ML20149H708
| ML20149H708 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1988 |
| From: | Harbour J, Luebke E, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5612 88-558-01-OLR, 88-558-1-OLR, OL-1-R, NUDOCS 8802220068 | |
| Download: ML20149H708 (18) | |
Text
'
t
[d/ 2" 00CMETED LBp-88 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .. . . .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0t911SSION ;88 FEB 18 N1:27 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: {FFICE OF SECf'!Ta
- OCMEypjf.7,M.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Enweth A. Luebke i Jerry Harbour SERVED FEB 181988 Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1-R In the Matter of 50-444-OL-1-R PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (On-SiteEmergencyPlanning 0FNEWHAMPSHIRE,et,d. and Safety Issues) '
) (ASLBPNo. 88-558-01-OLR) .
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
) February 17, 1988 MEMORANDLN AND ORDER (Renewal of Low Power Authorization; Denying NECNP's Motion For Leave To File A Reply)
MEMORANDLM I. Background On March 25, 1987, this Board issued a Partial Initial Decision on the onsite emergency planning and safety issues in this proceeding.I Therein, having resolved all onsite safety and emergency planning issues in controversy, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Il50.47(d) and 50.57(c), the Licensing Board authorized issuance of a license to operate Seabrook 1
LBP-10, 25 NRC 177 8802220068 880217 PDR ADOCK 05000443 Q PDM ew m. _ =-WmMe emv.- a
t G .:-
Station, Unit 1, up to 5% of rated power. Upon appeals by the Intervenors, on October 1, 1987, the Appeal Board issued a Decision affiming in part and reversing and remanding in part.2 On remand, the
. Appeal B'c ard stated that this Board should admit for litigation two contentions which had been rejected in 1982 as issues in controversy.
ThesewereNewEnglandCoalitiononNuclearPollution(NECNP)
ContentionsI.V.(concernedwithinserviceinspectionofsteamgenerator tubes) and IV (addressed to the accumulation of aquatic organisms and other foreign matter in cooling systems). The Appeal Board was aware that the Comission's Order of January 9,1987 (unpublished) had barred the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation from issuing a low power l license for Seabrook in the event issuance of such a license was otherwise authori:ed in order that the Comission might consider whether, as a matter of law or policy, low power operations should 1
proceed absent the submittal of an emergency plan for that portion of I 1
the plume exposure emergency planning zone that lay within the Comonwealth of Massachusetts. The Appeal Board was also aware that subsequent orders of the Comission continued the stay until the Applicant submitted a bona fide utility plan (CLI-87-02, 25 NRC 267 l
(1987);CLI-87-03,25NRC875(1987)). In ALAB-875, it stated that it had no way of knowing whether, and if so when, the Comission would conclude that the reasons undergirding the stay no longer obtained. l 2
ALAB-875, 26 NRC .
l
Y s
Therefore, assuming that such a conclusion would be reached prior to the completion of the remand, and further assuming that the Comission might not provide cortrolling guidance on the subject, the Appeal Board stated l that this Board should detemine expeditiously the appropriateness of a renewal pendente lj,g of the low-power authorization contained in our Partial Initial Decision of March 25, 1987.
In an Order of October 16, 1987 (unpubli med),'we admitted for
, litigation the two NECNP contentions, and directed that discovery be completed by Decen6er 28, 1987 and that, on or before December 7,1987 Applicants, the Staff and NECNP should notify us whether or not each would file a motion for sumary disposition. The Board advised that, depending upon the contents of these notifications, it would subsequently set due dates for the filing of motions for sumary disposition and answers or would schedule a hearing.
Having been furnished by the Apphtants with their utility i
1 emergency plan for Massachusetts on September 18, 1987, the Comission l l
issued a Memorandum and Order (CLI-87-13, 26 NRC _ _, November 25, 1987). Finding that Applicants' utility emergency plan demonstr4ted i
that adequate emergency planning for the Massachusetts portion of the ;
i emergency planning zone was within the realm of the possible, that it l included measures to compensate for the absence of state and local planning and that, it had been suhitted in good faith, the Comission lifted its stay of low power operations and affirmed that, as directed
{
1 by the Appeal Board in ALAB-875, "the Licensing Board shall j expeditiously deterinine whether considering the issues that it is i
i I.
i-ti I
- hearing on remand, it is appropriate to renew at this time its authorizat'.on of low power or whether low power operations must await further decisions."
