ML20024F220
| ML20024F220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1983 |
| From: | Patterson W, Perlis R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309090078 | |
| Download: ML20024F220 (10) | |
Text
s ni t
August 26, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
- i PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444 OL (SeabrookStation, Units 1and2)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NECNP CONTENTIONS ON RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE DLAN FOR GREENLAND, NEW HAMPSHIRE
_ AND ON NEW HAMPSHIRE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES I.
INTRODUCTION q
On August 11, 1983, NECNP filed separately contentions on the Radiological Emergency Response Plan for the town of Greenland, New Hampshire (" Greenland RERP") and on the State of New Hampshire's emergency response procedures. The Staff herein responds to both filings.
II. RULES GOVERNING ADMISSION OF CONTENTIONS In order for proposed contentions to be found admissible, they must i
fall within the scope of the issues set forth in the Notice of Hearing initiating the proceeding, and comply with requirements of 10 C.F.R.
52.714(b)andapplicableCommissioncaselaw. See, eg., Duke Power Company (Catawba Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC (June 30,
{
1983); Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island, Unit Nos. I and 2),
l ALAB-107,6AEC188,194(1973), aff'd, BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, a
j DESIGNATED ORIGINAL I
8309090078 830826 h
PDR ADOCK 05000443 Certified By O
~:
G PDR i
O7 I\\
502F.2d424,429(D.C.Cir.1974);DuquesneLightCo.(BeaverValley, Unit No. 1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973).
10C.F.R.62.714(b) requires that a list of contentions which intervenors seek to have litigated be filed along with the bases for those contentions set forth with reasonable specificity. The Appeal Board has stated that a contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's views of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper fur adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or i
(e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or l
litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and3),ALAB-216,8AEC13,20-21(1974). The purposes of the bases requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 are (1) to assure that the contantion in question does not suffer from any of the deficiencies enumerated in the Peach Bottom decision, supra, (2) to establish sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry of the subject matter in the 1
proceeding, and (3) to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Peach Bottom, supra, 8 AEC at 20.
From the standpoint j
of basis, it is unnecessary for the petition "to detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention." Mississippi Power i
& Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC
423,426(1973).
Furthermore, in examining the contentions and the bases therefor, a licensing board should not reach the merits of the contentions.
Duke Power Co. (Amendment To Materials License SNM-1773 - Transportation of Spent Fuel From Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station),ALAB-528,9NRC146,151(1979); Peach Bottom, supra, 8 AEC at 20; Grand Gulf, supra, 6 AEC at 426.
Thus, at the petition stage, although petitioners need not establish the validity of their contentions and the bases therefor, it is incumbent upon petitioners to set forth contentions and the bases therefor which are sufficiently detailed and specific to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible and that further inquiry is warranted, and to put the other parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against or oppose.
III. GREENLAND RERP NECNP submitted two contentions on the Greenland RERP:
Contention 1 L
Contention 1 asserts that the Greenland RERP fails to comply with
- i j
10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(a)(1) in that the town lacks adequate equipment and/or
)
staff to respond to an emergency in three listed respects:
i a)
NECNP asserts that the Greenland Police Department lacks J
the personnel necessary to fulfill the functions assigned to the i
department in the RERP.
1 j
b)
NECNP contends the RERP does not assure a sufficient h
number of vehicles to evacuate school children, i
L
.._..--.......7_-.-.
(c) NECNP claims the Highway Agent lacks sufficient staff and equipment to provide road service in the event of an emergency.
The Staff does not object to the admission of Contention 1, but suggests that it be subdivided into three discrete contentions corre-sponding to the three alleged deficiencies listed above.
Contention 2 Contention 2 challenges the RERP's provisions for special trans-portation services. The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention.
IV. NEW HAMPSHIRE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES NECNP offered five contentions challenging various aspects of the emergency response procedures which implement the Radiological Emergency Response Plan of the State of New Hampshire.1/ Procedures challenged by l
NECNP include those involving: contact and coordination between the New HampshireandMassachusettsstategovernments(proposedcontention1);
responsibilities of the Emergency Medical Services (proposed contention 2);
responsibilities of the Division of Public Health (proposed contention 3);
responsibilities of the State Highway Department (proposed contention 4);
and the provision of buses for evacuation of school children from the l
Emergency Planning Zone (proposed contention 5).
-1/
Contentions relating to the Radiological Emergency Response Plan, as opposed to the procedures implementing that plan, have previously been filed by NECNP. See NECNP Contentions on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Volume I, dated June 27, 1983.
g
'I
- i ii b._-
s
0.
NECNP prefaces its discussion of its proposed contentions with the correct observation that 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(a)(1) requires the Commission to find "that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency" before an operating. license may be issued. NECNP goes on, however, to state:
Unless the [ emergency] plan details the steps that must be taken in order to implement the plan's directives, there can be no " reasonable assurance" that the plan "can and will" be effectively implemented to protect the public health and safety.
The New Hampshire procedures do not provide this crucial information on how the RERP will be implemented.
NECNP Contentions on New Hampshire Emergency Response Procedures, p. 2.
The argument advanced by NECNP is contrary to Connission policy regarding the litigability of the procedures which implement emergency plans.
In Loutsiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Station, Unit 3),
ALAB-732, 17 NRC (June 29, 1983, slip op. 53-54), the Appeal Board recognized that onsite implementing procedures for emergency plans are not a proper subject for licensing proceedings.
