ML20111B857
| ML20111B857 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1985 |
| From: | Churchill B LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Asselstine J, Palladino N, Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#185-992 OL, NUDOCS 8503130264 | |
| Download: ML20111B857 (5) | |
Text
(
0 hh I
SHAw, PITTMAN, PoTTs kbM$bWBRIDGE A PARTNERSMip OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Kjd A8:29 W
NGTON C.
,mcOP,E.
March (19fyl;98,5m 7f,p rL DOC 4fi166 !, sEav;o
- -****'**^*u=**"'
ggg CAeLE ~S AwLAw" TE6EPwoNE BRUCE W. CHURCHILL. P.C.
sacasa nnoss
~ ~ ~" ~
Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Thomas M.
Roberts, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 James K. Asselstine, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of Louisiana Power and Light company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3)
Docket No. 50-382 K
Dear Commissioners:
We received yesterday the letter to you dated March 8, 1985 from Lynne Bernabei of the Government Accountability Project, Joint Intervenors' counsel, as corrected by her letter of March 11.
Joint Intervenors seek to have the Commission delay its decision on a full-power license for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, until the Appeal Board has ruled on Joint Intervenors' November 7, 1984 motion to reopen the record in this proceeding.
Joint Intervenors also ask the Commission to delay the issuance of a full-power license following a decision authorizing such a license in order to permit them time to seek court review.
The actions sought by Joint Intervenors are not required or contemplated by the Commission's regulations or 8503130264 e50312 PDR ADOCK 05000302 3,sa3
i-I 1i i
q l
2-i other applicable law, are inappropriate in the procedural con-text of this case,.are unwarranted by considerations of public l
health and' safety, are unsupported by law, fact or argument, are i
extremely prejudicial to Applicant and are not in the-public interest.
Applicant urges that Joint Intervenors' requests be 1
denied.
The filing before the Appeal Board which Joint Intervenors
)
i cite as the basis for their delay request is not an appeal as of right.
It is an untimely motion to reopen the record filed a 2
-year and nine months after the operating license hearing record i
was closed on February 11, 1983, and well after both partial initial decisions were affirmed by the Appeal Board (ALAB-732,
}
June 29, 1983 and ALAB-753, December 9, 1983.)
The severe j
untimeliness of the motion, including the' delay of nearly a year i
and a half in coming forward with anonymous affidavit information, f
was discussed at length at pages 7-14 of Applicant's November 30, 1984 answer to the motion and at pages 5-8 of the Staff's j
December 21, 1984 answer.
l There is neither a requirement nor a sound policy basis for delaying a Commission decision on issuance of a license pending i
determination of a motion to reopen.
Indeed, such a practice would effectively preclude issuance of licenses in the face of determined opposition, for an intervenor could simply continue to file such motions, without regard to substance or merit, and 3
prevent the Commission from reaching closure on its administra-tive proceedings.
By asking the commission to delay consideration of full power operating authority, and by asking that license issuance there-1 after be delayed,' Joint Intervenors are, in effect, seeking a stay in the authorization of full power operation, but without having met the Commission's requirements for. seeking a stay.
i j
The Commission's regulations specifically provide that an appeal j
(and obviously by extension a motion to reopen) does not stay j
the issuance of the authorized license, 10 C.F.R. S 2.764 (b);
i to seek such a result, an application for a stay must be filed J
pursuant to'10 C.F.R.'S 2.788.
In this case, the administrative appellate process before the Appeal Board has long since been completed, and Joint Intervenors have never filed such a stay application, either in conjunction with the initial decisions, j
the Appeal Board rulings or Joint Intervenors' motions to reopen.-
There are no procedural or substantive circumstances of i
l~
this particular proceeding to warrant delaying a licensing deci-sion because of the pendency of the motion to reopen.
An appli-j cation for a stay places a burden on the movant to show sub-l stantively why a stay is required and in the public interest.
i l
---,-c
--n,
,-,-,,,,w-.,~,--,n-,m,.-,.,
n.
.-..,,,._,-m__-c,m,----,-,n,...,,,,
,-,,.n n n -,,- -,,---
,,---n,-----,,
n -
i
- lf
^
Not only has no such showing been made by Joint Intervenors, the answers filed by Applicant and the Staff to the motion (and to the subsequent attempts by Joint Intervenors to supplement l
the motion) have demonstrated the lack of merit of the motion to reopen.
There is no basis on the record for according Joint i
Intervenors the stay they seek, and Joint Intervenors have made no attempt to provide such a basis.
4 Applicant would be severely prejudiced by the delay sought at the last minute by Joint Intervenors.
Under its current low power operating authority, Waterford 3 went critical on March 4, j
1985.
As of last night, Applicant has.successfully completed i
its low power testing program and the plant is now ready to begin the power ascension program at operating. levels above 5%.
Conversely, Joint Intervenors are incorrect in stating I
that they could be " foreclosed from pursuing their Motion to I
Reopen in any NRC forum."
The Appeal Board.has stated in 1
ALAB-797 that it intends to consider the motion on its merits j
and that, if as a result of that consideration it becomes
~
apparent that the Appeal Board does not have jurisdiction, the
{
matters could be referred tc the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for resolution.
The Appeal Board had noted previ-ously in ALAB-792 that Joint Intervenors would indeed have a forum to pursue its concerns -- a petition filed under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.206 -- if the Appeal Board lacked jurisdiction.
A Commission determination on full-power authority for Waterford 3 will pre-clude neither the Appeal Board's stated intention to consider the motion nor Joint Intervenors' ability to file a section
]
]
2.206 petition.
j Accordingly, Applicant requests that the Commission go l
forward with its consideration of full power operating authority for Waterford 3 on March 15 as scheduled, or earlier if possible, i
and that a favorable determination be followed by immediate issu-l ance of a full-power license.
j Sincerely yours, i
sfuce"#5s hurchill i
j Counsel for Applicant cc:
Service List (attached)
I 1
i 1
m
k a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board i
In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-382 OL
)
(Waterford Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit 3)
)
SERVICE LIST Christine N.
Kohl Sheldon J. Wolfe Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and-Licensing Appeal Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
- 20555, Washington, D.C.
20555 W. Reed Johnson Harry Foreman Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director, Center for Population Washington, D.C.
20555 Studies Box 395, Mayo Howard A. Wilber University of Minnesota Administrative Judge Minneapolis, MN 55455 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Walter H. Jordan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Sherwin E.
Turk, Esquire 881 West Outer Drive Office of the Executive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing & Service Section (3)
Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
.-w
-p
--a-y
d LP&L Service List-ASLAB Page Two r
Mr. Gary Groesch 2257 Bayou Road New Orleans, LA 70119 Carole H. Burstein, Esq.
445 Walnut Street New Orleans, LA 70118 Lynne Bernabei, Esq.
Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 202 Washington, DC 20009 e
l I
.