ML19263B536

Response of Petitioner to Intervene Seacoast Anti-Pollution League to Aslab Order of 781208.League Believes There Is No Need for 790115 Hearing Since There Is No Relevant Proposal Before Nrc.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19263B536
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/18/1978
From:	Backus R O'NEIL, BACKUS & SPIELMAN
To:	Buck J, Mike Farrar, Roenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 7901180363
Download: ML19263B536 (4)

Text

1

• O N EILL DACKUS S PI C LM AN ATTOR N EYS AT LAW 13 6 LOW ELL STR EET TELgpHON E MANCHESTER N EW H AM PS HIR C 0310 5 603 66e 7272 NRC PUBLTC DOMBENT R00lf December 18, 1978 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman ffISI9 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c Washington, D. C. 20555 /f #e$$'$

g%7 4 Dr. John H. Buck, G --

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board S * #' $

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission D

Y D Washington, D. C. 20555 5 Q) mJ Michael C. Farrar, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: In the Matter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al Docke t Nos. 50-443 50-444 Gentlemen:

This is to respond on behalf of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League to the Appeal Board's Order of December 8, 1978.

At the outset, SAPL wishes to reiterate a point made in the con-ference call of December 3 concerning the scheduling of this matter.

SAPL does not agree tha t there is any necessity for a hearing on January 15, 1979, and further states that the requirement of attendance at a hearing at this time does not provide sufficient opportunity for the parties to adequately address the issues raised and the testimony of fered.

SAPL believes that there is no need for a hearing on January 15, 1979, because there is no proposal before the NRC at this time to construct a two-unit nuclear plant at Seabrook utilizing cooling towers and the possibility of there being such a proposal before the NRC is largely hypothetical and at best somewhat remote. It is hypothetical because it assumes that there will be a reversal of the presently authorized once-through cooling system, and that such reversal will eventually result not merely in a redesign of the once-through cooling system, but in an order from EPA requiring the use of closed cycle cooling. It is remote because any such 7909.1.8o % 3 Ly4E 3 o NEILL JR Ao OE AT A 8ACKUS S TEPH E N J S e:CLM A N

,t .

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Re: Seabrook December 18, 1978 Page 2 decision will not occur, at the earliest, until late Spring or early Summer, given the fact that neither the respondent in the pending appeal, EPA, nor the intervenor, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, have yet filed their Briefs, and the case will not be argued and presented to the Court until early March.

In view of the foregoing, it is our position that the requirement for the parties to prepare and attend hearings on the issue of whether or not the Seabrook site can be licensed for use with cooling towers, in light of the available alternatives, is un-warranted and unwise. In addition, as also mentioned below, it is SAPL's position that proceeding to a hearing at the present time, in advance of a decision on an existing appeal dealing with the issue of alternative sites, is premature in light of the fact that that appeal, if af firming the use of sunk costs in the analy-sis of Seabrook versus alternative sites will, as all parties are prepared to agree, moot the inquiry.

For ?5ese reasons, SAPL reiterates its opposition to the presently scheduled hearings on comparison of Seabrook with closed cycle cooling with eight other alternative sites.

In addition, SAPL continues to believe that the range of alternative sites selected by the Staff for review are impermissibly narrow in light of the fact that the power to be produced from the proposed plant is intended to serve the entire New England region, and the fact that the New England region is operated as an integrated electrical system with regard to the dispatching of power. A look at the map of the Seabrook alternative sites opposite page II-l dramatically illustrate the extent to which the Staff Alternate Site Inquiry has been restricted preponderantly to a narrow area in the immediate vicinity o f the proposed f acifity.

SAPL can also advise the Appeal Board that the parties did meet, and extensively discuss, on December 14, 1978, the necessity for a hearing to be held on this matter. After these extensive discussions SAPL is obliged to inform the Board as follows:

1. An evidentiary hearing will be necessary unless the Court of Appeals has ruled before the hearing commences on the present appeal from the Commission's June 30, 1978, decision term-insting the Alternate Site Inquiry for Seabrook with once-through cooling. Should that decision be rendered prior to the time of the hearing, there is a large likelihood, if not probability, that the hearing will be unnecessary and SAPL will not be attending.

2. The decision from the Court of Appeals on the pending appeal is likely to render the hearing unnecessary since the issue

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Ecard Re: Seabrook December 18, 1978 Page 3 of sunk costs, as applied to Se brook, is now before the Court, and all the parties have, agreed that should sunk costs count in favor of Seabrook when compared with alternative sites, that there would be no necessity for any further hearings or consideration of alternate sites, under the "obviously superior" standard.

3. However, in the absence of a decision from the Court of Appeals authorizing the counting of sunk costs at Seabrook against alternatives, or an agreement among the parties to accept the Staff testimony in light of the sunk costs, but not otherwise, a hearing is required.

4. At such a hearing, SAPL will pursue the following issues:

A. Whether the Staf f testimony can be used to com-pare Seabrook to the alternate sites without the implicit or ex-plicit consideration of sunk costs. (Again, SAPL agrees that such consideration of sunk costs moots the inquiry, so the Staff asser-tion that their testimony can be treated as proceeding without re-gard to sunk costs is a critical issue).

B. Whether the Staff testimony fully and accurately documents the environmental, economic and social ccsts. of the Sea-brook site with cooling towers, as the so-called "referance case".

C. Whether the Staf f tes timony ern. It -oncluding that Philips Cove is both " marginally", but not "obviously superior" to Seabrook with towers.

D. Whether the Staff testimony errs in concluding thar Millstone, Pilgrim and Litchfield a're not "obviously superior" to Seabrook with towers.

E. Whether the Staff's methodology for comparison of sites is either appropriate to determine whether there are obviously superior sites and whether the Staff's methodology has been consistently and neutrally applied in their comparison of the various sites.

Respectfully submitted, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTICN LEAGUE By its Attorneys O'NEILL BACKUS SPIELMAN j

By: / -

RAB/ led Robert A. Backus CC To all en Service List

f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed on December 18, 1978, postage prepaid, first class or air mail, to the following:

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docket and Service Station U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission Office of the Secretary Lawrence Brenner, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20555 Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 E. Tupper Kinder, Ecquire Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General N 208 State House Annex '\ # D Concord, New Hampshire 03301 y ,

Karin P. Sheldon, Esquire Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss I

h ~~

g Suite 500 -~

,qG4k -

1025 15 th S tree t , N. W. $ W Washington, D. C. 20005 6 D a Laurie Burt, Esquire C3 Assistant Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esquire Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street .

Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Rocert A. Backus

-