ML20215M028

New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Brief in Support of Appeal of Partial Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance of License to Operate at Low Power.* Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20215M028
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/08/1987
From:	Curran D HARMON & WEISS
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#287-3407 OL, OL-1, NUDOCS 8705130064
Download: ML20215M028 (50)

Text

c ,,

9 .

00LKETED UstlRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,gg MAY 11 PS :26 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD

) OCki k -

In the Matter of )

~~

)

Public Service Company of ) Docket Nos. 550-444 0-443 OL OL __ [

New Hampshire, et al. )

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) Onsite Emergency

) Planning and Safety

) Issues NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION

' AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE TO OPERATE AT LOW POWER Diane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 May 8, 1987 1

l 1

(

870513Q@pk$[000$43

PDR A PDR g i

9 .]

y 3- 1 l

TABLE OF CCNTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES'........................................ 111

-HISTORY OF PROCEEDING ......................................... 1-

-ARGUMENT'...................................................... 3 I. The Licensing Board Erred in Denying Adm1ssion of NECNP Contentions I.V. , I I . A .'1 , II.B.2., and IV. ......... 3 A.- The Licensing Board Erred In Denying the Admission of NECNP Contention I.V. .................. 3 B._ The Licensing Board Erred In Denying the Admission of NECNP Contention II. A.l . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

'C. The Licensing Board Erred In Denying the Admission of NECNP Contention II.B.2. ............... 9

~

D. The Licensing Board Erred In Denying ths Admission of NECNP Contention IV. .................. 10 II. .The Licensing Board Erred When It Found That Applicants' Environmental Qualification Program Is Adequate With Respect to Duration of Environmental Qualification. . . . . 12 A. Le g al Re qu i r eme n ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. General Licensing Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2. Environmental Qualification Standards . . . . . . . . .15

3. Me ans - for Es tablishing' Qualification . . . . . . . . . . 16 -

4. Documentation of Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 B. The Licensing Board Erred. in Finding That Applicants' Environmental Qualification Program Meets the Commis-sion's Standards for Environmental Qualification of

, Electrical Equipment Important to Safety. .......... 20

1. Applicants Failed to Demonstrate Qualification of ITT Suprenant Cables. ......................... 20 C. -The Licensing Board Erred in Finding That The NRC

• Staf f's Review and Audit of Applicants' Equipment Qualification Program Was Adequate to Assess Completeness and Adequacy of the Program. .......... 24

-III. The Board May Not Issue a License Until Completion of Hear-ings on All Issues Relevant to Full Power Operation, Including the Adequacy of Of fsite Emergency Planning. ... 29

7--

o Q i

I i

A. The Atomic Energy Act Provides No Authority for the Granting of Licenses Authorizing Low Power Operation

-Before the Completion of Licensing Hearings. .......... 30 6

B. - The Legislative History of the Atomic Energy Act Demonstrates that Congress Has Not Authorized Issuance of Licenses That Would Create Irreversible Consequences Until Completion of all Hearings Relevant- to Licensing. . 31

1. In the past, Congress has given the Commission only temporary authority to issue low power licenses before completing licensing hearings. ..................... 31

2. Congress has not extended the "no signficant hazards" exemption from prior hearing requirements to the initial issuance of operating licenses. .....37 CONCLUSION ...................................................38 l

r I

r l

C. 4 I l

-lit-i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases.

Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. U.S. Atomic Energy Com-mission, 4 49 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Ci r. 19 71) ......................33 Izaak Walton League of America v. Schlesinger, 337 F.2d 287 (D.C.D.C. 1971) ..............................................33 Power Reactor Development' Corp. v. International Union of Elec-trical Radio and Machine Workers, 3 67 U.S. 396 (1961) ........15 Sholly v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir.1980), vacated on other grounds,103 S.Ct. 1170 (1983) .......................................................30 L Administrative Decisions Alabama Power Co. (Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210 remanded on other grounds, CLI (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12............

, 7 A E C 2 0 3 8-9 Houston Light and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) , ALAB-590,11 NRC 5 42 (1980) ................. 6 Metropolitan Edison Co., (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-698,16 NRC 1290 (1982) .......................... 5 Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 4 23 (1973) .................... 6 Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-78-6, 7 NRC 400 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 , 1 4 , 15 , 1 8 -19 Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-80-21, 11 NRC 707 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 -16 , 1 8 - 19 Vermont Yankee Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station),

CLI- 7 4-4 0, 8 AEC 809 (1974) ................................... 5 United States Constitution ................................... 23 Statutes 4 2 U. S.C. S 2239(a) ..............................30,32,35,36 4 2 U . S . C . S 2 2 4 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - 3 6

. , - . . r- -,---- , . , , . . ,. -

__ - _ _ - , ,.-.- ,e , - ,-- - - . - - , - -

-iv-Regulations '

- 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion ("GDC") 1 ........................................... 7 General Design Criterion ("GDC") 4 .......................................... 15 10 CFR .Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 14, 15, 31, and_32............................................3 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 4, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, and 39, ...................... 10

'10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B .................................... 7 10 CFR S 50.47(d) ......................................... 30-39 10 C F R S 5 0 . 4 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 2 9 10 CFR S 50.57(a) ............................................ 14 NRC Regulatory Guidance NUREG-0588, " Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualifica-tion of Safety-Related Equipment" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 -16 , 2 0 Re gu l a to r y G u ide . l . 8 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 5 Legislative History 128 Cong. Rec.15314 (December 16, 1982) (remarks of Rep. Simp-son). ........................................................35 House Rept. No. 92-1027, 1972 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News 2351-52 .....................................................33 Sen. Rep. No. 9 7-113, 19 8 2 U. S . Code Cong. and Admin. News at 3593 ........................................................35 Statement of James S. Schlesinger before Joint Committee ' on Atomic Energy, Ma r c h 16 , 1 9 7 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 , 3 4 Miscellaneous Memorandum from Hugh L. Thompson to All Licensees of Operating Reactors, re: Information Relating to the Deadlines for Com-pliance With 10 CFR 50.49. . .", Generic Letter 85-15 ( August 6, 1985) ....................................................18,27

. -e s ,

L 2

History of Proceeding The Seabrook operating license proceeding opened in 1981.

On April 21,1982, _and June 17, 1982, the New England Coalition

on Nuclear

Pollution ("NECNP") filed contentions on numerous technical and onsite emergency' planning issues. The Licensing Board issued a Memorandum and Order memorializing its decision on l

- the admissibility of these contentions on September 13, 1982.

Following the filing 'of objections and motions 'for reconsidera-i . tion by NECNP and other intervenors,- the Licensing-Board issued 1

another decision on November 17, 1982, _ which affirmed its pre-vious decision with respect to all of NECNP's rejected. technical

. contentions, and admitted a number of contentions related to  !

onsite emergency planning. As discussed below, NECNP appeals the denial of four of'its contentions on technical issues. .

In the ' summer of 1983, the Licensing Board heldihearings on several of NECNP's contentions, including NECNP Contention I .B.2, which challenged the adequacy of Applicants' environmental

[ qualification program with respect to qualification times. At the time of the 1983 hearing, Applicants' environmental i

qualification was only partially complete. Over the following L three years, Applicants submitted additional environmental i

b qualification information, which was reviewed by the NRC Staff.

! -t l On June 17, 1986, Applicants moved the Licensing Board for F issuance of a partial initial decision authorizing it to operate

.at low power levels. In response to that motion, NECNP argued I that the Licensing Board could not issue a license to operate at low power unless and until it had conducted hearings on all e-v, ,, -m- ..,,.-,.n nn -,n,--, -c ,-- , - - ----n .--e,n-, ,-------,.-:,-,,-,--n.--.w , en, . ,aw-,- .s .- , . - - - - - --

E e? s' issues material to full power licensing, including the adequacy of .offsite emergency planning for Seabrook. NECNP also requested a hearing on the new information that had been submitted by

' Applicants with respect to qualification times. The Licensing Board issued an order on July 26, 1986, which provided NECNP with an opportunity to participate in reopened hearings on environmen-tal qualification times, but stated that it was not the proper forum to entertain NECNP's challenge to 10 CFR S 50.47(d) . The Board held hearings in late September and early October, at which NECNP cross-examined Applicants' and the NRC Staff's witnesses regarding.the adequacy of qualification times for safety equip-ment at Seabrook. NECNP filed Proposed Findings of Fact' and Con-clusions of Law on November 12, 1986. The Licensing Board issued its Partial Initial Decision, rejecting all but one of NECNP's claims, on March 25,1987.

At this writing, hearings on the adequacy of offsite emer-gency planning for the State of New Hampshire are still in prepa-

^

ration, and are not scheduled to commence until mid-September of

.this year. No hearings have been held on the adequacy of offsite plans ' for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the governor of Massachusetts has refused to submit emergency plans for his state on the ground that, given the siting of the Seabrook reactor, adequate protective measures for the public within the ten-mile emergency planning zone are not feasible. Applicants have a

recently submitted a so-called " utility" plan for the Common-

-o: n wealth of Massachusetts, which the Commonwealth previously rejected and continues to disown. The Commission is now consid-ering ~ the implications of that filing for the issuance of a low power-license.

ARGUMENT I. The Licensing Board Erred in Denying Admission of NECNP Contentions I.V., II.A.1, II.B.2., and IV.

In its Memorandum and Order of September 13, 1982, the Licensing Board denied the' admission of a number of NECNP conten-tions, including Contentions I.V (Steam Generator Tube Inspec-tion), II. A.1 (Scope of Quality Assurance Program), II.B.2 (Qual-ity Assurance for Operations), and IV_ (Biological. Fouling of Cooling Systems). NECNP's objections to and motion for reconsideration of the Board's ruling on these contentions (dated September- 23, 1982), were denied by the Licensing Board on Novem-ber 17,1987.

