ML20235S623
| ML20235S623 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/30/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V25-N01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V25-N1, NUDOCS 8707210720 | |
| Download: ML20235S623 (71) | |
Text
-__-
NUREG-0750 l Vol. 25, No.1 -
1 Pages 1-62 j j
^
4]
p'T my;.; m uy. m w ,,
,a ? ;
1 fag; N* rt 9 q,.
a I e L, y: :, j 3.
4 qg q( >
- h. y ,
L.
,t .
rp 3 hh %
fm- . ?,,1j% p;. Wif l ,
M*
.br .
n
- j. n:
y, .
h f y,fC w '.%.
- lll '
- ;* ll.
x a,f%f }h '
{
,.n.
m{h_ ,
yW:p'f2 { g;&;!;E}M' }EnggAg,qi }%**Q,s}9n' jyb AWh' "'"' ! %@g;lr-
/j,. w
$ (p.,
a$$kkf,E',g[s@,;n<n x, .
eb;$8tr; .
r$T .;? ?
'G y
(
h.5g .
l
'k
- b i :#
), ; '
It
, $*i , j$$? \
t4 J . } g;g;L,hlM;d.:
qmb l
1 l
i 8707210720 870630 PDR NUREQ PDR 0750 R 1 j
s- a .
~ u
+ <
' Vol. 25, No.1 1 '.3 Pages1 62 \
'. ,l* .
. y, .- , . ' '. } T. >. %:. ..}
l
..11* ",.'
~ .,
4 y
' 3 mH NUCLEAR REGULATORY
..' ' +
... . s . : .-
.u.,.',*.'.
COMMISSION ISSUANCES
, , ' h r '. 9. . .'. .r " . ' _ _', , . A.,z ' 1 .
- y.yg; q .: n ;'y.q ./j ., ,
. .4 January 1987 ;
-y l
... 4
)
This report includes the issuences received dunng the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
- q Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LDP), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein i
. are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-dent legal significanea.
~.
1
, Q:; . " . , , ,:, ,,
1
- . . ... ., ... . 1
,:.,?:
y , .-
.4
,n , ,
g o
. U.S. NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION
. - .* s.
. ~ ,c , . q. ,,
j
,2,.-
. , 4 , 4 ,
- .5
- < . r .;. . . . - .,
' .. >.i.. .;;
.;,' . .. ' . v # ,1j
- ,. .. ...' , .- .' .- Prepared by the C
. T : Division of Publications Services
- . ,. g .:,,"[,.t / ' " ,' ' ' 5 , c .
Office of Administration and Resources Management 2 ;- . .
' i h ? J'W U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,,; " - .., Q' ,
j Washington, DC 20555
- .C, ' .
- 7;f. .L , , . . 3-
.*",3, Y,i.~.. . ;..*
., c.;y
- -. :S.c
. 71 .
(301/492-8925) b W g; .}.O '.$. , y..~
- .' ',i',+> ' .' ..;*g(<
.,t [.. r' ,
" .l,ts, . .,i,.J
.'t." , . ;t Q, '.Q.
j
. 3 , .g ,.,.,.,5...; c'; .,,,f
'd f.. ;l * , '. '. .) W ,[, ,....,.,. ,,'.. ;. ' .,,, " ' y, .,
,,'A*
-l*.'.*~ '
.,'*& , , . , t : ..
f '
> c .
- 4 '-
,c,; } . :;j ; '
3 7.7 . .... . . , .
.k e g+ .* k. . .,,
f'E *
.,.'. . ;. - *. , . . . - p ,
'* Y
' *?
-.,.....!.e
.- .. - . . .s.
9 ', ,..?.
,, v . W
< ,,4 :., p
- ...',;. . ,. "r ,I '..;.: . f' '. ', n.
- ^^
z u' ,
7 o* , .
1
~
.r.. ,..,.
^ i
- 2", , ,,
- g ,8. ... . .' . j . -
- s
- A7 ~
- s '., f. G. ,'f... .ly.i.
,t , .1
.; . , , ; .. ;' c .- .
... .L
,;a
' . , a (
W
l',,.*
.-( N, .~ . '. . ; J,. G *.'..*....r..,
. ,- y C ' '* (. ; ; ,**:, .*.',< . ** **Gw.
y.
'..?*s/,,&.
,* 6.,
,e,.,.'. .p,- ,' .'.
,.;.~.,
v ,.. . ,. .?.
,,sr
% .. * ; .* '. l *y's 'f. * }
,,.9'.., .<
- b. kf.; 'e Y.s..nh<\$ .m.h l k,' b.,
'k. Y , w,?
u.- '.h .~
Y vl
C
- . c;,..., .. ,?. ..8
'. ,' E ij n :.'. ..,.. a. h . a .... s,A ' .. w...,,.h
.bD m ,,Eh,. n , ,d h. , ,
.ih'ih..h][ h .[.,k,1; $),h .IN
$' ' ).t :N'[ ,.' Yi IIf^j,b. '0N k.1 ,*
l
._,,,b
t 8*'*
4 2
. ,. s o
- r
+,.y .g - i
- a.
s.
..o. u. ,
. .v ,. .. .r .).,. ..
e ,y .
v ..S
, , . . q s , .
4 Wf
,~ ', P COMMISSIONERS
. I 1.:
- - 3 L.ando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
., ? c.}. 7, , . , , i Thomas M. Roberts 3.gy,; ,; . -; ".
, /,< g. .
(1 James K. Asselstine .
W , ?.' ',..> 1 Frederick M. Bernthal i , .
N, ,.~-,,,t;J 'g ,/ ,'.,m.,*.. E., .r '> ,f../ r,j Kenneth M. Carr -
. , e.
=. ... .
,.,A
- .e...:,- r .- , .
,.x . ,a ,
- 3
,,,,4 ,
~.- .j
.. 3
, .. . . 4 j
4 , , ,
'.3 .. ,o . o .
~c_+,
, t . ., .. -.
- d_
.g 1.
.c,i,
.. -y a
L (
4 i
t s
. , Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Uconsing Appeal Panel B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
, s
, c q.; . . ..,g ,, ,;. , ,, ,, ,
- n,
.s . .a < .
. n> .. ., ; ,
. .r
.. . . . . . , . . , , . .. .a ,..
s~,..,- - . . , -
, .. .t .u. e, 7,,- . ,.
.w
.i.o.. s. i. . ..e.< n *q l,- - ,.j t. < c, 'I.
t : a* . .t
.i.1
. . s. ,;. -. s % p: ~
- 3 1
.1 ' .* t. , , , , 1 .
'gl
.t: .p' . -
- g. :
, i
%.<. v.j .
c,
'< .* . . ...m..._, ..
,~->u . . . , x; : 3. p . . . ...- . y: t.
,.,v* ,
- , > *-.y .m .
. ....v..
.+ . .
.v. ., , _s.
u.
- 3. . . - -<-y et
,n
.e 6 .6 f *, .;.* . .: ,...
3 i-
- . , . - -- ,..-t. :
- St4. I* t. ,, . . , ,
j
- i*i w ,
- s. m, ;., o . ,n, y,.. .. - - ,y.y,, e ,,
@ ,_ . . c e.
- + y c. .Q
.a e. < . ,?4 .- * ,. . iG, ,,,: '. . .ysf:ec.. W,n
- v. t ,. , , ,.,.
. ..r.u; ..- - h,.: ;
l *
-r
-w .,
- r. . v wd
.. p
<s,.v.,.,= ,,.,w.;. ; e> , , . .-.*..t..,........m*,,
e, . a, ,',.e
- ..i4'. .e " , % ,1' g,; fJCi ;a>,..~,c....
- c. .,3q:,.,,e , g E , ...*
"f . . q$$, '. ./' I rr -
s.
- . 7,?Sh. *** l.,.Q) s
- ,- , l , , . ., ..{r,.f.
e ,)i > y. V . .' fl.a" ,
j
'a
- - 1 **;,* p . & *% . .4j i, / ,.,,,,.
,*,, Ad *
)*ld#
j ,'# , If .h j ,'., *
- p[,q ; .g, . . . )
s.+ r ...e Yt ut. a'=,% ./ n7e3,r - . .. ,ep,77g,, , # , ;', . . *y.,,. ,.m
- 4 .. . '_ p ,*.c * .* ym . ps* c .. ,sr.- ;.. , s.- Is ..)g
'e s \n% ,c,'e. .. , c .
, , }y' "L,$ c\ ' .L..h.m.'
- p % , ,. F
',, m}L.,,
.= l, ;e s :
.c .
- s. .* ' w ,
.., ,1.*
1
. 'v . g , , -
- .,:.,..* - . - ~,,, .* . . .
..n ,e .
. ' . . t s
. ., "; . s.....y i. ,; ,
m ,,. C ,.f
. .e .
- s
. <. , - . + .
.g ,. p .3 . .
s, ,t,. , ... , .
,.,, .e. c. . i m 9 9 ,ef,*,'.,.c.,: . .....,,3..7 .s . .
.s n
, , - ~ .. .. .
., .
- r ,g ,*. .**. *. , " ~ a,.
, . .m
- f.
. ,t .
t, . ,o 4
1
-t
- t f**.e ' ,* . 9 ;.,' *' ;.? 7 * ? . pt<4: r;,.,* ,q, , :,". ,U . . . t sb r .y ,.%. .'-
+ gl ' ,e. :
' , ' + , *.. + .",- '.s.
y* -.
, *, ',. . .',4, ix.; , , ..
.% , e ,*...:. a i* 3 . , ' ~
t' a 1. - r
,4a. . e, *.p.
' , . , e
- y e g, ,;y . i~ .,0l.r.g .: . , ., **, ,. ,' , .
n a.
^ . - . _ at.'t,r. W.; ,, v, ,.?o,. n. . >e . . ..* . =_
- ,, [ . . , w ,,.c.'s d' E' I
- [y ,
- I '
.i. . .,, I .. ,
's, w. . m,* .,,
..p. h, ,. q. . ,e
,-.4 ,.p.'.
- w. . .. . ,
- e. ././.a,,O.,.;
,a .
- 2. a b,
. - . <.. . . .a,+w gi . ) .v. , . :.,
m , .
- f. y&'
- a. .e ,>,h
> s.t . . . v,, .u, - . .
. .. < W.
, ,n. ...
- u. y4;,..:,s. : -g<
.1.s
, n. a .
v . . . ,.g .,eae
- ., .: .~ .
.e b W.. ;,,.s, .. .~.
. ,3, y . .t' J ./e i.' *,"', r. .. # ., n ..* 4 c. ,4..,, = ') . . .a . v, .a- y v. -p, .2.,., . g, Y .., i <a. . . . ,- ; f,g 1,,: %y . *', .x, g.= .- >. a.. c... .,. . 4 , .. ..g..,.. ** e g e , t.e0.4ef , r(,%.e % 4.,.. - r .'. t , y*,..
- w, a
$ q' s*qV%,;Y* 4 ys 9, r*v / .e r .y *,.,'*.,**Ff , F , s' < f , , .. ,. e. , yM.e o. , s.,f,,;-) Lh
- 2 [.% #F* ' * . 'i 8*- ,<
g +p9,?./ .o..ww,1 .ee e *s . t.*',*. ~ . ' ., p . # ) ,,y ,, . y#s'. A g % '* ,,, , - e' , ,,i ,.* *v* . ,,/* * .r*, , w r , .E ""{' v* s ,P ,A. 8i g e *,Ypb w,4.'s
- ' We ' . *'. .b v
- J*
- s ,l.- . N .. ak .to.'.' k . g..*
/*' %p.g!s, A r. 7 *,*., '{'G..'.e. y,.. e : 5. . *p. .- i . - ,r,, 'c. 9. . ,.W . ? l,,g* y (,"ip' ,~ k'?*y "T/ '; '.Q.g n y,. *d +* b,..,*g, y,'- n ~.W , . 'y y.p.Q.34 9s fc 7, , d1.+ *?4
- w'."$.g.',.g;.-D. 5 '9 ;l ",Q .j a
.' CONTENTS ~ s. . i. ; 1: y .." -... , , ' v, , '.. s;w',. 6.".,.,.4.. , c . . Issuance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission . .-. , s .. . .,.. .w ., r., ', 's '
- CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH 1 CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY j (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)
, , W. . D. ,l Docket 50-400-OL d ORDER, CLI 871, January 9,1987 ............................. 1
- . o ;
. ,4 . , ;- ;, 45' . ;j j ';,.f ,7 G ; .- ?., ,,l .'. ,i' : ] .,,, 4.. . .d 'd Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards - . .,.is .1, 1 , d ,'jS .. .. ; . l. N M;f.'i Al,. ..;.( GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. . r* E . " .' ; 7 .} j f g .7. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) o< , 1 Dockets 50-424-OL,50-425-OL ^ > 'i MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, '.J. ,. ' a ~. " . ' ' N- ' .( ALAB-859, January 21,1987 ................................ 23 M.. 5 .f '- ', ,;.f. .'. . '.3 4 PHILADELPHIA ELECTTJC COMPANY C . (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) Dockets 50-352-OL,50-353-OL g DECISION, ALAB-857, January 2,1987 ......................... 7 .j ' - PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. i (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) Dockets 50-443-OL,50-444-OL (Offsite Emergency Planning) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, .. ALAB-858, January 15,1987 ................................ 17 - + ,{ 1 ' 'y n Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards + / '" .b .$~. : r t . f . - }. ' %. , . N- i FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY. ct al. .( . . . s , y ,$' .. , * . , . ,.
- n, i ; (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2)
- 3
. s. '#.. o' .}4 . q Docket 50-389-OLA (ASLBP No. 87 544-01 LA) (Spent Fuel Transfer Amendment) 'l i MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ,,, S .', . >' ' ' . ' LBP 87-2, January 16. 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 s. \ j - , g . . - s , .. .. c. cf . 1 . s. s. . .,.*N. 4,..g>- . ,~ 6 ,m %s , ,r ' *[ 9 ... ,.e.,,,1o e s ~ .. . ;s..;. .. ~ ' . , . . . .,.; l _ h.'.t . ..- / .' .I 9 , .h..,4. .; j ' '.f,",'eY.,' ., s. . w.g .' 3 ,.,_- ,,o. . , , . -
- t.
s -a s ;
- . \
? < y s .,,i , ' .,,.,,. i m,- ., ,.,*s,.-'.'1. ,,# . . ..S,.. .m ,, . c .(. . ..1. . III i i ',1,'b.s,M. .. . MM.[65.*!n f.*?,D . . , ,u . .c e Y.,r.: '38l4 l
- .w,.,
p;.Q,cS., t *?.!7.% w . .n.- ,.fsn.*.;'.. g,: A -.# . . i . c. .4 .. ..%) Q.(Qf.?? d 5,r, Q. ,s .;." ..s - ;. .s ,., t,; p2. g*.+ . . e , ; , 4 .1.;,* . ; e.. .. r"* de,, .. .,e 'a . g ; ,.,... -) t f , . v # g . .L.. ,.. , , ' .s . t* .c'. v ',' ; ' ' f/ . * ,j.,,, ;! .. - , ,~. y .. ., . z. . . v . , , - . , . , < - . ;3 a. .~ . . , . - *p g i, L 4 . .. i .' * - s.,**
- ' 's - . '
, 6, w. .c ; ( - ' .'),. . ~ - ,.g. y , . 3 ' .;,.'.; . . . i .) , . ,. -<* .. g . ,, .. ( .'y *..g, 4. . .t , .,i.. .,v . r ,. . .* <f.g,= 5. < .e , ,;, ,*. . , , , ,.
- y *, . */'*
- r, '
-'",{' * '* ,. y ,,'
- ,/.'*4* ,
- p ,
- e, ,,- ei"
. . v.,.4,'s,s l p. . s.. . ,,,,.;- *. ,, w
- ..J.. ., , , . . , ., .
w , f. A ' , . .v',. .* ' .. ' a . ., ..- ' , .. . 3 .s ' ,g'i'..~',N.,,,'.. - . > + .- -" 3 . .,.;....., *.v.. . 4r* 4, * . . - ,g, * , . -,(7,. d
- i
. ...'s .pi.o. ./ i,p. '.f .'e'",a e .c *. (, 4 ** e. . ,,i..f ,.,.a. ,o,,,.,-c.4.,,.. .,h. t ,i , . + e, _g , . . , * ,, g .,g 4, 3, e,, .. f' p . . , 4 .s ,3 . f o,., , ...,,7, . 3" .. , . '. -
- o' .
. . . . . ..,r, l $QQ, ,,.3,g,,,,,..
- l ,
..y/.,;..',...,/..u.,'....3Mfhy:,'f.Q, ,%;,,.leh.%p. !&%.S,. ,. q.Ihk.@.. ..! 1.@,(!Q , .... /.h!, Q5f.%,..;dQ,#i[? TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. ,y . (Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Station, Units I and 2) . . c , '1 la p 1 Dockets 50-445-OL,50-446-OL (ASLBP No. 79-430-06-OL) ", . J, . * ,,. MEMORANDUM, LBP-87-1, January 7,1987 ................... 29 f,;1 ,e - 4 ,. . y,. t- n t ,- Issuance of the Administrative Law Judge 4 ,' ADVANCED HEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. ~ .
- u. ' ', '
', j (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041) 1, Docket 30-16055-SP (ASLBP No. 87 545-01-SP) , .% ..e.. 3 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER POLLOWING FIRST PREHEARING %.y'.y,.$';14.,.....fd i , CONFERENCE, ALJ-87-1, January 14,1987 ................... 39
- s. c. . . ,, ; .- ..,
ff" , n'i.-l. % ;. 4 + : .*; - Issuance of Director's Decisica ' ~ s . s .. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. M . , ," San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3) Dockets 50-206, 50-361, 50-362 - -
- DIRECTOR'.", DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206,
, e ;] . , . . DD-87-1, January 29,1987 .................................. 43 g,]1 . i. n.
- Issuance of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
.sa .a; _ s O.N PUBLIC CITIZEN Docket PRM-50-41 N. DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING, =.! t DPRM-87-1, January 14,1987 ............................... 49 1 c , I l . 'J A o ,#, - . *W .-! . ' . . '//* .*. .. /*
- .1 e * * ,
- d. ]
e .' * * * * .~:r.-,,',, g,a . .-^... 'q
- l. . . .
p .M. g', ',' s, e . .s m. d t'. .**g,
- 8-
. - gg e. L u c. , a n,.., . $ ' . '.) .* .' , ,,n . * ! . t ...w . ,, ,
- 4"
- t , ,
t;" , . + - , .=,. f., .g .'da g . ,,4 4 - a -' . , ^ * , . *-*, f l 1, , , - -..'. ; ., ,. , - 7 . , 5 s j .. t' * *, , . * .,{ .i .t...,, ..g y e , -j, y e p' ,' ** .t ..,,.'l," , .
- 3,* h . (k'
, + r k,,* , g , f 's. / * ;%g p# y
- * , I *.
V'J g ' f, . * ,,, ly r y . ,. ,. ,* - . ,. . . , ~ , . . 1. . . . . : *, ;. , 1 * . 9,n ', K,,,.s= t ,,lJ
- < < st
,. d..iV,...,,.%e- , ,,, y ye. * *;. ,..*n, ".,., vevu . t. *.a..g. ,. . p A g .7 8 -$ . , , g [ g# . '- ,
- 4,.,$.v..
- .. - w , . .D , *!. % .:. O *,h . D..b' , .. . i @ t$. . . .".[.*).?,) . .
., ,t . . +- e~"'. ' - g . , 6. .. v . 4d ]' *,*A.a .* ' /s./ ' < *.'g' ,'* -.,' 'y .,/,* f% * , ,,( . ;. v ,',
- y . . ... ,
,,,,a y^ .* .< L
- p '. '"...,.,D,',...p
.. 3 g' ,,.& , vL -,, ' , , y;. [ .d. ..' '* ,y , .m.< ' f ', (1,. . ,; b , ..y'+'{ ;;l,V 3 ,g;., , , -y . , ...7.,,*
- ;r>
,a, -. '
- _ ,* a'
- < 1 e, , , i, Q. . . .: , g,3 .-* . . ,) , . ('5, ,y, s.;.., , '.., ".1.), ..,. * , , ,,'., ,, pn ,*., * ** \.. . Y ' '* *
- 1)
, , - . p . "E t, . ,e a e . .t ' . " , " ' ' , , , " ~.f. ' #~' i *, ** , e ,v si.i Y'... \ . N'e. ...% ,* . s,
- V, '
L s,v e a' ' 6 , .* '=.d. * * ,, / l% . ., , * . < ., . ,s s 8 ai~ -
- 'L. O'; .,, . ! ' ( i.
-[ - ., ,,...;* * *.
- * -. * .j s
p f .' .,v.N, e. + ; , . ** *q *, e, . ('l ,; .*, - ' . ' .*c...,, . ,s,
- f. , ,. , ,;i ,
. % s' .,. b ?. . * ' e d e '. , ;. .*, -
- ?,3 ' ; , l r ' .
? . s. f '-t* ,.,"r' l ,, * . * .\' .s ' e*' ,,i 'e tj' .;* ; ..fv ,, y {p 'e
- '.s.V. rQ. .!.*u%. m'.{,, g . t' . y.'4'or ,#..J,qp;.
.'"*{ s n,.. ..* -1,, , ; ,;.'- , *. ;1 , .* Q f r,, w f g .n6 . -* W f.,, g*.,s .f. .*N8 '.'*g 7..0. . s': R., ...6. (b. ~; ",.,s 4'*
- e. , # a
- ? .%
..-.s.-. a ,p j. . .. -
- c. ,J. ,. .,r. ,,, as . - . , .
' . . ** . ..
- A t ,.*
i . 2 ., . ,. -- D . ;,, 3 s a. ,- t. ~ ,i . .- .. . , %.. ,, . .; , % ,L ~,.V, y ..<7M,; ..JW. 'e m' Nh n [: q .. a M[ld.Q,y;.y.,@:W,/,.g3: v:lf(,, $ Mq &'. h,*.7.< d[W' y:. :. aN.. , .. : :d' . * * '. ' 1 ~ Wi ^ cf 'I, . MM D #D ' f , i i, e % 8 4 5 Commission Issuances o (D Y llE - O O ? I i 1 - -y y . Cite as 25 NRC 1 (1987) ' CLI-871 .r y . ,. ,'. '] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' ', m o, W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ]: . .2 d i. 3 ;f. 3 s, " ,-3 : . <. j ,; O:,.w ,,. . ., s, . s; ,. . ~ u,t., ..p ..s. - ,,,..s .t t,- , ; m; - . COMMISSIONERS: _,. 2 . . c 1 f a r - ' ,_. J., .A L, / ,,j Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman rr. s. c , s-Thomas M. Roberts ./ 9' ^ % James K. Asselstine -... y . Frederick M. Bernthal RQg . ...4.b,..N Q, . : ( .p%, , . <) ' r,. . ,..- C;p.M. Kenneth M. Carr , * ' < >@"w.%. .,5 - I,Q.. 3af :ca ,,g p . ,.n.;*,,; 9 .9, o. .4..
- c. ,
.. r. , ., . -.; <. , , s; < , t . <,c ..~ >-- n . . F ' n. ; ;, .'.y c $,.. Docket No,50-400-OL 9 4 9 , N , %~... < in the matter of ' .4g.z e. g . ..g .g . . +-. . . .. ~ .;. . ;e. ~ ,
- - > CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT
-a ' ris m [;j 9 j; *, . f , , * . ,+ i- * .' COMPANY and , :E :c + NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN '/ .n
- s. " ... .. .: E . " -
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY e, ....'/i. e ,* .1 -- o ' (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 1' o, - . .<* . .s Plant) January 9,1987 e ' r, *
- lt
-;g The Commission authorizes issuance of a full-power license by the NRC Staff for the Shearon Harris nuclear facility based on (1) Commission review ( 16. cy of contested safety-related contentions resolved in the remaining Licensing Board partial initial decision not administratively finalized through Commission 7 . appellate review; and (2) issues not contested before the Licensing Board , s f but raised in interveners' effectiveness comments, at various public meeting s presentations, arg! in a pending 5 2.206 petition, all of which were resolved in favor of facility operation. - o ~ ~.
- m. . r.g s.
i .. /- . .q ,. .c , y . , ,v ; ~ 7,1, . .%. .g;.p.,. : . <, ,'. N..i u. ?..y NRC: IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW .,.. .o ,, .. . .s
- .
- ~ .
.C'?- ,.i W *" 5 ". -M. . To provide grounds for a delay of the effectiveness of a Licensing Board . y " (.i > decision authorizing issuance of a full-power license, an intervenor's concerns 40 if ,, e % , ,j q,,. - i regarding a contested issue, such as management competence, must challenge j . ',. the Board's substantive conclusions regarding the issue. Comments that are no j e.u.M ' .,'. . 4 .c %,, # .o' r.','..*-. 'l 1 ,g y c, gB g g . .e f... - g. I ;k , , , a <t'", '. ! n
- E..,*s u 'N. r ;eJ1;._
-s u, n,.' , . , , o. .a. , . we ., + , '*" ", # .. ', .( * # h 7" -' a ' ,,f , p '1 y y,P g g % : ,' . .se, '&,
- l. $.,.y.,, ?.~' , *-
} a = z .'. . , . ~ ?.<^ c . L .N, o c,, . .,- *1 ' ; % #.n .y* :, 'y'* ;$ > : 4 .* 1,.&, ,o, .. .,, 7. w n .q. .,,J. ,* t . ,. b - :. J. * ;O+ r*-k ,w , f .r ' f, . , . # ( % ' '*g , = ] . a# , ' .d ,, %, l 1.7-*a .,Ai'.,..*k. . , 7; *3 ,,. w. %
- ?j* v, .r rOaM,);' :s . f . * ,, ' ' e*{. Q. '.
e .N i
- bs dl '
- 1 Q. .:*y,. M."l- , ;.? 's l o,,* M;Kr4*',I W
, NMY e ~46.N'.% h :.*. .NNS[d' 'M)/*,h h? p. L.-g g,4i,;;*d %;W,9,0 r# * . Q 7jg,)W < , *l g*e ... p%g gr: y 'f?'U,'", W ?S ".7,' . * Q J N J ,. M 'r* A .. 'W ',* * * . ,'. , 7 ', t v ' . *? "&%,?*jf . ; &
- ~
. . ,_ m. ., . - , ?{! . . ' - . . . . . .
- &$&,*.? Y.
- .;' ' ' O fl'~ '*Y % / V:
k..'.'. Y. * ,. g^ j . ,* ,A i- *l T .) ? @ *.. ' , 4 , mp.,,. 't g .9 , ,M $ g. , y.),,- u., M;
- i. - .
- n . .. ..
9>. s s ,.t; .a;. . , m. . .y . . .<- .: < .. ? c r , r: . i 'g*. . !~;i.<*v .t 4, '
- .w .,,.
s - . . . , %. . ,. . **. t s. > , , , - , 1c f las* y .=.G*+ * . v .[ po* . s. * .4 ,y' ?,}:. v. t . +h.*.,.'? ;u f ,' . +Nr'! * . , . c .' = . ~..s.. .s. q ~ '~- g." ' ) .' . .n * *'l
- *3,, c ,y.
.', .i . ./ ed. + ,, , , ,,s a% ,e J*, ,g *' , g . , g'a e , ., e a - .,,.-,...,.j , . . . .g. .. p *, 6.' +. - + . .g;, 9 s c f<: . .; .lIf,e....l- , - -
- . p,. .. e d
. t , S t ,,..,-a.s,s. .. gm, == -* +. e+f m a., , - . i ,m,,. g , y ,r, ,, , . < v", .
- 6
. e , . g ,- ...,,e,+ 4 . 6 .,*g. C; .g'* .iI g, 4 .Z,., _.' .. a ,;;-g. ;.* .,..
- y 4 a y* ,a . ec f a, A; r; p. ,
- e
.s , Q-J * +f..,.,. 3- e=s , . . ,[t ,;,' p{, rs..y ** ;2 . ee e ' V \,. m.f .. w * *. a., n f y ).,.,.,p , , *se. g,J. p.,. ,l* **;/- .,ya. L '_ .* A g.' sa y, ,% l .
- O *l 'In a sj w ..
',fw. . % '+g &. .sf,g 99.* ' '.* Os ;. . . " , , 4 s , ,, ,. , , g N&,)g'dh...:,j& N, 5 .x(e&. w,51Y'll.'*,h. ;,.?,0*;&.,Cr,W $}'.Y $. bl$.*'* *hjh',), .. l' n a .1'r.O.M.r.'.k.d yp .r 4 n. - s s , .- M - . n ?., ,i U.c we k ,.bh N).h._.Y. . .b +. 'kV,'v.T ,..,>o w ' .i. a-s7. :; , e 9 . } hh . hf h; k b . ~ ,I, o - ---________w m more than speculation about the integrity of a member of the agency's Staff responsible for the oversight of utility management competence are not sufficient. .. , ' . ~ , ,' ' .c J" ' ., ..' NRC: IMMEDIATE EFFECTIYdNESS REVIEW ~.s . The Commission's determination to authorize facility operation, reached as a result of its immediate effectiveness review of contested issues addressed in ! a Licensing Board partial initial decision that subsequently was affirmed by the , y,- 'I Appeal Board, does not foreclose a party from filing a petition for Commission ,] review of the merits of the Appeal Board's decision. See 10 C.F.R. 9 2.764(g). , , a .i ,; - j' . - ,-- NRC: IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW
- , . . _.1 Issues interveners seek to raise outside of the formal adjudicatory proceeding 4
,' , (y ; ,. , N "
- &l3.. [, . I A
that have been resolved either in Licensing Board, Appeal Board, or Commission rulings on contested matters, or through the Staff's analysis of $ 2.206 petitions, did not provide a basis for delaying the Commission's authorization to the . . Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue a full-power operating license. 1 l -.,.] ORDER l . , , 1 On April 28,1986, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducting the operating license adjudicatory proceedmg for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant issued its fourth and final partial initial decision ("PID). In concluding that decision, the Licensing Board declared that it had resolved all contested issues lj in favor of applicants Carolina Power and Light Company ("CP&L") and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency and, accordingly, the Director of l Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR") was authcrized, upon making the findings ~, required under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.57(a), to issue a full-power operating licent,e to the applicants. LBP-86-11, 23 NRC 294, 408-09 (1986). Consistent with 10 C.F.R. 6 2.764(f), after conducting a review of those parts of the Licensing .o Board's decision that have !.ot yet become final under the agency's adjudicatory ~ - ..- ^, ' .
