ML20213F805
| ML20213F805 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V23, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V23, NUDOCS 8705180001 | |
| Download: ML20213F805 (935) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_-.
- s. - .= n .
e ..
- w. -
.7.,
y . a. . j
~
,u. . .
.. . ~
>u .. ., .
..s.-. . _ . _
~ , ..
.fA
. . . . ~ . .,
'.c.
-g',"j .: t . s-a, _
v
.e , .? : * . *gg . C ^. .
.K r ;
- n s.' ' *
~; .f ' l
._ = <o.i; .i . .
,.s.
.. s 1
(.,..;. , . . l,
,s ' . ,
- m. ,. .
n . . . .. ,.
.s; . . . , . . ,.,,
; c;:
r.7 m a. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION np.m . . .. . %.s .e. i
. > . . ..m . . ;.. ISSUANCES t,
m"D :.
- u. . u.
. ,. ; .. vw..-".' .e . .,m.
- s. 5,,,;L .., :. :a * .;.9
- ,, -* ' '. 1 ".%. y .
m:. e.: .. 0,' ,. OPINIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE g P.:,, ,, , . 4..h .p ,
', NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W.9- : z. y-. R' :
. WITH SELECTED ORDERS e . . .;;x . . .. u m
,>.. ,, .. .+...* ,. p
.. a w ......,. . 3._, ., . 4. . . c, c.,..o.,n x.;
v s.
?
.)
, g. . . , , . .;
- p..y:'. .
...g.
January 1,1986 - June 30,1986
*,'..: . ' . , '. g
,g l,'.
- ,e.
.e s.
'9 '
l'-
~, S ,- ,
.. f_6 . 4 Volume 23
.t.. 'V'.s- Pages 1 - 883 t-
.g:. . i . ' . ; i. ?., ,.r.
* '?
.- n .
.~ .
,.r... . . . .;
. . 4 , ' .'2,'
. s r
's s *
- ~! -o, .
, , ..,. 't s%pn Ato
, .s ? '* P
- C
. . , .j y 4
,2 s .~ . ,'* -. n. .. ~
< f o o
,.,., .a r
.,....~.~-.s,',,
o,,, . e?
' / .-]' ',, . >
- A', . . -
%s...,*%d o b,
- g. , .; ..
. , . . .'4 . . , -. .,. . +:
r .n cs .i s..
., ,s..
- i
,,.- ,, /. ,; ,
..i...-
,' , .g, s -
- 7
.- .e* ,,
, l ', . ;
* .l,a. .,
,,. </+3 , . ' ' .y ,, , :
*:'l .,_ > *}
n
.J.
.~ - . .- t!. 1 m . . ..(' . . . ,
p; b ..f.
- . g:'. ,, .
*.,,,$' ,. . . , : ( ' .
+
a . ,, ,
. . 7 i
> .* t t
' ' >g i' ' '.'l <
.' Prepared by the Division of Technical Information and Document Control Office of Administration,
,T! } * , ' -,, ; ',, (l,;, l ' f ;- ,
1
,. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 l
. M. . .. .
, ' , . . V/ Ji -
. . - (301/492-8925) '
. ~. ... + . .
e._~. ,2..'.
. a . 4.. ;s.., n ... . , . c~;.. <--
2 ,,.. - . s n. : m , .
...' . .: .Q. . . .
# ,, . 7 -
, . 8705180001 870331 T '
PDR NUREG ' ,.*',-'?.. P/,
. ' .., ,b.
0750 R PDR q
+ . .'O. ,.
f . . g , g
,l' . ** *'*
.s ,
* , , #,,,' e 1
.* *~ 1 *S-s ,.' ,.
g * .w '
.1 * -. '
4, -
.'.1 e
g ,g.- * ,' *#*. ,
-t' , $5..
e #
- s. f.
.,,'.3 . , #- .
. o -
'g> , . s, a * .
, e I
.F . t g . 4 , .* i g
- i. . .' ,
, 'g,. g
f { ,. ,, ' iV, . sqa-
- y. ., .
'p,.. + ;-f. . .p. .g ( K* . - , _ .
# . U T' 7, .
. : ,.; - rg
(,c + . . & ; *. . , ,".".f,,.t* 4
. - e e, v.,n ; . . p. < e*a. ,
- 3. ,. y _
u-y:..4..- y, v ,-
;, ; ,9.
- > ,.7 ..
..n. - c.4. c . , .
e , 1
- u. ** .. .4.
- 1. .
* . ..i. .*
- s. . .q e *4 72p; . . .
ag. 4 4
.- * } 's* e-
.. .v .
- i. ,
+
. e'=-
j .
,u
,.f.
4 y
.s s eg* s., , ., , ,.
17:-*4y 0. 8,,d_ h
" .*'5%r
- I* ts j ', K r;' *.~. ,
n
.? . ,If . ",.4y* . <
st rs . . V C, *.*, . # , e
+.*t: -
L g 'f.,4 .I 5
- y3 r 't '.i 't .
,g>,* , .*+.p.' , ,' '%*
t * .;. r4
~ - ;:s ;
y 3. . .T j 4 s
} f :. . ;,h *C. t . . ' g g .- * '.. ', s %"s - e l ' , f,p.', 'plj %9,C. $ . A.e .m ;> ,.'.%.,
8
- ?' w, m.- , , -
- T.q> r. -; .- . e-,n~
>4 <; t .i - *
..~a..~.t..
.m.
43.,., %. . g.',..
=
.,hy ; W.t * ,a (. ,- ...,,- s .4 e
..c-, . .,e,, .s .
/ r..4*. 2. 'a , W, - ( 'j
+' ' .
. > .>;. .i . %p. . . .. ..
.Q, , w ,. .. .
e y .. ,,.J..q'.s,q: .
. .~ .
COMMISSIONERS
,4. .7 wM y: .:o..W.
e a r .3. m ,. . ,
},.4, .d,
.m. + ,v e. , . " . ,
- cg v, . , s * ,. -.. .
w
.~-,...s ....
~
.m.. .
Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman h; , , ...:.$. ..,'[N.9.d. . .. ,, .s s , ,...4.. n. l l v, c.e ..y 1 Thomas M. Roberts '
.m. . .e James K. Asselstine Mp.. ,s ...,%.
,- ., WA A ,, 'yv:Qy Frederick M. Bernthal
.'..c;$.f..f.}Gd/g.y. Lando W. Zech, Jr.
h n. ar 4 w .n . p2.
..3
. a, , , . . .
.,.(*
g *W
.c. .q), W/.s g
. . . . . . w. ...,e :*gt',
'. 'y y #. < , , 3, . 4
.c - 4,.n. . ./'.t. %.,,g,.,q,,c n.. , , mv . * .>,. . .. g. ..g . .. q a
>,w......f
, ,, . . s.:., ..;. . ,
f, u w. . . .. . x . 3, , w. 1 - 3
?. Q f,l.'z . Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations M f " ' 'j (Acting EDO from January 3,1986 to April 1,1986)
.7" ' - .a
, f"l?;, . 'W fp;)j. '
v g. f:4 $, M, 4. d. - Herzel H. E. Plaine, General Counsel (From January 1,1986 to May 3,1986) - h w}.d Martin G. Malsch, Acting General Counsel
- .' .i 9,- W 7. ,
',1.i# (From May 4,1986 to June 30,1986)
, ' ' . , , , , 3. '. Guy H. Cunningham Ill, Executive Legal Director r, .
i .
, . h ,. ..-.g y . ,, % .1 ,.
n e, ~.> v..r~.m.. .. .. v, 3, .:, -. t, r w,j;.,,.,:.
. c . w.
.m a.,.,n a .: ,
.3,.s 2.cv s.a:.
a ., . . , : * .ms )y Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel fW,i5.p'&
"' .:f.t..; ,
' .!M/.f.}
. d: B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel-W* , . ', ~ x , e.' ,, :
- i. .? . g 'r ,
,;W.,y- *c' y ,' ? * -,1 a
m,.- e: ,i, . e...a s . . s. ,n,c ..f e , P,. ,....s...**'.s % E.-l.- w..,. .
,,s y 1
, v..a,d. . . , , ;. ,, - g8,,
e . ,. a .,.
*Y' ','.'}l,'
- f e
.(., ,
rlK4 D.p*eVT *
- m. . 's ]N' 'r ?
.g
,b
?u '[.. .'kf[i, ',.., kr.*. , . }
.. g ,3;.. y .v,.,.7'~,j .
3 h,h, .f,. ; .,N, ! <y-
, 8
.n '/.g*.'"*...:.. c. ~
'l
.# y* *
.w ,'y
, . } Q.. y .* . .;** ' , . >. ;te;** x, , '
L. '. ( 4 . .. ? - ./, je o, .$. 3 . ( : .,f, $ g. , ed 8 .,, 4h. . =( I E5 .} ;a . ', , ,' [h j. ? *' n;.a', h y .r.r , p+..*.- l :. I
, s. .
..s.w n. . ; . a'; .h , ?1
+. g; -
y,.a .a.; . .. ...n'a#,. J
- . '. p, h }
' :e.
n,
. ,;'. ,4 .
- y*
,?
O', '.,,n l ', . l;. - h,= a
.l. .
# I ' 8'## .'f.", m. ,.*"r-.', gg, e.. *a9.g. g , .yj..+,.,g. . ,, ,o% . ,
t ar ,g 8 *g 6 s . g4. a. a., # , , .. ...3 ,
'8
. , .. l e
. . ,s ' -
s"..-
'A *e * . .
o s e/
,s.* e,, i
'..v.
5 e = */ g
..e
*. .* * . *. g 4 g*:. ,
1*. , ,
' sy . *
.k .'*%.' ' .*" '*r ry..o. ,. ,b ,
e t
,, .,y:'. ,
4.
,, 1 y % .
_e..c
- .:. i < s, e-
, , , L, i , .+ . -,;- < ... . (.^l ;a r ; .,;, w. , < . .
,7 is lu' ' . , ' e .e l
, , fa .. I"( [%. 4 #'
$(1,'
. ..' ., .e.,>-
, + e" .p,
% a
,8-g, i .
e ,
*e v'
, . .s.o.,...,',.8 t ,'A ,
[.. g a. 6 4 2# ;. 4.+ s
. ,
- f ,0
- s . ',"l , , . 4 n,,c ,4...
+., ,
p s
, _ .e, .s. , ,
, s
- e
- r. . ,- ,
* ?, e-
, t -
g *
. , -+ t * **d" n.4 * ,
- 3.
- q e . .
2,8 - '- em 4
'9 e .
I f D b e -
',S ,. g $
! y
* , *- 7..
L,--.-__.. - _ _ _, _ . _ _
.t .
(~= s a
*e,.,, . vT.
~
n,
+ 9
...i.:'. ..
s s e *
.A,,.
s" .',,..V.-
,, - l . a '-
y
. . ..d ' . , , y t--
*s
- k
*'[*
I . .,'E t ' a .
., h, .
, e
3 I
*,
- a ,
.p,.,
.i; .a. ?g.A , ". , , ' , * , , . ' r g., , , . .
p@j.c .,
, % . e -, .. q . g( a.'%. ' :. . '.>- ' '
W
- . ., .l , - . W -c i , ; . - '. '
rm. ,
. m '
.3 . .
., ~., .
...- . ., 4.m
. . ..y .r n. .
- y. ,
.,.,, .u. . , ..
s . e. y *
..3,.
- y. . ,;,j:: -
> ~. : w
. ..,. n. . ..:q ;> vi s ..
. . .a. -,..-
-.,n..v.. . .
. ys ..:.r .- . -.u.
t9 o . .a. (W..I'6,[ . ,.&n[.,j'yd . -; ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL C n '. ,r: .. :J.>h& . . . . k:,l..' ?',f, " . 'f O
- 1,; h Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
* . . 1. s . , r 3. ;4 - , . . .
, . , . ry 4
v ; .4.,.g:.r.. 4.. , xc... g d.y,;w, s.
< q. .- *
,p. . ' , ,
.g.a
*3,
> 4. y , ;4
+
, . .1 6 Members
.e . . : f,a ?. . ' .
g , m
- J, '.Y..!.' ,: '; . .- '$,
y...,u*u ,., '
,.g -: : ,;
1,1.SW, . 3, Dr. W. Reed Johnson
%,qi',"
7a 4$. .' -.S '.y,.[. &;'H. i gr . ,. t Thomas S. Moore
.. ~
Christine N. Kohl M , ' - f. a R.'g... ,] Gary J. Edles h;.51) .,,".;..,3l m- :, ;/.
,7.,.s .
P';I: ' %
'Cl ; ~ N. :
0; Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Howard A. Wilber 4 v,:, %,. . .. ... .*. .
.s . r .
c.;';'e,p.. ,. .f m. ' , ., ; .4. ,.. . w.:: 1. i" . ,: , :. . s., u.:}sp.
+ , ,t 9'(,; .. G.~ ;. ': . ,. . , .
r g> . f. > n . .m. . , . . ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
- e. . ...'c
.t , i * . : ' ~ ,: M .p. ^ ,. - '
B. Paul Cotter,* Chairman m . ,L.o[; . :p e,..,~ .~.Q.,, '
. , . Robert M. Lazo,* Vice Chairman (Executive)
-F.y .<:' , .. .
.. Frederick J. Shon,* Vice Chairman (Technical)
. u .. .
..,:,,..w_- ,
s
- . , . . ' , f'.u G ..f.9.i. Members 3
.s , .c .. .
' -4 Ty. * -
- j Dr. George C. Anderson. James P. Gleason Dr. Linda W. Little
- i. ', . , . a . . /. - '
Charles Bechhoefer* Andrew C. Goodhope Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
- ,t, : .! p. . % .l Peter B. Bloch* Herbert Grossman* - Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom
. ,* , 's . 'f j Lawrence Brenner* Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Morton B. Margulies*
.. t at', .",,l:i.'.M. Glenn O. Bright
- Jerry Harbour
- Gary L Milhollin s,jf!., ,p . ,.4 ,m .<!l ' b. . 4 -
Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. David L. Hetrick Marshall E. Miller i James H. Carpenter *
',>., N",U ~ J. u'.'. ,'. % {[l~jHugh K. Clark Ernest E. Hill Dr. Peter A. Morris
- y;g**.yd;*f[.3
;, - ' , ~ - ' ' ,. . M 3,,y Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Dr. Frank F. Hooper Helen F. Hoyt*
Dr. Oscar H. Paris *
~ -
, ,"*. ~ i.1 Q. j Dr. Frederick R. Cowan Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. Paul W. Purdom Dr. David R. Schink
.,' /+' j .i Dr. Michael A. Dussan Dr. Walter H. Jordan f?+
., .';p+:*
2, f "
";.i.I
.f.f
.. ,TlW .
- .'. ': "i . ::
j ,
. W.
,, ' ,,i. -',";;
y ln; * "/ p]%l g.. A Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Harry Foreman Richard F. Foster James L. Kelley* Jerry R. Kline* Dr. James C. Lamb III Ivan W. Smith
- Dr. Martin J. Steindler Dr. Quentin J. Stober Seymour Wenner
.N?? ; l7,. , 's (. / ./.' :41
. John H Frye Ill' Gustave A. Linenberger*
-A. , -
Sheldon J. Wolfe* ~ r; , .p
, .: . .j;. 0
*1 .
..t c, ..: y..c
. m. . ,2 . , ,
. ,- .- . a. .
3.ae.... .. .. %
- m. ...., r t.: e , .1 m.;. ,: .,,;.~ . ... . .:~. .
4 ,n,., s ....a* Q'
.. ..!.' , r :}, . * .*
' ) '!*?.+,.Lpa
*Prrmanent penet members I
'.f7M.
; g . c..v.,:..,$.m. ,y . .
O,R,,f-a ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES ; i13
'l . W.. c. . - ,
.' ' Ivan W. Smith
','i.;-, '". M -
~ r.u.t . . w:.. . .: Morton B. Margulies
.': : &~- .Q..
$y: ,. . m.' , , .
. y ., q .
. ,2 } 7 .! .*' ' ; > ,' g
'.t
. ..,i. -
< . , ' *j
, *.p,.
.e.. , ' ,4', a. .W ._
..I
.7s g .-
j , l
#*** *I..
- I .<. s 4.,
5#,
- s. "..i'.'.% .
g.* ,. ' .,
'+
~*
, . ' . . ,41, { f . ,s .,' V . , , ,.4 ,. =
.,q ... * * -\
. ,., , ;.a.. , ,
e
. -1
, e #
y.. - - a , ,. .
.y , 4
.h 4 , ~ ' - '
-. ; - ' ;>. m-n.. . .w-
~
. , - . c. ; ,c
- 2
- 7. ..- ,u .
. c,, - ,,
,e.-n..._ .9 .s - Ar.., , ./ ~-
." y
. v a. . .
l,y, 3, .
,y , .
L. , y . s
- .0 y
s-h g ,
, " e
..e
. . .:. - 1 l
%.;fx h:
(y ,
- % . y
.n.f .
- y. %
a . n :.. lc,
= m-
}h~:.:;- .ww & [%f.; * '
" n* - ~
j
\
S4. . 6 e
.:.. s.y:e.
i
.*,7, 1 .y '
-n. c a,. . . ,.
w
. v. u .. :. . .. , - 9 .;9 .
?, ,g i.' p c4:
., q PREFACE '
., . ;c nn c E.
- r. 9. ; x .
. n.a) .
p c s j ' ,E '\..7:h . $p. f.M e,:ms ';. This is the twenty-third volume of issuances (1 -883) of the Nuclear f ,3[ Sc G.%.'n.jh,. A ,j Regulatory Commission and its Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal s 47 fD,C Boards, Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, and Administrative Law
- p. g 7 , ; 3 .oN.d $.:t Judge. It covers the period from January 1,1986 to June 30, 1986.
4'- 5.n.cl' w b /.g..! N j Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards are authorized by Section 191 of the .
. .%y j;7f i , -l.j Atomic Energy Act of 1954. These Boards, comprised of three members
..' ?";' W M H conduct adjudicatory hearings on applications to construct and operate
!*M:-Q,s.t iff ; ' Wc:
~'? T ;n?,. . E'q nuclear power plants and related facilities and issue initial decisions which, subject to internal review and appellate procedures, become the final p e.qp 'WM .~h/, h &
i Commission action with respect to those applications. Boards are drawn C*q iD= 1 y t-1, " _ h from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, comprised of lawyers, [W:.,; . . e AF ~ ,, i nuclear physicists and engineers, environmentalists, chemists, and-h:: '-1 , ,, ,,N .,M ;y4 economists. The Atomic Energy Commission first established Licensing (,g W.p.3,Wy*J ^ .7.1 N Boards in 1%2 and the Panel in 1%7. 4 . c. 3.s.. - V Begmning in 1969, the Atomic Energy Commission authorized Atomic
;,w.;pM. 7l,t., : ;fh '
D ,fl3 Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards to exercise the authority and perform T2. ? ::W, % the review functions which would otherwise have been exercised and
#N 7". . . < ' i, ;'E . performed by the Commission in facility licensing proceedings. In 1972, that
.t~pd i Commissica created an Appeal Panel, from which are drawn the Appeal d , 'c. i ~. d ,'U " e $ Boards assigned to each licensing proceeding. The functions performed by
' g.:" . . (, .u. V ., J both Appeal Boards and Licensing Boards were transferred to the Nuclear T. : % ,c F.Fr ,, f j Regulatory Commission by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Appeal
': . M', c .. S. -
L '.: Boards represent the final level in the administrative adjudicatory process to
,3.. ,
,...g.-
. %j .:; "' which parties may appeal. Parties, however, are permitted to seek discre.
/ ,.
tionary Commiazion review of certain board rulings. The Commission also
' y. .;} , may decide to review, on its own motion, various decisions or actions of 7, "
- .a . M. . :q;4 Appeal Boards.
,: . ef. " 40 i SMj The Comminaion also has an Administrative Law Judge appointed pur.
s.t c.c, -.;g ;.; . : .s(. ,:.g.7:; suant to the Administrative Procedure Act, who presides over proceedings
',.? p.; d ' .1 3 ,L . as directed by the Commission. ' ':plg,f .
i The hardbound edition of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances
.i
. ,[,1. .' ,;;'%[M d is a final compilation of the monthly issuances. It includes all of the legal
/ W..E.?. 7. . W;% 4 precedents for the agency within a six-month period. Any opinions, deci-
% ,p..;7= &.y'$ P.ty sions, denials, memoranda and orders of the Commission inadvertently 7 L/J: '.v. : 7 m W .c " omitted from the monthly softbounds and any corrections submitted by the M8 '
.: wg .W'.m,,' 49 17;.9..nch NRC legal staff to the printed softbound issuances are contained in the hardbound edition. Cross references in the text and indexes are to the NRCI
';O,'!,M;W .b 1.5J.;
d, page numbers which are the same as the page numbers in this publication,
; a 8 . 8 ,. , ..: . ,g g *
- 1 .W. J Issuances 3 are referred to as follows: Commission-CLI, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards-ALAB,- Atomic Safety and Licensing i.$. Boards-LBP, Administrative Law Judge--ALJ, Directors' Decisions-DD, W
p : f.j.SD h.'d 5 % .: Y J J. %:? m?;; . .s s Jt V .) and Denial of Petitions for Rulernakine-DPRM. The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein are not '. to
) be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any independent legal }4. .S.J.q' () - 0 "'t 7.3 ? .ir ,;.jll" A .,,.., ".significance.
i..
; ~. h. !M.': ... ,'hh...,h, f'N,k-
, s.*
cg ' - + . . .
?j t
- 'A ' ,2
! .sg ' . -
,' .
- p* r.d ,%*:.? ' i. .: y
. ' ' .w. _.
....'f.'
, r
. v ., 4:j m .
e t. --. .
*4
[ #d ? f *
, ' ' , ' [ yg ' ,
,
- e$j I
;; ; w :n$
i
.. ,a
** ; y py 4 [ j *h * , -
. - - e
, - g. 7 7 .w .y .. g e - ..,. ~ y er m . . . = * . rg. , - *
- l
. i L . ,, ' 31 , <*' * 't..
./' ,- , he ,,. 'w l , I Y
! . .g..',3 ,' '/ . !
- S , * * .v I
,y' ' s '9 t'
# ,, . . e
*****8,4 I f.h. 5 ; .* ,e ,, ,
.v [ .y, o '
,s4 '3 a ,, :ny . *
?, . ; q ,* ., ' .% . ^l ,
* *' - q? ,:
* "' J: * *
(* [. is' f-
.t .
- t- ,
g. e u .',
--4j. 9 '
'. 3-...... /
- e
, s. i ,'. . '-
7 L a l . . . . -- w =a -. . - . = - - - - ~= O - --~ -
31..
- s .g-7,-
c.s, , .'i. .;l , g-., s. * . . c- ., s-
-.s
. .i
. , a: .
. ,- ;- ,+ , . .,
e. fl .l . , ,
,^ ' * * ,,k-
~
'e l , ,
' # ' I'
' . *' [, , - '-
u s / r,. - s. .i . . . ,, 3 2 .se. . 4
.,3
.s.. c 4.
." ,q
.,o - . - -
>.. ;:.-.a.. . , . " .: . .; . p,A,+ . - ,, c ..
....9.. .. .e y .
CONTENTS W, : , . . u'; . ,
, 2
.w .
' * ' , . ' ', G .J;4': -
. ;. w, ; s . ? _ . . .:-<l
.' Issuances of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission y .:
3',j
.y,., .,- .
. p. '. . CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al.
" 'i . I i
K',$',I *[y N, ;c / '.h
.',,',U,, (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Dockets 50-440-OL,50-441 OL ff, m . ,..,,. w gy, . . . w'.'"f.Ji' i Memorandum and Order, CLI 86-7, April 18,1986. . . . 233 Q d ' .1.; 2 - *
;,j COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 4.';.l;/r e. , : s. .
'.5l (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2) f '" -
Dockets 50-456-OL,50 457 OL b.:: 'f ,
- 9'A.:'}..,,jl U.1 ' iQ Memorandum and Order, CLI-86-8, April 24,1986. . . . . . .
(fp , g i..
..,,.3 7[ ' W GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION 241
. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
@( [f,If.? '..,-;A'. c C'9. ', fl - Dockets 50 289 RA,50 289 EW WM/.j P < .h *,, , .' Advisory Opinion and Notice of Hearing,
, ag. . ' .
! ?' '
CLI 8 6 9, May 15,198 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 MN ..' " (c T GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO'S REQUEST TO RETURN TO . i f.e , . f '. :c-. " . . ' ",.. THE UNITED STATES THE NEW MEXICO PROGRAM FOR W . . ..l ve, ' *
.,2 .
THE LICENSING OF EXTRACTION OR CONCENTRATION
. g+ . .
, . OF SOURCE MATERIAL FROM SOURCE MATERIAL ORE
.'N-
~
T. . . ,c >' . 's AND THE RESULTING BYPRODUCT MATERIAL N ':, '.). ; ,' . , f .: Order, CLI 86 10, May 23,1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
, a, . . f / . 1, .
't
. _ . . . e INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2
- .. ;<N/. , , . ' -; c; n.,, . ~,
e< ,,. LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION Docket LRP ,.,c'<. ,?, Z
, Memorandum and Order, CLI 86-3, February 13, 1986 .... .. 51 p':g." ' y . , q 4 ;,,, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 2
;cy'p 'p e; (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
<;,. < ,'s> Ki, Docket 50-322-OL-3 p.i;,, . ~ '.,;,.,.. .
/
Memorandum and Order, CLI 86-14, January 30,1986 . . . . . . . A-1
.f .
Memorandum and Order, CLI-86-11. June 6,1986. . . . . . . . . . 577
,(d? .' ,"..
'D :.1 LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
,, M. . / , ' ,
. " jj (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3)
,,/* j ..' t. : ; - a Docket 50-382-OL
,C.,.'~~V P q., l 'c]
(#fn , n . q.1 - Memorandum and Order, CLI 86-1, January 3 0, 19 8 6 . . . . . . . . . METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. 1 ((.1,4 'If , i ". ; C (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) NM ')I(/, L',:' m n .1 , Docket 50-289
'. . . .%' ), d . M ..J ,l j Order, CLI 86 2, February 6,1986................... ..... 49 q;. _
c #. .
. O
.i ,
1 n,,v . :. ., ,, ; p
- . .r :i.. -~-; . , ' ,.:,
.y .?,4, };e W. , . . . . s ' ,il e.:y, ' .t. ; - -
,j ,11 E. p' .', ,
.,, J l
,. , . . , . - -V.;J
' a ~. ' e-
- 1 6
.N.
,,'.; i 1
-- + r .
-].
r4' . , , .
- c. y-m ,;;... . , * ;.- g- ;
.~ g -- y ,.
, r, ,s , t - . *. ,,
? x -
~ ..
.r c.
G * ,' n .. -
.,'t. '.L. <J.',
.;.....;,,a.....'**.
.,. 3 .,
., -. , , r, . . , , . .: ..c. 1
.3 .....
L, , .. ., . ', .- ._ A. e... *
.s . . ;. -
~
mm? a. -+. ...s 7 .; . .p.a a.m. ; ~ .~ :. i %=- m ', y.. www a. w , < , , wr - - , g: '. s ,~y.x.* $v L. .
< . , . ,: <<.m**... 4 ,3..
.,t .
> -- - s g.
, . - o..,.+,
. :,s. p -t 1,
.w. , . .,?.* x. i .-q .,:3.
.,.e,
, _ ~ .< - 3, ,: ? -
- .o 9. 1- : s >. . s g . . .: - ; ,
,g~ ' ... . a. ... ,'
. . m;.
s . ] . ~. . ng :. - .. . ..F. ; ,'~~ .
%a . .K. -&-: %.. M;a W.:.;.W ? . .'. 4 34.#,.v.5 ~:.L wi g f P:: % *-
~
JQ
?
@T ;.
... .. . . ~...w;b s:
T, -
..v .
7-
.y
- u. 73:
c
- 1. m. -
.. . . w.
.- ,.y., .. . n s;, ..<; . ,s ,
w .a,..e. s.e,.s.a, 1
- r + ,
s
,..A .a:r.,'.> ,',s...
..s ,, %. _ .q e.. .
v .f . ,
- ).m* .,3.....-
e.,y m{:,fa* y.
; ,; ..n c' ,.c .~ . , ; .5, . _. -..a,,_,.,
'*t..--z ,. , .c
+ *
.a,.",. .;n. ..e, n , ,...m,- ..,e-.. .m ' %y.
. <.s -;
hx,m. e6 f.,;',.>.;.'s,,, 4 : u / w . .m. .< , w. ..: w w., >- u .a. .c : .. p ...m. ' .j . y e. .U., g ;m . . ,l',. .s.. t1- t xn
. . #.C.m Q;g;.rV? 9, .v;,p 7.Q._p.i. . y.'. .fi fc A/..
PHILADELPHIA a ';.gCOMPANY ELECTRIC 7,;L!j W Wpf+jn . (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2) h e:- s briy.4p,
- ,4? .-Jq..,;.M.,@H.i!
A. . 9.. Dockets 50-352-OL,50-353 OL g . 3 . N . M ..h. . . Order, CLI-86 5, March 20,1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 a .:.T't f 9 MS.'t $7: . 9 c.i! ':@.W':.e; Memorandum and Order, CLI 86-6,. March 20,' 1986 . . . . . . . . 130 3.15df( TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.L (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1) <
- h. C .. .~"l F M.u. 'a.e'.4. . . . .
p
- e.
.c m:.y , n ry ,
Issuances of the Atomic Safety and. Licensing. Appeal Boards ww -p ~wn atMift LWM,m h! CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH -
- f. 6i G en . c W : M.c.y. T;./ 4. . ., w CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
- .4 'l 3 #Mpt.aA (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant):
M j');rsa . W.:ye,7;g.y)W.p o-M Docket 50 400-OL' d fi f Decision,- ALAB-837, May 29,1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. f..J. m . E p 4.; y. v.W .. . ...m
% .4 ' '? ns , 7:4 (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). ,. N g^, 3. p y. % Dockets 50-440-OL, 50-441-OL 4? - ., , - "J . , ;' f 1 ,
Memorandum and Order, ALAB 831, February 27, 1986...... 62 1 0:T% .f't,Mfj yi.d LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ' e W ..a N (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) pic y X'. W Docket 50-322-OL 3
- r,4.V$ [ W . i M . ' "lW[ ,- Memorandum and Order, ALAB 827, January 9, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . 9 Decision AL AB 832, March 26,' 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
, y,1 , i . 0,/,Vf .s ' . . LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
.p.. 4, , ,;).. q (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3)
':4,L(.;
? 'u."
- , . ; s . l y J, Docket 50 382 OL
[;'1w
. ,.R 6 .. : .
Notice, ALAB 829, February 5, 19 86. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
.n' : PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 3*N.0 ,' ;i.'/d[.; W,.jWl%q;3 C/,.!. d .,r.,f:
m, 7.c r (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1) Docket 50 352 OLA
.}a,
' . . f.,b; f, !;! ,. /.;%.
, . Memorandum and Order, ALAB 833, April 4,1986. . . . . . . . . 257
) Q.W, . T / . "#,C %
Dockets 50-352 OLA 1,50 352 OLA 2
' f.; ;. h . h. Memorandum and Order, ALAB 835, April 11,1986. . . . . . . . 267 g,A"'C? git @% .
.. y (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2).
g.,;;*,~.W N Q . Dockets 50 352 OL,50 353 OL W P '.. . ? ![ N; . ..i Memorandum andsOrder, ALAB-828, January 16, 1986... ... 13 f % :.t..'s..'d,O, T '4 Memorandum and Order, ALAB 830, February 7,1986. . . . . . . 59
..%.M ,('. h., t < l.'. <l -';.n:33 ! Memorandum and Order, ALAB 834, April 9,1986. .. . . . . . . 263 M ,. e.6 Decision, AL AB 836 May 7,1986.'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479 -
w s
;ys;M.
y, ,p . . , g , ,e. ./' . , '. .l g .
'P--
l
'; y ; '..,;*.~.g.
.g [
.- 9 ..,':s W.,.:#f,t..
- i. t
* .. s ,$ * ; . . {,
, . i.&y. vill
'.:.<, . , .. r . , , ;
e ,. a .y ,
% ,.['t
$p4 ..h'
.#3f,4 i 3 a.
./'. . . , . . ..
e**' -
.e f ' -
,;g ' g. 9 ,i , ' . 9 .;} '
3
,,. ..~t .
, y g .. , ,
+
v,
,.y 7.o . , . . .,>', ,/ , . . . g - -
.. .< wt . .
.s
.' , '. l ', ; t /[- .,'.- 33* . ."'rf. . #
,.I.'. . , . .
****g *
. . ,y
- 3 , , *' . * , N, "
e , ,
> *;h.: ,,
.. ;- ,, ' .- l .,\ q'.'*.'f. .
s, * *
, ,e , . ., , . , , . .. o ; ,
ws. -
+ .
p
- s. . ,
.W- . . : . . : .c ~ =.i;
. a:
~= .
- ' ]b
- r. . ,
.m . o-
.., m, . % 3. ". Q <-f.m.. .:.
,.%. g .
. - . s,
- .. . .c s.v,- :,:.: ,,..js . <
y,. ,, , .
.~ ' ;;;.
, ;;;;;\, . c. . .,
,,v .- ,
_a;, 6
.f ffQ.?. .q- ..
J. , .g - : ' E
; . . %;ll $ EiY NlQf:,.'..
., ,, s. ec.., a . . .. .- >^y -
, e .
. ., , m
+
.a . .c ,
. . . . s ..
, ._. ,; e l .a .
,,*.y ,
' c ,, * ?>
c: . s . - <
,-a ,~- .
3
. :v :,.
..e .
1 y;.':w..a ..
.1
~";
W;f
$i.N y[<,g% P.,, ' ;;ePUBLIC ' .;.
SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, er al. M$. [,.J.W (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2)
$.g. _? Dockets 50 443 OL,50-444-OL M.W.w.y,g.
l ,f. m ,v l. .A lly g4.h? Memorandum and Order, ALAB-838, June 25,1986 . . . . . . . . 585 6;.n. a.. .,n .u., 3 e .9. ",.:. : A,7 t.;.c . 3 a w n:. ) p y @f,. ; or- ;.. . Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Q(.. e .u.
- l*...' . n- l. .v, .w.
"' . ~y, .1
- y. .$yll$,1, ;
BABCOCK AND WILCOX
$ y90W... .?-
.' ,?%, (.W,j 3.'
(Parks Township, Pennsylvania, Volume Reduction Facility)
$0lSlQ bf.f 52.', ;.,; .
i ~ 5,l '
.. l$
Docket 70-364 (ASLBP No. 815 51101-ML) Memorandum and Order LBP 8619, June 23,1986. . . . . . . . . 825
';. CAROLINA @*l, 4 a.'i .M.'1,3-M.'ec.
N'N; dICAROLINAPOWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY J. Q l % 4 .,i. MX.4i . (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) 7.M / Docket 50 400 OL (ASLBP No. 82-472 03 OL)
$$.4-3 -
" ,S.h.N,.l i .J" . . FJiO Final Licensing Board Decision,
. y '. . . .w. c. ;;. l ~ ,, g.i LBP-86 ll, April 28,1986.. .......................... 294
- .m,..
. G'l .; W... . . y; .' .
I COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY s.. M , :,.:.M . 'i .. gWsa..
. sa (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2) ,;9 6. , . v.,* ?
Dockets 50-456 OL,50-457 OL (ASLBP No. 79 410-03 OL)
. . . o s. .
a G.l, .M..c'
.. Memorandum and Order, LBP 86-7, March 28,1986 . . . . . . . . . 177
("73;W[(,l.",y.3l.y N ' $ ,,,, I] Memorandum and Order, LBP 86-12, April 21,1986 . . . . . . . . 414 (Zion Station, Units I and 2)
- WY ecc. . c Dockets 50-295 OLA,50-304-OLA (ASLBP No. 84-500 06 LA) f:$,T, , . .'M. .
.. ' M Memorandum and Order Dismissing Proceeding, GENERAL P L TIL[TI [UbL$k'ik Ub'RYbRkkIdh j g.a...f;f. , .
.;3 . 8- " .; .
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
;.V, .9, J cf $ . . 9.. . Dockets 50-289-OLA 1,50 289-OLA-2
,g. ,,-: . ;3 f . ' Memorandum and Order, LBP 86-10, April 9,1986 . . . . . . . . . 283 M. TafNlf.,'. ? 2 '. ' i
. Memorandum and Order, LBP 86-14, May 19,1986. . . . . . . . . 553 Memorandum and Order, LBP 86-17, June 18,1986. . . . . . . . . 792 f,M.7 . ?,. ,, . . ' .,.'Ij ', d.' '
. " ,P- HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, er al.
W.>@.' J 3.. D : 1, ? - (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) p Ji C[:. ,j:. j Dockets STN 50-498 OL, STN 50-499-OL F...b. g.:) ~ ,
. e ,.R 4 .: e. (ASLBP No. 79-42107 OL) y$yyj,M,i..'.
,q -
spi. ,+
}
, ,. +] Memorandum and Order, LBP 86 5, February 14,1986 . . . . . . . 89 4
Seventh Prehearing Conference Order,
-#q i@*p,W(c]'l,';%.4 p.' *9.s/
a
.d .3
, " , I '. ,*
L BP 86-8, March 2 8, 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Partial Initial Decision, LBP 8615, June 13,1986. . . . . . . . . . . 595 18 2 frQ3.4.-
,, u w w
- : % 4 ,i
< f ; <. .,,- .n e. s q 'r
.y..< . y, >
, ~.1
,g*y,
- p. ..:.7
.y . . v, .;ge . ..a. '. <. ,- ;,
- g. g. ,. 34 *
.t. . ".; 1 lx j.g.il .i . -
m.. ,,. q
.... . ., u. . . .
+ '
.? 8 g,
s, l:i *[.. . * . ' e , S Y. 1,7 : , 44 *
,'A~~'
., ... c
*~.cl U.{ ..
- Y ' '7q.7 9
.- f.,.'
. t,,
' ,'I ; I,' >f
'a
. 5 l> .,..-s ,
I 'e l . 7,), ' ..
,6 y- . ,. ,,.s ..
+,, E- .r .s s <
,.4..p2 pf.,..e.f.. .
J j .3 , .t> .*. *
.*',.'e,,.P.5'..,.
} ,. , '
+ '* 'I
... y u%~ ,%
s.;. w .. . Gp . m . +.c ;.r.O' .-* w..~v w4 < v,~. - ;, ..w . A., m
.>::. ,. .;. g.:o~ww s.
? :v;. a. ,- Q. . .. .x .o, t < .
*:n . g ; . :
,n .,.~7 ,
- - Q - ; p . ;,y/ ", 9 + ;' 9 .s,,, .
, , .. , , . . / ,-
, g.7; ]
. _ , = .. . , J '. s . .s-n' u.
h... .. ,. . . y ..' 2 .. . ,
,,y ,:;;,..:g.g W p. .
s
..,q.; y, p.. m,:.,
p5.y ,hm,
,:.,, , &y.;}%, . ~ ... . y;;q.Q.- .-. 2 ; ..;. &;. <
~
m...q..
. . , ~ . w . .. , . +. .
.i.,~._, x .- .-
m.,,,,.. c~ +. - n.,
.., - ;.e . , . .
,. . .f. , w. - +
. 9. .
ie ..
.. o
- g. .-; m o n. w r..
e.m 4 p s .
. cy. . .
d'f @^:,.M..% ~C ." M k. k . 'i ? J 2." .K J n,. . b ?..i ; . . 7. ?"
