ML20076F027
| ML20076F027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1983 |
| From: | Coleman J BEVERIDGE, FAIRBANKS & DIAMOND, LOUISA COUNTY, VA |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA-1, ISSUANCES-OLA-2, NUDOCS 8308250202 | |
| Download: ML20076F027 (23) | |
Text
-
00CKETED 8/ED/B3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 24 #0:55 Before the CFFicg cy 55(99 ,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal BddEUP.! O & SEPvir.;
ORANCH In the Matter of )
)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-338/339 COMPANY ) OLA-1 and OLA-2
)
(North Anna Power Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
(Proposed Amendments to Operating License to Allow Receipt and Storage of 500 Spent Fuel Assemblies from Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and Expansion of Spent Fuel Pool Storage Capacity)
OPPOSITION OF INTERVENORS COUNTY OF LOUISA, VIRGINIA, AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOUISA, VIRGINIA TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION
~
, I. INTRODUCTION l
l This is a proceeding to consider license amendments proposed by the Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Vepco" or "the applicant") to permit expansion of the spent fuel 2. to ra ge capacity at the North Anna Power Station and to permit receipt and storage at North Anna of 500 spent fuel assemblies from Vepco's Surry Power Station. The County of Louisa, Virginia, and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Louisa, Virginia .
(collectively "Louisa County" or "the County") were admitted to 8308250202 830822 PDR ADOCK 05000338 TSG ~
the proceeding at the special prehearing conference held February 16, 1983. On June 10, 1983, after briefing by all the parties, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("the Licensing Board") issued a memorandum in this proceeding in which it ruled that it could consider the health and safety impacts of Vepco's proposed shipments from Surry to North Anna:
We deem that health and safety impacts of the transportation of the spent fuel assemblies are issues fairly raised by the notice of hearing in proceeding OLA-1. Further, we do not understand that Louisa County is requesting that we review the merits of the Surry operating license amendments and, at least in part, modify, suspend or revoke these amendments--if that was its purpose, its recourse would be to file a request pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206. Instead, we understand that Louisa County requests that we consider the health and safety impacts of the transport of spent fuel from Surry to North Anna, which have never been considered before with North Anna being the destination, and that, thereafter, we should either deny the proposed operating license amendment to receive and store a t North Anna spent fuel assemblies from Surry or authorize the issuance of the amendment subject to conditions with respect to transportation of -
spent fuel. Finally, Louisa County points out, inter alia, that the two Surry Final Environmental Statements issued in 1972 did not consider the health and safety impacts of the now proposed transshipment of spent fuel I to North Anna. . . . We find that Louisa County's arguments are well-taken and
{ conclude that we may consider the health and -
l safe'ty impacts of the transport of spent fuel i from Surry to North Anna.
l Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station), ASLB
( Docket Nos. 83-481-01 LA and 83-482-02 LA, Memorandum at 3-4 i
(June 10, 1983) (" Memorandum"). On August 5, 1983, Vepco moved -;
1 3' the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ("the Appeal Board")
l f
l l
l
for directed certification of the Licensing Board ruling, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 3 2.718(i). Louisa County hereby opposes Vepco's motion.
II. DISCUSSION .
A. Interlocutory Review Is Not Warranted In This Case.
Vepco's petition for directed certification proceeds from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Licensing Board decision it seeks to set aside, and misapplies the principles governing interlocutory review of preliminary Licensing Board rulings. The decision, which simply acknowledges the Board's responsibility to consider the health and safety impacts of Vepco's plan "which have never been considered before," Memorandum at 4, is well
- grounded in NRC principles of jurisdiction. As such, its offect on the proceeding can hardly be said to be " pervasive or unusual" and thus it does not even approach Commission standards for a ,
grant of interlocutory review.
- 1. The Marble Hill Standard Governs Whether Interlocutory Review Is Appropriate.
Commission rules and policy strongly disfavor interlocutory review of preliminary Licensing Board rulings.1/ Consumers Power
~
1/ Whether couched in terms of directed certification, 10 C.F.R. 2.718(i), or a licensing board referral, 10 C.P.R. _.
