ML19207B567: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:.Attachment 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO: DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
{{#Wiki_filter:.
*.'" RE: APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR NEP UNITS 1 AND 2
Attachment 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO:   DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RE: APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR NEP UNITS 1 AND 2 c
,.c). . . .In the Matter of
                                        )                               . . . .
').).NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
                                      ')
)Docket Nos.
In the Matter of
50-568)50-569 (NEP-1 and NEP-2)
                                      )                                   .
)))-REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR NEP UNITS 1 AND 2 SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED Introduction
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY             )       Docket Nos. 50-568
, In September of 1976, the New England Power Company (NEPCO) applied for permits to construct two nuclear reactors, NEP Unitt 1 and 2, at the former Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF) in Charlestown, Rhode Island.
                                      )                       50-569 (NEP-1 and NEP-2)                  )
At that time, the proposed transfer of the NALF to NEPCO by the General Services Administration was the subject of a court order requiring GSA to prepare an _avironmental Impact Statement before disposing of the property.
                                      )
On June 20, .
                                      )                             -
1979, the Acting Administrator of GSA decided that the NALF should
REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR NEP UNITS 1 AND 2 SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED Introduction In September of 1976, the New England Power Company (NEPCO) applied for permits to construct two nuclear reactors, NEP Unitt 1 and 2, at the former Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF) in Charlestown, Rhode Island. At that time, the proposed transfer of the NALF to NEPCO by the General Services Administration was the subject of a court order requiring GSA to prepare an _avironmental Impact Statement before disposing of the property.     On June 20, .
.-.be transferred to the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Town of Charlestown for wildlife refuge, environmental research, and municipal and recreational purposes.
1979, the Acting Administrator of GSA decided that the NALF should be transferred to the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Town of Charlestown for wildlife refuge, environmental research, and municipal and recreational purposes.
The Acting Administrator made it clear that no portion of the site may serve as the site for a nuclear power plant.
The Acting Administrator made it clear that no portion of the site may serve as the site for a nuclear power plant.
852 253 7908300'2 8/
852 253 7908300'2 8/
2 The Administrator stated: "By this decision, it is my intent to speci-fically preclude disposal of this remaining 237 acres (the Charlestown parcels) for the construction of any large facility such as the proposed nuclear power plant.(Decision p.14)
 
As a result of this administrative decision, NEPCO has been p denied the use of the site that is the basis for its application to construct NEP Units 1 and 2.
2 The Administrator stated:
Accordingly, NEPCO's application is no longer complete and acceptable for docketing under 10 CFR Section 2.101, and it must be dismissed.
              "By this decision, it is my intent to speci-fically preclude disposal of this remaining 237 acres (the Charlestown parcels) for the construction of any large facility such as the proposed nuclear power plant.     (Decision p.14)
Concerned Citizens of Rhode Island, the Thomas Arnold Trust, and the Point Judith Fishermen's Cooperative (referred to collectively as CCRI) , intervenors in the construction permit proceeding before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, request that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issue an Order to Show Cause why this
As a result of this administrative decision, NEPCO has been           p denied the use of the site that is the basis for its application to construct NEP Units 1 and 2. Accordingly, NEPCO's application is no longer complete and acceptable for docketing under 10 CFR Section 2.101, and it must be dismissed.     Concerned Citizens of Rhode Island, the Thomas Arnold Trust, and the Point Judith Fishermen's Cooperative (referred to collectively as CCRI) ,
.application should not be dismissed.. . _ _ _ _ . . . _
intervenors in the construction permit proceeding before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, request that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issue an Order to Show Cause why this application should not be dismissed.                                   . . _ _ _ _ . . . _
ARGUMENT I.The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Has Jurisdiction to Issue the Requested Order to Show cause CCRI submits this Request for an Order to Show Cause to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation because the question is no longer whether the site is suitable for a nuclear power plant, an issue that would be decided by the Licensing Board, but whether, given that the site is not available, the application is complete and may continue to be accepted and docketed for consideration by
ARGUMENT I. The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Has Jurisdiction to Issue the Requested Order to Show cause CCRI submits this Request for an Order to Show Cause to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation because the question is no longer whether the site is suitable for a nuclear power plant,     an issue that would be decided by the Licensing Board, but whether, given that the site is not available, the application is complete and may continue to be accepted and docketed for consideration by the Licensing Board. At an earlier stage in the construction per-mit proceedings, the Licensing Board specifically stated that, sa2 254
.the Licensing Board.
 
