ML19351A699
| ML19351A699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1989 |
| From: | Lisa Clark NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9584 OL, NUDOCS 8912260087 | |
| Download: ML19351A699 (9) | |
Text
9529 12/6/89 RfkT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '89 DEC -8 P 2 36 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL NEWHAMPSHIRE,,e_tal.
Off-site Emergency Planning t
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL BASIS TO THE LATE FILED ATTACHED CONTENTION TO THE MOTION OF NOVEMBER 9, 1989 INTRODUCTION By motion filed on November 2?,1989,1/ Intervenors seek to introduce a supplemental basis to their late-filed contention alleging that Applicants will be unable to provide adequate public notification withoutthecooperationofWCCM(AM)/WCGY(FM)("WCGY"),thegateway station for Merrimac Valley.
Intervenors' motion should be denied on the j
i grounds that it fails to satisfy the requirements for reopening the record and for admitting a late-filed contention.
i l
-1/
Intervenors' Motion to Add An Additional Basis to the Late Filed Attached Contention to the Motion of November 9, 1989 (" Motion"),
l November 22, 1989.
8912260087 891206 PDR ADOCK 05000443 O
PDR h
DISCUSSION A.
Intervenors' Motion Does Not Satisfy the Requirements for Reopening the Record.
Intervenors' motion to add a supplemental basis suffers from the same defects as their motion to admit a late-filed contention on the EBS--it does not raise a significant safety issue or show that a materially different result would have been.likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially.
Further, it is evident from the pleadings ehich have been filed that Intervenors' EBS contention and supplemental basis are not timely.
In particular, Applicants have pointed out that Intervenors were provided with the FEMA-REP-10 report in June 1988 which specifically states that in Massachusetts the contract EBS radio station is WLYT. 2_/ In response, Intervenors did not deny receipt of this docu-ment but merely claimed that it was mischaracterized as being provided in the " spring of that year. 3/ Thus, it is undisputed that Intervenors could have claimed long ago that the Massachusetts emergency plan is inadequate because it relies on a nonparticipating station to activate the EBS network in the EP2, As explained in the Staff's response to their motion to admit the late-filedcontention,S/ the existing state EBS provides the means of 2/
Applicants Answer to Intervenors' Motion to Admit a late-Filed
~
Contention and Reopen the Record Based Upon the Withdrawal of the Massachusetts E.B.S. Network and WCGY at 3-4.
3]
Motion at 4, footnote 2.
-4/
NRC Staff Response to Intervenors' Motion to Admit a late Filed Contention and Reopen the Record on the SPMC Based Upon the With-drawal of the Massachusetts E.B.S. Network and WCGY, November 30, 1989, at 3-4.
i r
t notifying the public of an emergency within the 15 minute design objective mandeted by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. E.IV.D.
Under the state system the EBS message originating from the primary relay station, WROR in Boston, can be picked up and retransmitted by every participating station within approximately eight minutes. Massachusetts Emergency Broadcast System Operational Plan (" Plan") at 1, 2.
Activation of the state network in the event of a radiological emergency would be by request of state officials exercising their "best efforts" to protect the public. Plan at 3, 4; Long Island Lighting C_o. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22 (1986).
Since notification could, and would, be effectuated by means of the state EBS network, the number of people listening to WLYT or any other j
particular station is irrelevant. The existing EBS network is designed to broadcast emergency information over all participating stations in the affected area. Accordingly, the only relevant question is whether the listenership of ay the participating stations is adequate, a matter which Intervenors do not dispute. Clearly, the matter addressed by the!r proposed basis--the listenership of WLYT--does not pose a significcr,t safety issue.
It is also clear that a materially different result would not have been reacted had this evidsnce been considered initially.
Here, a state EBS network is in place with the capability of disseminating emergency information throughout the entire state within approximately eight minutes. Moreover, Intervenors have presented no evidence indicating that the state system would not be utilized in the event of cn emergency at Seabrook. Accordingly, the Licensing Board would be guided by the
o L
4 advisory opinion of the Appeal Board in Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-911, 29 NRC 247 (1989) that the existence of a state EBS is sufficient to show compliance with NRC requirements. M.at254-55.
In the words of Appeal Board, " FEMA obviously proceeds on the premise that a station that undertakes to become a part of an established EBS will carry out in any emergency (nuclear or otherwise) the responsibilities it has assumed" and "[1?n the absence of NRC regulations or evidence to the contrary (and there is none in this record), we have no reason to conclude otherwise".
(footnote omitted).
H.at255.
B.
Intervenors Do Not Prevail on the Standards for Late-Filing.
Intervenors have also failed to demonstrate that a balancing of the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(1) weigh in favor of admitting the proposed basis to their late-filed c.ontention.
