ML19332D778

Forwards Revised Page 8 Inadvertently Omitted from 891117 Motion to Reopen Record & Admit late-filed Contention Re Proposed Mod to Instrument & Containment Air Sys.Objection to No Significant Hazards Determination Also Encl

ML19332D778
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/21/1989
From:	Curran D HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP., MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Cole R, Mccollum K, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19332D779	List: ML19332D778 ML19332D791 ML19332D795
References
CON-#489-9499 OL, NUDOCS 8912050220
Download: ML19332D778 (2)

Text

MW ' *

.y. E55001 @ df3yW O'  ;

HARMON, CURRAN & TOUSLEY '

2001 S STREET. N,W, SUITE 430 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20009 1125 'g G.'27 g2$2  ;

Gall McGREEW HARMON . TE11 PHONE l DtANE CURRAN (202) 328 3500 >

DEAN EL Tot 5LLY ,; FAX ANNE SPIELDERG s. (202) 328 6918 F L,,

SANDRA K. PFAU' November 21,' 1989 4 JANNE G. GALLAGHER, of coursel

'Not Admitted in D C,

!

-

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman  !

Dr. Richard F. Cole

.Dr. Kenneth A.-McCollum ':

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 #

Dear Administrative Judges:

[

L on November 17, on behalf of NECNP, SAPL, and the Massachu-setts Attorney General, I filed a motion to reopen the record and admit a late-filed contention regarding a proposed modification to'the Seabrook instruuent and containment air systems. I have -

since discovered that a discussion of whether the motion satis- '

fies 10 C.F.R. I 2.714 (a) (1) (iii) was inadvertently omitted from the pleading. I am enclosing a revised page 8 of the motion, which now contains a brief paragraph addressing that standard.

,

'

This is also to inform you that although the Intervenors ,

believe the proposed design change constitutes an amendment to the-full power operating license application rather than an -

amendment to the low power license, we have nevertheless requested a license amendment hearing pursuant to the terms of the Federal ~ Register notice dated October 26, 1989. This request is made solely for the purpose of protecting our interest in litigating the merits of the proposal, should we not prevail in our attemnt to obtain a hearing in the full power operating  :

license case. A copy of the hearing-request is enclosed  !

herewith, and has been sent to each of the parties.  !

cerely,

%

D ane Curran i

cc: Seabrook service list I

I

.

8912050220 891121 i PDR ADOCK 05000443. '

O PDR (10 l

>

. w

'%

-

Third, because of the contradictions and omissions in the

,

license amendment application, discovery and cross-examination will be required to fully ventilate the merits of the applica-tion.

Intervenors' participation in this proceeding may reasonably be expected to lead to the development of a sound record. This contention is supported by an affidavit by two qualified experts which outlines the matters to which they would testify in an evidentiary hearing. Thus, Ittervenors have demonstrated that they have the technical resources to fully ventilate the issues raised in their contention.

Finally, it is simply unclear to what extent litigation of this contention will broaden or delay the Seabrook operating license proceeding. If it is true that the proposed cross-connect will not be in use during plant operation, the design l change can be rejected very quickly on the ground that it is without logical basis. If, on the other hand, the cross-connect i is to be used during full power op'eration, it will be necessary to litigate the adequacy of the safety analysis underlying the

,

proposal. While this litigation will take longer, it should not 1

be unduly cumbersome because it involves discrete safety systems, l

.

-