ML20084A464

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response to Appeal by Coalition for Safe Power of Board 840201 Order Granting Applicant & NRC Motions for Summary Disposition.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20084A464
Person / Time
Site: Washington Public Power Supply System
Issue date: 04/23/1984
From: Hartman S
BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CPA, NUDOCS 8404250025
Download: ML20084A464 (39)
v • d • e


Text

-. . . , , . r . , , - . , . , ,, . , , . -,- . . .m , i, - i. - , - , , .

w. - - - - - - ,.- - - ,.,..--,. --. -..- . -

.........,l W . ::K y u= < ^ y > , x - -

,f?'

,e ?A b y. . ,

4/, e:q o,

a 1

7 c

rg. , .r. J,;One w.- m. ..

=

?

ny ' .g , . >-

q%

p,u s',vn <4 m - .. ,

.,t 7

  • o - ,,

g3 g ,

, e e _

..-iW 3 f' , .. ,, '

7 + 'j '

l ' . g ^. - #- q s,4 4 's u,. < , . < .g7 4' s wP v rr.p ,.

1 . , < , , ~

L y b r ?. .

p m'e *

  • W% %e ,

7_JUNITED STATEScOFJAMERICAT' i 4 , 3d ,_'T.8 / RNUCLEARCREGULATORYeCOMMISSION' .- .

s -

, , s. ~~~ .

[ -[ 1

? I

}:'BE OREL THE MTOMIC" SAFETY ANDILICENSING APPEAM BOI N / f .

h j i. _

u 7 , ,

s. . g 9,p p J . #- - tin W, he> Matter . o_f * '

~ ~,'

1); **

t &

. G SO @ " '

, MQ.M, o - . &J. c, m . , ,~

4 ,

.)-;; ,

} - M. , - . .. ,

4WASHINGTONiPUBLIC POWERE '

y)  ; Docketi No. ;30- 460 -CPA'i ,

, .F ^ iSUPPLY 3YSTEMi _ r <) 4 .

o g . . - ~

_ 7. g) -

q' ,<

m W

71

((WPPSS! Nuclear}ProjectcNoQ1)j ()1.

' -si., - [ - >

'L p.' , q fL ?_

aq

> ~ x; L , c y' :s, , , ,

c

,s 3s.s. 4"' a

,.s~; g ..

7 .p J,: a,

. . a. #

- s

.. > e, y . y,

, ,' -l ,'

', x -

h n

- ,,,g

'3~

t ,

' :'h '*

31 . ,

  • g

\

._s i

, , ,  ! 4 4 ,

Wm -

W:

O 7 , , y , 4/, < ,

r

-W@~ wlo. . .%. . , , - n ,.

'd{ r

' 3 4 _l * , j , 'ry r( ,. S = [

N .-

or.=.} . 7*

g x>,

]

Jv; s Ae >

y., ,7.-

-- - - e ,.

nk

" ~}L{(,y- s 1p 1. g_ '

Mh #

nsn> ,

+- + -

m .. y .- , , , , ,' *

,, s

~

b.. . . #$ . ' LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO AhPEAL BYE , h SMM^

%, M" +

.# ' / COALITION)FOR; SAFE POWER [OFhLICENSINGcBOARDE^ <

d' "q 4 f' N, >,. @h,?ORDERtDATEDJFEBRUARYJlM1984,7 GRANTING? ~ , ~

^ "

., . . o' JAPPLICANT : AND? NRC1. STAFF lMOTIO,NS - . -

1 < < -

-FOR

SUMMARY

LDISPOSITION:, ' u m + .

< v. ~.3 o_

m _, , q va e ~

+

n -

s png -m

,.: , s . ,.

sM b

h .g'_. .-Q t y 3

.,*f ,

4'

?

i-. ] .  ?'t.

e4-sg 4 i , ,{. t * ,'-

j

> m . .

c. s 4fL ,

> n 3.a.u

y. a, p ..' , y x ..m ,
x, -+

w; . >

3 , #.

' 'm' ;,- u-

.e s, = ~ .

r u . - .

's Q_t ~f , ~ u .n r k b.* - .'t tj ' , lgy , +

+__ * ,~  :' T ,

+ < A, ,. w i s

.- , o :s m s ,

l; ,

V 4 l$h * .g b  :'. i f s.

E Y y 47

,+ ,

, y . . . x +>  ? -

,4

. + 3; . < * , , r -w ~-

  • mg

.w

,  ; 4 .. .

r ,  ; , a..; .

, , ; m ,r s

4- 4 ,

~

- :p ,.;. ,

ks,%, A , , ,

+ 1

.. -y '& 7 ' s 1. -

,4

=g' - m s ,

p^1lf e ') -

c .

  1. p u, . , ,

~

. ye s

t - , , ,

a =M A . .-

'n~ 6 a 7 , 1- s ,

f , , '. ,, ,m.

4 /!n + '

(Nicholas 1S; mReynolde E + K4 V

' Ar ,,

, , ,, , , /SanfordiL.JHartman? '

e hy i *

't.  : m.e .

' , m e j j_

mm

. 1 s.,

s, 4 - <

l , ,, . .. .. .,

m N s, , 7, 1

+

y y ,

9  %.l . ,

^_ _

N+ ^ BISHOPMLIBERMAN,sCOOpd;.,

.. ~PURCELL':A REYNOLDS b V ,L ,

,; 2 w ",1 i,

i '1200lSeventeenth Stree' tis iN.W.  ? ", . t -

y, p'~7 s

- 7 p

Wa'shingtonW D. C .

. q?20036j .

  • 'l ,

~

J

.m ,

- t ,

j(202)?,057 9,8175 C -

tmi..,. . < .

~v<

e . . + ,

n .

Ja m, ...<: ,

f s 2 y4 .

n 1

~

. -  ;;g'm 'q '

Q, ~Counselj for1 Licensee,

". w'

  • - , .9 . .,- ~. , <n- ,_ i ._x - *# ,

, y 3; 1

n.

. 4 , , ,

, , s.

a..  ;

wp .. , +n 1 + .

+

,uv c .

s >

sr c

7 '

Wl Y

~

(u' K. April 223 0. 1984 % , %g;_

.g , +

N ~nt. > , f.WY & '

'.5,.D my. s, }p}a,g . .. , . #

s.

j.

+ i i3 * > t

, Q1 , Ty%[ , - -

s s

h$

i 4 -

4y ,

,,, 9 i

.y 3 _

g W h ,y e' p'.