2.730(f), the standards governing the Appeal Board's grant of [
interlocutory review are the same. Consumers Power Company 1 (Midland Plant), ALAB-634, 13 NRC 96, 99 (1981).
i N
.W Co. (Midland Plant), 13 NRC at 99. See also 10 C.F.R. 2.730(f), 10 C.F.R. Part 2, App. A., $$ I(e) and V(f)(4). The applicable principles, developed over years of Commission decisionmaking, articulated in Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190, 1192 (1977), and reiterated in dozens of Appeal Board decisions, are unambiguous:
Our decisions establish that discretionary interlocutory review will be granted only sparingly, and then only when a licensing board's action either (a) threatens the party adversely af fected with immediate and serious irreparable harm which could not be remedied by a la ter appeal, or (b) affects the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner.
United States Department of Energy Project Management Corp.,
Tennessee Valley Authority (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant),
ALAB-688, 16 NRC 471, 474 (1982). Accord, Houston Lighting &
Power Co. (South Texas Project), ALAB-637, 13 NRC 367, 370 (1981)- Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear
~'
Generating Station), ALAB-588, 11 NRC 533, 536 (1980).
Vepco does not even contend that the Licensing Board's ruling will result in immediate and serious irreparable harm and gives only short shrift to the " pervasive and unusual" standard, Vepco Brief at 15. Instead, Vepco argues that the Commission's ~
1981 Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452 (1981), wiped out years of Commission case i
law on interlocutory review and in its place established a much ,
i reduced standard. "If a significant legal or policy question is j L
presented on which Commission guidance is needed, a board should promptly refer or certify the matter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing. Appeal Board or the Commission." Id. a t 456.
Taken in context, it is clear that this statement is simply a reminder to licensing boards that issues otherwise meeting the criteria for interlocutory review should be referred or certified "promptly . . . so that the reference or certification can be made and the response received without holding up the proceeding," id. at 456-57. Since the Commission's stated purpose in issuing the Policy Statement was to "provid[e]
guidance to its licensing boards on the use of tools intended to reduce the time for completing licensing proceedings while still ensuring that hearings are fair and produce full records," 13 NRC a t 452, and since the section in which the cited language appears is captioned " Timely Rulings on Prehearing Matters" and addresses timing questions, the comment quoted by Vepco can only reasonably be read as addressing the need for prompt handling of certifications, not as a sub rosa revision of the applicable substantive s ta nda rds . The Appeal Board's continued adherence to
! the Marble Hill formulation in decisions made subsequent to the 1
Statement of Policy confirms this reading of the Statement. See,
~
e.g., Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station),
l ALAB-737, Memorandum and orde r at 3 (June 20, 1983) and l Memorandum and Order a t 2 (June 20, 1983); Clinch River, supra, 16 NRC at 474: South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. -
e t
A
Summer Nuclear Station), ALAB-663, 14 NRC 1140, 1150, 1160 (1981).
Duke. Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station) ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460 (1980), the only case cited by Vepco in support of its dssertion that the Policy Statement establishes a new standard for interlocutory review, belies that very assertion. There, the Appeal Board accepted a licensing board referral, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.730(f), of the question whether licensing boards in general have the authority to admit conditionally intervenors' contentions that fail to meet the specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714. In so doing, the Appeal Board stated that the decision whether to grant interlocutory review " turns on whether a failure to address the issue would seriously harm the public interest, result in unusual delay or expense, or af fect the basic structure of the proceeding in some pervasive or unusual manner. Id. a t 464, quoting Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant),
13 NRC a t 99. With regard to the Policy Statement, the Appeal Board merely noted that the licensing board, in requesting the referral, had " alluded" to the Policy Statement in support of its request. Nothing in the Appeal Board decision, however, suggests that the Policy Statement had supplanted the " prevailing
~
standard," Virgil C. Summer, 14 NRC a t 1160, articulated in Marble Hill.
Vepco is also mistaken when it claims that the Catawba Appeal Board accepted the referral despite a finding that refusal 7 i,
of the referral "would not affect the structure of the proceeding }-
r in any material way and would not result in unusual delay."
Vepco Brief at 11 n.7. In fact, the Licensing Board declined to consider the specific contentions challenged on the grounds that the Board's decision to admit them did not have the requisite effect for interlocutory review, 16 NRC at 464, but accepted referral of the generic question regarding the circumstances in which conditional admission of contentions might be justified because the generic question did merit interlocutory review. Id.
at 465.
