ML20058A441
| ML20058A441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1981 |
| From: | Fitzgerald J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058A382 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436, FOIA-93-436, TASK-AINV, TASK-SE SECY-81-041, SECY-81-41, NUDOCS 8110280565 | |
| Download: ML20058A441 (21) | |
Text
'
mauw - _ _ _._.- -
/,
s'c bAIf s,
ADJUDICATORY ISSUE secy-si-4i Janu6ry 19, 1981_
(Notation Vote) i i
i For:
The Commissioners I
From:
James A. Fit:: gerald Assistant General Counsel Review of ALAB-623 (In the Matter of Public
Subject:
Service Company of New Hampshire) t Seabrook Station, Units 1 and '2.
Facility:
Petitions For fieview:
None Review Time Expires:
January 30, 1981 (as extended).
i To inform the Commission of an Appeal Board deci-i
Purpose:
sion denying a motion to suspend construction at In ALAB-623, the Appeal Board denied a motion by Discussion:
the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) for a suspension of construction at Sea-l t
brook pending resolution of certain seismic issues remanded by the Commission.
On September 25, 1980, the Commission remanded the Seabrook construction permit proceeding to the Appeal Board to: (1) reopen the record on Dr. Chinnery's methodology for predicting earth-l quake return times as a function of intensity and on staff's methodology for correlating vibra-tory motion to the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE);
and (2) reconsider its decisions on these issues.
Over a month later, NECNP moved for suspension of construction contending that the remand inval-1 dated the initial grant of construction permits Ih3f:'h N d M O U CONTACT:
Sheldon L. Trubatch, OGC in e::: dane with the FicQm ci h&mation i
634-3224
> :Ud uiw& i n, n i(/d' Act, ce t;cns y
' r!
O
~
~
{
B110280565 93041p
('
I N
GILINSK92-436 PDR 2 /PP-
)
2
~
for Seabrook because it now appears that the cor-rect intensity of the SSE and maximum design acceleration may be substantially greater than previously determined.
Moreover, because much of the foundation work at Seabrook has already been completed, NECNP believed that the Appeal Board had no basis for previously concluding that construction could be E11 owed to continue,
without foreclosing changes that may,be needed to deal with a more severe design basis earth-quake.
Thus, NECNP contended that the Appeal Board must suspend the Seabrook construction.
permits until all seismic safety issues have been resolved. 1/
The Commonwealth of Massa-chusetts supported the motion to the extent that it would result in a s'aspension of con-struction of structures which might be affected by the outcome of the remar.6.
The permittee, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSCNH), contended that the Appeal Board was not authorized to consider NECNP's motion because the Commission had retained jurisdiction, remanding to the Appeal Board only for the pdrposes of taking new evidence and reconsidering its previous decision.
Even if the Appeal Board had jurisdiction, PSCNH believed that the motion should be denied because the Commission's remand did not constitute a reversal of the Board's previous findings, but only provided the Board an oppor-tunity to see if additional evidence would lead it to change its findings.
PSCNH also argued that suspension is not required to prevent the foreclosure of the ability to meet a more stringent seismic standard because an operating license cannot be granted unless health and safety regulations are met.
Thus, if the seis.
mic design for Seabrook is changed, PSCNH expects it will be required to mSdify the plant in order to obtain an OL.
In any event, evi-dence was presented showing that additional construction of safety related features would not be very great by time the remand proceeding
-1/
NECNP also argued that it should not bear the burden of proof as required by 10 CFR 2.732 because the Commission's order implied that the applicant had not met its burden of proof in information the first instance and because all the relevant was in the applicant's possession.
s I
3 4
is completed.
Staff also opposed suspension of f
the construction permits on the bases that: (1) the Commission had neither ruled that the former seismic conclusions were in error nor suspended the permits itself; and (2) future construction during the remand proceeding will not foreclose reasonable plant modifications if needed.
The Appeal Board rejected NECNP's characteri-
~
zation of the Commission's order as embodying a ruling that the Appeal Board had previously erred in rejecting NECNP's seismic methodology and conclusions.
Rather, the Board found that the Commission had. simply decided.that the Board should re-examine and reconsider certain seismic-decisions.
Although such reexamination could lead to a decision to upgrade the seismic design of Seabrook, the Board found that there was insufficient justification to suspend construc-tion for the following reasons.