- h ..a q 'l v. ).
M . Q .O .
.y p . .s. s ,v.
c ,3
. . .a a
m. yo.u-.vM. .se:.5,p: :, f sq
- s..m., ;. . ~ , ,
,. . ' .4
.,;c$; % t. P6*/ n..%y q. . e.,O
- KERR-McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION
?;*o//f, .M& C.p'ld;f1 . 3 (Kress Creek Decontamination) .,7;.;cpp.M...,.r.Q.'.O.j %, w :QfM.'My, s. n.. .. >
. Docket 40-2061-SC (ASLBP No. 84-502 01-SC)'
5:@A$mm,9.b, Initial Decision,' LBP 86-18, June 19,1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799
- v. . F ,.: MM. . . .
dM (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility) 'g:Wh[$QyA34 :$tdY, [ 9 Docket 40-2061 ML (ASLBP No. 83 495 01 ML) Memorandum and Order, LBP-86 4. February 10,1986 . . . . . . . 75 9W.M(:f'b A M. Si@ s'.Md ['jh' 4, W. LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ! n.i M'- t Y; M (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) - Wy.%@%;)$'s:
?. i
.W,M ;. Docket 50-322 OL-4 (ASLBP No. 77-347 01D-OL)
- 5. %
kifMMT,. :v )L.,p4;g'yM Order Dismissing Proceeding as' Moot, LBP 86-13, May 5, 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551 h' PACIFIC GAS'AND ELECTRIC COMPANY M@
- 6. Uf 7@$,l,3 1.?j (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2) bleMy,a M D. .S; r>M " g.t gq:d Dockets 50-275-OLA,50-323 OLA (ASLBP No. 86 523-03 LA)
N N k i'l d J .'ck W Memorandum and Order, LBP 86-21, June 27,1986. . . . . . . . . 849 (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3) rAM.M r. .qr',$U.,{ sw.s.o
,p .; .- Docket 50-133 OLA (ASLBP No. 77 357 07 LA)
(:$ .f$? y Q y ;%: @(2. .i Memorandum and Order Terminating Proceeding,
, +. 'nLBP$.i 861, January 14, 19 8 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 D.. $ 4 A .
s ..v
.O i;.~1,... ',,; ; , . 4, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
- p. W.f'.i ' $ ;M (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1)
, M _.y. M .* Docket 50-352 OLA (ASLBP No. 86 522-02 LA)
. . .". n. 4 ', .. ]
.v..,v ;'.. f5 M .,
. ,. .,1, W. Memorandum and Order Ruling on Robert L.
. ,/J , i. 91*1 .
Anthony's Petition for Leave to Intervene, LBP-86-6A, March 13, 19 8 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5 E 9 M)p$.Mii.pil,d ;" . 6.g 'F Dockets 50-352 OLA 1 (ASLBP No. 86 522 02-LA), L.,.'.,; # v@- ;f ip..'# .'l 50-352-OLA 2 (ASLBP No. 86-526-04 LA) Memorandum and Order Consolidating Proceedings and..
.%v,i. .'.y,3:4 ; ', Cs 'd# Setting Schedule for Identification ofIssues,
.,..i.m.,s.39,y,;
. . ,lr LBP 86 68, March 14,1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 4N.M ../ '-Et,l?.t, T.I. 'd,;.1@d'l M Memorandum and Order Denying and Dismissing.
.d : ,l VM.C Petitions for Leave to Intervene and
%;h.?'%.N.'i?.*C.3,'?j Terminating Proceeding, LBP 86-9, April 4,1986 . . . . . . . . . 273 f4MNJ. @' MMC (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) '
$W %,s . ,. . ,,'; ' .$..
~ . .'i. ,
Dockets 50 352-OL,50-353 OL (ASLBP No.~81465 07 OL) Fifth Partial Initial Decision, jf.O .bi:q %.'h.fgi..N:l C.w g. LBP 86 3, February 4, 19 8 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 o p , y.j,p /. 5 %q PRECISION MATERIALS CORPORATION
- g. /, , c. .n . ..
(Mine Hill, New Jersey irradiator Facility) (. 3,'n,
.m. ; f;,g.. . . '2.
..m.. -
Docket 30 22063 (ASLBP No. 85 512 02 ML) v . . OQ ).. .M d. . s.y.Sil;E', Memorandum and Order, LBP 86 2, January 28,1986 . . . . . . . .
~
28
.>. w.
~ .L-l.a.
y*. A y. .,. n ,1.n, , .s.n.p , ,-..
- a ?. A 4 s 1 4
3
. '.y.4.
, . .. t * . " ?/
h *. . * .)
.,, ,f-'j *y* ',/ . h ,
* /. d" /' 3 e?j *b,
*e ' ' * , . 1
;* ' r y,, , 4p,; .'{ :., < s. c. q
..v ~.. ,o G*. f s. - *
, * ;, , , l .
**,'.4.'
4 te
- ' '*j,'e%,. " a ' ' .?h '. .*_ W,' ., .
O r g.,t s,*.,,3 ,y ,1
,+, ; ,
c g.,
*o 7 *
, ( .c.,.
* *, .* , . j, ~ */ 3 ,t. ,. +.,,.;
.. ~. . .- . . .
L. ,. g . ..',y - g
. N- g
.. -.* '.',-,..- , . . . s.
' *. ' ,. . t. .g, ,
. g p g
, m.
- m. . s: ..:ew. - . . . . , . - - , Tj. '
. v.. e.w ' r%. v, . -/ 4-
. ~
,.. p.
, . 3.
- e. . -
7 ,. .- ,. ... N -:.w.;~ c,7_.. ,.3.....!, ~. . . g.
,. ,e -., .
- s ' .;~ .v b. : . > .<
. , a: . . :; . ,. ;. ' ,;~
.lA,'. h!'f'.;. h e h.,.f h $, %."$. .h.h ?. .
',, :y * ~
9:
,( Y * 'N ?'.' A .
l* Y b.4 .... 7.a< .. .
-s..e ,
s n m ,. s. , . , , g;.c.n;_ .o - ' ~e , ~ c 3 -
- z. , , : .
u - . n ': -
.~; -
.w s.. c: . ~ ::.:a < . :. .
=* ~. - .
%.:n. . . ;- . .
.N]&? =*. .;f, .T g' H ' f rM.s. ram r
... .M sm. y .- . .
...t .
' M.' :.. e ,1 pN. p ,:p!.5@k.,;.. y., %.,' ' y iDi >.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC., and
@.. .<. p .J 7,,'.J...,.1f.j
.g.gyr ' r yO WABASH VALLEY POWER ASSOCIATION, INC.
p:
..V O (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2)
'%g.. f T <5@* .W.y' N'.- M,. W. '; f gDockets 50-546-OL,50-547-OL (ASLBP No. 83-487-02 OL)
< 3
,M.. .,.Tfh9: .. M.' ' .O. . ',N. .P.,
. Memorandum and Order Directing Briefs,
..m N :4 ; y <C.9 L BP-86-14 A, May 30, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565 4.'fdy%. 4 3..
s MWy. '-@c.Migt,...~ .
.P.Qj;7
.-j
,..v.jp Xv;.I,-
- Memorandum and Order, LBP 8616, June 18,1986. . . . . . . . . 789 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
xGy ..,?J.r, .~c..g./N (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2) M, d[d.2'i..@. q;w,r.M,9+ &g.-Aiy:.'].
....s, Ni %d.$$;M., t$ I , /]
Dockets 50-445 OL, 50-446-OL (ASLBP No. 79 430-06 OL) Memorandum, LBP 86 20, June 26,1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844 e.,
.m..e:.t. . .. q y ..c.
- a. w/.M.;.27.V M .n.
W*k;:w':.o~.,.w Nis a,e ,J :,1, Issuance of the Administrative Law Judse
,~ .w 5sf7. :a%... :. m.Y,%'M@.) KENNETH L. BURTON ,f.(*(4 h.t % . 4,,S Docket 55-60575 (ASLBP No. 86-515-01 SP)
EQ:O.?.p' N.i.J?. k f.'N ! Order Terminating Proceeding, ALJ 861, January 27, 1986.... 31 7 $%7%.,/ N NORTH AMERICAN INSPECTION, INC. 8${ h d r;d.i d,, W T ;;; j.j j;T. .Y P.O. Box 88, Laurys Station, Pennsylvania 18059 J.TM-R ;Q'rQY', . hT4M. Docket 30-20982 (ASLBP No. 86-516 01 OT) (License ' .!No. 37 23370 01) n .M. 4 --x.Q'W.$ W ' .3 . Memorandum and Order Terminating Proceeding, li b . ': b. d, ..,.. . . A LJ 8 6-2, A pril 15, 19 8 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ta 459
- s. 9 .s.c. . :
q,j;i .: n* ./,Q,..?. 2.Z . f .iuk t.%gf,Wyl+", 7'.j .
.". M p5 f ., ,'.
Issuances of Directors' Decisions Ww.i eg . ' . s. 3. y ,p. . -l' ' wyL
- w. }. . i' .Q .t t.. .. s,.,M*eJ c .m - v; ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
(@v,V. l y;F C P',: Q ,:.y'y (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2) TN#pj;MI~i .f ~,eL O, Dockets 50-348A,50-364A
. m.s. t .3 9/ % W, . ,S,:?.W@y? k.. : E .k M. ..;;.
M).M,g,.R l Director's Decision, DD 86-7, June 16,1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 875
.@Jt/,p*j f"i (Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1)
%. .w i.. 4 Y,,@d...W@y,'.M l . Docket 50-313 = 5.'itW. .:. @.. - Director's Decision, DD 8519, January 29, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 h.MQM I.:floslDf..t,'";$ ?i.f.%s;W-i. N/;.9 CLEVELAND .. ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
$,yffilU.g**d;Q? 3 Dockets 50-440, 50-441 M -
Director's Decision, DD 86 4, March 18,1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 @Ef[M:![!,b.f(4$;,.',L)W'fl!Y[) 8'W ',{GQJ.'r:41.: DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1,2, and 3) 7://.Y.'W& Dockets 50 269, 50 270, 50 287 F'.4 A4; . *
; y..g*.f
- s. % .
y,,1. q, .' ; . .; , < . f M.p j DQj Director's Decision, DD 8519, January 29, 19 86 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 m,. t . s .; * ' f*:*,4
... . n1.=.. . . ,p.
, - y, . ,
8
. kg . % . g
)Q, .Z. . .p.,,p.*5', . ;Etlf,I . C
- i XI 4 67{:e. ' , . . . , -,'.f';
m y.y 9. . t ct: , . a. ai
- J . . s. . ,
,.e .o.j, .-> r j , . . .y,t,,.,'
r c' G, . - ' ~~ y..... f.
,..e.
i.
'*, . ' , .Tir ] ' k. - * ' ' t. ,,e, . . ., . j.
e . [,,, . *
,l.', ,e L:: ' . . . L .
. lp ,3, .f . .;, ,?,, !. q' *e. *
, . '^ .
y.
. ll ~* * >
a .- .,.co, ;4c , , . , p . ,, y;
- y. . . ;, , .s?.. , .* .; . . . - -
.e,,,..
.y ? q_
scq p ,.s r- - .., :
, . - 'w ,%-.
.~
, .. C#'V" . ,
.,s . . ' .(; < ; s . ;5,}- l?
;" silY.,.9, -
* . sr,y.'- * % ** A ' "
.y '..
' L . a .l,%'u..r' ) . J.,
v .
..-t, ..
' M '*\ ' . .
~
- m. n, , .
. r. . .., . -
. .... . o. .
-w - c.. .
. a .a ..
, ~5w:W.. . . . ,... m . x. . ,.::. n. .:g:..:.,g y m y ;. h,., .
,.;p; x.O 2%. .v;gn:.w. ..: c.. g .
. ~ . .c
. ~. . ..n...m~.;:
. . w . v. . .... .
~.
. . . n.- .s ..
. w.. . :. , s .- .. . m, 1.. .
- m. ,
n:. , ,, . c . . ..3. ,. u .s x.
, u . 4 .-.u. :. . . .. .
1 . .
- n. m_
n , p.s
.. s .. . . 2. ,, ~..z.
- w. e u .. .,: . . - .
6:x .:. g:,3, .:p, .3. a, . ,. . u..a. #c . ,,:..c . -
'.5 * /,*'N< S f O , . [,If;['.
4
,,. .,; w ,. -g. . " . ,
.x. ^.,.r...<
..- . . . w. . , .. e,
..s - ~ r 59 *.s '
. Lt. ,~ f *g d '% d.C. W'.. *FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION -
d@$T,'cP[ yFU
%h'M.! :4. (Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant) / .F K 'r W s Docket 50 302 - '"D$ *f . .
- p. ;.7:$f
% .-P '. '2 9[N pJ ]? f i M Director's Decision, DD-85-19, January 29,1986....... .... 33 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION
.., ?d (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
U... /..;;d. .+...'.'.G. ,,. / ?d. .f.$. i 50-289
,s .
.'. i.$ Docket ql;.
J g f' ' t,W. M .' y$ "j q '. h ; $ .s! Director's Decision, DD 85-19, January 29,1986....... .... 33 U . U NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC. F.$gG@DK'1:.';imf'W . . (Erwin, Tennessee Plant) p.if:i. '$. /a,4??w;fN .E f.] Docket 70-143 -
- u. .<.'p,n 4
1,;a> &s .,e f; , 1 .. Director's Decision, DD 86-3, March 3,1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 W. - a PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
",'3..N. ;.D,3.,.!.; b. h FM,W
'. 39 $ ';oa. (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1) f.!.g.. :y, j@a'j
. , . . d[a. Docket 50-352
; '; . . ., . p. ~ : t. .W' ,, Director's Decision, DD 86-1, January 21,1986............. 39 i.'#,.Y. f ;.$g. pMiknd i Director's Decision, DD 86 6, May 13,1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571
'W \',W.'. M.% j (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2)
' y ,.. . .
y , + .j ... . ,t 1 Docket 50-353 3cd .i!.x:l,
- y ~.: .,~'.: M.s
. 7:. ' Director's Decision, DD 86-5, March 21,1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
- l. .
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
..,f,'cl . . [. ~-. K.. . ., .', .7,'( ;;a (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station)
. . .. Docket 50-312 G ,d , ,.,d. .: y.u. ,f. . ,.%. . C'}
c. Director's Decision, DD 8519, January 29, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 4.
. < ,, <i* .'.... UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
- s. ... w. .P.', .g N
?
.... , q..;., . x.;;. ,. ;b , . ,: . l a. (Callaway Plant, Unit 1)
~ .,./l N ,O o,.;. ....' , i . .:' , s .. Docket 50-483 l". O. . .- .. . '.,.*~c t
r..u, rf Y,,.1 . l. Director's Decision, DD 86 2, February 10,1986............ 97-u....
, : o r.-
'. , .. , Sr.r
*,.,(,r.,~ . .; .:L ? ,, .* -. . ~
.m( o v.
- u. '. ".) l2.*.f,f,'v,.M] .e ,3,x ,
Issaanees of Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking '
. ; y .. .t ..
s...n .
,9lg g.u, p y,. . /;:'{.
A.N. TSCHAECHE
- r. . .T p&VV. c , i T. . , M, Docket PRM 2016
- b. ., % ' y. Denial of Petition for Rulemaking,
' N,1^ 9.i @M 'i.'y.'4;! DPRM 86 1, April 23,1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 lJ/ 4'L .C A. A.. 1 POLLUTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, INC.
M~ N , TJl ,* >, 7 .;.
. . r.,%.
7,3 .~, ..
; , g<. , . . i, .',,"g, N,y,
. . . . .l y Docket PRM 516 Denis! of Petition for Rulemaking, W.'.,:p '
jc '
; ,; f. .p. .
i') DPRM 86-2, J une 20,' 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 1 i.y .. .r .. - y. .. ;, w ;; ,;
,.....w,..,e.,...,<
. .,n .,.. .. . t. .
,n.
. . . y. a f.,.,.,-v.,.,. , .. .,
,a e.. . .. , , .-[. n. , .
.om.:...
q p..g..y. .
.gg.f .c a. .r.. <s e.
v.m .,[
*g
..w, .
{ !_, .
* ' 'j . * *g 5 . . . . . } 9. !'
. ,,m.*-. . . ,, e.c..'* g 3((
m.; 's.. ?. i. . s _ . ?*k. ' * . . s...s... [*** 7 f ,, ' ." .,
'p . ..
'0, .d ;4,
- IS; .
p c A, s o k g. ..* ;* w ; .*p *. ' *
- B.' t . ,
.,.,e... . - , ,. , , 1.t g. .
- f. y .7 4,.. i , g. . . . j. .
g 6 .
- a ,- ., ,,g.r . ",4 m. , ,
,g I *%.
.o . . s ,- . '. . ,.,.-
- ..- . r .
,',t,'
t r
- g* a ,e $,
, . ,t. . , * . , 9..
., g
- p g g [,
.. , _ . g j ,. ,' f. .g .
t-
, . . p
~
, . *g.. .
,e
. i
P*'n y g; ' , e.< p
% W. rs *f G t
.a . a . , Y-<OS .' >
a,
' .- ,.g. [:
T'=~i,t
' , ' . , . . g a ,
[e7 *D.O j ' gl- A,',* ,. j*;
.'v '
v s f< -
,a,- y %. ,r e . -
2... .
;1-.
.,e.y y.g /. ,q . ..
.3 . .4,.q,.g r
, u.
. ;t. . . T' m., . g.
, o .
- o. .
w.s. 4 .s ..e .; . . , e '
. . .A'. c }.*. y. v e- 5, . ,
,*, . r .-.
- g.
r n; .. a .A ...,3 .j_ g ,t .~ r , ., ,+
, j 2xg- e . . . . .a w. .
,f s *c . . . . .
,2 . .* .,
st . . ,- . -
" .'...c . ,, * . . -.
, $. . v,-
;e%G
,.f.
- m. . .
d!l?),&. :'y,$ O, , e % ".%, . . .M.*i%. ; Y(? ;. a v.! ~ ', ' y,. .'*i3 :~_,.' - O- ' l
- z. ., ..ey.u..
.. . r. , . , .
r
..t. , .. , .
*n . m umrc.,. *a,~,... ~.-
R, *., .;;; .. .:.
. ,: r ,,. .,- .
. . ;; - .. :m. . ,
+
~.,.,<, . . .'. . ,s a' - .
<y . :- a W"y * .,h ,; ;,. " .s.
. + %_ %. A.~. .u.~ . ~ ..
5 - -.
.. y ., 6 P ;.- /.
a:.L ;, 'c lL: ';.',2
.,- a .. a ,v. , ;... g . pf,!_.:.c .-..
- ,y, : 0n..:~ q. 1..c .- - /. 5 i . q'd.J. b i.sN v.>,,-
~ cu.'.5:x'i; f.
'. ?, ,. }
r.,,.e ..:. . -1. .w 5,4;&, vm m .
- a. .:n ~.
W, . n.,s.<w,.e.y:m, w; W. -,e..w&N;hk iM. .n. , w . . i . A .* vh.u. .W9: ~ M M f d. e' Case Name Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I- 1
$.b . .
Legal Citations Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5 vl. ... y9'. Cases.....................................................1-5 E gykI[I;)$h,.mp@hh YN Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 23 vU.-W:i%. w: . w .v.7&.g.WNW a v. m .~ Statutes ...................................................I-35 de
- W.U.c .s C .< - Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-37 NtNIh.Qf'y%[..1 ..> '% Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-39 Facility Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-57 v% .*:H .RMy%.e.t.
%r .n.
* , ;M. . .
n .d' ( jy,s....
& M.: r ;T
>.J
*. .O.$y(s.nN.h:)
,i'hd;'s ;
p.* (.f.g 5. ' cJ:... y-44Q.v
.F >** "b
. .; y " *?]?".o.f**.pr.m : r
. 'k } ..
.3 py .c . ... ,,, , , -L l M.
i. f%.'+q;;;.j arsr Q,2 . , &< ...'
- f. v.p &;
42 .. -y.;M.r. ~
,.w .
,Q.% ;m d t; 6 c.e;,pl . I.'./. 7,.0 S.T..'/ *3 '* ,{
{. P. t. 1
&*w',y:.
j 4 y,., w N*C"V j? ? +s9 T
.s %.5 y; y- y
( g. ".)$,. .g3s-3,'. 6 ? . - **
,,.-a p., .y : , ra,w6 q. ",.a. &.? ; s ". ,,. . q.s ["'.
s pa a i -
+v -V. r -;D 4 . m5.n.,f, .--.. . ..
n: .v, e, nu... ,... ....,.
. i .s m..e..?.t .a, , ,,n. . . ,,w~, -
y.n,,. .., p:,.:.m. .. .fd'
. v. ,,M ' W,n.
ey./
. f.:es.',,wi.wY f .,. .m: :r.us Q .=4' V. ,'* sg 4. ;p *m* ... ' ?i .s . 1,M, c. r a].
..f"s, ^
*9. ..n
.f,. of . =', s. a 4 8- 1j W&.e m$QQ5. kh $k..,.l4,,
.g ,
f '. . ,7.' . < /g y .,g . 9 t. ;
- y. w..-)....,.
.t.-
.t, > . , c h <.s.;4.s..
,- .a. <
. .m g w:.:v.. m..v:n .: .; w 3:s,s e. w. y.+ .. -
w.a ,L . s4- . u. .. ez< .e. .s.. a. ; :. e.w ;*.,:- g, .. %,.-
../,a
. . e..v.g, ,e .
,....c
,'r.n. . v.- *r ;42 ,
...~
FA<,. y i.%%.:e,sn.o .%,<t
, y)3 :
, : a.; as, ., p..,.*.S. u. ,9, ;r.m,q w ?.
..,/..
- w. . ...~: ,
.e .
.% n.. g .:- g- .
1,. s.y .;. . . ~a.;o.,s
,v. 4 , 4.
- ,. w -: n..w.,.
.,,,.a.....u ....
sQ#0 :.. v. + w.,. . e ,,...
. ;. 4: n;.. ,e. ..1,P t +:.. e .. c N '8 % . ,..,m
- r. . @li.S s.g. ew. u . :.). 's
{p.. d,. '.h. v.
. . ,. v. ?
- e. g w M , .v.M~ !
- w. 3;t v. @.. @4 1
. w . ;,.. 7,.m .c.y
-l,v, .,,je m. ./? w!n vNg c.
w o.f. 3 .tr y.. .<i, . g pyl-y'Q+.
'p %y ,
".3. g g.pC - ww . #,f, y' &@" t (Oy.. a .qq(g@..9
' N@.l.:,
E.4 4 $ d f,.<c.i r ,;;T.;c. 0
+:..m yy, .y:.jp,yy, .e . ,. . ,.w ',0,*.4 , . ..u. . ,v,:. .,
9nr.. . i y ; G.o ,; . ,n.iig'. &,......] xiii
. . ~,- . ~ .. :
.. , * 'b. .A l fc ..b. , *; ?.ts; . u.., , .: W i'
, Q.r V. ;, *1
,,..r,,l .7:q ,;
1,.e.
.,. ...a. .
..c.v .,, ,j.y! . .
,, , t L
(- # a n ,,,w
.4. .
,"'=v,'.
.. { . , ,.
t , . , g
' ~
+ I ,
M .
. ... ..s...u..v *I.
4t. 7 t nl..
*g ...s..
.,.9' g >
6 1, - r, .
.c J
. . , ., p. ;y. 3*. ,.,,.-.L# a ' - 9 a, ar l.. C. . . . *'.
,~ ...
- 8)
.. .d-
. ,t. .
p- -:p . , .. r .&;". . - ? . , , > s; -
.,..'p= ,' 1 '^~g . ,
.* . :. z<
{
-'., i. . 'q/$p.G<.:' . . r
._ ,*,. ~. , , . .
, - . . . .+ eg 3
_.6 c, s
, , j
. . . :s ,
... ~ . : ,. ~ , , - , .m..
~. , . .
. .; ~ .. .- . m a: .
* ;.'&M)$i:,,'$lN '~. d i . .-
- T,< ? ".*V J % .;f * .'
?
- ' 'M .
~e. '.';. 4 -,,- . c , r
,.a ." . ?. ,
$4 ; ;;. ,, 5
,a- %" '
Y '{: *t.
'.y ,
- il ~*[ l * .
- s . .^ * .
/ ~a.'s..;, pry il :
.:. . p.y.. ;- y.;, h,. 9m ,
' 4. t
'q ^
,, '.- x.Q>w, -
g;
.m.m R,;. ; , c , u - n. . ..
c ny w; . .sxg,a - .z . e . . ; My@;:d-) . Cite as 23 NRC 1 (1986) CLI.86-1 3.M'M@m,l[.n!['.::'F:
- .' W; Q yn<'.;4 ... .# . ,
.* ; ,.y ,w;n '; L..) .
2.c-. %. ' R, ,r .. .a . .. 7:c,. . l '- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g:.. ? *.' ,. .7 ,,JPi w. lc(i. WJ. p . s >, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,_.,.:.~.9....-
.; - a . 7 ,.,,; .n:. . .. n n]
, ~.: '. s,; y .m; . ~
'.d;)hSU M
[r,,; . ,,s;,F COMMISSIONERS:
. -- a . r.g.. e 2 . .
f . s .. ,
. 2,. .M 3 1 se , . ...";f.h M .Q
- ,. $ [q.y..y!.{'.$@My Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairrnan
>: K p,. . :.C. . . . ,,> . 5. ..,7.;,.f '1 ~
Thomas M. Roberts 3.? 2.1," , f 5.i?..' . ;;./24, ~.'1 James K. Aseelstine
.U, ,. r; @.; W W.. , Frederick M. Semthat
(.%T:yil:,, . "W:. . . . . . ..
- t. .
Lando W. Zech, Jr.
- f. :.:1 ,
, .r,*gyr : : %,, ;;y;', 'y'V, , ':W ri:%,_f ..
Q, : -
. ;-;6. s t- Q;.J: ; p:g'.a t C
%.. - . ' '4s.:.gy
.g.lg%.o::h.
-- 0
.n. 4
*.,c.W*; a , v, .:8'v.;t.p'.9,s.19,4 , r:: in the Matter of Docket No. 50 382 OL
., .; ,#y? ..w;t qr .'
.3.s : < , . v., . .%.; : va<,. r i
..g , .
.t fa,j ;,yy. q* ; i i LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT
.owm . s t
- ' h ., ' N.W:;y;, . G.y :." y.n. . COMPANY "v h.7,j .p ;A, s a p@i; &J .f9 .
(Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3) January 30,1986 '
'g.M. g.' '," . .o/,*'{ . . kijf. . .3 .,m' f .
< :. t..x, . ,> ::vM G :)
- 3. $ ";. - r , ..j ,
4.< .m.., . .y . 3 , e p,'<n, p. p .;.. :wy, .n,,. %.u . .J . . The Commission denies the remaining aspect of Jo.mt Intervenors, p 'c . , n:9.W ;j f 'i .w' ',
, r ').g..)Jf.7,'A.g.i motion to reopen the record in this operating license proceeding on
. .. ni.s.
. . . ,. .g,, MM.r.s.?. J1 . . management character and competence. The Commission finds that
?3. N.;
' Q ,f.'",,u :. V M './.:;W. )
. Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen, which is based on the pendency of ongoing investigations of the Office ofInvestigations, does not meet the Wt.f1.
i.,Ji O. . M , s t,'. . . . . %m$4 heavy burden required to reopen a closed record.
..u l s. .1.: . > ,. *. e:. :p. , , ,
*j
'[.; f<-'. ..,.,w. ,,,1:. e.- e . } .. ge ,3',:/.S c :. + . .N,c.< .n : e , .,g ' ,.RULES ,.//.g OF gePRACTICE:4-] REOPENING OF RECORD s T MM.,V.%.$%.,w. j'
~.SP.M1 Mm N . ,;.e The standards for reopening a closed record require consideration of three factors: (1) whether the motion to reopen is timely; (2) whether
;J@ "'f;q the information raises a significant safety (or environmental) concern; he . W . Q ,' $ [A Q l M dflWh..yY[
; ..'%.4,
[ j. and (3) whether the information might have led the Licensing Board to reach a different result. See, e.g., Metropolitan E'dison Co. (Three Mile j .d
!Qz:l.;y%y.; d.W7,g Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85 2,21 NRC 282,311 (1985).
s.,,;c.w. c tc2% . .
. . ' . .\
.,AW
- n,n
,33 / '
W d*d 1 !
. a, , .'!{. , T,:
,r er, a
..yJ '., .W.
.,i
, e 'i 4, ;)-,pW/. ', :4 r %
l
. t ,
*- < . . . i's j
,33,.
. e < 3 .-. t ,y . *,.r. .: . m.a .
c.; w w, . ,, l
' . . .E N. . {. :,%g%,n ,'.s. s ,; l
,%t *a...f c . i, , , ' ' i F . .W. [ \
- t* ,'*:, s
, Q .,* ..i- . Q),?.(, * ; ,. , ..e, ,- . . d 1
'. . , ~
at - . .: - ;
/,# ., q' ,
j..
. , . . . , i I". . .3. . ... -.}
94 *r.. .. ,4g 9.. , r.. se.
- I, t-. .
h...=,*
. "a . . .,
) - * .*
,4,,. .y. . . l
.t -
vi 3, ..y. * * . ,t:
.y: ; . ~.
9 /,
. , * '6 g.
.y e 8 - *I
[l p, *~ 'y.. . .;
- p. ..
-+ = . . . ..
y.a r ,.+
..>. . -~ n. .... . . . ... . , , .
e
; , y. ;;. c -
, ^ , .
~ .
a (
~ . , . ,
u
,t ,
...- ,c y .
q . g. , , .
' .jc; .$ ,[ . . 3.e ,s g'rJp ; !%, '> -
.h .,; '.y / . $. a . '. *. y ., , ,(. , .
' . .. ; j+
L . :. , . * . c..
., ~ . ?.y. - .
v 7 ., .s . .
-) . .s
> , y, .ya ~
;; a . ' p. ' , y .: . - w , .7 ?..: . .;. -. .
- s. .
;( y .-
m; . .. . * ; ,
. .e:
, ' g, . ..e.
. ;, ~ ',e
. T.WK.;c.. .. ' :
,. -+: . ..,.
*1.'... d,.
RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD i3. ... g .hf .pm . '. c , See, The burden of satisfying the reopening requirements is a heavy one. (q['48:71.
.y .;' e.g., Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station,
, ,d.~,@
,p.;l;1:q ; gi j , . g. .C. ' ' Unit I), ALAB-462,7 NRC 320,338 (1978); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Wj.. t .. - Q ' ,. [,., $l Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 359, 4 NRC 619, 620-21 3 :, ,-" ' . ' , . w - . W .jf (1976). Bare allegations or the simple submission of new contentions U,Y J' '. , ; ' .-J.M f); are not enough to meet these standards. PacMe Gas and Electric Co.
Jl: J4 'f - (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 815,13
- y. V.d.e .-D...MM
'~
,4.%, ,
, M, NRC 361,363 (1981).
. ,:.,". ~ i t,;;4
. w w .
e, ?; :; ~ v k j, ' -
,Ia. . M. . .,[@.. e , < .s.S RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD (SPECIFICITY) . s....g.. .u -.............m .. ,
a k , q,. ,'3.u 6. . 'y.. $,. i At a minimum, the new material in support of a motion to reopen u( :7g,. g.[ < P. 72- , must be set forth with a degree of particularity in excess of the basis and [' 7,,,cc .il, , ' . .s@ specificity requirements contained in 10 C.F.R. j 2.714(b) for admissible
. f.4 '4
- . . . . . . 9,.; contentions. It must be tantamount to evidence and possess the attri-
.;.. a ,
; .~ i. ' butes set forth in 10 C.F.R. f 2.743(c) defining admissible evidence for
c [; &'S - / j '
adjudicatory proceedings. Specifically, the new evidence supporting the
,, . bc ul ~1 motion must be relevant, material and reliable. PacWe Gas and Electric ;',; . f ? ?.'a i ' T ' . . ,K -
Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-775, l; ' * , ~ l.. %k
. I9 NRC 136i,1366 67, affd sub nom. San Luis Obispo Aforhersfor Peace a 3.a 1. , ( ., ; '- v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287. (D.C. Cir.1984),' vacated in part and reh*g en A, ' ' .' ' . . [ ~ . . ,; 'Q banc granted on other grounds. 760 F.2d 1320 (1985). Information that in- .. . ci;. ** " Nij vestigations are under way by itself does not meet this standard.
- :.j ;,
c .:;.;s., a, sv.. su ~, j .-.A-..mQ.%c c,.u . t q
, , : "3,.. ;
,t e.,.G.' r%- ji RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD
, .3.. .
' jR*Q
- ,9 ,- A movant in seeking to. meet the heavy burden required to justify
- T.Ml y.,gyl[.. M. $D reopening a closed record is not entitled to engage in discovery in order
!% ]. t to support the motion. Rather, the issue in each case is whether the 4,'i ,. _, ':2,yf').i..(($t . .,; .. available information meets the standards for reopemng. Afetropolitan s' 'O ., .,.1t..p Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI 85 7, 21 l.c[,9 "
1,;%' NRC 1104,1106 (1985). It is not the duty of the adjudicatory boards to "j e .g' --s . .:9 c. - n, .'(.,; g .s '.'T M f search for evidence that might fill in gaps in the moving party's
- 'y lf ....
. . p pi;7i ,
submissions. y
.:,%..1.' . ~ .
- 3. a'r, 't 4 . .....
-) ..
^ '
RULES OF PRACTICE: RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTIES
- ~ T .'
r.~.. ..
. . p<. , "g. e.,
i// S v - ' 2 . -..' The Commission's Policy Statement on Investigations, inspections, sl, , ' b,; , ,: .. , ,, , ,,1 , and Adjudicatory Proceedings,49 Fed. Reg. 36,032 (Sept.13,1984), ad-7
;. :. 1
- y:
p..
- v' y - ..,..
- a. . ;;;
>?;
.. , ,, ,- .- ; 2 3.
.i .
~- o' % *
- lu . Q (
q
* . 1 -. O *p 4 g 1 . ; ,
e, 4 . ,.
*:s J ' ' ; , 9 ,'
G .
. , , is ; .
r, - r e.g. . 3 ;._ ,' ;
, ,,. ,.Q . ,
. c
- 8. , ,
- ,.,...s .. . . . .u -y .. - *
. . , * , .,t % ,' ' ,T r;-)Y **
1 . ,' , , ,: L.
. .,v. .. c3,r,.c. sv .* . s ,', '. "1.s.
L- < - r - e
.g .1. , , ,
2 . e.. ~~, , l5 ; s . ,j' .
. . J .s c f . . . , f m . ' .'
K ,' _,J F 4f,c/g M.4.. . .i ' M @ *t.c.+.. e,.;.'s-6,
, , . ... l. .Np - ,'? '
., 'f(.. , , 1 - -
,, 3 4
a . ',.;i*
.g ..,A'-
- ,. t n -
s sa- .
- 4
<o ~ . ' .'-
e4t ...
',. s. -
- y. . . , . y;-
.; , + R. c.. . e : , .;t 7, a v ,
~
. .-.,.^
i 9.c . e ,.a a .
. y.
-~{ ,,). *f. k .. ,, . %; ;' !
_ *E% f-f ,}.) (, '. _ g,,, c. . y ,qf. d.w i: 0 ... a.a, .-y ,' . . , ;<..g ]* t D ' j, ". . f s * '. s ? 'O;'M .H',#,-. N,%,7 . dresses the con 0ict between the duty to disclose investigation or inspec-3).( i'*
- 3. N 'y-i.$.y.jfJl.
$$U.Thgg]dtion information to the boards and parties and the need to protect that
- }
information. The provisions of that Policy Statement come into play E.M , *d;;, . ; QU:* gi only when StafT or OI have new information material and relevant to Q. ' .c,f;$:gMy any " issue in controversy in the proceeding." Previously uncontested [y% 'g / ;,htg.. .f p;;,9 - issues raised in a motion to reopen are not " issues in controversy in a W... M f, O.1 .y. t t e !.. proceeding" unless and until both the motion to reopen is granted and W. .a.%.g.. ..,.w.J.. Q ;.,. ,wH, the contention is admitted. t . : . ..s. . s.% e.;A M. ..
- (m.,
j y;. cz M:,, x.. c.@a,f.s.i..".h.
- g. s r
o :. OPERATING LICENSE HEARINGS: SUA SPONTE ISSUES 4, . . L' x. : :cf dm k.n l;"l(1%4'4 .4 6./ @..@,e Boards have the authority to examine issues not placed in controversy by.the parties only where specific facts are brought to their attention in-ifcl y".I ft, 7./ h.D T ., + $ p $ M $ k @ fense p;.andDsecurity matter. See 10 C.F.R. { 2.760a; Texas Utilities dicating that there is a serious safety, environmental, or common de-
' . ;f L %. . ', p.1 @\.w/ a.v..@. .. Generating
.s -
. Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2),
A. 4 r.d. .: ,:..J .,.
@.. 6.,,c. h.o ,
, CLI 81-24,14 NRC 614,615 (1981). The mere pendency of 01 investi.
~ , .i i ;i W,.Q;'M. gations by themselves does not raise a serious safety matter.
,s .e ... . o. . ...c+ -
e ... w.p w. v: . um$.. . ,y.W . e,u.. l... ,c; . v; .,
- /P MEMORANDUM AND ORDER n , . ~ s ,. ?.,..~. , , &,9. r),
o$..g ,;W..v.' .. y m yy ~;u...w. . ?'e:< . n %.. . \ bhj.8 6 N,,g' - - On July 11,1985, the hppeal Board issued ALAB-812, which denied the fifth and final motion to reopen filed in this proceeding "in all re-3.- 7, ' ',- .T. .M.'.Q@,
).
- !.r_.
$y; spects save one: insofar as the motion raises issues that may relate to c e .u c.c #R_?,w. _ ,
rg matters under investigation by Oi, we [the Appeal Board) are unable to J .;\ 's:0.8 ' g {['"N rule and therefore leave that part of the motion for the Commission's 3...L,. . y.s.. s.;;. 3 4;"J resolution." 22 NRC 5,13.(1985) (footnote omitted). As explained
. . r, G. ,;m.f, p.(
.A.c . i..w:si.,.,NJ we below, the Commission has decided to deny the remaining portion of ( '... & ;1 ' b ..* H 'f$.e;a 7t g
- the motion to reopen.'
qu. m t.f :.m % me . j .. . .,c. ..sy+ x r.c. ~ : . 3! ' B;.::u a .;.. . c .9. %, . . c^. l*
, , , . , a .x A .W. a . .. .. t.r, r .
T4
- %. . M.e ./,'R . [%}. 9.'.;g Joint Intervenors on November 8,1984, moved the Appeal Board to
$ 4.' reopen the record of this proceeding on three new contentions. The
. &. . ,%lL . Appeal Board denied the motion to reopen on two of the proposed con-j~i,'?.?k
". ;E . c zi~p.ef
. . .'; .F m
j tentions. The third proposed contention sought reopening on the charac. } ?,Dz.\:. &f.2 ff.f. ,%,q,%
"- ,.5
,' %6 N
.).lW,h
- I Joms intervenors have requested the Commission to review ALAB.412. Neither of the issues raised i@; '., #.
fl f, Q,' W ,/; '< T ., l','; .]{ Joint .; ,f, by Jomt Intervenors meets the standard set forth in 10 C F.R. t 2.786(bH4) for Commission review. Intervenors' request is therefore denied.
- t. .h .". . .> .,'. .4.
e-. .' P,. V, .f , i. s?" *,.j.u. ,q j* ,.
.x
.s j .