Thus, the question before the Appeal Board is the one posed in Marble Hill: whether the Licensing Board ruling inflicts serious and irreparable harm on Vepco or af fects the proceedings in a pervasive or unusual way.
- 2. The Licensing Board Ruling Does Not Inflict Serious Irreparable Harm and Does Not Affect The Proceeding In A Pervasive and Unusual Way.
As noted above, the Applicant does not contend that the challenged ruling will result in immediate and serious -
irreparable harm to Vepco. Indeed, such an assertion would be frivolous since any " harm" that might result if the rulinc were in error could be remedied by an appeal once the Licensing Board has rendered its Initial Decision.2/ .
2/ It is also possible that the ultimate result reached at the
' Licensing Board will moot the issues Vepco would have the Appeal f Board decide now. Such a possibility is another reason why {
certification is unnecessary. Clinch River, 16 NRC at 474. -
A
In an effort to establish that the ruling will affect the basic structure of-the proceeding in a pervasive and unusual way, Vepco reinterprets the ruling to broaden its asserted effect and then argues that interlocutory review is warranted. Vepco claims that it has already received all the NRC approvals required to begin shipment and that therefore the Licensing Board ruling has an unusual and pervasive effect because it will " dominate [the proceeding] entirely with a review of activities that Vepco is already licensed to carry out. " Vepco Brief at 16. In so doing, however, Vepco seriously misrepresents the Licensing Board's ruling and therefore its effect on the proceeding. As noted above, the Licensing Board ruling requires nothing more than consideration of the health and safety impacts never before considered.
Vepco's distorted characterization of the challenged ruling is similar to the bootstrap analysis attempted by the licensee in l Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating i
Plant), 11 NRC 533. In Salem, a spent fuel pool expansion case, l
the Licensing Board directed the parties to respond to the following question:
In the event of a gross loss of water from the storage pool, what would be the -
dif ference in consequences between those occasioned by the pool with expanded storage and those occasioned by the present pool?
Id. a t 534. As here, the Licensing board sought to measure the incremental health and safety impacts associated with the .
?-
proposed action. Arguing that the posed question represented an i c
~
impermissible inquiry in a Class 9 accident, the licensee sought directed certification. The Appeal Board, however, rejected the licensee's characteriza tion of the Board's question, stating:
"the new question simply appears to reflect the Licensing Board's effort to ca rry out its fundamental responsibility; namely, to satisfy itself whether the proposed license amendment would unreasonably affect the public health and safety." Id. at 536.
As in Salem, Vepco here attempts to transform "the Licensing
' Board's effort to ca rry out its fundamental responsibility" into an impermissible assertion of authority. As in Salem, the Appeal Board must reject Vepco's distorted interpretation of the Board ruling.
Vepco also claims, relying on the Policy Statement, that interlocutory review is justified in this case because the Licensing Board ruling represents a significant legal question of generic impact. Vepco Brief at 12. Were it true, as Vopco l
contends, that the Board's ruling will result in its " reviewing
~
matters already fully authorized by NRC," Vepco Brief at 4, the l
ruling might be reviewable now in accordance with the standards of Part 2, Appendix A, $ V(f)(4).3/ However, in view of the
~
3/ "(4) A question may be certified to the Commission or the Appeal Board, as appropriate, for determination when a major or novel question of policy, law or procedure is involved which cannot be resolved except by the Commission or the Appeal Board and when the prompt and final decision of the question is important for the protection of the public interest or to avoid undue delay or serious prejudice to the interests of a pa rty.
l For example, a board may find it appropriate to certify novel [,.
l questions as to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission or 1 the right of persons to intervene."
l
_9_
l L- a
c limited inquiry the Board has defined for itself -- consideration of " impacts which have never been considered before," Memorandum at 4 -- and the Board's responsibility under 10 C.F.R. 50.40 and 50.57 to determine whether the proposed license amendments will result in danger to the public health and safety, the a
Board's decision cannot be said to rise to the level of a " major i
or novel question of policy, law or procedure." Id.
