ML20214Q246
| ML20214Q246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/31/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V24-N05, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V24-N5, NUDOCS 8706040313 | |
| Download: ML20214Q246 (99) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- . - ._. - - . . 6 #'d i i NUREG-07S0 l Vol. 24, No. 5 , Pages 681-768 l l l l l l l l I i a l i g7 o 40403 t3
. ~ - .-. - .- - -.
I p %u@jdM.c@.'Q t s d wsg a tW+kQdAlje&&g@w$gg%.uMGM:{& h d ; qa.4, &o. w & N b. Q D % g ;GO M %g g;
. . ~ ,
.qf y y i ym
.p.$k Q r,ggi a
' t.;
NWNNW!D, p c . , , 46 c.2w' , Nn,
@. w$.k n, g,4-ma 4 ,.g, ,xma.w .e v..@a.~j M.... gg. gD W( 7.4 .3..y q a w y mrc,,~ wg. u.uq@.t,;g e
- . . ~u. p. ,,, .c .
. r . . . . 3 g , . .p, o c.,
~
,sj y. ,
qg,
, - .L:;l _ a.
w$ ~:$q: 3 :.: .. . < . ~ ,%.. ' + .,: ,. s
.,.. ,,' .n. y -..
..;n g a
, . , ' . . , ~ f."?g.: .;Q q%,;Q t,. .,
fYf Wh w
-Qu;DwiGQ' ?Q q%WWWh.,;3 yQ%[>(&$h&*'I';Q* y '.jp, g&'!Rh$$hi:.d k Q
, .Tp
,. . , _ 9. . ,% w:n b <~ : u flll %n.f..t &...[h(g R.,"..t ~$; %.:. .W'.p~r:p W :.'?. gh p!,; ' l Q[s @m f ,Q}, p,s
' , - <:. .s . c.,y . > .o%q&, ,m_ Q.,y'.j, ;m. Available from . , .
+ .
. eQgy; ;
,~. ;.4 ,g . 1 l
i 1 . iy ... y
. s
- 4
, yi. R. : p , .., g a _, ._
.,,.-,.m
,, ygy < u. '
. z,
%g
.ng_Offic' ,O. c' -
- - ,. ,!; ,. . ; ; d~ J ,,
c,p . ,: jw g ..... ...r..,,j , > .
~. .
. - . , , n , a. . .- .; u. .
m,
!.r. ,~ m ,...,.__,. '
n,
*'*'%( . ' - ,, ( k $.. . .3, [ y . . . .,
consats, 2. softbound issuesfy C ' , _ .9
, u.; gggym
( . .
.... 4
. .; um y +w' y~' * *:" wu.4:sa "4 v' 9y).3w m.e.**4,sl. mm t =qa....w--- p y . Ws p >
- # i8 .Me
.%pr[p-e.
e , ,
,<, -y,. m ,.
k h k*U Y hn.h,h O $,4 Wd j
- ' .U
.b pps " rare available from National Technical!!:. "QfWEAT.ggE '
~
" ' tion'Servich7SpririgfiilcOVA
% n m nigypa g fgglQ gy22i6i d pg Mhji%
vy.$fM g.- w..%cm, n'4Ef.NM. N t r ,- n- ,,%,f,'9Qt 4o c. . s.yfME
~ - qn m.y . 4'8 ,d: P .
' W/UO@
./* M. . . -rn :en.,k~ w
~
..fM,6,%, .
ayg.y
.v@. J. v mq ,w,nO w v. 4.;MI 1
- ., l
/.C.,x , ~
gf Y s , >. . m k SWh h M Nr '.n[ n -m
' ' ,, . ~
. '.l ' ,' . : i. ' 3' , ,
" [' ~ & #
..*v s. .
p,. + s
. ,,- .;=*
; *. ,a. _. .-},
n,,., m. d
*p
_ . - ;.,4
....2 .
,,e. w. .
. ,,s.
.,r.,~.*. a. .. .- . *. .. , , .-. .
e- ,6 g , ,.* * ' , T',
? , r;
." . . .' , .! a v,1.', s y -e. . , = 9 .y't - g ,. y. , y *. ..;' ' . ,~, ;y. vd .' y,' yl-l .] ,
- 4y .;;
.:p i s , .;. . -
M{ .g - 2 3
'j' ', .e
'e,
,:. p
- g g ~
.t.. . . , . q t;. ,
q
.s / '. . , ,
ington, M.< <3 .a M~M,, .I *..r; d -
.-A;s ;:;s-g <. . " v .>. m g l
e .a j e ,,.Q,
- ye .fM *; C, ,I
- h [.p .( JA.SEg.
. - . .1.
^'
5 ,,e V .3xA DV(w?S.$$ w pysst-e m
* , f .4 g
< . :l hh* >
M..d h3 a. 'si' A .
. *dE.M.
W.' I D
't, h
W-S s p , I #
- b h ,
+-.--------,---,e , , , . . , , , , w_,_,.___- ,. .,,_. ,, , , _ _ , _ , _ . . _ _
4
.ar s
*- NUREG-0750 1G ,
- ; Vol. 24, No. 5
. . . 1 Pages 681768 d
~' "
. 'l. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM VllSSION ISSUANCES F
. #.- g
- e. - , .. ,
..- - mi.g - -
~ - , .
November 1986
- y ;," .;..:. Y ..:- ~ a . ,_;' .. , -
- y. .
.C . , , 'j c; j
l' .
.. This report includes the issuances received during the specified period i from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety ar.d Licensing Appeal l' ,
Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the
. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and
. . the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
i , . i The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein n, are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-n ~. 'i dent legal significance. j - . .- . . . . - .' -
.* e' *~
> 3..,., - .
., 3 ;. :.~ , ]
- l. 4 #Q . 4 . * ,. -
l:.';3 , - -: n ;;y ] :.j -
.3,c'.rZLu-. .;.. ;.,
; /. ;. . .. :~- ,
- u. w...
. ; . . . v . -~.,
.cci U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,..n
. . .,. --4
. . ,..2- ,. .
- . s. . s .. +- -
". . r. : .
, {,.t Prepared by the
~~
. Division of Publications Services
'. . Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nt. clear Regulatory Commissior.
Washington, DC 20555 (301/492-8925) 0 .
. M
- s--,w,w--- m-,,,~,-w-,,,-- - - - . - - - - , - -vwmen--wer-w-- -~,-a--n._nn-, -----------------ee- , -
f
~
-- :c.
. . . .m
- n:
.i
.... . . , ,A Y. .
f y., ".
,....s -
s
- "r... .
. COMMISSIONERS Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
. . Thomas M. Roberts
- -i James K. Asselstine
.-3 :
. . M. Frederick M. Bernthal
- .. e ' '(
.,;, . . fi', O. . .y . . f.,. . . .. . . Kenneth M. Carr
' s ,'
. E. r. .
..e.PM y -:
, :4
, . '?- ..
e~ . . ..,t.
.., . n. .
b
- Od.
. .'t .:
~ L . :,
. . - - >. 3
. . s. ,
7 .
. -~. L , .
- ' -^ -;. . -M Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal Panel
.M 'S J u.
- 8. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel V -.. :,
.g,,p s. ~ra- .'
-t*
G.4.,3.., . ,. .
*I
- g. .j,.'
'# , l#$ ,
8t * ; ., t o, e, r J *i ',g. .>*. ,*!., , .L.*.. . ., ;.
, q,& .. . ; , *a.s. e* , , .y.
6.*
,. . .,. , qv
. .. ..-k ? z, .'
- s " -
Q.' e
;d'^m- ,'g... F
, e . "s , ,
W* % $,
= .y . ,* ~'. . .S.\
' ~~ - ,.. . .>, ,g:,.:e *y ' r;> .
c ,
' ,. *. - , . 4*
.s. .
.m. - l.
,a..
,.p.
, ,s e.* -
a
. . , .-4. . , , ,
A,,
.
- p; j{ ,
g 9
-( .,'h ,
0 4 ,
. , A , i i
* * '< q e O a
, s 4
~
. 8 L - ,
r I p s S . I . ' . g g y- -- -
-y -e g .,-y.-99 ,,y- y-gy,e,,wy,.3-v,y ,. ,w-9--r . - ,y- , .m, #,y.-_--%-- . . . - _ _ w- __9---&.% -rm v,.-.-.- . ,,m-% w-,.---9gy-.
e' 'q.- .. .
/*. .
.g .
r
+ .
,. 4 , , ,
~
~
~ .
t
?. . . .
- s. .
+ :,. . - ..
- lg .,. ' ,, 3. ,
....':.. J . : .m ._ . . h..'*"'. ;
- t;
.t CONTENTS (c 4-( -4. ,
/
3 Issuances of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
*.s c.
- AMERICAN NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et al.
- (Revision of Orders to Modify Source Materials Licenses)
- Docket 404492 (50 Fed. Reg. 46,370) p- - ..-.s. : .'. ' -
DECISION, CLI-86-23, November 17,1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 04 z, . . . .
.U* /' *~ ' ~'
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) Dockets 50-440-OL,50-441-OL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, b . CLI-86 22, November 6,1986 .............................. 685 , '1. .w; m .e.- J. t, . , , ..s.., . t @,'W,70 ;M' l, ., .} l .' 6 . . ?!.. . COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY h'J.,7't.M ' - 'l .". K. 'i'-Q 1. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) g $.rp: *
, . - ' .r, -. .,
Dockets 50-456-OL,50-457-OL J. . . . ~ U . ,. . '
, ORDER, CLI 86-21, November 6, 19 86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 81 iu ,a <
l :,y;e... -
- . L;vw y - .
'. .1-.
I k'
- l. s .
+ .
m . .
.i <
') Issuance of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ll, -.
1i k ' ' -.; { PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. 3
$ 'v<>. -
., j (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
L A.> ~ ' ' ' ' '
" . . ', - 1: Dockets 50-443-OL-1,50-441-OL-1 (Onsite Emergency ~
F ,
, .[ Planning and Safety Issues) k .- 'f - .
, DECISION, ALAB 853, November 20, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711 l- .
. . i L.; -. . ., ., . ,
4 4 -J' m - Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
' J
.-l '
. '7.:'. y ?.. N ,.,;" . .
~ .b. .
1 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY e, t .:?.' .. ,. A,,;. y. , . , w _,. , . . f ,;4, (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) s.?- :,;. .;,.. . .- : .;. v.; , x., ..9, . . , Dockeu 50-352-OL,50-353-OL
/}.$ '.Idy
- k. 4 r. 3. ./. , e .. .! c., Tid, :,!/,.d .
c s . '. . .. d-
$. ;. 5?l'h,.. . , ni SUPPLEMENT TO THE FOURTH PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION RELATING TO THE REMANDED m(d'3..v .y. f. ., , e, a : . ,.
CONTENTION REGARDING MANPOWER MOBILIZATION hSl~j$}Q1'*1f .
, 39,'-[.I.i,fJ ' *,.".;;
. l. 'y . . g J AT THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT
,y.!$.Q. .
r GRATERFORD, LBP-86-38, November 10,1986 .............. 731
@9. ]~.p ' ?D -[.
%6 %
.q:.."J' ' .. . T. ~ $ '
5 j P',g. ', - [ ,a, .' , , ,a
,') n,- 's ,. I,J . n :.~
,n
.w a 4 u;h.4, 3 .-
.. -3! o + h; / . ,. ;
' 3 .* ., vs a
7.*
- 3 .. .- * . ,
& b *
, 'g
- o - >
' h. , * , tl, .
*'eI, ,' 2
, 3.. .S. . . 'i s . t. ? ,
- - t,. < .
9 g
. s A '
g . . , hii - -'
- .__ . ., ~,.-- _
n j .g) g--
, e* , . ,. -.E -l - ,
; .. . , . . , . es .
( . . . v., .
. . ,. V.. -
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC., and WABASH VALLEY POWER ASSOCIATION, INC. a: '. f + . ..a . . . , .
.. y
~
,f ,
, q. ]'O Q .- [ I' (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station. Units 1 and 2)
-7 Dockets 50-546-OL,50-457 OL (ASLBP No. 83-487-02-OL)
. ~ 2.- .
+
-l .,.'
. , ', , MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TERMINATING OPERATING
., LICENSE PROCEEDING, LBP 86 37, November 3,1986 . . . . . . . 719
, ., s . ;.c_: .
- x- e5 "! SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION
. t , . Y u. s .. TO RESCIND RECONSIRITION OF BOARD BY CHIEF 3; '. 3 ~
; .' 1 '
, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CO' ITER
~< ." (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) ff '
ASLBP No. 87 543-01 Misc. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER,
- r; WV - LBP-86-37A, November 7, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
* ' / ' ,i,
*s 'a- ~
' h; t nl:.>;;' 4.L.a : '.:; . ..
j - .*;,
* ..* L ~. g: r +< ,;" r,c..*......+
. .e.7.
Issuances of Directors' Decisions 3 . .1., g,
- c j .....,; ,.i t.~c. g3 y. Y .'.t k". u : , .
+ .y
., z.c ~'.,_ '
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al.
.- . ~
l ' ' (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
. J' "!A c f*:.3..J- 9f ', <$
.~ , . .. ,
N ; Docket No. 50-528 b DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206, . . "E ,
..' y; c f f. , .d
[ . - ,' ? o , . , ' ,..g,; Ne+ , DD-86-18, November 20, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762 2 . .
.s . .,. ,. ,
.' . ,'N; , "o 3,,l . GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY'S BOILING WATER REACTORS
, 1 .;.s .
. . ,f; ~ zi r . ' DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206, Fu,., y ..,, J ' J, 3 ', pp.86-16, November 6,1986 .............................. 747
~.;', .
~
, +
p ' ,. . . ' i j".M . . .. < J TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
. .Es , . ? - (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) l5 19 i.M p <'.,,, .. . . . < ' - l. .(x ,, ':j.y'&' ., .;r-1
. -.. p:- ~.V 4 Docket 50-346 2 .V. . DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206,
- ' 's ;N . .
. .y
-g , . 7. .$1 [y., . .N . , " . '. i DD-86-17, November 19, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3 m..... . . a, . . . .x . . ._T.p' ? 'n.J.,5,:u , y. .<. :. ,6
'.,, a ; . .f e . 3 , < .>.y i ;.m M~~..;
; 3.1,7 a
@.;r .w _c ;fv .fV /..g..y r. a. ..
m. I . / 7, .:i J 9' ' , . 6* f a~* M
* ,Ifl:\.g*p,
;L ff .;.' , ,Y t},Q* ,;. .,. )
- .}. .
. ,s. <,,y w.;<m y .
,y(q +-
. .y*. . ,, c...r- g' .._ . : k.
.a w ,s'.,#aI 4
., ., .. g.s
,. ^ n a e, L ,3 ,5.
. ; *'s j; ,w ]r
' ~* s , d' ", , <,' ).,r g.. r,..- 5- j ." . 'j y** > ut ). , .,.y ,6.;h t
# . e .e. ' . - . ). ,.-
..y .- + * , '. . N *,7 ,, . :.ye, yj
'n 7 . '.
- / ,* . , $
e *g. .. .-# 4 .
~ c, , ,y. ,, .! ". g. ' , . :M' . .e .r. ',;. q 4' s.g,-;.g ,, r,,3,. 3 ,, j , j
,- 4 6.- /
..g .'. *
,.,s 5
.I g a
'{,
8
,W 9 * .)
. . ,,gr'. 1 g
# T . m .i ,-
e b (,
,g t #
)- .
% . p 4 . , .
s 0
.. -_~_.n, .__ _ n- -.. _ _ - -__.. . - - ._ . _ . - . - - - . - - . . -- . . -- .- - - - . .
i
! l 4
i
! i 1
i , e i i i , p i l Commission Issuances 4
*'d.
t l l l l I l t h r I P y ww-c FMr-~
- 4 ]
. Cite as 24 NRC 681 (1986) CL1-86 21
. .~ .- . :, -' 'ij
~
.,, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' " ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, su
. ..< 'u ' '. .
COMMISSIONERS:
+ ~ :. ,
Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
'l Thomas M. Roberts
. James K. Asselstlne
^
Frederick M. Bernthat
< Kenneth M. Carr
,' .>r .
, 9 -]
.. c o. .
. 'l q...,,. - . . ." _- In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-456-OL
.. . < ,t...,
- - 1 50-457 OL
. - . . -. -.- s s
. c ., 4
- f. -' COMMONWEALTN EDISON
.' . 4 '
, % d COMPANY (Braldwood Nuclear Power Station,
. Units 1 and 2) November 6,1986
- 'Ihe Commission points out that summary denial of Applicant's " motion for reformauon" of a Commission decision denying review of an appeal board order would be justifiable, since in reality the motion is one for reconsideration, and
, . as such expressly barred under Commission rules. However, the Commission
- " - } addresses the merits of the petition to ensure that an injustice did not result from
~, , , '
its order denying review and because Applicant appears to have teamed nothing J , y from cariier Commission admonitions in the proceeding. The Commission finds
. "'4
~
.. , 1 that Applicant's " motion for reformation" is deficient both on the law and on s ,- G '? ...! the facts, and denies it.
L . - .-
.:_ , . M, - ll .
. .:.t..,.. $),
~k *
. . .t.i*'.*' >
., g. l NRC: REVIEW OF APPEAL BOARD DECISIONS
'.:".-. 'y<p . 5.d ^ qj s
4-Q$ .'
,l;2.% % . A " motion for reformation" of a Commission order which requests deletion of
. . 3. , . .
, J ,, . , g. 'y) 40% of the order, including the Commission's rationale for its denial of review
.' of an appeal board decision, is in reality a motion for reconsideration and thus
'.) * '
{ r { sl'5::".,.0'il! L . ..
- 'i barred under Commission rules.
.p 4 , , d 0 .
r-I L 5
, e
' ' - ., 681
~
I g I' l
.n ., 7. , . -
~ , , {
~
W ~' c . .c
- s. ' -
c.. ll. A'
. ' , ,. y
;_ .w -
;;_ .v -
7 ,
, .y. s . : <- -
.o 1.... e
- 4
~, . ]
, m . .
os f %.;.,,v.- f. ,
, , ,, , M 1 , ,%..dl ** '?
.. NRC: ADJUDICATORY RESPONSIBILITIES
'-.s 'T' fp l. 7 :.. J. " s '
'.. 9 d If the Ca==ie< ion has committed a serious injustice in an adjudicatory order,
. ; <y %.M.: :
- f? m4
- y . *"1 37' -
it should be willing to consider rectifying that injustice, even if an occasional s s . , exemption from its rules is required.
< .* T -
NRC: - ADJUDICATORY RESPONSIBILITIES
. , s .., e - -
- ..% 'a
, P ' {} . : .4 g,J '. y, ,.' .P[. ] J,.., . . ,C Spadan that a Commission order may harm a party in future proceedings e , f.i. ,
, j, f '] before a state regulatory body is not a basis for seeking Commission revision
.*a.. . f -
' "; 1 of that order.
. e- ,
. ;., , w.
..o'x s
.n.-
ORDER
- .;-l % . @ e .q.i.: % M=f,.%
Q.%@['$$kNSld.q'"*INN {$I;i' [,9 - On March 20,1986, the Commission issued an order (unpublished) in which it denied the Applicant's petition for review of an Appeal Board decision (ALAB. m.. . - :g,f7c. :Na; . .
. ; g;*" 1.. ,"J 817,22 NRC 470 (1985)) dismissing a motion for directed certi6 cation filed by i,;g\lXh
,.',;,$ I *
.q the Applicant. 'Ihe Applicant's petition had asked the Commission to dismiss the
.i:' *n.,4?'d
,'~.,
,' ,', Intervenors' late-Aled quality assurance contention and bar its resubmission. At
*4-3 :1. * ",'
the same time, however, the Commission stated that it was taking review sua
'.. sponte of the question of the correctness of the Licensing Board's application of i,c -
'7
+ . , ' L,, W ]l '
the ave factor test which the Commission's regulations prescribe for late filed h
- '1 . ,O contentions.10 C.F.R. I 2.714
... . '- ' ',u,q' .t , ,]; ;j s
Applicant's brief, aled April 3,1986, contained no suggestion that the
?.- [ ,
l Commission had committed any errors in the March 20 order. On April 24,1986, j, N the Commission issued an order in which it found that the Licensing Board had
; , l.' . , ej incorrectly applied the Sve-factor test, and it dismissed the Intervenors' quality 4.
n / '. assurance contention. CLI-86 8,23 NRC 241. We also ruled that the contention,
- . ,'2 .-'.
eg , .
., g *]
.t
. if resubmitted, would again have to be dismissed. At that time, we thought that
- .. ~ - f, *
. t 4D s, . .i we had anally put these issues to rest.
,.1','~'. On May 5,1986, however, we received from the Applicant what it termed a
- y. W% ~ p % ... , -
[r,$MOfr$;;@,MMM j.,' g , fp " motion for reformation'* of the March 20 order, accompanied by a photocopy p:$ b of that order with some 40% of the text marked out and a variety of handwritten 7' Y y:,;&, j;:T f.G 4 Q g'i'O insertions. Whereas the March 20 order had directed criticisms at the Licensing
,:g Nt Board, Intervenors, Applicant,'and, to a lesser extent, die NRC Staff, the
@. M.. hEh .pNc' gg. b Commission was now asked to delete just those poruons of the order in which
- *m 4.A,W '.M. gr4W(yW
, the Applicant was criticized. The Applicant explained that those criticisms might J.f 56.; % d.n ;.y.CM tend to harm it in future proceedings before the Illinois Commerce Commission k.; $ 9,; .'., f,'. Q@ Z Y. 3 'y M y in which the prudency of the Applicant's actions would be at issue.
In reality if not in name, the Applicant's " motion for teformation" is a motion hcyp"/ y, r .y';" Q '*y* .{.; i,*[l,E'.(;E'(2,. C ',9 T ;jl for reconsideration. As the Intervenors' well reasoned comments point out, it
. +$ # . ,, 'e*, .. , 9 *#,. .
j,
, , [,
n-k,7.','"' . ~ . , ' '.s '. , , "J . 682
. f..
s . . . . 4-. - 4 4o
,, e
[.. I 3 ..
, e s, ,, , ,
, ga
. g g . mW 4 O' .
% , O S
. ,g, t t b .
9 d 3 .. .
+ t s
.e
, u . ., ,
o'
, , . . , asks not for mere word changes, but for the elimination of an essenual element
,{.,f.. '. ';
of the March 20 order: the Commission's rauonale for denying the Applicant's petition for review of ALAB-817. Such motions for reconsideranon are expressly
. d'
'," - ". 9 , 1. *
, ~. . .g ,; ' barred by the Commission's regulations.10 C.F.R. I2.786(b)(7).
. Our analysis could end there, with the legal judgment that the Applicant's petition contravenes the Commission's rules. We 30 on to address the meriu,
. c.
+
J' , , . . . + however, for two reasons. First, if the Commission has committed a serious g.;..-
,.o ;7 ,
7 " '.j] ' injustice in an adjudicatory order, it should be willing to consider rectifying that
- ' / 'l' ~ ' injustice, even if an occasional exemption from its rules is required. Second,
?j
- ' V . 4 ' '. it appears to us that the Applicant has leamed nothing from our previous
- , ,, - . observations and admonitions in this proceedmg. Accordingly, we will retread this ground once more - we trust, for the last time.
. . . 'Ihe March 20 order leveled two principal criticisms agamst the Applicant:
nrst, its failure to raise with the Appeal Board the issue of the Licensing
. ..t. .O~ Board's misapplication of the Ave factor test; and second, its failure to alert
* - . qQ.s :, .'2 T '" *. M the Appeal Board to the possibility that litigation of quality assurance might
,e cp v .3f./,.7.;$* . .
delay completion of the plant. With regard to the Arzt Applicant has never
,- CWV - .t; . satisfactorily explained why, in addition to its other claims of crior on the part
. ,j of the Licensing Board, it did not also mention the misapplication of the Ave-
' ' L, a Dif.$ *
. i factor test. With regard to the second, it appears to us that the Applicant was
~'~
,G either surprisingly reticent in failing to mention the possibility of delay to the
. . d* f
. ~c ' ~
. ,g i Appeal Board, or surprisingly tardy in arriving at the realization that such delay
' .' i, was a possibility. We must remind the Applicant that it was the Applicant's I' . y ^
. J! own decision to inform the Appeal Board explicitly that it was not seeking
, } ,, '.."- ;: <,1 . review of the Licensing Board's application of the ave factor test, and to argue
~#' .
*^ '
. to the Appeal Board that interlocutory review of Licensing Board decisions A was avviuyste even "in circumstar.ces which demonstrated not the potential of i irreparable harm to the movant or pervasive effect on the proceeding, but the
~ '
-. j need to provide guidance to licensing boards on the discharge of their duties."
# ,.4 Motion for Directed Certi8 cation at 7.
d . .
~. ~,.' .j We thus see no reason to withdraw the rationale of the March 20 order, or
* * > to adopt the marked-up revision of the order psovided to us by the Applicant.1 l ,. . 1
+
7,E;N.;.(d.,$..#
- Mf . 4 ' W"' 'q One final note is appropnate regardmg Applicant's claim that Commission re-y - *.,' . ,
y, lief is necessary to prevent adverse action by the Illinois Commerce Commission
- - . L . jt. . 75#i' [ T,Jd/. ] in prudency heanngs. '!he Commission is not a party to those proceedings. '!he
. . , 't*@ L;. Q w-
, , + ] .7;;d.y- , e . y b : e]
." ~ Uid Commission's job as a regulator is to " call them as we see them." 'the Com-
.: ., ,..3,.- ; , r.,s. 7, ,. c. .x. p .
. '.v ,. m , .; g<.3.,f . . s;< cms,s q ,
.s 4 4 f g* .
,,5 tr*. #.. . ', r , , v' %, , " '
I Wink sospant to one mense feemsel asser in the hiesub N eeder. Appimaant le asuuust: the afsesett easshed
~*.
7.,
, sJ. ' , -
.c {'1j
. .i. *
. A ,[ . . ,e ,
...g. ., , , , , , , ,
[ 7* y > 3
.l en Ayyksent's " , 23. 1945 sling widi the c- ed ud da se amounste er the deler he piset emusesusnee leksiy to smoult rnan baisssaan er W asumenes isuses. Dee esemnes wee, hemover. in as way
- 4. , , ,. a '. o . */1 . - .
.- . .g a-
. . r ,*-,
-* 1 u dio M W
, .4 ., . , j l 2 *
. L ,
.,, ,.+ ,
g ". ,. ,
# 9 3 a g a 0, D g j e i
g. g . e i , . I i- ,
+
I' '-, , i -
- 4. , ' * '
l- . s, , 6
. - c;
.s. ..
= c .
8< .
." . , . ,, c-
, ,,. s r
, c. .
. .,.. t s,
... . . 1 . .- .
. .a
. i
^s..,.. .a
. ,,.1.
. .f ^ '. ; ;
.- k j: mission has no intention of trimming its views of the law or the facts to
- s. -,:( ?j V ..,. ( ' , ,?.1 help or hinder one party or another in proceedings before state regulatory
- 7. ,. 3. < . *.i .?f .c;; . . . bodies. The suggestion that we should or would do so betrays a deep and
, + ;. q;. ,
og.r; .N troubling misconception by the Applicant of the role of this Commission.
, It is, of course, the Applicant's decision whether to expend its resources on
, $ lings such as the one before us; as we have said, it is not our role to adjudicate the prudency of such expenditures. But we wish to make crystal clear that the
.I 4 . ,.: . .. l ,
',7, (. ..;"{ Commission intends to devote no more of its own resources to this issue, and
. .i .
, "c * .,- J: "
that, accordingly, no further 8'ings on this matter will be entertained.
, . ',f j . . . :. : -
t- Commissioners Asselstine and Carr did not participate in this decision.
..r
~ - -
'Ihe " Motion for Reformation" is DENIED. It is so ORDERED.
.'" Ibr the Commission
. . . y. . .. .. ., . . . ,
.,. e a. , .. .
. 5
> i,' M i . .' s.
SAMUEL J. CHILK [k[',,$i,[iO[, M jM 9.W ' .*;,..],* ;~p[;T } }4.S., Secretary of the Commission w...... . ' - .. . . * . .... ,
. .n
.~4
. , . ."4.<' .
Dated at Washington, D.C.,
> r. 'i
?.:" .p this 6th day of November 1986.
- 1.e . .
'J
, .:. n ., ; , .; , ,
- i
~
..e.> .
,.3. .
.a.
.s. ,
.s.
. ,y . . .
. -r
,s ..
. + - ' , , , .n
., ... s ( :s
. .., t
,,s ,, . . ; , ... . .... ..s. t
-. . " . .m
..,g . ,;
. d . ,: .',
c,..._...: , - -
<:s 3..
> : r... *w%*. .. :;.2.i
. ... . . . :;. w 6:r.h,c.. ',,%..: M. . ,,: q.. ,. * ;;. . . . . ;, ,. .. . :r ,
. n
. . , . . ,~, u .: +,
c. 4, . .+w.,, .w , . ., p. . ,... . .. >. ,., , %y. .4,. ,.ur p .veg*, 4. . .; 4% 4 : . '. )! M. , V:.L T s- ld' g< y plc *, *i
.*.x. %
-. s. .,
q . .. iB T* t * . s.. . . . ' .g.:*. ~,D. r
. . ,S. +.gr .. .Q. e .1.\~:r..?
.J r.; f ,v i . ..,
e . J ,, f . '. ;., sA>. . ' ,L',u ? >., i oaa,. ? * ,*. v'.,". .. 't
.. e. . ~ - H ;;/ , ';$. ,. ,1,. ..s -
- 4 , S ., ' . ,* ; e, _
,',.t'.....,
.r. .= *s .'*g p . ', ./*.*' .*
.h ~
. ,, :;; r q '.
.~ t ,r&. . .. ' , . ;,,* ,q , "'# ; *.4*.,*,
*. s . j
, =
Q ', e . . l* . l. W , W, .- . Q "*., * = ., ' ' . . v' . y,.,' L '. ..t.,..er.',.,;.
? . y . .%. .. . .
g ,l 9 .. I' 8 g ,
'.*,t g .
p
#a .
6
,j - ,.* .
(t., e a ' -.i..
,,-,,r- . f *,., .:. 4 634
,c . . .- . .. . '.g, . , ,
- s. .
, Pd
- b 4 . 'e . .
, .1 -
5 s
- 6 4 h, g.. , .. , *
' 0 9
e g a e te-
, g- *..~
A- % *
, g, 6
.g. g . ,
, . I
.' . 1 .
g
'I- %
1 .
'l
- Cite as 24 NRC 685 (1986) CLI-86-22
. ~ -
) ,
. . - ?
...j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- - COMMISSIONERS:
. .j J Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
. Thomme M. Roberts James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthat
' Kenneth M. Carr s:' . ,, . ;
. g. ,..s-
, s . q' . ,
In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-440-OL
- > " 50-441 OL r ;,. ,,
. .. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
'- I COMPANY, et al t
1 (Perif Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) November 6,1986
, , , . The Commission authorizes the issuance of a full-power license for the Perry Unit I nuclear facility, based on (1) the results of the formal adjudicatory
'- . i proceeding which resolved contested matters relating to license issuance; and (2)
. 4 the conclusion thatavarious uncontested issues considered outside of the formal i proceeding have been resolved in favor of the plant's operation.
s.. NRC: IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW
; . ' ,-" '. ; . l' <
,' At the conclusion of an operating license proceedmg, board decisions in favor i 9 of a plant's operation become effective without the Commission conducting
(,l:C ' .' 'E 'f[, ,.E y
'4 4.'t' .f,[.',; fn. , . t , ,, , . f '. an "immediate effectiveness" review under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.764 and without the g , ., r mmin s g any en reg g ns.
. - .: J., T t .u . '[d . * * , .
,q
~ .
v.- . ,. M-l..;:;.. r. 4 y V J f. ?.3;
, e-ao s-
~
, ? , f, . ,
j.' 'j, y ,#. ,
. .j 8 L ,
. i
~ ' 685
. j 8 0 3
g . e O 8 .
\ ,' e
~ _ - ; .s -
f.:. '. ,n . ; - .,,- .
-a .
+ .
s
* '. .I y OPERATING LICENSE: RESPONSIBILITY OF NRC STAFF t s
.w T* .. ,, As a matter of policy the NRC Staff does not issue full-power licenses
.t2 J without Commission approval on uncontested as well as contested issues. See 46 Ibd. Reg. 47,906 (Sept. 30,1981).
^ , ., ,
OPERATING LICENSE: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS n
,','['nS
;j,'j s a In order for an operating license to issue, the Commission's regulations require that there be " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can
[,[, and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency " 10 C.F.R. 550.47(a). RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS De Commission's standards for reopening a closed proceeding set a high, 9 ' / Jyt., .J e ..'r. h.'J.[ . r . ph;l.m ' . k' [,/se, although not insuperable, barrier to reopening. His policy is fully consistent 6 . A .'M . y a, j" ', ^%y,].. with the approach taksn by the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals that N' ? '. favors finality in administrative proceedings. See, e.g., Bowman Transportation. inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Systems, inc.,419 U.S. 281, 296 (1974); interstate V.,;. O~% q Commerce Commission v. Jersey City,322 U.S. 503,514-15 (1944); Oystershell
,'[ -
7 l Alliance v. NRC, 800 F.2d 1201 (D.C. Cir.1986). e , s.. . . . . -' RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS
- J' . 'N', .