,l e..,',, )
1** . , , , ,
.f~,,l,', * ' . ,_* ~,,,'w,*.., %
a aa,. ' Q , i s* ;; 1*:
}
Ne$ s[
- ht,'
l ,Q...',.,'
.o
,..{. q
' * * * . . ') 'f.','.,,#
^ ,,,
w ;. , % .'
- g .. #.y '
- e ., .* ,
+,,.f
,e. ,,.p e 9; ,',
',?'. e e
.t.' . ,
t; *
,e ' *- ,
.'~,,
, ?
if,..
,- . , .!. 3 .s. -
4 . e. e E '
m.* 7;
,g am. . m,p ~
t v:
- ~ . .
- . . ,7;' ; y ,
,l ,
s.
,2 .
' V v.La. ,y . .; . .
- f , > , D.y:e ,:;',f., [ @p; %.i , . " . .;p. i.;, . ,
c.
.;.' . }: ,9 .
l , - :, ,- - ' '
,.c -
...- .1 u. .,
( v. . jg -
?. ,. a, :. - - :. .
U ,' .y
;, w .
e... . . .
.; g . < . s.9 t.,.'
Ii d'; - I. . '#'
- p. d ter and competence of. Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L). As t.l,;,Q.J. .;l.; -7 ., 3.['} summarized by the Appeal Board, Joint Intervenors charged that c' 5 Of, - S s. A:94 LP&L's lack of character and competence was demonstrated in essential-ly six ways. The Appeal Board concluded that Gve of the six charges did
;3tg. *m ; [ , ' ,' '. #.;f i.[ not, either individually or collectively, raise a signi6 cant safety issue. On W ::
p# . f .Ni. .C-Q the sixth charge - that pending investigations by the NRC's Office of
'e
~
'~, # ..;2q investigations (01)'into allegations of falsincation of records and harass-
, j'J * [-{,D ment of quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) personnel at the site demonstrate a lack of character and competence - the Appeal Board
' di . ' i L'[.W. ?M
;-crt,34c; g; j. $
found that the state of the record did not permit a judgment one way or M' e37.Y.' . 6 j$ the other. 22 NRC at 45. 9
,'" ~ E .~ 16 . / The Appeal Board, "[blecause of the dearth of publicly available infor.
/' .F' f.?p:c. f .' mation concerning Ol's investigations, . . [had] solicited more details
', N directly from 01." Id. at 46. The Appeal Board stated that it was unable T..V' .,'.Jj .y d7Q ;! to obtain " complete, usable information" from 01, and therefore that it E..-<,," ]' 7,.g;.) [q "took the unusual step of reviewing some of the investigative documents 4, ' .'
~ *
.,3 , - p M (itselfl, in the NRC Regional OfGee where they are located." Id. at
,'~
cy: - . ~.J - 46-47. The Appeal Board, noting that nothing it had seen had given it
.? , ,,~ ;'G. -{ "cause for signi6 cant concern about the integrity of LP&L's manage-e .- ment," also stated that it could not " rule out all possible grounds for 7, -
4 ( ' i
, .g ;j, - 'E .V W{y Joint Intervenors' charges." Id. at 47.
'c. In view of Ol's opposition to release ofinformation to the parties, the 5
,.i.;. $ ' y .
t.. _. 'X Appeal Board found that it had no expectation of getting adequate infor-N 6 .j 9.~.4.{7fJ .fm.J ' a d mation from O! which it could share with the parties within a reasonable period of time. Since it could not rely on information not available to I [ ;,.f .M y'-[i,.] the parties, the Appeal Board found that "neither a denial nor a grant of the motion to reopen would be sustainable or fair." Id. The Appeal x l. " pp . .79 se . ' .
.' :/,; 7.< j,.(. ' Board, concluding that only the Commission could obtain full access to I.5k! , ',,Dr $/, #;jf[' 5.) M{ information developed by 01, left the matter for the Commission to c.y. . . ..M .C.% :P resolve.
, p f s; ; p' % e : y '1.l.
,.., ' , .w . , 1.N.' .., :'.#p.
' , . g. = .,,, . II.
; q.
. . .t:. .,. ..r . ;
.c j,; 'M,).llqf..J:-
! T';;lS The Appeal Board's actions in seeking information from O! and then
,c'. .r . 'C ,.' referring one portion of the motion to reopen to the Commission present V '. , ,, . ;d' f ,-) two issues for the Commission to resolve: (1) Does the remaining por-Q)4;f 'v,;I '
. tion of .foint intervenors' motion to reopen meet the Commission's Y. S y'? 7. ' . 7, . fd standards for reopening; and (2) did the Appeal Board have the authority
' ' ?*,
M/.1,% N to seek additional information from 01 before ruling on the motion to h, ' g;' i f',
'- ' , . .q. 4
.., ;;i reopen? We will address each issue in turn.
The standards for reopening a closed record require consideration of
';c.'h.d]'
9 J.l . ; three factors: (1) whether the motion to reopen is timely; (2) whether
- . " . y
- q .
if . . . ,q
, y'
%. Q.) ;.,d 4 j J '* . '
r
'[ if
- i. >- . y ;.j
. .J
'6 .
't
<i 6 .
j
.g
+
. 0' 't.' ., ,
.. w. - , v. e ~
~
%^*
+
'O-
, as f .x ..~.-
s '. , s p.y , y p r
. T ,<
3_ . .
. .g .. .. _ .
"I' , ' W
- n~.g. .,>.
f.? dh.;. ; b f.
>*s
~. ,
i,' -
' .n ~
.N$.
.y 7. .: 4~
x .
. , ,2
. ?. ' < .
. . , . . .. n
, _ .;- . ,. . ,. m ?' . Wme'.:<: l . L 'g.y i
t. h* 9
~s"t d '
- w. .a p .,".., %p b ..... q.Y:G;,W ..'. . a g ,
the information raises a significant safety (or environmental) concern; M s;.m,; - Ny,3 7c Wfn fA and (3) whether the information might have led the Licensing Board to Y.$,j . 4 .;* . wM Y:2," reach a different result. See, e.g., Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile
' l.a*d... mK,, ..~ J, , * , L. ' 9 Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI 85 2, 21 NRC 282, 311 (1985).
i The burden of sattsfying the reopening requirements is a heavy one. 7( . .'O
- (.f]sF;lg ,;~
"M4
/h 1 See, e.g., Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station,
^ %: , % .' .- M:G, Unit 1), ALAB-462,7 NRC 320,338 (1978); Duke Power Co. (Catawba IC
?;. M W I , c?'.M T M M t. C $ $ Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-359, 4 NRC 610, 620 21 (1976). "[ Blare allegations or simple submission of new contentions"
, p c . p;- ' i; . 7; c .
are not enough to meet these standards. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. I D %.c. $ b; ,',*3 ,. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 81-5,13
.,r; '
, NRC 361,363 (1981).
, aM.<.y ; t; '.'(' .; , , C. . . .(f ..n d. . . g' t *, <
f J. [. ' . g i ' f. :.f. : .r- At a mmimum . . the new material in support of a motion to reopen must be set ,y.,$~.#f[.7$;*;;0.?u.M.
- A h- .. - : - , ' * ' ff. . .'
.;i.*n.y ( ' ,1* v j , %
forth with a degree of particularity in excess of the basis and specificity requirements contamed in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) for admissible contentions. Such supportmg mfor. N ;gfJ . ";*~.j mation must be more than mere allegations; it must be tantamount to evidence T *, 'y * .
- g - . . . landi possess the attributes set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.74Hc) dennmg admissible
' ' & ' . . . i 'i : . ' . "M
'4* .gf evidence for adjudicatory proceedmgs. SpeciGcally, the new evidence supporting the
. , . . b P' ' I. motion must be " relevant, material. and rehable."
l (N.h u.
,, .f 4p %.W. f.P. . 94-. '. l 'v .
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units
, .,sp,M. . . ' *" ' , .: . . " I and 2), ALAB 775,19 NRC 1361,1366 67, affd sub nom. San Luis
<'~. .' Obispo Mothersfor Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.1984), vacat-
. H& . y f, h,l(l.y f:'.e rg. ed in part and reh' gen banc g anted on other grounds, 760 F.2d 1320 (1985) (footnote omitted).
W.w.W. . a: .-jf.C ~,~ 'l. . .l,W . . g The only aspect of Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen left before the ,.sn. y.7 *:;..
.. .. Commission is the assertion that the existence of OI investigations into . . .i %.aD J. .' -e allegations of falsification of records and harassment of QA/QC person.
k,h....J'Y,2,.: nel demonstrates a fundamental lack of character and competence in ,. h.?. 4 p a r ) c .l " (
. LP&L. The Commission finds that Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen,
- f. %.'.I' which is based on the pendency of ongoing 01 investigations, does not n .9 ,E.: h.
W. ,. A. meet the heavy burden required to reopen a closed record. y,s.gfQ,,3^ ~ sn
" ['OQ W ' M ,3 iu /
- , A '
- 77 V,, 58 OI conducts investigations of licensees and licensees' contractors to determine whether there has been a violation of NRC requirements in-g ,,:9.f , . ~:ir ^ volving wrongdoing. The bare pendency of an investigation does not in-l .' . '. n dicate that there is a substantive problem, or even that there has been a
[j.0 ' Ar..Gqp,M.,, y gg.
;b 9,,$[' 9 % ;i",.'1.
Y') . . ' '"' violation. Nor does it indicate that an allegation raises a significant safety j issue. The pendency of an 01 investigation indicates only that there is an
@ Q : 1,g b 'f.; '- "'
allegation that is being investigated. The material proffered by Joint In-I P. , w c. , ' tervenors, i.e., that investigations are under way, certainly is not "tanta.
%,is*%v. q ;,
.')2,(;.
,,3
' .I.. . .
.3 J mount to evidence," and is not the type of " relevant, material, and relia.
.q . , ,, y . . -
.,.,v.,
~ , l.7*m, ..
- a. L , ^fu. . i $ 4 , c.~
q*
..3 t ,n .. , *3_
ye , f;.h.};,Y & " l 5 l t *. \ , x.y
.. .f. '
9, * . . ,, { M- g,' < ',s
?j l %b g(
~ 4' l. f '[ ' ,. ,
}
.; ; i l-
/,/' 1 l
. ' ~f* *
- - - - - - - - - - - - ---l
C"~'~~T[; %. . ,,. , 2: u 'i ?. - -
- % p ',
. , . .<. ,- n.:'?,.
.p . y .
+ T, y ,.
. . ,q o, . , ,
. . .p . ,
- ;3. . - _ ,)q q .
% , , a- > .,
- a
- .e . . . , ..
e - . . .
,.. ~ e., ... a .
y.w . ~, . : :, . , . .;. g ., , ;c
- u. . ..,T. .y :;,0.,t.r. ,s.t. ,.;; .s..a. . W. <
- c. *
., -;;c .:M .f. s . W~
. .;, y F *
- n; .
as .f^ , ,:. _. ae ;-. - t.. v.
~n
- .c .c ,,.
.: >:- ( s-
. , , . e ..
- - : < . . . . .. .s 2 ,y ^ ; .c . ; s, i; ;. ^ - Q.:;p' s ,7 ,
.n m 7' .
,, y . . . ,
n ,c f. .4n.; .:. :
- , 4 - .
s, - .i
- a. a . *e f .4
- n. .
[<s Mh-M .. ble" new information required to reopen a record.2 See Diablo Canyon.
<s, p;4 7 ;h ti $ ?
y, ~, ..u w .. S i? supra. ALAB.775,19 NRC at 1366-67.
,e.f. .
Since Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen by itself does not meet the c p p ro.w,6 J, , , hTM$U-I3;;.$ Commission's standards for reopening,8 the Commission must address h r6 T.1'.?3 v.: ., whether the Appeal Board had the authority to look at information de-veloped by 01 before ruhng on the motion.
"g ' . ; 7.e* @ ? ,c j ",]
. i. M ' Mh 'L.~
. A movant in seeking to meet the heavy burden required to justify reopening a closed record "is not entitled to engage in discovery in M [h.M.O.-%).f '
order to support [ thel motion . . . . Rather, the issue in each case is 7@MWiM b.$ g y. N( YV N. p id' *1 . whether the avai'able information meets the standards for reopen-ing . . . ." Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.
/ y,I:}.%ghtl,--@. }M '
. Unit 1), CLI 85-7,21 NRC 1104,1106 (1985). It is not the duty of the
'$cric. ;dTJ'!. .?[': adjudicatory boards to search for evidence that might lillin gaps in the i V,1,g. ' C.D.'. H ; ' .i ' '
moving party's submissions. Accordingly, in this sense it is not neces-
,j.. d fi $f M) sary, as the Appeal Board's decision may suggest, to " rule out all possi-ble grounds for Joint Intervenors' charges." ALAB 812, supra,22 NRC Ml m. I!N..h.'$ .
- y,g y%,i at 47.
G/.h.g.y<, [J. / Here, rather than a party seeking to engage in discovery, the Appeal 4 q Board itself in effect sought discovery. Given what we have said about c.? .g. ,. y,'t, Nf? ,'.' .j;I{.. 6 @. i the movant's burden to support a reopening motion, there are two possi-
' ?, ' N. ble sources of authority for the Appeal Board's actions: (1) the Com-1;(b ',;. t,J,p,%. ' 7( j,g[']Q .,i ; 2
.'.;.# j mission's Policy Statement on Investigations, Inspections, and Adjudica-tory Proceedings, 49 Fed. Reg. 36,032 (Sept.13,1984); and (2) the g e ,. m
.p: .;3- }
!9R'./y; .. ^]<e ..r
- o. .s on e
? ' ;, +;.' . 'A" g L.x, f .y'c ; *] .
- 't.r,,.- e , y. ; J S.% 5 % .!
- j., , . '.3c. , . . }*
. /. . *
- e
'?i,.*j' a -
; 2 Jomt Iniervenors in their monon to reopen refer to a transcnpt of a meetmg between stafr and of per.
s'.f i.7
.i+g. ., , ,
sonnel and ofDcers of LPAL and to an article from the We#Strertlournal The transcnpi of the meeung
% '" does not contam probauve mformatson regarding ol's mvestigations, The claim bawd on the We#Sirrer s .. r,4..
O .
. % i ? ,i . :.rr M,.*h',3. t<.?) K c-? *. d /ournal that of is ready to refer "over four cases" to the Department of Jushce indicates nothms about Niig 4 how those cases bear on the current management and operation of Waterford. The Appeal Board noted
? DJ
- k,'49, . that it as slao incorrect. See ALAB.812. supra. 22 N RC at 47 n.52 Moreover. hearsay bawd on a news.
y ,,.. $% '. , fl '. fY.'.
- 4 paper article dnes not consutute the kmd of evidence that can support a reopemns motion.
Qi L,. t - r T. d , s*l ,4 M ' ' .C,k
. N: *Ii ' df :! } The Appeal Board also grouped one other Jomt intervenors' charge - that LP&L took retskaiory act on agamst QA personnel who adhered strictly to QA procedures - with the charges based on Ol's m.
*:sf vesugations, /d. at 41 n.49 The afndavis Jomt Intervenors cite to support this charge primarily addresws 6a N N ,% f ;& - ...?[. / ' h, ':. ,,,j _, , ' e alleged QA denciencies. The Appeal Board demed that poruon of Jomt Imervenors' monon to reopen J. *hich dealt with alleged QA deficienciet The remamms porhon of the afDdavit. deshng with the alleged
- h. . , L .j termmation is not sufficiens by itself to raise a sagruncant safety concern which might have led the
, P., ];p it;l .,. h 'J,.
. ',..,y- ' * ,, , l .a .'
i Licensing Board to reach a different conclusion. f.
%,,!g,ld'-k7
- q.v*fC . I. ;%[, ,f. . c f - ) a The Commission also notes vi this regard that the Appeal Board. even aher reviewing mformahon de.
veloped by of stated "InlotNng we have seen gives us cause for sismncant concern about the mtegnty N ,, , ;,,ig.. np wi F V l of LPAL's management." Id. at 47. If there was no cause for concern, even aRet reviewing of informa. d r'/M non then sforrsorf it follows that the standards for reopemns were not met.
-l/' M.R ' g..]/.' 8( "-E,... Y ' .. .:j". '~ , J In addition. Joint Intervenors' mot on to reopen raiws previously uncontested issues, and therefore
. *M8','..
- must also satisfy the Commission's standards for admittmg late.Gled contennons, which are contamed
. *. I V. ' M m 10 C F R. ( 2.714(aHil. See rearrs@. et. Pec(/Ir Gas and Orcrrar Co. (Disblo Canyon Nuclear n N3'.M'. %' g .%g. t< '1 . af Power Plam. Umts I and 2). CLI.32 39.16 NRC 1712,171415 (1932), since the Commission nnds
- y,.i.3.. .d.
g,,*' that the remaimns portion of Joint intervenors' monon does not meet the standards for reopenmg. it
.,y '].. "y (r.. , G ' . . . M,,
,,. . need not address whether the mouon meets the standards for late Gled contenuons.
. e n .,
c.' V,{., u,,, '(.y , 1(s(. I
; ,g r $, . i/ ;.
.i
. y
- u. , ,1. g
.. ,I j b 'p" tY?f . t, 6 1 '
o r . , % . ;g - ,','
,. . o.
4
'gi, '(\
,. uI C.
% o' ..
g . 4
* * , , ,.i i
',./' .'t*
". g e
. - y,
- t *
,1 a
- i f *
.g. *' *
, e
, .' f i
g, A. O h. .. O I 8 O
. r. .
'o. . , ,, .
L_____________ __.___._s__E_______.___
m .. s .~ y. - - - p ._,,u a ..
, . ~
, ,, y m -
3,;
.% ' ***s'*
.. s ': * ' . . a *
,,,~.<g*.,' *,_-
,e'.
S.f,
- 6 a p~'
.* e. , ,
.: -s : -
, . ~ ; ,- .J. ,,
- h. ' p
.' .lpg :;h k,.y .h, b '. " W' , . N . [..~
,g u, , .
- c. .- sw,,
- u. c. ; -
l;...
.4-. .
,..,..'s wa.
l 4 , w - y-' ; 4. . +., . .u. .
. . 9 ,,, f . . f. .4
~
i L r gss, ,
. * ; .a .
.g -
n, . . 3.;?,, , y , y.~..
- 4. . ' . .. '.; , 4:q_,..;g
- v. ,
i, - e, rQy s. 'W.
. c:w. %p.. ! *.:"p.: . _.. . 2.2]
Tf
'h .
Z'[ A , .z.I., M. ;') , N i.
,!. y Board's authority sua sponte to pursue uncontested issues. We will dis-cuss each m. turn.
p3r.. .. Nk.iWi t.f%, .".- n,q
?,'s,.; .'W . N The Commission's Policy Statement on Investigations, inspections,
- f. m R j g M, .< "
and Adjudicatory Proceedings addresses the con 0ict between the duty to );.; " N ;' s.. M R O - disclose investigation or inspection information to the boards and parties (. " M ffEi.V 3M'if.'.. . ',X
- .-l and the need to protect that information. The Commission in that Policy Statement provides in certain circumstances for ex parte in camera pres.
(.M;r.1 y.h.N3 g?/.d@b /E; ,. - entations by OI or the NRC Staff "[wjhen staff or 01 believes that it has ['p'Spf$9.. a duty in a particular case to provide an adjudicatory board with informa-M{.3?F 9M N., yn-Q. 7 ' 'dt h tion concerning an inspector or investigation, or when a board requests such information. . . ." /d. at 36,033. However, these provisions come Q[: b f ; into play only when Staff or Of have new information "which is consid- ? l ( L j (( ;- ,1* 'e i ?. ?! ered material and relevant to any issue in controversy in the proceeding." 4 h-Q:'.N J; ?;h;.h,M ' .3 3] /d. at 36,032 (emphasis added). Previously uncontested issues raised in g a , ;,.., m, . . . . <,j.w., .. '. , wI
- a motion to reopen are not " issues in controversy in a proceeding" such rf. c. ., ; , <,.e J. .p , .,: :,;
t that the Policy Statement would come into play unless and until both r, y .c.g., '.
- v.1,4 #@ J- f Mf. l<J the motion to reopen is granted and the contention is admitted.*
Nor did the Appeal Board here have the authority sua sponte to seek 4" O f ? l. s;:
, . to obtain information relevant to the motion to reopen. Boards have the
? h.$ ..f-lC @Q
- 4. ' d,'" Vf8 J n.;
3 #. authority to examine issues not placed in controversy by the parties only where specinc facts are brought to their attention indicating that there is
.J g- jn : f r a serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security
@O @ ;.Qf'j k ' d~ ',,.@w....i.
- . 1 matter. See 10 C.F.R. 2.760a; Texas Ut/// ties Generating Co.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), CLI 8124,14 y.u ./K(Q* ; .; 4.pp, y y 7b~1]@ q and none N- NRC 614, 615 (1981). The Appeal Board made no such Gnding here,
~. could have been made because, as explained above, the mere y 'f6.W (i. 7 ' . } O pendency of O! investigations by themselves here - the basic specine h.d W .;d fact brought to the Appeal Board's attention - does not raise a serious
@g p.
. .e
.. W :,
$,.$.w.-w', .- Qc;Msafety C,y.matter. m.Y:' Accordingly, the Board had no authority to pursue this
<F *,.. matter as .t i did.8
, ' tw q, , ,,f ...y.. ' % 'h. > c " D y. .p t h, * \ (, , ) ?.f '?*'.N, G ,.y **;p> . i ?
<.N. &* y*;f, l,.k! s } ?li) ~i ,l ;,,' . Y.,
- n' ,y
'*, y % , .,
- f f. 1,,it,ss,* . e
.,. .c , [:, g Q'.;/*;.%$.'?g .
e
,e,. ,, .Y [J,'1.g; .. y 5 + * '.1,' ,
d' 4 Accordingly. since the monon to reopen in this case involved a previously uncontested issue, the $taff q,,7 e. ,.lt - had no " duty" to inform the Appeal Boerd that of had information "matenal and relevant" to the J /I/. dd e k , ' .,' motion to reopen, and the fact that the stafr advised the Appeal Board that of had informanon "related '*(;,d,l.,;;/.s.g.g'. 1 to" the monon to reopen did not give the Appeal Board the authonty under the Pokey statement to re.
"d ,.i quest Of to produce thalinformation.
Aj
., e % y
.p t '. s. i i ,
" \ %. *, " ;[ ) ,*y],
g* I At an operaung bcense heanns a board panes only on issues put in contest The decision as to all other matters which need to be addressed pnor to assuance of the license is the responsihihty or the y', . $r
.., j.'.D? 5v IW.',' . Q
. i* 2 :l]' Commission and stafroutside of the adiudicatory content.
The Commission will. of course. ouiside of this proceeding take whatever action is apprornais once y,'+.,j'. .,.- .,,. * . .,,.., of completes its envestiganons, and, if of develops nnformation impacians on the pubhc heahh and
. [;
- ie , '7 ,,Q,,
Y tj safety dunng its invesugation. the Commission will take appropnate schon at thtt time. 3 f,.'f.x
- p. xq
. M (.. ,....a... , C , .o
. .p.
;e y .: . y ,' , ."". . . *y e,:,m 3 . ..v.p $. . 1 ,
7 l ~ *., i. as
+'s p '
%1 4'..p, L
o. g /F
- g 4 gi
. . 3 .g.
J' + + . , ,
'%. ? , l' . g 1
. ' ,, ',b. e* / t'. , ( ,$. * '
, e
% ,c,., 3 ,.
;---- a .;;;; ,, a ,::'
r; 1,(.,-
.3 . . . 2~'.. .
r
.y . . ,m :;, v g :,;
y: ..F . ., ._ .,
. ..L.
e
- ~ : .
n .,, 7 .
.a . . , .
aV . , w' , ' . .
- w. . -
.' ., ,' :c.: . . 8 .. .
W* . (,( . . < , e i ., s ' . .e *# , ..
- ; .'p :. l. ,, / . .' Q ' ,:. w , ..? . '., } .,* a n
.v . ;~
.~ . , , .
. ., P ' ,
, ni ,, . ,
.: t
- n ',. , .
m
, . ' ' ..' . '- , ( ..
' v,.
q e
,. *. .o
+ . . ,
*. ,s .L .
J. . s: (s_ . ,
~ . , ..
s .. . . . . , t; +,c.,.,.4,,,...-
- ;c . .
. . . +w .e .
- e ~.
sea.. :;m...s. ...,.,.4 e t . 3. .,w -
- s. h
;c.n3 m.,;.;, m; t.W, g p -
III. 2 - .~.t..',
.. .A'3-::'; :%.
- m. w; if.,. .s,h, .
~. <
.f s. .- -
y,;;, .f,y . u3. . U :L' pl In conclusion, that portion of Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen
.,'. T ' $ . f ~ ;x Q U 'd which the Appeal Board referred to the Commission fails on its face to 1.:'h?d .. t ? ' }.4 1 meet the standards for reopening a closed record. In addition, the
%1 Appeal Board here did not have the authority to seek additional informa-p; .
..,...,n.,.3 p;CP.
.e.-: ..
V,. M'p ,;."*tion /J',E.from OI a!bearing on the motion to reopen. Accordingly, the remain-t E . .W. J:: w; i'WV, ing portion of the motion to reopen is dem.e d3 W 2. s *.-la,
. S.. Wl,y
. s,. .,3 Chairman Palladino and Commissioner Asselstine disapproved this 7, u. f .. ,
j; . ., . . .,: .,? Order. The dissenting views of Chairman Palladino, with which Commis-SN.. .J ; .f f .[..; ",' ' i sioner Asselstine agrer.s, are attached.
' n './;S ;L.p.,/5 it is so ORDERED.
. .-1 . x; ', . :.., ,. .d.a ,g1.,*w
~ . ~
I$s.;$e: i .' .1 M.G.$,n For the Commission ,e,,.;,;; a.... c. ...- _
.;.y., t . ; ,~. , .:;s ~ .,,. < n: , n
. v,, ,.o .,1 1 :.
* . *y , <{#j.,.,r Y
- p
.,3,!.,:
./
//fd SAMUEL J. CillLK
- 9. . .~. . 9,. . .:.e .'
ry. Wrt - Secretary of the Commission .v :.~ ; -
. . . y. : . . ., . .. ,.,.... .]
. .,.,,b,'.,.: .' .
Dated at Washington, D.C., . < :. : .d. \ w :-. M , . , M,n .% e ..>of, ,: ., c 4 this 30th day of January 1986.
. . ... ,e ;,-
- .t
.-.,g,,;. .
. i
,\a; '. .:. m.n.3,;.,. . ;.s * %
;.. . .; .m i
,1,..*k,,", . '
- f, . 4 .+., '.i;;q, 39 ,. .y, m,f DISSENTING VIEWS OF CIIAIRMAN PALLADINO
.u.....-. u, s,
' ...e
- g... w . . . j ,.
, % rMJ '- J. j'
- s. ; I would have preferred that the Commission postpone ruling on the 2.q;f .. motion to reopen and request clarification from the Appeal Board in Rs .T.<,: p:f. ce -
J ..A~3 *f 7. :?jf; order.,J. to determine, v,' / exactly what type ofinformation the Board wished to u m.; . p' M .,. t uf. 1 obtain from 01. Upon reply from the Board, the Commission then could l f in.r !, i ' have determined whether or not to remand the motion to the Appeal i h%[d 1 l /'@ N'.,. Board, with appropriate instructions, or take some other action. In addi. @ci'. - (, , cf , tion, I do not agree with the statement in the Order that the NRC Staff ['k kl!. ..
,2y y %,.. p'. > :'yj had no duty to inform the Appeal Board of the O! information. I believe W., '.s, ' , " . , . : < '.c ,~, 0. . ,. .d .
that statement is not consistent with the Board Notification policy as im-
, .lG" . ,. ; #'?']. , .6k. . .,; .
piemented by the NRC Staff. f,.~~,,re.f. .u t. a' h .'
.4. br - ~' ;
,: .. b . . .
,, . 6 . 's ,. , ^
fe t .f# ,. *** ,.. g ' ) . ' ';.;.. L .J .
- c. , . . s . . ,3 . .,,. . . , , . 3
- p. .
. : e . ' *'
. i /.?:. ** sf M.e,. .,l ', ' ..; q-9'.f
. .e *
.*,.'.t. 2 -
'.1
'S *r * : . .! .
4. l
,'h.', t . , . ,Pi ,i [ ,
8 The Commnsion. in view of its decision that the standards for reopemps are not met, need not address
.) g ' 'l, . ~ ') whether the Appeal Board had Jurndiction over this remaimng aspect of the motion to reopen.
3 f.'
,a
.l*.4,,,
.':y ' .;e, *, ' ,,,.. . . , j q*
y ;..v1 3 s.. t .. *, i>*",4 4 e , , I j.,,, G /
%.;t- jt )
4
. ' . ' q..* i' ,,
< ,. -r" 8'
- s. . F. .,
.(A
?-.
. c.,. . . a .- ....s . ...
'v ;- * '
*y.
- 6
) , 4 .
',,. r .' '. .
* , ) i, 3
< . -e i
, , ' o' ? . .
, f. ..e.;tj
. , . 3..*
- u '.,
. , _ +c* ' ~
." l- ' : ,o s'
; P. ' w .. y: . .' 's .~w ,, m. f+.'
., 4 s -
*e.,
.. .. . c.':N. tep,-e, J '
- s. .,,,
+
n.. . 1a. , . . : . -
- t. .
t .. ; ~ .. . . - .;,. ,
.'m l: ,. u'.N,:
,: ,. $ .Y h .'. 0 '-l Y.'j' .
* * ' O .; . ' *
. . y ,. , . - , ;3... . _.Y . ' ' ' * '
. o.
, , , , , , 4. ' t . % . e #
. *r .. ,a", , 4. .- - .
. , ,. D ,
, .e. ,,.
4
. .! M' .
, . , , s .. s -
's-. c, . . .
- * '. t< , - " 3
. .,J:
-'*s.% % .
- 4. ' .
..,.,.6.._<t..,.
s
'. ;.' e,n .,
.(, ',. ' . . .*- , , > ; "> '
^ ,.,'.. . <, , ,#.. .
- . ; . 6'; , . . L y *: .
.s,.*
. . . . .C , ,
?. .4.s..'.m ,. . .
3 .w . i
. </ * ::. , t
- .; . n:q ; R.. L ,.)j,,:p, . = a, . .... Q. . .
, _s
(,,..,..~ Qs'".cQ),. 4#.
;g;.Q.* s ,.m Cite as 23 NRC 9 (1986) ALAB 827
.m
.w y .: :
- i. . - . 'de;.y ih.gG. :.xw ., y{ .,
- *
- 6 CQ.u.c'g..'4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i.* p-,f,Fi E i M .f,.,?C $1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. m sw -
% W .p;p.a.7 &s
, . ~ :y. .. ,r p...W?c .-4lg. d
'. ~p./:' . s.g..r,%:..
- y. ,,ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD mem . , , ...
.; x4;C g%t.:.m.-4 A : &
L. . T. 'h.8. .
..c.k. *
.,...+
.a.:,'.d..,M@. &.y/.Administrative 4
.,7..s.NJudges: 5.j.:.
'v. ,' @.. .,.9' p>-a
- c. .,s.r N.q+.u. 4,. i.. y.1.F.M. .apr. -l
, . .. :n.,J Alan S. Rosenthat, Chairman , . W. mi.. ..:4 t,' * . l -l :; ,: . Gary J. Edles Sii'7;v'?p;.:
- v> Howard A. Wilber
.f.*c.@.,bp%i:,..A.b.*,M.
~
.r -p-. p. 4
, t.r
. r<..,,....i.;*
w.. p &
..s...%w.,yt
.u. 3, . r,. .9 1 l ? NU. .
j .U"* # la the Matter of Docket No. 50 322 OL-3
' .U; '. )m ' M' F. ., '&. l. , . . . . *,
.. (Emergency Planning)
- 7. ,* ** .p.'*
e . ..,= * ,, . ' tr; q O W.b.'.>.N: [&?. _q
'y LONG lSLAND LIGHTING
,. f.f' .
COMPANY
'..* M.p.Z, ;.4 ey v ~,m ,a .c. ; . .,.. ,. v . v .;. . e 3.,.i
- f. . ,',M .
,,1
.S y./. W:, d,[f. D.h.
,t d (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) January 9,1986
.s 4 e .
sM 'p r:3. W-cfy..,
;n m . ,,. . .W:. .L'
~ . x ,.. ss , .~ ,v >
.y v.n w ..,,
@s.t ', e<q.g.. ,m . ..:n,The s Appeal Board denies the intervenors' request for leave to file a
.e.M,.cW. .q
@.. . .,w.~, :sT 20 page briefin addition to the 100 pagejoint brief already filed by them.
...- .2. Z,..', . ,3.70.
t t
,.v.r...,,,. n
-...n:.
.e
.# . t ..:t. .. .f .s..
.e..
# .;7 ; v . ...
4 W g w* s,pc - . RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEFS
%, . : m : ..jd@~?,hMU, ~h.The Commission's regulations impose a 70 page limit on appellate f,r.g. 4.1 ..s.. [ >.*.,2 ,M, . ) briefs. A motion requesting an increase in this page limit for good cause n <.:.. b- AS v,i
{ may be made, but such a motion must be submitted at least seven days 7..%.. "j. ;;6.a(.nfb [ 'gr. ., e k el,in advance of the due date for Aling the brier.10 C.F.R. { 2.762(c).
- f. ,
.,. , v:, ,. . . v #. ... i.<,. .. ., , , .
.t.
Q,.. . .." ..' y Q.
.",. (s.'- f, . . <., . y .% . ' ' @. ,
d RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW Gh.N, ,, w h,o:n k.)w.'.
- Not every error of a hearing board justines an appellate remedy.
y-T.
.*-]' -
T*) ;>NV. f. *.6 ..g.?*,.
- f. i
; , ' te
- d
,,.g*
; Y*u6' -:. ;n.,..! ,pj '
.,"(. *4 o
'},
6 y S/. , f.i
,.' ..'4,',**.'w"...',i..t~.> y ..
' ' ' . * = *'g, v
. w p '!.'. p , .*/ . . t .;
y*1 i,.i, ..e C'N.y *p* h .k/ # N ls -e
.*'q- ~
t
* : h,, [ se, ps, p* * , ~ ; ,"..; ., 1
- g. '
ce .,g*i. 3- L'G .* h" g! )T 5,'k' . - d' '; 4 ,'. .i.' t , 9
'/! '.' t ?, i ., * . ) , * ' j 8 :
"q , .,,;, , !
I l** f.
> 9%, .
.J.".
V *
,g .
.e .
.,;+ .
, . % i; .
,' ' **
- s' s ,a */i.,,,,',* '
- j .- l ,..
, 1
\
,',' * '+
- t.
8 2,t,, e
.. 4:
8, j , ,1' ~4 [. , , * .
,' se .E 8, .P 9 I ,
, . + '
,.. 3.. . _, _ j
< ., w: - . A x.W y.: q q ~ a,
- y. s .; ,b .. 'q ,(.
n..
~,y
~
. . . o . .
' , ' ,n , .. m/
- - , y. . . ; .n*,
, ,' + . ,
,p'* .*
t'.
< 31 . .'M*y ,
y ,-
^, j ,
+*
. m u, : . f . . . . .-; .. . ; ,. . . . >:- .
gQ ,%,;.r '. R @MW f,,':+,.. .r ?i'n>; W,.s.,' '., ;e. '- s';n ,'
.z * ,
., y. f.
s
..e. " . . ,
. $., ,4 ,
=
so
;,s t
t, m y a>.-
- l > ,, ,,
., 1 ,_ ,
~
s
..a.
- ~ . *
.."u
,, .g; ,. , s< 9 .,, rc . L;.,;. s.
.. . ^ > y .
Gy C, .8f l:', . ^. ' f.
.c .,n w, Lc.i. n z?.,S:.a x e .w . n.w; .:m. %. .,,
&.@%).;4.r.c@Mr,. w M. g ~.7*i.R W+.c *
. .. w -
RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW
- m. ..
E.v g.h ., ; .~ :.6 4 Appellate review is not intended to offer losing parties a forum for , , u.,@M:.2dW[ hR .; t ', g' simply . .. renewing . claims presented to, but rejected by, the trial tribunal. ?.?'?: e
- J:.'pc ,,o. W:.c,n /. q; n.%g L 1 f.g RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW
;li f/ id.,J, . 9 r. m@ . .. .
a . .c < . .
- . d'Tj"[.Q [* i(c3. Proceedings on appeal are intended to focus on signincant matters,
~
" G e;-J .; not every colorable claim of error. See generally Jones v. Barnes,463 U.S. q [.l f '", M4 ,,,^, .t;;,s.1, a 745,752 53 (1983) (the purpose of an appellate presentation is to select K. , , .T,x .. l.g, ,s b./..M c9..'?.y;% I the most promising issues for review). See also id. at 761 (Brennan and A.. ..J.t..W.e 3 . Marshall, JJ., dissenting) (good appellate advocacy demands selectivity w ; e , $[ M
- idk%, among arguments),
O'/.^. . W.c. r, ., j,% e.; s,. ,,,e. . F, . \,;; b.,.:: W.' 4g.psm:.e,.
. - L
.t. g , ,t.2 ;N
&ly);:'s n;tmW j MEMORANDUM AND ORDER W 3 6 : .:.a.e.. M,, r.< .; a,w. .$> , .,hu.".. ,, d.n '.'d- . . ,s,. i . y,c os' <.s . /i*; IdT [N, .. ?.ep .** [.K The Commission's regulations impose a 70 page limit on appellate
.l .$ .h> briefs 8 Intervenors Suffolk County and the State of New York sought
. L ;, ,i t;p.
- 3 /4 y . q f ey ***c ',.'M .S. s leave to Gle a 165 page consolidated brief in support of their appeals Y.. F ./"- ,W . Q .j~ g "t*d] $. j W ' ff from one of the Licensing Board's partial initial decisions in the M !.%,../'My.
r y,Q,glWC, emergency planning phase of this operating license proceeding.2 in an
- g. ^- '. N 7 l: 1, 1d '
unpublished May 15,1985 order, we authorized the County and State to /;.@.M,.,% 7 ' ,9 :y.] Ole either a consolidated brief not to exceed 100 pages or separate W .,/%.gf.h :.% 70.page briefs in accordance with the regulations. Thereafter, the parties ,l. !' ;2.AQT.;f .gf moved for reconsideration of our May 15 order; specifically, they sought
. ,' ; w 3:. 3 .emi; ,: i y.< leave to Gle separate briefs not to exceed 100 pages each. We denied
... C,. W
*y gy.
.. that request in an unpublished October 3,1985 order.
Q,:?.? N. '7 f !'. Q %y The County and the State, together with the intervenor Town of Southhampton, have filed a 100 page consolidated brief. In a footnote M i.m. ' ! .. ./he ,f. f.!, W. ,.. ,,r. :. frq contained in the brief, the intervenors now request leave to Glc another [. -..4, S,;. - , . , f.,+. .' .s 20.page brief to address additionalissues. We deny the request. g.AM., V. , .fz *, .n i.y'7.
