ML20011F093
| ML20011F093 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1990 |
| From: | Tompkins B NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| CON-#190-9959 ALAB-927, LBP-89-17, OL, NUDOCS 9003010081 | |
| Download: ML20011F093 (11) | |
Text
hs.:n-1 e
hk h d 00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 90 FEB 26 P2:16
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD OFFICE 0F SECRETARY Administrative Judges:
00CKEimG & SiitvlCE i! RANCH G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman February 26, 1990
-Alan S. Rosenthal (ALAB-927)
Howard A. Wilber SERVED FEB 261990:
L
)
In the Matter of
)
)
'PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL l
l, NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Offsite Emergency-
~~ ~~
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
Planning Issues) and 2)
)
)
)
l
[
Leslie B.
Greer, Boston, Massachusetts, for the intervenor James M. Shannon, Attorney General of Massachusetts.
Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr., George H. Lewald, Kathryn A.
Selleck, and Jeffrey P. Trout, Boston, Massachusetts, for the applicants Public Service of New Hampshire,-et al.
Lisa B.
Clark for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before us-is the February 1, 1990 motion of the intervenor Attorney General of Massachusetts to reopen a portion of.the record in this operating license proceeding involving the Seabrook nuclear power facility.
The motion is founded upon a development said to have affected the adequacy of a segment of the alert and notification system for the Massachusetts communities within the plume exposure l
pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) for the Seabrook facility.
That development was the decision of radio 9003010081 900226 y
'i PDR ADOCK 05000443 h60 O
PDR W
n
?.
sv..>-
1.-
2 station WCGY to repudiate a previous letter of agreement i
calling for the station's participation in the alert and notification system.
That decision was memorialized in an October 20, 1989 letter from a station official to the e;
4 applicants, a copy of which was sent to counsel for the Attorney General.
The Commission's Rules of Practice explicitly require the denial of an untimely motion to reopen a record unless f
the notion presents "an exceptionally grave issue."2 In 1
this instance,.there can be little doubt that the motion is untimely.- It is equally clear that the motion does not l
present an " exceptionally grave" issue.
Accordingly, we agree with the applicants and the NRC staff that it must'be denied.
A..
Timeliness 1.
Issues pertaining to the alert and notification system for Massachusetts communities were put before two separate Licensing Boards, one chaired by Judge Bloch and the other by Judge Smith.
For its part, the Bloch Board was assigned the question of the efficacy of that i
portion of the system involving the applicants' proposal to I
\\
1 See letter from John F.
Bassett to B. Boyd, Jr.,
(October 20, 1989), appended to the Attorney-General's February 1 motion as Exhibit C to Attachment F of Exhibit 2.
~. *,
'i 3
4 use vehicles' upon which sirens would be mounted (referred to as the VANS proposal).
In a June 23, 1989 decision, that Board upheld the VANS proposal.
In the course of doing so, the Bloch Board took note of the Emergency Broadcast System I,
(EBS) component.of the-overall alert and notification system.3 The Smith Board's role in the alert and notification sphere was considerably broader than that of the Bloch Board.
Its jurisdiction extended to all matters in that sphere other than the VANS issue specifically assigned to the Bloch Board.
In this connection, on November 9 and 22, 1989, the Attorney General (in conjunction with other intervenors) filed reopening motions with the Smith Board.
Those motions were based upon the.WCGY repudiation action and requested the reopening of the record before the Smith Board to allow the introduction of a new contention addressed to the repudiation.
According to the intervenors,
~
the repudiation brought into question the adequacy of the overall emergency response plan for the-Massachusetts portion of the EPZ.
On January 8, 1990, the Smith Board denied the motions on a variety of grounds.4 That denial is now on appeal.
LBP-89-17, 29 NRC 519, 532-34 (1989), appeal pending.
4 LBP-90-1, 31 NRC (1990), appeal pending.
N., _
c<
i 4
2.
The Attorney General's motion to us seeks to g.
reopen the record before the Bloch' Board.
