ML20070M032
| ML20070M032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1983 |
| From: | Bisbee G, Kinder E NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301120234 | |
| Download: ML20070M032 (6) | |
Text
r1
!Y.
TED coppy;yg
's R '- : '
e NO M9 UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY COMMISSION-
_ f $ ;l -
Before the ATOMIC SAFETY:AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the matter of:
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE)
Docket Nos.:
50-443.
)
and
)
50-444
-(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
-)
)
January 7, 1983 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'S OBJECTION TO THE LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER DENYING THE STATE'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DISCOVERY NOW COMES the State of New Hampshire and objects to the Licensing Board's (hereinafter " Board") Order communicated orally to the parties during a conference call on December 22, 1982.
1.
On December 22, 1982, the Board and the parties conducted a conference call to deal with a number of motions filed by the Intervenors requesting additional time within which to conduct discovery on the admitted contentions in this matter.
2.
New Hampshire filed a motion on December 13, 1982 in which it requested an extension of time for discovery until March 15, 1983 and stated the grounds upon which it based a 9301120234 830107
~
h PDR ADOCK 05000443 0
'1{
s l*
_2-i request for an extension of time.
Intervenor NECNP also filed a motion requesting an extension to March 15, 1983. -other Intervenors also requested extensions of time for discovery.
3.
During the conference call, there was no challenge to the State of New Hampshire's reasons which were presented as a 1
basis for extending discovery, although the Applicant and Staff both objected to the extension.
4.
The discussion during the conference call focused, in large part, on the schedule set for the Seabrook proceeding in the so-called "Bevill Report" rather than on the issue of whether the discovery schedule being set by the Board provided a fair and reasonable amount of time for the Intervenors to conduct discovery on the admitted contentions.
Prior to the conference call, all parties had been notified that the Applicant had adjusted its projected fuel date to September of 1984, a delay of approximately 10 months over previously projected fuel load dates.
It is the State of New Hampshire's position that this delay logically provided the Board with an opportunity to give the.Intervenors some relief from an overly stringent discovery schedule which had been set after the initial prehearing. conference.
However, the Board rejected this argument and apparently chose to rely on the Staff's presentation that the Bevill Report had incorporated the lion's share of that 10-month delay into the NRC's review process and that, in effect, little if any of the 10-month delay would be available for extending the Intervenors' discovery.
5.
The State of New Hampshire strenuously objects to the Board setting the schedule for this proceeding based on arbitrary dates reflected in the Bevill Report which give absolutely no regard to the due process rights of the parties before this Board.
The factors which have resulted in the Bevill schedule have not been pre'sented to the Boatd in the record of this proceeding and the State of New Hampshire has had'no opportunity to review those factors and comment on them.
It is extremely prejudicial to the State of New Hampshire to have its rights of due process and fair hearing impinged upon tur f actors which are totally outside the record of this proceeding.
6.
The record of this proceeding reflects that the Applicant has required an extension of time for completion of the construction of the Seabrook Nuclear Plant (the recent 10-month delay referred to above), and the Staff has required an extension of time within which to complete its safety Evaluation Report (hereinafter "SER") (the Staff originally predicted the SER would be available in November whereas, as of the date of this pleading, the SER is still not available).
The Board itself and the NRC Staff have required extensions of time within which to accomplish its responsibilities in this proceeding (e.g.,
the Board's Order after the first prehearing conference was delayed and apparently the NRC Staff may require
)
additional time for its part in these proceedings according to
_4_
the new Bevill_ schedule).
Indeed,-all parties, including the Intervenors, have had difficulty meeting various discovery deadlines throughout the'brief discovery period. -The State has not objected to any of these extensions and accepts that they are a necessary part of the licensing process.
What we do object to is the apparent position of the Applicant, Staff, and Board that while there may be "necessary extensions" for them, there can be no such extensions for Intervenors.
7.
The State recognizes that the Board granted an extension of discovery until January 7, 1983, i.e.,
an extension of 3 weeks.
As indicated by the State during the conference call, this extension is essentially meaningless to the State of New Hampshire.
The extension does not resolve the problems set forth in the State's Motion for an extension of time.
While the State will file additional Interrogatories on January 7, 1983, the extension has by no means permitted the State to complete its discovery on the admitted contentions.
WHEREFORE, the State of New Hampshire respectfully objects to the Board's denial of its request for an extension of time for discovery until March 15, 1983 in that such denial is prejudicial to the State of New Hampshire, violative of its due process and fair hearing rights, and based upon factors which i
. ~
are outside of the. record of this proceeding and upon which the State of New Harpshire has had no' notice or opportunity-to be heard.
Respectfully' submitted,.
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE' GREGORY H. SMITH ATTORNEY GENERAL O
r By MN M200 A
E.
Tupper Kihdpr Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division
,. c e
.. (,A k George Dana Bisbee 4
Attorney Environmental Protection Division Office of Attorney General State House Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 603/271-3679 Dated:
January 7, 1983 a
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
E.
Tupper Kinder, Esquire, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing State of New Hampshire's Objection to the Licensing Board's Order Denying the State's Request for an Extension of Time for Discovery has been mailed this 7th day of January, 1983, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to:
Helen F.
Hoyt, Chm.
Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel
.U.S.
NRC U.S. NRC Washington, D.C.
20555 washington, D.C.
20555
6^-
Dr. Jerry Harbor' Jo Ann Shotwell,' Asst. AG Administrative Judge Office >of the Attorney-General-Atomic Safety _and Licensing One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Board Panel
' Boston, MA 02108 U.S. NRC Washington, D.C.
20555 Mrs. Beverly Hollingsworth 822 Lafayette' Road Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 596 Robert Perliss, Esquire Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 Office of Executive Legal Dir.
U.S. NRC
-William S. Jordan, II, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Harmon and Weiss Robert A.
Backus, Esquire 1725 I Street, N.W.
116 Lowell Street Suite 506 P.O. Box 516 Washington, D.C.
20006 Manchester, N.H.
03105 Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Phillip Ahrens, Esquire Sanders and McDermott Assistant Attorney General 408 Lafayette Road State House, Station #6 Hampton, N.H.
03842 Augusta, Maine 04333 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert K. Gad, Esquire Board Panel Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esquire U.S. NRC Ropes and Gray Washington, D.C.
20555 225-Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 David R.
Lewis, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. NRC - Room E/W - 439 Washington, D.C.
20555 v(./y')@4f E. Tupper Kiinder Dated:
January 7, 1983 O
- -, - __