ML19257D170
| ML19257D170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1980 |
| From: | Miller D MILLER, D.S., SENSIBLE MAINE POWER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257D167 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002010467 | |
| Download: ML19257D170 (5) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM::ISSION In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-309
)
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY,
)
(To increase and modify
)
(Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), )
Spen t Fuel Pool Capacity
)
Applicant. )
and Systems; Compaction)
MB:0F GU'1 IN SUPPORT OF INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR ENLARGDIENT OF TIME TO FILE SPECIFIC CON-TENTIONS AND FOR RESCHEDULING OF SPECI AL PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE Factual and Procedural History Sensible Maine Power, (hereinafter "Intervenor")s filed its Petition for Leave to Intervene in chis matter on November 23, 1979; Counsel for Maine Yankee, (hereinafter " Applicant"), ac-knowledged the procedural conformity of said Petition by an An-swer on December 7, 1979, and requesting "that a prehearing con-forence be held at the earliest practicable time", (Answer, at 2); Intervenor's Petition was favorably reviewed by the Commis-sion's Staff Counsel on December 13, 1579; An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was watablished on December 3,1979; and said Board issued a " Notice of Special Prehearing Conference" on Janu-ary 4,19S0, scheduling said Conference for February 12, 1980, and scheduling the due date of Intervenor's Specific Contentions for January 28, 1980.
855 036 By and through its Counsel, Intervenor had begun its search for nuclear experts, whether as potential witnesses or merely YNS i
as advisors, even before the filing of its Petition.
Thiu search necessitated and included, and continues to necessitate and include, substantial amounts of telephone time, letter writing, photocopying of all relevant materials, and much other communication with said experts by Counsel, whether all such work led to the preparation of probable witnesses or only to the gain-ing of an advisory opinion.
The activities of the responding ex-ports has necessarily involved the receipt, reading, review and study of said materials, as well as the preparation of reasoned scientific critique thereon, and the communication or transmission of the same to Counsel, together with incidental but time-consum-ing discuccion and review, usually telephonic.
All of the fore-going has been unanticipatably burdensome and time-consuming, especially where both Co-Counsel have other or additional profes-sional commitments of a pressing nature.
In sum and under the circumstances referenced, Intervenor through its Counsel has ex-ercised due diligence in the preparation of its Specific Conten-tions, which came have not yet been reduced to their final writ-ten form, and are not likely to be so stated within the time al-lotted, (January 28, 1980), despite the continuing best efforts of Counsel to that end.
On Wednesday, January 9, 1980, three representatives from the I
Commission participated in a meeting with Intervenor-Members and Counsel in Boothbay Harbor, Maine, said meeting directed both towards the Commission's learning r _> sbout the concerns and cc' -
I Mr. Morton Fairtile, Projec t Safety Manager; Ms. Sheryl Wookey, Assistant to Mr. Fairtile, and Henry J. McGurren, Esquire, Staff Counsel.
~2-i855 037 tUJJ UJG
siderations of Intervenor-Members, and towards informing Inter-venor-Members and Counsel of the Commission's role, function and processes in this matter.
At such meeting.:r. Morton Fairtile of the Commis.
.t -4 ted that the pending Application sought only approva1 of Applicant's disassembly / reassembly / compaction scheme, but did seek approval of any increase in storage capacity.
This statement coverely confused and disruptec Intervenor and Counsel in that it destroyed at one stroke their uost basic under-standing and assumptions about the case, including especially the ongoing preparation of Specific Contentions.
Mr. Fairtile 's statement was later found erroneous, as admitted by the Commission in a subsequent telephone call from Staff Counsel Henry J. McGur-ren, Esquire, to David Miller, Co-Counsel, two days after the statement was made.2 Nonetheless, some disruption had occurred as a result of said misinformation, including disruption in communi-cating with experts and in preparing Specific Contentions, which damage is still being repaired.
Also present at the meeting was a representative of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Maine, from whom Counsel learned that it was the general preference of that Office, on be-half of the State of Maine, to avoid any " rush to judgment" in this proceeding; it was also then learned that said Office needed a period of time in order fully to study and consider the role of the State of Maine as an " interested State" in this proceeding.
It has subsequently been learned from John M. R. Paterson, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General,that although the State has cade requests 2These factual statements can be affidavited by Counsel, if so desired or requested. 1855 038
upon the Commission for copies of all of Applicant's submissions, none have as yet been received.3 Additionally, because of the " functional unavailability" of relevant materials herein,b Intervenor's Counsel did not possess or have lumediate use of a complete file herein until the meeting of January 9,1980, when such deficiencies were substantially cured by the Commission representatives.
Last, by its own press releases and other public statements Applicant has admitted that it has sufficient spent fuel storage capacity to continue operating into 19Ph.
Argument On the basis of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Inter-venor urges that all appropriate considerations, as well as the interests of all parties involved, favor and are best served by the granting of this Motion:
Intervenor will be able to present its specific contentions with a greater degree of scientific ana legal specificity; The State of Maine will be able properly to study a complete file, assuming receipt of the requested cocuments, and to determine its position herein;E Applicant will be bene fit-ted by receipt of more precise, refined and aanageable Specific Contentions; and the Commission, as well as all parties, will be 3These factual statements can be affidavited by Counsel, if so desired or requested, b Ir.cluding prior subaissions by Applicant referenced in its Ap-plication; UUREG 0575; The Sandia Report; and other materials.
EIntervenor does not presume to reprocent the State of Maine, nor, of course, can it.
However, the facts and circumstances presented and as known to Intervonor's Counsel, clearly favor the inclusion of the Statc of Maine as a participant; equally clearly, the State of Maine cannot participate if it does not have access to the requisite materials arc an opportunity to study the same.
1855 039 1, -
benefitted by holding a acre fair, orderly and officient Special Prehearing Conference than would otherwise be possible.
Additionally, such delays and disruptions no have been suffered herein have boon due to factors largely beyond the control of In-tervonor - whether in coumunications with anu responses from ex-perts; disruption by the Commission's cisinformation, as noted; and otherwise.
Since before the filing of Petition to the present, Intervenor's Counsel have exercised duc diligence towards the pre-paration and substantiation of Specific Contentions herein, and in good faith anticipate completing the same within the time requested.
F urther, and as was more fully developed in Intervenor's Peti-tion, the considerations and interests represented by Intervenor are subttantial, including not only the health, salety and environ-contal considerations there noted, but the protection of many mil-lions of dollars worth of economic interests as well.
Equitable considerations also favor the granting of this Mo-tion, in that the delays suffered and the short tine retaining should not conjoin to bar Intervenor from its " day in court",
towards which the Special Prehearing Conference represents the first step.
Last, in that Applicant has almost four full years of storage capacity remaining, the requested " rush to judgment" shoulc not be entertained; rather it should be acknowledged that Applicant not only suffers no prejudice from, but will in fact enjoy bene-
- ~
fit from, the granting of this Motion.
~
v
~
David Santec Miller Counsel for Intervenor 1856 040 ash 51cifl"n, D!CI'560Ei 5
Tel. (202) 638-0483
_5-