- ' . , . appe!! ate process and after consideration of interveners' June 1986 effectiveness
> ,. ;;-/G . - ~ comments and the various presentations made at a public meeting on January f, 5: " P/.i 8,1987, the Commission has determined that the Licensing Board's decision . "1 should become effective and that the Director, NRR, is authorized to issue a j , . s full-power operating license. In four extensive PIDs the Licensing Board resolved all contested issues ' ' ' . .O, . .,. l in applicants' favor, each of these decisions subsequently was affirmed by the n t. - s '
- ' 'o l .. . e
., 1 . . . ,4 ,*l, -
- .,,t zA
,L,-.
- . .,s
, , ..~ I(- . ,, ,
- ' y .; ., *1 g v
y;jm' . , . ,-, .. g - ; ;. . .c, r . cL < , .g. 3 < ,w . . . ; -, , ' .? - . . < n . c'* . '!,* W , ".e,. . . ~:X: Q ..f,3,, .:: ,.e ."M .lt< i,'a:;7 ; a.., m , .v.a, . .... .wm:. . ., ,..,:.. s ..m. ; .q. ,,. '. :., N J} .p- ' Y' ,* ,n,.> . b. ,s .d . g' 6
- *' [ ' } } . ; ,1
, - )- ,j .g',',,' i [. ' 8 -"e',*!**-*
- ~ 7, g 'a' O ' ,t;, ,y,**#," . ?
- p (~ '
., O S,.*,'* i .' '. + . j, . , . e i ' .**'g.,f d' ' ' " {t' .. > . .,.c ... , " L* . d ' . ' ~ ' . ~
- J, e e i' i . . * -
f,4 '.,, p . p',,' .s.7- ^..,;< -
- As s .
b l. ' '...A; . ,$.,.J. 'n . ~o ?? s v g ,- ..; . , ~ j.
- j1.',e.g.,.,*.'t.~,(-
.7 -
[g,,%f [ ? e'.#
- M '
,,).
b ,. .i . ; I '. '
76 ;,'4 L
- 5j significant management problems had been identified during the Shearon Har-
.i ris construction permit proceeding in 1979 and had continued through 1982,
.%3 1 a , ,7 ; c' i,* -, - . . . '.y the Licensing Board nonetheless concluded that there since had been a con- ~
sistent sustained improvement in applicant CP&L's management performance
- ]
^
i "
that effectively relieved any previous concerns about management.2 The Li-
.. ..,.',. '..'.,-l,' '1 '.
~(
censing Board also found no basis for intervenor concern about the adequacy of
. ', ' ; y,' ]j ,
' thermoluminescent dosimeters ("TLDs") to protect worker health and safety. Ac-
.! cording to the Licensing Board, the TLDs used by CP&L and CP&L's quality
'" l
' # assurance program for controlling TLD processing e rnrs both are adequate. Fur-
~
'~, -
ther resolved in CP&L's favor were intervenor challenges to a number of differ-ent aspects of the Shearon Harris environmental qualification program. Finally,
,m
, .y ,
the Licensing Board found no evidence to support intervenor assertions that
- concrete was placed inadequately during the construction of the Shearon Harris containment building. The Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's de-termination on all counts.
In effectiveness comments filed June 9,1986, interveners Wells Eddleman, the Conservation Council of North Carolina, the Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear 7
- Group Effort, and the Kudzu Alliance raised a number of different issues as asserted grounds for denying immediate effectiveness to the Licensing Board's decisions. Similarly, those interveners, along with Richard Wilson, the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (" CASH"), and the North Carolina Attorney General's Office, presented a number of concerns at the Commission's January t
' Ino Ars MD concerning environmentalissues was issued in Febmary 1985.13P 85 5. 21 NRC 410 0985). It
, M,.*. '
was afErmed by the Appeal Board in May 198& At.AB-83't. 23 NRC 525 0986). A second PID resolving cenain
- r.,
./,' /, safaty issues was issued in August 1985. t.BP-85-28,22 NRC 232 0985); Appeal Board affirmance occuned
- s. ,l'+ .
in Deca.nber 1986, AIAB 856. 24 NRC R02 (1986). The third PID concenung safety and ememency planmng i ,
' ..j.'%' maners was issued in December 1985 t.BP15-49,22 NRC 899 (1985). and was affirmed by the Appeal Board in
-(' '
August 1986. ALAB.843. 24 NRC 200 0986). he fourth and fmal PID. which desh wuh comennons cancermns drug use at the facility and the adequacy of aightume emergency nauficanon, was issued in April 1986. t.BP
,- . ,r /
8611,23 NRC 294 (1986). The Appeal Bosni affirmed this decision in october 1986. AIAB-852,24 NRC 532 s,
.. '. $ g1986).Ahhough CP&I, and the North Caroline Eastern Wnicipal Power Agency are
,.' licanas for the shearon Harns facility CP&t, has eactuaive responsibility for construction. operanon, and ,
j F-7*
. (, .,,.1, .
'.'4 ,
mausenance of the plant
. .2 }
g=***. ,,
- )
.3._ . * , , ., .y ,rs.
. . ,. l , l 6..
',.,*,'.u ..
1
., , .. . 3 <
. #v
. < . ;. )
...w-s ,
,: v. . ,
._. 1i v ..^ .; .y n
~s. >,g;n. ' . , ..;.e.s q... .sp ' 1.j" .p y,%
be%. 's&...r.
- .t's.',~.f.kw $j . ..f.' ;.n.. Y. Yr .m r.,*
, .. ,,z, , ,,
. ;, .r{y .g i
'.,e,
., : , y. y-...,.
I/? .. ,
/. a . , g (
'.'.,s.-y ,; ,.'j j , , '. .., ,
, . * , . , , .f KJ ' *f.' , g;.'N "3. .. .!" (t, l .>g A.,q.f,, .
.). s <
. ., s
....*..w. ..
.,r , . ,,e.
u .. - ,
1 2 . ... , . . .i, . :, . . . .... , ,-
~
~,
. * ' '. '.4",-- ,
. VetQ ,',, .* 9 'e ;l ' u,
.4 . . ' , ,-' ,',.<"./,i '.-0' .. . ( 'M
'. . '. , ., ;' .1
- 9. .. ,s ..',.
.I'
,.. .}Q,*',.:'.,=
'*; ..-- j - ~, , . ,.
. Q ' p 's. ;b,M.
. : .,7 :, ; -z. a.9,J _,.: . .'.' ,:.;y ';.,
- . y
. , 7 .,
(.,v...fl . ; - .
.. , < :. , c t 1)
?-
'j:. , *. : ~. ., : :';. : ; .,a , ~y.
s ' ;;* y- . . , '.. , 4. u , . . ., ;2 n.3 + -;.; w , s ga*.. .- ,
+t . ,,, . .r . n .
- I
- h .'h$ b
.hhh' .ki.hc e : . x,:.c . ~ .. ; n .:
,,','.f M' s; bf ,,5*
h.1' I. m. . .
. '.7 [L).s mm., un . .. m. .e.. w[.'." b k.$.*,
y,y. ppg 4 .,5 1 .b:& g; .L. W .
.a. .,. . .
&)%;h),
4- . 9. t;.4,y h.h,M.v M' .
.c/ .;
wR w ~p.?M;w;$dW
- .W.y:
.M; i. 7 .
, W.p.g;r.w@
.V:%
3.y ..,.R;;:.C ,g3Kw
> 1
~
\ 1 l 1 i
i 8,1987 public meeting that they declared provided gmunds for delaying effectiveness ami licensing authorization. Only in the June 1986 effectivene.ts
, , . Jj l
comments was any serious attempt made to address an issue - the question of 4
..w .. r. management competence - that was contested in the second PID.
j;', -
~ -
i, : 5 '-
, , y. ' ,(,,,
7, . _ In their June 1986 effectiveness comments, interveners do not challenge the Licensing Board's substantive conclusions regarding the competence of CP&L's i
.. 6' t
' a management, but instead attack the integrity of former NRC Staff member Paul Bemis. Mr. Bemis, who prior to his departure from NRC had principal responsi-bility for regulatory oversight of the CP&L management improvement program y that was instituted to correct its man 1gement deficiencies, served as the principal 1j NRC Staff witness at the hearing on management competence. Interveners de-L
- l clare that Mr. Bemis' responsibility to "insur[e] that the Applicants were doing i
,c'O <. 4
.,' + .
.4 -
.}. . .. , : ,,,]
better" created a " conflict" that would cause him to overlook utility management
,.. ., , . j, . ;
> ' shortcomings in order to deliver favorable reports that would boost his standing
, , , , . ..) in the agency. Yet, to reach this conclusion, interveners totally mischaracterize 7; fl f,y,. 1 [."
' . n'/.pl.< i ~ the nature of Mr. Bemis' responsibilities, which were to oversee and report on
- CP&L's progress, not to " insure" improvement of its performance. Further, even though Mr. Bemis was cross-examined extensively at the hearing by interveners,
,~'
' we are not aware of, and interveners have not provided any citation to. any tes-3 timony that raises any question about Mr. Bemis' objectivity in his observations
- of CP&L.
" ' . y,' ' ~ , ' 1 "y It thus is apparent that this intervenor concern is wholly speculative and 1
does not provide a gmund for delay of the effectiveness of the Licensing 9
Board's initial decision authorizing the Director to issue a full-power operat-ing license. Moreover, the Commission's review of all other contested issues
" ' addressed in the Licensing Board's second PID and the Appeal Board's decision affirming the Licensing Board's conclusions reveals no basis for delaying the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's decision?
As to those matters raised in the June 1986 effectiveness comments and the January 1987 presentations that do not involve the contested issues in the second PID, they also fail to provide a basis for delaying effectiveness of the
?
Licensing Board's decision. Many of these concerns were resolved previously y in the Licensing Board, Appeal Board, or Commission rulings on contested j
matters (including various motions to admit late contentions or to reopen and
," ', . N n, . y * ]j -
' 'j,'i
<r ; ; lf '
the Commission's ruling on the hearing requests relative to applicants' request
( *.,. , .. '?.
+ '
for an exemption from the requirement of a full-scale emergency planning
'id77..
j *. U ,
drill 1 year before full power licensing, CLI-86-24, 24 NRC 769 (1986))
T..I or in the NRC Staff's decision denying a July 2,1986 petition under 10 i
, , . ,1 *
+ .
- . ,-. , -O 3
- our conclusions regarding the seomd PID in the context of this effectiveness decision should not be read to
' ' *- 7 foreclose any peution for review under 10 C.F.R. 62.786 c( the Appeal Bosnrs decision in AI.AB-856. Ses 10 C "
_..y C.F.R. I 2.764(g).
- - - . ; . .. .,s 4
'. .a
,, .t , 3,.
r . . / , '-
~
- , f. ' ". *.. *.
m ;;j .
4 y .* .;. . , . ..v. a.e - ) .
. .% - 4*y , ,%- .
- [. ~
e g . * , , ;y *J v.j 3,- ?. 3 - .t .. g.p . e;y
- s A.
y ' , .sfj
- g s";'..S O . . , . g 'a. ./s *; Ls'.; .q 3.s ' * .c, , l. . .., * '*. 4.', c. ','e e
- I
' h. [ '.,e h*$ *
, [t 8'. [,
. g. . ;'. . . ,, f /. g' r .a ., Y l'.6, <j f.', v .- '
.'*2sq f.' Jy/ rA***r.;'* *7 *
, ? j , '# l 't 1 ^. '*P"~"
'" % ',1.{ d ?"'. e' r r ' ~ * ~ ' Y*' ' '
,,.. ~ ~, a i,' .,,' [,,cre *
., . . a
'. b"' / ' ,l *, 3*;,g g a '
Y" ,' y .;! . h lt . . . joy H., ,,.
.; 7
. Y" ?8..
,, ., 0 l'.. '
, s. .
-. t
- g. .,J.,', .; ,
.o-Q **!
, .. . .,.7. s,
,t 1
Y**.,. l ef , ~. b ; * ,
-g i ., J s .. -
s
. . .*- c X - x t , . l \ _. ". ., j ^**
p ,.
.H ,'.4 .~.-; ' ..." < ,
' *. .' i_' '
',' 'g. * ' *
. >. r. .rv . v J I: ; .
.: , o
.<f.*,., .. '*a ,.y* 1 , '.
,a, , '. - , . >
- * , , i.
f.*,..,'-
c '; . ,
n, . ,, L !*,. k . 'j , l h.. .] . : f.k'i.V ;j ', ' ,h. ; .
. ' , '~ " ,
. a
.3 .. . p c'. ' m
= *;s hg. . * , G, .
'*e;f.2,
> p.s ' , ,' , s,,
f),,.
. , , . . . .J. ;e . .v ,,c.,.'.
. . . ~f.u , '$ .( . n ' :.t' ? [ > I w i: , }. ;. ' '. i ji ,.' , * *..f. .,*.l.f. ,,,y t',.', !
y s" f. f .- a. .Q .i v. ..., .,* *m, -,.,$. .a m, ., ,
- 2. .,3 I. . . .
- l lq . m: . ua . . . . , .6 lq ).,%g
- s
. ! .tb s * .? . . f L f._ . ** A
~
& ; *g . ,..c ..
- . . , p..
[&
- Of. S$ '" >,,. # l{*I ' *'
f .,,,
I.* $l,' 5'ly ', yO','
s., i y ( *. , s. A e* '
,,y %* . a ,.,;.,..g,.'
M l' k'd'.{o;[dWW;'%,i':. sUQkW '.}g ,,. ., . .. .
9e ..,n f , , , A
'.%.$$N,R. ,M> .8%,. :: .;h. N & P M *' W . W..Tl\'.A" " *h l l , Q ~ ~ .~,'.Q,d"'.Q'*
' , &l,
- '.' &.' **1 9'k5
^
L ~{
'. . 5 C.F.R. I2.206 to initiate an enforcement proceeding, DD-86-15, 24 NRC 618
.- (1986). Others were. addressed fully by the NRC Staff, the North Carolina f , , .
s'
- n ';7 s' 4 Of6ce of Emergency Management, or applicant CP&L in the presentations at Q . fr ' . . . ik', ', ,tl -9,p.3' d the January 8 meeting. Nonetheless, we do Snd it myywydate to comment in -
. :, M ' o. some detail on one of these Concerns.
y q a,, .;,-y lt,,4, . ,1,i; ' . ',,'( Y; ' -
Presently pending with the NRC Staff is a petition under $ 2.206 to modify,
.. ' ^
! suspend, or revoke the Sheamn Harris construction permit In this petition .
interveners Wells Eddleman and CASH contend that this enforcement action e t
"#C i W ' M; } is appropnate because (1) there are major de6ciencies in the applicants' quality as:;urance ("QA") program with respect to electrical cable and components; (2) i ,
5j c,- E ,m .< .
two recent complaints brought to the United States Department of Labor by former workers at the Shearon Hams site indicate CP&L lacks the requisite w.W.,$7 99,7s j.' ;. m . D.? .f.i ..'. 1 :,3, o c , .,,
, ;5 . ., character and technical capability to operate the facility; and (3) allegations
- $'.e Y m . ; J;i of a con 6dential informant about falsincation of documentation, substitution J. .
- M .g " 7;;.l y e%:. ,,pM,M ;' t y
- g-l,,1 ,
of materials, improper inspections, and improper construction assertedly show
.E N $ . }'.",] },:"Wl there are additional major denciencies in the CP&L QA program. Although the
, b. . ; g. , .
' . 1, - NRC Staff has not yet issued a written decision relative to these allegations, c-; . 4 w. , , j ,. .- ,
'"t ..- at the Commission's public meeting on January 8,1987, Staff representatives
-~
e f .- ,,
- c. ,
's actions to investigate and ascertain the safety MU ;
. ' .? , ,'
. sign 16cance of these allegations. At the meeting the Staff indicated that, on
-,C' , . 4. : /e ;- -
, "?
the basis of its investigations relating to these matters, it had concluded that the allegations do not establish any substantial dc6clency in applicants' QA
~ '
~
,, s. ',
program or in its integrity or technical capability that presents a concern about M - " safe facility operauons. We And this assessment well supported by the Staff's
'. ; ' .dr oral explanation of the status of the Staff action relative to the pending $2.206
' f petition, and thus conclude that the matters raised in the 92.206 petition do not appear to have substantial safety signi6cance or otherwitc provide a basis for delaying full power license issuance.
' Accordingly, for the reasons given above, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.764(f)(2),
v the Commission nnds that the Licensing Board's decision resolving all contested
, .t x
4: r n:- .
4
, )
i:
- .f.
.?
'..w.
o -
y,f 'qg+ . n..'; n ~ ..,...W...,..'ig.'* '
[ .
~>
a ;. . . : ,9
,,s .
- e3 g
,-. .~,.
4
.,v<"..,. ...-
. h .*
.2<-
.. .e - -4
..,....w.' ,
.;.,..f,~._< , ; g' e m e,Ty,,. .", y;mmJ.7.
i.
. . . ..r,s.. _;.y w. .
..n_m,
...*...,.r., . . c . . #.. y?N'N?e e, ., . t
- n c*;c
~L , &
a
.-
- 7l . ,, ;
- U. . ',y 9>_.-*' .. ,,-a. .".. 's sg % ,6 .
- 5 . ,,.-, ,.;.;,<p. 4 ,* "
w.4. .,O, o - .. z
..:;v ,n , .y,.
- m. :.sy. p%. q .;m..., .
? f3me .>- m. a n. n .. . . r:. e ~
. p:'(v..
.o s, .s- + o . . , , . . . , %m.
- e.e e
, .i. ,. . .3 ,. . 4a
',w.c #
n g. s- 5 wy.w sca,y;4.y : .;;. ra. .y .: c. p,.ys%.s.
M,9.m W-
- .; .y[x. s
- n. k.D*N* iliE'[,3 'p. ..% .I"N .
.r,,; Q. h % e.m p* \.J.: t..L H ! ,'* v .W$4 m +.4 w; W; - 4.3 fM. .,. &, W ,M p?.
. . s ..s, n. i g .s.,v. y , p. y;.'.y. . s4.?
. .. % , ,Jg!.l .g @%. w.fgg* y 1
.. s
- .. ' ?.~ . . , v . .;:: .m. . . ,, , .x $ .,p;>,~ ,,,.
- s. mi. ... .,,
. . +.. .
>} m.. .v.. th..c.eW ,%l m. .nn.,, ..-..,, .
-n,...,--,. . ., . .. ;. . .....w ..
.o
- . yl % n.
s . .-
,).'
s , .;.
.bc
.. 'g .[ C .
.Lc ja *A. <
.' a , , , !
.il W': < . ;; ?'q
. (.w'.'r.
9, % .,s.e . :: +; . . :..u. n) , ., .. ..u.,.3. .
. ." ;% .p*
u.. . 1. ; . *y ;. . .T .> ; . ...,,
. - ...e<a,
,. m sc n, .
3 9 ,. > m..,.,*. .- p.
s W ..
- ,,ga.r 9 ., ,e -,1,y 1 . ,.. , . .?.. . u. .r, 3*;W.. . ,', ...:, .' .
.. . =
) ,. ,,- . spj.:. . , '
r ..
- . ,, s g ,.,y - ~a a < ,. .n. $*w
- 3 s. wi . c .g s , -~s ,o ..
,,4 ,: p,,; ,,p i
.vu, .
q.... G *., w . ;,,. ....~ ,s.,i.. m .n s + .
,, l . . *..-}.e,.. i .,0. w . cd,.p[a b.
r- .
3 .
- 4. ? L.W. .: .G*e&.. ., 3.. ,. x . t..j. ..'.,S ll, ..c.
h.M,, : {.K.v?%.e .p,L.W.y. g .j.
, .~
,, f .w., . .
M l . .
U.i'W.> j., . <f.ilf,
.p .
. . , [p.'.
4 issues should become immediately effective and the Director, NRR, is authorized to issue the full-power license for the Shearon Harris facility,'
,i. It is so ORDERED.
4 v.
' . ;,. e f. 'Q
.. <- .g: V, .. ,e ' a' For the Commission o A. ' , - . ' . ,o. (,j i..
.. - +
. , . , ,, ,qj
. *s
- 9. g.e .*
c - SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission E , @. ',..d .
Dated at Washington, D.C.,
this 9th day of January 1987.
- 4. d ' * . .- : ,. a. .i
, j*d
. (, Ls .. , , .i.e>, ;. ,;. .. , r e . ,*r. ,4 e '. -r.. *h.
, s .
, s l+, t.' g,..*(,* .r.o
'e, ;' <. s ,
- e, #.b
', * < Ig
- g J ts- -
I , I* F 1
w g_ .
- n. , ,'. 4'a, , ' . , . j,.. s S',,,,pp 8,f
[,p-' J , i ,, ' g 4;gg 4 ., g <'f
- e'
, A, s 's'".? k ,'**,, ,*- [. .
,.4;,-...
+ J.. s
,, > s;- ,.a, .a*"E,.
- n
. l p
g 4 ,. ,-
s
...,-e .
,-
- f c
,, s - %. e
,.-.s'.
. g ia p.
j.-
i ' .,4
- e
,, ..%,+ -
1., s
'# I * ,$ \ .s. K
'6 <.$+ - ,
}.
.,. o* h [ _. ,. 4
, , j ; i-- gt 43
.i a
} .
Os ( I
..t)
W:
+
f . N ,g' e . t f4 .'p.-,.
4 / i. :.1 t o
.. t l
es 4
, .+
y 9 6 ,
f . ,,' 1 'I
.l
.q
~: .
~
.~
, , : F ,. G.j1
.. .s, .. -p.. ., .
a j .- * *
. ,e . t ,
,,m , , ; . *
.c1
.t ,' . ,*
.',.*g*..*A','g, 1- *., . .
,.y j ..
- M 4 -d ' a F,& ,., .t, $g M r,, 14.>: ..,g' .g ** *
,,.s, u . i* g.~., -.
- * ,tg 1
- a{
5.
, - .. ta y .** I.,
,. A. ;,w y
' 'I , +..74 fri 4 e , > > . -
y a.
,,[ .. .-
< </. . e q .' '", .J " .
'Iess than i hour before ths Conumasum's January 8.1987 messans, a monen was Aled by the
~.
, , c V.., .
J . A; 1)* . Council of North Carolina. Wells N==i, and the Canhinan for Ahernanvas no Shessen Harris sequesdng the_
. , . *,s';T . , s > 7 . P ~, , , h .* A,..,
f:. , , , 4.
1j ,
Commission to afrain imrn making any desisise to appnwe the Duomer's issuanes of a hamnse. Evams have rendsed that aquest mnot.
.. I# c
- r,. ' .* y'.,,,, e,. . *
- ^I '
.* , ., ~:s .. . . 3, , [,, '. o; s*. .
- :s
.p - -'
t, . ,/ -
,'.s , , . . a. . . .- , .. ,3
- . r ,. m. ,, , 1,1 ,( c .n..
7 e ' ~
- h. , +. , >
~,< + h* : ... .s
\ . *. .
.,, .. ;;$. [.,d. 7.,.,.,.,.%
, ' b.;K , i d IJ[,4.,
- ., -yyj. .. j ., . .
-~.4-'g. .j,,,i . G'.'. ;
.- 1ya s
. i ., , ' ' N '. i . . .f'sie5, ,..,x y .\.,, *d" n (f,. , . .h.s.J, .,e .' * ,.ve
+ .
,,..e - . , = .A,y A,
?.'o & s e ' *n.
g .,
44 . .
6, . c%u . n j,u w.,.
<W.
a.d=* 3 a , p.-> ~ , :- . 1 . , t*
- ,% e
.a. .
[J' **
c e .id % . s w '.%n Q.X'
.(,.dM-O'n!5'
~,y.~;,;W, 2.,.
h e,y . -
. ;. .yi st:: h; ;m.
,s:'F;<n,.?'.W:..Q
, c:-,y t*, e.. 4. 1, .cd.. *,fe ,.s'W,q s,; % n W;-'f,3'f.,Y'[:l'N,%
.. A,m. g .g -l,. m ,.,. . . ,.< ,*, , , , . -- y. y , , . . . .a..--. .
- w. .r<
m., ,. .. >
- g, ~ :, ) . . *( ,
- o,.~*'.o
.. ..g. g . .
, . . , .,, a,' n % ,a , .,, *. * :
- u . .,,* s , .. . . .& - .*g ,
h
- [*- . l[3[y & .". .p ,.,'3,m
^ . f . .. ,
~h;) 8 f[ ',*
iO 'i^ ' $.. .[ I , (* 'd. ,'. f ..
. > N.,' f.,
4
..~ '. ' '
- a
.* *- i; c q f ,' ',. , .g . . , ,
a . . . .(*Q%: '.
n 3 *g, -
) k' I, ~.,. *
.I. . 7 . * '
4',%) i C. ; .-*+ , m.- , ' /. ,-
- w\ ,4.r. . **k>. . ; . ,. .s.V_ .., c. .c.n [t.. Ith .4.$, * , *. .t*t, . . . ., ' s" .,,. 3 ,q s., ','_ .
? ~~ , , ' , , .g';,f'
- = ' E
- e, +o. .*. , . . .,_
..i
.p. ,8 f <( e,. ..",i.,..., 'J c '. % ,<y...-
6
. no , .s .".* :*; c*,*_,t. ,;. ,vi,.r,- 5*,, .= E ,d ..* p .o S.".,.-*'.
u *,-
.n~,...+.
.4' 5.*'L..(J]p=.'-;ye x,
~s,o
.-s.,e,,',.. ~ , , . .
.& fe.. .-5,\,. . ,
ai _ yi.
- c. < ,"
- n
- f .' ' . . . .s4t
- p*l..r '.
u..,,. ', n c. rg. , ,
,y c . ,, e , -
s;
.o'
, " V g M *'., ;,l,l *4 /*h ' *j 'j . w; {.Y,,,,
, ,, , . , . ,i
[+ 4' ,{'y;.
s? , . ,
gg ', , ,, . . // ', y ,') e , t, a,: &a a n [. n . 3w ] f;.*,*.',*[,; w ..g, i,,@ ; $ , y w' . . p..dw . * .l,.j, .*w; * .
.': s .~ t m s. w t' v'Wl .
.s ,o r
, , . u. +; s',
.~
- *M- v, ' *o o; . x*[ .d
.e ..e WQ:; 'y .. mO m,e. sSQv..'m.s3',.v;~;., l< . '*W.
- .* :r .s.e,. -
.< ~- f ..
- n. r *;- ..+1 ,, ' *',*f'g,.J e b*s n
,Q; 0,, .&/'P * - e T!? g,s:.fh. ,V g ** * * .W' s w..-
n .
'ML y'N.R.e,g'}e. lYk %h$Qy, /;t.M'. ' q.H '.
- n >
?! 7;%) !',t. 4 f .f' 7 la1"M*
/
. o ;. ,
.~ 3. , ...
dwf.C:$ rf",-
K&
4, ^ -
M$ b/,
qJ;."7 A.
s . . ,;, .
g' y U'
- U
~ ,.,'s. < ,@
c,
'1.W
- M,a'ht C Ua
"$ f 8.! K,
- C,'
O
^*d.Q h N f '?h h f N hi 4*>k'h:?Wh'$WNDW.W.cU, k .
~. W'" 'A *
'?
L _ . -. _ __ -
e
.j l
i
-t
- s. ;
3 i
i Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards issuances ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL Alan S. Rosenthat, Chairman Dr. W. Reed Johnson Thomas S. Moore Christine N. Kohl Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wdber i
0
I t
4
. Cite as 25 NRC 7 (1987) ALAB 857
,. *. i
- h c..4p:a
- >.,c.,,S.f 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,,,.q.. s ,. 3s1.;p. ..,. .e,
,:. ,, f , s s
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i .
,,,,a
, w ; . .j, '
g,e- .
- ,y e
o s
l, .
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
,.s
.~i
< j . ..3 ,' , .e ; ,
.: . m. , .
.3 i Administrative Judges:
y ,.,y v . . t .n . i Christine N. Kohl, Chairman
.; .; *,;;D [' . k. . ; .c_,
- [.}'i g - n,
, q.q/c.$ .,, ; Gary J. Edles
_ . . r , . . .g
- ,~A .<
. y ' m. . ,.
l' ,
Howard A.Wilber
. ij
. ,f j
/.;.,;:. j ; / g: :**: :Q*i 4 , *
.., . - , , . , .,, s yJ *-j t.,'.r.s 8, 4..s .., : ;n, .. -
.s,; . , ,
., .. , !
