ML20006A060
| ML20006A060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1990 |
| From: | Backus R, Curran D, Traficonte J BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP., MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006A061 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#190-9687 ALAB-924, OL, NUDOCS 9001250153 | |
| Download: ML20006A060 (4) | |
Text
It UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hMED i
Before the Commissiont l
'90 JW 17 P2:33 Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman i
Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner
.Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner h ( IECAMARY
[
James R. Curtiss, Commissioner DRAkch i
I
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL.
)
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 6nd 2)
)
January 16, 1990
)
\\
INTERVENORS MOTION FJR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR i
NOVEMBER 13 AND DECEMBER 1, 1989 MOTIONS YOR MANDATORY RELIEF i
The Massachusetts Attorney General, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (the "Intervenors") request leave to file the attached supplemental brief in further support of their earlier motions to revoke and vacate the November 9 license authorization in the Seabrook proceeding.
In support of this request, Intervenors state:
1.
On January 16, 1990 the Intervenors received a copy of the Licensing Board's January 11, 1990 order (the " Order")
which provided all interested parties until February 1, 1990 to submit their proposals as to how the Board should proceed with the issues remanded to it by the Appeal Board in its November 7,
1989 decision, ALAB-924.
9001250153 900116 PDR ADOCK 05000443 o
PDR g
.z-..
(
Y I
2.
This order makes it clear beyond peradventure that the Licensing Board did not resolve or otherwise close out prior to
-licensing tho'four issues remanded to it by the Appeal Board in ALAB-924.
As a direct consequence, it is now obvious that the November 9 license authorization was not made pursuant to 10 i
C.F.R. 50.47(c) (1), which regulation would have required a i
finding that the remanded issues were not significant for the plant in question, that these issues are therefore not material to licensing and that no further proceedings need be held.1/
3.
Instead, just da the Int 6rvenors detailed in their December 1, 1989 Supp)emental Mction at 20-30 n.21, the Licensing Boerd arrogated to itself the authority to make a "no significant hazards" determination as to the safety significance of the remanded issues, mada that finding, and postponed the necessary heariregs on these material issues until after licensing.
This procedure is manifestly unlawful and the Smith Board's November 9 authorization must be revoked.
4.
The Commission and the Applicants have both represented to the Court of Appeals that 10 CFR 50.47(c) (1) is I
in some fashion relevant to the proper disposition of 1/ - As Intervenors stated in their December 1 Suppleniental Motion at 69-70:
Fourth, any finding that the deficiencies in the (b) standards are not significant for the plant in question or are otherwise adequately compensated for effectively puts an end to any further proceedings.
17 k*
f a'
.Intervenors' November 13 and December 1 motions for mandatory relief.A/
As has now again become obvious, the Licensing Board does not share this view, and is now proceeding to take up the remanded issues, thereby acknowledging that Intervenors' prelicensing hearing rights were denied on November 9, 1989.
The supplemental brief, therefore, addresses significant legal issues now before the Commission and the Court.
2/
As the Commission is aware on December 22, 1989, Intervanors. sought mandatory relief directly from the Court of Appeals.. In ito December 29, 1989 Respone.s to the 2ptervencrs Esargency Petition the NRC stated to the Court at 14-15:
[T]he question whether the license may issue despite
. unresolved.emergancy planning issues dor.s not have as obvious an answer as petiticners' rhetoric would suggest.
Whether the emergency planning issues left open by the Appeal Board romand are the sort of matters that preclude
. licensing is for the commission, in the first
-instance, to resolve.
The Applicants, in their undated Response to the Emergency Petition devote 4 of their 7-page discussion to the relevance of (c) (1)', arguing, with their usual subtlety, that even though
' the Licensing Board never mentioned (c) (1) it is obvious that the November 9 license authorization was made pursuant to that regulation.
J 0
i l
N b
i
)
l 5.
Intervenors file this Motion and the supplemental
]
Brief on the same day that they received the Order.
No telephone or other notice of the Order had been provided.
)
i i
Respectfully submitted, i
i SFACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
~ LEAGUE JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL 3eb.4'f.EA]vi(11)
RA fIL.W f
Robert A. Backus, Esquire
[ John Traficonte C.hief, Nuclear Safety Unit Backus, Meyer & Solomon 116 Lewall Streat
' Matthew T. Brock P.O.
Box 516 Assistant Attorney General i
Manchestar, N)! 03106 One Ashburton Place
.(603) 668-7273 Boston, MA 02108-1698 I
(617) 727-2200
.NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION I
. 1,kQ (/,s) k h
^
Diane Curran, Esquife Harmon, Curran & Tousley 2001 S Street, N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009-1125 (202)'328-3500 1
I
_ _..., - _,. _... ~ _.. _,..,, _...