NECNP's grounds for appealing the Licensing Board's ruling on each of these contentions are discussed separately below.

A. The Licensing Board Erred In Denying the Admission of NECNP Contention I.V.

NECNP Contention I.V.1 states that:

The Applicant has not demonstrated that it has met GDC [ General Design Criteria] 14, 15, 31, and 3 2 1

Contention I.V. was filed on April 21, 1982, and was sub-sequently reworded in "NECNP's Reply to the Responses by the Applicant and the NRC Staff to NECNP's Contentions," dated June 17, 1982

l

... E, - -

l

l l

i because.it implements an insufficient program for in-servicerinspection of steam generator tubes, i.e. Reg.

Gu ide 1. 8 3, Rev. 1.

As 'a basis for this contention, NECNP asserted that while Applicants had committed to compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.83, the ' continuing problems with Festinghouse steam generators 2 and the' serious accident at .the Ginna reactor on January 25,

^1982, had demonstrated that the requirements of Reg. Guide 1.83 are not.. sufficient to reduce the probability and consequences of

~

steam generator tube failures through periodic inspection for

-early-detection of defects and deterioration.. In particular, the NRC found after the Ginna accident that the ruptured tube had been inspected as late as April 1981, and found not to have expe-rienced any-significant degradation. The Ginna in-service inspection-program also appeared to comply with the requirements of Reg. Guide 1.83. NUREG-0909. Accordingly, the April 11, 1981 inspection f ailed to accomplish its most important goal -- pre-vention of an accident that might result from a defective tube.

The Board denied the contention on the ground that

" Regulatory guides are not mandatory but - when an Applicant voluntarily accepts one as a method of complying with GDC, then a Petitioner cannot be permitted to argue that this one method of complying with this Commission's requirements would not be suffi-

'2 . These problems are discussed in detail in the basis for NECNP Contention I.T, " Steam Generators." See NECNP Supplemental Peti-tion to Intervene, dated April 21, 1982, at 47-48.

5-cient to meet its demands." Mencrandum anst Order, dated Septemr-ber 23,1982, at 71.

NECNP objected to this ruling on September 23, 1982. He Licensing Board affirmed its decision on November 17, 198 2, stat-ing that "Even if Applicants' cmpliance with Reg. Guide 1.83 is not conclusive as to compliance with the urAerlying regulatistas -

... it is at least presumptive." Memorandran and Order at 13.

The Board also found that NECNP had "f ailed to specify how Applicants are in non-compliance, and thus have failed to satisfy the pleading requirements." M . at 14.

The Licensing Board erred in two important respects in rejecting this contention. Fir s t, there is nothing sacrosanrt about regulatory guides. Regulatory guides are " treated sirp'1y as evidence of legitimate means" for complying with regulatm.y requirements and the staff is required to demonstrate the validity of.its guidance if it is called into questions duri29 l .

the course of litigation." Metropolitan JN!ison Co. , (Three P.dle l

Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1) , ALAB-596,16 NRC 1290, 229B i (1982), quoting Vermont Yankee Corp. (Verlient Yankee Nuclear Power Station) , CLI-74-40, 8 AEC 8 09, 811 (1974) . Just as opera-ting license applicants are "f ree" to elect methods other thara satisfaction of the regulatory guides in order to meet NRC regulations, Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-7/6-l 6, 7 NRC 4 00, 4 06-7 (1978), so intervenors snay challenge the ade-quacy of regulatory guides to meet NRC regulations.

l L

l .. . .

,: e-I 1

Second, the Board- erred in finding that NECNP f ailed to pro-vide an' adequately specific basis for its contention. To the contrary, NECNP provided specific evidence that Applicants' pro- ,

posed method of satisfying the NRC's standards for. maintaining steam generator tube integrity, i.e. compliance with Reg. Guide 1.83, was not sufficient to assure compliance with those stan-dards. In..particular, the accident at the Ginna reactor demonstrated that compliance with Reg. Guide 1.83 was insuffi-cient to. identify tube degradation and prevent an accident. As articulated by the Licensing Board in its September 13 decision, the standard for admissibility of a contention is.whether it-

" set [s] forth the bases for each contention with reasonable specificity." Memorandum and Order at 5. That standard does not require a petition to detail supporting evidence [Id. , citing Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 4 23, 4 26 (1973) , nor does it-require the Licensing Board to address the merits of a conten-tion. "What is required is that an intervenor state the "rea-

. sons" for its concern." Iji . , citing Houston Light and Power Co.

( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) , ALAB-590,11

- NRC :5 4 2, 5 48 (1980) .

Rather than follow this standard, the Board insisted that NECNP go beyond the initial level of reasonable specificity and detail its ultimate case on the inadequacy of Reg. Guide 1.83.

If intervenors were held to such a heavy burden, it would be

- , - e,

impossible to introduce contentions for litigation in NRC hear-ings.

No more was required of NECNP than to demonstrate a rea-sonable basis ^ for questioning the adequacy of Reg. Guide 1.83 to fulfill the NRC's regulations. Having done so, NECNP should be allowed to litigate its contention.

B.- The Licensing Board Erred In' Denying the Admission of NECNP Contention II.A.l.

NECNP Contention II. A.1 asserts that:

General Design Criterion 1 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the establishment and implementation of a quality assurance program. This and all General Design Criteria cover all aspects of the facility that are "important to ' safety." NECNP contends that the Seabrook Quality Assurance Program for design and con-struction.has been too narrow in scope, applying only to items considered to be " safety-related," rather than to the broader category of aspects that are "important-to-safety." Accordingly, the Applicant has f ailed to co= ply with GDC 1 to Appendix A.

As a basis for this contention, NECNP relied on the Regulatory i

Agenda issued by the Commission on January 31, 1982, in which the i Commission stated that its original intent in issuing Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 was to require that the Quality Assurance Pro-grams required by that Appendix cover the full range of safety

! matters," rather than some subset that is considered to be "s a f e ty-r ela ted. " NECNP Supplemental Petition to Intervene, dated April 21, 1982, at 55. The Regulatory Agenda cited exam-ples of structures, systems, and components for which Appendix B i-criteria have not been fully implemented, including in-core l

ins tr umentation, reactor coolant pump motors, reactor coolant I

5

, e.e y y re, = y ,,.-.y .,

pump power cables, and radioactive waste system pumps, valves, and storage tanks. Id.

NECNP f urther stated that Section 17.1.1.2(b) of the FSAR describes the aspects of the Seabrook facility that are covered by the Quality Assurance program as the " safety-related struc-tures, systems, and components" listed in Tables 17.1-1, 17.1-2, and 17.1-3. None of the examples cited by the Commission as important to safety was covered by the Seabrook Quality Assurance Program. Id,. NECNP also gave, as another example of important-to-safety equipment not covered by Applicants' QA program, all equipment that removes decay heat from the steam generators dur-ing shutdown. Id.

The Licensing Board rejected this contention on the sole ground that "it was litigated during the construction permit

+-

phase." Memorandun and Order, dated September 13, 1982, at 74.

When NECNP petitioned for reconsideration, the Board's only response was, "The Board reaf firms its ruling." Memorandum and Order, dated November 17, 1982, at 14. While the Board did not explain the basis for its ruling, it apparently relied on argu-ments by Applicants and the NRC Staff that the scope of Applicants' QA program was litigated at the construction permit stage. Memorandum and Order, dated September 13, 1982, at 73-4.

The NRC Staff argued that in order to raise a new QA contention, NECNP must show either "significant supervening developments hav-ing a possible material bearing upon those previously adjudicated J

- ._ - - .-. ..- . - . - _ - _ - _- . .-. . . - - = . - . . . - -_.- - _-

i i issues," or "some unusual factors having special public interest applications." Id,. See Alabama Power Co. (Farley Nuclear Plant, l Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 216, remanded on other grounds, CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203 (1974) .

i The Board ignored the fact that NECNP discussed and demonstrated that it met the Farley standard in its " Reply to the 2

Responses- of Applicant and the NRC Staff on NECNP's Contentions,"

, dated. June 17, 1982. The changes in the Commission's definition of. the scope - of QA' programs, as well as the recognition of the

]

importance of decay heat removal equipment, constitute fundamen-i tal ' changes to the NRC's quality assurance requirements. More-

. over, because these changes concern the qualifications of safety-t related equipment, they have profound public interest implica-i- tions. By itself, the Board's failure to provide even the briefest discussion of whether Contention II. A.1 met the Farley

! standard constitutes reversible error. Mo reover, it is dif-

- ficult to conceive of a more serious and significant public safety issue than this elemental change in the scope of the Com-i mission's quality assurance standards. The contention should i

j. have been admitted.

l C. The Licensing Board Erred In Denying the Admission of NECNP Contention II.B.2.

This contention, which is related to Contention II. A.1, f

states thats i- The Quality Assurance Program for operations extends only to matters considered to be " safety-related," and not to all structures, systems, and components "impor-

- wee,...,vw ~ww,,...,,,,--w, -

,,,,,,.,.-m-.,~.-yw,wn-w.-.w-- ----w-.,--.- .m._e,,-.,,-----,...--.-rv-->,,-_ ,-

R

-e

. s tant.to safety." ' Examples are discussed in Contention ,

II.A.l.

NECNP Supplemental ~ Petition to Intervene at 62. In its September 13 order,.the Board ignored NECNP'streference to the examples

?

given in Contention II. A.1, and rejected the contention on the ground that it " lacks specificity." Memorandum and Order at 78- -

9. In response to NECNP's objection to its ruling, the Board reaffirmed:and stated that "The contention, including the

, reference to NECNP Contention II. A., was not sufficiently specific." Memorandum and Order, dated November 17, 1982, at 15.