It noted that 10 C.F.R.
l l
Part 50, Appendix E, i V requires a utility to submit the detailed i
implementing procedures to the appropriate NRC Regional Administrator no j
less than 180 days prior to the scheduled issuance of an operating license.
l (slipop.at53). On this basis it concluded that the Commission did not intend to allow inquiry into the details of particular implementing procedures in judging whether emergency plans meet requirements of NRC l
regulations. As the Board stated:
i o
E
[T]he Comission never intended the implementing pro-cedures to be required for the " reasonable assurance" finding and thus to be prepared and subject to scrutiny during the hearing. Although there is little
" administrative history" on implementing procedures, we believe the Commission did not want licensing hearings to become bogged down with litigation about such details.
Instead, the focus should be on whether an applicant's emergency plan itself satisfies the 16 more broadly drafted standards of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b). Thus, because Joint Intervenors' complaint about the nonfinality of the implementing procedures amounts to a challenge to the Commission's regulations, we must reject it. See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758, supra note 44.
_Id. at 53-54 (footnotes omitted).
There is no reason to treat offsite implementing procedures in a i
different manner from onsite procedures. The contentions offered by NECNP on the New Hampshire offsite emergency response procedures, in contrast to those dealing with the emergency response plans, are not litigable in i
this proceeding under Waterford, and therefore must be rejected under l
Peach Bottom, supra.2_/
V.
CONCLUSION
,i For the reasons discussed in Part III, supra, the Staff does not
'llj object to the admission of NECNP Contentions 1 and 2 on the Greenland, ll New Hampshire RERP, but suggests that Contention 1 be modified as ltjj described above.
ll
- i I,
2/
The Staff has previously filed similar objections in response to L.
the first of NECNP's proposed contentions on the New Hampshire ll Radiological Emergency Response Plan. See NRC Staff Response to Contentions on the New Hampshire Radiological Energency Response Plan Filed by the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Seacoast lm Anti-Pollution League, and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution,
!P filed July 12, 1983, at pp. 15-16.
lt lt a
t 7-For the reasons discussed in Part IV, supra, the Staff opposes the admission of NECNP Contentions 1 through 5 on the New Hampshire emergency response procedures.
Respectfully submitted, Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff bk Mi William F. Patterson, Jr.
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day of August, 1983 1
l f
I l
t u
1 (f
,.... __ ?, ? ?, ',. '
s
- ^ ' * ~ ~~ *
- ?
...,..w.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
50-444 OL (SeabrookStation, Units 1and2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NECNP CONTENTIONS ON RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR GREENLAND, NEW HAMPSHIRE AND ON NEW HAMPSHIRE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 26th day of August, 1983:
Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
. 1 Panel Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Jo Ann Shotwell, Asst. Attorney Administrative Judge Office of the Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Environmental Protection Division Panel One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boston, MA 02108 I
Washington, D.C.
20555 Ii Nicholas J. Costello
'l Beverly Hollingworth 1st Essex District 7 A Street Whitehall Road Hampton Beach, NH 03842 Amesbury, MA 01913 Edward L. Cross, Jr., Esq.
Sandra Gavutis George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Town of Kensington, New Hampshire j
Environmental Protection Division RFD 1 1
Office of the Attorney General East Kingston, NH 03827 i
State House Annex l!
Concord, NH 03301 I
ll:
i il L
t -
Calvin A. Canney, City Manager City Hall Edward F. Meany 126 Daniel Street Town of Rye, New Hampshire Portsmouth, NH 03801 155 Washington Road Rye, NH 03870 Roberta C. Pevear Town of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire Mr. Robert J. Harrison Drinkwater Road President and Chief Executive Officer Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire P.O. Box 330 Manchester, NH 03105 William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
i 116 Lowell Street Harmon & Weiss P.O. Box 516 1725 I Street, N.W.
Manchester, NH 03105 Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Brian P. Cassidy Regional Counsel Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
FEMA, Region I Assistar.t Attorney General John W. McCormack Post Office &
State House Station #6 Courthouse Augusta, ME 04333 i
Boston, MA 02109 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Donald L. Herzberger, MD U.S. Senate Hitchcock Hospital Washington, D.C.
20510 Hanover, NH 03755 (Attn: Tom Burack)
Sen. Robert L. Preston Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
State of New Hampshire Senate Ropes & Gray Concord, NH 03301 225 Franklin Street i
Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Panel
- Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 John B. Tanzer j
Town of Harpton, New Hampshire j
Jane Doughty 5 Morningside Drive Field Director Hampton, NH 03842 Scacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street Brentwood Board of Portsmouth, NH 03801 Selectmen RFD Dalton Road Brentwood, NH 03833 i
i f
i
O 3-Docketing and Service Section*
~
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Patrick J. McKeon Washington, D.C.
20555 Chairman of Selectmen, Rye, New Hampshire David R. Lewis, Esq.
10 Central Road Law Clerk to the Board Rye,NH 03870 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Anne Verge, Chairperson Washington, D.C.
20555 Board of Selectmen Town Hall Dr. Mauray Tye South Hampton, NH 03842 209 Summer Street Haverhill, MA 01830 Town Manager's Office Town of North Hampton Town Hall - Friend Street North Hampton, New Hampshire 03862 Amesbury, MA 01913 R. K. Gad III, Esq.
Senator Gordan J. Humphrey Ropes & Gray 1 Pillsbury St.
225 Franklin Street Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02110 (Attn: HerbBoynton)
M4h I/b.
W1 t ilam F. Patterson, Jr. gisq.
Counsel for NRC Staff l
il
- l u
4 Yw w
n
-w-n.
-,,,.-- ee
-