The Appeal Board's directive having been affinned by the Commistion l which directed us to resolve the issue, of reauthorization of low power before detennining the merits of the two remanded contentions or to detennine that low power operations must await further decisions, we
! iconediately issezd an Order on November 27,1987(unpublished).
Therein, we ordered that, in order to assist us in making the expeditious detenninution directed by the Comission, responsive briefs by the Applicants and NECNP should be simultaneously filed upon the reauthorization of low power issue by no later than January 4,1988 and that the Staff should file its brief by no later than January 11, 1988.
l In the meantime, on November 20, 1987, NECNP had filed a motion to
{ '
- extend the Board's October 16 schedule so as to allow NECNP until January 4,1988 to infonn the Board of its intentions regardhg the filing of motions for sumary disposition and until February 1,1988 for i the completion of discovery. In the Order of December 2,1987 i
4 (unpublished), the Beard ruled as follows:
- In light of the Comission's Memorandum and Order (Lifting the Order Staying the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i from Authorizing Low Power Operations Due to the Lack of an i Emergency Plan for Massachusetts) dated November 25, 1987, and this Beard's Order (Briefing Schedule) dated November 27, j 1987 (unpublished), we do not have to reach and decide the arguments advanced in favor of or opposed to the granting of j the instant motioa. These two intervening circumstances
, require that we, upon our own motion, rescind our Order of l October 16, 1987 to the extent that it directs the completion
! of discovery by December 28, 1987 and directs that, on or i
i i
. - _ _ . ~
before December 7.1987, the three parties shall give notification whether or not each will file a motion for sumary disposition. It would be burdensome and unfair to require that the notification date and the completion of discovery date be met, since our Order of November 27 directed that all of the parties, other than Staff, should file briefs by January 4, 1988 addressing the issue of whether or not it is appropriate for the Board to renew at this time its authorization of low power prior to the cortpletion of the remand proceeding, and that the Staff should file its brief by January 11, 1988.
In light of our rulings hereafter, the instant motion is '
denied as having been mooted. Applicants, NECNP and the Staff shall proceed with discovery upon the two remanded is3ues and complete disrovery by February 19, 1988. As soon as possible, after reviewing the briefs filed in compliance with our Order of November 27, 1987 and making the detennination as to whether or not it is appropriate for us to reauthorize low power operations prior to the completion of the remand proceeding, we will confer with the Ar licants, NECNP and the Staff to find out whether motions < r sumary disposition will be filed or whether a hearing should be scheduled.
On January 4,1988, Applicants filed a Memorandum in Support of Low i Power Operation and NECNP filed a Brief in Opposition To Renewal of Authorization to Operate at Low Power.3 Having been oranted a one day I i
extension, on January 12, 1988, the Staff filed its Response to ;
Licensing Board Order of November 27, 1987. On January 14, 1988, NEONP filed, in effect, a motion for leave to file a reply to the Applicants' l
Memorandum of January 4 and to the Staff's Response of January 12. On l January 29, the Staff responded.
3 On January 11, 1988, for some reason, Seacocst Anti-Pollution j League filed a one page document indicating that it joined in i NECFP's January 4, 1988 statement of position and arguments. ;
l i
6- '
l !
II. Discussion A. The Issue of Reauthorization of Low Power
- 1. The Applicants' Memorandum of January 4,1988 and The Staff's Response of January 12 t In substance, both the Applicants and the Staff argue with respect j to NECN? IV. 4 that Applicants have now in place and in complian;e with I regulations a surveillance and maintenance program to detect and prevent the accumulation of mollusks, other aquatic organisms and debris in the ,
cooling systems, and that thus low power operation may be safely reauthorized. With respect to NECNP I.V. 5 Applicants argue that they a have a program for inservice inspection (to be performed after six months of effective full power but within 24 months of initial !
criticality) and that thus there is nothing associated with low power 1
4
, NECNP IV. reads as follows:
{ Blockage of Coolant Flow to Safety-Related Systems and Components i by Buildup of Biological Organisms The Applicant r.iust establish a surveillance and maintenance i
program for the prevention of the accumulation of mollusks, other aquatic organisms, and debris in cooling systems in order to satisfy the requirements of GDC 4, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38,
, and 39, which require the maintenance and inspection of reactor .
j cooling systems. The design, construction, and proposed
- operation of Seabrook fail to satisfy these requirements.