It lis impossible to discern what further specificity the Board -

would require. The list of components-identified in the basis to L

Contention II. A.1 put the Board and the parties on' notice of the

types of equipment and nature of equipment-classification that was at issue-in this contention. It was arbitrary and capricious for the Board to deny this contention.

D. The Licensing Board Erred In Denying the Admission of - ,

j NECNP Contention IV.

Contention IV asserts that:

The Applicant must establish a surveillance and maintenance program for the prevention of the accumula-

tion of mollusks, other aquatic organisms, and debris in cooling systems in order to satisfy the requirements I

of GDC 4, 3 0, 3 2, 33,- 34, 3 5, 36, 3 8, and 3 9, which require the maintenance and inspection of reactor cool-ing systems. The design, construction, and proposed operation of Seabrook fail to satisfy these require-ments.

l NECNP Supplemental Contentions, filed June 17, 1982. The basis l

for this contention was a Federal Register notice, dated May 19, t

1 l

i- _

1982, which stated the NRC's concern over the accumulation of asiatic clams, mussels, and other aquatic organisms in six nuclear power plant reactor cooling systems. At one reactor, blockage of coolant flow paths had resulted in the " total loss of both redundant trains of the residual heat removal system." 47-Fed. Re g. at 21,6 53. The Commission noted the "possible degrada-tion of the heat transfer capabilities of redundant safety sys-tems to the point where system function is lost." Id,. at 21,655.

The abnormal occurrences at the six reactors showed the " pre-ventive measures and methods of detecting gradual degradation have been inadequate in certain areas to preclude the occur-rence." Id. NECNP noted the ways in which biological fouling could affect the Seabrook reactor, which is cooled with ocean water and is thus particularly susceptible to fouling.3 The Board denied the contention, with the terse explanation that "The contention lacks basis and this cooling system authorized by the CP was litigated to a conclusion at that time."

Memorandum and Order, dated September 13, 1982, at 83. In

response to NECNP's objection and motion for reconsideration, the l

l Board responded only that "The Board reaf firms its ruling."

Memorandum and Order, dated November 17, 1982, at 19.

l l

3 NECNP also addressed the late-filed contention standard because the contention was filed after the Board's original dead-line. However, the Board chose to rule on the contention on its merits.

I

The Board's ruling defies common sense. NECNP provided sub-stantial and detailed basis regarding the potential hazards asso-ciated with biological fouling, and the particular significance o.

10 . of fouling for the Seabrook reactor. If the Board relied for its conclusion that the contention lacked basis on Applicants' state-ment that the cooling system is not safety grade and may not be used during an accident, then the Board improperly decided the merits of the contention.4 Second, it is simply impossible that this issue was litigated at the construction permit stage. The Commission went to significant pains in 1982 to alert the public of a previously unappreciated hazard posed by marine organisms in reactor cooling systems. That was the first time that any party

, could have raised the specific issues that were revealed by the fouling incidents at the six nuclear power plants. The Licensing

Board erred in denying this contention, and it should be admitted.

II. The Licensing Board Erred When It Found That Applicants' Environmental Qualification Program Is Adequate With Respect to Duration of Environmental Qualification.

I NECNP Contention I.B.2 asserts that:

The Applicant [s] ha[ve] not satisfied the requirements

, of GDC 4 that all equipment important to safety be 4

In-any event, the question of whether the cooling tunnels themselves are considered safety grade is irrelevant to the issue

! of whether marine organisms may block the intake of cooling water l to safety systems. Similarl , it is hardly

! ing this contention that coo [ing water "may" ground; foradismiss-come from source j other than the Atlantic ocean. See Memorandum and Order at 83.

t

• i s environmentally qualified because [they have] not specified the time duration over which the equipment is qualified.

At the time'of the 1983 hearings on environmental qualification, Applicants' equipment qualification review was only 80% . complete.

PID, 1 54. Applicants' data regarding. duration of environmental t

qualification was only partially complete.- NECNP Proposed Find-ings, 1.3. Applicants-later submitted additional information which revised and amended their; previous representations regard-ing the duration of environmental qualification for safety equip- i ment at Seabrook. 11., 1 4. In the summer of 1986, NECNP requested and was granted the opportunity for a hearing on a num-ber of issues raised-by these submittals, which related to the adequacy of qualification times.

At hearings held in late September and early October of 1986, .NECNP cross-examined Applicants' witnesses on a number of deficiencies in Applicants' equipment qualification files with respect to'the duration of environmental qualification. NECNP l

also cross-examined the NRC Staff's witness regarding the NRC's review and audit of Applicants' equipment qualification program.

NECNP submitted proposed findings which claimed, inter alia, that c Applicants had failed to adequately document equipment qualifica-tion in their files, that they had used improper qualification

! methodology, and that the existence of pervasive and systematic deficiencies in Applicants' environmental qualification program was confirmed by the Staf f's review and audit of Applicants' l

l

. _._, - . _ _ . _ - - - . . , . _ _ - . ,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ - _. ~ ~ _ _.

o .

environmental qualification program. In addition, NECNF claimed that the Staff's audit was premature. Because it was done before substantial deficiencies identified in the Staff's general review had been corrected and reviewed, it could not provide confidence that all safety equipment was properly qualified.

In its Partial Initial Decision of March 25, 1987, the Licensing Board found only one instance in which Applicants had failed to adequately document equipment qualification, consisting of the failure to establish a maintenance program for a safety device. The Board ordered Applicants to develop such a program.

P.I.D. at 67-68. The Board found that in general, Applicants' environmental qualification program was adequate, and that the Staff's review did not reveal significant deficiencies. More-over, the Licensing Board concluded that the Staff's revi~ew was not premature.

NECNP contends that the Licensing Board's decision f ails to hold Applicants to the applicable standards, is not supported by the record, and is arbitrary and capricious. The errors made by the Licensing Board are discussed below.

A. Legal Requirements

1. General Licensing Standards Under NRC regulations at 10 CFR S 50.57(a), the Licensing Board must make the following findings, inter alia, before it can issue an operating license for a nuclear reactor:

(2) The facility will operate in conformity with the application as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; and

(3) There is reasonable assurance (i) ' that the activities authorized by the operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be con-ducted in compliance ~with the regulations in this chap-ter.

In making this determination, the Licensing Board must make pub-lic safety "the first, last, and a permanent consideration."

' Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-78-6, 7 NRC 4 00, 404 (1978), quoting Power Reactor Development Corp. v. Interna-tional Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, 367 U.S.

396, 402 (1961).

2. Environmental Qualification Standards It is a " fundamental" principle of nuclear reactor regula-tion that " safety systems must perform their intended functions in spite of.the environment which may result from postulated accidents." Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI 6, 7 NRC at 408. Compliance with this principle must be exacting and thorough, since the qualification of a safety system is only as strong as the weakest component in that safety system.

The Commission's regulatory requirements for environmental-qualification of electrical equipment important to safety are found in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion

("GDC") 4; and in 10 CFR S 50.49. In pertinent part, GDC 4 requires that:

Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed to accommodate the effects of and to be compatible with the environmental conditions associ-ated with normal operation, maintenance, testing, and

+>

postulated accidents,[ including loss-of-coolant acci-dents.

. In' 1980, the Commission upgraded its standard for compliance with GDC 4. The Commission ruled that for reactors under licensing review, NUREG-0588, " Interim Staff Position on Environmental-a Qualification of Safety-Related Equipment," formed the require-ments,which applicants "must meet in order to satisfy those aspects of:10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria (GDC)- l 4." Petition' for Emergency and Remedial Action, , CCl-80-21,11 NRC 707, 711 -(1980) . The' Commission also announced that it would undertake a rulemaking on environmental qualification, to codify a standard based on NUREC-0588. Id. at 712.

Three years later, in January of 1983, the Commission promulgated an environmental qualification rule,10 CFR S -50.49.

-The rule set out parameters for which safety equipment must be qualified, established criteria for-establishing qualification, and set -forth strict documentation requirements. In affirmance of the requirements of NUREG-0588, the rule provideo that plants which were formerly required to satisfy NUREG-0588 need not requalify their components. 10 CFR S 50.4 9(k) . Thus, NUREG-0568 is incorporated by the rule as the minimum qualification require-ments that Applicants must meet in order to achieve compliance with' 10 CFR S 50.4 9. In fact, Applicants have committed to meet NUREG-0588 [ Applicants Dir. Test. at 3, Post Tr. 3 57], and the NRC has found that Applicants comply with that standard. Tr. at 501, 1

co( '.

3. Means for' Establishing Qualification NRC regulation 10 CPR S 50.49(f) sets forth four alternative 1

L.-

methods 'of demonstrating that safety equipment is environmentally qualified:

(1) ~ Testing an identical item of equipment under identical conditions or under similar conditions with a supporting analysis to show that the equipment - to txt qualified is acceptable.

(2)- Testing a similar item of equipment with a sup-porting analysis to show that the equipment to be qualified is acceptable.

(3) Experience'with identical or similar equipment under'similar conditions with a supporting analysis to show that the equipment to be qualified is acceptable.

(4) -Analysis in combination with partial type test data that supports . the analytical assumptions and con-clusions.

These criteria are expanded upon in NUREG-0588, S 12.l(2), which states . that:

The choice of the methods selected is'largely a matter of technical judgment and availability 1of information that supports the conclusions reached. Experience has shown that qualification of equipment subjected to an accident environment without- test data is not adequate to demonstrate functional operability. In general, the staff will not accept analysis in lieu of test data unless (a) testing of the component is impractical due to ' size ' limitations, and (b) partial type test data is provided to support the analytical assumptions and con-clusions reached.

(emphasis added). Thus, the NRC requires that qualification be supported by test data unless there is some practical impediraent to testing. In that event, license applicants nust provide ade-quate supporting analysis, including partial test data, to sup-port a conclusion that the equipment in question is qualified.

j

o *

4. Documentation of Qualification The Commission's environmental qualification rule requires that A record of qualification, including documentation in paragraph (d) of this section, must be maintained in an auditable form for the entire period during which the covered item is installed in the nuclear power plant or is stored for future use to permit verification that each item of electric equipment important to safety covered by this section:

(1) is qualified for its application; and (2) Meets its specified performance requirements when it is subjected to the conditions predicted to be present when it must perform its safety function up to the end of its qualified life.

10 CFR 50.49(j ) . Thus, Applicants' equipment qualification files must contain sufficient documentation to demonstrate that each safety component is capable of performing its safety function for the duration in which it is required to be functional during an accident. The NRC has prescribed that this requirement must be strictly enforced. According to a generic letter from the Divi-sion of Licensing to all licensees, equipment is to be treated as

" unqualified" if there is not adequate documentation to establish that it will perform its intended function in the accident environment. NECNP Exhibit 10, Memorandum from Hugh L. Thompson to All Licensees of Operating Reactors, re: "Information Relat-ing to the Deadlines for Compliance With 10 CFR 5 0.49. . . ," Gen-eric Letter 85-15 ( August 6,1985) . Thus, regardless of whether there is room for a reasonable judgment that an undocumented piece of equipment is actually qualified, the NRC has established

's:

-l R

3 , a: policy of refusing to make such a judgment if ~ documentation is

.not provided.

These strict documentation requirements evolved from two

. earlier. cases in which the Commission responded to a petition for

emergencyr action in which the Union of Concerned -Scientists chal-1enged the adequacy of environmental' qualification'at all operat -

ing plants. Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI . 6,- 7 NRC 400 (1978) and CLI-80-21,11 NRC 707 (1980) . In the first decision, the Commission chastised one- utility for failing to submit timely and accurate documentation regarding the environmental qualification of electrical connectors. The con-nectors later failed a qualification test, resulting in the shut-down of the reactor. 7 NRC at 418. Id.

Noting that some of the reactor licensees' initial responses to its requests for information indicated a " lack on their part

of detailed knowledge of the quality of installed plant equip-ment," the Commission called upon licensees-to maintain " detailed understanding of their own plants in order to meet their obliga-tions for public safety by ensuring a sound basis for making

' t' assessments of plant safety." Id. at 419. As the Commission explained, In order to fulfill its regulatory obligations, NRC is dependent upon all of its licensees for accurate and timely information. Since licensees are directly in i

control.of plant design, construction, operation, and maintenance, they are the first line of defense to ensure the safety of the public. NRC's role is one primarily of review and audit of licensee activities, recognizing that limited resources preclude 100 percent inspection.

.e a Id . . at . 418. -

Reviewing the issue of documentation two' years later, the Commission observed that "some licensees have ignored the responsibility weLemphasized in our original order." C LI- 8 0-21,

.11 NRC at 712.

~

Responses to an Inspection and Enforcement Bul-letin requiring licensees to submit documentation of environmen-tal. qualificationf revealed that:

[S]ome licensees, more than a year af ter our April 13 order, had unqualified equipment in their plants.

Others did not have the documentation required to show qualification. Still others, if they possessed the documentation,' did not include it in the response to the NRC, contrary to - the Bulletin requirements.

11 NRC at 713. To. assure that qualification was complete and verifiable, the Commission ordered the Staff to codify documenta-

tion requirements for operating plants, and ordered license

, applicants. to comply with NUREG-0588, which contained strict doc-umentation requirements. 11 NRC at 711-12.

Thus, the documentation requirenents in the environmental qualification rule arise from the Commission's past experience L

i that licensees did not give adequate attention to the Commis-l l sion's stringent and detailed requirements for environmental qualification and from the necessarily limited staff role as auditor.

l

e- .

- 21'-

B. The Licensing Board Erred in Finding That Applicants' Environmental Qualification Program Meets the Commis-sion's Standards for Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment Important to Safety.

1. Applicants Failed to Demonstrate Qualification of ITT Suprenant Cables.

As required by 10 C.F.R. S 50.49, Applicants maintain equip-ment qualification' files which contain documentation supporting the environmental qualification of electrical equipment important to safety. Tr . - a t 3 6 0. Equipment Qualification File No. 113 01 was presented as the documentation establishing the environ-mental qualification of four types of instrument cable, including RG-58 and RG-59 coaxial cable. NECNP Exhibit 4. Of these two,

.only the RG-59 coaxial cable was qualified by test. The RG-58 coaxial cable was qualified by comparison with the RG-59 cable.

Woodward, Tr. at 379.

In its Proposed Findings, NECNP challenged Applicants' fail-ure to provide any supporting analysis for the claim to have qualified RG-58 coaxial cable by comparison with RG-59 coaxial cable. The only documentation for that comparison that was pro-vided in the file or that could be identified by Applicants' wit-nesses under extensive questioning consisted of a letter from the International Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, ITT Suprenant Division, to United Engineers & Constructors, dated March 8, 1983. See NECNP Proposed Findings, 11 13, 14, 18, Tr. at 379-82.

The ITT letter first makes a technical comparison between two other cables in that equipment qualification file, RG-ll coaxial

.e. ..

and RG-ll triaxial, for purposes of qualifying the untested RG-ll triaxial cable by comparison to the tested RG-ll coaxial cable.

With respect to the qualification of the untested RG-58 coaxial cable, the letter states:

We feel similar concerning RG58 LOCA (loss of coolant accident] approval. Since we have chosen RG59 for our LOCA program and have that approval and RG58 has similar construction details, we are confident that, had it been submitted, it also would have been approved.

Equipment Qualification File 113 01, Re f . 4. No technical comparison between the cables is provided in the letter. More-over, the only justification offered for ITT's failure to test the RG-58 cable was that "Since LOCA testing is very expensive, testing of all constructions would be economically unfeasible."

The Licensing Board found that " justification" for the environmental qualification of RG-58 coaxial cable was "ade-quately documented in the Applicants' EQ files." PID, 1 70. The Board stated that it found "little difficulty in accepting the manufacturer's certification, or for that matter, in locating testing requirements, materials specifications, and dimensions of all four cables in the EQ file provided by NECNP. (NECNP Ex. 4, Re fereace 1 at 3-8,12-13, Appendices A and B."

In so ruling, the Board made two fundamental errors. First, it was arbitrary and capricious to accept the unsupported and self-serving assertion by the manufacturer that it was "confi-d e n t" in the similarity between the two cables. The regulations require an analytical comparison between the tested and untested 1

.o

• components, not just an expression of confidence in their similarity. See discussion in S A.3. , supra.

Second, the Board erred when it undertook the role of a wit-ness in asserting that similarities between the cables were described in another part of the equipment qualification file.

During the hearing, Applicants' witnesses were questioned at length on this subject (Tr. at 379-383] and were able to point to no documentation other than the ITT letter to support their assertion that RG-58 cable was qualified by comparison to RG-59 cable. In fact, . the ITT letter is the only qualification reference given in this equipment qualification file's Equipment Qualification Summary or Qualification Assessment Worksheet to support the comparison. The Licensing Board, however, now asserts that the engineer's specifications for the cable (Ref. 1) provide adequate data to support a comparison between the two cables.

NECNP has had.no opportunity to cross-examine the Licensing Board regarding its competence to reach that conclusion, or the basis for that conclusion.5 Nor has it been able to cross-examine a competent witness on such issues as what these so-called " specifications" are, whether they accurately describe the l

5 It should be noted that Appendix A of Reference 1 shows numerous differences between RG-58 and RG-59 cable. Thus, the comparability of the components is not at all clear f rom the data examined by the Licensing Board.

.e' .

24 -

4 cable, whether the data in the_ specifications is adequate to per-form a comparison for purposes of environmental qualification, or whether Applicants have performed any analysis whatever of the similarities between the cables as described in the specifica-tions.

In effect, the Licensing Board has substituted itself as a witness for the Applicants and given testimony af ter the record has closed. Before such an analysis can be relied on by the

.decisionmaker, NECNP is entitled, under Constitutional rights of due-process, to test its probative value in a hearing.

In any event, the specifications referred to by the Licens-ing Board do not contain any " analysis," as required by NRC environmental qualification standards, to demonstrate that the I

similarity between the cables is sufficient to justify qualifica-tion of the RG-58 cable.

In determining that this cable is qualified, the Licensing Board has accepted the unsupported word of the manufacturer and has substituted its own technical judgment for an analysis that was never presented in the hearing and in any case should appear in Applicants' qualification file. The implications of this error are plant-wide and extremely serious. The cable covered by EQF File 113-19-01, including RG-58 coaxial cable, is to be used "in all areas of the plant, both inside and outside containment."

(emphasis added). EQF File 113-19-01, Equipment Summary Evalua-tion at 1. According to the " Bill of Material" reviewed by the

o g a-25 '

Licensing Board, Applicants ordered 60,000 feet of this particu-

.lar cable. Reference 1, Appendix- A. -Applicants' failure to ade-quately qualify.this cable constitutes a serious violation ~of'the

_ environmental qualification rule, and a'potentially significant threat to the health and safety of the public.-

C.- The Licensing Board Erred in Finding-That The NRC

Staff's Review and Audit of Applicants' Equipment Qualification Program Was Adequate to Assess Completeness and Adequacy of the Program.

t-As.is routinely done in operating license reviews, the NRC

. Staff performed a review of summary data regarding Applicants'

. equipment qualification program, which was followed by an audit 4

of twelve specific qualification files. The NRC filed reports describing the results of the review and audit. (NECNP-Exhibit 4

113, L Beahn. and Trojovsky, " Pre-Audit Review of the Seabrook Sta-tion Equipment Qualification Program" and NECNP Exhibit 12, Be a hm, et al. , EGG-NTA-7186, " Audit of the Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment for the i

~

, Seabrook Station," March 1986. ) In the hearings, NECNP estab-l lished that the review and audit were deficient in several i

I respects, but the Board held that the NRC staff review was ade-quate. NECNP contests the Licensing Board's decision that the NRC Staff's review and audit were adequate to support a finding i

that Applicants meet the Commission's environmental qualification requirements.

