ML20154Q439

NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion to Permit Response to Applicant Reply Findings.* Motion Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20154Q439
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/28/1988
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20154Q403	List: ML20154Q398 ML20154Q439
References
OL, NUDOCS 8810030400
Download: ML20154Q439 (6)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.

l l

9/28/88 tu xtire UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'b H NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCtHISSION le SEP 29 P3 $7 BEFORE,THE ATOMIC SAFETY At[D, LICENSING BOARD l

fo'c'kMN3.$.~$

In the Matter of Docket Nos.

50-443 OL Pl$LIC FFr.YlCE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL I:Ek' HAMPSHIRE, e,1 al,.

Off-site Emergency Flanning f

(Seabreck Station, Units 1 and ?)

ilRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MCTION TO PIf,711T RESP 01:SE TO APPLICAliTS' REPLY F! TIDINGS j

On Septerber 16, InCS, Interverors NECflP, SAFL. Town cf Harptor,, ard j

4 n

the Ectsachusettt, Attorney General filed a motion seeking leave to file a j

20-page resperse te Applicants' reply to their propcsed findings of fact.

which the Applicants had filed o9 August 31, 1988. The Interverer'.

{

acknowledge that Cetrnissior, rcCulations "do not provtte a right to reply j

to Applicants' reply findings."

In support o' their Motien, however, they j

assert thet the Applicants' reply findings "are se replete with l

4 inaccurecies are niscisaracterizatiert of the record" es to warrant. *in the interest of fairress", the filing of their extensive reply thereto 1/

The NDC Sta'f orposes the Irterverers' request for leave te file a j

reply te Arplicants' reply findings. The Comission has prnvided through rule-raHng er appropriate erder o' precedure govtrning the filing of

{

proposed findirgt of fact and cerclnsioer of law. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

f i 0.7FA(a)(1), the Applicarts (as the party bearing the burde of proof)

[

t I

i i

l l

~/

"Intervencr Motion to remit Respcnse to Applicants' Feply Findings,"

1

)

dated September 16, 19EP.

t

[

i l

8810030400 380928 PDA ADOCK 0M00443 3

g PDR

2 are required to file the initial set of proposed findingn of fact, after J

which proposed findings may be filed by intervenors and the Staff. This oro'er o' procedure, applicable generically to all Cocriission licensing 4

proceedings, provides a proper eppnrtunity for Intervenors to challenge I

the Applican+.s' propesed findings and to demenstrate why those findings are incorrect or should otherwise be disregarded. The Corrission has j

further afforded the Applicants, as the party bearing the burden of proof, an opportunity to reply to any other party's preposed findings of fact, i

10 C.F.P., ( 0.754(a)(3). No further filing of proposed findirns is conterplated by the rule.

Although they cha11 ente ^* accuracy of Applicarts' reply findings and contend that "fairness" requires the acceptance of their rejoinder, the Intervencrs fail to derronstrate why the Corrissien's established rules poverning the filing of preposea findirgs should be abancer.ed. For instance, nowhere de the Interver.crs contend that the Applicants have filed propened findings en new issues which hed not been addressed in the Intervercrs' prior set of proposed findingst if that bad occurred, an oppertunity fer the Intervenors to reply night be appropriate.

Ra*For, the intervenors essentially seek to have the "final werd" with respect to r.erteir of their firidings which have now beer chillenscd by the Arrlicants, thereby atterpting to buttress Intervenors' initial set of proposed findings. However, ary necessary support for those earlier proposed findings of fact should have been contaired in these pleadings; ro further opportunity to support thest positiers should be pemitted.

Moreover, there are crepelling reasons why the Comissier's rule should be strictly applied, and no further filing of propcsed findings on

i beach issues should be pemitted. As the Licensing Board and parties are ell aware, thir proceeding is unusual in its extensive scope, in its l

l nueber of active litigants, and in the resource derands created by the i

r breadth of the litigation pressed by the Interveners. Given these i

t demands, efficient case management can only be accomplished by strict edherence to Comissier procedures. Only in the most compelling l

l circumsune.es should additional pleadings, beyond those contemplated by r.3ulation, bc pemitted. No such coripelling case has been demonstrated I

j by the Intervenors' lengthy and broad-scale re,4oirder to the Applicants' i

i o

rtply findir.cs. !f

[

i l

CONCUIS10h f

l For the reasens set fcrth above, the Licensirg Board should deny the l

l 3

Ir.terverers' Potion for leave to respend to Applicarts' reply findings, j

4 Pespectfully subnitted.

l Mmo:wE D

t Sherwin E. lurk Senior Supervisory l

Trial Atterrey I

f I

j Octed at Peciville, Maryland j

this 28th day cf September,1988 2/

In any event, the Intervenors' concern as to tht accuraev of i

Applicants' reply findirgs is misplaced. The Licenstro heard was in

~

i ettt'r.cance thoughout the hearings ar.d heard all of the evidence i

presented by the partitt. in the preceeding.

The Board is, of course, fully capable of reviewing all of the parties' preresed findir.gs of f

fact and the record citettons offered in support 11ereof, ar.d is fully capable of detemining which of the proposed findings are or l

are not meritorious, j

i r

i i

l 1

r i

1 i

i E

yIto i

1 00txEtt0 lHITED STATES OF AMERICA UNC t

MICLEAR REGULATORY COMilS$10N l

PEFORE THE ATOMIC 3AFE,TY AND LICENSit$ POARD 's SEP 29 P3 :07 In the Matter of

)

,. r s. n 1

Doclet Nos. 50-443sCLu i

l PUBLIC SfRVICE C0ftPANY OF 50 444 OL !

