W;e::w/,4>.n.? san. c ,. g .2,1 r :' ,y , x. , U -
. m s . .. ., . . _.y f 9 w ~e:p.- ,d.sp~a m y% K ,
" ' ' .v ...
c, w ;s -
;) J. .",e.t.o ,f
. w. , r ~ - ,
> . t
^
v.
- y. ' . . .,
, v. . .
. w ,'2 1 ,
. ,,, z .
- ...s..
x .~.
..M',' . .., . .,'.j. .j *.-t...-
o.. m.. s,
.,3. c
. 3 c . , , ., .
z,.,; . ., s d.
-- -- ""- ^ . x a. u.._ a.n
- eg;.e ., .
.m.. ..
.x.+.. ...
> . > . ,r - .. , . .
, , ,a.< .
.4 ,
s , ..y , ') *
.,% .w.. ,' tn
. p.,.y',' - ' ./ 'et intervenors' request for further enlargement of the page limitation is w.,,
. .-'C.J N. .
denied. J- ..E '/ - It is so ORDERED. f/ FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
. .. ,. . . s,. .
- y , . . ,
.. ,e ..e . ..
.t -
.,.,..v..' . ,, .
w.,.a,-
,. c.
r: . - c,. ,
. ~ , ..<. y..v.e, . .r, C. Jean Shoemaker
' - -
- Secretary to the
,. . , . .n. . .-
,c _*:
76c ^ f y - 2, Appeal Board
- . ; . _, 1,.
..er . v. ; " ' g l
* # v
- f. . e s . '4.
&- 4
).- 1. g - 'g
-;g , ; . . ,.
,.,7.,S..,,,,j...- .
- g ,'e .
e **
- s. 8..), ,'
- g. n.
M.' . %
) %
- g g i.e 3 s'
- q > ..'s
',i, . * , [ ;e
' '%1
,*E!s;.. g .].. . (}.),
.*t ., # , W, ,g**ep,eAd $4-s
. , , e
.,> , ' ' A*.[3r , s .,'
E ,{ ?, p' .#.4 s g> v,.. :s. .i4 'at. e .
,* ..<-* ,r e ,.'s.,r. *g. j..,-) 6 ~* b .sg,1
.**- ~,,.4, s@ - Am r .9. .,"u , .:,;, e*y
. S.; - AGA. y [;;W , *. g )9,. , ,. p
#n- = ) ta 7, & *
- I .**, , M s*NL
?, A%". *
,, .n f.b,,,.M,W og , vmM. . 44,'
*p .D,',
.,,.ca..,e,-.,.,.8 .,.t.,.* 'e.tg !.* 't./. .k.J. ,.4 .,
* , t '. A
..)g'... . . ea%ND n
g ;t8 ' %'3 <.,.
'. ,9, a.,
. , , ,e '*- 4,7' p, r /,. 4,,
-g' .') '-'* . ."- ' .W.h 's, uv 3',# ,8 .,
3 ', ., 4 t t*o4.'4*,g 4, .y = ' p ,+*"'../
. C.,
.1
, ..e., .. ..e .. . . , . ..m.' $ ,
e,- sl a.l. >.,v a' f ;,n,.- .6 1 ,: 6 p ,, t-s 4 ' ** e . '
'.[. . , v, 4(Y(T,' a y. ", k,
-. ,t
*
- y,
? m,~ ,,
, ,ha c.6 ;,o.rm n.7,p As ,. r-
+c
.A,4
, . W.. t _g. e. %
,? Y*I g'.,ep n. .,1,
,,.. o Pd p p. rg,.n' s
,~
- 3, ,+.a ( *,,*4 (' N.
.,3 s .-
.f. l,,- 1;/ . m. p.p. p:, 4q.,
o*,* :#.%;.Q. ...e, , ,
, . /*
s b #1
/ .g. 3 . i . ,4 FT*,s' wa ' i s.
.e 5 , ..t.,. . * \ ' g *g*a o m e g4a e.e,,
, . < * .. ; , 9
., : Ei.
4's 's9i*
,F #
} ..b,N.[ ^
-u,". n',..,..*'.
-Y ..d
. , * --e.
, ( -% 9 h , 6 (,, d -
? .,'J t c,4 *.m/y *d s . -. f'j 1 .,.y 4
r e 41 ',.:*> '
- 5p , kabr,6 ff 4
,'n
, , t h , .e /"p,., )-; ,
, M74..1'?
e
* *t} s,.f ,;. (7.' 3. y
. ,1*g-
.l*, y
, , g/s .- a i;.'{} d r i
. , t . .,+ *. + . ,...; g w -_
***M k 'i,..
r * *. u,. e, ga- 8
.k,#
.b( s.3 . o' 12 u/:,f.;, * *
. ,' ' g ., t4n.,,i , s,j
! , 'y.g j k
- n a m , g, + . v. ,
k "
..e
,/*
",d.
* . ' g* , g .e= = - +. a=-t-=* * ~ - * - ~ " - - * " 'e*** * * * ' * ** ^*
s i .
,, 4' ' 7 e 4 g ,
4 ,e' i 4 8 F g gg'* '*, g a t- - o s' . '$ ' t 6
/
, T ,
w
- r .
. [. . .
, . . N ,;
t.yf f s,
.i ,Wy .
'k', l' .}
...-- _ _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . _. . :-.aL a 1 C y
, .! Cite as 23 NRC 13 (1986) ALAB 828 1 l
_} UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ .
., [g ,
- - ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
~
,. 'f:'
1
, Administrative Judges:
j
. Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Gary J. Edles Dr. Reginald L Gotchy i in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 352 OL
{ 50 353 OL I PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
, (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) January 16,1988
+
The Appeal Board affirms the Licensing Board's denial ofintervenors' request to reopen the record in this operating license proceeding. RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS In ruling on a motion to reopen the record, adjudicatory boards con-sider three factors: (1) whether the motion is timely; (2) whether it ad-dresses a significant safety or environmental issue; and (3) whether a ditTerent result might have been reached had the newly proffered mate-rial been considered initially. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI 85 2,21 NRC 282,285 n.3, recons /deration denied. CLI 85-7,21 NRC I104 (1985). RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS When a motion to reopen seeks to inject an entirely new issue into
; the proceeding, a board must consider both the criteria for reopening 1
i l 1 13 i l l t u_ . . . . . . . . .
6'n j .' 'fA :W Y;u.; ~ e.r,- - i'.:. g . s f.' '='.
~
p .y ' y.:s ; / - t / _ _. ._ . _ ...-. -- u .... .w h-g
\.
.c the record and the standards for admitting late filed contentions, set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(1). See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 82 39,16 NRC 1712, 1714 15 (1982).
I '
. t RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS
.'I- Section 2.714(a)(1) sets out the standards for admitting late Gled con-
~
tentions. They are: (i) Good cause,if any. for failure to file on time; Gil The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected; (m) The extent to which the petitioner's participation rnay reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; hv) The ettent to which the pelmoner's interest will be represented by existing parties; (v) The extent to which the pettuoner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the pro: ceding.
~.
, ,FG .- < > RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS J
.{. [ .
-[ .
The Appeal Board has consistently applied 10 C.F.R. { 2.714a(b) to t r y,x. v g . c. y;,4 ,7 appeals from orders that have the effect of completely denying party status to a petitioner. See, e.g., Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Ska.
'l' ,
n:';.f:{gg;f!l2l.e 1 @ G ,y. - S, git /flanford Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), ALAB 712,17 NRC
.H.9 ' ;? . . "9 $.W 6. G 81,82 (1983). The briefing schedule for appeals from all other types of J'.w,4 M.D@5lQk6e Gnal orders, however, is that found in 10 C.F.R. ( 2.762.
- .f;'
' . ..; ' .i . .J.% - i y Tli;W' Wh. '. f ,
;.g.;;;f. g;t. cM{ . 'i RULES OF PRACTICE: RESPONSIBILITIF.S OF PARTIES
.. a 7 7.. s'.,a , y A' P !";;- a ;
4 / ;plg ".;Msz / - Parties to adjudicatory proceedings have an obligation to monitor pub-
,'/ f.$hty/ *.;; licly available documents with a view toward raising issues in a timely y Q*.q' O;'* ." i."f 1 fashion. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
- .: ..; ' 1' , i CLI 8319,17 NRC 1041,1048 (1983). This is particularly so with re-it ' . ' spect to environmental impact statements, which are expressly intended y
- lpA:< .c,. . . ,M.A, n' . ..
for public scrutiny and, if necessary, litigation.
; ' G,h").?;y.%// d e .%.HG }
', . ,uM'ik,/ ' < ,
RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS 5
+
. y.; '
q . ' '.]a'M '
. The most important factor of the three factor test for reopening the
?s record is whether the motion raises a significant safety issue.
". ; , , '..;M .; - s.-
.y- ,s.,
, ! .;m -
f
' :: ;, ;# 14 s.,
g 4
. ,..o - ,
* - . se l
s ) (. t .
.I i
t APPEAL BOARDS: SCOPE OF REVIEW Appeal boards generally do not consider matters raised in the Grst in-stance on appeal; rather, appeals are decided on the basis of the record developed below. ALAB 819, 22 NRC 681, 720 n.51 (1985); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit
& s 1), ALAB 582,11 NRC 239, 242 (1980); Tennessee Valley Authority Olartsville Nuclear Plant, Units I A, 2A, IB and 2B), ALAB-463, 7
.? NRC 341,348 (1978).
N, RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEFS
? Issues that a party fails to brief on appeal are considered waived. See
' Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I), ALAB-650,14 NRC 43,49 50 (1981), affd sub nom. Township of Lower Alloways Creek v. Public Service Electric and Gas Co., 687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir.1982).
. RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS An appeal board will not overturn a licensing board's determination weighing the five factors specified in 10 C.F.R. ( 2.714(a)(1) absent a
. showing that the board has abused its discretion. Detroit Edison Co.
? (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB 707,16 NRC 1760,
- 1763 (1982).
3 RULES OF PRACTICE: SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDINGS In a request under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206, any person may seek the suspen-
] ,
sion, modiGeation, or revocation of a license, or other appropriate i action, for alleged regulatory violations or potentially hazardous condi-tiens. See 10 C.F.R. (( 2.206(a),2.202(a). RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS A petition for relief from the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under 10 C.F.R. l 2.206 will not always provide adequate other means , to protect a petitioner's interest, so as to satisfy the second factor of sec. tion 2.714(a)(1). Whether alternative protective means are, in fact, available depends on the issues sought to be raised, the relief requested, and the stage of the proceeding. In some circumstances, this may well re-
! quire the equivalence of an adjudicatory hearing. But in other cases, a 10 I
i 15
. . . - - - ~ .. z... . -. ..s......
.~-. w -. ~ A. --
C.F.R. l 2.206 petition could provide a sufficient vehicle to protect one's interest. RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS in considering the admissibility of a late filed contention, the fifth factor of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) requires an adjudicatory board to deter. mine. inter alia, the extent to which the proceeding - not license is-
" suance or plant operation - will be delayed. Ferm/.16 NRC at 1766.
. APPEARANCES Robert L. Anthony, Moylan, Pennsylvania, intervenor pro se and for in-tervenor Friends of the Earth.
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Mark J. Wetterhahn, and Robert M. Rader, Washington, D.C., for applicant Philadelphia Electric Company.
- y. , ,G,;7l;c( :.4 -
Ann P. Hodsdon for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
- :;.< iw%. 7 :: . 2
~
.?$7') D$,E
',;[
C, M& ".:..'Q;ff S :c ' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Q:$] ;% l ./...$ d$d;...! -. - We have before us an appeal from the Licensing Board's ruling deny-ing a request by intervenors Robert L. Anthony and Friends of the
*'f 7,44%;;M We -
7 '.c.r[.7.
, M , . ..Earth ( Anthony / FOE) to reopen the record in this operating license pro-qi,
- ceeding.' As explained below, we aflirm the Board's determination.
M.@y:$@h817.q[A. 4.m f, -li.{vO.*d$ y , i 6. > ,. ; .' '. ~ y.y,..;.,' >y&p ~.,-..,'
- I.
o, . . i /[,}jb On April 30, 1985 Anthony / FOE filed a one.page petition with the I.K ii lif' Licensing Board to reopen this proceeding for consideration of three r9. " lib- ' ' "
,F'lsW((r-matters: (1) the supposedly improper use of the plant site boundaries by applicant Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) in determining the 0
Idyt f [f public's exposure to gaseous and liquid effluent releases during routine
,.v., ';t.g*n *c' , 'm .
*.1.
- i,r' s
~ , ,' m.
, */! s-l See Lxenwng Board Memorandu n and Order or June 4,198$ f unpubbshed).
,g,,
- a. i
,. p . ' ~ .
16 r p i h
i
- - - _ _ - - __.....m...... . _. . .- . , . .
t 1
! plant operation;2 (2) the claimed underestimation of radiation exposure to the public due to assertedly improper calculations regarding the fish
- L ;
ingestion pathway; and (3) the alleged degradation in standards for pro-tecting the public occasioned by a revision of PECo's Offsite Dose Calcu-lation Manual (ODCM). Anthony /F0E rely on information in PECo's Semi Annual Emuent Releases Report No.1 (hereafter, " Releases y Report"), in particular, Attachment D (Revision I to the ODCM).
<q. PECo submitted this report to the Commission on February 28, 1985, l
.Q in compliance with the Technical Specifications of its operating license
- and other staff imposed requirements. After considering responses from PECo and the NRC stali, as well as an unauthorized reply by Anthony /
- - i F0E and a further responsive pleading filed by PECo, the Board denied 1 . Anthony /F0E's request.
; in ruling on a motion to reopen the record, adjudicatory boards con-sider three factors: (1) whether the motion is timely; (2) whether it ad-dresses a significant safety or environmc. ital issue; and (3) whether a different result might have been reached had the newly proffered mate-rial been considered initially.8 When a motion to reopen seeks to inject
.3 an entirely new issue into the proceeding, a board must also consider the standards for admitting late filed contentions, set forth in 10 C.F.R.
.'+,
- is i 2.714(a)(1):
( ; 5U 6) Good cause,if any for failure to file on time. M D, ' ' ' 2 ; (it) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be
. W. '
a protected, q N.
'i. hii) The entent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be espected
- h. ^' ' ' ' ' ~ ~-
o
. y, q.
.. to assist in developing a sound record.
. p' 4 - fiv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by entsting es , , parties.
;( 3 ' .
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or 4 l' delay the proceedmg
.I. .
{ S F a 4 [ 2 Anthony / foe contend that the dosages should be calculated at the clowit. pubinly accessible ap-proaches to the plant (a railroad nsht or way and the schuylkill Rivert, rather than al the more distant ( site boundaries.
. 3 Wermpahren Edisan Ce (Three wie Island Nudest siaison. Umi 11. CLI.89 2. 21 NRC 282,285 n J.
i reconsideraren itensed. CLl 45 7. 21 NRC t104 (199$1 The Commission's uw or this test has recened judicial approval. Threr SIsk Island .4 tert. /sc e %RC 771 F 2J 720.132 OJ Car 1981). c#rsee San Lws Ohrspo Mothersfor Peace e. NRC, 791 F 2d t287, i11618 t0 C. Car i984). vocated in part and rek'n en I banc reansed en arher tro6mds. 760 F 2d i129 (1981) I
- Sra Pacers Gas and Lkcorse Co IDiablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plane. Units I and 28. CLl 42 39.16 N RC 1712.17141141982) e i
! 17 l
l t j
- , 1 l
l i 1
. .f . .
- s. K s s m .
9 . ..
-.__,._2 u._ m . . _ _ . - . - . . . . . . . . . . _ u . a . u.. .
3#
-3
- s-
~ ' ' ;' in reaching its decision, the Licensing Board examined both the crite.
~ & ria for reopening the record and the standards for admitting late.Gled
' " E contentions. It concluded that Anthony / FOE failed to satisfy either set
' ' i: of requirements, prompting the instant appeal.' PECo and the staff urge afGrmance of the Licensing Board's decision.'
', ;I .r W
d II.
.c*
4 A. Under the test for reopening the record, a petitioner must first demonstrate that it cotild not have presented its information at an earlier
-T time The Licensing Board found that the particular material in PECo's M
y Releases Report on which Anthony / FOE base their request to reopen 3 the record was not new or previously unavailable.? Indeed, both the Draft and Final Environroental Statements for Limerick, issued in June
- 1983 and April 1984, respectively, state that dose calculations are per.
formed at the site boundary.' The Commission has made clear that par. 3
< - ties have an obligation to monitor publicly available documents with a view toward raising issues in a timely fashion.' That is particularly so s j with respect to environmental impact statements, which are expressly in.
