ML20138N134
| ML20138N134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1985 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCIES |
| References | |
| CON-#485-067, CON-#485-67 OL, NUDOCS 8511050079 | |
| Download: ML20138N134 (4) | |
Text
, _...... _ _.
m... _.,....,
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAI Ng. lD
/]-
Administrative Judges:
Thomas S. Moore, Chairman October 3 1
Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy
'ff Howard A. Wilber tu
)
SERVED NOV -11985 In the Matter of
)
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant)
)
)
ORDER By motion dated October 25, 1985, the applicants request that we strike section III of the October 8, 1985 consolidated brief of the Conservation Council of Nortn Carolina, Wells Eddleman and the joint intervenors (collectively the intervenors).
In addition, the applicants seek a suspension of the due date of that portion of their brief (and the brief of the NRC staff) responding to section III until fifteen days after service of any order denying their motion.
As ground for their motion, the applicants claim that section III of the intervenors' brief is not in compliance with 10 C.F.R.
- 2. 762 (d) (1).
That section of intervenors' brie f purports to challenge the Licensing Board's rejection 8511050079 851031 PDR ADOCK 05000400 Q[
0 PDR
m-2 of a large number of their proffered safety contentions.
Specifically, the applicants argue that the brief fails to identify adequately those rejected contentions and the Licensing Board rulings that the intervenors assert are in error.
The applicants also assert that the intervenors' brief fails to identify the portion of the record relied upon in support of each of their claims of error and that the brief is so lacking in specific argument that the applicants cannot intelligently respond to it.
Finally, the applicants argue that the Conservation Council of North Carolina and Wells Eddleman (two of the intervenors on the consolidated brief) purport to appeal the Licensing Board's rejection of contentions filed by other intervenors and that such appeals are not authorized.
The applicants' motion to strike section III of the intervenors' brief is denied.
The applicants' brief, and the brief of the staff, shall remain due on November 22 and December 2, 1985, respectively -- the schedule we established just last week in granting the applicants' motion for an extension of briefing time.
Although we deny the motion, we agree with the applicants that some arguments in section III of the intervenors' brief are inadequate.
For example, it is obvious that the intervenors cannot obtain appellate review of the Licensing Board's rejection of dozens of their proffered contentions by the simple expedient of stating,
p._:
L 3
without a great deal more, that their other arguments apply equally to "each and every safety contention" filed by the various intervenors.
Similarly, it is patently insufficient for the intervenors to state, without any elaboration, that the rejection of a number of their contentions dealing with a particular subject was capricious.
- See, e.g.,
Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-693, 16 NRC 952 (1982).
We are not convinced, however, that all of the intervenors' arguments in section III are totally inadequate or that the applicants cannot intelligently respond to some of them.
For example, the intervenors' argument that it was error and a denial of their right to a hearing for the Licensing Board to reject I
certain numbered contentions on the ground that the staff i
would review the matter appears to be susceptible to a reasoned response.
Moreover, the applicants claim that the rejection of certain contentions may not be appealed by either the Conservation Council of North Carolina or Mr.
Eddleman because the contentions were filed by others, appears to be an argument that belongs ir. the applicants' brief and not in a motion to strike.
Thus, we believe the best course is to deny the motion in itc entirety.
To await a response from the intervenors and then to parse the adequacy of briefing of each of the intervenors' numerous arguments in section III would only delay the current
...i 4
briefing schedule.
Indeed, if we should adopt the applicants' proposal it wo11d lead to the needless filing of a second brief by both the applicants and the staff dedicated to responding to portions of section III of the intervenors' brief.
We understand the applicants' concern about the consequences to them of "even a single reversal" of a Licensing Board ruling rejecting an intervenor contention.
But the applicants need only to respond to the merits of
~
those arguments in section III of the intervenors' brief that are reasonably identified and understandable.
We do not expect the impossible of them or any other litigant.
In light of the nature of some of the intervenors' arguments in section III, should we disagree with the applicants' choices for substantive responses, we would provide them a further opportunity to respond before reversing the Licensing Board's rejection of any contention.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O
wN A
C.
J-n Shoemaker Secre ary to the Appeal Board Mr. Wilber did not participate in this order.
l l
l l
l f.
. _. _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _.