ML20134K628

Order.* Denies Intervenor Motion for Partial Reconsideration of CLI-96-8.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970129

ML20134K628
Person / Time
Site:	Claiborne
Issue date:	01/29/1997
From:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH
References
CON-#197-18149 CLI-96-08, CLI-96-8, CLI-97-02, CLI-97-2, ML, NUDOCS 9702140121
Download: ML20134K628 (6)

Text

_ _ - _ - - _ . . . - - _ - _ __ .. _ __.. .- ._ _ - . . . _ _

/h7/$/ )

i DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS: 14 Ju 29 P1 :06 Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers 0FFICE OF 5E(PiTARY 00CKE ring 1 SERV!CE Greta J. Dicus BRANCH Nils J. Diaz Edward McGaffigan

) SEflVED JAN 29 '96' In the Matter of )

)

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES ) Docket No. 70-3070-ML

)

(Claiborne Enrichment Center) )

)

)

CLI 2 ORDER The intervenor, Citizens Against Nuclear Trash (CANT), has filed before the Commission a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of CLI-96-8, 44 NRC 107 (1996). Both the NRC staff and the applicant, Louisiana Energy Services (LES), oppose the intervenor's motion. For the reasons stated in this order, we deny the motion.

In CLI-96-8, the Commission granted in part and denied in part CANT's petition for review of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Initial Decision LBP-96-7, 43 NRC 142 (1996). The Licensing Board's decision resolved all contentions on emergency planning in favor of LES. The Commission in CLI-96-8 granted review of only one issue raised in CANT's petition for review:

whether the Licensing Board erred in directing the NRC staff to  ;

l

{

clarify the intended role of the applicant's on-site fire brigade. 44 NRC at 108. The Commission went on to hold, based 9702140121 970129 PDR ADOCK 07003070 >

C PDR

~bsob \

i

f I 2 on the pleadings and record before it, that the emergency plan f description of the on-site brigade's size and training meets j

Commission requirements. 44 NRC at 110.

We deny CANT's motion for partial reconsideration for three independent reasons:

First, motions for reconsideration may not rest on a "new thesis."1 Both LES and the NRC staff argue that CANT is now raising for the first time before the Commission the issue of the 1 qualifi cations and training of the offsite fire department, an

! issue they say chat CANT failed to raise in its Petition for Review of LBP-96-7. We agree with the NRC staff and LES. While CANT's petition for review contained references to the offsite

! fire department (at pp. 2, 5), the petition failed to articulate any explicit challenge to the Board's findings on the department's training and qualifications. A " cursory assertion" is insufficient to raise an issue for appeal. See Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 235, 272 (1996).2 Secondly, even if CANT had intended in its Petition for Review to raise the offsite fire department question, the 1 See, e.o., Central Elec. Coop. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-81-26, 14 NRC 787, 790 (1981), ouotina f 7nessee Valley Authority (Hartville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2' 1 B & 2B), ALAB-418, 6 NRC 1, 2 (1977).

2 The NRC staff and LES also claim that the motion for reconsideration was filed two days late, a point disputed by CANT. We do not decide this timing issue. Even taking into account all of CANT's arguments in its motion for reconsideration and its reply brief, and assuming arauendo that the motion is timely, we find no reason to grant it.

l 3

Commission in CLI-96-8 explicitly denied review of the Licensing Board's decision, "except for a single issue," involving "the intended role and training of the Applicant's on-site fire  !

brigade." 44 NRC at 108. CANT, in requesting reconsideration of l l l

CLI-96-8, does not challenge the Commission's findings on the  !

l

( CANT instead l

role and training of the on-site fire brigade.  !

requests the Commission to review the qualifications and training of the offsite fire department, a subject the Commission did not l

accept for review. Our rules cor. template petitions for reconrideration of a Commission decision on the mer its, not petitions for reconsideration of a Commission decision to decline review of an issue. 333 10 C.F.R. S 2.786(e).

Third, CANT's motion fcr reconsideration simply does not l raise any compelling argument calling into question the Licensing l Board's findings on the training and qualifications of the offsite fire department. The Board made several findings about the training and qualifications of the offsite fire department.

Egg 43 NRC at 151-52, 158, 159-61, 164-65. It found the information outlined in the LES plan adequate under the "brief description" requirement of NRC rules (10 C.F.R. SS

40. 31(j) (3) (i) , 70.22 (i) (3) (i) ) ; it properly based its findings on information contained in the record and found in either expert testimony or the LES emergency plan itself.

We are not persuaded by CANT's argument that the Licensing l

Board was unaware that the offsite fire department would be ultimately responsible for fighting a severe on-site fire at the

4 ,

t LES facility. The Board assumed from the SAR and the SER that the offsite fire department would be the primary organization responsible for controlling fires at the plant, and that the on- i site fire brigade would merely " supplement" but not replace the 43 NRC at 161. In referring the on-site f local fire department. '

l i

l brigade issue to the staff, the Board sought merely to confirm I l

that the on-site brigade would not have a bigger fire-fighting l

' role than the Board had found reflected in the SAR and SER, and accordingly.to assure that the b11gade did not need additional 1

43 NRC at 160-61 The Board expressed no l training or members. .

concerns about the adequacy of the offsite fire department.

l The intervenor's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of CLI-96-8 is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

gdI'ND for the Commission 4 N. .c r'

w hI .cuE r-.. '

g

/

O'

//' John C/ Hoyle L

O*****S Sedetary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this % ^ day of January, 1997.

l I

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. Docket No.(s) 70-3070-ML (Claiborne Enrichment Center 50M License)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMM ORDER (CLI-97-02) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

Administrative Judge Office of Commii;sion Appellate Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Adjudication Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Eugene Holler, Esq.

Janice E. Moore, Esq. Diane Curran, Esquire Harmon, Curran & Spielberg Office of the General Counsel 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 Mail Stop 15 B18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20009 Washington, DC 20555 Robert G. Morgan Licensing Manager Roland J. Jensen LES - c/o Duke Engineering and President Services, Inc.

Lousiana Energy Services, L.P.

2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Suite 608 PO Box 1004 Washington, DC 20037 Charlotte, NC 28201 l

i

~

Docket No.(s)70-3070-ML COMM ORDER (CLI-97-02) l McGarry, III, Esq. Nathalie M. Walker, Esq.

J. Michael Robert B. Wiygul, Esq.

Counsel for LES Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.

Winston & Strawn 400 Magazine Street, Suite 401 1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005 New Orleans, LA 70130 l

Ronald Wascom Deputy Assistant Secretary Office of Air Quality & Rad. Protection Dept. of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 82135 Baton Rouge, LA 70884 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 29 day of January 1997

[WTb DTfice of the Secreftary of tiie Connission