ML20151B740
| ML20151B740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1988 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V27-N01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V27-N1, NUDOCS 8804110195 | |
| Download: ML20151B740 (46) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . . _ . _ _ il 'I 4 NUREG 0750 Vol. 27, No.1 1 Pages 1-39 b I i
! NUCLEAR REGULATORY '
't COMMISSION
, n: ' '
ISSUANCES - {- 'e
~ January 1988 (
! i y l
, j g.
c., .
- .y
+ 4 t g 2
?i ', ,. . 'O
- I: . ,
** _ ; ;y {
-J" * ;j . '
, _. ._ - + . > . c. , . y ' ,4 , ,
j y . . e-g90 ,
. .. ' ;./ 9 '
l
- I ,
f f I i I I ,
)
l j j i a ! 0804110195 080331 l PDR NUREG PDR 0750 R 1 l ) l
+w-v--w-,---w-w- a r- e --my.-m,,----.e-n-m..---,--,-e,------ - . - - - . - - . ,w-e-- -w--w-
i 1 I Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office ! Post Office Box 37082 Washington. D.C. 20013-7082 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues. 4 indexes, and 4 hardbound editions for this pubhcation. Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical ! Information Service, Sprin2 3f eld. VA 22161 l 1 1 i I l 1 ) l l a j Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Pubhcations Services
; Office of Administration and Resources Management
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555 (301/492 8925) l I
i l 1 f a 4
- ~ - -
ep wwq 3 o,m:en.w-QM a;g.%w;. m m&u,p:Mymc.mxy@;.myW.WW&MM@wn w.ww e A MiSGW msm ; r. 82FF.W::w.:w o c, o . p Md
- c. .r . .6 ns. 3.:o%..$; wn.;y
.. da.QGW g c. pcM.1.' ens n,M;p':.g+'Y:y ., .A .
.xc ,:c : ;~p . a;,,w: .- .
. . G.
m- ; ;
;n w;;.- ..n,w.c4.,4.. m u.t,y &.~y& m y;.M p %.,,y.n.m y.q:mp. sq.wm%p:q: a.; O ,w~s s -
2 N ., p u c . nu n , s ., ,
> n.: . . . . . ,
.. a,:. . ,., )
N.M M h.M.~N'.yM. .~.f.,M M N b M.n w c:.SOES. A.x.NN NAd'M'UO O 1 c,& w .w6..e.;m*i; m,A;"; . sm. g m. 4 C ,= o e, m .4.Aw,3 .;#w w .w
.*m. a *r t
- . . . y . :, .x, .
1 w
;u$,y%y*y(*c.rj2'V. .g.. _ %,. w w..m . g.':-)N.w.:: . :m;m$.-i
.s . .S. v- ?.)'+e., O. :W*
mu .1 s>4-
>rs x.... .A ih:j> s ,$s$%w '
J. M b@ h & d @i f 4 51 M @%, c. m,.. NUREG 0750 N;M mn At 4
. p w"Q +)r 7p.m.p..pl t=P44. Nm.m.d Ed y2C u .. $ $
khh b d N k. g.. @,,s,a,. o. D. h h vol. 27, No.1 Pages 139
.M,:. J&p9 W
. c , s. . . . .fm . MW %. et >.v',i?> O. .,
i h.C %,s., .p M
*, < a g :uu C'. s. :w:.9'*N .'d'y M.. . ';y..,y .9. ,C. [ .w.- d I. M. .,'(:: f;]
p AyJ,Q r ,
% p'7.t. ' l r,; pc. r
,t', eJ ...1 m - H. w w. r; - :.. p , %; ,.w n
% $MB. qMN \lUCLEAR REGULATORY W@;,4ujs:.fg4.Q'P;l.A(q,.,e $$@$3M.:, CO VI VilSSIO N ISSUA \ CES
,,h"{: %W. ,W; .v :y .%.s;; 4
-y<M .r:pgW q.: . -) c:a,;:- q.
.s
- % Nyo,c.
%P:..s v.
( ,n,.
, ,. n ; : q.s .. u .. w ,:.s ys a .. w..,.w , u. .u
.c.,;,
q . .g.. ,
,p, e.. .p;.'.. 'g 5 . r; a;.. .., c.
. j g. .
s 4
,,3 . .
.s <.7, ,c :. .q. ;;.q e
January 1988
.s ,, ..
..:....4
. ., ~. a..
w y, , .. o. .
~~ .
v.'
.'.t
. :a. . ( v.,. %' , e. y.. _ .M '
t: . Ys ,'n.'_ .
, il . ..r. .s:..-Q. S. li3. .:* %. , l,
.w . .a ; ...,. v.:.. .. ,.u. :.w. a.
. . ,.m. n ... ,,. . .. n. . .
y2.'}.8 W.. ;j ,.n.Yh&:
.u i
- 1 &W: 1, +q:<c
.,. .. y ,...
Wltg .3r f'v5 >f,9'%f& O -
~.g
. 'y,$nw,[y.m;~:<: e en Lmn , n q. . y:i;,9_,t'7 r..;i y,s.f :
- f hgg ,hhM, *. v:~i
;7.M This report includes the issuances received during the specified period l/1 glr t
Q@%.
.(.$ ,'.@ Ms'.g.
';p ,y4W/y', e.f . ty ~4;j
^ Sq ..
from the Commission (CLl), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Boards (LBP), the
,].f:h.N/.QU, (J.c d .g . ( .. . '@
'.rMp@.:.j Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and ym :, . s , : : , ; . .s . ~o
, ,' ? p',.l M the Denials of Petitions for Rutemaking (DPRM).
.c.w, .a.M, t,9'mAm.3 e n,- ,
J'. yX ' ', J '/;
' t, j,f,y'M ;;.,. ,4 Q[q ,
. % J.y'n.d fn. Q,.n.i
, m m. w,sTh. . summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported here.in are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to hise any indepen-U. ' ..Su . $m' b.Y. .- - '" :: 9' ! dent legal significance.
-l,k.' 2 WR~.Y..',c. m.%'g
'.t l
+*,;.
; C
( r \ Ef Al
. m, r .m .' # ' ,_ . . . ..yQ. :5 r f.
Q. ,r.,q,i, t t .y 4 we,<. , ..w,m; v. i4 ..
.m, ,..3. n. .
, . t.....m. ,w,c
...,. 3 .
s.
, . .~ . 4 V+*.
s . # .. . ~.- '
. .. , m< ..
f ,;%.f.'n.e.cQ.: ,
.ql
,,l e'
- m,, . .tx,,cu'
., .am . t.'.4 a . s. n.&w.rlle
~Uya.
b
.@fM. s I.D.d$,Mbu,@Q. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
F .re y.. :
,.. a.,.. . ..m.
. >s. .y .. . . . .s, .v>
- %. . . 3,.. .. e..n. . w. . o . .-) ,
- 4. ; r.., , , - ; ' y: y y-: .t , lt , . .,_Q. W
.. .. g
.o , , . . . ,u. ..
- O ;y fy,';E,i ,if 7 - f.'.j Prepared by sne
- l, J, % :l .,q y : " , p D '. 2i.', .. .] Division of Publications Services
'T Q ;yq .' j f .. J'M.M'c ' .6 :
Office of Administration and Resources Management 4 % M.d'MMi. ',d'q
M '?. N . W , 7 _;.t.yjr. /M.g?%,4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 j . 1 .v3 .
, a.3, .:, .A.. : v', ,., ,,. .
,.q y. a, (301/492 8925)
. * - . 3, ' , , . ,..; s, n ,... . s ,..: n. 1,.- v<. &m. . ,
. ' . 4. t s
.g . x . C. . . e
,. w. ,. n 't i r..
~ , t J.* ' /
.. u. q ':;o.. ;'. t ,f. f.,'- s.. ?' ;
- < ' ' .t . f?
. .,p ' . a .s :' . v .-. . m. ,-. - ~ -
+ ..( '.f ,/. y.
,.t 4 s, g,c " .;,;',. .*?c.
?. ?*..,'a .ryt. . . . u -!~ ., . .m
,4 . *,- ' r. ., '
r *
- y. , , . ,~ . . , . . , . - .
5 r .. g, . g'h-9 9*I, dy g d% _p
- s. ,
. .#,.F ,.
.m.."',..'..,s.
^
- g.
- g 4 #'
k t u e< , n, ,.d.s
- e. m .a. , .A<
.i
.g
-! g
. '. O.. I c . . . n- .
s ,, r I. , ,
.. O .g .u N.
%
- 7
. V ,
-t,r
.* c.,y Jg .,;b'7.,) , .( - . .*A' g *
*'0 '9'%
- I
.I - * *
^ .
.' g.g s' l
> ,,' ,;js , , , 3 *
- y- ,4 ' ' , p; ' C, .
4-3 ..r. f . g , 3s d f ,S
. !e.1,'t1e"y'4.f f,.d 'i',/s..p*. o'.$
~,
. m .}s't . ~ J.7 , ..f j,f.,g-..,';. - p, '
" ;*2$. '. ,. ')- .%
s
# *# i _ s. - -
, w gh .$$ ,** , * *
*w
+s .. . , % ,, p.
e
M l$ $ $y.:%s. E& 0 M= A E-14 4..W- 2.. w.. .m
.e - B m!,' 2. : 1 +sg 5 .. > A. %. g ;, s rF B sGg( ikb a MMaMwWM
, e * *
b.c n Yr.w#. . hh
- n. h, ~p,3,h . ~. A h.n,b.,. rm
.n 4
e.~r 3 t ..e ..... . gW.,9 sg. @m .c <..% . ,,. we. q<..gsW. .
.% v. ys ?. :n. . , . m. . >.g.
. ,m . . , , ,c, ~. , .
; s J. - A.- Q _* ? r, ,* < t
-3 2 4'. c. ,f J sn. p '.,.' ,. a.n u !
\e,gb. n-%,. - * ,.i - ep \', # ,9 .g
%{_*ift,y;., ,. A p.f,T.. _,.W,;. 4. ,
*i n.p
- , ',#e i p NBf,a, e s1iR.M' p, agM.w. $a.Ggg&}
D. a.y vye.;@.. *4 ,M4 avtpM,@,m w s .1. .
'x3w; .> Mf..y w. M M:- 74 e
..t -
e 4 ..a .
/u [a..,E.w.4;$.,.. %u o.g. w w.
as....,w:.6*Dgh.'4,N...,m.v.n.dMMD W . .c.ar$ m t u s>,..s v . COMMISSIONERS
..' '" $ *,, ..L mI
; P .J ,*;,[y' ].. . ,'., . O g.M $ Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
i %.
$.W!' W f;,hehg MWD:00Jj M 73 f,M.k 4 Thomas M. Roberts Freden.c k M. Bernthal
.- u x 4 t; M ,. ;;wywvyf w . v . a .. %j$ .s Kenneth M. Carr
- 7. M;i9 YS'YF,.r.Jdd,3^
Kah.@ ij Kenneth C. Rogers
, + ,-O,,
. v gg s.g ._ PJ:p %s :.. y4m.. A,;.,.,
. 3 ,;> .2;c.;A,.u.1>.4n.cc . u % g. %: - .
. m. .,. 5 9.gl,ik' Q4,b .y.%v.a:
- m. - }$n T vygid,s a )R.Y,p.<,a r r% s, n,.
.Aa6 e..e.. .
n .c....!,WN.L . ~. yf7 t : p ,q L.a
' c.,.\ ,, c.**A'
.a,y.Q. T. . -1;b. a a j.',*g?)o) t' <f1,5w Q, x ~
,yc y Wg'
- 4. j .a.
a,.s p .m.;.y .;. .,.,m; # h. . .,g. N , .'.
-r
. ,; . '. h : ;M a y, s.*0M.MNn.>.
..I t .
m.
- c -y .c g. .., %. , . an,
[ c
. , . . . . ,mc .c.. + c.a s.
.f.#.. . .m. . u. ,. .
. . ,,:. s, yf . . .c .m,3 ". ,Y :'W . 7 <*.4'. ) ;
q.. f .,
+1 .. : . c.. -
m . <
...~:. t v ,&,* : y: ,. , ,
- s l
*~. a..< .
v, . . ...ci:
. . ,*- r =. r 8.'+
'.q , s .l.; U ! f b..$;,i'~ ,* i
.Is[-]1>jyL'?*.[,..
.. c.
. ~
, m v4n. . . -..,a<. ,-' u o, : . 's-* ,
.c . u,.y r'*9+
I p.. % '.,
> m t . .
i
.< -. .;2.
i, w,y. .bAQL{q?Ml.Jy,,3 .e r cG . -a ;q w u,34,o.w;,@v:.%. ,:
'. u.tg, ,.
. ,dgm .t* 2 Q. .m (:p w,,,a.w.w;.s
.,c.. ,g . ..Q w .
t: ., p, .y %
$ 47k['w'gn,w4 ;h Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal Panel '72.6.).4/ .h,s 6J'd.MG9/4
- 3. ;s. rm . ou
- s 2 $<'M"MN{ $m
- .F;, ', g'W* ** '.1.- DM' 3 B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Uconsing Board Panel
+ .a y 0 Wics.*i '.W, h, .U '$+ . .. .e; #3 k.
h j " f Q's i , -. g (, '. , . ',*Q*
. s _'. p*\.s.t.s 2
.L
- M y' u.g e .'* U.*
*A . ,g. '%, -);:.~;Q.
% . ;Q 5 9 t- t;. 7g
- 2. . p : g .
4:
,. .W.' ,2y D.'.'g. . .@ . %"
* , . .'G, ,. [m , p. / %, .,. J..M J.
.S ...,,,
~1-t,.
~.. ~ r.e; ". , , ,
' g ;. *
.,.'i,-
- v. . . . p. :. ~.Vf* . , c.,a s
'f
*y .s
, 0, .#
]5 . C ! .-, ,{f
,4 ft *
...'r.
* - { ', s . ' e 7[, , .. *
. '4 ge
- s. - .. .,.
4 3Nm
- 7. .. s.,..
.e p. 5
. - ;*.'
- r, D *k.
*gd,A o'e' '.%'
~ b g >! *. 'E l n, f *) { -t ? ** dll ' .W .,, 4 < ' ' .3 / t- :
*. N. .
'~,.;' .: b ,N, a ..D ?
m e.s < .4;g . gs3~m n; n n .y* y., . c:z.* R. t , ' fh?f Y[y Wk*&k 5 s
. , .s
- h..
. ~e .;,.., , . 5. . ~s
~
s
,.;;L. . ., e. .>. ~. :. .y.;. '\;; r.]. 2 ' ,-'h ;, fw .,s*4** 's
, ~; ,Y.P . ? : <1. w 'lf n,. . . .
... a }98ka # )- E > * * .
[+k$.M.[+[ f . .'
~ 4 J, .4. n .'y g3 .~J.l .
.e p t ;s e ,
".: Ihr .
..,,,.v'."e.. ; w* . g'
. an . u..a
,4
., 8 ; .
vw. g. ,1...v N em.,.4 s, 4 4 _.* '. i-j ._. , +.cs. - . 1
-
- g ,. . f., , 4, vs. t ,:*-1 yy t<
,a 1
* **'* "'[ y1 I ., -
lj *-
' ~
UC, 9N'S . .ty 7 T ~ gyp, j .
, I.PJN ru ,2++?
q x *p* > - -
* - e.
- s. ,-
- v. .$ -e ; w : + . e, e . , n - u ..
.. n ,. I O % 9 Uy;a $Wl:'k ,-xM$'L:
m t.- 3'
@*&&W.'hE$.W. y , . .,.6 e~ :. .wm. > 'A :.M-3. , v. :,Q;;%%, . , -
e.XU (*.s7
~ fi
*i'w, 'k;hN 1..b$.w ?
w6 M ./ N A O 6 sy. n,v,.c' , .c, i:WI-M755 y,c. @M w - YWc. W l F <
.c.?Jyr.A.np;l: '.& M @f o @..%. 24QQ:O'
.A VAv iM, :,
- o. f,%.;,yf? %.p g ,6=5R%y.Q'Q
* 'p , .yi:
7 . M ;e'W .f. F., y,M. $..i*
' . - . .y v -
. :a, , . . . .
.< ,% v N [ %,. .a. . v wd
;<&u - w,v q~; b.',p.T.Q. :lQ.1&m.t.g- ; .g; .m flp. n Q c;Q
#s.m.;.:p-;...Q> .&.. . , *.ne@. . .,N,,:t.Q. ,&,;, . .q f Q)e:.R:
- n. my s n.
s s g, o#ng.g..,. . ::tp. .qa.
,i.;: ;e . 3 4;y w
,m,,e. . .c :..
v.E. 3
', %- . ,. . m 0; , W h*$.: h. h ${h Y. .
b YYNbY !:L m.,t_,.~.m Jo' :4.w..,. 42,. ;> **? e+G{ N.h'N.~u. .. c*W.r. ([ Mk"M.
. ..i.se;.2... .m. 3 v , ... . . .
.. s.p %'s R. @ ,pt
,y< 4 w ,1.iag y+".,,y,
- a. ,, . 3. , .
, % ,.v.
. a v .? sty (c .* [w.Q # . ..w .[.
a*
.A + . 4
, -g
. r ,. f e w ' '4.,3;g., .,Og W g}
; . f- g
.. ',1 - V ,y a.5 dine,;.;.s, i s@ym e r .~. .. .A~ 4,,m, m.s.c z m, ,y% n.w;,
$8.w wWW. 4:& . 5: CONTENTS
%p:k;w:p$@p$p.gfi@f.
M$. h. ~$ci.h%h 1M..,k,. R.. g.ch*:Q i Ac.M.w-Issuance o' the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
.. . ,w:a- c~ .y. .s , 4J .w,w
.,s5 y,fcyWm. e y< . .< n,3. bn,.1 .s., t
",W. . . ~.%pF.r .i. .,. ,;.Wg. : %. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW llAMPSIIIRE, et al.
m .. ,ry
..wyr;
.a . .m. (Seabrook Station. Units 1 and 2)
. ,3e.3.s
- c. .
M 6.. .p.p. ,;.,,;;;,.c' '. N. . 5s - Wp N q$. a. .N w.fWk. ,um'Mj Dockets 50-443 OL 1,50-444 OL 1 (Onsite Emergency
%.@3 %iM .58;s 'J Planning and Safety Issues)
, Z; %. 'j py.d@ nn;h%iM{$[f@.y M'#,Mfi4//fM R M , d MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB 887, Januxy 8, 19 88 . . . . . . . 1 c T.
- r .. -
d i Qvm
..!.[...v%m
;.1, ,.W .e' M. . t..[r.e, .
W,j T. M..,s. M,. Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards f'h.::R 5 s.qQ2 q%r S,,g,.g mg . l p;3.in .
- 8 [D 5.,-eff'Nlc'5,M"SM@@y;(.
.'TfMN M@";DldffM DAVID W. IIELD l:p')
(Senior Operator License for Beaver Valley Nuclear Power
' [ l. 2 '; .; 'f ' g ," QW)
. . Station. Unit 1)
- 2. U.YN /.01.ci. - s:#, S .? f Docket 55-6002 (ASLBP No. 87 552 03 SP)
' Jh, ; 3f , I ['.4 .. vN,E ,4.. .
u;. ,
'. j,T;j DECISION, LBP 881B, January 1 1, 19 8 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
. ~a -
.u.
. ~ r m :a . w, ..
- y n ,". - J ' Ap. .E W / . .,
M Qvif.Gj.'q(;l y;04 }M.:6M 2 FINLAY TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. Docket 30-13435 (ASLDP No. 88 559-01 SC) J dd W sf.S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PREllEARING CONFERENCE
.', cm.y S.'..e QLM t . ,;1 M w . M. $y Q, c,. ... N %. . .: OF JANUARY 13,1988 LBP-881 A, January 27,1988 .......... 19 e .:r. n. o;r. g+ <d..co w
'"J".'g,9:f,.i.(',;.,,.7@-L..g@o 6%
y
.g j,-M,,W:e .2M....wgM.pi
- e ,
mv Md LONO ISLAND LIOliTING COMPANY
', ,:, / ? (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) c y*14';g % ./ 5 ,?y?Jy M..,.a Docket 50-322-OL-6 (ASLBP No. 87 553-04 SP)
. ': q- $ . ,:. @M;fg o, .
- j; *. M d
. D. . . 9'd MEMORANLUM AND ORDER, LBD 881, Janu.sy 7, 1988 . . . . . . . . 7
, _.:P i.? C;j
~
.- .a;f ..R:q;9' %
W. . r.hy< y n. . . .. ;9 byf K.O}
~,
, .o ' .-., JJ s
. . '.M. + , 4, ,', m. .:.,. :6.SN: '.9, Issuance of Director's Decision
,. . w.rc n ,. .
y- f. f p3.N,. 1 r, m.s.3 cc. g;; c ,' ,s ,4. M . J... . . BABCOCK & WILCOX y . . . . . ..
'yS. . . c.
. ydp@.- .;.w;
. wm1,.::$&&, ,, ,
;'!/i,y3 'ay d g:. g iDocket (Apollo facility)
M ,l.70135 t. s ';@ t. ', J 'M ,' ' ,p .y 6, . .. . s
, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206, O ,, -
l,*"',[9u'e,p ,,. h%. .'.< e, dM'.,*., f h. s-- N p ;tv.4.;.;
. < s.N: N. h DD-8@l, January 5,1988 ............ ..................... 33 3.* d .f:
"c "
- 3
.%h .: . 7<w Al-
, ~
c v. :/ f v. f . Q &'
. 4 k,.de..rf ..:' ..r M b,l?!%-* r cl 9 C *Wi .,JA d}
. % r. c'4
;c)-. , .G . .s }. C.
- 4 r , h.,r,a ,ry C;I.' .x ;y w i ypp /g#%
' c . ,(- *i
- _ c,.... . . . , .
.s
, y'.
.a# ,
5, ... h.w,,p;r- - t.
;'?) F.
' ,, *'s
.a..
, , / . J '.x g t,'. k
.t
,,g i '**.-
<g -
g g,. * .x ,.,,.o >,y...'...-.- el .i g
,gg .'
**# , ," ,,# % ( p, 5
.v-!--
.,. " 3,
..u,", ' 3,i'? ,-s t..M,
', .. t rQ.... ,d Aa a j-J'9
- .e* : @v$ Q 4y p* 4 = p, L .J 6 . ,,y 1[ : [ , e Ial
.. p :t, h'.',. w.[:.*w+ *.v.+ S.*M);['[:;)
..s s-. et:- n
. . . o.,....~%% b i, I
- 1. q ~ n
- s.
'(.
.'g.*
*.9 .I .. .
. - r ;. , . . .j. ' y 9 ,..*,5s. a ,, y w: . g ;c,.'; w (y' y, n").j,,.-sg g, s
s'
'*a ,
9
, , E.m y,SM.l .
- g%} . ! v p *[ t' (. .{j
- , .m . : q.
- sw,;. 9
' d; ,' } o cia s '
.#, .ga -4,'"
, .~.j;?.
w a.,. ,. g%g .- .,rp.+ .yc*.3. r y 7.. 7 >;e-(,m -c..,,
... . .s c4 . ,I eg , ,.4*[.t Qi % ~;' .'.7/j.,; .C. .
.. '-U '#t --.3.
9
/ 4.; . ' ' ,' st :, 'a g , # s. y",r'
.: h. , '3 A4w* q
.y='. .g. 6 ,
=
h e .I e % g* J A, -
- 4 ', ,c 4 ,. . * * -
.l' -1' (. ' . ft ,
, J '. -* . g ~ . < ! ' rcc
- F'
,- v.
- s^ r.
- s' '.
E,'. 3J ;.4; , , ,o,. Q,]G. ,e'7 M, -:
+
, . 3 .'. MM, , 2 g ;. N'." , c'M.(,[. *.[-1, : . . .
, . 6 .y , . . .* ,' d , , e'; - /
.. m r. se... r, > < ' . r.
.e.N. .jy..x d'.-. * /= ". , ,t,( ., , .s...s >r. *#,
. ,- .3, a) . . , ,
.*, ...s. . u. - .c,.\ 2. ,.7
+., r
+q 4 .
er g; , 4.e .- s t r i.3 .o
.
- g s,.,
e .%. < ' 4
- e. * * .s '
.,' **. **' - 5 c . ; . .* . - - , " , . . g,-- -
e . J. g , t q q g , pi ii , g3 *;4, . 3w a,C .a. .,gls, i. '
- g, .- .3, ;.,.,'
i
. c.
.(q g 3 , n.a c. ',i.hct's
. 4 .
' T ;q q s t. , ,n. s , 'e-m. ,, , , ,. .; j m . . ;
,o .
. _s ,
. ,. _ . . _ . ' . _. v, . .
____.__s..
. - - + . . c ,. ,, ,
m:h. s .,g <.m. m.> wwMWE +,. . 5 W M . M.. M n.s. w ..-. n.- M . n3.& . N , m,; ,.s:, % s.x+ &,w m.w .p.,r.n.w@v* ,ap n-n s . v . w .w.,w w y,
=e , y.
s.,N, pW , a..D:lW. n
*l m, -
1
.. m . w ga o.;
_ g u s.4 - .q
- p' y e, w ,e A.
Wg'c..Q.o v;5 .
,,,,s u6 l;Q
, , a 4"trw.f. .s W . w.&. .. r; W. , e )..' }&. m V
'b. e*V s. . 2f i% h,e. f l w$.,W,,l . '; +.i $ G.- l " \ K ?--l- '
4 f ?h*Q N f*H t ,q, sw.n?.yj,y$$.fN!&a.=W,y.#..e W,n .'. @o&=44.a
, , . ~': , . . .
} {'f i~1.1 }y.i V',' y. y &s. C ~ WikN w w; a u. a.x fQW. 1 m. , ,w n . ,. , w y;,. ., A,b.9<. - 3 u.= m.. W .a ~~{:.a..w&N a
-l'O l
*e. se %s
,.* mu ;g.g. . :. . c * % @,. s l .* u - ,s r .o %. 4 _~' ? , ,, w .n.; ; ., & n. 3' ;% i.{i.l04N 4, ,7., ...,,.2.y;p_4.n f r,% .w'*m. ' v, . . < ; 4_. *:g<$. 7. % . l ,b,s-
- v. ,i n s eao ;, w . w-i .g. ,g , ~,* e' '
- A .,y..
. 5< v c . . . ,
4.*.S, .%. J ,g[ 9.) '{a8&$ ,{n. . .., I g , y <<.,q%, g# .
'" '. .y,s'.:
. m J.
' Ve *
'$.gjM.
- E t
v
.www.'
- k.;*]3 . .+ m m<.A;;s'..%*N !
,e. v v' In,., .y 9.. .,? e *M p K. Nt.h. m .aM 4- 6-. ,fm.e;,*.s@.%w t.N,'A.+hh.[~th.s .h
. k,) 4
.l c.
- q. , -n.w.g " .a.Me ~ o. . 'i rpih."4
-w 1
, yp. -
t ll-i* & W ,. .
. n. .
$ $ . W$$ ~.!.Eji'3 Q R Atomic ,*;'f &_u, Safety and RM$s@$$$ BM WM M$ Licensing Appeal Boards Issuances Q Qt l N...C.
- 3r .
.m . ,,
, h :...:; s.w. *s in& .h.,. . . , .
9 W. J. G. W. g. w& M. s,m my.
. ~;.x 4; ' . 4.A
**.4,.v.A A- ,a>v;
.m ,.e, w- ee *.,r V..c .. ; &. r.- ..> rf..~. .
J / :p :::
- . , ,;Q.. . cs. %g.., %, n.s%y' ,w.VT.d , .
ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING APPEAL PANEL j *1 '- '
-. .I *_-i 17 s f ,s, e di i,, , ,r y ' { g.v
- J..c -+ a ...
9., - ,
-e, , .a.,
i . ,'c. p . s.%, ' 't K. ;. ; ' , y ,,o,; ,i f .;,,,4- .. 9 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chprman g
* , , . , ,y s ,n - ! t. p.. Dr. W. Reed Johnson
. ', . ' G i< i j ;. '
- v f) ~ ... f.%
e - t Thomas S. Moore
.- - s , . i.,%. 3 j ;. A. ., ,c.. ,:4 ,,
c m. Chnstine N. Kohl
'e
, ,f 4. g
,'.5,*,'[
- 6. , / * )j 4 . , . ' ,
,,'4*.i' 4
Hpwgrd $, WQgf
..0 *' * ' P *~ [j& *A
~
. , ' 4. p.*pr y'.
n % ' .? , *, , l'
. s
'. I s '**e ,
j
- q 'c .*,e' **l- , *', 3)IM *5e .*% n
( . .pw g 7,4 .sw $ * c
* ,* ys".**<C* U . . ' ,
l .u.- ' * ,[.3s- %.4 .g',.
,79 ., . . s p =. f
- i ' ar '
g g 'd,ge ,.
- 6. , , Ea', ..h gk,, a#J , . iy.; f1
. j.,3g.p,'..,.O 1
u i
- c. ,. ,. 4. .t. . ps :.4 .' 7 y ;g
- 2 1, g,,, 2
..< 9
'y ,. -;,
s 33 M. . ;;/, *% Md.y y'[,'.!x , . ~ ,)
..g"'*
- i, ', ( _ e-{- .. ,s "O Q *#,.
, *.y -1.s , . s .. , d t ', p*y * ,g; p', ','y e
j .y 3 'g. .A-' ; . . . sf.. . . ., ,6 . i
^ (4e . ,<3.,..i -s A 't .s,. ?"*.M'.
9
- M. .'J,3 i .8
,4 >%.,
e~* - g - *
- e. ,
a v
.o- ,q..
g I '
- 1
.i -
w> 3
. -l r
, c.
.s.. f,A.,,'d.,
,.,., .zeg.f. s se v 4;. e.;,
. o u q%. t.x w,iw v. t t. 'j g
, / * ;.j'
*',,,; '2,a g
,. g ,a ) * , ' '8' ~ 's, * /. A. <
5I ,b N,f i k
+ a:.
4 .A'r,i. 4
. t g 's
'"8' .4,e ,
%. ; A .
.g g.'q ae ,. J 9
w .$ > ** # 1 i' .:' - , j'-
+
- te.
-'..e
-p p h,,
. g W~, . .*o 1
e' 3M , i;.d.2p. ,* ' m ~. C,g el
.,7-a e
,~~e.,
r.. " , s , !*% +,%. . qgw;: e.
' ; *; ~ q (: .'" ..<
k'. o t>. Q',y ,% -4< *s
.y :...'.: . - n t
? m a t.
- n. f' c, .
- 3. d.'
d ' *' : -,,Y 3:(:;;n
., 2
'. .4.% . - . %c-i e .i g . g..e.-
* ,g ' , e - r'
'W - (,r'C. ' =X ; ^' eW o 4,. ,4* . , y' gm.p,.
g v,.e M
~- s , ,h, t(,d b -
y- a
*=> ; *.\+ ..3m \ b, y.n 4 ._QJy
- b:%
u . e,c ...,-t,,N,.. ., : r* d, (
. s . , 4,- + ') , ,.p g. s ;b, 4 A- .*. ak.4 W .a 3 Qg Th.s. .
-au %
- J ..n$ ,r.q
.3 .s..%.,s .,
. .
- e
- g ,y-g
-e,' u eg ' ,,*-
i C
. 1 '4 (I,'. . ,7 +))'i
, iN
., g
-. . - s .jefg}
. .e,'y,-- 9 .,- ,
5 , y' , , *, e - /. < , 92.g
-]. ,s
- * . 5 . y
..e ,zy% 1
, ' i, *,
*. .e
.e.,
s ,( 4 ,
.g.
.F3-5 ,. " g.
4g[f g f, s e- v.- -
'}+ .
3 . i T.' . m. +. ',
,.M19.>. '. . s, .c ',!.
l r. 3 , , s + . ......- 3* .'I [ . , ' ' c
- 3* i( \ d Q [.
;f,.,T."?, f. h'{,
1 :p. ,. M'.. , :y ' f *'. 's.', X ' ,':.',;" i
..a '. e * . 4 r+t.
i.t-
; sf : e
. ,
- c , .k $
e .d, '[*r c.') ;,8
'I x'..~.
A e,
.c.. *A. , . ..n s a *'s .e'g' A*,'
f s i f . ' a', 4 g i I ,i 4 q et t I .. I g- 4 . - -, ~ - . . e. y q ~ ., p 7 . 1 j
.q . ..
,,C ,A*'i,,;;.,d
. %, . e.
< 3,,,; < ' ,g. s.a
; l.e,,...,,,
g ( *..v.,3',.. -,.c. r
,g , ,
- l t, %, .'p* s
.;.,n- , i. ]
' ., ,x fr. .* ., '. ..,r ..
6.. g a 't ( . - .,. _, , .s
= *r-
*f
'g.s , . 4 . I .m *e , , . - -
(',? .k.'s-'yyk'.,h...,, .
.t f g . . ,,
l ,?* *
.r, s" +** * , ,' i i
v-s r pc^ 4*
!f ,' . ' ^ l . *
.*,n s . ...
->s:
r a V' [' ,
-e s ',,.
O
.o r - . ,...s.' 3 I .
j ,- , . t
- lF ' .h g -
.p# a I- 4
% I * *
.c, .$ ]*
s,g
- k g*. ,.#
, %. v . i s,y, .r.
g
,,- - s,.
.m .-m . y., , ,s 3 .
. c. -
#,, a *, , d.$ ,.'is .s.t-i
.% . . , g' . e'
. .j a g -.
. *. ,,,.?* \mv 6- 4 - -
- T (p' te *.t o+ ,)
7 ['tr '..'
/ w s
' (/'g7 ...%, ' .',
g c . ,. '. g * ' ( g
, *( ge. .,'. l .', hea,e,-c. ,g)J'}' %s.m(, , ;.'. . . 2,\..
*- ,},*
4, .b .g- +* t . . . ,
. l V , . ; . , ,. ,,'. . ; b - 3 , .
. , e' ; . -. e* t ,, y s ,. ; 4, ,.e f.
'Q - _ ___3 , 2L _, , __ ,, _f l .
s Q.3 3 {.f.f. . _
. f__me e
*n._ <
. ^
P$
? %%dM Ms%ye. R.ch.MWg% M ?g6d f ,QlWwr. WwN.n.;;w, % W p. W .q. 'y . . t., m m. h hg-M. $ $. o,. & . Y.
%e.T.%m@.h,.x%.g;m.im-
%,1p~..
-p.. W.
....s.
,s
,+p: . ,. , ,
G..y.q
, ~.
.w . % m,. e
.u n...,.m . q.3. u. %.
@m. ,
. . s;j,y w C. c.n[;b'n;.w.M,a,%-l.%
#c6 n, .9., .*:;V;;q. i m,.,e.* ,e/:.
&%w e.
.. 7 ;,u. % ,,.:, .. c ..
v ,. v. g , u, , o .
,,,,m.
,.m s.
L'3.O$; .~W. . . ,4, A.qR- c ':qg: : 'm y
;0.
.u. ..
y;. $ . 'Q&p u (,.a i:.: lU- ) ,. .9, ~, n,q m$ $u.yn.o. ,a. w:,;. ...o
,c ... ~
.b' k 'y;$ d. M l t iS. GM:;.,Q. M.5S. y a- f
!$p .g.y:;:.'.p.:M+e' ' ;". ,%;, ' m:%.; 4;
- m.W 3 .
. se ~G,- m ,, n-a , .v ,s .c . , , ..
. . gm 5:. M,s ..e.?;;,:;e. 7.. c;
. y.w...nr :y .
.-., u~.,,.fg.,..v..g .n A g c.
.t.yv ,L ..
, V, p . . + -y,{.gf. gly,.%y@,
jd/ c t Urgi;@y4
. . .. . .! %*'h Cite as 27 tiRC 1 (199) ALAB.882
..J,) ? .y 's " $ $ ,F .wcb jdl.i d,, A gfd a Dqdu. MM&yM .@w'irk UMTF0 E* L1ES OF AMERICA
.,.A.4, @ W1.y- ; WQ
~. , y, . .,m '33 Q 0.@,@Ti ' NUCLEAR GFOUL ATORY COMMISSION
- m. ,.,f...:n h ,j. ?.p@c s...q ~7v . M~,J9. m . tw';
..c.4r..k..*. . ,e- a . ., _ i cu.. c..4. .m.,..,ns 4 4,
, , y ..r ' . .
o : ,4(.' .. / ..c'w;B,g,;p,s ll[.f-[.,ni w,.. ATOMIC sal ETY AND ?.sCENSING APPEAL BOARD
' . . , l. a
- ft:y
. , ,'Qi.~..: c ff y. p.B );c% /n%*.y q, g
', p,.,j ' *m. .c.: D} Administw!ve Judges:
'. h b. h,2: 4.,
. h.h)M .
g.,. p; Q t M .M m n,n.y e
- s. @,g.g; 4;.. < h. : s', k,Alan S 90senths!, Chairman
. ,f7 ye.3y p , .g , u?,y g. ,
c y. . . w. . . g ; ..O Howard A. Wilber
' r. . .;, m. . , w,. u, . W. ?.
, . , , . .>. ..y - ,. 4.f 4. ..s. .. .j.en.
~
. .s.s. c.,. j ,.
p* (~ '. . *. _ , 9 :'~ '. ~ In the Mat *)r of Docket Nos. 50-443 0L 1
' . '; .; 9., , ,, - 'q ' ,.s.; j. k4.,. M.
. . . 50-444 OL 1
.', - :,. g (..v.4 (Onsite Emergency Planning
. #. . ' @ , . N. . ,f 3 ,'. . . ,2, ...,~' . , .7, .%, and St.fety issues)
.v ..o. y~,,.
~ .,.
...,. ;-.a . ,e .,.
,t ,.
w..e . ., s ,.*u.v s FUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
%"o. c.7. _f ., . , .,Yj'.gl..$,,4' Q 3 %,. . %.NEW HA3403HRE, et cl.
, . , . ".p.3 '6 (Seabrook Statk,n, Units 1
.^l 7 -; '. f,.j,Q., - y; . y .;-9.74p-7. ','.l y/i. ~f O.,r';[
., and 2) January 8, tits $
r: .a ..
* ~d ' .. t ; l'. ;+,? qi' , ml/ , ?* ?
p* ;,
., . 4 ' , s 'w. .'
~
se Appeal Board in tMs operating lic:nse prv;eeding detarmines that the evidentiary basis of a Licensing Boarc's fagrable 6nding of the environments'
.n. ' ;op .MfT.' d,9.$ hl? qas116 cation of a type cf coaxial cabir ated fcr da. t ansm2ssion in Seabrook's
- c. if ((Y.i j computer system is inadequ.ite ta suppm that finding e.nd rtmands the issue to
. s'; . p, l' .'. $ .
. that Board for aM'.ivial proceedings.
c., n. !
,. s, , x.. q. ..r ,c... ..;f,M ; y > '
r o
. . . , K , 4 .x.y <
., . w
.. y y..sr f M 0. . M- APPEARANCES
.. .-#,g
...,..3
. ,a ' . .q
. ' . ./.@,.jge.p"iT 'J..d . .;.'O g DL 3e Curran, Dean R. Tousley, and Ellyn R. Weiss, Washington, D.C., for s
g . ymj ..;,3 . . ..;.3 c g . . 3%,s:3.j
@h..A the intervencr New England Costition on Nuclear Pollution.
c^. *'
.e ef** * ' ;
,3.,
, - M ,,; j. * *V#1 -
y, /..,* .7 . .';;K ,? 4 Thomas G. Dignari, Jr., Georp H. Lewald. and Kathryn A. Sellec*., 9 . i ;< ' . ( 3 .MV.' N Bostcn, httssachusett;, for the appt' cants Public Service Company of
... , . :4 - Q . - New H mpshire, et at
.m,., ,
- n. - .
..v. x m.
.. , .,. cy. . , s. i
., n.,.,
.. .g- - . . - . ' $
-,, . .'N . . * ',
.(. {
.. . , , m ', .s.. - . e a. j ./..g,
.. 3,,.
- e. ,
,.. .. f , ,
,y.1
.. . . . j
. s ., ,n . . ,
*~ I
, J t ,\,8*
, . ,1 ,. p . ...s, ? n.g. .n..,,.,,s.. m. ~: r. g. .;,.. v. 4.
m.. m - . - . , , u .. . . .
,.s.
m ,s s s.r. .
- n. .
.,i
.,e ., . " ./. . [ 3.. . .e : .o
(
- y. . .:,a
~
.E ". 1 6*47 y .~,N =?('a';' - Y .: ,,
. . ,. , ., 'N - *c
.r'
. :. . .b [
- h. , y,
,, 7 ', ' , ,n'* ,. ..
p.' c. . * , u a .Fr. q, . p i . . ' ., < .. . .*
.g, ,. .e , .. M , , ,+ ,s
(
# . .# .- * , 6,# ,i/p..1[ , e.n* . ; (*',.4, i
- *6 *- , . ,? ** , , ,
, '( ,s.OI' i' -
.~ a g~
-. ., u [1 . , j r. . i/ ' , , , , , f e.
. ._ i*yy i .,l, ,/,3 ' g ,,
d ' a'l -. -s s h.3 4 ? 4
'4;, e? T
- @m
.,- ~1 d
'- .m
.W W 8.8 t.m.; : 3,. E@m'k!,W %,.er:
- s. :A ..