5 NECNP I.V. reads as follows:
y In-Service Inspection of Steam Ganerator Tubes 2
The Applicants have not demonstrated that they have met GDC i 14, 15, 31 and 32 insofar and to the extent that those GDC
- require a program of the in-service inspection of steam j generator tubes.
i
(
operation which would further complicate any subsequent inspection or i i
preclude any augmentation of the current inspection program if deemed necessary by this Board following any litigation of this contention.
Further Applicants argue for various reasons that it is highly unlike'y that either a tube rupture occasioned by a foreign object, which had occurred at the Ginna plant, would occur during low power operation at the Seabrook Station or that an event like the North Anna Unit 1 tube i rupture incident, occasioned by denting, would occur during low power operation at Seabrook. The Staff argues that Applicants' program for inservice inspection of steam generator tubes meets regulatory reattirements, and like Applicants, urge that it is unlikely that the
.linns and North Anna type tube ruptures would occur during low power operation at Seabrook.
To the extent set forth above, the Applicants' Memorandum and the Staff's Response and the attached affidavits of their experts are directed to the merits of the two remanded issues. This was error because the Comission in CLI-87-13 made it clear that the merits of the !
l remanded contentions were not to be considered. However, the Staff's Response and a supporting affidavit with respect to NECNP IV. and the Applicants' Memorandum and supporting affidavits with respect to NECNP
!.V. did proceed to discuss and to show that these two remanded contentions were not relevant to low power operations because the safety I concerns raised therein would not adversely impact upon the public j health and safety if Seabrook, Unit 1, were to be authorized to operate i
only up to 5% of rated power.
I d
o With respect to NECNP !Y., the Staff relies upon the affidavit of its expert (Masnik affid., pp. 6-9). Dr. Masnik deposed as follows:
The operation of the Seabrook Station at 5% rated power level would likely result in decreased biofouling activity and in decreased intake of debris depending on the circulating water (CW) and service water (SW) flow rates. The r:te of biofouling is dependent on a number of factors. Environmental conditions such as salinity, water temperatures, light, availability of food, and ,
frequency and degree of submergence can significantly influence the ;
growth rate of the organisms. Operation at 5% of rated power would not have a significant effect on salinity, light, availability of food or frequency and degree of subrnergence but would influence water temperature in many locations. Since growth rate in this geographic area is highly dependent on temperature, the operation of the facility at Si of rated power would result in much slower growth rates in most of the CW and SW systems than at 100% power for any organisms that rnight attach despite the program that j Applicants are undertaking to discourage attachment. Assuming that
] the system does not initially contain any life stages of blue nussel.6 assuming a high growth rate f)r this organism, and assuming there existed ono, water treatmerit (i.e., chlorine or l backflushing) program, the period of time from the beginning of low i
6 The principal biofouling macroorganism in the Seabrook area, 1
o 9
power operations to the time of earliest flow blockage from biofouling could range, depending upon the time of year, from 1 to 7 months.
Dr. Masnik also deposed to the following:
The airuunt of debris entering the ocean intake structures is dependent primarily on the availability of debris in the water column at the level of tr.e ;. wke, and the flow regime in the vicinity of the intake Thi! egime is highly 4 pendent on flow rate. If the flow rett is 4 iduced due to the low power operation, the amount of debris taken into the ocean intake structure would be substantially reduced. Since debris buildup is not considered a problem by the Staff at full power operation, operation at low power and possibly a corresponding reduction in cooling water flow, wculd therefore not present a problem.
The Board concludes that the Staff has shown that NECNP IV. is not relevant to low power operations because the safety concerns raised therein would not adversely impact upon the public health and safety if Seabrook, Unit 1, were to be authorized to operate only up to 5% of rated power.