- I. s In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-352-OL
-J 50-353-OL' .
M; ,'.' . C t .I ^ [ , [ ..
, . m. 0, .: ..
. , , ... . . . <f~j PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC - ;
N .1, ; . . v.5 ..
c.' *! 1, - ,
'? J COMPANY
.c . ,,y (Limerick Generating Station,
..e Units 1 and 2) January 2,1987 k
- ; f.;
e i
~
...r.
. . / D.k- The Appeal Board affirms, subject to certain confirmatory action by the s'., [ applicant, the Licensing Board's supplement to its third partial initial decision,
~
LBP-86-32, 24 NRC 459 (1986), which concerned the adequacy of the number of bus drivers available to evacuate children in two specified school districts in
, ,;. _ .- , .. the event of an emergency at the Limerick facility,
.. .. RULES OF PRACTICEt AFFIDAVITS
- pu .
- 6 . + 0
- , c , 4. - . , . ;, . ; - m, .p ;, ,, 4,,M;. ,
,# ' Any factual information pmvided to the boards should be in af6 davit form.
- . . .; . y
- ; ..
, t.
- n. .y , s . '; .
,i::a.: ;. ,..
. ,,. ,;;v,...
_.,.,..y . . . . - . . m. . ,
,( N ;', %, pp 'y . l& EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT (IMPLEMENTING
'u .l,[?
,..s cR -: C' T
- PROCEDURES)
. lJ.C. ' ' ":'i) , j,p!,t fi.M'$;;q *
" Implementing procedures" that supplement emergency plans with details N. ,. ,W > & t. likely to change, such as telephone numbers, are not required for a " reasonable
, n;
. ;
- j
,,'f/
. ' N., . , l x
,/ *' . ,/ **, g a c e. c,,w* e :.-.7 f w-a
. pc ., t,9 - ,4, . r. .
4 .v.,. .
..?-,, .
.r,Ac , , .
, ; . z ,y w. .,- g.,;,, . q s,. -e .o .3-.~ .
c
- .,,r..<...-
s we. ,'
y*,...: ;e.., , . ;- .
., 2 . ..e*... - .* : . ; < .,.
, ,w.g
. .. ,,y 1; yi.. l'y.g:'.~ s ~ , +..'._.....~m.,,,.s..;*..
. D ' *; *:W ' d i%
. < . * . . .W,,,..
s + '..a. M.. . . .
.p,. , .. . L . ,..
. . , ..., . . ,s..e.,.< . . " e. P.'.' . ,#. ,.*J.T ,e. , s%. y' -,pe.s;.,. ,w *J
,a ,.
. p t' , f ., c. .
y ,, ..t.;h -o...,,,. n g:,w.
,. ,4
% s, ' t~y.,"'.3';;;.1.y e , .
c .
h.Y. =.f ,v,s.Wy;p.C. .,yo';hg . ,'l* - : ? # -4 *
- .. .L. ; ,y f,. lw ,y .z.: aQ,:,,.. *
-'d,.. ,,;* ' ";$f!&. !.l
&h;* W+ 3.r..m.
. < :. r,,4 .
.%. ... e, Jw.c.,l.&; . .Jw .':]u Qll.,;$' v,**f.t..j; ?f.t ',h e
6 s.
W 7.ps y' - ,, .'.
~n., 4 ,u..;..',.*-. s c pf"Pf.;g., .w t.**.
My, d '! ;p' e,f* m.% 4 ;'
m.
,6;yr~M,
'.-S : ;,", i W,C
.g : s *,.r er - . --
M ~, % et;Y. g., ; y--- m ~ ,.,
, \.
.p""<
"u .. "
c;4..
7', '.Q.,,.
E' G........f . f ,fi M " ,, ;
. ,1 .4 - , s; m* w *f. yv ,y
, a. ., 1-4 3.4, .. :
t ,- .,
- s .
'# d : .*. * * * * '
- t ;., ' ..' '
. . ,~., _' ' w .' s-- . .. : a;.r, s
- t .* .4, ,e .v, .',., , , ' ,.
s
- -. 4..,n~ . , . , , s',
- .p .v. , . ~ , ', , , . , , .,
,4 .
. .i:.u,
..f .. ..,.. r. ', ,
3 I J.,4
~
,l.,. s,,. '. .'s.'i
, V 3. } ., , ,8P '
c v . p'
- ~ y. ; ' ." ,4, -, .j ,I - -
7
, g.Q - . . . . .? 'L, -,,*%y 'b,~a , ;? M ,4i.::g;. l,~*,.. r.1 yC,. -.y.f;s'
- f ,'. $ ..;Js' . .+ . :.* t.s- . . , r. t.
. '< .,[,*
p
.~ .i , , , . , , ,
e = ,*
- .t ....,.r c, m
. .v .
- t .
b,,;: , .'. . h. .
- f;.d . 8 ii ., 5 * * '* 5,*. != I' - * . *: . / '
i ' (I
'j&qmr
%',un ~ x> . w,p x .' A :: *a, :.:* , .mM , y ve
[ ': sn ty *d
@hR*f@;'.$c,y: eat;5w.a.Mt....?:s?..c.:7.y'.;f s a g ly.&g~'kh'&NY.s*h p e%$4mgann '$.I;Y r kh?,$5.$e.l.k,b5 mw m..n ; ,&,hWrll~ m I*,
.~.~'ly'k f,b h f:>*N ,
.'. k$w
( :,' ..' -
.k assurance" finding. Loulslana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732.17 NRC 1076,1106-07 (1983).
,~.
4
-(, ' ' . , . ',. ~f;' . ,, v ..j
, .: ' EMERGENCY PLANNING: REQUIREMENTS 0-
w , .;. s. q, }' ' y ,j
. Whether a solution for an emergency planning deficiency can be characterned
" ~ l as " permanent" or " interim" is not important. What is important from a regula-tory and legal standpoint is whether "them is reasonable assurance that adequate 4- 4 t , protective measures (e.g., evacuation) can and will be taken in the event of a radi-
.e j . , ological emergency." 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(a)(1). See also 10 CF.R. 6 50.47(b)(10).
r -
< . )/ .'
./ J'. ~ .'..... ..f ',; . 4 . , .x.
, t.c.
'( y . ,7
,:j.d.. ' RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD r 4, * '
'Ib reopen a record, certain criteria must be satisfied. See 51 Fed. Reg.19,535,
- c. * '
.1 , ,l ]I
- s -y. . . >
~.;
- >.g.
1.'p' ...;.... ' 'n .. v . : ,s%., m. .'c.;.
19,539 (1986) (to be codified as 10 CE.R.12.734).
.. - 2 .
, y, . .
,. -f' RULES OF PRACTICE: BURDEN OF PROOF
, .. . ,. . -f 4
- ^
While an applicant has the ultimate burden of proving reasonable assurance, it is not obliged to prove and reprove essentially u n ch a llenged factual elements
.. L of its case.
...';..,. , .,, . ,. ~
- i, _ . ,;
r.
. ,o EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT Under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, IIV, emergency response plans M.y "shall contain information needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards
.- - ]cJ described in 6 50.47(b)."
EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT (CHANGES)
U 10 C.F.R. 5 50.54(q) requires a licensee to " follow and maintain in effect
, ;.( emergency plans which meet the sondards in ISO.47(b) of this part and the l requirements in Appendix E to this part." Changes to an emergency plan
~ : P.- i c,' Y; ), ;. , ;, . g .
that would decrease its effectiveness are permitted only pursuant to prior NRC
, : ; y,
.f. , w .. , y,. aPProyal.
,v..
. T, ., n.<-r ;
, ;.. ..i.' .:3. -uw..
..c :p, 4
c, v,,..
f -
r, 4 $ 1 EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT
' ". .f;j, q ,f .
An applicant's commitment to satisfy, through special provisions, the emer-
,, , .je . .- J, -" ;3 gency plannir.g standards in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b) and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Ap-
. I i.,
c~ J9 [i.,3 i
,.-: v.
e: s..,.., - -u . ;:. . > -, , . , s: '
., ,< ; ,.y: y .. s pendix E, must be formally included in the pertinent emergency plans.
l u 6t * .t l
...o , . .; ,
,;..- 1
. .' n .; s.; ,, ' . i ., w , . ,. .,, 7.r.., ;. L , j'; . .. .u
.t- ;, y i
. . . , ; . .^m
- c...: ' . ,1 y r oy.
y s. , ;* .r c -
[- g
, .,j ., , s.. .- t- %,y. w7.,., ,. y ,f...y g', _r",
- ..~ .*
, s, m
., c* * ., . , . 5, ' V s . .y q.r :
.. y}
- % '- '. ? "-- M. e?",/ h;'y -e ,q.p l;;.'td 4 ; *g q,"1.& *v A.y*t* .3 4 . ': ,.* ; f;f.t* 'h *
- 4. , a g ,t. ;y Q.~3d.. -.' i. p. 4 '..,. -." c vi,;3
, ;.,. , c . :a,-w. p r. .u. 1,! ., <
'.. , .S r. .. y,. . gn . ... % ,q ar,sa; .9... ..p .
~ a.t
.i. t '.7 k.j,'a w /*l'y ),' (t.%4*j g s,87 'M.Wy
- W
- p lf,'h,*h f,f',' . ..f.,*i? TTj' "'.~'*? '.[%i'W:'"%.W.1Q'F,'yf*
[. ' ' f,, ? ~.5 " jf . ' 1Y:' ' ' * , ? . ' r'. ' Y*.
..p c 4 :P- .=y.s.
- w f , ,' .
- c. . -
s -/
'u~s,p.
, .. , 1
.' . . , 3 .,
>c ..7, . o.q . . w. 3 q". g a ; .. 4
. t
@[ t - . . . .
.;,' , ' .E E, ^ . ? * . *Y b. 7. . O ' .1/ ; * . .',
? .l
-..'h..,,, J- -Ii .'<' '
, ' * . '\ * , %. , . s +lg - [-
.i .~..
c3 ,, ,.
7'-
. . ,5,a'?s'.
- .y ; . ..s n ~
.t .
v .
,4.?m, f
, n.; e.. %
- r g ..r:fs;t = ;. '< .
- .y w +
,fp;[;,.x, .s ,' , It . , , i e e.. , . - c..,
t .s t *
, , . .e
.."n
.r
,s , .n -, '
O m e!n; m cs. ;
~ .: ,. ne ,. ;
y? g , pr;. : . J. a., h ,y,9.n'.-m.c.;' m*.f 6>'.',.?9;a,]; ,
,' .f ..g, ,,y .
~
.c- : . 2.y. . , ,' ,
, i.
. .p Wy ;. , * ;. , * ; . .y ,,. .; .,*'. , 'y ,q. O .
- ..' . * ;.*."9 9;Q: .,j$' ,: tf.', .}Q.,E %g );O.C.d * > Y:.{1%. D},. 'v'y. a Q , s ; p'.
y.~. y:n%+y W.O
- ? f*VV . +., ,.t,. y . . s
- C + .i s * > M :' %. .b
- t . > n. -
M.%g i-
- t. . ? s . s yy. . n f. ~ . . ;)n < .'** . <,, . J :. i QI , *t *) V i & *.D:ny%T.Wik. $, D' 'p ,.u.)a 'u d'.:a,:;r:t.k.e'
@fq %WWi %W.':-:m
- .%_' 6' .
5We M9 -: . * ' .2W,1 :: .4 .. c *,')
.ty - ; M .l. N.O :!.%,:
W9M.Mw; m ;..%.*d.'*iW:.y
?WQ.\*Q W.i'.J.mW.%.i.\;<3.W.9Q,%@< ' " ' ' ' * ' " * ' ;3;.)g&W:,% '.( . f" *,& lv?@*
i'. t!E
EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT i
,, .H Important emergency planning information must be readily available in the
. , . .l ,, .
. ,. .; .2 Y, , . ' .; .
plans themselves to decisionmakers. ALAB-845,24 NRC 220,248-49 (1986). i p; ,. . , . . ,
9.., p .W, ' l 'j LICENSING BOARDS: RESOLUTION OF ISSUES Licensing boards must "' confront the facts'" and "'aniculate in reasonable i
detail the basis' for the course of action chosen"; they are not obliged, however,
. ;.' " W' '
to refer specifically to every proposed finding. Public Service Co. of New s Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33,41 (1977),
,_ .' .v .
c af'd. CLI-78-1,7 NRC 1, af'd, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 4
i
',:, *n J. . S, . , X ,b:, ,. . ,,. .,, ,;.g. ,. .,.;, ., v. NRC,582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir.1978).
. .- .. ! . . ;p ..
.x. . ; p.
,s . c. .
..- ~.. ,
.c.
~
/ ,': . j g: . J ,'. f. . U.k ,' .',[. ' . ,i,1 ..
RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW
, ~-
. . . . q ~ ;.,, . . 3;%;. . 2.
- 4. 4,p. y .; _
. Appeal boards may confine their review to " substantial assertions of Licens-
', . l. s.. ; , , , f 3 ing Board error" Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, m; . ' - t.5, . *. ,
. y, l 'l Unit 1), ALAB-832,23 NRC 135,143, review pending, CLI-86-11, 23 NRC
]
577, 579 (1986).
,...u-.
~
v ,. 1 ., ,
t -
APPEARANCES David Stone and Maureen Mulligan, Pottstown, Pennsylvania, for intervenor
,.,s ', .
Limerick Ecology Action,Inc.
"
- Troy B. Conner, Jr., Robert M. Rader, and Nils N. Nichols, Washington, D.C., for applicant Philadelphia Electric Company, Benjamin H. Vogler for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission maff.
u.c DECISION n.
.;4 <
z.~.:,h , m;g,,,
e
,:;.<,c .
w .
s -: r.T . t. .t. , .. '
'. ,,,c~ .,
.' . in ALAB-836,23 NRC 479 (1986), we affirmed virtually all of the Licent-
.,- y p ., .. . . :..q- ,.: . , . . M. M.. .
.p g } ' . 6,. . .-N;$; , ing Board's third partial initial decision in this operating license proceeding, e,,,,.- .
, . - concerning the offsite emergency plan for the Limerick nuclear facility. As a
.' % .1.
f~ ; , 7, , y m g . result of arguments raised on appeal by intervenor Limerick Ecology Action, ice, 1*y Inc. (LEA), however, we reversed the Board's finding of reasonable assurance 3.m .
, e * .. * * [l. - ..
i.M,,'.'.,e. ,c ' li.* ?', . of an adequate number of school bus drivers willing and available to assist in
,
- c, . , , . . * ? . , . . ' .
,: " ., ...- ' . .*j '[
, . , .
- 5 * ? . " .[*, j I l t ',
"'._\.',.,..; .
M1 I. ,l * :,, nt.' 28 e.'
a,
-b' if, ,[;a'. g.' C.
.k
%;y y, , 2,,["G
, - a c N. ,, ., . s~....c.c. w,o - 'j 8
r,p. %.y], 9 d '. M ' Y. ,-[.[(.; E , .,lo ..- - ..
.. %. * [,, .hI'* .*
h, .,.';\, ' l. ' ' .
- l[h
.. f.,*,'rl*i e.
.'l,, ,3.s.eT; . , 2 k.. !n RA *.t..? C, Lo R
.A. e - . ', .f . t yy 1
'; ..*c.;e.
..f . /; ,,- : a.
e 4$'*h.
.a ,,*[n
, '. N.
, w g. .g,,
4 * [ h. [ 18 I'* #k *. tD i n.fM.
.s ,;o i c'4$/Y08' c . .- j .,4,,a,,%.r,.q
.'m b,,*,4 . .s m.s ~
~h " ' (" 8 ', i v Ik * , s' ,,*'#., .g[ .y g ,. ., ,
.:. j- 4 ,, , , . , ,. , , . . . . , , , , _ , , , , . , _ . ,,, , , ,, ,, , , ,.
. (T}?
. t,. ,g ,
t .I *
,. ..y . n '*
(:: r; : .\ .m: M $ ! % y';%&;; z, *..",,,,,y, , * ,-l,W. d. Q' m ',G . ', . ,
- * y,
,:/ , '*! & lt ; W . * , ' b. ;, ' . ,[ ,5 . .
. q , . ,, *r . : :, ~ . , .7,. , -..
, m
.3 s.- ..
. r 7
.t . . y. . ,
~j E*
,, s . ?p ;** e':'l ! & I ;', ' ' h *. '.
- ? . ~\ (-
- W' f, 5 *
,. 1 n' GV..* ' O_ . .W%
- .'* T ^>V, *:,: : % '%.
i.*b,' ,,.%, *), ;*;Y'{,,l,li %.T3%;g&' . Q. .P ';'i; N.Tfl
~
QM .* ', < >.i;
. ~ %'.',.~., .3'
%, . . v, ' .,. ,
. . . ~ .f ., . '1
, 3. . " j. ." ~ . .
, . /
- ".1-
.e.i n.'<.e s ..'.,p..
.,.a.: *;
a ,
. ..,s.-
. s.' , . .,..N.q.
- , (*
&? d : .g.. . '?. *
- l s.';'<h. ** [** *i* ,.'*llc.,n'
. a._,,,
N
..n. .: .
e .q, &.
- l * . ;v, w' ,
- ,1,y Y $q ' ?.
. , ml* .
,r $*
. .'v,% .? 4.
.\*.,. 5 . ".e
' ,G >
...\,,. ,, l,.
p* .
') ..
,'$ s '~ {
.,.5 * '
Ih 8 b * ' ' , ' . .
^
,(
E w.b q p e* g, e .,t;/.
e' .
.,. .,aW4'n'd >
2,'.%,8a <H.'l .p '; M. Jd,;Jp. ..,9.4. ; .4 y.c?. . ,'ri.p .?'.
...",. s v.A. . -- #$". '. f f.
".r "-
. . .t.ra.+1,).) . * ,, A.d.J.,:
c n.a.
-m v -. .v,... .u,
- . ' .* .i=,
,ra. 8
% Q[ ,.,,,f}n . ).? :dV:s.NQ' M. rg'..A:$Y;s6.'
- 1 Q., 7:'A*m:f.Qile}Y::}..}h&$.l.f' . O,* l,e .'~ klQ.)
.,w dc'i.$.>..*/. + :,,
.Q;'Q. .t. ,QQ$7,h&.?
. .d W ,ny..
.V #. '
1 :7 .) .v.- ~4
- i' e o 3-
- - - - . - . -,a._,-----_ .-_
1 ~
l l an emergency evacuation of two specified school districts within the Limerick emergency planning zone (EPZ), (Spring-Ford and Owen J. Roberts), tnd we remanded for further action on this one limited issue. Id. at 515-20.2
- ', >1 In response to this action, applicant Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) l .
o - n .A h. F -
proposed to have approximately 200 of its employees - after proper training j
-," '. 7, 6
- and licensing - drive these school buses in the event of an emergency at
,' ' ;# .,'" - Limerick. The Licensing Board held two days of hearing on PECo's proposal, where witnesses from PECo, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the affected counties and school districts, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency j
, i
', : a (FEMA) appeared. Based on their testimony favorable to PECo's proposal, the i Board found " reasonable assurance that, in the event of a radiological emergency d at the Limerick Generating Station, there will be an adequate number of bus ,
n 4
, .a ; ,. .7 .; drivers to effectuate an evacuation of the Owen J. Roberts and Spring-Ford
.t g, y q ., ,. . f . $ ,a., 7,. y .;,..J .
~
? Area School Districts." LDP-86-32, 24 NRC 459, 471 (1986). Indeed, with rM q the additional complement of PECo's 200 employees, there will be four to five
'a:
. , l ..
%6.r. ,* ,: m s.. ".,4 I times as many drivers as are needed to satisfy the driver shortage in the two
.s . ,
~.
., 9..? W ,- ,
%.. ; c m ,: , school districts. Id. at 465-66. !
/ b '
j LEA again appeals, while PECo and the NRC staff seek affirmance of LBP-
~~
86-32. As explained below, we direct PECo to take certain confirmatory action
- ,"' - but otherwise conclude that LEA's appeal is without merit.
1 .. A. The Licensing Board's decision thoroughly discusses the major elements s ,.
of PECo's vc,lunteer driver pool and we need not repeat that discussion here. See 3
'j id. at 464-7L LEA does not appear to challenge directly the Board's findings themselves. Rather, its principal argument is that some means is necessary to
, ensure that PECo actually fulfills its commitment to provide volunteer bus driver employees to participate in an emergency evacuation. To this end, LEA has r
p- proposed that the Director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
~<y, and FEMA " verify the immediate and ongoing compliance" with five suggested license conditions. LEA Brief in Support of Appeal (October 20,1986) at
- 16. Th( record, however, does tot suppon the imposition of these conditions.
The fm condition would req 2e all 200 PECo volunteers to be trained,
, . licensed, and " enrolled" by name, address, and telephone number wah the 1 appropriate county emergency office prior to the beginnirig of the fall 1986
, ., ; school term. See id. at 3, 8,16.2 When the hearing closed ort August 22, 58 c.; , volunteers had already been trained and licensed, and another 45 were scheduled
.f~ , ,7 ,j, *@ for the test (on August 25) that is !be prerequisite for obtaining a school
. ' _ ; 3.5 _
E , M . ' ... j
+ '
.. ,7 -
bus driver's license in Pennsylvania. LBP-86-32, 24 NRC at 467. As LEA S. f. ( n . -]2 ' ;, d
.c.l acknowledges, the particular relief sought by this license condition is essentially
-3 I The Commission declined review of A1.AB.836 on My 24.1986.
f i,,'
+ , ,,
- .].G,
,.4 2 The Owen J. Robens School Distnct is located in Chester Coun y and the spnng-Ford Area School Distnct is l
+ ., j j
,* 4. . . . .
. in Montgomery Caumy.
- , _, .: 'a.;S . ., g
- f,
- D qs * * * ~ ' , ' , . /1
,p - . .
,e
> i' , i ;
,t; ', .y.},N
- I f * ;. '.l,% ,,.,
{. 6 ' >
- 10
..,: .. . . . ,.% ,:?; ' . Q 'e j,
~.
a,:,;,. :
e c. ~M.. . ~ ' , , , ;w. . .c. r'., ..,t . ~' .ms m rW,
'.L .' .% ^:e.Dl.:. 'M ; . lp, s;? 3.,&.:;Q ca . . .
- h. ,.Q*l<sy . . 3. 3 ,-
- ,Y!Y.s!.L'i.,,l,',&.
- . Yml.y;%'d.
.. aaw . w. . : . . . , + < A m*b.t
, e e..,,p:U s . . , . .. ..
. . .,-A:.m;.......=...,:.'.,. .~
. . e. ,. g, d. ~ .:. v. . .vi
%:. . o,T:..;* . %.'. :y.-
A' '
.,, , c ;.. . .. e: . ,..; s . ,
u' .. .'
.,.., ...x
& ;;; 1;.
~
.:.y,v.+.:qd,'y a: s
. ;:. ' ,n t 3 f.v,y ;;.,*.~ .;.'. . m :f -l;..... Y,G . . . . +. e. :
c
- . ; . u ;..sf' {.y-
, ~ . .
, v.
a.:
. +
W. u .a . r'x: ,, a . ....
.. . . :p> . .
-c ; . :: .-
- s
.t
, . : . N ,'j. . ., '., ,.
. '. v ,(*
,.1@q' u,
- ,o- 9
, , ?.x < i, ..,.o-
. n.' t h - .'i y '.y ,
. ' i.
M.*. . ' ,',.Y ,) , * . ,? %. ; '
La
. .c
- ,;;..,- n;.?,'.n ..i . , ,~.;lR.. .'L y .. .. - -e'
. f, ..., y l'.(1,:;s
,^!
. ......,.w:
., . ; } .-
.V l . . ' ; , $, . '. .,
. , ; ; , . d...'. . ' -
. N -. 2 . . . . ', ., ,5 . . *
, / *, .. 6 7 , .
,m
, vt,,es.t ',f.f.I,1: < . a . J; . ; .?.., - .. ;.r, 4',. ,r.9 q , tr.',. }. , * ..
e: .2 Y ,,,
. ~ . .; ,
- ~.
-- ...,,g.
,O G '. . j
- s ,,.
.
- V l. .' lll Y .u
.'[.
. . 7. c'? '.'s .: ,;)]%. 'i.y : ~.,< =?','.F
' 'n I, p }
- 19 f.. , ~f '.& '
L' ,
Mr ji' ' ..73.,9.7h,.. '~,. ;, .H ;&:.,
1.Qy",y :. j'L,y .'.Mg s .'%. 2 *t.*}v )* .f;;,"f,;l'$. ,-l M..,
WZw
~A r *,f *(.. . sp. ..% .t V; 'Q.. 7.W' u
?
. r,.j%v.y.*NriM,p.,S.
. . ..;r..m
.y .m o ! .s q,ps.?.9m . '6.*$:* %.! ...)sy: f'. , .r.;&:.,;9, n N e .<%* ? ?
n . ...k'*.,m. +%* ' v
. ' f. s. m% }.' .,.~,v.y?pl,.v
. r" 8 - M* . " .
- q. .
.; e* ..
. .. q < , . .
- ..t .
,0 ^ .( -
..[h ~ + .,; P, w'..
c <s' ....
,c '..n,..
- .~ d. . "s ' *.
c
"'y:*.C'::
~y. .%. ~A ,; -?~?
..% v. - r
) , ,~;',.f~t W.,; y. '6 i M kt . ' ,
' ;m nq.,,'{,$.-);..
c, ;jn. --
- Qu - ' T @ ', ' .<- .
____-______a
J l
i
..- ' now moot because school reopened a few days before the Licensing Board r, m issued its decision. LEA Brief at 1,2, 3.8 In any event, according to PECo, s g .
{ ,, its " volunteer bus driver pool now consists of 234 fully trained, qualifted and J,1, w'c
- u. , - . fu ;, 7, . .
licensed drivers." Licensee's Brief, supra note 3, at 5.'
' ~'+ ..
. ; . , d, ' , , l .- As for LEA's proposal that the volunteer drivers be " enrolled" with the county
. ' '
- S i -
- emergency offices - i.e., that their names, addresses, and telephone numbers !
' be maintained on file - this exceeds the scope of the very limited issue we
~'
remanded in ALAB-836. 7hc additional proceedings before the Licensing Board
~..
. were to focus solely on the number of school bus drivers willing and available to
. serve the two districts involved; the overall logistics of driver mobilization was
'k n .! not intended to be at issue. ALAB-836, 23 NRC at 520. Wrther, as PECo points l out, drivers from other sou ces serving these and other school districts need not J Q M.%,* 'j d'[f:, g;.,7..,c[,
. . :,;. 7; be enrolled with the county organizations. Moreover, if a need for the PECo
. . ' . vn ; , c 't . .. d ,,.y ,, ; . , volunteers arises, the counties' basic plan is to contact PECo, not the individual drivers. This is not unlike the manner in which the primary sources of drivers
' y4 s. . m. .,, a :7
- 7. .r. ,7 .-' .p,k,,. ,.* .
. 4 for school districts throughout the EPZ are to be mobilized. See Licensee's Brief i at 1415. See also Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric
]
. :. ; , w7 ,
-:. ; , J *j. Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076,1106-07 (1983) (" implementing
.. G r ,
procedures" that supplement emergency plans with details likely to change, such c ,4 -
. .,y * , ,. g j as telephone numbers, are not required for " reasonable assurance" finding).
7,, , ,; ,l A second license condition proposed by LEA is designed to assure that there
' f, will be a sufficient number of sr.hool buses available at the pertinent marshaling areas for the PECo volunteers to drive. See LEA Brief at 15,16. In a similar vein,
,j LEA also argues essentially that specific individuals should be given specific
> g'
advance assignments. Id. at 13. But again, these issues concern bus and driver mobilization and thus exceed the scope of our narrowly circumscribed remand
" ..L.1 in ALAB 836.8 Nonetheless, the Licensing Board found in the decision here on appeal that the counties are responsible for transporting any needed volunteer drivers to bus locations and that, as a practical matter, PECo would facilitate this activity. LBP-86-32,24 NRC at 468. See also Licensee's Brief at 20-22 &
2 n.50. LEA has given us no cause to doubt the ef6cacy of this plan. Thus, even s
.,'n.*",,
v .* ,u . . .,g.
y y.. n. ,
,. J, '. y , .
, , M.? ., ,2-f.l ...< '
, PECo points out that 17.A could have sought, kna did not seek, a stay of abs tacensing Board's decision. Licenses's
- ,p ' y* ,$.,;;. j *, . [..'/ s : e a'
. ' ' ./J ; .. h Bnef (November 21.1966) at d a8. Nor did t.EA seek suspenman of PEco's operating license pending disposition
,. . N< . n r y ; y, .7 , of this appeal
,g,-( I .
'~
, ,f -
,d
'While we have no causs to doubt this repeesenistian in PEco's trief, tha namnbar of trained and licensed drivers
, . ,'. .!? . is factualinformation that should have been provided in af5devis fornL We therefese direct PEco to supply such
- '.' p.
. , -,'i,g . :;;
.c. i
- an af5dsvit to us ar.d the panies within 10 days of the service dane of this decision.
.p . . .e *g sit s worth noting that in ALAB.836, wo expressly affirmed the tacensing Board's eartiar Arxhng that a sufficient
, 4 . : i * . , ._ .
,i*~. '
number of veMcles would be available to effect a "ane.ha" schael evacuatiert 23 NRC at 51215. In addition, the
. '(, , . ,n ,, s i - O,..