De Commission's policy on reopening closed records recognizes that once
,(.. '
Y / ' , the administrative record has closed, NRC resources should not be diverted from
,s
, 9. '
g conducting selevant safety studies into preparation for reopened hearings unless 9 t 6 - , ,y there has been a strong showing that reopening is justified.
t , , , " .y i, , . c.'
..# ~
m9s o * ,
,.'.. -d' .
RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS
. M $ ,' ,,f,'[. .N , In accord with its policy on reopening, the Commission has on several
' ', q'.,. , (. -!; .,3 ,. Q . ' .y si J.
occasions stepped into adjudicatory proceedings before its subordinate boards $.,5U .f^ J5 'W . .' 3 *[T. y?, . ;;.[.,e,h, to correct, sua sponte, procedural errors involving the submission of new
. w .-c.;?'j@[;ff contentions. See, e.g., Commonwecith Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power T.$iN,'.'. 'h Station, Units 1 and 2), unpublished order of March 20, 1986, and CLI-
%, y';,7 v:l.Vl'f M, N.'b,,'f:.g . %p.?,' 86-8, 23 NRC 2417)9 (1986); United y,~States k En:rgy Research and Development
. '&. ..s .f h .C.h'v'".~ ly W p;.,. +?.:
, ,s Administration (Clirch River Breeder Reactor Plant), CLI 7613, 4 NRC 67 s
. . . /a (1976).
). , ..I :; .+; .; .y , f.r..',;%f .'...:' q c,;.;[j Q.
% . . , = *'.. . , ..c ~-
, . . "* . ' ~ .. * ' ' ' .i .
g 9 y b
.j
[-
' 4' .
.
- 4 # s j r 'J -
,' , ' ? '# **;-
. ,, ., 1 686
, . I
l *
\
a
, . . . .],
% a J
- I b .
n- ,
- ~
, .;. , ( n.. s. . .:.: . .
. . ~ -:
~. -
.. . s'. _.
< ;.'y .' , + , . , -
..t-
. ,. s ' .
, . ., .c -
, , , b.~ 1 u, ,.
a i N
,* : ; <. ' OPERATING LICENSE: RESPONSIBILITY OF NRC STAFF
' E lW*
- 3. .; .. o, t .
As a matter of policy the NRC Staff does not issue full-power licenses
- i ,. .,., ,
.,, m. U without Commission approval on uncontested as well as contested issues. See 46 Fed. Reg. 47,906 (Sept. 30,1981).
. ; ,. . .3 v m OPERATING LICENSE: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
,4. .
1-
.-- .? Li In order for an operating license to issue, the Commission's regulations 4 N- i 'J',,,y' require that there be " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can
. ., f ,
and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(a).
.', ~
. RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS
/. ..- The Commission's standards for reopening a closed proceeding set a high, x-ip.../.[,k .' 24N.,-h. '[.{p.[E e ., - , / although not insuperable, barrier to reopening. 'Ihis policy is fully consistent s.
% y,;,s.,7. . , -. ., ~ U ( j;g ;.: ,
with the approach taken by the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals that
~.. '
favors finality in administrative proceedings. See, e.g., Bowman Transportarion.
. .- , Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freighe Systems, Inc.,419 U.S. 281, 296 (1974); interstate
, .,-- '. ;;.. Commerce Commission v. Jersey City,322 U.S. 503,514-15 (1944); Oystershell
*/
, (,p(y, :
Alliance v. NRC, 800 F.2d 1201 (D.C. Cir.1986). s> . 1
, ,..Q'q ~,.
RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS
., .c~ . .,
- < J' b
.. s 'Ihe Commission's policy on reopening closed records recognizes that once 3a
- Z the administrative record has closed, NRC resources should not be diverted from 6/4 :
P,N. f,;
,.. conducting relevant safety studies into preparation for reopened hearings unless f{' there has been a strong showing that reopening is justified.
~$ . c.'
. . ,, [ n.g.- ) s.
. m.: ,:.
, . . , ' . ., ' , 7. ,,
' H RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS
; .y 'p +. 7, , '<.
']
In accord with its policy on reopening, the Commission has on several
@ ti . occasions stepped into adjudicatory proceedings before its subordinate boards y' [* .y
]j':, F....j: ;, .,;3'. ,e.. d,Q- .j;' Dy -[ [ircontentions. toy p .,. c ' , g. correct, sua sponte, procedural errors involving the submission of new p . . %f.;Q: See, e.g., Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power N.s,.{v- ~.('. f. ,., y,N. _. , f 7 y.*,. .e *,R,'j',,d Station, Units 1 and 2), unpublished order of March 20, 1986, and CLI-
": %,;p ' g\ ? .
; y M j ,, , 86-8, 23 NRC 241 (1986); United States Energy Research and Development
'd J M)/ -e"l M k.%e.h ,4,,I 3' Administration (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), CLI 76-13, 4 NRC 67 s ,. 7. , . . .:. ,, .p +. .. ... .3 .
, ./. .f. ,k. _ .
s s .< J.
.' o. . ,_ w. y
, & p. (1976).
*s. .s.J.,,.*.'*,, . ;, , . * *
"-...j,
'.,.p.P,.
. s.Q,, (j,, 4<%z j '.y. , ....
'~'
, , . ., ,~ .. .. . .
.d O
U' } , % . N y
}
. s s- ..
', < p,
-. [ [' .
., 6gf
.3
, . 1 O
& g
. a . p
3 ~
,a
(
. RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS j When the Appeal Board finds itself unable to grant a motion to reopen on the 7'* ,
4
- o; basis of the pleadings, it should deny the motion rather than order an exploratory hearing that would further expend the resources of the NRC Staff on heanngs
~
- J
.. rather than on technical safety study and reviews.
. ~
g; , .
, ! EMERGENCY PLANNING: FEMA VIEWS (NEED FOR
't LICENSING DECISION)
- ,c
.. .I
. ; Commission regulations provide that the NRC will base its findings on
.- u offsite preparedness on a review of FEMA's finding [s] and determinations.10
. C.F.R. 9 50.47(a)(2).
1" 6 OPERATING LICENSE: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS - P;3
- n M. ); ^
f),.p ,; - At issue in a licensing decision is not whether continued improvements in an i . '^ ._
. , emergency plan are a useful goal, but whether there is reasonable assurance that
- 4. , . - , adequate protective steps can and will be taken in the event of a radiological
. emergency. See 10 C.F.R. I $0.47(a).
w; . . t 6 g, i l OPERATING LICENSE: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
) Where there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can
, , d . i be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, it is neither necessary nor
! appropnate to postpone the issuance of an operating license on the basis of preliminary state concerns that are being considered c.atside of a concluded for-mal adjudicatory proceeding. Without a detailed technical and factual basis, the concerns cannot be satisfactorily evaluated; thus, the Commission is unwilling
;,,2 .
* 'l to delay license issuance.
OPERATING LICENSE: CRITERIA (SEISMIC DESIGN) r
.jj. ;;~ '
.;.3'- 1 ,
.1 'Ihe Commission finds it necessary and appropriate to continue to rely on the uj i, y n . ,. , ..
. . ' , .; J. . . .]
" tectonic province" approach with regard to a plant's seismic design, where an
~
, , .g. , +,
.j ,;" ,
3 f,; 4 earthquake has occurred in the vicinity of a plant that is located in a region of
. - Q.V . ',Q, .
, f. f. *.C' .
the country with no identified " capable faults" on which earthquake predictions J j', 2 *. @ ,~f ',' .4.,Mt
- x. <, ." . . . .,
; .c. ,)
'f ' ) ; 2 ,. ;bl can be based and where it is unlikely that the fault that caused the earthquake can be identified.
*~
. . , ,, '; a'; a . '.. ., , , . i
.,.ll.
;,j, > (Q.7, -.
. %.,'-[=, -
- c. ~
t . , r". ;; a* , . g.-*.' i...g.- ,,. ,,
,- -. . , . s., , .
s 9 O-g s M7
^
g s e 9 9 B ,. , I e
.d \ g
< . p . <.r~ s.
f .
, 3,s . .
e, c s . t- 4 9
. ..,,v ,
.~~ .,. 2 TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED
;c. - ; - x u -
e
. . : 7 . ,, : ' + Safe Shutdown Earthquake
, .. . x. 3.( f
;' 3:: . ;' '.. 't
?, Seismic Design Criteria
<
- Response Spectrum High Frequency Accelerations.
. . .s .r s O., , ~.
4> MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
.'n, a
The Commission in today's decision authorizes the NRC Staff to issue a full-
-. , power license for the Perry Unit I nuclear facility (" Perry-1").1 nis decision
, is based on the results of the formal adjudicatory proceeding regarding whether
, ;y .
," ; the Perry nuclear facility should receive an operating license, and on a review s ; ..-,,:-n' . s , . ' . (, . q of uncontested matters.2
. $ :k.Er.1 . : y - The formal adjudicatcry proceeding regarding whether the Perry nuclear fa.
,'q.;'. .[l
. ,. M,2, C .,p.J . #1'.4
.3:h cility should receive an operr. ting license has now been concluded. Accordingly,
, c.. .
.--. -.g . . ., J $, '
the Board decisions in favor of operation become effective without the Commis.
- 4
- . . . sion's conducting an "immediate effectiveness" review under 10 C.F.R. 62.764, f jf;.E . .y#:M.. S-j'..;. M N'$ld and the Commission need not issue any or' der regarding those decisions. How-J ,$. -
, , i.. .f.~ ,'. ' :;l '
ever, as a matter of Commission policy the NRC Staff does not issue full-power a-i.;. p. _ .. . i y. .fL . licenses without Commission approval on uncontested as well as contested is-f,:;e, a m. r:]: sues. See 46 Fed. Reg. 47,906 (Sept. 30,1981). His Memorandum explains
's A
s, e '
. . . .; . ;J the Commission's decision to allow the licensing of Perry to proceed. As ex-
' [ '%
'.]
1
^I. . -
.;' g'(, y*gl;'.',[y .
- ' 's J . ' { . .}l plamed below, the two most significant areas of concem raised outside of the adjudication concem seismic and emergency p!anning issues. Since concems
. 7 -lc . ,
9 about those areas were also raised within the adjudication, this Memorandum
. 5 , ; . ;. . ' f,-
./ addresses the specific issues raised in these areas both within and outside of the f n, . s i . .. . c.* ':s -
.- l , , ,
formal adjudication.
.j m ;. a...',;. ; .W'
' X .' , 7 y.. '
,; . 3 f f. . . % ' .-CF ' 'er._.. L THE ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDING
. . .. . . ..a . , s. ,.
. ,a . .
s. L ' ,.? f~. Q... .v.. .j,-y O.l'.5 - '
,y,g; The adjudicatory proceedmg concerning whether the Perry nuclear facility 1.',h. %%1%.o s . MYf .# w ;;r u-l[.i .{p. . i N)f., ,g
.p ..
should receive an operating license commenced in 1981. Ohio Citizens for Re-h ,W .
- w .~ . qf : .yn a w x-~'&g.7,;# 4;; y.Wf',,*
; TJ : y- +. g. gK;. y g..
?..
- '. j?.,Z.p::'..,.,.% . . npt.N.Ii.h t.% h1 L':,Qf. ,
t- . ; O[ g. m' T ; ' D N h. .' 3..# .c 3[ *-# s M I
'E The NaC cadmanly does act h ssusnee of a license unnl a plant is sudy to operata Perry Unit 2 is not U'4Dg,,,}T 4i;.4 y c-[h j[,' b hf,[/ ([h.",MN ,',f,b, , % h i
- i. 7.s.Wd,."'.- -
~
A. s . seedy to operess "Dusufose today's dommon. insofar as is addresses acnaal license issuance. is lirruted to Peary.l. I.i.*[.' .' $! 9./ y. N'. .
- ". 2 '
' i ' . - E. ' .1.-g] -
.M
- a The Caut or Appeals for the sixth Circuit an september 4.1986 stayed the Canurussion fran tahng
'T'*/' 9,f:-p,.{ ,c.;
, . Nl ps Y -~. y..' **
? T, g "eny p==hta vase" on operatimi of Perry.l. The Court an October 14. 1986, lifted that stay. OAie Ciasear for KasponnHe Emergy, lac. v. NRC Na 86 33ss.
p. r
,~
b .
,, .'- r
'e . ,, '8** *
.g Os .;.,, . . , ; J ' .. , ~
.' .i, 688
. c.
- , . ~ . ,1./
J , d _t ' i s * -- e- *- *g**
- p +.$*-.' 9 .
- L. '
s .
? ,Y
'. ' 4 s-s 1 '
. , , . _ _ _ ._ _ . _ m __ . _ _ - , _ , . _ - __ . _-. _ . . ,,
- l. ',
t
.* - 4
.,' ., - ! sponsible Energy, the Sunflower Alliance, et al., and a third intervenor (who later withdrew) participated in the adjudicauon, which covered a broad range of S.C ,, , . ,; . -
1 issues, including quality assurance, diesel generator reliability, hydrogen con-
'"(,/ ,
m i trol, and emergency planning. De Licensing Board resolved the quality as-surance contention in favor of applicants Cleveland Electric illuminating Co., et al. ("CEl" or " Applicants") in a partial initial decision issued in 1983. De Board found that "[t]he uncontradicted evidence is that applicant's quality assur-7 . . -q . - ', - ._-
.. .. , t i ance program has provided adequate overview and control . . . and . . . has
,' ' /* . ,j prevented, and will continue to prevent, unsafe conditions at the plant." LBP-
. 'G" ," , ,,t.. ..J '
- -9
-' 83-77,18 NRC 1365,1396 (1983). That decision was upheld by the Appeal
.', 'r
' Board. ALAB-802,21 NRC 490 (1985).
2- ~
', - De Licensing Board's second partial initial decision resolved the other issues
.. ^ '
in Applicants' favor. The Boud found that Applicants had met their burden of
'9*.>,?a
[ -
. . , proof on each issue, subject to seven conditions, and that "there is reasonable
^
.j.. y ,'p, Qc p . . , , , f.' assurance that the Perry Nuclear Power Plant . . . can be operated without endangering the health and safety of the public." LBP-85-35,22 NRC 514,588 M).$N[!'hk.07h[Cj.[y
,,, je .f' g f J 'r.J A 5'" 'f.T 'l (1985). That decision was also upheld by the Appeal Board. ALAB-841,24
^ '-g.q gf:-s ;/ # {.,.,d.T .
NRC 64 (1986), reconsideration denied, ALAB-844,24 NRC 216 (1986). De time for Commission review of that decision expired on September 29,1986.
, - J.; . ' ' , , C . ,,b. ,
fM :', [..;' ,d .' ; ; ,.. De Commission's decision not to review the Appeal Board's decision represents a judgment that that decision was legally and factually sound. It
~
- f. l ;w -
q
.,.',; - means that the Appeal Board's findings constitute Snal agency actaon on the
' ?? [.U y ' ., l ' .m .
l, q issues addressed in the adjudication. In addition, concerns were resed about
.. 7 ec * ',"- , ; ~ >
certam issues that were not part of the adjudication: seismic issues related to
] the January 1986 Ohio earthquake and emergency planning maners resed by '
. : o , : - .! .
? ' . h.', ;/ ' '
.. - 1 Governor Celeste of Ohio. To put those issues in their proper context, we shall first discuss the handling of seismic and adjudicatory issues in the adjudicauon.
j
.e# : .::!." .-ll. ,,- ,n -
?]l,j;* .' - . if.d .';.O u
' ' 3' j A. Emergency Planning Issues in the Adjudicatory Proceeding u .. .c. . s - . . . <
l .1.jj ~ -5 . in order for an operating license to issue, the Commission's regulations require that there be " reasonable assurance that athy*** protective measures can
,. ..f.. .
4 p;gZ@.f N { ., ;,, c 5 ' _ *. % : 'j and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency " 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(a). Several contentions regarding the adequacy of the Perry emergency plan were W. 9;D$ h?yG$" ." 2 D; / / . Q 7litigated {. Obefore the Licensing Board and resolved favorably to the Applicants, b'l 7$ y.
,. ... 0.?J.'9 .
i IfM)Q. $ A;C.K.l.kT. ,'M, .'.O) subject to certain prelicensing conditions. See LBP-85-35, supra,22 NRC at W$ 'dM 'e'?./-:,. 518-29. De Licensing Board found, among other things, that state and local p'O'M.;u:,%.:cv. uM e .G., U..g4EC- A wpunisons had reviewed evacuation time estunates and that the interests of y sy,TiF.giW[.md.,G,.TJ A;.44I i state and local govemments had been given proper consideration. De Board found that adequate medical resources were available to cope with a radiological DglO,".i Mbk@O .wg;% . N ' ,m,7[. .%'. . emergency and that arrangements for care of contammated individuals met NRC dZ .'.MS 7 j[.* - - - ey
@ requirements. The Board also concluded that planning de6ciencies previously
- l. ~ -
...','t*.'
a: . .<. -
- . ? . , ~
isN ,, e r A 3 O' r: 639 l
.(<. y'*. ' , ' .. *
* /1 ;
~. n : n. -'* ; , 9 f.. , .
1 r ,
'*2~' . '~
I' . t r e I . N 4 o* , ( ;/l* 5 . . .- i- .
~ -
~1 3 6' s
. . .'f'f[ , . '_ .
s lar., .
.:e' .,. . 4' s ,.
i n..L .. .
. _.C_2,
.. e, , , . , , _ . . .,-___.._-_a .- - _ .,-_ -
~
m, .
.. . . ;^ , . 2 .
, ,- ~ .: ->,'y ,, .
c- -
)
.L , .-( .. . ,
.n 1
,. .h ,
i
)
< I i
.n ;
. ..y, . y . ,w..
.t y
. ,;q_
. .. .: r.
o., .
- w. .
- A r .,,I..._ g
.,..]
/ .
C . j,. .- i . , b identi6ed in an interim report by the Itderal Emergency Management Agency
'N:m -[ ,((f1.G';/,[.[j,t
,fO.. ; /.ff (" FEMA") had been remedied or were in the process of being corrected,
- f, c ,; 3. f i 4 .y.i Q L.j -- and that FEMA in a November 1984 full-participation exercise had found no
. 3 . < s. - -
de6ciencies affecting public health and safety. In summation, the Board held that the Applicants had met their burden of proof on the emergency planning
,3 , ', allegations, and dismissed the contentions that the plans were inadequate. Id. at
; ,J , ,
; $29. 'Ihe Appeal Board in upholding this decision pointed out that the intervenor
,, . a. m -;' i, .g' ' , 9 < advancing the emergency planning contentions had made no attempt to show
* * ~
.. . ',' . ,,~
crror in the Licensing Board's conclusions. ALAB-841, 24 NRC 64 (1986),
, f -
u' . .
, .i reconsideration denied, ALAB-844,24 NRC 216 (1986).
- s. . .
2 - '. :,,. B. Seismic Issues la the Adjudicatory Proceeding In the operating license proceeding, the record of which closed in 1985,
,.y'[ M h fj
. a I '. .- m, 1 p ' 't.
seismic issues were not raised and therefore were not addressed by the Atomic r e Q % M 5 N b: 7,f'] Safety and Licensing Board. On January 31,1986, however, an earthquake of magnitude 5.0 occurred approximately 10 miles south of the Perry plant. Three O.N; .. i?.ND.D,h@OC; * % ./ g. :%.-@.ii
- g. t. days later, intervenor Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("OCRE") Sled a
. ",y M a .. jf. _ mouon with the Appeal Board, which at that time had jurisdiction over the
, . M ' s .y; Q,' -d.P,:# g,' ,'a(
prar=*= , asking that the record be icq,er,ed to consider its claim that the
,A: ,y 5 y e; plant's design was inadequate. In support, OCRE attached a newspaper article !, 'A 'V i. g.n. : Y , -'.'O., '.
s lM. e % . ,, .4]fl, .,'
. , ' f] ir.i ing that the carthquake had caused vibratory ground motion at the facility
' ' p p,-
~;a [;-[ Q,%yi ,- of 0.19 to 0.25g, in contrast to the 0.15g nominal peak accelerauon for the design
,. .: ;, a . i .
spectrum of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake ("SSE") for Perry. Applicants and HicJ , *
.; y .. j . the NRC Staff opposed reopening with voluminous whnial filings that were c A g ;' p.f. ;a.eM , 4~ h never disputed by OCRE.
.' . l
}.[J M , ;
$ Y.. 'Ihe history of OCRE's motion to reopen has been recounted elsewhere. See
' W[ '
, }[,J9 CLI 86-7,23 NRC 233 (1986). In brief, the Appeal Board, finding itself unable f..* , :.c,y.y.Jy to determine whether the motion should be granted, scheduled an exploratory
. Y.# . g. [ f , e,Q.'g, ; hearing to aid its determination. The Corunission reversed the Appeal Board LC ?.E# . . ' .; ' e.'ad.7 >
and denied the monon to reopen. 'Ihe Commission held that, as a procedural
. . , . G u.'.a
>i
.;rl 2." ' s,m ,: maner, if the Appeal Board could not grant the motion on the basis of the C
$.5 (;
- M' &[*d. J,M.jbihN@((y .
..M C 6 .:.. C . pleadings, it had to deny the modon. The Commission also noted the lack of safety signi6cance of the carthquake insofar as it affected or had the potential W
'((-Q$'.Qa'".*
Li . /' pl NkG%i to affect the Perry plant. Indeed, this point was conceded by OCRE in its reply papers. See id. at 235. p @f M.i. 'i ( @t @ g*K Mh7QM
% s' @R.$ k ' M T!/ Simply by noting that an earthquake has occurred which exceeded certain high-6equency ground motions of the Perry SSE design spectmm does not
-ji?EfiATfd.M[ make a per se showmg of safety signi6cance suf6cient to warrant reopening the I'.MM M #q$y'M.Q5.,4
%. : ; - :..m'.%jg@%g%%'0/.%e e.N. gW . v.s.t. record. Given the sound policy reasons for avoiding reopening in the absence a x .jx [,. . .U-,, e Q*,p2 l N..." f:g.h %. . K s .. . Y
.9 a. .'.
>.'.,'h' ) I [' 6 pia 3 4
,a.,r - *,
;s !*_
. 3y - ;... ,j M r. ^' T ,i ' .. ' .; . [,N . i4 '
'uo.- 4
. +. . r.e.? cJ.,.y ,. .my.,3. hf ,j s .T.h{ 690 e' ' -
+
, .t.". ~
v. l,, i' .. v . f . . 8
*'1
*-<.. a v- .. v:
,,/, , ., . .-
,s ! .1 *, ,
^* . .
p.
.T ,
! ^.y . . r. ( .. .
, . . Y 9
. 38
' b s ,
r,
- e 1, '$ ; ,
.7., .
4
,-. , , s
, . ;s . .
;,: ~ ' ' .- ,- , .
. s.,...-- . ..
,.y **J , ' N; l~-..
,e
, . , .: )
,.9,,, 'J. Y - ;a . .- : . :-r . . 3 y4r.c . . Q' , . n. ,; " .
- .~: , . ,
' I ' .2 . .,s k .,
,. 4
[g ._ of a strong threshold showing,8 there is a need for some proof that the high-E,; [,4 E.3yfi, j '.,
'. i , '
frequency exceedances were of a range and magnitude important for safety at
*: N c* sy ; Perry, or that they held significant safety implications regarding seismicity in the
, @?- .
vicinity of the plant. But the movant offered little beyond speculation on either
' q.
of these necessary propositions; most importantly it offered no expert testimony
- - f. j , g that would have supported its position on such critical technical questions. On
+
-j-.e '.f. ,. , . ,
N the other hand, the NRC Staff and the Applicants provided detailed technical
,J...
't ' V,. I... ./ ~
material to support tiieir position that these technical questions did not raisc
- y,w 1.
. Q .,f' '
significant safety concerns and that reopening was not justi6ed. Under these v: . ,;. . j' ' ' ' circumstances, there was no need or occasion for further inquiry into the merits
. n' -
of the reopening motion. Consistent with the Commission's Waterford doctrine,
,p Y ':. 6 ' ', '
. ,.l'.'. [ . -
'. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), CLI-86-1,23 NRC 1 (1986), we held that OCRE's motion to reopen should have
., ,-[..,8 i:M.M; 2.$ .: , , d'%M'? been denied. CLI-86-7, supra,23 NRC at 235. ;
. 4 f.M.i.'Vii.s.t ,$
R cg . "Ihat the Commission denied the monon to reopen did not mean that the
'* Vi;.:,, @ n m'd. @;.W.
v p..% U f:,s.;
- seismic concerns would not receive further study. It meant only that the Com-g
- y r. a.;g T.W:pri:y;~%,,
1
- gz. mission's standards for reopening had not been met, and that the issue would Ug ..., ' #;$f I $ :3 M J. Q' be considered outside of the formal adjudication as an uncontested issue. As
? .ay s .j. . ,
, (r '; - ., ';b. . .
explained below, the further studies that have ten conducted confirm the Com-N< . . . . . ' - _ , T-. y -. , '. mission's judgment that the earthquake issue did not warrant a reopening of the W;(Y" , j
, 7 ', f' , .
adjudicatory record. J - g . s. t, . ' n- ,,c a
, t '. j
, y, . Q' ', s.
j m . if ,,n, d II. UNCONTESTED ISSUES y.,
,.h.~%,' -
; y, . , , .'.-. - ,, ,
p, , ) 4 As a matter separate from the formal adjudication, the Commission held a
'.- " . 2; .a public meeting on September 5,1986, at which it heard from the Applicants,
... ,. w,,5 ,
n
. ; p s. c y , - ,Q '. . .r- . ., +,,. q,, M.. .;
the State of Ohio, OCRE, FEMA, and the NRC Staff. Two issues raised at
,.....,...s.
,g..
... . i s.
. .'4,.,; ,@. .? ., -,4,.'. g ,/ * , r.J.
; , , , , ,' {
- ,. 3 The Conenassaan :-f== that its mandards fw reopeus and the way that they ese to be applied sa a
,[Y; 1; J.' (.c>; ,*
.# !< 'y 4',,, - $gN 1 . . L.; f y. ..rj1 high. ahhaugh not insuperable, bemer to reopmeng a closed puossadag.1his polacy is fully ' - wah the
, .-g vl$ fg J.,
t.;. g; , j g*,y'.yA: elk,y, -.7 .t appsonch taken by the Uniisd stases supuesne Coua and es Caeris of Appeals est invase saality in ad-====esive W,M 3%& - jf. , _ See, e.g., aememen Tmasperamaien, lac. v. Arhemser.asse freight Spensaw. lac.,419 U.S. 281,196
,g W ; . 8 1;y N .g ,"Q'., C . ,. P #g D800 'F.2d Tsg . . Qr.1986).
1201 (D.C. ,f,g-vTheE; policy.- Wa;"~j;;d (1974h Innsraeme Commerce Cessamenen v./ersey Cisp,322 U.s. sol, s14.ts 09e4h OysasesAedi Alhamee v. Mtc, nonymass &a enes the ad-===e ve sessed has closed. NRC T1s
. l.df/.h . . W, . p 6' , sensesses should not be draweed aum condeseng miswess sofmy sendies isse paupensaan for asynned hemmy
[6
~d. WmWS 6f . .c. P
.;, -).g : W Q;M.s;y %' M, N v. ip:,$.9,j unism ese has been a suung shoems the nepamag is jesu8ed la assedmos wuh das policy. es Canumenen has em aaveel- espped imo adjudies ory pee s befoe r im -a -* -- bonds to sensa, as speau.
,., % F;; 3 . '. t :u +A ii.. . *[. t- Clacy.
- M.h. gg passedusal emme involving the =^= -9 of ase --a==== See, e.g., Cesenemieshh Edsea Co. (Breidwood 83' .* = s' ' . f Nucteer 7 beer semian, Unies I and 2),n g.aa aiad ander of Mauch 2,1986, and QJ-86 8. 23 NRC 241 (1986h N.q' EA, .;,N.b.v., a.4ik T'd'M 'W"f m... AM .. * *Wy ^p.',!
- p. . M'i p*1. ., 4, y E'?,h.*Q:
.. . g tLisatsamm Eaersy Asmarce =idDe= der ==ar Ad'==aomisa (Clish Rive Bmedu Renaar Plas0, CU-7613 4 NRC 67 (1976).11 mas, in recopman of this policy, who the Appeal Boesd found itselr unebis to yest the 3 $;7 - .,; menon on the basis of the pleadings,it should have denied the saation rather than ander an saploratory hearing
, /,y.,A QG.
.- T y. '3*"g' -
y,*;gqc'a<.' p,;^'4fy' g * ,, N *,. -M , *i.',;O.; i r *j.3 that weald further empend es sesamuse of the NRC stafr si hennnes smaher than en == seat safety study and sviews. 3.
.,s
> w .3, c i7* '*g, 9 1*j .
* % . <'. 'c e
9., - o ., " ,,4 - ,.~*
. - ',s4
- e,g:q
, :,.qt E . ;[; y..K. g, '. ., .
691
!, 7 ", , ' {,
, *h . , "3 c
. 7.5 W s . . p' . ' - ,
'.j~,..'4*< . tQ,.s.
s (eq s {
- s g .#* # l
~>.
- y . - . . . . ,
q r_ - t .
,_.c e
*
- s e t . e
. .= * ,
h @ g
. .. g -
- a ,
s 8eu 1
.-~',
- i',.- M
,.y
.. , e * .*, . .
\
. a
..s ,
3- i .
. ' . j, -
,e '
- - , _ ~ .-, _ _- - - _ ,_.. .-_____.--.._,_-,_.;,..,---
- y. c,j;..m.. . ,
,p
' r 3 m ., 9f, _ J. ~ .- , s e -
p .: , . m 3.. o . u . . .
- w - - - .
3: u -
. ~ .n
's'
. t'
. ,. i s
, . < ~
- t. * :a
%. h'
- y. ~ .,.
.f y ,..q. . '
that meeting warrant discussion: (1) Governor Celeste's concems regarding
. . ' g'N '
0 ; p.~. ' ', [ f 4,' ' N ,s . , ,c , emergency planning; and (2) OCRE's seismic concerns resulting from the
- h. ,. .K"7;~ . .
. , , f. January 31,1986 earthquake near Perry. We will address each in tum.
- a. v.v, , m, .~ , +.
4
;-i ,
', .y '
L ;'- .- . .; A. Emergency Planning Issues Outside the Adjudication 1 - -
- 1. Background
- a
..J * '.. i 1' .
g'
.} On August 15,1986, long after the adjudicatory record had closed, Governor
. y '-
! . " 7, " ,, .
Celeste advised the Commission that he had " withdraw [n] [his) support for o e f ~ py - ,c
/ '
evacuation plans" for Perry. Govemor Celeste stated that he had formed a team
. Y' .. v.I'. .-
,. . ' . to review the evacuation plans in light of the accident at Chemobyl and the
, c. , , earthquake near Perry. He requested that "the NRC . . . withhold the license j .
for full power operation . . . until [the] review is satisfactorily completed."
%, . ., . Governor Celeste had previously indicated his support of the plans in an E).M;.;.,; hf.Mdi ,c' . . . . - . ._ " Implementing Directive" issued on March 24,1986.
Representatives for the Governor's Office addressed the Commission at the p",$@Q,N@Jd,NN'M2[,
, . .[ki.7.M MO.NJ " . V^d' * # ' . N* .
-f.2-@@
September 5 meeting. Dey requested that the Commission not issue a full-power license until the Emergency Evacuauon Review Team (EERT), formed E A. . 1* 5 !i / .+ * . ,' / 1
- by the Governor, had time to meet with public officials, CEI, concerned citizens,
&. . O..a. . . . 4,~ .
#0 ?. . : ., l.
and experts to discuss all the implications that have been raised regarding the [.' M 'l ^' * . ; %, i
, T~ ~ .
svacuation plan. They felt it would be prudent to reexamine the emergency plan
'c..rf., c.,.g: g; , . ;y , .' , ,
to determine what, if any, improvements should be made to it. To support this
%',j.d : $ 'O * ,
, request, they cited concerns about the accident at Chemobyl and about details of
~ .R., M , dc 2 f -
'Jl plan implementation, such as an asserted lack of training and proper equipment
$ ~yM@ ; gj.j$ l. ' "Qf
; ,, j -
and a lack of commumcapon regarding implementation of the plan, which had
,, N
l been raised befose the EERT at a public meeting on September 4,1986.
- n. '. .. .
. . s ., ..,'
', While the Governor's representatives stated that the State and the Governor M ' i, .' " _ . (. < < '
would carry out their full responsibility under the state constitution to protect i.e g .l f Qf,,A l-c TF E. ;
, public health and safety, they felt, because of their concerns about the plan, QJ~y,M3?y'.; .
