ML20207E360
| ML20207E360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1988 |
| From: | Bergquist S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6930 OL-1, NUDOCS 8808180021 | |
| Download: ML20207E360 (20) | |
Text
,
lf3 5
UCLKEii.O tnw.c UNITED ST ATES OF AMERIC A NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION 88 AUG 16 All :30 BEFORE THE ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING APPE AL BO AR#nc. a:
. 7, c,.-
yvCW na : :;iy::a~
PR ANC*i
~
I In the-Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC-SERVICE COMP ANY OF
)
50-444 OL-01 1
NEW H AMPSHIRE, et al.
)
(On-site Emergency Planning
)
and Safety Issues)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC ST AFF RESPONSE TO NEW ENGL AND C0ALITION ON NUCLE AR POLLUTION'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPE AL 0F THE LICENSING BO ARD'S DISMISS AL 0F NECNP CONTENTION IV l
l I
Stephen A. Bergquist l
Counsel for N R C Staff l
August 12, 1988 L
8808180021 880812 gob l
PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
$I UNITED ST ATES OF-AMERIC A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC ShFET( AND LICENSING APPEAL BO ARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE-COMPANY 0F
)
50-444 OL-01 NEW H AMPSHIRE, et al.
)
(On-site Emergency Planning
)
and Safety Issues)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
N R C ST A FF R ESP 0 flSE T O N EW EllGL A N D C 0 ALITIO N ON NUCLEAP, POLLUTI0il'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPEAL 0F T H E LIC EllSIN G B O A R D'S DISMISS AL O F N EC NP C O N TEN TI0 ft IV l
Stephen A. Bergquist Counsel for N R C Staff l
August 12, 1988 l:
l L
.= _
, a;
_i.
if TABLE OF CONTENTS
' i
.P, age I.
INTRODUCTION......................-. 1 II. BACKGROUND....................... 2 I I I. ARGUMENT.......................
6 A.
Legal Standards.......'..........
6 B.
The Licensing Board Was Justified In Its Construction of NECNP Contention IV To Exclude The Issue of MIC
.................. 8 C.
The Board Correctly Dismissed.
Contention IV..................
11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 i
l l
L '.
1
- ii -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
- ?
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS Page f,
Commission Commonwealth Edison Co.
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station,
- Unit No.1), CLI-81-25,14 NRC 616 (1981).........
11 Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant),
CLI-81-32, 14 NRC 962 (1981)..............
8 Florida Power and Light Company (Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and.4),
CLI-81-31, 14 NRC 959 (1981)................
7 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Tower Station, Units 2 &
3), CLI-73-10, 6 AIC 173 (1973)........
7 Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2),
CLI-80-10, 11 NRC 438 (1980)................
8 Appeal Board Carolina Power and Light Co.
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant),
ALAB-852, 24 NRC 532 (1986).................
8 Carolina Power and Light Company (Shearon Barris Nuclear Power Plant),
~
ALAB-837, 23 NRC 525 (1986)................. 7 Kansas Gas & Electric Co.
(Wolf Creek Generating Station),
ALAB-279, 1-NRC 559 (1975).................
8 Hiagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2),
ALAB-264, 1 NRC 347 (1975).................
7 Northern States Power Company TFrairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-419, 6 NRC 3 (1977)...........
7 Northern States Power Company TMonticelloNuclearGenerating(Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-611, 12 NRC 301 1980)............
7
- iii -
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
~(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units'1 and 2), ALAB-781, 20 NRC 819 (1984).........
7 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-894, 27 NRC (June 14, 1988)............
6 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-875, 26 NRC 251 (1987)...............
2, 10 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-845, 24 NRC 220 (1986)................. 8 Licensing Board Commonwealth Edison Co.
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-82-52, 16 NRC 183 (1982).........
11 REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714.....................
11 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1).................
7, 12 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(2)...................
7 10 C. F. R. 6 2. 714 ( b )....................
7 10 C.F.R. 5 2.760a.....................
12
. MISCELLANEOUS Memorandum and Order (Denying Motion to Compel)
~
(February 17, 1988), reconsideration denied, Memorandum and Order (March 18, 1988)........
1,2,4,7 Memorandum and Order (Denying NECNP Motion For Reconsideration) (March 18, 1988).......
