ML20033F125
| ML20033F125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1990 |
| From: | Backus R, Brock M, Curran D BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, HARMON & WEISS, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#190-9998 ALAB-924, LBP-88-32, LBP-89-33, OL, NUDOCS 9003160070 | |
| Download: ML20033F125 (19) | |
Text
y,
[
i.
USNRC 1
l u
UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA I
o NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION
'90 11AR -1 A10:30:
' ATOMIC SAFETY AND = LICENSING APPEAL BOAR 4FFICE OF SECRETARY
+
00CKEllNG & SERVICL Before' Administrative Judges:
BRANCH
- t G.
Paul.Bollwerk,-III,: Chairman l
Alan S. Rosenthal Howard A. Wilber i
A l
t
)
l
'In the Matter of.
)
Docket-Nos.-50-443-OL.
y
)
50-444-OL l
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
- )'
w
)
1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and.2)
)'
February.28, 1990t
- c.
)
EMERGENCY MOTION OF THE INTERVENORS TO' REOPEN'THE RECORD, FOR:
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION AS TO.THE NEED FOR SHELTERING l-IN-CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR LICENSE REVOCATION i
[
The Massachusetts Attorney General, Seacoast Anti-Pollution
- League, and"the'New England Coalition on'. Nuclear. Pollution
("Intervenors") hereby move the Appeal BoardM to reopen the record and grant summary disposition on Intervenors' sheltering contentions,2/ and revoke the license authorization for Seabrook Station.
a.
1/
The Appeal Board has presently raised the issue as to the j
proper forum:for consideration of a Motion to Reopen the Record-
.l concerning the sheltering issue.
Order at 3 (Feb. 14, 1990).
For this reason, Intervenors also have filed this motion with the Commission and the Licensing Board.
2/
NECNP/RERP-8, SAPL-16, and TOH VIII.
q Ph o-3 50
',=
2y
(
i r
(
As discussed >hereafter,.this. relief'is warranted base'd,upon:
I q
1)L the - Licensing Board's ruling:, and condition of:
.e licensing, affirmed by the Appeal Board, that the NHRERP provide L
for-sheltering the entire beach population under circumstances where that: protective-action will maximize dose savingsLfor the public (" Condition 1"), g33 LBP-88-32 $$8,14, 8.20,- 10.4(b),
19A ale 2 ALAB-924 at 68 n.194; P
k 2).the recent comments by the State of New Hampshire, and
'l responses.by the Applicants and FEMA, which indicate that sheltering for the beach population under. condition 1 has been eliminated, except for those already in shelters at the time an emergency is-declared; and
- 3) the fact that the FEMA approval of the NHRERP apparently was predicated upon an interpretation of that plan that sheltering for the.> beach population, except for those already in shelters at'the time an emergency is declared, would never be ordered under Condition 1.
FEMA therefore approved a 43
. version of the NHRERP which was never reviewed or approved by the Licensing Board or the Appeal Board.
There is no requisite FEMA finding to support licensing.
10 C.F.R. $50.47 (a) (2).
Procedural Summary i
On February 6, 1990, the Massachusetts Attorney General (MASS : AG), with Intervenors SAPL and NECNP, filed an EMERGENCY MOTION OF THE INTERVENORS:
(1) TO CLARIFY THE STATUS OF THE
]
APPEAL OF LBP-89-33 AND (2) TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON THE NHRERP
-l AS TO THE NEED FOR SHELTERING IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ("First i
!!U u
bL j
. Motion")..The First Motion addressed, inter alia,. Applicants'-
' February 1-filing / which for the first time advised A
Intervenors and<apparently this. agency that' sheltering as a protective action:for the entire-beach: population had been l
eliminated in tho'NHRERP even under circumstances where-that PAR.
would achieve maximum dose reduction (" Condition 1").-
Egg.First' Motion 8-15.
i on February 16, 1990, the State of'New Hampshire filed a comment with the Licensing Board on Applicants' proffered view of
-f
,the current state of the NHRERP for sheltering the beach population under condition 1.S/
While the State's comment did not formally respond to Intervenors' First Motion, the State advised the Board that Applicants had " erred" in their-conclusion that "the State of New Hampshire's October 13, 1988 Amendments to Revisio'n 2 of the NHRERP '(eliminated)' sheltering as an option i
under the first of the two circumstances contemplated by the
[
Appeal Board"-(i.e. Condition 1).