! As the Licensing Board has acknowledged, "The Staf f gener-j ally performs an audit after it has reviewed the equipment 4

. .. .. -. . - _ _. ~ __. . . . -

, - t r

k qualification program and concluded that it is basically ade-quate, and after an applicant has agreed that.it has sufficiently completed its environmental qualification program." ,PID, 1 57.

Af ter the St'aff has concluded from this review that 'an

, applicant's environmental qualification program is basically;ade--

quate, it conducts an audit of a limited number of qualification files. An audit is used not just to investigate the quality or completeness of a particular qualification file, but representa-

.tive files are chosen as an indicator of the quality of the entire qualification program. Walker. Tr . a t 7 0 0.

Although the Staff's general review of the ~ equipment qualification program at Seabrook showed that over one hundred equipment qualification files contained deficiencies (Exhibit 12

NECNP proposed finding,1 64)', the NRC Staff did not conduct another review of the Applicants' environmental qualification i

program before embarking on an audit' of specific equipment files.

I The only additional preparation for the audit consisted of a meeting between the NRC Staff and Applicants, at which the

! parties discussed the deficiencies and Applicants promised to correct them. PID, 1 56. Six of the twelve EQ files audited i

contained deficiencies that required corrections. PID, 1 60.

In its Proposed Findings, NECNP asserted that, given the large number of deficiencies identified by the environmental l qualification program review, it was premature to begin an audit 1

until the extensive revisions called for by the program review i

~ . ~ . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ ._, _ _ , _ _ . _ . , _ . , _ _ _ - . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . , _ - _ _ . . _ , _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ , , _ . _ , . . . . . _ .

.e: .

- 27'-

had been completed. The audit's purpose -- of confirming the completeness of an applicant's environmental qualification pro-gram - cannot adequately be served when the program is still in a substantial state of incompleteness. The extensive deficien-cies in the program were only confirmed by the poor. results of the audit. NECNP Proposed Findings,1 84. The NRC Staff should have confirmed that the deficiencies in Applicants' environmental qualification program were substantially corrected before embark-ing on the audit of specific files.

l The Licensing Board found that "the environmental qualifica--

tion program at the time of the audit was basically adequate."

PID at 18. The Board apparently based this assertion on-its con-

! clusion that the deficiencies identified in the audit were some-l f

how insignificant. PID at 17.

, The Board has missed the point. Regardless of whether equipment is actually qualified, it cannot be considered to be qualified for purposes of determining regulatory compliance i

! unless full and accurate documentation of qualification is pro-vided in complete and auditable equipment qualification files.6 4

6 This is because the NRC simply does not have the resources to check each equipment qualification file to assure itself that the equipment is qualified. The NRC must rely on Applicants to keep complete and accurate files. Therefore it places a heavy premium on the requirements of 10 CFR S 50.49(j). See NECNP Exhibit 10, Memorandum From Hugh L. Thompson to Licensees of All Operating

Reactors, re

"Information Relating to the Deadlines for Conr i

pliance With 10 CFR S 50.49 . . . ," Generic Letter 85-15 ( August 6, 1985) (Equipment is to be treated as " unqualified" if there is not adequate documentation to establish that it will perform its intended function in the accident environment.)

. -_ ___ - _ _._.. _ ,. _ ._ _ _ _ _ ____ _. _ ___ ____ _ ._ __ _ -.~._.- _ __, --_._ -

28 -

e 10 CFR S -50.49( j) .

This record clearly shows that Applicants  !

- failed that test, both in- the initial staff review and the -audit.

The vast majority of files examined by the NRC in its program review were incomplete or inaccurate. Fully half of the' files later audited ~were still deficient.7 The Licensing Board attempted to minimize the significance

- of these. deficiencies, claiming that "four.merely called for addition of clarifying or supporting information already in Appli' cants' possession, and two called for corrections to two

}

[ equipment items observed during a walkdown inspection."- PID at

17. Regardless of the f act .that Applicants may have had the req-uisite information in another location, these files were nevertheless deficient under 10 CFR S 50.49(j). Moreover, in one j - case, equipment had to be replaced because'its qualification could not be determined. In another instance, the existence of two dif ferent identification numbers raised questions about the

4 i

7 l Six out of twelve files failed the audit. PID, 1 60. Of

those six files, four called for supporting or clarifying information, including updating of information that had been pro-

vided by Applicants during the audit, supplementation of addi-tional information justifying the use of a test sequence dif-ferent from that specified in IEEE 323-1974, addition of a state-ment-specifying that submergence qualification was not required,

and supplementation to include clarifying test report data in the 1

equipment summary evaluation. Id,. Two other files were found l deficient as a result of a plant walkdown. In particular, three internal wires and a terminal block in a Limitorque Motor Opera-i tor were not identifiable and must be replaced with qualified L components, and an ASCO Solenoid Valve had two different equip-ment identification numbers on it. Id.

I J

---

e.. - - - , - - . , + -.ye,-,-,..,w.,.m -*w,- .-,-.%.,-ww--_ ,,,e,, ,-,,,--..e .,,--,-,,wmw,.,-m._,-, --y--_ .y,,,,-w - - - - - - - - , -

- .. - .. . ~. . . . . .. . - .-..

r v ,

L

. qualification of the components. The poor results of the audit,.

4 combined with the many-deficiencies found in the previous general 4

review, provide substantial evidence that Applicants' equipment 4^ qualification files are not complete ~and in auditable order. A promise by Applicants to cure the defects-found in the few audited files does not cure the problem that the audit reveals a

. pattern of poor recordkeeping and possible qualification deficiencies that goes beyond those individual problems. Under i the circumstances, the most that can be concluded is that the 4

twelve audited files are now complete. No-favorable conclusion I

can be drawn by extension to the remainder of the unaudited files.

In summary, it was arbitrary and capricious for the Licens-ing Board to find that Applicants' environmental qualification f program was " basically adequate" at the time of the audit. The audit was performed too early to provide an accurate confirmation i

that Applicants' qualification program was actually complete.

} The Licensing Board had no rational basis for accepting a 50%

failure rate of the audit, following a high failure rate on the i

j general review, as evidence that Applicants' environmental 3- qualification program is sound. The Board should have required further review of Applicants' environmental qualification pro-gram, including another audit of their equipment qualification files.

i 1

I T " ' ' ' '

• *""~'*~~'""W"'****'"'"'V*

8

.III. The Board May Not Issue a License Until Completion of Hear-ings _ on All Issues Relevant to Full Power Operation, Including the Adequacy of Offsite Emergency Planning.

Applicants seek permission to load fuel and operate the Seabrook nuclear power plant at low power levels before the Com-mission has completed hearings on offsite emergency planning.

NECNP contends that 10 CFR S 50.47(d), which waives the require-ment for findings on the adequacy of state and local offsite emergency plans for purposes of authorizing low power operation, is not valid under the Atomic Energy Act.0 The Act makes no dis-tinction between low power and full power licensing requirements; nor does its legislative history support such a conclusion.

Under the Act, all issues that are material to the full power operation of a nuclear power plant, including offsite emergency planning issues, must be considered relevant to the issuance of a license for-any level of operation, and must be resolved before that license can issue.

8 NECNP also contends that even if S 50.47(d) were determined to be valid, it does not apply to the litigation of utility plants pursuant to 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1) . NECNP has briefed this second argument before the Commission, which is now considering the implications of Applicants' recent filing of a so-called

" utility plan" for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Therefore we will not brief that issue here. However, we request leave to file a supplemental appeal brief should the Commission's decision i

make it necessary for us to raise this issue before the Appeal Board.

. s 31 -

A. The Atomic Energy Act Provides No Authority for the Granting of Licenses Authorizing Low Power Operation Before the Completion of Licensing Hearings.

The Coalition's rights in this proceeding are governed by Section 189(a)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, which requires that in any proceeding "for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license or construction permit,"

The Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the pro-ceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.

\

42 U.S.C. S 2239(a). The hearing must be held before the Commis- E si.n takes the proposed licensing action. Sholly v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 651 F .2d 7 80, 7 89 (D.C. Cir.1980) ,

vacated on other grounds,103 S.Ct. 1170 (1983).

The Atomic Energy Act contains no provision permitting the Commission to authorize the operation of a nuclear power plant at low power levels before full power license hearings are complete; nor does it dispense with the prior hearing requirement for any initial operating license decision.

In fact, on the two occasions when Congress perceived a need to permit low power operation before licensing hearings were com-plete, it gave the Commission only temporary authority to do so.

Moreover, although Congress has amended Section 189(a) to permit the Commission to waive the prior hearing requirement for license amendments that pose "no significant hazard," it has not included original licenses within the ambit of that authority. Thus, the Atomic Energy Act and its legislative history demonstrate that

,, . os Congress neverfintended ;to. allow the Commission to compromise the public's'right to.a full operating license hearing before it took .

the irreversible and, consequence-laden step of allowing a nuclear power plant' to load . fuel and operate at any level of power.

B. The Legislative History of the Atomic Energy Act .

Demonstrates ~ that Congress Has Not- Authorized Issuance of .

Licenses That Would Create Irreversible Consequences Until Completion of All Hearings Relevant to Licensing.

1. In the past, Congress ' has given the Commission only temporary authority to issue low power licenses before completing licensing hearings.

