ML20031B380
| ML20031B380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1981 |
| From: | Mcgurren H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110010311 | |
| Download: ML20031B380 (7) | |
Text
_ _ - - - - - - - - - _ - - -
3
'Q
.4s 9/29/81 Ay UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 13N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
, ~n.
,f i
9 In the Matter of
)
h,-l
- g i
s HAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY I
Docket No. 50-3095,5 O
(SpentFuel)
,d h [ [/'
' @l (MaineYankeeAtomicPowerStation))h i
\\g g,
'y e.
3 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
,j FILED BY DAVID COLTON-MANHEIM AS AMENDED ON AUGUST 29, 1981 q
k-I.
INTRODUCTION
- j On September 16, 1981, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office 3
j.;
of Executive. Legal Director received a copy of an untitled pleading dated kk August 29, 1981 which was signed by David Colton-Manheim on behalf of Down
]
5 East Alliance. It is apparent that this pleading (hereinafter referred to 2
as the " Amendment") amends the " Written Petition for Leave to Intervene by
,x Down East Alliance, in the Person of David Colton-Manheim", (Petition) dated
?
August 11, 1981 by seeking to identify a single contention and assert a new reason for the late filing of the Petition.M
'f-If The Amendment also requests the right to make a limited appearance statement pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715. The Staff does not oppose this request. We note, however, that 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715 provides that a person permitted to make a limited appearance statement "may not otherwise participate in the proceeding".
DSo7 s
8110010311 81D929 DRADOCK05000g
$f
~*
iq q, 1.
3 The NRC Staff responded to the Petition on August 26, 1981U arguing
[/
that the Petitioner had not only failed to satisfy the contention require-uents of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 (Staff Response at 13-15), but had failed to f{}
satisfy the requirements of the " interest" of the petitioner in the proceeding.
.,)
a.a how that interest may be affected by the proceeding (Staff Response at
,} ;
h 9-13). Inaddition,theStaffaddressedthefivefactorsfcplatefiled y
petitions arguina that they weigh against acceptance of the petition.
(Staff Ne Response at 3-9). We incorporate that responsu by reference herein. For U
1 the reasons discussed below the Staff believes that the instant Amendment Ad.
does not remedy these deficiencies.
i
- m II. DISCUSSION
-).
A.
Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause for the late Petition 33 2'
The petitioner asserts " poverty" as an additional reason for good d}
q, i
cause for the late filing of the Petition. There is absolutely no g
explanation by Petitioner how poverty caused or can cause the late filing of the instant petition. The Petition to intervene is filed almost two years after the time provided in the original notice for intervention in
.y tnisproceeding.E The Appeal Board recently noted that "' good cause' for f
late filing depends wholly upon the substantiality of the reasons assigned 2]
See "NRC Staff's Response to Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed by David Colton-Manheim" (Staff Response).
y The original notice was filed on October 24,1979,(44 Fed. Reg. 61273)
N and provided that petitions to intervene must be filed by November 23, 1979.
t
d D. g
?
for not having filed at an earlier date".O The Staff submits that the petitioner here has completely failed to satisfy this test. Accordingly, e
9 the assertion of poverty as an additional reason for good cause for the j
late filing of the Petition must fail.
N B.
Failure to State One Good Contention As the HRC Staff indicated in its response to the Petition (at 14-15) contentions to be admissible must fall within the scope of the h
issues set forth in the Federal _ Register Notice of Hearing l and comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 1 2.714(b) and Commission case law.
- c. ;
In short, it is incumbent upon the Pet 12ioner to (1) set forth
,77 r,
coi.tentions which are sufficiently detailed and specific to demonstrate
,.lj that the issues raised are admissible and that further inquiry is k
warranted, and to put the other parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against or oppose and (2) set forth the reasons (basis)
_.)
- (.
for each of the contentions without having to detail the evidence which R
would later be offered in support of each contention.O 5
y South Carolina Electric and Gas C,..vany Et R. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1), ALAB-642,13 NRT
, slip op, at 9 n. 5 (June 1, 1981).
y See Public ",ervice Company of Indiana Inc. (Marble Hill Huclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167,171 (1976).