3-/ that this responsibility might include taking steps inconsistent with the existing
$ ? . .;e:s.Af ^ . .
.i Pl an. Dey stated that they would implement those elements of the plan that
$ T ' .:N A;? . . - l. they felt would best protect Ohio citizens.
g .hhk'.MN
.n w : . g. s. -
W .
- r. w.g :. ;-
a g k ,. '[ E.:. %. q. d
. [ .)
A representative from FEMA also spoke at the September 5 Commission meetmg. He responded to the comments of the Govemor's representatives as N.F5N6fM4N. a W.@v. *$ ;..p g*2 - follows. With regard to the comment that to protect public health and safety Q.h.... y; W n . -
/. .
1 the State might take acts inconsistent with the existing plan, he stated that e Jdy 4.(.n e,o ,a,0 73.0 Md.5f'-4,C emergency planmng contemplates that protective actions will be adjusted in an M ' M ';f. actual emergency to meet the particular situanon. With regard to the individual y ,,14.1;rN 4$V $n$.'$
,. h. ,e.M. .
giW -Q-t..*; concems resed by the Governor's reprewntatives, he stated that those types Q 9.s'h M . %y D M *ft.4.t i , Y W " W %j of concerns are not unusual and are often due to a turnover in personnel and jjc;pylj.
.vc..v*
g
,e. .s, m.e,, .-
J.. g , , . the need to continue updating and maintaining training capabilities. De FEMA
.O %** .
R.
- f. ' .
w.
* - ', . ' y, *
,\ k ,. .
s 2 e_ *
=
,g 8
.3 g
p3: ~ .- . :; . ~.s.;:5. . - . . .,
- m .,
A.. . s4 . ,, e D ,. .,,,.*.#, '
- 3 . ' b. "2 # * ' 8
',.','aP
,4 , f
; ,. J - .- ' . ,,
,1, p *y y , * ,; , $.M - * ,
m:m.*s . .o
? . a .
., &,,. 3, g . * *
.."8 **'-****f
, . . %..e .e**' * * ^
rea.*7 g * ',9.""
,.).
'e ,
e
~* .
, $b .
,O
- I 9 g e g .I. #
g , sg . '
. ,.. - ?
~ - ,, ;
. . , +:. -
. . , u. - - .
-+* * . ,; -
. .- , .s- ' , , ,- .
. . a, , '
. ,. .i. , 4 .
, c
.c
. ., p
- .g s
,... '- - ~ :,; y .,-
..;p u
.,.w. 9,s j . , . 3;
..f.,, ..j representative stated that FEMA had reviewed the Perry plans and two exercises
,3 .4 . - .2.'
.. .,.N. .I . .' : i,t that had been held at the Perry site. He advised the Commission that FEMA
;,~n S' # . ?, -c. c 'W ', J had no grounds to change its 6nding that there was reasonable assurance that
'", adequate protective measures can and will be taken at the Perry site in the event of a radiological emergency.
* ~
On October 29, 1986, the State of Ohio submitted numerous preliminary findings by the EERT.* 'Ihese preliminary findings included concerns about
.Y ,,.g
'., nuclear accident scenarios, the geographical scope of emergency planning, noti-
~
[ , ,
'- 4'y Scation of governmental authorities and the public, capability of area hospitals,
. t and evacuations during adverse weather conditions. The State requested that the
. Commission postpone a decision on full-power operation until it has had an op-portunity to review Ohio's evaluation of the plan, and make necessary changes in the plan.
. p 1 ':<g .- . _ . g;; t
~& & f ; R ;' d.$i....,.lc.n. m.
. u , . . . i. ;,. v. .-n.... . :. .
} . .%,...%
- 2. Analysis
- j. 7.l. . l %' ;. g,7#< " * ..y c ;. 'Ihe status of emergency preparedness at Perry has been adjudicated and
' - 4 ~
. found adequate. 'Ihe issue relevant to licensing of Perry now is whether the Governor's concems, raised outside of the formal adjudication, need further
?
T .,7Y
+
c . >. .F ,- ,.,-
- . - o s., ,
, ey-e M) +.,,n.
resolution before Perry is licensed for full-power operation.
' , , ' .T .
, ,@ 1,. p 'lhe Commission's regulations provide that the NRC will base its $ndings
"~~
- c. ; .. : - , , - ; on offsite preparedness on a review of FEMA's Snding and determinations.10 e " 3.g ' 7 2 .' C.F.R. 5 50.47(a)(2). FEMA has found reasonable assurance that adequate pro-c' - -
' , " . 9, tective actions can be taken at Perry in the event of a radiological emergency. To
.. g _ , . '
, 3...
.; ' a 4 date FEMA has not advised the Commission of any change in its conclusions.
.;- -. -a - ,
j; Ihe Commission appreciates the Governor's desire to improve the status of
- a. : ,!
emergency preparedness. In this regard, we welcome the Govemor's ideas and
. y. ' . . . 3'I;'O co6N= ion with the Staff and the utility toward this goal. Indeed, like the State yg '.]
'; t
- of Ohio, the NRC is itself continuing to study the implications of the Chernobyl
^ * ;qc .
, - . 7 , ' '" f
.. . accident on emergency planning, as well as other matters, and is always eager to 4 '.' ,a 2 4 improve existing emergency planning. However, the issue relevant to licensing
.Q ,:.' ; . S", ,
@i of Perry is not whether continued improvements are a useful goal, but whether
. O. V.id,3:.. ~. .
~; . ; ,. ;_t'.lr- . . . k s:i., Q;. ,;w -
s :..'
-x W.;-y : , _ 'Q;;y.: ,..; :g,.7y'Qyy '
M,s .Q r . *; f. . A 1.s.x.' m'(.;.,. il. :%
% .m.' .-
..y
'Th in =s and .. M mar ==a-in suppen atu woman
.N",9 e- r P/,h'[.'.pgl.
..g z.
.W .
,.... N .a.z , , g c?.4 g h._ %, .- h e.-W , .; l,s .,
= imenm.,@t{-e.:.d.a
. , andimos
-=-d and a Reg a The eme- Pompem Amen on IW1 Pouwnp==,
- Thee--
.a omann so.19s( den.d en sw. s w a = tmarven. in e fannat adj.d y p.~ =an u ww.sw E q* e e, 7 pp
'74 c- has ===d==d des saane's ==r===== m pan of ins soview of
=======d ==== See CIJ.86 31,2d
- L ? ' ' b (,['g,4'; ~ :I-7f,i ,' ,% ~ Jh % ' $c @NfQ sis9f.' 09s6). gVyM
.&s wha. PawA is unsa.d em .m.e==y . - is a t- = it hm ===d em ew ===== conducud in ': j? i
,'k. ,'M
;n- <! y . s m( p ,v;py:c . D. a,% '.J. cR;m,, M n.w -J rq way 19s6 did not quahfy as a "fhu pare pa " enerose under NRC c'
. .f [N, R. ,9.;; E /g wini em NRC repmenes far a fku-par ==r-- maam wuhin 1 you befas fku.poww licana == = and
'nissefass CEI did not comply a"-~ !.[ 'Q^ *yi r
c -n+ . puiar no gerenen above 5% power.10 Cf.R. Pea 50, Appedia E 6IVE.1. The NRC puned I an saanpum
,',. ,,, ! b, , ."c.; e
- j/ cyJ;-<* M
, funn east ingiasenant en Novenbar 6.1986,
..e
,s. - , ..
Y S-
; . 3., ,;9
'. 3T. ' :.,
w-[
- 3. j.] 693
; , , .j, .
, , ' 'F ,4
.s.
4
.,,,.e* .
g*'
- n. ,,, . . . . . .- .-
4 Y ' .$ % 1 . , e .1
- s -( .
0
"^2 .
- t. * * < ,, ' j.
.- ,. y . s
.~
r, , , y , . q ,, ; q .c . s, ..
~
. .~ 3
. .c -
- v ,
. .r. ,
.t g
. e' 1
.. 'i
., 1
,, w , there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective steps can and will be taken 3-, .
, ,j in the event of a radiological emergency. See 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(a).
,t f
. .' , . .; . 1. t On October 28,1986, the Commission Staff and a representative from the
't
. ~
, . . - Federal Emergency Management Agency met with the EERT and in a day-long meeting, discussed many of the concerns now raised by the State, and provided the EERT with certain of their preliminary views on these issues. He Staff also offered to meet with the EERT as soon as its findings and conclusions were for-
, ,y - - - .
,.g mniarert in order to expedite the process. The Commission has encouraged this
. < - / effort by its Staff and urges that the Staff, to the fullest extent possible, continue
.. .- 1 to provide the EERT with all necessary assistance to support the timely and suc-cessful completion of its report. However, with regard to the State's request -
grounded upon the EERT's concems - that the Commission withhold issuance
. of the Perry full-power license, as noted above, the Commission has been ad-vised by the Federal Emergency Mar.agement Agency that based on its review of
,:- "; ...' , .. e; the Perry offsite emergency plans and the results of two exercises of those plans,
' 1 '.Ci. ,
,. t lC.N, Y I'f j.7 ' it has reasonable assurance that in the event of a radiological emergency at Perry,
< :~ .'.e e. k ?'/: , ; 7 j{"-[ afy the plans are adequate and capable of being implemented. In considering a re-
.i :P E . 'r ', ';- quested exemption from the 1-year exercise requirement of 5IV.F.1, Appendix
!. f,1 E, of the Commission's regulations, the NRC was again advised by FEMA in a
. ,' : :^ -
." : q memorandum from Richard W. Krimm to Edward L Jordan, dated November
- g. . * ,7 '
4,1986, that the "[g] ranting (of] such a request would not alter FEMA's 6nding h'
- + -
, l that there is reasonat,!c assurance that adequate protective measures can be taken
'~ '
in the event of a radiological emergency at the Perry Nuclear Power PlanL ne
.. / question thus arises whether, at this late stage of the licensing review, the matters
-l raised by the State significantly undercut these FEMA 6ndings. ne concems
- .]. -
4* , . 7
- J expressed by the State come to us as summary statements of legal counsel for
-i g the State which reflect only preliminary 6ndings from the State's ongoing EERT P,' c ,
,- ;'~ review. Before these concerns can be satisfactorily evaluated there needs to be
. 'y ', .
some detailed technical and factual support for them, especially since some I'V* _] , . of them seem counter to previous detailed FEMA findings and findings in the i, l
-]- formal adjudicatory proceeding. Without a detailed technical and factual basis,
{ .; . P , c
; 4 . .-<
w - g
' -]
i we are unwilling to delay license issuance. Accordingly, the Commission does not believe that it is either necessary or appropriate to postpone the issuance L - ??,-: j. m - . , .. . . , J ,, of the Perry license pending the completion of the EERT report. In addition, $"?3. Qg @;1r . , .g.. . gy f: "Y since the Perry facility will not be prepared to go above 5% of rated power until @'C.N./ f--l.9.i.f.q Q]Q,p late November, and the plant will not likely achieve appreciable power levels W ,. i n ,'. h.. for yet another 30 days, the Staff should have an Opywumity to consider the g@q13r./4'Qp;M y f.Af'C.* 3G,p'f t EERT findings prior to the facility achieving full power; we are advised that %, " .. .f .,.- 0,. +Q F , 4, the EERT's report is now scheduled to be issued sometime in middle or late c.~.... . -. .v g;< a. e< .Mc. g.y',9 p.,6 ., tf,g.s.3 s ,, 1 .
; December. De NRC Staff will review the report, and a copy of the report will n.... "
4 - %..
",. , 7 .c.cq .
;.~- .c.g,.:. . :E . _ n ,:~~i . 2Lq. . *'.o A. l. A
- L..,#.? .'n m
, , , - '* O %.
%T *"'?
!.'~
$. 694 l . *. " :(- ..* '
;.e ,
+ -
. . :.1
~ < -.!
- l. . .
s 1. , z.
- g. . , , - - - . . . - . - - -
4 . , 9 k *
.,A,,.-
. li ,
-, .n x. 7 43 . . . ,
.. pn - .
.. - , w, . -
~ . .
~
w , s . , .
.t I i*. ' g e
. s.*. %4 . A g
.x. . . .
. , , , - /*
;a 9 . I
, 4
. 'l y - "
.1. : l
.,~ :..
l .,
... , t ,! also be promptly transmitted to FEMA for consideration in conjunction with its p- ; R ,4 .
.f ongoing 44 C.F.R. Part 350 review of the Ohio emergency plans.
i,K , e.
- . ...q ='r j _ .-
.... s,
. B. Seismic Issues Outside the Adjudicatory Proceeding
- 1. Regulatory Background
'.* L. ..
o r- ' -
.,i**
The Commission's regulations provide reasonable assurance that nuclear p , . N , power plants are built to withstand the effects of earthquakes. Each plant is
, . s, '
,hP.,[,. '
1 designed to have the capacity to shut down safely following the Safe Shutdown
,. Earthquake (SSE), which is based upon an evaluation of the regional and
. . local geology and seismology and specific characteristics of local subsurface material. There are several approaches under the Commission's regulations 4
. , . . for determining the SSE. The approach to be followed depends on whether j.~i -
'[O c'. the nuclear site is in an area where the seismological features likely to cause N.(g t."i h,. .}h d.['M;p.. : - rigj
~ .
earthquakes can be specifically located and identified.
-; r,.. i;, #c' W. s zN:4fc;;m ,*y.- d.V For plants located in areas where earthquakes can generally be associated with l 1p J
, specific geological structures, typically in the western United States, the plants
. , . , ,..f.
are designed to . withstand the maximum vibratory ground motion at the site from
- f. ,
,1 s, i.Pc ,, { " 'e an earthquake whose source is an identified fault or geological stnicture. Under y .
-._T'..%y c?
K. this process, when a fault that has been active in the past is located and identified, 4 . It is labelled a " capable fault," and evaluation of the earthquake potential is based
4 ,E '
on the fault's actual characteristics.8
;E ; .; In the eastern United States, however, the specific geological cause of earth-X. , u +
.. 'y . quakes frequently cannot be determined because surface geology bears little
_o N,g
~
, ,. relationship to the cause of earthquakes and there is a lack of consensus as to C' '.~^, the mechanism that causes earthquakes in the eastern United States. In order to
~ . 7 ,' , . i. make quantitative judgments about seismic design in these areas, the concept of I. .
c n ,.T& ';c; / " tectonic province" was developed.7 Under this approach, the SSE is determined i
'(' p~' Nf'-
, >'. 1 by assuming that the largest , historical earthquake that occurred anywhere in the
, ,t ,1 tectonic province could occur in the vicinity of the plant site. This consideration of the largest historical earthquake over a relatively large area having common
,, , +, -g., a
- cdOi g YN.h,
; . N.,. 6. p k.-
3 l ...?"- ['i,c' [. *-D. N-[.$ y,,k 7.yp vW.L,q.~Q.x.2.9.'g tgwM,;g[p. - u y.- =x.m ...+ . % .p~,y. ~~.s ; . . : t w w . ;- g 4.*, p.Q t,y,.yp e / *dt k F
,c s A.
- e spenAceDy. e emp=Ma fault is denned as a fank which has as umed ens or more of the followns chereciensues.
i (1) Movement et er near the greend su face at least once wishin the past 35.000 years or enoveners I.1Y.N.:;:"".?J L+ f1 3&N-k."c .'.*:T.'. $N[th .Ej *e *. of a recurnas nanus wuhin the past 500.000 years.
- u N N.y @i7.i',Mg, Q) Macewsamiucuy insuumersally deteninned with receeds of suf6cient premman to demonstrate a i -l,j..QYg.Qf('Y.;C'
,.,-*: = ? .*l.*a
. A g f.'. t#/,.
',<.E" D s t
'f J.M@ Mq dueet alationship with the fault.
Q) A suuctural retnianship to a capable fault accordmg to charactensucs (1) or Q) of this paragraph "~. < -". Ef Q7' [, '. %?dp%7 i'p$ **..? - ]' (i;.'#;JN'M such that movement on one could be sessanably espected to be accompanied by ... ^ on the ciher. f m # .." .Q J . . ' . 3 . m'. ;2^ 'i - - e ; a,". 10 C.F.R. Past 100, Appendix A. Im(g). h ' 4 W,C - *g: ?q-}. g., f y7 7 A "tectoruc province" is de6ned as "a region of the North Amencan conunent charactenzad by a relauwe a? ty -i, ,,
,-f -
consistency of the geologic structural features contained thereut." 10 C.F.R. Pan 100, Appendia A. S m(h).
, _..c ',.,,
. ~
n
-4
. ;.~,
% .* .. , . ,, :C. . t 69S 4: v ~ .., v
, , . .~.a ., L. .
.4
. .s
.i
.4
...y .- ; . . , - .
^
s . , -
-^. . .o -
, , .e , . . -
, , . .(- .
1 -. r
.-.-_s._-- . --
e, .. .
. o - ,
.c . .
1 I r - t
'. geological characteristics is intended to take account of geological structures as i
/ i yet undetected which might cause carthquakes in the vicinity of a nuclear power 2 .' '
3,, plant. De Perry plant was designed under the " tectonic province" approach. Perry
- falls within the central stable region tectonic province, which extends from the Appalachians to the Rocky Mountains. Since there were no " capable faults" j near Perry, the plant was designed to withstand the vibratory ground motions
. from the largest historical carthquake from unidentified faults in this relevant
. , tectonic province, Le., the central stable region. Hat earthquake was the 1937 Anna, Ohio earthquake of maximum Modified Mercalli intensity VII-VIII and estimated magnitude 5.0-53. During the operating license review, the Staff found the proposed SSE acceptable when compared to a set of recordings from earthquakes with magnitudes of 53 0.5.
,. . !. . .:,w,
-: n;. >
~;;. ~ , , . .;. 2. OCRE's September 5 Seismic Concerns
. . .- T e y ,a.c .w. ; m .
g . ,i ',_fo ' . r ~ , W.*'* '
'r. t. , ,
At the September 5,1986 Commission meeting, OCRE criticized NRC
- , regulations as allegedly containing a " Catch-22"- no further research need be
' J . <; .1 _. y c conducted unless there is a capable fault, but the capable fault will not be found
['-
- 1~ without the research. OCRE maintained that the January 31, 1986 earthquake d must have been caused by a fault, and clearly a fault that has caused an
- '? - .T., ] earthquake is a " capable fault" that can cause more earthquakes. OCRE argued that a small eastern fault can cause substantial earthquakes, and that the inferred
- i. j -
.~]: . fault rupture aligns with the Akron magnetr boundary. Herefore, OCRE argued,
,1 further study should be undertaken to determine what size canhquake to expect from this as yet undiscovered faults De NRC Staff in response to OCRE's comments explained that the earth-
. 2; O '.4 quakes in the eastern United States generally are caused by faults, but the fault
?: '
.l mouon occurs at such depths that the geological features cannot be identi-N f,, ., . ,
fied. Since the specific faults cannot be actually located, there are no identifiable
~ '
Yy hf q.M,{4 " capable faults" as defined by the Commission's regulations, even though there
. ' _: ' m 4., ^-'
N H are unidentified faults that may be capable of causing canhquakes. Staff also ex-D.n .h, , r, '-3N[4i'[.J.O C..'. [' . l. , u O'. .'d, ) M: 3 'l $.'M j[E-y plained that the magnitude 53 earthquake design for Perry is the largest historical carthquake in the central stable region tectonic province, which extends from l Q . ; y ' . * <, 4 ;; l], g yeq-fj , the Appalachians to the Rocky Mountains. Staff explained that consideration h.i I.1 hc- r>w- :- * *h. 2*, l [b of the largest carthquake, not associated with geologic structures, has ensured
- 1. =n
[ 5
' f *I . C "* , [;?
y i.' 4 I I ; b . ( - ' E', 't .h}Y'h *.[ d ) ; [ i g; S oCRE & M M h ase f ds iin-g 6. u'sak and W h under W Eri ud h k'ff M ,J-9, . . Wl, r. . ': . 6.y h,w be insp n.d far end nas atn or damass taxa ihe nhquaka The can-smon acc pis m. siirr's ar'aa - 6.i e mana.1 f.ds == nai pmp dr anern.d so to caus. nhquakes in e. pre ra stress 4 . ,, - fe-f. ,Q~ -
. qc3 .c.. .-ai
- .'T,w.. g', ;. ,,' d eene. Th.19ss eanhquak. submannm.4 eis urnpiian.
~
.~. , . t
..g.
b
'."qfj N s 696 T *
- w
.. u . . . , . ,
e . $ , 1 l .
. , m 3
2,
,, g ,,
- l. . - . _ . _ _
., ,, n. . < _. g
,~. .
. , a: .
; . . . ~
s
- J ,
consideration of what may be extended structures close to plant sites. Staff also
. ;(. '
, -- {; .' ; J w:' stated that the existence of *M Akron magnetic boundary does not necessarily
., f.; ' .
7 , q imply the existence of a fault
, ~
Applicants stated that the iesults of its surface and subsurface geological Seld studies, gravity, aeromagnetic investigations, and histoncal seismic studies show none of the characterinics that would be attributed to a capable fault, g,
, . j as de6ned in 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A. Applicants stated that this
/ , .y.' 4: : conclusion is shared by the NRC and the USGS. Finally, Applicants maintained
~. , ' , ' , , '
~
,' *q
, that the January earthquake was consistent with the geological, geophysical, and seismological characteristics of the tectonic province on which the Perry design
' ~. ' -
is based, and that the original selection of the Perry SSE, based on a tectonic 4'- ' province approach, still remains valid. k,.k . e., .m . f. . ' , ., . I. . ,: - :*.<? ..j.. ., .i *
- 3. Analysis
l((g[ .
.I,hI.2,h.[Y
- o. . .,
As part of the pleadmgs Sled in opposition to the motion to reopen, the NRC Staff provided a supplemental safety evaluation report discussing the Staff's
'T '
&ndings up to that time regarding the January 31,1986 earthquake. NUREG-
.): , ' )E '
_ .... 0887, Supp. No. 9 (March 1986) ("SSER.9"). With regard to the high-frequency L' N- id .. ' 2 ' . exceedances, the report noted the " vast amount of literature which documents
'M ; . ' 7 '
the low-damage potential of earthquakes of short duration and high frequencies." r-. , Id. at 3-3. Further studies (after the Commission denied the motion to reopen) y, .
., ', f- ' , have been conducted. Those studies support the initial conclusion reached by L.' , ,: ' e . e. ;* ,
the Staff in opposing the motion to reopen, i.e., the earthquake did not have I safety signincance for Perry. See, e.g., NUREG-0887, Supp. No.10 (September
. r,
+
( ' ' 1 1986), where the NRC Staff concluded that the seismic design for Perry remamed acceptable and unaffected by the January earthquake.'
- 7;*.J . ,-
']
OCRE's primary argument seems to be that with enough researt:h the fault [; ' '
'. '; that caused the earthquake can be identi6cd. 'Ihen the Commission's regulations C.- .. _.a' ,
,. .! deahng with " capable faults" would be applicable, and predictions could be r..,. ..n-i . . ' ' ' ' . . ....
.t . #;
J4 based on the actual characteristics of that fault. i . -~ f',, . t :, ,. .3 Based upon experiences in the eastern United States, it is unkkely that the yY. ..}j{ YW N-[' g $i H-
..tz $. llg7 fault that caused the January 31 earthquake can be identi6cd, in spite of the
!($.; is. U.k
$-;*.M. e . .
signi6 cant efforts that were made by the utility. The Commission agrees with MJ/,f,;s*q. hgw g .S.. '.;j= O - OCRE that a fault r'mM the earthquake, just as faults cause the other carth- ,A re' k :'* *'l ?, ,. }l*p ' ';n,;- . g,*;*c^
. e -
. .M, . '+ , : ,/ G. e g., ',.)
aL is y;, W.4, s **" .,, ^-. .ji
,. d
[i f
- 4 ** % . S p D [ h A 3.
v% v., a;. '.J **W (-* ~.-Q . /.j p(i - ' Tbs t'- at the sapeamber s og also henni fem Dr. w. Raul J<a===aa a varinad espet who was .:, seg. p 4. . " Q, s . M ..; 7 - ^ ., an the Appeal Bond panel det had angmeDy e i===id==d oCRE's monian to moput Dr. Jahmsom mased dass he
*; * ?'.
, ? ,e , . . . . f s, .% was now cannoced that the safay-related apapment at Puny would funenen ewet in the event af an ",
Dyr 'f ;]/* L -( . jg% ; /. g,*( ( .' # ,,?+ -3 ,, - my=Ae*='y larger than the Ohio 1986 eenhquake, but hanns the amme immunal frequency ch==eemam== that > l;, . ,; . ,, 3 ,
,c.,> .-
7 2 a.nhquake dispisy.d.
,r . ..,
[. l . -f, 4 . , ( ! b F. .
.',-r ,/-
- - - .,l 697
, a
- l. .
L; .. 1
.--~....
- F ,
g O .-* - 9
. +-
i, ,
- g , w
, . ,,"g., . .
4
. , lp
~ ,-
, , . . s_ . -
, . :... . _+ , .
g, .
'"* .4 * .
r, d _ , m ...:_- c
...s a
q s.. .
. . . .e..;. _ ,
,.>. , - ; _g. - ":
' ~
l ' S ,.. quakes in the eastern United States. But predictions cannot be based on the
.,) , ... 1 j n;.. . ., characteristics of those faults, simply because the faults cannot be identified and
..'~ ]
f ;l;( .{' '
; ...g e yc. '#
i ..
~
their characteristics defined. Accordingly, it remains necessary and appropriate t ! ' i9 to rely on the tectonic province approach for determining seismicity at the Perry ,
; ; site. No significant reason has been given to show that the Commission should depart from its regulatory scheme, either as a general matter or in this specific y',
y case. De Commission continues to believe that the tectonic province approach s
-j is both reasonable and conservative.
(g: '
^ Another question arises in this case from the fact that the SSE design
' ~
spectrum for ground motion for the Perry plant was excceded for a very narrow range of high frequencies during the January 31 earthquake. He Perry plant,
,' ~
~
like many other nuclear power plants, uses the design spectrum described in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60. See SSER-9 at 2-2. Consistent with IVI(a) of 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A, the Regulatory Guide 1.60 response y . - c. , 7< e , e.[ - ; f. ., ,! spectra are smoothed design spectra that were developed based on the mean
,;. ; p y f'. y ,7 Q .i... l - W.y l W'/ plus one standard deviation, i.e., the 84th percentile,10 of acceleration time li:J ,3',;. tQl.13.].?QJi;W
; history information from a large number of earthquake events of (.ifferem
. '% :.{:_ y 'f b, '. ~f'"% magnitudes. See, e.g., Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power
.- _, y .y '
Station, Unit 1), LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445, 510 (1983). This acceleration
' , . ?' Q~
- c .pM .g'll'.; *,g W time history information is generally from large, wiatively distant western
. GGi -
.f . earthquakes. The Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectral shape is widely used for sites
.., e., 3; >
,t~ throughout the United States. See id. at 507.
~
,l f - ,
, ; .s . - . . Data recorded near several recent eastern earthquakes, including the 1986
.C, *
..q j _
, l, .
'}
Ohio earthquake, have suggested a larger proportion of high-frequency energy levels than reflected in the shape characteristic of Regulatory Guide 1.60.11
;- -., r. . ' 7; Q;.1
~ - -.- As noted above, at Perry some of the earthquake motions recorded from the
,'J ]
j ,
~^ ' '
. ;. , January 1986 earthquake exmdM the Regulatory Guide 1.60-based Perry f'~P,. i rQ design spectrum for a very narrow range at the high-frequency end of the
, . ,;, .f .
cc - , . r . w, O., ; sim.h mii (above about 15 Hz). Nonetheless, at the intermediate and low
- l- i . y J.< ' 4 frequencies the Perry design spectrum is very conservative with respect to the 3 ; 2 J, . c 1 .. M '.n ; q ej . 1986 recorded earthquake motions. %, . - ;g It has been general Staff practice, in a number of cases over many years, that
) 1, .M$. .; %.y. ., y f;/.. . 1 f,j ' :fJy."Q1 the "high-frequency peak accelerations have not been used and should not be IOh S l #G'iff; k h j.@ 'hWw; ,q h ; usually of short duration and little energy and are not representative of spectral used in scaling and applying the Reg. Guide 1.60 design spectra because they are i.;,"*f d@M"g}jp@y
. X'i
< , Q
.m p p gg response at lower, more signi6 cant frequencies." SSER-9 at 2-3. In this case, j.k.;; ,, _ . $. ;7 ,:;.u.n* rg.. g*? w,*!. ,$
s .+ .. -
<. s,g+ 4 . c I O 'e-
- n.- *. . c. O *#"."*N', 4*
J nn
*Q *s^Lo,4- * 'r c.? .? ". **
c 6
*/
I * ,' . . ' . f + s' { *J,. , .g % *. M y,$$ WUeM on be -Me to Spect MCsedenCW d a Replasary Guide 1.64-based denyi M*. '-Q .: cg W)h 7 g7 ~*
- - - *e - e d==d t- *e sab p-nie d me da. *a is. - 165 a me f<,g p m..,.c;,3'
;7
,.* a ..n,./ 9,g;.c O.
g; y*q.g ..=
..j* M .."g.TheN.q, stafris - - W,..'
g wasM be eepened to lie above the ==an=hed speeman.
. he geenc AL ' resed by es high ". j pound monen u sus reces G,;; 4 : W.= s ,...g;;
, .,. ' t ysy ej. E . . ,
-.\ r E,,',
j . . .. . . -J
*Y q.,.-Q ' :
9 698 Aq:v .
; .;, < y n , ,.. .
c.< j*i
.i ., : .c , . , . -
.c 4;:. . :u , .
.q a;, ;. e.; 3,, ...
. v.
.j.
. , . ....3,.,,'*,..""
a ,..~Q.j,. .
;4 1.9 ) r% 4 .'Q.C~. 6 .. . '. f f . .'2., 4 the NRC Staff has verified that the design-basis SSE, without moddication of h '4. s jv] ~ . . l:/ f f X ' . . .
the spectrum, in fact results in a design with ampe seismic resistance capacity pMQ JI.b ]'-
". , - over the entire frequency range of interest, even at the 20-Hz frequency.
; y ,,. Moreover, for Perry, as in other cases in which site-specific data exceeded the design-basis spectrum at high frequencies, the NRC Staff and its consultants
~".> l ;i carefully reviewed the records of the January 1986 carthquake to ensure that
,/ Js ^
^, l/ [ -
. ; the Perry seismic design, based on the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum, could 7.a. @, , . .JJ;' ' , , i, .4 '
accommodate the 1986 earthquake with adequate seismic margin, even though
- 9. :e .l.. . , , ,,
j the design spectrum was exceeded at about 20 Hz. See SSER-9 53. ne Staff
/:.* . l. J. '
, . -l -. n >
; concluded that the 1986 Ohio earthquake represents a negligible effect on the
.5, '
.V
.. future safe operation of the Perry plant. See SSER-9 at 3-4. De Staff also 1
e conducted several walkdown inspections and concluded that the earthquake did not have any significance from an engineering point of view on the equipment in
. s
- f. %,9 y .. . l the Perry plant. See SSER-9 at 3-11. Ibrther, the Staff review of the Applicants' A .?c $;.l,,.: 2%..
%.h'pp[%P.. [MQshM , ,, p
.+ ..
evaluations concluded that "the Ohio earthquake of 1986 is judged to have had 9 an insignificant effect on the Perry plant structures," SSER-10 at 3-4, and that "the Perry plant's seismic design has adequate safety margins to accornmodate L/M.M. k . M I' dJ sm. 'r kT ! d '." # i .['
- T h <' "
the recorded 1986 Ohio earthquake even though the design SSE response spectra b y.J. y. . .. f '- [/6Nh.[h. .L'., J ' > ; ', , -,.'[.[ik .j.' were ' exceeded at around 20 Hz." SSER-10 at 3-8. The Staff also concluded that "if a similar carthquake of somewhat higher amplitude and longer duration y y G 4," %c ', , ;,3 j - q should occur near the Perry site, the current equipment seismic qualification 4g):gy
. .. O, . , , , ' pv a k
/L , <3._ ' .17 . ~ ,. . ,
program would be adequate to ensure the equipment would not be damaged." - 14.
. ,s Y ',15 ... ' :l.c . '
j The Commission is satisfied that the Perry plant seismic design has adequate ,9:('w.N g .;
% g's c? . ". 2 - y ,N . . . .f
.j
- safety margins to accommodate the recorded Ohio earthquake of 1986 even though the design response spectra were exceeded at around 20 Hz. Accordingly, n.
y ., l the Commission concludes that there will be no undue risk to public hearth'and [ ,.4 , : ' f, .' , ." , > -
; safety from seismic events, taking into consideration both the application of the a !.6:. f .Q:('('.p.y ;Y..,M . '
tectonic province vym.ch and the application of the design spectrum at the cp (lj yyd. ./ ..s. Perry plant. x- -
- m. a.w
- :. p:,. , ?. . ..::c.: , n; t: .
