ML19347F356
| ML19347F356 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1981 |
| From: | Laverty J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105190043 | |
| Download: ML19347F356 (6) | |
Text
'
5/15/81
$N s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9
b
\\9N e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-i Si #g i
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD S"
]Ir4
[A In the Matter of
)
~.
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and 50-296 (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, (License amendment to pemit onsite Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3)
)
storage of low level radioactive waste)
STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION TO FILE ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS On April 27, 1981, Noel M. Beck, Robert W. Beck, Gregory Brough, Alice N. Colock, David R. Curott, Uvonna J. Curott, David Ely, Hollis Fenn, Richard L. Freeman, Marjorie L. Hall, Debbie Havas, Rebecca Hudgins, Richard W. Jobe, Betty L. Martin, John R. Martin, Nancy Muse, Thomas W. Paul, Michael D. Pierson, and Tom Thornton (Petitioners) filed a motion to amend their respective Petitions for Leave to Intervene by the proposed admission of five additional contentions for consideration in the instant proceeding.
Earlier, Petitioners had timely filed a motion to amend their respective Petitions by the proposed admission of four contentions in accordance with the Board's Order of March 10, 1981.
At the Special Prehearing Conference of April 10, 1981, in Huntsville, Alabama, however, Petitioners moved for a grant of aditional time within which to file new contentions.
(Tr. at 82.)
In response, the Board ruled that, if Petitioners did file late contentions, they must show com-pliance with.the applicable standards of section 2.714.
(Tr. 91.) Due to siosnoogg
O
, Petitioners' failure to even mention these standards, the Staff believes that Petitioner's notion should be denied in its entirety.
The Staff will discuss these standards below.
If the Board decides to pennit Petitioners to file these contentions without the showing required by sections 2.714 and 2.732, contrary to its decision at the Special Prehearing Conference, the Staff requests permission to file a response evaluating the admissibility of these contentions within 10 days from the date of service of the Board's decision.
Section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of Practice governs the filing of untimely contentions. That section provides, in pertinent part:
"Nontimely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the... Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the... request, that the... request should be granted based upon a balancing of the following factors in addition to those set out in paragraph (d) of this section:
(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 petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in denloping 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.
The burden of establishing " good cause" and of showing how the other factors weigh in favor of admission of late-filed contentions rests with Petitioners.
See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.732; Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273 (1975).
Failure to show good cause for filing late means a petitioner must
. \\
shoulder a heavier burden with respect to the other factors.
Virginia Electric Power Co. (North Anna Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-289, 2 NRC 395, 398 (1975).
In its motion of April 27, 1981, however, Petitioners have not only made no attempt to show good cause for their untimely filing but have further failed to show how admission of these contentions satisfies any of the other t 'ctors.
Petitioners' failure to
' discuss these factors follows several references at the Special-Prehearina Conference and the Board's express direction that such a discussion must be included.
(Tr. at 78, 83, 85 and 91. ) Peti tioners,
represented by counsel, cannot claim surprise.
Not only do the Commission's Rules clearly state the standard which must be met prior to admission of late - filed contentions but Petitioners were put on actual notice of the applicability of that standard by both parties to the proceeding and the Board.
Given the directive of section 2.714 that nontimely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the Board that the five factors listed above weigh in favor of admission and given the burden on Petitior. of showing that these factors have been met, the Staff conclu k na this motion should be denied.
As noted above, however, if te; Boaro c:cides to pennit Petitioners to file these contentions without the showing required by sections 2.714 and 2.732, the Staff requests permission to file a response evaluating the
8'
,.9,-
M t
a j !
k 4
t
- admissibility of ther,e contentions within 10 days from the date of
'i f
service of the Board's Decision.
'i t
Respectfully. submitted, i
/
j
- r. 7 4.; >,.~. 7 l.
..o.. u l
Jessica H. Laverty Counsel for NRC Staff I
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland -
this 15th day of May, 1981 i
4 i
4 l
[
i i-t l
t a.
i i
i f
I 2
I t
1 i
i b
- _ - -, -, _ _. ~.,, _... -,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE AT0filC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY _ AUTHORITY
)
Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and
)
50-296 (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,
)
.(License amendment to permit onsite Unit.los. 1, 2 and 3)
)
storage of low level radioactive waste)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION TO FILE ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS" in the above-captioned proceed'ng have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, 3r, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 15th day of May,1981:
- Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman, H. S. Sanger, Jr., Esq.
Administrative Judge General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tennessee Valley Authority Atomic Safety and Licensing' Board Washington, D.C.
20555 '
400 Commerce Avenue 3 118 33C Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Mrs. Elizabeth B. Johnson, Administrative Judge Mr. H. N. Culver Oak Ridge National Laboratory 249 HBD P. O. Box X. Building 3500 400 Commerce Avenue Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Tennessee Valley Authority Vmoxville, Tennessee 37902 Dr. Quentin J. Stober, Adninistrative Judge Mr. Herbert Abercrombie Fisheries Research Institute Tennessee Valley Authority University of Washington P. O. Box 2000 Seattle, Washington 98195 Decatur, Alabama 35602 Mr. Ron Rogers Mr. Charles R. Christopher 1
Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Chestnut _ Street, Tower II Chairman, Limestone County Commission P. O. Box 188 Chattanooga, Ten'nessee '37401 Athens, Alabama 35611
. ~ Mr..' Robert F. Sullivan
- U.S. fluclear' Regulatory Commission P. O. Box'1863 Decatur, Alabama 35602 '
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
~
Leroy J. Ellis, III -Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comraission
- Attorney.for Intervenors Washington, D.C.
20555
- At Safety and Licensing Appeal-la hv en 37219
]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Robert B. Pyle, Esq.
- Secretary Attorney for Intervenors-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4220 Nolensville Road ATTN:
Chief, Docketing and Service Nashville, Tennessee 37211 Branch Washington, D.C.
20555 Ira L. flyers, M.D.
State Healtb Officer State Department of Public Health State Office Building j
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
_ ];.2. s _.:. -l
~..._.
~
Mr. John F. Cox Jessica H. Laverty Tennessee Valley Authority Counsel-for NRC Staff i
W9-D 207C 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
. Director, Office of Urban & Federal Affairs 108 Parkway Towers 404 James Robertson Way Nashville, Tennessee 37219 I
6