ML20211L623

Response Opposing New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 861204 Motion for Leave to File Response to NRC Findings & Util Reply to Coalition Proposed Findings.Motion Irrelevent & Lacks Basis.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20211L623
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/09/1986
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#486-1860 OL-1, NUDOCS 8612160108
Download: ML20211L623 (7)

Text

/$d 12/09/86 4

00CKETED

'J91R C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'86 DEC 12 P2 :55 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD g, liOCEF'_

0 d $...

In the Matter of

)

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

)

Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-1 NEW IIAMPSHIRE, et al.

)

50-444 OL-1

)

On-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

and Safety Issues NP.C STAFF RESPONSE TO NECN'P'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSIVE PROPOSED FINDINGS On December 4,

1986, "ECNP filed a " Motion for Leave to File Response to NRC Staff Proposed Findings and 'to Applicants'. Reply to NECNP's Proposed Findings" (" Motion")$ in which it requested leave to file proposed findings of fact in response to the Staff's proposed findings and Applicants' reply findings on environmental qualification issues (NECNP Contention I.B.2).

The Staff herchy responds to NECNP's Motion.

For the reasons set forth below, the Staff submits that the Motion should be denied.

DISCUSSION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.754, proposed findings are to be filed, first, by the party bearing the burden of proof.(here, the Applicants),

and are to be followed by the filing of proposed findings by other parties, and then by the Staff.

The rule provides, finally, that reply findings may be filed by the party bearing the burden of proof; no further filings are contemplated by the rule.

NECNP clearly lacks any "right" to respond to either the Staff or to the Applicants' reply 8612160100 861209

{DR ADOCKOS00gg3 J]go7

findings, and its motion requesting leave to do so represents an unusual departure from the general scheme established by the Commission's regulations.

NECNP provides several reasons why its Motion should be granted.

First, NECNP asserts that its Motion should be granted, "because the NRC [ Staff] has taken a position in support of Applicants, and has offered new arguments in support of Applicants' license application" (Motion, at 1).

Secondly, NECNP asserts that the " Applicants raise for the first time a challenge to the scope of NECNP Contention I.B.2 as interpreted by NECNP," which allegedly "would foreclose the Board's consideration of important safety issues raised by NECNP." In our view, these assertions fail to warrant the granting of NECNP's Motion.

As to NECNP's first assertion,

'w e submit it is irrelevant for purposes associated with NECNP's Motion, that the Staff's proposed findings support the Applicants' position.

The Staff's profiled and cross-examination testimony during evidentiary hearings also supported the Applicants' position, and it should come as, no sur. prise that the Staff's proposed findings are consistent with the Staff's testimony.

Further, there is no merit in NECNP's claim that the Staff has " offered new arguments" in its proposed findings,

which require NECNP's i

response.

The Staff's proposed findings "do no more than fairly summarize the testimony in this proceeding, and do not present new facts or arguments which are not reflected in the record.

NECNP had an opportunity to present its analysis of this same evidence in its first set havi' g had that opportunity, it should not be of proposed findings; n

i afforded a second chance to fill in those areas which it now appears to believe should be buttressed further.1I NECNP's Motion does not describe the basis for its claim that the Applicants have raised, "for the first time" a challenge to the scope of the contention.

However, in the proposed findings filed along with its

Motion, NECNP identifies this issue as whether the scope of the contention includes " inquiry into the basis for Applicants' assertions that equipment is qualified for a particular duration." 2_/

Contrary to NECNP's assertion, this matter was not raised for the first time in Applicants' reply findings.

An examination of Applicants' brief of October 30, 1986, filed in support of their proposed findings, reveals that the Applicants asserted there that NECNP's contention "is narrow in scope" and, "as framed is limited to an assertion that time durations are not specified." 3/

NECNP had an opportunity to contest this assertion in its own proposed findings, filed on November 12, 1986, following its receipt and review of Applicants' proposed findings and supporting brief.

Thus, there is no merit in NE,CNP's claim that "new

-1/

Notwithstanding the Staff's view that NECNP's Motion should be denied, in the event that the Licensing Board grants the Motion, the Staff may request leave to file a brief substantive reply to NECNP's additional proposed findings concerning these matters.