  • .,. l ,

s

Ng
  • e , j ' ) ,}

w "mf

- + ,

4 r >

>'ci ' .s ,

.p',

P g g* A 4 i A 3 y

  • t s.

s3> .. 4

4f s

,J# I

[ g g .[4..y g. ., .; .., , f j h j 1. W

~

[ 1 i .h h t a ~,. 44 .N 4

> s j .. 4 +. .4+ i' #

$% + \y

,S l , , 'l

.# 4' y

i n # * + t e.

4 ,

a s s

A -2S'-

m+- J l' 1 e , ,qq. ~ rg  % , 4 b ...,j -

_' , ep g ,{

] f,; i

...e , _

i /

j. i , ,3.., , g

. 3 . , ,q

DOCHETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL 0dAWR 24 A9 :51

' ICE OF SECFETA

In the Matter of ) r;; q rm g g Sgpyjgr

) BRANCH WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ) Docket No. 50-460-CPA SUPPLY SYSTEM )

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )

i e

LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO APPEAL BY  !

COALITION FOR SAFE POWER OF LICENSING BOARD I ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1984, GRANTING l APPLICANT AND'NRC STAFF MOTIONS  !

FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION  !

1 Nicholas S. Reynolds Sanford L. Hartman

. BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200= Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. '20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Licensee April 23, 1984 6

Y

L L

TABLE OF CONTENTS l

! TABLE OF CITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i l

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 j III.

SUMMARY

OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 IV. ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6  ;

l A. Overview of the Argument . . . . . . . . . 6

! B.- The Licensing Board Properly Used

-Summary Disposition When Dismissing

. Intervenor's Only Contention.and i Terminating This Proceeding. . . . . . . . 10 1

C. The Licensing Board Memorandum and Order Was in Accordance with 10 C.F.R. $_2.760. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 L

l D. The Legal Standards Governing Motions

for Summary Disposition Were Properly l Applied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 E. The Licensing Board Properly Interpreted ,

the Reasons for Delay. . . . . . . . . . . 25 F. The Licensing Board Decision Does Not Render 10 C. F. R. { 50.55(b) Meaningless. . 28 V. CONCLUSION . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 t

r-b A_.__._

o TABLE OF CITATIONS CASES Page Lodi Truck Service v. United States, 706 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Power Reactor Development Co. v.. International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, 367 U.S. 396 (1961). . . . . . . . . . 19 AEC AND NRC ADJUDICATIONS

- Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant, Units Nos. 1 and 2), LBP-77-2, 5 NRC 261,

, a f f' d. , ALAB-375, 5 NRC 423 (1977). . . . . . . 21 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-264, 1 NRC 347 (1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Public Service Company of New Hampshire-(SeabrooK Station, Units Nos. I and 2),

ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33 (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Public' Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Unit No. 2), CLI , ,

NRC , March 29, 1984, slip opinion . . . 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 22, 23, 26, 27, Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A,-la and 28), ALAB-463, 7 NRC'341 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units Nos. I and 2),

ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451 (1980) . .. . 1 . . . . 14 Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos. I and 2), CLI-82-29, 16 NRC 1221 (1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 24 Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS '

. Nuclear Projects Nos. I and 4), ALAB-309,

, 3 NRC 31 (1976) . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 e

k 7 w..___.____._____._______________

~

Wa'shington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-722, 17 NRC 546 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 16, 27, 32 Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1), Docket No. 50-460-CPA, February 22, 1983, slip opinion . . . . . . . . 4 Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1), Docket No. 50-460-CPA, j March 25, 1983, slip opinion. . . . . . . . . . 4

> Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1), Docket No. 50-460-CPA, March 26, 1983, slip opinion. . . . . . . . . . 5 Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS

. Nuclear Project No. 1), Docket No. 50-460-CPA, February 1, 1984, slip opinion. . . . . . . . . 5, 13, 14, 15, 20, 26,

-. 31 Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-78, 5 AEC 319-(1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 _

l Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach s. q

[ Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-90, i 6 AEC 11 (1973) . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . -. 22 ,

~

1 3 ,.

N l i

FEDERAL REGISTER- Is -

l m .- . . ,

, 21 Fed. Reg. 335 (1956). . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . 19 '.  %

j. -

s 37 Fed. Reg. 15127.(1972). . . . .. . . . .. . . - . . Ils -

48 Fed. Reg.'28768-(1983). . - . . . . . . . .- .. . - .

3 5- y ,

.q

m. ,

s.g*' 'm STATUTES .

s,.

. -a v.

N 3.sc" Administrative. Procedures Act.

5-U.S.C. { 557(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

'13 h^ ~

~ x -.

wf w%. .

Atomic; Energy-Act -

n Section - 185', _42 U. S . C. { 2235-. . .. . . .- . . ,\7 , .,16 , 18,

,19, . 2 0, - 2 6 ', ^  %

. ;29 ,

-x .s a ;. -

a 4

.,g eu- . .

~

~ y , 5'

,w

\ . .%

~

O

- 111 -

Section 189(a), 42 U.S.C. { 2239. . . . . . . . 11 REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R..{ 2.749(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11, 12 10 C.F.R. { 2.760. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13, 14 15 10 C.F.R. 50.55(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 16, 18,

. 19, 20, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30 MISCELLANEOUS

- Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, _ Unit No. 3), Docket 50-382,

Evaluation of Request'for Extension of Construction Permit No. CPPR-lO3, November-9, 1981. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 22

~ Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Nuclear Station, Unit 2),

Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444,_ Request of

', Connecticut Division of Consumer Counsel to Deny Renewal of Construction Permit for w

Seabrook 2, October 16, 1983. . . . . .. . . . 8 9 Union ~ Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit No. 1),

Docket STN 50-483, Evaluation of Request for c Extension of Construction Permit No. CPPR-139, p- December 21, 1981 . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . 22

" A y

e*

? 'e es s

  • O

^ ' ~ ~

% .a i.%

1' k .' ' -u _h

'h

. o: , .- ~

- 4.,%

N G-.

f.Q:O.

- 7a _,

,'$ u , J#

- z - - '.,*'

. . .* N' '

^~3 su r -

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ) Docket No. 50-460-CPA SUPPLY' SYSTEM )

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO APPEAL BY COALITION FOR SAFE POWER OF LICENSING BOARD

.- ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1984, GRANTING APPLICANT AND NRC STAFF MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION I. INTRODUCTION On February 1, 1984, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the captioned proceeding gr' anted motions filed by the Washington Public Power Supply System-(" Licensee" or

" Supply System") and the NRC Staff for summary disposi-tion. .The-Licensing Board ruled that Supply System had made a showing of " good cause" in support of a construc-

- tion permit extension requested for WNP-1 and ' that the extension was for a reasonable period of - time. :

Accordingly, the Licensing Board dismissed Intervenor's ,

only admitted contention.and terminated the proceeding.

