ML20199K582
| ML20199K582 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/30/1986 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-54FR24468, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-26 AC81-2-086, AC81-2-86, NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V23-N04, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V23-N4, NUDOCS 8607090195 | |
| Download: ML20199K582 (235) | |
Text
i r' %
NUREG-0750 Vol. 23, No. 4 Pages 233-464
, Pyrd 7 P'-4-0; t s
~ ^.!' i
..,, ,?
+ .a v d ,, ,,
1 4
'.Gi'hj@d@h.:.c E wn j' ip&y M
snu,
'*..* ' 4 " '
. ' . -' ! /ji;.
p}g g .
4, i : .g g wm Wp
,., ,._g ,;g; .
y.g g, t, y o , .. .-.
r .-
, , %.. ,t ,c:.5 ! n;?
ts . .jq v y .,,8 4
&.c*p tj&.nu 0 ,n.W& ' h h'hW y ,a. >
\ -
. 32 g;,m .+ t 4 .y . .. ... >
o, ei . .
r.
- %jg.m.fA m:n: ynn. . .a w
.p~Mg e.. ,w n
a m . + ..,
,,a ..r.a> ;yy.d
,a. n..
r .
e a c.u v.a,,. M uf,'
w v. l;A..
,,.y .
- ,4a-w,p .m.,.,q,
., q a -f e .a ,
e Mm! Mnghz %NiiY$F' W y y: 05 , .fs,nm^ y.3;?jW;%.5;f,.,bl?.=*Y.lym
[a:!$.y&,y;,f,4';
t
_ w g, r.yg;; s. ,
$f' {kbbh e c zm l:! k ,r. .
f? , . 'h f*N9 e, J ,;,;'tm } ~in.
- ;a u ;
.u WVyw&QM.4.KQW1 . .jf,yv%m M' A . , tQfe gxQtT;,p.
ayh , .fW
- Qf "W
- .P'.b,<,O,s,
., r.1 laj
~~
r(<j l # gp. .
m
., i i, * -
v9, II,2'k; '4 P,-d I; 4 ~2;g% s*;pl[3 h.,
n .f . ' , , e zcn
!gyj . . . . .
. 9m.
i > .v 4 y p"-2 na ,u+y ,eg,,,,f' 1:.a w
. ,d 2
u4:g#y ,J ?Mu;)3,,peg'?(. ap:;e? ,
- y
..~.pD:#k, W;q,.: ll' mjpup M M W,;gy; :s
,. s C,, g5.).%..o a- y . -.v. .
9- . '
- .u.% v
- 1
,n g gee . .73,,. % 3..n u, ,,
,4 - c 9.
Yo Nfr q;b ' " 4 'Q&,;
1 ,j
~y'uf9,qfNIM y ay = *lgm_;pi.~;,,j;3;:Agga,p
. pn ~.c .
_ ggu ,, ; g,7 z j l A
hk
%4ifc0L 4
kc.
@w;h%
gkJgfiggg
.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO 1
0607090195 060630 f- ' /09 /' b b PDR NUREQ 0700 R PDR
e Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013 7082 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 Indexes, and 4 hardbound editions for this publication.
Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 e
et I
Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Technicalinformation and Document Control, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 1301/492 8925) or (301/492 7566)
! @@, h IE i .50.'<;Ri 4.' %m.r.,./,-wlg':,.$.p
- y. ".j'$. p.Ad,5
.f.ifo$ g R @NN..V.
pif..,y'.%,%,.Q. C?27M 5 hf.
.,x. c', .u('-M ENN'g'lO@db.'
@V. - 5}J .Q n/Ml.7W 1$2.Q
.ypj ,f,'lg.c:
- . ,. n. . . . .,,. . ,
s o g;n , 4y. ...
,a, ,a. m
.r..g,,.e.. ..u ,
. . p . . . .n ,..;e, ,ff.r;W- '.:.
, . ,:.c. (.g.p,.w 8 .
. :e. m
. y4
.. .. _. .,...m.____..
f
-c .
, . . . . . NUREG-0750
,b. Vol. 23, No. 4 Pages 233 464
.- . ., s
. . v c. .. .-
.~ .
- V'
- . - .:_.... . w, ., .
w' * '. t. , ... .
p .: s. . ...,.
.uq . . . . . . .j. - > .
~
]M:.x..
W 3.:n V D.Q; . ?.M.., ,l.;
- .. /.l. . NUCLEAR REGULATORY
+
- .H.M*,
- );. COMMISSION ISSUANCES
,,u...
.\. -
- g.,,r.. .% .s ;
.... ..v. . '.....) ~ . ~ . . . . s. , , . .
. [. , .M... .y. c;. '. . .. .
- , . . . a , .-
April 1986
.' . ' /.) Lir . ' . , , j . f./.. p,
.~ ... s y
n .' ; ,
l c
,~
This report includes the issuances received during the specified period
. . from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
. Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the f.. e ; , , Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
.!."..;', $ . .. W, 4... . .
JQ. W ln, d ., .a-Q..
1 ,7 ,. . .f _ , , s, 3 . 6 , ; ,. . g g< d..z..,- %. : ...?y-Q* ,:/g The summaries . and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein
. J. G et are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any !ndepen-A*, l* W , )-l ., .. :f.. . * '.*. M'/,; P'4
.,}, t, j. #. : dent legal significance.
. .,'i,
.r ,. . ., .-
e
=
..u,eq.'?'.'r.G.n.':,;e. .
'.,.+ .'!. ,'? .f.i . b ! Y',Uh: Off.8l
.' s. Q. '.
..s,u
-l ,
. .. ..' ,p[
, " . 1. . .' {;.'l . '. ' . Prepared by the Divisio.1 of Technical Information and Document Control, Office of Administreibn, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555
' i (301/492 6025)
. e
- e s. e - g
- *W%%ft$7%%.s%W4d%r..s%p.:%x.eM. i n W w..: . X+WM,WM. m%n.CW
. , . . - .a. c. .c#D: sre. .,:p%s,
..eL.g%
g i%'.~M;iw&.v%Q>p n% iW W Ny~!.. % e . .. g m,9m . . %q.%n , . .
.;Aie' v ,
A
':,R.%.,
, . K- : '*y H w.
d.s.%eY
.D.
&. . . ;.e g
. ~: w..m
- .-W. p+ . e*M. ' .WWN vY..
Jg.<;g v g W g m ? n 4 ..... wQ my: Y k;- -
a c....mv ..' .
.e ~
JMM~ ,:w: f a..
. jl c. - _ -
. -. - _ - . - . .m... . . - . , - .
f4fW, .
. m#.. ,9, ,,, -
m .:. y.. .: .,3. a , , c, . . ..._
c:
i
.s .., .. n . w. ....'
w.r-f.; - r n,...
p.- 1.,:,
e.n%..o::>.b..,o a
s
. m.w w, .n;y
.n..r.a... ;
+ w, .
.el, .
a ..
lu,.
tus.v.
.. s m . v.v;.q.,:y .
6...,v.g..: w*i' ,
,.e. m S.y, w c.,'g . -
.V,,'c w..,* M.~ . .
,1p.r. .w.a ys no .ag; w.r,,e. w. v'.+:s.:(.o.,9,.+.s,m y . < a g y4.q.. > ;u ,. .r.g .,p c
,w.d.g s, .
4 4 aygos.
,~, ..r.. e . ,. q, \
~
gh./agpJ'y ,
$.r t.l. ,%, , e
. 2; ,f,,$,7p.,n~pf,.' ,
.rt .p yr . ,m> m.,,.. .
,. pa ..,s ,.
w y v.;..,..,, 3 *f. U b: ,$,
m)*', .
t [*' *
(.y? d
}
7 . .:c . p,N COMMISSIONERS A',u +W Mc P. .p
.y ,
.: Q ~.W; s~ r s,
- m. ..
'.e/l.it.*. h.. ':
9.? ..-
n%e,J. k n.,t. y.,s 5 p A. , W..!ls M$> vg ,
hy" "t Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman .
i.qU.h,,
.eQ ARE+W.*Y,$'Q$;};,.g,p.,,*i A 4. y y,p.+
fr
.' Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine -
A. N. # .e E$k D'.ki th MQ.,7*)M,.,v SA >l[..
pggltsM;;@, k,:h,b. Frederick M. Bemthal p sW Lando W, Zech, Jr.
, Se*,U,*r,.7,;,
, .. . ., n. ' ' ; .N,
% s. vj .
.G &s .g
. . uiQ*a m.e)n*ye3.&.',H, y: ., n. , .
.c-t.gp.;lM. v n .,M. 4 ~ A. . c, . .
g,;q y y .
.- I
< v>3a: : p. .,%:y..,9;.'* %. :,A.~ < g> * ;
, .e,.W.&
3 '* 43. 7,.at,a., A .. .y . .? . ' np ., * .1 s 9 M, p.d..,f? y e
7 r, u*
c.
ig' p9,,h*f $.'? *
,. , .V Q f V.9d < ', .
M !p W , M[.j,N /
,a\*,3* q ;g typys' >A "
,A;, f.yY.:Q q gf.!,3.J,+ ,.se .a .,w:
W .l.'.~1 ~ !?*:: . ;n p 4*.fg+;.j d ,;.
a ,n 'v 'y ;W '. e, O}Wi + /.?.
1
. .t . ,
.M., y ?!. Dt.4 My':ylch wwe(,m n,Tjy;," 4 w,:.w .
lfyd?)p,'.h.rd;,$.N:,%,w,h.,i,c'.!ll,,
'q.s . .,, g.
u pq Wq ,w#n,, . . -
.. w, h.n..m.,.h.-
,. i 5.1.pW.~
^
f 4 . M.14g,(' ty! .t %
h Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licenelng Appeel Panel
- 8. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
,9'N;M,.,JWg/7,*yp*c3'.'.Q
. ,e. y
/
If ) n . e.. v~'v
,y ,.,g.t.rl~,y g Q, ug , :.
<; ' ;,; 'se.
. - l
.S ,e
.s s y,.
L . , .. v;n..
. ' d. ..s.. . ..
l h. . .*,Is , - ( ,,,b ,. , , 'd, ,,.
, [ f,, $ !D f.f f .-6a. #';,,,A 6 .
' %,,' ^* r ;:q" a g n;, e..
,g ; ,e,s. . t,, s,.73 ,
jgAn
'I h,,)I ... , gotM'? ,
,],9 f.f,,h,n ,
' 7(,97A) *p/. C "(."o.- +.j,1
- Y :$\ M.u. ,#p Mt .
a, *
,Oa. ' : f .e g'y d &.s m '
7} op 9 9 g. m p. + m.,,,'0 ".rJ.n/e .o. ;i.,4. o.
9Q,; d. .g o. :,p.,,,6 .
, 3,,' y.s; g ' .;.' *
> *. h !e l,4 , . . .,
. I p p -
r .
d., ,
f I
I I
i i i
i 6 4
tj n
- fQ.W.M.
' ,s,,p s f. j 2c-Q4W i P Qn.pJ.
v L u
,m%,
,,: .. '
- a:&g..v+p
,$ N,h .
.%p@.:b,%g1.y - aQW:.yM@%QMlf
@ J w ~7;;.ni.;ng,1g p 33, pe,c,;p.r:sc fisi:7.MQ .N.o' iyc ygQgig;,.'>;a;gl#;
.m V: p:
r ;. Q:.%t yug..y,
.p ,~ qq.,
x
,..m _ .
%-._~ m
_,c .,_ : .
_,.a . .
..m . a wm . a . .
i . -
A
- 5 .
4; p g
~
i .. '
- ' '". CONTENTS i . ~.',' ., ,, ,
. ', L. . ,. t...;>-
., ; . , 1, ;. . .< Issuances of the Nuclear Resulatory Commission
- MJ
- i. . ,. . - . ,
. , . .;f ,. ,, p . .. ..g ,'. -
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al.
[. :
. .f,l . f ' (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2) 26[4 Uf ,7 . , 7 ,'> l a ;,'. ' ' ' c' r s'l Q F ,, Dockets 50 440 OL,50 441 OL l mpy'j'J' '?,N h* MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, CLI 86 7, April 18,1986.. 233 a . :.w
.,.c-
,....;,.,;'i.;@F, ,
4 ,'., j" . * , .! t,: . . ., .. p. :., f COMMONWEALTil EDISON COMPANY ff,;.";,' ','1 ,f; y :' , ?.jf C (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Ur.its 1 and 2) y Up ... .', / . * ; , , .*',t ,t . ;. O.. , .".* '. . ."
Dockets 50 456 OL,50 457 0L
, .vg,e
. +a ,-. ic t , t ' 7,.' . - Og v:,4.'i f.:..*. 4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, CLI.86 8, April 24,1986. . 241
. m. ~ ,. /. .; u, .. , c. ..2t. . d.. ?.r.o:'. .. . . :t.i..,c .* 4 o .. . r. . , . .
. Yf.t. 9. , . . . , y, . l;., f ; .;p,i ,", Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards
.o,
.. .....y
- .,l:f.;
h); , i' l, / ,.. ;.f*..,' g.,.l' ;', 7 9. ;',J'-4PillLADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station. Unit 1)
.~ .
- '; ' Docket 50 352 OLA (Check Valve)
. > - !.L . 1
. J ,~
- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB 833, April 4,1986.. 257 PillLADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY
~
'4 '
,., (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1)
' ~
Dockets 50 352 OLA.1 (Check Valve), 50 352 0LA 2 (Containment isolation)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB 835, April 11,1986. 267
.,~
R.L ' , u . 'M/,d crMr./ PillLADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY !
4
- pJn, 0 (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
YJ 3 q *;p,";.V*D Dockets 50 352 OL,50 353 OL WJ,W :, h ./.
.r
. e.
- '/.
. .F.;.'u MEMORANDUM ; LT 6,.i AND ORDER, .'..,yig, ALAB 834,f% cM,r,.'.,ggr April 9,1986.. 263
. .n . . . . .
e ,e - ) 7 ..* ,
- awAy ,w,, . l t .p - ,. ,.m,.tii.. ,..,.
, . . . ,. n , < Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Lleensing Hoards f , ,' . . & 1 i 8 .
, '/ . .'.l' t l , r cri p [,$ "f %. Mi CAROLINA POWER & LIGilT COMPANY and NORTil
. d. 's' 't,. 0 ; ;;n Q.y d .M. , D.
p ,M',1 p.f' t '. .@w@
CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Shearon liarris Nuclear Power Plant)
I Y:/,W@e[!.$w. f, 1G,7(r,t;,9
. i fg. W,' Docket 50 400 OL (ASLBP No. 82 472 03 OL)
Jf W/J"h;/,- ,*j,g,p j.
% FINAL LICENSING BOARD DECISION, t\ yp 3., Q t a
- " . N , gpjA,,;.,, g"$ j 8} t,h LB P 86 11, April 28,1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
>a , , .
.J
.n ,1 ;*
c 8
l t
.. . . 111 1,
i l
I
e $1 hh hbk y.?;@gy%Rpn?f:.V ? %;.
b0'?' g, ;;;Q&;fWfsg N'(*(n.%
.g. 'f k, $/[iM'II,3[#$. Qggydhu;:h $khhh
,[4'#'0 Y '* J2;}.$$IN Uk;,O 3.M.WMN,6%N.N7 h h E $ h;dk Wrx:l?? k)n
- r. <.. .
,7 -. , . , - ;,; _. . ,
- s. .. .
....x.~-..
w x' . . . -
. .- .. s -. . - . - . - . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . . - . . . t
- 3. p < < . J . ; . .
,c , . .
mfg y . [ $ N",
.p.g ' ,,j , .
.',m- ._ J
- Rp.M,
$*N!!if;t.
w.' .t - ).c
^-
COhlh!ONWEALTil EDISON COh!PANY (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2)
%.'-c.My'lN,7d.M ; * ' ; fg *.h ; iq. m i'.c. ,; ' Dockets 50-456 OL,50 457 OL (ASLBP No. 79 410 03 OL)
,y>.. .. "; e ,q.. ; ....
- l . b ,.*
j htEhlORANDUh1 AND ORDER, 3.%lq. 3,s, W. tit,, '; ', s. ,,
g r W.U* >.. p , ,s.j.. ,' .7, . .,.
LBP 86 12, A pril 21,1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
. . m.e .. .s.1e 4 :yn r.
cyRq.g.,M.4.
y 2 ,S M... e'. GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION Ut*?x.M -
- 4. .m. w*w@,.s. .ypp. m y ," M., p j.n";.,>.! c~ c . :
ijA,f,s, 'N'.; 3 (Three hiite Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
Dockets 50 289 OLA 1,50 289 OLA 2 (Steam Generator
. . .e .
.,e,m. ,. .
-gty- j Plugging Criteria) yk.,M.
- 8hMed"C#]'M.%.n?
[? ..n? ?; .g .s .h.g N k $ 0, t,'s. %
d.F5 AIEh10RANDUh! AND ORDER, L D P 8 6 10, A pril 9, 1986 , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 m c f ' X.% 'yr.~': ?. y y .: W 'n ? L .
PillLADELPillA ELECTRIC COhlPANY h,h5kh,f[$h.F....di'2S'D.Q
. Q r#:,gg V ,,,w.
,k. 0 .. (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1)
.t .,,. .) is .s .J r c.m%e , ,< t . . ' <
.> Dockets 50 352 OLA l (ASLBP No. 86 522 02 LA)
.tj7 7sC @ p 3 *
(Check Valves),50 352 OLA 2 (ASLBP No. 86 526 04.LA)
V, 8@W;{Q',$Mkl. :.//1,$ ;d , ' W' ' ,,;
(Containment isolation)
.f: htEhtORANDUh! AND ORDER DENYING AND DIShtISSING
% ;i b -
PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND f,3 6O.69 < ( - '
TERh11NATING PROCEEDING,
$pm%$
w
. . ;C.g/M,
- w<( . 7 '
,4
' . .D?$. L,BP 8 6 9, A pril 4, 198 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 2 73 Wn. w ; ,.3 .. v, .4,..o> >
P.y . .
, Issuance of tlie Administrative Law Judge
' .l9*.p;p e,p. *
- p., .;.
r * .h
.W. ,
R.' a
..i.. ! . NORTil AhlERICAN INSPECTION, INC.
W M,i"j@p pf. C, g, 3 .'
P.O. Box 88, Laurys Station. Pennsylvania 18059 i' ,M 7p. $@hihi@%,l%if U.S;, .a..
,i ,$.' .
Docket 30 20982. License No, 37 23370 01, EA 85 01 (ASLBP No. 86 Sl6 01 OT) g
@ &*.W
$py ,F,'.!.. M .'t? -[..
& l @W ['l'/S < h1Eh!ORANDUh! AND ORDER TERhtlNATING PROCEEDING,
- %m.
2
? @ry. L/ , 3W g d.t
.. f , s .
A LJ.8 6 2, A p ril 15, 198 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
.. n : t . <,. ,"'-y . .. c N;
.v g .. ..w a ..,<. ..
,V m '. 3.
- . A, . 'r o - "
Inuance of Denlal of Pelltlon for Rulemaking 6, g,er; .j 4,.3, .w n n;; e . J .q ,l -
y,;p{*p r. , ; , g , A. ..' ,, #' i .1 Q A.N. TSCil AECilE
- N,v.c.,% g,3;$ 'r..;, y bi i, ytsn W,4 9u . , . ,f.
Docket PRht 2016
- I N ;n4M 4 DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEh!AKING,
.,Aej/t ra 4,M.U0.jfgi c,. . h,D.PRht .lm.M./.s; q a 86 l A ;$ril 23,198 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
- y .
.p a 12. M;qil.,y uC, ;,.;. p,' . u u;
' .a a us= r .
'[ . . . ,.' ,,,t'i
- h'9,-(j iAd .g' s ,t k, i e ,',b,.' t i f *- '
fj,%l. *u, e sg> /, d j." .Y c
. t II
, i d. "
n
- ,-*.,, ,j
" e e
., t
- C
n;
- *' ; . e.34_- -> l . e_ y, M. ., , v '-.-
u A ,f' Er. ii.v%g4/ %.g..,n..!.,g.,.',
f,. .,. f"
_. . 9., 'j *f,.', a : I,*
Q ss * -,
, Ng,. .* , l'% w.# ~; Y$ ~ys 4'.N 'd. ' > ; '. - - lv
- s . sr v... - '
2
.~n
,.#au
. Y. . ' '), l .
- w'y 'o.. f;p't.f'*i
- ?.. i' q* ?
. A. .
- , ,,,.
- sc.
3 t'.* (g
.c ^.'LcM.4.,y .s.t fy,;,p'A
.- ~% .- ' * "? b' i ?
- p h 4< . ,;.._4
! * .-, ^ %
,.,i.
%. c;
. ~.:w
- Q }~2 *y.
- '*Ce.
',n'"f*;Q e .,g ,s. ': .@e...f' .- !f>l2.
w'l .,s .. -J,R'- ~;3
- m. ,/'"C'..?*.' c.?t -
',A .
n . m+ Q?:' :>,. *:l',Cr',.!,
jMf',[,'.'.;y.y.eJ.
a- .- .. m.
s.r,, - 7 .'s. ' U .'-
.,,,.. r. .. - . . c.
,y,,. .. ,, ,
.i. ... .. 2....
9 f
..-...-.-.--...-...-.~.:- .
\ .E,.
.,'.a.. 1. .
1 =
. , .. .s.. ... ,. .
.g e, ,.
,,1.. . < .. *
<.t,
.c
. , .c. . . . . , . . .
. y W w,';; 33
- u. . . - .
' w.'
. Comm.ission =
9..,,;.n
., . . W,
,. n. .W;,... :..
.. .. .. .. i,. lSSUanCBS
...~c.,......
- s. -.. , .. .
. . n, .
..m..>
r
..,..e. ,,).*
, w
.. .. r
.w.,..,., .. . . t ., . s. , . .
3
~,,. % ).
. . ... .,s.:. ,..
- u. . , .w. .- u, . . /. . , ... .
...,. ,e..
+ .w
,. v a *
. .p .
.t.im . --
rt -.- 3 ,
,, e et*
u --
C
( ,
. - e i -
P , 6,* ' '
' *' , .i .8 > , .
- '* , ~
t.,; '.,s p g 3 + y f, .. , - .- ,
0,.6 .. . ,. g . 3 ,
,rp?r
- .' . .; '.s ' +. . '
.s 40.,4 .
- .. i . ' ',, ;f f . , ,
. o. j s
,t
.s
. i, ' ** g
. 1 . .
4 .f.... , * .:. ,
.+
, .s s. p., ; ., ..v .
..., ,i,s4 L ,, ,r, e. . . .
.. .4 , s p . * ,.
- t.
-p?' .; 3 : ,g
- 6
>,4 y . . . . ; ; j ',
L .. .
f,4 ( a,
. . ; .J' 6 . . . .,' . ; d ,;,'3.e,N.s ,
,. 'r.i. ' .f, o* ;y . , :. ?, .o .* :-. . ,
3.
's .. .
, . . . .i ?*
4 4
- A 4
t,
,e
i hkh.hk N n lbh N N Y.. MMNb6MDN . ySN8NN.%lMQ he@. %d NdD
.!Wd&.w , ,
- m. . .e M. fQ. ,i?.C,,sf b . &&OMMM,;,S.j,i.:
na. .. nw r,c
%j%~h...lWM.~d*WV'd'A.%a"$.p'y.'Q(~6:/,.WL, c , ~ . . e
'N l ~.9' W' ,?J. MO# T W @ M Q f:,3j h 'd W i .
9n{ iM 7. m%sw%, . K -jyh-
.(3
~ 9. n.. :. .
- n. ,.
s
- v. .,, . .
~^*~~~""~'"----'~-~f-~lJ.=
.:-. :-- M :<4 u
- MQ i. 3 3 - ' y l* < . '
-~ ,.I n:p;p , .
- yQ n -
d- ~
Of. W. C.,,s& *, y~. .L. e; , ,, .. ,. . N - ;
-Qu
<.?
. , .s . 7 Cite as 23 NRC 233 (1986) CLI 86 7 4,,+ 5.J,m.g 7 ej s -t a
m ..,... N.'%. .. m m.wt ~ 4,,u . . g-n s .
c< . s.
.s ew s c.
S.N.w.g p
.u. n * . e.,. , ,s.Z. ,p;x,,~
m s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i;,@g ,l Wf.N.c ...if g..o.~ m.'s; .,' ,/.'.", . . ; - ?f c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.-.w; m %.'%' %a,a,y . .,,. y C) y :.9 ', cc. ,., ,.
p,. ..
Wq.(2 t!.W- % .4%,. v ~. .-.D W . % ;'; . COMMISSIONERS:
@n.1
.a. utq . v.v.r..o, :,.csfs.; .. +. c.q:
n.. '
h.$%d. MON .e.y.#CjW$@ns.M.
s m.
%.Ct r.'c.
>eg;Q g h }y , e.",,g' ,y l ':j. Nunaio J. Palladino, Chairman u nfh : W M .m_ i. %. - @0 M. 3 % @. flu # f3 -
Thomas M. Roberts
@g 9.,m A gr ?.t.?..*>ya,.i, James K. Asselstine
. U.Ch
= g.1 j.V 4M,14. Q%n mct4gLf .sj@ w G. L;f,jW,m,..
.w, . z Frederick M. Bernthal Londo W. Zech, Jr.
k W.myrtfgy
.w u Qf
],r &.y.;~rMe , wl eg 1 % .~,
- q. wW.n.j.1/
,~ i y c p.
- p. . t3:.
".h i4.* n n.~.?.. y>
y iy &; hf .% +..ca ; ; A ~I. w,.-
a- .\ W
- Q:?g?*a :: p+lpn
.q cggQ(W@;~lf&.,,r.,
? J..e ,:M. t iy.l:i .: mt.l q; ,; ' in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 440 0L r
a r,h -' %' {' %c N .. W.> E... f. a, 50 4410L n 5,DmNi>@[4 f .
I. %g,e.*?.g%:
S
?
- y. ..
Y CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING y" W p. g, WF,.,o#,
.g v,. .Y A;...i.fc .
's,. . r. ' W,.
.. <. ' .y .t . #+ 4 f.. ..
COMPANY et al.
J ~
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, a ,;m. v, '4Z. .lf N. ~.'.,. y,;O . .
April 18,1986
' n*. r. !,.' V : -c4 ". . ' ':, . y Units 1 and 2)
- m, ,, y . . - r:n.c~ .
. ,. 1g
- e. pu s,,
4 . .A:*,. h,.a /
s - ',3 4 '. .
W W (;49.k: .. .d Y .N..
.. n
. The Commission reiterates that the Board must decide motions to m@.y ky. ;d. ..-7 .* '" reopen on the pleadings before it. The Commission finds that the l .,
'c XIg M'2 M,.w /A'. M CIy. Ti. Appeal Board's uncertainty as to whether Intervenor's motion to reopen b hhhI i d{7(N'p.khkNNN.hj.VM' ,l,',
raised an issue of safety significance should have resulted in the Board's
' W.f f .
deni,1 of the motion rather than its orders setting up exploratory hear.
[M '
'T.. N ."*d ings. The Commission notes that the issues raised by the orders can be
.%' K ,q .s.Mii*'Mf.W/ 2'..',' .'c ' -
. handled by Staff outside of the adjudicatory contett. Because the Board did not find the pleadings were sufficient to reopen, the Commission va.
3.M ..ggj. . g.. [,;g ..Dy.;.'3 .* ' ,,J 2,,' .' l h *.d . . ; ,$', '.
, , cates the Board's orders and denies intervenor's motion to reopen.
M ,. 9. A:4 -l,m. i., & .s , . Q' . . . . .
' 4. .\
- y. f. . .M NRC: SUPERYlSORY AUTilORITY G g , p.. g p9f$ @ , @ WRy ]c/ w l:::The Commission's inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of d }b hirp ..
1% MNd..
j I'y
- N;y 5 NRC adjudications gives it the authority to intervene in a proceeding at Mm k$h.U$,%+ M $p~R 5,*h&, l $ NY,7 h.'hl any time.
x ;*y, .y .,e.,..,g. .w- m.1 cm ....o
- t. - j s.,..'
a*,.
s,
,9 .t.,. t
'c g *{ ,;,*;' f', .P y;h ,'4'*I - '
h',..
w*
t 6
L-l 233
gy
,,.f. , ,e; *a, s amm,. vQJ- )., +:y* ;e _, pue'). ,~ , x, .
w :;
n, .: . :pw;.m$. w . ... . ~..,
- ,, , j, +x ... ." ,.~,_n y. ,_:p,, y . ,p.
?
g:iw a y
. .: y.;q,m v.- }.w~ . m
_.,,,s. +
.,7
,m ,
. : 9 m .un, ?. e., ,.y . :;pq
.: s.
.s . .
p(k_
~. Gi e,. .*l .y" -
7.g ., .u . n: au' 4 JQ ?' ' 'M . .g 4
- i. ,i? -
g '.g . ;~ +1j-4ip_ ' - [, 21 r * . A 'Q.'Z$ .:
- MfM .'c y'. \ , M
,. .ip' &w-' &. d '. . 'f'g:;J. p? Q , %c
- .) , L .' - ' . , , .2[; c; l :oe ';elA; ,l- f' - - '
ms J,' ~ ~ ;
..l v...((.'-
. 1 n.QG ?
., C',P Ah.i^:. >'
,24 ~ ,- ' - .
s .
g ky- '
. . r
% ?
, , . .. - . . . - . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . - . , - - . - - - - .
r
- s
~ ' '
n RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD
- ~' <
,' l - The standards for reopening a closed record require consideration of three factors: (1) whether the motion to reopen is timely; (2) whether the information raises a significant safety (or environmental) concern; i.' . .'
' - ' , ( , i. ' - '
and (3) the motion must demonstrate that a materially different result
..~.
would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence j [ s ',' ' ,- & . .
m .
been considered initially. See, e.g., Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Niile
..y ,c. ..-
.a.
. cy .z. , , .
Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI 85 2,21 NRC 282,311 (1985).
..y.,
e .. :;- .
^
y,
- T* " , 7 RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD
,3 ,
,~ :) .' ? , . ' .e , (SATISFACTION OF REQUIRE 31ENTS: BURDEN
- . . : a.s
,?, p .a ~ . . m L- ; :-.... g 't .e~ c 'p , ON SIOVANT)
.p y, ' " ' ', ,
f,w ,,; N; f,',.
The burden of satisfying reopening requirements is on the movant. A g, q , . p ,,. . . l m J' .
Board is to decide a motion to reopen on the information before it and R-has no authority to engage in discovery in order to supplement the plead-s . ; , ,' , l j '
,1 t '
, y. ings before it. Louis /ana Power d Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric
- .- X- , ' '
. - l. Station, Unit 3), CLI 861,23 NRC 1 (1986).
4 .. , .
LICENSING BOARDS: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS
'- 4 (NEW CONTENTIONS)
The fact that newly protTered contentions raise serious issues is insuffi-
. cient justification to reopen tl
- record to consider them as Board issues when they are being dealt with in the course of ongoing NRC investiga-tion and Staff monitoring. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William 11.
f Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-82-20,16 NRC 109
' " ' N' (1982)*
- o. - :., .l,;
7 ..r.., .. . r:; .
f; a ::; g. .. y. ,,.,.;;v g.
,, r.. .
. . r .
, .p: ,
,, f.sf'7 {.gp' . AIEMORANDUM AND ORDER
, t : : ..-
- .3 . ... ,
. *s 4+ ,
3.
For the reasons set forth below, the Commission has determined that J /a.,'/s2 h .. .s:[ I p'j'[$k the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board's actions in this proceed-
Q;f ,
,pp,jlffi ing warrant intervention in order to clarify a misinterpretation of Com-
]M;., J., ;t.l
,tci. '
.' .h ,, -Q, .M1J,.',.((?:p;,,S[.qy
,Q < qf i mission case law and precedent. The Commission's inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of NRC adjudications gives it the authority
- - - .- ,- to intervene.
. e. . . . ..
. 0 5 e
234 4
hh NkkNYdhNMM)N A Rw. s RA% WP'? ,' h. %@b
% y/ M.ca;W
%g . .
s,m.,M . a. j 1
~
/ m( mM,w. y
. , _- ..m.
N W-(sgW
+ W y y- - 2 m f ,1.. $.'W
., - c.1.
d 4
p ,
,a ., .; . , ._
" - - - . . ~ - - - -..2 . x_ __
m ,
. . .u
- .xp, ' .7. ;. ~
a .<
n; ...
~ : %'m::y;W. , 3, ,y * ,
- L e g .4
.,v. .m .'q, .E w _
s ,.
~ e+,;qn.g. . -,- y y;.
.c s.,, s . .- 9,. e, ,
- t On January 31, 1986, an earthquake occurred in northeastern Ohio.
o -
tA w. g,e , _ ,w,. m .6,; ...n-.
7 The earthquake measured 5.0 in magnitude and its epicenter was located 7; pen < -- , n.y ,, e . ,, n g;
v .e ~c m . .
approximately 10 miles south of the Perry nuclear facility. Three days
./p .cM @M.Wh.f 1;,3 later, on February 3, intervenor Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy
~ M@ MG W 'W/.'1 (OCRE) filed a motion to reopen the record in the Perry operating
~
k@, D.h@ cN 4;,J/ , M ;[ license proceeding for the purpose of admitting a new contention chal-
$ ,ki,fff g lenging the adequacy of the facility's seismic design. The Applicants and Staff opposed the motion to reopen primarily on the ground that the 92
$N M.'.NDN
$gsO k .W.jf ,. Q [j @j y earthquake and its effects did not present a significant safety question.
) The Appeal Board, unable to decide whether the issue raised by the W MMNNNd..: j M h 4 - . '/M . hed'.( @% .- % s f motion to reopen had true safety significance, decided to hold an ex-ME$ 'i[f * .,i$UkhWh'g.p pioratory hearing to aid it in its determination of safety significance. See Appeal Board Orders of March 20 and April 8,1986 (unpublished).
gn m w.; w ..
c.
-, ;w: :-mc R.,y.%y
%p- ~p
,k.6 ..e g e. . ,g ,:..
- 4. .y -
s i
,m W w Q~A ..t - .
- g.
- II.
v ":'u e 3: s. Q' pl.T,x:'.g sha * ,.o
. ' yl n. 7 j ,
Mp The standards for reopening a closed record require consideration of U M W Q'.$ @: w :
- 7;MQQ.NT:y .r,y 1 +, 4 3 4 three factors: (1) whether the motion to reopen is timely; (2) whether the information raises a significant safety (or environmentaD concern;
.%@hif c4 M: iO.;MV 7TMA G E.m7 w% and (3) the motion must demonstrate that a materially different result S'h;.Mk."hQ'f ' N r.
would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially. See, e.g. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile y ,$,f . . ; c 3 y 1 Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI 85 2, 21 NRC 282, 311 (1985).
5 *,,y. fg' WDT::t .
.'ji j 8 % ) r The Board, in its analysis of the motion to reopen, found that the
-[';.g m motion to reopen was timely. Order of March 20,1986, at 4 n.7. Ilowev-
..W F , g@A,g. b .jg k Os. 3, er, the Board was not convinced that the motion had safety significance.
-[-i.MS Mib0MWhd,' If the Board, after considering the parties' submissions, was not con-vinced that the motion raised a matter of safety significance, it should
- ,i M'I'M m M. %h3![Mty 3.q Y.
w O}-
N {q . ,
have demed the motion to reopen.
j in Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station,
',7,% lN.j%g,QL;Tj " Ng,j:g y ,q; 1j , Unit 3), CLI 86-1,23 NRC 1 (1986), we addressed the issue of whether i , Q , , f. ' "' ' J ',h *. ,o ,
an Appeal Board has the authority to seek additional information before,
..- ?. ' f &; , . ruling on a motion to reopen. Our Waterford decision holds that a Board j ' ,77 ,Ny . , . , ,7 ; l; g, ' t . . .. ? is to decide the motion to reopen on the information before it and has U//[Q ",,7 y- } 6,[ ' '
~ no authority to engage in discovery in order to supplement the pleadings before it. Simply put, the burden of satisfying reopening requirements is
)W? h Y,d'$$ '$ r[Nhg on the movant, and Boards must base their decisions on what is before 4.R/M}d.g$N.q&rI.M,y.g f $! c F . A *1 V ,- them. That the movant did not meet this burden in the view of the h ;M .h. . W,h .4 ._, ,;'< ,-
. Appeal Board is evident from the Board's order of April 8,1986, in
. kN which it states that it needs the exploratory hearing to aid its "determ,na.
i
- )y y'
- t;,% . ., n.; _y- -
tion respceting whether the new issue raised by the OCRE motion has true
'l
} ,/ ' *
- safety sienincance." (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the Board had no E t 235
~
$W~M$. y~. $%, W~ ,W;.S.$5 O Wy h~0, W ahb.,%k W.c $ 7c h YS 'h k h N &. WN L W
.a ,- &.kk,,
~ .
' ~
\
' T .ni. , :0 -
JC, v y g M 1 - ,"'. ~
.( -
wa.:.
- J Y
,l
%:.'.u T: 4h k
.::w.. ---- : .a'
,U8 1%' u'
- u"^ . , . " ~"~--~
~
t
~
8 '
q
- ,' s d h:. . '.,,..,...;
.a t.
- .(.,^.. :' . c , ; . rl
'l. ;.,7 j
, .;t authority to pursue this matter as it did.' See also Metropolitan Edison Co.
" %.; W' s' l'.;'.J P. . "Kn. y ;,1 L*..,.N-c AL, Ny ' * ' (Three Niile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-7,21 NRC 1104,
. ; . . ~ gl,'/ 1106 (1985).
/
O ,.~* .NN3 1'd '/,, W;?Ml*1 .P- @f Q.' Additionally, we note that OCRE in its reply to the Staff and Applicant rasponses in opposition to its motion to reopen conceded "that the high 7h2/Cj
.in " .Qg. t
,8.NW,q9,g';M,y' T frequency exceedances of the SSE design acceleration recorded in the January 31, 1986 earthquake do not have engineering significance."
9'd5 'd I s .~.
34.
A:.i .a 'n ,.3,y, -
. .~.
Y:ZN . . .%.f .Reopen 4 esPH the Record and s @.spyd.
OCRE Reply to Staff and Applicant Responses to OCRE's Nfotion to to Submit a New Contention ..!7.Ci',;
at 1. OCRE also f'gif. ,3f,p, #yW.g[y;9;/y) '
concedes that the earthquake caused little or no damage to the plant. Id.
Mg k i - '@fD .
Assuming arguendo. that the Appeal Board was correct in stating that Y h $@.4[.%.M,W.Wl
- 24,'.y c W the burden of going forward shifted to the Applicants and Staff when Wb 6 7 4d? hf OCRE called " attention to the apparent fact that the earthquake exceed-VJ).M@$.y.M.
k;d 3$%#O2;gf.[7/@j..i$.Ny,kr
.. S/.
ed the design basis SSE in at least one respect," these concessions appear to negate any primafacie case of safety significance. See Order of
- ',. Q' $ , s.i f,M;J ' i l' f N1 arch 20,1986, at 4 n.7, and at 6.
, M(.k;'.
4
$[//e @pM.N W .{c.(;[#The earthquake has already received a great deal of attention. The Q .
Q' r 4 NRC Staff has already completed one study (SSER No. 9), and some MM j y.g'ED ~ ~,%
e "
7.' .' additional confirmatory work must be completed before the granting of 4 ._, , .f. a full power license. .Nf atters which need to be addressed before licensing
,i. n, .- *
'i .
can be handled by the Commission and its Staff outside of the adjudica-
. y ~ g s: K tory context. See Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William II. Zimmer 3-
- f. -
, e. i .
o .
., Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1). CLI 82 20,16 NRC 109 (1982).
y., .
,4 y..r
.*:.. s.*9:p.y s . ,e .
,, :c III.
R ;..p.) .h-E . c..M g The Appeal Board's orders setting up the exploratory hearings are a M, T;.U$ih'rf
% 2 e W. M
@ .. , '..@[*y@MS.h VACATED. The petition to reopen is DENIED. The Staff, however, lMMMhhh. M M should be prepared to discuss the matters raised by the Board in its Nf arch 20,1986 Order in its presentation before the Commission on the
. $ . M 0.. M.59 8
r %.3 Nh f.;;Qi.'d
- [.*p@W@Nr.p*M full power license. The Applicants and the Intervenor will also be afford-
[ 7.p ' T y: ,5. p ;,+ f .h
,y ;.....t ed an opportunity to make presentations to the Commission on these
- ' matters.
M;. ,h*/O *jk,2.MO V
- ij i."."*y.
Chairman Palladino has additional remarks which are attached. Com-
',hh,$'d missioner Asselstine disapproved this Order; his dissenting views are attached.
ktfDh . q h k
S A
tVN .p. p.
O 7M$'
h A# EN 4M %
y 4'tf'[
h C h
er -
k s h[
%% d
. tj i
i Nor did the Appeal Board here hase the authority rad spoere to seek to obtain information relevant to the motion to reopen Boards hate the authority to esamine 6ssues not placed in enntroversy by the par.
?p, t' Q'.$'r $['( ***j(}.*up )' h,h.c.'c.r,
, *9 ; ties only where erecific ruts are brought to their attention mdecating that there is a serious safety, envb
' [J',/ 0 2,I J . . ,"typ ronmerital, or common defenw and security mailer Sec 40 C F R 4 2.760s. Trvas Cratics Grecrarme
- 7f, **1.1 ; 6L? ., yrs h ' a ,
. j 'i, . ' i}y);
6 #' Co (Comanche Peak $iesm Electric station. Umis I arid 28. Cll-8144.14 NRC 614. 613 flHil.The
, 3 ; 7 y;f / y .] Apreal Board made no such rmding here.
1i {
e h
- e'
. 236
,, . . , , , . . , e q,... . t
- A
S. .mm y,7 ,f G. @...l %.A
. 9 %C.
h&.:
45 m .nlw.w h Nbh$
D' R %;e ^.? tid m ....
k ?
M m ~Qi? l -;
vh ?v%. :! W ~'.. g .. w.hli A & ?,
r
>t
'L%-
.,u.
', K. e*.- T ,
< i:
s.
- n. h R, m;. m% %. n;.;:;~
C.
u W"
.';~ '
l w: ,? .
r&>
.M
& .n ;.g. x -: 7 2. s . ,
.z; a
4 . , x a -
,3.;?
~p .. .
. . . .i. _ _. . . . . .
$ ;i? - ;. ..%.
..,,_-}
- s .,o,5 ,x
- -
.,** A e ,t.. .
4 x i,L' %:..
?, ' .9 m ~; . :.:.p C:c .' e m .:: L , +2
'.e: ' l.'Y$,*h!.MMY.PR'Ih- It is so ORDERED.
- y u.w. 2 n ;,% c -y.<,t, y wg g .;, . 4_;. -c
- n. . , c- . , .
For the Comm.ission mw:x; t.?;
.t- . : n,; ?>%.w, ".;.9.@n, .N.cc
.'..,-,..,,.v <.m 9,. ., m. .c
~;o.g.. n , +, . _. .
.., . ~ w.
, , , . P.s f. t Z ? ?.u f . a. - @.
.V
,m MS Q . 2, A .Y5,.O'%,4f.;g. F
- QQt '*4 d.;C ,% jf r,T N 9 : 5 S AN1UEL J. CHILK I x,M.$ ..M N;7 $p~NNN[4 -#4 4 h h h-[yid.f1;W Secretary of the Commission
,v.,
.,f
. c. L . .
,m., 3,&, . .i . a.
4q p. .
%pw,' w 3 5 FL, : * .7.: M.a %. , .&g.
Dated at Washington, D.C.,
A;';p g.mg: m.n ./ .yq%e..g c.@1;mcig/c _'3 M,.. this
. 9, f m.: t'".* % ,; 0-T ~a.1. 18th day s. w1986. _P!. qc%.f.T
- n. of April
, . y . .#f;: , y *y. .m q. . <. ../ yrsy. .
..: n.
9;." :..?w@.g.4,. x. swL, . 4! .y .-p .
?,M u /-, M Q P j*M.#f.
. y dWh,FnNP
, ..m.m w,d",i a Y.
h g SEPARATE VIEWS OF CIIAIRSIAN PALLADINO q .:y n y s v&. %'MSm}.[h in ,- r;,m +:7 ,w < While I support the Waterford doctrine referred to in the Commis-y;7 i t M;d ~ y M(4); eu L' n g JJ V.i,, g.:.9
../
% 3sion's Order, I would have sought clarincation of the Appeal Board's rea-sons behind its March 20,1986 Order.
-.;.O.W@
l M.% , Op@;;*;q.<' cf.T . ., ?jk$(.; the above, I Snd compelling the fact that intervenor Notwithstanding 2 s-,-x has abandoned the theory of their February 3,1986 Motion to Reoret, s l' . . ' %. . ~ the Record as described in the Commission's order. Thus, I support the
' u : ' '. .; ' M
.. .- ', c, { ' l Commission's order denying the Motion to Reopen.
; q ; % q ;; '. ,
3 % 4
' N. DISSENTING VIEWS OF COhlMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
'v $ " ; .S'd &w*
. a.s . u, ,s.ps- .., .. ,m..
.... ' ,, .ws .~.%x.,..
. . .. ,am ;-w.- .,
~f: h 5f h k k b Y; M M i do not agree with the Commission's action today. The Commission hf:[h' 'L. ",W,4Wi,@'J@r;.hNk()] shoutc not have interposed itself into the Appeal Board proceeding but should simply have permitted the Appeal Board to proceed as it outlined
;#Nl;
- v:a.. .Qt 1" . ' 7 f, 3 p. .;,; ,
0, . in its orders. At a minimum, the Commission should not have summari-
,\ y , ,gy,s', '([ ly vacated the Board's orders and summarily denied the motion to i ' 17: '
'l reopen without first hearing from the parties.
' p{.9p*9;pl l 3'/. .. f j c ,:
' i The action of the Appeal Board in this case is an eminently sensible
- c. A :y . ., , e < w , e ' T. solution to a difficult problem. The Board was told that, in at least one respect, the 1986 Ohio earthquake exceeded the SSE for the Perry k h.k2
.I
".i M4(4M.yg.t llq[' d, g% P.W $437g @ . Wihbg's N .an % Ylb %'){ . h @ f.,.. W Q;<&.V.g:.(x_ j a .. , . s . (J, ,, ,
*fd f
t
- I
.5 4 237
N7,M l: MW m w. M M n.mQWRQMCMis
%w;@aM%jyQ.g$w@w@n@w@o@u@%a ,M
- y. .A .
f.
" gMMiN,{lh
; MPMho *
~. - ,
-w. ~ ..
.-.= :u .. . . .= - - . . . -.
a s .. ,
.g . ., .
[. . L. ', - "',c.. u.j -* plant.' The Applicants and NRC Staff asserted that, even though the
, y y ~ ,', , - .', . !; ;, , . earthquake did exceed the SSE, the event did not present a significant
", 'J.. '
)js, , safety issue for operation of Perry. The Appeal Board felt, however, that
$i $M; ,.,; ,"' [7-it needed more information before it could make a final determination if.f ;
l .,ml ~ . $ U a; of safety significance. The Board stated: g - . . - t.
, 1
- ,, ',. 1.:.I ; - ; . M %:.m.,. ][ . .,, d[,.
Esen with regard to so seemingly simply an issue as safety signincance. it is difncult
-i - P . * * . ; .? . [ ' ' ,, . , ;, to make an informed judgment on the basis of preliminary written materials where, Q}M,
.l%' ;*g. '. . , Q. 9 [. ' D.f(@,i,-[9l
' / ' .7.-$ 6 Q,
.y/gN p;C*p as here, the combined and complicated Gelds of geology, seismology and engineer-ing mechanics come into play, in this connection, our examination of the documen.
.j e, MJ M r,. f ' ** ,' 4*ff f.G tary submissions of the Applicants and Staff have given rise to several questions n'_'liT ,
*5 l.$ . ; Q'. that. in our view, require further exploration before we can decide with any degree
. , (, Y.' .,
4.f,~ W .,e
- ' ,e$.,*m@, . t1[/[ . ?? fya&.
, orconndence whether a reopening of the record isjustined.
.q .' s H : n. n.
$'/:y,g.
. . V , , , .R Q O'd:y'M ,';7' Q Q Appeal Board Order dated March 20,1986, at 6.
, ' /J . , l . .f,,
Given these circumstances, the Appeal Board decided to hold a 1-day
, ;,t ,s.,
S , ,',,
.;p. , 71 *
" mini hearing" to obtain answers to its questions in order to make a de.
.'*'j !) .,
cision on whether the Ohio earthquake presents a significant safety T; b.E.,y ,E. % issue. Thus, the Board established a procedure by which it could ensure M, Q - h {l.f's ,e.5 *3f,7;[
'; !s 1 E, 9, l] /, Q. ,
an adequate examination of the issue of safety significance without all of the trappings of a full-blown hearing. Rather than reining in the Appeal Board, the Commission should be encouraging the Board in its efforts to H,
, J, consider all the evidence carefully and to have a more complete record
.h, before deciding upon a motion to reopen.
Unfortunately, the Commission feels compelled to apply its decision l %'V
- ,, ,\ in IVaterford to this case. Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford
's J Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), CLI 861,23 NRC 1 (1986). I disagreed W . :,g j. t .
with that decision as well, and for good reason. That decision denies
. /t;l v,( ; , jW,_%W.l
- Board members the opportunity to obtain answers to questions raised as
'N h \ft . w ,
a result of the parties' filings on a motion to reopen. The Waterford deci. M,., pg,%[,97.,$%.w;n sion, when combined with the Commission s standards for reopening and the Commission's rules on raising issues sua sponte, ties the hands
,3 [h tlky],' :4 i ;. h* Q/%4 } q 8'M UMM. of the Boards. By setting such high standards in all of these areas, the
,< , . , , s . ,q Commission has made it extremely difficult for an intervenor to raise
,( ,7. ,
.a f .fJ'+, , ,
new issues.
. ..h d *; $ . A s
.m.
P ',,l* L - . T.I; >
- l,/ . ,
"l;', . <. ,.8%,s+....,c,- ,, ,...j F '
,; D h 1
)g.y . eM - ]f,4. - r-- T7'a3 bj .l._i. e
> - (p6 & 1,r,.d j ,y Iin its Order (p. 2M), the Commission seems to attach some significance to the fact that OCRE has -y MT[ J M, ', k;r $ g 'q;; .
conceded in its response to staff and Applicant filings "that the high frequency exceedances of the ssE
t i di A . p; " o el design acceleration recorded in the Janusry J1,1986 earthquake do not have ens;neering signincance*
3
@ ,[,,'[.I'.' ) N Qb.N. 'M
% W
~
#, L. and that the earthquake caused little or no damage to the plant. This is largely irrelevant to the question h[iN.A.h,h,ie'd g
<?'. ,; e 34. a;; J'*.9
. % } 4 /$ ls ,J',.s ; ;
- i at issue here. i he Intervenor has not abandoned its claim that the earthquake raises questions about the adeqt cy of the seismic design basis for the plant and of compliance with NRC regulations. These are y , , M , ; ,7 f j ~ y( N, - il.g . ;4. , E cants the very subjects on which the Appeal Board wished to obtain addinonal information from the Appli.
' qN - ,.
. ', A,
,,t, - .
, '.sand stafr.
g
* ,' t *
- 4 l 238
. i
$ $ d@N.' M . N M D,$ M $ 4/M i. '; W ' 4cV_
d.f$%E%n'y^
?
cN;S: . @$'MMOA6'.%;y;3: 3?:w &C K* .w.nea^$m 3x n::y" Me.:'- e6;. % % 2! q'c M
~. i . 'r.W' W.Z h h N ' ',
^'
' c.
wp;Y ' w'& l mw; . c. -/ I ;*: '2
^
[a,. f *A e' \ .,(*, ?]s
&\',' <NU "
r l sJ l*. .: n **
' xf . a:- -
- . . :. . _.2 . . . _
y, -
- , . . p. :p
,s ,m W -
(yg T h" ', '*~ J j j k in addition, the Commission has now made it virtually impossible for the Boards to obtain additional information, which is not in the parties'
", M. . . . k . ' y,E S*.
initial filings, in order to satisfy themselves that an issue does or does
; Q ' ,, .' ' f. 1[h (
,f.a y ,
._ ,W'Q.Q not present a signincant safety issue. Thus, in the future, whether a ji c , .
. y- :' f.g.4 Board can consider a safety issue in some detail before ruling on a t @h' L 4 '.lM .d.Mg' motion to reopen will depend upon how adept a particular intervenor is in meeting these stringent pleading requirements on the Grst round of N, ..- , f yj$3.g pleadings. If the intervenor does not make an open and shut case in his
.v.yfM n'.~N d $.r '/dM,2;g 2% initial pleading, he will not get a second chance. Further, the Board will
}; i ,, 4...,',;".{.dfp3]Ty 3.7.7 . .. not be permitted to ask for additional information no matter how many .. ~ ,. . 4 5 . - _.s , -Q 5. . >-
., n d N N 7' . alZN questions the Board has, unless the Board grants the motion to reopen.
This could have either of two results, neither of which is particularly d.}:'!bb beneGcial. Either the Boards will read the Waterford and Perry orders j.),';/f f . p. yQ ffyghja .l n .g r . . d:g strictly and will not grant a motion to reopen without a seemingly irrefu-
- 9 4
~t ,**' b tye.h:,' .ggg table pleading from the intervenor, in which case fewer issues will be re-
-m
' V; , , ' . 9,2 solved with input from the public. Or, rather than treat the issue supern-4,. l
" j.y :V g , j cially, the Boards will be more inclined to grant a motion to reopen if e ', , , e, . . . , " -g they have unanswered questions and thus begin a full blown hearing.
' J r The action of the Appeal Board here seems to be a sensible compromise
. ;, N _
i.,) to avoid either extreme. The Commission's devotion to technical pleading requirements with regard to motions to reopen is certainly understandable because proceed-
+ ,, ings must come to an end sometime. Such devotion to the Commission's
' rules and precedents might even be admirable, if it were applied uni.
. formly to all parties. Ilowever, when I contrast this case with the Com-
'~'
mission's recent orders in the Braidwood proceeding, it is apparent that
. : u,. 'fic;jjW the Commission does not require the same level of performance from
{, <
- c e J R."!; . C .T all parties. (See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Station, Units i
'iQ}. ,? [ , ? [ [ N,; W 'l~5 j and 2), Docket Nos. 50-456 and 457, Commission Orders dated Decem- ., f v . m . , . '., y,e ? q , . < 1 +J t ber 5,1985, and March 20,1986 (both unpublished). In that case the ca 3, g, s~
- ?. j,.' 1- % a.k , '.?,;
Commission went out ofits way to give the applicant a second chance to .1 .> '1
- i ', , Jr. i make its case on a motion on which it clearly had not met its burden as L.jf '
. > movant.
,,,'s.'..,. -A' Aside from all of the above, however, the Commission's decision J. ~ '
r ,a . . 7,c ll Jip f. .. l M - today suffers from an additional innrmity. At a minimum, the Commis-
,j..J'? d Q sion should in this case have heard from the parties before deciding Q,W D uig k't M p h g.
M@ [pj;.4whether to issue this order. The Commission should not have interposed Q[c, ~,6Q.W9,N,;.Nh itself into the Perry proceeding, without being asked by any party, and '% ru s MMfgM@h64 c MMMhNS$'Nig EM then summarily disposed of both the Appeal Board " mini hearing" and the intervenor's motion to reopen. Allowing the parties an opportunity "a- .,
' . fQ.. y.- M'[' - to speak for a few minutes on this issue at the Commission meeting,
- 1 t
-4'
.i
- l 239
9pfjr$.I-g .. w%Qg.QQ, w ;&, _ o.y.y. . K. .~, .;, , ::lf,
~
.,v' Ik .
- m. gg-p3.Q.,<n.
7m- ~.s..- . .l,,.. '.spp:f . g~Mg+. r g!}:: s.':-s
.m. .w .. c. ,
. . .~
w.gy, .c ..- _% . 3 .,,
. . - i . 4.a ., _~_ ,
.u .; ~
4 - e .,, .: q.- q. ,; s . _ .q, ,1 . .. .. q -, ,
* - - - m. , # 4 - . - , . . .
. a-
%.: n n 2._. . - . ~ - - - - -- - - - - - - -~ -~~ "
1 Lw
. . . 49-w..
f;; during which the Commission usually decides whether to issue a full-
, N" -
., power license, is hardly an adequate substitute for a close look at this
, J *. . 3, '
. na .- issue by the Appeal Board.
t'-. ,4
- w
~
W es
, s 0 ^
, g -e p",,-[" f 4 89 '
,g '1
. , + 44 . . -
[ .
/ 9 :.4.,wa$rf gt . :
, a ,f a' .g.
m
=
s. s ','O- ,
- 6' *; 4 .S, .,
.6
.,' , . .,. ' a *%
p'- h*
.O-Q . ' . ! c'Y.. .,
f* y t , y_ e f N
,.g. -.'. .s if i .v y K *e : .t.*n, ; ,
. . 4
^
.m b q .\ \',
4 , * - E ' ;,
*oe n . iM ' <. : -' , - e ' . , ;-' + - > . . -
f* *
',, i',
*.f -i n, d.; . . . f ,
- * 's , ,- 4; , . , -, _*imt.
, ' w' .' a -p,.,
4 ? ri .- , e ' x% ,' 5 3, .
*55* .a, %.
- I
'k#,-E *_4 )p.a q7,;
;,s p
- : : < s . , . ', p,,
*; .sr . .t ap - . n F, .
g'.,,ys, 4 ,
';n, : . ;p
- m. 7' '- -,.
.,c'...
- li' y.
. ceg .. M.iipr? * ~
t e ,3 e _s i -l 7.. '%*_ t y V
- p$t 8 q $.i g5*A .
-g
. > ,. ( y .e 4 .
* *q*,$
3 e' ' .- p 4 *, - 0'* ,g t .g a b , '
- . f.. .M { , , .
,9 b. - .' t ) ;*e .'
# 8 #
g ,s,%, , 0 g
~_ 8'0
-f^ .g
?
g g fg/ ( A 4. M
" .. ;) y;*
,'..s ,, ' ', .' ; v
?p * ( r
.A {
~s,,
,%g . A 4 ' 3 4 % i4 g ?
4a ,e'"- 5 + s
- 9 %
I *
, B 4 '
y#h i
**$ y
,e ,J t
7 (, .*,. 9 4 s _ Pji *, ." .a * . ~ .-s y3 *- #
....4 8 i*,3( . ,
4 -- 6 a q ,, e.L,' i ,.N. [ '; ~ .- *.[8, ,, Y."[ N 'r ~ .) >
' i g4 v. . g ' ' y,1 ',9 f *- . . - pa
. 'y[ .-
,. .fn. ' a' '
., 1, , . ..- - h.. + .
u j .f. .;)' '..* * . g ,. .3 = C- P ^. ,, 9 , f,r( . ,-...ftp , ; ,_ ; ;^ . j., ,A ' ..M b q. ,<;cy ,..
, . .. . s. o ...
.t*.)'5 ND
.. T.
,q. -t, gb- * *
,.,--:* a
,. . , , c, . . .
,. v. s. . _ y 0
,% k& Og 6 4 0 , ,
a p$' *
,'9 .# ,3',
- to I y s'
,'t. fks;a ,e i.,,
5 ) s'. s ., _-t: .. ..y". Q:. a e, I( .y . 4n? $ s t-
-} - f '* 4
' :. p-r., t
*r if ,1
#3 ,-
'1e
's,.s* . % 3.*p ; 4 ,-
s* i
", M , ,aA ie ';f*, j. . '
e
-;,d m%.,)2 i.,
t* 7 ;h s , hig%sy - t.) e '4'
,f h? f %
i t,',g.
%,e , 'h.%:f.-w -l .. rd* n,4 w h' y! r s~t. . a, ;<
s a
? .
a n..c.Q,u.p.,sA hl ? 4,. ;,5 ,.,,y' R1q - t,. 4,7 qw Q, f,*f. 4
.e 9, i4" +r '. I
.1'*7 4 4 '
*h, I e plc.W ; 4 :J.fg%'.#M[J!)$,,)r], *, . s%m, fje4g Q,}y9
.'& f'),; ff 5g,AMX;c$2kk,cjk)
>g-4 7.- ,,*. .y q y. r t 6 a 4.. . >. .v. ~; -{.oy} g gj> .
s
}..
. .. . ; ' t: ' , . c
. ~: - +: e 4 5
., $y 'e
- - , ', 5 f
- s
, s s -
n 4, + " t } k ,% '_ e
, m
, 2 10 6 I
.g
'* N, gQggg g g-.g{,g g &m. g& g vg *.g gwwNMgr yg,y.w u.w. .o%e:/. .i.m p.m,e w:gwggq~;j.9gg u . g ,3,;g,..
n .- m y
- v. .W. CW mp.n
.p - ; &cl:$.:a;;;mm:ggg: .s v w'f
,.., . e - g-t t .x -
'2 n;~:- .
4 My& h.. Q:. .m#W:ypAM. W CM t.; %c
.' .R en- 'c e i;% .
- , . M:* ' Q %>MH;: .W > -m %7'p>.3@*;"Mh.,5y$g,x w? 7.ato %@f. - gna: :,~:%g%.9:'.';;"~:.
' W .. W R Q Q ,w s:L < 2 o ,
~ ,
't % w .a ' - - -~ ,
a.,,... 3e -
. .- _ , . ,. : ,y_.. J ' .,
.: w m ,
, z.'m. ,- M, ( < + .
a..
,o ,v , .: : 2 . . . n. .. ^
*..)._.-
* ^~
~'* f '"A 2- .h~. --
[ 1 E'
. /. m h.
- d ; '.aw : 5.
,., m:g; s A.e e ::3;- +. ..:, q - , .
~. e - .
a
.,n: :. .n,4 .y,;.s.
.r, ,C:> s
, :. :c t.. . : .
. v.a :., : + . ,.::.
- p,..- .-
- n. . .FM6; ;,. x ,M M '
s s. . .y ?. ,... '
+.
Cite as 23 NRC 241 (1986) CLI 86 8
>w$.n. j.:: . 9a.
c4C. .n ... m.. m. . .,,h ,-
. r::. , w; '.2 , ~-., s.
~ ., .a .. 1 . . s .c .
W j , , ?. ' ~ y :,9* m:, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA m..w@:.
. , e.
- m. _
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s .-! j!,?h:7. f r. b. 7 ..'d.-e;.!,',.af ~. ,,', , .J : .
.s ;- .m. . :a
, w[&..