Moreover, the fact that two other applicants are currently seeking opera ting licenses that will permit receipt and storage of spent fuel from other reactors within their systems does not transform the challenged ruling into a generic question. Vepco points to no other existing licensees that are seeking license amendments similar to its own. License amendments necessarily
]
- involve consideration of incremental impacts above and beyond what was considered at the operating license stage; ope ra ting licenses, on the other hand, require a comprehensive review of impacts. Thus, the proper scope of inquiry in an amendment case is not at all instructive as to the proper scope of inquiry in an operating license case, and the Licensing Boa rd's ruling therefore does not necessarily af fect other proceedings. Even if the two proceedings were analogous, three cases is not enough to establish that the challenged ruling poses an issue of "immediate recurring importance, " Ca tawba , 16 NRC at 465. In Catawba, there was no doubt that the conditional admission of contentions .
falling short of the specificity requirements was a recurring 6
9 issue.A[ Here, to bolster its claims of generic importance, Vepco offers only speculation about the possible future actions of other NRC licensees. Vepco Brief at 12-14.
This case, then, is analogous to Clinch River, where the Appeal Board denied directed certification, noting the " paucity" of similar applications as evidence that the issue posed -- the scope and scheduling of evidentiary hearings -- was not "a recurring one of great importance to the proper functioning of the licensing process." 16 NRC a t 465. As the Appeal Board observed in Clinch River:
In the last analysis, the potential for an appella te reversal is always present whenever a licensing board (or any other trial body) decides significant procedural questions adversely to the claims of one of the parties. The Commission must be presumed to have been aware of that fact when it chose to proscribe interlocutory appeals (10 C.F.R. 2.730(f)). That proscription thus may be taken as an at least implicit Commission judgment that, all factors considered there is warrant to assume the risks which attend a deferral to the time of initial decision of the appellate review of procedural rulings -
made during the course of trial. Since a l like practice obtains in the federal judicial l system, that judgment can scarcely be deemed irrational.
l 4/ Here, there are no similar generic questions. Vepco's motion for directed certification ie nothing more than a veiled attempt to foreclose in advance the Licensing Board's admission of the County's health and safety contentions regarding the i proposed shipments. Vepco Brief at 2 n.l. As the Appeal Board j
emphasized in Catawba, however, "our general policy disfavoring
, interlocutory review of licensing board action on specific ;
contentions . . . remains intact." 16 NRC a t 465.
i l !
l a
A Clinch River, 16 NRC at 475, quoting Toledo Edison Co.
and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-314, 3 NRC 98,99-100 (1976).
B. The Licensing Board's Interpretation of Its Jurisdiction Is Correct A brief review of the background of this case demonstrates that the Licensing Board's view of its own jurisdiction is entirely proper. Vepco is seeking two amendments to its North Anna operating license, one permitting it to receive and store at North Anna spent fuel from Surry and a second permitting the 1
installation at North Anna of high density neutron absorber spent fuel racks that will result in expansion of the spent fuel pool capacity at North Anna. A basic NRC jurisdictional principle is that a licensing board may hear any issue " fairly raised" by the a pplica tions it has been convened to consider. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station), ALAB-616, 12 NRC 419, 426 (1980).
Since receipt and storage of Surry fuel can not be accomplished without transshipment of that fuel from Surry to North Anna, the County argued below, and the Licensing Board agreed, that the health and safety impacts of transshipment are issues " fairly i
i raised" by Vepco's proposed license amendments. As such, these impacts fall well within the ambit of the Licensing Board's jurisdiction. Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB-636, 13 NRC 312, 324 n.22 (1981). Thus, in order to discharge its fundamental responsibility within the Commission's regulatory scheme, the Licensing Board must consider any health
.- _ . - .- . - - - - - - _ . - - - - - - - . - - _ . . - -. .....-a.
A and safety impacts associated with that transshipment that have not been elsewhere considered.
