ML20214N382

Brief Amicus Curiae of Us Senator Gj Humphrey in Support of Atty General Jm Shannon Application for Stay of Licensing Board Order Authorizing Issuance of low-power Ol.* W/ Certificate of Svc

ML20214N382
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/28/1987
From:	Humphrey G SENATE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#287-3602 OL-1, NUDOCS 8706020157
Download: ML20214N382 (10)

Text

.

W UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKETED v5tec BEFORE THE COMMISSION .gg OFFICE E 00ChLilw .i .

• IU '

)

In the matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL._f PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) On-site Emergency

) Planning Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

) May 28, 1987

)

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF U.S. SENATOR GORDON J. H UM PH REY IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON'S APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF LICENSING BO ARD ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A LOW-POWER OPERATING LICENSE U.S. Senator Gordon J. Humphrey hereby submits his amicus curiae brief, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.715(d), in support of the May 13, 1987 petition by Attorney General James M. Shannon for a stay of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 's March 25, 1987 Partial Initial Decision authorizing the issuance of an operating license.to conduct low-power operation and of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Doard's Memorandum and Order of May 8, 1987 denying a stay pending greater likelihood that a full-power operating license will be issued.1/

1/ In its Memorandum and Order of April 9, 19 87, the Commission continued a stay of the issuance of a low-power license which shall remain in effect pending consideration of ,d PSNH's " Suggestion of Mootness and Request for Vacation of "'

Stay." This stay is currently in effect.

8706020157 DR 870526 ADOCK 05000443 PDR f0b

=

f I. INTRODUCTION On March 25, 1987, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its Partial Initial Decision authorizing issuance of a low-power operating license subject to resolution of certain issues regarding the environmental qualification file.

On April 6, 1987, the Attorney General applied for a stay of the March 25 decision, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2 788(e), to preserve the status quo pending resolution of important issues on appeal. Other Intervenors (Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and Town of Hampton) subsequently petitioned for a stay. On April 10, Senator Humphrey filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae, brief in support of the stay application. The Appeal Board granted Senator Humphrey leave to file on April 13 On April 16, Senator Humphrey filed an amigys curiae brief in support of Intervenors' application for a stay. The Appeal Board denied the stay application on May 8, 1987 II. INTEREST OF AMICUS l

As a resident and representative of New Hampshire, U.S.

Senator Gordon J. Humphrey and his constituency are directly affected by events at the Seabrook nuclear power plant.

Senator Humphrey has closely followed the licensing proceedings. Senator Humphrey's interest in the proceedings l

is based on his desire to ensure protection of the rights and welfare of those citizens living in the vicinity of the plant.

III. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF A STAY It is not in the interest of the oublic to contaminate the Seabrook olant and increase economic costs through low-oower testing niven the current state of uncertainty rega rd ing issuance of a full-oower operatine license.

Pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.788(e)(4), in deciding whether to grant or deny a stay, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board must determine among other things,

"where the public interest lies." Senator Humphrey submits to the Appeal Board that it is not in the interest of the

public to irradiate the core and contaminate the primary cooling system through low-power operation until substantial Iobstacles impeding issuance of a full-power operating license fareresolved.

Although 10 CFR Section 50.47(d) indicates that the Commission need not review off-site emergency plans before issuing a low-power license, unique aspects of the Seabrook licensing proceedings require a reexamination of the adequacy of this policy.

Specifically, thirteen local communities within the ten 9

mile emergency planning zone and the Commonwealth of

. s Massachusetts have decided not to participate in off-site emergency planning. According to Attorney General Shannon's May 13, 1987 petition, "Here, the Commonwealth and the Massachusetts towns have consistently stated that no emergency plan will work and have not wavered from their consequent refusal to participate in emergency planning."

Given this substantial obstacle to emergency planning, the likelihood of full-power operation at Seabrook remains uncertain. This uncertainty reg a rding the future use of the plant makes doubtful the advisability of irradiating the components of the plant and the nuclear fuel rods through low-power operation.

The affidavit of Dale G. Bridenbaugh attached as Exhibit 1 to Attorney General Shannon's application for a stay presents data regarding the " irreversible changes in status quo resulting from low-power operation." Contamination of the plant components before both those issues currently on j appeal and those issues which impede issuance of a full-power license are resolved will result in an irrevocable loss of the rights of the Intervenors' and the public respecting resolution of important economic and safety matters prior to irradiation of the plant. It is critical that these matters be considered.

It The Commission's position regarding low-power testing should be reexamined due to the unique status of the Seabrook

plant where the applicants' ability to fulfill the requirements necessary for issuance of a full-power operating license by the Commission remain in doubt. In its decision in Long Island Lighting Comoany (Shoreham Nuclear Power

• Station), CLI-85-12, 21 NRC 1587, the Commission stated, "So long as an applicant is willing to invest the substantial effort and money necessary to attempt to obtain a full-power license, the possibility of full-power operation at a later date gives substantial value to low-power testing."

There are two major flaws to the Commission's argument in regard to low-power operation of the Seabrook plant:

, 1) As it is only the " possibility of full-power operation" which gives value to low-power testing, there is no value to low-power testing if a plant does not subsequently receive a full-power operating license. In light of the present uncertainty regarding resolution of the emergency planning requirements necessary for issuance of a full-power license, there is little benefit in contaminating portions of the plant through low-power testing at this time. In fact, absent some assurance that obstacles impeding full-power operation will be resolved, it is not in the public interest, nor does it make sense, to operate the Seabrook plant at low-power.

1 The Appeal Board cites the Commission's position that "the inherent benefits of early low-power testing outweigh

the uncertainty that a full-power license may be denied,"

CLI-85-12, 21 NRC 1591. I submit to the Commission that there is no " inherent" benefit in low-power testing which is not subsequently followed by full-power operation. Thus, until substantial issues impeding issuance of a full-power operating license are resolved, the " inherent" costs involved in low-power operation far outweigh the potential benefits.

