ML20246H561
| ML20246H561 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1989 |
| From: | Curran D, Jonas S, Mceachern P HAMPTON, NH, HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP., MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SHAINES & MCEACHERN |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246H567 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8580 CLI-88-10, LBP-89-04, LBP-89-4, OL-1, NUDOCS 8905160131 | |
| Download: ML20246H561 (14) | |
Text
Qc3N ~
Di200 a UTlL FAC,76%.dL&Yfi/A e ~~ v
)
May,8;K1989 n.w.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
'89 MY -9 P 2 :38
)
In the Matter of
)
',$dh ; ;;,
)
wm" Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL
)
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
Onsite Emergency
)
Planning & Technical
)
Issues INTERVENERS' MOTION FOR A STAY OF LOW POWER OPERATION PENDING COMMISSION OR APPELLATE REVIEW 1.
INTRODUCTION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF On December 21, 1988, in CLI-88-10, the Commission condi-tionally authorized low power operation at Seabrook, pending notification by the Staff that Applicants had satisfied certain conditions with respect to the establishment of a decommissioning fund.
On May 3, in a memorandum from EDO to the Commission, the Staff reported that those conditions have been met.
Operation has been stayed until the Commission rules on any stay motions.
Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.788, the New England Coalition on i
Nuclear Pollution, Massachusetts Attorney General, and Town of Hampton (" Interveners") renew and supplement their request that the Commission stay low power operation of the Seabrook nuclear plant pending the Appeal Board's decision on Interveners' appeal of LBP-89-04.
In the alternative, Interveners request a stay of low power operation pending review of this case by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
While the Commission's order of March 22, 1989, stays low power operation until it reaches a decision on Interveners' motions, it provides no additional stay during which Interveners 8905160131 890508
))So:5 PDR ADOCK 05000 3
___-___m may appeal any adverse decision to the United State's Court of Appeals.
Therefore, should the Commission deny this motion, Interveners seek a one' week housekeeping stay following issuance of the Commission's decision, in order to provide them with suf-ficient time to seek a judicial stay of low power operation.
Interveners request that the Commission give expedited considera-tion to this housekeeping stay motion and issue a decision on or before May 10, 1989, so that if necessary, they may file the necessary pleadings with the U.S.
Court of Appeals before the current stay expires.1 2.
GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE OF A STAY 1.
Substantial Probability of Success on the Merits 2
As briefed extensively elsewhere, and summarized here in the few pages allowed by NRC regulations, Interveners have a sub-stantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
1.
Onsite Exercise Contention As directed by the Commission, Interveners will not repeat 1
Interveners have contacted opposing counsel regarding this request for a housekeeping stay.
Applicants stated that they oppose the request.
The NRC Staff stated that it would not con-sent to the request.
2
- See, e.o.,
New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Opposition to Applicants' Motion for Issuance of Partial Initial Decision Authorizing Low Power Operation, filed before the Licensing Board on July 2, 1986 (Atomic Energy Act violations);
Atty. Gen. James M.
Shannon's Brief in Support of Reversal of Licensing Board'c Partial Initial Decision..., dated May 6, 1987 (NEPA violations) ; Brief of Appellants on Appeal of LBP-89-04, filed with the Appeal Board on February 13, 1989 and Interveners' Application for Stay of Effectiveness of LBP-89-04 Pending Its Appeal, filed with the Commission on Febrary 8, 1989, as supple-mented on April 3, 1989; various briefs filed by Interveners with the Commission with regard to financial qualifications and decom-missioning fund issues.
_ _ _-_______._ l their previous arguments in support of a stay pending issuance of the Appeal Board's decision on LBP-89-04.
However, we note in l
addition that since' February 8, when Interveners' stay motion was l
filed, the case has been briefed before the Appeal Board, and was argued on April 21, 1989.
Given the imminence of a decision from the Appeal Board, the parties' interest in the orderly and fair administration of this case would be best served by staying low power operation until the Appeal Board has reached its decision as to whether the onsite exercise contention should be admitted for litigation.
2.
