ML19029A821

Intervenor Township of Lower Alloways Creek Response to NRC Staff Objection to Board Question

ML19029A821
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	06/25/1979
From:	Valore C Lower Alloways Creek Township, NJ
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
Download: ML19029A821 (6)

Text

DOCKETED

.USN RC JUN 281979 UNITED STATES OF AMER!CA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING In the Matter of Docket No. 50-272 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC Proposed Issuance of Amendment

& GAS COMPANY' ) to Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1)

INTERVENOR TOWNSHIP OF LOWER ALLCWAYS CREEK RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF. OBJECTION T*o BOAED QUESTION FACTS On or about June 1 ,1979, the NRC Staff filed an Objection to the Board question #3 propounded by Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated April 18, 1979.*

Question #3 provides in part:

"If an explosion or 'meltdown' occurred at Salem, to what extent would that affect the spent fuel pool?"

Apparently , the NRC Staff objection is to the above part of Question #3 in that it is conceived that an explosion or meltdown encompasses a Class 9 accident.

The objection of the NRC Staff is that the Commission's case :law and policy prohibit the consideration of Class 9 accidents by th.e applicant , the staff, or an adjudicatory board.

LEGAL ARGUMENT I. THE NRC STAFF'S OBJECTION TO THE BOARD QUESTION IS A PROCEDURE NOT AUTHORIZED BY PART 2 OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE The Rules provide no intenlocutory appeals may be taken from Orders of the presiding Officer*. Rule 2. 7 30 ( 10 CFR, Part 2).

The Board has the power to propound questions pursuant to an Order under the authority of Rule 2.718 (10 CFR, Part 2).

The NRC Staff in filing an objection to the Question propounded by the Board pursuant to an Order of the Board is in effect attempting to obtain a reconsideration of the Board's Order.

If the objection filed by the NRC Staff is to be treated as a Motion pursuant to Rule 2.730 (10 CFR, Part 2), then the procedure has not been properly followed in that no Affidavits or evidence has been submited in support of the Motion. It appears that the Board .has made Question #3 an issue in this contested proceeding. This is clearly authorized under Rule 2.760a (10 CFR, Part 2). If the NRC Staff considers Question #3 to be improper, then the appropriate procedure would be a motion for reconsideration of the Board's Order so that an Order might be entered removing Question #3 as an issue in the contested proceeding in the event the NRC Staff was successful in its application. The filing of an "Objection" does not appear to be in conformity with the Rules unless the "Objection" is to be treated as a motion. In the event it is treated as a motion, no Affidavits or evidence has been filed in support of the motion.

I -- --

II. QUESTION #3 IS A PROPER QUESTION IN A CONTESTED PROCEEDING In the Matter of Offshore Power Systems, Inc. (Floating Nuclear Power Plants, ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194, 1978) it was clearly established that a Class 9 accident may be considered by an adjudicatory board in a contested proceeding. The language in that case which is particularly appropriate is as follows:

"From this the staff reasons that floating nuclear power plants pose environmental risks of a character not previously considered - risks

'outside. the parameters' (sic) of the original analysis which was the underpinning of the Proposed Annex -

and presumably not covered by the policies there announced . . . we find this staff argument a cogent one

. . . we agree with the staff that the

.Annex should not be read as extending to floating nuclear plants - a concept unknown when the Annex was put out as interim guidance . . "

In this context it is clear that the events at Three Mile Island and the concept of dense storage or reracking represent new events that were not in any way considered in the original licensing proceeding for Salem .1. It is therefore entirely within the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board discretion to propound Question

~* #3 and accept evidence on this question.

CONCLUSION The NRC Staff's Objection to Board Question #3 should be over ruled.

Respectfully/submitted,

.* . . ,-/_. 1(_'

( -_-__(_L,L(- ~(--"---L* ----

~ VALORE, JR., Special Nuclear Counsel for the Intervenor, Township of Lower Alloways Creek June_ 25, 1979

e

e UNITED STATES OF J\MEHICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVI <E ELECTRIC DOCKET NO.

& GAS CO.

(Salem Generating Station Unit #1)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Intervenor's Township of Lower Alloways Creek Response to NRC Objection to Board Question #3 in the above captioned matter have been served upon the attached list by deposit: in the United States mail at the post office in Northfield, N.J., with proper postage thereon, this 25th day of June , 1979.

CARL VALORE, JR., Spec1al Nuclear . !

Counsel for the Intervenor, the Township of Lower Alloways Creek Dated: June 25, 1979

Gary L. Milhollin, Esq. Richard Fryling, Jr., Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety Assistant General Solicitor

& Licensing Board Public Service Electric &

1815 Jefferson Street Gas Company Madison, Wisccinsin 53711 80 Park Place Newark, N. J. 07101 Glen O. Bright Member, Atomic Safety Keith Ansdorff, Esquire

& Licensing Board Assistant Deputy Public Advocate U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of the Public Advocate Washington, D. C. 20555 Division of Public Interest AdvocE P. O. Box 141 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Trenton, New Jersey 08601 Member, Atomic Safety &

Licensing Board Panel Sandra T. Ayres, Esquire 313 Woodhaven Road Department of the Public Advocate Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 520 East State Street Trenton, N. J. 08625 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Mr. Alfred C. Coleman, Jr.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mrs. Eleanor G. Coleman Washington, D. C. 20555 35 "K" Drive Pennsville, N. J. 08070 Chairman, Atomic Safety &

Licensing Board Panel Off ice of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Section Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissiG Washington, D. C. 20555

• Barry Smith, Esquire Of Eice of the Executive Legal Director June D. MacArtor, Esquire LI. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deputy Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20555 Tatnall Building, P. O. Box 1401 Dover, Delaware 19901 Mark L. First, Esquire Deputy Attcirney General Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr.

Department of Law & Public Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Environmental Protection Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi 36 West State Street Washington, D. C. 20555 Trenton; N. J. 08625

~lurk J. Wetterhahn, Esquire for Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.

1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Suite 1050

~ashington, D. C. 20006