ML20070U173
| ML20070U173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1983 |
| From: | Dignan T, Gad R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8302100235 | |
| Download: ML20070U173 (8) | |
Text
..
C#
d3 Filed: Fsbrusry 7, 1983 p
00,;;K.ETED 83 FEB -9 P1 :03
~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.' a :3;j'y
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444 OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
)
APPLICANTS' THIRD MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION (CONTENTION NECNP I.F.)
Pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.749, the Applicants hereby P
move for summary disposition of contentions NECNP I.N.
This motion is grounded upon answers to interrogatories submitted by NECNP, NHAG and SAPL.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.740 and this Board's orders, the Applicants submitted identical interrogatories to 8302100235 830207 PDRADOCK05000gg3 0
QSG
each of the admitted intervenors.
One of the interrogatories was:
"Does [name of intervenor] intend to litigate Contention NECNP I.F?"
NECNP, the proponent of this contention, responded as follows:
"NECNP does not intend to' pursue this contention because Applicants have stated that they comply with IEEE 323-1974.
If NECNP should determine that Applicants do not in fact comply with IEE 323-1974, we will renew this contention and answer Applicants' interrogatories relating to it."1 Prescinding from the rectitude of NECNP's
" reservation," is is plain that for the present the contention has been withdrawn and is without basis.
SA?L responded in the negative.2 1"NECNP Response to Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents" (filed 1/24/83) at 11.
2 SAPL purported to reserve the right to cross-examine witnesses presented by other parties and to submit proposed fidnings on the contention.
- However, SAPL did not, as the interrogatories required, answer any of the subsidiary questions required to be answered by a person who intended to cross-examine or offer proposed findings; moreover, SAPL has revealed no basis whatsoever for the continued vitality of the contention.
O Curiously, NHAG answered the question in the affirmative, implying that it intends to litigate a contention of NECNP which NECNP has determined should be and has been withdrawn.
NEAG, which did not advance this contention itself, does not have this privilege, since it may not introduce direct testimony on the contention.
See Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-244, 8 AEC 857, 869 n.17, reconsideration denied, ALAB-252, 8 AEC 1175 (1974),
aff'd, CLI-75-1, 1 NRC 1 (1975).
Moreover, even if NHAG had the right to litigate the contention, it is wholly in default of its obligations to disclose any basis for retaining the contention.
As NECNP has noted, the Applicants in their answers to interrogatories have stated under oath that they are in compliance with IEEE 323-1974, the standard that bounds the scope of the admitted contention.s Notwithstanding aThe admitted contention was:
"The Applicants have not met the requirements of GDC 17 or Criteria III, Appendix B in that [they have] not indicated compliance with IEEE 323-1974."
" Memorandum and Order (September 13, 1982) at 45 (emphasis added).
I l l
l
its answer to Applicants' nterrogatory No. XIV-1, NHAG responded to the balance of the Applicants' interrogatories on this contention with the single response:
"New Hampshire has not yet finalized it.m position on th$s contention.
Therefore, it is unable to answer *nese Interrogatories at this time.
NHAG is totally in default under the Rules of Practice and the Orders of this Board to supply any revelation of what it is that would propose to adduce by way of evidence (if it had the right to adduce anything);
moreover, the response that it has submitted reveals that, at least at the present, it has identified n_othing that warrants further consideration of this contention.
Prescinding for the compliance of NHAG's responses with the discovery rules, tlsey establish that NHAG lacks any sufficient basis for defeating summary disposition on the withdrawn contention.
l 1
- "The State of N:V Hampshire' Response to the Applicants's Tnterrogatories and Requests for the Production of Documents Filed December 8, 1982" (filed 1/17/83) at 19. i
CCCNH did not respond to the interrogatories at all.
On this record, Contention NECNP I.F stands wholly abandoned and should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,
/NItxlas.@ my,
& 2 (c-..,
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
R.
K. Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Telephone:
423-6100 Dated:
February 7, 1983.
t STATMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE 1.
The Applicants comply with IEEE 323-1974.
2.
NECNP has withdraw contention I.N.
- l l
t
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, R. K. Gad III, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on February 7,
- 1983, I made service of the within " Applicants' Third Motion for Summary Disposition (Contention NECNP I.F)" by mailing copien thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Atomic Safety and Licensing Coastal Chamber of Commerce Board Panel 209 Winnacunnet Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Immsth A.
Luebke William S.
Jordan. III, Esquire hto.mic Safety and Licensing Harmon & Weiss Board Panel 1725 I Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Fegulatory Commission Suite 506 Washington, DC 205S5 Washington, DC 20006 Dr. Jerry Harbour E. Tupper Kinder, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licencing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 208 State House Annex Washington, DC 20555 Concord, NH 03301 Atomic Safety and Licensing Roy P. Lessy, Jr.,
Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, DC 20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Robert A.
Backus, Esquire Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105.
l Philip Ahrens, Esquire Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Sanders and McDermott Department of the Attorney Professional Association General 408 Lafayette Road Augusta, ME 04333 Hampton, NH 03842 David L. Lewis Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of the Attorney General Rm. E/W-439 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Mr. John B. Tanzer Ms. Olive L. Tash Designated Representative of Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton the Town of Brentwood 5 Morningside Drive R.F.D.
1, Dalton Road Hampton, NH 03842 Brentwood, NH 03833 Roberta C. Pevear Edward F. Meany Designated Representative of Designated Representative of r
the Town of Hampton Falls the Town of Ry'e Drinkwater Road 155 Washington Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutia Designated Representative of the Town of Kensington RFD 1 East Kingston, NH 03827 Y
fb. &cf7tT' l
R.
K.
Gad III h i
.