4
.sissWhWaddhaem"*
Qo y.Q$M@d ,n.0l M.g,,g.$w egN;g
... q?
y
. m.sw .N. ..go '.:,m@y y y,.g .m w a .- g ,. . n< 't? 5 $hY., - : bh Nf.g, #*h";T .;.h.9 %m)[e . jt. y .n.
Mp.T.
%.e.%@..,o-
,. c6 3 r,h.99[JfN u'.
2... y
%o$.
- y. . f,$.fr;q%m[.W.w.h;#:w. A.e q
- Gregory Alan Berry for the Nuclear Regularnry Commission staff. .'d.'.1 @ .'. 3..,e @#.gw..... c9jh,
- f. ~.g Q. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dp ., ;
./.M.f.0
* ; q. "V'by.; . .J 4 . V;. [ fM C:.{." C*& > a%,4 0 M. , d..WW
;t . 7;'.y;w) M. .v1:.mv ..;p W
..a . - . , In ALAB.8758 we confronted, Inter alla, a challenge by the intervenor
+.
iW59 a
.$YMfD,..cM,A /.;%<W?.:.M,N,UdWW., UQdi o .. .o . New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Coalition) to the Licensing Board's disposition in its March 25, 1987 partial initial decision 2 of o e of l
1
-!-D@M. gf5 m MOy. D$;.j the issues the Coalition raised in the onsite emergency plarining and safety 9.M McM @r& W T;M@b $ gS4 issues phase of this operating license proceeding involving the Seabrook nuclear
@@@d facility. Specifically, the Coalition disputed the Board's finding that the RG58 gJf;>"y
. u@. 9 !, ,.%. eM.; w - @.3 PpffQi.%,%w,.$'pdf [. ,$...h M.7v[;;. M.. M Q'g @.d k '% coaxial cable, used for data transmission in the facility's computer system, had been demonstrated to be "environmentally qualified" - i.e., capable of i
M M D d .' O .-J/ Y D C M -) continuing to perform its intended function for such period as might be necessary
'J/TDy f ; e. . Q i L./ .v P.y/g n i;D. g @ % Q^d
- s. p M X ' @, JJ after a severe (e.g., loss-of. coolant) accident.8 Our review of the matter did not disclose a sufficient evidentiary foundation RM<
.~
7:. n a .M, 4 for that finding. Accordingly, ALAB.875 returned th: issue to the Licensing Mc.,
,I.WJQJIW.yWRd # M.e. Mad,nWP./m..L Q Q Af4d$w$ . @. !MV.r.m~Qi Board with instructionsy either (1) to identify tM portion of the existing record ein that provided such a foundation; or (2) to reopen the record for a further
,p%$hq exPl oration of the environmental qualification of RG58 cable.'
b 98$diMhN-h in an October 16, 1987 memorandum (unpublished), the Licensing Board hA W NhDf$'/MM {M h @G d h > V . j/r g.P:pN $ 33 Pointed to what it deemed to be adeqt' ate evidentiary support for the challenged
'My
. ~'. 9C-[D'IN finding. Given the cited evidence, the Board informed us that it had determined that there was no need to reopen the record.
- f. .. . j ,. [, M
. W:@
,47 ?,ef 0. C v J .#
$ 1 79.y % h$ Q The Coalition, the applicants, and the NRC staff each took advantage of our invitation to comment on the substance of the Licensing Board's memo.
3' . ,M p ,,1,MM),.dN%.%l] randum. On the basis of those commenu and our own independent evaluation
. - ff .~ > ' . ' $, ',
N Q. f ; M 'Q i n.,l}' .g . 3 of the Board's analysis, we conclude that the matter must be remanded once again. For reasons that will appear, we do not believe that the evidence cited A%[MM 4 W :M._ic.j.W;. mS WM b:hhdh .m. W h;; h{f { by the Licensing Board provides sufficient support for its finding that the RG58
.D.W,% . + coaxial cable is environmentally qualified. Although the applicants have brought lMM@f;O & 'i
'! Ae %?.%,q.F,,MT, 1p. sH @e .our;.;p attention to certain other evidence that they assert does supply a satisfactory FTh/Afp,[(.gQ$idOd&MMSM MGN basis for the finding, we believe that the Licensing Board should evaluate that claim in the first instance.
[h Y @ N $,9 @h h. 1. As noted in ALAB.875, unlike two other types of coaxial cable (identified "R,W.,r . W. ..Y:
!: wpm.1'M .
L
.. f. h $l<y@ t ..f.66 y 3 c'. as RG11 and RG59) similarly supplied by the International Telephone and O ~,gj *QJ ? 4,K ..W W:7'- i;? ' *:.*W
* , . . .- ..,.s. y . ,,-.
.? - * ,' .
..,4
.#c} > / /c -.a 1 M .3 . , '
'T '* 26 NRC 251 (1987)
- ' ? *, . ' 7' g '
,,.,.o' .*
1,,12p.3710,25 3 3 NRC 177. The requiremers that te Ro38 caWe meet this standard is rootea 1: General Design Cntene 4 in Arpenda
% /'
. * * [., <
' A to 10 CFJt Past 50 and 10 CER. M49N.
'ses 26 NRC at 269 71.
3
"~ ' },
^'.,& . :. . .
.e s
i ( ;
. ': . s . . '*w v[ " g1 *i .
(.,, ' .'.\ ;*k ..t[. .;. '
.,,.,:.,w,6-[,*f.' r. .+
,. -9E .
* ~ ~1'A .J ~.S. %.E'O " , % [5 *.-.f. *':-;.;., .3/O
. . 9.i? - f ', '; .h I
.jM (s. . : M. .., v.',%, .. ~. : . y ' . . T. , al 2
{ 7 n=. ';&@4 qw* :, .: . ...
- 7. , . , %.N? -% *,l 'l :t<
w Q/M gs ' 'y*I i p.M ;;f . .. n; ,< [nl.' e '1(r .:* . t,. a
- .' y.f f. g.. Q,;
- R.p 1. ,Q C :
- .W. _. p .s h!.$[.f wn..w; .,:a '. ./. n.; ?.;j , ' 4
, . *.,[y,. ';. .i,_,' :
.m.,; , ,- . .v -
~ t - ug7g .7 ;,
.. , i % . . w,.,f
- , . .s y ., ,: . . . .
' , *' ,s'{. . ? ,4 f '.*&: '- *A u ys
*?.. s c-. . * .J . .t
, <<4
' , '. 6 :,i.,,,. . . ' _ . ; ~
'js.' - * * ,
. ~;, .
s) . . * ' '. ' y. y/* '. .,* ,
..s t '. . * ' *
- _. .ig,T '. -
y*. t g ' , x i ;,.4 *-); J ( 4.m,
..#.* <,q .4.
,. ,.? ' , . .
, ~ *'
, ' #; '".l p ; ; Q' .g
_ ..'?- ~o a ; ' < , (:.,
. .O' .
. ; .~,. . . 's ['1L; *
.h .
.. '1 -
k
I ' " 1i : . iN N '
$h $I@d$k[khdhE8hdha.[h$Jkdhi;7$w'Mk f:% nN.
M.mq$[n,. -:9 4MU g %,u b ;;3.%.u'6.NN. m:*%um.q% -L % M'.[p+. .m# 4 u n M.;u : w .. ; p .. W .C: M,2. W 1 'yv.M:'Mye%.,
- s. M. dbMtdh&R.m.%v&;;;wr y JNA. .h pa%w:gn.c:.gr 6.9 ;QM '
k.2.MM:.cK .nMm.we.t , + , . .y iv.w v;.y::3 M ice. M n M M 6
,w f.cy. M. 4y?wqu.&.;+t.w, :%m .n.c?;?m.2.M'm;k:%,%p
. : w.
'b.qyj %d s",,%mf yga 7 2. .. 9; r q X:c 9 0;':.M m.; p, b; p y @ 5n cmp %q;
:4 M j Lc N D
-f!.g o sw..x-y::c.w+vNMh %9
,W';JWi:N j
.M, .
,. e:.>,,,x.: w,7$
$';@$ $N, . ..>.: .
.i .My5.lWD,::n, M' a-5.2
- g. .,,..w ns.M.M
'l'elegraph h Corporation %.T. (ITT),. the RG58 cable was not itself tested for the Purpose of determining whether it is environmentally qualified. Rather, it 1/)i ..; '
i$T M MNh W if h h. Mj M. 8[,[.M h7appeared from the applicants' equipment qualification file (EQF) pertaining to
/.c.e;.g;w .M. . ..~ 4lm
.r;r chp@NQpe o 1pAgy w:4 g gof the M
w,h that vender's cables that the RG58 cable wns deemed qualified solely on the basis tests performed on the RG59 cable.5 These two cables are indisputably
.y.%.p;gSW l'. h] .';', $ .'"'.@y.Q '.h1K p @ybem sg/differences y;g similar in materials and construction. Nonetheless, because of what seemed to significant in the din.cnsions of their conductors and insulation, it ... N k % N illl M M j((7 g % was n .t clear to us that the RG59 cable test results could serve as the foundation W e. ..c.4-E.3: - M for the environmental qualification of the RG58 cable. De Licensing Board was 'MA ?-fd.([p ..
- M. M, . ..:y2.d. .R.Y. 3 therefore asked . .(.toM.idMedM-refer us to di'closoresdM#i in the existing record that established J.6M "that the differences in the two cables are unimportant for present purposes" or,
.,7. .f. f:..i.'M@@@Gr@f.< 'O.Q;failing that, to reopen the record to explc,re further the acceptabdity of using the
+,4 4.TM.M,$. sp y y&; p@f.n.M. i RW 4 g,s ~ opj.,
g.MKQ
...a RG59 cable test results to qualify the RG58 cable.'
In its October 16 responsive memorandum, the Licensing Board cited two
,fg.*M' , M.
e.?, ' gl^ dlh DMWfk gp[@;dyg QiW: segments of the EQF (not alluded to in the partial initial decision) as justifying c l :4QylO. . ,l d., . ,:<..O. a;; w .
. '/.; ' Ml
- the conclusion that the RG59 cable test results could be used to establish the
? M.,'l7, [ . W N y environmental qualification of the RG58 cable. First, the Board pointed to the s-;,E.. .'@I -Q ' U.e MM@. .
j,V'i. c.:Q. ,s fact, revealed in Reference 1 of the EQF, that there are different operating requirements for the insulation resistance (IR) of the tw cables. The requirement 7, , ., ,.p..gm n.3.;Q;g.;gj;X m pd ".. ...-n.n Q for the RG59 cable, which has an insulation thickness of 0.061 inch, is 10,000
- n. ,, ..c
$ ~$.' M5[y.jMci cmc (.'. megohms per 1000 feet of cable. For its part, the RGS8 cable, with an insulation
,6MMQQdS M.hMpg d, thickness of OS40 inch, has an IR operating requirement per 1000 feet of one-tenth of that amount (i.e.,1000 megohms). Rese data led the Board to conclude
...JMi$c.M. 7' T J' M;Q / h:y@gd that "the predicted performance of the smaller RG58 cable under conditions of b'm.s'M.f.' d.;-
+, g f M.@ environmental qualification tesdng would be proponional to the lower required
~" ~
, , . /. ' jf T'*fff' .
operating resistance of its insulation.'"
.- .. '.e's p,, n .' . . l:S Second, the Licensing Board noted that the RG59 cable had been subjected ;
. W.- to a high potential test during which it w~as required to withstand an alternating J[. 3.,z.hf:$;. N.Mk current (ac) voltage of 80 volts per mil (0.001 inch) of insulation thickness. Inas-
, * ;O. ' -43Vn; much as this specific emironmental quali6 cation requirement thus takes into
)
~ ", I
-a f. tl, 4.f / xcount the thickness of the insulation (i.e., the greater the thickness, the higher
)
the voltage that must be withiteod, and vice versa), the Licensing Board rea- ! E:.d,
, ?, .; c.,f, . T... ; k;. f. w.@ ; ..@u; %y y
;. 3 7,'. Y. I,,.Qp$ ;,@@;%h@,., .. soned that a high potential test (f the RG58 cable would have yielded results similar to the acceptable resuits obtained in the testing of the RG59 cable.8 l
-n ,;M .a : -2.. m,.
.,g. ,
..j .q;;,'y.7.n
. w . .' ?.g: *
.-..o.
._ _ n';g MW-Q .w.~. %,L.g.x Qn
.:v.-
F.s7. s g m e qj S Ws EQF, idazu'ed u h W Quah Fue A !!s 1% = iisroduced isso h
.,$y(f:#D .mY[p(p:l4.ggj9.kQ ,'.; I/ . l/QT;; (
u se ('enon's Ea.latnt 4. one or the purpmes d EQF: is to reced se marmer in whids partcular equigners
. ' .x is daerunned to be amranrnesany quahr.ed.
,'
- 3.g[;N.,'f. ',_,
;.MW]W%W.A}
* '"[ ~ $.g: '. 4 '. p g{j' M'M. ';
- ALAB 875,26 NRC at 271.
7
' u< ;/ Nl ,q Mer norsnearn to the Appal Board (ocider 16.19r7) at 3.
7,, , , . 4 c " ;q: .
^ s/d at 3 4. Insdar a the durarence in the dunermons d the cceductors is concerned. the Board cheerved
..e '
. 'j - 'j.'71 bt a "could f.nd no regarernerss in the ermrcornertal quah5 canon ::cepance cruer.a. w m N amrminersal a 'y=' -- ,Q2 d
. qance tests thansalves, that depended upon the 4ameter a c1-ms.samcmal area d the ca.ductm." It at a . . '
23.
, , .. .c '. ,1 , . * . e , ;ty.lg .
,c.
.' v' .W . ' , ,
. ' ,-1;' EiG:. 9 8 ; 4. . .?s s
,.'a. / ' * ; W+'S.{
.,4, .+>*(- ..-.%
s * ...g
..*. j j ;'.a gg %
q a,
, (f
. ; .<p.q'q-lF , ". 5 . . t' )..c .. . 4.*
; ,. . J 13 J
.v, G* = c ~R . WQ; . ._.'. .
.[p.Y os.Y ; f ,v,k d t 2
s
", p (, ,' d.Z j .h ' .e ' - l , 4.} **Q.'.
.\,.s, ,#*,
%, ,.u. . Q:. *.' . *,. ^h
, i * ' ".iN' Q . iJv;s g lv .J;. @
, , yl,y . ,a .
9' *
.t/. ,.4 C' .Jf,.,
- f};
."i I'.
,1 ' . . .
c,- y> ltn;4,s. 4 , i. .j , O gr : n .-- y ,. . . m., q r .,~p;.r.,-.f.. a*,.' .s
,p.c7,ry . # .'?;;;,v 9; c e .wg o'; my tq;@>- . < c; r 7m Op..qSg
.. p:.p e, e,7 e wg g<.;' .g
- - ,,,, m. .S'...* OWg ..
..l gly.. I ",r-
. ,..,g.pj,'-
. .l*:
, ,, n, .,q..
f @! ' y _
', j:i _
-U~ '. 5 ..
t il'. , M.'
.-r,, .',
. - .. , m. .
- f.l. . l.
N,.' , .,%,..
, ,Q. e *f.;ns
'l : *
-jg *-
(
,4 w" , . s ;. .. , s
. . , . $ .-.j ( .' 4 #
s*. . . J
.'- , u. m. :e w .s; .m - e a v.a.a. e. . . . ~ ..
t T; y , \ ,' )n;f; e>:QWj;; y l..wr b n se,'
/r .r & '.. T , , '&, .
b ~'h,' u{&, -l&,. ;,&. .4 .'.).k.9).n.4.v'
~ n.' is,' 5'j!q . .*e'y . - -. ' w .:p'. . ] +[\: ' ,.".n. >r v .w . . .{.~
. e .
... . N-
/
') b b 2 .- 2 'M'
- I dbMd
s whyg
- w. 4:u p;gg n % %,. l$.sQ j2m&%' 750gn p
$3 &;%q/f:.p:
$m snQ.nws ..:g,gfg.m.a.q.gyQQe . v . p .,.,s p g wq.qwg.Qsg.p;h g.g m m c a m . %q,;,
i yy M w' g M d M , a h .Nemmeme ~ w-c.%...w4,q.f.w,.yyn.g,.%@d.p
+ . s'h. , Am. , ;%. y ns p
3 m, %. . m. % p
~$ t=.%y .g.9.
.#;s. p.. a ..m;; w.n.1 s am<p, n,m: Q;y,x, r. amy:w a.n., nyrg. .v, sw 57 2. We agree with the Coalition and the staff that there is evidence in the DhMY@h;@'bdNh('d[gf9d'{ 7 tM% record that casts considerable doubt on the validity of a principal underpinning
^VjBh @.O M ! of the Licensing Board's thesis - namely, that the performance of the RGS8
, 3,@; ct @... ,k.9 .M, pA.i'.S cable could be predicted on the basis of the satisfactory test results obtamed d M., $ eM d b.9 2 with M regard f-@:eto the . wh..- RG59 cable. As seen, that thesis rests in large measure on AN$tkiM$M',Nkh@d the premise that, at least in the case of ITT coaxial cable, there is a fixed
?+:.d %...,W. .g%. ~ p. . MM..g.h,I relationship between the thickness of the cable insulation and the specified Z M, M M / kd'Uf.Q $w. W.% e.
F-$ ?l W . %. x' $ j. g d l operating insulation resistance. But that premise is torpedoed by the data in the EQF pertaining to RG11 coaxial cable.
&b DR nat cable (which, according to the Ucensing Board, possesses the same MW4%nM.3.P'Qg$g.W
- 7. n ,k.jihM.gMFM.
WA!q insulation matenal @ Q@M*. and construction details as the RG59 Dcable')Nhas ankinsulation thickness of 0.122 Inch." Because that is twice the thickness of the RG59 cable M.g insulation, under the Licensing Board's hypothesis one would have to assume T(fg.f!O M.M M W-QW,kVk[M, b that the specified operating insulation resistance for the RG11 cable would TFM8m ~ y Yf7e .R.a.~:W.@< NM/$qg Pn ,.W. o %..p&y appreciably exceed the 10,000 megohm value assigned to the RG59 cable. He
.. / Q ORWW@$'&fSGWp estuality is, however, that the same value is specified for both cables." In short, h b the presumed relationship between insnhtion thickness and operating insulation lWMMfigR& %@nh@[hydff W. 5 jg h[ resistance simply has not been established."
hrmng to the second prong of the Licensing Board's analysis in its October h@%@@hY D. hlYd.ih,WD.$[e 5 kf b/ %WIyl?hkg;gg Wh 16 memorandum, no party appears to dispute that a high-potential test of the Nh
;y..ge WMNa.s;@e.0.i,g,w S
RG58 cable would likely have produced results similar to the acceptable results p[N?$ obtained in the testing of the RG59 cable. But, standing alone, that fact does
. :' .. .m.4..%_ fe . P.m h .w.W.g
- f. ffe'
.wu . ,: .C'^.h ~?!
. c not serve to justify the Board's ultimate conclusion that the RG58 cable can
'p"' O'M/MD.S.," .gy;j@r ( s %@p-: be considered environmentally qualified on the strength of the tests performed , J , &_' 4.g; on the RG59 cable. In order to reach that conclusion, one would first have to l
- O y,yc.h TM$N. W l $ 4
..$$'. .l.j7[1/4 determine that, of the tests utilized in probing the environmental qualification g
, MQMQ of electrical equipment, only the high-potetial test has relevr.nce in the case of
- e e., s,A.w.w;%w.J :. '..i, D~i L. awn the RG58 cable.
WA ..T p he applicants assert that the function of the RG58 cable is not the mitigation dO%p.p'.w:!,4 . .J.J - % e y . -5 IR. .s.%. .w. ay.$.y 4., 3*3 F p$.glWd nFif of the consequences of an accident. Rather, they insist, the EQF establishes that, g should an accident occur, that cable need maintain its integrity only to the extent W M @4 @.)!? g @. h@hU4OS,$Mj$;%1Yf$ydEN
$ -hDQL M M components." Q N $..'h necessary to avoid compromising the fulfillment of the safety function of other It followr, we are told, that the high. potential test is all that need
? d u%~
- -. . & y c' %nb . QM, .t: <
?.-( ; -;z. .y z n.. . .r? F,c .;. .
- 4+.u jg q)r% '.. ,see LBP 8710,2s NRC at 21011.
7;.ME.N - '-NWT, ,M,': e c--
, . . tmh "seeca*ian Exhibit 4, Marance 1, Appendia A.
V*.-7,'Mlcy * ,; ', . ' p#@, -y.%,7. t . -Q;$[py 1 yi u M at Merence I, sections 161.1.b.161.2B.b. and 2.6.1.T 1= l u rw their part, the splicams cated that openurg insuladen re.astance vahme should not be considend as .w*44 ~ ' ,7 - ' ..
' ' , . , .' 9:. if q=mco cmarts fcr accident conditams. If this is so, it wadd appear that in no evers could the niane. ship y.
.l 4, *
,, 7 "*. ' + 7.'. . Qy between the 10.000 and 1000 megohrn values assigned to the RG59 and RG58 cables. respectively be used to
' S 'g C ;'. 5. . ,.n .y>
'? * 'y l;.p.M, .g.,-(%dllQ donorutsste ervuorunental quahncation.
. i.c . a ,. - u!n this regani, the appbcams cue canina Exhibis 4, Mennce 1. Appendia A at A1; Reference 7 at 2;
,A 4
. ./:: 1 . .
9 . 9. ) .h .s.
<- werece s, 2'4:
- Q~l *'.h Cgl;
*ll'k
.j, yA*2 -: 9 ,, .
- r L'.*h5f , Q ;
&n, Y::$ z l0
. r,'lf.._
D m'--(.'
- .ykn
- ~y:% ~'.3 y, , , . . ' , mp4 !
1 yym t 7 Fy ,. t g - 4 g\>'M
-f - 4, ..6<p,C, *etx_' ' H ';n...
A > ; .p..,
"f. t.,p.7;..,..,..-/,,,&s. . :: '+ ; f ty.i in i d-r, "<
.s . - ..*. '.ip
.t ..4.
V t > '.p;9 -n py.4.p:ll? e o . y q ."4
- .*d v.: c w,-;v '.)., .'
l
. m' :S-\G[" %h. V',e '?
^ f. , . , ' . ,W . :)&:..::l'N}l*. - ..l?:
I f h.d.lY..
' .. g,'
8 %4 g. g .. *
.5 m, g h"1 s,y f.a,8
.) *,
- .@.'p. '. 9'b' Q,, sC .w. '. <Y r't. .
1
-G l 'j ' '.J .* *y .: 4's y p, -- - ; %
g; .*.[.~ s .c.. , wp .q . . f [ . .VG*4- Q,' 1,, -r---- . ;, p -*^ rr+l y ,7p 7 - r 4-
* - f - .y~~ e ' ,'* -* y *. rre.;*;<y , .7
. ? ,, S u .; %i- . nA. . 7'. <., .> . .* . z. ; ,#c>sb
. . . e;;Aa.s % Ua
.. e*,,e. .
,,y,,.
. w@
A.u.f. y ' k'. .. eM +.f.,m.; 4 4 p (*m..f. A, . t . + *'. a 1
; ',t #
,j.;}e.-e.% (. , p .
" .,;lM:/ %.
v.'*1l;lf(Ma j .f,;.l'.[??lt iQ&'&y &.Qn s T>r#ll:% /Q % ri ,.,V l, oh '. f.V 'N , <* Q ;
,"3. ';R'rlx-.'.m-
#n ;.W,.,.; :; <,, 4.Ijf . ? y',,O - *s.d/ ;5.n :- f. , n
% . ,. 4 D' t
.- R. 2 . -4 w a4 g , < f.L.g 4,f + W% *y &j
','a . 3 3 .:*,. .71
. 'l si
- _
l -
b n WNhiwl6d*2N%MINDIW h{d.diNbhb.5$ HEN $h
- $De p M&wqq
- ,h.h. M This well may be so. Insofar as we can escertain, however, such a line of kbIh?dhh[4Fi
.M. .%* ?.h. . li 7 % U $ Mg.,if +j argununt was never presented to the Licensing Board. Moreover, there is nothing f M4% egh in eitl5cr its pantal initial decision or its October 16 memorandum to suggest
.N 4 M l M .'q' M e
,y @ that the Board considered and placed reliance upon the proposition that the N$$ 7,d'.cf M.Y;2M eQk&6 % % gd RG58 cable has a very limited post accident function, which, in turn, drastically
%!M!Q%Q:#M $ W7,W reduces the scope of the environmental qualification requirements it must satisfy.
-%E;$$2iM .J.E.skr"Mjii t % YkkM$d Q' M .% M QIQp
.M$'.f
.F. f i' @ h :@F M@p[
As a g:ncral matter, claims that have an asserted evidentiary foundation should be first examined by the trial tribunal. In the circumstances, then, we 5elieve it appropriate to leave it to the Licensing Board to pass initial judgment h 5 M $ G S'/%..T*cs tpon the applicants' new claim. If the Board finds the claim meritorious, it
$. .:TW Ms R S.W r. . . m.
g.N hit.$; si'ould issue another memorandum setting fonh its reasons. On the other hand, ./.Tr@< -q 9'C E.3, w s . , i;W,f M. . s@ff3.Q.~/4WMS,W: yMq
, yY.ZT!M'Q.;MM.i..
u. Q'2 p ifihe claim is rejected, our disapproval of the analysis of the operating insulation
- b. .q: res. stance matur contained in the October 16 memorandum will necessitate a
,w@.W.i JL m '.> . Wfj$y reopening of the record to pursue further the question whether the RG59 cable l "SDM'e'd.M.p MMM J,;'J.W,4
",M%. :gf.f, W.i Tg A. W.W:P ep @ S $p- test results can serve as the foundation for the environmental qualification of the RG55 cable. l w ... ., c. ., : . . . .
- . . m ; w
- m:.: ; s . q
. ,f..m .c gc.g.y :
I
..&;~ g}.' i . P J?9c: :'.WNy '. . W?.y4/ L.Q@9
.JY4ys The issue concerning the environmental qualification of RG58 cable is w '
g; @ a..fs ..M.; p. m ;;p.l.p.
#,. h,glggw@E. remanded to the Licensing Board for additional proceedings consistent with
. ~
X ;.4;..N N S E %, M . . a?. Z T ,yypi this opinion."
., M3M.YepfdM'? It is so ORDERED.
.%: GM+c2.r-wy:w Ww1N edu9 y m%.M i
.t.48.
mr-i FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
'h...m%.
- ~.
wl,&Q:
.,.-,(M.%.el nc m.:._-
+.w
%/WR.M 5 W . :; .w. d$ey.g. :'5.
0.' d}<;;W. .
. .$.p. A.53Q':
- u. w c ;y a q.,...gU..t?M s
C. Jean Shoemaker
- 4. : %. .. d'wl.s ' Secretary to the
".A n . ,
.g. .
((#Q; . s .. .w:n . Appeal Board g,* , '* p'f;.,r ; .;
- ' ; .Q.,;}, , ! . , .;. a .;.
..,~..e....,
- c. -!
m .. ,. . . 4
.a;c s . . .
. . . . * ...a~ .- -ts... ' . .
*i'; ...<.N<s.Y,?g' ; N. ; l,+ . ' ..
, . h.Y. . . . 6 %. .;':' '. _ Qa..t. .
- a. .
\
1 i Q. ' . N 3.2s,'\* s1 %.7:s . ,m\;" Y.
? s , :' . 1d . ,. . .ys [ D ? J,* Q N.W
., s . . .
. -? _
e l ct (( y;.is ^ ar M
.. E, e .m.
s
-A : : 9. 't,1,ps ; r q.,:' rg,-v .;;.f.., t ygd., v:? 4;4
.,cy-y r ,e , r.J+r.6,19
. < ~ ; .
gg@ - irq <
.9, n 1 i
s :.::.,e.v.a m.s .w.9q ' : & ;.... . ,. w l
,n4.9.r'.?f.9 k;,H.h..%m:.>
3 ,4 c d. .c gs;9.,,,y*' qq g ,f, ;9'; .1.Si.y.A' r h. g.&. E,., d' ;y,,j ' .'* . - , yd.q:( shodd it prm oscessary, the Ucenang Board is to decide whether low-power gerstam of the seabrook , (:-]b , J.7[* .y, ,W;
*.[.W,;2 .'f,Qq
. 70.;T i,'.,Q[G.9@5p;c;>7,F.4
, > fac0iry emst awan the ecmpletaan of this remard.
.,4 s
( In ins contress a the tiesing Bard's october 16 rrurnanndurn, the Coahtica snarrpied to raise the
,,. 'i
;.-cey y p'p';?.a.c.,; ,*q 0- questan wbe her the tests appbed to L5s RG59 cable wtre suffmars even to qua:ify that caw. See New Er sland
% - - 4s,
.. .(p ,, .,[Vi j
' ,, ra t'~h on Nuclear Polhaicri's suppemertal Memorandan Regarthe g Emummernal Qualiacatim d RG58
.:.,* ' ;.' ' ' ' 'cf . . '
t'~ml Cable Osover*r 4.19s7) at & That questam was not presarsed on the Coahon's appeal fran the
; . . . c. . .
fl~ ?.;;i. 4 {.9 pernal initial decisim and we therefore do ncs ccristder it
..> a.
*;!. J
' . s' 1 '
, . , ,: *l,* , a. ,*N'r.'.T,'$.9'b , f.
- r. .f. .J, I ,* . . ., '
r,. e
. .D ?
^
0 4, i' 4
,) W.}.;,.
. Q-._, pQ *IU
's; o i O $
+p-
* . f, y,;c '. .
v
.m' Ly.L*: : : y ~ p.,;y.,ylj .) p , 4
? *+. A ,1 -: . '
'o
?> . , ' .A J*.t.* . \. . *
< . .; .4 t ~, 9. - .- p. qp.;, ]9, :v7 .a y ,.
- V.Q l,f ;..y , . y;, ; ;,rg..
, J, Q.YQy Q,::%,l.oQ,.V Q, Q. ?,z;y[:. c m, , e. s. ?,f+, , :.c- r):.s A. .
- s.. . +s . ge. ;;*4
=
- QPn
~
- ij.
o '- ;s, , Y, " . ; *'Js; ' J,,R ' ,&. + . '* , ;~,5,@l 2 ;g.li - g2
- .p , : 7, . ~ 3. :;.ts.c-M; 6.; ;.:. ** m"..3,,e
;. > ", ,f, . : ., y : q',* m, s -e. g.9 y-ary n. rr~e. ~ m nam apa- m..y. ~ .. , v. . ws . , .,,,s v. , ,_,, .
- l. .. ' .] : ,e . .i. . ' , . ,,* -l ..jsf, ..$*, ,, s . . . . * .a l, 'u
.' ' m. , - Nc j<.i ., QC'.)*'".,A;, y J...? *" h.
o . 4'.,f1 .>
'. i $','*al, 1
. nw%J
& :l.'.?: :.. p ' ?+, , . ( ? . .' %;
. . \) .l Qf.Q '2go O.*.{ \ ;+;g&l5($%h. u.' ?&n..j '.4 :~f 9 !.Nn'
,,. ? ;Y* $ I.A .n $ *!'. n
f h $f h. . &s g w, tkf f.. ,$.f{ ' 1,$'l?.f"'h,5,h
.y.w,n ~.s :. g i,p.,.m. ,,, a.m.;. e~ n,. x. , cr. a...x.
.w . .
'm.. . :. ; . . . , ,. e .v,. m.. . . , .c,. s g; .pp -.u. n <x. qsn. Jg
& ~,a .w.p . . ..
- , :- .sp ..m.a
, w.
[ .~ . f' .
fi) $ i2 M Q:W $2 h h' ! wpMh f WsGMEn@pMOS.W.WO.Mf4)G@sMOMs%%2@k~~sE m%my%e.n . MWSMMWS.N emn.1 g.w a +* #" @ ~M ~ 1. w. m m ac W - y - . yA og ,; 1
.c
- w. ; 4. w..
,/g, .,s. 4.m. -:s-y.c 27p.v '+..g.eb4%'d ,q !
t 1 v.-".JA@,W . ,cwg 4 . c.. ?. w *N Q,, *'.:.,j< Ir;v.e.J l L,. :3 )* d. ,*3..% s
.,.s
'*./- [., . a.%.e4 W..d .
3
.t
..e ..,,ve 4 ,. g s , .*.t y5
. , 9, 4,.
# 9.V.
),i - 7,s.
- g g , ,*, 'g 3
,3'4 e
- . ul - ps ?,
. a 6' r .. .. .a >,; c,4p.,
op \ '. -'
~ y qs $r. ll<?.,-y ?Y.';p f.~,
N n. ,;, e : .K W.$N. y. . &-}i- x e.s %.'. n ' W..Y .'.r: eIC %p:-.- m , y,.,e.v.. g. ,w, ,;..'f.g*w n.e.
.~... . . . e ... W%s.. 4.,
I ;.y .e$". g w ,.r. ::.. ..w~ ~./ . *.,'.V~_ .
.n .,>'.-...ma .s: 7 g *,,e .
.. ,t.> cs L-y - 4 , . > @,. '. : ,%2, g.,,w, .,1 r..y~m.xt,;d5,. - n. f -
t , b, j.,.,y. f 4, k,.s r \ p Y. . , *..7
.q,# . w . ,. , . . .
. * . :. iIt "
.4 ;3..,.*.,3,e
. .p '
*.. $z :./- .g
,, . - . ,c ei
,-,;s7f.*; m ,af..S" - -'m .
g'J q. y ! \
..e - .
$,f.YW,hh.
. . s .
0.5, { Q . ':
.k. g*$c.' . . . ..Nx ;.f . . .y,< ;. .gm ,L.,*(LR.
..; m v ,pw e 3... . .T. '.,$,n: 3.y7.:>-2M, MM M,m, M. , lC Sa",ety
- a. .
; e,. ,
- v -' . ' 3. f j4* ' -
Atom
- ':/ M :. B ::i,.4?.w,, .M.C'
- m : m~:&.w. .n.m and L.ICens\ng 1 Boarcs Issuances M,M. bb, . MMM,y.,f;t..S c. o .: : x my.: . Mi ~.M W.y. . . :
\... l' i. , o%p',M d.i %_y'An.yp.0Q%; 3 .? . .- &, <
m h. ...,cn, .. n , e. . g- M.m.
. ,3.
..-.. ..9,3... ,:.3 .
. - Q.
. ,7 %. n . t..
., MC. .:n;.'r . , , .fj..'/gf:/.#c'mh5)'i2
. .: x r .a ., m ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL W" #' ~
~, u
.w:,~,. m,
%.v ..w . .n s m, . , .w. : * ~
y' y. W; > 3:..W.q. *
- B. Paul Cotter,
- Chairman
' ~' - Q:C_Q;.'i?'.l Q$;g@
~ _ $. Robert M, Lazo, 'Vice Chairman (Executive}
Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical) T
._ s. . ;g..y.. , ' c.c Y, _ . . ,
' r , .,z'
- w. x,? .:..
e.g n:,w,,, Ae. .gs,,,.
.c. % :... .;, ..
e.spr y.' 5 ,. .. , . , ,s . .
.y , . s ,, '
/. j h, .
,9,.c s ,- -..
- c. . y -
4 m.... W S-
*,.; F. . 1Nw Members
, ....s.
r- ... w s -
.s
. .. .l..s n,..a,7. w?ye m.n.
m c'..,.u.e: .g.,. e. , ~ . ;, U,,.s v . ,:, Herbert n m. -:
. . .. ..- ,.a.~ .,, r$,%.y u, r,t,c. . p ,
~.., .w w.w , ,n,e.w , .
. : ; ' J. Pu A.A Dr. George C. Anderson Grossman* Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke' -
Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom
. ' 4: . = , g. Mk[#;6 J i M,'h; .p:;:.fs:-h,'
Charies Bechhoefer* i ',' .h . b . , p,*', ,,, i.
, . .)Te 'E V 9.7, Peter B. ,$,
Glenn O. Bright' Bloch' Jerry Harbour' Dr. David L. Hetrick Morte.,n 8. Margulies' Gary L. Milhollin
. , ;c_ ,; .' a ,' Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Ernest E.' Hal Marshall E. Miner 3
9'" ' James H. Carpenter
- Hugh K. Clark Dr. Frank F. Hooper Helen F. Hoyt*
Dr. Peter A. Morris' Dr. Oscar H. Paris'
- v-
- 1 ,' . - 1, ' i Dr. Richard F. Cole' Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink W
a w; ' Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Watter H. Jordan tvan W. Smrth*
, .j-
'. , .,9;/ . ' ~ ~ . .' .
, - - Dr. George A. Ferguson James L. Kelley* Dr. Martin J. Steindler
.,.e ,
r; ,. . . , '
, , .. Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline' Dr. Quentin J. Stober r . -
..>; Seymour Wenner
_ > : y ,, <; ; . .' :
.., 9 '
Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb til 3 N'&..s.i,
.C. '",'l b q. # Joen H Frye lil' Gustavo A. Linenberger' Shek$on J. Wolfe' 6
e y ..: 4, .i' .
" 9 ;i M.c;.1 1
,, @W Jsmes P. Gleason Dr. Linda W. IJttle
-~.+.,..,,.s.
.,n;* ss.
u, .;.t .s .: . ... -.
, . v. .:1..w .. ) .
. s :. c::c'n, , i ' , r
..; xs
, Mp. .
. y ',(-: n y 1, M .' Q ;;;cG
,, i. . .n:3.9%. .,w.g.gQg.W t .n.,.m,lu.
6 :.. ,:; .u . .
, ,; r. - - . s v . ,, y. . _ _ :'
. .~ ;
; r. n; e
.+ ,
- . s. . -
. y.; . ,.c. . ;w. ss.y w...
, S. .
~
1
..w v. 3, * , f.
.(
~ m ,*bL .-
y.e
',s .q
, - .w ,
e
- . ...,.3 'a 4- .. , , - . ... ' ' , , . . J . ef' . y W . ', -i
- e. y ,
, J. .
p-2
.s
--. s, ' ,,, - ' '. A; .,
- Permanent panel members
- y. , x. .;,e.h ';, . . " - \. . .n.. &. . ;,
' .Q > _
.g . . .
{ . F '. * { \. * , ;
- 7' r k ,;-= 1
/a ,
r,-
~,*b.,I g".'J b,. ,#
i, , . , _ . . s, ) _.- p
. - (c
,u ..I^ .
- c. v.s. .g
.s
.N.--,m.
y..
..%;9 ,
* '4 '
- -', { \ NVf. , eL . , g..N.
9Q~a
.', j 1.'%'f.."..
_,L t
'
- of ., . [,, . y..r. . _
.pp-
f. .
, b ',j g- ' -Q
. [. _t e. ;y,'. .' ,4;;}
'l. .f., . s,~) .T '. 7'g m - .y4;
*,, .** * " * *y p* ( opi )~.ys ~ . -y 7,a .e.,,,;.. p , ; 7,,, , 3 y , , ,- ., _, ., ,, . , _ .
p s; e, =..p=w.',e...,,
% t,.
s s
,; .a t
t c t.; ,.' . 4 .; - . . ,.. ,. f
%s .*. =*<
. . m .. . g % , -
34 , h.s*- * * ,~
%' 3. 8 "% .
'6I*,
*t' .
-',2' -c .% Jl', ,' -" p Z ', 'I*
% # ^#
'j .} ur,
.e ,j%*4'
-*M **%'
Q ** JN'. '. *f 'a /, ' ,1 J. 9.1 I #" O '
?
i
."FI
y b
.*' k. . f.
.)- .\.j e, s ., .s a' t ',g *,
..I.'.'.%',#/ .
s,. 3 t - ,'g1, 44, . 5 r
. i.;.t.
- 4
-3.,, e- .g , A .,.
..s ( .'
.; .,5 T*
, g, ,
1 3,,,- 5 c . e
. . s,.,. .> .
,, * . .. ' - .,a.,,.. 4 3
A Y
- w~.v. c;. ,; . '
5., *C , s ? .* *
- f. (f.*[ . ~.
"p R. ,lb' . . '. t *
~ .
.~..,..,- ~..M .- - ~. . . . * , ' ,
. ** . . . .. * .U e
- i.'i's , 7 .s*.g,3.
.s'..,. . .
. . . , .. .. . >..t. v
,.is . l f.g - ~' , T , (*
, s .
.. ., , , , , , . it
, ,9* an.b.....
. i.h . '.J.'
s \.,; 1 d ' *. h. ,L s'*- 'l
- nw% f - .ez%,
'V e 'j*? P . *y'.'l.Q.
;.~c.
..Y f s,l V.
- p. V '-
."w~ llf, 1:sV.
- f. V.fj.(',-
<2.',>~. ' 6'.,s W i i i ' i ' C'..;t .- .'. L
.,. .~mi J. ~__:,x*.h
.a. .j~.
y ,*. u. i ,M,. _c, s
; .1.
.' i, . n_ . , %n
. m.\ s s 3 . _u n., ., .
a . ,. .. ,, .....r.. c.# , w .;,+.A , m.:T . r; # f,a.in,n,J. w<<_
. r 3 .s_:. .5 ._ --.. -Y'sD A.-v,,,,.,,
r c
c: ,
s - -
. n:nh'f.hM.hek;;5hO
$ ' acR &,b Q,;yh;c9@hh.1 thy,ydh'68,N.Mh.h'.M
-Q.&~+M 3&M py % N hN'hhE:.h b::.N' mWW,Mi :.G:.h,?; 'aSy.MMk',M@hYh N Y#t.yf%
bbE :&'
$[ h kffIh E 5 E .%;d..!?,~.!W.fe&,s.,.s 4 s.
s s .p.- , . M'T..LW?pM.&.. . ,i% J .*.14-I g
.C. %.\. ~.