?1. . , .... .
q q We see no justification for any further enlargement of the page limit. In accordance w.th i our earlier orders, the two intervening parties had
- i', ..g?a. 'i..y; .;d@, cK *.;, .;.q! the option of filing separate briefs (with an aggregate total of 140 pages) f*,C,/..*.j*6PQTd,I q
- k. '.n illi.,. .,M., .J+ tPr.. t.e
, m or a consolidated brief not to exceed 100 pages. They selected the latter
.s a 7ws o
} . "' a,' 6 1/. . ., * , ..: ?g . .u,.e 'i N, , ./,s.... , ; *41
, *., p*. p ( p, a. ,, a, *r . 1n i .;,A <, 3(. ,.:
,q'.. *le., ' .as.. $ 'f e, t.?. '. .v ,. .W 4 T, e. ',+,v's.
s ,f
.* .yp.,.7, . p w Y,
'M< l 10 C.F R. ( 2.762(el.
y'U (!L: , ,,; 5, p.*f.i:[p:yy ftl6l
'f
.,,s
, . t
% ,? .
,'T 2 3,, Lap.gg.12. 21 NRC 644 U985L La , V,. @. d ',.; j. 2' , , i , .j ca n ' . s. ..;'c p y y[, .. j:), .y . >.y i m., ., . gg 1 r m; ,
.>. 3.A.,;, ,4,y*.' k\ g, , w*1
,. , .e I 4.* Jd, ab l " . * , f..r , -
% , .,I . , ,4 A, ; ,
\* l *...I,f
'd ' s .
s.., : .% .. 4'v i'.. . , r.* . . . - ' ? t, ,
'..?e***."' .,
I l h ',9 ,5*'
=
y . ,. .
,t ' t 3
,1 l
., 3
. .I l
.'., i.
i
.. 1
. . . . .' . .. a*,t
" 1
* .2 .t '
... 4 , , ,
, a
. g ., ,
I c . v' '
.. < r, m. . . - c ~- .-
,- , .y . +
- w. . ..f ,,.- , ~
, . . ,. p e y- -
-;, e;
- l
-,g
. - a. ..
+ .q nu.
~
'C..Q{ ::l.. .. . [y'? .>: > j~ V' ~ - .
? , ,, .p .'i - e. ' %'
- '.Q . .
.,y.,., .
,. , a r.- . ..
.. .. . .s.. ,
> % <a ,-
a ., ms - s .
. .. , , s ,. , .
. a. . u. wir. x b. .c . .. .s _
. - } ' Q.l m
c .ek.x. W:~Q i
- . d '. % .. , .
4 .s. T . , ,,, , . ; fr*. VF,~ .Mg./M' option and we see no reason why they should not be bound by their elec. Q, ..Wa .*... r* 4. . %. s . ,D,
. . tion J g < , ' , .f r ' 4.cF N 4 E,.- .
The intervenors aver that, despite their etTorts to produce a concise
+ ) M ' [' ',; k product, the additional issues could not be covered within the 100-page limit.* They argue, in this connection, that "no signincant error" in the
. " h.S'b ./D' ' , ;Wd f .Msa.i ;g,.g.;r$
Licensing Board's '.ydecision should escape appellate review. But, contrary f to intervenors' apparent belief, not every error justiGes an appellate
. h ('t. 7 W .d Y %.
s W.; ., '
.. remedy. Our experience, both generally ana with respect to earlier ap-WK /,.f@M~ .
r :.. , o e, M, l, peals in this very case, satisSes us that every assertion of error does not f yf translate into grounds for reversal of Licensing Board determinations.5 p,., M.l9 J ~ :d,c i
. 4(,@%R. j].d)
Q Equally important, the number of pages contained in the appellate briefs does not bear any necessary relationship to the substance of the issues 2 raised. (,
' -% @././;,' ys Y ,' M L .e '/Kj. @' h Appellate review is not intended to offer losing parties a forum for t
"~,4A. ..
pc, . ..').M.a
. simply renewing claims presented to, but rejected by, the trial tribunal.
L, :. ,; To be sure, NRC licensing proceedings ordinarily involve lengthy evi. j ^ggy n . dentiary records and present numerous complicated and detailed techni-
- h.g)/7[y cfh. .
cal issues for resolution. In recognition of that fact, the Commission, in w . nj 4 iW contrast with many federal agencies, has provided two levels of appellate F,'n,s['( e?. q{ review, and appeal boards frequently examine in some depth a wide
' c'.??j9,
' M range of technical and legal matters. But that does not alter the funda-
'.c. f g . , . g-[.; f.5 mental purpose of appellate review. Proceedings on appeal are intended 1.
,. ~
- ,? cgyq,qy;W:
W:g . to focus on signi6 cant matters, not every colorable claim of error.6 We expect advocates to cull the issues and arguments to be pursued on
- M Tj 6' M ,..? appeal.
,@ . y; &, : S.;..l;f
. c. g,.....1.-
. ., : . + . %
..w at., .
4 2- - y ,, cp ,, % , 4 5 : =ap ..4
+2 e . % . ,, s v. w; d.
') , '" ., 'W' , m. . : , . .-&t%, ,\ , ,A.x f'.
'i.se. ~.g,
' *. 10. ' O.4,y>.-T,, f,M ' ' .?'.'M e + ;s ,..,.n. i i..*4
*l y*(:. % .! .t[s, y h.
*. .K d,f4 ,,:%..y%wriQ
' 3 hJ,V.*s 0 -';. *. [f d *Q.G [-[E,k , ', d;vance
,* We 3 note, in addeuon, that the most recent request for additional pages was not filed seven days in ad-of the duc date for fihng the bnef as required by 10 C.F R. { 2.762(e). The request could be sum-
.;w
# 's Q ,% ? *j q:'.4' .] ' manly denied on that ground. Moreover, the "monon"is contamed m a footnote. There is no mdecanon
? .1 '
- P f. i v ,'7,1. ' on the face of the bnef. in the Table of Contents, or, mdeed in the Conclusion section that sets out the
', . 'j j prayer for reher that the mtervenors seek any eattargement of the page hmit. We expect an arrirmauve "[ ' - ~ * * 'If ,..7 '.4., e7. '^[ ,9[' oj =, " ,M.-
request for rehef, such as an applicatson for enlargement of the page hmit, to be set out prommently. 1x .N 5.7 - ';. t.dr. ' J . Cf DwAt Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear stauon, Umts I,2, and 3), ALAB-457,7 N RC 70 (1978). If ,4 4 Those issues include the evacuauon of the transsi-dependent populauon a,td the identincation and t, .
., ~ . 4,Q,rj
*TN . .p 'Q .,V Ml*-, $'.N.b;'; '.
,j i nouficanon of the handicapped and the deaf. suMolk County, state of New York and Town of south-hampton Bnef on Appeal of Licensms Board Apnl 17,1985 Parual Imual Decision on Emergency Plan-
.. , . .t ' 9 l nmg (oct. 23, 1985) at I n.l. The mtervenors nonetheless appear to have referred to these issues, at
^* .
' i" ; m,' . : Y
-9p ff.d.@ . C "3 y (,
least in part, elsewhere in the bnef. /d at 79. 5 See, e s., ALA8-788,20 NRC 1102,185I (1984).
.[
( ,*.. K (g .j,. J ,W ;~ ., 6 See generally Jones v. Barnes. 463 U.s. 745. 752 53 (1983) (the purpose of an appellate presentauon is
/..a **,p. .<.- 1
'C N .. -' [ I:j to select the most promising issues for review). See also af, at 768 (Brennan and Marshall, JJ. dissent-mg) (good appellate advocacy demands selecuvity among arguments),
p
,.. * .*rj4 ,,,f[s . %..P j s ..,I..
e X'i ,
'iy~ , h'I '
% ?r';., y ., . 11
. .. > - +
y .
,e . y
. .g .g . % * .
.,v
.P
^..:
.g ,
,~
,y
. a .
.Q f ' '*
b
- g
, ,. . . , ,). ,
'"o .' ., f n *
, , ~ t.' ~w
. .. ,., .- , - e. .. ,,- .. , n',
Af .: .c y. ,
=
.s e , , .. ,
4
-:n .
.. . . , b.. i -
. r( , . , . . ~ v,.. . < . . . , .. ,q .-,
. s .
~
,.- - ~ , 4 s
. y< , -
-s. :,
. s
. s
,~.. .
- c. . . . ,
w- ,
, p:,. -
..,. .....m;
. . p... .. . :m.4 , .. '. . q.o .
...gcp. :. a. y. s y,i a. l
, = ,. '.- c .,.3 Intervenors' request for further enlargement of the page limitation is
. f. 4 ,
L.( .y .&. .4 ', O,.
, l %.
.. . ."--,e k- , ,
denied.
.,7 g:. ,i.y: a.r. . .g It is so ORDERED.
v: . u:g'. .e.: , r - , ;
- : a v ;,~ ',
- 3. .
. ..:. ' . N:. . .'a.' .. e. . g ., : . , FOR Tile APPEAL BOARD
'n. * ,, .a,... V,'. *
- f. [. 8N......r...w, ,g .,.C. c.
-5 ..
. , , , ..fc. + . . . .. s. -..
,q,.. .- t'J y . ..c Wt.,.., . ", f...
i
.. s . .
C. Jean Shoemaker
'D . ,
- 2 . ' ' . . y ,', a ca. ! > Secretary to the j.s ,f. .l.) ' p.,% , .f -l, . <
Appeal Board q
>.,?..
- * * .g~.***.. ,4 ._s T'
.. g < ,, , ?.,,eir ~ ,., -.%" i; , g
- 4. .t .* *.-* ..
4 *** .t,
., t <
, .1'.-..
# , a
-,e,.a4 de'"J .
) g g- ".,g*'. L . ?.tv.(r
. .
- g* ( a . A' .
- e. (... ,8.
- . .o .*,i ,
*- '8
.e,
. - , , - .s .j , s ,, - s . , .,
g
.* W. $I p d. [* - e g .g g
;..: % ,. .g s, ).
'li. ' s.
' 59 ; . ,;. :.,'u ,
,; .,-,(_$,
3*:,7
. ." .,f.*
. x x .. ' ' "-
s h n y[
~
' . . . -- . #... '., j ,"
, '.,e..
4.[;4
. * ,.,t'# ,I
,. ' s
. e ,.z 'g t 4
-,~,
g ' f. "% i T e *. P .-
'sfi .g g
. g',
.g . w l-h ',I .. -
( ( *1 ,rg, -
, h,,Y. - }f2 -
.'.] a. [= g ,s, M ,g s ev,..r. ,
.o, , , , ;-
e s . . s
' ,,j '1S. . ..
'. .s .,
;. , e ,.4,, ,, .y,,a
. . s.
;y i
.i ..,.f *\ '
.i %
.-, .$ .w' , ,. w . ; w., , vr
. . . , ',p 8 :
J,. 1 j'., g. N.e. ,.D4-' J .*e. * *
..e..,s,' ..,9..'.\.*g g 4* .')' .8. 3 #'
a . d
.% , e
.,;), j . < ' ;- n.'a p . :-- i ')
g.. = - 7 ; .-- .. %-- o
. .n , , , ,,
,t e
;s.x' .. L ;1.: ^ ;,.,,, -
2 : s*3..
) <,
, ..,L * :s '
..)
s .18 ' . s gy'g,.,,- I, s ,, .i 1 s v
,.a . .t g
.'*..'pe.'.<!/f, . , , .,A . .w, y - . ,-{
- s v
. . .* .. 4 s .* :, .
i e' * ,. . , fy * . 'I .-[
'. q
. .F . . m o* . ,. s[ . 8
. sd .
g ' f' j ' . F . .). h 'e, g . ,, , ' -- (- s . , x , + >; e. .'.. : .. . ,: .
.,v'.,, . . g..,,..s - . .,..9 4.f s ,s:.
2
- s. , y. [ ' i' g . . * , .. -6.[),. .I . ' . . r*[ " '
3.., e
.3.*- a. -g',6.*
, f
. ' *{
C
% ..' is, n *'%?. .*;. .'.i .,. .i. . *
- i ,j
. " b' s - . 4. ./ e - ,
4 es ,.L ,n .1
-w- . ,, -} ,*m=',e'g I,& d/ '- $ghf ,
T
,5 g 1 ; ,.' T.* . w 3e . *t, ? . ) '.- 1 y p+-s. ..%. 6 -
.'3.- ' $.;* .*
* . .'. %e. . *.* s y' ..,.
[T ,W +7 ',h... a
.*.,s,. * , e . . . , *Sfy.m.Wh t . 1 '
q w.,' . ,
;e. , - ,,,A..g .. ,
.p ..'t,
$ +3 , ,N '-s' e . .S,
- y. *- *. .' , g. /* '4"? '
,4
,y e *I ce *
'~.
3,
.,.y6,, .
..,I.*.. .s.<..."."a, .W g 4
*s;sh...,
n
,, 3 1
d,P A. ,e s.%
- e'). ' ..I
,.gkd *,* *g. . ,
**et * , 4, e
e
/
,,,',**.f,9 #. .-i
* ,r. ,,,. , !..'/s. ;. , r,
- s,y ^. V. . ' ., . 1
> e ,
12
= 5
.;s . . e. '
.t .. , ,
. .s ,
- c. p . .g . . * :: , g*
,sg eh" g, *w-4 9 a. I, *3-
.*e. 'r,y
- e, . , .
, e
- e',. e d g 9 ,
G
. 1-
% 8 .
- g .
.g s.
, ,y, ,
- e a
s 9 I** , g
w , . ;. . ~ .y
. - n . ..
a.;;p u.
.;.~ ,-a--
w .-~.e.:; -, -
.c._ .
v
~
- u. n . ..= . : ' 2
. vp:: r- y. .;.
- i .
. T. .
.u. . . _;. . : n .: , . . , .
ndah, _.. .
. O.6 . , .:, a . . ' -l .s .,: .si- . ... ^.:!? l v.. . i;]$ !%. e,;D&v'h ~' ^~ M
~ .
S' '.
- n.. <y- . , ;.;o:
-c .
;- ., r
...:.,'. f-
, *.c .
.;-}. , g. , , , , % i '
, c ,.:,;'; .'g, j; p. : .y.-
*: a., l.
-..~-;.'
. . , , , .,.~'/
- , .i-. '-
- ?, .. -h .d.' <
,. . + - -
, y..,.y :' k- ;i ; ,'. 'y Q ;' . ,
'.'...~.,:.N g.,g;; ;. .b -
; em.;. , c. '. .. :.. n>,
t'g . . ,
- . 3,.
[ ysliiy, 3N',2 ' i' s , W .;, Cite as 23 NRC 13 (1986) ALA8-828 q;nl
- m. p >.
9,
. l.~n. - . W**, a . :.
s.%, V .s>l t-M;l,;
,y
' <l..if: .
,~ <!g' .' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(~"W' :;h .: 3 r
.'.M f;, ",x .'Tr.m 3
; ev' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.< :; * ,:.? . ,. m. ,
%.s 1.
,-- c g ' .',', ' N. ,. - .f. . ,M. <
m.1Q
.w :
- ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD n
4,
- .-~~ .:.. .,; w-
; % ~. c.i
$(.,,.:.. Qf . n'{.D4.Q. ..:&&
.. s,7e.gr y : .-
iP u Administrative Judges: y$q.:w
' jl y.
i
'l- *; <.,yyf:J,.:y:. p h .t,. C,Q[ ,5 (}
. a~)
,; ^.
..,n,.
.:... ;.. ; 'd,,y,4 f,
- . . a v f. .? Christine N. Kohl, Chairman T
s . . /f. , . . . ' ..:.y 6. . . *. .. L'. . 4. .a,.h. , Gary J. Edles 7."~r.Q Dr. Reginald L Gotchy p-;'gW,',.U.- ., -l l~?'.3..*l 1 ,l. &
.m. ,- . . . . -A . > . 7< f...
N ,,- ; , . . ,,w- .. . , .1
. t.f,.g.9 7; w- . ,^ ;. ,<c; ; .c . :'
m r c .?. '. In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-352-OL s.. .
~-
m, .7,.,.....
.n. i.- A, .
- . ,. r .i..c. py.~ {
50-353-OL 8 wl.-e . l.t .i..~ . . - ~ .C#
.. .. .M.. . . PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
/..,M... ,
, , .' ,; 1,-@g. % (Limerick Generating Station,
. g.
J,*. [ k d ' Units 1 and 2) January 16,1986 c.:w[:'.y :'$l.,- n::A ;.<s
.~4 ,
,.-. ,~ .i: .c..s- :. .?. u M.p. . yf ;e N 4+.3: M * : 4 m:.: ,q The Appeal Board affirms the Licensing Board's denial ofintervenors' e.v 9. .,.. h. a
. po . e . %. .# M.,. e
.n. x
*h.
..~ l: ' ? . % -a . r.w *
?! request to reopen the record m. this operating licer.se proceeding.
. e ?,1.;, e
= +?. : ~.;
' C f s; +G n % p',.'l? .
?'%
c .:.p.g-M. .:..N. 4+dt RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS f5g;3;ym.. A D %::.% .'G.f a: f.;.1 .3 In ruling on a motion to reopen the record, adjudicatory boards con- $,;;,;q(,.j sider three factors: (1) whether the motion is timely; (2) whether it ad-w- l M $ JM1 4,'j.gg.
,7,
. g., g f.M y.j dresses a significant safety or environmental issue; and (3) whether a different result might have been reached had the newly proffered mate-
.ys y ;'%w .N.-f, i9,7 *
%.~5..,e*% * .f%,
. rial been considered initially. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island
;. % .g.( 3.- =%.% gf:J:.- Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-2, 21 NRC 282,235 n.3, reconsideration denied, CLI-85-7,21 NRC 1104 (1985).
yQJ ' n.: .;;, .. e.:, m ?, j' .s-? %.m.@(;,a
.4+--. 2 -
e -. s s
- i. .
gf.
- .- y ; s..J.
. . . .~ .[. .: . ,.mT ..) .
RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS G7'd;1 # When a motion to reopen seeks to inject an entirely new issue into g.
:.a.:.3 .' Y'i
';; . ,;* V
, ,; .o
.Ai' M
-3. ,
the proceeding, a board must consider both the criteria for reopening s' ., S W
*? s ,.'s /- =i - y ./ .~' ,.. ; - 4 .? 4 .
i',' g . :
; ',jp (;]
c ,. ..
.d . . . , ...t, ,:.. ,<-3a.c . -:) , ... .,w : ,
. s;. -
a, 3, . -, s 13
. * *.'i
[ ,
% 8 .
' {. , , .
g
- g. .
g ,;-* , *g g " g ._, . ',= ,
, [. - .'y
+
- 4. . . ' . , , . -
g* -. o .- --2; e . . *
-[ ,,-
p . .
ma7 - .
. 7 '
- y. . .
~
.' A , * *. < * .g s 7.., r,.., . e c. .-y 7 , . ,* ; ;.< ',q.,.
. ~ * ' . - .;, ~. . , . ,. ** , *s-
= ' . . e 3, . , . , . . .
l'.. Q4.?.9.C:#.g.l..N:,;..
..,L..','..
y ,.
- s. ,
o,
.., .; . , (.
S:;. f. . O ,(.l,4. , ;;, . s ..
~
..%.q
,u .,
. g
..j- .
, s . i .
r n.. ..
~
s - c.... m.,*,.
......,s .e
, ;' ;n , y, .. . .
o ., . . . . j, p % ',./. .c. . , , , ,
,...y ,, c,1 a ., i ..
3.r e *1 s
.. ,E. the record and the standards for admitting late. filed contentions, set
.i;.pt.t.,w . i forth in 10 C.F.R. f 2.714(a)(1). See Pacvic Ga; and Bectric Co. (Diablo g/ .3-%> 3.,.. ,3, .
. . . . 6l ' h . i.2'.C Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 82 39,16 NRC 1712, p.' M@ l,$Ey ; , 1714 15 (1982).
A p .y M... m, ,; % %.
. . ~ <MM. ~ oI.E ,$ . i , RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS w . m .m' s .4-Section 2.714(a)(1) sets out the standards for admitting late-filed con-
- f. f'.".,'ced;
. (2.. r.
.f'..
. &; tentions. They are:
E '; d'n.
.w*.N.g%.. ',
~>." ?' .~x .' N,.o',
r**,, . . ';;r (i) Good cause. if any. for failure to file on time; S.4.
'*h, SDO[.: 'A'f.f..*f;$ , ' * . ., . ' ' (ii) The availabihty of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be ,.A ,,*/ N D,: , ', fa .
protected; 7.c.f.Jg,1 SjZ ' 13 (iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation rnay reasonably be expected O ['*j to assist in developing a sound record; M.* u,'O[. . ,, , fj
-i..y (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing 6 . . W. . ..s . k .s ' .'/1 m .
. .s. . >. .
' -. .:s parties; b'$.
N ' . g., .'
'g*.h.M (v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or L ....' j.7(1. . . , r. ** .-
delay the proceeding. Q. h, ?.m...j . e . -- ..'. .- .'.. . .
-9., :Sj@>. 0,17
'2 ,
.2. RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS flj.z'[I!?*. ,; " ,
M The Appeal Board has consistently applied 10 C.F.R. { 2.714a(b) to l ' if ' . .
*,' 1, appeals from orders that have the effect of completely denying party f,f.,2'; . hh- .
~
status to a petitioner. See, e.g.. Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Ska-
- j. 'yc.
; git /Hanford Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), ALAB-712,17 NRC y:N,1,C.' ,.w y ,"
s :i 81, 82 (1983). The briefing schedule for appeals from all other types of
.. :.% ,9 : ! s . - .
d k final orders, however, is that found in 10 C.F.R. j 2.762. j . .r . * ; e < } '; , . , y ei . . .,s
.>. : n .
w +.y ,
.... . n 3 4 . , . .
- c, ,4m, ".,' .j Sgg ' , -; RULES OF PRACTICE: RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES
- r. 4a L' q ,
'C).y. g. cyA* , s, Parties to adjudicatory proceedings have an obligation to monitor pub-
- p.hD . . , !, 7 j licly available documents with a view toward raising issues in a timely
.c h,GW7,.r .*
,l.
-2.,-
.d
' i fashion. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2),
. , c O, ' , ) . . ,
;, CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1048 (1983). This is particularly so with re-
.' )t.;9 i $ .i '3,7 .1 spect to environmental impact statements, which are expressly intended J.M',*D;4
.-e.
W.;> . - ., y ; .
< .r
. . .s .4 I for public scrutiny and, if necessary, litigation.
gy.g <ti ./ ?.f" , . 1
, .a
.' d RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS M, . 1 .; . y?. ,. 'i,. 4 ;$ d N.!y :c @y ;
i (.*..s. .i. .. .. ts
..., n.-
^
n a a The most important factor of the three-factor test for reopening the J7i , Q. . . g.,.,
- .,../
e . record is whether the motion raises a significant safety issue.
$%. e it. i g.! s. '
9.i; .d
- . s. .
" .W,~. :. . * ' ' si.iw. . :[6. ,. .e '.,, < * . ..> . .
I pg'Wn .. + ',
- Y ., ' .
t
%***$.',,~,' .",1 .? y
- i,.j
. q..:. ; . .
1 i.* , . af n' ' q. 'J *\ 1
.f .
G
+
,'. .,a, .
. +
* , , ' . .*s f *%. ' , . * * * - .' ' ' *{,* % ,.g. ,,q.. .j ,,, , ,,
.1 " '. ' #2
, - t
,,+4 W 'I* 3
# ,. g '.
<e i, lg~,
. , ~l ; < .. .
,p, h )..,' ,,
. ,',~' ,. .y,l, ' J,
.w ..,
['. . . g
.m .. ,,
t% -, s',,
s'a."-
- i
.- 4 _- g
- , , };.
y y;. _
, , .,s. . . . . ' ~ . . - .,'s.
.,e,
,.ne .' ,
q '. sf g ; ,. s. . .."s ,
-. . . . , .y .
7 , .,.
, . , , _ ,.2 n .. - : 9; ., ..
- h;i:5. '
. ,3 ~ . :. . ' ; .; & . ' '.
. n, Ol.h 4
.k l f)? j '" ' ? li ;
' b. '
.a.- . . - .. r .,
> ~? '
[ , r.. . .~v ~ 'n[sf.>
- 4. ,. t ..
. m .x. .,
v _ , , .n . . >
. ~ . - . . .u.
- 3 _ , h . 'i .- -
t.u ..
y,.;,m;r:
.m -
, ,])t.
~-
x;;O;. v.% :;.J a ' tr. {.1 g .d APPEAL BOARDS: SCOPE OF REVIEW
. ~s
~.M?f <. M?{ ;,f'f 7;i Appeal boards generally do not consider matters raised in the first in-
? 'c- '
stance on appeal; rather, appeals are decided on the basis of the record 3 ; -@f ' ~ ^,ti.j,1,
.~.d '
developed below. ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 720 n.51 (1985); Houston "'f '#, > [' ;- {,,' - 9 Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit
.;1 MI 1), ALAB-582,11 NRC 239, 242 (1980); Tennessee Valley Authority g,
- 3,
- j--(,".:.
,.. ;l, -' '.3d !
(Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units l A, 2A, IB and 2B), ALAB-463, 7
@. :'t:." sMM.
NRC 341,348 (1978).
- . :.2 :., Q, .>w . . ;-6.;
.%..p c.l -
p:s.<. n
.,n.
s.;.,c ,J.. ' 4 -
. g' , y; , -
. > . . ;:' , ,' y.'j v .y . , :w RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEFS
. p, . - , . n ' , ;! . 5 Issues that a party fails to brief on appeal are considered waived. See
..; j',Y '. #[U . ,M.']
..'4! Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, l'.:< $"'
A. . ,A:v . . . . .. ' .J Unit 1), ALAB-650,14 NRC 43,49-50 (1981), aff*d sub nom. Township of Lower Alloways Creek v. Public Service Electric and Gas Co., 687 F.2d
'tij 732 (3d Cir.1982).
i .Y;; ,.'. M.[ , : 2: -
;. .? s ? .f N, . , .J .,-. .elQ, ,6. J 4-
','I RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS
](j ,4 7,. l ;' , ^] An appeal board will not overturn a licensing board's determination J^
.> g -
.q weighing the five factors specified in 10 C.F.R. f 2.714(a)(1) absent a
>t u- ..: ',-' showing that the board has abused its discretion. Detroit Edison Co.
.; / . f- .;; ~l;;; 1 (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760, p ; p ,. ' f. ' ~ '- c;K: ,
1763 (1982).
* ,,=,
=.g3. , : . . . ',l
. 4.1, * ' ' ':. y
.r . -)l:: v.,, n 8- w:e
' -7.,.;,y . ,. 97.%,.*..'8: ' fer
.l. c.. J rd RULES - OF PRACTICE: SHOW-CAUSE PROCEEDINGS
$ '.[ @ ifN,.[. . / h j f* " ~ In a request under 10 C.F.R. f 2.206, any person may seek the suspen-E' '$ ?c.9.'. sion, modification, or revocation of a license, or other appropriate
;[,, y.q:-p D /[ ]N. $$~
. t.4. ,, y . .g .; _pyw. r action, for alleged regulatory violations or potentially hazardous condi-tions. See 10 C.F.R. jf 2.206(a),2.202(a).
'. ..r ... . 1
.. s.
~.. ,]
* 'J. ;
,g ,
, ':p;. y .?? N.
'.'g,, e + , , _ j ;. -/
~'.:l.6, ,.,. L.'R,M'q:. RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS l,; ' :C'. . A petition for relief from the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4.;:r ;),(, i P./ ". ]
S .;[ ".]j T ' "; . under 10 C.F.R. f 2.206 will not always provide adequate other means to protect a petitioner's interest, so as to satisfy the second factor of sec-Oe. '#' ;.g p~;...'J- ".4 91 tion 2.714(a)(1). Whether alternative protective means are, in fact, j Q is@q 1:3 y ,.c 7r 1 - available depends on the issues sought to be raised, the relief requested, ' a..d the stage of the proceeding. In some circumstances, this may well re-p yl ' '
'E~ -
quire the equivalence of an adjudicatory hearing. But in other cases, a 10 ng.u - s-7,j v.
- v
- 4.y., 4
..,. t j h, ,vt ,.-.p._ , _&p
,' l l:.y ,' % Qg 15
% *b n 1 H. . .
,: . - . x .
,, . , . . s; c - s g, , ,
., f ' ' '
, y. s .
e . i
m,
.. a,,,.
., m .
= g :: : m.g., ,. -- . .
1
- ,~ ; , . y::A'.
. .. ' -a -
.. . .y. . . .
* * 's.
. ,e ' l 4, ,
. - l' . , ..; i
- g. <; '
':... 'f
{q.; l $, . '.Q'; . d. . .y.. e a..
;. - ^ e* = , ,,
, , a .: . .
tn ('Q,. n.) Q. ~ 9, . * ,~'. . , _. *9;;y :.
.. )J} ,;,. ;y . '
l i h*
- l- < *
.: e c q< . ; ,, , x;; ,
& l w . .. ,,
e.. .-a. .:
, . . . , .0 ..
i'- Nz . ..., f,9 .- .;.. . ,g .
,, ,. o.; p . "
<.we. . , P( ** - C.F.R. f 2.206 petition could provide a sufficient vehicle to protect
. .(.%m v, ,N
.N , . "., , . ;; one's interest.
. r ,, .
h.. .M
- ... '7..
v,;..v.". S .n g . ,. - ...<,,,v. M !, RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS F. $. . .'.c. u. .-F >, ' m ,, . In considering the admissibility of a late-filed contention, the fifth c'g'} . J y ',e e..V/' 1 K's [c , factor of 10 C.F.R. f 2.714(a)(1) requires an adjudicatory board to deter-el@t!
,D.l' Q T'"/ .',, . 'F ', 4 mine, inter alia, the extent to which the proceeding - not license is-
' _7,[ .y$. , ,- #;, ..- J'.,.
N),:
,c : .
suance or plant operation - will be delayed. Fermi 16 NRC at 1766. W, .z. 7 '
. .; c a. . .. .
y * 'l; . e . * * . .f.y.. n p.:, e:y ,.j.;. . .
- u. ;, APPEARANCES f y.:g?, ,. n .- 1
;d[*'.[ f. ,. @, ,f']
- s. .., ."
Robert L. Anthony, Moylan, Pennsylvania, intervenor pro se and for in-m .. . v.7 c' - tervenor Friends of the Earth.
..;f.
w .w$.:;; F. . '.g,,;v. t , ; ,
,t . -- - e.. .
h T ,i ,' Troy B. Conner, Jr., Mark J. Wetterhahn, and Robert M. Rader. q . f;, ,' l'%' O... Ji: .
. . Washington, D.C., for applicant Philadelphia Electric Company. ., 6 - 9. i.... ; ,,;
g.. . L . . f.g W s .' ,.. .
.2'...^v..
..' Ann P. Hodadon for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
f f . .c..
...a,.,,.,.,.w. .s . , - .
e ..
.1
- w. 1.,, . . .-:
,^,
F . 6, .
.. ., ; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Cc .. < ,. r : ,.
m..- s..
< . - ~ ... - :a o c
e . j,.c .
..r ,
We have before us an appeal from the Licensing" Board's ruling deny-Rfp.i..' ':.", , .
. I,)) ing a request by intervenors Robert L. Anthony and Friends of the Q :? .1.,,3 . ' ~ ' '- ' 1 Earth ( Anthony / FOE) to reopen the record in this operating license pro-ceeding.: As explained below, we affirm the Board's determination.
v . g ' . i. n. ' , , ,;j aw-f =J, m.
*,,i- ), , . Ef '- (
1,
<- ~ ' u 9 4 .e r,e".
n;. . . 4
=
u R N.I,( ! . , , " . d On April 30, 1985, Anthony / FOE filed a one-page petition with the
['f.b. 7' N ,y, [ ';j Licensing Board to reopen this proceeding for consideration of three matters: (I) the supposedly improper use of the plant site boundaries
.d.1:,/ c . . . -
Al by applicant Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) in determining the k{ c$[1 , ',9 public's exposure to gaseous and liquid effluent releases during routine
.N3([: 'h , + . h . , .
.W; *?fh s' : ,.
?[f ..' .
a-.Z '. %
-s.
,1 ; , ;
...,,y,v,.
3 . [t '[- @ .'-J . ,~' 3,. .s I See Licensms Board Memorandum and order of June 4.1985 (unpubhshed).
- I, +
1 : /. , , ,3,.,,.f.*.,. i
;.s q ., .
, - ;~ .
- g. ,..* . e. . - .
.: 16 3 ., -
. . . , ,,.c.,,
- , w
. .,e
}e. ^ #
,! , s
. , s v - l',r. (s. . , , . .
- 9'gF *.F gf e. ,
g , -- g-- I 9 F m '; - g - '-- _ -- s , s
..', 4 s
. ,g.7, -
' * * ;. a, .J;
' ~
- 9. n;.
. b. ,~- . . . + ..
', ' t, st. ,. ., ";'- .
3.c. e m, 3. x. . ,
~ ~~
,- -af... %z. ,.",s,.
. ; ;Q. .p._ . :;c .'. ...y. ' . . ., .4 . .: -
n,, .i - y ;.e,y: t V ' , ,N -
.v. ...
s
-2, - ,
, ~ t
.x i
u,,g, ,,,
; & 5.j..wyfl4,W
,bfl.l@ k
..% q s :v. I'j ' I? % *
; _ : & ; n N,f . .
b.' r._..
' ,.v.. u.. . : , ~ .
,s
. .gt .
f 2 s s
. . . . - s
. v
~, -. .'!U a% % .,,Q s-7* .s._<
. y. ' . ,s ' I - *,c 5 bc, 'u t , . . :t . ".>..s.= *
,. g .
w, . ,....'}
- - .- yw m .
", ~ . E v '..
c.V .4,
- 3 ,* .
;t(.y 1a.; . ,
4..t t. - u.. .. ;.3.&.
. . . . a, . . .- .:
lu.c* M.@ L' .,: /*
., . -J.;Q 7,'.H
- : N*
u.w - . .e..
?,% . :t .-
.9 r-*[M,jf*l
,y 'v;\ %.b. _ y9.,v f.D'%'(.d ..:fa.' M= f :c)
M 6 -(rcI /.<[l M ;./.['5ll plant operation:2 (2) the claimed underestimation of radiation exposure to the public due to assertedly improper calculations regarding the fish A @.fQ., 6J/'GJ,.c 9,j,I.N...f% .'. . ingestion pathway; and (3) the alleged degradation in standards for pro-pyW~ '. ,;. . b.;0:"y tecting the public occasioned by a revision of PECo's Offsite Dose Calcu-50!$. . .W $r ;2 l lation Manual (ODCM). Anthony / FOE rely on information in PECo's
%',b(.,M, . ,,93. [ ,:: in particular, Attachment D (Revision I to the ODCM). '.$3 Semi-Annual Effluent Releases Report No.1 (hereafter, " Releases m.W,,Ja ' Report"),
f;M.:gW. v ' ".,'c..d. 'i< . PECo submitted this report to the Commission on February 28, 1985, M.yK':,'ii,f.7%.,g V ' in compliance with the Technical Specifications of its operating license WANi and other staff imposed requirements. After considering responses from
;pn,6O'i.6;j.QQ] %. ', ' PECo and the NRC staff, as well as an unauthorized reply by Anthony /
M,@,M@$: M. T.w 3 @,tl,U:: ... C. '. S/ J l '?.
.,.. @ Uj FOE and a further responsive pleading filed by PECo, the~ Board denied Anthony / FOE's request.
. v7. .~p0.c %. ;...M.
.. ;4f% in ruling on a motion to reopen the record, adjudicatory boards con-f1,K s W. . . f:(^7, ,'s.%, sider three factors: (1) whether the motion is timely; (2) whether it ad-Mh.[i ;,j' .?q dresses a significant safety or environmental issue; and (3) whether a k/f , 2,6;
, ' . 4,, ?. M,JG. P T.y:';f* ')."]4 ; different result might have been reached had the newly proffered mate-rial been considered initially.2 When a motion to reopen seeks to inject
'.,,,'.,'<.J
;.- m
,.L,;. -
l an entirely new issue into the proceeding, a board must also consider
. . l d, the stahdards for admitting late-filed contentions, set forth in 10 C.F.R.
o
* ; . '.y' 6-:.s.sg< ., a ?.4 j 2.714(a)(1):
,;y.. -- n .R .
w . n, '- .
...?
. ' As ; .h .[.'yf, ., (i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
?,%, e c> n 6 ,,f7 j N .(ii) The availaoility of ether meins whereby the -petitioner's interest wdl te
.. ..j.1;
.y' i i j.' -
protected. '
,UMM k.3f ~M,. (iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation rna) reasonsbly be expected
$[N]
'" ycf/ ' 1. . '. ff to assist in developing a round record.
. ;;,% W "! 1 e. t,' ,* .4 ; '- (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing
^ ,
parties.
...ifNY,,C,lMij1['3U[p.K Q) ,
Km.,'f QW y p, .. l (v) The extent to which,the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or
.' 1.
- d. c'. i. f.' , l..,,d -ee1 .
.%, :j delay the proceeding.
'k .b 's.l ( *r% ,
Y* w E W J.V:
. . .p;n 6 ; w
. m..,;f . b....
d, 3
*r' c.Yh k,r?.I, n .+Q= 7
,(,'.h. *) .
- ...s. ,- d. .s . 5
- .m. m. g . . .
. , ".(M.
.4 s ";? : u 's,*" ' .
~
w- ;;, .. . ~p . s;: .n.g. . ,e . ,,s tr'**f -* .I a'*; ..a%y*;i;I b,ON '(($4. f;f.* ". . ., 2 Anthony / foe contend that the dosages should be calculated at the closest, publicly accessible ap. r? p. . L f d. .. . '".yp Proaches to the plant (a ta Iroad nght-of.way and the schuylkill River). rather than at the more distant l
..a.... :>. .
4'*f site boundanes.
]. ". ,.". 1,;
. isa. ~ ,,.'s .f; w..
~3 ,s J
Metropohran Edson Co. (Three Mde Island Nuclear station, Unit I), CLI-85 2. 21 NRC 282,285 n.J. t
, ./ . j;? . ', .y ' .WQ .e. N ' F' ' reconsaderatans demed. CLI-85 7. 21 NRC 1804 (1985). The Commission's use of this test has received d)f[,Q,i,'
;;.1 god y,.Q, 'l'sd',k judicial approval. Three Mde Island Alert. Inc. v. NRC 771 F.2d 720,732 (3d Cir.1985) csing San Luis Obapo Mothersfor Peace v. NRC. 75i F.2d l287. I316-18 (D.C. Cir.1984), nacated in part and reh*g en N.,; L : . ~ ' - - < 3 ;;,. 3 .t banc granted on other grounh.160 F.2d 1320 (l985).
'O M.'. ...
c.',.;.- .A .*.. .' M k(, ;.
,'$ .Y .4 'd 'See Paci/lc Gas and Electer Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-82 39.16 s 1.J. NRC 1732.1714-15 (1982).
.r y..( '._ . ' ,,.. ,
* , :+
- p..
. n,
* #f q' Q. . 4 h.- ; s. n
,.!p. T4'.'"2:d, /. ' N ' . # ' . ' . . h ',. .l ',1 A *,y .~,* . , -, i .,
s 17 L i? r.M. 'r,il C -2
- g. .
,.g r K. y r; s a -} ,.
;. i- s . 4
. 5.
'6- d.
}. .g..,.
.a .'
- 1 s
.T
%-_, , a..y
.c . ., . -
-y
- f. ,.- (. . .
.* ,4'. '
*g, es f* ,
s
- s. . a , +
1, , ., a s *
. t.
... [a , ; k /4 . ,
e , ,, * .* ,' e_ .. ;* s, * . .E
.y + * $
s 4
. .. . . . M. . ,
,- =.. _ .I
!? T M.. .; , , ,, / n. m . - " -c^, y\ . *, e.% ; , f
- s.