Violations of Atomic Enerav Act.
Interveners contend that the Commission's regulations at 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(d), which eliminate the requirement for approval of offsite state and local emergency response plans at the low power authorization stage, violate their right under the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
5 2239(a), to litigate all issues material to a full power operating license decision, before the Seabrook plant is a]Iowed to operate at any power level.3 The Atomic Energy Act makes no distinction between low power and full power licensing requirements, nor does its legislative history support a conclusion that Congress intended to allow low power operation before all issues relevant to full power are resolved in Section 189(a) hearings.
On the two prior occasions 3
We note that the Appeal Board has refused to consider this challenge to Commission regulations and asserted that this issue must be raised before the Commission.
ALAB-865, 25 NRC 430, 439.
i
-4 when Congress perceived a need to permit low power operation before licensing hearings were complete, it gave the Commission only temnorarv' authority to do so.4 Moreover, although Congress has amended Section 189(a) to permit the Commission to waive the prior hearing requirement for license amendments that pose "no significant hazard," it has not included original licenses within the ambit of that authority.
It is clear that Congress did not intend to allow the initial operation of a nuclear power plant at any power level, with its accompanying irreversible impacts and l
raised risk to the public health and safety, before completion of hearings on all issues that are material to the full power licensing of the plant.
Before Seabrook can be licensed for low power operation, Interveners are entitled to full hearings on the adequacy of offsite emergency planning for Seabrook.
Moreover, even if the Commission reads the Atomic Energy Act as permitting the issuance of low-power licenses, it would be arbitrary and capricious to issue one in this case, in light of the great uncertainty that Seabrook will ever receive an operat-ing license.
As demonstrated in the appellate briefs recently filed by the Commonwealth, the Town of Hampton, and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League before the Appeal Board, the unique fea-tures of the Seabrook site render it virtually impossible to pro-vide adequate sheltering or reasonably prompt evacuation for the 4
See 1972 and 1983 versions of 42 U.S.C.
5 2242, which expired October 30, 1973 and December 31, 1983, respectively.
The com-plete text of these provisions is attached as Exhibits 1 and 2.
l-I
{ thousands of-people who may be stranded on the barrier beach dur-ing an acccident.
The unlikelihood that Seabrook can ever meet the Commission's emergency planning regulations is compounded by the Commonwealth's nonparticipation in emergency planning for the Massachusetts sector of the EPZ.
Moreover, it is highly questionable whether the lead applicant, which has declared bankruptcy, will ultimately receive a license to operate Seabrook.
Under these circumstances, it would be irrational for the Commission to approve the incursion of the financial and environmental consequences of low power nyeration, which were recognized by the Commission in CLI-88-10.
3.
Violations of NEPA l
The Licensing Board, as affirmed by the Appeal Board in ALAB-875, violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by authorizing low power operation without having required the preparation of either a new Final Environmental Statement (EIS) or a supplement to the 1982 EIS weighing the costs against the benefits of low power operation at Seabrook Station.
The 1982 EIS, which was premised upon the assumption that Seabrook would ultimately be operated at full power, concluded that the benefits of electricity generation outweighed the environmental impacts and costs of Seabrook operation.
However, the 1982 EIS did not consider the possibility that the Seabrook plant may never oper-ate at full power -- a situation that became highly probable in September of 1986, when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts unequivocally refused to submit emergency plans for the Massachu-
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, setts sector of the 10-mile EPZ around Seabrook.
The bankruptcy of Public Service of New Hampshire, the lead applicant for the l
Seabrook license, considerably deepens the doubt that Seabrook will ever get its full power license.
As the Commission recog-nized in CLI-88-07, the " unique circumstances of this case" war-rant special consideration of the contingencies that may arise if Seabrook does not receive a full power license.
28 NRC 271, 273.
Thu strong likelihood that Seabrook will never receive a full power operating license thus constitutes a significant new cir-cumstance relevant to environment concerns, rendering it neces-sary to file a supplement to the 1982 Final EIS pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 51.92 before either a low power or full power license may be issued.
