ML20148U540
| ML20148U540 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1988 |
| From: | Berry G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5494 OL-1, NUDOCS 8802040052 | |
| Download: ML20148U540 (7) | |
Text
._ -
f</ff 1/29/88 1
00CKETED USNBC UN17ED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'88 FEB -2 P3 53 1
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BG/RO: GF iiUkTAP v5m 1 -l J. ' b e v t.f.
~
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, e_t, al.
)
On-site Emergency Planning t
)
and Safety issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NECNP'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY TO APPLICANTS' j
AND NRC STAFF'S BRIEFS RECARDING LOW POWER OPERATIONS On January 14, 1988, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) flied a motion seeking leave to reply to the briefs suhriltted by the NRC Staff and Appilcants in response to the Licensing Board's November 27, 1987 Order.
In that order, the Licensing Board directed the parties to discuss whether the pendency of the two contentions remanded by the Appeal Board in A LA B-875 present a bar to the reauthorl7ation of low power coerations.
The Licensing Doard directed NECNP and Applicants to file their briefs by January 4, 1988, and that the Staff do so by January 11, 1988. O I
In its brief, the Staff explained why neither of the remanded contentions constituted a bar to the reauthorization of low power 1/
For good cause shown, the Board extended the Staff's filing deadline by one day until January 12, 1988.
See Order at 1 (January 12, i
1988).
l 8802040052 9801&HP gDR ADOCK o 3
1 l
f i
I 1
r I s
e operations.
See NRC Staff Response To Licensing Board Order Of t
4 November 27,
- 1987, passim (January 12, 1980)
("Staff B rief").
Specifically, the Staff presented the affidavits of experts in the issues raised by the rerranded contentions which demonstrate that the dangers alleged in the remanded contentions will not arise during low power operations.
Accordingly, the Staff contended that neither of the remanded contentlens is relevant to the activity to he reauthorized.
The Staff explained that under 10 C.F.R.
I 50.57(c), a license to conduct activities short of fuit power operations may be authorized prior to the completion of the full power
!! censing proceeding if none of an intervenor's contentions is "reitvant to the activity to be authorized."
M. at 2-7.
In their brief, Applicants took a similar approach.
See Applicants' Brief in Support Of Low Power Operations, passim (January 4, 1988).
The Staff opposes NECNP's motion.
NECNP did not oppose the l
reauthorization of low power operations on the ground that the remanded l
l contentions were "relevant to the activity to be authorized" as it could have pursuant to section 50.57(c).
Instead, NECNP's brief was devotec' mainly to the argurrent that the Commission and the Licensing Board lacks the legal authority to authorize the issuance of ay type of license prior to the completion of the full power licensing proceeding.
See NECNP B rief in Opposition To Renewal Of Authorization To Operate At Low Power, passim (January 4,
1988).
This line of argument had been i
j rejected by the Appeal Board before NECNP flied its brief.
See Public
[
t Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-875, 25 NRC
, silp op, at 5 (October 1, 1987); id., ALAB-865, i
i
\\
l 42
' 4 25 NRC 430, 439 (1987'.
NECNP made a voluntary and calculated deci lon to oppose low power reauthorization on the ground that the Commission '
and Licensing Board < !acked the legal authority to do so.
The Licensing x
Board should not rescue NECNP "rg.%the consequences of.ips own actions.!
\\
x T
There also is no merit to NELMD'd; claihthat the Licmsing Board x
should defer ruling on the question of low power reauthorizatJch pending the completion of discovery.
NECNP str.tes that additional discovery is needed in order for it to uplain why (oct power operations cannot be reauthorized "at this stage of the proceeding based on a determination that NECNP's "emanded, and yet as unresolved, contentions lack merit."
Motion at 4.
NECNP misunderstands the nature of the issue the Licensing Board has been asked to resolve. The threshold issue is not whether the remanded contentions are mer itorious but rather whether they are relevant to the "activity to be authorized."