Intervenor subsequently brought 'this appeal.

-O n - , . ,, , . - . , -

~ _ .._

e II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On July 21, 1981, Licensee filed an application with NRC for an extension of its construction permit for WNP-1 from January 1, 1982 to June.1, 1986. In support of its request, Licensee stated that construction at WNP-1 was delayed because of

1. Changes in the scope of the project, including increases in the amount of material and engineering required as a result of regulatory actions, in-

, particular those subsequent to the Three Mile Island accident;

2. Construction delays and lower than

_ estimated productivity resulting in delays in installation of material-and equipment and delays in completion of

! systems necessitating rescheduling of preoperational testing;

3. Strikes by portions of the construction work force; ,
4. Changes in plant design; and
5. . Delays.in delivery of. equipment and materials.

Subsequently, Intervenor filed.a petition. seeking a

~ hearing on the requested-construction permit extension.

- Tae Commission itself considered the' petition'in-order to

. provide guidance as to the scope of construction. permit extension proceedings. The Commission ~ ruled.that-of the several contentions ~Intervenor sought to raise, only one

- was potentially. litigable if properly particularized and-

~

'W e , , , . . . . , +, - , , - - , - - - - - - -

supported.1 That contention was whether " delays in construction have been under the full control of the WPPSS management."2 The Commission then referred the proceeding to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to determine whether Intervenor satisfied the balance of the requirements governing standing and to preside over a hearing in the event one was held.

On January 11, 1983, the Licensee submitted a a modification of its earlier construction permit amendment request to specify June 1, 1988, as the earliest construction completion date and June 1, 1991, as the latest construction completion date. The reason given in support of this extension request was a recommendation by the Bonneville Power Administration ("BPA") that the Licensee delay construction of WNP-1 for a period of two to five years. Licensee stated that without backing for continued construction by BPA. Licensee would be unable to finance continued construction and that BPA-recommended a construction deferral at WNP-1 for two to five years based on need for power projections it made.3 As'a result of 1 Washington-Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project-Nos. 1 and 2), CLI-82-29, 16 NRC 1221, 1231 (1982).

-2 Id.

3 See Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition, November 14, 1983, at.12-21.

these events, the Licensing Board permitted Intervenor to submit an amended supplemental petition to intervene in which it raised its proposed contentions.4 In its March 25, 1983, Memorandum and Order, the Licensing Board admitted Intervenor to this proceeding.

It further ruled that the single contention to be litigated was, as follows:

Petitioner contends that the

[ Licensee's] decision in April, 1982, to " defer" construction for two to

'five years, and subsequent cessation of construction was dilatory. Such' action was taken without " good cause" as required by 10 C.F.R. 50.55(b).

Moreover, the modified request for extension of completion date to 1991 does not-constitute a " reasonable periodoftime"grovided for in 10 C.F.R. 50.~55(b).

As the Licensing Board viewed this~ contention, it' raised.the questions of whether'the Licensee demonstrated good cause for the delay and whether the requested J

extension completion date was1for. a reasonable period of 4 Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear-Project No. 1),. Docket No. 50-460-CPA, Memorandum and Order (Following: First Prehearing Conference),- February i 22,~1983, slip op. at :7-8.

5 Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS. Nuclear Project No. 1),-Docket-No.-50-460-CPA,' Memorandum and

. 'I - Order (Admitting Intervenor and Contention),' March 25, 1983, slip op. at 4-5.

1 time.6 Discovery then commenced and continued until October 31, 1983.

During the discovery period, the Staff issued an j Order granting the requested construction permit ,

amendment,7 as the Commission observed it was free to do

following normal Staff review.8 On February 1, 1984, the Licensing Board issued a i

Memorandum and Order in which it granted Motions for

. Summary Disposition filed by the Applicant and NRC Staff.

P

] The Licensing Board first held that because there was no i material dispute that the construction of WNP-1.was slowed because of financing matters and a slower growth rate in demand for. electrical power. than was anticipated, the

! . Supply-System-had shown " good cause" for its construction 1 permit extension case.9 The Licensing Board also held

, that the. requested construction permit extension was for:a i

a

'6 Washington Public Power Supply System . (WPPSS Nuclear-Project -No. 1) , Docket No. 50-460-CPA,: Memorandum. and-Order : ( Admitting i Intervenor ' and L. Contention) , E March L 2 6,-

1983,-slip op. at 4-5.

7- 4 g: Fed. Reg. 28768 ,(1983) .:-

8 : WNP-1 and 2, CLI-82-29, ' supra, 16 NRC atl1231. =

9 -Washington Public Power Supply System"(WPPSS'Nucl'ar

~

e Project No.-1),. Docket No. 50-460-CPA, Memorandum and-

- . Order i (Granting = Applicant's ? and :NRC - Staf f's Motions for i -

1

. Summary 1 Disposition)', = February 1,.1984,: slip'op.-

(" February ^1', c1984, Memorandum and Order")1 at 8-15.

h

" reasonable period of time."10 Accordingly, it dismissed Intervenor's single contention and terminated the proceeding. Intervenor thereupon brought this appeal.

III.

SUMMARY

OF ARGUMENT The Licensing Board properly granted the Motions for Summary Disposition filed by the Licensee and Staff.

There was .no genuine issue as to the material facts regarding the basis cited by the Licensee in sup'p ort of its showing of good cause for the requested construction permit extension. Nor was there any genuine issue with respect to the material facts regardidg the reasonableness

~

of the duration of the construction permit extension.

Accordingly, the-Licensing Board properly ruled in favor of the Licensee and Staff when it dismissed Intervenor's only contention and' terminated the hearing.

IV. ARGUMENT A. Overview of Argument Intervenor has raised - five separate arguments as to Why the Licensing Board improperly granted summary disposition. Before responding to these specific arguments, Licensee will outline the overall issues Intervenor was endeavoring to raise before the Licensing Board, and set forth Why those issues did not1 involve genuine disputes'of.matdrial fact.

.10 _ g, at 16-18.

The basic premise of Intervenor's case was that there will never be a need for the power generated from WNP-1 and that it will never be possible to finance the completien of construction of the project.ll It endeavors to link these allegations to Section 185 of the Atomic /

Energy Act and 10 C.F.R. $ 50.55(b) by arguing, as follows:

1. Licensee did not accurately represent its reasons for " good cause" when it

.- indicated that construction was deferred due to a temporary lack of financing;12 -and

2. Licensee'did not establish that its construction permit extension. request was for a " reasonable period" of time given the likelihood that WNP-1 will never be finished.13- .