~
~
W..so;y;. s . < s ./ n3 3 .u;w.g, .
= '1 IH. CONCLUSION
- q:kO4: .: AM. 7:4 .:; .
,kE h
I".$@Tg%)W M N h $.Ih b.hl((8TQ 4@ j.) ne adjudicatory proceeding to determine whether Perry-1 should be licensed to operate has been concluded in favor of full-power operation. De Commission 6.'#A2.kD.Q'h;%;MQ has reviewed vanous issues outside of that adjudication and concluded that they too have been resolved in favor of operapon. The Comnussion therefore f.p: tv
$g,.W 'f Wpe Y d.v.c gi g. .6. 3f/ M V .? authorizes the NRC Staff to issue a full-power license for Perry-1.
7
-( .Am*. *" Mc.p$s.T@m$y~;5 <b*s.>.<,.U +"6 m.j -: 7 9 km W,W N:' G;.Ci;: . -..,M.
6=~;. v% : %j
. u,
- -3 .m . y,2
- ,y%a
.o
%. m~ ..; y ea,. ., x ., ,:.; :. .
. . ~ :-
u.*,...
-4 :w:y.
7. _e t g . y t f. ; 7, vg,..{, .
- ;4 -
NJ ...;f., p >
. S
. %. * :o:- :r. :y. ,...' ;-. . g 1,
#9 , f,, .' .
y 97 . '.u; . , . ,: . -
, a y,' -,g . g,j - ..-
.. ..e . .
s 'R2 ;, *% . ,. [
._f. 6.. -%-'*'-.- . j
( ,',+
. '. h -
a .I* _. l
- s. '
. '.v l ' * . . y Y.~ .
, f
- v. , ,, , . ^
, m .
3., . .
... . v. .
4 . , . , 8. ,
. . .. s .. - .
s I Y.. t .
. . ~ .
-., , , s. , . . ..
s
. . c, , ..n
. n;v.;. .. . . -.a
. :~. .
. . . . .. - . . .. s
- . . A > Commissioner Asselstine disapproves of this order. His separate views are
. f N. - . , , ; p'f - '
/G -J attached.
' 7: , g.l...-.. ,. . # ;.c .
. . . , ,.> :2.- . . . .' .. It is so ORDERED.
m f.s
.oO
, For the Commission
. , *1 ;.-
',;. {.f, j SAMUEL J. CHILK
/.T /
~
. , j Secretary of the Commission
, . , . g-
/. .s. r
- .. , n. , , , . .
A. . . Dated at Washington, D.C.,
~
a+' this 7th day of November 1986. s
. . . i
. '* .. . ~ ; , . m. 2r i 3
,e. . ., SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
- r. . -
..;. .~ .. : .y.. ... y p r m. o.
. .. g
, h,bly.M, A.w.,'I((7ikN,(.';%,j%n %m;j *
's I cannot agree with the Commission's order for several reasons. First, the
.w c. v;;:.,g Commission majority reafErms a decision it made in this proceeding earlier this
~
v' > ' I [, .~f ,.: M .I ,':p year. I did not support the Commission's decision then, and I cannot support it now. "Dissentmg Views of Commissioner Asselstine," CLI-86-7,23 NRC 233,
.wy .j -t[ 7, w' M
- ~;
. @3 .' r .
~.
3a 237 (1986). Second, I believe that the Commission should have provided the 3 State of Ohio a continuing opportunity to informa;1y advise the Commission on
' " emergency plannmg issues, and the Commission should give more than cursory rj E' , * ' , . is consideraten to the State's concems on those issues.
~<.- n% .
. e..... .
a .
. ' Q , > , ~, . ' .
,O 1986 Ohio Earthquake
/, ,'a,
' ~ ' '
7
'Ihe Commission's order reaffirms its decision in CLI-86-7. In that order,
~
. .. M ' #
. . , . , . t , . ' 4;w;.. ,;.N, the Commission interjected itself into the Appeal Board's consideration of the
' , . s f.W;f.jp , ,. r2. _ .]'
Intervenor's motion to reopen the Perry proceedmg. 'Ihc Commission should not
.4.i" .
. . ./, ~ . . .
. . . .J' have intervened to vacate summaril the order in which the A Board set
, $.
- JQ ~ ~ , , ; . 7, , C .'.i up a mini-heanng to gather additional information on what effect the 1986 Ohio earthquake had on the safety of the Perry plant. Further, the Commission should 3 .v . lc "l
,b. 4';i 9 k
':.~1.$
,. 2@ not have summarily denied the Intervenor's motion to reopen the Perry licensing
'.W.M v/q ;.Q. .%. .
k: ...~'l y."A,,i, ,} h. j: . ,C, . -v PrMog. 'Ihe Commission clearly should not have taken such significant and
' '. '?iM@fdf /'se s .
r% c;h 3. ff
. Anal action without first hearmg from the parties on the issues presented by the U"Y
[.f,'*.;'J.9ff d .Yy 5."M"J.lf:;.";;My 1. QN.;p.'?,.; h@'? moten.
'Ihe Inservenor raised what oppssd on its face to be a significant issue -
the fact that, in at least one respect, the 1986 Ohio. canhquake exceeded the Y).f.2,h.z.N[O.~...]Q]Q1',g.,tZ[:w.i ., r, s. , ,.. . . .c.. . w ,,.,. :. . .:
.+. A.
.e../. .. p.c . , .y-t ;. 3. . .e. . _ .< ..ya.{
s - q[.l 2' 'A'* .,% a *s. . j '*' ,
* .e wms as ;. s .pr*'-:.-+;.7 . : J.e'.sg.',s, s, . . . . , . .+
y *.' Y 4 ,3:' x l D f.j;,.. r *'
~.
L%) y . . . .. .
'b..
.*;. , ' ,r ' 4 '
?
u y.?, y h. f f... . M j,4:-q 2
,. m 700
.- r . ' . , u .
*#. 4 4
. - [.
[ + g.'
.,M.. ? ' 'fj.
* - s
.r! , v,'s c'
* ., w;' - ,-d' ' ,, '
.y.
. _s. , , un, A.; ,
.',e.
e . , - . . , 4 1% P ,I . 4
* , ,, , , , . , , , . . . _ . , _ . , . ..,,,,m, , _ , . , , , . , , , _ . _ , . , , , ,
a >f* s
- h. .
- . 4 g
- t ,
e, S . - . * ,
; . . ... , . . . r +
).
4 4 , 9 n
, , ..m- - - - - . -
---- 7 -- -; - ---- - - y . , .
g, ,
,.,.,'y-I, ;
~ '
2* 'l *. ,. . , . >: *
- s , .
8 v.u
.yu ' . i ~-
~, _ . . .
..g
. y :.
. . - rJ , '
j Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) for the Perry plan' 1 The Appeal Board was (F'." ,, ., . N I .'.if..[h'?;S ..d
..' concerned enough about this issue to decide, even after receiving filings from
.. , the NRC Staff and the Applicants, that it should conduct a mini-hearing to gather
' ~
' ~ i additional information to help determine whether the Ohio earthquake presented
~
a safety-significant issue for Perry. The Commission concluded, however, that the Board should not be permitted
.- to obtain additional information. Instead, the Commission decided that the Board
; *k 2 . -/ ' 3 .
should be limited to whatever information had been provided by the parties in
~
' . , -'~ J.* '
,' ;, the first round of pleadings. According to the Ccmmission, if the Board could not
^
'j , l make a determination that there was a safety-significant issue based on the initial
, pleadings, then the Intervenor obviously had not met its burden on the motion to reopen, and the Board should have dismissed the motion. 'Ihe Commission then decided to dismiss the motion to reopen. Unfortunately, the conclusion that the
- v. .c,
-e ,:,.3 Commission drew from the Board's actions is not as obvious as the Commission S - f. . .
.us> would have us believe. One could also assume that if the Board was concerned
$ $. '[R %'hM,7.p[.2 ,] Thjj enough that it felt it needed additional information, then the Intervenor had
.4lM h Q..'. S D',$ g.[g'"'%
; f. .
, raised an issue that was significant, and the Board should simply have granted
, "l the motion to reopen and decided the issue in the adjudicatory proceeding rather
[ . ;) . .4C - 'e . W. A;dc % than by setting up a minishearing. f w; ~
" 7V -d In any event, the Commission should not have intervened in this proceeding y
-]. : ,.
3 pj uninvited and without hearing from any party to the Perry proceeding. The
^ ' ' , m ., c ,
. ,. ' C, ,.j , Commission argues that its action was within its supervisory authority over
, N ,
*c'. the Boards.2 While the Commission does have general supervisory authority
.- ', : .,. N -A - .; .- over the boards, intervention in board proceedings and summary action by the 1,^ .x E ' '
,,<r Commission should be taken sparingly and only in the clearest of cases. The
],.,
v ' ' Commission could not justifiably conclude, either as a procedural matter or as
. ',4 .
a technical matter, that the Board's action in this case was so clearly in error (O~:eJ '
.Z ,. 2
- that the Commissibn's summary action was necessary.
~ "
'. ; . . E ' ;1 . . ,
The Commission had tacitly approved the " mini-hearing" approach used by
$].C'[? , p ._. 4$ the Appeal Board by failing to comment or object when the Appeal Board in
.ec;.c ,': , c., . y ." qc. ;;.'- . * . y. . . Diablo Canyon used a similar approach to decide whether a safety-significant
[ .f. .:,,.l .h,.c f,
?) . ,
. . . . n' ,
g 9, &yf d,. ui { g/%..M .g:i .'1 q:,3' '
. once again the Corrumssim seems to anach name importance to the fact that oCRE canceded "that the high Yd.,.';,. f*d. ;M frequency exceedances of the ssE design acceleration recorded in to January 31.1986 assihquake do not have e Q %.s'. . f ~ y'g'M.. j'a.fi.**g**d Q
W N .k]. i@l. \5f ',*.[)jfMdW engineenng signiacance" and that the earthquake caused linle or no damage to the plant See p. #0 c s Comnusman N* ' . 3Y3f,* y -?.yF g order. Diis is largely inelevant. The Intervenor had not abandoned its clann that the eenhquake raised <=== sis about the adequacy of the sesmic design bens fw the plant and of cxmmpliance with NRC regulanens. These are Q"...;M'hr ' MT
' . . ;.v. .n..'s,1 , s; >
},7 Z ? 'r,i./
p . h l .. s
'Nl,i?@Q.,#
d, Y', . .' *j the very subjects on which the Appeal Board wished to obtain additionalinformation from the Appheansa and stafr.
. . . w w .. . . ,.;c, t .-
- f ",. M (. ,.* ' ' + . M*j*j
. 3 2
*Q' b'.f' . OJ t .. -
It is interesung that the Commission chose to cite its Armadioed decision as an i!!ustranan of the exercies of iiV .q,,7. M:f* {; , . ' > ,,G; g its supervisory authonty. Gee p. 691 of Camrmasian order.) That case, when canadeed tagaher with this case,
'; p ,, . n. .:' W '? <4.*. J provides an excellent iHustranon of who 2 Comnusman dioases to smaciae its authenty, e4, when it sees an l .,A ;! ' ', '
4 Q g,i, ~- i ;,T.f ';1 ' oporturuty to dismiss a conseruian frorn a aconsing proceeding. h also illustrates the fact that the f% " is
; ,,"*<.g ' at(}1. *
, ; g ..} C t. .Jd wining to apply its procedural rules stnctly only to public interveners and not to applicants or licanoess.
's .,
. m o .a., e . :, , .+
' ; - J' 701 m; . . .,, - ., . .'.'.
' . w. i . >
i' s i
. 1
- e. .
. , ,. - , ., 1 , -
m *
- a m
M
~
7-.7 .s - ' s
. . / .
s I' $ o , . . 1 -
.p. : .
- n. .
.m,
.r
;y * .g I
4 4
. issue was presented by a motion to reopen in that case. Pacific Gas and Electric
~
.a F .', Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-756,18 NRC
'j l' " @. T- O 6, . '
1340 (1983). The Waterford case, upon which the Commission relies heavily, deals with dismissal of a motion to reopen based solely upon the fact that an OI
- f. 3 investigation remained outstanding. It is not intuitively obvious that Waterford
. , would require dismissal of a motion to reopen that raises a specific, significant
['j.. .', safety issue and that is not based merely on the fact of the existence of an
- . M. , >. outstanding investigation. He procedural issues are, then, not as simple as
.,1 , i '
~A m
A S; the Commission's order would suggest. He technical issues raised by OCRE's 3 77-' 7 ' motion to reopen were also fairly complex. The words of the Appeal Board best
' 1.( illustrate this:
Even with regard to so seemingly simple an issue as safety significance. it is difficult to
, ' , ' ,.'i 9.. .
.,. .~*'. .. make an informed judgment on the basis of preliminary written materials where, as here, the
.. . ., ., i [ A,' .i combined and complicated fields of geology, seismology, and engineering mechanics come qbl1 w ..y/F c. .
J',y <f~;m y,[.;pq.nb . - into play. q.3M r y. ' @f.. ;.w :fi ,y' ~:.M: :..)n.;i 2. %, . Appeal Board Order dated March 20,1986, at 6. M(7. 4.;%: w.4pMy(.{v . g.y .- - 1i j '( A In fact, the Commission's order today contains several pages of discussion yp ; * .fy. :d.? '.;g ;(. ' . '" ,,, , , of the technical issues in an eleventh-hour attempt to justify the Commission's dismissal of the motion on technical grounds.8 In these circumstances, the t -l n^ 4: q- : . '; . , g . Commission's summary acti on was not justified. Without a clearly incorrect V.q.)[ _ .
- V :j Board decision, the Commission was not justified in intervening at all, much
, <; j
, ,..f. E) less in taking such final action without seeking comments from the parties.
**~ N Re Commission has, in the Waterford and Perry decisions, established 3 ../.' *
~ a. - # "
stringent pleading requirements which, when combined with the Commission's
' 7
[{ standards for reopening and the Commission's rules on when the Boards can J. raise issues sua sponte, make it nearly impossible for an intervenor or a Board to
. . n, ,
e.' E; ..
~
' W raise a new issue. Thus, in the future, whether a Board will be able to consider
% . . . s
; fp,. ." ;' y.,*,. '
',, x 4" gu , an issue in some detail will depend upon how adept a particular intervenor is
'E_ 'n] at making an open-and-shut case in its initial pleading. This elevates fonn over b- ..
g
.s u substance, and makes public participation in our proceedings needlessly difficult.
1 ;
~
^ ";,
L ~ %,L .d;.n. 97q m. :.;; L, _,.a
. cie. .. Emergency Planning
-Q d,:.yy,. %, .&y M :.9 511 sq . .
~
g, .. ,c!;,- e. 2:' G , . . v.; He- State of Ohio has raised a number of issues relating to emergency plan-
- NY
- ..r..on.jfN',[,f,M.'f.,s.
i ' ' , vs % 3 ,%@ ;%e 5.,,m:'. rf.M,; ',$ . .y ning for the Perry plant and has asked the Commission to postpone action on a
; ? *.? r y ;-. ,, . .. , s, K a s ( ,
s.: ' .. %9, s o.
^
1
, . i f. -jpj[y b- N'l4 3
De Corrumssion's anempt to bolster its decision in CIJ.86-7 by citing analysts of the eenhquake wtuch i *'/ M r# A'i 7,.,fe ?l : f[/ *'f ' 3 ?. g , . 5N.? ,- i P ", ..* .y' ',.s has been completed since the Comrmssaan's decision cannot jusufy the disnussal of the mouan to reopen last A( . ff f 71,( = ' '@ ApnL Rather. the issue is. given the ir.fonnauon available at that time, was the Comnussion's acuan reasonable? ' p ; ;clf - -"7 ,,] ,?* '4p%, , r; r4 , '.' . % :. Clearly, when one considers the concem of the Appeal Board on the earthquake issue and the comples.ity of both
"'[,* C#U ", - se,
- b. . , y*
. , .! i
>.l the technical and procedural issues involved,it was not.
e
-k
.~.m..w>.,..,,', ", f
, z gn,
,< 4.,
,. . . , ,s c. . :
.4. < . q ;
- t. , v .
. ', ; .o , 6 . 9
^ *
~
/ .
~
- m. i
% ' , , s ,
9
' . 8 * \
. ,, g
,, 1 .
L '* ' '
9 - -
. ~ , y ., .z + ...- . , e.= '
',. n,-
,y. , ,
. ,; e. ' . * , ,7 , - . t 7., . , , '.,,S.' y g- ' - , >
- +
s - - s . n, - c 6
?
ej
~ .
., .i.
,. ~...- ...
1
. q /, ..
. , .j license for Perry until the State's review of those issues is complete. The Com-4 '.' . Ejd,h. f* h mission's review of Ohio's concerns has been cursory at best. The Commission
,[
y,,N.,'N f ..$ -
,k .
J:j heard from the Governor's representatives early in September, and the Staff has
~ - "' -
met with the State. However, the Commission has refused to meet with the State ( , again or to provide other than a terse explanation for its conclusion that Ohio's concerns do not provide a basis for holding up issuance of the Perry license.
, . , ,fw/ 1 The Commission should provide Ohio with a continuing opportunity to advise
, .; ' - .. f,.j7 f , _ .y * >,,, T i .
the Commission on emergency planning issues. The Commission should, at a
. '.. . p ,3;"' 3'~-:
minimum, meet once again with the Governor's representatives to discuss the
. ., ,- ~j State's concerns before authorizing issuance of a license. And, the Commission
,-g '
should consider the State's concems in some detail before deciding whether Ohio's issues are significant enough to justify delaying issuance of a license for
, . , the plant. The Commission's order states merely that Ohio's concems are not
~.4 .-f?
- detailed enough, as presented in the State's recent filing, to warrant holding up
- y.j .v, . yt,g;
, ; ;e O; 1 license issuance. Ohio seems to be giving the issues thoughtful consideration,
'I '~, $ .d. Tr.. ./ . y.dNM ' 4% +
. g,f < U,a;, .
_z - .. . and the State deserves more than this back-of-the. hand treatment.
#-. , ,Q e[; . . m. ,ct. o .t n! ' h c . ;f'wty . -
e ,s * ', .: ~ n
, E.- .
u 3_ . .r. ,_ *
- sfy ', -
S, .f , g
,n .,,., c. . -
[-
*n.
s, s [.
'. ,. w ll f [,y*
',44,' 'd',
~ '
, . 2l.
, n
, C.~ ' - %. .A'.
s.t,-
- w 2, m . ,,-'.', , ./: '<
?'
3 j . .&* j .' '.
. - . ' W~ .
.. .. , n- '.-'.,,
.. . , . p
'" U '
1
, ?..
Te *...r'p...'?..,,, 4. S q
- J .: - ,j - V. .fyge (,j.:' . aac= lv
+
.'s.
~ , . J 4'g-'*
, ' 7. '. ,
, ..g , s
,- .*n- s.
, l
< ,* g , s * * ,. , .
A.**,.,a-, ' , .,
._j.
g . +l y
*A.,,j.,..<...j'.
- Ii
.*b
..*r s ,,;,..l 3 ., g
> P Q ., , , f- .,. . . :, r w ). ? ( r. , , ' ' , sy.. '
,Ja 's: >.*,~~* *^l ': .l f .y.: ,3 ef. , ' ~. t.j .' ' ' $ W W E. i e
s{ .T.7.',,. e..I,'J1 ,* [ 1 r e% ~ ()[ . ,,.. ,, . e.,- s .,.
;.f
.*
- O I [
- y. ; .,J.%[
..~q.
6
.gv.W3 : m$ y* J ,Jvn.QQ. ; .-
, - 3
',,. * .*,.M*.*vy/.N'.s a. .. w. ,4 :f..tf. y ,w'p, . .r..,,., ; ~.-Q ..p# ;,
,_ .r. ,pi n-Mp skP.%"..,*y' 'N.a fd a 44 ' p* k ' T-% 4.s -
Y [.' } . 3't s:i'[ a,Y 4 w . .' .o1pb - . g
*f . * *Ni$ai Sf ' -f'& .v. y, #.S* 3, f = .1,g
- g , - M f. .* 'g =." 148
;W.l;5l~.%:.& ! d W $Y'.G.4 c,oa.m
. :1 f . ,,.A ,: N. g.p- n., p. . : .'
L *,, 3: )s -Q
'.a. ej + ,
'. . . -l .4 : .*<*tR.
..a
.jWVi p 6 "3s' p s,zg %, % g. [ y '
y vg . 7* .y
% U.Q, NUl,~ . t. ,.4.s . .:.: .~ ,
, , .w ..~ . . g .. c.
.e' *. .,.wj .. , 4,;,.+w.s.--
* /.
$ p , -'p'*I *f..%. .,,b ' ., q 4 , . .
yf r3 .~~s . j* > p e ' .-3 y , ._
, e
= *
', . . . . :j e ** 1.; '.
v .W W'.", , *
.a
'St
. .;,,, w c. . ;, ' . , ,
m - .3 ' b
.- .s 703
[ .. .s a
.- ., . m , v. , , o i e -
...'? ,
_. . i.
- a. . , .l
,4y. . - . . . - , . . , , .-
= . . E 8'- we J ', -
4
+,
- s. . ,
.=,- ..
, Cite as 24 NRC 704 (1986) CLl-86-23 t '%-
l
'~
. .l' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~ '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. - COMMISSIONERS:
t
. ..y ,
..,^
Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
-1
,.' . s' l . .
'y Thomas M. Roberts
.. ~
James K. Asselstine
. . Frederlek M. Bernthat
. Kenneth M. Carr
.v. .c .
Q , ,p ., .
*L , ;;. ,
'~
V..f . w
~_ls,," 6,% + &z'u
.. . . . A '3, . . )c . e 15:l,,,,;,.
- . s . . . , . .
In the Matter of Docket No. 40-4492
; [ , ;" . 4 '.,. , , . q ,' '.s' N. ,. (50 Fed. Reg. 46,370) a
, - vy'. ,
( . .,,a z .. i , . 7,,i < ' , * - AMERICAN NUCLEAR CORPORATION
.'7f - };.
..'. ' ;' *. ;; ..C ,
> etal E' ' '
(Revision of Orders to Modify j
,'- . ~a Source Materials Licenses) November 17,1986
^. 't ; - .j
~ ~ , ,. .
De Commission terminates a hearing concerning the imposition of ground
- 6. > ; j water detection license conditions on the licenses of eleven mill owners. He
- 3 , ! Commission determines that the licensees, who together challenged the license
#. I conditions, sought to litigate generic matters aheady resolved in rulemaking and
(, g ,- l ' - '
- l ..; ,
,l thus are barred front " collaterally attacking" those rules in an adjudication. He
' 9 ,- -
Commission therefore makes the license conditions effective.
.~'
.am .. . ,
9 - MATERIALS LICENSE UNDER PART 70: AMENDMENT c34 . ' c%m%.,.'. x*3l.:; s. s 1
,:,/ , ^l , <' ' . L.'
9 ' c: /.- . . (OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING)
' 'r.M y. .97 f *'.".. o. ,.<.s /; , 4 'r. M. ~
Where an identical license condition is imposed individually on all of a group $ .3 . '. : Ji:s,i , 'fl1.'. D'.'; E : * , of licensees, the condition is subject to individual challenge by each licensee. Ibr i this reason, each separate order modifymg a mill licensee's source material d$7.(
. M f:', K, % .-2;[. 3< ..
,[.$*[p.
,% . . ; 7.@
j o[ E'St.M.}. . license ' .U. includes$[.'.'! the opportunity to request a hearing. See 10 C.F.R. 62.204 1 ~ , . , , . -(; ; xq,. . M:wy?T+,; , y:,. .
' ..' .;j' :y:p' v ~i?'e - . .. y 3rjg.v.N. ..w>.. .
. c , y .w s. . = -. , , .
"s,b'. . #
- _ , * . ..
* -.a,g.'.'.- u.. ,, .
...g
.3 e g . ., p g .
%,. 8 , f * !
..) .- .-. . .
704
, .. y ;. .
(, 4 #8 a
. f; 8 . ..y..- = +. . - , . . ,
. 1
~ . - . .
, g
. y
* . e LI ' .% "
_$t , , , g g P
( . _, . c.:
, ., - 7 m > -
. . . 3-- . . .
.,o
.s
.N .
, e -
...a. ,
. 3 ._
x ,: .', .,,,
*' s-
.j n._ .
RULES OF PRACTICE: COLLATERAL ATTACK
.. ..,. n, e '- G c . , - '
- <;- s.. . ,,
In the Commission's view the heading or title of a regularna is not important;
- -.,.- P - - J, what is important is what issues did the prior regulation address and resolve. By raising only those generic issues that the Commission has considered and decided in rulemaking, a licensee has presented no case other than one barred by the collateral attack rule.
r . .
.i
.,n. - . y o
i NRC: CHOICE OF RULEMAKING OR ADJUDICATION
- , '$ He Commission ma, regulate by rulemakmg or adjudication. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Federal Power Commission 506 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir.1974).
RULES OF PRACTICE: COLLATERAL A'ITACK
, .....s~ ,t .
t g. ju:4.i.f. ', . y sF. . dN5I,Vi if';rg' t . He Commission adheres to the fundamental principle of administrative law
- m, o , . ,
i
- r. g % - r. g.
that its rules are not subject to collateral attack in adjudicatory proceedings. j,.
,n..
y.f -
, 7 r,
DECISION
- t, ,
^,' *.- e ,4 .
We decide today that the briefs submitted by the mill licensees failed
.y ,
A meaningfully to address, let alone persuade us that we erred in, our tentative
' ' , ?-.} view that the only issues that they sought to litigate were matters already decided 6-l ,
by Commission rulemaking and thus prohibited in an adjudicatory proceedmg. 3- ;
.. .i
,' NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING
, . - E n.. ... "., ."o . .].
' '- q>1
,' ,, . . His decision culminates a proceeding begun by orders1 applying a new li-
?
.c ..
+ .@ . .
cense condition to the source materials licenses of eleven uranium mill owners
- ji k![' .
.- p- ., (" millers") which are Commission licensees.2 Each license condition required the licensee to implement a ground water monitoring program to ensure com-N .J:,. - [u, . .. * &:k.h hijk
.Rf. .@
.7. .:.:
f I ,...' ;f.*[ I
~$. ".[O-p,; c t -*Cg" .J., -d 4.'.,.y[
"). ;O,.J .? ordare were issued on July 19,198s. by the Duector of the Nuclear Regulatory Canurnasica's Uraniurn Recovery Field oolce, and were revised by order d Novenbar 7,1985, wuh respect to the effective date. A beanns wea
.%,,E ' , . :: ,..p , . -N r: 9,:.' , m *. N.46 gDM Tj on both saa of orders.
. . . Yg r.Q.NQ.9.ppNN E! M E Ew. .,
The hcensees are Atlas Minerals, Docket h 43453. source Material ticense & sUA-917; Bear Creek f.,a -
' # ':g.'g$g'
.. %m.*' b S',[ i,' ":[
. , 7" 4 Uranuarn Ca. Docket Na 484s2, source Warial tjcense h sUA-131Q r.xxon herals Co Docka & 40 8102, source herial Ucense h sUA.1139: Pathfinder Wes Corp, Docket No. 42259, sauros Masenal
'.W . , . e gg- f* p > *- (1. , Q,'; M.. sV e .- r i,-, h sUA-672', Paihf!ader Wes Corp., shirley Bann he, Docket h 40 6622, soince Matarsal tjcense
. V .
-S M.a',?,,**
/ ,.* ;,.. .M . l, 4y fwM
.M 3. J."t.'i. Mp a
h sUA-442; Plateau Resources IA1. Docket h 40 8698, source Matenallicense & sUA.1371; Rio Algorn
. ' J, Mining Corp, Docket h 40 8084 source Matanal ticense Na sUA-1119; UMETCo Werals Corp., Gas y +c' . : - > .,
s 4 , ( . g .. : ; Hills Mill. Doches W 440299, source Matenal Ucense & sUA-648. UMErCo Minerals Corp., Whais Mesa
, . y, ', ..'C.'.*. ',,-*A, y , ,...-,f
. . - N, ," : f y , '.' ' N.i. Mi:1. Docket A 448681, source MaianalIJcense Na sUA-1358; wemern Nuclear Inc Docket Na 441162, (Conama<o e" . .
, ..j_ - 4 .- -
. , , , s;. .
. ; -c. ;; . *.:p -
,.f.rY 705
- > ~' -
, ..y.
1
?
% , - + m
- er.
4 _
. f -
.g
'g %
S, ,%,,
, . 3
(
~
s .
., pliance with 40 C.F.R. I192.34(a)(2), a regulation promulgated by the Envi-3 ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to EPA's authority under $ 275
, , . , ._ ' il of the Atomic Energy Act. 48 Fed. Reg. 45,946 (1983). By rulemaking the o ,' .y
,. 1 Commission formally adopted the position that it was statutorily authorized to and would implement the EPA's regulation by imposing ground water detection license conditions case-by-case at least until the Commission could implement 3
the EPA regulation by its own rulemaking with respect to ground water detec-tion. See 50 Rd. Reg. 41,852,41,853 (1985) (discussing authority pursuant to
,,M " ' '
..,f 5 84 of the Atomic Energy Act).
Although each miller was separately offered a hearing on the ground water
,. ._ requirements imposed on its license, the millers chose to act in concert and together requested a hearing solely on three legal isst es which we here set fonh e as we recited them in our Order of April 18,1986 (unpublished) granting this i hearing:
;w .; . y;,.
v . J. ,s. . m .#.- :3 (1)'Ibe standards published by EPA are not " generally applicable standards" within the
. ,- .,a- . fp'k .. , rnmaning of Section 275 of the AEA because they impose onsite and design. engineering.
' g .g; .,(- s
.. ."p V,.7 p :{; , . - s m.
and management requirements that exceed EPA's jurisdiction and so hTC has no obligation to implement and enforce them.
. . . .a
.*', * ' 3 C) Under $ 84a(1) of the AEA [ Atomic Energy Act]. NRC must make an independent N
- s .". ' [i. '
technical evaluation of potential risks to public heahh and the envirmment and must assess
. the economic costs of the requirements imposed by the Orders; and
,- (3) NRC must adopt EPA's ground water standards through notice and comment rulemak-ing before enforcing such standards and until such rulemaking is completed, NRC cannot lim .~" .. , rely on Sections 81 ar.J 161(b and o) of the AEA because NRC has not developed a record
. to support the standards it would adopt.
' ,. . ,; q In the April 18 Order, we noted as well that the millers along with Envi-j ronmental Defense Fund (EDF), which is the sole htervenor in this proceeding, s -
were in agreement that only these three legal issues are presented by issuance of the orders and that such issues can be resolved through summary procedures.
" ^
. .. .. ,i
~ -t
.y.
" Y '
- c. % - - : THE COLLATERAL ATI'ACK ISSUE
,t.)e.'r..;.:&)..
? ', . . )
...)
-e / : : M"';- 9f. ~. f. : ...+; 3?,[,QM . ...
a s .J: -.. A On its own initiative, the Commission in its April 18,1986 Order offered 3,;.t, /-d ;j its tentative view that the issues raised by the millers had been resolved by the M .h[; [, 1 N '.f.',3.
- c P.- j.
Commission in its rulemaking conforming NRC requirements to some of the a ".p.'s ; 1 ':*{'. y- ?,c'. i standards promulgated by EPA. 'Ihe final NRC rule (" conformed mill tailing reg-g . p. . . , . ..,
. .- , e s.
Q_?...?.S '.;.m? d.QYif, .. .lt '*^
. ., e .
, . ' . ' .,.,,.j*- ' . . .*
t ; . .g , 7.... source Maianal License Na sUA-5(r. and Amencan Nuclear Corp Gas E!!s Project. Docket Na 40 4492. r f., . m ~~ .W , .C.y
- y . e.?. A . 1e;. -
4 source Matanal ticanas Na sUA 667.
~ .. .
; \ .
., , c . .
706
.. f. .. . r
- 8. - ,
M' , p
+
, .i
- es .
ye
.ie
. , ,a
, g 6 ,e g i s ,
, , .i ,
.c
e r.-
.. . = .
, ... w -
. g ,..- -
v e w.* . - s ,c . . g.. ... 4 4 ,- . . s
, f . , yc ,-
.t - ' .
- k. , .
es ,
,o . - ,
J n.
. i .
. 4 /, , e ,.
p..s . 2
..f.. %.
j
- T,'.
s ., . s.
' . , 3 ,t *4~ . .' ulations") on point was published in the Federal Register (50 Fed. Reg. 41,852)
.. s- . g , ~,1; .-4, ., . .
i ,~ ' on October 16, 1985, a date subsequent to the millers' initial request for a h g g. s
.7;i.Jg;V; f 4 *x . , ~! ^
hearing. In that rulemaking the same questions were raised as were presented
" ~
by the millers in their hearing request. 'Ihe Commission there decided those
, , issues and incorporated its decisions in Criterion 5 of Appendix A to Part 40 of
< the Commission's rules. It also explicated its decisions on those issues in the
* ~
- n. .
preamble that was published in the FederalRegister along with the rule. See 50
-A V .