-c5 tended for public scrutiny and, if necessary, litigation. Anthony / FOE a -
thus could and should have voiced their concern about the calculation of
. f;, ' ,' *
, Y _ YT #" doses from routine radiological releases at the plant site boundary much
{ u'. , yi earlier. The Licensing Board therefore correctly concluded that, insofar
*4 R,'
a:
+:( .*.,? e ." ' . - ,';-? ..yf, IThe Licensing Board also determined, at the threshold that it had Junsdiction to rule on Anthony /
Fofis pennon to reopen. The Board toon noie of an earlier appeal board deciwon in this proceeding,
' y -f suggesting a pragmatic approach in deciding IN: type of junwitctional question. in "the absence of any
'y.
,i , ,
I clear adminntrative guidance." See ALAB 726.17 NRC 73$, 758 l1963). Although no party pursues
-p;,.,'* pf ,,
t the Junsdictional issue on appeal, we agree with the Licensing Board's Judgment in this regard and
,; , *? , O; ; affirm its assertion of Junsdiction, m0 ,L
- PECo argues that Anthony / foe's bnef was unumely under the Commnson's Rules of Pracuse and "7 -].
that their appeal should therefore he dismissed it contends that the abbreviated schedule for briering certain appeals set forth in 10 C F R. I 2.714e should pertain here, rather than the usual eshedule found
- m 10 C F R. t 2.762. Applicant's Snef fluly 17.198$7 at 1314
!- Although neither regulauon addresses the esact stusuon here. we beleeve that section 2.762 is more i applicable and that, accordmsly. Anthony / foe's brief est timely. As pertment here, wction 2.714atel specincally applies to appeals from board orders "who#v denying a petition for leave to intervene and/or request for a heanng" (emphasis added). We have conesiently apphed this provision to appeals from
orders that have the effect of completely denying party status to a petitioner. Sea. e e. Pueer SouM Power ad L,ehr Co ($kagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Protect. Units I and 2), ALA8182, if NRC 81. @
. 82 (1983). That is not the intent or the etTect of the Licenwns Board's order at issue here. In this cir.
cumstance, the bnenne schedule for rouune appeals from rinal orders in section 2.762 es appropnate. e (PECo does not dispute that the order in questson is *rinal' for appeal purposes ) iMemorandum and order of June 4 at $.6
, s sc, ,t. NUREO.0974. Dran Environmental Statement iJune 1983p at $.4?, D $. D.9. d Fmal En' .ronmental statement i Apnl 19348 at 5 47. D.$. D 9
' Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear Station. Units I and 27, CLI.83-19. If NRC 1041,104811983).
t
+
18 l c
. . . _ . ~ . . .- . - . - .-
t l
, ,q . v
. ' p., ..
~
- .e , .L.
\
q .. . .- L. ,
-1 ,
, _ . . _ _ . _ ~ . _._.__..._..._.____-...........L.1. ..
". . ., j b
as it concerns dose calculations performed at the site boundary, the motion to reopen is not timely. The most important factor to consider, however, is whether the motion to reopen raises a signincant safety issue. The Licensing Board concluded that Anthony / FOE's petition does not raise such an issue.
' Relying on staff alTidavits, the Board found that Anthony / FOE's argu-6
- ments are premised on factual inaccuracies and unwarranted assump-a tions."
We find no basis for overturning the Board's conclusion that nothing in the petitioners' presentation raises a genuinely signincant safety issue. With respect to Anthony / FOE's complaint about doses deter-mined at the site boundary, Dr. Edward F. Branagan, Jr. (a Section Leader in the Radiological Assessment Branch of the Division of Sys-tems Integration, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation), states that, al-though individuals could be exposed at the closer points of access urged by Anthony / FOE, it is "unlikely that these locations would be more
" limiting in dose calculations than the site boundary."" Dr. Branagan ex-plains that the dcsc to an individu'ai is the product of the concentration
,,,.e of the radionuclide and the occupancy time (as well as other factors).
.g
% .M .~, ,o> Thus, the slightly greater concentration of the radionuclide at the nearer locations idemined by Anthony / FOE would be offset by the very small
- 3. ~rl,jlr;Y,f'l.%. . Ml'.<
d '."!D *. . occupancy time there; that is, there are no permanent residences, gar-W.I MMU ';O . dens, or food source animals at the closer locations."In the stafi's view, y . ,
,plle %.] Qlav , .j . - .
PECo's use of the site boundaries is therefore appropriate.
'M2 . . ^,(.;h lli 779 M.MGM b 5 E.. G> l X . Offsite Anthony / FOE's rather sketchy argument that PECo's revision of its
,?. Uf;h ,.yraJ kP- Dose Calculation Manual somehow violates the Commission's ra-diation protection standards is similarly without safety signincance. As
. ., . ~ > w y, q -. . ;9hgi*.
M...eh[ .i, *M 7. Q ,,, the Licensing Board noted, another staff af0 davit - that of Marie T. W i. 0j p. + Miller, a Radiation Specialist and inspector in Region I, where Limenck
- i. 3-ly$Jd$j' p'$g,T ~ S , l .. i . - . is located - states that the changes to the ODCM are in accordance
.NMl .
Y with both the NRC's regulations (10 C,F.R. Part 20) and PECo's exist-fcs. M j;f ', ' . f.p,T/f .y. ing Technical Speci0 cations and "do not increase the radiation risk to [. : 5 . , ; ' , & '., J'- Q* [e ,y.if. A* . ,4. 'g
- Ll A r,.;;y.d,.,,,-
f,l[%"*',N ,
.s 6'jk
%'Yyll ,
18As we pomt out et note ll. m/ra Anthony / FOE do not pursue their sigument about the rath ingestion pathway on appeal. therefore, we need not decide ir the motion to reopen is timely in that regard With
, ', M, h, *f ', respect to their atgument thas PEco's recent t February 1933p changes to its ODCM will lead to a degra. 6
' b ;g ,
- dation of radiation protection standardt. the record is not clear sg to when Anthony / FOE actually re.
;g,' 3. .O * *
[ ceived PECo's entire riling in the circumstantes, however, we will assume arguendo that Anthony / foe's April 30 motion is timety. to the entent it is bawd on any entirety new information m PiCo's
- % ,., Q .. ,
*' .i & *' ', ~* n - February 1945 Relesws Repori 2+ t 6 H Memorandum and Order of June 4 at 7.9
)! >
' O NRC start Responw to Anthony /F0E Petition so Reopen (May 28,194$s, Arridavit of Edward F.
<*- Branagan. Jr., at )
Utw Ad 9 .
# 4
[ gi - +'s 19 e,. . j i i I
..~ .
I b
o ,
' , p3 .
n (p, , < n l.
'{"' $
l , _.m -.. ~ --- 4 -- _._._.m. . . . . . _ .,_ l
- .4 9
*[ ,
the public." Miller explains that PECo has simply revised some calcula-tions so that it can determine "more ef0ciently" certain radiation alarm 9: , setpoints.'5 F ,: On appeal, Anthony / FOE attempt to bolster their arguments with the { Q af0 davit of Dr. Bruce Molholt, an Adjunct Associate Professor of Health 7 Education at Temple University. This document was not rresented to j . i X, , y the Licensing Board, and it touches on subjects that are largely beyond those Anthony / FOE sought to raise initially in their April 30 petition to
! 9 Jl. ; _ 1 '
reopen.'* Like the courts, we generally do not consider matters raised in } - J.' I 4 the Orst instance on appeal; rather, appeals are decided on the basis of
'*R .
the record developed below.I' Even if Dr. Molholt's af0 davit were prop-f [ , erly before us, however, nothing in it casts doubt on the Licensing L " Board's conclusion concerning the lack of safety signincance in An-i J , I thony/ FOE's newly proposed contention.'8 Inasmuch as Anthony / FOE have failed to establish the safety signifi-4 cance of the new matter they seek to raise. it follows that a ditTerent 4 result would not have been reached had their arguments been considered initially. Consequently, the Licensing Board correctly concluded that the I standards for reopening have not been satis 0ed. j B, Even if Anthony / FOE prevailed in meeting the reopening criteria, W
- they must also show that the balancing of the Ove factors in 10 C.F.R.
-!.T ;/*
i 2.714(a)(1) justines the admission of their new contention. The Licensing Board concluded that Anthony / FOE's petition failed in this i (o regard as well. We will not overturn a board's determination weighing I, *A
- i I. ?
i a . J I $ 14/J.. Afridavit of Marie T. Miller at 12
'6 18/J. at 2. See Memorandum and Order of June 4 at 8 9
Anthony / FOE also refer for the first time in their appellate brief to several NRC Inspection Reports, Notices of Civil Penslues, and Licenwe Event Reports Anthony / FOE Brief fJuly 2,1989i at 2 3 Most
, .I of these items are totally irrelevant to thair motion to reopen and/or involve matters that have been sub-j _.
t , sequently resolved. li UALAS-819, 22 NRC 681. 720 n $l (198$1; //oussos Lir4sene a=J Power Co. ( Aliens Creek Nuclear { ( Generating stahon. Unit (). ALAB $82, il NRC 239. 242 4940), Teneriore Feller 4mi4ortry Olarts. I tilte Nuclear Plant. (Jnits l A,2A,18 and 28), ALAB.46). 7 NRC 348,348119781 j i e 18For esample Dr Molholt states that ltlhere is no reason to assume that a given individual would I spend more time'* at the site boundary than at the closer access points identified by Anthony / FOE. An. j . thony/ foe Bnef, Amdavis of Bruce Molholt at 12. Dr. Branagan, however, has already esplained the
. occupancy fattor undertying the site boundary assumphon See p 19, supre Dr Molholt's affidavit also refers to radiation esposure through the fish irigestion pathway = a $
l ' matter inat Anthony /F0E did raise before the Licensing Board but have not pursued in their brief on j appeal Anthony / FOE have therefore waived further arguments on this score. See Pub /c Servre Drrrre
- sed Get Co. (selem Nuclear oerierating station. Unit I). ALAB.6$0.14 NRC 4). 4940 (1981), o//'d a
sub nani Townshe of Lower 4thewers Creek v Puble seryne Dertre and Gas Ca 681 F 2d 112 43d Car
' 1982). We note, nonetheless. that Dr Branagan's affidavit and the 1.icensing Board s derision imin ade-quately address Anthony /lOE's concern about the fish ingestion peihes) ice Memorandum and Order of June 4 at 7,9 I
20 l l - __ _ _ . . .. t
< . h . .
.'7 ,$
. ,l 'q:j.,Y ', CJ 9"*5 ) n.
. w .w .r;g " .e , y... . u , , s, .s n; p. Q y q+a. y , !f67 , , J 3- - * , , \ . a :...y , v;. ~ a 'ej f', y ' < . .
' ~
T. '. o. 2 '
- - .. ~ ... .-. .- w. . .-
l- . . J. . ,1 -
- . t j .
l t' the live factors absent a showing that the board has abused its discre- ! tion.l' Plainly, no such showing has been made here. As noted above, the site boundary information on which Anthony / l
- FOE predicate their request to reopen has been publicly available for I
some time and could have been used to formulate a contention at a l *
'i' much earlier stage. The Licensing Board correctly determined that An-
.,, St- thony/ FOE have not established good cause for failure to tender their new contention in a more timely fashion.28 J
[' .
With regard to the second factor - the availability of other means to
,. J. protect a petitioner's interest - the Licensing Board found no such other means exist and that Anthony / FOE prevail on this point.28 Peti-tioners therefore do not contest that Board determination on appeal.
~
PECo, however, in defending the result reached below, contends that this factor weighs against Anthony / FOE. Conceding that it is not equiva-lent to the admission of a contention in an adjudicatory hearing, PECo argues that a petition for relief from the Director of Nuclear Reactor
',l'. lE Regulation (NRR) under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 is nevertheless an adequate
"> i .- 1 .
"other means" to protect a petitioner's interest.22
~
- We cannot conclude that a section 2.206 petition will always provide
'% . [Q
- a ,.h.. 9. , . .W.
.s ..
adequate other means to protect a petitioner's interest. To do so would M
- / Nhi.? ,,' effectively write factor two out of the regulations. On the other hand,
? 5 : .. ,. Q.2.fW section 2.714(a)(1) does not specify what the term "other means" en-
, 1,( a 7;.Vp;c compasses - thereby providing us with some flexibility in its interpreta-
. .f ', '. ;' ' , ' O 4 ,
tion.2) Whether alternative protective means are, in fact, available depends on the issues sought to be raised, the relief requested, and the
') G N. h2 stage of the proceeding. In some circumstances, this may well require 1-
' N V((.}.r.) @%y,,
I #[f @d;// the p equivalence of an adjudicatory hearing. But in other cases - like A that here a
, . s( m y,, , W;?. .
protect one ,s m. section 2.206 petition con!d provide a sufficient veh 4 .r Wg ,gt;yq terest.24
~
Anthony / FOE's request to reopen for hearing on their proposed new
^ .'.T,gVg;M.],7f
.# y.; f;"' contention i9 b.ased on a routine report submitted to the NRC staff by
*- - , . . .' * ;M:s f 1
.Q(.
*'sj Q Q). "
>* , fj .hw I' Dermrt Ednoe Co. (Ennco Ferme Atomic Power Plant. Unit 27. AL AB.707.16 NRC 1760.176)
,9. (19:2t e.' , , y, *I.'s 2,$*7,' .]dsqg
',5 , 20 See Memorandum and Order of June 4 at ll.
,. . @Y
- j# 2I (bsd
- ~-, '
t
* -- .{. , 'jP . .
. , [.0)y flt %,9 ,i
. f. :
22 Applicant's Brier at 10 n.28 in a request under section 2 206. any person may seem the suspension. modification. or revocahon or a licente. or other appenpriate action, for allegett regulatory violations or E> i
.* . potentially hasardous conditiont See 10 C F R. H 2.206(ap. 2 202f at l
, , ', .Q' ,0t{l.
a-
" c'
\% %" .(k. 21 The origin of this lansusse does not aid in its interpretaison See )? Fed Reg 9331. 9313 (19721 (nonce or proposed rulemakinsi. 37 Fed Reg 15.127. 15.129 11972 Innel ruler. 4) Fed Reg 17.794.
17.799 f 1974) innal rule in emung forms k 'i . :
' ** 24 Tre Ekmda fn=ra .6 Lehr Ca 1st Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. Unie No 21. AL AB.420. 6 NRC 8. 2)
,'3 '
(1977). s(/*d, CLI.7812, 7 NRC 939 (19748 I"The rule does not say that the *other means' must be c . equitslent in every respect to the intervennon soughtt U ' 7,',.,
. ,* , ,,4 $'
. .,- M 21
. .- la;c ,
I I .
' 0Y q >
mm.m..e.ee . ew . . . ., _ A B 4
a
<., x + -
, . 3, m. .~
y
, _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . ~ . . . -_. . _ A=u i
I I PECo pursuant to the requirements of the low power operating license J that had already been issued. In this limited circumstance, it is not un-
-l reasonable to view a party's right under section 2.206' to solicit more formal staff review of the concerns triggered by such a routine Oling as
- an adequate other means for protecting its interest.25 Indeed, it might
' well be argued that formal adjudication before a hearing board is an inap-i 1 propriate and inferior vehicle for policing the scores of detailed filings routinely submitted pursuant to staff enforced regulatory requirements.26
]
The Licensing Board next determined that Anthony / FOE failed to
.I show their ability to contribute to the development of a sound record on
' the new matter they seek to raise. Anthony / FOE had advised the Board
- that they would produce a witness - Dr. Molholt - but the Board found the subject dreas of his likely testimony to be lacking in the requi-site specifics.27 The Board's conclusion is reasonable and in accordance with past precedent.2s On appeal, however, Anthony / FOE have tendered Dr. Molholt's affidavit to lend some detail to his proposed presentation.
But as we noted above, Anthony / FOE' cannot properly supplement on I M Tsis is not mconsistent with our prior decmons. In Washmeros Pubbr Power Supply Svurm (WPPss Nucle.it Project No 3), ALAB 747.18 NkC l167,1875 76 (196D, we rejected the section 2.206 . remedy as "an adeq tste substitute for participation en an adjudicatory proceeding concerned with the grant or denial ab wi%s of an application for an operaes :scense " But that case mvolved a four-month late petition to mterveie at the very ouhet of the proceedina, mdeed, but for that single pention, there was to be no hearms at all. Given the mcipient steg of the Case, the Contenuons sought to bg raised were typwal of those htigated in operstmg hcense proceedings and were not, of course, tnggered by fou-tme post hcense issuance rihngs with the staff See Af., Lncensing Board Memorandum and Order of september 27,198) funpubhshed), Appendia A. Thus,in those circumstances, a section 2.206 petition could not reasonably be construed as an adequate other means to protect the petitioner's interest. similarly, m ferms, we agreed that factor two weighed m a petinoner's favor because, m the absence of admission to the proceedms, it could not be " assured of an ad;udicatory hearms." 16 NRC at 1767, But the particular emergency planmns issues that petsuone nought to raise there also did not arise from any routinely Gled. post-hcensmg reprirts by the apphcant. In any event, we went on to desenbe a section l 2.206 petition as a "real" remedy. esplainmg the thorough review and written response accorded to such rihnss. /J. at 1767-68. Compare .Vertrar fuel Servares. Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI.75 4. I NRC 273. 276 (1973) hvailabihty of other means to protect pennoner's inierest can l depend on the circumstances of parttrolar case); ALAB 806,21 NRC 118),1190 91 (198$) (mformal j
, negouauon among parties at board-sponered conference is not adequate other means to protect peu.
j honer's interest). Noustos Leme a Pner Co. (south Tesas Proiect, Units I and 2) ALAB.799. 21
. NRC 360,384 n 108 41985) t NRC staff % normal nonadjudicatory review of a hcense apphcation es not j adequate other means to protect petinoner's interest)'. Duki Power Co ( Amendment to Materials
' Lwense sN41773 - Transportaurn of spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear stauon for storage at McGuire Nucacar stauon). ALAB-$21,9 NRC I46,1$0 & n.7 (1979) (submittmg hmited appearance statement or makmg witnesses availaote to another mtervenor is not adequate other means to protect , l petinoner's interest s. 24 tjnkke fermt, le NRC at 1768-69, however. we will not refe Anthony / foe's pennon to the Director of NRR. As diomssed al pp 19-20, supra, the petition does no- raise any f.gm6 cant safety issues. In ad. dition. Anthony / foe apparent y have already riled a secuan 2 206 pennon with the Director concermns some of the same matters they raise here.
! 27 Memorandum amt Order of June 4 at 12.
- 28 Compare ALAB 806. 21 NRC at 119192 *ith 4fimmper Power and let Ca. (Grand Gulf Nuclear l l station, Umts I and 2). ALAB 704,16 NRC 472$.1730 (1982).
i t l 4 6 I l 22 i
' N j
.,..s...,.
J
\
\
. n.
, ._};gf.Q, . .':.;r. ?, , ..y. -,g . :+ p ? ' * .& ' .
l
. ~
?
,2.f?,e
, y
- .;n
>; , ny ._nz. ~ c:, -
4
'.l l j.:2.[ ln , .
.i
% 4 m: .. .
. c l
- appeal the information that was before the Licensing Board at the time
[
,f of its decision.2' .
The Licensing Board found no other existing party that could repre- l i [ sent Anthony / FOE's interest and thus weighed the fourth factor in their favor.30 We agree. l- - Finally, the Board concluded that the introduction of any new conten-tion at this stage of the case would broaden the issues and delay the pro-ceeding.)' But Anthony / FOE argue that reopening the record for hearing on the issues they raise here is essential to the protection of the public l '~ health and safety and overrides any possible delay in issuance of n full-j
-q .
power license. At the outset, we note that the Commission's regulations require a
. licensing board to determine whether the proceeding - not license is-suance or plant operation - will be delayed.22 We agree with Anthony /
FOE, however, that the public health and safety must be a preeminent concern where significant issues have been raised. But as shown above,
; $ .- the matters involved here do not rise to that level.28
4 in sum, Anthony / FOE have not demonstrated that a balancing of the five factors in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1) favors the admission and litigation
.' of their new contention based on PECo's Semi Annual Efiluent
> ",c, .
Releases Report. The Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of June 4,1985, is
*~
, affirmed.
,.f
.,e it is so ORDERED.
r
, , . FOR THE APPEAL BOARD i
y.
'i C. Jean Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board 29 ser p 20, supra
, 30 Memorandum and Order or June 4 at 12 JI lbni 32frems.16 NRC at 1766 In any event, since the time the pention to reopen was r. led, the Licensing
. Board has completed all hearings and issued its rinal partialinitial dectoion rctolving in PrCo's favor the remaining contested muet and authorains muance of a full-power operating licente The Commmion made the Board's decision effective, and the plant is in operauon see CLl 8513. 22 NRC 1114 (1943) 33 See pp 19 20. supra 23
~ - . . .. - .-
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________.__.__.____-_m- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _-___ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . - - - . _
, c'- .
x . , s
. . '. .. u. . L '. m * . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ . .
s an Atomic Safety
.i ,
^
j and Licensing Boards issuances
^
. i
~ f ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 1
B. Paul Cotter, ' Chairman Robert M. Lazo, *Vice Chairman (Executive) a Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical)
}
Members na
. , j
! Dr. George C. Anderson James P. Gleason Dr. Linde W. Lktle
, Charles Bechhoefer* Andrew C. Goodhope Dr. Emmoth A Luebke'
] Peter B. Bloch' Herbert Groenman' Dr. Kennth A. McCollom Lawrence Brenner* Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Morton B. Margulies*
Glenn O. Bright' Jerry Harbour' Gary L. Milhollin
..f Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. Devid L Hetrick Marshan E. Maler l
4 James H. Carpenter
- Emeet E. HiH Dr. Peter A. Morris' Hugh K. Clark Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Dr. Richard F. Cole' Helen F. Hoyt* Dr. Paul W. Purdom Dr. Frederick R. Cowen Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Weiter H. Jorden lven W. Smith' Dr. George A. Ferguson James L. Kelley' Dr. Martin J. Steindler Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline' Dr. Quentin J. Stober Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb til Seymour Wenner John H Frye til' Gustavo A. Linenberger* Sheldon J. Wolfe' t
,I l
- Permanent panel members
,:n ,,
g c.,'. ,,N ; ',s ;'~ f
,. ,'*',I : .
[ h >.b f , y r.
'u. '
. . r J:. , , * . y ,
. . j ,
,.. t '
4 ', .J . .
. -.. ..: A .-- % K :.u a n :.u s . ... ~ , - . . . . . . - - - - - . - .
1.:, '
,4 -
. n ,; ; -
.~,
- _~
~
Cite as 23 NRC 25 (1986) LBP-86 1
. x.[ 2
, .f^
s:', '; ' '
. < J' .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- , ; c' n
,p _ ,. y ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-w,. ... .
~
' - c. ., '; ,
4 .... - - ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ' , ' M[$:~ ' . ' ): ..s . ..c . .
, 5fiD ! '. . ' Before Administrative Judges:
"[$ [. ,.[. ;;ih ' b.hE ' i ;c -(c, 1 -
.' u ,C!d w ~
<F,r.'.~~ d N ~
, .,' , Robert M. Lazo, Chairman p *
+
.' m t- <
- Quetave A. Lire.kvgor David R. Schink
~
- I .-z. , ^- In the Matter of Docket No. 50-133 OLA j -
(ASLBP No. 77-357-07-LA)
, r (Amendment to Facility
';. q ,; , . Operating Licens3)
;r g ,: >. .
c-
,' PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
!.. COMPANY
.-1,.... -
- W.
. .. . . 3~
(Humboldt Bay Power Plant,
' I:*:.Y Unit 3) January 14,1986
. ; w -:
. c. p . -
, ;/ y.. *
'cf,3 .
.' . r' The Licensing Board grants Licensee's motion to withdraw its license
- 1. . ' amendment application and dismisses the proceeding.
. c. :
V.t. - MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TERMINATING l "; - PROCEEDING
,.~ ,
'.fi:' ~ '
, On October 11, 1985, the NRC Staff (Staff) filed a motion with the ,
C9[ - .- s Licensing Board seeking an order dismissing the above-identified pro-
,C- X , ceeding. In its motion the Staff argued that (1) the matter was moot be-cause the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Licensee) had sought to withdraw its application for a license amendment which was the subject of this proceeding and had submitted an application for decommissioning 1
l 1
~
25 Mw W.h<te.tp~w- m 9g- w.-9.,e , 9p p -,.,.y7,, ,. gas 4,g. gg,g9 g l l l I l l
R% U m .e : ,,
< < 9 . , . ~,. .-
.9
);
;r . ,
%., %7,.,.[. :
- v. .;, , 7
.m
. - .w,
), ;?. e, n.% .;, ' Q. ,~M
,v 3;;M
.v, 7 .
s a,,
. , ~.
~..;;*
. ,+ ',m._e,, s<
?.v e .n , . , , < s..
hscy .sn~ %,, n- ,
- 9. r- o- -
A%. x %c,
. ,- , , .' 7 ~. 'i r. .,
- , , , , r, 't:
4 , s- tn,
- '\v+. < *.
m
.gv -: - , * -
pg, y x, . . .4,~ ,
-., r.,
Q g.v : ,. V., <
.a w, r~ 4 ,r>. g .::,3 .. c .; ,. .+m:J;.- ... , ,-
.<- m n. .m n .
- v v n .. -
. ,; ..w.. . ., Mom .s ,: . g . .
c . ,,
'"M~#'"
yh[p.N.+ p,,rn ' ., w -# ~~
.n I M' ,, .
I~~
%f' N y *,Q ,f
'?. [ ..2
- h:T m ..:;;; . ?.v -
R $' % 3,. _f - 76 c 1.s. am..:m m.
-Q , m,, , ,,
v, e....i. e, ,
,M. , mJW W.W< .M. . . . p~ . . M-i; . ..,3:,e,~.&
pursuant to which the Staff had recently amended the operating license
@g@g.yn 0 m 7*','f, .y .; ,J, to authorize " possession only" of the facility and (2) the Board did not (Jy@fp%.. ;. . . . . . . . 'pe ,. 4 ( . . .
G M. i.b have jurisdiction to consider the decommissioning application, but
%: . rather a separate proceeding and opportunity for a hearing on the decom-missioning would be available when the Staff noticed for consideration
$y.i.[h,
.k g E-.W..
M . r ,ng. . .T,h.p M-M%j , T , 4 g5y . ,' j
.q.. . .-,
the decommissioning apph. cation. f.qMk r% Q: # M j $ # :.;* Z.J The Licensee filed a response on October 28,1985, in support of the W Staff's motion. No opposition and indeed no other response to the di w a, N @p ,.d.s. w'. D.3 7.: .
.- e .. x
.".'. ~ ~,.od,.'c1 Staffs motion have been filed by any of the other parties to the pa g:..jgr .M'mw ey$.t y.y- sM : :. pv ..g ,8. ic.-
v n .e.+.+.ye - . y ,.. , re ;;u s; ,. proceeding.' ,q%.. . .,W.r r,o..x
;~.cc , wy&.:P ,,< m s.
~
The Licensing Board has carefully considered the "NRC Staff Motion J:44 2:#c,M.'.j N,:YC L.7.M. ~ to Terminate Proceeding" and the response filed by Licensee and for the reasons set forth therein agrees that this proceeding should be dis- [.. N.Q. 7..lf,f 'jMQW, Nh7?$WP.-
.0, ;~1 3 ' s.
; s ,O*O missed. The submission of Licensee's decommissioning plan renders moot the amendment application which is the subject of this proceeding 7 . ,
Q.p;y 79 .W. - ,.y ' p .
. g.' and any issue pertaining to the contested application. As a result, there a.m , - , . . u. , .3 are now no issues in dispute which are with.in the Licensing Board,s
.v~..,u.-. .. . v. : g. x, !. .' 2. , -
' M;b, , -i..' : d. ..
g_.d.2.; .,(.f jurisdiction to decide. Moreover, there will be an opportunity for inter-
.s ...c
, , a. :. ested persons to request a hearing on the decommissioning application
- ,,r.?. . -1 % .
" ' submitted by Licensee. Accordingly, there is no reason to hold a hearing M.M. l, %q D. j . - Y.fh.h
[. N- :f % e. Q,n IQ ," . in this proceeding or for the Licensing Board to retain jurisdiction.
- Mtu : * * '
7'.*'f.. ^ .'. g wco, e. . . , m[. ~ .{ .*. T. '. '.'..w , 3' .' . ' . '
.. m s
m - 4 g- , - ORDER i .. , - ' ., For the foregoing reasons and in consideration of the entire record in
~~ '
!/- . .; . '
. , . . this matter, it is, this 14th day of January 1986, a E..y. ' ..3 . .. ,
- -.. ORDERED
- l. Licensee's motion of December 31,1980, to withdraw its applica-
%,A ' - 1.5. . ^- . ,
. 0.y .
~. . .. .. ~
tion for an amendment to permit resumption of power operation and to
- f m t+N terminate further action on the application is hereby grantert, t
6.. n(
- l:
a . .Q %..:. 'm . :... W q'., \ y.s a**~ ; L.n':s.~;x...,. ,
&- c .
v
- . A,
? :" p~
. r
,; . , . , ..~ L l;, *
* . l, > lt f.k,'l.
,+>%.: t e - ,;. .
,,'?
;Q :
- n, .'z^
j C.': <-: ' . h y . ., .[:~ . f.,. ,L , v. 3.%. i Cg'*.s, # %
'.. C, %-{- ,. m u; y x. 27 3 .
's._.y. .- * ,
*;pu *
; ^% W!i. Q[j&Pl'
. .N ,
^
.M g-i , 4: . .%* * '
_m 4 , l;.1,
;. 7', a '.
y: . , "..
",' 'y.
- 5. ye. ,..%f;
- t m $
c ',*.,[.7...
- e. . . ,s V 'j; ; ',' y* - -)
t i..<.' .
. ..#.;7 :, *,, 1 .. -
e . < s - r - a ;. < l,d ' ' ..yi,. ~ . 6 ; ,y . ' --'. ., ? y% 4 8 The other parties to this proceedmg are the Joint intervenors, Thomas K. Collins. Dr. Elmont Hones, lvi ,
' ' ' . ' ;L J; '- ' ..'
r*
+
s
, ; e.,
Sc'd Fredenck P. Cranston. wesley Chesbro, Demetnos L Mitsanas. sin Rivers Branch of Fnends or the Earth. and the sierra Club. ,- ' .';.9.
- , t '. , . t * .k. . g .
. - ,)- s a. 1,. 7-g t / \ # T
, 1 ,
p - .s ~ > # 26 L. .
*' ' e.
, .m I ' * %
a
,. ,9 g,
? ' ;* - , -
,, e
' a l . /, .-3 ,. ?
f " ' _ 7
--7**=e *-my.---. ..wg.a.+,4. ,
1-..eg.- _. 7-. .wi== . - .f.- ,,,y ,,
=
3 '- .
- W,.. .-
= ...
". .s , -
- . s Y ., ",sN , , e,,',e, 3,,.
.y..4gm.,2 . *u.h .,rm. -4sc. sg fg;i, m.
r ., ,i ...i b.8
. -. a .,,e .,:,y ; ; . ,7 . ., . g w :., e.,x..:. e mn ,, y .. wen:w
., - . . . , --n , , ..
m~ .. .
- :. a
. , , z. 4 .u. ;. , .
m r4 * -
. . , , . +., -.
a ,nff5 - ,;9.. m..-.. .. u ct.ta.s...w.c3 --
. . 3.n. ; r+*,* ,m _,y
. b.
; .*, , . .: m ,w ..
v.
-..p,,
.s -
~: . ,
e, :: . . J. . r .q... s, .- -
, 'o e .+.*
. *-o
.,s .
4m..~ m
-# s,r/.. t . p n -s a - y
. . .r. (. .
c m. m.-. . s . .e, ; , s.,
*p i ,
x., 7 . .
.; es,
,t
,.'.t. s 9 * ,
- r ......,.1 . , . ,
s.. m.. w,
- e. n~ .
.w , . . ..: .. ,
. #.. e. a. , , . . . . -
, ~ , ..
- s. ,
E'
- - - - ' E i N.. e ,OO, ",-~** M O A M A L- G '^-. . , . .
' ~
. }-h . .; ~ - - "' ~
, . , . ~, . ,*. .f.g
,.~
. l}-G ".: .,
,.: .l,c .