Its theory is that that Board's decision last June was vitiated by the WCGY repudiation because the decision took into account an EBS for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ in concluding that the applicants' VANS proposal was acceptable.
Assuming the validity of that theory, the Attorney General should have raised it promptly upon learning of the WCGY action taken in October -- rather than more than three months thereafter.
The Attorney General attempts to justify the delay on the ground of the pendency of the reopening motion filed with the Smith Board, which rested upon the same event.
That explanation will not do.
It overlooks the fact that the Smith Board obviously could not decide whether l
the WCGY action had any impact (let alone the dire effect now' suggested by the Attorney Generall upon the Bloch Board's conclusion respecting the adequacy of the VANS proposal.
Only the Bloch Board, or this Board or the Commission on appellate. review, is in a position to pass judgment on that matter.5 5 Cf. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-902, 28 NRC 423, 429 (licensing board can dismiss.a party from only the part of the proceeding within that board's purview), review declined, CLI-88-ll, 28 NRC 603 (1988).
This being so, there was no potential here for "the dual litigation of the same issue with possibly (Footnote Continued) t
m f.:. b _ '.f e
E 5
.Indeed, the Attorney General himself appears implicitly to acknowledge the line of separation existing between the
~ jurisdiction of the two Licensing-Boards.
But for that separation, there would have been no need for him to file the February 1 motion in light of his then (and still) pending appeal from the Smith Board's denial of the motion filed with that Board.
B.
Exceptionally Grave Issue The motion at hand fails to raise such an
" exceptionally grave issue" that we would be free to ignore
'its manifest untimeliness.
We are unpersuaded from a 1
reading of the Bloch Board's June 1989 decision on the VANS Proposal that its approval of that proposal hinged to any significant extent on the participation of WCGY.
On this
-score, it is noteworthy that the principal EBS relied upon by the applicants for the Massachusetts communities does not include WCGY but, rather, employs two stations (WRAV and WLYT) with which the applicants have a contractual arrangement.6 (Footnote Continued) inconsistent results."
See ALAB-916, 29 NRC 434, 439 (1989).
6 See Attachment A to Exhibit 1 of Exhibit 4 appended to the Attorney General's February 1 motion.
In light of this consideration, it appears of no present moment whether there islan existing Commonwealth of Massachusetts (i.e.,
state) EBS for Seabrook.
Thus, we need not concern (Footnote Continued)
)
h r
4 y..
c P'
6 It may,not necessarily follow that the WCGY repudiation' is irrelevant to the' issue of the overall adeqttacy of the 1
emergency response plan for the Massachusetts EPZ.
As earlier noted, the Attorney General is seeking our consideration of that matter on his appeal from the Smith Board's denial of the reopening motion filed with that Board.
Such consideration is not foreclosed by our ruling here, which is simply that the section 2.734 requirements have not been met insofar as the Bloch Board's decision in l
LDP-89-17 is concerned.
b 4
(Footnote Continued) ourselves here with the Attorney General's reliance on the fact that WCGY's repudiation of its letter of agreement calling for participation in the Seabrook alert and notification system rested (at least in part) on that station's conclusion that'no such EBS is now in existence.
For all that appears, the Attorney General did not make a timely challenge before the Bloch Board to the ability of WHAV and WLYT, under their contractual arrangement with the applicants, to provide the necessary radio notification.
n
.~
7 The Attorney General's February 1, 1890 reopening motion is denied, t
It is so ORDERED.
TOR THE APPEAL BOARD 2>
d h,
Y
' h d s.
1
~ Barbara A. Tompkins T Secretary to the Appeal Board r
i l
l L
1 l
l l
l l
l
+.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RE00LAf0RY COMMISSION 6
r In the Matter of I
l PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW t
Docket No.(s) 30-443/444-OL HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
1 (Seabrook Station, Units i and 2) l I
I j
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l
1 hereby certify that copies of the foregoing AS M60 (ALAB-9271 DTD 02/26/90 have been served upon the f ollowing persons by U.S. asil, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
Administrative Judge Administrative JudSe O. Paul Bollwerk, !!!
Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Atcalc Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington. DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge
}
Howard A. Wilber Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, DC 04555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge
' Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Robert R. Pierce, Esquire James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Alterr. ate Technical Member I
U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Consission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, DC 20555 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
P.it:1 A. Young Office of the Seneral Counsel Attorney f
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, DC 20555
~
Decket No.(el80-443/444 OL At MhD (ALAB-9271 DTD 02/26/90
)
i Diane Curran, Esq.
Thomas 6. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Harmon, Curran k Tousley Ropes & Gray 1
2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 One International Place l
Washington, DC 20009 Sotton, MA 02110 j
4 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Paul McEachern, Esq.
L Packus, Meyer 6 Solomon Shatnes & McEachern l
116 Lowe!! Street 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Box 360 Manchester, NH 03106 Portsmouth, NH 03001 Bary.W. Holmes, Esq.
Judith H. Mitner i
Holmes & Ells Counsel f or Newburypor t 47 Winnacunnet Road 79 State Street Hampton, NH 03042 Newburyport, MA 01950 Suzanne P. Egan Jane Doherty City Solicitor Seacoast Anti-Po!!ution League Lagoulis, Hill-Wilton and Rotondi 5 Market Street 79 State Street Portsmouth, NH 03001 Newburyport, MA 01950 Secrge
!verson, Director Ashed N. Amirian, Esq.
N. H. Office of Energency Management 145 South Main Street, P.O. Box 30 State House Office Park South Bradford, MA 01030 107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 i
George W. Watson, Esq.
Jack Dolan Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Energency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
Washington, DC 20472 Boston, MA 02109 i
George D. Bisbee, Esq._
Paul A. Frit sche, Esq.
Assistant Attorney 6eneral Office of the Public Advocate Office of the Attorney General State House Station 112 25 Capitol Street Augusta, ME 04333 Concord, NH 03301
u
{
Decket No.4sl50-443/444-OL AB M60 (ALAI-927) DTD 02/26/Y0 i
Suzanne Bretseth John traficonte, Esc.
Board of Selectmen Chief, Nu } ear $4fety Unit Town of Hampton Falls Office of the Attorney 8eneral Drinkwater Road One Ashburtan Place, 19th Floor Haspton Falls, NH 03044 Boston, RA 02108 Peter J. Brann Esq.
Allen Ltacimt Assistant Attorney Beneral Civil D'efer.s* Director Office of the Attorney General Town of Brentwo;d State House Station, #6 20 Franklia ttreet Augusta. ME 04333 Ex e'.or. NH 43053 William Armstrong Aane Goodwant theirtien Civil Defense Director Board of Selectcon Town of Exeter 13-15 Negaarket Raad
)
10 Front Street Durhcru NH 0280A
- l Exeter, NH 03833 R. Scott Hall-khtiten Esquire Michael Santosuosso, Chatraan Lagoulis, Ntil-W%ta ten 6 McGuire Board of Selectmen 79 Stats Strust South Heepton, NH 03B27 Newburyport, NA 01950 l
Stanley W. Knowles, Chairman Norman C. Katner Board of Selectmen Superintendent of Schools P.O. Box 710 School Administrative Unit No. 21 North Hampton, NH 03862 Alumni Drive Hampton, NH 03642 Sandra F. Mitchell Civil Defense Director Beverly Hollingworth Town of Kensington 209 Winnacunnet Road Box 10, RR1 Hampton, NH 03842 East Kingston, NH 03827 The Honorable The Honorable Bordon J. Humphrey Nicholas Marvoules ATTNi Janet Colt ATTNi Michael Greenstein United States Senate 70 Washington Street Washington, DC 20510 Sales, MA 01970
Docket No.(sil0-443/444-OL l
At M60.(ALAB-927) DTD 02/26/90 i
5
\\
$'g,,.t n.ckville. M8 "l'
e.y e4 rororY 1"'
e gg --
g;; i.J.tJy if the c'"$"'*"
e f
r
~
i l
?
f e
O h
B
)
D i
e L4 w
-i-
- -. - - -.