2, 5 Memorandum Order (May 12, 1988)............... 6 Fed. R. Evid. 702....
11 47 Fed. Reg. 21653 (May 19, 1982)..........
3, 9, 10 Black's Law Dictionary 956 (5th ed.1979).......... 9 NUREG/CR-4724....................
4, 5, 11
UNITEn STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD f,,
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443.0L-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
(On-site Emergency) Planning
)
and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF. RESPONSE TO N,EW ENGLAND C0ALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPEAL 0F THE LICENSING BOARD'S DISMISSAL OF NECNP CONTENTION IV I.
INTRODUCTION On July 5, 1988, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) filed a "Brief In Support Of Its Appeal Of The Licensing Board's Dismissal Of NECNP Contention IV" ("NECNP Brief").
In its brief, NECNP argues that the Licensing Board erred in ruling that "microbiologically induced corrosion" (MIC) was not within the scope of NECNP Contention IV and in restricting the scope of discovery under this contention.1/ NECNP maintains that the language of Contention IV encompasses the issue of MIC and that the Licensing Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in restricting the scope of Contention IV. 2/ As explained below, NECNP's appeal should be dismissed.
l 1/
Memorandum and Order (Denying Motion to Compel) (February 17,1988) i
("February 17, 1988 Order"), reconsideration denied, Memorandum and Order (March 18, 1988) ("March 18, 1988 Order").
- )
l II. BACKGROUND In ALAB-875, 3_/ the Appeal Board held, inter alia, that the Licensing Board erroneously excluded NECNP Contention IV entitled "Blockage of p.
Coolar.t Flow to Safety Related Systems and Components by Buildup of '
Biological Organisms," and remanded the contention to the Licensing Board for further litigation. 26 NRC at 275. Thereafter, in its second set of interrogatories on Contention IV, NECNP sought for the first time discovery on the subject of microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC).
See NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatori,es and Request for Production of Documents to Applicants on NECNP Contention IV (December 23,1987). On a motion to compel discovery on this issue, the Licensing Board held that NECNP Contention IV did not embrace the issue of corrosion of cooling systems but rather was limited to the blockaae of such systems due to the accumulation of aquatic organisr and debris. Memorandum and Order (Denying NECNP Motion To Compel) (February 17, 1988) ("February 17, 1988 Order'_'), reconsideration denied, Memorandum and Order (March 18,1988),
2/
NECNP also argues that the Licensing Roard erred in denying its February 19, 1988 Motion for Leave to Enter Applicants' Land and its motion to compel discovery into circulating as opposed to cooling, water systems.
These arguments are logically dependent on the validity of NECNP's primary argument regarding the proper scope of its Contention IV. Since that argument is without merit, see Part-B Jost, these contingent claims fall of their own weight and need not
>e further addressed.
-3/
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1
~
and 2), ALAB-875, 26 NRC 251 (1987).
The Licensing Board noted that it was clear from a reading of Contention IV U that "it is limited to asserting concerns that Applicants must establish a surveillance and maintenance program for the preveption 4/
NECNP Contention IV reads as follows:
Blockage of Coolant Flow to Safety-Related Systems and Components by Buildup of Biological Organisms The Applicant must establish a surveillance and maintenance program for the prevention of the accumulation of mollusks, other aquatic organisms,.and debris in cooling systems in order to satisfy the requirements of GDC 4, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, and 39, which require the maintenance and inspection of reactor cooling systems. The design, construction, and proposed operation of Seabrook fail to satisfy these requirements.
Basis: On May 19, 1982, the Commission published in the Federal Register a notice of abnormal occurrences at a number of nuclear reactors around the country. 47 FR 21653. The notice described the accumulation of asiatic clams, mussels, and other aquatic organisms in reactor cooling systems which had hitherto gone unnoticed. At one reactor, Brunswick Unit One, blockage of coolant flow paths resulted in the ' total loss of both redundant trains of the residual heat removal system.' 47 FR at 21653.
Noting that the dissipation of heat to the environment is an essential safety function, the Commission found that blockage of coolant systems by biological organisms and debris could cause
'possible degradation of the heat transfer capabilities of redundant safety systems to the point where system function is lost.'
Id. at 21655.