,M %j ..Wxw.6. M. p .2 . W.ww>%Nei .,p"f::stM .u :y .y k:, n .a ;Q. w.c%m.~.-v c J:W4,g:e. . W.S,kylWi&?,T .4 L o. ~ .. v nw?m '. M y
- W f f..
'jS'}p.m...A M.. v' Cite as 27 NRC 7 (1988) LBP-88-1 v m.v , ,
W@S.W.
- 3.,
w _. ... Gw.
.. .u..~g.w..,.;W w . w.v.
sa yu
.4 7.9
- .J.;.!e, . x MQ@y$:!'.fY,.w.. 'M . .)v,-..s. g... 6 w.: b i.d ' 'M'QUNITED STATES OF AMERICA f.CT.
** x. .
."M. M.
..H.% ,i .h. . ,;@. .. .,-, ;V y.m.t. ,.g. a t . r 7., .gg.
o - .
*, A, <.
. .g yf;%, ,. + .. _ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q:
- , h 7;'. ;,(@A,. r f @i -r, 4 .M.swC,y
;, - - .f- 3. c.-
I p.
;p e.:d p N.D.D
.)' 4 fMOJ M ,:. 7 g q .A _4
.. s
.<Y. d, .no.
;<r
..y. . .- ... .c. . / .; ,.,;; n . - .. e ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD a.. . .
. ; -.. .. m. .. e .m.11 s... n ; , w3;*-
...t:,.-, . . m
#D:e .;<
u.@3.;
!s .
- :~ - . '%w*m. ;.?' - % w,.R.o ;'U,s .W < y. .. . .N, -
Before Administrative Judges:
".".:. W~.c i .p'.?,.s.
... .M, , M. %..... . vy-j r s:,s< ~. i( &.,?0 %w w
.y t.,.pg.r"zt
. . . .q.. ..w w ,m,, r/F.w:.iaip n... d. James P. Gleason, Chairman g;p., x . .e,~-W g , M p:l, .. A. ,g ?.C,n 9.
. Dr. Jerry R. Kilne
?.c.;.- k., ,. h$y .:. k,..o,b. D' M: yfh.$g. - ['.j Mr. Fraderick J. Shon
. :: x:s q. . .,> . uns, a.w -
n,,.,. . .3c x:,. e.
, ,.9 : .y a: i ,,. q. ., p .
. ,7. . ~ , o e. . . .?1 1 c ,.x. ,'g?) :; ' yf y .Mi s. ..
.. In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322 OL-6 y , ch
;~~ . . < ~ . 4 ; .. yf.. W d..'.?. (ASLSP No. 87 553-04 SP)
L m.. . 9.'^,,.. ,.1 m
* .a;. ; . ' . ,,r 7-
. .. e. ,' %. j ;' . uy' . . .. (Emergency Planning)
. . _ , : . . s . ., ,.
a sr . ..< . .s . e -wt . . r a s, q ..~m. p m.r-
.x. % s: w,.
. py . .mwklg, ';-
LONG ISLAND UGHTING
. O y.. hhb ;(j,, MMi$$$g$Q i COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stat!on, 9x jn .
M,;k3h.;
- 7. :. #.0;M;fhh:/O y v
.m.pyg[Q,.Mf).F
.p.....-
N a.Ty Unit 1) January 7,1988
.x-
, >, '.,e,y:e... . .
a..:r ,, .3.- n In tnis Memorandum and Order, the Licensing Board rules that Applicant's
*' e '2/ "Motion for Authorization to increase Power to 25%"is properly filed and may
' s: M - .,... ,
4 s, be considered by the Board without any exemption from the Commission's
.+ 'Q ; * - o '.f ^
- / j ' , regulations; but that due process may require a hearing on any unresolved contentions found to be relevant to the motion.
.f'
- a- . ..
**y ,>*,
s..
, .o .m.,m . .a. . , -
n., . .._.
;c ,,... . E. ,:~6-< ,. ,. ].mCr. .., s. e.
OPERATING LICENSES: AUTilORIZATION FOR LOW POWER
, g4, ..cy:g..g g,:.g;.Df ,7 s. .,'w. ,
- g. .. .
OPERATION; EMERGENCY PLANNING
- .3 .m, q .r es G p ' Y;1 dc;7 Where only emergency planning contentions remain to be adjudicated, if an
([#y/'4.p.,pT{;fdy,Q.@4. .%;},./wMj , apolicant submits a request under 10 C.F.R. 9 50.57(c) for operation in excess [ .TM ,Z E!.g f <W F.M of 5% power, and asserts that the unresolved contentions em be resolved for 7,@i$j~'f,i. 3, .3{#[J[.$'t the requested power level by virtue of the "not significant for the plant in 7 ;,y 3. g ; E-: , question" provision of 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(c)(1), the request must be given serious N. M. :
. c..
., consideration by the Licensin2 Board.
.l- . . '
'm
,.' , ,;.3 . . .;. ,' - .
-/4'-
, - - g au
, s
. ,,, v.
4.
- ..e s.
~;-,U. Jl ' . . ,,J e
- , g .Pr - i-:- ,. 4, . , .
T n ~: e {, t ,_b r , f.a. M
^
t , z '. r . - u , . . .r
%[- ,$
.,,f . , R". ;,
.N
? ,'[-. ~',^ ..',m, ,1 w - w *. ?' j:^ ', e[f*
*wa
,: .~ .,'
,"r,+.. .. ' ' . w'- .'):j ,. ,.
y'. .s,, ./ .
. r. . ~ . .
; i, '[f
~
; I . . . M. 4i e r, ,8 . *
> ~~ ; ;g. .. m>;, . .c, 'v., . ' . :.7, 7 *.y , a
.,,,.. y- , .:
3.;, . , .., ;~, ;;c.y. s. +; \: .s~.(,*..,* & .. ~;t :9>el. { y,. .. py.-e..a;m,~
.v/ - ( .x.
*c .* ...
. . ;c.
3 . ;,, . 3 A. . ..,,s- &,- 3; .- 1{ ,. '.'(.. . .. * ..g 4 y. 4 Y h.i,,bj ..,s, : '(.Y. r. ~( h.V.j. . 7,l s.~ N ~ * - ,
-[,h f * *r ;. ;.. . . 'ffk y**......i.,.
i
,c.,sw.',
.s..'..;, ,. . * - , . ..
,.s. s, ,3 ..o . . O,,,,h
.ed .,. ,
. w
..m. = ,.s.,s , c. ,. l ,. . , y.. n
<;. r.
. . \; , Y . , , . .
3, y. \. m,.f .L.: r . y a s. .4..,1. t ..,..,.,.,',.j;,"p,
. y , * . . , ,s .,
,, t
.v..a.. .w :. c. -
; i A q : . . .m..
*: c ,....s. . c" q ,. .j g (,x; <! ~u.,,
t , N y.<, f. k A. -(2 c jg y.4..),,w.
.*:o<- i. . ..O
'yj}&p, ,&;. , o .f,. a...l'Uf5djtG
'S*&,. -% . g'&,, ,k W.l,l *[Qy
'N i r * .,%N%fhp. :
' %:< q.%%a:,R,am:o.,M.&.i@w:;9.g@u,; a. . r% W'4I Msh6% % $'C@ p,.W h M.c
.n.M. MM5
- t :.n.W. .x.. &::& :. SQ%w .' w fS..Gv!'
6-.3. e . w:f;1.
';8%2 p.:?.m& .A.',MW' a WMW 6 -
e.x. e e 5 .'d; ? p. W' WWKf6.y:.'&d.y% W; %,G,,'i, W,.m . . h. Q n.+Y. 9 . z. x, w vW ,Y %.
%;y.;. a ..:?; x. n'b. .- ~f%y,' @y$,m' .T,s ll%u, c.
,1M, w X.5 s a .a py98 . ..:M?s.
.u.
sa.
.s . m, < %. . s.a s w &,t
.~ m *yi, s a as m .
+w. , ,.y-.
.2..r
~ ,2.s.
, 'w, .,.,c
. + .
< ~. ;, .,a
- o .. <wr. .g.: na . . . . . .w.
. u,
. ,. Q.
ww,,u.Aw%,;c.s, #.
,w.
>.u w a * . + ,u . .. . --..:n. y :.pn w ,- .- .
y ha.a ..e.h...s,%n .. v . n , ?e. .s. sw. .n..s.e$.13;,w.8w,...4
.s
.m i ,,c u..:
, . v,.
w y $ $m + c...(.,.,.c r w ..U. S.. ~;Y.. m.u w n , ,.' r u.
.,.u N r
ESY.. c '
~ UA Y'E Y',. *
. ww. gi ,W* a
.p
.q .N.
.. . , . m .sg m.. .aw-m.. pw. . .v.h.o .n ~w.m,. 4p.. p ~%, ,- )
,s.v.
.t
' W l p .,:(.m.,
. g '.
gc dw m m. tn gp N 3x, bw.&.v >
.1:f cM, rqQ. ;$g7%gyy:@. t. W:O ds
@0f '"'%. OPERATING LICENSES: AUTilORIZATION FOR LOW. POWER
%v2-9MG
-.s
- .7%.%- ..
;agaw$.M.s.Ce'6;e:'i?q. w
. ms.s p$ ,c M.
e OPERATION; gWEMERGENCY g.hc.D. PLANNING AN
',}gj d. $ i @. ;.$a L $ g 6 %p, 1he plain wording of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57(c) requires the Board to consider NN
, ; '. ',0.gSC:; y.tzQOhg N kb. h,!U g g g whether pending contentions are relevant to the Applicant's request for autho-ruanon to increase power; to allow any party with contentions an opportunity
.'M P.0;f M M 3% %, -
, .i, (~f,h. ,'y[>/(c,'
....r.....
v, .
..cM;.%.n..w.,hm.y; a .
hl m. U to show that those contentions are so relevant; and to make findings on the application of the criteria in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.57(a) to the matters in controversy. 7 .gr. ' s . 4c. p.p w. M. h .
.F m ;;.4 wy ,. ,. w:
x.4J&'. . c::,W. e p;.c';T 'n,y@:a,/.J: 8';,-r.W /fM OPERATING LICENSES: AUTIIORIZATION FOR LOW. POWER E.M.W@gM) . +W
. ~ .w .
m %. e.%q@ OPERATION; EMERGENCY PLANNING 6 : 2w /5 ,M.m.new . 5g@ Yd W h.am.s. M.. . Where neither common defense and security, nor the plant's conformity with I Q Q4. ' Wff V; ~ pp.p.C the application is in issue, a positive findir;g under subsection (a)(3) of 10 1
" ,.e M g yM.: . l'" ,
C.F.R. 5 50.57 would be tantamount to a positive finding for all subsections of J@y .. n".-(: . W ,, $. V -.
.c. that section, and the Board must proceed on the assumption that a restricted ,
7,b ^ .d..v5
\
' i ..
power license can issue only if its issuance, the operation of the facility, and the l
' h. M @" M . M l' k ;h*-i h { ~ ', activities authorized will all give reasonable assurance of protection of public l c,,3)@ ..
My.n.v.a MOM i .m~ ; n.ww..., .'M;'Mik. . health and safety and compliance with the regulations. I
..s .e.- y, . ..o, +. . . . ~ (sfs. . s, 4c 4 M: m /T<- s ..a, .
wn 9.u,.ty i .q.8.,.,g.m.
,m .
.p... i.:eg.s.w- g>p'/q/ . mtf
. e< ;.s.. .a%.
- . m., o 'e. e.s,
;;v:;: '
1
..~
"' M: g sls . . . .
9 .g. f?. .. i-W;. v
; t
, ..s p .c, e &, y..v.;.OPERATING LICENSES: AUTilORIZATION FOR LOW. POWER OPERATION; EMERGENCY PLANNING l
. . ~. c .c m w. M W D -a M \
'M;,M, ..s .Syav.7,xs. gl .'.?.px .OAu , ., . .u Although the Commission has not spoken directly on this matter and there
)
J. D. f M.. ~
- 6. .Q. l, Ll-M.,,M T s, appears to be no precedential case law controlling, the Commission's emergency u .y . . . g c. -L,f., -l
.s .
planning regulations are promulgtted as a matter of policy, and relief from their
- o r
- 2. .') . .?.e M. ,1 requirements cannot generally be obtained based on probabilistic risk assess-y,. f . ;'y, 3,.,4.Mlgf.g "cy . Q..??. * ; ,.g . 7 . ments that show low risk to public health and safety from reactor operations at 7 v.-'. 7.,y, restricted power levels.
.. t ,M ..43;.-O.w%.y ,9S-d.
.v
.o W
. ' .p. .,. .
, ~;.
y....;N w . n + c .9. ,w,. m.5.R y;.s,. .,%.: n;: . ,, .N . ,v . . OPERATING LICENSES: AUTilORIZATION FOR LOW. POWER
@p.,k.p.'.,<.?., .'{'W3Nl @w e.QK.a' mf;. EMERGENCY PLANNING
^
. r r
a OPERATION;
.,l.z.q W, .T Q C..I d k k- M G a s.f p W
=v N It is well established that relief from the Commission's safety regulations
- i;9 . .s. i,4f .O M 4b 4o y.W W. rm.M,.Bmen.e.p,;
R' M .M yi cannot be founded upon economic considerations. Thus, it would not be fruitful A.E3.Nid Mh$',t.f I to pursue a restricted power license based on the possible economic impxt
.' $ N.g@% p%,,;n [$ M2 Q. Of ower shortages, because even if true beyond question, relief could not be P
9;
,<e.$p..d.s,._sg....,;,,v,7.c.a;;$
, 3. .
(.-" 1.,.
- t. f
. f, 3., p 1.,.e. v ,-..g ,, <
granted for that reason alone.
./*.',
t
. :s<,p '.' '; ~ *. -t
.",'T
,, , _ . ,. - ' ' . e3.. ') r:q ;js
-.i e , . ,. 4 *
. f. _ "I
,' e
-.f-" a s
,'*'" ,, * ,. 4 , -l
,i. n.
g . t..[: .. 'Y g a . y, , . , , f, .
', . , . ..- .,m- 3 i
*O "
.w..-.,& .; . t . e, 'w i.p' .:,[8 3 ,. /. < . s.
5 4r ?J - *
..' , '; s . ' ~ r - .1 ;
- c o' : .
s
, E J *. .g. , .
- l. %-[
.
- s *
,, i. s " d .[g' ^ e' 4*
8
,'.y ; - + . . _ -
i w..
.,v ,
,i . ,
.T.;
v c. " (-*L [-
* , . , .4 y $**"*",",* ****r?Y *****A *T '*
=
l .
- ", ., /. *- '
f,
., ..s .
.s
*. l' > , . ',
~ ,
- s. * . . c. . *.,,
?' . g k.
, ,'? .
,w' s>
,,e.
N, , y .,,. . s. f I ,N'
,e f.,*
'8
;h g-f , 4
.1 '. y [g **#. -
- 9 ' . ,-
"{ '
f *. 1 .
, * [' . . 1 s ' 3 -' . .* s * ,i?.
.a._
,y..
.'y
.-P.-
e.
-t' ,
~n . . u ," ,,,; si , ." *. : si.! ""
. .
- t ,' f.,'..a,..
.sA ey,p,n,y , g T. ;; =" ~ v ,gq,, '*n
. 'e > ,r.s=,
n .
,'#. , -g.e8
" [q '
~ , .,*
jy , EL~u E-ni l s
wan o w' .eww w'- m@.:m d&M 6.g;' 0:f&nl$1Q.N:m.Q h:wG &%%%w.idWw%n');?.mM Y W e;; wn h E wim%' %gemQW.4.%;.m%ni'qf=e y-m N #f! agy%ng%y:p ,8M ph qfR
%*b@@-sm- M .$I M M M j'S MC@.M khh.
I-9,$}h[h$, ' bhh'!
%s.w O6ffl n m.N.nd' b. n'Nti,-
ch b MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (In Re: LILCO'S R'9uest for Authorization to Operate fp v. } w"h u s m, [,t' Sc. MU2.h.n,,W a itn .a b,y,a N.M- Jw ;'.e, "e ; : n..h'Ny@w?h -S . ,9,GT . i.N@j;*M8 @M 'A,f. INTRODUCTION
.s.,c. .n. .. . . .m.. ma... p n.n,_.-
w.,+..- M,%.iN W . $. . .wdy$a . dM;
, ~ .E.+m u y .; Before us is the Applicant's "Motion for Authorization to Increase Power
," Q,Z.Mn to 25%" of July 14,1987 (Motion), together with an ensuing agglomerate f!S i 'h,;;I. rf.W.
% We$@%
.s
'3 QE$$..Q ;1 C/ M dig g y rrh.& s n U.,,M.. -N.
- . . . .s .
of answers, replies, responses, and counter responses.8 It was at the outset by no means clear, either from the Motion or from the original Request for mY4$ M @ds.W$. u.,Wu#S,'l/M,dC Authorization, exactly what path of reasoning through the legal maze the
' ?$ ,M$
C' M ig y;g$ M O MlMjifk%:>: Y. Applicant intended us to wend toward the relief it sought Because of this we p.4/j/@ @ issued our Memorandum to the Parties of October 8,1987 (unpublished). We i
';t.JW,y(yM.
. . . .M
.,g d. W. n .:9,'M.%v Pointed out therein that the Applicant had originally characterized its request
..w,
&c. y.1 ., c.wm .%. .w.n .r ;.s. r.: 1 as being under 10 C.F.R. 5 50,47(c)(1), that the Commission had directed that M @K.%g..-W i. zi the request, if refiled with this Board, be filed under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57(c), but
- o. m that, in refiling, Applicant had merely stated that the requen was under the QE'5 Q[y.,NM9,k9$h;.h .
_ $ %'[4.MWGy@}r[J f
,j required section but had, in effect, neither changed the pdus seasoning nor
;M M demonstrated the chain of logic that linked it to the required section of the
.'M .t..M/ D %9dy??.f@W[M.: N Q M . $ @/ M .y regulations.
Y:N'NkdhkM %;1 J:st.; M M M In LILCO's Brief and LILCO's Reply the Applicant has largely ameliorated the flaw, establishing a train of reasoning that we can at least follow, although
~ * *dNh[$%N:s@I/.h . >",M ? .Q.,7 : Kp.,
(. , J k Q . 's
!.lfdNh:G@'%@f'<
j{!.GM'o.?Mi N[.@
? we cannot, as explained below, fully support it.
As we understand LILCO's theory of the case, the logic is as follows: The request for 25% power is made under the provision of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.57(c)
- , , <. 7
,r.' +. ,
~
s , q . .' , 'y ,., ". ,., , . >f '., ,- ;. I ness inchade: Illf0's %k= fa Dmignaam ofIJoensms Board and Sacr.g Expedued Schedde to Rule
%;,..- ' . . x U ;. O g.y _ , on LHf0's 25% Power Raquest" d My 14,1987 (Demanaum Moom% "$ dom Camy, State of New York, 1
- 7. A -
N ' q .:7..h, 'cW i ; . . b,',ls'.s ' , . . - ' and Town of Southampe Stateners Concerning tilf0's My 14,1987, Moom to Inaease !bwer to 25%"
]
of My 27,1987 (Gmernmets' Onenne to DemsnadeX "Sdom Comty, State of New York, and Town of
, li e,. ~, y 1 . ,' W
,1 .J > ,9idgl4 f " , g'?M $ Sotsharreon Rapmse in Omonnon to llLCO Mcsaco fa Designsnon d !)cessms Board and $ccar. Expedited i
. ',y :] -i d : t .T,C T',%~' e Schema io Rule on IllCO's 25% Power Request" of My 27,19t7 (Omem to Daignadonk "NRC Staff I 4, $, l.f;' % * 'N .
'( 9 '.1 ;//f . Rapese to 11140 Moum for Authonzadon to increase Power to 25%" d My 29,1987 (Sta5 Respmse to l
'J %'Aj4.*;J30,'*;y. hQ's f. .: McamX "LJ1f0's Bnef on 25% Pour Quesocns" of Ncumber 6.1987 (Illf0's BnefX "Viens of 5do2
'N.>,'. ' a t.N' ..y.D.'q@ @;W.f'09-Q* p'Q.
l
.. W -. . Comty, the State d New Yesk, and the Town d Sesshampton in Respmse to the IJoensms Bcerd's October 6 j
. y 'y;i ; 1987 Mamarindwn Concernmg Ill40's Reques to Operste at 25% Power" d Ncumber 6,1987 (Governmaras'
- : N <.,.g$ Y. .* ?. W,j; - Q. e s
.;fA g.s cy'tM,t).*c.M p# Viewsh "NRC Stad Response to Board Marnminhan Requesung Parnes' Views a Quesuons Rused by 111f0 l f gih. ;MQJ. ~ '.,4 ?
25% Power Authenzadon Mouca,* cf November 6,1987 (suff's Viewsh *tl140's Reply Bnet on 25% Power
/M.Ng.M}f$,'f'rJ Quessme" of November 16,1987 (11140's Raplyk "Reply of 5dcd they, the State of Now Yodt, and the f.Qh <<g'L '.6f.
U >4g'r.c .d' f6(c
.NY s syM,l,et :4 Wl A c?3;,:i$)g$
jDh d,"jj Town of Southaropey to Illf0's Bnet en 25 % Power Quesuens" of November 16,1987 (Governrnets' Replyh and "NRC Stad Reply to Other Party Views en Board Questes Cmcernmg LlLCO Mccca for Authonzatim to i
.m,@5 W
- jyM' @; .M MOW'NfW'il Y$.' D *.; &[ M ' c? [i )' h ;y p f, g Operate at 25% Ponr" of December 15.1987. AD thane 61mes reference a are founded opm LJ1f0's "Request ,
l
% 1,.
,,.- fa Atahenzadon to increase Power to 25% and M<v0= for Expedited Canmsace Consider non" 61ed before the !
.g"g.;L .- A * .
- y. . gC- s s.3f'g.q:*@3 ;. % !y,,' %,7%. ,73 p Cmumsece m April 14,1987 (Request for Authonzanoch Ocurnments'"Rapmse in Oppcmdm to tllCO's l 4' . ,, '
4 ' t Mauens fcr Expedited Cantm=<= Canaderancn* d April 27.1987 (Governmeras' Oncmdce to Corr.mismon' l
' . ' ., 4 0 -f '1 . '..i,, Expedaad CendersnmX Sta5's "NRC Staff Response to 11L40 Monon for Expedaad Consider dm d '
n .g - . .N . 'r. . , - , . .. , ( .f . ' . Request to Authcrize Operidon at 25% of Fun Power" of Apol 29,1987 (Suff Sgpcut d ExpeaumX and
; ' . . - .; J*~.. .y... . ~i"j c' ", ,
the Ccrnmssam's ensums Manmandurn and Order, C1J 87-4,25 NRC 882 (1987). N; ..,. . ,,.
' . -~ . 4.,7.M. .;* o; 9; ,..(. ,n . . -:.
n, a
,'c. a c..' ', i ,. J..
5 v' *.%
*8 I~,
~i f <4 [n h 't ' ' \ -, 't* .,
; i< . a
, % : s .; ,M to - 9 r . -;gf.. AU,..,. ,fM;:~"
.A e <. " ,
.5 :, ; ; e t.,19 , , 47t , 9 c 'f[,,'e 4- ,
7 .'*;l.1 . , '. ,,.., p- < 6 S- :4 ( , . ; g [ r.. p '.$ s,.d 'a , x: *Q ?f ,, i A , .Wi J 'J *7 a i c ~WVA , % . p T . p;>.. - * . ,, . $. . p g V.
. l .:r .G.
,. . . ,'m.,;,,. a.
s j.
; .s .- ,h &
> ' . j ,t
+ pNL-
- e . t f. ; ",{
m, s..'.,
,en m' ~
.- ,,;s
,- Qo .n , .
1 , .* . W .
$ s a . M f N,W g * ,*g Q,p g Mg q lg p 2, O? -
.L'.9 ,,). ' AJ. ;.=t .
.. ; s -
q **4,'y W" g%) .' % .T Q '*j % ;:,
, o-
', ,,- o , n,,,; ., 4%,p 7 . ., cr pc-q p
,. s m . ,
,t.<.i,:*
s q. cn,;# 3;4,p::,,,;
,,:.g.'a, L ,r ' ' . : .y.- , a?y;
";G.
< <K.., s,:y . .-.,-
. ;, , :jt !/.-lq:c'Av;n,,
%;:g .
j , J. ' u.W Q o.;
','.:s:s w..,.
.' .u. ,
\..,
,,l y'j*j,s.plyr,
;W3 ..
2:y y ' Wg9;,m,,',_ 45 X. ,;s? a%.j-w7,, a .,py ,-
;s5XY,9+.~
.....,,f,s -s ,
. =. 3 o t. . A .g ..,,..,m..7
+
[ .' * (* i - 5
,4.u u a .,;c. ,,
v.hb.bh5N . m ww., w}w._hhbkhhlI fh .+Nh., ,k .' [a.m.,...+ ar~kk:NNhhb$fk ' hIh 1 k.c.,
.Wg3NF) .WnN@f RWW
- r...ia,C '*.5' p\ s b';;.-
,. a 42 h $@J@:n?.w%,WL:hy'W4f
's 7 ;*3.m-v- . rh Qlu :w&S y c n.ay?W m<
$Nf i ~r*jn.hW: y[U@&sv'J:>%.@MMd[,M[.3N" wls w WW *. %* '.~ r. Q'~'*__ @ w, M ' c we ..:
MNNh$MhkkN o > y"s 'a .4._x,.
%$u'W:N h;
j; { 'w . L .o . s r -m- d e np 1,- '
,s , se *
, s W-. a p s= ..sa f
e'ikUM vn4;ts..z gla' h... Yfj t;,.m s;:;'l s {'y rg.;;-; e.
* */ .,.c .w Q
{#h'f h[k;4.yr'R:tM x h..;y;M<
- M r, g,e.
w
.6 w; .t " v/.M}s.Qf.g/ ,7$ j; e',3Q * - f
\ ; '
y : I.e .y ,y ,.['p,J-
~w ::.a a ' W,,.,@y;.g.wm, y , . Q '.- , ],
s. y ;" $ T, (, n.o ; ,. ~. : t-<;n w&.JW. ; 2:<'n 1 9 , .- -
. L ,. r v a x ,w , & :v. + .s: . '
N N'!. .
- i. Y $ '
sk . .l
- MM 4a&ggm WN8 {,! ,
, s
- M4.. w, .m. ... W ,% . y
,e
& s.:..,%@,y%y;, s',}@@f ;MW2M5M m, A. . ,iW.Q..$ 6W #::'y.. .f.a b'-f.e w,p
., , e.p,m ,n o p e.t.r..e
.~ .s
. . w.,Qw.K*w, .;Q$'^m ,w' 21:-WL'.W.%a.-f
*y;:h:trqstp&rQ .
a r.. - .nURp.yef th@N.fE'k'h5 M! khhh f t. g g which would allow "operations short of full power operations" upon favorable findings concerning the matters under 10 C.F.R. 650.57(a). LILCO believes M EdM -
.Nf 'ld $g M u?.4
,h; MN".[l
.ydl [', q%@ f-g @gd g 'ldthat only one numbered section of 50.57(a), f(a)(3), involves any dispute, and believes funher that the showing that has been made under i 50.47(c)(1) by its
%. ?:Y, , g[#1
.h ;[V FRCM A :- V, Request for Authorization fully satisfies the two-pronged test of 5 50.57(a)(3) r by demonstrating that the 25% power operation "can be conducted without
- - w. e 3 j" ,~h'fgyl' ..w;;@gr. .g'g.gf.;,3uSq..<-
endangering the health and safety of the public" and "will be conducted in g: ' l
.Why compliance with the regulations." LILCO's Brief at 5,6.
;9l')f'. 1.!,fM:.6 ~y?h;W @l' W
,D.. > 4.%,,:'/s 1
- ylhG,. ;.
i m.,-0/E w YS
- 'Ihe Governments view LILCO's implication that it has demonstrated com-Pliance with 9 50.47(c)(1) as "patently false." Governments' Reply at 4. The
- QE4@m. >,M. ' @-% - Mi$,,g,MC l h.Ql56@Ad'.g' g,.
,7y. . .#.C. . y<{Q;'t.3.I.
, ,D ' @O? % %.
Governments point out that before a license can be issued under $ 50.57(c) there must be an initial decision on the matters identified in 5 50.57(a). Further, the Governments argue that $$ 50.57(a)(2), (3), and (6) must all be satisfied, not l I
, J : p f. s,.' . s . ' J :w - ,'y N
simply $ 50.57(a)(3) alone. They point out further that LILCO has not acknowl-
' i[-jf. f f', l] D g ,, - ,
edged the important provision of $50.57(c) that the panics have the right to j .- i Qi c ,;':' ,' ,; "' ,. . be heard on relevant contentions before the required initial decision is issued.
" P' ? N.:1 ~
' y? -
Governments' Reply at 6. s; @... g2f.p i :c..+y. h, .
,c. Staff cites i50.57(c):
. }?Qf.. .x.Wf R:'b > d.l. '
.,p '. $ . Q.) ,.','y 1
#. MfEhf 'l ' Acdon on (a modon to cperare at low powerl shall be taken by the <esiding o(Scer with e c. .
fi{.".N,%',M'D.)A 3," 9; due regard to the rights of the parties m the proceeding, including the right of any pany m j
.f s r wy@d-3 ' Mh['Q.k flMq.P[3'p% -
j.
/J't < ",%/ ;4 be heard to the extent that his contentions are relevant to the activity to be authorizeii Pnor to taking any action cn such a modon which any party opposes, the presiding officer shall j
(j' d'!M iMK0.' 4 l%@'#Q.,M 'CA . Il , k.] make findings on the maners specified in paragraph (a) of this secdon as to which there is M. h '". . $ a ecmtroversy, in the form of an initial decision with respect to the contested activity sought w.; y. q;;c:J c;.Q. .w..3 ~rf,.,*..:.;,
- n. w .4 j to be atshorized. . .
3 _ , O. e , w ..
, s '. i
;. (
.], . 7 *i ,
- 8' .. . ' : 4 The Staff then notes that "[t]his language indicates that the Board should (1) l consider whether pending contentions in the proceeding are relevant to the 4, ";. ? " {b '
-,',(,] 1 M]'Eg ';
/
,' D i l RMi.-, '
request for authorization of the activity (here 25% power operation); (2) allow any pany with contentions the opportunity to show that those contentions are so
.. t.Ml$ f 1.P .-g ; .y.gs i;g .'g 0.yy " J.6 / rW M%ig% ;
relevant; and (3) make fmdings on the application of the Q 50.57(a) criteria to the activity sought to be licensed with respect to those criteria [ sic l contentions] 3 .' i V ijd$.W, ;g[yy%@A@f@f{63 .d_. n ?,% placed into controversy by an opposing party." Staff's Views at 6. We are thus confronted at the outset with the following questions:
.p y ?' % &;. - . , .
M: p .f.d . ; :T'%j b cQ s f s.
.m 1
- 1. Can the Applicant rely upon 6 50.57(c) to obtain authorization Nr
( ,h ed:!.' ('::. W Q . %' k h j M M33hh.P'W3iMN;1 ' operation at less than full power by using 950.47(c)(1) to meet the
. .T h'A.h. Wg$$h
~
<;a 2.
requirements of f 50.57(a)? Which of the requirements of 5 50.57(a) must be met in this manner? l r,Cr,4 , :c v ., T +g.,p.l .- Tic::p, g{. ;,K'!
- 3. Which, if any, of the contentions currently in litigation are "relevant to the activity to be authorized"?
3,.
- 4. Through which of the three permitting conditions of $50.47(c)(1)
' ~
,7- 7.,
("not significant for the plant in question," "adequate interim com-3 .; . j . ..
.s
, , ;,1, , s
'-y ,
.y.. '
- l 10 e
,3
'e:_+,A
,a
., ; 3 '-'4, -A ,
,n . - ~ '
y
- ; ; i
.. .1
. . ,'.y s?
-g ~ *'g., , , . _ . . . . , , . . . , , . . . _ . _ , . . . .
p
- g
'.. 2 e ,g - . .I I
.'y **. "
, , , g g
's. ~ ,.
a. d
. $'( r, l,., ,# , .
g_
. .v .
'I '
8., #
* ,.g . A A . , a g b
f g i
* ..," ~ ' '
- q . , e r . . . , . , _ _ Li. ~
-.r -
's\ - .
L,ee. n a t w .
.,: w '", ..
w. I
, *, . =' , 4 ', e "" , '.
I
. m ,'. % w-.')k:w &,p ,%.p,
.)
.. m wm &. p.n c. y, w p.
4 <.u.
. w . . .: .~. -
.y :. 9m .
,f w &g:;:p . My n.w g ..m
~M ..p..t.j. A.,M.; n:.m v.n.. c >: " .
n...,. v.La,(.
..s .. :- m. ' ',m. w.. <;,. m,,, g : m.n-n wu W,c,,y:.S"%gw.,%.
. , . rx .
4n:' 4% : n. . .Y?W Oidy -;m k; f 0:;. &; M nlm D. o;,MW, M =2PM, q%,:M@m:a n. x v w g6,y
- m:J",M"?.: &p% * @:.p;f W.; i
"~".%kW* "- %n,O,?y:.'#:
W"-~a y&T u MR,:..gf.Nlm..
=-~ . A h4:'= ;. .
C + %. N):Q>hia.utr.S'.'id;.Q m C . a g
,wc- :- n. .
<.~ .w- q~ m
~m:=k..w;. . '. ..%,: n
- .a .~a ;,-j : p:ww;p;e&.nm %.w
. m, rw.(flxx OQ *n%"} ..
m& Qr-aty'Wn.:.- Ty !C p i
\
.u s a.t
~-ar.yK'!.a.cnpo ,e R* .' % w$.&- :Y.N;.,* e& [<i)
U Y*Jr': e .Q'D
'M 6 w. .I' N pensating actions," or "other compelling reasons") can 5 50.57(c) be l 93@W,%Y%y@ew,M;'[6.
g m@,aQ:, :: . Qp.- . n f w ~ 2.:-w; . Cw- %.$$.M.M seen to function where the movant attempts to rely on the sequence in quesu.on 1,above? 1 l J,&,, m.
.mry.c.w.v W - 4 3. m.r;; Q M v.; . y; ;s; w,%,g'*qp';,.M'qr ;. . ,v :t.. p;;,W,e. .. .+. . '
l t,eM.,Np,w 4 . . - - hdk $$'$$,S $5U 'M.M, . g ANALYSIS OF QUESTION 1 l
.c NO/('etw::,-;hEN;I n7m c;. 4 . c.
/h/Mb, .. .
In examining the way in which 650.47(c)(1) can be used to satisfy the l
.MQNF./?. U'M . it. 4 requirements of 5 50.57(c), it is instructive to consider the history of the Ml.M A.@ ,Q.Qf Q.T RW.M[.j .f?\ WM; -
section under which LILCO is presently operating the plant at 5% power, 0 50.47(d). That section is of comparatively recent origin (47 Fed. Reg. 30,232 i l 9, W N ; [ M M j . Q .- M /.5 (July 13,1982)) and postdates both $ 50.57(c) and $ 50.47(c)(1). Two cases,
'E M. ,.
MW' $2;QMQ[N9;l.$$'(' %hk Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP 81-21,14 NRC 107 (1981), and Southern Cahfornia Edison l T'}4y
': ; 5 ; G..
E*S,y ; -w~.- :r ; .Q M ,,,< Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-3,15 l j,4. . . . .: . y. n. j$
.r , 4 ;. .. :-
NRC 61 (1982), arose before the Commission adopted 5 50.47(d), and in each l J f...'? l
. , the applicant sought permission to operate at low power for testing purposes
, *
- J. .
f (
,,,l-;&!
W{ while still unable to fully comply with the Commission's emergency planning requirements. Diablo Canyon,14 NRC at 120 et seq.; San Onofre,15 NRC at l
., f, '- * ,
191 et seg.
'{: g.'Q,i'[a 'g. h@,%
,' . ~ . .c' In each case the. applicant argv'd, as LILCO does here, that operation at a restricted power level (there 5%, here 25%) so reduced such factors c , 0 :,. F W M .N ;W;-Qifg
~
"' ' W .$ g as fission product inventory, residual heat, urgency to respond to off-normal
%y-y,TQ' ~ 1 ..
- fsij,'$@y conditions, and the possible consequences of an accident that the deficiencies 1
,.v: '.- g .: 7, ;. . ' qpfp..M i; ,
--r j;.' of the emergency plans were not significant for the plant in question.14 NRC l i t.1 > ^ ' p.c.) at 123-39; 15 NRC at 191-97. After hearing argument the boards in those cases l ,
' ' ^
d found that, for the proposed operations, the deficiencies in the plans were indeed
~
1 not significant 14 NRC at 139; 15 NRC at 197.
/
'1 Both of these decisions were undisturbed on review. Indeed, when the
,N ' . , n~-. , ,-N - - Commission issued the rule change that created i 50.47(d), permitting operation
'{
, .,. . a & '- ., ; p ': up to 5% without full compliance with the emergency planning regtdations, it
,-K -
~ '
.- noted these decisions favorably, saying:
sc; : l
.w,,
- v. ., .. :.
~:a .
i g < g-u ;. g q ,- e ' ne level of rid assodated with lowper operadon has been esdmated by the staff in l gc.q)f
' i .1N f'jl 5.) [ . , # } # . b,[.7 l ' several recers operadng ticense cases: Diablo Canyon . . San Onofre . . and 12Salle l Q' /N ?. O m f r'i.1 .'{
. . . In each case the Safety Evaluadon Report concluded that low-power risk is several '
(,.',.I *, . ' i,D hM ,:'Q' : O. . - y . ; ld, j') orders of magrdtude less than full-power risk. Rese Sodings supprt the general conclusion M .f,k'Qpff '.' . t %n r.@.9 in the text that a number of factors asnodated with low-power operaucn imply greatly re&ced rid camparcidl with full power. '? @ N"i/Y/.1?,'t.i
- i. ^?.
'h.@;@ N-i Xl;$**.%g [ N$(D. l
$;Y {G {>. E [{t f . - . ; 47 Fed. Reg. 30,232,30,233 n.l.
._ .q r _ ,
-a' J L_ ' ' ;i We see a compelling analogy between the situation obtaining before the rule m .'., y. change with respect to alllow power operation and that obtaining at present with l
. ,. 2
- %, 9 =
4, ;
. , //
0 m,- -, g,, .
-e *# g %e 37.-
11 y
?
. . ..y'X. .- s, . ,=
g ^'%= ,
,'k
=, m .; , , m
%s, f as. #
,\
,, .r
}
.*.f g5 g
,1
,..', ws*
'b .
.,4
, g. ,,. - g , = ,3(.< , r y . t . ;
.*[.' *f ,.-g M*.', .me . ej. +9=- -
. .w> eg
'- J.f ' ",. # , g ag 4_ - . _ . . . #p,,# _y.,.,g ,%, , , , ,_
i
. ,,s,. p . .5 .' ,,
, 4 ,g , . ,a q p , -
g '4 j - s ,.
.e
- e -
(
;~. - "
,* , ,=
a
. ;, .m. .,-
- a. .
s
. .s -
4,,w '
*f'. s 9' , , f m
a ?.f b;. c'y
.. g . ., y' r ", 7. ' ' ;* 'q; A
- 3.;n
'. ' r , g
,,1 a' ,7
, 3 n" ', % .q j, ;y J ) . c ,w/.7./-,*.f C.y[,p,.f,,'j'dm..,
j g;. ,y'4.'q
',, -wgc,m j, , j,' V:%',4.1 i
- j,fips fy% '.- .
n
'C
,j7 {,. t; , oe,g. . , ?
1l ,' f 3> M, r6,2
. ;.;: u. ' n: -
s
;p yx.
<'.m . a vc : :.
. .~
.9..af" O h,.'f".%j'. %Yh[f $m..e9 hg 9y%
~
. ;- . n ; , ,. :./. . -n. . y- w.
, . y. 2
.;3y' .d a , n '), .., :ps:p;. '@ d ' b,'. $[ 0.I S;,Y'h U'. f:. -
( [ f [-[.b'r /[
b,/.;a. 'p m . a . , .. e - n 8, . m,.q. k ,
~ ,, .u.mm- ;,j . . .~, , . < c. %y . . . e./ * #c ,. . .% . , x
, i , ., .
hh
^
wn ! 9W. p.:;g. i
~aoW m., . M p .N..q ps cc,i -
v w.p.m,> g *4,s .p,.,y .. m:.v- E ;p : m . =m; <. . a: < .< ^v O :; n%.. ) ; na%. . ,.. .
,.- m. w A,N.@y. ..u v., .. .
, h-ic,e Q.. .. . .
t.: q% fl&.#.O ,.s.NA.S )...w. 43k. w.~,,& Y &m .m.;.gn .. .m,
, f3 ' '; ?! Q, ,.GL, z % (Q.?f X.N .{,, P , . . . .
t.
- 1. r '^ . ..? :. ..d
...e, .m
......s. 3 ,. a.
g:VN g l..,, ,-j , ? 'i, ,: ?; i :,( t [ % ' ' ' _ l s * ~ h
^ '
n,s- w 4m aa g t. m a.sm.s w. .. p .v 4 y. i e s. 4.a .e
.ca 4 h a%y.,W!a.q.