At an earlier stage in the construction per-mit proceedings, the Licensing Board specifically stated that, sa2 254  
3 We concur with the Staf f's position that the questich of whether or not an application is acceptable for docketing is a determination to be made only by the staff.
.3 We concur with the Staf f's position that the questich of whether or not an application is acceptable for docketing is a determination to be made only by the staff.
In the Matter of New England Power Company (NEP Units' 1 and 2) ,
In the Matter of New England Power Company (NEP Units' 1 and 2) , LBP-78-9, 7 NRC 271, 280 (1978).
LBP-78-9, 7 NRC 271, 280 (1978).                                       -
-Since the Staff is apparently the sole decisionmaker on the issue at hand, CCRI's request must be to the Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation, as provided by 10 CFR 206 (a) :
Since the Staff is apparently the sole decisionmaker on the issue at hand, CCRI's request must be to the Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation, as provided by 10 CFR 206 (a) :
Any person may file a request for the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation .. .to institute a proceeding pursuant to Section 2.202 to modify, suspend or re-voke a license, or for such other action as may be proper.(Emphasis supplied.)
Any person may file a request for the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation . . .
to institute a proceeding pursuant to Section 2.202 to modify, suspend or re-voke a license, or for such other action as may be proper.   (Emphasis supplied.)
10 CFR 2.202 (A) , in turn, provides:
10 CFR 2.202 (A) , in turn, provides:
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. . .may institute a proceeding to modify, suspend,-or revoke a license, or for such other action as may be proper by serving on the licensee an
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation . . .
--, order to show cause. . .In this case, there is technically no licensee since NEPCO has never been " authorized to conduct activities under a license or construction permit." 10CFR 2.4 (j ) .
may institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or for such other action
However, NEPCO cleatly stands in the position of a licensee for the purpose of this request.Since there is no other provision for consideration of this type of issue, Sections 2.206 and 2.202 must govern.
    ,          as may be proper by serving on the licensee an               --
This is supported by the language of Section 2.200 (a) :
order to show cause . . .
This subpart prescribes the procedures in cases initiated by the staff, or upon a request by any person, to impose require-ments by order on a licensee or to modify, oc9>g5 suspend, or revoke a license, or for such 03L LJ other action as may be proper._1/
In this case, there is technically no licensee since NEPCO has never been " authorized to conduct activities under a license or construction permit." 10CFR 2.4 (j ) . However, NEPCO cleatly stands in the position of a licensee for the purpose of this request. Since there is no other provision for consideration of this type of issue, Sections 2.206 and 2.202 must govern.     This is supported by the language of Section 2.200 (a) :
1/ Even if Section 2.202 (a) does not specifically apply here, this Request for an Order t.o Show Cause is not precluded by the regulations.
This subpart prescribes the procedures in cases initiated by the staff, or upon a request by any person, to impose require-ments by order on a licensee or to modify,         oc9 suspend, or revoke a license, or for such         03L   >g5 LJ other action as may be proper._1/
Se Statement cf Consideration for Section 2.206, 39 F.R.12353 April 5, 1974.
1/ Even if Section 2.202 (a) does not specifically apply here, this Request for an Order t.o Show Cause is not precluded by the regulations. Se Statement cf Consideration for Section 2.206, 39 F.R. 12353 April 5, 1974.
4.II.NEPCO's Application Must Be Dismissed Because It Is Not Complete And Acceptable For Docketing Pursuant To 10 CFR 2.101(a).Among the most fundamental information that the NRC must consider in addressing the question of whether a particular nuclear power plant should be constructed is that related to the proposed
 