. ,.. . . ... v,.e. , u .,s t i . ; . ., .n
.o .
n..v:< ,
, >.. ... ,c.
y.m.*
. . 18 -
.,--. s.e s
' ,. Q,... %-
, W $. ,.:. W,... m . . .'. . n - b. 2. The NRC Stafrs motion of October 11, 1985, seeking an order
, .u m ._ .,
dismissing th.is proceeding is hereby granted, and
.J WO NA ' : fb ~.-
M.ft ,-y.. m..y , :p.,-nz.. [M,, w 4 . .IMM.. m@*S .li"-
-r .y c; . >
- 3. This license amendment proceeding is dismissed.
e., n u., .. ,nm , g' A. ' s..b. m.m .g m;; 5 4 h- ' , FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND
.a e a. e %. w.o'. ". , .0. ,
W.; . ..:, s5,. : .J 4.t&. M.'..m.--.9 . . w.d 4 e
. x ,- LICENSING BOARD s M:.e,'.v.n% a.
~p %, .s.A,.m.-. .
-= !
- m. ..,. .s'.'v.wp,
,v...u..,..
. -~
A
. a?. .' o - :w7
.e :h. . . .<. .
. r WM;,v, yne .sqbh,6@.'LF.W ..
@p@.q. M,.C...hF. 'T,:
T?, 9.Dw,~;% d Oa c, .m Robert M. Lazo, Chairman h.n wkl b$ %.M-$.o.". . i,
- h. . h!,'_[ ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE M. c.ic V~ ," F' M,.;M., a,w.. ...T,; M.
%en, n. -, .~..E.,,'wN - O,m. y. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, 3.9,n %. .:1.;; . .M~, , . . . .,,.,..k. e.f. .. / ". a this 14th day of January 1986.
.r s wa ,. ;.. e..
y a <.. . . ~< .
..m, .
.#.v. . .._ ,
- t. g
-.t .
c. s
-t.. .
.a. ./U-eQ
. .:+,r. ., A. m. u
.a. m,- .7 >;' v %,-p,3.w v. ' , w.. . ,w , . '. a,
* ( .^ . , ?; ;, :- , ' * ~ .
.TW . . .
w' .%. sf + .-
.,u...~,.p
.e . 4. . , . .,t .
' .*.m.
.c.
. :n ,.
w ,j :.i',x.
- w'-.,,r,.,.
,s w.. - Sv;.- ww s.:lp%.e:q,. :e.: ~.7.+..e:n ,
W
. m. .. , -pw:.
. , .c y ~s, , m,w .. . w. . -
- ,. u . .
uc ~. ,: m
.wg a .
- . '. . ..w.r
.,>t-m.
~c .
. ,c. + y.. .
'.q,..
,- . .: , ~ m v.i t s',s. , , , .. <.**v.. y g -
..x_
n
, a.;. . ' , s. ,, s. o , p, . . , . - . .~
., .f. m . ,. : m ..
4; Q,1, ,.u. ,. .
, OQM,,.
5 ~ ' n. ..~4.e ,.,~ ~ ;,4 m,
.e, o ..y 9.
- w. ,,
, . %, , .- 4^ : n' e.h.,
~
- v. ,g. m..
-~
. e s
u ; m...,..u <. .A.t. .. . -m. .. .+%. 4
. 5 ~c,.a . . .&.e.. .a.y en . g *se%,f. i. . *
- ~
. . . h"., Y(
.h4 h':**' e. ', . ,
-v.2.+'
/ ,y : ~ U.4. . , . 'ef. s,'.3. ;3 4 ,e4
. ye .'s ,- ',
a . t .
- ~ .
' S. : - > .
QM, - :*. ..Q.W.f.e.
- C. -
s
.x ,,, ,.*
'?
- 3. . .'
.c '4 . # -,
.-p..+3.'*.. . '
s , ,> , -.c .gf. :v, , -- .~ ,. E: r , . m. y ..t.,_ (* - >, & -b, N. -*. ,.i. ., 9 ,'
.W.
s.n.~ ' .' ~ '
- i. , ,,,.. i 4.Q + -
.'-:,-+. $ao.'*
. . . ' . Rg,,
..y .
..,*s> r;^$ *
._'b.,
q A
.)g ~ . A,. sh,=* 1
- . s.
e . . ) : , ;. ,. -a nV,: ).'
, ,a"..' 4.- e f ..r :
gy._=,- a
.e f*.5 , . >g* .
4,, T. . ','s', ~ J
. 3. , ( Q. ,y..
]
ay
- I .*-[qf,. b ' c~ _
., ,. , r ? ., , o ,, . . ,l * > E . *4. ' p. n,'.?-* ,*,. .
.v,.-
ps . . -f,,,.
,svglm,s . ~.%. ,' . _
- n. ? a. ,, . p.e.
. .<.5 . u, * ., e.
e . m.t*9e W :, a m. :. -
, ~
*a, 9 ..
m ' g g.r/.P...,,
, .,..%,tF,, y .. .
* . i, L;, .~.v....-+.e
. 5. <
#^%- 'A (
~
< f,','.d,*.
,**,,e".se'~
,c c
+ , .
W J, ,5~ n n, , * ,"~ I # 3
. d <
; . p.
.& s K
,* ,,,, d s
- p' l 27
?Y fe .
b 4 'N****-4 *^v- w- -
. .eep9 - - y .,; p ,pg, ,
y,
- s 4
*. . 9 0
e-bs " 8 - + . - , . - c.f . - 7 g
s _
'We('.O.*0l
- . -wP' -
- a; ,v . '
.N ,e * * .
- .b. ,.'*v.' ,o
.... g s/, ' _.
' < >" . ' s' ,%f b,Q+g
' .-:, m o %,:.
, , . ,% .y ., . ,,. ' _c ' 'ii
'.q ;;;~m,p n: ;
,..'.M'..*
.cs.
%.'~.
~t w , , ,
, ~' ,',.. _ ..
';gs .s} ) V _
, . c, a .,3 ,, , ., v ,
v @? ' d / - J;c e.y ,u . s s :
. cap {
j h^ . a :: ~ , -
~
'r. . ,'.. ..' w -
v mm._,, ,;a;,.u _, m ,_ n ,u m w;cig ; s . ':a
. , , 4, m.sc,,,;.m ,
> * . t - A '
.. w ,4.+ f '
- y. /.;. .. ,w',; y.. . . .; ;-.,-
,cy' ,
LBP-86 2 Cite as 23 NRC 28 (1986)
, '* ,, ~' '
4 ;f . 4, _. ,
%cJi f, 4
e .w. . : n
; ;;g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , V<
- 7'.3 3 . .
cn '
.t,,
,_.s
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO ,
-? 7 , 1%,;l4@Pi
~i f .W<jg.c'.nf!i.?. c m, ,;.. ' T ,
- . Before Administrative Judge:
>..~a..
- , m., ..; m ',,:' 'm
..:.~;
.;;;fp
.y ,' ", : : .7 , i. . e 0: c s. Dr. Jerry R. Kline
~ (,Q 4,
- o. >.-
4-Y <. 0.l n.w y: .
; , ;,Q. j '~f:k w* *y ~. )'h'E*G _ '
Docket No. 30-22063
, y
. W .a. .,
In the Matter of (ASLEP No.85 512 02 ML - 7 . ,
~1-m, '
'2 -
E.o q ' ',.:v' o .; PRECISION MATERIALS 4 :r >,4
;. - + , CORPORATION January 28,1986
>qs
%.n. , f.. 5'm. . '. . ,* .g .
,, (Mine Hill, New Jersey frradiator Facility)
' , . . . .i .,
Op;;
- ,.-. s
~
i,, ,
,e , ~ ) ~. d;
.em
. .t.
x, MEMORANDUM (Dismissing the Case) AND ORDER
,x $
d January 21, 1986,
,',y-}2fR~~s M. ..
a.,
- (Qp .L*.,
The Presiding Officer was notified i by letter date
' s
..,W, r . s T; Q.
from Mine Hill's representative that the Townsh
,o.
9fs c9~crF, f draws its previously filed request for l of itsarequest hearing for reg a license to Precisioni Materials Corpo
. . , ,~ J
?id[ne M ..';y.Q J. - n.a : Ei Q hearing results in there being no disputed ssue
^h~
'MM[M ep?: ,y f eview of Precision
.f
~ .g O.'; $ ic.g;(.. The NRC Staff previously conducted case.
a sa ety tion permitting it ri
'j..% x- ;:::;;~.,
+ .; ~
~7 c
f'fG Tf pc~ < >:
^Y j f._d' _k;;. c Materials' Irradiator Facility. Tha
'.' , , '; , ' , to possess and use byproduct mater a oflicer may rely on
'~
. . +: i
- 7 3[. 't[ .GC
+
,y - license.
In the absence of disputed issues, the presid n 1l. ; erated in a manner
,". ~ W" _ the Staff safety review and thefor reason N'- e
.c
." y.,
s it is concluded that an consistent with the protection of pub 28
=
l I '"* '. Y t t
- l. ,.
s ,
, .. 7.,.4%* (.,
yq p.
.mc; m,& .4 ."."*,t .,
9
'lr. ^
- s. . , . f.f m;.,(:R 1; .,f,..','W :. e
- t; ' , ; 'j ,Q, 3
. . .,. ,e . ,
- . s . . ,
m c , ~. . . , ra.. :. -~ j,: 3:.- ..
- ' 9:: .c .
- ,, , , > ,..~,7, .
, , .n '
. . .w b, -
. . . . . - - . . . . -- . w . .. u .
-,~.w...--
s
..-. a,
~ - ,
formal hearing is now unnecessary and that the case should be dis-c.
, .' b . .
&. . ?,,* .
- '.b ..:;. .
', %.:, . . missed.
.C . - Q.C R E. , '.:: ,W- .J ' . ,
.s .o Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons and in consideration of
- v. .
.~.
the entire record, it is, on this 28th day of January 1986,
~
;M.
.p.;,;: ,M.;;f.
r
- . . :.:.;;, ~? i,.,: ORDERED
- . ' l. This case is dismissed because there are no disputed issues to be c.,t,. f.. -, .. <Mw.'j. 3 A ~ ' ,'
a . . .f .h,,p.- -' ' , . resolved.
.. x .
OE;cjQ..:- '1,:g.y..
;;cT 2. No changes in any license provision or licensing condition are im-0 , - o, ..... , g,m- _. .. , .
. - p, .m.,,9;;;.q?.d$;p.
-c.y.. ..,, -
posed . qc. .. or approved as a result of this proceeding. Precision Materials Corporation materials license, as amended August 2,1985, remains in 7 .c: ;a . q -g.g.,g..%..y: p ; n 39i.3{W W.L; i.. effect. m' 4 m
' . . fc - fdM6t.'9,.,
s j .a 3. This is the final decision by the presiding officer in this case. In ac-
.i cordance with the Commission Order of July 24,1985, this decision will
. .: . - - 3 g M$yg,:2.;j;.;yp
, , v.gt .' , become final agency action 30 days after the date ofissuance, unless the
.. g;.- se n . .
Commission on its own motion undertakes a review of the decision. No v.. :. i . .w -
.' . A ~. g- ;~g.;yc , _ i i; petition for review will be entertained by the Commission regarding the
.x - presiding oflicer's decision.
L' ' 1;5,.5,;%.i;g g ; m. .'l L. R,.: _ c.,3 ,.w e.Y, a w ;;
. .:a . ,
/3, ' .L f ' .? .-~6y/; ) .
s:g
.c ny. n ,: :?e.m, ..ss,+ ;wc ..' - ..*:,.,,.y
..2.c. . .
w,-
.c .
' +] ac.r.a;p m.4 ,9
. Jerry R. Kline d L.- " 3.:! 75 9 -
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
; .%g:
X.,p.&' in . -W.g, ..
~v.j+
- +. .,..;..m af ..
'% 2. diyf.g . _ .-Y' Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, J - .M.; %. this 28th day of January 1986.
Y.;C..~ r
;,a:n.w;;;'f. < .+,c, . g'r; .
c.
, , J . . 't .
.h. y * .!-hf.. ' $;'?2
%,~*
J. ';% f,ryQ;<W y ';h.',k' ., /
., h ~ . w w "9 5,. .y,
_ ' ' h [..
< v t__
er .
. .' . . w
} *=...t<
S c. ',s j' 1
.,.s y s
.g '.s
-' * , - .. J h% <s .
,.a.
e,, . q, gs,,, 6 f
. s 1[;./,c..*";,[,'J,;*.-~ ~Q ' s
. . e .'
..s .
' f ..,,,, ,'j ;,,, ? *,.
~
*:..E' r r
+3 . - ... ,. 3. c -. , :: , ,
.-.. . , .+ , . e ep;,l.
~: %'
.~. ,
c.* , a.' .t; . ,.g. W . .. . .w s.' ' ;i* e ..,T, #e 4'* .. (, ,,
- N, _
,,t' ,..
-<w t ..
pf e f- 4 ,p/*u.'.*e.y ,, ' . ~ , , ,
' ] "
j, " K Mh ,'.T.. ?f l'- *
. ;. q, , , y . . , . ,,,,,..~.,: -
s.
.,A ^ ~. . L ; ~
? , . r .
, .y. 5 ,.% n
. . w.
c.
*\ s . ,
, = . a ;c ,
;s
,- 29
* .* y
,.,, g-, .-.;.,.~.... , , ~ , _ ...,..y,.,,...,, . . , , y,.,, ,
t e
I. < l < * ' % l'1*
~
t o
-,... .. q. .*
l a s, n .,1' *
*.L e 4 ,
.e e t 1% c .~
6 e i-
! .s
-ey t .'- i. . -
l
,e
- e
,w
..- 1 J .-
** g
, a s M s
i , e 5 s.,.. 4 . s
- 3 s a,} .
~- . m4.
m g , , t., .,.. , o -- o > , ., ' '.g,
.6 . r
+, - - . _. . , .. w : w. .. ~ . . . .
.r .
n'
', . i s' 4
,4 p s
P. g sg
,.,[-'
.,1 . *#., 1"
..,,=,=
.g
... ~ , .
5
. . , . , . u . ,
. . o. .
w. y* . ~n
- .~.
, -t %;c.,- . ;, .e-- --e - g minlStrat.lVO
- .) .-E,s',1.M,8-,,'n Law Judge M M.* . * (,- . a-e.s
- nrc . ; ..g . %. 4 e , ~
-:,,'."',Q,= ,[
^
.y_
* ,.4. s .,
. . , ,* -*-y- -
.,/ .,- ,,
- , ,,.a e,,.. , t- (' *
, . g. - . s v)
, ,, . . s r.
. .,e.- + ~ ,is ....t,.
, s .es,- , , , . , .- .,. ,. ,., ,
,.t....e
. s
.- ,.,.. *.+ ,
r,
..A*.e. - '
2 4,= . v.-.
,.3 A.\.4.v, , , . *g*._ -
- s t
g-.'. n - *- 4, J "a,a
,-/.~.-! & '.1.s, - ' , . ,
.w...~
v
, *:t
,,,e..i .. .p.~
#f=-)' ' s' sg ,A- - ' ' " '
=g j
, g _
- h. ., -' . * ~ ~ * .,
.. ..s -. 3;
-' .s , , , . ,, ~.
+s. s , e ,.g.,.
,, i
.e., c .,-
. 's- . .u , - . , 96* ',
- s. .: s
','.y. ' .. .W - . . .-,..-}.-,
s
- a s -
.F ' I '
* ' *c
' . . , . . 4B A,- + > *
, ,_ , %, (,
.,. < , ., ; . ,, .. g- 4 i c ': t .- -q. 1.O, a, r;, 8
,s .r y. -' . * %, ,,
,g.,
...- e s - ,
s .. 4 v,1 *
- sg.
i 4
- v. .. (5-
.,-.. S..).; '..er
.'p.s. 4 3**-6 r ,'. -
- . g- * . , - '( [A ;;g. -{.
. .g .
..s ._ -
'g, f
- e .%4 4 g'
- Aa.- L -
e
- 4 g ,g
~
- a. ? o-
, --*L.=..=J e.,.' q ,Ue.s }'..s'.a
< e a
; .%.,, -: g e
9,'e' % ,:
,- a , . . .
d ., . t ('Aa
'. *g g **g,.
ly' ..Q 'a .*
, y a.-F,'
e.,'-. p ,' -W-.. i.
#t .