.. ;. y -
3' 1
.n , .r, ; # ,.*
-o
,] , -., ,,9 s, q%
el . ., ; f .L p M..' t: . . ,
, f, _f. f, , ,* .' s .,t.
, . ?_ 4,,s, , ,
e *:* ,
.: , 7, .~r,.
, ., . c.
- _ ..,c .. . f,. x,
- , -n t >
3,,
. y. '. (.
y:a : .g".'.,',.. 3 .'.' , , a hs " '., . . ,. ,. . $;fi d < n;.."- yQ \ - b,2 ?: '
~"f'. .
* . . f.
l 2 .. W Q, Qf.N:,-u c .a ,
< . %..d . ' '; .W..e . . g. *';*
'l .,. -,;'L, .' ,
> -s..y i nt : <
s
. . - l'. .
"*>e , *
,3L ,P ~, ' : ., , ou ,
. .. Y:s . ,
. '$ * ?'. ,*o c h *- J,. .
. . ... d G ; %.
r I h ., ' . , s , t . ,N q- E
, -: , ,F ,-;V, i ,,l
. (..S,.4, ' , .' . , . , - :g,. ,
a
~ . .
s.. ';, , .og .. <,
' q .
. ,. ._ ; c r. , . , .
' @ . '. i.< '.\ hi in reaching its decision, the Licensing Board examined both the crite-
!.Q:,,t q ria for reopening the record and the standards for admitting late-filed
, ;q4?y'%' ' %,
,m f. -
.M 3* n . '
contentions. It concluded that Anthony / FOE failed to satisfy either set V.
' . ,o d, s..w' .' of requirements, prompting the instant appeal.8 PECo and the staff urge hw.., ca &. ...::7 h .v,..
.}
affirmance of the Licensing Board's decision.'
, m..., /y n; v.m, -h I .
2w Ly r . - 1.- .w i '.r
. . ,,i k.
.".i II.
, p w e~.r , ?,. g..; '
t J -
!q,U "N. .d ~ J A. Under the test for reopening the record, a petitioner must first 3 .'. h ., f G.>.c , demonstrate that it could not have presented its information at an earlier M '
time. The Licensing Board found that the particular material in PECo's
* , tt 4 y,' y '
m,,
-4.c. -3. : . Releases Report on which Anthony / FOE base their request to reopen 7 . . M MN. m . y ;,' p" ',.j L . the record was not new or previously unavailable.' Indeed, both the
;t Draft and Final Environmental Statements for Limerick, issued in June g .l. jfi )].1?;; l'h'M
, ~
If '-6 1983 and April 1984, respectively, state that dose calculations are per-
- 4. .d;W' Q,- ,.j y j formed at the site boundary.8 The Commission has made clear that par-
./.? .
*< . $ ,. ties have an obligation to monitor publicly available documents with a 4j; '
.%,'^.#,, view toward raising issues in a timely fashion.' That is particularly so
' . . . ;W. ? , 9 //T with respect to environmental impact statements, which are expressly in-7: . , j, . W .? ' tended for public scrutiny and, if necessary, litigation. Anthony / FOE
?,' . , " O ~ C' C '
thus could and should h' ave voiced their concern about the calculation of 7 . .- . . .i . '
'- doses from routine radiological releases at the plant site boundary much
$, Wcv. - ' ' - n .i
.. .-s . ,
. .I earlier. The Licensing Board therefore correctly concluded that, insofar
.. ". c.:%,. ; , <; . a,s
. %- H -
.- ,, , , : -l 84 . . . .
t,; F .
.,e 4.,.,* -
, ty . , +v.'n
@ y. e.3 a d 5The Licensing Board also determined at the threshold. that it had jurisdiction to rule on Anthony /
5 ' h , :i ,
- foe's peuuon to reopen. The Board took note of an earlier appeal board decision in this proceeding, 7 c ,[j. ' - p g. ~ , . , ,
, suggesung a pragmatic approach in decid.ng this type of junsdictional quesuon, in "the absence of any q, b .j'.% '. / *j l . ^ . . ';'3a s -
clear administrative guidance." See ALAB-726.17 NRC 755,758 (1983). Although no party pursues the junsdictional issue on appeal, we agree with the Licensing Board's judgment in this regard and . f u i , ', E ', ~.
? .d afrirm its assernon of junsdiction.
'.Y,,?,,._s '
' P- '
, 6 PECo argues that Ansaony/ foe's brief was untimely under the Commission's Rules of Practice and
't .; , . ' ' ' 7s .1 -
I' that their appeal should therefore be dismissed. It contends that the abbrevisted schedule for bnefing .
~ 7 .* certain appeals set forth in 10 C.F.R. ( 2.714a should pertain here, rather than the usual schedule found
- r. S *. W .,
l f ',J ,. W
,s.
1t
} -
in 10 C.F.R. ) 2.762. Applicant's Bnef Ouly 17.1985) at 1314. Although neither regulation addresses the exact situation here, we believe that secuon 2.762 is more 78 " *.M ,J. 'j. applicable and that, accordingly, Anthony / foe's brief was timely. As pertinent here, section 2.714a(b) 4 o,,*- i'.a * %'y *. ,!, ;ji specifically applies to appeals from board orders "who#y denying a peution for leave to intervene and/or
;. ,d @* '. *fA I'* f , .c]. -
request for a hearing" (emphasis added). We have consistently applied this provision to appeals from
, i orders that have the efTect of completely denying party status to a pennoner. Sce, e.g.. Puger Soud
. / * . -j . , ,. y .w.' .- d s .i Power ad Lehr Co. (skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), ALAB 712.17 NRC 81, Q~ w;gg % g Y ' .' M j 82 (1983). That is not the intent or the efTect of the Licensing Board's order at issue here. In this car.
y .#
- cumstance, the bnering schedule for routme appeals from rinal orders in section 2.762 is appropnate.
$ ;$-6 i ' (*?.
.5" y+
" ;
- f. .
vi t (PECo does not dispute that the order in question is " final" for appeal purposes.) >-. .' . T.) - 7 Memorandum and order of June 4 at 5-6. - n " . , - ,.' v 2 ' ' .: n'*
' ' 8 Sec. c.s.. NUREG 0974, Draft Environmental statement (June 1983) at 5-47, D.5, o-9; M., Final 1
.i I ;. . ' a .- ,oi-
'&' .j s *} .t Environmental statement ( Apnl 1984) at 5 47, D.5, D-9.
- Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear stat on, Umts I and 2), CLI-8319,17 NRC 104l.1048 (1983).
i . <. ,3 ^+ ; s ;3 .y
- v. - ,? .
- i.,, 4
( ,5* .,9 e '#, 't a o,.2 . t ., 18 , . .x; .
., . 3}
' i .T .,,' '
- e
.. ,3. g. **i .. , +
, , -I a .f .. .s ** '
._c q,', ,
,Y
.t *
,-a n" , _ ( s . (, . ., .
l* 1"' i **R R $ } [*f *G*.s n ',*o , :aj gg
. - , , ' * .f. ,
. oi ,
x - ,,
,= l 7' . ,
.'.h, -[
's 4 .
.? , ; *a, .
- W .a y,.
3 s" 'n :4 p . v,>;< , , ; ',3.,'; K' . . 7 4 ,y . a .,.. m, t_ . - N ; _ . _
v m
.:w.c.,r ; . r.u.x< . sm. w. ,..,m ;; . :: a .
'...q.T m. .- ..?.., K ,. - * '
.y
~~ v .
. ....sv. - .;:. s.
. . . . c . w..v> n~.
w .n, n. - >. ;'z . pio;n,n. r;. ; .. r.y . . ; n . < "u. .;
.: ?
+ .
>a . m , .. q,v . - ~ .
9 x . ;s . . ~7,.~......
..L
. a. . sc o ,
u
;,.j'v &. t..!9.? . . -
. $.i&. . G ; W : n Qw.; Q :. ? ,, llIb.s."Nl.&.,.e f. .O wQ % '.
- g. g.g - ., .
?, * }i .. G m. . .- . . . . 4
,. N *
.,..i.; .. - .:* .. .
f ** *. .4- - * . . ' Jv . 7/wp Q a'f:t! ) ..
< . s . g. . , .
- J 1lr.. . . . ' .
- L:% s E
, 1,. . ] Q .,[' t
#- 3. - 4 a a. -
- f. [$ I' .' $ l [L.3[y.J #f 2 -,'j s *
..-- ,n - : .,.,.0 . i . s5 "y - .- s 7 1.. .: f- .
w.*. .e. ,4.,t 3., ' ,.Q,.3 s, . ; - . , , ~- .. .. .' ..- - . s.- . n. W . ,~.,, . s, . m
. r.
w .
... . . , . w.,._.u.
., .,c...~
- ., .. , - . a.
...m,'.1~ ~ ., ...
.g.
; e. . ~ ..
t s.. .. . e :q v,yl::._ e.. -v.. ,p.:. , u. s s
. ., c s
'.V . m .. m
..n- %:. .n~.'.: ; - . .%x .*m.7,1 2 v.3
. q. . . . ,e
?;%p yw . n p.g:.;.:.r.n.%
2 q.9 , . . .w , ,. . s,sd
. .n w.
4-
.- ..,.,i sill. M.. m.np% j.5 !.;l>;bM. ,,h. . as it concerns dose calculations performed at the site' boundary, the M i>f, . motion to reopen is not timely.to N. $%hM'f., '$'[I.Ml
'Q;Tif,3k' "^I
; . The most important factor to consider,' however, is whether the S:i:I fj.M'?
6 .' motion to reopen raises a significant safety issue. The Licensing Board
?;i,l?u> . L ..
lc ayti..,Q,.t - i.JF.Mcy',My r. concluded that Anthony / FOE's petition does not raise such an issue. Relying on staff affidavits, the Board found that Anthony / FOE's argu. MO 9, $ ments are' premised on factual inaccuracies and unwarranted assump-s.f?i.q? .@'j%;Mih(y%y '0 ' tions." ,
@M....#%.
,v
,'Mw%M.. : .y ';7
- . We find no basis for overturning the Board's conclusion that nothing v'l'
,< *n; i
. . m. s...y . . =e w;c;
; yqr e in the petitioners' presentation raises a genumely sigmficant safety W.4. 5,gf; % W c O.Ws . .
' issue. .With respect to Anthony / FOE's complaint about doses deter-M.M.3 TO. N mined at' the site boundary, Dr. Edward F. Branagan, Jr. (a Section
% W %, i.rpi., f$:M o . D, 2C, .
- Leader d,in..the Radiological Assessment Branch of the Division of Sys-w x pN a ;:, %. 4. ,l.1..1.v(' .
M ., tems Integration, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation), states that, al-i$ 1yl@, though individuals could be exposed at the closer points of access urged
%g@b'D'SJ$?. !N!] *W '.j M'
n,. ..i.v.0.. ,V. J1 '.s.P. !f f..N; e , by Anthony / FOE, it is "unlikely that these locations.would be more
. limiting in dose calculations than the site boundary."" Dr. Branagan ex.
' '.Jj plains that the dose to an individual is the product of the concentration M*M W.1/ j'.['.m@,[-:. s ;,.M. ;;;4 M.,, of the radicnuclide and the occupancy time (as well as other factors).
.T ' . . 7 (',d Thus, the slightly greater concentration of the radicnuclide at the nearer Y [g.:.jQ4'e;4 _ . M.S.j locations identified by Anthony / FOE would be ofTset by the very small W. dl h . "~f,g.
* .42 W. p.g .,.# (./*f; 1
#. f. . cccupancy time there; that is, there are no permanent residences, gar-dens, or food-source animals at the closer locations " In the staff's view, O ." - PECo's use of the site boundaries is therefore appropriate.
'M J!.;I..s . .d..r%;Tt PJ . Anthony / FOE's rather sketchy argument that PECo's revision of its
.y ;;4.J 7.,q.C, .$,
w.. wh, 4u . . , . .. :'
. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual somehow violates the Commission's ra-
~ ; j .r.s'4 4 i! ,at: J. diation protection standards is similarly without safety significance. As T; 2.n M J ~!.'.6.& M., % the Licensing Board noted, another staff afridavit - that of Marie T.
' ;;i';i . y W. '.., Miller, a Radiation Specialist and inspector in Region I, where Limerick 6.;.. *.7 9 Wr.- w&.,.. v.W is located S.,7,,,,
- states@. that the d.~ changes to the ODCM are in accordance
- - . . w.' v N
; y fJ K ey @.Q {.3g
~
with both the NRC's regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 20) and PECo's exist-k.,;.rtu.:.a; w=.. w n. . ;. .:,.+.. 4 @/. C N . i ing a .Technical m~ ic Specifications and "do not increase the radiation risk to
>-~w , d* 4 v -i .a .
hv.'ln;w; *Af 5,%p,Y'3". ,".~.& - VW *jy. * ..d W. l;. CQ m. g '.
? @???.'.Q i * =%
,b h
y 4,,S [. e b'h'*?' [ [h ;1
- 10 As we point out at note 18. stfra. Anthony / foe do not pursue their argument about the fish ingest on
'p* W W 'J/' Wl7 (f , f ./:.,g,- ,;
-. pathway on appeal; therefore. we need not decide er the motion to reopen is timely in that regard. With respect to their argument that PECo's recent (February 1985) changes to its oDCM will lead to a degra.
- g ;e t.m is. ,* ?( D ,
dation or radianon protect or, standards, the record is not clear as to when Anthony / foe actually re.
. ' . . } '; f,[*4. , ~ CIV ,, y*' ceived PECo's enure fihng. In the circumstances, however we will assume arguendo that Anthony /
.N / ,. *-
foe's April 30 monon is urnely, to the extent it is based on any entrely new information in PECo's a' MAANS-8,N;'+y L ; .'s p.M ?. 4'
.i.
g,, ,y [}~,k,February Hh* 1985 Releases Report. Memorandum and order orJune 4 at 7 9. I.c /r . ,l} M . , l .J Jj] 12 NRC staff Respense to Anthony / foe Petinon to R% pen (May 28. 1985). Affidavit of Edward F. i py ,s. 2;~, p. 4 (;.. Branagan. Jr., at 3.
.c u . B y p.;:..W . ~ .; .P,. . .s. t . , ',t og
-I* ' ^ *
( y* (,q. .21, .2%:p',r ',: 'y , p,
- g. ,> . . ,: , .wi.W - w:. a; J g n..
pu ugs a w, nj.-w 4 a o n... ,, e .d- 19 e* ' ' gg .( *
'tg.N'
;, *ti
, , . , T [..' ,, 3
.l
. , h, e , a f. , . u. - ) .
I
,y'*l n.[ ' 43 r ' : s ,
r,,..,,.x%.. . q,, .n , ;. . 1- ,M, i
.: %, l
,l . !; *d', "s.
t e; . , , w - ;r y; - . ~ - _ s -
~ * - -
; "m * ~ . v~. : *Qs v
. , f, , * * *
% .= . ,3 ...
, i, . , ,
- j. , q , :.g ; z ~ '
A. a.j ' : , f 3 n &
.' 7-
' t.
', %s - . " , , .
~
l
Wa - *' g y.pi ;; ny .
~ , ' ' - .. .
y"y y , v . n<n, :
- 3. -
. f ; .h;cx s ,
. . . ..r.,, ..
. .. .tg , < , g.
1 - , ,,. .s .3 w ..
- x. .;
- m. ..o c
& y.,..Q.f O -
+
~
, ] .bl. y o;.%:p.g.& .f..f.j . &g. K,,gl.:;,:n'&.g.7.
7.- - , y. r.
~ ' {;, ,
.- s
. . -. u. . p ;, %,, ..
;4 t.
.. .e, .
. .i - x.
,7...
.e -
, .y .... . . .c a v , -
'. ' ' W . 2 ..c.. . . . - i'/ ,',:
; [ ] . ., y 4, .
- a. ,
- * - . - . . . . - -'>. , ' .4 #
.. w.,y, . -
1..
,V l s , .
y - -
~
, .; . . . - a .
L ,":
.c - -
? ' , ; Y , . , e.'.' 1. ; - the public."'* Miller explains that PECo has simply revised some calcula-
' 4, - - " "*
;.i' y.g tions so that it can determine "more efficiently" certain radiation alarm
- C' $ . '.} 'r
,f j setpoints.'5
.'i. '; m '.. E . ? ' C 'i On appeal, Anthony / FOE attempt to bolster their arguments with the
- '?d affidavit of Dr. Bruce Molholt, an Adjunct Associate Professor of Health
.i+' m. ,. .gM;yt
... .n Education at Temple University. This document was not presented to W7 l . f :.. ..E.9.. r;3 W y ., ' the Licensing Board, and it touches on subjects that are largely beyond 4'fg ' ; iC. M . f.f Y;2 those Anthony / FOE sought to raise initially in their April 30 petition to
'. reopen. Like the courts, we generally do not consider matters raised in
@* .[. h' h*a6d' G' ~.-/1 3i
.i the first instance on appeal; rather, appeals are decided on the basis of
$ > ,6 . ?, 4 1, , . 7._ :..S the record developed below.'? Even if Dr. Molholt's affidavit were prop-UL.h k 'y ".f S,.}.! erly before us, however, nothing in it casts doubt on the Licensing
, j l . . ' ' ,[h Board's conclusion concerning 'the lack of safety significance in An-thony/ FOE's newly proposed contention.'8
,M "'yN pi p :, ,'O T - y,My .
c, t! Inasmuch as Anthony / FOE.have failed to establish the safety signifi-
.,s 4
cance of the new matter they seek to raise, it follows that a different
,'. 't" , . F. 'n f ; l't
- result would not have been reached had their arguments been considered
' :T.; '. l #
initially, Consequently, the Licensing Board correctly concluded that the standards for reopening have not been satisfied. i [ f' . . ',' B. Even if Anthony / FOE prevailed in meeting the reopening criteria, [.,
... ' .At At w a f ]*[ . - they must also show that the balancing of the five factors in 10 C.F.R.
^ '
6 2.714(a)(1) justifies the admission of their new contention. The ff , Licensing Board concluded that Anthony / FOE's petition failed in this s4 j regard as well. We will not overturn a board's determination weighing
-4'. } v ,'
- b;. , *(,q j
.. v e > -
'. +>s W.'%
, D. ..E..
. r .:;r. .y . ,: ,
.m, 4
'N' . '.s iv t. . . ;
.e A,' i
- y. .
1414., Amdavit of Marie T. Miller at 12. 1514. at 2. See Memorandum and order of.fune 4 at 8-9. 5 ' ,( ';
- iv g 16 Anthony / foe also refer for the first time in their appellate bnef to several NRC Inspection Reports, a.* , , ." n .r 5,. . Notices of Civil Penalues, and Licensee Event Reports. Anthony / foe Brier Outy 2,1985) at 2 3. Most
- 7. ,6 l* of these items are totally irrelevant to their motion to reopen and/or involve matters that have been sub-g,., *;
.,.. 4, 'y sequently resolved.
,,...a .; <
, 17ALAB-819,22 NRC 681,720 n.51 (1985); //ovuon Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear 3, ', 'Q :)
.,,y Generaung station, Unit I), ALAB-582,11 NRC 239,242 (1980); Tennessee Valley Authority (Harts.
- g
,e. , . < - ' - J' ville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A,18 and 28), ALAB-463. 7 NRC 341,348 (1978).
O ,,' E . ,,f.., 18 For example, Dr. Molholt states that -[tlhere is no reason to assume that a given mdividual would
- I , -
- N( j.jt spend more ume" at the site boundary than at the closer access points identified by Anthony / foe. An-Jd' ; ;'.",5 L *
. .e thony/ foe Brief, Amdavit of Bruce Molholt at 12. Dr. Branagan, however, has already explained the
. , . .' p., ,' ' , , ,. L.A . J occupancy factor underlying the site boundary assumption. See p.19 supra.
Dr. Molholt's affidavit also refers to radianon exposure through the fish ingestion pathway - a . .d.. /
- e F,,Nj.'s .'}# 'V - , /. , . ,C . ]g . matter that Anthony / foe did raise before the Licensing Board but have not pursued in their brief on appeal. Anthony / foe have therefore waived further arguments on this score. See Pubhc Servec Dectre
.J,, ,
'c',,*
..g .
^]*
'+5 and Gas Co. (salem Nuclear Generating station, Unit 1), ALAB-650,14 NRC 43,49-50 (1981), aff'd sub nom. Township of Lower Alkwys Creek r, Public Server Dectre and Gas Co.,681 F.2d 732 (3d Chr.
W . .) , o- - i [ ,;: . ', , * " , *
- d 1982). We note, nonetheless, that Dr. Branagan's amdavit and the Licensmg Board's decision both ade.
,l / - ' . , . C
?{ quately address Anthony / foe's concern about the fish ingestion pathway. See Memorandum and order
. .9 * ,
*N , of June 4 at 7.9.
- m. ,- ,, . ,
..y.. . r. . q) b , a .: ;
. 't R' ' w . 20
., .a .M Q. . F t ., . *i
*. sf
., i r
<4 sv
' * < . - - - - . z 'u r.n - ..,.. O, p ,* y . p;
. ,. q .., . . , , . . . y ; ,.j.., . g, ,,
' ' , t* *
- s '(7 ,
v .-
,3, ;A . ( g 4
~ - % t .= .
, ! .. .. w3 _.
e w y
. . , n
~,
. '. ' . < ' + ' '. ; j;A.,'...~.e
.. 1 s .s f .'. . ,, 3. , . . ,, . 4 (:
~
- y'
. .l*
- i
., J.y . e. ,- m{ .$ ,,. j e ; ,, g.
n . s ,.
. ... ~ a.. . , . ; y,
s -
.; gw
.y. , .<e4: .v n
.." q>
m -
, g. .. .,.a.f. . .y .~ ~
. #.y,3.- . c, -
, c. . . . m- - .
.m. c j s. ,. ....
.?
- ,,_ ,' ;t .
.' . ;, ;* w;*.'q... g9..,-+t.,.
; .;; - ,, y. .e
;.,e , . , ., ....,ls . i : ;s . , ,1- gy ., i
.s.,e.
.4 r.. '. ..
.n . . .
>v ., , . s
+
<-y n
-x :. , .
, . . m ._K< > . . .. y.
, a f , -
, .u ,%$ .4&w ~Yh 'i% '
. . (-f her &. :ehu .
,e .n.h N,-
.LYkh, .
.V E.h.'?. ??.
.n . :. .; r, r . ,
.q n c. m a. m .: - .. . .
._ , e =
..,-+
- , ,.,'j',3 :., ; '3 y .:a;i .;, , g . . ;, .
7_ .. , , ') - .
.r m.. . ..,. .. . 6. .r.cm , ,, , .
'..'^ .?. '
-:.3 ~ z -. ' " . . ,v.
s
~+
7_', >: .+. .~ :...;~.GrM,';'.'s u . ', y::. t ; V,w. Ll.'{.% . . _':n ~ . ..' r .
. .'.. . . . : . . w. . ' e. "
1 ~Ac,: ^* 0.s:f: M32pO.Q Wr.% w 7. O&;:s}&Q:) 'q; . . 5 r t bc .s:r. . v ,. %m
.~.
n.... y,m.w, - A, h..:. m.
< .a y.n~. .. , .. .., .u. . u ...
hh,s@,. E. w
$'M$ch Ow.,c3.%%..a the five factors absent a showing that the board has abused its discre-tion." Plainly, no such showing has been made here. #:i'Q.c2D D.El'.'N.M As noted above, the site boundary information on which Anthony / - '.3,Mhi;%hf.g FOE predicate their request to reopen has been publicly available for some time and could have been used to formulate a contention at a f@r.f .M% d6 N:N Q.j: @:?,'.3j D @.s s; % d W , much earlier stage. The Licensing Board correctly determined that An-thony/ FOE have not established good cause for failure to tender their WEN.$jfM[4.+%
ia, new contention in a more timely fashion.20 T@a'W. h.Q, protect
,Hpf$';pC[.Vf" With regard to the second factor - the availability of other means to a petitioner's interest. the Licensing Board found no such M. ~. .M., I V , ;y M.
s.a;' ;< W.;,'.M. other means . '.Q..,jexist and that Anthony / FOE prevail on this point.2' Peti-m ' tioners therefore do not contest that Board determ.mation on appeal.
*d4w.Smp$:q%:3 M . PECo, however, in defending the result reached below, contends that 7.W .g g'p@A.
t , M., v;@.d,$1 y6,:$.o- ? . , this factor weighs against Anthony / FOE. Conceding that it is not equiva-4 ; , .. . . WM,,g.6W.F h! lent to the admission of a contention in an adjudicatory hearing, PECo N$$ -14,,@,l}S 4MN ' argues that a petition for relief from the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) under 10 C.F.R. f 2.206 is nevertheless an adequate k.3.2% W ' ..Cl 5,Q,'g%[;g..Q "other means" to protect a petitioner's interest.22 m gi 3
*l M,[,ed [M .Q d h]
We cannot conclude that a section 2.206 petition will always provide adequate other means to protect a petitioner's interest. To do so would y r s ,2% , j.,-l . Q . effectively write factor two out of the regulations. On the other hand, i;.:
.;.!;y c.g?M section 2.714(a)(1) does not specify what the term "other means" en-
,.., ' E,.! .N V : , compasses - thereby providing us with some flexibility in 'ts i interpreta-
. f..c .i . ., 'f.' .* r e, '.. , n 8, c:. y 4 tion.2) Whether alternative protective means are, in fact, available r '"W _ ., ,. .-N 6 .. .. ,.... depends on the issues sought to be raised, the relief requested, and the
. g '.x,Y, . F 1 s. . 't stage { of the proceeding. In some circumstances, this may well require
" . N , N i ; .. " g - the equivalence of an adjudicatory hearing. But in other cases - like N E.d'Z M.t $1 [ 7.dlM f that here - a section 2.206 petition could provide a sufficient vehicle to protect one's interest.2*
. .T.7. . ,, e 71 w. , , ,]. , . ?.l Anthony / FOE's request to reopen for hearing on their proposed new .' ;;&c ',.; n y ;f.% d.
contention is based on a routine report submitted to the NRC staff by
.7,/>.? y 2 . ,. . g .M jMt W.m'j&;. 3;w 3;?: . nn .:, f.L.%,l. d.
v p ,J'4. ;+ ./ . ;;i 0 . :s,i.;g,&'. t . ,9- H Drrroir Edisoir Co. (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALA8 707,16 NRC 1760.1763 - 7 Uf;): C l/h *'.h . a (1982).
' ' Qj;Gjj-
'.W 9 i h~.t'.k}%% ' *i
?
*hti lbid.
&,;j .
20 See Memorandum and order of June 4 at 11. fe. h' $; ~s *$:;'dll',' .*q*y '. 22 Applicant's Snef at 10 n.28. In a request under section 2.206, any person may seek the suspension,
- p. . f ;', '
y '
,g modification, or revocation of a license, or other appropriate action, for alleged regulatory violahons or p .- ~;.$ W'. .c p,jt; ,.9 potentially hazardousconditions.See 10 C.F.R.l{ 2.206 a),2.202(a).
F *,, 7 :3 ".T , ) . y /j 2J The ongen or this language does not aid in its interpretauon. See 37 Fed. Res. 9331, 9333 (1972)
; 5/- ' , 4 j . . " '
. (nonce of proposed rulemaking); 37 Fed. Reg. l$.127,15,129 (1972) (final rule); 43 Fed. Reg.17,798, y M .h n T/4 ' f. ett r"i'?,@,A.
a g2417.799 (1978) (final rule in custing form). See Horide Power A Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Umt No. 2). ALAB.420,6 NRC 8. 23 ip', ; ,: a bye,' Mbl7 *.; ' .;g,'pga p .; a (1977), affd. CLI.7812,7 NRC 939 (1978) ("The rule does not say that the 'other means' must be
.,N*' . f.
*r
, , .~. ....r ; 3 r; * " ".' '. y. j,. z .
equivalent in every respect to the intervennon sought")..
- v. ; . '.g. . . :6 ,.. ; y .:}
.;., . , , 3 m' (-
4
*%.,-m.
*I [
r, . gf7;., W.3,m,., j. t, . .. , x .
.. 21
. ,. ,.: l% J f % n ?;:
c.
; .Q : , , w. .i 1v
- n. . .J.. :g . .;l
'.' l .9.~ ,
' [ ." ; s. .C .s , . ., : , .
." e j '
*i**'g , . '(( j q . + .m y ,.y ..
.m 1 - .
gJ . . s s
; 7/ * ,g;. .
e,a - s
'7 ,
,7 .
..i - .
L , .
~
, / '#/ , *' sn , '
-.. } ,, l f* E ' ' ' $ ' t t L. .
. - - ,~
en p* .-m.n:.u.x-: .u .; . _ ~ 1 , r' ' m- .~!..
.a., ,
s y 7 n .n...~c m
~-
o .
~ . . ..w... .
3 ; -; ~ y. ; p4t. - % ..., w.A.. . b 3, -+,. % .,- . y.7 ; ~ .
. ,;r u; ...; , ,
. ', > y~e. wn.:c wg; .a./,-:m.:
~c +~- . . .
h,. 0 .k, k,y y$f ;. ? Y.y k:l y 3
,c . . x. . .: x.
,., . r ., .
- 3. _ $..e b
. n _ .s,o., n..
1; ;.p ., z.,,x,; . .
- 3; . . ..sy ,v >s. ,
q n.w . .n.cg n- -. 4 c. . .A ,
. w a . .g* 9:: . n s .. , . - .N*.9 % .'g p.%.
w'
.~m ,
. : ~ 7 g>t ,4m,e w, .,sy&. s 9.
.a , , ,.
[ G;f.7,.,p.4' m ;. y?6',7. W ,4n.@%g . to the requirements of the low power operating license PECo pursuant g
%* !QS. Mg8<j that' had already been issued. In this. limited circumstance, it is not un-..
reasonable to view a party's right under section 2.206 to solicit more , 4 4 v.?/MS)@Y hbM formal staff review of the concerns triggered by such a routine filing as I.M[$dMTW $~i I - $ g. i.a'.i.y e p M-Z.m q. an adequate other means for protecting its interest.25 Indeed, it might - well be argued that formal adjudication before a hearing board is an inap-h 8 q .p .DW- d L,. N, M;h-' ,8 $,N.yh! propriate and inferior vehicle for policing the scores of detailed filings . bM'MN . routinely submitted pursuant to staff-enforced regulatory requirements.26 The Licensing Board next determined that Anthony / FOE failed to
. ?$
4,7 N<IM%~~ w .M. . MW;AW'.y% j..W.Wh,J4,g N 5.M show their ability to' contribute to the_ development of a sound record on . f .-, .,' 7; W.~ . m.. .e the new matter they seek to raise. Anthony / FOE had advised the Board u- o" - that they.would produce a witness l- Dr. Molholt;- but the Board V(['.
'l.gg W.9#,%?.,k)7Q;4 $Si foun'd the subject areas of his likely testimony to be lacking in the requi-
& The Board's conclusion is reasonable and in accordance .
# site specifics.27 Jy,y,yr .. @h.fl.
Q'WP.h.c.g]; f rR with past precedent.2 On appeal, however, Anthony / FOE have tendered ' Dr. Molholt's affidavit to lend some detail to his proposed presentation. Uf.),dJ ;E But as we noted above, Anthony / FOE cannot properly supplement on N d1 . r,.4%.' ,@J % f *,;".$j e j ', ' Mc,i 9 l y.
** '.(
- F~
\ Q k * &V., W{.) W fQ
.3' .,
;.,'c ; L.[,Y; .L *n 4,;
[',,,, ;
. . 4*.2 ,~,.('q., :?; n'yM'j 25 This is not inconsistent with our pnor decisions. In Washiarron Public Powr Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747,18 NRC 1167,1875 76 (1983), we rgected the section 2.206
/p ; 4 e.e -4 W. c .,*)'
',. 'a
..C , . 4.* remedy as "an adequate substi:ute for partie:pation in an adjudicatory proceeding concerned with the l3~ ~ * ~. f Q h.' ~; l grant or denial a6 inine of an apphcation for an operating license." But that case involved a four. month
, Q. u ; , .] ' late peuhon to intervene at the very nutset of the proceeding;indeed, but for that single petition, there was to be no hearing at all. Given the incipient stage of the case, the contennons sought to be raised
,? . - 6 3 't
> * $g . [f.6, M were typical of those litigated in operstmg bcense proceedings and were not, of course, ingsered by rau-g/.
. . < i".
.<>JJ .' ) ;.'.Wi , :j
( .'[p. tine post-heense issuance fihnss with the stalT. See M., Licensms Board Memorandum and Order of - September 27,1983 (unpublished) Appendix A. Thus, in those circumstances, a section 2,206 peuuon "Y/. M[...i;'* ?r,[0e4g N3, t could not reasonably be construed as an adequate other means to protect the petitioner's interest. Q.J{'f ',* *.+ *
. 2.y , , ! Similarly, in Term 4 we agreed that factor two weighed in a pehuoner's favor because. in the atisence .
* ^ ' c., f;n.' , ' '.-7J.1., .y, / St Q, u of admission to the proceedms, it could not be " assured of an adjudicatory heanng." 16 NRC at 1767.
'Y. ; c.2.( .'.a. 4 ; But the parucular emergency planning issues that pentioner sought to raise there also did not ar'se from j ,,r4 ? P.. q;.n;4l ; any rouunely filed, post-hcensing reports by the apphcant. In any event, we went on to desenbe a secuon y^ , ,l p % ?[ g g ;]
2.206 petition as a "real'* remedy, explaining the thorough review and writter response accorded to . -+;; . , s, t Y, @p A P--..4~4 4 such filings. M et 1767-68. Conqpare Nudrar fact Services. Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), e g *a.. ctg.75-4,1 NAC 273, 276 (1975) (availabihty of other means to protect peutioner's interest can j'q ; I A $ .i,h,. dMw g. Adc{ depend on the circumstarres of prtict.lar case); ALA8-806,21 NRC 1183,1190-91 (1985) (informal r .; . *-
- M4 negotianon among parues at board. sponsored conference is not adequate other means to protect peti.-
"5' ".'. . 0[! 1.3 .4.:.S, J uoner's interest); Noussos Lehtiat & Powr Co. (South Texas Project Units I and 21. ALAB.799,21
( ei ' .c * .. . v / w at ' NRC 360,384 n.108 (1985) (NRC staffs normal nonadjudicatory review of a heense application is not .' g 'A .)$,@ r/E?,N. ./. adequate other means to protect petiuoner's interest); Duke fowr Co. (Amendment to Matenals ,T G',s - jC f ,;..M J. License SNM.I773 - Transportanon of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at 7YT {C-v .lC McGuire Nuclear Station) ALAB-528,9 NRC I46,150 & n.7 (1979) (submitting limited appearance
.' .Q' ' , 3 .. ,eQNL y .' . , . statement or making witnesses avaslable to another intervenor is not adequate other means to protect
. . . t < Nd'y N 'a petitioner's interest).
**- St. . 9%% .. J.j 26 Unhke Term 416 NRC at 1768-69, however, we will not refer Anthony / FOE's peution to the Director of NRR As discussed at pp.19-20. supre. the peution does not raise any significant safety issues. In ad-
, ,(! ? -3 1 +
" 4.5, j e . ;;p;,'M 5 dition, Anthony / FOE apparently have already filed a section 2.206 petition with the Director concerning -
s3#;i . INrjr . f.. . y/g.. '. f . P ',4 i*]. some of the same matters they raise here. c'/. -' ff.' 'g 27 Memorandum and order of June 4 at 12.~
,e 3 9 .. g., ,% /p y , ". -
, g:%q 28 comps,, ALAg.806,21 NRC at 1191-92, with Missessapi Powr and Lehr Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725,1730 (1982).
1f .'..N. g,.*p. hw=. ,, - , , , , se. .. er , . ' l' .,.
- h V' ,. g g,', * ,' !
- 4. s ja - , -9
'Wa *g mpy *6 6 L.% ,g
~ <;_ .' N . :* , s e,s., " b
. . s.j <,*%.S. l< t _ y u - . , '1
- t +d i- } f,.. *i.e ,. { 3-3, I
.u, . _. <
k ,, e, ... ,y ;m-
.s, w; .a . . g- r e , p g . og . ., , . _ . , , , , , , ,;_,,
.- < - - ,' .. .. v:; "., <. .?
,
- l. 3 .,
'q ;, . ,f** yl '. y Q >; M.!.,M' T ' fA Q .
s f **, , . : y a,
' \ ,, 'w t y'" : r ., %. s .. * ' s n
'I,"
e
.'.','..ay 'g .
3, . s
,1 . . . h. . . s , 4 i *. ., . ' .; .; . ' '
.-(4 .< ' ? <u-- . *; .
, ' ~
, !5A 's *
[, q *' g}, o '. .
- f. , .\ ~" l..; +
c,: J. ,
' .- ,,<*. ~
. c. *
. . a
._. Q. .- .
y -.
..* -e. -. - - -
. . . m------------
- . 1 .: .
a
, 7- 3.; .
.- c. .
. * .. .a .
ys e
. *z
, s C' :-
$, -(;, s' '
- y .c .
&mJf '., , c: -
. 't 1
a. g u ;,,. l : : ;. . . y , . , a .- , i.'.krOY. k . Q;f;0Q .>..< -:a, -?
!^v . '
, N .
~;, '
..g 'q.i m , _
.r . -Jav :% a .
.m. .,7". -
s
- t. . .
b .
, ~. s . .99 .- 35 Wh.
r - 3.
.?J *,24 . ?;, ,
.W appeal the information that was before the Licensing Board at the time A.G '". .. 4.h ofits decision.2, MW. ./.I: 'I. '.jt:~:o .. '. -
..t,. 8 '- ?l.".)
The Licensing Board found no other existing party that could repre- .,y_E c, , . y' . . . . . .
.g, ... .'V. ' '.%m sent Anthony / FOE's interest and thus weighed the fourth factor in their
"$s .E W,.';f;l< 1'f, favor.30 We agree.
. n:4 M J. ,l: /
Finally, the Board concluded that the introduction of any new conten-
'l; ' q g re 7;% t. '.. .;.,
M . tion at this stage of the case would broaden the issues and delay the pro-j, D _i @. sts ..: M'.7.;g l,_.m ceeding.3' But Anthony / FOE argue that reopening the record for hearing
.. . ,l.' A .,;};
.w .,
. . d ~. '.' : on the issues they raise here is essential to the protection of the public A '.e.i:/. Caf , R.? I:7 health and safety and overrides any possible delay in issuance of a full-
- m. .e.,1.>$.:.n. :. . v.: j ...
power license. Sg;.r%U . M, . ..",.%, ', . . ,M,,m, q
.. , . .... 7. . . , .
'.i ' At the outset, we note that the Commission's regulations require a D ,;.i?@.Tg ! . .d..
licensing board to determine whether the proceeding - not license is-u '.MJ ,f. 1' 5}l*7., E.' suance or plant operation - will be delayed.32 We agree with Anthony / h;c'/hY g
,n . i.tlg.N., g/.v E. FOE, .. G however,. . . .that, the public health and safety must be a preeminent w&.:8 .N r '- .
7 concern where s.ignliicant issues have been raised. But as shown above,
'i!. % I,'[! (. Mg.l'd; 9p. the matters involved here do not rise to that level.23 6'J. , d.l,. AE f In sum, Anthony / FOE have not demonstrated that a balancing of the O ,. 1 l N: . .
q h . five factors in 10 C.F.R. y 2.714(a)(1) favors the admission and litigation - T .e'k;/' of their new contention based on PECo's Semi-Annual Effluent
- g. ,
- 4. + ,.. 'Ns a/
Releases Report.
~, . ~ t : ,'
.s
~. " ,' " .
The Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of June 4,1935, is l .;; Y R: :n affirmed. q.;;....>+ . , , s
-x2q It is so ORDERED.
,m. ., .
3 pr. - , , , e : FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
, s . ,.; .,
. , ww .s # ,.?
,n .._. m. . .;
. ;;a.M q ':'.
.d" .>
. ' ' / .J ~3
't ,, Tfl C. Jean Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board
.g. .J,/ ..s i* ,-
* ',j:,3 f' ?J .~.l -, E , f, .. .C)4 . I -
'(' .,
U.g .0.f.'(7 ' * . 4 / .t
.; & N .,
} c.:
;i'; 1' ",l 4u
;N*l.[,' l l[ f.J .*
.*Q 29See p. 20, supra.
tf i :,/. .' ; I. 4. _ ' . ; . . f f) 30 Memorandum and order of June 4 at 12. -< ' e -- *d'. , . . ' ., .a .g Ji g
.. -f * ' -
' * -* 32 fermi,16 NRC at 1766. In any event, since the time the petition to reopen was filed. the Licensms fc
.I 3.' t . i Board has completed all heanngs and issued its final partial initial decision resolvmg m PEco's favor the E ' J' ' I ' ,[.#,;, .
, . .. , remammg contested issues and authonzing issuance or a full-power operstmg license. The Commission
~ *
;.; - 0 .i .
made the Board's decision efrective, and the plant is in operation. See CLI.8515,22 NRC 184 (1985). N *, 33 See pp.19 20. supra. .'v. a . 3; , h3 . ' .'l! y*
*g c.. f t
,. [ g *' ," "
*a. f Jm .~a: w; .
\;.; c. N .. .m,. . . ~ . . 3 23
; y .i '
) *' . .;. u '.--:. r
,t 6' I' i 1 .
.. y _?t
, ,s
.c. -. . , , . . _ . . .
- . . g.
..,y,- - - . .
. I8 .w '
*.g
. . , '_ *T- *
- 5. a ,'
( a .-
'3 ' .'s, '* '
,, [ .'. , , , .
t *e.' "'
.I +, k* if .
, e
( . _
_. .m
- 1. .
.. -c .- . .
, m ,,.
4 .
,. 2 . .. .
f a. . s..
-y ., -
,-. s g . . , u. 7. . .g ..- ..;m m .. g,. .y,. ..rp.
s
> ,- 'y.
., e.
.^ . -
.. . .... . . .- . . - ..a-
. . ., j -
,3
.. ,ax v 3: m . .
.; e t ' , - 2 ;., -
,; .s,.
1'
. . g,r. , ; . . . . ,
1,
+ .. ,4'..
(?cq,T x ...,~,~;,
- . t ' .J. Cite as 23 NRC 25 (1986) LBP-86-1 p; .3;y,y. .g.. ; r;.; ..:. .,W , - - ..j -
7* = .- ;
* ** ? . i * . & _,.
- 4+ - , . '[.s
;. c ., -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/;'.M.. . , 4d, r: o.3 ,' , t j m.~ .yp n.:
. .p .' . ' ?. , s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. . :.s 4. i
%l t .' v . y
(' ' . (,)
' ' '. ; ;J ., ,, * ' N . ' , ..i ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD yg: .v.'z ) .
. ;: '^:q
.r- j,, , -
,J. , , => l, , #. s . ...j
.;t .
;'gft, ,Y. Je l h.t.'
np. ', A;'R, Before Administrative Judges: Q. '. , (f lm.,-, .y :1
',..-2...,j. .h.1.
,, 1.
. . . ' [*Eh }:::l
..~ ..
Robert M. Lazo, Chairman 1-
- c. , ., e. ..,+y.,.- , -
Gustave A. Linenberger 4+...;p;N 4..
.. ,y @ ,1. :.6 David R. Schink
,0, .t
. , :. y :
# :.0:.,.
. . . , ,.s p'.
4 3 .f:.x.y-n.. r . 7,q j N.a _ , ? ~;,.%, ~.,--;
'p.;,. . , ~ G~ ' <;j in the Matter of Docket No. 50-133-OLA h 4,. . .:.s ',.,s. ' ,(* ' (ASLBP No. 77-357-07 LA)
. .- :4;l i: ,, ; ,. (Amendment to Facility
(,7 4 j;- 'm,- '] ;. Operating License)
. .c.j;
._4.- s u . -
J ~ >< - " i PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
'l
?.f" i ,,- COMPANY
- . ,, ../ r.1, . ..
- 3. . ?: (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3) January 14,1986
+ e ,
.~;.,...
.?
,, a
- . ,9
.'j -[ .,.p. .
., The Licensing Board grants Licensee's motion to withdraw its license n ,. d, '
4 s, amendment application and dismisses the proceeding.
,~,.,a u.. ,
'1 .
. e.f _ . s . .
_ . w.y ,
. .wi. w . . , .
s y,fw . n+.! -.F - MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TERMINATING
" r w.eg....,
. 4...
s
~
PROCEEDING
% ~. %. .. . . >; ; . . .
., . .. c ' .:
- d. ~ ,, ,. ...,t
, ** ' On October 11, 1985, the NRC Staff (Staff) filed a motion with the i._ ,
.s- . -
. . + ' . . a9 **. . . - '
d.:.. . Licensing Board seeking an order dismissing the above-identined pro-
.j- -< . e .' , , ceeding. In its motion the Staff argued that (1) the matter was moot be-
. * ;:f*,/ .
; . , ,. , ]
~'
cause the Pacine Gas and Electric Company (Licensee) had sought to k@ ,y ';k, i c,.-
. .... withdraw its application for a license amendment which was the subject
% { t.'}; ; b 'N of this proceeding and had submitted an application for decommissioning p '. ,. . . ,,: 3, , ;. . . .
.*s.-
r e" .,.?
.;~6
.L
. -[N. '.' -'y,.
, -l ,
b
.. - , . l 15 9 . ..
**~
v. di . *
.' j
- e i
4..
, . 4f
. gy . %,. y E
- r .n .*
%a * .j . ' s
'T - . .
,- - m ,
s
,e s +' '
, 8 8 -
[ 4 I .A b. *},
' + I, - *
' . t,g.,
- s
x.-
~.. .
. . . .s.. -.. _,,
p- .. . 7
' . . < , ' . . , .G; ~ ..;. , 1,*; .y N ,. m... .
3.. . s
. - , ,.t,
>r .
- , ,u -
s e w .. . : . .%
, y ., . y. . .,, ,
,s.
a;s, s o;; 3. j~;; ?.: ,,.3:,%:.
.g.r.q:
v) ...L. .
- . y : , , ,. . _ ,
m' ;;;y3. .( .,9gc
.,y. . ,. i , . gy . .,, .
~ . - - >
.q~,c-..... .. . .
.,.,c,.. g.
a
=
v -- 5 .
,, s s ?.. . .t . .,s, e .
,. , ., y. ;. /. . vr. ..:
; o .u *o. * .w.
u
,q s .
..J *C:
.g. . -W. .Y 'l,$l.
- g . , ._ .
. . . ; w.s. .
W
., .A. M.;J pursuant to which the Staff had recently amended the operating license
- to authorize " possession only" of the facility and (2) the Board did not
.,g f'M: ".,",'{ .r.Q.7%j!.4
. T h'- B .
- have jurisdiction to consider the decommissioning application, but
',) ( 7^nt,f;.,,yM y j" rather a separate proceeding and opportunity for a hearing on the decom-
% iI;>QM. , .'.l ', missioning would be available when the Staff noticed for consideration
- a. . .., . . . .
the decommissionmg appl.ication.
t . ?NE , @, ,.i. * . )p ~
The Licensee filed a response on October 28,1985, in support of the 1
'?. g c r ,~." . g' a., . ,.
Staff's motion. No opposition and indeed no .other response to the c.L.
.i , . '. Staff's motion have been filed by any of the other parties to the
- t .
. a.
,j, a q;, proceeding.8 c"c., .. - J C '. s. *
- The Licensing Board has carefully considered the "NRC Staff Motion
%;;f . . N R .v-to Terminate Proceeding" and the response filed by Licensee and for
;. :W. ; W. the reasons set forth therein agrees that this proceeding should be dis-
!,( n W ..; .j 7.a .:/ ' % .Q , " ,, missed. The submission of Licensee's decommissioning plan renders - j,.W>:.'i.M. r. , d moot the amendment application which is the subject of this proceeding w . T 3. ,. ,.d.1;p.;M.and any issue pertaining to the contested appl.icat. ion. As a result, there
,:,.m w are.el .W,o..J.s.$,.
.3 :
p( M,.: g /.;ct. . now no issues in dispute which are within the Licensing Board's
.;a..) }/6';:yY. ". / .,.
jurisdiction to decide. Moreover, there will be an opportunity for inter-
'f,',8 ' ested persons to request a hearing on the decommissioning application Mc.'$.[7l.^j'O.'.:j jdi fil submitted by Licensee. Accordingly, there is no reason to hold a hearing .
~y G 4: ,p f. W>. gs :d w .i in this proceeding or for the Licensing Board to retain jurisdiction. c . . s
,,, . . ', '* (;g .:N.y(*- 'J- : a. S.'.s.t
..(..-(
ORDER.
'.~J.: .
) .. '~ ,Y
,.. :. - .s,, ,. ,w. e 8- ,
M'l.-J. M N O.;:Q' For the foregoing reasons and in consideration of the entire record in
# y n al - g -< 4 this matter, it is, this 14th day of January 1986,.
, ; $s. v. - .
.i. . . . . .
.lj ORDERED Z .;.7.~. .V. . Licensee's motion of December 31,1980, to withdraw its applica-1.
ar{ .,4a.": 1,'W x.. .' 3. e qp.m' i
.M. . ;w tion for an amendment to permit resumpt. ion of power operation and to terminate further action on the application is hereby granted; , hd ; . . $ , 4.)I* *:.'ls J. %.
l'; >f.>. . .i '
- t. . J ' , * ' > .D.. * ,. *
<h.
, . .i16. .
L
, ;q
;, . '3 .o*
~s. , Q .. ,
1 (Q:.u.y;. ned ...:k.
..; a .,v 9'
*. *m , Q. .l ..w ;'4'+:',;:vn gA.
, ..f ..,.p.. %;, , D .-y ;I*: 5. *.yk., ' ap 4 8 . . , - . . .
. is,;f ," . r 'ij' / .',;& . )
y'i/.. =.
., t.;"j,$,.}. -
8 ;. .,.,5 * ,',,u,.. W]i. h r., . _ ~. < - mc,et ':.f,t t 3:
- i.) ",l) ~ . , f*\-
% . d ,)l.
....... 'n% .., . t tc. .
, , . , y *%..
'.y-- y. * **
*yg ,
.li.@ N.mQu y .. .a , :
.,w. /. a , .;9,;, .
.t 3 The other parties to this proceedmg are the Joint Intervenors. Thomas K. Collins, Dr. E;mont Hones,
'S. [!.P. f.8,r.' .**. 'Jif y . V, y D. ".g. ' $' d,.('q Frederick P. Cranston. Wesley Chesbro. Demetrios L Mitsanas, sot Rivers Branch or Fnends or the .
.- Earth, and the sierra Club.
M. $,O,,,.'t..' 7- -
,.. .jf ri1.y
.z, u .'lQt-. -
,y/ , f
.,4 ,3r* * , "A 4 ) * , , [ . . h .
. v. . y' . ->,.h q*.J. , / ' .Q t',1 ,4 " .. .W y 26
.i-
, l :Kg,..,v;.
p ?, - ' . '* u .Q;.N;y
.y.;
n2s ,
, . , 1 *
, .i ' 4*' ,.. ,',..
\ .4N ' , , . g
- 5. *
- yj. *
,l, g , y o]
e v'
* ,. , s e n e s,-s. ?.y y,~'.e_ -. es . g/ . . g. ,., . p;.. ,-q~ . -, . ..--. , , . -s . , . . . , . .
+ y
, . ",' % o . % 6 * : ) t. .,., p .V.
3
- ;. . ;.i.C
. ...s ., p .; ..'. g...
'e A
. ., +s - - .,.'r *' -
py -
.? ,
-.[ ._= '$
~
't , , !!.~ .
- . ., ' . . 'y. r.
s o , .n . e
. , . 'r ; . .
, '. .q
, te au z. . .g 'e a . . s.- r
. t
'**s *
.l, s, _, . ? .
,.,( >' L+
?,' . ,.
'**. /.* y '.,.e'.'s..l.
. .u , ,. ,
. ,e 3 :l *' i.'8 ;; (efp, ku ,g- . ], g ;"
+e .y, ..y ,,{,., :. h - ."y. , ' ,,ygf ,. . s
.rr. l
'.'?. t
, , _ , .s . ~e.s ,. ( ' .Q
'?'.,
. : u. , . . .' ..
w...
- g. .
~
. ~
s
>- ,, s. . . -
- c. -
y? y, x: .
. . , ,v <. . ,. ~ . .- -
~
-a 4
. . .. , g a Q&.W,..y:
'b'.' '. J.*.. . % ; ' '
V
;. . h .'; ? @ Y, < Q : ,H p 4 V%
S ;:9 .
- . . - 8 s
.s ,
"... .*. ..,a
. s >.
..c .
..o , . . ..,
.. i . , . . :. , . .
.%. . , 3 . . s- , :. . .
.. ,. . .i .
,0 &
2 t s.. .
. c .,q . .i.. , .. .: , m s ,s,
' A e *: 6U - 2. The NRC Staff's motion of October 11, 1985, seeking an order 2,c -
f%[v.'$ '
$J[.,.'y,1 .
'.g' M. m
.i .. - f ..(/,,'h;[.'i dismissing this proceeding is hereby granted, and
- 3. This license amendment proceeding is dismissed.
e
- 1. n...;
j., w.:& "i' .:.. ' . ". ..
.7, 4.e I."
- p. ..i. h N. m y{s.c6 .,g.N,[ '..:u.j FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND a .- .
LICENSING BOARD
- . . ;: , r. .. .
. u.r. . s ,~ 4 w:. . . ..
,.,., . . .. , .>s., r .2 . ,. .... . 4
. >: q. . . -?.
.{
F.u? . j .j: W.f/. ;' . .. ..
. !.,1 .a .
Robert M. Lazo, Chairman [.[ ". .9 ?./. , ' ' ey.. :..; . .s.:.(.
.r..-<,
. s e '} ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE s..
c ,
.3._i -
s .
.}
P.,U. ' 5..;7.O: ,0 . ; Y
.t Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, w . 7 . .. .)
3,:y
; f :. % this 14th day of January 1986.
~ . . . .s , . , , . , . . . ~ .
..: e :;. .+. m,: :...
.. . y, ,
.,, ^;p :
s-
"%'.: . % .;.m . , y ? . ' 4 .q ,.. .t.s,. .
?.
+ - ,.h.,.*.,, s.
e.g-
# of .
.g S
+* ,
- s 4'.=
.' ~* ,
.A' ,
b, g * . *, 2 , 't
,,. j a**
x g ,, ., ,
' . * - ..1
)
o
. , ,' ' s A . r h, e '. . ,
t., .
,w, g .eI g s'. 7 .F". x Ie *
- s. .. #
- r:. .3 ", g *f
,i. ,
,.* , . .(. ..
- 3. .t ,, 6*' , .#
.h
.,,,s *
; , , ;f ., .(g t - '
\* .
- .r . .
..re. 9 .
?
. c- ~ .;....*- .
, ,..ge, . . T
.6S'..*
<e g
" a e
- s.' .
'.4 .
, p.
. 6.. . * . *
, .,, .e, 'T , ,,
y -e O, 3..
, 'r 4 .r q . , %t. ... * , ,.'.e >e ,, *\ 9 % .- e e.
['
**g.
,s
., 4 - * *
. .=
. 9.
. .. 6
-.A
.A , ,**' =.e*' , ,a p'. ...,' . * .%. .
...et
.I I
.,. , g. , .y . c..y
.}
r a .;. .., .~ e.. ....'.-. .. 3
' G ..t * ~ - ,[r4 -. . .. c., .
Ab ~ g,
. . ' . p y. - a.,.
It. --#
. {
% . ';. , .u . . , :q, . w 'r
. . .. 8
; . *. r-
',, 4 *'3*'If g .*
< f.'.
(s ** w.. .- -
. , . . . x: &s
].s 1 1 . ' . 4 27
~; tf, .
b . g . g ? I
.,a 4
=, .. t
#g
- F g# .4
- 4 *- , 4 . s,
,I, . . . *
, ,- o n
, . ., o . . , , , , , , . , . -- .. s a I %
3
- - e 1 g # g
,s ,
, . em
.. . p.. *
> c . . , ..
- c. , 9*
. j ' . .*
)
,y , n i
- t. . ,
~. ,
'l
. , ; 2 * , , . -
. s - .* , 'y g 9. ,r.q. 6 .s .
m .s ,7 s .. . .
.u.
e_ .y . A t u_ s.
, y
-r- ., . nj. . . . , . . . , .. , c2: . .,, 1
~
- , . .,e.~...
,,;y,.
.w- w. , , : s .. :.
. . , n. v . 7 ...
. .,..,n ;. ,.:.. ... , ,
.c
. ,, .y,
~. . v-4: a
- ,, y s , .s s. .
.- ~f
.O ; ,
x .,
. .p. .;,. . >:
m,.
-. ,. .-c,.,. , , ,
. . . o s e ..
< w :,..
. . ' . . .. . : L,
+ - . := ~ . ,
. i .& :-;.s ;m:6.Q;.' ',. ;-* 9*' . '. : s . - c w.c
..-7
- .- *.,'z.m...,, -
- i. .q .m.- f a . w;;.,. ;. .-, . , - p
, l".... ', .
i ' ', * . a, _ s . ,5'., .f,,9 .a
^*
- as-
- y. .. %
g.' ?..).'i. ,g .y . /*i-' .' ' e.%. - ,, ? '. ' ;6 ggC Cite as 23 NRC 28 (1986) LBP.86 2 @f ;s f,b-,. 3
-y h ',56.C3.y
-. . . . . -.>.n:..p. -
,s f.)Ir.I* ny...,-
u p *
. e, .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- D*S.N +e . . $'N ,.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION II[6 3 W: :: V.. . ; - - x .
*. ",.4::%.9 MD t
g' % M ,. vy.. A.....a. .3. '.c,y. ,g..- y-. Before Administrative Judge:
.,.J,,M..".( .. ,
. ' fn 4:. *,,.
j.? 3.. * # ., W :.g - a ;.-.Ty Dr. Jerry R. Kline ic.3..h,,,,i.'I.'h t : f_ G. I i .,. 1> .s w.:c,. o r.:. .
;. . =
e.:. . s. V*:;. ..
'M.
^
...., l s ; ..,' . ,%.. ;. . . .,
,;g .* r 8
' 'fip '
Docket No. 30-22063 N - y[i in the Matter of (ASLBP No. 85-512 02-ML) l'.p.'If',
,t Q42 ,. y'y[
. ",;,,f"./.'M,,F
. . y, , . , . c ;,. y.::
. Y .#
t u. e:.v. m PRECISION MATERIALS .
^; ,:s ;' Q' n.h: i. N ,'. 2? <
3 Y CORPORATION . . N.c O. evW;. c. (Mine Hill, New Jersey (g..',E.E A.".' ".t. .
- e. :
/. :'/i' ,.'t.. '.:.
January 28,1986 t :: W sa;.w,;. ,g..%-d. : +v.. Irradiator Facility) L E .- s;
,r.,
r .. . g. .- n.;,>v , 4; k r .z..n.. .v. L. .. m6m .o:3..;r.. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissing the Case) fM...f.cW #,2., ;.?G . (5.,, N , 3. ,:& _ . -y .
g..,.
.e.
-f.; v .
, *..) . . . ,
, .w .,, 0 s.:'*g .
The Presiding Officer was notified by letter da:ed January 21, 1986, W, s,...n.'.' :L .f,-f.,~ from Mine Hill's representative that the Township of Mine Hill with- k.6- l.g,<;/~~ ~J JO 81.%r S, '..; draws its previously filed request for a hearing regarding the issuance of @ N/T..N f t.: c. * .. a license to Precision Materials Corporation to operate an irradiator hs f l&iss,;.,' facility in Mine Hill Township. Mine Hill's withdrawal of its request for - [G,%e.'%.:$.dile.% hearing results in there being no disputed issues to be resolved in this
.y. : .
case. 4: . . . ~ 4.sg" t7. A.,.5. .A
- n. .." i. .,3. . . ,, . .
...m..
The NRC Staff previously conducted a safety review of Precision-Materials' Irradiator Facility. That review resulted in the issuance of an gd..PC p-% ~ .Ja < s .. 1.;, NRC Materials License to Precision Materials Corporation permitting it ig'/~'Vp~.?>3. I ' * / "W... 2). :. [ ' f.. ' _ . . . , ^ . to possess and use byproduct materials under conditions specified in the l$'0,,[,./;[,,,, t. I.1,.... license. ; . f
^
In the absence of disputed issues, the presiding officer may rely on ' the Staff safety review and the licensing conditions imposed by the Staff h.- {'3E ; ff ,' + S, , M; - y m: for reasonable assurance that the facility will be operated in a manner h,l,.7/,.,'[^f,,l,S'% consistent with the protection of public health and safety and in accord- h. ..ij ,e ss,.'f6 5. . . ~ .,; 6,. ' .' ; ance with NRC regulations. For these reasons, it is concluded that an in- .- .- N y?. . a~. . '. . . . . s'.9.a.. /. : ?"A
$*.,'.. g 8 ' ' '
b.6 N 7 }[fy;,*# a.'A
; w ; . .; .; f. . . ._ :.; , , .
l.l .f,1 .1e f../ ,'l;'.* 'Mt'.m. * , ..fll':
}8 .. .
., < * ;i F.
? t. (. .
- O' i *.g* ' ,i' . ' . ,.
I . . s **<.
. <i.'- 6. $*,[. .. ;s..:.
;- 3' . N
. .'.; . . , ,.'i ,
(: ,' . e,.~y;,, .'n 1 v:z .,.' . - -
* ** **=A- e p '." *
- sms; e. n e m .er, 3,., ; , .4,= ,
. < .a. . , c, .
> s. .;< t. .. o r #
': ,i, s
, , S '. ,.f. .
j !. , . :* -" ' 1 -
..,s .a
.. i.y, g.' y , t l,*.g
, , , p.:~;3 -
..s.+. ...s
,* .. : ., ,y, . . ,,,, , ' . . , ' .,g,g.. ,,, j,.g,.
. . . , , . 4. , a, . . . , . q. 3 , g .
7 n.. ..-
..q-
.; 7 '
- e
. . . . x. .
. *$ . J . . . G
.d. ; , Y
. m" . . ,
-l
h :.,, .g 3 r , j- .r- - e ,- . , ,
. ..;,% ,. . *. ,.., r <
, . . .y s. -
~
7, .. .
' , i-e +
't 6.&, .uQ.n.Qin,;.&; O~
,. . .q.;.;; , > w,:(j:~p, %.:; Q.5, W ,.;grp ? }l ~ .,. . ,%e..:.
. ?. , . . ,
w a- - ..s,-. . ..
. ;. - : > -z.
. ,g
~
L ; .
._,..b'
.. +
, _ . .c .- . ,. ...
-~
.p , . ; ; 3,. * ' ~;3 .
+ . . ,
. 7 ,, f '9 .
formal hearing is now unnecessary and that the case should' be dis-ce m. . ;y.. .;- -l.n ~ Q..g. . missed. - -
-]
(q:4,,eq. ~c . .. c.3. . .P,-4 <;Accordingly, . for all of the foregoing reasons and in consideration of
?j.-: J ' M;q.y. e. .b, the entire record, it is, on this 28th day of January 1986, - p
- I- ORDERED t..
('jj97vsf,'?.f, ..t'tf)dfd .-
- 1. This case is dismissed because there are no disputed issues to be .. r e, :..' , . ' r, '3 resolved. .e . .. o c.
3, ., ';<za, p. , . . . ,y ... ,. Y 2. No changes in any license provision or licensing condition are im-fJ.fg'),;f 6((.(. .s' d.,-'f1
- r. p t.re [ posed or approved as a result of this proceeding. Precision Materials Corporation materials license, as amended August 2,1985, remains in
'c- +
.;z,,1 .J'.i.e . etfect.
.g..-Q:st !e-* f ~
- 3. This is the Snal decision by the presiding officer in this case. In ac.
@b.'j5.*M.
l.; -
." l ,i.*.. '4, M" ,. 4
. . '.. 1 'A, $ ,y cordance with the Commission Order of July 24,1985, this decision will become final agency action 30 days after the date ofissuance, unless the
#.'.%x.$3;;. $. l. 9 , .i..a Commission on its own motion undertakes a review of the decision. No petition for review will be entertained by the Commission regarding the -
Q... .;.Ir .?' ,y..}',C.f.
, ,m. . .
a
. i
,, . m. ,, ,
ilh. ,,9 9.1. . presid.mg officer,s decision.
. . . ::. d C .X,. , \h *of l' .,t.f'n .
;/
C' . 4, , , S ] Jerry R. Kline
' i1 I
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
.c: ..: A I..7 '.'.. . I Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, ,'. : Y - ...,-i this 28th day of January 1986.
t.,ue v; . s .e 3 pr tl ., . h,1. 2. y
.,r.>
,,t- .
4 y,. ,
- p.
v.s i
.- , , ,g y..' ,
- 9. i
, . . .:- ' .sp. n n , ; . e,. ,; . ~r.' . .'
',..i
. e , ,< ;,- * ,1 7, .* ~ , . , .. *
.]
6,V * ; * .. ,".,. ,<. , .w . .
- y. % .)
. .,.; :.. .m... . , , . , , - ,
c
.a : ,
;7 :,,, .:.........
,,f q 7 ' ;;,p . - . '. t.c.; ..1 3 .
- e ..y!,
~.
Q :.,. ' ; * ;,* * *, , '. ,, A
.. j ,, a .
m.~, .
- _' ,' ] ,.I- .e p j.* 'sg (-
t... 3 r '
.. , .a
,' h - .a W . .V 4 -l. - 'l
'/M.;'[.i,.,s.*:C.
.* .sf.
.3.
. ' ' * ' ,. . . ' . .s..
. . [ 'l ,i
,4 29
*/
s .. h.
* $ .' J 8'
,p
,.,' 4
.& 5
, e .
, e ., 4 3 , . . . ..
. . # ~ '
e
- i s
,
- 1$
, e .. .
, ,s', p f g* . ..,1 -
\ ,
h, b f. . 6
** f. s * *
- g- . m'.,e . y J. .
w ,; ; w. v . - .;
~ *
. /
- .~~
,i. .
j
- -w- - . : <- .
~
L. , > . s .. . . ,. ,
. .c . .
. ~
- ~ . .
. .: 1 ., -
. i- -
, . :. s s n9.:..Rgh.h, ni..;:w -
aMMu% '4.W5,YMp" L~^ "
-*f ' '
~
..s.- -
?:l*
~* '
t .
- ' ~
- L. ... '.~.'.'. .
.n ' ~ ~
' ,. i
- p'.4 .
y,f, , w.
, *i. : .,
Cite as 23 NRC 31 (1986) ALJ-86-1 7 ;_ .. y ,. .. .
- t. ... .; m, .i
@;9,,[s;'j.3;[' M'.U ' ,14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,;*11. .'.E
~ : ; , : ,:,, -/.A,~. . J, j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.: . * .e. ..- '.
c: ;r . ,
, - . g
* '7.i
;s- . . ,.. s
. f.*,? * . -ff:Wi,l;.-MT %*C4
.g. ; ..:. ' . :. , .* , p.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE l
,w. , '. *. . , .-q ..-.,.:-
- ...: .W,,1
(* : 'S. *^.
- . , c. j, 7. ';. ' Ivan W. Smith s i,m:l.3.....l ,. .; 'e p.?
--, .., 1.
',*~.
\,. ) 4. ,??* /* D., ;n',. v. . .., ?..'.L
. v, .
l . cp .< ;. . . . . r.4
~ . . .u d', ,Il[9 - ((t r:'.fr ." ~. In the Matter of Docket No. 55-60575 Kw ,
3 c's . P, !.C.l%a- . . . . i *.(4 {
; P' c. ,+m..j (ASL8P No. 86-515-01 SP)
(Senior Operator License for 34 .P 4, .,g . '.,., 7 ; . . .
.r
.j
. .s .... .. ..; Millstone Nuclear Power
- m, i}ig.: . $ .; . . c,[p;{ :t Station, Unit 3)
. / ~;, . ' .+- >, ;, - O'. ,., k.4 ? KENNETH L BURTON January 27,1986
. m.. :,.
. ,.. ~ ,.
- - e '-
k ORDER TERMINATING PROCEEDING gr
. . #, , . . . : n i
,' ?"' - J Kenneth L. Burton's application for a senior reactor operator's license p.
',.'/.~-P- -
'.'j .
*~j
; for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 's was denied by the NRC
.' i 4- -
a *, . c... <
,. ,! Staff on the asserted basis that he had failed the simulator portion of his a; . - - ,.
May 23,1985 licensing examination. Mr. Burton requested a hearing on y the denial. The Commission, by order of October 10,1985, granted the
- 6. *' ,
- s . request. Subsequently, on October 15, 1985, the NRC Staff infornied
' 2 ,[.V . , I -< Mr. Burton that the simulator examination of May 23 was invalid as "a [*; - . ~,1 . . .! determination of either successful performance or failure." Mr. Burton P4 .f: 2 participated in another simulator examination on October 30, 1985,
- g. . ' <e. . -), . . g.
~
- 7'*l which he passed. His senior reactor operator's license has since been
. .?g .
4.. . i issued.
.?
9 j Now Mr. Burton and the NRC Staff, byjoint motion dated January 2 3, ., r-3.9g>:
, 2.f - ~
.,,, ^-) and 7,1986, move that the proceeding be terminated as unnecessary w" "
I e . .e g,..=..., ' Q g,
. ,, , a
,. ' - g d
.. . ,. d e ' ,
, . / .. , , ;a. i.
. . .c -- ..~.* q
,,,\**.*o,,,
4*.
.4!
- v
. . '; 4. * *;'.h,. . .
* "3. i s . s t .
,,. ^..a i.l
..'*J ; 31
,y i
A((J- Q. , s e~
'g
,7 t, '
, e. *
. e- f.3'.
4,, .
% *4- 1 ,5: , , b ' *
- s w ' '
, in a =
<. ,m..- .... m.--. .. - %,- ..
,.r-,w ar ,- .3 . . w y*,
.s#
e
.t . .
. .g. .e .,s + .
s *.:,.,. ., ; 1. +. s.o ... ,,,.g, O M%/ . ' .(' '*d ., *l, ..'j g .} }.*g '., ff y-
< . . , ? h, e ' f) i ** " (Y' ' I p*.'[,}{g,e.. . .[. . . [-
" } ";.T . .) z
- t , ..% . w,. ..'LrlQ[ ..;' {.d.. .e .t x.f. ...
m '/. -
. < < . . . .'. .t ' ,.-
, ,. ,:
- e . .o s. ?.
. a . . . , , - >..
.'.1% -
-. R. - ye g. ,x. ,s -
,-* c v . i. is h,. ., y n,...,A..
,. .r . 4 ' \,;- Q....s. le.'
m4 7 .w,
'. ' . , . t M,.:
- _* r.;.
2 .- ....} 4.v ... .* . " r',,...a. .< .T .> . . .y)&y ,6 s -
. 4 4.~ % .a
.rs t.. -s v . .,:. .:
u.'.-e,'t .. - , . , ' . s.. es , , w.......,...,..;p.3 . Vj.*4 ? .._y i e i .; _4 st _ . ,i. A
+g w ;. g . s e,. .k,;nm. ' t. . v * , v. , .). ;..r w*s
?
,,O., y,..y ,
. .,- v.\ . ~. .k.
n N.. a i ; . ;* > .
- n. ,4 >%
5m . . ..~..
. a t
,A' . .%.q;.A
- v. t s:,,.?.
.s and unwarranted. I agree. There is no issue to' be decided. The joint motion is granted.
@.j.i h. . ..e n.yhk,y..
.W
. .t W , s.',W+M...< at W.. . . . .
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this proceeding be terminated. M y,@ g,.f,9* Q. m[ g g . g
,9.,.v.,...
um.i. - : c..,..r: w.m. .. .~ u ..,....,..,.s .. e ~ m. ;n EW;M.v.
.W.,.,P.'. . e.Q >-
Ivan W.' Sm.th i .U. .s.W.s.n.,a . u,'3..&. M*f/ SMM;.a. d:<W.T 4....' Administrative Law Judge
- e
[ ,i; .4' Q Ai:.N@j.;.t.
~ . , , - ( j.E Bethesda, Maryland r. 4 % eVF.v ... s r.' p' ;.t.-2. .M.
January 27,1986 li'.A$.G:.+.,.,R,h.$
.e** g
- p. .C.:n
. s. s . $'w
.t
+ ~. 3.,.,~.
p .3 .,s. gy
. n.2. e, n rL{g.~ ;
,y n y ', 4 ' . '
- a. - e....
e %.- w
&. .v., s .%u.
' c.y.v.. ~.
.s W s.,; s. ...
i n-- s .a . G, .* ... WQy%.: g ly,Q:<M' s ;,g' ),rg.h /. Ae.'. .% e..p
.,.,.,,,s...
- n. .
. . . . . . <e2 . u..
-}'.,
. (,** .s ,V,,68 -c.4;w. . M.*.g, .,.w). ',\.%.. ". f .yr - ;
, 3*y .S,. . Q t64,*)g. .'I'4 +,.,Wl.,Q;,.,py% '
,# . .. p. m".-r.s's ,., 3,.** L,' e.~U' -,'A.e
- V r. i.
**A*
{,.,, ,,.*.,;,*'.' A J., U?,
- A .;e >3
,, . O e.
. . . 'r ,9
,n,f.9. , . _. .m. .g, '.a.
.r m.. - .c.o.s v. .
,3 .,1. . ,..s. , .sL r,.,- . . . .
.m .-
sY ssJh. .,.p . . .. . .
~
4
. s.iw,%%'.
. . . :..m '. ., J. h'g 1( .o. .. ..*f . .N. . .. ,,
;,..,,) a. .
.. ..*g>o.-<
u .p. .a g. s
* .26 . . f,.v Y...s
- t.
* '..M g,t y,.w b,.- .> * . . // :
4 t.
*g . ~,f;\
Q r M'N,. t s.e e j '*?;'; v.y).7 <',jf,y h. fi\ ' = ... I ' .'. ,, . .. ? a$.!;l t ',** . .i . : .- N yJ I - <-p+.'_ e r y .4.* ,;s .fs .i
.c. A,.g...? <<Mf8 .~1- , . , .. . . . v T .. .n
. c%. P .t,&y 4.... W yg,.J..p.. .,ps. ., x.. .,w g.e.9.qc.
J. v .c . . .. q n m..: o. ., .:a.
. . . . ,; s c% ,r. .n.e,M 4
....e.- ;
- o. ,:..
r.,, r r *.y- .. ., . . . a
- i .an
~ 6.g.<. . y);a W . . w . y. 1 4 W.h.r. jdM. ,,';W. .%. ,.
, e. v
~g ,'.. ..s,+. 4 (.7 ? ,. g..' * ..
~-
s o
- e. .. ..,... m.3. ; , ;; .v,. w ...e. ,:.gr..m:9 m..m .F.
c.
+.. ,. ~. . y~.. a.
. .e ,
em.
#"{/ :9 .
4 s. u . .,' .:r.' s' ?[f.m . . ,; }.a.J ' ', }..e,
- ,9;s.gl:,w.
4-y ,e.p;+ g,,v .l9 ,--
. ~ .
p'a.. > 3.i L. .n.s. . 4., :".o
.n, v . . . . e < .
p ..
- o.
.. . .u. . . m. , , -.
.k..r.m. t. m.
i.. ag...
. , , g.
.r g,.
. g. . e,,,,.,
. cc. . . s b;:':Qvs, g a.4 s v. %.,a . n .q .
a..
,.e , _ , ,.:'..NM4 s
q , v.M. ..Q --mA,.. .n. ..p - . :a. . . .. wn.,N,$. 7I* .s
.,?, h. e>b.d. $
Q% m s = s ', ' e* t . e
-*.'a
*i/.:. , c. -.%< , .s s@w;' . ' , ~ .. cW.
* ..
- Q.a , 4. . ..m.f,D' ?.,p
. d - *! . ., yCfs. N. .w.*[.*
- b. . v..- .s . . .
.,w.. . ;.
32
. . . ,.s,. w .n,. . t.:W .o i-f,.?
.r
.* . .$,C Gi ',; ' . . v:m,Y
.y.. <*. n:r,...
- q. v.m. ..a.s;n..Q..;gp.;,;;,.; . . > . . , er .e..
,.......*0.q.~
..aw
.. . . ~ y . . . . - ,....o
. w... .. . . _
rw 2 . p g :.w, . . i,ew
- s. e ..
- q .g,
. tv.. .; .:. J,s. . ' ..' .'.,: g p,.s,,,s,r.,L...
,' .:. ; q
.#...,s... . . 2... n + . , ~ ,. . .:
.r
- e. ,
.c..
.. x .-. , .s,.
m ,. .u , - e e . . . ".r. v. n. x 3 s,..a, ,.;,. ...x < . .. .. . . . - ..
. . v, .
.o ,w , . .
- n. ,w.;. q. ( y. . . , s . ..
..v .. . p. p . n
. s..
f... . < - . . , .,.,,:..% . x.
. . :.m s. 9:a....g n u,?..a .un . ;q.. p.n Q p ;, p 3.,g.:p.,.; ey,.3 g g ;.y ;g. Q 3 r -
- .c , a. m; . .% .e ;. <.s ,w: . , ,t .
.~. . . , .e. = c . o..e . ..
.s , s .
8#,& . .
. r)
.c.=,'.'..-..
4 . f %. ,. b *' 8*
- e L
- =. . e# , . . , s' 8 .'
- g. '
,p j x ,- .j#. .'*.*'.6' 7 '
F
, e -
. h' t] .f . / s .,
, , ... ^
- 1. . %* '"
e .f . ,_.5
~ . . . .
y . . .., ,. ,
.7 r
< ; ;w r~.- .-h.,+p?.yjpmy.g.i-i, .f y.:' .n:. ., w,[;p, % <}.% ..\. .
.,,q.
. . .; , ,, .yp. . -
m
.,,. , c ,
- 1. .
, e .
s ... . 4 7.. .,' . . . .w. 1
~
Cite as 23 NRC 33 (1986) DD-85-19'
',a .r; r,., r ,.
J
, ...',:;.:.'3..,c ... , s:?'".<.yg.;.'.%
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a r. ';r1 ";g .,.g . .
.. ' g.,n ;J .. .,"f s..... -
yq .; y,'.[' j@g;,# E:W4
. .. . . - . . g ., .e OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i.W. ' ' 'YQ. .' % '. .} - -,.ae... g ;O, ...
w..e' .-. . . ..ti Harold R. Denton, Director
- .Q,.:M.. . {@:S A .
.wa. ... 9. m. .* ,,d
' ':E ..A
.a . ,t -
..r.
.,. s,s
- 4. .*s..
l3,, . .; '.. ~ _?.: < ,;. ,s;';.Q 4:*:?....;<;fe..1 '[,,i
- in the Matter of
++ -
~ ,,:: e., a ? v , ,.= 1 .
- 1. .;
N.', 'i.: . . Docket No. 50-313
., . M S;.'.'. ?-,, re. ^hi:J.;1..m .
s.
