ML19261A405
| ML19261A405 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/1978 |
| From: | Dignan T, Gad R, Ritsher J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901180134 | |
| Download: ML19261A405 (4) | |
Text
.
..rsc q - r vc -
.:'.II ROOM
, V 5.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' L' Ec ' k\\.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I37 a$'
(f '
pp$
9
[1
[
2
'y before the
'L 4
.7,
\\ '-
Rf ' d
- R
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD l%'x
, %/
"'/fi {\\P
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 HAMPSHIRE,
.e_t_._al.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
)
ANSWER OF THE PERMITTEES TO NECNP MOTION TO BE EXCUSED FROM EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS INTRODUCTION Under date of December 21, 1978, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) filed, in the above-entitled pro-ceeding, a " Motion to be Excused from Evidentiary Hearings" (NECNP Motion) with this Appeal Board.
This answer is submitted for in response thereto by the Seabrook permittees, who say chat the reasons set forth below the NECNP Motion should be denied.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MOTION The NECNP Motion relates to the impending eridentiary hear-ing on the " discrete issue [cf] whether there is an alternate site in New England which would be 'obviously superior' to the Seabrook site were use of a closed-cye.
cooling system to be WO1.1.8c3(3e
required at the latter site".
ALAB-513, p.
3 It begins with an extensive description of NECNP's willingness to agree "that it would not contest the Staff's conclusion" on the issue with which it disagrees and concedes that given the currently applicable legal assumptions governing the comparison of Seabrook to alternative sites, there is no justification for abandoning Seabrook for another site HECNP Motion, p.
4 The NECNP Motion then concludes that NECNP is left with the option of either " participating in a hearir.J on a hypothetical or withdraw-ing completely It fails to note that NECNP and other intervenors vociferously argued before this Appeal Board and the Commission the need for this " hearing" at an earlier stage of this proceeding.
Nevertheless, NECNP seeks to have the best of both worlds by being excused from participating in the hearing and yet being allowed to pursue a full panoply of appellate rights thereafter.
ARGUMENT The Seabrook permittees believe that fairness and the demands of procedural regularity preclude the granting of such unique privileges to any party and that the NECNP Motion should be denied.
The right to intervene is founded initially on the existence of an interest which may be affected by the proceeding and a desire to participate as a party.
Cnce party status has been achieved, it carries responsibilities as well as rights.
"[I]ntervention in an NRC adjudicatory proceeding does not carry with it a license to step into and out of the consideration of a particular issue at will."
Northern States Power Co., ALAL-2de,
_2_
2 ':RC 390, 393 (1975).
"In short, the right of participation in an administrative proceeding carries with it the obligation of a party to assist in ' making the system work' and to aid the agency in discharging the statutory obligations with which it is charged."
Consumers Power Company, ALAE-123, 6 AEC 331, 332 It would be highly inequitable to allow NECNP to " sit cut"-
the hearing but retain full r4ghts to reenter the arena at some future date to challenge the results on appeal.
Cf. Boston Edison Co._, LEP-76-7, 3 NRC 156 (1976).
Finally, since the issues which NECNP allegedly wishes to pursue are largely generic in substance (see NECMP Motion, p. 5), the impending " Generic Rulemaking te Improve Nuclear Power Plant Licensing" provides a more appropriate forum for evaluating their rerite than does this proceeding.
In particular, the NECNP issues would fall directly within the description of Candidate Issue No. 4 to the Interim Policy Statement relating to that Rulemaking.
43 F.R.
58377, 58379 CONCLUSION The NECNP Motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
/ John A.
Ritsher John A.
Ritsher
/ Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
/P. K. Gad III R.
K. Gad III Attorneys for permittees Decenter 27, 1978
_3_
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John A. Ritsher, one of the attorneys for the permittees herein, hereby certify that on December 27, 1978 I made <
vice of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, first class, to:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washfngton, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 E. Tupper Kinder, Esquire Dr. John H. Buck Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Appeal Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 208 State House Annex Washington, D.C.
20555 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Michael C.
Farrar, Esquire Karin P.
Sheldon, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss Appeal Board Suite 500 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1025 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20005 Ivan W.
Smith, Esquire Dr. Ernest O.
Salo Atomic Safety and Licensing Professor of risheries Research Board Panel Institute U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission College of Fisheries Washington, D.C.
20555 University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Joseph F.
Tubridy, Esquire U100 Cathedral Avenue, N.W.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollum Washington, D.C.
20016 1107 West Knapp Street Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Dr. Marvin M. Mann Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Board Panel O'Neill Backus Spielman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 116 Lowell Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Manchester, New Hampshire 03101 Lawrence Brenner, Esquire Laurie Burt, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Assistant Attorney General Director Cnc Ashburton Place U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boston, Massachusetts 02106 Washington, D.C.
20555
/ John A. Hitsher John A.
Ritsher