A recent decision by the Commission clearly' indicates that Intervenor has endeavored to ~ raise issues outside of the scope of this construction . permit proceeding and that the . Licensing Board properly granted the'. motions for summary disposition. In Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station,' Unit 2)l4 the Commission 11' Appeal by Coalition for Safe Power of Licensing Board

- Order Dated February 2, 1984 Granting Applicant and NRC Staff Motions- for Summary. . Disposition;f March 19, 1984, (" March 19,.1984,- Appeal")

~

' at' 2, 4-5,:6-7,. 8,

'll, 13.

12 M . at 5-7, 8, 10-11.

. 11 3 /Id. at 4-5,i8-9, 10-11.

14- CLI-84-- , N RC '. ',. March 29, 1984,' slip opinion.

- - . - . . . - _ - ~ - . - . . - - __ _ . .. -

l unanimously rejected a petition to intervene filed by the Connecticut Division of Consumer Counsel in a construction permit extension proceeding. The petition raised issues as to whether those utilities building Seabrook, Unit 2 have the financial capability to complete it and whether the power to be generated by the plant will ever be necessary.15 4

The Commission rejected these and other related

,. contentions as falling outside1the scope of a construction permit extension proceeding. It first observed that under WNP-1 and 2, CLI-82-29, supra, "the scope of a

- construction permit extension proceeding is limited to direct challenges to the permit holder's asserted. reasons to show ' good ~cause' justification for the delay."16 It then noted - that in challenging good cause the proponent of a contention must articulate some basisLto show that the applicant.is responsible for the delay and acted intentionally and without a valid' purpose.17 Applying 15..Public Service-Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Nuclear:

Station, Unit:2), Docket No. 50-443 and'50-444,.

Request.of-Connecticut: Division of: Consumer' Counsel to

Deny-Renewal-of Construction Permit.for Seabrook 2,
. October. 16,:1983,"at.5..

16 Seabrook Station,- Unit 2, CLI-84 _ , supra, March:29, 1984, slip op. at 4.-

17 .Id. at 2-3,iciting Washington-Public= Power Supply

' System -(WPPSS Nuclear Pro l ect .No. 2),: ALAB-722, 17 NRC'

546 (1983).

e-this precedent, the Commission concluded that the

proffered contentions fell outside of the scope of the construction permit extension proceeding, as follows

[ Petitioner's] allegations do not attack the sufficiency of applicant's asserted reasons for the delay.

Rather, they raise questions about the need for power, cost offcompletion and-financial consequences to both the

utility and to the ratepayers. These

< questions are far beyond the scope of a construction permit extension proceeding, which is confined to the J . factual basis asserted for the delay.18 l . The contentions raised in Seabrook Station, Unit 2, CLI-84 __, supra, are virtually identical to the issues

~

Intervenor raised here. In both proceedings, organizations opposed construction permit extension requests on the grounds thatJthe licensees were. unable.to finance construction of the authorized facilities and that the power to be generated by such facilities-would never be_needed. Therefore, just.as these issues were not ,

admissible in Seabrook Station,' Unit 2, . CLI-84 _;, . supra,_

~

so they were not properly bef' ore'the Licensing'Bo'ard in

~

this ' case'.- ' Accordingly, ~ the Motions for Summary Disposition were properly (granted.- .

tr . 18 - .Li. . at 5, footnote omitted.

a ., - ,_.3 , ,, ..-,c - - , , - ~ . , , _ . . . ..~,

e .,,.. . , - , , _ - . , -

10 -

B. The Licensing Board Properly Used Summary Disposition When Dismissing Intervenor's Only Contention and Terminating this Proceeding Intervenor argues that the Licensing Board improperly terminated this proceeding by granting summary disposition. Apparently, Intervenor believes that the result of this case, extending the WNP-1 construction permit, is tantamount to issuing the permit in the first instance, because its contention challenging the need for power to be generated by WNP-1 attacks the fundamental basis upon which the construction permit was issued.19 Thus, Intervenor concludes that Section 2.749(d) prohibits t

the use of sunmary disposition.

Intervenor misapprehends the applicable legal requirements governing the use of summary disposition in connection with the issuance of construction permits.

Section 2.749(d) proscribes the use of summary disposition to determine "the ' ultimate issue as to whether [a construction] permit shall be-issued." This is because a hearing:on the issuance of a construction permit is mandatory under the Atomic Energy act. 'The Act does not, require such mandatory hearings on construction permit' amendmsnts.. On its face Section 2.749(d)1does not govern the issuance by NRC of a' construction permit' amendment.

-19 March-19, 1984,-Appeal at 2.

- 11 -

  • l l

Section 2.749(d) is intended to prohibit the use of summary disposition (except for subordinate issues) only in' proceedings " involving a construction permit where a hearing is required by law."20 Section 189(a) requires a mandatory hearing whenever an application for a construction permit for a power reactor is filed. It states in this regard that NRC "shall hold a hearing . . .

~ on each application under Section 103 . . . for a

.. construction permit for a facility."

In contrast, Section 189(a) states with respect to

~

construction permit amendments that, "In cases where a construction permit has been issued following the holding of . . . a hearing, the Commission may, in the absence of a request therefor by any person whose interest may be affected, issue . . . an amendment to a construction permit . . . without a. hearing, but upon thirty days' notice'and publication once in the Federal Register of its, intent to do so. . . ."

The instant proceeding involves the issuance of a construction permit amendment.forLa facility in which the man'datory. construction permit application . hearing has already been held.21 It does not involve the issuance of.

a construction permit. As a result, there is no legal 20 37: Fed. Reg.'15127, 15129 (1972) (emphasisz added).

21' Washington Public-Power Supply' System (WPPSS' Nuclear Projects Nos. 1 and 4), ALAB-309, 3.NRC 31;(1976).

7

requirement under Section 1B9(a) that a mandatory hearing on the requested construction permit amendment take place.

Nor, there fore, is such a requirement imposed by Section 2.749(d). Accordingly, the limitation on the use of summary disposition set forth in that rule does not apply.

For these reasons, the Licensing Board did not violate Section 2.749(d) when it granted summary disposition on Intervenor's only contention and terminated the

, proceeding.

C. The Licensing Board Memorandum and Order Was in Accordance

'With 10 C.F.R. $ 2.760 Intervenor argues that the Licensing Board Memorandum and Order did not satisfy 10 C.F.R. $ 2.760 because the Memorandum and Order was not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. Intervenor asserts in -

this regard that the Licensing Board-could not have

. satisfied Section 2.760 because it construed all material facts in favor of Intervenor-for purposes of deciding the Motions for-Summary Disposition,'rather than making

  • findings as to alleged issues of material fact.22 This-argument is incorrect for numerous reasons.