~
ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
+*,... (Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1)
.l:72 a. 'e . -
.'v.
' ,yy:- L;n:.1 f
- ; :;.: _ , - . . , - ~
.n
. ?, ,' ; i, SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY Docket No. 50-312
, " ., ;,m z'- '
DISTRICT
. , . ', 'e ' }1 (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
, t j Station)
'j O, < W . "; " FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION Docket No. 50-302
- 2. y (. ' . }.'j (Crystal River Unit No. 3
' c; .
y a.. * - Nuclear Gonsrating Plant)
, 1.- , ; ,, s,
'~ r M'T,).6.'
, , r'?; DUKE POWER COMPANY, et af. Docket Nos. 50-269
' * ? ,.l '...' n. , i (Oconee Nuclear Station, 50-270
- ,'.. " 7" ' . ,. .u..,e, t ,,,.. d Units 1, 2, and 3) 50 287 9, - ., t . . _ , , .
% .; ' ? . 4.' . '
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES Docket No. 50-289 7 S',.c , y C '4 ,'[ NUCLEAR CORPORATION
'- . W -
i, - (Three Mile Island Nuclear
,g'. ~q
.- s.
W. .- *' . Station, Unit 1) January 29,1986 c., , .$
,,% , . m.. .: ,
- ..yng ?
o ,
, .y, ?, . . ..
~'
The Director of the Omce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies the
. pg "'?) .e-- ,1 .
i' .4 petition of Mr. John Doherty requesting institution of proceedings to
.., ...II g , 4v . . . . .,.e
, f.- ,, ,c .4 W . '" .' l *This Decision was onginally issued on December 4,1985. but later withdrawn. It was replaced with the e . *'k. ; . -
- Decision of January 29,1986.
l , ,, *. A , ,,, ' -g' ,, , ,, [ ' ' a,,'.'
,,p- *
. ~.,. .'> . ; ,, ;,y,3 %.
,,, t . 9,.. ,.
e, w. - -
. . ,-.: . ; . ~ , , . .* : ., . . o '
.s, . .
.,.. - 33
*
- T' h,.- g- .<-
'g,. .
g .I i, s8
,' r e
,' j
,.' ' '.c
; y * - ,h t - .
p;. . } 1 . c, . , , , l . . ?? *
~
* , e
- e. .',
- a f..,
a ., e ,
- v. *
[. .
, ",.. ,, ~ ,
s .3'
%, t . . f ,, ' . ,
' . [- (t -
., y
- l. .h ' ' ', **. ,
s '$ , . -
.s.,
- g. .. v.wc. . . . . yre.e ,mrm~. ,
'y4...#
9 o.
- y n.; , g, t.m~.me e.. .
,.. ,g..
~ .
m .yg, i.
.y q t9 : : .., y. . ., . ,, ,, .,y o. ;$. .;;.g.g
. g. qx ;. 4 ; .
.*. <a ,1 , -
,aO. . ;. ..u y .. 3 ..c a':b,:,+& :
- i. M'. . .'
~..~ . * : ;. m
. .'.3 : w ! 7.: . W , 'A ; ^, .m . . :L. L. u.: e .h.
. .~
... . e ,. x:.y.f.y, j.' :?.
s- i.~,. - G.;Y.g; g,034.g.fihq
- e.c .. . m a c:;; e g;.? .:!.y , n %. n,.: M yP H
' .tt&.s.. .,.w .ym .Q'.l.g e u .a. %.?.
.\ ?Q*!%.*., ;w show cause why the operating licenses for certain named facilities g.Q, . g should not be suspended or revoked until alleged problems associated h.g@yGyivp:p{;.;7 cf.
with operation of control rod drive mechanisms at the facilities are G,k.g. g y, Q;@}y 'l,py resolved. . . . J .b .b.:. . ,A " w. H,a-. #. n.
. ,. s .r . .-.
v,. ..
. .:;; AWer
%,.Q:
p 7,. v.?,f::% . :n DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 i$a%nWm.s i.W . ;l.:: ,s..A u.~ 9a y h.,.f,. Nl A: G u .'k, k ..$.Y.; % s
..p.ef g. ~At"y.
o w. r " M M' y ~ INTRODUCTION PW M, ,,p.c.,. W W.:...q%. u;. M.8: .~ % .:; f. On June 11, 1985, Mr. John Doherty (Petitioner) filed his Petition / M.d W 4 J,d:.[,. .M; Mh h Request for Show Cause Order (Petition) requesting issuance of an
. order under 10 C.F.R. f 2.202 to the licensees of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1: Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station; Crystal River Unit P!;fd. 4 % [Y No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant; Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, i:3/Q%:i,if.M.7A,N G.
and 3; and Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, to show cause %%Q:%$g$'7QQg why the operating licenses for those facilities should not be suspended or revoked until the problem identified in IE Information Notice No. 4 ! % +.4 % 85-38 is resolved.' The IE Notice concerned loose parts which had been hMW,i;fd%@ '.p$y.'y,. 3y, found to obstruct certain control rod drive mechanisms (CRDMs) at the glN,Q.M N.W.g "g Davis-Besse facility of the Toledo Edison Company. The CRDMs at !.W/..$,E R2Ci'& Davis-Besse are manufactured by the Babcock and Wilcox Co. (B&W) AT2 as are those at the other facilities identified above. @ ..,h..I .% '? ?,MM.p u'<, R.~ t.y On July 17, 1985, I ac' knowledged receipt of Mr. Doherty's petition. I U informed him that his petition would be treated under 10 C.F.R. l 2.206 4 N O@'M, .o es m Q' 34 of the Commission's regulations and that I would issue a decision within a reasonable amount of time. My decision in this matter fcilows. I have also considered in my decision the Response of the Arkansas Power and M@.R'
$y'm.-y.j.
v4 gy&qu
.: a L M $ ' f,..
M p4. W: -4 G.M; 3 DC Light Co. dated September 10,1985. Whd. iM. . $.,f .m..:.,.. ./jd. . d b@?m; e
.:y
~ % . .e.g DISCUSSION IN4%f@MW;f.Qf MC gO %W .d.
9A.W? Mg...g2,TQ . The events which prompted the IE Notice occurred at Davis-Besse. On June 25,1981, CRDM C-7 failed to withdraw. It was found that a fkkIfff.,hhkfM' l'4W:M 5-leaf spring which is used to hold an antirotation key for the central screw
%. Wk,:'.,%'.
{QM$d/'fyh@
- 6. % 7 shaft in place had broken. A piece of the spring became jammed in the .
CRDM after several cycles of raising and lowering and prevented the I'R/- rP'r M.:;r T W d.y; .
.'@ F%n % r'.s w$
%:. 9*M',: I'M:.
i.*. k .g.M;* 17 7'.;
, , , . < *y'; *hi.* ';Q wQ+f }.
3 IE Information Notice No. 85 38 " Loose Paris obstruct Control Rod Dnvc Mechanism." dated May "e,0 [ :, k ,: 2" S 24.1985 (hereinafter referred to as the IE Notice). y3
,/ ,", .? -k,[h.
,<a *r: .i f.r.,pU'-dQ g
' y . * "r .A. W '. . ,, h * . ;, ..gY
. ~;.&:.* Y s. * ?
V ' Qs .t,'u 'T'N j O * .* u,
* * *'S. '#4 'f,"w p ,{g
.W
; , .s *:+*;kh'/ +
34
- w* Q:. .lc,q:, m., .Qe,Q ,;;ga..'.
..7 ~
- WW .hg ;. / y. /r b*W. , , . . . W
- , p a.Or,"jw' . , . ;j
- s.;s.n:
.p o I er y fi
...g..,,<J*
....,n -
%7i
{ $*Y,. Y ? . .
- hN* .e L
*,y., w, it. . . y;y.. A
- l* * ' ; . . "*E'
. , [1,' n kd. .T
. e i
;,y * , ; , " , :.
a *<;,,, ,'JM,,*,:
N N. */.
Qg,.~.p
>=n a +,
y . sJ
., e es * '3
;. . ;.4,l ;;. ,u. ,. , .. - ,;. p; .,'eI,{
. .Tn .
',< l% ** ; Q .' ' . . ',' e v y J. ,' 'q 8., % j[ 5 fs . '"
- .. *. g 4, . ,5 rt ,'
.sM ,hr.[e.s , .'. 6h , . I Yh . , h (a .' ! . i, g l
. m{ 'Y)/ , .r,-:g~
. . . * * * . .' r %e. ,Je r. re4. k, . e .
~' * , . r. l
= l t ). , ,r, t, = =* .I
, ' ' , h.
, . , / e,
. 't ' Y* )
*
- i
... . ,. ., m? ' E '. . '! , w
~
, .c . .
- c '
s
,- s- .
t
- ' ,~ .
ph.4.@ Q. , q wm ,Q ,g ~.v.o . 4 9. 7s;.y.. :..,fg. p; 7, y ;.3 G.'.e. 4 p. .,4. ,:. v.y ,, s. n 4 s.
. .e - *3
, g , . . .
- 7. j .
; #. y.
..a 8
r .s , yi e .i ., >
- y.; -Js: w a(. ,.- -
e tg . ~.'c,; raising of the rod from the fully inserted position. It has since been dis-
%;g.; Z .., , G 1 covered that the leaf spring can break if the antirotation key is not insert-
- ,@>. .? .T-'.
%.,; ed in its slot and if all dimensional tolerances are stacked in the most ad-
- g. . R.% li:7' N,t -j verse direction. In that circumstance, the tip of the spring will hit the b ?' :s 4 ' [, . ,,, ' .. j torque tube cap when the CRDM is fully withdrawn (see Enclosure). If O d'4.Q..;y j the leaf spring then breaks and if the right size of debris is generated, My.p ..R j i.e., not too large or too small, either immediately or due to exercising y.l g4.' 7[-:.'@ i. m '
the CRDM, then such a loose part can cause either improper functioning [ 'i; $ 7 $;I Y ' ' Y ),' of the CRDM, or prevent the rod from being inserted, or prevent the , T.: v %.; w ,C Q. D. % " .
- ,. . ,4 rod from being withdrawn.
!MM 3 ,,] On March 16,1985, CRDM E 3 at Davis Besse did not drop into the v4 $.4.9@.;. +Cl.", ,
- j core on demand. The rod was inserted using the roller nuts.2 It was dis-f
- b / +? * .%SP~Q.((J covered that the cause of the failure to drop was the presence of a piece fh. .V. ,s:. d. . ^ .. . . y.~. h i. . , .i of a set screw from an inspection tool. In addition, it was discovered that
.W), .
c.y J ., f. the leaf spring for CRDM E-3 had broken due to the mechanism de-
,7. .< 7,,
- d. ^ * ' "
scribed above and part of it was in the CRDM mechanism. The leaf L< >e. ..u..,
~ ,c'.g 3c , *.*M.: ,
spring part did not cause the failure of the CRDM to drop. It is evident
,, , .j e m .c '- that a potential common-mode failure mechanism exists for B&W
.).pl
$.a
" .I CRDMs if the antirotation keys are not properly placed in their slots in the lead screws.3 However, if the antirotation keys are positively veri 6ed
.g, , . 4; . -rf
..! * , . - "2 "
to be properly in place, there is no physical mechanism or procedure lg m '1 , Jj which will displace the leaf springs and thus no common-mode failure h ' ., ,.%f f ., j potential. All B&W plants now use a procedure for removal of CRDM
- p en .m J~? components which allows the springs to remain in place during disassem-
.. F bly or installation.
a,
' - - ?C . . n. N - ]3 -
In summary, the only identified cause ofleaf spring failure is improper k j ,' ,,# j . . 9. '
' l installation of the spring. There is no identiGed mechanism by which a c0 yi'
( w .y . ,',).]
, properly installed spfing will back out to the position where it could be
- y. .l, , .e r - '. !
broken. Therefore, a completed inspection ofleaf spring installation ade-
,.~ j&'~.* , quately resolves this issue.
~ ;; w,. '
- 7. u'Ew ;[j. '
* . , , . . " . .i
. k ,d. : h . ti - p %,
u.*e ~ q *
\ _. 0 g .s u
c'
,,I
-'. '.i.,,
~
',' ' .l.
2 The control rod drive mechanisms at B&W plants all utilize a similar design. Essentially it consists of a central screw shaft which does not rotate. A motonzed rotor mechamsm with four roller nuts engages
, ,3 . . . g' !J ,
*]; the shaft and, when this rotor mechamsm turns. the central screw shaft. to which the control rods are at.
,d3 g;'
? % ' ' " ', y, i . ,'; *, g q 3 tached, is lifted or lowered for normal plant operation. In the event of a reactor scram. or if power is lost. the roller nuts, which are held in place agamst the central screw shaft by a magnetic clutch. disen.
h 4. ' % ;. , , , . ., '.., - l gage from the central screw shaft and the control rod bundle drops by gravity into the core. The system P ' W..s N"g N,, . ,'. 3 is failsafe because loss of power disengages the magnetic clutch. In the accident scenanos no credit is s' ,.', . .
.'Nt '< taken for the abihty to lower the control rod into the core against an opposms force by use of the roller m g.fg4(3p 4
-. j nuts. The abihty of the roller nuts to disengage from the central screw shaft and thus cause the rod to
.. f-
- g .. *
,1 drop by gravity is the only safety related function of the roller nut mechamsm. As demonstrated at 7" W *, .., i, ' O- ' 4 .
.g Davis.Besse, the roller nut mechanism is capable of bems used to dnve the control rods into the core
.. ' >f, < *^; against an opposms force.
fe [ 1
- 3 The miroduction of a loose part into the CRDM from a handling tool as also occurred at Davis.Besse lI g.e ,(. .,,', f, ; ,.,f ..
is considered a umque occurrence and not a common. mode failure.
~'
%.j ? f L'h
. y 3 :[ A, ,,
- ~.
L[ ( . . ,*. k *[, 7l- .W. , ; 5. ' "
' . * ' .'i
~
.3 i
35
;l ;*.-
. .h :
j f. 7 . s. , . - . 4
- g, . c, .
>p
, . n -
. ~
*~ "
[. s , ([ -
.t e . .
.,h f.'. J. / I . . . 'J. ,
E .A *. , * . i ~, 5 c - ,
- .n , .
n . ,. . ~ <
. , . ,.; . r :.; - . g x . .py . . g.,,, ,, . .. c .~n n:jf.):
j .,; . +[., &.^ >ll7. . ' ly.5h;;j.a .,,n ,- , py&f, ?k';;;n &.&ilff'Q hQQ}&':g.2.;u ,g,,, .y .c.@k. w . y ;, -
.y' ,? s.y4',
- .,;;y ., ;
gw~n
< U W, ~ s. .:< , :. ..i >' g;, ' *
, < s .. % m;,L.lM,.M mq ;4 gyg,.s'3pp'y nw:w't f.3,;ys if- e ; $;9fdg: 1.!d 1
.ve.W:e. % c.f;a# w :n.W. M. ,,c.'. .
G .3 Cr'sRQ.Q'93.: M *l.JQ,'.h' . At Davis Besse, Crystal. River, Oconee 2, and Rancho Seco, the ;.M5y$4a..#.','.l,M . p CRDM leaf springs were positively veriGed to be in place during recent outages. Oconee 3 will be entering an outage imminently and will verify pg%7fj M, 1
$j. Q # t f.y(
the position of its CRDM leaf springs during the outage. Oconee 1, php$ TMI 1,' and ' Arkansas will verify the position of their leaf springs at the . $+j6%. D. m
'.W-Q L *.-
N G
+ s .W .&ggl.,g.e U g,19:, 5 next refueling outage for each plant. Th.is wd. l take place with.in the next 6 and .10 months at Oconee I and Arkansas, respectively. and within about 6 months after startup at TMI-1. This is acceptable for the follow- d ' & g$.g a 4f.[;.9? ;y
. ing reasons: @
g.;gi;%"g,3
- s. . .
fg,ig.a. g g. '(.
.e,,y a" y,'g.ff'if.C
- 1. Rod. drop times have been veriGed to be within acceptable limits for. the plants which have not' inspected leaf springs p'j m4 p p6mWy.-g:
..l.s %c"b,.4~ .-
during recent outages. Thus, there is no present indication that 3,j yg. CRDMs at these facilities would fail.
- 2. By Technical SpeciGcations, control rods which are not fully in- $@,Fg;M.pt.:c G
- p. . ch. ;q g.
.k
' 'fg !
serted are exercised periodically during operation by moving FCN.;W,.;/gpik,p{ #.//T each rod slightly (2 to 3%) to be sure that they respond to con-trol and are free to move.- If any one control rod were to be M,ds;'.)M
- g. %@:p
*k gS'@
found inoperable as the result of excessive friction or mechani- M@%.
- M.rM m r.d.w3.d,M.%.h,y' cal interference, the plant would have to be shut down to hot r
. +e .. g a .AM f g ;n o standby within 6 hours. In no case would a plant continue to .wpA operate with even one control rod inoperable due to excessive - b; g'f i.fiu.TM.,jl[2Uff d g. g @.
friction or mechanical interference. .
'ps
- 3. The presence ofloose parts would likely give warning of poten- My'd $.M@MM ./,f.f tial interference during either rod drop tests', periodic rod motion tests, or, for rods in the control group, during normal A.4?.5,kyg.jiD Nit'}li;F.%
2dh operation. Only a loose part of a very speciGe size can cause'an Q[Qpggk[y'@ interference. if the part is too large or too small, it_will not in- p. p .K # 4 .' % terfere with dropping or insertion of the rods. If the part is too large, it will remain above the roller nuts and will not interfere [$' g , v. u tlI'N/%M w .o r. :.y' b D with them disengaging. If the part is too small, it will drop to s',%u.w. pp. o w,:R iW
- the bottom of the CRDM tube and cause no interference., If f
M?cMW-the part is of a size which might cause interference, it is likely h::@y*papp [ to slow down the drop time before causing the rod to jam. This . %vejh.3fJiM %.$ will be detected during the testing prior to starting up in most VM f'M/MMYN cases. Further, if the failure occurred during operation, it is [h.['d.@N likely that the mechanism would not function properly during periodic rod motion tests or, for rods in the control group, 3l [ Q..WS.D.M @. $.$WM kMN (( during normal rod motion. If an inoperable rod is detected M during operation, the plant is required to shut down. Though it is theoretically possible for the fragment to lodge in the mecha-nism in such a way that it would not interfere with normal op- NW:Ai%W'1 :, 'y' .. g.94* g eration yet would prevent the mechanism from unlatching, a g: {yg"g:.,.jyn;e s:. .. ~ .c g f. g;p.. vg.pt 3 . n pv rI y,s . y:. <f?,4,; 4 Q.*.q(.sn . " f. % v l J%!. 3g bj p, p:.MFf
.n......
4*J r;( fq. J ., ., . k f . ~ ) .1 *[p' 4, . Js.*F,N.. f[ ,,I R,"; q: .3..gc,;p: _ c ..~.y sew ,,m:a.. . ,m. -. t, *' l.,st n $ & ;*, X J:!,? f; . .;. n j/ .
- y;..e.* ' '** 4 YM.g, '.' . 't ( k,I .,
. .y . (* .,g;g ! .3,
.fa s;py. ..;,q;u
=~ " . s . m- *>
- g. q gt, n ,
y , 3 . s >y . ,
. , r.
*,,s.,, ,, s ;.;g$. * , *
- m. .',.s ',pN 3 :., c.. . ,g ,g, ': t N. .s. ..
. . i. ;.
* , , ym..2,..$21.
. .< . u.&3:96 : j1
,.L ,
. .i s % -.
4
.'"?
ln * ..e 'b s * %*' *.
s.*~.. * , ;* . '!.E W . Shil.y,k& k y. f. .;
t,V t,..,
. .a :
, n :.. a.. .r.
e .e.yj; *; 31. (*a. ' 4,m
.
- 4 *-, . * -
-s.
t ,,.
- 4 '7- . .,*r,. . -
w , , , -
= ,
M a 7.y , - E . , n.x ,;. ,, .
- - ,r e . .
+
.'g, r$'A M.'. ;f % ^ ,
'* ' H"" W N.*"W".N' ' * * '
W# "'W M ' 'n. m.i..- e s '
- g. .c ,. E 1 - .
~ - y,., f 7 , , . s 3: . ~ e, i F F,* M. .,% - - ,
,: , r. *=
,c* .y ~.
;E g .#, f ,,
.u .i. *? :n 4
# s , ,s i
e ,' Q' careful analysis of the mechanism design shows this to be ex-y 4,7 ' p: n. A. . ., . . .- . c . . , .,~, . t tremely unlikely.
- 5. ..M, With the procedural controls now in place to ensure proper positioning
- frJT, 3.' . -. p?'U/ .;3-;. /. . ? . of the leaf springs, CRDMs which have been inspected and veriGed are
'.'J R*'id[.ii
, .. l ;[. ensured to operate properly. As for those plants operating now without Qi sf .[' .,a).'.% ,/7. g l ' %
p, . ..j : .ej,.N.? - 'ia ,: a having completed the inspection, the risk from short. time operation is considered adequately low. First, from the rod drop test run at startup, L.@t,'i i ,1,~ / [.N/.'dj there is a reasonable basis for believing the mechanism was not jammed at that time. Second, periodic rod motion tests are likely to identify any (<.W.M,yl,g".y;' j,/fMm: '.M'-l;c. 4 WTmechanism41,i failure occurring since startup. Third, there is a general re-pl,MNF;. MQ.$c9;d quirement that all reactors be designed such that no fuel da' mage occurs O'.G:' q.., 3-a 3 c:) f d:$].5 for any scram event if the single most reactive rod fails to insert. There-
'..h* :., 7
&.:. c W.yv. Y %.'y. ,3.
fore, in order for any damage of the core to occur, at least two, and m. ( most situations considerably more than two, rods must fail to insert. [M[%,'h.d; J.A;GpV!;,,'.
? y ',f Given the improbability of a mechanism failure occurring and not being 1,' iu. detected by rod drop or rod motion tests, it is considered extraordinarily , /%<$.N' Q,,' * '7;'s,Da g.4 .,, k' unlikely that, in the relatively short period of operation prior to the in-O f J.i$.Cd. ,',! .P j i
spection of the leaf springs, two rods would fail to drop or to be inserted into the core when required because of previously undetected failures. k(.,','T'ji.$>M.S.a.j
. c p.i ' . : L' / . -i, Therefore, continued operation until the inspection of the leaf springs is py re. w
'.l@ C e. , " ., .L ;.' . .
acceptable. w..W .~! m,;. a
. , 1
' i ' *n n; ,; p.P a , .,. ; CONCLUSION
, ;.:- ~ '
.e ,, :c - n ,q
. . . f. f
- y/ ,
.. &c. ?' ' , llj For the reasons stated above, there is adequate assurance that
,', ' , ; 4 CRDMs at B&W fecihties will operate properly when needed. Conse-N*il '7.p"i
; r.h.y .-- l.~;/
l
,'.J,' [;J quently, initiation of show cause proceedings as requested by Petitioner
.y F'y,b m./;.[c El
< J ' kgl-d .
is not appropriate. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. { 2.206 is denied. As provided in 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c), a f .S:w .+ .,r.' ' - .. _ . .~ copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commis. [J. . . m. ,. , n.. ',, ' . ,m
. $,J sion,s review.
k, .:.:e. . , ?:.~w. . : v.. ,. , a
. W, t y,; .W. . . # ,, . .g., . . se _ .] - ;
~. .
..J# . , .
g 3:$ i @ ;. , , 4 '.' j Harold R. Denton, Director 974. .y. . g., y+.t ....- .. A OfGce of Nuclear Reactor
- e. .
c; , r, ,p., . %e.
..; , . m,,% p,,.M j..v.
,'.., ..! Regulation
=p . c
. m ?. l, 1
(; ," Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, f ." (, *'m"lj..M. ' Y $ '.r 4 .w ,p
% w;..; ,y'1 'a n ,5' , ,,;1 this 29th day of January 1986.
1 *R? : qi% ' s 7,;...y
. l. . J .! . . * '* . ,
\
,1 . w..n : 2, 2 ^. .
, <j p
,.pf7
- e... m.f,g, .Ma .. .,l
% . M...a r,.y ,:.s;: . . .
* . :: J4 [.
37
.. ; ';, .,,. M ' 4
.G . i
.,.e,.r ,. ;
#4 4. .g q.'.. *.,.:^ , - , 3 e' c.. .,' .
-)
. , . 7 ., ... ~
N ,8. , ,, % [ * (..
, . , ..( *
.v .
.u. ..'t' ,
s
' *> r ', '
4,-Q. 6, .> ;,s ~ *
- e.
- A p [. ) ,h e,.
e
-l* . '
.} ( h
- 1%. [ ,
. h, , -
t .
it 1 4 I 4 e
- 4. . - - . .
h.r . . POSTULATED
- f INTERFERENCE ' -*
' plEAF SPRING MOTOR Tust ;,
. ~i,
.. . . TORQUE TUBE CAP i." '.
. < \\\ANNX\\\W \\\\\\\\\\\ Y' j miin sissisi < // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / > - -
/ wm i_A N \ \ \ \ \ \ \t'Y T 'N '
, ' A . , ..
///fffLD w 1 ,' ~
C*e.
- p. . ~. f/ -' ., i
\s
^
- ' AleTI-ROTATION CFY \\\
- y*, '
- V // ///) P. - - } f f _
m xxxxxxxxxxxy - _-__- _-- _ j ff _-/ /f. - - - i
*l '
. v* Q C ') '
=
j ._- r a * () n.sssxxxxx0 t i . ux -----------------. -- - -- J . e . s'- , O MH
.?.. _ '
, w ny /
%"1" / / / / / / / / / / /, '
a fMW1 1 1 1 1 1 A
- - == ' x ss . . . -
}W ffff vem=o wveuewr
- Y
}r or un scauw y N - e- n -
v//m/ // / / / / /_/ / / / / / / / / / / / // / / s / / / / / / ~: 2- N
\ \ /\ \ \ \ \ V N \ \ - N N NA \ \ \ \ N .
r
']- .
- f. ,, . 'P .
LEAD SCREW TORQUE TUBE TORQUE TAKER - a , , .
.... . +~ -
+
. n. -
4: .: . e - a.< ; u:, ENCLOEURE #* Cross-section of lead screw assembly with leaf spring in unlatched position. (NOTE: Interference of the
; leaf spring at the torque tube cap was the result of the antirotation key on the leaf spring not being
, , J. , .
, properly positioned in the slot on the lead screw.)
. 3 w- 4
,'s e=.
f~ 9.1 ,. + - . q . s e~.
- ., r , ; w s.. ' - n s qv- . t- ..,-:; - ; %. ~ . n z r,~: r. cw., -- ~e. n ~ ,e- .;s- ~n +..-~- y
*g,
. _ p. s' ..n.
'e yi - - - i- - -
".u ., ...
,, . . , ,g - ,,
, :- a . .m , v. e:g~%
(t .,q.,~n.-. ., , . . : s. , -:z.y,,s.4
*7 -., , , , y. .t .;.*. -
+ .;, . *.~ g.ssA. 4.r .: ,.~<, ,, ..>.. x% } . ,. ,
. ., x .~ .w . < . t.< - ,~ .
- s y* y.,a.;- ~ q:.
2 , . . ~ . , , .a s. a ., . - . .. :~ . o' - s s < ;* v - .., : ., q.: '. .. . q _ . .; 1 : _..)",, :y:. . -
.....y..y [ 3* ,r, ..,...w .. .gg. a..$.. n..
,q ,, , a. ,
J_.L _ .,
* . .. .;; ,,;. h. .. p 's . 3 , , , \, _ m.. , Mx . . .. - n. . e 3 . T,, . i.
.- s,s v 7, c- y,,s,, ;. ,.,e .
'* ; d. *s;;. ; s.e.
T, y ,4- **' g* d.- R.5 . , f^[ t _ ~ v'+ .- :
% k .t .' , , *Q~~ !Q
'. .'ki v ;,~ T -M " U.4 * ., 'i . .' %,\
- . ' J.-
3
..'s- ' z.~ 2*
.N. ,;. . mC."..~.-
. W* ' n. . V. } .
.. . ' s
- . .: .~ .v- p- .'....+ 4y, c
.y w .
,..,'s. -
*.- - :' a,.
. L ,, . ' } ? w'...
..p
.'Mb. ,r .;> . . ,
.h g 's
, .- . t ' a *. ' ;. 'u' .ss-
- s- o 5
.( c. ; ,
s... s i *
.A . .. .-, , d;
,e':.h:f..g.i/.
r P .%..'*
. P.. ";:,y;-
, 4 .
. K', r
.'.:s J :a
- ;* r. *4 '*..m.-*'* % ' h,. *; .y" 'a s
' ~:
p . . . . ; 2* -'s +--
-
- Q. . y.g s n . , .-x..s...
,5M'
' n ,,s.. ,s '..A. .. % ; *.; , .4, .. 's (s - ,.'.', -2. is*df ',y . I [?d' k . ~ *d He"
*[*
. . a.
(',*,*.I.,, . ..,,j *
,, gy' m e t-
')a'..g.. e., ".,g. sh. .m.
,*, h,s j y
. . 4. fn,,,..
. . w.ga.. . .a .a. s n.3 . . , . < ...a.
, p. -
.a O J
;hI Qi I . .g b*., .N x..
w, D.
;. 4 g 7.C.,[..I
. .; N.
, . f
','s'.'v.
. . g.
, .- '.4; l.
.. . t . i
.:/,- ,,,*'.j- .'
,n..m.h 5 Q-L,s M Q',,A..'[ w c .;,
lq' ,.,*****y:"
, g w... . .2
*l y. . .**.4: ' * ~ ell
+ '
. , , ,Q, 's.
.L , ' e ? ,h ,**~;.
.'g Q*
c j.... , , u..,:y,u,;,,~ig $MWW' , &jQQ ". cw **
;.- . k ' t, , , . o; % . . . ' .s *{ y
- .'?
jM% s
- 4 3 Q. &,.
? ' ..,, C .C ;c. 1 %.s. ; .H.<. a.'.D. <,f,:Qjbe...yp- ,
. . %' Q ~
,, Q L .~ M M .. ) ,:,,,:J :
, 5+ *.% . , .; $. 2Cs .*?,n..Q.,$ J; 7m. '.*;* *,g.,f,.c..i..*...,,,x 3 4 -
..t. +x% ..a * .-,b e=. . r.
3 ;, , r # #r - r
*.f*..-* ...M.-- , , . gs .
9.. + .c e
* . .. .*4 .n. so*- -
.a ,u g. , _
*, .g/* -
- p y.1 ^, ,c a v -
+ .,
,.S . ."..j . / ,E
- n >** a *' . 'm - .a Q,' ,. ,
m ":: 4 , . .. w .-,..=.?......t..._.*3 1. #, p . O (* '
; . n.,9i x. ' ' m.;. % ' 4 [. ' * . . ,., ,.e* #. -.x 31 p .p.m,= ' .m'
- y ". ;% ,s..,. ( ... ,. p. ; 6 ./; e. . , 5 .;
c,.
,. c ,.p nO *
- c.
- c . , . s c- .
r- .
}.(v%M . r. ., 9. p., . +.. ~. ; .z. .
- m. , x.'if..;w.N -f ;,f.'."w, <.'," . .s. a y,., .
... .; , . J.,. 4.a .
.a- * :.5. y . < e
'. .* s. p . r. . s . -
< g.tg N , te.6 % 5
. Yk 3 h *f g.$.e*g Ar .*-p3 ?4 'i. ,t%.}T**'h~ . L [s'-l
.. f s.
...g~ tu e .,. C . . .u
'g~,k* dk ' 8 W. s %..a.. .-U_ U j r . sc i....,,. q ...a s.
L!*.vjL*%A Y N & C .'~ E ..^' $c. 5 ^ **N $,(g. . . ,
> ~ -
.? ** . '.E. .' .13l - _.'{- _ _
'7- T, ptc
~
, Af .
c.
]
g, . ... f.n. u . t .- - > ' j .3:..,. ^. . . ..... . .
.,c :m i"kh .ai.;
&..j.V oM ;; 1,%';. :.u .:. . . w r M) & cN. um w p'.sx: . ,.;' ,. . - . M". ':M, # . ':. x' 4:5 ,s i .en.- t a., m ,c .. .n-
; v,. , , , - -
+
.. *;;,* ; . .3 . , . . .
,q ,.,
, 3 ,. .
. ..; - 3 . -
- s. : . m; r. ;, - - , .
.6
. _. .; . r .,.
y;q:.
.,.y . . .
. . . . _ . .. . o . . .
- y. .~ 7 : . .r e; - , ,
. . . . . . t..
. < .: ,. 4 , , .
*(,.='. q .*i o ,, '
,A 4 , Ju. >.3 - <,3, :m,' ;e,;i e..,
w ,. 1 ?.. .A .g x u; .s. 1. . . *. . .
..?-;- . . v ,
C.c . (y ;.. .. .y?, 6 '*tb j Cite as 23 NRC 39 (1986) DD 861'
- , m .
n n : :4 5, . o..,Q : ;. ;.y i ~* .., 4 35 .. c -m. ..y N:n.:,'}r. &h.. $'.;;3. f ' jf.. j [ I?.[ih'i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/; G. .' " ,.*.1...
... w
,~u#. .,w . < .- .. . . .;;. . ... . s .]
f9H'-Q"N'St%D'M . OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION V:?,M:?Q '.E : MP Wu. W,m.M. ..~ M.Qy' . )! a @&?: a:.tr. - :b. ,c. .
*.,e,g
. '1 Darrell G. Eisenhut, Acting Director
- sv, %+, .p s.myN: .; . vrk,'M.g; ~
. . .?
- 3..e 4,,j , a.y t. , ,W
. . >Q. i: . '.
q o::..,..s
'. u.n.s..,.1.' . . .
q p eu;!..f,~% %, D. hiNS$... O 4.!K$h. c p
~ m.fD..v in the Matter . of ,
Docket No. 50-352 f*.v@N: "..Q.s.m; % f. .; 2. d (10 C.F.R. I 2.206)
' '.W,y'g% ' O Y).n .. 9 ,- m.f; <;,b,k. ; ;/J '
w* W W *A. b .. . i,.td s PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station,
, P. r. 'n ,w',r,. .s 'e -@. .;T. ,., f.,.s! ,, '9
,. W -. . ; y ;ca'/.j j Unit 1) January 21,1986
~..
. c., -y M..'
4:w g'?. W. . l .
- QQ, W l'31 '? y!s- *?;' j'f
' y.7V. :
=a fl:. . .r. 2 .:;<. .W: . -
,. >..n. .,
<r .g:. .;' f .p.g..cpf. The Acting Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies petitions
",W. ,,.,.4 N V. . .. f. . t. .h. <x.,. filed "] by Robert L. Anthony and Frank R. Romano which sought revoca-g; V ' #" ' . 3 ; tion of certain exemptions from NRC regulations issued by the NRC cfl,9.;; Lg.97. ,g 6."j Staff for operation of Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1. The petition-Ny
. 7 %.. . . , .,4..
:/ .
, C., '. ers had not identified any safety or environmental information that
~
- c. . 4.?? :'o . u.. a.,,
E
.:e. .c. ,c, . ,
would warrant a change in the StafTs previous conclusions regarding the
- .e g. .-
.%A.n . .; .g...pm.v . .z
,..y exemptions.
f .1,3 ^
- . t. -9.'d 2 , *g. . i' j. F.1:n y = .yM:< y L . ',* f: ,_.c @p' r'
. f g,L l. . g.r,RULES
;i g OF PRACTICE: PETITIONS UNDER 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206
'e.*' .^, ; 3'),. ,.,3 -.9
.:.p. #/3.-$.;.,;2. , .
. In the absence of an adequate factual basis for a petition or a nexus be-s@..%/F'J.L. f j z. y '
tween the issues raised in the petition and the request for relief, no
'- [dM).'.ge's,'{ :ed.Qf f>*.3,g action need be taken on a petition under 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206. Matters
. which are before the Board in a licensing proceeding are 1.ot the ap-
' .n.. t,:g@. ;o ff.x.sr,,4, :
- -. a . ; a'j
~
propriate subject of a { 2.206 petition. I,,,i?. :.3'f.. -) ,s; .>.
.,-(* u gs t. W i
- .'s C.' . ,]}V.,' ( . *'. 'l
=.t.- ,{. V:. f. ' .'.'o t
We, 3 a. ,, , , r. ,< e . I ;
..e : 3 .?.s4.
. ..s
,* ::,t .
.o . ; e
,..,k,... . . - e r c. 'y ,- >r.
t ,y . % . ,a. +. .
,. ,I.. e!..y... , ;j f((, . .. ;
E.d I..* e m.. .: ., , .,,,. .. n[,.:. , ,,. gf 1 :g
*! .4G ** . y :
.4 ,. r , , s . * ,, ,
.s .. v . :'.g /.
..w.
t.:n . n. . . :.."j
, 'c r$ ' sj , . fW : '.1. J, ;.
h . . j *$ w .' *. 4 .1 ' 5
- 1 ' *.**' ,[ .#
- up c 4 9. e,x.e .
a . ** **
.4 *,<., :?;4 < s. . ,
. ,....'.t. '. >;,,.1 0*c
.f.f. :u. .,y x.c 'a .. ,.
u;:..,: . . a..:. f. m ; ,< , t 39 s,-
...s**.. . , %,,.p.s.* q .
J I.. \. > y* .
'f. eI ,j ;.,
g .T :'.' ,' f .., ,, ... ,
- 6. -
<,4
,t.
?c, .Ph. . o;h.-} . : ,~ + ,
. .1 3, [. 'E. . *,* '* L ;*; . .. ,
s.(.
.1 . - , . . .
,3
.. .s.
,'.g..j"',s., e .
... . . . 3. .
I'
.g
.g. ,J
.' . g,.c I,] ;, g D '
"'t . . .b6 '.s ( *, [ *I * *9a A- **
.s , ( +. c ,e a < .
' S % * * * * *
.*s. . , /.
l ,
* , fy .
I't! 'o \' < .
} {. s.
1 .
,p'* ._ .m.n. * *
^
. < . . .2.s.. . ,
.s.
r 1 c: .. w.; ..
+ g m, .s. :c-y .
- m
. . . ;.. j uj.in 3u- & Hn..- g.. .f;.7
. . n ;;
. g. y ; p.,, a.::.w.; -
. . . . . , .n .
, u. ., .., . ..
.,. . , -> r_
f..
- f. ,
y . a. -
. - . 3: . _; - .y
- ,... , , 3 a . _, . _ ., .e ~
~ .
, . . . s. .,
x .. . L. te- .9, , m
;a 3 [* X
.. . ,,., p s
..m.
- 9f*
m , c, ,7:{. t-
.
- _,.sn P.
. -.s ;gff.* -w . . :.,+,,.f. e s- :
.; e..e i.~..,....;.,.-R,,.,.,.
.m u L .j 'v..... v sg DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206
;/.:,c y g :.e f,d;iE.@ & m,yf $s T g . m ..y, e .~ . . ... m INTRODUCTION "n n:Wr:;V 4. ,;.. m -C~
- a. .