~-site.Here, the only detailed site-related information in NEPCO's-application concerns the Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, which the General Services Administration has now dedicated to other uses.As a result, there is virtually no information related to a possible site for NEP Units 1 and 2 in the application.
4 II. NEPCO's Application Must Be Dismissed Because It Is Not Complete And Acceptable For Docketing Pursuant To 10 CFR 2.101(a).
The question of whether this application for construction permit is complete and acceptable for docketing is governed by 10 CFR 50.34 and 51.20.
Among the most fundamental information that the NRC must consider in addressing the question of whether a particular nuclear
Section 50. 34 (a) provides, in relevant part, Each application for a construction permit shall include a preliminary safety analysis report.The minimum information to be in-cluded shall consist of the following:
                                                          ~
, (1) A description and safety assesment of-the site on which the facility is to be located, with appropriate attention to features affecting facility design.(Emphasis supplied.)
power plant should be constructed is that related to the proposed site. Here, the only detailed site-related information in NEPCO's-application concerns the Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, which the General Services Administration has now dedicated to other uses. As a result, there is virtually no information related to a possible site for NEP Units 1 and 2 in the application.
The PSAR submitted here contains a substantial amount of information concerning the NALF as the proposed site, and virtually no infor-mation concerning other possible sites.
The question of whether this application for construction permit is complete and acceptable for docketing is governed by 10 CFR 50.34 and 51.20. Section 50. 34 (a) provides, in relevant part, Each application for a construction permit shall include a preliminary safety analysis report. The minimum information to be in-cluded shall consist of the following:                         ,
Since the information related to the NALF is now irrelevant, the application no longer includes the " minimum information" required by Section 5034 (a) . (l) .
(1) A description and safety assesment of-the site on which the facility is to be located, with appropriate attention to features affecting facility design.
Similarly, Section 51.20 (a) requires that the application include an Environmental Report that discusses the characteristics of the proposed site in detail.
(Emphasis supplied.)
The NEP ER did exnctly that for 852 256 5 the NALF, which is no longer available.
The PSAR submitted here contains a substantial amount of information concerning the NALF as the proposed site, and virtually no infor-mation concerning other possible sites.     Since the information related to the NALF is now irrelevant, the application no longer includes the " minimum information" required by Section 5034 (a) . (l) .
The ER also discussed several alternatives to the NALF, but these cursory presentations do not satisfy the information requirements for an Environmental Report or a proposed site.
Similarly, Section 51.20 (a) requires that the application include an Environmental Report that discusses the characteristics of the proposed site in detail. The NEP ER did exnctly that for 852 256
.Conclusion
 
'..This application no longer meets the threshold of acceptability established by 10 CFR 50.34 and 51.20, thus it cannot be considered to be complete and acceptable for docketing under 10 CFR 2.101(a) (3), and it must be dismissed.
5 the NALF, which is no longer available. The ER also discussed several alternatives to the NALF, but these cursory presentations do not satisfy the information requirements for an Environmental Report or a proposed site.
The fact that the application has already been docketed does not alter this conclusion.
Conclusion This application no longer meets the threshold of acceptability established by 10 CFR 50.34 and 51.20, thus it cannot be considered to be complete and acceptable for docketing under 10 CFR 2.101(a) (3),
Where the basis for a determination of completeness and acceptability has been eliminated, the justification for continued docketing of tha application has been eliminated as well.
and it must be dismissed. The fact that the application has already been docketed does not alter this conclusion. Where the basis for a determination of completeness and acceptability has been eliminated, the justification for continued docketing of tha application has been eliminated as well.
, For the. foregoing reasons, Concerned Citizens of Rhode Island, the Thomas Arnold Trust, and the Point Judith Fishermen's Coopera-~
For the. foregoing reasons, Concerned Citizens of Rhode Island, the Thomas Arnold Trust, and the Point Judith Fishermen's Coopera-~
tive request that the Director of Nuclear Reactor issue an Order to Show Cause why this licensing proceeding should not be terminated and the application for NEP Units 1 and 2 dismissed.
tive request that the Director of Nuclear Reactor issue an Order to Show Cause why this licensing proceeding should not be terminated and the application for NEP Units 1 and 2 dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,/J J<K2 9 :64,-2 William S. Jordan, III Karin P. Sheldon Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss 1725 I Street, NW, Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006
Respectfully submitted,
/Dated: N-8 /7 /P"I
                                      /J J<K2 9 :64,-2 William S. Jordan, III Karin P. Sheldon Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss 1725 I Street, NW, Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006
"/852 257 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
                /
))..-NEW ENGLAND PONER COMPANY, )
Dated:
Docket Nos. STN-50-568 ET AL.)STN 50-569
N-8 /7 /P"I
-~)-'(NEP Units 1 and 2)
                  /
)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
852 257
_;-,..I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing
 