- c. . :~.i, A sror . w,(4 h W y:~,W,; ;g . .r ,,,t.
p Q.y n. q yw} p-~
; , s4 dx:vy[.v. hhNMbNfNI
,9..f,~y* w,3.ff.n.y Yl$.k.$ respect to operation above 5% Where only emergency planning contentions
$ k b .N b h h.h :f, h remain to be adjudicated, if an applicant submits a request under i 50.57(c) for W!g.$yRfWg%lfMMyM operation in excess of 5% power, and asserts that the unresolved contentions can h j be resolved for that power level by virtue of the "not significant for the plant in N .N k. %@d;pWQ . n y n M M }.#[ g$ f S A . %.f%@%M question" provision of $50.47(c)(1), we must at least give the request serious consideration. It is at least possible that the applicant may be able to comply
;3 % % with the regulations and obtain a low. power license through this route. Thus we
,if[$^j.,^ -
%9 conclude that LILCO'S motion is properly filed and that no exemption from the
Lpf "l g :.. QNM,p/
%g/ q 26 M@y$@'@$@d.,@$ 7M f, f regulations is needed as urged by the Governments. We caution, however, that the road may be a difficult one. In particular,
..YJ5%
gi ' - i. x , AA.,8 %$ M.y ' g, ,:..e:.4. < m,Q - e@.e;. . cn$,i/gd;$ we note that the Commission sanctioned 5% operation in part because Staff analyses had indicated that the risks involved were "several orders of magnitude
..: . . , 1^ less than full power risk." It may well be that the risk at 25% is not so MM' ,.M
$_ M / f[".y.. 'kfk .my ' greatly diminished. We note also that the Statement of Considerations that the g.:-( {Q . , M ., .
Commission offered at the time of the rule change specifically noted that while
/g 1. 3 .ae ,W ' i et the rule change exempted the applicant from NRC and FEMA review of many
[.yM ;M>d 7 "% m 's" J . . '
~4
} of the requirements of i 50.47(b), the NRC would nonetheless be expected to
>$_ d 7 review for compliance with subsections 50.47(b)(3), (5), (6), (8), (9), (12),
W. mud.Og MN.j and (15). 47 Fed. Reg. at 30,233. The exxt significance of the Commission's
+5p.Zp G.YN:'. .,: .
O.,-' ., establishing this requirement we have not evaluated in the light of 6 50.47(c)(1)'s W$fw/O fR;r.f stated relief from all the requirements of 5 50.47(b). l.. . y ' J.' 4$M.'@ 16,[$['rh(g.1%%e/ f 7-
~Wrthermore,
, we agree with the Staff that the plain wording of 9 50.57(c) requires that we "(1) consider whether pending contentions in the proceeding are 4[7jMNd M $fM%Mfp-4,de';.y; :;. ~ J') .'
relevant to the request . . . ; (2) allow any party with contentions the opportunity
.b. ( 5.. C ,2 ,2 ,',.,; :; s' . ( .'.
, _. . to show that those contentions are so relevant; and (3) make findings on the 7 ,
s. 7 ; ,t^
, N ,, . , application of the 6 50.57(a) criteria to the activity sought to be licensed" with
. .: .F ,
.e.....
,%+1 respect to the matters m. controversy.
~,? .'w,,....
.a _ m
?s +F ~ . O. ,
The interaction between fl50.57(c) and 50.47(c)(1) is, in the case at bar, (.7 sr'7g. g.~,g.~,.c
~
r .],4 also complex. It would appear to the Board, for example, that the "relevance" test for contentions expressed in 6 50.57(c) is much less rigorous than the "not
.'j,'[.[ ]( : ,c.f 'T SIUh. W :;y;fYJM @.N significant"
. Q test of $ 50.47(c)(1) Nrther, LILCO's claim that 25% of power g$$5 g Operation lowers the risk sufOiently so that any emergency planning deficiencies
'.w;p..h,;:p M . @'.'.g hty.r j j' g .Wjd. iM 'j{;S @ JU.T y(dcompares @k twos incommensurables. 'g k are msigmficant or compensated (LILCO's Reply at 10) is a claim that inherently How far some given risk must drop and in q@$g.M dMJ ind3/M what way it must drop in order that some particular precaution may become
.g . a<gy.p,,p:meh,y@.. .m ..
cy r5W p unnecessary is not a matter instantly perceived.
- M .d f.C'@ S.6 Mg.g,g.. ;,T Thus our answer to questbn 1 is: The applicant is entitled to pursue this
@Q' s i.,7
- .& 4 yA ~f- f '~yc 4 ' .Nd'c.L.j.Q.M course, ,
^
but the circumstances of a particular case may well require a hearing, and we are bound to consider at the outset whether due process requires such a
<~
' ' r.. hearing and upon which of the unresolved contendons it should be based.
. ,' - _ c.
6 _,gy a. y .
- j A
r 4 9 e,
.f... *
- a pg . ",
w "
- 4 #
g g h g
,t,e
*<4
.~~ 'o-
_p [ j
- 4 .m./j g E
'?. *
.t,,, s, . ,
'a 'cl Q.' \, _ , , _ , . ,
-e . ..- m ,-., - .
.r - r . - ,
s ,' . . '
<s
,,,( ,J .h -.d.
2 e h, b*
,,g' ,'S ' - ..P- * , #( j
' " g
" , 'f., "e* ". 3 J ." . '
,^ ,', *
.- ,* '*~ #.
,8,' -
,,s' ,g.' 34 '( *
,1-
,, f O '. . . ',,5*, 1. i ; g , ,- ,,
, ,v ,
.,. , s g'[
.4 3 ,. , ,
'( , l ., u m lF i , ' ;%-; *'*,- .n .
. i.
,.,p. . .n 'I
- m.-n , m -u
4 .e v . wl. ;.%y f* 2:.: R : v .a;,;.s.
- - ~
i&s5& ?%'$
. . ~ , ,;a .&n
.'(, : h Ql.EW;&,..c&w!%;f':
&$$Nh? Q9y, &/*
;W.W ?%QWh ^*M $55:?$,ji:l % ';%ly;.e&y,&l*@S;:&pewa M.4,; . ,
W8N 0WbS 2 :. $ Wn.N..b.j y..?@k@
=axwksMa MWE
.p'MgwM@M -
.+. h .G.M W,. M Wl " m h n m =w.
WM&,%:.)%ti?:q'w[%pQ. 8M w%w . Qhm .m .,?;):JlB. .s i.:q<m!:qR iM. . ht ww&.. .me o Am, ..v. e :.v:.V . m .%'
.w N JW:.&, a.y:f ,wn .w My ".~'.y'apf. M.%.c .- .- m'ly$.4 c ww,h%pOM ~.p
- m. . .a dp e ..Cd&OL nmw N.'.N m ANALYSIS OF QUESTION 2 W[%gg.M.a, e
Q.c . W M.oM
- 4.% p.w" ;ee,
@,ae..%y@,Here
,m.,
q;b,,rw the controversy is simple, direct, and, in the Board's view, of little con-8/.Nbk[-MA(I' k,Mk: h f5.9.MN[M. 3Ek),$ f sequence. The Governments believe that the motion under $ 50.57(c) must con-sider subsections 50.57(aX2), (3), and (6). Governments' Reply at 5-6. LILCO w v QM.W?f!!.jyMQMj- y' - i-fc.J ,- believes it need only satisfy the requirements for 5 50.57(a)(3). LILCO's Reply .h. 4hM'W.
, ;~ r.
;M. p%;1 m@'N M.-* '~',at 3-5. /
w . a . O , cY/ ' S:
%;Staff apparently takes no position.
De three subsections involved in the dispute set forth 6ndings that would be n a J dw~&
$u. ,, G .3 9.f.'f' M.,m. .l " 's required in order to issue a license (whether for full power or for limited power under 6 50.57(c)). They read as follows:
. x 1 .:y., . . ,., m - c. : .-~., ,u .., ,;v2$: w . - 15a57(a) Punuant to i 50.56, an cperating ticense may be issued by the Commission, up ' M'6N Wc (-[h S3/GUJ5,(.h'f'/. h.. to the full term authorized by 150.51, upon firding that: 7:.,
- ..VS c,jf,s ,' ', '-*'.17 %,eWD- : 'sM,,
'c .
.b. e- . f < .,.c .g. ;;y .p. e e e
.....J; Y Jis W ~ ,., f;
' -3 .x; .:jw'yfb ..
*N (2) ne facility will operate in conformity with the application as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulaticos of the Ccrnmission; and
. } N{ '4
+ -
' , . M. ' '/ (3) here is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by the operating
}
%.~ .' ,..I f y ' .. l license can be ccmducted without endangering the heahh and safety of the public, and (ii)
' ' > that sudi activities will be conducted in compliance with the regulations in this chapter. and
- 1. +.-.'.,
s.
.-. c.
. ee
. . s: .,, ' 3 .'a j . p S i. (6) ne issuance of the license will nct be irtimical to the common defense and security s ., ~ ,% ..% ,.O . :,, ,
. 'yi y ,ciji er to the heahh and safety of the public.
,o .
;. .~8 .p :q.:
- . s' g..w.: i: < .';yN:csc@a: .c . ..
r,
- -M LILCO's position, while not succinctly expressed, is apparently that, since
].' ( W:7 % ,stc) % 7, Q.] only subsection (a)(3) requires "reasonable assurance" and that "reasonable
~
, y 3.Ypb y_-),'.W assurance" finding was made with respect to the extant 5% power license, all
,Jg:E ,, . 7{ .g c-i other $ 50.57(a) findings, for whatever power level, have already been resolved
' , s.;
~
.y' . - favorably to LILCO. LILCO's Reply at 6. We fmd the logic difficult to follow,
'..'n-a y, ,
but we see no need to grapple with it.
; Jg J - - 1 In the Board's view, for this case, where common defense and security
. ' .y
,f=el -1c4j , 4 J7: ~ ~ ..4-are not at issue nor is the plant's conformity with the application, a positive y n .
3 .- finding under $ 50.57(a)(3) would, in fact, be tantamount to a positive finding
.c -
,q'y. -
@ A for all three of the subsections at issue. Certainly a negative 6nding would be 2i.;';.D 3 : *
.;Q dispositive, We shall proceed on the assumption that a license can issue only if
-jg7;.. 4.. <,. y.We ,n r ,' , M, . 7.m . . , , .. .j 4: . .n, its issuance, the operation of the facility, and the xtivities authorized will all 1p., c c . ' ' 2 ' . t
', s .
. .v ,
s give reasonable assurance of the protection of health and safety and compliance
- + 1. ;@fs,2 , , -
1; 9 ' , , t ~~tI with the reguh as.
;.=..
n: O .; 2h*-.;u ;.' gpl .>.%.n. .. c:.,% 7Q A --
- 7. . - . ~3d. ?'
- 8. i ,, ,../- ,, s 4.. s ~y, u- 3m ,,
?' .'
- vn. . .c. h, ..,c , z
.MDj$,, # . . x#: d$ ,r
;.'. q A ANALYSIS OF QUESTION 3 ey - ..w c p.wg na gy n, .n. -.... 7:,'km; - 2. ; w<.L + Des w of which contentions currently in litigation are relevant in a sn
.c .
. question q- y . ,. - , .
substantive way to the activity to be authorized is a question that stands at the 4
-<~..-
m. 3 Q] core of any litigation concerning the request for 25% power. Furthermore, it is
. .a: a *~ * *
,8 1 -[ ~g'
* * = '.f
,,. ) g '
' .'51
".,d f 8 g .-
, .,, ," ? s ' . .,
- v. ,s . ..I 13
, . c.. .- ..+L.
e r
. . r; c. :: .
. . }'
. i .
- 13 . , p./
c-4
.s
'.,'f.. ' '
4 ,j 7
?
. , s
- , 7c ,. *.>. , m .; , , -- . -
, c .. .s , ..-. , . e q. , , .,6,~c , n. . q,-.-.p.S. ,,,
r ,
- c. , .
- . * , , , q., -
g
,.s, s 's. 4
,. , ,; c ;#,,g, ,,i
* ~ , - %, .1- .4',. . , ,
qf."-* f- r , , . [t A j, , '1, . " q .,, %d.'J.,',*;%',y y, L,yp r
'i,. s
..' , - 3.
*4 i . . . , . 4.*.,..,.y
* .-:1
' , .~ .',.s. , **'y,l .
' . g.f g,(,A,9 "~'., y,yd
_, .; , s M. a , , , , . - f.;lp +,.., g ; j.,
'- ' ,_ .:$ ; ,..y:
': - s G' _'-
lp
, 'f s :.
__ :% p, ',j% ~ s ,
.: .3 u , 3 .m r , ..
. 'Q- d_. .y.;.m Q x -)y :.,.y:,9;% ;' . .;
/. ';; :v . . . . ;, .
. ? v ', x : , .. e .. . : .9 ,
h ,\ , Ih. N
$J-i*;
',. j .[ *
;,/ ' , . , ,
'wgywww-eme= N N N h E N N N 5SINI N N NENNE i$ &WlgN 2; hM'#idyi&&%$g..+ Aq >:M" a
,.,h,W%n uhm$$.$M.9Md k&n '
t d td W r,e U "MiW
?
Q% W f. M ,yi %g,gg&y,%.W!$ f.p .:g bj.%)Y:drNir.;u 'g $ . a DW,ej. &@M%N:ww.t. u- w n a question of great complexity, involving as it does the interplay of emergency preparedness with the variable scope of potential accidents when that scope is
,dfM. , ' . d d, .5 jg ~ q considered as a function of power level. Dere are no quick or obvious answers, and, in our view, the answer to this question may itself be achieved only through i
bk@.hM >4w W N.. s? the analytic crucible of litigation. l W..#.f.-yM.,y.-N;p(3.k.o<i/3f.%0 MME.,.,, analysis supportingy$Mh g 9 . t . .j ;' a ti, A De matter of the validity of the technical LILCO'S bN M jM$ motion is a narrow or.e and constitutes only a small part of the total litigation. Its
)
@.Q..c. x'W.. g- 3;&ydNW..G...Ts . M. #d % complexity together with the existing burdens on this Board, however, calls, we
.U %w i2MMQ;%Q believe, for the attention that could only be given by separating out that portion
.M .kdd M.G S'$f khdMMh'k/&d.M'hi M N eu g ih[r $ :S';'j$h{i,'TfpN[fN kMN6@M of the case for separate consideration. Four possibilities present themselves:
We can request the appointment of a separate board, the appointment of a Special Master, the appointment of an Alternate Board Member, or a Technical N$M.D,f'$.%'e?h?M:$9? .M M WM.*U Intermgator. In any case the new forum would consider the discrete question of whether any of the contentions currently before this Board, including both the
- Jy 7dM';Alglh;$;@i.p't.'[lldk.) pl
" Q$ so-called legal authority contentions and the contentions before us on remand, l Q['k'pf *?.
@(E.diei?,'$'(( , . are substantively relevant to the proposed operation at 25% of full power. These bodies would be empowered to examine the relevance of such contentions 4'y'%@$g4T ' 4 Jr M, ; $ vf based on LILCO'S technical risk assessment and on any evidence produced fMM.MS$bhc;h N @ 4 by other parties.2 The chief difference in their powers would be that a Board so M/pdA%h,Wy6:,4^ '
appointed could decide, upon finding that none of the contentions had substantive
% F M &' E s W , F ;'. relevance to 25% operation, that an initial decision could be issued and the ,M %M.%.f 'gN MM@@$(.hk k $,(. $h-NhhAbdkh N8ft;y,MQ.WQgQy$
request could be granted. If the contentions were evaluated in opposition to a favorable finding under i50.57(3), the request would be denied. In either case, the decision of the separate board would be appealable. De authority of the ZdK Special Master, Alternate Board Member, or Technical Interrogator would be 5 "..' M. 9 M M i % .?M.~,j,.7 9.. 1.!'.A ;D QQ limited to the advisory and assistant role established by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.722. De Q 3 c 2'.a . . g. ~.p. 3:4 'J. .,.. Q y;;f f - ...g . f.7. _ ,.7.-
.. . . .. matter of dealing with those contentions at 25% of power would be left yJ;;,l$ Ufsc '.K..i*h.. M ,JM. M L:fi d h M @@.! % to the present Board. We defer deciding what further procedures may be ','*f$, ,s.
c.: Sw.g<. ;;.; 3; p .W
. $dffdM.
.,,,,.n.,.
m,..v.
- required at that point. It appears certain to us now that the exarnination e ,nc5 hR of this question cannot be accomplished without some opportunity for the s .M. .,c,c.v W59.,
. ,e w . g-m.,6&. ....a...
.#m.. ,
re#w.p.w.g,.n y f. Governments to review both LILCO's original request and the Staff's analysis
?g$ g 4 thereof. In the interest of expedition we therefore direct that the Staff resume M M :%45 9' O ?f$ Mh;3 y s{Qp' g %y g g its review of the pmposal. Purther, in order to focus the inquiry, we believe Dh'W$
ic6:W.. $E M49%#di;W5y.;. that the Governments must be given further opportunity to state with basis and MNSMMM/hISh$ 7/M[% 1.,NDS C.. N' dN. Specificity the ways in which any of their present contentions are relevant to the Proposed operation. Dese statements, of course, would necessarily await the wM
.h W l;N ,@. M-ng%,9g, @.4s '17/'M.Q 'kJ,o,,Q+
\
f msy
' sp.m. .W .c w.w @.- p 4,m.'? 9,@#%) . n G.W.p@, J F ;.i" :.
5
.. f.. (t -; 5M: ,
QM!d J/!!ke.,p . g%.L' w@:n:.:,19.W s our mdarmandmg d f RI'o's irara is that it would anampt to prevail m a showeg of immatarsality of ths
- t14 %, w. , c.f.%d unremoNed emtamms under 15M7(<xu based m its iedtscal nak assessmers and the anscr w
- enaits a
'li ' , ' ' . [ ?,:.3 ,I* ' "k*M;,.@f;;; d? * *% . h - [ '$ . J)
'" of encramcy Ms now in placaw Therefore. N inqmry d the separats faum would focus on the ruk Sesessmelt and DCR = sna} festh of th$ remammg CeterCons i8 the Cas4. If Utfo establubes that the plars
'A ?' , -]
0 ? ' ' . r; * ,
; py, f ' ,.q~g
.* ,1~..
.,r
;f,
-f. , -n$3 1, L'.'e J-
. 9r p: (.
5r,. .' .'.,' ,, ,. 4'c* '.. is suf5curnfy safe whai restncted to a matinszn of 25 4'e power so ihat ibe semauur.g contenums are immstmal to public beahh and safay, the ceternans would be substamveJy imlevais for the prpcses of $ 50 57(c).
-r
? h=; ) f y * . ll.; l '
* .*&&?
<. \.l {/4 , '..; '. * ,',.'.y.
r
. * ,e ,e . *) q.s ..y ...e
.g y. g'.' s), i ' Z ; g;,_m ; - , e .f sf . -
- p-
- / i * ' e ', e * . y "i y ' .,;p;. }':i .~~,;' .s
*[f; .. >Q,%.% hl*f-
~.*- ,' ; G:p . .
,. ..q w.9 {.l
. O;' *.
s,s
; chqA'%. * ; , ; ,/ ' _ ,j ' & '- &li y,,,;% ', %y'i.
.:n*
- 0 Q..'.%
l .
, . )g., ?.* '
- 3a, ,,1 ;r~ *" * ..
y .. .v'n h Q*).;:;. s %- n
.,.4 5 ,7;D^ O.
s -
, ,.f Q: [.f*p.'1:f.
* * . - l; ' t .
.\ ' a.. , I, . . ((*&*' ; ' *r
., . % _~l 4
J,.'. . :o ( i,;p +:.:*'y m..1Jgy,f.;,q,Q;e t , , , ;%a, /,_ . ;, ?.(~'.o~ c ;;; * ~ . ', ~ , f .
,'c
gi n '" i Sc
. + y; ,*3; f.7.;.f;'4. ,t;.. g, j ' , .3 , j , ,, , _ , . r . ,., - ,,_ , .-, , , , , , - ,-_ , , m ,,,,
4 . .
.",**s c'*',,, , .r*- ,, 'h8 p., u . . f j., - !;*4
. . g.-ept,o m 7 e, y av;o.-**
- e 1,y"*f. * *-*p".
- - . v'en".
# , , , 2 a ,, <. ;.
,r
, *s'-
" . , y. r 4 ,ga ,
y <,
',.S.t ,
7 g, 4 g *
; g* .. 5. -l'g,
A -t -
.. . .. - - * * . * ,, 3,
. ** s.
K .n #". .d
. f.3 l,~ ;-y ' W 'f e .a ? a ', *
.,;; .-e '
, j f,J.', ,j.LI- ,, 5 . f.
.,t"
, ,:, . ;: _;g :W :...w. .,9.nf
, .,v.. 4 f * , m . ,s -. ..~ ' w, .l ?. ; 'M4 \ .,<e 3,k l' 'u'& An g,' # !y 'j.
.w:, y ,1 fys;ze v. ,w.%,.g. y.,y, ,m.,.,y swa;y;f,:s.;.,:J'.t a , +: l~l . c y ;gA<; ,
4
' -;- ?.;+ a. y,a 3;w' ny
- MR .b
.;r ;. n: , 3 .;c
.x[ h&w"Y'f nn.'..%',r? $.Shl;$'&,hh*.?h#hlW~h.N~&Ni{ - l&~bhhh;*. G,- .
( l' , i' ! - a.mw .,;,. :> w.a)g , N. 5, % .o, b# .y ,. p<.m,< c. . y . . a. ,%,,,wn- c n.s .. A . e, , ,> ; wr,- 4 ..4.: ..;.,A, ,-n.. y4 w.n. :s v.h< -.y. . . ..;m,. . w s 1 . . x . y ,.,_uv- . 1 *, ' . % E Or - % g,y 4y.s,**N.,*<}*. W
^ i ,'l^.;s.y.>~.
+ . . . ' . ;s -' .a,.,V,
- s. , .O.e,, i.,'al&.*W, -*'
- o. . .m.D n k ,l ..v: q .m&x?. y 1 5cy.x e
1 v sw'l.,".:.. , O'- t' A . ;c .:,, e.. .) t
. 1 .
';,,m /...,n's n&. v:, (Q&r .Q:a
. .s,n.}:y x.;b. .m.,
m.&e*.. ,.. .wA.
.+ .o
.m rv ,..x.. wm . s, . es . . ~3-" , s, . . < .
? %m.Q:.MM.s. m , . ,,' ". w,. . a&; .', . .. . 'vf l f . n',.{;e;.',;a.
.- .m .m"m . m". .x-~
- u:. " ~"." ' *:. h, M ~W"=, &, ~ + . aW .Uc 4. .
qWn WY "'". :
'~
- N.-
4.w w k.,A,. g..2:,y. ;W ., . .x n w
'.p.'QMw;n:s.gw_.'Qn.,: .
ny W, , 'np.y v. +..e
=. .'. w .vw+..y.. n z. m,,.:m w&, .
eQ' 'i ;S. \ '.HfL'&C.'Q N Mf.yf
.,: y-w'*'M.. ;;'; s w .. w.%ev ,.cd y , ;::s; M.. x.. .x. w,. A.. .-
W g i'%A M W Slh:Qf publication of the Staff Safety Evaluation and a reasonable period for review f%"Qs9)Q.wWd..<A
?.
M.%hMMW. ygg A..M .M.Mi%p
'Md SR:4.m.
bY the Governments' experts. The precise schedule for review, submission of fy statements, and comment by the parties on such statements would be set by the V42Q MNJMM.i3'WT 4M$t Proposed new Board, Special hiaster, Alternate Board hiember or Technical
- h. .e%.,
$$W79.("M@kWrk.. Q k3 Wg hN d Interrogator with due regard to the equities involved.
.Y5$
Y,f
. v :. s g ,. /2 'UfE.%>@-il .
[s.?..k@.p'M
.w ~ . Ohlx,$.. '41.?U %m We therefore seek the parties' comments on the relative advantages and disadvantages of requesting that the Chief Administrative Judge appoint an
.;.0??[8Ek'.$5.MENF'@ f auxiliary board, or in consultation with him, a Special hiaster with the parties' 6 d Md;$(I M . h h h h i b consent, or an Alternate Board hiember, or Technical Interrogator without it.10 J$% MM$yNjl2.3 C.F.R. 62.722(a)(2)(3). The parties have of course given us their views on NA this matter previously, but this was before we decided that LILCO's motion is @N@N@NN.MMMY%h T M'
- n' $ , properly filed and that it is entitled to timely consideration of its motion under existing regulations without first seeking an exemption. With today's decision Q'M@Eff.k:i.%[$[k.Y'~. MN[
?.<; 9. mpW: ,, ? M'J it is no longer open to the parties to argue that LILCO is not entitled to proceed
'.: M 3G'f?iO'd D Q'. 9' 7i; on the course it has chosen, that no consideration at all be given its request, or that its request be deferred indefmitely. We can and do additionally consider l U j.Ifc[ '$
^ ;rc-
- c.; % ,.:( '
LILCO's economic concerns in deciding that as a procedural matter LILCO is
- i~f entitled to explore all possibilities afforded by NRC regulations for obtaining an d
.- .,f- ; ? l' operating license for Shoreham within a meaningful time frame. Therefore, it is 7.: - f Jr6;4250 no longer open to the parties to argue that no proceeding be under;aken or that
, ' ' %-5.i. -b it be long deferred on grounds of excessive burden or lack of resources. Further
' ?
. . .p - ,_ y.,,..uW W.dh. .
proceedings by one of the above alternatives, unless LILCO withdraws its
..Je *; . .N6.pQ. # .+it request, are inevitable. Parties' views on the best alternatives for going forward
.f -
'? g ;6 .;T ' D '
Y may be changed by these developments, and their recommendation on the narrow . . .s. c.2. .8., - .
. 4. .
w
.s..w/rm/. - 1 p-tssue we pose is warranted.
b= L . , $, :'s 5.;-. '-
'4'.-d
.x
. -r
%yl.4' . . .
- l ANALYSIS OF QUESTION 4
, f 7 ., s -j
'. ' .c, 4 ..i. ; , , ,
. ,.h.. '..e. .. u. ; :'.%,m ?. , ??e.N. g ?. '-
As is clear from the discussion above, in the cases that we regard as d Y.),.-?d [l, Q ,'- $ V ,; I " * :j Precedential concerning the matter of operation at powers less than full power,
- @ R q:s-t : , 7. 6 50.47(c)(1) mis deemed to operate through its "not significant for the plant
$$f.Eih?!;N.NU,7,C.7 j: ;jp ,
- 4 in question" provision both by the boards that decided the issue and by the ;
Commission. We believe that it should so function here. Yd'MM.k;OMJCN; .r;w . s ;p y v;,1 ;n 4, V-J. ;W...e We have given consideration to LILCO's position that the other provisions l
. .7c4-.y;
.U.c cq. . s y.. M.o%,s . . . .
.g a.g
- u. .
~c,-jW,m g; /,-P..
. . .n
- p. . of 150.47(c)(1) may also afford the requested relief. "The position of both Staff i
l 1):.U N S S M N d ' M M.-., @2Q, and Governments is that the notion of "adequate interim compensating action" l M, . D'JM.' ~ %wZc. . s s<^. M.i /M E M,.. was meant to cover the situation where provisions in the emergency plans i
,7 ~Q..M p '
j:':47?p.MgER(y.z4Dh;0 of one organization compensated for deficiencies in the preparedness of other organizations but was not meant to apply to whatever safety benefits that might i
' ,MM.FFM.y'?/ i W ,Ug. 'y .'". f.!M."' . j 'O.j result from operation of the reactor at restricted power levels. We are persuaded l
. % ;;p w 'f ' : by the briefings of the parties and our own review of the regulations that l x;
'.o
.l S,
, ,,7r. . q: - ...n .
s s %, *
, .y ], , ...,'s., . 4 ., - 'y .Q gc{~!
'.u. ,}
o y ,.f s % ;, _ .", w e ',7 , # ' .
- 4, .s .lq
-" $,k .'Y * -
. {.j
.. p :
** *9 'k
- , _., 7, .. m _, .. ,
.,,m
,. m y;. ,;.. ; c a r *up .<:.;,
- ~ -
, ,. g, , ,.
,. ~ . , q.
- , a:
- '- ,, . <. n j, , '
r, .'+.. , a e, e
.y',, .
. m.. , , f o .. .
.Q < d.;; ..
~< ,p. -' ', < ; *,. .: j _
3'. , %_ e. ' 1" ;. ;.t. v,& q . <
.m . a ;. %; . a. ?;
- c. ,
.,' . - . - i .
[~ ',,',(, Y Y .*
- 1 ..,T .-,..,3 t =
$' e *
,',,,.,f,,-'<us ' * '* '
A. u < *
- 4
' o lf' .h. . IU' l , ' ( * ? l '[",* * / e '
, ~ . :4 , W. "' e ?.tf
, , .. s. .
_", ' { a .'
- ^ - ; . UY
' *: M ' ,. :
- S V, , m . . 1
'L.' . . . ' i :G a y';.W4 I.3:[, :,h:} (;'[,.[ ;[.' '. 'e'
,' L N'.,,\;. ' '. %~W,[ f.
y.j" h '.,.,)[ & @3f , * ,~ ;f .~ h [ 9- , [0.4
Nh hYh..,. ;..,p..Y a.E Y m ..;
- as e-m m .n:w. x. g.y c e
- m. e Aw .. m. . m, 4. .a . .-a,A ..c. w . ~ c. c2
- c. m..m..,., m . ..s. ~, % ~ : m. .m..
..-<.s. . .x. ..
m . . --
.c
'M W.m 4 . MW n n .:7 /e..Q m%.Q,A w'?.
- . . .'.. .:. Wh ,Ym' .Jp w.'d, d .? 8 .. n u ?:s.~. C v.li. c wg
- .s..Ry&e sWM:%:u..v e,NGM, a%n.%m .g%.n, . #, o.m.
?
2 u :;4y z g ..m. ~
~
q Q.m. ;; :: .m:w,y;w.e.wy~pp:.a.g .:
~QG W M Gk2h.w : w " w. w ,,a;y, w wyu..n:p..u2.
w q L y w..w W'
- . p
- w.::.
- ,,M .m w.w.-M- :w.:e:%w.'?s x . e M w 2 x L m .." "...
;t ;<. r .n,.
.+;m
~ m.e
..,m-4.
. .g .
3@.%w%we,,;W.%p;.e.$p.
. - Mw %w . - 2. '
=,
\
+..q .
;. e 4 Ta yn.s%a.m
$ v? ~ is,a;?.W .M
/ , n:,g;;:.:,?>m.n s., ~
Q 'Q : W. 'c"'J:
%"'.Cw,m
%}i-s-..)f_ c:e. s.4.s -i%,R~h%.%n% rWq.p- H- p ,.,- .n.Qc.GQvs 1
- p. .
1 $;$w%q. NN. :p .x$h. ntw,s.,- m.-er.y@c+ e.. M Mn l c MY. MNQ .]%hg M . N @I d % d , $ g$ g g m ,g) based on probabilistic risk assessments that show low risk to public health and emergency planning regulations are promulgated as a matter of policy and that relief from 'he requirements of these regulations cannot generally be obtained kM.q~ k h.NNjfr. h M h pe. ! M@ h- g@h f safety from restricted reactor operations. The Commission has of course devoted l
.q considerable effort to ensuring that reactor operations even at 100% power have t.c a.tW.;pfS.4/G , W 5? low risk to the public but still it requires emergency preparedness.
I l E .d.MX.%@. 5'M $h9 $hfQM@W'ih'.s p .3 y The Commission has not spoken directly on this matter and there appears
, @.MMbNfMh: w#R@@n to be no precedential case law controlling. Additionally, LILCO argues that
. MCM.W $ h restricted power levels are but one element among several that together would l
g -M..@... . >9.N.. ' . MI,.Q f.T. . .'F, permit# its N. . nto be . .kyEN'@,.MN l
$t$f motion granted under the adequate interim compensating action Sh.;
,N'Od$Mhfh,W@$T l's t'95;.M. Mg : ,f provision 5 50.47(c)(1). This route therefore remains at least potentially open to obtain the relief sought if LILCO wants to pursue it although the burden may
. 0. 6, . .}.M. OWX'd,9,.'2%;.< l'f be a difficult one.
-igg.$,.fM. - .
./ .
,Q. 'pGML
;. We also considered whether "other compelling reasons" could include im-YT-QlG ' ,p .,.t/.<'4.g . "'_
. ;1 pending power shortages on Long Island as a basis for relief as espoused by y.m h, a " ' . ."
M.; 1" f' - ;.. "?i s LILCO. Power shortages may cost money; they may inconvenience people or threaten jobs or loss of industrial capacity. LILCO has not alleged and we find
'i ' . . ,
. (!, .- a no reason for believing that there are reasons, for granting the request under
# _ . this provision, related to the public health and safety, at least at any level of sig-
'.k.>. . - . m,Mbh ' .' L .
.'.r.,W. v -
nificance likely to result from the near term unavailability of Shoreham. Thus, J ,'. " W .p-LILCO's reliance on this provision of 150.47(c)(1) appears to be based prin-
$@&@u M _' %.,, ..' . " . 7-f,E '..i cipally on an economic argument. It is well established that relief from the
@ (F 'M -y ,
,7;;. q . "- Commission's safety regulations cannot be founded upon economic considera-
$':$@l6,'s Ecy
.S . @? ..@. 0;l M
.i, y' N tions. The Commission has clearly designated emergency planning as a matter
, m ,, . , ;... - .
.,o .c 4 required for protection of public health. Thus, we do not believe that it would
.'. . . . ,X <
q' ' .
- Ca a be fruitful to pursue a restricted power license for Shoreham based on the possi-i 1
j; q e,fc, ., ; . ? bility of power shortages on Long Island, because even if true beyond question,
- f. J . f i g .4 ' 'y. 7 - , . d j.
relief could not be granted for that reason alone. If safety-related reasons exist U;M . G.Q $ 8 g ,;.b'g'.1,% d 1 for granting a license to operate at 25% power, they will have to succeed on their own merit under the regulations without assistance from economic consid-M e/ [f,./ R W'@.DD.D-
;.W R-dNj"M 7 .. erations.
x.jy T .J.-::&: y *. ". N .
. Q%i - f ..
,');." g'N '***,##'h..g.M*3 g
~ m [a- ~. +.p.3-[n f,.
m.'*-$t j ? ju g . ,i
.w ['[.v..
. wpm .C.9. #W . &,.gl
'J:fik,;. - _ ..M.I.1 7; w 7 :w r.p y : M n y ,y% ,
CONCLUSION ih I . LILCO has the right to pursue operation at 25% of full power by invoking
' ' .W Sg,'$ 4 ';@.4J," p,t.$ D 0,q n 9:Mr;, @Jf'q and using I50.47(c)(1) in the latter's "not significant for the plant l50.57(c) in question" provision to satisfy the requirements of I50.57(aX3) as required
? .'4'(% ,',. */MP.J:(fy@gj j$ f.'fd under 150.57(c). The Governments, however, have the right to be heard to the
" fy %M _ t. Gi y extent that their contentions are relevarit to ruch operation.
^>
. f '
' . . '? . f', In order to ensure all parties' rights in this proceeding, we direct that the Staff
.X '.u ~J 1,c ',
resume its review of LILCO's proposal, and we direct that all parties comment
*$ e .
,, q Y 0 e
'M y,, . . -:7s
.a.e;r.w.
4
' n s;.
- ; <..-c.~ .
C.) 16
, ' {., ;3- , ' .
t 9,, ? g: * ,
* . eg,8 , **
? . ,, *.u, L~* .
et + .-
, l'y T ' ,
Z ,
, 1, p .
3 ,
- 4. g , g d I
' f* a-
,'1 - .- .,,g-- g%, .c . ,. .*'n-
,-..5-m.,.***wa. -
, ., *"%* ## 'b**7,**MW
, 9,8 d
; , u g7- 3 *, ' "D .
.g p* s
, 'cT-
;f. ,
s a -. se , y
, #. 3. ,
' [ . N y
5 's , 7 , v 8
- e. ',s s I . , p .: .
; ,. " .o. x ._, ~ * ..m s , c. s e -
, 4 . q , ,' -
, . .x . u- t -.,j,.
. g * . ', ( q .
' ; g,,n se r,y ,3 ,, e
; y. y g / ,, .. -'' "
', *s, L7a , _.' , , .
,(2 .p[
'T,'.,*
e ..; ]l r .
.y/ [ , ;) J , / A_ ".
~ .. y Q
- k. '
T kh~& ] &WlQh %$EM@$Y%&l.&YQQ$$He&Qi?&i&:? NhMkMihM M6 W;@N5[$. i %a.Qy.::f!: 8 n;. Jwv. M;A :,' NSNhhMTEDh.=.M=kmm w g%& .uwav : y%: w A N b =wx:'wa$N@El: .m L.u3:h.s..u'd.%.:e ISO . 1
- hy % m Mia m R M % m y,gik a M/pj;.k.q.M)L;% ' Wh ny,WW,rw'.A ym 4 J4 & ,
\
$yqQ;W
+ ? % w . i. b. .A m -g ;.< i% ?.% .W W ;k.e iQ. y@h psW )
u m.% % .. T.jm % fh0WW h K (X Yl&s fN'.J. upon the relative desirability of appointing a Specia$ taster, another board, an 2 MN8Ahc. Mlg 4 k MQQd d N i [&N*M. [2M @M W Q Alternate Board Member, or Technical Interrogator to direct the inquiry into 8;3rk g%FQ Q h{$@4$ $ whether there are extant contentions in this case that are substantively relevant to the proposed operation at 25% of power. If a Special Master is appointed, l4] @%%Nphhi DNpM.Mh . yM h i fM;td M b such Special Master would be empowered only to recommend to this Board
- . %64Sh whether there is such relevance to the contentions presently before us. If a ;
board is appointed, such board would be empowered to grant LILCO's request gd S$%,N,b'$ @yj$dN N upon a finding that no such contentions existed or, if relevance is found, to l h@((dNhh[,[I (<
.X9%e.MtV deny LILCO's motion. If the motion is denied, tnis Board will seek the views ,
QM %.7/kl! of the parties as to whether it would be preferable to proceed with resolution h@NN;MOk[.MdiTW] 1 'Q SWIM $# Mh@ of emergency planning contentions for 25% power or for 100% power in the l IkNN fN Posture of the case as it then exists. If an Alternate Board Member is appointed, ; y.p gg'M $ . p.f%[@y$ W KpQ,4 2M k p. that alternate will submit a report to the Board, which will be advisory only, 1 ZW8'5% and if a Technical Interrogator, that person will assist the Board in evaluating i
,-W.t; m., ~e.c.qW.J%' E.W, , . hy.m~M. evidence and preparing a suitable and complete record. This Board will retain
' y ^a. y f j Q .d.:. F P. y C.
jurisdiction over resolution of existing emergency planning contentions at all
- f. .. '.~.J,,
- : -Y';:?:
, ' V. .. times.
- ORDERED:
g m.. .; ..' .P y, . m+
.- 1. LILCO is entitled to proceed with its request for 25% power operation
; ., - < wg .a.".:.yc., -y. ,.g under 10 C.F.R. I 50.57(c). 1 v, ,y , . q:w' 79 -
- 2. Intervenors am entitled to be heard on the relevance of their contentions
'jh %',y [c...j y < s j.c; f:. M.MQ,. to LILCO's request A Z. y a .m ,y. .y[s: G9]M 3. "Ihe Staff is directed to proceed with a review of LILCO's 25% power pr%. _ ;,,y-. c .w
., w .
.y;J . . .
; w .U request.
4 . ;.N .p.< >w. sn. c .g. - .
- u. , W.. w..
s. u.m..- . J
~
a -
.e- ., y n, =.s o. r.mg . .w, z;'.,,,
.'.,'y',
\
. * . , ' '^
,~2y I. b' b .k *. , . '. f , f
,\-
' gL.'
m m -1,_ e.,.s
, , ,[ [' ., ' , Q*U. d. E I N E ' y, ,: P #
-[ '- j y:
*.:W k %,3@!.% ,-
. , . 4 %g ;.;,:,,a*
9 r l
.l c. **..W Q 'e: . w.y - .,',','q,A J:we n *h y. .Q-2f.,y Q",,-f 2.' */ %..,o
(.
- 9 .X
.c* ~...n. % ,p-: /. \
l 3 au
.n ,, . , , ,- N \
,~.
- N g6*.Y.;:^@f.f.b $, %,'.p' %f. 6,- ( l U .f. W. 9 M.;fY e n.t ?!.f 4 ;gfh+ . '. Q'.'.f*U ii tn, ,,
.' s&.(.E f9 5)Y 1 f%.h*?&' *f.Eh*T*
r blg.&Q,, .*i f,p':~d i ? #c.% ~$ :.Q.kVf "?' 4&g. L+ ~2 i k,
- yy % . 4,* y , .my j..pg,t 6 f
* %*MFf(';QW.fj@t'.f. ' i .-f-
?
M'9 I .- % '. '* I.r$ % . S-. @. M m. ,4*.S q.,4 1 d .,c #;I'n L*Tlu".M ^Q'y,<',S ;- M b-U
.W y n ";, c -;;y),.QMM.
a M
,e$ NA " D' acP W;p r.D C h . w *.M*6.w 7
u 2., h 's'. T %".,.. i N. . . 9 'M N yay .
