ML20206P888
| ML20206P888 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1986 |
| From: | Dignan T, Gad R ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-777 OL, NUDOCS 8607020266 | |
| Download: ML20206P888 (7) | |
Text
I 77 7
)
Dated:
June 25, 198'6 "tif/%p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA..
M 4039 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI N
~ ho{hC[OF $5 before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA hof W #!C
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
Planning Issues
)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO SAPL'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION FOR UNIT 2 Under date of June 10, 1986, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL), filed a " Motion to Dismiss the Application for Unit 2."
The applicants herein answer that motion and say that far the reasons set forth below the motion should be denied.
l The motion at bar constitutes at least the third (and second by SAPL) attempt to have the operating license application for Seabrook Unit 2 dismissed.
There is no material difference between this latest motion and the one l
8607020266 860625
$DR ADOCK 05000443 i
4 o
s filed by SAPL on September 26, 1983.1 This Board denied that earlier motion in an unpublished Memorandum and Order issued January 13, 1984.2 In a decision issued with respect to an appeal from an earlier order of this Board denying a late intervention by a petitioner who wished to raise the sole issue of whether the Unit 2 OL application should be dismissed, the Appeal Board commented on the January 13, 1984, order of this Board as follows:
"At the very least, the Licensing Board's analysis of the Unit 2 prematurity question in its January 13 memorandum is not manifestly (or even probably) erroneous.na To this statement the Appeal Board appended a footnote as follows:
"To the contrary, this much is clear:
First, the Licensing Board correctly held that it is not its responsibility, but that of the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to make the finding required by Section 50.57(a)(1) as a precondition to the issuance by the Director of an operating license.
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-226, 8 AEC 381, 410-11 (1974).
Second, there is nothing in the Commission's regulations specifically providing that a reactor must have reached a particular stage of 1
SAPL's Motion to Dismiss the Operating License Application for Seabrook Unit II (Sept. 26, 1983).
2 ASLB Mem. and Ord., January 13, 1984.
3 ALAB-758, supra, at 11.
e I
completion before an operating license application may be filed.
Third, just 16 months ago the Commission denied a petition for rulemaking that sought amendments to the Rules of Practice that would have, inter alia, limited the scope of each operating license hearing to a single reactor unit even if that unit were one ot several similar units constructed on a multi-reactor site, 47 Fed. Reg. 46, 524 (1982).
In support of his proposal, the petitioner had noted that the ' time lag between inservice dates for individual reactors at multi-reactor nuclear plants has been increasing for many years.'
Ibid.
In the Commission's view, however, that consideration did not provide a sufficient basis for requiring 'an exclusive hearing on each reactor unit.'
Id. at 46, 525."*
Thereafter, in a decision rejecting SAPL's petition for directed certification of this Board's January 13, 1984 order,S the Appeal Board after quoting the above-quoted portions of its earlier decision (ALAB-758, n.3, supra)8 went on to state:
"As we observed in ALAB-758, the Commission's regulations are devoid of any specific requirement that the reactor reach a particular stage of completion before the filing of an operating license application.
See p.
567, supra.
This being so, it is hardly surprising that, over the years, the Commission has instituted and carried forward numerous operating ALAB-758 at 11, n.18.
l s
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-762, 19 NRC 565 (1984).
s ALAB-762 at 567. __-_____
B 4
license proceedings encompassing two or more units in quite different stages of completion.
"Further, we find not objectionable the practice of considering in a single proceeding those issues common to all units of a multi-unit facility.
- Indeed, the practice seems to us to make very good sense.
In the proceeding at bar, many common issues have already been tried or will be heard at a future evidentiary session:
e.g.,
control room design, equipment environmental qualification, and various aspects of onsite and offsite emergency planning.
We know of no useful purpose that would be served by now resolving these issues for Unit 1 alone and then replowing the exact same ground at some later date in the context of Unit 2.
"If we apprehend its position correctly, SAPL does not suggest otherwise.
There is not a word of complaint in its appellate papers respecting the scope of the issues that are currently being explored in the proceeding.
- Rather, SAPL's concern appears to lie in another direction.
As previously noted, its focus is the obvious present lack of opportunity to advance contentions related to the quality of as yet uncompleted Unit 2 construction and the possibility that the proceeding might come to an end before such an opportunity became available.
See p.
568, supra.
"That may well be a legitimate concern.
And, if so, SAPL might have some basis for insisting that, with respect to Unit 2, the evidentiary record in this proceeding not be closed until after construction of that unit is much further advanced than it is today.
But we need not - and do not - pass judgment upon that question at this time.
For one thing, to date no such relief has been explicitly sought by SAPL.
For another, should SAPL move below to hold the record open on Unit 2 to await the i
substantial completion of construction of that unit, there will be time enough for the Licensing Board to act upon the motion when it is ready to close the record on Unit 1.
If aggrieved by the Board's determination, SAPL can register its dissatisfaction on an appeal from 4
the initial decision."7 The current SAPL motion does not even mention the prior history and rulings discussed above.
No attempt has been made to demonstrate how the situation now is legally any different than it was in 1984.
This is not surprising; there is no difference.
The motion should be denied.
By their attorneys,
/Y oiEas G.41Afnan, Jr.
R.
K.
Gad III Ropes a Gray 226 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 7
ALAB-762 at 569-70 (footnotes omitted).
1 s
C
\\
l l
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,-Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on June 25, 1986, I made service of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Administrative Judge Helen Hoyt Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire Chairperson Attorney General Atomic Safety-and Licensing George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Attorney General Commission 25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20555 Concord, NH 03301-6397 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing
_ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Richard'A. Hampe, Esquire Board of Selectmen Hampe and McNicholas Town Office 35 Pleasant Street Atlantic Avenue Concord, NH 03301 North Hampton, NH 03862 Diane Curran, Esquire Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Andrea C.
Ferster, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Harmon & Weiss Director Suite 430 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2001 S Street, N.W.
Commission Washington, DC 20009 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Ed Thomas Board Panel FEMA, Region I U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory 442 John W. McCormack Post Commission Office and Court House Washington, DC 20555 Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109
s i
Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S.
Sneider, Esquire Matthew T.
Brock, Esquire
. Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor P.O.
Box 360 Boston, MA 02108 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Gary W.
Holmes, Esquire Mr. Peter J.
Matthews Holmes & Ells Mayor 47 Winnacunnet Road City Hall Hampton, NH 03841 Newburyport, MA 01950 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A.
Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S.
Senate Chairman of the Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn:
Tcm Burack)
Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. J.
P. Nadeau 1 Pillsbury Street Selectmen's Office Concord, NH 03301 10 Central Road (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Rye, NH 03870 Mr. Thomas F.
Powers, III Mr. William S.
Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RED Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Washington, DC 20472 Silvergate, Gertner, Baker Fine, Good & Mizner Philip Ahrens, Esquire 88 Broad Street Assistant Attorney General Boston, MA 02110 Department of the Attorney General Augusta, ME 04333 n-mW
=
Thom'as C DipsTanfJr.
~