With respect to NECNP I.V., we have reviewed the pertinent affidavits of Applicants' experts Peter Littlefield and Kenneth Rubin. I i
{
i 7 A midwater intake, located well above the sea floor, is used at l Seabrook, (Masnik affid at 2). l l
l I
. . ~ 2. u ..u .. .-. = . = - l Relying ir, part upon the affidavit of Mr. Rubin, Mr. Littlefield deposed as follows (Affid. pp. 2-3):
The thyroid dose from a tube rupture is due to a release of ,
radioiodine. Operation of the plant during low power testing would result in substantially decreasing the potential consequences of design basis accidents as calculated for operation at full power.
Several factors account for this. (1) The reactor core iodine inventory at 0 to 5% power operation is at least a factor of 20 less than at full power operation. (2) There is less fuel gap iodine fraction available for release to the coolant due to low fuel burnup and low fuel temperature. (3) There is a low potential for a fuel cladding failure during early core life, i.e.,
at the low power testing phase. A numerical analysis with conservative assumptions for operation at 5% power results in a vary low thyroid dose at the exclusion area boundary of aoout 1.1 rem. The design limit as specified in 10 C.F.R.100 is 300 rem.
The Board ccaeludes that. n n assuming a tube rupture occurred during low power opseuon at 5% of rated power, the expected thyroid dose that would be received would be significantly less (1.1 rem) at the exclusion area boundary than the design limits (300 rem) permitted by regulation, and that thus that NECNP I.V. is not relevant to low power operations because the safety concerns raised therein would not adversely impact upon the public health and safety if Seabrook, Unit 1, were to be authorized to operate only up to 5% of rated power.
1 h
4 6
- 2. NECNP's Brief of January 4,1988 Most of NECNP's brief challenges the authority of the Comission and its adjudicatory boards to authorize low power operations prior to the completion of full power operating license proceedings or at least prior to the resolution of the remanded contentions, and argues that there is no authority in tha Comission's regulations for issuance of a low power license prior to findings on all issues relevant to full power opera' ion. (Brief, pp. 4-27) The short answer is that, as a trial board, we are bound by the Comission's Order of November 25, 1987, 8
CLI-87-13, 26 NRC . We are familiar with no legal system-judicial or administrttive - which allows a lower tribunal to disregard the directives of a superior one. Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB-303, 2 NRC 858, 870 (1975).
NECNP did not attempt to have the Commbsion reconsider its Order of iiovember 25, 1987 and accordingly it may not complain about it here.
Moreover, as recognized by NECNP at page 5, n. 7 of its brief, the Appeal Board, stating that it had no authority under Comission regulations to entertain a challenge to 5 50.47(d), has declined in ALAB-875, slip opinion at 5, to address NECNP's arguments that the 8
To repeat, in CLI-87-13, the Comission lifted its stay of low power operation, and affirmed that, as directed by the Appeal Board in ALAB-875, "the Licensing Board shall expeditiously detennine whether considering the issues that it is hearing on remand, it is appropriate to renee at this time its authorization of low power or whether low power operations must await further decision." i (underscoringadded). !
1
Atomic Energy Act prohibits issuance of an operating license at any level of power prior to hearing and resolving contentions as to offsite emergency planning as well as onsite safety matters. See also ALAB-865, 25 NRC 430, 439 (1987) wherein the Appeal Board had also ruled that i 50.57(c)9 was not subject to challenge. We are bound by the rulings of the Appeal Board, which now constitute the law of the case.
NECNP continues its legal argument in urging that the two contentions remanded by the Appeal Board in ALAB-875 are critical to plant safety, that the serious questions raised therein may well block 9
Section 50.57(c) provides:
An applicant may, in a case where a hearing is held in connection with a pending proceeding under this section make a motion in writing pursuant to this paragraph (c), for an operating license authorizing low-power testing (operation at not more than 1 percent of full power for the purpose of testing the facility), and further operations short of full power operation. Action on such a motion by the presiding officer shall be taken with due regard to the rights of the parties to the proceedings, including the right of any party to be heard to the extent that his contentions are relevant to the activity to be authorized. Prior to taking any action on such a motion which any party opposes, the presiding officer shall make findings on the matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section as to which there is a controversy, in the fonn of an initial decision with respect to the contested activity sought to be authorized.
