ML20196D688
| ML20196D688 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1988 |
| From: | Steenland D PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196D693 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5601 OL-1, NUDOCS 8802180033 | |
| Download: ML20196D688 (6) | |
Text
J~60/
u 00CKETED USHRC T8 FEB 16 P5:67 Dated:
Februar'y 12,- 1988
'7rYL n~ Y i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD'
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-443-OL-1
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
On-site Emergency and 2)
)
Planning Issues
)
APPLICANTS' OPPOSI'fION TO MOTION OF NECNP TO REOPEN THE RECORD AND ADMIT LATE-FILED CONTENTION Under date of February 2, 1988, New England Coalition, on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP") filed a "Motion to Reopen the Record and Admit Late-Filed Contention" ("Motion to Reopen")
which seeks the reopening of the evidentiary record in this proceeding, the admission of a late-filed contention, and an adjudicatory hearing thereon.
The gravamen of the motion is that Applicants are not in compliance with the Commission's environmental requirements, 10 CFR 50.49 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, because RG-59 co-axial cable did not and, implicitly, could not pass environmental qualification tests.
These assertions are patently without merit and for the reasons set forth below, Applicants say that the motion to l
reopen should be denied.
9 0
8802180033 080212
')5 PDR ADOCK 05000443 O
NECNP FAILS TO SATISFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE CRITERIA THE RECORD THE RECORD The criteria for granting a motion to reopen a closed evidentiary record are set forth in 10 CFR 52.734.
The required showing is that (1) the motion be timely or that the issue be exceptionally grave, (2) address a significant safety or environmental issue, and (3) demonstrate that a matorially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially.
10 CFR S2.734(a).
In addition, where, as here, the reopening is for the purpose of raising a late filed contention, the motion "must also satisfy the requirements for nontimely contentions in 52.714 (a) (1) (1) through (v). "
10 CFR S2.734(d).
The law is clear:
the burden of satisfying each of the criteria is upon the moving party and it is a heavy one.
Louisiana Power and Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-786, 20 NRC 1087, 1090 (1984); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-756, 18 NRC 1340, 1344 (1983); Louisiana Power and Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-753, 18 NRC 1321, 1324 (1983); Duke Power.
NECNP fails to meet this burden.
(1)
NECNP's Motion Is Not Timelv. Nor Does It Raise An "Exceotionally Grave" Issue NECNP admits that RG-59 cable evidence "has been in the files in this record," but suggests that "the Coalition did
.not become aware of this evidence... until recently."
Motion to Reopen at 3.
NECNP's argument that it.should be allowed to reopen the record at will to admit new contentions whenever it happens to think of them, would make an utter shambles of the regulatory process; under such a rule, as NECNP proposes, no record could ever close and no proceeding could ever end, until the ingenuity or the resources of the parties were finally exhausted.
Nowhere is there authority for the proposition that the well-established time requirements of these proceedings will be waived for inattention to alleged issues that "could have been detected earlier".
& at 3.
(2)
No Safety or Environment Issue Exists as to RQ-11 In any event, no issues "grave" or otherwise are raised by RG-59 cable because RG-59 satisfies the environmental qualification requirements.
Egg attached affidavit of Richard Bergeron.
The premise underlying the Motion to Roopen is that I
because RG-59 cable allegedly did not have a tested insulation resistance of 10,000 megohms 01000 feet, it fails I
I to meet the environmental qualification requirements.
Motion to Reopen at 4.
The alleged failure to meet this putative requirement of 10,000 megohms @ 1000 feet is the only issue, grave or otherwise, that NECNP purports to raise.
In fact, the value of 10,000 Megohms 01000 feet for the reistance of the insulation is simply for the purpose of
specifying and procuring cable.
Bergeron affidavit at 15.
As far as the performance of RG-59 cable under accident conditions, NECNP Ex.
4, Reference 2 demonstrates that the RG-59 cable will perform its function as required during and subsequent to its exposure to postulated accident conditions.
Bergercn affidavit at 13.
Thus NECNP has raised H2 safety or envircnmental issue, let alone a "significant" or "grave" one.
(3)
Given The Established Oualification Of RG-59. The Materially Same Result Would Obtain Even if NECNP's Evidence Had Been Initially Considered Since the Motion does not raise any safety issue, let alone a significant one, it is not likely that a materially different result would flow from a re-opening.
As the prior record, and the current affidavit of Richard Bergeron clearly establish, RG-59 fully satisfies the environmental qualification requirements.
Therefore no basis whatsoever exists for imagining that a different result would have occurred if NECNP's "evidence" had been considered initially.
NECNP FAILS TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION OF A LATE-FILLED CONTENTION The criteria for admission of late-filed contentions are we?l-established.
10 CRF 2. 714 (a) (1) (1-v).
NECNP's contention is admittedly untimely and, accordingly, NECNP fails to meet standard (i) of 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (1).
When, as here, the petition is extemely late, the most important factor is the delay factor.
Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood.- -_
j Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-476, 7 NRC 759, 761-62 (1978).
The second and fourth factors,1 as usual, weigh in i
favor of admission of the late-filed contention, but they are entitled to less weight than the other factors.
Commonwealth Edison Comoany (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 245 (1986); South Carolina Electric and Gas Comoany (Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, 895 (1981).
With respect to the third factor,2 NECNP has failed to supply the name of a single prospective witness.3 The names-of witnesses not having been given who could supply expert testimony, the third factor must weigh against the admission of the contention.
CLI-86-8, supra at 246-247.
Finally, as to the fifth factor,4 it is obvious that the initial decision having been rendered and reviewed by the Appeal Board, the fifth factor weighs against admission of the contention.
Based on an already sound record, the Board's acceptance of the qualification of RG-59 should not be disturbed just because NEONP wishes it had thought about these matters 1
Availability of other means to protect the petitioner's interest; the extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by another party.
2 Assistance in developing a sound record.
3 NECNP does supply the affidavit of Robert D.
Pollard, but does not identify Mr. Pollard as a witness.
4 Broadening of issues and delay of the procaeding. __
earlier.
On balance, NECNP fails to satisfy the criteria of 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (1).
Accordingly, consideration of this new contention should be denied.
CONCLUSION This motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, A iC )% ry A
kEin Q.w Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
Kathryn A.
Selleck Deborah S.
Steenland Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 - - - -
._.