First, the Commission did not suspend construction even though it must have realized that seismic upgrading of Seabrook was a possible consequence of the remand proceeding.
Second, NECNP failed to satisfy the Commission's criteria for suspend-ing a construction permit because it did not make the requisite showing that suspension was required by the traditional balancing of equities and considerations of likely prejudice to future proceedings. 2/
i Regarding balancing of the equities, the Appeal Board found that NECNP had not demonstrated irreparable injury if construction is allowed to continue.
Regarding prejudice to future decisions, the Board found that suspension of construction is not needed to prevent foreclo-sure of plant modifications that might be called for as a result of the remand because the permittee will have to comply with any changed seismic requirements before obtaining an operating license.
The Board also noted that construction during the period of the remand proceeding will alter the status quo to a relatively minor extent.
Thus, any additional work performed in the interim would have little effect on the amount of work which would be required should the seismic design be found to require modification.
2/
CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 521 (1977).
1
^
4 t5'(
F' i
i 3
Recomnendation:
-J 1
( 4M+n ames A. Fi o erald Assistant General Counsel
Attachment:
ALAB-623
,,,,-g
~~* me ae.Ww L.M m.y s y, W
d
5 Comissioners' coments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, January 30, 1981_.
Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Corrnissioners NLT January 23, 1981, with an information copy to the If the paper is of such a nature that it Office of the Secretary.
requires additional time for analytical review and coment, the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Secretariat 4
'i i
l 4
4
~
~
~
~~
~^
,-.x
/
k.
f%
. ~, -
y*
1
~'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
{3,-[q.,,f, *
'a,
- ~
jl NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION k
' ?-j
- ~
ATOMIC SAFETY AND ' LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
,ji.
A
.~.~c.
y 3
i Administrative Judges:
f,
%Il.;*
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Dr. W. Reed Johnson Ofg'#
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444 2
)
~~
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss and Mr. William S. Jordan III, Washington, D.
C.,
for the intervenor, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution.
i Messrs. Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., and R. K. Gad III, i
Boston, Massachusetts, for the applicants, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
Mr. Stuart K. Becker and Ms. Maxine I. Lipeles, Assistant Attorneys General of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Mr. Roy P. Lessy for the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission staff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER December 9, 1980
~
(ALAB-623)
On September 25, 1980, by a divided vote the Commission remanded to us this, construction permit proceeding involving the Seabrook nuclear facility in New Hampshire. CLI-80-33, 12 NRC 6
J
1 l
)
The instructions given us were (1) to reopen the record to re-
\\
in ceive additional evidence on certain seismic issues; and (2) the light of that evidence, to reconsider the conclusions we reached on those issues in ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 54-65.(1977) and ALAB-561, 10 NRC 410, 436-a et see (1979).
Following consulta-tion with the parties, we entered an unpublished order on November 6 which established the schedule for the filing of r
prepared testimony and announced that the hearing itself would likely commence on April 6,1981.
What we are now called upon to decide is whether the Seabrook construction permits should be allowed to remain in In a motion filed effect pending the outcome of the remand.
on October 29 (over a month af ter the Commission ordered the j
the intervenor New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollu-remand),
tion (Coalition) asks that the permits be suspended, thereby j
f The foreclosing further construction activities pendente lite.
f r
intervenor Commonwealth of Massachusetts supports the motion in 1
part. :/ Both the applicants and the NRC staff oppose it.
t I
A review of the background of the seismic remand is neces-sary in order to put the Coalition's motion in proper perspective.
)
In the Commonwealth's view, pending the outcome of the 1/
romand there should be no additional construction work
~~
involving structures which might be affected bv that outcome.
t A
. ~
A.
In an initial decision issued in 1976, the Licensing Board authorized the issuance of construction permits for the l
The decision Seabrook facility.
prompted appeals by several of the parties, including the f
Coalition.
A principal question presented by the Coalition's I
appeal was addressed to the Licensing Board's application of the seismic and geologic siting criteria for nuclear power i
plants which are contained in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.
l At the root of those criteria is the " Safe Shutdown Earth-As recently ree=phasized: 3 /
l quake" (SSE) concept.
i The SEE for a particular site is that earth-quake "which is based upon an evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential considering the regional and local geology and seismology and specific characteristics of local sub-surface material" and "which could cause the maximum vibratory ground motion at the site 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, 55 III(c),
V(a).
The nuclear power plant must be de-signed so that, should the SSE occur, "cer-tain Ispecified safety) structures, systems, and components will remain functional".
Id.,
B VI (a).
2/
On the strength of that authorization, the permits were issued on July 7, 1976.
Their effectiveness was later l
twice suspended for periods of time for reasons unre-lated to the matters now before us.
With respect to the first suspension, see ALAB-366, 5 NRC 39, as modified in CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503 (1977); ALAB-423, 6 NRC 115 (1977).
As to the second suspension, see CLI-78-14, 7 NRC 952, 957-60 (1978); CLI-78-17, 8 NRC 179 (1978).
_3/
Dairyland Power Coop. (La Crosse Eoiling Water Reactor),
ALAB-618, 12 NRC (November 17, 1980) (slip opinion, pp. 3-4).
I Mn*=,
In short, the SSE is the earthquake postu-lated for the purpose of determining the adequacy of the seismic design of the facil-The plant has to be capable of being ity.
safely shutdown despite the effects of what-I ever vibratory ground motion might be experi-enced at the site as a result of the SSE.
(One of the elements of the SSE determina-tion is, of course, an ascertainment of the amount of such rotion (Id., 8 V(a)).)
Before the Licensing Board, the applicants and the NRC staff had adduced evidence in' support of their position that the Seabrook SSE had a maximum intensity of VIII (measured on the Modified Mercalli scale) and that the vibratory ground notion (acceleration) which might be experienced at the site as a re-1 sult of that earthquake would not exceed 0.25g. 4 /
For its part, the Coalition had asserted (1) that the SSE should at a minimum be a Modified Mercalli intensity IX; and (2) that, even for an intensity VIII SSE, an acceleration value of approximately 0.4g should be assigned.
For these propositions the Coalition had relied inter alia upon, respectively, (1) the probabilistic hypothesis advanced by one of its witnesses, Dr. Michael A. Chinnery and (2) the testimony of another Coalition witness, Dr. Mihailo On the basis of its appraisal of the record, in its Trifunt..
initial decision the Licensing Board had resolved the issue in favor of the applicant and the staff.
In other words, it had 1/
The acceleration associated with an earthquake is ex-pressed in terms of a percentage of "g" (one g repre-sents the gravitational acceleration of a free falling body).
4 found that the Seabrook facility need be designed so as to be capable of being shutdown safely in the event of a Modified Mercalli intensity VIII earthquake producing an acceleration at the site of 0,25g.
LBP-76-36, supra, 3 NRC at 868-71, 919-22.
i Challenging this result, the Coalition complained to us of the rejection of the contrary conclusions of Dr. Chinnery
)
and Dr. Trifunac.
By a divided vote, this Board turned the 4
challenge aside.
As the majority saw it, Dr. Chinnery's proba-1 bilistic theory was both technically deficient and inconsistent with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.
ALAB-422, supra, 6 NRC at 57-60.
With respect to the matter of the maximum acceleration which an intensity VIII earthquake might occasion at the Seabrook site, the majority determined that the analytic ap-proach of the staff's principal witness (Dr. Nathan M. Newmark) j
-- which had led to the assignment of the 0.25g value -- was preferable to that of Dr. Trifunac.
M. at 62-64.
i Viewing the natter differently, Mr. Farrar 5/ noted his dissent from this disposition of the seismic question and thus from the affirmance of the Licensing Board's authorization 1
25/
By reason of 'his recent resignation from the Appeal Panel, Mr. Farrar no longer is a member of this Board.
1 1
4 1
n e
6 AEC j
of the issuance of the Seabrook construction permits.
at 106 et sg. 5/
Instead of filing a full opinion at that l
time, however, he confined himself to a suma7 statement of his own conclusions.
As he explained:
- my views on the seismic issues [do] not lead me to conclude that the plant should not be built.
Rather, those views call for a sub--
stantial upgrading of the plant's ability to withstand earthquakes.
Although this is im-i portant to safety, the necessary design changes would not be foreclosed by any construction efforts taking place in the near future.
- Thus, there is no cause to delay the release of to-day's decisions -- which allow construction to proceed -- whil? 7 cmmplete the full elucida-tion of my response to my colleagues' seismic i
analysis.
Accordingly, I present only an outline of my conclusions on the seis-mic issues, without detailed supporting analy-sis.