1 6/
Philadelptia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.
Units 2 a..d 3) ALAB 216 B AEC 13, 20-21 (1974); Houston Lighting 1
and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),ALAB-590,11HRC542,546-551(1980).
N'
,j 4
..Q The single contention identified by the Petitioner in the Amendment
.ji states:
'N g>
Hothball (Placement Into Passive Safe Storage) Maine Yankee now 3
(A.S.A.P.?.;;;,iing for reopening (operation) later, even after 0:
2008 (end of li;ensed period), denying thereby both the need for, i
and the application of, applicant for spent fuel compaction; but a
not to deny the possibility of recycling, even on site, through i
migration of the radionuclides which should be sMdied both as to the danger of inaovertant criticality and its po:!r'ble useful employment.
This contention is so vague and unspecific that it completely falls j't to meet tne contention requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714. The language of the contention is so unspecific that the parties cannot know what they would j
have to defend against or oppose. Further, the contention is totally devoid
(::
of any basis. Moreover, the contention is so vague that it cannot be deter-jj
'e mined whether or not the contention falls within the scope of the issues set forth in the Notice of Hearing.U Finally, to the extent that the Petitioner is contending that the plant
'i be " mothballed" until the year 2008 to avoid the need for the requested expansion, he is seeking relitigation of a matter that was r! sol',ed when the i
forty-year operating license was issued. At that time the impact from the
.T S
3 total waste which Maine Yankee would produce during the full term of its
- 4 u
JJ See Marble Hill,_ supra, n. 5.
1 1
l.
'$b D
5-a 9
l license was considered and found acceptable. Accordingly, relitigation of 3
this matter may not be permitted here.U III. CONCLUSION i '.
For the foregoing reasons, the Staff submits (1) that the Petitioner Q
has failed to demonstrate good cause or a favorable balancing of other factors which must be considered in support of his late filed petition, and (2) that even if the Board determined that it would entertain the Petition, it should be denied since it failed to satisfy the " interest" e.
and " contention" requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714. Accordingly, the Staff opposes the Petition as amended on August 29, 1981 and recomends that it be denied.
Respectfully submitted lO y
, is*]j enrf d. McGurren Counsel for NRC Staff
(
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of September,1981.
l i
Bf liorthern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generati'g Plant, i
Units 1 and 2.), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41, 46 n. 4 (1978); Portlend General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263, 266 n. 6 (1979).
l
~~
i 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR F udLATORY C0tHISSION BEFORE THE AT0 HIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPNiY Socket No. 50-309 i
(MaineYankeeAtomicPowerStation)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of HRC STAFF RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR LEAVE l
TO INTERVENE FILED BY DAVID COLTON-MANHEIN AS AMENDED ON AUGUST 29, 1981 in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 29th day of September, 1981.
t Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman
- Administrative Judge Rufus E. Brown Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Deputy Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Department of the Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 State House Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Administrative Judge and Director, Bodega Marine Laboratory David Santee Hiller University of California Counsel for Petitioner P.O. Box 247 213 Horgan Street H.W.
Bodega Bay, CA 94923 Washington, DC 20001 Peter A. Morris
- Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor.nission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Thomas Dignan, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing l
i Ropes & Gray Appeal Board
- i 225 Franklin Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Boston, MA 02110 Washington, DC 20555 Stanley Tupper Docketing and Service Section*
Tupper & Bradley Office of the Secretary 102 Townsend Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Boothbay Harbor, ME 04538 Washington, DC 20555
- -W-1-emre e-4
's-my+*vrt--+-----r----g----
1:
i David Colton-Hanheim
'kI Box #386 Bedford's Barn
- i Gouldsboro. Maine 04607
.i i$
'k._
e f
cu, k%-f i
e a
Hertrxl A. Mc8Drren M
I
((
Coun%fl for NRC Staff
- e f$$
3$
hr ha2
,4
'*H
.is
?
t M'
9
>--,s w-
=
-w=
- v**
V'*
'