ML20149D839
| ML20149D839 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/31/1988 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V26-N01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V26-N1, NUDOCS 8802100037 | |
| Download: ML20149D839 (78) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NUREG-0750 Vol. 26, No.1 Pages 1-70
' 3 :;;r;;.- ::,
; g ;,
< - 9 ; ;.; .;;~ pygy myQ. .
.{Q?nw gll.
}. y;;~f ,J g'7y;, ;. ;M A; n; ',,:.1.1,9 : ~syg a.Wl ipj7 t , v-t d ' > l_Qg% *, l
,9 7, .g. . ; j .fg
.-..; m ; w e,:.. ~ a n e v r; a , " W . , r ,
/ R ';,q g ;+y -
, 2. , , * :g. 4n ;
- MMNUCLEARJREGOLATd~ M i MCDNiklisS @
am.w wlww'iTISSDAML
!:pq & 5 fn y*.;,p;.;;;;g;;,i:
g,. _G.y,;lplg'
.y f g % ;;f;. m& w w(e!)p o=.A~m
~ .h; a
_ .Y,r ( j;j ni
} ?glL,y'+.y ll';E U r~ j [y.. i,b] Qy;t.g k' ' '$ . ;"l
;Y b o; Q m.
y, ; <m
'a: %h y 4*?
,e sh k m'.I ghJ- .c
. . - 1 r.
} * [*J - I h;-: 1; [
LfjQfR{lQQy . Qy;p - 1.p;su w;b. e .- .gr . .. rey e
., t.
N ea). 19
~{v,.h
,N t.g.
4i) [;'.l', m w- +
- M%v :
W,:23'A -
.'. ~.1,'
Ml% D' C)y< ..w y ;;% 3
- i. "
y.;
- m. y ~ ~:1 z:
.hDL k-^h'i .ci.$, i;? ^ -
-w
%(m _.,
. c w; t o , p. , ,; -
g ?:> yg 2 n .
, -+, , 9 . v. .
.o (,-
fg,' .
., h % y j, ' g. %iy s ~
( 5 Yb k . 1 s ,- F4-hY$ ; 4'i s '-k hih )hf/.h,lhkN#V i b}& hbN n;
'*g 1, ,
wemwa b
> d . - ~ *, ,[hb .4 ) 'r, 4-N';
hhh +-
~
w' ,'
' J , .C C h
f .[.., ; 4;
. .Up. :'W1}'gi ,CQ: ' .QLQ M.% t{jyd yfg' +;fs,.q; g.Jy*s .,
? s v.
w..J:ip ; m -: a A c.. Q,. L/c -; .p;; f + tpg W- .. W.., ;3)pf @ , A;;4
- . : - *' i U.S. NUCLEAR REG ~ULATORY CO 8802100037 000131 PDR NUREG ppg 0750 R l
} .'s ,f Q._ , . ~ , ?- . . m *.= '
c z
.- ~ . . ;n
,b';','I.
, 7. .
N'.'~}j 4 t . .
., . 3- q N
~
NUREG 0750 ( ', ; - ::;n:- _, .~ ' - Vol. 26, No.1 1 Pages 170
. ,"
- Vj' f.*d..,'.'{ -
3 ',,s ,
. - ~ .: . .g '- '
G' :.J - - y .
+
4
, ./.:u ?
I
. . . *7s , (4 1 +: p . 6 ?" J.; .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY .v
.. m .>4 ; - >~e . COMMISSION ISSUANCES
, q. w.
. . Q. ,' "v, .Jy ? "-. u. u p's
. 6:; ?g .
', :,, . , . , , 4 0.;s J,',,'
a #
. .g . %. . g - ,T_y; .73 . ; , e.
s - ., ,. .
~
., . x , . .
; . .: 8 4%RM - ' 3;- .g.y; . . .
July 1987
..: n .- .-
4
,.,o.-
. . r, c.
.,F
+
g
~
t
, .- l j
..c, ;_
l. 1 This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal
-v Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and J the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
. : , \
~
3
. J.L: ' ; The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein I
., : '.'? c >{ are no',to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-
{ dent legal significance. t i
. .n 5 c. ,
, ~:. -..q .
o .
,.' 'N ' . s
~
y U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
,m
.x. . ,-
' ~
,10. , gp//)' f.h' ;.' +d.V.
- - o 4< _:. ,
ydN _-1 1 Prepared by the e* .'; . . . ' ; W '4C ,1, Division of Publications Services
.-L; gfjplpr/ - ' Office of Administration and Resources Management
~ ,fl..f 1l , -cly
.' ' .]' t
> W ??'i , - . . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissica
, ','~ ~
- "'.4.E; ~l '
Washington, DC 20555 (301/492-8925) ) s .
. . - S ,.
^
l
.* . 's A..._--,-,.......,--..---.,--.,,. . -.- -
- I
. r- ;
1 l l
'I
~ e l s . I p
.1 5 k e '
4Jr 't e
- - . - - . , . --h...,-..,-,.,-., --,,.n_.. ,..,,.,.,----l,,,,..,,-.
-,v,. s . . . , . , , -,- . , . - , .--.----,w----,---n- ~ , -
s t '). -p -. . - . r..g. .. . , , , , f..-.'......w'y*4p+pa
. i,. j' , [f ,y._ ^", e ,() j $
! J. . . . m.. g. ,',',h, m 4 *7, "fl S"y,Q .' h.%
s I j s., ~.,G
. - ,,4
, >,' . i ~ v .se, ** :
.~.
l
.- . 1
.,3,. .
g
'. +r ,) * ...
- _ ....*m.
s b, [* [, [ (m-i.
- y. > =
> . . ' ^ . ,
'f j
, . l*_. .? .n W *.c i c ,I .r .'.
.,. ,' , .1 ? ? ds I5 ' ( - ' .:
m
)
- c. . + s , u , w. . - . ,
..,.-.r's.,...s.,,
-n,.y~.... .,. a. _e,, c...~.n.,.,-
.. . ..y .c.
.,, . , .# . ,. .x ,. ,-. .
--. - u3 ( ~, s g..* ' . '. *
+ ~ , , , n . :. r
- m. . y~. . . . ._ w. ,
mn.w.. m-..
. n.s . . . . .. . , n. . w.
m-
.. .o. , .
n_..,.,s . ,. .......c....,,...o...... c . s. .m ,. .,.. ~ w p ; a...,,nn ., ,~.. _.g. -.
. +
n,,,. . _e..,.,. - .
. p, .+* .
. .c a e, f 9 g ,, . , *'. 3'? .,.'
=,*
- . . . . , , . . c. . n. . . ". ..
.s.. , . . < . , . ; .t>, ,
- m. .tt%. .,, u.9; >4 . . ,
. s,,.-
z.'A. JA. /.N.,,Me6, TC.e9wWl ,. . . COMMISSIONERS
. _(m~ n. v2.v. . *f4
. x: . . .
y
.,* p . -
-[!P'gj?. : . .. ;.vMc%:.M.M.my. . .-t .EC,. . e a , Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman We-.c><M W w o Y,1.. . .- i. g .MJM w r Me- O Thomas M. Roberts Q g:
- T M e.:1 Frederick M. Bemthal n . ;. m.wp., . . e..- .,
A. 'W,L.y;rg'Nd,6.. qm .#,ri m A,Pl wi t.g # Kenneth M. Carr
. . , m. r #. 3. . ,
d, . v. % d ,. f..,. y, u, . b f y .,, ' ,, m.. 3. . Q*p.! .'h.,.
-.' % ~ , ;.- . g . .v. m m~- . .
u . .~ e . . p : s. w. A.s,.
, , ,o.,.
. . < .. . . . : . ,..rn, s , , , . ,. f..;e. .:s
,. .4 . f.
. m., .,:~,g. ,
e.
, - s.
s. a . . . ,s . n. t. , . ,.:. _ ~,u .os, . . s
- n. . , . m . - ..x...
- . m, v.-.-.,~
.+ s,'.._..
. ., .. .3 : :. . ..
. , ,.: . .. . ...,:. ,..~ , ~,
..c. . ,. ~., . ,
... . . .- . -.s. _. . u. ,.
. -.... .n
- m. m. . . , , .
=a. . . . -.<> s .
.?
, t..
;m.. r neyv.
e<. .
.x .
; }' - . + -
. . -_ ,m._ :
- . f. : < ,
..e
. . .y . . n.
. ,sa, s
". ,4
.- , .$ h .
. . . . ..m ; ,. :
w.
,~
.a , .e .
_ 'y% Q ' 4 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Uconsing Appool Panel
@J B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel t \ "&
g
+
^k, w' t ip .i s * , m .4,=% _ .
A
,,.(**-. *
- J.
,} .
,,$ ,,,sI %. . ..
'. A, so ~ ' I . ,r n ' .%
c .",'a'.= <
, . , - .. ..?.. .i< ,
, 'V ** ;, , , ' '.~ ' . 3
'y*
... ni , '-
s
*J M'* -k*
s 4 ,'%.N v. ' $ *4 Q *. t *
'wl
~
>a f- ,+yy l
'.1' 'wh. '.,,N.t ,.4N;p.-- j
, i #
.s,,
u %d'.
.v.4 ct
.J ., . .ro- -
s , I
- I
.f f.# , %
.i.%-
.A... W.. .p' (, . .. , . r-
- V.'1.
* . -y, - .gv .,P. u3.' <
-- *y%q ,. .s ..* r .- < -
. . ; y .h. ..'., *. .;;..'fm.y ,. ,*b, ,Ay:e:~.? ty..- .P, f j n.- W.w / .X;.'. - :s . 4, .
J
' '} [l,3 : , * { ^k. ' L ~* 1, ? t } .,' 2.' .* $,. yk..,9' t
. ~
, e
,5, * '% ,..e. , -;r. .. .i'1.y> ' N.f.
+
e # ., a'k^,g,se d. . *
.Q f*%r*% %uT*? . y -?',' ,
..,.[.' n -.'rl>-
4:e ' ., a",4
~
d y,$**a.N;s - 5 57 0 7..' 'A.=,O.<**.. %.,.,%*. n . , .o 3.V.-
, f .s > .i ... - ,r-%. ~s
- g u,+ ,s 6 .,-s t ,
e g W..
.L..'. #
'c;
. s s:'...*z n. [,3J'f-
-*e 5
P, .# (6 $,.**.-
, .,/,t-
,(,* ~
E'*- b * * *
. .- o, 4 , gr.'"..* .s ss .- .s s ,
L./.,,,'^,
..~ s P =N k' Sg .,+ * * %,k.. .g
* *p f ' k-.-C, [ ,y s8
-3 _ q '. ,e ,p*
, ^
4 *~, ?* g'* Ji ,F s n .
.w., r -.,ne-ws- w m , ~ , . - e . -~
. . , - , - -. .e.~ ew -y - s ~-nm e - - . v.. .* .- -- ~ . , _ -
** - ~+
Ms , c +r l
, .f., j
)
5
- g
- .- = ,
L,. . 4 e .a i
. i 4s g .
t . g
. i A
s' g ,l 9_~ h.b*O e J 0
% , a 4
(* 4 9-
, .1
- a. *
- I
(-
- _., g.- Q - * "'
*. , . , - * , i-- t <
.;'L; . , n . ,
j a
- e. , v..
4 . , ,
+
, s. c .i. , . . ,
"j -4* s 4
)' [, .
s9 k 9 . .
,t , e. ia
,9 -. ' $ ,( ,- e .j -P .g- ,
t"
. * < . 1 . g. A f
q., .. 3 ( t
. { ., - e >*. -
' uM.m~<. ;f. aJ.*. '..we,w(: .j
, s . ; G * ?. ~!:rs
.. ..m. s e
- - - - g. .a . x'n
' ,.~.g , 2f.
,v ,' . ., , s'
. g
' ..'.i. s .l .. . . , ~ ' '. 5 7 , : - C. .'I .' ;i l
.: : ' O ;3
". J
+ 1 a
401. .
~. .;. J. ,e;c s,
Mc- - A CONTENTS
.. .c~, :s, 3.;
s,
.s~. a w . ..s. o..,s.
4 . 9.. .s. 4. ,,JU: f- . ,' Issuances of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
. ; u.
- v. . - , ,. .x. . - o l
,4.2.w yfy i
.. ~.n. !.~Qi . . j k. _ f:@ / ' .
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY m, . r : ", .7: s g. ,.- ,
;.~;,..m -. . /s,J. ,
- , (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
~.s c .f v. . . .v ', . .. .c . _ '.. sQ Dockets 50-456-OL,50-457-OL i
,' ;p. M c. . _ '.. ORDER, CLI 87-7, June 30,1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
. *p**
- . *lt .rs . +.f*^ .y s, . :* w:-
. .-t.
Q,.*.. :. , , n,. ; ,, il ,,5 .,j HOUSTON LIGHTINO AND POWER COMPANY, et al.
,gPQQ, v.u. , mie.n
, " .jfA,.9.@;g/f -~ : : (South Texas Project. Units 1 and 2)
/ f Dockets 50-498-OL,50-499-OL r<4Eit.Bh.M~
N M f8 M <IIMp, ... ..' 5[k - . e . , us# Jh@w, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, CLI.87-8, July 15,1987 .. . ........ 6 w- .
.,,9Gynt;r p n . ; m ..'.r ,a.._Y. ... %m.,:...,e y.:. ofc.c w s,;: a' .:..
)
g.-: Ny., r .n 3., m..p. .w:e p yg '~ ,;q
, . . .. .u./q: g q.2 H y&nw a.. M. ' ...-. c Issuance of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
% T.,4.u:n;..qcs.g .p..V u .O s., jf '23f ; ,..R Y,.'%. QMAc. VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORAT10N
. .g . - yy.2.7. ' -. v.y,.y.. ., . %,x,'. ,. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Stadon)
-. . ;.7;fJ;,ci 1 - , . . Docket 50 271-OLA (Spent Wel Pool Amendment)
; y e cp . ,. . 7 , "'. . DECISION, ALAB 869, July 21,1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
......~.-;.c..,. . ; n.. . :. .
a s .'
*.,,1 .
. rg ' , ,
S'- .-
-1 '. - , > N} Issuance of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j
-m C'^
, .q.. ,,.,~p .J a '
'.. t . v s . -
J: .- COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
'.'D. '
i . 4; q ..,[V; .l.iq...' (Braidwood Nuclesr Power Station, Units 1 and 2) ; f f >: t.<f.y;; ;. . ;. ). Dockets 50-456-OL,50-457 OL (ASLBP N9. 79-410-03-OL)
, ", . MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-87 22, July 6,1987 . . . . . . . . . 41
. . (, .u:~ \.: .,. a' ; ."'.p. .qp, . ;;,-
8 .t _. _ i
; y, , , *'& , ei !
,. ' ' ' , 'M ?.fr Issuances of Directors' Decisions '
,Q# '
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK. INC.
, , , . , (Indian Point. Unit 2)
L ,; J d S ,M ' . Docket 50 247 1
. :. /1 i7 . .' ? O.
, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206,
-v . ,. m. ., . J'p. DD-8713, July 20,1987 .................................. 53
,e . .
.s .,
-im-7*i',
.s.
'*,,w .,
. g 'f- .. h.
... a. ., v.
e
', .' 4 , _ - . .
,(
e 4 '.v'. 'u- . m#; gg v.'. 4.s 9' g,GM .
.. q ,; _*J. . -j
*j s.
~ ,
N h).'[,)ch.; (./) ffj? - w-c4 c.; ',. : ...f
- n. ?. m n--
c .a..- .: o+,; -l;
.. 4 o.
w .% a..,,<Q(;
,.~ y-
"d',[..' G N '** I.d i
'e..
. 'U F h ' " ;
lN.; . "
- T 4
- Y. s(Es f..l r;.
.. : D Y ,f.l-. .= t :
iu m* 'w' . '. ,.:. t-)
.h,
> , . m.w.
,. , ' T;' $'.% -: '.h, 'y . : %.,- l - ,
.*- s u
e $( . . ,
' . [ , ,]. ,,7. vi f . .?"
. . 4 4 .r -
.'vfr
-g 9 ,
'a; 't . y p ,i #
,4 N , ,
T rl.' _n y , l+.. , ,1, p 'u ' *l** 8 . . . 1
' w e.m
. e , s .e . e .. e . -e . e , . ., mm ee r e .= e g < e. -. e e,e . e~ -~*,~.v. ~- - , m .
1 .*. *
. : e -: ,
.a
-{ w ,
= -
pr a
- 1 a > e -
.~i,~
.r s y ., *. s '
, , ,p . .
.ru~. ; + .. . ,
,' if :t+, --', 4" .
d
,a
* . *A
?;.t '3 , i C ? .,
. y p' +. s'.t y l .v :
. j
s p.y.9.t,w p,4.gir~; -.
%n%.~,%:nn & y;g
- A m .c,a.
!.s.,a:g g&_n s c:,. . w.. .~ q.
- 3. r cp. q. u~.. L.'. ,-
;1, e oe v.+. .an< s, . , n. . z * .v. e w, j <s r. vy tr ,
- v. *f' %. . . - . c.f. '
l [*'nas*. . *..'.
- ffCr .n. vy%.
". '. , . n .n, m.a
* ^
u_ ;) , "' J n :.m
,' i .. . . ~ . - t<
w;.: sw. . w M .NmM. M-l. , .M S,(. M % M..e<>.f. .y ELECTRIC COMPANY GENERAL S5 (Puncture Analysis of Model GE-700 Shipping Cask) N : M @S: [.;.B@m . M P:. y&%... :@?,' 4, Docket 715942
.,M.~. V : M.. : p n w . e ,
7 WA'3ypig.-( DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER IC C.F.R. 6 2.206,
. .w 3 e
.w .:.. . ec.w w w .,
4,... DD.87,12. July 6,1987 ..................................... 45
.,,a. ..
. . _ ~.
u u. ..a.a-.m,~~ :c. . ..m.
~
. :e,.#, y. u . w. ~m,y .. ,a. m w . m. .v. . s,w c ;.u.n,e. ..
. %w,.~n.. n. m. .. < ..
3p. , 3 g.e y,mqa POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STAE OF NEW YORK e.-
.- . . . . ~ .
(Indian Point, Unit 3) i Y n,% .y.g ,[Wi ..?, UMMljb.%NENDbbM. ff.1. _ .usOS. Docket 50 286
..g rA. %.. .
e v DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206, j
.p.wyo, ..u..ys a. v.n , 5,e. o.
DD.8713, July 20,1987 .................................... 53 J q r r~.,; W: v% W yn r;;,.w ~m. ': ; . ~,;dy,5,s. : j
. 4. , s r -4 U Cr i
%.3 [r. O;'{*Q.~l}W(&'& p f.:y*,
.y R. n.r.&y . ms
,J. M -- h %.A qw.. l . y.,l* ]*q
- 6 .Kh ..: *- c6
.,.,, .M,..M, s .. 1W J s . >_. . &@y*;[y:Q"g l ~
l j t
*44v
,, 7 W<-W** .], . p -
s y f3.w u, ..- N.9. ,(1.@p %:. . m g ,~.
.,.h..
g , .,. J., . 4,
.A . . . . +
- c. - ~ .v g ,'..a *
. .3 M.,
my.A.e.,.o.*.-v,p >,3 . . s.J y, y. t,,v .g.j '.L* / E n,w A. g, '.j,., - -J -4;
- p y. s.f.Qc.g g.w._,-f.
.c p S. 4.-M.',i e . p,n .i
. :. i. .m c* ),.l-
- g A1.
--t'*.- i;m CG':r';E* . ) . . r :~ . '.G*h" t:r ~. * * -
. Jan ; ,'t-y Q'& $.p*I'}
.,n. ~ 4 . . q ~ .({*/K . j,..a
. .j .'
. g ,'. r , &y;q*
+ , y.,..,
'p v
,, .' *:".'.,y*
,,,493 . V (' -
1
-. '., : s *'g6 A- j ,,.5 , - . . .. . . , , , . , ,
N. 1
$ y* ..w '
*n :.f., s 4
.3 .D,.,,.. '-
-? : ='[
.l v; : t
- l
.ov. ,. ,' c. .?.s:y. .r c . s .-
+
.u,m.p.,*s ;e
, r1e
'.s4,,.- .* +4 e s e,, 4a. )
% =
% . 4W T f me *# * *',$'" }.*
*1..n.,.-' * . , j .O ,t4y.'
j , sn-
- .;.. , . . N ?. ., .:.,
' , , s ' *..jp' *.; p,
[. j
.4. se , g .. - -.,. . s *u t if ' g .y:c.p. yo l 4
., g . O, 1
, * ,- 's . .-.. t,ug -.y. %. .. .-
. 6 e.-
I. .# .". -
.(; '- . * % *
, O3 i,, 9
. .., ? ,; ) * <- . . .
T -.t, j. 8 ' . ,_ .
- y. . wb t. c,. .*'
( q ~e . " > m ...,e y [4., -: , -
' . .I . t s, y , , 7 . .
a ;,Ak *
** p.-: j . .,
5
,.J*'*.h.,.'c-n, l
~
' *D ,.s,.
8
%. 1 y* $ 9
, e( - FT,'- , , n$ r..'nh,,-'a w
gg h.. .
$'p,*,'6. '.g'."y',
-.e, t a .4_, .,s.%,-
. g
..6 ; % *m: + y
' ~ --
, a
..g- t.- ,- e .::: e W
~ .
m s
,* g 6 z, ' . , - s . j p ," , . u. p: , : '
- - 4 ^, , -
- g. 4
,, C . .
^ t.
v 4 ;4 O. e / ' l
+
.~ '>v,.Q:t
. ~
,aA, 6is.*' '"
w.; ..*.*- .' l
,,gb hS wI g l
- va *,t~te.,i aff ; .M',.;t.
4
- 3. . v. ' i. A3 , 7 4 7 p;y ,. .
i
,. , '*. . , . . 9 * ,- ',N 2c.. . - "6,
[4 - 6 . t*. .,~.1 r :. , .
?. 2. ( m8Q*
.e, .rs . . u .
c s...ed.* e
-.*t
' * -" .p,
(' - a*ts ?, A. l> * *
).,, .g P *'4.y#
- 1, .- g', .- ' - [ s
- I i ,- i ! 1 ". 3. m-#.,,g.*
.o - * '
- .3.;*
- g 7"(- %= "h, .4 i . ... .f ' , ,
-;t 4. *
- m , a- g Y . 3 , j s, g* s-7 i ASO m'e- ,' + ".
% ~m ,-*z5 .,~. mfi ,
W,'" -
.:- '. %l. Q , & } . ;O w C>w~ ,W-(BMl&T,CL -
t MM %.' k ~w=.
'? '
o. 2
?" .e T 4 'p<.h,.g . ds*pF y,r.> 1...w u
W A a &w
'.,.,I \ '4T kN h jvM t .,^[T -
q '[, @e .,y_'. f
* ]! j *.*sp?"; yk.g' h s c *
~-, ,v s *, 4 *n. w - J.g <t = i :.
- s,o. .m A., 4, h, 2 4,.
;"? Y S * *q* f. 'l*;h,, s , .
.4~' '
j q':f.
< w. , ~. ~> *
*l wa.: < w.
.y ., - :,t u . G s...~-.. , .,y 9. -.
Q* %-,..W.,* .mq ..%s &.;,q; g y.,;c, , o ,. va+ s. . t
.f W. TW
=**4 * / [4 s ,, w s
.- ' , s w,n,
't [ %'g @; 4
? '.# ,,. .
. .# N> r i hE; ',P ) * ? [6 1."' ""\" = N ^[ '
. / ,, ,. ' 'l. ,.-s ,~ .,e . :.YA. .r. e. A. . , .a :-
!y-# ( . . .'. ~
n
.% & I g %
[, P ,4a*, ,,9 [
." r . 4. *d
. ep *I"
a . . y[ < 4 - 7.s'# 4 ,.y.,..*
.J'.'a l+,y4
% % 4..
5
'.*4
,.-.e-.=- ,
7-7 3 u,, . _ .. mm ,,,, ,
% r .
' * # S$ %9 g Z . %
,,g~~ .,
g # *' I g 8 ' 3
,#'*, k..,, ,'
g ' % i
- q ,. ,
., , w
~ * , ,~-
# * ~ a- g
+4 ,
.< ~
'. i ., = - '+-'.a_. , %- < ;-. ,! .
s
'. , *. 'l , s 2 %
g 4 p * *] 4 4 4
* # 4 a'
~
( 4 5 ".
* '.t. !
* + * -
,s .%.' 5 . . 1 ,
p+g ,
. ~ .
, e ,ij 4 .t,>
a 1 .. s'g n , 4 ~
,.4 i
i i
- t. .e. .i m
n_.. .-- .
.5 -
~ '
#,. e.
- L7 > 1
, . - = , - - m' g:. , +,j' , , *n ,
-,(
- n. _ ,
*.s $v$
- y ' , , ?, - ,Q . ' y y ; .' 3 . ', . , 1., a ,, .
-.c;*. J'"s+
h* *
- y ., _ , . .> .
- v, ,.. n% o.,,, T l s % ., '. .. - .
.,.p . a 3sc . .,. .
1 r - .
. e> i ~ . .. .a -7+
4,6. 3i,e . . , .,, '*. .:.
,, . i .
* '< , . , > g m .rs ..
k 8
,..+-< 4 y
-s <. .
t-
.<: , x , . , ,) {c.r
. . . ... y :
r s
-x ;a.3 e >
- 3. - . -, a. s aa rs .. . , ,..
. s, c., -
c . .,4 g P g_ = = a j
. .v .,.
.,=
7 i a a2 ( , -
- t
* -l
. : 4, 2.m - :. -; .- . . ,q -- : */ .
.1 COmmlSSIOn .
~ s 3 lSSuanCOS n, -
s- s-. .y
. t. s- ,.e. i. s.
.< r, .- ',-
44
, . 4 e.. . . . ,
...3. .
- -2 g o. m 5 p g *
- y' ( , }7* . . k4 -
5 .#- I b,
- b. , ^^ 6
..\ _
_$ c
#a,N,, -
~s ay4 --
a h* 3 , L
.Y..**>* t ,
.; -- 's
. * * , ? i , .a
. % #. sg.- i. r";2{, ;:..'<.%
. z .~, ,
m--,e "P ,*.%,.- ,
,PM ge
*a ,e e g,s hp',,
,br f ,.y . E b,
.. w' p5.a(,%,? g
,,*,,pgq 4 *g . ' ,
s T , . . F . y t , ,, ..(...s., ,a-
* , i - ,, ,. , f 'e.' , E. ,f". ,
*, a 4- .
4, s', 9 ,, - [y,- - 8_ . -
. I g kk*, ,'. e
*=-'e,
._}
.Of, 4 -
+
,*g, t"-
** *# . 5 a .a 6
-. , 4 u' am
( s,.l o ,- '
-+
. b
~ ' a t
-I) ' ,
..{. ,' k b e f f
s j
-i i c .>
I i m W 9 ** - , 2 9 A g
- f a,
*-*g,4-4 4 s
, .e<.@ .
1
. 1 I
e 4 ev
%%* s %
0 e a . ! s t g
% m.M ,
f g - d .
'e 4
a 4 o e
, e ,
' . .,- .**s,,,. g ,
g - @4
,> m . ::, .*1
- e
. bo.'.
- s -- . ,.m i , ; -
- ;i . c. i. +; $;,;..
- s -
- ,.' =*'.. * -, . ,
#, _ i * ,* .*-.,y, -
.g
*rs, ,
,a dy.
- Q %. .
4,
-y'
.-;s . . ~ rM 'i.;
- s. g ' . . -es,-
*?**
s a ,s
)
. . e a '
ar - . .g , . . U ," ; ,I * . O,
.'4.',\f.%D , , . . -
1 e *, ; , 4 4g *e ,*
.
- Iw-'% , ,*+
s - - P 4
, ._,.n. .<se-o w --.--e n - , -~~. -. -.-=s -
~~~z,. n e w ~-~ . - * -*_ - - -
4 e-
.% a e
w 4 o I 9 r 4 %
>f. 6 a
)) . .a
. ~ . . . . % .. .... d,.
r c.i ,. , m. , ,. 6 4.w;m.8,9, f(p
'~ E.J w's. p;, r. pm.m, ,1 t* pl1e, f , . Y. , .
s, .44; 7 s L ; ; Z,M
- f. r*..s.v , ,s .n- sv o
o,,.: , f &y,, s - ,.; .V,?_ ;s' L' 'c- -.:. g .; .
..w7. . t. a : .y . : y .c 3., ,
,j.. ;r. .* a..,. .v:j . ,rf, ,. .y'. s .a ,,, ,
.N. cQE, .% , ;;.3 .,
n ,~p, . 3 y 7,s .- i +. Cite as 26 NRC 1 (1987) CLl 87 7 a.y c, g.x,r m, v,' m 1 m, , : na, $.1
+ , - -
(* r'/ N f',O- ., 'l - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t- NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION
y;fa. . J. . m. 3.
;6 n , ' ; g. . c. t . J...f.-.L -. . . .
~T,.;,,tp;
. ..; ;y
, ,. f. d',[ p g.g y *
. 7, , , a s e, 4. ; s,. . e ,
ve: COMMISSIONERS: , me'o W, .p : -.'.d: 1 ,;3 # .' ~ :. .. -
. hffy O,' , rKW i,f Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
- A'g!,1/D. b. ,.J.W F,.1. i. .v. .
> .. .. . s Thomas M. Roberts
. q- m. u. t m.,. ...7.,..., James K..Asselstine
. . 3 m. .
..g. s. - .
1 t Tid: AM'Esgs/ M,J3'O'W' f" Frederlek M. Bernthal q t ....: y ,.' dim'iWk Kenneth M. Carr 5'd;$m,,*h.9
- m. _ . . ;y . ..
~%.pw g%:y, ...
2.5 s.
,.o^'c9.'3.e.q; , V'A. .
%./y,,g,;u.)b y, , , .. s .y
-r unG,g,;J.=.2 3ev u&M In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-456-OL
., . e. - e m
. ,-; W = m . w h -' .y, ;,,ig y ,' , . - s .
50 457 OL
, b ;% . c hh c %. . , ' '
l
* '; . i,
,' ;V, . . . .', - ,~,. COMMONWEALTH EDISON
- P. ' '. ,,
'Ji zg .d COMPANY
-,. ,- ;; 1 J- .. s g; (Braldwood Nuclear Power Station,
, ~
~ ~ ^
. :. M '. n,;. . ? Units 1 and 2) June 30,1987
.9c . ,
f p % 6
~ 1 4 The Commission conducts a review under 10 C.F.R. 62.761(f) to determine c 5 , C,$! ' 4 if the effectiveness of two Licensing Board decisions that resolved all contested
. . . . ~ , ' ' '.W .' + : . issues in the proceeding in favor of Applicant and that authorized the issuance of
'. c * ,
."o' . full power operating licenses should be stayed. The Commission concludes that l
'- u .u '
.- no safety reasons exist for staying the effectiveness of the Board's decisions, and
- ] \ ,.;k..
that the decisioa authorizing issuance of full pover operating licenses should
'jf. , , become effective, pending completion of the agency's adjudica'.ary appellate
~
i
+ ' process. '
-l
-n, . .
. - , $ ; .1
- m. ,e - ' q, . ' l CIVIL PENALTIES: ASSESSMENT (AUTHORITY)
- n. .
l' ~ c ..
' ~
.E Unicss assigned by the Commission to hear cases under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.205,11 d [_. j censing boards have no authority independently to impose civil penalties. Metro.
^
politan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-82 31,16
. . , [',' NRC 1236,1238 39 (1982).
- , a.
.~4%*
a2 n .,_4u ,.
- n . ... M' -
; l v 1,, ! '* (-h - * - . '. ,!fg,O, .'
~'.7 ,f'"%y;h N.. ,
)
' ', ' ^
Y:'J ? s [ - ,'l ,W[ '6 ,
'- Ifi ' ' ' ,_J v,',' p,.
G.M> .ip= ,h,
, s
*24 p.
N',$e% s-j
\
s .t s_
*'g- f. #)~,,"' g ,] v q ut.
1.,.,,; _ . % *[..y. ,
,. i s ,' ' 7, ',1. E; #.' g i. . $ ,
'i.i'R'. j r ., ...
, .Wa s l
h w { j.s
- a 1._.
j j' ,_, - _ _ . , r.,-.,.~...-y-~ 4 *f . w g ', I *.
