ML19344A638
| ML19344A638 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002909 |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1980 |
| From: | Cowan B, Kenrick J, Marcucci D ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008210382 | |
| Download: ML19344A638 (7) | |
Text
.
t
&*. t =-
/\\)'if # N\\
C s,,
\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
a
,l, 4h
'2
- [h'7 NU..
P y
In the Matter of h
p WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Docket No. 70-2909 (Alabama Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Plant Special Nuclear Material License)
OPPsSITION OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION TO SEACA MOTION FOR AN EXTEUSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE VALID CONTENTIONS For the reasons discussed herein, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
(" Westinghouse" or " Applicant") op-poses the " Motion For An Extension Of Time In Which To File Valid Contentions" filed by petitioner for interven-tion Safe Energy Alliance of Central Alabama, Inc. ("SEACA")
under date of July 30, 1980.
By Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board fhereinafter the " Board") dated July 22, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 50026), a special prehearing conference in this proceeding has been scheduled for August 21, 1980 in Montgomery, Ala-bama.
The matter of this special prehearing conference had been discussed in a Board conference call on July 17, 1980 j
i with representatives of SEACA, Westinghouse, the NRC Regula-tory Staff and others.
Both in that conference-call and in the subsequent July 22, 1980 Order, the Board had called to SEACA's attention the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 714 (b)
- d[
/dW. ( 6 n wt 9g,,
80082l'0 pg G
s a//
brss 44 7 3
+-
which provides, inter alia, that not later than fifteen days prior to the'date of the special.prehearing conference a pe-titioner for intervention shall file a supplement to his in-tervention petition which must' include a list of the conten-tions~which petitioner seeks to have litigated in the pro-caeding.
Despite the filing of the' instant Motion seeking a sixty day extension of time. (presumably until October 6, 1980) to comply with the requirements of 5 2.714 (b), SEACA subsequently filed on August-5, 1980, a pleading entitled
" Proposed Valid Contentions Of Intervenor Safe Energy Alli-ance of Central Alabama, Inc."
This document sets forth some twenty-two proposed contentions in this proceeding.
Since SEACA has filed a set of proposed contentions in this proceeding in accordance with the Board Order of July 22, 1980, it appears that the pending Motion for an extension of time constitutes a request by SEACA for Board permissic7 to file a set of additional contentions no later than October 6, 1980.'.
'This request is in contravention of the NRC's Rules of Practice and should'be denied.
Section 2.714 (b) of the Rules of Practice estab-lishes a date for the timely filing of the required conten-tion supplement to an intervention. petition, i.e.,
fifteen days prior.to.the date of the special prehearing conference.
. If a petitioner for intervention believes that additional time is needed to submit contentions, S - 2. 714 (b) provides
-that "(a]dditional time =for filingEthe (contentions] supple-,
+ - -
~
3 ment may be granted based upon-a balancing of the factors in paragraph.(a) (1) of-this section."
Those factor's include, inter alia, the following:
"(i)-
Good.cause, if any, for failure to file on time."
l Obviously the Board cannot make.the good cause evaluation required under. S 2.714 (a) (1) in a vacuum.
The Board must be' advised of the subject matter of any proposed untimely contention before it is in a position to determine whether the contention reasonably could have been filed in a timely
' manner.
Clearly. S 2. 714 (b) does not confer the Board with
. authority to grant intervention petitioners unqualified per-mission to ignore the timely filing requirements of that section.
Yet it ir just such permission that SEACA is seek-i
'ing in its instant Motion.
.SEACA's Motion refers to three matters as purported grounds supporting its extension of time request.
- First, SEACA states that it' served " Interrogatories" on Westinghouse Hon July-10,~1980 and that in the previously referenced July i
17, 1980 conference call " attorney Bart Crum [ sic] acknow-ledged_ receipt'of the Interrogatores and said he would serve l
Answers on SEACA."
SEACA alleges.that Westinghouse answers to theLInterrogatories might furnish information that could become the basis.fe additional contentions.
In the confer-ence call,1 Westinghouse counsel Barton Z. Cowan did advise-the Boardiand-SEACA' counsel that he-had very'recently received' the SEACA Interrogatories'an'd'had transmitted them to Westing-4 o
+ ~..
