ML20062B532

Response to Motion to Consolidate Hearings on Radon Issue, Submitted by Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego.Util Asserts That Stds of 10CFR2.716 Re Consolidation Not Met by Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20062B532
Person / Time
Site:	05000484
Issue date:	10/18/1978
From:	Silberg J NORTHERN STATES POWER CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
References
NUDOCS 7810310078
Download: ML20062B532 (6)

Text

.

O WD1  ;

T NRC PUBLTC DOCDENT ROOM w#71 -

ll -

-5, N

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6 gy gj 6 l.

a/

l* t ' ~'

BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD

)

/ i

/ /

-O In the Matter or ' -

s ) g' NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket No. STN 50-484

) /

(Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1) ) /

s PERMITTEES' ANSWER TO MOTION '

TO CONSOLIDATE HEARINGS ON RADON On October 3, 1978, Sue Reinert on behalf of Ecology Action of Oswego filed a motion to consolidate five licensing proceedings on the radon issue. Those proceedings are Tyrone, Wolf Creek (Docket No. STN 50-482), Marble Hill (Docket Nos. STN 50-546 and 547), Sterlinc (Docket No. STN 50-485) , and Seabrook (Docket Nos.30-443 and 444). The motion has apparently been filed in each of these cases and claims to be submitted en behalf of " inter-venors in the dockets listed above". While the motion neither identifies nor contains an authori::ation for any intervenor in the Tyrone proceeding, Northern Thunder's counsel by letter dated d October 10, 1978, stated that for the purposes of filing its motion, Ecology Action was acting with the permission of Northern Thunder.

The notien proposes that a record supplementing that estab-lished on the raden issue in Perkins be developed in a consoli-dated proceeding. Ecology Action proposes certain " ground rules" for such a proceed Q :

s N/05/C072 Gl

1. evidentiary hearings to ta.ke place before the Appeal Board;

2. applicants, intervenors and NRC Staff to be

" jointly represented";

3. witnesses presented and cross-examination con-ducted by a single representative for each side;

4. site specific information could be presented by ,

1 individual parties;

5. " generic proposed findings" on all co= mon matters;

6. opportunity for " specific findings" on site .

i specific matters;

7. scope of hearing to cover " issues raised by parties answering ALAB 480".

Pemmittees strongly oppose Ecology Action's motion. Its su= mary denial is warranted by any one of its many defects described below.

We would first point out come apparent inconsistencies in Northern Thunder's position. The Ecology Action motion urges con-solidation, a single hearing presumably at.one location, cross-examination and witness presentation by a single representative for all consolidated intervenors. Northern Thunder's position as previously expressed to the Appeal Board opposed consolidation unless certain conditions were meet. These conditions included Northern Thunder's right to cross examine and/or present witnesses, and the payment of expenses to Northern Thunder associated with ,

consolidation. See NT Reply to Staff Motion to Consolidate Raden t

Proceedings, dated May 19, 1978. Subsequently, Northern Thunder requested that any hearing on the raden issue be held in the vicinity of the Tyrone site. See Ncrthern Thunder's Requests Concerning Completing and Supplementing the Perkins Record, dated August 4, 1978, p. 3. Given the inconsistent positions in the Ecology Action motion and Northern Thunder's prior statements, it is hardly clear what Northern Thunder really wants. On this record, granting the motion would not be justified.

Apart from these problems with Ecology Action's motion, the substance of the proposal also warrants its denial. Consolidation of radon proceedings has already been rejected by ALAB-480. Con-solidation is now, as it was when the Staff first proposed it, inconsistent with the Ccemission's directive not to consider the radon issue generically. Northern Thunder opposed consolidation whe'n the Staff initially proposed it; it continued to oppose con-solidation in later pleadings.. Ecology Action's motion is little more than a very belated attempt to reconsider ALAB-480, and to rewrite the procedures established by the Appeal Board. Other

- than' alleging without support or explanation that there would be "an automatic-disadvantage to the parties first in line for a h6aring" (Motion, p.2), a disadvantage we fail to perceive, Ecology Action gives no justification for reconsidering ALAB-480.