- '," a ; [ ,
_ for assigning buses and drivers generally were also previously addressed by the Licensing Board, sas t.BP.8514.21 NRC 1219.1275 76.1322 (1985). LEA did not challenge this % its endier appeal and is foreclosed
- . + . ..' . /,, . *, , *
. ?;
r
- 7, T. ..c.v ' .? ," ' . y
.a fn=n dans so now.
,l M . :yl; - :<
s,./: u,t.* -,- M '.r +
L .'; ,yK ,, m < .N.
. 'f:
c,1,1., ...9 3 .Dm pr{
.Q.jj. 11
,5 ;.j..Wh',y
,# o.w.. - ..
. ,a ' I W' . .q.$. , u? / i. %..,%,,9 s.3
. .3 x.w.g xm-. , ;
y,c Q. .. p;, nr e .g+ n .;.4 . , .3....a
~*-c
, a .k. ".t.M p n! + 5.s;..'. Q, QQ;g Q; e :y:.f a ; g' v& R.:* s.~ g y y.s.- y :.npg, ),.
- f. .
- ,,
- n h, r 8, .. n m;. , -
g ;:.v. , . , :. ,3. q ;. . s. .. : ,,,. . y,',. ,*. .; j . ..:,,..,. g l -
vQ. :a.
, .. . . y. my c., . t@,.-a.,p.,l.;g;. . .. m.
.,, p ,_ ,.7 e ;,.i , :, .; . . v, , m r;w.~;y pri. p.y n,y ,
m.;.,'.
i I .
,-e
. \ ' * ' .ii 4",,.
k .<,r .*
.t - - < m .,',,
.'r. - .
c
'., . <. ; n : ', . '
- .r .. . ,.;.,a,...+
. St" r
.. ...y., .'t ,: . : i. .:n! . , , . , . * % ,('. ..# .- -
. .t '
.':; s .:
v 1,,.z..*r ,2, G. : . ... ... ws: :. ~,~?: e..
, v ;,. .e G. . .
,~. g u
N.. , ,: ).
. ~?
, .r .. ~ .9:. > < r %.eg:;. wy.r.T ., .. . . i t,. e,
.'..,.,.,,...n,...' .u
. A,,
. . ... -e: n,, , v : . ,
- .+
.: . ~ , . - - .
c..
. .:. ... . ,r. .,x,
. . .v..;u . .,. ,c.' . ../ . . .w ;. ,s.
.e......p
, ..:;,/,,,;
o .
.o
~v. .,
. .. p... . .
r .
~ .. -
5..'. ,
W .,c:;;f w,v.... a ' .
t : M ". x. -
- i \.. t
- g Q
.. :. , ....'l.V.7. '..j,k, .u.,..
A*. .. -
,.'h;...y>
Y QEg$h,4 f h . ybkl$.g$ff ,&b k h., h. f,... e
.lq;.e: . b,. f,'.h !-
- n. v?Y
. g,<.g. 4 .<..c1;tm Eh ?]'k.f,p...
.~ #, s.tYY. .'
3 e. M . . . . . .
. - - .... s 5
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __m_______m__
v , .
n if this matter wem encompassed within the rernanded issue, there is no basis for
' l ' ', .. .
the sequested license condition.
3 L* ,
. /,r :j MA also complains that there is no " permanent solution" for the driver s - Q'g Q si'Q.9 Y. availability problem identi6ed in. ALAB 836. LEA Brief.at 9. It therefore
. -Dm . N 4. ," ' . s '. . . ;' [, proposes a third license condition that would require the counties and school .
- 1. , * ,, 1,j .' , 'E./ , ' p N .n. " * ,^ i districts to pursue " conventional and local options" rather than the "less reliable 5
f . T utility provided ones." Id. at 16. LEA's reasoning, however, is flawed in several
< respects. First, LEA points to nothing in the record to support its suggestion 1.A r
sg
- * ~
,M
, that the pool of PECo drivers will not be reliable. Further, the characterization M PECo's driver pool as "po. .;" or " interim" is' not important. What is
. p7 * . W ;
~/ important from a regulatory and legal standpoint is whether "there is reasonable a '
assurance that adequate protective measures (e.g., evacuation) can and will be
...%.?,g.
+ i ?f..j '_ n.ww.p,g y
., j.
, ,g;
.3 l fp?$* e'f.:J,.$].j taken in the event of a radiologmal emergency." 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(a)(1). See
/7"N also 10 C.F.R. 650.47(b)(10). The Licensing Board thoroughly discussed the jr .hI, t ', u I evidence ameM on romand and found the reewy reasonable assurance. That s.y[?E,y,NJ W g.16{. p# l p e",A,lil.. :a
't,] finding is based in part on PECo's commitment to supply additional properlys
- ' ', :73 -
j trained and licensed school bus drivers from the ranks of its own employees as
/,9 h - E - :~ - ~j long as necessary. See LBP-86 32, 24 NRC at 468-70. See also iq(ra pp.13-Q Q.C .. 4. 9, 1
...1
%. .l 14. LEA has failed to cast doubt on either the Board's fmdings or the underlying .
- ~
,4 evidence. Finally, emergency planning of6cials from both Montgomery and
,J , ; ? ' 2,]
f.Y: ; -
ev,,.,.
4 ,,
Chester Counues are already pursuing other sources of buses and drivers -
' '. the stated purpose d LEA's proposed license condition. See LBP-86-32, 24
- 4 NRC at 470-71.
- - Our decision in ALAB-836 to remand the school bus driver availability issue was based largely on the results of driver surveys in the Owen J. Roberts
~
7" .
$,L and Spring-Ford Area School Districts. We found that these "turveys raise [d]
a legitimate question whether there is re'sorable assurance that an adequate
': number of drivers would respond in an emergency" and that the Licensing J '
e/ Board had not given the survey results :-f+;m weight. ALAB-836, 23 NRC -
-1 at 518-19,517. The last two hcense conditions proposed by LEA would require f' W
^
d that new surveys be conducted to ascettain the currer/. unmet driver needs of
- M Z not only the Spring. Ford Area and Owen J. Roberts School Districts, but also
, ,, . , other unspecified districts as well. LEA Brief at 12,16.
' % ' $ , . . c , f. . I, ,, ;, J l [.3 l'C . Clearly, as to these other school districts, LEA's proposal exceeds the scope t/ . : r;d,h s; p.[ '
',f )!j',M,PQ. of our remand and therefore this appeal. Inasmuch as we previously affirmed g the Licensing Board's favorable findings as to the number of drivers awllable 7 >
, g :. - .
} ". NN,0f.-p. for other districts throughout the EPZ (ALAB-836,23 NRC at 519 n.72), ?.EA {
- -,,; '
- 9 *, , j; . .;g'f b M l- .d essentially seeks reopemng of the record on this score. But LEA has failed g ' . , g ,, .
L., d .d. to supply any basis whatsoever for our revisiting, through the imposition of a 4
g ~.+- D bcense condition or otherwise, the issue of driver availability in school distrkts 4
other than Owen J. Roberts' and Spring-Ibrd. See 51 Fed. Reg. 19,535, 19,539 1 q; m.8kd.4,...
- p- ,. . w% , . .
m,t.. , . Wc . .g..N. a s . n.( ..g. .C
's
. 4yl O'[,3]
- g. ,
J '
+,o/,. , .$ * * .[,,.g ,
- t, j, .
g%, ,, 'e. .j. .4e..g,; . w?
g . ? ** p/
6'.
. ." e,7.+
'1' l y,' y j
V N',' Q.ea ~ @ -.?4 w;., %; * +.7) 1 1 VU':,
g.; n"?).,klrN,wM 9: .
- y .n4
- , q.u a 4 m
v -
0 .m.p .a.W-C
.m.,.. .
%.o.,
s
- g w%eg.
. ,., .q W. y mm-f- 12
, y.* ,,, . a , : 4y s. $ q.fW"t.,t s
,,..,% A j
. 8 W Q,,y '=.. Q..,.'..,f.'(gd,t e*4
, . ys< 4,%.-,. ' .
, . ~ Q..
,k* [^i ,"
f ,', N * ! '*N*
,':Mv6M** . '.g' *, w i;w f. :.. - r.: w..n ,Q.;;.d[*,%
- 6 a . .! n.
. . r. l, . . -4, t'. " Qj &,..";s.V;fs.y m;y;>,.
. fh.,:e n.$
%: N.;ff{k a; y
^
?
. . n . . o;, ';. , .' ? *.h,. ? ,I '. *4Re * ) ,,
,r,; . 3 .~ g ;y:.i.a ,
i !* **
yer~ ~.
., Y 7 or~ 3
'*Y Y 'N**
. .,, , :n ..
- y, ; .*..,,"a;f; .
r.
o .4, .. .. u c u..c ,.,..,w f. ' ,* .,
. '." ,~n
( ..,
1 .
l f * * '.' \
.3 c. .
. .g < s, .
,k ..h. ?,1 :.* ; ! $ t ". Y *,- *
- ^ * * *
- s'
,,p.v,y.
v . . .e ., g. .~ ?. .> *. .w ..".'s.m ; .c ,. 4..'.*
e .
..m.
... - .. ,., .i. ...' - : ;
L -
4,.y, . .
e.4 .
S'.%.,, . r. - .w.e .. g y y,y ,y.;
- . n. t,:.,c..c
,z.j.
,s',. '7. .. . -y. . e
- ,,9.. y..-
, . - ,e
).m . . f. . . . m-,
. .;. -(.~".,:a[ &.; . , u t u r2.,
. :n. i Qf' . - r9:r,;.iry.
e -, . : .
- .$,. -.s f ,,t
?: _,e_ . -
.. f. ,.,?, i, , . v.
sc .s
-w - 3;. '. .
,.V-
, o.
. . .m..f. c ^., . .
. .o;p,[.
s .
'
- d * . '> **
- d 92 fr '
n' s y %. k q #.*tjl +D#.*m
- r. [y.c,.,m
*i
- eg'7d'.3.#**v.a.s
. q r.tg /
- .m; .$;?. . s.%.d,9 m' . n'" .' h'
.,. ,' # A v ,,.T'E,**.,
, . ; y ., ' . . I ~ *. r. ; y"? *E* '
.v.3. .j t, .. n. .
.. .v .,' , . v . 9 ., / *y 9 %.9gewaw W w w w.m'n' w w .a ml
'. I
,. e.
(1986) (to be codified as 10 C.F.R. 62.734) (criteria required for reopening a
.i 1 record).
>h.
?, ,. , .af J LEA likewise has not shown a need for new driver surveys in these latter
.j two districts. 'Ihe potential need for additional drivers to help in evacuating
, ,.8* f<
., .' (.' .. .. schools in the Owen J. Roberts and Spring-Ford Area Districts was explored
^ ' ' ' '
at the hearing on remand See LBP-86-32, 24 NRC at 465-66. LEA had the -
t opportunity to discredit the older surveys on which the witnesses relied, but did
'^
) not do so. LEA merely asserts a need for more current information, without
. .D ' y providing a colorable reason to question the accuracy of the unmet driver needs
",I reflected in the existing survey results. While PECo has the ultimate burden of c ,
.i .! proving reasonable assurance, it is not obliged to prove and reprove essentially
- ,. f .; N .;;,j 9.y, unchallenged factual elements of its case. In any event, even assuming new
," Z,r.u.{ g,.p;' p ],j{ surveys were conducted and results significantly more negative than before-t :)
^ , , .. / . were c'otained, the number of drivers available from PECo's volunteer pool y,, p .a W u;. y.,f.,u:
- , .. , .s,. V.C4 .
., y,,i v.:n., is almost l 1, twice the total number of drivers needed for the two involved school districts. Compare supra p.11, with ALAB-836, 23 NRC at 517 n.67, 518 J
n.70. Thus, given the substantial size of the PECo driver pool, new surveys 4!e -
..J. 1; 1.m ,
would serve no real purpose.' But see infra note 7.
'i J]1 LEA has thus failed to establish a need for any of the license conditions it
. ,- , ,g. r A has proposed. Its skepticism about whether PECo will follow through on its
" ~
. ., 'd commitment by maintaining, as long as necessary, the volunteer driver pool is
>g , ,
~, not warranted on the basis of the record here. But while we need not impose the specific license conditions LEA seeks, other action is justified. Under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, IIV, emergency response plans "shall contain in-
' . l, C, formation needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards described in e
";' ." l 6 50.47(b)." PECo now meets the regulatory standard pertinent to school evacu-
,l' ation (10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b)(10)) through its commitment to complement existing school bus driver resources with its own trained and licensed personnel. The E NRC staff contends that no license condition to make this commitment binding
- s is necessary because 10 C.F.R. I50.54(q) r.: quires a licensee to " follow and
~ '
maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the standards in f 50A7(b) of
, , this part and the requirements in Appendix E to this part." Changes to an emer-
~
- .' " . p' gency plan that would decrease its effectiveness are permitted only pursuant to
, , ,f ; .,- - .
F. .,./- %5- prior NRC approval. Response of the NRC Maff (December 4,1986) at 8-9. It
. f.; ', nf , ' , , V ' 'qE. would therefore appear that, unless PECo's co.nmitment to supply school bus
- /
- e, , drivers is reflected in its emergency plan, the plan is not in full compliance with
' Ty','j';'.C's:^M, '
"tj NRC regulations, and the commitment is not enforceable. It is unclear on this
, . , 3
- ep- .-
' .9 record whether PECo's commitment has, in fact, been formally included in the
, 'y," { W . ;ll
- emergency plan. Accordingly, we direct PECo to take promptly whatever action
+
- u. ...
. , g, , ,y. ,y . - ,
, 'c , g < ~
t.
- . 7 . .f' ., .
> G :*,.',I'_1[y i
- LEA's objecuan to the inclusion d PEco volunteers in a gaieral paal of dnvers available to ineet unexpected L, 1o f^g Q ,,- i, f. *l@:[. needs elsewhose (IIA Bnef ai 7.12) is sirnilarly unfounded,in new of the nurnbar of voluruser drivers availabla d, y , .., ; ' , . l.:;
. 'f.
.r.
lq%:~ D , ,S b.s:,.,;
. o. , ,
- m . ' r.,,.
- ,. ..s,v 3'. W . ; y:.y; e.' .1,o #.N,g]
. 6 3 y....Ecy;p,s
., . e - . , . -
! .( - jj,[, .. . .A . .
13 p:,'
~
@,;.g :;, mdv.n. vN% . z.2.@C? ry .,.t. r.Is W<XQ -
U$6'N 'Y!Yf'i,$..... . n.'E'5! ?Q* ~k< V.lx
.' 4:' i.*. : if.fof?l vs r'. ;.- gsg) & %b
? l* t.=;.Y h ;h,'? Y,d*:-(y'r,M.: ; i, ' " . .
,f.l j (},'ll:.ml+.;! . yff.f?':RCR.W. y'f,t} 'W.yy v',f.W'? p.* TN ;j: yx.n..Q:y .
. o ,.j; m .. . m. . . ,#* . . . ,
- .. 2-cg'
., t .
. 5. f. *
.g.'*: a o , . WJ ; . . <
,, ,M 4,,.-, ,, M ' r s. m i's. p.%. . # v:. m.".<
- 5 +,. .,','*gr.'~.
. .c,,
g .
. . . ~ ,
-< .g . ,, .. , q
%., . p .. .. t 1 s
j ',
. . ' .,( ; ,
d
... *'-
- y. -, < n
- h .h k ' .;..
- y n >h' hk' .e .hh. ,
E& ; ? '
' A ~ N. . . ' ' ?. ,. -?b., 5'
' &. s .
.',*.;.,.. ,- ,.Q..,y,s
,l 9%. ?d,
> p . . , m., y ', '. ;;. . V.J
,1
.G v, . . . . w.
- a : . o; . J:}
. .*g-y '*;.s< .%
r .. g ,,.* . 4 . , "1, . . .. ml . .
. .. ...:*i, 7 v,y,.v' . .. - .)l l5 v .;;:.* 1, 'f*,>*C';
- l k. . . . . ,.:. {',; s.Q.
J,vi,
'.If,a , , .
.N..u'.
.u., . , . -
A
. : , *. c 5.,;;
w @ @..e.-e w w{,pp.m.sm'magd.I i
, is necessary and appropriate to incorporate its provisions for supplying backup
. bus drivers into its emergency plan, as well as those of the affected jurisdictions, and to notify us and the parties when this is accomplished. See also ALAB-845,
..I,.,,.
,. ,, .g s't Js ,
24 NRC 220, 248-49 (1986) (noting the need for important emergency planning c . .b ; . 'y- .., information to be readily available in the plans themselves to decisionmakers).'
5 1., f 11 '
,l, ./ E. LEA also argues that the Licensing Board erred in limiting the testimony ,
< t* J L' of Drs. Roy C. Claypool and William Welliver, Superintendents of the Owen
.{ l t J. Roberts and Spring-Ford Area School Districts, respectively. In particular, l ,
'! LEA claims that it sought to question these witnesses about the extent of their i
, EW h. ' y ' emergency planning responsibilities, but was precluded from doing so. LEA e
also objects to the Licensing Board's findings that the "early dismissal" plan of 1 . .
the Owen J. Roberts School District is not relevant to the remanded issue of bus m 4: ' . -p.s. ., m ,..,,., driver availability. LEA Brief at 10-11. See LBP-86-32,24 NRC at 469.
.' .v a$.p,. .
g , . i. ,
We have revbwed LEA's questioning of the Superintendents and do not agree
. .(g.c
^ j; that it was improperly limited. See Tr. 21,310 43. Indeed, the Licensing Board
.g *. pyy .. :
s
..p'
.' ' ;s
. $ .d, . - " y %.. l, initially allowed LEA a certain amount of leeway in its examination of these
. <,('; 7 c ,- .
w i. w tnesses. But the Board properly defined the issue we remanded in ALAB-836 - i.e., the adequacy of the number of drivers available to help evacuate 1
n,,, ,
- l,_' ,
students in the two specified school dist.ricts in the event of an emergency at Limerick - and limited the testimony in accordance with the scope of this
. issue and the witnesses' expertise. See "IY. 21,329-37. Moreover, the Board
'. , ,,,, a. . , "
ep, .
~
accurately portrayed the witnesses' favorable testimony as based on assurances 5 -
they had received fmm others. See LBP-86-32, 24 NRC at 469. As for the l Board's findings with regard to the Owen J. Roberts early dismissal plan, LEA's !
, point is not clearly articulated. We agree with the Licensing Board, however,
, ,. g that this matter is not directly relevant here, inasmuch as the early dismissal
..j plan is intended for use prior to any official emergency evacuation order.
.y C. Lastly, LEA raises several claims of an essentia!!y procedurr.1 nature. It complains that the Licensing Board did not answer specific arguments put forth in LEA's proposed findings of fact and conclusions oflaw, particularly the five-
- .j part license condition offered by LEA. LEA Brief at 4. Licensing boards must
'J "* confront the facts'" and "' articulate in reasonable detail the basis' for the 4
y course of action chosen;" they are not obliged, however, to refer specifically
.. . w., to every proposed finding. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook
]P. ,, ' ^ fi[,'.
9:'; ,. ,
." Station, Units 1 and 2), AI.AB-422,6 NRC 33,41 (1977), aff'd, CLI-781, 7
. e.g ' P.ti , ,*
- ~
'% :': ' ' f- .m..? NRC 1, aff'd, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, $82 P.2d
. a; :
- n* .
.t.,'
-;e
- 3. . t ' , .- a e. .y , .
~3 ,. ,
- 'f, ,
md; e . i,
- 7 1:is not necessary for the emergency plan to specify the sue of the pool of badup drivers to be provided by
- 'f.
/.
Q , _,
',*- ,.' . ~ . ' 1, < . . PLCo. PEco's only obligation is to meet whatever needs arise in she two affected distnets. otmously, to fulfd1 23 mis commmnant. PEco win have to monitor om mas of mese needs penodicaDy to amure est its volumer l'
w( p. '.N . '...G ; ".j
%. ;. ../j, 2 ,.,:1. J '.i. f f. A'q driver pool is adequais in case of emery.ncy.
'l - **;*u s..I. A;c yf,a..; .;v. .'/ ,'.,
- n.
- . .. .. , . . ? .y. . . ,
, c
- Y . w. . ":4 .
t . 3 a:m., t QQ 14 \
G']f?.fjjj-:$.s:k
)lj:',j:l?'y;>," ' k%llL , ? , ~ n ., , -
- j & . p .f lQ & .....
.n t .o . p .:. .. ..z ..,r>
- Q m & , w.r.s s ul! Y.g;\ .s o.,. i f,
- pp.l,,4 g.h: b. y. .
MN;M/7,W
.ex^.y.:;*. 9
- . h lp;p.Tt;.v ,:Mpyg
- 6. - .p:y, 'k 4. qq.m';. .n. .:m ~ - . m a.;.7, P.j7,m:/. f. g
..as,yz: 7:.; , m'a.'; v . ,,- m ; , . v r - 4... : . :: % . ,
- . .. w.,. y
. , . . . , :;.;m
, j;... , .; :s .; ;": n;. n .> <..::@ . 1,% y .:n. r '). ,'wn ;' ,y. :ll ..' y ' . p, . , y.' .. : *. .&. .c; ,W.'
.1 o.. sg :s
- . *.,. m, , . 3 j, ..
.,. 7 ... . ?@.
. > ;;,.; y,v :: d,, a.. 1.,., .. .
,y
- p. . t. > . . , ,.. .. .,. .- .... ,~. 2,..:p g. ...p.%.,.
i . . .. . .
- y ;'.
2
.d y p } e, o ; g. ' g .* ', , , % 'g c **.. '; ,2
. o/ .[ ,. ' . . . - ' $j i ) '.
,,' M, l
> [3, a1;e.%.,.,([(c... . "f ?'; g/ *, * .,', l. I .' g,.II.% ,' ' ; ,[. ..$ ,'.'sj ,* , ' . , , , .. ' * ',[7 ,b ,$ '
.y*# m , Q~y.:3., [' ,h. ,'.(',/;.e x?. ,,' ', f . , , .*,
- / [- l? [ ,.,,', , ,U - (( , ?. ,
- n. . ... .
~. . <, - .c . ..
. * ,3
. . " . . 4 g ,%..
.+
.,' G, y.4 , g*-,r ,,.-.a f . g.~l s. \ . . . . r ; ' q',-
- y.
- sj s , . .. e
..* .; .y, ...s.
3 .
- . , s e .. . .
. ; 1%g J, ,p.:.,7,
,, , *l. #.l'.. . '.* ;* p: /' #.3 2 * ; 4
. . . *! P **f,,' ff i.* h , ,s *"*(.
s );; j,,, g
[f -
/. . - .
- en ;.\( r.; 7;.
?
- . ' 4 *;,.-4
- ,, ; F ,' ,
. % ,.,,.* ' /,*g;a q;yp < v q * ..n,.,, G' 4 -
- H %. - ";.e .
3 ?.,l-h, h. ,M .. ., ,.~ a, ; < ,. ., v . y y b . -h. i; aiha.+3.f.
uf:y
- i. v,2,H.
.w m%.'.h.,8 h.n.p rl'QMo{:
.m: y., ,p hh@m,';p,y';?;,.f.,kf.n.ky" u df. *,U..
.Y ,yc e;. ; :...WrpJ.%:* W..W..;h
- ,: - f
. s
- ,@Q.
Q ,,'a... 5p.:
w"+.
- V+* %.* .%. ..< . m .g! ^%'Y. . 'h. 3p;;w i-w p..,E tt L m.;.,w;.
, r 87 (1st Cir.1978).' Our review of LBP-86 32 and LEA's appellate arguments
, discloses no significant deficiency in the Licensing Board's decision. The Board
,N ,,y J addressed the parties' principal arguments and noted that it " considered all the
,, ,f,.
. J' ,
evidence" and "the entire record." LBP-86-32,24 NRC at 472. Although the
~
, , . -. l,[i . ,,
\.i Board did not specifically discuss LEA's proposed license conditions, we have
- I ?
shown here that none of these conditions is warranted. Thus, this omission frofn the Board's decision is, at worst, harmless error.
-t LEA also suggests that the Licensing Board Chairman was not fair and w n, ' . objective, citing Tr. 21,242-43, 21,262, 21,342-43, 21,348-49, and Board finding
'. j
#30 (LBP-86-32,24 NRC at 470). LEA Brief at 14. The referenced portions of the record and decision, however, do not support LEA's characterization or
.- reflect any bias by the Chairman. See alSo ALAB-845,24 NRC at 250 n.31.
,,s.;.. 1 s .. .. f .'4,; .'b . ~, ,
Finally, LEA objects to the Licensing Board's inclusion in its decision of a
,, ;.c t,}
,j discussion of" Additional Sources of Bus Drivers." See LBP-86-32,24 NRC at C ,': Al.3 . - ,
9Md .l., .ci 470-71. LEA contends, among other things, that certain of the Board's findings S .: I exceed the scope of the remanded issue, and that some findings reflect views previously rejected in ALAB-836. LEA Brief at 13-14. We are inclined to agree with LEA, at least as to the latter point. See, e.g., ALAB-836,23 NRC at 516, 1 ;' ',
'.[ -
519 n.73. On the other hand, the criticized Licensing Board findings merely recount testimony given at this stage of the case and are not essential to the J. . , , ,'./
i' " " ., Board's decision.' Hence, LEA's argument is without merit.
The Licensing Board's supplement to its third partial initial decision on offsite emergency planning (LBP-86-32) is affirmed, rubject to PECo's (1) confirmation of the current number of trained and licensed drivers in its volunteer pool, and
,3; (2) inclusion in the pertinent emergency plans of its commitment to maintain
.M this driver pool as long as necessary.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Eleanor E. Hagins W ,
~'
a , 7 / , . ;* . ,[ Secretary to the ;
; ', ,L Appeal Board G. ',,M ,, .., ..r' M .'c.,,
..g . . ..s.. c,
- r. m,, s y
, a a "4 - ,'
,~'r.- ,f 1 >
s a similarly, appeal boards may confme their review to " substantial assemons of Licensing Board error." l.oag
, . ' y
- J. , ..,
. Islandlighang Co. (shoreham Nuclear Power stat.on Unit !). ALAB-83123 NRC 135,143. review pending.
'5
/. , , .;> ,
, .' l CLI-86-11,23 NRC 577,579 (1986).
J.'. ' , ,l
<
- k. .I 'We note, however, that Board (mdings #33 and #34 concern Chester Co.mty's contmuing effons to increase
.~.- . , ,,
[ ~' ' ' ', ,
,, ,.,; .' D f ' 6 ,; ,(k .p its driver pool from other sources (LBP-86 3A 24 NRC at 470671)- the very action sought by one cf LEA's proposed licesise condmons. See sgms p.12.
y 7' ; ' .; ., . . ' .'* " - ,' e
'u
,,,... ' * ' 1
- n. j
, a. ., .
'3 i
l )
- t
- t. .
__ ' % ' s. '
, ' ia. / {*; ';, ?G.vi' a -2,4 Q -
-l ; in. T;y 15
,.,..,s.7... ..,
.. . , . y. , y** i , . . ,--
, * *. ,1. gj
- ys ;' t c ;
""4 ,
,,. . t* i. - f,. . 1
- - t%.-'x . :,*}e(3".?. ;f.gl f:,{C ?n ';;.&w
! w . '. .A ,. .;c . m ;a .,e; y -4p:&.<W s
G.,. en . .p}. . . f.; .
t -l " o.> .y ^
'[
)l .f.Qf *, f* 'Qf L
- I
[.yyz\;;*., "
y, sq , \ q. 4 ,1. ;
%,;fp.'Wal,!,
.. .a
..--.,.y,,, *:'p.... .,.,,.,;.,,...,,g,
,0 . . . .'* 5 3.,AE3 f, J- [.y
- I .
'.7; < m. c'.'
-.,,,,-.,f.' '
y .y.,,...
t
' . ', '3.'-
y"?"
I, ?! I.>l, s ..
},,p; s ',
e
,', .,r w .,' . .:,
j.;;,'r c.
. ; > >
- r W* .,. x
* *' ', ' : * .),, * * , , * ;,,' ) %
(.. . , o r - < ; ,
;\ ,
e ,s sy , *1 .. . . ,:. .f .. . + . 'i s, s, , ,,,,l,, - . * * *. - , s '
*. e *
- .y* . .
., ,.' y5* ' .'p" ; ', r. . .y ..t,- d'- .*
P e, A- f I.Cr.., ,s ,. -* ...g.<..'_ , c ** ! . - 4. a,- ( .,. J r% ' ia * .4 ;
-,. .s.
) * . *,3 9 . y s..
y " , ,,
fj'*<*h,,
- . . . . . , t m .
,' - E' J ~}l' 'W;, },4,,-
, if y, *
, &f' $d e'.L Q: 3,' v.g*2, ,g r ' . e.,f '.Q'y { j. '* '. '.N; .
. 'y ' ' ,
,f l ,' ;" ., .
.' h [. j,. -
.I h -
h[S 5 : C 2 th's. ' : .
'.
- N..h .
6 b.3.M
%+%;$%M& @$, $.% Cts %%@M@MMf[@%
1 l
4
- Mr. Edles, concurring:
4
. . 4 I join in this decision except in a minor respect. In my view, LEA's proposal j
'.,,' F that the volunteer drivers be enrolled with the respective' counties does not f O l ,
?,. . ., g .