. f,e.
c.-,7 , 'g'<.~.r>w .$* gm,, gis - J*N 7.e d.r'g<Q'W v p,,+;,/ 'CS.J 1Y I e4 ' s,s:7 ?.e4ps e , a
. m.,
wgmP
~
.. . m a, ..w-w .
~"
~
,. '. '),
.O . '. g r. Q - . \ R ='z, ]". - lOQP . .-\, s ~' > . T ') d ar ..
; , :< . -y 4 s '
g, ." / s( . . * ,- ..k -.*
~
.- 4
' (3- ,'p...\
.*C(.
*y,s 5
.4
* . y -
l'T f. ,y :- 1, R ^j { j *
- p -. . .r.
, , # . ^}l:. S [?, ; w
.&l --1
- :. 2 ., '.; . < cf ay
-- f:f a ; ",s. .i
. ., N yq ?
.. c f .% g;; m$.,.c...
s v s. . , g7 y . .s.,e-u. .Q : . : v.:.,.. .- ..s - s
- a. r
- n. . x. .,. .+
a 'aj
} ., - 2 /.""'s 7 $. ,#
; i ..
*
- 5
,* ,, f=*'[.. r :' l h l,\.'.L ; .y" *~ g
,'l *
* ...J* ' , ,q'. r . ~ , q *,., ; =%
c *
,* ..' >Cpe" %. .' ~ * -
i I
, , n , s t - c.,' f>, *.,g - n
.,, . 4. - . rs a;+,
,#, / .' ,:
a*
. * , e" 4 ....,'m'.
G,' .
%* +* ,Y"'- ,
l j
'e , _ ,. , . . . , , .
- q. . T ; 13 . .
y s.$.
., s , . .
,y ,,
.J 4 *og r,.J r c ,r , 's. t .jya '. -.
a .,4 . g, p
. c' *p ,,,. . ,i e 3,
"'a. .A .i, - c',,,- -
, - A.'_ 1, , 2 's., 97 * ~g ' 's,p, .
- :3. s n - L'. , ,
s
, . . s .a . .
N. .w. /, 4I -
, , 4 . ,,""4 * ,
- pa., [ , , ,. . . e,' , , ,, . f
....,4- ,.i '. -
,- - .s , ;,..( g , ,* q ,4... L~ .p . .
- 4. ' ~ , , . ; >, uj
,u .: -m f.j.W
.), y',, .,p f..e.g;gy, n.J
,. . .g , , . - y e ..
-..m. ..
k.*t. ,
%.: s ..
f,.t.7, p.sS gy
, t, %.J., a e. . 7 ,. 9,'..., A., e - r .
,..n'.c)',,.a..s..'*>.
;',gg ~e
- s.
. ;c...*e;r.,,- %.. .*-- . n g c ,e ,c ,s ,..$. ,w s . ( ny. o ; 5 < .'n.= . e
. . ,;, tv- o,,w t ,m , ,-
..., , . . . .# f.s ,
, ' . a...,c.,,
. ,w '. .3g ., 2 - 1f .s c- 1 ,-.w,.< v g c ..
. , ., .c s y , , s. -, . '. W . . .s j , . . .
.. 7, .. ...
i y + . . .s f' 6- . . , , e %.m,, 9 . g.,
- gj v.?,j;
' e l .( * - '
. * *l
- v. g.. v y s. . <.n
?g@,;h w ph,n n,y m ge-M.m. r s,,p
.m by MMMW n
,.y. v mhew
.>.,yM.9.p; c.,p.nw: p v w.;.m,a::.~~.Ag.y
.s b
c, m. . .&n...n
- o. e WW AQ eWG.sWc; e w.4: o WW.
dn;pv$@.,pM@nMii.S@%y;y@M$bnkmt.n p V M M W M F e d p.n@k:#h.MVvQMn.:+.. 4 hv prWW. v.o e@n.w.s. 6. ~.. :%, w s s . .a$e. .. w. $:m@.%.e
&+ ..s.n$.WMMMMMEM
- u.
- rw r ' r*.
.y aQ- n m: .4%,,ArW.r.
- ~ . . ,.z,,c,%.w e rty... p.r:%mm. , ;r ikp:m,pe.wm&m e.sa ,- %q d.wo < m.k r-W- e'hv .on,aq , . t q Im wg,.w-x e.s:a mqw
#, 44 %;$95 W W W M .-&m.mo.-'y h
.w.y,.,f; k,h Min. cfr#4 MMON[Oh ky 4. .The parties are dincted to recommend to the Board by January 22,1988, on the appointment of a separate board, a Special Master, an Alternate Board $$hq.h,jh h.cdb MM Wde hbgW g, Member, or a Technical Interrogator to consider LILCO's 25% power request. .%%,4H:gq([#Q.g%Q& p MM THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND SM6: MI.k.d 3)4% % *G.A LICENSING BOARD M Jp W' % .W,%.#;a,.2 * $4E%: p~W - 9C%$ . q,.~%w$;: M.; m -g y
. xe:,.A.'MW,4C%.o ,m,M p o
%.1.'-!j' b.Q#l.M.h..g..y7.4.w ./..w.n.. p%:p;J f B: James P. Gleason, Chairman
$hMkhfkk W h,MW@hky($ NNMh % ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
- \
- 4c - M;s M .% wn @ % n . e;Qd p.i,,r,. w yn.w. . :M s' @. - r.;,~..Q. wW,.W,i ~ ... g. 3 sig .W*/ .wT.n;p+ >K. e Y v..- w Jerry R. Kline
'p @ h,.2:o,. G MV .. #gG W . jSfMAp; ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
.g sq.y,0. .- *. h. . 7mm* c.od;~ r'> ..:-g. x@ @: pL
.v, ~,c ; . - :..x w w c:a. ..
v; . n
.p
. , '9. ~. #, . f i.,s_. N/.e
> ta.,W. s m.?;
6 ' Frederick J. Shon
.T i ~ ' , ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE yM f , 4 :c H n. y ' % J' h.y z. .- , .:. .Q. %.
- q(.5 .1 u, .Q.';..v.f . , V , ;.S., ,jf. '., -q: _ y 4 Dated at Bethesda, Maryland,
-s , .o , . - 1 . . . , , ,s.
this 7th day of January 1988. W )*kl.*. sb' '.: 're f. W h('$)a.','*e, *. .l '3 ..r,. - '
*e: $*' '. s #
e,'r.
.s e, ;.V Q. i . : t ' ^ ~ ,' # .
s . . ~':<. t ' s Q" : .Q,
. : .g . . . . . .- i ' .g . . . ;- y , ,t.-.
- 3. P : -
Yo$
- n. f h,. ~* .f... t .; Of *. *] . .~ s. . '. ?, jf,'.4, * .,$,.g , .
". g, Y.i.
* : ) . ,.N;. w,.
h~4 ' ' ,%.
-We y ~ . N, ;-
- H ,<
w {.J.,rg,7 o u y y a A , ,. .-,..,r.. a
, .;+ .g-. :, r .g, <,z y.:. A, . ,9.
; n- f s.,.1
-_..- (<c<;. . g .u "a. .,p i
*- _3
)
_.y
- [,r , .l .$i.{<q*
, > . . - n , t .%. -* E. .~' .: G:'. Y.h.;f m u + y, > .
e
- % Q. y;jb' 4 3. . .
, s .. e . w ,.v. %. .,k.2'Q.2.
, 0 ;fh.
s 5.e.. z .* , w .. g.
"n<
?.
'r ad . w
$. f..< C..a?.~.j?, n' * "t
- W"Ql
?,&. . o Nf -Y(, ,*MxejY .
.*.r.;C * . < 'Cm-;Q,x-Q'..WQ ., s i .- ? .*:
li q < l1,.,.'* 2 yy.v p ' n' .yz. M.g.,.w.%. 5 ,ne.g m' , p'. ya.'4 %.p:
- p- y e...p ,-
'u.'C, .^W.,; J. .*s.; 0: e a . * ~. aq v ff .
l We a ' - ~;.. Y (y:&z f?.,fl;QW. M,, YAp{0' %@; f' jh s, ;,QW.m-5! f.W'd '. & '*
. W eNr/AA@df.,%$'
% 6,9 3 l.F.v.. -g 0 -,f A.{%aW.M,;E&W.N 4..W. 9 * % . a- f
. %ssIj,,&, .sf%.w.'l
- ' p :n .!
. r. k./.' *,'Yk;.n
. A , *w> .N
,. v& i 'S.eW
.e....f. ".s p u., g
- yq.<.y uuspe,.-,' %a ..e i a w9 ,- y 7 y J v e..
v -
~
.4 i(g 3 4.,
N $. T .46+?.1
. - 13b..i<e.v#*
; s
. c
'"t.%.#+p Q ,4. . p- e J=<v;;g*
- b .',W' . a%w&x
., A. \ ., .
. T. tg f' ~,g x, - p s.,se* .:;}.'v+% *
? ? sg A' . . rh.
3 g. - gif. g..M., M.
?.7, 6
.. ~ y * *
. Y.1'.;.7
- Q
,p *- .e= ? D j [s::i.l}'p~< a, .w-
; e. r. , %6C-/.iI* (sf/ i' .4A J 1 0,***
. y ? . y fi,--t; . * *i * %*D[% m4M nd
.s .l"., 'L.. )
,' ..d. s.q' .
c . ..,s. ~j t.c s , (p ., , .. g+< ,., a G . .;#..'...4..,',.
,,. ," ny
,, s.- . . - .<
\
' j '.R L . . ,f. s' ;' . . W( . .~y E' s '
.Or w:2 '
lf *. . , ~ , o . l . ,',.c1-4, a .
. . : ..L:l 'c . . l
* , *~s. , . p.
, = " ", , ,C g . g-..
. .'s- .,v,j ,%.. .. c , ;, .a.'
s,
~z. l
. ,, . wi.. v, , , 4 e .
* . s
, , ,y. i (, >( t,g , , 'f
.j.M -. , .A *,7 , , N..-
, gg
- g. .:.. ,. . e.w..~ s+. w..,f ;.:a
- m. . , .
, -c., .. ) , -
.t **p..,' <,.,.,n,
,..,,.A.a. 2
.$ - c t. r.
- y.
es . % + ?.
, 5?. j:q. a.'l : .: %.
.. p 3 j ;,; ',.' ,,A_*, "
7 .1
,q, . pc.g.# ,94 J . , *- + %',..s, *- % *,%%.. i s p,
- c. . w ',}
p '. <-.=.9 e ,c.; v . .g s 5. . ~ , ,;. .
- 4 a a . , i,.# , .e-
'r.,.....t' ~ .
i, _
.e *
*' . , ' ' *. p /, ~,..
$a 4
-[M , I .
8 y**.g4 V , + -
- P "- q g* ,-eng_,,y 4
- m. .,."*F.*W41mm'T*
t
- 3. j .s s,
, . . y = % fr- N"t-F. 4 ; c -e
,, W%
*u 9 f" W ge9y.Mey p e 9 +
,e. , ' ,...* .' , . , . . ,.- , .
,4. 1. t . 2 y
'[
9- .,,'.'.'.'..f,'y*:,c. s . s , n: ,
, .* . e, ,.i g 7* * .[ ' ,* ., :
, , } [' . q t J , .
[,+ -- 4; j
"*w
' [.'. .gr-,, ; ,k, -
* ,' .' '; y,h 4
- e .. . - ;.f';3..s..;;. '. g.#? s - #
~ ,$ . - ~. .,.t,, .
+ .t..
,. . .- .,i
,6s -
* .-...%g,,.
a
, .c ; t. ,y . . <, et. :. .,s.s -e ~ n, A # .
,m. ,n..., ,, ,
.q.s g. .>
- s. %. .(T.r / . t .~s ,,s.gw w,*%g ,7 . .g, -,,,a*. . g ,, g .,3
>a '.-.Y-~-
a n . '. # . - b, ,. .
, . * * '4 y . , ; 4, ;A{.%*,
8-
**' gs
.- ,l .&'
,'.~ , ,- %. .
. ' . , , +
a4
.v.g^
. ,- ,}4.. y- .
p' u .e c ! . ., * * : e d i .p.8,
, ', .; . w . . , ; ,5 ~ M .; y ,y *:. . y ~;.:.,', m .;.,~'%. % ,,; *,, . ? 4 . , R' g% .y , o ;. ? ~^. ; .yk,. . c .3 A.. [ D,.
. 4 '...' ., ,s8*ai ;t - W g m,.
;; . : f % ': . .s .w
- 5r- [. ' $ -
. r - . '.' .
- k. ,
i
k g .. i J.
.v. .c
? hka n....
.. m u.
V QW. <WW%QM4C Q ENUX6a %;. ~ .M.h .~%y 7)).f,D@.
- 4 . Mch.. . ..WW>..mv M*
mR.n i n.. ,...s.n W D. %: M'.V> .' w.x .
!. Y;'
{.M.?'MI 7 IS .?.'.N, N M.y D Y .F ., s,w ..ND'WW U.w.@M W:.6'((V'l8;.i;%D. M.y.s'g J.' . - d.
- ew%N$MM W:.wbg?.%.WW %
e,* &" W :M &:. .c.nw-ma.
% ch.W umw. w a d:5.?:.u %
""Mm-a.%n= . 2 h:M
- &?,T.2. m a a :W. =e-t mg;a+
a 2w u h at Mv
- s p'. %v .
(h '.O...
@p.,.yf %L h,'/d 4; d MW ' 'M29;'Wn a .+ po.w Ed A . 2 e . m. +.
;.mm%.
.-u ,M .< .'4 c >a. ,%p.w, cW. #. .. t. ; v .y..u s.A...n, a%w s., e..~. e q .s.
,em.~.Q ....-
'. w. . .. .;, ., ,. ;
/
q i a %,. .%.m,e 'w.e. w w.a-)l$. u; .!Mt a gq .-W .,-w.e.w; a$. :.)n. sW %<o- $ n, . - - .L,Y Cite as 27 NRC 19 (1988) LBP-681 A
,y. F '.c..wm.. :. c..
x . (@n;,. w.J g.W..V$ .~ y.. r..,.m .
.M- e.g~2MX.57J d +A4 N, m>n.7.. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
..,,,p q .. A g w@ g.m g, .. w J%Q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M $@f M W
$hM. . M.
hyfJ:
?w. S M. - ... nQ4.M.,4Q*m .:n.M.S) ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL
,,v g,r.4m.
p a, . e. m,.c. .i m .a. ,,
- y 4:,.A '.p&p.b.% L:$
a i^i; y, r&tV
. . 7,:<4y.Mf,D. MQ.lWSWr&^]9pdfMlQ.: Q J. ::. Before Administrattve Judges:
- u. .%'
.%.H*m:- ".,#: ;$p.s .o;t Y &fl-r ' k y:qp r. .mp.m,u.v V.* '
.T**':(- L' M ,. ,6? m. , @ M[n'gE.,,l.:h 4~,sk . ;"i.s.A,W Robert M. Lazo, Chairman v
..pc.
~
; 1- .9, o~ p. .f$. . . t
- ~- -
%...,s..pTE.
.. .p?
> c. . s enn .
< . t c,n..c. .:. Q. ,1:b, ,p NE :
~;
c s.
*m.a.
7, ,. , M n* m . : + .c.', s . . . . .y .,t. ..w
.; s
. :.e.M, n. .,:
, .;g . .,. c *t g %c * *.%,qn, ,i, c - -
m , ., . ., .. Rlehard F. Cole e
'k.
>.. , ,o;. . .. .u ..
.n,,..,.6..,o -.
.y r ;,
A.7: .. s .
. y" 'Sqg %
. :d in the Matter of Docket No. 30-13435 e
;4;,
(ASLBP No. 88 559-01 SC)
,.~,.
..e- . > ,.~ ,q .;;
%.4.XL.
"l.g Q c p.7.-'a
< 1.',
< '.i ~-
/j FINLAY TESTING LABORATORIES, eb INC. January 27,1988 m e'. "*
.; y't . '. s.,*%,i g s',..u... . ,.E . ,- "a. .
' n' s
4 *p c ci ,
*7. . , .4 '"*,%.<'. 4 s i---
,. .9 i t. .
',.*"e
1'_
.,b,. ,o f
, .9(6 @.; I. ' '.-l 7. # ~ t . . In this Memorandum and Order, the Licensing Board denies an NRC Staff SW y . , ' : 'T . y.'4R W motion to stay this show-cause proceedmg pending completion of a Department li,83c; , .
~ '
3 T q $;.[h, / g - of Justice investigation of Licensee's activities, and establishes a schedule for
- p. . ; O . u ' , i f! ' '
N further proceedings.
. y ,. ..:.y _ v. m .m ....,
. .c. - ,a .4 . p: . , ~. s. e.7 .
- c. .J : .
.9'd. . . . . , . .: f.;.W. .- . . ENFORCEMENT ACTION: STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
. d;WIS..M.f. .,sN. . .. ;..Y.
'^ .M., Where M. Y, '..[.fc; a stay of the type requested would deastate Licensce's business
'b, y.,. M f. @$
. ::,;.Q.R N'.Mi,pl ;h M.T., .
and den Licensee its due process rights, the Staff bears a heavy burden to @,@m.U.eG. - .e.I,~.. / S. .M, ,dGM.M,D,b.y M'M.4 .fD r W cp. ,.e .M, <f,'. D.
- z. , , :r. Promptly .- with its action.
dernonstrate a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to proceed
- n.a.m:%;MMLr:h:E,P- ,N .
.a
-x y I,i W W .iy p Q P X s-: g. ;% .%
N7M A. w. . ENFORCEMENT ACTION: STAY OF PROCEEDINGS j VTN2.E[N'[,...w.'e T . M- ..v m.N %. .:$ W .2dEdd '. W d. T . 'T Nf)'Ul,M] Analysis of the facts of this case, using the four. pronged balancing test of Barker v. WMgo, 4M U.S. 514 (1972), mandates the conclusion that a stay i l .$. f'?i.l f, '<'/ . @.Y dNGRiN ., r is unwarranted where (1) no time limit for the stay is even suggested; (2) no ) c g. ~. . .-. y.' Jy: lC privilege is asserted by the Staff to support its contention that discovery requested
. . e. w, ,
.w .r.'..-
e .
- + *
.s2 1 l
..r. . -
. . . . ~ ,
1 e
- '. V. !"::.
, K. e ,.
Q
\ . , . 1-; '[ , ,j -< - ' , ; ',
19
\
l
~ g-v.. r;e." . , . ,d;
,: g . , . .' ' ' , *
" ~
7.
" ;n- . s .
(... .
,j0.~.,..
+ . L. 3,1 f,9 , A, y'<"~
- i
..,....,J.; ,.,
q- _ ". .; , ; 7'. . . C g
* .,,, )
. y W )
,s e. ' , ,
. s y.. .. ... .. .. ,.,, m .. -,.- f-. .. m y . ,. ,
--g, 4 g * , - -
- g. - . . . ; - . r .;. , r .- i
, ,, ,, r;.
- j '.,.c,.
' .o l
,,, i-
.'- e a
s
,.3 ,-
s
. , ,4
,. ,.s-4
. ' v'e'.-
e,<< . S. 3, .,.- JV.;.,ge(,
. . t3 e
, . e,e..
4
, , . . . . .. .c . . , .. .
c'
.,~ ,
,..,~1 J., . v. -
.-L- * , , ,
. . . . ..r..i
-] i.
..... ,.re.y. ss
- s c%. * .*.c
~ ,a
. , , . s.+, , ; i
.. .q ; " ^' l m - ,;
' ,. , ,. 1
,;,3. ._'* .,\ , .
, ; . . 'v;) 5 ,.r *
, , . . , - g, g..,*.i .
g,..., : i s - e ., ,, ..,, i - , , ,,; _~. ,.,. .*-
,/,,,-e. . ., .
- .fs: -[ G 5: 'g 9 ' , -
, g s ., , < . , . . _r, ,, H), g;g,} g.3; P. A x'.1,.s.
m.x wa.. .. . ~ .('e., ,,
; g'{
MWF1.6. M. W~GNMW1. 5.4S~.,.mM. 8 i ii ? ? $
%,.- V.!,%..A. . E@8 !@,
$..9 Mmp p . w%y.5.y@h w '.:e.n. : Gf.i).M 2.: 3m n x.. . a .
% %.n ..nk M y+:.%r. MJ a W :M
. .t .
.J'd.%pM K
.s %r se .' % - 4 3 ie m pgpm.wm.L.. Mg.dg46:fm a w .M :2ye.3pg.f. %@n f. Wm.Q .,' :m M;s.c ~p m 3.s,
. ge l y;W,r c.. @'y.
W:x gy M i'l: .k%q u 4;es. ? >us jy#;H.W.%.w;u,. .m.w : m@.d~pD:
<m.w.c "x., e *b2A:,c.s;.n
. n;. ,m . : y , W..-,..s 4w .
.c.
iFM iL >*.~.w y~.. W.e}{e@.M9pMt@m. E ".. . .
' ~ ~ " " "
rw w .s. N b wM f I .wdy, MWn% gqv4&qyAQuw.f,N .mt mn p %:p% 1
\
wh i>.%** m c -W T .i'5 '- 4
.%q. ;
y we. g4..f&.;.,- p. p%.v:a,) M, e , g.v.~,~ &,.k'. @n., ys t wQ
,. %.... . Ep t :
[5%m. 5&dggM7 by the Licensee in this case would hinder the parallel criminal investigation; (3) the Licensee has persistently asserted its rights to a prompt hearing; and (4)
% $f h MdhN$G$#@[8$;#$%-#M$MN#'
pr M s.c.. i' W
'4 $M dhd@Y the Licensee would suffer extreme prejudice from the delay both in its business operations and in its ability to effectively prepare a defense to the enforcement
.,m ,r. Q.. . .f&.
*4p, w . .M W M TA* M' M[. %.A MEdhf.'Lh:!!Q.a.d%w.
. t. . . .
..n...
,,7. t.; *
- . s . j v. . w . .-. "'
Wyp.;M.p q xdon.
;$ M.N'N y 9'7.e;.e MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PREIIEARING T_M@s_@!,M. '1
- .y p.<
... p> s..:
M.'$hTD. > ~ N, y,, . g.n,W,
. h., <.
4
- M.M:m,MyawM.MA
~ .sys w M-eny% CONFERENCE OF JANUARY 13, 1988 wq.p#@n,.~,p..MM. , M. ,u..
w .. v f;.m@ w 9.v u.9.M .%c .~y~; The M - 9, Licensing Board conducted a prehearing conference pursuant to notice!in MW'SM$"yf n ,,c.T4. :.!.:gMi'gi '
-Q Honolulu, Hawaii, on January 13,1988. The parties, Finlay Testing Laboratories, sM. @.
i {(M& Inc. (Licensee), and the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC y; '.' ; 7.'lgM"pld;4' qu,'.
- g.;.: Staff), both attended and participated.
.. / ca . J(j p,. j,', ;g , '. Matters considered included (1) Licensee's multiple motions dated December x,g 3[., .."
. , . , ,c
~
14, 1987, relating to the scheduling of hearings and discovery; (2) NRC Staff
. , ,c. a .J .. ,m. Motion for Stay of Proceeding, dated December 17, 1987; (3) identification of
,1 , . .,
. , ,, the key issues in the proceeding; and (4) establishment of a schedule for further l
o ' g,..a (
.,v-.
; X. ./ @ . .
xtions in this proceeding. l
'3 ,
I
'J *
-l
'i -
- ,, i $ ,g.- -q * ; . 'y 1. STAFF MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDING
.. :: i ?, ';,o',*l. ,f,: Q '
a. j ,,: ; .. .h.*- .,.: , , 1 J ,li, .P ,, ?W-; y q %q ' ?!' S -
,v y -f:Q.4/._
On September 21,1987, the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Opera-
- y.3- m tions issued against Licensee an Order Suspending Licensing (Effective Imme- l
, .y - ,
i diately) (published at 52 Fed. Reg. 36,479 (Sept. 29,1987)). The order recited
.^
' ~. % W, . ,s,. ./ W. . ' , ,
,ra that on August 31, 1987, the NRC Staff commenced an investigation into the myc : C , .s t .6.u, ' ... g. ,.. n . ,. ' j Licensee's activities, based upon allegations received by the Staff. Relying
.. ,g. . r. 3 g,W
.v .Q:?.v9. . ; . x.
l.a .
.. s.
upon the results of an initial investigation by the NRC's Office of Investigations i s TAiW ' Spy.t.
.A.., S . s y3, n;i, / 3. . u;. c
.y . .",?J2
- 4. ,. U ] s.
o p ./'
.'.- ("OI"), the Staff determined that on the tw occasions that were the subject of the allegations the Licensee had transported licensed material in violation of SdOMMkb"N
$ %MS M.W-7C ?A2 ,@-jIj!!, 2i d.l U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") and NRC regulations. The order also noted the failure on both of these occasions to use required shipping pa-
% ;d ; b f;V PA H
@w ,. Md 1. W 2 l.f.T. @M N.' continuing, the Staff concluded on the basis of information from the initial inves-pers and labels. See 10 C.F.R. 6 71.5. While noting that the O! investigation was l L .v.... g/ M g,. M., Q ,; !: $./. D ,.. tigation ...d s; '
{ja.g W p. y.M.2P:13@@e,i 1 i,.(N & p,y. . M?!? jf. N b h 't h h, @.h
' that the viola ons apneared to be deliberate, raising significant doubts as to whether the Licensee is able or willing to comply with the Commission's requirements to protect the public health and safety. Therefore, the Deputy Ex-l M;}[ h' >e.. ~3 QAQM(( ' ,, ;
M eche Director for Regional Operations, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. il 2.201(c) and
. . > ~
_,.. -; ~ < ' ,
*' .4 t
..i Iss Fat Reg. 89 0918).
.v # . ,. a ,
- r .; - ,
- g. ~ .
v
- q. ; > .
v.-
- .m. e.
4
* 't e e: *?
..-v ,
',6 .
s 10 r _b , hk, ,. , e . s y, a. .'f
- g ,, D g4 (' ,
.. s
-9
. N a
'8:_ .
^
. ,; '.,r
) '
- y, , <
, . - ~ -
;-.*~~.s * * - ~ .* * - * * ~ ' * ' '
* " . * ' " ' , , ' M ' ' " M, ?~ S ~ ,\
., s ,
a
, , , i. <
g- . , " , -p.. .;,1.'
; g' .,/.
s' ;.:.
-.c
- 3. q, '
, I: . . ' . ,
, s
- n? + ' *
..'4:
, s , ., m , . ... . ,
' , 'h'h. .
. . , 'n. e.
, , ..ib5 *
,n,.
..' ( b 5 ',.
. t , , . c n, . ; y . ; ' $ p[ ' ,*
*,y.-
.
- 1,
. > , I ' " , '[d y ge. l y.w;
,i f b ~l
~. .
.* ,;, ' =
- f. ,= , F. c 4a _f.- 3
- s .-
3 .
. . > o yn .n WA
~ 5
$a
,h .%.y p%. n .Y' .ym 9 h. '.M. n y.-3,.=
m.&yaa v.* Ew.n M.MA Af. WY!k%.G4;%@MWO
. ~ .. . . .w .~ n p s. 4
$;WC%M.n&y.,..,@ - w s m. num m,s6D'$W. ., .rm.. ,
.G5Wf6g :
l' M, Y(hA; t...m}h *Ql.4/'M'Ebi{D+.dhW. g.g'W"' i4
%{*'4 %% .> h "bt* " "~' .Q M M W'h S $.UD- M.5-[.:h. .
$hlhh {} hb WWW$WdkRWAR WM2y,k nMw 2.202(f), suspended on an immediately effective basis all activities authorized kfNyf$I (.h M.k '[5MY'8ceh tmder the license.
Q q', "M gic M ,. m p , 1*Wg;gq' ne order further noted that, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.202(b), the Licensee h, bhp gj might file an answer showing cause why the license should not have been
- W b %' [ k$ n M M pS f p {h- M ,{jfp suspended and might also request a hearing on the order. If a hearing were NhhIi5I .!QB1b.+3
- pW*-MQ kh N'p; requested by the Licensee (or any other person adversely affected8), the Commission would issue an order designating the time and plxe for any
.p p .M,d'$y,',h/@: wwa M %,M.~ heanng. De issue to be considered at any such hearing would be wh' ether the M:f.:Wa.2.
.S. ,$.'pp#d m
NWfM@F@hk@42 M n suspensien order should be sustained.S On October 5,1987, the Licensee filed an "Answer, Request for Rescission f'/$.$.'.@$Mg@$MMbdWMdQ'$ & . or Relaxation of Order; Request for Hearing." nerein, the Licensee admitted that the improper shipments to and from the island of Hawaii in February 1987 MY Ys! 4' %;SIh N hf,@d h.@ @[(G
@7;q @p M .$ p[8 7iM g..',p.8'MA'X. Qq
*Ch occurred, as recited in the order. Answer at 17. The Licensee also admMed that the DOT's labeling requirements were not met with respect to the August M8,7bMN,lN%g;FW@) 18, 1987 shipment to Johnston Island, as recited in the order, but denied that Q ' p .;, % :[ .; 'f y ,.' d...-?.yy ,
it violated DOT regulations by shipping the radiographic device on a military d,, y .f. .'?. 9 Ja,.i. flight that also carried passengers. Id. at 1718. The Licensee denied that Gordon
,Jh... F. <,49, . . %. ,W, ,m'm
. . . .V_ . Finlay, president and owner of the Licensee, had any knowledge of (1) the M:,;P)'N@ 9..
- m. repackaging of the radiographic device involved in the Johnston Island shipment
@ MM @ MMt- N. $;d .7
@ N f ;'.; h ;" ~ , 4 ,s 7 ' ~- and the failure to have properly labeled the resulting package (Answer at 10) and U,HMb:'A. .. inf.f.5.ft; -
h@-. .D.M,W', ?. L. tl,M.. i'F - N. /4'
..M (2) the improper shipment of a radiographic device to the island of Hawaii. Id. at 13.
As noted in the order (at 3), the O! investigation was continuing at the u.<q[e @e . NhT?sM p "t'f. ' date of the order's issuance, nat investigation is still continuing, Ut as of N; , N N . W 7[.r(.T M3+ X Ml Mj.k:f E F.J 7- W [ early December 1987, had progressed to the point where the Staff and O!
"l * , g.f considered referral of the matter.to the Department of Justice (Department) $qs$
C. z f G i,,?;C6MM3 2[ ; . .M E 'f to be appropnate. Discussionf by O! and the Staff were undertaken with the Department, resulting in the Department commencing on December 8,1987, a jl
,YJN.M,1MN
' , , . m.m3. ,1f1-% ;; . b '::gM M,-y4D. g,,.FlN'hMM'ff*k;M criminal investigation of the activities of the Licensee. In a conference call on the following day (December 9,1987), the Staff ; advised
$.@g Judge Lazo and counsel 5 . &' ;. .lyg for the Licensee that the Department had commenced a criminal investigation 3,
' '.w,m' .. P..-...: w .~.f4'J ,. m.
%. G.y.w y$ @Nactivities ' . qandv that the Department was requesting the Staff to QQ?%ly@.S. M$-MyJN'h.'f%;e .g..'
. ' :, A of the Licensee's seek a stay of this proceeding in order to avoid irreparable harm to the criminal
- h.f,fid[3'k h b k'?. $ $d @ investigation. It was agreed during that conference call that the Staff would file
'MM%tWMDbY k
by December 16,1987, a motion for a stay of this proceeding. Although the Staff intends to seek a stay for a period sufficient to permit y #.M's @ ygg.Me M e$ N p@ig g i N h $g;'.$. the Department$ g.g:its criminal investigation, since the Department has te complete j
, m?,. p : w.%
<s
,. n : wcm:- w ,k 9a: k. n . m^;
' ~,% M ,5; + q+ sm((,c
'I ,i ' '#
i',kE ; . I
$ egher pegge rupested beanr4 cm $4 eder.
, Cl -
' Q M .b ~ ;s 8 The won kr.her und chai na in. r or reps.s tw h nr.: mid noi sur m e irrrnen. .e.mm. enh.
'fp,,,*:9:
. g , ,'. j. . . j .,e..* f.W;',,.f) order. order at s.
~ . . ;% . g 'C,- .; w . .:.yv..-.-.v.
c .
, M ,-*':;.%* ,i
,3
. , 3 "j .- ,. c.: *.j . x :.a.
.<(c. s'
*.j.,
. .,y*f "
g... ***. ^ *
~.sl**, N s? ?)?, T* e YO $$
..a ~- , :'.- ",g. ; . ,' ;..
q ; . - p' .,;; p ,, Af ..*[.g-, e S. . /.;. .,..,'.
- r. : t.'. ~ ~
- f "/ ,. <= .9 v i
<w s . -g G .( I
' l. n,,h* h r, *.- f.f' llMr?',$,s r < i
%c.. . %,. v,.o n. ..3 y . ::;Q;..
- / . L ~ > :.n ,
, j. . t
- .e ,
I
,t,
' ,4
,
- g 'i
,' ; ,..f'; *fl. *s 9; , . qy., , ' , lv,1 l'
- s l
7g " , , g, :,:- :
- _ , '.'*r
- l 1' .;r ' a ;, s.
'- [ ,
'".*'C*'. ***7*'*'?',*
# * ,e- .v,.- , . . ~. ..
- %' .g: qh ' ' b
.,,,..e..
4 . , .
'?f. s[- [~,'. ~ (
- T "*
3 ',.q. s +. * :.- ~ss~ * - - ; < - opi.~..+ - ,. y
, r\.~
. ..> c ;,;
y
~. ,
.",,',c I . 4;',.
, . . 8 d :j J * ,'*,,e' . *~ (* ~#.
( ,f'
,5'
- efS' , .; - *, *
* . ; '.,, , \
.. g *$ ',h i .. ,. , > . 3
'c'. es . .
" e r
'C' - , .
a
,, .. *'; ys s *,.,k ,. *. ,a J -* _ i*. s ); y R 4, ,* < .. s ' # 1. -- _ ,
.\a-
*l,.V
..,-~,
.' %'.\ ..,,.,,c
. ~s y f'- ,15:h . . . .
' i,'g;', { ,Yb_ ;
. 2 d.-y s.' .Y; ., : '.', . , . Q .
4 - . . . - . . ,
, f. '.; . / ~ ,'
' ' A. 4<..;. , >, L
..m.& [ ,_.a t
"t.' , f;. ,,,, .3. .%.. .
' a' g , ,,
I g
, - . [g ' s y g. % g .
a g
-w", . *q . qp s. : ,; ,, . y*, )',, :. a.m a- :g=. U ,. . . ,,w u n.s m' e...
, n .,
, 2 ' O*s , .. -
73 ,1 e . . .~ *,
'., );, 'Q ;:, w' y .. s. +
s, ' q .y ,v,R ,, r- . , , i. l V )r..pc., Mm =..:r, r ,. .,po. .n;' %s s . l .r ,,., .. , .;ffs.- . e. ~. . qM
- > -* ;,. y ? ,, p<v, s 's 8 ., . ! s/'g Q.g i
..-..?'. ' p '
,s.
_. gfqf..L. t 92 .. k.;s,.# ,n , .
*.2_*._
' , ' ,%O3
_ , , . i ( , * , 'w/ 8 . f* . .,'
, , ,Q g f j ,.
- y y&N'4
' d.~k:: ,,1 w .. ,e ~fW A r, cw Y,';
? :Q: ,h hha.1Yln.s..
sn : w; nW f.2.c.
% pyw . G .v .. ;, ; > - ; > ..y.y,(';;. Qt /Y '
n
~ . ->&..;; y,.c
.6%.+.:&,. g:g:. M: ~:%\ ,,,,'a%. p). &... '
. . . r ....,,,. &.
- . . ki ' ' ~
A s . 2
.nth . :; y. %r.% ' ' ~ -; , ;-s y,.g:..tq:.,v;;(. n o: c'E's .;+
T. h . M .n..x is2M^Ga w...yt
'p" hW dd. .% :.:.2:ya , s.,C .Li, ' p "u M M m W..q
.% 4 . : .p ><
.-hdh'
- h'ar n%. J,5vn.M,.N!.;D., W 6., W&go y~c p&
~ . . . . .. . .
pl;'(c.:Qhy.3 "w $>.Q ;Q &g <, h ^{.- fys;1 -9 v. L. ,gM.Mpt..u..: . d.&.
< ..'x 5.4n.Qy'y.m :' ' .
o k,5 ,d. : y.M.mn ,aQ~/',q ...' 'M; M.. S'!f. - m Qs .wA m .e.y ;:.9. M.%.a. tj.m. (~.%;p p :.s w.d
^'
length of time needed to complete the investigation. However, the Department MM- $ believes that it will be in a position to make such an estimate by about the 9 hh:dch.d [f )h M @ N' middle of January 1988. Accordingly, the Staff is enrrently requesting a stay of this proceeding until mid February 1988 to permit the Staff to file a motion NN D N.'t M(MQ h h % $ j% 9 MNN for an extension of the stay (which the Staff would file by January 29, 1988), to provide the Licensee an opportunity to respond to that motion, and to allow -j)$U M h'$ .W d [ %gs$Qhe} N 3: time for the Licensing Board to rule on that motion. W. qhyg[gfM TO.MrMi@MM{
. ~ . .
- < M, x . ' .d dg/ .4. M, q On December 28,1987, Licensee filed its opposition to NRC StalT Mot. ion for a Stay of Proceeding. In its opposition, Licensee requests not only that the
~g. g' MM, M NE M%;M. s' ANN.f6'&c %u ,h'. ,e[ yE .c-fe,eM. M. i Staff's motion be denied, but also that the Order Suspending License (Effective Immediately), entered September 21, 1987, be immediately vacated due to C.@*J '.MQ:- Chi- 0 ' : % Staff's dilatory and bad faith conduct.
N'j?j . Licensee argues that Staff must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity h$p,Nk[Ek'%Q.5.20
,f , e '. g ,
>.' O' $h' in being required to go forward with this matter if there is even a fair possibility y ,;g f t. % j f/ ~~/
that the stay will damage Licensee. A stay of the type requested would devastate
, e W. ..; ' . .
,, Ljcensee's business and deny Licensee its due process rights. See Landis
'e- -
^
- v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 55 (1936).
-~,- ,
. Staff acknowledges the heavy burden pixed upon it, yet asserts an entitlement
. . . ~ ..{ .. ,. to the stay based principally upon the slip opinion attached to its motion,
- 7% w Adw1nced Medical Systems, Inc., ALJ 87-4, 25 NRC 865 (l987) (mis).
~. '
' ;sp ' ' l F. ' '. ? '-f ,l[.s .JN(I he facts of this matter could not be more dramatically different that those in MfS. And, in MfS, only a 3-month stay was granted by the Presiding
.[{
~ '
. ' ,7 7.. ]~'.
Q N'l o , . q' Officer. MfS, 25 NRC 872 73. While the balancing test applied in that case
.N qqj .' .6 .
. j is generally applicable before courts deciding this issue, it is clearly evident that each balancing factor weighs in favor of Licensee, and against granting the y .,
c ci: 1 Staff's motion.
. ['?'
Despite the explanation by the Staff, it is clear that the request is for an open-c J.f / '. 1 i) ended stay of all matters in this proceeding. A status report in mid February 5 ;-7 f.,.'$c'_t.'[d'":[,4;. '.tMA. ' .y - 1988 can hardly be considered the end of the stay request. Staff"intends to seck a stay for a pered suffluent to permit the Department (of Justice) to complete its i Q T C(:b:!k."* .; f ':- 4 cri,ainal investigation . . . [and Justice) is not now in a position to estimate the
'l ; l f.ffi "l t; ' ;O p, length of time needed to complete the investigation." Staff Motion at 4. Such an e . '.Qig,#.2p. w . .'/. '.f.. S . C n*A . ., . -m1 oppended stay request was denied in MfS under enormously less egregious l g,c. ..,s .~ ~.3 , r s ;.g .;j , 4:: 1, circumstances for the Licensee. l 'f$SO7s3.9.i. % . '/;'14' In MfS, "[b)cfore the proceeding progressed very far, the NRC Staff admin-
((.J[.@ i U' M f'; ;M S['-}.E { istratively relaxed the terms of the crder." MfS. 25 NRC at 865. AMS was authorned to, and did, resume the suspended activities under certain conditions 69 M [l'M,kdh)$ff /..,tfk%
.y.Jr'lM:ff.:-?
imposed by the Staff. '
- g. W fy y[.s nis one fxt in MfS, above all else, militated against the Presiding Officer's f @Q: .h g pr ' , Qi .'QM-? , outright denial of the stay request made by the Staff there. As the Staff argued l
.fl n > ' . .
in MIS (at 866): I .~ .
..p ,
,d . e8
. m. c . ~
~<
g e ~- a
' . . . . s, .<, 22
.- 1
, . .. 'J n: . ' - ,.
. m a
t
.j
. v.-
e 9 q
. . .- -y >=c.- ey , - . -
v
. ( " , I' *[ '
4
- . eg ; . = . * ' * , ' # .. U ',P*
^
I s ..'(',' ,. . , . ; s ,
- a 4
3. g
, gi
{- , t- , e 'J I, * *. ,
.~
.g ,.