The abnormal occurrences at the six reactors showed that l
' preventive measures and methods of detecting gradual degrada-tion have been inadequate in certain areas to preclude the occurrence.'
Id.
The licensees in each case agreed to improve L
design features and detection techniques to prevent future significant fouling.
The Seabrook reactor uses ocean water for cooling and is particularly susceptible to fouling by aquatic organisms. The fouling does not occur only in the intake pipes of reactors.
Organisms may find their way into the entire cooling system and even into the heat exchangers.
I_d. at 21654.
In additica, the (F0OTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) l l
\\
of the accumulathn of mollusks, other aquatic organisms, and debris in Seabrook's c'ooling systems.." February 17, 1988 Order at 5.
The Licensing Board rejected several arguments advanced by NECNP.
, t,.
First, NECNP sought to include MIC within the definition of "fouling" (which appeared in the basis for Contention IV) on the ground that NUREG/CR-4724 had defined the term as including corrosion. The Licensing Board pointed out that NUREG/CR-4724 was issued some four years after Contention I~ was proposed, such that NECNP's "now" intent could not be accepted as being its "then" intent.. February 17, 1988 Order at 6.
Second, NECNP asserted that a sentence contained in the basis of Contention IV.5/ showed that the contention was intended to address the form of biofouling that corrodes the outside of pipes.
The Licensing Board found no merit to this argument, noting the cited basis sentence (F0OTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) buildup of fouling organisms or corrosion products on piping walls, although not severe enough to block water flow during normal operation, could be dislodged by seismic activity and
' collect in equipment bearing or seal coolers blocking the cooling water flow.'
I_d. Because it is particularly vulnerable to intrusion by aquatic organisms, the Seabrook plant should be equipped with a maintenance and inspection program adequate to prevent the kind of degradation which current measures obviously do not achieve.
j 5/
This sentence reads as follows:
In addition, the buildup of fouling organisms or corrosion products on piping walls, although not severe enough to block water flow during normal operation, could be dislodged by seismic activity and ' collect in equipment bearing or seal i
l coolers blocking the cooling water flow,'
l l
merely reflected concern that corrosion products on piping walls could be dislodged by seismic activity and, in collecting, block cooling flow water. M.
Further, the Licensing Board rejected NECNP's addition,a1 reliance on NUREG/CR-4724, relative to its second argument, as failing in its attempt to expand the scope of the contention by reliance upon a document that did not exist at the time Contention IV was submitted.
I_d.
at 7.
NECNP's third and final argument also relied on NUREG/CR-4724 to support an expansion of Contention IV to include MIC. The Licensing Board noted that this argument --failed, like t<he preceding two, because of its reliance on NUREG/CR-4724, which did not exist when Contention IV was submitted. M.
On March 1, 1988, NECNP filed a motion for reconsideration of the February 17, 1988 Order.
In this motion, NECNP relied upon the affidavit of a scientist, Dr. James Bryers, and on attached scientific documents to demonstrate that in 1982 MIC was recognized as one of the detrimental effects of biofouling of nuclear power plants.
In its March 18, 1988 Order, the Licensing Board affirmed its February 17, 1988 Order, noting that the documents now submitted by NECNP "cannot serve to establish that, in preparing the contention in 1982, the drafter intended to encompass MIC within the scope of the contention." Memorandum and Order (Denying NECNP l
Motion For Reconsideration) at 3 (f. arch 19, 1988) ("flarch 18, 1988 Order")
at 3.
On March 22, 1988, NECNP filed a motion to compel Applicants to respond to NECNP's Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicants on NECNP Contention IV, which had been served on February 19, 1988. The Licensing Board denied this motion on the basis l
l l
l
that the issue of MIC was not encompassed within the scope of ContentionIV.5/
On April 22, 1988, NECNP informed the Licensing Board and the,tparties
~
in writing that it would no longer litigate remanded NECNP Contentions I.V and IV and thus would not object to the issuance of a decision favorable to Applicants' on these contentions.
See Letter From Andrea Ferster, Esq.
to Licensing Board (April 22,1988). NECNP, however, expressed its intention to appeal "at the appropriate time" the Licensing Board's ruling interpreting NECNP Contention IV.to exclude the subject of corrosion of cooling systems, I_d. On May 12, 1988, and as requested by the Staff, the Licensing Board ruled that NECNP's decision not to litigate further NECNP Contentions I.V and IV constituted an abandonment of those contentions and issued an order dismissing the contentions 1/ May 12, 1988 Order at 2-3.