I will prepare a supplemental opinion later, and in it furnish the full reasoning underlying my position.
I Id. at 106. E B.
On August 10, 1977, the Coalition filed a petition for Com:nission review of ALAB-422.
On September 15, 1977, the All other issues raised by the Coalition and the other 6/
appellants were resolved in ALAB-422 1n the applicants' favor.
Jurisdiction was retained, however, over one question which this Board had raised sua sponte -- a question which did not bear upon whether the tacility should be built.
6 NRC at 104-05.
l/
By way of a footnote, Mr. Farrar added:
My conclusion on the seismic matter will affect the cost of the plant and thus the comparison of it to a plant at those alternative sites lo-cated outside the same seismic area.
Given the (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
Commission announced that it would defer its determir' tion whether to grant review on the seismic issues to await Mr.
Farrar's supplemental opinien.
That opinion was rendered in August 1979 and prompted a response the following month from the Appeal Board majority.
ALAB-561, 10 NRC 410.
Acting on a Commission invitation, the Coalition filed a supplemental memorandum on September 26, 1979 in support of that portion of its petition for rs. view of ALAB-4 22 which dealt with the seismic issues.
The Commission was advised, inter alia, that, subsequent to his testimony before the Li-censing Board, Dr. Chinnery had undertaken certain seismologi-cal studies under NRC contract and had reported the results of tnose studies to the NRC staff in 1978 and 1979.
According to the Coalition (supplemental memorandum, pp.10-11), Dr.
Chinnery's reports provided a sufficient answer to the criti-cism which had been leveled in ALAB-422 against his probabi-listic analysis (and reiterated in the Appeal Board majority's response in ALAB-561 to Mr. Farrar's full dissent).
i 7/
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) i
~~
standards laid down by the Commission * *
- the alternative site question would not likely be affected were my views on the seismic ques-tion to be adopted.
t i
_8/
The remainder of ALAB-422 was affirmed in CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1 (1978).
?
Following its receipt of the rejoinders of the other par -
ties to the Coalition's supplemental memorandum, the Commission called for an oral briefing by the parties, which took place on May 29, 1980.
At that briefing, the Commission heard (albeit not under oath) from Dr. Chinnery, as well as 'from a panel of staff members and a technical representative of the applicants.
In the wake of the briefing, the Coalition requested that the adjudicatory record be supplemented by the inclusion of the two reports Dr. Chinnery had prepared for the NRC and the steno-graphic transcript of the oral presentations.
This request was opposed by the applicants and the NRC staff on the principal
~
ground that the Commission's Rules of Practice precluded the granting of such relief.
In its remand order, CLI-80-33, suora, the Commission denied the Coalition's request for the reason that it was both granting review of ALAB-422 and ALAB-561 and calling upon this Beard to reopen the record on s.,.tters dealt with in the Chinnery re-ports and at the bri linc, b/
With respect to the earthquake I
intensity question, the Commission concluded that (1) the major-ity of this Board had erroneously determined that Dr. Chinnery's rethodology was inconsistent with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100;
_9/
The briefing had covered both the earthquake intensity i
and the acceleration questions,
_9_
ki and (2) the "f actual validity of Dr. Chinnery's hypothesis" re-39 quired " greater exploration on the record" in light of the sub-stantial time interval since his testimony before the Licensing Board in 1975 and the " subsequent publication of Dr. Chinnery's works and general increase in seismic knowledge".
12 NRC at (slip opinion, pp. 2-3).
Regarding the acceleration ques-tion, the Commission perceived a need for additional evidence as to "the consistency of Appendix A and staff's methodology for correlating vibratory motion with the SSE".
Id. at (slip opinion, p. 4).
II A.
In its motion now before us, the Coalition character.
izes (at p. 1) the Commission's remand order as embodying a ruling "that (this) Board had been incorrect in rejecting seis-mic methodology and conclusions proffered by the (Coalition)".bS/
As has just been seen, however, that characterization is far wide of the mark.
True enough, the Commission did overturn our legal determination that Dr. Chinnery's probabilistic analysis could not be squared with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.
But it did not likewise reject the primary, and totally independent, reason which we had assigned for declining to attach weight to that analysis.
As to that reason -- the technical deficiencies we found to inhere in the analysis -- the Commission decided no 10/
In a like vein, the Coalition's memorandum in response to the oppositions of the applicants and the staff to the mo-tion ref ers to the remand order as a " reversal" of the seismic portion of ALAB-422.
Memorandum, p. 1.
nore than that sufficient cause existed to have us ("as a matter of prudence") take additional evidence on the " factual validity of Dr. Chinnery's hypothesis" and then reconsider our prior con-clusion with the'new disclosures of record in mind.
Once again, that cause was two-fold:
(1) Dr. Chinnery's relatively recent seismic reports prepared for the Commission; and (2) the general increase in seismic knowledge over the five year period which had i
elapsed since the Licensing Board
- developed the record on which PLAB-422 and ALAB-561 were founded.
The same is to be s4id of this Board's earlier determina-tions on the acceleration question.
The Commission did not in-validate the endorsement in ALAB-422 of the staff's methodology which had led to the assignment of an 0.25g value to the accel-eration of the SSE at the Seabrook site.
Rather, it merely de-cided that there should be a further examination by the parties of the staff's analytic approach, to be followed by our recon-sideration of the validity of that approach.11,/
11/
Thus, the situation here is markedly different from that in Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Hope Creek Gen-erating Station, Onits 1 and 2), ALAB-429, 6 NRC 229 (1977), cited to us by the Coalition.
In that construc-tion permit proceeding, this Board reversed outright a Licensing Board determination on a crucial safety issue on the ground that the record was insufficient to supporc the findings underlying that determination.
The discus-sion in the opinion on the question of permit suspension pending the outcome of the further Licensing Board hear-ings ordered therein (id. at 246-47) must be read in that light.
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
r
, B.
In short, there exists simply the possibility that upon evaluation of the additional evidence to be received at next April's hearing, we (or some higher tribunal on further review) will decide that the present seismic design of the Seabrook facility must be altered to accommodate a more severe earthquake than that which was determined in ALAB-422 to be the SSE.
Without presuming to assess the degree of likelihood
~
that this contingency will materialize (an obvious impossibil-ity at this juncture), we are persuaded that there is insuf-ficient justification to order construction activities halted in the interim.
Our reasons are these:
1.
Although we do not accept the applicants' thesis that authority to entertain the Coalition's motion has not been con-ferred upon us, it is nonetheless significant that the Commission did not see fit to couple the remand with a permit suspension order of its own.
The Commission was, of course, fully aware that, should the Coalition's position ultimately prevail, the 11/
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
The discussion pertaining to permit suspension contained in Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-268, 1 NRC 383, 400-01 (1975), is of equally little assistance to the Coalition.
That discussion was in the context of an af-firmative determination that the applicants lacked the control over the exclusion area for the proposed f acility site which was required by 10 CFR 100.3(a).
It might be added that in neither decision was a permit suspension actually directed.
l inevitable consequence would be substantial and costly altera-tions in the facility's design.
Had it thought this f actor to it be of the pivotal importance the Coalition attributes to it, is reasonable to suppose that the Commission would have called a halt to construction itself.
Our confidence that the Commission does not share the Coalition's thinking on the suspension matter rests, however, on more than what was lef t unsaid in the remand order.
As both the applicants and the staff remind us, in August 1978 the Commission vacated a suspension of the Seabrook construc-tion permits which had been earlier ordered because of a then possibility that the Seabrook site might have to be rejected in favor of an alternate site.
In the course of its opinion, it noted that one of the parties had
" refer [ red] to the f act that Commission review of seismic is-sues in this case has not yet been completed as another basis for continuing the suspension".
The Commission's response was this:
That factor has no bearing on the suspension question.
Mr. Farrar of our Appeal Board dissented from the Appeal Board majority's resolution of certain seismic issues, but he made clear that his position on these seismic issues, even were it accepted, would not pre-clude continued construction of the Seabrook f acility, nor would it be likely to affect the alternate site question.
_Id. at 180-81, fn. 7.12/
12/
The Commission had reference, of course, to the statement of Mr. Farrar quoted above, p.
6, supra.
~~
i i
i '
I i
2.
These f actors to one side, we are obliged by prior commission precedent in this very case to decide the suspension r
1 question "on the basis of (1) traditional balancing of equities j
and (2) consideration of any likely prejudice to further deci-i i
sions that migh. called for by the remand".
CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 521 (1977).
The Coalition has failed to make the requisite showing on either prong of this test.
For one thing, the motion is singularly devoid of any dem-l onstration that the Coalition or its members might be irrepara-
)
i bly injured if construction activities are permitted to continue
}
while the seismic issues undergo further exploration.[3/
Nor is the threat of any possible harm apparent.
Whatever the re-i sult of the remand, before receiving operating licenses the applicants will be required to do anything necessary to accom-t modate it.
To repeat, should the ultimate determination be that the facility's present seismic design is inadequate, the requi-site changes will have to be made and implemented regardless of the amount of cost and incon /enience which might be involved.b 13/
In denyine in 1977 a Coalition motion to halt Seabroos l
construction, the Commission cited with approval this Board's observation in Public Service Co. of Indiana l
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-437, 6 NRC 630, 632 (1977), that the irreparable i
injury factor is the "most crucial" one. - CLI-77-27, l
6 NRC 715, 716 (1977).
Although that observation had i
been made in the context of a motion for a stay pending appeal, it has no less force in the circumstances now at hand.
14/
We appreciate, of course, that the cost of any seismic design changes that might ultimately have to be myde (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) j i
+
1 the cost / benefit As we had occasion to stress many years ago, balancing process at the root of decisions made in the imple-mentation of the National Environmental Policy Act plays no part in the enforcement of the safety standards laid down by the Atomic Energy Act:
Though prospective endangerment of the envi-ronment (even if substantial) may not provide an insuperable obstacle to the licensing of a nuclear power f acility,.public health andUn-safety is an entirely different matter.
less the safety findings prescribed by the Atomic Energy Act and the regulations can be made, the reactor does not obtain [an operating]
license -- no patter how badly it may be needed.
Thus, in the safety sphere, the evaluation of the risks attendant to reactor operation is not undertaken as an element of a NEPA-type process by which costs may be traded off against benefits.
Rather, the. function of the evaluation is to ascertain whether the ul-timate, unconditional standards of the Atomic Energy Act and the regulations have been met; e.c., whether the public health and safety wilf be adequately protected.
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station),
ALAB-161, 6 AEC 1003, 1007 (1973).
Given the f act that the applicants must meet absolute safety standards as a precondition to Seabrook operation, it also fol-lows that a permit suspension is not needed to obviate "likely prejudice to further decisions hat might be called for by the 14/
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
But the same is will likely be borne by the ratepayers.
true with regard to the substantial costs which would certainly be incurred by the applicants in the event that construction were now suspended.
In short, the ratepayer is at appreciable economic risk irrespective of whether construction is allowed to continue or not.
L..
remand".
The short of the matter is that, irrespective of how mirh additional work might be done in the interim, the state of Seabrook construction when the hearing is held in April neither will nor can have any bearing upon the determinations reached on the remanded issues.
it is Although these considerations are dispositive here, worthy of passing note that it appears from information supplied by the applicants (at our direction) that the additional con-struction work scheduled for the upcoming si'x months will alter the status cuo to a relatively minor extent.
Many of the prin-cipal safety-related structures of Unit 1 (i.e., those which are already might be affected by a change in the Seabrook SSE) well along the road to completion and very few such structures in either unit will be advanced very f ar between now and the end of next May. E Thus, a suspension of the construction permits f
at this time seemingly would have little effect upon what the applicants will have to do in the event that the evidence ad-duced at the April hearing necessitates a significant alterttion of the seismic conclusions reached in ALAB-422. W See attachment " A" to the November 12, 1980 affidavit of 15/
John DeVincentis, appended to the applicants' Noverber 13, 1980 response to the Coalition's motion.
I Attached to the Coalition's response (see fn. 10, supra) l i
16/
is the affidavit of Gregory C. Minor, a consulting engi-We can accept his conclusion that the information i
neer.
furnished to us by the applicants does not 111ume the precise extent to which ad'ditional construction work over (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) i m
h.
+M J
. 1 1
16 -
I l
l Motion to suspend Seabrook construction permits denied.
{
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD t
b.M C. Jei41 Bishop
\\
i Secre%ry-to the I
Appeal Board i
e l
i i
i l
t
.(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) 16/
the next several months might increase the difficulty or cost of any seismic design changes which might be required We did not call upon the i
by the outcome of the remand.
applicants, however, to provide such an assessment inas-for reasons earlier stated in this opinion, that
{
much as, factor is not crucial to our decision on the suspension motion.
l A.
_