ML20072F807

Motion for Clarification of ASLB 830117 order.Thirty-day Period for Filing Contentions on Emergency Planning Should Not Be Triggered by Receipt of City of Newburyport,Ma Draft Emergency Plan.Moves for Stay of Contention Filing Deadline

ML20072F807
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/18/1983
From:	Shotwell J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20072F809	List: ML20072F807 ML20072F829 ML20072F863
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8303240430
Download: ML20072F807 (6)

Text

.I.

DOCKETED t; CC FIL  : a ch h 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of:

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. Docket Nos. 50-443 OL 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

MOTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL BELLOTTI FOR CLARIFICATION OF BOARD ORDER DATED JANUARY 17, 1983 AND FOR IMMEDIATE STAY OF FILING DEADLINE FOR CONTENTIONS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR THE CITY OF NEWBURYPORT By letter dated February 28, 1983, the NRC Staff transmitted to the Board and the parties a document previously sent to the Federal Emergency Management Agency which appears to be a draft emergency plan of the City of Newburyport,

, Massachusetts. As appears from the letters being submitted herewith, officials of the City of Newburyport have not yet reviewed that document. In fact, many of the Department heads who are expected to perform emergency response tasks under the terms of that document received copies of it for the first time on March 11, 1983 -- nearly two weeks after the document was l

filed with the Board. The document was prepared by a consulting firm under contract to the State of New Hampshire with the assistance of the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and is just now being presented to the City for its review.

~}

8303240430 830318 gon ADocx OsOOOggg h ;[]

s

An. official of the flassachusetts Civil Defense Agency had forwarded the subject document to FEMA solely for the purpose of obtaining and sharing with the City the initial reactions of

-the federal Radiological Assistance Committee. This was done without any knowledge that the document would then be filed with the Board or that it might be treated as the City's' plan for purposes of the licensing process. The City and Civil Defense agree that this document, not having yet been reviewed or accepted even in broad outline by City officials, is not yet a plan of the City of Newburyport and should not be so treated for purposes of this license proceeding.

In its Memorandum and Order dated January 17, 1983, memorializing the conference call of December 22, 1982, the Board ordered that "... contentions addressing emergency plans must be filed after the draft emergency plans (or relevant part thereof) have been submitted to FEMA and within 30 days of the plans being made available to the parties." While it is clear from that order and from the discussion that took place during the December 22 conference call that the Board does not necessarily intend to await the receipt of a completely.

finalized, signed emergency plan from a local community before comnencing the hearing process thereon, it remains unclear whether the Board would commence the hearing process on the basis of a document prepared by third parties which has not yet been reviewed or accepted even in general terms by the affected

municipality. We submit that it would be improper for the Board to proceed to a hearing on the basis of such a document and request clarification that the 30-day period set forth in the January 17 order was not triggered by receipt of this document.

The 30-day filing period, if commenced by the receipt of this particular document, expires for Attorney General Bellotti on April 4, 1983. We, therefore, further request that the Board either immediately order a conference call for purposes of resolving this question or immediately notify all parties that any deadline will be stayed pending clarification of this matter. And, finally, we request that we be provided a minimum of 14 days to prepare and submit contentions following any ultimate-ruling that contentions should be filed on the basis of this document.1/

The Commission's regulations require that the applicant for an operating license submit to the Commission " radiological l emergency response plans of State and local governmental entities" within the EPZ. It seems undeniable that a document l 1/ This office first became aware of the possible problems l associated with this planning document during the week of March 7. We immediately took all necessary steps to obtain I full information with respect to this situation and had j intended to raise the need for clarification of the Board's l order at the March 17 prehearing conference. We prepared this written motion and accompanying documents for submission to the Board as quickly as possible upon learning of the cancellation of that conference. These pleadings are being forwarded to the Board and the Staff by express mail; they are being hand-delivered to the Applicants.

L

n which has not been seen or reviewed by local government officials cannot constitute a plan of that locality for purpos9s of this requirement. If the obligation to file contentions relating in any way to emergency planning for the City of Newburyport is to be triggered by the parties' receipt of the document now before the Board, then Attorney General Bellotti will be forced to file a contention stating, in essence, that the document does not constitute Newburyport's emergency plan and raising every conceivable objection to that planning document that the City might have. Only in that way could he preserve his objection to the licensure and operation of this plant on the basis of a planning document which he knows does not necessarily reflect, in any of its provisions, the actual emergency response needs or capabilities of the City of Newburyport.

The effect of a requirement that contentions be filed at this time with respect to emergency planning for Newburyport would be, therefore, to involve all parties prematurely in litigation over a plan that is still being developed and to divert to such litigation resources which would otherwise be l directed to any necessary revision of this planning document on the basis of the City's review. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the TMI Restart Proceeding spoke at length about the problems associated with commencing an adjudicatory process in connection with emergency plans before interested parties have

had an opportunity to review and contribute to the plans. The Board wrote, The board has expressed its concern that the intervention process in this proceeding has not been the best forum for intervenors to influence for the first time the emergency plans affecting their interests. ...

We sense that some of the contentions have been advanced not so much as issues upon which informed intervenors wish to prevail, but as a means of seeking information and satisfying concerns. As far as we can determine, no appropriate opportunity has been provided for intervenors to have a voice in the formulation of emergency planning except in the discovery and hearing phases of this adjudicatory proceeding.

The evidentiary hearing, we believe, is a poor place initially to seek information of this nature and is a poor place to first raise issues concerning the details of emergency planning. .

The licensing board has limited emergency planning expertise. . . . Emergency plans cannot easily be drafted by adjudication.

Moreover, hearing time is precious; many issues can be decided no other way.

Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), ASLB, Memorandum and Order on Revised Emergency Planning Contentions (November 12, 1980).

If we commence the adjudicatory process now in connection with this preliminary draft document which does not reflect the input or review of the affected municipality, we will find

ourselves in the precise situation deplored by the TMI Board.

Mayor Sullivan of the City of Newburyport has indicated in the attached letter that he will inform the Board when the City has in place a plan which, at least in major detail, accurately reflects its emergency response needs and capabilities. We urge that the Board forestall needless and hopelessly confused litigation in this matter by clarifying that it is that plan which will trigger the 30-day filing deadline for contentions.

A refusal by the Board to so clarify this matter Will likely result in less willingness on the part of state and local officials to share planning documents for other Massachusetts communities with federal agencies until such time as they have been finally approved and signed by the locality involved.

Hence, a decision to force the parties to litigate at this time issues related to emergency planning for Newburyport will likely result in greater delay in the ultimate conclusion of this license proceeding.

Respectfully submitted, FR X. BELLOTTI Mm.- Jd [

~

By: s Jo Shotwell A stant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2265

-