. ;) ,1 Fed. Reg. 41,852 at 42,853-55.8 In these circumstances the Commission framed
-l a threshold issue, requiring the millers to demonstrate why consideration of the
.y , e {};l- '
', ,.' ! three issues presented in the hearing requests would not involve a collateral at-i ,
,. tack on the Commission's mill tailing regulations. This was necessary because, as the Commission explained, the Commission adheres to the fundamental prin-
, ciple of administrative law that its rules are not subject to collateral attack in
. ? . v .' i adjudicatory proceedmgs.
Nt$. . .h .,,. w .DN,f{ . A . 'Ihe Commission was forceful and direct with respect to its view of the burden N. .,
.iOQ4W.V M4 C O U. . ',..US,q M. ;e.f. %,. ..d. ,b. B.,. T,x ,9 the collateral attack issue placed on the millers:
7- 'f 7 ft,-)
- Sf, . .: .
We believe that this means they must show that, contrary to our tentative view expressed
,f.. , ..
above, the issues ihey now raise were not in fact ruolved by the rulemakins. - . , , ...y x.. - s: , q: .. j+ : a p'q,. < -. ,
,A -
' - Commission's Order of April 18, at 5.
.. , 'y
.. 1, ,
.~ .
BRIEFS OF THE PARTIES ON THE COLLATERAL ATTACK ISSUE c. j i'- . .
"[ (' In response to the Commission's directive, the millers devoted one paragraph
,, 1, of their 15-page brief. The brevity of the response permits us to quote it here
- q. ,
.. . 3 m its entirety:
.v , , 3 pc
[' - - "
- p. ,J. ,fI In its April 18,1986 Order, the Commission asked whether the mil 11ie=== were mounting
'( *
- J' ' 7 .
~J *- d 4i a castas*eal anack on the Comminion's confonnance regutana= in this adjudicatory pro-
' caeding. '!here appears to be some confusion here. 'the confonnance res=tana=s referred to
,G '
Q . ' y '.s;[,. WM in the N==aasaa's April 18 Order do not include the ,a==*aa monitoring requirements
..c. -
e, m.{n g; '
,, ,? M diallenged in this pmading. The Commission defened consideremon of most ground water iemas, including the question whahar to issue generic requusments for deseaion =a= mar.
$ J ,%. ' 7(0. ... > I . j F;[D,W ]; lP,N.'.hM.~[eff' ing. To solicit conuments on smund weser issues, the N===ian g=W=ad an Advanced L +
.f. % . ' -tr.;.
~S
.: c .y S 4w
.g
,. . e.
pe , gi g %,,,
' ...e,w 1 r e. g,cs Notice of Pmposed *'- " -; 49 Hod. Reg. 46425 (November 26,1964). Sunilady the .
- & ) V M,!
% %j-Q,;$u..
..c: no ... y .?:n &.e,.... ,,&. : .,
+ . .[9 M., pf, y ;
- < t
> 3
< M"esvar, as die C-- mise "r" in 118 A n't IM6P onder, as sapisember 3,1Ms a U.s. Cma
[ h # . rg' h
- W .' W
- f,.f* , y#.. .: &. ,,T. E 4: , s . W* of Appenis put so seat the issue whssher die madeds pad =HM by EPA ase "esmemuy arrl==W= standasds'*
y.,vG *y.y%,.7 j
,-y ; g,,uge**4. c.J. .en.1.m 7.'/%U j'. ,,J.94 ,)h
., ! wkhim the masaming or $27s of the Am==ia Ensssy Act" sad held that they ase. Amanican Winsig Centrent 4.
, n y, ,. Thesner,772 F.2d 640 00dt Gr. IM5), cerr. denied. 54 U.sl.w. 3790 One 2.1M6). In that case and its eJ.(,i* h! M . h #I ; %' bN~ M T . . . r- caso decided the same day, Amenicas Miasig Congress v. Thammer. 772 F.2d 617, cerr. d aiad 54 k4 .%.,.. P c.; .
U.sl.w. 3790 Quas 2, IM6), the Casa espliculy rejected sil i-A= y p==-s' ea==11=r= in EPA's giound P gQ. . { E ' y T ,.;;,l'I.*. @' .,,.f,q. ,, , , r S p
- g$ ..
muser segulations. Notably, p====== in thans cas a inchaded scene, whde not all, of the panies to this scoonL . , o. 's L
- *O >.>- - 4
.p-. I
, a. .
e. r y# . . .' . .)
- 707
, , 4; .- . ~ .. - c.;4 L
-1 ll
, . , y .:
i
^
4 b * ,. # e j
. s e ,
p 6. ) # g
-, ..-.-----,-,nv.m- ,n----------.m.--.e.-,+--,w-,1-n ,--c.. -r -. -.c, --m,-,~.-,----,,.m,m- ,-m- ,,---,--e,, , ,r m , ,-
2/ * . , _ .( a
, s. .
?
a ;.c ,, e - a
- .* EPA active site standards do not specify detection monitosing requirements. EPA acknomi.
s (' , .* . N.; . .. edges that this is a compliance activity within NRC's jurisdiction 48 Fed. Reg. 45942 (Oc.
, ' 3l : 3-if./ 7".' l ll taber 7,1983). As the milllicensees are not chauenging any Commission regulations in
~
I. ] this case, the Canmission's rule against collateral anack of its regulations in adjudicatory g ~ .0; d, . , 9.:3.7 U proceedags does not apply.
, i
,F Miller's Main Brief at 4-5.
,'r ,', . i' In the NRC Staff's view, in which we now concur, the millers' entire brief
. a " i ' . ~ !.'.7 % p ? , ,.'] was inappropriate in that it did not clearly address the legal issues and instead
. ',* , ' C y. . . . , challenged the manner in which the Staff conducted its licensing activities and
, J O.G E ^ argued other facts.4 Intervenor EDF, on the other hand, discussed at length its
's,)
. < support of the Commission's tentative view and explained the manner in which the millers were making an impermissible collateral attack on the Commission's rules. EDF Brief at 6-11. To this well-developed argument the millers chose 3
." y* il . u merely to say in their reply brief that:
. . g. .m ,
, M D;%' .
. - , 'the miu lie ==amas established that the Comaussion's rule against coDaseral anack does not
'.,4 %' '
y . - % .; j
~ *;,I qE*M;,I@[p'Q p, . y q.g. *$4 l'-M.- apply because neither EPA's active site ==dands nor NRC's confonning regulations contam the spec Ac deseciaon monssoring requisements at issue here. [ching Millers' Main Brief at
.m g .->q. .
4
. w:p:v r.-:x.. .a.7 n .a
. ~
.. :p, -
. . ~
.s , .
3.i:Q p.;.. ; 3 COMMISSION DECISION
. 1, ' . - .,.? v, 'f., ?
m.... Because the millers' brief did not meaningfullY challen8e the view that the
~ " '
. b. . [gif Commission had already considered and decided the three issues that they had
' . ,eQ r " '.
';f. ;, j. d . ;.9 raised in their requests for a hearmg, and because we substantially concur in
. - EDF's analysis, we adhere to the tentative view expressed in our April 18,1986
' .* ' y. 'q: 1, 1
,' . .J.
Order. As the millers recognize, the Comrnission may regulate by rulemaking or
; ._ 1y&Q ' J adjudication. Pacfic Qas and Electric Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 506 V'O- ;
QI F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir.1974). Typically, the regulatory requirements for any licensee are imposed both by regulation and by specific license condition. The regulation - p , g l ., , ,?
. . L JJ f.1 is of general application and is arrived at by the prescribed rulemalang process e ; _ . e f. f. . . c : ^ ; (see generally 5 U.S.C. I 553). It is subject to judicial review (5 U.S.C. 5702),
L.,1 .i 4.U.. C' Q M d.W J.O and may not be collaterally attacked in individual proceedmgs. Pacific Gas ?./ and Electric Co., 506 F.2d at 38; see also 10 C.F.R. 62.758.s A license
. n?~' . 0 m, M . w. ;. 7 9.4 3 .,W !!,P %m .v'
,.c l-C.i.
.1, cr* ,A , p,y. , \;-Q V.X w '.,., 014 :. .
.~ . %y . . %.
.-aue.'" * *
~-. . . 3 - j
. . g , .'*7.['. ,%
*. .* D" ,*W m' ?ty.c. + 'De anDeus in their nyly baisf massant that they do not demse as - : , heanns and peorast in essace that
.lu , .",8c .". Y '*#,.,.ci.
- 4. W. &%'".'g.Q,.h esy have~'.f'but argued " r" mesarial race. However. heir bsist is mpime wuh , J : rannany. For
' , ' ,~- . -N ' '.1
. *). 9.[f@' y pI= see Bamf at 1214 and Reply Brief at 4 nJ.
f=v=o=r==Eav-=( fw-a= Bad nous eat ene is man acertauny wish respat to se bands of b ; %;A..p. -[. . .Ll':;r).
~ -;%, 7 ~*,; ,[A. ',-w([,..6een======'s h'.Q bar against couaimal asack on as segulasians in NRC proceedings. EDF conectly urges that Im
- r. ; ,o %; :' y;;,.; ,' g., ..re , , mm m orpeaicy appen un=d rr ~.n - and me aunom do na ch nonge .pplicatian of me du in mis informat
,2.,
- :. f ,T'p;.J,p.',.g.,
l c pasenhns usuing new su in 2e ah== - of a specinc ground waar rule 2ey cannot be found to be ana<iing
- '.3..
; f. y .g;. . . . yg.m..
i er M. e , .. gt ee,'==.=== ion agulah Accanhagly, we nani not insalve the issue huse.
.> > .t . . >
, . [ g ., _.
.u s._.
q.,*c.- N: - . . . . ;. - ac f',1 708
. ,. . 9 .e . .
d
, _w\
w**.
. 84 g .
s, -.q.. . . > . - p - a (e , s ; - e
* ~*
. 1 g $*, g
,, . p,.g* .
* *e , 6 e ~
?, y t f. n{'
- 6 4- - # *
.g .
- --- , n.wp,-.-r-. a y.,w.y.. vw wv.,--...gw r-'e w .
. , . .-. - - , , .- - n. . .
-,~.. -
. / ' .c a
.i
. ;~ .
,~y . .
[
~
condition governs the activity of the specide licensee. It is imposed by order
.. v4 M, a . and, as here, is subject to adjudicatory challenge and judicial review, 42 G: m. ' 9: J/M' 7 (., / l.: .Ny ,y '; .] U.S.C. f 2239' While a license condition is specific to the licensee, it is by x .u . . g-- -- . ?- s"1 no means unusual that identical provisions will appear in licenses of different
, . .! . licensees carrying on similar, if not identical, activities. However, even where
"~
the identical condition is imposed individually on all of a group of licensees, it J6 _
! , is subject to individual challenge by each. For this reason, each separate order Q ' [O ;. 5 f , Qt , [ modifying a mill licensee's source maternal license included the opportunity to
( request a hearing. See 10 C.F.R. 52.204. t
,: .'..e- '
9, !
'Ihus, in an individual evidentiary hearing or one consolidated for some 4
purposes, each licensee was able to make its individual case, if indeed it had
. s one, why the specific ground water detection program prescribed by the Staff would not serve the purposes for which it had been intended or why some other ,
. .. . , t provisions would equally well provide the level of detection needed to serve the M ./.- '
c . ,. same standards. In such a setting, millers could have forced Staff to the proof 9.f.ly. ' NM, . ,N.,'l .-;.SM 7. e
. 7 3% . ~.m..t.
of the specific propriety of its licensing actions.' And barring health and safety A Q..j k ,k.
.b.Jg .p %Ib%.k.,;
V. " 'yf cl requirements for immediate effectiveness, only after being tested in adjudication would the licensing order have been enforceable on the licensee. To the extent
.,. . that any issue was decided in a previous heanng that decision would become
'))'";;, ,
. p.i ' ,Mj binding precedent. In that fashion, the Commission may regulate by order as
- e. . ~,o j' ;
't e s .I well as by regulation.
f . 3 Here, the millers chose not to seek such a hearing but chose rather to challenge le' ~ ' ~ay ., ' > ' - fi the substance of the Commission's rulemaking decision7 that it must enforce the i ((' . '. j- EPA regulation and would do so by order at least until it developed a rule. By
.j M 3 . , . ; .,,
s, , doing so they attacked the Commission's regulations and ran afoul of the bar agamst such an attack. The millers appear to concede that the general legal issues that they seek to raise were indeed addressed and decided in Commission rulemaking, but argue that in this proceedmg the only regulation shielded by the .\t.;['h ~
.. .J bar on collateral attack would be one that would have established the very ground
- f ' y '.' ; O . _. f . -+ water detection requirements being applied by the instant orders. We disagree. In
- . P, . y *~c , e . . '- . our view, the headmg or title of the regulation is not important; what is important
".f M* s" s % r... , y.. . M
- 1 ,. , . _ ,
du . ..7goo s [ r h. : . p , " 3 ,, q, e .,
*, .< g
,3 e sfg. 6-N.c - W .; G.; -4 ,. > . The mulae - .. ' ibe esasam of ibe Cast la the sessine of Per$le Car a E!acaic Co. that they
..:,,% .j ::m.3-af . -gfg[r5t's . .
- 1* , *' cains6 Hase indeed the saaney was "psuyased to suppet us accian" and mest "iss _ . '" ;io psesent evidace g(.W[2 /D.-M. and nasemns"(506 F.2d at ss) insofar as endi udler had sought to be hemed in a homing en issun chaDansina
/: 9 D. .y' ' p;;p b d
., *?4.0 .ia, the annabihty of the liosase h unposed to the apenas licensed acervisy. It was act proposed. anr need it have been, to sahash the quessiens of ins stannary sushesity to apply EPA's standards and hke issues decided
- G,"2';T+i.by"i>WA'C'f.glF0'jpFf'N y, G,a.y
"--y Wi o $ /~l* w, -Q.y. a; . 7 policy of smant
, ===s.
G.'*./ ~,S..g g'p' * &N in ins redemakins. As ish Peads oss emplaims, when the C-- has feueued mqusue . e
- is adopt
. as it has dams in this ammar. it amed not nary the mee imme is an wmpfg ,, 7
,[
4.3 - .
;- c+
,The same adamakins dension is under
- n- y. in ihe Court et Appels by a 1.an a sia,uacant number er
. e- .;." ;A ..';. . m cc
,f T. , ./m .c .,. .w[,.y
+-
y . f .&Oo f N - d h the same pastim who had pasmapared in the rahahag and nude the sanu argumens that they made in dus r-- *- aiivi= atina, Co. v. MC. No. 8s 2853 00th Cir aled Dec. 13. 1985). Ereover ther anahmmt
-j 7.d i f 9. -X f 31. ; * *.C . far our . -.. - ' of ther argueses en jur=6-= from their riwawag - - aaly serves to cenaan /'*
,.. ,?' ,A'._3. <y? t's *V),
- r"".,%.!
. e - .,. .g[. '% l . -
ihet they asek now merely to uplow the same assed.
.# !s .' s J
. ,,g s ,'1 , , y,. ;
s.y . . . 3,. - - .'.' i
~ .
< i
. ,sw . < s
.i, i
1 .
- g d.
J,
.- 3
/ , f I e g . #
- 4 E o
hI k E
.g -w.- ,-a..g,.- --..y , . - , . .,.,.,..,.,,,,_.-.,__,w.-,_,-.. , ,_ _h $,,,,
. a. ;
-c . .
t .
, a; '
4- ?.
. l i
.n
,. is what issues did the prior regulation address and resolve. 'Ihe absence of 1' j g,.9
.;.:.,% specific ground water regulations does not offer the miller the opportunity to
,t-
, c J'( d
., relitigate here those generic decisions that the Commission has made in a legal
-[ "[i
, w:: .e ,
, rulemaking. By raising here only those generic issues that the Commission has
, i considered and decided in rulemaking, the millers have presented no case other than one barred b/ the collateral attack rule.
+.'*
". b>
u
,,d r * . . * - . . . . ,* ,:*;t ,
rttq,-7 n , s /_, ' ; .; - THE REMAINING ISSUES o_.- d,
,. v- 1 ..
.c .
- i. , -
y
. .. , L,. ,.
While we could decide this matter solely on the basis that it brings a collateral
* , # ~
attack on the Commission's rules, we note briefly that nothing the millers have
, , argued with respect to the three other issues causes us to alter our views which
' '- ,. , were carefully considered in the rulemaking.
.5 ;' ., @i
- 9. g_ .. .? ,' , . . ,
, a ... .
.c CONCLUSION
> E.
,c , m , .. , .m. . n.
'$.,':>.,y.d?.y[d:
a 7c. .c,
.. . +
,.. ,,. y. w.,.....s y . - M%., m.. .. 2,pM..
3..- .
- ., In light of the foregoing, this hearing is terminated. 'Ihe proposed license r e.
e ,;r.
'.*'. &~
s conditions are effective as of the date of this Order.
. ',g f. f,n ,'. A f.:p g.4:c. js4 It is so ORDERED.
i
.. + \ .r ,
.:- . )
3.'*' _C. .
.y... , .
g-
-$3 a ,
For the Commission'
.v . .
.A. . e . m ', .
W- ...'
,.-..c ? W SAMUEL L CHII.K m . .- . .
. t :.
~
.y~ Secretary of the Commission
- .d , '
' ~
. l Dated at Washington, D.C.,
'- '* 5 * '
. j :' -. c.[.,'
this 17th day of November 1986.
, t
*g
* , s
.. e e %.*- ,*
- j .. ,
f ^ %*;.. .w: -r
. [. ., .
- a .e. n)
, -.,*(
f 4
/'a,'
. e
.h,=I i ,. .L-'Qy ,fJ., p p'., .Y :.',,:
g
.c - . e. - r i .
v .*: R, $ &.,; .,. 37 D,
- >. a.,.'.,f;ln.y -Q. ..c *
- e. .> . - r
;-[*
, I -[. * . '. ,;'
...,".u Y.'; ,g'. m.
** ,.k. ...,y'.>.
'f. pys's t s
*.e.. t S es * *w * .a, .- . g ; j ' . . . A ,y < s , y .%
[*8 ' ^ r ( ( .. A"fi t.:d h .E % .f,'.' - ~2f( u f.*'. , ' f,[* f-- . ? y ll 7:. '*T $*nf f f[, 4 :.
. s,' c 2- ed y.
- k.'
l 7 f.3,, t7-7. &.:*Ii.r.s..
. 3 ',,g: ,.*y u . .,~>?' ? ,, y s ,EDF . ,*:raises
- as a fifth issue whosher given that the raiders sequestad that their appeal pieceed by sununary dispo-
, . y sinon. they can now raise license speciAc factualissues caceaung NRC stafr's exercise ofits discrasiert EDF's D y fg.;"'#:34;j *' ' . /E,"/ ,'! f?.'fg.N' ; .j f y ../ ' %.Z,'; Bnel at 4. We think that our decision an this issue is apparus that they niay act. As we ecsad apra, ther use Jj%; .%y.4 J- s. .
. 1.. .( -
of unsuppostad testunony in legal argwnent is eyepous.
~ (.k'j.;'!;Q 3*s".*, @ b. ,* .S: ' % %'} "",f,'. 'Correnissioner Asas1sune was not present whm this itern was afanned if he had been present, he would have
+
4 * ";.y ] ,. ', . approved it. 7-
- s' , s. . % y - , 'e
[h- ,;.i. .L. N', ' 4 .*
.a
. r r f.[.. e 'd . /' ' 710 s Y J.Y.-il.
t . 46 < i .s 4
. r.
- F. . .
(
. . = . ..e. g . r .
, _ , e I.
'I *"
3 , ! . . .g . .
# t
.i .
L
l 1 p 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards issuances l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL Alen S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. W. Reed Johnson Thomas S. Moore i Christine N. Kohl ' Gary J. Edes Howard A. Wilber I t 6 I i. I l i t i i
-r ,
3 ..
- s. '
- V
. . a t
- s. ., . .
. . , '.. Cite as 24 NRC 711 (1986) ALAB-853
. e - ,, . +; ;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' . . , ~ *, ' ,
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8- ., J - ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD n -
. .e .
7 . . ' . 'c . w ! Administrative Judges: Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
,- Gary J. Edles Howard A.Wilber c'.
t
+.,v .;. . 1
. s . .. . .n,x . p <
y ..y ' - f* g; .+* * ). v;. Q' k of..w j
. +-. , .",g
- ' k. d., t. 7 %' ; in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1
- .; . . ,; .g . . .;
..a.." , z.
. .u ...a (Onsite Emergency Planning
., -"i- '
dy f,fy and Safety issues) a * > , .7
.. .,;- . E, PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY N ,
, y.,, ; ' ; o -.n
.g -
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al
. > - ji (Seabrook Station, Units 1
~, .
x
, , --7
+
and 2) November 20,1986 x- J, ? 'Ihe Appeal Board denies the Massachusetts Attomey General's appeal from
~ '* H
. ; : ;. : , ' a Licensing Board order, LBP-86-34, 24 NRC 549 (1986), authorizing the
. Issuance of an operating license allowing fuel loading and precriticality testing g..
c at the Seabrook facility. r .,;',, - i 1, , 3. , s ' j . r . J 'v ' ?. '.',, s.. .. .- Q ,,7
~ . t< '. Q. * ' . .
/q+; +.,h,
.d
;1pa'.
f.;%...
- P
- OPERATING LICENSE: LOW POWER LICENSE (PREREQUISITE FINDINGS) a;;;.
m.-::-m L cJ. ;';, - ~- . u:',.. j .' Mgj t .4. f -1
'Ihe submission of state and local radiological emergency response plans l :,' .S. //~, . ^ 4h, .,l.[ is not a precondition to grant of a license authorizing only fuel loading and
'.: ,'. ' 3'if {gp$.i.D.-wj; .., testing. See 10 C.F.R. 50.47(d).
7 ' * '., . ! -
,. y.p' ? precriticality c '.
s.: y.,.. , . f. 4,_,:a
- , . . * . ._ . ' _r,.....,s
- . .,. ~;. : +q ;.
' *' jk f j .. . e-**-,1 '
* ..
- 4 ,,.r,f'4.* .
-..*. -*..r'*- g.. ,,
,#' g ^. "+ g ,.g p
' s- ,f,' .
. i. .
i y D I
. ~
-%. g
> ,L- .>
w '.
' ;' ,. 7 ,' 1 711
+ -
5
. 1 4
y - .. . , , . , . . . - . . . -- - ( . a s e g t
) , . 't
*~
s' s
.-. . . - - - - . - - - - . - , . , - , , - - . - . - --- - - - . . - - - - , - - . , - - , . , . - - . . , , . , - , - - - n + --- .
3 y. 3 g
. s >+:
7 ,
, s
, 3
, , * - .t .. -
n
. , . ~ s g, u .
' ' ~' '
OPERATING LICENSE: LOW-POWER LICENSE
;;7 -9._
; c. . . ,
M (PREREQUISITE FINDINGS)
- u. .' '
. ; 6,' . :g g,
< t- .
.,j Section 50.57(c) acknowledges that different considerations may be relevant
", to an authorization for low-power as opposed to full-power operation.
REGULATIONS: INTERPRETATION (10 C.F.R. 50.47(d)) y . ,.
"i~'
h.~ . a Section 50.47(d), which deals with emergency plans, expressly confines any
, ; examination of emergency preparedness in connection with a low-power license to an assessment of the applicant's onsite emergency plans.
..v OPERATING LICENSE: APPLICATION FOR LICENSE f(i'i$,',.g,q.,? , ..
An operating license application is a "living, breathing" document, subject to change at least until full-power operation is authorized. See 10 C.F.R. 50.30 ef-.i, UM'/.d.a .,, --C g , .4.:../.
'.v '
's.; -7.t 'I M.PC;*, J's. .( and 50.57.
u . , . s..
. , , c. 0 REGULATIONS: INTERPRETATION (10 C.F.R. 50.57(c)) -
, Q., The purpose of 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c) is to accord an applicant an opportunity to obtain a license authorizing low-power operation so it can test the facility
" ^
even if issues unrelated to low-power operations have not yet been resolved. r.. ,.
., . s. . .
'3 REGULATIONS: INTERPRETATION (10 C.F.R. 50.47(d))
. Section 50.47(d) gives unqualified authorization to issue a low-power license
~
., , ,; in the absence of Nuclear Reg,ulatory Commission or Federal Emergency Man-
;c
. . - j agement Agency approval of an offsite emergency plan as long as other pre-
'" - '. requisites, including an adequate state of onsite emergency preparedness are
? - l met. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-h; '?
'! 83-17,17 NRC 1032,1034 (1983).
m ' y; u ,~, y : . 5;..,n.,.* .,.%g.. ; g. Q* , * ..
; y L . . s; 2.
.,9
'f' , 3 x : .,y '1 REGULATIONS: INTERPRETATION
'W %] . gw: y, %7,,;. ',~* ,~~.z3; y ' ,-g m
. '.. ,'e Mi .. .I,.G, ...r,iA.jd.-i.- . y J --
'! Not every health and safety regulation, regardless of its pugose or terms, Q 1.
*,P %.'y'f .
9;M t,a :Q,d',.f:i,1
,3. W N,y f: -
p'.;
- y. g .nEach '. regulation must be examined to determine its application and must be deemed fully applicable to fuel loading and to every phase of low-power opemtion.
;f /0 Q - r'- '2'$D j effect for fuel loading and for each phase of low-power operation. Simple logic i [.d .K j -.,{l..W -{. .; ;f.[s: q f ' ]' . and common sense indicate that some regulations should, by their own terms, p . -]... . . r . : p, . p., , . , g. ; ; 7,....
.y ; have no application to fuel loading or some phases of low-power operation. Long l . ., +
. q, = ;
' ^,
[ ' ,. . .
,> ., f - .
} . ', ; 712 l g .
? n I
- s
( , , , ~ - - - . - . , ., , l .
.g .
. g
# . p
- I
.g .
m .
. , .s .
2
- ,-l 1
e s -
. Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-21,' 20 i . - - ,' . N . . .' l NRC 1437,1440 (1984).
p,
, m . . ..
APPEARANCES
. . ~ , .
. Carol S. Sneider, Boston, Massachusetts, for Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney
.-, ,n. ~j General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
-: a: ,
, . ! Robert A. Backus, Manchester, New Hampshire, for the Seacoast Anti-t
' Pollution League.
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Boston, Massachusetts (with whom R.K. Gad, III,
- u. '
i and Kathryn A. Selleck, Boston, Massachusetts, were on the brief), for
..s.#.'
.. .- c .. S 1-l the applicants, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
e
' .?' f/.//p,1 ' .%l - m yy .2,,, .C . ' " SQ, Robert G. Perlis for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
Y,7. 3._. . J . ,? . .,,.
.z N s.
', DECISION
, . t,
., j Before us is the appeal of the Attomey General of the Commonwealth of 4 Massachusetts from the Licensing Board's October 7,1986 memorandum and
[ order in this operating license proceeding involving the Seabrook nuclear power l 1, ,
; facility.1 'Ihat order authorned the issuance of an operating license allowing fuel loading and precriticality testing at Seabrook. 'Ihe Attorney General's
' i-
} appeal raises a single question: whether 10 C.F.R. 5033(g) requires that utility
, . . . ~ ' . . ' .. ' '
.J apphcants file a radiological emergency response plan for the entire plume .
exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) for the facility before any 7* ' t- . , license may be issued. In this instance, it is conceded that the applicants have { .; . y - N not submitted such a plan for the poruon of the EPZ that lies within the l ,.
., . c , ' Ls- .)l Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I ,.
. 'Z . h;9.; .: j .5 f . Intervenor Seacoast Anti-Pollutior. league (SAPL) joins in the Attorney S. .
. c *. 7 .p . . ~- 3. L'- General's appeal.2 In addition to endorsing his single appellate claim, SAPL h,J >'[a "
Gb [,Q, ; 3.N l'f'[*- p.x . . .-
~
..s- y i[.*&. . ,r;ti'j advances mMitinnat discrete arguments of its own. The applicants and the NRC
*j
[ . - ,fQ. b*kk', ,h7, ,I) r m.;., G,- f=,* . 5 d.. ,. * .;.3 [,=, ' , *.,' . 4.; e
. ;i., 2y.J f.3 1
,1;,r 3,, my 3 gne 3,,
2 ,, .,,,, ,,, ;,,,,,,,, ,g ggyg.s assa ociaber M. *Ihis was sowwat days aaer au sewaary denial N';*"( %,..y .,g .* di
,,, a+*'.y,.
J . fw a may of the eSasteveness of the Usesing Boemd's ocimber 7 order. To a ,(' ;-'.f.- .. ;', *M , of sveid thedaisy Am====y in the "osassul's
,' ,. of the Amarney consel's appeal, sAPL assend to tender in baia l .r"' ' '
;,4 ,. L . 1 .
t; ',. c' -; C "". Y,]*
.- 'd, w omsher 30. and we penused sAPL to punapses in ihm h 31 oral angwaan to addiens the issus mised i
y^' .. i s .-.6.~. , , , by the Amanney omasral We also guanand ths appb==== the NRC mafr and the Ana===y Gmealleave to Als O, paa assumans insmarands addnesang the sepuuss sAPL assamans. See Appeal Board onlar of (Comma =880
]
- u. -
..a i - - .
713
- ,s . -
f 6
- - - + * .g- , e e--
~
., g I g .
- As .
e d-m y v w -
------www-v=r-wammy-+v--va----y--r-7---v =
a.n-w,.i---+-----, --*-----.m-e-- - - . > -=,
,y.. m
. ; yw..:,'
7 -- . ..,i : ., ,.
<- . , g. ,. . , . .;- . ,
1
.=
. , , , u
;. . .:. ~ , . . .f , ,. . <
\ . ..s. .
L ,
- f. -
.,7 . . ,
' ~ * ^
. .F , -
h- ,
, , . ~
.t;- .
P' .
- t. i
- '- * . p
- g
, n. ... e, s.
.,^ " . ,
m.
.. n J,l.>. . c' , . .g staff maintain that the challenged license was properly authorized and, thus, the f., . . . , M.. . . ,
'!~ l . s: October 7 Licensing Board order should be affumed.
. - De Attorney General's claim requires us to examix the interplay among
, i, y .'l.{, W,'.'. .b .T. p,w ,. g .". 3.',j A ,
;. 4' three provisions of the Commission's regulations. The fust is 10 CEA 50.57, 3
~'
, which governs the issuance of operating licenses and was invoked by the
- N.o - ',
applicants in their motion for a fuel loading and precriticality testing license. De _ second is 10 CSA 50.33, which governs the contents of license applications
~
c,.,,,, and, as above noted, is invoked by the Attorney General on his appeal. De third
,jyt,d,,*,'['3-
* . , , '. t- c : c.9 is 10 CSA 50.47, which deals with emergency plans and is relied upon by the F
(, ':, >' ', , 7,fj : .i.s ' applicants and the staff in resisting the appeal.
;. c. ' f ' ' , ,
De prerequisites for the issuance., of operating licenses are set out in 10
, , , , CEA 50.57(a). As pertinent here, a license may be issued upon findings that l ' " -
"[c]onstruction of the facility has been substantially completed, in conformity i . . . , , '. ! .. with the construction permit and the application as amended," that "[t]he facility
.,- M % . m a p .,, " j.,;, d will operate in conformity with the application as amended," and that "[t]here is hf . S reasonable assurance ... that the activities authorized by the operating license
[.d[W,d,@My$$p i' A ,. . f , , ' ' ,":i~ * '; N
'fr!fg$W .. p G .j f:f33 can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public. . . ."
10 CSA 50.57(c) authorizes an applicant for an operating license to
, , s. . < ,
, ms
!- a
- ;*j ;%.3':, ,
?- .*f0
- 4? J make a motion . . . for an operasang Euense authorizing low-power testing (operation at
,- ,'f l ,4. K ;' ,*-
, Oj mot inces than 1 percent of full pour for the purpose of testing the fadlity), and funher
~. ?. i ,.
1. c
,gl n, j ,, i operations short of fur power @rraion
., ' .* w ' , ;. ,
1, a In rr. ling on such a motion, a licensing board is directed to give
- g. b . - ,i'
', q',[ :A f'* g.,, "
'y ' &as regasd to the righss of the panies to the proceedings, including the right of any party to Uc. 'f , 1 be hensd to the estant that his <r===minns are relevant to the activity to be authorized. Prior t .e'- '.
to taking any action on such a =asiaa whids any party opposes, the poesiding officer shall
, OC '
make Sndings cra the manors specined in paragraph (a) of this section as to which there is
- r. .'.J '
1-e . : ,. a- _ _..,,in the fann of an initial decision with respect to the contested activity sought
.- , , .'~,..,, .. ' . * .N, io be suihonand 8
**'" , . .i.y.' y ,
=r- ,,
d
', 4 . , . i l*( s ,
De Atte ney General does not contend that, in this instance, the Licensing wJ_,# * :.J. f1 rne "..s. s..DJC sV i ', j Board failed to make any findings that might have been required by section
.' , .O M{ . >., 50.57(a). Nor does be maintain either that the failure to submit emergency y - ap n s. gg,.' e S. ..n- + .*;4 ...
