ML20063J216

Forwards Motion for Leave to Respond to Applicant Reply to New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Supplemental Filing on Emergency Planning Contentions

ML20063J216
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/31/1982
From:	Curran D, Jordan W HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	Habour J, Hoyt H, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20063J218	List: ML20063J216 ML20063J227 ML20063J318
References
NUDOCS 8209020343
Download: ML20063J216 (2)

Text

o . > ..

HARMON & WEISS 172 5 i ST R EET, N. W.

"*""ON SulTC 506 h*

GA'" WAS HINoTON, D. C. 20o06 c a o a3 e$. ."o'70 p',4 i)6 N(f

$ C{ .,G'. COVNSEL WIL LI AM S. JORD AN, til ,U*

LEE L. BISHOP DIAN E CURRAN  ! S I.";;'t. TWO M AS G ALLOWAY LY N N E S E R N AS CI LUCI A S. ORTH August 31, 1982 Helen Hoyt, Esquire, Chairperson Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke /

Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board pf h __[i[L-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Seabrook Operating Licensing Proceeding

Dear Members of the Board:

We are enclosing for your consideration NECNP's Motion for Leave to Respond to Applicants' Reply to NECNP's Supplemental Filing on Emergency Planning Contentions, and NECNP's Response to Applicants' Reply.

On a separate matter, we have recently received a copy of a letter from the Staff to the Board dated August 23, 1982, enclosing a copy of ALAB-687, the Appeal Board's decision reviewing the Licensing Board's handling of contentions in the Catawba proceeding. We have reviewed the decision and found that it does not detract from our previous assertions to this Board that NECNP should not suffer any prejudice when we eventually file contentions based on information which is not currently available. The Appeal Board, although rejecting the Licensing Board's procedure of conditionally accepting vague contentions until supporting documents became available, nevertheless allowed submission of contentions without prejudice whenever the documents did become available. The Appeal Board concluded that:

{A] contention cannot be rejected as untimely if it (1) is wholly dependent upon the content of a particular document; (2) could not therefore be advanced with any degree of specificity (if at all) in advance of the public availability of that document; and (3) is tendered with the requisite degree of promptness once the document comes into existence and is accessible for public examination.

Id., slip op. at 16. Although the 2.714(b) late filing factors are to be considered, the nonexistence or unavailability 8209020343 820831 PDR ADOCK 05000443 O PDR 950

d.. .

IIARMON & WEISS Members of the Board August 31, 1982 page two of relevant documents "must be deemed controlling." Otherwise the petitioner would be placed in a " classic ' catch-22' situation" in violation of the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations. Slip op, at 17-18. Based on this decision, therefore, NECNP expects to be able to file without prejudice additional contentions on parts of the emergency plan, FSAR, and SER which were not available before the prehearing conference. Further, the decision does not affect any of the contentions that we have filed to date since all are sufficiently specific to be admitted for litigation.

Sincerely,

. M hC, William S. Jo an, III L ~

Diane Curran Enclosures DJC: law cc: Scabrook Service List