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will make findings on all other matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
If no party opposes the motion, the presiding officer will issue an order pursuant to 6 2.730(e) of this chapter, authorizing the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to make appropriate findings on the matters specified in paragraph (a) j of this section and to issue a license for the requested ,
operation.
l l
s full power licensure for Seabrook, and thus they must be resolved prior to low power operations. (Brief pp. 28-32) First, NECNP conclusionally advances in support of its argument that, since both contentions question whether certain General Design Criteria have been satisfied, no operating license can be issued at any level of power until these contested safety issues are litigated and resolved.10 However, it does not comply with 5 50.57(c) in failing to show that these contentions are relevant to the requested license - i.e., NECNP has failed to show that the safety concerns alleged in the two contentions would adversely impact upon public health and safety if the plant were to be reauthorized to operate only up to 5% of rated power. Second, in support of its argument, NECNP cites Pacific Gas and Electric Company l
(Diablo Canyon, Unit 1), CLI-83-27,18 NRC 1146 (1983) for the 1 l
I 10 l At page 2 of its brief, NECNP stated that, in ALAB-875, the Appeal Board ordered that NECNP Contention IV be admitted which concerned "potential degrading of the plant's heat removal capability due to build-up of biological organisms." (Underscoringadded). Again at page 29 of its brief, NECNP asserted that the contention related "to the adequacy of Applicants' surveillance and maintenance program for preventing the accumulation of biological organisms and the degradation of the heat transfer capabilities of safety systems i as a result of such accumulation, strikes to the very core of plant I safety." (Underscoringsadded). However, at page 30, it urges !
that General Design Criteria 2, 4, 5, 44, 45, and 46 require Applicants to institute monitoring and surveillance programs and take otner measures necessary to preclude long-terin corrosion and organic fouling that would tend to degrade system performance, and also require that agents used for the control of water chemistry, corrosion and organic fouling be compatible with system components and piping materials." (Underscoring added). As discussed in Part B, infra, this attempt to amend this contention war improper.
proposition that the Commission held that intervenors were entitled to a prior adjudicatory hearing on whether to lift the suspension on and extend the low-power operating license because the hearing record had been reopened by the Appeal Board relating to serious and substantive safety concerns with respect to design quality assurance which would be the subject of adjudicatory hearings before the Appeal Board. The facts in the Diablo Canyon case are clearly distinguishable from those in the instant case. Here the Appeal Board has held only that the two remanded contentions should not have been rejected at the threshold, and both it and the Commission have directed this Board to determine whether or not it is appropriate to renew at this time our authorization of low power.
B. NECNP's Motion For Leave To File A Reply NECNP advances several arguments in support of its motion for leave to reply to the Applicants' and the Staff's briefs filed respectively on January 4 and January 12, 1988. First, NECNP urges that these briefs and supporting affidavits improperly address the merits of the two remanded issues and that it should be given an opportunity to respond to the alleged merits or lack of merit. (Motion, pp. 1-2) However, as discussed in Part A, supra, we have ruled that those portions of the briefs and affidavits addressing the merits were in error, and we have ignored those portions. We did however consider those portions of the Applicants' and Staff's briefs and affidavits which properly discussed and showed that the safety concerns alleged in the two remanded contentions would not adversely impact upon the public health and safety if Seabrook, Unit 1, were to be operated only up to 5% of rated power.
_~
i 0
Second, NECNP argues that it would be improper to authorize low power operations via sumary disposition procedures upon the merits of the two remanded contentions without giving it an opportunity to reply.11 Section 2.751 sumary disposition procadures upon the merits of the remanded contentions were not invoked by the Comission or by the l Board with respect to low power operations. No one, for example, could have misunderstood our Order of December 2,1987 (unpublished) wherein j we stated that "As soon as possible, after reviewing the briefs filed in compliance with our Order of November 27, 1987 and making the ,
l determination as to whether or not it is appropriate for us to reauthorize low power operations prior to the completion of the remand 1
proceeding, we will confer with the Applicants, NECNP and the Staff to find out whether motions for sumary disposition will be filed or j whether a hearing should be scheduled."