State Response at 2.
(emphasis' added). Based upon.the State Response, first Applicants,E/
2/
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD ORDER OF JANUARY 11, 1990.
A/
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'S COMMENTS REGARDING APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD ORDER OF JANUARY 11, 1990.
(" State Response").
5/
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY MOTION OF INTERVENORS:
(1) TO CLARIFY THE STATUS OF THE APPEAL OF LBP-89-33 AND (2) TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON THE NHRERP AS TO THE NEED FOR SHELTERING IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (FEB. 16, 1990)
(" Applicants Response").
-3
p.
1 o
'%k 9S J
-then thefStaff,5/-filed responses-in opposition to the First-Motion.
FEMA also responded to the First. Motion,2/ claiming L
that Intervenors had "inaccurately characterized the NHRERP."
{
Lt. at 2.
Y These responses-form the predicate for the present motion,
~
and also' obliterate the apparent consensus reached by the parties and the Licensing Board at the New Hampshire hearings as to the proper interpretation of the NHRERP regarding
?
sheltering for the beach population.
L h
What The Parties Said In New Hamnshire b
Intervenors believe that the record from the New Hampshire hearings is clear that the NHRERP, as interpreted intsworn testimony before the Licensing Board by New Hampshire officials, the Applicants, and FEMA, did provide for sheltering the entire beach population under condition 1.
According to the testimony, this sheltering PAR would be ordered under circumstances where that PAR would maximize dose savings for the. beach transients with transportation (the "98%"
population), see Tr. 13184, as well as the remaining 2% of the 1
s/
NRC STAFF's RESPONSE.TO " EMERGENCY MOTION OF THE INTERVENORS:
(1) TO CLARIFY THE STATUS OF THE APPEAL OF LBP-89-33 AND (2) TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON-THE NHRERP AS TO THE NEED FOR-SHELTERING IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (FEB. 23, 1990)
(" Staff Response").
t 2/
RESPONSE OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO EMERGENCY MOTION OF THE INTERVENORS TO REOPEN THE RECORD AS TO THE NEED FOR SHELTERING IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (FEB. 16, 1990)
(" FEMA Response").
-4 1
^L
<?e:
t;
~
h-i r: : W beach population of transients without transportation.
Egg I
- APPLICANTS' DIRECT TESTIMONY NO.
6,. post Tr. 10022 at 20..
As.
the'New Hampshire / Applicant panel testified:I/
I Q.-
1Well, isn't it true then that even when sheltering was found to be the most effective option in achieving maximum dose reduction, it would not always be recommended for the beach population?-
A.
'(Bonds)-
Sheltering is found to be the most
-effective recommendation.
That's the most effective recommendation for everybody, not for l
just some segment of the population in that area.
We don't differentiate inLthe three-communities, Hampton,lHampton Falls.and'Seabrook,.
u
't l
between general population and beach population.
L We make the recommendation on the basis of those communities.
l
~
If.there are beach people there, the recommendation applies to them as well.
Tr.~10421 Q..
And does the State of New Hampshire hhva any estimate of'the time to implement the entire E
option for the.98 percent of-the beach population sheltering option?
A.
(Bonds)
The entire option being --
Q.
What I understood Mr. Callendrello was saying was to mean-both the' sheltering and the relocation; correct?
A.
(Callendrello).That's correct.
The timing is important in the event that you have an incident or an accident that results in the p
deposition of radionuclides.
And therefore the timing that is important is the timing associated not only with the time to implement the sheltering portion but also the relocation portion.
B/1 Further citations to the record on this issue are set out in OBJECTION.TO PETITION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR LEAVE TO FILE FEMA'S RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY MOTION OF THE INTERVENORS TO REOPEN THE RECORD AS TO THE NEED FOR SHELTERING IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (Feb. 23, 1990).
Egg also Tr.
10719-20 discussing release characteristics where sheltering would be appropriate.
e i
1
.4' Q.