.. s
- a. ,q g, g
% J
% 1 4
' .,.i
* - y 3
' -. ,,5' - ,
, e
. y ~
,* . s
, .W
's,
, e.c ,
- 7,, .
"4
..- - w-..
',,..'~,}'- _
Mj. pd_
a.. . . . . -- -- a %we - u . m. i
;. ji N d *, j
'i'd. '; J **, S. y t g;<~ n, . .w . . a 'w' J h [ e v ,
.. v. c.s-: nc , s .
.~ ;;1.x p ., .; 2.g. , . ' , v> . .
~,. .
~.
' y.c 'O.;.ggg y! ; 1 g' 3 ' /, NRC: HEALTl! AND SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES
.yf d @ ; ,:. %n.?~~
tp g '.TEP, ' . i In its immediate effectiveness review of a board decision, the Commission. l c - (:[^.,JI D.( ? . * [c . N / having responsibility for public health and safety, will consider a safety issue ) i 9 discussed by the board, even though the issue was not properly before the board. P. g,6$w, ,,, p< v#; y . 1,s., e x. v n -- . n ~ l y>.;, 3~ . .J Y '. T ' ORDER
.. 9.- '; , ,- g ,
~
e.- .y.. l ms
. ' , . Z i'1,"':&
.s; , X.] ~ ne Licensing Board in the Braidwood proceeding has issued two partial a g,.-
o m.-. . pa q -. initial decisions (PIDs)1 which, taken together, resolve all the contested issues in 4
\ ' ^i A;9.% dU> "'x,Op-f , p.g 3,ap,. ,a that proceeding in favor of the Applicant, Commonwealth Edison. In concluding I the second of the decisions, the Licensing Board declared that the Director of
& y'Q-$ '.- [,g'Q$f Jy ? Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR") was authorized, upon making the findings required under 10 C.F.R. I 50.57(a), to issue full. power operating licenses to the TCs...'
+
s' 72 F- 6 :c ? (a jf:$r . ;7 J Applicant. LBP.8714, 25 NRC 461, 504 Only this second, and authorizing,
' .C,i2
+ M [:W%[' ND.S. k Q '
- 2. Qp : '
decision has been appealed, but neither decision has become final under the agency's adjudicatory appellate process.2 Rus, pending the completion of that n ,s ., ( J.? . ' %.: process, and consistent with 10 C.F.R. I 2.764(f), the Commission has conducted
. .A.s', .
7,
,. , a review of the Board's decisions to determine whether there are s fety reasons 1
a .? for delaying the effectiveness of the Doard's concluding PID.8 The Commission has determined that no such reasons exist, and that the Licensing Board's f? i}j.;^- f
- 3 concluding decision should become effective.'
. $ ne first PID dealt with two e'mergency planning issues: public information i j programs, and evacuation of institutions such as nursing homes. In a unanimous
-C - g opinion, the Board ruled in the Applicant's favor on the first issue, subject to the 3
5, ' Applicant's making cenain changes in the public information booklets, and the
^G' .,
Board declared the Intervenor in default on the second issue for having failed l to file, as directed, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. See 10
, d ' , , 1
^'~
C.F.R. 6 2.754(b). No party has appealed this PID, although the Appeal Board en y- will be reviewing it sua sponte, as is customary with licensing board decisions
.y l
e , +9;. .
-. u- #[ -
I 7be 1st P!D. on energency p.aroung, was ismaad on May is.1M7.12P 871s. 2s NRC 449. The seced, en
- 1* ,- fy asmarance was issued an May 19.1967. IAP.4714. 2s NRC 461.
The Appeallard win be undesabng ass spoase senew of me $st PtD. 3
., , Under i 2.764(fX2Xi0, pardes are per-mad to Ele effeconnses commens far the Caminismon's emndention
, ya Jwms he renew. ordy the Applicars Eled esach emameras.
J,b 'stin before lhe licensing Beard is e motism to suopen se secord to bear a screarnian $at a new ermity that
, 1 2e Applicass has propaeed espantely to be aDeoed to opasses the fashry is ad an "slectne stairy" under the
. M qq. Camrmsman's Aaaeial q.4a,-" runs,10 C.F.R. I2.104(eX4), and is not anancuny quahtied to operate the
- I , . A ', % ,? 3;h'lc ?
faccity, sance the new ersny is an ihe sguesa fus the Scemes whose ismiance wie enhened by es Board, we
- [,,.r' *
- 4 '
have acs omadered this new essasian dwing our stfactiveness review. The appucation to have the new artity
? ,.
,,: b dw t:t? b bt.yg N
. ~15 y;.. . . r
'.q. e . eps.= *e fasay win be *. .ubra of. e.pana proceeding.
(h g, '..* ,i' .fY.5% .. .
',~'#. ,2 .~$ +, f [, I m-&, %'F W E7 f l
.l t[$ [ . .,;
, . .f .g%,' ,
1 2 y, . -
.k'-; s. g& .7., ,"
y
- - ., k E y
-- wD . ._(:w- .,, .-
a _ - .. -..., ~ . . - 7.e- - ..- ~.-- C . 7 ,
- g .
=
g k g
\
f e
. *g . I
* - I .
V . t N . g
,c
. .1 ~
.}. ,. i .
; . ...=... .:. ~ .. . - . . ...-...-.:w- . n.x, . . . .. ~ . . . , . . %f.,f,Q G.;pf-Q;Qn. w -
n p, u ( , . 4: . = l% '% t-
.t +..,'{- 2 0:; r -
f". 7?P
- qt v7 ' l]
~ f. M cl % , ".j-;,.q# ' -[ that are not appealed. We have reviewed the decision and fmd nothing in it that l'
n:.dc ?,.: E s.J y
. nj warrants delaying the effectiveness of the concluding PID.s The second and concluding PID was concentrated on a single contention, which alleged that certain specified instances of harassment of quality assurance l$ ' . - K M [q
[ . .. g
; d) inspectors who inspected electrical system welding had taken place in the
, r.; g h '
4 7.],7g7,ygr{ .i last few years at Braidwood. The Board's two technical judges, with the Q lawyer-chairman in dissent, concluded that although the efforts of certain
~
7' . ; s ; managers to climinate a large backlog
- of needed inspections had not been
,. c 3 -- 3e ;>' .g 3
" above reproach, nothing had taken plxe that called for "the precipitous action
! M 7 ,; G8 J., ;
w . c.W'M.g'L, N ,. .; of license denial." LBP-8714, 24 NRC at 502. Although the Chairman in M M C- ME ; M his dissent recommends imposition of civil penalties on the Applicant,' he e.'J", 9. [. Wt-- i .
'l , W* y ;Q 7tfy ..., .m.w .g also concluded that "the weight of the evidence is that management made no
~'A y.y M 4.;L. p [p '3 attempt to discourage inspectors from documenting ordinary discrepancies," and that the inspectors who suffered the alleged intimidation "performed their field V; M D J7;@g%'
..y
% p - - inspections competently and successfully resisted any attempts that may have 77 ;y "f 'QQ%;jhk?
a u been made by managament to sacrifice quality for quantity" Id., Dissenting
, y , .7y f .y%-f , Opinion,24 NRC at 668 69.The Board was unanimous in concluding that there
.S yu~'? is reasonable assurance that the part of the electrical system that was installed s
>'O g ' j' ouring the period at issue under the contention could be operated without adverse
. 2 5 . T - Mj impact on the public health and safety. Dissenting Opinion at 560; Majority
'<7
., ~ .-Y . . %,sJ- 5j Opirdon at 504. As a result of our review of the concluding PID, we find in s -
7.?l.~i, J the contested issues in the proceeding no reason to stay the effectiveness of the
~
q, 'J'?
'j -
Board's decision pending completion of the appellate process. However, the disr.ent also calls into question the adequacy of the electrical
. j system welding performed before the period of time at issue under the con-
.:p j; tention. See Dissendng Opinion,24 NRC 538,560. Though granting that the
. 4., j safety of the earlier welding was not at issue in the adjudication,14. at 554 55,
,te - 669, the dissent nonetheless argues that the weld inspection program in place l f;;
~
i before October 1983 was not adequate to ensure the safety of the electrical sys-
. mi s tem installed before the date, and that the principal later reinspection program M N -
which covered that period, though it found no safety signi6 cant welding discrep- -
.- ancies, cannot vouch for the safety of the welding on that system. The dissent's
- . principal reason for discounting the later reinspection program was that under
.' that program, Sargent & Lundy, the architect / engineer for Braidwood, was the jp - we
, organization responsible for judging the safety significance of any welding dis- 1
, , . ,3
' s
\
. + n t * . .
1
's , , 'I , , . $.V ,,
8
- (, Nodiins in er conclamaru en aiour of the P!De is to be taken to peeprice the inmass b.fcss the Appeal Board
. <: . g %- - in dus proceedans. su 10 C.FA I 2.764(a). )
- - n.b.a san.s w .-s..r u x,pu.a.sd. _ ,t. n s t .a, m , 1 F~ J is W . fa the inspectums to perfwin mare of then su L3P.s714,24 NRC at 470. 500 n.ls.
l 1 N' 5 3I ' ~ ~><
' I
,..t f Unless assiped by ibe Comasean to hear cases under 10 C.F A 1120s. lionsmes beants how no aushanty 1.,. T, 4'<f.N, ' ,['. T , :Y/'?:JQ , '-'y to Lupese civil punakiss. Meerepokee E4see Co. (Thus Mae Island Nucisar stacan. Unit 1).
.'.. J.d.' m;i. y m~ g..h
;,. ~ tin eCC , ( y. '1 y, .
C11s2-s1,16 NRC 1236.1238.s9 09:2).
"l lh*f.*;.'.
Q '. '
. 3 m{.h: &m %
. ~- ,
cy 3
,tr-.gur s . ?, ; %. , - .3,
',\ .. - ,L ',ka/ J sm
.r y n
,' _ l' } '
1 a ! -. . . _ - - .- ...- . . - , . _ , . . ._y. ,,.
~
. 't
; 1
. e, e.
~
l 4 .
~
^ * '
- [. ,- l
", C . ,
. , ; ., . , 1 i
y .,
. . r ; '\ - '.
4 *
. ~
+. .
w .,' . , . ..-
c , s1.)a'L.CW...&,.,_Mw,'e.- S r w<... - ' C . '. l 'C-
- w. pn; m , , ': ::\:.<- (4.-yI , p' d -
- ' p, ;-. ?i t f.D 'e_M r_, owk-.;, +g i O [.. h e^ W 3 ,;.: & *. &;Y;,:n W* ? E i ,TQN'dD ?^ '
. crepancies found during reinspection, and that as architect / engineer, Sargent &
~ = $d.ppWM. T,'t 4) Lundy was too interested in getting the plant licensed, and too given to believ-1 i'N T S , '
,- _ ing that it had designed adequate margins of safety into the electrical system,
%,L :.A . ,6
. ,g -
, to give sound judgment in its evaluations of the discrepancies. De Board's
' @ D.. ?).R A p majority disagreed.
rg,,y,,Gc'gl9,9,@9' g;. , 92 . s . Although the adequacy of the electrical system wlding was not one of the
- q f. ; W.hr <j contested issues in the proceeding, the Commission, having responsibility for l.' g f ' ..il q3 public health and safety, will not ignore a safety issue discussed by the Board s,
. : $ i&. , . .6Pdl;.:_3'.N merely because the issue was not properly before it.' Having reviewed these, C4.;% and the other less important but pertinent argumenu in the majority and minority 42 ? ,},M ,,, $ #; M f opinions on the safety of the wlding on the elecwical system installed before M 'a%f TNdI Q,5 .v'f%. October 1983, we conclude that there is reasonable assurance of the safety of y h~MS##$i.MU 'N: fp': that system. As the majority poinu o It, the architect / engineer for a project is the Q~ Q$hMM3$W.:.Q#Jg?-
entity best qualified to judge whether its designs have been adequately realized
? W ' ,', M N V,4 M M ; h n ] '. In the construction, and most anxious to ensure that they have been. Majority JC'DMQ ,
Opinion at 493. Moreover, w find that the Board majority's account of the very 9 3N@,h;dy.'d,%p? i"d 67^3 % considerable safety margins designed into the welded structures in the electrical i 'T' ' ' ~" .Wl 2,ys.'*M , c - i system is well supported.' nus u find in the Board's discussion of the safety T-
?H @M . Q'j!?fl
" 5 of the electrical system welding done before October 1983 no cause to stay the effectiveness of the concluding PID.
f c: 7' y:.J W4.L. ,
,j,a. .m - W. %. . . '
~
Accordingly, for the reasons given above, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.764(f)(2),
, ,J:Ac;f j 9:: the Commission finds that the Licensing Board's decision resolving all contested l' issues should become immediately effective and the Director, NRR, is autho.
t
/
M.[g',p;M., f; . rized, upon making the findings required under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.57(a), to issue _: . c C'- the full power licenses for the Braidwood facility. 0 .
.g, Commissioner Asselstine disapproved the order; his separate views are
. - ; : . s. m._ .,. - . attached.
,.y N o. .' T Cf.S.C ; .et lt is so ORDERED.
s- t,, ,
~
, ..v.3 c ,' #7 gg w . s ,.. , 9.- r. . :
. ' -y '
SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission
.c .
'w e ,;. " " q . . A..,X. Dated at Washington, D.C.,
~&
', y =E ,s, m this 30th day of June 1987.
g 4 J .- M. i [ , 4[ 3
. . - +.-
, , ; s. 7 . -
* , j.~i , ' ( g .,'.
- 5 6 O a= ? d ',, is Bosad learned of die pre ociche 19s3 inspectaca psegrarn in dis coines of tastmiumy oww the results of
} , ," '. " s ., , ' , , , ' ,
dm , - pograrn, wtuch wese bems effered as evannes d the emcacy of dw inspection program desrus
% .M CN whae=w hareenners the inspeciare niight have sufreed. .g~ [n./ ;.?* Ji .Mb 'We nois, auseover, that die sseener pan of tbs welding in die elecuical sysian wGl ownaan access 3de far any s ._ ' %. .,M, ' . gn % MM;U.MU36:.'
needed inspecuce or repaar arter Epoew opennan begins.
-?';,. ' &yL, ";[.fi.*.N .'. %.; Q* fy,py[f., ., ,
s' 6;; -
' . y Q' I +E M *?
' ' .e'*4.
~ l . y%.
d 7' '*Q $25*-^ .d . t.;/.*.}
% '**% :* i, p? .
.%Y 5. . .
.. c s
t, [ . '. . 7. -1.4
~..
= .<
.? %,,
5.'It. , .wd.fb > - - f s
'[ -i W. . ".
Cr i G Er l' ' ** ' \ ' Ir . T j g*{ , (* 4 'f',, %g .jp,%..s.%y. i-Y' , J;, ; . '
- - 1,3 - 3 .;
e,g.,,,.,*--
, a
- g. ,.3 - t n *.. s -
o, ; * , . . + , t
f .
**'.sa 1
r ,.',._,..)- 5' 'l'sa
,- n.-, _...~ne..-~.-m.., .
-.~.y-~, - - --- - - ~~
j
\
i
's .
~
j s
. '3 - .
- m- '
, 1, .
S[ . e
,. ~
~ .
ll 1
. < 4 ,. .
4 , ,
- s. , , ,
[
/', ,
.- r - t
O E, f
...s* ,
6.,,
.m*e ,~'
' " ",g',
. *l
).- s,
, , s' i
s
-\
-9.,'-*'.' ,.
c#.. E-4" % '*"
% % *y 4 g e. i. ;y 7
- . ~ : -la. .
1 J
~m W.we. e m . . . , . . g
- t
.:.. . :~ y
- n. .M h ,.-th* W
?:,m...w.u;yW . m.i, . W; v. . :nw.
; . .Q-2
,e e. . :.,o s. ,.' S. .
. u w . o _.fg w g, . ,.. a,..-
p 9, ;
~, . ,:.
- m. . ~. .,, , m .. . . ~.
v 9, . n . ,~er - . .a .a.;, .;.. 4
.n -,. , ."n . ; i *< . . ~ f
- N)p@.c i.Mt . , : a ,- ' - 9. .
' SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSEL5 TINE
,y t wp.c., w .x,
. g .... ., , . , .. .. .
., > ; . 3. , -
.- - s fW P:;pp....g - %. ., , . N. _ ;4 The Commission decides today to permit the final Licensing Board decision 1 to become effective and thus to permit the Director of the Office of Nuclear 4 N NOM'M M$.NUMC[M[.. J. Reactor Regulation to issue an operating license for the %raidwood facility. In
. ,@J'Ifk j\.
Mf.3hQ:T,7.N. 2 o 3 , effect. the Commission finds that there is no issue that exmot await the outcome w.y ; .' 3 p .. ~ r_ J; , of the appellate review process. I cannot agree.
.. j. % fyy .c,.. .7 In a series of decisions in late 1985 and early 1936, th: Commission prevchted
< Ce $%f'Q.g.,[ ' "
- the Licensing Board from hearing contentions on the qJality assurance program
.O : "
. d. at the Braidwood facility that the Licensing Board had decided to admit for ih.. MOv We 'D,NON$;Yh. - litigation. Commonweahh Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units g?DSMs4 .WiMM ' I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-456, 50457 (December 1,1985); Commonweahh V5N.$D,b[0@$.N$N F8. . Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50 456,50-457 (March 20,1986); Commonweahh Edisoi Co. (Braidwood Nuclear K:_.d'3
. NW: g,: %[P .!,Cf.i.$C/iW
,lQE@fDM, N.M M.%/. Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI.86 8, 23 NRC 241 (1986). Because the Licensing Board was not permitted to hear those s (ety issues the Intervenor T d b5:)%.
's 2
- P@M@@g m
D
, .. f.*? .n wMMh2%:pp; . 2,1h. ' ]
sought to raise, I cannot support allowing the decisicn to become effective. Y:' f.,f.*w,
...%. s g s 'c. _ f ,M .
1
' ,. N,s*,M f.t.**++ W j"
- M M.*N n * .g 2 __ ' g' _ - . < ,w.
..- * ';i s < s e .'.'j s
.e.. -f , - r % ,. ,. .-,
, *- , _j- _,,...
- s,e.1;. g. .vu . ; y. -
v; . - '.y f. ,. 3 .;g .
. * . ?t : / c -,., _
m - ; ,.f..s sa
- n., , . ,4,
- y ,-:3.; . l . .; M. *- ' -
4.. -
. .-e ,
-6 ,
b M,; s-
-N
. ',,,. 7. ,q s, ,
.. m
.u ..
.r .
... t vb >
n.( t. s . (. s - g. , *
.... N. . ' y m .w.
-. ci-d
. t "- _;* ; y~
s; i. ,
, . ~*. .. . ; $. . ._ , 'n. , yf.W .',Q. ,
.. -- . .. y .
. .. i , ; \; .-
'u-s'y ;6 e w c.,V Y. .
> + ,baa- :4
._.t.
- j. ; .6 ,
\ ,_ . f
,.. .,* a *. y : . t... .
. , . . y _ - .
s . ?$ 0 u ,. v '
- 4
.cf .3g ~.~ t-( .-
. r ...
. ..: p- -
., j- -
s-+ , u4,,; s
,, a.,.
,.,' ssgvm 2 ;* J -
o.. :.
..- x,,
. . ;()y ,.
* ,.,a ..g &_- ..
_y. *.7
-, , , e
. , , .. . ; :, 2. 6 .. ; * .
- e. m. .f..
1, .t : ,, -<s . , v .(A.cc a ,
. r ; j 4, l r- 7' . .< a g
.~,8 .:, yu se
..y ,. x. :
. ,, v . ,
,2 - .*.:*_
.< y ,,
% . , '. c-m..
N: , , . s
,; . . r yN A
.......a..f.
, v , g *5 1. - ..- - . , .
r y...
, f c .s t n' q <3
,. ./ e w+-m .P.., s^. . ,x, .~ gs' p .-
'N'7-J t-.$2p.P k ; s ,D WiCfJ- [ '
. . ? %)W.' %
m%.v:ec.mL.&p-[&::$jN.w C . .:^-
~ -
M un%qs@.%. s-
- vp - T.a&.
.s..c.-f. .> ? 6. .~.',W c ;..;tA, r.N an g. ,M p
.w.
6
'.9' w'$'
= , .,p,....,Xg ' . f i.9. . t0JN.[v a
;:q: . n -n p;~. . . .e wo
% 5
, J,,-.'.M. .
- ,. .u M .,), ',; G ' ~ j
?'
yn :;'.Q(f. ':y l?}}jQ.R.>.'. ~.?i w.,:o.. a ,p..n:. ,m,. ,s - \
~ w. c , . (e s. , u <
- -.,'. , v :. n
~ , ' .- ,;. - s c.. .; -
' ". ,. '. .c,,* r 5. y . g Mn,.,._.-- .. n. .,..~.n.w.... .. , ne +- .
u , 'n t , . c -
< , ,r.
- i 7 .
s - .
.s:
. s
\
, - s .
[. . u -. - .
*.. s
.,- , *. . . .e .
,3 3
, , ,, n . , .
'.: , *v . - ,. '
,n e
- n%. * .: .. y g.,
. .s..., ..- ,
.I.-s .r,; , .b. .v. S e :V j - . .
. % <;pT4.,. * -
s . 2$\,. , a. ;'k ( , . N,?,a l',8; G, . % *
* [ s ' a s _. %.s
- g .
[_ * , g* [ 8 ' *
- kb 4 f' , e * ' . *
. . - : :. v..z.. g ?
N m. w t.,. . w.) Mi u,;;4,t.
. <w
,s .u,y . .s ..
,m . ; -
s .,j; y v y - q e
, ,.. .n' ,. .}' . - s u 4 -f'i e
[w" '
..s. ,:
Jt,n .;, . J .,... e,, v
- f. : ~
' .-- 94.sf ,':g ; m~', ~ ,, .j7. ' / ; e, Cite as 26 NRC 6 (1987) CU878
-3
, c. : . u-4px. ;3. .
...n, ,
- x. . .
a
<, .c.,.. .. , . .
c n67. M. e
, .'2 '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I e, 1 . <-c.<-
. .b.;
s n .:.. n.- m; A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
..h,. ', w:...p*,j.,,..,__ ,g
..e,-'. ,~ r d s [
a V.s i '.g, . . , , ; '
. . a s,,? m 1 COMMISSIONERS: ,
-, 3:.3; a. c; .
'> ' . . , : ;\
. u .g ' c.,
%.. < .-V: J> r..e, , av Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
..u
+m , J. . - ;.q W ..'
3 . , p.
..c,... Thomas M. Roberts
. .,f.i;:47. .an .! . 4. c.. is. .+~: .C(. , .
Frederick M. Bernthal y;y..g.v,.; .or:..
. n ( , . c m.,.g
- . c.. +.qC ,. Kenneth M. Carr
. .. b, w. ;yrcn,..m :x ~ ~
nm e.c.- r - p mm. y,,r:W, y. ,y +a Ew.V.'.,'3s..
,. m
.; s?. '.
~ .> W w .,s . J. -'._' .u ' a l, In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-498 OL
.* ; '. g.o; ,.x b. c,W:f
.-> .mm N: x u ....
. . - ~.'f
,* y cy . s., s 7.g C.1.,- 50-499-OL
'yw " ,.c. .- c. , , jf f.. c.' , . ,, %" Q ~.; ,
.c. 3
. c.;- i
..n , m .% '
~
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND
. . . . .y > * , A s; y% - ,
,.3 g - POWER COMPANY, et al.
, ,.s - ,:
# 5 ; O .. , ~, ' . - ;. c.
(South Texas Project. Units 1
.a
~
.- ' E '.,J , J'. *. and 2) July 15,1987
~
_n
,- s ,y. _ .
, ,s., ,..
. ; ,. W '
De Commission denies Billie Garde's modon to quash a subpoena that re-
- j. quires her appearance regarding a Government Accountability Project-initiated M,- investigation into allegations concerning safety at the South Texas plant, and
. ; -Q, funhet denies Garde's request for oral argument on that motion. De Commis-
. . . , ' , "In .. - sion determines that Garde's arguments that the EDO lacks authority to issue
# A' y.
~
, , , subpoenas and that her compliance with the subpoena would compromise the !
e ' i- . . . J , '.,s - public health and safety are without merit. De Commission does not reach the s .
. 3 '4 issue of the applicability of the attorney-client and work product privileges as-
, _ %j .'. 4~l '-W , setted by Garde because it lacks suf6cient information at this time to make such 3- '
a determination. De Commission concludes that Garde is required to testify and _; }f produce documents bearing on plant safety and therefore resets an appearance i
. . s _ K ,', date for the subpoena.
.m,
.-.g. -m.
.. ?^.. .
j
,!_., ~.? e ~' ?,: . , .: Q: NRC: ilEALT11 AND SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES 1
-T' He fact that an outside organization lacks confidence in cenain NRC Staff to il l5 vi n. ; .. g ', in%. '
competently investigate safety allegations obtained by that organization's own [ n-? .% n @& . F;;C s
- V. MW e , investigation of plant safety does not result in the conclusion that divulgement
. N g . . :' : '~ . ci.Wl.y 5.g&,:;}t:3,t., :
O'-- -
;.c c. -
W i.'= Q ;
,omA \
- o Q [ f.h,.;[. l.I * [ [:V'< &;E M , &. T Y-K e: u x 6 1
- v. . ~ +. ..a~),; a.;: .oem y y ,,.-
.. n < ,; - ' ;; . .
,; w;t.\m .~,-
s
, -1p' , .[. ,
~
e., %., b
% ,.g
. . , * ~ag
*. ~9, .$* '
g grew Mge.pg.ef g.pgg gy m. --
.m g ew. g>~ging 9 9 e,rg puber g, + *e- e* mpa -- g -m
.s
.. , 7 - ; ,.
7 e .% m l e e 4 4 b o q 4 w a h' ~
- ,Q ,
~ ^
9 .'J* '[ s )s
,s. .-^ '
.,w - ,.f 3, 3 2,* ,,
'l m ,
g, t ' I %
# .a . s . .
m.C _' . _ i:-
. . - . , . _ _ . . . ., ._....as..~., . ;# . .
- .~,ni' ~ , . . . . j a vu a ,e,r:<y;.g. .3 s:>:+s.,..; .#w
?;
. c.g. . y . , , s-s,% ,
s' ,; W z, . c+, x. , .,, ; . , ., .x--q, ,
. . . 4.. ,
, s
, % l**. >L. .'.,,, .
Z
.N .@.% , ' :. y, , . ,
..A'3' '
of the informatfori would compromise the public health and safety, in fact, c.c' M 7 " the converse is true. Failure of the NRC to ottain the allegatfor.3 would more
, . . .y .j '. a c,
j likely compromise the public health and safety, particularly if the allegations are substantiated, m7. 1. ., .o c. ,
.1
.n,, & : - ,s, .g
.p.
. +;l ~ r- ,
, 4;,c_ .,.. q
, l NRC: AIJillORITY TO INVESTIGATE (SUBPOENA)
, .. 7s 'q~
,. , .'i. , , . .
~
The Commission is authorized to issue subpoenas pursuant to i 161c of the CA i ..t s.
's - Atomic Energy Act, and it further has the power to delegate this authority to
' y ;. . -; .
,.x'C'.. .
-i the Executive Director for Operations consistent with (209(b) of the Energy
, ., ,M.,.1 3 ; 7 > . , 'E..
Reorganizadon Act and 10 C.F.R. I 1.40. This delegated responsibility has been
' ..y29 R . ~u j'i..' M.~3'ET'il,2.W;;g;;'?L 1.; :.y yf ,.c) - ,i .
incorporated in NRC Manual Chapter 103-0214. e,, ;we . ,c , ;,m: ,p,o3 , . ,
.cW
,;'.,ys .. m ',,s' m ~u .. W '. RULES OF PRACTICE: PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEY CLIENT, WORK
, .y'7- ~,
w.y.;,g;p g,..e.<. PRODUCT)
. . . ' , ., c.
If' ,3'/,fS:
, The Commission's view is that assertion of the attorney-client privilege
-.s. E,; '-) and work product doctrine by a subpoenaed witness prior to that individual's
- - 2 '
testimony is premature. The more appropriate time for a wimess to invoke 4 w:
) $.f4'. , j 1
; privileges is when testmony i
is obtained regerdng specific questions posed and where the individud can explain the relat:onship of the privileges to the s ,le ' ~ . information sought.
. :. s.
s . . N ' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER w
- ' - , M,. ~
On May 20,1987, the NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
- ~
~
,;,,, , subpoenaed Billie P. Garde, Esq., of the Government Accountability Project
. ? ,g - : (OAP) to testify before NRC personnel concerning safety allegations of current
-? . . ., and former employees of the South Texas Project a, d any other safety allegations y J regarding the South Texas Project. The subpoena further requ3sted Ms. Garde
, to provide any records or documents regarding the allegadons.
7, Ms. Garde now moves to quash the subpoena, arguing that compliance with
. - .^-, ,
' . ' ]f . f.- .
I the subpoena would compuxnise the public health and safety, the EDO has no authority ta l'. sue the sutpoent, and the i torney<lient privilege and work j
. ,4 '
v .',^ , e : 1. /. ' product do' trine preclude divulgement of ths information requested. Movant
'b .if . , .. . g. also requests oral argument on the motion.
, 14f.
*~6.' - .* p-r .,.w '
- g 4k,*
. . a g c. q- 4C- -
4 3 v., > g ;., 'r,< m < :gg g. -
' Ag@,.' $,.g ,
st- j _; .m .: s, >
- ~ ,
.t : . ei
' a*qM.'...; c p; M, ,'i' . - j
. 1 1
- ';-l'
~a-9QQ-l
. c ;,e.. 7 l
.s,,
.:.: p .; - } l
, -W Q.4,c -
, ,s. g
- - . . . , '
- v .. .
. ,4 :
;, ;. , a -
+
1 _..- 4 a
- _m e mw ~. .-- n . . e .g . . - - mo ns gree e.: sv..~,, se 4
e
* . t i=*. . , -
. l *: .
- Lgfa +.~. < '- ' '
. a .-
g .pwW.wM ;..b. u
. . u. us, w, % gi n h w pn % m,4.
w.g.f m
. . . . . . . :. a.= . ~ ~,w e .v ~ ~ -
~ - - - - - :m <
- g. . , ww .
I m.r wmm' 63 3 S. My~W . M. ,Ay..W. . . i
~ %; #. ...w &:m'... ;a .. . :e m i
. ,pn-~* s 1
&.'.>>je f t1.4.M.c
~ = ' \
,S%' y.TQf 3:.h' ..
',y .
M M $j. N Q.F %.,M j .f./;M; g w,jm;,,3> w :: Houston Lighting and Power Company
- and the NRC Staff 61cd responses to the motion on June 11,1987. Ms. Garde also 6 led a reply to the NRC Staff's l
I 39 mor _ y- response on June 25,1987
. s. y..% e. ,w, , .s,. ' .
z :. . . ,. n . y
,x. A.n.m.; m, . . 4. . . s ..t- .;. ,
f.;u2.i:.y; . .p w w. .s~.;c.p
& .sL
.n;.mh.wn : :s a
.,,s *,%. q . s j
- 1. BACKGROUND p:'.v.r. .y,:. -;.m.g.g ,,y .
a n. , . s s.v..%g,ei h n,. . - l NCZ. .,M K*, Beginning in January 1987, Ms. Garde informed the NRC that GAP had A 9;fi$,$(N tgjjp % ' commenced an investigation into allegadons concerning the safety of the South lM.A%' Wl.j'.YE[yW MA : .g Texas nuclear pmject. According to Ms. Garde, GAP received these safety
. allegations from approximately thirty six current and former employees of the W.@
M My! Q giqs. . h ,.DSS:fd $ y $ U >hM i w. South Texas Project. GAP informed the NRC that upon completion of the Investigation it would issue a public report, but in the interim it would not (Nh @d.N&Nd5b . y advise its clients to provide the allegations m the NRC Region IV office (.?W.M [MAM because ofits lack of con 6dence in the of6ce's ; .:y to comply with regulatory 3.l[TdN@ij$7PWMME.1 D' ffcd5l3MC requirements. Thus GAP advised the NRC that unless it was willing to pmvide v"'0%i "Q%3MT509$$p!hkMe%'.MS$. ,%g C independent inspectors to process the allegadons, OAP would turn over the allegations to the State Attorney General's of6ce, congressional committces, and 7.Q./C-V'g %.r,s.,h M ; .'f 3 ' h M other regulatory and municipal bodies interested in ensuring the public safety at p;5 d Mh r ' the South Texas plant. r j - ^F ' Q;% '.g,1M Correspondence followed between the NRC Executive Director of Operations ' _ j~) (EDO) and OAP regarding allegations management. Essentially GAP desires an A
.-$c j.E ?G.5 % .'7Ml6ff. M b ^.. Investigation of the allegations by an NRC employee or task force independent
_ ,- . . ' , ; % M.7{ :j g i s of Region IV. The EDO is of the position that the South Texas Projes.t is located
, . , in Region IV, and the personnel in that region can adequately investigate the G . 'p~ ,~~C. .Je ~
'j * , allegations; and in any event, GAP should turn over the allegations to the agency
".[ J.l~ ',,- jf/ so that the agency can determine the proper handling of them. After repeated O .')i pT;; .
requests for the information, the EDO issued a subpoena requesting Ms. Garde
- . ,7 ..* .s Q;M . . 6 l %g' ? c@y'E?.; -*
..,'. to testify and produce documents regarding the South Texas allegations on May i'
.w.. 26,1987, at 9:00 3.m. at the NRC, Room 6507, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, f ,; -
7 3 ],, - Bethesda, Maryland. On May 22,1987, anorneys for Ms. Garde and the NRC ;
'f y
- . . . l-i .
entered into an agreement. Ms. Garde agreed to move to quash the subpoena by !
