ML19029A580

the Public Advocate'S Motion for Reconsideration of Part of the Board'S Order of May 24, 1978

ML19029A580
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	06/12/1978
From:	Ayres S, Potter R The Public Advocate
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
Download: ML19029A580 (6)

Text

-

UNITED STATES OF AlvJERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY Al\JD LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC &GAS

)

COMPA.t\JY )

)

Docket No~-~

Proposed I~ of (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, ) .Amendment to Facility Unit No. 1) ) Operating License No. DPR-70 TIIE PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S MJTION FOR RECONSIDEAATION OF PART OF IBE BOARD'S ORDER OF Ht\Y 24, 1978 The Public Advocate of the State of New Jersey, on behalf of the intervenors, Alfred and Eleanor Coleman ("intervenors" or "the Colemans") ,_

hereby respectfully moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board")

for reconsideration of that part of its May 24, 1978 "Order Following Special Prehearing Conference" ("Order") which denied the Coleman's proposed contention 13. In support of this Motion, the Public Advocate represents as follows:

1. In its Order the Board denied the proposed contention 13 with the following reasoning:

Contention 13 asserts that the Licensee has failed to consider adequately the cumulative impact of expanding storage in Salem Unit 1 in association with the proposed expansion of

• the storage capacity in Salem Unit 2. The Board finds that it is remature to consider this contention.

Any impact w ic may e ue to le effect of Unit 2 being added to Unit 1 can more properly be considered in the review of the application to enlarge the storage

capacity of Unit 2. Therefore, this contention is rejected as beyond the scope of this proceeding.

(Order, at 10) (emphasis added)

2. During discussion of the proposed contention 13 late in the prehearing conference of May 18, 1978 (Tr.-92-102) counsel to Public Service Electric and Gas Company ("the licensee" or PSE&G") agreed that "first of all there is no doubt that a separate application has been made with regard to Salem Unit 2." (Tr. 94, 23-25) (emphasis added).

He also stated that the "requested modificatiots"for Unit 2 are-*

"almost identical" to the amendment now before the Board for Unit 1.

(Tr. 95, 6-9) (Consequently, the Board would expect to see similar evidence presented by the NRC staff and PSE&G if the two amendments were treated in the same proceeding.)

3. l~1ile the Public Advocate has not been provided with a copy of the Salem Unit 2 application (Tr. 95, 3-4), it is our understanding that the licensee's application of necessity must be for an amendment to the existing construction permit ("CP") for Salem Unit 2, since construction of the facility has not yet been completed. 10 C.F.R. 50.56.

4. The regulations provide that amendments to the CP may be granted by the Commission without providing public notice of the proposed modification.

and consequently with no opportlIDi ty for the public to respond by requesting.

the Cormnission to convene a Board to rule on possible intervention and hearings, as has occuTred in this proceeding. 10 C.F.R. 50.58(h) authorizes the Commission, when reviewing CP amendments -- as well as ol?erating license amendments -- to "dispense with such notice and publication [of the application]"

and to "issue the amendment," as requested.

S. Based upon discussions with the NRC staff it is the Public Advocate's understanding and belief L~at the Connnission in fact has decided to "dispense with such notice and publication" .wi L"i respect to Salem Unit 2. Consequently, the Board mistakenly believed that the application to amend the CP for* Salem Unit 2 would be subject to the same opportunity for hearing and intervention which pertained in this proceeding.

6. It is also the Public Advocate' s understanding that the NRC staff supported the admission of contention 13 at the conference (Tr. 95, 14-25) in part at least due to the staff's awareness that, lmless admitted. in this proceeding, the impacts of e)..1Janding the capacity and the duration for storing spent nuclear fuel at Salem Unit 2 would not be the subject of any public review and opportunity for hearing.

7. Finally, the NRC staff has stated its intention to perfonn its*

safety and environmental analysis of the Unit 2 amendment in the context of the Unit 1 review and hearing. (Tr. 95, 21-25). Moreover, both Salem units are owned and operated by the licensee, PSE&G *. As a result, the Board must anticipate that the staff and the licensee already are conducting reviews of the "cumulative impacts of expanding spent fuel storage" at the two units, whid1 is the essence of the contention. Therefore, the Board should require presentation of their findings as evidence in this proceeding.

CONCLUSIO~

For the reason stated herein, the Public Advocate on behalf of the Coleman'~ respectfully moves the Board to reconsider the denial of the intervenor's proposed contention 13 and to modify the Order accordingly.

Respectfully submitted, STAl'R.EY C. VAN NESS PUBLIC ADVOCATE By: ~~~-=--~,,,...,,..._~=-~~~~~~~~

R. WILLIAi'v1 POTIER Deputy Director SAi\TDRA T. AYRES Assistant Deputy Public Advocate Division of Public Interest Advocacy DATED: June 12, 1978 UNITED STATES OF A'1ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TI-IE ATOMIC SAFETY ANTI. LICEi'JSING BOARD.

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC &GAS CO:MPAi'JY ) Docket No. 50-272

)

(Salem Nuclear Generating Station, )

Unit No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "The Public Advocate 1 s Motion for Reconsideration of Part of the Board's Order of :May 24, 1978" in the above captioned matter, have been served upon persons listed on attached service list, by deposit in the United State mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 12th day of June, 1978.

R. WILLIAM POTTER Deputy Director Division of Public Interest Advocacy DATED: June 12, 1978

SERVICE LIST Gary L. Milhollin, Esquire Barry Smith, Esquire Chairroan, Atomic Safety and Office qf the Executive Licensing Board

• Legal Director 1815 Jefferson Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrrnission Madison, Wisconsin 53711 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Glenn o. Bright Mark L. First, Esquire Member, Atomic Safety and Deputy Attorrey General Licensing Board Panel Department of Law and U.S. Nuclear Fegulatory Corrmission Public Safety Washington, D.C. 20555 36 W. State Street Trenton, Nev Jersey 08625 Dr. J~s C. Lamb, III Member, Atomic Safety and Richard Fryling, Jr., Esquire Licensing Board Panel Assistant General Solicitor 313 Wocdhaven Road Public Service Electric Chapel Hill, NoC. 27514 and Gas Company 80 Park Place

Newark, New Jersey 07101 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Api;:eal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Carmission Eleanor G. Coleman Washington, D.C. 20555 Alfred C. Coleman 35 "K" Drive Pennsville, New Jersey 08070 Chairman, Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Fegulatory Comnission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 D:x::keting and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Fegulatory Cornnission Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 William C. Homer, Esquire 67 Market Street Salem, New Jersey 08079 Ruth Fisher

'Ihe Sun People - Alternate Energy Advocates Dale Bridenbaugh South Cennis, N::w Jersey 08245 M.H.B. Technical Associates 366 California Avenue Palo Alto, California