. f. t~ . ,!n. :*r.:.gL g %wy q ,F':q t:.. '\
,l w..M. f..s V: ~.
v .*i:* ~ - . COMMISSIONERS:
;J.., ;'. " y* m w
.mr'm. e,.WJ ON g7
.". A. 4
. . - y X 'M}s.u .c.n 2.: -
,:3 Y+.3 s; e % ..
c :::;,.~ri:p , ne':s %t D@- :=; M > Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Th ;.tt:Q;W tj M '% M A e T'N mf@hf 63. %3.[.M@?. yX@$c)ISV;i'c.D -]J$,N': h MO:r[,-p; 4 Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bemthal h kh T, Lando W. Zech, Jr. Q/hfay.2%. %.sg&i;T. y.9 '
> p q; ..g7. s .,. f-v m. . . .. . w ., .-n.
. ja ; p> ._,-
.. ..... u.-y, ~ ,, ; ....n p;,a. m. w< . a . .,
v
- > - s s s .. 's..
. ~. ..s. %... =.
O, v:s ,fr~.M. . .n. ,. n. . .0.. h. ,:.o 1In the s
, J.. .nJ-a.
&. .G:,. s . ' /.rt-m.
. . y . .
s.P y;14. Matter of u. r,$ Docket Nos.50 456 0L 50 457-OL
' ' .Q.Q:,.y
,. s. .N
. -:e Wi. .y..g,e4:- .s.
- . u 'q,% ,.- 12./2 7 .'
~ * ':s
.( ./{; -<qi C >
s%a;<m:'p.fc. K-' '. - COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
.g,,g. . ,, . .;. y . . -
,r (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) April 24,1986 g ,.... .
3.. .w .: ;.; r .,' '
. \. . -
.,g,; . . s
-s
.n .
,c . , _m' . .. <: . .
The Commission dismisses intervenors' quality assurance contention
- Q 's-7,; t . .c 1,. . _ .-
~
because the Licensing Board erred in its finding that the contention satis-
,,. . gw.-i $2 M... a m MQ a . ~ '. s1. . fies the five-part balancing of factors test set forth in 10 C.F.R.
M j 2.714(a)(1). The Commission finds that the contention would not
.fif&%fDQNM*?nvr'hh NN MNNkN'.N satisfy the test even if reevaluated in light of the developments since ad-yf h f[ h N D tcl;p a Q ff $ f mission. The Commission directs the Board to evaluate the admissibility WQMM l '/.k]: .
M.% w %r:rg.s,Wg;-: P.y n . , , .
< of intervenors' inspector harassment contentica, which was admitted by
;y~. - 4 : a Board approved stipulation, under the criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R.
Aw<.u,g+m m ~m..M: z:s; .n;;-g, W, .
. i.c'yf- S W, r m. t . t 6,9 y { 2.714(a)(1).
- w? vh . W.. ..
- m. l;2. .a.x. x ;: . . q. . g o s.pxy <g ,. - . ,wm. .. . .: q: i .
,1, o .r,. ,
... s :,
RULES OF PRACTICE: AD.TIISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS Of.4;.w p?;@N$.~ . as. @.. ,= Acceptance or rejection of nontimely filings is controlled by the five-f -v fidI* G t3Q.# M f5 gl yk h.hhgh}h - factor test set forth in 10 C.F.R. l 2.714(a)(1):
,i g -. h m.e.,.,e%..s. ~(. < Lr.
n, , m, 7 , d 6 $p g6 WI ,J , -lJ (i) Good cause,if any, for failure to file on tirne;
..M ./h.J,@Kf.'i9.;jn.t,h.,Q;..
p0 5J 5 ! ,l'E N (ii) The availabihty of other means whereby the ratitioner's interest will be
.A .4 .'1
- v * -" '
protected:
. .p:c% * , y .
t ,
. s I
. .I j
241
- - ~-
h
. w \ .q y a n, .. .9s- n
. n ,,3:-b iM;%. e . W:1
.m yl;v-w
, yw g. s ,s..
- q,.e.. w w --,m mt -<x .* z ',r . . .c
- .s .a q; .,
- y;, .,..e.g 4 .- . .
.- ; , , n ,. O.,. . . c
, H y;,;. .u' ' . . s.~.vw .%s h A.,bt. ,.f: e .O j.; y .:~hh; 4;h. 3_wp ;. - , 7[. ;s, , ,
g4.[.:.k;. $. ,.: ,k...Mv. Ki.%.N n e .'f. .'M v.. c .q..e . y :"m.Y' -. -[ m': ? .': 'c; ll+ i . . . . iib. W>:.s ..c,Ub q;
'- Y
,n U + +h;.$[%
h.,n,3.y 7 pi :, W .f & y"y3'r.hin,T n W' h $a. ,m . c <
', - : ~
s. s <. , ..D, ?~s + c 7' . . . :
-s . ' W; n .L - c:. Wq^
M <L,-
+*.=P+, s g :; M i. - .K :- V. '3, . :'o ' ;3. ' s
- Q ,.M
?2-Mm yv:p. . ._ g,, q. .
+-- -
-\-@ 2.' -
3,
~ >
.9 e
r*>
'_......_-m.,;
,I m
-- - ' " * ~
- - s. g.-
r . , ,+ x ,*
> . , , * , ' [ .
, ' j; ~
,o,. . , , " ' U , .. A ."- p {l (iid The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected
'. ;t ; . " '/ ,' .. y *,i Qfj to assist in deseloping a sound record.
- z;, i & ,;,' ' l T: C yy'Q' j '.,]f (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing par-
, , ..nf, .,
. ' " ' * .. ,, ties; and
. C! ' ; ,
*g f. l.-)q (v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or
.f ,: , , . . . ,l . (.-A?..Md.7 delay the proceeding.
e ,+:m, '. tr n
,o. . . y , . , , : ~ f '(h v : f.i 3 s:. .- e . . g . em. . 'p; .u, .m. ;/.;~: p ,, S'1 RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTIMELY SUBMISSION OF Q,f W , . .
9
' ?X,0
;. ;7..~ ' _ ~. , .;cr.? e{p CONTENTIONS (GOOD CAUSE FOR DELAY) pOp.,, . 9. f . , M c T i-
. .c Absent a showing of good cause for late filing, a "ccmpelling" show-
$;;g , .[i ?[.%'[j f ' u
. ing of the other four factors must be made. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Q. M . N. J't Co. (William 11. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LDP-83-58,18 U.j M.;;, ' ,'EMW',ff.,y$ G7y.' NRC 640, 663 (1983); Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf k'h. k [ ' M h fi [,,N,. f$ . , . .
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725 (1982).
~4 ,, ,., . .y1..c, w . . ...ec -
JJ .. , , J. - s .'. r., v p:- 4.- J- RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTIMELY SUBMISSION OF
. @. .j -. _, v ,sen, ,'<;'s CONTENTIONS (OTIIER MEANS AND OTIIER PARTIES TO
" %,9.'? ..
,dMSWE ,M : h., PROTECT INTERVENOR'S INTEREST)
-.n . ,- : q 3 7. g..g 3, 4 f ,
. ~ ~. _ C. ..Q. The second and fourth prongs of the test are accorded less weight, y m g y >n. ,.m
" , <.g. under established Commission precedent, than the other three factors.
! ; i: ;
;: Q .y.,[ South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,
,Y ,. -
y
;u a. ; s Unit 1), ALAB-642,13 NRC SS1,395 (1981).
=s. *
,u 3
. , X .y;- .<,q, , u ' ~;,.Y. ;;;y 7.- ' il RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTIMELY SUBMISSION OF N, h u .h!,7;, m W M CONTENTIONS (ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF A
- J.;a':
.* w . . ..N. ~;. w a. Fu% e g< v.W A smp SOUND RECORD)
/*.. Q *W m %2 e
e, r;M:@',c-[h !N Q h.is 'EQJ0 s@ '- 7 dgrip M f M3.4 /*f.bj@.r.,e; In addressing criterion (iii) of the test, a petitioner should set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it p'ans to cover,
.DNI,5N{hD, f V- ; y:, . f:g :P _
d( identify its prospective witnesses, and summ.trize their proposed tes-timony. Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, M ? Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725,1730 (1982).
%Q .'.JM%p,' J oN.-U':R y",if ;> ; f.; ^
- Nc.VJO q : ~. . < 'y. :. :- 1:s-f w 6
,s . @, RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTIMELY SUBMISSION OF a:AN,MQe'5Y .$' y f5 Y CONTENTIONS (ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF A Afh pyy$hNA@N00& IM
&& SOUND Q @y5 RECORD)
F -f" f$$ $ "ef M Q M ? d g In weighing the contribut.ion wh.ich a party is likely to make m. the de-Yg gw4.Nh Nb fg qjg velopment of a sound record, the performance of its counsel in a dif-
. n . w g. e;p3g.g.W m.sv,%7% e a w m ferent proceeding is not a relevant consideration.
+1 1 "f':
l, 'P~ M
,"5.Of:[O*,)?-
i S V . ; f v ' 3 c.'& lv-* qi&$f
~
. ;; ~;fc
- j. . - G s it Q .; 3 1 k
- i..
242
,n.
e
+ - - - - . . . . . -, , e . _- . , .
i
--__s.- - . - - _ _ - _ _ - . _ _ ~ _ _
59 R9' Q ; % % 5 Q . 4 ; % .: b ', N5(k'"RQ&[QLp.N&%:Gh: S fy&M&;f'.% y j i & p j[MN@; W ,.s33 : y; Q :,nl'Q)f.x.QQ ' ? aW li ' l-Y M 'Kl~2+ w . $ 9';' .
%.; .:QMk
'~ '-
; '. * +
y ,. . (
; y' 4
- sa w,.x"--.
S.
. . . . . ..._ _ . _. n. _ . . . . . _ . _ . , _
.:zy.W : , ,
- n - .
l , ,
' .'i 0
, ,m n . ,
v.j m .y s. RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTI3IELY SUB311SSION OF
- @.jf -
. lC A .
te CONTENTIONS (SIGNIFICANCE VERSUS DELAY)
~~ X y;n ..%' g.; . .
,- 4
.c
'~
The five-factor test assumes that a contention's significance under
' i - ('] ;,. . x U ~ ' factor (iii) may have to be balanced against the likelihood of delay under
..m.
; ..< - factor (v), as part of an overall balancing of factors. It is inappropriate,
; M. . .i,f~.j J.S. . ..ni .
- i. ." f, ' ' however, to balance signiGeance versus delay in evaluation of the Gfth
;p
.. ...;:P .
.T y factor alone.
;r,..,. o. . <, . . . ..
. . & ,;, . 7....-..- (. y. g. . .
^.ye - < i;p2 r, vs '
ML p:x- RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTI3IELY SUB311SSION OF c[M. N.-,- CONTENTIONS ' DELAY)
.. . J..h..
v .' ).[i ':l ? V f..
; Voluntary withdrawal of other, unrelated contentions from a proceed-Q.yR,w
- N i M h "f ,,D e:.,w 5 .J[n;pi .:.,ch@A d
a M ing does not serve to counterbalance the delaying effect of a late-Gled
" 9. 4 ;p . : { -
3 M;.;g t 1 content. ion.
. SL 7 , ,, e ;ppgm s4 '<*.4.;r ,. y Q ,"
?.
;;;n .lyg 7 RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTIAIELY SUB311SSION OF
~ g,9q:.4 .*, -;, .g, 'Ai : , ' . .,M.7,7.
N. . . .. CONTENTIONS (WAIVER OF OBJECTION)
"m' : ;;";
=
, .s . . s ~ .
7 ' Even a waiver of objections by all parties does not serve to render an
~
. otherwise untimely contention admissible. Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim
' 4' Nuclear Power Station), AL AB-816,22 NRC 461,466 (1985).
?
i
., 1 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION
.M.~ - .s . .
.. n. 5 ,.
. h;.u;i 7-es ; -M Uhgb1 On March 20, 1986, the Commission issued an order (unpublished)
G d$Mj(M., R ,!c W lN .J/ W ;.c 4 9 5 ' W. '.a .'I@$gd. ;
~
in which it asked the parties to the Braidwood proceeding to address two J y C.X '- g- . y/r questions, designed to assist the Commission in determining whether sa g t.Je ;. '
. . ? J ' K' the Intervenors' (Rorem et al.) amended quality assurance contention
- s. ; a-
/.~; ... n. .s.m.C. , '. sq T .
*' ,; ,* M,a. O meets the Gve-part test set forth in 10 C.F.R. s 2.714 for the evaluation
. '. .";;n< . , /- .-a' of late-filed contentions. Those questions were:
,Q_o,y:'J- ;t
;pg r:), 'm , , . .
*b. ,
-$' l , ' . s
.~. ;,M.
, , '" * '/C,714 L'. { l. Did the Licensing Board apply the five-part test correctly in admitting the Inter-M venors' amended quality assurance contention?
4';)$);j).',', N Tr.7J+ h .g&-iy.7 M:R.;;t/ (( d R Pg$d 2. If the Intervenors' contention were to be rejected, and then were to be resub-mitted today, would the contention satisfy the lhe-part test, if it were judged
.h kdy[T.[J,2be%. n"$" ;hj_
in light of all the information which has developed in the course of the proceed-Qv".@W} Q ;.<x. b,9 tw
, J
.c s .,n i ing to date?
?!J.:D'),,, ... !N J '7MMM)
- b,G 2 ** i , ;.
- . . *m.- ;
y - -' . , " &. 3
. ,~ ' l
; c. 243 1
4
' .s .c. .s. -
~.
. . .. . ..~.m,,,,,,~,.., . - --
a b )** ** w*Y * . y T %
- bO[' ..
- g Mb. I MMQ N $MkMbA'b U-if c , . k. h., h hf -
$NN$' MhMYh,D !Y y
? ?Y h: -
b:[$ E.hkY h. ~*- y ~ 7 .. . Y.
- I? ..&..~ .s...~.~- .~..w~.-~- *.-aA--~~~~~-~~~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' * * * ' "'
a - . q
,,.Y.
w r n.:: . . . , :v .w
, . ;g , 7 e ' + .
,7 ' -, ,
p". "' -
~ J. Upon consideration of the filings of the parties, we conclude, for the NDJ, M;;@dT ?,M. ,N; ,J:.hi g,p..;c.'. t y.u i.g,g, ! N ,4 _ ,~' .; , ..
reasons set forth below, that with respect to the Intervenors' amended quality assurance contention, the Licensing Board erred in finding that act
- qm. x.
. s .- -
.. - the five-part test favored admission of the contention. We further con-M.~ . '~'i .'
E m i . :' i:.. M
.# - w .q .~
9 ',>. s
'l clude that the contertion, if resubmitted today and evaluated in light of 3;b ?. .e . f l i. . >a.J- all the information v hich has developed to date in the course of the pro-fM[/, eW;Uf $@MT n 7 T , a ceeding, would again fail the five-part test. Accordingly, we dismiss the '[y;J[M .l NS N." M.
s WW . T . V f.V, . J, quality assurance contention. Our ruling does not apply to the contention on the harassment of quality assurance inspectors. That contention,
"%M[lUNh*'k[.f Y .f .'
MM - UM'. : % :q l ] U(.i. - which was admitted by the Licensing Board pursuant to a stipulation agreed to by all parties to the proceeding, was not before us for consider-d7 E.
!NO7j$y..Y M.( Y ? z.>7 7 ation. The history of this proceeding having been amply described in our fdW earlier orders, we need not repeat it here. We therefore proceed to a dis-k.h3M^kh@MW.CM- M cussion of the five factors, as they apply to the Licensing Board's deci-C sion on the Intervenors' amended contentic,n.
p,p:+c,:v a ,u,..@.s.M,.M
- . ;p,
., n ,
, ,: g i. ;;.y .. e .. , 3 k N.. h. n:.bgb a
Qfiz %;&,2y A w pe.:^S. fN
.n y
II. THE FIVE-FACTOR TEST j;pCQ:Kf:[ s . A. Good Cause, if Any, for Failure to File on Time
% % . ..n ;.,9 ..
, g iy? % w0 e_ y ^ . ~ It is well established in ocr case law that this first factor is a crucial ele- ! .@r: ..r ;M -:W '.4[ ~ ment in the analysis of whether a late-filed contention should be admit-
- p. 7 ~ p - -
ted. If the proponent of a contention fails to satisfy this element of the J . - ' - test, it must make a " compelling" showing with respect to the other
- q. 7.M> ,
m, four factors. Cincinnat! Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear r,.. Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-58,18 NRC 640,663 (1983); Mississippi 9.g&p.., dd. eh )l@j@.$ , N . , '
.. m .. - .
. .s . w. . . n - Q f'.x - Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2),
ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725 (1982). (Ti M N@m G ,L , p y g g %. sgg p ;(. In the present case, the Licensing Board found that the Intervenors @Ih [h hA hipjkd
%fENMC
- i. ~i ? . had sufficient information to file their contention by August 1,1984, at Mr.L.$3.;,%. .f. 9w. ,pN.m J Nc W f.f r the htest, yet failed to do so until NIarch 7,1985. It therefore found that Qg.$ QW ifF ..' ft,' " Intervenors had failed to show good cause for their lateness. LBP-85-11,
@;i;c , M'O t. '
, ~ 21 NRC 609, 628-29 (1985); LBP-85-20, 21 NRC 1732,1748 (1985).
-m g MJ Q~.. N .g ;c .
~'
s -
. Intervenors, in their brief, assert that May 7,1984, the publication date Oppd yg.%. #s _,7 of Inspection Report 83-09, is a " reasonable starting point" from which 4 to start counting delay. Brief at 28. Of the 10 months between that date W
A %,N'1G q p/Q~.6M m.- M .M.$@p^c m.,g Mh M7 and the filing ofIntervenors' contention on March 7,1985, they say,2 months were taken up in good faith negotiations aimed at producing i' D AI N @E yN N Zd% M, & y,N!On9ff-@;9x1; c , agreement on revised contentions, and 3 months were attributable to 2fMM'bkf pWtM.oyw.u:y;n c.y.x m . m.S; w r h h,de .h "the initial review of the reinspection program, illness of counsel and the unavailability of new counsel." Id. Five months, according to Inter-
- .c ;
@4 z.n.m:.t,w ut 3
, re ! W-0wnme g.7.. q s n*[ c 4 venors, were spent in a " diligent effort to avoid needless litigation I '
,-.4'.~ '
244 A 31. . .
% p%q. g m pm.
y g& a
.m. y@m;h.f;Qh%f W %av- a ;n: &s .e xg& M m%rg,.;w.&si%
m M M W:,w:....w.W m-%.r % L .f.: %..g. .m ,. Mk JWS ;a. W;q w% %%w$ M d3 M d5 N:g= ; N & 9 O$ [g$ M 6pdd " i PA:lW 8U wA(Q. nw.3%,=G@o: 7.yggr
. . a.
.c;ggy,
- . ..y
..,%;m
,:; wl % -
m,., -
.m Q~ .. :?;
x % y; gs.mp:n
- . ; v m<e ;.
ya "fm
- y..
. ~
_ w;- , . y - ' t .n " - -"' <w ..
- w_ ;.
Qi_ - g.: .,_ - A-.= i . u = ~ . ::. . . .- Q? .?D ,::,,i.y
, ( z.;. *; P
.vs . * 's e .
ca. . .v. o.' M.. - -. r.
;f. J " ,;s,-
O c.,h c.n . ..
- . c through close monitoring of an ambitious and promising, but ultimately
'QQ>f M,fS l[. YNM., , _ ;.J-j .. flawed and delayed reinspection program."
,df , ,. ' .
c;- - ,Q.',.J,f>"
.g- ,
It is on those 5 months that we cont:nue to focus. Reduced to its es-J. - h , - .~.' ,,
; sentials, Intervenors' position is that during that period, they initially be-3f . .' , H 0; ,- ,,
-f' lieved that their objectives could be achieved without the need for litiga-3.. . 'l , l' - tion, but later changed their minds. Intervenors assert that their actions
@~@J'(.E
% i e.Xii'~ 4:. lj
- T@Wyl. Q .? :.7 +c ' 20
! @ were "in accord with the policies of both this Commission and the courts to avoid unnecessary lawsuits." We cannot at,ree.
While it may be true that the Commission and the courts prefer that N t M M . Y h .i ? d Q I parties seek to resolve their differences without the need for litigation, it
> pU.qy . . . . " . . ..r. ~ .-.T, c.4lM w.,M
N.1, is equally true that if a party is to purnie litigation, it must do so in con- @T M:,1' Y((5
- r. ..
.@. f.,'@N
*i l 2%,Q formity with established standards of timeliness. If Intervenors' M@%.%fj gg%
s%gGg% #;' M C.g*i40 " rationale were taken to its logical end point, the more~a party delayed,
.the more it would be given credit for its restraint in refraining from h,NMQ@g;;[74 filing suit. Such a result would of course be absurd.
,,NfgfjiV@R.
". M:
'y.%O.'4 :'D. 7js . ', 'i.M Parties to Commission proceedings must live with the choices they make. Intervenors had the option of pursuing their aims outside the ad-R$
EN g el,f , N . judicatory context, or of filing a timely contention, but an untimely Mj+@' p 'y[ j"';k 1 * '9 N N ' I Even " Nassuming , that the Intervenors' explanation for the first 5 filing is not made more acceptable by the fact that the party refrained
~
- s. _,
s
' from burdening the adjudicatory process during the months of delay.
'g'-~ 4
,d
.~, .
months of delay was satisfactory - a question which we need not decide
. .? / - - * '
- we find the Intervenors' explanation of the second 5 months of delav ce
. . , .~ , ,
W~'. V;... s to be unacceptable. Their own submissions preclude a finding of " good
;7
^
cause" for at least 5 months of the untimeliness of their contention. We now turn to the remaining four elements of the five-part test, to see f.9 . 14 ?,. whether Intervenors have made the requisite " compelling" showing on
$r
. :.:y %. 7 [.-r...p. . . , 6 , o4..'4 .g ..:_ those factors. m 1hx:r- q ?q;w.6 %.C.% m..::so.6. m;.nd x 'o,g +. M 4 e3 ye.u.m.. n W@:N . .;,. - / $m.p y;;* f n: q gn T
.N
.t.'
B. Availability of ther Means to Protect Petitioners' Interest
?'!?;@(0,4
.d V f;% /d >.e.WWNTiMhi. " This factor, like the closely related fourth factor (the extent to which
.M. other parties will represent petitioners' interest) is accorded less weight,
'y.
- d. M 6 :; C.'? @ j?
}{.IA,* ..
SM'.
..ar .%_ . '. ". ~7 under established Commission precedent, than factors one, three, and 9nG'W QyK.WE:'.' - five. South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Sta-M.xNm .e. c~
L tion, Unit 1), ALAB-642,13 NRC 881,895 (1981). Before the Licens-wnag .XQ MEsWh.,e "i .c a syy. MQg%vm ing Board, both the Applicant and the Staff concaded these two factors 7.lb yMRQPDsh to the Intervenors, and neither asserts the Licensing Board erred in find-Yq.f$ N-hS' ing in the Intervenors' favor on these factors. We agree that the Licens-Yh;@M$M7hM%hrhM4hNO@fh . ing Board did not err in so finding. 2; %W;54?-hg%7 , Q'. q*lf.%
. : ;y-l
. . ***n* % *." ,.?.y
,ed.c';d,'H y, D >
.s .: ,
; L;,
s'
- y e )
~
245
ll( f EW & NMMMSM'Mb 7' E kk?hbh YY h 5 k
$,A$ifd((5.n.
W.Ih m. m z .%.:. u RMA %., %@-
& 5b?$NNb W6bm.EN'NMhSN'MNMM@ep %&. n & hh?5 & "b b.
- s .
.sm sx ;? -
- c w.
g; ;qm t. x as r
.vy;&-'
.+
,;; j
-:.- .-e- m a - - "sw-
- 3. ~~- . . .
y._..., - " ~ ~
.. . , , ~
p 'MJ. ..'*, . #
, 9# - .N 4 i M w
.4 J f W<'
.? %
QQ. : :,C $l7., :ir.l ~.< ', n.Gyf'
~,
A hhSd[< M shh. - T.
- O
,. C. Extent to Which Petitioner Can Contribute to Development of W ;.: , a Sound Record b-;;ger'%
Mw,y QW m W ;.3m4 .,b'9.?,6~ .' - . .:,
, . .. -- Our case law establishes both the importance of this third factor in the TfR M.m.r M.a.
SBQMA *tff.W: Q e'";J.,Q s' ... . ,1 ^ evaluation of late-filed contentions and the necessity of the moving tS party to demonstrate that it has special expertise on the subjects which it Myj seeks to raise. Grand Gulf, supra,16 NRC at 1730. The Appeal Board M@
?c d.W
,ddN/$ ;. WN@ PW'py.!W'O Ng @ D l T :i y M R has said: "When a petitioner addresses this criterion it should set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, MN$@k[h[i.
- t. % c.J;r y b 4.J Ih.'j M* . #:
] identify its prospective witnesses, and summarize their proposed tes-timony." /d. This the Intervenors did not do, even after the Licensing Board, in its Special Prehearing Conference Order, suggested that they $m 4Me $ $ 'P 'iDM .~m w GS ., . .'M D h T @@ do so. Indeed, the Intervenors' showing initially was so deficient that Mh,.W.
QW,/d$$}
- R" C ,a
~dA,dM,@.Wh fh E
- D.p.E '$ . . the Licensing Board was able to find in the Intervenors' favor only by including in its analysis its judgment on the capabilities of the Interve-M[;d-QDM;'lW.Y.*
y6 -; e;...- M' nors' attorneys: Q u. ,.1,u . ,b, . . ; .* : 3 Mg . e,c.wlb i 'N .EM.,jh The third factor in 10 C.F.R. { 2.714(a)(1) compels the Board to prospectisely as-Oh*hN D-y g g certain whether tntervenors' participation in the proceeding will assist in developing Qi J y[k[g.[;Q %lS7 : 7**N@t . , a sound record. From the QA/QC contention Intervenors submitted, our answer to
,- , g T/O. ,.
1 - the above question might be negative. But the Board's background knowledge en-ha?E R . 7:. - [ J, A. 4 ,i compasses the fact that BPl. the law firm which now represents intersenors, con-M6df.M.s .
, I,' @' ,
tributed to the development of a sound record in the Byron operating license hear-2'py.Q 7 . , ing by bringing Commonwealth Edison's QA/QC deficiencies at the Byron plant to
,. . < ,*i Ve. y .. ' that Licensing Board's at:ention.
[Mr$.4; m < y.a h M, . .* ~,. I f
, ,. "'E di[.7N @ 2 [11:d;G ' -
g; . LBP-85-11, supra, 21 NRC at 629-30. 6'"O E.7 d When the amended contention was filed, the Licensing Board again
,W$
@ffgh&M. IlNNh ;MN@(dN.4 D found in favor of the Intervenors on the third factor, although it noted that the Intervenors had not followed its suggestion that they identify b{d e I . their intended witnesses and the subjects on which they would testify.
d ,,@ye%? M 0 9 dDM.'Tp M. W ;i M 9 M[~.'\*M.g! The Licensing Board reiterated its reliance on the fact that the law firm representing the Intervenors had also represented the Byron Interve-M '.y S % ,J. W ,, Q, J. E ;. nors, notwithstanding that Judge Smith, Chairman of the Byron Licens-Ns,*$6Ml: Y .i~ ing Board, had complained that in Byron, BPI had " raise [d] every con-
$ U # M. W U.Y.S D# ceivable issue" without adequate followup. .\ lay 30, 1984 Byron Tran-
@%h[%M GMM$f.Mi'%g/M o3M.;;,; 9 ;
, script at 8173-80; LBP-85 20, supra, 21 NRC at 1747. In the Licensing Board's view, the fact that Judge Smith " articulated his frustration" at Nb?ky h. h the attorneys did not " negate [] the service they performed," and the 1I - Mig %;b k Board asserted that it would by its own actions " limit the problem of un-
+
M M % fp M S focused litigation which arose in Byron." 21 NRC at 1747. ik[%5;h $ ng g g h in our view, the Licensing Board's finding in favor of the Intervenors, M. . based upon the contribution of their attorneys to the development of w %m ln.4 Q. ,.c . cp,JWi 5' W x%n q.V'syg%M; Q d; Q W - fw p p"'
&nik-* D .
'r- \t5 m' .
l.[ , . an. - , _ , WM c , 246 1 I i. 3 .- ,v.. ,..w.- . - , . . . . .
.._,..y,.,.m.,,.p,.,p,,,,,.yg , , . , . , , , , , , . e M*
i
& ~w
ar w .y g g ? n :. . n a, 4 .
- - ; s-.m - ^
. : Mytp g.'&,% _ A: /-,aT@L- x = /'
M'. ' ,;a - v.e - u -
%m@Q;M".m,Wi f s dp
~
t M s.,h- 22 -- u a ._.:.._ u142c< W w Rg n.;2@,;,w m .,. . p a k ;- w@f:.$n?k.. 5 h n . ~.., I'?i.; h.. , , . ; l:n& O O M'& &w:w'l U
~
Q .
;.M u b / .*'.pmh.y ng;'?.i gM*. n" ?&**e the record, was erroneous. No principle oflaw.has been called to our at-
, gs. W Jg . n {W R &*fQh*; ; that allows a court or an agency to make judgments, positive or
/k{k?ddNQ(
W N~2 M;w. m@ .- $.m&ff9G, QSFEW
.w
~ . .
l .* tention negat.ive, about the merits of a party's case based upon .its evaluat. ion of f $8 W i @M N fdEM$*, the performance of its counsel in a different proceeding. The Licensing
$kSM?dl,%khyd: Board appears to have derived such a principle from the Appeal Board's decision in Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear w$'gjfMM &{W
%p$shgg$$ j;fg: git # )lylf N U M S3M, Q Project clusion f;$
No. was 3), ALAB-747,18 incorrect. In Nthat NRC 1167,1178 (1983). Any such con-case, the Appeal Board held that the it. Licensing Board did not err when, in rejecting a late intervention peti-i%j M 'My M.4h@gh bt '@:.S'[hhM[b7M.(,y tion, it declined to count in petitioner's favor the fact that the same peti-tioner (rather than its counsel) had participated in other NRC licensing b,b;p.m.~$[h & Mk)[iO3pb.';
'\
th h proceedings. The Appeal Board commented that the petitioner there had not even claimed, let alone demonstrated, that the issues sought to be
$h[dk3 RTM M.j q%gg }h p.h @,b
!h T%y%[b{. raised in WPPSS were the same as those which it had litigated in prior 1 h [M proceedings. It would be difficult to read into that decision, or into the h:. k$N hf bd 2@ h.h pri r NRC decisions cited, strong support even for the proposition that a Sf Nhhi d!r hkMhy party's prior participation in NRC licensing proceedings is a weighty factor in weighing a request for late intervention; but there is no basis in
%N M. . 9 *?y eA,cy,5. m% ,M, ~ : that decision for a finding that counsel's participation in other proceed-W j$r +ylW.M g g W yb g $ b2N;.%*
, % @x aingsScanpbe M taken into y' account.
Qg AF% . - ?<:
...'.;4.Ra ?.- .: Based on the Licensing Board's erroneous consideration of counsel's 95 . . . . actions in the Byron proceeding, coupled with the Intervenors' failure, 4.. ',"w5.~hr
~
h;q. .$Nk. iki[ g ' -A
~
even after being urged by the Licensing Board, to provide specifics as to l.' the witnesses to be called and the topics to be pursued, we find that the
% 'i$.W WW W S ,. %@.9]#' .;* ~ '
Licensing Board erred in finding that the third factor weighed in favor of 7Dh .U the Intervenors. Since we find the consideration of counsel's participa-
.o@- ?.
E-M[k.N.pA
- s p ,W q ' h L yey@A&@~N.&
;p H >:.s't. tion to be legally irrelevant, we need not consider Judge Smith's critical j comments on Byron counsel's actions.
iM . @4 Q M. Myg s sr m . 6*; ,9 A
- g@p;4 g The Extent to Which Other Parties Will Represent d q gJgyt W a D.
t
>d g %g.y,m. / M,g. L% m iQTQ, ^MDp Petitioners' Interest
/s.ddfd[MQMMMWp=
.%P.c.Ny-M. . . See { B, above.
..,Gg n y A @z y4p h.nW q q ';:i q .~
&.W W
' % ..epu.%,.
yi M.ti y., E. Broadening and Delay of the Proceeding
'&py@iW$hWQ@..m$[,, s M P
.- y%[ G
. e The Licensing Board acknowledged that while admission of the Inter-venors' quality assurance contention was likely to result in some addi-id k
-h 1 tional delay of the proceeding, it found that this would not be "an unrea-sonable delay." LBP-85-11, supra, 21 NRC at 630. Even the Intervenors u
3
%r,p:dRW,M:%$5Ne@hj V
%.h% W *& Y.:
3h F now concede that the Board's evaluation of the likely extent of the delay w- : c s- r ~
. WeQ'; r g2 , Q;* *2,' . J- :d f.s Q
- L - ' ' , ~' s
,4 e
3U Ln'[L:-. y'
- i r O'
<m
%d' '
~w..
i I
.' ;t
~; 247 4
. ,,g,, ,, ,,
9 O O' --W4 '*t4
-- ..*,b .e m.a ,
p ,
- u >-
- v. .- g e., ,c.- -
.--p -, ._ w. . ---_._-. _ys.,,.,--w , y- - --. w , ,.-- - y - y.
v m, . g.e. .
, .w....
. ~. . . : s...r.
.~ .5 -
s s ~."-
),e.,.
3 :::Q - a ,u ;a s v.. - n: ,.
. Q- [:;%;.az.L.
xz;kv u.' w.,; l ~ .c a.: .aG:.i l.,h:.:..:.w..
% ^l '.l. , : ?
J.
- w. . J' 4%M 3 % cry.J ., Q & M
.hi
. 5 % .c
- 4
,I
. w. ' "-
J'a' .k, 8,g j.
- t .'< f ' 3 eg ..u e .;;m.m.'cw , ,,./ tr m + ,
V ? , d C Q; resulting from litigation of the contention "may have been overly op-
. %y n % (d t 6 'l! ,,* 9k lO M [ timistic." 'f.[*. hBrief ; at 16. The Board relied on a number of factors which in
?tg7 c
- our view were not properly part of the analysis. For example, it observed JM[sp//f,"'jy
~;h(n,d'-
'f,j s, ;;5'd
'M that the Intervenors had voluntarily dropped a number of contentions
'id'f M M.. m i V' through stipulation; this served to " counterbalance" the delaying effect h95,D M.j.5 n. of adding the quality assurance contention. 21 NRC at 632. Further-
,DE.g?.Y.W m M..Sh@,2C Mkv . EU more, the Board proceeded to " balance" the potential significance of the
? .+9.%w'r,4.9.7 ,2W. a. d,w@ '
contention against its potential for delaying the proceeding. Wej? a'M>.
. . . M a . . @1 a/$x,W,.d... .,'j. W.h ..p/@ We believe the Board erred on both counts. The question, in assessing
/J.4f Mrg M. whether a contention will delay the proceeding, is directed to the pro-
'ci:N..NM,#ffW . IM. ii$ UNQv;' '. -47.y ceeding as it stands, not to the proceeding as it might have stood but for
.N [ 8 ' 3* ,-w%.;c i +w ;. M the withdrawal of other, unrelated contentions. The appropriate place M,4;.g 9,g.N.
c n,,,. . m
. W .. . .q.,.
q j.n@.,t jww.
, f.',4.a,s . sc. .c.,,
for tak.ing mto account the potential s.ignifi.cance of a contention is m the d w%.p .ss gn, m, , .,e , e:. N . .~ evaluation of the third factor, contribution to the record of the proceed-ing. Implicit in the evaluation of the third factor is that a significant con- , %Q'.$d]f ;DN f$[$f *:] '1 I. tention contributes more to the development of a sound record than f4.f;% d'f$$~p%i[.rl-Q(M [ . ' does an insignificant contention. The five-factor test assumes that a , %$.%yd;] %. w ' .b'g ' h"4' 4;"'P "k .) %likelihood of delay, under the fifth factor, as part of the overall balancing
.J. E party's showing on that third factor may have to be balanced against the M.
x M. v a. n S.. M, o ,. of factors. It was incorrect, however, of the Board to make its own bal- , W' %. t 7 Tf ; it'D A'C g.alone. M.. ,./~,c' u.- ' ancing of significance versus delay in its evaluation of the fifth factor
# It is apparent that the admission of the Intervenors' quality assurance y 4 [Sif .p p :d3,h h,k!N ,'fM;f?, contention had a significant broadening and delaying effect on the pro-9 g y* c s,.s y -s,
. ey ,
c ,. . .. ceeding. The contention is some 31 pages long and composed of numer-i p.. u -p IO.{ - ous subparts. In a proceeding from which numerous issues had already Sfh.'. $.,
.id7:@
i(( @%{p#jy&N { M &@* W
. dropped out through stipulation, it should have been clear to the Board that admission of the contention would substantially delay completion of
.the proceedi ng. On this fifth factor, we find that the Board erred in find-W $IME3.9%
MMW'gMVp%DfM h GMT y n,M h / .hM ing that the fifth factor weighed in favor of the Intervenors. LBP-85 20, supra,21 NRC at 1749.
- Q. J.Q ~: '.' M, ~ Taken as a whole, we find that the Intervenors failed to demonstrate M M. ~ ., n . A, i ' \- S P.. # @ yMiM M;c $ N M,3i . ,
that they prevailed on the five-factor test. Much less di'.i they make the Q"ji' i C,. . /M7, " compelling showing" on factors two through five that was required to
'EMFO@M~.pl n :!J.NW.T overcome their failure to demonstrate good cause, under the first factor, Jf.
a ~M,y
.A S4#a.4ty$ sj.. Q.
%*a hfMy~ u .m.m' bAM .>l for their failure to file on time.
4
- 7 g
%u
.=,.e . w w.MYL. -
.p,yp.;y 4 u:lq3 Wd,$M*f:
' :%QMni}@M@w
;j!bC? q K Lf~
m : g U -pm 4 :.; a ,. d l n '" ,' E f g ,),- * ,- 248
.r-- -..e,..-e-u*. =a-- e .c < - * . = . . - - * .e-;+ am- . wme * = * * * ' ' - -
3
-.p a
E$#$ 0? kh h.khWl-f5$? $$$$h k k. .L;
~b 6
. n. e r N$hk$
$$E J,,: ~
h-j. ' ,b k hl$N Y:l$IN M bN EN~' h k$ N b N~ y ~
;:237, %, :2 m. ,
a :.a : . ._..:._.
. . . - . - , 3 w_ _ .
;9 :, ,
~ ~
*;O ,,i*;
- f, r .p . ,
.,,...m.e.... ,
7
.m .1 . ~.w -. . ...
.m s . ; ;;. y - p ..
O<ew:b:p u ., . ~' w- 3:V.% w . s.. t. QW.sp:M,a i " #M. _,w4 N,,E, $
,, -~ m III. WOULD INTERVENORS PREVAIL UNDER Tile
.J._n ,i. .. R. . F.. < .
. - 1.QW ,L . J X,', . .
FIVE-FACTOR TEST IF TilEIR CONTENTION WERE Ay%ygej;
.Je rn p y~. -
RESUIDilTTED TODAY?
. M. ? W 't#; J,v e c y,- h @u[ y,e INMNM,1 r.-m.gNy In the previous section of this Order, we explained why the Licensing pqsw:N. . .. - + m ur nNM Board erred in finding that the Intervenors' qualit.y assurance contention,
~.
d @QM ffM,3 3 ,., m .EOMfMg as admitted, satisfied the five-part test of f 2.714. In this section, we ad-dress the question of whether, in the light of developments since the
.@K$k'GjMh2hh@M.w.M%1Jh.6M'OMyg(M g! '
. Licensing Board's admission of the contention, a different result would G7$Y,M M.MM3[ be reached today. We conclude that it would not, for the reasons which
.fr yf..'n . w@Rfg
- .q sn w>.n R follow,
.,1..J'/.,;$;'u*;.K.
- MMNM gg @spa,S'g$ff QQ The first factor, good cause for delay, would continue to weigh against the Intervenors; accordingly, they would still have to make a " compel-
-3:.[ f ' M @ [ [. ling showing" on the remaining four factors. Factors two and four Nis%EWfMfMdf$.J dydff: (other means and other parties to protect Intervenors' interests) would j 3.,., Q : - ..,a ,
- .. %. M,; ;pg, .;m ~ s. . W..w .
n. W.n .
. ,,W continue to weigh in Intervenors' favor, notwithstanding that the Inter-m@ . ,W,a @.$ .
M.. @.7y
.(,,p 4 '$ pj p '.g., venors' contention is grounded in oversight activities being conducted W )> n ~ U O.f 5 ' . .g Q by another party, the NRC Staff. See li'PPSS, supra,18 NRC at i175.
[.' M ,j ',, f ' ' NQO ^~N These factors are, however, as noted previously, given less weight than factors one, three, and five. Hi .' m :. .
- W <: v 5. ^ ' On the third factor, we believe that Intervenors would be unable to
'- demonstrate a significant contribution to the development of a sound gj, .
- record in the proceeding. Their contention continues to be grounded in
.h'V.cr ,i ; . ~~ . J 7,'
.- uP. 'T
- i. .
NRC inspection reports, some years old. They have failed to identify
' : , W~y s . . L any experts whom they intend to call. Rather, they have, in February of o, ,. e. ~. - . ~ -
this year, offered a list of NRC Staff personnel and Applicant personnel 4Q (M( 'M.. . ( $;g ,m whom they intend to call as witnesses in the event that they are not
% ?.W .
i w&; b A;h55 h fp[MG.;gNhy,yp lled as witnesses by another party. In other words, Intervenors intend " c R,FQWW.GFMC i M k.$/$!$; $ M % . @p p to make their case through cross-examination of other parties' witnesses, calling other parties' employees as witnesses only if they have not al-Wp. . . ,M, (6.Vr M g. ,r:f,;tn.i$.. . ready been called to testify by the Applicant or the Staff. In supplying their names to the Licensine Board, Intervenors stated that "since most y.t.v .g y ;u ,3. . ., 3., . W. : .: fc 9 J.. of these witnesses are not subject to Intervenors' control the exact
$$/M; uiW, . g.J mt & j gg@ ' 3.( w w . ~nature ,... and scope of their personal knowledge or belief on these subjects / k. eel, [$h Nh*5hf ,
- MCMEMl$(E.; .. .
is not known to Intervenors at this time. . [T]he identification of a wit-ness with a specific subject or contention subpart is not meant to estab-(/ hIhMN[U;MfjWM@ h )7th .O lish conclusively that the witness has admissible evidence to offer on '1 'g that subject. " Intervenors' Identification of QA Witnesses, Feb. 28, p.m & m ms?MOhh@d 1986, at 2.
.N%,41Qd@W:
fM$M dE46 Q m #j %y M',;c In ur view, th. falls far short of demonstrating affirmat.ively that the is Intervenors would be able to contribute sigmficantly to the development
@f,fMR%;
Nggg > ..v:,p,O IM &,Wdl{iFI7;wof ~.(p 6 G T. p r. a sound record.
% .< - . -- 4 99 yy- s c, m ,y .,3
. 'j
.j
- 249
~. ,
. - . w.. n, -
M k 4
; J @ @,
L , . _ nV,.x .&hm%.. ~ M'D'#M '&. gM, M W;.M.M'% b n,, <-pW a&*^:V.'." m'h#9W= MWvM*it m *W fWn"M:&e -
?M ~ -
Ci ,. .b. , v . .L ,;
-.e m -
~. . . .. ,
. m. ,
rsO.w'. :.- :.>w n . "- px;
=
e 3 ,* ~ a e. . p. . : +y .' , . -
?lp -> . -7&
Rl,e .S.. q m w ,- -e
'.aa a s.~
L Q " MGMA"""D'"= " y$q% . . f . *
%.y;m: W--v $+Q n qu. . s.: ;e B h;fe .
- .m 9- z. .QT. 'l
~
M k '[.W",'nD g,,..c NN, DW h.p
.cl'Y'y6 On the fifth and last factor, it is now indisputable that litigation ofin-Dm M... 6 ",[ < . .. ,
c,,M s- r _.
@?Q Q Q.o...Z,~5tervenors' quality assurance contention,31 pages long and composed of v
.w u ,. . ~ . . .. m. , o ,
. gt some 65 subparts, would sigmficantly delay completion of the proceed-
. ;Mjik.., . '.(i.sMS.,e. . .u $e( . ing, since apart from quality assurance issues, the hearings are now
'dN D s 3UdTh$gj . ,. concluded. On this issue, the case against admission of the contention is
> g' thus stronger than it was when the contention was submitted to the Mf2Nh/4hh!.h % i;@ S c.SM.g,@ b h Licensing Board, when the course that the proceeding would take was
,.e.c far more a matter for conjecture.
p%.fm uw .."...,% m., W .m, w Wh ;; @spwhma,a w .; t e &m w,' Taken together, therefore, we find that the Intervenors, if they were
;E ;g%.acy.m j .
. fr s.t .
b W i.- to resubm.it their contention today, would not be able to prevail on the ep'l' 37,4.W. $. ..@Q@c.: NAQ - L.3 J ?M five factor test; as before, they would still less be able to demonstrate Ngh%w.F.'* - enQ Mi vrM.h e g the " compelling case" on factors two through five that is needed to over-come a failure to show good cause for lateness. Accordingly, we direct tg
' A.ri v
p .y
- 7.G.gg(
~" .
F, , $, $ $ contention.3 g g, gh- .nyh. u. .C the Licensing Board to dismiss the Intervenors' quality assurance v.w
?'Qr,,p':O m y , {5. w:.c- ~Nq. x+g2 :YQ y.h eq 4;,. .
, fm 1. . %,e;; -m .
.}@/j!gW.y,M k c.9 Myj@W@.y IV. INTERVENORS' CONTENTION ON INSPECTOR 1w, r,..m aw. .p;n .. :.saw a . mW. u..
HARASS > LENT { h ;-h hhh. , As we noted, the analysis in f} 11 and ill of this Order did not deal cN.;l %; me M.L' , W - M.*p.M, M h with that subpart ofIntervenors' contention which dealt with harassment
' .R.r pME ^ ' ,, ,. ,. y e 66 at~ and intimidation of quality assurance inspectors at Comstock, Appli-
- Mkh'"*
M.D. i . <%[T MN '., ; ,; s. cant's electrical contractor. That subpart was admitted separately, pur-suant to a stipulation, signed by all parties and approved by the Licensing
- M #M@Q n@t$,g%p5, gt, y;;y; e w e.h@? ;
e?fd.Y Qy4.A7 ~ M M.L Board. Our earlier orders in this proceeding were directed to the ele-ments of the quality assurance contention which were admitted pursuant N k.IN N,. . to the Board's orders of April 17 (LBP-85-ll) and June 21, 1985 e /8%7;M,p%M@MI?Q,j f miiM f
' M p Q Q [ ,T lM (LBP-85 20); this subpart was admitted separately, on July 23,1985.
The admission of subpart 2C is therefore not formally before the Com-
.-QWM y .2s% . ;.)y A~M..
A.,%.s ,jp ,?, MW .eMM mission for decision today; our dismissal of the Intervenors. quality
,y ,
.s ih :W $ y/.N ; M -p Q /. g e .:jg assurance content. ion does not encompass subpart 2C. Our review of the M%J M. ? <. W $ -iM.g record indicates, however, that the Licensing Board does not appear to
?$ k.DS. hlh.'
k f h .?. h& f f f hh
*? %1t%%*!'Y -
rg%g=**Q
.p:#I3g A 3 in their brier. Intervenors assert that their quality assurance contention had bases other than the depo-
; g .M "Q'3 4 *L y S sition or Mr. Keppler and Mr warnick. and an esidence. they ofrered the Commission certain docu.
* .b Q ky ments. enclosed in scaled envelopes, and not served on the other parties. Apparently. Intervenors are
.. hg 4 (O t' " r,j concerned that the Commission's decision on the admissibility of their contention may turn on the l
w/ u NM w f d Licensing Board's legal error in authorizing the deposition or the stafr witnesses at a time when no con. tention had been admitted. Any such concern is misplaced. The Commission's ruling that the contention gh-hgh hyiMh*b VTd 7* v. P Whh 3,h, N-c.H
" %.[ Aftp}[ railed to satisfy the five.ractor test in no way hinges on whether the Board should have authorited the Keppler and Warnick depositions. Accordingly. there is no need ror us to entertain she documents sub-
, p.5 .<
Qtr; ;rjtcM,[.;7
- mitted in the scaled envelopes, and we do not do so. We encourage the Intersenors. however, to make e
'*MP1 ".gf 'yo % assilable to the stafrany documents which they believe to have safety sigmficance aad me direct the jg* igg.,N* W e.. e , , if ( - y, pj i s stafr to contact the intervenors ror that purpose.
,! g g ,e ,e
-@dt.3 .g
*[ t
*] I .[8 -( ,
L w ,-
^
, 7 250 t t.
I 3
+
1
., , . m.. .-
..__m...-.,7.-n .
- ,--- --v- .- -- ~ v- -
^
s 4 ( -.,.,4 ,..,,.o .g . ., . . - - . , . . - , s. , +. .-.--.----m----- -- ',g - g m -w ----g --
I t * , e e ( , 5, .)
- p. g
- r,,- -.3 .
G,'.TJ, , .'+t > < i;*. . ,
* -, . ,- , *r .++ *r., * , a .- - -
- ~y,.
,S ' .
,% *.<.Q Q.'- ' , , ., ,. C K , t - ; --
Il:l
<,* *M~*=* ** *'s-"^ * ** A " : * ".. . .~ * " ~ ~ " - ' - - ^ ~ - ~ " - - ' ' " -
-i
,m; %. w;,.. ' , ~.3.g,.
~.s.3._ .
2; . ' ; P ** " *~^ M : - -~ m:.,w a: w, s..,s . .y.s, .. _ g.y f. x.ee
- 4. wp' -
, p-. . > . WC#
,.t si ., , , . ';%-, ,
< :M.4',l'}h *. 3, ' N .; I '
- t. %c '.Mi.~47, @. have conducted the formal balancing of factors called for by i 2.714.
We 4 /m.M.%B..sf % That regulation states that a Licensing Board must find that the five-
$W3%rw@f.!b.'!!:@dMNX i
m.v~- . c
.- .u...s.iy; - -AM..MI$h$.. .
factor test is satisfied in order to " entertain a late-filed contention. The
-0 hMSPN:,ny.,'e@36!@Op 5 s 4.Nf i N.
f regulation makes no exception for stipulated contentions, and the Appeal Board has recently declared explicitly that even a waiver of objec-Ma
%yy,W M.m;4$,Mg.m(p@,m&auf ,
tc.pgQ. ..9 g tions by all parties would not serve to render an otherwise untimely con-g tention admissible. Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), g p Wr* M pp.9W.% g Q Q p/N ALAB-816,22 NRC 461,466 (1985). Accordingly, we direct the Licens. M $ N b@ @h .5c N k h $ ing Board to evaluate the admissibility of subpart 2C in light of the Gve-factor test of { 2.714, as contemplated by the regulation.
%E$
M @i!.k .Mf fdtc,l;%.
? .h.,t3.
% f9dMW @~M .,'Tlil:;3 Oh!.hi missioner Q Commissioner Roberts has separate views, which are attached. Com-Asselstine disapproved the order; his separate views are 7N:W N ". 74 4
%@9' h(awN WW.mM ~ . ~
-t.' W W,i @. m.
p lE,S[ attached. Tw/oH.UM p;w% W w.;y;wg4 w%y e It is so ORDERED. For the Commission 2
! . h -n m ,M,;ibefF.c.w -
f.< G ; ?w.'.;.,t v;ih: v,}:w.R%c.*w.?;t3]) n , s. w %, y 9 my:n .% h. , m p
- w. m.-n. ,. . N ,.,., .e .,.. x.e c SAMUEL J. CHILK M, fM~.h. di.'..ff.
s
'M,h.y;W r, " V,$e 3 4,d&'7eh M,p b;'
Secretary of the Commission 3, ey..c.:ytX :e ; . . p" m ,
* ' . M '. -
>.?aJ.;-.o m ,5y..d f C ' ~Dated .C at Washington, D.C.,
W p.,=.nQf ; ? 4.u,e >f ;,. N . . . -
. . .~
,Gh- .-
w:c
- s. ,
this 24th day of April 1986. mo
- .n.;
, :y: ... .. . . a.QQ ry , . - @&pg .
v ., q,z:.;n
- p g g y; % ,f. ,. , . : , . . ~ 1. g .,
- 9.q :.<;, n -
s .,,"n . ~ _ , f rc . ' . v: .n ,7 .- ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CO31311SSIONER ROBERTS
, n~,x ; p -rW M +-e 'e w< s _ .5 ' Ws b
. -e 4...p.hA . , ~ . -s '; , yE9*4 = .F: w':*g3. ? 8'.if -
> Ny. A d' [ ,N[r I would have directed the Licensing Board to dismiss the entire QA N* P ,
Contention, including the portion alleging haras. ment of Comstock QC Qh MW%hf;.1MMf4 hEDNM inspectors. The Licensing Board, when admitting the portions of the QA ,Mg@%N h E.57/; ?;'MM.D contention that we direct it to dismiss, deferred ruling on the portion alleging harassment of QC inspectors to allow the Intervenors to supple-yd soV.- M-. G. 4?..N UV:WT,5Y%dYgl..3
.,.w.R,;. w 9?d. .. . - o ~M'@$ ment their Gling on that issue. The intervenors Gled a new motion seek-ing admission of the harassment portion of their QA contention on July
% J. 12, 1985. They did not afGrmatively show in this new motion that the e.cy'JM,%ca,QA. gym.#g.W .p,_
.J> L.w. Q . "A # e h ch .e lateness factors balanced .in favor of adm. .itting the harassment port. ion of a " the.irQA contention or even attempt to do so. Therefore, to the extent g
f , e w% h.hk.g g..,S. ;{ g$g W, A m.,4 - 4 s w @y$ ;f & V,@ W <g$y' %", W -u.Wi$ M %y. N lMMQiS 9 2 Commissioners Bernthat and Asselstine were not present when this order was affirmed. Ir Commis-
..hbNNbb , 5'oner Bernthal had been present he would have approved it irCommissioner Assehtme had been pres-mb@Qad.Fjnc.n.WM, Mk.9kffU Np 'L i~ +M. -.,
ent he would hase disarprosed it. if"m 4
.; .m, M.4 .,,v. ,JM,.
u< ?M@; O. E 't.
- m x,> ,1 ps 1
7 . . , , e
- S '5 . I 251 M. 'V. -d t. .
- c , >: , -
1
.8.
t E
< - .. - . - . . . ~ . . . ... - . .. - , - . - . - - - - -
-~~~e 6
a-a,
) .l"*
4
&m+I?W'I;I' wwl l&.0$.g@j.&w.fWW?NNY@w[?$NW?uww$0$??.: s nub gwX, Aq W m ~Y5N.".lw:S'
.m A: ,2:l !hy .?<m y
.m o& MQ c.
n.gy;glG.M;Ag .g 3r;.;y g.:n,c
. .~. A .9 v.
m g;. m%.? y - rg 8 &,. 9 Qrg:A.g Wi,N:
-z w:- g. 9'.4.g .JWhmm
, W0W9 a.h 'ew.
. ngiq.A ;W;&l'-:,g p.,; y y^,,.c%l O '
. ~. *~ '.ij[+i~O ' '
-
- w -
; ; ,, .. . w .i. w .. = A.-.a ~ a - - - - - -
, .= .
.m >
. n- ..
,, a
+ .
%c ;, 3 .
y;
.;3
. +,_d.
, f;b
?
. ;p s. - ,.,, f.f W- MD.Mi that it was admitted on the basis of a balancing of factors the harassment M[jfj[ . )j d ;.f G i $
portion of the contention was admitted by the Licensing Board on the M N. '. . . basis of the same flawed balancing of factors as were the portions of the
, m. , t. , ., -J. -. '.W
~
7 O...+,7. 6. M.,/ t> s
. T. m?. ,. QAJ,contention that we direct the Board to dismiss, since the Board did 7e. '
y.1: . not again balance the factors in admitting it.
$Q. y - ; <May.. '
DM(- M ,f Our Appeal Board pointed out over 5 years ago that our Rules of Prac. g .: y(, %. ~ M,h s.. .F., y;#@ m. t - :. tice are most explicit in establishing the criteria by which late-filed peti-m O%b. . %D. /. s lJ, tions must be judged. It emphasized that 10 C.F.R. } 2.714(a) provides
~$ N,f d U 9 ,y ) @ M M M % .$that g.M ./-y.Wg&,;C a nontimely petition will not be entertained by a Board absent its WN.
.m J '. '7. M. a c !CM.A. b a ,f.-5. ,G, n6 : determination that the petition should be granted based on a balancing 4'.Q.e nQ gA .C WT %W of the five lateness factors. Duke Pom Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Wy ,,3ey. Wb. ,m..,
f9 Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-615,12 NRC 350, 352-53 (1980). The
,T,p/
- v. 9 A. .$. ,Mn ,m e
, , ;: ..w.r.%.; Appeal Board also stressed that a late petitioner must address each of a b.ne .Lc, e ,4 the five factors in its late petition and affirmatively demonstrate that on wf'? y M:- @"m @u: @W }O M N,y M"'.
Mye..~.,,, ,'9 ; , /, f ' i - 0" M balance the factors favor granting the petition. Id. The Appeal Board re- _ , Md cently reaffirmed that the requirement for a petitioner to address and a j 9f Board to balance the lateness factors is a jurisdictional one: 3,"jN~;T (, f'j., ',;wm ,,,j ,e ' u g /r- .'f?
*1 P . $ 7 f,f *. *
*( ',- 8 ,*s Q,4 . gp A w.l ?
g lhere is no conceisable ment to lal claim that (thel duty to confrent the Ove late. y ,,
< vr, ,] &c , -
, I ,f ; y.. ; ness factors [does} not matenalize until after the applicant and the statT lhavel re-
*~~,
[ / . M.. .,I. . .
' .g/A 1
sponded to the llate-filedl petition and raised the matter of its untimeliness. To s ($ begin w!th, on its face section 2.714f a)(1) lays to rest [thej suggestion that the late-
,c g7 _ ' r ,, ~-
,r
, 13 ness of such a petition is in the nature of an atTirmative defense, to be considered by 6c ,W a licensing enard on!) if the board is asked to da so by a party to ine proceeding. In 1, .- -.O r ,s. .
plain terms, the section permits a licensing board to grant an untimely rehtion only M . " .gj i. - g ,; ..
~:
if, upon a consideration and balancmg of the lateness factors, it determines that the
*' . ' ; y jy petition should be granted: "Nontimely filings ml/ nor be enterramed absent a determi-t
- g %b
,1'* "J M ,[
. M. 5 c. - %,v . N n. !* ' . > s
.A K nation by . .the atomic safety and licensing board designated to rule on the petit'on and/or request, that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a bal-(S t-
'3.p N ancing of the [ lateness factors)." In short, it is of na consequence whether, in an 3/ M w g.. .g;jl%y D 4 bM%jn.p A fM@"C opposition to the late petition, one of the other litigaats points to the untimcliness.
y[,hhh NN.M,* 7; 'M .(ip?" Esen if all of the parties are inclined to waive the tardiness, the board nevertheless
,[j g is duty-bound to deny the petition on its own initiatise unless it is persuaded that, N [A =,g [y7-'yf g NQhd
. o 9 xg ')
,. *. on balance, the lateness factors point in the opposite direction.
- r
- g;c y a; '
%- , It is equally clear that the burden of persuasion on the lateness factors is on the
-' N % _ [ i, ' ,
' [ ' '
tardy petinoner and that, in order to discharge that burden, the petitioner must 6 f t / ,. .. ... . ~ come to grirs with those factors in the petition itself. Scc Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station. Units 1, 2, and ~,,. AL AB-615,12 NRC 350. 352-53 (1980) The N* 4 gj-'i(' Q 'J.j;'.*('}/j'y/:< t, D .p .2 N ; , ' , , ). underlying re.ison for this requirement is particularly apparent m the context of the T. {6 first factor. A licensing board hardly could determine whether there was justification
$.t.VJpga,nh;- ;e.[ M ~ h 5 k' f.i.. Q.j ,k t$m6f[
pffk for the untimely Gling without knowing why the petition was not submitted by the
- b. @ .M$. p/$1[f Mo%y@gM'?, hj h h;; r y? N+.Af$i
?~n.; prescribed deadline - information peculiarly within the possession of the petitioner.
, Qu,s ;, ' l.ikewise, in most instances at least, the bcard will not be able to assess conGdently
.. $c. 4%, %u %. # &
W ~ .% 4W
'P the third factor (the extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be Nl.b.h,%!H. git.g# , W.h(,'q [p.js/ 2 N- '
expccted to assist in developing a sound record) without having before it the peti-
$$.,h. bNs a m , m., N. .h q-M.N([y$d.e,h,@, g ;i@k tioner's reasons for beliesing that the factor weighs in his or her favor.
. # .s , s t.a
; +
gs: \.
' *, 4 , , ,; ,,y
,-. ~- , 6 ; *
,; r C D :< '.'-
4
, 3
,.c ' - -
_ , 353 f fw eet- .
,w . ,
o. m m.- -. -
k hk hff fh 'h
~
- .Q* ge.x.M t,
.y u ,c .. a+,n,. w
. s.%. ,e : . N< W %.
@kkb % _ f.m.NmWWW- A.x :m %,Qb,f E GD eg _'. ~, . b a /e{.!> .M .- len,w$\l ~ :
- a. - . .
' ~
1 V * ' 4 ,;f. Q Q .k% Y U-$- { +- W u. >.wc,
~.
M v;.; M,f. :n,,', 2,: w .. T V;. : u:'W: . 's- ".." '-"
. ~ ,
... 3^^.2
,L. -R' .
BTM %,? i 2 .% "1. &. --- -
^ '. '
." "." ' - ~ " . . . ."-.
0$$y% &p Md EA y,@M.M h - .% ,0.+MJn /W L ' w MN w Nw'6 %.f C M .d.m D W Gifj M@ W fMM W W$4$ ($ w q[ b461,466-67 Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-816,22 NRC 6 M (1985) (footnote omitted).
$[gMm$p DMf [;1Q@khk Thus, even where the parties stipulate the admissibility of a late-filed e h h [ M .A s W . . >,w;;,A o;g. s.he. s-wa .7%y, . ,
issue, as was done in this case with respect to the harassment issue, a d s d 5/ 4 ' Q d @ i g g Q G.3 Licensing Board is duty-bound to deny admission of the issue on its own ikkh j' n tiative unless the factors balance in favor of admission. Moreover, a 7 niWW Wp petitioner has no nght to a second opportunity to show that the lateness i qw;NN N hl # phh factors balance favorably to granting its petition. Id. at 468. Our Rules of Practice and the case law interpreting them are very clear on the require-6'WMavlE bp.lw%@c,4M &g )ne jgg% ments for untimely. filed petitions. Both lawyers and laymen in NRC pro-h @NpEjh $@ sfM )r.H gy $n y %, Mfnl ceedings are obligated to familiarize themselves with our Rules of Prac. tice. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating gd?/, h.Mr4CYh.hI M N@gM Station, Unit 1), ALAB-609,12 NRC 172,173 n.1 (1980). They fail to b hi do so at their peril.