*" Notice of Appearance" and a copy of the foregoing "Res-ponse to NEPCO Motion to Continue Proceedings Generally and Motion to Require the NRC Staff to Reconsider The Acceptability of NEPCO's Application" were mailed, postage prepaid, this 13th day of July, 1979, to each of the following:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of               )
..___.-#* Marshall E. M 21er, Esq.
                                          )                       .
* Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
NEW ENGLAND PONER COMPANY, )         Docket Nos. STN-50-568 ET AL.
20555 Washington, D.C.20555* Atomic Safety and Licensing
                -~
* Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio-U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
                                          )                 STN 50-569
20555 Washington, D.C.20555* Docketing and Service Section
                                          )                                     '
*Dr. Oscar H. Paris Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio:
(NEP Units 1 and 2)            )
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing
20S55 Washington, D.C.20555l_Frank J. Willipcs, Esq.
            " Notice of Appearance" and a copy of the foregoing "Res-ponse to NEPCO Motion to Continue Proceedings Generally and Motion to Require the NRC Staff to Reconsider The Acceptability of NEPCO's Application" were mailed, postage prepaid, this 13th day of July, 1979, to each of the following:
i**James M..Cutchi~n,.Esq.
* Marshall E. M # 21er, Esq.
Solicitor, Town of Hopkinton '
* Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman                                   Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
Office of the Executive Legal 345 South Main Street
* Atomic Safety and Licensing
?;, Director Providence, RI 02903 U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,.
* Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke                       Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
D.C.20555_l Rhode Islanders for Safe Power Thomas G.Dignan, Jr., Esq.
* Docketing and Service Section Dr. Oscar H. Paris                     Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio:
c/o Mary Ann Scott-Ketner Ropes & Gray R.D. 5 225 Franklin Street 700 Ministerial Road Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Uakefield, Rhode Island 02879* Hand-delivered on July 13, 1979.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20S55 Washington, D.C. 20555                                                      l_
852 258..
Frank J. Willipcs, Esq.           i*
.. .Page 2 , Ms. Katherine Spencer Dcherty Physici'ns Concerned About Nuclear Aquidneck Island Ecology Power Box 573 c/o Robert L. Conrad Newport, Rhode Island 02840 130 Kenyon Avenue Wakefield, Rhode Island 02879 Richard A, Poirier, President Rhode Island Association of Eric D.Schneider Conservation Commissioners Claudine C.
James M.. Cutchi~n,.Esq.                 Solicitor, Town of Hopkinton '
Schneider'Pole 95, Stillwater Road 56 Central Street
Office of the Executive Legal           345 South Main Street                   ,
, Smithfield, Rhode Island 02917 Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 V. James Santaniello, Esq.
Director                           Providence, RI 02903                   ?;
John R.Payne, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission             _
f_., Town Solicitor S licitor, Town of Westerly . -- , Town of West Greenwich 37 Main Street
l Washington,. D.C. 20555 Rhode Islanders for Safe Power Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.           c/o Mary Ann Scott-Ketner Ropes & Gray                           R.D. 5 225 Franklin Street                   700 Ministerial Road Boston, Massachusetts       02110     Uakefield, Rhode Island 02879
[..Manning, West, Santaniello & Pari Westerly, RI 02891"h.g , 711 Industrial Bank Building
* Hand-delivered on July 13, 1979.
,.""'Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Edward H. Newman, Esq.
852 258
Town Solicitor Sister Arlene Violet Town of' Richmond 187 Westminster Mall 42 Granite Street Suite 507 Westerly, Rhode Island 02891 Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Raymond L. Thorp, Jr.
 
