ML20247L724
| ML20247L724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1989 |
| From: | Traficonte J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247L708 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8909250049 | |
| Download: ML20247L724 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ _
J
.(
M!d
' > '6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 89 SEP 20 P2:26 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges:
Fn 00% L.;
" U4 '
Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
(Full-Power Licensing)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL.
)
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
September 19, 1989
)
MASS AG'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY TO THE APPLICANTS' AND STAFF'S RESPONSES TO INTERVENERS' AUGUST 28, 1989 MOTION TO ADD BASES AND FURTHER LOW-POWER TESTING CONTENTIOtlE The Massachusetts Attorney General (" Mass AG") seeks leave to file a response to the Applicants' September 11, 1989 and the NRC Staff's September 14, 1989 Responses to the Interveners' August 28, 1989 Motion for Leave to Add Further Low-Power Testing Contentions
(" August 28 Motion").
In support of this motion, the Mass AG states as follows:
1.
The Applicants state at page 6 of their September 11,
~
8909250049 890919 ADOCK05000g3 1989 Response that:
DR
[T]he AIT Report was available to Interveners well before August 22.
Although Applicants and l
the public were denied advance access to the l
report, it was made available to New Hampshire and Massachusetts officials on August 5 and 6.
l The Massachusetts officials, however, reportedly I
declined to review the report.
If this be the case -- and Interveners' Motion is resoundingly silent on the subject -- then Interveners have themselves elected to delay their receipt of the report, and they cannot now be heard to argue that their own delay is good cause for lateness.
L_______
v-i 1
jI i
i These representations are false.
Moreover, because they are fictions, Interveners were " resoundingly silent" in their August 28 Motion for good and sufficient reason -- Interveners i
had no way of foreseeing that the Applicants would concoct such j
a " theory."
2.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the Applicants' statement that Massachusetts officials " reportedly declined" to review the AIT Report was actually " reported" by the NRC Staff (the party in possession of the AIT Report on August 5 and 6) to the Applicants (the party to whom this statement presumably was " reported").
For this reason, the Mass AG waited for the Staff response (filed on September 14, 1989 and received by the Mass AG on September 18) to the Interveners' August 28 Motion, to provide the Staff an opportunity to correct what the Staff knew or should have known was a false statement.
On page 8 of that September 14 Response the Staff, in the context of its discussion of the timeliness of the August 28 filing, states:
As the Applicants' analysis shows the information on which Interveners base the new contentions they submit was at hand earlier.
At this point, the Staff cites pages 4 and 5 of Applicants' September 11 Response.
Significantly, the false representations on page 6 of the Applicants' Response go uncorrected or even mentioned by the Staff although the Staff was and is in a position to refute the Applicants' falsehoods.
w i
l 3.
Because of the pivotal importance of the " timeliness" i
issue, the misrepresentations about the notice to Interveners i
of the AIT Report and its availability should be corrected.
4.
A short reply with accompanying affidavits is attached I
hereto.
j
~
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M.
SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL I
Stk iL&^ k,
35 n Traficonde i
ief, Nuclear Safety Unit l
d ne Ashburton Flace Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 Date:
September 19, 1989 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _