ML20073G857

Proposed Schedule for Emergency Planning Hearings. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20073G857
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/13/1983
From:	Curran D, Jordan W HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:
Shared Package
ML20073G843	List: ML20073G840 ML20073G857
References
NUDOCS 8304180404
Download: ML20073G857 (12)

Text

O

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA US[I,yE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "E

^

" ~ 1 3 ,'Ji ;i 5 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD

)-

In the Matter of )

}-

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443 NEW H AMPSH IRE , et al. ) 50-444

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 "

. )

and 2) .)

)

NENCP PROPOSED SCHEDULk FOR EMERGE'NCY PLANNING HEARINGS As the Board requested, NECNP submits the schedule for litigation of of f-site emergency planning contentions that n .m - - _

NECNP proposed at the April 7 and 8 prdh'eaYing conference.

We

, first present the schedule itself, and then d.iscuss it briefly.

Schedule As Proposed April 8, 1983:

l Before June 20, 1983 Three"(3) of Six (6) Ma5schu-setts local plans received, and contentions filed within thirty (30) days, June 20 N.H. plans received by parties July 20 Contentions due on N.H. plans August 10 . Responses to contentions are due August 24 Prehearing. conference on all n.ew emergency planning con-tentions.

September 7 Board rulings on admiss-

, ability of all new emergency

- planning contentions; begin-ing of discovery B304180404 830413 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PM l - _ _ - - . . - _ - . . - . - . . . __ _-. -_ _ . _ _ . _ -

November 7 '

Close of discovery

' November 21 Deadline for filing summary

• disposition motions November 28 Board rules on summary dis-position motions December 28 ,

District testimony is filed w._ January 15, 1984 _ Rebuttal testimony

~

January 25 Hearing begins.

Discussion .

1. This schedule contemplates a total of approximately l seven (7) months for the pre-hearing litigation of all off-site emergency planning contentions. It does not contemplate an eleven (11) month period, as the Board seemed to'believe.

Measuring from June 1983, the month that the bulk o5 the emergency plans will become available (and the first time that it is even possible to consider what issues should be ,

litigated, much less to begin litigation), an eleven (11) month period wo,uld lead to a hearing in May 1984, not January 1984.

o G

.e

The Board may have developed'its eleven (11) month estimate based on the time from April 8,1983 (the date on which the schedule was discussed), to March 1984 (the hearing date resulting from NECNP's original development of the schedule, but not proposed to'the Board). If so, the Board apparently did not understand that NECNP had cut two months from its own original proposal. TheJanuarh25hearingdateisnine(9) months from April . B, 1983. ._Even then, ,however ,: nine (9 ) months is a grossly misleading figure. The total period for litigation prior to the hearing itself must be measured not u _= _ from some arbitrarily chosen date before. litigation _begins, but from the point at which the parties have access to the information on which the litigation would be' based.~That period would be less than seven (7) months if it ended on .

January 15, 1984. .

2. Even this schedule is a compromise. According to the schedule provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the local plans of half of the affected towns in' Massachusetts will not be available until after June 20, 1983. Thus, intervenors will be forced to review and develop contentions on l

the basis of those plans at the same time that they are ,

l preparing to litigate the earlier plans.

In addition, under the schedule set out above and that l

- provided by FEMA, intervenors would be forced to review state and local emergency plans beginning as early as May 8, and to develop and file contentions as early as June 7. They would i

y

have to undertake this effort at the same time that they were preparing for the safety hearing in June. This can only result in h'urried reviews and contentions that do not assure the most efficient or effective resolution of the issues of concern to the public.

3. More important, the very concept of attempting to establish a schedule and'begin' litigation _ at this point is premature. We will not evep have the b,asic documents underlying the litigation for another two months. We cannot know until then how extensive'this litigation is likely to be or what sort of schedule it would reasonably require. If there x u.m_

.are few issues in dispute, a tight scheduie such as that proposed by NECNP might be reasonable. But if there'are many

~

issues in dispute, more time may be needed. A reasoned .,

judgment as to schedule should be made at the tige the relevant information is available and not before. Indeed, the attempt to establish a schedule now severely prejudices the integrity of the hearing by placing artificial limits on the litigation.

As has been true to date, the initially established 11mits may well become set in concrete. Parties will be required to l

' demonstrate good cause for extending the limits, when the limits should not have been imposed in the first place.

4. I,n addition, as NECNP noted during the pre-hearing

_ conference, it is willing and eager to work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in evaluating and improving the w

1. 4 g

local emergency plans'. We made that commitment to FEMA late last year. We have no doubt that the states, towns, and other inte'rvenors are also anxious to be involved in the planning process in a productive way. This expressed willingness to cooperate offers a unique opportunity to refine and improve emergency planning in the Seabrook area outside the unduly adversary context of litigatid$. With ti.me and good will on all sides, much can be accopplished, an,d the pu.blic may be able to develop some sense,of productive involvement and of _

confidence that the emergency' plans reflect reality. While it

. _ m__.

is unlikely that all differences can be resolved or that all intervenors will be conv-inced that even the best emergency plan

~

will provide adequate protection, the plans would be'better, public acceptance would be greater, and the issues for .,

litigation would be narrower and more clearly defined.

None of the above is possible under the schedule proposed by the NRC Staff, or even under that proposed by NECNP. The schedule that would best serve the public interest would provide for a period of several months between the time the local plans become available and the time that contentions must be filed. That time would be used for productive public .

involvement outside the context of litigation.