~Right.
So we.have to know.how long it takes-to=get people in and then how long;it takes to 1
La,
get people back out; correct?
]
l
- A.-
(Callendrello)
When you say, get in, you
]
i mean-into a shelter, yes.
=-
h Q.
Yes.-
A.
(Callendrello)
As well as to remove them.
'from the area where deposition has occurred.
l
.J Q..
Yes.
Does the State of New Hampshire have H
any estimates of how-much time that will-take?
n
.A.
(Bonds)'.The-State of New Hampshire, as explained previously, would not consider -- I won't say would not very likely would not consider recommendina shelter when there is any-potential-for relocation afterwards through a radioactive material ~.
We would be concerned of a period-of exposure prior to sheltering, and that's why we
--adopted the shelter-in-place as-opposed to another sheltering strategy.-
Q.
-Do you have any estimate 1of how long it
-would take to get the people off the beach on a peak summer day into a shelter?
MR. DIGNAN:- I object.
I recall at leasta15
-minutes between the Attorney General and Mr.
Bonds on this very subject of how long-it would take to get everybody.from the beach to a shelter. 1At least 15 minutes.
Asked and
. answered.
Tr. 10734-35.
See also Tr. 10464-6 (recommendation to shelter will include " general beach population" if it is "the best thing to do").
According to FEMA:2/
2/
Further discussion as to FEMA's knowledge and testimony.as of May 1988 that the NHRERP would provide for sheltering the entire beach. population under Condition 1-is set out in MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REPLY TO THE PETITION AND RESPONSE OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO EMERGENCY MOTION OF THE INTERVENORS TO REOPEN THE RECORD AS TO THE NEED FOR SHELTERING IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (Feb. 27, 1990) k M.se
... ~
e Y
+
J4.
.Isn't it true that the New Hampshire RERP Q.'.
.t already includes a_ shelter option for the beach population.
as'a whole?-
A.
(Cumming)
The version I talked about, basically, had.
rejected sheltering until it was. subject-to-the submissions
-in February where it was reopened.
Q.
Well, fact of the matter is, the current plan contains:
circumstances under which --
A.
(Cumming)
Yes, three-limited options for sheltering.
Q..
Right.
And without any implementing detail; correct?
A.
(Cumming)' Yes.
That's why we~put this in here.:
Q.
Let's focus on the sentence.
You say, when the choice
'is incorporated into the NHRERP, and you agree with-me'that there is a sheltering option in the NHRERP.
And then the sentence says, " Implementing: detail-will be necessary."
I v
think you'd also agree with me there's no' implementing detail?.
A.
(Cumming)
It is somewhat unusual,:perhaps, but we are sayingithat the plan is adequate in' concept.,
Q.
But you expect implementing detail -- let's be very 4
clear about this.
A '.
(Cummin' g). Before FEMA issues'its final finding, yes, it expects implementing detail..
.Q.
'For the general beach. population, the 98 percent?
A.
(Cumming)-
Yes.
fr. 14219-20, cf. 14252-54.
.The record in.the New Hampshire proceeding is abundantly i
clear that all parties (in a rare display) reached consensus as 4
to the proper interpretation of the NHRERP, which would provide-for sheltering the entire beach population under Condition 1.
NRC Review of Shelterina Based upon the above, and related, sworn testimony, the Licensing Board, in its PID, identified the circumstances, including Condition 1, where sheltering would be recommended '
=
2
4 i
s1 l
"for1Seabrook' area beach-populations".
LBP-88-32:
^
11 8.36-8.37. 'At 1 8.14, the Licensing Board noted that revisions in the NHRERP.would be made in the decision criteria-
-l 1
-reflecting changes proposed in Attachment 1.to the Applicants' Direct Testimony No.
6, ff. Tr. 10022 (to be distinguished from Attachments I'and II to Appendix 1 to that same testimony.)- At.
1 8.20 the Board noted:
NHRERP is being updated to reference the emergency.
classification and plant conditions under which precautionary and protective action recommendations would
.be made. -App..Dir. No.
6, ff. Tr. 10022, at 11-12,-
r.
