ML19327B675
| ML19327B675 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1989 |
| From: | Lisa Clark NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9362 OL, NUDOCS 8911060172 | |
| Download: ML19327B675 (8) | |
Text
-
\\
- o
- fbbb 10/26/89
$fAEc" f
j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L
NVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 89 09 27 /!!0:16 l
y BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IE -
o j
i In the Matter of i
h Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50 444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
(Seabrook Station, l' nit: 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOT 10N TO AMEND INTGVENORS' MOTIONS OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1989 AND OCTOBER 13, 1989 TO ADMIT CONTENTIONS ON THE SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 ONSITE EMERGENCY PLAN EXERCISE j
INTRODUCTION Intervenors in this motion seek to amend earlier pleadings to make legal arguments they chose not to make before.
The Intervanors show no
}
good cause to be allowed to amend previous pleadings in this long, drawn f
out and complex proceeding, and the motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND On September 28,
- 1989, Intervenors filed a motion to admit contentions on the onsite emergency exercise which had been conducted a day earlier. 1/
Intervenors chose not to specifically address any of the reopening criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.734 in that filing, deeming them inapplicable.
Motion at 8-9.
Intervenors again declined to address the reopening criteria in their second motion to admit contentions filed
)
i 1/
Intervenors' Motion to Admit Contentions on the September 27, 1989 Emergency Plan Exercise, September 28,1989(Motion).
8911060172 891026 PDR ADOCK 05000443 C}
O PDR
l -
I l E/ espite the fact that Applicants had argued that on October 13, 1989 d
they must be satisfied. Il l
In Public Service Comany of New Hamshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 j
and ?), LBP-89-28, 29 NRC _,1989, the Licensing Board rejected Inter-venors' argument concerning the applicability of the reopening criteria to a low power testing contention.
Slip op, at 14-15.
Intervenors now i
l wish to amend their earlier filings in order to address the reopening i
standards as they apply to the pecfferec cententions on the onsite exercise, a matter which has been extensively briefed by other parties, i
DISCUS $10N Ir:tervenors' motion te amor.d should Le denied.
They should nnt be j
psmitted a second chance to argue matters they chose not to andress l
before.
The question of whether the reopening criteria apply to contentions flied after the closing of the record has been vigorously contested by the l
parties in this proceeding for months.
Even before the record was closed.
l the Massachusetts Attorney General (MAG) anticipated this argument and asked that the Board hold the record open pending the onsite exercise t
l l
i 2/
Intervenors' Second Motion to Admit Contentions on the Septemher 27, l
1989 Emergency Plan Exercise. October 13, 1989.
~/
Applicants' Response to Intervenors' Motion to Admit Contentions on 3
the September 27, 1989 Emergency Plan Exercise, October 11, 1989, at 2-5.
I' Lecause he expected to file contentions. $/
After that request was denied. MAG requested that the record be mopened in order obtain a hearing on his proffered low power testing contention. E/
Responsive pleadings also dealt with the question of whether reopening was necessary; the NRC Staff alone extensively briefed the applicability of the reopening criteria to all late-filed contentions sought to be admitted in a proceed-ingoncetherecordhasclosed.5/
Thus, it is c1 war that MAG was well aware, before the issuance of v
LBP-89-28, that any contentions r%arding the ons'te exercise could be considered subject to the reopenirg standards of 10 C.F.R. I 2.734.
This proceeding should not be burdened by atteinots to referm.tlate pleadings to include arguments which shwld, end could have, bean made the first time, Aside from the fact thst Intervews' filing is an improper attempt to argue matters that should have been argued before, it is also without j
I substantive merit in thn it fails to satisfy the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
i 2.734.
Specifically, Intervenors have not raised a significant safety l
~/
Notion of the Massachusetts Attorney General-to Hold Open the Record 4
Pending Low Power Testing and the Required Yearly Onsite Exercise and for Other Related Relief May 31, 1989.
~/
Intervenors' Motion to Admit Contention Or, In the Alternative, to 5
Reopen the Record, and Request for Hearing, July 21,1989; Inter-venors' Motion for Leave to Add Bases to Low Power Testing Contention Filed on July 21, 1989, and to Admit Further Contentions Arising from Low I'ower Testing Events, or in the Alternative, to Reopen the Record and Second Request for Hearing, August 28, 1989.
{/
Q, NRC Staff Response to Intervenors' ' Motion to Admit Contention, or in the Alternative. To Reopen the Record, and Request for Hearing", August 18, 1989; NRC Response to Intervenors' Motion for Leave to Add Bases to Low Power Testing Contention, to Admit Further Contentions, or to Reopen the Record and Request for Hearing, September 14, 1989.
f L. :
i or environmental issue, established that a different result would have j
been obtained if the information had been considered initially, or filed j
the required supporting affidavits.
Intervenors' claim that the onsite exercise was inadequate in scope i
is promised upon a misapplication of the regulations. As discussed in the i
Staffresponsetothemotiontoadmitonsiteexercisecontentions,1/only initial full-participation exercises must test all the major observable portions of the emergency plan.
For licensing purposes, the onsite exercise held within one year before issuance of a full-power licenst is not the initial exercise and therefore is not subject to the full partici-p6 tion standard.
l Thus it is not trua, as Intervenors argue, that the failure tc tett l
certain portions of the plan during an casite exercise necessarily raises j
A significant $Afety issue.
In fact, the specific elements cited by the l
Intervenors do not represent deficiercies in the scope or performance of the onsite exercise.
Response at 10-11.