.,,. -. -,. ~ ~,.,
house ~for' review.
He further advised -the participants in the conference' call' that he expected to confer with West-e inghouse.promptly concerning the Interrogatories and would call SEACA counsel regarding them on July 22, 1980.
Several unsuccessful efforts were made to telephone SEACA counsel cn July 22_ to discuss the. Interrogatories.
Westinghouse counsel also advised the participants in'the conference call that rut expected Westinghouse would provide answers to r
relevant SEACA interrogatories despite the fact the NRC Rules of Practice do not provide for the commencement of 4
- discovery until after the special prehearing conference (see 4
l 10 C.F.R.- S 2.740).
It should be noted thct SEACA counsel did not in-f dicate during the conference call that answers to the Inter-t l
rogatories were needed in order to comply with the contention filing requirement of S 2.714 (b).
Westinghouse submits that SEACA can readily comply with that requirement without the Westinghouse answers.
Finally, the NRC Rules of Practice do not contemplate use of the discovery process until after the date of the.special prehearing conference and thus use of discovery cannot excuse compliance with the timely filing of contentions -requirement of S 2.714 (b).
As a second purported-reason supporting its Motion, SEACA. states that it is receiving the assistance of several
. scientists'but has yet to receive " valuable information and a' alyses and reports'from these scientists which would be
~
n
_4_
r
-e y
.u
-,...~,,n,
..,,.n..,
..,s
. +,,,,.,
essential in framing valid contentions."
Westinghouse sub-mits that SEACA has had ample time since this proceeding was noted in the Federal Register. on April 7, 1980 (45 Fed.
. Reg. 23553) to receive whatever information it believes it needs from these scientists.
SEACA's own delay in this re-gard cannot serve as justification for the granting of an extension of time to file additional contentions.
Finally, SEACA states _that_it hasn't received the Regulatory Staff Environmental Impact Statements and sug-gests by implication that information contained in that doc-utent might lead to the filing of additional contentions.
This speculation as to the content of the Regulatory Staff's Environmental Impact Statement provides no basis for allow-ing the filini~ of additional contentions unrestricted as to subject matter, environmental or otherwise, for a period of sixty additional days.
For the reasons discussed above, Westinghouse respectfully urges the Board to reject the SEACA Motion for an additional sixty days within which to file additional contentions.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Barton 2.
Cowan
/s/ John R.
Kenrick Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott
/s/ Donald R.
Marcucci Law Department Westinghouse Electric Corporation
. DATED:
Augus t - 14, 1980 Counsel for Westinghouse Electric Corporation
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Docket No. 70-2909 (Alabama Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Plant Special Nuclear Material License)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " opposition of Westinghouse Electric Corporation to SEACA Motion for an Extension of Time in Which to File Valid Contentions" were' served upon the persons listed on Attachment 1 to this certificate of Service by deposit in the United States Mail ~ (First Class), postage prepaid, this 14th day of Au-gust, 1980.
f
/s/ John R. Kenrick John R.
Kenrick Counsel for Westinghouse Electric Corporation l
l I i
ATTACHMENT l-John F. Wolf, Esquire, Chairman David L. Allred, Esquire Atomic Safety-and Licensing Board 231 Oak Forest Drive U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Montgomery, Alabama 36109 3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Dr.. Ira L. Myers State Health Officer Dr. Harry Foreman, Member-State of Alabama Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Department. of Public Health B3x.395,' Mayo State Office Building University of Minnesota Montgomery, Alabama.36104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Martin J.
Steindler, Member Panel Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Argonne National Laboratory Washington, D. C.
20555 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Barton Z. Ccwan, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.Eckert,-Seamans, Cherin & Mellott Washington, D. C.
20555 42nd Floor, 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary Donald R. Marcucci, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lcw Department-Washington, D. C.
20555 W3stinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Julian L. McPhilipps, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 64 516 South' Perry Street
-Montgomery, Alabama 36101 Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Office-of the Executive Legal Director-
'U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wcshington, D..C.
20555 I