, ERA also 1 8.76 ("FEMAiand the State of New Hampshire will appropriately resolve any differences on the point (implementing detail for sheltering beach population) upon reviewing the Board's concerns".)
The Licensing _ Board Lhen made these revisions a condition of licensing:
[IJssuance of an operating license for Seabrook' Station-shall be subject to the satisfaction of. the following conditions:
(b)
The Director of Nuclear Reactor' Regulation, in consultation with.the [ FEMA), shall verify that the NHRERP t
revisions committed to by the State of New Hampshire, as discussed herein, have been made.
LBP-88-32, 1 Although.this Board reversed the Licensing Board regarding the need for sheltering detail, it affirmed the Board's finding as to the appropriateness of sheltering the New Hampshire beach population under the identified circumstances, including...
L-r
-l m
Condition 1.<
ALAB-924 at 50-58.
Based upon the recent responses of=the parties, however, the NHREEP no longer.Eppears 1
to provide for. sheltering the entire beach population under l
Condition 1.-
I i
Resoonses of the Parties In'its response, the State of New Hampshire asserted that' the-Applicants " erred" in interpreting the current NHRERP as a
"eliminat(ing) sheltering as an option under the-first of the two' circumstances contemplated by the Appeal Board".
State
-Response at 2.
Applicants may have erred in understanding the.
[
precise nature of the change regarding sheltering PARS in the October, 1988 revisions to the NHRERP.
Nevertheless, it is now clear'for the first time that these revisions did materially modify _the NHRERP from the plan as approved by the Licensing r
Board, by eliminatina shelterina for the beach oooulation excent for those alrea'dv in shelters at the time of emeroencv.-
While it may be true, therefore, that the October revisions did-not totally. eliminate sheltering under Condition 1, the-present' NHRERP nevertheless has been substantially altered and will net
. maximize dose savings under condition 1.
The plan, therefore, l
is inadequate asca matter of law.
L l
The State of New Hampshire, as proponent and final arbiter of the NHRERP, provided affidavits with its response from two l
state ' officials on the present provisions in the NHRERP for L
l sheltering ERPA-A, which includes the beach populations.
Both o
affiants state: ;
Lin
.- =
4;
.. evacuation is-selected protective preferred and generally will beithe-action option. -(Citation omitted)- Ihg October 1988 amendments ~to the NHRERP confirmed the nrocedures underivina this nrotective action ention by eliminatina a shelter-in-nlace recom==ndation for ERPA-A whenever the notential remains for a later evacuation of
'the beach area.
State Resnonne at affidavits pp.
5-6.
The State clearly-states, therefore, that certain PARS hagg been "eliminatted)" for ERPA A, incl 2 ding the beach population,.
in the October, 1988 amendments.
Applicants recently provided information relevant-to the meaning of the change.
Applicants have been informed by the State of New Hampshire i
that on Dace 11 of the filina of February 1.
1990, the words "croceed immediately to the nearest available fully-enclosed buildina and remain there." more cronerly
'should read:
" shelter in olace."12/
The State now. resists, even under circummtances where there i
would be immediments to evacuation (i.e. " Condition 2"),
the 1
i statement-that beach transients would be directed,to nearby a
shelters..
i
~
This suggests that the October revisions apparently b
i have eliminated' sheltering for'those-on the beach under both j
conditions 1 and 2.. In addition, the definition of " shelter in place", referenced by the State,-on its face provides for ii
_ evacuation for "those transients without access to an indoor i
location."
NHRERP Rev.
- 3. Vol.
8, p.
2.6-8.
Finally, the FEMA response quite clearly establishes that,
.in FEMA's view, since February, 1988, the NHRERP was not i
11ntended to provide for sheltering the entire beach population I
under Condition 1.
la/
APPLICANTS' ADVICE TO LICENSING BOARD RE ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS IN APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD ORDER OF JANUARY 11, 1990 (Feb. 16, 1990) at 2-3.
e
- 3 J
l
~ evacuation is preferred and generally will be the
(
...c.