'. I
.c, j ; "* *
}- . ' ,. ,
; l J1 h
;- O h[ l
* *I
~ - ,
+. '.. e.c ~
' , . , h ';
l" [, }- Q ;9 4 _p
,i , *
.9 , i '
- j h $ '( (( p . ,"y . g
,', , c' 44 , y ..,y lJ ,. . Y. U .
4, -
*.t"',
~ b ' 'lf m ' M ^> % .R(
L T - i l' &
- ffy::.qlL. R ~.V. & Y-h- h h $$5'
- k'
%fiNM .- lUytYtf*p%f'Q4ff
%'.m$r MS,% ~ '* QArt y fk :M. A f.*;.G:.M:~ V@s $.*.9.f y,Q sb "M *E Q&h}&.%j.,f:. R h .m&y;.Q;;& M,R W @E-4.w",#.a oCT iQ "- b W *.94';* "*/% W n DreM
-/ s,W% w.k. .%a .$ 7 6 [ Q
, n&, e-
- U ' > 3 CWe#.ysg
..~y,$ wn 'u%s.y?.p.-p,y Yh8 a.
u #. g 'l w eM. m. w..: m.
%f't2% ! t $ !%> *
~ :
r & W W/%D
'T.MQf p],?*J N %.;Q.}. $3l:D 1r(. W (r&5M'$'
The Staffjibetieves that since AMS nry now perform its normal Asiness under the cmdifm he related suspensim order, a stay would not be smduly burdensome m AMS (em@ asis A > I '. F 4 On the contrary, in this proceeding Licensee is unable :o conduct anything N d,D.ki% p s T like its normal business. The suspension order has neither teen relaxed nor 7';Y h h [ 5w rescinded, wholly or partly, despite detailed settlement proposals by Licensee to l
- p $ Of W O,k b E39MS;k{,9,%%Q:. h the Staff urging relaxation or rescission of the order.
Staff admits that Licensee has consistently requested a hearing and expedi-O4m1~E@m. c.e p . N ,,nwp.~.n.m,f,. w@; 6.nAyy. ,e.e- i b h h.YO b. m s;%a:/ W@ h .h) h (p h tious processing of this matter. The combtned motions filed by Licensee with the Presiding Officer, dated December 14,1987, detail the effons to w hich Licensee h7DM;3,$69pfdE9d,y[N;$j - fC$%M has gone in seeking some forward movement in this matter. It is not without moment that Licensee requested a hearing, a motions heanng, discovery, and a 8% M '5 M@ M@ I N G :ch' d @ MMf7 prehearing conference before learning of the December 8 Staff referral to the
- wy -
zhhD' hf.N.% . Department. There is no indication that Licensee intends to abuse the discovery process, c.J.a@g;g, p.z ;, ;g. ;.y'" !.,l r . Q. ..; . We# Analysis of the facts in this matter, under the four-prong balancing tes;
.$.'. ? '
WM.Q'n?.W hl[C%M,,M. . established in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), also mandates the
.w%j$s :, > MU. N, . D. .O %, , .: .
conclusion that a stay is unwarranted. l w.v,r :.u.4.(nh. ~..v) a 4> -g.ns. . .y : . j y&. @pg.W fm ,,. w ~ s..u: 4. . . +M'M.;iEp.~p,. t d
- 3 Wru % ' crql gyp '
gP(1).w .;*w;M3f$NWS'h'4N2@,. M'. Length of Delay
)
I Staff seeks an open-ended stay. No one can avoid that unmistakable conclu- .oa% %:.:. m % % > -: WMehc# < vv 'E6GMd.,4g ~WEp&y E -Q 9(. sion, and no one has predicted when, or if, the Department of Justice investiga- , Jf.ppf.9.*J.X: w'9f.;.M.c.fdED.W'.,- . tion will be concluded. No time limit for the stay is even suggested. As is well '
,c3.sNo c. W. r G%, ,_.g.;@.UM. o:t . . ., c. . known, it is not unusual for criminal investigations to take months, even years.
u.,.e.~ w .9.., ten R. 9 M .x v :. W:'. .
- 7. - 4;v;m s. %M
.c__.a j
.a, byyy/N: c/7 9..' c(f.,g,. eS 4 (2) Reasons for Delay i
') .h.hkhjhl { The Staff's justification for the delay is principally that discovery of witness
_ . QK f ' NlQt*hQV statements upon which the suspension order was based would reveal to potential " 3Q@} W2.d @,Kfp.;f@Q,- . targets of the criminal investigation significent information relevant to the i M criminal investigations. Staff's Motion at 8. The statements were obtained by h:MI[M3;[ff% g NRC Office of Investigations, not the Department; and were ostensibly obtained [%cN:hh.h.y;hgj$@Q$g
'. hM 3.h.h#d;p f.
g ile.<.: T h ) ki for this, not a criminal, proceeding. However, no protection has been requested under 10 C.F.R. I2.790(a)(7). I
'fh[M M :$ Vg even though the Staff is c!carly aware of that protective provisbn. Staff's l D.?! M E- f M .,:$ W , $h?'
M N % % s5,Ey/S Motion at 4 n.7. More importantly, except for telling us that criminal discovery
, hqQ'g procedures are more restricted than civil discovery procedures, the Staff offers no y
%@MCff,W:@
; r. . ' 3.V ; g f, . s; .W--? :,'If(d@Z.j%
,$,y?
Justification for withholding the discovery requested by Licensee. Significantly, no privilege of any type is asserted by the Staff on the discovery issue. u . . . _ , . . . . . .
*p : k
, f, ' % y i. ) \ [ .
,.9**. p.
5 e rl .
.. g;.>.
..v
' . .. l,h?
_ ...'.p.mg
,J 7 3 .. ^~ ;v.
c.
-. ; .3:e * , ,,
a , \ f . :3
,y
' . V - , ,,
9 ,*t.. . , .~.ms .? s,c ,,...<.: :ry e n, "t.,'., *.4,
. . a g. zz m
* * ",'o .
j ' g*;;. .!.,' ,
?,] ~'e v' g:.,,*,.,
, 4 '
. ;r 4.
4 ;; ,-
,;r ,f. as x , # f. *
.. kV*
sf -
* - k..o ?
. *.%-l'; ,
. g *f, % G 's
..: p , x'Q r
l V*:.*a.c y y;*S'& . > l?
'- -l y ,5;' y,..s . . q a. y' . . ff . .f 4
] .: .'.- . , Ils ,_
- I'I$o)
- t. L , 4 . . '. ~
r >; r - < . ~ + . . . - - - . . , , ~ - . l- . ,' c
,, , s. . , , . . . ~ . , . , . . ,
.b*.. -
,c\r c ..g3.,
r . D-f
; o?r" ,,. , ,s , , , ' , .-A'%.r.. ,
-,.,v , G*
* ' V,
, u a ,
e sn ,.^' - .
.'l .
.n.
.s
,. r
. ,4
,s.. . .' <
,as
.l: 3 , . .,, -%,,u -m y -.. . , n ;.- :, , u . " ., v . . y X,a, c + , . .:.+ .. ;t....w : . ~ .x :. ;7
':^.n .-. .. % .3- a.~r.,.yos.-tn...
,s e e, ; ,, .4., n sxg c '; .
. '. ,, ., [,. .' 1 '. ,~.. .'$'.*s . %~.% ,. y .. .e z. , c . ~ : * \ .. s.
.x . ., *. :p, .;,. &
S '2. , 3 [ .
. N, / N..v ,
,4',..
f' -i p , ' M, ,1*63. g t;.. .'iQ
?
y I '. ,[' 5 !
- j', ' ,,..[ , . l . i;f,.) c,Q . Q ,1
-s3;
_aaK,
, -&.; ,'.. ;m,"..* . is- i q ,U 7,cs e ',., V. ' 4 .* .;* i .1 ( ,3, e
. ,5 ; : ,, , ,1 3 ,. . . ., _. . . . .n . _
a4 %
w< m.e. NM fy.. fy,.fhe%.&.. L
,m :O.4th- t.
A w M Q w h;. 4 :g w w . hr %. w w.3.g.e:q., 3,' .9w:f&e.t hdbkIY..,%sv. u.. yn s y? MMk ;
. me e... 3 y w~d s m%,s,.
~y N s..W m* ;d, .
kh b,.u.pp.w.y.g
.s. ,.
b'dONNDN ,.kk .; ~ +; w%..a.. :px.@. hs .;Mb,wM.s . .,. . ..f..
' N M p .b, .g-r),3 p y.fr J%nvv'S 2ra-p, , , hd, b->d)w.
v me.,IMh.w.bdfNS w.r u .y eg ww p .m .mo.m.N.kh.e - d'i @n.vg slo y% $d h M INM g.f
.hih%,RbQ p' h@ hj% / MNTd? lk.%9.2.5 Ris same basic argument wn raised by the IRS in Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478 (5th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 955 (1963). However, M Campbell was also drastically different in circumstance from this matter.
I$h $9DMhN In Campbell, the plaintiff filed a civil actica for a tax refund knowing that he M" $NN/MN.?PM T rag'W/M hW, k?l@ Ni@@ was about to be indicted for tax frrud (307 F.2d at 48189). In that case, not only the timing, but the tactics of the action's filins iself, and subsequent requests h'~ d Nh hhNY' O for discovery, led the Fifth Circuit to find that Campbell's motion under Rule hQhMD.hi h Yy@h[SM'!h c/p 34 for discovery, if not the suit itself, was ourely for the purpose of obtaining the otherwise unobtainable criminal mvestigative reports. Id. at 490. M M{N@$$NEhD!MhMM nis marrer is nothing like Campbell. Investignive reports of the Department T$b..? '% . s P:T. 6.. W.V jd.yhW8,%cWR.. 6./'
.s
'M d.4N . 3MT@,d. have not been requested. The Department admits that it is conducting it.s own investigation into essentially the sar . %ual alkgations. Olingv Affidavit,113-
.%f.U;e.C ,@
- #c..s.n
.f g
@ M 7.. N f.E:h? MM .Dhn E ' M N'f @ery 6 %./.4.c % 6. It will prepare its own reports. / Jonally, Licensee did not commence this matter; the Staff did. And, Licenh did not request discovery with knowledge c .C N.J3. . .that a criminal referral had been or would be made. Cf. Campbell, supra, 307 h lm t :J.' " . > .v., ~
f . f.
.: F.2d at 481-82. Even in Campbell, the Fifth Circuit indicated that the discovery
.;v.p-( q.
.U 'g
~- yn)lfg '. ~,%'d'?
/a s
,1,/c,,; '
,J
;;l.P,Licensee 489).
. ./ seeks should have been available under the circumstances (see id. at
. < > > . k.. m:,
3 _ . ; A :{; e ;.;
.,,,.f. -
~. .e. n .-
s m repons prepad a put of a crimine inmugade =14 necesurdy emtain q+..~jp,g.,9
,.y - , n.M pr y.M At.;MVM4 f m
' fmnadan of impmance to the enmmal pr-sim that could have no necenary reladon
, e cJ'..@, W;A:e M to the refund claim but could na be @ysicaDy separated in the fues. Limited Jixowery and
.;. $'. e'r" ".i.',,d;N J k : S
;..f.Hy;Y > ., S, p-7FM h. -
.% ; {.%f ~NQ?. U.M aker remedies wre auritaMe whicA would not be vdneraMe to improrer inspection. M*,
the plaivifs wre clearly entitled to duconry ofany docwnents obtainedfrom the plaintifs'
.y y Q g% . /1.h..f^ .a-
.V .'fWM. ' hins. By interrogatories under Rule 33, the plaint #s could learn tAe names and adkasses
.}:?.?
of persost having howledge of relawnntfacts. By deporitions mder Rule 36. IAey could
.w e c .j
%'/ ,s s .
a,c,rtay, r,1,wntfact, a, t, tA, ag,n,, lemguis added). v.. .y w* < , S. -)
....,5
.; < ~-T y, ,
a *. -> i 7%w . - .. . . . In Campbell, a very broad request for "any and all" confidential criminal
- ND2,.,. ,s t N . [ c. . investigative reports was made by Campbell. No such request has been made WWQR3J' ' Q.
here. In essence, the Fifth Circuit agreed that production of all of the items 3.3M';-ib' Sf' l d6 ' . ? .. f.?$' . ' c% % : of discovery Licensee is requesting in this maner was proper, even though Campbell was acting in bad faith there. jM g r."[$c JlM;j.>.@ UQ. h @.7O ' f ^ , [. 6 1 e De Staff seeks to bolster its reasons for delay by offering in camera, ex ? , %ggy , @ parle proof. by hearsay affidavit, to bolster the Department trial attorney's Jed, Q.< /h M'l.#.2.i. M ;V.4' 3:* conclusory 2ffiduit. However, such an ex parle presentation is in contravention 1 MF. fM AM.i tw.M. % .W.,. .%Edr.Q ,dmrTT.A%,#. 9 [' Q 6 W. of the NRC's own policy statement and a clear violation of the Licensee's e constituticnal rights of due process and confrontation of witnesses. Any order "T D my M,1$5 @N . -M e ..:- ?!"/ M.. tqQ C.f 9hWC! ?w catered based upon such ex parle proceedings would be constitutionally and 9 c ..r . . ' . procedurally void. M G. VM g:.M-..%g:.,c,
$ .; u- -- y m- ...,
7,~ d MQ g' p,'s ?p , , %y Licensee argues that the now obvious underlying reason for delay is the Staff's deliberate and consistent pattern of dilatory tacti;s since early September , .c,g< ? e:.. -
'. @ - . O r
. to avoid having this matter determined. This is the vesy stroitgest case for
, u. ,-
,.:.....+c' ' ' ' , ,
d!*~.
'.,,.a A -
e E, +
.,j
;L y p .* I 1 Y . 'g g' , : ~,,' ." .
- r # - [ , $ . 1 t, *'k[
,':)
- zw pW - W .
- s
- f . ;' ,7. . s . t'; ;*C l 24
',:l l.l 9' . G '-
' '[ l .c ;. - *1 W;;g.S. e r. ,;. . ,,
lQ s '..e~. f. ,. . , + ," ,. .
. ,j i .?
,-e f:y
- s.s m
. e x .
.w,.: -g..: *
.w s, .,. ,m. ,,. .. . . - . . . .m w- . , ,. . ,.
..,. .m,m. e /. C. yw:.w.5. g%
~,..e
.r m'., .
' n< > q .l,. ' p ' '*,. '% f f ;'
., % , . t * .- .s?.9
. .. . , *hyn *
- v. ; t <. \ g * ,
L,
- p, , cy'L,,* v .?, =,
.p. _ . ;
v'y. ,
. . .n - .
;;o ,y, ,.;,.
s .g . . , . , . '$ ,
'^p c . . . . ' ' lf g ;d , J '. r 3y% J.w./p^ y'4.% ,lj u
. ' . ..,< . . a. - ,n . . eQy,g,. g.
s i
,,.zt ,o .c.' s. ' :,y ..s3 ?...vo
.~
. - .. .., c.m, y; .A. V.,.. . ; *.c:u ~ ",' ;..fi+ Q
; , e..r47.N, f6
'y. 'V. .
f> @ q. &,y
; gm
,,.p,. .g g ,, y . ;w. ., i N)
- a. .. ~_ ; - k . ,
~
- f$ '
My%G gg pf q'+3 Q f c s. W M'%%WSM6iMCg%@'~gAqQyg:r q y.y?.yy@l(g p e?.M N Or.f' q-7;fg)%. w%.z g ..
. . " . . .w ; -: : :gg.W.,e.h.ql[3;;;&l,g%gg:'M
- ,y; w n . w. 8 x.;; , ,q..: . , g e.:-.sQy
..%e .,,QQp:ggy3g; ;-QA;
.+ - .pu,m.&sm. .w4h.. p. . .; . ;;
; .i .
. . .: . . . y
. -+
- v. . n
. . - . .. . . m m.
. x. , .,x aw.. p,
;G w. ..f.;:. c :a.... whg ://o.. M,m n x, .4,q.2 af.;...,.; ~.M ky..v:.7. n.. ,v . . ,#. .,s, a a.1..: eYt.ya.~.,,L
- v. .. ' q v%.:. q c . .
<. c. N m . '.>.
mh W ' .' . 'w'.. . A
.4, . m.m. ,, n.ry.~ n: .'s .. ~/ -n . 9.,. s, . .A. h t p e ,:s. . . .. .a,
.y;;;-v w-:n;. m. . 9,;a; .m. . :x .;,Q.M. . , . ,
.. .e. . vN<.. :w
- ..~,m. ,.v
.x ~ ,y, .n.,
s
- n. ..m
, c ,
- m. ..,....
. y , -r; .....: .
., . w , ,
~
, .n:n m M.;:k.*&
k $ x,';' e
, .M.. ,,q. ,n.w: .8 ; v:c -x w.A hys.dw,y . .;.. . ' , e. s... a. ,,. g -y. .g %,, . g.
s .7 x . ,..
. ~. s. .pg#. w. . e,z,
, ~ 7:. . . we .
,7 e.. v .z . - . g.
";-.,e.-w~3..,;:
,.m m,5:.ua -
..e. g w.f.y,9 .
7 nwyg., gy.$ Wha denial of the Staff's motion. SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1375
.> ): metr 4;..-. y.eg ]Td%y,
. ~.W g
> MM. ~'~ghV (D.C. Cir.1980).
w wb
- .. w ,
w e
' Q, . T , s . G'#W 4'E&"w,.c. '
- ;,,,Q;w.
,.-^ ;.g,~M.,.,i.:a O k..w,,g. .9z p9m n .Q:.d, f (3) Licensee's Assertion ofits Rights
. s. 9124
, - G. ','MVS 9 : ;yj -
nere is no issue here. De Staff admits that "the Licensee has persistently )
'l \ 3, - 2 asserted its right to a prompt hearing." Staff biotion at 9. Presumably, the Staff i
#.!.- . , M< j'p%@'s k'jN
'r
- n. . . ,, . . N .W.W . m.
will also admit that Licensee has persistently requested action on its settlement Proposals, its requests for settlement conferences, its requests for prehearing '~:J. ' D
- C.Ql.9,T : . Y, .
N.6 1',' %'^!) conference, and its requests for documents and other discovery, all of which are , s!.;,w,N. 9.._.h V ..
. g' @ y.a^cd.$.% .
.4 s. ,
..A $. fl.7.,W. described , ,.T,; V. 1.'.December 14,1987 motions and attachments.
in Licensee's > 1
,V" M. U ' C.O;M.W
- ":. $' CA t O' 'f['Q.,;
Licensee states that it is losing over $36,000.00 in average monthly revenues, and has lost thn> ugh cancellation of contracts and continuing related expenses 1 i F a, M..'"; g. %,gyty;y' T;Q^ " ; , E.'? over $400,000 in revenues to date. Additionally, the very nature of this pro-
- rj a y.6. s - #l6
. ceeding, and Staff's national press release about it, has harmed the business .
s, . j:@ .. .% .-' . 'c e and reputation of Licensee, hiost importantly, Licensee is being prevented from I i =- "nK l f ].y r. . ,' any opportunity to vindicate itself through proper procedural channels in this !
~c -
,1Nr.I h : .y matter. Finlay Af6 davit.
...;;., ;, 9w4.ic.s , t . , . . .a.,.:i i...c,
,. m. ^~ . ~ ps *;. ,Y.p. M" ': .p-s' y f.1, ., . ,eW4
- ; l
[
..sG%
_. ^ c.+/w (4) Prejudice to the Licensee
"@W. p ., e di .:M"@p@.-ge% J.D ; , L' .A). ~ '.C-t.A I
#~$l'QMM 69.%'Wei,f f De Licensing Board has aircady heard much about the Snancial and personal l
<y,cb $[hh;;
- Sc. ; '. M/ MM% $[]
'.'M Q h Pressures under which the Licensee is operating. De af6d. wit of Gordon Finlay attests to the fmancial and personal devastations that the unresolved suspension j
.p
.u .
order has caused.
. . -] g, ; c'!'y;N 3.'Fl .
Perhap* , ore importantly, the open-ended delay attendant to the stay request will hamper if not effectively destroy the Licensee's opportunity to present a l
'C',.:(Q. f.c 3 ; ' ,f defense to the suspension order. Witnesses are already dispersed throughout
./73 y.7 ; Q_ , , q .- the Continental United States and much of the South Paci6c Ocean, and
, h 'O t', $ ;p other important evidence such as hiilitary Airlift Command (hfAC) documents l
<~ .
7.;..,v ..x<. - '. c.
; and witnesses will in due course be moved, stored, transferred, reassigned, s - 3, ,, , ' %.; am b'cs.u~j : .V..
u%w;r 2 discharged, los,, or destroyed. hiost of de Staff's witnesse : no longer work with f . f.'3 . y;4 ; the Licensee. Some of them left on bad terms. %c identities of these witnesses
' af ,
l F.
ll : J:.4@jg/I).y ]' ifs C yc y .' 9l1.V( W .g,.
.g/.c.t;,J y i are and have been largely known to the Licensee, having been disclosed by the O! and others during the investigation.
} .
Y Unless the Licensee is allowed to examine, and to cross examine, these and
;5. ;;P ' O.' f9 f]$@',@j@fi c
~
%l j.My 1 k? fd; other Staff witnesses on the statements they have given, the statements already obtained by the Staff may be the only reeMhble versions of the facts when and
. $g l;$, : ,y 4 .,
, if a hearmg occurs.
,5,* . -
.E.-
? *e e
, . L . ) '
I. .
',... ...,i
. . .i a
d* g f
, g .. . .
.o g ,# --
. 7 *,' y . - " " , .
-)
gs q g .
. .= . l
. -~ . ._ <^
. .j ~. g ..
,4, . s s s,
, p ,
* - , g
, I 4 t k.
^ ,
- 8
~ .,'
'\.
[. , . .. f 4 I
*.'s,,.
-w
. 3 J
'.'.,,q.
'* 8 F
f [1' 4
*pe g
y
+
,%,?, ,. L s
- r. e ,
., _4 ,
,(, p
* 8 - '
" I . , 6
.r'
- i e d, % +,, ' .
6 i ys + '. g1 , . m.
. u, - s _ -
c w x, ,
i-i n M .pf 4 4 4 2 M g W D $.G h.v . i.s, u:~m. fhb '.W@M66%g*NMPM'dM4N@h[N$MMr Nl w q? m ?f s .< .h.w/p.- en .bh.Ef%, ..,,~.w..~.'a . :mn o: w . . . [ U. kh'v$, T y?,h:,Q:;8 2Gb:i.c flQ;.i.q.~ .a .%. %y.~$. m . v w.,k.6 , ' . ':%:7;If,7%
~..-:
. F
. . . . ;U., ,
%y%e.w.4;u i, rp n
=.
..;....p . m.a A n. .V.Qy M.g%o.%
X .w. s d. , e a . .wl , M~ m.p ;f Qfjp, .Q+., ,';.yg:p ,l
.-Qw .
=.~,a .a. ,.T, ~ . . . . . . . ,: - : e: ..es w ;. g,.M,..,y w
l! '
. c.?.M%%vN. .%M.f%.;.Wh h ~
ya . -?
\
' w ,. 4. e s.n :G .i. M.. W.n .. M. m~cM. ...r:,. . , v. ~ ,
.. M o .. % . 4,7.;.4'i M. ,.2 nr .,; ym,N.
'.~J W z. . < .%v %Q
.a,.r s .
T'..k...,
*L*n.g s ;.
n .a c.d m s j- '. :* A .&, ddNM
.'%y b .. ." &,*;.:.-@b~ .$NISNO':M'% 'Ihe Staff has already conducted an extensive investigation of Licensee, 6$.'h$h hhhM$3q including its books and records, and obtained sworn statements from numerous d' D .DNE$f.y witnesses. Essentially, the Staff already has the evidence it needs to proceed in
. M@ $ 6 @ h @.V Q [7.n i M W ,; Ml
.?,; - d. this matter. On the other hand, Licensee is at a serious disadvantage because the WM)Mi hhh.%fM ' hI. Staff has refused to disclose any of the investigative information, or the nature YIdd(Yh) k!Mh M Y k.@ . , dsde:6f2,$]$;'j 7; of the documentation, upon w hich it intends to rely. This is not a situation where the Staff may, by this delay, be impaired in its ablity to sustain the suspension Q$ ,ig.
</.$. : s;[*d@s%Di,[4 bM ,c;.
'* ."i
; M order. It is, however, a matter witn dangerous potential of fatally impairing Licensee's ability to mount its defense.
a -
- w@W'.m < e,A ~ W- i O'Zwj. M In this matter, dramatically unlike the AMS matter, Licensee is not allowed 7.c.x. v_. w.3.T. ;.,.e .G,
- , a C. . ~y t,_. w. D. any.activities
. , -. c d.
vc.,e,
.w.
to conduct under its NRC license. 1.c
... . , a ,, m. .
. s .. ,.
- w.
.,,;.&w:, .+
; v 4:;;..?: . ..:n.. .. . ..:. :. ~. e .w Vs ;c~.g'.,d.
. . . . .. .f. . .n.-n iv e n._ . -9.*.
s . . e.: . m_ .. m , t. . ) /; II. STAFF OFFER TO MAKE AN qui { f.'j . \. , . 'h : Q:: . ,Q*' IN CAMERA, EX rMRTE PRESENTATION i ~, 1, . ,1 c j ' 7 In its Motion for Stay of Proceedings the Staif noted ' hat the attached
,a - ^
fq m-' . y Department of Justice declaration does not contain all of the details that might M~ w. ;A '.ca, be offered in support of the motion. In this regard. Counsel for the Staff stated
- '. . p.. M " , 3' M ,'X.y
' ~ tSt the Staff, OI, and the Departmer,t are not willing to state on the public y,,, 76 J'yeQ.f ~ ' .jg'i record or to the Licensee, even under pro'.ective ower, additional matters that
'.r '
the Licensing Board may consider necessary to rule upon the motion. However,
, ' . d'f,TQ(,0" " ' ,-
w d- i'y% f it was stated that the Staff,01, and the Department were prepared to make an
,. [
- 37 M ] ; - J lff in camera, ex parte presentation to the Licensing Board under the provisions
-;.yl,) e;.'.., v. >
J. of the Commission's Statement of Policy; Investigations, Inspections, and s Adjudicatory Proceedings. 49 Fed. Reg. 36,032 (Sept.13,1984) if the Licensing
- _i x Board believed that additional details are necessary in order to rule on the Staff's l .
. motion for stay. ,
, M. ;!' , * *-
,j After considering the NRC Staff Motion for Stay of Proceeding, the Li.
,. y . , . l censee's oppo ition to NRC Staff Motion for Stay of Proceedings, their attach.
.: C. ; ' . (. l
.'.y,f
[ ~ , '. trents and the accompanying af6 davits of Judith E. Olingy, Esq. (Department
.';9 ' d '.; .y -
3 , 7 of Justice Attorney), and Gordon Finlay, the Board determined that the Staff 9,, ? ' M % *' had failed to establish that the proceedmg should be stayed so as to permit the GN jgcEgy . M,L'L7 1. .y .
- s. Department of Justice to complete a parallel criminal investigation. In denying M'fgt.JF 9
- U _; the motion, the Board declined to hear an in camera, ex parte presentation as '
7t h.m.. J['8.yi A. ., N/ 'Aj C y T > > ./ .:3. J N, o< t .%. offered by the Staff, i W Q.'@, 'QWi. .M ' . [, , .m. In its ruling, the Licensing Board noted that an ex parte communication, such 1 SM;D' d:( ' I ij as offered by the Staff, would serve no useful purpose at this time. It could not l l . jw ^'
] . ? ' .- F ~ .;
. D be part of the adjudicatory recorJ upon which we could base a decision to grant or deny Staff's motion for a stay of the proceeding. Nor, in our view, would the
.. .. . . . . . . . additional details hinted at by the Staff till the balancing of the equities which
.s: ,,
,~ r
+w 4 s
g
* ,, S 'a # .',- .. 4 s-..-'.
e t
, s. .
-*3n 26
]
1
.(
e
+ .
,3
- 9
)
/
..j.
.s
. -, , . , . . .....,m,,,m., , . . . - - - -
~.q -l- ~ .w ~j-f.~it*, ., '.. =- 7 y.
, - (*y r.,"YJi" Y'",
4 . '
'.,'s . f
. ? y .;. - . ,'. Q. ,[
- s. ' ,
' s s s
g % a
\
.e,-
J - y , , et'x,, \ p'( .f.5
, . e' '
8 r.'. M
- 7. '
, y , T 4 ..
,q n
[
'd
*"*Y.. %
. ..>/*, '
O^ r . i
~
\" g*/ b g, .. .g' .;. . %j. ,;.3 g
.,, g .-
. ,-*. . b, * , , , ,
W s
,-s .
, . ,, : . (. ; .N., iw 2
,..-_ y .w
,'. c, +i - $ 6. ,f f. >y".fa. Q. .w .. . .. ,'
* , - . . ,y . '
.i e u. ~4 7%#; f. %.:[7 , ys. .,q* . .9'p" y~H.'g.y ? a w y & .. u ln.m
.: .. .xx;:,,.wpb
- -:s":;md.+M. a.,..:um k+ 4:ssp d.'% .M
- 9. .4u . s.ewW;7:.%. ypr.m.. . A nh
,n.~'....
n W Whp. % ;n-slh.Ms . %,:.:.a A. - W;.:. ,n % w.i; .;%,p. m. wNw.M, &2."m..vw. .q A16m.u .c w+ m %.~ M.~ A . '
.jVn .M QM r%.)$
bg
. W.p M.. a..p%.A,je."M y
w.i ,s..N ,4. Sf oi p p. .g.y. it
;, :. .cW..Q.g.Q 4
; , ~.k:<:m,.;n.yg.; e ~. .. n w.w g;.k, gQ,A., wy:.y.px.-.
d%NNM weighs so heavily in favor of Licensee and tgainst granting the Staff's motion M,(. Mp .@$M$jj'hlF'pi.f s ..g..Yh.m.y h h ..y t.y'./
' "*"""""'***d"8'""8'"8'**'"8"""""""*'d*'
F:[/ . T. ~h. . 'M,['s.. . M, )3. 'G:
, f,'lW.,hg h$[.h.4 s:
, IIL STAFF POSITION REGARDING SETTLEMENT
[
.:; . I'..q; w$y;g,%j%[,Q h
cs %
$;i, Staff delayed holding settlement discussions from September 21 until Novem-W, M M,D[.'d.i..[;.- %./O 2 :NhfM % $ 8 'iM. . Licensec#,i ber 9. When settlement discussions were 6nally held at Licensee's insistence, expected that a meaningful settlement proposal would be promptly Pf.
1' IS @iM@Mff. .h,;.% and positively considered. Licensee has stated that it spent substantial time and Mj'2M@N$@$@5Nh$f}d%))F.Q IM(M T4 ',St Ndi. Qgj g@TJ.,:., k! hhh*Gf money in preparing its proposal dated November 18,1987. Staff then delayed re-sponding to the settlement proposal and ultimately refused to discuss settlement at all.' Staff dallied in responding to the Presiding Of6cer's requests regarding UMd.Q .M discovery and hearing timing. When 6nally faced with a requirement to provide "d; ; y,W.;$M.Nkn';M@W'Q'y. y E'jj s '.i.rcq.L;y.p@p b.gv
., x. 6.
justi6 cation for its order, Staff referred this matter to the Department of Justice on the same issues, and the same basic information, that it had in August, over
!' . : M,OM. v -.'.c 'JplC - a month before the order was entered.
ID;W. NSd. ' W p? A M. ..~./.i.?,T' f'h . # 7V f'WM,f$:[ Such conduct not only prejudices the Licensee but demonstrates the very reason that the regulations mandate a prompt hearing when ex parte suspension
. M..Cf.l. di 'SM , N 7[p.w MI6WW orders are issued.10 C.F.R. I 2.202(c).
.m y,n w%
u.. w. x* g,.w.p n. w.npg
<g h y qqp; e:ay aCjJj. y s, '.ny &%y. c~ig 1. ~.s hM;Y:pM#ry NkWh.hN.'c.%, mqwcw g.qr,h, . a. .;; IV. SCHEDULE .g.]c .w. . .. , ! -.h h. y.. q During a prehearing conference by telephone conducted on January 20,1988, i .:i' Td.k N Q M ,
r it?)f!,f F ',..yMsg:
- E.,.%.~; w.y .q .',j%<:f .!
q $@ Counsel M @f for Licensee and NRC Staff proposed to the Licensing Board a schedule
$ n i cl %;M.MQfD' that they had agreed upon for discovery and hearing in this proceeding. That
- ?/M .CD ., C.l .,
Y
- 7. <' n , schedule that has been approved by the Licensing Board is set forth below.
- .s... v.
Agg;.m,..x n - v.~ n-
;u.
.cf Q2l# - g,:g.y.'; : January 13,1988 Discovery period begins.
w.x - -
.,o .:. ;-
January 22,1988 Last day for 61ing discovery requests by NRC Staff. Kf
.&. "*..'
- s. t.e',C.3. ssfjv.fd'.;..
.,. u : y s .,-?9
'f> ; January 29,1988 ust day for 61ing Staff's responses or objections to Li-
.. ;;Wjl.w' .MNM.&Wr- t@fylW %@g'.M@. '.S.t
.s a n .w..r . censee's discovery requests.
n ..a; T.yk $. 3. 8 % %mFebruary j$. %s. 5,1988 wbst. day uu. $. Licensce's responses or objections to
'. $ M, M, 4, for Sling a w h, ~.,'Q/-M.- mc.g; Staff,s di,scovery requests.
, : 2 w. . . ,g..,fg.g .w@.s Ly :
). ?N. .GU@O@.w g ng Fetsuary 26,1988 Last day for Sling pre 61ed written direct testimony by both
, tb..
'e e 4 -W e .9 7. .
.;./,~..'.@a p;M. .Mi .; E, G.- <.g.d, ;
parties - in hands of Board
, y' ' ". ' gf.,ig.M y$e./a / Nb March 9,1988 Hearing begins.
- f. -
? . . ,' . '* ,p
. , E,,
. ..o.P,.,-,
W
.t '. >*$l .
'See tar.ar daad Decenbar15.1917 kun Imoce L Gant.ar w Bany D. Ed stds. and Tr. 35 and %
' _ ; .~.y .1 ;
s * q* p ': y
, , y ., u* .;<^ Q., .1. a ~, 6 .
27
., - . . . ; 1
...s v.. '
. , - .4. . ,k
..,r ..
- 4,.v a. ,/ s .4
[ .4 3f ,c ,- y. *
- t -ln' *:- -(? t_- i'; *a a i
.t
,z ,p.f* .1 .i ,
. 4 s =
- r. :. , . . . ' ,1e
- l **' '; G; y '
- 4 ' : ,A . % s. ' ,1
..y-. -, ,
- m. .q.
, .c.- .
,?. ,:
u d* .- w p,;- r.. .-
...r
. w - .i
.m ,. -- s . m
' -. ' .,..-_f_ o. a
,'e . .
..1~. .~
- , w 7, 2 >
- x. .
, n : :n -u
,c, xv ,. . .
". s ~, . < :.
D,
' yr:q ,y y*
i .-
- .w c q s . .\;
. , . . .a. > . 1 .
s -
.; m q .s r
, r., . , . . e ,* ., ~, ..
* *' ,.,( . . .,o. . .<.: .t
~ : .:
m 7 & g,Mg.. 'm.: r,3. .,3;
- g. c yM,,.:,.'.
.. . . ., .g....,,.,,
M. . . .. p. . .. s ,
- y. . . .
. g. j . WQ. . ,;,g; m . :J '. ../ .,. . x. y,l y '
, .; 'A y f. f M .
U T'MMkWiWt/ruh((IHMM,y>Jeg@,;;&gW% N N.k-14'.E g&g hMl% ffh , W$ fry.$.kd/[ds7 $,'[.MM.d:p .16 gg,9 :a q:gpo WM'<hh w w..NP@ a, I v. hh y
.m .c ..w.. .m a l w;mk'*f v ..y. 4u..yw 2 3..<.y,,. . .
j y,n d..q,., . e wa M.,w
.s s. . %.6..j,.i M i.:q;f.;y.; M m, s.0. y, m
~rq.M., v r..m. o p.
g h Nh?q Q. & 4A:{;.h h '*l h ' z.y t'&*.QNWMl. s s2 N, hy%%[?5 @ '. V. I CENSEE'S MULTIPLE MOTIONS W& yi%.)p:w-Q. b $f W -~-e m On December 14, 1987, Licensee filed a (1) Motion for Order Setting [hhh@pm.&r$'c'L&RjWG,% iMhD[NNMN/J hYP*Myggpqr,idg; r.htdN M'M'.E Hearmg; (2) Modon for Prehearing Confererce; (3) Motion for Settlement
;,g sn Conference; rnd (4) Motion k; Orotr Shonening Time fo Response to Requests M/2MD'IES for Production of Document; and '.)ther Discovery.
N[S)h[$$@d.45N,hNh.Q(h NNkEF N [%,ygygpy I.icensee's modon for ort
- wtting hearing is granted by the actions of the Licensing Board taken in this Order and the Nodce of Hearing entered this '
M .h'M$dNDS ,4 ' M[h.
'hW'Q').fM.T2#W T p.M3MMEINMWJNN.; @M2,;
~ day. The prehearing conference requested by Licensee was held on January 13, 1988. Lice 1see's motion for settlement confererce is denied. Licensee's motion for order shortening time for response to discovery requests is granted to the l g; ;. gJ,a<, @*.>,,., g /. p g:. extent ordered by the Licensing Board in this Order.
. w}sa.e. v M :.s . +n. c, ..x. ~. m% :6.. . .,w. Q .7,.7
- w. s s .a .+ ,.
w,3p. /. 3.......
"uce
. , .a -
- .w#a, ~.g.....t
- ,y g,rgt
'. - a s. .u.e. v,O ':' . /t :
, , r. m .
m, c . s.~ W- ;p
,.m V. ORDER :
.s. :s. c,:,.;a y* . ',~
.. 2 ; 1. ,
1 ' .-, . p'A.'e t..M.,,. [s -.w, 6
.. ..s . , ,
l
.?.l Y.y For all the foregoing reasons and upon consideration of the entire record in i
- 7. : .
a.' 3 r QQ,D.3D5.D. ; E.[./' M- ' f this matter, it is, this 27th day of January 1988. ORDERED: { e ';:. M .%g 4 .c 9 :.%.w M h$}.MdQg 1. Tha'. NRC Staff Modon for Stay of Proceeding, dated Decernber 17, l 1987, is denied; and i 2.
. ' T,m'Nhhs..,
.. .::< - wet e,e lww. h.h]h.$
. . . Ly=
Licensee's Motion for Order setting heanng is gmnted.
,%N. , h. .x.11.@hN.,N,I3hh THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND ,
, " . , ' ' 1lp W,.! K.',' ,.>'f..%. : , LICENSING BOARD
- . ..~ . ,.
- 8. ,,a .
v - u.. -. ; i s c . . i
- s. . ....
. -Jn ,. ..j Robert M. Lazo, Chattman j
1
. ./.. , h. . t(.v s.; . . , J. .,O .
, , ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
, .g * ; ; . ,. -
-. j4 g 3 ,
a', _ :
,q..: -. . , ,
...g.....,,,4
. ~ . , . . ,. , ,.y ,m
~ i y ,. ,- .4,Y ' .
Glenn O. Bright i O.jM.'j];I).r.o.?g :N;?Vk . . ;@3 1f ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l
.m. nb y~,.,~.sp !.n;: p .. . , , 2..=m.;'.e. q:.:.;%
~
- e. y,,..g
,s QV &,r:
V. . v.. .f.O~Qi. h.w!MG' , . .l;s.2&+e' W.7 G.' \
-m - .
Richard F. Cole i
.,s..f.,r, .W. 9D W..#,. . c .,.ifd'MY., .W, 9. . .,..c_~.a. .
1
*y - .
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE i
?<,; ,. :.,.<,b .
.$ . j. -[y,*a.
.- ' y, g, m*
sf ' w *v '; ' % -. ., s _5 1
?
/ .W, a O; %.IJ,,e M3 %y,. ,
L % : .l ated at Bethesda, Maryland, N. . v; "lh.y M ;,'y'h.;n,t,;;.s,,v.:.k@:.2 h.gf .w this 27th day of January 1988. l
;- y p& g's;%w:y w y : , ? l -l%..Q ,ki. M. 'x'. .q.#.,
. W. 4,.
. .* '*y:. N
,1..<<.
. ..c. *.. ,
y.. *
- e,
~
y;&
-c'., .
..l J- .
s t l
'J ),' ,j e . , "' i
;, I'
; .' .' :.; < - &.,:.x. r,"~. 'p.-p,q
.yy .] e7,* . .+.
, ..1 t . . . .,P
. . .u.
e= ,.y
.pa % a~ *[ g 4 ,.4
- c. ,34^ g
. .' . n' . i, . . ., ,y ,,.
~~,.
,ts eq A , ,,. * '! ?., j 'r ~; lL ', ' . , [Q .&g:
..&";.: C . p:.w. .;. ,, , ~ - . .'..
. . n.c ; . m. w.,4 v . , A ., . a,'l-w ~,f 1.4_: . -- .v
.i :)
l> .e . '
.e .
,. f 4 J .