'? ',s
; f ,.g.; r 3, Friday, May 29,1987, and the NRC agreed to conunue the appearance date for
( s W'-S the subpoena from May 26,1987, until 14 days after the decision oti the motion f ., ml.g s.f J 'j% to quash, unless the parties agreed on an earlier date. ; s .. . ,-
- q. y ,,v t s .%u ..~.. -w. , :m,. .v ._ ,. .
.; i s
1,; ' d \'.1 g, u @. i. ~ ~ ; s
;f L:4 .
s
,u,,,,
,m -c ; . , . .
, q ;
. .'?M A[u *~
<' }
3 s_ . , . 'D8- . \. ). #,- ' 9 77 3,;33 m/ m ,
.N . j. .;; .i." { }(: C .
l yp. -', 4
,".4 -s
*The aiW was immed in a ppon of the siaft's responsamlay as pussus and remalve aDesences beenns on 4 .'// - L,: , h . . _. %. M .Z- d- M~ NRC.hosroad eetMains. bis was nos ;ssued in -- wuh a pedans hammans or aferoenet edp& canon M Mg@Q 1 1.
on the seish Tsaas Project. Ths, the Houman IJslamsa Powe Ccuryany is ans, ansdy speaking. a pony io the gW' *' h bd. f-; . . W MM;.W' h. j 4.']. M@[N TM;
).M Dp%T k,/Mf . .h[ '
y <- 48 Pas over the subpeau and has ne legauy eagemanble bassuet in ks aufasonneuL Neathalass, the Cernnseman has omsdeed the utuisy's views insdar as they may aid the Commusann's remohame of the issues,
;.,s.R ay m7 g'.h:t.
, %@ .V : .-
c 1"n .2.,m...
*,<, . . ,. <.3..,t.
,..a ,.A., Me8 4 . - ,
#2 ' . ,,'* wns.V,2,%$ & x p.q?',.9s&.% .
,\'.. I
.-w? w. -
s u y k . g r-.. e n.',. O ..:6 s." X~;, ,v**s* ~Y G,.n y
&, . . * ) [ . *' Z Q.*q y a *.w m.=> '
f F y. ( Le*l-s *t . '*4.?c. ?=. <.-::'.;S . .i) .A,@y al [,. ..z..r ..d. 's' a
! .?r ?,.' '
l ( 1..- %.ye.'. :
"y* . .t b '
rr
*y, . .- .% < 3g ,gr 2, -., , ,o ,, ,_
e r. . y $, . '$L- . 6, *
~
a -n
'l,,
.. . ,llQ .
- 9'~. .x 6
,w,y . , , . . _ - ~ ~ . - . - . .. , w - ; - ~ ~7 . , - - ,_ - . . - - - . . - - - ..
s 4
.~
s- . A s yr, .
- ta
.r )
,,' s *._, ,
6 2'., , ' ,, , '
, , 3 . ,
- a *
* - , . s
'g '
s ,, . * *$ - *. ' * ~
, -. 2 <
d y i , U gt
- 8.
*4
% . %.s .w*2 h- -
n' W *
. , ., , * 'm *.
~'."%
Y
. j.'.q., . q N ^
R \
.a ry. 3 2 ,. -
1 m-- , s
- y. ' .*h
* # I '
.[*[,. * '
.y . . m[-1 Yv," e
,. s , g l ( k* h.., *<J ; .M, '$ . ' .
. , . ,s ., .. - 7.ir, - - . -,,
I
- l( ' d, ~
W _'v cf h* I ,, [ [.. c . V.' -
.Y ; O [ .g .
tv-
-. . ~ ~ - - - -
g up w;qm M. a . . . . . . . :w . ,
.wM m ~WAgw.; wa
..sp .%n n a.M '
i
- .>.:&p:UD.?wglW'y ;f :g's ma f.
a ;w.x im; xs r - m v. l
- s. .e -
3 , t
$p@n@,@w* *$
fw s '.W -
. . .hs
.fM cu: .:*.k.*
y:..a mm,C.a:.Nf an e N II. ANALYSIS i I i M y- P d' N . , i '"g
- M %q' M ' N f 1.ygh .
* '*;.,...$,(-
' . [k',f' A. Compliance with the Subpoena Would Compromise the Public 3
~
' @pM.'s, 'WC..s -(;: 7 v./ .m c; Health and Safety
- .% d
, F,.M. f, ?. .3 ',K,.e.ur : wr;p#'?d @ c- i?:l $ Ms. Garde cites no authority for her first argument which is based on
. 'y
.s . . . s.
- ?;s her belief that Region IV and the EDO could not competently investigate 4
4 ' M,C ll MQ ?/M < . ..,Y.#...? -
% E -
the allegations. Compliance with the subpoena would not compromise the ej d e k ' h; d . ' % public health and safety. In fact, the converse is true. Failure of the NRC to g obtain the allegauons would more likely compromise the public heahh and i @ S%y df % gym {C R [M safety, particularly if the allegations are substantiated. Moreover, the agency has d d M M N h h 1 tj demonstrated its commitment to protect health and safety through the rigorous and repealed efforts of the EDO to obtain the allegations, which culminated in M@kh:am;Mr.MMNikMM.W s
. 9 J issuance of the subpoena. '
,m v t. n .p&,,h.su. %:g:5y .m . wns -
Mhd M y ,.Y Y B. EDO's Authority to Issue the Subpoena P .i N,. 9Mh M+ h.. m a r %y Mto% 1 assertions, the EDO clearly had the authority to issue c . ~ ~~ N.DQ$ Contrary Garde's the subpoena. The Commission is authorized to issue subpoenas pursuant to S.;'Q L:,'yL g: J, g. .;..M.5 ; iW($ 4 l M.;; -G:;9 42 U.S.C. 62201(c) (ll61c of the Atomic Energy Act). It further has the y gc' p . g .f y.. power to delegate this authority consistent with 42 U.S.C. 65849 (l?09(b)
- o. "
" ,. P ;. f W O : A l* j ' of the Energy Reorganization Act) and 10 C.F.R. f l.40, which provide that the EDO shall perform such functions as the Commission may direct. See also
>W C .1 ,, .,/ T %./%M.Wf . $$ A u' ~, l Atomic Energy Act, i 161n,42 U.S.C. I 2201(n). The Commission delegated the c
% T' C ' t ' ' i] authority to issue subpoenas to the EDO in 1982. This delegated responsibility j? ? . , ,' has been incorporated in the NRC Manual Chapter 103-0214 which provides:
- /dc. 1.: .
,(.
-c@U H Y
The (EDO) . . . is specifically responsible for: , . . Issuing subpoenas under
- .' ,Ny ' - 99 J f $:ye 1.'y@/@'; K '
3
. .. _ Section 161c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, where necessary or appropnate for the conduct of inspections or investigations." '!hus, Garde's I
( l' " '
.3,o.
7 %> +:cw & '. f.}n + argument that the EDO lacked authority to issue the subpoena is without merit. '
? .s,, : , ;
> A.d. % r ..n+ %' ~ s #, . +
g . . r Je .W, C. Attorney Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine !
, ,, t
~
.? 1.4 ' ; Ms. Garde claims that she cannot comply with the subpoena because the with-
;.[ .. , ~r $. . , 2. t. jQ l ' ' . held information is protected by the anorney client privilege and the work prod-1
- p. 4..y ._ uct doctrine. The Commission does not reach these issues because Ms. Garde 24_.~~
1 ?.h4 6 f ,; . , , :W+ .
- 1. has not provided sufficient factual information in her af6 davit, retainer agree-
. , y'Q d ment or other supplemental documents upon which the Commission can make
; ( 7. 9$
J. $ y[13 ., .. $
- ~ . C " i*, A , . .gb. J
~
the determination that all the relevant informauon that the subpoena requests is <<WM% L;4gN,3@.. q g A u_ protected by the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine. See NLRB ;
- v. Harwy,349 F.2d 900 (4th Cir.1963). '
(', l%' . .w#*.Wr.&&. --.
*Pf.g*: ,..cg
+M A g@w =*
. .n C-
, ;< 4 hy, e*M M& s;asv.:9sg;., kI. *
. u.,,w_.m. %. . w%ry.
. c, g,m.}n'd :
wi ?fj Q. g e..: z%.4 ,,, U'U '
; 9 n:. .nn m , ~~.2.w.w[:
.m . 4 ;yc:~
, % .: V . [. l ,! .5 ' a LDy .
Q i 'm,' .}%*
- W. 5'g;yMQ ' '. ;.f. ,[; , :. . . ' ~ <
4
. . t a. c , *_...,4 i . , f .w . % .s .
" eg i(, .._-d 43 ,.3 0, e' '
. i j u, - c y ,. '
- shtY
;p'-- -
J
,. .; nA . .x ' < '; ,
s
.)'.*4 r .,s s.b , ' , .. . e. roe ow es ., . -~ . . --., -w,-
,. .-*. eve v.m .n r,n e* m u ~; , '* . . ~ - - ~ ~ '
*_W n '
. .M ! ' '
b
, }
1 * . s . s j
- ~ Q:' ~_,,,
$ , u " 1
~ .- . . ..%.-,, . . . . . .
- e l 1
* ,. , . '.a 3 .
,*,; ' E
! 1
, 'o -
.e ,
, J f* * , A- _
# g -*g
; es *
- s y'. ,,
.sr 1, , .
- A4 - 4 4 N. , . ' # y . , ,
. m - .,
.J. '.h*, ~ 1
- g
-",\; ,2 +;.GY .[
c k, ,. .' , O
.,~,'s 'N 1 s
y - .- 3 +, * ,
> a .3 : '9 ,
s -
- r. v - , . s 't ; , s , . ., - '
s , .
- t. **, h -' '. * '
s -e e u;,3 -.*' . . tg-4 , ,. s ,.
.'; m * ;* ' .- % .* - ..
3
.y.p +. 1w. ~i.s,s. w s g,9.,d, .1 .u m..&.4. x m.g t r, -L.s'.,:M.)4 j, r t e., c y: 5 t,q. n nm
.,if..',-
n *%p.s '[.M ,<'3 7 x;.g [. ! f; .m T*M of M)
- E u . R :. k .- F g 6 p m : M ~
'lhe Commission notes, howerer, ttnat based on a review of the information Q,M.9-Vp,vc 7:.:d'QTg?MM@'M.. '.6%P. Q that Ms. Garde has provided, on its face, it appears that she possesses at least D$YQNM ' 3. '3. 4}j some information that is rW withholdable under the attorney client privilege or c. .ona h D .yM g ; i,/ n. /."h n...
m.~Eso-.f...'v: A shielded by the work product doct ine. The auorney client privilege applies if:
;.70:$$% (1) the essened holder of the pivilese is t cliens; (2) the person to whern the conununication m,;7 y[%n ? . y4@ -fl < f Cy -Y'f;' , 1 '
was inade (a) is a nnember d the bar d a onut, and (b)in connection with this consnunication iW'.j Z W Nj'R . is acting as a lawyer; (3) the conunmicaion relases to e fact of whidi the suorney was
,7 q>( W fj W 4 'jNJ N inferined (a) by his client (b) without the pseence a strenseri (c) for the purpose d securins
;t!Q2:h. [ ! j .h pinnarily either (i) an opinica on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assiaance in sonw lesal N ',.fg,N M M poceedins. and not (d) for the purpose d cornsniains a crune or tors; and (4) the pnvilese
-.;c$$N.gg,k,N. W5 f
. ,yp c'g 4s,.k. ~ has been (a) claisned and (b) om waived by he clienL v ; a. . . cnt,n + .~. q v.t;
-.. v.#" 3 ' 4 k?$.(.,15$kkh,b$&k - Eagle Picher Industries, Inc. v. United States. I1 Ct. C1. 452 (1981). *Ihe work u- D(%g. . R rf n QT , %~.Mq h g
.v 9. d: h :; W :M. M :'. d iE N " p ; f % y.O ?
?/ . . product' doctrine is a quali6ed privilege that protects documents,and tangible items prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial.14.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(bX2). Fact work prodirt is discoverable upon showings of y p&nJf5.g.c,w@tz.%M%MM substantial need and inability without undt;c hardship to ob th the substantial RPQ[MM{WMpf,C.hh
'.M(,7g $p. equivalent of the matenals by other means. Id.; see Nickman v. Taylor, 329
- 4. QM%f@$.9'$C 'J U.S. 495, 510 12 (1947); In re Murphy,560 F.2d 326, 334 (8th Cir.1977). Opin-g 'l ?'Q Q d f $ M [b.i;;q M% lon work product (mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories)
' 7. ' . ..3 .Qnis;- ; -4 may be discoverable upon extraordmary justification. See Hickman. 329 U.S. at w.
513; Murphy,560 F.2d at 336. A.2e,J.yj%a .f s".,.N?' i ','g f f. As the utility points out Ms. Garde indicated in her January 20, 1987
<# ' ~, .s . g..m EL,: leuer to the EDO and the Attorney General for the State of Texas that GAP
~
r f ~ ' ' je 6'- . either represents or "is working with" approximately thirty six current or former r a '" ' Q: - employees of the South Texas plant. Attachmem 2 to Garde's Motion to
]-j.rf. -<
A.g. n Quash. Obviously, the attorney-client privilege car;not attach if there is no f . [- - '2 Mm; client. Thus, the presumption is that communications with the employees that
. - ~ W. . : y.' , yy @J. GAP "is working with," as opposed to representing, are not a part of or protected q ,pgg.y ' , by tM attorney client privilege.
n,'~ L wQw.s.. .r . - Purtherr ore, it is unclear from the facts before the Commission whether
. ' f f, M E.
'-; , Ms. Garde was acting in a legal capacity when she gatheird allegations from
^
', ^
7 . y p ' employees for the purpose of having them reviewed by (M NRC, if she was not acting in such a capacity, it would be questionable as to whether the com-
.9 ; ; munications made at that juncture would be protected by the anorney-client
' . Z Sc M; %[~
,: ..s. .
.pe n . 1 M
yg. ~ ~ Privilege. Also, Ms. Garde seeks to withhold the identities of her clients. As. f];:#j' 'n d j{gjf , suming arguendo that the attorney-client privilege applies, generally the iden-tity of an anorney's client is not considered privileged. NIJi'8, 349 F.2d at A * / ~g%,_ m ,. ~
' i.%
- t. ', 904. Moreover, it is dif6 cult to determine from the information thus far pro-4
';, J~ , 0- yp vided whether the privileged nature of ths i, formation, if any, has been waived,
%. ..F ,MQQ , .
- , thereby terminating the privilege. See Artesian ladustries, fac, v. Department A:;N.Q
- m. :.m%.m NEQ p,.{ ;MW.6%V myg/W. '": ~. -
0/#ealth and Human Services,646 F. Supp.1004,1008 (D.D.C.1996), citing d b .g.QMNwm,p O,: Y %l.,W ?i;y :Z%
%. ; s W f@., +...x_,,,
32ANw. S ,... .. m..
. . y ..d.' m:f m
- s. . .'.', . n:AM 4
10 v.. n b . . .,:~:v e.sw.>o.
'-f,** v'?ml. l p ..Q: ya g%m.yf lf'.b A r . .j m..
.a . n.p
-- , ,1. :.1, np.._.a m -
v.7r, Q. 8g.p t.)
. . 3, ".g g** . . - .J .- 4 .. : ,
1
- 4. sg.U.e. .-u.f - ,e. 9,,4 .
Wf , dee, 40 F y*Y'.4*# g g , .' , ; i , *,,.-' y A.. .Er %,a,[.$g w i [s.'i, -
- p e ('
.- , ' - ~ ^' 9 g = M,--, ff' @h#WP. 4_.-W-.W-- 'W'"# 8' PT'-4*- ' '
- Or.'"* *
+s. , ,
%e ,s _ . y *',, y
# . a * % "
r
, g
. * . , *, /.. , '
if - _ .4 ]
, s s
g i I *i & 4 . * ,, g * "* I
, .*~ 9 *
**(-
1
.s. . - - .'l '
t ,. . v 4 t ..n< . m
.scu. ,. *
+,g -w 11, u .
,t',
5
,g%,
.g ,J..- .
..O. .
- 1
, . i ,
- s
, 7 , '"
i
* - r-~ ' ,*[. h*--j,g' 's ', ! .* # ' '. l
.i 1
.n
$ [.
.] , , .," [h ,
'. N
-[; .' n. ^: . ,
t. p , \.'r .. n... :1 s; '. , /s , , , i
** ~.
,', , z. . , . . ~ . . , . . .y + . .
tw [. 4.. r
'r / e' 6 Y *-d * - g j[ *,'7 4.- - i .
.Qh & . $' :. ' '
f, . N. ' h.* -b' ~
, _ s
' U I*i ~
~
, . . . . ~ ~ . - - . ~ . . ~ . . . . - . - . ~ . . .. . -
s.,u s, . >.'. . ..y ,. r, ,
. a.w ;,mn. . >n;7. , 4. r j-
,a , . w. qu
, f, ,u,,, .
f. vc-* y: g .
< m .. .
~
O a, ,
~..
e in re Grand Jury investi. atio s of Ocean Trdr.sportaticn, 604 F.2d 672, 675
., ;,3 n.'.~ d, (D.C. Cir.1979), cert. denied s sb nom. Sea. Land Service, Inc. v. United States,
~
' . ' 'i' ' ' .:j 444 U.S. 915 (1979). It appears that GAP intends to reveal at least some of the 64 :
.y) information when it releaies its public report.
-^ b , /> . . _ ~ ; De Com. mission also lacks sufficient date to determine whether the work j
3 .. ' ^ s, . 7 - ' product doctrine applies to all documents requested under the subpoena. De f; s ; -
; Commission would need more information t.'garding the circumstances sur.
. : ,n :
l rounding the creation of mch document in ord:r to make that determination. g
-l Also, since it is unclear whethtr the attorney-client privilege is applicable, it is
'.V'
' j. .. !g , j . y j equally unclear whether logically any of the documenu could be attorney work c, ' ", . 7 1 product. Other questions include whether Ms. Garde prepared the documents 7 j . .j:,;i, ^ r;r. /L
, r.,;.
. in anticipation of litigation and whether work product documents, if any, are
' f $' f: Ag . [ W w W ' x ,6.( ' y {$ ,,'..
discoverab!c under the substantial need exception. See 10 C.F.R.12.740(b)(2);
, ' .u;;'
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)().
; .+ : cr t- --
;4
. g- - De Commission's view is that the more appropriate time for Ms. Garde to
' {;s~' assert the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine is when Ms. Garde
-% ., i .g"QL .' /U 7.f: D(C , ., testifies regarding specific questions posed, in response to the subpoena. At that
- . M, : G f' , s time she may invoke privileges that she believes are applicable and explain their 1
f ...',,- D.v' f - relationship to the information sought by the Corr. mission. Her assertion of them
~ '
'~
s at this time is premature.
~#
. Derefore, the motion to quash the subpoena and the request for oral argument
. ? 9 '
are denied. Unless the parties agree otherwise, Ms. Garde shall appear 14 days after the date of this decision at Room 650'1, 7735 Old Georgetown Road,
~
- - Bethesda, Maryland, at 9:00 a.m. to testify and produce documents concerning
, allegations bearing on safety at the South Texas plant, pursuant to the May 22,
.c -
1987 agreement between Ms. Garde and the NRC.
- s. .2 It is so ORDERED.
. w-m
[ Ibr the Commission *
, )
* ~
. .c .
- ,- m
'. SAMUEL J. CHILK
~. .
Secretary of the Commission y Dated at Washington, D.C.,
' -; g:
. this 15th day of July 1987.
. ,(- .
g- g [ . 6 g
,l#
f -, c...,.c
.r., ;. .- m .;
] 'Camsamr Carr oss riot Pfwas fw the thanas of Oss Order. If he had tiens presara he would haw
; i,, J ty;);f',N-['., ' ',$ , -$-[P.4 *c sw jg;:lg;4As.-
y q.f. ,' hi
"[* *$b..j ~ . w{:.D .
.9 . l;W ?;&g-l;. .
u A .y
~
11
. -s ,
, .:.~ ,3,ysj; ,' .
l
, e
_G * ;y.-.
' ,l : . .~ , T f I ~. -,
, Twm y j
8 . . J,. - 1
- , , ~ . _ . . . _ _ . . _ . . .. ._.. . .. - ., .. -
4
*l'
. < 1 l s- O
~
s
- g,..
- q
* .. - f A -
, * - i1 '
',", ..s,,.,4 ... 4 .l }
l, < .y_ <
< . .,. . n .i i . . , . . ,' s
*, i y
[, i c ,,
,s." 1
*-. 't l s-
-{t ...-
.s t
- .- .~ . .
. .~ . I ' */ g <
' ,l a 3 y
' - . , + 4 4 , ., , Atomic Safety and J.13:.f! 1 . j'n ' f >g Licensing Appeal gya . .
, t v'Q. 4 :7..~
-s 1% *A m s
*'.)_..
,. tA
~
Boards issuances %- rN = #
.v~ ,.,.
. s. 3-..
. < *44 . ,}b:-
c.
,. .. .1 .L - -
. s, .
.s , ~. .
.. ., .m% ,. a
<4- ?[ , , ,6"? ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL 4
c- . .
, j ;; i f3AS' q . ,. ,
. . t.
. ,%'vY , .
s r,. ;g 3 ; 3. . , .
' *.. . r.. .';
. ' . .3. ,.: m,. @/i.J
; : Alan S. Rosentna', Chairman
- <*. ,. ~.'-_ Dr. W. Reed Johnson a, . - a.
t
~.-'
_ s Thomas S. Moore
,, s -.3 ,, .
s s
-"J s, .
Christine N. Kohl
. -' p ., - .i , Gary J. Edtes .. .
' * ' '- 1 Howard A. Wdber
-'m - : O'
- g. .
.. g. ..
g' . 7 4 9
- t i ', , y s ~, ..y
( .*\ #
~ ~- ' ' .; }
4
, x- - .
4* sa s . - f; . 5 1
"4
,. . . ~ , '
.['98 fI 4 e 3g * * ,
, , s A
v i t ,
, z.
'4 '
s
. ~
.s e J.,N%. w w 1l . .
a
., .. ' >~, *' '.
s* .s.,',..
.,.J*, .
; .s. - 4,,. c ,'-,.::. ni -
1 -* ,, I. ..e , ,c.;). ~. 'J.:.,. y - ) r,.. .r..;MA' .4. .',.Q. . 4
'4
, a .,' ,,
,. J
- e. [
- (t
..M . s. :q.,..,w.,. . .-
97, . [
'v f - N .e ,., d ( .
4 4 . .f '.
. . r, f.e,,,,ig.r . , n .s
', ' N.i ,',t" '.* %,i.'d . '
*
- u:,
,* ~ .
.y. ~,
s .. .. ,'
',,',',f.'
a . }
','.s..
- i 1 . . . - .. r
_ -- 1 s c.-
'- .. .~,
a
.} \ ,
, g
, *' 5 L -
]
{
. ~ ,
- -.~ ~.-- - ..~ . ,,-. p..,,,, .~,,,, ... . . , ,_
s a 'l i e ,
'f s
d$ d 1 r -w
-- = +- g,. . . . . , . ,. _ _ _ , _ _ _y _
,. .n p n .,.
,.3A.
; - c'y#a w -y 7. L h;r.:m
. ,,3.. n,. -v. . l
. V; s w
- * 's i s , ;, ; ,3 d <y
. . , . w'l_ g .y.gsL
, . ' + l. j.:' - ' i w ." .' ; 31;7, l
. s , , . , , t q .: , .. ( .
u, , .y g
>: e m %a;~.~ .. ' ' '
. Cite as 26 NRC 13 (1987) ALAB 869 n:
?, .
+- . :;p.c,v. ,. - - . , ,
e . '- i gg ' j.4 a J < , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ilD 4L.l. yyy't't .. c en , , . n,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v . x, .?....,.:
.N - m 4,8 . . m m , ,
. ?... ;3; p u ,.:m ,;..; . y
- z1
. " , , _4 -
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
., . . .J ' L s f.., - .}a
\
- z. n.y. . z
.~ ; : v .:~ ;;r
. v:
.",'-:,.x
.I c..,c g~ ~n , ?. q . I..s.: q:3 ~ ' Jc.,?. . } Administrative Judges:
.I Q o,.. l ~~ C ' l. . ..*M' ' %, l:w- '.'.c'
; U.' . ? e -- n t i. ]
m'[p' . ::.
- 3 ,9'. n. c;.d-
- w. R.- -j. 4c.;M:.*? Y ,'::: / : :17's% U.;$)'aY.q ;w' s , ,,]4 Cheistine N. Kohn, Chairman W@g.y.&,- ey ): Gary J. Edles
,Df : m ::) 7 7 :!- -@w:.W-
; ..w'*. S. s'.. : .
,.-s eN4 , I. M : ..s Howerd A.Wilber W @6 ** . .. . . a#. M w r s 6 *, It % g. , ,,
~;,. y '., , }a;pl',%mg..-+f 7 ' .e -
- ~. p .~6W .. <
- e.r/,"l M g y 'e
'. g f in the Matter of Docket No. 50 271 OLA y . yQ w. .'@ c.. e 4 p. e u :..
7: (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment)
.'f, 7:e. .h ! [-
.{, ';
- 4:-AJl "p ,g'ysf. ] VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR l
. . ,.5._.e J j POWER CORPORATION
/. (Vermont Yankee Nucleer Power 2, ,e, .. 7 . ' 'lT., JP'. y~ -
,-- Station) July 21,1987
-- - ,. :. y -
,g - , 7.. a . .t -
+, 1
~s ,.
)
TS - In an appeal brought by an appucant under 10 C.F.R.12.714a(c), the Appeal
, 'F,,..
t"' i ; e J W. '
Board affirms the Licensing Board's admission of most of one contention but reverses the Board insofar as it admitted two other contentions. 1
. 7, . t 1, c . .
i
.~)
~
, -c ^ G %. . . 1
. w . .: . l r '-
. N g '. .. v e: A RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW (ISTERVENTION l
'l a , R$ .';. : a
, . RULINGS)
. . m -
, )
f - 7' Under 10 C.F.R. I 2.714a(c), an applicant may appeal a licensing board order l
, J. ' , .Qt. ' d
- on the question of whether a petitivn for intervention and/or request for a hearing
" ' ,W w .. ,
,~ '
should have been wholly denied.
-u ,
wn y ..
'_-f- -1 ,0' , . . . : .
, u
' v .
,.Jr , f. ' .,S.. ,.e.
HEGULATIONS: DEFINITIONS (SINGLE FAILURE) w . ,a , y'W A single failure is defmed in the Commission's reguhtlons as an occunence
', s:n which results in the loss of capability of a component to perform its intended
- ? \. % J E. p @jy i $ i,$ ,-,.. d
, w . y<;6:,;/,a y,.,p k. .
u .:: E _A
- w. ..'. I ;W safety functions.10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A "Definitions and Explanations." 1 j
'. e.u ,*. v .? ,* , ,
- 2. -
*- e ?",. .,, ' *;
.-f r. i- ',
- j
'~',jy '+T.lq . .,N' lL : "
+ .' ~,' .'j_ Ntg I
- as< ..'%* Qs Qe..d+1 '
s.' ,1(. l
. ~ ~ . * ,
N+ ',,y,.
'u ur,*
.Q'gi n :.
,f' y*fe. Q W*:*}A,y;ln ';E ' ' : &
m
, J ,y: ; <% ., ' -
[ s.. c.s. n .,
.. - 4
*r- 'f ' d(a * [ d.'. . [ [eg( - "e..
y' '
..'s*
,;s/; . ~.. f. }. r . . .~'4 .
.G. ,
'y'
' ' ag 3 [ -h b *
~*c '
'e e g . .'
(
-() . .
, _ s. 9 #
% g w.....-e.g-.-.--- - - . .
.v.3---,;-~~------- -
%' a , ,
' ?e ,
'"' r A *
., , g .,
9 e , , 4 e' ) h % p 5 T -
- . 4 I g. % 3
.r . i.
, ,. 7 -
- s J *
[,. u.* .. f ,-*\ I V '. l.= [ .N'
) J' '
.. ,- 4
,e;
,. s.-
. .e;
-. 7 s.
-71 . .. ,c -
, ' *
- s.
s bi, )
- 6 \
' q .. . V, t
~
.; ..n .y. _
- V x ,
3
x . . , + :;..p;, . . z,n
~ .
?
1 v u:a , w , . .J.,) 3 ,.:,. g,p, . f ; ,2p9<. %
, .fji.- e:* ; 1:.- y:, ,
,+~
- q , O ,; c- . , . . .J. ;,
l
< - u y ., :
- .: ~
ny. .
- 2". 9 M.. , w~. ;s.s gg'- 1 , , ? -
RULES OF PRACTICE: RESPONSIBILITIES OF STAFF l i
@ When the staff's review of a matter is not complete, it should say so and
, ,U, c,- i i
.- advise the licensing board and panies of when it reasonably expects to complete
.#gp > i , s.
, ! D. Sc . ' <my -b; %q ~ that review.
7.. ., ; u 7.. -wn.~
. :. - y l
3 /) '. .-f,p % l
. '; RULES OF PRACTICE: DOCTRINES OF REPOSE 'l
' . : .' n' a . ' . ' : '
.' i
. (., ,
..: . .O 7, . " ._,f y lbr the doctrines of repose (res judicata and collateral estoppel) to apply so
'~ q. %: J p.1;g 1 as to bar litigation of an issue, the issue to be precluded must be the same as that j M&$ ' W (y.".kiM.(Qy involved in the prior proceeding and must have been actually raised, litigated, !
M g-: and adjudged. Additionally, the issue must have been material and relevant to i
.,';'OUdj.Olhhl.'ed g%. TR 'f,y%M [,\. -
the disposition of the first action, so that its resolution was necessary to the j outcome of the earlier proceeding. Carolina Powr and ught Co. (Shearon j.T~.yW',y- 43 @,G':+'ffd;f ig,pfs <: Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-837,23 NRC 525,536 37 (1986).
%.n. n.m :.4. .n...v . y . n n; ,1.
kW
,?' i. , ' , ?;f
( y M ;f g W y , q g ,N c REGULATIONS: DEFINITIONS (ACTIVE / PASSIVE COMPONENT)
. .9L.
. .qy :.Llp
,1 "', ', , f d%'Mi; .5 Q r..
An active component requires mechanical movement to perform its safety
- f. function, whereas a passive component does not. l.ong Island ughting Co.
)
- ' y~7; ,,
7 - t, g ' c ' = (Shercham Nuclear Pour Station, Unit 1), ALAB 788,20 NRC 1102,1164 s.-:; _ - : q . :M nJ55 (1984).
. -. v
' : : np-c .~ .
,. s
~~~ -
Yu
~
LICENSING BOARDS: SCOPE OF REVIEW (CONTENTIONS) . 1 g At the contention admission stage, boarcs should determinc only if the !