, s
.'* s .a
.p
. b. ,
...m* . ',,.
s ~. ^'
.. .7
, j'y
.r.'.,Ag. '.* k .
pre g - .
..s -
- y r e,- ..c.g.,,.-p.> ..
P
,*,s..
**"*k'q S * -- 8' s -*,
g
,7 7, (.* , **.: sU ."i ,a '** JAf ' ,* ,* ,, -
..g'. e'4' f(h,*% k" ,h /s , ;' 6 g,.
+.w 4-5... ', .#i44 . T f egg *-
- ,*. -d, ,.. #' M, . . . .
. !,,. : y f;1. .
, , Y.t v ... , y . =' J
-*-n.' r e,. 3 , * ,-*
. =.w.,
* \, k ;-* *y . . .-M.,. ,
, e
**j s " ' - r
.e-: *y. , , .l****'
'*d**%
(.
-a ,
s.. M',.j.4. v y,, - e
* (
4 , -*, e
.g g T "-'
a-
., Ti .g. .eg{ ~ ' , ,
. .ry *, . * *s'
- < - ~ -<
j .,, , .' ' ' , ..
, , .n] .s.p.,s : ,.4;..*
A ,y. , .
, c. a**
+-
' . * *,t.*.
. .p
- v.. .
, r _....
,,, 4 ,
I** E
.--b.. .
r ,'t.
, .--%t
~ 4 .' -.y *3 L , ,
=
+ /=
T..+ 4 *- e . , l ,, e '4 l ~
-_.._,.y_..._. . . . . .-
=* .
l r
'.L.: s
;3 y
- p , ..
, x .x .n. y ,
e _ ;-A ' ' ;6 .. n M., r , . '; w,
. + ,4 -
2; j u
, , . :t r ',. " . . , ' -;n -
. .y.
-- c e e . . . .
. - / L., sc '! 7 - 75 a pi 1'
%." 3l
').,8 # , '
. . 'e
;e(,.. . .:.w, :. . ; . .
a <,,:*.)- * -
; ' 1 > --
..s
, , ;.,%z. ..4. '.::.. ~ ~1
. t.s,. * *' y e y'x- ,
- _ _wL,.. . r a _a a4 ; * % . as s >. ..M w.uG.
-w a -1 L* '. ---
c
=~ J... , . ; .
M. ,. s ;..x .s. 4.
,;,; , p' j:. e.u <,.,;;-A' ' t . " e.
.j.,.e.w t e:..g%, . +i . ..
w a
- .J. .M_, . . . > ~
$..q.?p;N)fM.u W. %W{., 3
.- I. N.. M. Cite as 23 NRC 31 (1986) ALJ-86-1 t x, . cM. -ty 1
1 & y:/g,;p , f W.. . , -
/J. $:.%.u wWJ f .' Q f .. g :qd. " ' ~.n. .'p:ww +mm:y . , . . UNITED ,c y STATES OF AMERICA .$.s/S3. , .y- a "d(j y.e(u 52:,M7? . W- -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- u. -: . y -}..
z A. De s am7 .:.,s. yh % . L; yC :.l N.'@y',,;G%.v.. .. ' . . JV. , ,. ....::?. ?.'T.1% .y?G. ADMINISTRATIVE I ar M .A~ LAW JUDGE ns-
. n.. e ,, ..
k f'4 9 %,s.-;.W.Qc q m : ' e . W,Mi: hg ;. p:M. g.:Ny'.- d! Y Ivan W. Smith ?n l.4&[,$i@
,~
%n w.f. $.
W. .?;';,'. PlQ A .,
-z
'.*.iF g:\.V R ~a,W $ m ' g@e # , ? U ' E' 5 .
. ., % .. .. .. s..- ,c. ,g;,.~.m , w f.u.. .:n . : m.%,,
..,eu PWy. q s.f. .c +. .. Mf. AR. y ^ W>A. i,y J.c. ,.N <' 1 A: in the Matter of Docket No. 55-60575 j
. :;. g c.. , f,:?! 23 - . ..
(ASLBP No. 86-515-01 -SP) g;[.
.m,
, 7,N.f!h.
' ~ ' "~
- (Senior Operator License for L' > l ' $. = . , .:-k; , -
J.' , . Millstone Nuclear Power px. . .,y:,; p(,.. :-. . . .f 2 '
.m. , . ..e. ~:a. .' ' ?
--c. . . . , _ .. ~,
Station, Unit 3) s ,
~ a' - " -:s:.
u;, - .. . 7', y,<.yy:4 . . t - O.
.L KENNETH L BURTON January 27,1986
, . . .;l.,tl. . ** ,. *
, .,t %'ne.. . -.- -- f ,-
d 'i 8 %w. .;.&;.: M mg .y n,:.
.WW#-d.
~ .,u .M Bh - ;e d.. . - ORDER TERMINATING PROCEEDING i .p L.
c, Kenneth L. Burton's application for a senior reactor operator's license for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 3 was denied by the NRC u# , .: Staff on the asserted basis that he had failed the simulator portion of his M, _ _ v i , - May 23,1985 licensing examination. Mr. Burton requested a hearing on W % ' the denial. The Commission, by order of October 10, 1985, grarted the "G[ ' request. Subsequently, on October 15, 1985, the NRC Staff informed
' ' .'.xO. m. .- . , .. Mr. Burton that the simulator examination of May 23 was invalid as "a s... @,.m .
.. determination of either successful performance or failure." Mr. Burton t.d. Q .Q T' '. .,... . ' , '
participated in another simulator examination on October 30, 1985, a . a,M ,.O!:- :d.
.. . j.9. ,,c ,,, l, , which he passed. His senior reactor operator's lisense has since been
-- - . 7 i
.m" .
.s. ,,. , issued.
-r a,;7. , .
s.;j j,f,w, Now Mr. Burton and the NRC Staff, by joint motion dated January 2 p, + - s. - _.2-
^
and 7,1986, move that the proceeding be terminated as unnecessary
- r. l va r. m ~.
v;r, - s .-
'q., . .
. . ~ ,_
j .E *f l l '".*
. '(,' _
.g _
5 t ,i',n 1 _ .s . C 2,, ' 'rk,
- t v,,e
,]
w ,- 3g
- . m e-m ,
5
;e a -,-e,n.w.. ,s-~ e- w
~ s me o g== 3,-. ' * = - '~ * = > -
- e 5
I j.f .j r; " 3 Q.ff . ..l N,@ e 4. .;;%,,:$6.;
< . .: ; +.;& <g
, n. . , ,
a.+,.. s,,9.@:3 .Qj[w%..%v.,s6.h@w y, a,. . M,a .:
. w:y u.s,,,n',q,s.q ..c,.. 1,3 : ,wy.n. f@~%Qlf..d.
,s . ,, v
- v. ;,.
..'e,<-
,, .:.$ p ;,. -
p u,
- yf. . . w.*....
- q<. q ;. m *. .fng . ,a.o
&A *: - ' '
"r ; ~.- - c y., S,-** ;.h: .%..x.c.;.
p., .%. .%, y;, e(.*. .mm wQ%.
.. . g,
,,=r..
,1 ...,
- s. .>: , .
.< ~<- 1, e , r w. .s . s
'.. . . c. -
#i 4,. m. 2 ,. . .-4 k;'..kr t. [ '. . . . , .'*,
1 t.'. .W . ~.,.N'h~..
.. y -/
,h -f. ~.Vh f .f J 9 ' #i .,.i <O .'. .U' n
W .? ,, .s -v 1.' ' . * ,. , ,,-
> m.,c n - q 'u,,;p% ,.h T.*d,~tY - - 3m..m ,w?. ? m'v. .ye . s .r
. , , , _ - .. . ti...m..a'c2 3- .,-. L p - , = .
u' *,~O.
,,t ,:. e ^ '., . .?.
, ( s
;. .ly . . - , . -
s".w 4's .~. A. . t a
.*,, . .. s f .,, ;
*,M "
- Um;=2.4*'-~s c' ~.~.-*~*+* ~ ~~ ~-- ---~ -- - - *'* ^ - - * - . - - - .'S
- n. . , , . , . '
et '**='*-*"-*-J--a*-~~k-*"^L's -' Q,y. s -f. .,.;) ,=my. . * .* ' f s
- . ,v',,,_
s, I, r.+ q. .. j
*y *y7 .-
- 4 ;. ,
s ' b.3 ;- f p.#Id - >1 w ,' 3 : a .; . v.
.r. t'
, o.'" .: ..., .r .'.- p,.m.r .
L
.-+.u .y.,
f ..o..
. - - e )
s ,
.as. . . ..
. %...g y...y . .. r
. .=
s f.
-l aa , :M.. G.. :%r.,,A. 1 Gdn M. -
and unwarranted. I agree. There is no issue t.1 be decided. The joint y -q motion is granted. N@& ". $; u.;
. ..m y.-
f
,. .W.e o .eM@M@.
M-IT IS .~, THEREFORE i ' ORDE:tED that this proceeding be terminated.
--g .....~ .h (.., . . ..r !x..:,,. w,
- r. :m J..~.
. . t. . e,q : .
. ,.3.%,,., .
- p. . ; .x.,. g,.
- m. ,
m - w> . ....m. . ; . .. ... .... .I-c'.r x . .
..~w . ...- .. . >.
E.W$.M. .. . . -z. . d 'w.,? .m. .. Ivan W. Sm.th i
. .w . .
y et.y % .
'% .YN3 . , , ,
Administrative Law Judge
..S..(p . , qa- .e c,. .r..w. , .* ,. u .-;. ,
vy h .. . . y v? s , n- o
- w. 99 .
,1 W,a@.
4
..g
.. .M. ec. .. e
,e .6M.&. , s.g. . -;. .x
- , . . 5 d. y A: .'- Bethesda, Maryland
@? ;m.pr,p ..e.- January 27,1986 s.,nL o- .O
. _ .- v.,- A. ,.rM.yOf;;6.. +
.m , ., .~ .: .. .
rgw.g.' y.., -#p, .-D... ;l--
* ?,3- ) Q, i. '.~. ~.% %
"fV . sTl
. . v . . .
, - n..
..y x.. . P. r . w-~ . - -. .o-
. . . -, w.
T,a -* .
. ; _,yf 3.q..n.. f; J2 e.;. ' ' .ei
. n. .v.
<i-,..;~-.,.
.,? >,..,.-3.,. . ; **..
-4, ,
, 6 e
6..
.: e, -; n..-
r.u .,:e i., , i . .m .s. h. . . ". + .%.?. - , . v.
,.3
.c.; .. ..-n .
-W,
. . owr m ,* ,~ %,-f. . .a N'. .
m .. - - ., < u y ..
-3... p, N. . ,.:;.: .
.e ~. " s'
.... w r
q..g-. ,7.,, 4:-,.,..w,~ ; w. . : < . g p: w .-..- a.ph - - . r 5.,.- . . -
., n ,.u-x.
7.n.uf . ..
. . 4 1. .e , . ~ . . .u.
. c. . . s e..**.
y
- ,n ~,, c^
m 4.'s -.+'.,.s.-
...g.
.+
r ;. .
'*t hlq 6
L s c. y g,,
- . ~
+
-n, -.. -
caq% - -< ~. '
,, a.
g , nJ.1 - .,,4 n ~ ,. . - ; e , w-c a a :..% sg.*. . . ,~u ' - s - u ,* % ,. -
'r v..;;,.%. .- : 2 s .;e , '4;,
. < }%. ,;. :: .
*JD**,.. , -
M,.-,
'p+ . - . :, f, 7
-;n, --AN. :. .
h*1.'g,,sp s
.g4 * ? s-' .v. ..gg =
. ^ ._s '. .,L,-..
+>..c w ~ ,., #; 7 .s -
'* -k' i m'.7..d.,h 41 , # 4 r..' - -,;
3
.e l r, er,x -4*
s- s jr = . * *,- ~ e . Q7 y.~e . .a
.*.W ,. *
,f , .. I 1. .
, ~c; ,. \
. . . , * . + J'
-, ,-&y e :., . X.w , ~: ' a
. : 9 :',
,=~_...
ae
? 'a y,. - -, y
-m
. M' o -.s ' - , -
,'13 , - - . ,~.s ,
, 4.' > + 4 s. ? _',
y ,;wL.a- g'4, D Y.h .. , - y .. , .
. .3 N:. :
.,e.4 C p,.',_
$D .., %h a A-
*f ,-4, as. , - . ,y...,d.*
y. (
* .- .e l . ::- *
.s . ej '
^
L E g*- , < a i. l . l
'~
. 32 i
,e ^
h beMM--=-'1***-e---imm-.=we..,_ p.s.* ges> e'm,: m.us en y p ee gre.
--e . . . - . .-.-e. .e--p, ..9,
._m. eg *- '
6 %
^
*,J ,
s
. 7 g h f
) '
s \ I s
, g e - e . ,4 -
3 p 5% 4
- f A v,, r- - - . - .- . . , -- .. , - - - , . , , , . . . , , . , - -
O % , , . % yg r tw /y, * * , f,
- i I
i (., ,,s. 7 ..,, c . . ) 'd
; ,' '; w*i.'7,*-
tw 4, e 7 s t l, t M ** .M'.? *M b
- Y ,I. L /.' . ~.
. s. W,. e.
V b '&-+
W e-y :y,,; - (,,2 .s , 1 , f, i . t *ee =+ = , '..c.
'yR. .g*.;.n* - * - s g V._ g,.). ,:. ;* f... , < ;p m
.,.,14 l* = , ,
n e
- g -.l,%, t , C.y!'l,e.;w ..".r rk s e
- f, ,
l ' s (" Ts ,w%.,v. Qt. , n , , e
-J '~ f , ,, < ,
.; J. 4 * + r ~ *
. t:'; w.',.,?gW ug;h-i; ) t * * - )./ ., ' * ' ,
% '.;*7 % ^*.'i[.t'c wa7 - . w w w .. w:. a ; u 2 . M ~
r
- J-L7 .
r l ify
,, .d,Q '. -,
, .T. , ,i t~,;-{u.
)
q s, * .,' - '[ * # y I
*g44sv . ,*
, b '8.T
}&~.Aeq oj**
?..
,, 1
[ \' g .,',e, g, p 'y,.*u
<3, *- y ,.s e ,,
,4" hir. , ~.. ,T. r
.1,;,;
r, ,
. -.. La
(. ._u%:< ,[ Q%,, $. b.
.n v 7 w,
,%g J.+,r .. "..t.
c , e g,.g :, p i w ~c ,m,,e.u..,* .,%.; fL .e. Aa Pi - e..ev ..e 'v .t , ., 2 ,e. i s 3,.v,.- ,M *g . . , , , a:,p, t ., a A.*4, .1. q
,- ),n- ).,v*,.,r g v ;.
*..=.s-- s , ,
~*h p.t .. ..r~ . : p g .:.~ .34
\, <
'.t y- pe n. .r t ,g<6. .h...
~
- e. . c aA.,p e V R, 'd* b , ._ V Al .* .s,. c* ;* f E l . 'n.wY. .'m.,*f.
- A.* n ' 1< *s 't qe an'.m.T i *-=r-y ey .w . va.?. .
~
a 4 I
. t , t.'. ,p - p y?m.WN'.[.[*, '.' ?vt {,' .^;' *,;;,- g~ '"
I
~
> 4 ,y' v .L , .. : . p~ itw .
. .a , .t
?- A e :
sis M.g.fjn.A'ai"Q:=,Ts's'd?.-:,.MS@'f@i. D' rectors' ' " , s ~f m,.... ~. .., _. 3.scm. ~.e. a-g Mwe.Q.$m%m. ..@;-me'; s ,. n. w a M... r. , .e.e.ra. . a, .n : Dec..isions . [4MrLfW.f $3n , m.y Under _ . W s, mW_S.W..n
.a . . P. . i e 6 n, ,o .Wi._M-Q BM. ; w .-r.* 2^ 7 T '
W.- _ 10 CFR 2.206 % e
,x -.Girf. : g.c;
- p. .%cm..'.W .vy;&.*d,%s.m.:
; .. , y, w: a, t e-cr.>wf,%
JN ut :- ],w';.:.
~
vf ' . ; ,, ' o 1 a t. .* r' }. ~.K,y
..,.e.. u., v g.=u,g.
- L ._ ~y; p , ~
f.* ;Q - 3. _ ' 4. , s N,3 ,,.?;3 C
?/..}4 .