10 C.F.R. 6 ShpJ(c).
Only if the pending contentiens ar2 re! event to the activity te le authofized --
in this case, low power operations -- would NECNP's right ty be heard on l_d.
The determination of the merits of its contentions come into play, d
\\
relevance is based upon the moving papers and affidavits and any filings See Comrronwealth Edison Company (B raldwood Nuclear in opposition.
c
'm Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-86-31, 24 NRC 451 '1986).
5 in this case, it is not recessary for the Board to decide the mer;ts 3
of the remanded contentions in determining, whether they are relevant to
'l;
(
the low power activity to be autao'rized.
Nor has the Staff has not asked the Board to do so.
As the Staf f explaY,ed in its brief, neither of the.
remanded contentions is relevant to low power operations because the public heaith and safety would not be threatened if the danger allegedly
,g, e
- II -
posed by them occurred during low power operations.
See Staff Brief at 0-15.
NECNP does not controvert this position either in its initial brief-or in its proffered reply brief.
NECNP's motion for leave to file a reply to the briefs of the Staff and Applicants therefore should be denied.
Resrectfully submitted, 1
lMi Gregory /
i8 y
Counsel f' r NR Staff j
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of January 1988 l
l l
L I
q.s t.1 1
1 I
i 1
. ~
DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'88 FEB -2 P3 53
-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING bdNh kikki eRANCH in the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SEP.VICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
On-site Emergency Planning
)
and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2
)
CERT _lFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copics of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NECNP's MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
REPLY TO APPLICANTS' AND NRC STAFF'S BRIEFS REGARDING LOW POWER OPERATIONS" above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mall, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system or, as indlated by double asterisks, by telecopy, this 29th day of January 1988.
Sheldon J. Wol4, Esq., Chairman **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Boa rd
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Beerd U.S. Nuclear Regulator y Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour **
Docketing and Service Section*
Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuc! car Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.**
Administrative Judge Robert K. Gad, Ill, Esq.
5500 Friendship Boulevard Ropes & Gray Apartment 1923N 225 Franklin Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing H. J. Flynn, Esq.
Appeal Panel
- Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC 20555 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472
s 2-s Philip Ahren, Esq.
Calvin A. Canney Assistant Attorney General City Hall Office of the Attorney General 126 Daniel Street State House Station Portsmouth, NH 03801 Augusta, ME 04333 Mr. Angle Machiros, Chairman Carol S. Sneider, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Assistant Attorney General 25 High Road Office of the Attorney General Newbury, MA 09150 One Ashburton Place,19th Flocr Boston, MA 02108 George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Allen Lampert Assistant Attorney General Civil Defense Director Office of the Attorney General Town of Brentwood 25 Capitol Street 20 Franklin Concord, NH 03301 Exeter, NH 03833 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
William Armstrong Diano Curran, Esq.
Civil Defense Director Farmon & Weiss Town oF Exeter 2001 S Street, NW 10 Front Street Suite 430 Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, DC 20009 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Holmes & E!Ils 116 Lowell Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Manchester, NH 03106 Hampton, NH 03842 Paul McEachern, Esq.
J. P. Nadeau Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
Board of Selectmen
'Shaines & McEachern 10 Central Street 25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH 03870 P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Silverglate, Gertner, Baker, McKay, Murphy & Graham Fine S Good 100 Main Street 88 Board Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Boston, MA 02110 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Robert Carrigg, Chairman Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen RFD 41, Box 1154 Town Office Kensington, NH 03827 Atlantic Avenue North Hampton, NH 03870 t
3-s William S. Lord Peter J. Matthews, Mayor Beard of Selectmen City Hall Town Hall - Friend Street Newburyport, MN 09150 Amesbury, MA 01913 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Road South Hampton, NH 03827 Durham, NH 038211 Hon. Cordon J. Humphrey United States Senate 531 Hart Senate Office Buildino i
r l
f
/
Washington, DC 20510
/
9 6440A> WN%
Gregory Na n Bei
- y Counsel fc r NRC
, staff L
1 l
l O
.