ML18283A570
| ML18283A570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1976 |
| From: | Garner W - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18283A570 (7) | |
Text
+i+
~C UNITED STAIRS OF AMERICA
~ - ~
6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Xn the Natter of
~ca~
OgggC
~ g7gw.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORXTY (Browns Perry Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos.
50-25 0
INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO Ai'PLICANT'S MOTION POR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING FUEL OADXNG AND OPERATXON On April 22, 1976, the Applicant moved, this Atomic Safety and, Licensing Board to issue an order agthorising the Director of Reactor Regulation to make appropriate findings and permit, fuel loading and operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, units 1 and 2, at 100$ of full power on the alleged grounds that 1 ~ Granting of the motion would not affect the Intervenor's right in this proceeding;
- 2. Units 1 and 2 remaining idle would cost the Applicant's power consumers 870 million and seriously erode system reliabilty; and There could be reasonable assurance that operation of the units during the proceeding would not endanger the health and safety of the public.
Intervenor's response is that.:
1.
The granting of the motion would destroy the Intervenor's right in this proceeding:
2.
In the first place, as a matter of law, this Atomic
G Safety and Licensing Board, sitting as a Judicial Body, cannot consider the ',
second ground for the notion; further, the Applicant, in alleging this ground,.
is merely resorting to the truism that in our modern society the last refuge of the promoter is to threaten people urith the loss of Jobs, loss of livelihood, lack of food, and a return to life in a cave; and 3.
'i'here cannot be reasonable assurance that operation of the units during the proceeiing would not endanger tho health and safety of the public Applicant states in its brief that,
"'ihe amendments relate to modification and reinstatement of certain technical specifications authorizing operation of units 1 and 2, upon satisfactory completion of the work required to restore the plant following the vjarch 22, 1975, fi.re."
Applicant also states,
".If these units remain idle until the Board's decision following the evidentiary hearing, it will cause a serious erosion of system reliability by reducing reserve margins down to only 7 percent, and will cost the seven million con.umers of TVA power q>70 million to purchase replacement power, if it is'available."
Applicant then says, "The Board has authority to authori.ze the Direct,or of Rea"tor Regulation to make appropriate findings and permit uel loading, testing, and power operation.
Completion by the Regulatory Staff'f its review of the modi-fications of the plant provides reasonable assurance that there will be no urdue risk to the health an.3 safety of the public, and operation of the plant during the course of this proceeding will not adVersely affect the Intervenor's interest."
Since the issues 'o date, in this cause, include whether or not further modi-lications are necessary; and whether or not 'iVA personnel are qualified and competent to complete restoration work and whether or not the NHC Staff can assure that TVA satisfactorily completes the work; there is no way that 'he Board can delegate the decision making authority involved in the motion to the NRC Staff" without destroying Intervenor's rights in this proceeding.
3 As to the second ground decided this issue adversely t,o Zntervere the Board said, for the Applicant's'otion, the, Hoard has already to the Applicant,.
On page 24 of its ruling on Petition I
"TVA argues that granting a hearing oa this Petition
'ould oe "contr ry to national interest."
But considering all the circumstances-
'he nationwi.ie interest in the resolution of the 13ro!>ns 1'erry fire incident, the cor rective modifications proposed, and t,he serious nature cf t ctitioner's allegations-bh:: ";.'n'..i'try <<ppen>r
> t,o bo t,rue, i.e., ti;e granti.'nIF, of a hearing in this ca. e would seem to bo clearly 'in 'th>> put>'!,ic interest.
and consisteni:
with the Co>>>mission>s often-exp; e'.,e'l policy of resolving factual questions relating to'licensed facilit.ies on an opo!1p pu )lic recorsl As to the thir.l ground for the Applicant's motion,in the present
- cause, t,he
'"oar.l cannot delegate its authority to t,he Regulatory Staff, because tr competency of th>
i<:">,ulatory S'aff is one of the major issues in the cause.
Ap',)licant cites three cases in support of its motion.
None of the cases re-mnt,ely re.date 'o the instant case.
Na'lcr v.
Ray was a case wherein the 1 iaintiffs s>)ught, t,o al,t,".ck the r>>3e-making ability of t,he commission members without even-botheri>>i; to'ask the Commission to act. on its charges,itself.
Friends of the Larth v.
the Uni teil Stat,> s Atomic Znerg Com>!>ission was merely a case where the Court refused t,o su!unarily reverse a Commission order.
The Indian Point case stands for the pro-pos' ion that 0 c(
a licensing board in an operating license proceeding has resolved
'e nny orate:I nd 'sacra and any eric'te matters raised
.".na sronte, the decision as to all ot,her ms';Lors which nee;l to be considered prior to issuance of the liccrse is the responsi!)ilV y of the staff alone."
In Indian Point the groups had passed up an opport;>>r. ty to raise the iss es at an earlier. hearing.
In the instant case Int.ervenor t,ook alvantage of the.first. opportunity he had to raise the'ontested issues and thes i:suee have not been reso" ved.
It i.s undispute'l, in this cause, that if the Applicant had been doinvi it,s job an>. if t.h'BC had been doing its job, the Hrowns Ferry nuclear plart Units 1 and 2
wo>>> l be operating and producing power at 100$ now.
The Applicant now seeks to
make the B'oard and the Igtervenors villains in the eyes of the consumer for acts it caused and ask the Board to delegate its responsibility to the NRC Staff in an area when it has failed before.
The Motion is due to be and should be dismissed.
Furthermore, the Applicant's attorneys should not be permitted to cause the Board and the other parties to waste, time responding to frivolous motions.
Intervenor respectfully urges the Board to dismiss the motion and.
admonish the Attorneys for the Applicant for filing a frivolous motion.
William E. Garner Route 4, Box 354 Scottsboro, Alabama 35768 Intervenor pro-se Tel. No. 205:
574-5770 Dated May 3, 1976.
NUCLEAR REGULA'0 iK COHb)ISSION In the )'1atter of
)
)
Tennessee Valley Autnority
)
)
Browns 1'erry Nuclear Plant,
)
(Unit.
1 and 2)
)
ihcket Nos.
50-259 50-260 CERTIFICA'1V. OF Si."RVICE I hereby cert,ify that I have served copies of the following document on the
,following by depositing them in the United States mail, first class, postape prepaid:
IN'KRVi:NORtS RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION i'OR AN OROt.R AUTHU))IZING FUEL LOADING ANU OP).RATION
,General Counsel
'1'ennessee Valley Authority 629 New Sprankle Building r noxville, '1'ennessee 37919 Lxecutive Lepal Director U; S. Nuclear R gulatory Conrttission
)'ashingtot>,
d.
C. 20555
'1'homas Reilly, Zsq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulator~
Comtrtission
'tlashingtort, D. C. 20555 Or. Frederick P.
Cowan 22 browns Lane
- belloort, New York 11713 ter.
Hugh C. Paxton Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory P. 0.
Box 16Q Los Alamos, New i'lexico 87544 Atomic Safety and,Licensing Board Panel U. S. Niuclear Regulatory Commission
'thshint ton, tJ.
C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensinp Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Repulatory Commission tfashinpton, O. C. 20555
, Secretarv U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. ". 20555 Attn:
Docketing and Service Station This 3rd day of Nay, 1976.
Nilliam E. Garner Route h, Box 354 Scottsboro, Alabama 35768 (205: 574-5770)
DOCKtIRD 8
UsttRC MAY 6]Sra~
'ONce ol the Secralae, t.~ a m~'u
0