- -m - .Mw $w np Because to the extent that it was admitted on the basis of a balancing Q g6M.NI.ME.'N,%@hiMd?/k$'g M M %
of factors the harassment portion of the QA contention was admitted on AdM W gjk QQQW the basis of the same erroneous balancing of factors as were the portions t& Q.p M M M O.@l of the QA contention that we direct the Board to dismiss, we should
%d Mi(ikN Nh'$ have directed the Licensing Board to dismiss that portion of the conten-tion also. We would have violated no party's rights had we done so. In M: v WM*i, M s
i N !. M m, ken [ % 4 3 +MMW Nk@SV!%Q M; fy. nj,'M:n'M, "Wt/i ; S: t addition, we would have conveyed an even stronger message. I
.%wdf6 l
. %w.lJ % - s ,s.Qg-a u'd. % ,t - M A. (i , , ..Jc 3
.Pj r.e .y y c%. .
l$. v o d,gN.I. c g m ~ f
%q.% m%
.'. m @e,DISSENTING 2%g VIEWS OF COhl3IISSIONER ASSELSTINE $
;O,NMuj : , S. o , ,ew.e.hW/ as M i g N %c V .. .
In my separate views on the March 20, 1986 Order issued in this g 7. p+M,%s J . .gv.; "g Q' y, (ayg -** :pg a* .nMQM$.g w&e,. matter, I stated that the fact that the Commission itself had decided to Dg, .dM dfi
. conduct a case-specific balancing of the five factors in 10 C.F.R.
E uk Ph j 2.714(a)(1) did not bode well for further Licensing Board considera-t d,b
$bgepQ,W@hhf.fW4r M.6%s M*IE
.v tion of Intervenors' quality assurance contention. It appears that I was right. The Commission has now decided to dismiss the QA contention
.. M. N.A . W7? p.m..
A %nV M ,S.4 @m '.* from the Licensing Board proceeding. However, the Commission was L't gpMNWQ!stg,4 not satisfied w.ith merely d.ismissmg that contention. Because there re-mains one other contention (subpart 2C) still to be litigated, the Com- [P , d'dd,fg AWr gwwahg
' (*?
mission has decided to contrive a new requirement for the stipulated ad-mission oflate-filed contentions, thereby raising the possibility that sub-L .T part 2C might also be dismissed. I cannot support either action. l The Commission's actions in this case are an unwarranted intrusion r N L.$k; into the licensing process. In the various orders dealing with this issue, s a' b ] . . ., the Commission has spent quite a bit of time discussing the importance S Qly @ MRy1., Mg of following rules, precedents, and policies. The Commission has then
%g yu ,1.n < .. 'm, pw,~ , aff m:w ee vX >.s , W' ?
3 ,, j M wu TVp . W Q 7,M, , .
-, M @: ,; - , . +. v'f,%., W .l:i.V :*h. > .
e s;.
..% 4,, . p . y ,'. *)e
.~
.hb .x .
_'.C 253
. p .m.%ew
, g.1 .
S b
.4. ,
-{ .
i} ,4 p.p..:..---s -r..- ' - - - ~ - *n ~ "- ~ ' =*-~""# * ~~~ ' * * ~ " " " ' ' " "
- m"a .~~; .
f :
*g $.'
. + ,7 -J - ,
v 5,
'O *
- ,h , . . . ~ - - , . - c J , - - , - - ~ - < - - - -
w
gr.s ,m ~ g%p; n. '
...m 3..; -
L%' ;- phN%. A5
.Wo e('. . 3 (+ ,
-,,$,..fJ
[y iI.q;
'.n .w .w.cbmdMb .
~
h% Mi . . J *.. A - , --- - 0 i L --
.A.+ 5- .. .- hW w.p %.O w>;o g.- _, :3.3.s .
?P .:&- g.w:f. ,g : M, r A;N,gs'
- \ l5^'kb&k.~" &O %
/ proceeded to ignore those rules and policies which are inconvenient.
Qfl(-VfW..hh W$b/$9p;gpW hMM W;M First, the Commission ignored the fact that the movant has the burden of showing he is entitled to prevail on a motion for directed certification, b N M ( N %"1. q$ D E MThe $.7MMM.M
@Commission h could not make that finding in its first order so it decided to give the Applicant a second chance to make its case. See Com-D%i&h' ht.h *f[ monwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos.
hh[$kd 2$I. {$ 50 456 and 50-457, Commission Order dated December 5,1985. Then, k7Mi'!$ %%g;
'"A g M h $'W,g@!.@even b d$
@M mission though Applicant did not make its case after a second try, the Com-
@Mto live with that result. Instead, it chose to inter-was unwilling j Y pose itself further into the adjudicatory process to hear an issue which kM $@N$MO$k M ff, P t ydh no party did or could, at this point in the process, properly raise before hW@pMhMNh5M$.?4d; the Commission. See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Station,
%&. .pWf.giMgpMWC Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457. Commission Order k .
p dated March 20, 1986. The Commission has now decided to overrule the Licensing Board and dismiss the QA contention.
"tQkgq$p$,
- 3. MMik, fa%*;/g(Q,ag & % The Commission did not stop there, however. Even though subpart h h?8M[y@NQ:y( g 2C was not before it, the Commission decided to consider that conten-DMMdM :f. tion as well. The Commission could not itself conduct a balancing of the
@ k 'y factors in { 2.714(a)(1) because it had not given the parties notice that it M i h/,$@!?@El&WU@@%{.'flm 9fMd@W%S!.? .M
, intended to review the admissibility of contention 2C. Therefore, the Commission decided to provide " guidance" to the Licensing Board and 2%Y.TP( $N M:[
bMW wu+My remand the issue to the Board for consideration. This guidance consists of the establishment of a new requirement for the stipulated admission hfh<hh,57@,QyJ$/h%h of contentions. The Commission has now decided that before a Licens-A#,.e :QN r . . .. y m T. .~M. ing Board can entertain a late-filed contention it must first balance the Mkh,hN N?M.m4M$Mh~fG/,; factors in f 2.714(a)(1), even if all parties have agreed by stipulation to b ge Q M ' h. the admission of the contention.' This requirement makes no sense at r ~g.$g;@gyb .p g OM@/?i i fd5 .1. J& N all. If the parties have agreed to the admission of a contention, why should the Board also have to make the findings in i 2.714? Presumably, I hk 5 g.$ N % 9 d k Mbfkiid
; if the Applicant and Staff had thought there was a benefit to challenging admission of the contention, they would have done so. This requirement kid /W hM & hiih $ merely elevates form over substance. It also undercuts the Commission's policy favoring stipulations and settlements by the parties.
N h hbNkh,y Nh @S.% My $3s& 6 @ Y.f[' The Commission's handling of this case is evidence of an increasingly disturbing trend on the part of the Commission to interpose itself into W M'rk5%D $ N.f*p3 N M M*i b ; the adjudicatory process. In both this case and the Perry case (Cleveland 17f /g';
% W Electric ///uminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2),
CLI 86-7,23 NRC 233 (1986)), the Commission has been unwilling to 7d.1
%: %v s
- 1. g f. I The Commission attempts to portray this requirement as one which has always existed. The Commis.
g 'rg gQ y sion n!ies primarily on the language of i 1714 itselr which does not mention stipulations. The Commis.
't 2 L MMU @JM'.,T [y,, lw V Ja Y*pg-Q/.((N.p g
sion also relies on dicta in a case which was not factually similar to this case and which mas decided arter the Brandmood Board had accepted the stipulated contention. F' p.c a..,~s m
.$I k
..$w M+ f.'M h,e. U ,Y h'd : 21 3~ - ,
' m>
** \ 4
*?
4
, .v y;., . 'c..( ,
I 4 ! e e .- . . . . . . .~ - ~_ , . _ . . , , , , , , , , , , , , t . . w I
W%h0.hh'$ f'k N'kCMWndd%k l-h k h k k ihf(hk efd hhkh h Qtf%%W
?$kh%yh!$ $..$$ N @3% k$hhhhh j Nhhp %f*N$$hhY$py&t-4 n 3%:.&r%
f
.:,.;w- .;-. 4:n. . .:x. < e.c . , . , ; - r,.m.Y$ c .
, N Y $ k $.t.$$'NNY's.
w -
- v,.<: ., .
c.._ ,. . ~, ,.. s .. w: - ._ . ..
. , s m-
- - ' - '. .w;.z
- m .
- . ; ; L. : . v 7 ir -.m . -
w* 4- .-.w.a- -. :~ w.-~ - - ' . ' w' .- --
.> : .w w<
-. .uw >a- .: : . :.
cs~ J O. .% A-j' 4a- * . 3, i, ,' . 3 + 7e a t. .;# av 3
... u . p- .y .c. -
; , w. . , ,,
mm .' s rc . : 7. . ,y .w..sco3. : . . s
'0 await the completion of the normal adjudicatory process. It has been un.
O' ,$[. . %.p/:f'. j ,.M. ..N. .Q*Q. .M [.h.-(hhi( ' willing to wait until in due course those matters the parties consider to MM;:,. : 1 T * 'MN;M'W'is be still at issue come to the Commission for consideration. Rather, the
.YB F.'. %"A Commission has chosen to interject itself into the process out of turn.
g.gy,,; - q .f, ,a, wW!d.]v.,/yd.,#, g.-
'o . g.. g...g This is not only disruptive of the normal processes, but it demonstrates f!Me $ a lack of trust in the process and, more importantly, in the Boards who 9.' .".:Qth e.
, i M-
m,MM n*>. ,. 4,.J M
,4 p 'j.{
i tTe . .. ;+2 l
-IsM,,O f ifTh'y:d T )w , y:n
- p E. %
$@ w [M M 'd were constituted to manage the process.
2 -:i;m xasd.t sp L
..r rn r..ww *-(,'sgtv
** 4* *,F
+. . - . . ~
4.k.,@1w.kA3.,9 e, c
- g. ,
"g, ;t .,,;.W, g .' )*.s.i ..k1w*g; ,SW s p i,.D* , ,,:.le 3,. -r . . s. -
- g. > &e v.t.- ;m.a ..p,%p,' st. Fa, . ./.s. 4e,m.m. r.. .
. t o * <4 c.t - a p :.- ;
A ft/;
.v.
Q. W ~ .g ff ;p?w.
&.Q'
. i Y2,eYO
. WYkhq af & q h ,g nl'sz : W.. M *6'Q er~ m ;,'C% l..p?
m ,aw si C.),- w h pJ M"; .;.m Q. :vA<f'W} ... y .,dpC
~ .w., . : g . . .<.w
- a ;. .a.<. .m
'. ,. . . , ./.a w;yr ,p y
. ,:S.. . g.. ,,;.~.
. . . . . , . .->. w , m,+ .
a y .Q.* #. %..?s. - sQ r,:,,'s..Q'~,)i.M:[sa,% I )/[s...m.
..Y ,f.34h.>,.T- ..s- ,' y.'A , . .' ;iyM IT "*p; , ,J s : eN w* a.6 ,
am'.
% q. ,: , i 9*. e , , e. - . . , f ,1.g s
..g'.ll s: .: '
?~ *
, ' k f. e, . _4,.u.-
+-
' , f' Q 9g,e.7e n: f, ,, :. w.i
. . . 43 > c s
,3# . ? ?,'
. , - "' *+
i
.P5 %- ,
- _,
4 , , ,i '
.~
Qm., A *'.,,.. )t,
!-- h. -
* [ f *i -
o< rh 1...- *.*;y =,? 'c , ._- , , . > ^ 7 n.': . s t g
*Ahf'M.} >} ? -' , $;. -'
,f.?Q. :L's 6 .
i Q . i (, '.; ('hQ&, .y:
.m bIP '2.li .ge.tC )f M. gI s ,. [ ^ae5; 9 -
(O R,. -
', tQA 1 $p .4 'y$
W* y&Lh.QkC: Y$iYkl.hr,5 Q:?j b Uhj.f% b]{O*.^$< t p ' g4
'q$.
m p-'g ;na j/8h@*r4 M, :.N WlRf,C',*fp s *%;m C .s . . - Wi Myf"![c 'r, f e$g if., 7 yq
- /- .-' .
,s.s.[v..+.s M. ;.
..i,. t,, W,D. s.'.
% 4. ,;*'4. $ , -t 'm :,
4
. s.% y 1-4 g.,"+..
-; r.y'p. n g,p-* -.,< j
$ *..r+-i,k M. . , . :Q * '~ / 2-l'. 1.* /. 4'- n s
'g ef
,N.4,,. gs4 * +Iw..,*
~
t, ,e T** g W % .u4 4 ., t. 9 ; (' C.'81j.T.
.i..
- 9. A, * '
YhY.Y. f; u };.N! *f k' ; -
. %q ,Q, ,yp. .,q e g .m.O. ,N. . m&,e;#r:~ +W s' .
%J1#4 g'd' '.'..gne* , s ' E.w I
NMq4**g%'tM.,o.i *;r,,(*3'* sQ usm.gd 1 ?w wy.M f y "C* h ww w- b wM - in,t <% w, ,;r.*g. m b 7sy*fg ,.y':!.*m
. - h*A' ,-4 ? 3 -
L. ~ .y % .,,.... e >.y -p' ;. ' gj.r: f, .
- q. t 4 - p ;
c,.a . ,. 2 -
, ., w .g.c. .
b - r
')'
, .m ,
.s v<: -c, ., t 255 m
4 i
--*W.-** . 8
...-.ge6.e e e.m , e s= .gr r . - p.e . /p.- =. 9 - -
4 0 b l
. :~ . - . . , . . - . . - , . - - . . - - - , _ _ _ . . . . _ _ - - . . _ _ , . _ , , , , - _ _ - _ , , _ _ , _
I$ikkMhNhd[$5ikh$N5ka. M wA... p s,.c egm.W, gc
~
- 1. .. s..wsggd;W.
hi @.,~
- g. .
..;. s . . . ..
.?l%.
*?'e . ,
- ,, r n. - . -* A 4 4 ee 4 w . .. .. .- 2.* . ? - % . .ds ~. .e m#
a[ i e .-- 4-
".,, , , ;; r e i ,* -' y f. . n .
. . ., ..g
- . ,. 1 ,M. . g, 9
, x' a. .; .
a y
* ,~ <
.J . - N .. . g .. ', *. }
n .+. _ s .
._3
.) *f I*= )
. .c . -, e .
m,,.4 ,
', J' *. ..., ... .
,S'
. . ../.. . . . , . .
. f, a.., , . . . ,"'.,i.
4 5 c e -
* . *. s
. ... %. f : .
- }
. 4. m . .. . Atomic Safety and 6 M. . N. ..._OfM. + - C..e.f.:M-
.. .. . .f.. Licensing Appeal C
- g.. . ..;,.9 m: .g:y.?
cr, . ., . . .n - Boards issuances ~
.P.Q
_ , :. y [, :' ', .. , . . . :.. m; 2..
~
- ,% e;.;.. , .. :, . . . ... .; -
. . .n.
.F .
.,.s. .< , ~.. . . . < . . 1 :,.. r . . o,. .
- n .
.. 91,pQ s
. 2. .. ,
J. , ? ?. . ; .,; w;v - ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL Y , ,. .. t
.. s . . ,,. ., . . .
..i. .
- .., I
- t. . s r* Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman p y '; . '*',-- .,*e
;. Dr. W. Reed Johnson g
.'_A..- . ' , - .. -
Thomas S. Moore
- *' V>' [ .-
. ;; Christine N. Kohl eR:
a . - Gary J. Ed!ss
<. .s i
; , s m
l: Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy (L
- Howard A. Wilber
;> 'l 88 4 a 3 1
m )., .n f
. .> 4 .. : ,
.A-.,,,
. 6
. .(- e
,.e f p.
"- .< , - ga , ia
# I '#
.,,[-
.$ g a d
'M.,*
, , c S- - a y' *,k, u s .,.,.WF* *. v4,*, ,
< " . $. -s4, s_eb .3
.t 0
. .J.a,. s. mL b., , .p. .,4
. , , . ..%.. . .r. . V
+-s.?
,. ~ s : . .svv..sL-y O..-O I,h8 b ^%' .h . 3. w.
IO. e ( k l e l , C. '[,l '. ' .* . ., 1.^fi%'. ,
"Y'I
,' .*,y * - t -h
- 1I;# ,* ;
. ., .,3... ,e
. .. b * . ,. 3
,ta? (. ptc-cu , , . 's ,.
;,'. f * ~*e. ,,3 a
f , , ,
. .. * , / j , r g.y." v /
> s. ' e , a t
s ; .; I r'. * ., , g .
.b, s',
'(g ) ,.. I- ye ga y ** . +'4
- g. . .
a"'* .
W l
s t- t'..
-Cr * * ,- Sv. *. 6. ;*q i*.' #*~ . .
,, ., -s *' I
. .)
- e;V, . ,Q C T -
J .,1,.s. li ,'"s.2..q . ,[s..., ,*,\* * *?[ /p ,
$. g y* -
'"I,-
S U "N 'vg t g v . . s.: - p '3 h; E ?g 's"', ; y $ ) b D' ,,
'yN
><t. y.7cy;;n.,,..s.J : ,r;zp, y.. . .e >g .n .
.M.;#MM$sMJM,9_;~.,,,y.$}.,Q,);,
y.m ?}$N5 ' j* * '4 0 '} y ,,
. m'y ;Un : g 75 W y :'.p$' @ 3'.:* g % w m % Q p*
. . c. ,., * '. ,
- 5. , M.. . .,6 A.9. .-
;u M'
- 9, ENNYiY mt.s e1 1
..k '
f s..***) l 1l<% vf*'
%, .+' -)p, s.Ls :
3 ( ca . . n, . ' N',/ . ~'.' '%' '4 t .2 ' r r **13: Y .N' .,~g ~.
.>O (. ' c .3 -
k
- p J
e l n l 4 i i l l
'.n,.- .. -. - - - ~ - ~
h l
.q O wncmpw Nu%rc Wb.
- 5. y .=
..zpsp .s W6;ow::f.wC . O .
afn3= % v 5 gl M &%Q g& wg a~- M D: M :m; L Q.LQpmWW.fi.f-
& .y; 7p%;ef%,M t.
a N.,@., ^m&@W W.MW@;tMn%y?M:,,m;;;;y:: %%.W: %@&&:.??? - ... ,&fi M W% GWyi&;y;.y.n?;;.Wr.,.~ppyy.w:..
.9:% g$, g f:q M u%g :BW?.M
~ <
-w ..y . . . .
.,..1 .
ss .. j...;, .
...,t...
. _ . . _ . . .m w . . _... . .. . . :. .
. . . u,w o., m
- 1. .. m , --. .
ps.
.% ,o , - .
} *.A A F .1
(,
. , v.
_y. . '
- s. . .
. w-- . .
;..-o .,~...
t c.. \ s , , .; . , --g
..n >
n-! / . .;;.;,J. Cite as 23 NRC 257 (1986) ALAB 833
; , .' . .,.9. , .
fc;,;. y. y .3. ;.,. e. . . s . e.; '...:;
, ;.e , .. . .- .
[ . . . ,%.ut.v ;
- t. , ,.
o. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L.h@*Jfb i
-tc i 3
- N,, $;); * 'u*,fr. ',, ;'ae ,'. f . . I .
* . . ' :'. ." ';7;; , '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q:$pGN;- ; .' ' l ~y,'f,y y. .
;1: ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD l
y ',Y.f,' m,,.; .e . c;t
.+A....f.
?,L
- 4. 6 ..: N, 4.a e. , +m. ..,. .
%y.cge
%. p
,~.,.s. w .e ."s s .%
op,. - ,. m..a,. 4 ,,
,4 a'..a w e,
] , .
.r
;. Administrative Judges:
v . .. . , . .. . . Q. u&.n li_';t V *C. i?.. - %. .:; Y.'v.d.. >w my S .s. ,...z.-1 . ., Thomas S. Moore, Chairman %,~,r,g..M,. J. t
'tp. % (,
. f ..,.i ee:.,.s.
e g (+
.+
r;. .. ~.y.s w . . .. 'w.'f.ygF k... a.
,... . , ? ;* Dr. Reginald L Gotchy 4 y h.
p&,,. m a-a.1;v.uS/N,7:e.j;& - .PC Howard A.Wilber
- p. ;.h%. , .9 5..h. ' .,
s s ~. .
. .i".'.4.
% \ . , .. i(> ; . . . ,
. .. .. u.
%w*y y. ,y
.W ,a.x. ,p.*, . ; :: , . ..s..m. -- n.
s .. ,- . . t. .
.t.
Ad[$',iC , , ' . i i W ..-t In the Matter of Docket No. 50 352 0LA y g.g ;p. 4 .ep., ~ ~;-,. ~q ;, 4 ' ' . ' ; (Check Valve) p,wp .v -- L a... n,A,
. . 4.: . .,a. .
[C![3,
,! l b PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
'i - ,. ,
(Limerick Generating Station, fib M .u*a ., (: ~si, . - 4. ,
.. . p. - -
Unit 1) April 4,1 g86
- . c f !
_ ..k' gs g m, . - - .g . r
.v. . -
a k ,' ' . The Appeal Board denies the licensee's motion for directed certifica-
- f. y$. .2, . - . , a. _ ' ,> +
. , 2. tion of a Licensing Board ruling conditionally admitting an intervenor in
,d r',.h. ,n y;7 o .. ,, this operating license amendment procceding.
.v.
G u ' Q.e.- w',W8 1p Wi . &,}}c,, .. . :.W;r c Pp *
- fe.,UM.7@.'n*Q;..
- .:yM;;p.4: NI c
- v. RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERVENTION gfM, . ." .u.,
%.R m j _.
..%. f y. . , y.by Even
- 3.though ;wa.g late *. . . .seeking to intervene demonstrates stand-p t, r -t J'~;',3' ..s . 3',lf'? petitioner
'~
MIT. h .'Q& ing to be heard and good cause for being late, unless that petitioner,also DFf .- N .q.c, (.h;M. .. w .; ' O ' submits an acceptable contention, intervention may still be denied. Cin-cinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wm H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), W, - i n ; ;' '. ' i. s?;a',d j //pW...e6 :.E ALAB-595,1I NRC 860,865 (1980). BW:q,,R P M, ,$i@ '.n, f. %.aTP.: c. RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW f M hIdbhkM*f hh,,N/,yh The basic structure of an ongoing adjudication is not changed simply b ,% because the admission of a contention results from .: licensing board M*EMfgjdM%j.M ruling that is important or novel, or may conflict with case law, policy, [S.t.+::--w[hk, q; L --
.c. ;r.. 'Ih.~. * . .,
9; ,)y ~ > .1
.. i 257
.v.-y -
.a g
b
.e.. ne ' --- * +.- - * ** .3 *- = =* = * - .*- . * - "
sr= r
.i.
. M v.wm.Wm M wp :y.:;;.::'w s . n v.
.2
&qy'. .. .yb., a's.h" 1:tlW:>sMien.* ,6. x wr:N;m:/,W:+ 45?L. % 49 - @ 's %" x ,
;.+.Qi. % : . \ : .s wr %, .,y(, w..,;
t
- . W, .
,:' c;m. %mte:W:V v .i ,<. .
< .- r
..g...~'rs'. q '<* + p; g- :.;- /, -
>q.. ' ..'-
..~ :. py ,.-..,Y.r -:~ r.1....' <- *,u' : >,
e ,
.y ,'
;w y ; ' y * ~
; 34 5~ e.,. *
~
t, , . e ~, e .g. ,. ,. 4 T e,:
~
r
, j .,. ,m.._.__.
_ . . _ .m . .- . . . . . . - - - . - .. .. _
;Q. . ,,, -
~. ' ~ ; , .
.i m
I ', e.
%s ,
or Commission regulations. Similarly, the mere fact that a party must if. . , 7 4;J ' ' '
.' litigate an additional issue, or that a matter will be subject to adversarial Qh, ~.' ~ Q ' l', ' "
. exploration rather than staff review, does not alter the basic structure of
.-lp 7
- r. the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual way so as to justify interlocu-jp4
'. v tory review of a licensing board decision. Commonwealth Edison Co.
.y : .
.- #, .J, (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 817,22 NRC
@dd
# , ,. w; ' ; i ,
', 470, 474 75 (1985).
%g-/+, , , 7, . %; . -j ky.M,.$.;-[.,'. z. M. .< d.,~.Y.
i.: *- RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW T y y f;Pl ';, . j s' g.'
- r Claimed violations of the Commission's Rules of Practice, standing
-@?/Q: .i' . c. it alone, are not enough to warrant invocation of the Appeal Board's dis-Os . ^ 70 cretionary interlocutory review of a licensing board ruling. This is espe- .d@N.@.w$%,,e,'
.s.
I i st, O..,~fr./ (, :v
,. .* 4 Q @ . '
c. cially true where another remedy is provided by the Rules of Practice. s
- g. %. .:; u - ._. , . , .
, 7 : . :
.?
yg,,g ,' .h .ty [~ .w. f.Y,.' ' ' ' RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS
- 7v (INTERVENTION ORDERS)
[$g.:9g :r. sl:<.,7
, . f ', " I '[- P 5 The grant of a petition to intervene is appeal 6te immediately on the g %c;[.,P@{J ' , ,
question whether the petition should have been wholly denied. See 10 m A' : i. 4 C.F.R. { 2.714a(c); Zimmer. I1 NRC 860; Detroit Edison Co. (Green-
,1 * . . / '
wood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-472,7 NRC 570 (1978).
- m. - . .
- r. ,
- l n -
APPEARANCES 7[ g . ... .
. Troy B. Conner, Jr., Robert M. Rader, and Nils N. Nichols, Washing- @ M ' ., ~; .. .. , -
ton, D.C., for licensee Philadelphia Electric Company. e r:
%n.d.p ?'i,f.WA G .'w. W , %a +
;"i;T.%o .
, Robert L. Anthony, Moylan, Pennsylvania, intervenor pro se and for in.
.QN[h;?.i
@M.'%ic l
2
..%',7$ffTC.il'>p[de
-lr: g.>
- 2;j ?ESJ, n. 4 ~' ' ' d;Mb:.
).d tervenor Friends of the Earth.
lC .*;f :#:..?' s r .t ' . er ..
- y. 4;"
r s t.; c .,.: .?, Benjamin H. Vogler and Joseph Rutherg for the Nuclear Regulatory W.S.,,s ,,~#'
- O Commission staff.
,q s ';o .. e, w M; 2 :s
- p. ~ * ,. .* .. :-
a:
#e. .,. i .r'b.;i
. t' 7 f. - . '. ,
W% 92 w .% .2 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Q')h_d W M: W Q. x?yV: 4 #'L,'f wc, ? ..:h*~EQ *e.M QWeM:3 '.~,
. g+
N W W J.X / M. % pdm - @;.@3 % CW We have before us Philadelphia Electric Company's (PECo) motion
$$ [; f r directed certification of the Licensing Board's March 13,1986 ruling h.
.F hN. ', 4,s
.) / r* .J.
~w, 9'.5 :h.W*% p < .
v :.. . . ' < , y; _ ~. 4. > : - ' s . a h. i : j w 4 258 4 .
M*M :M f '$ $4 I E $ 3 6%dRS
'kM;hh.NNNb-DD[&yT" jar ~ w, ;,~
y N %., n s p,w4 y $.; r n,v M N.. . c ..,',4
= %- 4.? hc >w Na v-Jv ge ,od %)}kkN w'w y a N.hWWm.h- : Cdh M ~
Q;m: :f $f&%.SM.g@ ppt.?qf, NW$: $n' vYWSSQ. Y [ O Y , U T Y .YV $ 'E N f*%" ?i : u .,+.- ,. s >
'~ ,. , ' ~,
&' x.l - . . . . ~ . . _ n .- - . . _ _ l= n.. :.. _ ._. x.: , , .
x 4
. , ., f;p .f~
p- . v am.9. . p~mx. t. ., . . .
;-., / '
- _.-7E 71 y on Robert L. Anthony's petition to intervene and request for a hearing
-n 5 in this operating license amendment proceeding. That ruling conditional-Y.';."4. *4 ,
.-j]i.Qh f . M ,e f.c.d,y, ly granted the petition subject to the Board's later finding that at least
.. one of Mr. Anthony's proffered contentions is admissible.
i: ..
. -s
- , f.W W. This matter began on December 18, 1985 when PECo applied for an
" I SO: N ,.. r. ' .'NN , _' [.'
^'. amendment to its operating license for the Limerick Generating Station,
, p, . ' . . ,. f. .,7. .ns.. .9.p,, . . M.V i.:. v.
. Unit No.1, located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The amend-
;y, s ?g .M .i4, % .,.. . - ment sought to revise the plant's Technical Specifications to allow a one-
' N 2 .4 d ,.' $'l]'pz d.il . [, time-only extension of the interval between surveillance tests of the
- u. , ..y. .%s.y OyR Wc excess flow check valves in certain instrumentation lines. Such tests nor-
,q '~.,. 3 f. P f ,, mally must be performed at least every 18 months and only when the y J. W.k J .' . - plant is shut down. Under the requested amendment, the surveillance 4l$ ',::t,le's % m% @N g$ M' would be performed during a scheduled shutdown beginning no later
. h *.'n.7."; fE M G 6* M S M . than May 26, 1986 - a date some 96 days beyond the originally designated time for the testing. PECo sought the extension to allow con-
"y,M ,'/. % j g.; C MC,l1 tinued operation of the plant until the time other more extensive surveil-
-LJf.%%'//7]Y ~;
n.7 . .. g - , lance testing would be performed, and for which plant shutdown already W Mi.d'q . . fW%3d i i..lm
. would be required.'
4@cs. ,a $ s y p. ~ On December 25, 1985, the Commission published in the federal
- 5. . G,2 .d.F. , N l.,n .~ l . .,.
Register a notice of consideration of the requested license amendment.
*;1
.s , @ ._.n .. .<. y '. .
The notice explained the technical details of the amendment, the reason q.%. . .
. T. R G , - for the request, and the Commission's proposed "no significant hazards" determination. It then provided a 30-day comment period on
[-
, ' , yd i , . J. - the Commission's proposed determination and stated that petitions for
~ WM; leave to intervene and requests for a hearing must be filed by January
- . ,: s ._' , .y O, . , . . 26, 1986. Finally, the notice indicated that the Commission's proposed
...-' ' .c c. '
. JL .6< "no significant hazards" determination would become final absent a 5' '. A . M; @ JMJJ @c W .M E hearing request.2 On January 30, 1986, Mr. Anthony submitted to the Commission a
/I.NNNf",[%M$@hh '
eg' letter requesting a hearing on the proposed license amendment and seek-
@y' .@','h d s.%;g' $7hQpi! O i ing leave to intervene. The Chief of the Docketing and Service Branch Ay ~, 77,'? . g9 ,,1 declined to docket the letter because it failed to comply with the Com-
~y y, '
mission's rules. Mr. Anthony was informed of this determination orally
.u 3 ;g..;.,.y ,p7 n; p .
?g ..
;i, ":; .: 1. .
Sl1 y f.[Y M.#j.. ~I[. '. ~ ; M, % g.,f. . ? IfdFed. Reg. 52.874 (1935).
. C '.,' %f , ", l M Ill at 52.874-76 Under section 189at2)( A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 'd .?- A(N NO 4 s . _ JG.W*,e ',I I -
s U.s C. 5 2239(aH2H A). upon an imtial determination by the Commission that an amendment to an YhNhM[ % h y k'h y operstmg license involves no significant hazards, that amendment may become.immediately effective prior to the holding of any hearing required under the Act. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. i 50.92(c). the Com-4.YM 7%
@h f[Mp@@y#hN, o
- c. by dM eh gf - misson may make a "no sigmGcant hazards" determination if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
lhy [fPSN34Gf8Dg
* *. t' S ,,- u
%,w."v M / MMWAM4 .[ g y %c dpN'1>$
. . .s.;q yrdyf..;.l p W W JC et f.a'.e . . t ,
( " 3 "' '" ' $ 8"'6" '"'" i" 'h' P' b*bi'"Y ' evaluated. or
"S"'" f *" "'id'"' P"'i "Y (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or
,[t
.,a<
.[g ., . tM. 5 h* j p q .g;'
.TR; s yQS
< 3 .S - a .
'.%'?',' (3) Insolse a signincant reduction in a margin of safety t .
,t .
- , 259
. . 1
., . .. - - . ~ -, -,
- . .)
H y 1
.y - . -
u +dPWfM.3%%
,.y+ vp r.$ %.
d k A M M?. Od.~ysu, 760gm 2 M $.g M.g g .y'.9 7 O % W;E.t.V + M.W.g.n.>% r.y . v .. - WW.. -9. S w:.w:&wf,Mm W.qua W- ~ .: $.s! , p % Pata. ity?dM . . i,% W,7 ww ' ' e 4,. .
- 3. ,g
[, . U As*m"'~ s **~ E'.L "* ~* I A "* u%N '***""'=-..~'~~A* A=~-' *~ *~ m% .
,.7U.a s ,- . .
#^'
7, , qt ;, g . w . ,
. x. ,.4
..:u c.4 ,, , Q s * -
t .. < W> on February 5,1986, and in writing on February 6. Thereupon, by a S.M',./ 7 . 2 , pleading dated February 5,1986 (and received by the Commission on M. M.-fw s a'7 n
.. ,, ,1 $. $sdwk. M February 7), h!r. Anthony submitted an amendment to his January 30
> 1 &..,;.+,. ,,
..<. . . .. i W,.P ,. des letter, which the Docketing and Service Branch accepted and referred to h y .. . Y [
- C. g. M U the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel for consideration. In the h[ J i; . .
interim, on February 6, the Commission issued the requested operating
'QJ,: 4 ;r.,c . , '.fM9firc4.fr M license amendment. Unit No.1 of the Limerick facility is currently
;g.pw
+
x
- n. ,
. #. ,. m..
. n ..sm f
n wAM.3 operating under that authon.ty. d,rum,B%...*s, n:. &,.,,s,.w..eg,
,;;s %.w an 4%. Both PECo and the NRC staff opposed hir. Anthony's intervention
.W d. y.,.*-
,N M a 2 %'w,c TW %
petition, although not on precisely the same grounds. Taken together, they claimed that he lacked standing to intervene, his petition was un-nn
.',NMg.~,' jnJ,t. ,il d,7; p Rpa*: yf ,e W ; w~ 'w , fs,G, r.w timely, and his asserted intervention interests were not within the scope .[.
m .a p.lci. w - a A./ p * :. g::m: W w; w w of the notice of opportunity for hearing. ggf DQy,ty , yyn The Licensing Board considered hir. Anthony's submissions of Janu-4 ary 30 and February 5,1986 as making up his intervention petition.) yl 3hl}Sh[ Mf[/.M@dg@gy
'.fiq Zh ;-M.
, Despite the fact that in his petition h!r. Anthony failed to address the r
, .y&. .. x;;.! g. :. p . ; ,.,. y..m.
. . . A n2g , 7.y. live criteria in 10 C.F.R. { 2.714(a)(1) that a late petition must satisfy, me c g. 3 , '. ? W the Licensing Board concluded "that the petition should not be denied 0%Q N ;6%.M'.h .fM.hN on the grounds of tardiness."4 The Board also found that h!r. Anthony's G, . 3 1 '
pQQh' petition satisfied the other " threshold requirements for admission set
, ;M~ F 1
^%, -
,m. &. g .. - C out in f 2.714."5 The Board then scheduled a prehearing conference for
$1>..
l d;% hfarch 27,1986, to consider, inter alia, the admissibility of hfr. Antho-Tf~ #'
,z
- yy ny's contentions.*
#. 'l' , M ' .i ; ' On Starch 19,1986, PECo requested that we direct certification of the
~
, ^
,WJ W] '
Licensing Board ruling, in short, PECo argues that the net effect of the ruling is to create an amendment proceeding where none would other-
, m. ,. Z.a wise exist, and that this circumstance clearly meets the well-known re-C. v- _; n W.._ , ._. . .$ '- quirement for directed certification that the challenged ruling " affect [ ]
pM(, T the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual
. j Q.y. :Mk@$ ,, . . lo; Q Qg Q q%Q, manner."' hir. Anthony opposes the grant of directed certification as-
$. hh.}.<g p setting generally that the Licensing Board's ruling is fair. The NRC
@ @N74 N,is .
4 gc$ $ .4((g @3*g staff, on the other hand, takes the position that PECo's motion is Q pt : 0 t
.; V ' t g , p premature.
Z g. < ~ . , C , ?.: .4 PECo's motion for directed certification is denied. The motion is y pc.,y, ,,,, .,^,j.' , s. 5 Q We.pN.
. m - s. s.y premature because the Licensing Board's hfarch 13,1986 ruling did not m M. . .. .. ,
- ,,& .z '+L , n .gm w?.i; q / E have the effect of admitting hir. Anthony as a party to the proceeding.
.m. s t cy.r}. , .
- C.* %[k q r -Q %
&;,Qup > W.*. t' N, s4t$9hh$ V jMM,M ' Ml %
3 s,e Lap.s6-6A. 23 NRC 165.167 0986).
$dBh.p $#M -
4
- u ai i69.
3 'M*1 rY*$ YMd.:f[h% - dit $} .a 7PuNe Servre Co. of /ndrana (Marble mil Nudear Generaung stauon, Units I and 2). ALAB-405,5 N';:
' 9_,p7 g .g NRC 1190. I192 0977). ,
W 1..A '..(n J. W; gp.@g,g)..
..4., . .qq w m; g wg. .
g
.-<d . . , . -
?%.,,i- *
~ y.Q? ~- -
' y.;;
g ij 260 (* p~ , . q 4
.. u. _ . _ _ . ~_
j. t 0 4 %
. _ , .,_.,a
. , . , - _-,..-m.,. _ , _ . - _ , , . , _ . . _ , , , -. - _ , ..% .,
/.amw%.yy.gpm n M~.;.mu:. ,; . . . j gw 7. .-.: mag y,,..y 4 , 9 p.M.p a m.a;;O.aW,'y.ybN u,s f, . h. ., n. .d,n+w'*: g:,.w M,, .:a, e.,y%y ; w.p, e3 .,,.,Q . W~ y h, . e;e ,r: * , . L. .:.;. ",, ,.;..:Q,nw ,R;:ing.yr.9
. - nn . G.:..'m .. yo.
. k<n.
n'..n.,. m : n c
%a w . ..~ . ~-
,. e
.wt > ,,. . f. n. 1 yv, p.,,,upnn.a. . . a. n e. . ? ._q. m s ,: q+ %m ..
. m.Q .g.-
m
,.p.om<
, w.3 , . .. g .%. c ,.g~ <m.
c -p
.f
. S
- y. . .~ .
;; pp c
.a. .+ -a.. . w ...._ .~. .. . . .. - ... . .. _ .; . .- ,
. . . .- :1
' c '
6- . .
- . 9.x: Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, Afr. Anthony cannot
'y
. .g', - gf ' ,
. , become a party to the proceeding until the Licensing Board rules on the
, , 9' ., i f admissibility of hir. Anthony's proposed contentions and admits at least M. . .i. ' .b. ' .i.; .S .t one of them.' Until that happens, there is no adversarial hearing and i,d ,q. '
. PECo has suffered no real harm. Indeed, if the Board finds none of h1r.
; Anthony's contentions acceptable, PECo's instant complaint will be f.p[f, ' O .' .
' Yf- ,)j moot. As we have said before, "even though a petitioner seeking to in-
" 'gN)@Q f$ M . E ,.' 'i.ig , ,. @ } tervene demonstrates standing to be heard and good cause for being
.g,p.,r.y! , .gjgN 4. c 3,; , 4. late, unless that petitioner also submits an acceptable contention, inter-gg. /. w. - 3.. 7,;.: .,; ,. g..n eq '
- vention may still be denied."' Thus, even assuming PECo's complaint is w o + , ,
.g :m< ., . N, o7,. . . , . .-Y. .- i.u r :. meritorious, PECo should have deferred seeking our intercession until M
the Board granted intervention to Afr. Anthony.
. $'. .e.
dT.f;j9 7, c , i . ., g ;M.. j.:M U( Even putting the timing of the instant motion aside, we note that the W, @d~ w.s Q .g>; N.,.,'3.
.. . u Q ifM Licensing Board's ruling would not be a strong candidate for directed
@Qg F '. ,4i5 a?.;'t."
,,.:.~ .
' q.l.
s certification. The gist of PECo's argument is that the Licensing Board's Fev -
.;t..'. ruling violates the Commission's rules and precedents. But as we said .g.
n y .- j,~. &~.4-
.., .,3' .[~ only recently, - Q. g s' t l, y, e q 4, _
{,..g !j. .* gj [' " 1 . , , j .fh - [tlhe basic structure of an ongoing adjudication is not changed simply because the admission of a contention results from a licensing board ruling that is important or 9ND./e . , ; -r s W;t 's '- a c"IM. 3/.% -
'., novel, or may conflict with case law, policy, or Commission regulations. Similarly.
-"? %. . .s e
- - * ' ' ' the mere fact that a party . . must htigate an additional issue, or that a matter will
.O
[' [ , ,, be subject to adversarial exploration rather than staff review, does not alter the
' ' basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasise or unusual way so as to justify inter-5 '
; .9
~
s locutory review of a licensing board decision.'8 q
~
Simply stated, claimed violations of the Commission's Rules of Practice,
/
standing alone, are not enough to warrant invocation of our discretionary
;Y - Q, . ,
[% #[' interlocutory review of a Licensing Board ruling." This is especially true yu 3 ~ m, .. 9 .** 5.9::a 7
"9.,,
=
a , .'.. ; q .,A' ,d = N ? -W .6 ?>:..5 5 .&.- a i
. fabu, ,
% Y<ph 3 7N Wl'15 w f%,M f. )} EJ..t. =5'. '. 74,3@5 m h
%d)W 7%.Wv Q; AQ.::y-GAQ( :p Ty ;.*.j 4
, g 10 C F R. 6 2.714(b), (s).
7Q(if 9Cmcmnari Gas and Electre Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station). ALAB.595, ll NRC 860.
.yLf n a Q , . '-f-J 7,p&ga * ,
. 865 (1980)
.. .a ,.!J/.., '7 g . i .' /
10Commourali4 EJaan Co. (Braidwnod Nuclear Power station. Units I and 21. ALAB.817,22 NRC e . [ I J ' . ". . .! f. T w . , '.V,? J 470. 474 75 (19AS) (footnotes omated).
.P '4 > ..,'s.~, n i a ', The licensee takes pains to point out that, in this caw, the result of the Licensing Board decision may
+ 's 'i. .,y- nR' ,y/ fi be the " initiation of an adjudicatory proceeding which otherwise would neser take place." Licenwe's b(J
- ' + ' '6 M'. Motion for Directed Certification cf the " Memorandum and order Rahng on Robert L. Anthony's Pets-
- d. D ,.7N< [d C g tion for Lease to Intenene" Blarch 19.1986) at 3 4. 24 Although this factor was not present in Br.nl.
y(OM N "O ' T /. . g; - ( J' y . ' ' ) . f, ft wood, the difference is not significant. It may be true that interlocutory review of the Board's ruhng IMhU@jM[y.f fM,4 P. u'.@M9 k,J might obstate the heanng completely. The same consideration would be present, however. had the t.'s C 1%?;M5.M,$[M Q%fh d$Gfk[*[ Licensing Board wrongly admitted, over objection, a timely intenenor. Certainly, in that case, it could
.7p M k d
Q4 not be argued successfully that directed certification would be warranted. See hermia Electre and fower Co. (North Anna Power station, Units 1 and 2). ALAB.741,18 NRC 371,376 fl98D. Quarme Duke Q .k O N ge h[*[@:S pi4 'bh*
%T m;KM(.Q - - h'g Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear station. Umts 1 and 2). AL AB.687,16 NRC 460. 464 (1982), vacated m part on other grounds. CLI-8319.17 NRC 1041 (198D).
'%Q[g[5M'Ef8.MQ ,Y.* jm,N
, k ] (;9 rM ;('T N [M.>@ 11 But ser Brantwood. 22 NRC at 476 79 (Mr. Moore dissenting)
%y .M; Y g>&n pw ;.- 93 . ~yx> 3.r t w yw y.., A;,a m
., , s t
,r.. .
! 261
,a e-
.l q
.+ ,v, -
sh Ih ?Q!rts.
. .. YY ? N 'k AIA's h(Mgi.;M W'Mf fny%p4At~.U,W$*Q%.WG:.W*@fW '~ '>r
# f .W '
'SA y .e, .n . ' m.m "
%:W%2%, .
..% G$vJl'.w
..:t. = '
*xthF?? Y%,NmeN EMWW*
4~.Mn-N- > l':" ,*,
* ~' ' '
- T"
.A, , l , f${ ;. _, -
- s
- G- .~. .m ;j
- 5.' 3 . ,
7.g , %, , Q - . . -,t .
;m ;.;_ _ , _ .. .. .
3._ , _ . . . _ ,, _ _ ._. . . , _ ca. .
- fWQ. w w .-u :/-
t
... + v. ...... . :;./.:.;..z y
., xn . -
p; ,.i . ;c; : . 9,. .: w.; 7WF?W: . hMW#.f where another remedy is provided by the Rules of Practice, as is the
&, . : ..n
,f.. . .}[g; pWg.m. w.W <#@.$q%'k . _..W .eua case here.
.a.. ,< 6. M.-M @, ;
4 .
- c. g % 4 Y.hNM e.,
y. Should any of Mr. Anthony's proposed contentions be admitted by
,;4a QY@p,ffh7M[M$[id the Licensing Board, PECo would be free to seek our review of the k'J.~4.f3 ;.G e'
n'MSXM$$M3 Q % That section provides that, "[aln order granting a petition for leave to in-grant of intervention to Mr. Anthony under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714a(c)." Mmp!.M',;d@hd?np$w$$p% ytk.,;df, C uA M.*~! p yq. .IM tervene and/or request for a hearing is appealable by a party other than 2; mh6 the petitioner on the question whether the petition and/or the request W,8#.dj@f.fM;r@,83j.Q(, 87N?SOeYh 2 for a hearing should have been wholly denied." Contrary to PECo's as-sertion that the Licensing Board's intention to attempt to complete the
.,':j@ihYe@$h)SO$M'M.W.)'5IM.k Nj.Md:h 8M, Mhk,k68.iM ~
proceeding b fore the May 26 scheduled shutdown renders an appeal under acetion 2.714a impractical, such an appeal would offer meaningful Q Q M BM W@2iM*gadh @}$@fS.8hg; relief. In light of the Licensing Board's stated intention to proceed on an
$5$.: $$j 4% $ expedited schedute, PECo may file its appeal immediately upon the is-W. dIWWMi.M r;$@rt r suance of any Licensing Board order accepting one or more of Mr.
Anthor.y's contentions. At the same time, PECo is free to request that
;g.;SM$ fM;Q K .M% d3/MC';
f% db. & ff Q Q, W @M) M the schedule for responses to its brief be expedited if there is a basis for such relief. Because the principal issues in such an appeal likely already M. wop pM 4 k $$' j @$h, R . %g w fy. have been addressed in the directed certification pleadings, there does A. c. ,,1c;M g,s .,R.m.:.t M '.d::.ty not appear to be any obstacle to such expedit. ion. V
- p. e, <M,q-e;ei; A lMyA.@g The motion for directed certification is denied.
y , . % p* p. R %m.o-Y. . , It is so ORDERED. 2'..
o . v. c
- e n-
< , ; . . Cf .;x- 4 h<. :'6 3
g.,: ,' . FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
. uL , ,, nr .;.
>- - , w. ,s. : 3: ..c. x ~x c,
. r i - M(e, 1-
,n W .~,.. 4 W ws 4a:w e. s. A / '
T C. Jean Shoemaker
. A' rq.m vtmNggj - a, +s, - mA; A.. a.m.ml.F m a ."
o&m m ~2- Secretary to the 4 nq w hkgh:*:ddh,ibp$'yNY d pL,A w . .," * , t"j Appeal Board p .. .p.P..a, k.p . .. , .
. Q ./, cf. N ! t , ay
'$h.?$ ; 7 w;:hk,? YY.,f ;
. T-UT; .<k.f, MY W::
- a. b sy f':;'. M Wlg a w c. .~,' .i .@: e;+% . p;y..'.
m. g,.,e ,h, Ji.A..e -,h,. ', f,,Q .'r n- a ., 4 v w.1.
-i, t, % ' 7n >
w-c .*
- V '-%*q; ? M_.,
y m, :<
- v'..
1ep . o yG .
' $NOl," kM M' h:L f)4NNN >/M $7gMMhM$fr%.
Al r . M[:h.%d[%. -&W:k ~?: g; $'n. .s h yy; o.e n c @ ,; s, ,- -g
. ,A .
MM Cf',;c r:3 4 % ? EW .Ca , T> .m/.
+q
(( , / . .
.- N q:: g:w.ru
.,u U eeS Zimmer. Il NRC 860. De<rmt EJsos Co. (Greenwood Energy Center. Units 2 and 3). AL AB-472.
7 NRC 570 0978). t .?-rr O;* ~. N .n2, ES. Vffb^.l' .
- 4
~
~ ~
f:.(L). . , 262
- m. ,
. e > t -e.. t J
'mpa;pM.* ,,aw . M4pfp e+.g~is7.a g,;Ry,gMgYM?f@ 39u M W4;J # e.; ...o%, ~. , . . , MAS &.A.
e nm.g.: i - r .
,f w r.W R.y p m:q,J &:f f WiQ C Q. mQ c:.R.,&.'gGW CM+%w.
- m. -m. m
?%bsk .n v.n 4 t4~? & .4 s '.pQa yL*C' n.o. . ' W,~ vl< Y, '
h.;.yNjAM.i LQ';lA4 L' % gi hc3I [ h E [ f ~ ) h h M f'[jh [ N $ il h W A ' Dv2.N ,y0Q ;['.; .,
, . .i'[ -:g: M o -
a
*s.
T
~s
, . . ,.w.' .
,,4
,=.;.',.z.. .a t
- r. . - . < .
~.,,.a...
,.j>
, [.
a
..> ."1
... . . . , . - . ' ..:- ...f,Jc,1 Cite as 23 NRC 263 (1986) ALAB 834
. . ,7 .-5 , ,
%.: ;.. 4,
&". ;., .w
.. 3 t
..,c.F'.(: ., , . . ? Q ~ '. j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. ,s . '. t.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, ?.c. .. + , ' - -,_.s..
. R.~.,*J,]
... .y .
.. * , ,n.
.e
. -e.
. .( $ g ...y . @ .a'1,.-$e/3
- 4. Q @). ,. D /. N .T ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
... +
+
.. m e d. le/p;
.,s.,.
. '; W,. - .--+ .. .% .,. .,.,. n. .u,< , , . < v-. . ; . r"
- u. t . ; N c . ;. e
/- j,c.;* h 8 n '
g. 5 -**. e p(gg 2,- .
,i y;.r.l', g' % m.g.ph .;;>%"Administrative . Judges: ,, m. ?
A
,a ,'i K[, ;* *. O ' ' G6,@h ; . $- K4g f@ gy; :. Christine N. Kohl, Chairrnan
. . . .y, , ;. . . :;a . ,
, .s . Gary J. Edles
, .. .M. . .
y/M,[h..,T]Op.j,/*S u
.,,.1. a[D,
.. .S .
l lp,7f
% ~L s, g.q g,,;.a.
.a
&g M*c , s %., y@n.3 ., . Dr. Reginald L Gotchy
. p W>:;. . ;.. : y e ?.h a
, . - p .m .
,a ~y , :'
c j,,h.. g ;:. \ ' k .
.- i. 0. : , , .
.7T,L ; . !. p. -!$ C in the Matter of Docket Nos.50 352 OL
. N; ? (~p, i, .,. ,. g
' ./<l..l:#f;$'
- $y-pi
.m. . ,. ,.. ; . .
50-353 OL
*. 3
+ .
-s > '.c, g...s4_.g. k.;.~?. .,4 ,.
f ;,.!
. 0 p /4 g!Q' ..
PHILADELPHIA ELECYRIC COMPANY
. . . i .S, n *; n~"; (Lirnerick Generating .3tation,
- , s
'7 Units 1 and 2) 4ril 9,1 g 86
. r . : ~
,.I ;
F
, ,, .a i' >
The Appeal Board denies an intervenor's motion to reopen the record
. n......,,s l. * .'..;
. and introduce a new contention in this operating license proceeding.
. og, c.O
.ss :,0 w g !u d gy4; h m .,H y%;4 -
.n.r&M%w%e.
# M V M M M M M S; -
""S ""^ " " " " " "" ""**
?! ON9 To prevail on a motion to reopen the record, a movant must demon-4.M' t, 1,cQ.//y q,% .Upf i.hM.W. 7 p,i '< .hj$@':*-strate that (1) the motion is timely; (2) it addresses a significant safety
~ '; or environmental issue; and (3) a different result might have been g ...Z ij ' ,5 ,
1.p !
..c r/ 'i,'n].'?.M, ;', . S . - reached had the newly proffered material been considered initially. Loul-siana Power a Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),
7.Mf d M i l '3'!N. 5 ' M6
.; t ALAB-753,18 NRC 1321.1324 (1983), review declined. CLI-85-3, 21 7,7 N..j.f'. y. 7. ? %., ,.' g .a . . .. n*JP ?M . - . $N N...MMM. .. . . ,Wp NRC 471,473 n.1 (1985). The most important of these criteria is wheth-kk ((MhfQD$$hh er the motion raises a significant safety or environmental issue.
s bbh W '.0! t d Ap N .sh N t
.j' p. M , k ALAB-828,23 NRC 13,19 (1986).
$@5 i .i;w.3!%,.?.Qh'%M
. hQBq.w:. %
q Cyl.j s .g. ;;r.:'e 1\ c; .
- +:.n'.
3 yy.. w.
'o'.. st
. n "y r s ~
- l. V ,,,'
- j. ; ;
^
263 1 I
- . - . . -. . - n.
I N%kIM Mid d h N f[f[fh h h hk5$[k),ih h r T h iniM T;E M Mk@N N?WWN'W"W^'"MW6%c/ [gi3 & M G M [ dM%M d$ W 5 h;/ M[k6 h ?#N [?f MMWM
%. e ~ ve.xA$:: . w:. n ..
$W - .m. , , . .
%M l C' L dd -~ l - -- - --^--" " -- - ~ - *
.Ce. ,w:. . ,y,m.. e..m-'.e,,
5_ "
' ~
.,;r.4;;2:: w 'f: r
,w 3Q q,a, , .
MQ7bw %gp;qy, W .l.::s: M*,MtMM35hM;s.W.6; vfdary;.mvs.s. , ; ... ...- .5' - APPEARANCES c ne w - g/ g%y.,n. W M, b"3%psMr . amvr*J' ww#.m;% W8 W@; M. m w s.w ;3 h'sv m"a '-.. . M N 4Frank ' ' R. Romano, Ambler, Pennsylvania, for intervenor Air and 0 MW qW NV Water Pollut. ion Patrol. h,A? a [Jrf,.tJ w,N 'f'-9*7.u , 9 **; v.c- VW WQ p '.M.p; .Pigm.@eg. t 7.c W.1". dM .. ..v % . w.ng ws W.;N rn 3w Troy B. Conner, Jr., Mark J. Wetterhahn, and Nils N. Nichols, Y; MD1dy' Washington, D.C., for applicant Philadelphia Electric Company. T
)
b .h'.&
~4 - .
!.377)y@#'k w
$M% *.NdhN.N NA q 7-ik.,:yi n.
f'*@[.[?*%^ Ann P. Hodgdon for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. sy2R8l&wa
.ww% % W$8l$@}; .N. .. m m n g n ya._p n pvx MEMORANDUM AND ORDER b
4 T W'f4td p;9 dF ..tNWp%n ;nM 2 Q g;S We have before us a motion to reopen the record filed by intervenor W.m.re fr@wMD #-% L.% k m,c,- IN M,hDh9Nf:( MMEii
- b.NsM,ss6.n.nxo! ,
Air and Water Pollution Patrol (AWPP).' As explained below, we deny the motion. To prevail on a motion to reopen the record, a movant must demon-SMh. N i$ bhMd strate that (1) the motion is timely; (2) it addresses a significant safety or environmental issue; and (3) a different result might have been T DD PN'8% MIE M N.g g g g g g g f y re ched had the newly proffered material been considered initially.2 The kM[it)WhgNyDW
- yQh ' ,
most important of these three criteria is whether the motion raises a sig- , M M Z Q g G yki W nificant safety or environmental issue.$ AWPP's motion clearly does v~ M not. That being so, the motion fails and we need not address the other dsy.,:21D.w'W:gse ]g. $'. ' two criteria.
/ 7 cE
.-qi y. %.9e q.7; ' y@. :kf mQ. g.g.cgisg.%y "
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established maxi-WW 7
@.hs .,4 mum contaminant levels for certain radionuclides (e.g., radium-226 and nM=W7~5W.u.pM.F4,
. rp.
%&a%n..26R* y+4 e y.t.o.,.M.. . MS3 N#pM other alpha emitting isotopes, and radium-228) in community water sys-tems.' At an earlier stage of this proceeding, AWPP sought to in . troduce a contention alleging that neither the applicant nor the NRC staff had ad-i F)%fekMWY, %/Afc f
% HW Mf W $$b.'$T.C equately considered the potential release of radium-226 and other alpha DNMM 9[Ni h/M.'/,/ M f 1, h % h /[M M E*'
n: 'h*R :.5 % w 7 emitters, and radium 228, from the Limerick facility.5 AWPP suggested pf f ;'y.E},A ,y,>Q 1 q$,'yf;[ lh *[.? 3 , * ; r *'.1
.U* s,.'*". m^*.m "*
s4 , . ( # m,t J J ' *
-4
. :. l .Dy d, t > %j=M'.;K. 0Q D. iS[MW' .M. M : I See Air a water Po'lution Patrol 1%fotion to Reopen) (September 27.10856. A% PP riled the motion I kt'.did-M. nee / h/n% 4 ff O MW: s'. with the Licensing Board. Because that Board had already issued soeral partial emtut decisions resolving hS.i W.g.yg.%
'C"
,A M uW[FN-M C.yg all issues in this proceeding. it referred the motion to us. Licensing Board Nonce of October 4.1985 f un-n N #[M(.h,)M.u@d.I'sM published) See Verromoren Edson Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear station. Unit No.1). ALAB-699.16
.;h%
N RC 1324,1326-27 (1982).
. ' [ Tf h JM 2 Lomsena Power & Ler4r C.a (waterford Steam Electric station. Unit 3). ALAB.753.18 NRC 1321
.*. Q- e . .N W w? @ 1324 (1983).rrva w dedmed. CLI-85-3. 21 NRC 471. 473 n.l (1985).
$ o ,
ALAB-828. 23 NRC 13.19 (1986). pM t O*'*Mgqd,r,st My4. QN.:. ,p. Ah, gY m, J AM' *Ng,. s 4 5 Scr 40 C F R. 4141.15 (1985). New AwPP (Romano) Contennon re Gross Alpha Uune 26.1984).
*WG*Mk'-W N%s?
(?? *kCh.N'q,~,,'@N.(7'}$$,[:
' & y 1; W
, f .' i 4
s < .
- a. 1 c ; .. . 264
,. w -
w
"'..x. -
1 e
b%. . ua- ,3.: M,QO . .w -6 s..Mwm:.W m % W: M N A w.;c f- s,c g .Lg L ' .. :z. m p+. .3 . f R/.,yMpy M'M+.f' +w hW W ss; I'Qig.3,;y: 1.G. M,$c. G u 4 ;H'd,%d W .y a; %+ 2.'W .V .$:} }Q @M p d,-@7'y? ,g
'i
..+ny'Q_p 0.m.
T. . ,f w
, - _a . : m _..._. _ ._ . . .. n; 1 . , _ ,
* ~
i ,
~
.; - that these radionuclides, presumably if added to those occurring natural-
." ". ]4 ly, could result in exceeding the EPA standards, thus requiring the clo-
' ' - * , :.? * ; , sure of many wells, particularly municipal wells within 10 to 15 miles of
*"."...,.'-.1
- ~ '
the Limerick plant.
' ~
%- The Licensing Board rejected the contention. It essentially concluded
- h<.-*' .
, " . . N. C . , , .?,Q . ' 'c. ,.,$ j ',
that the Limerick plant does not release the radionuclides mentioned in E' < I; DI' the contention, so that the operation of the facility can have no bearing
.sa N .v2.c'. u. L %. ; , GO b*@.....@(,
. .. - on the maximum allowable levels of these radionuclides prescribed by ~
( < n , e '.7 y . f . 3 A .' i the EPA regulations.' In reaching this conclusion, the Licensing Board
.'. p q '; g.y [.Q indirectly referred to the Limerick Final Safety Analysis Report
' . . .p' r c ifi,.n3' t 3.p i .
.w ..
(FSAR), which indicates that radium-226 and radium-228 are not
, , - ' , a, ., C.m. m : -a. g. <M W , .
among the gaseous or liquid efnuents that may be released from the Limerick plant.7 AWPP did not appeal the Board's determination. s s 9 j;;sM ,' .NF,M.i ,- ,qn,.f' y ( ": i f AWPP's motion here renews the claim that emissions from the timer-
;y ~ g] ; ' ; </
- t"n
, ick plant could elevate the levels of radium-226 and other alpha emitters y ... 4 @j .,: or radium-228 in the drinking water supply. In support of this claim, AWPP now relies on an August 16, 1985, letter from the Pennsylvania
, v .'if . ',
,. ';A +
/. s~
l3T j y, " Department of Environmental Resources, advising community water
- -( ";
- . ' ' . F
. i.J ' suppliers of a change in the monitoring requirements for these radiologi-
+j. cal contaminants.' But nothing in that letter suggests that the Limerick
{ .->* ' facility is contributing to any radioactivity in the drinking water supplies.
' ~
~ ' Nor does the letter or AWPP's motion to reopen contradict the Licens-
,y- ' ing Board's earlier conclusion that the Limerick plant does not release the radionuclides that are the subject of the motion and the recently changed monitoring requirements. \. loreover, the Final Environmental f.',. > Statement indicates that radium-226 and other alpha emitting radionu-
-..s,. [ ,.f ' L...I cN;?
clides, and radium-228 are not expected to be released from the Limer-w W.. ick facility.'That being so, AWPP has not demonstrated that any signiG-
, e'/.M.*q,%'u%g w'fW M M @ ;.jy. @ % Q. f ,4,:hB cant safety or environmental issue related to Limerick is presented by n v ; 1, v.,
y,f'.3,.: w ,. s g; Ugr:y.:
< , ,3 . y ...