Harrison A. Fitch, Esq.
Page 2 Ms. Katherine Spencer Dcherty         Physici'ns Concerned About Nuclear Aquidneck Island Ecology                   Power Box 573                               c/o Robert L. Conrad Newport, Rhode Island 02840           130 Kenyon Avenue Wakefield, Rhode Island         02879 Richard A, Poirier, President Rhode Island Association of           Eric D. Schneider Conservation Commissioners         Claudine C. Schneider                       '
Chairman for Intervention Peter D.Kinder, Esq.
Pole 95, Stillwater Road               56 Central Street Smithfield, Rhode Island   02917     Narragansett, Rhode Island           02882 V. James Santaniello, Esq.               John R. Payne, Jr., Esq.         , f_.
The Taxpayers and Voters of Charlestow!
Town Solicitor                           S licitor, Town of Westerly . -- ,
New England Legal Foundation RFD 110 Tremont Street Bradford, Rhode Island 02808 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Sean Kelleher Philip W. Noel, Esq.
Town of West Greenwich                   37 Main Street                     [..
Energy Advisor 15 Westminster Street Office of the Governor Providence Rhode Island 02913 State House Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Henry Shelton, Esq.
Manning, West, Santaniello & Pari         Westerly, RI 02891                 "h.g ,
Coalition for Consumer Justice John P. Toscano, Jr., Esq.
711 Industrial Bank Building                 ,.
410 Board Street 23 Canal Street Central Falls, Rhode Island 02863 Westerly, Rhode Island 02891 i Thomas J. Liguori, Jr.
Providence, Rhode Island 02903         Edward H. Newman, Esq.
Trudy Coxe lUrso and Adams Executive Director
Town Solicitor Sister Arlene Violet                 Town of' Richmond 187 Westminster Mall                   42 Granite Street Suite 507                             Westerly, Rhode Island         02891 Providence, Rhode Island   02903 Raymond L. Thorp, Jr.
'42 Granite Street
Harrison A. Fitch, Esq.               Chairman for Intervention Peter D. Kinder, Esq.                 The Taxpayers and Voters of Charlestow!
:Save The Bay, Inc.
New England Legal Foundation           RFD 110 Tremont Street                   Bradford, Rhode Island         02808 Boston, Massachusetts   02108 Sean Kelleher Philip W. Noel, Esq.                   Energy Advisor 15 Westminster Street                 Office of the Governor Providence Rhode Island   02913       State House Providence, Rhode Island           02903 Henry Shelton, Esq.
Westerly, Rhode Island 02891 154 Francis Street Providence, RI 02903 , James O. Wat.ts , Esq.
Coalition for Consumer Justice         John P. Toscano, Jr., Esq.
I Town Solicitor
410 Board Street                       23 Canal Street Central Falls, Rhode Island     02863 Westerly, Rhode Island 02891 Thomas J. Liguori, Jr.                   Trudy Coxe               i Urso and Adams l
-Town of Charlestown
Executive Director     '
.*567 Main Street Wakefield, Rhode Island 02879 , Archibald B.
42 Granite Street                       :Save The Bay, Inc.
Kenyon, Jr., Esq.
Westerly, Rhode Island   02891           154 Francis Street Providence, RI 02903 ,
Town Solicitor Town of South Kingstown 51 Tower Mill Road Wakefield, Rhode Island 02879 d[GC . f r._blo -,-' William S. Jordab, III
James O. Wat.ts , Esq.                                         I Town Solicitor                                                                   -
'852 259 fp) 'p .'" TERA/'Nlg Y;3 G f' h 7D/~O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Town of Charlestown
',,3%g]NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.41ISSION 3'd@, , f c^ ' f, ,9 ,,G.{.'
* 567 Main Street                             ,
Wakefield, Rhode Island   02879 Archibald B. Kenyon, Jr., Esq.
Town Solicitor Town of South Kingstown 51 Tower Mill Road Wakefield, Rhode Island 02879         d[GC . f r._blo -,               -
                                            ' William S. Jordab, III       '
852 259
 