','M~ contention has basis and speci6 city, as required by 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b), and
' - l f i %;4 , should not reach the merits flouston Ughting and Power Co. (Allens Creek !
. ( , ' 7,fj ,.N Q. Nuclear Oenerating Station, Umt 1), ALAB 590,11 NRC 542,547-49 (1980). l
, . _ :e s.. , , i
. !. . .M c
,' - ,~~..s-2.y , REGULATIONS: COMPLIANCE METHODS General Desit m Criteria and other regulations embody minimum require-
,4
- 1. , . '
-l ments. Standard Review Plan provisions, "regulatory guides," and the like offer !
. . :. ,. N staff guidance on how regulatory requirements can be met. Applicants, however, l
, '/;,
-' n; ,, may demonstrate that other means not speci6cd in the staff guidance will ac- I t _
,y~~
complish the same goals. Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant),
"4 ' #
< ALAB 725,17 NRC 562,567 n.7,568 n.10 (1983).
/..*#
0
,. ._f 4
.-.4 -
d, . 'J I f *; . . i
, ;x. . , ~ .
**k ' , 1 .: -
m v w ( o .: ,d g./. s. .
~
1I.. . y, . > ; :.-y :y::q~.% ..
,qpgs:: .mm'.-
l, :t,:'Y&.
- , t y .': )y.,f f
- y. ;jbfyQ*: .y c.g y* .,
; 3.
u
, < < , -L:p *b; ,., \[.).Q: \ ; g . m'Q - 3
,n... '
.g.
. y, M
s,.*' r ,. . < g b
,,,, 8-
,, , 4' -,i ' ". *.m.-,ei . ....,<-,,.m,...,, .. . . . . . j 9 %
,
- 4 .
a , ' f 7 1
. 1 8
. b
*. 4 M 4 .
'3
'f;, -
, g s .+
e . ,. '1*
.;y e . g y
~*c..
, s t 3 -- . -
% v. , ,
m ._ , , i -; ;.ac ,mw s; .,t%w,< :. e ; ., . .: . ..r .c.e ,,,; p'; 3: ns
'.... vw:, . 3 -_ ; n. nc',s e.m - f L : es ,
,- 1 t
v: f; j~ M s i.,s.M g #
. . ., ,. ' o s .
ADJUDICATORY BOARDS: SCOPE OF REVIEW (SUA
~.< i $,# .. .
c, ,, ..
, SPONTE ISSUES)
. l T * ,' l l,, *
~
~= 1 'Ihe Commission's regulations permit boards in operating license proceedings fs to examine and decide "(mlatters not put into controversy by the parties," but W /. % 4. :e c p.,
.C .l.s ,ff7 .
only after a determination that "a serious safety, environmental, or common
'.f 3., ]Sq 9 .;
defense and security matter exists," 10 CE.R. 4 2.760a. ,
. .j, i \ '. - .a
,"[ '.. .
}
ADJUDICATORY BOARDS: SCOPE OF REVIEW (SUA
- t. p , 37 g ', $ ..' (a' - s W,
_; SPONTE ISSUES)
~.:y ;.;p :n - ~ t c; -
y 7.yK. % d,,r.[M $
- 0 A licensing board involdng its section 2.760a sua sponte authority must set forth such a determination "in a separate order w hich makes the requisite findings m i c2 s'
- tMr:Q ~ ' u -%i'!' " and briefly states the reasons for raising the issue." Texas Utilities Generating
.,0. l% N,$y.F q l j' P . { di.pM-{'% " M.', Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-8124,14
,. p. NRC 614,615 (1981). The Commission itself then reviews the determination p',- .s, 7b.jQ'J
..g') 3%f: v. g$ ~ and decides if the sua sponte issue should remain in the proceeding. See id., CLI-p ', ; 4. . T) . . 8136,14 NRC 1111 (1981). See also Houston Ugking an,f Power Co. (South
; 15, , - ,
%-fL Texas Project Units 1 and 2), LBP-8154,14 NRC 918,922 23 & n.4 (1981).
- 7. ;
y v. ... 30;.1 w RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 3 p m . :. - z' % . ;. ~ 10 CE.R. 5 2.714a contains a limited exception to the general rule prohibiting
...,'. ^
?
interlocutory appeals. A petitioner may appeal a board ruling that denies the
>. i '
entirety of its petition to intervene or for a hearing.10 CE.R. 6 2.714a(b). So ch
. ,]
q 4 too, a party other than such petitioner (usually an applicant) may appeal a board miing granting intervention or a hearing, on the issue of whether such request "should have been wholly denied." 10 CE.R. ( 2.714a(c).
,T ' .
, - ,s 1
. 4 .
, j V
f. W ,, J J RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW (INTERVENTION v RULINGS)
'g..- '~
The terms and spirit of 10 CE.R. I 2.714a(c) allow appeal boards to exercise
. 1l1 t- '. discretion concerning the need and desirability of reviewing other contentions, L ' . ; ,, .
once one admissible contention is found. Compare Mississippi Power and Ugk
'" Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 130,6 AEC 423,424,
', , c& 426 n.9 (1973) (once board found that petitioner had at least one admistible f
3
' f, y .
y7 contention, there was no "need" to examine any others) with Duquesne Ugk D'--
'4 Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No.1), ALAB 109,6 AEC 243,244 ( ."+
_ g [. '
& n.3 (1973) (in applicant's appeal from licensing board admission of three contentions, appeal board found two contentions admissible and expressed no j
)
. y .t . i g g 4. ") L ' !
i view as to the third). Cf. Louisiana Power & Ugk Co. (Waterford Steam Electric
.%.j g JQ 'Sj:$qg:f.,.,], G
.y :y 3.w gg _ .
~":'7 2lW jf. '- '. ,: .' QiM.g Wyig%g i
l e ,,
. ,w.n Q ,.; :)
;, 15 l N , ; * .g 7.
t j
,' " ,M f. 4 ;: W. -, <f
- p '.ssSj, .,;.- ;. 3
.'s. ,
1 s
' ~. Q s
- t . ,,,
~. , , .;
-e . , 2- : . 3,
-+.-e..pg. .--~, .
' ~
., W . _ _ egum gur r*r,em.=ya-
- am e.e =ev e , meiog - , - . - * -94 .
r I g' . 4 4
- o I . ^- y
.g g ,
I P .
, s
= - * ,
, f g
,([, ' *, *[ ..
we , , - - a
?.Tuq:,dp.wt.V.
_c , . c. M.m $$. ;y;'.{n.dM,..+
., J - ,u .. ,
4
- Q.:~l[: e,-., *.h p '.].. .{
x,..,.....- ( i j 1 . x) [. (.?,.jj.E':'c:. Station, Unit 3), ALAB 125,6 AEC 371,373 (1973) (in intervenor's section
'V ,. ' .,
;M^/E:
1 ti ;[" ' 2.714a(b) appeal from a licensing board rejection of his Sve con;entions, appeal
'c w ;p,g .
board examined and found admissible all five contentions).
. . p. -,
.3:. . -
m f.T. g -, yrj.t c.
. r::
. . . . .;e sx,
_ . p3 . a. RULES OF PRACTICE: CONTENTIONS
+
.i,,. .
a< , & q' - One purpose of the basis and specificity requirements for contentions is to m ' ;. c assure the hearing process is not improperly invoked and issues raised are f N' . <.,M jf, y appropriate for litigation in the inrticular proceeding. Philadelphia Electric
. V.g V.i ff, Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB.216,8 AEC
'c sm "'l '; .' % ','y F _ 13,20-21, modified on other grounds. CLI 74 32,8 AEC 217 (1974).
,K,
.O Q ~ .g. w , . g.M.- : C f9 y ' .' .
,.'.p.w.:.;Tv0 W. .. v.; .
WSBc ~ 1. gwgn
,9p y 2 w:
% ..; .- NEPA: HEARINGS
..M,dC3.- 7,'.M IM ."%
, 10 C.F.R. 651.lN provides generally that matters within the scope of the
-< i;b ' National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.14321 (hereinafter j.@', P 1. s.,c w . V;.n ,
2 7 > 9w 3 -:,N@N1"NEPA"), '
~' may be raised in NRC hearings.
k :: 3.,h}y , (t.'s'
- s., .
, . .c. cO- y-~f . O NEPAt ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SPENT
. -r c:.; 4;..
. -,s JL FUEL POOL) f' ,;- The need for an environmental impact statement in a spent fuel pool pro-
..C '
, ~ . .i;
. ceeding must be determined on a case by-case basis. Pact)lc Gas and Electric 1
Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI.8612,24 NRC 1,12, rev'd on other grounds sub nom. San Luis Obispo Mothersfor Peace
- m. [ v. NRC,799 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir.1986).
( i 'j
. . .- .. c- NEPA: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT , , . .'f 3 , An environmental assessment is a concise statement usually prepared to
- a. ,- "(alid the Commission's compliance with NEPA when no environme ntal impact statement is necessary." 10 C.F.R. I 51.14(a).
".4 1
s
..e,
. ff NEPA: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (NEED) t7 ml, v; -q 7$.2 V- Only when the Commission makes a "no significant hazards" determination
% ? f.
does the categorical exclusion in 10 C.F.R. I 51.22(c)(9) apply so as to preclude jW
' , ". L ~ .-
an environmental impact statement.
. . ;3 ,
\
* . .'# .,.N
.y -
' ', )
{. .v,. $M . . .f (' 6
. ... ;e ..f..,.: .,, ~ .{2
. .I". , . . * ...aw 7. %,.c -~'Ws i
. *. P'. ' , 4 * . .x c <;: '( * ;. N g
s. q , t w. E d
. .[ f d c, .(N. ,.' -
)
's
, y m'y - . ~ ; -l7 mW ,' 16 '
f.,.,,' /.s r. . ' H-
' , %. ", A 'S*Q
,.*' l ,. _ , g _s.e, e 3 ' . l
~
.',***(.' /, ,
. ' ,+ . } J. ; y,, . - S ,*,. ~
?, . V :. T , ,
- .~:_ --,a,f,- <
, t. i
'.J. N [ -
5_ go ; -
- d g 9 gm q.y . .e O . .y 8P '*.8'-"" -8"-NWO" "
'l .p a
9 d y
? , *
-* 4 A. -
s OW ;'.' l *
. , e
.'. ;, m ?".. < .
t
+**e
- , ,;, c w 45a
,.. g +9,aw he g. : g.y: w. i, '.;.-l, ,n*1 .
. m.;
- i n , ,. ~ - . _ . _. , , . .
.o, n.
.. s . gj. t$
. f J ,:' " ..
~!
. a. . g, 4 ,,, .i
' ,j qae , . m, X 'f NEPA: CONSIDERATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS
' 3.
- f. .M. ,..' s. [ ' ' 1 ? ,; . .,.
<i
, .y;. ; . , : :. "
. NEPA does not require NRC consideration of severe, beyond design basis
, ]J[ ' . l accidents because they are, by definition, highly improbable - i.e., remote and 4.I:l ~:g(C,5 Ly:['[
.?Q,,10-1.7,f,fI'Rl.-
.: 0 .
_.1 Vj speculative - events. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,751 Y.2d 1287,1301 (D.C. Cir.1984), af'd en banc, 789 F.2d 26, cert. denied. - y c- .~3 , 4 U.S. 107 S. Ct. 330 (1986). 1.gy
,. o y '<.. . .w .
- - 3; y ,g f.v.,7 g ;s;:.s. Je .
NEPA: CONSIDERATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS (COh1511SSION
, m&,.y4 c t,Y. n ~/ w ;;; g,.
?OLICY STATEh1ENT)
.e: ..z m u m. . .
To the extent that the Commission ever considus the environmental impact 7,ln 'J g g g y M
- M ~.i E L < and risks of a beyond design-basis accident,it does so as an exercise of discretion J.xw Q S v', 6.~. &.,f.O-/.. .n - M n
;i7 p.R-Q'jy under l'.s Interim Policy on "Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under 3,'agsc.f jW ;,c. , AM(;yd3'.T29. . d4, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1%9," 45 Fed. Reg. 40,101 (1980)
- f. hereinafter "NEPA folicy Statement"). San Luis Obispo 751 F.2d at 1301.
m.
.~ W y '.<
p nQ c .;:. r ;. o;f.);.y p q.yx. ., y c~\ .Q3 _ k.
.;? m :,Q.g.U
- e c . ,? . -
g y... -. ".m Q.: (( 2
..,f 5, NEPA: LICEN5E Ah1ENDh1ENT PR9CEEDING (COhth11SSION
, ' , - 7. C : "f 4; + ,
POLICY STATEN1ENT)
. , :. : i.: ., ~ :..;n N
yF- Nothing in 'he language of the NEPA Policy Statement. 45 Fed. Reg. 40,101, g-
/ '. r, g@w ;., ' .Y indicates that it was intended to apply to a license amendment proceeding.
. e, .
, :w:_
w,.
. p y.
y ~
< 'T ,
~t NEPA: CONSIDERATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS (COh1511SSION J. e, . POLICY STATEhtENT)
~ ..N . . -
. - Before the NEPA Policy Statement is even invoked, there rnust '>e some bash i -1, ; ,
} [.- E [N6*%
':. for requiring an EIS other than a claim of increased risk from a beyond &ign.
basis accident scenario. s.- "
- v.yn
. . 'r :V C
~
NEPA: SUFFICIENCY OF CONTENTIONS
. [~ Contentions that assert an EIS is required because of claims of increased risk a.. from beyond design. basis accident scenarios are not litigable - as a matter of
,. ' , W I,f ' ,
. law under NEPA, and as a matter of discretion under the NRC's NEPA Policy
,s..
, .: m. .
-- 4 3,,3 ' a. . Statement.
..~- .
- g :a
. . , . n. f.. - '., , ,
. ... ~
f'#, NEPA: SUFFICIENCY OF CONTERIONS t 2 .,
. . y .d.; In general, environmental contentions should be directed to whether the NRC
. .: 'p- M ' . .# staff (not an applicant) has fulfilled its obligations ander NEPA. See Boston
~ M O l WiMSill lQ :f.' 5 8 @ 'uQ , ,
e..
*.. m. .ynv...kp , p.; m. , ..%^w..O.y*' ~ . - . I
, . . W .T 9 Upf;
*'_J'.^
g[; '. 1
' j. [# .'. h. p,'.d5[ m . S 1, e ,,
3
.- 17
. . ,s. . . . ;;. . :wyLfm,
.v .,
. ' : .:. ' * , f, r . ..
C S i s ;v.j .
~
, ",<nb , .'. 's , - m . g y
,' t. .,..
'e, -,;. , " ~
. , . /,s .
s' " .. * '
t ".-w,,-.,,,w..,.--...~.,. . . .v.,--e----.-+-.,+.-. -- - - -
n * '
# g a
.i...
, * % j 8h t
al t
- s lw ~
s . . ! i. ~
. * . t E' ,
e . e y
;- 1-4'
, , M;[ .; { -
I, , 9F, a .(y4
'4E'?;4lM,$yyk..hlcQ:,[.j-- .
, ,\ . . .x.u- .,
,-( ,
1% - s Q
.:. g
, .y y ; c. -:
- -:- .+ .v .2.
- c. -1 Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Oenerating Station, Urdt 2), ALAB 479,7 NRC
#] a,,;-:,x '+. . .Wc
'I 774, 793 94 (1978).
.P. X., y -
,j
. ,y..,
., > , .,t j REES OF PRANE: CONTENTIONS (CONMTIONAL)
Q'4'.uN,E 49.g - N f.
- g. f . ' > '
Conditional contentions are prohibited. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear 3 . Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,466-67 (1982), rev'd In part, {
-:o. I' * '
CLI 8319,17 NRC INI (1983).
.' .{
2 %.:v. g .' .;. ?. j. . s
. r , ; s -:. x' O. .::p r-s
~
NEPA: SUFFICIENCY OF CONTENTIONS
.e.,...... . . .
.w- .a .-
J . ? -Ew/. [;y.'! 6.-l,i;,i'3 . , r ~. Some environmental contentions can be formulated and admitted before
" , i G'fJ ' l '!;.l(f- issuance of the relevant staff document - namely, those unlikely to be affected y Tj' - ,
s by the staff's forthcoming analysis, and those based on information required to . . .b d ,y . f /W T. a.. iM rld..'. 3%[h - be provided in an applicant's envitccmental report"(ER). Catawba. CLI 83 19, wy .-
%. . 2
. u .>, M. e .+. ; N .M ..
17 NRC at IN9.
~. . ,. + .. w-w.
1; , . .
-C , ~ N,$j,' i ' *j *2- RULES OF PRACTICE: STANDARD OF REVIEW
, ; c ,
- U -; _^ ' '
~ ,- Unreviewed licensing board decisions do not have precedential effect as to issues of law. Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3),
ALAB-482,7 NRC 979,981 n.4 (1978). y . , . N.
. . . , 2 -7c.n.
;# NEPA: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT J
.a Licensing boards should await the issuance of a staff environmental assess-N,y. 3, ,
.- - - mer.1 before determining that it is inadequate. Consumers Powr Co. (Big Rock ipE
.- Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB 636,13 NRC 312,330-31 (1981).
., > . :- .c .,;
- . .;- . ~ ,
ct. O. , ;,. , NEPA: ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT {
- i. - An EP. is required for a construction permit anj operating license, but not for l
-: a license amendment application.10 C.F.R. 55 51.50, 51.53. The information
. .f , . c, . that must be included in an ER is described in 10 C.F.R. ll 51.45,51.51,51.52.
.s..
. , ..n. ,y <
.., cy ,. .
, 3,,. .q , ; _
TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED 1
' u ~, J
..i . .,r 7. ~ Single failure criterion
~ . -
Residual heat removal system
, : a & ,,,' A-
. f ['QJN. , ' Spent fuel pool cooling
. 3. ' .g. ? - S :- r.N ,
General Design Criterion 61 I
'. ; ' y-g {&y* * 'f. .; .pgy L.#.G.5; % , _. i
% ,'n :3 ':'f.,. 34.;}.Q - - l
~ - J -[ ' . ~ *,
.'. q[MMQn gg
,Vf ., ;.M} 4
- 4
-}.,,. ..
.,.; s')1 f.% FJ- *.
>c." .
1 4 l
.v N .. '*
.._,'X.
- 1
* :g .. s % : .
}
. p' i .~.
w . k
$ # 1
. s . l l
I .. *
~ < -
k
- g e,.
t 9 t ;e , . _ - -
.,. + ,.c .s v.; s. .
- +
a; y a.a'-nE@q, on .- , y .:j;,q.) .-,.,;,o. , g;3.; ;,g',see.. ,. sd g . ', % ,, g, a s
- s.
2 u
~ .v,, a ( ,;3. ,. )!
4; .<
.. , J.:.. ;i.j;:,
a5 .
' s o g.f .
,. :e' ~ -
,f',
. t >;.
- General Design Criterion 44 M..c. , ,
W
/g , . - Active and passive components,
. . s , -
o i \ 1m,.:pq
= ?.
;- *n.f' ,
9 5 ..n
. ,9 1 .
~.,, 3.4, : *. .. . . .f.g -);'M *_ '
. .. APPEARANCES
-c. . : ,
2
" S, .-
9;
, : , .J ,
j Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., and Kathrp A. Selleck, Boston, Massxhusetts, for
. c<r. c . .. -.
.{ applicant Vermont Yankee Nuc! car Power Corporation. .
- .. . , ' i
, ./. ;q . . P, ' * ' l l-J ' t 3.;,y , , 3*.. P(. l.c , .y, TJ ' , d Ellyn R. Weiss, Washington, D.C., for intervenor New England Coalition on ' '.. M : # :'. 9 % J- , 1 Nuclear Pollution, j a'Nr . . . .A ~ %. y ; p .3.,p.::q.W , , . ;c .. , -' A f.g,, a7 *N.1 ;.s...: m ; . .. m / rc: F - James M. Shannon and George B. Dean, Boston, Massachusetts, for intervenor , or}(;/,. 7 ,,' p g;9 O g g 'b h fr ' Cnmmonwealth of Massachusetts. w .y m .. 3 . ':, s ,6 c. . l .;; W t .x ? 4' ,y .ql.p. 7. s7 .. '. W,Q'ggy.z ,v. ,, David J. Mullett, Montpelier, Vermont, for the State of Vermont.
~.s . n .c.. : u ., ,... . <.r m ::, c ..
v,n q , n.;;; p; N, 3, f .' Ann P. Hodadon and Robert M. Welsman for the Nuclear Regulatory
;J,'. Q , . ;
L ; ?' ?, Q .}'J Commission staff. l .
~ y s -. :.. -
w ,;
, . . ~
' t# .a DECISION >
, . . . ,7-.- 1, ,
l;
. ..p t Applicant Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation has appealed, pur-l .
l i ! suant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714a(c), the Licensing Board's recent preheanng confer. l
'q. d ence order granting the reqtiests for hearing and petitions to intervene of the '
l
'W- # '
New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and admitting three contentions in this spent fuel pool expan. l . N ,.: , l~
* , :: sion proceeding. See LBP 8%17,25 NRC 838 (1987).* Contention I concerns ;
* ' .. ]
spent fuel pool cooling and <. )ntentions 2 and 3 raise environmental issues. 'Ite l- ' j.' ~i
- tr _ .
) Commonwealth. NECNP, and Vermont (participating as an "interested State" t l
under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.715(c)) each oppose applicant's appeal and argue that the
^
contenuons are admissible. The NRC staff, which opposed the admission of all
' ,[ ' ' three contentions before the Licensing Board, now opposes applicant's appeal ,
;-O.< ,
with regard to the spent fuel pool cooling contention (see Wra note 7), but sup- l
', ports applicant insofar as it seeks the rejection of the environmental contentions, i l,
l g r.
. y
- Q .+ J
' ?[ -
l l . : '3;v s . p. N % . _.
.-.s.
. , ,s -, y
,..yg .
- 7. 'e-y. .
.. , ; ,) .
i h N 4 y,. j ' , ]"
,,y p .).w .p.tnr,. m sa w m , w l l 7 ,. , y:: .% 9, y, ; :',,,';,p;' , [ . m.;t I,W. <, j l -f- .' n. q _' ,, , , , g-y + , , J., t. : y ) i y (*= c.,*4. qmy : 1 j f . ., r I '. ..f i,l. 'a,.j -
- f - ~*?,
1 f-; . ' , %f ' i / $] %,e -y 7 m s 19
',[ . j .~u/ w y - ., . .. ,
j s
, %, }, . ,
2 g, s ..,'4
."- .. .% i ; , ~'* %
l '.\ ; ,i *' ' . . o [. s
;~ ' a v; t ~ .- . . . . . - - m.. _ _. m . . ... .. -- . ...
- ' - ; v l
4 j g k 1 1' N .
. % (
me i ya * , -
. . ,. 4 t
. . " l
,* d 3
J ..[ . ? .. ,
. s .
3 t.Q g.! ' 'w' M,.,.v.u,y # 3 gQt* *!- Q *
, e
, e.i' K' r .,. >. ..
m -y ,y',c.1 s W @: .@mg 1
)
._ r . %'i' . .' ?.
~ c ,
- n w ' o. a,,n .%,.<~~; : y &..n :~ , '.' -
J
n t
j s. , N N : "- . . Fbr the reasons explained below, we affirm the Licensing Board's decision
; y mm.j , , f, .
S., .S - with respect to most of contention 1, but reverse its admission of contentions 2
--w.
o
,n.
,cgy m ,
and 3. 4 - l ' :. .
+
,p . " 9.p % A ,', c. % ,. L SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING (C0 STENT 10N 1)
~"N'%_ . i . - . ' . <w ;-( e + A, ,.
'El .. . ,, f NECNP's proposed contention 3 stated that applicant's proposed operating
'M i ,, - g , license amendment authorizing spent fuel pool expansion should be denied
. , ,m e5 .t
.. .4 J.;
because it violates the single failure criterion.3 The basis for the contention
. p~ , .'..,Z. :. . X..-vl7-was NECNP's concern that, due to the added heat load to the pool following
- r ' . , . . n.
1,.. -9.: M t . a normal spent fuel discharge, one train of the reactor's residual hea; removal
$8.SFS! (RHR) system is to be used to supplement the spent fuel pool cooling system and
[i M I N . @[ 4 . B,... h. . Q ,. W,W 1.. 3. %,. , :
. i.4I}l$ih (fed S 3 % ( totoNECNP, . keep the pool water temperature within the design limit of 150aF. According applicant has not established that this method of pool cooling ensures s .
o v .m. p.,qc wy.. i T*, qN >Mc.," We W that both the pool cooling system and the RHR system are single failure proof. In
.X. ri' -',, . k a- 3: d. :s ..y admitting this contention, the Lkensing Board renumbered it "contention 1" and m m,Mtm s.s
- w. 4
-, rga. ..
recast it as follows: s;r s.? - ' , * .s u' n. j* ; < ,s
" . pi ~.p;;; e y_ O The spert fuel pool expension amerdment should be denied because, thrce:gh the p>N.f2
,s i
'. [.6 7 1
[^N necessary to use one train of the reactor's residual heat remon! systen (R10t) in addith to the spera fuel cooling system in order to maintain the pool waaer within the regulatory l
. o .Z ' . @ ;; limits or 140'F, the single. failure criteri<m as set fonh in the General Design Criteria, armt
. l%
3 ,; -4f .@ < y ,, . ' po,ucularly criurion 44, win be v w The Amticant h.s not estahtished that its poposed
'i y , . .; mahod of spera fuel pod cooling snsures that bah the fuel pool cooling synarn and the
.g -y rucsor coouns systern are sinsle-f* Dure proof.
A -
.o ,
.W , LEP 8717,25 NRC at 864.3 See generally id, at 847 51.
' J. ~,cn, Applicant raises three objections to the Board's admission of contention
-y ,
o '
-u; J 1. First, it argues that the doctrines of repose (res judicata and collateral estoppd)
L-
' ' , , . .Q - ,
bar the litigation of this issue. Applicant notes that NECNP was a party to
, ,. T. N .
an earlier (1977) spent fuel pool expansion proceeding involving the Vermont 2 J '?i 7, Yankee facility. See LBP 77 54,6 NRC 436 (1977), af'd sub nom. Northern y.e~-
- c States Power Co. (Prmrie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2),
k; 't '
* ~ .~ * '
,, r - r
, . .--l[
's*' brhs Carumasien's regulations denne *magle fa3ust* as
...; tS f
.y ~s ', ,
*s. t , - s en oomsvese didi rumahs k ths kas d +=p ha=y of a omnpanars w perfann he intanded safay I y 6? y, s - -
functient Whiple faunis resulung frae a mat si escurrence are screidsred to to a segle facurs Phd '
.?.
- f~. 3, .i
- and electric synens are canadered to be der.gned against as namened seele fading if mather (1) a segla imahus of any active canpeners (ass unmg peasrve omeponens haisten prayerty) nor (2) a sogle fa0ure p '
u (.M f d a pesave
, ------ (maaning acuve eenycneus funciaan propertyk resuhs in a kas of the capatmLay
, j h. ' d the syman to perfonn ha safay f.anctacsit l
' ( *n' 10 CAR. Paa so, ApperAn A,'Duf.aitions and Esplanaumss"(footnois waned). For a dancuamen d scave and O.N.' D ,' - pesave omnpanana, see @e acne 12.
. '. , , u 1.,. a Da 8'" saa==aas.a *d'rusad sad sownnan ty ihe uc.nseg so.d, aia in App.4 A, along mm 4.'y . $ .i. . ' .f.7.- . .-
N ' :. M /,@ N. .. ',", ;
. 'j%.. ,t the .; - - tien didt disy are derrved see #w pp. ss 40.
h
,. g* .g 7, U .
- ae' ' _g * * '. Q'*';'}. , c. * ,.[ j*M6 "'4,
)*jf\ hej k'hy y
t . %' %p[*g, '1i , , 6 s;^sfn, .;i~f ~ . Q Q~ r z;*y?Q ;y., ' 20
- 1. . , - rw: ,l*.wA. p ,
s ' *,r r '; , , _ l a, f,., 5 '[.. q.
,E
?'
. ~ , - ,
*/ I t 1
, . , . . . ---..~.,-.-r-.. . m .- --- :- - -- -
E a 8 e s., \ t I
*e
.. i 1
l w .
. 1 l
,~.4 ,
",q_ .
s i
. % , q
, . +~
. i < s .7 - - -
'~ '
F 4 -
. ._ _. . . ~ a. a .; ' _ ; . . . a .;. _ . .. . , . _ _ . , .
f & &.% ~ . x !. f,Q.Q.Q i yi (.. : -, ,y4 t . . : V.'gf J' 9;. , s \< ,
- g. -,.
v p.-( o q m. ,
- g..-
- c. y ,,
s .-
, a. . , . ' ,,
r ~ l l, s '
. . . .% ,c $ 'd %. f ALAB 455,7 NRC 41 (1978), remanded on other grounds sub nom. Minnesota cr;,g <
q ce # '
- v. NRC,602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir.1979). Applicant argnes that the issue of the
.: L' >
, . use of the RilR system to augment spent fuel pool cooling was "available for C'# s . .%' R; .. ,
litigadon" at that dme. Brief of Applicant Gune 10,1987) at 14. Citing the 7 staff's 1977 safety evaluauon, applicant asserts that everyone had notice of the D .Y# M f'((i i T' . ;; e c, YJ s. r cooling augmentation and that no limit was placed on the frequency will} which the RHR system could be used for this purpose. Id. at 1518. As applicant sees e '; t . - a ..' it,
. ~%. P,E.s.9.L" s
,- Q ,
I n , . -- ; ; ,' ;,./,[D e . (t]he terrower questian of how many times (it) should be allowed to call on the RitR System
*y
. ;' l. ;- l$ g , X .
to augment spers fuel pool cooling h destly encompassed in the issue of whosher lit) should +
- 7?j,i. g,1..,3'W enmm -%c
' ;L -
;;e :.,., - '% l
%. - 4 be allowed to do so at all. His being the case. the doctrines of repose apply.
c.3m ;,.4 ?.:9.,, y v.% O %.MXN , id. at 18. - . 4 f
- j; & 'n W Q ..Vj,1' N f$ We disagree. As the Licensing Board points out, the record of the 1977 rw ; 7,7. g;pgfi. N proceeding clearly shows that, at that tirne, the RHR system was to be used
., 9 # y3..p.S,Q , only in an emergency as a backup or following a full core offload - an event q + c D, : ye li! " " , '
that may happen only a few times during the life of a plant. LBP 8717,25
, c ,. ;
p: c ' 3 , .. : T NRC at 848. 'There is no mention of any more routine use of the RMR system
, fit;;f +N .
i to augment cooling of the spent fuel pool. See Letter from D.E. Vandenburgh
,,,' > , ' 'AW'_ - ' ,'
(Vermont Yankee Vice President) to NRC (November 5,1976), Enclosuro 2 at 3,6; NRC Safety Evaluation (June 10,1977) at 4; NRC Safety Evaluation, f' , . A.; i !. - Supplement No.1 Gune 20,1977), at 12' L. . In contrast, the instant application contemplates more frequent, non-emer-
, _g i gency usa of the RHR system for pool cooling during every fuel offload (i.e.,
- 7. the one th,'rd of the fuel routinely removed every 12 to 18 months). Sc6 letter
.T CJ from R.W. Capstick (Vermont Yankee Licensing Engineer) to NRC (November
*)- .' ,' .-o. w q'$7 ',;
, 24, 1986). Enclosure 1 [hcreinafter "November 1986 Letter"), Responses to Questions 13,17,18.4 As the sts/f explains, a normal one third core discharge,
. 1 f ', 5 l J l where the poot is filled, is the worst case for removing the heat load in the M Q,: pool.s According to the staff's, calculations, using both trains of the spent fuel .
, cc - pool cooling system is inadequate to perform this function at the initial decay
.,f i heat generation rate. As a result, one train of the RHR system (which has
. .g . a much greater heat removal capability) would be necessary for at least 68 .
; '" ,6 !