NEW HAPPSHIRE. E al,.

Off-site Emergency Planntrp (Seat, reek Station. Units 1 and 2) f

[

CERT!FICATF 0F SERV!CE i

hereby certify that ceptes of (1) "hRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION OF EDWARD

(

A. TP0FAS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PESPONSE TO CERTAIN PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AFD i

f0kCLUSIONSOFLAW"(2)*hkCSTAFF'SRESPONSETOINTERVENORS'MOTIONTOPERMIT i

RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' REPLY FlflDINGS in the above-captiered proceeding have i

been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first clast l

or, et tr.oicated by an asterisI by depcsit in the Nuclear Regulatory l

d Comission. internal r; ail system, this ?8th try of September 1988.

+

Ivan W. Srith, Chairear

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrctive.ludge Eoard Panel (1)*

Attric Sefe+y ano Licensfrg Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission e

Lt.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington DC 205FC

[

Veshington, DC 20555

{

Decleting and Service Section*

Gustavt A. Linenberger Jr.*

Office of the Secretary Adriristrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cecrission Atccic Safety and Licensing Board Washington DC 205f5 3

U.S. Nuclear Fenulatory Corrission

~ 0!55 Thomas G. Dignan. Jr.. Esq.

Vashington OC 2

Robert r., Gad. !!!. Esq.

E'r. Jerry Hart eur' Ropes & Gray 4

Administrative M Sc 225 Frand ir. Street t

9 i

Atccie Safety & Licensing Board Bo. ton, MA 02110 J

l U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Comissicr

{

j Washington. DC 20555 H. J. Flynn. Eso.

[

J Assistort General Ceursel i

Attcic Safety and Licenstr.g Federal Energency Lar.agerent Agency l

r Appeal Par.cl (S)*

500 C Street. S.W.

1 U.S. Nuclear Fenulatory Ccmissier Washingten. DC 20472 l

Washington, DC 205 %

l 1

I i

i t

l

i i

2 i

Philip Ahren. Esq.

Calvin A. Canney i

Assistert Attorney General City Fall i

i Office of the Attorney General 126 Daniel Street i

State House Station Fortsmouth, NH 03801 Augusta ME 04333 Mr. Angie Machtres. Chaiman Carol S. Sneider Esq.

Board of Selectmen Assistant Attorney General C5 High Road Office of the Attorney General Newbury, MA 09150 Cre Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Ecston, PA 0?!00 Allen Lampert i

Civil Defense Directer George Opra Bisbee, Esq.

Town of Brentwood i

Assistant Attnrney General 20 Franklin Office of the Attorney Gereral Exeter, NH 03833 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 William Amstrong Civil Defense Director 1

Ellyn R. Weiss Esq.

Tcwn of Exeter Diere Curran, Esq.

10 Front Street Harren & Weiss Exeter, NH 03033 l

l 2001 S Street, NV l

i 5uite 430 Gary H. Holmes, Esq.

Pashington, DC ?0009 Holres & Ellis 47 Winnacunnet Road Rcbert A. Backus, Esq.

Hampton, NH 03P4C i

lackus, Meyer A Soltron 116 Lowell Street J. P. Nadeau I

itarchester, P:H 03106 Board of Selectren i

10 Centra! Street j

Paul McTachern, Esq.

Rye, NH 03070 i

Matthew T. Brocl. Esq.

]

Shatner A McEachern Judith H. Firner, Esq.

25 l'aplewood Averue Silverglate, Gerteer, Baker, P.O. Box 360 Fine, I. Good

]

Perttncuth, hH 03001 F8 Beard Street Boston, PA 02110 Charles P. Graham, DC.

Petay, Murphy f. Grahan Robert Carrict, Chaiman 100 Mair Street Board of Selecteer 4

l Aresbury PA 01913 Town Office Atlantic Avenue Sandra Gavutis, Chair m.

North Herpton, hH 03C70 teard of Selectnen RFD #1, Box 1154 Kensingter, NH 03827 i

I, i

l

)

Willien S. Lord Peter J. Matthews, Mayor Board of Selectnen City Hall Town Hall - Friend Street Newburyport. MN 09150 Anesbury,!!A 01s13 Michael Santosuosso, Chaimar Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairran Board of Selectnen Board of Selectnen South Harpton, NH 03827 13-15 h w orket Reed DurFar NH 03E24 Ashod N. Anirian, Esq.

Tcwn Counsel fer Merrimac Hon. Gerdon J. Humphrey 376 Fain Street United States Serete Haverhill, MA 08130 5.11 Hart Senate Office Fuilding Vashington, DC 20510 Richard R. Donovar Robert R. Pierce. Esq.*

Federat Eriorgency Fanagement igency Atoric Safety and Licensin9 Federal Rec:ienal Center Beard Panel 130 228tli $treet, S.W.

U.S. huclear Regulatery Comission Et.thell, PetFington 98001-9796 Washington, D.C.

?0555 (WAIv Q S fa r. u.

Sherwin' E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney