ML20069C269
| ML20069C269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1983 |
| From: | Lindsey I LOUISIANA, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8303170483 | |
| Download: ML20069C269 (7) | |
Text
i e
COLMETED
?C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'83 MAR 16 A10:36 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
$[%" ',a _
In the Matter of LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-38 2 (OL)
(Waterford Steam Electric Station' March 11, 1983 Unit 3)
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF " AMICUS CURIAE" Petitioner, the State of Louisiana, herein appearing through William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General, and other under-signed counsel, on its own behalf and on behalf of its citizens, amicus curiae respectfully requests permission to file a brief pursuant to 10 CFR 2.715(d) on the issue of the " feed and bleed" capability of the Waterford III nuclear power reactor.
The State of Louisiana, in its sovereign capacity, has an' interest in protecting the rights and promoting the happi-ness and general welfare of the people.
Specifically, the in-terest of the petitioner and the people it represents, which may be affected by the results of this proceeding, are the potential financial, health, safety and environmental problems associated with this nuclear power station.
The State takes this means urgently to call to this i
Honorable Board's attention a " Catch-22" situation as absurd as l'
it is appalling.
The NRC Staf f at first assured the Board that l
l 8303170483 830311 gDRADOCK 05000382 PDR Tso3
s all was well with shut-down decay heat, because the " feed and bleed" system would remove it handily.- The Board pointed out that Waterford III has no " feed and bleed" capability.
Not to worry, the Staff said, decay heat -is adequately taken care of even without " feed and bleed."
To this the Board replied that it did not believe the Staff, but was powerless to do other than accept the Staff's assertions, because the issue was 'n-u contested.
The Board said it hoped someone else would do some-thing.
So do we.
In its " Memorandum and Order" of March 18, 1982, the Licensing Board raised the " feed and bleed" issue sua sponte.
On April 13, 1982, the State of Louisiana, through Assistant Attorney General Linda B. Watkins, filed a " Petition For Leave to Participate on the issue of " feed and bleed."
The State's petition was denied in an unpublished April 20, 1982 order of the Licensing Board which order advised the State that it "may.
file a petition for leave to intervene A second " Petition for Intervention.
" was filed on July 21, 1982 re-urging the " feed and bleed" issue in ad-dition to the " Table S-3 Rule" issue raised in the NRDC v.
NRC case.
This petition was denied as being untimely in a September 10, 1982 order of the Licensing Board.
During the month of August, 1982, Assistant Attorney General Watkins, counsel assigned to NRC matters, left the._
~
s employ of the Office of the Attorney General and was replaced in this capacity by new counsel.
Because of limited resources available, this office made the decision to abandon the " feed and bleed" issue.
Consequently, no appeal was taken on the denial of Louisiana's " Petition for Intervention.
On November 3, 1982, in its " Partial Initial Decision (Operating License)," the Licensing' Board accepted the NRC Staff's and Applicant's justification for interim operation "that the EFWS is so reliable that no other method of shut-down decay heat removal is necessary."
(Decision at p. 9) In accepting such justification "with great reluctance" and re-fusing to investigate the " feed and bleed" issue further, the Licensing Board stated: "Therefore, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being required to accept a justi-fication of which we are personally skeptical.
However, even if we were permitted to substitute our judgment for the Staff's we would (sic) unable to assess definitively Staff's and Applicant's justification without receiving evidence on the issue (Decision at p. 10)
Ironically, the Board had earlier denied Louisiana the opportunity to "make the record'"1 The Licensing Board felt so strongly about the issue 1"
[W]e doubt that the State of Louisiana could significantly assist in developing a sound record.
" " Memorandum and Order," September 10, 1982, p.
5 l l
i l
Laat they " urge that an in-depth assessment of the reliability of the Waterford 3 shutdown decay heat removal system be made by an independent laboratory.
(Decision p. 10)
Subsequently, Joint Intervenors, through Gary Groesch, filed exceptions before this Appeal Board, taking ex-ception to several items in the " Partial Initial Decision (Op-erating License)" of November 3, 1982.
Among them was the is-sue of " feed and bleed."
These exceptions, and the subsequentt
- brief, were not served on the State of Louisiana, probably because the State did not appear on Mr. Groesch's service list, inasmuch as the State is currently not a party to these pro-ceedings.
The State of Louisiana still has not received or seen a copy of Joint Intervenors exceptions or brief.
Undersigned counsel, on March 8, 1983, in a telephone conversation with NRC staff counsel Sherwin Turk, was informed that the " feed and bleed" issue was raised by Joint Intervenors by exception, but was not briefed, and would therefore be con-sidered waived.
Petitioner shows that a brief amicus curiae on the issue of " feed and bleed" is desirable for the reason that if the State of Louisiana is not permitted to file a brief, this crucial issue may not be brought to the attention of this Honorable Appeal Board.
Considering the foregoing, and in particular the Licensing Board's serious concern about the issue, the State of Louisiana respectfully requests that it be allowed to file a brief amicus curiae on the issue of the " feed and bleed" capability at the Waterford III nuclear power reactor.
Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM J.
GUSTE, JR.
Attorney General Ad,9l s
/
l N DOUGLAf}/fINDSf:Y Assistant Mtornep Genera Louisiana Department of Justice 7434 Perkins Road, Suite C Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 (504) 766-8610 o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT Docket No.
50-382 COMPANY (WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Motion'for Leave to File Brief
" Amicus Curiae" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage paid, first class, this lith day of March, 1983.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Mr. Gary Groesch Administrative Judge 2257 Bayou Road Chairman, Atomic Safety and New Orleans, LA.
70119 Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Luke B. Fontana, Esquire Commission 824 Esplanade Avenue Washington, D.C.
20555 New Orleans, LA.
70116 Dr. Harry Foreman Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel Director, Center for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Population Studies Commission Box 395, Mayo Washington, D.C.
20555 University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN.
55455 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel l
Dr. Walter H. Jordan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission 881 West Outer Drive Washington, D.C.
20555 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 ATTN:
Stephen F.
Eilperin Chairman Dr. W. Reed Johnson Christine N. Kohl 1
l
+
l Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Docketing and Service Office of the Executive Section Legal Director Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Bruce W.
Churchill Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
James B. Hamlin Delissa A. Ridgway SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
TROWBRIDGE 1800 M.
Street, N _ W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 l
\\
/
/
I JAN DOCTGLA7AINQSEY
/
~
Assistant Attorney. Gen 1
d I
o e
r-c--
, - - -