/t - - -
. ws * . P4 m g:p; response plans prior tr Isaance of the license raises heahh or safety questions or that fuel loading or precriticality testing cannot be conducted in conformity L-W # .%f.QM[h.
hy $ _. M..
- .7 pp.W w M5G8 s-~..
-.d h, M' W~[b.'A . ,.
.?#j %s./$j%, .
m_
#.d.
-- e, 5%.M
; W. *%.,f.Mny) with the application as submitted. Rather, as noted earlier, his sole assertion is that no type of license can be authorized here because the applicants failed
.,.a e/ b.Q.
, .'^~ f. 'h I,C.N* 's '
d* *
- Af:,71 P $ .. [ & y[ m . .. ,.,'"'D f.J9
., , rwaah-27,19s6 0 , 7. App. Tr. 7s. %s 1. ed the mat Sled mornarands on Novunbar 14 Che i . , ' .'.7<3; m ,- ' Q.f , . , p omeral aled no hadear papers). We will reis an sAPI/s clauns in a nabsequet d-*==a=
g /*:;pj' o.J; . v g W.'* p ,' "Q*[* f
- f. Q. 3 g;. c ' .r ' .j 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c).
.,.7 .q $ o . q, ;~ , ;
,y. . ,
a
, y
.. .. '.d'., 1- y. ~ . i
;' L et '
.,=J',
% J '.* % g ~
r '.
~ 4, ,. w
- 3. . . t.
s 4 "
..,'"? pk P. #
.g
- l
=
{d
. ~ :. * * ' .:-
;*
- w s P-
. g4
+T
-*. - . , a- ,-**.r * * * '
y . . . . - ,,..y.-
".., #7*
, g ., *,,
g- W 0 ' . #
, y
,7- * '
,.g' 'I, , '
, 4, J & j b *
, a %
~
y,a -
.L
~ '
+
.3 . .,
* .I a t
4
'. J .*
, )
v Dr. ?t b
- w. e , .-
.c .
to comply with the separate requirements of 10 CE.R. 50.33(g) governing the
-~
?. . ,~.
contents of applications. 'Ihat section provides, in perunent part:,
.j S
tb '
~y!
- N'- v .- , If the apphcauon is for an operating license for a melear power mactor, the applicant shall submit radiological emergency response plans of State and local govemmental entities in the United States that are wholly or partially within the plume exposure pathway Emergency 4
,- _. Plannis.g Zone (EPZ) . . . .
l i M".. *- bQ ;g' ', (, (',"J , ,,,
, N: '
In the Attorney General's view, the application filing requirements of this section are a mandatory element of the application process for any operaung license, including one limited to fuel loading and precriticalit) testing. As such, they are
,. f4, C ", .
'.. additional preconditions to issuance of the requested license. SAPL agrees.
~
- . ,, 'Ihe applicants and the NRC staff argue, to the contrary, that the submission of
,, , such plans is not a precondition to grant of a license authorizing only fuel loading
,[ [_ f U .' q
"' and precriticality testing. Among other things, they point to 10 CE.R. 50.47(d),
@h,..s. .iQ.W,-W .;j,,v.; , .ie ' ~ i, which provides thac L M;
& *. I'C.: . y./' '. r,., nv., -a .; '*n~O
- J. . .ed q-1
. - [.;1,8;fl d.
, ;" ' r, , - n
. L " .'K. ,,. *M;N .9 '
- j~
.. no NRC or FEMA review, Andings, or deserminanons ocacerning the stase of offsite emergency , ---' - or the adequacy of and capability to imple==ene State and local
'.J mg.h, ;'. - ' ~~'
offsise emergency plans are sequired prict to issuance of a operating license authorizing j;7 4,1 +; , , - only fuel loadmg and/or low power operances (up to 5% of the resed power). Insofar as
/j. r, -. , s.. ; . e, . ' emergency plannmg and ,.r
- s requinenents are conerned, a license authorising fuel Y;* , loadmg and/or low power operauen may be issued aAer a Anding is made by the NRC that the state of onsies emergency ,,.4-_ _ "- rs pnmdes r ha, assurance that adequate
(, . . ., *). - - "
,, prosective measun;s can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. 'the g.f. ;> ' -
~.
. NRC will base this 6nding on its : ---- ^ d the appbcant's emersecy plans against the c'
'.}, % %
;: ..a ,
. pennent standards in paragraph (b) of this section and Append. E of this part.
- r. .
,; ' , . .- g. -
; We agree with the applicants and the staff. To be sure, the requirement for the y, ,
filing of state and local emergency plans contamed in section 5033(g) does not h . .' T. . . 1;. distinguish between full-power licenses and licenses for operanons at less than
- o.y m.p(. ,
. 'i full power. But section 50.57(c) acknowledges that different considerations may be relevant to an authorization for low-power as opposed to one for full-power C.
. 'y ,
. ,f
- 3. .
' - d
. ' operation. And section 50.47(d), which deals with emergency plans, expressly confines any exammation of emergency preparedness in connection with a low-
, .Q.:f
*Y. . y .'i; [ .6., ..p. '4" . ( i,' ' ' ' j power license to an assessment of the applicant's onsite emergency plans. 'Ihe
, cc,%i 1,t." * ?' e, . .,;f , , $ Attorney General argues that we must accord literal and independent effect to !. MQ4 r ' j c O C . d G f. W .. W;f. r.0 $ W ;..-ci M,Q,Q'.,.0 W6[3.W v secuon 50.33(g) so that the failure to file state or local emergency plans would stand in the way oflow-power operation. In our view, section 50.33(g), whether [ d j y . F ,7. y .[ [ M % . [ ^![ h h read in isolation or construed consistently with the provisions of section 50.57(c) y ;.,M. , y A. _y. . *. e ?. u, . %. . .g -N. and 50.47(d), does not support the interpretauon urged by the Attorney General.
. p w 3 . m r ., m. ..
i , R:2? e,..v %.oW., . %,. >. l. . . ' .
.". . ..%>. .R.~. ,
&.A
.;;%..~.Tr;'C.l'l.y:.r.. <
l _.-e n.y < n
).
.x x..] '
59 'g,
,, 'r -
-[ M.,' [ d ' , i "- ' J s ,
~ l, -
715 I. e'
.m .
f[ , e
,,s s
- c. : . : s - , s q ,
i, *
, ( .
- - . , , , . - . - . , . ,m - - - - , - - _ . - , . - - . ,- #. -, . - -+ - - , - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - -- - - - -- --
c ., . . .
- 4. -- ,
,q.<, e
~.
e, - s g. .,.
;. _ . . siq.- ., o c' . -
<s
,~ : .
*s -
*/
.?.
.9 , . ,
',, .c R ,,
z
- ,f
- . g , ' - ,
, a .i ~
( ;- ,. f4 ,1 To begin with, nothing in section 5033 establishes a timetable for submission [,.<. .,,
,7 .
; .j of the component parts of an operating license application.4 As the applicants
. ;. M;-/. r,
.*, , W 7 9. ?' ] correctly pointed out at oral argument, an operating license application is a n c. - ed '
"living, breathing" document,5 subject to change at least until full-power oper.
.. ation is authorized. Thus, contrary to the Attorney General's argument, section
< 5033(g) cannot be taken to require that all emergency planning components of
~j an application be submined before any operating license may be issued.
. 4: '
i ihrther, no discernible public interest objective would be served by requiring
- , ..- JW the submission of state or local emergency plans as a condition of fuel loading
\ ;(y,- ,r '.-; e .g.J?1 f,".".$/j
~
or precriticality testing. On brief, neither the Anorney General for SAPL points
', . I .f to any such objective. Indeed, at oral argument, both of them conceded that the
. , '.'.. ,- applicants could easily remedy the perceived defect in the application simply
~
i by filing their own version of an offsite emergency plan for that portion of
. Y 1. - , Massachusetts that falls within the EPZ.e SAPL did assert that "the existence of i,1, ;r p' 6; L.* *c . g .d a plan does provide sorne additional margin of safety even though it may not have MM )w(.MY ['.M.',)O'(
? been reviewed"7 But, given that the Commission's regulations do not require ne, either the NRC staff or FEMA even to look at the plans when they are submitted, J,,[.,' .,Q X .< d. 'b. -
'. f.5'c.+ ,~ 9' M' S% ,, cannot 4< daccept the view that a legitimate purpose behind enforcement of the
;: we
.,. ,J 't W.' c' y7 . . -
section 5033(g) requirement at this stage is to enhance safety.s In sum, we
..e:: reject the argument that the terms of section 5033(g) require the submission of r , g?.M mf, J a- M- R ,A.. />:pl Ui.M
; .,,: . f state or local emergency plans as a condition of fuel loadmg or precriticality
*',,' ,.l , .
i E '.. i<-d, testing.
,J ' ; ~t.'.,,
.;. Equally important, the Attorney General's construction of section 5033(g) 4 w,;
,'/
, 7 ".
,F ;. .
.f,Mi[l.1 .;
cannot be squared with the objectives of sections 50.57 or 50.47(d). Portions of an application (notably offsite emergency plans) are frequently tendered well
.., . p,.y.W. N cjl.4
,- ._ j M after the adjudicatory proceedmg on that application has begun. NRC operat-
*1, ,l * [.g.gf. Ing license proceedings, after all, are lengthy and involve the disposition of i,o '
, y.: (. -c .s , ;g'.d numerous and complex safety and environmental questions. Such questions are
,7
'i i , 'h . S '. 'g. ' . i " .
, frequently taken up at different times as particular issues become amenable
- a. . ,:, .w: un ; Q> -qa n. y%a.:Q:
m
, . . . , , yv ( - .. d'.L3 "
1, ,V. , " f.,J
.b' y'. - . - .m,- -
N the . --- . My 10 GR M and ME A that a Wu ar"= is subject g.., s- *
, ,3s- s 4,. * ~ . ......,,g..( 2 to g
a--in
. , Ce * , y ;p' ; '-- * ,, L . App Tr. 34 3s.
,'f. 7,f;.*1.Q;hlg
- Apr. Tr.1617,26.n.
7 77.b M @4 '.?4@j k.Jr% . v,'.'-d;.
'p.J'7 4 ::3.wp x.A.%/ @e S -
, T.
c;"&Ti -:?T 8 App. Tr. 28. he maff arped that the purpme behind sectie 50.33(g) ma be glemand fue ire di=====.mtive hissary. See p #gC,f,'i..Nf K:A-g PY@%.J ',y NRC stair Briefia oppenition to the Appel of the Aamney ommel of M---h fun the f ===-ag Board's @fC @j;2.7 0;?1.{%'N:
.*"4 .
+
0
.r .@,.M ,d'[fr Ep, f;.1 -7.
ouder of ocember7,1986 (Mah=r 24,1986) at s 4; App.Tr.54 59. Det peurunen was added to the Comuussann's replanens as past d the padsage d changes adopend in the wake of the aondess at Three baile Island. In the 4 p.WJ M ' r. g.' M W;-[.oj. d PJ M* G G madr's view, it was headed only i make clear thes the Sling of mase and local emussmicy plans would be A",M**O..~ g.? 9:%','*"*. M (N '. the
.?
,.'* / % 2 d appheest's
<9.',%. . " % *- and that assh plans windd hencefunk be subjast to FEhlA and NRC review. The maff's amelyns Ands emme support in the ah-i a-ave history of the replatines. See, e.g.,45 Fed. Res. 55,402,
". 4. -. 7. A M -R' 55,403 (1980) (NRC adapes "msjer changes" famn past practim. i.e sequuernant that an opphemar subaut both k-j Wy c ; '$(~;/.;MI~q., .g. 4,'X'.; s'a ojW 4' 'e M ha swa emunecy plan ed same and locei sevennes enegory plans; NRC win review FEMA's Andings as
- to whosher stase and local plans ass adequate),
' ' t l ; S+ J:6g x Q; ., *' r :- -- W*M
- g. <* c.5,, -r , .:.
. . . ? . ..u. Q?$y:-1, , Q l:';. t4yy,;,,2- -
4 .*
.o' 4 g *<
l4 p., , , ,= ,- i.
.. 3 . *' .
~ 9
.J
- .. . , . . w. . .
. .t u ,-
m m e ,.,- a1 716 ': *r .2- 3.; ~
'._ . *a. + . . .,
l3 ~ .
, v. -
.p I'
'? . , -
j f, I - . -
..s.
,. * ,i
[ r, , y .. s , . 1
.. .- - ' . 7; , ,. o
- l. e j, .
. . ~ . . 3.- r ,
.y . . . - y i ,- .
<s v, . ,,
! 'i'. , , L
' ' ' -s -
l ..c v, * < . {_
e-- . , , , ~
- /* .
,e .,. ..
<<. 3
& k ' .
b , o, , s
< p. 7,;+.f , . ,+ -
d' .
~
, ? ',
.y .
.l. I y.jU : . to litigation.' 'Ihe purpose of section 50.57(c) is to accord a applicant an
'w .
- s. . ,,
- ';yd. n.;h , W '
E f.i Opportunity to obtain a license authorizing low-power operation so it can test
~
,.;q<
, . g o ,9 the facility even if issues unrelated to low-power operations have not yet been
.'g .' ' '
7 - - resolved. A reading of section 50.33(g) that would require the submission of
</ ' L state and local emergency plans before a low-power license can be issued would
.; *7 i be inconsistent with that purpose.10
. , ~ y'; af ." g. .
.] hrther, as even the Attorney General acknowledges, section 50.47(d) specifi-
$ ' g.3 s; .t .
cally states that no review or approval"concerning the state of offsite emergency 7- '5]4
. L.( , -. . 7, d -
preparedness or the adequacy of and capability to implement State and local
" '" _ , ' ' ,O F l{ ,j offsite emergency plans" is necessary before an applicant may be authorized to
,s, r
3 operate at power levels of five percent or less.11 As the Commission explained r (; . , when proposing to add section 50.47(d) to its regulations:
.- .,s.L ,
G- ,.4 ...* .
. g < ' :", 1 When the [ emergency planning] regulation was originally drafted and finally promulgated, Of i N [ '.'![ b 'hN;'c- p. , !
the quessaan of emergency planning and preparedness licensing requirements for an oper-i % a. f' asing licenes authonamg only fuel loading and kw power operation . . . was not fully hc.N .I,J.dW'MJ ^ L d'\b'.ghk '* evninased. h is apparent to the Con-a- that the emergency preparedness req,irements r90' nf.M$ W M,.k.NN[;[,? 4 ;-F.u.m. @ p ..g y y ~ ,fe for a low power license need not be as extensin as those requiremeras for a full power
. 3; p" operating license. On the basis of the experience gained in emergency preparedness reviews
, v,0 . 'f Q d.' '- ' ; W iV) over the last year, the Commission now conclud, s that evaluations of the adequacy of offsite
','. g - 1 [ '( t
.' / sumergency preparnd=*=a and the capability of offsite response mechanisens, as =*aamed by
' ]N > ,Yf y,' 'f-(If ',N *
., 7 '
the full requir-ama of 10 CFR 50.47 prior to issuing a low power license.1(a) and (b) and Part 50, Appendix E yx . ' 7; e' y :M,. w.
;,; . d
,.,g wf ,
, i. s ,
.fg .
4? Although we appreciate that a distinction can be drawn between requiring [ p.g . f u. ' ' ' ' , x FEMA or NRC approval of offsite emergency plans aM simply requiring their
~"
, J,_
[ "; *X ' ' ,(. . submission, we do not believe that thk is what the Cbmmission intended. In our Judgment, the Commission did not coatemple thaaffsite emergency planning g
. m v. ,.i matters - including the filing of state oc local emergency plans - would stand j.
,.. g g. s .- y'- 1- in the way of low-power operation.18 7 ' [, y .F
, .. u. .
.i . g e y,.
,..- . 't . ,
, + . . .
,. * .w .. ,; 9ses Der remer Co. (Caiawba & clear han, Uniss 1 and 2), CJ-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1044 0983)
J:' - -g ,. p ;; r i. j . l] y - s , ,'jt *
- g. . . G' =f { s., gam's energmcy Aplan may beNucient miavalable at theUnitbagneung 1), CtJ-8317,17ofNRC a peacendans d P } .s ., . ~ > , .V
~, . .
e,egyLongf,iendfit siatCo. (shareham Power station. 1032 % 7-- Q*' 'E ," [W J 1 3 ;y;:i
.e. Q :-
; f . 7;- ( .yrM+. +
.JJ
, j$IJaarict 6 case,
! v,by way'My[l 0983) Osw-power liamse may be issued desphs any - - about offshe energency planning). In the of a*=pla a low power liosass was issued an Nah= 26,1984 (see 49 Ped. Res 44,171 My .. ?'f 0904)), abbaugh an ===ymey plan anvems a panian of ths EPZ, ist, the state Con =rnamat Inghmhm gg.
! C f. q *g.*3p., N7g V.N':hT Mi' N
.c '
* *'M'
; g.- ' -f.a 13
% at Gesassfond, Fannsylvania, was not 8:ed ussil Th==h= 13, 1984. see Philadelphie Elecede Co. G.Jenanck anns stasion, Unies I and 2), ALAB-806,21 NRC 1183,1186-87 090s).
O"s"es 11 tenere#y sAereasu,17 NRC at 1054 ("secnon sa47(d) gives unquah5ed schanz N Z;'T [f :d . %p f M: Nb8b !:' % 7MPower ;#W liomas i@N f 7of NRC or FEMA approval af an h anagency plan as long as other prerapasues, in the absense [. % y?w
.? M .(,' h;
.2 2 '
. ; Q"y[,
J. a r, S.g i M*W,f;g% a ? N %. O
- Cl
'-8"dag an adequase stass of ammis energency , , . ase inet")
12 46 Ped. Reg, 61,132 0981). see else id at 61.133 nwl ('*7he NRC wilt raview only ihase elsmans under es& af @M 7 N. 9". j j % Q,g(:'f('J'*-2'* % .i.}'
, . , Q r,p 'l 'i -
*i the planning caiseria shot ase ed= for d======g the liaansse's (not stats and local agacies'); ,
1s 7hs Anamey Omeral pcnnis to autain Comnusman prenaunnensras in its 1980 energercy planring proposal r
").
e 7]'(( .*#T 41( A ' ,M-3Q p [:q '4%*
~ ~
N, ,,L ff b ;.' ?)% } s i. . apasseing liamma, ove me far low power. see Anamsy Geeral Piancis X. Bellaan's Application for a stay se support his claim that the %a===das imanded that state or local plans be submined befase issuance of any ? ~, and Beistin support of Appeal of f tr===4g Banni order Authanang Issuance of operating Licues to Conduct y . 7. ; (connaud)
.t. ,
y ;. , ,, ; . i l. ' ,. ' ' c. .o ...' ' ~. {; . ,m7
;*A H ;;Q g3 g '^.,,n _ -;y,3.3 717
- b. .
.p 4. e.[ [ s v.y , < s
;j 6 - 4 f , y i.
.0[ .s .* g ,
. . , - g, g
, r, - .
. ~
q , O* O E , ,
, *g,.. . , N ,,,. .*-'
- n. ,
.4 y t 4 - . , ~ .
e
.: . . . - . ,,..y -
- c;< -:
-- 9. . . .
.. . . . p .: c 3, x . ,
, . s
. .o ,
c . >: -
;* j 9
.a 9
y i In the Shoreham proceeding, the Commission observed that not every health
- c. e a p
u A,.. and safety regulation m ~;.3 .
,: .W y e.
,. ~:' .
.- 7 :V' V- -
'. i, ;t regardless of its purpose or tenns. must be deemed fully applicable to fuel loading and to every phase of low. power operadon . . . Each reguladon must be exarnined to determine its applicadon and effect for fuelloading and for each phase of low-power operation. Simple logic and common sense indicate that some regulations should, by their own terms. have no
.;- application to fuelloading or some phases of low-power operadon.14
* ' b ,/ , ,
.' .~h.
- s. , e. , '^*-
s
, {7 f .
In our view, the same rationale must apply to any construction we place on
' .' x r. '}. ,' ,
,..y..,
, j, Commission regulations. Because the Commission has expressly decided, both
~~
.' f in its regulations and relevant opinions, that a low-power license may be issued
~ (- . without regard to the state of offsite emergency preparedness, we reject the notion that the requirement governing the filing of state emergency response
. . .., .. 2 ..
o-
- ,, plans contained in 10 C.F.R. 50.33(g) should be deemed to be a condition for
.,mc .C9 T. ( i l..j issuance of a license for fuel loading or precriticality testing.
p'.- s -m u. ..- a.
; y. -3.9. s.J.:y
. . . ;. 7 ,,: ., ,4; f..,. ..s .;? ..,;... %w:.~ c,.
. . f7d.,-.
~
.v.w. .-o..
%;.".1,, - ff'. f-.j -1 Ibr the foregoing reasons, the appeal of the Attorney General of Mas-G '
N.', sachusetts is denied. The affirmance or reversal of the Licensing Board's Octo-6 ?..... -
..:Y . ber 7,1986 order must, however, await the disposition of the other issues raised
'fA ,. $ , .
. ' - t .
^
,J j 4 by the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League. See supra note 2.
. . . t. '.- s
. . .? . . -; It is so ORDERED.
- 1. .
,, . . n. n;;._ 4 v y
. .d
.%;. ,s, t'~.j.. 4. ; 5* ' ,. R ...
. ,4 FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
-' q ,,,
. , ~'
T , . _ l y. .. . 2 . L :; ., *
/,'
. n -u- .
ry ;j f.?..$.1 " C. Jean Shoemaker
.,,. 7. . f
'g. ,
Secretary to the ,. .f J - m .n,~c~ . Appeal Board A
,!. e.
- '"',. ' - . 'r,,',
.."..m.1
,{ p ,
*. * *. , *~]
3 j
.Q.' t ... , . . , ; . . : l J .* s
,w e._. . .
y; i sp. , ;. A .y ~' ' s y. m;
%.' J. r.
. , , + . . . , , , - .
. .i . ,3:.
d..x'aG.'- M,,Lv...
- . b.S .O 1
b . [a. . ..;.. s@ m..>
; g 9~.<. > . .e,x, . .dl
, ei. . *O .'**'> %* .
4,Q.J gr w;-b*Q5l,p e + t-a* b@b+ ,,G
. r3
.. , ;.?,..1g"." N:, ~ .- J..e.g'y .l]'
.,: f 's[Iy.'
TM,s M-f t% t, W 3.
+ Op.g. v
%p e '.'s
;p g*g G. fig- %. Q,<6 % .s.5..Q g .c; ,L.6.y'%
., .r.%. ..
. ,::, 3q .,n.j.~. w-*. r.
- o ; s...y,c,s <
- , We r ' . P , .
- ' E Y'2p~Ish'd;i sfl. 3Q.; he.[w.i.:Me 8 ,
- m& ' @M
, IW toad and Precnncahty Tsains (october 141986) at 4.s. The Ar.aney General mads the Comnusnon's
> ; .c- too bmndly. Ahhough the Coma-aa spoke genemlly of a requuement fu considereuen of ante or
.G M,VN t/,A ff.i.MA.:'. . j.M,Y i . ,dA .
.? <. A- local plans as a rannih for issuance of an operating license wahaut disunguishing between low-power and full-G " .*s ? A., " 4 power licenses, both the coment of the 1980 mataments and the charges brought abma by the 1982 amendments
+:0 1 .. ., @ , A . .N. make clear that it insmidad to con 6ne the segulations applicable to rate or local plans to full-power operstnes.
I4 1.. ' n.Eil*rly ,*r]; QQ g c,Jy.:,',%, Long Island Ughsbig Ca. (shoreham Nuclear Power stasian. Uras 1). CI184-21. 20 NRC 1437.1440 (1984).
* < y 4.. ;. u - - c
> 3
, s - . ., . .
, "r e
*s
. .y, . . .: .
. , .t, .g r s .
- y. 7gg
. 3; .g ,;.,, b,w w ' .
- m. . .
' . ..' j.% . 1 4 - t s
, . +
q , .A
* * ==-
- W-* - * " * ' * " "
,ar.---]f*. f g., -*-]
*g' %9 .
4 s ,
e
Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards issuances I ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL @ B. Paul Cotter,
- Chairmen b Robert M. Lazo, 'Vice Chairmen (Executive)
Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical) Y Members O
' Dr. George C. Anderson Herbert Grossman* Dr. Emrnetti'A. Luebke' Charles Bechhoefer*
Peter B. Bloch* Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Jerry Harbour
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Morton B. Margulies*
h Glenn 0. Bilght* Dr. David L Hetrick Gary L Milhollin Emest E. Hill Marshall E. Miller Dr. A. Dixon Callihan# James H. Carpenter
- Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Peter A. Morris' Hugh K. Clark Helen F. Hoyt* Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Bizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Walter H. Jorden James L Kalley*
Ivan W. Smith
- Dr. Martin J. Steindler W
Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline* Dr. Quentin J. Stober Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb Ill Seymour Wenner John H Frye lit
- Gustavo A. Unenberger* Sheldon J. Wolfe* d James P. Gleason .,Dr. UndaW.'Uttle' l
l ,
*P6tmanent panel members I
a.- . ;. . -7 .
.a
- .,. a. ,: -
v .
~
, , 2 c. , , - :-,
,, . .8' -
s ,. ,
.r- s 4 t
, . . . a.
.. . 4
.'. . . ;g r ;
q LBP-86-37 t , [ Cite as 24 NRC 719 (1986)
, ,. ,3 .
, , .,,. ,1
~ .
.~., ,-
~
s 7. .' ' 1. m. T' ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i' - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD la ,
.j y2 - .,- 1 r.
Before Administrative Judges:
. .c . ,7 4 d Ivan W. Smith, Chairman -
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
. Dr. Oscar H. Paris c . O. 1.:i. M. ',. : .. % .l 0.V
.y5 - . #...,.
. y.
. ,.-..? ($O m in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-546-OL
.g.C , J , .e. }/s!:' '.D,' hj'
.p'. -l , * - J, . t j .
" f, 50-547-OL
- ,. (ASLBP No. 83-487-02 0L)
- x. , p .. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
'^ ', ,
. ' . e 'N ~
~ '
OF INDIANA, INC., and
.T -
WABASH VALLEY POWER
, .'~ . .
. d.. ASSOCIATION, INC.
_ " < (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating
. . : .~ ., .
, ' ' . ' . . ' . L.
Station, Units 1 and 2) November 3,1986
. . s. .
. .. +
.-. . 1 m n, ;;
A
,, - 3 e
-t
.3 ,, .
. (~ 'j . LICENSING BOARD: JURISDICTION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.107(a) 3 ,. .,?..-c. . .: n f - . : . . g~,d.' k ~','; , y Where an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has been designated to rule
[1 M ;.p .,
.[',.,
~ % ~ 7 J. . p.1 g,. ;) 7.g. .
on petitions for leave to intervene in a hearing on an application for a facility
.. 3 .fl.7..
, ~. . .;
. - g ' g.,7y, x-y,W': .,..e .s , -^ 'H operating license, to issue any notice of hearing on the application, and to preside i :.K.f.?s q, ' :h> ;j.g , . ; f '.7nf.:;?
over any such heanng; and where petitions to intervene have been filed but have f f M '.' $ ' /? f 'i, @ y j $ 7 '- . not been granted by the Ixensing Board pending a decision on the existence
- y. 7";.R,@y.x..Wjp;.;
j
,*7.': , .. ,p-t>';..
e, f, h, .c'e,p>,.t..[6f.W. o of admissible contentions; and where a node,: of heanng has not been issued at the time the applicant moves to terminate the operating license proceedmg, a L - 4. ;"g.' ,@l7p r #pg.~ g Gf.' licensing board has no jurisdiction under 10 C.F.R.12.107(a) to set the terms L.' i ,N.?h ;f..
..mr,e. . . - t:.' T 9.g.I,.l,;. ';@[(Of.Q'.
. f. a 4 c f.f I?;I on the withdrawal of the application for an operating license.
.- s ; , ,
t s" 4 h. *, [~, 4 . ;- t. ?[ I
, , .. . ,y . , n , - '
,;,$ q,'g:,9, p c :., ;
- ~ '
. i.
. ,. c ,
7g9
* . *4
.. .- r,t .
, sW
. ~-
n l 9 .~ . *)
~
-\,
, , _ ..n.. .. .
l . .
.t -
l . l . .. l
. .... p.. , , 'g- ,. . *
,i s
.e
.......y.
- , g.
n , v;
~
- i :
- c. - -
.s: . * *
.a . .
a t Z pl. ..
.;. m . . . n...
'~ .. ,
' +- " ' '
.s . " -
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l 'W,,1. :. ; . s; 3. . . , * ' .<.. ' ' , ,' j TERMINATING OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING
.c.c (
n ', * . * .., -
.r-f..'
, L INTRODUCTION
,, , j .,
He Public Service Company of Indiana and Wabash Valley Power Asso-
.; ciation were issued permits numbered CPPR-170 and CPPR-171 for the con-
' O ,S .- .
a 1 y . , . struction of Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. ney began
~.<* -J s.; r <
construction and applied for an operating license for the units but have since V ,' . ' ' ".
' ' ' ~ .Y l ,
decided not to operate. Consequently we have before us the Applicants' mo-
,. tion of April 4,1985, to tenninate the operating license proceeding without l, conditions. He motion is supported by the NRC Staff but opposed by interven-
.47" ".,. i., . .. ., . .. tion petitioners. He latter urge that the Licensing Board impose conditions that -
.:_. n would require the utilities to restore the Marble Hill site. In the order below, we f;5k@,s ,, M g;'.7 @ ,l.I. E S j d 4Q. , f grant the motion to terminate the proceeding and, for want of jurisdiction, deny the Petitioners' requests.
q,$,.: ~,;'hn J . ; yt 9. ' .'.;.M; .' N *.'6{
' e e - .,
.,-~ a,. ..
? .
~ .M.O.. ..t~..<.
'. , , . IL BACKGROUND
, .. ;.a.fi.u. ; 7' W. 4 ' : - ' 2. .[]
.g/l c' , ;. w .. , , Mj ~
An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, having completed hearings in the
, q,;.; 4,
.,.ip-
Afarble Hill construction permit proceeding, authorized the issuance of con-
., v.,:;e .
. 'A struction permits on April 4,1978. LBP-78-12,7 NRC 573 (1978). He permits 7'7' ,', 1' , ,
D 1 . Issued that day. In accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 52.717(a), the ( .f.:. ' ,'
,[y . - s-1 licensing board's jurisdiction in the construction permit phase of the proceeding terminated when its decision became the final Commission decision.
, i, On February 24,1983, the Applicant, Public Service Company of Indiana,
. s. ' j, 4 .c
'a filed an amendment to the licensing application in which it applied for a facility
; Y j t.; ; > 3 , ,i . operating license for the Marble Hill units. Notice of opportunity for a hearing
- y. , , , . , , ,
, , on the application was published on March 25,1983. He notice provided for fl- -
c, -
- 7. the traditional NRC process under 10 C.F.R. I 2.714 for the filing of intervention
. 2 '~,i' q,',,'" _X ,', f.o,. f [ p petitions and requests for hearing by persons whose interest may be affected by the proceedmg. The notice provided also that an Atomic Safety and Licensing P.'*MP};yd 1 g')>!.Wbp N E.[) %,. 5,7,.),' .Mk 3j Board (designated by the Chairman of the Licensing Board Panel) would rule
[$!; M M Y d',N;Ich'.)d .? .M' {.Q ,y.. Y.yl on any hearing request or intervention petition and that the Board would issue 9.$'8 k:djj.; '.g any notice of heanng or an appropnate order in the event a hearing request or $',,M "
'b' [@y'A1.l". $I,Wd@e '. d'.0 Mintervention J,y April During gpetition was filed. 48 Fed. Reg.12,609 (Mar. 29,1983).
1983, timely petitions to intervene were filed by Sassafras jn.U;4 % p. $ f,T,@'., .C... p s.,3- %,7 6. Audubon j .,;] Society of South Central Indiana, Valley Watch, Inc, and Save ne 7._. , .'.g,. ;r,G.. 9, 1 Valley. He Chairman of the Licensing Board Panel designated the members of t ,,.i ,.- . -J. er. .. . s-
*~ A
,0 4i ;
, . i. i. w ; ' . this Board to rule on petitions to intervene and requests for hearing and to preside
-.c ^ ^ .
.. . y. - . .
v '
. ~ , . ; . .- . . ~ , ,:
. ':1 720 1
. . g. . . . . - < .*. ,
-- o
. ,,,. ; , n' .
n -
,, 9.*.:...- .(
~ '
,s ,
I *. 's ,, .
.' y
. 'I- g
. . ~ ' * * ,, f ,.=
n .. f - .