J' days. At that time, the de'ay heat rate will have dissipated such that one train o s 3.f. '
*; ; .,- - v. l
- 1, L
+' * ~ '
. 6- . ' Agylasess does act disp.no m 1=daad is appesos.ly has base selyvsg en RRR swnerMan d spes fuel
~. '
r , f pool emahng for namme dRoeds for emme suns 6 see To ss. 59. 41. we how na ihn avff to decide whsiher
' $' T appl. case has theseby violata/ the isras d ha enkne Eemise er eey Ccsanuss as seq daeans. The saff has u . -' - . '- %. siready requemed and apparwaly otsamed a ps't=ad d6ange in appbcers's induacal spec.Scatume to a4beas this i . : ,
~ -:3y , . n summa ansaiast see Laner fran wanen P. Wrphy (verinen Yankee Vice Prendes and Manager et operskrs) v .y c , :x
" aq.yW4.A'I r.-
', fg ;;.g;9 .$ wfre
,- L
. - .i l4 to NRC Quns 11.19s7h FRC Staft's Best Gune 2s.19s7) at s. 9.
8 thmins e fuD esse etstad, ahhaugh ihe pool hans had wedd be premer, en fuel woud runne ne se rescice 77,i.;*d ' pp q '." ggg'fMr9 .Q.' ' ' . vened awi omas the RHR syman sould be enese nedJy sw3able to emai 6e peat rilM,[.( U,I
, ,; .:o ,.'; % . ep:)a, . *
- se .:, i eq.*p'Q
- vf r. -?> y . .
' ^
,.*,_ .rs ? .
'*f
;n.
9t '.,N , e,w : ,
.*.V,.,i.* 7.i. ' p,.i n ,
'j 1 l
(.o ' .. ' .* (u
. l h
c n
, l .
. ~. . > .w . .,. ,
i . - 'N . I
,.7 7 .
.I g I
. a" ,
T g # 4 4
',N . ', ( T
-4* w * ,
t $N , D, p ,
. .. g U r .
(".._r,"$ . 6 i"- ' ( s
. , 'e _ _ _ _ , _;
j
. ~.. .;. . ..~-- a - . - .-.~. B~-.- : :-~ . . -- ~
m.:m.c- . e.w. ,.~.,.. . ~-. v -
, ~ .
Wy. . . . . ..s ,.t .
.e z M m ,g >x .U'w. : ,w, ; Mw4m'm ,y.9 .y 3 ,- . (,r
. %-. m'p. a s,w\.:-n, .>
. , i. ? ; A:nxo a - - a . . . . m. . cr. -
- m. \
[ ,t * . - M ; ?.O , . $ - e g;l * .. 4 YMWlp .gj.y{ . i l'- of the sp(nt fuel pool cooling system would be sufficient, with the remaining
,. - . RY-' 4"' . 'y spent fuel pool train kept in reserve. During the 68. day period, houver, the
- '? E ~
~~,
. .,j' i remaining RHR train v.Vuld be needed to remove decay heat from the shutdown A
, Mg ..,[ , f ,7 f ', '. ~ ' . ~ . reactor. Although the staff acknowledges that limited use of the RHR system d ' .YiWD-j.'f 'JjR d'N .
is currently authorized, the increased heat load associated with the requested .. v. amendment (approximately 10 to 15 percent)' exacerbates the situation and has s>, ; .g ;X xy ;C ,e ~; . q *
"focused the Staff's attention on the need to explicitly assure the availability l
, 'l . G f ,- [ ' ' * - ' of supplemental cooling capacity for the spent fuel pool." NRC Staff's Brief, 7fMV ^ %v f.y;7 '
mpra no;2 4, Appendix C (Affidavit of John N. Ridgely) [ hereinafter "Ridgely , 4. k) .g Affidavil") at 13.' Thus, not only does NECNP believe that a grant of the 1 u v.y g g-o-)N M '[ "$ M'; W a . .>. ye . .;m.eg.u
.q.c_ w W,? '
requested amendment will mean a different and greater use of the RRR system foe fuel pool cooling than was contemplated and authorized by the 1977 license
. c . x.
, g amendment, but the NRC staff does as well. Moreover, it is the additional
.cfNWq;QGW j.g M D:jg!'M,*0. g,@p, Q p.g., _g db-I JJ 9
circumstance in which the RHR system will be used - not just the frequency of its use - that is pertinent here to the increased heat load attributab!c to 7 M ^ 3 l 0; g g ; @ ;' (: J. the proposed expanded pool capacity. See NRC Saff's Brief at 11. Applicant is
, b ' 'E QSM.Q{M therefore incorrxt in its view that there was a fair opportunity in 1977 to litigate
,.N- 34 , P. .f - the issue of RHR augmentation of pool cooling for other than an emergency or
; - S.
S.f;' A full core offload condition and that this issue was subsumed in those addressed
' ~"6- C previously.' Consequently, the doctrtnes of repose simply do not apply. See Carolina Power and Upht Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) Al.AB.
837,23 NRC 525,536 37 (1986) C(t]he issue to be precluded . . . must be 1
%. J 'S .. .9: -
~
the same as that involved in the prior proceeding and . . . must have been
# ' ' . -. . actually raised, litigated, and adjudged. Additionally, the issue must have been
' ~- "
~
7 material and relevant to the disposition of the first action, so that its resolution
.y:; was necessary to the outcome of the earher proceeding.").
_ E'u ir .p, Applicant next argues that the single failure critenon, on which contention 1 f, is premised, does not apply to spent fuel pools. According to applicant, General i M Design Criterion (ODC) 61 is the only GDC c!cariy applicable to spent fuel pools
.., ~.;' ,'y V ^. e ' and relevant to NECNP's contention, and it does not impose the single failure
.. f * : K, y
* .. Q
. , LT "
. e 'ne opphses seeks per- to increans Vermars Yankee's spas fuel pool cap cuy trarn 2mo is 2s70 fuel l 3p- amenhtee by rereding - Lt. replacmg the presars spes fuel mes wuh new rods $at a3ow sloser spaang at
. iL me fust assenhhes.
j ( :7. -
~ ' (' S ' ' 7 The matr asemaene fe he diengs in possunn en earnemmet I teee apes p 19) by sapt.aa:ng man its *rvyww
, < . ,. 0 ;. ^
c et es amendenes opphsetice wee met earre n ew* et ee arne er de tuenems m aast's senahretie of on i 1 . .
*- ,, .. commaa. Rmagely Afr.devis et s. when me matr's renes of a mener is nos eenrelene, a ehmand say no and adwse
. . , f: 7" ~
es bened and panaes se eham a ressembly especes se eenpiene est senee. Takes na trume3y uneg.avocal
, fe== m a largely enevnewed maner - es the staff did here (see NRC staff Repees to Ccesernans (Agni
~
j ', p~ ..,d>g.'.y ,.
- Is.1967) et 15-19; Tr. 67 71. 7s-76) - is unfas is a hcmans besse and she aiher partaes and is surely
, ._m_
,g "m
, >NJ.
..Wn
. (tr. 78) then. had k emenpied in 1977 is tingste the use of the a1Ut systen far spes fuel comung in asher tan yf;.y' -f.R 3 e' O~;g t . ': ymiq-p':q ;f,&Q{gf'g ",s aJ ^ _ ' .
a as energewy er futt sure ed8ose suustie. the agylacasa omad have vtges,aly and escoassfuny apreseJ sach a cemenen as beyond on ocepe er un ticarse emmenes esa si tema h, g - *
;e '
- g. p . ; <. g . 1 n w 1 y . " ' ; , ',.l A.i '.:n* . , ' C ;[Q' S+;? *y .--aMWi;\; ' U .d -- E e ." '
. mq.- )i .
, m .se L . '
j
. - u y..m , . 4. vm .m.n e 1
22 . g', - I'
~ * .T .. _
n jqr.m :
*% \
1a '- u.-, Gl g .. 4. s
)
,.9*_
eg Ag. 'A-[ . :
. . . ~ . .
, .I\ .,
- 4 4
r. 3 _ - -- _
\
1 m
}
t
- 4 .
D J.
. -4*,
s 9*, . T g
- /. . . . s . .
%' ,, . <~,'.~., . : ... .
_aw-a __m _'. -
' - - - 1
.m s ., . w .x ' .<*. ,
s-j
' X; a Q(l G'M i.' "gN ./
- t. . J' . 7 v m <- ?'. f 3 2 2y :( ,y
,u m.
v i pw F .* -- t
,9
,3 -3<
7;
> ~ h ...%.. f.,.. . ,:,c us s, :
~t C. \ ~V N:xj[y;jlW.
p .. i/ ' b ,,
^
criterion.' Applicant acknowledges that, under the current Standard Review Plan ( for spent fuel pool cooling, the staff applies ODC 44 as well.See NUREG 0800,
#l~ 3). M "'
.A s "Standard Review Plan," 19,13 (Rev.1. July 1981) [ hereinafter "SRP"]. at 9.13 4 to 9.13 5,9.1.310.8 ODC 44 requires the safety function of a cooling
' ]'i i1' ,f '%1' N: y,OSS..
.Ng% .
7,',f L " .6 f.s .
~
water system to be accomplished assuming a single failure." Applicant, however, contends that, because ODC 61 specifically applies to spent fuel pools and ODC . QJ'g. l '
].; C '.h 44 only penalns generally to "I'luid Systems," the former governs here, to the .'
?~ '
, 'm's .c ? exclusion of the latter. But even if ODC 44 does apply to spcnt fuel pools, r M Q N'1, . . ' .
.Q., %.f. f: T'( ' ;;f
-l j
applicut continues, NECNP's contention concerns only the failure of "passive components," and the Commission's regulations do not now apply GDC 44 to I such components. Brief of Applicant at 19 20 n r ff'U,Dv y 'M W .j fiF.O 5 e 'MTj/ . -' . Observing that a spent fuel gool cooling system is a "Fluid System," the staff
@M N'@t M p W M'D
.. sigues that both ODC 61 and 44 apply here, and that the latter just "places more n
Qd }'s.( $'7 ..r,qyg , ' stringent design criteria on the spent fuel pool cooling system." NRC Sta(f's ]'gyM/G. N c.s ( ..((kM @M [ D diJ T Brief at 12. 'Ihe staff believes these two criteria are therefore consistent, rather than mutually exclusive, as applicant contends. INd. NECNP similarly argues
. ;' a % 0. G p,y,.Q that more than one criterion may apply. Brief of the New England Coalition on cp:
'4l ', .. 's; ,. y , N'y* V ]M
" . Nuclear Pollution (July 1,1987) (hereinafter "NECNP Brief"] at 5.
2 e .... 'Ihe I icensing Board took note of "the differences in opinion as t, whether (.h<'c.) N;S'y ' the single failure criterion is or should be applicable, either through . gulatory
/ ~
c o requirement or Staff guidance" and determined that it could therefon not rule
- 1 '. - - .. out NECNP's contention on legal grounds. LBP 8717,25 NRC at 850. In our !
, ~ :c ','. y ^ ,] view, the Board took the proper course. We agree with NECNP that, in the a s
- , - .. . j
~E
, _ M 'oDC 61 meses, se gerunes.
, ~ -f .
') rolasersee and henaes and redesen.wy eenemt be fuel surice and handles riecocaw woma, and aber eyes =e which may oornam reaanetvay sha:1 be denened is assa s adepone safmy unde samal
. ,s
., '. W,_
.? s 1 .4 and peandaiad acenJers erywhuena. Does sysene shs3 be deegned . . wuh a meAal best remon) sapetnhay having reLabdity and iseubday ibat moests the unpersance se ufay of decay heat and enhw
~
. 3. -
nsAal host surnows! . . . . >- Qr ] 10 C.FA Paa so, Appewha A.Catenaa 41.
- aA sars a,e nes res,asome a.< u,,uer. ai a s.e #e .me n.
IIo%
. . . , e.er.
s 2*- _- h - -
'j DC 44 maiss:
coe&ag i,eser. A synern ne transfer heet (nun arwaures, symems, and carnpaneras irrgertare to ufety.
).
to en alurans heat ank As3 be primdsA De symen enfay funcean shs3 be is trarsfer te emnb6ned
., . hast kind d thens structures, eyame.s. and tempmene under essmal opersteg and occiders emeucr*
. . ;' 4 satable reAmdancy la corrge.orse and feannes, and sainble traerconneraans, less h-i. and lecteumi capet6sies chan he granded is sasse est fe ersas e&actris power eye me garsman (ass.rrura f' .
stfene poos le mis avsCabie) and te efaio elessne pweer rymme openWa (assenmg ensue power is
.9i 7i" mes aveJable) the ayswa safsy fLecuca sea be accom,Lesud, asemang e ant el faihueL
' ,> 'ff,
., i
. lj C.FA Paa 50, Argentis A. Casanan 44. '
,' e ~^ * - : As acon campeers requine nieAerocal movenes is perform iis estoy funcoen, wheses a poemw ecevganes
.J ?" g.; j: dcas em. Laeksee bue a w.ve '
sien is as stampde of a peserve eengesse faQure. Idag Jaimed Ughang l
. 3'
, ',.' Co. (Shareharn Nucht Power stawa, Uma 1). ALAB.788,20 NRC 1102,1864 nJss 0964). ns Conveninsumes '
regulaticms mais:
t, ', [
I
)
<>',s
,, . p $d. . . ; . ,. he emieuens under whxh a e*6 e 1fe0Lse d a poems sampcmest in s Ridd synen ahmad be seneidered L. T s.. w .' J.e T ' E. ? in despeg to synera a6ames e omsle f s%re ase ander develeguesa. l E b-J} h,,'(7 W $ M ,, ' %.3 ,
10 C.FA Pan so. Appendia A a.a j
..::. rw. o .% ; .:. , ., . u
- m. .yv w. .m L
- m . 1 1
' ;. .m n . S.e
.s ?:w:M m n . f.
1 ; i, .<; s . , J Q (,'C h, 23
' D ,4 !:f ):'[,
^
gf.y(E ,. ~ 9
* .,h.
9 -'E .'.'1, j
,s.. *
* : .9[, %. f. . j
.';g -
'.,,S.
,fy.. -1 I
i e i
* $w en *egewin.wmpur p +gr um=w es -,-**-***A***~ "**-*.*-.'"-*"ma"*****"'* *f*** "/ * . ' " " * * *
- v %
.'y, I
f . ., A A
*/
., a <
y' (,,
- P'
. a . .tJs ;; , a - i ,
., ~ ,
19'. '- , ,.y. _
- n , ,. ,. . , w - .
. > . ~ ,,.... n c- . . . .
i y+ , MQ ,.. ..n,pty , y.y x.- 49 . Qhf'{y'
, , . c ~
s...%-. d * 's c'm ,n> w,c ;. 3,, l y . ; a .v4n.p . a
.4- 'x y, , , h !( , A, n ' ,',,.4 o circumstances here, the applicability of the single failure criterion is a "merits, "U-9 "<c W 5 "' '
not a threshold, issue." NECNP Brief at 6. See Houston Lighting and Power W . J- c ', ' Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Oenerating Stadon, Unit 1), ALAB.590,11 NRC 542, L d f ,. 547 49 (1980) (at contention admission stage, boards should determine only if
.m )',/C{M,v.: , e- w ..e , :s y:A _
the contendon has basis and spectScity, as required by 10 C.F.R.12.714(b), y n, ,- .
,. 1,[ ] . f6 'q.S $~ ~
and should not reach the merits). See also Brief of the Commonwealth (Junc 25,1987) at 4. The merits nature of the dispute at this stage is evident in the U e , . ' ' +
'Lr disagreement between applicant, on the one hand, and the staff and NECNP,
%~jfgfF a . . . ,
7m' on the other, as to which ODCO) may apply. Mofeover, the status of the SRP as guidance, rather than a regulatory requirement,58 and the staff's developing
- 4. . A %.;N .l ^ '; -
position o, the ap6fcability of the single failure criterion to passive components
. ;hF . g,y p 1 g , of a fluid system (see sdpra note 12) provide added support for the admission 1, @.We'O.d' s of the contentloti now and the resolution of its meriu later, following at least
- l,d.y
@.~ . x'M'hy'! nf f ; R:s discovery and possibly hearing.t* ;
_ Xs7;W'. Q'".% l^i y/ Applicant's anal argument with regard to contention 1 is that the Licensing ! 9 W -;91 n : .ed dy?w 4
, Board has sua sponte injected a new issue into the contention (a temperature i
; s
~
m.EstT., M'/c' limit of 140*F), without complying with the appropriate Commission rules. Brief 70 7., - ^ W.,j ' of Applicant at 20 21. On this score, we agree with applicant. ' 4 , ' i .;,1. ~ : , w, W NECNP's original contention 3 referred to Vermont Yankee's existing design 4
;; ?) , ei , limits for pool water of 150'F.See Appendix A, infra p. 35. The Licensing Board
^ '
, ; noted that, although that temperature (1507) was used in the 1977 evaluation
, of the pool, the current SRP, "which was adopted in 1981, provides that pool -
.r ~
water temperature be kept to 140*F, except in the event of ' abnormal heat load.'" LBP.8717, 25 NRC at 850 51. The Board thus decided that 140*F is
- e .
. the applicabic temperature,"unless the Applicant can demonstrate why some A'i ~
othee temperature should be controlling." /d. st 851, What the proper temperature limit for the pool should be is an issue unto
. 1, :fa.
.o -
itself.is NECNP or another intervenor might well have attempted to raise this t.
.v
.. . > - 58 oDCs and enhar seguledme ernhedy muumma recurwesses. sRP prevunans. *segulmery guess," and $e the s . - e8'er aetf gedense en how replewy repuunans ces be me. Apphsmus.however, may desi.mseeas that asher
',Q.*- encens na spesa6ed la the maff guidense wdl essenphab due sesas genia. Ceaseensee Pener Co. (sig Red Poess Neder Plas). AtAa.72s.17 bltC S42, s47 n?. He slo (IMn '
^' l'la edanan, summmen 1 esserts that because ens nun of the Mut wd1 to needed is osynes the spurs fuel pool cadmg syneun, applisms has she faded to dummante samphanse wah the segne faaure asuenan es it apphes to the une d the lutR for senas cose oeulant The LJcesanas naasd una sapecu the parass is emplose
* , the pend fe a sedundam E!Dt syneen for decay heat removal puyanas &aneg penede d ceLd abidown . . . as
~. pen d @ms : -1"1AP.s117,2s hE et ss0. Apen free the more ganarsi arpment eat kngstum of $a
'v
, , -t ' . use of the RHR synssa is tarved by the decianas er repee - en arpunes we have npaad - asyhces dass
' , am nowm'lange des aspea.of emmennse 1.
..,a 2 15 The staf arpen that $e *tadiperesse differuse . . . dass ne go to the adunance d {the eaamaan), but affects t '~
.J _
how that emmessaan ahead be esahiaies" h11C staft's anaf et 7. k thus beheves $st the : _ es rewanen i g . _ v'. * , by ihe aoard fauty enrectanaes NEch7s Cassersaan s."14 at s. The focus of the arssmal earmenan, hoevve.
.'- ] ', .]
was on wheiher es svigle fashue catenas is violated; that verman araply aseened that me inngernaue knut for
,'. , , , @ms paat .es 150'. and it did nos semeed aar is ab dd 6e b a. su Appenda A. see p. ss. We emofon i
, c w - Q.x,,'s ,, despos esh es safr that the neard ad aan add any9ang of sabaiance is me earnesamt We aise daagree wuh '
's .. . t f, . ' :.
~
i' se stafr's nataan eat the aunhed of evshaneng e emusuma and to issus k mass - to, iba daarinaneman of
,-U . ; .t 'f{Q- ,
l
'f : e. Y. ly 'Q.
, %, ' [.'lp
, (C*ene=*4 '
.14. ,,h , i
, , .1 .
, / . 'i T# , .
- , $. ,j , b% ) }f , f M l'. . ' MW l.
.^ 1 4 , g;T m ,
$ '-) O .. ,* ,. . r* l.* . ,
ff
. ~. m:12' ' 7. . nx.
, s . ,* ,y i - 4
;+* ,i., '-
4
- - ,,sn;=. b=('e' '.
1
. .. 4 . . - i
]
= . + *\ .
f j i t.,.-_.._ ! 1 -r l l .l- l t s. i g- 4 J. . >
~; - , *" . . . i
,v , .
, [ g . p."
.. . . .- \
A % t t e
. - . . 4 u - y p.a; %.c.,A.,0 ,e :;..N.a .s, V
; , r pq.,-
, . .c: ..
. .c~;, .%~. m.
.m .,
.(.
- } ,' .r yf. s- ?.l .
l
<a ;
m ,, ;.u p., l . u , a . . . . ,
'9' C '. '
~s' . *.
- f db E 9.;. ' ,w- . h, as an issue but did not. The Licensing Board has thus sua sponte added this
's~ . . df. - i t '. . .1 otherwise uncontested issue to the proceeding. The Commission's regulations ls T, ,, % 'j , .
+
j permit boards in operating license proceedings to examine and decide "[m]atters !
$ .k , " ) not put into controversy by the parties " but only after a determinadon that "a
, . , 7. : y . ' 9 - - .l serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter exists." 10 '
j 'vy y p. 7
% C.F.R. l.2.760s. Whether this regulation authorizes a board to raise such an 1
"; t, 2 .j issue sua sponte in an operating license amendment proceeding is r x clear. See,
'4 .
q ! e.g.,44 Fed. Reg. 67,088 (1979); Consolidated Edison Co. of N w York (Indian
,bi;'~9/-
.j Point Nuclear Oenerating Unit 3), CLI.74 28,8 AEC 7 (1974)." In any event,
, M: ; 3 ; . M .q, p 8 a board invoking its section 2.760s sua sponte authority must set forth such
' J . . ," 9, f /.. l . . a determination "in a separate order which makes the requisite findings and 4Pc..j g h y; - brief./ states the reasons for raising the issue." Tc. ras Utilities Generating J ;,,9;-,j,, gj F- e.., '
.g Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Elcetric Station, Units I and 2), CLI 8124,14 d?'i. 7.gj. NRC 614,615 (1981). The Commission itself then reviews the determination ft v.Ili)
@'7i 'w..a$ -
', .l K.. QT ,N h . 7, y?(;L S . [ % :'1 and decides if the sua sponte issue should remain in the proceeding. See Id., CLI-8136,14 NRC 1111 (l981). See also Houston Llghting and Power Co. (South y#.W yg j' s <
. Texas Project, Unhs I and 2), LBP 8154,14 NRC 918,922 23 & n,4 (1981).
' - , ; - ; The Liceming Board here has failed to comply with these Commission s 3
*/
(RX 1 requirements." We therefore strike the Board's reference in contention I to
! the "regulatory limits of 140'F" and substitute "design limits of ISO'F' from
- z. .
'. .j NECNP's original contention 3." Otherwise, we af6tm the Board's admission
; - . }l l
of the contention, as rewritten. 1
.,. i II. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (CONTENTIONS 2 AND 3) j
~
,M " .I e
~ i, { Before addressing the parti es' substantive arguments concerning the Licens.
4
.Q, j ing Board's admission of contentions 2 and 3, a procedural quesdon commands 4
1 7, 1
. , ,- i A sta regulaiary mandard should only -is nce a maner of autmance. Indeed, esperois estarums $a chatees
- ,Jj' -
ihe aphcanon d a perucular regulainy mandard er guado are efien adenamed is e penr== Ant and ceas swsus be sad to be lad.eg is edstanca
- - M Aphcara doe nas argue, however. $at neards es not have sus spese aushanty in smedmera psoceradess. see
. . Bnef of Apydacers et J)21.
fg; U We thus rejeca SICN'P's bnet argwners sei is was "onely wen wuhan es Board's d.acusaan to make $e
'a v
, inmass (tenparature) changs? h1CNP Bnet ai 6.
^
i
'n d ow daarounsiaan la ihas regard, benever is wuhcnas pojitase is any effen ihe tJeanses B<mrd musha undertake
-e la caripy wuh the l' ~'s sua spene rulet J':[,d ,
*A '
J We nosa, homever. that the Boasd semamed inconectly that ibe maff's sRP d.d acs adgt 140'F as she isTersnue r.,,a hms fce spera fuel pools urna $e 1981 smsian of 5 9.1.s. see 13P-8717. :s h1tC at ss4st; Tr. 7s-M. la
- t. tf fact. $s sRr in efect at the tuns d the 1977 peal espannon piocamerts also pronded fe a pend ternperonare
.- ? < , of 140*F. Jee h11 leo-75/087, sRP,6 9.1J, at 9.1.s s. It is therefoes aca eviders is us why er when Verman
' - s .* . ' , , ,, - L Yankes's na*.nacal speenAcataca of Is0'F =as oppwred. Indeed, the contwaan messuaes. See. e 34 hover *er
~.; , g ;,. R. c e C. "
t , 1964 taaer. Quesna 17 and Resporos We emefase espect that triespectie d sheer se ticenseg Based l W ,, * ' . > 9 ? > 7. A y Q ~ ' *' . staan anerngas is rease dLs issue sua sparna. the r.afr osu fa!5D as neposamhry and nordvs this 4.aczepancy. see
- wpm;g
_ / ;f/f. ft} ,' /, ,tiW ssq O E ~','
.1 7,, y,
( .' ~l%.'i. ;Y ', '-! ":.9 Q% ! i s .- c a s -
*
- d.j. : wg; e .y^^ -
g
.'h' . . . ;. M E '.
Q*; e .y
. 3
- L ;h ['; ~
^
\
- l. . a :n e r. ; !
a-j _ a' ,
, L--.-....~- . - . . . ~ . , . . - , ~ , . - . , , _
. .r; i
s l , l -f+ r I l . - ; , l ..m - r"s. s . . _ T ,. C - _ I __ 1 12 '
. . . . . . . ~ .. -. . .-
m yr,4 y u 1.wam , , ..,' i m ^ u.c. u % ..,.e.am sv.W . 2.%&....A, . i x;:
.c w y y;.. ; %
. n . : v s ~, , .
7 '. q %, f , 1
' ' l
+ [ f. 32 m.'# ,e '
/,
% 3 . '
- f.I ,,p, - .. -
; ,g %c. 6 our anention. 'the stafi suggests that, once we have fourid one contention admis-j66 .,&@g.: s
] 'jy i. W ' V.
A sible, consideration of the others is "not contemplated by 10 CSA 12.714a."It ) d , nonetheless urges us, "(1]n the interest of judicial economy," to consider and i ' ' G .. ' .' / - reverse the Board's admission of contendons 2 and L NRC Staff's Brief at y: 'l ',j p i c ' .
'., 19. Neithee the applicant nor the intervenors express any views on this matter. ,
4.
-.s.- 4
,, D fN. p ..
We agree with the staff that the situation presented here is not explicidy I 3/
- L '- ' ' contemplated by rection 2.714a. That provision contains a limited excep00n q cyj .< .A L ' '. to the general rule prohibiting interlocutory appeals. A petitioner may appeal '
d C.:.'m s W J, . T a board ruling that denies the entirety of its petidon to intervene or for a ' ' Kpf MM m - 3 hearing.10 CEA { 2.714a(b). So too, a party other than such petidoner (usually N MI Zgy*ig.:y& , r.f N l. 3 an applicant) may appeal a board ruling granting imervention or a hearing. on the issue of whether such request "should have been wholly denied," 10 a F.:i$.0,@ m'i$ 1! y Q;f$ [f' G YJ,'m. Cf.R. 9 2.714a(c) (emphasis added) 'thus, an argument could be made slut, '
/,'nti "i in a section 2.714a(c) a@ cal, once one admissible contendon of a paticular
- -- k_ ' J. M s @;M Nyh D NgP;. " petitioner is found, the remainder of the appeal can be dismissed. .
in this case, at least as to applicant's objections to the admission of NECNP's y],,.y '~
; ; p .% W 40@ W?;g ',T. j.6 contentions, we might well conclude our review now, having faund most of o .j t j- - NA @ ,0 contention 1 admissible. Applicant's complaints, however, are s!so directed to the lc n ,f, , - . -
. p ,, 77 m admission of the Cornmonwealth's contentions I and II. Although in admitting
- . , , f.C C O , these contentioris the 1.1 censing Board combined both of them with portions of w
c .-s NECNP contendon 5 and renumbered them as contentions 2 and 3, we believe l - 7 -- ; ' %w.. g that applicant is nonetheless entitled to our,further consideration of its claim , l^ .,a J'
, y, -
d,at the Commonwealth's petidon "should have been wholly denied." We will
- j. .J .'
'D .
therefore also review the Licensing Board's decision insofar as it concerns the l admission of contendons 2 and 3.
- l. _.y#p Even if the unusual procedural posture of this case did not dictate our review ;
y..
~
l , , . . of the other contendons, however, the terms and spirit of secdon 2.714a as i
- .; jf interpreted by our cases over the years, are flexible enough to allow appen! !
; . lf
- board 6 discretion in this regard." 7hc focus of 10 CSA $ 2.714a(c) is on o
, [G . when and whether an order is "appealable" - an inquiry that takes pla:e
~ '
m ,5 at the dme the appeal is filed. Hence, our cases refer to the appellant's "claim" or "complaint." Jee, e.g.. Long hland Lighting Co. (Shoreham NLs: lear C Power Station, Unit 1), A1.AB 861, 25 NRC 129,136 (1937); Duke Power j f
- p 1, Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), A1.AB.687,16 NRC 460, 464(1982), rev'd in part, CL18319,17 NRC 1041 (1983). Nor does the >
< . , g _ language of section 2.714a suggest that an order that is appealable at the
, _,a ,
. ; ; time an appeal is filed necessarily loses iu appealability once an admissible
. , , ~ . .
i' '!',*[' w' ' I *
. ) . ts ,s
.V.*.T _y2[< .) 4'.f: 9 }',
[ . 1%' lays.aew hawy" of es sesqueA h. sheds no Qm a mis waar. k 17 Fed Ras. :s.710 0s72%
' '. ~t
.'AQQ,y
^9 MF :;M );;. s t;;y
. es Fed. aes.17.7ts 097:1
! ' .q
,f N ' b
, ,. k.'a ._ l, b. o . -
- w'-. NnN - :
s E' )b d~ ') %. p-l j
-Y' I
, . +cy - : . .t* f
- t. , s 7', -
l r", .4' s. E(-yr 1. , i m .. t a x; - l *e ,,
. / s e J 7'
'~
l >- ,
. .,-. - .. .n ....,- . . . . . . ... ~ ,
l
. 9 1
I e d I
, l e % s
.t b '
F = , l 4
' i
. . . t" g 3 . ,* - ' * *
. t *, [ g- , .
. e_ _ . _ _ .'. _
*s -1 }
m .n.1
~
w
., g;n. . . r.,... v. . ,.s _. . , , ; , . = w .. .a w.;.2-
,..r t.a ;:. _ ..u ....a u.a.a = . ... cc ,
d6$he..dhh;$p.GhM, j wy. ..m., ..x!sf l wc w geo y s. ; .. ~ w :mps. sn .s
. . .w ,
a,
' '.. . , ,.j 4 d4 .1 tr # q ,
- st ',* .. \m8-
.v. M' .
i v e' -
.m,.
S h:m %g.
$.?; 'ew 9@.T+n.1 i;[,i,d]i contendon is found,88 lastead, past cases simply renect appeal boards' exercise l
W M%fh[t.DE y 1 ] of discretion concerning the need and desirability of revnewing other contentions, [
.MiWWR V.y J1? i G' once one admissible contendon is found. Compare Missinippi fewr dad Utk !
I Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Uniu 1 and 2), A1.AB 130,6 AEC 423,424, vv7'd@gi-~.L;, n .w -
%O W. WS n N.' .
afp.M 426 n.9 (1973) (once board found that petitionee had at least one admissible -. G cff[M@. .. ,, f.h g. contention, there was no "need" to examine any othees) with Duquesne Ugk l
' ../M y'd,% id @ [N W [Mi%
m Co. (Beavce Valley Power Station, Unit No,1), ALAB.109,6 AEC 243,244,
& n 3 (1973) (in appikant's appeal from licensing board admission of threc j
l iRM . it $'i i 'i fr M y N n 3 - contentions, appeal board found two contentions admissible and expressed no l
- t. M., wg ps M.N,W w;.: @. M x.1 a,
- t. .
view as to the third) Cf. l.oulslana power & Ug4 Co,(Waterford Steam Electric !