7.. b c 3,a - .s . f- -:,: - s ,. b
'n.',,
#<m p
--L 2 2
. e, .
x r,'r)>..,,...., g- as**s
- +. -
e
,','sen [ A'#
, ,,g
.a-'[ e,- '.-
(g '. ,
.. : .f. ,
['..'g 4.e..3, r. ' ,." 1(***%.,e'g A , y* ' , ,,
,4 ,
- g. E.P. .4 '"_.
A g # f,'N' h * * '
- u. s .r s -
.,-, c ya ag:x {."m
~
* ~ : .,.. . . , .'e
. %y . ,*n.5 .% Q s * .r .W
- K~Q s .. <,
s,*i w *1 r*
}
-( p.7,;
4 ' %..". . , ,;C,.
-m.m,,f,....
M.. .W.i..,<. -
- y. .
S .c .o*Jn..,:"* st;v w
,s.
;.)' r g:-q;J': ec w*..;y),y..
a., . . V s .
-- 4 :/ e >.3.
* ,.,e*'Q.
e no f* . g
- 3.
.a
*' ,'j.t n%t , - J4i A
s _4
*i s e r , ,1, -
g , [.* i g , . .- 1 a.
,'EJA * ( .e r- .s
,.,'*t,%e ,e [.
) W
..- s 7.* ..:
,.,3 3
,8 ,.,
g M *_er
$' =
,.I e, e f - .. "p
... . . , j
,'*f.*r,.,
-j.t ,t ) , .sc - , s, -, ,,
%
- 7,,._#., dtS,
.-,=* t r-(-
,.'8'.,Y'--
, y.. .'. ,,,
+ '- - "
c, . s.e...- ,
^
~
--'= , ,,} f.: : , , ,r, ',;1 ; ~ *'. 4.' . ,
.-msn,
. . ,3 n s ;. ,q'q r .. 4:,% . ,q, ,- - -
~- ,~. - ,(.- <,,. ..r..
- %; - .,ts a r.
.,,:.." l s o s * ** Er _ ' . ,
sr_ sy.- _
~, ,
.e.,. 9 .. . f. y. , + , ,
, - *' $ , , , . - .. .. 7
; J.C,, + 7 ** , ,
a
.*5" 0 .~*.
.? ~* .
f ..
.*L-.
.,[r t.',I. .
*.=* . i s<.
; y , - r4. ) ' r - ..*
. ,ns ,
E
.; 44* .-s9 .v
", . .i .O ;:
., ,4.. 1. -L,e'
_*,,,,,, *,t
*-W
.j, ' /*;* ^', m % s ,
*u- .-
a ..n , y, ., h q.P .y ' T a * ,
' V. ,.
.se ei
- n. r-g 9
e 4 J
- 8 '.F g
f.
.f .
' ynnes==+
=4 ita $
4 f + or" l - l-w ee, -g-=p.i..+--,,,w.. r . , . - . . .n,. - l , 1 \ 1 E s. l I
&'s.
.,..~r r
._- ; y y. :, . '
'." . :: .c . ? .,.
. ,, - S;, _ ,
. , ;; j. :..e e- Ng .p. , ::;re,.; nn. . . - ,
f v : ,,
%n.
7 , s.., ; w.. v . q,p. .w 4;c'.,7.. q ~f. ,
- c. . ,,. .c .
4 8 9 f;, b ...c %
,%: . . ,. Li.
' C - ?. )w .;.'.X,%{:;;):,4,Q7; M .w.w. . .y' ' 4 .a;$.:.y, y .L
~.
- g .
n a) ..*
>a-
^
y
. . . +;~. .r ,v e. t,.sr.g
=;.~. - -
{t. N ..,.,e, u .w-
; : a.,'\, " f,wl,.w __ _ , _, , _ _ "L__y._,,_,., .., r,g;_u;,
n ,. .. * . w: 2 .e P_ Ujf. h.y.. .
,m--- u ,,
-%.cv.m;..
s s
- 4. -
y.
' ; trwl. .:w . .s..;.
e . ; p:.4.i s - Z.r . s N. . .M,. '. S Cite as 23 NRC 33 (1986) DD-85-19'
.,.,....e*.9..
y, r c . ;m' y ??u.m:n n p. .-1 r
.;w34 y., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s0 y,c.f~d w NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?
,.,-, . , , g.A g.jg#3@a.by
.s -i e Q.
. . . . . >n,y t OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2- 5
. ;f
.s G iM. :n %:.q w%. + g%
.. n;;.3
..;a'. [v , 1N.;. .'S5:.p w; a.v &< i N M g, Harold R. Denton, Director p; i.
,:i w..: .,.. .,. ::ec. r.eg,m,1 <:
.~m. 9.. :.m ,.
~. m fy?,y$y s.. 2i E . %,(56d4M+S In the Matter of n - es.p
- o 2c,..;. %.
,tsh:r e. ,
#n m>.gr.,.M. f M. ,A ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT Docket No. 50-313
' , .J.f. . 3.'#6,0. .
COMPANY
-; T fWf&MU (Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1)
- y. & y ; .n '-
,e p fg%/t. e.$*.4Q. .'. .
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY Docket No. 50-312 DISTRICT d - $h b,yNN'Sh@g (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
. :,cfp ",; .W.A. s.2.M.v
'c, da .. .wrq .4, % .9 -g.q:- Station) t
.x ,,.s
. x ,.,e.;m..c.
~s .. , c
'y.
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION Docket No. 50-302 t..
+. . J' ,j (Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant)
~
, a .s g?-4,.
. :g;vS :;. . .gry .;[.
, . 1~ s. .c.
.'. h - 72.. T.:7. w ..4:t '[ DUKE POWER COMPANY, et af. Docket Nos. 50 269
- 'g$y;.
?F ' (Oconee Nuclear Station, 50-270 l# _.N .,, M... Units 1,2, and 3) 50-287
.. < y .: ,y
- ~ M ,^ W .
;.y N., .. .. 4
'.y, .9},g.E . .
N, GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES Docket No. 50 289
.a " . ... . . /y. ' . . .
, ;' .. NUCLEAR CORPORATION 4.*..J .,
. , N. . 'i. m.-.c,F (Three Mile Island Nuclear 1e - e; Station, Unit 1) January 29,1986
, N. .,;q N . " e ?.- ,' -
, syc,.m;. ..e. v :. 1m,,.. , ,
p _, .
+- , v
- s ,: e-
,.n**
- a
., . . :.L
, . .. e .c. .. ~ -
. qwy . o r ~. d; m" .ri.. .*' u> . , ..w. w s: '1. The Director of the OfTice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies the J v. , . 6, 1 petition of Mr. John Doherty requesting institution of proceedings to
$y- T
~u ,
3; c ~.
, , es *
,- *This Decision was originally issued on Deternber 4.1985. but later withdrawn. It was replaced with the a, ' D' .Tc 2
~
Decmon of January 29,1986.
. , '.'c.. ,
t - g
- 2. . .
+< .' 33 s
m.
.'[, *# O M peq 99- gr*.,..q,,pgg.g . ,, .,m .,g .,,,,_a1 ,e.-e+ 'P. p W G N s. . g .b py p . %.m
._,, 9M.--.4.g w , .
1 b 5 l l
, .' ? 5,;. '
-c. .Ay. .; j.e g $. $ $h.d M jy,jU P Q M -.gg ,p , j 7;.v.;,'!jp"'g . . : -,
' i lyZ;.O% YV ' ?k
~
- '^'
- A
,p
+ "
, . , , g,. ..%. .p ,
. 4 ,
i 7,. ; , ,.
. :# :., a w- _..,w. . _ . . . . - -- _._.._--...._:.: . = . .. :.
t l. e show cause why the operating licenses for certain named facilities should not be suspended or revoked until alleged problems associated with operation of control rod drive mechanisms at the facilities are resolved. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.I'.R. 9 2.206 f.-
' ~
INTRODUCTION h On June 11, 1985, Mr. John Doherty (Petitioner) filed his Petition / Request for Show Cause Order (Petition) requesting issuance of an
. order under 10 C.F.R. } 2.202 to the licensees of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1; Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station; Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant; Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; and Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I, to show cause
- f. 2.+ ? .
why the operating licenses for those facilities should not be suspended 2., ll . or revoked until the problem identified in IE Information Notice No.
'x- '
85-38 is resolved.' The IE Notice concerned loose parts which had been 5'/". found to obstruct certain control rod drive mechanisms (CRDMs) at the
. . :/
Davis-Besse facility of the Toledo Edison Company. The CRDMs at
.(
-F f* . Davis-Besse are manufactu' red by the Babcock and Wilcox Co. (B&W)
,, , as are those at the other facilities identified above.
On July 17,1985, I,ac' knowledged receipt of Mr. Doherty's petition. I
,;; informed him that his petition would be treated under 10 C.F.R. f 2.206 ip of the Commission's regulations and that I would issue a decision within 9..
6 ' a reasonable amount of time. My decision in this matter follows. I have also considered in my decision the Response of the Arkansas Power and Light Co. dated September 10,1985. DISCUSSION The events which prompted the IE Notice occurred at Davis-Besse. On June 25.1981, CRDM C-7 failed to withdraw. It was found that a
*, . leaf spring which is used to hold an antirotation key for the central screw
, shaft in plice had broken. A piece of the spring became jammed in the 0
.' ' CRDM alter several cycles of raising and lowering and prevented the I IE Information Notice No. 85-38 " Loose Parts Obstruct Control Rod Dnve Mechanism," dated May 24.1985 (hereinafter referred to as the IE Notice).
1 34 o _ t , . . , l
~
r ... . ; , .-1 . V
'- \ ~ h n 9' N /q;. j .~ . Nf 6&g.p. .y. ? '::-::.4 g-Q ;. s a y.g. w ; . .g@g g;an a.c.g .mp a > .;
.. %e km ' ,q,. '-;
.! i DWW:.3Mp&kF. - r, } > > .' < ' .
...#O w[ '
- yf M t.
c/f;, 8 '
.M."Cid G Q ' .
~ ~ - >
, , _ _ _*?' 1 ,- s ,-
fg a q raising of the rod from the fully inserted position. It has since been dis-covered that the leaf spring can break if the antirotation key is not insert-ed in its slot and if all dimensional tolerances are stacked in the most ad-verse direction. In that circumstance, the tip of the spring wel hit the
. torque tube cap when the CRDM is fully withdrawn (see Enclosure). If
- - the leaf spring then breaks and if the right size of debris is generated,
- 4 < i.e., not too large or too small, either immediately or due to exercising the CRDM, then such a loose part can cause either improper functioning
^
of the CRDM, or prevent the rod from being inserted, or prevent the
[ rod from being withdrawn.
g On March 16,1985, CRDM E-3 at Davis Besse did not drop into the
, (l, core on demand. The rod was inserted using the roller nuts.2 It was dis-A.E covered that the cause of the failure to drop was the presence of a piece
, DT of a set screw from an inspection tool. In addition, it was discovered that i the leaf spring for CRDM E-3 had broken due to the mechanism de-
'Q scribed above and part of it was in the CRDM mechar; ism. The leaf
; spring part did not cause the failure of the CRDM to drop. It is evident l that a potential common-mode failure mechanism exists for B&W CRDMs if the antirotation keys are not properly placed in their slots in b-jf the lead screws.3 However, if the antirotation keys are positively verified Dj to be properly in place, there is no physical mechanism or procedure
] N which will displace the leaf springs and thus no common mode failure
~ ,% potential. All B&W plants now use a procedure for removal of CRDM
' .- 4 components which allows the springs to remain in place during disassem-bly or installation.
. t "," y A, in summary, the only identified cause ofleaf spring failure is improper 5.1 installation of the spring. There is no identified mechanism by which a
+'V . _.. properly installed spring will back out to the position where it could be broken. Therefore, a completed inspection of leaf spring installation ade-
,1 .
~ 4'"'7.$
1 M quately resolves this issue.
.Ae fd a m c', 2The control rod dnwe mechanisms at B&w plants all utihze a similar design. Essentially si consists of a R central screw shaft which does not rotate. A motonzed rotor mechanism with four roller nuts engages a
." 1$ 5 7
the shaft and. when this rotor mechamsm turns. the central screw shaft. to which the control rods are at-tached, is hfied or lowered for normal plant operation. In the event of a reactor scram, or if power is
,7_ *], a J : lost. the roller nuts, which are held m place against the central screw shaft by a magnetic clutch disen.
'3 .*.
%. j, 7.- Q gage from the central screw shaft and the control rod bundle drops by gravity into the core the system
_ %. ',,2 j;p'T
- y. is failsafe because loss of power disengages the magnetic clutch. In the accident scenanos, no credit is
'y' - * 'y
- taken for the abihty to lower the control rod mto the core agamst an opposms force by use of the roller
.. nuts. The ability of the roller nuts to disengage from the central screw shaft and thus cause the rod to
.r -
drop by gravity is the only safety.related function of the roller nut mechanism As demonstrated at Davis Besse. the roller nut mechanism is capable of being used to dnve the control rods mto the core agamst an opposmg force.
, 3 The mtroduction of a loose part mto the CRDM from a handlms tool as also occurred at Davis-Besse n is considered a unique occurrence and not a common-mode failure g
f'_ 35
~
% 1
~5 y .--.~7. -..,.....,,.--,---_.v- ._.....--.--.-,.~.-7-.
sl
;l
^
=
y
~7e;+%p%.m
- n. .qq.g W . ig pm.w G u:g . G-t . .m , ,y t. ..e y-
.. e . r;cv..,~.
r.plp. ps.; p.uv . uy a my
+ , f e s . ., m - 9: -u .
or4 w;?f GMg';t.-p': .o ? f o'.3, - n -3. (.;; : x Mq.
- .c&,. - +
[.&;Q.3,s
-- .. yf. .ls ,- >
jag ..w &',aJy D p
. :, 9,
]< Q'Q.:.
L ~
.a
"-' , ~. L* :-
x.. e n; ' N A
~
v.*. m.*V p .i --.-'.. d @,
*,. y .~. m,3 .'
.- n-
#, y:". ,s ; . ;;
e
, . mw ~ . . . - . . . ,< -
a... . ..w .r . 6'
- v. ~.g. .#
1 , se
- a.'t g
/ . . " J< '
.3 : -
. g, ,..ns .
i ,
~
-M D.; At Davis-Besse, Crystal River, Oconee 2, and Rancho Seco, the
- . ~, '
CRDM leaf springs were positively verified to be in place during recent (' .iJ- $ '.i. ^ outages. Oconee 3 will be entering an outage imminently and will verify
. ,~
; the position of its CRDM leaf springs during the outage. Oconee 1, TMI-1, and Arkansas will verify the position of their leaf springs at the
-2
. f.s . next refueling outage for each plant. This will take place within the next
. '.. / 6 and 10 months at Oconee I and Arkansas, respectively, and within
. M.. . about 6 months after startup at TMI-1. This is acceptable for the follow-y.
a.. s,F,$, \, ing reasons:
- ,Le 1 : ."? tf.4. f . W
- 1. Rod drop times have been verified to be within acceptable j . .
M..- limits for the plants which have not inspected leaf springs
; 3X ?- during recent outages. Thus, there is no present indication that l,
. . ' ' s'X . '. ..
CRDMs at these facilities would fail. f
- l' , , ,' ' _ "r . ? 2. By Technical Specifications, control rods which are not fully in-
,,- serted are exercised periodically during operation by moving
~
F
" each rod slightly (2 to 3%) to be sure that they respond to con-t < -
f g . .% ~ g. trol and are free to move. If any one control rod were to be i Of-t.~;, P ii found inoperable as the result of excessive friction or mechani-
. . w.y:W;m. . . . W.F , ?, : - cal interference, the plant would have to be shut down to hot
;; sw 4.$e,*9:9$
f
,w. . standby within 6 hours. In no case would a plant continue to Ly operate with even one control rod inoperable due to excessive
- 7. S.'E
. i w,c y . .e..
TW:p [ Q $574 - Z:g%g@g,,$ .. friction or mechanical interference.
- 3. The presence ofloose parts would likely give warning of poten-
- ' l .. ,. S M/ D .l '" tial interference during either rod drop tests, periodic rod
, w motion tests, er, for rods in the control group, during normal
- . .., i t 2, ..w/w:jyL@.;yW]g4qp.U 3 ; operation. Only a loose part of a very specific size can cause an
'- . e . terference. If the part is too large or too small, it will not .m-
> m
.. . \c z .; q% 'i N; ikr p g g D@e , terfere with dropping or insertion of the rods. If the part is too
( [ , , W:,M,(24 y.g large, it will remain above the roHer nuts and will not interfere a . bh.% with them disengaging. If the part is too small, it will drop to
.l ,
. o:.%.
