ML19242B837
| ML19242B837 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1979 |
| From: | Brenner L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Buck J, Mike Farrar, Rosenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908090450 | |
| Download: ML19242B837 (2) | |
Text
,lh6 IU1l
. egfY,*%o y q A L * 'l
+
UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGUL A TORY COW.11SSION
). c, o
$,f '.Mh 'p.. j f
WASWNG TON, D. C. lmb5s ER A 9,'f ~
J s ** #
July 2, 1979 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 g,~
/<; y -
h jf i
Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing V
s.9) c" c
Appeal Board Gy U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission lJ
\\;.
Washington, DC 20555 I +/
c r
y s
V-%
xt
/
In the Matter of
\\ h._, <
7 r
Public Service Company of flew Hampshire, et al. \\C (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket tios. 50-443, 50-444 Gentlemen:
As set forth in the findings filed in the form of a proposed decision on February 9,1979, it is the fiRC Stafi's position that the evidence adduced in this remand procerd'ng mandates the conclusion that even without crediting Seabrook with the environmental impacts of construction which have already occurred at the site, there is no alternative that is environmentally obviously superior to Seabrook with cooling towers.
Given this conclusion, the Staff found it unnecessary to utilize economic cost data to assess the cost of moving to any of the alternative sites, since there need be no cost-benefit balancing of alternatives where none that are environmentally preferred exist.
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-458, 7 fiRC 155 (1978).
fievertheless,
the Staff's testimony did present an uncontroverted comparison of forward economic costs at Seabrook and the alternative sites.
(Staff Exh' hit 79-1, Chapters V and VI; Staff proposed decision at 57-58).
In view of the Staff's position, we do not disagtce with the finding requested by the Applicants in their filings of June 6,1979, to the effect that if sunk costs at Seabrook (presumably environmental and economic) are counted in the comparison of the Seabrook site with cooling towers and the alternative sites, then no alternative site is obviously superior to the Seabrook site.
The Staff would point out that at this stage of the proceeding where all of the evidence is in, such a finding does not have to be on the basis of summary disposition pursuant
_.3 7908090950 97
_2_
to 10 CFR 92.749 as requested by the Applicants.
The Appeal Board can make its findings on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence, without having to find that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard.
While the issues in this proceeding may be considered moot for the foreseeable future (if a petition for Supreme Court review of SAPL v. Costle is not filed and granted), there is the possibility mentioned by the Appeal Board that EPT at some later date may require cooling towers at Seabrook. Therefore, in the Staff's view, the Appeal Board should consider taking the approach of issuing a decision on the merits at this time.
Such a decis,on can be greatly abbreviated if it considers sunk costs in light of the views of the intervenors, referenced in the Applicants' filings, that if sunk costs are counted there would be no justification for choosing an alternative site to Seabrook with cooling towers.
For example, tne Appeal Board could find that even arg~uendo resolving ir a manner f avorable to the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League l5APL) the few aspects of the Staff's environmental comparison which it took issue with in its findings, there is no justification for preferring an alternative site to Seabrook with towers once environmental and economic sunk costs are considered.
Sincerely, ab r
r Counsel for NRC Staff cc:
Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Joseph F. Tubridy, Esq.
Dr. Marvin M. Mann Dr. Ernest O. Salo Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
John A. Ritsher, Esq.
Norman Ross, Esq.
E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.
Laurie Burt, Esq.
Karin P. Sheldon, Esq.
Ms. Elizabeth H. Weinhold Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Docketing and Service Section
- -n C Ol
~>d s
.