.. Station, Unit 3), ALAB.125,6 AEC 371, 373 (1973) (in lidervenor's section f' i[7G
.t8hhK'N 9:f,a,e j;:L.V+' E r 2.714a(b) appeal from a Ikensing board rejection of his ave contendons, appeal jim M W .@ d k@M y.
h @k ,% IQ Q @w: board examined and found admissible all Sve contendons),28 l TiMAM65? As we show below, this proceeding provides a particularly appropriate l k;DNNd,Nd[,UhfN MN. opportunity for the exercise of our discretion to examine both of the remaining contenuons admitted by the Licensing Board and challenged by appilcant b Nj.f.:gl_ h A .W:%e.My M. . p+y W@i,p@:1 . ra d: on appeal, nat is, each ma**a'taa is inherently inadmissible. See generally PAlladelpW4 Electric Co, (Peach Bottom Atomic Powce Siation, Units 2 and 3), i !d-M l.@D f y z.g 1yW@.%
- u.v. UN
, l.D2.Y'g' g.q, M
kp.; 4 ALAB 216,3 AEC 13,20 21. modVlad on o#Aer grounds CLI.74 32,8 AEC gg7 (gg74) (one purpose of basis and speci8 city requirements for contentions l
. m '
3, .. . ' 3KplF:' A is to assure hearing process is not improperly invoked and issues raised are l
$ x' ' y, U/v.. $'/g'Y Q C.,o appropriate for litigation in the particular proceeding). ,
a ws :,..
..= n:g ... n7u . ,w .n ,m; -
, . .,. 4# , , '. i ' p.< }t./ ,
i i A. Contention 2 f i
, P ' 3 .7 a4 Ng:. ' ,;l
's In its contention 5, NECNP complained broadly that me NRC has not !
; . : W. 2 p. 0:MdAJ ' ' complied with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1%9 (NEPA),42 ;
c ,.' Q,.,# d ( x. S.,y.( ,Q;-, W U.S.C. I 4321, and the Commission's own environmental regulations,10 C.F.R. j g . . t
, s , .. .
'l '. , - i Y, 4 \N . t J.' f
,u',, ' x s, h?"*
- g;
- s' , , _
t j u .> s s sj t , 1
. , $ .(. , c'* *, !%.. ..
y' y .*
',*<^3,*
a ,, ,
., , . +
s, , [
*.. 2 #, [=
esameos hung shausent p
?, c ,' . ; N' , ' , , yg* gg ' ^-
si la runs t/annse elessew Co. (Comanche peak suun s3esuu stamm,t!na l), A1.Aa-6dt 2$ NRC lis,91417 l s: '
'. - . 09t?), the bened saapuur eftremad es tassamme Beesd's etusam af a examesa e amadad funn De mapeur P f,JJ.$> l' ',%b, , '-e' nr>>d,* . t
-~"*\ '
else fened she, e e enamquaise of imaresise* eus hering me edumamble -.en easisar ens d appeals I
' ,4 e
+
;W ;r A , V:$ '
t ' ff / f famn the adsnismen af to emarene as engineDy pueSmed "as Insgar Day) under 10 C.FA 61714e(c)? Det essa, howe =er, involved se pennbar Of nsa useque) .- of 0) appenas (by appiness and me maff) [
.;..c - _.i *
. - ),? % F f== *e eensmam of a *=====. Inne=ed seme== by G)indse== defeat af eums appenas panamesega ;
- 7 9%. ,
t ,
;;e.R<J, ,
of C - padames e en psuper eespe of such esammen,0) has=usse' esamenna of as ensnal sensen 2 en effest to essapiy widt he unemquess t*- padense, (4) I ta=='mg ausd edsnamnen of
, , , [ , ' 4',, b, ' ' *. , a t
. h . '.
1 to ameded a- and Q) e amend as of appenis abaBengas es eenassen et te samadad seemsust De i
.?'. aM h 'i $.-,- :
dasmus else assed that the enamel esmaman was assimed widna the ameded waan, Jd. et 939 a l. la se
'.>,.) y.
,y a'--===== we emis believe est the mejsery eynes in Cameeres Fest een be viewed as yet esseher saample
- %, .${.QJ[' '<lj?., JM s ,.WM* ALM? @;3 tensdg;47.p
.%y;, ..Q.
- i et u appent e enmass et emmena widi agesd ie to sesyn et he eennessman er e eenien 17:4e(c)
.MfN?%:c ',v, . 6 .N' f* *' .'P;e-; 9,J fpq:
appenL d ) *xh. Q l,Q^%d***,'4 Q l 2, n.it;t '"'gS3 y'. +;O':
. 421s?g ;-c ~l
/ ,3,i(t.L * '% .v,v, y; ? l V 's% d
' d o. ~ . .* a 7 VWsT'W t
+
, nf //,=s%'4; ;-%I *.; o g
~ p;.3[
p W: 27 l l ,zja v '. M y.C,.~p;l'. }.n,u. p.
. . i
,.- 4. t .C;m'@y, , e;s, c . - .
7, W, $q-- ? G. 5,' l l i
.g*+ c...,%e,'*,
*
- 4} ,g. g . m. -
'. ' + , ,, ,#
-*yy,4,-
.m, g **- , is e
' es ' .. d e,L or *n *r r&,, % -
ey
' s ,e , '.v * .>-v +f r a
',s--
4
,, ., sWW g
, g ,' , ? v e '. .
j
- gig, . . ,
. .A
*+ . -
- I s' '
gurukwegg.-en. eeepge s e M.-
, erg,%eepsut amor g qp,*-p ager m qt -erea re * ** *e=**t'..* .e.s* 4e -5 e 4<
. s ,
4e
. p 4
- _. ,
- . ~ .. -
.s .. _ - ;
8
'*. i , . i i*3.. 6 ,6 . f, I~_ ' s + ,
- g. 4
-,h ,
., .s
.% y ,
2 -am
- D P
. s , - +
.. + -
-. . ,I
_(, f'[ O.,*t^ , - w,, s . , < . , e [ ,-* 3 e6
,, - g, s' *< a
,I s
a b * . I j' w , s
,1WF.A Q.M '. g,..~i ._ 7,;y , .. c. e '
? q m. ,n . - . ;.',, ,~*' >
,;,w g p ,.. .,, -
**7 by ' ,
T+
)' **4f 4/ 7 a f ;
4 e '4*.'[..,.' '.'** , , , 3* * ' 9. ~ 5 e
*3..
**$ <. .g [ \ E*#' $ ', 4- **' * * *
* *'v' T- -
-(
N 1 ' *' 2# " .,.,a,', '
- j (3 . *, ,C 5.'k , .
- h 3'A W '
, - ; E ',I ^
i
.. ~
l -_ _x::. _ _M *: _L _: .' '-_ Y
3
...__-....o . .; . - . . a & s--"~ ^*- -
.*; L +s 1 '.k ; .
i
>.- sc
....4-.
v
* .hh5[d , h..,< .j , h*h h ,s w,;.
r 4
*ot . . al e'. "
~Nn
< s, g ', y , j
. s
.* $ *^ j d a ,/,s' -* -
,c y .: ,'
i.,
,,U ' , , . '
e<
.,m . , p ,
,.'(
4 W9qL "'
? Part St. De basis for the contendon essentially had two parts.28 As pertinent
.C '
- y,J f 'Gdd.f.'.: . , - f~ '
't here, the first part referred to an accident scenario set forth primarily in NECNP contention 1 and supported by refrrences to several NRC staff studies. See New
' Q-(, y% c 1, [L A ,
England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Response to Board Order of February 4,{'. @ h c h;; .'[. [. .,.d, 27, 1987: Statement of Cont'entions and Standing (March 30,1987) at 8 9,
.' l M
. . .c. ,. a..
2 4.u De Licensin Board summarized the accident as a combinatim of the
,,,x.
y
- f;, c y.4 r
following circumstances:
. y
, g>. , q."
#. &~
(t) tha sneer tikdihood of recure in the swm of an axidem of a os hterk I awx C_?N,,.c CO[' ,
'g[ . t ccrealsenes (as is used a Venamt Yareee) as ecuarasted eith other duisns; G) the kretion Q f.Ct.Jci( N, p Z. -
d the pal in the renace building whidi is not designed u take severe scridem k.sds;
--y ay:4,r f3, , M,c. ..:q o> ise f.a., a the pod or iu omles synan's to to duisn=1 u accomnwonie =h s
[]g.khMNM [Olh;.,3l c[h; 1h( *: severe accidcat loeds; (4) the pcesibuiry d hydrogen tenhage to the nector buddang in 2 /WZj 3 such an accideas, neuhang in hydrogen ddagratim and dam ==w and (5) en inenue in Q yamc M W .J e{X;Tdy sN.M t M Q f , poiemial consequences d =ch an occideas by ** doucaea in de enount et fuel sered. p,ticut.rty hec or se inenued inwmory or cuiuin and uromaan.
.w .W.s m. gg~., m,g.gg,.y :
wn w s
-:: '. cm WW.pc.a;g u, g -
LBP 8717, 25 NRC at 845. The Board also noted that such a scenario is gjcM @p 5* ' ' considered "clearly a 'beyond design basis accident.'" /d. at 846. In the first part pf; f~f. \'p:/P ci.
.g M @' . 3?g' : of its basis for contention 5, NECNP claimed that, because of the substantially L "lr. - "J # g.'i , (.C,;3'W" increased risk to the public health arid safety attributable to this scenario, the 7 ; SiO;Ua. - proposed license amendment is a major federal action significantly affecting
- ;b
, 'i ;
,.-O, .
the quality of the environment, for which NEPA and 10 C.F.R. l 51.20 require
- s
- N ' , /i- an environmental impact statement (EIS). Commonwealth contention I did not
.-M,f'Ma [-( .
, W specifically refer to NEPA or the need for an EIS, but it set forth a similar 7 y M 2 '7, accMent scenario. See Appendix A, i@a pp. 36-38.
.1 47 4. ' he Licensing Board combined the EIS portion of NECNP contention 5 with l- .
. .., <-.s . '.N ~ ,
Commonwealth contention I and redrafted and adri.itted them as contention 2:
, q%
c ; .e : . 7: . , m.
'_t a- ; 9:4 -
- ne proposed anwnd would caere . shamion in ,hkh em quences and risks N ^g - [
, . i '
l. d a hypoiheslaed accadera (hydrogen drionetion in the resw building) would be gresiet l
.s M *an those pnviously evalmand in connecia mis the Wrmcma Yanku namor, nis risk V ;9.e is ruracias to constitme the prg.o.e4 amendmem u e en jee fed =*1 *ction sisniaiantly u' S . -
/
affeains the quality at the human envirwunent and =guiring pnpr tion and inn. nee at
' *a an EnvirementalImpact $smomers prior to appovel of de amendmns. '
, s l
- met LBP-8717, 25 NRC at SM. De Board initially determined that litigation of f j- 3.. ? p' l - U $,y 7{ this type of contention is permitted under the Commission's regulations (see
', J 10 C.F.R. l51.104), ahhough it also noted that there have been no spent y
..4 %
. . , .. w. ~ y
- p: . -4 ,
i i *
, u y,* , 22 g g-, gg ,,,,,g,g , gg,g pgygp ,,,,,,,== s um use esposa, em er ob& ses M i ' l. ;g.
j ,.;'
. N. p, .
y.' . A . w
,..g iM':J. ;X as "- - - 2" and the seher as "emasonen s.* N peans er hTOiP emmenman s ihai is new emnersam s w h==-d see pp 32.s4.
1 l
. . [ p , C *.
- y;* .yv h C. hTOiP enGetsen t, obs he [dems:rg seerd pejened,if het hBWehed ip $ms appeak set t.aP-47+I7, ss
' p .v %,-p .// p M . M y Q .. NRC si s44 e7.
l
,% \
,K.g ,...; g, %w. . - ., i Q q %,...,.s. ;?Q s.gs. y+,lgg:MQ;
\es *e f
,y .
,p. , . ; .v:,b.,
_.g a ., *
- m. .; #
t',,8',. ~.1 [w .h % ' N s
.' .' .l*n0, ;.
f.$ &, a'. a.Y ~ -
.+-,, -3 , - i 6,
l,; .
- 1
> v
. ' y l :.
. .; ;. . . z .
, *y.t ,
w.,....-. ~ ,-e. - - - . -.-,*e.. -. - - e '
. 9 F y l '
l .
-1 s 1
- s. ' - . .
s , l
- y. . -9 i
, ,t, . + , _ , I 4,o, s,, yx
,? . , . .
y
..-;*e .
. ,, L' 3 . . , , =J t
w, i e. ' * , ' .' ,. ', d
, . , 'm.s
=
j l
4a ,%W..%@,W , a. w y E..Ln.3.,e . . n. . y~ - .
.W M . ,m J01;.M@MrW,Q ; . ( N. .*. -n%,11.p4 '.
1 ,c; w.;WCyd%y
,a cc.,#. .s .;,~.i. .t ,: ...r.f,i.c.;w.
.,W,
. o.am . r. s"~ sN:e3.i u ..
w < ~%.. ~ .% ..
. . ,m. ., s..r s
fuel pool expansion cases for which an EIS has been required. Id. at 853." D, .M@$'M :c ,r. ~ :s,;i, #.? M f
,. ; . i (Q[M., fm
.g. m .W-"' he Board cited Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuc! car Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI 86-12, 24 NRC 1,12, rev'd on other grounds A,
G s, M.$,,MO* l$< ['A : G .d 3 ::,. : W: , c .~:.- ' sub nnm. &an Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,799 F.2d 1268 (9th
.m, m m e. ..-i
.MNM.n./ 4 ; '
;; 2 Cit.1986), in which the Commission stated that the need for an EIS in a M' Q gfygD.MM[5M. ,2 spent fuel pool proceeding must be determined on a case by-case basis. He
#.kNJRTsM Aqp.y/N 4 ;" : y Board also stressed the Commission's requirement that a petitioner who seeks an EIS must allege some specific deficiency in the environmental evaluation
<[M,%. W AMWM.C .l.7.My;w;?, l Q: ~ ~%~ or demonstrate sufficient knpacts to warrant an EIS. LBP-8717,25 NRC at
- a. Vf M C;MW . Mig - 853. The Board then ccaeluded that the accident scenarin described by NECNP s
~95 5MNN:N and the Commonwealth provided the requisite specificity for an EIS contention q,??[G. .,h...MQO%W~DM ^? y?,:
' demanded by Diablo Canyon. id. at 854.
,jMd e 94 . hg.3 4 In addition, the Licensirg Board rejected the staff's argument that the 4M hMC Commission's "Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future
' %w 1,P.Q'W>., s-. N h.t ": .M,'y.N,4.wd. n<.ss W'N,4FThet .t h :. Q M i @@h N M b h J k s w :. . : ~ Designs and Existing Plants," 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138, 32,144-45 (1985), bars litigation of this contention. De Board construed that policy as prohibiting only
..L :.. @, M.2%pr the consideration of Control or mitigallon measures to Counter the effects of a
. ~ XAl)I dj.h S N y @$ T V *)JM@Q severe (i.e., beyond design-basis) accident In the Board's view, this prohibition "does not extend to the NEPA mandated consideration of the risks of such an d.t. Sl&v'J yg l,gg.;
.~..
.MhW
. . *gg';M ' .
i accident." LBP 8717, 25 NRC at 854 55 (emphasis in original). The Board
.u: '
.a, thus admitted the contention insofar as "it asserts that the particular accident
, s j q y, ,g, , M~T
- , 3.y. .. . -
.4
..<. m.m,.Vg.; %.. y ..,.
scenario set forth . . . represents an impact serious enough to warrant an EIS d, ;,, ,..% j p. ' ' E d;i to discuss its risk."Id. at 855. According to the Board, that discussion of risk
, ge v. 3;g. , would be pursuant to the Commission's Interim Policy on "Nuclear Power Plant
,p . a "- - .,
Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1%9," s s e 45 Fed. Reg. 40,101 (1980) [ hereinafter "NEPA Policy Statement"). LBP-87 17,
'E -
-G ' M.m~ 25 NRC at 855.
,, .M.. .. .
.. ' 2 3 . C ', 91 .SM3:.,M
% ,9 s < Applicant presents three basic arguments why the Licensing Board erred
- ~
- f. ' % - , in admitting contention 2. First, it asserts that an "environmental assessment"
' '(;.? $$'hl);.C M
is essentially a jurisdictional prerequisite for a contention that claims an EIS is required." Because the staff has not yet issued its assessment, applicant
'q , w
~
@Q '
~
', ; argues that the contention is premature, and the Board's admission of it is thus
. 1
-A--
conditional - a practice prohibited by Catawba, ALAB 687,16 NRC at 466-it 67. Second, applicant argues that the Commission's environmental regulations
..( J.( -; s ,
3 f ;;+ n.;g.;p'ig.f exclude the license amendment here at issue from those actions requiring the
' ': .m ' " / Pg? - j .. preparation of an EIS. Applicant asserts that this amendment "involves no 7,'4 / :,. ,CC ,, 4, . -c ; - y M; ,'- . . significant hazards consideration" and therefore falls within the categorical I i r d[N,.. ,. i 9d- 9;is exclusion provided in 10 C.F.R. 5 51.22(c)(9). Bird, applicant argues that
_/ l
' ,- y*m ,, y .-
i s
>.- i
_- q q
.w -
.,
- y; ,3 , .
. . . j
. ., a .-
.N '. . , y, $. .W , 8 socim 51.104 prindes sin.ral*/ that manaus wi6in the scope of bT.PA may be raised in NRC heannss. M w s a=npu =
"An-
" s maiis a c- mu-m=.uy p r. d ear.d m. c
- New g. cUA i ' T[9.7 i
_'O
,' 'g ;s/
.. hj ;.W i ch@.Q,4 @iGN .*
4 wsh hT.PA when no :.i.-- ' irr9ect statement is -=ary " 10 CJ.R, 5 51.14(a).
..I [ . M 10 $ p,M:,f c[.3,y u h f .4U s l'f.
.w ,+C. nam. .,4;e#.C.Mj.'W.y.- .[Q. A.f4 ,d(m.%:
i,7 c- sv
. o 'M,.,, 0 gg,wt;wp#.:@e.p.n[gn
. v.w. 2 -. y3:.yyyy t
, 4.- (%< (_
- n. f 3. .- . gg 9 > 's u -. Tl,;
.:y *: d ',3 ., . y >lb t .c . y%p.9.n.
c' ' , WJ , ,,,;* s.e,- Q Q.
-N,
' ', L,1
'! q L *, &P; :h'p. '
2h"2" t
, , a a. a . %. 'f ,
a,.
., * - , 1
~> N= ; .-:
r-6:. , y, ,- a.-*~-.w.-~e,.,-m-.-- -~. m .-e7;~ .-y g.- 3c e- . e .n.. r --e
.. z -. .~, 1
. \
.i e s , , ,
) s. / > ,.'[, ,
I
.h, ((3 ' .i s
.,Q .. ,
- L,', , < *Q ,' a ; . , ,
= <*- ' ~
8 _ f..
- e .* 4 ';
*. I.
, , p a s .,
., / b ' , ,
s , . g %, ' - p , I.
, I I 9 s
. ,. t [- -. . - 4
-s .7mu M. s.*
r . , _,., s
' ~
' .,* 2 , *. %) *..
]~c 's.,", a...
* * , , . 1 h.t lQ . ~ $. . A.;.,;
~
i l 5._}n,ll~'.A W. 7 l . N .,)
* ,.}m..~ i ' >
< s
.. - ~. E. U
. s .
n; s. , s. . a' . u.K m< '. . , . , , ., s , i i
' i!['n ' * '
.a [
.'. 2 J)',./( 'y S ' ( .~. h ,* . '.. J,
.s
- Y M e sai I a , .,
*[g.. , ' ' ..
cm ' x g
* - s e i e
4; { ss.
,y .
w, e,. 3 . 1;
._ m.. . .m . .<...&. r -
-y 2.. w,' f . . . _.
.sJm %e ,mv mcpe.Jc.C;h
*: > .. (.& % n ' p v /. 4 l
j
',Y' . :.*~;'[s'd h*l%Ti'f.' % K Q;[F Jj , ' s[f; 4, . ' M:#."W
%%F f.W.g&, Q f % '
EJR
'p@ mms, f Mv%lf.^ 'n: ;- .
> there is no nexus between the contention and the proposed amendment. De y W' ';,; M M. ?g.fc . %;,'4
t expansion of the spent fuel pool will effect no alteration in the containment or 4' f.y..OflCgWj.. f?- #
the pool cooling system; the only change will be an increase in the fuel assembly ,
.11 inventory. To the extent that that increases the potential consequences (and thus l the risk) of an accident, that is true in every spent fuel pool expansion case. De Q.fs'.ylWKN.7
)
' QMV 2 .% ;
Commission, however, has not placed such cases in the "EIS required" category ' e;.Y[W5M@%f.9('2;, j,W..j L.;. f ' , Z ,l0.f % . .h .
~
(see 10 C.F.R. 5 51.20). According to applicant, this indicates that the potential of increased risk from increased fuel inventory is not in appropriate basis for Mi ,$.7'. @a . . finding a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
' @Wy
.~ 6 .SGM:.3% .
m
- %:'.N[$h x.
M.F.Y%.d4. e environment, so as to require the preparation of an EIS. Brief of Applicant at 21 26. kMW.. ;; h.s.N* w, @S? We are not persuaded by any of applicant's arguments. First, although some
- $$1'$f M,0 h([$ s,p.
Ul' . environmental contentions must abide the issuance of the staff's environmental l Q939.Mlm,. e#&(vd 4M
.- assessment (see infra pp. 33-34), that U not always the case. Catawba, CLI hNh
[d,,h.')MfN@ 19,17 NRC at 1049. Here, the staff has already indicated that it is preparing
]
- 'y M,
%e P'...u,M .
,f;:M.
lT.d
-s . + .m
/,c -W L4?x.Pf00 Jw W. W ,
an environmental assessment, not an EIS. 'lY. 91. INrther, the risk scenario that provides the basis for contention 2 is unlikely to be affected by anything in that 7 ( {, g'{J:!)}y Jy?, p r.P:7SQu R s,hh3 Q (f j assessment, given the latter's brevity and purpose. See supra note 25. Bus, in these circumstances, there would have been no cause for intervenors to await the J- O. @.'E W 'd!.M.w.a M issuance of the environmental assessment befo'e proffering this particular EIS
' W. . w4:..f. y ' .C 2 contention. It is therefore neither premature nor conditional. The short answer !
,. . r _ . . / V g;.;>J t n._1p ,
to applicant's second argument is that the Commission has not yet made a "no j
,, g~" f W f p > '
m significant hazards" determinatior. in this case. Only if and when it does so, j t.. -n. ;- would the categorical exclusion in 10 C.F.R. f 51.22(c)(4) apply here so as l M'
- to preclude an EIS. Lastly, applican*'s syllogistic nexus argument is at odds
, ;sgy h. ^ with the case by case deterniinatbn of the need for an EIS required by the l
;q j t;9 ,~
. G ' ,'s,\ -
p(R~% f ; L. Commis ion's Plablo Canyon decision,24 NRC at 12. The staff's argument, however, comes closer to the reason contention 2 I 1.Q_( ]; , must be rejected as a matter of law. De staff complains that the contention
, QQ'yf is premised on "a comparative assessment of risks involving spent fuel pools s 7. M for a chain of unlikely events." NRC Staff's Brief at 14. De staff points out that !
' c 7,1f '. y ,
the environmental consequences of the accident scenario in the contention have l y never been evaluated, nor were they required to be, for the Vermont Yankee
.6 r facility. Id. at 1415 (eiting the Commission's NEPA Policy Statemem and San y; . .):? . Luis Obispo Mothersfor Peace v. NRC,75l F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.1984), af'd , .,p,,;Q,<Q, . en bane,789 F.2d 26, cert, denied. U.S. 107 S. Ct. 330 (1986)). The It , , y . . , ... i * . M. . f~ ,
staff asser9 that it thus would be anomalous to require for a license amendment
, (,:3 'g'3,4; >
an EIS addressing remote and highly improbable consequences, when there was
, . l", y ? yM :, no such requirement for the operating license itself. Id. at 15.
4 J',d.V % Ql G m.I.
- o. .g s
De staff could have taken its point one step farther. As the D.C. Circuit held Wm$-
/' . in San Luis Obispo. 751 F.2d at 1301, NEPA does not require NRC consideration of severe, beyond design basis accidents because they are, by definition, highly
, , , .a .
flff n
, '. ... . N~~,T. ,E. g" .(m
^
* **=' ... i.6.*
.n~ oN. .MA\'. f. . , . .
2
.' ' ' 30
' ,h , / r :?,I.;k U.+ :ys*d'vy,'y;
~ -
. L. , ..a ; 6 r r y p .3
- s ;i-
- '% (: '.
. q 'i ~; .',
'O i
's*,l' , . ]l ,l._,, f*['Gall [y.,',.'-~i 3 w..<.
.Nh -![ Y^
.,,, .' [t ,,
a
- .v.9 7 p q 9
[ , . , _ esm emer ee **eyegpg=#e4P9*"* ****' 3 *"t%*.89 r p e r****'pefo e,emer ee sw*** *= P L 1er a p-p .m.e . -s*-m as. ,P ev g w..org.,+ ev ==.m. .a
- g*..
% Y
- e u
) ,,
' '" i
",1,- _ . *
+ x * -
. , a D e ,
j .s
, s a .a ,
I s 1.' g .
# h r b .
a ,
' ' ' i
~ ,
' H;[ * - . 4( . <
3
.. y . ,
. ',9 ,. , , - 'g .
..'," ' v.s* g ,' s e e- ' ~..) }s e s _ 3 .
l,
' .j
~
?., : s;)" f t
. f * , i' * -
v.,0 o J. h . ' . Y ," W ' .e ' i N, # % . 13 -
<..,m -
, . - - - . - . - . - .; . _.~... ..m ._ . _ m -,
>- W :.;
..y> , + g,%
. A r,.
> pl W .
s
. ' , p)
-Q.8p',. y.y.
s
,}Qw; m,
..e ,.,,-
. ;; ? :?.
b m
,. . r, ,: * ,
- v? c.
1 [?' jM. j ,; } + i, 9;.,-N [cf ~f improbable - 1.c., remote and speculative - events." See also Philadelphia N , Sff. 'y'. - Electric Co. (Limerick Generating S' Hon, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819,22 NRC G:lJ :.G - i ..
] . 681,697,698 (1985), ag'd in part ana . eview declined, CL186 5,23 NRC 125 1 M,o. P t:F .G g....,n, ... ,
(1986); Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, u.y V j.~ .N$@;5 @. "
" . Unit 1), ALAB 650,14 NRC 43,62-63 n.29 (1981), ag'd sub nom. Township
" %.QVf f.W.g'
^ '
M of Lower Alloways Creek v. Public Service Electric and Gas Co., 687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir.1982). The scenario that provides the basis for intervenors' claims W ., 9; , , of increased risk in contention 2 is just such an accident. See LBP-87-17, 25
. .y 9 A .pc g l M. ,
. '1 r b NRC at 845,846,854. Thus, the Licensing Board erred in its belief that NEPA
- n, v. w yf ; - .~
. . /,3 u; ? 1 ... J -j.c {
"mandate (s]" consideration of the risks of the accident hypothesized here. Id. at m ; . . mo q ,JS_.M. r N 854 55.
- n. r.- . 4 To the extent that the Commission ever considers the environmental impact e 5 .s 1. ' mk.W .>.6g% c Q
. 2 Wi!Qp ,. w. and risks of a beyond design basis accident, it does so as an exercise of ,4-;W ~.-
tNg . a . . d. .F. c,. f r . pp;dy. discretion under its 1980 NEPA Policy Statement. San Luis Obispo,751 F.2d Ti$y.f.L , /n n.@D.';.t . dim,y,s/ s. d' '!
?Q.. r;,c, at 1301. De Licensing Board, however, erred in assummg that that policy statement applies to this proceeding. See LBP-8717,25 NRC at 855. Nothing Wii. .
in the language of the statement indicates that it was intended to apply to a w .. y 4'
. f e] M}.f p fi gf,.
- 3.x" I cense amendment proceeding. More impetant, by its terms, the policy applies to those cases where there has already been a determination that a major federal s
' ' f'r9 Q[3 .9 K['6 , j ,.
- - action significantly affecting the environment is involved and hence an EIS 4 is necessary; it therefore directs what should be included in the EIS (i.e.,
~
- U, u.l .
~
g-7 6 d ' ' consideration of the environmental impacts of a severe accident), not whether the EIS is required in the first place. See 45 Fed. Reg, at 40,101-M.27 Rus, l l '. 3 9 g before the NEPA Policy Statement is even invoked, there must be some basis f' .j for requiring an EIS other than a claim of increased risk from a beyond design- l E basis accident scenario. In contrast, intervenors' claim here is just that: 1.e.,
- 4. - . . '..
s the proposed action (expansion of the spent fuel pool) will significantly affect
' + '
.' '1 --@y ,c- .
the environment, thereby requiring an EIS, because of the risks of the beyond l
*i... .. g.. . _.,..
design-basis accident scenario they have described. In sum, intervenors cannot use a beyond design-basis accident scenario K-v~j5 l to "bootstrap" their way to an admissible contention that asserts an EIS is required to examine the environmental risks of such an accident. Neither the Commission's NEPA Policy Statement nor the statute itself provides a legally
. , ,y cognizable basis for contention 2.28 We therefore reject it.
~':; ,
s
,- e q -
' . J "De court rufen to such seddess as "Class Nine" - the isenunology previously used by the Commissim 0- to doenbe severe accidsrss d very low probability, involving signiacant datancretion of the fuel and breach or
' . ., ... ccusairanent
". . ' ;;% , 21 %s Ceaunceweahh recognnas this disanctaan between the adequey or the contaras d an Els and the need ,
I O to prepam one. see Brid d the Coranonweahh at 1411.
'N ! 2s We stress that we are not ruling cut a:1 ecusantions in spes fuel pool proceedings that claim an Els ss I
?, ; , M. .fMm,p'j Ef$2hg required only cetanticms that are promised en claims d inciensed risk frern beyond design bseis acciders l
- G-ir. "
scenanos are act litigable - as a maner of law under NEPA, and as a manar or dim under the NRC's i q*6 ' f <p-s .'J.A'.,-?/:. .g.14,'-OltymE'. M.WdW > - NEPA Policy staiemers. s9 f'f.W
~
, ,Q-.. .'t!
* -s y
- g a
#4-M ' i-; 5,6.h m . p<>, . .
- .:9 ,. 9~ 'd:%'
%y- Lk ~,
4 , .~C m ?Nw' ? [iif gJ- 3
*' 3{
* .yo , .s
'O v
, ? f' Q.ve.
. s h[ I d,[.h
. . . _s I:.-
]
k- g -#-".
,I ]
.- _i...__..--.n.._.,s,,,s.
s
,,. a *
. ;r.
g b
. , j g
4 - g 9
..E *
- + ~~ '
?
% F b, .
- O b g 'n-e
* . *p g , . ' %
- I y * '
* ,;. s - '
~
.. .n..g.; w.eg .. ;;; .y _. . . .m .
D M;; w @ _ . e h i U. M.w :5,'MN[a s.d,c ~# j I;] . . ' .r. Q. .. hL. ny ' N. .. :w.7@.dM W,.9 J. m%* '.;' .wij M *; .,. . m' .f ; [ .:7 . B. Contention 3
' w . h . E ...
yD ,, ' ;W ' y. As previously discussed, NECNP contention 5 stated generally that the NRC
. (,- M d @% .'..[; y.% '
t'
, . had not complied with NEPA and its own environmental regulations. See supra .E- ),,, _, ' W p ,i., ,.j .' pp. 27 28. The second part of the basis for that contention asserted that, at a W '$NMMNS%q f '
minimum, the staff must prepare an environmental assessment (see supra note W 43c.V:/gygg$ %.(Q . y.py' j .