L^
selected ~ protective action option.-
(Citation omitted) LIha; J
H October 1988-amendments to the NMRERP confirmed the I
crocedures underlyina this orotective action ootion bv' i
eliminatina a shelter-in-clace recommendation for ERPA-A i
whenever the notential remains for a later evacuation of U
p'
- the beach area.
State Response at affidavits pp.
5-6.
j
[
The State clearly states, therefore, that certain PARS have
- J been "eliminatfed)" for ERPA A, including the beach population, in the October, 1988 amendments.
E Applicants recently provided information relevant to the meaning of'the change.
E Applicants have been informed by the State of New Hampshire l
that on oace 11 of the filina of February 1.
1990, thg words="oroceed immediatelv to the nearest available fully-enclosed-buildina and remain there," more crocerly o
should read:
" shelter in olace."lR/
l The State now resists, even under circumstances where there l
would be-imoediments to evacuation (i.e. " condition 2"),
the statement that beach transients would be directed,to nearby L
-shelters.
This suggests that the October revisions.apparently have eliminated sheltering for those on the beach under both-
_ Conditions 1 add 2.-
In addition, the definition of " shelter in place",. referenced by the State, on its face provides for evacuation for "those transients without access to an indoor location."
NHRERP Rev.
- 3. Vol.
8, p.
2.6-8.
l Finally, the FEMA response quite clearly establishes that, in FEMA's view, since February, 1988, the NHRERP was not intended to provide for sheltering the entire beach population under Condition 1.
19/
APPLICANTS' ADVICE TO LICENSING BOARD RE ERRONEOUS r
STATEMENTS IN APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD ORDER OF JANUARY 11, 1990 (Feb. 16, 1990) at 2-3. 7
, V
- n
,j
.In fact, the'" shelter-in-place" concept was presented'by.
the Applicants and.the state of New Hampshire to the i
Licensing Board in pre-filed testimony.on AprilE 15,_1988,-
~and was:a part of the NHRERP at least since February-11,_
.t 1988.
As noted above, the " shelter-in-nlace" concent nrovides for the transient beach nonulation-to evacaute and i
the necole indoors to remain indoors.
FEMA Response at 4
In the two' weeks-since the FEMA response was filed, the.
State:has taken D2 action to dispute this' FEMA position.
The y
Staff also." concurs with FEMA's reading ~of the NHRERP".
Staff-Response at 6.
b The record evidence, therefore, supports a finding that the current NMRERP does not provide for sheltering the entire beach population under condition 1.
This represents a material change from the NHRERP as approved by this-Board, violates a
. license condition imposed by the Licensing Board, supra, and as u
?
a matter of law will not maximize dose savings foF the public.
Eventif-the plan had not been so changed,fhowever, the FEMA-response establishes that the FIDUL review was predicated.upon a version of the NHRERP which did not provide for sheltering the entire beach population under Condition 1.
Therefore, there.is-a fundamental discrepancy between the NHRERP as approved by the Licensing Board and by FEMA.
There is no requisite FEMA L
finding to support licensing.
For these p
reasons, and as discussed below, the record should be reopened, q
I summary disposition on the sheltering contention granted, and the license authorization revoked.
L l
1 p p
L
,4; m
4 1
-l 0 Roopen Standard o
A.. Timeliness I
T This motion is predicated upon the responses of the State, the' Applicants, _ FEMA, and the Staff, received by the Intervenors between about February 20-26, 1990.
From these' responses, Intervenors for the'first time were apprised that
'the current NHRERP now apparently has eliminated sheltering for the beach population, under conditions 1 and 2, except'for those already in shelters at the time of the emergency.
Intervenors also learned for the'first time the nature of the FEMA review and the basis for its approval of the NHRERP.
Before Applicants' February 1 filing, and the responses thereto, there was no reason for the Board and the parties to g
interpret =the provisions for sheltering in the NHRERP'othar than as the~ promised revisions and updates which were to conform to the sworn testimony by the State, Applicants, and-FEMA at the New Hampshire hearings.
On the narrow issue of timeliness, these parties are-estopped from charging Intervenors with earlier knowledge of the plan change.
B.
Safety Sionificance This Board has already held that the absence of sheltering detail for those conditions in the NHRERP in which sheltering is appropriate prevents the reasonable assurance finding, h
ALAB-924 at 68, n.194, and cases cited therein.