.First, as Intervenor states, when a motion for summary disposition is pending before a licensing board, "the record must be viewed in the light most1 favorable to the 22 March 19, 1984,-Appeal at 3.

4 party opposing the motion."23 The Licensing Board recognized this obligation and " construed all of the material facts in f avor of intervenor. "24 Doing so did not constitute "merely an expeditious manner with which to dispense with the genuine issues of material fact which are in dispute."25 Rather, the- Licensing Board assumed that each of the material allegations raised by Intervenor

-was true. Given this procedural posture of the hearing,

, as a matter of both law and logic, Intervenor may not now argue that the Licensing Board. erred by construing all material facts in its favor and not making formal findings of fact.

-Second, 10-C.F.R. $ 2.760, upon which Intervenor relies, is rooted in Section 557(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act.26 Under that provision the agency's

decision must " simply be 'sufficiently clear so that a court is not required.to speculate as to its basis.' O-J Transport Co. v. United States, 536 F.2d 126, 130 (6th

" 27 Cir. l'976), cert. denied,.429 U.S. 960 (1976). . .

23 Id,. - at 4.-

24 February 1, 1984, Memorandum and Order at 18.

25- March 19, 1984, Appeal at.4.

R26 Tennessee' Valley Authority (Hartsville Nucleer Plant, Units lA, 2A, 1B and 2B), ALAB-463,'7 NRC 341, 368 (1978).

27 .Lodi? Truck Service v.LUnited States, 706 F.2d-898,.901 (9th Cir._-1983).

In this regard the Appeal Board has previously held that a licensing board decision " meets the requirements of the i

Administrative Procedure Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice if it sufficiently informs a party of the disposition of its contentions."28 Intervenor believes that Section 2.760 was not satisfied, apparently because the Licensing Board failed to state how in its. view ^the Licensee demonstrated valid reasons.for seeking-an extension of the WNP-1 construction permit.29 This simply is not_the case. The Licensing Board reviewed Intervenor's Answer to NRC. Staff &

Applicant's Motions for Summary Disposition and found that' "without dispute" the construction of WNP-l'was delayed i

due to a lack of financial resources.30 It then' addressed

, Intervenor's legal argument that the Licensing Board-should render a judgment in tlut construction permit-

_ amendment proceeding as to why.the plant-should be- .

completed,..even though the'. decision to defer construction was made for~ valid business reasons. Innthis. regard, the 28 Public Service! Co. of New HampshireI(Seabrook Station, Units 1-and 2), ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33,_41;(1977),; quoting.

Wisconsin' Electric Power'Co. .(Point-Beach Nuclear; Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-78, 5 AEC 319, 321_(1972); see Virginia Electric and Power-Co. (No rth Anna Nuclear o 1 Power Station,. Units.1 and 2),_ALAB-584, 11 NRC.451, L453 n.4,(1980).

29 March 19,=1984, Appeal at 3.

~

130 .Februaryf1, 1984, . Memorandum.and. Order:at lli l2.

, _., . _ . . . , . . . . , - ,_,.._m . . ..

1 Licensing Board examined the applicable precedent. After .

explaining its rationale, the Board concluded correctly that the argument raised by Intervenor was inconsistent with previous Commission guidance.31 In short, the Licensing Board clearly satisfied Section 2.760 by setting forth with sufficient clarity the basis for each aspect of its decision. Therefore, Intervenor's argument to the-contrary should be rejected.

  • D. The Legal Standards Governing Motions for Summary Disposition Were Properly Applied ,

. Intervenor believes that the Licensing Board erroneously granted summary disposition because there remain genuine issues to be tried, " including the prudency of the action taken by the Applicant given alternatives" to the construction deferral and the reasonableness of the

  • - duration of the requested construction permit extension.32 Intervenor also claims that the Licensing Board ignored an k; ' affidavit it submitted.regardingfits ability to testify on certain!of its claims.33 This-argument-reveals the fundamental misunderstanding _of Intervenor as to-the; scope'of this proceeding.-.First, there is no' material dispute raised'by

?Intervenor's assertion th'at-Licensee could~have adopted

~

31' ' -Id . ~ at- 12-13.:

, 32 March;19', 1984~ Appeal'at 4.

1 33- Li. atL5. . _

. . , _ , . , - _ - - . . . , , _s _ _ , , ,

S what Intervenor believes were alternatives more prudent than deferring WNP-1. This argument apparently is based on the requirement that a licensee seeking an extension of its construction permit establish " good cause" under Section 185 of the Act and 10 C.F.R. 50.55(b).

Intervenor apparently reasons that to demonstrate good cause the Licensee was obliged to show that it had valid business purposes for deferring WNP-1 and that if there were alternatives available to deferral which were more prudent, such valid business purposes could not exist.

The' simple answer to this argument is that if adopted it would transform the NRC into an -agency charged not just with regulating the health and safety aspects of nuclear

' energy but also with overseeing business decisions of its

' - licensees. Intervenor has cited no authority for such'an expansive reading of the " good cause" requirement, no doubt because such authority does:not. exist. As1the Appeal Board pointed _out, "an intentional slowing of>

l

, construction because of a temporary lack of-financial .

resources.or'a' slower growth rate of electrical' power than

'that originally projected-would constitute. delay for valid business purpose."34'!The Appeal. Board does not suggest-

_ thati the NRC should sccond' guess the underlying basis ' of '

4 a

3 4 ' ' WNP-2, . ALAB-7 22, supra,
17 NRC at'552 n.-6, cited with
  • ~

approval in Seabrook Station,- Unit 2,;: CLI-84 __,

supra, March 29,t 1984, _ slip op..at 5.n. 2.

O nb

. . , , , , s-- ,. ,, .n. -,, . , . , -, .n ,- --,

those business decisions by litigating their correctness.

Yet, this is precisely what Intervenor acked the Licensing Board to do.

That the Intervenor was properly proscribed from litigating whether the decision by Licensee to defer construction at WNP-1 was prudent is also borne out by Seabrook Station, Unit 2, CLI-84 __, supra. As indicated earlier, the Commission has been clear that " questions

, about. the need for power, cost of completion and financial consequences to both the utility and ratepayers [are

~

questions] far beyond the scope of a construction permit extension proceeding, which is confined to the factual basis asserted'for delay."35 Therefore, the Licensing Board acted correctly when it ruled that Intervenor's claims regarding these alternatives did not constitute' a -

material dispute of fact that was litigable in a construction permit extension proceeding.

