ML19260E071
| ML19260E071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1980 |
| From: | Swartz L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002130277 | |
| Download: ML19260E071 (6) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC IFE7Y AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,
)
NRC Docket No. 50-289 et al.
)
)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MARJORIE M. AAMODT'S REVISED CONTENTION 4 AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONTENTION 1 On January 15, 1980, Marjorie M. Aamodt filed a pleading entitled " Comments in Support of Anendment of Aamodt Contention 4 and New Evidence Regarding Rejected Content. ion 1 Subject to Board Approval for Consideration."
In this pleading, M s. Aamodt submits a revised emergency planning contention and presents "new evidence" concerning her Contention 1 -1/
which was rejected by the Licensing Board in its First Special Pre-hearing Conference Order dated December 18,1979. (Slip Op. at 32).
The NRC Staff first addresses the revised contention anf then discusses Mrs. Aamodt's apparent motion for reconsideration.
I.
Contention 4 At the Pre-hearing Conference on Wednesday, November 14, 1979, the Lice 1 sing Board ruled that revised emergency planning contentions would be due thirty 2/
days from htvember 19, 1979. - (Tr. 858-9). Mrs. Aamodt, however, did not file her revised contention until January 15, 1980. This revised Contention 1/ Aamodt Contention 1 dealt with the psycht,.ogical testing of reactor operator per ;onnel and management.
2/ In its First Special Pre-hearing Conference Order, the Board reiterated its initial ruling by stating that revised emergency planning contentions were due by December 19, 1979. Slip op. at 18.
8002130
4 dealing with the licensee's Emergency Plan clearly is not timely filed and that portion of her contention which represents added material should not be considered because the amendment adds nothing substantive to the contention and because Mrs. Aamodt failed to meet the requirements of 10 C. F.R. 5 2.714 (a )(1 ).
Late-filed contentions are to be treated as late filings to which the stan-dards of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(1) must be applied.
(Memorandum and Order Ruling on Intervenors' Requests for Extensions of Time to File Revised Emergency Planning Contentions, January 8,1980, Slip op. at 7). Section 2.714(a)(1) states that non-timely filings will not be entertained unless it is determined that the petition or request should be granted based upon a balancing of five factors:
(1) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. ~
3/
Clearly, Mrs. Aamodt has failed to show good cause for ha lateness.
More-over, since the amendment is not substantive, its rejection would not adversely 3] In a letter to the Board dated January 15, 1980, Mrs. Aamodt asked for relief from filing deadlines and explained that "a farm, new business and family," as well as responsibilities as intervenors, required their attention. This explanation is not sufficient to demonstrate good cause for late filing.
Further, a general request for future unspecified extensions of time is inappropriate.
Extensions of time should be re-quested only as needed on an individual basis.
affect her rights under the remaining four standards. -4/
Thus, the Staff believes that the third sentence in the contention which is added material should be deleted.
The remainder of the contention which was filed on October 22, 1979 should be admitted. -5/
The Staff realizes that the balancing of the five factors under 52.714(a)(1) is a close question and rests in the Board's discretion.
In the event the Board does find reason to entertain the contention in spite of its lateness, the NRC Staff has no objection to the admission nf the added sentence in Aamodt Contention 4.
The Staff believes the additional material is set forth with adequate specificity and basis and presents a litigable issue.
II.
Contention 1 By presenting "new evidence" on Contention 1, Mrs. Aamodt appears to be filing a motion for reconsideration of the Board's December 18,1979 Order, although those precise terms are not used. This motion is not timely filed.
In its Order of December 18, 1979, the Board not only rejected Aamodt Con-tention 1 but also stated that motions for correction of the Order must be filed within ten days after its service.
(Slip op. at 67). This time period has certainly passed and the motion should not be considered.
-4/ An extended discussion of Mrs. Aamodt's failure to show good cause or to meet the other requirements of 52.714(a)(1) appears to be unnecessary.
It is sufficient to state that Mrs. Aamodt has set forth no reasons for her late filing and that her Contention 4 is similar to some filed by other Intervenors (Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York, Steven C. Sholly, and Newberry Township TMI Steering Committee).
The other three factors under 12.714(a)(1), however, do appear to favor, to a certain extent, the acceptance of Mrs. Aamodt's late-filed contention.
5/
In its Brief in Response to Contentions filed October 31,1979, the Staff stated that it had no objection to Aamodt Contention 4.
4 Further, Mrs. Aamodt does not indicate what she wants done with the "new evidence."
It is unclear whether the information represents a new contention or is merely basis for the original contention. Until this is clarified, the NRC Staff objects to the motion for reconsideration.
III.
Conclusion The NRC Staff position on the timeliness and substance of Aamodt Contentions 1 and 4 is set forth above. The Staff believes that the added portion of Contention 4 was not timely filed and should not be entertained.
If the Board finds otherwise, however, the Staff would have no substantive object-tions to its inclusion. The Staff also believes that Mrs. Aamodt's motion for reconsideration of Contention 1 is not timely filed and is impermissibly vague as to the relief sought.
Respectfully submitted, L' i liect[b c,,1det Tucinda Low Sw'artz
~
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of February 1980.
w-
~-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RECULATORY C0!^'ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Mat:er of
)
)
NETROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MARJORIE fi. AAMODT'S REVISED CONTENTION 4 AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONTENTION 1 in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 5th day of February 1980:
Ivan W.,S=ith, Esq.*
Mr. Steven C. Shelly Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 304 South Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Thomas Gerusky Dr. Walter H. Jordan Bureau of Radiation Protection
- 881 W. Outer Drive Department of Environmental 0ak Ridge, TN 37830 Resources P.O. Box 2063 Dr. Linda W. Little Harrisburg, PA 17120 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, NC 27612 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace
-George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Philadelphia, PA 19149 Shav. Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Metropolitan Edison Company Washington, DC 20006 ATTN:
J.C. Herbein, Vice President Karin W. Carter, Esq.
P.O. Box 542 505 Executive House Reading, PA 19603 P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Jane Lee R.D. #3, Box 3521 Honorable Mark Cohen Etters, PA 17319 512 E-3 Main Capital Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Department of Justice Strawberry Square, 14th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17127
2-Eolly S. Keck
~ Robert Q. Pollard Anti-Nuclear Group Representing Chesapeak Energy Alliance York 609 Montpelier Street 245 W. Philadelphia Street Balti= ore, 50 21218 York, PA 17404 Chauncey Kepford John Levin, Esq.
Judith H. Johnsrud PA Public Utilities Commission Environmental Coalition on Box 3265 Nuclear Power Barrisburg, PA 17120 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16801 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
4 Fox, Farr and Cunnincham Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chair =an 2320 North 2nd Street Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Harrisburg, PA 17110 Postponenent 2610 Grendon Drive Theodore A. Adler, Esq.
Wilmingt n. DE 19508 Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz & Adler P. O. Box 1547 Ms. Karen Sheldon Earrisburg, PA 17105 Sheldon, Harmon, Rois=an & Weiss 1725 1 Street, N.W.
Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss Suite 506 SheiJon, Harmon, Rois=an & Weiss Washington, DC 20006 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Washington, DC 20006 R.D. #5 3
Coatesv111e, PA 19320 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
. Panel *
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Con =ission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coc=ission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section (7)*
/zz'//td Office of the Secretary Lucinda Low Swart cgl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Counsel for flRC Staff Washington, DC 20555 4
9 e
9 4