ML20238D497
| ML20238D497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/31/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V25-N03, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V25-N3, NUDOCS 8709110219 | |
| Download: ML20238D497 (148) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. : .
.a-- .; s . '
- w#74
/ -te .. 1.'
o , ,.t
. - . . .p. c . . . ,
u
..ys y. ,*, w.
. _..s .: a x. , .. . s, . ,. 2 .. 5. .:. y. , q ., jv.,L u um.,.. .;> .. . :. ,.t; ~.' , ,. . .. . , . , .
...a.. t.
. x .. %,.. : ., . a a
a. y
, ; ,.,...~1 ~ a. , ; m, b..,.9.
.%, ., +e ~ >.y .
.,) ,
.c s. e
- . .3, .,. v. ,c 4. s v.
. s .
s, .v. . . *
$ .g ...i e<
. ., )..4-
..,,..+,..v..,.,t S..-
c,. . ' ,;',
. m.' . .
. ., i . .
.a. 4 .
#.,s .,1 a' * .j.a
*qv y I. . ^1 . , ' 'a ( ,, n' I
. ,47 . . , ..
- e. w. e
..i L ,c a
.y g . . ,
.s . .t . . u., . . . . . . ; ... . ..
- t. :
w.
.. . ..... a .
. . ... y,q. . . _..,__ .. . . 'o.
. g., 4
. . .g
-n .
t.
.e ,
- -. . .; ~
's L' a %,
.,a. b
".k.. ~ .a 8
.."g
, e, a.-
, e
.e .
NUREG-0750 4. . C
.f .
'..'i..
Vol. 25, No. 3 L. . . . k..~.
. ' o... . . U. cl Q g s1 , *..i .
Pages 129-266 ,;. -1 *1,. .
.,r, . . . ' , sg ...
- . s . . . :
, . :: 3.s..;.. .,
.. m.
s .. , ., ...
*,e gs
.~ >
9* e. 8 M J.. . _ . g.
.a . a ,, . .
., p. ,. . .
a >
- ,. T. ' L~n ,.' ' ' . .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES
...?.9- 1 . a N. . . ^
N. a.. . C t.x O . ; ' . . . ..W...?.
. . ,.~ . , ~
March 1987 R ;.y4,g .uq. .e. . , .. g ;w a E. . . . m
. - .,...r,. .s ., .
.. .m
.. .. .., ... .-. . . 3 -
o. p J. .
-: .5.: j 1
;. - 8 4
..g p
j
. 1
- c. .
.,o:~
This report includes the issuances received during the specified period
" J', a ,
~
from the Commission (CU), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal ; Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Uconsing Boards (LBP), the t. .
.. .'I AdminiRretive Lmv Judge (ALJ),' the Directors' Decisions (DD), arid ., I the Denials cd Petstrons for RQemaking (DPRM). i, . <n .o ,
s #.
--] The summarbs and heednotes preceding the opinions reported herein .
, . . . Q. , . .
*} are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-dont legal alonificance.
{it p,
.' . ' ".,/
,' ) ' ,. . ,
-;p x
....-e,;.. ..
.m i .. . . .< ..
m:
..t up .
. 6.: 1 h:" . . -. a. . . ,.
+t ,,
y . . ; p . ,. ,+
.9 L.. m,.. .
. s .. ., .,
U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM' MISSION T,. .c .D
. , 'c ,
. r
.4 .
~= . -
- .y : . . . ., , %
r.
~.* t.. . . .; . s y . . : :. .a....
i
- l. . . .. . , . , . . .. . -- yp : w Prepared by the s'O ,
e M .'.f : 1 Division of Publications Services Office of Admittistration and Resources Management , , . , .., j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .. *y '
.'e'-
. Washington, DC 20555 .
(3011492-8925) r'.
.g..-
. . p. , .,,,
4f -, , , . . .*- - v ,,
! .c ..,<,. , ,.. ,, . + .. r .
;w . m. s
. . z m .c .......
< ...n ,. ..,
.s
, , , , . , f .., ; 4 .,
. g.. .
'3' ' . 'M} B709110219 870831 H - vv.f M. . i,. . ~$ M . . .. , .
h $6.pd - f? '. 6 . y a a
~'O'!Y%e % PDR NUREC PDR o
?.*. N tx c%.: . s.:.
9.
, q w:::,
m# p f
. ... a m.js.m~ f;n:.i 7*e%y@f'[%,y ~,&gn.c%
.* .my.0.750 w R R "
- m. %
- w s': %. .?
1 .'.#NMfD'%w.myw7;nmyMNhhMNPf*;A"$',T.d".D D/n F:.,. 71%;% . . - W '. ,b'i'd N k. Mi O C__.___._.m__ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ __.__. .2 ..._m. e e. ...e, m &
.-.= = . n .:. m + m =
, . ~, ;n. . .a v.x. .a - .w . p 0%$. . r ~. M.. ..$h..y.m.rw$1MMM...
..e@,.,:
; y N. ~ . , ' :.WM.g9.,9.,$.ip. y- M6MNMNWhE .a
.m.MM.%pp.gep .xw:si: eJ MdM gn 9tc
.M.e.g. ?;Q49;y. ,..e
;;; . e. a m. a .
e
..w.,i, .. n~... a., ...~. p.n..
./ : .
, , . ~ .. , <
., $. . x. +v. .
. .. t .,. ". & # :x. .:.;,
- 2 .:,.,
- r. , * ;;: .w, ~ q~,s ,N t.
. r; ' ..
,. , &. u
.n . , .
. .w'. . .' , ,,,.,?.,, .g
...,,).y s m.
h ,, . . s ', ' ' h*v../ . ' .' ~. , .* . L. .1 Art 1 . M' .**. M' ~'=
'. ,, y .
e ,*
. e,... .'. .s, .
* , t' 'h.
6.
.e t L
4, -
.o .
3 o f . , .., ..
, m. .
. 1
- x. , . ..., c.
*s s- ,
s . gt .y
+:.>...,
e *. +
. . .e ., a,,.,< : ; .. w ... a.1-
....n....,..,...s.,.
.. . ~
. r. v.
', /,,. . y, * '
, *.. ; .. ; e r
, , n. . +. . . . , . *. . . . g, P >
v . :.
.,.~...,..6, u,_ .
, . ...., u.
..o.....,.;
m ..e.,, . . .f. . ,. . w ..; t.
- c. . i. .
-i.
c ,. ,. . . ,. ,, . . . . . . .
. A.
.: . m.
;.. ;.....3
,.1. . 2
.' W.'l; ,',a:. .. COMMISSIONERS i
. ., ,e .. ,. ,, . ;
..., . a .
' 7;p r "., . ., ..., .
~ g'. , Y,1 Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman. , i '%l ' ' 4. , ' ; . g.'.i '. ' ,' ; ., 'q . Thomas M. Roberts O> l ,
.s ,
l - ". J ' w. , .j James K. Asselstine l
* '
- Frederick M. Bernthal t' f .'-.' l . . . !. r.
. N.. .1.1
. .. ' . +
Kenneth M. Carr .P .,.
.?.
- e. .
> qi s
f-
. .! ,4 .
. . s
;. : . e t . ,/ t
=
- a.
I,
. p 4 ,
- f.. -. . ?* g
- s .
..j
. = , . . .
- l. .
i \ .- . ,
* ' , . .v...
;p.-
. .. . . .' . 's .or ?. (
. ..... . c., ..- - ,- o .
i.
.c. . a o .
. ~
,.t...,.... ,
q .
* . e. , .
,. .1 .
.i. .-
- H ::- '.*/,. , ,
g e* . i. ,. . ? ...F,. . . , a m 1,. 9 i j;.; ' t.
/}
- . ,' Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Uconsing Appeal Panel u
.s 9 . 4 a .. , . , J re B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel -
L. .
*** n ,5,,,,,. ., ? ; ;, , ) /*. i l c.,'. .* s ..- . ,
4., 1v,. ~- ,.:g g , g ,A . i
.y
\
. . ,:. 3. . s%,:: , :3*:. <. .. . .o : ;
..w,f.,..... .D. . ..f
. . c c,4,
., o . .r..... m . .;e ,3 y ..3* .
l41a e.+ . s .i . ;a e* ...*,.*,*Q .
, *; ,J. .%. 7 sQ*.' ., see . v . c.,.?"6 a
- t ,, , ' . , . ,....s.u.. .
F
,. -en , feg.,,".' e -O . * *
- 1;" +..g *n .y -
)#.
.5, 4 3
t'
< i, a 5.
*s.,*, . . , e m ,a .
+ - s ..:4
. es : a ,e , . . .
- . ,. . . . . y.;.
ic
.. .s s.4 ,' a. j.,
s *
.,i w +\
.H. .W d .; :4
-e p ?*.,:: g*,. ./ '? .. .. .. . ,- . p' .p *.
. .1
>.-3. ,' .4. P *';*.
- s .
e
- Qs *, l . ,.;*, , .
i.
- !, i.;,'. *p;.f a;.,.1A a t. . 4 .
e..,.
.. . J.:# g ' *I j
1 . s .., ..,v?', 1 .- r
- e. ' .
1e ' '
) f1 ,j g r f . '
] 'T .. M f.
ke
*3 d * ./ ,f
.g . , 1 d- e
. .. . .T , $. f a
$ ,,4. .. * . ,N, ,
, 5 j 4' j i
* ! t 6, . ' ,. . j
. . .,, . .y .6;. ys.o f' '. " . t. . ]
l ^ i, e '* ,a.. s.4 :r
,f.-
t
; ;.ei..-,y,
5,Oh.. 1.,.,g ',. , ,'.
l , ,;; y .g
;J %J'.y '
l'. i
- !i M? 'i %)'.,+
- d. i.. $. ',.....,a.' qI. 1
- y. .
.- C4. y-p *'
. i 8
e,,.'."
?
4 U.
..~.g....-..,y,.
- -? M ' 4. O. L 1 "
- D dd . ,
.. . %j
.i.-
I
- 4. % . .,f ,6 .? ? , . 9 . i .'; 4.;; l ~ 3, q d.-, L.. -[*e :.*-$4, ?*e. ,.14... 1...A1 *
~.., i a , .y . .e , . , . , . ' '-
- L. L, s s.
. . '., t '. . g' .N.
d
. J' 4 I ,.,,oy r as %, ) .. ./ 'f. ',I t. l,:-'. '. h' 4%~~.'
~
':Y.* ' . *.e;' ' .v.& ,. .? ; .- . ..J , , * .
.a
,,. .,.-G
+ 54 .
6
- 4, ., 4. *,+,.* t.-
,.,,*s 4.:*
. *=
.t6 $,.'"V ,, 4 iS.sa5. ' .,7.f . ,+ ; .
.. 5
. ,p.1 y +/./
- p./p.; ; .r ,):. ' ?.*V ,.. * *iN*g *:.
. 9.1
, . O, ',. d* *, ; p, 3 t d
. t .- ., , - (* . .q,: .f.
?. ., 3
- i. -
v 5 ' ,.f
.a g* , .* 1
- g. =92 ,. s *.% A
.e .9
,,n,,*,, is .c
* , *f r , .. . 4. .g,<
. .. f
.. ;- #. g. ).)k j . . w
. . <i , , . ,- ; ,
,n-.iva. r~a~f,41,l'l .:
. ly.
- /e.,. l,, / ~ < v ,. . ; . s>,i ' s; ',1.. ,
, . , .. s tK .
gy..
.. :._$ 9
. . . * *a t k... ' 5 , , ? m: ... .zy
. .,k.+. .cg .- ..$,,',
,4 . .N. u y.c. . *, .c.
s -4 m .h :.cf , ,g. g,,.
- 7 .c v. a,.,#," , , ... + ..s - . ' ,s. .L., e.awe . <R <. ~,,,,,, .
, . ,. ,f.\- .
yt r;,, A
, e.c. .e w.
. - .g, ,;a
. x. . . . #.. .
i
. e
________m_____
./. c
. >>a :
1 . c. , 5- ' k f3 ),,, t , * . ) f -l 9 f ,, i
"'h
..i
""" , ,;f .' * ' . . ., , ,!! L ' _:g n.
t
' =fit hc y:
I ' a. -g s _. xc t , c pg -
,n ;,.
- 6. ;, ; > < 'q ,
' " c c .' g. t.; > 3 _.;; ,
4
;g
< ' c a ,
;4 .
y f.D ' % , o .. . n g; y
- s. .
W
.ps 4G Available'from ' ." ,..
. ..y
's i " . , 21 ' , ;
.n.
'Superintsrdent of. Documents ~ , e .J$
j', 1U.S, Govstnment Printing Office' ' . x- "~
,.y~ . .x
- y;1
' Post Office Box 37082.
p
~ Washington, D.C. 20G13 7082; Y ,
' A" year's'subscriptiohconsists of 12 softbound iss'ues[
4 indexes,'and .4 hardbound edtions for this publication (
'[ds%@
? J..
- m. . .
o
. .p.
E
' l Single copie's of.this~p'ublication'., 5
~
- are'available froni National Technical .
.' 1 n
Information Service, Springfield; VA 22161
%. g
;p
, il pr f.f
*h
.,. . ?#.
rs vr
~ ,
~- ,
n .,
,a.
x M 8 m Errors in this publication may be reported t'o.the ; .
;- s Division'of Publications Services ,
Office of Administration and Resources Management ' 3.y U.S. Nuclear Flegulatory Commission, y Washington, DC 20555. g (30:1/492-8925)! e;g B
.. .g.q
?.fin, y,
' - FTE- -
I.' ' y'~
; l ,t
<n .,
+ <.w.ll.}ll:.}d 9
i
- s. 1 ,
y d,
4 l a
, 2 ..
3, m, r- m. ! - c ., . c i i u
- y'Qn ..f,.t q [:.'. y '
~
O $, .h.7 . h ...F c.~.$ .,, h,, h,: 4 4 , s .. , m
. s. ., ..
E. .n. ~; .. & s . , 1, .. . o s . , . . . j\.,Ifm.>.
.t *
,3..
4 3, ' F. C
.qs
, u ., .-
s, w, o g ' ,.-e,. ;y. . . ...
,c.,. . . . s. .
, e. . . ,
- s. . ,
r . .: 4 1 . . . .;r . 9 y. , m ..g ,
~ .. .
p ,.; ,' .; _. ,- n. . . . t. . .. . _. . . . , . . 1
, , , m ,,,
.. i
.,s,
' ,(., .
i
~ .; , ,, . ,
- i 4; -
i
.s
? CONTENTS .
;e ,
- a. -
q
.* ..c
,' Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board .' . <;c ,!.., ,
-. ,/,. ' +
- ., . ,.i
{ r '. 3 .
," N. i
, . ' , .J .< '. i l, 3 LONO ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 9,,>,,.TT, i '-
j (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1) Docket No. 50 322-OL 5 (EP Exercise) I.
~
. ,, (i' 'j MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB-861, March 2,1987 . . . . . . 129
. f, *, . , t .f " . , r j
!p g,
., v g. . . .. . , s.;
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et d. ) .a.. ??353
.ay C..
.' ?. A '3. . . , . - . .
- 1
* (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) p . T,. T -
4 .
.., . ,? r .' .
1 3 6 'I Docket Nos. 50-443-OL, 50-444-OL (Offsite Emergency Planning) iv- :.'. 4. . . ,
- r. t 9 DECISION, ALAB-862, March 30,1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 , ' ' ' s .
. . .' e !
..)
,- . 2 "
i
- i.'l 1ssuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards .
f : ..; o;< . c.yw ,
,u l A. .' .-
1
. . . . . s MICHAEL F. DIMUN, M.D. . , : M" q, .
, .l 5 - .
- 4 (Byproduct Materials License No. 37-13604-02)
Docket No. 30-19378-ML (ASLBP No. 87-548-01-SC)
'4.' -
i MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-87-9, March 10,1987 . . ,. . . 175 j, { t
'a '
s . ' PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et d. {
'..
- C ,
1 i
* (Seabrook Station. Unit.; I and 2) .
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 1, 50 444-OL-1 (ASLBP No. 82-47102-OL) 1.,
]
- (Onsite Emergency Planning and Safety issues)
PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION, LBP-8710, March 25,1987 ....... 177
.\ .
p* r*'. 1
. s ,
SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION . (Sequoyah UF
;:/ : L ,, .,' ,f, .g 1 6 to UF4 Pacility) ,
i Docket No. 40 3027-MLA (ASLBP No. 85 513-03 ML) ' 2. I' i i DECISION, L11P-87-8, March 4,1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 'd.N
?
. g. , r
.?
. ...<9.
,- 4 Issuance of the Administrative Law Judge J.' ,
f ". .
. o.,,... .,
HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER . 7*" , P , ?! t ~ . . . (One Hurley Pisza, Flint, Michigan)
...- '. , i. ' e. ' . ?, ,> . - ,' ' y 't i 3
1 Docket Nos. 30 01993,70-13% (License Nos. 21-00338-02, SNM 1393) M/. ,^t '
, ff ?. V ;* l ' . .
, . .' ' V. .!. '. '
. , .'l .
(EA 85-89) 7,
. "j INITIAL DECISIO.4, ALT 87-2, March 3,1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 '.'..:.
W-s". -
' i ; q/ ,.c
, :s
.s 'x. ->
4
' : /'. .,.,. .a ' '
iii ..,s . 1 i >.' *. .' - 2 si. , t . g. ., t .? ' j
.o .- .,.
s
..,,,s,,
.,.. . .s . ..
,c . ,. ,
a
' ~_
' ee gg . , , . , - A, ,
i % . * .- '
.s .
8
,.' 'a
,,q . , ),. *
- l' - %A. E . , , r, . ' . .-
. . 4,' W,.7 qccr.,. Q 7 .. a. .p .- '.' t,,.
;>. . , , . u .
- 8 1 j ** [, . . ,,.,.. ; . [.n., , . , * . ~- p.
. . < . .o, ;.
S' . - *[, $,.
. 1N.
b b'" f[, {x~ .,.,
.~%, ,
.y.r.. 'A . s,4 , . l g 7,;;
- ,. a' ,,,
a.,;, ; ,, .; j,l , , ,, ,7 *n,,., 5 . 'y .y.- 4 ,,.
, ,m, , , , j;
, n .y . :. . . , 3; J 1. ',,
w n.-. if ,c
',p. .. .,,%<:
o . .: {&,*...,^fp."'fR*)v,*&:.Sw,%....,,;+g;p,,'. i. y,y(,g.j*}'% y,-5 %;fy %a,: ,
~ .a . . . a.
%, . p .
. . ,, a .
j' ., . ; V;.;j.y:QyQ,,,ky
, . q. . .
.vM.M fWW -*
g - . -. , - . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . __ l,QQ .. 'M ~ 2 .; . : 7:., . u .,:- :,3. V.; .
& ah [, . . . . . ... -. .1.. .-,4f".G'., -. . m .._. ._.',;.:lc. M !. g Ath;4:d 3-;. ,,h.hMh;gW.:f hh N'h.
$]ty' .. M . . ,.k.'h T -$ h WkT Z/ , MN k hM >5 .y f :,:g; h4 ;hgNgh@u::.:h@.) @g @s,-M$
. x p. .
.<, WW '
..s.,' .., w t.;... . s y q , s..g#" ' y. s f4,. ;, + +.,. d ._ " 9.
- . o . . y. :~
v y &wg;;n
.g v .gv.
p
.j 4 ' M ' 'YI R E-.e, ', a AMEQi N;p .r',
;- . . e, y-
' .s ,. .
4 a .
, , . . ;-s,.r r- y , ,
,f ,
I;.M;. , f..l'
. iN .s Mj . ., y
*; ~.. ,,
1' j (, . ' ; , . j . ,,.q t
-: ,.; e
, .;, s.: . .
' , s. .
L.3 s y, . , J*- x. .
. ' r . '
O.E, . , ,, Issuances of Directors' Decision ,
, ,i. . sh* k8
,'~ '+ '
s, BABCOCK & WILCOX f ,l M.: . a (Parks Township, Pennsylvania heility) 7.<
- p. T, ,s' .,g. c ,.'.?W:h*% .j
',. t . .
- 4. v,f., . . , s s
.. oI Docket No. 70-364 *U 4
.' . , ~
f Q- DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206, o";cfy %, ..
.'..s, ,,3. .[Qe .[v .(, l.. ;.,..'.;.y. .. [N
!' DD-87 5, March 13,1987 ..,.............................. 260
, . , . ~, ,
s -
- ' .,2 'd.4' . ' . .H . i ; .i
- ~
OENERAL PUBLIC U'ITLITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION !.; . .
~
, ,, .. . J*o *.* .. & ( i'
.J,I J1 ' *
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) - Fj c
;'&- Docket Nos. 50-289,50 320 :.'.'
. n .y , '+ * .
3.".., .,. ,9 T. . , - DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.' 0 2.206, id ; i
/ - 5
'A*.' .
w..Q,o
.,! DD-87 3, March 6,1987 .................................245 .
l i _ q ,.
".~~' @. . . . . .' !.PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et at 9 ] (Trojan Nuclear Plant) >
'1 - -
i' y)@ . 'i Docket No. 50-344 - I 'i D' RECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206, F
. , C ". P -
DD-O 4, March 5,1987 ................................. 253 . i 1 4
, e.i ,
, , . .. . , .., y a .r: 1 ,
i r . .- .- o p . .. , i
. .i l
8 ***',. i
. 3
. j
, e .,.-
M.7". .
. n. 4 ..: ,
n \< n.- . ,
- c ;e..t g *
.j I
. t t'- . 1 ..r 4 4 .;
,1.y% . .c .
- s. f . .- .
.. . . . g g N
** $ . S .M. % i J
e .g ' w.
...f .
. n.. . .
. . .*,. . . . ', i
# 1
. , . . ,' g.,*,===., , .) + e -
i l
,'.4 f.,3,,. -F : .g -
. , , , l.. ** ..%,, ., . '
- l ',J ' W 'eg y "y .u-cv ec r * , . f +. -v l , , le %:
'A. 4 *.1. 2 * .
]
I 4 6;
~8 *i.#.
. ta * , .
w.w .
* ) ; ' . eF*Jy *",.e *yg-.' I i 1
* ,' ( 8
.c % )
' ' , ' ' ie. * ~ , .j ' E * ' * /e .
' , .O h (* ,, ,. , }- j
, . , . *V 5 <
4 l,1 . , - . j
- Q. -, -
j e,'.'. a .f.,. A g. g.,** . .s, f ; -
.. ;*.[*.'e , . 'o.or,a e0., ***:. , .
w
, i i ,
-,p.-
- ,,.J
.. ..' ....c *
' '. 3 i
".. ? , . 7 ,,, e. 3'.,.,.. . i
. ... . ,/ *
- f' * $ ' er
- e
'v. 3 .4 ., J }.