'. . , , , l2. , *~ 1
,.. Qt .S,.,-
,' ",, o:. .J / $ . .' : .* {' ;;- n . ..- - .- 3. t -v v. -- .* ,, .; 9,pl -- ;3 ~ ,s. . y .<5, Jw;.4.g%p
- a. , n .n.m,9.,3.* i~g c n17.yy: -ny;vv.1
.,+i+_35
. . - *N. r .g' ,
~
,, q,
- 7A /
m s 9.5 < . s. . . w ge
. . .t ,,+ , c . . . ; - . s . , .,.,..,s
; ; . e2*p,
. g yi,t 4.e ;s g. f.'yf r.
n ..,'# *[*']
,n . , ~. : ? n . ,:. .'\,3' 'j.*
,r ; , u
< h* . . ,
g-4' Y , [ (l2 ' .r ) $ j , U( f1 ;Q. g m.S.' ,[-k'*(~{ hkhh" $M c .n.! h h.../..p f.v.fW,W MwSQ
..a:
/I*w,- Q'
. m. c' e.?. ". 3 .p ; i w. .g..,s', . y. .Umk.
. ~,. +7'
$. ;..'..;r'...'
wq. m,W,d . %,p,1
,,s s :raus 3.,:y'p:,A 3,) >j 4 +'.",N,,' .
':;;r.?.%, ..a .:i; n<,. .+ _w.t' q.7 .s.{! .f .c4[. .m.' ....,, ' ,. * : a.. .4. , .
- ~ ;! V ,'.O:v
. . f: ..
..m ~
s
< ; q a s,
>.._ . t k .* f. s o- ** *
.a $ $ $ ?? k 8 . i:
Q'%. @hG? &&QY~~'R'W:,W ,U{tY * %% ; ' O? M T* O;Es G; * " WikAY1&M!?%sibn '
QQS.. W'Q 3 f W - Wm ,w .
... w 4 .
J. M A N. n.
- m. . 2
,..,@Th.s:.&,
, ; _MEJ
.-% . 'fi 5..n&.,@m. Th.e&..k., ... D.S.. ,Vn'.Wi:'7~N.
s
%%'g9.N.%.&. g,.pq*&,,&,w m<-@.3<
VsgfR W4.,.V,W " f-Q. sljiWM.4p.n%.%w . M:"g. :..x%Ay;W 9.j f . ah . s
, '..i
. s. .; *. m.f W ,
. ,. 4.. , c ,.'. , w; .. v.. ,.. c..., . . . , :. :. %v.
s, c.q. M.. ,g5.n , . . g, p e.; Q. e-s .4
- :;:. p . m .,.e..y.f..n...a..
% + . ,
.x ..s- ,,
a s q ;., ,i;, .u. . v p t
,i . . .e
.,3,i. ; N:%y,-,. . g, ,, , . m 'M . .L . c U,.3?q .~.e. u my c. . ;q,: r4 .,e s -:: e.a .n. .A; .,?.
r v: p. i> x, w$.s., ry.,O:p:a ;,;,u;' *x c.g:.w;' e qr.,lq.
. . Q;+ * %,. n..; ;X' 'er , .x. .y;;;,; ;;+. -p +
, .'y w. ..u.p s.=.s,v A , a.s voa: %. g. w W.y
-1
.h y ~> eg.
sy,,,. . . - n ! ., -
~ '
-' . p.Cy y .
's.y @
. 1
- h., d:1 q:%s.w;i
.. .,e
. y y.
.c. .n v . .,m'w . -c. uc.e u
,m,t
, m;,.
L a .r s.e. M e.. ,.. .% . W,q,'..c. . ,n:h 2 .?,-t.ya:- . .
, ' 3. , , .-. ; .; ,v . ^s -# ; .e - ,
J. .: .
.#.?F*
$% Q',g C LBP-884 8
-s . . * -
4 M W.W. ., .!! J 3' ,7 M'*, Cite as 27 MC 29 (1988) M, ,,w&.., . .n - - v,. a v..,?,ac. u. n;. w &.+& v .f,, . . ," h'~@.. v iW. <
. . J v.W. o - ..u,~ i .. , - - .
c3 A ~'. W i D,c,J'f.
- Qfl* "90,'[ ?:. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 W g+; a.,y. ge s.y.
.Y .- . ;g - ~.k, . ; ~ w, , ... *
.e
/e.g d.: 6. s.,.1, H. M[4, HUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
~
..,. . ., q , . . , ,.
s
- ~ ' . f., W .. rn. .. .- a. ? A10MIC SAFETV iAD LICENSING BOARD A. s
.<.y' s s
' s. : 3 w. w, .. :., w
*). ).
c.. r ar c
,s.
A.7 . u;M, , S.C. g T. :. . . :p;jc.. } - f Bcfore Administrative Judge:
.. ;;.u .- . <y:.p.y.y.,
. v. . . y . m :ym . m x.. x;,V;.y'
!.':;I!>,. ';. h f W .%~;\ f l D .s ~ .l . ..;c ,, h:
; ?. : Mc:.*-C. .A3 .c N M i % M . Peter B. Bheh, Presiding Officar
. .y . . .: - ~
.g
. ,. 9, i a. ... ,;~ . r ,:-
<- c. ..;.
,. 3 ,3,.r. . eg . . w e a .1. . ...,- m. s ,
,;t - ;~. :w.r.
- - 9,;.w, g ,,
# Docket No. 55-60402 3 w.' .[2-
,, . c . .
. d .:
7
' .',"'(n G,.ga<.m;...
.;J,il .-
..y
'- i In the Matter ot
. j.y ~;.;. . . q ;; 7.;,,. 3; (ASLBP No. 87-552-03-SP)
;-(
,.?.- y p, y[:; . -. M~#; . ?,,.
- - ,- D AVID W. HELD
. , . . . . , V. ,.
c4 @% i:.,. Dl ;'M (Senior Operator License for
.L ,. , .y . ...:.;. : -::. m. n. :..,4, , .. _
L..-...s. : Q.,u W . Beaver Valley Nuclear Power
.s.. ,
3 Station, Unit 1) January 11,1988
..- ',. % .e :- ?,$. .k,....j M 9.c -9 D: m.x..m8W.? s y '
,#, ;p,; a ,.LL.M,.
s.
- Li.S %W ;,m eW a% q?, % $;t.r :?.15 .e m . . ' . %v,,
n n .g; g 1;;.;r.] f> y:;f;n97- This caz, involdog an application M the issuance of a senior reactor "1
'l. f y n;.g!'..p~r ;V
, . j@ 9[,-A, operator's lic(nse, was di? missed as moot after it became apparent that the Applicant, who is already licensed to operate Beaver Valley Nuclear mer
'M g.7 "*% T. ,
; ,j Station, Unit 2, wmld not Ac a license for Unit 1 even if it were issued to him.
.x z-,- n
* .c
, - .. . .. > .z...
~
'.;e.. -- 1 - 'J RULES OF PRACTICE: MOCYNESS r ., e J. ' g.s f ,
A proceeding to determine whett.n or not a senior reactor operator's license
, ca. .*f. c. . . . < 0.y , . 7 W. A s
should be issued. is moot if the licer. in question would not be used. Although ,
./ + C; 3_9 thy.) the Applicant sought a daermination conwrning whether or not he had passed
.: a test, it is not the bus; ness cf the hearin s officer to determir.t ssues i subsidiary 1.,y l Q Q :.'. g/.( : $. Q '.-l.: [9 to the ultimate issue of whether or not .o issue a license. Even tLough private I l .v .~ -
, r y[i.' , ,'g.M J% lN, (,)
~
- m. s ,'M.g.j"jy..
. g. 3 ....
decisions might affut Applicant's meet because he has not been i! sued a l,
.. 13.x . .y : ,,, f.d license, this impact on private decisions does not prevent the pro:ecding from
, % , J, , , . .', #, . se
.C. % . ....? : ,
'.; being mock.
, >- 3 . .i, .. - o '
. .s - r+
t
. ..e.b r ,.t
*+4' g
5 1* ,
,_~ l 1: <
* ,.y ? '
> s , t .n
- .4 b l
l a s
- x .w- . ~'- 29
. .j.;: - ; .~
> ; , . \ .0 g, .
], . ' S q , '. 7 - ' , , , - '
, . y- .1
. < , - .- ,. * .., u* ,
a
' , ,d.4
, V _ , *j *# -
>s -
. , ,. .1 5 s . s t
. y .
.. 'y,. z OY^ +
,"*'-l';'** *~i**yw*-. <s - we w . . , , , , . ,, ,
,f . - % ,
-3 ,..,.,7 , , . ,, ,
.s . .. .
. $ ,*,,h- - '
p , , 4 sg ,
- e e * ,
8
,% 8 - +* D *- ,
l 'e , 4
.*. 5
, .g vs+
^., , 'f . - 1 .? .- .
'.g , * '
',s
* ' 4 s '? ,,, s i .i *, *. . ,,
.f-
[ , .(, * * <
- r. ,
! s -.
*3. *
* .I ,.,,g k ^
f g%, e 6
'( y 3 g <
# 5 ,- .' 8 II .
' . 3 ., M' ? < tw . _ J 41, w V ' . 4g[_, '
Q ,
wewqwnqW q/@fR$Q%f$f M M %5$ h h a, h.hbh I' m.u. .d. , . Am. h. {".hbb N. hNb?) S.: . , m.b:q .,:m% hk . +Nw $$h
' f .
v . , y emvlbh s c e e ff 2 .., 9 w ,9 . ..- , p..cq,; q .' .
.+<-
c.. . ,. ~v , +, m....n, w . z: E, . a,.h;g ;. ,.! 96. :s.m,,n o ef. o .v.,s:r.;g. . h,~['Y ,c..y_s,;.g. .:u~. %vy a7.- hhhg
.. . .N '$. . ; w. ..D:b.DbY
. ' n - - , U
- /' ,:aw.' N, i .. , $y* A ., n.w. 4.a::.;im.a 1 u.
4 *,'];'.' K,'s-
.L ~2..;, .n .s'\p*
4 mw .c .
.a. % a.
M f.,&;. . n . , JN... S* &n .F a 4'*
~.
rh ,4rnx -,;;.} gn. . f ;' y? / . %wj
. e y&:? % v.k;y, s.O ?R
% g; W[ M. ,q
. +. r
@. +2 M..M ..p@: RICES 6.. w @OFm. M.. mwj q, 2. m n PRACTICE: CONTINUING JURISDICTION h . M, b D M . 9 . N U .I d. O l S'IheM[ hearing mofficer, although dismissing the case as moot, considered the h.i'hk'/hN M N d .d' i<
=
'Cb'ag M/$$ g 4M.r' Possibility that events could trtnspire that wuld cause the case to have an impact M p>
gm.,. hM% DU~$%:, i M..wli 2
.y. n. 6.v.?? . . . q c:m. . .i. ..l on future federal licensing decisions, and it retained jurisdiction to entertain a
[. c','{ .M r.
.. motion to reactivate the case if that contingent event did transpire,
~ w. S,y,M. . %. ' . ',, ' ' %l1 ' .
- .; r . . '; -7q m w)g%.r,,q ,.-@;..y. n , ,
@Q -cms. A w .'h ;. r.]; :f r . 7,,y; .w-o'Y. , A ^ n] DECISION MW.
( y. My " s., y[ < Q 'z ,,.l,4 This M.QJ.s,,. ]p;g; . W.; M case [ involves an appeal by David W. Held from the denial of a senior reacta operator's (SRO) license for Unit 1 of the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power M7'('p.m.>3,3.g.g,d.M.,'li. n.m s,- ~.n Station. I have determined that the case is moot, in that Mr. Held is licensed as
' d.M M. 2 : c 3 y . Wey#.. ];..e [ e/.w xs W.'i G y .[ 6 ;4n SRO fcr Beaver Valley Unit 2 and cannot utilize more than one license at a
- c. .\, the present time. Tr. 16 18, 22-23. The truth of the mability to use more than
- 8 791'y .E( M.f.
., 7l ~ z one license is corroborated by the letter of Duquesne Power and Light Company
(' , y V cv ' : . ;%" s ; d: withdrawing its previous certification that it required Mr. Held's services for
-'*y operating Unit 1. Letter from J.D. Sieber, Duquesne IJght Co., to U.S. Nuclear i Regulatory Commission, November 12,1987.
- ['g : ' 4 , #. .. t
- The reason the case is moot is that this is a proceeding contesting the denial of
- r. M f.',M[7 ' . ..g.yg,.M}]
,.g /' 1
- + ". 6 V c N_q. .,
. a license and I am authorized to consider an appeal from a denial of a license. My
'y - Yf d.1 jurisdiction is to determine whether or not a license should be issued, not to decide whether or not a particular examination has been passed.8 g 'JN.%lTj p', .p pf y[@9%f,*f;C,D, T Mi -;M,
'/ g ':' g n
We .:note .t1that Mr. Held applied for his SRO license for Unit 1 in 1986. He y -a u c,; p .; .c: demonstrated his physical health, passed the written examinations for Unit 1, and
+ . Q. Q. , ' y presented a staternent from Duquesne Light Company, the operator of the unit, y .>
h
l * '
N that he was needed as an operator of that unit. Were it not for the determination
'I of the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that Mr. Held had not passed the simulator portion of his examination, be would have been issued a license.8
,.?. , , lN - ,'. . l., ,,
lj 10 C.F.R. I 55.11 (prior to May 26,1987).
._. ..g S l ' ;,/ '] Mr. Held's principal remaining concern, and the reason he has continued to press his appeal, is that the issuance of a license to operate Unit I could be
.- .c .
useful to him in his career to demonstrate that he has filled the requirements t
% , f(s , ' , ~ uG ;. .w
. 4 j ,, ; .,. ,
;4 y . i ,. 3 ,t,,
'. ,w*, . j
.s*
for jobs that require a knowledge of both Beaver Valley units. Tr.14-15. In (. e
,. s i
a
, z e N. J ] 5 3
,, .q . - -
a,,
- 7. g' 3-havl DMe it wmald M a
\ ., ' 13)h . ~ 4 J.y~ la W hGld 4 barig to h whh 8 b shm.}d have (s e.';.2 * ,'
been issued a es tam W. H44 was 6rm grsdad a tua saradamr saannaam hp ! cursh the m W s
' ,[. '. E.;M c-; t- '
- Ac4 ,, , . - ,. 0 . , ' e. 7 ' f=% hergmatum d the regManas,I haw desded est u a me nacimaary to int'ur the expense d a
. V ' .;v : .
.[ . ~ fie . 7 I . ' *,".W ' ,
under 2 crcummance whers that to wry bula hhabhood rhet the canested beer se would ever be used
'./ r a . ; - Mt. Hald a:so claims that he would han bem
? y '. bcensed FUang d January d.198t. at i However, paid 54000 ad.:hnmal durms se tea 16 meshs had he been
',i j,pa lp, p rf, g ;,8,, . l .'
, 3}
a is my pb to dec>4 whether or aca to heerne W Held, rus l . to Saaladma. ter the perserial Mtc desernuneum, whet.5 systen a.f Daqueens tig!u whadi is free a Jeurmme for naalf in the shse ,
- ' . j ather geritas or 1.' rut 1. mr Mr. Held had cunpieted the necessary wart to be censulered as quahned as 6 ,. .$
w .- - -
,: ~.,
.; - . . v. . , . .
.;) so e.*- .
. *. c, . . ,
*\
l \
'1 ...
,i s
.,",m,'.3 t
. wJ ,4
- i . ,i,5m '
. t Lt y g. ,
s- _. s.
;s.
. - n.,
g e = *&
,o
.r
,t- - ==**F q
J..
#Y) .
,..*r...+ ,e.a,.,,m. ..
g...,'..-.,.,s., c, j ,.,, , - S y.
, , 3, , e'
.Y, ,,ea. '
V, ' , .
.'(*
s ' .
,x i-g A'.
.g - , . ~ e;
, g }'* .
.n',.
s4 '*f . . MI
; .\ , '
y! s
'.,. ..3,e .... ..
- , ' . . ; ,g .
. - - "} ,&.Ii['
~..
A f; *.),b{y f' ' ) J. [q,*7- l (? '
- o. g. N,y ,. m.i <
s o > . I* .c- ,4. . . C. . . L y- e .
* ,, t ,
r g twg ~i- #.- *n -s% d .q.
. '" , ' , . ~ -
[.g ,
,c
.'s
- 4 e
.y .
r
. j r 4%. ,y w i' *"\.- ..1. . *l.M a ."
Y d .S,i 4 s ' * *. '.,e."*** . lm -
, s j . ,.
'). 6
.; 6
,,, , } / _.- Q g ; g. n. .jgg *: y t,- g [ a ' **.;
> o ,,. 4..
h, '% % 4. e(
, ,x . . . L e *
(_ g ,,q311
.s t;. - '
i o-
..,~ - .
- 4 5 ..
,y.
5~
. , ._ s, . 'Ar; s t
;I kk h k h'. h hhh'y.khch)h;Yb i h,h'l,y h / : ($* ,
L.e!,@Q.
- mi
?. > .
n ' c. .'. n c ~ -% n ,1, W. Q - , a n, 1 A '~? ', ..:;; f a..'4. .y .w:3::. . y ~.y 3.s:
. ,'+; .
m , e.3:w;.g. T GM yj,ji;.a ;M q, n . ;% .p: y,%.4 y,4 . ' , R. 1
* ', s
.&.q .,,m
- s. , :~
,e,v .y,;m
.y .;
m 4 %y ym- . - n' .y. v ., c ,. . M :. ' . ,' .,' . ?W:y W,:. ,,; f .. .- 7
&, i .-\'%.
r , .
' p ;.
- L)
,, L. ,- ,
'\1,a(c. c . :c;:D,N:
S..weg,~Mp[~:.%y w;;V*-:c,:'.c',. '.s:n ';. o
't u 3 n'.
.y -'; ,
' '~
N~ M" h b.' M N S I'. W :-
~
~
a: f~. .r,5W : . y 9, . ., , t .
$,&gl?$p? w m,,i
_ y. - .s ,,,s .
) st , * , ' ..s
\'t
. . . . a m. n .
.,s
3 , ,
,- ' '1 ,
*'.'. , , this instance, that possibility is troubling because hit. Held's alleged difficulties O C fg.o ! ): d,<.,'cG.Q. f <R ' % on the simulator examination do not appear to be specific to Unit I and are,
" g -C' i ,;'( j f].y $ 7 j )?
therefore, the kind of alleged deficiencies that an employer could consider to have been resolved through hir, H'Id passing the SRO examination for Unit 2
'M,<
' f Y', .W,"f?f , i ..
.", "'. and gaining operating experience with that unit.
' ' W' ,
A consequence of the decision I am now issuing is that there is no final
, ,; , ), y decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning whether Mr. Held
.c . 1 : 4, . ,n . w- . ;;s.f . , ., ' . i r. , , ,
passed his simulator examination cr should have been issued a license at
'. % ,. { h - thc time he took that examination. Hence, Mr. Held is in a special kind of c ' , n. '
s j 9 . J:; , limbo in which the outcome of his license application has never been fully
- '. . -3 determined. Duquesne Light Company could, therefore, consider itself free to l'
3, ;,. .,
-Cy..Q.Q'
; ,0 f,[T:n%y$' ; .h. f;. / determine whether he has demonstrated the kind of knowledge of Unit 1 that s ., a. would fit him for Beaver Valley duties for which the utility wishes him to be
' ..; .2:. .a N,gh.w.O
.>- c'g.g ,1 knowledgeable of Unit 1 (but for which there is no legal requirement inat he be
.. ..- .o , ". / , W- .N licensed to operate Unit 1).
, i. -f. . . .
in reaching this decision, based on mootness, I am aware that there is
. m
.' ' . t' .l,-'
a possible circumstance in which the mootness of this case wt>uld be self-reversing. That is, it is possible that at some future time, Duquesne Light could
~
I ;y[';
,...- ',.9 .; obtain an agreement to dual license personnel for both of its units and it might t C ;a . ' lan '-c . ,. ?. (*. 2;. ' y a s, not feel free to include Mr. Held within the dual licensed group.8 Should this S, event occur within the next 2 years, then Mr. Held should immediately notify
".[
' ',';, .C,h.j,f l73Ql., C, M if? 7,,i e th (me and the case will be automatically reactivated because it would then be ripe for adjudication.
ca : . c
- s, 2J% f..u, c
?fJ
.. y.;g @v.@. S i ..c Cw.. j I would like to express my appreciation both to Mr. Held and to the In closing, 1, ,
w." g y.L.9 Staff of the Commissim for the excellence of their presentations. In particular, as a nontawyer, Mr. Held has distinguished himself for clarity of writing and
,,' [' - .
',[,
,' verbal expression, diligence, and cooperativeness.
~
~
ORDER
- . ;. .: . r
., ((d m y Upon consideration of the filings of the parties and the entire record in this
- s. 1 matter, it is, this lith day of January 1988, ORDERED:
,f p T ; . .j.,. :'."L , + , ,' '7:2t:p ;
. That the case is dismissed as moot, subject to the condidon that Mr. Held
~ M S ' $. may move to reopen the case within 2 years should a circumstance arise in
. ;j') - . N' -
?'a3 which the iuuance of senior operator license for Beaver Valley Nuclear Power N- wj - . ,. :: ,"< -' . ,7U. , Station, Unit 1, is necessary for Mr. Held to obt in a dual license for Units 1
-,,., s
~ v, , yf.
, , and 2.
c-
,.a.* f .*, .,, '; e
,, c
.) ~
s . , i y
.l 31 mar d thspenne tashs m U s. Ndear Rera'.amry Censsa, Nemter :s,19r7, a:taded a Mr. IIMs
; fl.n, of Jamary 4.1988.
, a ,a r J
- 4
.,,...,. ,. 3g D.
,g , *. ,
.f. '; r n -
r ,,, & > , v. .
, [ 1* ' , . , ,
.,a',
- 14. ' , , * .[
- s '} l cg. .,,.oes ._ ,..a.
l
- ,* . y ,
,s. v. . .
' ' +v -
# T**S-'" 8 ,
g g . J q -.. f.
;*h *( . .
- v. . .
[,,,~ . s , ', , ' - *
'p [4;;*s 4, ye .g m , '
s 1
- P g,
- s.1 * .' , .
l I
'
- s _
* ,A..- . ,
y; . s s '..'~ .\ I "' * .
*'g
+ .
e f
-.:~
- f ,
?hf N 9 M h h Ny [f h M h M N.h3NNM< M. . N,['h$$h:N i' k:N $;.Y M h . h. Mcf My.N.TiNM) .
h.x,I Y. eN.hs ..$, m Y Y .[.~g
;;rg..w .W M ' d Sw;?'M x ' cdr. mm%r..e.,.r$
s m,w . . , .- ., . c . - r
. p .l-w:p:w mpp.p;p n' . pp W: n%.m-r..w .
. r. . .~. ,;; . ,_ ,
...r. m o- s. >;4W p&y : n; x. m:.f
"~W .W ' W s W.W.M W h'id M .W 9 O f @ .1 N R A @ S t '.!i &;.4 -y ;,dWn W MW;hud
!c,W, C.s@v.mM, m% :;', 3 ..u
,w.n. ,M, 7 m&_V.,M.y :.1&MMi.d.i.h:LuwD M Rca.adM? Mush n %}4:.%Wf..m:W.M. . ,b:li;QN
, h.a w ?;6 S. p m
.a teS ..
,n, , rip n>, . . m,..m.%.n*W.
; Q .&.+&.
- v. .. m%w;
; ?'W. . .; .J?
. %, - ;f. M W'.,,.f W. ,.%z
. *m . .
.. h,.'. W
- 3. - s
;; . . .,..a.
, , , m.
. . w y.m.. ... . c.e.m , a, . .,
i M ,' s. 'This Decisicn shall become final agency action in 30 days unless a petition
;Q , M '6$fM$.1 d 'M;;$ ,&' C f r reconsideration is filed in a timely fashion. If such a motion is filed, this ?,%y.t.dM[a[NG@O;;,E@$..
il f.W. 9fy.?M,% + * . , h'E cJMSMi', 1 decision (as amended) shall become final agency action 30 days after issuance of the decision on the motion for reconsiderWon.
@$$0.dJ.
; qw.%4 .- <
, . ,.,J",.
p-.v ,, t.9.y +,r.. bs .u. .. 'c.it 'y.. . ,ysc; 2 sM..h;. w . . <, ; ., .
', u.d.%. g- VM.
~.s ..%.f.*i
-i , ' . 7.x. . ~ - b.',.s -
'- +
,'c .,i , e ,,'i y '.e' J'. # '
,r Peter B. B,och e .u(,,,.~-i..c -
.. . - . 4- .
,s. -
2 .> 4 ,:. .,s . .. . ., f, .
. i
'/N'
. y .y. ),v .. ; + u , e 4
mmc ', ' '., .. . a,, a .y:
>b..
.i. ..
;, . .%,.c, W4 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE h: . ! 2'S. . ,' , ; . ... . , $, . 'd j.n OcthC$da, Maryland
...~.,w;,.3.3-..-.
- . .* .. r 1,.
y.
,1 ,.,3..f.s. . ...., , .
.,,.-_.3 en g ;a, :,g.. .. ~ .- y,.s. . m. 4 n...
e .N > _ss .:.t ;;
.'...os.u .
- v. 3 -(_ . . - ,..% w s. .w. . . . ., o. , ..b ,., ., .a. q m., 0<<;,+, <
. - } . s [, .M 7.* S .. [a< j=d
, . . . . ;A~;* : Y[:.(~,,,* M hl4 *, ,_.*-~es C: r' :."z.
s .6 - *. . ;i.,. ',e ,o s,. m . is. , . .,
- fT.s.", , ' 4 0*
.t. .
*.'p A / .3 +
. -; )t ,4 , e
~ s ' ,' i ,.a,s m,,
s,...
- s ~
p.y., e
.e m
'2,-*
,q
. .~ . , .
m
.: t,s,5 .., , ,
t n r - t . . r
' ** *
- 4 r e _.r, 'a*'
.- 47 e ,
s* '.
,. s
.r.
'.k'.['.'.
l'*'E s '** 1 )g .* ...* 4 , -..
- 5-
% ' * ". * ' - ,..,', I G ,,
i .y , %4
.P,, [' ,4
~
s,74 *
,e.
g-
,.6
, A.. * , - -k...
".c; a,
<*. _ y'*.O : -1sr - ,6 ,. ,~ c. , .s , >
e a
, ,' +% ,, k . . ' . r g *gtv s % ,,i [,t, g . ..
+ jy ' , ,,* 'j . ,4(g , (.>.) _ c; K.Q r }
'd- .M ,
W:( . *-; t."..'t ., ,
- c.. ._ % ,
.S. .'. *cQ* ,Q
, g.V< ..i, .
- 4. f. M. w.,.% .% .1
.2. . Y. .'.> ..
7., i f , . 4.: . . * .',
,a - *.* . '
+- 4 ', i '. ), ,. , %,. -*,g.']du 'ep* '** 4 q l ".' ~
.s
, : '*.s p;
,
- 2
. . . a .' . . f 8' , , ,'**, b ' '.i. e '- p., ,
g,.- . p.4-y ',s
, '\&* .,: , [ . s t f's ', ' ,
L., N;, *
' s ,;
+
'. 9
$ g l
~
- A g 9 6 g ,, p 3 .-
N
% ) .a .
h,, Y 44 g&
. I #U 4 "a . ,
e \"
'D m g , " " , e ' ** b ,y., 4-'
*.t-
. , ,G
.a,.
eg M g
* , ,. *, t
,,'I, fg 3
1 ' , ig g k*
's
- .q
- s. D .
1
, , N ?' q A,'p.. .
D
? . * .
,.g
*\ g y'% $
n
*~ *. i . ; % .= .3e /
*v. , e<* .%(' ,
( a ... ,t w _ y-,,r... . d. Ly i '.g ,( . .
,.%. , , '.'.f,;l g : 3,. "* g.~% ~.v'-
7"."~)',[' ' *e . a #, C., a [,4. # I ...
'g ),,'*, r~
w
, . .-- -N . ['. ..Q &C ; '
&[.-.
- a. . -. -, ' - lc< :
-4 M 43*n;* .
a.-
~r' .
w .' . ~ ^ s.
.u ,uda .;s;,_ . . ,. .r . % ,
~
c ,
'% ; ( 2 e '
s %
; y.,
.v. , j 5
, - 6 ,/- .
.,, ,]T -'. < ,
', N y
. c; ,
4 e s. 4 *a ,$4 #
', ,- .L,=.
** I 4
.s
,,A,
,'% .* ,.f ,
, .3,.,
' ' , e ,,, *r
,.aSc h . .
y.g {- J,
, 7 ". . , , , ,
't?(' e'
- 8' *
, . . , l '. * <
q
*n Y-4
}j)
_4.
.w s ... . ,
9 {.
, , ,, f.--.y,.,,
. -,--,.,,,m c., -.g -.37 pq ,, . 1.,.,y.,, - 7 ) . .. y. ,,,, ,,, ,,>s x
.. i
= , , ,., .* e q . . ., w^ - - -
' i . ,
< ~ , . . , ..;
.r., ,
- t..,. e p ., . ,m, s.g, $, . 5 . , * * .o,.
>',,m
,. s, ., 'iS'
*,'[
' - 9 .t.* . , .(
s . .s r - . ./,, . ' e -/ .
. . , . 4 s
(,' y -
-, .a
, (a *
. 3 ,,
. .t,>
.'y p
- v. ' ' . .'s a>,..'- g , e,' .g* s. #,(4 ' 3. m - a , , ': w'iS..,
.a a 4 . .-,/. ;
5 g, ... 9 - f).,y *p * ,
,. e e ,.
j[f,i,.
, , , , ..
- 5 .-
^4 . , * , .,',s )y . .og, s.1 .*v *. ; , *s a..
,(
'1.. , 4e o4 .*
, p,s .
g ,
. * * = -a...,s. q- .. V ,
..-. J
% 7 3 .'*( , g g , , ,h , , og g
' g# u y
, . , . ,y.
4h . . L ,
,t
. . , *P
,, .s e
3 . A=.. i
- r. ,s' .dpr *
,~
't*.- .
g 3-s
,r
, ,< w
.-r.- .4. .g
.*<3,;
f s.
. ,. *g .,s d. La . .os. .c
- d.
.4(.,: ^ *,,* *o,. g' gr, >' , .~ ,%
. . 2,'
,',I. p/,7 # .* *' , - . , '
.'.,U.' .[ h . , L[; s j ,' i a
- f. . -( .4 . . , - [ d , *I.
- i " . ,' h, l j f7 N(; .* r '.
g S** a l'/'3 I j' . i . ' 7 ', j ,-, 1 ' v 7 $y ' / * .. ,, M. 'Ih
, 3 * [! ' . * $
l Directors' Decisions Under
'10 CFR 2.206 i
1 e i l i i 4 I i i 4 i i i l
} <
'l
y .. T - n : ad 4 p.;n, , %,Wh'MM;@MW.:.V4',.3 h f g w n.,, w W&lM. e.
,
- h:y. e; . a m 5WNv. ,$l*.iWW'Q:iMW).WWGlWW)ig' .
u , +.
. 74;3g.w<apn.s.J.',y
.s g.
'.W; n s
.e
- d. 3,p @.,.
;eg;.n , * , -
Q.KyM. -} . A,'g,ak.ui.g. . .n.oy4.a . ip& :,Qe. :,~ @n , .ac , g c. hy ; i... . ' R~,. ..i G :.: ?. ,.g g Q y, .fyk: C., y . y .n,h g.., Q; .V G @ c.y:
- . x, v
- s. fy.y .,%e; ,: p. .o,7 W .:
a n ,, ,.- pc., 4 'G .:wm ..w : ..-9:~ % R m.;;,m.y-. 3 ,,. a s,c1:'.;L g.q e' e f.,, n,: >: m 8> e . . u ;.9 .. . e. ~y c .; .. :.L..
,, :, - > sr a p:.r.~
t J. 9... .;.;;I. A .:Q~e v:n.v.e , ;w q .. e , g , . q.u% %;,'M.p y,%m y .u.t;he 9~;. .g. .' yv%;m a. s q.M. v. .: .u ,. y.>+y i , .:.. : ~. n . Q wm,;NM'MNDN. .M. r.M Db
.~ , c ,<c w ,3 , - . .,. .
[h
~
~
.T h. v',. d.
mM{[y$*h.e>
- g.f. w r.;;. W
- - '
m . .f '
- 0. .
. ~;. ; ~ - g .: ;
- + ; : e. .;.u'. ..u. 3. ., . . .
s.. .. ., , . .
+
- g. g;..,c. ,. y.. v .
, . .3.<. . - , ...y<
Cite as 27 NRC 33 (t988) D D-88-1
.f s. g. . <. , ,. : b, o,n, .N,. g- , .
3 w&,h, . . . . w :.*,M. n ,.
.m s. M v. ..:N w. , q c:. nc s . Oa.
Ms
...c. P.. . 7.c; n. . . ,.1 ;. ga. > .n&.
c
. 2:v v:; %,;.g M /'.r.y v
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
... . .3_M.ce , %,,.Q .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- f. NN.S e 3 k.., h$. . of'h. ,,'gy, ,
..,..,c
~
. , y. . . n.
m..
.y .
*2' s
/ 3 ' . ,.,. . y 3c. ,' s.W s OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS s ..
- c. . . . .' ?*&,,,,~. .. .. .
,s.,,
s
. :~ + s .....i .. .*ss Hugh L Thompson, Jr., Director n: *:,:/)- ' ,g , '. ' ..,.c -
A pl;", .=.. n,4. f.. m,,.J. ( '- . ;, ~ . e, w .. s, .; .
, . . . . . n . . .y. ,
,,y,,
, c. , , ,. ~. : .
. :s
. t
. -, m.; ~.~ . .
. .'.. .m, :s. . .~,q ., .
Docket No. 70135
< 'v.a - 4
- 4. m. , , y ..,O. c y .,sm, j .,/. C . in the Matter of
?>
e
- , ~_ .. M. .:. W: . -r e,, .
- c < '. ' u,,, BABCOCK & WILCOX W, , - . -
January 3,1988 G.
'C e "' (Apollo Faellity) s.
r
- : ..e ..e., -s
..-. s.
'J '
,M.
The Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards denies 1 f. .f ?.t 7 a petition filed by the Cindee Virostek requesting action with regard to the
; 3 . . . ' ' r ,~,9 ' , ri .f'#cy Babcock & Wilcox Apollo fxility. The Petitioner requested that the license for 71 . , '
,- - R
- f. ^. 7,. ,a ., ; .;< 's. $.M.W.. q.lfy.j-[S,!J, ,. .
Q Q the facility be "suspended until corrective actions have been fully implemented," after which the license be terminated and revoked, and the facilities and grounds
- c. . c
,, t ; d,W; 3 be released for unrestricted use." The Petitioner asserted that the Licensee had
.x.c,.
Mj.J "' c3 .,.g .1. .. fj n;fi f M. p. not fulfilled a license cor.dition requiring decontamination at the end of the plant lw y,
' . g ., , , ; ; life, that the fxility has ud a significant adverse affect upon Apollo Township sn
~
.C -
y 'i'yy] ~ and the surrounding enyt'onment, and that material is missing and unxcounted
* .L N . ,
for.
.~ ,
- s. w c: ..
~ f,c , .. .- a c- p. ..
~
. i; ,'.;.
RULES OF PRACTICE: SilOW CAUSE PROCEEDING U.- N. ,
- c. ' ' 1.} Where a petitioner has not provided the factual basis for her request with
% ~
a, i. . the spec.6 city required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206, xtion need not be taken on her
. r-c,;W,, .-,9. _c; 90.2.. .r. ,,.;..- .r.'. xrequest. $ 7f;e pp;, 4. <
.3 .
, .s # .. - .. .
.~- . .. . ~o ..
,.~ = - /:. a: -
- m$',-
f.s.,Q,am.g..e,'.
.i=.,[i j
. ,**,.....c.
< C) , s . .
m
,.,S.3
.MQe r' .- # t.,
Q V...- Q,x DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206
- s. w
, . . , "w. 3. - *x .e. ..
1.
'.t .
. .v< . a.;: +of , ,t ,-.
' n. : ?,;, N. . , .6 ,V- INTRODUCTION
. , , 3 , ~;.>
' ' ,S _
On February 24,1987, Cindec Virostek (Petitionu) filed petitions ptesuant to
' ' ]j 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 requesting that the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor
# 4
'^
*y.,
.\. ,
- g. - . ,
33 ,- ,- e. : . _z. ' . .- wra . . # '.
- ., y.. / ,44. y.
*c4. .l.,e.7 .',,.
..-/*-s,.,' , < a
)
.- .g -
a , c ta
** ;%l 3 : .l r~l j'l,' p .
~ , . f . '* .: ,n . *; , r . A.c ;,.-
, 'q'.* Y } $ ~
.: c, . r * . , * ..
1.,. .w
.t
.,4 4
.'.'w..cs s. ,,., ,1,g . %.,., . ,
1u d,fE,.o s s. *,.i .e.. , . , * ., th'= a 3 - g,. ) _86 g .. , ,4 i c4 j,. . , ..,..'c
.[*.3 , f j.f O j -
- e. s. 1,'--~ 3----
-- - - +- -x--. ...,.,.,7,. , _ _ .
..y . , .
- jy f..,'-
r i , b f.'_ * ^ .c.,<
,' s',.\
.,. Qv *
- 2, -
p
,' ~ ,. , y
'b.a . C'
.) g t .f, ( [ . *y. . ,
s , r I. 5 ' i', , .[;
, q ') ' M t , ll j ( '
5 ,
~yG : h ~P .: D . : . . . ; ~. . H. ., ~, >
~L'
.". A tj~ y .W". ::Q: . . . ,E;.,C Sq,^ c %_ q:yO .
s p : D ' , f- ,
',r.,'
- 1. a ' , * ~
m e., ':
. 1.~ -
,s '. ' ' . - - - . : s' <> s .
g , ,.s".g 7,..4* j.s.'.i. d
.'Tg.'Jk. f e, ",,;s% , - t, .+ .33 5. . ' , ,.v- ,' ',* ...s[
'.*i-
' 'g *
.s.- _ - y. .p ,< '$ yt, - L
. .=.ys; A . % ;. ': ., ,1 *- .- ,s ,p* ,, 3% .
~p ,
t l
mame@4 GMKDIMCM
=------
suf p W w&q&uep,%yy Y.. k . W h. g m N8kmN.f. D- q.yYM.a INM.w.%.$$> 2h. Regulation, the Director of the Of8cc of Inspection and Enforcement, and the p, hn.v:. fWHM.h'k M % MWpM2.4pdW.W$. tYh. t gr @$. I-
- m. NgM m hb a.M.
Director of the Office of Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards take action fd[ith; wi'.h regard to the Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) Apollo facility. The Petitioner M g~ M M.M,;fyThiy6.DhM,%y regested that the license for the facility be "suspended until corrective actions have bee's fully implemented," after which the license be "terminated and E'3?,E E. M d D e $N M@ON;%..'w;MNMM@'Q y:w W.h. r.s d revoked, and the facilities and grounds be released for unrestricted use." The Petiti'>ner asserts as a basis fer this request that the Licensee has not o . m wwpy r. .(
- r. ,
f.Mi OU . W~ W d? @,,. y. v$ k fulfilled License Condidon No. 37 of License No. SNM 145, which provides Mc. that at the end of plant life, the Licensee shall decontaminate the facility and
.D;.Nk 3! fMNN
- W.
#J m.if.h.
ggg.N
%';.%^P YNNt.,k$b4Qh grounds so that they cara be released for unrestricted use. The Petitioner also d %.djrDA@4is p:D$$..myg.w b Wf?M/A:. .g asserts as bases for the request that the Apollo facility has had a significant adverse affect upon Apollo Township and the surrounding environment, and Q,gd b.Sd W E.9 Mid b.%.yQ(Os ;6..f. .%.,..
MM.. s .Mm.y::M.e..Md
- ? c.
9 D O 7.48 Q b, t . Ao@MM, AM,,s.'M.n .. that material is missing ano unaccounted for. By letter dated April 10,1987 the Licensee was asked if it wished to submit information concerning the issues raised in the Petitions. The Licensee provided such information on May 20,
%yi O
.r/ O
.t.y.N.m.:.sy w.ny:.,w w y3 W::ww
'? F Q :f- f w'q;p,a g9gy.
The Petidons have been appropriately referred to me for a decision. For the W WWMJW.e. dig,N,?.
>:w w -7o dg,h.slM.,M. J ?i
;# U.+f g reasons given below, I have concluded that the Petitioner's request should bc oe .m
.y (M.: > 1 denied.
U;WW. .e P. .w%.. . 4n &q;
.~ . ,:~'! ,W. . s
- c. f q %, WMd, A -
g@t s Gt%,,n:;a%g.g MW
.: y ?
.v . .
N.) 1.. < a x .: m: v.q;;.
._Duau w.apw y, p/ 9g M Ce g, s ,,-
a; DISCUSSION Q g:i~.,j'.hT*, w yA
. 9 , . $ kg w : s mp . 7,, Q B*'k I""*b DL/E,dd(m.v. M M.Nt.&. N M' pm&.,. v@&og
. ~ ,
The Apollo fallity was established as a commercial venture by Nuclear Ma.
'Of MJ terials and Equipent Corpcration in 1957 to develop arid manufacar.e nuclear ^ 1'. .' ,.T[Y
- ..M A ?M.M4cW $ furi containing unaium and to provide decontamination laundry services, in R-ia. 9/ %]:
9
-q *
, , .y . ! 1%7, the license tuthorizing these activiti:s was transferred to a subsidiary of Atlantic Richficid Company, which contmued these activities ureil 1971, 4 (M.$g, . ':,'<ey', b b'[(' D.' N,, '
.c. ..q,. n w ; g when th'; subsidiary was purch";ed and the license m acquired by Babcock
, ~ .