.,,a....y .) . %, (e '
9' stray beyond the matter.we earlier remanded for further consideration.' But I
' ~, *
' . ,. !'i , f. .gyi believe that the plan to have the counties contact PECo directly, coupled with
; ); l, 3 ' A' p. ' ,
Mj the requirement we impose that the PECo commitment to supply drivers be
' ?"
4 formally incorporated into the emergency plans, is more than sufficient to ensure the safety of the schoolchildren. 'Ihus, I agree with my colleagues that there is u .
] no need for LEA's proposed license condition.
- i y 'r m .W, .
g i $
.k.,
g i
,P 4t ,,..s * ' '
. ], ,'*'/ .'E
. , s 6'
'/.
_j
- l'h
- y * * , *' b *%
. .,.. ,.w..
. . . . ,.,~ ,1 L
- a )
a L ,
.*o*..*
' ','f,,* ' ..).,' ,h
.'.,, t
% l. 8
' #g ', 9. f y p; lAw' 9 , 4 ,* ,' :. n? $ < . p ( i. 4 'p.'.
* *; , 4 ' 9 ,v, ,,,
e i e,,2s* ,. , (
<y: f f ' i e ,, ,. *
,- D . . ,.
. h p
. ~ , , . , ,
. , , * . t. g s ' , .g .
e . ,
- , ; g ., o
+ ,
- N. ?
.v' . ; *.
Y a , . .,* $ ' .4
, g , ' .g , % O g ,
. =%: . , 3" ... * , t .
" -h'. . = , . h7
$ 6 .' r. ;
J ,# ! , ' , .
+ i-*
e-i'r-
".t
.-r t
r ,;
,,c*"
k..s .
19 gF Y '8 D w .*
L r 4
A
( L
* ,5 '
. ." ' b f y g of 4
1 s n ..
5
.e 6 8
5 .
8 % , , 4 eg% .,
p' te ,'n,... p ; . , ,o ',' ' y . ,m
y .*
- s u *,- r;? *
- i s ,. . ,.
'Re .o; -
,a.
- y~ *,,.s., .a .
W ,e ,
y..
l.?'.
.r.,,,<,,.. ,Q.ef f.; . e., a .'O '
.w. 9a
-- ,*;,,, . - . e.
m
,e3~-
4* .s . * . g, ;.
a '. a e, e. p g .,* .
,. , . - y ' .ea ,
. , ~V.,vt- q- _ -
e ,. . , , t . e o
- s s , z[ ' , %
v- -'
e u./*, ,,, .
. ,.3....+.
J 5.
* ?
&< .wn,.%.-., -
*'Ae,
()a s
,..f'j * '.f,, '
,#g e' . $ g , * =5 '
* ; "~
- I. '
.~ , , .v.,..~
'l
.1 " s . . a., Lpr., a .s , h /_ *"* . Sa#
'f^,
. .;4 f ( p ,_,.3
. . , *, y - cy '
- J". % g.' 1.(. -m :
.. . op " , g . $u.,
v ,, .e 4
y~ . .,
.. nd :m,
* *l *
.s > fr .h,t .<.g , s ~ R, T * * ,, j
.c,., ,e'*4. ,a . . .],,,7 . w. ,; a. '
v.
*.'44,"t. t -4 y; 3.,., g .8'.
..,c,},,,'..h.,q.
. e f gb , g,,* ; *,r l'-.,.ua, .-e.'.#8
*',,.g1hs,,
,*gp
,te A i b f $
* *; 'k -.
- ) . y,. y.%. + s*
- .L . ? s .:o
, *. .%.G
~ .:. A'g"-9 ;'.,p. 9.g ,. g.qq ; )'*9. [gy ?"" " t..v,., &' A.c
;i; s..m. .o.
4: y,."?: :q$ . .
g *4.:. c . s: , .
si
's
. sr
, m,nv,, s%
p *f.f .W L ,-.r.. 9 sq '.3_ o.
. .o . . f*. : .
A, -g r -'%,dsw' ., ;; g . e, .A-
, ,.,. .- /. .u. t; me .> S
'**,' ., .u 4 ?. * . .* , n ): :,W
- M
- g*:('"lsf. i j' . $ f * .*i y & ;;*f.
ru w :y.h.wa %yl-lty's$fyp,t.,-(( . .+ .. v ew.c M.]',y .
. * = .W;Uek,, % p 4 p , , d - 88 *.
w v yy.w n . :,, ww. eV. .: PGg.M,
. q:'s,p;Wf
.;;3.s% e ?2.rptu*y:,.j.p :
f *' : W,,s o
.f.ap
,9 %gg-ygim psi, p zv,n y p v, 7 ; m : 7 7.. s,+q Wy' x s.rp. vu ' G
,,.~.T.':.-M . -V. * "3 ,q. %
+ w f V?'; f.;?. ,;, f,
. ,e .
.. ,: a..,
y.s. b.{.Q..$lh~&.~'($'!?. m. . _
l(_.Y".kW E. ," Y. ,.7.n&, ..
'.? . '*Y
.s %,h'^, ';,;,W ','W *$, _?.
. :: ~ . r ,; . . , yf ' ,
~
e ^ * [T I,a. .-
$ ,,# ^
e '9) 3 k Wg . I j O [ B'? # # % g ,
- M' #
,. f' ' , , , t - - * .'.6 l h = 'g * ; ; .. - :.'g;. .-
t.,l}' - -r. 1, , - ..y*.o)I:. ,'[.e4 A, ,,
,,1,e . ,s * ,i 3, . .=,,3..,
y , . e , , *, . , ,,;.
- 4 e.; ,,o
-, e ,e... 71
,, f* .',,.
.-} ef,j,: ,
q ,Q f,,, ,~, ,. p '. .e
* - * , . , ' 4n *
.:, .* 8
.f sJ.'.- ..
- 4 .s. , 's
.,M.*
i
- f. , ~f , ,
,P. ' c',A i.# ,
' g , . . (.%*.f'. M.M f f ,* , I O . ( gt'pmpi .f I # ,h #.? D. . .
si p
'/p. '.t'. . . . , , , - 4% . cap /i,# 8 c 'p y. r*f. ,,.. ,
,,"r z ;.,, , " . 5 : . .y
..,?,.# ,. ,,
,,,,,,,,.,.3 e ,i 1 ^ 3 ,*
- a G 4,[ & yl. [. ..*h,3 g. *
- C7 I
- l,,p f.,Y, I '. l..7,,,,
m..i . . y i d .; . ' . ' . ' '..
$ , , ~?,,,
y $. - S.," :. .,',*,'x]. ,' w)v.~Q.. . . r@. ,.
,. 7,.N'*J.*.*.,y,D [,a 7. .8.c. . ; 1,* s' ; $,*y ,;,J m
-i .
n -
i n . ..
, ; .. . ~ . . ~ . .
- n. 9,,.'.f
- 9 '* c
. ; y,y.Mg.w..;;,c p ,pw., f.> . , f :w r . .
.g.,.. . m, 3 wW ,.7 ; . J .;n. s'.p ; i W.,.,a. ,w; f'..r+Wh.j;. .. t '.* 4 *W.,M.<. 4..,g m.. y m. .: a., ,? .', '; s .J*.'g. w.v., ,.c/..g.v'.-;,:.&;c,.. .. , , .
*k p'f ;, t
% n.m> m?! . $
NMg.%wqm=%g&i.'S N@q $rM6% %'t & W Y.r,U M.$mm . ..Lt;1.,.
W'q .':sn
- g. . . .
vt ..
a&. '
WY
;.sa m \'.U$y,;,h M.V,~.,A f5, 5 4.
n m3&, %m& 9 &g;;u .
M . .
h -
M .b Q W $?pp s a %. & n.ww:Nm.O. h .. Y'W,,A .tuy; e i
% a -____A
y
, Cite as 25 NRC 17 (1987) ALAB 858 l y
, 1 ,1
... ,j..,
.. -. ,,.',,.....- < UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
j, '
g 7./ C ?;b: .,
'[ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
-3, ~ ; -
.s : s '
l,..'-
- .m. ,.
~. i q'
1.
g ., t- . .
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD'
.. v d-
- e. , . . ,- ;
.n ^ . ,-
- g. ;'d Administrative Judges: I s
j.o j ,
, r a S., E ,( :C Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 4 W (,f G i d., ,, . pc. ,, ',;.3 M Gary J. Edles Ju , : w.; ,y~~f Howard A.Wilber a e ,: '.j .. ., , , . .. . :.'. -
,s
j.. !'
.t S w % 9, ; m. > . e Q3 ., , * "q
-, ., g ,t; t,e . ,, , ' v , g e N, :
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL
, . " i' -
. - 9 in the Matter of
. .d 50 444-OL s- m l. . s{; , t.. , .
,. * ~ '
, .,. .m (Offsite Emergency Planning) 7 . j
- - - J'
, . yy
, (, . . ' N lO, l. ,
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
'a. . . OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,'et al
. " , ' f ,j ; , .' +,
< s (Seabrook Station, Units 1 j and 2) January 15,1987 I
+ -
- n. - -
z;,;.w
], -
y, In this operatmg license proceeding, the Appeal Board denies interveners'
" motion for an immediate stay of proceedings leading to hearings on the State .
A of New Hampshire's Radiological Emergency Response Plan. !,
s ,
y 4 i -
RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS (DIRECTED .;
' -"- CERTIFICATION -,
Appeal board will only entertain a motion for direc:ed certification of a
. @?m . Qi .i .1 gn ? , ]y G
Kd "Q licensing boa d scheduling order where the complaining party can show that the
, .S (;N.g .,_ ' ' ' ' ,y-)y schedule deprives it of its right to procedural dte process. Houston Lighting
.g.
'g'4 T , ~ .$ ,-
W & Power C2. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-637,13 NRC 367, -
O $ y; '. N MP -
.,5:'.$ ,,. P,. t- , .
370-71 (1981).
. yy6,'.. n- ...v .sg " p, f
.e < m.<.. :.
.1 *'
5 e
*,3 '
*I-
+U
-}l'l * ,, '
{p (l[
.m v, ~
, % %*i' ' .o r ' *
-t.c.
.?.%'." s ..%,1.6 ' ( d.',%.
'.6, ;;\. . . . .
, ,e , y'*'". . l.a. .h . .
; ' Pa g;
, 3 p,.,' I.'. *,
'7
~@
A- t-wm"* .'* '73,,f*i**,.,p kr ;j. *g f,* j,.($t. '*y,.* *,. '.., _e ,
4- V,,.,,.;',
s4 4
..j,. -
,.,f?',,- - .T.,
.q, e),*,Q
,. n, * . j,,9m m ..~, .g:... .. . . ..e..
..y',,4 -g .s .g... s
.++
... 9
. *% . d'i W . c i, l *; -.* l ' ..; J ../
- p 2, . . '
*M ag d.*j*.:? Q.>f'.y l t',*
' *l
. . /,'O..
l*
.A ,,m$1 i
_ . p..%
9 ..e....
~.'r.~,3,. 3% .U 44 i.% 'g *u ,Any a* . ri, t , e n,,
m.c
; . ; y , ?.<, .c.,
1 .
, t.
.y m.
gg'
,j]f .J
, W %v,7.",W,1.m..
2 ;3 N" *,4M.'.# :"J*gM' yt a W ,,,;. . //c.qL.. A%q*L [d[ . Jj.yp.i, F.w?, .e v u
. - w .e -
. , . .sd p*w d
'4 h.9L ,.; N m*h,a(sv.wx. K4,
*y,$.$rsM.%e,4 Q.*:&w.[p,, y .4
.4d*9..nL*j'g%. 'M, .,
%*:. :v N'4.b.. %,"W?.n, .
,,.~ n s. e
*]W [g ; i, "f 8 * * * -89 ?f '+ g **.} p
- 47, ., 7 . , , . , , .q, , , , g , g , m . _ _
-' - (f , - ',,f
; ( 6,9 g, # [. '
I e .* + . t 4,
I h ,
- r . %.f .. . , e '
. .% - . - u ..
.y f :. . . . , c 4 7 ,,.g 3 .. w' ., ,., ,,, ..,f + ; % =Qgh. , + .
^",'**.d .
- T
, t , . . / '-(,. , 4 . t e
, , r a $ .,.*
..s .i r a sa, ,
e,,, rm . .t
. . ~ - ,, .. ;$-r.e5.T g . - - .
' . nn *.*'..eipg y+". ...,..y,,-'*
-:' . (1 ~,
+
.
- s . .g r f.:. o. ,, s ,i < . , ,
i .
ye.,. h.Q ,.,
6 ,
a18 , .* .,#- +
', p> , .< *.t..
#. , '._ *7,'(.. -
. Y*h,.
'*% 8,v.p* e , .p u' ,).,:;=,. %' - ;> ? .m *,s
,W- -*.
. f g-g, 9'ff .,s, .*e.8 . Me
.P + J - e *. q , e.-,e 'pJ - s . . ,. . .f, 2
_ :f ;
.g ,
,* *?.c '4 '* fT .. . ' g ,ta&. ,f %. , (e v'..#i. g.,. 'p * + s S*,.
.w.
*; ,,- ',i T..v ,! ,n,. ;e. , o , s 1
.&..m.
w .
e,3, o
?:m..q ..,,,4y .?. y>%.. yb, g, "
r.,g g ,* , * ;
a u.
y 6 ,; . r.a
+;W. ,)1,,.3,,?: s< 'c -t,
, l
. ..> . .^; ./
r, ,. , , .
.,~,8 .-
'y .
. ; ~ ; : , ', . = .
, ' , . ,s
.~..
. s * ~ .A,m e .,n n . , . v %w,4
(.:.;.A y i., . .el~1
. ..; ; , ,; ., M. , . ,. .f. ..*, . v, . . .,~u...~ .
.~ m y .
8,k ii , -
.. . .n . x' w
. t e N. . vjes 'a A
. ,s g . ~ x.s . ,. ,y. m . .
i ,'q' ".,q.Q V.:<:l' Y.m.':r.
..r.
se;* ..oQ,
- . f. Wy. . ,v $?..). %~ .* o?
a *.. . , e -
l* .'.
' ':'. r.w +..
. x ".; . .. * [.* ..
. . ' a . ';-
. . ;K, ,.x.,,,,
. 3 ,' 4' n , . . .W. L'
*r ..w .a'.
{f,&+k:,9.':V P.gWq%
r my&N3.*hsf.% b p::t ., b w. ~A.n.
yy g.y:#.f..& g$Mh.W'&;44 f .. , .M .
pmyg.g9.);pp.b.'NQ, 9, e. .
.Yj i&.p%$+$w.ml',&c,.'&aw~
fty 5 gyN.,q.W.$.q&p:fls
. W
.. q'{,y&g,&c'$?S.y
. ;;qp~~
--~-:- ~--_--_'_L__._ _._'..* __ _
DUE PROCESS: SIMULTANEOUS HEARINGS -
[, , t Licensing Board decision to conduct simultaneous proceedings does not
, .T
- p. -,w ,. . t...'
. u.. > ; .e necessarily deprive an intervenor of its right to a fair hearing.
, - .4.. .
,4 n.m .. m.
.. ... . ;. e . . . ,v._
,~ .y , .v.S ,s; ,' . , . .
,y: .n.
L RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS
! The provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.788 governing requests to stay the effectiveness 1
' .t of a decision or action pending filing of and a decision on an appeal or petition r
p i n, - for review are not applicable to requests for interlocutory review of a licensing
,' ~I . '. .o. . board scheduling order.
. r
.m . w p'
lyt-((.hh,q. !,g,%.c.eg.{.y. .
APPEAL BOARDS: STAY AUTSIORITY
,. . . .~ .# .
, .j . kp J,l.j An appeal board's stay authority is not limited to circumstances in which 10, Q;{/,,d Qs; 9', M.y!;0@; ,:g I
, ,3 j , s y y . l .;
r b;-lq -
C.F.R. 2.788 comes into play but may be exercised pursuant to the appeal board'sj general supervisory au:hority over licensing board proceedings. See generally -
.~ '
s
- Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-835,23
.y W.ylf . *>,q q, . q;; , d NRC 267,270 (1986).
m m. . , <w .
1 e ,. s i
. ,n, .
. .. . : J 4 .. s
+
.c . .
o-c
? , f,j:
,, RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS-e.,,
9
,..a
'.J 1
.. ? been unnecessary does not justify interlocutory review of a licensing board
+
"- ,.QJ i :.
scheduling order.
., t w.d L'. .W W . RULES OF PRACTICE: MOTIONS (MODIFICATION OF HEARING 1 SCHEDULE)
- 1
' " ~ '
0 l
- 1. . Requests for modification of the hearing schedule should be directed in the s -
# , 'J first instance to the licensing board. Cf. Public Service Co. ofNew Hampshire
, , (Scabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-338,4 NRC 10,12 (1976).
, c-t.
. . L 2. . .,n_ .. z 4 ~ ;; .~;
. . . . m, .%
A.. ,
..;r.g ,.,gM,.,-.,,,s . %
,.sj , W.,. ~,, . .. +. %n .. ... h, APPEARANCES
. .e' -n
.s b.v !, , . .
..,w g
- m. . %:m ,.4,, , . . ,pg" ' .p-Jf{M,Q Donald S. Bronstein and Carol S. Sneider, Boston. Massachusetts, for p, -
..,..,*'"./ 6 ~ .c ' N ~
interveners Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al.
, c
. ' fj: . .
.y
,,J .
. . n ; _n ., y .m. . ,s .
,. V. ?.<h'
. t , . .
-f : . - < .
,3. g t -* , ,
,,v, 4 bs ,s f..
+~.f,5 , / S[* *,8I ,, $ 1, y , . *$ *
'I >$* l'[h.-
,m- s.
.w
. l.,\;.l ' * * . '-[ ^., fl
- M~
3 ,%,
o.i gl%?. . ,.,'. .v.:m.
T.. . m . , , -
. . . . L,$Oy,% k
,.,),
.A..b,,'l-,,'..'q*'.v.,,.: ~ y, .s ,1.o..v.p, 3, f].y .j . ,1,
, * ;, . 6f
.-s
. - sr., ,. , ..
r' 4 U.Q -&..j s YQ,&;.*Q s ,.
l Q.*'*;; &-)y, l'?.J .h i>
4 g
.s.
?-;, j f
'r-e'A
* .-V , ,-*s.. . . * ' D ,'Y'.c; p v w , * .. . W ' f.. ..y ' #*
- U F .pp %..t*J,d, h,.5llll' ;-
s
. . g. . A ? 's... E.* s e <M W 'i
?;;,*,)y
- 1 ** <!:s&? %y s. h .~.V,' hW,
# .b ' ac 'fl'd.&'
A
. A; ,L
- ss >.. G ,j M s. (\.?? N M .j 6 b .
M Q?'%
i Ql:,'q,Q,t~;
u "k , r N'.
..n. .' m)';:).',m.8:.
Mwv yin . f.]0 %' r: m-
'.:.:/D.M..r, ;)-T,' li^';; QVi
}ky',f.g!??~;:';
' q. ' *
.+.
&./m'QGl',s f
7 -~: '
VMW
; S ll ,' Y? I' N W . ,\ ;;.:,~,l
~ 7
*. V
'N ..'.il j. ,/'o*..Q 4
- e. . ; g, s . 4 .n ... q.,y. . . . 5.
t j -p hiptIilh*.,R.f.E.Q.hg;m~~~trcm'.V*h*;c;fe
.- . ... .. ,~s.'. ;. .
. ^*
, y C r*
. ;, ,, p - .
' .g . . . .
f *
- k. N '
l' , * .0 $' $*
0 kt bY><*'.. ** * * 's * *'e" r? 'Y 's
.,t'-
g.
? - **
i
'a l ,l. l . - ^
. . ; ." x.. ' .. 4
+J. K, w'. m '. v. . . . ' , Y: . . .h.'
..n ..p.a i;F l d..,,$.,6. - 'Ohd/M .w.mn.w
. ., m m v:"yYVW W .n 1&h&,f;. ..
i' .
w'e.%m.v% M d
;. :.n,,, :.~W;u,.c x .m.
K sf. mN e,. ,M g.6..m. :p. .' ..;. <+..W.C w'}o y; N
. 9 L.,e f M.:v.'T.b.
d?!p p.,%'%;h 0 Amm)h.. .~ @~ . .... ny. N,, w. . Qq:.<;:(M. .a N*,&.mM*.>e y 4 u* % ,. ?V : .* ~. - l Es . ,..e Qri . I'.Y.
.yW,ir%V.%.w4pMW.m,.
.u~.Lwf.9g.* M;e;.,
.; *O A:'Vi'y'%\*sgd '.d.f
.<*.wd ' %%s4w,r.; w..r m; e edy;.9;'.y YkWif'.?'&' hfkk&kh. $$fWh '.s.a.:l,-w:&o,N;t?*.'.* %:-plg P w.y
'? Wn?'.vgr.A.mQ y.
W'Y: O. W *
'W Y,wn,2y' f
y ..
i, n .
~
. . , -j Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., R.K. Gad, III, and Kathryn A. Selleck, Boston.
Massachusetts, for the applicants Public Service Company of New-3f g
7 Hampshire, et al.
- . * .. g -.:.. < %.1.. w, , . . .. 4 W; P ; J ; a
- . v u ,,, , ,
w Sherwin E. Turk for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff..
; a. ,5 31 > ... . . ' d., . .V.p!a i
.. . s a :
r,
,, s. . , s : ,
. . I MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
. c x. .', ..< . ,
9
- 7. w . I,. 4
.. s .
> 't We have before us a motion filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Francis
- no ,.
m ,
X. Bellotti on behalf of the Commonwealth, the *Ibwns of Hampton, New Hamp-
- f. {%;.S..g.
' .e g? ,d..j;QL e;~M. g - ,
y.ggg/j.i shire, and Amesbury, Massachusetts, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution 12, ague, and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (interveners), seeking an im-L. .. . Y' Q.M. /4 , .j' Q . g cl 0 . [f ,i -.V'$il.,';, ;,.a mediate stay of all proceedings leading to hearmgs on the New Hampshire Ra-
. '%1* m ..
- g y'y J Ce; ' '
diological Emergency Response Plan in this operating license proceedmg.8 The motion is similar to one filed earlier with the Licensing Board but contains a re-
. .}V. ; . Qey'.^. . .'.
.c ..
. .- quest that we direct that Board to certify the stay question to us for decision. The
,. . .,;T w
.c o , , ,m <
, . ...: . ., .dpplicants and the NRC staff oppose the motion.
Because both motions were directed to the timing of proceedings before the y ., ' , t o ;W ' J Licensing Board, we deferred our consideration temporarily to accord that Board Vff j * / , ' - *
- ' an opportunity to address the request filed with it.8 Although the Licensing Board
"'- has not explicitly acted on the interveners' request, it has now issued an order .
deferring prehearing activity for about a month and thus effectively granting the 5
,y li 3 C:s request in part.8 For the reasons that follow, we deny the interveners' motion
[ '
V* J$% ~
without prejudice to submittal of a new request if future developments warrant.
A. On December 4,1986, the Licensing Boani issued an order establishing the schedule for litigation of the New Hampshire plan. The Board announced its intent to rule on pending contentions by January 16,1987. Discovery would
*.. L, \ ,
follow and hearings were scheduled to commence on or after April 27,1987.
- On December 18, however, the applicants filed a petition pursuant to 10
[. J. C.F.R. 2.758 and 50.47(c) requesting that the 10-mile plume exposure pathway
.M =
i 1 emergency planning zone (EPZ) for the Seabrook Station be reduced to one
- r. '.. ,
. ., s m c. -
mile.' And, on December 23, the Board directed that responses to the applicants' p Q. .. ,$
. h. [~ f [$
,r .
*[ .. [.h3..
,, .7,.'r, ;h.'J; l ;> / D I,.(' Q , % g .;
Petition be submitted by January 27,1987.
. J r *Q; ,[ * * ; .,
; ,y.- vJi -* f,y, *",;. . 4#,,7q.4. * ,if '*V { *y-li
, y,, g,,,,,,,,. 3,,, u,si,, r,, i,,,,6,,e say of AsuB Proomedings (Desmeer 30. 1986) OmasAer.
.w, .-
,. s._ .m.
.. NI
. , ^ ' 3A 's y ."[ ' *
,j__(
- 8 .ppest Beard onier of Jeunery s.1987 ( _,1 Losnams Based Mamann&nn ys,N -;f '.? " Q.: . .7~y, '
- #c .1 Q:,?
4 Canumssie regulataans designais two sagians to be used for semesney plancans purposes. One is she
- plum v y. g ,j 4 ;, -C ;. O'c .,
q e . ;, espesure psemey emergency planmns sons." shun safened to as the "plunw EPZ" or "EFL" This is th pl+ 7g, f y-;. 7 'y m.*q geogssphic ans sunnundmg the plas in which the ask d sapasuse of membass of the public to redosesi
,g *..,y* Y g
would be smause in the evem of an nomden. vaise mesians no panes es public nest be developed for th
@ . 6 C @, D h , Q.
M.J.G,,y . cf S.p M ' (Coussusad)
'y.N.*Q
.,. .u,,p %WW
. .i.p<s.;
M*dg i. * .,' ,
- s. ' R. . 7,,;
[+et.i.*aq
.s
,r
.4 w,
' f*.A9nl
, ,';A ~. si 7. ;% , g, s.'4 y* d J.#
w 4,4.' [ h ,O h} p
%, e >p. .,.,m._,
s.v
,.5,,,,
g,,ph, ? s %" '.s.,f.&,g%.~ > . ? . *Q v./* St y c 3 y; , 7 m.t ,g f-19 .4. Qg '* lM
.. .a 3 . e4 ld &y*?YY. . w ,(.t'r ni..6N.&ml WG ' "h
/ g.gr.v.g&..v.*N:, & :y, k,a uc.. 4Ml p .$.,$* j k Ug.i.
i p 4g.-'$.N,Q e, c s. . .
m% p*[f,,, .
- d. Q .,o,( . ,3 Q'g ..gYM , f**[I. @y Ejp m
. e.; T , .
mp h .l,:'w!,p;..c C:. r.&%;;g*y ,. r
- e. >3,..y* *n. I q; .+0. ,4 s. w
' .& o.,4 'h;
.fe. w!y* .. . , . , , * ,**
. . g. . .. ,. 3 ,!
)',* ,m,-.,'.',*..f.
v .. .,.
- r. ' . + . f - ,. .,, ,. . . ; r f,
~
[S .
"* V n,\ *,,. *. . ;.*. N'a . , ,. .n:,', q *,.3- . . "~,. c . u:; .. n: ,7, M r , {'lh.s! q,2' .'., w:6:af;m< s -
, ?k '- , ,
y-.1.-- - , u, ;. ; . -
n .
,3 <
+.:. .ym . .
g 3,. , . . . , .
f n. , o,+ . ,. . . .. . . m, w, ., ; .4 a.<;, , q 4 .e, .
,.,.- 4 . ,
.t. .. . . . . e. s
. . m. n a n .f p.u.:.- , "
, f :, '
a vg,., .,
e, . . n .,'
'1 .lY ; y l
- d' .. , h. e m .~..-,. f, ( '. .k,, . . i
. c.. . .
- u. ..
Q.s "-
. e' -' g.
e l
. ' * . ?
A$[ 5 M e.W..c'. G
- h. I
!at . r W Mw &. , g $g EM eM *W'~.h M.?f. M ff- g. :
* ,M.: ..:..:c...--
W M.nJM}?ww,4y ' y@. c
.M d'
- yhv psm .aN,o: ..&W.1Qyf&m.p}?QdlWQ ,eAv .?v -> %e s& a%
+4
- q ;;w4 -
s.< c WyN&.. y$.p@g"Q.&;mwy ,,
- 2MUQQ$s>w .q:w.. . .
L .
----.~___..____m_ .
0
- After the submission of the petition but before the scheduling of responses to it, the interveners f. led simultaneous requests with the Commission and the A '
Licensing Board secking to stay all proceedings on the New Hampshire plan. The
. . ,, , i4 i ,
request filed with the Commission was rejected by the NRC's Secretary, who
} '( '
.; advised the interveners to file any such request witt us. They did so on December
' ' (
; .<5'
., .- 30.Ihey assert, among other things, that the hearing schedule allows insufficient time to prepare for litigation on the plan. They point out, in addition, that action on the applicants' pending petition could render the current New Hampshire plan
" i',
moot. Further, they claim that the simultaneous litigation of tic New Hampshire plan and the applicants' petition would be unduly burdensome. For these reasons,
?' they maintain that litigation regarding the New Hampshire plan should await the l disposition of the petition.
t , ,./ ),, . . ', ' ' ,i *4 . .q , ' c.* :l B. The Commission's Rules of Practice prohibit appeals from interlocutory C '
^
- 1 licensing board rulings of the type involved here.' Thus, the interveners' motion s
.. . < , ,. , '. constitutes a request that we exercise our discretionary authority to review
- 3. . c 5.; , ; 1, - ? , ". C }';:c,
- o;' ,
the Board's ruling by way of directed certification.' We employ such power, however, only when a licensing board's action either (a) threatens the party
, . . 1 adversely affected with immediate and serious ineparable harm which could
']
"; " O ' '
, not be remedied by a later appeal, or (b) affects the basic structure of the
.l
,' s.
'~f i
' ..L Ef7. ordinarily, the EPZ has a radms af about 10 miles but is exact sus and configursuon may vary dependmg on demography, topography, or local emergency response needs and capabsbues. See 10 Cf.R. 50.47(b)(10), and (c)(2).