Only twice during the past has Congress made provision for the authorization of low power operation before the completion of licensing hearings. In both instances, Congress was responding to a perceived emergency, and in both instances Congress strictly .

i

. limited the duration of the NRC's authority to issue a " temporary operating license" or "TOL." The legislative history of these two enactments demonstrates the strength of Congress' intent that in the-absence of specific Congressional authorization, the pub-lic's statutory right- to full hearings on the issuance of operat-ing licenses may not be compromised by the issuance of a low power license before those hearings have been completed.

(a) 1972 temporary operating license amendment t In 1972, responding to a perceived threat of imminent energy

{ shortages, Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act to permit the j-NRC to issue temporary operating licenses without the completion j of the full adjudicatory hearings required by Section 189(a) of

!- l

---

e, wr- .--a --.,-r,wwr,,,--, n-,,v.nem w-,,, rr,-~~,,a-err-.,-,- _e _w,--_ __nm,vw.,,nm-.-

f G l

l the Act.9 According to the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commis-sion, the legislation was needed in part to allow the NRC to speed reactor testing and thereby " properly anticipate emergency power needs." Statement of James S. Schlesinger before Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, March 16,1972, at 74.

The new provision required that before the Commission could issue a TOL, it must have received the letter of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ("ACRS"), the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report ("SER"), and the environmental impact state-ment. However, intervenors were entitled to no more than an informal hearing on whether the plant could be operated safely on a temporary basis.

Section 192 did not eliminate the full licensing hearings required by Section 189(a), but allowed the NRC to postpone them until after issuance of the low power license. As the House Report explained, Under this new authority, the Commission is authorized to issue a temporary license to operate the reactor under these circumstances even though the full-term license -is being contested by interested members of the public. The temporary license would not deprive the public of a full review of the health and safety and environmental matters which may be contested. 'All substantive requirements of applicable law would have to be satisfied.

l 9 Section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act [4 2 U.S.C. S 2242) , added

! June 2, 1972, Pub. L.92-307, 8 6 Stat. 191. The full text of the amendment is attached as Exhibit 1.

I

.-,- o 34 -

The~ issuance of a temporary license would not prejudice in any way the rights of parties who are par-ticipating in-the contested hearings on the full-term

. license nor would it prejudice the actions which the final decision on the full-term license may require in the interest of additional conditions pertinent to full-term operation.

House Rept. No. 9 2-1027, 1972 U. S. Code Cong. and Admin. News 2351-52.

In permitting the expedited issuance of TOLs, Congress attempted to avoid or ameliorate " threatened shortages" during the summer of 1972 and the winter of 1972-3. 1972 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin.' News at 2352. Congress was also concerned that litigation of environmental impact statements under the NRC's newly promulgated regulations for the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") would result in

" prolonged" hearings that would delay licensing. Id. at 2355.10 In particular, the legislation was designed to overcome the court's ruling in Izaak Walton League of America v. Schlesinger, 3 37_ F .2d 2 87 (D. C.D.C. 1971) , in which the District Court 4

10 As the House Report explains, after passage of the National

! Environmental Policy Act in 1970, the issues open for litigation in licensing hearings "were expanded so that the Commission had to consider all significant environmental matters in its deci-sionmaking process, which, under the Atomic Energy Act, includes the hearing requirements summarized above." 1972 U.S. Code Cong.

l and Admin. News at 2355. In response to the U.S. Court of

Appeals' 1971 decision in Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Conmittee

! v. United States Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C.

i Ci r. 19 71) , the Commission had " issued regulations which impose a

very stringent environmental review" of proposed nuclear reactor l licenses. Id.

. o enjoined issuance of a low power license because the Commission had failed to file an environmental impact statement for the plant or to offer a hearing on the adequacy of the EIS. See Statement of James S. Schlesinger before Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, March 16, 1972, at 77-78.

Sensitive to the interest of the public in participating in licensing hearings, Congress stressed that the temporary licens-ing provision should be used by the Commission only where there was an " urgent need" for the energy. Id. at 2356. More impor-tant, the legislation contained an expiration date that gave the NRC less than a year and a half to implement the TOL provision.

Thus, Congress gave the NRC only so much authority to issue TOLS as it deemed was necessary to cope with a perceived short-term energy crisis. Clearly, Congress intended that under ordinary circumstances and in the absence of special legislation, the pub-lic was entitled to full adjudicatory hearings before the issuance of an operating license.

(b) 1982 temporary operating license amendment After the 1972 temporary operating license legislation expired, nine years passed before Congress again perceived the need to grant utilities relief from the Atomic Energy Act's strict prior hearing requirements. In January of 1983, in response to licensing delays caused by the Three Mile Island accident, Congress again enacted a special, limited term temporary operating license provision. This new version of S 192

..- 4

• ' p. - ~ ,_ _

.36 -

~

allowed the Nuclear l Regulatory- Commission .to issue temporary licenses for fuel loading and operation at up to 5% of rated power, with special provision for incremental increates in power

. levels.

11

' According to the Senate Report, the' legislation was designed to alleviate -the licensing delays that had been caused' by the imposition of additional safety requirements following the Three Mile Island accident: '

Largely as a result of this situation,' it became apparent in late 1960 that some delays would be experienced between the time when construction of these plants would be sufficiently complete to allow fuel loading and the start of operation, and the time when all requirements for the issuance of an operating license, including the hearing requirements, of the Atomic Energy Act, would

.be met.

Sen. Re p . No . - 9 7-113, 19 8 2 U. S . Code Cong. and Admin. News at 3593 (emphasis added) .

As summarized in debates on the bill, The temporary operating license provision confers upon the NRC a much-needed authority arising out of the Post-TMI licensing delays, authorizing the NRC to issue operating licenses to applicants prior to the comple-tion of that certain public hearing required under the Atomic Energy Act, if all other statutory requirements are met.

128 Cong. Rec.15314 (December 16, 1982) (remarks of Rep. Simp-son).

11 42 U.S.C. 5 2242, Pub.L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2072 (January 4, 1983). The complete text of this provision is attached as Exhibit 2.

-, w

< gy.

.37 '

Like the original version of 5 192, the 1982 amendment established as prerequisites for a TOL the filing of the ACRS letter, the Staff's safety' Evaluation Report, Eand m. final environmental impact statement. In addition, the 1982 law required that no TOL could issue before the submission of a

. State,. local, or. utility emergency. preparedness plan.

-Were either of these two temporary operating license provi-sions in place today, they might give the Licensing Board the authority to issue an operating license permitting low power operation before completion of licensing hearings. However, both provisions expired within a short time of their enactment. The legislative history of the TOL bills demonstrates unequivocally that Congress considered pre-hearing licensing such as the low power authorization sought here to constitute a short-term emer-gency stopgap measure. In the absence of such specific authorization from Congress, the Commission may not issue an operating license authorizing any level of operation at the Seabrook nuclear power plant until it completes hearings on all issues that are material to full power operation.12 12 These hearings include the appeals within the Commission that are guaranteed in 10 C.F.R. Part 2 for full power licensing deci-sions.

+-

p ,

2. Congress has not extended the "no significant hazards" exemption from prior hearing requirements to the initial issuance of operating licenses.

Congress' rationale for requiring prior licensing hearings was illumined in its debates on the "Sholly Amendment," which -

created an exception to the prior hearing rule for amendments to '

operating license and construction permit that involved "no sig-nificant hazards. 13 It is clear from the following colloquy.

between Rep. Markey and Rep. Ottinger, that under ordinary cir-cumstances, Congress will not permit the NRC to take licensing actions with " irreversible consequences" without granting a prior hearing on those actions. Only for license amendments which,-

despite their " irreversible consequences," pose "no significant hazards" to the public, has Congress made an exception.

MR. MARKEY: I note that with respect to section 12 of the bill, the so-called Sholly provision, the statement of man-agers emphasized that, in determining whether a proposed, amendment to a facility operating license involves no sig-nificant hazards consideration, the Commission should be sensitive to those license amendments that involve irrevers-

'ible consequences. As chairman of the subcommittee that originated -the Sholly provision in this House, do you under-stand that statement to mean that the Commission should be especially careful in evaluating, for possible hazards con-sideration, amendments that involve irreversible conse-quences:

MR. OTTINGER: Yes, that is exactly what I understand our intent to have been. Once a license amendment with irrever-sible consequences has received the Commission's approval and has gone into effect, as a practical matter it will be impossible to correct any errors that may have entered into 13 42 U.S.C. 5 2239(a), Pub. L. 9 7-415 5 12(a) , 96 Stat. 2 073 (January 4,1983) .

]

~

- 139 -

the Commission's decision. Therefore, we believed that the Commission has an obligation, when assessing the health and

-safety considerations of amendments having irreversible con-sequences, to insure that only those amendments that very clearly raise no significant hazards issues will be allowed to take effect before the required hearings can be~ held.

128 Cong. Rec. 8823 (December 2,1982) . The Sholly Amendment contains no provision that would exempt operating licenses from prior hearings based on a "no significant hazards" finding.

Because the issuance of a license authorizing low power operation would have the. irreversible effect of causing the contamination of the Seabrook plant and posing a risk to the _ public health and safety, no matter how insignificant, it say not be granted until the Commission has concluded the operating license hearings for the Seabrook plant. Thus, the Atomic Energy . Act does not authorize the Licensing Board to conclude that there are some ,

licensing issues that need not be resolved at the low power stage because they would pose no significant risk to the public health-and safety. Nor does the Act contain any authority for the Com-mission's regulation at 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(d), which relies on a finding that low power operation involves no significant risk to the public health and safety in waiving the requirement for the approval of offsite emergency plans before low power licensing.14 14 See Proposed Rule, " Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities," 46 Fed. Reg. 6113 (Decem-ber 15,1981) .

p-- .;-

~

- s: 6 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, NECNP requests that the Appeal Board reverse. the. Licensing Board's orders of September 13, 1982, and November 17, 1982, and order the commencement of hearings on NECNP's wrongfully denied contentions. NECNP also asks the Appeal Board to reverse the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision'of March 25, 1987, and remand this case back to the Licensing Board for further proceedings. NECNP also joins in the appeals filed by the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and the Com-monwealth of Massachusetts on May 4 and May 6, respectively.