' ., , y * *L s ~. - g,g:pl ?q,
* :;*. ?_ ,s ,
, ' l.? ,'
',,.2 i - :
,,+g,'-(:*,'w
* * . A. , - ,
,j,. *
, ,. ., ir .~.v
" .- * * , 9;
, , , ,, g 3 ,
. .Y % 7 ,y y p i ,%
/ .[. [i 6 Licensmg Board Memorandum and order or August 24.1984 (unpublished) at 1416
\ [r[a . *d'.*e . f. (( N[ ,*k br ?;%f 'j .
7M at 15, cdurg Applicant's Answer to New Proposed Contention by Air & Water Pollution Patrol
?/h ,y/p > p,,$1 ,glep Relaung to " Gross Alpha" (July 10.1984) at 7 n.13 Sec Limerick FSAR (Rev. 3) (March 1982).
'Nj1*@3N$p! .N *jgMe .[.glJ,{ Table 11.211; Limenck FsAR (Rev.16) (January 1983). Table 11.31.
./ , ". M '[tD f
N(ii Mh.*.i 8 Sec Letter rrom Fredenck A. Marrocco. Chier, Division or Water surpl.cs, Bureau or Community Environmental Control. Department or Environmental Resources. Commonwealth or Pennsylvania - C, q; .
.{;,O[g.7 -
- <. fx .M Q',7'./- ;y,7,M,M
.da j: A:^Oge f August 16. 1985). appended to the NRC stafr Response to Air and Water Polluuon Patrol's Monon to
,4 / ".h, .'[ I
.,'!* % '.y'9,4s k* /
Reopen the Record (October 22, 19,95)
' NUREG-0974. Fmal Environmental statement Related to the operation or Limenck Generatmg sta-
*'D' f
. J i4
. . non. Units I and 2 ( Arni 198al at D-4, D-7.
- i. 1
- i 9
j 265
.o - .w - . , . . , .
*bk h . Nhb h thy .S b )I Ms h% B .G4 4 . # M[h WWW
..s%.,p%,-@1 cc W5G@5M. ES
. . M B W *t.Qf. W PS?mA$45mMMWW@FWWW@!N$@&SMS -
WF 1l% b -. . ~ ,~ ;. i/~ C - -5 y,x w W& ,. - b- a pa. . .- .. . . .-----..a-~~---~- ~ ~ - - .. - - ~w . [-~,-+--2 Wp t v;.s ., '.. .n, , ,.. .. f.,~.pW;, . w?~
- J
%@g..Y5&llW.:? P .- 4.2 h 1, W.~
. =, .gn@i
'd. ..' . /
; , < ?lG e'
.v c ,n.
. a, A 4
z,,4 w; yw :c.".,,m,
, w ;: m.
. n. o, - a ;5 ,. .
m,p7p,). ' _ 3 the Commonwealth's change in monitoring requirements for drinking Mp%. a<v&. . p%'.M.yN* .,
. ,.~;L.
~)t.,9.M.J. .
, G62.j!N wa te r. '"
8e3 -4. ,1. . AWPP's motion to reopen is denied.
+%$;?m!if,$w.jh d :pD.a UdjIN D ' ,
It is so ORDERED. CXnA %f ' . 4 ~:Q : ,.~.J' W;3QW-t Ww,?y. @. ,1'QD_. fm:'n. s.y tt,} . FOR THE APPEAL BOARD ny* ,,. w :_. . .c
%. g & Q
[sypf v%w$$!b.%u% ..<#.YsWJ
! 3'Mp HTNT e ~,. .
ysY NkNh Y.W4M%qcw.m m,r s C. Jean Shoemaker c.
#5&ny q.EJMSQiyQ dAhW&.c..NM/.h,'e w. n .
Secretary to the 2 " Appeal Board m% M M $ jk Q Q W l M*Q
- g'%w~r:ei. m.p . . k dM.W e c.e 1=..
~
s>r
- '. w. . .,
gy.p . m%.,.:.,14. <q, c s,::. , . , .~.Wg<e%m . ~..J, %, .
~
. -fy,o ? = * #w.'w
- y" [,s&f.%,W%yl a-T t.lv,;I,17.fk;U.X]L"65
!han4::lw'::f,'lm*f.02 P,'[i > a %
l.f m '>% } Yh:W.l.Qb q;S;. n. QP, r-r
'.Ng w.
QYilky m.r' .e}hq .Wf m' Q?r &y$W)4
?
o s
- . ; p**a>a
** i i .U?r 's:*f V.1
~; Mar' j % ~+;'m .y-p ,M' r s .:. .h i.$<^
.a@
?A tw'MM.y sw . : :.4,$u Q. ) G. . .:&., . : ,
L m s.; \
}a W ;:Ty n .. u-<m' s -l.y qn 2
.. g 3 " d:- 2lg
. s' ..ra x ,
M.y >$ %s4. . . r.. <2 'c::
..c,.,,.
,h a pr... yn;. ., ; . . .n. ,,. ; , x s..,.--
w ~ .s. m S.;8 -n 2 ,.! e
- 1 ,1p.t y q; . fI G .
g,sQ.,[L . 4f y'Uf 3 w. g. 8f*M ;.- %* ,; y'. ,p> ;i
.' a
' :dh.'%Nfk'hj[D.{d M.$.ibh2 a '[. 'O $-Nd 1 s k W 'bl.S YnslN $ : Y.
ARMTS:VP@ys*N s n.1:hnFw. [ 5yiM -.,m m:t&w f.;; ;g. . e'..;d g. ,gM. W QT L . Ryh.ysy.c,.h,,np***a.5 k *
-s lA p.a+ -
v... , . ;. jff*Yi[9.:3'L,K.f h Al, '* * ' %. -
.k' mM t %- s'S s 7n*ee Nm l~.u
..:. ',v.: ; . .t a. ;c *+ [
- :1
?.'* p '.
%Av.k .:o . 9 .r .
-c m: .M, , s,' w wry,f v-r W J,,-M '
V%gtpg G' W *.qd(. %g
,p Q: 'Kc:c ;' O ,;gW. . ' , . 4 :-O lll&. .. -
i h -iQh&!b?1% W Q. :s.!l3 Q. < .Y$&f'g){e$;.*;N nrg q.$..s g,V;p Y.
$N,&g[Q,d~d.f.%y'h
*r NNb.
( m[ % %-kQ N c q ff.n.Q g/ g%, f M it is therefore unnecessary for us to decide whether AWPP's motion - which proposes a contention
. f O !h M .,(/g( 1. . Q. f % not previously admitted for heigation - also satisfies the five criteria of 10 C F.R. I 2 714(aHI). govern-D ih$.Thb 2
ing the consideration oflate filed contentions. See Waterford 18 NRC at 1325 n.3. (cirm Pm/3r Gas and
,Dertric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Unas I and 2), Cl.i.82 39.16 NRC 1712.171415 qq,dm%fp%m./A,';W< W'S:] p @kI;'"l-Q bi?aeywV;< f. ,.c;;.
. myy m. mss :
.,19s2n.
$M7,1 e. [ 2,* s 1 * .',4- 1 W :
+ f
'} 4
* . 'I e
h -. .- fS-
. .E 266 s . h+ '
g - - .. .p .**.%<. - ',4 . 4*p e6 ag 4g.- ie i s. 5 9 9 % ,+r ,-
- - - - , -. .cy-e .-
. n ...a r .~ , , .- . ,.. e. . , . . . , , ,~ .p c~n r Q+ , t.;...,.xl,?7 %. .,D,':fa %n,.
.,. *tW,. u.s %w.#.. W.n.L.%,.+:);Q o _ . M~
,. y; Q J m: w,\:in. Q..C, ( E. h..Q, v. M;.8%,
s ~;~ - ,.
- x. , .w. n- ....;w,.?Q .a . ,p,5.,4.? . W. ,N. .:.:y Y. r * .wy . . n,@.
nn. w :3 . , .
- vL g , i W.
u g w-. n. , . . . . e / ..,.w. eA>q.+i:.:r y- I : > . *
'u. o. .w e.xa,Q%
~e ;.
g , . ..r s. ~.r ..r. p..
,., y , m g. ' 4 'y.i.&,,
^ ';;. grf,,t.R '.
. s. p t.
> ;y W.h.R... Q r ' .., ". :.I; ' ' '; ,, ,'./ l
- t c, 2
n..- Q ;;.**;* % 9: ; f ~.'j,:'ht'4.. w ; m. . Nq,4 : . , .
- .. 1:
., ?. , #7 .' .'). L* li ,'%
5 - ^ e ^,.. . u
, , . _ c t,. .y f 1' ,$I .
!, _ JW ..'
r 1 e i . ;
, .. .......-....m ~ - .: . ., ..:. : , . n . . ~. a . . . x . ;..: w.w.~. ..
a} .,
. lJ
- N' - , .
.m. , ~. . <:,:e . .- . .* - , ~',' 5 x..
C. . ; . , ,
- . Cite as 23 NRC 267 (1986) ALAB 035
. ;. o.; . -
% ub c. = c*
- / .f.f- Q . , t
., .. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,y< NUCLEnR REGULATORY COMMISSION
...,A,',
wc, .w e.x, m ,. . .
,:... a.
. - u ..y. .
.s
- i
.-n . . .z . e , .~..: e u,R .s .
- v. .. -
.r?#iJ, t./. . ;'n ,J o c * '.. Z> ;.y , ,'
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD ~ N. yc. . '.. v.
. .. .,'r ,.~*c*:-'
..- p ,y *--
v~ .:. v.gm;$ a , . , . > .,s
~
~
~ ~ ,,
.f,E 17 .:p . ' .
t ;- g Administrative Judges:
,: Wg j ,. . oc .
w/. , . . o..,. ,
. =.
. J'a . e s
...r,,-,
f:. >.g. r . . . .
$, . hum . u~' ). J,[ - k.' [ Thomas S. Moore, Chairman p;n%, tw .q : ,. .
i
.. C h W M: M. -
;s3yy%, . t,.,.
* < .q
- ~ < . N..
.- Dr. Rr'Jinald L Gotchy M, :>.w e...fg Q d.' .,. . Howard A.Wilber
. ., . ,g o;... ypr. .- .. r.,y
$%$N.t .;..,"E.. - ,* .
- tw .t > -' . - - . ; x~. t
_W. . y , r .. , n., 9M,,. . ::s.'.
.' p7 .(' ? 2 c N in the Matter of Docket No. 50 352-OLA-1
- ...p ) J
. .s. -'
(Check Valve) Docket No. 50-352-OLA-2
. -6;T *
(Containment Isolation) r . . .~ 7. e PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
\t ,
- < (Limerick Generating Station,
. , Unit 1) April 11,1988
_P
- m. e.
,:.,.. e- .
23?J '[.y w . M.5 Ed The Appeal Board denies intervenor's motion for a stay of the effec-2fjj@hT.C.'!@K.UF.j M,y m .
. .. . s .
W@,.. tiveness of two license amendments under which Unit 1 of the Limerick
>+77, . W ?l. -2 . ' f.
- t.M2 3 Generatmg Station is currently operating.
. .s:
. >, %w tw . . ,.v. < .
.t.
.t 1.f.3
. o , ,;-1, : .
. ..n. , ,
, yg.jq
- d. .
- 7. RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION
~;.~ (. y ;, , . : ,
^
-gi';j;; O g,. Whether requesting a stay from an appeal board under 10 C.F.R.
- v. B. ,. ,, ..W .gf e ,' . .. ;. f tl * * *. . { 2.788 or one under its broader authority as the Commission's delegate
$ j Q W f :lCi- v j.,'fiQ , J under 10 C.F.R. f 2.785, a movant must show that it is entitled to this j g 'M j d i N d y,s_,*P . ahW, e %- p nulI equitable relief based on an analysis of four factors: .ms.
CT.M. .u. .9 . .u -efe d M M N M S'&
.^ N C *$hQ%
@ (1) Whether the moving party has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail h [$,.y(7.%.,h@.h
~
. AU u. e.", c . , ,
,,j. j,jy,>G- ,
on the rnerits;
-M((.-l, r E, S:l, ,
- d. - -' ' . - (2) Whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted; a . n #.f-( .. ? +' .
. ~r , t ,
s' .. e
~
267
. . .- .~
*f f
~
M
%:]
f'{Mir Ww.i.;@k.c h q j-R .) . + 0:O'Ei% P y'C.O.L.&- Ae&' WY M V Yl. &n:55 :,'?,;&R 5 QfDjt'lij,?r%C. [ '-tw i RN. , ~ ;.V;b.'..A ' ~:~2' ,'c. ' l M-v> , .'.:%]%n'.,;;
., -> :a \ . .< y : ~ ,.
y.iQ.:z,. fy EI%p sEy.M,M.J M'O. h, N,2. 4
$ U/. M J Ox s ." ^ 'I-
> eY .. /.
=e s v ~~ . . ~1
, [ $>. ??f$fc\,%.
-l y .8i lMlA.>
.v
~)'
^ -
p;ff,~e,J.
'. g_
sv'.UY<.3%$ - 2'*: ., L' t ' ~ L h;f j , l . j." ". s h%R' - r.
**l- ...a.- .. .-G. ' - - ~ ' - . *
- .,_. , .p .
y-L , f s
'7f -
+'
l,
- i
;hege
.; .. # I
}
ne>+:.. :r . .' f . c . 1.[, S t[fj[ . 7 , *'
. .e ,....
t [. .j O) Whether the granting of a stay would harm other parties; and
;p, ,
4" T 1 (4) Where the pubhc interest lies.
. J.:,.;,
i.- , j h:<2f, *m w . .4_ .m . . ,- t . gb. ,
.- ! See Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Baill.y Generating Station, i$e,i'?*Wl' s Q ,4. ,. ,
Nuclear-1), A L A B-224, 8 AEC 244, 272 (1974), reh'g denied.
- r. . , t t .jf .[
p?GhSh.m
~ ~ .sk,.: , , 2. ALAB-227, 8 AEC 416 (l974), rev'd on other grounds. Porter County $ w. ~. A Chapter of the 1:aak Walter League v. AEC. 515 F.2d 513 (7th Cir.
g.,o .p;; .:
. p,g.
o. j .%.. . g. ,R. ~n.l,~;. -x.+ '3 2.,.;'.,-1975), rev'd and remanded. 423 U.S.12 (1975). W.W: W, %, -s^, o.y n., +, . < A
. a b g y):' m.n - ^:wy.,' RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION yNn.,.
(IRREPARABLE INJURY) [0$y.f%y, :dc.,s.1 >N;. :, .:gy . r~ of the./-G ', irreparable injury, is often the
.,a
- s. .
y.- The second four stay factors, y# !.%, .$90f./.,. c , most important in determining if a stay is warranted. Philadelphia Electric p: g$u;4;[. J'u. % ^ #" ' ['; J,(2-Q2
-. .J Co. (Limerick Generating Statior, Units I and 2), ALAB-789,20 NRC 1443, 1446 (1984).
L T. >. > w. . . .m. .. , .
.v..-,-
a,. , .,, e. a .y ..7 ; _ . . , . . . . . s m, A g, > . pn t -
- l. c6 9.: ' #
.w , L g e - RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION w.S. ,$,~'
' e
~ . .
. (IRREPARABLE INJURY)
., ;j ,
Speculation about a nuclear accident does not, as a matter oflaw, con-
- . s stitute the imminent, irreparable injury required for a stay. Paci/7c Gas
' ;E
. .e ; and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2),
~'
l'.__ r CLI-84-5,19 NRC 953,964 (1984).
.e . .
% ', . r
~
.-c.:.i. ,
.. RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY OF AGENCY ACTION g nv%w..
v ,~s"g;m . p,. .c'.' (IRREPARABLE INJURY)
~ .. m.-
' /. . ..
x .s .; . i:, -- 6 /- . i A party seeking a stay is required to demonstrate that the' claimed ir- %g@ij; Adj9.i ."hyu%/I;['}'Ig1x,I..'t :injury f:C ?,fcertain and great. Cleveland Electric ///uminating
? :4 reparable is both Y:!.j, f@; f';. 7 l ~
~
"l Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-820, 22 NRC
. 743, 747 (1985).
4 , .~ . "; - p A .' . ;a. g . '5;ll4. O MEMORANDUM AND ORDER tl f plh. W ;, @ Q .:. <. W ,,, p M,~j,p x c % .e c %. % .'%; O & : y ; >I; We have N;'~'@; before us a them > of Robert L. Anthony for a stay of the motion b , Wh. c'~::,,s. f,M,u 7g.iM.)
- pM. m . ., .. N, A '
- - effectiseness of two license amendments under which Unit 1 of the 3 :a . .
w @c w '. Z.a. Limerick Generating Station is currently operating. For the reasons set 9QC.':.lm)"' . . - f K Q', . , .4 ,- l. 3- . out below, the motion is denied. 1, , g, , ,. m
'.. ?! ;
o- ~ 9 e
, 268 I
.,3,. . , - + . -
n.1 > ' n:HldW:wQ{. v.a WR s/ p n. 2. 5.w. .ya. q.- . ~w g y,.n,::
, ... s
..w.,. ;
m we, + ~ w m. m. m. w .~
, - ~
m w . ;-. m. +.m y . g ,;:.m% y M.
.. 1 mn.,;:.
.... w . . m, .. .~. - .
.;. -s-T W @Mgn a M.y@]g.
n-i Q n :sf ::nnM. p..g w 9..~l:. W W d @ G. M? :
@ :MPQM W w.e; y W~i;;,~%.q . &. .,3 Qp&.47?y M.
, n ,- M,m
. q m, 4 m. -2 + , %, '
n G:W w... :::W
- . ' T.
. .. w m..~+G, w&.-
. .? -. -
- s.
-e,.-(**
c _- .
. _ c . m' 7.
*# ' , f
) .
, _ .. ..m. __._2. . , _ . m. m .
3;..r.; ~
%l - '
l
.":. i . . , u . a . ym' g .'.- W, .-- ,. j ,%.jWy . . .
A;g. . c *D:- 9t@f .
. s,
.. . . ;l On December 18, 1985, the licensee, Philadelphia Electric Company
' ^ (PECo) applied for two amendments to its operating license for Limer-
~ys%,~. . . s !,. {
'.@ Q -$.-..%,:,:.; , k . . J.V . ," * .;^ U 'j ick. Amendment No. I sought a one-time-only extension of the interval r,.7f 1
s.M.,,. ,,
, _c:: .. between surveillance tests of the excess Gow check valves in certain v
c.s%. ugc & g h. s.,.1 instrumentation lines. Such tests normally must be performed at least
% m v .. y, : :> w g , 1s-..,D '. - : m q m
s4.!.W;. every 18 months and only when the plant is shut down. Under the $'NdN requested amendment, the surveillance would be performed during a d)QN(@h.Ml[h@5Ndk 4 JMf.V 1 hT, M ". )) scheduled shutdown beginning no later than hiay 26,1986 - a date some 96 days beyond the originally designated time for the testing. N%ew #wN.- g D. O,,+>rM..:. ; W.1@2,W ;s < , j 9, PECo sought the extension to allow continued operation of the plant until the time other more extensive surveillance testing would be per- @&q.m M . yS.. . .t.-.-5 6 ; A T. 3 4 Wm,,h.y '.;f formed, and for which the plant already would be shut down.' Amend-M..o DCM. .pp.@4WN.,O[WY,NMi$$
~ ; , .. ~
ment .4$- No. 2 sought a similar extension for the testing of primary contain-W W M ',', A ,7,%,...<..4 m - , .E ment isolation valves.2
$,.$f - Notices of opportunity for hearing were published for each amend-
$_QW.?/ j c,C
, 3 :.1,.;,:!$. 4' ',, ment in the federal Register on December 26 and December 30,1985, m ,.
s.,;Oy'c 3 8, , . .~ P '> M ' fi, - : . _- t a . respectively. In the notices, the Commission stated that it had made pro-R$@y 2..-UUS:$p$ ' ' .M " . posed determinations that both amendments involve "no signiGeant l '
', - hazards." The nonces also indicated that the proposed determinations $ t.M ri
- gw 2s
. would become Gnal absent a timely hearing request. As noted above, the amendments liave been issued and the plant is currently operating Q. %
.n c 6,. a , - pursuant to that authority.
i' Nfr. Anthony Gled an intervention petition after the deadline for such
. ,Q . fi _ " '
".1 .
,. - submissions given in the notices, and then petitioned the Licensing Board for an immediate stay of the operation of the plant, pending
~
M .f . - - . 3 ' :Jf.T ,- t Board action on the intervention request. In a prehearing conference y.- held h! arch 27, 1986, the Licensing Board denied the stay, claiming a
.A jW%@N
$d f phy T em W 4-% . . %
% ,ae h..M.M.4.v;
- ~'m .
h one-page ~ gmotion 'OforEMlW . a stay with us. On h.i[$ lack ofjurisdiction.3 Thereupon, on April 1, h!r. Anthony Gled a meager Apr.l 2, he sought to supplement i his motion with his earlier Gled hlarch 24 motion to the Licensing MV. h. SN f.kfdM' , ; ,p3' 1% - ,' t .' ~' id5 ' . .c, .1 j
. . .'pj. gH . c. ; y g"U ,
[
- m. . ,t ; . }-' * ~..l ; ' [g, : . e . ,. '. .* .
W - . r ,a , ,, ~ yy :
. ?, *, -.: w. .e.';. y .aq
?m pnb.M ..h. W .k,G$$'!W Y pw 4 r N.e.y.] !R.*h,_wt h rk 1 -
- + *j#, .@pamM:m . :*! >-
ppg...D fd h!-V si.W[* - ' -
?
7 ') I $0 Fed. Reg. 52.874 (1985). f - re - g 250 Fed. Reg. 53.226,53.235 (1935). y3 y, .
', c i > ; .3 . . ,. 3Tr. 811.
.y :
269
-... ~ . .
- n. ., ., e. , . .- - -
m en m w . n 5 ?:% a S t: m# ~,p g,. .Q W M e. 4
,. ..gM.~..
. n6 W.~. m, O -
. J
~
.. i< n N PA e a
..,%,.M%n,e&w,
'u *v.v m~ sWww
;t;;g.7,
.4 ~( Mi pm.: ;wwMgewD.n& vm-vm%.
w
!< W~. u w
-, m:
..; ,.n. * *s w p. ,2 7' QQ cQ y
yt' .g me w mm u q.*Kgw p's c, n. , *i,y .f,Jf~. k ) ~c , .g.n. g _
' f.im 1.w~ .g v .d. .E QT.9' t l'.tW.~
. . on .
. "- y- Q.3.f tM9.p<y,w c ..
, ' . ;:'") :~y:.2 l,' Q 'X{& lf,.
. l s
- 2. ;; j.f Q [ ? L.C , 3 f'sQ ..y, . ' . 'C' '
S y *:yf5 'i' - 7_ s
.. . . x . -- - -
a= * " ~ " " i
. ,' t
. 5.. .
(. , cf .. '.. ' ' Board.4 Although Mr. Anthony's procedures are a bit unorthodox, we 4e 'T*.
. ~,
.{ will consider both filings together.5
.u, '. *
. . :1 Because the instant motion is easily resolved on the merits, we are
. . .WMa 7. ." . '
.i denying the application for a stay without awaiting replies from the licen-ce*, '
'<' 'i- -1 see and the NRC staff. Thus, we do not address the potentially signifi-p, ..;,
w.. 7Ad cant question raised by the Licensing Board concerning its jurisdiction to
. Q . f,. ,c 7 . C.-q; * ?..gm,A ; .9 N... '
stay these license amendments.*
@ ' 4 ' ' " ;< In his motion, Mr. Anthony states that he seeks a stay from us pur- $ glyAM % C . . . - ,f '
suant to 10 C.F.R. 2.788. Whether requesting a stay under that section
- \. . gg . ,'.- ,. . . : m. .. .
- n. , or one under our broader authority as the Commission's delegate under T S g.'f.'% ?,' *7
- 1. . .; . ' . 1.3 ' N '
10 C.F.R. j 2.785, a movant must show that it is entitled to this equita-g ;t.y.c - :;3.. 5 )/ h:, u. . i ble relief based on an analysis of four factors: j,f h O f %,. PsN,7.D .,,.Gp' . "
. .: . g , s * -
, 7;t,,, M . - (1) Whether the rnosing party has rnade a strong showing that it is likely to prevail W
y .; 3 17 .e O ,. j . on the rnerits; [, @
't,," *
* * , (2) Whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted; M. .w . -'
pw ,g ,fn a A [, . 0) Whether the granting of a stay would harm other parties; and
;O ;1._ . ,-
ac. . , (4) Where the public interest lies.7
' . C e '
As we have stated before, the second factor, irreparable injury, is
+
often the most important in determining if a stay is warranted.8 M r. Anthony's " analysis" of this element, however, amounts to nothing 1 more than his own ipse dixit that "[slkipping the valve tests makes [the]
'U
_ . ~ , 4 in a decision dated Arn! 4.1986, the Licensing Board designated to rule on the intenention petitions
. j ... y
'O.2.,
'k or Mr. Anthony and a second petitioner terminated the intenention proceeding. It ruled that Mr.
..[ W f 1. ' >-N' ? h[(; -no /d e. r3 M. ;C M Anthony's petition on Amendment No.1, which the Board had conditionally granted in LBP-86-6A,23
' JNN D i.*J . f
- ff [., g
* \j / $ NT.
NRC 165 (1986). should not hase been admitted in the first place and that Mr. Anthony had failed to
%}t 9 .f @ Q , ,, , ~.h 9 i '[iS1.%.7 3 [1[I- proffer any admissible contentions. As to Amendment No. 2. the Licensing Board denied Mr. Anthony's petition for being unumely. The second intenention petition on Amendment No. I was denied because a -D- o p ay' *-- /,.s.i . **i- * ' y - ' + - Q ,*
it failed to raise any issue within the scope of the procee1ing. See LBP-86 9. 23 NRC 273,277 (1986). In that same decision, the Licensing Board also reafGrmed its oral ruling denying Mr. Anthony's motio.i
,. . . for a stay. /J. at 280.
;. b . . -. .. # 5 We note thnt throughout his invohement with the Limerrk procee.1ings Mr. Anthony has often 5 .;, j' = . ; ." j ' *
'*45 J.
failed to prepare his Ghne in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice.10 C F.R. Part 2. He has been warned about this on numerous occasions. See, e e. LBP.86-6 A. 23 NRC at 167 n.3. J j 's ," [ ' , ( ' .;~- (/'e ALAB 778. 20 NRC 42,46 n.4 t1984); Apreal Board Operating License Proceeding order of Aug. 5. yy 3 '. , 4
.. ..~ .
1985 (unpublished) at 2 3. In the future. should his filings with us related to these incense amendments
. Q h.i \ .? Jf, *d Mj f.' Q/.i fail to conform to the regulaticns, they either will not be docketed (and no lease to reCle will be grant.
i ed), or will be summardy denied for failure to conform to the rules. dg A @MkQQ7%%%k'fThp M %?l DNfi> hi'5l . . ' ; 6 Although we do not *each this issue.,me question the Licens.ng Board's conclusion regarding its juris. M W b y',.,,. ',.[, % 8?. J .I',.'.",4. diction because its purported reasoning u so cryptic.
%.3% % $$Wc M?1 Mf. W, D *4 ,'i.$j?,% @f, 7 See Northern Indona A.Ac Servec Co. (Bailly Generating Stauon, Nuclear 1). ALAB.224. 8 AEC 244,212 (l974). reYg denied. ALAB 227. 8 AEC 4I6 (l974). rev' dos other gmundt Poner County Chap- *Vezy.
s
'.. .7,f <
c.un ter of the haak Walton f.eague v. AEC. $I$ F.2d $13 (7th Cir.1975). rev'd and remanded. 423 U.s I2 p~ L.(g 7'{ ~-
"j .7 ,'
(1975L s Phrladena Decinc Co (Limer,ck Generatir's Station. L' nits 1 and 2). ALAB.789, 20 NRC 1443,
, , 1446 t1984L t
j l 270 1
dfAD MhN%9M
$$%G J E- @ : G dieQ WONSJDiB& I TNi- %s495#%F& v &WWY,E.E.Y66@9@l.Q@l@&@&: QM OGE!nW&
L T
; %, %ch@NSW@2W[&O!N
,s m r< c. . , . ,
# Raw Q f$@M $ W -
b2wh: M %i h $ ~;hf Y 'A C ' , ;,.* ' ' * ' y%%e M d .: - =2. a.-
^
;.?
- - - ~ ~ - ' - - ' - - :-- , a -. u. 6 -~ ~ .
g ,_ ; s .: s s h h4,' , . E,$- 8* y ..
< '. J. , gg' "."'N C ,4, M - w. -~ r .
h ', e , pi r a.;; , - % .'.g;;;g . . , , ,
- y1
-3
&n wWQ. j , , .-;f: '( p..
9:W .v n. .s a..
; ; c .v. 'e . .....&..n,,, , j
-&f% cyp.f,M + ,. s
, ~wa- 9 ?
$.e 45thw.- p ..< $ %;s.Y s .,e U.a- D. s v.M;i [v probability (of a nuclear accident at Limerick] imminent."' He offers no
,M . yA M^
.c s v;<ar. w .! & n C;e..'x foundation or substantiation for his belief. Such argument is manifestly
- p'.ge@ w.n.
.- ce insufficient to support the issuance of a stay. As the Commission has ob-iMM
.wcop,$r',h{.'J%[q NN M served, "[ilt is well-established that speculation about a nuclear accident N $ t . .t;m.ppJ does not, as a matter oflaw, constitute the imminent, irreparable injury 5N. Y khhhkh N:$;% h [i hhQjhi required for [a s ay]."lo Further, we have recently concluded that "[a]
party moving for a stay is required to demonstrate that the injury f' ~ hfd
,;dr4Rpff$tKM Mdd ik claimed is 'both certain and great.'"" Thus, it is apparent that Mr.
[f.~ e;t Anthony has failed to show that he will suffer irreparable harm if not I i.jT%$h@M. y Mg granted a e,tay. Similarly, he ofTers no concrete indication of why the M . eWoW 4 ? g U$/M@M4% 1 A. n.s. A .,, n
.'M g.f,e .>c d . M~ 6. w?:;
staff's "no significant hazards" oeterminations are erroneous, and thus fails4to?show F,,a likelihood of success on the merits. Additionally, Mr. I ~$p$$K$g-g49$$d$$M
- Anthony offers little more on the third and fourth stay criteria (harm to other parties resulting from a grant of stay relief and public interest con-
? b Nh:
I' $ . Nhgg.f.3.:3%ff5E'*h
.%h rpig. M.a J siderations) that would provide a basis for a decision in his favor. The e
w & C.6D%n,n . S lJW ": k l N $ 9 eM 35$M - @W.. - M- ~d,r..: motion is, therefore, denied. It is so ORDERED. L'sd% NWpDM.g w widMTce a 4 4%WEA ni.S.ppR e%.h Mc QiO, FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
*-QT Mi: % Daenx.y;:.+
khgfg)f*a U EY .
;W.? D.s ;f? .); %
ih@,,$j'$Mk. .Y ;6 M M 9 ;)A [.k,h-J'l
> ' __ 1,,W C. Jean Shoemaker JM@w@.?h.r
- s .~ i @n.@.m?.Cs;.Q<; av.
.;P - Secretary to the Appeal Board
<_.g.
w % g'p si :- m . v..+: --.
- .j9 & esp t':"-*f?Q
$ u.Q,.p .A.y:."ac jfel
%4,' d, %[. f.h.v.t.h.g; .dd . S.E' ?..'$: , TpAyv [,,;
.:D.y %
.Q. c_M, ,
g. s
.~
p rWV .mA ka .jN.i; .-s n M. p o
,4.:g,y.$yk u,g ' c)'%?
U
'e <N.g,4.t*e
- g. WTi
- t:
s, . ?* % C.!e. f *..'
}
./ -a s,
n e ~Qs .n y.
. . g{
. a..
n@
??, ? . .V W: M
,r. % .
e .. y ~ .;, * . c.41.' 4 .t,d*T.'.i':t t.!;. Jf? *- y ?, 4a - ?-
'.n..y;[l? ; y.y xc>..ss % + ;?-r.'l c. , u:L.,C *a e
+g %.n:.
W.<41jjff{Wn.
=
- u .
L & f>r 4,v!M.
+$
.., ;'$',,',.f, cd s
+ e:.C. .:,f*
- - p Q
*::., p@ 4? n: f.
- 4,. ; ;,,* 1t); .&. M:x. y w,,,4m . .w' . ..g-, .. y. ; D. . , :x
) ,
am . s , ! h, 'Mo6on by R.L. Anthony / foe to AsLS for an immediate stay on the Operation of Limenck'el
% Reactor Pending the Outcome or Heannss on Amendment #1 & 2 (March 24,1986) at 3.
st,,;. ,,N . ~.EQ YpS , to Pacvic Gas and Dectre Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLl-84-$.19 NRC d (;,'7U,6)53M,@$.NQ' 953. 964 (1984).
.fi M/ 11 cleveland Occtre Illummarmt Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB.820. 22 NRC 0l'?.h..
@' * ; ;[,pM:yy96';* p$ QMJ) ' , 743, 747 (1985). Q[ L.; N ",Yi< <, K. '[c.em- , g t a ry; , <. 3
- - -- - '.3 .
, gyg w g ,,,,, , , . . _ e .+.==e'.m. -W%--a a
**" '. ~
Y- 'A .r'. s .-
" '. w? m~ m m oL*'.-
Nh^ Inf .
$ l- ! ? $l ~,
v' >n wpumpM : ~ ' 2;M %y - w ' . v& N5y%w %%e ?m:mmanp &p"Y. ;,.y.ys M;f.l n y . ;: + m* , W: m e: - r e * k .'. ' :* ,f .
.* 1. .. ,?b.. tN Of .'W Y.0 .f 5. , ' N*',. Y % - ~ ^b ., 3 , .
,. ~ ' . .' :;
'[.**, . . , ,-
x
, s - - ;. .
^ ~ ~- __
9 ~.!,e '. > , ',,-% m-- 5
,?. . ,s t
w , . , ,
..,. .~. ..
. %3 1 _
e s. wb:b
- m.a.4 g. sn' . m,1 v.c w. w;%.
s 1
*Q:. < ;; u,4 .'s
- m '. c - 7
~Wgn 'Gs ".*
- , jd m7
. ,e c.;v : ~~ u -: e
-.u;rm 6. :b,:1 m
,.c& ej
% ^"
$j?,=.@g%e
;b2;G:fK';y:p-- L'A 2;Q' y uY.. P. .
}M.
c W rp)- ere. . t. M,.M' s h .
.~. .5m2. ., ; s.b . .lw 6 M. ~,in,Y .
c; e .
<, ,s.a;, e,; .
.~b.
- y*w 4v'.s 9 &. rm .,.h..My m 4.l_l.- W', q l r-??f.b.' A :,. u ' '. k .
-Q. <
. p.%, 1.+ i_g:4,mij;k.%.u.
.;@X.,:p ,: E, 4 d,
~,
. q v y< ., e cc % .s .a , ,e.
Atomic Safety _% 3c m y . s M 5.n6 ,t e M u % n w m J w #.e . . . 9 gygg@M@M@m%:; jg and Licensing
@i Wag 4 er p- %
E.p Boards issuances +y 4 y t ihv g y ,s. .;4.3,> 4, y5 . e . . f*H 9h ,.. D. 4!
#Y ' *
- 4
?r-py' N i#Mj %. }Q "" $ e **y'-V [ .
b- W.ul.M r^ 4.r f L 4 - . f,.~ *
'i u.1 A. .h M')Q b $i'h @
. bs
*G :
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL p
$.h. ,4. r:6.N- -x. :*Th.w$Dj%.3fjk.S,n%..h/j
- , mv - y va .
e-n lW%c: an.!; e: ;x,' ~.' J%: ,
. .i n :,M %w w B. Paul Cotter,
- Chairman --;
Robert M. Lazo, 'Vice Chairman (Executive)
.lH.hW.r.$:)lb$5.?h;$.2 Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technicall :
- h. M. , f.Q+W+W .n ,';dy,9%%. :w
~ w .' ..: g a y M.n
- r. W .r -n f)g 9
I Q y..y , ;N, y a;~ n
.i.rU. ',;',Q c
. :3;.
m~ '
.s
, '< M.p;.;Q;.y;'y}GW[
s: , w. . .; t >. _ i Members g jd 1
. a ,n_[.,hv. .:$ t .: 5'y s
. 'n. u , ." A -ff % James P. Gleason Dr. Unda W. Little h
- Dr. George C. Anderson Andrew C. Goodhope Dr. Emmeth A. Liebke' D, s E , i , y C. f M. 3.6..L-w -
1 'e.
%I $, Chartes Bechhoefer' Herbert Grossman* Dr. Kennth A. McCollom 9 i- _
' W.9! Peter B. Bloch*
Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
. h ;. ~ .c+.4..
, e ,...s o .. - . 4 3 m g ..h J iM,- Lawrence Brenner*
Glenn O. Bright' Jerry Harbour' Morton B. Mar 9ulies' Gary L. Milhollin -%--d M 6 J4' Dr. David L. Hetrick Marshall E. Miller
.jl.W.' n #.3 E p. <,[gcQf h'.NQ. q.j~d@gg@ 4 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan James H. Carpenter
- Emest E. Hill Dr. Feter A. Morris' g Nd SIM 6NhD kgy Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Oscar H. Paris'
.d(b$h'; M Hugh K. C! ark Qip @h'/ k lylN lM,fNM' %[gp/rfJrME r
% Dr. Richard F. Cole' Dr. Frederick R. Cowan Helen F. Hoyt' Elizat,eth B. Johnson Dr. Paul W. Purdom Dr. David R. Schink y
Nga*,, j " W* )[.m%@I'W%p@* t:;. 4 Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Walter H. Jordan James L.1.lley' Ivan W. Smith'
.s ,s.
;Q 'yd
- i-.,,' , F. f.,;i[{ -l Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Martin J. Steindler n . , j. : g . ..t,. ,
Jerry R. Kline* Dr. Quentin J. Stober =_
- W. ,/..-9 ,: Dr. Harry Foreman
, c '.ji ;b.7' &?.'..?. s '.i.r ., *.Cf .s e. T g*e. y .'O(,
Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb Ill Seymour Wenner R. e
,,JJ.;
(M.3a 74 ;(,,m. -4 John H Frye til' Gustave A. Linenberger* Sheldon J. Wolfe' 7 .s.
..,,y 4,.,. .H, C, , N &. .,,'. ;;r,4->.,j , .
?lic,e f ,.
r g / tpC$.WO&.MT$$, 6 P'- 4 h s Nf f.% p 4 914e,&eNWv4QUQt@&@W WW o c.M a M < qn&ygm%%~,m.,4W;in:,ma uv+x. y Mahyra y q w C"p k 1' O N ' M h,M. &u .qt W{Q. ,A?!Q: C Y.;e',.?4fw;tb, t o. s %a hn [p'hSIh5i%)."'t h h g t f-
,1. r,V., _ q,-; ' '.
.p _ , 5m
__g
' & -um D >
~ ,- :ii
- Permanent panel members my,g t
N Mik
.L u*
W Mp? WQ'%5%.5?j%ug8%Q 1.Wu n W&' GWTQM{gpwgMg.Wyedr?ArW.:pmMy;% n7 c .: M A 2pg. s:B:g N W mr.c,?. :% M.y aWqg .s e [-%mg4 3 12I6 pyc.-[.@ W;,..$. ..v u OMM 3h,d$p. ;Mg;:67fW2W;w6:y:&,
%p ,.;d w..
p o rw.;fikDDM3hfMI.'EP%sti:JOM t; e y ;w - ?W :n k
%w d.:..m
. u: ~
J x z? 2: >',
~
.M -
d.Y M'.
,Gygrs 3xjf,y,gy:; p~q .wdy: .n .; f ;
.m ,, . . , . . .
a.
..y
. :: .ac ,- ,.
s
. ; - ,W ..;d <
v.i.:b i.
; , . z a-
^
u.h- =-~ O" . < -- - *u~ .a . - J~ .. d - ++: ~. . ~ . -a
. %. ,. , 4 .
v.-, ,[4 w ,7 e m.:. e
> s
.' y,;.
W :M
, s; q. $ ,-
s
.5 ;. p l~ ;, y.:. ::y Q: ..)Q .' +(.. .., ,,
[&cf. . *b.. . .J f; . SIM. . , hg..p .. neg.,fl$.- y Cite as 23 NRC 273 (1986) LBP-86-9 ge n tc.'.r. . 4* ?.4 c..'. . ws."..'
. *. x. .,w& e ,.y n:'~.*.y-r t; n
.:.y y M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. . .e'Q M: w N;c6fif;p g.
~ '8. w,'$. p: ;, , .
w . . 7 @.
.v:fg;;g; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ .+ . c. .n%ge,
,a4, w
.vv. v
.o.% Ns;7
.UW . w f 3.1 - m
- o yi C;<. : .
#3., e. m .v.w., y.
. .awu.u,.;&c.g, .t . ..a...s.,,
, s. 3 ;
t .- WOM.No@6@. m>mm- ..:,.c 9.,w$o ss . ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
. i.,q,5cr.y;i,.,
. m ;/ .to.%* d ; 33M@fgeg/g* ;y ?
M>: tieic5... .,.
.~ @f, .W.m.V . :e v ss gg x% . My;, Before Administrative Judges:
').
. ..g.6c, rt j < . .n A; * '.,.%,e,.
. ... ; r W,:. . ,.7*
, w?i@u.!#w P. . %
~. . . c.5;,w.<.
, x, ; die. Ivan W. Smith, Chairman y -',Y.. r3,. ,t M.;n.g-n Je .j.gw?S s up%p,.. y
.%is.m V,'u,tp,-g .,?2.,440~% y-Ag.i
- ' . i. Richard F. Cole k.@w.r [bk'g.k.A a.
ik fh Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
,.ya.c:,f:yf:;r.
.. .g.
p;.1 ,y ;w. g D:c '..' V yo,
. . x :,c W.#y#N=;>,
. . ~ ,'.I:. w.n, n v e
- Eff,7 s J .' 'I "5ApM. .QFw'b.%. . .gMd.g@
. , i In the Matter of Docket No. 50-352 0LA 1 M, ,17: . (,c.[ b..i, d ,5,.9 . 2 u A. JU.,T
+. (ASLBP No. 86 522 02 LA)
; :cf. ;, , ,
(Check Valves)
' ^ ' , . - '..'m ; . u;
,dy; .. M%@s s t@.a (.V,,,
', nh Docket No. 50 352 OLA-2
. <:.c ,
, .&<- . .,._yg .'; (ASLBP No. 86 526 04 LA)
, ' ..' s 4
. .?j --
(Containment isolation) k s.' k- *"
. g [
- , le ' O7 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
~
, ,m. 5 . . .;c . .J '
(Limerick Generating Station,
- .N ~'y W U G.,..Y. i'
, Unit 1) April 4,1986 4,a.n. ldd$di$a . w ..hYn&+$. 8 m.
. e m .m%u..; c. a 4. . - m 9 .J. . W.yyM, v;/v+. .. ~.%d.p,m.
% A hs.n.c. ., u/a MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING AND
!rg ~E;?TdWS*%iM+$MM WM
.g . ,cE,$.,M.
% i.d.a DISMISSING PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TERMINATING PROCEEDING W r ,.. .; ~. : >
.. m.
, ta .'.,,,..6. .e3.,N.% n!
! ?
, 2 f {c ;G.F. mW t :F " I. BACKGROUND AND SU313f ARY
;4 '..d M .wp g,
s. s f @d.w.M[@.V&. M m.. g.,'st;..P ; y; y <@g >/.M: D % $y a The background of these consolidated proceedings is set out in our
@W.p.M@o fh@ d dM k Orders of March 13 (LBP-86-6A, 23 NRC 165) and March 14, 1986 h@C .
%;hh%s, F.w.y%.s e.,M.4 MMk.9 A.)% m% W.o .b ;n. h . a e A 7 (LBP 86 6B, 23 NRC 173). In summary, on December 18,1985, the Licensee, Philadelphia Electric Company, applied for Amendments No. L .~ p.9 .I and 2 to the Limerick Operating License. Amendment No.1 involved
<.- g e s, g t. k ). '
p x
$ k h M [D' 9 N k d ' N M @ A... ,J ?, %,.
a one time-only extension of time for the surveillance and testing of
%. . .:;m.w ;M. . ;,p* . " .
, e i}
w d' & W 0 - 273
. z. ,
s k i i t
v MOyOWWW
- u. . ?M.EM "PWs y92,a g ;4/Q . my:e9.s y
n."9f ,,y%.g TW4;i. a(w . w.4-%4m M%s 3 i 6
< . . .f v 3 n,. ,c w s.' y .,2.6q%,,:y,
.- s q%
;7 g %y % 4..y.;rt, M. M.w'# p .U.;. c. v M: .*"
W;A. - + M . - ncWm,wh er . ., . .
';.- ~. .,c,*;*;%c,ro.-
g.' 7, c,yra.
-' * ?
%mw.
"' '/gf'y c. .#ny:"
- y. w e.W:m.. : ,
p, .. .M-y s.M pN 77,4%'p' '-Q' ad .'! M,g. .."3 .w(-y ',y d *^ .C .s 1
..M e . . .: w;?.;!y.
.... W*. .
a m. 7 p~ yy w ag
...e.6*
.m ; , ~.
- n. m. m ;J;~ %
+
N,.y a y n
.n -
f *. [.Y., y . ' . i' ~Sr , - k ( U /*h'* ';.,,,. j;' My* ,f[, *htJ
" y' .s 7"
.I g% .'# 4 gg. '
e .8 ' ./ # $' ,["^ "*I !*E*~**~'
.., I i
'lfi3 f f, #': ? '., ' I f*
. 3
(. s. . - c- .a.L.ac.-.a . i s - .. - ~ .Z-.u - - ---.-"-a-y a O
; .2 s
4
.7 4 W
4 . ; 7~ a .
+
-. ,..t .p s .
. u .
.. J ~
;.' ..,r:~ *
. i.
l instrument-line, excess-Row check valves (" check valves"). Amend-O,' ! - ! ., X .
..s J ment No. 2 involved a one-time-only amendment authorizing an exten-y ?.:', , .j, ~ r n .' sion of time for local leak-rate testing on primary containment isolation fu y ,
,.,.Q. . ', .j -
valves (" containment isolation"), and an exemption from certain 10
.,,..y g..;,.,.;/.s..
J.N, * - C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix J requirements.
. m. . ,, . .,d. 4/, b._.. .w W. s The amendments were issued before any hearing upon a determina.
c . by . @. ; t $.cp.@., m! M,l&.erations" g/,s;;.'; . , ,
. o,u tion by the NRC Staff that they involved "no signincant hazards consid-hN.lf$/j(Mhj}gi.jy.
M[ *. . d[ YNY W.. ,f ;a.,- ~Q,f , , .. , under j 189a(2)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act (as amended by the "Sholly" Amendment). Notices of opportunity for hearing were ys 1 f,3. y yqp g , published in the federal Register on December 26,1985 (Amendment p.!M.'. s-
@ O'.1... ,.;3. M.W.
. . ....q.
No.1) and December 30,1985 (Amendment No. 2).
;b - ,; N .r m ,% c.. W V, .
hir. Robert L. Anthony petitioned for a hearing and leave to intervene
$.Ah i Nhhh $. . on Amendment No.1 (check valvcs) by letters dated January 27 and 30,1986. On hf arch 13,1986, the Licensing Board ruled, over the objec-q.4l{d et,JQ$j,ippm ' ,g
^
2, ,'_ tion of the Licensee and NRC Staff, that hir. Anthony had established
,t . ,.A? ' ,. -l ' 4,c; ?. , ,
o an interest in the Amendment No.1 proceeding and had identined an i ' '
. f .n y ^!!!J- appropriate aspect of the proceeding as to which he wished to intervene
'g ,..n u .<;Ni 2, t. g (,y .,Ek ,
~ [ag @L < in conformance with the intervention regulation,10 C.F.R. { 2.714. We deferred consideration of his contentions, however, until a prehearing
- s
.n conference which we convened in Philadelphia on hlarch 27,1986.
. : " ' ;!p ;G', i ,. ,J t On February 26, 1986, Nir. Anthony also petitioned to intervene in
- s L"4 the Amendment No. 2 (containment isolation) proceeding. That petition
, , was opposed by the Licensee and the NRC Staff on the basis oflateness 3- and on other grounds. Consideration of the containment isolation peti-
. . ,' tion was also deferred to the prehearing conference.
4 J, On February 24, 1986, hir. Frank R. Romano on behalf of the Air
~ao ' M..,. .
.w ..
' . . . ,J rMi ,:
and Water Pollution Patrol petitioned to intervene in the check valve g'h'p;EN{,0%ldMgfi h M h 2~ M;rg$3EMk. h j ,';.,[ proceeding. His petition was also opposed by the Licensee and NRC s x- 4 W
' Staff on the grounds of lateness and on other grounds. The Board also deferred consideration of hir. Romano's petition until the prehearing Wg.W
- % . . f.M~ .
,,,m
'.iM.WM.NrO,d,, conference.
q i p :e # W n.g.d
.,'. W W @/ M Y , On Alarch 14, 1986, the Board consolidated the proceedings and O's %- directed the parties to appear at the prehearing conference noted above.
. l$4sh., y ,.q.!. y*:- .[d In the order below we dismiss Nir. Anthony's petition on Amendment y ..-
j B". cj'-, , $$'; 9 g M; 2 No. I on the dual grounds that his petition should not have been granted i, . p.'eg bNdh.k. 4,70 +[.'> .. M in the Grst instance and that he failed to submit any contentions within the scope of the check valve proceeding. Nir. Romano's petition on h.QQ.h $k Amendment No.1 is denied on several grounds, especially on the ground of his failure to raise any issue within the scope of the proceed-kN.NM/ $$@3 4 {M.t% Myp@QNM.N ing. Afr. Anthony's petition , NM$h'g.gM@M in the Amendment No. 2 proceeding is denied on the grounds of lateness. As a consequence of these actions y*[.f.N Y.9% A o;.:}y;Gf'y .e }y
- c. t
>sw.;,,, . ..
I 3 y 274 I
?
m dw M m w 2 yfAU,M; V g W6 .&. .g weU,,e;. A.w .g. , r . , .gf.% . tg
.-nm e%v.
, N, m M
.w .W ...x.g M M9g&,.:.;% y, . 3 ,..e. mn %.& .n. 42v W . . . &r. . , ..u, t
m ua
./ m .,,. a . ,: w .. . ,
e.,.;
. . m .
m, . . . w:a .;.. u y ,. . . _ 0,[ 'l'.&'. : i #.. .. h fA.: Y u?^T ,. '. .
.y,..?.y;:g:U.k"~h
. ? w&W w k.'.&._ %l wm~.Wi:
*g 5
':Af ?$ ' W.: '
h w.,' .~%,:, n- .' M:. a.. . * ; .
- .e . - . , . . . , . . ~ W < n',.$5.b gy#y,m,p .
y W x. f a, {, ; . s u. m.-.i.u,:4._x. nL_.m .a . v. . , . _ . , , , _ . _ . . _. ,_ c, , a*
,~ . <
p; .> : . , . . * -
', % ' g' f.).6 '. there is nothing left to adjudicate and we direct that the consolidated pro-ceeding be terminated.
, ,( .f , / . -
- n.
,q ,- ,
y, ..f , ,, y G ', . - y ,' . II. AMENDMENT NO.1 (CilECK VALVES)
//. :m ql"- ..::. ,r
_..; - .j' ' . , , . '. . & ? . * * . y;jo e w
' ; f s.
R'v q - 1/4 ~ A. Mr. Anthony's Petition
$ i[ ' ' f '_ [; .,
[' The Federal Register notice of opportunity to intervene in the Amend-y.'q ^ Q '. S , fy ment No. I proceeding described the instrument-line, excess-now check
/. k r. ' . i'4. ' ' . ' :e valves; the testing procedure for instrument-line, excess-Dow check
- Ql.
, g, J . -f , y s
. . .'3, valves; and explained why they cannot be tested during operation. 50 Fed. Reg. 52,874 (1985). In explaining why the testing could safely be 2.ph- .i .' Mr.#.
by(}(' g.fi;.4 J .'N , ]'}.],#
^
$ delayed from February 19, 1986, until the scheduled plant outage on
*!.p.qt ,
'1; ,
~,' May 26,1986, the NRC Staff found:
4 i,, s
,g / , , .. , ; : 1. ,
W.; . The consequences of leakage from an instrumentation line are minimal since the
, ac 4 ,, * 'r F ,
one-quarter inch orifice inside containment limits flow, and the majority of the line VMs ,
- outside of primary containment is only three-et.thths inch in diameter. The lines pro-
'.;,j' ' , ' ' ' ;#y
~
4 tected by the check valves are also located within the reactor enclosure which is
'- served by the standby gas treatment system so that any release from the line w ould
~ ,
be filtered and monitored. The failure of an instrument line is an analyzed esent in the Final Safety Analysis Report and no aspect of the proposed change to the
~' '~
Technical Specifications would require a change in the safety analysis.
,. ' ~ Id.
/' ,. The Licensing Board inferred, erroneously as we later learned, that 1 .,
.-.s ,
, there were two discrete safety aspects to Amendment No.1: (1) leak-
~M age through primary containment via the instrument lines or their
,dk,fM NW D A'/.'.>%Q . .#%A ;. fhL,3 excess Dow check valves and (2) instrument-line failure as a conse-w:of ..)f$
0 quence a failure of their excess-Row check valves. In our Order of WyN M:%,; ' ' j*,).1 W L -'% /, ;* ly %*9.W f March 13, we noted that Mr. Anthony's petition did not relate to leakage T*,4 -t- - from the containment, but, rather, that his petition related to the second QU '[7c ., , perceived aspect, instrument-line failure. We quoted from his petition:
',. ;n - en'.( .! ,'
"",I ,; L
~
We are convinced that any cuension of time for the tests required to determine the i:( ~ , , ,
=.g; j. ability of the instrumentatior lines to function properly would pose risks to our y>t;. w ;g , ,, ,' t .
J 'W. ic
.:wpn. sgt j).* i v.,
.*I .
n
, p ?E . I s
health and safety since these lines are essential to operator information and function.
. - c M ,+
- y , ' ing in every aspect of the plant's operation and are a key link in the control of the i,; pgsdp@.-si-.N*3 ? [ [g., nucl(ar process and absolutely essential to the safe shutdown of the plant in the
[ [ @T ' M .T** b . O /*.S .; M f-
- event of any accident at the plant which could result in the release of radioactise poi-sons to the environment, thereby threatening us and the public.
k
- R
\ T.Fw:yW'M N?& 'd hf :.-- .'s[ t&
'n74WQ>.M~rp p ', ' , J' . ; /.' .
LBP 86-6A, supra 23 NRC 169170. The difference in the two perceived aspects of Amendment No.1 is
-q. v .
f '
.' very important. Had Mr. Anthony sought to intervene on the aspect of 275
, qc.<,. ws. . e6 e erg ,
>,.74 .N.WQf $%QWd
% ;q f'. Q @m m.g@y.g.w m g% g&g_*.:g bQQ yh .q gr 1 Wgheo e.Q. .. -M:a .:-
+y7W.5;h;s;j;y;@3;y; gn . gp
. .:.,., m :M qm%p 4.n v; ypM y :;,p;m..;yp h -:y plg. gQQ+L7Q.c.3: 9 ::.o m w3.3
=, . c,.
2 .. AmqQ y t n . :v .s m , y - ; w =
,g<Q Qy?%yg
- ;f: ;&"$:Qg.f " :/ f %W < . .;.n
.]' ,
^ ,*
~' ,l': h (;W . *c.: % ';" M '
4 % a~..--..-- ~ - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - -'"~
,: w ,
* +
m . y.: ,u
. .. i -.
f - w.S leakage through the containment via the instrument lines or their m.. ~.,.'. , excess-flow check valves, we would have found that his residence, 20 S*^,m'M '6...1%/"3
* . .yc
. . s .
miles from the 1imerick Station, is too far for "any injury in fact" to
. . v, , ja.. 9. , , .
him as a consequence of any leakage through the small orinces into
..a .. , , . "I'. .f.: .e..
secondary containment.'
@a, , . , /J'.,. , '
.: ,{.y g ',^ t:",h.K.i yN
# q However, we found that, since Nir. Anthony sought to intervene on instrument line failure, the consequence of any such failure might be
@ 9 ." ; O .
about the same as in a traditional operating license or construction 3[( '
;I '[ @d.'.',aD permit proceeding where a distance of about 50 miles has been thought qq.: , , ,. 4:l % W [J ,,
to confer standing to intervene. /d. at 170.
~Md .,' .
IN'z' : ,; , y$.7' .9 d initially the Board construed some of Nir. Anthony's contentions to pertain to check valve leakage through containment and some to relate ' Qfln , ~ ,
. , li,4'%w.bd.' to the instrument-linc failure. N!any are vague and would permit either git-t ', .)f a ppgfl$ construction. But at the prehearing conference, after being advised that c 's , ;. O.N... 7* the Board would not regard leakage-through-containment contentions to
% .,' ,.7. J. nip fall within the scope of his petition (Tr. 24-26, 51), Str. Anthony
/l.;L L.. r. '
~ n. W:i wt avowed that each of his contentions relates to :+rument-line failure.
N QO W,fJ. Crt. . ~ ~ .
-c
. - W
% .. Tr. 40-55. His contentions, he explained, predict the broad operational
> g. ; '
mM ;. . .1) ,- consequences of instrument-line failure. E.g., Contention 6, discussed at
,q.*
f g}.g:; ,. Tr. 43. They are not the consequer.c' of instrument-line failure calling ik- .'- .
. '4 ?1
. . < - for check-valve actuation followed i e c:.eck .alve failure with a resultant
,- 4u.67q ~ ' '
pathway through containment. /d.; ^! r. 40-55. In its pleadings nd at the prehearing conference, the Licensee has
, 9. Q '
taken the position that none of N!r. Anthony's contentions on Amend-
. ,, ment No. I are litigable in this proceeding because both instrument-line,
, y t.e, jf, excess-Dow checx-valve failure and instrument-line failure have been
,C .nO JW analyzed in the Limerick Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and that 4.; Q,.-& y w w,bf.k N cM M their assumed failures have been found to be acceptable. Therefore, w; : . Licensee,s reasoning goes, since the amendment would not change
%. m. . &ap t. c{Mj:w%;.y%m x f, ,W
'M.4 m r.',c.
pA'@O ,s _ W M.,p those analyses, the contentions alleging the elTects of the failures are not
;l j ' ;% 3.,g [, M,
< .c g:- litigable today. They could have been addressed at the operating license stage. E.g., Tr. 27-36 (Wetterhahn). The Staff agrees in principle with
'.} , , f.' 'w"s. " ,
the Licensee's technical / legal argument. Tr. 36 (Vogler).
'N 'i R' d' The Board, however. has not been persuaded by these arguments.
M' q 'l
" l[,n 4 $7 Even though the FSAR might assume and And acceptable instrument-f..
gN , , r,7u: '<,9r1.1. .. w:! . line, excess-Gow check valve failures and instrument line failures, the issue under the notice of hearing is whether the "no signincant hazards M$N_ a6:hD .J$.h. a.?.'MM;;*NYW'yg; p
. 4: 47-4.
fh$:& 4;Q' a$ Q.q 4 Y%n *
.W %p,Y *;W:'
'y b' 4Q .~e. Q"$ J ]%y,&. *1 ? Q# 1 But ser firemsa Drrrrr andF.swer Ca (North Anna Power stanon. Units I and 2), AL AB.52L 9 NRC 5 .Ddb. y kD, p 54 (19791 (ruel pool modincanont There the Apre4I Board did not reject out or. hand the Potomac in-I J. p. .
.1 4 iyy D'7'M, Oilh..
- i. .7( ' ,/ .l.<
.G A
A. p
- e ,3
- n. , ;
c.
.'( )4 J g' Iip N.. i
- a. , tersenors' claim or standing based on a member's residence 35 miles away. rinding only that Potornac's claim of mterest on that bnis was "not as strong " sunding by Potomac was round on the caus or recre.
. anonal actmties in the general uanity or the plant /J at 57 y , ;( o . .; ', -a, .
s
-I; 276
f hh $ bkkkhk w% hhhhhh$fh, hM e veMNW 6 W@ff&ih%g WMWY:DWL' ' @ b A W N>A W g p m ?ogp$j'$ W $&w%$N ? T /%4 m.%y;e ? . - u "., v y 3. g .es> 4.- -n . p:; 1-%1.M; ;
- ~~-- _. _
- ' '- _", _ .'- ' " "_~ " - - . .~~~.
< > , a. .. . i g _
- p a p%g.: n ~w * :- , . g;,7., :ne * *n>
L .u.UT p x ' c L . .A V ,c : < - -
. y' v . ,
- w w . qR ,;.;. ~ w "
... n
,J. Mp..q
-j .4.
fo~
,.g.,
.+.- s, gD$MpMGM Oj.]M.fs consideration" determination is correct. We would expect that, under
'3]hQe.d : #* *,%? NdW@ 7MM
{ 189a(2)(A) of the Act, an allegation of any signincant decrease in the margin of safety Howing from a "no significant hazards consideration" @$ Wl.Y23. Q /.d i'!. $[j' a 1 M > . j - amendment would be a fairly litigable issue notwithstanding the continu- [:*.5 7.k.h -f'h r ing validity of the FSAR. We have no Commission or Appeal Board hkh,@N, h
'Mytb3 pM .Mf@,'O lf.NM JApose X.of explaining the ruling on Mr. Anthony's intervention which guidance on this issue, however. Our discussion is simply for the pur-N[0Msl[7!hM%*.y{
hji.D yfMD0%'d,'$N.7 < 1 turns on a somewhat different point. Apparently the Licensee and the Staff were also trying to explain to M the Board that instrument-line failure qua instrument line failure is not an issue in the proceeding on Amendment No.1. We have since revisit-N Nd /[ NN[Mi@)1?E.Q6"% a. M Jf.M.,9Md$M@e
- g. A W.M4 o y *CW +b ed the application for Amendment No.1;2 the Staff's Safety Evaluation m support of Amendment No.1;) pertinent parts of the Limerick fg8 QM g,h
.Q 9:gr?Ff 4 @N.N M sQ@ @.U FSAR;' and D}athe explanations by Mr. Martin of the NRC Staff at the pre-7< .hh hearing conference.5 We now understand that the only issue considered
@2 pm %p/.hniM.*NMG,, dS W- c yp; ? . . . - . in Amendment No. I was the effect of the delay in the surveillance and W@$ t g p ..c. #rp .p. i TJ ' te:, ting of the instrument-line, excess-Dow check valves; not on the
. .. .. .'Mhkh;.k.h
.y.