Second, Intervenor claims that a material dispute of fact' exists as to the adequacy of the duration of the -

construction permit extension ~ requested by Licensee. As a basis for this claim, Intervenor alleges that (1).more recent projections suggest that WNP-1 may not be completed until after 1991, the consequence of which would be to

-render the requested construction permit insufficient and 13 5 -

Seabrook~ Station, Unit 2, CLI-842_ , supra, March 29,.

1984,-slip op. at 5.

r-f e l I

(2) the total period of time authorized for construction I is so long as a result of the disputed construction permit extension that such extension is unreasonable by virtue of safety and environmental questions resulting from plant degradation.

Again, Intervenor's factual arguments regarding the insufficiency of the requested construction permit extension are outside the scope of this proceeding. These arguments are premised on 10 C.F.R. 50.55(b) which provides that "upon good cause shown the Commission will extend the completion date [of-a construction permit] for a reasonable period of time [ emphasis added.]" 10 C.F.R.

$ 50.55(b) in turn is based on Section 185 of the Act.

There is no indication in Section 185 or its legislative history that the inclusion of earliest and latest construction completion dates in a construction permit was intended to place any time-limits on the construction of power reactors and, therefore, on the duration-of construction permit extensions, as Intervenor suggests.36 If anything, Congress was sensitive to the fact that the civilian electric utility industry would_be making considerable investments in power reactors.

Implicit.in this sensitivity is the recognition-that the electric utility industry would want its investment-to

'36 March 19,-1984, Appeal at 9.

19 -

yield results (electrical energy) within the shortest period of time.37 As a result, no incentive from Congress in'the form of construction completion deadlines was needed to assure prompt construction of power reactors.

Nor does the reference in 10 C.F.R. $ 50.55(b) to a reasonable period of time establish such limits. There is no meaningful-" legislative history" accompanying this rule, which was promulgated in 1956, and certainly no

_ basis to conclude that the Commission intended when it promulgated Section'50.55(b) to impose deadlines by which power reactors were to be constructed. The only possible inference which can be drawn from the Statement of Considerations accompanying the rule is that-Section 50.55(b) was intended merely to implement authority

_ granted NRC (then the Atomic Energy Commission) in Section 185 of the Act.38

Given this regulatory framework, the Licensing Board correctly-dismissed Intervenor's claims that'the duration of the construction permit extension was insufficient.

1 ThelLicensing Board properly concluded that there simply is no regulatory or statutory basis.for challenging a construction permit extension on.the grounds of 37 See Power Reactor Development Co.'v. International-Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-g CIO, 367 U.S. 396,-412.(1961).

38 21 Fed.~ Reg. 335 (1956)..

e s , -e--- .,- , - e a w- -a ,

insufficiency. It reasoned that absent an overall limitation on the total period authorized under Section 185 or 10 C.F.R. $ 50.55(b), Licensee "could only injure itself [by seeking an insufficient construction permit extension] because it would then be forced to apply for i another extension . . . when its original ' good cause',

demonstration.could have supported an extension for the total time required. . . .

"39 The-Licensing Board properly dismissed Intervenor's claim that the duration of the requested construction Epermit extension was unreasonable due to its insufficiency for an additional reason. Based on past NRC practice, the inquiry into the reasonableness of a. construction permit 4

extension has focused on Whether the extension sought is for a reasonable period of time, given the reasons offered by.a licensee in support of its showing of good cause. It has not focused on- Whether- the total period of time authorized.to construct a power reactor'given_the

.- constructio'n permit extension is reasonable. For example, if a lic'ensee relies upon a one-year} labor-dispute to establish that.its construction permit should be extended, the reasonableness of the extension should be. measured against the length of the dispute.- Similarly,;ifTdesign changes ' required by ^ NRC slow construction by six months,-

39 Februarygl, 1984, Memorandum ~and Order:at 16.

J' thereby triggering a need to extend the construction

-permit, the reasonableness of the extension should be evaluated in terms of the time needed to complete the design changes.

This ap'proach was taken by the Licensing Board in Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2).40 There, the Licensing Board concurred with the evaluation by the Staff when it examined whether the length of the delay experienced by the Licensee, "and thus whether the amount of time requested by the Licensee

, .. . . . [was] reasonable under the circumstances."41 Moreover, the past practice of the NRC Staff in implementing 10 C.F.R. { 50.55(b) has been to evaluate the reasonableness of the requested construction permit extension in terms of whether it is commensurate with the delays resulting from the good cause cited by the licensee in support of its extension request. For example, on-December 21, 1981, the Staff issued an Order extending the latest construction completion date for the Callaway Plant, Unit No. 1 for a number of-reasons, including lack' -

of financing. In its evaluation of the construction permit extension request, the Staff #epecifically assessed-the. duration of the request in terms of'whether its 40 'LBP-77-2, 5 NRC 261, 274,-aff'd, ALAB-375, 5 NRC 423 (1977).

41 Id.

1 i

reasonableness was commensurate with the factors cited by the licensee there in support of its showing good cause.42 A similar inquiry was undertaken in response to a construction permit extension request sought for Waterford 3, which was also triggered in part by difficulties in financing.43 When viewed in this light, it is clear that the Licensing Board properly granted summary disposition as to Intervenor's claim that the requested construction permit-extension was unreasonable because it was insufficient.

The length of the construction permit extension in dispute was from two to five years. Under current circumstances during that period financing to complete construction of WNP-1 will probably not be available. Further, inability to finance construction constitutes good cause.44 Therefore, because the length of the extension is-42 Evaluation of Request for Extension of Construction Permit No. CPPR-139 for the Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Docket No. STN 50-483, Dec. 21, 1981 at 2.

43 Evaluation of Request for Extension of' Construction Permit No. CPPR-103 for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3, Docket No. 50-382, Nov. 9, 1981' at 2. Because this evaluation and the evaluation in Callaway, supra, n. 43 constitute official NRC records, the Appeal Board may afford them the same weight as an affidavit even though they are not

formally.part of the record in this proceeding. See Wisconsin Electric Power Co.'(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-90, 6 AEC 11,.15 n.-4 (1973).

- 44 Seabrook Station, Unit 2, CLI-84 __,-supra, March 29, 1984, slip op. at 5 n. 2.

o

~

l l

9 commensurate with the factor relied upon by Licensee in establishing good cause, the construction permit extension is for a reasonable period of time.45 Accordingly, the Licensing Board properly granted summary disposition as to Intervenor's claim that the requested construction permit extension was for an insufficient period of time.46 Similarly, the Licensing Board correctly found that no material issues existed as to the reasonableness of the construction permit extension because of the total period of time for which construction of WNP-1 was authorized.