Interveners further contend that the issuance of a low power license is, under the unique circumstances of this case, a sepa-rate federal action having a significant environmental impact, triggering the NRC's duty under NEPA and 10 C.F.R. 5 51.20 to prepare a separate EIS.
Given the lack of any reassonable pros-pect that Seabrook will be licensed to operate at full power, the costs and benefits of low power operation can no longer be said to be subsumed in the EIS prepared for the full power license.5 j
1 Thus, NEPA mandates that the costs and benefits of operating only at low power be separately evaluated, and weighed in an EIS 5
The limitation on the duration of low-power operation to an effective.75 full power hour further changes the balance in a way not contemplated, never mind considered, in the 1982 EIS.
1
l before the issuance of a low power license.
4.
Decommissioning interveners continue to assert that the Commission erred in its disposition of Interveners' petition for a waiver of the financial qualifications rule with respect to low power opera-tion.
In particular, the Commission ignored material evidence bearing on the cost of decommissioning the Seabrook reactor; it wrongfully engrafted an additional criterion ("significant safety problem") onto the standard for granting petitions for regulatory waivers, wit'. tout giving Interveners an opportunity to comment on or address the new standard; and it reached a merits decision regarding the amount of funding needed for a post-low power decommissioning fund, without providing an adequate opportunity for a hearing pursuant to Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act.
Moreover, Applicants' arrangements for providing a low power decommissioning fund do not adequately address the requirements of CLI-88-07 and CLI-88-10, that' funds be available in all cases where decommissioning has occurred "and a full-power license is not granted for Scabrook Unit 1."
In particular, the obligation under the surety bond provided by Applicants is triggered only "as a result of a denial by NRC of a full power license."
See Staff Evaluation of PSNH Decommissioning Fund Assurance Plan for Seabrook, etc., attached to Memorandum to commissioners from Vic-tor Stello, Jr., EDO, dated May 3, 1989, at 7.
Thus, the surety would not be obligated if Applicants withdrew their application 1
for a full power license, and the Commission no longer had before l
- __- -. it an application that it could deny.
The Staff dismisses the significance of this limitation, stating that the Commission would always have " adequate authority to impose necessary decommission-ing funding' assurance requirements on such withdrawal..."
Id.
This reasoning ignores the fundamental problem caused by Applicants' insolvency, which is that regardless,of the Commis-sion's authority to require additional funding in the event of withdrawal, Applicants may simply be unable to obtain it.
2.
Irreparable Iniurv to Interveners.
By permitting low-power operation despite well-documented inadequacies in the training and knowledge of key plant opera-tors, the Commission will be greatly increasing the risk to the public.
This in itself constitutes irreparable harm.
- Moreover, as the Commission recognized in CLI-88-10, and as further demonstrated in the attached Affidavit of Dale G Bridenbaugh (Exhibit 3), even temporary operation at low power will result in irreversible plant contamination caused by radiation of the reac-tor and its component parts, and the creation of high-level radioactive waste.
Operation at low power will also result in increased worker exposurers, and poses a risk to the public health and safety.
Should a radiological accident occur at the Seabrook plant, it could cause irreversible health damage to the population around the plant.6 Moreover, in failing to extend the 6
Although the commission considers this risk to be insignificant, the risk does exist.
See Letter from Nunzio J.
Palladino to Edward J. Markey, dated June 15, 1984, Enclosure 1, attached as Exhibit 4.
Moreover, the health consequences of a radiological release at Seabrook would be irreparable.
l i !
Sholly Amendment's "no significant hazards" exemption to original l
licensing decisions, Congress has made it clear that it intended to prohibit the incursion of irreversible consequences, no matter how insignificant, until all licensing issues were resolved in prior adjudicatory hearings.
To deny Interveners' stay motion would be to allow precisely the harm that Congress intended to prevent in enacting Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act.
See Commonwealth gg Massachusetts v. Watt, 716 F.2d 946, 952 (1st Cir. 1983).
3.
The Grant of A Stav Will Not Harm Aeolicants.