F . < eh.ki[p;M,dMs"'"g@.,
> CR' : ' instrument lines themselves. Instrument lines are relevant because their failure may demand the actuation of the associated check valves.
ONMMUNfN5-
+d W ~ ' , V ,T
' . p" . Instrument-line, excess Dow check valves which might fait during the extension of time until the surveillance and testing would not cause a e ' Wa ."%-
failure of instrument lines. None of the analyses performed in connec-2#, V 4. - 'S> . J. a tion with Amendment No. I relates to instrument-line failure except as a demand upon check valves. The rather vague statement in the notice
-ip/
'+ ;?$h ' .' ' < .
' . '9 ' ('" "
of opportunity for hearing to the effect that failure of the instrument VNijl,h-? p UDU . - m line is an analyzed event in the FSAR may pertain to the relative role of
.. r A instrument lines vis-a vis the check valve failure.
%w % g.tf y Q; 6d ug<f g Yd9
%.ny-Accordingly, none of Mr. Anthony's contentions on Amendment No.
hhC.dM. M3,@h n ?@My}
@h(M[.
IS 63 hem;Mj h . hh'.Mn.d Q' M* M . .J g i ? ' .P5, 1 are within the scope of the notice of hearing. Nor do they have bases. Nor is the aspect of his proposed intervention as set out in his petition for leave to intervene within the scope of the proceeding. Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider Mr. Anthony's petition or n'.pmt;
; iska ap, ;e ri a t . ..g 4
- p y f @
94:c.Q, his contentions on Amendment No.1.
%d@h. .dsg4%, * ) . CO m?@ .nrt'.'G.;M, $ y. . dd.$. . . ,
r ., m /~2:y{h.-$!;Q'\*'.%o & . y Q& & l6 %.
. . . m? , %.sr vs U (,p ." v u, wi,,4 i ' .g' Ny ,,1 iiMV'o?Add @;F
^
Qtg . .sn. t %
%u, L a <
y ,M
- F, M
M f.: sa n V : 5 g . i ' / %,Jg 2 Attached to letter of March 16.1986. rrom Mr. Connor to Licensing Board. 1 - W.] - p #pW 2 Forwarded by letter of March 7.1986, from Mr. Rutberg to the Licensing Board. C. f d. gN -13 .h t.E 4 Attached to Licensee's Answer to Contentions Proposed by Intersenor Rokrt L Anthony on Amend-gh.. AQ n.b.8.8 p e, . [g*S,,
,7,~ .M[f E M ,A ment No. I and Contentions Preposed on Amendment No. 2. March 26.1986.
$ Es.. Tr. 76 81 (Martint
-y :, ,m , - ,v -
n~.w . m. lk ..
~y
.. t .
w;gm.m. M,,CL : MQ o ww.scwye.yx 5s% .9 t 9
.~%u&m
.;y,. .w -y w
<L.;hp a n.m -
j. n
.~,
a
-l%}::W&;
~.h:..;W;pm&h
;;.y>%.u 4%m: .: n,O .5;M;t
-v.
- O.]Wd U .{l jQ-yM . . $: QP;. eG& Q &%y.~-wq .u;3( .s 'W s 9 l. p!! f. M. ? n ~ ' _s - s:c, % - 4 ." . -
T,pWM .
'?
- , s t- my y, r ~ >
.. .. . -...s.. .: - . ~ ,c - J~ ~ - ~. -
- s. .
y c)
.g.
- e. >
, 3 T A ..
.0<+'* , 'c
. i.; .
.N' -
~
. ~. g %
,J
..su,.
fCy ' ' '. i . ,
. B. Mr. Romano's Petition ,.a... .. -: '
The notice of opportunity for hearing on Amendment No. I set Janu-
.d;?';V @p.
~
4c yy@ . f ..q. ' @c ;", - ary 26,1986, as the date for petitions for leave to intervene. 50 Fed. 4 . ',. [;- t h
~
* Reg. at 52,875, supra. TI'e Air and Water Pollution Patrol, by its Presi-e [g p. M?- s.
dent, h!r. Romano, filed a petition for leave to intervene dated February 3 M d .d$ h ','d ?f'n'. 24, 1986, asserting that he received his notice from Ntr. Anthony on 3, . ' ~ f. ve X. ? , ' y , . s. ' '. February 21,1986 "thus the delay." Other than that brief comment,
% ,W, y[%Mr7f. 1' , d the petition does not discuss the five factors under 10 C.F,R. } 2.714 Q. 'J':J;'2L'J C which must be balanced when petitions are filed late.6 The NRC Staff y7 3@,y.,.y..
3 9/ p : . . ? . c. .
$.N 7,, .
T/^,
'O. . Y. . .l points out that hir. Romano was served with the notice along with others on the Limerick service list with a letter from the NRC to Ntr.
M( + MN.h f.Y;;i N ' e .. Bauer of Philadelphia Electric Company on January 27,1986. hir. Romano's petition is late and he has not demonstrated good M' f,'NY;v -
,: 1 A hNM c.2. ds' % . * -
cause for its lateness. liowever we do not burden the record with an un-
'Jf.f n y..vM$.'g, [7d;; (: " -
necessary balancing of the four other factors for considering late-filed pe-af
. -ry - s ~;,qq. . . . y- ..
+ l t tions.because Str. Romano's petition is fatally defective on at least two g,9. .gn yy.Wj. '. other counts. The aspect as to which he seeks to intervene is copied 3 F i ,Q 7- y. M Q'Q @ ; h Y , o' "pl from hlr. Anthony's petition including spelling errors. lie seeks to inter-4? % ' . Q,$'k ' vene on instrument-line failure as an aspect in itself. Therefore the peti-
'/
S. ~ 30 ': - tion is defective for the same reasons we cited above with respect to N!r.
~y' $ f 7 , f; f
. Anthony's petition. But his petitioning deteriorates even more in the
' ;p
- hlarch 19,1986 supplement containing his contentions. It is a rambling.
argumentative paper, which except for its title, has no discernable rele-
- f. , s , 'i? ,
W vance to the instrument-line, excess-flow check valve proceeding. Over-
~
-n- wo,u
(~ all his petitioning is without any merit.
- t. (.;, $? ,
4 T NG g M,ecM.o,Mn, 4.i'w Lw w m ,. e,;jd* 2III.SAMENDMENT u^ C O O NO. 2 (CONTAINMENT ISOLATION) m @n ; lp: ) ml$,% M..*L N~w'i.3'"
'/.f[!G .mm . , ?,9. .
2
. The notice of opportunity for hearing on Amendment No. 2, pub.
M? hiQ JN % e /9' ,. ' , lished on December 30,1985, set February 3,1986, as the date for re-
- Q g "K .,.g , ., C C'
quests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene. 50 Fed. Reg.
.{.. .
Msut- . . - ' o; - , 53,226-27, 53,235. Ntr. Anthony filed his petition dated February 26, _ (f . , . 1986, stating, as we believe to be the case, that he first received a copy lrl.]s:.,,w . 1 l C D 'y.K. ;. .f .; a, & , _ ll ' * . d ,i
- a. a - .:p ,9;U ?)n; ' .,..b m,;%:%p:- ~n
. - ;j;g y e
\ \
a a -tv.f % yiw # Section 2.71MaHl); Q, gf QN, . .J .X. ,$ s
%y[v'h*.
. p% M
,a .MW
.,y,ggv.R.kq'vn#&
8 % SQ
,Ey M' s;h.m,%, .: .
m Good cause,if any. for failure to file on time. Gi) The availabihty or other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected (iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be espected to asust in
- v. > ' [9 c..
[i/% @lq i " 'M] ,4M.[ hM
-yeg'*/E[id * " *
- deveGpmg a sound record.
hv) The enten. to which the petitroner's interest will be represented by eustes parhet '%I D. [ M;$5J'f[*- r; dly bj . T d. M . g p[ M@t*; -
'i.2 .f.'Tc (vf The entent to which the petitioner's participauon will broaden the issues or delay the sj proceeding L ; 1' '
;z 278
c ..l. 9 j - . 3 , e-. .-.. . u.~: .- - ~ a. ~ - - - - : a . w a. -.
. w: _sm ..
...y e . c ,-.
- m ; - -
- p. '
, o . , .
. 7..a. -
c
**7 [.,, t .. ., ;, . .W S. . .. ,
- of the federal Register notice with the Staff's letter, dated January 27, t -.g,, i U.dic W.o.! f. W.: ?. .n.. g ,#, : .1 1986, to Philadelphia Electric Company's Afr. Bauer. He also stated in A: gh,@ 5 v .l ,' '; his petition that it was within the prescribed time period. Perhaps for M@y . a3.-' d <-
~ '- .1 that reason he did not address the five factors to be balanced in consider-c ."*[ . . l: > ;. ing late-filed petitions.
' W$yCNG
. ~ M :/ ,%q. A jkAf,P:L At the prehearing conference, hir. Anthony was requested to elaborate
> :. ~
..w. ,x m on his assertion that the petition on Amendment No. 2 was not late. He S@M N. ,. s v.;)W, .nJ /yMMQ<. M F S 6.P:WOS R ;@Q,. represented to the Board that he believed that regulations gave him 30 j~ I[ days from the day the Staff served him with the notice of opportunity Sv.h'h.hft
~ s ez M. d. Wh[MM,6y;~ cs <. iMksl OM for hearing. Tr.115 (Anthony).
3DQhp.g. .O $ $ The Board has contrasted hlr. Anthony's oral representation with the E. no . 4 s. ,W: - 4 T. ,QM.Md'$p5' M. . .M..-J. -VN.2 . . .D., plain language of the notice of opportunity for hearing and with his state-fV ment in his January 30 petition on Amendment No.1. In his January 30 M,Wk.W.qq,bh;y>,
$[h j e, gg,[gf,y h M N' petition, hlr. Anthony asserted that he could not have responded any g[79 W:,$1ll,Q.%gg{h;n~;b '
.y earlier to the NRC-to-Bauer letter because it " reached us only on 1/29/86." We are convinced that on January 30, 1986, hir. Anthony
~ y Q 'M,[ .ij .;Q@-
_ knew that he had to petition immediately on Amendment No. I because r.y' ?;' . ,. ;3.$U he implied as much. The best inference is that he also knew that an im-t g ' p[yl,;e ,>,n E p p . ( N I mediate petition on Amendment No. 2 was required. Accordingly the 3y,[# v .g . - ( <j.F j J [ -)/ Board does not accept Str. Anthony's representation. We find that he 73 ' has not demonstrated good cause for the late filing of his February 26, 1986 petition on Amendment No. 2.
- '^ < .
We have also balanced the other four factors of the intervention regu-f , f, .
., .~ r lation (note 6, supra) to determine whether his late filed petition should J~ '
nevertheless be accepted. He has a heavier burden on the other factors because of the absence of good cause for late filing. CM- m s t .,w w n , .ww , .
- There are no other means by which his interest may be protected and wa c r. .w . .
we assign that factor to his fasor.
.. . , :t 3 ffbhYNbEh.,% We cannot conclude either way whether his participation in any pro-hh :GQ WP N[d[%@N!$.MM-D.N'M" hip ceeding might reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. On one hand the vagueness of his contentions does not bode Q Q p 7 W**2 y M, N Q '
h well for a contribution to any record. On the other hand, there will bc
,: y '.' no record, sound or otherwise, on Amendment No. 2 unless 5f r. Antho-MlE. *1[ ;,1
.Sf--., e. M,,T4.Q
' . . Q-7 }%-
h [Sp
.m b
@($ ny assists in developing it. The third factor is neutral.
No other parties will represent his interests. We do not accept Licen-s,AB p . see's argument that the NRC Staff will represent hir. Anthony's interest. S ij$. Q'j.lJM yc-M $.f MiWAy This factor favors accepting the late petition. {WMpdg@f@uSQ}k{$-7dy,J; 'p/ With respect to the lifth factor, hir. Anthony's participation would hhh pMM broaden the issues because there will be no issues without his participa-
- h@y N y4,ljlfhelfe.;S$ ..MQjhh: tion. In addressing this same factor with respect to hir. Anthony's peti-tion on Amendment No.1, the Board commented that, since that
'e <e e'a[.#WWMf9,.D.c.
.R)DN, _ v uME;$-n ,, e ?, g'8, ',t amendment was already in force, his participation would not delay the 7 4
> gf.[ ?d 's ~ 'i,"',.
4At g '.
**.t , ,
- . > i 279 IP 1
l l
d.g ,. s , ;g . .. , : . ,. -- * ' ' z %r.,+.y +>g w - a n o..,
. &. mm
.c - .- .3 . - - ~ -
.a- . . % x.~m ._ u _
..9.a ' ' *. . [ .l ' ' .
Q* .,;;:': y', w' _
= .
,. D O,4; ff @ x.c :,J i,;!.d G ' y:;a', W proceeding; that any harm to Licensee was obviated when the amend-N E. M .?[ @, 7 ..[:. ';T -
,*. ,.Tp . ,
ment was issued without considering the petition. Licensee has objected 4 f .$/m -, ,N . a, o.c c I ,
, ... J M r . analysis to that ]. in its motion for a directed certification. The Board recog-4,Ng nizes some merit in Licensee's complaint. Requiring Licensee to go to 3.dS+
bip .iJ.Y ';/p*'A619(i..' "'*P'., ;;f Yhearing, when in fact it may be entitled as a matter oflaw to have an in-f5],Vif:4;.6f - ,.J.'O valid petition dismissed, would be a harm unwarranted in the present sit-M h .5lR.'. 5 W :M '[.' uation. We weigh the fifth factor against accepting the late petition. $$.j@[.'.?;Ep.G ,W'C : 9} .
/
The sum of the balancing of the five factors for considering late filed
~
intervention petitions is that the petition should be denied on the N vlto .M,ic
% f3eJe M jy'MD..s .* D.': ' N O"..;i4 ground of tardiness.
y' ..W* s @J ,b e>.l,
*o ,%. :'- 1 * . *" :% v
?y;; M.4 . v.2 P t:' 4* IV. MR. ANTHONY'S PETITION FOR STAY p
' MgMM/i 71/
C &p%$ @.SNM. T i-i . .p> d/ 4 " . f,t 6' OF PROCEEDINGS s.. uy.M %.., wen Q p :r -a m e.e>
%w f.QdlpM- / 4' i6.i,.
1 e ... 4 Mr. Anthony has filed with the Board two motions seeking a stay of 4 Agc.f.n 'J ' * ,' T . 9. M J the proceeding. The first, dated March 13,1986, seeks leave to petition Z.hjh.W-t. , 5.M..:X. the Board to intervene with the Commission to set aside the referral to lG4 tV jl% ' 'i h.c %@Mb[2{,','[
@;9 m 4 a. .,o,- .,
. f.- ~~,
s the Staff of Mr. Anthony's petition to the Commission for a stay on Amendment No.1. See Letter from Chilk to Anthony, March 5,1986.
.g.. f M./L; ~ . ~ ~ Q, The second motion, dated March 24, 1986, is brought under 10
- g. .3eg ' 7 .(- - - , d. C.F.R. { 2.788 and petitions for an immediate stay. We can select from a 7 ." $ , handful of g;ornds for denying both requests. Two come to mind im-
[.J
, . , ..; ' '.k. mediately. First we hase no jurisdiction to stay this proceeding. The ! iS .? J '
1 Commission a signed that jurisdiction to the NRC Staff on March 5,
. E% : yf' . _ s# ' , 1986, pending the conclusion of the proceedings before this Board.
5: N. .,W : M1 Chilk letter, supra. Second, in view of today's Order terminating the pro-
.u. . . .A. 5. y N, ,g cceding, Mr. Anthony cannot prevail under i 2.788(e).
%yWR. p x , :,:.v.gs p: ' M: o ..r.w.
..rm
~n;.,
M ,v .s , am .. W,./ se , ,- Q. h ~'9ff,. .hb.YM* t 47 7 *i # r.
. .c,t. . PM'.k.e.y 4%.p,4;% e,;. .p' 4 V. ORDER 5
- n. g qMujgy
$/J' ) * ' .' M6",@4 :* i /Q 1. Mr. Anthony's petition for leave to intervene on Amendment No.1 is dismissed. The Board's memorandum of March 13, 1986
";PE , 'A . .:.t , w/ n L o (LDP-86 6A, supra) granting that petition is vacated.
t$y ;.[$. . ,N.3fd. 9 The petition of the Air and Water Pollution Patrol by Mr. 2. %, p p , ,- q. g;u 9..;6..?.. m
% =,n -
Romano is dem.ed.
,m. k j h j 3. Mr. Anthony's petition on Amendment No. 2 is denied.
$[ T M .iM,. m , M $,M y.M P . ** 4. The consolidated proceedings on Amendments No. I and 2 are h kh;W3Qth,(h*g r. t
+/ hri %y..a.bpMy( d **. b,,.d..u.h.t s.
!j terminated.
Ir NY I- ' w, f;h* g,i.jOWm+me.
-7 QQ}m a'V. *>y f, s
'* I MYe *; yTWW Y.*
gt' h*. .h;.w::w,eM
.A') m 1. '
; f; -
;L ".,Q 4-..g'L3-280 1
i
'Y' . <
l - - - ~ . .-- . ~ . _ . . , . . . , . . _. m
wgw , y;v - - ,. y 1 mw % e . , .. - .
^'pkma v. ;p , g:, 8 7 ';a .z , ..w. : :-
e 5: a ._ 2, : .. ;..z.w . ,_, . _. - . , .;,.
.wm e-
';, e m . m 1.
\ w,.gp}~g , p p g .... A. ,. . c,> . . .; .; *p,u . .q:7. .- . . ,
.7 J' W h%QY
; p.Pw,MQ.l ;c d.c Q . '.W. ry N, m;m m.,l
,w 4,,p .
?.y
- a. % . <
c .,; e.. % .g ,.. . h VI. APPEALABILITY 9.hNk.f)p.M;I$.NI/s".hdhlQ9 UNI
%s-M % WXCM% jp2Medby. This Order wholly denies the petitions for leave to intervene by the $ Wglt@mA.9,q.W..n$.
q- dh $ S .J %.Tr@y,$ petitioners. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. f 2.714a, this Order F. W+-M.M2 .Mgf. .y
. may be appealed to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
[ N $.. U@g$7FQQA8 f 7 m[I p% Q ' N. within 10 days after it is served. 2e wn m.iL, %% m vps.v. m$+hgNq ddh; M f. ATOMIC SAFETY AND 4,fe.. F[hN. L, u Vypr.t
. m.- a.
X t, n LICENSING BOARD J.48@9 hjW.% m foa n . +QW3Qp.;.:
. 7gg ...
;Ai.,;,,P.+.m:a'b.9
'M YQ5WTM.y;%Md.7t;'
Richard F. Cole J/,>A #p$.Mr/M.M;Q:# VfG .k(kjlm%. u Q gag) ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE s .. n
$,s..ag$?. yh,W.?
-,r -
*tc +fa S.** :+,-I -
- y.
e-ea
$ . O,C
* -?. .. ..?g6w.yi
,, %n.3.YUd.k.M.,wo !'?k.%.w;,.
?
W,4*, AM f a@3b M. ;'s Gustave A. Linenberger , Jr.
- 4. ifd4;%uMW' 3 h N.?>, '
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE a h, w ww g.6'?.Ws- ' m **H Y l}.c h .
> a s V M' W !t4~~%
m @w d. jj; r J= aM,~'
'.,W.~.
~ ' n. Jjh*?
+g':
..,W;,, t%
S.'?;cy;p + - , .: n h* . , .y ' i W n.U'4 y$Ak.o ,h@rl6'.W. ; ..:Gs ;6f Ivan W. Smith, Chairman
. w .-
S, nM.m.; fq@c,0fe g m ?,b. 4. ..cWp. a > .m . ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE m . ..; l 9,s.m* * *#
. n, ... :
?.c ' g. + "
!M6
't Q;(Q@ts' *
@ Nf k d R. f, M:7$ ',[ h [.h Bethesda, Maryland April 4,1986
'h$phvy@M$z%:
m, :; .. S .c u ; ~ ,, ,
'w 4%.?
m
.%,9g.v.:i gnx,49W n; /.w%.,y .a, a.W y.e=.-g, :
Qn I.gA+ pM.:p mMy:,,g:E 7 M W APPENDIX T Adh w.4,h /E rh h) ~ During the prehearing conference on March 27,1986, the Licensing If rtrh Mkd "f1l $5M n?% 1[MWM'DMlr
.hN/$$ij Board inquired of the parties whether a hearing on the amendments would be required under the "Sholly Amendment" if, as it then seemed lp N
.k.c #QU . .W,$..RW,.$. ..
pMr dy. , m.w.f P
,.% .'J'.
likely, the Limerick plant would shut down before any hearing and deci-sion. Mr. Anthony and counsel for the NRC Staff believe that a hearing M. b. L-,4, fhk. .~ l$~9.igfM . ,Mp -Q;%is required in any event. Counsel for the Licensee believes that the pro-Q;ypv!GM@hr
.B ~g' t w.$s W M M %N*:d. ceeding would become moot and that no hearing would be required. Tr.
143 44 (Wetterhahn). The Licensing Board would not have conducted [ M an evidentiary hearing if the matter had become moot by a plant shut-g iy;
'h] J down before any hearing and decision even if we had found litigable con-tentions. Yet in Mississippi Power a Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Sta-F$pd MrNej " ", Unii i>, LBP 84 23,19 NRC 1412 (1984), another Licensing hn. ...- W $.W .-
m n$ $. m$. nl$ W * .
. ...s e . c, , n
... , c e . . .. t 1-p 281
; a -
- I" .e O . .[.? ** .
- f '<
;p- s.... se. .
3 , s n......--..... .-. .-- ,- - - .- -- s ? - g. f p 1 *
- A.'
, 4 y t#
T bfjf -p .. yn., ff, 0. 'h.$m.;n 6l ml y'lTV&mpe;Q
.v w(, . , . ,p:(l;n :-f.;,Q]QQ%f x, w-' m.:.j .. y~ w , , g.
- t _;r;q : :.e g,: ;
- :: . .: me
. >~- s
.; 4y cy-:, .,.. .;,,
- s. . . -
. ,, p s,. m. ., x. . ,, -
2 -
~ 7,s.
3,,,,.4 O
,q g
. w ,~.
. ,s
~
p- -<s. . . . _ __ ,,, _ ,, ,
, . s
.I
. Board would have conducted a hearing even where the amendment and action permitted under the "Sholly Amendment" may have already
^Il
'1" .
. T, - . been completed and the matter had become otherwise moot. /d at 1414.
. Counsel for Licensee has suggested that the Licensing Board may
" I
~ '
wish to certify the issue, if not for this case, then for future cases. In
, light of the disposition made of this proceeding in today's order, we do
,. .~
. ' , ..c . . not believe we have jurisdiction or need to certify this issue for use in 6*' ' ~
the Limerick amendments proceeding. Sooner or later, however, a
' " ,;; */ - i,'
/ ; .
'N' '
'i Licensing Board will be faced with the decision as to whether it must
, , ,, - ~' - t; l a ' M conduct a hearing on mooted matters under the Sholly Amendment.
* -s' ' '
Prior guidance from the Appeal Board or the Commission may save
. . . :, . . ' , ]
either an unnecessary hearing or remand for a hearing.
. . e, , . .
, o i
*C^ e
,/* e * . ' .
', , , *^' p
- f ,, , 9 <. e. .t . , ,.,g
;O,. 1, i . ',*'*e .
.'.; ,' s- s (
g *Qs
' 4 [. , '
- t t
- a. e 4
I I g. I pO_ h e, v.. T,,*., ,y,.
',s
- 1 a
- r. - '.' ,." *. ','. .?'",.,
.. } * ;, 7; , - ,
,,y ,; i
.; , d . ' .,.- l t. , p ,' ,Q' , -.'"-;l,.r' t' *. . '
' T
'.g ..
W -+
, ; if , ,
,t ,.
e
- g 4
9 9 t 8 8 4 , D g ,4~( e', .: , , . . .A r',.s. 0 a a ,, , p *
.s a ,.\
p f,1'~' *$ "'e j,h , g (',[ ' O. f )a* *< ,,.\..'s ~ n g. '. ,~,3.,- sl,4,) ) $' 5 <
- c. **J .a M;k i u,9 s. , W.b : .
.4 h
^
-* ? . *3 , *' .l [.i,,.*
, !l,
. ,h'.h.. , .,' N ^r;'s f ? .Q dt
. . ,>' , ,c*
, 's ( ..
j o h.- Ah, .v
, ,.' ' ' ,' ?
. 'f",. ,
L oL d,c* *'T- t <. p (*,
- T' .,
,.* x [
, , ,o = , s = , .
- e g
J 282 j
.- l t
i
f '. 9, pr ,a : l R " N.. F hW ,rf. & w7 y k- . w@ h h. h k. Y:' a.:,. 6'- ?,! 7
.<~
w y%J[w %
. yMBT,, io (k-@--rff.4 gfk pM8~1/,". : bN y.!M $h e7 , y ..> ;-M ,'4;; y,n.".2 w? w W M plWAiTETK.ddMSf;NN; v: s :j'A, a
- y;;".;r.n v6.w.,m,.agglw
- . ., .L^<. < m. ,
-v;<m.
,; - ;.,..:.a. .. -
.,1.,+_ . ~ .. ~--.,
,g.- .
_ . _ . . . .s .s . . . . . . . .. . . . . . _ _..
.y * . < .,.c.. - ,,o -
1
+ , J.[? .-
lq t ;.; ,,
> w. -
, ";y.Qt. .A. . . ,/,
,7 f '. .: Cite as 23 NRC 283 (1986) LBP 8610 m m',; '. f .
- 3 .-
,. 9 n.p. d./ N
?
,,. p .'; a p'.
P k ' . . Q' i
.'.,r
. *, . f :.+ . ;s v . z :., ..4 4 r 'w
,. g ' ' ' : ..~f:0 J.dc- N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA m.6::~. ..n.. y ,x. . w.#pr;p, 3 ;
! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a .g . . '+:l.* '.
~. A=. m a +. .... .... ,. s <
,, .~.,,..,: w
^
.+.. .. .
49$. e o 4 oA -.
.~ . . .4: t .P. yi 3
K.u:%.t. ud 79
.. n %', w a;-dw/.,:.,.v. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.s oyg%,,,,,
v;& ."'.9
- W.s Kj,,! f.:l. P,A,d G N y:. "'W 1:% A p ,Wg.p 1 J <.
p: n Before Administrative Judges: V:y;?d M L% ,,va f ' a. %fa. Qh...o w m m;w$m :,:t i . a p, ,A. M. . a p:.'. Q,. ,
.m
- . ,.9. r.
.sp.H !$.fq;(e W e
, %, 2 Sheldor: J. Wolfe, Chairman e,
- ,c; a..
M$pI? ';i. , h.% !- n" . 'J.h,,}Ai,,Wp
<. ,.[.1, M./: '
3 ,[4hJf
. Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris n: A'%.&.
. p. 9 m..,: o;,tv
. m.. ;u. e ,. ,;n.i .3y. c .. l.n. ,jt.'%.
a.. . ..o. . ne.x :.. ...p. ,. . . , . #. w. w, a.qt 4 g v..
. .s- ...n , . e,. ..
.c . z. i, . . M.
'. c4]>: .;1 >N ...,. 4
- 1. . In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 289 0LA.1
;; .*; p.g /... d.. ..
, ,. C,l, e,q ,
s a.p, o&.s,'t.
.V. .e, 50 289 0LA.2
. - [. % , , , L * , 7.jyg , . l; %. ,.;
(Steam Generator u . c', ,o
,+t y; . . ' Plugging Criterla)
-
- u ,. * :
7 9 ,. 7 . - :a , - ...
,4, .
. e ,, ,c . ,p. ^ GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES y,; S -
4' s m
?..
- c. .
NUCLEAR COCPORATION n> + +
. . ." - ' , (Three Mile letand Nuclear a ,.
- ). ...P : . T. Station, Unit 1) April 9,1986 a.,a. -
- . . . , , .c , . ; .. .: W. ,
. : :; . ~>n.3 _ 7p p, ;.
AppNl,$M.l((/.q[,*d:Q% The Board issues a hiemorandum and Order which, Invr alia, dis-
'.1; . .' %..
N
- g. ,h ,*.~? A'.*@':7,. w x.v;b 'lP. %.,O' @ */ O RULES ,' OF PRACTICE: ADNilSSIHil.ITY OF CONTENTIONS
. c%. m .. . o , ;
There are Ove purposes for the basis.for. contention requirement in 10 P p ', . ?. . . c . . .. . ,s . .a.. . . . . . . . 1 '. . .
's , . ., *1 .L C.F.R. { 2.714.
- v. "w. , . . h9 ,.
,. .. . . ' o '. . : . t4 -
2,. 8)h;h.'$hr T i .l . . .$
- X Dh[!N.kN,... 2'N0N,@)f@l RULES OF PRACTICE: AD311SSlHILITY OF CONTENTIONS gr@hMt
. . .h ,f The degree of specincity required involves the exercise of judgment
.p!y.% h[f.-f)d%fM,,W lV w%.U.).}lN,Q4h.,j .j<9 mag s by licensing boards on a case by. case basis, 7 y at r/i.y;,@e,,
..a p.A,:%,p/.+.;.5,>.m.p-. u 2q s . .,
- o. ' v . o y-s. .p f.4
,p y y ",*. } g - , /
, 4 j
- i. '- '.
,- l '= , s
., -. ;s ,
. 28.1 i
6 9 l t
..-..oy ,-.e-. .
4 g k i n. fmI h:n %,h kw i- hMh:n:j.x%w&..u:y~t;3D:y w m%.t.y,m;bh.,.Ma. :
.n. W m;:p qqsh% n m ,- .
e% p%y.wN.,.r. .f'Wa w. am9,f9;sf n:pp%n' Wgy - 3 p:g;%.n.g,4 33l;Q;" ZWQ,;w.A":c.5,#y Wq;;,7.W, Mgqq. ccn. : : QfQSe3, yg,.Q, tQ.,..y a4 .
- c, ._. .u . w., a. _ _ . . m a w. ... ._2 L.a. .- _ . . . _. - m :_ . ,.
V. ~ , ,
. ' .l .):
- 3. +. ,.
- .m o . .,
- - S. ..
RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS
,, ;,...- i C~ . t m,- 1 .' , 7. '; ;'.n. . ,
Section 2.714 of 10 C.F.R. does not require the petition to detail the ,
. -w,,.g y. c .'
. c.i / , '
evidence which will be offered in support of the contentions, and it is V.. ,.':<:,.%,r'.
;r s'- . ;
not the function of a licensing board to reach the merits of a contention
,(.9:,*,:"yl"'M"e,M;*-? i.h ..
at this stage of the proceeding.
,- ' S y. .qs. 3 y . .. w, '*7..
. ~ . .,
,7 m . r
- 4. ; .s gu. t .
w ' RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS < 1 "dM;%.>,
..w
/MMW.' d SW/N Ac y, , : %,.; e .MS.p~! Y_ x ...p".fl$s. .a y.rr w f.U.P At the petition level, all that a petitioner is required to do is to state the reasons (i.e., the basis) for each contention.
N. s .I,$.(~.[ to .e...
).Y m[ n(
f k $yf
; f,. , . %< , .- .,- W, * ;; , 9, g w> f ..
.M N '. ' .i m:Qwf'.V RULES OF PRACTICEt COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
..;!:i n f:; While the doctrine of collateral estoppel may be raised in opposition "p!' .c . (; ,. .) *d{,j$ ~,, Tr$' 'g to the admissibility of a contention, the petitioner may resist that af-
- 14. t 9. .J, ' .'.1 4 ,
.T~ firmative defense, in whole or in part, on grounds outside the record of +
% i 1, -
a
# \. < l [ 'j,l ' '3 , , . the prior proceeding, e.g., he may claim that, since the conclusion of the prior proceeding, there has been a material change in factual or legal cir-
. ' . ' Y] . ; j ' , , a 'N ,%j.
cumstances, or that there exists some special public interest factor in the
, cay'.q g case. Confronted with such a claim, a licensing board may not reject the s,o j , ;' " :, ' . ':.
?, . contention as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
't < .. .
'.A - ~
' .. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
~ ; f'- -
(Discussing Rulings on Admissibility of Contentions)
<. Y , . ' . :. ' n..E'
,I
- j 3
* &,., , y
.p,e Memorandum p.%g OQ'fh6'Xy&,' gCW 5%W . .: .
p During the 10 C.F.R. l 2.751a special prehearing conference held on 5/>.h80.$M*h*/f f g blarch 27,1986, in these two currently consolidated cases, as memorial-MI.M.3 y,3 "U -
.s,Jr, m/U,D q s ?!,Q]"@Q]q.1:, ized in the Order of April 2,1986 (unpublished), the Board heard oral argument upon five identical contentions proposed by Three Stile Island
. 4 ' ; g .a ",',-" f,5 Alert Inc. (ThllA) in each case' (Tr.15120). In that conference, the
,e'
- tc. ci. .s' l , O\ ;,,nr# :
. 4 e . v t, n
... , .9 c.
.?'<
. r. . , -
,[
b %'.h-f t :- ,
.y Iin cce OLA.I. at hsue is the Lkensee's appheatim to amend the tiesm senerator tube techmcal s' CJ y w .' M , .,~, ,4 specincations. This proposed amendment. Techmcal specifkation Change Request (TscR) 148. would
/ ~., gA<*j.f:j[4[f },Pglfg4 CaJyf,{.h' ma.ntain'the ' 4m.y, Y'.' '
throush all lima on the secondary side of tutws but would rerface the 4M limit on a,* ;, -r - m [ ,y)k[ the primary s#Je of tubes eith a sliding scale which goes from 4% to 70% throughwall dependens upon Y "s e
., y)'.,d* A MN.C , the site er the defect in c.se oLA.2 at issue h Licensee's application to amend the steam generator drgbA,a %'Oll9 - 4]hg[gg% t i ptp A.C M
sube specidentions That proco ed amendment. TseR 153. would in substance chanse the repair criteria to allow the Lkensee not to repair tubes, under certain circumstances, tr a tube has a detect up to 50% b .(Mtk?gl7 ;h, / 4 l2*.,,y,g.' y j / O.A y. +. '1 j', y.f.. J 2,
/ f ,h tube mall penetratmn. (CnMurd) 3
> , b . Q -Vh 44
# ' .e, (*[y't }jj.[. v,}.%.
+
. .>4, . . , , '. n,
, , ,,,. LT q 284 J
j
~
% v a..e m;- .-r m
.,4 w., . - .
_ .~.m.i.m . , . .x.a..w_c .
. . m _.a
..: . .a _._ r --.,
Ihk / , ,.b s
$Y. .'# _ .
y 3. .. < g i f ,x .y f 'k__>*
&~.Z ,
> .'y,M,...,b e . , 4 <; w Board stated that it would rule at that time only on the admissibility of
' 3]L %, ... -eq.- . T ,hf.F ' m the contentions in order to expedite the proceeding and thereafter
. [ l$,5 Y, .47~M.m y.
.Wi,C D/ .
p would issue an Order discussing its reasons for rejecting or admitting ,j;.%,$[.;Y'i .
. m:g yg' contentions. The Board then admitted TMIA Contentions 1,2, as clari.
W. 3 f J '; 1 ' 99 fled, and 5, as reworded, and rejected TMIA Contentions 3 and 4 in >-e..',$ '. . t % /. .n. .;
- [$ i , . '
- M, $.f'M ?n' d y," 9'F a .
.M . S l r.%% , . -) .D% S.J .
each case (Tr.120 21).
- 0. $0 i
ih
.v gg , .c.1 - = . .. vu h.
4.,'[ w 6 . . . . sv[h . A. Lesal Standards for the Admissibility of Contentions f.wl t PM, :,4:.; C, '.pf.y,4.r-d dy.~ The Commission's Rules of Practice,10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b), require i:N.(*.'.6,3.i,Qi% that the bases for each contention be set forth with reasonable specificity. %.Nj@G.M..:9.y:@.hra,i.R;,5 c sc dx./..,i,..J,@y :. e c In Philadelphla Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units gD' 4 g +. Ga.6 2 and 3), ALAB.216,8 AEC 13,20 21 (1974), the Appeal Board stated g,g,t .@q.m - that the purposes of the basis.for. contention requirement in i 2.714 ,5:.y,4g.h'**'.j'(.1,Qj.Q.<;*Q ,*,s w ., ~s p. %p!:. '.' 1 L.:W,?i
,p, were-*
,%,'..~
..,.,,,t .. .a t n . *;- :
.. i, * >e a c. ,w
.y.,
i.
, ". -*),,J - K ,$'j y 6 I . N' ~ ,jf[' ./,3,(,
I, to help assure that the hearing process is not improperly invoked, for example, to attack statutory requirements or regulations;
;:. -s lM1 ba *..n. o ,'.,.s..> p.y,.
n
- wL yfy.* r / .Y
.a: c.;, 2. to help assure that other parties are sufnciently put on notice so that they will W .
know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose;
" ;,;fl)<.,.
~ ff.
, . ii. , M ; [, , ,.; . v
, . N:L , vl . ' % .El. 3. to assure that the proposed issues are proper for adjudication in the particular x , . &. % ' c, . - -
proceeding - i.e. generalized views of uhat apphcable policies ought to be are
'4*' ,. 'M., A r.?
not proper for adjudication, y;4 7 ,;
- h. (,0 . I
, ' . j.(, *7(
- 4. to assure that the contentions apply to the facility at bar; and
- 5. to assure that there has been sumcient foundation assigned for the contentions
*i,%..;d,.f,'.s .
.f., ; ' , ' to warrant further exploration.
.b; i. V , ; p , ; . .. , .
L UMh s;N k i dOiW r N!, ' Further, with respect to the degree of specificity required, the Appeal
..;! @ il W U Y.i * ' Y Board noted in the Peach Bottom decision that this involves the exercise Nd$ ! hMM k;Nvtihh,(.M?.9(/h,M@ '% of judgment on a case.by. case basis. Moreover, the Appeal Board has
[(GQ'9
. S$k.'8kMN$lhrMA',il
[@$ stated that i 2.714 does not require the petition to detail the evidence which will be ofTered in support of the contentions and that it is not the function of a licensing board to reach the merits of a contention at this R6,$67,,'f
'E W.M;E .v9?M@ '.Y , M./! O.'.h* 'd stage of a proceeding.: At the petition level all that a petitioner is re.
Q Y.64,%..;, %, f, 3.. .s.. ..# t Maj ,j.s -rz ,Jp d. .. quired to do is to state the reasons (i.e., the basis) for each contention.2 In case oL A 1. T%tl A submitted rise prope sed contentions on % larch 10.1986, and the Licensee and ( eb ,y [ ,'I T ?. , the NRC starr respecinely responded on March 20. In case oLA 2. on March 10. 1986. TMIA submit. ,y*,.~g ibGy's i 7 V.,@* L ,e a f
, , Mid
.:* jv 't &g*kN SM
-01. *'. y 4
f Oted a request for heanns whnh set rorth fise proposed contentions, the Lisensee responded on March
- 20. and the stati responded on March 25. since TMIA deleted certain wording from the contentions
-hQ my)M.'(.,[, during the special preheanng conference, the contentions proposed in each case are identical il ' ,] 'hN .y [
' t. y p- h.} 2 Misissype Powr J Lie 4r Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear station. Units I and 2). ALAB.130. 6 AEC 42). G W3h %sms Wrine omf Powr Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating station. Umt 1). H q 4 AL AB 590, il NRC 542. 348 (1980).
$c ,s a *.R t., ., M U*as creek. supre. Il NRC at 54:
L 7 P 6 4 xtMpy ,.,i ,
. .' %.../v N - '!I"*
-4,*(.,/.,
M,. 5
., b' *. A q**f K.&) M] ,
.h m p, ., 9 9/1. [ Q .Ib #/C -
-sy
'MY
, 285
. ; .s
.,,,a , . .,, ,
d , 8 ' s , , .' l go, . -e * *
- d 6.
's.
, g ,, . _ _ - _ _
hafp[kh k: .; Yp1W ? -t h h f ? Y.fbkh.h;-Qk h' V , % % N m. 5 wp:..c! . '.
% *N >.
.S k,i D x
ln.
; h k $ ~'
~ ' n .&
f'hh N - I.[ [h $h '
~
b' N'\ ' '
. +. . c w . . u .. > . -.. . - . - ... . -. . . .
o N.
,i
,. ,r C< ,, . . . , .:..
, ,O; Finally, while the doctrine of collateral estoppel may be raised in opposi-
- s c .,. . , W 4 . '. '. L. ., ". s.
'.1-. a
.m .g ' . .; -1 , ,,
".i tion to the admissibility of a contention, the petitioner may resist that af-
- 4 f, ,, , y - . .t9. . . < y<..o firmative defense, in whole or in part, on grounds outside the record of d[,
, [7 y - " d . .' .,_k.
c ,~ h47[2 , the prior proceeding; e.g., he may claim that, since the conclusion of the prior proceeding, there has been a material change in factual or legal cir-jJ., . ..Z, , y .1: ., . 9,.
.9 ; . .. c - cumstances, or that there exists some special public interest factor in the Ni M.MM.4,y, ? nN.lM;G%,~ - ,j case. Confronted with such a claim, a Licensing Board may not reject 16- the contention as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.*
f,, s.{e2c' N.w s'Q./. .>
. n,M . , p1;'.y>,
.,c?
-- 3 ,
- a. ys g:z .e ,. . . ,_3s. %., p>:
, . g. 3. . -.s; . .c, ;r.
/. RW.' .& , s
,,' ~ocv.
~~
M,,f.g ,y y .2
% B. TMIA's Contentions Fy[i, o ,. ,
4 J . "E.%
--m.... .. O'; Y.-t. ..
Contention I states:
- N.rh Q f-m#m~
- y. .u@v ewes.'.s M, s.
, Qa ... .-
Q aWWW* >
,d. %.. .f,m.
h . : <., n.r U f C Neither the Licensee nor the NRC Starf has demonstrated that allowing degraded
.. p. . . p. . m s..r . j.r 6,Q M L ,,n'a., ^ ./ ' . tubes to remain in service under the proposed resised plugging cnteria will provide Q,d . .y . p,. ,
sc , .4;p m i . l * ' ,' reasonable assurance that TMI.1 can operate without endangenng the pubhc health w
. ' ' '. M. , s. .
< - t ,, Q~.a - .-d.t..;-I
, and safety, because the form and rate of new tube degradation has not been w
'< Q l , /9
- NM J. , determined.
je*9'.
.r V J' W . . .V m "cw,qf < ; -,.i u
' )i; ., f C L ' Mf;n 7' Upon the assumption that, in using the words "new tube degrada-
. . ;; r '
- ', b , tion," TMIA was claiming that corrosion had been reinitiated, the Staff
.>? ~ ~E' d'. did not oppose the admissibility of this contention. The Staff opined that u ij. , 'O N the contention raised an issue within the scope of the proceeding, was adequately specific, and was supported on a minimally sufficient basis s .
,- y y ,
(StatT Response at 6; Tr. 47-49).' The Staff also felt that the doctrine of
~4i collateral estoppel did not preclude the admissibility of this contention.
+ * , , ' .s. , . .
First, it beliesed that TNIIA's oral argument had made a particularized a e1.i .,." .. . Qd ~ 7
.c ,; -
showing of changed circumstances (Tr. 50). Second, with respect to the
@(. Mfci f_ W). -W_, A' kinetic expansion tube repair case," the Staff concluded that an integral Nh.NNk 6 part of the Appeal Board's conclusion as to the absence of new corrosion .h' t.gbh;($'..U_.?hf.dhc.h@d k Q Q: ' j .Z, f, fW,9. %
or with of a different kind of corrosion was based on the assurance that tubes greater than 40% throughwall would be plegged. The Staff also r ,e p
, ,c % ,, n
. i ,. .
pointed to the fact that, while noting that the Licensee had requested
. '7 . , < : permission to modify the tube plugging criteria, the Appeal Board stated TI .. . , .
that it had not considered the proposed revision and that it tool; no posi-M( '. .. ~ P. .. . 1m y' . " tion regarding its acceptability. Third, the StatT advised that, in its
- y. , 7 g a f i, .e s reviews, it questioned the extent of the intergranular attack (IGA),
c y, , W p es
%g&, .c., QY 4 Lt;W!
- i. [gAQ.C*g' y*ny?.. .4N:.43,t'mmww[ .&;& c. '?p&;,l'. k,.a n ,
M,> WyM ". 4 Wahoma Poe Co. Ooseph M Farley Nuclear Plant. Urnts I and 2). AL AB.182. 7 AEC 210. 216.
' 4if Ag* / ^ $00 U*h&& 2l$.l9, remanded on other grounds. CLi.1412.1 ALC 203 ll974).
l' f 9th
- mmh I since the Licensee's and the staff's entten responses in oLA.I mere substantially sirnilar to those Aled in OL A.2. the Board mill cite their OL A.! resportset
,hhg. N*N ;EIih '.C' y t; .i.hh
%:MI/M 9;;
- iferropolcsas Edd. son Co tThree Mile Island Nucl car station. Unit No I), ALAB407,2l NRC 1l95 (1985) e
._e uf . *1 ,.'*..o ' p t r. . : %. - - ,
a g 9,3
,e" e.
,'" g $ " .4
**.g,,
i; 286 e - ,
.Mgg:w.
n MkDIMhVPN@NIMjT4hC% x . s: --~---------~~---"--;--.-,_P-m..nu kkhD ' M%'Y@@Yh 9 - -
+ ~'=
, ( .'
J; . . . .s . .J, . 1 . . _ :
.t.2.g - -
- Wl- - ',-
4 S. whh , U. '; y :S M,_ ' 3i [ b. y . ..,
~ w: ., 9:n,W ' .'<g , .;, . . '
. e_ s 59... ,; -
*.'[ requested additional assurance from the Licensee that the corrosion rate g@$%,
M, e T y .U!A.;;.F,?, T.JF- A..o... f. has been arrested, and queried about what expectations it should have as to the extent of the enlargement of the IGA cracks or defects before
,M,@,w u$.M(e/!. . . d3.d.J .'M. , ....
7U,7..,.0 : .' Q U. c~.1 W Rf,.] h y . the next plugging interval or the next cycle when the tubes are inspected M*? M .;,;J ,, .1 U 5 (Tr. 53 54).
%EM @M
$ ,M .
,y W . /f! .. J .,b. '.' Rl. f , h i
~
in its written response at pages 11 12, the Licensee argued that ThilA had provided no basis whatsoever for any of the allegations contained or
) kb [fff.y.*g,,' implied in this contention, and at pages 1315 urged that collateral estop-W, ykD Qd@N M 16 J.5,klh5U D.,Mi.9
.t 2h.
pel barred the admissibility of the contention. After hearing ThilA's 53t.Q b.lif T,Mh;Wi$ZM . M;N y%4m,V' oral M. argument, the Licensee objected to this procedure in that, for the first time, the Intervenor provided bases for its contention (Tr. 2122).
.5?[ $$ However, forth a basis we conclude that, although in a negative way, ThilA did set within the four corners of the contention in asserting that N'['$gl'l'/)O.N.h$$,NQJ N.M d5WiW% l f M,"By t pd'M neither the Licensee nor the StalT has shown that there is no longer any fM}' MhkhM@i.UT8'[; 63 on going corrosion (Tr. 34). Faced with Licensee's objection that no basis had been set forth with reasonable specificity, in support ofits con-M 7 M ,1?;7C',1, Mlf.b. ..'% .h,9 hi tention ThilA adverted (1) to transcripts of meetings between Staff and
'%gg?;d.Y,$$OJi 7 gg * ' jr.P At >, $ p C ,' O $ 'c Q R ?.' T, Licensee, (2) to the Licensee's operating experience, and (3) to topical design reports (Tr.15-18). MMM.c~$[1;</W)f, b .. .E,'l[m. . .VM;.. n , -cu . At this stage of the proceeding, it is not our function to reach the s7ms~q. x. . . t - 1
. , 2. s . . g a . . . .
a merits of a contention or to consider the evidence. Storeover, we were a c , T.C y:)e.r [l; , not convinced by the Licensee's arguments that all tube corrosion has glm,y g.{ f ' ~y' p} V )- Q :p q stopped, since it has proceeded to seek permission to revise the plugging
.y.lD';~. ' . , ,.
v; *r ~ criteria from 40% throughwall to 50% for the short term and to 70% for 4,. the long term. Further, against this background of controversy over t}h@/M ;Q ' : ,' .,Qf -'; . 4 :-,,M k whether or not there has been a material change in factual circumstances sW ; y .m u ,,, since the ALAB.807 decision,7 we could not and will not reject the con-Wy@s, . ,3n . dg M .s 8 .Q tention because of collateral estoppel. For these reasons, then, we admit-jj MF.w,,W, W.WfT $y E.g. ,$pMp. ..ted , ThllA Contention 1 in OLA 1 and OLA 2 during the special pre-MgMf.Gy ' y[.,
#<w s> .
hearing conference. Contention 2, as clarified, states: N.[,I @,'jh;Md$kg
'5 7-'I*^,N.4 M . fFt k rb Wh 7 Neither the Licensee nor the NRC Staff has demonstrated that allowing degraded
. h,/$D$fW ib [ f;flj bh..h.1
& .,M-d '
tubes to remain in service under the proposed revised plugging criteria will provide reasonable assurance that TMI.I can operate without endangering the public health
.m t. .
- f *v M Q,kI 4;g'. .;
[,T.j!;T**J$]d di.tk pig' h*. y.,. '$ 0. s;y g . C . 9p.$% .* *. 5
.*q'y.1'g,,*s 4 4-<6* and safety, because the testing technique relied upon to define degraded tubes is inaccurate and inconclusive. in light of the particular method of degradation chJr*
o yr . Y ' h # " " n,Q~{ f r .r .cw y.v
*E I
g @.pf , 1 4.. p sn M+Q J+ w9 M 's~ n~ r -
- N v
.b d,. 9 ;9 4.dm ? I3 g EM mm.g '[m-g( ; h y S.-c. .,. .c-287
+ , f[ ',
.. . , . . . . - , . ~~v -..e e- + =**. *.na.++w-<*
r g D i
.^ #
. - - . - , . _ . . - - _ -. _. - ,_. . , , . - . . ~~ . , . . , - . . . _ . -
&. o.g,r v ,, . m b. . w h ,ys.f:,..s..f, l+ k.:
- p. n:+ $
mh. h$ v?' k .k
..r =y ws. m;.. vm..
g :+ Y
.~.,~ f, v p .s a .h J. ..e,~.
.: . . . m.; n % so y , s :... i ; v.p a . m..
, ?
- m. . una .u t 9 pn e; .g;;,;; a . w - .
~ y ;- m %; p-ya, p.p;y . %. .a: : n ,; . 7 p
~: .
< ~ _ , .
, r; - w,
~ e -
. . .a . - . ~ . . - . . . . . ~.~:.=.- -- : " d "
. i i@. . ., a" G.; /, As originally submitted by ThllA, Contention 2 did not contain the*
k.1. ( d.;..' ' . '.g < 9' , f.e:j M' f '[ic.g f ,: ,' words " characterized by intergranular attack (IGA) and pitting " In its
.3 's written response, the Staff urged rejection of this contention because the
~
.1 .
.9 , basis was not set forth with reasonable specificity. The Staff stated that,
[C%('
.il'
$ ~j q:M. .
M [.:p ?5: [ %,i 1 ,- ', j in using the words "particular method of degradation," Th!!A had not made c! car whether it was referring to intergranular stress corrosion j g; O cracking or to intergranular attack or to some other method of degrada-J;jipqn'hj).J'/,@fM e,: - j',.<B,] Mij[;! , N tion, and it was not clear whether TN11A was challenging the eddy cur-
;. < - i rent testing (ECT) technique (Staff Response at 2). The Licensee, as
. . s -,
1, 2. N ' 1id C.r... .m.
, ,,.f. ,W,.' . well, objected for these reasons, and in addition argued that ThilA had 4(b.,
N . 'c f Q 'A Og . ;5 ' . not explained how the accuracy of eddy current testing was germane to C l h9 l i f '! ' . . ' the proposed revision of the plugging criteria (Licensee Response at 17). W .'.' b ' M ;4,3@i.f ck During oral argument, T511 A clarified that it was alleging that there (g; f ' ' ' *ppff.Q j Q.".. M were new indications of degradation as characterized by IGA and pitting
} . I, - 1 ' s [$'.i which eddy current testing would have difficulty in detecting. In support a
v.
.f ,y,3.., G 4 ,, .
of its contention, ThllA adverted (1) to a statement by an NRC Staff
, E .l,'3 "'? member during a January 1986 meeting with the Licensee, (2) to TDRs % ,d.' ,' i , p % ~ k,3l* a ,; y .
686 and 758, and (3) to statements by the Staff in meetings with the Licensee (Tr. 56 60).
->.,' ,' After hearing TNtIA's clarification as to what it meant by the words I
G. '
"particular method of degradation," the Staff withdrew its lack-of-basis t 0 objection raised in cases OLA-1 and OLA-2. Further, since the added y -
words served to clarify rather than amend the identical contentions, the
' ' ' . ~
Staff withdrew its untimeliness objection to adding these words to the C,1 OLA-1 contention and did not oppose TS11A's motion to amend in
. . OLA-1 and OLA-2 (Tr. 70-75).
,j ',,
L- '
. While the Licensee ultimately did not object to TNtIA's motion to
": : . . ; j . f.4.H .
modify this wording (Tr. 76), it urged that the proposed Contention 2 Wh n t.MP
%.f.3y.,.,.'L$en.:,M.%,ey.nmy;S.
w . hj,9 (even as clarified) lacked a basis, and that there was no nexus between j 2,. ; 9. n% . g .Jff. " " ' the alleged inaccuracy of the ECT testing and the proposed revised plug. y.; .3 .,v
'lA f, ging criteria. The Licensee proceeded at length then to discuss the
,sn .d, k,Rp*9J #'
merits and address evidentiary matters (Tr. 60-70).
,i
+>'
.o, '. -.
in the special prehearing conference, we treated TN!!A's motion to
._' , amend as a motion to clarify or to supplement, and permitted the addi-
, S. , [. tion of the above mentioned wording (Tr. 77). We admitted Contention
. I,j'l,- .V ,7 , ,' ,?
'. 2, as clarified in OLA 1 and OLA 2 (Tr.120). We did so because a basis
.h -. 9,4'A ih m had been set forth with reasonable specificity, and because, at this stage
$Mhqi !,% 3 of the proceeding, we could not consider the Licensee's arguments @ f y.'?; W .g. h M . N N T M &either upon the merits or upon the evidence. We rejected the Licensee's h;dwy@MN k h " lack of nexus" argument because it appeared obvious that if the 9m; .: n p7*6y .g,. ;.f,4,( , m.c.c. w j ye ;;gr p.7f. hmethod of measurement of crack size involves inaccuracies, a relaxation
%n* gergtc - . + ;.rt S*,gv . i:>1 .c 4+
"f a t l , g,'*
- .a
')-
' , ' *,~
% _l' if.l s a
II
s $AMW Yh h MW k N h kkf M k GR Wc.;mM4$MWiMMA9077ChdWyvMT.M M .Ws
,,ad[M; M M W MM d @MM8Wh W b@k b M@ N. M 'k k N 3M#MEMM.9Ef?$M M. W .g m 3 : - ~- ,
y
.Q}:
..JL .w ._.:_ . _ a.- . a _.- . a .a ~ .J x ..z .u: e . .,
> .:h:&m~~lVQ<C g.y.,; % :. . p.
3, n - . . . ., sY!
- l Y ' > ll ,*
- Y .
. ./., l -
- n. ,.m .
.VgWA, And.wg : @n . +
N K.J.4 of the plugging requirements could only be allowed if those inaccuracies
,h6 h.6 5 Jr1j.e:,N.' Y,' did not permit gross underestimation of that crack size.
G.,9,@;WM.
- b. > w Ju.y . ; + ,+ .
3h$$$:[JM 31,1 OM Contention 3 states:
..i g4 ,. 3.
g, .c?., . ;,.. . :aff.cM....oqg ..;; E,p,,.a ( ? Neither the Licensee nor the NRC Staff has dernonstrated that allowing degraded s .s. e ,bL ~w
' p. . .
, ; tubes to rernain in service under the proposed revised plugging er teria. which could p' hJj d ' h. b{.l.' f.9. f.Y g ,,p *l f N D J){j';/ h=.
fl$5V.% G contribute to the frequency ofleakage during plant operations. is consistent with the
.f: 7je;. 2 ^,:?,
. h A.
- J ,
requirernenis of GDC 32.
.& %@;)N.?q W. "s gthpGli9:t,Qt.W.s 4 .t.3iy." In their written responses and in oral argument, the Licensee and the
$ 6. % p/ h b . 2 3 ,
;Y@.hi.My'J Staff opposed the admissibility of this contention because TMIA failed
?S Y @hT I'- to show the relationship between GDC 328 and the proposed change in Jf9,b. the plugging criteria (Licensee Response at 18 21; Staff Response at
% WMMWr Q. Q W(.;.l.\- d 4'@; n y,.)(( W 7 8; Tr. 80-83).
M M d6. $ M @Mfp % During oral argument, TMIA stated that this matter came to its atten-
'NM*dMd/MQMZ
.h.
j.D.T h D .P:Q,..( ' . tion during the course of a Commission meeting with the Staffin Febru-ary 1985 wherein one Staff member questioned why the Licensee had UU fM }% a P: not demonstrated compliance with GDC 32. TMIA conceded that other
.M,W MJi>:
[hbN Mh<l$d%[%')MMf?,6 Nf i@ U than that one question or remark, it had no other independent basis in support of the contention. It alleged that, if the plugging criteria are i$I J.yhg @I.l @@MQ% = ' "
/h[ N.', ,
amended, the current leak rate testing procedure might not be adequate to detect a crack before it ruptures (Tr. 79 80).
- h ,0 7. M N ,$ j 's ' ,
The Board agrees with the Licensee and the Staff. We see no nexus
.. . J..,. between revising the plugging criteria and the GDC 32 requirement that &.:p! Mm -i.,W,i s
i j~f. .6 m h ,f. liji . components of the reactor coolant pressure boundary should be designed
-Q g, . .g. ; vs ,
to permit periodic inspection and testing to assure structural and leak-
'2di hp c 2 h. right integrity. Neither Staff nor the Licensee could know what they W F ~ d ih.i YM d 'c M O, 7 would have to defend against or oppose if we were to admit this conten-i htMb @/MidM."' dhMNJ.
tion. Moreover, contrary to the two Notices of Opportunity for flearing in OLA 1 and OLA 2,' to the extent it solely adverts to inspection and surveillance programs for components of the reactor coolant pressure
;v,. f@:n. s 5
. M A,
.%). y .. # G M. G.. ..
M W.3 @a. ,#,@,%M.w.M,Ehq boundary, this contention does not raise matters that are within the M hY.['I!; M.EM; h N $,5.Q,'9. W ' /. scope of the amendments under consideration. For these reasons we d%j%:MQpp ty.' f rejected Contention 3, as proposed in both cases, during the special pre-f.h ?N' / M Mt id$ kl hearing conference.
*1,w . A;W Q4 W'.[h[#
Q rf+ ytlV'.:N W%f*g'4N.f eg y 1 A;n* , ,. T K.S 4[ % py Q & .2.M' +,7 ( hp g d p; ' W :: h' p V p'/k ' *, ff; ]pd / p 8 General Design Cntenon 32, " Inspection or reactor coolant pressure boundary." 10 C.F R. Par 50, Appendis A, states: A g**.M Components which are part or the reactor coolant pressure boundary shall be dengried to permit
.bFfU,
%w%
*"/ g g@ *
(1) periodic inspection and testing or important areas and restures to assess their structural and leaktight integnty. and (2) an appropnate material surveillance program ror the reactor pressure k"aW +t. M 4 ' s4T ee vesset
.4h *nt;
- g,'f, rwa.y M D.;.hgig@n#
. gw< e. r. y.dyd'ry?/
m, ,,f c~.
%- ; 'sn $1 Fed Reg. 459 Uan. 6.1936) and $1 Fed Reg. 7157 (Feb. 28.1986L p
; y w.g - 4 2 , ;' ,y;a' r
. ,
- 289 g g,.
'Q,
. _._ _.. .- , .. . .~. _.-
h, h$f; h N h h h h h h b ; b N h h @ k b ES M dhkMhbi l h[hfsk W fMMMNY W.y'h{OWZOTW@W U$NM%M{$ .O$ N? ~'[&j$M Y'.M.k[MNdf
% S G W W l' W
- N '?.'
7+. c6~%
~ n. -
n , . . . . . , , , c.w 4
.~Jm..;..._...... . . . . . . m ._.c J. m c. .
- %, m. s .n . .
s
,A..:.y%' y ',.,- .,' - a.
, n. .
n.
- w. .
- .-v v.., ~
..e
' d ' ,. ... d
. . .'3 (; D'.e~...*8 l
.+ Mf ,.
e, , m . % . v,, : a / '; ' Contention 4 states: Yi&q(L . f, 3y.$l* ,f.I N ;(*..f;l[r 6 ' )< r-
,,7 Neither the Licensee nor the NRC Staff has demonstrated that allo'ving degraded M%dh,7 b'E "J ' ' N , ', 7 , ' ' ' tubes to remain in service under the proposed revised plugging criteria is consistent
, $h.f M , . MM , Q f ? , with the requirements of GDC 31, in that the criteria does not take into account en-vironmental efrects, including powible environmental corrosion esen in the absence
' ;fff '. . ;, '
M.hh . .,$@e.s.
. w' st.t
[ h.' ' M'C,G vo w. :. /
. :A.fc
.' GMm s;. s. - ;."u:w. , . o of active corrosion mechanisms.
2dlM in their written responses and in oral argument, the Staff supported $4%gy%yM
$W.8.v Yep,M.m,M % .~ T.h ?yI@$QZQ'. I c:;,$.J S admission of this contention and the Licensee opposed its admission.