NECNP filed its notice o# appeal from this adverse determination on June 1,1988, coupled with a motion for leave to file the notice out of time. The Appeal Board granted this motion in ALAB-894. 8_/
III. ARGUMENT A.
Legal Standards As the Appeal Board has stated:
"The judgment of a Licensing Board with regard to what is or is not in controversy in a proceeding being g/
Order (April 1, 1988).
Z/
Memorandum Order (May 12, 1988) ("May 12, 1988 Order").
~8/
Public Service JCom any of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-894, 27 NRC (June 14, 1988).
. conducted by it is entitled to great respect;..." Northern States Power Comoan'y (Prairie Island Nuclear Ger.erating Plant, Units 1 &'2),
ALAB-419, 6 NRC 3, 6 (1977).
It is also well settled that the Appeel P
Board will defer to a licensing board's legal rulings except where the Appeal Board's examination of the evidence convinces it that the record compels a different result, See Northern States Power Co.- (Monticello Nucioar Generating Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-611,12 NRC 301, 304 (1980);
Niagara liohawk Power Corporation (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264, 1 NRC-347, 357 (1975,); Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-781, 20 NRC 819, 834 (1984); Carolina Power and Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-837, 23 NRC 525, 531 (1986). As explained below, the arguments and information presented to the Board by NECNP do not serve to undermine the Board's determination that NECNP Contention IV does not encompass the subject of microbiological 1y induced corrosion (MIC).
The Appeal Board should accord that determination great respect and uphold the February 17, 1988 Order.
Under 10 C.F.R. @ 2.714(a)(2), a petition to intervene in a proceeding must set forth with particularity "the specific aspect or aspects of the matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene." Among the elements that 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a) and (b) have been construed as requiring is that the petitioner identify the specific matters as to which the petitioner desires to participate.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 &
3), CLI-73-10, 6 AEC 173 (1973); Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-81-31, 14 NRC 959, 960 (1981), citing,
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and '2), CLI-80-10,11 NRC 438 (1980); Consumers Power Co. (Big
~
RockPointPlant),CLI-81-32,14NRC962,963(1981).El As will bk shown below, NECNP Contention IV neither contained a specific reference to MIC nor provided the Applicants, the Staff, the Licensing Board, or the Appeal Board with reasonable notice that the contention included MIC, in addition to blockage caused by the accumulation of acquatic organisms and debris.
B.
The Licensing Board Was Justified In its Construction of NECNP Contention IV To Exclude The Issue of MIC
~
ThetextofNECNPContentionIVjieldsnocluethatitencompasses the subject of MIC. As pointed out by the Appeal Board El and by the Licensing Board's February 17, 1988 Order, the theme and focus of the contention is the accumulation of mollusks and other aquatic organisms and debris in Seabrook's cooling systems.
The plain and ordinary meaning of the language of the contention and its basis support the Licensing Board's conclusion that NECNP has impermissibly sought to expand the scope of Contention IV to include a new issue.
For instance, the contention refers to the need for establishing a "maintenance program for the accumulation of mollusks, other aquatic organisms, and debris in cooling systems..."
(Emphasi'.,added). The 1
-9/
It should be noted also that a party is bound by the literal terms of its own contention.
See e.g., Philade13hia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALA3-845, 24 NRC 220, 242 (1986);
Carolina Power and Light Co.
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant),
ALAB-852, 24 NRC 532, 545 (1986).
Additionally, a contention drawn by counsel experienced in NRC practice must exhibit a high degree of speci fici ty.
Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station), ALAB-279,1 NRC 559, 576-T77-(1975).
H/ See ALAB-875, supra, 26 NRC at 262.
l 1
s
'O.
basis similarly emphasi:es "accumulation" and "blockage of coolant systems." 'In spite of the fact that the basis also mentions "the buildup
~
of fouling organisms on corrosion products on piping walls, although,not severe enough to block water flow during normal operation, could be dislodged by seismic activity...", there is no mention of MIC. The central concept underlying these phrases is the asserted danger of piping blockage or obstruction.