= "
s .
j i .,- _g. 8
- 4. ' P, * .tj .I
- s iY j
, s #
, I. i.
-3 - ,5 , s . 'f.g..s. e ..I a
*h , $ b ic g,', <. *: : ,4' , .
.* *'p:.
* *,. }
- i
.y.,",.. .< -1s
~
- l
.i' %..L e <. _sr
~t
' M l'f! g. <
j s a. . . ' . I "!
"[, . *
' !. .' -e .
a jj -. ,.-* ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 7 ~-- r ' * . *r. * ~*. -- ~r :~: ,7*-N 'v.~L.a 1,1*. '"* vtw < * ' .** * ~~ ^ ^ ~F' '* R.*.,"*M ^*
, r.:.
Le . .' k. '
. : l' s, .
~ ,. J .,,.
'.> < e. . e
. b N . a.(* !,,E. ., ,*, . , . *1.. ,*S s k, y
- 3 .
s- ,h, *
-,'.,'t(, [# N' /t \ *? * "*
- 4. .'.- b. ? ' $ . ;,
;g( er, l'**., . , , , .. ...Cc .
.i , . e -
5 m . .
....g p' .
.1 ,, - d
. ...t -
. y a s- . us:..f . - 4 7. 6 ,. , t ;
"d..k< [f * ' O. 'Q )' 4- . ' / *
"4 4 sj
'"e OY 3 N ' * , I' Q*k . " 5 h [,. ', h. f 5 [, .
l > !ed y.p ..
~e
.. , 4 %. 4
- i., .
'.'8
- g. . .
m.
*f
.* g't r .-
. * * , . .fgg . .". . v
- e, j. ;,'..a.g . ', N t
. .. . , e . .. m .s . , -
, e , e} .$
[,',,, s, w *w' 2. L , , * ' . ,$. .d .' * ' I' > N f h*, **' 4 ' )4,,,, ii> 3' h/e
- M*,s ! 'f.P y4d \v. ' J-y ey ,, ;3.. #* #
,,..to *)
. . M. 'xM.-r... * \ b . '
e
. . .e
,.b
' ?.f ~ ~ " ^ g ,r
- % ,e .
pw - . . . m 3 [% i' --]'.-_ m b" d I .. h,,.m." -.i
)
L_ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ --u_. -_ --- ---m- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- --- -- ' - --
.,,n,.. .
~ **
+ - . _ . . . .
' ' 1 O . *
.' l i,,,'kf'l.0i,.q-[W.w.h,. c 1",
q[M h-[ 7'E:, M "g 7>,U [
~
< 4 .
- :. . . . .t Q ,
g ,. < . <- .:. y . . x,, .; ... i . o t . , . .
;n. ;c .t,,, . ,. ,
. .... - . .- . % c, . > .,.
*,- e, e.. .
y', *y , A s
.r,,. ,.-t
>r,. ,.* .;-' . , . > .
.,-9 s,. , , -- +.(.t ,..%Qc ;,. .,.,.
- ,' c,. ; ,.
'. .. t
. r..
t.
,.~,. , .
. y.
. . n. .
~
+.: u
~
- m. .- .,g . ,. .
, . . ~ . .. ... > s.f ,. ..g . m.1 j. l
.h c #
r.4 . S e . 9,
,W
. 4 N g
*.r. .. ' : ' J ,
. l
, . , . . , ...:. .,. .. c..,.~.... ,
R. @.. ;~ 4 Atomic Safety and- .
?.
y s.:.we$ o.Cw.
- . . 4. .
- 4. -
. . C. .
L.icensing Appeal m, . Boards issuances W.O.
- n. w. M. 8. ?.. .... .
s . .:. , , g.
.x* . e *
; e
. . 2
. . , - . ,.J * ..,....
ATOM:C SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL .
.3- .
. , .s ..
.- . ..,...~s .
?- .
; " l
'.,-,i,..,',.>g...,. .,s '. . i .' ' . <
i.' . . Asen 5.Wenthet, Cfinirmiri i Dr. W. Re'ea Jotrimon ,
,4..- -
Thomme 5. Moore
c
~
s ,.
~', * * ' , - , ,
Christine N. Kote < . ' Ggy ,j, b *
? ** 5 Howard A. WDber .
E , 4
. e .
gg a f , s' ,
' 6 ,, . ,
' e s
J a
' e j J ,
0 5 0
= n a e
g e'
- 2. . . .
* , *g*
** * .. .* 4 ;j i *
.J .
t
=
' ,. ,t r,
.A .. *
.
- t .a,
,*4 '
, ,N, e ,ee * **
i,.5,- af89., ,, e.
,s
. j' * .. ."*
e
* ~a
- s.
s _. - ,
. . .. j.. e
.s ,
e ,
. .. s, .*- .. , . ,. *a- ,
**. .! " ,e * . . ". - % . g ...-
p' j*..e r ,e . 4,
+ 4 1, .
.'[f'..i". *^
j'd7,,*, :,'s
'. . ;, . , - ; , " ,,... =. <1.
c..*,,..
, . . - . ~
, ~,,. '. , . . . ; . - l . ~ : . ?-'
e a
,. ?. .. = a 4
- v
* .,. e
- e w .. ,
qs .h a
' e e
- e
& *% 4 i 4
,. c . .
, e r .. .
?
+
/
. I ff
. 8 g a g
.I. 9-
*O 't '1p- , . ' , g ,
."4 3 88 y > '.'
g .
+.f .
.'*.s.,[ e, - < ,_ y ,
- r. . s -
b f (
.s
- O 4 * *
* ,'y 6, e 4 ,.4
- . a, .
., ,. , [ ~ , t . . ..
.,o , .: c .. ...
-:~,.u
,- 4
,<,g . , ' t4 , e. L . a s, .- w ,.,n..~.,.,..:.
a ,
-. ,.* ., ., ..? .
s. {.... *, P+.
. -sv *y .3
- arr e.,
,e.,
(
.,.,.eL.,
4,
,, *4
.,e,-Q.,=p_.'.
,fg****... . g'i
, ~, <
.1,
. l .,,' . ,g [. ' .,
3g e
..14 *v.,
. J ., . .,a.4 e .. # , ' . 9, i, g ' t...-. y, # e4 - ,,,
. N, b*k,Th'g,h *)g.' a}',d,ye,.. N h'g2 l#,.) { t;2 b j,k ,,,*h.
-e, * -
.s 2 4.kk,;i, , e' %,;M.*.,
[- . -* h,, -, , *, -..(,3, .J. ' j h, 9 b,'sN -d .
- k; k
*Y ' , l,"/. , : , .v ...n.,. . , .
e ,m.q ,:j. 7, ,,,s. m :. ,.c,g.,,
; ... ,~.;:.
sm ~ s,r..
;w.
r:.y .
, p 7 .;f.y- ..+- , ~ .
y, . .;y ,.
. 4.e u .
_ _ __._ _ _ ~ _ - __ --____
~... - ..= ,
; . g . a .w.p DM / ' ' q _ fw % v ,. . ., q,...Vi','a,-,,; i
.;.,,*. , , . $%1. fs; . '. .*1 ; .:t, , .Q,M;.ya . 'T'~Y-.,% . ':r*Mi; ' ' 'W;r,',C, .% .M_ i, j, .4,.ix 'g:.Np*.M A_. .e
< *.s % . .rd* .t.b s . ,
. ., ,,G,Jj,;,
if. & &b. 5, $Y ,
~p$f, ll[ '{f. hl k
$ fh
,0 fh.hQ ' ' l
.}e[,','? ''.Q j, " 5{- f 1
c =;y W,,l,.,,.xv; &$
.h-MW *1 .m %,A. y , , . .- ;~ ;yp : g rMy g4 4., O g,..&.~;,Y',% ,e g :rg,;.,,, h}y ,,g.**pf,; &, g &gf y f27 q, g r
}' j.C &. f,g"[ }e.p$'*.f 5 Y W ..
% pe'y, o ...;}. : . ,, .'.Q, [',G, } }j))y;;f n. . Qh ../ :yQ% y (; ,' -,' % . n, ,Q :} w;j,,;Q,
' Q f. , ~ .- .
's yoy. . . . ,
; .v( -,
.3 . P , , . - j y, : N. ' '
; .C, ; g' , ').; d 9 . , ,
, u~ . ,
~.t #* ,.?.f . - - . ...e.'. ,..,t,.
.+-
. .., a - .
.t . .. . . . -
4 ,, . e. ,
*g .. . . 4.
e . 3y r, , < Q.9. , a,. w, i
, g .a ', s
,.~ g t ., ,. .* .
a~ .. , e- , ,? > 29 *
.f e, t .
. . *x .
g', e
,a t t
~
g.
' .. . t .j -
,l.
' ,4-
,s..* * .4 ,
..; ., Q;p. ~ .: f - -
.; . .,x y.,- '< >
> yl . ?. r . ..i ,
?
, , . a., .. . . ,
,4r./+
, ,
- oy
,n.
- $ , . ,s
.a . .-
- ,.,3 '5. = , ~ s, .
- u
.V s. ; s. ,
? ?. , . ,,
,'=,
., #9 4
+,..
se .
+g -'4,.,. ,
< .s. -)
. ,i -. . =. . e. < .. . .
3, . . ' s., ,, .r ,,,f,**.. i
'. v..
#, ,, .,. ,i
- .o s , , '.", ,
l 3 .V. i ,'8 7
.. 3 ,
-.,.,4.,g..,,..
- Jt.
v-
,/e . .
1 o, i j,-
, , , .'1 '* , , .y ; \ a..,,,.,;* r, ..~., e i i . 1.e **
t s . l - p .u. t . , lit?. * .
- ;,1
- 'j ,
d
- (. -
.o '
j ..
,s'
- 1 *
[ * ., ! < , ', j _j s ' ! .O . l s,
~s
+
,r >.
e < g
.s.
,p ' . - -
e -1 *
,I a 3.
1 ', $ *. . *. . . -g r j rJ.; f. ~
. , .;,. ,+,
=
' . .l h ..y f, J /**; /* ' k.. < s %*
.; g.a r
**. s.n I , . s . -
e i
.'... .p a
3 . t..
. ...I g
i e I
% .(. . , ' .. . .,
E' y a
- e ** ..
..e .. ,* ?.
* ,~ ** ,4 . :
. f,m ,. .
, .j . ,
= , ..
. ,+: .j
* . ' 8. , ' ' .i
= ?, .
%. .,.; ,s . ,. .' .* .
,.4,- .
,'~ < . , 4 .
- i
.g=*.. t .
- e = ~. ~j i , Y. e l.,,. 4 i ,* ', ....-s., -t.',,, ;,.,'..#,
m
*4 ,g: l 1
l< $, 'y e"g e,. . *.1 3 ' . , ' *
- s. .* ., ? ; .' ' ; ,., , . ' '. , e ,, .
. t. -* ; , .
- n* m C 't. e.".I - - = * ,
w
.e ),.,_ e 4' .
s;- ,. , - s; e * . .s . , , . e .g.,- .. e. ..e ..qr
*h*..
~ *
'y',O ,
2 '- .i . .. , c.;. '. e, y, ^ ,, s *
.l*L - , ' .' '". ..+ - ~ .s ,
3
. c. p- ..
ot e
?
*j,.e,,,- . s u
l r q.. . . l,< w n3;,. . I
-o,* . g,' ?.
1,- ,
' t, S. t c. .e .
k k % i Y.' . ,5 0 4 ' , s
- p; .. .\ .
. . l
, , - . h - : :, ~ e
. ~
l ..
,hA $' - b -
s o, e i . e r, . , .
*l l ,e #,. t l 3- , .
; - , f e.sia . % s. r. -
A ,-
, , .. . -.g e - . ;- . g., .
s 9 -
-- 7,;- n. : tr.g .~ 7- ~y.w-. w- wr p. . .s i
r.
.,.i. .
,,1'
. q. <3,. ,.;.. , .S...v'- r
*
- s..,,m u . ,
- n. - .
- .. .c~
.- sa. . 2
-.ri . ? p J .
t.! . ..,s,'
. - i 1 r.< /
- v. .,9,* w ., a-
"..9,. ..T-)p
- 6 .n, , -
L'** = 4 .'
. , < , .4'tj 6 l ,. . , "?> , ., ,. y; e
.,,,s ,..*'9'-
*g. _.h;*1, u ,' . t u-s' ,ja 4,
. .e f.,J l ?.:,s* '" .M.e*,t .' , ;.tgx' r ~- o 5, s.
.re a,.. +
q ts,A . . f.* ,} . 1 y..CA..
* . Ti , 9. . . , ) , p. .i * 'V.;*,
s s
. 4. '%
r.. 9... ,4 , a
%< n,- a.;
s
,. e q; p.. , ...t' .q:
A . .s , ,y.s,.-t ,.',,Quy o ig ,.. ,
, . .,e-?;. , j - f,<. ,, .a . , , , .
.'i, . Q ;, j
, y.
g , ,i, . e
< i ,
"{ ,A / %, ', ,
. <e',' . 8[ s ? g.. .
--.a--_ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , __
qL _; m." .& _ ' ,' , . . . .. . ._ , , v' e - . ,, k.1
- d. .
., .~h,
, jW k p;.'$.+fj.$. , <j'G
' . : i, [Y . s . ,b,;N ' - . .p ; ,,h @
. m 4. L . .
..:,,c -
..p .
,- ,v. ;
..y
;9:. ..* ' .
.v y'
.y .
. . m *. 3 , ,y ye
, ,_ (, 4,, *. .
y : a, .* ". .. w J7.. ,-O, ,g * .y, Y.'. ,.,'. 4 .
?.' . . ' ' . .
, ,, a . g ..j, y, g
..@ . e
, n - y% ( - . .
s..r- ,. , ,,
- o. ;. ^.- + . . ?, 'y
- h. ..s.
......'.4.e.. uo 4 .
.e s
..4...
, . . . t. ...
. ,"p . . g
.l4 . . i . - . g. .m , . . ,
(>.;: , ,.
< 4
. , , . <e r
8
<. +,
. ; g: w,d...eW
- j. .j ,. ,,.e.,.-
g t, x . 3.s.) ..m.t
. . s ,-
g*** ",s * , . c *f-o.'. *. a
,. w 4.. i
+
9 c/ c,a,. -, . . . , yJ Cite as 25 NRC 129 (1987) ALAB.861 ,i ; '. ..,
.f R-i y ; w.
- . .; .. y :):-fi .
. ej..q. .' .'
et y .*_., -
,,,s L b p
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h*. 1. ' 9. .V.:;"*; L " '. e .. .i: r W .S o#j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION {% y : ....' g;*,/$(f:.j{f g
- y
~n I. *
.:,.. ;. ;.,..: ,. {, . ,.f, .
... , e w*;r .a.'T.g 2...:
.c w..,.t,',...
w..,,. o
.,. . .J.sq',c_f ss j' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD'
(:.; e y l.m . K .y n % . y
.a 9.7/y;E,..,1*
.. .z. . .
n.;. a.*,)n"N'9:: d., ':;vl.'Q*n'f
.: -w .e .1,-
y e V-j. i : :m.. a .. n
-w .s a b n.kp ,=..;-
. , y. . . . '< %. . ,c
.. ?.: e.,e; p~.... e .
- y. , a. Administrative Judges: .
- f. . . . s m.Q. ;,. .. .a ~,y';rl;.t'g. . .
V p:5%: e,"; ;Q::'~;
.,, : ,% "i . %..
9:: ~.
... %;i.::*.y,
,) . ,. ' ,.'.:'4.,%, . :'.'
4 -~ .- y O. Alan S. Rosenti al, Chairman ;- . .. .c:. .. n- w. g f ;. .. r ,1, L. i ., . . . . ,,. .. , .. c .
., -; Gary J. Edles . . " , . .
. . w- :3 Q' Howerd A.WUber e :, ". ,,.
..i.Q;.';.~.;.y.,.,m.O.
b C ? W/ s~V....
. , .~ , ..
.~- t . ...:.. *o. . - . . ,; < s .
., , .t.:.s.ry. e y . , ,^ . ... ; e . . , , . <.
* * '.'.74 j .fg. ?g
'& in the Matter of Docket No. 50 322-OL S ,. J ' .
- l' w:"
4 (EP Exercise) llh73.' . * , ,,}'p. y *..', .
. , - fe ',,..,.hw .".%~ pegn.'l
. . ?. ;.+ . , s . .. . : . . -'Q LONG ISLAND LIGHTING ,% k*
COMPANY
. - /[f.Jv:f.. ^f ';,f0",
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, .
.*.*:. ' ' ". ; . M.1.(d
.. Unit 1) March 2,1987 [ ,' 1 ,.. ,
.a . .
]
[.',.. i ..
. ,, _ . .,t
" ..M.. . .. ;.h. '
- s. .., .a
y 'Ihe Appeal Board denies a regt'.est by the Federal Emergency Management i - - .
. ,, ,; 9 ., 7. ;. ' 'g. .
Agency (FEMA), a non. party to this operating license proceeding, for interloco- , - +
.. . ' A" J ,i
'?
tory review of portions of a Licerising Board order admitting for litigation two
~
~ . V Ti. . ', .' '
.." contentions challenging the adequacy of a completed exercise of the applicant's ,
v , g,1j ;. - . i W i; [' p.,.i '. "f a; emergency response plan for the Shoreham facility. l n ,m .s :. ...-.: .,- ,. ... . yN,- '.t.9 n,
. .>. ~:.,. . . . . . .';,.
..na. . ~. ?.- .t ,.
y.n , . r_ . . .. .
.fe -
'i :. ,, s
,L3 f .J,- -
RULES OF PRACTICE: NO. N-PARTY PARTICIPATION .. . 3 W.,.:w,,... .
- 4. ",..s. 'W ,n e ' v. .
<.*t f.J.7*-.'
- . ...,,e
- n. "., p - , .
- It is well-settled that a non-party has the right to take an immediate appeal _
,.. E, . fV *
. . l'yt .c y
from an order granting discovery again:t it. This is attHhntable to the fact that. with regard to a non-party, such an order has the requisite degate of finality l h ~.(. Q ,' ' M g,"g.l ( .* . . 1 ; i. .;g..'f' f,y,.*: % .Q: a (i.e., is trot deemed interlocutory). See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station. i: ,. .
"3 rr,;k f . . ',M,,'M M ,f Units 1 and 2), ALAB.116,6 AEC 258 (1973). i.7,G..li.['.[.(.1ju;".'.y.f'yR2 j.;. . c, pelmc
{c;+. . , . . .; >
.. w: . < :. . . ,
~
.. . . . n . ). ..e.....y..
. . . :.- ~
w.;...g A>.n
. g , ,. .g 4 . w<
- y . m , y : ,,. ,. ~ ..
. . . .e-
] . .. t
,,, j
'. n s . ' . 4. , '
I. 9l *..:
. . M,.,;
',,,o'~
g
.. . . .,'.4,i: f;; ' %;
Q. r
-4
/r 1h *;
~t,.,
l**,'.,.,.,o ,. '., d -lq, a ...f,.
; l, .. ..
.. .,: *. g e.
. . ,j gtr- t+ h. ' ,.5 .9
'+
3* I- *.* .,, * - p 3; - 119
+
.; y. "i*3 .q%, 4 p' lp. ..
t -
..,,tf#p..,
s r .t.g.,W.
;: .s .Q .
4;. w 9;y ;...
,;W s.
',
- e .4..
. "*"u4%.dj.,; .
s
.9 4; g j. i e.m
, , .,,,.6... .; .-
e,
*,, . t y 1
! h. ;i j} $.* ,h
.j 'J ; ' j' T
) ,
. [
',* ,t g.'. *y, ".' . ' ?,1 '
'l.g. .*. ( ' . - ..
.,f' ," , d *" '8 ^t> s 'l i'
] - . -
~
6 ) .b, . 1 ' l ?,.q.q . :
~ h}j : .,,u f A ;;; . . . . ;.: .
p:..QF, %* :.!.'." k ~*C
- .X .;j9.":. . e.r ' ' . . , :y. %g
,- .ww i ?.
x.. .- A k;: n'LW9ly
,k u s . >;
Qv ~
;dy , :.~ % l* - :.a;., .. -
-....a.
w:: *
%Ww*f,.t..
- b. qS ; , . ,s. '
'.c: . . .9 e. y.S q l M;M y;; } .-j:Q , g; a-}c ?;mz9. v.y:.n.y.,:'s; 0, . 3.q m.
gb.. n, ey), .
,... .r.d pr* 3.:ml%.p. .:,a p::y l . .
- - ' -----__--.-_m _ _ _
. .. . . . . . = . .= w z.-m-:,.=. m w . .=-z :-w. .= =R ;---
I .
\["kf*('t.$$,
. Q.. . .s,. . '*:.n. '.r . a. yn %%;,.. 9,
;)).,"p,T ,-
k.g
;g;egy.q.~Ihed,.k.dM, . J hM.MMf ;. . ;. eT.' 'E4:7.h,4La y;c,/.'yQQ.{.h,qe: .. ,;
v;, n .,gy. .
,y,. .;. , :.m. a v. f:; >. .s a w,.;
. g .. -3
].
,, a ~7 ~ ,. .s. sq :, s, ~. . ;;. n'. "..i . . - -
- s. e q..
, v . 3: . p > y.
.. un f;.
u.;.+L. . .e >.maa
'a" s . *- ' ~'q..
.n -" ,A
; ., ' ' s
,; o - a ' ; .~ .:l.:.,-
, . ' .r , . r , . 2 d e- ', '-
; ,.. , % .,,..j;
- a
.. a . . .. ... ,
q
.- v u..
w .- . ;s ,.w., .
, . k .# y .I o
a^ , .c , ~s e ... ..x '.
... e -
,1 e
, a,
#. a'. . , ',+e, .. ,$ ,
1 RULES OF PRACTICE: NON. PARTY PARTICIPATION /s !
.i
>~ .a 3l * . ..
. .. M., gi d'.E.: d: f ; f , 7l N 'p. Y.: ".i/lj Some non-paroes to NRC licensing proceedings - i.e., states and other i;.
.? W/..T.9/ y;. 5. .D.L '
, gm m.e.i.1 bodies participating in the pia;&g by virtue of 10 C.F.R. ., .y
- e. : $ l .,j.g'ip/ y.,.g vjid J,l ,
2.715(c) - possess broad appellate rights. FEMA's role, however, in NRC f'
- y. .
