ML20032B860
| ML20032B860 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1981 |
| From: | Miller D MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NJ, SENSIBLE MAINE POWER |
| To: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111060456 | |
| Download: ML20032B860 (3) | |
Text
.{
C DCKET f;U.*.'C'::t
.,,, a PROD. & UT!L F 7
Q, ;Je
- ~ =
es 000'ensp
[
c p- ) a W
DAVID SANTEE MILLER e
5 Omcecmag. }
D4dhg NOVO ~61981* Tg N
Arronurr AT z.Aw 21s monaix sramar. w. w.
Q g
WAsumorox D. C. 20001 gpna agC** O, j CislllM ison: Es-o.es r 23, lj D O bo Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman
,g ge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Dr. Lazo:
I am writing you on behalf of Intervenor Sensible Maine Power to protest the delay by Applicant Maine Yankee in the recent filing of its " final report".
A pattern of circumstances is developing which, we believe, bears comment by us and recognition by the Board.
As was developed during the Special Prehearing Conference in Wiccasset on August 11, 1981, Applicant filed a statement of techni-cal information reducing the center-to-center spacing between spent fuel assemblies from 10.5" to 10.25", perhaps as early as July 27, 1981, but'such was not received by the State of Maine until August 8, 1981, 1/ was not received by Intervenor SMP until about such time, 2/ and was not received by any member of our Board at any time prior To the Special Prehearing Conference, or to quote your state-ment from the Transcript: "We have not seen that document." ( At 24.)
The effect of such circumstances was to burden Intervenor SMP and Petitioner Maine to participate in a Prehearing Conference as to which they were alto 6ather uninformed upon a critical issue. 3_/
Throughout this past year the Staff has raised, and I believe there were pending upon Applicant as of said conference, a number of questions about the proposed changes.
Also at such time there was a continuing, and I think reasonably-held, understanding that Applicant was due to fRnish a comprehensive statement of its proposed changes to all parties, or as stated in a letter to Applicant from the NRC:
"This report was to be submitted within two weeks of your referenced letter, (ie. July 12,1981)."g/
l 1/ Rufus E. Brown, Transcript of Conference, at 27.
2/ Intervenor's counsel departed his above (service) address on Fri-
~ day, August 7, at which time Applicant's filing had not yet been re-l ceived.
l 1/ Rather than the " fine tuning" which Applicant would have us be-11e7e this change represents, such reduction may in fact develop criticality within the spent fuel pool itself.
4/ Letter from Mr. Robert A. Clark of the NRC to Robert H. Groce of Flaine Yankee, stamp-dated September 24, 1981 Undersigned counsel respectfully suggests that the date in parentheses is erroneous and i
should read " August 12, 1981", counting from the date of the refer-enced letter, or July 28,'1981.
l p3g 0111060456 811023 PDR ADOCK 05000309 G
$g ;p l
\\
1
,,C*
i i
6 2
t But not only was Applicant's " complete report" not' forthcom-ing on August 12, 1981, (the day after the Special PreheaIing Con-ference), said report was in fact not forthcoming for almost ano-I ther two full months thereafter.
Then -- on the very day when In-tervenor SMP and Petitioner Maine 2/ had been ordered to file their contentions -- Applicant's " complete report" suddenly materialized.
Well beyond the goal of procedurally securing and publicly demonstrating fundamental fairness in these proceedings, certain specific points must be addressed relative to Applicant's delayed filin68:
(1)
There is a clear, self-evident need for, and an unavoid-f able reliance upon Applicant to make, complete technical disclosure l
in a timely manner to all parties to these proceedings; i
(2)
Nothing other than full, ' timely disclosure by Applicant upon its proposed changes can produce a valid result from these proceedings, and anything less serves only to prolong, confuse and invalidate our efforts here; (3)
SMP respectfully suggests that the Board should decline i
to credit Applicant's attempt to assert that its duty to answer questions from the Staff, and it would seem to follow, itaduty te furnish its " final report" in a timely manner, are somehow "inde-pendent" of these proceedings; 6/ SMP submits that such argument i
must fail of its own illogic: A full, complete and timely filing of tachnical information by Applicant is just about as "indepen-dent" from further proceedings in this case as an indictment is
" independent" from the ensuing criminal trial -- and neither Inter-venor SMP nor Petitioner Maine can fairly, lawfully or validly be burdened to ' deal with complex technical changes as to which they have been denied sufficient, timely information; (4)
Thus Applicant's failures to furnish necessary informa-tion in a timely manner also works a deprivation of procedural due process against all parties to this proceeding; and (5)
Last of mention here, but far fro = least, Applicant's twice-repeated failure or refusal to furnish necessary information l
in a timely manner also clearly disserves one of the central pur-l poses of this proceeding, specifically, to protect the public in-terest by promoting the ready and timely availability of informa-tion.
I am currently studying meand and methods of dealing with l
Applicant 's delayed filings, especially since Applicant's " final t
l report'! contains infonsation supporting additional contentions i
not previously made available to us.
)
I 2/ Intervenor SMP does not here presume to speak for the State of l
Maine, but only to acknowledge that the harms and disadvantages l
against SMP and Maine are essentially similar.
l 6/ Applicant has asserted that its answers to Staff questions are i
Windependent of the hearing" since they were not " filed through j
counsel", (Transcript at 28).
SMP urges that this thin disguise not distract our Board from Applicant's duty to furnish complete, i
timely technical information to the parties to this proceeding.
1 I 5
In the meantime, however, I also respectfully request that the Board consider what measures it would be willing to order or adopt sua sponte:
(1) To discourage Applicant from any further continuation of the practices remarked above; and (2) To correct the harms and disadvantages against Intervenor SMP and Petitioner Maine in the preparation of their Specific Contentions.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Yours respectfully, David Santee Miller Copies: Board Members; Applicant's Counsel; Staff Counsel; Maine Attorney General's Office; File.
9.
O