Further, the Federal Register notice prompting the filing of this contention (47 Fed. Reg. 21653, May 19, 1982) concerned potential block 1ge due to dislodged bu!.1 dup of various marine organisms including clams, inossels, barnacles, and the like.
Nowhere is there mo tion of MIC.
In accordance with the fnterpretive principle noscitur a sociis EI the term "fouling," as employed in the basis, can be associated only with the subject of the accompanying text, i.e., the blockage prob 1cm cont.equent to the buildup of marine organisms in piping.
NECNP, in its May 1987 brief appealing the Licensing Board's rejection cf Contention IV, stated that "[t]ne basis for this contention was a Federal Register notice dated liay 19, ;982, which stated NRC's concerns over the accumulation of asiatic clams, mussels, and other aquatic organisms _i_n_ six nuclear nower plant reactor cooling systems." E/
(Emphasis addec'). This position was reiterated at ort.1 argument before the Appeal Board, during Ni.Ph NECNP's counsel referred to the Federal 11/ See Black's Lew Dictionary 956 (5th ed. 1979).
12/ Nest Ergland Coalitien on Nuclear Pollution's Briet in Support of Appeal of Partial Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance of a License
~
to Operate at low Power IMay 8,1987) at 10.
Register no. ice as the basis for Contention IV. E l Thus, for five years af ter the co'ntention was filed, NECNP itself thought it concerned'only blockage caused by an accumulation of aquatic organisms and debris., The Appeal Board'was persuaded by NECNP that this was the gist of Contention IV:
"The Coalition based this assertion [NECNP Contention IV) on a May 19, 1982 Federal Register notice in which the Commission discussed the accumulation of aquatic organisms and debris in cooling systems.
[Footnotecitationomitted]
In that notice, the Commission indicated that, as a resuit of such accumulation, degradation of the heat transfer capabilities of safety gtems had. occurred at several nuclear power plants."
These factors compel the conclusion that the plain meaning of Contention IV did not encompass MIC. NECNP first mentioned flIC_in this proceeding as an afterthought subsequent to the ALAB-875 remand of Contention IV in its second discovery request on Contention IV in December 1987. El NECNP's brief illustrates the strained character of its late attempt to introduce MIC as an issue in this proceeding. NECNP's argument is basically that Contention IV broadly refers to "fouling", that scientific literature and on affidavit of Dr. Bryers supplied in 1988 demonstrated that MIC is encompassed in "fouling", and that the contention must be construed to incit.de the issue of MIC.
NECNP Brief at 7-10.
This path of inferei.cial and intarpretive reasoning falls far short of compliance with M / Tr. at 33 (July 24, 1987).
H/ ALAB-875, supra, 26 NRC at 262.
^
-15/ NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents to Applicants on NECNP Contention IV, December 23, 1987.
h L_.
the requirements that contentions must give notice of facts which petitioners desire to litigate and must be specific enough to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714.
Commonwealth Edison Co._ (Dresde,n Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-82-52, 16 NRC 183, 188-190, 193 (1982); see generally, Id.
CLI-81-25,14NRC616(1981)(guidancefor licensingboardregardingscopeofhearing).
A decisienmaker need not and should not rely upon expert testimony when it is unnecessary to do so.
See Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Here, the meaning of Contention IV,-and the elabqration thereof in its basis, was patent and unambiguous. Thus, the affidavit offered by NECNP was unneeded and the Licensing Board was fully justified in disregarding it.
For similar reason, the Board was correct in disregarding NUREG/CR-4724 and the other extrinsic evidence profferod by NECNP in support of its expanded interpretation of the contention. The plain wording of Conte.ntion IV does not include MIC, in addressing the "buildup" and "the accumulation of mollusks, other acquatic organisms, and debris in cooling systems."
l C.
The Board Correctly Dismissed Contention IV i
On April 22, 1988, after the Board issued its ruling construing l
Contention IV to exclude MIC, NECNP announced that it no longer intended l
"to litigate... NECNP Contention IV, to the extent that Contention IV l
I relates to the adequacy of Applicants' program for monitoring to detect blockage of coolant flow resulting from the build-up of macro-biological t
organisms." Sle Letter to ASLB from Andre 6 C. Ferster at 1 (April 22, 1988).