,$ 8 At about the same dme, nest of the imervenms f!!ad with the Licensmg Board requesu that h reconsider
,i im direcove that responses to the appbcants' peuuon be subnuued by January 27. The Board derued those I
'i j t requests. Ucensing Board Memorandum and Order of January 7,1987 (unpublished). In doing so, however, '
it noted that af "any pany cannat complete su response by January 27, then that party {shall] provide (to the j fy Boast by that dais) ira parually completed response and advise the Board d a reasonable dato certam on which i hs wnnen response can be completed." 14 at 3.
] i The interveners also filed a request with the Comnussion that the Chief Adnurustrauve Judge of the Atomic safety and Licmsms Board Panel be a to decids,in the Ucensms Board's stead, allissues presented by l the pennon to reduce the size of the ' Intervenous'Joars Pouuas for Appoimment of Admirustmuve Judge and
,j Request far llaanrig (December 22,1986). Followmg in transnusman to hun by the secreary of the Comnussion
,i for consAnuon and dispasmon, the Chief Admimsusuve Judge demed the reg. nest. Memo andum and Order of
! December 31,1986 (unpublished).
- "See 10 CJA 2.730(f).
m 'Saa 10 CJA 1718(i),2.785(b)(1); Pune service Co. of New Mempshere (sesbrook stauan. Uniu 1 and 2),
y ' 7 . '* *
- p ,; , ;, . . .L. [!) ALAB.271. I NRC 478. 482-83 (1975).
s
* *, *' ..j
.,a .
_s
.. * * ' V'.
The NRC staff treated the intervenos' motion as a request for a stay pumusnt to 10 CJ.R. 2.788. In tems.
'.- ! . Q' * .
howereur, that secuan as applicable only to endesvors to obtam "a stay of the effectiveness of [a) decision or
} +' -l l; ,* ',,..- '3, r f,*. il
' ' ' a/ tion pendmg f.hng of and a decision en an appeal or petttian for mview." Here, no appealable Licennng Board deeman or actran is involved. Rather, the are seekmg interlocmory seview d a schedulmg 3 order. Accordmgly, as indicated in the text, they are m essence calling upon us to irndts car directed cerufication
'y. ,. i authonry and must meet the standards for the enorcise of that authonry.
~ .
- J. ~ The foregoing does not mean, of cause, that our stay authonty is necessarily linuted to circumstances in which
<d,,'
s
*' ' , . . . , * ..J~~ ..q emetion 1788 comes imo pley. Ahhough we need not explore the maner hers, there well may be occasions en c,
'y 14 which the grant of stay rehef will be apprapnate m the esercase of our general supervuory authonty over licreams
., 3 , ,, ' 9 board proceedings. See gewe#y Philadsphas EJacmc Co. (Larnanck oenerstmg Stauon, Urut 1), ALAB-835,23
(. * ' . .4.
. , ' - ** ;; , .t .:. ,l',
cj NRC 267,270 (1986) n y . . .. <
- pah*q~*
l:f y
+
1.- 5 J.A . .; 3
* . . ;1. if<. "t a
7, * .g *
. 5 j " . ', )
;[. t*
- 3 ~ lj f ' . , . ", 3, ~ ] '. ',,yp.
2.0
,,..:- , , . . . , . ~u .,Sg ;+,,,,4,.'
. , y v , ., m, . ...t.>
s . ,. t,. .as, y g,, 8..
. ~. . , . ;q* :.x ,
_.;s,. r .. , M . e.. f 9 ,';; r v., ,_ , e p f, - ,r f '* ,. #$' $ N
- w. , - ,f//g/ s.j ,' . *. ,. *
. . ?"['. *t w .-'. au.se.;. s<y m*.::(.Ti 'r:ee,f' ' # %[*h[f l .
i
'f,;'Mx e [. ; .-[t.; .q, ,h, g,[9v,1,1N.D.,Dh7lJ~7.iv,r,]'Oi.T',D]b.'Y<
r ,I,
~ ' w. "
1 ' * . c . : /. 7 ')
4 r,.a . . . ..,* _
v
- ' e..,; , 0 W,
4
- a y(m.gM, ; ,3 :- ' , .
.....'"....b.;.J.,.',.
,.4
, ' ~ ,^;
', L MeJ Q :,,d.. & . \.,* .: -?g
,a ' . s c,, . ..
s ,
'Is.CY'c.,r> q~.1 y'
.. '~ .
- ~ ' ~ ,
.' .' sv u .'
. d '. ,e4, _ . c ,,, e
~
ne,;.el'.v. .-ew.sW ; .p. ., y.: '.,.;.r' gT .'t ,..q 3 r .. ', *
. 't W.q$ /.q ; '.N.s '. . ;c . . .
. g . ... u,
,.o , ,
. s .
- m. . 3 c.:;~ <~; ... . g . g g
.~-,..,v".~..a. ~ +, r w. .
y n s ~. ". ,. .., %' s.r;~
*g.
s
- p 6
- y. y_.6,::,
>s. .. . t.e3:r
. j.
c- . . ,. ~' e : .;;.
.p.
.vy v.a s.u
*.- ,s .
,u n.,
.. s :( .
~\,...
c .
e i.,-n t. :1 Q &c$#$,Aq:d(f% ' ,;:,;.l ... ,
(- ? .t.n 3 %fof' ?
RC{h %,4rl6*]'I,W'.W.u.. Qs'T; ,ah.w.,kW
.c$},lc !,4 rM. &.., f'if ..l q.e% R .*^' : $;.~ . X, R';,. ( ~ .'$
hr -QQM.A x *- 'E ' % ; #y ~ h,h ?:}ll 2 ?l, C,i'S RQ:'.', . g .V:, . ? 7
! i,h.Mh'U . , .D. . ,D. km. .N !k;,T. D .h E b h[ .@ .
@N'?: m y h " 7d '
% ' y" > b :? E 'M^' v%
n,A[c L'
$ri
* ._J
.i ;
~
, .\
1 H a a
; }e l' : proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner.' Where a scheduling order is
,f involved, that standard ordinarily requires a showing that the schedule deprives N ? , J, '<., ,. '
, . y] the complaining party of its right to procedural due process? - .
There has been no showing here that the Licensing Board's decision to move j
,;, ' "ym.7 9. r y . , '; g,.....rE ' 9', .. 1 ,
lN.i..
forward on both fronts simultaneously necessarily will deprive the interveners )
t, h ' , p j N.h Jo.g, jf&"
- t ,]} e of their right to a fair hearing. Although the interveners tell us that the hearing :
./
1 schedule allows insufficient time to prepare for litigation of the New Hampshire ;
'J e
i plan, they do not specify, let alone document, those elements of the schedule with which they cannot satisfactorily comply.2' Nor do they substantiate their
%' ' 4 y <' . ; i.
- i. I.- ,
- assertion that the schedule is unreasonable. In this connection, it is noteworthy
.y ,
that their request filed with the Commission and the Licensing Board (attached
M l ' . l,3 ,5,',,WDM q . 7 .; ',j.,,Us p [7 ,
of the schedule.
j l <
p a. :.y , 7 In any event, as noted above, the Licensing Board has now modified its earlier 4
-i y .
f schedule and, in effect, granted the interveners' requcst in part by announcing ~
- Q-Q , , *n , ., g , p;- 'f.i.J
~ '
.i a brief deferral of prehearing activity in connection with litigation of the New
' Hampshire plan. 'lhe stated purpose of this deferral is "to permit the parties
- l. . .. l- . fi an unencumbered period to respond" to the petition to reduce the size of the
' yf.' , , t . ',, K
*,-4
] / ,6'i - ' '
..f Q:
~
/o 4 EPZ. 2 And, in response to 81ings by several parties, including the interveners, it also indicated a willingness to accept incomplete responses to the applicants' 4,
petition, provided the parties advise tre Board by January 27 of the date on 7l which their written responses likely will be completed. See supra note 5. At 3 ,M ,' ,l.(p0 . present we cannot say that simultaneous litighdon, if h occurs, will necessarily
, fnyg be so onerous as to deprive the interveners of the fair hearing to which they are x entitled.
1 g To be sure, the upcoming litigation over the New Hampshire plan will be
' rendered largely academic if the Commission ultimately decides to reduce the M V g. radius of the EPZ from ten miles to one But a mere commitment of resources
, v
-+ ' ' . .. e; . . . ,
to a hearing that may later turn out to have been unnecessary does not justify
,y. . ,
, i. <
_,~g.. , . , , . -*.
s
.p w o r .. . , r .a '
, . . se.* o
,* < u *.( , y ;, , -;,'. t. ;,,,.~ o...3.~,r.'.-
, %.. h; ,i .
,., g. e.g_
+
.i$kJ e i'E g 7 '* ;ch.
Padplic sdPwec# CO. p[ladiese (Urtile Hil1 Nuclear ominating sintien, tJ:iiss 1 and E At.AB-dE 5NRC
... ?.i /'; u . # ' A B J.96.; 1190, 1192 (1977).
,5[p% ,,.f,*,P , 4: w , "f; p ; ,,yg DNowsonlighag a Pourr Co. (south Tomas Project. IJnits I and 2), AtAB.637,13 NRC 367,370$71 (19st).
. , ,, g j ' T 4l. .1 3D We noia. tiy wey of cuntrast, that the Anarney omnesnt's December 30 request that the Licanems Board
' ' by
., Af .g,c / ' J ';- resonader he ruling sequiring rerpenses to the opphcants' petition to be Elad by January 27 was --
,1 AP;;
?>3 c m.
- sf6deviu enempung to ponroy the dif5culties anandant upon compliance with that Licensing Board schedule.
. % l. , a ,'q , ,1;j . M ,'*CJ 3y' c * ;'l p 18 tmervenars' beation, Exhibit 1. at 3.
. ,# U Licensing Board order of January 9,1987, et 1. '!he baaid detened fnen January k6.1957 g.. . . b *% lp.-
- 4
[f.T;J; p ,,[2',N-6.M . . :
- LLi *Al Wpyj.'
*J P;Al 3,i .pj *14. '..7lWG '7y*. ' j,; 1957, the issuance of its ouder ruhng an consentsens and staning the clock runnite ror ducevery. All other dates are _ ingly defened, with the bearing now scheduled to begm no endier than hiny 28,19s7.
CL,,. -f f 9 .' * ; y L. ,5# s.f", ; ('f,'..rc
.a...m.
^ L v. Q,-..+,
% *: w,, yl Ac. &: D.f,I;, - .i 3,i.j' m w.;;,y . L gm, . ..* .. .- = -;y ; , y a . y.,.g}
, n ,4 y e spc.7s ;y; .. )
U
?., [f, y, .a. ',s'/Ir ,
&f;,m,[8 . 7. . <. %
,;u, k .. . .s. .+. . **a..
. ... r. -, w. ., %.a
.'*L d- Q*'..- ,4 r/Mf,.9 "Mi '8?N, dog /;j%
~.
Y.E,.e* 7.iM. A *n, $*4,1 m :r,,.. .
7
- s .
.m$*c%+tMf./dP%g.- y .
w..
h
. ~ ,v. ,.l. h.~, .e ,.
c.h . w i ..,o
, t M*
4.s. ...
. /**
- f .
,g
~
N.E [t.
. m, % . . . .. . . I*[sD. Mc.o.
5
'[-
.'.,h. ','/r I.ls . ' *. % .i. i ' g* N.. '.'
. . *. $ ,4, . *., '.i. ; *e.. "'.
. . - .+
. k'c., *.i s.*, , .;tm. ' . .#l.
n y;@.fn(T,a,. y. ., . :y ' .w , 'y ,jt. m.. . - o.g .h. . . /., * .,,'*n
- 4 * *
.c.. , ., * .. ..-
4 3I,+ *# '.'a3 .pl.
. V, , # ;,, ' f , . l .3.
. tt',(A % . .:g8ln l%' w > . * . .%,
+
-. J.
p ;Q , *a ; *,
o, u ; ,,
s,$ , *':' / 'm., e'#';.
; *, .. .,e u u;,- . -, '
't
?: * ;
.s' 'i
. m ,o r, .. . i . ! * ,\p '&,b.* * '" -
- g. . . a . . ,.
** ' # 'V **
'.',*., 'f.,*.*#.
'.#y*: i.t'Eo.* ", -' T. )%$,,/ s* W.' 2*?' '
- g .'. g ,
. . w,j
,# 'T.l 's' .' . *p . .g ,f"..,
9 8 e .4 f*ly . ^ ,v . > J, '
' (4 ~. Qt.m' (.p,.f,4,g' 'g g./$' ' 0 W ,y. .??; 4. &.'M,.p;y,':.
.,',t M ;;J .,. ? .' . ". . ' . .
. =j -
w *g.M.: v.. , - -
h' ,
& &,h*. &, k h W k $ $ $ $ 5 k & .
interlocutory review of a Licensing Board order.n Moreover, it is far from
., inevitable that the hearing will prove to be unnecessary. It is possible that
~
3 ,
.i the applicants' proposal to reduce the size of the EPZ will be rejected. If
, . .. . .. T .
,e so, litigation regarding the New Hampshire plan will be required. In such-
3 "0. -- Ip,' e ; * 'j . >. -
", E,
. o circumstances, deferral of that litigation could seriously delay final resolution
,, , y,[ f .1 ofissues surrounding the plan.
; , s. . .,
.y, C 7,. $. -i
, The interveners' motion is denied without prefudice to the submittal of a new
, i request at a later date should due process considerations so dictate."
, - l it is so ORDERED.
- N>
.i
. 1 FOR THE APPEAL BOARD i 4. . (; ,, y.$. g. . Q;ti *.y ...e,....
f;, ;
a ..=.;* , . . , . ' , . . <
,s ...<
. . . af - '. e*.r. . . s ,. . . C. Jean Shoemaker hl[ [*),h . , ) . ' . b ?[.' 1 ?,'%.7.. .i Secretary to the
/,f ; : . c /F. s v' :, - .'.-
Appeal Board
. s 4-
... * ,o-
; ;. - g ; n. . .
~. ,~...
1 .. '.
l
. . . \
..,D*
, ,: 3 e ,: 4 j: , . . c,..,
.,.i.-. .
n,,.
..e i, ,
l 4
n ,
t
.,..(d .
.s. c . .
.('
t s
w: .i. .y
..4 .t.O
. , .o - 4 9
e r ,
y . . ' s r .?
94 24. ze, L,.
,g 3 , . ,,. , ' , ,
. ..Q
,q i, A
a: n ., . . . .... ..
/,9, > ' .,f, ,','.r,' . :AL' qli.p a * .'
- :C, .si "* l*,
.y c? 4.,>,'... Q ' 2, c * ' 3zu, .j, ..'
, '{ ,
- s
-4' [;' D
. g. . ...; Cleveland Elaemic Illemasang Ca. (Perry Nuclear Power Piern. Unies 1 and 2). AIAB-6'15.15 NRC 1105
. * '/., , e
,./' . ~ ./ . ' '
1113-14 (1982).
. 'i
,'y.
J- *
$. < ,) '
4 . .y
- 14 Any further sequest for modtScotion of the hearing schedule should be directed Erst to the licensmg
. /l * .tQ;, '- <'
,. , t .. s
. ?-- "t Board. Cf. Public Service Co. of New NeWre (Seabronk Smuen. Unns 1 and 2) AI.AB.338. 4 NRC 10,12
-f , ., , f.. (1976). And if that Board were to (any it,our soview, of couros,could be obtamed only by doucted eorufication.See
. s , .4 J * ! * ".1 , * * , _ . *M siers pp 19 20.
.? Y } .,l,,' .h +1;...,, . G *. l. Y ',n,,',y, .
A., . . f, f'ltI
. * ..*;'Q .u
{. 4 A '. [1]
, ~
+,,),.,
i.- . ' ,* ., *. ,J.'... .
i O . ' g b. g "o .b. ., ( ,,,....E.'- A, ,- .,
- f I
"ga,h .. g + ,
- '+
- g. , ' . . a, ;h, , , ; cdfie M. *' 4
- g i .
- 21, q g%l -y + .. .'..g..,,,. q' p" g*, . -
22 usa.. ,
- e...
.. . \ .t .,q*
'j
, q<
tg.
* .s ? .e .l j *:: . ,4a ' %. , . , , ^ , , ,'a s , '.Uy. c ..Vh
.p s . ,,
.; W
,a .a .,g , " , # e py? . f,. f. .= j '- f ,l+,'.1,.s , ' ' <
- v. /* .. * . c(*r e .v.
.;6.. m% ar* * 'o' ' . 3;3. < 1 +a
-r .,' e ,y* ]s 4
;,. ',; p'. . kL .u,o '
> Si- :
- y
. Q,. .;? . . . T, .e m .,
m .+ :. ~* r*~ :.. A,)Cy % ,;p* s %,y f.s.J.:,q;; ,s . , vi.J; ff, w . ;e },',..;hf;x {.l!{,?..a$.f,..s.h.f.. .$:?,'.e.$,.il
' N. s '. r . .
,.m.. . . , . . . , ,,..,
' *;'L . . C e h '. ', '
. .. .M 'A ej-[. i . .m. ,y,s . .~. M,g 1l N. .e ,[3 +**
.i '/. , Nw. 7 ,. ,U * '+..., i @6*c.k.- e' .'.*. f,,c" 0 ' sf- . . .7.. .. ,U , ';.' ., '. M ..c,.([.
s ~..)8.e
,g .
W .. ,*,' [.
l f %r.
. ,s .e. e.,,.~ -.,*.
I
. .. s. . . . g
>[)g g'# '.^j,g., O.. iir[ . -,l,.,,,'.; g' , . .f, ',,, .*
I
. ,( e p,s .
si , .M *
'. k':
a[,o , [, .,.* [, ; .
* * ' , ( j' **. Ik* < , % %-d
'..',,4 5 .' ' .. .Eh** +' *Is[ $ '[
, . ' ....,7.^.,.d;. .. '.. t< 7/ , ?. /. . ..* .*t
3 .
... ,r e
,.*.'1 . . . -
. y I .'/.gg, 7. .i. , ., c - , , , .
, e i n, .e W t ':[ .,
!. 'c. ff,. ,y. .
'e' j. . Q..,~y.,*'7 '
; / ,@ ,- T t ~ . , ' t' '
. 2- ..
, 'i,.,.# 'sa 4 ', o
*' f.f*,,, .\; * . $* l I 5ll e .
- w.w,,. w ,m; . m n .p w p i
- :. .x. ., s;. c.u. . . w;a, +o , % .
y ,
- + n . :;. 1 .
v w . m . r. r. n ~.~;: v; : v: n.. .. r -
. . . ~..
.. . . m. yx.a ., d. ..~M. r.. ~: .w. ..
.v. .w .. . : . .
. n..c.
n,
;,. .v..m.
. 2.n h.,... vm;h [v ;.I .;+.; [1 ' w'e
*,.. ,:. ,* .w. a.
e% p ,k),,h.,M. 7/,$ !"/e.!.h..x h..',k.Mh. . .w.. w.x M.a. :.n. [.J ,9'b. m .m. ,h.
b 1NI . 5yN p.4 w. , #. im.a. w..: .;w. v). . v . t , s.v,. T.I k' [~,
. .u.f. k..
i m'.*h*~
. a .
j.
. .s. ;ge
/ c[c
"?
< .N d
)' -
- f.
___ ______m__ _ _ - . . _ . -- -
4 i .
I 4
Cite as 25 NRC 23 (1987) ALAB-859 m .
e
', ; , -- ..,'. 'J g.1 ' t,i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA lf,,>~,
'.4 %
. 0, y '/. . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. .. ..,, c! .
w
*,s, ..
, . ; . lq ,
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
' a 4 0 j
,_ g Administrative Judges:
..".,p i.
Gary J. Edles, Chairrnan n ., LP . ~.+ . ,
'~
Christine N. Kohl S '. e
- N : W.,",,p ',;gc,; y'g.$. . tj Howard A.Wilber
...f... .. . , ,s 1
- , ,5 - .
- s ~ , , . > ;s
'; , 4 9,~ ;]Q ',;;s,l. . . '.=,. (. ..l a . * /. . %.in the 5
Docket Nos. 50-424-OL j ' ) Matter of 50-425 OL
,. 'f- ,. ~y 1 . , , . .
e.
m ,... v. .
-,; .., GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al
.]
- j (Vogtle Electric Generating
- l. January 21,1987
.. . . . g. -
P Plant, Units 1 and 2)
.* . v.: g . ,. .
s
, .o ,
The Appeal Board rules, in response to the oral request of the Director of f,qj the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, that a license condition imposed by s
- the Licer. sing Board with regard to a matter over which that Board no longer 5 %'.c, c had jurisdiction was null and void and therefore did not preclude issuance of a f ' '> : low-power operating license.
%^
f .. 'I'
. y '
LICENSING BOARD: JURISDICTION
, yi
. W;. ,
Under NRC case law, once the Licensing Board issues a decision in which a 4 * .
d it disposes of a particular issue on the merits and a notice of appeal from that o ,
f$; .
.. .' 7 .
decision is filed, the Licensing Board no longer has jurisdiction to act further
.,f W; K g .?@rj ,[,, ; %. ( ~, . ' .
with regard to that issue. See Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nu-
*nh ' S.M.
s..,.A ,M [ .l.S, clear Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-699,16 NRC 1324,1327 (1982). Jurisdiction
,c " 77:. .c p., y-<,y c pac]
over that matter rests with the Appeal Board.
n+. ,,
., . y4c ].
- p. ' + '
'. . ' :d q " b,,.y,, ; ,
.j' k.;'.'L o A M b
,-. 1 LICENSING BOARD: JURISDICTION (IMPACT OF ABSENCE) y ' .4 ,- . . . . , , . . j 4
.x.:.'. N . , ..U.., v'.: a %e,f #e
- p - 2,^;" A license condition imposed by a licensing board with regard to a matter .
over which that board has lost jurisdiction is null and void.
.4.g + 4l 3,,'s ...7,c. ., .w.: .
q,. . .. ~. w. gy , .b. , ,
1..[s." . ; n, 8,hb . . Y . c ~ . h4 *
*
- 4'c k,, -):
. i =,i .
,'* ~,.l , ;n -; % 'j '$'*sli, ,y l-
~ * .'; [ . : :', { "" , ,; ?? 'T .9
! k;.J. '* .it . J. ,,y),y; ; ' , y* 13 M,.,p . . , 3 L.;s ~ . %J 23
-+
.w**,... g, z .. o m w.f ?*. 3 ; , 4*;.g. ?./
j.p , d: ., .7m
, .1 ' . ,y,,u ., , p,~... .g:.y j,c.~..n.w1..J, ~.,, 4 m. a,'y' y " f,"
, * ,6. . " s . . .
.g e -n.
- ~
s - . '.- a .! - . . .a ln. * a - 'a , .b '.~~%,r y p;m*'i
?.. ;e;2.%t ,WWI'< *,l; ,Q5;f,,r Q'{g~Q*p t. qf
? 4&.. x*X;s?s,}.c&v';p* jf,h: ;p:. ;; M.1 l
1-9;.. . , '",wl?g.N.,4.p. . ..
g .;. ;.m., yy,, s..>
M,I!Lp%
+LT-
;h.gfp rc. Q','.?f ?;i'!0; , fry % l,[q, ,
g* *; >3.f;WzL
...r~.ift..?.;' %
&ygtr:
'^~u. ~.,l'.G'~,:::m; ;f;.:e' '
y~., ' .nf.' W & ,+ @, ..:
v p. . .;. . ,
9,'
'. ,; ,W. Y:':',
, , , ,; ; v f-
~ . ,,
~
a - . '.%. .
s,
*i .f...xt-. 'r > & .. "v; .
- F . ' M' "
'N -
,fS,M g,'i,',**
. ., \ "
q
. %'I; .
? 4 . ' '= ./ 3. .a *!.. .-' E . b *
.. .. s ,* 'J
' t .' ,'
.'!
- e.
y,, 4 .ss i
. l* i '.
6 eM'i. ,l,; ;N # , f ~,.;D *.l b' "~ M, i. . ; o .
) h *.. i'. ,d,N.'+ *L* !'g.l: k;!.nYM,ifi :,y,Cf[O ?w .icT.*i,. ~7, %f .; ' Y
+
's ? '"
h.:[,
/.b. 4 i ..
v <M d,N.f ,.N, . *, c.;
.*U[.;D,.i - ' $.J' -
,, 'T'
,p+
. ,V. . .,.
h
* ?- . m .i. .. ." i, x
..,,..i. . .
..s.
.M. # q .9.,q. %e' 4 .s. ... . ,i. .c,e, ;. . t, - ..
., m* ,. 1
.a.' ,
.~.4.4*..,..,,, .u*. \, .,' ,s ,, .e,.1., g l*.
.r.3 *,,%...
.,,, y.
7,T. 3 %.,..
.. , e.y{ ;: .ie. . . y'. ,c .,,,
s
' - A- ,.
,5.-.,.g . g 'c b
***dQ N'W- **' . . . V,e
.- ,. . . 3 ,y
%. :l 6 ,,/,!p f,l , ,.<*
, , y,. .g*[. 's. g ;5, .s j
*f ((,*gg'),gQ4 '
' .' 3 . , (;(/ . 3, . * , ,; g ;,J ** .
;. . Wi . ..@ c ,!:S . V.ii'. W ,4.iM f .
* * ; eQ,YdQM,' 'M$g 3 ,. p iG M.D%
ipih h(M85"$7s*/)Wy'4.c., .
MS.QM5(,,'f , s,, 4
. . ,-E h ,
h .b Y . ,, .b Y- Y. . .
l l
\
g .
s ,
OPERATING LICENSE: LOW POWER LICENSE (RESPONSIBILITY OF STAFF) y ,., The Director of the OfSce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation may issue a
~
, ' f, .g' .
"J. , ; low-power operating license on the basis of a licensing board decision or
.' . q .,] .a.",
i - f.1 "' decisions authorizing the issuance of an operating license.10 C.F.R. Il 2.764(b),
,,' i M ,. ', ,
2.764(f)(1)(i).
, c ,' 1 d;
APPEAL BOARDS: SUA SPONTE REVIEW p * ' ' , ,1 ' Appeal Boards have long established authority to review sua sponte the
'I
- entirety of licensing board decisions, even where no appeal has been taken. See
+.', m .,,:v...v,
. , .R c. fj. . . . Ogshore Power Systems (Manufacturing License for Floating Nuclear Power
,. s.,
3 7, . . y.. . , .*:'n , Plants) ALAB-689,16 NRC 887,890, af'd on other grounds CLI-82-37,16
..,'.'i ,.,.. NRC 1691 (1982).
..n. . p,.. ,y, ,. .. .. ..n
,. , . . , '. ".4,, ., , 3 w ,;., ,.e.. ..
c, APPEAL BOARDS: SUA SPONTE REVIEW
.;'[ y g. , ,, .
Appeal board sua sponte review authority can include the imposition. of
* *','*( '
license conditions. See, e.g., Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho
.o,
, _.,..s. _
. . Seco Nuclear Oenerating Station), ALAB-746,18 NRC 749 (1983).
', - 4
. p ,j]. . TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED f, Polymers i
\
x Dose rate effects.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER o
q -
. ', s '. In an order issued January 16,1987, we ruled that a license condition imposed by the Licensing Board in its concluding partial initial decision, LBP-86-41,24 i
NRC 901,928 (1986), was not a bar to the issuance of a low-power operating
- i. Mj! . *t, ... . .-
? license for the Vogtle facility by the Director of the NRC's Of6ce of Nuclear
; M." ,,' ~ (*<,7 ,.
7, q ', ;. ~ '[ ' Reactor Regulation (NRR). The basis of our ruling was that the Licensing Board
" :, 'pl.FL ,
y /. ., , c, ; .. ,[. .L, [ 7,
,i,y ;acked authority to impose this condition, rendering it null and void. We now
,W explain that ruling.
. . n.. .
y _
b . ?
(,
s, q
,I r , ..,e
. s. , ,,
.ch ,. .* c..~
. *p.
. r,'
. ~ .. 9.1i
. . * . y !4
., ' . , 9 *,d. ,l,'
-s E
8+ * ,
't *x ,_, AE( *
?- , .g . ,. . M .)
y . 4 , , 7 *. '( ; m *f
,,,..'$':.,,8?,.
,,. 4 ,,j...'"..f',
7, s
w p.,,
.,wc .
4
,- . . -. M
..,L,**t....'
..n .. ... j...t. .,.9 w
. * . A g,, 4
.,,. n.sv
.7... ..3.s'*.A,,..,l .< #
y .
y, p.., .
s.,
'.2,,*;s.,,,,.v.p ..
.,'.# ' 'y.~s. . .8./J..,. f . h *f} u . ,.s.,,Q .,c- ..
?
a *.;
.
- 1.),I " + f, -[. h ~'k
{.6kf . ,(N/I7,f '4,i..VYi .; ,p-rYD *2t ,[* '" . b.*
.: i .y'd . ..'m .P Jd.".,m,4 h.'4.(6/,]i.,. ,/{y,. $;'f ; .1; 4 . ,,v Tp p Qa,%
.
- f ; r ,. 4. ,. . . c. , 4.
, ,, . m * . ..
. . ,..., .. -y .
,~ .[ ' .,y,l$ . % ,j 'f f . -8 g 5,f *.r. .*!