It follows that if sheltering is no longer to be relied upon at all in those-very circumstances in which it was established and held L u
-- L.----
..L
1 93 F<
4
. g-f-
to be~the appropriate' dose minimizing' protective, action,.then this deficiency-too prevents a reasonable assurance finding _and is safety _significant.
ALAB-924 at 58 n.164 (noting that
'although~ sheltering is not par as required by the " range"
{
requirement of-50.47 (b) (10) or, by the " adequate protection"
' underpinnings of 50.47 (a) (1),11t is required when found' appropriate by planners based upon " site-specific
' circumstances").
.In the alternative, even if the present NHRERP were to conform to that approved by the Licensing Board, there was no FEMA review or finding for that plan.
The FEMA view, which 1
formed the basis for its plan review, is that under the.NHRERP sheltering _would never be ordered for the entire beach
-population.under condition 1.
This contradicts the basis-for NHRERP approval by the Licensing Board.
Asamatbarof Commission regulation, the Licensing Board did not have the requisite FEMA finding to support licensing, since FEMA Dg_V_el even reviewed the NHRERP as-interpreted by,the Board..This.
regulatory failure, which eliminates a necessary predicate for licensing, $50.47(a)(2), must be deemed to satisfy the requirements 1for reopening the record, both as to safety 1
significance and materially different result.
C.
Materially Different Result Had the Smith Board and this Board been apprised of the meaning of the October 1988 update of the NHRERP it is quite obvious that that evidence would have likely affected the
- 13
[ s
>L.
~
1 ff4 j
1
- 1
~v i
, disposition of'Intervenors' claims thatl sheltering is j
q Eunderutilized'for the' general' beach populationLat Seabrook.
As 1
i this. Board noted:-
x
.Intervenors' central concern is whether confining
- sheltering to such a' limited use under the plan:is, in-4 accordance with the first condition specified in'the j
NHRERP,;the most effective'use of this protective action: option to achieve ~ maximum. dose reductions.
-ALAB-924 at 51.: If the use.werc RERD further limited?-- not even to be used when as set forth in conditions (1).and_(2) it is dose-minimizing-for the population -
Intervenors would have e,
prevailed ~on this issue for the very reasons this. Board ruled against them.
Egg ALAB-924 at 51-58.-
D.. Affidavit Reauirement Intervenors rely in support of their motion to reopen on
'the responses of the State, FEMA, the Applicants, and the' Staff' regarding-the meaning of the October 1988 NHRERP update, and 1those portions of the record-of the NHRERP proceeding cited' above~and by the Smith Board and this Board in which sworn
.I testimony was received regarding the conditions under which
- sheltering the. beach population would be the dose minimizing
?
strategy.
ALAB-924 at 51 at notes'135 and 136 and accompanying
. text; 52, notes 141 and 142 and accompanying text.
LBP-88-32 at 18.70.
Egg also Tr. 14231.
E. Summary Discosition As discussed above, the material change in the NHRERP, i
disclosed for the first time in the Responses provided to i
1
'Intervenors after February 16, 1990, supports the reopening of f
s' 1-l l
s.
I i
the record on the NKRERP.
Moreover, summary disposition is f
appropriate in light of the principles of IAA iudicata.11/
Thus, based on the same adjudicated facts as found by the l
Licensing Board and this Board regarding the appropriateness of sheltering for conditions (1) and (2), Intervenors are entitled i
to summary disposition on their sheltering contentions as a I
matter of law.
EXPEDITIOUS CONSIDERATION This motion should be entertained immediately and ruled upon so that the commission can be apprised about the significance of those changes.
Obviously, if Intervenors are now entitled as a matter of law to have the record reopened, this should occur before operations would actually begin so.
that any' deficiencies would be corrected beforehand.
t 11/
Again the State of New Hampshire and the Applicants are free to change the plan (or now disclose that the plan was changed).
However, on principles of rag iudicata the inadeauaev of the NHRERP in light of this change is established.
Thus, without further evidence in the record that t
would support this change and permit the holding of LBP-88-32 and ALAB-924 in this regard to be modified, the absence of sheltering for the entire beach population for condition (1) t and condition-(2) is a deficiency precluding the reasonable assurance finding.