In view of the unlikelihood that Applicants will obtain a full power license at any time in the near future and the limited duration of low-power testing, there is no benefit to Applicants in conducting low power testing at such an early stage.
As attested to in the affidavit of Dale Bridenbaugh, "the initial operating phase at a new nuclear unit can be most efficiently performed if a smooth transition is made from fuel loading to low power operation and on to the power testing above 5%."
Exhibit 3 at 4.
Finally, each of the benefits of low power operation early discovery and correction of possible problems which may prevent or delay full power operation, and providing operator and plant staff experience on the actual plant -- are all premised on the assumption that operation at full power, with its attendant benefits of electricity generation, will, at some point, occur.
1
.(. However, given the lack of any reasonable prospect that this plant will ever operate at full power, these alleged benefits of low power operation disappear.
Thus, the Applicants will in no l
way be harmed by denial of the license.
In fact, Applicants will avoid an unnecessary expenditure of time and money.
If, at some later point, Applicants surmount their serious financial problems and issues surrounding the adequacy of the emergency planning process are resolved, Applicants are free to renew their applica-j tion for a low power license, j
I 4.
The Public Interest Favors Issuance of A Stay The public can only benefit from being spared the risks of low power operation, which in and of itself has no benefits, 1
where the possibility of obtaining the benefits of full power operation is so remote.
Moreover, the issues raised here are important and of first impression, The balance of equities 1
clearly favors the grant of a stay which would preserve the status auo pending a decision on the full power license or fur-ther review.
Respectfully submitted, mI L C~
sea. cune o&Mc Diane Curran Stdphen A. Johas /
Paul McEachern /
Harmon, Curran & Tousley Deputy Attorney General Shaines & McEachern 2001 S St.
N.W.
Suite 430 Chief, Public Protect. Bur. 25 Maplewood Avenue Washington, D.C.
20009 Dept. of Attorney General P.O.
Box 360 l
(202) 328-3500 One Ashburton Pl.,
19th Fl. Portsmouth, NH 03016 l
Boston, MA 02108 (603) 436-3110 (617) 727-2200 May 8, 1989
y w.
m
,.4 "y.
v3
.e EXHIBIT 1
-=
Y. :
e,
~__
l Ch.22 xromC ENERGY 42 92242 i
e w
\\
$ 2242.
Temporary operating licenses for nucicar power reactor >-Prerequisites for filing applications; l
affida&; hearing (a) In any proceeding upon an application for an operating 11 cense for a nuclear power reactor. In which a hearing is otherui e required pursuant to acction 0039(a) of this title, the applicant may petition the Cummission for a temporary operating license authcrir-6-
Ing operation of the facility pending final action by the Comminion 1
on the application. Such petition may be filed at any time after fil-ing of: (1) the report of the Advisory Committee on Routtor Safe-I guards required by section 2030lb) of this title; (2) the safety l
evaluation of the applicattun t,y th? CommisAion's regul. tory staff; and t3 s the regulatory staff's final detailed statement on the ents-renmental impact of the facility prepared pursuant to ecetion l
1302i2HC) of this title or, in the case of an application for oper.st-ane license filed on or before September 9.1971. If the regul. tory staf f's final detailed 3tattment required under section C 05 2n C) of this title is not compitted. the Cumnussion must satisfy (ne appli-Cable r"rpiltements of the.N*ational Environmental Policy Act prior The to i4 suing any temporarv operating iicenae unotr tr.is acctuin.settene 1 etition -hall Le accompanied by are atfidavit or aitsuatste forth the f acts upon which the petitioner relies to justify issu.ance of the temporary operating license. Any party' to the t raueding may file af fidavits in support of. or opposition to. the petition with-in fourteen day s atter it:e filing of sucn petition, or within auch ad-ditional time not to exceed ten days as may be fixed by tne Commu-sion. The Commission shall hold a hearing after ten d.sys' notice a'8d pundication once in the Federal Reenster on any auch petition and supporting material filed under thu section and the ucciaron of the Commis> ion with respect lo the issuance of a tumporary operat.