Despite this principle of jurisdiction, however, Vepco argues that because the notice of hearing mentions only " receipt" and " storage" of Surry fuel, the Licensing Board's jurisdiction is strictly limited to " receipt" and " storage" and does not extend to activities, such as transshipment, that are necessary to accomplish receipt and storage. An analogous argument was squarely rejected in Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), 13 NRC at 324 n. 22, a spent fuel pool expansion case. There, as here, the applicant contended that the notice of hearing foreclosed consideration of anything other than the spent fuel pool itself and that therefore the Licensing Board could not consider the continued plant operation that would necessarily result from pool expansion. Holding that continued plant operation was an issue " fairly raised" by the applicant's l proposal to expand its spent fuel pool, the Appeal Board ruled that continued plant operation fell within the Licensing Board's jurisdiction. Simila rly , in Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station), 12 NRC a t 426, also a spent fuel pool expansion case, the Appeal Board held that changes in the plant's emergency plan
~
necessitated by the proposed pool expansion were issues " fairly raised" by the licensee's application and therefore fell within the Board's jurisdiction.
These cases stand for the principle that a Licensing Board's authority e xtends to any activity that is a necessary concomitant -
~
2 of the proposed action. Whether the Board must exercise that authority and actually consider the health and safety impacts of the concomitant activity depends on whether that activity will effect a change in the health and safety status quo.5/ Indeed, since a Licensing Board may not grant a license amendment without first satisfying itself that a proposed action will not endanger the public health and safety, 10 C.F.R. 50.40(c) and 50.57(a)(3) and (6), the Licensing Board would be without authority to issue a license amendment if it failed to consider changes in the health and safety values relied upon at-the ope ra ting license stage.
Here, transshipment is a necessary prerequisite to any receipt and storage of Surry spent fuel at North Anna. Thus, it is an issue fairly raised by Vepco's license applications, and the Board therefore has jurisdiction to consider the transship-ment aspects of Vepco's plans.
Moreover, a brief review of the documents issued at the time Surry received its operating license and subsequently demon-l strates indisputably that no NRC forum has ever considered the health and safety impacts of the proposed Surry-to-North Anna I
( shipments. First, Vepco itself concedes that the Safety l
l 5/ Thus, in Big Rock Point, the Board held that because the record did not indicate that the spent fuel pool expansion would necessitate any changes in the reactor operation, NEPA did not
, require consideration of the continued plant operation because ,
I the environmental impacts would continue to be the same as they l t had been since the plant was first licensed to operate for a full ;
40-year term. 13 NRC at 326.
-- . _. r
Evaluation Report issued with Surry's operating license did not consider the possibility of spent fuel shipments to any destination. Vepco Brief at 8.
Second, the Surry Final Environmental Statement ("FES"),
which Vepco would have foreclose all consideration of health and safety impacts, dealt only with the impacts of one-time, direct shipments from Surry to Barnwell, South Carolina. Here, Vepco is proposing to make an initial shipment to North Anna, presumably later to ship the spent fuel accumulated there to a federal repository for permanent disposal, the location of which is yet to be determined. This new shiptcent scheme introduces new elements into the health and safety equation developed at the Surry operating license stage. Different trucks loaded with differei . casks will be moving along different routes with different population densities to a different terminus.
Moreover, the assumptions on which the FES based its conclusion tha t Surry spent fuel could be shipped safely have l
long since been rejected by the NRC. For example, the Surry FES l
states that transport safety will be assured by a combination of
" limitations on the contents . . . , the package design, and the external radiation levels," and that therefore special routing is not req uired .1/ In the preamble to the 1980 amendments to Part 73 of the NRC regulations,2/ however, the Commission stated that 6/ Final Environmental Sta tement, Surry Power Sta tion Unit 1, _
Tliay 19 7 2 ) at 129. I i_
7/ 45 Fed. Reg. 37399, 37403 (June 3, 1980).
a
A package design is not sufficient to protect public health and safety and that therefore the Commission was adopting routing restrictions and stringent security requirements.