O S
I, i
CONCLUSION i
Intervenors therefore request the record to be l
reopened, summary disposition granted'on the' sheltering contentions, and the license authorization revoked.
r Respectfully submitted, CoiWONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON JAMES M. SRANNON NUCLEAR POWER ATTORNEY GENERAL
\\ Vh t OA Diane Curran, Esq.
Matthew T. Brock-i Harmon, Curran, & Towsley Assistant Attorney General Suite 430 One Ashburton Place 2001 S Street, N.W.
Boston, MA 02108 Washington, DC 20008 (617) 727-2200 t
i
~
SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
.i
<3' T
N U$
Robert Backus, Esq.
Backus, Meyer, & Solomon 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03106 i
i Dated February 28, 1990 L
L i
i L
5 l
- U l.
I:
4 I
COLKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNR0 i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOART W -1 A10:30 Before Administrative Judges:
- rrfCE OF SECRETARY t 0CKEilNG & S[ Rv1C('-
G.
Paul Bollwerk III, Chairman DRANCH Alan S. Rosenthal Howard A. Wilber
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
)
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
February 28, 1990
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Matthew T. Brock, hereby certify that on February 28, 1990, I made service of the enclosed EMERGENCY MOTION OF THE INTERVENORS TO REOPEN THE RECORD, FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION AS TO THE NEED FOR SHELTERING IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, AND FOR LICENSE REVOCATION by Federal Express as indicated by (*), and by first l
class mail to:
- Ivan W. Smith, Chairman
- Kenneth A. McCollom L
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1107 W.
Knapp St.
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stillwater, OK 74075 L
East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway l
Bethesda, MD 20814
- Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Robert R. Pierce, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 P
?
~
R 3'
f I
t j
- Docketing and Service
- Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray 1
Washington, DC 20555 One International Place'
]
Boston, MA 02110
- Mitzi'A. Young, Esq.
Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
J
'Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of the Attorney General Office of the General Counsel Augusta, ME 04333 11555 Rockville Pike, 15th Floor i'
Rockville, MD 20852
- H.
Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Assistant General Counsel Appeal Board office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Washington, DC 20555 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 116 Lowell Street Washington, DC 20555 P.O.
Box 516 Manchester, NH 03106
)
Jane Doughty Diane Curran, Esq.
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Harmon, curran.& Towsley e
Five Market Street Suite 430 Portsmouth, NH 02801 2001 S Street, N.W.
Washington, DC-20008 Barbara St. Andre, Esq.
Judith Mizner, Esq.
Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
79 State Street 77 Franklin Street Second Floor Boston, MA 02110 Newburyport, MA 01950 Charles P. Graham, Esq.
R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Murphy & Graham Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton ti Rotondi 33 Low Street 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Newburyport, MA 01950 Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 145' South Main Street U.S. Senate i
P.O.
Box 38 Washington, DC 20510 Bradford, MA 01835 (Attn Tom Burack)
Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey John P. Arnold, Attorney General One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Office of the Attorney General Concord, NH 03301 25 Capitol Street t
(Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Concord, NH 03301.
i L
l
- G.
Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman
- Alan S. Rosenthal Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
- Howard A. Wilber
- Kenneth M. Carr p
Atomic Safety & Licensing Chairman Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike East West Towers Building Rockville, MD 20852 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
- Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner
- Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Rockville, MD 20852
- 3ames R. Curtiss, Commissioner Jack Dolan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency 11555 Rockville Pike Region 1 Rockville, MD 20852 J.W. McCormack Post Office &
Courthouse Building, Room 442 Boston, MA 02109 George Iverson, Director
- Edwin Reis, Esquire N.H. Office of Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State House Office Park South Office of General Counsel 107 Pleasant Street 11555 Rockville Pike 15th Floor Concord, NH 03301 Rockville, MD 20852
- Forrest J. Remick U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SRANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL
%JN N
\\
f.Leve
\\
)
Matthew T. Brock Assistant Attorney General Departnent of the Attorney General One Athburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 i
l Dated:
February 28, 1990 I