. ?;: .. N -
On July 26, 1985, Robert L. Anthony on behalf of himself and ;Q,f:p.:u y s'. . .w ! K' ;.q. .h Friends of the Earth filed with the Commission an " appeal" seeking '- *. j, Commission revocation of certain exemptions from NRC regulations (g%, l.@y.AM Og.l%g@ issued by the NRC Staff to the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo or g, Q.!' g (;'. g . the Licensee) for the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1. Mr. Anthony , F.f.:fG.MF gjp also appealed the NRC Staffs determination, as set forth in the Staffs environmental assessment report dated June 27,1985, that an environ- [/g,j;.g'T.$ w...:- .. .c. - - 5...m,.+g .- mental impact statement was not required for these actions and that the actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human en- %.J'9p;.w@.g, , 71 -( . vironment. The Commission, by Order dated August 8,1985 (unpub- $.QMgy%$N.;;&,.; Cas L.- lished), noted that NRC regulations do not provide for an appeal from ,, J. the issuance of exemptions and referred the matter to the Director of 9" ${.[.[-9. .
"i c.<WG (f@.pi Nuclear Reactor Regulation for appropriate action. By letter dated , 2a . mt. ..g.pQ . . u - - &,WiWM r.s c August 30,1985, to Mr. Anthony,I acknowledged receipt of the petition and informed him that it would be reviewed. The Staff has treated Mr. %.l W.&# y , ': q pf,fg,@ps., M.a y Anthony's " appeal" as a request for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
j 2.206. (4[3' *[Q.{,,i.h;7h r ? W';$ g .ae'c.c U ' ...m . .. %. 0."c. ':,T. On August 8,1985, Mr. Frank R. Romano, on behalf of himself and : p b, b.;c Air and Water Pollution Patrol (AWPP), filed a document with the .h. M$ IT,,N,!,2.. [.)NMf k M Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board which also addresses the , same subjects as Mr. Anthony's July 26, 1985 letter. By Order dated G Q' August 12, 1985 (unpublished), the Appeal Board referred Mr. (N:.7.M ..$y ;. :;' :#llf.},,p!;fj i Romano's comments to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for ap-
- l. .nw :U.M*:t propriate action. In my acknowledgment letter to Mr. Anthony of August 30,1985, I also noted that I would consider Mr. Romano's com.
'.s"n J
15n u. 6V, f6 7q %fN.,,.
'.1'W.? .
- s
#. .. ! m j
ments when responding to these matters. A notice was published in the (M %,A.$.q Federal Register stating that Mr. Anthony's and Mr. Romano's requests J .'3, N i T U d ;j were under consideration. See 50 Fed. Reg. 36,934 (Sept.10,1985). fd My decision in this matter follows. Y.S.p'd' t.Q,jy' ty m% .:pwH &,: d g P.%g . DISCUSSION W. .a di u' 5 I:g M:, ' e:- a
;e.gun, -
. . . . ..u' .q< .
Y., .%:ye;. , ;* s y&;.C .:. s Petitioners seek the revocation of eight specific exemptions from w Ic% NRC regulations that were granted with the issuance of the operating y~3..f.s;J; M.a sw u '.<rFe.'. Y S.
<;;:/*r ..w
. . - m O gf. r Q W. .,R -,W
..a.."
n,;
" ... m
" h%g .yp,.., D4G.. ..
r.,y: p
. a.** er n . c*.. .M.
[a.' 2 ' .x,. .;)[ .
*[ ..f.
y.q
,'.Q.,g,' ,,5{ll Q:j !*g,e,,. '}E .. e. r;; ,h %Q .
<ld t
, ',. *. .4?*
w y;. '$l - 40 '"'r A'. :f.A. . .. 3.f
- 3 o. 1 q' . y, 'm 7 _ r- ., e, : .;
. y , t.* .' T* p
,s..._..,,,. .
- 4.p
- c J . ;,, , , , . ~ . . .. . u; $
a.
- y. , ' ' , . . ) sg .. ' ,73.-3..* : .
, y: *
.*' r s . ~ ~ . p - '
,f.
d
- p .
- t "4
- s}';j ,k - q
.C, , f ., ,4,
- u
.<4 g,.
t i . , .
'4
% me . s
, ,...y ' ( , g. g. . , ,g, 4 . 4 g'
-/ , . 46 g. .g g P. 9 ', g ( . 4.g .*
,f ,
',) .
f 4
~t'"'.>
e i
.', ( * - '
. , t , . , cl .
4 .
- s ,
' ',;f- 4c
. u_a s .
- l e
r;n~pr w: b aet x/
'x 1 n
n . ~ '
~-w a
M. w .~;k .n .e s..ce++...a
. ,r ,._#s #.,^ . . ~ , - . < - -
. r ,
..- ~
im. b;';g :.. ,p ,qg, , . , . - s - - ~ r
.St ,,
\ m' w. . k' , .s .i .
h.pw @h,kh$h<; .+1d wa. b;,b. m.n h n M. h. . pm &&w- *s4hi&0.w- W W ; k.. P b . Y N
,s .
.t . 4
- n .;.3,3 7- sa;.m m .c.
o e , a e,: :t s; .
. . -s... *
- ..;. i.,,,.
8:i;l & . $ $ 'y k h . h. . :i - > - i w :J
- O' ; ~
W @3.w ,.q
. Ww;aw
.s.. @
P.?.%Lgym w% .- w;%. . a .
\ rww. . . rd%. ,eq
! . q.m .,~.
. . , ., 3, ' .
.vs W f..,;. k. g. W..;W%3 b
\- .
N: N
,.'% C.. M ..p C;; :;G M C >
licenset for the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1. Petitioners also dis- > I4.M Z W M p W jl agree that the NRC Staff's environmental assessment 2 of the effects of l N[F bhh .h these exemptio'ns is sufficient and seek to have the NRC Staff prepare
'?. f,W$Mhj@ O W g g . M ..
an environmental,mpact' i statement on these issues.: The eight exemptions have previously been addressed at length -in
$5kidh$N submittals by the Licensee, by the NRC Staff in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and Supplements-(SSERs) thereto, and in the NRC
%j;'g$I.hPD.@;.;
<.;$2.[%$p d y M:MiU M Staffs environmental assessment mentio' ed above. All but one of them n gyd were addressed in a previous Director's Decision) pursuant to 2.206 in response to a petition by Mr. Anthony and others. A summary of the ex-7.q%.gf,.h3kkh JWh
. t . 3. g ..s...,9.v.C.mM ,7 ; M s emptions is provided below:
- A. An exemption from General Design Criterion (GDC) 61 for Q-@,pWM/,M.
% .N%$h hM the standby gas treatment system would allow a delay until the VNkhMI[h M.M:. N 3'. % f pa c
first refueling outage for-installation of the portion of the system serving the refueling floor area. The principal basis for f 'M hTMIh the exemption was an absence ofirradiated fuel in the refueling zone area prior to the first refueling and the demonstrated leak-q., .b %&. QQM:dMJ@Z6.M,M;q:) . . tight integrity of the Unit I secondary containment zone which - 1..h
.C.ter.:L. . e ..
M. W'N. va .@, y.Al k. T:....r' W..W. ,,ic:/,. ',) M interfaces with the refueling zone. B. Further provisions for automatic containment isolation of the alM .M. pli hydrogen recombiner lines, the reactor ' enclosure cooling E.4.g
.f
. N.
.M,M .,J,%y '.;M. water lines, and the drywell chilled water lines are allowed to A., QCh, *s . ,@..E. h rT. 9?lC
.c be completed prior to completion of the first refueling outage.
MMy& d 3d$ d. This exemption from GDC 56 was based principally on the
~ limited time of its effectiveness and the already existing fea-h@MM.Dh@h;.@h%.5 j- tures of the designs which provide isolation of these lines.
E7Y.h.h@ NiFf W$t4 C. An exemption from the requirements of GDC 19 for the s h @G,4;li.% $ h $i% remote shutdown system would allow reliance on manual ac-tions = in accordance with established procedures to control f['MQ.5@k,j rD% .Myj 9 three pumps in the redundant (backup) train of remote shut-down system equipment until completion of the first refueling [ht'.I/ QO T%hgg k[ 7.( M @, k . g : outage. This exemption was based principally-on the currently . existing features of the design, which provide an interim alter-
$ggbd/k Q%,QhfW y';C d X M WJ%,4 . nate means of using both trains of the remote shutdown equip-ment if required, and the low probability of demand for use of M{d'@s.4.'.l'[.a.l)f,'U?gv.g].
L' ';
'. ? f; ,5 87'.r!1M* IN,-Y' :'<
. ge. . .a W L..rv r . i
..~ 3.pfn ;;.m. W < w:s
. .y.pbi'
..e f%
' .%y i The innial operating heense (License No. NPF.27) for Limerick Unn I, restncted to 5% of rated 4 power, was issued on october 26.1984. The current rull-power operstmg heense (License No. N PF.39).
3 )' ppm' +!4?7.$'.',7l%,
'f , $fNieMd .' ) which supercedes the previously issued hcense, was issued on August 8.1985.
2 Letter. Walter R. Butler. NRC to E.G. Bauer, Jr.. PECo. " Nonce of Preparanon of Environmental
$~ar.g,'[$yM N (. f[.%/(.':.4 Q,U. ,
. gqic Assessment." dated June 27. 1985, and subsequently published m the federal Register. 50 Fed. Reg.
S@i.,Vrk r-
.t"w: 4'97 r r s.sW e
27.388 Uuly 2.1985) L , .a ys +e i f f4, f ', 4.( .. g 3 Director's Decision Under to C.F.R. ( 2.206. DD-85.ll. 22 NRC 149,153 58 (1985). The Commis-w'hh%M N
.. c.iyN.(.
- w j,.'S sion did not overturn the Director's Decision.
- k. s W p,.
'MY-N. T ,3 A jwNav %
'f{ h p Q[' .'. ' 1.*i. .N'.;y,in.p% res Q bL N
. , , ' ,*Nk$$
'Ye'E.N./e t, igs* h*r . rfd .N6N,9 [w *
, ,;' o t % . i ,, fr k' k .ktI 's p. . . /t [*
'c. .ft q s ',.ye%:qg t.
sp,,,s ,;,..[ . i, d ; - ik;.;.M .(g.2.4 , tD ,,,. X c h.w.}g.,a 6._ :q,8. Q A t.? b
.s 4 we- : A ' b_' !c: (#; $y .p.:,
w-- - - -
-*ym . .
1; ,-
. e. '
, .P.
.$..t.. O.. ~s "'.'lg .y%'.*
f 3 .- , t .. j- " . , . x' .
. 3
_ .n. q: ,
. j:? s * *5 . s .. . I 1'
* {L r s l
.Y ,,
a
's , *'k'..,. e
- 1-f
- h,/h[.$h4.]3.Eh.
.h d'k_f,hh_ ;' h 1 ik ~ NI
' [O , ,. .
k . . _ . .
o ,;, . , . m w> .:- .- g :y a, ~ ~~, , m- .e
~ . n . . mv. r,;
w
.p.
. ; ~ . . < y
/ T Fri9.c - L, . f 76 *;4;. -t -
f Zj N* *.* f'.Wg ,:,v.:; 3. t 9 - N ,T D * ' p 'C. & 1"
- - 3- g. , rv y .. Le*. .w' .; ; f;'dQM, O., n .
,, f p'
.( . -
- r. . .4.y n . 3 p.,. .; 2.LO., :,. .~ , .a l a- ? W, + c"
,y.. .n:
... .. L , .. J .~&. . . h .n . 70 .
.,; T* /*,; n , ,.. h. .. * .
x; f. .- . . A .;4.;.;, ..... m .;_c , a .:. m.. . u w _ .. , a J .m .
..3 .,._.g.3 g
g ' . '* % $ w- m.q., fc -
..'.,;,,.'.4.
- 3.e.
. . .h .n?j(([.$g.*. r 7 .:. c'\ yg, . --,.
s .. .; ;,y *.; p'i y. . , ..;;s: .:
.- ~ n . s. :, ;r,j.pW.W C g
- e the remote shutdown systems during'the period of the exemp- ,[.. [a.3.[.'M@.. d i
- tion. b.M. .s7.'-
MP & D. The. exemption from Appendix J for the containment airlock'
~
.s . . :o c.;'f Jg. ,V . ',t .. , ..e
%,/. c. .
M M. p s.i 4 r.- testing allows substitution of an airlock door seal test for an air- b y . igf?. lock chamber pressure test while the reactor is in a shutdown I %,e d'* gm.Q 1.,n 'i.y ;k or refueling mode. The exemption was based principally on the . f C.W,?, % ..s. M- ~ Qm.S..W+ .i adequacy of other testing required by Appendix J and the Unit i Technical Specifications which will ensure adequate contain- {p;Q.h *Fg.;;p.qg;g.;J,p ,l;j yy
- ment leaktight integrity when required. $.g. : g.
E. Exemptions from Appendix J for.the main steam isolation flP h;<My h a. e > & T'i
@;M.'7i valve (MSIV) leakage testing allow the test to be conducted on -
the specific Unit 1 MSIV design in a manner which produces % T G W ." # F ,t$Q t%.:, ' c .. ~ meaningful data. The exemption was based principally on facili-4,[;fc.;/, _ c[,-f %y$ ff.; tating a meaningful test and on the conclusion that the conse-quences of MSIV. leakage. at rates verified by testing in this
%~'Q g N; M." ;. a'. '3%JOr ,9t manner have been acceptably analyzed and bounded in the
- Unit I safety analyses. , W-ll., . PM
- M.i F. The exemption from Appendix J for the traversing incore h-j$4 .m W M<
probe guide tube shear valves allows reliance upon surveillance 3j.g.4;g;. .. . . d.V,.. ..;. pu.;7, W .
- provisions in lieu ofin-place testing of the explosively actuated . h;M. yYis%%y[l .
shear valves. The exemption was based principally on the ade- A. quacy of the surveillance measures as included in the Unit l' .
;,-,.d xy %g. .r'.; O g
- p. % y Technical Specificabr.:. Jo provide assurance of containment W-t ?c.Q Pi isolability when requirea.
G. The exemption from Appendix J for the residual heat removal
,%. ' MMMO c.4
- system relief valves allows the initial local leak rate test on : j fib.j;. hipy!r!.Q) :.I
-J. ,d. > W<W .d.<f #
M. ... 1 .
.y seven valves to be delayed until the first refueling outage. The Lee ~> V v;.V W H principal bases %r the exemption were several features of the . 8 '
, design which provided reasonable assurance against ' undue valve leakage during the period of the exemption. h.4 [h;j[dN,MN'3 '~ H. The exemption from 10 C.F.R. { 50.44 for containment inert-ing allows the initial inerting of the containment to be post- 1@.di{.Qc-~;t.ZW.Q
, , w'4. . .@ w.N. .'!4.WF. a . . . :,4 poned from 6 months after initial criticality until a later mile- ' if.. ' < *.'M% . b " : Aft stone asso:iated with the progress of the initial power ascension @ $ . M ' N.',;!((:l N; test program (PATP). The bases for the exemption were the -
] provision of improved safety measures for personnel entering Q jfigg;'f f Q y@h,'((.MM , l Q the containment during the- PATP and maintenance of the A> W.n D, ' ?.O. ,;N. . - t;h. w same degree of protection against combustible gas inside con-j [ tainment as otherwise required by { 50.44. @Q( b. y,93 .-[ %.g. J 9@d 1 y,' Qoe;w(*;h <, c<g ~vg;i:4
;; y . .U. j ;;"j;tMyc;
.Q
- ," Q .
.R::w% ,. k. ,.C,Q'.,.'edlw.y p ..n n ( } ["A .g ,. , .5 $.. #'
.N * **e r;, . *
;G. g., .7.W 9
x .,.* x , .
*~., .
' ( ~',Q r ' 4. F M'/
f}
.*
- p,' .s J.- #
[c: 'u m, : wt e r y
, ., ~*i sp ' 'fr.y; y
, as s I
. .r*.' ,
',,.Y<*
, 'N'? _ a .$
.- 3 -.
*, . . _ , . .~ J
,}: '
. . [e .* *
.e-s, +
* . - T- . - . - * + :., -
; *' -. . . .!= -
, ,, -l
*)
*C " . ]
, , ,g -
. .h . ..
i, *
- i g _
* ' A ' ' l i, s n ~'s ifl:, .
.(- t h.Y.s . <, . _
. Y,' s'p) .4$ us, d." hS. sml.As_ k ,'. l: ',').k,$ z
.i _.
~
.+ _t. , ,
). . , V 3
.. . e .
7 L *) - . *. . a # e.
.,,5."
- t. s > 1
~
y , 3_ u . . . . .
.g
, , -, .y ,
, 7.,
r.- g,
. , , . f, -
, . 3. ,
,,1 f.l . . ,. . .- < ',,
u ., .
. %.~ ".n. .'wm b:p :.. ~c:%:.:; . y w..~> ,
.v . .%: ' sH e
. .., n . >a. .. .:;f;.y. .D A. ' , .
.e .
... . . . s, . .
, ,- s ,
,- -h._ , n L -l .'{ r
',* a
);.,a ,1; u.., . :,s.; % c, b, ,. . ... 8.; ma , ~... -
.r s.> ; e- ,
k'tu.!.[ .[$ s , ,e fr#' ,'[(. " , % m .p . :, _ + - , f * * 'f, , 9 / , ' ,-i i . y, . #.
.;:;;2 w ,;d ..
.-; y'1.1yP.'.' V; M 1
- 3 Petitioners' Challenge to the Bases for the Exemptions t.s ' . . .;- ..
* ! .~? : pm;U$.h Petitioners raise two central issues, the adequacy of the technical basis
[J;df' Mp.6, ' ,R.Q, ~.. J'c , / for the exemptions and whether an environmental impact statement MMhMW&k.:d
.% ,j M % tJf 8f should have been prepared for the issuance of the exemptions. As noted above, the exemptions were previously addressed in the Licensee's sub-(M; / y /W $[.$ .-m
'#.P.6 3 %'f.'.y W . XM M, '
;,.c mittals and the Staff's SER, SSERs, environmental impact appraisals, and the earlier j 2.206 decision on this subject. I shall respond here to
.. v
" .. y. .c q..';.q..;. . ... N 0;.:',,1 e.u .!.
~
the brief comments of the petitioners on these issues.
. ;. .,{' . .& i? Y. . .~lh . . . ,N:s,? )'
.-,cs ..., n.r i . , .L
. 7 w'. y:p g., Routine Releases D',nMM,'hf[.pg ,g, , /..c;hir. Anthony states that the impact from routine releases due to these a . ,v . .. . . . w. .g.:
[Jf.s
?- 34,' ,
?% ';,d'.i exemptions has been overlooked, and he makes reference to other docu-c'h$f N . N..# M I,W.d'Y[j ments4 in support of this allegation. The features of the plant design and
. ' 6;:;"P.1 r rm operation which are the subject of these exemptions are provided to miti-f,._ "Xp tp/d
.t' y;7;M;2.p;...
i
) , .i[? .: gate the consequences of accidents. These features, as addressed by the exemption, are not employed in the day-to-day operation of the plant to control routine releases of effluents. No further basis for this allegation, Q
p':?
- f. Q',U
/<) :, Wh:i , ~, ' .. f:.,y'] l%p Ny i 71
. , )id.j f-;, M other than reference to the two documents cited in note 4, is provided.
The other documents which hir. Anthony references, were submitted to ?, ',#'", , il the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board and addressed the Licensee's V,a semiannual effluent release report and the offsite dose calculation
.., '.. 'w<,*E, g,l' T
..'l..
[. D[S. ' i manual, including the method used to calculate doses at the site bounda-
,., M ' : W' .
t.
; ries. None of these matters bears any cognizable significance to the sub-
"?.Q.d:h:l.[.d
;M 6, at L'jM ject of the eight exemptions, and hir. Anthony provides no information to connect them. In the absence of a specific factual basis, I need take
'g,.'61.M. . , . .
no further action with respect to hir. Anthony's claims concerning rou-N.'Q,[Y[k[ID.' Yy . tine releases.5 The matters raised in hir. Anthony's April 30th and July 2/ - "/ F . . .>, ,'- .
! 2nd filings are still before the Appeal Board for its consideration and, f;%M'7'i d'.'gd --
therefore, no further action by me pursuant to f 2.206 is appropriate on d
.ae
.LX./- j;,..,(.N.-
y these matters.6 Accordingly I will not consitler this issue further.
. .> .Wl ., r . . , ..:' ;'s s
%~.tn) .* .:.% ".b .'.. . .
w . . . . . ;. , -
,p 9
@M ,'. *:.QO t 5 -J I',M '[' ' /' ,t 4 Robert L Anthony," Petition by Anthony / foe to Reopen the Record on the Basis of New Informa. tion in Phila. Elec. Co.'s semi-Annual Emuent Release Report, Feb.1985." Apnl 30,1985 before the ['sI%;.ff
.[ ; @l. ' s
;f ~."(,. . r, ! Atomic safety and Licensing Board; Robert L Anthony. " Anthony / foe Bner in support of our
@**, .' t ... f, , , ,,; ?( N,,4 3 ' l // 4 Appeal of 6/7/85 from AsLB Mem. order of 6/4/84 " July 2.1985. before the Atomic safety and Licensing Appeal Board. The Licensms Board denied the Apnl 30th petition in a Memorandum and y' b . ..g?sf ,.. , M . . s. ' 3 order dated June 4,1985 (unpubhshed). The Board's action was followed by the filing of an appeal and J ,. j', f i ' Q L.I the supportmg July 2.1985 bnef by Mr. Anthony.The Appeal Board has not yet rendered a decision on E
- 7a e E \ , p;,.! .', ?
/-
? t +/,. ,' y - ? 1 the appeal.
, , a.s 5 See PhiladcIphsa Electre Co. (Limenck Generating station Umts I and 2), DD-8213,16 NRC 2fl5.
- 6. h*:' .'//c.. .h,'? ' ' ," W ' 2121 (1982) and cases there cited; see also DD 85.il, supra note 3,22 NRC at 154.
- s. e.g' .' 7 % .,p r'lMN ., 2 6 GeneralPublic f,lrdites Nucirar Corp. (Three Mile Island Nuclear stauon, Umts I and 2; oyster Creek
.g. ,;, ^ ,7/j , g.* i Nuclear Generating station), CLI 85-4, 21 NRC 561 (1985); facific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo
- i* ' - Q .s .' ;\,:. ' J ~ (Connnued) s ..
,,s.,. .d'.
[. ( , j8,*Ia h.** d % {
.2
- e s. '
y ? . .'i ,'f; ;i;*.- %, y:4;,.. l% : ;%. f.* *',} r.4.
,p < j. .):.;., . ..
, 43
- Q ,q,.,5 , s; ** a; . . a
'~.. ,
.-.1" s* ,,e',_ aj'
,,p
} y. lle . V't j'e -S y 'a ) o' i yM*. M' l , (..;**y?.' .' p ,,/' . /y'y . .' , '
* , :Id, . , . l'd's 4.' '
, , ' ' , , . . r.
- t. - . ,z , -
, g y ,, *
' %'
- 4
, **f g. # . "
-..g
...:.v. , , e i..e.
e a. p ( , 4, 'O. ,
.a',
.ke #,
[ ie ' ., ? . q
.* ,* *? ,. , , ' . - - n .
. ? ; ,, *% , m . - L : .; . n.
- y' 4.+ ,j ' f j,.;,,. . + ., - 1. . f> hf ,j/ * '.$x..g . . q, ' @. . h. ;. h ,,. [.~r.j + c ;,hn..i.((g .. .(.cg
,- <,e c.
..y .y. >*.o... "
- u. ~.
. y..) ',.. . f';,, ,e ; 3aa.f. -eu3.y, g,, ~.,,. g;.r
- w. , ,.
,c. ,.s.
- i. , . , ,
.+,&*,,,
.s"*'.-..
. . .. z . > . ' :..:u :
.u.'.." >
.a. .
_ .+ . . .,y, i.,.w; x , ,
- . . - .u.,.. _
o +&*. A:; . . . . .
% .. t 4 -k , ,' ",*. f
-s .'. . n ;f'e; a]. g ;' n j,,.',*',,,
'} ..
- o. .r m .,.
Effect of Exemptions on Accident Analyses F ,;. ^. N,:%3d
?1 +
f f, ~jy y. Mr. Anthony makes several brief assertions regarding the effect of the ,k k N. . . - ~ . .dM exemptions on accident analyses. He argues.that, with respect to the standby gas treatment system (SGTS), a path is left open for the escape .Fu{;(,7,Q}[h]j.g jyt ~ j .,.' y 'g.j 7 of radioactivity. However, this argument does not reflect the true cir- y . O -- g , ( g .,,v. : g cumstances of the situation, namely that there will be no irradiated fuel
~ 4lfyi@;ty
.in the refueling area during the period of the exemptionc Thus, the ex-
~
. ernption permits no increased risk to the public of radioactive release [f.b,,,"% .' Of%~c g?.Q g
.which would require mitigation by the SGTS. * .~/h.P Mr. Anthony also asserts that waiting until the first refueling outage 3NI?h/k'e,.p!"Q .. C.?
[Os h i.j, 4./ - :X(%gyf to install the redundant isolation valves in the' hydrogen recombiner ' lines that penetrate the primary containment would also contribute to .,. the risk of leakage to the refueling floor. This suggestion that the isola- ; i: 'c 2
. W]N tion provisions are inadequate for these lines during the period of the ex- gb,J emption does not recognize the basis for the Staff's conclusions as pre- ! - 1,1 ; f %@f #f[,.3;s s9nted in Supplement I to the Safety Evaluation Report (SSER). SSER No.' I included a discussion of the capability of the existing single isola- V2f.fp.@i.*"pu:.y 6.
VH ad , tion valve in each line, the closed nature of the recombiner and its- [.+ "h Nf,M h! piping outside the containment boundary, the pressure and temperature . (..%.','.,g~yh f rating of the recombiner system components, and other aspects of the e @ / i ).K '4. . W y.. , design which support granting the exemption until the first refueling p , E M A f " bp.a.
- outage. Mr. Anthony provides no further information beyond a mere as- ~
N J.,$Nj .Mwa
% Jvi; d.? A; % *.
sertion that the recombiner system, in its present design configuratiort,x could contribute to leakage to the refueling floor. For the reasons dis- ' - E O, # .. Rfp cussed above there would be no increased risk, and thus, I see no bash ...1. % S,' ,"[5 S / y 1.". T*. to withdraw the exemption. P::.'.M.W.f.'..' . f3. f The Petition also makes several brief unsupported assertions that the F.i a ?'E use of the interim measures to control equipment in the redundant train .f,. p ;.,l.t ,; . . Wr . ~' . Qg?'$69.7.; of remote shutdown equipment and the containment airlock testing pro-visions are not allowed by NRC regulations. The bases reviewed by the (p ,'. 4,:,,[jp. y U;.4%g Ky NRC Staff for the applicable exemptions are discussed at length in the M ?j'-M,.n;,; @p EM ?f SER and in SSER No. 3.2 Mr. Anthony provides'no information regard- J. % ing those bases to support his assertions and provides no information [..CRMN#Pj ?.?'%"D@;,, regarding why the requirements of the NRC regulations in 10 C.F.R. 'f's.k..lf ! f ;? M ,. S 2 W 'c f 50.12, which provides for the granting of exemptian. have not been K Q 4 T NiV ..TM met in these instances. In the absence of any specific factt..I basis for. these assertions, they will not be considered further.8 f'(W'W./.;1. i:-
- 'MAM%.'.fM N.UC@ EC.
-w
@T f*. 4 * @,' Mt.i, '[Ock O'*
O Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CL1-81-6,13 NRC 443,444 0981). In all events the s . . ,(, '*f . ~ .' C4:.g',,*{ NRC staff responded on May 28 and August 16.1985, to the substance of Mr. Anthony's Glings in the operating hcense proceedmg and concluded that they fail to raise any signancant safety issue. g%.
.t',.*,* '"a.^ hQ' . L. @ "c, ; ., ' ' , . . .
7See also DD-8$.11, supra note 3,22 NRC at I$4-57. . 8 DD-8213 supra note $,16 NRC at 2121, and cases cited therein. 2'[
,. J.[;.
*>.~'^.',
3 ,,
.v v.g.r
*- bveQ'%.I .s n
7 / !%
= f :w N'
M lp pg *.,r f.
- j
,:, 's,. . . .
v..- n' . 4.L . ,' s' ja ,h, 'f J '* gr ((S' *8*' 4
& f.
, . % .'f L .,*l' . L ;
.1 w at i, 'l7. '; -: ~ sv t'-' %
.~,.* .>, * , ,
,p ' 9
. - r
. , y
., ': 2.y
'. ,-'~
~
* . ,' 'u y. i ..- ' .. y <
f
',g* '; ..; ,
. . . . , . . . . a. -
e
- s . ..
s . . h' 9 '
* ,' b * ^
^~ t; ~.'Q.' ,
i . .
~i
.. i
'd .*, '. g , .
,% . ;.,fG.
m -; .' r*. 'g* J.g, ; g,g e,j
' .a i
,Y,a p , , ,. . ..f.s ,. 3,
.,,s if,,
g g g' g . .
-'y 4 p,1} <
. s .. ,
I * " ,' .*, ;t ,, .4 .
; . v. , .
? .,
.y A, - .~., n , , ,
y~ ; ' , , . , , ,
' ;\'
- y ! s' : 9, ,s
',:.,.*7-{'.,
_' a' _ _ C.
. . m .. , .
_ , }.( ',
. [ e y.
.n. ,. ,. -
sn . s . -
&, ;):::,.: n, W.Q .
. ., r:a;;'ll.Y.y)k i . u.g.. &> ;> - -
w_ u ~ .. - . 9 +.y o .
- s. < .;
p .. .r a:.- # , ;, ,
. .' . y.;.a. . .. - . . n, , -t.
- 3. ;.. ,
.c'
.~..
- u. fa .:
~ '- . s ,,
3 '; '. . . j, .1 - -
.:p : .. . ::? ^ n .. ?,
..c,s::P.L ',
^
.hQ[ , -'6 R: _ -c d p .c s,. ,,
. ,j. g ;- h.,
g; . . "-. . . . r.y ;
- . Basis for the Environmental Assessment
. p,:2 ;M.T.. , N;'. ', .Hf.0 4 k*+W '.y -;[:pp.
. Both petitioners assert that there was no basis for issuing the exemp-
>>icW. g.i 71 tions on the assumption of no environmental harm and that NRC must
.. g ' W ,"?..p..ir.s.;, -
revoke the exemptions and require an environmental impact statement.
, . . , v- g-3. . .... f}.
5, #t. NRC regulatioris in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 specify the nature of the envi-
>a .. .
ronmental review, if any, that must be conducted for a given licensing
.7 '.TLv.N')y.i.M.b),
, . . ?. . . ,'; .t ., di or regulatory action. Under 10 C.F.R. f 51.21 alllicensing and regulatory
. ,. : , W actions subject to Part 51 require an environmental assessment, except
- m. . . f" .. #W M.4
- 4. $e c' S f those specincally identined in 10 C.F.R. i Sl.20(b) as requiring an envi-A ,,
ff;4's.XM;a ronmental impact statement and those identined in 10 C.F.R. l S t.22(c) as categorical exclusions. The requested exemptions for the Limerick WJf.$':[ T.g ; A cc.1., m .Q'q'4:]
' dj piant do not fall within the criteria for a required environmental impact W. . ' . , b .i. 'j. fi statement under { 51.20(b) and are not explicitly included under the
, @. . . ' ' < categorical exclusions in f 51.22(c). Therefore, an environmental assess-
% g.4
- E .,- - , ,@s . :7. s .o ..' M menth.ijof the exemptions was prepared to determine whether to prepare r
%,..q' .gi
' , N. , .M L:. an environmental impact statement or to Ond no significant environmen-
" 72' Wlg'.Y J
@;. $/
/J
,(..g.&.,
tal impact. In assessing the appropriate action for the eight subject exemptions, I
.p. d'a.y%,, 2 ', ($ note that the characteristics of these actions are consistent with those
~' ' 'e G.( ,, .J.t characteristics of categorical exclusions for which no further environ-
? ff y . ; , , .$ :. mental evaluation would be necessary. For example, all of the eight ex-
}j eniptions are expected to affect portions of the plant only within the re-M' #. . . w. w;
. , . c.4M
- 1J. [ Q.'-z;;,
stricted area, .[. as denned in 10 C.F.R. Part 20, to involve no signincant J, .O .I .h '.t "x
. ,, c, hazards consideration, to involve no significant change in effluent
~ j' .y. [';..i.b,, VJd releases off site and to involve no signincant change in occupational radi-1;;;. $[..["l4. ' -*N'd . .,
ic ation exposure. See 10 C.F.R. { 51.22(c)(9). Apart from Mr. Anthony's
!. assertion (rebutted above) that certain exemptions increase the risk of L-.?~ , .: T'C '?fl ..,m' .,t' .dfM<$
' .n <:
- accidental releases, neither petitioner provides support for h.is disagree-i d N,. S !.<: f;;g:',, w q...E$ .iy ment ." with the Staff's conclusions that the exemptions will have no sig-h ' f'l %d . , nificant impact on the human environment and that an environmental u.3 ;m% M y. .'.D1 impact statement was not required.
v :::[M Y,OH' 9 Mr. Anthony also asserts that alternatives were not considered but provides no information regarding what alternatives he believes should l'r.Q$.dld.y[n.." e. .W. ,J %.39 q, have been considered. Contrary to the assertion, alternatives to granting e;' 3 r.'P Q, [,.j. ' the exemption were considered. Relief from the specine requirements of M .. ;,* ' , .
] the regulations was granted in each case in conjunction with the finding D y.; 0 * - @.. , j.l that other features of the plant design or administrative actions would
' f i r.7'. a ?. H t
- .'$g t 'fj.j # exist or would be required which would compensate substantially for the
~~ , . , *. .} relief granted by the exemption. This approach provides a comparable
%.l;.-@..u,,.
* , iJ. k).({qdi.#g' nificant difference in the environmental Q]fi impacts such that granting of level of protection of the public health and safety and results in an insig-f, 3 . ,. ' , , ; , , .. '. . .,.N . ,l. q 3
.. ;y. H m & . :+ : ,w
- Y..p4H. Q % ,,g. dcn% .; i.b f %n ,.'*)
L N. m .
,p .,1l'p; . '*?n }Q; ,':f , '.q
.: Wj Y ,
45
.. . s.t ,.
. 2.l ;Q.g..p.9 % ' Q
- m. -
..* . r. k l ..' .
~.*4, fp'g a c . W ,, ,, r- ,; , - e- , -
_ ' - '. %. ' : j& e- .. 1 .* , ,. . , ,
;si
$6* . < , , I( ; , p
,._. .* 2.'{ .. ,,.\ ,
a, ' -', .>t* .j ' ~ L1. \ jf t _g..
'
- j_ . .-
. f i '
,x
n-y; yy ,
, ,,; . . . .. .. ...;. ~ --. . . .
A. _ a , q . w n: j_ y . ..; . ,m. ,. 1 . . - . 1 py+ y. ; , , 3 ~ -; .
~;y .
g c.v , y; '... .,;.~
~.: ,..
- n ~ .i ; . ze w, e .
..e.
,- y --. , :. . , ;
'c. :2 .) , ; ,e ~ - ...;
_.+ m .* -
,, e
-s..-
S.m . . ~ . 4 .J i
. . . . . ' - __ ,. . . '. w i . ' . . . - * - is. + * . . g . .m c . . 2 sf ..,,.3 ,_ e s .,
1 , e ~.y - N p s
,. .. ,2 - Q, .
, ;. - n ;. .. n
, , . , [W* .
the exemptions under f 50.12 and the decision not to prepare an envi- - ; [.W[ , .p-'. , Q. ; <
. ..e ronmental impact statement under Part 51 were appropriate. ,. M_3. , o,,
ay Mf :~ _ . ; ,y< As noted in the environmental assessment, the principal alternat.ive .. ....; M. " . Z.; 4 would have been to deny the exemptions which, given the comparable :. ,'*? . 4'@ + ' . protection provided by the exemptions, would not have resulted in a sig- ... , % . 's i % nificantly greater level of safety over the life of the plant and would not have resulted in a significant reduction in environmental impacts. i t - ? ?. . .. " c*' -
. 47 k 3 ;N
.',.,. y Denial of the exemptions.would have contributed to delays in comple- .. }~ .' [ '; W ';.. g h 9 tion and final readiness testing of systems according to the Licensee's as- .,'. o -. . J# .. " , +4 sessment, would have resulted in some unnecessary. testing require- uWW - . d%.g ments, and would have increased the hazard to personnel entering the U1 '
- ' %. M. M containment during the startup test program. As noted in the environ- h.[ ,7f lp{.}d ' _'$. ;
mental assessment, denial of the exemptions would have resulted in re- .L. f , L . q .. ". ' ; . duced operational flexibility and unwarranted delays in power ascension M <- -
~3 d .'
in view of the negligible environmental impacts engendered by the ex- '[("4' '/ #lM.I;.:/ // ,!. . emptions. Under { 50.12, the Commission may give appropriate consid-eration to the effect on the public interest of any delay from not granting 9
*>f 4.'% W.% /
an exemption, including power needs and delay costs to the applicant Q . . . .O.4.W.d.% .. and to the consumer. In sum, the discussion in the environmental as- .7 "Ja . %eW sessment of the exemptions was appropriate to the circumstances, and ~Qi - d..p D @f D.~ no more detailed examination or balancing of alternatives was required.' t . f M .ej E, .n,. e 7. ^. in his request Mr. Romano briefly mentions, without any particular - e l. -
. .~~ : .' . . : .:
nexus to the exemptions at issue, several issues previously raised and , w. .
. .f* , . . . l flm .
M' s decided before the Licensing Board concerning asbestos and vinyl chlo- 'r .. 7.. , ^ . - s ride contamination of the Schuylkill River. This issue has been raised p ; . ' 2c(~7 ' / ~ y, ~ ,. g. % M e ' .M before the Licensing Board and was discussed by the Board in the operat-ing lice'nse proceeding.'o No further action on my part with respect to this issue is appropriate here." ?
'* n?; Mi'a [ p'(J (Of
. m ,. 7- ' '.-. -%.
s a-
. . d. .-
.g. . '
My Q F G.4:ly' .:..%f l' y CONCLUSION b i P; .W . w.y p"c&[f-
. %. . . y#. .. , . - aJ With respect to the bases for and the environmental evaluation of .-Z 1 e' [.'%.:^.
W Mhgy:k eight specific exemptions issued with the operating license for the Lim-erick Generating Station, Unit 1, the petitioners have not identified any .c. Wf. .;.;..
. g .s . . , . . .
; ... w5}s
.; G wev V "gi}n @ ; lN ' <., .j,
'Ser DuAr Powr Co. (Amendmem to Maier als License sNM.1773 - Transportanon of spent Fuel s P' i7., * ] (< / , l, ", $
from oconee Nuclear stauon for storage at McGuire Nuclear stauont ALAB.651,14 NRC 301. 317 ;f 'l 3 . i?~ >' M .; (198th herine Dertrar and Powr Co. (North Anna Power stauon Umts I and 2). ALAB.584. Il NRC ' M%,~ ' W ? ..l'['[*,#.'J 451. 457 (1980). .
~f
* .7Mi. [ ' . ',~
M" Memorandum and order Repenns Laie Filed Comemions from foe and AwPP Denyms l , ' O l- . g, ,67.f [%y?/lp$c _., .h 4 AWPP s second Request for Reconsideration of Asbestos Contemion. Denyms AwPP's Monon to
-.,'.;,*r-Q;e Add a PVC Comennon and Commenung on an invalid Inference m Del. Aware's May 17.1984 Films." . T- . . J. ,
August 24.1984 (unpublishedL g .d/ .}h*Qc{.Q* , .c
Three Mile Island. CLE.85-4. supra note 6. .r W m ;L.. U?f>.;p V.m<
- a. i., >. M. .. . - a.
.g. .'.ed' ~4 ,,
F ,}}