;.:@q' ;q w d). . w the bottom of the CRDM tube and cause no interference. If
- .?w.
- W..'.W W~
. the part is of a size which might cause interference, it is likely
, l 's g's$ to slow down the drop time before causing the rod to jam. This
, J ^ ~ U7 will be detected during the testing prior to starting up in most
.J.g cases. Further, if the failure occurred during operation, it is l'
f FW[Mi;3gli; i likely that the mechanism would not function properly during l- 2 periodic rod motion tests or, for rods in the control group, , 1 <
.c', i'- ~W%-M}.Z A ] S 98 h, g'? eU during normal rod motion. If an inoperable rod is detected L . . m ..s
?- ;.gQCNW. . ' during operation, the plant is required to shut down. Though it
' t i
ly$9Mhl is theoretically possible for the fragment to lodge in the mecha- {
.3W nism in such a way that it would not interfere with normal op-
." .n a ,Gc, g.W;. .
t
;_ ; .w q.t.> s- ; , . eration yet would prevent the mechanism from untatching, a !
, . ,. : . r
. . ; m a .. t
' U: 2,, -l j
, i_ ,..
, f,2!w.; -
/
~ ~tw r Ts; 36 I. 4 [
[ .f ;~ ~
- s .f.y .
l i '. ?- t ! ~ . 4- ;.,:p , - - - . - = - ,.- - . - - - -
--i
, l ' '- *
,. 3 . . -.
y -
.m g g g.
- pi 1
$. NF 1 5.@);, M:.w. M Y
. O.
3 .,"w.F,N. 't . J
.~.
r-
.- m v ,. , .;w... : ~ms.
> y - 2, ;
,~, .,
,n * .Qe*(f. :' ,$. ,J,p;,g;,?~
. r w.. ..e. ,c.<
j
*r ,,.f'.- ., g - .e * -
.M(r.jQ, g.':
M >;
~9 :(8pgy&W, ; .:.@ 3GJJf;M
, ,a .,
m4p' z G;M; ' hk',
+
$x. 4 :2 ii
- x. . M,ummam g:p w3l.%, %mcGM.g..:x.y_,p.y an %..r.. ww.w... . , q t i i l i ,
t
\
1 1
. j careful analysis of the mechanism design shows this to be ex-
< l tremely unlikely.
With the procedural controls now in place to ensure proper positioning
-g . of the leaf springs, CRDMs which have been inspected and verified are ensured to operate properly. As for those plants operating now without Vj; - - having completed the inspection, the risk from short time operation is considered adequately low. First, from the rod drop test run at startup, there is a reasonable basis for believing the mechanism was not jammed j.7,. ,
. at that time. Second, periodic rod motion tests are likely to identify any
.y. , . . ., , . , , , ,
mechanism failure occurring since startup. Third, there is a general re-
~ ~ 'E C* quirement that all reactors be designed such that no fuel damage occurs
. for any scram event if the single most reactis : rM fails to insert. There-
,- " fore, in order for any damage of the core to un.c. at least two, and in
';- - most situations considerably more than two, rods must fail to insert.
Given the improbability of a mechanism failure occurring and not being detected by rod drop or rod motion tests, it is considered extraordinarily unlikely that, in the relatively short period of operation prior to the in-spection of the leaf springs, two rods would fail to drop or to be inserted
. into the core when required because of previously undetected failures.
Therefore, continued operation until the inspection of the leaf springs is acceptable. i I '~ CONCLUSION
~
For the reasons stated above, there is adequate assurance that
~
. '.? - z ( .
, ,. . - l ^ ' O .' ',
CRDMs at B&W facilities will operate properly when needed. Conse-i; ' , quently, initiation of show cause proceedings as requested by Petitioner is not appropriate. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. { 2.206 is denied. As provided in 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c), a
? copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commis-
- '~
.: , sion's review.
9
~ '
- I Harold R. Denton, Director
- .E -
Office of Nuclear Reactor
. E' # Regulation :
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 29th day of January 1986. 37 m-..r ,_ . q.-. _ ,,; , 7., 7
,-.7- -~..m. _.
1 . I
- .- m . .g ,
..% h
*' , #+ ' g, I
' .- S *d
*" 's
# ,',1,'. , , , , g-c.
.rg** '] ,j */, ( , , '] -'j? /
y
* ^ s , ,k_ ,- .
' f/.
'y#.];.M,
.-7 ,
Nvj. h s
* ['
t ,5 [M E o ;.; ).Y. ' s ., -
; {3 . .( .
,. f\
c.s+ (,.f ' , j;, [.1f ,s ';?.. ., :. .} t
'. r
*- , -,.-; e
[N j.', s ;e .? '
,N
( [,
'h.
[ + y .g' ._ ', . , , Y
).m 41.'y f.j
.e . ? *, - ., [N-, ,.E9' I - \' .
,. FW. . '.s* m.> * .- . . J h, .1 ;.
',a , , * *
..m9. . . ' - , ,,
' T 1 i ' , .
,',a1 -~," 'I,[f
?g '. * *;57E " .<T i I*M ,, .',,
- s
n , -:'p, .. . b- , , : ,'jSg
' 7.1 M
- j ,,[G.
if.5 ' y 'f p? Q.'.c.~
.g-l g
,t
* ,9).
'w ,d,l[,4 1,p e ' v '5'
-' +
s Oy .
.I,.. 4'- * .D
'a ,
c
+j '
.'b
~ 4h;-
#s
, pI ,'m ~ g # 4 ,t , .. ,
. -{ . . h. o.)*. , .
a . . , , ~ Q... ,%[ f
*d .?- *
, ,,- N w (J. ,,.:
/. '.' ' j . e ] . .j1C ,.i,'%'h,j,;.
< g.z. {,. {[g f,' h W Al ',gp. 7F,,,..; '
w '.-Qp;-}.O
, ), ; ,i. j d.e*,.,.
(, - , 8 4. g' j! g
.',j . .. O . m.
8,, ,
'_ .. g .,
'i,-
3., ; c u , ., - . ,,
".i."* O;t
.A w,tw,e i.. se *, .e- y , e >
J. ;.9 g- 3. y a a g' M r . ,.,
- i. y -;sy ,.. e < ,, *
- g, ass.h{,1
, [Q,[?;,93 ** M ., , '[.pI;;
A' , .
- >;:.".W % k:!w *;' ** .y
,,fep.
i ';' ' .
.. ; . fD
'? %o '. c.,-Q.t
;, ..:... My&2Q,L:
n , r w ,w; e'a ,;;. . ...%:.y,. :J:.jp'y
. gm.. ,
s . r + , . . , g ., s .
>* 4
**6 *g. ,
,ft / 4.. fr * .j *.Y...-
,a r'.
_. ~y ';'( '[*?f* .%>T - ' 4. '".* 9 'y. , .
,..-- 2
- _aJ '(Q i
1 i 4 t j t e POSTUL ATED , l INTERFERE NCE g-LEAF SPRING MOTOR TUBE i TORQUE TUBE CAP- ;r {
- N N N A N N % N N \\\ \ A rN N N N N N N N \
m i in i s s i s i i v / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / > t
'I / mn l_A N N N N X X X Nr V 'v '\' U t
T r// 7
//////////h\j ^ -C ANTPROTATION 8'EY A \ \ \
v/////)7. - 'WGJ - . i W , 1 _, j f f,. / / /. ;
- c. ;; _ _ _- ; _ _ _ _ _ _ _
mxxuxxxxxuy __ CD 3T C
.___}- j Q.
C Jr i Lxx -x.x x x x x x x x x v , _. g gimn umD7 7 7 7 7 77 7 7 7,1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7 __g/ m ,,L,,,, e.a
"" uf' / a x x sy g.
QC '
////fgffg UPWARD noveh8ENT ortreo s.w w
\ g l i
} .
_v. om/ // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / >. N \ \ A \ \ \. \ V \ \ \ \ \ M N \ \ \ \( i . [ LEAD SCREW[ TORQUE TUBE. TORQUE TAKER
!.0 $
b. ENCLOSURE 3 Cross-section of lead screw assembly with leaf spring in unlatched position. (NOTE: Interference of the ! T-leaf spring at the torque tube cap was the result of the antirotation key on the leaf spring not being ;' properly positioned in the slot on the lead screw.) i ' i N r.
. 6 k y .a . . .: ,
'- 3 , c. : .' , ' , ' ,; N ! ', .
- i. ,
il;'.Q..;$'J' 20~ R , ', ': < E ,.yj
.v . r , . .
,'5- . ; Q:,.t .,a- . .:.'.:. ,;J.:pg..f;dy" sjj.y?;.1J s s
,y
, g.
- 1.!
m ,ci . 5 y]?ff: dry, .g ;:.g., f < G;*. t p;yGj$_;.
.'a y:,- : ;:j7,, f :
g i. : ...ltj;.UU-
! ??:;, B <!
...-.l.~ .i. .a ' M ;;%y W &;EdM;;e :;u D; -Q?
.= _ . ...L -.. ~ % EN.id'A M'M U l
1 1 I Cite as 23 NRC 39 (1986) DD 86-1 d 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
..' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ - . OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION y , [:1
-c. . Darrell G. Eisenhut, Acting Director
/ : . ,.
<- .i, ,
'p In the Matter of Docket No. 50-352
.I (10 C.F.R. I 2.206)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Unit.1) January 21,1986 The Acting Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies petitions
, filed by Robert L. Anthony and Frank R. Romano which sought revoca-tion of certain exemptions from NRC regulations issued by the NRC Staff for operation of Limerick Generating Station. Unit 1. The petition-ers had not identified any safety or environmental information that g~ , would warrant a change in the Staff's previous conclusions regarding the exemptions.
s 1 1
, RULES OF PRACTICE: PETITIONS UNDER 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206 In the absence of an adequate factual basis for a petition or a nexus be-tween the issues raised in the petition and the request for relief, no action need be taken on a petition under 10 C.F.R. i 2.206. Matters
~
which are before the Board in a licensing proceeding are not the ap-
. propriate subject of a { 2.206 petition.
$ # +
- v, 6
39 F . .O j E] l l L
.%Ec W. ;.< S
,, ..t .:x -, -5
'<--% ^
s G,
,y- -
~ ,.
'. 3 e. - ? .,
- a. , . e . . .
,,- a . ,,[ , *
, . , w. . ,
e.
^
...-.__: , 2. ww.. .- .. ~. w . . . . :.~ . -u . ~ .-
3 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206 INTRODUCTION
- On July 26, 1985 Robert L. Anthony on behalf of himself and Friends of the Earth Gled with the Commission an " appeal" seeking Commission revocation of certain exemptions from NRC regulations
; , issued by the NRC Staff to the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo or the Licensee) for the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1. Mr. Anthony also appealed the NRC Stafi's determination, as set forth in the Staff's environmental assessment report dated June 27,1985, that an environ-
?~' mental impact statement was not required for these actions and that the T - actions will not have a signincant efTect on the quality of the human en-vironment. The Commission, by Order dated August 8,1985 (unpub-lished), noted that NRC regulations do not provide for an appeal from a
the issuance of exemptions and referred the matter to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for appropriate action. By letter dated
." ^ ; - .
August 30,1985, to Mr. Anthony, I acknowledged receipt of the petition SU,',Yr:Ih-] ; .pg . and informed him that it would be reviewed. The Staff has treated Mr. jNn;$N$19';' . :n Anthony's " appeal" as a request for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. T ,. 4l ..c. , { 2.206.
$$'zt.VQ[,Erw/rb5h.
65hN$ . On August 8,1985, Mr. Frank R. Romano, on behalf of himself and Air and Water Pollution Patrol (AWPP), filed a document with the
,Qcb , - m9 "t@w'wE D W ,v :~'
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board which also addresses the W: f . ' '
'QMd 93?Mr%n.%p. 7:
same subjects as Mr. Anthony's July 26, 1985 letter. By Order dated h$g / 2 f6 '. ' A
~
August 12, 1985 (unpublished), the Appea! Board referred Mr.
$'((${h!1(/JP.@h@i 'r NhQb Romano's comments to the OfGce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for ap-
. g& , g . RfAy' . .;-p;4 .
propriate action. In my acknowledgment letter to Mr. Anthony of
.N MQ J,g '~ ~ August 30,1985, I also noted that I would consider Mr. Romano's com-ments when responding to these matters. A notice was published in the hdW}#gg, (.('e kb'NI['.#. f- ' ' " .
. .' ~'
Tederal Register stating that Mr. Anthony's and Mr. Romano's requests were under consideration. See 50 Fed. Reg. 36,934 (Sept.10,1985). 4 Q :. V d.' e, ' My decision in this matter follows.
;$)g*MC,i. ' " t' -
g&p{. y @;9[s ,%v ,[? *- S
-8 DISCUSSION
. c- '
e,- '.., - 7 m. n;W) e -
% W: .
Petitioners seek the revocation of eight specinc exemptions from U2.M.' w . 3,q g _ NRC regulations that were granted with the issuance of the operating
, -%;m ~.c' : .%
' '. r+*
p' d , 6 g
. E ' FD . j
- ' Yh' ,
i;O;$'[:: 40 m,; 4 ;g , . .
- 1
- p. . _ _ ..,._ _ ... _ . _ _ _ . - - .~
g .s
- l. .
I . _ _ . _ . - - .
.s,: ,
Qy 9.;@f 691 j.q.;z.
.~ + z., s dM i
_ * ' Qg., a; fJ &k.G'1,iMM M ,
~
l l ~l l@O N 2 w: - L .g Q,4 ^Q? * ? Qi% jQ'? G . a- ____...u. 'x.__._'.... - _ I- W'ik.'-- - Z d h d me M.: r.J i l license' for the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1. Petitioners also dis-1 ,
~ agree that the NRC Staft's environmental assessment 2 of the effects of these exemptions is sulTicient and seek to have the NRC Staff prepare
,f .. , _
an environmental impact statement on these issues. . H' ; <! z,'?: The eight exemptions have previously been addressed at length in F?! s' , submittals by the Licensee, by the NRC Staff in the Safety Evaluation
'9 'l i_9. -
Report (SER) and Supplements (SSERs) thereto, and in the NRC f , , M~ Staff's environmental assessment mentioned above. All but one of them J[d
, ~ w.t,.
, ~ f n.
~~' -
were addressed in a previous Director's Decision) pursuant to f 2.206 in response to a petition by Mr. Anthony and others. A summary of the ex- [i~f y '- emptions is provided below:
, .'i -
A. An exemption from General Design Criterion (GDC) 61 for the standby gas treatment system would allow a delay until the
- - - $. first refueling outage for installation of the portion of the system serving the refueling floor area. The principal basis for the exemption was an absence ofirradiated fuelin the refueling zone area prior to the first refueling and the demonstrated leak-tight integrity of the Unit i secondary containment zone which interfaces with the refueling zone.
B. Further provisions for automatic containment isolation of the
- ' hydrogen recombiner lines, the reactor enclosure cooling water lines, and the drywell chilled water lines are allowed to q; '
be completed prior to completion of the first refueling outage, y This exemption from GDC 56 was based principally on the limited time of its effectiveness and the already existing fea-t q N. : _f, tures of the designs which provide isolation of these lines,
' {""'. C. An exemption from the requirements of GDC 19 for the
< ,' e s remote shutdown system would allow reliance on manual ac-tions in accordance with established procedures to control
~
three pumps in the redundant (backup) train of remote shut-down system equipment until completion of the first refueling outage. This exemption was based principally on the currently existing features of the design, which provide an interim alter-nate means of using both trains of the remote shutdown equip-ment if required, and the low probability of demand for use of 9 - <
~
[^' , 3 The initial operating hcense (License No. NPF 271 for Lamenck Unit I, restricted to 5% of rated power, was issued on october 26,1984. The current rull-power operating heense (Licenw No NPF.39),
, which supercedes the previously issued license. was issued en August 8,1985.
2 Letter, Walter R. Butler, NRC. to E.G Bauer, Jr., PFCo. -Noiice or Preparation of Environmental Assessment," dated June 27, 1985, and subsequently pubhued in the federal Rreister. 50 Fed Reg. 27,388 Uuly 2,1985) 2 Director's Decision Linder 10 C F R. t 2.206, DD.d5.II,22 NRC 149,153 58 (1985) The Commis. sion did not overturn the Director's Decision-l 41
..-..m...m._,. .__,._..._y., .