2/

"New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Response to NRC Staff

~

Proposed Findings and to Applicants' Peply to NECNP's Proposed Findings," dated December 4,1986, at 9.

-3/

" Applicants' Brief in Support of Their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Proposed Form of Order," filed October 30, 1986, at 3.

arguments" 'are contained in the Applicants' reply findings which warrant the granting of NECNP's 110 tion.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff opposes NECNP's Motion and recommends that it be denied.

Respectfully submitted, u c.7 /g

~

a Sherwin E. Turk A6' Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of December,1986 e

k 4

4 I

h l

O J

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 86 DEC 12 P2 :55 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD Gucntgg *."r f In the Matter of

)

)

Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

)

50-444 OL-01 net,' HAMPSHIRE, g g.

)

On-site Emergency Planning

)

and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copics of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NECNP'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSIVE PROPOSED FINDINGS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by en asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system '

this 9th day of December,1986.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman *

.Dr. Emmoth A. Luebke' Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Ms. Carol Eneider, Esq.

Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 l

Beverly Ilollingworth Richard A. Hampe, Esq.

209 Winnacunnet Road New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency i

Hampton, NH 03842 107 Pleasant ' Street Concord, NH 03301 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Calvin A. Canney, City Manager Board of Selectmen City !!all RFD 1 Box 1154 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 l

L

s Stephen E. Merrill Paul McEachern, Esq.

Attorney General Matthew T. Brock, Esq.

I George Dana Bisbee Shaines a McEachern Assistant Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 360 25 Capitol Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Concord, NH 03301

/

Roberta C. Pevear Angle Machiros, Chairman State Representative Board of Selectmen Town of Hampton Falla 25 Illgh Road Drinkwater Road Newbury, PfA 09150 Hampton Falls, NH 03644 Allen Lampert Mr. Robert J. Harrison Civil Defense Director President and Chief Executive Officer Town of Brentwood Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 20 Franklin Street P.O. Box 330 Exeter, Nil 03833 Manchester, NH 03105 Charles P. Graham, Esq.

Robert A. Backus, Esq.

McKay, Murphy and Graham Backus, Meyer a Solomon 100 Main Street 116 Lowell Street Amesbury, MA 01913 f fanchester, NH 03106 Diane Curran, Esq.

}hilip Ahren, Esq.

Harmon a Weiss Assistant Attorney General 2001 S Street, NW

. Office of the Attorney General Suite 430 slate Ifouse Station #6

)"ashington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333 Edward A. Thomas Thomas G. Dignan Jr., Esq.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Ropes a Gray 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH) 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02109 Boston, MA 02110 H.J. Flynn, Esq.

William Armstrong Assistant General Counsel Civil Defense Director Federal Emergency Planagement Agency Town of Exeter 500 C Street, SW 10 Front Street Washington, DC 20472 Exeter, nil,03833 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic' Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel

• Board

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 e

4 3-Jane Doughty Docketing and Service Section*

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Office of the Secretary 5 Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Maynard L. Young, Chairman William S. Lord Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen 10 Central Road Town Hall - Friend Street South Hampton, NH 03287 Amesbury, MA 01913 Michael Santosuosso, Chairrhan Peter J. Matthews, Mayor Board of Selectmen City Hall South Hampton, NH 03287 Newburyport, MN 09150 Mr. Robert Carrigg, Chairman Judith H. Mizner, Esq.

Board of Selectmen Silverglate, Gertner, Baker Town Office Fine and Good Atlantic Avenue 88 Broad Street North liampton, NII 03862 Boston, MA 02110 R. K. Gad III, Esq.

Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Ropes a Gray Board of Selectmen 225 Franklin Street 13-15 Nettmarket Road Ecston, MN 02110

, Durham, NH 03824 Gary W. IIolmes, Esq.

Holmes & Ellis 47 Winnacunnet Road Ilampton, NH 03842 7

/

/

V Robert G. Perils Counsel for NRC Staff I

-