N ' .q,Q '2 4 t~6 praeaamaa is sui generis. Whether it is entitled to the same appellate rights '
. i! 1
, '. i. 2dihj, y, . , j ,l i'.??d @TJ.c as enjoyed by State and local gvm-- invoking sec. ion 2.715(c) is thus an .
. .?,Z /.<%, l',@ dA ','X
. . . w, i
.a ,s
'. T. open and difficult question.
. . N% . 4 } f5%;..,.'"l* .(
.. . '*
- s ;. , .'. ?A.*
- u
., .s b' , -
,; . , ., r.;;m,3 ,. 7,.m .9)a;;U x RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS .
. , . - . . .3 c.p .- .
n....c ; N , .l, ; .c.s,[y .. v@ The general policy of the Commission does not favor the singling out of ]
>.; , . ,.'. . ? an issue for appellate examinauon during the continued pendency of the trial . ,1 q- k. 1;
- 9 .y y L, t ? c'j ;
pmceedmg in widch that issue came to the fare. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 271,'1 NRC 478, 483 ,'
.2 l, f . . , ' . . j..' i P.. . .
+
/. (1975). ",
4 3.r *.. (.'.
'i' N* '
RULES OF PRACTICE: DIRECTED CERTIFICATION
~
.I
]
~
; ,l Drected certification will be granted by an Appeal Board only where the ,'
, ,,' '. 3 .' '5 ruling below either: (1) threatened the party adversely affected by it with
>j
. c *.. .
,: a i. immediate and serious im.y c.i,le impact which, as a practical matter, could not
~ ~
.. . . . . . . be alleviated by later appeal or (2) affected the basic structure of the proceeding
".1 M
, ., . . in a pervasive or unusual manner. Public Service Co. ofIndtana (Marble Hill
,. ? .
u3 d. f - R,. d:: 'i Nuclear Oenerating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190,1192
.+ . . i '.
(1977)
, ;:s " .x
. .2 .
. , - m <
a : : .:
..y. .
.n .
- s. .-
<, y . 9 . : S A. ;.,.., & R. . .jk. .s.; -j..
RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS l , /,. .; r. , 'i .4 [ p'7 N ~' ~ .' The basic structure of an ongoing adjudication is not changed simply because
,~
. p, ..p . ",.
' ,, s . . .
, y ..;.f. ,
.. . .,. the admission of a contenuon results from a licensing board ruling that is .',
7.#. :.f*S..S,. 4 is.pe.w.i or novel, or may conSict with case law, policy or Commission :
/' f '<,"- ),j,: h.:. I c rW= hat Met-opolitan Edison Co. ('1hree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I
.J :,M , '.5, ip, .5 /?. 9. .:'.,~f,7i. , yl M , 1), ALAB 791, 20 NRC 1579,1583 (1984); Cleveland Electric Illuminating ', d
. :, ; J Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-675,15 NRC 1105, s
..p. .
..lf'f v p /, Ga..~e.C..h.$;%
h,....h; s .i :Av .W X. .:. 1112 13 (1982). Similarly, the mere fact that additional issues must be litigated , [)
.: 4. '. does not alter the basic structure of the pmceedmg in a pervasive or unusual
;' /./,';.?. .. ,i . S f,M.y,f, j.d'tg{ge. -.[D)pM>W*h@c.Y..@%gO way so as tojustify interlocutory review of a licensing board decision. Arizona
, / 5d'fr.y9 .
, Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Oenerating Station, Units 2 and 3),
*/ d. ,, , Tr? ,kN.ii,3 3fh ;/ '.J.; ALAB 742,18 NRC 380,384 (1983); Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North
- fl 1 %J.M'
, M,7 ; g,z .- ) , . :<. .i , pp "s7; .Jp
.- *7
,.J ,
.c,
,4 Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-741,18 NRC 371,378 (1983).
. c.
...u, a, - .*. , ./ 5
, =, . e
,A,..' .. , ,
l . .. 8 a l 7.- , {
.," Y; .
( 's '
, s- .
M. 1 130 1
, " J :.\ .
.y >., : <
;g .-
; t. .
se
- p. ..
3 4 l g*- . . 't . * .a. .*y , , N *
- t ,. . . ' . , ,
'1
.? a } j '/.! k b* * , t ,
w]
,( , . *
'il
}k- T.-
- t., t'- "'***4 * ' 5
[-[p.9 .& ,, > ;l 4:..,,. 3- -f; 4 . 4.' p :< f.7,7* , 'i*
"/ h t*0
, '.,?C> _ y .
7.,,, ,. - i .e . , .g sTr". '" "'9 a a y , '. p , - V" j,: ".y" *.s,;. ] 9; ;s, 31.. 6;ac ,.w lA ;r .e t
> , , .. , ; . ,. m .c 4 Q; . ' ; - , - n 'y.a,~,,,,. , , . ; . . if ..
*3 3; *W, % ;z.e v , a .3.
s,t
......:-- cy ,
1*/ . .r.. q, ,. or - ...
.,- A.
N > h, l
"Y * ' % . WCff%
Y[ ,
.l,i Y:'U., .
- i;r $f , ?,Y...-
'I , LY' ?'
X d h' W, .
"h ',Y' ':.,.':?:.$s' l': .
. ;*V QPyW, ,bh
(.ylm i
' ?D',
y ,
,v.-- .
j
~
r y .,. - ~ .e ,. ..
+ + "
- h. .,- r .$j. " g4 'b.k-.Q.f.,.Mt/ '
Iq [ I.h>. . ;f - ..
-t4 ,..,k" , M:4- .[n.h,. T , SQ.f ^ - . 'y. f .. .II
'.'m,7, 3 w.m s
rw..- ;
.e p. - : ;;,
_ . . .>>-g,
- p. > .;l . .y % 1. .- ,m. ,.a c
, y.7.o' . < .'.. *- 2 p.y ; - l
, ;.A. . , . ,,g. , . . . ,
. ' q n$,y.y mA.. 9. y ,,4,g ...- 4.q,1 .g
;p , e y ,
%..;.'7:
..~. .. ..
4 ,-
-. ..c
.. ~
. s -
.; : a . . . . . .. ..: . .
M]n.;,.
.. 1, +
=: ..w u.: > ~ . ., . - . . .o"C. ;
- 3. . : .
.y.
3.s ' w e i. i s .,;,3
- ,%' 'o.M e . e j, ( ,,
N; d' y-3.. g . ... v..ga.r a .,.. a ...'s. ., . , , .* .,,, *
,*,."'t.
,, 1 f.C c -
1 J ,. j(, w ' %. .
. RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL , 5 v . qA. . .. , ,
, l; y y
'Ihe single exception to the general proscription against inteixutory appeals p:+Kpf{m ^f ""s B'
U? is prtwided by 10 C.F.R. 2.714a. Under that sectioc. ,4 pvrty may appeal from T)J the acceptance or rejection of contention (s) at tM threshold if, but only if, c / j,gfff.O p,ygg,pju.;,py'?g , y. , ;j v.r.y .:f..;+ such acceptance or rejection controlled the Licensing 3%rds d.isposition of the y d
,,y ggg zd ;Q.,b,g,; p C 2lp.$. @[. petition for intervention advancing the contention (s).10 Q.R. 2,714a.. ; .
- h. .;
4, ;
+' +- , r?,.q.o ; p.e,g2.w 'j,g,g n g ~.y -e .. w, s >- m.~ m.:.,+.
v y.G.'.*i;---M--.c..
. s. >. y . -
,f [. g.7y['
- j. '
RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL [,n,.( jj *
. '[.5,b , C (IRREPARABLE INJURY) r.
,;,.QJ. ,$. 3 4 ay -
., . .p,s.1'. p,x .' . j '., . ..;; ':
f . M. . . i- < .. . The concept of irreparable injury as developed by the courts contempaw w{- ;g. !,'.g.7,Q,;;,*.
, ;,. ;;,7.'3,,g. ., .;; .
p,g'jpg g;. t
'}
that the injtny must be both certain and great, and must be actual and not ,
, },,,,,1 G theactical. Washington Metropolitan hea Trandt Comm'a v. Holiday Tours, ;;.q::p9:. q.X;, , ,;.-g ,u . ,, f . *' '
I V di .P @. .-...r;. , 'f"' . .O . z ""[ * ?.. Inc.,559 F.2d 841,843 n.3 (D.C. Cir.1977)1 t I.y,m. t n. - > t.,3 f. ;,. , . .p,.e . v.a....sn
.i RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPhtL ' ,-[ W,. d.s : .y,. 5. F.
- a-y :'f TF. ',' .+.i
- - ~
(IRREPARABLE INJURY) . tllg ,s.f.iC.*Q ... s.; ., ,, ,. s
' t .
- Mere litigation expense, even substantial and unrecoupable cost, does not r, .., 4 j,,,. ,.; , .
,,,l, T l y.,,jS,,, f, . , y' 3 c' .,
constitute irreparable injury. Metropolitan Edison Co. (7h.te Mile Island Nu- l. *- . . - clear Station, Unit 1). CLI.8417,20 NRC 801, 804 (1984), quodng Consumers .- '~'
, Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-395,5 NRC 772,779 (1977), V? d:. '1 y },'A.Y. % L. V '.'.
.. quoting Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft,415 U.S.1,24 (1974). f;. .
3 ; 3 . ., - ...- [. , n y .;., s ' p . < . :.,. . , .
'. APPEARANCES ~ ;. .. A, i
,f er; . . s +
[.- William R. Cumming, Washington, D.C., for ttw Tederal Eir% j Manage <
- j. ; , , ', ' , >
ment Agency. c.
,f {j ., , yjQ . ..
.s. -
Donald P. Irwin, Richmond, Virgink R.c the applicant Long Island Lightmg h..;h 5.y. h [{ . , I , e Company. . .
, .,.s t y.;. . % Tc .
e Karla J. Letsche, Washington, D.C. (with whom Martin Bradley Arit.m, Hauppauge, New York, Herbert fj. Brown and Lawrence Coe)m- [Q,{l ' Mgf.i;
') . (%,.3 : '
U. , y:y.g 7 > , . pher, Washington, D.C., Fabian G. Palomino, Albany, New York, and ' '. ,H
.- Stephen B. Latham, Rivernead, New Yrsk, were on the brief) for the ,g.y; q.. '
. l-e... .
)
,g 'J,$. g -U, . ...; , (.; c-interveners Suffolk County, New York, et al. a w ,
1
.M 1
.T.. ...; w ,. d b.f; h . ..y v> '3g ,~, m.j*1 Q N.t. .A. .,;>., f.. -
,j Edwin J. Reis (Mary E. Wagner on the brief) An the 1% clear Regulatory Commission staff. r 1 .
M+u. <
. ~3lA.y ,m . <w .M.
o P..,.s~
. .., g,. a
- ..c
, - ,a. .~ -
<lmlh g,dk 3: se4 *' .s 6.;,. ,J .- ? . . ~ ' r,..
.: . . . a .sf.x.
4 -
;,n,
'* '# - ' ~
131
,. ~
, g, ty,'* '.s.,.Q'
%e . . , , , , . , 1 i
'* V,#
,. . ,'s,A f..,r.llt .
!, &. . .,lyat(.
- 4. . 2*~yj' [ . ', :. V .
.1 %.J g *1~
f;*s4:.6 :,7 Q
' ' ~
.,7 , . . .
- ,.f p
- g L v, 4
. t
- m. ,
,rf.- g . .. e.7 ., < $,aq* r . ... .s..-+d-
,. . ,4 , .. 1
.g j a: #c,. ,, =
) . .
% . .(v {* )
% b.. }+.
( A~ '
- f. . ' *O
, . , , , . g . , .
Q ;,'y. 4g,. .N* ;d &,i s' -' %1
- 4. +Q. n. .; p,;,,;:( l y,y ' t.Nl^i *~ -
i ::. i
. y sp&,n6.v$g.l$y y y x y.' n');s%.m%e, a
m s.&g; fe' , w a. w ,.. s . :. c p p y x. m. g p . 99 w . wgy. .'..w ,. n n.gyg:[;a v..,.
.7 r.w. 2.ph',;4.y.p?it.4:m.-a- ; : ,g.y? y xy~ghQ gRO:;y,. f,,c .
.L ~.cr n-: e,r.. ~ .v!~ -
. , :. s .,x.7) ,
____L_m__._ _. ,. ~ o _ _ . _ _ _ _.mm__-.__....._1.d._.m., _ D. . _ - _ _ _ _ __.m _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
p.
~ . , . . , , ~ . - .
.a.. . _ . . . . - o .
.- .... .. _- ~ . _
aw _ _ . .. g, .. __ n~ a , . - .
- . .- 3 N:~.EWee m,rMcWmM t
. [(W'f'..".G. ,
<- % ,j. c.e 3 .f.
u,
,-.fl}M rr 3.Q -l. .?WfQ,g*l'~'k,g
-r ys.,. ,, u,. . :
}w,>: h M(n M W %
- n . ,.
~.,
. .g.
;[ ?-
pm .
. , p
- 9
-'A,*.
- w . ,, , O@ J .3 ,
. C#- ' " " " . . ' ~ - - *" -*-
'- " 'g .p*' d ,, s .,.' ' 'g ". *< .t.-"--"*""~c.
. . ; ' Y .,i , o.
y ' g, a " . , f/ ,
.. ',4
'M
( 7 a e 51 s . ,* *, "
,t ' >
,'%g., , . ; t. ... *
. , e f . * , , a.
.j* !
Aa . ): y, ll . py.... ,y',,g , f ;., l r,. ~r ,, - g< * . ., .
.yra.s . % .,
. yJ5 g : q? ,C,w ;. ;. l:
.x , . ...
..~t
* ' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER C.: 4 u.
... , ,. . . , , .o . c. . . #.~. .. .,s. ~
- e. ,,
r.js ?, g M "*j g,..M A. NN'M;d W.:.ff ,' 5.QdOq 1 p.,[k:yJ @K @.'*gM)(,a '
; ,3.Q,.p.*j 1W{. ./.;,5 $,? r. w. o 9.2 Before us is the petidon of the Federal Emergency. Management Agency (FEMA) for leave to appeal from pornons of the T wnsing Board's December' 11, 1986 memorandum and order in the emergency planrung exercise phase - 1
;f
'E '
i of this operaung license proceeding involving the Shoreham elaar facility.'
- $jIjJ l2iMQ'h [~
vNQ@.A~@D@O.N, MM A.
.: Q 3.M
.$.NN)M<N$[1 Spam.ny, FEMA seeks interlocutory review of the seaf6rmation in that order of the Board's prior acceptance for litigation of Contentions Ex 15 and 16, which .[
M $ 5 M $.N. had been advanced by interveners. ,Suffolk [ j'rp@l,f Q.%, .$% (; y{;;,.fr3,[$p$i .y. y E.?Oi. FebruaryCounty, 13, 1986 New York, et al*y' ,e
. In essence, these contentions assert that the M
- concerned with the emergency response plan of the appijcant Long Island . .
.fl% ?'!j "'Y; '% y.F,,,.,e.; '
.i P ,.j V y Lighting Company (LILCO) ."could not and did not yield valid or meaningful U 4' h ' ' 1 ~. ,; > , , %;( f ' Jy q results" re@Eiing LILCO's ability to implement that plan.8 According to the ~y r', i b f , . b " IA FA contenuons, the exercise "did not include demonstranons' or evaluations" of. :j
!., ' i 'f '. 3,T, W 3.,
o - y c.f .7,] ; , y s. either " major poruons". of the plan cr the " emergency response capabilities of many persons and entities relied upon to implement" the plan." As a
/W 3, d" . < y # [g .33M ', ! consequence, the contentions aver, the exercise results did not provide a basis-
;. t M ;, 3. } c, g' ', ' for a inding of " reasonable assurance" that adequate protective measures can - 1'
~
e , and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.8 ' a ' 7% ; " b d, FEMA mamtams that the admission of the contenuons to the proceedmg was
, ,, . ;., q O, .
'1 6 l foreclose.1 hy an earher Commission decision in this piseeding' and, further, .
.31. d. c,,:.F 'h.7c.;' that it wh1 be L@.hly harmed unless the contenuons are excluded at this i M
. ] .p3N .j'l(i ]h. f, b ,q @$ '. Q j;y;g.{e,'~.]9.q 1
,1 juncture. LILCO endorses FEMA's claim of Licensing Board error and urges us to rectify it. 'Ihe interveners insist that we lack jurisdiction to entertain the -
D 3." :. . :. Petition because FEMA is not a party to the proceeding; that in any event,
, . N ' . , y"J.3
;.( 7.w., .pgJ.MlM. ;-), Athe well. established standards for interlocutory appellate review are not met
.s .
,i, . .;r ' .G'l. . ;J. *e a here; and, Anally, that Contentions Ex 15 and 16 were ccrrectly accepted for y ai .', ;.f,*3 b].WM
.\
7 ;C.
.. "-(N Q
- 1. .
litigation. For its part, the NRC staff urges us to undertake an examination of the merits of the controversy and to affirm the Licensing Board's admission of
,.2..: '.
. , .g., .. tq.,.; N. g~.
.. 4 . .
, ,y the contmions.
jA*% ) . ,f 4
$, "'; t'.$ ', k g JC3$QQ$ $($[gd hglQW, W$ dggy [hg pg(}{jQg
- i. :%* ..* .. s, . ,
.. t .'
[
. . i.e .w.e . n .s. .
afb t I _ . 4 ;,, s
~6
. ,, y' -.' ,'3. .
3
., . .,:c ,: w.. e.,c,.. . e. _p' .
- 1 &' ' r=c~,s *
.,q.** . g * . 2' '. ,
, JN,f,. ..w. , m. ,, s@.;T g, Q @ **: y, . d
,,ffh,.f g'4*f k:x les .Q."4{ t...': , f*-
Isee t.aP 06 SsA,24 NaC s19. ' I
' 6;} 6. '
9A / ?ll C [3;t",YD(b, .i. V.,O.* k,} N4,if.3?l S* * . Ds FBlWA paddam abo suponed e assy of das Dummmber !! esderinsofar as k pendmed diessvery ammeurumas C8 adams as 15 and 16. We dudad sist sepam in e Jemmary 5,1987 ads ( r-u h d). - ayr-rh.Q' W< 'irM.W,,.*$. .
%.- C Q 8 smeett Casey, senes of Near Yesk, and Tose of samhampaanu.---.a.= Tr===r4mmar Emareas Commaams ,
N e-. PI'd;Mf!'d'Q'E. . . fpc Q *yof J.#!," y <f y g% y,y',%g'M 5 %.?+j/..
'," (Amenst 1,19s6) at 14 31.
'id, at 16. 25. In emmest to aD ashar emergemey aspou.e pisms saammmed so does, beeh she esshe and ensue
/,- "7 '$'%'g.h "g + 4:"J . ^F / -[*,
- M -@ W . -l te
* . Pandoms of this plan was esvelsped and esand wahaut eis permapanen of mass and least eineels. Jan ALAB-i
"'c f N. y! Qc * ] $1s 22 NaC 651,659 0985). -
8
- %g.h > I . .' *, m' ;.,;. . i. :",. ., c,q, ,.g q z l"e;p . ' 3l [;p. pg,{
.g A. ,',./ See 10 CJ.R. Sa47(eX1).
s See CU.s611,23 NRC 571 (19s6). r
..a.-
5
.W
.{ 4 s
, s '[ 7. 's t , , . . . .
, . , 132
*o
- N
. , . * *- 4 l,
4 *
+
A ,,
".* 4 o on.
.e
,)
I W
,s o .*..g, -
- <'y) .
, s.
't,e- , ' ~,# '4 ,t,r
;n P. , _ A, . i
.n., p*'.
y y" .,g
, , , .- h 3 . .} +.
a
* , ,. ..j -
l[, . s.',i ? 3 4 , ...,.,,,.,,,.-,,,,.,3,..,- '....... . . .;. - r
,3"b. m .g ,p p, c ,. -,.e .
4, , , . . g 9: , , . 4 *i lg i
- s. p , y t t M8.c h % So ',;,i ,g = y l,*5,,' 1
' ', i f . Y, g
y(. ..*~.. ... . '
, f *r
, .. 44 'Jg. T.*'
jf.' '. ., ,
',, ]*.]m..*[, [ f'..3 - , .},3 ~['
,J'
^
s , q 4,... j . ,] .- [ 4
*b Q , p' @$ ;45 {-
.. m .
.. q., . g .. .<.
. t , . ., f , . , , r ,. gp
' ' .) ..;t .
- t..!m@ .W * ' 9:,Y, .,? k'+ .6 , ' A . ;f, 5 -
. ,'f*. ***M. ). *;, 3 M.
&' m@S .( , r. -# .... , f. :T ',ms' e4;,.. * \s *l
- ' ,' .! ' ; # .;?..L ' :/# '.l l .L 's
<*. .. . ' * .'Y
>q....,, .** . , ' .
. ~ ']' ', ..{m.c' f . t ,. .P';*.,.
.s '+t'1 .. g] , ,,,y,
&., . ^ , ;#l.. 3 cy g( . s) s >*?y' ,Is ,
G..- aw. e*,. J' :' ,'
. e.n(
' ..h
,,,4 e e j -
e *& , . ,1-**.*
...,' f ' '* c .' %. * *
- D,,r;c 4 'ie *-g *
. , *Q,,' ,[.8 A i' ?. f. *, .'d. i ' { p ,., * .. . m' d .e1 "' .
^
1 . ;, , , . ,. , .
, s . _ g. u ,p"s ,Q.,t.t
~
a
.f , . r. --
s,
,4 e.[ l'?. '" .8W -
l
g, -.a.. . _ _ . m _ _ _ . . ._ pf I'. " J i., '. .
. . +. ,f f ," y
'g .Q] % f ,, ,f' ..- s ' ' l ;p, 3 y "f g f., . .he p "3;y.g
- y u (.- ' ' ' .-
~ ' Q.
, fi -
D 3. .y q g; r jgii, . y p .
- , . .~ , . (
- p.
.,g e
- +
. :.L..v,as. . , .;,,0c,., .3. c7,.
n s . g.e 4 py to ;. . ;5.<+.:~.w +, p y ,, p. , y;,
.7p y..
, j .y. . g,,s.7
. . '.. . , or * ."
p, ;z.
. s-
- u . - *' .i.4 - ... . . . . - 9 4
,e.., ..;....,._..__ 4.
..r 7 m . . _
,f.- ,.
.+
s - . .-
- t. '
w.,y
- y. .
g, i .3 , . . . p; t
- , ;,c :~^ .
...-4 w >
g. i' A. As the interveners suess, FEMA was not admitted to this proceedmg as - ., ,
'., j s.
s.j a party? But it does not perforce follow that PEMA lacks the standing to mount , (~ . ". , .