The Staff believes that the contention raises an issue within the scope of W@,, MM;Ji /;jM' <w;,N~@"M1E.M+% x.. . s; y"N E..'%.,3 U the proceeding, is adequately speciGc, and is supported by a minimelly
- c%.. Q 4M "
sufGeient basis (Response at 8; Tr. 88 89). Licensee argued that the con-u $,.d yd . q tention is vague, especially as regards the meaning of " environmental 4 M MNM i.4m U$UMfag W;'d. +Nf.Qg ?dEbidk.?%h@@3 c rr sion" r how the tubes could experience corrosion in the absence of corrosive mechanisms, and, in any event, urged that it had met the M5(Q;,9p[M 1 dr f ;d/p j-d.iip M GM . . requirements of GDC 31 (Response at 21 24). MM Wf During oral argument, the Intervenor explained that " absence of cor-NkNN rosion mechanisms" referred to the absence of the sulfur that caused .gg g. g ; '-V,Q ,4', / g n@; h ;';')MNN) 97. . ,
. ,;l t..jp, '; . , .
the 1981 corrosive attack, and that " environmental corrosion" referred to other types of corrosive mechanisms that can affect the tubes (Tr.
,_ . .. 3 ,
y -; ' !; _s( ,y
. . , . m
- D.
84-86). Licensee argued that the Staff had asked about other environ-l .. ' . . .- mental effects and that it had answered Staff's questions (Tr. 86 87). In response, the Staff argued that no Anal conclusion as to the adequacy of 2;.. .'c'e x ~ 'o ' Licensee's documentation would be available until the Safety Evaluation 9.a., ', . is issued. Further. Staff pointed out that the issue raised in this conten-
; .., e. . .
'D ' ' '
tion is among the issues that Staff will be considering in reaching a deci-W. sion as to whether to grant TSCR 148 and TSCR 153. Therefore Staff nn .i%W nn . u .e [ W %.. T'W ?.., . Q,,: views Contention 4 to be set forth with adequate basis and to be relevant W p3gM,f'i. Tyf,7.M 2 yp;;y *d J;h'M.i to both technical specification change requests (Tr. 88 89). The Board agrees with the Staff as regards the basis and relevancy of 8@kt;N a e .cDMW/M
. fk,37. Q
. n@M 's.-4 this contention. But we have admitted Contention I which raises the Q w;.ty. ~&. ,M. # -Q N,.f.f,'f,'p ; M )
t . .$4
.N. / j 'f';p I # ';1 p ? '
p general issue of unidentined new sources of tube degradation. Certainly new sources of tt.N degradation would include any new environmental [3.,?!:M,Mi ,#'.',,; d J P ' ';;' ' corrosive mechanisms. Therefore we ruled at the prehearing conference NMMM: q, .2. 5 . M; ',, ,* that Contention 4 was subsumed under Contention I and hence was inadmissible as a separate contention (Tr.120). 9?J, xr ,.l/< i .W;.L.m! , :x bN.E n- ',P.;, Kfum,( 6 , M. h,M_,
.'y ; *, s '. **it hhy N /d' E A qW z
- f5fto[(qMqV %@QW
$ s,j%Mwp k wnw::.9gL mr.y p w ; . : m:: . ' - k .; m. y .. . 290
.e.. .
s e 4
* , e ,
'?if QNW
%.Rkj%.EQ:MQ@h'
~ '
- bM .M
~,g, .. ~..! J ;:qM ~- );
c
.;. Q 3.q r m + c -
M o.%@&}N;;*y{j;[ii&M$W&&:$;.i>L~.% MEM/m'MS.; ,
+ .'
;,;M'me ih. . - " -jM$$$$iNMfN r9 , 9-: -& n y\
N. un ~.
, U .,
3 /4 A & .. a .w -..-....-~~....d. < d. . ; u. 5 . . ... .. ~ -
.,s _1 v .; ; , . ,
,5 . ..
,y. .- .
* - n ;.., , :.1
; }d 1 . ' .. ,; ,n J,s \'] Contention 5, as reworded, states:'8
.'L-
.'- t,
, i.+ . .;+.
'.f..,y .
-l. d ,, .' ' . [ e. .. ,( .. Neither the t.icensee nor the NRC StafT has demonstrated that allowing degraded l ,x
',/' *} tubes to rernain in service under the proposed revised plugging criteria will meet
,J ,
, ,* , T * ,
.l GDCs 14,15 and 31 in that it is inconsistent with Regulatory Guide 1.121, which jg 2.d [* '~
, ,[.4 ' j, <
provides that plugging criteria takes into account variations in tube thickness due to
%g. xx.m c.?..%s.
t; W;.Mt: :@ s. .p*.% . l'. ..P. --+'v., ?l<c*
..+ . . . , , . ,
s 5.ossible corrosion. 3 3 .x b 5 tp.. . M.f/M%..;c.,n.<,y,$'.!,.j (Tr. I17.)
, M
- h p:. V ,? v i.b,. '. , SJ,/, -. Q.- ".
- e. Addressing the original wording of this contention, the NRC Staff
- i,p}ygg 4l{.},.g yi... , '-y., M .
said only "the contention raises an issue within the scope of the proceed-ing, is adequately speciGc, and is supported by a minimally sufficient
..t
'. h .k [; ,..i,."v. W i.' Mh f . " ' ([h*basis." Accordingly the Staff supported the admission of the contention aI'MSFf : ;N s/. v%;$c .V,I., .
.4j (Staff Response at 9). Licensee strongly objected to the contention's ad-
;,k3/.?P,f h ';,1;[f.V M@,Nw;.. -:'M,tJf ymission, however, arguing at the outset that Regulatory Guides are not
, requirements and that therefore a bald assertion that the plugging criteria
/ .M/ ' s . , [5 . . . W . J3' . nN 1,
.hy..m.fi- are inconsistent with the Regulatory Guide " requirements" cannot con-
; g.7/; , p r [.; y , . 't ,{. stitute 'a viable contention (Licensee Response at 24 25).
;it Q'$NQ@ fQQRd At the prehearing conference, Licensee's attorney made clear Licen-Wl.N;.;r,. B'Vn - T ,v, ,
see's view that Regulatory Guides need not be specifically followed and
- r. i . ,; ,
that, in this case, Licensee intended to employ some alternate method V s.;+7;. ;, p 7-W Qc ',' 'h ;
; to assure safety and compliance with the regulations (Tr. 95 96). Licen-
' h, ^
'M
.' # E '
see readily agreed that the Board might appropriately hear a dispute as to
; -f f1 7 '
y . whether that alternate method was, in fact, effective, but saw no speci.
;' , ,> Gcity or basis in the contention sufficient to support such a factual dis-
* - pute (Tr. 97). In short, "they have to first say what we have done wrong
.. 0s . )- " fj p.. and what the basis is for saying that it is somehow inadequate or incon-
, j lp . j. . P4. 9 - d,,.c sistent either with a regulation or a requirement" (Tr. 98).
DGh( 'IN' ENhh:h,!.NMMN[# Staff's position at the conference was that the phrase "is inconsistent lM with" in the original contention did not merely signify a failure to follow iQfM.lf'kh N,M: the Guide but implied a failure to give safety protection equivalent to N/&N d chlip{j-* w J,1f. ;, . j, f.qp@d[. ..t . C@7 the Guide, a matter perhaps subject to adjudication if properly clariGed (Tr.100).
- s. i After some extcasive discussion as to the nature of the clarification 4 ';c ;i.* . 1yf.g;. ...# ';,.{'/..,J' . .. s' .
- 1. l, here needed, and after several attempts to phrase a properly clarified g,.jlc?: .gpp M, ,'/,li J,i Y / . g ..s
- h. n., L.,.[lN contention, the Board directed the parties to confer upon possible clarili-cation and rewording of Contention 5 (Tr.100115).
. .y, Q. . - r. . hac? .
- r
- n t f[ * *' ,i n >
~f i-Nd ,M.r' c .. J ,f!*~{
- i. ** 80As proposed. the original Contention 5 stated
,d ! (dd - . Neither the Licensee nor the NRC starr has demonstrated that allowing destaded tubes to
.Ih.p@b ..<%h %/, h" p[%[.*p, remain M.h.'p.
a in eersice under the proposed revised plussing criteria is ennsatent siih Res Guide M-d
]! scq,.p$ C. } p.%, l.12), ohnh requires that plugging criteria take into account variations in tube thnkness due lo m , ~i r .m.s ,g , ns m. m e.y,.#A- ?.y a .,
-,,e.,,_
e ,.
- I
}
s .
. . . p
n .. y. . ar om.a ,,p. ::n km,; gem.%
,s,% m% -n 9 m.. qA9
%m . %cK*$p*f : p . w: q or',. -G, ;
%4,, m,D4. y ma.e t.f?;N s
oy:.sa p , n.3 li h 7 %. v m m +y: m.-;.n,m 3
-.y, 9 9m . %." w$..n 3 ..
p Q:, d ,<p. m- ..w .~.lle
...ee M N< n%'::'i;v M k,1 Q g g I
? F e ,. .m .
. c. > a. s R*%
. M A. .
M.F.8.s.,.*Wi . y%' m W..g.e?:PMM. yn:c 9 y&n . 'MW, s,i.y ? q%p~w.nu a M %
' . s.t n: X , W u m w . 4 %,, M n&.2 n w. w ::mm 3.:w .wm' 9
x k W. .- w..g %,~.,%' M.i%&.pp?q : b ='; m &c:m. .f - G,k.:h % W M p&.,G'+ws *.
&m - -
- 7. w; w.
cy e ,,
,p: : m..___....-._.. . . . . . ...
.~a- .~ .m . w - .2.. .. .. - . - --
- s y<,.- -- : ,;.. ; . . . y n
y&
- f;,w
. t:W,':;%.
3 . .s, m .
- c. w. c . , " . ; . . ,m ; ; . .. , w.,
;;; . e - c w;. . - :. !;; Q yf*.
- C.-.f'r4 % // T . The resulting reworded contention is the one set forth in the text
.fhj 3 c'f.;#,pJ above (Tr.117). Licensee still opposed the contention's admission, but d,yd'. 5 Mk;$p,% Jg u; . ~.).I ~ I $no. longer .
T found the wording objectionable. The other parties had no ob-
.pg 4 ~. , .
Q 4,' !(c.J;e ,. ed jection to the contention (Tr.119).
- h,.N , y 0:, .M J '.
,j We believe the contention as reworded is admissible: It challenges ~g neither regulations nor statutes; it is suf0ciently clear so that adversary
%y~4.'i~.M..,.*.,;y'Lo<:,,F. r
,D.NM.b/ p:0':;;^Mc,,em p.j parties know what they must oppose; it is an issue proper for adjudica-PlW 'y@ M@.g tion; it clearly applies to the facility at bar; and it has sufGcient founda.
N F/$l..GW;'n.Z.W;M.# AqW tion to warrant farther inquiry, it seems to us to have the required basis 3.. OM $;.1/e. . p,I: Wjf . .?. . and specificity, and it has clearly not been previously adjudicated. For
- j'm gjf$i9.Q '/ b;M'. gy 'I'r -
.. 4 . . .. , . . u .
i these reasons, we admitted the reworded contention in OLA 1 and
;@m CA.I,*d d.;f3,[ ,,@. OLA 2 during the special prehearing conference.
3 s .w.a,e, m, . s . . . . >,. ..N..t. >.%,;.fr: ... U ,, .
. y ,. my O..ggj4 . m.
g%g:, .p%w,.. a , ::,w.3. >.4/w 4 g u, Wav/MN ,. Order MD;4r Q y n; - Wi., N . 6..a, 4 ..Y,: 'W m J'Gs TO@;:. . ..
/c . . . f 'ni ' ' -m
- l. For the reasons set forth above, the Board conGrms its rulings ren-
$.. s - t.o ,6 - 5.? Q. . dered during the special prehearing conference on March 27,1986, that, M' yN';- vf!Ml'My ble.'i M'.,' in OLA 1 and OLA 2, TMIA Contentions 1, 2, as clarified, and 5, as Q f '3, P . reworded, are admitted and that TMIA Contentions 3 and 4 are rejected. h.. f;J;,,, f! '; M<u 3 E.A 3
. \ .- J, ;. %. < .
- 2. TMI A is admitted as an intervening party.
,. vm , . ,e. x, f gy , . ~
- 3. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. j 2.714a(c), this Memorandum and Order
,$ 6 ' '
,3 T. , may be appealed by the Licensee and/or the Staff to the Atomic Safety
- i. -
L . and Licensing Appeal Board within ten (10) days after service. Ilowever, s * ,,
** g .
*',.E,. ., s
+3 . ,.. . \,
g 4 . . :/ , *
,* . ' c-,,
. c ep
- 8; '9 'It 8 -
',>I d.,
.f!y . . m ..
j u ,q \ > , ,. . . . : 9 , , .
, *; 4[. ! s j,3 t,a
.[. w *,~
[* n-4 . , . - q,8( ' h.,*.y:,. i
.f#+, '
, ,,.e. 3 .w
- ff. Ej s*, 5 (e 9
%&' F$ *?, $$'$
4. w% g(o ~! ': CQ W.", G:q,*.w&.l'Q ..
)w L}d.J. .
v We,yly:,$:, T i ,'.pl. .i % s )1.s ' svs. .
- lh' O '*" 43 ' i O r * .r.
~ N'bQ.
.nwFdla*;'P.. .. . ' i'e' 4e . ~. '* ; 2
- p. m . .
.~
'w d.;,g- T ,',',@ - , W..r a .m. j :. g9.L.M;.,',1 , w . . , , .;y,. . .j, .,q. . p. w. m c .
- f. ..*h*
y % y.. : m , V w;L..
. f li',
J*p5/.o,b C t:<*y ^.Si *4 M 5 'M.:, .Prw ,s u ..C, y? *;,h. 0;* g Y, f v3
"'.* . , EA , , Y
s y '*- Q
% . 'l( , ar n.
- l pb'p.
f $'.M. f V*, f, 6 4 P!Q*?,f h, r. @, , a,W.m s,y - c h:*' OWd.%y cq 3 Mr so , -Mr b.,M, e
.i. , '3, ,<r.,,,,
- 3. -
, % , n . v ,a vM
- v. . n p- . . .' . ,
lW, ? ), ,s l l.' ' 292
.a . I I
I
.-- -.,_-..,-,y _ . . . - , . . _ , , , . , - -.#.3- . , g . . . , . , , , . - . - - - _ , - - .
n---.,. ,,y_,.---.,,.y
? -
,.- . ;;v _- ~ , , .
- s. .n;7 .
~
m
. :, ~
, . c;.;.7 ..
, . . , w ,
y
;,; ,yyj: :. -: . . >-- a
. n..? ? .
A..w.~...w.:.a a ~.x .. -. .-.~. :.a.z a :.
. r. . . . .
1
%. , : e, .
^ L c ', j. , ;-
. . ., ,. . . -. , . . .s . - .
, e.- ? ..! J the Intervenor Th!IA may not so appeal because some ofits contentions
* /@$j.# S ,[,..d_..f, .. . . . ,. ., .' i
. f.7;'. in,3@yA..'
. .. have been admitted as issues in controversy (sce i 2.714a(b)).
..;,-* * , ' s r.n_Jo f _c. ,';~ -l . . w ,. :,p(4 .# y?. .
i ye, s , , : e. " ' El W
,ps; p,r THE ATOh11C SAFETY AND 4.FN.,[3.OU , .. LICENSING BOARD y \c<!
.; , d'. l'.',. '. .'., ..
.J Sg
/[*q',*gIS* M.sk .
.' R.d ' .ms'.-k #t. .. '.,c :, ,.s/! ' } .
;m!;, t 9, p s.r:, .n;g :6 Ic:h's . .;,.l,,#'a&:w . 6a g e%.bnn .s
%'ii9d Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Mk2 i d Yf' h, wa.a -w . a nf'([?h'
, M .y.
w<- . [if 5$ D;$f h
,,>yn n :2 s .,tw
',.;i[* $ [, $.M.h]r d'Ah**e /"
a:. ADh11NISTRATIVE JUDGE
. j. %n s ;., e, c : .. . ;. . .y v . a .,1,,.,g.,.vt,,. ..
,j . ? 6p O m j e,: *a v 3 :) ^ s ; . , a.?(.m(, *rs wtf +;..-
.M S
.i?.s w.hf@ f 1 Frederick J. Shon
.t, .. M..,I,F i d, ,N.5 %w r ,",., J %' %'%
E..W.*lh.3WOMM:#/,9
? . , t n.;;/. ,*-@L ; w.4:g;.
- f. A JUDGE ADhtINISTRATIVE
- J7 ;M.w: f.4,t
. ..? . .r. : j:;g, u
..;. ~ s . s.J.w.
- .. >.;;,. $p~. . y ,vr- .4,iy . . y.uu :pn>;
.c., . , + ~ g .-
- i ' ./'N, , , 7 '. ) ';- 8 Dr. Oscar 11. Paris 8j.
r.. ,M,;.C,ll9., . ' h. 4 . .%..,.. .3' ')14. ,q, p. 9}.* LtM@,'4 ADh!!NISTRATIVE JUDGE l' *h
.(*;_f'.,'el'f'f,j_'*f~D,$fiS< . . ck*;,
?O .,
Dated at Bethesda, N!aryland,
, s :l;
' ~
- )$ ' ,$f{ this 9th day of April 1986.
p? . 4 E, , a :._ : .p ' .
. .s v .+ . .e;..
- y; s n.,
.j3
') I. g.,,* - *j3 g e
, . *. "'',rf
;'. ' d. )
- fl s
i j.+ ,e.ya
/
,. , , . L 6.: ~. r.
. g '.,. e a g _.
t . t.:2. . j, c n, r .
- t :e _, . ;, ,
ba . } * ,, , } A .+p, ..
, ICJ) ? 'r ,?.Q * \-t *+~
!i N h M,h..@Yk@.h.
N f53'?.n.y@...
, &iW ',.Qek/f ,
L. .ft')*>th.,.n('nlp l
- a. ..
- ? ml,% q' e y q CfhW"-- ,*,n .~.~'
- s *9:g. b79
. ,. . .';.s-[ j 1:rg.:.r p,5..s hitw g
=s '?. k .
e.1 s, f;f,;#.,**
?.t'
, Ad '. .&,n ,:i'Q. .e, - ..,,14 $ }* ** re, ,
. 4e 4' *,. i s, g g #'./. .,. yQ ',[' w A .,;;. g<r.,.g;.,. e ,.'. , .r < by - t ;,y
,d v
' " $, )I I ,
e
': ' -* ' ' [? i'm(gf,j PQt [ ~),',,C.
V, YQj SQth& '40:..' c.(t '.? J [1[* % ;.*)$O$&l.[ f a w;f ens - ; s.ww,,.4+,,, e w#.
.. ... g .;
6$,.m&.w.
's.sJg .v. . **,b.$w p. ,,u.,,9*J,s@@ J 9.j;.,' it.;'. ,
A ..
.e O., spe 4isT.
it / c.3.+ a g.g,e5
. ! -li A., J .-f.d. s 3
e
% s .14 .
4
*'s , _ I $ I .d -*
.- a s ,N. ;. t . .i , ,
- ~
7$. . 293 8 g t e d'
Nks9+N!S;. A
- 4 - s l.5+ &.. m p a p:.. W.aWWh. WW N.d k~r.ylqt W m . l W-....
D &...m&p m $ N' u> ,rES?~$!$n_&v W.*.d
.m 6:. ? j.
- :s:W w.m.~2 U;,'Q Q,f R 3 . .G.Dw .
ml;.%. 6, .l** : * * . Y.
-Q*e Q.D g. A i. L M...,P.f'M&.'?TtQOy8D'A 4MWM@dgbM,n'kb y'.#6.g".* ., . $.?:' M.
*G..W* L' ,;^ %sF W W ^ C N- '
.x .
n.-
~. .., ,
0,. 7_ _ > y a w .2 w . . _ .n w .~ u , .. u 2. .w. . ~ ., : < . . ~ . ... J: :n
, :+ ~ . ' . + ,
- v,,...y ' * , -3 ..y'
+_
, - l" N.,,.9,
. o9 Cite as 23 NRC 294 (1986) LBP 8611
,,. , , 1 : .;; .
. w ,4
.h.i v.
.-l , , . , y ., ;
%s . , <
m. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.y @y,^ .} .
~ ~ , .',,7,y
- g. y g* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s O -; . p_ . v , . . -v .. .
.s.,. ;;. .
.. ...> .. - . . ,,p ;.; ,
, , . . , ~
P ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.%,f..
7, 4' , 'S ,'.Q, . t
- 3. , ;. ,.n\.b:n
~
,l.,.,.,'?,.',g.,.y n/ ?i. 7y M'.
,z ,- . . , ,
;?u. , ,
..i ,. s..;...,c
,~,,.<.a.A
.. .ys .
5 .. - 6 , Before Administrative Judges: p> .}. ';$. . . - . . , *;,
. .;I * ;.,['3
- y A.s.;1 y1.ph'( :
. - : . .-;+ . m& g
. a.
~ . , '
...,y 1 c.y,'i ...:. -
c'.3 f .(,' *s ,y. ? ' *, N. .T., m ,! 10. 0,s
.i
. ?.,
...a James L Kelley, Chairman y .
- e m .j' ':,.;c ~7.?
x.~/ *w?'; .- t N.1 C,c...m ? : .L.%.v;
.t c Dr. James H. Carpenter
'M f...mMJ Glenn O. Bright C W.sC.g ,hj.4, gg.tnf f.-
,1 5 , ,4
.?' 1 .e.. n '..g.c. gO
.n t .
v t ,
,x.,.,- , . , p.+;m,3 p,.zn 3-
,,,M,, ,
. .,- ; . . '; .pg, -
JW, .
)c in the Matter of Docket No. 50 400 OL
~if.i ,jV(*y i ~'
' A V . dei M. M.,, (ASLBP No. 82 472 03 OL) q = - /
4.. a .:
't . .
.I'c'h[,
n. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT t.# !' , 5 ' 2 g ,, COMPAhY and
; NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
,. ,, (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) April 28,1986
., . . m
, z. .
.w. . .
+ U.d in this Final Licensing Boar
- Decision the Board resolves two remain.
M J _.:' . .my M ing contentions in Applicants favor and authorizes the issuance of an yn A.y g,,m;ca s.
,,3.,spp.JA TE-@ Q. :M, M license for the Shearon liarris Plant. The Board Gnds that drug operating 39 17, . ,m. q4A S. . a. .;4. > n.;.p.
. , y, , .o,.
g%. . .,.- 4,,'.c. use at the Shearon liarris construction site has not been " widespread"
; fc ** rj*" as alleged in the Intervenor's contention, and further Gnds no evidence
';; g% Mw. . 4 '?,i.7 ' h d', ,,. 4,M,.$f M that drug use has resulted in any specine dencient work or any speciGe re. 5 - g',.~.4,U.M .
.. safety concerns at the !!arris Plant. The Board also finds that under q; .
J ~' Y.h.(,. summer nighttime condinons the combination of siren, informal alert.
.c.g.'c ,," .>, , '3,;.. m ,,...,-
., . .. i,s
.x ing, and tone alert radio systems demonstrates compliance with the re-
'.,w..e 4.t , .a . . ; 3,yo.;;,*y',S o',m ,e4. J..P i.. quirement of " essentially 100%" notiGeation within 15 minutes in the
-,I g. e . .
- ; .. .. first 5 miles of the liarris Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).
$n:N;&.W._qtm. q,g 6 p
;:.:.,} fmJf, %
; . t, . . 4 v@y j
.'.)
- Mt4Q,C.$e :g h Q[h)' gQ QUALITY ASSURANCE: REQUIREMENTS ig[ f , ,7 ,bhdF'-p!'%:f.p , y.N
- Although the NRC has no regulations specincally addressed to drug
%:1.'z
$/,, f. ;w g( -Q. , %:?f use at a nuclear power plant construction site, where the evidence has
't. . ,
- w%,
.'s., .
,,?,
., .b
~
( 4 ' - 294
, % MRtMM&rWMe,2@@&dr4 & &U %. p nW .M,m..X. .&.$.?Wb .t 6 &.- 4 Nn. d:2 w %-% c MNMN.M480@WN~M:.4lDNCX&.4 ='A$;-T ~ l Q M %.gh, ';$ , ,. e , ~ 4 m$*.'.- , %,@.?P
- 4 n
,?. .% Qx QS; y%,t W D. @a & q& t
} . ,._.3,,
S s , .. N.yd...)). s ,
- g. 7 4, .. ' >' *
- g j,n
-{
, , . ,. . r___ -~ a f.c _ .. f. _m 2; ,2 5g';..& ,,. ., . , -
. . t. i, -.-
- 2 < ::.
. ;p g '.
. , c
.y . . , , ~ - *
; , ;, , ;. m.' ,;,]q QP 1.,c,.'N ',;ln [ .d. ,
established relationships between onsite use and the possibility of defi-f % iff.iM.' [I*. '- j[' 1 cient work, an effective program to hold employee drug use to a mini-gy . q , .* g *
,y.. j f E f; mum is an essential element of an applicant's Quality Assurance pro-
,,cf, .,7,* / c g.iM. gram, whether or not formally so denominated.
. Ty~e. 2j ,,,3.
~. .g.;.4; . ~.
. .e. - . . ,
, x.c. ;. gi s Jh,,',w /. ,p,1N h,',NN5,' Nh, c,[g . , RULES OF PRACTICE: FEMA FINDINGS
,l?E!R Wh,y: % ,*A:r 1;vd ,My,y ? 6;q In any NRC licensing proceeding, a FENIA finding will constitute a
@ ;e.;.t.N/jQ g.j:'@' M..tMr@SM %,Q f,H rebuttable presumption on questions of adequacy and implementation J,%.t.:i# l e s, Q;,W[:d:gX.'.3.y/ ~. , ..s.
,' i capability.10 C.F.R. { 50.47(a)(2). Thus, the FEhlA position on an yF ?y,4N;,%p ?,2 issue may be accepted if that issue is uncontested. But if an intervenor
.ig,h*t@ g ..
$3MM3 ,
7, ,( $$/[%)o contests I, an issue, the rebuttable presumption " dissolves" and the such FEh1A testimony is given no special weight "beyond that to which lit]
$&W.W'-@%' M#,.A
./ would be entitled by virtue of the expertise of the witnesses and the
, 1*:y
#f.
Q@p S"-
*%[dd,
/
f7 ? h9%* V.t! "0 i ;
, C bases ;' presented Q.L *for their views." Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three hiite island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB 698,16 NRC 1290,1298
.m -
- 3,u.tp. ..i. "
. ,,7. ,4 c.. . ,, s, , (1982), affg LBP 8159,14 NRC 1211,1460-66 (1981).
.%,M@l,'4 Q,, , .y. , w ?pp%.
;s ,:
f
.+o. ,7.w,. , ;. r, .~u..
a. s,g.. . E31ERGENCY PLANNING: GUIDANCE ISSUED BY FEhlA 4 w.. h i' . .
.. ,' 'l.s: ." .'
' ;; L -f b s
^
- The NUREG 0654, Appendix 3 provisions concerning percentages of
(
~
[ ,* (,'. people to be alerted and times for alerting in the 0 and 5-10-mile
! , g ; 3[ e. ,
( "j F . EPZs have the legal status of a Commission interpretation of 10 C.F.R. p,; *', ,, 5 50.47(b)(5) and Appendix E to Part 50, and are thus binding on the licensing board. This legal status does not, however, extend to other pro-
. i S. ' -
..c . . + - .4 g ' 0.!! W: f visions of NUREG 0654, Appendix 3.
'.*4 7 :.N p 9. ' . . i ' , f Wqu .
wb.f.y M.Mll ql..! M Reasonable assurance of an alerting rate higher than 95% under summer nighttime conditions is acceptable in the nrst 5 miles of the hlh)l$[Nb
,$2 *
. '. i ,' g ,h'h,, MI . Mh
.' EPZ, and therefore meets the NUREG 0654, Appendix 3 requirement
% .. h@U. (' ~
3 of " essentially 100%" alerting within 15 minutes in the nrst 5 miles.
.'1" 0: . .*M% . , . ' *,/d' .,6.y. llt,f**,,5 d ,O!E.'N The 90% alerting within 15 minutes under summer nighttime conditions O,3 I D . j'Ohji.i bM7b;,MGdNM,T %dQ
.l. to be expected of the Shearon liarris system is acceptable for the 510 mile EPZ.
- Q M,w oMyW ;y>,>m & ~; p w.Niw WW 8 a m a- e T,Wd,p%e%) .
- w$y N.1dQ ,T;A$,3! . . h8,. ,a.
cgge o g?-: ,yq,*'
** :q ' Le L.,
- g * .)* c '.s.% .,Mt sp'r,s,h L. t,*. i *y*l
- P. ~ . c- ,
~.'; . n..',,v. ,'.f: p'
* .. y s -
.s s t .
, . ,- 295 i
! .,. . - , . . . . . . . - . ~ . . . - - . , . - .-.,, .
e
7M65 2 256%56,.>??$~ m.e,m.
, hw?r..,f M."m,R*b;.c5m a Jh
%% M, M%%fM.b,.,9ww.:%m.W,n-W.w.w..z.1MM~.%i&%.
fhenv ,.w.w m m n,
); w'k*};,., n's?
' :' ,.a '. 3.:.',%,,$QgM8
- p. ~,
.m fQ m x 3. Q w :'m&'?'[..;;kuQq w .. -
. < . . . . .w n. m.. ,3 w ..i y m.mml m.~O .R
. .bw'n
'*.x es J Q .-<?;'*'^
. ,41 M - *
.= '- ? U '
- y. p , s m'p;u,. _p g,4yp g:;; Q. m% w' % w :! + y ~ w.w 's:
+%w:g.yW.+f ~; ; U. 9:i ~
^
- n n m -~
, .~
" P:
. . ..c , . .
lnl , a a.L AL .- . :. . i . .. ~~." ~ - ^""
. .e 4 .% .
lm.h]!',.h.. n/.7.;j. *
.',9.
-, j, .. . 4, *f } 7 p > . .*
Q' ,s .._4L:t m p ,,.
" , a 6
.; * ..,. , . i}
- % Q . m J } ; h .g .,*(WiW
~ . -7a v.n.y.:s. y 5
c un y.4. ~y .,a,.$ . Jl: e.sn.SM.h:;kEu dg u,. . :. . q.M;W
.. m --
. G dve;v .m :a h, 3 APPEARANCES
".h T! Q@My,$w$w: . @ .Ahg.b YLg Thomas A. Baxter, John H. O'Neill, Jr., and Delissa A. Ridgway, MC' A'.f
^. .
Washington, D.C., and Richard E. Jones, Dale E. Hollar, and
' n.h.M.
-d Q'[8sM 3Rg%M M M$@$M@p$Andrew H. SicDaniel, Raleigh, North Carolina, for the Appli.
; cants Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina East-
.a 9, ,M, '6'.$$$.j ern Municipal Power Agency.
~s.%. # wmM. 4fQQW1.: f ..f,4.
3 g%6?. 4 .
.r.:V GdQ,LWC .
d@fMQhgd Q John Runkle, Chapel Hill. North Carolina, for the Intervenor Conserva-i QT.i g6 MWeW i.7 tion Council of North Carolina. l./.M@d;d'.hNM$$k@h@k( h - a m n; Wells Eddleman, Durham. North Carolina, pro se. s.'r..M.g:v,w.s wa,& w m s. 3l[p$? /M fe $ 6 M s Steve Bryant, H. Al Cole, Jr., Fred R. Gamin, Karen E. Long, and Jo k MMN@G.'M%y,w.qwm Nd ::,, Anne Sanford for the Attorney General of North Carolina.
. .pigw m M& n'4@4
- k mM'
..N.s@.m.@.#9wn e
. . . .. ...; y, N8 '.h .:'9n% ;s:n Stephen Rochlis for the Federal Emergency Nianagement Agency.
y.v.q.v. m:.e. W,% n . .,e W~~;. g_ n
- w. sa Jea s A N r-s. y;fQig/m,. ., w e . -
r: Charles A. Barth and Janice E. Sloore for the Nuclear Regulatory
. T. MMWy.Q.2
- n. N.
3 . Comm.sssson Staff. 3c -* ou:
' c; y :.4.
~
,y,
- . . ., f,;
,.. 'c.w..w>
e.
'f.f Q l) . i.. ' . ', s ecc . 6 a ,;
TABLE OF CONTENTS
. c: .
' ' * *. a. - ;
. ?
-, . ., f . . l.'? Q:<'. \ n~ .
~.s- ,.s, .'..a .xf
, r < n .,*: .c r s.-;
t Page
. . .. Q
~
r , . ._. r . .-o, :-M. . ~.. %_ . a ,m. .- . . ~ . - , , INTRODUCTION AND SUNIN! ARY . . . . . . . ... .. . . 298 w ~v ~s
- MDN,. a M
. m.s.D . .i m%$pw.>.k FIN D I NG S O F FACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 !b.1 . ,p%gx .m~MMM gy3~M pE h. uwwes
- l. ALLEGED WIDESPREAD DRUG USE . . . . . . . . . . . 301
+r.' i k f. vp% N . As introduction . . . . ........................... 301 c.k/$;.M~v.w.e. 'f: M @ .W Qwwcw:h;M:y B. Applicable Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
, / 9;./ 9 f, . 94 m i 2 M. t' C. Extent of Drug Activity on Site . . . . . .... .... 305
- y. H,b .h.1 D. The Undercover Investigation 306
-.l 7 .' ' j. /s , f. 64 . : ..... . .. .....
pygf. f .j7,f..M.s;m;'4NP m.f. w. C
,~ ;', ;. <fM 4. -
a 1. N!ctal Detector Searches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
- 2. Drug Detection Dogs . . . . . . . . . ... ..... 308 i[M..h i p /'Yg[dy/MS d. 3. Alleged Premature Termination of the f.%
h(p.dsQj.h6'$[$ MN h @[ Undercover Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
- 4. Deputy liensley's Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 E /*D:';6:. N $JMhi h,Mh'jjh *
- 5. Assessments of the Results of the Undercover Investigatio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
%@ph[Wd.'hjp%WMbM:S 'M Q. AMS i.3. ,2j1 w,,<g.M. :es h $' M. . W Z.y.. .
E. Employee Terminations for Alleged Drug Activity . . . . . ..... .... . ......... 318
,n,f*
g - , .a. # 8 ** q t'h .;. f
', y &
,F -
i
- . s, .
s . 296
's e.r 4
b}
- h. -
Y .' a...-
. ,. r. y . A , :n .p*.:.y.n . p , .p.
h.?b k!.cf$.bhW.'D&WW@SN.-$ 4.,, /.v,;u w x^. . . :.4. ; w. w.gw;mm .:.3:
. -{~2 n..pyg&
c- * ..;. '*
;.a. 9' E , '_ d.j' 3 *- .,, l4 f.} ,; [- ,
l.2f.yj
.. m
., . q,.
*' --~. ..a.._.. __.4,., _ ; ,j. , g,.1,, .
. s. - Page
.,.o, " ..'.,' . .- ' . , . -
, r... -
+ ;; c 'Y-h .M- i 1. DRUG USE (Continued)
F. Indirect Indicators of Drug Activity 322 gy , ,'. c- . * #j ' '. .?;. f'.- 4:;, ' 2; - .. . .
, 322
- 1. Site Accident Rates . . . . . . ..
- 2. Quantity of Drugs Found 322
.('. .., M; c .7 ,,, *;. E M ,
. 324 k fY .il.'Mi , d$M 3. Age of Site Work Force .. . . ..
G. Observations of Persons Working on Site .. 325 W.'i d 5 ) . M[$;Mif!.f. % E, 5 H. Applicants' Drug Abuse Control Policies and
.y/*? . c 7.M'M;$;'.?.;$.
.. ;u Procedures . . . . ... .. .. .. 327
.l W.s KC(4 ,:* Om l,:9 327 i .i v..'. 1. Introduction . . .. . .. . . . . 328
- 2. CP&L Policies and Procedures
~ bX[hbb.N'.[ .[9
- 3. Contractors' Drug Policy . . . . . . 330 J.;; :m&.u.- . W (7, b.wG. L.,# A:... .,. ..=
331
- 4. Supervisor Drug Awareness Training M. ..
- /lpg. .j6. :c. M., %e . ~F.
- 5. CP&L Consultants' Evaluation of Applicants'
.7 ; a -
;. 6
- T.L,MF
, }l rG d, ?'Vj., . ..vj;.@ I,. .
Program . . . . ... .. .... . 333 (JM ...). ; G.j ? C, 6. NRC Staff Review of Applicants' Program .
- 7. hicans for identifying Drug Activity .
334 335
.p' $,.
'4
.4
. . .c g ;..,,lc. . ..
I. Board Conclusions Concerning Extent of Drug Use
"; '.. .s.c .' l,.;
".'. . a. ..
343
' -s at Shearon Harris . . ..
- c. ; p.'..q / , , ,/. . .
i . :.' - J. Implications of Employee Drug Activity on Harris
. v ,' f 2 3 Plant Construction Quality . .. . . . 348 348
.e N ,' l. Introduction
- 2. Errors Caused by Workers Impaired by
,- ' T-
^ -
c ." ' Drug Use . .
- 3. Assurance of the Quality of Work Performed
.. 348 by Craft Workers Implicated in Drug Activity 353
, ;.; .y' '
- 4. Assurance of Proficiency of Quality inspectors
. ,- . f .? //;; M 359 $N.t: ,9,.. . 4 N a N .MMMM.M.. 44lM r Implicated in Drug Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . ......... ...... 364
,,o
; v ..
,Me M w. wm K e:, .W. ?t.i f9h % mM l @ m; $..;;
364
,,N W-l*E;(g'6*dOfh .I,..
II. NIGHTTlh1E Eh1ERGENCY NOTIFICATION . 364
? V A. . , .g.S.. E. v; A. Introduction and Regulatory Framework c , .1 7.,z. q:.; .
. , ;c...p .. m,-, @-
.. ;T. . .
.. 4 B. The Witnesses 372
# e . . . .
C. Harris EPZ Siren Sound Levels .. . 374
, . G?.h a
- l] . 375
. nf:.,.;.'"O ff ~ ,. .; 3 -"N.? '. i -;fl D. Outdoor-Indoor Sound Attenuation .
E. Probability of Alerting with Sirens 377
, ,1 " 7.~;.[ I ,((.
- NO ,G M.-[l - . . ..
380 F. Arousal Probability: The Krallmann Data UA $l[j. h.h jh G. Effect of Age on Arousal Probability . . . . . . . . 383 Ts)[4N. p. F.:QfD.ie Q-n(tN W 4(t;5 9 0 .g. 2$ a.3,,v?J.o [/M,J$.hhh.th~r?c4yk -f S e . H. Result.mg Estirr. ate of Siren Alerting . ... . 38y I. Informal Alert.ng . . . . . .. 388
;N$,NN%S$Ni'XDs J. Effect of Sircas and Informal Alerting 389
, .2 /,/.9 .OS.i n. ,C ,.5.6.'C. P. 5 ; W...V K. hiobile or Route Alerting 389 w .?. .. N.s
,; M .w s " '~ . ... . ..
,: ;< ,y y n ,
- v. ..+ ' -
l l 297 i
--- - .- - ~-
.. .-e. , . , . . ,.
m.
/
o .,.
- Nftl:rd:2% .w W .-Wn--; W R M.l?',,a;n i ~.-
M. -6.m. py ~ak'.
- w. m. Y H. w.y . %, .. *m % .. .
Q q q?W y%s.b .yg;..gn.J %;.,q ,.gq: $,.3.w: .
- .'s.W%%y u: :3.
- NMm?J W} ; * . , ;. -- , : n,;
;.? .,y
-u :'x ' , T : " . .Y* . 9.
. ,'a'
,' m';N y w : -:/y;p,3s7.s,gf
/ ,^ ~
a . y
'- .(
s , q; :; >n ,7
.a 2
+
W.,k~ p;? ' h.,6;~my? M. O " * - 'T2'
. s.k,t.t ' ' '
, > y~ - . :: .. .
s e-. ..,.:a.-.~ ~~- o.
-%p%. ,- ~, - , ; n:. ~.
- ..*.s . >.. ,. .
~ -
*.,7 47 y
. e .,;,n :, -
s;e.m:n. .,;w. .,. , . . W:-G. r@r .r Page
} Y,M. , m'-f s - . . .
N..J%N T m @w M> .D. ., n- II. NIGHTTlh1E NOTIFICATION (Continued) AlMP:, MfffME* ..:.,M , W.
.EM.c. M@x G ~ . f f L. Tone Alert System Within the First 5 hiiles of the EPZ . 391
$d2.N N N $ $ 1. [. hl. Proposed Findings of Intervenors 396
!.5MkM$k I:4.j N. Summary of Conclusions 396 h@i$RM B
@w.
-2
@c d Ww M's @R v. d; % ...e s.%p - ac @ % # ~ %.i:i J :. ' i;p. f.9' n, RULINGS ... .. . 397 W,MM .,.... . %.g'!/h M.-@M4.ih4p E '111. SUhth1ARY DISPOSITION RULINGS ON a & .d~ y f. EDDLEh1AN EPX-2 AND EPX 8 ... .. 397
.r.y:
~.r,.
. [wp . m, ;J %...x,h..n .. . n a ~ m D 11.4G W N. n . , A, , O'2i d,w , F .: L. .: i N.
%.U;M.J.
A. Eddleman Contention EPX-2 B. Eddleman Contention EPX-8
. 398 403
.d C. 51r. Eddleman's Response to Summary Disposition A ;#OMed h 6 yd. W '# MO_.p r o < MM. -c k . $g v.:. R @ W@ q S N, P. P U,"liiN $y..M8M'iY n
- hiotions . . 405~~
@f.. Wit je '
D. Conclusion 407 5.m , c.:9p;i@f j?,'*T.c.a # w.t- p IV. EDDLEh1AN h!OTION FOR RECONSIDERATION N. m-
% e
;4df$. .a:
me $s.m w' f OF
'QjNM..k, REJECTION OF EPX-5 .. 407
; m
$_$$'-e;;p . m..M@?
x ;; s A Ws .n.
..-n
, g 4. -:
3.r.n;x :G@g$,3 G ;.7 ; n,:; CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER 408
. . .m -nc. c... . v.g' n . w.w',
. . .! . .V..'
. ~ i ty. . . .a .. uc -..: ....,
e../ . d W. ',\. J.' g jFINAL
.i:.y v. . .
. M :'.LICENSING BOARD DECISION
-% : Q ' . :- d ' . Q:gQ :r 3 .
. . . . . .w. -- _, . ; G uM i; 4 3 -
c
. . ,Mb - c u. u. . nn. w.a :
3ZE' Introduction and Summary
$,db; _s 2.9w%.wM,. tf '
., .Q;M.$. The Board has issued three Partial Initial Decisions on a range of 5'g M, e' W
?.M.
%W4fM nw M,Iic
~M.
W Q-A e!6fd 'Thd
%,'E,N,.i L ih.D:,c'.qgy.
safety, environmental, and emergency planning contentions in this con-tested operating license proceeding.' This Final Licensing Board Deci-w 4:.ghpc. 92Fr t.: 7, sion resolves two contentions on wh.ich estdentiary hearings were held l4
-m4 M,6.4,c % .
,/
. i
- p. 4; s.2:.0,, , , $'r.9. ,,n 2..e
.- u..UL w ,%'.
_- '~y.?. .,A. n,M. ;hr, . late in the proceeding. Those contentions, concerning alleged widespread Q;c Q,.f ',, tgg,, &. , , , drug use at the Shearon Harris site and the adequacy of Carolina Power
& Light Co.'s ("CP&L") siren alert system in summer nighttime condi-tions, are resolved in the Applicants' favor. In addition, we provide rea-gp [Dm+.oN. t . .) .fm. ..l mq$. ;,_k. ' 7.1
.;, w.,
- .., . . _ =.
. w. ., 4 . j J . y-
. ~ , sons for our recent grant of two motions for summary disposition, and 3 Q &!Y: J.;.; y MW W$ A * '.: p,,*,.m:, ,*,
y : . m4u;m :y..a .c
%;f,9 hy w v.n.6 -t m%
y A?Vy$. 4 Q V ' M(ma: Min s lb, 4M &&p*g *: Mf. CT "4'i. -
- s. &&ya A. n# 1 l ,M..':.$4.*.3 w % 'h:o e ; W"r.'.= w.0, &.w ' d 5 M .gdky, m $m w
y ~; i.,
' ~.
See LBP 85-5. 21 NRC 410 (1985h LBP-85 28, 22 NRC 232 (1985h LBP.85-49. 22 NRC 899
~
4 1
,q,,giWT sv,hp,(e- e e+Qswhs
- r. ,W.c w
- w. .y.e ;, .- g,*r ;.... " ,. , .. ,..;* J.c $
s .'g.; (1985).
- 3. ,g ,e .
4 , y
.. . . j ? :y .y 4,OS**..~.r_.,9...;4 s s c
, Q' ..o g 3. - -'~..A' j s. s a
- i
.t 298
~; .
~
w _e AyLMM&pn 9pm M!b., . f'm.- DN ww n.;.SiWTjyy n-
%. m , .,w n. ~ . .
. y-. ~. f. .y 5, O i u 3.2 . .y ., . . b w. . d, W w@Qyx 7.:1.Nf,p',%pp Q: ..g p
"%g.vRa tp % yg y.g;;> p
>y yjQMh u y m p a c r: -3? m , gJ : Q v w . M :q w m,p M ;.
" s; i
.. y n',. y ; r .- ,
,.'.Ax y yg Nf6pMg.
-guypzmy um..a a a 4;. - _ Gs. ,.;
Mp y w n ,J - , ; . . . .. s
- . ..s.,+9 . ,, s
,.~ ;
6 .
. . i
';f f.g 1
m
.l p -
e , j
. , 4c.;: , -n, , .
l f.: ,y a .: %
@ff,
.: for denial of a motion to reconsider rejection, of certain emergency plan-
. .. ,, p .- .
.y,O mng contentions.
-- _ .- 1. x - ,
' ' . @mW> . x: - . , . 1 . , '. . y ; _ 3 Our Ondings on the drug use and siren contentions are set forth at r I!! @7,'v M S j . 6 7 ,. length hereafter. A capsule summary follows.
. JAW.C ~ , 1. . ~ Q y .. ' Alleged "lVidespread" Drug Use. Drug use at the Shearon Harris con-Q,M f struction site has not been " widespread" as alleged in the Interunor's
' M M M ';j [M W -h , contention. The Board considered a range of evidence on this question, ilh@iyN-Md.C.b d ?; M '@ , M i ?including an undercover investigation at the site in late 1984, statistics AlpQ5/[ 3? C ["f 2 > . ! 75$ ' . f/* on terminations of employees for drug activity (proved or suspected), 7NM/ M. 5. 96.. ,( [ CP&L's multifaceted program to detect and deter drug use (including NbkMI/7W g}g urinalysis testing and detection dogs), obserutions of site employees, and indirect indicators, such as comparative workplace accident rates. Be-R q.#.;M k..Q.h A y..?CsMM y r,q<.i 1Y >g> % , Rn.v.$. ,s@. U cause drug use is illegal and clandestine, it is impossible to determine
%.;x the m$1
%cwM ~T . S T U S. with any precision level of drug use at the site over time or at any M particular time. On the basis of the record evidence, we estimate that
% 4D7,97-
% OC, ['.h .
.T . d .iM
^ 3[ drug use has ranged at various times from 3 to 4.5% of the work force at the Shearon Harris site.
e.' :
- e *
'. . @.~M, 4y y ,.W- n...
si . "- CP&L's antidrug program is well conceived and vigorously enforced. J. fipG. -@ h y g . " , . <':
= - -#D' , This gives us confidence that the actual rate of drug use at the site is nn a . . -
n.NW. g ;'1 g * . higher than the other evidence indicates. Given the prevalence of drug use in American society today, we do not believe that further antidrug 1 , S.. W~ T . measures could be taken to reduce signiGeantly the rate of drug use at V;$iGP- - '
the Harris site, short of cost-ineffective and/or Draconian actions.
Y.4 D IF
% o.-V7 -
' There is no evidence that any specific deficient work has been done or
.f. W pf '
that any specine safety concerns exist at the Harris Plant because of drug use. Furthermore, CP&l's quality assurance program is designed and f,J @W %N D ; '
- implemented to detect and correct the kinds of mistakes workers are likely to make when under the innuence of drugs. The Board was partic-
@ky[hMM@.'- Mh ydMfM@$ F-SMir N'S[+ ularly concerned that a number of quality inspectors had been terminat-f fFy% u .t 7 . , 7") /; , '.. :. .. . _ S,RP. ed for proven or suspected drug use. The work of these inspectors was 4 ,m
',c*
n G " ;. 0 -A ly reinspected on a random basis, it was convincingly shown that drug use M['. Vr r ?::, ; ^
.b' . Tr/s;,
, ?:
, ' [ [ ' ., .
had not affected their work. Nighttime Emergency Notification. Alerting residents in the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) around a nuclear power plant is an es-
,, 7 -]1 j.] ',% .!NNW % ; . Q C L ',';.:.N 'T.* q sential element in planning for possible emergencies. The applicable rule provides, in substance, that the " design objective" of the notification L/U Q f # dN$..N; d,:[W/ . i.
fh system shall be to essentially complete initial notification within about M hgd6'g@N$Mhh IMMY 15 minutes following a declared emergency. This " design objective" has
& ghdQ[.7hs.NWdf been elaborated as requiring 15-minute notification of " essentially
.100%" of the population within 5 miles of the site and some lesser un-4 76/fd N N .b.N; h kI/N specified (but substantial) percentage of the population in the 5- to 3.2. %'gg.g p, .o ] 4;<.: .s c> ;t, e. N, c 10-m.le i area.
C g, .. gq. :q i
,m> - - -
.M-t. f e
4 g P 9' m
' ~
o .* s -
- s. '.
*' w- on
- w. -
Q: W u n ?.4 ..w .
. ma.
. s wn /1::":y ? vin ,g-,-
\_ ,$g p,'N@.4 @$ t C-a,e . ;3, s %. . ? P W..- wy :?-.W'l$:,O % k lx
'N. WS l , ' 'l
.w'^?'Wl."W'.3%.:Rh*j%!fibT Q
e u,: 4ypf.W' t.py;;.y. .q.:ZM?;Wh.f:3
.. x.. z y ; ._. e x,qt- -
'd i W '*o!"
o:~ ; e\v
'~
.% : ~ -g ?4 % P
. 3 m, .m .e
.m . - n -
. s ~ .= .
_ , , , _ , , , , , . .s - 2 s. ; w ' *E** - t- t - . ,~ --
.s'Se 1 . f. ,f.< .
d yW_ ... .: .
,- t te ..:.t.t m .,
..g. -'
Intervenor Wells Eddleman sponsored a contention that the Harris 7 2 $.W..'- @ . - ' " y1
.s siren system would not alert the public during a summer night when
' t.Qff'f ' f . most people are asleep. Consultants to both Applicants and the Federal 4.M,Q 11 ;c . ? "' c .. Emergency hlanagement Agency (FEhf A) developed analytical esti- @h@.p f MCf $ 9 3 GM.',. y , fu , y .rj mates of the extent of arousal to be expected from the sirens and rather speculative estimates on the extent of "informa! alerting" of the rest of
$1*hjly:h.p.M W N' ~,' E ]'.i -f' 1%Mf'- jlQ ; ;MM the population by those awakened by the sirens. In our Gndings, we detail our views on the steps in the analytical procedures, which are sepa-MNh Ihhhhd ' ~; h -
rately different in Applicants' and FEh!A's testimony. Applicants' and - FEh!A's estimates were developed independently. However, based on MM%7p.19%*y? m-c.4;7. p... .:(.,u .w. m -
-. w. o the record at the initial November 1985 hearing, both happened to Fjc.m , ,/y 4, M .s F, ?."
t
. 2C :3 arrive at similar numerical estimates that approximately 70% of the hIdh MJ ri.l-rI .I . Y (T. population would be awakened by the sirens and that roughly 88%
g j Nj.Wf %yW;w>.@m gg L;f.As, my :y. p=:id C+a ; ', ' would be alerted in 15 n.inutes as a result of both siren and " informal" alerting.
,[3N ', J
- e
%W Erg .- During the initial hearing, h!r. Eddleman brought to the Board's and M 7y 'j [ . ' parties' attention the existence of a research study conducted in 1962 at yx> the University of Bonn, West Germany, that appeared to be potentially [W&K,'C MN'T6QGMQ4 ,h A"'y W * ' probative of the siren alerting issue. Subsequent to the initial hearing,
$A;7.N M'^M fry 'V the NRC Staff counsel had the report translated and served. The Board f*(/ g M - 92 ,
requested that the FEh!A/NRC staffs have the report reviewed by a psy-
.QW ~ @ hf .dj,/ Q 1
i choacoustics professional and ordered a sharply limited reopening of the record to admit the review and allow cross-examination on the review re-
@% A -
sults. A limited supplemental hearing was held in Alarch 1986 for this
.m.m cbc -
'~
purpose. k[: $ .s As a further development, in February 1986, Applicants announced fQ j%%s ' f A / 1
? :1- '
their intention to supplement the siren system by providing tone alert radios to all households within the first 5 miles of the EPZ. Testimony [: Y.$,e g h[hp .ovD M M ih f- .on the Applicants' tone alert radio system formed a part of the Alarch 3
}.b . eML%q% s fMONU..
s p;;,7p.gg5 %.'. . I986 bearing. Based on the record as finally developed, the Board finds that direct M(,-[' he h h h;!-h, h. alerting by the siren system can be expected to be approximately 84% of
$1,'o
.s. i -
- the EPZ households and that, with consideration of" informal" alerting, J siren-induced alerting would total approximately 91% throughout the
$;.@'; $f S f j 7*7' -
'y ,, . ,
g(_ f ,] .
. , , Harris EPZ in 15 minutes. That 91% figure clearly satisGes the 15-minute notification requirement for the 5- to 10-mile outer area of the EPZ. In addition, route alerting with police and fire vehicles is an integral part of di Nhj[$ i.:.c,$q$@M '.. , . .. the Harris emergency plan. It would cover 30 to 40% of the IIarris EPZ ghd/C[%@.[BS.QQW,O j 6 d-
$Qgr'MR population in 15 minutes (most of whom would already be alerted) and can be completed in about 45 minutes. With the route alerting and con-3d? k [$h NkN.E'b. tinued " informal alerting," we find that the required " essentially 100%"
9M%a *g:y, , WOP:y ' amp M m'.;9./.', ..>, coverage of the entirc EPZ can be completed in 45 minutes. I.; ,~ E ! '
> , , .t ." s -
cs,
. . l 300
=. y . e.
g,w m . w - W- - "-, . - - q :. a.w.. .wn~ .:4 yz. : w s >:. y 3
- 1. m.n.w ,
,m
. . a. . d.mw.,
y w . c, 3m:wn. me ..w.,:w, w., 9pW.~:2.~&,m; % W m: ??Ws%@m%.WM W,s.
,W. y.;,. y; ,s. % ,- w M :
m
%,i ',:6'JN. W r ? a :. 8, ......~. ' s@c.:
,O..;; .:. -#GyJ.>
- -e M Hwn
%:...g.p yc s& 7. ;%.; ~ &y3o '. y;m.;,.f - .:; M. w - u
- n& 7 ::a ~ ::+
-. w ~. . s
-? -
y ,.>
. .a . .
g y.r . ,_ . .f .
.,m Q.
WA 48<%. .- g; , , f.;O
;.g.sI>h .rm 7 ' , s.c. .,
ss ,,, - With respect to the first 5 miles of the Harris EPZ, the Board finds
@@h4 J V/;- :
", icy .5, , { that the combined effect of sirens and informal alerting - 91% - does S.. c,. .r.a M -p _ - &. . . . , .T _t not satisfy the required " essentially 100%," which we equate with greater Q . f ?' 7, , 4 , J ,$ , ,p. ,
than 95%. However, the tone alert radio system, if 100% functional and
<M,y n iji,3;b. A. .
- .i p.:
- 7.
. ~4 utilized by the residents, can be expected to alert approximately 97% of IN$.D.? Mi m ..
MAMbg . yG MhN*J~hNhh.i.49 .&.[kddd.; . $['J,8. . .the.households at night. A FEMA survey at the Fort St. Vrain site showed that 13.6% of the residents were not using their radios properly, MhM;j,NDjhNf,(Q which might reduce radio alerting to approximately 83%. However,91% y y p s. Q yg g s' of the 17% not alerted by the radios would be expected to be alerted in-s '$@$ h i.4d N Udh p.h dependently by the sirens and " informal" alerting. That 91% multiplied by 17% increases the percentage of persons alerted by 15.5%, so that the
$j
@1!?;' b[$MdfMiM@id' tWfdMd6 % N overall alerting level would be 98.5%. The Board concludes that the inde-M. N9hM pendence and partial redundancy of the siren and radio systems demon-M m nr bN5 h hp.w$Mhkh@$@[Mf J strate compliance with the requirement of" essentially 100%" alerting in 15 minutes in the first 5 miles of the EPZ. Ap;..W..y:. .. we:M:i;iM;w.-t4 , j@MWM y 69
-nq.pme.m *As Sp,??N.s .e Findings of Fact 9M *USp!
Yh;6 M/ WW'.dJ & Q.WMA' W.rT' E di.j Wd
?
5.kih Q ; y c .W9J i. T ' f% I. ALLEGED WIDESPREAD DRUG USE 5s@%d.h.n 2 M):f@v c m'8.ms.,e JMG % 2 % - g4..e gg:, %.+Mg .yu - , .p _ w- . , , A. Introduction t.GD. W. .w@fm .. : ?4W .-; c , , 1. On January 18,1985, the Conservation Council of North Caroli-
,y C. RAW; ,-V.c~V. i M-. ,- na (CCNC) filed a motion for admission of a late-filed contention styled J P.a :- m:m w .c 1@a,' W.pg.h.t Z
WB-3 (Drug Abuse During Construction). The contention referred to 6 DNU$h of. M- an attached newspaper article published in the Raleigh News ard Observer NW @ MFA 4.N:72 on January 11, 1985, concerning an undercover drug investigation con-ducted by the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and g ikkmM g.M a :g r >vW W W,c?a m
.yhhkh , . the Wake County Sheriff's Department (WCSD) at the Shearon Harris ufg3 erym,y W J @n & a site. The investigation had resulted in the arrest of six workers and the 3]w gjp, g.yfg.C.M.. a.GS..'.y i v ,.
issuance of warrants for the arrest of two others. On March 13, 1985, QRG g ? , f ..f - M :Af . :,2, the Licensing Board admitted Contention WB-3. The contention, as y ;i f -f modified by the Board to delete an allegation of widespread alcohol g; W $ ',' ' g , % .s s' ' i N 2 abuse, reads as follows:
' ~..g ' .f.3 .."
- ' L.? 1
,J.;d-Qla)!'m . n # W (c,,.;'?;,'E
;'.' Drug use at the Harris Plant is widespread (see the attached newspaper article for fM%.;x"GC , ;'.%# #y.cW.g T /g ,.jc.ya J 0.E details and basis). Employees under the influence of drugs are less able to follow 4
d.ON'kNikMbMJNN proper procedures and tech specs for the installation of electrical systems, pipe- [df Mf $k Q fitting. and other safety-related work. Applicants' management has failed to control drug use during the construction and further, has failed to reinspect all safety-related @ [Nfb h kh * '" d "* b' '" * " d '" 8 *b"$- $ @ d N d h E W M# n[. h - y$gWp6+a;3&Np Q
%W , ;
c'M,*:n- ?C :.%.K. .,q -A g?p p ( . e .;j e j o ,- _ 301
. 4
.y
1 2; - .: . < r ::, . , y . - ~ m +.. m ~:, .e .;;>~ n - . - w :- Nyi M. u,M;NkOM.: s : , ? , ~ ' <q? QW6 WM:, N1 Un i W:1 @ 6 ' +.t.- ' . ..
;i W g tM~I $* D .3. 6 W M..:<; TypA j.Q%7 s ' ' . ' %'-d '
%. M ., Q ny.$ qq% _ _ ,'. -x w Nj;.\:;_ y; 3.s
- . Q 2:%,n m.: w M ' . u. C r: Ws:y *:, 4,,$
p%p.c.n%n:.c, x- t -
. . .m,c 2v , ::n ; _ ._
m, . m . - s.. . ,- x.. ,u. g , o, _
'. s-t
..._.L .. . - .- - - - - ~ ~ - - ~ " - - ' -' " "'"
. J -;
i .
, l 2. After the conclusion of d'iscovery, Applicants filed a motion for j M.. _ - ,!
~ ~ ^ ,
summary disposition of Contention WB-3. The motion included support-
.; w -
) ing afGdavits describing CP&L's drug detection and control programs.
4 - fl 1 On July 31, 1985, the Attorney General of North Carolina (NCAG) Si '
'~ -
~'
petitioned to intervene, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. f 2.715, and opposed the
.j $, f.i ' l ^' ', *
{,3 Applicants' motion for summary disposition. The basis for the North Carolina opposition was an effidavit of SBI Agent S. (Shirley) Burch.
@n.. ,: ,,1. ;,k: .-. - -
The affidavit described the undercover drug investigation referred to in Q,,'.W,1,3 s,* J , .
,- . the newspaper article which formed the basis for Contention WB-3.
k N1 - ?~ - i CCNC also filed in opposition to the Applicants' motion, offering an af-
, .M;. ;..' M _ _ . ,
fidavit of Nis. Patty Nfiriello, a former site employee who alleged that p9-.G g [,.'. she had witnessed drug use on site.
- t. O 4 7 , .. $. : .. 3. The Board subsequently denied the Applicants' motion for sum-
.,C.Til . ;p b mary disposition, stating the issues for hearing as follows:
m.3. ,l1 , . , m. >w - 7.-- {*p ' 7' f k .-
,q (1) whether drug use at the Harris site is widespread; g (2) whether the Appbcants base failed to control drug use during construction; and Q,,
,9 M.; ' ~ ~' (-
' (3) the possible effects of drug use on safety of construction and the Applicants'
~ . .c :,, - correctis e actions.
r ni ' ~ 'S :{
~
Unpublished Order (Concerning Time, Place and Other Nfatters Related to Hearing on Drug Use Contention) at 1-2 (September 18,1985).
- 4. The Board bifurcated the evidentiary hearing. At the Srst hear-ing, held September 30 through October 3,1985, in Apex, North Caroli-g na, evidence was presented concerning the extent of drug use at the
, t Harris site, including the undercover operation cf late 1984, and the Ap-plicants' drug detection and prevention program - essentially issues (1) 'cy and (2), abose. The second phase was held in Raleigh, North Carolina, on November 12, 1985, the evidence addressing the Applicants' quality @. . . ...f Ic ' U .
i n, , assurance program and its ability to detect and correct any errors which $h.Q7,,_ ? , T [6,;:I . ( I"J ',., 5. a-8, might be caused by employees using drugs. The record on Contention WB-3 is extensive - consisting of
- ,'r} *^ ,
.g - .,
1924 pages of transcript and over 1000 pages of prenled written testimo-
- ny and exhibits.2
, 4 3- ,
4
h ; * ' , j. . .~,.