' F
- 25) and must consider alternatives to the proposed spent fuel pool expansion
- specifically, dry cask storage and independent pool storage. NECNP also
%:21.M ? ' -@ l noted that it "expects to change this contention at such time that NEPA related
'.Q $!j Q ,7'?(#
Gd,.Dus.G, .u.M) J .'.@fs ,
$gj d. documents are issued by NRC." Appendix A, Ida p. 39. Commonwealth contention II likewise complained about the lack of an environmental assessment
,, ww c .,
4:3 49 and the NRC's failure to consider the alterna'.tves of dry spent fuel storage and O ,, g t. s g ,I C '"" '$$1 Q; - s q p a s. M?d.AM "an in-ground spent fuel pool" (i.e., an independent storage facility). Appendix M k h,@,C.' h D d h [f,0 ' A, ida pp. 39-40. MW ., .31E.@Mj$.h : 9 $9g/gf4; t The Licensing Board struggled with these contentions. It noted applicant's qAC,Mi,l MW . and the staff's arguments that the contentions are premature and would have to await the issuance of the staff's environmental assessment; admission now would N'. <c T'.P1,$/CQ!?j.9%QM@MP. be conditional and thus barred by Catawba, ALAB-687. The Board recognized .cm . i$ [yfEM@y!,s] p j Qf? ' ,..' that NEPA obliges the agency, rather than applicant, to analyze alternatives c ' @% .z.y . 2 ^ a- to the proposed action, and that the adequacy of the staff's review is subject
, ( ' ; hyf. . - ;
la litigation. But the Board worried.that delay in the issuance of the staff's
~
e j - environmental assessment could effectively deprive petitioners (NECNP and the s
- . f. .'. . f . . . . ~ Commonwealth) of their hearing rights. In this regard, the Board observed that, 19 ., 8 if it rejected all of the petitioners' contentions now, it would have to dismiss
" 1 A petidoners and terminate the proceeding." Petitioners' only recourse once the
' ' ~
y environmental assessment was issued would be to seek, in essence, a reopening jy of the proceeding - a task more difficult than filing a late contention. The Board M , ,,
,c g y g. went on to note that, although the Commission's regulations do not require A- p
'c.- applicant to submit environmental documents in connection with its license
. - } p.
1 m , amendment application, applicant nevertheless provided some such information
' ' ' g ., .DM;$'. in response to the staff's informal requests and guidance. Thus, after scrutinizing
'^
. . . d ~4.m'o .
the decisions of both the Commission and us in Catawba, CLI 8319 and
, - T.o ' M ; ALAB-687, the Licensing Board decided to admit the environmental assessment o . y.. , '
contentions now - changing their focus, however, from the staff's to the
, m F .df applicant's coi.tideration of atternatives. LBP 8717,25 NRC at 855-60. They were combined into contentica 3, which states:
n..
- . ,,,.y ,
. , . ' -, 72%on.,5. ,
p m,.
- 'M - - , . . . . j] [ i' The Appticant has failed to submit an adequate analysis of ahernatives to the prgosed
-; .- 'tl' g,;;.q assim, as required by (( 102(2XC) ami 102(2XE) of the National Esim....u..at Policy
' ' .- ; y.~ #. r*34, Act. 42 U.S.C. Il 4332(2XC) and 4332(2XE). and implemereg NRC regulations or guide.
Mg lines. Speci6catly, the Applicant has failed to analyze adequately the ahernatives of (1) dry
" \< - ', . l ~ y i t 73,ps g ' ' . <
+
8 The Boa #s abesrution is curious,insanuch as it had almedy adnused certantions t and 1
% ..,[S. r[a.n. 4bg.hwc,M"T.,h. . , h.
. .. , s
-.3. C-hk M:'[ N,4 h.Tf.k.1F MhG h
b
.,y;);Q;f , f . y og f.')/:,Q
. . ~ .<. ;gJ.M.
y. g Q, V ;, . 32
, ' . . O, .% < b. ;-. (.h,
.> n@~,. u . . . .W-
*t .,
i sf , 2
# '5
.'{. ,7
's; , ,,
9';.., . - QT-g?"NW , 'h)
. A , ,.
Q p 1 (, r .
,,' .t s
. . _..p.,,%+<s,,,.... . w,- , + . v s.-w- - . + - . -pq ey- .. ~ ~ ,-= - 4 v-a.y wo---3 m . .
4
.- , ]
~
. _ q. ,
t j - g.t
. r ,
p 4 s'
~
, e s ,
. x 1- -
-.e ,*
- 1 f C'
.y' y i
}+
%?
*. -e,"s,
*s, " , e
-tl'..* .s; . -
> Q , ~ A
.3 - w: . _ u.
*
- C , , , # E ,' ;. . .= ' f. .;. ~ ,M .$:
N. w' '.' aX. , , .
.: ,i., .,r
/ V.
sp W. . . cf s.
.-. _ r l,, (.s;u.
s,*: . . f.M ,
, .'m,
- 8 W.* * ^
. 8 7s. ..,
'>->.3l .
, m.y .. , pg _
f.. .usy c. a w m.v. 4J. .;4-p. u , m ,3.3xn _ . . . , , e v;, e -
~ , ,
.W r ' 1.-Q; . s v -y'~ Q :.,Q f. y
, , :: ..' f:
,, ns .
. . '. '
- w- w, .. .. ,
- ;y g'}v.
3 s.~. : ~ . : v z 1, w
- 7 m Ngy q g
.2
%~i5[..s w. ' . n A ;;;; . I ',
. cask storage and (2) h *f '~ pool storage. Both d these ahernatives are available op.
- W(h$.l.N'D@1 .d!?f, ' , s N.i daf ' '
tion s and provide obvious safety advantages over the instant proposal
.; q.a ,' .ig;. .
o ~
,? . -
.l.L,;5?$,$r.bs..'.h Y ,: L .; & l Y Id. at 864.
' 78QNN.M/P;s.P " De applicant's objection to contention 3 is brief and to the point: the focus of envimnmental contentions should be the adequacy of the staff's analysis, not
@G $ 7, 77y%M% ,y % , the applicant's. De contention, as rewritten by the Board, is thus inadmissible Eg$dhd'((
M ,
'C:lS : on its face and must be rejected. Brief of Applicant at 27 (citing Boston Edison N Whd' ' *dy . Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), ALAB.479,7 NRC 774,793 f@ygfB?:b. fW.i.fN'C M dh. O M M E. -
94 (1978)). We agree generally with applicant that environmental contentions should be directed to whether the NRC staff has fulfilled its obligations under ~., -
- i. @k h h O' 8JACT;' h .< 4^ [> NEPA. But as explained below, some admissible environmental contentions may properly focus on an applicant's environmental analysis. De contentian at issue Y Q MS Q Jic;.L @W c
$ .M[4 @'.. [ @. C@$ F<. M Jh @ .. here, however, is not one of them and therefore we agree that it must be rejected.
Contention 3, as originally proposed by NECNP and the Commonwealth, Yk9Yb$blig.gby N. nr.,.<QZ[c : correctly related to the stag's environmental assessment and consideration of
'7 gy g.fQgGRW;W:
alternatives. Dat assessment, however, has not yet been issued. NECNP itself
; 2% ':N MOD M, Y noted the "preliminar{y)" nature of its contention and stated that it expects
' f , , W, 4, f :M ~ '
to change it when the staff's NEPA evaluation is issued (see Appendix A, q r .j V M Q O Nl* [ Infra p. 39) - making it precisely the type of baseless, conditional contention W ' ..E ,7/;p n u . e. prohibited by Catawba, ALAB-687,16 NRC at 466-67. l In an effort to rehabilitate the contention or to cure this infirmity, the
.g y; ' .[W'u ' .
;..g, -
, Licensing Board shifted the focus to appIlcant s envircnmental analysis. De
^
s L @;i , Board reasoned that the environmental information alreMy provided to the staff
'2 N-
.% by applicant - albeit not required by the regulations - was enough to justify this change in focus and to avoid deferral of the contention pending issuance
% of the staff's environmental document." To be ses, as the Commission held
, , m W~ .. U: .
X,$WW a: ,. in Catawba, CLI.8319,17 NRC at 1049, and we recognize suya p. 30, some
,~. .g ,NJd ,-, environmerval contentions can lie formulated and admitted before issuance of the s- ,
.R m,e . . ,
relevant staff document - namely, those unlikely to be affected by the staff's
.T~h forthcoming analysis (like contention 2), and those based on information required
%~ to be provided in an applicant's "environmental report" (ER). Contention 3 fits J ,b' 1 into neither category. ne heart of the contention (at least as intervenors initially
.-(,
*, .' _ - fP.S. t intended) goes to the adequacy of the staff's consideration of alternatives. See
? f : 'M' , v. ', 'It 100,107. As for the information already su; plied by applicant, it in no way
' , .. . tw ,' ;g g . ~:
. : r
~. .; '
, ; i 'S h*W ' - - <
l., G ) ' . ! ? . g y. I / M'y . "
"The Board also noted that cansamms recusing m en oppEcan.*s candersden of abernauws haw been
'h:
.4.. ' ;f l8S; q. f . ,
senined in asher spent fuel pool wzpansim p wa-hnss, cinns Po,-@c Get and Electic Co. (Diablo Canyon
)
N."W > Nuclear Power Plant. L' nits I and 2), t2P.86 21,23 NRC 849,869 0986). see slee Brist d the Conwnon=eahh i x?N'i G ^' 4.. .p.h[r{yj at 15. In that case, however, the staff had almady issued hs envuonar ental -- - abona ens monsh be(cre the J7 ( "Y., y;
]
~
b- 3 Ilcensing Board's ceder (res 51 Foi Res. 19.430 (1986)). and,in aJdman, no pany objected to the a&nission of
%,L
. N I i).yycF: h.d;'7
;; y M i ;_.
S /t Qjl'$ 0'.M m N: t' f , h e7 the cartersim. LBP.86 21,23 NRC at 869. In any evers, that Ilcanmas Board Miaa has not tienn reviewed on appeel sad thus does not how precedential effect as to issues of law. Does fe.er Co. (Qiesakes Nuclear Statim. l'aits 1. 2. and 3), ALAB 442,7 NRC 979. 981 n.4 0978). 8F' y. **
. :. l. --m @d ( .
.' 'NF'N([Q[Uhl:h[hk/d
% n;b,y:a, M y.' l
<M ':::n.wV't'*, -
_.j k N .hg[dir %p.e.O + -
,,'[, . , h '
0S. e.j",. . .M m
'ggyl }u ..:w.t.ygh'Mgy . .. .w- - , KF 33
,l i ; 7 . M,v.?f; : : m .W .'. '
;. ~ ,
** l ~ ,l,M.;l,y.
Q $l *
~
g .
,. , -- -.m.-~.,...-., 7,..._.. .,
.,7..., . _ . . . . . _ ,
t ,
. . t
.~
* ' 'tr'
, f_
,a. .*
,c. * ,
J 4 w
- 1 4 f a 9 e ,
. , g
- ,,N" ' D g , ,
;[,) 4 i , .,,.
3 , , . . - P*' ;g* ,
^ ~' r s r
"*gl , ,,. , , CD ~3.i_.,' s _
i? " 5 9.h . '
*>;t* ,'.., . - , e [ - , , ' .
, ' ' ; w; y ymm W~ ,::q';@,, -.m.
. . . y _ - ,
- I
. w . .....
J. 7; Ra. . m - -- " --"-h M "- - ta~ " - - " "-- """ " "_ ~_ _-_ _ ______ _ ____ ' - ' - - -r i.w".: w w, .u w.... '::,z. w a: g -
- m. r.g- r: e,,...j e
/.z.?, pg:-
i . v. - vw. % n.., m.., g ,
\
-x ...;.. ?
x;(. - . 1' , s t. *- ? r* .
-_u us v.,y u -
llv[ ':. . :w
~
.,-a' ::,.. 1
?x
.se ..- M 't i ~<5
; .c s
; v;s
- a W, . y g. .
.;. p ,
w
. - f, m" m, .s. . s-
,j ,, resembles the substantial data and analyses required in an ER and to which the f.; -
Commission referred in its Catawba decision. See Letter from Warren P. Murphy w y M."M'a.\ Q,,?h h f i,; . .. ;x (Vermont Yankee Vice President and Manager of Operations) to NRC (April l
, E ^ [ N.' l3fM J l $Q . , 25,1986) at 2-3, Enclosure (Replxement Report) at 4-6.M I - .', q ,d A '! 4 . b W.0 -
Thus, the Board's attempt to transform an otherwise baseless, premature con-
- . W % '
, .. G_ %. , . f. . . .?. , tention into one that is admissible has failed. As NECNP's own contention 5 'l
'o -
contemplated, intervenors must await the issuance of the staff's environmen-
, . l{ T : C:
- 7,c. #.' J %7 '$!3 tal assessment and, then if disestisfied with its consideration of alternatives,
.. My "y;WW.; ^ iD formulate promptly an appropriate contention in accordance with the Commis-sion's regulations for late-filed contentions,10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1).82 Cf. Con-
^MM.@g[.@y?.v;N 'n M.N. / ~..a u :sN.@[- , sumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB-636,13 NRC 312, 330-31 (1981) (Licensing Board should have awaited issuance of staff environ-
.A d.S....i.s. dhfi9 :M~ w @ $, JM. P l,.
vv mental assessment of spent fuel pool expansion proposal before determining
. Q Q",w 85 @ i Q Ml, n, J.; that it was inadequate). - ,ujf.m.s..m., a.l.Q.;
v-c% ;,, ,a.,M .. ..
. /M. tV 1: M.
. .o.{=[f : r f' s 6 2q .w
% ,./. s. fio; p'p!fl%gp% w~ ; ,
E. Insofar as the Licensing Board's decision (LBP 87-17,25 NRC 838) admits
% ^ ^ . 3 ", Q '-; l . @ . J contention 1, it is affirmed, subject to the substitution of the phrase "design l l* y jh . 2 -i.b.n ^ -
- - limits of 150*F" for "regulatory limits of 14C'F"; otherwise the decision is j,
~ .
W]; h,~-] reversed, with respect to contentions 2 and 3. Because the Commonwealth of
'.-c - . u. e. . - .. .
- . Massachusetts has failed to submit at least one admissible contention, it is
^
y.', ff /.7 ' . W< , dismissed as an intervenor in this proceeding (see 10 C.F.R.12.714't,)); the
, j "^f ' N v. ' Commonwealth, however, is already authorized to participate as an interested '
V' . -'c2 State pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715(c). See LBP-87 7,25 NRC 116,118 (1987).
- p. ,
. 6 ',
It is so ORDERED. l i
. * ' S.Wl '
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
, - m. - -
'..g
, , ::: : t ': . ..w -
. n. .
/
. L wN e C. Jean Shoemaker
~~
'y f (*
g g ),
' ~
.y ' Appeal Board l
, r e:-
.. a l
l
*N. - T 1 ".'
s
- ge
..(..* *'4',
,,i,
=4 ,y l i ,#4 ([ $ . '[ *. , =
"Q i ,?f
? ,
. . 's *;
r ,, s En
.(..
> ,F
,.'y
.g. ^
, 'Q*h',-[o 2.
. ' ,/ *,
).. m .*
.;/ v%Oi . .' + .1..mu e ( , . , . . y 1
\
, . , . -M. : .'.1' EM. AA ER is rnised fw a estruction permit and operating lianas, but in fa a license uneneurit sylica.
;y c[ < W f. MMfe.6*,4((.
JQ,.,,:... hfl( .' .. g', ticut 10 CJA H 51.50,51.5s. N information that must be induded in an ER is described in 10 CfA H 5145.
$(3 g, $g,$1,
. r ' ,'[y ;.fG' :g fg, p,h : --. ..%[g.,%;p jy(y. o.m ; f,.;s.e
,,ch-. m .,',_c 32 w,.,,,1. %y ;-c;.7
, is expected soors Tr. 91.
*' m b. = *s' . %
- 7%$*'M.* s .
' . . .. *6f ,M, .. . ' s.m
' is,,%.
[ # , q.. %u m,
.~s ' f' gy . r e -
' ' .p "-[ * ..% } #. [ V'
'# .',. ,'g q, % 'It 'E 4 l,'.',
',N .'s,'; , 'I[ f i
4 m 1 f' %
. ~ . . .m.2.
.} * -
6 i., %
- g,8 .,N ,'
*'i
,.r.*
. -f. .
, */
. ff s >. ^
, t;ss
. - l 1
~ -
-a..v , . .. . .. . ._-
- _ n , m , n . .,..,.. . , . . .
m *' e . ~.
, , , g
- f *
*D -- , [
g 4 l
' d #
%a .
, ,, y i O .
% % a , %
4 .'T
, , B
- S 5, # #
_g
,n. . **
*i.. %.!% g, *,*d,**/.
, j
.. 1,
.. ~3, ,,
~
.7 >J '.l t' -
,Q '
. * /j, , - *
- s
.,s..<". e * . .; ,ac; . , . u . y * ..*
~,. -sa
- f. ,m. ,m _
-4 a ..
Y.. s,vgn .Lc .. - . ..n
*- r ~ + e *. ., .
v , . y; t ,.z '. y %
. ,f;.9::w. 4 :M y M. . a y :' ~ N' -t sy ;;.a 9..;c,.2.e- ., . ,. .wc v M:. . . -M qwg:
; ;. .,: ti .y Q.yn. 7.. M, >.vrg;s~,,;p,jg
=.\.
, s , ~ . i~ uw;y , ' v~.
1, *
- c.:': %. 'y; y.', ,, '. '
- s. ~ ~. . .Qp& ;. . ;z.", , t
; e,, ; . , . .,.5 a s ~ ;u:, ,, y. . a
.p: g; .y .m s . p.7, g.m. .(. .x
,....9 :. c. ?;1,.!
. 7y.
. , J. :n.;.. w; 7,~ *rt~ ,_ . v;. M ',c.
6::q ' p .~ . ',.- .; W% ~ %.?y: < .%-
,; ./
e , . . . . .
?- u % ,'.'c M m .: x e >. ;;' .
- ',;y -., . s '. :q ' :,, .e. .a -- ;.
n;.m , ? w c
\! .:kn.Mi;9M;h. otf v S. r, ;%, : k ;.asy ,. ::;ty,.
w w
. ;t , c . ~
p .
!. (. o;;;..2.i
; ~. , ,,.p:.,h cW m '.i+W 9 ,p,c.yn p .;;y. m>.c - .,
p , y%r... + M,,
. , y',,..;. W.;?:<u ....
..a.., .
, ,.c p,;
. p..QQ,y,gg.g
'n.M 1 .,,3,g-
. . .y<,, 2 p. . , ..W e +i.
. p. . : *g >;: r .e, ;;[ftp~g,.p: ,.yc.g q;;ja.4.:gG
,,<m. cy; , .,. g,qv..,e m w. ,
o q'grfp . .-> y;y ..
.w~ . 9. .. y =
a
- c. v. . , Ow,...
. . .. n. ,
. . ;7.,
t og y;Qg,n;jg.g..n.1.,
- ..o..... p .4.-
.< . 7
, <; ;.'. .%~,- v.p _ge.~.a,n,
. . ;~.. .. .m.w;s. ., ~ w :np, >[.
,. .~ p ,7.w%., M. .e.,.p:. .- c % , a r % o.1.:m.u. ,~ ... .s;.:;~
.n
- r. ,.
g ,a
' , Q,y . s^
, b,&, %,bl'.y ,;.,?.QQ fQQ'Q;e
^
s . .& '-Q~ ,, -~,zQ.}Qg',R;,:q< ,.,, ,. J
;i. --_'i);:; 9. j ,f;,,.pg i , , . r .jg:'
. ; e. ,. .. ';;,'y;.f.
,.g-y' .e"c.,,
'j. *g.
., Q
-~
v ..n [n. ;y;QQ)[p.';f.y&.v * ,,,y
. ,4 ., g.
a .t m.,, u .;, .. W; m%.,rp;
'g ,
t hgsy,. .. y.. 5 n(..,g,;b Y
.,, c%: .;
. x , 6 _3, ' ..
~ .;W;'f,, ,a. ,m.ep gg .i
,c.c. ,
,y.y, :,s m, ; R,. 4,M.s, i .. ,' , .v% , .
. ,,3,7. y;;'W, Q. , .; , ,2.
.j .<h,p.y . m . (,-, ..-.,N,;r . .e n..
+.,
,3- ,,p . '*..,ti
- p. ,
,r ,a % %. . t.,. c . 3 em
,m y, ,.,o E M> f 'sH,..-
l <.:i '?:- *
*4. /. e .s:o
,M e. ;j. *.-
4.,,T ;, ., .3 m , , .j e4
.1 ?s . v p r
- ...t ;m p, ;. t !l.y f %,. .. 4-n .%e,., .r. p .
y
- v. ; . e,. ; r ,s 2
.n -y,W 9 :n . , w%a. Mq .; . y. ,C,7 Q,.,s:a .v.g'j i ;.,, ,,,.
*. h * ;.pg' e%w~.A',Q: 'ps,
. - , .. * , h . g ,. *'f.,.: .'y,s . ,, , ,e ; '{
n .%.- **m. .s .T,, Qu, y. .Q * ** * ) ,e . -. . . -
., 7 p,,,$g.4. .g.*ge.r.; 1 $WW:g:.r c $ ,7 .
9.S..+ . ,n .' c-% .
- Q m., .;. .q . *
;pp%r. ly : . U: .
/[
,y iQ ,
. , .4.#,.
. . . . , . ,T 'T}P.
g ..
' ? k.~a ,f, c,.! G.. .,.%..;<.;j_.Q4> . . : ?.j.~ ' -[ Q pv i,.;T , .* ,f.. W y-QM.z. .: ,Mp.) .~ .,. ..Mp.n./ '.9 %. ,+,Q.,. * . ..,. ' . ' .' 'a, ,.'.:g v. . ,.
..3- >. _.
.u. . . c;. .s.., .
. . w.. . v ,.- q. -.~.,.,n. .u. ;,. . p.n.,...,.e
.n, . . ,;- .,.- - , . . . .
<s<. s . , , -a . m, 4 m .s;w. 7 g... ;.. . , c ;
.> . .~e
, , ,.c e.
.p t.
-. , . 4.,; , .
p .. - -
.. {-
~
,a 1:
r, j
.r ,
I Ry 4 t . s. . i y APPENDIX A e
- a.
' ... , t.
.,m.. '3' ,c
., :i,,..
'Mi?:. .,
./ Contentions as Admitted Derivation * . I~
g, ,
. p
. .a ..
lJ,.t - ' Contention i NECNP Contention 3 V N ,. '
, . J He spent fuct pool expansion amendment should be denied De spent fuel pool expansion amendment should be denied ,
because, through the necessity to use one train of the stac- because it violates the single failu c criterion. [ r ,,..
, s 13 tor's residual heat removal system (RIIR) in addition to the (
F a Basis: Should this amendment be approved, it would bc
- 1. ., .
~f ,.
spent fuel cooling system in order to maintain the pool wa-necessary under certain conditions to use one train of the [
) H~' . [ ter within the regulatory limits of 140 F, the single-failure (.
@;.h[,! .
,j f ' .3% criterion as set forth in the General Design Criteria, and reactor's residual heat removal system (RIIR) in addition -(-
f.-Q@a ,. g ,%.'" ' j particularly Critelion 44, will be violated. %c Applicam has not established that its proposed method of spent fuel to the spent fuel pool cooling system in order to maintain the pool water within the design limits .of 150*F. (See {
.. . .. q t, pool cooling ensures that both the fuel pool cooling system Vermont Yankee Spent Ibcl Storage Rack Replacement
<.L, , Y '%.
Jl6e. 1 v.., > u,, t j .g . - (, ' n g,ofj n 'f.f', and the reactor cooling system are singic-failure proof. Report, April,1986, at 56-59 and Response to Request . for Additional Information-Proposed Change No.133, [p q;; k h.,[~ ' j l.A.' 1 j. Spent Ibel Pool Expansion, November 24,1986, responses [' s
,.7 -;W7ay to questions 16 and 17). The heat load in the pool after jL [," '
b a normal fuct discharge is roughly 50% greater than the f
- ?
]
design capacity of both trains of the spent fuel cooling system. While Applicants assert that the two pumps in one [0 j; RilR train are single active failure proof, they have not demenstrated that there is no single failure in the RIlR
<, r Qf system components and power supplies that would not [
. . ~ ., U
/ i. disabic the single train of RHR. [
....- g, s! i
' > *Ne- Ligland Castidun an % clear PWlutina's Response to Boent order of Fetwuary 27, 1987: stasanas of Corsasions and standing (March 30.1987) at M,81&. ,
2 Consensions of the Cansmanweahh of Massad==<= (Enh 30,1987) at 13.
. '. , _ . ' c -
- _ . = _ . ._ . - - . --'
~
- c. t
.,V. : l
~
- S
. , 'a L, ,&: ).D . '. <- ~. .
.s l .
,s.
,a M,m%..? $.. .. : '.y'i}
.x WQ .,o., U ?fe..;' u . .. p.&. . % . %..o.,,., , ~v .s,.< ;\,e
* ~ .. .
s . . u
,v--,.,>
.,. ,e. .u , ,
- m. . , .,
n,. : s1 . . < .;v.g,r
%y s
.O...... .m u , .-
.7 - , .
,~. n:sc 3g - ..
.y.
_ .e ,. m ;
. . .. .. cc n -
.o.
y, e s > .
.r4. . y Q.3 ,
+. '
p, a
'. . M. . ' p&,. .c
.. n . . M. *;
- 3. .
'%.v, ,.'*s .
. f. w 9.~, . y.: ., rv .;w.ar e c e.NM. ,
,-t , ; < .. - > -
,,,,....L....;,
. , s t-
. ,+' , .* i , .w '
' + "
e
. 4 ;, ,. . . .
w ., y;; w ,u. ~, .
. i. '- ' , z p..M . .J .-
.c . c u: e <4ou *.'.,. <
- ; . s a< u. .,, z.p - .s;r - . , , .,.
, , , . , ,s. s
- s. . ; f e. s.% s cy. ,;e'( ,; a % m, u*
..t C,c .. ; .4
, - , y'a. ,m4:n. . . 3. P'<;
i c.,'.,. 1.! 4..e./
,.'1.. -
..i p*, , .. c uo.., ~ ym '.n j%;...,,.,4 -
- ~
w; u.t - .
,,, , g f y ,'I . .
,.,..-.,.?.
-.' q
,1.
._*' , 4 "s .
,, t , ,
s .y- o ql.. 1
, 4 s' .
,,6 . v, . i , -k y 6
y- ".*,1:.p.L(. I
*, .. 9 W, . . i *.
, ~ >
, q. .,.v. - s N
, . . .s5' e -
.% , e 3 , . n g' , ym..y.9 . r, e.19",.z& *y,g 3 ', Xpf w\., . %' ,f, T p.g~. y ;6.,,}' * ..&ss y; ~
y: < :::
.;>n, 'v.y w.m.
.s'gc. '
n n. - ,, - .- .t.. ., w a - n,
.r : , *<
.os. 3.' . . n, e L P f.,'fv..P
~? u.
n
,# _N-f
< , ' lY :w'g %=y; w. 4.-.a.,;:a m g<
, ' r- . a;Q
- uy +':pc,. n;"f;*w's b.V . >.;e J.
n
. ;,eg;y . ., :.9
.,% .*! py.%1 a;$c. ;>%v^.y,, ..
~
.a.r, , - r . y
.. t
- j.,5 n w
,., . .: - r~ a. -
?~
. .,,n p% @.e
- 4.i.; ;ng ;.
_ , . .r. ! . u.m %q ,r.'
- p. . , r .9 r.,4 g 3 .,
. .w .-
s ~
, y .y r,..,.. .. e . 4..,.,e., , a.
-am g~m.. ... .p,.,z.m i . v. ,%m. yy m. ... .
, - < u, . c .. : a. ..;,y
;f -.4
,r
, , . 7 . y.
2p. -;j' . , n . : .~,,~,.p ; , c. m, p3 p , ;; ('.s,:. .:.s.a. o 1,rwy 2@mA,.
- c. 5.. m: ..f. p , v,y.;.
- u. 9.j ;w. , , ,. on. y .,, . r s(
s . t y. n.> ;p;m.w;w&y ,,%;;, g, a
. !f .; . , e,cs . g.. ..ss.n ,.
wn'a a , .. , . a nr,. ,,r. l,.u.y_. , -
.R . s.uv j.p 1 (, i g 2 :... <
. y . , .
_ g ,
. .f'.;.py
~
\
> /' hi hhj f.N[f5 [; M ON h , ~- [;,N*$
, .h .
}} fhh!.. ((-h ?. .
a f. a 7, .N, {f[f.4 , '
.y.
v> s
?e 1;
7 a - -
.& v
. ., -. f; '
. , e m.a m
'e " , *
.N g.
sp3.g* p;.uy~ g.c [ , [ c , y,3 -N' g.c,h
%w ,, ,. ,; vJ.,..'. v< r ,.. '
,.8
, . ....,; .+,s.,...
.. . . e , .
n --
~ ... .
. .n - ,- T.o.: .. z
- c. ; - - 2
. .~.m. .
6 , m. , e - ., ,. . f o ' J h, f y v r
- , , , , , .f . c; '. h...,<g,,e",p,.
.r ,,r _4, f *. y.
,, , s 4
",.- . ( r I\
' .l ,
e
' t-
', Contentions as Admitted Derivation !
y e n . d,
- . Moreover, under conditions where one RIIR train is needed !.
., Nu for spent fuel pool cooling, there is only one train availabic p
.) for decay heat removal from the core. Applicants have not
[ j cstablished that this leaves a single failure proof method of [ (, , 1 cooling the core. j
.i
'. - e
] In summary, Applicants have not established that their (
proposed method of spent fuel pool cooling ensures that [
" b f].. ~
~ both the fuel pool cooling system and the rextor cooling
, '. .! system are single failure proof. '
f .%. [ 3 - ,
.c ,
, y Y ~, ' ~ ,
~
u Contention 2 NECNP Contention S ;. os i p, 5 .)j t
, h ' ,,' The proposed amendment would creatc a situation in which 'the NRC has not complied with the provisions of the I I U. . , f ' , , f - ] consequences and risks of a hypothesized accident (hydro- National Environmental Policy Act nor of its own rules in
- 1 r 'r ],j gen detonation in the reactor building) would be greater h 10 C.F.R. Ibrt 51.
c) ,
'd than those previously evaluated in connection with the
_. '! Vermont Yankee reactor. ~Ihis risk is sufficient to constitute Basis (in pertinent part): The bases for Contentions 1-4 D I the pmposed amendment as a "major federal action signifi- # are reasserted herein. The National Environmental Policy
,'l cantly affecting the quality of the human environment'* and requiring preparation and issuance of an Environmental Im.
Act requires the preparation of an environmental impact .
.] statement detailing, inter alia, the environmental impact s ,
pact Statement prior to approval of the amendment. of m.e proposal and considering alternatives. for any ma-jor federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment " 42 U.S.C. $ 4332(C). The proposed , amenA= as. which would substantially increase the risk to 9
m % ,
/ h '. : . ' ' . ?p?t %%: P ., ' .
- * ~
a.F -
$. '.?.i.M~h,C i,n. ~-p..
c..w:nb s
. . m"jQf W W. q..,,n ;.. y . ,S:,
~
. 99, ,9. . :' ..
,,n. ~
, ,,;. c . -
.,,.,,m .. x..;
- .u.p. a ~.g . w. w / s- any.
y :?.w ....,. ., . z, e q .}. . N- , z...s a. .m a.a-
- s. . 4.. n , -
.? ~
,.. u ,, .: y, j ,
;- . L..
^ .' lW'yN Q(G Q . %, ,.w' p , , L . ; c. ~. ,"* -
~
;;;:l\g<.-...-V
;t.W,%n.ny. ..s:pNn*;9.Q,, mu.E
, c. : gglf..*,w;7.:ax ' ..
a;t~.n r , P. . , . . ' a. , .a e h ! $ Q~;,f ($ 4;S.'.':.',g. s ,..n <
,r.
9r.4f.Kpw&,. . s .:.Vy f
-.a. :.y.
,.
- p.. -.< r T ,'M.
. y. b .n..?
.*=' -.. .i,'n.) *.l . .j..,a . . , , 2 - a ,, ",;~G. , ,. ., , '.
.ee k. '. :.
r
..m.%. . ..:g&,in.
w . S. f.y,. g*y .,.. o.2.~ ,. .. .. 3 ., , c a. $ .,
- J' #- !>'7-
.- j* .sy ; :,3 p .y . J s,*.ps+'
. ,l ;Wc, d,.; . , p . , ,
. '.-y.gr
<ryg- 4 , p* ,~r" ' ?, , :%
- s ,,%.Q. ..n; w
.N.,,7c f Ov
.. 7., : s m . .?.;<g*y -
,.4; r , ' :. ,'j+; g. <{ :.P-
, i.
,, ~. ;
. * - ' , , , , , . , .m ; . , j; .
, , - ~g
.~m.,, , ,,* .. "s'. ~..
; Q.,e,J. :~,,G,,
~
" . p .?
