ML19309H097
| ML19309H097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1980 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Lewis M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005080368 | |
| Download: ML19309H097 (5) | |
Text
. _ _ -
8 005 080N Bd 4/23/B0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA co NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
S COCKETED Ustmc ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'g APR 2 31980 > M Ivan W. Smith, Chairman O!!ce c.f the Secretary Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dcdoting &,Scrdes
/g BIS ' /
Dr. Linda W. Little cv g
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING ADDITION OF NEW CONTENTION BY MR. LEWIS (April 23, 1980)
'By his filing of April 3, 1980, Mr. Lewis seeks to have the following contention admitted in this proceeding:'-1/
In the event of a repeat of the TMI#2 3-28-79 accident [ presumably at TMI#1], these same systems (i.e., those required to operate unat-tended to keep the reactor in a safe condition after the accident on 3-28-79] will have to operate unattended for over a year.
These same systems must be qualified at TMI #1 to operate unattended for over one year before restart of TMI #1.
The board denies Mr. Lewis' request to add the above late-filed contention on several grounds, any one of which would be dispositive.
As we held in our First Special Prehearing Conference Order (10 NRC 828, 853, December 18, 1979),and reiterated.in our Second I
lf Answers in opposition to Mr. Lewis' request were filed by i
the NRC staff and the licensee oti April 14 and 15,1980, respectively.
Special Prehearing Conference Order (slip op. at pp.13-14, l
January 11, 1980), Mr. Lewis lacks standing to intervene as of right.
However, because we believed one of his timely contentions to be both important and not raised by another party, we would have pursued it on our own.
We therefore granted Mr. Lewis l
" strictly limited" discretionary intervention on that one issue (involving filters and filter preheaters) ;
we felt he would i
make some contribution towards assisting the board's inquiry since he had raised the issue.
We conceded furthermore that our discre-tionary grant of even this " strictly limited" participation by Mr. Lewis was not strongly supported by discretionary intervention 2/
standards.-
We decline to extend Mr. Lewis' limited participation to the additional issue of qualification of equipment (unspecified in his contention) to function in a TMI-2 type accident and post-l accident environment.
Mr. Lewis has not demonstrated any special expertise in the subject which would support a grant of discre-tionary intervention even if the contention had been timely filed.
Moreover, those aspects of this issue which are important are en-compassed by Union of Concerned Scientists' contention 12.
See First Special Prehearing Conference Order, supra, at 836-37.
In addition, even if Mr. Lewis had standing to intervene as of right in this proceeding, his request to admit the proposed i
l l
-2/
Significance of contribution by petitioner, notice of and effect on petitioner's property, financial.or other interests.
See Portland General Electric Company. et al. (Pebble Springs,
Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 616 (1976).
i.
contention would be denied.
It is very late-3/ and lacks good i
cause.
As we discussed and held in our Memorandum and Order Rej ecting CEA Contentions Pursuant
..o Review of NUREG/CR-1270 (March 18, 1980):
In particular, abser. extraordinary circumstances, late-filed contentix s will have an almost insur-mountable burden to miercome when there are previ-ously admitted similar contentions.
Slip op, at p. 5.
l The continued vitality and applicability of this holding to the matter before us is demonstrated by an analysis of the five factors of 10 CFR 5 2.714(a) against which late filings are judged for admissibility.-4/
The existence of timely-filed UCS contention 12 demonstrates that the issue is not dependent upon newly available information, and Mr. Lewis demonstrates no other good cause for 3/
The deadline for filing timely contentions on general sub-jects was October 22, 1979.
4/
The five factors are:
(i)
Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii)
The availability of other means whereby the peti-i tioner's interest will be protected.
(iii)
The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing i
a sound record.
(iv)
The extent to which the ' petitioner's interest will be rep'res~ented-by existing parties.
(v)
The extent to 'which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
l i
- 5/
late filing (factor 1)T As discussed above, there is no basis to find that Mr. Lewis may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record on the issue (factor 3).
Mr. Lewis has no legal interest (standing) in the proceeding (factor 2).
If, as licensee suggests, we arguendo view interest (as used t
in factor 4) broadly as meaning the generalized concern on the issue belatedly expressed by Mr. Lewis (which he would have in common with the public in general), this concern will be pur-sued by litigation of UCS contention 12.
Factor 5 does not favor Mr. Lewis, and probably weighs against him since the discovery schedule would be upset as the time for parties to make requests of Mr. Lewis has passed.
Furthermore, we are approaching the time in this complex multi-party proceeding when we will vigor-ously seek some form of consolidation of parties advancing similar issues -- not the opposite result sought by M. Lewis.of belatedly r
-5/
Mr. Lewis asserts his contention is timely because it is an answer to the Commission's Order of March 14, 1980 and this board's Memorandum and Order-of March 28, 1980 regarding that Commission Order.
We fail to perceive any relationship of the referenced orders to good cause for Mr. Lewis to file for the first time a late contention which is similar to a previously admitted timely contention.
Our order provided the parties with an opportunity to seek reconsideration cf any contention which they believed to have beens rejected by us because the contention sought to require res51ution of long-term actions prior to restart c* TMI-1.
Mr. Lewis was no~ admitted as of right for a totally unrelated reason --
lack of standing.
His newly proposed contention was not pre-viously rejected; it is here put forth by him for the first time.
Furthermore, the issue encompassed within it was in fact admitted in the proceeding as advenced by UCS conten-tion 12.
l
. adding parties to previously admitted issues.
We would be un-justified in permitting Mr. Lewis to adopt this issue (for no reason we can discern other than he would like to have it), and then force UCS to combine its litigation of this issue with an intervenor who said "me too" six months beyond the deadline and who demonstrates no special expertise in either the substantive issue or in other areas helpful in litigation.
For all of the above reasons, Mr. Lewis' request that he i
be permitted to participate on the late-filed contention is denied.
He is free, of course, to make any information he has on the issue available to UCS.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LIC NSING BOARD l
i l6/$
Ivan W. Smith, /hairman Bethesda, Maryland April 23, 1980 t