A consolidated hearing along the lines proposed by Ecology

!- ' Action would be unmanageable. At least five Appeal Board members would be needed to encompass the Boards frem each cf the five L .<

e cases. The single record would incorporate site specific infor-

[

mation from five separate proceedings, as well as " generic" infor-1 A i' I

l

l

[ ...

mation. This would make the hearing both inefficient and cumber-some, and would further delay the resolution of Lhe radon issue in some or all of these cases. The parties opposed to consolida-tion would be compelled to choose a single witness panel, a single representative to present direct testimony, and a single cross-examiner. The scope of the hearing as framed by Ecology Action would combine in one hearing " issues raised by parties answering ALAB-480." What that is meant to encompass is unclear (i.e., does it include parties in all proceedings or only in the five iden-tified in the motion) . Ecology Action makes no attempt to show that the issues raised by various intervenors on the Perkins record are similar enough for consolidation to be meaningful.

Merely lumping together four or five separate groups of issues and convening a single proceeding to deal with all of them makes little sense, even in the abstract.

For consolidation to be appropriate, the Appeal Board must find that the action will be " conducive to the proper dispatch of its business and to tne ends of justice . . ." 10 CFR 52.716.

Permittees respectfully submit that the considerations discussed above show that Ecology Action's motion does not meet these tests and should therefore be denied.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, PCTTS & TROWBRIDGE

'N g By <_.4

'\- !. W Jay-E. Silberg Counsel: for Permittees Northern States Pcwer Ccmpany, et al.

1800 M Street, North West Washington, D. C. 20036 (202)331-4100 Dated: October 18, 1978

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD, In the Matter of )

)

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket No. STN 50-484

)

(Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing "Permittees' Answer to Motion to Consolidate Hearings on Radon" were serve (. by deposit in the U. S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 18th day of October, 1978, to all those on the attached Service List.

\ L [f-i _ .

Jay'E. Silberg Dated: October 18, 1978 l

J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i i

I In the Matter of )

)

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, )

ET AL. ) Docket No. STN 50-484

)

~

(Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1) )

SERVICE LIST Richard S. Sa1==3, Esqua.re, Chaiman James P. Altman, Esquire Atmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.ission Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20555 State Capitol

~ 53702 Madien, Wismnsin Michael C. Farrar, Esquire Atmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Mr. T!nnas Galazen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory O = i aicn Route 2, Box 64 Washington, D.C. 20555 Turtle Lake, Wisconsin 54889

! Dr. W. Reed Jconsm Jomlyn Furtwangler Olson, Es@

Atmic Safety and Licensing Agaal Board Spar-4 al Assistant Ai.L.u.Tsy General

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Ca mission Minnesota Pollution Control Agerrf I Washington, D.C. 20555 1935 W. Country Road B2 Roseville, Minnescta 55113-Ivan W. Smith, Esquim , Chair. nan Atmic Safety and Licensing Board Richard Ihrig, Esquire 400 Exchange B'fiding U.S. Nur-laar Pagulatcry Ca mission Washington, D.C. 20555 4th and Center i

Winona, Minnesota 55987 j Dr. George C. Anderscn Ocean Vraphy Department, KB-10 Michael J. Cain, Esquire

! University of Washingten Bureau of Legal Services Seattle, Washingt::n 98195 Department of Natural Rescurces Box 7921 Mr. 'Iaster Kornblith, Jr. Mad.isen, Wisconsin 53707

' Atmic Safety. and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulat=ry Ccmnission Steven M. Schur, Es @

i Washington, D.C. 20555 Chief Counsel

~

Public Service Camission of Wisconsin Stephen H. Iawls, Esquire 9411 Farms State Office milding Office of the Executive Iagal Director 4802 She% san Avt.:nue U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Ca missicn Madiscn, Wiscensin 53702 i Washi. W , D.C. 20555 i

Mr. Stanley Cider Dccheting and Service Secticn c/o Durand Pcstmaster

-Office of the Secretary Tyrene, Wiscensin 54736 U.S. Nuclear regulatcry Ccmnissicn Washingcen, D.C. 20555 Ecolccy Acti.cn cf Cswego l c/o Ms. Sharen Merey P. O. Ecx 94 Cswego, New Ycrk 13126

, , - - - ,,- m,-

w w . , - , - - - - ye---