Ing licerise, following auch hearing, shall be on the basis of landings on the matters specified in subscetion ito of this section. Theheur-ing required by this section and the decision of the Commiusun on
.4 the the petition chall be conducted with expedited procedure.
Commission may by rule, regulation, or erder deem avf runrn.te for a full discionure of material facts on all substantial inues raised in connection with the proposed temporary operatang licenne.
Meget 4se findless of c'esmassanise6 ternas med esaditieea of trasporarr llevenee jedielal retteer tb) kVith res[ wet to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Commission shall issue a temporary operating II.
. ~. '.. ?,.. f y. $..
.. ?. ' ' Q.. 'yt
- o.
-. w~s
, J cense upon findior that:
s (1) the provisions of section 2235 of this title have been met.., f.i
.d...,,
_.. 'Lb c;+.7., ith respect to the temporary operating ifcense; M....'.,.
C.
- e. 5.a, c,..v".. G...q'. Aj.., - /
,; e m.
3,,
.4 w-s%e.... p.3.g<..wroperation of the facility during the period of the ' tempo Mf
,c L
g./g.@'fQ9ar(y) operating license in accordance with its terms and
~r.. 7~g %
- < &.s
.g4
.;:94f3.!!f 2 g.I.
t A.
%3,N3<'&.Jw ~)t$.g'.!;.Ab'".3gg f y Q[ % @..v. % y b y-M
~.3' 7
)g.. M ~.,
M;by #
. -;;y
.d.
?
k h[j%(I l
-m e#
pf. p' m
.w t.
t a
..b..:m ; s. ?
- G $ET,.M.#'i l%
h.
iI.
.s 4
. M. g # '
.$l i m.
y..
Q~.Q,.%:
c.
.s D ?^
[
',.g*[4..<
a.h.
- e..e fg,
%'g)
1 "h @% ;; ;.q
- $CfhfLis.'.D If%%Ye. T" @N f(f.;, ^f jt*
?
. pa..
p
.. %w },
cm
, y,. m
..,,,a 1 g;y y
~
u l
+
j 42 6'2242 PhDLIC HEALTH AND WELFAttE Ch. *3 i
.. s.
f.
7 tions will provide adequate protection of the environment dar.
Ing the period of the temporary operating licenset and m -
(3) operation of the facility in accordance with the tcrmt and conditions of the temporary operating license is essential toward insuring that the power generating capacity of a utility system or power pool is at. or is restored to, the levels required to assure the adequacy and reliability of the power supply, tak.
< ing into consideration factors which include, but need not t,e limited to, alternative available sourecs of supply, historical re.
serve requirements for the systems involved to function relia.
bly, the possible endangerment to the public health and safety in the event of power shortages, and data from uppropriat.
Federal and State governmental bodies which have official re.
sensibility tu assure en adequate and reliable power supply, The temporary license shall contain such terme and conditions ss the Commi=sion may deem necessary, including the duration of the licen*e and any provision for the extension thereof. and the require.
ment that the licensee not retire or dismantle any of its existing gent rating capacity on the ground of the availat.ility of the capacity
. from the facility which is nperatinr under the temporary hcens,'
Any decision or other document authorizing the issuance of any temporary license pursuant to this section shall recite with specirje, I
ity the reasons justifying the issuance. The decision of the Com.
mission with respett to the issuance of a temporary operatinr li.
(ense shall be subject to judicial review pur=uant to the Act of De.
cember 20.1950, as amended (ch. 1189. 64 Stat.1129).
s m o........,u m.,
tet The hearing on the application for the final operatine licen.,
otherwise required pursuant to section 2220(a) of this title shall be concluded as promptly as practicable. The Commission shall vacat, the temporary operating license if it finds that the applicant is r,,t prnwet uting the application for the final crerating license with due diligence. Issuance of a temporary operating license pursuant to subsection (b) cf this section shall be without prejudice to the posj.
' tion of any party to the proceeding in which a hearing is otherwi..
'r
,-required pursuant to section 2229(s) of this titlet and failure to as.