. .. i.s , .*) . \ ' , *, ,S. .g ] *' ,*. ., 6, .. . T', .,t.3 . . * -^ ' ' ,Y , .'b' a
.$ . ' . ",'-[1, j ',.8,..
e
- n. i . 5'
^j'
....~. .+
4
,*, s s s
't * ' '
' * ,,4 .[f \' '
'g'g . .
h N,
- g
) ' .s.7 ;. . ... '4? . .i ./ ,1 *O
.e\n ,,.4,2*'? ? .'. ,, , w n. ., . ,1 5, .,~ / ,f..t .* .<
.P T *e ~.' , - 'h E
- 9 ' h. ,
r* '
- l' b, . .. #. ,(,[, , , 5. , k' ' % .)r ., e
. 6
[.I - '). , " . - .R . , ,
< v;*....*..,r.
-g , a,t.e' 's' - > .
a ",
,x
. . y'. " ,.*, .,,. cp
,< J. .ei .e p.*,..' .4 1?- ' ,,.,- .. * ,*,...r.. i 4 *y; c
* .' .'r~, ,,, ; ' * - '
1
;j ,
+ ,. - * .. .
,. .,..e V,, .
r.. k.. * .
&t.".C f, r.a.< :
-y . .
. t. '
.t.
';
- d. % ;. , - s k ,:=r,6, u-i .'.'. ,. . '. . ,' '; .
- X y r ? ; h * %* . , .
. . v ,s :. ;' . * . ' Y . ,. .. ~ *
. ,, ; .* b,. '& '; w. L
' ', -l, '
l
.m .n w a. WW. l.EWm. r;-:.ww
. m , w w, .m.y t .., ,
m'f:#'w@M.y@.%.w@.8.p&w' y D% M . yWW*. .n,MnW s.M.V.MD.1 W. .m
4 k
?
BACKGROUND
, .a
, , ,,c In 1984, the Licensing Board admitted contention 10.1, proffered jointly by )
. , .o ,
'(, ; a interveners Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia (CPG) and Georgians Against
'J-i '
..3 Nuclear Energy (GANE). Relying on a report from the Sandia National Labora-tories, this " environmental qualification" contention alleged that certain safety-
)
related equipment at Vogtle contained polymers t!.at might experience greater
. ; degradation from lower dose rates of radiation than would be expected baaed
' on testing at higher dose rates. (This is termed a " dose rate effect.") See LBP-P 1 :
i i 84-35,20 NRC 887,903 (1984). After hearing substantial uncontrovened tes-
.- d timony on contention 10.1, the Board ultimately concluded that it was without
.,=..%.,'t . .$ l . , , , , ;, g
,. l merit. Specifically, the Board found that ay '9 ,. e; " - ,. .
,' polymer materials destined for use in safety.related [Vogtlel applications have acceptably
- i. . d . y< q . . . . ~ ' [ ' ,, N ,. ./, passed an adequate environmental qualification program. Additional usurance as to the
',- < .. .JJyrf
- adequacy of these polymers will derive from an operational surveillance program to be implememed by Applicants.
"'.. '.' '. LBP-86-28,24 NRC 263,293 (1986).
.l GANE filed a notice of appeal from LBP 86-28 on September 8,1986.2 By
.- . , . .. S letter ten days later, applicants advised both us and the Licensing Board (as well
' - , '$ '.'.~ .. ,. : as the parties) of newly discovered information regarding contention 10.1. 'nie
- i polymer that showed discernible dose rate effects in the Sandia study is a Sj raember of a group of polymers designated as XLPO and. in particular, is i a co-polymer of ethylene and vinyl acetate (EVA). At the hearing before the
' gl? ] Licensing Board, applicants' witnesses testified that EVA was not used in any
. q. safety-related equipment at Vogtle. Applicants have now learned that XLPO
' N, insulation of certain instrumentation cable at Vogtle contains a polymer classified
; l as EVA. Applicants state that they will identify which cable is affected and
] will subject it to the surveillance program already established and required for
, , safety-related equipment. Applicants also express the view that, in any event, ,
the Sandia conclusions about dose rate effects do not prevent XLPO insulation from performing its intended electrical function. Letter from David R. Lewis to k jf 7, 7l, l ., 4 Gary J. Edles, et al. (September 18,1986). No party commentQd on applicants'
. . f. letter. In fact, in its subsequent brief on appeal, GANE expressly eschewed any
- t,', -
, f. ; ,..
appeal in connection with contention 10.1. GANE Appeal Brief (October 8, n,a[.f,% , ,t..-;;.(,: l
- , 'N .
1986) at 16.
~
.<..t..
The Licensing Board later issued its concluding decision, LBP-86-41, on the -
,S .
I,, ,
; ,. n.... . '", w. j, one semaining issue pending before it (contention 10.5, concerning the envi-
'])"
.+
- 1; , .',.y ,
>c .' ,a . .N- ., - - ,. ..:
.'
- 3 We disnussed CPo's spreal, rindmg that CPo had wohmiarily wuhdrawn fran this proceedmg. shoreby forfeiung
+ ,,'. ,j-
- G ( ';',N.'._, f us appeal nghts. ALAB-851,24 NRC 529 (1986).
'l. .- * *. , , , t. ar f,.4.. b
*' ; : ,, 'h . ' ' .v<
q,b, ,Q s
' % :. . .w a . . J.y; ,,g y 4. ." < : ., t ,M ' .
n, ..
L. .....
,,. ' . . 6: h...j' 7.M.,
., 4
',.j'.j h. ,,.54 25
..... 3;. n s.w. .y
..c >S :& G y.
W... J.a. . _ Q 3:Q,~.J. s.
j+. M;-
s ;.; JSp 'sn!-i.'q'*;7.,'4.l 9'.%.... .,,7q'.:,. ;)W~.: . y*.Q
,~,y.,. *. .
. Dif*
- 3. , ,.
;,, [ g,r..,3,,, , ?g,.c.g.'hh"l!h[$"I'"*'
.3 I'.i/
/ 2#f f.r."I'*[-3.
. , 'J . * ,
. ' g.5
** ].; "F.;, ~
, *. ^ h'.;~~5.
- T, i, %
...r..
< \,
....'a.;- *y...*,,
u .'...
. - .;s .
>'y >
. . * : v - 8 .1 '. * * '
. ,'. '; -i \ ', ,.
f A%, ,, , :-
p (;l, l. , .h I ').'
,\ ,.s.g .,
.:, o .,'@
t
' Y. &* .& lQ? , ' ' : * ' ' ' ** f.,. *.'s L
.W v, , . ~;. :,.4_f ,.;.y w - r _ . '. c., n..
.t . ,' -
*l
" l ,- ' q: .
- ~- <
- ...o ,c.: . ,. . . .. - . , , .s r .
- ., .. ..r., .y ,. ~
.g..
6 *. '; ,.,.; $'.. ., c. ,f J" j. e ?. , % ,f" r , . .s.. h , f;f, ;. ,' 3.' tty.
. 5* 4 4 .
., ; . % , 6
,, pc . . , . , . . .-e'>*s;'.k.,t
. N
?
- Mywr :x;.:.. J 7 3 M ^ :' ' . : /. '*:>: '! H O
- Q:i. Wy"Fy;,%q:.M. . .. ng ' rg w:;.y,Qv.y
- a. m!L,:n.Xw.Q:9:..;.*.Qws:l, q n.y.t g..~..6 d..;m.;.,u.'.*L; 9Q: ,;.. ;a .Q:,
.g t.;iy;',9p:*f. u. '
Ve, a ',;+,Mt .. v.: i. 6. ";.Q; .,J.;n
. . %y ~ y' :n m.
y Q . .n." 1 ..i.<.... .' w w .;.9:.p
. ronmental qualification of solenoid valves used at Vogtle). Although contention 10.1 was unrelated to the subject of LBP-86-41, the Licensing Board took note 1 of the applicants' September 18 letter and its earlier conclusion in LBP-86-28 f-74 . ' i f~ about this contention. It then added:
. ,.s. .
5- "
As a condition precedent to the issuance of any operating licenses. it would first have to be initially determined by appropriate authority that the changed information mntained in Applicants' letter of September 18, 1986, pertaining to XLPO insulation that contains vinyl acetate, does not lead to a conclusion that is inconsistent with that of this Board on
- Contention 10.1.
r
, j
, LBP-86-41,24 NRC at 904,928 (emphasis added).
* , ; ,. 4 In a January 14,1987, letter to the Appeal Board's Secretary, counsel for the
' ' ' ; 6 .W. . f . 3, i NRC staff submitted an affidavit containing the results of the staff's review of the
.. . y , ,"' ' ?.$l information disclosed in the applicants' September 18 letter. The staff concluded that the information does not change its earlier favorable evaatation of the safety-
' ,;j'i l{[ ~ 'A m ' ..
' ,7, . . ,, . ' ".'- -
*h, ?.;. ,'q;* , . .
,. ' , )
related equipment and corresponding maintenance and surveillance program at t
Vogtle. The staff also concluded that the license condition imposed by the L8 censing Board was thus satisfied, and it suggested that the Director of NRR
'4 was the " appropriate authority" to make this determination. Letter from Bernard
.] M. Bordenick to C. Jean Shoemaker (January 14, 1987) and Enclosure. In a
. c letter sent the next day, the Licensing Board Chairman advised staff counsel that s', ' -
*r
.]J the purpose of the license condition imposed by the Licensing Board was "to H sI resolve the matter of the changed information prior to licensing." The letter also stated the Licensing Board's intention "to make known that at the time we set
. the condition we did not know who the appropriate authority may be and we still W do not know, for it depends on the course the proceeding will take." The letter j implied, however, that the " appropriate authority" was other than the Director of NRR, perhaps "the Appeal Board or the Commission itself." Letter from Morton B. Margulies to Bernard M. Bordenick (January 15,1987). Staff counsel replied to Judge Margulies on January 16, 1987, expressing the view that the NRR s .,j Director was indeed the appropriate authority to rule on any remaining matters
] concerning contention 10.1. Staff counsel argued that this contention was "no
; longer in litigation" because no appeal or motion to reopen was pending on the
_ pc ,
.,7 ,,,- 'c( matter. Letter from Bernard M. Bordenick to Morton B. Margulies (January 16,
' . 'c. ,. .-
, . . ,. .
- 7 1987).
- +
lm .P*, ' , -
1... ,
J ?.] Late in the afternoon of January 16, however, the Director of NRR asked j r ; Y. . . . us by telephone to clarify his authority in light of the flurry of correspondence
,.- ~H described above. We responded with our January 16 order.
. s. , , /
.,; /D, '
', q
. t .- .~
'.'$ 1 . AI ,..
- j. b ~ ' .. 1 !J
- e. * ^ 'y , . : . r* , O'i
'- J%' j, o .. : y [,,
,, .a .. . g
. % ,' 4 , .. '..'s, .., ,-
.G
.m.
.. ' . . '%; *1~ s 3,
,
- s .1.s
. :? J
- Q. *>~:*'. * '.' i ;'
y y * , .
<s,. .
*; .W
' C % * ;; .
- u =- l ni . ,' ? ..f. '?)
*. , L' l,.' ?;Q
- .t, n '.'.*f . Y: %. ?.' ... = e e :.. v, .v , s- ro e . . . . r,C.A*m%ii
[l.M. ~I , d. 'g.i;/U,E, .s i; [ *;*?.
;,.,.'W 4,
f.t, ,i,. .eD52,' '%':.j, i 4 j .,
. 3,.p
. . . 6
*/,. ,.* p,. .*p* . s. ,C.y'f[*,f.*j 1
' c . ,1 . -, . i t ;. c.' . is
. . ' ... A 4, . ,, %. .-. + g p- " s .y g . j. ~ c , .. , r - . , ,.y 4 , , ,, . .. a ab, . f [ ( r./ !*.4's*
^
- . [,.
.,....4',' 'kke ',. -' ' .
m,
.I f ! ,,l . . . 'T' -[,,. ,g,
/i.
t
. p , /, ' ' .
., , ; y
. ~.- . .f. ,- .
*.,r,,
.s .
d
, *h *e, g 4 9 "4. .[, Y . '*
,.9, .
,y: * # ' *. * '- * *9 * *
. , , , g , . , , ei ' , ' j
.,. ; .,v , .
,. ,.. m .o., - . ., 5.
w EY7. , . . , ,
'/ I *
- 9 * [ 'le
..s'? . . - - , , . , . . . ' .'. , 5 .*
~.c.,,,,..
, s
. 4, ,9E ' . . , ,
iA ..
', f- .s. e .' t
. i,' 4 y.
, r,,v. ' V %, .
' -i .
.; a ,),, s,
- t , '.!. .~v.*.
4 . % ,~s: + = * ' + .
s . . 2.- . . .- . f
*I . , <. 4,
.'*f
.I .' J. f. 4 4 l
. ., . , ' * ' ? 's h Ie ,
- a. th.$g.h. pf .. kYk[* ,
g.c.. .; 7. Y, i.h...
a.- . .g 6. < , .
ch..,h.,*;.w.~k. 'n .w gy 9n
~ ,.
.,kk.h q, w
0.gYcY.-,h a
.5,3 .y...
' 0{. f$
~ ~$, s;,r. . , . ,. ,* , f&lh.Y&&q;.;a,n.p.7,.a.,;p.. -.dl.[Whh,W,g,,h.,f ..., W p'
' 'k$ $y;p 0.,
{ % k, 5 5.' ' '.?
.y ; y, . e D;, . ,..
1[*
. . 3 i
; DISCUSSION A Under NRC case law, once the Licensing Board issued the partial initial
'. p .
7.d decision in which it disposed of contention 10.1 and a notice of appeal from
',y;.6 that decision was filed, the Licensing Board no longer had jurisdiction to
, , l g. ,V, .'.*[
act further with regard to that issue. See Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three
, Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-699,16 NRC 1324,1327 (1982). Jurisdiction over the matter raised by applicants' September 18, 1986, letter rests with us. When the Licensing Board issued its concluding partial initial
> A decision on an unrelated issue some months later, it had no authority to impose
^
a license condition in connection with a previously decided matter.2 Inasmuch as
.', the condition is therefore void, the Licensing Board's two partial initial decisions
*r ;; must be read without the conditica. In that light, together they provide the s , ) !h'j tP:
1.
, , ' : 4 /r,:[! '
. authorization necessary for the Director of NRR to issue a low-power operating J
5 j.. * . ..-
" m. ,.
,.- ,.,.,",: .n.. ,
.,c license for the Vr etle facility. See 10 C.F.R. il2.764(b),2.764(f)(1)(i).
, , .' ' i '
But in so ruhg, we do not fully endorse the staff's position that only NRR has oversight of the matters here at issue. As noted, jurisdiction over the subjects addressed in the Licensing Board's first partial initial decision -
C
, . . ! and thus the matter raised in applicants' September 18 letter - lies with j us. To be sure, contention 10.1 has not been pursued before us on appeal or
.- ., . ,. v. '.! in any motion to reopen or for a stay of licensing action. The staff overlooks,
^
-* *'qi
. . 3 ,] however, our long established authority to review sua sponte the entirety of
.' <i licensing board decisions, even where no appeal has been taken. See Ogshore 3 Power Systems (Manufacturing License for Floating Nuclear Power Plants),
ALAB-689,16 NRC 887, 890, ag'd on other grounds, CLI-82-37,16 NRC
. 1 gj 1691 (1982). This authority can include the imposition of license conditions as well. See, e.g., Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear
.,', Generating Station), ALAB-746,18 NRC 749 (1983).
. It is fully our intention to review the disposition of contention 10.1 (including the related correspondence subsequent to the Licensing Board's decision on this issue) on the merits, pursuant to our sua sponte appellate review authority, and at
; the same time we take up GANE's appeal on other matters. In the meantime, our i
I preliminary review of the record on contention 10.1 and the newly discovered information discloses no basis for withdrawing or altering the authorization for
. r; . .
,. y { , , ' ,: .^,;/; , the issuance of a low-power operating license.
..p .q * - ,. ,
.k,' ' .";.l*].
J. ' . . ,...'.,*
.... , ,, }. A . . ;
a c m --
- ** . . J' ' ',
. s., / ;*
.< *. ' 1, , g ' - N ,!
;- . r. 2 We suggest no dispangement of the Licensmg Board's scuan, however. As the Board Chairman's louer to staff
.LJ counsel noted, its pupase was to bnng 6ttenuon to an important maner and see that h was insolved prior to any g, , .,:.,, , a i,
'. ,t
**4
',~, . ' "
{ licanamg action. la is only the vehicle by which the Board capressed its cancern - the impar. tion of a licasse candition - that was inappropnaie in the cumnstances here.
- s. . >. , ~ .
s,
,... + f. . s.
; m .)
.*.-. u ;. . y .s
.,,,.c. ,.
. . ., . . . ~ . : . .g .; 3'. *e.- . ?*. urn.;
.t.. s . .
' t. ? . , , q..
v .a . e.., 27
.. *-m
.-+
- . .. 4
..r. . ;V H..
v.
' i n
7.3. .
.,b.; n ,;'t . .' s i. r24.
4%*.'.,.>.......
w l , 1..i.p,hyd),
% e. u, .,;
e...- w .#Pg . g,i,.$. 5
, ,g,s . . ;, .
% ? 's.W . W. @. m v :. ; w . W 2,. . . r~ s,9.,s... . . .g,
- . u . g . n .t ru. . , . y,. . , , . .. . .. y, f ; y
. W ';s s. g...,m.c ,e r.)..
4
;.; .n g y.e g7 ., .g' . c.f., .J..n .y . :7:a::.7,.
. r.3 ; ,;. . .
.. y: . v ~ '.,.. . q p.i 4_ ;.;.K:. ,.. . *: : w.. ;.; . - 6, 5: :i:. .b - a eV. ; . :.. ;. :..-
3 . n <.n ' : .: N W
M, '
,3. . T. 's . s. 1.. y y.a.. .- -40...~ c. , m. :.. sv.,S..y .;r , . 0;,' d_ g.M p f F.' .?. . .N.:. .-.,., ,,. .F..>:nJ5
. v, .
>- . 1 s., .r . 1
.. . s.m , . n . : e. .. . .. .- .
l %. ..;,%r,.s;.s.m..
. a. ..,c. ... - .
...:p.: . o..,m,. W .
, .. w.
.i f: .:'?,%l c, s.., . v. .c.,. . n .d..
. s , v..:& f...<.'n.'.::.
,. . c *d,,.v.Me., piy;.
..M .. .. < [L;.b:.:, ::;, uW;G, .
i.~*
g.g . . e,,r .+, a b . .n =..
. g,) y . 4 ,. .. .gc _v.<~
. hh,.2 s I, Y. l.M f
.j . . ; [, , '.. [h[-
* . . r.,3
' I .,, . ,I'[
- s. Nih.f.: sm, .,,.m;
- s. s.h}f
- .m :, .
n@y.;. w m.f,698,..'1Q'( j Q,//.y?)g1.n:'['bb ,. g.y. pia,l.j.y;. . M pq,,..e. 4r
- .s.. . e.
~/7KfnW7ll:;7e ,. m . e.wc.u, n . f ,;w :,_ 7
*.J,*.;w,.V'h,m%. , t,
.. i.: i
~.:
?
&i' '
aj Our order oOanuary 16,1987, as explained here, is reaffirmed.
.,4 x ., ,j ., ..; . y It is so ORDERED.
1 r.,. ,
f M,f.1 e g '; . m..N ...
JM ..
.f ,.d.
POR THE APPEAL BOARD
. >. .~ .; m. .:. . ,
- u. > .~.; . .
sa a, ..$- '.. :. v. ~ '
r ,.
.. . ~ q ..5.,. , w ,4, ,p i . , . s.7..A y .1
. . y C. Jean Shoemaker 4,-
Secre.tary to the.
t, U-
. j, ' t 'J, ';
4,
.' ' Appeal Board
,e.,.'.' .', ,, .*. /> s * *
- p'
' ' ' . s#
. , , . ,, 3 .,
y 4 g , e
+p' v'.9 f , .: L,* *
,o......,;,., .
>l r.) . , ' . ; ss .l s,a
':e i .~
'*4- a ry . , .
g*,. ,c A b . .* y ',
s
. n a
, 'y , + : *.4. , 4 ,s { _.'s g;, g s ue; p ...e
>l 4'.;*l ,L*3
+ r . . ,,- ,, ,c#y .*.s,,; ,.. .c,. .a'. ,,, ,9;su' ..a, t R.+ . ..., . . , .n+ ,,
, . -e. ',3 .
.., ,.". 7.. (. G , ' ] f j' ta ..t. 4.s 7 8 ',' T ,?
c
* . f * .* 4.~e g *L
-a n- .,+ ** a ', [r y. , ' / %. , Q- '
5 ,*
s.
, rj, '.3 l p
=
~h .la'o.. Q ..g ] in ,,
' ' *s-[f,$. 3. *> g. . .' t e j,,{ p, ,, ,e ,' g g .y y , f 4.
f . e4, ? ',. % * . ,', g sS
.e 8( . ,,e, ' *
...f,.
- c. .,,4 '*' **
.,,,9 .e s., t . s
.(
. 1 ", '
s a ./ . ..
t
.., ' P s ,
E g.j /. V ., ,v%"....* '- ' , < , .. g, E d ', r /
' ~ y,'
,y b O'm..d .'*.' .. .' i. * .,>a g.e.
- 4. +
qet,E . .
- 9, ,.
i + e ,.,-: . .
.> s. ,
- t ,e e ,
' a e , ;/ ,0,
.#i-3
#;, ; , 4I
- =
,* y -
,;.H
.s.,
,1
,*'l6
.,.,er',[b'. ' ' ' ? . .. . "b,. ,9 -
a
. ' . *' h, = 4 a . 2 .?
., g - ~,*7 es
- s
,( ,,* ', *
,()
..g .4 "q.- .#
- e ? * , * 'h y .3 i ". %
f
.~ ' ^
32,' ..
~v:\t .
- . ' . N. ,z Y9.
3 "g s ,.
1; e
' ' \ *u l.W.( .M 4 y -, a , < ~>=3,m -
e 9
.7-.-
- r e 5. * . +
*:lt' , ,M,, Hc , .#,.4 m p[,
..'/Jd",,,. ,
.s., .
- a
. i' ,s , ,
y .. o .s .)
'.. i ; e 1, + . [. ' . '
' I, < . i a h,
(
s i t, N
*.u. ., t
- (
_? e; / .* , . , .- t r ,; rI, y..g.,
, .y1 '
-4
. .- is t
,, y %. i - l , c,.g
,.:m...
. 4 4
- w. '.s
s s
.- , . . e
,k s M ;/., i5
, m.
,y...'.'
W f,..t #,
f , s'M' s s.t 8.'('2j o n , ,, .
- a- '~h.%..* ,
,? s > . ,. n , " 2.
*y.4 s ,k-[ h*/ f*'t.( ^] s{
' % .. c Y es 7Fl . * *,4 &: .D ar .,A c 8.; ,; d.*9
- QW . .p*
.f y
,ef*, . .: : ' z ,.a -j;F.' p qQ~ p:.,r .F. .,: '
p'* . c.
v ,.y e
.. . oss .,
+
r., . i
.m. . . _ ,, , 1; c'T ? ,4.
- :.4 t m., @j,.3, , ... ,
e e,s . .
, p.1 .,
D , f ],r ** r...,p*
.. ,1.., < w . ~s t 4, .C.. C. . g*
- u. . ; < ;
) .9; ' *. , ,.
-v. , . . , .
. , ,' 4 , l ~
* \.w..- 1
*,[~g ' )q W %. ; ' *p* .. " ., ,e, ? g ' p. % v(.3.,. [.s',%' 4.L E 's [9., .
, .. s ; : m z. . *y a
D
.w .
- w'. .
- f. 7 '. f m. ', < .
- w A' #
s
, =3 4 , , y .+-s. .,e~- h'{.. ,
.a , + z .
s.,.
*s s
.- ".*x*..
%, g ; . . . !*t 9a , s *T .- 4. 9 , ,,. , . ;t
- s* *k , (e. * .h., . ,
2.i E f*f. ^ y , , . * \ f 'e ; ,'* .f, , **
' f p' & y%, - 6 5 .. : p .} %, ,,,.k'$ h ,&'< pe'.:,t a
'.2%.'
.t t p,3 ..W.'.,, . , '- *. ,
- g. 3.q ; .v >y:s.j .
. n
.,.>.g
...-i ,,, .s . 4 4v
. ?,u,,,,..<.w.. ,w .< se +, ..
o a
. . . . ..L.,.
,-4,. ,, ',. ..a w .m,
. %.a ; .n.n .c.. .s*m .
.y. .
} mVA J V.w.,.e>
G.N. ;n..g. ..yg Z ; .w .r.aR. N ..c u .7. .p. .q-.q:.1.. s.fM,@N.
hp , %. A.R..g %. . . 28
. .; . .u # wg. ;
, m, n+ n;. s W spm q a aqa . y..*v e... m ,,4p.- s .e y c
xe. e .r., n:.. m . sp.y
~;
w967.W;9. e.-9 .
Q.p.
4Q*(g%s+w,wm.4.q+e$w,5!!!Q;e,AM,7 7.m, $4NGN.%dy&
Cf g j.mgwr; mg ggy.n,c; w., y,q, g:.,1,wc., c..
. .,,4/- - z.g. <
p;m : .n..
w + t .~ . . . . . .
g.j. >: S7.[u *, ; m.w p....g. , y y :... m m .ep..s N.M.. y U.h ;Z,w.l.',Y
& g.,. m".M M. /, Y
.'i ;* M.c. ?-[. s. ,y'7 , M;D. .;.A y[. x
.d
- M r.. % ~...,f. 3.s...N* N ' M .D. M...,.,9,r..
m 1- ... y . 4 .
w +; 's :
. *Q, ,
Sv. g's d.g * * .
,X'
,i c. . : w.'M, s.p.g;%J. :m.. Y. ..3
..,'Qi,%.
fy.rh.a.>. . r.
.+c . '- ... . . . , ;, sY. . ' 9
. : ' , . , ., r a.,
a" . - ..~ ,.'.;- 9 n
&a .e. ,.
+
e L.,w* v,h. .
c... .p ..L
.n . . ..
- s. ..' e . ,i , ,: ,? w. % ..;'
~ . , , ...'*.,;.4y 4? , a.. ,.a%+~, t. u ;r.W.W.a t g?. ) T:c.;-q.;;&; %,-,u A;N ; @, ..V; r .,n.c
&%m. M r y'r B. e '. .-: - -
a:.+- . -- pV.
- ". 5.* . w n t .s . ?. < s n ~ . - . . ..
.$ &% w .%W)y;g, .. t h$f{...?y*0.. && %,c,i, y&;o;N s
'. N *&;%.h**;.h*
h.s w .,..;i s w*
h.I.SN &as.n
. hm.oef.%W 6) j lh .N, ... e, .g 'p'% ..h.
,g k W. x 7. , . . .
- y.'
. k?b,ly;L'.a ; .> .p - %tk . Y.. Yh~
k
-~+A , .. . af ,, gp .O g.s. %.
n.
~ 7.x %. D k .
c, r...q%;. ?z;,s, ,g.g.;
y ,. .M+.
a s V.n p L vse;. s r g . . q . nA.yy.,.
"=3 a
~ . .~. . . . vm r .
.x en~p
.9*.
^ ~.
' < q .e a a
.s a
c.-v. . . ..Y.
. m t. :r. o . ts
~: .u .n.R
~ ,
b Y
. .. s
i 4
'i
. 's.. .
),
4 l
l 6
i i
Atomic Safety L and Licensing H Boards issuances T i
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL t B. Paul Cotter, *C/mitmen Robert M. Lazo, *Vice Chainnen (Executive)
Frederick J. Shon, *Vice Charmen (Technical)
Members i
Dr. George C. Anderson Herbert Grosaman* Dr. Emmeth A. Luebka' Charles Bechhoefer' Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Dr. Kenneth A. McColiom Peter B. Bloch* Jerry Harbour
- Morton B. Margures' Glenn O. Bright
- Dr. David L. Hetrick Gary L. Milhollin Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Emest E. Hill Marshall E. Miller James H. Carpenter
- Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Peter A. Morris' Hugh K. Clark Helen F. Hoyt' Dr. Oscar H. Paris' br. Flichard F. Cole
- Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Watter H. Jordan tvan W. Smith
- Dr. George A. Ferguson James L. Kelley* Dr. Martin J. Steindler Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline* Dr. Quentin J. Stober Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb til Seymour Wenner John H Frye Ill* Gustave A. Lirienberger* Sheldon J. Wolfe' James P. Gleason Dr. Linda W. Little
*Arrmenent panel members
).
. h) .. -.
, x y- t . -
s t
,7. m .
Cite as 25 NRC 29 (1987) LBP 871 j ,. , ,..t v
. ; 7.. ) Cy a'y. .3_.,,, . 9:, *}P
..q,$- . .g , p. 7 g.j. / . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.,r,..3< % .,g g;1.y.(re ,. , ..,3 . $ ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,y, .
~:1.. . .
. a T.. -. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t cW 6,, ,. g f.
<...n ..,,,, .
=
7, Before Administrative Judges:
< r. ..
,/. ' . ,"
,. t f,
. 4t , .
y ; ?. +, .,,je,: 1.. , ,i.. . y . ,. - ,,,.n ;w.'q. ......
w v
, .. . ,, ; g
~ '
., . 7 * *. . .?.M..! " .
f.Of p.. d Peter B. Bloch, Chairman
~K: . .-:. u. .t ". Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom
'A: .,..' M \.,if y '" '
Ut. W O .1 U.M . Dr. Walter H. Jordan -
W..-,;%,;: ,,
y ..
,_ < n , ,n ; . ., .. ~. s
-,e,.
s . ' -
4, .N'. 0.. .