  '  "                                                              fp) 'p .
TERA         /'                 N l        gG        Y;3
                                                                /~   O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                         f',,3%h 7Dg]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.41ISSION               3'd     ,
                                                                                @       , f c^   ' f, ,9 ,,G.{.'
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~ ~!>_"f f y In the Matter of
                                                                        ~ ~!>
)')NEU ENGLAND POWER
                                                                                  "f f y In the Matter of                   '
)Docket Nos.
                                  )
50-568 COMPANY)50-569 ,)(NEP-1 and NEP-2)
                                  )
)NOTICE OF APPEARAUCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the above-captioned proceeding, joining Karin P.Sheldon on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Rhode Island, Point Judith Fishernen's Cooperative, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, and the Trustees for the Truct of Thomas L.
NEU ENGLAND POWER             )                 Docket Nos. 50-568 COMPANY                       )                               50-569               ,
Arnold.Name: William S. Jordan, III
                                  )
'Address: Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss 1725 I St., N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C.20006 Telephone Number (202) 833-9070 Admissions:
(NEP-1 and NEP-2)            )
Supreme Court of the State of flichigan Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia 0$<~ .l,(h/<
NOTICE OF APPEARAUCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the above-captioned proceeding, joining Karin P. Sheldon on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Rhode Island, Point Judith Fishernen's Cooperative, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, and the Trustees for the Truct of Thomas L.         Arnold.
,.m William S. Jordan, III
Name:                     William S. Jordan, III Address:                   Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss 1725 I St., N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone Number           (202) 833-9070 Admissions:               Supreme Court of the State of flichigan Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia 0$<~ .l,(h/<           ,.m
~fy$ ' t >liD''
                                                                        ~
Dated: 'u 852 260 teosw><se}}
William S. Jordan, III Dated:  fy$ ' t >liD''
u    '
852 260 teosw><se}}

Latest revision as of 14:40, 22 February 2020

Request Submitted by Intervenor Concerned Citizens of Ri That NRC Issue Order to Show Cause Why CP Application Should Not Be Dismissed.Application Is Unacceptable & Does Not Meet Docketing Criteria.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML19207B567
Person / Time
Site: New England Power
Issue date: 07/13/1979
From: Jordan W, Sheldon K
SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS
To:
Shared Package
ML19207B559 List:
References
NUDOCS 7908300281
Download: ML19207B567 (7)
v • d • e


Text

.

Attachment 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO: DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RE: APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR NEP UNITS 1 AND 2 c

) . . . .

')

In the Matter of

) .

NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-568

) 50-569 (NEP-1 and NEP-2) )

)

) -

REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR NEP UNITS 1 AND 2 SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED Introduction In September of 1976, the New England Power Company (NEPCO) applied for permits to construct two nuclear reactors, NEP Unitt 1 and 2, at the former Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF) in Charlestown, Rhode Island. At that time, the proposed transfer of the NALF to NEPCO by the General Services Administration was the subject of a court order requiring GSA to prepare an _avironmental Impact Statement before disposing of the property. On June 20, .

1979, the Acting Administrator of GSA decided that the NALF should be transferred to the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Town of Charlestown for wildlife refuge, environmental research, and municipal and recreational purposes.

The Acting Administrator made it clear that no portion of the site may serve as the site for a nuclear power plant.

852 253 7908300'2 8/

2 The Administrator stated:

"By this decision, it is my intent to speci-fically preclude disposal of this remaining 237 acres (the Charlestown parcels) for the construction of any large facility such as the proposed nuclear power plant. (Decision p.14)

As a result of this administrative decision, NEPCO has been p denied the use of the site that is the basis for its application to construct NEP Units 1 and 2. Accordingly, NEPCO's application is no longer complete and acceptable for docketing under 10 CFR Section 2.101, and it must be dismissed. Concerned Citizens of Rhode Island, the Thomas Arnold Trust, and the Point Judith Fishermen's Cooperative (referred to collectively as CCRI) ,

intervenors in the construction permit proceeding before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, request that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issue an Order to Show Cause why this application should not be dismissed. . . _ _ _ _ . . . _

ARGUMENT I. The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Has Jurisdiction to Issue the Requested Order to Show cause CCRI submits this Request for an Order to Show Cause to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation because the question is no longer whether the site is suitable for a nuclear power plant, an issue that would be decided by the Licensing Board, but whether, given that the site is not available, the application is complete and may continue to be accepted and docketed for consideration by the Licensing Board. At an earlier stage in the construction per-mit proceedings, the Licensing Board specifically stated that, sa2 254

3 We concur with the Staf f's position that the questich of whether or not an application is acceptable for docketing is a determination to be made only by the staff.