~-
s sert any ground for denial or limilation of a temporary operating I;.
, cense shall not bar the assertion of such ground in connection with
~
the issuance of a subsequent final operating license.
M s'."..
-l (Qit
..,,m 6'yw> q~ y,db./,y SMh. #f?.g s:sparesses er estherter _L
. g 5 c.*,.6,.
v
.. -..n.
%g e
}-
- p.
?r,. I_
g M iW.n n
4 4%
y; ' gt.F(;,, (d),The authority under this section shall expire on October 3n* y. '& :% ' 'N..
,., u%.7 '
ui
-w
- y w
S
!.c &
.. d g973 p&kshu a *W(u. %g3'5R.W &gr.,L.
- W*>$Q %& $y ukWi.X5?'&.
a u &uh 5EW f y.n %
2
~w a
- dic W
W&6%
W
=
h
- Wq 7:! Q**
- J2ii.,
utd.1948.- c. 724. l 192, as added June.2,1972. Pub.I 92-307, ti A.WU $ % N'N N z Q0f. %%$,i,,yrfiy ylf f
.,.,? ' * ',
~
l h
=,,
e
+
.nw.
^
Tl
)n
+ -
~
~
)
j
?+
og w
l..
-m
.+
ea Q, e x
L,'
(l
)
f
.3 3.
g_.,
EX11IBIT 2 y
y
't
{ M42. Temporary operating license tot Fuel loadins. testine. and operation at spedne power level; petition, omdesit, etc.
In any proccenig upon an application for an operating license for a utilization i
facility required to % heensed under secuan 2132 or 2134tb) of this utte, in w hich a hearmg is otherwr : required pursuant to secuan 22'13fal of this title. the applicant may peution the Commission for a temporary operating license for such facility authorizing fuel luadme, testing, and operation at a spacific power level to le determmed by the Commission. pending final action by the Commission on the appl. cation. -The initial peution for a temporary operating license for each such facihty, and any temporary operating license issued for suen facility based upon the imtial peution shall be limited to power levels not to exceed 5 percent of rated full thermal pow er. Following issuance by the Commission of the temporary operaung license for each such facihty. the licensee may ide peutions with the Commission to amend the license to allow facihty operation in staged increases at specific power levels, to be determined by the Commission, exceeding 5 percent of rated full
' thermal power. The mitial peouon for a temporary operaung licenne for caen suen facility may be fiied at any time after the fding of: (1) the report of the Advi=ory Committee on Renetnr Safeguards required by secuon C2 fbi of thin title: (2) the fdmg of the mit:al Safety Evaluauon Ret > ort by the Nuciear Reruiatory Commmnn staff and (ne Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission staff's first supplement to tne report prepared in re=punse to the report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Eafe-guareis for the facmty: 0 the.Nuacar Regulatory Commission staff's f:nat uetanea c.tement nn tre environmental i.uact of the facihty prepared pursuant to secuon 4::nthCi of this ude; and iin a 9Ee local. or utihty emergency preparedness pian fur the futiity. petiunns for the issuance of a temporary et>craung Ixense, or for an a'rmnoment to suen a i. cense niiowing operation at a vpecific } ower :-vel creater tnan inat au:rtrued m tr.e mius: ter-r.orr.ry operaung beense, snail te accompameti tv an af(blavit or nifidavita setung fortn it.e specific f ar.s upon wnich the peut.ener r.. ws to p>ufv mance of tt o umporary operaung teense or tne amer.oment The Commmion snall rue.;sh nouce of eacn suen peuuon in tne r corral twreto.
R. gisier anu in won t*aoe or r.ew 4 rubbeauons as the Commission a-vms at'propri-ste to give reasonabie not:ce to persons wno mient have a potennal ir.terest m the grant of suen temporary cpertung ucense or amendment thereto. Any person may aution withm fCe affidavits or statements m support of, or m oppoution to, the tr thirty days af:er tt.e puoheauon of suen nouce m tne Federal Register.