Finally, NECNP requests that the Appeal Board forbid the issuance of a license to operate the Seabrook nuclear power plant at low power until the completion of hearings on all issues relevant to full power operation, including the adequacy of offsite emergency planning for Seabrook.

. Respectfully submitted, k .-- -

l .t.A_  ?*

Diane Curran HARMON & WEISS p

2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 May 8,1987 I certify that on May 8,1987, copies of the foregoing pleading were served by first-class mail on the ttached service list. 8-41. e Y'a ' /g f ,

Diane Curran -

l[

r e e

..y wQ*,"*

~

.s . ., ,..

. .'s.."

• ~ EXHBIT 1 =

F . Ch 23 .CO) llc ENERGY 42 52242 .

i e

'c' 5 2242. Teniparary operating iteenws for nucienr puwer resetorrPreregulalles for filing spgitications; affidadt.; hearing '."

fal In any prosveding upon an application for an otwrating 11-cenac for a nuclear power reactor. In which a hearing is othrsmise

• required pursuant to section 22.10(a) of this title, the applicant rnay

' petition the Commission for a temporary operating Ilcense authoria.

Ing operation of the facility pentling final action by the Commission on the application. Such retation may be filed at any tirr.e after fil-Int oft (1) the report of the Advisory Committee on Reastor Safe-rearils required by section 2232sbl of this titlet (2) the safety evaluation of the application I.y the Commis.< ion's regul tory staffI and i3: the regulatory staff's final detailed statement on the enti-ronmental imput of the facility prepared pursuant to ecction

?332 2 hcl of this title or,in the case of an application for r, prat.

Ifte license filed on or before Septemleer 9.1971. If the regul.atory staf f's final detailed tattment required under scetion C2:2i C) of this title is nnt compl6ted, the Commission must satisfy ihe apple-cet,le r"qunements of the .%uonal Ernironmental Policy Act I.rior t') itsuing .iny tomt.orarv operating license unctr tr.as arction. The 14tition shall 1,e atenmpanied by are af fidavit or antidarna arttent forth the f acts upon which the retitioner relics to justify =su.ince of the temporary operatinar license. Any party' to the t rottedsnar maY file :sifidavits in support of. or opposition to the petition with-in fouiteen days atter the filing of autn getation, or within auth ud-ditional time not to execed ten days as may be fixed by tr.c Commis-sion. The Commission shall hold a hearing after ten days' notice and pulalication once in the Federal P.cesster on any euch petition and supporting mattrial filed under this section and the decision of the Commu> ion with respect to the usuance of a temporary operat-int license, following auch hearing, shall be on the basis of tindings on the matters specified in sub.section it,i of this section. The hear.

Int regiaired by this section and the decision of the Cornruission on the twtition chall be conducted with expedited teosedurr. a the Commission may by rule, regulation, or order deem mpf.ropriate for a full disclosure of material facts on all substantial inues raised in -

connectiori with the proposed temporary operating license.

sieg.i.ie,re. dies..rr... ...i.e... 4e assi .c se.,w.re an.us s.4ses.: review ,,

(b) With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection tal '.

of this section the Commission shallissue a temporary operating li- .

j eense upon finding thatt .

, . 'r '

i: ,

bl.'

i- -} -

..h[,[.'f*Ith

. -A. .F'8Pect (1) the provisions of section 2235 of this title have been e .

[4by.".-Rf (2) operation of the faellity during the pe

,' .- to the temporary operating license;;st -

7 7 (p?. jggg"3

-( i~ -

e.-; ,g gary operating license in accordance wit,h ,lta, terms and condi :fif2M Q.g.Q

w sa.....

q cq.M, y m .g,y.;

, ." y - x,ncy.

... . m +ry.  ; ..~;. w

. . u ..a w.-

..oo'

. .. .m... .

.. ..nI . a.

-'- .

• G i [., ,' r. *3 -

s.

42J2242 Photic HEALTu Aso wEtrattE ch.21 p:

~

f. -; tions will provide adequate protection of the environment dar.

Ing the period of the temporary operating licenset and .

.; a f.j .= 131' operation of t'ne facility in accordance with the t(tml 0 -

'and conditions of the temporary operating license is essential .

toward insuring that the power pencrating espacity of a utility

' system or power pool is at, or is restored to, the !cvels required to assure the adequacy and reliability of the power supply, tak.

Ing into consideration factors which include, but need not be limited to, alternative available sources of supply, historical eg.

serve requirements for the systems involved to function rdia.

bly, the possible endangerment to the public health and safety in the event of po=cr shortages. and data from uppropriat.

rederal and State gocernmental bodies which have official re.

sponsilsility to assure an adequate and reliable pnuer *upply, The tempornry license shall contain such terma and consistions e, the Comm *sion may sleem necesenry, including the duration of the license and any prosisson for the extensinn therrof, and the require, ment that the licenece not retire or dismantle any of its existine gene ratint tapacity on the ground of the availat.ility of the capacity from the facility w hich := operatinr under the temporary licens,'

Any dccasion or other document authorizine the issusnee of any temporary license pureusnt to this section shall recite with sp(cigge, sty the reasons justifyinr the issuance. The decision of the Com.

mission with respett to the issusnee of a temporary operatint li.

(ense shall Ise subject to judicial review pureusnt to the Act og p,,

cember 29,19~20, as amended (ch. 1189,64 Stat.1129).

s...o.. .t u . e.er ne..

tes The hearing on the application for the final operatine licen.e otherwise required pursuant to section 2239(a) of this title shall be -

conclueled as promptly as practicahic. The Commission shall vacate the temporary operating license if it finds that the applicant is ret 3 rn.ctuting the application for the final operating license with due diligence. Issuance of a temporary operating license pursuant to subsection ib) of this section shall be without prejudice to the posj.

tion of any party to the proceeding in which a hearint is otherwi.. '

i required giurauant to section 2239(a) of this titlet and failure to as. '

sert any ground for denial or limitation of a temporary operating 3;. "

cense shall not bar the assertion of such ground in connection with I

the issuance of a subsequent final operating license. ,

s c. 't , f. f1. .s m ; .

% . r ..... . .~< ...a..ur x. . . = . 4.,

~

f.. [

.[

...e h.,;,. } ,(d(The wm authority underJ,his ,

.ym section

.s shall expire ,w on ' sou October. 30, -u . .

y, .?.1J[ 'Jd, w.r.., J. m

.r .w .n :v . : w; y' .c..f

}; c gg73;c,ry.u -. .ih p*;w . . ' . _ .]'.

. ;~ . c. m., Tw n. .

t Q' 1

'h T

.ks. Z,J. . M?%$x. ur...yAngM,"j: gig' c. 724, I 192,'as added Jun'e 2, ' 97 30 d,i{,5, tat.19Ljg q. J i..% 7:j - C;, QM ),y E gg,.. g.;;ff

+

AQy,Q c .. :, :cy .. :p: i s3sg -

r -., n .z-.. .y

1.0 w m 3.e

& ..v: w ,:.c.. : .o  :- .~ s ..

hf0  ; A.. .y -;. N-:Yf *h hr f gy ey q' i .$ *' *

• 4-  ? -

%y$ , w..m:.ty.. ;m, ~;. %;tp3p.p31. 5:%.45.%q zw.E@' 3 e.q m.g.g:d t *r.

3 Y0?.:',L.4 n,w

' pow;,E -g.y

%r49- W,e -

..6 S

..A .w q.; g.agi;im-g Q -.hp-A e < y '

..a q,w.g h p'IkT.-M g. Wv..D&jt,w.&g,f(;p%g:

2 / v .s  :*$ *~ {d . &m -

3.';yq. ...ny;gy K?.\ e %og,p

+ .y u:, - mte.$5:-r

\m y v-

&z:s 1, .

,e;(.:Q.gN .-

4 . t v.c.w.mo. . v. H, 2.~.. M M y !!.* w %.  : u..t M W>

e:glY -a c q p.:: ,y I

5  ?

r 4 y

~

~*EXHBIT 2

. e l 22aL Ternporary operating license f., ,..~.s. .. .ne. .n. n.r.i . at ..ee t c ..er ,e.ee ,e..n. .,e .. .t. em In any proceeding upon an application for an operating license for a utilization S facility required to be hcensed under secuan 2133 or 2134sbl of this title,in which a heanng is otherwise required pursuant to section 223$a) of this title. the applicant enny peution the Comm:*sion for a temporary operating licen.e for such fae hty authors:ing fuel luadmr. testing, and operation at a spacific power lesel to te determmed by the Commission. pending fmal action by the Commission on the appl. cation. The mitial petition for a ternporary operat.ng license for each such facihty. and any terrporary operating license issued for such faedity based upon the imtial petition. shall be limited to poner levels riot to exceed 5 percent of rated full thermal pomer, followmg issuance by the Commission of the temporary operating license for esca auch fanhty, the licensee may ide peutions with the Commission to amend the license to allow facihty operation m staged increases at specific power lesels, to be determined by the Commission, exceeding 5 percent of rated fu!!

therman pomer. Ti.e imti.I petition for a ternporary operstmg license for esch suen facility may be fi'ed at any time after the fihne of; (1) the repurt of the Advi=orv Comm:ttee en l'eaetnr Safeguards re'auired by section C00lbi of tha title; 82) the fi *me of ti.e initial Safety Esatuaunn l'et, ort by the Nuciear Reruiatcrs Commasson