, 3 g- ,
. a - , . -
,a, . , , .. -
.t- y p 4- r i
,; . . . , . ~ .: ~
1 over any hearing in the event a hearing were ordered. 48 Fed. Reg.19,964 (May
,m
-. . ". . .N ~
- - ; /;, 3, 1983).
. f.; ' "
7 'O ,
' ' " ~
. . .i On June 30,1983, the Board ruled that Audubon Society and Valley Watch had failed to demonstrate standing to intervene but that they could exercise their right to Sie amended petitions. We also ruled that Save De Valley's petition established the standmg of that organization to intervene.
On September 14, 1983, the Board noted in a memorandum that Audubon
- ' ' c, t a j, ..
C Society and Valley Watch had filed amended petitions but still had not estab-
~
lished standing to intervene. But we deferred makmg a final ruling on inter-
. vention standmg. We also provided for the filing of supplemental petitions with proposed contentions. Our expectauon was that issues of standing and other
, threshold aspects of the petitions would be considered at a preheanng confer-ence at the same time we considered the adequacy of the proposed contentions.
.. 4.- ,
,; On October 21,1984, Audubon Society and Valley Watch joined in filing a
". .. b c ; . ,i ,l '. 1 9,f A , l ;j single set of proposed contenuons, and Save De Valley submitted its proposed E.N ~W;;y k jf :5?U U.g-q contenuons. De Applicants and the NRC Staff responded to the proposed y.,
* , . " g.,y: . s g . , ' . . ,
n . )l , .. :.1 . contenuons on November 30,1983. Our next step would have been to convene a
'e' prehearing conference to resolve the outstanding preliminary issues. But before l'..'<...,,,... '.. .p . : that could be done, counsel for the Applicants informed the Board that a
-.].
l '
' ~ ,
. 7 ~7 special task force appointed by the Governor of Indiana had recommended that
.s .,. construction of the Marble Hill units be cancelled. Counsel suMested that the Board defer any further acuon in the proceeding.1 The matter rested in suspense until Applicants' April 4,1985 Motion to Terminate Proceeding.
-) - , l The Motion stated tersely that the Marble Hill construction permits had j
been surrendered to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and requested
? -'
the 1.icensing Board to termmate the operating license proceeding. Applicants also forwarded a copy of the stabilization plan for the Marble Hill site. De L. - ,
- d NRC Staff 2 (as did the Board) assumed that the motion was brought under
.ys '- " '.: , l 10 C.F.R. { 2.107 (the general NRC regulation providing for the withdrawal of w ~ .]
4
. ._ applications, note 8, infra), but the matter was again suspended at the Staff's
, ,; ~',-1 ; ~_ . . , y request pending Staff's review of the Applicants' site restoration plan.
.i
~
;y On March 26,1986, the Staff filed its sdpplement to the Applicants' motion u - , .'c.p'
. - ' ;i ;. .,j 9 {' e
. . . to terminate, informing the Board that it saw no significant environmental impact f*( {' ',*.', l that would result from the terminanon of the proceeding.De Staff then approved Cf.[fe%)~(,*g.
Q $ - k. Min R ,* *;"W , U
' ?. ~ * ;.hrL :
> *'[yl/ .$ 5
; ;f , ~.[M..; d Q '.4,,/;. -g .-ld t.'n:
.. t. m ..c.. .,r4 @;'.9b;?, ... 73;ih;Qp,f, - py ,.M....y . ..m.
. Q*% ;:.lw Wh y..'c;>,.$e-c.,ll- Q^l r
Q:, .y? N1 Nl,o& f .? , G&y%. %
.t.tj- Q '.' L '><. .Q~ b l$ g
.Q.c % * ..l 2 tener fnun Hary A. Vaist to Bond Manbes. Doomnbar 22.19s3.
k<.M % A y./ 3*5/y;y-U, , , ' j,,'D O ~,...q
' TH '
staff Re to Appbcenes' b'Jon to Tenennese Pr. ==dian Apn124,19ss. The siafr cited Duhr Power c,. (pukins Nudear sissima. t niis ? 2. and 3). A1.AB-668. Is NRC 450 0982). m ( ! ,*e ', d *
,j., .g , a
.p , ;: .r 6,.
721
. e . .
F ,. t I. ' e 5
, . .. g .. ,-- ; _ ,,
. 1 4 L A l '
t
~' . ...
r . , - - - -- - e.-4-+ +-i--~-e-Cv*- '-'-- "
w r , .
.* n : r .,s>;z. - s . -
y.g
~,
,. nC, s l*
9 2- .
,n
%'y ; ,
,. t
.v
.e , , , .
r ,, c
- r,, ,
,v ,
- e ay~ Z r
_g .
, ,P .4
,' . . ' j.[ ,'
' ~
,, a plan that would stabilize the Marble Hill site essentially as it exists since
. , ', . _.,.. 4 construction was halted, i.e., " typical of any abandoned large industrial facility."8 i -
- On May 30 and June 18,1986, the Board invited the parties to file briefs on
, o '
~ ,
, the reach of the Board's junsdiction to impose conditions on any withdrawal of 5 ^ ~
!, the Marble Hill construction permits.
. "Ihe Applicants,' NRC Staff,8 Audubon Society,s and Save 'Ihe Valley 7 filed I ;
n i briefs in response to the Board's invitation.
;,, .fr g
,E. )
< - . III. DISCUSSION
. l, '~ .
Our call for briefs last May was driven by two principle concerns. First,
, we noted a sharp contrast in the Staff's and Applicants' approach to this
, proceeding compared to such cases as Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
f *. + w. >
., (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), LBP-82-29,15 NRC 762 (1982); Public
,.g Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Ibx Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-8310,17 f" &f[MG.0;$ . 2.,E,.: .4 9'e ,G,d./$c.l?,.l..)].%At" . NRC 410 (1983); and Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
{' l .f.7. ';: -",6 >' V *<j Units 2 and 3), ALAB-652,11 NRC 627 (1981). In this case, as noted above,
~
j' , # the Staff is satisfied with stabilizing a large abandoned industrial site, while, in
' 5: T< ,,' :6 p J ; the cited proceed'ngs, substantial site restoration agreements were approved by
'2 V ._ .' '~
the adjMentwig boards.
' [ . ', , '^ "
.7 -
Second, we did not understand why the Applicant.1 simply sought an end to the operating license proceeding without even a reference to 10 C.F.R. 62.107(a),
} <; ,
't note 8, infra, which is the controlling NRC regulation for the withdrawal of
. i, ;* - ' -
l ' applications. Nor could we smderstand why the Applicants apparently believed
, .[.l N, '
,J J. . . , . ,. that they could' sever their connection to the NRC simply by sendmg their
< d construction permits back to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
7.- .
, . .. Now we learn from the Applicants' supplement to its motion to terminate
, , , , .. ', O that, in Applicants' view, neither the Board nor the NRC itself has jurisdiction s C' , ", , . .,' over the Marble Hill construction. As we understand it, Applicants' reasoning t " ' goes this way: i. a 'l ,j; (1) By its terms, 52.107(a) applies to the withdrawal of applica-
- ,,( ,6 . t
- tions. But, in the case of Marble Hill, the construction permits have al.
M9-L' W3 : i-{ . ., 4..l ready issued. 'Ihe application for the Operating License (Amendment 22
. $ ,? 'l#
;. O ",@ in the licensing application) refers only to an operating license. 'Therefore v:.-;Ti&i
'Nk.' .,'.k;y g p&*@;l.e..,';WQ/[ r
. Qll , v'3 , 4 ': ' ,G p . l . .
I,'U.kr-7)d'i'@((4 ' 3
.V' ;h;,9, d,N +.
.d. .,,*i. yl{";N;-y,' g,, a Emunosummal Review Relased to Public servise or Indiana's Rapies to Teamasas des Mable Hu11Jammans Psosseems, at 2. Fabanery 20,1986 (A=h o tdie saa#'s Mandi 28.1986
- p).'.. ?.A;,
' m: I,v'j" .... to Apphsams' Motion
- Wt M Q $'y. J',.y 'q*(l~',[ -O ,.,c4 g .j, 3 ; ,,,, T'f2
. ,5 is T======se Procesens) 4 Appucasus' July 2,1986 " -
~ in Motion to T-==a= PP-==any c .
c.. ? ,- *Nac si.auy 22, i9u R ,- e i. a.d o a.r or Mar so,19e& A, i. / ' S. ,1. w[%,.d.. i x e j .c.,< U-j=<1p
- 7 j @ylg ..1 [' f. ;. d 'sasemans Auduban soesty's August 12,1906 Ram to NRC saanPesision'en Masbis HiB sins Rasserenas.
'.4
- I sove' Die VaDay's Aupst 14,1986 Rampones to . . . Boasd order of May 30,198&
t.. , , . g 3
..g .
- 9 Y e
.a ,
722 g4 ; e 4 . g . 0
.- , t
=
. , . . . - . m o g -*
S % k g , 4
- O 4
4 -}s '
- e. * .
, , i *
, , M. ,
T .
*ys y
r;. , .
.a* .. ;. ' '
f;;s.,p' -
' - 5" C -
-a. ,
. . t. ,
. , 3
.r,.. . ,
6 I I
- s .s . a.
.. . . . .i 42 ; .
'~,.,. ..
~ ,s t
,y y ,.J.'. ..
- " _'. 52.107(a) does not apply to the already-issued construction permits. For
.l. j,'.;6. M 7;,:
, 'f [, ' . ] that reason this Board has no jurisdiction over them under that regula-p.%'T.'.'Ql} . .
7 l /.' ,p ' !' tion. Supplement at 10. 2 P,
, , #1 (2) 1%rthermore, according to Applicants, neither the Board nor any other component of the NRC has jurisdiction over the construction permits
? y , under any NRC regulation because there is no regulation even covering
, , [.; , . ' : the voluntary surrender of construction permits as such. The Commission e,, .
s
, , ..' .I has no authority to promulgate such a regulation -it may regulate the < k, . ; .. 4 :; .
- a. surrender of a licensed facility's license only.
' ~
T. ' 9
%' Commercial nuclear power reactors are utilization facilities subject to the
*- licensing requirements of i103 of the Atomic Energy Act (1982) (42 U.S.C.
.'., \"
$ 2133). However, Marble Hill never attained the status of a utilization facility
..l,- s. ., (as defined under i 11 of the Act,42 U.S.C. 6 2014(cc)) since construction never og , ,
7 "f . , A C. ..,. # . i progressed far enough to permit the use of special nuclear matenal. Nor will 5: it. 'therefore, Applicants conclude, Marble Hill is not subject to the licensing N.$. .e,@:$,h; . a .e , . ,
/S a.es, N: pe.h.[Nh.g .c m ;^
authority of the Commission. Su ement at 6-9. w., p...r,7..g..s
.) 7
..,.. y. .. .' Assuming, despite our substantial doubts to the contrary, that Applicants' ar-guments conceming the Commission's junsdiction are fully accurate, why would s A .. f.'
. 2. y ,
','d$.' '/N:/[h Q . N . "
the Board not have junsdiction to impose site conditions on the withdrawal of the appikationfor an operating license? Applicants do not discuss this aspect
,y C . .- " '. c., ,[ . , .
9 '
...~.
- of their motion. An answer, at first overlooked by the Board, was provided
* - ?,3 -
t ; t k - s by the Staff in its July 21,1986 response to our request for briefs. Pursuant a . . q' :.4 .
'.'c - ,_$ '
to i2.107(a) a presiding officer may prescribe terms for the withdrawal of an C., . fi[; ,(' . ';[ ' ,.? c.P ' , , ' .f{ ' application only after the issuance of a notice of heanng.: 2 Awneig to the scheme for hearings under i 189a(1) of the Atomic Energy
. .: ' ' . ' g' ? ' y. f.
, q Act, where a construction permit has been issued following a hearing, the Com-
.- : j mission need not conduct a hearing on the operatmg license application unless
. c.s .' , ~ i: . a ...'
}y ' i- t, ., 1 requested by a party whose interest may be affected by the applicaten. Notice M. .y, 1
,(, f , '., J,' K ' f - '
! of the intent to issue such a license and the opportunity for such a heanng must
'Ia T ..Y. c
+
be published in the FederalRegister with 30 days' notice. Consistent with that statutory scheme the Commission, as is always the case
~
~.5 .
- 0 . : ' T , . ?.m%.3d . 4p , Kp
$$hN>y%,@.'[Qlp [pgg Mr.:.Li r f in operating license proceedings, delegated to a licensing board (one designated by the Panel Chairman) two areas of jurisdiction. 'Ihe first was to rule on requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene. The second was to Id.NM.YMN$gN@f;3V ': a Mi.X;
.7 exercise the Commission's authority to issue any notice of hearing in the event M':;.
i
- w. .
pe'l G M
, /..
d $/,o Wm1.x: i. . w t,.n*:.7 : ~ M. .; ' r _'.;. ') hk ~ Q ' h. * . D 'h;. w w. u.
- .. o e.c ,
py Q .t <.J"g:.. p! d,f?p.' .
"' @'M' .-? ' .*
- g.*,$ (a)_, ' N ",,o -:
- y 1 2.107 Ws' hinwel af _,
The Comunnaman may pameis an appaicers to witsbew an oppiacetaan pnar to the issusace of a notice of p'*? C,slf.' i:2 .1 =
- h===, en sash unas and esadisions as it may passnbe. or any, en roomving a aquest rar wiouhewel of an
, ; 31 a 4';d."., f FQ,;.f 4.x
? i, q'
- ni
- S $ . . ,
. deny the . , . er di-ia it with psejudson, widierswei af an arr a h aAar the issuance or y 7c,7,[ec ; y,v;Js,.. - . ' c, < . v, ,u r- . - .
. a se ethesins shan be en sash unas a sie pe==hns onker any passaibe.
.,,",ej, *
<- a
')
* *
- s '
x e '.f .,
-p
%. .y .m . . .... y .
--)
i '
- cg..y ,, .
4 * . 723 p..... ,. ( . @' y 7..'. ,
+ . i 0
.,y.*, <.... , -
, s 3 '
- s. e z I
-**6 3
- i
, , 3 ,
l...,, . t o, . l . . ,. e 1 [
,-7 -e. e-,y.-, .--.t-- - ----g-=.-----.i,-..---.rewyww---m'av- C--'*r-.-'wv*w-ww-+*'*"m-e**i.s-"v- ^rw w .e--' "v m
,. 9
- > .. 3 ,, m .-z-s , - <
- n. - .
- . -v, . , y,
,. m. .
.y. ..
.a
- - (
; m .
. .~ ~,. . :
~ , ,
.Ll
. i a hearing is granted upon a petition or to issue any other appropriate order. 48
.. 1%d. Reg.12,609 (Mar. 25,1983).
.'jy
'. N,y 6t ,
In compliance with the notice of umniunity for a'heanng, and in accordance G '- - with 10 C.F.R. 52.105(e)(2), the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (who is also the Chairman of the Panel)
. J. '
designated the members of this Board to rule on petitions and to issue a
,, _ l g notice of heanng if one were warranted. At this preliminary juncture of an
<' A operating license proceeding the Board designated initially to rule on petitions
.- .' - is known as a " Petitions Review Board." The Chief Administrative Judge of
. ..,..,,",, the Panel has the continuing authority to designate presiding officers to preside 17 over NRC adj@rians.10 C.F.R. 62.721(a). For ef6ciency and continuity,
.t. - -
the Chief Administrative Judge, usually in one order, designates the members of the Petitions Review Board as members of the Board to preside over any
~ '
. hearing that may be ordered pursuant to the Commission's nonce of opportunity
, ., y for heanng. 'Ihat is precisely what the Chief Administrative Judge did in this t t,. % .
y [ ' . j", a .' .cg. ; . j case. 48 Itd. Reg.19,964 (May 3,1983).
.,y s3 ' *
' o W.y. -
- M. ,j As can be seen in the background discussion above, at the time this pro-e
-c.
.gg c .
', .? Q ceeding was suspended, no notice of heanng on the application had been is-
/ sued. Standmg to intervene had not been established by two of the three peti-7 . 3.z G;' .g.: s tioners and the Board had not approved any issues for heanng from the lists of
. f '; 3 .y ' s .. ,:0 contentions aled by any of the petitioners. Nor is there presently any reason to t , s ,~ issue a nodce of heanng. The matter is patently moot. In view of the discontin-
- '~
n.J, J
'C uance of the Marble Hill project, none of the contentions advanced for litigation
, ,1, . ._] have any basis. 'Iherefore, according to the express terms of 52.107(a), this -
~ '
'W '
Board has no jurisdiction to set terms on the withdrawal of the application.' 9 Petitioner Save 'Ihe Valley mounts an argument to the effect that the notice
. c. of the receipt of the application, notice of proposed action, and notice of oppor-tunity for heanng (supra,48 I%d. Reg.12,608), issued under 10 C.F.R. I 2.105,
'. (.. u d., was feaa=Ily the notice of hearing referred to in 6 2.107(a).10 In fact, the
- g. e -
mo Board's Srst impression, arrived'at without analysis, was just that. But as we discuss above, full analysis leads to the conclusion that the regulations, statutes, A ' ' .' 'i M and the FederalRegister notice all anticipate a bifurcated process in operating
, ,, f y Q ? g . g . X i license proceedings where first the threshold intervention issue is settled, then
. . \
.,' . . ) .:.r. , , .'A. . . ..*y 1,Q; . T.P. 4 the notice of heanng is issued.
*2n U X I **~
- j,. 2 ?;'! .. %. - .. .
L
* , f % ;;,.t x W. c4 s :ty.f.' ;,; c:#',.:.
,q, j ),,.
- q y $. Q & ,N,% & } Q Q.y
- g S, )_N. $ fn--s w ,}wJa. N ,,;*. /j. ,.fa.., ,3 -
%,b," 74.y ,,( .; , p . ,, j $ , ,y, -
- 4. .. f , ; ,.~%
. , f Y ; ."- *.. ','.,'; " *,
p ,q A+ P. . 4 - Camamel far Apphaesas avoids caning he assians a peakian to "wuhdiew an apphessen" under $ 1107(a). WhGe J' we balisse that Appheasas' analysis is smaand. it is inm==ami=I to the BosnL Wheesver the theory, the Mashis
. c q% - ,, % . !" r. - '% ..(. (? 4 6 q:- Hin uans wG1 aos apasses p=== to the - - Notics of that rest is ersher a wuhdrawal of the appbcanon S . ' * , Q,*,Q J . Wct/ y. or a sound response to the paanaus to insarvene, la any evue. these via be no manics of hensing ismand on the o.s#p- . s. a ,1- '
. ,..f. p.. sr g'"av"e"lbe VaDey's Rampanse at 2 3.
.... . nl ,. , y,.' .
y
. . f1 A 1 s A- ,, h' g .
b *
.s. [ ,
i - .. .
.* * \ ' .,;
( . . g i
- l. .-
I . .
.g
. .t.. . - . . . . - , , . . - .
.. 3 .
.
- w ,
4 6 g
- g
. .ta 5
. , .rt , . . *
, , t .,s
- - . ,m, l<
. w. c - -
,. . ~ . ., 7 ; .;.
, . .u. . , 4. . a . y . .' , -
x
,, j, , a. ,
+ .
.~ ,
x
~ '
,. .. . -,: .., ..<.+,,,. ..
.q, . :. . - ..-;
. .-. . 's t . ;., . ;.9 . .%.
s
- [ .. . , 4
" ,1 '
[.*.j . .. We have also taken into account petitioners' request that, on the factual merits,
. g. . ;4
- m. $ !;. ,l'.f..g '. ay' %Y.
. l..;.,'fj ',
the Board should take junsdiction and order some type of site restoration. We
.[4c f .
~
cannot entertain those requests. In the early stages of this very proceeding
^
s a decade ago, the Appeal Board cited the juri=*'innat standard in NRC proceedings. As agents of the Commission, licensing boards exercise only those
~
+
powers that the Commission has given them. Public Service Co. of Indiana
' " (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Stadon, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC
-g '.y 1 .s.fc #., (5 m 167, 170 (1976).
~ . ..
s . . 9 IV. ORDER
... ., , s. <
The Motion to Terminate the Proceeding is granted without condition.
.,.1 4
~ . . . . . . , ...
d O:m , ' jfsm.' .,..l.6, V. APPEAL ay 1,'.2 i*t., g.:h, . , . ,.;..i.J. lp!j
. 3 aw ,.. m.s.;, y g -
5 .'$,e .-. .-M.
.m 7. *t. + .rn 'e,'j.;3,'.M. , ,. .i.h... .e. .@,
Since the effect of this order is to wholly deny petitions for leave to intervene, 5 - . jp f ,, the Board informs the parties that it is appealable in accordance with the
, . _- .. -. - . ? .- >.. .,.,.';,'. ,, c.
m.,.,C.yeV . ,. p. ..
. _. , .q M ; , ". fprovisions of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714a.
,.y ci . -4;. . .. .. .-~ . . . .
7,..7n, .,
,. 4
.q THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND T M. ' ,y.5,[.* .'..
..; .t . ,
... LICENSING BOARD
.c .
. ; -... . . ,...#,... . ,.,7.-. ..,
s-
.- ',: .;. - ;. . 7t. f(, ;;
A. ,
-! Oscar H. Paris
. ( A..
".r. , - .- A. . . . ..,. a .
t.. .v ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 3.
, - / .:
3 Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
,. 4 - . ;1
.,. r .9 -
....c.r.,,
p .
, , s.. ' . . . .
s.-3 . ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 3.- . ,. .: , .: - s r - - ,
. . s. v. .y -
+:. . 1
-:m;? - T', -
x . ?..s. ,h.. .U@ ' , ',' . 9 Ivan W. Smith, Chaarman 1
% .:c;'.3 f S.M. @ /Q.fc4 d.;c.
jqi ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
- e.ua '-
- L. .;L g&M. ,w 5.
g(n.: 'n.:~&
,u .e . s..
,yp.} JUDGE
% .; N.
- .M,Y ' vf.T.1 p...S,f'.] &,-\.
- 4.OQ$ 'le.Q.+lal%{.;, :. 6.'.f f.'bs *lBethesda, Maryland
. r- ?.;:+ ,. . ,pr.. November 3,1986 y .,s
- g. ,, n.* ,e ,x,
,.m , , e.-. f ...g -g .
.,(34,.,;..
- awq +
+% p;n. ;p,
{ ;.' 6,,o/
- p. .,
..~A>,,,. h s. r c
- y. m.g .3 . 7,,r,1.o 6.
.q m... ;.,, yr
- f. ~ .. .a g
W. ,;:.::r d &.. .h.q.,,'.* .y ,.m
~
.f,7%. $.,,,u. A Q. .a .i f
^. .~.b
^ . z. ,
1.v. 'et '.Af. 3.%-,V T . D. .:c
. ;r:., p.t,.r.m.
',' . * +.. . ;,, L'c. . {':j;n. . .:.:. G. .%. ,.
,' ^ " y.A? ....,,.s /* .
- s
. j .
- r' * , , , . ** q'.,..
'n .
. . T' ,s .
t s - i. . . . . . , . . Q+; T'. ,
' . ");o":l .y . . . ;* o.
..4.
. n .1
,,.- . . . . 3, ,. .,7.m. ~ ,.; 725
. . ..t
,. i p * .
, . t ..a. *.
.g g 4 ' * -
i ., ~
% . s .. . . .' }
t l+. ,
. ,. . t
. I- * * ' * * * * ' ' ' "
~ * *
. s .
\[ ,, I ,. \ j l
. I '
(.
* . P I, , '
g j . .
- m. ,
. a . -
7f... .
-u..
~ '
.,. , =. j g. ' .* ,
. .. -
- e .
.t' ,,
i
.- .. . v: . .
s . . , ,
' - ~.
,- 1.
q- 2 .,
. v . . ,4 8
,; .e -,- . 3<: ...,s...;>A...?'.,,,
* -
- i 3, - . i
, ...- . ,.. 3. .
S ;-
- Cite as 24 NRC 726 (1986) LBP-86-37A
, ' - ',f..er.l,,. . ". ' , f i n,, ~
m,. -
- u. ., . .! .
/ '-- :
i.- ' 9..i . a ." " , .. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n s 7, ,' - Before Chief Administrative Judge:
, , ,, . +
~
. N.
- d B. Paul Cotter, Jr.
~
t: .
- a. -:
, y.
e in the Matter of ASLBP No. 87 543-01 Misc.
. ., s .- :<. .', 'a-~ I SUFFOLK COUNTY AND q
A . . f . .g;...
's .,W :Al e '.t W .,'. si ,
STATE OF NEW YORK
'. % p - p. .w ', .. MOTION TO RESCIND OI;h:,f,;:;:t..V;;;cy'(4.)..W:U.).
RECONSTITUTION OF BOARD
%. . . ;l T. 7. ~ ~ .i.-.
, J.iMM'1 '
BY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE s.,
.. . >.. E.; e',, . .. , 2.
s .,. ,a.. . ... :, , m. m i. - JUDGE COTTER
. J . g:,7 .; - . n., ; , -
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, y.: .y# l . ' , Unit 1 November 7,1986
. . ../.. . -. ,. 5 [s' .
s.
.~. .
.c s, .
.n .
~ $ J . 3 1 ,' , ,., f' : 2,' . . In this Memorandum and Order, the Chief Administrative Judge of the A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel denies Intervenors' motion to rescind
- ."w"...". .w.,.
A-
?... h,'. :.:t the reconstitution of a Licensing Board.
,, .w
.. .. s
. . . . . .- , , . s.s p...-.. 3 .:, 3 . . , . -
. t .t.. .
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS: RECONSTITUTION
. .. y. ,
.,.y , ;.*/.
.O,-
(,-l.?'#; ; .',.
'Ihe Chief Administrative Judge is responsible for appointing a new member a . .. a - ' '
, 7,, ! . .
.t g: '1 to a licensing board when a sitting member becomes unavailable, whether during C;3 D M:,,f,$.'dl
, y ,'
W .UjN.9U @ l'"'d .;j or after a hearing, and the term " unavailable" applies when a board member's ri t .L.w;
- Q obligations to a case conflict internally or with the member's obligations to
. ~;,'c $ another case.
+ Ll:.y .{., ?. O ;;:-: y;; b'6 ,Q Q .;f
.. ...g. p
- y< *, a ' r*..t..?.U;.
0.;.;":/'I','.
"$.i,:ffUQ}'-l*J..lY
,m.<..- ..
@. ,*.EN D , w @' e .f6,,'
Nkd ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS: RECONSTITUTION
- + .
n . .. r
?P;; "'%'M K. ' 'Ihe decision to reconstitute a board or create a new one in an particular case
[b is solely a matter of agency discretion. Absent some evidence of an improper Utd'f[Mi .-db, f'5,*f ?.h', f.5.$'.;?[.N w',;f td,ri n..ca. p+<.;i.ep..-
+ .. ..
. . 4 e. f. ? ,,
exen:ise of that discretion, the decision is simply not open to question.
..i*.,s* .
> s..'.s
.. . i-st... %
4
.q-,;';,gf3
.w e:y* e ;,
; /*
*5 .. >-
, p-g.t ; - f d
s,.. ,,
'I *
- i is;g.,,,c- . ,
- ?
.y
, ~ ... , . , ' , * ' .' . i l ' f'
-= N. 726 4...
a ,
,.q. <
N. ,
< .b. . ., '
]j
' ,, ( , s' +
.s.
. ., s .: ,
' ~ , . .' t... .').
. __w
, , ~ ' . . . . ...-
,.,.f,- .
, - s D '
- ~.
3 q e'
, g p
.y .o ,'
.',,, ,4 , , . . . * , ,. * .* s
- t
- _ '
T
. . - .__ ;- . . n x.
~,
- q. ... ..
.w, *
.=
. 4 .
. . , 3.; .
, ..a >
i
, 4 4 .
~ -
4; , 3 m .? .
; l
. . v . , .- '422 ; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER y.
t
. :., - ~
?.+ .y:, ,.,e g;s
.. s . . .
.c. a
. y ;.; ;
' - .c . - 4 ^,
flJ. . On October 22,1986, Intervenors Suffolk County and the State of New L -
, York filed a paper titled, " Motion for Rescission of ' Notice of Reconstitution of
' ~
Board' and Subsequent ' Clarification' and Motion for Expedited Consideration" (the Motion). In this Motion, Intervenors object to the Chief Administrative
. .. . ' 1. .- ,. . ' # , [ . s, Judge's replacement of two Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel judges
,J.- ',,' -
1'. y} on a Licensing Board that is heanng one set of issues in a proceeding initiated
;..s .
- - 4" .my, by the Commission as part of the Shoreham proceedings and assigned NRC c . 1 Docket No. 50 322-OL-5. Intervenors assert that the Chief Administrative Judge is without authority to take the action objected to, that the schedule conflicts
. stated as the reason for the Board's reconstitution were not explained, and that if schedule conflicts were to arise it would be a matter to be resolved between i' . ', 9[
.7 c q M M @.- '
.. the judges and the parties. Intervenors cite no legal precedent in support of their mouon and do not rely upon any af6 davit.
gM' - ;.'Uf. MyN, % il.N.T. 3: d,.k.j fM, T/-$y. The reconstitution of the Board objected to in the Motion pertained to one
; y. .,c.. 3 g -v m . c; -,
segment of the Shoreham proceedings which are presently assigned two separate
*4'. , . . . . ,,
4 duhr numbers, namely 50-322-OL-5 (the "5" docket) and 50-322-OL-3 (the f ,',.. ,;. , J . 9. .- c . . y. "J .1.R, - ' '?.T. ., -
"3" docket). The notice of reconstitution was issued October 7,1986, and a
./ '
A.. .ny..'J " Clan 6 cation" was issued on October 17,1986.
,, t . 4. ,. . m. 7. * , A. W,O. - "Ihe Clari6 cation stated that the reason for the reconstitution was because of
^
' + . ;.
c
.m ; e - . . . , .:
the multiple issues pendmg in the proceeding. The Clarification noted that the
. ,m .
l.c . . . "5" docket concsi,cd the emergency planning exercise proceeding instituted
,/c a . ' .g(lg '3. , %(;j,{ by the Commission on June 6,1986, CLI-86-11, 23 NRC 577 (1986), while
- c. 'g A ;'[7. e the "3" docket concerned all other issues, namely: (1) the adequacy of the
"*j ~ - lc ...7 'j entire emergency plan remanded by the Commission; (2) issues remanded by
.V~.1, ,
,T , . ; I the Appeal Board; and (3) new motions to reopen the record on several other
, -;<. .; 9
. y',"Os . l, , . ,
. issues. 'the Clari6 cation also noted that the two judges replaced in the "5" docket c%, ?. . -
.. 'e . .',n . ;
j! , ' t contmue to serve on the larger body of issues under the "3" docket number and
, e ,' '
that one judge would serve on both dockets. F, /i .M ' ,.,~ ,0 C?4 ;.c!*a , Ac ,0 , c. p .T ip In an October 22, 1986 letter, counsel for the NRC Staff responded that L* 4 the Motion was not well grounded. Staff asserts its understanding that there l'f.i: gir $g'C j '!.6 ?.f ;[y,M ;
,' are three controlling concerns in subject reconstitution (namely, continuity f.1,.:s%g#3$ f s,t y $ @ >,
in boards, a new board's understandmg and appreciation of prior limited-
',%.@'MY W ; D. Q i @h M M 3 ' 9[.(t$..g% .
appearance statements by the public, and the Commission's mandate that the exercise heanng be expedited). '!he Staff found those concerns satis 6ed. i Y U.% ? f %$6 M i $ r @4
. ],/*W On October 30,1986, LILCO opposed the motion arguing that the motion
[NU,f3AhhE y.fF: M'l;6,d6.gg[',$)g}Sd' &.T y T f Q.?g was not properly Aled, the matter was one committed to agency discretion, no Pmjudice had been shown, and that the appointments would avoid delay and 3
- 5. f.. c.:S ,
. wa.. -
- 9. y , c ,"- reruitant financial prejudice to LILCO. LILCO noted that the manner of Board n -Q.a1l,'.' . R..+. W Y. . . -X. Y U..
3, .
^.
. . . . . ,- ., _v-c'. . .v,g
. x
, W yt39 4' *' ' , .1 727
~
7' , M ',
,. 4 i 1
- a. .S3 - ,,
q e- 8 1 O e- g
- , .. - . + .
. 6 g . 9
n c. w_g, . . 1 .a . ,
,*y
+- * - -
y.., . ; - 7. ;.~ . . M [, ,' .-
,;.: M'.., -
. i s.. :(
.~
.v... .v,- ,
. :e. +.- c ..
4 a + . , -
. ..y.,.-+ % -
3'j ' ly c ..i
, ;..N pw . S q ) J' ,
.t? ,-
- .: w
; ; m .:y D M./ ,. ;y. -
>y e . P. s ,.n ,. .
; :.v.
f " ' ' g ,' .