& wijce ry V
. . Jk ?!-@. ,;f. C .D . .C:. 1 ',:
'r ,M In 19. 0, Babcoo: A Wilcox (B&W) decided to discontinue uranium fuel c[ % f '. d @r.,. $ .,. Y $ ,$l$ s[ Icocessing i gfi .d at the Apollo facility and embarkcd on a program to remove process Wry 2.f:.).;@f-.W W@c Aluipment and to & contaminate the buildings in w hich uranium fuel process "jMIMNhN$.yl 28 N,? r.Mh$ nmi hen conductol. Uranium processing equipment was removed and shipp
.'i for disposal, thus imving the major fraction of the uranium contamination
.$M i%kMkQ@l.$ %@
associated with fuel pocessing operations. B&W's license was amended on
- ${$ NWMM W).UlM Q $ $'M April 18,1984, to delter authority to conduct fuel processing operations and to 9.W6MM'! delete the expiration Ne, i
>m. ..n m%M;; .Q.'.&W4b. m'M.fyl@. % j
. F. *s. J 4' u *.y,, a , g s' w, A ~. .
,' *. ! . ** , ' ,o. . ~.u. , .w . ; , s, , %. . . #*.2,1c'. I 4
s . c4 ' *. *, N.l' ,3. i i h , ' .y i h * ,' N
. , _ , N NUM N b O N M'
.q .
. . I. g*.[ h ., i.Q. T ,-' 1:', . s
.c s ,
s.
. 3,
.w,...
=,. * ,.M
,..,. c, y
- f , y' S' .*.* yg..y ,'.,z, .
.,3- g , , l. . - , 3-t,c
_ .m ? .? s fg )
- w
- e. c:.r" V * '< .E, .. .y.:.n..
- . .7 ., A 4 3 . a.,;. p.2. o.d G *g.s n 's .?. Q
..-g '
Q,I' .[ t s L'.;*'g , .' [" J;c';Q% a .~
. ; * ;r
* . .~,- 7..z.s.
, 4 s.,,
,: e s . *.a se'* '
1.r,.4<. .:e;,v,. 7 o' .'.* P, ,Aa :M+ yg-.
,,3
. e;}y. .Ct.
.a
,:. . a. ;~y y. nfi :-g -. .c. . ww ; g M.,%
l
.,s. ..g
<, ,q r .g . l
. :. , ;[([
.i 'f, I I
. ,' ? m .eQ.f*%g[: .
- , . cte o . p y y,, v.,'.,. e, ,,; ,e, . . .m. w,; .w
*U M ..h d ucwf'l""n**,*,"'.* -Aff'.-]c,'d' .#9:, a f - y f f v 4 x[ l f Y Q ,.g-3, gqhe ,3vg1***f(
e
'% . y '~
, \ j '!. ( M ' f ; y,Qr.*.c., , } , ,
, ~ !,s',Q.*';Q.y(, f.G.-? ;.Ml.QQ }f;yT'; f TQeg . v Y,,2i-f Q; '"
MdQ. m' <.n .;..kMtMdM_a:.@;;5$M'$ERN,gQ., N e
..~.
mm;.&.:ny,%.h.Nx,~m:D.:fC s 6.:.. s. . w k.' p+ . Q: o m .~. p., m. .. m
. ' ' + Ls ; t m., c .. m.*
- t p . svg%._t
'1 y ?, );
...\ y ' % ..w.4's.
y .: m . m y.a. _gi, yJQ, m,,r. P
~ q. , , .x . O C ;>
y; mn'$..;c
,; j *m, e.: a>3 Tm.,q.
? % .
Wm a. m m m e s u m e n o w n
%a w %m%.w;,w.
h m. m.x.e.mw % m,; M M R M M W M m S U
. a- uw . mm c.e.3;wq N:.
L
- w +.w' *.r;y_".~e 0 ma. c ~m. .m., -e ..
. n ' w)?,.. a , ..
-s . g . & % d+- p p. . .;4s
- gm.g .y.
,. . c s
. 2. m.a.M, ,.fd x. . . . e$!;W&
s ..
' 3 _
.Pu De license was subsequently modi 6ed by the NRC and set to expire on
%$.$r QCh khd%$ 4 M M @h fh1$; h@.- March 31,1987, and on February 25,1987, B&W submitted an application for license renewal Because the application was submitted more than 30 days prior p 9..;~g 6%y M G fPM % %i 3QTfR swr4 @NI M W N M to expiration of the existing license, the existing license will not expire until 6nal acu.on has been taken on the application for renewal.2 In its renewal application,
&;[7 '/8m /,MIGN.I.%IN.[ W. M ,i;, M N p w;, MB&W aR W to use the Apollo facility to supplement and duplicate some of proposes m:f~G;_sd.'W O..F M. 0. ;d.5 ' N;l 4 the nuclear service operations that are presently conducted at its nearby Parks
'Ibwnship facility.
Fy.3%gk.4. QM N U S.W,. .M De Petitioner ral,es several issues as a basis for her request for relief. For 4 h@ M E.$ N M ! E / 3 D $ @.. . Md %l i.WS.@Y:$l,Tj%MF
.M 4.i-
.M Q YA N 5
'{j 'Mi$
the most part, however, the Petitioner has not provided the factual basis for her request with the specincity required by 12.206 and, for this reason, action need not be taken on the request. See, e.g., PMadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick , nW;' Li'i. a. .6..d., OO-M.M. W.~n %, .r, . ,( m . Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), DD.8511, 22 NRC 149,154 (1985).
%. .. <. .r.L 7. J - .
1 3@. Nonetheless, the issues raised in the petitions have been evaluated to the extent ; 3.j
',3 Qm . O.,; -f'.
.;;. W 4. ~ ,p .i -' N. ,..
' .C t. n ') ' y[%#..YD.. . y@Q. .a n .
. .~.
. ?,
possible. As discussed below, I have deterrMned that there is no basis to take the action requested.
". .r. - . . .f.- . - w w.m,
',. 4 #
p-,,
- ys ,." .z .e
, d. . ..MDM Unful811ed License Condition
'. -y
.%,Sew n <j.cg; ,qJ ..'J;.;;r -
.s
' c g .!'Rn.% De Petitioner asserts that since the Licensee has terminated fuel processing operations, this corresponds to the end of plant life as de6ned in 10 C.F.R. Part MMDb.QU.gj@U.5@g
;;;c
. 49 5 A .eW.7.ne
.Q@
70, and the plant, therefore, should be decontaminated so that the facility Q;..Q ';" ;. : WWf@'Q:Q an1 grounds can be released for unrestricted use in accordance with License
,i M X.3Mf9$ l Condition No. 37.
?.'3. i *.bC'*f.y '
*/. m M
.% fi@j'.$ /d $ #s Sections 30.36 and 70.38 of 10 C.F.R. provide that each licensee shall request termination of its license when it decides to terminatn all activities involving
,;s.
. h'g..~',. p Q-7',1
. 7 %f materials authorized under the license, shall terminate use of such material,
,,, , 21 ;'7 0 , W v G., :lle F and shall remove radioactive contamination to the extent practicable. License
, W, m, wf:p.. w,B A .n = .
Condidon No. 37 provides that B&W shall decorr.aminate the Apollo facility
. p @t,f:p '.9?;f(..l;:7:
fM@p at the end of plant life so that the facility and grounds can be released for >
.Q B M.A W P.:-jk unrestricted use. De intent of these regulations and license condition is to ,', d,'d.@/.9 WMUS.c (9.1.N' WM4termination.
- &5Nk h Prevent abandonment of the facility without decontamination prior to license WN~ A. Mff.Mm
? ..p wd.a WIG,, e m!.s .;
- t 4-
-8@x.h'J W.p As described above,in February 1987, B&W requested authority to conduct
- p$ MW.Q.SS-MW ' .'; F:WT;4 nuclear service operations at the Apollo facility. Rus, it is clear that B&W has 75 ' @,5. W ' $ .
4 !f M S $@; Wo.. A' @M A . P ., decided not to terminate all licensed activities at the facility.8 he term "end of
*'&- 2.. fy Y 'k@h, ;,,2.>['% ..;,;7 k*Q d,,, C.! g:
xM $ e W.Y'h 2sesnoe Mss (b) af to C.FA provides eat in arv case in whndi a homens, nos less man 30 days prwr in
.. A,e-?.W.g
.W.w.. h me== d w ==ng i-=. b. sted .p,wom r. ==w.i w . ss-es. m mang he.n .h n noi
@Ja.:gr - v. f., , j *g' /Q< 3r p 9 ,f Y. ;,- espre uns0 ee appbceaan rce wwwal has been demannaned by me Canunassiert .*";- N' 7 ;y..N-$ 3
% Pentamer nameru est es lienness was manned in vaung by ee NRC sd to suberst a seedule far
-v. - descusanunsung the ApoDo pla s by formanry 1.1964. but faced to sabnet mach a seeMe. M$augh dus
'Ji~ y 9
, T, . '. ('., ,
7' Y ~ . esserum is true, the rquest was inade under the ass 6.'ipuan by es sd $n. becauss $s teename had ceased
, H. y. . _. (Consmand)
'g .. .- w; .,m.y . ' .n . ' ~ ;. . ' . '
~-w V. .,.s. .- - *
.:*.c s':y k.,g
., r., r; .",s.l"'.,,
,h. ' ..
4 .. . , - [,,. " w%th . D ' },
*g q _g .
y 1 4* ;
. .,x ,. . . .
. 1.
- m:u :;..,:
q ., A ., . . 5.h . ~ W #-: .*h** ['; D~.J[* . 9. L
?. . .
e {. a,T .W., : n- tac, -.. wn, w . .. n. .,.c3>m a- e
- 6. c; y: w..*%;,o..,.e'4.s.,;P.u - _ e.. *,v y =
5 ' 3s . ; %. 9 . .d. ' . . ,. .. .,.
.e,...-.4.
- 9 . ., - e
.s,. . ,. O ,4 7
- m. m , . ...3, s j
.g . .. . . ,
.,.4.. s.. . ..
% g gW, g w . .' .r
+s, . , +
. ~d ,I s t' x
- . a- .,c' s ,. u' .
m>.? . 3 , ,
. *. . + ..:,
y : ,. =
@e n ..
W.p A .M, ; f - .- , . .c , ' .N i.e ' .. P, yR,. (,w:.: N . Q'* c.r. . w m, n,W .pp'n
. . . ,.,, n g .. w.w...**j.h y .k:\w, y$e,j.y., $, ,b,W e.: ,). N M M *m; p. v. ]:...
y .,: I(n . c . _;, * ' * ' s x - f 1*[ N i '*).,,'.D. , M u ( c'N .* ?.l.#; I , J'; s
.t
- u. .J S.:. 9 .7..
, ,' y',
.,._(_ ~~' '.e r
x g
.*, . .e Tr S_,*
'Qf fi g $4 tit ' Q M % d.Mk &,ankSMM.Pr.LWg.dE MM,pg, r,@k:&p:,r.x7 M' M- .W"W.MA " *"p.de g' MWWfd
- ym,e m nm n;Miv % s u. 3 h5 M.=Om,c. x w n .~ I
\
r9 A. ce . - v p:%ww.. m. . . .,p.4.m;g.M
. u w g 44u 1
>w .s.
- 4. W# .4 hh
% > M ...jp,,t ?M p$ h .
,y Plant life," as used in License Condition No. 37, is meant to refer to the cessation of all licensed activities. Cnamntly, there is no merit to the Petitioner's nMMMMN:$@y@g+Shh/.h
; D # ~J y f . Q I.y.
MUM',%.k DNw .m:. m.3 A.
- Ng'WhM/ assertion that the Licensee should be required to complete decontamination of the facility at this time, l
ygn mA .e w.y M u. @ s.c;p, q. M M.h c ;yW r5&m.m.u. m ,q .s a y. p ..:,# w . a v.& Sigal6 cant Adverse Effect , i M ..: ,u n , %. = ; . m# . w.,=.f. . .y y r,C h .- t p, , . . +u ~. - av 1
.v/M,"l ,;g ,,el. I' > ;
;;g e
$NdEh:g'd The Petitioner asserts that the Apollo facility has had a significant adverse
.Wg.,. 5 h' kP.
@ @ %, h ,5 s. W , p j d
,My(E.hM,l$Q2.%.gw">
- s .
M::W:.MAMMMW effect upon Apollo Township and the surrounding environment and that the facility is an immediate and serious threat to the health and safety of the Licensee's employees and the public, to the environment, and to the common p 2 &m .w.s~ A.n.4.. . y.,@s'WG.v ew.9 defense and security. The Petitioner further asserts that all Licensees at this
%%Ua. ,w.%a.;O+M fq .
M., facility n, htve had a history of chronic noncompliance, that there have been cases
-l@N@iM?l$@)%y?dh/3%h9 N ld RK involving a deliberate failure to comply with regulatory requirements, cases iO.y.W'25ff,W{h'y3N;%y@M
' when noncompliance caused a serious accident and incident, and cases where
- s ',j 7.h the nature and number of noncompliances demonstrated that management has 7 (,,O;$5'Q.)RPJ MdidY N 5 M @] [.@-
- V 5J:.i. %.% 3 Q;.3 M mJ b not conducted its activities with adequate concern for public health and safety. I
' '.'M ;/.M',.1' .MJC l';l$( A review of the co.npliance history at the Apollo facility shows that, while compliance problems were incurred by former licensees prior to B&W's Mj.QQQQ$,yy%$N acquisition of the license, and by B&W carly in its history, B&W's record of comphance has since improved. Since the beginning of 1982, the NRC . M. kDM N'f d M W Q d[ f M t. p 'QT # hat identified only five instances of noncompliance, none of which had the n Wm k@M.$,k.W@(FNN;$TMiyh $pt.$$ 3 k = M@ @@ h potential to affect public health and safety or resulted in e="laN enforcement action,' Moreover, the Petitioner has provided no information on any particular conditions or events that allegedly now pose a threat to the public health and j : ,;.W. f ' ,c: :/Y j,N," K~ t, M,,
safety, to the environment, or to the common defense and security such as would
, - , ^,, ,o , " ' 7,if;q warrant the requested action, See Limerick .rupra,22 NRC at 154, u . s . .
y . q , n. . .;p - l
..ms ,(, . g', c.; . .
o . .n . c . ~ , . Material Unaccounted For
.,:;+ ; f f.. f,y
, _ '_ , .a The Petitioner raises numerous issues regarding matenal that she alleges
$2 .;i'W '.;AiG .y f is missing and unaccounted for. 'Ihe Petitioner first alleges that there is the 2 ?.$ W?..
possibility that a diversion has occurred because material that was found to be V@,.j;. 449,',,/i;],W@fd(s;9].$
, M[.)MTi 1p%~ , missing and unaccounted for in the 1950s,1960s, and 1970s was never properly investigated. During this time penod, prior lo the time when the license was v
N.'s.% & )'r,% f..p g.% p C l Mw,:ev.fn,;c$@ qx,Wh;:e?
.. I l
' i,h -
)' N f l**%'
- '< .u,a. ...iU[ ,(+
MNk'D q tw. .
.sTpf ,,*gf.n. 4 L, i g." , 4 f- ;W Ani possmaag at uns facQiry, ne fumus estmuss muse to be
- .l 3; ,}gf g *y .g. . . '.g 4;. -
. u .'& J -
ry.+. , t m/s p'T*j@,6* 'Q,).i $g ,
,e. p;.',
.y );. . -f ,T
.g ;
3
-d-*J at,the plars, naW irdermed the staff by laser, ested Desernher 12,19s3, that ons assunpnen was auraisma, and dem a lad non nand to submit a edindule for ping
; . f 7 7,'? @ s
, f.; s,
. ,;,'., e
'(-
- 1
*ne mest se eens anunca ce amicaaphance mace aaw asenned ep nans at Apace irma.d inamnal sanuot and ecommeeg poblaras idennAed frces 1974 to 1977, These problems wee remohed thrmgh unpnwo-
' . . . A*. "-,. .d i innes bt naW'8 - preg tfEL
*. ' } ,
=g A
,g
. .% e , .g /g .'
% 4i's~)Q9
- y
;* .g . ~ ~ g> *
* . s ?;.<, Gs.: ,.p=. ,
" ., . . e .e .
4 .,: ,G , - n .w .L4 ..a;sper . v, M. . . .,* 1
. b.A . . ' t,s .. .y.r. ;w, '. , - y n
a
- _ e ..
1; . a
,, 6, % , .y 4 ~ . g i ,e ,
,.U .* n. -(s.s a
,'F_g**ei e ~
*g.
' . , ' .. s
., P g Me*
5. F e s .*Cf . g
- 4. ,. , , i,.'i . %,'
- 1. gg *, .6,.I. ".2i.k (*k g. ',s C_.} ee
)%,,.,. -
4,
.,,.*,,,.,s.,6,
*2
, , .(2'
.2+ . . t.s .- t ).4.,,% -p (,e .t ., t, , -
g4
, , 4. ),$ E De(( ,*,* 'f ~.*r* g ' #
Y'
$ ' f . , , **] '4 ' % i . ; , **
. O ~ ',1, I ' , ' ",' k,, , , , .,G
.,g .,, g m .- , ..gg g ve
- 2 e ' v l ', ?, ,e. '. R;~.' c % OT d,m.*e(..A;;
y :.3 %W q'
.r &e. ,.i.pe4*ryy
*W* %-{t r.b.5 F;,
w gassaf.
.Q . Vs
- u-Mg 9 G',s **** [
j ',"q] '. * *
. ' ..];,',s a
'.g.s ,
.,y'i .v 9r; .'fs ' .'-
, . . f s
<p'-:_Jla~
,4'-
m, 'p ';?.9' v+y N.,
', .f.. 2[te;T*+ (*, ,,4.y
-x' y,'J t
c .
- 0 p n.,N gg \ .W %. ,f ' d @t w' . , 6 I ... ; .4;.- *E,* . ' y '
Q ~ ,' : , 5; 1 ; *. . y s.n p L . " '- 3 , b-:
'y.
m.c v@.N.c.4. .
"A. - ;yl i . . . p > . n ni.
t
.v.,
'. ; * :P ' j lf , . .N Qs,g;z L .'l+,,
cL 4;.. . A+. %. .>c ~, ~K .y z. g; .gy; .. . Q:m.~: m?l.d.:c
.M.
u1:.. ;, j;.q:,;,,w,~y~..
.X, iq.:gg.&p,.+~., Qy ;r.QQ,
,t
. m , shy. k;%g;*p','.Wp s .p.y' m dr?, bg!
. .~ . . ,, ; , . , n;;gy
; c;.
.~ . . .
., - .a x .:
x
'hk k ;,q. a .~ [Ylk i y ,N
~ .
of : *.h. i. w * '., , Q M W @ p ?; M k; & p :m $ w{f; h[)Q,Wm fMWMNh s 6 *. h
@C#*f * ""
hh E= . .,,
- f
- A n *"
f fg,M j.$i 'M6 'M...
",~$ : ' ?,.i.E's.$ 7,6.M.E'jQ.i'6^'- p<d*& N fL* c.f D .( '..9 ;Q@?E. 2$%@.7
;M pG$.h',W..f,!!A;NM~M",jlP.[f
'WG,$ Gi,C
.V -W c.c:.
W J".9 W :., vi.s. gi '.p6 y % MQW ,W 1:
'.. W, . V %,;;;. -h W & ; W " "' ~~
h" " ' W. v & t"M*"M5"t".].sFpWy&gh.W' .r w -- aR Rf.S M'W'T s M:MC:f],w.&JNL.%:d~ W MQ: J.Wh.q.M:9$. r c .re . W t. o MXpe exv-a./ >:g;c.W e, - : y .. - > - ' I $f. r .w*,Q.v.ns. F.D m [ , o.' O Q l.y: j ' I '
- rws 3). Tx, w. ~. .:.0.,
- q.. ~y2,
. . . ~ : , ...:.- L i i 3- 1 f .3 . E ) , 'iM _ ., ,'.',f A 4,
[M.TJ.[.'j7 jE$ i hic.b't((MhhIr$f-]y d* M
- M' . .*J N.$
acquired by B&W, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) determined during an inspection that there had been material unaccounted for (inventory difference). l De AEC attempted to reconcile the excessive inventory difference, and then a
- jsf$@NSDJf QW . .. t t
@@Z@@M@~k'$ request was made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for investigation into A 4 -
VyiWEdi,f.g;%., .d.
;. ..MCQQ Q C hy, d m./ $.. y< ?",~,'g %"'si, the possibility of a diversion. De results of the investigation were inconclusive. ;
fl.? M.?.. T Mbt,:?c'.' ,{W't 1 . On A;vil 25,1977, the NRC issued an unclassified digest of a classified NRC '
# , ,.
- 4. Task Force Report on "Accumulated Material Unaccounted For (MUF) -
,y. i .f.y.'g;.p 1, .. High Enriched Uranium - Babcock & Wilcox Company - Nuclear Materials ' l.$p@y.] # . g . . ,
I N & . @ , e . N ', $ %August i
.'; 8,1976.
; M3 De Task . AForcen-7b; concluded that'. B&W y' had Division - Pennsylvania Rncilities" covering the period of April 1,1974, to
-) upgraded its physical
? U;$$ M i: 2'//fC A ' ' '
security system and had taken actions toward substantive program improvements
.n ,
-' in material control and accounting. In accordance with applicable requirements, Jr $p "?h t ,. n T. T.N &.9 ' Y [ " [ since ';; , '1977,
- while B&W was in the production mode, the frequency of physical
. '.. ' ,7, fc ,4% .3 ,
;; 3.- inventories was every 2 months for high-enriched uranium and every 6 months
. " ' ,y' ' il. .Vi ' -
for low. enriched uranium. There have since been no inventory differences or any dc6ciencies relating to the control and accountability of nuclear materials
't - '
%w , .f
~
+
that have not been resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC.
't , -
The Petitioner next asserts that B&W's Apollo facility was classified as a
- - - "mixed facility," and, as such, received special nuclear material both under a
, f.",C. ' R. '
.} ' ..'a . ,
license and under license-exempt contract conditions. As such, the Petitioner
.c . .
- a. . J ^
.,, asserts that there is a need to verify and validate the "contractor's explanation of 2 k N;1^ [.: )' '
[. Inventory differences." The NRC is not aware that there was any special nuc! car
'.s...
W. 0 ..s ... ~ s, .x ^-4
?., : material at the Apollo facility that was not licensed, including material that was qi 7, e.. . ., c..' .w.'. .p .'.W M.'
. . . .. m
*. received under AEC contract. To the Staff's knowledge, all special nuclear
-
- C. : X. .
- 3. . f material, regardless of ownership or contractual relationship, was inventoried and
[, resulting inventory differences were investigated. Therefore, the investigations
;~ , conducted of the inventory differences did address all special nuclear material.
;' , . l As indicated above, since 1977, there have been no inventory differences or
., 'y Q i';,y.c; ;;gn; ,. de6ciencies relating to the control and accountability of nuclear materials that
, j fj -
.,p, .
- have not been resolved to the ratisfaction of the NRC.8
,~c, g L .-
... y. .:
4 - x% 7. ~, . , .. .. . - ...< ., y [.e ., f ' b ' *f I b Pennmer also assana Lhat there is e need fcr vert $catum, of the Energy Rmeardi and Davsk 5 nea
-<) j c1f,'r[q'h*[./ y,5 ;.Q , ~,. . . (' - Adantustrane's (E A's) corsractual repmabdmes under E.RDA Certract Agreeners %mber tA.1009,
- s. ..' e/
p $ * . (? , yf Agreemers L' .1009 was a 197s draft agrooment between the NRC and ERDA wtudi was never smacuted tratead.
, . . , 3 .-:' j\ .d * *' / '. * '.' y , the sgmenes exchanged correspandere se 1976 sataeg that agreemers that they wadd mdsperndersly tassesse d ; 4;l '? j W '.",y ( s;y Mi, . .
ther safeguards and samnry remporuitalma at nused faccmaa. The EADA Said emces respambie for cetr. cts Q. is' . .' M audaad the earsrsca bocats and sacuruy d clasafied mansnal The Petmoner pnmde no bees fm her assertion that
? ' %qA % q. 6.. ~, e3 y 3 y *I,j'*' O.gf' '
EADA's (now, the Deparanes of Energy (DOE)) emarectual respmsibdmos should be venAed The Penomer
. C; ca P Q v c' y? / .C ' b,s. ;-
. r .
also amans that these is e amad far wrtacataan of the irrversary difference omsrollurais stabbahms by piars denen E p !L 's . M. * ' and af they were ad)amed dus to upgradmg d plars daign. The Putamer assens that ons need is he to the P,. i""'7 -*~ ? ' '. I
. , ,-. . , , ., ]4 .* ' (i %( .. ** - g. * 'facs .Uthat a "s-fold errar* was famd in 1977. The staff has bees estde to desarwuns in what em Pensioner is
- s. ,
7, ' . J,' p - *,; , - . refernng. Whb regesd to the Pumwmer's correra that urversary dafference cassolIsruns were adjumed, the staff
/
i s ecsas that in Augua 1976 the urverscry dafference scrsrd heruza sore recamf gwed to rwnde Oghtar regulaiary
..U
, :. , . . - restrsans e irrvernory dLfferwices It is not clear if that is the ecuan rufened to by the Ptenoner. As the Pettuaner has ptmdad no specanc informatum wuh regard to these cecerna, far'.her ocnon is not warretni see L.miemk.
',, . savve,22 NRC at is4.
, ., s. ',,..,.5'; . . , .
i, e ,
,' N l .
2,. s s '. k. -
~-
* :. .n,. s . ,+ ,c x" , -
37 4'
. 3 J %,3l **. .D ,, .'. , * . V,
. , ' ,',, 7 , e+ y . .- i , , .$ .,,.e'. W m . ,, f . gy * . .,w . .
+
.$ .'%yo. l;7.0,.. ' ..{.*] . ' ' * * ,
3,j s
, 7, .,"e.
e
-4,*
.... r.. :.: ,. .'
. .- ; . f, .
s;<_
..r , .t
;i*s
-p., b, , i *.
s.b n'>
. elsx vs '
1 . *.3' s . ,,; * . <
- m g , .. ,
,.~ . p n
a.'G * 'T.f.*.% ww .
, ,.'. ~. . -- m< m.s m<e*-e-,---emr~.-----.y-. -~,a.4... _,,.....
. 3, . ,. ., . , . _
. Q* 'a,~ . 3. , '
- o. at<-
- ~
. r :. r.- . ___
e , >
...- s: .
*r ,
1 i t . . % 'h ' . ..., n.s. 43 's .'y h ' .1 } '
* ~ ' ' *
, , . * * ,I ' +; 'm Q ." '.8 ' 'j y' * ; ,' s . . w i , 'Ii 5
,,s
$ ~, ,
s
=
",y.[,
. 3 .'j' ..**.e%5*=,3..y [ H,.,,'.,:. [. ,
- ) . * . i .," ,. . ? a k ** *
,'.'h g .. , , ..
' ^
- d . () y } [,....,f ~
's \, ,d. a-k '* ' '
' . ( 7 ,'.e. '.
s
+
lq r r %'* ,. Y *?A s' . 's". .,, p
*b b g i . . ,g .
* ; .' ' i *
.' .-}.'3 . . ,.4...
.8 ',, , , , 5, 4 p .'.,j. s.. ~ **";,.
/ ' , , \*A ,3
* '-,i .; . . . , , . .-
f
.,,o +
(-* r
~3 yrr . ?< r a- n . ., , s s ,2 s .
1 '- ' g. ,, f r vf
z. m.,n. fh- ,,p.,.N. : n.&.m,. c?PW; 6 v: W~-- - 1 $[ $[ Q;nn..y. O. W'h..y.a;;.F: &y ;1rC.x n . .G .n? ~. ,u.v a.>m<;a:'."~, n sM,v 4sq;; g.. 1.g.. 4;v:?
; c. %': +&m q..',n4- ;;+a:.m.y c\w. ; -et wm.. .. #. ~ .-
k; ,,;c..N
~~ . ..
%,: % ::.;; :;g.n;, - % p\ . t ; W :y,. r..wg). ?u
~ , - -
s . q:.:g:~y ..
.~: . a &.
;;sm, y . w :. x,p .tqw+p..-.q:r.pp' x.&w ,
.a y . y ~.'.
n .j,s: , % i : -
.k N
e@.W M p.~.q%p M s,N3D. .; W@,c .o . . :N-YMWhe a . .wr ;.g-Q~.,QM:. . s,. . . . . e.t a.@.y.@m.,$f%. ~w%%f,yMc ?v:.. j xy@.".;v , ..9,,M;Mk. ,. n :(s.x ./M g
,V;3
'W, %.,i3 N.y p'cce.2 M 8,;m.cW m ne Petitioner claims that it is in the public's best interest to have inventory
' . . c.G . ,,v% <w .x glb': 3,;y d y4 'M6 W yp9 ,
differences that were separately identified and accounted for as being in process tanks, walls, floors, or work areas, and burials, verified. At the end of the phase [ '$ (' . -. N[ byJ Te'Nf E'f ,$ M;;,;f M M p, of high-enriched uranium processing at the Apollo facility, the 1.icensee nonde-y&,.af, ', 5-p#gR.g" ;Q ;.$ ( ,, c structively assessed the quantities of materialidentified as inventory rernaining in
- q ,' M Q g,
. n.. M.,y -4, e.y h's3. ; W
~yCd.. the building structure and assigned values for material holdup and shipments to
' licensed disposal sites. The NRC independently verified those quantities. Final
.. l M"g ,f ! a:gu ; ,.
assignment of values for material holdup in the building structure has not been A s.T hf8 completed; however, since the material is in a form not readily extractable, and -
.;$.,# , Q mf;y%@@3
, ,.g .
1 '. glX
.;fi !;9 4 f f f % . % ./h
' M ..:. : '.'!{>h
.$fMN 6 the results of plant effluent and environmental measurements are within NRC standards, the material poses no significant threat to public health and safety.
Samples of material being sent for disposal at licensed burial sites were also in-j 9 ~.>-f q. .. , y@ M
.s % h " W, d .. 'rc3 . ,g. rl..,M.x :~ -As M.
dependently measured at that time. The material sent to burial included process equipment, tanks, and cleanup residues. Thus, the Petitioner's request te have
... .. .. .!f;. . '. n.,1f, $< -M.u Q.if ,0..
. ~ such inventory differences verified has been satisfied, and no further relief need
, ,g ^ r It [ %* ' N ,. p;.- s g be gIarlted.
3:a -s.7ft. - <
,,g...- vtu , 7.
e .'W . .. - i The Petitioner claims that since much of the material was government owned
, - < , ' ~ _ r y '., and handled under government contracts, the Commission should require all i , .v s
, .x f.m government-owned material to be returned to the governmanL It should be
.D . .c ,..i, . . . . gN . . ' - 4. 5 noted that there are no longer any government contracts in effect for work at the s d,ep ', r [' i,ysMD Apollo facility, that all such contracts have been closed out, that there are no
.s. - v, . - a p.
,d . . . E.:c> /g je
. outstanding shipper / receiver differences, and that there are no active certificates
, .,.; .' f..p. .y2. e .,, ,c..- .: . , . . . .;g. - y.4 of possession under any such government contracts.
%_. . ,' .;.; n.K. , % . . .c, (
. . - m . . > ,
cs ...'e . , x Finally, the Pedtioner states that the Commission should require verification (c R.y . W. -
' ~
.. 7-/,Q71 y ' .' y of undeclared losses of material contained in waste material that went to onsite controlled burial. The Staff is unaware of any onsite burial of waste mattrial at y ~' '. ~
.R the Apollo facility; therefore, dere are no known "undeclared losses of material"
. ~ .-
buried on site at the Apollo facility to be verified.
'n9 In sum, none of the Petidoner's allegations concerning B&W's control and
(' *
}' 4 accounting of nuclear materials at the Apollo facility since B&W took control of f the facility provide any basis for the action that the Peutioner requests. Further, since 1977 there have been no inventory differences or deficiencies relating to
- v. ..
e
. ,, .- c , the control and accountability of nuclear materials which have not been resolved 2 .y > oi ..
.g y
...K'. to the satisfaction of the NRC.*
4 .
..* l .E ,
-f W ' , .
=
', i t.; . : ' c" f:
+. : ./~. .S y,'? f i c.. . %%
- s. 5
.. 7Fg,f. a c.,,,.' . nt
. - C.7 ,,.'j . s . ,". . , , "- : t + .;nc.sQ
~~'
;*i ,w i v.4 ;.U. .. y M 4.. >, 'The Paancriar claans est a would be m the best exeres d the amenmere and se pabhc to decems
* ,'![i.,,'
p and deacevits a accordance wuh the *;wonsure of the ruerigency agarnarss' fa gest pmpets whch
'S Panumer states were to be perfcrmed by DOE. In tha cartnactaan, the Pasataoner a3udes to a MarnmaMarn
, ,s
~'
',2y,9 of Understandwg bes.een ERDA and the Cmmasmn stus a5e aueses esa in be reviewed and mMined as
' Nj necessary to comply with a Fe%sry 24,1978 Memorande of t'nderstandmg. De s:.aff is unassre d any num li J raarigersey ag oernants. of any Femary24.1971 Mernoranskrn a l'ndemandar.g. or of any caber MemcraMan of l'nderstandes bes eeri E.RDA and the Ccuntmannart d,
9 '*\. g ab < -
%, 9
. .'.,s .
1 5g. .g a , g g k k - v> -c .,..-
, . . O.t . ,
, , . g .
)
y % 1 f d -
. +
}.
~
'i. . ,.,,,,.-.y..,...r. 7- p,-.- ,
- s. - . 5, " " r"" *"'
r . jm*., . , . , *..
.e '..;
*. 3,. x. .j .: -
m'. , ,a, , , ,4 / j .si;; s ~ 8 ). .
, m ,
,* s ,* g * '
, .k
.' 1I s
s I m s
,fg'
.o. ,. ..
g a e .j .^ Y ' . .'?g-3* s e [( a ..- , . , . . , ,.- . ., o' c c ."- . A ,. g
. . * . N
,j "b 9[ 6' i.P *I %. '
,. k' .[ .
- a, .? l \ 6 (, ' . g.
[
.. . ( . .
-g ., g j*
. n..a ~ . - , a. - , . .
., a ,, ,
[ ,Y', .
' [l . -
k < '* ;
..1. . * .' .. .r 4'. . . ' ', t e s
( .
'] h .E
.g ,
(). . , - . . , ,. - ,
ce g h. pW : $b WW w.M 9 w . S ' W.4 %
.p ' wok l lU $ mu. & &., _ y$N,.5. Eb p & e :p @ d..y NN..,,N m&D M 2L F W.a.we %,OW p4.u'S? M, %:,
4 A!$kas.w:.
.%k. fJ y < . a. .. ;;M.::.;sw h%&g', h.y,?. . hyf.i
- o. .. ,
th *'Ys.4, j 4 P w q. A : p.q f.w. Q m%495...sm . &nM:Ph%.?w& vh: ty~.. & &m) W Q r k q . R n t *:. %y %,hD
%c;. w CONCLUSION I
For the reasons stated in this Decision, the Petitioner's request that I institute U' r 'roceeding to suspend and subsequently revoke the license for B&W's Apollo i MI @h$[YM.* kg[sq
- w. ,,.
. m,.y.%.
df% hl.- e .wy >3. M.m.N.w.ww ek$h facility and that the facility and grounds be released for unrestricted use is a,nw. o l
%h h%e. y') - A COPY of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206(c). //
- f. @M % Q P. % Q M.Qftdd;Fh:Mc, S 4h W MP 4f.M l[5[. 3 FOR THE NUCLEAR non hN M M.! REGULATORY COMMISS!ON
&S khh, wy$a,$w&au am&'p;M8Mi'!INM"d':j FMN.
A N $ ?$ h h h M &. b Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director
& & s% .+ M.r r.p>N.7WJ ., .
'M1G;: su a Office of Nuclear Material Safety
- 0. 6 4 .L.:nt 6 r.4
%,,e, .%. .;wm. .e 1
,,: 3 Y. and Safeguards yyg y,W..v.,v.3J'.
q , tp ,,1:
.x
.~y wn ,L.s .. . s' q~~
.. 4 s
.a
- p[c .'h : kihNh,.p;q;g
'k,'f.y Dated at Silver Spring, Maryland, JWyi'&cy x
.Ag,fpmag y!d W this 5th day of January 1988. L
?y"v.,
.a.#n.b ,,,g i Mmm~;A .e r
- e ., .m sg l h . *[4
h/-
',;.s n.L r
w- Q .; p:m,. nmW.
e Q , f, s 1.Gt
;p.Nl lt:~l .%'$ m .g.g g . ,"cp. m' m.ll.*+. n.& i Gp ,hj,h rpr M . f' it h;' ,*
*q . c.JI ty%;g%,2.
h; .D
?g(y%.h.
~ ,.
w; ,)s.c.. w. 4.y .. ..vs.
mnw.i'yW,@w N" @$'(t. j ')I
.:W
'&G j~ 'Jl~. ym s.
Q:.% '*.&.WWWib$.mw& *'f,%W %q (4i.%c:94Wf f.",
. .o r.w, * ^Wf'WrihQ&,r..
....s.
'~-s. , y e tJ ; M,.v. N,
- ^ n[' ja&,,,3 JAN , .a ]* I)q*+.
f ,
4h,.s-@s 5y,9 c:. +.N. We .4;39rh.w h. . .f i M, w.y,.s.4 - p.
d..9.3,.m
)
N}*jI6M.'M~h.h*f ,y.3p;pq ,..$"cWaYg +v*y. fcq.e,wypMa y .
v
- 4. &:* 5;h' m 4.v . yj.
. e$PN%nND.1
. , - i
;pM.e4m%g.M[ih u ske A h '*
$h..s,.4q I
;#W;c &g W V.4,@e M.g@(p%ihn AU'*% &1.M #
W }
&D..&~y% %n .6.k: .2 :%w ,
.. hh.5,.'.N.* ?.&. t
% ..a'*g?.*N, g:c.N,sb) &. 3 V+ .r lQ*[-yll. .rl{4ve 'l^ ,%.g%; k';;7 *l,e,..h;Q.Q ,
- jy .
j ?.;t y!.?. w {#.4
.. m},w:: p :. ea* .c .. rg,t.
w,g j . -
j .Tff. i.:.
C mM,.. x .h.d. f.f e. 4E../N,n ,KaT*,b.-{te;M.w*W; D. Q . -./N ,'
M;a Mr $./ g.y, .* U%[Q .8 f ha. ;[.'. *. . .U.s. o.P.o.19ee.2ea-assioooi. 39
, ~$'.'.
hh,k.*,N. .k(?;?,$N.7J.Md.h . h,$h. Uh.i
. . ....,., n.t. _. . ..,
a....
**W %-uuV,...e. I *. :*<
f'.n . e ~u
'* ..Q "ei. ; , p , *tA.:a..-.+s%,.*4 tn &. .7. n %~e .
J .
. Cx.*q'k%w l.< .q..'G.,i
'[Mg
- f v .;
I'k,'>
r.
, 1(t .,e..',.7 t N.
. .)." 3p w%,
Ym e;(
'-[*. ) C
- g. C,a .; g..*, r . .*Ah- .s g w , . j
-. + . 4 ,3 y * ,, *
,,.b.. *\ ph2,
- O ( '
- 7,/ J , , ,'~'. t r -. .$ *.1"-".*
. #$ 4
-A c p e hTh. .h # M*. u. ,.w .1.
j ** 1 * *' * *" .* 77. . *'""".-*'.IT.*f".
. , ",'* f'* * ^ i f* ~'* *** ** 1 *w%es.* t 3
, +
* !*9" $P v **I;i * # N.M. i. ' .w'r
,s t 3 a * ' * -
s M " , . '%' ~* '?.W *.f Y,
' < aF '.7"*,. .T ?+. N. -
s
% ", p. .T.Ns ' WeU,b-OV:.C ,,
h _ v '? 'I~2
' t 1. S o
%. , 'l9
.- 7' ,
- T s .g w?,. ,
"* ;.
- i 1* L .>. 2f'.
=
' . .:,,/ ,. \
I
.'.'M.D o 6.'. ,, p^'.;; :p-W 1,J; ~.
a' > 3 ,,p w 9 ) .rT a.t s
, - % : f ,*. '.e-
.t ; r' . . 9. -
~, h. [ T/q/ .r .p;.,,;
. g^ N.
r '. -c. .'4.;:
* . c
. '7. . r. 4 a f i
.J r.p 6. 7(..'N* :T- A . .P. 1e w
N 1*93 d
y .
. c-h.* N k,. ;h.w,*.h.w[ . - 4 .ny .< ,u...h
.hs'h,W , . .. w.(( e* h*/ . ' 1 M t " ,2.5,". . [ ,. ' h \' . h, .' <
- ,. a.$ . r, 3, a n . . ,m e,. .m
.. y a .r ,.
,. ,. w, " ~ :
s
... .c. .
i+. . - .r. t .
l
.g E * . . - * ,- *'
..g- "#r m'=
t .
__ m . m . . -
t I
.g g e .. w$ + ._. m . -m .
. . .. . .m}}