Third, as to the route approvals previously granted under 10 C.F.R. $ 73.37, the Commission has recently advised Vepco that, in light of the Licensing Board ruling on its jurisdiction, the route approvals are of "no effect." See Attachment A. This affirmation of the Licensing Board's decision demonstrates that the Board's interpretation of Commission jurisdictional principles is entirely correct. Even if the route approvals were still effective, however, they would not bar the Board's assertion of jurisdiction because Part 73 does not purport to cover the universe of health and safety impacts. Rather, Part 73 was promulgated to protect against sabotage and diversion of spent fuel shipments, see 44 Fed. Reg. 34466 (June 15, 1979);
route approvals granted under Part 73 therefore say nothing about the health and safety impacts of uneventful spent fuel shipments or shipments in which an accident occurs.8/
8/ Also, to the extent Part 73 is intended to satisfy some of l the Commission's health and safety obligations in evaluating i transshipment plans, the administrative handling of Vepco's route l approval request raises serious questions whether those obliga- "
tions were indeed satisfied in this particular case. NRC's l approval of Vepco's proposed routes took a scant two weeks, generating little, if any, administra tive record. In addition, although one of the stated purposes of the Commission's route approval requirement is to enable the Commission "to assure that
[the licensee] has considered alternatives to the making of the shipment," 45 Fed. Reg. at 37403, there is no evidence in the administrative record that sach alternatives were considered .:
either by Vepco or the administrative decisionmaker. This, too, ~:
l raises serious doubts about the validity of the process there undertaken and whether a licensing board should be required to rely on route approvals so obtained.
~
Fourth, Vepco's argument that 10 C.F.R. $ 70.42(b)(5) already authorizes its proposed shipments is unpersuasive. That section states:
[A]ny licensee may transfer special nuclear material . . . [t]o any person authorized to receive such special nuclear material under terms of a specific license or a general license or their equivalents issued by the Commission . . .
This section, however, which is a grant of a general leiense, does not bar consideration of health and safety. To the contrary, since the Commission does have an obligation to ensure that the activities it licenses will not endanger the public health and safety, this section can be said to represent a Commission judgment that shipment of special nuclear material to a person " authorized to receive" it will not endanger public health and safety. By making the general license to ship dependent on the licensing status of the intended recipient, however, this section suggests that the Commission's health and safety inquiry is to be conducted in the context of proceedings -
to determine whether the intended recipient is " authorized to receive" special nuclear ma terial.
It is readily apparent that this construction of the Commission's regula tory scheme is correct, since the required determination of the safety of receipt and storage necessarily involves a judgment about the safety of the shipment that is integral to that plan. Since the precise issue before the
~
Licensing Board is whether North Anna will be " authorized to receive," Section 70.42(b)(5) indicates that the health and safety aspects of transshipment are a proper concern of the Board. Thus, the existence of the general license does not control the scope of this proceeding; rather, this proceeding controls whether Vepco will be able to avail itself of the general license.
In sum, no evidence of record suggests that the health and sa'fety impacts of Vepco's proposed shipments from Surry to North Anna have ever been considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Vepco complains that the Board's ruling means that "with each new destination . . . a new transshipment health and safety analysis would be required." Vepco Brief at 5. A requirement that licensing boards consider the incremental health and safety impacts of proposed license amendments is hardly an untoward result; the absence of such a requirement would permit potentially significant health and safety questions to go unresolved. The County did not ask, and the Board has not ruled, that any valid existing health and safety evaluations be set aside. Rather, the County asks that the Licensing Board be allowed to " consider the health and safety impacts which have
~
never been considered before." Memorandum at 4. As in Salem, 11 l NRC at 536, the Board below has carefully charted a course that will enable it "to ca rry out its fundamental responsibility; i
namely, to satisfy itself whether the proposed license amendment .
I would unreasonably affect the public health and safety." As in i i
I
- i d
a
Salem, its decision must be affirmed.
CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Louisa County respectfully requests the Appeal Board to deny the applicant's motion for directed certification or, alternatively, to affirm the ruling of the Licensing Board.
Respectfully submitted, a , ,
jdh.MarshallColeman Christopher H. Buckley, Jr.
t Cynthia A. Lewis l
Robert Brager Virginia S. Albrecht Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. -
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 828-0200 Attorneys for Intervenors
, August 22, 1983 -
I Of Counsel:
Richard W. Arnold, Jr.
County Attorney PO Box 276 :
Louisa, VA 23093 i (703) 967-1650 '
I l
A
UN;TED STATES
~
.*, . '. .l
. .i N c. yy ; NUCLEAR REGULATO.3Y COMMISSION -
ow
- L.. -
WA3HINGTON. C. C. 20 E5
- 'i X. :. ..- f ATTACHMENT A
-Tg~ J4 f- . .
g 63,,4 -
kuqust 5,-1983 , -
j i
C ,
x Michael W. Maupin, Esq. -
Counsel for Virginia Electric ,
M and Power Company '
Hunton & Williams '
1
., P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 .