- a , a t y .h .; M k t. *-
- .s ' l,'.
- a : . ' , '
Q h. b. 3 *-*;. ' l;e} .N 5'} ,'*lhW;'
- 9 .# *;'~N:' '
Hv[h4.4;s,2.W s. F;7 , '" yt c h ~ I.& * ?[h .t * : . - s fAp y ;f ,.'-e.l. .i . ?f . j . .- '
* " h -)l ,* M ' 4 "'l)' R Wd %l**
o [t@ : E h *,y *C . X ff, . . =
'".
- 2 The Board grants Applicarits' unopposed request to amend the evidentiary record to incorporate cor.
S i_'.js * , , , , , 7' rections contained in " Applicants' Proposed Transcnpt Corrections" (December 11.1985).
;6 ' ";._,; !.m ; ,
- p ,
, 302 i
e - . . - , ,
s...
... .N, hMhshNkh3 , y . , _ -, z . : , . . .,
[ N ff ( h l' h ;N(( h 5 N M N!5f d N- d hjd&Wlp&$$$WY$[1 w%, c. hNh %; w n M e ma hfbSW- @l5'&W.lf$$O'% map ?h r&@W M,%mg M. ,.7.m:b, .
..~s e G.Wm q.m':gyg . r:mp? 7.w' ~'-
,m " "~ ~ - -- - ~ . . .
? M.Wq-?mN r T:
N&sMj@;;N,. q'M.gW imp.i , u N: .%.-:@% D T,. An.cwjM M. $.~fn*12.wm,.? -D MfMs&,/[p.- cW.mASWWM V B. Applicable Standards
?GQgW.yS&Wy%#M M;%nu.jb:UT MyMM9.9.M. M. m A. 'ibs M8j'dg k 6. Although the NRC does not have regulations specificaHy ad-c .M.DN.M. to the use of drugs on a nuclear power plant construction site,3 dressed 6
shp its quality assurance standards applicable to the construction of nuclear A 1-f MEAQMy"" m,N 5DOMNf$ M(N M,. . power plants are relevant. Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 requires a Quality Assurance (QA) program designed to eliminate the possibility
'N h kik}g I[kk Yv
$I 33fhWM'{[j hypjRg
[M,. ) that construction defects of potential safety significance will go undetect. ed and therefore uncorrected. See Cleveland Electric ///nminating Co.
' g[deg:$f7tp$p@ WM (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-802,21 NRC 490, 1NM 492-93 (1985).
w. m Ip e%sMM3%g.g:.6D %g% LyM yg 7. The Applicants' proposed findings properly emphasize the im-4
. -s 7MSI
'd -ef. c portance of the.ir QA program for th. isdrug abuse contention. %,e quote W: T,'.W g% p @, M and h.,adopt hj3 p of.c.-
Y>g 'I MM pgfh.y portions those findings, as follows. "CCNC Contention I mtyF;$ gh5hhg% y WB-3 postulates construction defects caused by impaired employees 7 gNUSfd?hqg under the innuence of drugs. In its ruling on summary disposition, the OhE.Mh;hgfc.;( Board raised the question of whether the QA program was designed to
%hEMO%h $A QbM6N;Eb8Edhyg<fyg cope with the efTects of widespread drug abuse. Tr. 8224." Appl. PF S.
Applicants' position concerning the capability of their QA program to
&@p identify construction defccts is that the " unspecified CCNC postulated lip.f. if>JEQ d
{fkN$NMNO[NM'y,[3:.i defects are not distinguishable from defects which result from other t.% g hh y.@hf[kfi$d M k Nk causes. Consequently, to a great extent the litigation of CCNC Contea - [ tion WB-3 was viewed to be a challenge to the etTectiveness of the Q
$W6.(hMff.16$':$
fiM*h .GtM% &. [6QuM l% F:j d h h h M k program implemented during construction of the Shearon liarris Nuclear Power PIant." Id. f;~ M ,D "~'y $ ,$ y% % .! 8. "In assessing the execution of construction QA programs, NRC
@M.
2 - $ adjudicatory boards appropriately hase turned for standards and guidance d @ k,.dfh.$$h# O N $ [1GfEN Q to the legal Ondings required for grant of an operating license application. Error-free construction is not a precondition for an operating license W 4 "Wl g g((h M %s-I "e t under either the Atomic Energy Act or the Commission's regulations. 6% y St.M . Ma., Me
~m w
% What is required is a Onding of reasonable assurance that the plant, as
.~ 1y built, can and will be operated without endangering the public health w9*$# .T q$g[g#dY,$$@d,i..m'IE@W;@?jpF r: % YMD, 2M and safety. 42 U.S.C. f 2133(d), 2232(a); 10 C.F.R. f 50.57(a)(3)(i);
% ;t ic-
. Wp? %MD?M9( Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-756,18 NRC 1340,1345 (1983), a/Td, San Luis Obispo
@kN@sH@$.MFiNCF Mothersfor Peace v. NRC,751 F.2d 1287,1319-21 (D.C. Cir.1984), par-
.L h b, y 4. $ [j m*.W , M d h4 tial reh'g granted on other grounds, 760 F.2d 1320 (l985): Union Electric M y' W :, hhia - ; h Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-740,18 NRC 343, 346 (1983),
$ ~- 6
'p h Mr
- 3 The Commission has published a proposed rule on fitness ror duty designed to prevent persons under i
g
; W.' ODdb*A
. -g w4 . e II ) .t the induence or drugs or otherwise unrit for duty from endangenng public health or sarely at an operat.
ing reactor. 74 Fed. Reg. 33.980 098D. k.g.n co:'w::;>:. o$N: d.N[Fc s w > r W3 ed w M M , g if_,Q lC
- W , FJa
+ ,
s <%s.v. -p . . , Q....n, [.T-' ? .
%-b'.' ? ! k Q $_9 Q Q *,
-8 ' *#
- j
- e. g
.,<':c i,..'
- w. i 303
@4hpy p . -
e a - vest .- . q. .
,l. ' ._ . _ . _ _ . . , ,
..s
.A .
e 4 g 4 $ ?
$b?hbN5$ hkNbIkh$$!Y0kkYY$$ hhfk' h b hh '
N M M h M M N N N M $i N 5?f M M.a'w$a h @ $
',w
-~"'"-"'M^*^""*"*,-.J
.r l(#' .e <
a e Ma.1.4~4---r 2.
, .s. m.a .,0 "--~~ -
-'"^#'"'#'
s -
-E *
- m, ,
reconsideration denied. ALAB-750,18 NRC l205 (l983), as modified, "fyf ~, , _ ' . f'/-j W .,. ALAB-750A,18 NRC 1218 (1983)." Appl. PF 9. y" t ".' J.
. . .',< .f K' , ' : ; , S
- 9. "In examining claims of quality assurance deGeiencies, then,
-T a ;' '
boards are to look to the implication of those denciencies in terms of safe plant operation. Callaway, supra, ALAB-740,18 NRC at 346. Even M,h-( Il c , Y ['* * ' ,' [n.N3f: ? C.Yl')k U.h [;.d 1. if it is established that all ascertained construction errors have been cured
.ym-. ,n . 9:, s. .v MM . ..'-I i j W,N!!- y,*nx,.p,%.:.
n ,
. : , -[ f. .
.-W?);. .Q:.', e.yp there may remain a question whether there has been a breakdown in quality assur-
+;'S. _ . . ,3 p. c , p. . i;,g. A c_
" ance procedures of sufficient dimensions to raise !4itimate doubt as to the overall h$ ~ , . '. * . . } ,3,; P i *. E integrity of the facility and its safety-related structures and components. A demon-
-I d'# 1Tf.k ?> Oly 'd 5 - h stration of a pervasive failure to carry out the quality cssurance program might uell 6:n..%,
; :gw c . ? jra.ng,
- Pj 'M. i','< g 7 -k[hi[ .g _:;/, w ,) ?
stand in the way of the requisite safety finding. S,W.iY,y %a g$.; v. fr G. Id.w.D h p-D . %.. g Thus, the two-pronged test for examining CCNC Contention WB-3
. .. g - ..
'.?.m
l .' ees under the influence of drugs have been corrected; and (2) whether 'b 5 '.:c. ( { ,-).; t- F i.i'M [ 'M .,:'[ [Q*i.;,9 there has been a pervasive failure to carry out the quality assurance pro-W ;D gram as a result of employees working under the innuence of drugs.'See y. ...x .3.-g v, , . , ,, , . - .. ' , Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), A1- - c. a , .e - ALAB-812, 22 NRC 5,14-15 (1985); Long Island Lighring Co. (Shore-c~' . .. . ham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-788, 20 NRC 1102,1141 - ', *w, ,f_ { ' (1984)." Appl. PF 11. ,_ 10. This is not to say, however, that the Board is not concerned ; - s yb l with whether drug use has been " widespread" on the Harris site, as the 7 ' contention alleges. Given the evidence in this record establishing rela- , , tionships between onsite drug use and tne possibility of de6cient work r} .'9. - - - - t e .3 (see Board Findings 143-155), we believe that an effective program to n 2 .. hold employee drug use to a minimum is an essential element in a nucle-j.'h,5idIfihJ ,.Sc W ?.M....@MND ar construction licensee's QA program, whether or not formally so de- $hhhh5 '9/.':/g*N"MY <,'MW.fh , fh.) 4 nominated. To put it another way, under the pending drug use conten-tion, it is not enough to show a paper record of compliance, without con-4 D *;, . , N ', ' J .:f/.. " ,'h. :.'t'.;' r'pn sideration of the extent of drug use that has actually been occurring on ' ;g. . the site - particularly where, as here, some QA personnel have them- - 4 f '. ;. , , J. pi};., , ' . selves been implicated in drug use. Evidence of widespread drug use %[' ,, .l '@ [*i dhh . . would also evidence a de6cient antidrug program and could, in turn, evi-M W. . J u .' ' . M s. y i.?, M .ym. dence serious deterioration in the QA program. ' .,.Jif**K NpM; W} . W o p.'n; Q .L* t 51Jg,..gu bWMW.'WQ?)Lv'f, dj'a g c& 8RmG y;m.C'.Q h'.s h., h.4,J .s
- The "peitasive feiture" or " breakdown" portion or the test typicstly is applied in the context or al-hgy * % ((.g?*1 f
h #L}. %j N,'h,c(.3.*Jg{tgM','h.
e
*d; y t f[ leged specific quality assurance deficiencies. See Duke Powr Co. tCatawba Nucicar station. Units I and 2), ALAB 813. 22 NRC 59. H.72 (1985); Canaway, supra: Perry. supra. AL A B.802. 21 NRC at 502 tat-
-/ ... g'ib?e
, 4 e , f. f.'," f..
tention rocused on specific deficiencies at issue berorc~ deciding whether a need existed to expand the
- fg4
- Q **' *
. y.r.;4.,.; y * ' scope or the inquiry).
y ,
- . w * .
. ~
- v. .. . ,
- -l -
304
.....-w.s .a., e.. -a "*** ' * "
'*[ '
N V*' **4*
-t *N'*
e 4
n.....,, -
. . ;r.; .
- w. .
m.,.e q ,,
.- N ,io 1 ; , 3., .. -w.w x. - ~. w. . u. . _ . _ _ . _ , _
i- ,, 7. . ,' [; .133
, h '.' .. . ; e
+ .. .. c Mgu
' *T ;r
.y .v
., 'e .-
/
f } l.
Q
.. a. 'c . ., . N,A6 j ,pn.g..s y. f:s n xt. ,,
< . p. 3.? . , p
.. n t., v y~ C. Extent of Drug Activity on Site
- .w - qq
@;[.7.
. . . . (.15.; . .'m .- g. .v. -m.-zas.y;;d Af8 @ 11. We begin with the knowledge that involvement with drugs has
*I Q1M'd.f.?!
.' .;. become an ever-increasing problem in American society. According to M;.@M, sp . dcs L.E. . ..N the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in 1983 there were over 22 mil-
.,M F M'.c.d. @N246 %$MfM lion users of marijuana on a once-a-month basis, over 4 million users of n
cocaine at least once a month, and perhaps as many as 10 million abusers
-o, y a
- m. , -
W .W. M J7 -dr' H; 3 5 .Ubf., yf %p 'J y,. $ fin the . d.v. @wand.,d'hb:Mh.56g.
of prescribed medications. Drugs are in schools and universities, in jails, Ng[
I' .
armed services, in athletic teams at all levels. While most SA 4 w.c 24.n6 m- ih4% syg f,%
drug use occurs in a social setting, and is much less frequent on the job, drugs have also .mvaded workplaces .m the Um.ted States - meluding R e ;c.Q', @# w: , . 'f;Rg4 mr,gw yg My. TM:nQ
- government and law enforcement agencies. Arrests for drug use and d?$dlM, yMQ;'.2J f;5 .pyMWfig'!k sale have been made at a number of nuclear power plant construction Ph'.y}M IWi;'gud%fg sites throughout the country. Testimony of William J. Hindman, Jr.,
%'!.7;N N Nhhs NI q Michael W. King, D. Glenn Joyner, and Peter B. Bensinger on the As-sessment of Employee Drug Activity, ff. Tr. 8893 (hereafter "Appli-g % .7 S p h.# cants' Assessment Testimony") at 17-18; Applicants' Testimony of Dr.
M
@ f 6, y
NMMMD. i.'
M W, % % yW
-'J d . N[g M f } Robert L. Dupont, Jr., on the Effects of Employee Drug Use, ff. Tr.
9994 (hereafter DuPont) at 4-5. Applicants' witness, Mr. Peter Bensing-EM:
y g#g-?Q.* y M;t##p%:d:
'j.# jQ .,m er, a former Administrator of the United States Drug Enforcement Ad-p~,g.~M y ,'. M,n3 ministration, estimated that the level of drug abuse may be from 5 to
-2c f . .2 .
.. DN,9, gMMQ ~$N. n eMiE 12% of the nation's work force on and off the job. Tr. 8338. It is again.t mW<f,. . , . this background that we examine the extent of drug activity at the Shea-
- x. -
.. ,..%n.ydi.g. C v:r,;.s w G' ron Harris construction site.
,a. ~
t B;" . f;. 12. The Board heard testimony from several sources concerning p g.{ .- q;' ' f @M 0;"
the extent of drug activity 5 at the Harris site. These sources include par-N ' 2 i. : .. .
ticipants in the undercover investigation at the plant, data on the
~ .3 Cnm WO rd % y-
-M number of employees terminated for suspected drug activity, CP&L's 4, . . j poh..cies and . implementing procedures on drug itse (including testing) ,
d$b.wk;k.Mh N gh.m@N3f*k:4;NT data on indirect indicators of drug activity (such as site accident rates,
%/ Mj3M @ M! ':f d h[fh % $ $ %,W Wh8' the quantity of drugs confiscated, and the age of site workers), and the judgments of witnesses for CP&L, CCNC, and the NRC Staff who have MT,~W;Whh'5,R'M@.
} : 4, e4 b W.. e . :.
a hd
- c. .wa r,,. .
D w .'cJ: worked pig;iT at the Harris site.
.rw.p..
.W l *J'u & *bt 0%Nh?
- d; 4- sq
! W:i ',H! O! .t b ';yyXWY^Y Q.1('
I G' : Q
- n'*b y'(?j +.QQEp ~ lLM.gyfC'Q*.d h, W p ,.*y g z,- @ % . ,.,s(;.f./;
;M(( M'.
- T,py i 6Q +d 4 *NMMQM.$.{-g 3
- p < 1 m ..., . .',' Tkgghg; dt s $ 5 We orten use the broader term " drug activity" in prererence to the terms " drug abuse" or " drug Mgggh ("y -
Q<, use" used in the contention. While it is only employee impairment on the job due to drug consumption
(" drug abuse") which has potential sarely significance, much or the evidence, ror example on employee fD gQ.,g M4 . ,
@ termination, does not distinguish between consumption and other drug activity - such as possession, p.%de]Qe i-*[ g A . purchasing and selling. delivery and other supportive roles or railure to cooperate with site drug policy and procedures. However. it seems reasonable to assume that most drug activity indicates potent;al drug
., d1N MO, OS. DMsm:
t*6W'7m*Q *a%A:.N[
*'Q, -'4N. r. xh'i . 4 MMg;g.[@ use or abuse.
'% A ,:.
M
, h ps.~,.y,QQ. . d.'j:;l=.m..,
-w
-y,
- i .p -v.n.
r- e< -m s .g a 305
., n. j.< w :<
*^
- A..
r
,h .
e ...p. . -,
%*Q g..
- 4. g
lk.S!Mk kk
[ N @$hSf[$ $ $ $ M S[ M 5 9
e .
.a
. QQ- M pf.Gll @ mlT*w: yyyWf. -l.\[N.f.v w w' n W.Am
~
N wm N$ yh MCdpn M @W liW5NWW:W@g
- u. w,. g.8%
%*:R f ' '
&9 -
, 1 . -
, . , . ... ..v .. :
.-1 . w a m :. L . _ _ _ ~ 2. u. u m-- -
2:. .[ ,
- 1)
I d
(N',- , .
3
,v.,w ,,7 _. V .' .. ,c . ' T ]1 D. The Undercover Investigation
. .g. -
" d.
,.j 13. The undercover drug investigation at the Harris site com-j.p,,f 'f '.:g, q' . ',.,,' , -'"g7c;. i menced in early November 1984, and ended in early January 1985. Tr.
cf,I) 7 9169 (Hensley). (We note that CCNC misstates the record when it n.b;O!.-D ,#y .j ' ' . , D'i" .. claims the investigation began in December 1984. CCNC PF 11.) On this subject the Board heard the testimony of the two undercover opera-
'%@k.; N.y..'~.~b,.p.MQYQhi tives who conducted the investigation - Deputy Kenneth G. Hensley
,e+.r .4 m of the WCSD (Tr. 9164) and Agent Donald Williams (then oi;he SBI)
.%q'
'; .,;M:..n,.O: . -.,m%'$; u c ; t..thu.n .7, c (Tr. 9274) - and two supervisors from each agency: Af ajor T.W.
M@.{C.Me f?&;(,
; .; Ch: Lanier and Lt. R.J. Self of the WCSD (Tr. 9164), and Supervising C4hy@!jy . [' $ *jll>$@ Agent C.J. Overton and Assistant Supervisor Shirley Burch of the SBI
% (Tr. 9274). CP&L presented the testimony of its four employees in-d.M,U.N..[! y% MWp.QY,fQ, ,'Y. i. Y'.MC@/ volved in the planning and execution of the investigation: William J.
1.% n M M. Hindman, Jr., CP&L's hianager, Harris Project Administration and the d'. Q r.? T WW. h.q 7>1/Y. M $.
7.; <*
, ..:, . ?- G "..: . project-level coordinator of drug information; hiichael W. King, Supervi-
,%3;j' *m . : , 'gl '
- F sor of CP&L's Construction Security Unit; and the two employees who GSM m - T;$ 9 worked directly with the undercover agents - D. Glenn Joyner of Tf/ $ X . i f ', M' . f,* lk'. +
CP&L Security and hiichael L. Plueddemann of Daniel Industrial Rela-Q n.
, ll.k((
I ft. N f l; W tions. (Daniel is the principal contractor at the site.) Tr. 8471. In addi-
_ ;\ ] '. . tion, although he played no part in the undercover investigation Appli-
.~
dM. cants' expert witness Peter B. Bensinger offered his opinion of the in-
,j* '
vestigation. Tr. 8471.
- 14. The undercover investigation was initiated after CP&L request-
-JO ed such an operation be undertaken by offsite law enforcement. Affidavit
~' < .
- e. c. of S.L. Burch, ff. Tr. 9274 (hereafter Burch) at 2; Applicants' Testimony 1, -M , - s 4 , . o m. of William J. Hindman, Jr., Alichael W. King, D. Glenn Joyner, hiichael N;
vy . jyjM,f,;; ( ' L. Plueddemann, and Peter B. Bensinger on the Undercover Drug in-r 3 v d ); 4x,@ g.49.M. y Mm vestigation, ff. Tr. 8471 (hereafter " Applicants' Investigation Testimo-3A.j , f M.a, h.. w ,e <3he:gdfgdi
(}.!f,iFTG.NN'
.g ny"), at 10-11. CP&L introduced Deputy Hensley of the WCSD and
.?;
Agent Williams of the SBI to a confidential informant and supplied the gggMp %)h$p3-Qlfgf ggl%" ' . y d%g : /
6g agents with names of twenty-one workers suspected of being involved in illegal drug activity. Applicants' Investigation Testimony at 13-16: Tr.
; . g$ ,
. . N ? P';.1,f. 8568 (King). The informant, a former CP&L employee previously dis-QM6 : -
' QWI : ., missed for drug involvement, worked on site with Hensley and Williams N.;
d ; p/ a- @g - * .' j g' g W / JT M ,
kNhl w . s for the duration of the investigation. Tr. 8527-30 (King); Appl:casits'In-vestigation Testimony at 13. CP&L provided the agents with necessary
?
{?ggg%dgh; g dQ
" cover" as employees which gave them unrestricted access to any part of the s,te i at any time. The invest,gation i was, however, directed to the (3gM d gisf? c O Kej%a.@
g first (day) shift, on which approximately 5000 of the approximate total M l" M' h @d of 6000 employees then worked. Tr. 9216 (Hensley); Tr. 8526-27
@fii p[ (Joyner). Deputy Hensley worked at the site weekdays, except for holi-fN;,@f."Mghf[Qg ' - '.t ",hig yg
.,N; .; . y2 days, from early November 1984 through early January 1985. Tr. 9169
. 7 T. .
- ilia j 306 0 *
-J
, . - ~ . . . . ~ . a s. . . - , . - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
- - -c-. -- -s rw+
'Nk%h!$fb ENjfddfSdsh mmh N p yhrb*?hf bp . % p* N:
M p;%!d ww f $hb h@ -
& m&h$ ;$%
%r=mwmmp$mmm,('hSijs
.;~u g,f Y h f f $ h f &y.Oy $ N*
;8.u.m.,.
7t a, a s,g- ;*?
a' ::. , ,W--~~-~~~+-
,+ ;. - ,y ,7 ..A
*g.
+
~ :~ : .. j . ~ .:.. A . s. .;.__.
y .,
g.- :p; 4:a .g .yw..n e.3.r.0 >
- ,m. f; . .. .4..ke.
l ' .s 3:, mm @q ' Q-n
.?1 % ;:M % 5;' ' gLS. ^ ,.
,W M W .sl;.W,2.c1 x %:c
#%h, O (Hensley). Hensley was instructed to use his cover as an employee at
$$ b C. ) M,1; $' ' .,.,
$$$N[N;[ [. . D W fthe
.R plant to try to purchase drugs and to obtain information about drug
~ .? .
., w activity. Tr. 9173 (Hensley). SBI Agent Williams was on the Harris site w [..s.
J, .
f m. 7Q 7,#,;;a.;.t.
% . Ec.1 4. ,V.,$ e.ef 2 ort; Donald
+/'
3 days a week for a total of about fifteen times. Statement of Williams, Jr., ff. Tr. 9274 (hereafter Williams) at 3. During the WJ4 (.M ? My M'.
- i. h'd@hSf3dkp investigation, the WCSD spent S1725 to purchase cocaine, marijuana, hashish, and methamphetamine. Tr. 9207-08 (Hensleyh Applicants' In-sNN p.v.J 3Jpd % M - vestigation Testimony at 40, Attach. 5. The investigation resulted in the M.2% M7! Df.s)M;.Ndh, A :b"h u A<
M s; M k' h p ofgeight persons for sales to the officers and the identification of arrest
$v.c. iW- %,. .-.J. d3M. fifty three others suspected of drug activity. Tr. 9173-74 (Hensley).
Y; $ Q .MM' . .. 15. The parties do not dispute the above facts concerning the in-y
;,M
?!U$ ::id3.jwu m
jgCh.N @.$ h
%7%
m k; :{[ $ M. m @ N. m $ $ $ 3 ) M[+ @
.p vestigation. However, there are significant disagreements among the par-ties concerning certain actions CP&L took during the course of the in-c w $y'php@:Of,,M.Wdd e ,m. e .W. e-W>jgeMvestigation, I W and the timing of and reasons for the termination of the in-4M pM&. Ms%.3 2Rdk@i?;W M A.T vestigation, as well as what the investigation reveals about the extent of drug activity at the Shearon Harris site. These disagreements are dis-M $ @R-p h[-C@,,wvN W2C CU!E cussedhbelow.
w m m,, O.,t%,
.W- wv.eeJsw r ;W-W't;."/n. 9<
W.,.fs%o r . - ig: . m. i. ;
,e y".y f :.y :;.4 + . :r : -! *8
? .
- z. ;
m .
MetalDetector Searches n'&,.W.6..if'g &g ?
% w,r Qyp Q-1.
3.py'7y s.fS .3% ; 16. SBI Assistant Supervisor of Drug Investigations Burch testified
- u. M H H [ Q C }. 1', concerning the undercover investigation. Burch was SBI Agent Williams' supervisor during the time he participated in the undercover operation M@ i . M.1 .
1G M[., 7
;. . ' P ,,, at the Harris site. Burch's testimony criticizes certain of CP&L's actions g,.,V9:@Ai'Q-[.g 4 / @ s as impeding the effectiveness of the investigation, endangering the un-dercover agents, and causing the investigation to be terminated prema-
@M5- , ,
,g.
turely. Burch at 3-4. Burch testified that shortly after the investigation
%,hYJND[s.M W fM M^
%p%7F@, :;D M ,2. commenced, CP&L began using hand-held metal detectors to perform y? V.p ,jg hkmW, &% . ~%
w9;;. , - .. e
- random gate exit searches of employees. Id. Supervisor Burch alleged, w
ih. ik$s'<Wv.%%F/ MJ4 without elaboration, that this procedure slowed the progress of the un-hyg dercover operation. Burch at 3. Burch testified that Hensley told her that h MU the procedure had never been used before and that the employees from k'i}.M.M E.N Ei'. yf. Q 'C.
Fj.
whom Hensley had been purchasing drugs had reported that there was a MI . d Pf. #% O f .%Ec $ @N g S.?, N.UM. " snitch" on site. Id. at 3-4.
hh.@Yh)isydNfnBR3.
f I5h/hhf$ M, ., 17. CCNC asserts that the initiation of metal detector searches had the effect of making drug users " skittish," and attributes this testimony AfM,y to Mr. Joyner. Tr. 8519-20, 8524, 8555; CCNC PF 17. However, at the relevant transcript page, Mr. King refused to agree with the questioner
.4 N -$ $o$i Ifd h' D % .h8%'hQ
?
f f/g that this would be the effect of the introduction of metal detectors. Tr.
8524 (King). CCNC again misstates the record when it claims that I g r
"[glate searches also began during the investigation and indeed found
'- *hMM..,b%@dgjMd7; J M + M h 9h ; h, p. 3' , B two workers with drugs. Tr. 8614" CCNC PF 17. Gate searches did not f&v, '.y ya p; o.,
.y
- Wh. .. ,. . , ,. . . .
r_ n ., . .-
M:*/ ' M F ..y3 i .
' q.
.: e i,c5 307 W.S.,. . .e ,
i l^
% .-g - w.-- - .,. - , - .,. ,. -.-. -. .,_. . .,. . . . .
k d
s
. '. b ,
bu ,
.- m. g y ;
.:..: .. .:i n % w M, g..a
~. :s. ~ w-i A - " ~ = - -- ~.~. -
* '"'.;Q {. i j',. .
, . m1 ,
j f
. '. ' Jy .
.?
- gy,d ..
, . . 7. ., -
t., -y /vQ. begin during the undercover investigation - only the use of hand-held
,.j,'1 y 4", u , +. E. I W metal detectors as an added element in random exit searches. See Appl.
; w37.' . .g t ; PF 36.6 Gate searches were already in effect before the investigation W. ..%e. :. '4 I*' ?jj.it.m
' qigY ,
N commenced. Furthermore, the search which discovered two workers in possession of drugs was not a routine gate search but a planned intercep-i e Q -( ,'[ ' j . g. U Q N tion of drugs based on specific information about the two workers gath-
. T y,3.j 9 TID ered during the undercover investigation. Tr. 9221 Glensley). This inci-N % 9,* g4i
@yq$% f. d d [ $'d M h
.g dent at the site gate is discussed below; we mention it here only to elimi-ldNj.g,.t@rhydr, nate any confusion concerning the searches instituted during the course of the undercover investigation.
- T.jd k:; [ .yty; W .. @$$M:i ~ W @f My;g%"j,;; 18. CP&L's Manager, Harris Project Administration, William Hind-W]Q. !QMW$((N.1
.$$;/ riu : m 1 Cib-60@JWH man, testified that the metal detectors had been requested by the Daniel Construction Company construction manager prior to the inception of
.hMhk
;",WN, b;W @d:k'3Qh,f ?;L3% g %
the undercover operation and that the detectors' sole purpose was to curb tool theft. Applicants' Investigation Testimony at 16-19.
P $...,t Q ;a'..
I :p4 W N'
.. a * < 1. . f g , , n . . . 19. Metal detectors do not detect drugs, and the effect of the use of
. .z; . 4 t .
metal detectors on drug activity appears to be quite limited. Certainly, if
;. N. Uh',[Q:$[M;g?#[ ^ 'i$. an employee is carrying concealed tools or other otjects which alert the
.,gp metal detector, a further search might lead to discovery of any drugs on c-. ,J - $ $ l ]i dpl % fg$
f.v...W ' the employee's person. Thus, the discovery of drugs might well be an
~
incidental benefit resulting from the program designed to curb tool
- ' l x.'%f@)l,M.
}3l$ theft. However, we expect the number of persons who would alert the
' l ' C .. ~ metal detector and then be found to be carrying drugs would be quite
, 7 ' '9; A small, since employces know they will be searched if they alert the
'0 2
"~] '
'"! metal de:ector. Presumably, employees would also realize that the insti-
, tution of metal detector searches would not signal a " crackdown" on fx yl.g u-f p( W.Q, g:Q.7% drugs. In addition, since the random gate searches were already in elTect Ry. % .$ when the undercover investigation began, we find the use of metal g$fhANw[G41G+gfWQhM hp%hjhk.} detector searches to have had little, if any, effect on the undercover operation.
W p p f -?. Q ~ 3 % Q'>
QW p b&..;..W.ii.t:u@. - M ,4_. ,yJ,t.f. w wg:u 2. Drug Detection Dogs y g. . w .u. w... &. 3.s W..t; s. .g %w.1
.c,, .-
m 9.<. m : M
, Ng ;Oy.<, r/y6 ;v.., /E N d@p .%.NS :
fy' 20. Beginning in February 1985, under the direction of CP&L's security unit, a narcotic detection dog has been on the Harris construc-YNNM7.NF..NMNM3 tion site twice a month on an unannounecd schedule to search a random sampling of areas on the site. If specific requests are made, or ifinforma-pME%g(hi&NfCQjf.QM'..
k Q ttf M, 'j tion is available concerning the possibility of drugs at particular areas on g % w;Q!lk.
p::. @68h bdMI %(l'p g& M
- g$
~
v f ,
' [/.h" ~. r. y, 6 such searches are condacted during esery shirt change. at which time funch botes, briercases, and
';fffpl-7,:!"iQ*M1%h . .y.[,. . g. other contamers are opened for inspection as emplo)ces lease the sire. and on a random basis as empicy-m.; f rf. .N#.'.V Q1 ,N"%
. n1., . u-W. . e s w . >g ,3 .
~
Qa e .f.,. > g ,.
p ees enter the site. Applicants' Assessment Testimony at 5.
f*4 k s
5 . ? *p '.m. ;2m..+a,-.-i*.
y $. eW' 5,*.
_ .[g * > l f ..J.: 308 g a t e
g' y3- .p.s n.e- s===-p- eto*'u'.-*3** .W-6 *>-m****^ '
*'""i*O{M'* ***7N ' # * * '
s.,
e
h$ A &y$&mlN&m.#q%ry;mc W.XOC)%&& V: .%%
Q%M%G -W.p&r%'ue&'qd:
N&.Q Bsy%,$k; w w ::v. ,n,. ..mn u/;e:W* Q.~.$N.wg&s myb m W
% - yw$34 - A-Q.,pw
;f.
Wu W1 -
V: %%. . :
hA'S ' : *Y '
s.
h hih ykWf5 ?nW r.wN ??.?Y 'h$e$,
- ~
, ..p ;m: p. '
~
y a.p , ,
m w :. . . =.a a.. u . _ , -.f... : wa a _ e __,
, . $,. ' - a,,av _> _ Q-[, . ;
w
'%y ;; , , g.:q ? ~..
- y. .' <,- ; . n
- y., p 4 ., : . .
m.g w . .~r; . ,..-
. z..M ~ JJ 3 .. ' ..
- w. , - p.? :. y lyh$P.% y , +4'( .,ill. w7 ,'. l 1' site, then those areas are given priority for search by the dog. Applicants' Mf c.L./c J<My[ '0 ~~ 1. Assessment Testimony at 5-6; Testimony of Francis J. Long, William J.
gp , , '.< ,
, '. Tobin, and Richard L. Prevatte, ff. Tr. 8653 (hereafter "Long et al."),
- p;.:,j& : mg.lfu.g *W .- .
at 8. Q;.0 8.]~s,,' :iW O.L ' '- wh * ; , . .m, w.71 21. TheW.,,.M dog handlers, ., his. Dana B. hiackonis and hir. Kenneth A.
W.,'M hlathias, testiGed that the dogs used at the Harris site are " aggressive" L. e..m _d M.f.M- wS N N m;;w,&:M,j.i;a r :.
, ...+- V.- m.4rgt.....i.. dogs who will ; .;nbark, scratch, dig, or bite at the area where they find'
-- 3a .s. g ' drugs, and therefore these dogs do not perform body searches. Appli-6 g/4+q MWMy y,..; pw .,.,t,;j.:N. m W, n ng y d.~ w..e w s : @.f. G. .s' C .Q:,M cants' Testimony of Dana B. hiackonis and Kenneth A. hiathias on the M fkNkDDMh M M M Q /$ @D,'.6'Y W/P),]
Use of Drug Detection Dogs, ff. Tr. 8993 (hereafter "hfackonis and hiathias"), at 8. Thus, if an employee is carrying drugs on his or her
{ d MM.% 4 M9M i4 22. In Board Findings 107-111 we dis:uss whether the drug dogs W.%hd[I4;85N63$h were effective and what that indicated about the extent of drug use at the site. In the present context, we address whether the dogs' use ob-i5 @$ @. w,t:,%.a f. h M,,7db.fd, p,M d /.'/*,M "4 structed the undercover investigation. SBI witnesses Burch and Overton vo
'G9#W/&;o & ,q W t 9 .n
..a testified that the undercover operation had to be terminated prematurely D h:I 'I,hM .;i 2 -&4.
5-j[,[, because CP&L insisted upon initiation of its program of narcotic detec-tion dog searches at the Harris site. Burch at 7-8; Direct Testimony of
- 9. o
. ._:.y ' ' 7t -
C.J. Overton 111, fr. Tr. 9274 (hereafter "Overton") at 5-6. CCNC and m ,. m#, ,. (.C
- x. ' i .m - f. .
the NCAG contend that the undercover agents' safety would have been Yy;y-gr M" threatened by the presence of drug dogs. CCNC PF 12; NCAG PF 9.
M ; Q ' t [. Y , , ' _ .p i 23. As previously noted, the undercover investigation began in
. M w' f& i,: .M .
early November 1984 and culminated in arrests on January 10,1985 (al-
.$ M i.& . . - ' j ., ,
x.
1 though agent activity ceased about the turn of the year). Applicants' In-d.MhM jiO , vestigation Testimony at 16,34; Board Finding 14. The Grst dog search
%h@SWxj@, u.
i Mb' i s%e cw@.Q:M@$
~
was not actually conducted on site until February 25,1985, but a misun-derstanding appears to have developed between CP&L and the law en-M,M..p{J$@MiW
$mp M'ddMd$MMWM
.7C.' A forcement personnel as to when the dog searches would begin. Appli-cants' investigation Testimony at 37-38; Tr. 9203-04 (Lanier, Hensley, MTj-3'[@jdKW,9lid}f$tf
%W. ' , W." ; ; W .R i Self). Both CP&L's witnesses and those from the WCSD testified that khk, .$ - :n Sheriff Baker believed that introduction of the dogs during the undercov-M %u$:.QJ- QDYd'. er investigation would endanger the physical safety of the agents on site,
$. M@C P.R h[.M M. 9. 7.,. and therefore Sheriff Baker wanted the operation terminated. Tr. 9189
%x J , NNINM . w q[,y%s@, $ %y
.h (Lanier); Tr. 8561-62 (Joyner); Tr. 8498 (King). Supervising Agent Overton testiGed that the use of the dogs during the undercover opera-kM Aps
, 4.
h r,tkk 3[iM d:d.;
%4 o e.
aM r4 tion would have created the " distinct possibility" that the undercover
" agents would have been endangered and that the " risk was too great."
y ~
/$$W, p@.d;G'7lPw,. $pgyYet SBI Agent Overton gave no explanation for the perceived threat
.i
- s d; 3 F.f M9W8:IjF.MI from the dogs. Overton at 5-6.
~
A p); j J p . a V ~ y v ..-:5 2 i
.-l m : w .;- , : n -+ ,; ._
%, . ly . ~ , _
, a ~ .
t 309 9
4
=
,s - .-,z.e-- e =e-
,n , , . . , . . ,
= .
,, m
.' 4 : 9 ..x "2 ybdfm%+D%m%.
W m e,g g .%w Mm MlL. g v % $ @M m..w%3nif MAW . s..c% p& f %r.4 m . y~
q.w mW %.;M:.Q
- .~Q-S: x,C yss1;./.
' ,??.W.Q.
M Wy+lWiy@u
% #..y;i b@
.e m w---= w>.m .
2- . nw 4 a : c. :
Y :m; %c.' W:, A+' * ' ' ' -
; 'y
.f:S.% ?'N Y'%<ll%l;m& "
4$Ql, tr w$6 f **2;I Q
?r.m '
' ~
r[.m
- w:e ~^
& T
~
i ' y~?=
.. y 4
- a. ....aw . ... . - . - - . -..-w ~ . . ~ a. - - : - .-
- ) ...:.
- y. -7 ,
.f% l pq- as , .. -
i . 3 24. Deputy Hensley testified that "if the dogs had been used in a 3', ,
s
;p
, situation where a certain group of people, including myself, knew a
~
stash area or a quantity of drugs would be or who would have them, and ql,e ', '
if the dog picked up on that, it could cause some fault as to an informer
'eg. ,,.. $ 1' '
or something being into the plant which could have pointed back towards g..
mjl*fp t,c W. . M.t .'., u , , s .
1;D 7 ':
m me." Tr. 9224. Deputy Hensley explained that if the dogs went directly p A~ .,:c.- L. . : .4 ,
W-
.. J. . s'. to a stash area, th.is might make people believe that there was a " snitch" 4%g 7 ' I' '. ., y: on site. Tr. 9258. However, SBI Agent Williains testiGed that in his opin-3 [ . G E,;i "' ion the investigation could have proceeded with the dog searches in
$d[V5., '7
, s .N7 '.e, progress. Williams at 12.
' [ L > d ,. .. a * - M':<J 3 25. CP&L's employees, King and .loyner, who have experience as law enforcement omeers, and CP&L's expert, .N!r. Bensinger, testified
_O.' ? , M ce M.D, y a.
O - er W'A J' ' %. 1 w,.O. , / '. . .i . that the random dog searches would not have posed a threat to the lh[eg4-g *
'l' safety of the undercover agents. Applicants' investigation Testimony at l . y , -a.n , ., . p 38-39; Tr. 8562-65 (King).
's -
4 ',ys ,, .;, -
- 26. Although it is not clearly stated in the parties' testimony or in
;, L l ;, >vi e ,V. the proposed findings, it appears to the Board that the most likely way
,, '~ 7 [ .]
the operatives might have been endangered would have been if the drt g
[M0 ' Rl y '_,
2' .M dogs were always taken to search places the agents had reported as stash
.. /
",, areas. There was testimony that the drug dogs might be taken to search
; ;^ u:7 a specine place on a tip (Applicants' Assessment Testimony at 6), how-j ever there is no esidence that the dogs were consistently taken to stash I areas reported by the undercover agents. .N!oreover, if this had been
-,.s.' standard practice, the agents could have simply asked CP&L not to search consistently in the stash areas of the group with which the agents e m.
, . , were working. In any event, Hensley testified that he did not inform
; y' 4 .
'~
CP&L of any stash locations of which he was aware. Tr. 9197. Finally, M..W h Y .6 /I M M W /e.g!ip %, iMN there seems to have been no reason why site workers should have had greater suspicion about Hensley and Williams than about other workers,
- $Jy lim,$ ?P;' i,A ; g%
., ,q
. j y,5 other than the fact that the agents were among recent arrivals on site. Al-
! though the use of the dogs may have rendered the criminalinvestigation N, , % 7J.Q %g.y[?' W . lj .@' ,S.Wless effective as a law enforcement operation because of the dogs' gener-
' ~
2p. ,9 { , ('?' A C', "
al deterrent effect on drug activity, the Board finds that the occasional i 44/' 'i
- a .I presence of dogs on site would not have presented a signiGeant incre-
. Q * ;j ,' Ap ', , ' ,
mental threat to the safety of the undercover agents. Nor does the Board 0 3 .;% m u n.. -
AG s find any evidence that CP&L brought the dogs on site for any reason Oy ..M 7 $l k i-3.c 4 .,s m~.' ..!pf 4Q,'g other than to find drugs and deter drug activity among site employees.
hYU 13iO.$ h h; sd ml 7 M h
f&$.'u & & W
$$ 3. Alleged Premature Termination of the Undercover investigation MSgId<@t.dfMdb[O. 27. CCNC and the NCAG claim that the undercover investigation was terminated prematurely. CP&L maintains that the investigation was
..M:e A
n ; ,w ,O. - !?ar ?.k.CT' yu .
} l. ' . ,.a_ 4 k _
l 310 9
% .s -
E
N'$ M N 95W M & N W QN$ [F Wik C-:.b W @ y& !U W $ % ? W ? ?*? W % MWWMD?l$h%%.N?
.dV.. '
' W ;4.N.i:DWT; &.1
%t%;X
- Or
,;m:;m m y
d}$.n n.3 h. .w p
@6% p $ M@k; %e +M.m46WUW;M.%Qq%N%<
w -a W>
s -M - - 4; :-
,~N, M T @x.; W.
a 1- &
se c.
<(a .,a. . ~ . - _ .~ . - . . . . , L.u.: ; uw.;w .
. . . ..7 . . ,* -
- ;;3 - - . 3: .
- p. y , . -; .
'n.
q.'ng. ; _ [ 46 ' ;
.as: n /n .4. ;..; *x '
.c
+ ' ,
'. h .y J * ,
.+
winding down in December 1984 in terms of cases being made against e:
Ty;.X;y(. 4.; M 4a'. ".;,?
g.. .
,.1.- suspects (see Applicants' Investigation Testimony at 40-41 and Attach.
J. y p y. s e'..n .M,. .'c v..
g.3 MI%. a$..
.w r;..M. M. ..1 s # M . N 7..i.
5; Tr. 8589 (King)), an assessment with which Hensley agreed, (Tr.
w'JG3Wi y .M,. u & l . . .'. $ . ,. ' . , ' 9231-32), and that based on the geographically concentrated area, the in-
+ r C; '
p :5 ; formant, and the Icads it provided, CP&L understood the investigation h @N N@ . k,f ~MUMpj b U.h].
h h h;I[j,c. would last about 8 weeks. Applicants' investigation Testimony at 32-33.
75 WCSD personnel testified that they had not intended to leave such an Umms $f g CM impression with CP&L employees. Tr. 9200-03 (Lacier, Self, Hensley).
;J @N WK ' d g# W. % .f @ @y To ;W $ this issue, we examine the testimony of tbc witnesses who of-
" m. % rr.:; m y
~ M:8 .
resolve 2 s . ac',x ' M:. .e,y il fered an opinion on the matter.
' @M k ?2 % $W 'jh.gJ ;g s k h g;Q W , %q 28. Major Lanier of the WCSD testined that he believed "more
'.B$[' n could have been accomplished on the operation, as in any operation, hk$,.7.Md $ j'.Qt ,p; W,E"W with an extension on the length of time that we might be involved." Tr.
6l M Q @ M k N h /$ h ryyg*%
@M. .y 9190. Lt. Self and Deputy Hensley agreed with Lanier. Tr. 9190.
,m,f...o;
, k. n.Q. 7w. ,s.. ,,
.. p ..m .. A.
- . w5 W6C o
. G, m.U.,
P SBI Supervisor Burch testified that the SBl had inadequate time
- d. pat Shearon to ii s estigate u;g #Harris.g Tr.
w9306. g Burch stated that the investi-gation was not terminated because it was complete, nor because the law
,@fna.d M :'e. +M N. . e . m:M.D M enfoicement agencies conducting it recommended termination, nor be-g%jfhf y;Gg;w f: ,MQN,h.dy $' cause of a lack of suspects. Burch claimed that the operation was ter-
.f. , , ,. .r ., f minated because the drug detection dogs would have created a risk to q
. . %,, . y ,3 -,, 7. - ci. w . . . .' q , a s. ', , . ,
the personal safety of the law enforcement officers, an issue we have t
y, . . y< ~i . N . i , just discussed. Burch at 7-8.
~ x ,.
s ;- . . 30. SBI Supervisor Overton testined that the operation would have E.p';,s m
j ,J. g 8 p: , S '.1 "
o been more successful if the investigators had changed shifts, but that yZ , ' . . s 4 ; 9;f bringing in drug dogs would severely hamper the undercover operation.
U w J. . , 7 w t 1 ;J ' <. Overton at 4-5. Overton testined that it is not unusual for an operation
' tp g.pNgg -7:Qg,J1$. . .
ss .
of the sort performed at Harris to have lasted 6 months and that the op-Ms.w?. % ' g &.h eration was not a success from the SBI's point of view. Id. at 6.
~ N@M;$k$h.gnd . . .h![MhIlh 31. SBI Agent Williams expressed his frustration with the way CP&L pursued its investigation of drug activity at the site, which he MSMd$gwggMQ
- M Ot4 characterized as primarily a " policy type investigation rather than law en-forcement." Williams at 15. For example, Williams complained that
@~ f,. @ d,,i G,35,
~g$Y/-i..[.j$,@.JIc.]
,JM.wc r.. f.
M@.. r ff-I @x,t.!.rr O, h 9 ; T) [M T; [h i CP&L would search without probable cause and then Gre employees, thus hindering drug dealing. Id. Williams further testified that if Shearon Harris had " cut down on its security procedures" (the gate searches and
' [ATr $ $.[ W $'," Q g M h the metal detector searches), he believed "a lot more could have been
[iM(M% j M
- Mhd;, accomplished." Id. at 12. He would have preferred that CP&L "[j]ust let it be a mild atmosphere where people could feel like they were getting A.u .- '.9;%yM,f A" ,w.m ;y . 4,q. m away with something and we could have made more buys readily." la.
M ipiGg ,-
p% 32. We Gnd that much of the disagreement concerning whether the ig M4%Mh8.h,h[3&M@; J h.M 8 . investigation was terminated prematurely stems from the difTerent goals and perspectives of the participants. CP&L's primary goal was to rid the O.
ygv6m,.m(.m t- ~-W t% s N.Q. t p.y,a.-A 5'-[!) j* ,
s
& ,: f :,ic ;* ?} .
I ~~
y e
- 'l .;
311 i
e
- n. r, ;" *x.5, ;- w - , , - - -
'r w,."'-<
-5
-.1[;;
; ., ,, x ,y ' ;.'.
'2 * *y :y. g .,. _.
.:a.
.~ -. .-- a a ... u a,,. -. - . - w, . a 1
y n. - +
. - . v, . , . . s . ..s g:.. x .- % 3
- y. w, ' . g,n,m . _ + : .
,.- sr . ..
'.. . . e I.k 7~*P h. . - e. s,_
,p 'C' .,
t f
. , i ii, N ,1 W.y4j. N%.TJ ' . ,
site of drug activity as quickly as possible. Oriented as it was toward M. 4. @ P safety in construction, CP&L was reluctant to allow, let alone facilitate, ji, Q$ '?p M e
'O.lM
$gf Mi / $ 2@c f &@i'ip '
fi %
drug use at the site for an extended period of time. CP&L had no direct interest in making arrests or obtaining convictions. The law enforcement officers, on the other hand, were primarily interested in arresting and d..' ' " D h@%,.%M M: convicting persons involved in drug activity. To that end, they wanted a
.%QN
. . .,h&, .
h ?d6?%yx f f g.-j'}l & @ Q ifi. M. ; GQ 'Q:@@y@ site atmosphere in which drug dealing could occur more or less freely.
These differences in goals and orientation are illustrated by an incident in which two individuals suspected of bringing marijuana on site were
%.:jfc.,*,lhIM$ M & *" p ;%kWk b hN ' stopped by CP&L employees when the individuals attempted to enter w v., , ; r,,c.9 wN. L ~, M 0 the plant.
7
- af;
'CM' Y.wMW N&&W: dWM 6).
W J.
- 33. On December 20, 1984, the informant told Deputy Hensley P about two individuals the informant believed were about to bring a large h,$a l pf..;ia MSii$$I
-3 ..M;plJW.$n@if;5.NE.D*s.t p .m -p. s s qu ntity of marijuana on site. Applicants' Investigation Testimony at 21; t W -M;A;h@$d, [idgg Tr. 9221 (Hensley). SBI Supervisor Burch claims that Deputy Hensley d'y$ $3%aw.sy.y EQ%%$ requested CP&L Security allow the two individuals to pass through the
'4% f 7(.- 8:D g gate. Burch at 4. CP&L's employees, Joyner and Plueddemann, testified gg%gM@..u... that there had never been a request to allow the individuals to pass A2k$k. -- 4/ through the gate. Joyner and Plueddemann claim it was agreed that they
$$M
'My _
g,6,N[M.g_.;9 4 q i[ p
@$ A ip}[-[QN
~
g should search the employees, since they would be bringing a large amount of marijuana on site for distribution to other employees (Appli-
-# m cants' Investigation Testimony at 21), and because Hensley had said
% ,. ..c_ P W . J. W.7 f~ ,
that these two individuals would not sell to him directly. Tr. 9221. We "f . t -
.e g ; do not find Supervisor Burch's testimony on this matter persuasive for
, q: il?[W M.g G.C 3 [
two reasons: (1) it conflicts with the testimony of all other persons in-4
~
.+,s.
.. ;.c _ Wf; -
volved in the investigation, and (2) Burch was not present at the meet-i ing during which plans to deal with the two individuals were made. We
%s. . -
7 5 +:& pND%
r.O e / O.s 3. $ 4 # s.n .
4;.g% %
n ? $. d g j ~@ ,M g.,
instead rely on the testimony of witnesses who testified from first hand
-%g *f * #4 N,& knowledge.
W,9 = g.%s$$p$
Q .
MtFN@w. M y p, ' W'-*Gy Q:pg$g 34. The plan decided upon by Deputy Hensley, Mr. Joyner, and Mr. Plueddemann was to have a sheriff's deputy with a search warrant at MM.
$4 M .M,
.M.. M;
' o, M_. .Wh 3 / M,s.
c, N N; f 'bh. the site on the morning of December 21, 1984, to search the two indi-
; ,.%. m t viduals as they attempted to enter. Deputy Hensley agreed with the plan
.E'S ".M.jl$$$.N h and all involved agreed that it would not compromise the cover of Hens-
.f ' ,.l3M{.M?h%,7 ley or the informant. Applicants'; y Investigation Testimony at 21-22.
f M NC$.[56.ffM*@.r.QMs.f 4$e Joyner testified that both he and Deputy Hensley discussed the plan by thy W @ telephone with Lt. Self. Id. at 22. Although Lt. Self had agreed to pro-N %.h'M3hp[ QK vide a deputy with a search warrant, when the deputy did not arrive on the morning of December 21, 1984, Joyner and Plueddemann searched b h f 'WMQ44%Mg 4%% % the two individuals rather than allow them to take marijuana on site.
t.
w r , Ai e %;s .Bi~dM.iM7' f.i s
7t A~ One suspect was found with two packages of marijuana in his pants. The sgc.w% w+g m;y ASW11%m% .u-egq dg other had a package of marijuana and a small amount of cocaine. The
% !. l* .a .L wn ,a n. y < .
..#'p' a '
.? . . . .. t' 312
.s.' ~;
; W ; ?- u. , .t
.t
! t
, I. -~. , m _. ., , . . _ _ . . . , _ _ , ,. . _ , _
j.
~
r
*N
%N
j.h ' .
g,g
$y gggg.; g )ggg . .
.g,p .. g W. f &&g,g.
A x1 .e,%^ ; > 2 g,&&y&gg@3mh&N.%5SWW&;sWS?0.jh5Ml"
..n. ?r
;W:MM%. VW W. MnwWy_ W nW
- :S
. %.. .,d%. - 3 ,
s32%.
w .
-y %.; - . m x. . me 2- & '~ -
y wa
. _ i :.a , w . ..- . .. . _..a
- :s} c
;si p.'f. '
..s, g
.g.f . .
,-l . ,
,... ~
ms. , .i.m a. . . ~ . - '. ,.
marijuana was packaged in individual glassine bags typically used for
.,I,pS. yM,.S.M @r A' .K < C. X ". r '-
# dmy; m.: ~. ., +.f,,M.
distribution. Id.
. m./ ~wx,W - .
~ $-w
..* n. 35. CP&L's primary concern in this instance was not with probable Ria Fp l.Jiji1.gt;r:c
. .o ;w .
ic g @ n3 ,e. m : cause to search, or, for that matter, with any of the formalities prerequi-9.j- _.
w rA, G pfgK,h"%<r- .-
W ';..P.MN, e.,. $ 7 %,% m_.m e
site to an arrest and conviction. CP&L's overriding concern was with preventing drugs from entering its site. The law enforcement authorities f M N @/ N . Y d d h$' ,k ,M.e 3- wanted to make arrests, and to do so in such a way as to maximize the 6,p,;M, M. :~. ,V. a M, , p %w$@ . chance of conviction, requiring that proper law enforcement procedures
* %. sMdM;iWl , gl@ff 7
be followed. Thus the action whkh would serve CP&L's objectives was 7.l3 S ., M,, m1 N. G
.&m v73MJ V
_S ::/ P.'.,i ' not the same action which would best serve the objectives of law en-f m ,u;n, @w dy,2 M O F Y forcement authorities.
r[, W~ m.- s ~ .: mg.m : W+..4 yN
- TD4.
m
, pA;' i.r. . m V..,s- . ;., G.*(',f', l.,f ,*".7 .D-ms C.Q M @h;.W.
> ,c. 4. Deputy Hensley's Testimony Q . Q,.M.,D. .. ... . C i%'j'?' ff.9[
%ewr7,nd. -t.
@U:S'3;%
g.: %'N O.M
$( @.:' d.4:;W.MlO Mtime:on site than did Williams, the other under-
- 36. We gise separate attention to the testimony of Deputy Hensley because he spent more We. ..v-u. .,
C. ;t : . J
~ e. g cover agent, and because Hensley provided the most detailed informa-
,Jp'.@.% /W.
.. 5-
?.? M.g< t^./
.t.q.
. A ;
iM.sgbf .k. i 'it S.Q. ,
tion about what occurred during the undercover investigation. As noted above, Deputy Hensley was at the Harris site 5 days a week from early November 1984 through early January 1985, excluding holidays. Tr.
N!fj ,Ql,j
- J; ? ? ,. ,yR;.
- f. gig
.n / ' ' ? 9169 Olensley); Board Finding 14. The Grst purchase of drugs was ac-
- i. M G u
M... .f,, , f, M. -
-2 - s complished after 1% hours on site, which might suggest that drugs were easy to acquire. However, this was a " controlled buy," in that the infor-s.r 7 3
,f y;%;.p -~ni : ;D 7 mant actually made the purchase in Deputy Hensley's presence and
'kkM y #'- O.+ C [ d.,~' e'. ' under Hensley's supervision, after Hensley had given the informant the
~ < !p. '. : i
. money with which to make the purchase. Tr. 9229 (Hensley).
Q.ph: ( & _ FO . 37. The investigation resulted in the arrest of eight site employees
/ for sales to ofGcers and in the identiGcation of Gfty-three others suspect-
$h@.
M N)@d$g% nim;M ;M.Q M TN[Q.W W(hg ed of drug activity. Tr. 8568 (King); Tr. 9174 (Hensley).7 The original twenty-one individuals whose identity was provided by CP&L are includ-W p, hId Afrpd fM @O,l '. $M* .
h,MWgg.p .
%.@p2 Nh yl ed in the sixty-one either arrested for or suspected of drug activity. Tr.
8568 (King). In addition, Hensley testiGed that he observed about forty
.Y,n d'.y ei z ey.3 j. . ;'. , . g ;tt , other employees, whom he could not identify, either using or being con-
. , s.. .. ,<4, J V M., ;., - , .
,9. f (,Jt, J.E, nected with drugs on the job. Tr. 9175. He also stated that he suspected, based on " intelligence" being gathered, another 100 employees. Tr.
sig?'
?.lc &@ P-~~},M . ;< J Q.* QM-,
AQ ' 9241, 9263-64.
.f! Q ' f ^ p ). Q MS$.N[h%hk[,hg:
- 38. CP&L contends that if Hensley was close enough to observe k{ff@4 h hhh y., the forty employees allegedly engaging in drug activity he should have been able to identify these employees by their hardhat color and the vy,h;-w,i M w
e f<% gM N' eEh AT M
' 4 f, n ,e cr.e M uxw.wM .W:- .w+ d nen5 icy IC$tified that the number un 51 or $3. Tr 9174
*, C b Y-[' . fl "[."
A - .
.%gy.i s g [w j 21.g{.'Q4'$ , , a. . . a; n ['
q ,
, 313
. > , i: . .
. ei ,
e-. -.n.,==e-e.*wg*y >Pe-g *' * " - ' ' ' '7
$v.s.% C wu.w. Q:.W m.ym% m ~ L ^ u Wy> ; P W swW - &%.,/ ,J- v 'qW W ~p
& n QWs f s v..;g's , . .
c -
-4 eem.5.
a , ..
..~..w.~. x.w. . ,. . u~ . .a.~ a.m -
a f" o ', ' ir ase. j- . .. . u. . . ..w .a a .. .-.. . : .
- n
, ~ - - ,s g f! ? 7 w.,' , ,
w/.. ,. 4 ,
'a..
;- - ~.-: ,
s ' ? G -~. & L . . . ,. <4 .
'p % = ' - .: ,
u dd;@;s 2.J .
{h?)Mfj;pY.h. [" b A' ui : / ~: ', W .;';, \ identification letters on the hardhats. Appl. RF 27. There are approxi-kNhh[@ '[@p N /f M N mately 15 different hardhat colors, and each color identifies a particular j#N9.iMb, V5.N.l4 ff.7.jl. b " %.i.? .~M M craft or function. Tr. 8975 (Joyner). These hats have letters and num-bers which also identify the crew. The markings on the hats are approxi-
~
- Z 'T mately 3 inches high. Id. CP&L employees wear light blue hats. Tr. 8978
$%MMT.f E$f4;$,NQd[l'l> If 7 (Joyner). These hats have decals with half-inch identification letters. Tr.
hQ@p!;J,W -dN [g;.Q, 9$8 M-g: 8979 (Joyner). Visitors to the site wear whatever hats are available in
- %..&. the lobby. Tr. 8980 (Joyner). Based on the number of hat colors, the y .A. A,",/q,.
em, . y p;-f
- f. g various sizes ofletters and numbers on the hats, and the fact that visitors r v w .s -
bdif[li;c; m . e . %n@33 ...M-C-d. M, wear a variety of different hats, we do not believe it unreasonable for 3.,7% y Hensley to have been unable to identify specific crafts, crews, or indi-p$:$e$@qt.,
h.n y , l U, .f@a . [M . #.h,7
+ r ..
viduals on the basis of the hardhat colors and markings. Also, Hensley .
#ug.w v.s15f,WM/ r may have been reluctant to peer closely at hardhat identification mark-Q[fjhQ'$$, $* Mn%tN MC ings. Even if he had been able to determine the craft and crew from the On qA.id 3g A,g. ..s,.
r W D,.% '
M.
.M.rt
., -o. e.%g$y fM(@<
oO.
', .,^n
.j%' markings, Hensley may have had a difficult time keeping notes of such information without attracting attention to himself.
m.
igWm r;. . 2r L. ;
.~. ,
s . .ac. / e - 39. We accept Hensley's belief that he observed about forty uniden-hNhl h;3 Shl'[;}( tified employees engaged in drug activity and that as a trained law en-M. Mh,M:;7 p $% f'4g,pygj%g "
forcement officer he was probably correct as to most of those employees.
EE - 40. Deputy Hensley's testimony was somewhat ambiguous concern-jdMW' O J'. :.4 il Q i. ' ing the scope of his investigation around the site. At the beginning of jlf.iW: , ,..,' :
~
.W -
his cross-examination, he confirmed the accuracy of a statement attribut-Q;.O ';Pi;. . .M i ed to him by Lt. Self, and reported in Ms. Burch's testimony, that
" Deputy Hensley began to develop intelligence which indicated that
FN,.[%fi) M[ ~ ~ , AWm. .; 3 Lg. [Ithere were several cliques dealing drugs at the Harris plant .
Burch
%m.did w. ~ d, - , w ; V,a .. ,.N. -3 J. .
at 4-5; Tr. 9176. The reference to "several cliques" seems to suggest J i y M W @s- ' g<p
- that there might have been several drug sales operations on site, possibly
. operating independently of each other. If that were so, and if Hensley
@j%tQM$hM.QdY%gNQh .M M M-Q W d had only managed to infiltrate one such operation, serious concerns b h Ii g ./ might arise about the extent of drug activity on site. Similarly,if Hensley had worked primarily in one area of the plant or with one craft (e.g.,
E;Sg IfM Mg d., d ? [@hE%p$d iS b M y,v 4 electricians), that might suggest that the sixty-one definite identifications y'A:f. %~ ?JJ; he made of employees involved in drug activity were a small part of a DdN h D.b H 'h.Y.l)M,' r larger problem. Some other Hensley statements point toward, but more
$hM((4 x h $ d N M.d d.. M W p[h. QNN.YMh point away, from these concerns.