,; .,;..,.j ..t ~ v
% an appellate challenge to the admission of Contentions Ex 15 and 16. To the y.-lE, y (, . ,.
'y contrary, the maner is in considerable doubt. .
6, h . br ' , M. e ?. ;"-4 {'C +i3.M,4Q
" In its brief to us, PEMA rested its claim of entitlement to seek appellate review upon the fact that, three years ago, we entertained on the merits its appeal I*.,U i-W Q v,C y.. 7-M d.
,' . 4? from a Ucensmg Board order requiring it to release to Suffolk Coumy certam F?^
- t. . . .
- ,. - !.%.,..* ,ve... ... . V * $ . 4*-,2.e .
[ ', - agency documents concesiiing PEMA's emergtecy prepmedness determinehans k , H 7,g, .' , ~ t ; .g ,A : ty y', . [ for the Shoreham facility.' ~But that actica is not consolling here. For, as we [ " .; ' . ?; * ., ,,hy. ]M.Qd i - explained in a subsequent opmion in this proce3 ding, ist foundanon was the - l ;- - : L p. g.4. ,.,,p.Qy *
- j. ,. . L , a ."{,,. 7
,.?
i settled principle that a non-party has the right to take an immediate appeal bom an order granting Gim m.d agrinst it? In this instance, PEMA does not f' - ;-
~* ,' ,
p, .' ,I.'- ? e challenge a discovery order but, rather, is endeavonog to narrow the scope of the l ,, ' ' , . ,,< D' *?,\ proceeding by the elimination of certam contentions admined by the Uccasing ; '. ~ ~'
. , ? ,
f'], ,. (; Board." Nothing in any prior decision of the Commmian or an appeal board i
- 2. , . J . ' .,.
3; directly supports the proposition that a non-party may pursue such a course, j. , . ,
.y . . , - . .
.. . . ~ ,
i By the same token, howver, it is clear that at least some non-partes to i 6 - 7
' ' N,[l ' - 'I$'.*,*S*"p;.".
,- 4 '
#4 NRC licensing proceedings do possess broad appellate rights - i.e., states h' -
5j' - ,
- 'i s.
and other governrnental bedies my dsg in the proceedmg by virtue of ' 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c)." PEMA, of course, is not such a r ; = .3. = Rather, its "7k,, rc role in our i Osedings appears to be sui generist msofar as we are aware,
. . <('
FEMA's responsibilities and privileges under its Memorandum of Understand-
/ .. .
- (, .
- ^ -
ingu are markedly different from tho6e possessed by any otner agency or orga . t f nizauon Whether it is entitled to the same appellate rights as enjoyed by tale _ and local governments invoking section 2.715(c) is thus an open and difkult l' , ['
.i question. .
,, Tertunately, in the circumstances of this case, it is unnecessary for us to ! ,' ^,, 3 resolve the question. Por this much is plain: whatever may be its scopt, c FEMA's right to obtain imerlocutory appellate review of an order concunet!
- g .. 4 v; ,
4 .: - * ',
' PEMA panepsim in NaC presamenos pumaans to a h of f bd====-d=g (h000) hemma taalf and this Commaman. The laan vusman af the MOU ens menad in ApmA 1985 med puhhaked at 50 Fed. sag.15As5 . , , -
'* '
- e 09:5). It prences, meer siis, that PEMA wG1 appear in NaC liammag pseeundaags as pan af the psummmahan of 4 t- ,
.t "
8 the NRC maff. Ahhanth ha ma=aal *wal mannauy psusses PEMA wumanas and be pesummed, a thed====.= ; , the womanas of pumas, ashar than the NaC wumummes, en masas . . of the NRC lassmans bassi, so x , , ,
, ,' i. .
involvms PEMA sedags med : palisam and spummeus." the MoU ampbasly masas thes "PEbdA is ' '
$ am a pony im Nac . _ " hL a 15As?. *
*7 * -.,,, - + ,
,U s 3mr As.AB.713,19 NaC 1333 0984). ' *
- f. ' A1A5 7so. 20 NaC 37s. 3so s10984) (sisier Comumsemusin adissa Co. Essa simisa. Umbs 1 and 2h ALAS.t16,6 AaC 25:0973). ed asume shes the name eght emism la indsel ,hadislal passen).
- d; ' *' i.*b * .', f;." 7 i-j "To be ems. PEMA did ask as to sesy deussemy en Causm6 sus na R$ ad 16 puedag the suusmus of hs , , "
M; # .". , - E . ' ' "
. , ,. , '**"%f ,0.C '" . Y
. 9l pauman. ain as endier mand (mens mass 2h its susy segnum was dumed. la the esmusman, k is or ==d=====d=g head en = tens m.m pumdad a mal mammes, em dia.smy an e..mium.= he m ham omspiand. 4. } s . .**'z;- ,a ; . g. t;
.. A e j ,, V Tt.1516. q . ,. ,;g i;,g3 p5 sa carss.am usan Co. auva s.d summ. umm i ed 2). AtAB.30,3 NaC 175,0680 0976). .
. ., / t- .p
- M ~
- ., . ,,.m. ;; . .r~
,,. # ae J moes mass 1. - M. h.;S .
- s. ,
.u ,e s J . , %s * ** ,
zi . :, . - ~ .' _ . . , . .< . * , y ,
.~. , L. .
.(
133 . - a: A , 3
) ,.
.* ... - e
. n '.-
. 9 T 4 p, ,
g 4
*.w . ,, *' , - . i .,, I '
f
, i , s m; '[ . 5 s m s
. .g , - , ,,
g.n- .m-m'0,,. v..
, . , 3
') a .- , -N .* ~4. s
, ' [ *.3 k,.< , 'l f... .h* M,* [ ;'fd.. ,,'.'4 '3 ;, - * (* $.
d -
,] *, [.> s .; * .
,,,,, . 7 ,, f. .* y , 3 . . p,
.;< .. a.... y.-,y, ,.p. .4.. af,. .,e. ,-. -*
,u- * , , .
f4.r.,....,
,,.] , c.h ,2 t 4, . . 4
- t. .* 4 '.
,1,
./' . g ? l.~* ,i *.i n
.* ,A
*
- l-l l e , . J .. .6 it{f.
, .. .., . ;,c ..g.* ng.
? * .4,.g s 4,. : ,. o,e, u,'.
f ,., . , , u , $<.,. ,,y , , , .. h*\i. j . , , .. '
. . , JE
ty['*y./ ,., q *~. f ' *
$", k W,yW
.s . ,
M &. .,.g heQ @d% W 3j @{gQ,8,Q&@
ar9..:g;.:v:n.N:h,:qi,;e.r.,v.;,.+..mwc.
- s g.. .
, c.,p n
-e r y.
w
.< ,y $pb .n.W;y. , i . Lv.~,.... : ".r.,,? 4n, .a..s. .g. e, m;.o.. , : e.u ,p . :-r *g-m np,% v. s+.zp n eyf-(w < ; --
, s ,
x ~ 9* q.> ;, # %.,. [ ., i J ,, g
. . a, A ,M .c:a ,.;.. ;.t; E.w a h AI w, .n,. t ,.,yv. -- qy
.) . -
..P^
c.; , 7,U . - }T;ji.-.J,.f
;; u a S,. .
J. . / . '7 7 y i / , c9 j..> . sf.. t. s- . y >; 'n ~ d t ., .
, i c
e 9esg, , ., E 'f- . , 7 [ ., *
.. 3 y,,f? [. S.' $. , 7'i . J ' N.f.' ;, ..
with (be iswes to be litignaed fp the ,1weding cannot exceed thatynjoyed - { H ,M ,,. e 0, l 7C. . .'; by the, estatnes having acknowledged full-pany statu3 - i.e., the ap% cant ; the :: ' f, ' did ' tatervemors, ar.d the NRC staff.82 As will be surm, on a showing akin to that [.g ' % f R,. ;r ,@ 4"; W .:' y'M I ./D.*;'..;*
. ,i J '/C '
,Po,-Q.j,. * *g./[f 'k ?G.
made by TEMA in its appellate papers and at oral argument,':r.me of those panies wooki satisfy the standard for obtaming at :his juncture appellawreview g y Op@h. , b h[1. bNhb,ty .'5'](7;, Mih '
~ . M.' ; of the interlocutory order that FEMA would have us overturn. 'Inis being so.-
W,wdm of how one inay view FEMA's stams in the proceedag pr3 petition r- )i. ,N'7, >; ,:p f5%q.p... g 29 cmasti,%g fail, ]J '
; ; ~,.
. d,- B.h As we long ago otserved, "[t]he general policy of the Conmission -
$@y%j!jN$;y,
, m..
3 f,' $ h J/ M /NM($
9 g,$ Y does ru (war the singling out of an issue for appellate examination dur5g the ciisonMpendency of the trial picceenig in which that issue came to the 3(
.,, p.c'y , . t . d, .,g ';;),. -{E j
"i "; .y f d'( . . ,, ?.. M fase."* In the fulfdiment of this policy, the Rules of Practice (with a limited
' ' , ' ', , ' i ' g c #; g. r . 1< 'J' exception isot swilable to PEMA herd explicidy proscribe interlocutory appeds
( j ,y: e, from I.ic.ensing Board orders.28 n
'.'(,d W X (/:/c'.fc.,' y.
Tb be sure, this proscription does not preclude, a pany fmm requestirg that
,'. ,. , ' ' ; .< s..; s.,- "
we exermse our discmtion,' conferred by the directed certification prtwisio,is ". y
'.hA..
0 W >? < . ',
- r. . . ,, y .); in the Rules of Practice,8' to undenake an interlocutory review of a },ntictdar 4
.g , : ;j -
p , ;p7,rt;g:. -l-ruling below.87 Because of our obligation to give effect to Commissica psikty i;
. 4, .; ,c.
7, j . respecting such reviews, however, we have granted directed certification only b ' ; . c , ;, .
. O[ z !. ,
c, ine most extraordmary circumstances. More speciScally, as stated in the Marble]
.'~
.! .;. N. , .. ,d . . /g . Hill roceeding-P
, e .. 4a ,
; ,. ... n,
. U *, , s .7. - . . S.. .g. ' '
Almost wi&an a=*=T=aaa in recas tini6t, we have w,danskan discreuonary interlocutory
- i ', *[. .c . '" '93 Ci review taly where the suling below eidser 4 t'.seeimmed the party adversely affected by
' m. - le .!f .,/,9,, O ' <.,g f , '. .,; . . ". z .' . , c,%*;{li .
- y.
it wist ssasadians and suioms . irreparable imped whid, as a praaical maner, could not be '
. t, , ,
411ovamed by a last e spresl or (2) afected the basic anactose of the proceedins in a pervasiw. 3; or unusual enemar.4 V 1
- O ',;;*,f.)".I 3i eQf y, :* ..,,..y '" ,c: . e( j.. , d1*t . ~
,.o y'.*<.,,,,;,'., *
'f.
.f~'f,3. . y. ,,
4
...t.
m e.. p'a .:.rt w 'p '* . .. %%.,f ;. !*_U li 6: nos that, se pnmed; $end, e non.pany Ona met a pony) saiy take en launedian appealinun a discovery 7..*,. . s b * ,,*.'* .,* JE
- d ',a ,. 9, a .
*M' "[-
3
.,' m ,* - -
- t
' .! : ,Tl4; .
y
?(a 't . ,:. ; *
* ,' 1 atter. Thas is eatenaable, how.*wr. so she fam shai, as to the man pany, pudi an ouder has ths sospasus desses of Andty 6.e., k metd -d innerleeuwryk 3es Zien,6 ABC at 234.: ei
. 't N , ;d .1 1*p.Me Aarse Co. of New NonpsAus hl== 4 Station, Unies 1 and 2), At/J.271,1 NRC 478, st? o D
* 'l ;-7,,f .,')* O.'
,*;**M [ ,
. , 097!b we addaisunny isak mas of the fast that a saniner pebey envens fedant judinalf-- 14. at 4s3 s ,
a ll. l ;* *[,f ;r. g ;=j ,1.j.s.* W '.G 'N S [ -;;',(t.,--+m.,*,
. 18 l 10 CJA 2.730(rk The ausspiism is famed hi 10 CJA 2.714a, absmused Wre pp.135 36.
. . W ..,,' . f;, ,. .p . 14 3ae 10 CJA 2.71861 3
,f 3
M *,$ * '.;q.) **.9 $i Q.]?5'a .e I-'.C. )y ; . 373e Asaheet,1 PGtC at ett-B3.
. gr, ?,. g 1
,p.- 18 pane g,r c,, of Jag , gge,gg, G Nealmer Osammans sanan, Unas'1 and 2), ALAB 405,5 NRC I 4.i'f! M M r. 4 ;!.~tg y Ik Mit/ .* j b ./k *l**g y;N- ,
1190, !!92 0977h 3m abo Aresses helic Sernise Co. (hlo Vede Nacimar Ganeoung sostian, Unos hed 3),
'. ' .1 *i?.,, '. .'c ALAB.')42,18 NRC 340,3aC-94 0$43) (* , appelbes sevisar of L ===g bensd endam is dentseesed -' >*t ' 'M . M : . ,J .
W,' ;,.G@ii.;[,];',
.. ,2 /, T f.f,, ,e. and wD1 be andanskan as e aliseraimuray ===m= anly in the sama sunpeDag 4 "). AsseM 3such - . ;f Ci ! , ; ~ ~ . ,,. *; ' ' .E c .W,:. ".5 * ' i. h;tcy . .i..*
J'* M';J
' l*? &' . r.4.:.f.
4 s
/~.'.,. % 2, Capodias alsteic and Car Ca. /(weil C. s=====r Naciser munim Unit 1), ALAB.463,14 NRC 114d).1162 0981); Nasuten Urheat 4 FWur Co. (Sasah Tasas piosset, Unha 1 and 'D, ALAB 637,13 NRC 367. 370 6- . j,f. k '
0981)1 Nees*"' Manang a #s wr Co. (Adams Causk Nr.nser Omismans sisoon, Unis Na 1), ALAB-635,13
. e cU'.j*.'i*f
,, '. ' ' 2' ' . 'i c A d*,U h,e'*
,l M'
- w;.NRC 309,310 0981); remar# emis Pomer me.f Uger Co. (5usquehamma Simon Elemas sistien, Uniw I and 2), y ,;
* :.,./7,.,";. a A. 4 $ M.', 'W..;V, , .-:. 3:
>;~ ; , _
,; ALAB 593,11 NRC M 09:0,) pape senime amene and Car ca. (selen Nunnar Omenans smaan Unt i gc.mg) ;
t
< ,. - +
. , 4%. .
.s i
, s e
%\ b *, s i
. . )
>, -- o.. ,
1
- s.
., n %, J. r ..1 s
, %,.. .: ,,..-n
' j ' T k ' . . " ?.Iw. . .': & -
es. 5 1Y
- y1 .. g; . ,,
'14~ - ~_(* '
' ' / t.) g
,p **
.' m~,.
$. h,;j.-ti ': . . [. .7, d , 3 ,; p y ,iyN,[ .(~,
..-.,u,-e, ; .o vo,r,vw,".,~.-,*f,,'~~~'<**'"**
'..7'",..r,c.,-,.s4'. G.Q pi m -. _f ..
u ., >.. h,,,,,Fi + . , . , Y 11 M,% JQpV . . 4'.. ,, tw c .svl.,s l, ,, )* Q l v. y . v
. .. Y'x;, .* * * ~f.'\,6
- ' -+.
c' j.;; . . ;([ *$, '
,l s ' ;,.
. p' dz J..s.: . ".
Mt .a,,ly
. m,o' 4 1, . * '-
Qh Y. ~Q. t . ' o', .e 'a^ 4h(n ^ > - .4. y ; ~, . .rc 9, y' 3 ,;j~ c . .; d j ; 9 q. . s ,.a A. .~ y .
" }.e < *a e S <*$
.. Q .y, .
- p ..,ah},pf,A*,9'%.y.
"(@.
,0 *g ,. a C
';ccy.,,'ln,'4,b?'.[i?![ '.eT', les,%,. -lea ; 6, *y y c. .., n ;,
- 1 t
+. p5 ;N... 8f :. y.' ',,]..W e. > # %e,'..,'s . 4. .,.';g?'y:, .
; a. , *s;,
T.4.s ' i .}. a-s z.wp 'e a .. : ,, o J L, *, k .. .L.l"t. n '
, i, -
.. a m - 1
' .ws,
':<.' e' % .s .m - r s s?
9
~
r . .. a- - ' ' '/ M.<.n 5 *.. r, -
.i % .. ,,,rV;,,g, (
* .* ..I-n s , ' e, "vj
- y. < ,
j. 4 - M, e
~
. ~ ' . ? ,; > x . .. ;p; :9. ., n p
~
L. a , a.,..s.? ed. e . -
- 2 .: .
p~.
. . .,# -P #4 c'.....
*e
,, m,;
'^
g- ., y t. c ? ,, p , , n
..A.s.,,.*....
- w. ....:.. . . ,
- s
- . . /. . M,,) ,. ,- '
,s . .
,# ! " . ;, s. 0 t; .i'. 4 '
i l , ,
~
i v e-
+ '
Given that the injection of one or more additional issues into an ongoing case i 7 - f,
', '. ' )e, "j
seldom has a pervasive or unusual effect on the basic structure of a gweding. we have traditionally declined to review on an interlocutory basis rulings that F W , ,, y i 47 .' :', simply admit another contention.""Ihe basic structure of an onrc.ing adjudication j ..c ; .,( . , i ' W 'M.',' . is not changed simply because the admission of a contention results from a /,,y,*J l y,l l f . .* ' ,' . . .,. . ?....., .rl-SJ ,. N licensing board ruling that is important or novel,28 or may conflict with case. f((1- 2w* ' Ef 7,y.'Q. law, policy, or Comnussion regulations." Similady, the me:c fact that additional p%, - @ rg ,,',p., ; , , '
*l g?f.l.w,4
, , issues must be litigated does not alter the basic structure of the proceeding in l' *
!3e a pervasive or unusual way so as to justify interlocutory review of a licensing .
board decision." 9
"; .T i :. . ; %9'$ 7 Just last June, we reemphasized these considerations in the context of the ,' ' .1,. - ?
~-?
'P .(i !
endeavor of the Attorney General of Massachusens to obtain interlocutory l , appellate review of the rejection of a contention that he had submined in the
. ~ [. ',, ;
~
Seabrook proceedmg. Although noting our doubt that the 1.icensing Board had ' correctly rejected the contention, we determmed that it nonetheless did "not .* ,.
. , ' **,, id, l j . , :.. !
I appear that the strict standards for the grant of discretionary imerlocutory review ,,,,.,.,,,a , , , , .
' 'b , ",'
are met here." This was because: [ 6 -
. , , ,. 9< 2. lp, :., ..;Y l
j We employ our directed ceru6 cation authonry only where a licensing board ruling either ,
- r (* }
l ducates the party adversely affected by h wuh inunediate and senous irreparable irnpser j ,
.,c
*,'. ')
that, as a pracucal maner, could nos be alleviated by a later appeal, or affects the basic strucout of the promedmg in a pervaarve or urnsual manner. Neither inst ordmarily is - .'., l saus6ed whers a licensins boerd sanply adents or vejetz: partacular issues for considerauen
'. O ,
' 5 7 ', , -
in a case."
,i
., s 1
.'Y j *
^
, It need be added on this score only that any relaxation of the Marble HW i
+
( i directed certification standard at this late date to accommodate the FEMA 4 9 i l challenge now before us would appear to clash with the purpose behind i 3 i I
; 10 C.F.R. 2.714a. That section provides the single exception to the general . .t
) ;..'
i , .I l .
, l
'* 11 ALAB.5at,11 NRC 533, 536 0980X Peter sessed Faimer and ught ca. (sksgit Nunnser Power Project, ; '
Unas 1 and 2), ALAB 572,10 NRC 693,694 0979X ogshore pener synesis montag Noaiser Poner Planis), ,
~
t
. ALAB-517.9 NRC 8.110979). ' i D see, e.g., Clevoimid Elecme Illassaammer Co. (Purry Nuclear Power Piera, Unus 1 ara A ALAB.706,16 NRC j' .
+ !
1754 0 952). Cf. i Dade pe=ar Ca. (Cauwha Nucinar staum, Uuns 1 and A ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,464-65 . 0942), rev'd in part en oder gewiside. CU-ts 19,17 NRC 10410923). r!'. ' l
#Mapopediaan Eakeen Co. (Three hEle 1:1 sad Nucamar Swoon. Una 1), AIAB-791,20 NRC 1579,1583 0984) iI l'fi MCleveJand Elecme IP ; Co. (Perry Neder Power Plaza. Unus 1 and 2), ALAB.675,15 NRC 1105
'+
"j 111213 0912k see e4so #eanryevenne remer & Gr4r Co. (~ Essem Desmo sisaan,Unss 1 and 2), .~ ,k
~'
AtAB 641,13 NRC $J0. 352 0981)(duected osmacsuan deemed derpus aDsenuams that the Dannung Baud's . , j zuhng was "an the aseth of thed 's segulaume and the Mra*magrange Prim =4=v Aat" and *tasy have v e, 7
- J' . . -
ernmoomly expands 4 the issues to be inad").
~
- 3 '
, '*t' / *
.f *'
# ole P Verds. It NRC at 384; Virgin s EJsene and Power Co. (Noah Anna Ptnrer Sunan, thtas 1 and A .
ALAB-741,18 NRC 371,378 0953). ; a DPad,lse semce Co. of New HaegwAire (sambrook suuan,Unas 1 and 2). AIAB-t31,23 NRC 585. 592 0956). h .f * ;M ,.Q . (eshas (m adduaan to Mar 6de Hill) Project Managenew Corp. (Chnch River Breeder Resonar Plars) ALAB-330, I-
,q g. . [
3 NRC 613,615, rev'd on esher troends CU-7613,4 NRC 67 0976)). ( ,
'l ;g. ; e, .
[ h , ', _ y ; , '.*5 ,
'p(Ql
' e. . o. q '
[ . e
~4 . s
'i
! 135
. J .m
.7' 8
, i .
- L i **[ ,.
g* ,, . g
;,- o . ,
$ 4, J . ,08 ,
" p,*, +9 '
, y ** *
,g .
s _.
'* { ]
.> .; r. p,- u. e ., .
+
E[i..g1[{;},~[-
* a ,e *
{ g ,Lf,,
- n .
4 l '-[ ; ,
.. ,}'
.t
,y. a /. .s,..
Q?%. _S S:. ..