As discussed above, there is no statutory or regulatory basis upon which to argue that reactor construction must 45 As stated earlier, the Commission has ruled that with respect to good cause, questions regarding need for power and costs of completior are outside the scope of a construction permit proc - Seabrook Station,-

Unit 2, CLI , supra, at 5. Intervenor's claim that the requested e is unreasonable due to its insufficiency is a- to litigate such '

questions. It would be it with Seabrook Station, Unit 2, ' CLI to bar-the >

litigation of such isst context of " good cause" but permit them t t within the context of whether a constructioi arm. ctension was for a reasonable' period of time.

46 Licensee recognizes that the Licensing Board did -not rely upon this theory when' granting summary disposition._ However, it is well-established.that.the-Appeal Board is free to affinn a Licensing Board based on a theory not relied upon by the Licensing Board but advanced ~before it. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear' Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264, 1 NRC 347, 357 (1975).

.O e <v v

I be completed within a certain period of time.47

~

In addition, to the extent Intervenor desired to raise health, safety or environmental issues to challenge the reasonableness of the construction permit extension,48 such issues are not within the scope of a construction A permit extension hearing.49 Finally, Intervenor argues that the Licensing Board

. impermissibly failed to consider an affidavit Intervenor submitted which set forth its ability to call a witness who would testify that there is no need ' for the power from WNP-1 by 1991 or anytime thereafter; that the cost of power from WNP-1 renders it an uneconomic energy option; and that the Northwest Power Planning Council does not support the operation of WNP-1 prior to 1996.50 The short answer to this argument is that the testimony Intervenor-offered failed to address any material issue before the Board. The question of whether_in the future there will ever be a need for the. power. to be generated by WNP-1 does not bear on whether Licensee had ' good cause to defer the construction of WNP-1 such that an extension of its 47 See notes 36-38, supra, and accompanying text.

48 March 19, 1984, Appeal at 10.

49 WNP-1 and 2, CLI-82-29, supra, 16 NRC at 1228.

50 Affidavit of Nina Bell, Staff'Intervenor, at 1-2,.

attached to.Intervenor's Answer'to NRC Staff &

Applicant's Motions for Summary Disposition, December 3, 1983.

O

- . . . .-. - . - ,. . . _ _ _ - . - _ . ~ _ _ _ . . - . . . .-.--. -

f k

'I l

e construction permit was needed 51 or whether the duration

^

of the extension is for a reasonable period of time.52 Therefore, the Licensing Board properly accorded the i '

affidavit little or no weight when granting summary disposition. ,

E. The Licensing Board Properly -

Interpreted the Reasons for Delay i

l The Intervenor next argues that the Licensing Board improperly. narrowed the inquiry into whether Licensee made an adequate showing on why an extension of the WNP-1

, -construction' permit was warranted. Specifically, Intervenor apparently contends that the Licensing Board

) made two errors. First, Intervenor claims that it was precluded -improperly from ' showing that the real ' reason for

c. delay;in the construction'of WNP-1.was a permanent (as opposed to temprrary) lack of financing.'and downward ,

spiral in electrical demand ~ such that' output from WNP ,

, ,4 will never be needed. -Second, Intervenor claims that

.~>.

givan what it believes is a permanent condition'barring bthe resumption of construction, the Licensing Board

, y y ,-- -

' '2 $ 6aproperly, failed' to require the Licensee ' to justify

>~

O ficontinued' plant construction.53

._ s, k

j ,

y )) 51 See notes 16-18, supra, and accomp'anying text.

l

- y

,'i 52. S'ee, notes 36-49, supra, and accompanying text.

~

~

53 March 19, 1984, Appeal at .6-7. . . ,

e' .u:(- ^3

, $ $. Q-

e Again, Intervenor's argument is misplaced. This -

argument is nothing more than an attempt by Intervenor to litigate need for power and financial qualifications 4

issues by franing its argument in terms of whether good cause exists for the requested construction permit extension. Thus, Intervenor is attempting to circumvent i the Commission's teaching that the good cause showing i required by Section 185 and 10 C.F.R. $ 50.55(b) goes to the " reasons that have contributed to the delay in

. construction."54 As 'the Licensing Board found,55 there a was no disagreement as to the reasons for the construction  :

delay necessitating a construction permit extension. It is those reasons which bear on the question of good cause for the requested construction permit extension.56

[ There fore, the Licensing Board properly granted summary disposition on this point.

The attempt by Intervenor to litigate possibis future

construction delays is?also apparent in its claim ~that the Licensing Board Laproperly fai?.ed to require the Licensee j to justify continued construction. Intervenor bases its argument on the following dictum in WNP-2, supra:

54 Seabrook Station, Unit 2, CLI , supra, March 29, 1984, slip op. at 4;~WNP-1 and 2, ELI-82-29, supra, 16 NRC at 1228. '

55 . February 1, 198h, Memorandum and order at 11.

c.

-56 Seabrook Station,- Unit 2, CLI-84 _ , March 29, 1984, slip op. at.4. .

9

4 A

We recognize that the Commission's implementing regulation, 10 C.F.R.- -

{ 50.55(b), does not track tha statute in all respects and focuses on whether the applicant was responsible for the delay. But as we discern the s, commission's intent, its regulation and guidance suggest that, unless the applicant was responsible for the,., ~

delays and acted in a dilatory manner (i.e., intentionally and without a valid purpose), a contested co66t Nc- m m

tion permit extension proceeding is not to be undertaken at all. More- s, over, even if a properly. framed, -

contention leads to such a proceeding i and is proven true, the statute and ,

implementing regulations do not erect s_ .

an absolute bar to extending ther permit. A judgment must still be made- ,

as to whether continued construction "

f should nonetheless be allowed.57 -

This language indicates that a judgmet t must be made s as to whether continued construction'should b'e(all' owed but

g s e' < .i, .- f h y7.y i u.?N. ~ .yg .cs , s 58 g ,_ v , ,9 , ; , N' h . .. .s~- M e 59 Seabrook Station,-Unit-2, CLI-84 ' J , supra, March 29, 1984, slip op. at 4-5. . v ;," .e n

w. > w y

._9 , .. 13 ws- . ' . '<s-J~ m T .~*'% 1( F. The Licensing Board Decision Does Not Render 10 C.F.R. I 50.55(b) Meaningless - n Intervenor next cites four examples which it claims demonstrate that the Licensing Board construed Section 50.55(b) so narrowly as to " render the law utterly without u, . .. meaning."60 For the most part, these examples are s3 - -[ reformulations of arguments raised by Intervenor and ik='s-n - addressed earlier in this brief. Nevertheless, Licensee '. h addresses each of these examples below. < 3,% ~ - (, ' Example One. Intervenor asserts that the Licensing (' Board improperly read out of Section 50.55(b) the requirenant that a construction permit extension be for a