~

staff and tre Nucicar Rerutatory Commisuon staffs first supp:ement to tr.e report prepared in re*porse to tr.e report cf the Advisory Ccmmittee en Reactor iafe-guards for the faciuty; (D tre Nueiear Regulatory Comm:ssion staff s f:nal octaneo statement <,n tre envircnmentali maet of the facahty prepared curruant to veruon 423::t.*dC# of thin tele. ano in a .%.e. tocal. or utihty emergency tret areoness p12n for the indity. l'ettunes ter the suance of a trrnporary coerat:ne beense. or for an a r.enisment to sen a i rense a:iining operation at a specific t ower I-vel creater t*an tnat autne rized in tre iniual ter-rorary operaung beenee, snail be accompamed ty an affidavit er nffida ns setung hrtr. the specific tarts upon u nsch the ptit.r:rer re.ies to p t ft inuance of it c taintorary r;peraur.g teense or the amer : ment taiereto. The Cumm mon sna!! no. ash rouce of ea:n suen peution in the re<ieral R.gnter and in =w:n tmsoe er n.**< ptiocauons as the Comm:snon omns at orepn-ate to cive reasonabie nati:e to Prsuns uno m:ent have a totenuss mterest m the grant of such temperats cperat;ng s.censo or amendrnent thereto. .tny person may fJe af fidavits or statements m suiport of, or m oppwuon to. the taution withm thirty days after the puoheation of suen notice m the Federal Register.

proced ures sbl Operatinn.at apptorab e treater pn=er level: eriteria. effect. terine and coneiti.ns, etc.:

With respect ta any reution fi!ed pursuant to subsection tal of this secton. the Cornm:ssion rnay issue a temporary operstmg license. nr amend the itcense to a;darize temporary operauon at each specifie power level creater than that autner n:ed in the ir.:t:al ternperary cperaung beense. as deterrnmeo by tne Commission.

upun find:nc that-(1) in all rest.ects other than the conduct or completion of any. requ: red heanng, the requirement.s of law are met:

(2) in accordance with such requirements there is reasonable assurance that operation of t>c facahty danng the penod of the temporary operstmg bcense m accordance with its terms and conditions will provide adequate protection to the public health and safety and the envirorunent dunng the pened of temporary cperauon: and -

13) denial of such temporary eperating license will result in delay between the date on which construeton of the facahty is sufficiently comp.eted. m the judgment of the Commission, to pernut issuance of the temporary operaung license, and the date when such facdity would otherwise receive a final operat-ing license pursuant to this chapter.

t

n a 1

9.,

• 1

• 1

- , 1 l

\

42 {2242 PUllLIC IIEALTII AND WELFAllE lt The temporary operating beense shall become effective upon issuance and sha

contam such terms and conditions as the Commimon may deem necessary. includ;re the duration of the beense and any provision for the exter.sion thereof. Any fm:s.

order authorizing the tssuance or amendment of any temporary operating licenn-pursuant to this secuon shall recite with specificity the facts and reasons justifyinr the fmdmes under this suosecuon. and shall be transmitted upon such issuance t.-

the Committees on Intenor and Insular Affairs and Energy and Commerce of tne House of Representauves and tne Committee on Environment and Pubhc Worics o' the Senate. The final oroer of the Commission with respect to the issuance or amendment of a temporary operaunt beense shalf be subject to judicial reviem pursuant to enacter 14 of Title 28 The reouirementa of secuan 2230(as of this t:tr with respect to the issuance or amenoment of fae hty licenses snail not arpsy to tb assuance or amencment of a temporary operaung beense uncer this section, se Heerins for final corretine beense: suspene on. issuance, comphence, etc with er np..-

rary opereune beenee Anv neanne en tne sopheation for the fmal noerstme beense for a fae ht' reouireo nursuant to **ction .*2Las cf tms t:tje snall be conciuoed as promptiv he praeucaole. Ten Commission snail susner.4 tne temsorary ooerstme beense if -

fus trat tne aroneant is rot rrosecuunt the acpheauen for tne fmai voeratine beense witn cae cmrence bsuaree of a ternrnrary operat:nr beense under sun-taon fra of tras s*cuan sna.1 f e wnnout tretuoice to tre r:ent of any party ta rai" any issue m a r.eant.e reouireo pursuant to secuan J233fse of this title: ano feiiun ta ssert e any groun<a for o*nian r.r emitauon of a temtsorarv enermune steense snai n% t.ar the a>serunn of suen crouna m conneenon witn trie usuance of a suoscouer.-

tmal coerstmr neense. Any r arty t., a nearme reou: red our*uant to secuen r2w:c of tnis utie en tne f:nas u.eratmr reense ser a facii;ty for wnien a temonrar.

onersune Ocense nas t.een osuco ur.oer suosection th) of this section. and ar.

memoer of the Atomie . afety and Licensme Boara concuetme suen neanne. Snai.

prenotiv nottiv the Commission af any mformation indicaunt that the terms anc cond:tions of the temonrary cparau :e s. cense are not nemt met, or tnat suen term-ano congiuons are not sufficient to compsy witn tne provisions of parastraon o <

suosecuon set of this secuen. l .

ed) Administrouve remeeses for sniniminatson of need foe beenee The Commission is autnonted and d:ree.ed to adopt suen admimstrauve remedies i as the Gmmission ocems at.nropr: ate to mirumiae the r.eed for issuance of tempe e rary operatmg 1. censes pursuant to this secuen.

~

tes Empirstion of issuine authority The autnonty in issue new temporary operaung licenses under this section shall -

expire on December 31,1*Jb3. ,

(As amended Jan. 4.1983. Pub L M-415. I 11. 96 Stat. 2071) e l \

SEABR00t SERVICE LIST -- C'US!!E -- AFFEAL BOARD Sheldon J. K e, Chairsan Atomic Safety and Licensing -

North Haspton, NH 03826 $ 442J.W.McCorsack(FOCH)

Boston, MA 02109 toard- J.P.Nadeau SherwinE. lurk,Esq.

U.S. NRC Town of Rye Office of GeneraByounwrf 11 P5n266avutis Washington, D.C. 20555 155WashingtonRoad U.S. NRC RFD 1 Box 1154 Rye, New Haspshire 03870 East Kensington, NH 03827 Dr. Jerry Hart'our Atosic Safety and Licensing RichardE.Sullivan, Mayor Mb Washington,D.C.(.10555.._

i I Mr. Angie Machiros,ChagnanHCH CharlesP.Grahaa,Esq.

Board CityHall BoardofSelectmen McKay, Murphy and Grahas U.S. NRC Newburyport,MA 01950 Newbury, MA 01950 100MainStreet Washington, D.C. 20555 Asesbury, MA 01913 AlfredV.Sargent,Chairsan H.JosephFlynn,Esq.

Dr. Esseth A. Luebke BoardofSelecisen OfficeofGeneralCounsel. Alans.Rosenthal,Chairsan Atomic Safety and Licensing Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 FEMA AtosicSafety& Licensing Board 500 C Street S.W. AppealBoard U.S. NRC Senator Gordon J. Husphrey Washington,D.C. 20472 U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Senate Washington,D.C.20555 Washington,D.C. 20510 GeorgeDanalisbee,Esq.

AtomicSafetyandLicensing (Attn.TooBurack) GeoffreyM.Huntington,Esq. HowardA.Wilber BoardPanel OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral Atcaic Safety & Licensing U.S. NRC SelectaenofNorthaspton State House Anner AppealBoard Washington,D.C. 20555 Northaspton,NewHaspshire Concord, NH 03301- U.S. NEC 03826 Washington,D.C.20[55 AtosicSafetyandLicensing AllenLaspert AppealEoardPanel Senator Gordon J. Husphrey CivilDefenseDirector GaryJ.Edles 1EagleSquare,Ste507 Town of trentowood AtosicSafety& Licensing U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555 Concord, NH 03301 Exeter, NH 03033 Appeal Board U.S. NRC Do'cketingandService MichaelSantosuosso,Chairsan RichardA.Haspe,Esq. Washington,D.C.20555

-U.S. NRC EcardofSelecteen Haspe and McNicholas Washington,D.C. 20555 JewellStreet,RFDI2 35PleasantStreet South Haspton, NH 03042 Concord, NH 03301 Mrs. Anne E. Goodsan BoardofSelectmen Judith H. Hizner Esq. GaryW.Holaes,Esq.

13-15NewMarketRoad Silverglate,Gertner,etal. Holses&Ellis Durhas NH 03042 80BroadStreet 47 Winnacunnent Road Ecston,MA 02110 Haspton, NH 03842 WilliasS. Lord,Selectaan TownHall--FriendStreet Rep. Roberta C. Fevear WilliasArmstrong Asesbury, MA 01913 Drinkwater Road CivilDefenseDirector Haspton, Falls, NH 03844 10 Front Street

. Jane Doughty Exeter, NH 03833 SAPL PhillipAhrens,Esq.

5MarketStreet AssistantAttorneyGeneral CalvinA.Canney Portssouth, NH 03801 Statehouse,StationI6 CityManager Augusta, ME 04333 CityHall Carol S. Sneider Esquire 126DanielStreet AssistantAttorneyGeneral ThosasG.Dignan,Esq. Fortssouth, NH 03801 1AshburtoaFlace,19thFloor R.K. Gad II, Esq.

Boston, MA 02108 Ropes & Gray Matthew 1. Brock.Esq.

225FranklinStreet Shaines&McEachern StanleyW.Incules Boston, MA 02110 F.0. Ecr 360 MaplewoodAve.

Board of Selectmen Robert A. Backus, Esq. Fortssouth, NH 03801 P.O. Ecr 710 Backus, Meyer & Solomon 111LowellStreet EdwardA.Thosas Manchester,NH 03105 FEMA

--