Not only did the exercise test the major aspects of the plan, it revealed no weaknesses in the Appli-r f
cants' emergency preparedness.
Id,. at 9-10.
Intervenors' contentions thus fail to raise an issue which has significant safety implications or which would have materially affected the outcome of the Seabrook proceeding it is had been considered initially.
For these reasons alone.
their motion should fail.
However, their motion suffers from an even greater deficiency - it is not accompanied by any affidavits which could provide support for the ipse dixit assertions made.
l i
1/
NRC Response to Intervenors' Motion to Admit Contentions on Septem-ber 27, 1989 Exercise October 16,1989(Response)at4-6.
j
r I
f i
5-Under 10 C.F.R. I 2.734(b), motions to reopen must be accompanied by affidavits setting forth the factual and/or technical bases for the claim that the reopening criteria have been met.
The affidavits must address each of criteria separately, with a specific explanation of why it has been met.
The regulation does not contain any exception to this require-l ment, and Intervenors have cited no authority for one. Thus, their motion fails to comport with the Commission's regulations.
]
CONCLUSION Intervenors' motion should be denied as an improper attsspt to argue sut+,ers thr.t could, tnd should have, been addressed befete. As e substan-tive mr.tter, the motion fails to establish that the onsita content?or:s ratte e significant safety or environuncr1 issue or that a different j
vv.sult would have bsen obtained G' ?.he information had been considered i
initially, and does net include the req *ed supporting affidavitc.
Respectfully submitted, u o.cu~AM Lisa B. Clark Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville Maryland this 26th day of October, 1989
(
l L
4 h(
! N 4 i! P i
L%s t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
89 OCT 27 A10:16 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-
]
f n i 'N ! " ".i.
00
. m i
i.I In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 '4490L 7
[
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL I
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
(Seabrook Station Units 1 and ?)
l 1
CERTIFICATF 0F SERVICE l
I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO l
AMEND INTERVENORS' MOTIONS OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1989 AND OCTOBER 13, 1989 TO ADMIT l
CONTENTIONS ON THE SEPTEMBER 27,19P,9 ONSITE EMERGENCY PLAN EXERCISE" in the above captioned prceteding have t'een served on the following by-deposit in the i
United States Fail, first class or, as indicated by en (.terisk, by deposit in the Wuclear Regulatory Comminicn +.iternel mail systt.n, 6s tr.dicated by double asterisks, oy Express Mail, this 26th doy of Ntooer 1989.
'i:
y<
i Ivan U. Smit;h Chairman (2)*
Philip Ahrens, Esq.
i
~Administrat1ve Judge Assistant Attorney General l
o Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Atterney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State Houss Station l
Washington, DC 2053S Augusta, HC 04333 y
Richard F. Cole
- John Traficonte. Esq **
I Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General
. i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission One Ashburton Place,19th Floor i
Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 l
Kenneth A. McCollom**
Geoffrey Huntington, Esq.**
{
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General 1107 West Knapp Street Office of the Attorney General Stillwater, OK 74705 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 l
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.**
Robert K. Gad, III, Esq.
Diane Curran Esq.**
[
Ropes & Gray Harmon, Curran & Tousley i
One International Place 2001 S Street, NW Boston, MA 02110-2624 Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009 t
I l
4
,--sw--
-e w.-,,., -,., -, -
+. ~,.
4
,.., + + - -
.w
+*r
r f,
t
. H. J. Flynn, Esq.
Judith H. Mizner. Esq.
Assistant General Counsel 79 State Street Federal Emergency Management Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Board of Selectmen Paul McEachern, Esq.**
Town Office
$haines & McEachern Atlantic Avenue 25 Maplewood Avenue North Hampton, NH 03862
-P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 William S. Lord Board of Selectmen Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Town Hall - Friend Street Board of Selectmen' Amesbury, MA 01913 RFD #1, Box 1154 Kensington, NH 03827 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Board of Seler+- -
Calvin A. Canney 13-15 Newmarkt City Hall Durham, NH 03829 126 Daniel Street-Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mon. Gordon J. Humphrey United States Senate R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
531 Hart Senate Office Building Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton Washington, DC 20510
& McGuire 79 State Street Richard R. Donovan Newburyport, MA 01950 Federal Emergency Management Agency Allen Lampert Federal Regional Center Civil Defense Director 130 228th Street, S.W.
Town of Brentwood Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 20 Franklin i
Exeter, NH 03833 Peter J. Matthews, Mayor City Hall William Armstrong Newburyport, MA 01950 Civil Defense Director Town of Exeter Michael Santosuosso, Cnairman l
10 Front Street Board of Selectmen Exeter, NH 03833 South Hampton, NH 03827 o
L l
Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
I Holmes & Ellis Town Counsel for Merrimac 47 Winnacunnet Road 145 South Main Street Hampton, NH 03842 P.O. Box 38 Bradford, MA 01835 Barbara J. Saint Andre Esq.
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
Robert A. Backus, Esq.**
77 Franklin Street Backus, Meyer & Solomon I
Boston, MA 02110 116 Lowell Street l
Manchester, NH 03106 L
1 l
L
F l
e i
! z.
i i
.Ms. Suzanne Breiseth J. P. Nadeau Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town of Hampton Falls 10 Central Street r
Drinkwater Road Rye, NH 03870 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety and Licensing r
Robert R. Pierce, Esq.*
Board Panel (1)*
Atomic Safety and~ Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulator; Commission
. Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary (2)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
=
Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC _20555 Appeal Panel (6)*-
Attn:
Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 w/M Edwin J.
is Deputy sistant General Counsel for eactor Licensing l
l l
1 L
1 o
_