  • (

.yeasonable' period of time by declining to allow Intervenor ~ ~ in oppo~ r tunity to litigate whether the two to five year i .-. construction deferral requested by Licensee "is (1) not D.) - ' 'S '4a reasonable due to its-insufficiency (2) not reasonable because' there is safety and -environmental significance to , 4he11engthfof time of an extension and (3) not. accurate. ~ because it can be shown that events subsequent to the .n .. ~ N.' rdque st ' . ... affect the-schedule;as'to cause a 5-12 year deiaIy. . . - . "61 The linchpin of.Intervenor's argument is ,t thatsthere "must be a period of: time which the Commission 'ss o u 4 60 , March;19,.1984,- Appeal'at'8.- . 161 -Id. ~ w + .;N ' , , , , . , - - , , s -, ,- I a would consider unreasonablea62 and that such period goes to the total period of time needed to construct the ' facility in question. As discussed above, there is no time limit set forth either in Section 185 of the Act or 10 C.F.R. $ 50.55 establishing the total number of years by which a power reactor must be completed.63 Additionally, whether a construction permit extension is of a reasonable duration is measured in terms of the good cause for the extension.64 Lastly, environmental and safety issues do , not go to the question of whether a construction permit is for a reasonable period of time.65 Accordingly, Intervenor in example one raised issues outside of the scope of this proceeding and not material to the issues . pending before the Licensing Board. It was for this reason that the Licensing Board correctly dismissed such issues. Example Two. Intervenor apparently contends that-the Licensing Board ignored the " reasonableness" requirement of Section 50.55(b) when it barred litigation of the health and safety effects of the requested construction 62 March 19, 1984, Appeal at'9. 63 See notes 36-38,. supra,.and accompanying text. 64 See notes-40-46, supra, and accompanying text. e 65 - fddL notes 48-49, supra, and accompanying text. c .o 4 e permit extension when such extension was granted.66 This argument itself demonstrates that Intervenor did in fact endeavor to raise health and safety issues during the constr,uction permit extension proceeding, contrary to Commission directive.67 Accordingly, it confirms that the Licensing Board properly granted summary disposition. Example Three. Intervenor believes that the Licensing Board rendered Section 50.55(b) meaningless by 3 ruling that 'ihile Intervenor could challenge whether Licensee had a rational purpose in deferring construction, e "in fact the issue is out of the reach of the Intervenor because [the Board] considers the reasonableness of the decision to delay a question better left to the Applicant."68 This characterization of the' decision by the Licensing Board is not entirely accurate. The Licensing Board in fact considered whether Intervenor set forth any basis for concluding that Licensee did not have a rational basis for deferring construction of WNP-1.. The Licensing Board concluded that Intervenor failed to allege any facts supporting such an argument.69 66 March 19, 1984,- Appeal at 8. 67 See note 49, supra, and' accompanying text. 68 March 19, 1984, Appeal at 11. - 69 See February-1, 1984, Memorandum and Order at 11. The

  • issue of whether Licensee abandoned WNP-1 was not ~

' before the Licensing . Board, as Intervenor states. (footnote continued) O a s Example Four. Intervenor asserted that the Licensing Board narrowly construed the word " intentional" as used in WNP-2, ALAB-722, supra, and in so doing precluded litigation of whether in fact the Licensee itself initiated the BPA recommendation upon which it then based a showing of good cause.70 The short answer to Intervenor's argument is that the Licensing Board granted sunmary disposition assuming that Licensee initiated the BPA recommendation. The Board then dismissed Intervenor's e claim because there were no material disputed facts as to the purposes.for the delay.71 This disposition of Intervenor's claim was premised on its failure to show that there were material facts in dispute both as to whether Licensee acted intentionally and-without a valid business purpose to delay construction. As was made clear L(footnote continued from previous.page) March 19, 1984, Brief at'll. The only. reason the Licensing Board raised abandonment apparently 'was to illustrate a claim Intervenor could have made which the Board might have viewed.as precluding summary disposition.- Therefore, the Licensing Board,was simply providing'in dictum.its views on how a licensee's claim as to goodLcause-could'be challenged. The Licensing- Board clearly was - not. placing Intervenor . in a " catch-22." Id. at 12. L -70 .Id. at'12-13. l 4 ! .71 February 1, 1984, Memorandum and: order at 11. O. e n in WNP-2, ALAB-722, supra, unless both prongs of that standard are satisfied, a challenge to a construction permit extension cannot succeed.72 V. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, Licensee submits that the Licensing Board properly granted Licensee's and Staff's Motions for Summary Disposition and dismissed the proceedings. The decision of the Licensing Board should , be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, 6 Nichdlas S. Reynolds Sanford L. Martman BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, , PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Licensee April 23, 1984 4 72 WMP-2, ALAB-722, supr.a, 17.NRC at 553. Y l 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of ) ) WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ) Docket No. 50-460-CPA SUPPLY SYSTEM ) ) (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .,- I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Licensee's Response to Appeal by Coalition for Safe Power of Licensing Board Order Dated February 1,1984, Granting i Applicant and NRC Staff Motions for Summary Disposition" in the captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of April, 1984: Gary J. Edles, Chairman Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Commission- Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Mitzi A. Young, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Appeal Board Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Christine N. Kohl ~ Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board- Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 .g a j i - l' Herbert Grossman, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 } Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Mr. Eugene Rosolie Atomic Safety and Licensing Coalition for Safe Power Board Suite 527 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 408 South West 2nd Commission Portland, Oregon 97204 Washington, D.C. 20555 'i. Mr. Gerald C. Sorensen Ms. Nina Bell Manager of Licensing Nuclear Information and Washington Public Power Resource Service Supply System 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 1 3000 George Wa shington Way Washington, D.C. 20036 l9 Richland, Washington 99352 t-Mr. William L. Clements Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman . Docketing &-Service Branch Energy Facility Site t U. S._ Nuclear. Regulatory Evaluation Council Commission State of Washington i Washington, D. C. 20555. Mail Stop Py-ll I Olympia, Washington. 98504 Sanit6rd L. .- Hartman' i 4 1 'd + . k' . , - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ ,.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20084A464&oldid=2744683"