ML20082E454

Partial Response to NRC 831118 Response to Public Advocate of Nj Contentions.Aslb Should Admit Unconditionally Contentions I & V & Admit Conditionally Contentions II-IV & VI-X

ML20082E454
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	11/21/1983
From:	Potter R, Remis S NEW JERSEY, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20082E462	List: ML20082E454 ML20082E474 ML20082E491
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8311280204
Download: ML20082E454 (5)

Text

,

DOCKETED USHRC j3 igI25 Ai0i33

, y .e y," 4 . '( . r 7 tscu . -

- ' ' ' ' ' ,' : D' L.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board -

In the Matter of  :

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC  :

AND GAS CO., et al.,  : Docket No. 50-354 OL (Hope Creek Generating  :

Station, Unit 1) ,  :

THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S PARTIAL RESPONSE TO THE STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE'S CONTENTIONS l In the Staff Response to the Contentions of the l

l State of New Jersey's Public Advocate Office (November 18, 1983), the staff states that it has no objection to the entry of an order admitting into controversy Contention i

I - Pipe Cracks and Contention V - Management Competence to Safely Operate Hope Creek. The staff, however, objects to the other contentions. Herein, the Public Advocate offers a partial response to those objections.

8311280204 831121 PDR ADOCK 05000354 C PDR 7 b

r Throughout its response, the staff argues that recent amendments to the applicant's FSAR " appear" to have resolved important issues. See, e.g., Staff Response, at 4. PSE&G, however, has served the Public Advocate with neither the original FSAR nor the amendments relied upon to defeat the Advocate's contentions. Yet the Commission's regulations clearly require that All documents offered for filing shall be accompanied by proof of service upon all parties to the proceeding or their attorneys of record . . .

10 C.F.R. 52.701(b). (emphasis supplied)

Notwithstanding the Board's order of October 18 conditionally admitting the Public Advocate and counsel's requests for service of the FSAR as amended, the appli-cants still have not complied. Thus, it would be unjust to reward the applicants for their noncompliance by striking contentions properly and timely filed by the Public Advocate.

Therefore, the proper course for this Board in those instances where the staff or applicant objects to contentions based upon documents not served upon the Public Adycoate would be to admit those contentions conditioned upon:

1. The applicants immediately serving the Public Advocate with all rel'evant documents, notably the FSAR and amendments thereto; and

2. The Public Advocate reviewing the same and, in a timely manner, filing amended contentions, or asserting why the materials do not adequately resolve the issues (i.e., reply to the staff and, where applicable, the applicants' response

• which rely in whole or part on documents not filed on the Public Advocate) and, therefore, why the contention should be admitted as earlier written; and

3. Any motions for summary dispositions which the applicants or staff may wish to file in response to condition 2, above.

In this way, no party will be able to take ad-vantage of its own failure to comply with an important Commission rule that is grounded upon elemental d- process

• As of November 21, 2:00 P.M. EST the Public Advocate has not received the applicants' response. Counsel to the applicants reported to me in a phone call to him this morning that he had mailed his response by regular mail on Friday, November 18.

i and fairness. Moreover, the above sequence presents an orderly way of disposing of all contentions and objections thereto after the intervenor has been served with the relevant documents.

j . .

l .

CONCLUSION

, For the reasons stated above the Public Advocate believes that the Board should (a) admit unconditionally Contentions I and V and (b) admit conditionally Contentions II through IV and VI through X_.

Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ Public Advocate of the State of New Jers l

Y R. WILLIAM POTTER Assistant Public Advocate ULo%

SUSAN C. REMIS Attorney, Division of Public Interest Advocacy a

Dated: November 21, 1983 i

• In the alternative, the Board could simply reserve decision on disputed contentions until after the Public Advocate had received the FSAR and amendments thereto.

,