' ..a,.
V.3; , . . .
? j. . , < . , , . . ,.
.fw.g.m. .y) ,y.
hN bhhk
.. w , y p , y 4 .,,;;. g . .g
,c. .. - . _. n , . 1
. . . .. w . - .=u...... . u. . . . =. : a. . . . . . w ..::: . . h ". . f = ,, ,
n M..W
. i M ,,o.
g....',M,4.6.w...,,3 C ' c
. f e @., ,. M..lW T c',y. ?#.M, 4 i J i- - YM.V P J #, pp $.'. 2q M'M'OMO gn W: n f &y.;...DYT.3 y,,. 7 a .g.cggy s;.y
, c. ; q.
' v t',> .?.on
- z ,
.~
y h. e k. h' O 'l . W '.$ . : .7.w C N . . en v
.i i u..^1
* .,4*' y t. . j
-6.e y+,
.c r: .
.c
-r s
' i, e pt u**,* 6e if."D 's-
. '% proscription against interlocutory appeals. Under the express provisions of the
.a
, section, a party may appeal frotn the acceptance or rejection of contention (s) P
.1,% , .p' ,' .
f>d at the threshold if, but only if, sich acceptance or rejection controlled the
..Q " - d ;. ;. . i- 3 J. ' Licensing Board's disposition of the petition for intervention advancing the
,- !! #:0 ., ...;'3 .f b ', . '~
s y1 contention (s). *Dms, for example, a would be intervenor may appealimmediately
' 'n
, , , y , 7 "r ;f'..! @
- .! the rejection of all of its contentions and the resultant denial of its petition."
' .h S ;j (Should, however, at least one of its contentions be accepted and its petition '
U$h*\
.p N. 4 . .
- p' ' . . "
F; fn u i.j
.h is granted, an interlocutory appeal will not lie.28) Conversely, in circumstances where an intervention petition is granted on the strength of the acceptance of P , ". W - ,1 ' ,
~6~ i. 1 one or tr. ire of the contentions set forth therein, another party to the proceeding ,
,. J. <
} may appeal at once if its claim is that all of the contentions should have been .
"' 3' l ' ,J n.
* ] stjected and the petition therefore denied.2d Had it so desired, the Commission could have conferred a broader entitle- *j i ,
ll . ,
' [ ,; '
ment to obtain interlocutory review of threshold Licensing Board action on contentions. More particularly, it could have authorized an interlocutory appeal l
,t, i
.; 'l from the acceptance or rejection of any contention, whether or not the Licensing (
f , , Board's ruling affected the grant or denial of the intervention petition. That that
.,. i alternative was not adopted provides room for a reasonable inference that the M Commission was persuaded that, where the grant or dernal of intervention is J " -
, not in issue, absent exceptional circumstances the appellate review of Licens.
, ing Board action on the admission of particular contentice should await the
.7 rendition of an initial decision.
l' '. '
- 2. In light of the foregoing, the FEMA petition might well have been a l\', .
~
, fit candidate for summary denial. We were deterred from pursuing that course, 3
however, by the representation in the petition that, unless the admission of Contentions Ex 15 and 16 were everturned at this time, " FEMA's ongoing
;}
'. exercise program [would) be irreparably harmed.*'" Although nothing in that G. , , '. "'
L! filing adequately supported such a sweeping claim, we nonetheless could not
, ,. . fp- -. ,.$., ,-
n..,*<4. . v.< . q.- f! dismiss it lightly. If, in fact, a sister federal agency was being threatened with
; .p uf m immediate and serious irreparable programmatic injury because of Licensing
',', .. Board action, our intercession might indeed be compelled. - ;
,.,."" p, *, -
; % l'
, Accordingly, we decided to take the unusual step of calendaring the FEMA '
'i .
O.f ' f; ,-
- petition for oral argument. And its counsel was orally requested in adysmce of the .
.".,r. , "
~{ argument to be prepared to particularize the irreparable programmatic harm that
. J . .* ,
- ,.g.~,*-
i ? : *
.p i 1.y _. .
; I c.~.,,.,. #: 6
.J n' , ,,,,.'a
,* s .
. 'x A -. 3 , .
' ; ,' '. \,
'f i
, , 'b ' ,,
t 1 . .f; n t, e ..,.
. ,' s.,
' j
,L
..[ . '.f' ,[ ...
s,
' , .. "see 10 C.FA 2.714a(b).
25see, n.g.,PurerseasidPower andrJtAtCo. (skasiuHanfad Nuclair PowerPmject, Units 1 and 2), AtAB-712,
.1 ' s'.
17 NRC s109s3). l- El : '. "- . [ " san 10 C.FA 2.714a(c). +1
](
- 4
, h...- ,
N FD4A Petition far tamvo to Appeal, etc. (December 31.1986) at 11.
- ,?
- l l
}.
\
136 i
\
Q, d ' l y
,r.
_y r o
) ,
j' ,
~
f,.
.s 6.
. ,. . .:. ?'. a..m - - ., w. . ,,--.. .~-w. n .,
s,', ., ' o - .1 ,, 3 '. '.,c..(v ;. ~. , r. ',
, i "t'. .
- 1- 0,g, e, v, '
. t, *
. .a s j, , ,c . ' ,7 -
g'
/. o O
( F. . ' . g .
. ,. . , 4 f.
y,.2. ., _ m ,
$ s .. # + E p *. g c.
..w c . ,
s
, c., s4 u
..c. ,,
% i.
. ;. ,.,y,...
P k *
<~ ,h*'
n ' % *r . ,' 9.
' L , '.
g
' ' .n@ ,- : h , i .: ' ll 7 V ' ' ' '" , , q'i- / > ,;
.,j { ' ** ,3 ,j r fg i' ,-
s
;. 9. / .$ ,
$ 'l
~
J
-: ~ + .. ._ _ .
(,? ,, i.h
% : ,- '.r.y;! [
..at P .4 w.*?.?y .i ; - %, ,n,[ zig. m
- h. ; . ,' ,
y*f;,. . ;- JI
.(,p..; %~ ..f ,. ,+ ' ? . .
m,.,- .
;o, ( .
... e 3 - (.
m.
.y;3.'q a
- n,; ; ;
e
,. . . g,, L ..y,..y. y.: : * . {. . ..
e y., y. ,, . .5. . ' 7 };
- . 5 h. l.1.1 ..'. f. . . . c .- .. i.. .m h;_ , _.gg f'[. "
- , l f.;.).q' e p, %g
.n - 1 np g e
l[" ' j[., 7.7;
< :.y ,
i*s
~ .
* .s .[ * 'v>
. O. ,
. l , . , ,
ga, [. , 4 j-el t- 0
;,4 .*
- s-g s4 A e Ti ,l . ' y.. . *. . , . .
y1 ; ; - ~. ?R FEMA assenedly would suffer unless Contentions Ex 15 and 16 were excluded v .L. . ' n - !.3 from the proceeding at this time.8 .{7
^
; l . .; .d
;' W:.i . .; "_. . ; . . yl : .., / - .L..@ A ..g
?
[l a. In response to that request, we were told by counsel at the oral argument , that, as a consequence of the admission of Contentions Ex 15 and 16, FEMA T/. i., i %. { ]$ l would have to reallocate its limited resources from currently operating facilities to non-operating plants.8 When pressed to develop this proposition, however, dg[3.k.j&y p ,- . ..' .g ,. . gfk@ ' pl%j,@ ft .;. a,;.;.,,
*py;,3j;i 13 W,,W T: . p d]
F. counsel conceded that discovery (in the form of document production and the taking of the depositions of FEMA wimesses) would be completed on the 7,(;Q[$.76,j G.;g. , m M ['". 1 Q following day (i.e., February 6).8' He further acknowledged that FEMA did h g f. & $ . Q[ ; M ;c,. m j-y D lq[. not intend to present at the evidentiary hearing witnesses other than those pig #p 9 W U 2' '
'-p, individuals earlier designated by FEMA and already deposed.n According to y ;p '.ytc,. .
.f g.1 Mf , 7 g.
c?unsel, FEMA's concern about the expenditure of resources was rooted in the .L..,W . xs T e ]M 9; .
'i j arr.ount of time that its wimesses might be required to spend at the hearing:
[. . . , , . .. e 3, [
- w '" 4 4'
i MR. CUMMING [ FEMA Ccamsell: . . . If the Board were aHe to represent that FEMA M"' '4 (. ..* ' (mould be] on and off the stand in three days with respect to ' Ae other parties' interest in ? 7W ,.'
' j<
aur witness, that might [presars a different siraation). But we believe that in fact because i;L Wi. 3 C. .
..,.A':. #. f.,', N,.-
i I of Contand- [Exl 15 and 16 we will have a subrianuaDy snore lengthy proceedins, our $3,Ky7, @k N ,sy' ,.,' . ' witnesses will be cm the stand far longer than three days, and in fact perhaps even marmhs. e=**
'8) y
, :. .,, t , -
~.' 1j*'
..,s ... . .'
JUDGE EDtI.5: And if we set these two ocntendons out of there they wC1 not be on for Y
- months: is that what you're tellas me? *"gs '7 -
~~
;G" -
, .; , t.,
MR. CUMMING: I would say it subsiars.iaDy canimas the scope of the y.-. g to what *** s . ( - ,, ,,j j J.,,,,;, +. we did on the day of the snarcise and not what we did not do and why we did not do it.n 7 ;, ,,, L , . . , . ,
>n ..
'Ihis falls far short of the showing required to support a claim of threatened l ' ,"[ % ., ,o '
, ~
- irreparable injury. To begin with, as the Court of Appeals for the District of l-2-
Columbia Circuit has pointed out, "[a}lthough the concept of irreparable harm ' g, , , .l does not readily lend itself to definition, the courts have developed several well , .3
..- known and indisputable principles to guide them in the determination of whether ,
.."i,- '
this requirement has been met." One of those principles is that "the injury must ,,
;,' _ ' , ' , l q*:L ' '
{A( be both cenain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical." And implicit p '. . ' s- -4 ,s in that principle is n
.o
'a the further requirement that the movant subst.intiste the claim that irreparable injury is "likely" ,' .
,'Y
- 4 " ;.
8 t :
- to occur. See Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Conun'n v. Holiday Toers,Inc., $$9 '
u ., f- y F.2d [8d1, s43] n.3 [D.C. Cir.1977). Bare aDesations of what is likely to occur are of no 7 .' : D .t,. 22 value since the court must decide whether the harm will in fact occur. 'Ibe movent must ,
%. ,? . .' ,.. . .,
- i. -- ..
,, f
r4 e'%t ,S'
' F
.4
. . . . .}. i
-s 8 As a punami nula, pataicus for '- ' , ssview ass acend open wohaut osal arymm== fr the p===='s ) - Q, ,~-D ',I,j, , .
v *' lf{ l-
- i do not themaalves asubbsb that the MarNe Hill ===devd is mat. that is naisDy the sad if tha :mener. . t ,
'+
{' - !6 ; pApp. Tr.1213. - ,- , ,
# App. Ts.1s46,
- j. Y . - '
J
*',f , ,,'j :* * ~d f ;%f:]v*t.e*>e "$ . 3f,l *-[. e 3
8 App. Tr.17. "'
. , , , .'.0 .'--
J, d + W, s 8 App. w. n.13. f *;k . .r. f.:(~.. w v s, >. . ,
'o' % (- - T' e %
flt y. { 1." c...q . k ,^ ,
.h.
.1 t *
~
I ' 6, 137 i, d" #. 2 9,?'
~ .. ~
a[ v . 4 -
; .l v.p .
p5 r+ * ,. , , .21
.; . *',..a sd .p p. , a
[ )1 1 7 ' p. 1' ir . g .'s *..*' ,;f 'l , ~ <
~ '. % X. -
.p,'.,
uu f . . , . . . y * " ,* <*,f, .*; y,"A ^. s l s; . + e . .. r, ,v.- o . t. * 'j !'*., p p g. a
) -
*',+M,
', . , , *' ,* u.
-a i
.,'., .,,e ,,a ;j , a ..K.eaj'e' f. *
' . *1 5 .
,....'.T'%k"y,w d * '- J , '.
-t..) . . "1 ...i-
' t h ,?
- l. Z, w ,a l
' s . .lm. % . i:. + ' r -
.m't-d ,- , <
s.. .. ;; .
.t 2 ; * ".
g, . , T* ,,. I J
.m _ . . ....m m ._u2. <- - - -
um .r . _mx ..- 1 -e . e 46 m ,;- .{,;.
<' a j,+ *
,, ,, f. . hyl.gg.9,3
,*. , . . .. _ w-w - Q.; J.c .,c.aq. .,<.;m .
,; Q .; y Q . y M, . . ,.. . s. - ' , ,g.v.fy".;g.Sg;y.7.
.: p . ., ~, . v r. y. ~. , 6 + .f., 7 y. ,. .. ,[-
T' Y Q .f:.q ~ f.:?~ a { . ', mt e-
. s, ..q .!...qi. , ;y.' -
e.C .,,r? 3.n Sb,,s9e, . ,fD ,, m. m"ff,,.Q.[:,:,lQS
; ., , ? ,: , .
QlQq "x,
' E D..O CC "" '1 "r. , ^ h. # ,'
9.
- c n V,, g m$, w @ @ / ,- ,, ,.
y a E qwn... c, .., . y - u
. , ~.e.u
> a . ;.t7 i a- O . -..,4 ,,. .g;; 1
-. tt g*. u8 .
4
., k', ' - .'
prwide praat ihst she harm has acanned in the past and is likely to occur esnin, or pract 1 )9' .y.& :/j L
' i indismiins that the harm is ennain io oener in ihn near fuimm. punber, um movem mum show :
o u . ., x
, $ M ,O."[/ , .. ',, . w4 ihm the anesed harm wili dinaly samla from the asian which she moient maks to endein." p
*. ' %f .1', f .]
f i &,, .9 J Manifestly, no such proof has been provided by FEMA here. To the contrary, t'y, t
,SQ?c1'4 *'.a y . 7 i
'..'s,,. '
. pp,. nothing more than rank r iaawundergards its counsers assertion that the *
'1 4'.. dy Q' a c.. p ' 7- N:of the two contendons will cause its witnenes to "be on the stand far
~ ' j aMirirm lanser than thme days, and in fact perhaps even months." - 4
^
1 N..y ., y[h. .h, ..LP, ' ' Ittther, it is equally well-settled - both in the courts and in our pracuce -- L
; . that "*[m]ere litiganon expense, even substantial and s+i-m cost, does F T.W's ' t.Qf,j.k' f. NN ?@Y 3.' .'.. .. not constitute irreparat,le injury.'"" Even had PEMA established the requisite !,
O d . .g '? 1 degree of probability that its witnesses would be required to devote a protracted !
'[f : " ~ gl Si period of time to the hearing on Contentions Ex 15 and 16, its irreparable injury
. ,. 1 .;,, . .
f~ (I , claim would have been torpedoed by this principle. Por nothmg put befone us
.,. </ : C, :l' lends credence to its counsel's insistence that, unless relieved of the obligation '
, ,p ., ., . f.V'. " to provide testimony at the hearing on Contentions Ex 15 and 16, PEMA will be y.
"yi f. ' - @ , required to divert resources from currently operstmg facilities to non.operatmg -
pianis. in inis connecuan, we were ioid at orai argument by interveners' counsel, s ., w_'S without contradicdon, that only one of the three identified PEMA witnesses is
.' . J employed by that agency (the other two being contractor employees)." We were
']
3 - .; aMirianally informed that the PEMA employee has been transferred out of the
. 34; radiological emergency p.q - b= program and will serve as a witness in this ,
'l, .,' '., ,! "
proceedmg on a dotad." In light of these apparent facts, it is dif6 cult to see any q
?, ' '
1,.3 possible basis for s conclusion that PEMA would be thrmananari with 6p..ble .
", ,C.#%jl programmatic injury ifits counsel's prognosucapon respecting the length of the
.i ' , ' .%i '
W' -'j ,,
- hearing on Contentions Ex 15 and 16 were to turn out to be correct. Be that as it
, , 7 may, it was PEMA's obligation to demonstrate, rather than simply to allege, that
..., -3 4
)i
.t.3
. m., 9 * . , o..,6N .z.
..+
d . h * [.( ,
; < *c.;;. ".d.%y . :.p. .,. .M,gm . ec4
,. >. -. c. .,N
,a , "mmenis c , ce, v. FF.AC,758 F.2d ed9,6M (D.C. Cir.19s5). 7hm deanen swealved en edever m .
* ,, , ' %i A L,;..*J ' ifj . may the spannen and effusa er annan esdess issued by the Fedssal Emmsy assmissary Commusassa, one of ths
!, a===a far due sress of smah seinstis, of emmen, a showing by the asums that,in the ehmsmos af a sisy, h likely ':
2 . F
'
- i. 5 .' 4; . T
. l wG1 he inspently henmed. Firpinis popoJames / ether. Aar's v. FPC,259 F.2d 921,925 (D.C. Cir; 1958). The
, i7 'i , 4 l Commassese's suiss af Presume gewonens may apphemumms else adays this enssamm (as well as as ashes se fonh .
.** f.f'/*
' ..'s
- 7. " 'h' 4 .4 T
]
in Firydais pessimasiJethess) See 10 C.F.R. 2.7ss(e). 'thm, uma et the judinist and t' in es asas ofinapunkis insmy has base deveisped in ammanus weh any . f jusispendemos
'nnsemendsomem dass
. .f ? ~ ., , < * .
.i ,$ ,'I ass, houmour, sonst the - ' ' of des; . hiso: 14., these is so seassa to impen a diffusum end '.1
. infadar emessyt af inspeshie lasury whose the quasasm is the maalemens to ' , appenssa soviser y#*gJ . *l i, . if) ,c. , . f - y . ,,j?
- . mens as, i, , y ,,,e,,, s ,
f-
- 7. g .d t "ii ,
. "Mesoposes: Edissa Co. (Thse Mns kl==d Numiser sammen. Unit 1), CIJ se-17,20 NRC sol, sed 09:4)
$ ; fN Nj
' .fs . g. (ensning ear dummes in Ceemmesnr #emer Co. Odidlead Plass. Unia I and 2), ALAB 395,5 NaC 772,779 4 '
- M- 't.q' % -
0977), whiah in amm gamed * . aamd e. Aamssrese, d15 U.S.1.24 fl9M)k ses she Teami. Edissa .d1
~ . 3 . . ., . M}9 p.g '.M +,d . > -
Co. (Derm.asmus Nominar Pomer saadan, Umas 1. 2 and 3). ALAB.3s5. 5 PGtc 621, das 0977)(smoeing Firriais .1
.i ..f Popoiman Je66ms,259 F.2d as 925, to the ellest that *[en)ess isymim, hemover ht in terms af amasy, t
.< . ( +vw
. $ $jt,y, g.JN A'; *:'. ..' [Jc4 ',
l'C timme and ammsy" do est emmennme hasm for the pospasms of sheaumas twy solist).
.' " App. Tr. 57-
,4
' ,,. ,yr . ,f [c.
- A " .<w '
'7 h ?: . Maig,
'p hlk 3 AMN - *d ,
, ' otj :l[ ;$ . c. w ~
.f ik, g f' Ug !
L.b 2
.Y y- .
i;
- v.<J,
. ,g d.J. ... . %. -
.j
< q. ..g... .. .. *,4 ** .
il .! d ' ') y $ f ,y, 2 l
.,s T* . d ~ . . /
y
.a s. -
-f l%
- w I,.,,, . .. ,. ,
.,.....y. g" , . ,.-..3..3..,,..,,%. #r..... , . ' . - j
,, w. ' t, w f . ~ . "9 .. ,. W e ,W'. ,-4 -
c, ,
, e' l ~E
?[; c . ,q$,
,7 r: .
. e... . I ; q., .
g ,; *; y' * $ q, ..c. w hw. ; ,, , f *,4 lll } y 'l . , *
' .jf' r
l ,~
; e,
. . -.,y y,
~ n a .. -
~ -
e a , i.f 5.s.
. O>W M i a, y-cfMm. r&, , , , K).:.n.1 4(J;@ m'
,.V.r ?m gi.,.e,
. . -.h. , , @ %.<g, .. <.%;, .~ . ,-)M'; . ; 't 3.,.. @Ar d 3 -
,0y w. ag. s %t rw s,, , A r.
.q u- . , ,
. .g;
- p. . , #c . g:; c ., '2 s m , . . %., _.
. I m,.. . .? - . - .. ., ., . , . , ~
/ ;f Q,, Q6 ,;g. , /, wg , . H.,v,. ,. . . , 3f 'mf.,, ., , e 7 ., . ,
,-4 ,']m.gf,f;,[, y.c.b.(; pg. 3; ,j.7. e s,n.
y'"..W. ,.
;. %es . .
3 q , v, .b,. .7., w
,+ ,
, e -
, . -j . .. -q6,, :-
m 4 .a* sM. ,; . .m -v, m 3, .fx.s
.4 5 1. .r . +. +
q .a.- e - - gjg ,
, p., . .. .
. , , y .v 4.
f_i7 ; ;, &
.: j a' J., g,gV h,O ?
*c.x < .-;(.
,. ,,- a. ..a v-2 *4 <. .x 7 .f [-
4
. a s .- . . ... . .
r, Q g
,N'; .. . 4.
- s. .
..d *o a .. ft
+'
4 - V i A
.:..:w.:.,
_ ..t.
*... ,, /
z.. A;e..:. r Jb ,v..i n.;; .i.. ,'; + j y T. ,,s .f ,N . N.,t,v ' .b, 9,L.g ynw;r. . K. . 9 y t c... . ,, n . ;. u,, .
;yL v
;, -. ,,.:m. ,
_r
~
,p , . . .
., J; tt . y ~,, .& .
n,, .. ., nm v f ,: ,
.c . A v.
L p 3 e t* . o , n '
', I; d more is here involved than the necessity to incur costs that would be avoided if *
,.g y,%;l./h,
( O its wimesses were not called upon to testify on the contentions in issue. J m(;. 0 f-d L. M b. FEMA's counsel also maia'aiad at oral argument that the litigation of [y ...c % Contentions Ex 15 and 16 would irreparably damage his agency's credibility .t.pr.h;;pt.j k: cA., Y i;. , ( q ' .W.S! dM,):%;;7$ty.gi: 4 ,$ 3 "with respect to the public's un&rstanding of its role in emergency planning," , . -{ 7,$
, as well as *'=Imaihly" affect "the credibility of the reasonable seenwance we give to the Co'mmission when we in fact sign off on the dotted line, so to speak, 1-f f~ h6 @%Eh.Q:
'_. 4
; [s. dA y,M 2g
.h c.4 ;
with respect to either a plan or an exercise."" We are unpersuaded that this is pyg.,g#.gg%w ;-
- i. %
go-
. . , .W %
.y
.1.:.