2) In the event that the plant is licensed for low-power operation and is not licensed for full-power operation, contamination of the plant components would significantly increase the cost of plant conversion. According to Dale G.

Bridenbaugh's affidavit, once the fuel currently loaded into the Seabrook core becomes substantially irradiated through low-power testing, reuse of the fuel becomes "more complicated and costly and therefore far less likely to be implemented."

Should the plant, for regulatory or economic reasons, fail to go on line, it is likely that some portion of the cost of the plant would ultimately be borne by the consumers. This opens the possibility that the applicants' willingness to invest in low-power testing may result in rate increases absorbed by the public.

CONCLUSION At this point in the licensing proceedings, public

interest would be best served by a determination by the Commission to grant a stay of the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision authorizing low-power operation and the Appeal Board 's order denying a stay pending resolution of important issues on appeal and pending greater likelihood that a full-power operating license will be issued. Given the possibility that Seabrook may never receive a full-power operating license, the potential economic costs and irreparable harm inherent in low-power operation far outweigh the benefits.

Issuance of the requested stay is necessary in order that the Commissicn may closely examine those issues on appeal as well as the costs and benefits associated with contaminating a plant which may never operate beyond low-power levels before ap pr ov ing issuance of a low-power operating license.

Respectfully submitted, GORDON J. HUMPHREY, USS G(rdon J. ilumphrey /

Pro Se /

S31 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-2841 Dated: District of Columbia May 28, 1987

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ih r NUCLEAR REGULATORT COMMISSION BEFORE YBE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSHWk MY 28 P4 :41 In the Matter of 6FA.

00CN n i .

,c!

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. DOCKET NOS.50-444 50-443^0L"/

OL

~

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the enclosed document, BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF U.S. SENATOR GORDON J. HUMPHREY IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON'S APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF LICENSING BOARD ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A LOW-POWER OPERATING LICENSE, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail (or by hand where indicated by an asterisk) on the 28th day of May.

eAlan S. Rosenthal, Chairman e Gary J. Edles Atonio Safety & Licensing Atomia Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Wa sh in g t on , DC 20555 eBoward A. Wilber e Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Atonio Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 eHelen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman e Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 eDr. Jerry Harbour e Docketing and Service Atonio Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Mrs. Anne E. Go od m an eDr. Emmeth A. Luebke Board of Selectmen Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 13-15 Newmarket Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Durham, NH 03842 Commission Washington, DC 20555

'Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Atomiu Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuolear Regulatory Commission Jane Doughty Washington, D.C. 20555 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League William S. Lord, Seleotman 5 Market Street Town Hall Portsmouth, NH 03801 Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Rep. Roberta Pevear Carol S. Sneider, Esq.

Drinkwater Road Assistant Attorney General Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Department of the Attorney General Philip Ahrens, Esq. One Ashburton Place Assistant Attorney General 19th Floor Office of the Attorney General Boston, MA 02108 State House Station 6 Stanley W. Kn owle s Augusta, ME 04333 Board of Seleotmen P.O. Box 710 Thomas G. Dignan, Esq. North Hampton, NH 03826 R.K. Gad II, Esq.

Hopes & Gray J.P. Nadeau, Selectman 225 Franklin Street Town of Rye Boston, MA 02110 155 Washington Road Rye, NH 03870 Robert A. Backus, Esq.

Backus, Meyer & Solomon Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor 111 Lowell Street City Hall Manchester, NH 03105 Newburyport, MA 01950 Robert G. Perlis, Esq. Alfred V. Sargent, Chrmn.

Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Board of Selectmen Office of the Executive Legal Town of Salisbucy,MA 01950 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Diane Curran, Esq.

Commission Harmon & Weiss Tenth Floor 2001 S Street, NW 773501d Georgetown Road Suite 430 Bethesda, MD 20814 Washington, DC 20009-1125 Miobael Santosuosso, Chran Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Jewell Street Newbury, MA 01950 RFD 2 South Hampton, NH 03842 l

l l

t

H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.

Office of General Counsel Allen Lampert Federal Emergency Management Civil Defense Director Agency Town of Brentwood 500 C Street, SW Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, D.C. 20472 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.

George Dana Bisbee, Esq. Hampe and McNicholas Stephen E. Merrill, Esq. 35 Pleasant Street Office of the Attorney General Concord, NH 03301 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Gary W. Holmes, Esq. Edward A. Thomas Holmes & Ellis Federal Emergency 47 Winnacunnet Road Management Agency Hampton, NH 03842 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)

Boston, MA 02109 William Armstrong Civil Defense Director Sandra Gavutis 10 Front Street Town of Kensington Exeter, NH 03833 RFD 1, Box 1154 East Kensington, NH 03827 Calvin A. Canney City Manager Charles P. Graham, Esq.

City Hall McKay, Murphy & Graham 126 Daniel Street 100 Main Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Amesbury, MA 01913 Matthew T. Brook, Esq. Judith H. Hizner, Esq.

Shaines & McEachern Silvergate, Gertner, et al PO Box 360 88 Broad Street Maplewood Avenue Boston, MA 02110 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Selectmen of North Hampton

• Lando Zech, Chairman North Hampton, NH 03836 U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555 eJames K. Asselstine, Commissioner e Kenneth Carr, Commissioner U.S. NRC U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555 Wa sh in g t on , DC 20555

' Thomas Roberts, Commissioner

• Frederick Bernthal, U.S. NRC Commissioner Washington, DC 20555 U.S. NRC Wa ington, DC 20555 fo rd o n J . ~ Humphrey, USS Pro Se

_ _ _ _