' e { :Q ,
. J :. .
expansion preserves continuity of experience, and that the expansion was done
- g. '.F , ' . - . m, ,
i.y.;d- ( .. in a manner consistent with the public interest 4 ",,g,t; ;
- f.t ..V ]', On November 7,1986, Intervenors responded to the LILCO filing renewing a ; :.fy,y ' 3. .. W.; QJ.<.,i;[j.G 4, r. . , ( g ,' its earlier arguments. The only new matter was a reference to a letter written in 0i- * ^
. ., $_ response to a congressional inquiry. The letter noted that the areas inquired into f, , >
.f
- s. ?
[.- ; 1 , . were protected and that the reconstitution was solely as administrative decision.1
?
n.
- ' ; m. . , d ? .}
. . . ' ,2. : , , N. . .~... . " .
,, g ;jtj , . Y. DISCUSSION r-y.< : _.;p;
,a .
. A, .
-c g. mny .y w w y y;
'Ihis is at least the second time these Intervenors have filed a motion that 3'-
"is anomalous and is devoid of basis or apparent precedent"in the Shoreham
;c
, , .:K,[' proceedings. See Sufolk County and State of New York Motionfor Disqualili-y./ U.g* C ;
cation of Chief Administrative Judge Cotter, LBP-84-29A,20 NRC 385,386
. .,. .;x $ -5 b
. (1984). Intervenors' position would prevent the Chief Administrative Judge (also
' EM.
- 7. -;
dkl':& fl$ $NM:k.kts%'? M Q;[.7'P: ~Y.'pg 2.hT,'gj q designated Chainnan) of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel from dis-charging his responsibility to assign judges so as to provide for the hearing and
'. 9.,f,.,'e., m. q..,y.p ,. 't; rW. ,a- E c;. resolution of controversies ripe for decision. 'Ihe Chief Administrative Judge
.O E< : it'. ;p3 ' . .
s , MC is charged with appointing licensing boards to conduct hearings in the most Jt.Wg; expeditious manner consistent with due process and fundamental fairness.10
, ; q* /g ".,. gQ y',W ,hC; -
k 'y. .i$;P'l J2 ,,d C.F.R. 961.11, 2.704, and Part 2, Appendix A, at 120 (1986). See also State-
..v . ,. ,
,r,
.[l 1 ,.. '
** ..4 s
~ , :.v.s.*l.,
4
,U. *.;,,,'?. - q ' l
- i. 4
*J.. .
q 9..:
, . . -? x. A*e.,. *
. s.
pt ; . - .g. , .. .. y,r, A; .s,. Jt ~/L . .,. s y , y. v. *n :.~ ;.. . , ,: -r z- ,- ' q .
. . * . o.
i.< *. .>. , e - ' * * ' i . 4% , '*3. , , ' . ? *'/ g Theletter, dated octobe 31,1986 from se Chief Aeninistredve Judge to P- _ - Madey and served on
. . ;, g . . , . e . the penia, maiad in pamnent part:
-". ...
- 7 , .,
- y. , N ,3 Your jouer inquires into .wo pmiected areas: (1) the esercise of my suspensibility es Chief Admin-e- . . f/ ', . 2 f , pf "' isiresive Judge in assiemns judges to a pamcular case and G) the mensal process and delibersoons of
")" .7*,,.N @ ',*' . .,,'
. f;. ?
;? , . c,*/ ". *
. f F.'y. f r. t .jy,p*.g . /,,M . ' # Q the judges on the shoseham Board itself. Beih of tnese areas ase fully pseescued from inquiry to preserve
. the insayisy of the adjudicatory process, h would be improper for me to campsonuse ihn pseeses at this tv.g lI
. ?' yys.' yp ,
s Conenassion by responding to inquiries imo such asees. E, t .. . F P_
.f.j 7 , ,%;'4 , *
- j,' .Q,i+%, '
9.. .- J !1 _ in syrnpethy with your empsesmen of deep conoem. I do want to go so far as to infonn yen that my _ . -- of the shossbarn Boesd on the narrow issue of the emergency esercise was o :y
., w ,, ; wholly an imanal Penal denmon made solely in carrying out my . __; ' _ , under the Adnumsunave
, g f;< '3 ..J . '.,:'. : ; , y'f .. . 'E . : t . '
Passedse Act, hty decisian was not inauenced by any onhar ennaderemon. There wee sh=ah==1y no j/h.Q Q., ' e%*/
- M' % il ,.4 M .y i y', [*.'/ fcf. Y jl
.T/i 6 . direst or induest, wuh anyone amende this odRee comesnung est decision or the issuense g .
af the osenhor 17,1986 cien8esema. . . . [The - was a puely s&iumstrouve decisia meds
- ,Q ; ir f P.p,,d in this esse (as well as many embas) solely for the pospese of =hn=ena, washia=d conAicts in order to j.*J t ,p p%f ' -
C' . T ,+ .,g M ' %4 N .'d['* $ p@y .,s@' D "k '9 maid deley. As penses en me sh-h pneending me senios is a res hiy pranpi d-- ei mer emmemme at annamel ==r==== I naes also the wou-estabhshed pnnciple that judges am fumphie (at the
.Mg, };, . ';#/ 4.k &p.
$ *QPG**.,y.lPf G ' N p'.d NBC wishin ihar own espeass), a truism paseaniarly apt at thas meang past in the amargency plannag icS ' *. * .(..Y j : . f eEmeine psensann$.
.. S ,' N' @ w...[fN .
W g.]v f usernr. om p.hi6. m.md in em cam inake puedy cieer, a is anpiy nor =ue en se ac maued
.a y ,
(**1**: y . i ~.y
. f.'J . Q, y*,"2 h,.. . .-4..n..Q.h.
~
- g. , 3 . . ., y c. .Q.,..;.Mw .
;6Y M
*f ;q.*y/ 'y* ;% ?,'. y[] ?.*%p',M beesd will be dealing wuh a subjest as to which the peer board had "saisnave knowledge of the issues "
De psosseding aa===== ag the emergery planmns esercise at shonham was ininated pursuant to a c - .sser de.ed June 6,19sa Commmons wem only meemiy ednuned by ader dmed ociober
* - %,e 94.1 ' . t 'j .1 . ? 3.1986 No beennes have been held, and discovery has just begin. De adneaed ,N.'?'[.[k,s;...3, i' ?"
J '- j' 7 %.' # /f.fc:, @' 7 q./,y..'j
, by law sonst be deaded sotaly on the bens of evidense and tesernomy that has yet to be pausented.
; win.and
.* _ ...>e, , s
.., *'- ',6 [ *(, A, i
.~
; j.: .N ? 4w .s'fsw.. ',i.O'} l Q. ,'iy, N
'4 72g f , . ,* 4. . s* a' . . 5,-c'.a # .
e '\ .6
,Fs* *
.u.-
4 3-
.s c .
**g- . s.',.g*
- s.o . '<*% , t
'4e/. * -J
. , ,; ,' ... W .e . P i ,",3 .% : ,
\ .s .
.,. of , . , c.. .
,.e' ' ,* .g J'N '
- i e.
."=
- r. ;r* - -
" . 3. ;'. .
1 , , .
- , \
*c . . .(.
. ~.
- l
'.. . *: s e. p/ M, ,, 3 - = l , y
, : I '
., e.
.g, *
'l . .i. , kj +.
m w . , -
.% , . . w >
s.
.s.
[ ,
./ . - - ., ..;.,3 .: .,'
.;. , . . v ,
y. f
.,,~. ;, . . , .o > .
ment of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452
. '. , 5.
. ; ?, ,
i, , c.. , - '- - (1981). p, ^ - !" "Ihe Chief Administrative Judge is also responsible for appointing a new
- g. - '- * . .'d i- 'e. .. . ' . '. ' 7, ' .
A member to a licensing board when a sitting member becomes unavailable, even during or after the hearing. 10 C.F.R. % 2.704(d) (1986). New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC,582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir.1978). The term
* ~
, " unavailable" applies to a variety of situations, the most frequent of which is
. , ,,s -
F . e - a the need to replace board members when their scheduled obligations to a case
, , 7 N ,
j'. * .[ conflict either internally in a particular case or with their obligation to another c, ~
,v f .- - '. .
'f, case. Similarly, because of the size and complexity of NRC proceedings, the need to appoint multiple licensing boards in the same case is not uncommon. As a matter of good administrative practice, potential conflicts should be anticipated
. '. +
as early as possible in a proceeding to avoid having the parties waste time, effort, t . . and financial resources.2 In the instant case, the citizens of Long Island and all E,,' <
, . ;. j- ' . . . ..y the parties are entitled to a decision on the merits of the controversy as soon as Tc d'dh, ../@!k .h M.i reasonably possible.8 7.; S, , c C 4 T,,@ .W; f. '.'.,'q^ N ..
S Ultimately, however, the decision to reconstitute a board or create a new one
, ; ,.v..., ,
. q.,, in a particular case is solely a matter of agency discretion. Absent some evidence
. '",'* , . ,- of an improper exercise of that discretion, the decision is simply not open to
, c.,c:,
,,x
, C.1 .:
n= . p.3.,, ..c .- question. Intervenors' motion offers no evidence, not even an affidavit. In fact,
. - +
- v. . . - there is no such evidence.
.l 2L ' w'.i -
In light of the total absence of any basis for the motion, it inust be denied.
..e . * .
-s '~ . 3 a '-
y 4..
- 4 '.j .
3
.q .'
? .i m s
' *# ~' '
j
, p.. '* ' . .
, .. .e4 ., . , .: ;
~
s.
.. . '6 < .;
1, *y
, . o, .,
. 3.*.
t* ,p.4 - p .e A. s',,, .- . t<s
- u. . <t .
. ,, ; ; - 'f
. . .f.* s, . .
. - .,.? Q .. 'yfy
. l ,. 5',.he.99 y, ... .,. * * ? ,'1. .l. ,, " "._.n '.'fa . *'4 . n
.a ,n' .., r T*
6 ' . > W. ' b,f. f.*4;1..'+ ,,.+. ? . f;;I d.*
' . W r.
.;.d..'.* k;.....4' . . <,y[jg n .e , _ . , + *
- u s ]: '.D*/g, **kN ; ' 4" *
. ' */
- y gy -x th;- .* . -9'a.s.e .
Af;" a For eaample, in the last 2 Assel yes e alone, m**=atimi has been y in is inmances, and 6 cases (. ' ' . [.- , ., # *5 t .j d *, C,* ". have requued sedtiple Usensing boerde. sinos the cristaal shasuharn opemang licese board was established in
.[*K.f.'y'f,'a?b 't. f, A. ;$.47'M . - 'a ?m *p
~
.k.,
'. 2..*,' ?Q 1977,14 of the Penet's judges have served on one or aume of the case's 4 pnncipal m
,, ,.,f...
':?.h. *W sf.! '. ?py ,
'y)L"J'. , 4 .,
J.y c , l' ' n s,,s,,,,.. wotion ,ere,e to umi,ed.a- .ateme,,,, ses,d by d,e ucen.n. sos,d betore reconsimi-tien, such staternante are transenbod and thus are avedable for review by new judges en a board. However,it is 4i,*.;l :.,, ., . i ' . *: e,;. - . .'j y L. well establiebed that limited appearance matanents ase not evidence and can be takes into account only to the t C , ?"cv. ; .y - - < . g," ' ;.. = 7,
+
satent they may alert the licanang board and the parties to areas where evidence may need to be adduced.10
;'.97. .; '4.'W ..' , w. 1 ' : $. ']W*.. A, f(.',, y,4 . *A C.FJt. I2.71s; Part 2. Appendia A. 6!U(b);lewa E!acaic light 4 Power Ca. (Duane Amold Energy Center),
T
-- .'M $.;.-f't,,'A.,,
~
d At.AB.108. 6 AEC 19s.196 eL4 (1973). w ' d' . ., 4'l,,.,r,-
.' ;-- ], 729
- .j
- e. ! '
* *& e
}
9 .
* +
-.,+-
e 6 6 *
*a ,
e
. 8 e
I I # . t
* ,x ,, '
..=.r,. .
. >.( , - -
s <_ . , . t
.f. - 3>
.+ ' a *
- s. a. . .
; .a
,,v
., t .
y .. ,
- y. . .c .
. , . 4..
., p 6,-
.s .
s ORDER
. ...t.- ,
.e .
.. . .6
' .) For all the foregoing reasons, it is, this 7th day of November 1986, l.7 ,1,.l,'qJ t~ '
ORDERED
/c . ;'. '
# - that the Suffolk County and State of New York Motion to rescind the
~
+. .
, , reconstitution of the Shoreham Board shall be, and it hereby is, denied.
, ,c. . .o e :
+ec .,f_t , ,; ; ..
Y< 1. . , . . . '. y.- / .' 9 T. B. Paul Cotter, Jr.
. s c...9.....-, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE
. . ... . , - JUDGE
, .i J . ' ; p.
. v. ,
November 7,1986
' v. ;):g f. ,.';p.! 4..P,-M. . . - . p. ,.- .- 3 .., . . ' Bethesda, Maryland
,.. qm A...<. . .< .s. . .
. r,.. .w... ... u.s......,.,..
; . . ; . , :w. . . . . . .
..n....w~.,...,
- '8 . ., .. .
l l,'.,...e.
, . .. ,. ? q*J,~. ' . .Lp ; . >y . .; r , - ~ f .,
- y. .
. .* i *r, . e y ,,,~:.;,.,.t.,:,+';.,,.=...~-.~..,'.',.....)
e
..s..
i
,, 9,... ' . ' . . . . . ,
.,,,.?ys., -
1 s.uy.:, .. .,.. . . , -
. . . . . _.... i..
., ... m.,. . u . ...,/ . . , .
,r. .
*. a. ..*., c,<* *.. m.g ,. , +. , . ",
- t. s . ' * ,
>; x; . c 2 . - } ,. ..; y 3 .,2 .., ,
s , w- , .,
. . ..n.- ...r.t -
,: . . .. . c.
. e. .: , ,
. , ; 2. : n.-. .I .
. s e.
.. . i 8 s * (
y g .
. e,.+- .,.
.o .n .
e . . c .' . , ~- g- - t
. . . . . ... c ,..
% *=
(y..'.6. * .4 *.e. .,, le . f
. , .I
- a. , .. _ , , y'
't, e -
,,.. ./ ., . .
w.
, .y a .
m,. - tp.
- . w :. : ,,p .v: . >s. . . r -H- n-'e
- > . . . . 3%a;.>.. y.w .w. r. ..i ..e,. s . ,. . :.. .
, 3 .j , p q-; p , 7 4 .,.,e s ,,.,.g
.,., c .,
. .. , . r p, . ..; .
. , . . m. , : .. . ., v.. e ,. . . . . .v, r, r c. t s.
.s . 3 ,.
H..
.e.
34
..s
.2 ,a e.
'n* ... : 94 c.f, .hc}y ~c.
. , g . . ,c .'
,. . ,.*.. ; 1.
y,,
- ,4,' .*<:.m.n,'.. ~ ,.;..,, a: . ; 4, t
[ , .~ . a. , ...
"m .. O gy* , . .
g , ';.. * . ...
. * .I
' . f I.-.j,...,,a. .w'f ...r~ ..,t l*.
W n- ;. .
. ,, . ; .f.
, . ;s ,~..,
.Y ,, . ' ,w,..
-.. t. - . . .
wy;. w:x . - ? A
. . . ' , .....m.,t.'.
.- . >. . .c. . ; ;,s, ,: up. n., . ., . .;
w. r, p.; .. ~ , . .. .<..;,. - u.
.. .,. ,;. . . .,.u. . , ,
o , t .=
- f. . Q; ';,';f ~.', . . [.z *. . .V...; . ....
'* : ;i. .' 730
- i. i.,; s.
- 1. , ' ' .4. .
. -s ,
l,A .,4.' F g
~ .
..l.. . .
. . r. < ,
4 I " I g .g- , I, ( ' w. . g
- ~ . .. .
-.; r ,
s
, , . g.w 1 ,- ; :,-
- ~
. . E
. , .s
.e
, . . , ~.; s . . -
s, .
; o ,
'. {
. -~ w - . . , .. .
- 4
~'
f." .,._' LBP-86-38
. . M. i .
. Cite as 24 NRC 731 (1986)
- c. . ? - ;. .;;*O..K. .
, . Q; n
.'.;,..~. . . . . '. ..
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c . . .
,,.,.t
.4 .
',s.
'. Before Administrative Judges:
2.! ' i
.. .> . n
. Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson Dr. Richard F. Cole f Dr. Jerry Harbour
. '. , ' u.:- ".i.
.J.h w; v.f . ;1, [q'c.*,;m ..
. .; .vv s.s,. ..,.v . E: m .. :'e.. *.*
- s. , n..
, .s. .
--(-...
, ,- w , , p ..u. .. e.... y .f.; ; --.. , .
... , '; g.- . In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-352 0L
-, .4 . . ,
50-353-OL
- .. > ,;; . . . .e a
. .a - ..
. c.
. f .7 . - j n . ,.; n. .
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY i '. r .. - (Limerick Generating Station, November 10,1986 Units 1 and 2)
- 4
. e.
s . '. ,, , ,' 4' In this Supplement to the Fourth Partial Initial Decision, the Licensing Board
-] resolves a remanded issue in favor of the Applicant, finding that armngements in place at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford for the notification j{
.' and mobilization of off-duty correctional officers in the event of a radiological
,- ,, [ ,, ' cmergency at the Limerick Generating Station are adequate and meet the
".. ))
-m- .
requirements of NRC regulations.
- .c .3 .. >
. t. . , .,,. .j c..
;y- , . " 7: w. , -l; APPEARANCES
.'.' z. .. d' .'
. ,q- . .. . .,, ..
,. ..r. s r-xr,f ' ' .'. l M " ;"
- I.,. 3. W"$ Robert M. Radar, Esq., and Nils N. Nichols, Esq., of Conner & Wetterhahn,
, ,[i .y;.Qyg;;; m'.Qc,gy,a'q3'i' P.C., Washington, D.C., for Philadelphia Electric Company. rw, v; -
,a.e, <9,- - .. .; . t + :-
Ob..W.' in.7.y'g"!.,Joseph fig. Rutberg,
- e. Esq., and Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq., Office of the General k: . .P;, c',I,'n
,- vQ,q.;g',s .
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., for
. e* 2. 3.';$ t . *-<p3,..' 9 g"p j *gg:, g e. ', !.., g ..p[, 'N Z. > :]i. the NRC Staff.
.. . .. ;.::v : . 1 ; .< ; . ; .2<
~ , ' . .
c.. .,
- y
.., . i . , . q . .. : . .J :,., ,... , .;:t..
,s.. -_
2
. : s ., ,. -
"L'e, 731
.,, .t; n,. .
.i. .
;. .~ + . , ,.
,- .;. y ,
. ,)
- ); D b Oi ,,g s v.s - 4
., . 'a 'l 4 '1 ,
g* .% \ s * g y t
Theodore G. Otto, III, Esq., Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Camp
^
Hill, Pennsylvania, for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
'm- ,-
i Michael Hirsch, Esq., Office of the General Counsel. Federal Emergency
, Management Agency, Washington, D.C., for FEMA.
. Angus R. Love, Esq., Montgomery County Legal Aid Service, Norristown,
. .y . i. , .
. . Pennsylvania, for the Inmates of the State Correctional Institution at
.4 ~
Graterford. Pennsylvania.
. TABLE OF CONTENTS
.V
. ,. . n -
. 6 .
Page U. .
., - , . .. ; - I. SCOPE OF DECISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733
. . .-.a , ' .9., . ,
. c
.y,
- - i
, .v ., .
, 4 , a0 . , . .,+ ,. _.x.,. ,4 ' 7 ,
y ,
~.
II. B ACKG ROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733
. 3 III. FINDINGS OF FACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 A. Manpower Needs to Effectuate an Evacuation of Graterford . . . 735
? " -
. B. Procedures and Capabilities for Notifying Off. Duty Correctional Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 C. Design and Capacity of the Commercial Phone Network . . . . . 738 D. Reliability of Commercial Telephone Network for Notifying
>" , Off Duty Oraterford Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 740
'I E. Events in Northeastern Pennsylvania Involving Overloaded Telephone Circuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742
, F. Corroborating FEMA Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743 1 'i ..,~
G. Effect of Notification and Mobilization Procedures upon
" ,,i
+
Evacuation Time Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743
, H. Comparability of Telephone Systems Used to Notify i Graterford Staff and Other Emergency j
'~-
Response Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744
,x, . + . ~.
y; ... . ; y,
. - * - - *
- E.,
. IV. CONCLUS IONS OF LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744 3,.'.v. 9 4 ,3 ' y , .' 4 d j M V. ORDER................................................ 745 M p ; ,
. ,L .*. a' **:,....~.,.,.. ...
, v -
** n. T *$v,,*r* '. . l y,. 3 , , 4 ' . . . , ' , -- - .. ,- . kJ- >. '.
yc
.~._.
e g, * . . ,' )
....e
. . fe '. . ' , . , ., ', aP 9.,,?.'8 .
1, en. ..
.e. . . ; ..**
. s.yv. ' .a .
. . . ,x <x,a,, . . .... : .. -
r r. . . ,. - 4 4 - '* u.
?. e
' 3'
) *L .
4 .
+ . '
' . .,_t,-
- { [ ,p [ & *' a u,, ,
.p.-
, . J
.- . ,. . 6 ,;
REGARDING MANPOWER MOBILIZATION AT THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
. AT GRATERFORD
- , 7 . w.
.- 1 . .
I. SCOPE OF DECISION
. a.
' . . ,~ ,
His Supplement to the Iburth Partial Initial Decision (PID) addresses the remanded contention on manpower mobilization at the State Correctional Insti-tution at Graterford (SCIG) in the event of the need for an evacuation because
. of an emergency at the Limerick Generating Station (Limerick). On the basis of
..,I the record before it, the Board, in the context of the litigation, co'ncludes that there is reasonab!c assurance that, in the event of a radiological emergency at the y:'ih['gv,.- .
A W .J U.'. - . M l [f;q M ,s , X, ...J Mk ' Limerick Generating Station that requires the evacuation of the SCIG, the callup p, ;H f , - :- p y j 7. . ' ' . system will achieve its designated purpose to notify off-duty personnel needed to
' W v' implement the evacuation. In considering the effectiveness of the callup system, j, f. ' and the several available options for mobilizing off-duty correctional officers,
'. - ' i f, *, ' l' *
'. I the Board also 6nds that the previous evacuation time estimates made for the
,i" q. " -
1 SCIO are reasonable and compatible with the notification and mobilization plan.
% s i
, g j
~
j, . . y , II. BACKGROUND
.- On August 28,1986, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal
,. ,., Board) issued ALAB-8451in which the Appeal Board decided the appeals of
. c,; ,
, the Inmates from the Licensing Board's Iburth PID2 and the Licensing Board's earlier rejection of some of the Inmates' proffered contentions.8 De Appeal 5
f ' q' '
. i Board affirmed the Iburth PID in all respects except for its rejection of the
;r '. .
. . Inmates' contention conceming manpower mobilization. His one contention g,f t-
}. '
, ' 3, was reversed and remanded to the Licensing Board for further consideration. De Inmates' revised manpower mobilization contention alleges that
.,y , . . . r,v S 7:0,. . v./. C . , : . ,; .
*Q Ll.' ... ~;' e'-l1 ',4 l' . ,,"x . * $'. ..
8q.8j' : ., : N ~p.m K .m . ?A.x . . . , J(%'.., w,*'cfa. ~; 4,. l .. . *- Q: '
- , y ,., , . .
P. N ," , a ,6 .o T ,.. ,., d :P Q-l[;' 8 ",;$j ,;.. s
. :.z+:. , . ev .. y 'w ;,"e s .'*Y,. 3 <
(d$ 44. h *i,E N p,^.
- f,-f e m - s..r ..w -p- ? *%
n o. : .. .. 3 g ; 7 e.. N.j , . , . S.,. , 1 AIA8-44s. 24 NRC 220 (1986). j ,. -? ,, , .7 9 ', f. , . , 2 t3P 8s.2s 22 NRC 10i (198s).
, ' M. ';}; 8 tu==n seeni ord- or June i2.19:s (unpublished), recondderseas denied, ticensma Boani order of July
~ ' a T ;,7 p.i. .j ,,; +1 ye.,?, . -
. r >l',y 7,ri, .
, ,a 2, i,ss (unpublished).
. # . i. ,.
l .
,. . . ., f, , . .
,,t .
733
, g e s , ?
l '
, . 1 i
i
. .v ._.
^
I
* . ~ '
g., , 6 % ,
. a
~ -
L
n , ._ < - .
. .. , ., j
- - 5 *
~
J. l
- 5. ,
i l u i
.i h,
[tlhere is no r==-ht assurance that t$e call up system to be utilized in the event of .
* *a
'. . a nuclear emergency in order to rnobilize the entire work force of the State Correcuanal 1 *
*: i i
famanna [ sic] at Graserford will achieve its designated purpose.
. .a
, -( . ; y.. ; ' Proposed Revised Contentions (May 13,1985) at 2.
, In the event of an emergency requiring evacuauon, the SCIO Radiological l , ,7 Emergency Response Plan (RERP) provides for the mobilization of its off-t w a' . ' .*. .
duty employees through a pyramiding telephone callup system. According to
~
^
g, t.
.?$ -!
the Inmates' contention, this plan could faal if the commercial telephone lines
' ^
become overburdened during an emergency and thus limit the SCIG's ability I , to carry out its inenpact mobilirarinn plan. In support of their contention, w . the Inmates noted the previous testimony of RichatJ T. Brown, Chairman, , s ,, Lower Providence Township Board of Supervisors, who stated that during a
, past emergency (Hurricane Agnes), the local commercial telephone network was
.' overburdened and its service impaired. 'It 18.149-50.
' ' .:y W.. u
. W- . '
.e
,s,a.
.- - 42.1. ,
f In the opinion of the Appeal Board,
;7
- 6; .
-(
. .e T,J .;- .,p{
- f 4. '..'
[t> -"*'t clearly raises as issue that can be the peoper subject for litigatice in an
; .; t.,, y 2 .
. ,q ,3 opeentes license a " ; the adequacy of the - '
syseen to be used in c, the event c( an amargency.
.i ;
. . . ,lf*]
f..' -
..,t
- e. 4 n.. ..
, 1 ALAB-845, supra, 24 NRC at 231 (footnote omitted. The Appeal Board i? '
I',, . t y- ]? cj concluded that the overall adequacy of the public telephone network had not 1; j i '1 , been directly addressed at the heanng, nor had Mr. Brown's testimony been
,^
-'.. ' . 1 refuted. Id. at 232. Therefore, the Appeal Board reversed the Licensing Board's
, - % . - l; ., ] rejection of this contention and remanded the maner for further action consistent
, .j with the Commission's Rules of Practice and its opinion. See 14. at 232 33. In
. m1 this regard, the Appeal Board noted that some means to notify the off. duty i
.. , .T SCIG personnel in the event of an emergency did exist, i.e., the telephone callup O system. It was only the adequacy of this telephone callup system in the event of
*' - * , 'l . , ej i
an overload that was in question. 'Ihe Appeal Board, in affirming the Licensing e ' Board's decision as to the Estimated Time of Evacuation (ETE) for the SCIO
! - - = ~J- s' issue, also directed the Licensing Board and the partaes in the course of their
,d .- , .
./ ., , g., .Q; consideration on remand of the Inmates' manpower mobilization contention to t .
determine what effect, if any, the resolution of that issue had on the ETE for r.. . . ? ;f N . . . , .. .,. .
;.,. ', Q,* t, : . ..
. . . ."-i .1 ."--< .'.-,. . .3- o 2.,-
.c . . . . 4 s.- the SCIO. Id. at 247. t In response to the Appeal Board's remand order, the Licensing Board held Ip;, *W . qJ*i'S*.*f Y y,',71 .S.. *.j: .;,K[ ,c % .; V a conference call with the parties on September 3,1986. During the conference
- ) , N, p.';*,J.. . 'l,Q.:,,, 'y*h , ,.[kQ,callr the Licensing Board sought the views of the parties and then advised that it j..,..,- .7 q . ~7 ,.",....
. .. would hold a hearing on the remanded contention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, n :, . .r:. s. ':; ,= & V ' : '.].. , . . PMl
- f. ,-.. ,, , . , ' '
. ,e . . , , ,, ; j e..;*!6?.. . ..n,, . . ; ...e ,. . .
L e,**' \... , 49., - *p. * ,
-l8 ';. '
.(.
3 i f 1, d, . 734 : F
- [ 8, i. .
e [. , 8; l . .
~
. I i
. 't _!
i, , .
~ ' '
, t
,, * . E.
g , g .
- l. ,
b'.,, yr ,
'J -
' , _ f ,' ,y , ,
- ~
;. ~ . .
, _ "g
. . .~q on September 22,1986.4 'Ihe Licensing Board also advised that no pre 61ed J '
testimony would be ordered; that witness lists should be exchanged no later
.J
.E -
'{.,' l ,, ',; 4 ' ; {
'J -
_,a' f , . . than September 12,1986; and that discovery should begin immediately.8
. q.g
~
U ..' y : }gd ' l 'lhe hearing was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 22,1986, and pursuant to the Licensing Board's Order of September 4, no prenled testi-
.. i , mony was presented. A total of Svc witnesses presented " live" testimony at the
, .. n -
e , ., hearing. Richard A. Buell, District Manager, Network Technical Services, Bell
. , ' , 7 ' ', , , ,'. [. '(:. ., q Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, and Charles Zimmerman, Superintendent
> U i, . , of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, testined on behalf of the Penn-(f; ,.. '" '.'$ ,". .x4 sylvania Department of Corrections. Richard T. Brown, Chairman of the Board
. !h '
,. .' f of Supervisors, Lower Providence Township, oh . *ommunications Technician, American Telephone and Telegraph Corpor: a t William Miller, Manager,
. Switching Services, Bell Telephone Company > .mnsylvania, testined at the i- , , , y ,
request of the Inmates. Mr. James R. Asher, Itasal Emergency Management t, ., y . , , tlj . s' - - j Agency (FEMA), testined on behalf of FEMA. . 1 1. 5; /. a ,l7~ M.' a
- vim 'Ihe Board has considered all of the proposed indings of fact and conclusions gib hj'%p;, j'%,q, ?TQ?.C;fj
; 1 of law presented by the parties. Those not incorporated directly or inferentially p .!
- t. ' 4; /.y.aM ' 1 '"Q# in this Supplement to the Fourth PID are rejected as unsupported by the record x .f~. of the case or as being unnecessary to the rendering of this Supplement to 4 .
a . . f. 9 ' c. s. , .. the Iburth PID. 'Iherefore, as discussed below, this Licensing Board Ands, y g. . .
+.
w s,,a: .,.' in the context of the litigated contention, and, on the basis of the record
,..?', before it that there is rean,nable assurance that, in the event of a radiciogical
, y, p- ? -- . , ,. , f ': , . - emergency at the Limerick Generating Station that requires the evacuation of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, the callup system will achieve
..t;
, . g.6. - ,; ,
its designated purpose to notify any off. duty personnel needed to implement the
;' ; evacuation, and that our previous decision on evacuation time estimates for the e v SCIO is unaffected.
4
.I .
.e .
X '. 2, .. _2, i
'" a '
- / . (-'H' ! III. FINDINGS OF FACT
.' + n -
. a .:.J,
~
; .C p '. M. ., , .
J.1 - A. Manpower Needs to Effectuate an Evacuation of Graterford
*.. . . e, . s,. r. n . .. .
. r.c 3.
; . ;, . . <;(%,, ". .,r% . 1. Charles A. Zimmerman is the Superintendent of the State Correctional
;g., , X %* g. 3 . . Q.;O E.,Opi x ?
Insdeution at Graterford. Zimmerman, 'IY. 21,450. Mr. Zimmerman previously d' ",~ T.;f( ) % DO/,M.),Qq testi6ed in this proceedmg on two other contested issues conceming emer-
.y;gl a . 7.W 2 f 9/ . /.c gency planning and m.Jes; for the inmates at Graterford. Zimmerman,
*y. 'IY, 20,760-853.
p%'%. %r . .@v.y $g i)y. ,.3y'.2,$*,nl$ '. '.y. . cc. .. n a .;.,?.Fa.sed r; 3.,c.; , . . ....s....n.,... : .
;N. ;
a g: ..t ( ., >.:- ..
- y. . . .P. . . -
p..; 9, 9 .. ; y g y m i,..,:,z :, . ,?.["i , ';4 As ',, g d a en mm e. .e d.i .t 6. s.=d memhem for ahm luennes weald am pem=s a banns
,@ ~f ' :f1.' e/' cM, fsf. - ===d insa ==d ==t sw. ==l== is === h==d r==rdr.
T./y.'b. ,#.,'.,. J, .
*. ,*. g=sa*ya=mm=ber 4,19s4 oudw as 1.
J. 6 ** ,. .
*7 ', . ?, ',A. ", ;i-
- s. . ,
(
... . . c -
sc ',5' ,.
. .;,}}