.'.y','+ r ,
pll;r * ;,W ,.) *,.s.h
\ !:
.a,*g.'*x, f, \ Q *X Q '
u ;,.. '. ;. , < , ' -c.,'". s...
* .-5 .>c s ,. . . .- ll ,-. n Qp.
- a. *;. , , . f. e %,,
.b ; a .-' g
,~4 7. g, , , y" .,p,, 4 :
g .p .r. . .. y- .7. ~.( 'a ..j ;,, s.m;
%, , - . e. y r' .,c -
- s. w' ;n
,t..>.,.; .-*4,..rJ*~,,,,.,
.C
,,.,.,~s
,,,s .e '*'..,
..% ;.l. ,o -, u .
. 1.1.*.,
, p, ,7 p,
- 7. ,A \. , f' ,J..6..
. n. . ,
- n. n. ,. a,. .. . ,.,. ..% 4, , a? .,l,;, ,
.y.o
. poe .9. .+ ,~,< m. ,
- .: . ,- , ,, - . w. ~
, , y,, ., , . g y
, ,Pt, ' J >* *
- L; ,w, , - ,ute. r , , a ,,,, r s ;.m. . ; :.J; <w- 7g,s. , *s $
..'. am, , u. , . . .< > --
..?--
s > ~ ~ s o
. , 5 e
1 , . y -,-.v..,-.,..,:w. ,. , .- .; . ,.,s . .e+. r m
,j.:w:... :,Q.
. , - ~
s, s .a.g, .;v.v. g.. e .
. . ec . se. , s . , .,.. , . .,c.. ,, ..- .,m, . .f .,. . g . i c.#..y c s . . . ,r .v.
. , . n 4..,.,;,.. ,,.,. .. "., ; ..._.4 q p,.gv.%,
, , . s . . . .
... .- 6 q <y, -%,r ; __ ( f. .a, .Ks ,.,r.g<.m ~....
. . s.. g., : , 7 y.;, ;
.n . x. -
1
+
w*. ..m:L-
- e. .wa- , s c: , ;. ,to.y.
m s .g.a4 W-
.c , .,. w. ~s r .. s., . c,. y% ~. . . ..- .
y >' .
- r. n.9
; e:w <
u -
.. e .v
.. :.V .
r . :. : .~:,3 n. .. .e . ,a . , m yg..,..y .u a. ,s ,. w ,' m -c J yh w % m ,n..,x... w7:;S, *43,i. :t'^ h. M 79['y. . .. y ~ P N ' "9$ ,.' M, NfMd.3 . m w y m+d M 4 . W:,aMY. N elI:O , a &, 6 M.,x'4.$gw.3M.y. n
, - . . . .,. : u . . w , y. ,. .;;.g ,
1> ; : . -y . s y , s .v _
, - y ...i--
Am . , , n. . ; .
. .-c 7
. . ~...
; , s. + . . j ,. , . ,
.. g'
,.o<
',s,.... y.
, ,.3
,1 -" *.
* ..e, i s * *sv *
.*,,_ , ,4.-,,t. -
m s Contentions as Admitted Derivation 1 public health and safety associated with operation of the 1
.s. c4.
Vermont Yankee plant, is such an action. NRC has not pre-
, 4, pared an environmental statement, as required by law and l by 10 C.F.R. 51.20.
4 r' ab Commonwealth Contention i
~
I
! The Commonwealth contends that the license amendment
, ,]. ., l proposed by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation
, V. - r e ,
j ("Licensce") is inconsistent with the protection of the put,lic health and safety and the environment. O6,
~-
e , , . y
-a Basis:
A" ', * [.. #
; 1. Probalistic [ sic] risk studies of boiling water reactors
,% , W ,
a indicate that the expected frequency of severe acci-
.' 3
.. . 9(; dents at such reactors is non-negligible.
<.1 2. In the event of a severe accident, a significant quantity 1 of hydrogen gas could be generated and such gas could.
' ; through containment leakage or failure, be released
, q into the reactor building.
- 3. "Ihe hydrogen gas which could be released into the
' ' , L! reactor building as a result of a severe xcident would likely burn or detonaic and would thereby generate 1
. pressure which would threaten the structural integrity i of the containment building.
f
- * , , .* ,,c -
s~ , -
* ," - -. .. . w .
u:- : ~r- < ~ . .
. .M~ ' S } g:
- 9, I . N:.i
...r.. q',J . ,:: .
.h
. :.. : 2]v;
>.,$a,~ , , v7 , ,
*..]~:n.,~.;
+
0.gg,fv. c,
; /~ t >->.:.v:,% (%:'W.*" . ,.'.r ~M. 3:n e.;. ,'c 7.[;t .. .. .w
- , :' v~- m@ff... a c? .+N.w:,.. ' * ,. .:
;. m. .:. n > l , . .~
wr , ,1; : s .: ~r ' s.~.,.,,-.<
.o. .s,
~
g *. ~
+
./
.,n,..
<, . ' s.
ap 4 p. , . x , e . u, y: , . , ,
,. ... ?
v w:of
.Ay ,wQ;;<' w ..z v s. m.4.w A,- w ~ , .::1.. Qs. % .a, y ya a.
;s e ,.
. . .m . <: : 9 ,?.S.y. ,. , . m .n .no _ . +c -3fm, u, , I;,,. z w;.....a. n. ;,s .; g,.
. n. a %:f. a. .:,,, , _ . ,, ,.
c ,.>:-
,- ,. v~ v -
f m. ,~-. s . .
. -p, .. .
- ' f :,q v e g n. ' s. :> \ 6..
.?'%m 3;N ,. ,
1 o - ' c t m.. 2:
-u.l %,.m. .Q qy?,p:r es,n.:W.
o.; -.r. . ::g . ' la::i.i.<:.V e.rs. ;.,i., +.;.yr p,g_..:, q 3. rJ<g. n m,4 yA2;:., w:... i:::-p.y% .n.ry,.sm ' y,r.
.y.g . p.~.% t , '.%s m
.% . v.h l- ') ,u n;.
. q% -y +:w. -
T.:; 4:g. l, .n,
..z.,,
d.g ... ,. .;.. ..a
, ' %_ i;n9 /y 4 3. .. w, :n.,e.
&r . .c -
. , , -m.3,.. :. - c ;.. J p i;e,% . . 4- ,,a ; - <,
.. . M, , >
r . .. .
'~
[j$&J. ,' m. 7 . "G. w./ # Q \,.'. ~ $.1.'.f;{,:l, ?. 7. ..K.k&.&. s&&:l.%Q j ..- ~.f. . p n. ,v.9 , .~ n.3..G
. - ., ,. , , . 7
^
4:;p'..,f,w_~ ; nkn}. gl.e- y, ),v.f::.gy.$ r% - ( N.,mlQ,;
- i,n % '
. . .. .e Q: : y pQ:
. s.% tc-
.. g4 , ;,.:, m ::',o , '-.s, ..c
- .u 7.'s.'.y;V
- g. .s . y m yy t;\
v ap~ y,:,.y,,:.,.
, T R.:,M.\
t c.,.=;0m.L. < ? o >. . w .<hs, p ptlc h,:yly
, ~ , , ,
. sg_o-%..
~ . , ~1. , . . . ,, , . ...> , 9~ 2tt &s' % , ..x. eaf,.s W ., ~. *, -, ...,.
, . . ~
- a. -
. . . , .3 s,,.,
. .s
. . q. ,
y.
- m. g ,e, ,s
., . .:.'.h. , u.:,.m .e y . Q , a'h W_. na ., n. y , y..?y.3 Q, .;l, . ;. ,.,y sW%n; '.&. ,,. j.v.y'W*;(i.-Q a ,%..'
. n. , . . -
.* ;, . - :."9 '- w. l ,T::M.,,, W .p _# .A *: ' ^
. - , ':., % < q w.i. 3 : v -4 ~ ~
' J
- /. s' . <
A" . , ' 's, .- . s, r- o
-5.Kr,~.n'.,,f.
M: C ' s LW.P'.".*,
& ' l.. q18
.i.p fiM Q:4.M ~ f,, &y 9 v
@.:n:? < .&w .c.,h
&cM. N,J ** W .
.:.s-
. = ' - .
. T.y'?.;.:-j<;.:;; .%,f D t- y.W L !
YL.M ' V. .%,.
' 6M W..Q ..'
^ "
~r ,6' . "4 f..A , M.:6:3 a %
- W'?.
t.
., .Mrs u- &(. .%y. .Q'Q. q .Q.Q. / 9... w* v.v ,,s,A.b
- ; 4 O. '~~Q u. @ z,rd, ; W
", . )o!.C,
;.y.G(u.r'.&!ay,lf:.R.;. .a;;Q,,g@yqh.. . G. /.w%,, .a Q
. ,7,M; ., p . W.. p%,
n. >>.. c. -
.~ d., *,
..~ v ..t e nm ,. a
. c. .n . < n m . Me.
, - . >i.,
.. p,..y N,.. s.u . . i,<.
m.w.. , ,3*: k,..ut. v<r 1 . /.y.ep.c. $...n. y. .y -" -;e' y- g; :. Y.v.OU n ;m . ,.w,.i . f, v z , p,c.- pn .. .
. . c- u -v s a v N i. lk.., .; g s>.;, p.>
f.ws ... r (.;n b.s-. ,rp~g o;L ge . . . b....s ;q ! 3 . ?. - ,
^ a 6, y* h .. y . A V. ev bf'v4 _ .. 7:).
. NuL
- p. . :. v?gvn )g e:c j 4
. :s. , ..,
.., , . . , . 6. .
. . ,a N
.p w.;/y:s m .f yQ 4. *,r;yp. .e . , -
w g;:.,- ,me y .gg u n ; D..-
' . x, Y yy , . nc s, .,%q,y% ':i; p.y f..,ws , : c ..
hp,;.ca+T:pyr
..wr. v :p: q2, us w.v: ;p ; s m:.. s.;tn.y, M. ;s4.'p%% 4. %,%
Y.4a. p;q..y. gyn y: 9.%. ' !/.yg y% ' o, - M y r a ~ -, . - s 9 *. ' y . v-
;ny y?,; .y z c .,.:.
w.- ;7% m,p . wg .M:: M. .
.4s , :.' .m + y .
w: * ; ,u , ,::.
~ ; - . 8, 4,
W,< . v ;f -' {'
?i ' , .' l,,Q: Y;5 . , , - 77 .'; .'
'k \ ) - * " '
f I',' Q:~ ,., ' , o :-W., ,Y ,:
' * '? *~
N ), A.y: . , ,
? s
. T .
. ,,y -y ,s '
_ < p. m , ,,
* .t -
.nu .-
. .i, m.
4 P
~
Contentions as Admitted Derivation , s
- 4. %c spent fuel pool of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear
?. ,
'. 1 Power Station is so located that in the event of a se- '
. ', vere accident resulting in hydrogen gas being released
' t into the reactor btd! ding, it is possible that either: (a) 3i spent fuel cooling systems will be damaged and ren-
. dered inoperable with restricted access to the building (v. ? .
preventing their repair; or (b) the structural integrity of N
. u t, < / the spent fuel pool will be breached. i
- 5. Inadequate cooling of fuel in the spent fuel pool or a {
s l ']' , ! Z ({ , ~. 3 breach in the structural integrity of the spent fuel pool
? ,
~y ,y i M,
y
~y',. .
+
M can result in a radiological release. i,
- C.< .y- ...j. -
., s u 6. Allowance of the proposed license amendment would ,
4( oo
, O, ' ' '
increase the amount of spent fuel stored in the spent ;
* : M ;. fuel pool and, thereby, increase the magnitude of the ;
.,, e, ,,
- .C ' . .rr '
~
,j possible radiological release that could occur in the
' 9 1 event of a severe accident
; ...~ d i
4..- Contention 3 NECNP Contention 5
. l o .
%c NRC has not complied with the provisions of the
- %c Applicant has failed to submit an adequate analy-National Environmental Policy Act nor of its own rules in
? sis of alternatives to the proposed action, as required by 60102(2)(C) and 102(2)(E) of the National Environmen- 10 C.F.R. Part 51. ,
' ~
e tal Iblicy Act. 42 U.S.C. 654332(2)(C) and 4332(2)(E), and implementing NRC regulations or guidelines. Specifi. Basis in pertinent part NRC rules (10 C.F.R. 51.21) re-cally, the Applicant has failed to analyze adequately the al- quire the preparation of an environmental assessment for ternatives of (1) dry cask storage and (2) independent pool all licensing and regulatory actions except those identi-t
' ./
I " ,
,,k ' ' 'f .. : q c.
< .T:' *Q;y W.;,5 W m.,
y.. M.
. v n. i.Q +. m,:m G ; ,, ., . c . % 7 .
- .,.:. n ~
y; , .L* ' " .;. .';, , M ;A,,
. ..x9 M. J .;.;.. .,
- t -
.~ , . . ;..,:.MG.;-
e yp; :; . ec vp . % g n f: ld h,$f.i
- ,a.,p v &j.f..y, l [n.' l-
- '.~l, . ,, hQ.w'. ... >p!f. &. .klx$$:l$lb.
~:.I: lL. ..-m k, 5.1.I... .
', :[3 ',y. g .
n
'.. N> .'n...h, z,53 m y,Ly W. p 3,. .., _
e .. s ,
,,4*
8 m', , .x' ,.
- 9. a h.h.lf.mlQ,,y'rj..:jt; g< ! ; ,^ ... y :,. p.g.-
4g
;i.;, .. %,x. ..<fg
. ,s i, e; .
.s z. , - -
e..r.
-%.o%._., . . . mr W.P ' . . '
- .. L: ;f. - . ,Mi39;.%g;W, y P. g.qnq{. ':wyr
,. e.V ,:!
.4 ,*
3 . :
- J...,.. .
. -*r, - .m -
f 7%
- cW , s g.~.%
i; ;.3 ' G;cR.M,$. ;;14. ;%...,.. x ? A.%,' y- .= * % . Az gg:y.r y .. ..b.%2c;;;.unW,;.
. :,- . ;:V.f, r ~.: ,
oA4- , . ,
..s. 9. . 3.;wx ..,, A;.m;r ;; . - e w ~u v . s.. ns.w .r
;. .,.,.; a: n
< 6+, .c..,*3,.,n.,....
, ~
.+
r.n m :.y w, ..e.
~<.,x.,. -
y.
; 0 +;. ;, s %~ ~ so
. c;m, ,.-Q,., , *,~4 ~. .-
o ,
- r...
~e&.2 9r5. .,.,: y..,.,i.t>
- v: 9 .
- . ~p ..tr, , %.. -p .,
, v.
y J. d
..i <* r y. .,.. ,v. ., b ;e ,., . .g., cv r, wp..:..
t
.- ; ,' . ,. ,.~w, r .r;.y: g.,w.; ?r. n
- n. -
.. , 9
.. m ,. : . . u. .. g,.
,,: > , . .-. ya m.y
'.>,,.c..
i- -. - 2.:. ., x,.
.~-
7<; . w.
., e o ~ a. , -
g..., q
.,,,m.. .s -3. -, nh. .a , r w ,.-
~, .r- ' ;J .. :., og .x .v w .O,Y , . , u .cw , , ; ,
e .y., 4.m,n 3.. .m, ,m.,,. ,j... ,
, < , . . ..p, . .,.p~. ;. -y;v ,. a . .~ .w. , , -
s ,, .... a
,.7,.,
,.m.
c .
, , ,3.f.; .. .m6 .., .i,,-,,..r
. i. .
,s,
..u, 1
a r . _ .p...m%n y ,, p.-. ..%, ; : ..,e.. ,.,sn,. .,. m.. s . ,g y -. m..
...,..g -
- w. .,.,.^ , .
- a. g- - e ,a .p<
3p3v.v. ff*} f",Yk,h
. . s . .. , , ,
. ...m. ,
h
, . 3 Y:gj.ll. h - lf.
- f ' J ,{ Y.
'fL Uf h'f &Y'fs ff',.!
ll z ', i.A, ' . [ 'i
, " . ! i! n .
j c,y
^
. . [ 3. [ .k y % ,:a;7 ;;.: , , 3,,' '. pm,:
~, ~ m
/ ,
, , , . .w k wy.*g-
- . . b .,. 4..,+3,.q q.a.o. n s g'y -
,yp,.,. ; W.; ' M,< y *- ' .
.8 o.8 qm.D,:..u yk
.V w::p,%. ' '2 c. e , .;>r:::'.;w s ,x. , .el Lg... &,
,th e.4;;>[Ywa.',.,5
.a.
r . , r* I
. 3.. C ag%-
".,yp w ,*' ... * , k #- J f 'M g ,
.t,! ,s 'h' *P' h T* . s. p^ # * . . . * - *i s
*,', . p. c ;
# ,.O.'
I* . , , 5 h- ..* r [.y # f.,(.(:,, g
,.s d
,; 5 , p M'
- N ' ' #,r s *' '["
. , ,h.',' -
, s,,,, . .d',']j v .
'.* *[ .
1 lu.g%. ,. t y: n , ,' vw e. - 9 .i
+ w.c.
.. . ' . . , , ' ' ll , g js,,> .v3. ;4. , - ,34 .. .
,.. +
.m. c. s' ..
c 1
, ,?:
. wn
, 9 -
.r r
.) .
l
- o 1-I i
l e, a t.
,? Contentions as Admitted Derivation -,
j.
- storagc. Both of these alternatives are availabic options and ficd as requiring an impact statement (Listed in 10 C.F.R.
3 '*
/' 3,.
, provide obvious safety advantages over the instant proposal 51.20(b) or categorically excluded in 5 51.22(c)).This pro-posed amendment is listed in neither section and thus re-
/' ,
quires at a minimum the preparation of an environmental d ee' assessment. "Ihat docunwnt has not been prepared.
"I.
{.
. ~ While NECNP expects to change this contention at such !
, J f; i time that NEPA-related documents are issued by NRC, it i
[i can state preliminarily that two areas of specific concern to 4 WI . . -,' . Ol it are the consideration of alternatives to the proposed ac- t W .$ I
,~< tion and consideration of the increased risic to public health p ;..~ ,- , ,
f
-; G - '
3 and safety. In particular, serious consideration should be
. u [
,' . I. ;a !
'o given to the alternatives of dry cask storage and indepen-
'C .
m ' ,' . ,
, j,. .
dent pool storage, both of which provide obvious safety advantages over the instant proposal. On July 2,1986, the [ l.
;;j'y ,' ,
j t [ i
-Yl NRC licensed an independent spent fuct storage installation
- o. -
- J.ja using dry casks for the two Surry plants in Virginia. . .
I, ; 5 1:
..-.> Commonwealth Contention il V' d ,
l "Ihc Commonwealth contends that the NRC has failed to I.
, comply with its own rules and, as a result, has failed to. ,,
l' m , consider alternatives to the proposed action such as the -
' - construction of a dry spent fuel storage facility or an in- '_
ground spent fuel pool.
, f, s ('
r Y s- . - 4= - .
, ^
r ~ . .P- * < 0,.. u- 't
, e---
Y l "' .,.). * * * ' - ~ ( * '". "n...dJ8d,. r 8 I* ' ( .. s<h. s v ..;,'sy ,,;* ^ , J,' . v
',,t' m : ,,
.d., ' '
,'L, y : g3, ; . . .e -* 5 .t-
~
,.,., e
,
- e -
.. ; f ';Z.h. t#* ' i.#.'..Jf.* 1 m ."y*O,'k:r
.n e<3 A., q' . .. ryy; M . Y L '.J>..t'.J.y N '%.' . ~v .ff ..' 'w,*' .*\.
3
!s l. <1h
'.' ?
- m. f. , +I, u,
-t.
y'* n.',. .Im* .e. v. .. hQ ' , , ,tmf. ,.$
- e. ,,f..'.*[*'.
A k..., l? . .';,;.. ?.- , %
- m'. , v, . , . Vf* . * .
ek .* f. *,, :$
;.o v <,y. 9Q:' Jn f ,{
- m.m;' ev h. l'l f
.,,1 p).g.'j*.p. s . .'
L . %'** ,*z#,,';,p,? . T' # ,. 4 ? *, .:.,G
. : kp.. f 1;
- lp. * '
^* , .
c' r. . >- .,.3 sy$ ,&;N = 8'v'K;','{Q '4- r ,,;'( ~ ,, y
- y, ,, *
.s...* . .' -3.. . 8 -. ,a, +,.p..f
- ~ . , - ,',.s ,
r < . . . 6-. , ..
. 4 .22 .
, . . }"&' *,g l:i y. ,em' ./.1 y ;. " . ;,,,,
lgc. d
'3;-
- e e
.(,'"+y sn ,, p t
;. ; g ( 'hlQ ,, '?." * ' *' . * * n "L. .y;, .. '4,-4 , ,.};l . .
c t
-f. .* j' .** y ,. : y:
;;' 'F * , :,'o5 s ? , k' :Vi C9 1', l *,' h ' $ '
- fQQ'.',s4
'.*3 ;
' , .~ .s , ' , ,. ' % &, ,' .-
a
- s
- i#- / 8 4 9~* <
-' .(ff :f;,%
- in x
' ' W'.A. e a
D%;K. .., c '. v ,
, s y * ). - a. , . 'Q's*3, ,;;f. ,. n, h -:9.Q ,. %; 'yQ.'..< A
\*
R ,, ..% . . . , ,, 9 ;
*,b ..
. :;.,%,n.w.,
..m- ;s t
'~, ., -
v **.y.. *- , , *
- a . , .u.\ , ., .
4*,,, g.
,) .'c. ~
a c-s e.f ); , % y,,4; . .. .' 6 '," fs, ' '.q p l # " . Y , , ?A ' '
- # ,* , f \ *
- r( _ *; ,f *
. .' s 1 l. ,,.'gI' f,"* * '$$ =, " H Q#
.(4 Q .[kE *'
, "2 #
,;,'*'(,' #
b *' e p hV 7 YN I '" ,*f ', ,
.s
' 4, p ;
F 7j f + .,.1 . . .r-] , I '{ A'1
' e y !" s'
*: N' f -,;'= , h e. ," e 7 ., -
..T s #4 t jg .
,.T,,,,,p- J . g[' ., ". ., -b',[ *'s.* 3J e'" .'? M c.fQ dr'%,g^) l( 7 .t. ', , ~:-C~It[ J
- f,. .o .Q.j., 7, #, 'f . ;), 2
%? . + 'e,d ' i,,y
-( a, <, , . ' ,*ejh. - ;
v'
=.,.f,*t w- e 't -
- s * , ,, f,*
.. , , .>. r. , , ' , , .',. p',.g .s f % ,.es. . .s J. 's.f ,er s- . g .a p* t o,
- r. t
- a
.p p , / , 'r ~ ' '
, {.,f 'd ,p .,y
. 4.*,,dy. a. ,. ,e sr'. -r
, s l=47. b.
N, .s . ..#t ('#.P. d ., ,. : , . * * <
*r e ,
- 4.
- b,;.
.7, L / , V 4/ e.,; .9 >
>..A, . .*<
.s - -S ,e.,4,..,.. ir- . , l y; * ,,'b.N '.a a a . [ , ' ' j 2, j a ,3 . - t , , . ? .>,
e a Q .- ,, / m. vm.
,3 ,%e z x, w - < , i, %, ,-
- .% ,\,.'i-' :, f *i*.b
.Y.-
m ap, .' ,. .~. .
.,v , a - p; , u
*4 'm* a .:"-
.Cn'-'.= ;;n '3.
m ..a','
.3 ., --
,Ab... %q e';,.8 ^;,
;f-,'
"g. ,/ ,'.',e,;83
. 9. . A t, :
, . ,. %.. s , ..s.,'> s. p s
-; ef. ,. .3. .Uvs. s,.); etw o ..* 'm'a . -%
- 4, v..,,.%,,. W.:. , . ms ;. %e.w,'t. ,e - ..i'n%'i .g
, a e
^. '
, . g w ..
. ' !%r., ltr s
's, ,
* %s , . %;: g<. h 6"J = ta d:L,& .k:p;".>V a i
, s . .g *2 n **'\l
,, q -
' y .i_. .
,.':~;p', 3*>' Q O' ' t. )'d *' l.} s !:-
, p. .. Q.-{3.* c> *. n, Q..l > ' ' . . . ~~ 4 .".'G .;p k
.g/ > ,
s, Q g,?y'* ,. ;,:. .gg. (: Qu,., E 7 ,;w
-' t.
I g , y: @,Q: x* s ., ws@em, 99-w~ : .
~
u.m;;v. c.,
-o ;4 g' ww~.
~
-nr. J,.
g%.. g w g ~m. - g'. . u-e. 'e gg w. w~.g g:pm, .s.w w;'rg:.0 'eJ G,g,.4%g. . Ji@,f,';."' UQ . c
;...,. t .~ ,m , ny-
- p. s < -
-,,5
.u. . * -,<;$u. s ..
. ,e .c;,y m. m.a.
w
., ,y-
- v' ,
,s 3 ,5 * . .* . ;:.- . r
>a*,... .4 -I .:
,",, , .. v ' ;.,.. s w ,
*e.
-act <
', . .,y . . y v- +. ., ~.e
;* :3 ., ', . y, ,
3,,.,.
. , .r. +
y . ,y
- x
,- , y.-%' ,,. n , :n;. _ . m ;. +. .
t* .e%,,.,,,..
,.s , .,
~g . ., s - 3 i ,
=
.,4. 7.a.. .ym;y ., s..s,n c -- ,1.,, -
s _ r, w, . , i_ e,
. ;, g? ..,, ,s N7,
. c. ,~, _3.s- . ,.A ,
s e.
.c.q p.. n ~ : ..:,s4,. , . .
y : w,>;.- 4
; .,g y. ,. ,.,.:y
+ . -
,.. ~ . n , .
e
.s l ...,
- y
. . - 'h ,;,,-,.s,~.., . .m,7..a ec, ,
l
- , 7
' ., 4 3 .
y Comentions 4 Admitted
. n.. s Derivation
. , . - .d
' af Basis:
e
.j 1.
l - The basis for Cont - 2.
, :~ q NRC regulations (10 CE.R orated herein.
' iSI 2 j
u, ] an cnm, onmental assessment be Feed I ing and regulatory actions execM those which rc L,-
"}', b F.R. g 5 o ement pirsuant to 10
. - .' l -
e les rically excluded 1,b - ; m 651.22(c).
, 3. en on g
^
',*G' S' '
identified in cither 10 CE.R. f 51.20(b) or )} 5
.; ., < , , ..l -
., . 4
^ '
# >1
,I e .'t r '
't l' a
*\ #
4 i e ? s t- F 4 e
% 9 4
k N P A a t
=
m. 3 . . , .' .. ,-
< .2,. A' ,
- g.[, t , ..;.,
]; ' 3 . (* '. -,.i
.s , e
' e '
' 'p
'
- 3
, _1- ,-~ - , .
< : v, '
- y. .
.~
% % '$ , .. ...g . ."
-.v.. - ~
l I 4 *~ 1 ,<s. .
. ~_ . ,.., . .
, p-5 e,
%)g g
(. /~ * * - ,.'. .%:: ,
~~..
' - J . q:,4'a . :x F i, 4 Atomic Safety m . and L.i censing mz
- 3. ~
; .% M, w R-ee . . . s.
Boards issuances
'n'-' my 2:.y; M.. a; ~;pg ,
.. . . . . y ..
. .c a.
_ . : : p. ; .
.m. ..
n , : % .':~ ; : W ;; . .-
? , ~".m .: z,-f k
, , , ~. . , N, g. '. r q-a : ,
s
.y; .g., .3g. ; i...
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
;;. , :e.:. - .m .% ./->t; u 2 :y . ~ .
, g r r B. Paul Cotter,
- Chairman
. : y.::. 9 n. :.f.:n;:.
- cg
/ ;.Y.- -W,j.&~ .- . Robert M. Lazo, *Vice Chairman (Executive) ea f Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical)
, . .;;?. ' ($to . .
g k % _.%,i = w
' '.,s- ..
; -ca. '
s
~ , y ,;; ,
'>' Members
.:,, : at
, ,,. . a. Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke'
, ;..m .e Dr. George C. Andersor: Hertmt Grossman*
.;.: Charies Bechhoefer' Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom
- , Peter B. Bloch' Jerry Harbour
- Morton B. Margulies'
_" Glenn O. Bright
- Dr. David L. Hetrick Gary L Milhollin Dr. A. Dixon Caliihan Emest E. Hal Marshall E. Maler
-[ .
'M. - [, a/ '
e James H. Carpenter' Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Peter A. Morris' Hugh K. Clark Helen F. Hoyt* Dr. Oscar H. Paris' s}; ~; ,
,K Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink
, 1 , tysn W. Smith'
'e --l.: ' Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Watter H. Jordan U. , Dr. George A. Ferguson James L. Kelley' Dr. Martin J. Steindler
, s
~ ..
.9 u
Dr. Har.y Foreman Jerry R. Kline* Dr. Quentin J. Stober Dr. James C. Lamb lil Seymour Wenner
- 7 ' Richard F. Foster John H Frye Ill' Gustave A. Linenberger' Sheldon J. Wolfe' James P. Gleason Dr. Linda W. Little
. . -,_ -. y t+ q,
.:. s '. ' 'i*-- .a
, f. s ,
, ' , .p. ;' ,, j i,
.e ,, . r
}, ' ' - .
~
- p' ,, -- - ' a '* :, l
' +
.,.1* 7) .'
~
% .A~j'.
ex . ; ; . -
. c .- : , .i. .r
- G z ". . , - .i, 7 a ' .Mf" ; i f I' . J}4.
o .m?j-1.E J s'.' b; + v.%! k ,:,,; ,s.h'%';" 4 T
^ R'. .:.;
' A. , t ' 13 i;'.' ' ^, f.I . ',.3 I[ 4 . 'Q [ " ' , ,
. s
. .% . ;:p' 'n
- . ... a -
-' . h .:.%'y 2,' , , .,- ~..-s***- .
. - ,% .t 8 4 Py I g.g.M ,*
3 . /. . e r .- , , - . 3'_ . y* .3 ,f,.Np*4.., w , , s
-,sq i - . .
'. ,X ., ;f' [:l f ~, *Pemunani panelmembers y
,m
- .- a rn',, .pgg; .--;. [ -
's '
."g ., , s '
,, ( ."
'j . . ,
'. L.
d
# *==s ....eq,. , , ,m, ,, .,g , , , , , , , ,
. = * * = , . -.wa m.*h g & - ..w,,,,,9
. , u a l
- r. <
L O g s ; i s 1 [
. , e
~ .q \
eh b +
- jen ~ ".- s
+ , , . *
. .l
.- .= . _ _ - _ _ _ _ ' '
_..ww .
. . . , - - . , ' , , . . - , - , - , , ,,- m--,
, . , -, . _ , . ,.ne-_, ,.,g. , g. -.yU,y ,,.L--, ,, , _ - - _ . , ,4--
. t . , x, . a.
.2 v. s . .c
,.",f.r.,e .-
- .r w w.. .. N. m,' ;. . e:l , u..w m#s.m. . . f.
.w <
~ .,
. .. . w \
.,.,. % ,. g- .
-; . . v. ~, c . . . -
~ -: . :
~. . w; s z, : :n . -
y - :,;g , .t : ' ' c ., _. LBP-87 22
....p
'; ,/Skg.X.
o
., ,J
. ; ,., < ~
, m s x,
,w
, s.
r - ',
~
[ Cite as 26 NRC 41 (1987) 3 , s ~ ~. ! . 2 ~ ,'
,e. :.
s
~
. z,; . - e >
.,; p. 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j +
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A j.M m - D m+'.;f.J
- s
- w i.g;-?[...
...~.6 1 . . ~ q;
..;x , -t.
.. ,p ,- .~-
, ;m, .._, .6
- w. c, . . ;, -e, +a s- .. :. .- w . -
5
..,.w r
< - W. 9 -- - 9. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
..s..
to-t
,. - ;- -1. ; - 4. .,, m . , . . .--;. - .
Before Administrative Judges:
, . a ,.* ..t - ,< -
z .s.q' r +, ,b. m..g
, . ,4 <
4.. . - . ., 1. v . M N f;6 - 1 '
'y:..n.m . ;.M :.'... : ',J,.W,.Y. .=,'a .s.m- -
G :s. .. ? c g - w 4n + , . ., {gy.y , , c .
.-;.. , m.op .-
on Ivan W. Smith, Chairman}}