Those factors are:
(1) good cause, if any, for failure to file on tima; (ii) the availebility of other means by which the petitioner's interest will be protected; (iii) the extent to which the petitioner's l
participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; l
(iv) the extent to which petitioner's participation will be represented by other parties; and l
(v) the extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
i 9..
As discussed above, Intervenors' filing is not timely. Hence, factor i
one weighs against admission of the contention. While boards generally recognize that there are no other means or parties to protect Intervenors' interests, and those factors (the second and fourth) therefore weigh in favor of admission, they are accordcd less weight than factors one, three and five.
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units Iand2),CLI-86-8,23NRC241(1986).
Regarding the third factor, whether Intervenors can contribute to the development of a sound record, Intervenors have identified A. Anthony Delsey, Vice President and General Counsel of The Arbitron Company, as their expert witness. According to his affidavit, he would testify that listenership of WLYT comprises less than one half of one percent of the population in Essex County, whereas the combined estimated share of listenership for the Merrimac Valley EBS stations is over 10 times as great. As such, his testimony would only serve to substantiate the adequacy of the existing EBS, providing at most a minimal contribution to the record. As the Intervenors themselves note, " geometrically even more people would hear emergency messages if they were transmitted simultareously over the combined facilities of the entire Merrimac Valley Operational Area EBS network." Motion at 8.
Finally, there is no question that admission of the proffered basis would broaden the issues and delay the resolution of this operating license proceeding.
In sum, the first factor, timeliness, the third factor, development of a sound record, as well as the fifth factor, broadening and delay of the proceeding weigh decidedly against admission.
t Overall, therefore, balancing of the five factors weighs against ad. mission.
9
, CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Intervenors' motion to add an additional basis to the late-filed EBS contention should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
(/00 Lisa B. Clark Counsel for NRC Staff Dated in Rockvil'le, Maryland this 6th day of December, 1989 l
~
n
~
i y+
lq
- $$'fI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B0A In the Matter nf
&u i
Docket Nos. 50-44310L'..
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et g.
Off-site Emergency Planning.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION -T0 ADD AN ADDITIONAL BASIS TO THE LATE FILED ATTACHED CONTENTION TO THE MOTION OF NOVEMBER 9, 1989" in the above captioned proceeding have been served en the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, as indicated by double asterisks, by express mail, this 6th cay of December 1989:
IvanW. Smith.. Chairman (2)*
Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Administrative-Judge Assistant Attorney General
~ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State House Station Washington, DC 20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Richard F. Cole
- John Traficonte, 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 Kenneth A. McCollom**
Geoffrey Huntington, Esq.**
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General 1107 West Knapp Street Office of the Attorney General Stillwater, OK 74705 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.**
Robert K. Gad, III, Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.**
Ropes & Gray-Harmon, Curran & Tousley One International Place 2001 S Street, NW Boston, MA 02110-2624 Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009 Robert A. Backus, Esq.**
Backus, Meyer & Solomon 116 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03106
7,,,
~ H. J. ~ Flynn, Esq.
Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel 79 State Street Federal-Emergency Management Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Board of Selectmen Paul McEachern Esq.**
Town Office
$haines & McEachern Atlantic Avenue 25 Maplewood Avenue North Hampton, NH 03862 P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 William S. Lord Board of Selectmen Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Town Hall - Friend Street Board of Selectmen Amesbury, MA 01913 RFD #1, Box 1154 Kensington, NH 03827 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Board of Selectmen Calvin A. Canney 13-15 Newmarket Road City Hall Durham, NH 03824 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
United States Senate Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton 531 Hart Senate Office Building
& McGuire Washington, DC 20510 i
79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Richard R.. Donovan Federal Emergency Management Allen Lampert Agency Civil Defense Director Federal Regional Center Town of Brentwood 130 228th Street, S.W.
1 20 Franklin-Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Exeter. NH 03833 Peter J. Matthews, Mayor
-l
-William Armstrong City Hall Civil Defense Director Newburyport, MA 01950 Town of Exeter 10 Front Street Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Exeter, NH 03833 Board of Selectmen South Hampton, NH 03827 l
. Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Holmes & Ellis Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
47 Winnacunnet Road Town Counsel for Merrimac l
Hampton, NH 03842 145 South Main Street P.O. Box 38 Bradford, MA 01835 Barbara J. Saint Andre. Esq.
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
77 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 l
L-1
='...-
Ms. Suzanne Breiseth' J. P. Nadeau Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town of Hampton Falls 10 Central Street Drinkwater Road
. Rye, NH 03870 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert R. Pierce, Esq.*
Boatd Panel (1)*
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555' Office of the-Secretary (2)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20555 Appeal Panel (6)*
Attn: Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
^
Washington, DC 20555
$9 Eisa B. Clark Counsel for NRC Staff l
-w,,-v
~ -
w w