In the Matter of New England Power Company (NEP Units' 1 and 2) ,

LBP-78-9, 7 NRC 271, 280 (1978). -

Since the Staff is apparently the sole decisionmaker on the issue at hand, CCRI's request must be to the Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation, as provided by 10 CFR 206 (a) :

Any person may file a request for the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation . . .

to institute a proceeding pursuant to Section 2.202 to modify, suspend or re-voke a license, or for such other action as may be proper. (Emphasis supplied.)

10 CFR 2.202 (A) , in turn, provides:

The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation . . .

may institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or for such other action

, as may be proper by serving on the licensee an --

order to show cause . . .

In this case, there is technically no licensee since NEPCO has never been " authorized to conduct activities under a license or construction permit." 10CFR 2.4 (j ) . However, NEPCO cleatly stands in the position of a licensee for the purpose of this request. Since there is no other provision for consideration of this type of issue, Sections 2.206 and 2.202 must govern. This is supported by the language of Section 2.200 (a) :

This subpart prescribes the procedures in cases initiated by the staff, or upon a request by any person, to impose require-ments by order on a licensee or to modify, oc9 suspend, or revoke a license, or for such 03L >g5 LJ other action as may be proper._1/

1/ Even if Section 2.202 (a) does not specifically apply here, this Request for an Order t.o Show Cause is not precluded by the regulations. Se Statement cf Consideration for Section 2.206, 39 F.R. 12353 April 5, 1974.

4 II. NEPCO's Application Must Be Dismissed Because It Is Not Complete And Acceptable For Docketing Pursuant To 10 CFR 2.101(a).

Among the most fundamental information that the NRC must consider in addressing the question of whether a particular nuclear

~

power plant should be constructed is that related to the proposed site. Here, the only detailed site-related information in NEPCO's-application concerns the Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, which the General Services Administration has now dedicated to other uses. As a result, there is virtually no information related to a possible site for NEP Units 1 and 2 in the application.

The question of whether this application for construction permit is complete and acceptable for docketing is governed by 10 CFR 50.34 and 51.20. Section 50. 34 (a) provides, in relevant part, Each application for a construction permit shall include a preliminary safety analysis report. The minimum information to be in-cluded shall consist of the following: ,

(1) A description and safety assesment of-the site on which the facility is to be located, with appropriate attention to features affecting facility design.

(Emphasis supplied.)

The PSAR submitted here contains a substantial amount of information concerning the NALF as the proposed site, and virtually no infor-mation concerning other possible sites. Since the information related to the NALF is now irrelevant, the application no longer includes the " minimum information" required by Section 5034 (a) . (l) .

Similarly, Section 51.20 (a) requires that the application include an Environmental Report that discusses the characteristics of the proposed site in detail. The NEP ER did exnctly that for 852 256

5 the NALF, which is no longer available. The ER also discussed several alternatives to the NALF, but these cursory presentations do not satisfy the information requirements for an Environmental Report or a proposed site.

Conclusion This application no longer meets the threshold of acceptability established by 10 CFR 50.34 and 51.20, thus it cannot be considered to be complete and acceptable for docketing under 10 CFR 2.101(a) (3),

and it must be dismissed. The fact that the application has already been docketed does not alter this conclusion. Where the basis for a determination of completeness and acceptability has been eliminated, the justification for continued docketing of tha application has been eliminated as well.

For the. foregoing reasons, Concerned Citizens of Rhode Island, the Thomas Arnold Trust, and the Point Judith Fishermen's Coopera-~

tive request that the Director of Nuclear Reactor issue an Order to Show Cause why this licensing proceeding should not be terminated and the application for NEP Units 1 and 2 dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

/J J<K2 9 :64,-2 William S. Jordan, III Karin P. Sheldon Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss 1725 I Street, NW, Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006

/

Dated:

N-8 /7 /P"I

/

852 257

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

) .

NEW ENGLAND PONER COMPANY, ) Docket Nos. STN-50-568 ET AL.

