ML20028D463
| ML20028D463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1983 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | ECISMP |
| References | |
| 80-437-02-LA, 80-437-2-LA, ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8301190157 | |
| Download: ML20028D463 (4) | |
Text
%
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00C.KETED
'D' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B g jg gj %8 Before Administrative Judges M i at (A.. !
Robert M. Lazo, Chairman li W I.%,ThEr.'E Peter A. Morris Cadet H. Hand
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-309-OLA
)
)
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
)
ASLBP No. 80-437-02 LA
)
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station
)
January 17, 1983
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Concerning SMP's Motion for Clarification and Modification)
On April 12, 1982, following the submission of extensive briefs and memoranda on all sides, this Licensing Board issued its " Memorandum and Order" ruling on the proposed contentions of Intervenor, Sensible Maine Power (SMP). Nine of the eighteen revised contentions filed by SMP were admitted for litigation.
Thereafter, on September 24, 1982, SMP filed a Motion seeking clarification and modification of the Board's Order.
Both the Applicant and the NRC Staff assert that the Motion should be denied. We agree.
8301190157 830117 PDR ADOCK 05000309 l
0 PDR 1See "Intervenor's Specific Contentions" dated October 5, 1981 and 1
"Intervenor's Response to Staff and Applicant Objections to Intervenor's Contentions" dated January 24, 1982.
c' 2
i i
l I
When we admitted nine of SMP's proposed contentions we redrafted contentions 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 17 so that they would be admissible or more susceptible to litigation.
SMP did not file objections to the Board's actions nor did it file a motion to reconsider. Then, j
approximately six months after the issuance of the Board's Order, SMP requested that the Board:
(i) restore the wording of those proposed SMP contentions which were redrafted prior to their admission; (ii) clarify the scope of the edited, admitted contentions; and (iii) reconsider its rejection of certain contentions.
II The challenged Order is a Prehearing Conference Order - it admits contentions and establishes the issues for this proceeding. The rules of practice require a party to file objections to a Prehearing Confer-ence Order within five days after service of that order.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.751a(d) and 2.752(c). Accordingly, the objections of SMP are out of time by over six months.
I
~
Further, a consideration of the merits of SMP's Motion also require it to be denied. SMP first s*eks restoration of the original language contained in its proffered contentions. However, in most instances, the Board reworded an otherwise objectionable contention so that it would be acceptable. That being so, it is inappropriate for SMP to now argue that the original wording of contentions should be restored.
A review of the Board's Order indicates that the Board found that several of the proferred contentions were too broadly drafted and did
3 not sufficiently relate to the proposed license amendment in order for the proposed contentions to be admitted in this proceeding. Rather than rejecting these contentions outright, the Board narrowed them so that they could be litigated in the context of this license amendment pro-ceeding.
Elsewhere in the Order, aspects of other proposed contentions were deleted by the Board to the extent that they did not relate to the spent fuel modification.
Still other parts of proposed contentions were rejected as vague and without legal basis.
Fina.lly, other proposed contentions were considered confusing because the basis of the con-tention appeared to be set forth in the body of the contention. Accord-ingly, in at least one instance the Board deleted the basis section of a proposed contention before admitting it.
The various reasons why SMP's proposed contentions were modified were clearly set forth in the chal-lenged Order. Thus, despite this Board's well reasoned Order, SMP, six months late, has requested clarification relative to the scope of the admitted contentions. We coatinue to believe that the scope of each of the admitted contentions is clear from the Board's Order.
SMP also seeks reconsideration of three previously rejected con-tentions.
Specifically, SMP Proposed Contentions 2, 6(a) and (b) and 15.
Beyond merely urging that it do so, SMP offers no additional argument as to why the Board should reconsider its earlier rulings and now admit these contentions. Motion at 10-11.
It is a well established principle that the mere repetition of arguments previously presented does not form a basis for reconsideratf-n of a prior ruling. Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (Sheffield Illinois Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), CLI-80-1, 11 NRC 1, 5-6 (1980). Here, as in
f r
4 Sheffield, without any new argument put forward, there is nothing for this Board to reconsider. H at 5.
III For the foregoing reasons and in consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 17th day of January, 1983 ORDERED That Sensible Maine Power's Motion for Clarification and Modifica-tion of Order Upon Admissibility of Contentions.is denied.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Robert M. Lazo, Chairma ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
..