ML19225A553
| ML19225A553 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New England Power |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1979 |
| From: | Jordan W SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225A548 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907190547 | |
| Download: ML19225A553 (5) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO: DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RE: APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR NEP UNITS 1 AND 2
)
In the Matter of )
)
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-568
) 50-569 (NEP-1 and NEP-2) )
)
)
REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHCW CAUSE WHY THE APPLICATION FOR uvadTRvCT;1N PERMITS FOR NEP UNITS 1 AND 2 SHOUL.", NOT BE DIAMISSED Introduction In September of 1976, the New England Power Company (NEPCO) applied for permits to construct two nuclear reactors , NEP Units 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 Environmental 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 ;gency, and the Town of Charlestcwn 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 sire for a nuclear power plant.
413 Oth7 7 D0719 0 5 9 7
2 6
The Ad.. nistrator 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 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 .T sland, 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 Oru2r to Shcw Cause why this application should nct 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 Shcw Cause to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulati;- because the question is no longer whether the site is suitable for a nuclear power plant, a issue that would be decided by the Licensing Board, bur 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, OUfhL (J31
3 We cons _.T ait' the Staff's position that the s acJtion v2 w;. ether or not an application is
- ceptabie for docketing is a determination tr ; made only ty the staff.
In the Matter of New England Power Company (NEP Units 1 and 2),
LBP-78 79, 7 NRC 271, 280 (1978).
Since the Staff is apparently 'he 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 clearly stands in the position of a licensee for the purpose of this request. Since there is n: other provision for consideration of this type of issue, Sections 2.206 and 2.202 *aust 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, suspend, or revoke a license, or for such other action as may be proper._1/
_1/ Even if Section 2.202 (a) does not specifica'.ly apply here, this Request for an Order to Show Cause is not precluded by the regulations. Se Statement of Consideration for Sect n2.2pgjg ,
39 F.R. 12353 April 5, 1974.
03%
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 psaliminary safety analysis report. The miniluum 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 accunt of information concerning the NALF as the proposed site, and virtually to 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 50J4 (a) . (1) .
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 exactly that for 413 0200 c33a
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 the 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,
_ ( 3,^
, .~ ~
l William S. Jordan, III Karin P. Sheldon Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss 1725 I Street, NW, Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006
~
Dated: .
4I3 044 040