-~

) STN 50-569

) '

(NEP Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing

" Notice of Appearance" and a copy of the foregoing "Res-ponse to NEPCO Motion to Continue Proceedings Generally and Motion to Require the NRC Staff to Reconsider The Acceptability of NEPCO's Application" were mailed, postage prepaid, this 13th day of July, 1979, to each of the following:

  • Marshall E. M # 21er, Esq.
  • Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
  • Atomic Safety and Licensing
  • Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
  • Docketing and Service Section Dr. Oscar H. Paris Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20S55 Washington, D.C. 20555 l_

Frank J. Willipcs, Esq. i*

James M.. Cutchi~n,.Esq. Solicitor, Town of Hopkinton '

Office of the Executive Legal 345 South Main Street ,

Director Providence, RI 02903  ?;

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission _

l Washington,. D.C. 20555 Rhode Islanders for Safe Power Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq. c/o Mary Ann Scott-Ketner Ropes & Gray R.D. 5 225 Franklin Street 700 Ministerial Road Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Uakefield, Rhode Island 02879

  • Hand-delivered on July 13, 1979.

852 258

Page 2 Ms. Katherine Spencer Dcherty Physici'ns Concerned About Nuclear Aquidneck Island Ecology Power Box 573 c/o Robert L. Conrad Newport, Rhode Island 02840 130 Kenyon Avenue Wakefield, Rhode Island 02879 Richard A, Poirier, President Rhode Island Association of Eric D. Schneider Conservation Commissioners Claudine C. Schneider '

Pole 95, Stillwater Road 56 Central Street Smithfield, Rhode Island 02917 Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 V. James Santaniello, Esq. John R. Payne, Jr., Esq. , f_.

Town Solicitor S licitor, Town of Westerly . -- ,

Town of West Greenwich 37 Main Street [..

Manning, West, Santaniello & Pari Westerly, RI 02891 "h.g ,

711 Industrial Bank Building ,.

Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Edward H. Newman, Esq.

Town Solicitor Sister Arlene Violet Town of' Richmond 187 Westminster Mall 42 Granite Street Suite 507 Westerly, Rhode Island 02891 Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Raymond L. Thorp, Jr.

Harrison A. Fitch, Esq. Chairman for Intervention Peter D. Kinder, Esq. The Taxpayers and Voters of Charlestow!

New England Legal Foundation RFD 110 Tremont Street Bradford, Rhode Island 02808 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Sean Kelleher Philip W. Noel, Esq. Energy Advisor 15 Westminster Street Office of the Governor Providence Rhode Island 02913 State House Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Henry Shelton, Esq.

Coalition for Consumer Justice John P. Toscano, Jr., Esq.

410 Board Street 23 Canal Street Central Falls, Rhode Island 02863 Westerly, Rhode Island 02891 Thomas J. Liguori, Jr. Trudy Coxe i Urso and Adams l

Executive Director '

42 Granite Street :Save The Bay, Inc.

Westerly, Rhode Island 02891 154 Francis Street Providence, RI 02903 ,

James O. Wat.ts , Esq. I Town Solicitor -

Town of Charlestown

  • 567 Main Street ,

Wakefield, Rhode Island 02879 Archibald B. Kenyon, Jr., Esq.

Town Solicitor Town of South Kingstown 51 Tower Mill Road Wakefield, Rhode Island 02879 d[GC . f r._blo -, -

' William S. Jordab, III '

852 259

' " fp) 'p .

TERA /' N l gG Y;3

/~ O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f',,3%h 7Dg]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.41ISSION 3'd ,

@ , f c^ ' f, ,9 ,,G.{.'

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

~ ~!>

"f f y In the Matter of '

)

)

NEU ENGLAND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-568 COMPANY ) 50-569 ,

)

(NEP-1 and NEP-2) )

NOTICE OF APPEARAUCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the above-captioned proceeding, joining Karin P. Sheldon on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Rhode Island, Point Judith Fishernen's Cooperative, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, and the Trustees for the Truct of Thomas L. Arnold.

Name: William S. Jordan, III Address: Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss 1725 I St., N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone Number (202) 833-9070 Admissions: Supreme Court of the State of flichigan Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia 0$<~ .l,(h/< ,.m

~

William S. Jordan, III Dated: fy$ ' t >liD

u '

852 260 teosw><se

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19207B567&oldid=2502646"