In light of NECNP's voluntary decision not to litigate the l,
contention as construed by the Board, the Licensing Board properly l
l
dismissed the contention in its Order of May 12, 1988. El In view of NECNP's decision not to. pursue the issue of blockage of coolant s9 stem piping due to the accumulation of aquatic organisms and debris, and the Board's earlier determination of February 17, 1988, that MIC was not' encompassed within Contention IV, there was simply nothing left of the contention for the Board to adjudicate.
In other words,-there was no longer any issue "in controversy" among the partiec to be litigated. A licensing board's jurisdiction in an operating license proceeding extends only to matters pla::ed in controversy by an admitted contention or raised by the board sua sponte.
See 10 C.F.R. 9 2.760a. The contention was properly dismissed. El IV.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, NECNP's appeal should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted, Sh
'b Stephen A. Bergquist Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of August 1988 15/ See n.6, ante.
-17/ The proper recourse for NECNP was to file an amended Contention IV or an entirely new contention raising the question of MIC relative to the Seabrook Station plant.
Such filing would, of course, have to have been evaluated pursuant to a balancing of the five factors delineated in 10 C.F.R. 6 ?.714(a)(1) for the admission of a late-filed contention into this proceeding.
y
,y
y.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
'88 AUG 16 All :30 -
In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443 Olki;;;{ gfjj PUBLIC SERVICE. COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-Of PR A te NEW HAMPSHIRE, ej jt,.
j On-site Emergency Planning l
)
and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and C)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE T0 i ?! ENGLAND C0ALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S BRIEF l'1 SUPPORT OF ITS APPEAL OF THE ICENSING BOARD'S DISi1ISSAL 0F NECNP CONTENTION" in the abo.ve-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory onnission's internal mail system, this 12th day of August 1988.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman
- H. J. Flynn, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant General Counsel Atomic Safety and L;;ensing Board Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/gency Washington, DC 20555 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Administrative Judge Calvin A. Canney Atomic Safety and Licensing Board City Hall U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 126 Daniel Street Washington, DC 20555 Portsmouth, NH 03801 l
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Rr,oert Carrigg, Chairman Administrative Judge Board of Selectmen j
i 4515 Willard Avenue Town Office Chevy' Chase, Maryland 20815 Atlantic Avenue North Hampton, NH 03870 Philip Ahren, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Judith H. Mizr.er, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Silverglate, Gertner, Baker, l
State House Station Fine, & Good l
Augusta, ME 04333 88 Board Street i
Boston, MA 02110 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Robert K. Gad, III, Esq.
J. P. Nadeau I
Ropes & Gray Board of Selectmen 225 Franklin Street 10 Central Street Boston, MA 02110 Rye, NH 03870 lj.
f 1
i
[
Carol S. Sneider, Esq.
Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Office of the ' Attorney General 25 High Road One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Newbury, MA 09150 Boston, MA 02108
./.
t Allen Lampert i
George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Civil Defense Director Assistant Attorney General Town of Brentwood Office of the Attorney General 20 Franklin 25 Capitol Street Exeter, NH 03833 Concord, NH 03301 William Armstrong Ellyn R.~ Weiss, Esq.
Civil Defense Director Diane Curran, Esq.
Town of Exeter Hannon & Weiss 10 Front Street 2001 S Street, NW Exeter, NH 03833 Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009 Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Holmes & Ellis Robert A. Backus, Esq.
47 Winnacunnet Road Backus, Meyer & Solomon Hampton, NH 83842 116 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel
- Paul McEachern, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Shaines & McEachern 25 Maplewood Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O. Box 360 Board Panel
- Portsmouth, NH 03801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Charles P. Graham, Esq.
McKay, Murphy & Graham Docketing and Service Section*
100 Main Street Office of the Secretary Amesbury, MA 01913 U.S. Reclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Board of Selectmen Peter J. Matthews, Mayor RFD #1, Box 1154 City Hall Kensington, i:H 03827 Newburyport, MN 09150 William S. Lord Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Board of Selectmer.
Town Counsel for Merrimac Town Hall - Friend Street 376 Main Street Amesbury, MA 0191;l Haverhill, MA 08130 4
.,9 f '.. - -
'M'rs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Road South Hampton, NH 03827-Durham, NH 03824
-Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey United States Senate 531 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 M
Stephen A. Bergquist v0 Counsel for NRC Staff f
=
d