It appears to us, as it does to the interveners and the staff, that Contentions Ex . 3 i .. ,, -: --;@.hh.rQ/ ~ xt a+q , ,f.,C .. h ~.: ' ~ ,. .a* .- z.:,g?;, fy y g pcy., 2., ii '
- K F. 15 and 16 present this question: whether the exer;ise conducted with respect to the LILCO emergency response plan (1) substantially met the regulatory l *
" d , &,,Q.f. y $,7 , .
l4: , a, J requirements for a full-participation exercise, and (2) was suf8cient to enable
- W.: . 9y W.z l6,.... '.
its resuhs to serve as a basis for a Andmg of reasonable assurance that adequate I protective sneasuits can and will be taken in the event of a radiological i
. h'ctk,* p+;;j f [.. . ~
'Ao9
'[ emergency." If the coniennons remam in the proceedag, the PEMA witnesses undoubtedly will be called upon to address the question. It most likely also will '.y, .-ryQ, y.-Q,CJ p, ,i..d { ;,)
be addressed by witnesses for the interveners (and very possibly in the testimony p.g.glp }( j ,Q,{'J #;.h,y
,; sponsound by other par'ias).
~
.W F .. %*Fq./. 6 -
C. 'c . ...l In its initial decision, the Licensing Board will render its indings on the . question, which will then be subject to several levels of appellate review. 'lhe j.. . O;?. ' ( ,jy., , O _'. ' _. 6nal result of that review may or may not m. i, d with FEMA's articulated [
,- ' ..$, . d@;.'c f-;;p.c;.
i position. Even if its thiniring is not ultimately =~===M however, it scarcely l ; * % l ' *.' y.+ : ' . A.;. . . f ~
- . %e lZ .O.h% - r .'
L follows that PEMA's credibility would be irreparably harmed. Whenever there . l ' [, is a conAict in expert testimony, the views of at least one expert necessarily [ -
,A ,. ' '.' "q-',1([' .h, .3.~
will be rejected. If such rejecuan were enough of itself to destroy credibility, , ly the world would be heavily paaet**d with discredited experts. More important, as pieviously noted, the Commission's regulanons plainly allow FEMA's views c .
- i,u on the suf6ciency of an emergency response plan to be challenged by interested pernes." Inasmuch as that type of challenge seemingly is not deemed a serious
. [. . ' . . a' . .K. .+.
3,s. :. ~ ; ** a:
,.v . '+-
'.4 lL
.2,+ .. .
'b Ly II App.Tr.1$. ) '7 *
# ss I 6 , ) . : ) I. .) .
2 A NRC sisif asspese to PEMA Pommen for laswa se Appest, ses. Gemmey 2,1987) a 17; App. 'IV. G. 64, 81 82. In this . we sepass PEMA's amampsenauem of CLI-s611, ths P- am+ g- o
. ./". '
,i
and ander enthag fu shs inmassame of a tJanumma somni hasang in summesman wah the tJLCO aumensy plan f' . Jyi*
ensemas. Maso pesandsdy, we do nas apes wah FBMA thss the Casunnumm's desssve that the send enamuss
, ja /.
- 5 + j. M *'-?.g,. k.,.i. ..
the"suurjas" af ths aussess f===1== my soview of the emepe er dampn of the emmense immit. ' g, 4 . ,, . p g , .
'e $.,f .' - s
,. ":-+;*#
Qe; lh such a smedme of CL2.s411 mound somanualy comfar spun PBMA and ths >RC entf. wldsh joimly damids the elemsmas se he tesul the immuussmehle emehasmy se desnamn ens ther sumphse of shearumble aimaamm af the
'.0*
J .I / 4)4,. ' f ,$ lfc.T ,ff. -h J. . %. e N. tJL4o pian was suitama se entsfy Cmmmemman susuissams. whins PEMA's peufemmamel judgesus es as whas ' ' ehemes simmend beimmed et the pus heemse sense is emudad is suhammal defamma, she Comunamann's supdmans 5-ji
, piandy namese inimemed parass en appenemy se abus PsMA's eisse en gemens esmemunes ths assgemsy ed
- af whaharihmIJ1ro
%.W7.y !.
. ,fg.. "*;w. 9 , f w*t,(i44 .
M .' k,g J, jj umpiamessamma esyshday" of the plan. Ass 10 C.FA Sad 7(e)(2), And ths ' j , N, n ;
,; s. pian, msnmens em en==m, snesass em Communnss's seminary segumummes sums squ-may sad eenham, iy in f.) , " (, s..' . .
Y.* j, f .". . ;*,. .,* ,,j ,
- r- one heads of thec- *
"See apre mass 38. 4
+
'l ' ' c .$., ..
. ; w, .w .n ,
. y ,, . f , M8'. $*n.
f.j 1 e -
. e.,; .r e. - h i 139 I 4 4 4 9.an e;
1.w
,W.
e, r *> . .
,J i y . 4
,ym [j ; } ' yh', ,.
'p I d 4
,'. I..f,.. , ,
l
. t. ,
p .. .g ,nw '. A
.a y.c=, v;Q [*' '
-i 41 4 . a 44 '
+ .
, p '"
, l , 0; "..et y A 6 'n .4 f, .m .~,a
,p. I ), [t7
( j '.g /***.*'**" " * *g.** *-+w= . .
< .' %M
. g 5
- r.+ .
- 3 - ;, , s '.a *>p .
.s. ; .+ f .
-L ., W k p 3L m : ,e b *
n-) . 4! ' " . ' . . ? *, .
;.. l#
,y ? , ,
p,' r.,7c a h . " * # , ' 7 *
- 4 1, s% i 'r V
., t 8
s!
. ~. . : , ,w .
.h.h e ;ow .; ., 4
$' kh m.
. . ,:.sa.::.3. .. 2 >
.. m%
. f ~ fhp n.. ~.m... . ,.
~.s.nM. g Yfh.s.[ .7 .m.. ' y '..7.. 'j,h. ., ,y', v,. . M. . . ..m.,<w,[, nw :.w. . -_
I5
.. ,. .. . ... s ,'
.. . ,c.d ...
- 7. , 's ; ' t j* . * .* * , . "
je,.K'y./.Is..~.7 a'p~.y'h~' NN",
'h .. w- k
- d
) ' . ., '#
- n,?1- . , G . . 'y . .g .w.. y , , 'y
,, gi ,, 7
,. , . , m .e ,>. - . s 3', . );.., Np .*;*.+ ? , * '; . , . . . .
.p.
. 'j
-7 3'g g. ;. . :.g;.g"(jf./;,/'.
.,;. -, , .- - .f- -
-.,,/
, (s. t., .
t , , , m , , . .1 - .. . . . - . , J. a ..<....,,;..,,. ;.
- ,. +
.n
' , c. .:. . . m.,,.;
.8 * ,.
v ., c's'bL * .. j .: k's.'* ) *a, .'
< > c j ,
'r a ;, m. 1
..,p ,'
1
'- f. - , ,1 / threat to FEMA's credibility, why should a similar challenge to FEMA's
-d. .
.5N conclusions regardmg the sufficiency of an emergency response plan exercise yy c . E' T., [ ,v' $Nd be considered such a threat? We can think of no reason and FEMA supplied j 4
,,- . < . . ., W JQ !- . none." , .
- 3. One further mauer need be addressed. In its appellate papers, FEMA
}( $ , . c' f., d ,,
- Z,,;;Y.".'.
, p *lQ( . 4M., asked that, should we decline to conduct an ' interlocutory review of the. ac.
y , e ,. ' -
~...
ceptarr,e of CM'= Ex 15 and 16, the question of the propnety of that
- f; Q.' .f b;
>l# , i/j,"; ' - EV--? be certified by us to the Comsr.ission. We decline to do so. The i~
( . . .p.. I Commission has at least implicitly approved the Marble Hill standard for di.
?f. ,.. .
' 'V., ' - . .g-
" y ; / ,. .
sected certification and our rigorous application of that standard over the years j l'~ ,, ;, t , in the furtherance of the Commission's own policy agamst interlocutory ap.
,y , Y". .
. r ., 3,' . j peals. In addition, none of the doctrines we have invoked in concluding that the
'1)/[
~ -
%' , ,, , standard is not met in the circumstances of the present case can be considered W
. . . ..! either novel or controversial. This being so, we could not accede to FEMA's ':
e..
;,,, 3 ,' ,,
'. '.} alternative request without implying a belief that the Commission is likely to 1
,l' s,.. , depart from long-established principles that have enjoyed its explicit or tacit gg
(... .. .
., :,3. .
. e. .,
endorsement. Needless to say, we entertain no such belief. Treated as a request for directed certification under 10 C.F.R. 2.718(i), the i - " FEMA petition for leave to appeal from the Licensing Board's acceptance of
-l Contentions Ex 15 and 16 is denied. FEMA's alternative request that the ruling
- -f '.yi c ,, below be certiSed to the Commission is likewise denied.'
.. - ' , .- ~ .~..1 . -
It is so ORDERED. 7..
'; c M '
..i s FOR THE AFFEAL BOARD
, w t.. i '
(, .. L,
- f,, ,
'.y Barbara A.Tompkins b.M
- g. c[I -',
+_
.. [n.[ h.MN.h; . . c:
Secretary to the Appeal Board
- u. . .
.c . .n,
- ~
.. . ~ * .
M,. n'
,, .7-
[,'* - T ,, 'W, a Mr. Edles, Concurring: i t
r ,a a .
4, j n.V I join in the Board's conclusion 'aat there is no reason to take up FEMA's
~
4 .3 appeal fmm the Licensing Board's i 1 mission of Contentions Ex 15 and 16 or to i
. W. . ,. f I % L. y certify the issue to the Commissior . FEMA is a critical partner in determining . .qy:.# :: y 1. 1 ., m. u = . ?.m.u. .> .y;a; a
- 9e.Q:.';d@%) .
b;lN' *.*'"!M';. .,.[ M7b .d;${' gj "'nure was same him in ommers agen m ihm FEMA siishi usant the regerunsa that h .pand to
+ e- En 15 and 16 6.e explain tu pennian en the sufhe eney of the emerass) as per se 1. .nging he ;y'e - 'N .. .' ~ f' ;5.<.g.M,4 M Md (pvy'.. ,,,.;.
d *;bK;, g '. ";3 : ,,r - endibaby huo quenat. satsee h in say ihat we em et a nans so undemand how that enuta be so.
Bessues they believe that buerlocatary soview is inappropriate hers. Messrs. Rosesh:1 and Wilber do not reach W " ' ;.Pai'O.; 'j, . 7,y-h
; M)i [4 ihe mani at the comm.orsy. mihing buyend that %ean should be infamd fna the fact that they hm
; .T 4 ' ". J ;.' y . LV.
."v,. not joined in the views espressed in Mr. Ednes's ennemting apunan.
%:C ', .
- . , . ., ~
.. P '*3 n'a - C,., .!
.* , .4
.. H
- m' '
140 3* ,. g d. ,
.:. -), r -
1 r y ,, , . . . , 4. g*., 3 . ' in ..- 8# g . . . j. .lf
.f,
., s r
.,s..+.
i..-.-. > . . , . . . ..,,..., .. . . - . , - .
.....-.-..,y ~.g-e .
+
. . . h r. ,.. A . ).Lct"g .. +s,. %..c. W'_;.5."
- t' u 4'r e.q. .
+..(. Yg? aN .. -
' t
.e W. .
+
** v '3. - ..
.=,y' ,[ v. c . e g ..?'>,+2'~. .1 f, *
+ q ,,,s hp' o ha .'. . , ,
s v ri . . .; . . - < .,e *' ,r. '+*
- i.
., . . : s +. . '. .i , w'.<% n i,,g.,'b. ,>.> 1.:%, .w*3 ,4.... ,, 4 , " n . >* **w
,, t *L*
v r , 5.s .i 4 h' j * ,g
'f, h, g g* I 'gh I 8* h
.. , d *. I'ti'
-7 $6 I
',p.i ' g Q 'f.f *.' f; }g.j,'y. E.7 ,'- ' ,,, * ,i g g o ;
& p 7, "L, "gy ,'4.,,',h' *
.'f .i. 'i p ,f, p/'-!' f'g - : e .7, .l3. >; - u. " . . :(..
.. r .'F' .', ,f4 '. , . , ,- d; p 37 g i*.s ' .s; q " , . e' ' .'*
"[,,
'{9'f-rj '! . ;. y
',, M.<.,' r".". .%. . 4k4.Qf* q;g.7',e.~d
% !: J .i .$)4sj *^ '
M. *,;;
..=.., d,.'.. 1 :'&N .j /+.i.#,";g A~
e
- a. , - .-A.- .~.9 4 q .. ., > * , ' .
e-
o .._ t ._. .-
. :d s no / ~. . - , . ..
* , '* r .,..
. I. t Q ,, ,[ ' ', ,( ,,,; { -
* ' ' , ** ,} ,. i ,
y) ' ' .. ; c . , ,.7 a .'s , >
;'? , m ,
* <r .
':tc.
- ~
s ., '.. < "
!. < ,,- n... 7,, ' n' . ,3c-s.
;, y ,, n, 3' . l n . ,
" ,' ~.V ,
., 3 . .pr.- ,
s. p -
,g 9- a
.m n , y ,3 .
g" t ,, s., ,
, ;.e ..o
~ -. -
. m
', .n l '
' k, . '. .':. . A, 7 .'
~
. !jU. .,.
L. . . .. . . . ' . . _ .
-- m. .-
v g .
. .: c . -
a q 1 ,; the adequacy of emergency plans and a special participant in Commission ci proceedings. Like my colleagues. I do not dismiss lightly its assertion of *
~
immediate and serious irreparable programmatic injury as a consequence of ( , , 3. the Licensing Board's action. But I join fully in our determmation that, despite h ,, s . . - , .
, $/ ' ~ .
3'
' every opportunity to do so, FEMA has simply failed to demonstrate that it is
- p . c.' u Q ~3 likely to be harmed if the contentions are litigated. I would add, however, that
. . 1 ;(. . '..). ;.., N
,.f the Licensing Board properly admitted the contentions. '
. , '. 7 7
~
%. /-] -
gJ Section IV of Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, requires that "[a] full partic- ., ipation exercise which tests as much of the licensee, State and local emergency '. ,.
# / / f.' $'p. , ,
,J J'
. ,,4 $ plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation" be H :.1 conducted "within 1 year before the issuance of the first operatmg license for f.;' :
, 7*,. -
- g * , ',1
- l. 16 ' ' :. R
) t-full power and prior to operation above 5% of rated power . . . and shall inchide l4 participation by each State and local government within the plume exposure [l:+ ', .I , f.g ' ,
,' pathway EPZ and each State within the ingestion exposure pathway EFZ"1 lo f, ,
As the Commission explained in CLI 86-11, a review of the exercise results is ' . ; , , ,,.'5 .,,; ' ! designed to reveal if there are any de6ciencies in the LILCO plan that would
,9 %.T 4.**. ?,M M *Q,6 N.. .
.7""[)
preclude a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency.2 Ihe Commission authonzed ,'.' . v "
.c.f, the admission of contentions l.. ,Y ' " '
~
s l f N .y
. which satisfy the speci6 city and other requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.714 by (1) pleading that p '
, .i the exercise demonstrated fundamental Baws in LIlf0's plan, and (2) by providmg bases '
'I.
for the contenucms which. if shown to be true, would -== : ' a fundamental Baw in the eas e . (.. s.s e n The two contennons admitted by the Licensing Board allege essentially that j- ,' the Shortham exercise did not satisfy Commission regulatory requirements. I j ,
- , have no doubt that a failure to satisfy those requirements - such as a demon- ; , y
- .j strated failure to conduct a full participation exercise in accord with Appendix E to Part 50 - would constitute a fundamental flaw in the LILCO plan that I
Lh ' j could bear on a Commission determination that there is reasonable assurance ' t , l that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emer- , gency. While the Commission has some degree of flexibility in establishing the ,l *j
' 4 scope of the exercise adiodication, the interveners would appear to be entitled "
,,'} at least to raise allegaaons that the exercise failed in a substantial manner to [ , x;,, . ' . .- , 1y .. .c.. :.,; Y; . ?e l' , '., *
' , (W.,*p . . .i
~
, il].. . .' .
-4, Ithe - - bas vecently pmposed to nelas the tuning seqtmement for a fua penimpsooti ensstase prior to h} .) ,'
> r,' : ,.~
, '. , , (Cl a.**'
h* * * '
'j ,q,,,,.g issuant Jf a full power operanns buenas to allow such esercase to be held within two yees before issunnos d ,,
the hr mas. Jes 51 Fed. Reg. 43.s69 (1986). ,; ;6 ; - p * . i. 4 ' e, g, . i, if , ' ~ fg
'<t 223 NRC at st1. . .* *. ;
.s' <
s n>a. * ~p. .At
,* rj ,
N
. ' . . ' i 7,:4 1 f'g,c .
1 141
. sn. .; ,-
- m. .. . g ..
;
- q.
.}.
m
,: .~ :f ,
4 I g8)- , - 5. ..y-g - ~ -
,s
- u. .
w *, , t 'j
. .. '. \ ,
,, .j : . . , ' #
- n
';, s 4 ( [hl
- , i, K'g . , y,t ., ,
, >l ,
?
. ' , [ 3 .' .
e w __ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ . - _ _ . _ _-
, , . . . . _ % .m., - . . . .. -.- - --
, 1
'l I
' Y..1y Q.,Q.:sQ'qA '%nnC. Q,v m.:y ',"y.p.p. M d - y h e .. ..%.. . . - ; a s. m s .. M ...~ ".,;.;.L '%, ..-7. g . & %.v=' g
~ &
_ u . X. . . .V iJ N.'h I # ~ [ 7 . [, ;';.x :. k \. h.
. k.,, d . >;.,w:n .:. k.7.i..s7,h. %...b hd5h..w .[
$ h, w
. y&,,,%
- . . q ,;v . , . , ,y
.y
.m.. :: ,; .,
a
;. , w .
' . 'h.'..
m.. .
-+
r 2 + y m.c.<,,
.9,.. . . , y,g.. y ,
v,,g.,Q
. . . >r.
- t. , .
r , .. r;,y- ; ,.;.s..,
- 3. 3
.i
.?
.. e. . . .,4
, ', ** . l,
* 'b; .7 ', , . . ; ..
N.J i n. " t
, e r s, , , . ' "l demonstrate compliance with crincal aspects of the Commission's emergency ;
s g V <; a. .
,V - - , }, planning regulations.' i,.'.y 4
N;
, , . r. It seems clear to me, moreover, that the two contenuons are not intended to.. ,N . 7,Y@%. ' o..; A . 1 m F'.? a W. U 4 4 rocus on seneric a8pects of FEMA's exercise review program. To the contray,. y yj a ;y,.4'g,[fg ;.. - .f.;dl ? : \i v l as FEMA readily concedes, the Commission is "the arbiter of its own regulatory ,C
- i. .
, .. ' ]
pmcess" and " FEMA cannot speak to the issue of what is a ' full participation' \
~ -
'M. v A , f.,,f , .
$e W. exercise under NRC regatan== "5 As the staff aptly observes, j #
t
.. ,3 ~.n,:n .fn..a .
.3. e. f j . 7 ' ,
, .R ': g
' the aboios at she pumalerensames to be sammlis +=1 t o sh.PEMA afEcials desisnins . ;y j; '
ey, 4 ,;
,,{ ihe mennes , , . . (B)s the semping nest be laced enough so give meseeabis asemanos that :
;nj
+4 '.
l', -
') e. .,,, y pi.s een be - r' - = . . . 'ro ihn amm ihst shena -s-s somd win be - c M
.. loandes se she scope at she ammiss. k is no so desanine whsaber honor naarcases could be
',-;,T.V . '
, developed but selsly to test whether this stenase was adBcient so that the usults . . . could .. j
, *J '
u : . fann a basis for a Anding that these is senseashie assavanos that adequese pnnective measures '-
. , . . ('4 -
4
-J .
eum and win be inkan.'
$~,- *.
- ', FEMA appears concerned that the Licensing Board may, in due course, . i,; :
}er .s. f. y '
i "second-guess"its design of the Shoreham exercise, Le., the Board may conclude that the exercise was insuf6cient to demonstrate that the LILCO plan will ['n
?,* ;
work. 'Ihe contention stage of the'proceedmg is far too early to address W p 1, , -
, that problem. If, as PEMA and the staff seemingly believe, the record, once
.A f.
ei developed, will reveal that the exercise fully satis 6cs all NRC requirements,4
, ), p '
V 4
.C i that will be the end of the matter. If the Board determmes that the LILCO plan - y, J ;' 1 : , _ ,
+
is inadequate in a way that implicates the design of the exercise itself, however,-
~L", .,
< - some potential admittedly may arise for a conAict between LILCO's need to '
'." .L
,, ' , ;g '
comply with the Commission's regulatory requirements, on the one hand, and I
, ' ', f ' J.
, ,. FEMA's unquestioned authority to administer its exercise review program, on 9,',U . ~.,, ,
the other. 'Ibe Commission can address that issue if and when it arises.'
,J., f '
In any event, I fail to see how the Licensing Board's actions simply admitting h.$5!.N,ly,.:-t.,+.4 Mc M [M.,N<., the =='has will adversely affect FEMA's design of emergency pitnning .p 34- exercises cr its exerciae review program. FEMA asserts that the Licensing Board
', y . f"lp
.C,n '
may not unilaterally require it to modify its current approach. I agree. Any [ k D. , j'g alteration in the cur ent exercise review approach would seemingly require inter- ,
. . -w , ,, ~
[*,g ' , f *
. s.
g,
- _7 s g
".j'.c~ " ,.*..,
A
,a' .v+ .. ', '
d fas Union gConsernetsesanser v, NaC,735 F,2d 147,14444s (D.C, Cir.19:41 la this - the C.V . 9 f 7;g 'f, esar. mm esWy pseposed to medsmus aho Caummamon's shsemseem *ent ths esmess is saly sulsuus to ins ij,l**., k M '
.,? f,3. g'3 ?. W 3- [, ' . '
- husmens decisine so the essen k indusses that mengsmsy psupasesams plass me A= man--any Assed, sad is J.;*- " W cs i. 2 ;'7 lJ y v.f'W,.7,;,4",.{.;d*>,a3 . O .:% # N .2 ,7 set selsessa es to amor er ad has pushlamm assundag om the amendse day." M as 144s.
8 penta Pennies a 3. p r. ...
,y. ,y ,y M,.."..,,),6% " .-. ., c,q 8 a.r7.,7.+. w
, p /gQ2 . ,NRC sent anspaans to PantA Pedsism $st tasan to Appest, eso. Osmesry XI,1987) at 17.1m amis ---==== s, i
<e ij_ dn'. J,' f/ 1 41 l jen folly in our esmahment that the e -,==='s dessuve bt CLJ-s&1l that the tasemmg Beaul -- the
?p ;;@-?,Z .,M l'I'd. I' ";n, . t , . ,, "susulu" of the assumes must be med so endesess the Bened to leak at the sospe er design of the essasse to i
, ' *. J ' .. . if. 'lI. J,?A',' 4.*.. 'E < J same depus. ,n
[L*lQ' lW ." } /t 4(({5*'s.c".e7, ' 7v '[ ' Q, /* K
- 3 n,\ ,'N 0 .)
q 7
,{ The immvemms sus only andtled to litigsse reseau that am moedal to the C *
's basemas demi-("'i },*[ sism, Pisisly met every musspus'y plemung alan == need les eusammend, and asahing is ear opuman shedd be -
- y. ?k,,',",e e- ,' .
, . 1, ,," esusmund as almadang that shassses enessgemry pisamag enemmes are er are est messunal
.3 '
, : w.J .g . ' .
. 1 g,' p* ,
3 . a ; r~
,.y -.
- > . 1' I
.; "a m i. Y
..p .
142 i'. 1 p *' ) .L
.. . .? ,- ,,[, y ,
1
, - $. ' 4 ,3 ,,. ' g e
-,r
(.
' ,y. , .,
.~&,,c/..?.,1, .'y ' . &. 4d ' . .je. .,. w i . u.,-----
' [. y.. V ;; .r
, . . p;t;l.;. -. .g *ys- s*
m---w *L . ,, T{ w g
, . ., a -*
a *
.. .a
.s p g , ~!f:,.
;,}v*
gs
,,./.,n,',_. '.,'.7 t
.,,, 3 o
aw;f,,"y, .
,* , 4 +
a# i* I* [ "
*.- r,
' j j, g ( , y h *4" *
'4 s ) c,/
; 4,* [' ' Q . , .;'[Q.[ h!'G *'*4 ,,/7 f>y6,, *,*f
'7. iv%.si-,m% .'% 1.' 2 ' , 7' . ' '
ie .
, . "
- f. ' y 7' ,, , r:r"
&., ',,-, , y.T. 3' , R. 3 . 4P nf, ' . . .'4, ' .g,i q p 'W~y. l h.-- r ,,.- , .
4 v.., _ ,, 41 '%:n g*EQ,. -g .,c . . -
*t.. : *** 1* '; ':% *,: '
. ',sr
[hY?Y" , :.&g.o"&y. ;h'.$hh.$ ^ ' u l. l l,5, ~ . . . Q,W. , f.. .h N
. , $.. N ?f,W ~
r .K
. . , . , , +
- s s i o c .. i . , .- - .., 4 c . ,.,
f.[... l, r . f*. -y I Q r..'*; - : a. , '.
.(N} * ' '" . ,.:
, , j .. { .
'C '.t 7 k. [n*,pp ' $,/' '.F 'h t .7 / ' ~ I Q. . , ' S'.,' "O '" ' ' ' j~1 i-f
- ., f,,'. r y : ~ m.
, ' c m
- n. .. . s ,t .
, s., 3s -C, ,. ..
a:-
,y . . ;;y ,;. a y. :., y 2 c y. ::;.
, 'w .
.: .: 9. Lu.,.- , .
,s ~ .r -
. .g ; :
- u. .
~
. .~
i,; L. . a;; ..
,.y:;< ~, ,.c. , . ,t a ,
y
. ;u - s ,.;
. 4;fr . ~ "
; p < ,- ,
'f .g; . ,
i.+.,.- , , g '.
, I, .- -3 -(t ,
,. s agency consultation and, perhaps, modification of the current Memorandum of ,,
N '-l '
, , ~
q Understanding. That Memorandum provides in pertinent part: ,
. ' - .. . . ,.l T.. J , * .
, . g.- .p. . .
,. - ,, s.
l C. Preparation for and Evalmuime of /oiar Ewcases. FEMA and NRC will cooperate ,
.li '
,; N ? [. .y v .[e. -.,.1, a.
., in determining exercise requirernents forlicensees Staae and local governmeras. 'Ibey will .'4 .;, . 'z ;g; q ..,;-.;; p l
.'. 6 also jointly observe and evaluate exercises. NRC and FEMA will institute procedikres to.
enhance the revww of the objecuves and :=aanos for joirs exercise:. ' Ibis review is to
.o.,'.H,,
. c oc ' h. '
Li t. -;p
'. ,a s , . !su i.,. ,, .
I assure that both the onsite considerations of NRC and the assits amsiderstaans of FEMA
~
M. u 7", ,' , p ~' , . ; > ,, . ~ . ,
->; L ***
- are adequatrJy addressed and insegisted in a manner that will provide for a int hnir any sound exercise upon which an assessment of r. . t e. capabilities can be based.' f , i ,' g,* Ys *,f(p.',,'9;
' l-7I?.
M .i Y-r,",i ,.9 ,J,1y, ;,*
.. Li ._u ~ :,. ., ;s
.. , ' . ., ,- t
, ...s ', ..a
.s .
g< , . ,,t. ,.... . c, . 4 While the Licensing Board, in assessing LILCO's compliance with applicable p .*. ,
- i . ' l?.5; ;,.,.~. .; , ,
;, 'e -
[f'. . P ;;. .p , / , ~.' NRC regulations, may find at the end of the case that the features selected i by FEMA for testing are insuf6cient to allow LILCO to demonstrate compli- ',, , ' . .e M'.'- ance with the Commission's regulations (whether it will do so, of course, is [ ..,
'Q* ', , ;.' *'-. f,~ .? .;' .; ; , , f.o
.~ '.,;a'a ) ,.. i ? -
pure speculation at this stage), it cannot direct any changes in FEMA's pro- a ', " . gram. Only FEMA and the Commission, acting together, can bring about such
, .l C**. .,3,4 ,ff Q w '.y.
I
,1 _, .
changes. Thus, nothing that the Licensing Board has done - or, indeed, could 'Y ' 9 d' Y ;'f! l 'Y.LP ', do - can unilaterally injure FEMA's administration of its emergency exercise .
', T4 ," ("~ , ; [ ,
, .;.,d ., ,. }
program.' ,. ;;,.;. ; . . ,. p. a - i~ . , -
~
, ',, , f**. ' >
i
),sL . e ' _ . g ..
l '. , , , .. : ,, .;
+
e
= <e n . .. a.
- v. .
. , .r , . . .e . , , .
.v-n ; .
,i t. .
4 , i, , . . , si;
. ~ %.
] sup
./r* -
's:
.-4
, . ,,e . , ,'.
,$ , ; i . > :.. . :
. e. s o,. . .
. a.e,,. ,.
. ..i i,
s ,
.~.i
'., ,,. . ;.j- - , .
f s . ',,i. , m' .' 't , j. e . , s , .. , ., y . i s .-. t *. .
. ...s .,
4 l +. ..cf
.- n.%, t
,.y-3 ;: , ,4.. 4
.1 ;'
- s '. W r ig , " * #J , ;'% ' */ *
,c y -
,. .- ..p,,, , . ; . ,l~ , *\.
...,.'3,',v c. ...
1 . v " . .',:{ d: * *. n g4 *- c i .>
. N, r. - , ,c ..' . , y.....,r..,,,
,5 .,. . .. .;. .
)., , .,.- ,
. f. ' $.'. a
.- '- 4
. - a z
. e='y, ., ,- < ..h', ['.
s 54, Fed. Res. 15.445, 15,437 0 9:5). l,";. [,; i' y , ,
, k, , 4 9' .h,
'I appeciam tha applicant's oilmmrna in bang recured to foDow en eseremo densn omaW by FI:MA (with *. , l * ,. ;' '..* 4
;' ' * '.*> -Q
,- 1
.'j J NRC sta5 approval) that may mrn out to be insuf5cias to pernst camphanas with NltC - ; Bxa surely i .',' f -* ** My '. - j N, .' k
'3 ,
the um= m that dilmmma cannat be in sunply faraclamns svarvenas at the Gueshold fmcs saempung m
; 4.nonsu = es. v. utro pt aosi not maa .pplic.bi. comm segut norm. O,.,f j.
. - . '.g,;. ,,
7' ;, ,. Q '. q ., . ;[,'
;W
-i
,)
,e *t
' g ' .,. '.,,0., , ,6. , * .1 2 , A ,, m E , .t p '# .f ,
. - , , . , .'f
?j 4
. - Q ,. .
143 i
.) . .,
vi .j i lI
, e
,'5~-.
, ja
,- , .d. , * ,- . .
{ . A 'g' e
* .g ,
e
, i. . -. * -
,+
.-} ,j
',?, %.
- gI [,
u . s, n . 4
,,a n4 4'
g s
,- f -
'w*-
'r,'
e * /
, . q g ,
%,' M ,
',',l 'g, - ', *
' ; f, f. ] .
Y Y ~,h Skh.';, .../ & k.'.'f y.;- , f . 'f%' $: f. Yk M,h~N.,bw(th t
$..M~ ,M, @@ .
* .M n$h : kNM6 . n .
N..n DM.glan.NM_$k 3
- ...h: .. ____.aa_2_______ st - =w. . . . % e aw e.... _ _ _ _ __ _ . . _ 1
v . . . u. - .
..-.......a am : a .. a a a :.u a u.....~. .
~
Y .
.4 ..L
- ,,: .Y N
%h.h,j..,,s y.sq -. .* s41 ass;. .-:.*;r y .:y n.Q,A*2 :4,h.h y.u :,$r,.,
;;3 c'rue. ,.
. ); $Q ;[y,
*)*
4 w, im: > + *
.'m,.... .
0 *
.':,,w. ,
f.,: , s3_ s .- . , ?.. . ::
. , ,s< .
.t N,
] ' n , - ,, ,,LS: <?
.f .a .
Q . . O Q, . ,, . , : %;y.%.
., ..r ..Y y';'^.,,.i " .\.
%y.y M..
y_[h.. .," .< qgy p .,', Q ;,: y?. " :>*;iW ~; g y';.f..Q ;,% f.i. , n
*3, a:.,
.- 5
.' ,~.,y;y.)g.
g .g ,
.,.g ; .c g _.M #ff J. ' 1 J,. . . e. . . . ., ,.':~.#m. .:# ' -
t-. .x:
. ' '3. : *, ' , J. a. : , .e. . {M
's t :( <
.o
..cy
, ;,, 4.
, ,, , 4 >
>. . ; .- ..,,.c 5
... ; 4 +
b 9 .1
- e. . /
p- .
', ,- - .t - V . - '. Cite as 25 NRC 144 (1987) ALAB-862 ~
t , *
- . '. .< .3
.e. i.
. - e- . .o t..;. :; . -
J l.7 y, ,, - , . g' a . -
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :-
, . .c l . .
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . rl 7.., -
re d4 ; '-? ? ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD fr
. < . . .~
.4 - p#
af-I i . ,- v. ej
. Administrative Judges: h, ,
J, g) l~ Alan fi. Ro.senthal, Chairman ,! t ' "
,j Gary J. Edles ,j
- Howard A.Wilber ,,'
e .. .
.4 3
- I j in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 443-OL d 50A44-OL j l ~
', (Offsite Emergency Planning)
- i. .
,, . 1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMF ANY OF 1l 2, 1 NEW HAMPSHIHE, et al. q
^
* (Seabrook Station, Units 1
.j and 2) March 30,1987 )
a - . 1
. The Appeal Board affirms a Licensing Board order denying a United States ;
,7, ".. .
Senator's petition frt leave to participate in this operatmg licensing proceeding l lc,*. , .:4 .,: ;- l . h, y.. ,.ty , t t,..I ,+ . as a representative of an " interested state" pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c). The , l r .. : , . Appeal Board, however, allows the Senator's panicipation in the proceeding as ., '. i 1 an amicus curiae. l
- i. - , , .
q ,, ,}
- l. ,
. J' .'- RULES OF PRACTICE: LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENTS ,j l .,, < s .w - .. . ; e
.;5 .;, ; Persons mahng limited appearances are not parties to the proceeding and ,
j l.- (":.t; ;' ,. .,, .,g i "T..- .
.]1 have no participational rights in it beyond the offering of a written or oral M,f(..ya 9, .c . M.r# .. statement. Rtrther, that statement is not part of the ofScial record of the ,j t,' , lyl
- p N.s, . !, % c, . ~. ' , -
proceedmg. ;
, ,* ,$**Of g .
- y -,
h- .
, ; , .c , w .5 , .,, .. , , , y.
, .. , .N ' w-
' ..a, y , g;,,. ....f.,.
g Faf'a .a t . , . - Ac v .: s,
, , 2 to s..~ '
.f.
*q #4
+ . E;
.%.,i
..E
. ' .g
. ,e i
j 'l e w j
?
.a ' .b , l a
a 144 I
. .- r j (
. - . ., i e,E p
,, 1 ., N l
,'" a. xJ 4
4
- - . . . ,m ---,y.--* , . . , . , . v. . ;.; ,..y . p. .{
,L,. , - * ., *.
;. ,f,,W.f*i, ,- . ,
, ,, .g..' 71 . &, ,, ., , , i h.*,g[ .
i .
, 4 ,
, ' . . . ,p- , +
"g [,',. 6
' 9; -
1 r- ', ,g -A ., j ( .fp :,) .. . 3. ~ ,: k
- f j, y;
.h.,2,,: ., ' .,
y .. .y. #. .. ,, ,. .s ,
<. ] '. ". [ .<.qs. g,..,,,c , . ..:j
; . ;9.
, , 3
.#.la @rf3.,,.t..-- , .. . . ,e ' ,: (, t ... J. -. ,3 ' .e
. "-Q*: ~, .
. v' . e ..Na Fe ,
,.ei.v.4.
'.?.)'( ki ;.
3 . .~ . en g . . . . R, .eU' ' , y. , .qf.. l k t . p. &;l ? l ~*,% * 'l'
".h' *
,,,,.',s..s
. g. t ,g,
, ,'* y t 6*
,,,k, W.e .
- . k., f,1, , n '*
.~, *, ;,-
* ** ' .,' i a' g,. , , __ ,., ,
. n u. . m i
3- , e , ,
t _
.o ~ !; : .- ;i M .
C. s n ..
, , %. ,nGK. . f+ 3., . . : ,. . .i& n< ,., . ,n,,;a.n %a ;.+Y, W Y I
- Q::F.. l, .':3g 4
. ~.~, f ,. ./e t. .;
.. . .. v .
C ,. 9- . o_ e y ,..
- w:
, i , {' . ,
.s , l s.. -
.r .. .y
.4. ,-y
.ct
,.. ,s : , . c . .:, *
/. M 's 4 9; .y. .I . t.. .C , .<
= ,L 3 ~.
l,.' ,,
- u..
*' s '. 7, ' ,w' .. t. j.,i f f *
. d $ .b;. o,
.7
. / i' *-
~ / . . .M ' . d .;'*[ r. ;,,/; J L .' e Q. v./ ' ~ ,.[, ,.,
-*9 _ '. .
1~ y _;4 1
., e .-
s s . .. . , .
. s.
,1, . < >
.,s -
s n . . , s RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERVENTION BY A STATE . ~ y9 4
'l '
,.s-.
3 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c) was promulgated to carry out the congressional directive ,. :. . :'? , ' :.{ / c g, W// : . h '.l J. A,MW;-y/,.{.@,. . .; c. q j
'l that, in the furtherance of cooperation between the Commission and the states, an
,q opportunity be provided to the representatives of interested states to. participate k .; ,' . f;; Q'w, , .
. . ;.u in the adjudication of license applications. It is reasonable to assume that the p .{,.;* y4,7 A;jg q,g u,'. gorp
; legislative contemplation was that the concerned state, and not the NRC, would t. 3 7 z.f,S.;'..g ;M.:y.#p-J.p .M;.g 1 make the decision respecting who is to serve as its sph= H.W.*-<.,. h. 'R.' % mwd Ll,.*g[.,7 :..aj' .
j . , ~..s
.4c- @ ; e ,, %. f.,.'w .
.: PWh. r
- v. , *. ;, . w, .: ' . - - a . ., , w - ,
e
.. a; .nu/l ,n.li N,T V.).
.d RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERVENTION ? 'G'sf. .;a-> >,,. w',n...m. c, W s e, m . -
c In contrast to a representative of a governmental body who desires to ..// ,'t'. ,-[.%ffc.*. *~t (,y.Q $N
.I
-l 1 participate without party status under the aegis of 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c), a person seeking leave to intervene must (whether a private citizen or a public official) g,- ;- -' ' (f) m- . i . '. ' T , ,
- pmvide the Licensing Board with a list of the contentions he or she wishes to f, i . . .'.'n. ,. , , '. f - C[ .
js G, - /.L. . ',\ s litigate, together with a statement of the basis for them.10 C.F.R. 2.714(b). ! ; l*J 7 7. 3 ,, [ . s ,
- . . ..,f. '.,. . f..n, .,,e t-; r y. s
,, .. . . .4 . . . .
. .n.,.._. t, ,. ,.,....
e .
.*..?... . , .'....
e RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEF (AMICUS CURIAE) ' ;L f.,@sl n; . ..,v . d. 7.'.
- 4. . '.' , -i...
.. h . . p. , . , .
'Ihe Commission's Rules of Practice explicitly refer only to the seeking of > r. : M. -
3.6 6 '--
',', .; T '
k, ' ','f N,'.5.' . j"' f. ',.W leave to file a brief amicus curiac before an Appeal Board or the Commis. . -
,a sion. But this consideration does not perforce preclude the granting of leave in l j. .*J
- 4 appropriate circumstances to file briefs or memoranda amicus curiae on issues { ', ' 6 / .' ,)' ' MS .Q4W,4l 1 f . .
'i of law or fact that still remain for Licensing Board disposition. .[ , _ . ', ". e '.n1 [ Y '
, . a. . - o . , ,.c t _- ,
- 3. ,
'y RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEFS (AMICUS CURIAE) :!
' 'o , , .g.. p - -
i ., ,- .' t, ;l,7. /
'? There is no real difference between an appellate brief amicus curiac and [ l,
- V ' ,',,
a brief or other submission presented to a trial tribunal that is confined to a '- g
', ;a 7 * . *
+
y discussion of (1) legal issues that have been presented to that tribunal by the r*'C$ +
- f. . -.< [ q
,;s parties; and (2) factual issues covered in evidentiary hearings. 'Ihe crucial factor ! . ,, 9 ; . , 1 is that, regardless of where it files its brief, an amicus curiae necessarily takes b . '/,/ 'l ' , v. 1 i ', ,f a ;
,d the proceeding as it finds it.
. c . .- T' ~; ,.; ,. s, N y, 3..
..g .
-I e
- y. L ;
; .;* ' a. ..w. :,._..'-
c
). >
1,
.j RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEF (AMICUS CURIAE) I .N:N. . . . ..c,:a[,~',u# N,~ l..!'.h v jy,. .'.N.II . ... yl (j .s ., , . .
1 @4 ~%',fm* :e " Q.. m . . :.; a . An amicus curiae does not have the right to appeal adverse decisions. - .
,^.J
< , .,J of . c,. .., . e, , ' '% - i f,f';.
% . . .p -t@. ,(',f,e,;
. c-4 C; . ^, . g., )
If ',. 's If m r 9', .. . ., ,q:*j; y , , , ,
.c
. '. . Z ,1,,-'. m ,
~ w; . ;~ .4
..o +
I v
.g,-
1 C ,q,.
- t
?
- a. g. , .-. . $y "? ,,cJ Q ; , p,. .g d
,') ' 4,c,- % , . ' *. s. ', % . e'r. . .,. ;
.4 N '% t',,
.# l l.
,' N * % '. t[
- h.*.! '
, >[ , 6 ' , ' .* . ! . p'..y,.y );, ' ' [,. . ;*
u e+ . ; w;3,. :,.eg.m.,, r, f .-
;. . h.
4 9
,u%
"' , Y . ,e T", ,' . l ' . ' .Y E h.'. <
^4.3 145 .
. tr 6, . .,
f 1 q ' y n' , s i m
) ;?. .s .
i ,. . 1 .,1n -
. i 4.,
r ,
* ,.*, .r <
) -
( m
,j.-. - .
4 . . . ,
,..tu
.,' t)Nf '. ', f p,/u y , ,,* y
- 3, , E.. i
% g " L, .
H'
' , l,,v.. Y s,
. . .?
.r"',,F',.-
* *,h' 3.; ' f,4 w
,g , ( {>. ,t* .v',
i4
. A - . j; %g .. y. w
- m. .
*. . . ,4 : p.g 4
.I.
. X [* ,
,-' W .b0 \ ... ,g , f* [k$ 2,* y ,
$; $sj$$QWWM$%$@,$,*)..'i@*
___.-_a.Aw1ussAm^.mu..--- w-_. sm . s - -m.- s e.ar..ma - , . - - . ._-.--...a.- . . _ . _
',l@h'*,h .
l
. .. . . . - . _ . _ . . -.__.a...2a .u.aa2..r u a.e --" " " -e+- .-
i f ,
,, a b ) ,
k,f. ,'.
. -m. . . + .
?f f,?l4,) f r&.?.h?. [- .
e.;'~--',s1...y.. .m
.' . :h: ,x", ;.:3,l.
.m.
~
, _.hf. 0'" .
k
- m. .
*3 . .
- a. i
. ~
^
' . w" '
. .+
.r
.:~<,e( ,
,, . .+rg<. &: *, q, ,J ." *A. .%,V
- .s .
;w&n. g{. ;.: .e'
.,a..c ,
a y,. u... m.qay %. : r.,..;x. ...
~.;-,. v>
.a * , m . .co e
.s ..'
'y# , .
.?,..
. . . .,,l .:.,N.
}. ,7 ' '.' Qln T ; & s .<%.:'.t *th APPEARANCES ;
mh q
..x; > 6;.i@q :.g2.
United States Senator Gordon J.' Humphrey, Washington, D.C., appellant o . . , . e e. . , 1a , , . .Y.. ,f pro se. }t
. u.g.. m. ey> . :av......>
e, :.- iq : +n.,. . ms
+
~ .
?
,
- S, Ne?[w'.$ f M !Georgeshire. Dana Bisbee, Concord, New Hampshire, for the State of New Hamp-w:l j
- f. [.. . . a.j,.k.x,'*.j, '*.]A
~ r ..
jv [' ... *c.s. [.f.. , 71 S M,, ' %..I .;g.Massachuseus,
.:M. Thomas 'G. Dignan, Jr., R.K. Gad, DI, and Kathrya A. Seueck, Boston, 73./ [
. . . .. ~. n for the applicants Public Service Company of New w.
, r - ' " _f,. :'.Wl.~ . W;r Hampshire, et al.
. . ,a..,: e. n . . . .., y :.' .a. y
- v. .. '..t, . ' ,'m;. ;"T.g .cSherwin , .
- e. 'dE. Turk ? for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. Ip
, ,r ..
. .- .:.. ..3.x.. .,.t.a. m.
' ~
. . ,... <. , m. .
v. DECISION b
-:r.! "w.s .s. .b.' . 'i
- s v. ;
.v .n . .. . g:.
. . x. .e .
l
^ -
('j J .' O A. Befost us is the appeal of United States Senator Gordon J. Humphrey of . k. *
- ' - hs New Hampshire from the 1.icensing Board's February 11,1987 memorandum
. 8?,
and order (unpublished) in the offsite emergency planmng phase of this operating j_
.'1 ..a . ..
license proceeding involving the Seabrook nuclear facility. In that order, the- v 1
~~~
.';'-lf .'~Fj Board denied the Senator's petition for leave to participate in the proceeding 7
- % i . j.5:j;.iMG.; under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c) as the representative of an " interested . '
, .;. .;;, N s.g' M Q .] State"(i.e., New Hampshire).8 '!he basis of the denial was that section 2.715(c)
- p. i Q ,g.3$/M.j;j!
l . .' ,.@ .'.l Jr
" contemplates that a government unit of a State, county, municipality or agency will be provided a forum for expression of concerns" and that the Attorney l ; . V. ;,U - qqc ?Jf-]
~
General of New Hampshire is participating in the pihding under the section
-: . : II "as an agency of and on behalf of the State" and, as such, represents its interest?
V ~ J . *., '!l d{.<TA.@ . .
?,,..: .. e k;, f.JP. .-q<- h.4 4.s. ".r.i.'..4i
..'"'**'t.. -
. . In this connection, the Board noted that the section does not confer status upon
'.; 9 an individual simply because he or she holds otBce in one of the governmental .J
. . ' ' ;y' ' ,}h* ,C ,. C.g. N '.,h j
.; units named in it (i.e., state, county, municipality or an agency thereof)?
O
- ,;. f. ..,, ;' .;:,e.yD; -J : J
. , . . e.~ .-
- s.y%;; % * *:3
+ .;^ .,
4 .<-['I,h;l4'--)'.d.h.$@t.c;
<.,3.-
- e. ,:. .
b/ h I i seni.1715 is es m a se.many wish p e,.nen hiNac - drr= by a pesan met a pasiy." subsumen '-
.., :,n ,;. . . <*c . . .- Q.:. i;n (e) p=ide = reus.= '
. f:y.
. %}.) ' ..
- 3. y, .c v 7, .. ir ' 'Y*;U W'.". 7 4.l.' 7 The psendiss aiseur win esesd sspessomsoves er en humsmed senes emumy. ---- '
;.andieressames >0
.q ,jp.,F. 8 hacer, a snuseeMe appeemahy in peampses and is immedens N haaruses wunassa, and advies
;,.e .
. .c. .N4 g'g:; /.f jpS; ? @y ..
t
. ...- en commesem wisham saganns es upssammaava m inks e penden won aspes m me issue, sah
. i.*, '" . , ,
panssipens may also sis proposed druimies and onespues resumess se 651754 and 1762 and panness
-<.,- . 1, -j..a..3 A. .A #- ,{!@ ' ,* ror seve* by es connusman piumem m $17e6. The psesides esseur may sapaso such sepassmaaive U
. /D .af t- w 3d.M;/g., . . n'f ;tpf.6/ y '
,
- imemen wah masenobis opensany. in advene er sin humas.me mobjam n=== en which he demum
+- , .c -
to l='=r-
'1 q
q
,n- *,M... .p.;,"?;f ~h
- f.:b.(;'[.Yd*g
- , r ? .d-d.' aj T. !g*,:
Sg N d.3'H.Febauery m s. 11,1987 samnesundamm and ender a 4. 5 '- r - in anM a
,, ): .. * .* 11, 3 , f.. ,/,..s. $ 2 ir ; ,
,a
. -.o.
- a
.,s,=.,.
1 a. 1 .
., . ' . .'g
.y
- 1.,9 {.e
- ss s ..j. p. )}
\ * .6 ,.p,
*1
. J 7., , - .' Q, "j q [' j ,~ '
146 j 4
.ul.
..}
'j b
- m ::, -
,. s= j.4 '. "- j t'*h, '
- 4. * ,
4,//. . * .. -r n : y . .- . o" s 7 r
.. s."'.- a. .
- g g,.a ,ee,h.). . 's.*. ,. 4
; .' > + **,
' f: lgn q*j ., a f
. 4
,. N .* *.
'8, ,,,.-.=*.==v.- . +e - -a + .e**.* .F g*. * , * * * * = = =
s
-'t .***7..~ es.e t **
F ~ n..,3 t n .. ". a, .. .e . ' . - ,' , .yg. s , . ; e . !. y~. 4 ;
~
a. _~ .
..a
%, .~' y -
, ~ v. n , a 7 +* . ?.,~<*,..'./ .R.L ~ ' . ; ./ ! j . ", R
./ _. -%5*
W > perf t', " (. - fle,', y,: 'e), .'gfi s ' c '. i'. ,{,.
, ,t..
- i. . ,,e i
"'
- F ;* ,
cJh , ? , 4, c . ';; . 4 ,f, T. 3 , a. . q. ..).m ,p s.;,,A
,) .. . . . .
,d;ua^,v,., 'c. ,g. . .,. 0. . m. .a d- . ,
# m. .
j
, . . % [ ' J pg. , - J . . . . {% * . ;te, t . ., i
.,.,s
.,@.' te .d f 7 '.. d .$'786. *,h
; ,',g. ,t .;y7;*.
,.q.,g;%
. m, g,"3,.;e.
4 m..b g A ps ~ + ,p& b.}.y!,
. r . ;P 1., t ... 3, .T .< n . 7p. : <?f i, r. . c .
.. . a s .# . .s - - . . ~..
; . P. c ! tg .g:
.. . -r . ._
(v. 4'. , , ,. . ...,. 'n.
-t 6.g- , ,
[. ,~ s .. :. . .. n >
.c ~.' .. , a ., <.,,,..y ,
y -e i.., . ; p p?.),., ; ;
...+.-3,
- ;. y t,
.e
. . L, r.
3.. 1 3;.
,3
,. c . ; .-
. , s, 9a- .
%<L. \ , 6 t;..,, >- .. : 9 .,. '
y o-g,c
,- ,f m -
-)..- .
j , . , : .; . c,p- 1' n 1 a , . .. q
. L.
t s\ -
~ ..
.M 4 .. ,
, q.
, . ,. f < ,
, ,, ,< w y. .,
p
~ i. (: c. ~. -e . . . a V. ' r ' - , :.:.*_ . - *
.iu. , y e
; u. . - t,.u - -
i, t 4 l- , . . . ,- *.g - 4'
, ?.*- . 1 1
s i s !
- i, e' " {
In his appellate papers, Senator Humphrey does not dispute that die Attomey ,; '
' - -~
,.l 5 General is participating in the proceedmg as a representative of New Hamp- - / >. :
- shire. But the Senator insists that, with regard to a particular " interested State," p. i,. ,,, p " ', , , f
- 3 ., e. j p ,,' 1 ; 'j section 2.715(c) envisions "the participation of a multitude of representatives [* '/I P; . V'i N.ZN * , i holding diverse views."' On this score, he stresses that the scope of his repre- p. T ',,, ' 4 J. $ $ l.[l M M ~ d '
sentation of New Hampshire in the United States Senate extends beyond "[v]ote {,.- W,'.,.' 7 <g '4~5~&,2d, "q Ei'(,'fl casting and committee activity" and embraces the protection of the " interests of , K ., ~,;*'.N T. e' .'_'i ,T. g "
", Qle%:!.,1 7? 1..fr.
. . < ~ . -, 7 ., f.
his state as to all matters, particularly those relating to the federal government, within the scope of his authority and influence, whether or not they appear to be
]':,.Q'j,[' .-d' [ '. a <- .
g ,'Q , FT,1l{.
' K '?",(f ci c
, F f i ;
or are affected by federal legislation "5 We are also reminded that the Senator and the Attorney General have different " jurisdictional responsibilities," and that the fr: '. . - % [
~ Q ;4. < %,.:'.'
?yf '
'j;] j j former,"as the State's highest representative to fedeml office, can represent the ( ' .
.V
.J.' l State's interest from a different vantage point than can the Attorney General."* l.*' ,,
.T I, !q
$ Thus, the Senator concludes, his participation would appropriately supplement j r . ,' . - 'i
. , @I~4 - ! ,
that of the Attorney General and " effectively maximize the protection of New p ,l" .: *
. _ , ? ,'s,. q .
Hampshire's interest."' p l ,. .g,..,.,t.,. . p , ,p,. ;f p ,t'..,.yjg ,.a" New Hampshire, the applicants, and the NRC staff have responded to the " o ',8? ' ' ~ f A, ,' . appeal. In his brief on behalf of the state, the Attorney Generalinforms us that, [j .%./; . [ *.,'w' ( under the statutory and common law of New Hampshire, he is the " chief legal . f '; , s .
?
[p. %, ,< ' ,- officer" of the state and serves as the " exclusive representative of the state as , if , a government entity in civil matters such as [this] proceeding."' The Attorney , 1.: ' . . , , c,y_ General therefore is of the view that, given prior I.,icensing Board decisions, . ?, , , the Senator would not appear to qualify as a " representative of an interested ,
" W" '
State" for section 2.715(c) purposes. Nonetheless, the Anomey General does not b
'~'.
oppose the Senator's " participation in this proceeding in his official capacity on , behalf of his constituents under Section 2.715(c)if the Appeal Board so allows, h
" , s
, or under [10 C.F.R.) 2.714(a)."' '
The applicants urge affirmance of the result below on the ground that*sec. j. , tion 2.715(c) "does not contemplate state representation in Nuclear Regula- ,.g , , ,; , 'f ' ' 7 tory Commission proceedings by a member of Congress."S 'nicy add, however, j' . P that they "do not oppose the Senator's participation in the proceedmgs by way - '.
- - - 4
- s
, * (( l*
- m e.... ,
; r t!:
K, ,, .e., . s{
'U.s. senstar oordan J. Ihanpuey Basfin suppurt of Appeal 0:sbmary 27.1987) at s. . h r. ,' ~ , - w r ' -' :" M th.
3M st 4.
,/1 f.' " . d ' ' ';
- io5 I '.'
,f* ' c 6M at 6 7. b '
- M-['7 f **'"- [ . # ( " "' !
7M at 56,7. h**t.'
^
- Ji+ ' . 45' ,'. .p"4 , ' ; Y'd,;'
a Bnef of the suis of New Hargehne in Response to Appeal er U1 senator oordan J. Humphrey (Match 1s. ,y,'
. ' - .s
, 3 vi, t l ' 'y N . , l s ', ,.. v.
.,,. . r*j'; ', p(G2q
; 1987) at s, s. , .
'M at 6. secuan 2.714(a) is the proyuann in the Ruler d Pincues goverums p=aia = for naeve are uservens .,- , ,
,' ',c*,},.,g-- 4U I as a full pesty. Any such penuan at this la.o dans would be enumely and could be stemsed only en a favorable !, .rp., a
,.i- f. 3,,,, .' f M,e;
,a ,,
,, o *]* . ;.; . 3.,
A,,,,r a
) balancans d the facines specaAed in that secuart e,. -,
8Appheants' Responsa to Puunan af U.S. seneiar oordan J. Hurnphrey (March 16,1987) at 1 ,' , . y. ...,p,' .j 4 .'9 l , y . s = l * ?r} '
* ' r }.
k - - ,
- 147 "
, ? -,
,0.
. g ..
i- g N 9 I ['
. . l.' .
'*g e N . ' a -
g , y '...n ~ -
.- - < r ., - '
, , o 7 a, ; -
-^ J, m.
. . . e A. . w v. ,
A. r .- g, , , q.,
,, l
- t , ' . ,. , .,,, l
.' ; & t [' 'h , . , ; ' i' a ; ,
h* h..', [O f ,Ik , M,h.~<.}f,,k,,[lM,J.I,,[.{M I @,.Q-@..+n.mv 4@q,Q ,$ - 9, p@a@m@,n@mu.gJm$,p$p$mgy%g.S
$$ M
_ _ ~ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ ~ _ _ - _ _ _ _
a .. . w.~ . _ . . a.o n...m u w .mw. ... r a w :a.a. ?:) X&~.y., ,Q. u. . . ;. 4. .a ,s a..
.
- ma.: . , .h ~;v .;.M i h M. , M "' Wh{ hf? Q Q [v.c.-y, h,.:M ,
j'.&. . Jf.*h.'p&'f.W ~$n' [.,; U '
- j. ' i'd t jd;Vf '
' . ' . ' d!Z (.. '.O ' M'MQ W ,g E' ? ! i -
.. h, ep.Vh,.,~ "" .
..* ;.,$$5~f< < . . - ..,%'
W .' l .,' ~ j?g.. l
. . >.y . ?.~,$>,v?
s
,.m
- o. .. . w** s .
- -" .- .,.k*
- 5'~**
,7 *l5.).,, ; .,,'M . - *
, . . ,q e,
p i." p 4 .a-3, 2,., 3 .+ ..-. n.
. .p.,
. l. .;.r. . . . .. vx . ,.
, r .9. .
.; ;p.t e ,.,. ~,c: -,.' , i ,, >
' 1 a *..v ,.
; . .,v y r. par ef -
.j
< ..i -~ < 1 4 g. W .y ,... ,
.,.4
~ . 4 Nfg')y.r. .f.9- .' of a late-filed petition to intervene or a limited appearance."" For its M
[y T the staff similarly maintains that section 2.715(c) was not intended to provide
.;.?D. . T 3. MM ;c 6'., J@4,n.N
- e. f.i' , , f, .' i.
2 y=iii,ipssonal rights to members of Congress and, consequently, the Senator's y]j [9,9 i p f M ,@Di:'Ti*... 9.'.,J.J'..N' j petition was correctly denied. . f~ ..' ' - ? '.S B. We afGrm the ! i=*ii Board's disposition of the matter. Ihr reasons M d, 2.fj5M.>-N'U$.1
- that will appear, however, the Board should nevertheless allow the Senator to l.
' pr $.p,7s. / y.i.1. 9 . r, ;.l T ..*]ej present orally or in writing, as apr erists, his views as amicus curfac on any -
G.'., 9,.? 9 legal or factualissue p_- M by the pleadmgs of the parties or the evidentiary M@ N
'c
' f- K.'(qM? f[f;;'f.5 I. [
- f *k.-N $d$.h 9 record.
- y. , .
. 1. For present purposes, we need not consider whether, as Senator Hum-W.J. .f$$. ..94$ .;; 7'i . , k.,i phrey urges, the Rules of Practace permit mom than one individual or entity to {*A participate .in an NRC licensing proceeding as a wr-==ive of a particular :, .j
. 2f7 g;7 7.'i',g,f.f.l;.Ny * ' ., f..y %:. . ,., .l ] f.-j ,m .*i interested state. Nor is it necessary to decide .whether, as the applicants and ,
.. l staff assert, in no circumstances can a member of Congress qualify as such .
.. ' Y !:i l 0 1 .;i .;! '$ f ,. " . Y a rep., .; ive. For, no matter how those questions might be answered, the i'. l
' y'6.,,. :. .4, ]h .i W . 2.*y'/.{ :
....,.;, Wyf.' required result would be the same. M
.b E-c , ' . c'.
4
,, , 'i . . As previously noted, the Attorney 0:.neral of New Hampshire has informed (,
. , d . /.? ;'. c, .4 ' . -
. 4 us that, under the law of that state, he has the exclusive authority to represent *j
,.;3.f , -l' f *
- . the state in this proceeding. We accept, as we must, that advice. Assuredly, in
~ ' *
.r;.?, '. ?i .~ q the absence of a controlling contrary judicial precedent, it would be unseemly . 3
' I q. .;
~*
y .
~ ,
, ; at best for a federal agency to take issue with the interpretation given by the .]
c 'j . / . , 5;- ! chief legal officer of a state to the law of that jurisdiction. In this instance, no j
.- W..M, ...;7~..,. ,>J l party has directed our attennon to a New Hampshire judicial decision bringing ; . ;.p $.'r .*d y.M *%, . , -@. <
1 the Attorney General's inte,rd ion into possible question. . . o ,
/ ,,'..;,j'-lv.7 4' fj,r '
. We are equally persuaded.that considerations of comity dictate that.we de- l t ;ig.Af. h. f c 'i . *
, fer to New Hampshire law on the matter of what person or persons should be -
7.,j h-l.; ~;.j' J. H.f.il - 's. ',,: deemed to speak for the state in our licensing proceedmgs. Section 2.715(c) was j
-*".5 MM.MS7 promulgated to carry out the congressional directive that, in the furtherance of f.b'.$ h.'..Q:y.
y;q. . .- se "-j cooperation between the Commission and the states, an opportunity be provided j W,1 ?Qf 'y",. .f:..
- e' a to the representatives of interested states to participate in the adjudication of L.
,j .I W.f &
.[, '?
4 .. d license applications." It is reasonable to assume that the legislative contempla - -) ' tion was that the concerned state, and not this agency, would make the decision
'; e. M.:
- .n :a.':a f.!.".. ...,?..- ..? %..? ~.. . .
i
~
i c ~l x*'t."'
.fy, . <Mr.) $.[ .; ,slj w: '. - ... g:[/"',',,..u.A q.
H ld at 3. ' Die limmend appearenes posesse is en fenh in 10 CEA 2.715(e) see also esonen m(b) of 4 4,e. l .'"c .'. ., .. t ' / . g y p, .a . O Appendia A in 10 CEA Part 2. Penans usaking lirnised appearamens ese est perums to the proomsdans and ,
,' s d...- (* . /G." l have no par.=r=wmains in k beyond the aesmag of a wness or aunt summment. Fucher. that maasemme is act -
A,NJ:.. 4;.M,b.K. M * ..',d,a - @ .' m, * ; ., l - ? ?. part et the erneial samme of the passeding. In the .we think k unlikely ihat the sa-a- adshi he ,n mis 6sd wish the oppsummiisy no make e Immhed yp=- and thmefuse we sejast the opphemus' mggehen to
* ** {i $ Dh'i?.(,;?,
's W .A ' ** 7. f ,,. c' q} Wl
' '. ,a,l.N'%f. ,Q z i,s.@. ,6' Y,.
/ * ,,, ihet adesi.
u ses subsesman L et osaden 274 or die Amunic Energy Ast of 1954, as emmend,42 UJ.C. 20210). ' Die d J
, 9 '/J. .e, & %. ? , j.. , , p
,,rf l-f *. Q..<8 M 3 N 51'? '. *,, ~ l$;fj . purpass of aessies 274, muitled "Coopersaan whh sisins." is est brib in =h==aa i s. That papens bestude ihe -
3
- -- r-- of the "inimens et the sums in du puestut uses er senado magy." -
.i q l4 =,'.4
%h.fj;g, Q'p..'fc.s,
;. . . e 2 yt .W.?
- h. g.'. q g ,; d *'
,' j' Ahhaugh beeh the maanes end, as ininally peandgeted, sostian 2.71$(c) sufused only to e sepsummaanv of *h4 a
* *.$l4,h fO 4 j 7 7 c. @~ h **,i- an humussed mais, she laaer was ===-6-d in 1978 to a=a =y== repremmuatives of -i=. ' and v goverarnemial egeness having en homest. see 43 Fed. Reg. 17,798. 17,802,0 978).'
W.,
. 2y k.. . :i'Q.<j*}E t,r.."K .,' ',,'t.'~ * *y. * **' - . ,,, ,., ..Q " .p,'; ;.; ..
- 4, . , , . . . l
.?.',.
.. ; . . .I y '..c, .
. s . ;, , . t..
n ,
" . c. . . .
- .,.1 e g .148 Ql ;t . , . ~ .
s
. . , , T .' . .
_ g" .s -g, ;,,, m ,=.1 2 *., : ,'#. i. t a 5 Qa..lg. s . -4 . ' ' . J
'pa .lgw . , %.g - s
**~] A* f,N .
- t. .,'
,ww....-.----~.. . ----v c -* g ,. ,, .*, s. , . p . - ' . - .. .
. . ,**' . .hp* 1. -. * * .
~.* l 7,T L ., ,, b. v ? h,l'.' W .10 ' '
q*;. m.- f.;,. ; r
;g '- ",,*p<;?
+. , .,
'{.pp r s ", , ( ,.
.e j vi' .' g O ,,. Q .,', p %.y.,;;. l ef. / 0,g . , ,
- v. m p p' '
y g ^j
.4 7.^ i '#d 'l
., - f' 'r? t?%*' . t.e.?,g. *,~f ,
1' w q .. A Y
,' , ' ' I.we , p r, a
'*-- e ., ? ' t". ,**k4j6 4 * ' .Liaw/ ' *' % .s'. .'.+*' C' 7
*b..
.,?gg a '
**.+y'.
14 ' . s.,g , :{a* "d %. * '
; ~[f .,,. ;p3., @'
3,
,h.'%
-Q?!". r,:.. .i -
- 1. p/ 4. $' 9;e. . .. ,
f/,n. . , 5 *,',,',i, s
'. 2:. .,.k; r,f- *, s.' --*
g .w 7.., <.s. ay g, , ,, n
% .. t. .i ,
-o & ,
. ,, g .s .i.3....
,,, Ayt ... p'
, 3 4. :.$ s, , J ;./ . . ...
. _ . p. . eA f4. ny s,
,..+g..c....m .c",,-.
4
. e .w..
~
*6 e' -
/ - 4 ,..
~,
.s :
' 'g , yp
'7. . . . .{, . .. .c- 7
;..c g e ,p- f .- c ;
;, e .
, ,, j". " ,,' ,
'j
[ J.
, ,. ,7 - .,* g'l ,
, s k ,' ;1 ..
*~
. c ;[ q ,
.' . . . . . . . - . . . . . r.
~.....~.....w
.,o
,.g
- ,}}