ML19351D598
| ML19351D598 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1980 |
| From: | Weiss E SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8010140012 | |
| Download: ML19351D598 (6) | |
Text
_
4
/
f>1 l t y.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LMNEO 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD :
OCT - 6 990 > T-O' Office of the Seemtsy 4
De@etiftg & Settice
)
I 6
E{p In the Matter of
)
y p
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.,
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
~
Unit No. 1)
([-gQ MOTION TO RECONSIDER ADMISSIBILITY OF UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTIST'S CONTENTION NO. 17
~
In Contention No. 17, UCS claimed that the record in this proceeding must demonstrate that each unresolved safety problem applicable to TMI-1 has either been resolved for this plant or that measures have been taken to compensate for the lack of a solutio'n to the problem.
We specifically called for the same pr ocedure as was directed by the Appeal Board as a requisite to issuance of all operating licenses in Vircinta Electric and Power Co.,
(North Anna Nuclear Station, Uni ts 1 ar.a 2 ), ALAB-491, 8 NRC 245 (1978).
(See also Gulf States Utilities Co.
(River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAS-444, 6 NRC 760 (1977), applying this principle to construction permits.)
The contention was rejected on the stated ground that it lacked Dec.
specificity.
First Special Prehearing Conference Orcer,
~ n :.
18, 1979, Sl.op. at 25.
In view of several recent NRC decisions, UCS seeks recon-sideration of the ruling rejecting Contention No. 17.
25? 0 /
(se soy 014a o a
t On deptember 3, 1980, the Appeal Board issued Northern States Power Company (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1) ALAB-611.
This decision applies the principles established in North Anna and River Bend, suora, to an un-contested proceeding for the conversion of a provisional operating license to a full-term license.
The Board noted
-1/ was "in-that the record - primarily because of its age,
sufficient to permit [i]t to determine whether the Monticello facility can continue to operate safely pending resolution of other unresolved generic issues identified by the staff over the years."
(S1.op. at 16)
The staff was ordered to supplement the record by identifying all unresolved generic safety issues "which might affect safe operation of the Monticello facility" (Id. at 20), to describe the dimensions of each 'such issue and to " provide a succint explanation of why the Monticello plant can continue to operate safely pending resolution of each generic safety issue."
(Id. at 21)
Jersev Central Power and Licht Co. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Sta tion ), AL AB -612, September 5, 1980 follows the Monticello ruling.
These decisions stand for the proposition that when the Commission is required to make a determination that a facility can operate without posing undue risk to public health and safety, an essential element of that determination is a finding based upon the record that the so-called " unresolved safety l
l 1/
The SER was issued in 1973.
facility.
problems" have been satisf actorily addressed for that l
l construction The principle applies to operating licenses, permits and conversion of provisional to full-term licenses.
the Commission should apply equally to this proceeding where It has directed that TMI-l shall not be permitted to resume opera-tion unless and until it is determined that the actions that have been taken "are necessary and sufficient to provide rea-1 facility j
sonable assurance that the Three Mile Island Unit health and safety of can be operated without endangering the Order and Notice of Hearing, CLI-79-S, the public.
10 NRC 141, 148 (1979).
This determination cannot be made in the absence of consideration of the unresolved safety problems.
We also wish to draw the Board's attention to Consumers Power Co.-(Big Rock Point Nuclear Point), Memorandum and
' Order on NEPA Review, September 12, 1980, holding that a fuel pool triggers decision authorizing expansion of a spent impact the provisions of NEPA requiring an environmental statement.
This is because the sole purpose for and effect of the expansion is to permit the licensee to operate tne would otherwise have to facility beyond the date at which it cease operation.
( S1. op. at 8)
While the Bic Rock decision clearly bears directly on the question of whether an environ-should be prepared oefore TMI-1 can mental impact statement resume operation, that question is not yet before the Board.
In our view, the decision is also relevant to the admissibi-t i
lity of UCS Contention No. 17 in that it indicates that the nature of an NRC action is to be judged by its practical a
effect.
In this case, the sole purpose for and effect of the NRC -action in question is to permit TMI-l to operate.
A favorable decision on safety issues is required in orcer to accomplish this even though the plant has already been granted an operating license.
Therefore, the inquiry mandated by the River Bend and North Anna decisions ought to be requirec in this case as well.
For these reasons, UCS moves the Board to reconsider its decision of December 18, 1980, and to permit the litigation of
^
UCS Contention No. 17.
Respectfully submitted, HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 833-9070 DATED:
October 3, 1980
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON
)
Docket No. 50-289 COMPANY, _et al.,
)
(Three Mile Island
)
Nuclear Station, Unit
)
No. 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Motion to Reconsider Admissibility of Union of Concerned Scientist's Contention No. 17 vias mailed this 3rd day of October 1980 to the following parties:
Secretary of the Commission (21)
Mr. Steven C.
Sholly U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 304 South Market Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attn:
Chief, Docketing & Service Section James A.
Tourtellotte, Esq. (4)
Jordan D.
Cunninghar, Esq.
Office of the Exec. Legal Director Fox, Farr & Cunningham U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2320 North Second Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Karin W.
Carter, Esquire Frieda Berryhill Assistant Attorney General Coalition for Nuclear Power 505 Executive House Postponement P.O. Box 2357 2610 Grendon Drive Harrisburg, PA 17120 Wilmington, Delaware 19208 Daniel M. Pell Walter W.
Cohen, Consumer Adv.
32 South Beaver Street Department of Justice York, Pennsylvania 17401 Strawberry Square, 14th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17127
Cert. of Service Docket No. 50-289 Robert L. Knupp, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Assistant Solicitor Judith H. Johnsrud County of Dauphin Environmental Coalition on P.O.
Box P Nuclear Power 407 North Front Street 433 Orlando Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17108 State College, PA 16801 John A. Levin, Esquire Robert Q. Pollard Assistant Counsel Chesapeake Energy Alliance Pennsylvania Public Utility 609 Montpelier Street Commission Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Theodore Adler Marvin I.
Lewis Widoff, Reager, Selkowit:
6504 Bradford Terrace
& Adler Philadelphia, PA 19149 3552 Old Gettysburg Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Ms. Marjorie Aamodt Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman RD #5 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Coatesville, PA 19320 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. Linda W. Little 881 W.
Outer Drive 5000 Hermitage Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Ms. Jane Lee Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
R.D.
- 3, Box 3521 Trowbridge Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Ell'Jn R.
Weiss.
f I
l l