Dear Mr. Maupin:
This is being written with regard to the July 28, 1982 NRC a.c.croval of Virc. inia Electric and Power Com.oanv's .
(VIPCO's) crocosed routes for shi.oment of spen fuel frem the Surry Nuclear Power Plant to the North Anna Nuclear Power. Plant.
The 3 card of Supervisors of Louisa County, Virginia (the County) filed a petition to review this route approval in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that the Nuclear Reculatorv. Ccmmission (NRC) had not "concucted an' adecuate review of the economic, environmental', health and safer.v im. acts of transportation of spent fuel along the _
approved routes er of possible alternatives to such trans.ocrtation." The County also petitioned the NRC unfer 10 C.ra 2.206 to institute a proceeding to revcke -the > July 28,-
i 1982 NRC ac..croval of the c.rocosed routes. .
x The NRC'.s Atomic Safety and Licensinc Boardnein h. .. . .
- theo .
rth nna censolicatec croceec nc.s :or amen ments to :..
license, amendments which are necessary before the spent fuel can be shipped along the proposed routes, has recently issuec a decision bearing on the concerns raised by Louisa County regarding the route approvals. Virginia Electric & Power Co.
(North Anna Power Station, Units 1 & 2), Memorandum (Re: Two Issues 3riefed by Order of the Board) (June 10, 1983). The Licensing Board found that it could "censider the health and l
I safe:v im acts of the transoort of scent fuel from Surry to Nor n. Anna r" anc t.na: t.nac "s,.urisciction to cons cer the
\
easonablv foreseeable environmental imc.act of the transportation of spent fuel from Surry to North Anna that fairi.v arise from the preposals to receive and store s. cent fuel assemblies at North Anna.and to expand the spent fuel '
i storac.e ca.=acitv at North Anna." .
l u .u. _ s _ ._ _ ._ _. &m o a cs. 4 _c _ y ot, .._ . c- . as.a .-
ge c_-,_ ._ _4 _
_ 4_n 3
_ e >c'__4c_=_1 :.
.. _, u_ u_ a_ _- _n e_o u_,_ c_p_r-- c_s o_
u_y n og,
,c ,__
..c ._ no e :_:_ ec" .
" o _= ".._4 ", #uel __m. --
.'..a_ S u _ _- v_ ' _#- = c i _' _4 '_ v_
V"3CO _is .no' au"h.o
__ _ _4_e# - -
1_*.. . a #- a _4 _' _# '__ v e e.7 - _4 .7 ,- _# _#. a _1 _ _ _c o __i- -" ' # e n *.i d u #
.o .%. .a_ N. o _ '. h.
autheri:stion by the Licensing 3 card of the h'ealth and safety i= pacts of VIPCO's shipment and storage plan.
l
.~ ) ,
-j Since the Coun,t.v new has an c.r.oortuni:v to*,g.cursue litigation .
Q#
- a r=
6..==4- ww.* g g g.*.*. g * * ..
- h. 4 m.*g oc
.4. a o C... h.. .c 1 7. g ny,. g .. _
,....a
.s . 3.yy
. . _ C..._p 1 s ,
we contacted the~Ccunty's attorney := attempt to resolve the lawsuit and the 10 CFR 2.206 petition. In return for our writin-s this letter, the Countv-has prc=d sed := withdraw, .
without prejudice,'both the lawsuit and the 10 CFR 2.206 petition.
Sincerel.v r
. ~.
t " 4
- s. meo 5,ac5 ie _
Actine Solicitor
~
cc: ' Robert 3rager m
M 4
i .
9 e
b
- a o ~
j t
6 s
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Opposition of Intervenors County of Louisa, Virginia, and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Louisa, Virginia to Applicant's Motion for Directed certification upon each of the persons named below by depositing a copy in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed to him at the address set out with his name:
Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, C.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson School of Engineering Howard University 2300 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20059 He n ry J . McGurren, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James B. Dougherty, Esq.
3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, D.C. 20555 i A
4 Michael W. Maupin Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 August 22, 1983 /A1 4td v i
Cynthia A. Lewis l
4 2 --
l L st