11 In passing, we note that at pages 3, 5, and 9 of its motion, NECNP cites the inopposite case of Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-565,10 NRC 521(1979). Therein, the Appeal Board held that the Licensing Board must allow intervenors during the course of the special prehearing conference to present arguments supporting the admissibility of their proposed intentions, and that the ultimate merits are not to be debated at that stage of the proceeding.
Here, the two remanded contentions had been admitted as issues in controversy as of October 16, 1987, and the ultimate merits thereof are not now being considered. At page 9 of its motion, NECNP relies upon the similarly inopposite case of Long Island Lightint Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-8148,14 NF,C 71(1981).
Finally, as an experienced litigator in NRC proccedings, HECNP was well aware of the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 650.57(c) and had the opportunity to show that the two remanded contentions were relevant to the activity to be authorized - i.e. low power operations up to 5% of rated power. It failed to do so. It cannot be heard to excuse its
, failure by arguing that it had no meaningful opportunity to refute j Applicants' and Staff's allegations that the two remanded contentions do not raise a safety issue during low power operations because it would j not have been in a position to do so until the completion of the discovery period. For example, with respect to Contention IV., it argues that it "is now conducting inquiries, through written interrogatories, into several reported instances of actual equipment ;
breakage in critical safety systems, such as the Primary Component Coolant System, to determine the extent that these incidents are attributable to corrosion caused by the accumulation of bacterial debris and sedimentation" (underscoring added). From the date Contention IV.
was submitted as a proposed cuntention until the present time, it was solely addressed to and was recognized only to be addressed to the blockage of coolant flow by ac:umulation of aquatic organisms and other foreign matter in the cooling systems 12 It is well settled that a party is bound by the literal tems of its own contention. Carolina 12 See LBP-82-76, 16 NRC 1029, 1075 (1982); ALAB-875, 26 NRC (October 1, 1987) (slip op, at 17-20,48).
4 Power and Light Company, et al. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant),
ALAB-852, 24 NRC 532, 545 (1986). Without leave hav<ng been sought from the Board and granted, it is impennissible for an intervenor to attempt to amend his contentions or to advance new bases for them which could have been submitted earlier. Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-565,10 NRC 521, 523 n.
11(1979). Again, for example, with respect to Contention I.V., NECNP argues that, in light of the fact that the Applicants' and the Staff's briefs argue principally that Seabrook's program for in-service inspection of steam tubing is not a safety issue because the particular circumstances causing the tube ruptures at the Ginna and North Anna :
plants would not occur at Seabrock, it has filed interrogatories to find out whether specific requirements for steam generator tube problems present similar and/or additional problems in the future. This argument is also to no avail because, as discussed in Part A, supra, we have ruled that those portions of the Applicants' and the Staff's briefs and affidavits addressing the merits of this contention were in error, and we proceeded to ignore them.
ORDER l I
- 1. NECNP's Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief (filed on l
January 14,1988) is denied.
- 2. Pursuant to the directions of the Commission set forth in CLI-87-13, 26 NRC __ (1987), we renew our authorization to operate
- - . ~ . _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . - . _ - _ - . - - - - - -.-
Seabrook, Unit 1, up to 5% of rated power insofar as the two contentions remanded in ALAB-875 are concerned. We renew our authorization because the two remanded contentions are not relevant to low power operations inasmuch as the safety concerns raised therein would not adversely impact upon the public health and safety if Seabrook, Unit 1, were to be authorized to operate only up to 5% of rated power. However, we cannot give effect to our renewed authorization in light of ALAB-883, 27 NRC _
(Febnjary 3,1988) and the Appeal Board's Memorandum of February 10, 1988 (unpublished), and thus we do not authorize the Directer of NRR, upon making the findings required by 10 C.F.R. 650.57(a), to issue the low power license.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h (WL Sherdon J. wok (, Chaip )
ADMINISTRATIVE 1 UDGE .
Terry Hatbour ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 0.
Emeth A. Luebke ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of February, 1988.
.