O A g
.J
y a, , . g
. )
' = ' -
-l -
,.,; ; a.
_ . ~ --. a - _1 2.2.z.. ..~ ..._._ ..- .._ - . _ .. ..:n.1
= .i.
the remote shutdown systems during the period of the exemp-
] tion.
3 D. The exemption from Appendix J for the containment airlock 1 'e .a testing allows substitution of an airlock door seal test for an air-lock chamber pressure test while the reactor is in a shutdown
.E or refueling mode. The exemption was based principally on the c ' ?. adequacy of other testing required by Appendix J and the Unit
..S 1 Technical Specifications which will ensure adequate contain-
[ W
'.$ ment leaktight integrity when required.
E. Exemptions from Appendix J for the main steam isolation v
' 5 valve (MSIV) leakage testing allow the test to be conducted on
'/ the specific Unit 1 MSIV design in a manner which produces
~
',g meaningful data. The exemption was based principally on facili-
. ; tating a meaningful test and on the conclusion that the conse-
- ,' quences of MSIV leakage at rates verified by testing in this manner have been acceptably analyzed and bounded in the Unit I safety analyses.
. F. The exemption from Appendix J for the traversing incore
*' probe guide tube shear valves allows reliance upon surveillance j" ,, d' provisions in lieu ofin-place testing of the explosively actuated
. .!,3, fj . , ' .c ? : .[ o g shear valves. The exemption was based principally on the ade-quacy of the surveillance measures as included in the Unit I
,j;.: n - .,q-2
- g. 3 y u .i., ,., ,
> d. , .5 z.'j . T.K:. Technical Specifications to provide assurance of containment isolability when required.
,. I [+ . '.
. -M.7, , _. .-2. ' E G. The exemption from Appendix J for the residual heat removal N
7.[MJ:hN6.< system relief valves allows the initial local leak rate test on
~
). ; $ F2l v.
c.
I. seven valves to be delayed until the first refueling outage. The principal bases for the exemption were several features of the d f'f. . . 7, d - d i/I . QR ,
- k. '
.l: design which provided reasonable assurance against undue valve leakage during the period of the exemption.
. ' 3
;jy/- f . ~ # - t H. The exemption from 10 C.F.R. { 50.44 for containment inert-ing allows the initial inerting of the containment to be post-
,e' '3f gc ; c; 4 .y ;. :
y' poned from 6 months after initial criticality until a later mile- [ [y , C:j[ j- stone associated with the progress of the initial power ascension
.,-: ' 'I test program (PATP). The bases for the exemption were the l '
provision of improved safety measures for personnel entering the containment during the PATP and maintenance of the l ~ ! same degree of protection against combustible gas inside con- ! tainment as otherwise required by j 50.44. i
't
.~.
l. l 1 42 i
3 ml [+5h ,' y [p$ ,
.v
., c, W - A ::p
.t, , . v
-.--- - h a m "4
,- u_ . ___._. - . _ . . . . _ . . _ _ . .
- 4 ;
i
)
1 i Petitioners' Challenge to the Bases for the Er"nptions Petitioners raise two central issues, the adequacy of the technical basis for the exemptions and whether an environmental impact statement
..r . ~ :c s a should have been prepared for the issuance of the exemptions. As noted
.a -#.N T _;n ~ above, the exemptions were previously addressed in the Licensee's sub-
- h '.)-
mittals and the Staff's SER, SSERs, environmental impact appraisals, fg sc, s'. E and the earlier i 2.206 decision on this subject. I shall respond here to 95 .-,- a .s . i. the brief comments of the petitioners on these issues. a
~
_ v b. :
~
; n f~
s
. 4.d Routine Releases Mr. Anthony states that the impact from routine releases due to these exemptions has been overlooked, and he makes reference to other docu-ments* in support of this allegation. The features of the plant design and operation which are the subject of these exemptions are provided to miti-gate the consequences of accidents. These features, as addressed by the exemption, are not employed in the day-to-day operation of the plant to control routine releases of effluents. No further basis for this allegation, other than reference to the two documents cited in note 4, is provided.
, , The other documents which Mr. Anthony references, were submitted to the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board and addressed the Licensee's
<y. ' -
semiannual ellluent release report and the ofTsite dose calculation i manual, including the method used to calculate doses at the site bounda-ries. None of these matters bears any cognizable significance to the sub-ject of the eight exemptions, and Mr. Anthony provides no information
- ,'};y to connect them. In the absence of a specific factual basis, I need take
-4 no further action with respect to Mr. Anthony's claims concerning rou-
/ '
J< ' tine releases.5 The matters raised in Mr. nthony's April 30th and July 2nd filings are still before the Appeal Board for its consideration and, therefore, no further action by me pursuant to { 2.206 is appropriate on these matters.* Accordingly I will not consider this issue further. 4 Robert L. Anthony. " Petition by Anthony / FOE to Reopen the Record on the Basis of New informa. s ' tion in Phila. Elec. Cols semi-Anaual Effluent Release Report. Feb 1985." Apnl 30,1985. before the r Atomic safety and Licensing Board; Robert L. Anthony. " Anthony / foe Bncf in Support of our Appeal of 6/7/85 from AsLB Mem. order of 6/4/84." July 2.1985. before the Atomic safety and Licensing Appeal Board. The Licensing Board denied the Apnl 30th petition in a Memorandum and - order dated June 4.1985 (unpublished). The Board's action was followed by the filing of an appeal and the supporting July 2.1985 bnef by Mr. Anthony. The Appeal Board has not yet rendered a decision on the appeal. 5 Srr P4dadelphar Drctre Co. (Limenck Generating station. Umts I and 27. DD-8213,16 NRC 2115. 2121 (1982)and cases there cited; ser also 00-8511 supro note 3. 22 NRC at 154. 6 Generet Public Urdirars .Yuctrar Corp (Three file Island Nuclear station. Units I and 2. oyster Creek Nuclear Generatmg stations, CLI-85-4. 21 NRC 561 (1985); Paci/ir Gas and Electer Co. (Diablo (Contmurd) 43 m ., . . . m ,, , E
.f j .
. ,I1
'h my: -
vu . 3
- --- a _ ~ . _ . . .w . .: . ~ . _ - . . . . . , ..:.e.. , =:,..__ wa e
Effect of Exemptions on Accident Analyses h Mr. Anthony makes several brief assertions regarding the effect of the exemptions on accident analyses. He argues that, with respect to the
' . -l7
',-~' standby gas treatment system (SGTS), a path is left open for the escape
. of radioactivity. However, this argument does not reflect the true cir-gj cumstances of the situation, namely that there will be no irradiated fuel
?2 in the refueling area during the period of the exemption. Thus, the ex-
.;., emption permits no increased risk to the public of radioactive release which would require mitigation by the SGTS.
~" g .
Mr. Anthony also asserts that waiting until the first refueling outage i
' to install the redundant isolation valves in the hydrogen recombiner lines that penetrate the primary containment would also contribute to
,? the risk ofleakage to the refueling floor. This suggestion that the isola-tion provisions are inadequate for these lines during the period of the ex-
- emption does not recognize the basis for the Staff's conclusions as pre-i sented in Supplement I to the Safety Evaluation Report (SSER). SSER f No. I included a discussion of the capability of the existing single isola-tion val e in each line, the closed nature of the recombiner and its 3 piping outside the containment boundary, the pressure and temperature i rating of the recombiner system components, and other aspects of the design which support granting the exemption until the first refueling outage. Mr. Anthony provides no further information beyond a mere as-sertion that the recombiner system, in its present design configuration, ~
" could contribute to leakage to the refueling floor. For the reasons dis-
-[ ,
cussed above there would be no increased risk, and thus, I see no basis 4J , to withdraw the exemption. The Petition also makes several brief unsupported assertions that the use of the interim measures to control equipment in the redundant train
I of remote shutdown equipment and the containment airlock testing pro-c j visions are not allowed by NRC regulations. The bases reviewed by the
- NRC Staff for the applicable exemptions are discussed at length in the j SER and in SSER No. 3.' Mr. Anthony provides no information regard-
- ing those bases to support his assertions and provides no information regarding why the requirements of the NRC regulations in 10 C.F.R.
50.12, which provides for the granting of exemptions, have not been
; met in these instances. In the absence of any specific factual basis for these assertions, they will not be considered further.8 -
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2). CLI.816.13 NRC 443. 4441198tt in all events the
- NRC stafr responded on May 28 and August 16.1985 ta the substance or Mr. \nthony's rilings in the
' operstmg hcense proceeding and concluded that they rail to raise any significant safety issue.
7See also D0-8511. supra note 3. 22 NRC at 154 57 8 DD 8213, supra note 5.16 N RC at 2121. and cases cited the em. 44 ese e , we - w--e. . - .e. v. . . ,.e -,- = . =
7
..i. :
;y, J.w; 4 e .
*L' *
., _ _ .a .___2. __- , _ . _ . . - __..at AY1 m j
- g. t t- ;
i , ,
- 3 Basis for the Environmental Assessment l h
'^ _. -, Both petitioners assert that there was no basis for issuing the exemp-
.L '
tions on the assumption of no environmental harm and that NRC must 1 i revoke the exemptions and require an environmental impact statement. j'; ' NRC regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 specify the nature of the envi-
'. c ronmental review, if any, that must be conducted for a given licensing l ,
.; or regulatory action. Under 10 C.F.R. f 51.21 all licensing and regulatory
- 37
~ ?' actions subject to Part 51 require an environmental assessment, except
- 'l- -
.~ those specincally identified in 10 C.F.R. f St.20(b) as requiring an envi-
' y'A
9- .. ronmental impact statement and those identified in 10 C.F.R. f St.22(c) as categorical exclusions. The requested exemptions for the Limerick [ U. , plant do not fall within the criteria for a required environmental impact statement under f St.20(b) and are not explicitly included under the categorical exclusions in f S t.22(c). Therefore, an environmental assess-
- ment of the exemptions was prepared to determine whether to prepare i
an environmental impact statement or to find no significant environmen-tal impact. l In assessing the appropriate action for the eight subject exemptions, I note that the characteristics of these actions are consistent with those characteristics of categorical exclusions for which no further environ-i
, J "
.; mental evaluation would be necessary. For example, all of the eight ex-c " '
emptions are expected to affect portions of the plant only within the re-T %. , stricted area, as defined in 10 C.F.R. Part 20, to involve no significant
'W '
hazards consideration, to involve no significant change in effluent ! 'f ', ~ a releases off site and to' involve no significant change in occupational radi-i' .] j.
^
/
ation exposure. See 10 C.F.R. f St.22(c)(9). Apart from Mr. Anthony's
, . assertion (rebutted above) that certain exemptions increase the risk of
' accidental releases, neither petitioner provides support for his disagree-t '
ment with the Staffs conclusions that the exemptions will have no sig-nificant impact on the human environment and that an environmental impact statement was not required.
- e Mr. Anthony also asserts that alternatives were not considered but provides no information regarding what alternatives he believes should l .
have been considered. Contrary to the assertion, alternatives to granting the exemption were considered. Relief from the specific requirements of ~ the regulations was granted in each case in conjunction with the finding that other features of the plant design or administrative actions would exist or would be required which would compensate substantially for the relief granted by the exemption. This approach provides a comparable j '
, level of protection of the public health and safety and results in an insig-nificant difference in the environmental impacts such that granting of 1
I
- 45 f
i
. _ . . . . . _ . .. . - - - - ~ . . .. -
i l t l 6
'.6 ,..:f ; .
- s. . ,
, 4
'k
' }_
' N )- , }_ ~ f e x.
, 7. .
_.. . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . . . . . . . _ , _ . . ,._ .. . . .._...w
]
'/ the exemptions under { 50.12 and the decision not to prepare an envi-
~- ronmental impact statement under Part 51 were appropriate. ,
- As noted in the environmental assessment, the principal alternative K. ,
would have been to deny the exemptions which, given the comparable 2 protection provided by the exemptions, would not have resulted in a sig-
,' nificantly greater level of safety over the life of the plant and would not have resulted in a signincant reduction in environmental impacts.
.I' Denial of the exemptions would have contributed to delays in comple-5 . tion and final readiness testing of systems according to the Licensee's as-sessment, would have resulted in some unnecessary testing require-('O_' {i ments, and would have increased the hazard to personnel entering the 2 containment during the startup test program. As noted in the environ-mental assessment, denial of the exemptions would have resulted in re-q 3 duced operational Dexibility and unwarranted delays in power ascension in view of the negligible environmental impacts engendered by the ex-emptions. Under ) 50.12, the Commission may give appropriate consid-
-1 eration to the efTect on the public interest of any delay from not granting an exemption, including power needs and delay costs to the applicant and to the consumer. In sum, the discussion in the environmental as-3 . sessment of the exemptions was appropriate to the circumstances, and no more detailed examination or balancing of alternatives was required.'
In his request Mr. Romano briefly mentions, without any particular nexus to the exemptions at issue, several issues previously raised and decided before the Licensing Board concerning asbestos and vinyl chlo-
< nde contamination of the Schuylkill River. This issue has been raised
] before the Licensing Board and was discussed by the Board in the operat-
,* ' ing license proceeding.l* No further action on my part with respect to
- this issue is appropriate here."
-i CONCLUSION I With respect to the bases for and the environmental evaluation of eight specinc exemptions issued with the operating license for the Lim-erick Generating Station, Unit 1, the petitioners have not identi0ed any
' Ser Duke Pv,cr Co. ( Amendment to Matenals License sNM 1773 - Transportation n( spent Fuel from oconee Nuclear station for storage at McGuire Nuclear station). ALAB-651.14 NRC 307,317 $
(198t h herrma E!rrrrar and rower Co. (Nonh Tnna Power station. Units I and 2). AL AR 584.11 NRC j , 451. 457 (1980). l l'" Memorandum and order Rejecting Late-Filed Contentions from foe and AWPP, Denying AWPP's second Request for Reconsideration of Asbestos Contention. Denyins AWPP's Motion to Add a PvC Contention and Commenting on an invalid Inference in Del- Aware's May 17.1984 Filing." August 24.1984 (urpublished). Il Three we Islami, CLi-85 4. supra note 6 I 46 l 1
s .
.,.: x.
w., - - , o s.. , ,
- c _ . . .x. w _. -. . a a.. . -.- . a a. . . = -~
1 I t information which warrants a change in the Staffs previous conclusions
- , % . regarding these matters. Accordingly, the petitioners' requests for
'Q action, which have been treated by the Staff pursuant to 2.206, are 4 denied. As provided in 10 C.F.R. f 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will JI!+ we be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review.
..nr*
x ,
'j .
r- .
-.
- iv-
, 3 ' '. .L.; ,
-7
. , ,3-. ,
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Acting Director
'fi.iig
' OfUce of Nuclear Reactor
. :e 6 Regulation t
+ g =..t
.i -s Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, J ' ~;
this 21st day of January 1986.
', ., j 9 b
- t E pw. 3' q ,1 1'/ .,.'d,! , , 7.'.JJ.*f'.-
5
.q ',, . y pf
, ". h_ ;-k ' 'i"
- 50
~
eq;
.:. g* , . .r?;: . . y;' :.
e . ;.a,~., . p. % . .';v t 't e,4 ' - >?. ,'. -4... 4 { c* m? ..< -;f . , i . p* ' , f)
, : % . .. ~f ",. . s .r ; . r. .
? */ .fh . . ? bh !
. *t .
, , , , '. f .. 's-I .- g I 4
- x~ .s t, 3 i; .4 ,
f; , . ;-
.a :r . o,, 7, s ;
l _$ 2 *
- 5. ~
k
.T '/[ i SE . '
- 1
'/ ' '(t 'J.. w 1
. ~
e -
. . r
~
... .- v. . . ,
m'a. f 1
. , ;.; \
' 4 , i
.t' v'
- W m
47 e #
- w. g em enWee e sie.us N +yr e * ,.ee--.eo ee-pi.e, 6,-*
,** .*- r P a .
*. b
.h
,_ m I
9 e
- e 4
I t f i i l f I l i l i r f 1 er Q' l il 1 i l i 1, r ---- y-w -- - , - - - - - -- +--- - r- - - - - - - - - - - - + w e - w --- * - - y- gr -, -+.-p -y--&v--}}