- 41. Deputy Hensley testified tnat the word " clique" (which possibly originated with Ms. Burch) means the same thing to him as " group "
@ W k[ M
[ f"$$@)
@h p p[![Y He testified that: "The scope was to try to determine as many individu-h*W;Q als as there were involved in drugs at the plant as we could, and in order i $
t *M
, #NW[dN%RMh to do that we had to move elsewhere out of this little group." Tr.
d 9232-33. In a similar vein, Hensley testified that:
@6 ,4 % Wht% Y ?
% M[$ @Q q,x.#
' MI .MG.bO 2 7. % '.
M. ~,
l' x
.r: ^
w(.m l ai,
.]
., ., - - , =~.. - 314 yp, e
, ...s I
1...
-- - - , . ~ . . ,_ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . , ... , _ _ ._,.,_.
S 4
I M I **
, _~ ., g ,
r a
h N h . h.M h M M)J;f% [ dhhd'kM,/5.Nk*,hh5. MUhidNY [M.%
&'.% AG WM.~ h$5%06&& W. OA& 3 W: ? . MWi.M:.h-fhk$,gWQIhl',i'?MM$MQ}
W,. i$M4 .
NMe.V9WM040W.b.hkNM'@
FPWW
.;. 1 . <
+ : ~ s: .. a - . . .. .u.u .nw i :: ..w ax . . ..-;-.. -
. ~,;z_~
y.q ;. .,; ,
-) ,
u...
x .. L
, , m > ,:
-.+
., ~
n.
,,o ..
,A S. .c. .. . , . -
,;g-^
^
- w. ,
' M y ,;'g y
;,d; 1 .m. O !. ( HENSLEY: I . acted on the informant's information. The people he
/ ip 'c,g,.c' P. w . ,jp /S; .
originally started introducing me to that were dealing in
, ' . . .. g v. ; a.s
. ?. -dL . y ,h.6; 3.,, % ;'~, ' p*j v7.".!; .
. -e %j e ' drugs, or using drugs, were people that were on his work
% [*
,N*t.w.p. d 5;'*} K.'.?'..
' H .p.f f
- g. f-'
crew and people that they partied with off the site, and as-sociates by some means or another with other folks.
. . m ., ;~, ,
,. : . }. , u -' ', l , c c ; t,d,'s q . f. 3
- s. + '* ,*4 -t' .a .7 g. .l s'i '*g..lp
.f g. JUDGE KELLEY: An interrelated group of people?
- p. . n ..
; y ,, . ;_ ;m -. .e QTsD c ,g-,ag, ,-Q.., m.J.,O E!k HENSLEY: Yes, I would say that is correct.
/* ..uw b.:t ;;wO.3 yg%.;.yL u .,m
" Mtp M . i C/f@l% Nn#.D JUDGE KELLEY: Now, did you function while you were there primarily with
'h;M.NN,3I %! ; 4NMdh
- that group of people?
- y
$.',g&&,M I'?.W S.n '.,D.9-7.W;;.3% @ 0.S.h. HENSLEY: While I was on site, yes.
% %wMk ; u N+' + L.:. a.Wkr ww l, g a y y
%g.:
i 1.#-:p g . ,y Tr. 9249.
dMMQON$p@w $@gg E.W mnw@W 42. On the other hand, other Hensley :estimony seems inconsistent with his having been confined to a small area of the site or one or two
.(D..%G,,',;$,, %+ N$.iS.M.
; .0.lQ d.-@:.v4.
n ,3 types of craft workers. Thus, when Hensley spoke of" moving elsewhere Dr
- v. u w #' . ~
, ( WicUri e-r9 a.w~.c.. - W;.. c < s out of this little group," he was thinking in terms of moving from the
- r. . . ..
R ..W@. j g . . ,y. ;g.m x
- . ..tc M ,A;;f%n ,. , .
s day shift to the night shift. Tr. 9232-33, 9225. At that time, approximate-
.Mp fWO..;MN.u.T.V~.e..)
. . . .m ly 5000 employees were working the day shift and only about 800 em-
<. W &.% e . yln, 4.. l a& A
,em ployees were on the night shift. Tr. 8527 Goyner). Thus if one were to c:a ..J.J,, a r.
. s. m..Wy. 2 .r.C. f m , y. . .
g , ;c m .m,.'Q,7., ; ' g,a,q%3;7tu postulate several independent drug dealing " groups" it is reasonable to l M . n .- S Q, % s.-l" assume that most, if not all, of them would be working the day shift,
$?N # C 3l[*:' ,[ $. ? ,
, which comprised over 85% of total workers. Yet Hensley apparently
~, thought he had no other " group" to go to on the day shift.
r!l, .3~0 ?f,7- .
,. 2 @;X.. ,
2 43. Although Hensley repeatedly used the words " group" and
- ti n J ..r ^e ; dd:Nc .
MS4> '
~ d: ,
fryc , . " groups" in referring to persons involved in drug activi'y, he noted at
, q s. n,
._f Y one point that " group" is "probably the wrong term to use. The inform-
. , [.[,.; ,CU3,. . , nMx.d+ , P w 'M ant we were using was associated with these people." Tr. 9234. Captain n .f9;n .~ ,f.. m . / .a .p:n ,4; . .
Lan.ier suggested at th.is point, with Hensley,s apparent concurrence, M . N / [ O M:NO$$E a W . M M p:l D -
that:
$ , D G N T>%f G; M M S G O @J95 %.~-
f bs w.'r M .nPibe &p'. % .*.g % ut? w.M C i . ;Q M [ Black during the operation there were several groups within the first shift that the d *'d . $T@.-@ %. ;4 t ,
- 7. W M, %. Wl0 -s,.
9
% ,W.c , % 4
.", C'". We' : Q v ylnd' informant associated with either through work or off the site. There were certain suppliers or dealers within each of these groups, but it would only throw suspicion
".D ' on him if he deseloped one supplier in one group. There was a closeness between NM,%j'$;[; iW MY ]: ' bN h' ['
the dealers on site sufficient to the point w here if he went to one supplier and placed i$ $...$.N,;
yQ I kN[g[M5N'D,. hhi b g> .M.. an order, and then in the same day or in the same work period went to another 4 yg. s). G;a Wfs%v.%. $,'ff.[&: .f supplier that it would draw suspicion. They were that close knit a group.
peQ.g hM Tr. 9236. Lanier's statement suggests the existence of several "sub-MyN 1%
h -
$}g$g%{kM{gM6@4%M M g ~
h M Q} M groups" in the first shift whose members knew each other, bought and sold to each other, and were themselves a " group" who dealt with the D. d yLm g.,WMpb.
-(M h,4QMg,d, m
.WE.$. informant and, to some extent, with Hensley. Given that reading of
%,%. .'.TJ*Vhp 5 -w:.'p'3 g'F these rather confusing portions of testimony, one would expect that G. . :;%Cag.,r y w ..m%. G j
.qc m..~ af; g. g,:q n
- .n l '-
3 .
e . y ;' ',., .- .: .4 1 315
'$ h ( ..W '
(
- s
~
$- - - . , - . . . . , - . ..~ . - - - . - - -
o 4
4.Qnnb.R.5::: O c
?. : % 28 9:s%Mpm;c ; < in s W.L'%v -
. . ::gwa .w : . 4 % SW Q : '.-s y:a.O[
jdR nam lw:
4 ~%: . ..-. . ; 4 m,. 2uc yz ~n y9, s.
N % Q f M p @% w b < :.y9,_q,d.o qi % Q Q. y j:m.v.m.;
- 7. ; m.w; mm. :..
N 0f.djM; my%p- gnQ..yW.: :;.jg. j>:, c w+;,.rm, ., .
y , . . . ,
.9,
~ ~. c r
. . .... ; o.-
- a
....u.. v.u ~
, w; - -
. a.. .: -. ... ~ .. - a.- . - ...: ..~ . . . . . ..
#g- > ,
4 , a
. J,.-
. gf,p " l ' ,-
^2, s - '. .,
a' , .
Hensley's activities were not confined to a small area of the site or a few F d- ',. .. 1 . crafts. Other testimony tends to conGrm that reading.
. W ,,', , ...
. J.ci 44. Hensley testi6ed of the informant's associates that "most were
../G ': J. ',1,: ,.
electricians, some pipefitters, people that he had been purchasing drugs Zl.- . f ', '
;, off of . . " Tr. 9234-35. Further, he stated that "No, they were not all
- f. ,3. .I..' j
* ~. . in the same craft." Apparently, the employees he saw buying drugs
. . by ' ; . -
,. . . . included some quality assurance inspectors. Tr. 9224. Furthermore g.5 , k. <.... ' ,
..j Hensley's " cover" job gave him free access to all parts of the plant. Tr.
.TV,7
. lf[.N. ~ 3: ., M
/ N ,s l.M. ; J ;%.c 8527. His Drst purchase was made in a cable spreading room (Tr. 9230) and his last purchase was made in the parking lot. Tr. 9238. The follow-( c .: . J .' f'
..;y .:1,
.'u, ' d 'i ing colloquy between counsel for the Applicants and Deputy Hensley 11-M :.
/'.i. .? ,; ..1 , .w.
lustrates Hensley's mobility on site:
., . .~>e v . . . ..x..
- R.. o . ..w:t'. y . . .. ". 7,,:'? - -..s= l i .
COUNSEL: And when you were undercover and working at the plant site, did fg%h[s.:.;'
p..,-
(g, _yp f:
, f, ."; ) .
you limit yourself in any way geographically to one small area?
$,0, s .'. e, f . 4 :?f, . * * ' HENSLEY: No, I tried to go throughout the whole plant. A lot initially I was 4 - 7 ,., . . - ,
restricted to the area of where the people the informant knew were
',-c 2 .g.s, f ' .2[ I ,, . doing drugs.
.:p.,.7:i' The longer the operation went on. I started rnosing through the
( [ ' , ~ .';
plant more.
J. . Tr.9266.
- 45. The Board can draw no Grm conclusions from Hensley's tes-timony about " groups" engaged in drug activity. His use of the term was
. i very imprecise.8 The weight of the evidence suggests, however, that he
, ~V- was referring primarily to a site-wide " group" of dealers on the day shift
,, . % g, ,
who had associations with his informant and, to some extent, with him.
N
Q n 'i.i, Q Taken as a whole and in context, the evidence does not indicate that 6
v3.44.fi@v 3g wg .iyg@g 7 there were several other " groups" of dealers operating on the day shift that he had been unable to innitrate.
7$6MJi'.p$$gp.
3W$di 7 'W g .,$ e :v. . .,; &. . . . 46. Deputy Hensley testi6ed that based on his observations and on
.
1#
*, ,.4 q
. . . . v' .v g.. + -
.' N... . e. - T. m. ex. . . . .. , . ' .,w . ,
O *% [
.,..V %
i 9 k rf'~~-~ 7
# _" , ,' )j , ,,, -N ,
3' .
+
*5
~. ~ u ~ ~[u, , j . , 4~.
[ ; 4", 5V,
. . . , '.a.
I, ,-t, y . W ?y-mX 3-p :."c-l
, , . ^ , _ . ,
' ~:
^
m""a-~.---- - g;t y - f,"yv.m.Wl[ juQW & f d;n .>
- 4 &l &(3 g . p ::$f.
/:' y y - (_ MM hD%37. .j;'Ali.,.Ms the Harris investigation was Hensley's first undercover narcotics opera-D .@bd,3 Mk.(-@j Mkhh. tion [Tr. 9167-68 (Hensley)] it is difficult to determine what comparative standard, if any, Hensley was using to judge the extent of drug activity %y% , CwMid'h ~
3
~
$$ . p $ f; at Harris. When asked how his opinion of " widespread" drug use at gy,9
.. y / d M i
.Wy[P M.y , ?'.y.'e&g'6&d.%Harris . compared to the 5-12% stated by Bensinger, Hensley responded
"[als far as overall at Shearon Harris, probably 5-12%, somewhere in SkU dMM.U. 'F.I.%hP9p.4 CiSM that area, would be an accurate statement. I don't know." Tr. 9246
.8 Y.h (Hensley). He later testified that he did not have an estimate of the per-centage of the site population which might be involved with drugs. Tr.
Ildh<i'M[iMkhh@h[dh J h@S kh,M li Q.h'%y I yM y W W 7 (Q$$ 9256-57 (Hensley).
- 47. While the Board found Deputy Hensley to be a straightforward
'J:C 7f%dQSM@h M'Mf '!W dc iWP and credib'e witness about what he personally saw and did, we cannot attach much weight to his somewhat inconsistent estimates of overall T $2D N' W O j D k.j. M -iaf$ @ h g/p g j drug use at the site. We discuss hereafter the significance of the numbers of arrests and identifications made as a result of the undercover investi- . %* y.s$yW'j!N e */ jf@MS. .f4g'Ql; g gation with respect to the " widespread use" issue.
- e. ,
.y ,x , n.Qc" q- ty J, sv
?. s , 4,,. a.,N,. c .: v
$, uW . n .m.
?.Ahg..n. m .'x.w. .u wr ..kh. , m.s&. .t v.
.h~;w f.R,
- 5. Assessments of the Results of the Undercover Investigation WN.,4W , ,Wy:+.i M. 4h8.%
. . ; ... f m .
.,; 48. CCNC and the NCAG claim, based on the results of the under.
yg
;%. M # cover investigation, that drug use at Shearon Harris is widespread. $QMV.N'u"'. M; kf.%[G@.[f@~.
g.g. Ny;$ {h
.dM, CP&L claims that it is not, and bases its conclusion on the undercover investigation, as well as several other factors discussed below. Deputy ZWg % %t 7}Ng]T@$p@!$[7 . Hensley's testimony has been discussed in Board Findings 36-47, above.
MNkhM,dMMM M
$p We now consider the opinion of others involved in the undercover NNb@S$j '
Mb?NIU,.D . f i, . ';DI/Mh.$phinvestigation.
- 49. Supervisor Burch testified that the results of the investigation a%x n p ~Q A g+ gg*; k %. cannot be used to show there is no drug problem at Harris. Tr. 9306.
4 g:,h Egf,gg, g Not only does Burch's testimony evidence a lack of understanding of e p.y.ussga < 4 the issue - in that no one has claimed that there is no drug problem at y bhh MMMk.W.%jh_ .h the Harris site (or, for that matter, at any large construction site) - but her testimony was based almost entirely on what Ahent Williams told b Mpg_ f.$ kki her. She had virtually no personal knowledge about the factual issues in 5.D
$kW' Is-@Q, @@fMJG Q,W Q.6 OM@MaWQg$M this case. Supervisor Burch also testified that " widespread" meant that there were drugs in several areas of the site (Tr. 9310), although she khhh fb gn-QWyih y later testified she was not using the term in only a geographic sense. Tr.
h%p%g$j $@Mk" f 'N 9311. Her opinion, based on her experience as a law enforcement officer, [ e W h% M I was that if one dealer in one area was caught, she did not believe he or
. she could be the only one in that area engaging in drug activity. Tr.
C [K G,f.h M ..'> ,'@y _, f;y i 9310. Assuming the accuracy of that statement, we do not believe that a conclusion of widespread use follows from it. k f O 4W w.d.vmmw& ~ mO i W-y i.cww
~ ,:
.F[q -s.m , f'.f , : 3. . . ~ 4.M.i *.. x g m - e c -;;g 317
"; ', ,.Wm,..-
, pggp asammt.e %e m e- y=s= pe=- e . m.s--w.=er'***+w-*****e--7.-w*d'"p"& . ' * * * * .* * " . * *'"'***9~**"*'T(***"" * * ' * - " * ~ ~ *
. $ g %
e* .r g , % ,
'l .T ?. s
- e
,, Y g.
. n,
._ amn .W. , m.', e. . ,.,..%.:., m w,,. s -
. t. .
.#.t . . ,
t o.x..c.,l % Q,f oc. ". y - e: - w . v wwu.M , : .a u ww w.uww;.a.-2 m:.% .;= xw.c
. c m ' c. s.n , . . t
- w. MY)m
- 2Q p:),' 5J ' O( ~ .,.
-z' u . m 'ny> , 9.w ;t .
w > - . . W. m y t w T w ,:-1 F.- 6 ,3 . fi. .W ' 50. Agent Williams, although he spent less time than Hensley at
$pk,d@I@,%q)s 9 :9 M ,,, -
the site, also expressed an opinion concerning the outcome of the in-i; d : ~ i U. )%@ gg,,.- . vestigation. Williams testified that there was drug use and dealing in the Zbj, CP&L parking lot and at a nearby grocery store. Williams at 8. Based on his " intelligence" gathered at the site, Williams concluded that "there gp.'.W.;%.M'/lig., 5 ['.*;3. ;fl.WM.NM,. 4 g.
.W . a:M
$.)W.,@;'7, w .n%.39).ff$
. m.Mg!M. . were a lot more drugs at the Harris site and that more people could be caught with drugs," but because of CP&L's policies the undercover mW -s n ,v " M.-Q:g4 RjWMQ@43 gfg@.
y .) 5w t v.
? agents would have had to make their buys off site. Id.
E M.W .WM ,j .
- 51. CP&L witnesses King and Joyner testified that they had no G[M#
M W$y,M.WM@a@7 :4M w@M knowledge about specific persons at the site using drugs and that if they did know of anyone at the site involved in illegal drug activity that indi-h .$j
).@;f .
Mif.MQ h ' h $ MM h h had hd vidual would be removed from the site. Both further testified that they Am@[a;N bdAkI'h? k W no estimate of the number of persons now on site involved in drugs. Tr. 8816-18 (King, Joyner). In its proposed findings. CP&L
'T.
J . w,, bh~Yp(.w# J.YN h %]y@! claims that even accepting the accuracy of Hensley's estimate of 100 200 l JM.y%rb .. d.[ x Q. O, .+ : :W,M. employees involved in drug activity (including the 40 seen but not O., @M i[.i::
- identified by name, and the estimate of up to 100 others) this does not
%,,JJ, +p p -
w ( d.yg ? ., QW:l,;.';.%n@:gA.,.M. .
~- n m, i
W.. represent widespread drug use in a population of over 6000. Appl. RF
- 34. Mr. Bensinger testified that from 5 to 12% of the working population p'i7,' ' ,"Mhl p K E.' 6 jji.g @ y $g s y.. may be using illegal drugs, on and off the job. His opiaion is that "a
.MQ: figure in the upper limits of 10% of all employees at a job site would rep-M.J -; '. Q. i b ;h.QMb resent widespread use." Tr. 8338-39. Mr. Bensinger did not venture an W 4$G-S^' :p [.I [i JN'f .y. opinion as to the percent of the Shearon Harris work force that may be involved in illegal drug activity,
- g. & 4 0 i:fy E f 52. The Board will not make a finding concerning alleged wide-f./ a .di .
., he;6;n spread drug use at the Harris site on the basis of one undercover investi-Ysi gation. We have discussed that investigation in detail because it provided QM,$g/hg$$jW dg'% /Mk the original impetus for this contention and because, owing to conflicting N[ik,O.h@
D h )! f16d'2 AW % MM M' % % f.y $ @y testimony, a large portion of the hearing record focuses on it. However, there are other important indicators of the extent of drug use at the site h$ WM
$Mi'dN&D h
I which, taken together, are also significant. We will base our conclusion about alleged " widespread" drug use on a balance of all relevant factors.
%p%'/h.mv%?$N, .a>g.; y .
Jm;W "Angr.1E b m
- h. M.MN..[g.b[$hk,hf2,%y; p . a n.
h[. n. E. Employee Terminations for Alleged Drug Activity
/Mi?M.w .I M W M r M M+ . 53. CP&L reported that "[a] review has been made of Security, *$dSMg%.@M8N.frF1M4 % dMMMi CP&L and Daniel records to provide an assessment of the extent of drug activity among employees at the Shearon Harris site (CP&L, 3 MY ht Daniel and/or other contractor employees) since February 1978, and x > U3;.S T' N..,M am tl G'e @M,@"* w;.
Nb -b b'g M.s
% a b,
r W * . . ..f. }rq.m ' f f: .m .f.+. h 5
,.% m.e:% f w[w ..f .- , . ,5* "* @[ s'yU-M
,i ,
l 8
- w. w. > , -
s 4; ,, , . b # .I
;m t., m . .I 3gg m ..t .-
r
%, , r: 3: ,
;; }
ya 2 4
.% #*. - w4g ap m e 4 -g.gsgr q
. p..p. a .g , , ,,,. ., ,_
I
- 4 *%9
. t 4
m
* T- w- evv v 3--+ g- ,-q-w t9 ,-y.c-r'vw e v g s-- -=g ,w., += p9 . 4p .m-m*.e. a.- , r-,og,sq g .q,. J g, g - . .-,
I *
~ -. . . . . ,<
sm- b$,.t ,#,. *)... . r. Yk m .r x x. . . - % . -
. s. .. ;
a.w w'. r." m wa.u e ...f3: .I ,2 . .~- " ., .- ~
- 4 I i h ,
.u ac;w, . m .
m.=.:.
' ; ~ Y. v 2 M m-Qm, ,.i g-n.u..; a , 7 s,
,, e s .
su,
, ..- m c
.* ' ,,. 5 %n !
! # v".4 c v.y;g* ; . :~m .'m'.~
f --=. --a
- m ,
Milw.%, *a v
,~y.. W O w & m .f&n ~ m.W - through October 15, 1985. More than 26,000 people have been em-M N % W. ; %y'8@8W@MM.Wr.:.4 C.M.M ployed at the site during this time period."' Appl. PF 69.
3;fRtM i.p.' *bd.*y j.?. .
- 54. "CP&L has identified 218 employees as confirmed or suspected
- @.U.V,T9.&.
u a . ,T. .;@.,./f;;?. '"$, /, of some level of involvement with controlled substances.'8 None of Wh . lJ:.i. m . these 218 individuals are now employed at Shearon Harris." Appl. PF y A ..,.A.p; W., M .~. 3 W.. .
. .% r .
~. .
- 70. The following data, referred to at the hearing as the " matrix," indi-F I M .$ N.. .
.hdO., $..@jh ,s.- ~
d t.$, ff>M .w-Nhi'. cate - the bases for personnel actions on these employees:
,.,qQ s!%w:,;m..m. .
- v. , c,w . .m. . u n,.W .v.y.. 4eg at p .,a +;. O ;%,
a '# * > " C 'm u ' N *i. * ' - W i
- .1~
M'r' O:D$7MJ"Y$W. ^ N!i'J.41;J Presence of drugs confirmed through urinalysis drug 23 screening: d-K',,ffWi,036!.".f;INkMdjM.N.Q%%/. Found to be -in possession of a controlled substance on 54 ",?y"uiu'i.,.. M . @N; Oy$. a- M ,M,n,.g ;: MW . w %.~... . site:
. Arrested off site: 6 N,, 9 E l ';8 d, *
.9,ww .. M M4h Arrested on site: 8 Ms m n m Y-Wk. I Refused to submit to a urinalysis test or a search of 50 kN
$ cm @DMM:M a. n g Mr n
%' M.W./M.M;".f %v'.i their person, property, or vehicle:
n Suspicion, based on less than search or testing: 77 Mf4M;,w.MJWW,j$.
- 7. cc
*.M.o -
.3. . s , - awg3+o .-3 . ~.%..)
M.'. Af
. s. -
%.3q W..? 9g < n'3w%. Total as of October 15, 1985 218 mm '
. M x n .Wtt w.:f- -. .
7,&py..e ., "i. a ,.' .pl.4.i;&.
, . - 2 ' >f. a.S 'g'.Q i,
- Applicants' W
3 Assessment Testimony at 12; Appl. Exh. 51.
...w . .. - s:
, ,,, Q W . j fr f ' f g, 3 ,,3 2 f R ' 55. These statistics do not prove that a terminated employee's job
,Q,y)f '. Mil ?' M M % . performance was impaired," since terminations were for any suspected j,mJS<a . M drug related activity, without regard to actual consumption or work im-e.4c' h.M' ../g
. . n ' 7,MT/M ,il4w4.+ m/W-gx pairment. Applicants' Assessment Testimony at 15. Further, a high rate 9 m Yy m of detection of drug activity can be caused by a high rate of drug activity
@e@ gpiggq:w 6 .3 Q.LR n.$. %m.-PgW.D 5 or %by 9 a high Mlevel
/I of enforcement of antidrug policies, or both. Used in h h h $ p p, %m .iM isolation, arrests or dis' missals for drug activity can be misleading be-d cause they can seem to show tnat the sites with the most effective drug l@M'M
).-
MFFM
&Q M q .MM?hp.M 0
@!4NdhMlgtyy abuse prevention efforts have the highest rate of drug activity (because
..Mi.[A g*J.j Q i,"Mgg ev. kwjir.m.C e
y? o u. .,? n ,' M. j'rW. . evha.Q 7,v.4.fy g1 g% M,Fe';yyW . as,qp -D,.'. p%p;fyg W. ,.y ,.
' At the time of the heanng, and dunng the 1984 undercoser investigation. the daily employee popula.
Up :*D'hdM*, i M%.c,:._ Olh".7[r. tion was approximately 6000. This number was lower dunns the earher years of construction. Tr.
,N(/.*M*'3 /
- 1. ,N y4 y, i h@. %'[f* .p. +b q 2'i 8346-47 (Ferguson) loin addition, by stipulation with CCNC Applican:s agreed .o treat the employees of con AM Inspec.
** ,N @ 8- [" gj Il tion. sho performed preservice. baseline eddy current testing on the Harris Plant steam generators,in I r . ;
the same manner as employees potentially implicated in drug activity for purposes of reevaluating their g > b, work. Tr. 8891-92. A CCNC witness had made certain drug use accusations against certain CON AM em-
? ' ployees in prefiled testimony. The Board encouraged CCNC and the Applicants to enter into the stipula.
M'i' . tion withdrawing that testimony as a means of avoiding collateralissues. s gj@ ff, If CPA!. knows or no instances or employees being impaired by drugs on site. Tr. 8841 42 Uoyner, h .h e h N b/ Nhh M, / ' mmpm;mm:%.w w :p ' w~n = W w - .,
- c. : ic . . '..^ .,n.s . .
. 319
~
s l~" ' s
- -**.s.,.--.,*,+%..-.4wyun. --~. + . .~ ~=~ .. -.i .-.,4 .% .- . ~+ -.
N, e- .s-r w -+.-
) .
I (. 4 # 0 .- # t
~
s
Rs w Q.W5.WQ.N5h q* Q'ob?*'> Q W w*
., 'l? ' $g.e$ w#
b?I.,,q W
?!Q -
hV ( &x2dg u$; }w %p%Qh-%m& ry. p s& g%e &f: e$ pWe&.0% f 0 %n.pAm A M fS O.9.$
%Ik Mh!kN,hkk ON
~
k* ;.NMk}h v-ON N
- n. , n . ; r. - -
- g. , -
~,
n a. 4, Y 7 y ;-:O b y W .z .? N ac-.u- G . A. d .u -..a- .A- - m- . --;
%$ ;:x: .+ ' : 4. g: sv.yq j u n% y; , ; 9 Q ,,v. < : M: o>-
- w. . p. .
,+.w
- M1 4 1-'- . #... 4e ' h_i . Q Cf they have the most arrests and dismissals, for example), when these in-M p% y} @A-3, SQ .0 9h.@Dh E M,* @$
M./, .pn:.s f.;i Z @ dicators
' D Qmay actually reflect a relatively low rate of drug activity at a par-ticular site. Id. at 19. Appl. PF 71.
s pyg, V ?*? f:.-;7;gq f
- g i ,. -
- n. f s u,
- 56. CCNC asserts, citing Tr. 8504, that the 218 employee termina-g &#u. .; p.pig
~$y.. 5NM, .y g ru. t.g s, w f 3.p g k. e . 4 L g, ?./.:.r tions include 29 individuals identified from a 6-week investigation in 1982, and that these 29 plus the 61 identified in the 1984 investigation M.%.4 S p K@NI mu p@M..f.fWyw.E 4
mgp:v.f
. nL;4 p . m W Ni$l N- MIhaved,beengidentified M through ;2/*;f" M :t investigations. CCNC show that over 40% of all workers terminated because of drug activity the two undercover A,y p.p%q,p&Qw&W.a t;
f PF 23. There are two flaws in CCNC's argument. First, CCNC fails to acknowledge that prior to the 1984 investigation, CP&L security provid-
- WN;hWMM%nKG%MNNhhhg ed law enforcement officers with a list of twenty-one suspected employ-h N h .y ees. Tr. 8568 (King). Thus the number of workers identified in the 1984 h>;<yy&y.mpm.v//yh;d%h; Mq vsd N.
- I4W .- investigation was forty, not sixty-one. Second, Mr. King did not testify that the twenty-nine individuals identified in 1982 are included in the d25$8j i ,,
Me-MM...g . cl .CN<a g. MQ$m%m&.}g.,/>W 4mh.. matrix. See Tr. 8813. Mr. King testified that these individuals have G 4.M.Mg$(.?f n;Qpy.'., Q been released from the job site, although all of them may not have been W i. M. M s M. released in 1982. Mr. King did not know how many of the twenty-nine
'; W,.p?4 .,r. M 7 s.Cd i,j d@, . n .
, $ '.Kwere either immediately terminated or later terminated for involvement
. N E h@m . pM5$$5'5N;% with drugs. Tr. 8813 (King) (We note the maximum number that could 4: have been terminated in 1982 is eight, since that is the total terminated r@7M:h ;W.S.WWW.TG ( :*yp?i:MF for all of 1982. See Board Finding 57.) In any event. if the 29 were not
))a y v A 1 pf.py.,: M 7 3 y :.t;4 ' "Ji included in the matrix and the 1984 number is actually forty, then CCNC's claim that over 40% of all workers terminated because of drug
' c.
. .. i' , ~ ' O ' J. , : M.w., a. ~. activity have been identified through the two undercover investigations i.j ..- ;#jn4 . is without merit.
M, fW 57. The number of employees terminated by year since 1979 is as m.-c~;. ~N.~ C , , .' -.so ,! . y M._y?,.s .'
. follows:
q_-. , :. m
, a~w vo p:w C . : .,s i ' g. m 1/.
1 ' Mdt.%Re @~. .e e s4l,.%;e U -p' . 7 ~ Year 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 J.s w 3 qqMTMwygnSgt@inElj%y@M .. Number of 2
- S Q h m. p s employees M? , f j%gN.y[
L. vg w W @g g terminated 1 2 9 8 8 27 163 M
. m, M pu .- .
M M @e.. e s. ..,s .
,A Wa Mm ..i: $w . Total y , cv numbera ofpemployees
*x a? terminated M . as of October 15,1985 218 u M: e n _.-ybcC.
- /, ;'-
,?.%e,.~f@s JdA m% ;- W V J _ Tr. 8806 Olindman); Appl. Exh. 51.
@Qm s .m;2. ,9<.f,' J,% : U. - m, m 58. These figures show a large increase in the number of termina-MMYdM.t;or/ .4W.iP.4 3
tions in 1985 over the year 1984 and previous years.12 CP&L's witness h'W D [M N }h3 M R g Hindman offered four reasons why the number increased so markedly in b* f-N&yg2-h[hfM
#0 faiY?fD.]
\
$ 1 D 12CPAL asserts that the sc,rrect numbers or terminations ror 1984 should be 87. andior 1985 should be sp 'k
%h, , "8 n'Np""Y.
'i 103. because 60 or those terminated in 1985 were actually ident Ged in 1984. Appl. RF 35. Under that reasoning. however. the Gnal number ror 1985 could be expected to rise signincantly. due to persons
' h.9'9My6
' 'M yjhj$.g(Qg.q.M@i-w\{. C .D .' Q*fQsMp. M,4;j
, being "identined" m 1985 and not terminated until 1986.
,-Q,y .&, pe,tQh..9.,.zt
- gf
_ .f,%{%. .[y+ w
, y p;.
s g.
**if.. .
A -
'..l; ' - o '
1 ;p! ;i 320
.e l';;9 M. 7 L .;
.1 3.d
.c ' .
f, i
= . . = , - . ~
, + . < . .
I
.. s t
1
~.~. .
v.
1985. First, Mr. Ilindman cited the general increase in drug use in American society. Second, he pointed to a doubling of the site popula-tion in 1984 over 1983. Third, Ilindman noted the changing nature of
, the work site, explaining that in the early years there was not much cover and work was performed by large, closely supervised crews. Final-ly, he mentioned the heightened awareness of the drug situation.13 Tr.
8899-8900,8902 (Ilindman); 8973-74 (Bensinger).
- 59. The Board Onds each of these reasons persuasive to some degree, particularly the doubling of the site work force. However, we be-lieve that CP&L's increased emphasis on drug detection played the larg-est role in the dramatic increase in terminations in 1985.
- 60. Applicants claim the drug activity at the liarris site that has been identined by CP&L, its contractors, and law enforcement repre-sentatives, as a percent of the site work force is less than one-eighth of
, the national work forces' percentage of drug abusers. Appl. PF 72. The national Ogure provided by Mr. Bensinger was 5-12%. Applicants' As-sessment Testimony at 17-18. The total number of employees terminat-ed (218) is less than 1% of the total Harris work force of 26,000. If the i average of the national average 512% is 8%, then 1% compared to 8% is j indeed one-eighth.
; 61. Viewed in isolation, the total number of employees actually ter-minated over time does not suggest " widespread" drug use, since that l
, statistic represents slightly less than 1% of the total work force over time. However, that termination statistic cannot be viewed in isolation.
For one thing, it distorts the dimensions of the problem at particular "# times, particularly 1985, when about 200 (extrapolated to year's end) [ employees (over 3% of the current work force) were terminated for
/ drug use. Furthermore, drug sales and use are illegal, clandestine activi- / ties, and not all drug dealers and users get caught. Mr. Bensinger es-i timated that the number of persons involved in drug activity is roughly 20 to 30% higher than the number identined and terminated.'* Tr. 8967.
Thus, termination statistics are a function of the effectiveness of an
, employer's policies and procedures to prevent drug activity. Even under the best antidrug programs, some drug activity will occur and escape de-tection. We assess further the signiGcance of the Shearon Harris termina-13 Ahhough rrom Mr. Hindman's testimony it was not entirely clear whether he was rererring the Appli.
cants' awareness or the awareness by employees or CP&l 's pohcies, trom his later testimony it appears that he was rererring to the Applicants' heightened awareness or drug activity and its actions in institut-ing and enrorcing more struisent drug control pohcies. Tr. 8900-01 OhndmanL 14 we note that CCNC is mistaken in its assernon that Mr. Bensinger testmed that the number or users identMed in 1985 represented 20 30% or the total number or persons involved in drug activity. CCNC PF 24. 321 i -
tion statistics following our discussion of the CP&L drug prevention program. F. Indirect Indicators of Drug Activity -
- 62. Other significant indicators of the extent of drug activity include site accident rates, the quantity of drugs found on employees and in stash areas over time, and the age of the site work force. We examine -
each of these in turn.
- 1. Site Accident Rates 1 63. We agree with Applicants that "a high rate of arrests and dismis-t- sals with a low accident rate would suggest a low relative rate of drug use I and effective intervention. A high rate of arrests and dismissals, howev-er, when found with high accident rates would suggest a higher rate of drug abuse. A low rate of arrests and dismissals with a high accident rate would reflect ineffective intervention. Applicants' Assessment Testimo-ny at 19-20; DuPont at 13." Appl. PF 73.
i 64. "The Daniel Construction Company and its subcontractor j (Davis Electric Company) have a 0.80 incidence oflost workday accident 4 cases per 200,000 work hours for the period November 1984 through f July 1985. For the immediately preceding year (November 1983 though
! October 1984), the figure was 0.30. By comparison, the North Carolina
. State Department of Labor, Injury Statistics (1983-Construction) show a r, ,:.
t 4.7 incidence oflost workday accident cases per 200,000 work hours for l heavy construction in North Carolina. The national average - Construc-
/ tion 1984 Edition ' Accident Facts National Safety Council' - for heavy
/ construction in this same category is 3.5." k 65. "During 1984, CP&L employees at Harris experienced 0.79 lost workdays from accidents per 200,000 work hours, compared to 1.23 lost workdays for the Company as a whole. Additionally, the liarris project has experienced no fatal accidents. The Board finds this to be an excel- , lent safety record and a strong indication of a low rate of substance abuse. If drug use were widespread at the liarris Plant, one would expect to see a higher accident rate among the site work force. Appli-cants' Assessment Testimony at 20; DuPont at 13." Appl. PF 74.
- 2. Quantity ofDrugs Found
- 66. Another indirect indicator of the level of drug activity is the quantity of drugs involved in the drug-related incidents at the site. Appli-322
W :. m y W u - " % -- ' ~ ~""kww." ' " M ~Aw, - =' t
,qlg .d,y?_c , ,(hfl
~a .. sn% e n, .,, j
$ fl$f *A s .ff (
3T. p N . m m .' fN $x , m - w U Am$,uy.MY!{N.D. Nj
.e,m o
- d. cants' estimate, based upon a review of their site security files, is that E.%dlijWRK$dM@Yih((
kNM . CP&L security has confiscated misdemeanor amounts of approximately
.M,M WW' 9 pMig m., c, Kj@hh}MM@hY.R.c%
% pj y g h
- d. .n p a .i s.
W , 282 grams of marijuana,4.5 grams of cocaine,50 pills (controlled) and 450 pills (nonschedule). CP&l 's estimates of drugs collected and given 14 to the WCSD in felony amounts are 16 ounces of marijuana and 3 grams diRi MMSU: yd@M,.MMyj$@i f$%-g of cocaine. Applicants' Assessment Testimony at 12. These estimates do Ih;M*h[d ,l N.W hf@W,h M not include the drugs purchased during the 1984-1985 undercover in-vestigation. Deputy Hensley testified that during the investigation he
@%. g6d;s;$gi Purchased 7 grams of cocaine,4.5 ounces of marijuana,5 grams of crys-hp[gK((ghM' jS Q
g 3 Ag!A g N $' %p tal (methamphetamine), and 16 ounces of hashish, which cost a total of
$1725. Applicants' Investigation Testimony, Attach. 5; Tr. 9207-08.
f5 f.X g 2 g pghAF j @I M 67 Both NCAG and CCNC speculate that an unnamed supervisor M@FM f6%.MM'p$g %hwas bringing pound quantities of cocaine into the site. CCNC PF 14; NCAG PF 5; Tr. 9182 83 (Hensley). They base this claim on informa-M[M$DMkl% d$ f tion that a worker allegedly told Hensley about pound quantities coming Y.s d 3< N.I$y!.Nk$%.,
-2 qJyyj [M%g.,s i
n site from Florida. Tr. 9182 (Hensley). No details, such as the suspect-
,J..Q u f.
w ed dealer's name, or dates the cocaine might be delivered, were offered gWm.,r% '.M.(w- .<,+w . h dWet concerning this speculation, nor was the testimony corroborated. The Board believes this testimony is too speculative to serve as the basis for
@bkk w$r %;n%a.N.H gW% h [f@h[$(N,AM ph, #
a finding that anyone at the plant was dealing in large quantities of
- c. 4gU.W,.
- c. g1 4 cocaine.
2@MW$$$@.@m 5.y,- 68. CCNC attributes to Mr. Bensinger testimony that " drug dealers t Vs.g M, M . /; %mFr.D@d r. on site are more of concern than simple use." CCNC PF 27. However,
- b. U E , J:Mg.,T)o ~T.@,.M, ,py s -
3' m.: Mr. Bensinger actually testified that "the information on dealing on site
,2':'. MINE M h%M7fj%.$[$@@u r- % y K is more serious than use . . . although at a work locaticn people generally will sell and exchange and deal to friends, people they know or are intro-cq OJf *.;: duced to." Tr. 8597. CCNC fails to state the inference to be drawn from c.y wn Nt a.y.W .a.m, 'guwp v.tir@vC,m%m .- th.is testimony. We agree that larger quantities of drugs, typically
- - *u. d .u ,65v.epMppyw%j p.^o
?
g - j possessed by dealers, are a g eater cause for concern than simple use of small quantities. However, on this issue the record weighs in Applicants'
/
!. + m favor, since the quantities of drugs confiscated generally indicate person-L ~ p;.M 9 4M.r3 al use, rather than large-scale distribution. Tr. 8596 98 (King, Bensing-
,6 Qg$3 er); Applicants' Assessment Testimony at 12-16; see also Tr. 8344,
(. 2ANkM N tm..,qy
>M hhN[Q@N@h , n%;p .
AM [ME#g 8575 (Bensinger).
- 69. In addition, the record includes the results of sixteen drug de-M t-wn%W tection dog searches performed at the Harris site. Most searches were
- ..g q W /S:.>.Eg;./N,w.
%q g.Q,r ep,ag Mg %t,k@
w . g' wo
.w negative, and the positive searches discovered only minute quantities of T. 9.4, . 1 ' marijuana. Mackonis and Mathias at 10-12; Tr. 8994-95 (Mackonis).
e
- 70. CCNC claimr that Ms. Mackonis, handler of the drug detection s dog at the site, testified that during one of her searches the dog identi- p
- I fled 11 out of the 200-500 cars in the parking lot. CCNC then postulates 1
, b jp,c, ]' that since there are usually several thousand cars in the parking lot, #
d g h"y
$HQ, "' p.5 ;W Qb ,'h %- .#
n'+ Q.W.:-5 .%
- 7* l; 6y(d,!)m.!h 4 f.R& y y &@tn) . . .:,
hl,Q@W.'.R
>s -
..w~-
. .s . .
7 . ^; so- 323 hq
.a, j g Qm;.{Q .MG = ~ -k
~* - - - --- - ~
~pwe.- .n - .--+r.n. : - , .- .we ~~ .e ~.-
* * - , . k*
, s ,
, * , t'
*>* - t
+~ , 4
* . * , , *1 g e.
, , h #
T Y ji ., Qg .
-. %%# S e
- ,ga -
e v. y t. 3 a. , . 7.~., . m; %n - - . sy .. . y;~:f,w:;' <T .?c ?u ;.y,x r% ~-
~ ,. . w - - 7- <.
. +7 ;g;~:: K .,:.;w. awn: 3 *m .y ,,...
.W
< - . , .A .
- x. '. .
~c -
M W;SQ%.sU M.- M ". -" = .." . . ." ' " ~ ~ . -~~ " ~. .. / . 3 e~ ~m'
. n . : .. : .t M
NM . ..- M_. :".~p N' M c p& y . D.p- _- ~ ~ M.c p~:,
. A> !J 0, o
~
~
$. n.3 >.%,
j r
- h. m.WW Ril: $W.Y ng $:1 & & y $ p, there would be an average of 60-150 cars in the parking lot which would v{w w OSp @.m; m
Wh.y p.. p;Ygim p?. - .p p : '. -@. , wa have drugs or residue from drugs in them. CCNC PF 28. If the dog
%yhrM c.p6s $n u p.:.-@c.giM
- T. w;9Mdetected.drugs associated w.th 11 out of 200 veh.icles this represents i
GE5'd.[.iNM5@::MN ,. 4 5.5% of the cars. Eleven cars out of 500 is 2.2%. Assuming that, on a N.@OOyhNff,90s@@M,%*g-
.r Q f. Q i G f' t@M i given day,2 to 6% of the cars in the parking lot caused a dog to signal the presence of drugs, these figures would not be inconsistent with our Qg$e{ k?%d. W3(yh[Mh@s[-
findings about drug activity at the site. See Board Findings 124-139. In ST ;@w'c .q'Gyv%pf: any event, searches of ten of the vehicles the following day were nega-
-g fm.w~ v.
r ,.m W .a:e.~-. w m:m.m au -: e tive (one employee refused to permit a veh. icle search). Mackon.is and
.W.,e; zgn Mathias at 11. However, such results are not conclusive since drug asgQ g d. -m$2 Mm p. o w : % m .MMUjifM> R.6,M, W g p> P.
r a3 .*. -
.c .
odors might have dissipated or drugs might have been removed from
'Lp. ** ; -l.i ;) J. ' .*. the vehicle before it was searched.
Cmp @p'@T *dc.w[J.9.M@m :.y q x
.q y3 MEp. Mi@. :OWM Y.?hbh, M v;. A C:Ak$hh.$,h>M.N h.
- 3. Age ofSite Work Force
-MWW.tW,&G > G;.fMDy;9;4:. 71. CCNC cites Dr. DuPont's testimony (although CCNC's cita-ddNSf3 Mibhb~?
tions to the record are incorrect) that males in the 18 25 age group have f.hhkb(hnW$f4@F TMk -?;n$d,dMM@Mo$,M>6h Il M8
} iD9.T the highest rate of drug use in American society. DuPont at 5; CCNC PF 49. CCNC then cites age and gender data for current CP&L employ-ees, and concludes that "[tlhe Harris work force is primarily young m
. .w.A@Mg c.lLdMW f. .jgp68 y, # .+: males." CCNC PF 49. The age and gender data for CP&L employees is pk.,snWM
;- m h gR4 % ?:'S as follows:
.w;s..%mLwl.m%a Wmg r ,. +
1.nV! 4 5 M 'i. A .f k.V '..x yM.&t pe w@,
..g,f4 MW.imaid ym.m O l: pMa w~g%y% o%"{p
; z r: Age 18-25 M ale 77 Female 37 Total 114 26-35 444 91 535 S$M@y@OMM, had OSMN.hM.+%QpMf;. 36-66 279 27 306 8 ffy TOTAL 800 + 155 = 955
.h,6 M{$}ufa 3
if ewf?jMW*l&.W% Appl. Exh. 53 (Supplemental Affidavit of William J. Hindman, Jr., on k& Msip K.@M5[M'[N M 8WDM Sh. Gender Age Information About Certain Harris Employees, dated November 26,1985). J M h M;I% hk.k 72. The very data identified in CCNC's proposed finding, however, h.Nh I: M: h[Qf[Q% N3 contradict CCNC's conclusion. Appl. RF 39. Only 77 of the 955 CP&L M((s.h,5
- g. jW-@Pi@MGMM*
m >. ,. h h dF employees are males in the 18 to 25 age group. For Daniel / Davis em-ployees, males under 25 constitute 13% of the employees, and for QA x % k, mna,w'Jpg.ye AQ a . inspectors, they represent only 5% of the employees. Appl. Exh 53 5hkM J%$ (Supplemental Affidavit of William J. Hindman, Jr., on Gender and 7
$ !gM Age Information About Certain Harris Employees, dated November 26, y 3 pfG 1985); Appl. RF 39.
6 G wY mW:.n. hWk!N d 2 g" YS hp s . nN c psspp%gp .( s a c. S$;$ 4 ;og' 6@ .y! c . - .
. +;"
324 N.gN.r 4u
- 3 x, .~ r., W p
m J Q;, @.%;i 9, s E. e-4
, ,. -....,...y...---. . . .. ..~._ . ._m.,,,.. ._.m.__. . . . _... ,_ .
. , y,
* ~
"" . 3 J -
I . F
^ r . 6- { . . ' . ,
' ]*g #- ,~ *
.' i h
,-*s 43 ,
, p* ,
[,)'.b, g_s
= =-
I . M:n&n1M:'T&
.va-
;' c Y -- .
#., m, b~ e@MM.~d@
~
. ..", "."==
--~." w.-eJWe@e u.m-u'.u =
pi g-p 4 ; , .t
' $;i Tm'p@ & l
;ww'd .. a?ff 5 ., a3 n. '
.- -l<
e.
- m. .
y.-
-m.
Sh.y 7g n,v; - E ~s#' MG 73. According to Dr. DuPont, in 1982,64% of 18- to 25-year-olds g .. N] L. ,;.< ;;,? W A;
/.'/n/U
.4. -
had used marijuana at least once in their lives and 28% had used it in the month before the survey. By comparison,23% of those 26 years of d..$r'lyJ.1_?.; K. pt.,.eWg.. .- 5M ,.. - .T h W$ N. a. M e age' j/'and.older had ever used marijuana, and 7% had used it in the month S9 y. ' g% l.;,' M ; N G. prior to the survey. The equivalent percentages for cocaine, the second QMJJ .jg'. - most commonly used illegal drug, were 29% (at least once) and 7% (in Mf.b; h M [ W.h ,* %g fy;1:
.h h g M ;/,JU.. Y. V .
the previous month) for 18- to 25-year olds, and 9% and 1% for those 26 years and older. DuPont at 4. Thus, the relevant age group for our W W d M N <4pi.? JMh.f.9px% d-K. h;NN fj[- i..y purposes is 18-25. The Board finds that the percentage of males in the age group 18-25 is quite small, about 8% of the CP&L work force and 1/M.V,['Ms.7MM@M,d('My 9.k.N,NM"Y.Q $ %'i 13% of Daniel / Davis employees. Even if the males in the age group 18-35 were included, the percentage would be slightly more than one-
..Mi. i'JM G;.ANfQqp half of the total CP&L employees (54%). These age statistics are not in-W$%yk'fT.W.hSM.$j ohm i dicative of a high level of drug activity.
h.v&Q% % .c . 9 2 .
&i@M.W
.g .y L
- h. M Y M [Nn ..Uf- ? [ M. u ,n,f. k" g.. hG. Observations of Persons Working on Site
- pn n y $m . s . u i 74. The Board heard testimony from several persons who have f.. "
(N.s.ry,,?.N[$I4 Wi u n. WP:p. ;
- .Fi Y,..
g, d,'d.g.dD. worked ,m ,?Shearon Harris site. All but one of these witnesses, his. at the M.
. un.
n M. l.. .W;A e e ea.
<. . r. 4 . .. c
,4 C ,s.g.yp[ll .
c-Patty hiiriello, expressed the opinion that drug use at the plant is not widespread. M. iW. We'rk, m.cM 4 a 3 U;q, f % 1, M
- 75. CCNC witness hiiriello was employed at the site from April
%p* 1984 to August 1985." Applicants' witness Joyner testified that his.
p.1N . . .. , 'y hiiriello was dismissed by CP&L on August 30,1985, because of her in-g g . g . " ; g j.g ' 3 ability to function cooperatively with her co-workers and supervisors. d6% T., "py Applicants' Assessment Testimony at 15. his. hiiriello testified that y fA C, drug abuse at the Harris Plant is widespread. Testimony of Patty hiiriello Ndf- .M for Conservation Council, ff. Tr. 9084 (hereafter "Niiriello") at 5-6. She M8iNM(4@$.N@NVhfr@[MI@y-.AQ F hjg h ifg
% %f c. testified that on one occasion she " observed seven or eight workers up on the boilers smoking marijuana . . in plain view of the administration %;w.@
b6, Mdh .fM"M.G'?JjiU%%$j; kyM%f.f,f. building." hiiriello at 4. The reliability of this observation is subject to question, in light of her admission on cross-examination that the view
'hI'I. of the boilers - 660 feet from the administration building - is obscured k.%
- m. h,A I;ypeN;.w'D ac . .a;.&Ge by another building. Tr. 9117-18 (Slitiello).
$dh h bM u-h bi;!, i 76. his. hiiriello also testified that she smelled marijuana when W-?.p 4 x walking through the Daniel parking lot (hfiriello at 4) but she did not at-
[Wp.w!M..i.rpLw tsp.pM,. P tempt to identify the . in d. .ivi duals . involved or report the .meidents to site u.2M EMSM .h b?g
/ wpt.Aq%p M5A
- 3. authorities. Tr. 9118, 9150-51. Nor did she include these observations in f 9, [j
. 4 s $
ni 4 6t. m
.M@@t
% dp] 15Ms. Miriello was employed by Nuclear Energy services from April 1984 to February 1985. she was hg Wpes?.$ 4, T. W.it ih; employed by CP&L from February 25 until August .10,1985. Miriello at 2; Applicants' Assessment Tes -
hqf (My.Q[Q p[ @ ,
-$x ,. .
. .,~ .s 4
'.-- 325
. .o
- f. * * $'c ?}.
..'s . x ,.
i.,; . . - . - . . . - .
. ,. ,--.--.-..-.:.s. .
-+- -
'y a 5 s
S *' e k +- p y s
bh khk.k b *-~ fLQ W%@% F %'; s'-%@&ik 9- f hMW% 5 WyQkM$d: > :: 4%i$@W.hNlM&Qh@f%@ b;*W ?b A"W $, A ' &WQ5hWW2 }?Q% . 4
"...+..s n
..r5- , . _ . .
s s' s .J.u-: w e md.s ..-?swe-* ="h*~+" ~ ** *- '~ * **A'****"'"~ "'
, . ' 2, . . ,
.i j: '. 4.
c: e
-n: ,
1.B.6 ; , ., J- her affidavit of September 6,1985, in opposition to Applicants' summary N .' W '.1 ' ur( ',f (N '.. - disposition motion. Tr. 911516 (htitiello). In that regard, his. Niiriello
'@ s testified that she recalled these incidents before the affidavit was filed, h Y@ M , f ,'. f.[, 6' '* ' ,. Y
.-. but that the " priority there was the safety issue with the steam generator
- Q.Q f , . ., . ,- ,
. ..] tubing," and that she and CCNC were in a rush to get that brought to O'N..Z. .;*;.'..*
. U,,W;; .g; . the' attention of the public. Tr. 9116. We find this statement difficult to credit. The few lines necessary for his. hiiriello to state her alleged ob-k$k,'j 3,7
*J.
,hJ,y
-. J . .. . .
. servation of the boiler incident and parking lot incidents could not have A.,6, .M< $ ,/,<o@
.- . V . , . , ,,P, . 7p; . y .
delayed submission of her affidavit, which we initially understood to in-1
. g;., . ; e,. . r 3, .:
- corporate all of her concerns.
[h .k , f, '/ .. '. 'O.
- 77. The alleged incident of workers smoking marijuana on the boil-r ; e c ers occurred in October 1984. 51iriello at 4. liowever, in a Quality
}$g ig;c,i y.. '
, ..a.l a ; i.S.; ' - O Check Employee Exit Questionnaire signed by his. hiiriello on February 1 19, 1985, she indicated that she had reported no safety concerns, and
[ #{ p,j 1 ' 1 @j %fkh , k ' .Di / M.M' . ..
. <i4 ; that she had no unreported concerns.36 Appl. Exh. 41. At the hearing, a his. hiiriello stated that she "didn't care" about completing this form, dv.cMt;i.7 f; %,,G'Ti', U P ' 1'.: ."
and refused to acknowledge what she had marked on the form." Tr.
'.A.$h@yh/ d.h.S:
9105-08. Although an occasional inconsistency in testimony is to be ex-i ". . , . ., p .~ [. .' pected as memories fade, we find that his. hiiriello's testimony is unusu-
'%Ig.'c[f .
- , i , s.
, ally inconsistent. In addition, his. Sliriello threatened CP&L in writing
;6,4 { - J. ^ i that she would attempt to stop the plant through intervention in this pro-NW '
I ' ' ceeding if she were fired. Tr. 9101 (51irielloh Applicants' Assessment
.~ -
J.~, sM' . W, ' , Testimony at 15. In fact, his. 51iriello contacted counsel for CCNC m, g Q c within 2 days after her dismissal by CP&L. Tr. 9110 (51iriello).18 Finally, ri(P ld g '
, the Board observed his. N!iriello's open hostility toward CP&L at the
'F 1
, . hearing. For all of the foregoing reasons, we give very little weight to 4 6 d .t . ,- . . 5 r , q" Nis. hiiriello's testimony.
WJn _ i .
- 78. A panel of CP&L witne< es associated with drug prevention at M M M D;'S M % d the site testified on the extent o' drug activity. hir.11indman, hianager,
%@ h Nfh h h%h k 'c
; ;.S Harris Project Administration, has been employed by CP&L at the Harris site full time since February 1979, and was on site part time
%;ygtN MM @fMt .vg-)M
'&,,. , .I. i ,/ f . 'n . d
(.': ' before that date. Applicants' Investigation Testimony at 1. Ilis opinion e u w *g. . . 3 .. - m. . is that drug abuse is not widespread among site employees. Applicants' i :Q,N.a sf f,;], 1 ' . s' "1.i *i i ," 3 ' q' l- Assessment Testimony at 16-17,21. 51r. Joyner, a law enforcement offi-QM,g.yas;.'3.M-(' ; e - Qf, - cer who has investigated alleged drug activity at the site for 6 years, testi-m .- ,
. ti,.'.Np,., ,b.;;. , . :, .% %*M %.
'....'.?,.,
p ', A . - ... . '
.,s. *
. , ;A s , ,
< . ac, w~,,' e .,L s. .sg , .
N. A.y . ,- v Y. s . p[Q f.g;g*,%$,3*y %y J.4e.2p
)
M:N r q'g}J;.$Q.t,Qhi M Ms. Miriello also testaried, in contradiction, that she had reported the concerns on drug actisity to the FBI in Nevernber 1984. Tr. 9109 (Miriellot ip
.b' s .pc.f*I,8N .$h f .T UMs. Mariello aho rnisstated her qualifications by testifymg that she has an M s. degree frorn WiL Penns)hania state Unnersity. when in fact the degree has not been conferred. Compare Mariello at 2 p 7 'sth.
4-A M %*( %V/ M.*g'ks m. . with Tr. 9114 (Miriello).
.gy;1W,$ MI ibhhh d p; g ;4;, Mg@b. . Q g;*-
38 Although Ms Miriello testified that she thought she had contacted counsel for CCNC cartier she could not recall when she did so. Tr. 9110 t Minellot y yfD Q % , ' " . (f. el ,-Q- . 'v ,f.l
\ .bf; .
E 3 3 -e li 326 e 1 i
- ~
- a-4,7 . ,.:,; -
- b. .f
-u ---- 4 ~ - - ~ . b .. ~ c .-
9 r b. $ . ->
~
. . .,_ L ; . _ , . . ,
~39X %.;;y,
- m. g 1g .
9.-;%. - n.
, y c _ t N.x,* T
-*;y . , . . .
+
- m. N my a~an ;3. , ,~ ,' ,W, b - 4 . ,
* ;.9 WW;
. [:- -
2 MW.h .' Q,W . fied that drug use at the site has not been widespread. Applicants' As-sessment Testimony at 16. Mr. King, who has been on site frequently in Ih
~).W [hd , G.'? >.deQ . l: %d',M .J ; . his 7 years of employment with CP&L, also concluded that drug abuse is
'kk@hj@NhC.M ~,, j. not widespread. Applicants' investigation Testimony at 2-3; Applicants' Assessment Testimony at 16-17, 21; Appl. PF 81. As indicated in some 3Gd.TifM Oliti. n . x '... . .. . of our other findings, the Board does not agree with these CP&L en-
- .4.gp w Q .W l.Y e,. M, w,c ~;3: ....'...',.g V < ~ :. forcement witnesses in some respects. Nevertheless, we believe that
? WQy.:QM W 'd.. Wm. Y.*r < yW,fd,, w u, i.Wlo,'. , W'. r.F, their testimony on the overall question of widespread use was sincere
., .s. ,-
't3. e@q .w.u s. . ,p and m. formed.
%.E.. p @; J.O 3 V. ,s
. .WdJ..;,7. 79. Mr. Prevatte, the NRC Resident inspector at liarris from Q. % ,,..>s
. f .,
March 1983 to October 1985, testified that he is on the site almost daily,
.3. W. 4 . s .al-%. U .*.C3. a WUR$6,W..W11..( has free access to the entire site, can observe workers at any time or 10-hi MS$;.U.~.lO d 3f/M$N $9.il;4, cation, and spends the majority of his time in actual inspection in the field, but has never observed drug use on the site. Tr.10,164 (Prevatte);
IjMib h d@s[7.3 M 'Mji f g h f Tr. 8679-80, 8755, 8759. Although Prevatte acknowledged that drug use
$fM6&j.pf fS ,s -f4 ' .; '.g ; ,jw I has occurred on the site, based upon his experience, he does not believe "it is a dominant factor that is occurring continuously, that high percent-M k h h h h'9Jl.ip.[:g:
4 , ages of people are using [ drugs] on site." Tr. 8760-61. Prevatte testified that he has been trained to identify drug use, and that he would be able 4@s@6bA[W'O 'tf d @%y.O:. 'Mc e!/g
. ',^y' .
pv:;M,j, l ,' to detect someone under the strong influence of drugs. Tr. 8762. Finally,
- p. .
.1 '
. O , Prevatte testified that if there had been widespread drug use at the Ilarris site, he would have seen direct evidence ofit over time. Tr. 8764.
h' A/ - M .M @ M.(h 0 - c
,'$j. m@@ 9 /
7 The Board believes that Prevatte would have been able to detect an em-ployee exhibiting noticeable signs of drug use. Ilowever, Mr. Prevatte's
- 3. R . W ' ,
- .; primary responsibility was to make inspections of the plant, not to look
, #.;. .;5.Y.pc ..,h..r ;,> , wn .Y. for evidence of drug use. We therefore believe he simply might not
.m > . ,
have noticed employees who were using drugs infrequently or at low @M Q46.-6
- ,, a 3 v.,,n % gb w@ tm1 -
doses. . % .n P Wn*%: r y bs,L~.O- M N Wny,WfW mD %mn %.m%.<p%y%p$,m,m'4 .h.p.,Q,.g %,3 , o,.Qch.MN.
.m: y e a D7(p:..J . .
m& g.ga% II. Applicants' Drug Abuse Control Policies and Procedures Introductwn T.r.y &. gt.,Y.o ..; . y 'Q m. 3'," . . ma,,vm.. 1. y '~q 9g;-g Q:-i ? ' W: *k
. ' 1 :. .; *
~ 80. The Applicants presented extensive testimony concerning their sj g e'. @.y a p. policies and programs for control of illegal drug activity. Witnesses tes-
.MT:@[U.2$_ bSm
,rf M , @p,.W 9.v
.M.~.%, o n ,F<
. n.'
. . k.y U.f D.,. J '
tifying for the Applicants included Peter B. Bensinger, a consultant and
- Nf]. h; 1 $h h.N./ 1h;fd former Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; John D.
Ferguson, Director - Personnel Relations at liarris; Garry W. Flowers, $ plyg-ug
.w M% h} Manager of Corporate Security at Daniel International Corporation; and g@NNq4.,
Ad M 5 M'MNhNM Mq,h@M@ A. Reid Pannill, Daniel's Personnel Manager at IIarris from 1982 to 1985. Tr. 8326. A panel comprised of William J. Ilindman, Jr., Michael h%$h.N$3MIOMMIb Y' W. King, D. Glenn Joyner, and Peter B. Bensinger also testified for Ap-kYj A. -
.M,6c iM[$n:hMN@ k-Q[ dfh'h .'
plicants concerning their drug abuse policies and procedures. Tr. 8893. Q<, ,:3 s ik i
, p -
Te' m 9. 2 c
%:7 ; ; ,
- 327
. _ . . - ~. _ . . . -
\
r 1 l 1 l
, I
.nunm. . .., . , r.. .,+ ..
#..u, g 7+
s . . s.
.. . .w< ,}}