,t c +. ; . . ' ' . u,- .J ' 3y. .
.o. .
L,, .v .
, , d,,i in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 445-OL-
.,. , 50-446-OL
..cw - ,...,..n .. . " . d ).
.W , ,, . a
- w. (ASLBP No. 79 430 06-OL) .
L , . ,:..- .u1. . e y <+o-
\ .. .r .
m.,.
t a i
, W, - , ; o y 5- e TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC 4' L' '
> % COMPANY, et al n& .,
', .. .c n.. .'W .
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric p- -li:f.;#,p, . Station, Units 1 and 2) January 7,1987 s,, , , .
, w o
se w... .
- s. s .1 l ;p . 3 .v-;.h.1 1
- p. c . - t -
The Board requested additional information concerning the adequacy of a 1 1,. f reinspection program that relies in part on sampling that is designed to detect l
.e , .v" , D,.f
^
an error rate of at least 5% at the 95% level of confidence. The Board seeks to I
, t" ,
learn the basis for concluding that a plant with just less than a 5% error rate 1.X .
3' . .
has attained an adequate level of safety. It inquires into how that rate compares u .v.. .;l. tf . ? v.J . ' F . .m n to what might be expected from conscientious implementation of the quality
.$D .
@i.N assurance requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and how such an M %.f,((M.
i i,&, .y <
*g' t.
?,'
/i:;. ..
s.
f[.,
y O. ,p.Z,1.( %, h6
..~.f.,.
error rate impacts on fauh-tree analysis of the reliability of the AFWS.
. , , -' %, . , * .* % ,t. ,? ls4' };. .A* . _ h $" t a, .- ,
,, , J+. .np s
+ m
,c.-. 1 , l c. . . s.q4 ..-
..w t,
. r ?. :,
TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED 4 .oor .C. . '.
pl q? k ";.*
,, e;i Sampling, reinspection by; g g. . , ..7 , ,t 7, ., 7f,.j 3:ault-tree analysis, effect of construction errors on; !
,0 L f : .;W. *.G I +
- y,4 , ; Construction errors, rate to be expected.
' ,)D .9. .t;,:..',;.iy;7 ';Q ',&.d
_ - C. . , , . .
.c., r i
, u ,.*..*W.e,,,.,. .., -
e,
!6 .
,..m,... .- .c.o
..........m....,,v,%..
...f....<.a.
w h.
. ..'e
, *- .', . , . .;,, .p
- G* > . * . . % s. *
; 4'*,.'%> . .: x yl .
T %?
- 0 .. . ., .n' s ,, n MS, s * ?. j ' n l
, : D;&,a .lw;w, g+p%,, .M G%.df,)*.L.; Mf 29
. . y.. ..~ ......s. m.< a.
. ., w. . t a. ..
j....c ..
l A '. W sc;.e A6@' a t9:.P.W..r:p.p;g'.,q
". h 3;w t
*WW .i J ;Q.& n @ .v;;<*,$ m N,D i'i.] Q h w. $ s%. ,M..,
,r 3,f .
~e, n. v., p.w. g.s.3 n
' r.v.q:m, .;.ywy.N... NM.-
.. w.w.w.p;m.m.9.
.:..a. . .,. .s ,.y . .. .. ... , y. c.
.e
~. x : .,m,.,a
. .m
; .r .
..y ,v . . e . a .., . .,.u , ~. . . y ;;
s t m,c m.19. ?; y :xx%.,..
. . * ~
' a' ./
e >- . 3
.w , .x c, n. u,w ' . .:ww:.:. w': .a a m .v. -... : . ': . ,.
-.,... m..
- s. /,.
. . . ;. w.. .
. .. ., . ,e , . .. :. n ..n. .
7;p ...j y ; .,r: n..:..Mv.y @e.s.m.- K .~ Q..s..,4.}w.Q. ,%. ..p v., yp ; 3'.i:.f,,
. ;.2 Q,.;,
. ; . ._ o .
J: f ,b:4
- n. . . 3. . 3. :...
m.s .. n. . .
. .n. .
n . .,n, , . i. ,..w.~.s .. . .
,.c.
~
- . x. v .: . ... .
... . s . ......- .. , . . . .
E . .tM.:e. M 0 f.c. s '- .
& Nh.sN. % @k, W< . ~?Q.a. b@N,N M j;,, NWWWWM M %@f l
l a
i
-- o 1
1
. l ,
MEMORANDUM i
,. a (Adequacy of Record: Errors and Sampling) ;
. ; , f . (.n . g .1, .
. U. E , d
.j 4 '~ .
,i' t >, _,;* ;.1 ;
. ', , R. $ As the case has progressed, the Board has continued to consider the rela- i f" '
' f~, '
j tionship between the requirements of Appendix B and the acceptability of the I 4 Comanche Peak Response Team's (CPRT's) alternative approach, consisting of inspection of samples of hardware. In this Memorandum, we set forth concerns
- L'1 P', that we have determined ought to be addressed in the interest of an adequate i record.
,, y , ., , _l.
We understand that the sampling process employed by the CPRT is to ,
? i provide a screen for detection of the existence of deficiencies within a given i m 1 ' , ; J",4 , j ,0.@y. . . , ~; , ;,M .
- ,e ,e; '
population. However, we have not seen an adequate justification for a 95/5
" n ,, / .f . (or 95/95) sampling program as the screen for all systems. Although Texas GQ' i ( '. 'y G.Cip'F"Qq/M 4- ' , ' '
Utilities Flectric Company, et al (Applicants) have said that they do not rely entirely on the inspection of samples, we do not undercand how the CPRT's other work' improves the level of assurance of the program of reinspection by
. ,' c ",^
sampling. For example there may be areas of the plant or types of hardware for
. , which Applicants will rely entirely on reinspection through sampling.2
.] ,,
, ,,y, , w This reliance on the reinspection of samples may affect one of the post TMI-
,y
' +: , ,. ,
* .
- i '
2 requirements: the "[p]erformance of a simplified AFWS reliability analysis that uses event-tree and fault-tree logic techniques to determine the potential for
. i AFWS failure under various loss-of-main-feedwater-transient requirements."3 It
,/ appects to us that reliance on the CPRT reinspection program could require a V.;:y revision to the required analyses.
ij We are interested in the relationship between the 95/5 sampling program and the level of safety achieved at nuclear plants by properly certiSed, trained, and supervised craft personnel and by an appropriate quality assurance / quality control program (QA/QC), which would catch and reduce errors made by craft.'
~
ISee Applicams' Memorandum in Response to Board Memorandum (statistica' L.famncan from CPRT sampling),
s January 31,1986, at 17. We do not fmd precimaly the same kind of statement in Applicants' Respenas to Board '
- m. Concerns [Cancerns Response), December 1. !986, so we am not sme whedier Applicanis conumse to sly on the same 'anaaning concermng not relymg entinly on a sampling program. Furthermos. we nose that the use of
;l - /*[.
,,* i. ,
4 L ,3 , , .
, two .95/.05 screens may have same effect on the level af canndence or level of error of the sampling program; I J. . ,
't,' , , ,
.. and Applicants may wish to discuss the effect of double sempling to assist us to understand the asean:h tool
, 7
{.-[*. ,p,f.,n W ', ,*Y, bouer. Concerns Respanse at 6-7.
W- .* ,
,. s v. .,' 2To the extent that the CPKr cmdibly confirms the aliability of all or pan of the QA/QC program, this would
' ' , . * ,j(' ;-M ' '
of ceums enhance the credibility of fmdmas that paruens of the plant as adequate for safety because they pass
, the CPRT's sampling screen. De dif6cuhy we foresee, concerning the nood to rely on the sampling pmgram, is most misvant should the CPRT discredit substantial portians of QA/QC or should the evidence about the QA/QC 7 .
]3. . . ..
. gram be equivocal.
3 ,
; , 3 3,' ' ' ' . ;.
,- safety Evaluation Report, NUREO.0797. July 1981, at 22 38.
1: ,
- We do not entirely accept the argument that "[i]f a population passes the 95/95 sample scnen. . . . the population
'e , . - . ~ ,1 of items is free from pmemmmauc danciencies." Apphcants' Memorandum in Response to Board's Memorandum.
l " . . , , . . , ; .,' N'
-,- . ' 'J/*; ,;q..-
- 1. , , a. 7 %.
t'- *
' ,q',jf y January 31,1986, at 9. All we would conclude from a population passms the 95d95 snrnple screen is that it is probably free from programmatic de5ciencies raar renar sa an arrer rare ofM or mers. De question this raises
,, 3 , Y, . " ,," -
* ),y is whether that is adequate assurance of safety.
..t nJ ";,f,.,,._..
- y- .k', n 1 [
.,-;'s#s (t**n, ,e h., . ' .. vi ' . f.N ..,4
'.*'*.M~
[- ;.% I .' 8, ,'$ I.' . ' hl U e .. )'
.8 M' G., e e
- Y l'M ,d. .
. . 5 .y
- s . ,T, 2 ,t
.. . ,.. y
, j,. . 2,,
- s. . . a
< ,.,,m...
* , e- 4 ..r.-
?. .
4 - ...,%,a.. 30 l.y$.h,? ' $.i. :-fjQ,q.o
. .. $ e
- pf'h ?,
. .,, .,; t<e. g,q.ga s; h.:
.j syn , '. g y .f ,
.';.4^r W 'th!1.Ya *,f:.Q & 5 *,* ,* ,, j.q
eg...,::,,;K*h %' 6,.y. y:, ..,y)7. s,9.*.t.f
-6
.2.*M,. p%g, ;
y ,g;j yN.Iq'd,,M.k Y'k'fl q';p. ,, y "J '
4 #. 7;y:*r tm, . s.wnpe: u,~ c. ;'.? ;p ~ :.y ,
n . c. e . ; ,.m
,,1 ;. .;. s .
? . >].,,
n; t .,.3s . , ): .,-lt -. r'.~ t .)
- t %p- a,.Q ~ ~~
y,r,p - ,m t .. v.
' ~
. ss - . < . ,. p . a . ,. '
>f dp 's l .
-** *,'l [ , .* * ,. *'s ,
t .' *
+
,,t,,,
,o ,, ,.
- i. , . .; , m. ./ .., . v, . .., , , ' ,. .p,
,, , ..." r-
.. e '. -
t
. .t .
~
!y'r . .- N h',
[ ' . , f .I }
. 'b ,. . *i . , .. ."- , , . ., , ,
, /* ,.;.*, 'F. e,...
.n . -.r. .,. ..t g.- 4 , ; . ,. , ... . .r ~.,..'1,.. ..*
s ,s s .. . - . ". . -;' . . , ' , . . . .\#. .,E-
. . ~ .
. /*
. . *.... g *,pi Q= '# 8 V ,sp .* .L
* , , , t
.s *g '4 '. . .
w' . ,x,. v v
%. r J, . ,% .3 ! t, . ~ \ . .
\.
.4.**.* Y,'x. ,,1*p, ;t'$,m' f, .0,:.y' . .. ,. p,'t : '; ' . b ' f
- f .y.C u.
.7
~ *
- 3 '.h : , .J ' i e F. ' ? .
- n<f,g p.fAVn.k.+.Q;[m W:/ s, m.gr.m.".. f .,;.,v.g3,w,s 0W
.n $.+Q.M s>.Q]'T v,,, .,,. %$p, ,. ?'. .v.... '.U
- a. u :as.. ,c.. v, n.
;w: ': ' .7. $. ,. .l.$ y ,.
.u ' l s. .<
. : tu
.a n.w v. .v v y ,r. . . + n.s .u q 2;.c;. .y; . . . , ;r,r w.. 7. ,,4:e 1
,,x ,p.m.;,. m tw ,:n. .,
p . . . . .. ~,-
th;. >h.. h.YhhY $ . Y . .. 'h. f,?
D
< '.~$ We recognize that enors are expected. But what level of errors is expected?.
W. W What level do codes anticiPate? What effect does the enor level have on
!. +
.,, .r, b w.,,i.f.
probability risk assessments?
.." . ;,, p.; ... .'
- We are not setting any particular time deadline for a response, but we are 7- , 7. , c, ' 4 4; .. . . -l interested in readmg the response we will receive. Interveners may respond L
, j within a month of Applicants' filing. Staff may respond with all deliberate speed.
s . 1 i
..,.. ,1 FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY
'. .,,. .'!. AND LICENSING BOARD Peter B. Bloch, Chairman m.w. ; ;...., , c. .'. f .< w. . i >' , K . . , , . ;. , . /, .
y< . ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 4
.. -c. ., , , , . . .
s j *
. .+ h . .
. +., ; .. . .. , . .v 9 4l .
- 7. ..ys . e; ,- . ,..h.; : ,
,, Walter H. Jords i(by PBB)
. ADMINISTRA?IVE JUIXiE c ac.. . .
.c Kenneth A. McCollom (by PBB)
. . ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
. o. . -
.....s .
c ,- . . ,.
> " '. Bethesda, Maryland s.yt-p . . .
. e, .
. . , c.
- x. . .
.,.g. .
t
+
# .'y-s ,"} . -[m
.3 .
., . . ,s.... .. .
n.,... ,-
. y. .
..,_s..
s.1 -
. w.. .. ~ . ...
-. r .
.. . ., s w.. < - 6.. . m. %
. . sg
. . . ..u . . ....,.u....v.
y ., ...
.= i . .
...em.a. ..
. ~ . .. .; . .
. .9 '
-). # .'/e ,
.%. ,g ^ a.
s
,.~
r..
~.
. > . a.: .-
. #, 5
. ". , . ^. . . .;e. ,...
#}' ., 6 ,A '( , , ' ;){ ,.. ,
. , p. .. . . ..., .... . . , .c
~
. .m o. .. ,.
-. .. ... c.::... . .. , . e.m. .l? .,- y. v ;
.m
, .t. J:. , s .p.,,.- ,.
; m : ; ,w;m . ~.,<n. - e. .r...n.. ,y p.
; n-e .. .... .. . .; } .
o.
y m.
< - e n . u.. a...w,. ..w.. . .a. .x..s. . .~ .. . .. ., s -
. g 31
. .... a ... ..a v :..x.. n .,s.s.
~ ~ .uv:a .v. .... .v<.. . . . . . n. : - ..,..a.,..w
) h.*$7 , h, , f. .,.. h
- a. .n. ... *..n.,.
4 g.. . . , , .e f...... . . . . ,, ,. . . . . .
, {- %.'.' d. {, ..;.Y.. m. u. y ,l .2.?;.7 'Mc.Ff .l 3.y, . O * .v.
' , ' .'.,i..'x" [...d. . _..,
,'z.k,/,_'.$, . ,'..,, ,Wyf;f. .V.h ,, .?.L'. :'..[ "*. .f .,fM.'. . . , ,,(. c . , [d .
. .. , GT.1N );.
- n. e * . . .;p.q'i . . -.;, .
..s.
+, y -c..,,.. . \g
-r
' 4
. , . , ..sb..
'; . e
.. . 9
..'a,..g,*'... '. s...
y b.p:.g ,.k,*-., : "f."".
l ,.: , t . .,: ., y - W ! .c .; > (
..1;....,'..,.r,,-
, e 4, ,. ; ;
.,s
.v-:I!*f c t, . .r - .
i . .s 6 . .
. ..t .
6
*y','.,.'.,.,,<<.m.b....
3 9.f.:..' .,.' .',p. . ,., .f.,.,;f e.. '.y . '~" ,8
.. ' A,
,t.
.
- u.
....c c'.f,
.+i-
?c $ .t-, .<...
. -. d.. ; .-. ? :%.,...w,i,.,,. ..
.g. ..
.c...,,. ..
. , . ,...u
,z ,.o. g ., v. . . ..y. .
,i 6- . ..., ; , . p ., . -. (
- w. g ,.,..,>s....;s. .
.. .g. . ... ,v. .. u.. . .. x.7. ,.u .. ,a.:; . . a. ~.:
. y.
.. . 1 b$hh.gn. bh. .; , ., : hhh ;r... a.,,&. i b h ' h.A $b .hh.hhh.k....*.N..a.., ,, u. . . n. ;;h h.h. .?u.... . . . f ; ,< *?uh. ' . ... .a.,.h, u. m*:
. . w.. . . , !..+.a .>. ,.w> - r ,.s,v.~.,. ~t.. .st .,
.; y . - :. s.
tn .
r..
,. . .e.g,p.gs.
9.ya.9.g.. y;;;vs gJ. p1. ,.q,qg. .. .
.;,pg.y%g.,s ng . ..,. ..+-.1.g. < e .e.e
- o. m. .4...p.v . . ... p .r.. . . ,s_m, S...m.,. ;... .
+
1 5,
l d
~
Cite as 25 NRC 32 (1987) LBP.87 2 7, .m
;. .;. : e: . , . W v ' .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. . . " ;. .u.. ' ,' i . ~ , ', , = . . .- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s.. n . ,s t, S. . e, .. . . ' . . .
. , : c,. .c - . ,
'} ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD u' '
.. ' Before Administrative Judges:
u . +< s,' . c. .'? J.h ,
- p. ,y,.
Charles Bechhoofer, Chairman
. .' c., ~d. A
'~
. ,.r ;g y Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
.'.,; ,. . .m,,
- c. '
. . 6.n ',.*- ,.
.'2 Richard F. Cole
(, , , . ..
e
,.4. . .. .... c. ,
- .* .. ., s .. u, ,
' ~
in the Matter of Docket No. 50-389-OLA
'e_' , ' . e *
, .i
'J.
(ASLBP No. 87-544 01.LA) 4
.s 2
(Spent Fuel Transfer Amendment) 1
.. - , . c i,
.o
,.'y
.- FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
,t .
7h '
COMPANY, et al
;j (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,
,a Unit No,2) January 16,1987
. , +
. .a
.- .., ,,.s I
, 'Ihe Licensing Board dismisses, for lack of standing, the only hearing request
, , .. in an operating license amendment proceeding and, accordingly, terminates the t I proceeding.
(
( A f .
.x. RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERVENTION PETITION a s s.. y ' ' .. ... .
%;. f) t Under 10 C.F.R. 62.714(a), an intervention petition must set forth with
. . .., / - . ' q.; / ;,.f . ?o. q particularity the petitioner's interest in the proceeding, how that interest may
. m:, ;
'q.N. y" be affected by the results of the proceeding, and the specific aspect (s) of the
, , ,* T'O M .'.4 :.y [.,;.:' .
.,# 4.
. %, ' . @,d . . , . ..8 proceeding as to which the petitioner wishes to intervene.
. ~
= ; y)
' .1 -
" ,. s
" N . l. ,,x .
;. RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERVENTION (INTEREST)
. 4 , e. ; .
m; . j.l, q- i ,
VJ * > *.9
,;,/ 4q i
Residence mon than 100 miles from a reactor site is not sufficient to establish
,' g
. [. p a petitioner's interest in a proceeding.
.j s 1, , ';.L 4 ,
r s: , s , : . s; . * *, ? . *'s
. ; n' ...& 7.~ ,; s.*
2-.. ..
p.\! -',y 4
-; 1, , .
'e , g*u . . t. - :(*
- 7. . .;. ,4
,, 8
.g. , , .,
a *m.
. ,. 3 A. * . : ., * **
- j. y #
+, ; ,&y .. ' . .'4..s . .+*
" 7 . ; ,'lfi[.y \ 'df. ;.u 32
.W f," t5 3 s-y L i .H b7
.* * . ..Q..e.s. ' '. W;; .Wl{.
p..'. 'a, .s
.. ,M. :e ,.
. . n, . ., y a. o - .nn. '
. .r~ t .. ~ y ,g ,,
A.
,: a.
4,
+
b : .. + ,1 . 7, c....,'m , ,,. g.. .
' l '2[ , .
' I
'y'
~ '
' k a* ** * . . , 'h.tWh 6,
- y . .{ < *; l+. ., .* h'e r'*%"'. W *c i's". ,
* : ' - t r9 **
.;, y h W ' ' * ' ~ ' ' Y,T.*';.,,.,,,
,, 6 .
~ ~??'h:7.*S r;: *;Tv'j' f,'! -
7;. ^ \ '.j. m& f,ef ' *?$ '! 0 *K,3 +yg..' S?* . ,.;~.
~ ' '
y is)?!)l i* .
* ' l' V~\ '.
.' . ! .;A
'*j ,,'er . . y 8,, .
,g.. ,
, r,
,e s ,
, m, s.
, . >s,.. . - e. .,:,.... . .
,.. ,.s..
1.,. . ,.
.. ,a.
M. , , p d. . .,. e . .[. ,;, M. , v.,$. ,k f , .n,.....e
. . ).,'. ' . ', 'y.,' h ,[ '. . ; . ..c
.ff . .. ,. .. .' ,-, - 3, ' .
,m .
. . , ' . . .(.
,.se...,..~.c.
.n . e - ,i.7. d. , y ...,, [ '.;',J*j .. ..ni.U .' ?
c
., s. - .t .
.m.. . . .s+
.rs.
- 4. y. .t-J X,,ie,h ;. > p.y Y. R,.. w L:'.o:O
.. .iY 8 ! ' M W u: N m x ,.;,. .; , %.
i;I 5
- c. g.r... .r . . . . : . o.f che ., . . M, .;.w.a...;
,.,e.;,v.,:4. g,. 6. .
r n,. .. .. v ,m. , . .;a - .,. n.,,) c , c. . ~., .> .;c...
. .: v, ' . .-
..w ..
' ~C,.
.o. ,.;., . 7. -- . ,.. . . : , ,,
0b k?i ,. c ,,;'. $,.**i!.}'a-)'M,Cl:!'?.Ry,N .., h,o jTf;fr,j$g?gf'E T Y, .c ,f, i h,,Q > L', l *? *'
,j *$&
.&(.
' N.9..Y G f Q,' y?.$n.\*db}%,Cu,$ :dl* i : 'rM,- f~.
. . ,%:f;M 2,W.,kr;?,W.*.?.f l,'.k? s&,%4
;;. i .' 'fT ?.* ,G .Qh,Y;
. A, s f* $:ll[.bf! . , ?.' :.D':e,i*'Ef' Y U;,'h
. ,... h [ ,Y . hi Y' k!' .* *!O
. . l, .
?{sY! $'E '. ' I .'.
3
; ,- " , ', RULES OF PRACTICE: STANDING e
.n , f
.t^
..o . '), g;. p.
( ".i. .' *
, . M ,' *j A statement of a citizen's right or a civic duty to participate in a proceeding
,<., .' constitutes a generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all
- l. '
,,, , . 3.y, .,., or a large class of citizens and does not result in distinct and palpable harm j sufScient to support a petitioner's standing.
.j
, i .
4 .- 'y RULES OF PRACTICE: DISCRETIONARY INTERVENTION A petitioner who fails to meet the standing requirements of 10 C.F.R.
~.'h c. .
6 2.714(a) could be permitted to intervene as a matter of discretion, assuming G f , q, 0 W,C * /, ' ',; .. .' p'";,,' /3 3 ? '
he met the standards established by the Commission for such discretionary intervention. In particular, a petitioner would have to demonstrate how his A
9
- -c.. m. ..'.. ,,' , T,1..?,3.s;,. ,
x..4 . .
participation would assist in developing a sound record in the proceeding.
s... ,_. ,
RULES OF PRACTICE: SCOPE OF INFORMATION REQUIRED
+a." ,
t.- .
FOR LICENSING g Where the spent fuel pools of two facilities are to be shared, the requirements 1f4". ,,
- ( . , . .- ".N ., ; ,,
of General Design Criterion 5 become applicable. They must be analyzed by an 4.
g , ,i. .
applicant and evaluated by the NRC Staff.
e b
's e . RULES OF PRACTICE: OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENTS n..f
'N l 1. In the absence of a hearing on an operating license amendment, the Staff
**l
' ~^ is not required to make the "no serious hazards consideration" finding of 10
-:; C.F.R. 9 50.92(c). See 10 C.F.R. 5 50.91.
.a O
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
, (Dismissing Hearing Request)
. - m.
'd
- q. v. , ...
.r , ; .<. ;. .
.,y 1 3m
,. - ys This proceeding involves the proposed amendment of Facility Operating
,- , w * ;.L '.
License NPF-16, for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2, to permit the transfer of M Q' . t is ,, . j'" , q ' ; , ., ', "'6 spent fuel from the St. Lucie Plant, Unit I spent fuel pool to the Unit 2 e
' ' spent fuel pool. The Applicants for the amendment are Florida Power and Light I!5
. ,l. .
., ;, Co., Orlando Utilities Commission of the City of Orlando, Florida, and Florida
.' 1 l,7 ;j, * ' ,
- 7.1.M .'
- , p- .
- c. . . , .+ ; , f ;;;. .
.. . wI Municipal Power Agency (Applicants). The St. Lucie units are each pressurized water reactors located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. The
- i. . f:..o. '*
. . ?. .
; $.., J .7. .
.*xi
. ..e ,.. fuel handling buildings of the two units, between which spent fuel would be
,+ ,
g }.g, " . _ . J .hs.:
transported, are approximately 300 feet apart.
,,~s L
's
.2 s .
o
;p
; : . % :' f , ,,. ' ' .
- y:' , . . , '.j '.J', ,.;*.,-L, ~s t" ?
., L ,_ .
" '; F s *
,.m ' (* (. , [. , , . S $,"D.; ;*.,' Y'
- C ; r J.h. /..*
,T,sw g 8 i - ,,, ..,g *- 7.'g .J-v,.3 - , .-
y,,r.f 5 *n y r. .,
.;.r... -
^.n T -- n,.. . g..t ' .., '
33
. . .{Q .f.!x*..
n, . . '),:.y.
n v.
; +J -.sa ' ;.' ~.
- .. . .m...y7.&. ..
U, n, , f . . 4..gh.,uw. ,o
<, . :?.,g.z. ,. . -::w c % c. , .t..W
, < .: .w,.n
, g,3, % .NN..g .Q;,,a . , .,2gsll *
, 4
,..,Y.')y;-L,.$n<%.f&:g.p;..y,r;.;Np,.
4 . y. .
- W ): q) n;.
4 ,',p,.I J. ,J.3.Q n.y ?. . p
,t '. ' *,u "**"}R 7,*%*^' " ; @ : *' *
' 'Y '
'? i
*Y !
> .g . . . .w
. dlr W. q ~ u. "l,t:e,. "<-l7~K . . n.
?l '
a -
. . ' . a;.'. ;
}.. .
.- . ~ , , , , 4 k .**' .. :(*
. ,t -
'h; !, # ' .%. O ".; ' ,. , : : f. l '. <;,13~".*1:*, s'..L.; :~l, .. ,>yf ;2 e ~,..~
- . : W
- c;,.d 4.,s i. % T. ,~ N g ,'7 .,2 i .. J' P./,p}.'r:1
- . . , ' : . ., n ,o .
.v .:* *? . ~ . 31.N' :. . '"a ,;
A - *
- b *;'
.q
- 2. ; ,, p..'.?... ;. ... ,>'.!v .l..;;.]'v .y. .- .,i ;'l.% sq. s' ...-b i , .r.V. L '.;;! 3*f .. Y. .:.:
.[ .4. . .[ . dI. . . ' dS 's i I. . 3 i
., J.,.',
; *E, , . . . ., N. r ..' I.a'l *q e *. ., , E *'
, *'."4 Y~-
v ,4 -
s . -. *
-l- : r
. ' - e-* e . :
- 3; Q. . ,'. ;.i:.
YE I f.h5,.'Y'. ,,.k. ... b. ' W;; <.'a,..,'*b..
a.^
i' [ * .)[ < C . . .* / 1 '5 3,, '
l* 2 *
- 5 i [. . ~[ f*' *[ 't..#M
' k V* i N Yh.-,%*,'Y.
t.h!' .
..l
$* . . , - .5
$ e?'m , Q M wm w.. .m ,
- v N Q ; pl: W ? NY.dg.m"&g.m:m%Wi%p hWh8 .W G W= m* ?.m.z.w'w., .
" '** ' O. m'.u.s.u. '
'N"'"'W v e-
.y . ..
J t
..1, ,
t . '
, ~.( .'1
~
As set forth in our Memorandum and Order (Regardmg Request for fS , b![fh: .
1.'
Hearing), dated December 9,1986 (unpublished), a timely request for a hearmg ro:
- a. y f" j,p , 'g,...
%j'd '
was Sled by John Paskavitch. That request, however, was " patently de6cient." It was a one-sentence request which identi6ed neither Mr. Paskavitch's interest in f
, .. .. ',Cy...q 5; ..
, ' . N, y 's; % ]' ",
the proceeding nor the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding .
+
..J as to which he wished to intervene.
' d
' ~'
Notwithstanding those de6ciencies, and in accord with the NRC Rules of
~
i . ~ - .5 ', . y t ;.. y : , Practice, we provided Mr. Paskavitch an opportunity to amend his petition. We
. . ;, . n n , a17 ,
stated that an amended petition should set forth "with particadarity (Mr. Paska-s T '
- ., , 7 vitch's] interest in the proceedmg,' how that interest may be affected by the
'. results of the proceeding, and the specinc aspect (s) of the proceedag as to '
~,* CQ.y; 1..,p . +~ji,. . ,, ., . y y]e.y :7 (.g l [;,7, which he wishes to intervene." We speci6cally pointed out that Mr. Paskavitch's
- i h,.I T " I' 7 ' 9; address in South Venice, Fkmda, as set forth on the letterhead of his intervennon i ,, l,y ; j L , .
Petition, a}}