Ibn Operadna at greater power level; ersteria. eMeet terrns and conditions, etc.: procedureg a ppisc able With respect in any peution filed pursuant to subsection tal of this secuon. the Commission may mue a temporary nperaung license, or amend the license to autharize temporary operauon at each specific power level creater than that autno-n:ed in the miual temporary operstmg license, as determmed by tne Commission.
upun find:ng that-(1) m all respects other than the conduct or completion of any rt. quired heanng the requirements of law are met:
(2) in accordance with such requirements there is reasonable assurance that operation of the facihty during the penod of the ternporary operaung license in accordance with its terms and conditions wdl provide adequate protecuon to the public health and safety and the environment dunng the period of temporary and rterauen:
(3) denial of such temporary eperating license will result in delay between the date on which construction of the facility is sufficiently compieted, in the judgment of the Commission, to pernut issuance of the temporary opersung license, and the date when such facility would otherwise receive a final operat-ing license pursuant to this chapter.
O e
__N_._.____.___.______________._.__
m m.-_.
m__._
m
__m_..a w_ m hwMC%.e' %O*C Wr e WOG._
p.s. -
e e
l 42 @2242 PUBLIC llEALTII AND WELFARE 14 *.'
The temporary operating license shall become effective upon issuance and sha
contain such terms and conditions as the Commisson may deem necessary,includ:re the duration of the beense and any provision for the extension thereof. Any fina;
'I order authorizing the issuance or amendment of any temporary operating liceno pursuant to this secuon shall recite with specificity the facts and seasons justifying the findmes under this suosection. and shall be transmitted upon suen issuance to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and Energy and Commerce of tne House of Representauves and tne Committee on Environment and Pubhc Works of the Senate. The final order of the Commission with respect to the issuance or amendment of a temocrary operatme beense snall be suoject to }udici:;l review l
pursuant to chaoter 1% of Title 28. The requirements of secuen 223mai of this titm with respect to the issuance or amenoment of facthey beenses snail not anpsy to th..
issuance or amenoment of a temporary operaung license unoer this section.
see Hearine foe final operaune beenari suspennon issuance, comphance, etc with tempo-rary operaune license Any hearing on the auchcation for the final ooeraung license for a fae hts recuireo nursuant to setton 2 394al of this tiue snail be conciuced as promptiv br i
praeucacie. In+ Commsion snati susoer.n tne temporary coerstme been>e if fmos tnat tne areneant is not prosecuune tne application for tne finai ooeratire beense witn cae cmrence lauoner of a temnorary nneraune beense unnar suns-~
j uon abs of tnis secunn snait te witnout premaice en tne r:ent of anv party ta rain.
any issue m a r.earine recuireo pursuant to secuon t.: olas of the titie: ano faiiur.
J to assert any ground for o*nial nr umitation of a temuorary operaune beense snat:
not r.ar the s>serunn of suen grouno m connection witn the issuance of a suosecuen' fmal operatmg incense. Any riarry to a nearine reouired our*uant to secuon 2239tv of tr.is t;tte en tne fmal ot>eraung neense far a factitty for wnten a temporar.
onerstme beense nas oeen osuen unoer suosecuon ab) of this section. ano ar5 memoer of tee Atomic rafety and Licensine Board conductme such nearme, snai.
promotiv notify the Commission nf any mformauon inoicaung tnat tne terms anc conctuons of the temnorary operatine i:eense are not Deme met, or tnat suen term-ano co'iciuons are not sufficient to comply with tne provisions of paragraDn Id N suDsecuon 10) of tnis secuen.
(d) Admmistrouve remedies for minimisauon of need for beenne The Commission is autnorized and d:rected to adopt suen administrauve remedies as the Commission neems appropriate to mmimize the need for issuance of tempr.
i rarv operating heenses pursuant to this secuon.
1 sei Empirnoon af lesuine authority 4
The authority to issue new temporary operating licenses under this section shall q
y expire on Decemoer 31. 1983.
q i
IAs amended Jan 4.1983. Pub.l. W415. { 11,96 Stat. N713 a.
)
\\
s q
t k
i 4
1
)
i
__