The goal of such public involvement in order to achieve the

- optimum result should be an important, if not primary 9

e

'* e ,

e---- -..-, , , . , _ , -- - - . . -

~

consideration in deve1oping the schedule for this proceeding.

In private litigation, emphasis on expedition is appropriate since the goal of resolving the dispute is nearly as important to public policy as the goal of ashuring the correct result.

The same is not true here. This is public litigation, in which the goal is not simply to resolve the dispute so that others can be addressed, but to assuie that the resolution of the dispute is correct, so that_the public ,will be : adequately -

protected. .

5. Since the scheduling of off-site emergency planning

. . , = - litigation is premature at this time, and since it would disrupt potentially fruitful efforts to raise and resolve public concerns, NECNP urges the Board to direct th'at contentions need not be filed for six (6) months after the..date the New Hampshire plans become available to the parties. The Board should also provide for monthly reports from the parties during that time period to assure that they are working productively to evaluate and improve the plans before litigation must begin. In addition to allowing a productive, l

non-litigation approach to the issues, while retaining Board control to assure that such an approach was being attempt.ed in good faith, this would serve as an important signal to the public that the Board is not governed by the utility's

- distinctly private interest in loading fuel precisely when it k

=

e

p..._--,_

7-would like to, but by the public interest in assuring the best possible outcome of the emergency planning process.

'6 . Even with this additional six (6) month period, the total pr e-hearing litigation period would be less than that allowed for the safet contentions, assuming a hearing begins in June 1983. The total of the seven (7) months in NECNP's schedule as proposed at the pfd-hearing conference, plus the additional six (6). months would be thir, teen (13:) months, one less than provided for by the Board between the Apri1 1982 filing of safety contentions 'and the contemplated hearing date.

. ,__ . 7. NECNP's originally proposed seven (7) month , schedule contrasts even more sharply with that for-the safety issues.

Less than half as much time would be allowed 'for lit'igation of twenty-three (23) local plans and two (21 state p1'ns, a all.,

involving the issue of greatest concern to the residents of the New England seacoast. -

Where one or two experts might be consulted with respect to each technical safety contention, emergency plans and related contentions require consultation with many more people. Each town and state has its po' lice and emergency officials, as well as transportation and medical facilities. All of the relevant personnel would have to be contacted in order to prepare to litigate, emergency planning concerns. Thus, proper preparation for this' litigation requires consultation with at least l

approximately one hundred (100) such individuals. This figure l .

_ . . _ _ _ ~ . . _ . - _

r_. _

~ ~ . - ~ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . . . . . _ ,

does not include other experts or consultants who should exaraine the issues from a broader perspective or address matters such as accident consequence analysis that are integral 4

to any evaluation of the adequacy of emergency planning.

For these reasons," even NECNP's originally proposed schedule is unreasonably tight.

8. At the hearing, NECNP '5ttempted to argue that the Board should take into accoutn.the severe res,trictions on the ,

resources available to citizen intervenors. NECNP's argument was cut off by the Board, which apparently believed NECNP was

.r. appealing for the Board or the Commission to provide such resources. Although it would be justifie8 in doing so, and it would serve the interests of the Board and the Commi'ssion to provide such resources, NECNP made no such plea. NECNP is.,

aware of the restrictions on intervenor funding..

The lack of resources, specifically including the denial of intervenor funding, strongly supports the point that NECNP was attempting to make. If this hearing is to serve'the public purpose of gathering the relevant information and assuring that

< a decision is reached only on the basis of a complete record, the Board must take intervenor resource limitations into I account. If it cannot provide funding, it must provide time for prepa, ration by volunteers and others who will be assisting

- the intervenors in their spare moments. Any schedule that does 5

k

=

not reflect this prin~ciple threatens to make a sham of the entire proceeding, and particularly of the concept that NRC hear'ir.gs should be useful tools in the Commission's decisionmaking process. Nothing in Commission regulations, Congressional materials, or elsewhere prevents the Board from thus basing its schedule on the need for a full and fair hearing. _

9. Finally, e.ven the apparently ov,erriding concern with finishing the hearing,in time to allow the utility to fuel and operate the reactor without t'he slightest delay'does not v.;,__. . justify expediting this hear.ing as proposed by the staff, or even following the schedule proposed by NECNP, with a hearing in January 1984. The fuel load date for Seab' rook Un'it No. 1 is now expected to be January 1,1985, according to George Gantz of the staff of the New Hampshire Public Utility.C:.mmission 4

(telephone conversation, April 12, 1983). A schedule that provided for the emergency planning hearing to begin in July 1984, thus accomodating the six (6) month period' proposed by NECNP, would allow a decision by the end of 1984 and fuel load in 1985 if the decision were favorable.

For these reasons, NECNP urges the Board to adopt the following schedule:

_ 'l. Contentions on off-site emergency planning issues are due$six (6) months from the date the New

• Hampshire local plans are received.

J

~

2. The litigation' schddule from that point forward t

would be the same as that proposed by the NECNP at the beginning of this document, with the dates changed to reflect the initial six (6) month period.

If the Board rejects this approach, we urge, at a minimum, that it adopt the NECNP proposed scbedule without the initial six (6) month period. _

. Respectfully submitted, v._- - h William, orda((kIII b

Diane Curran HARMON-& WEISS ..

1725 I Street, N.W.

Suite 506 -

Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 -

April 1:3, 1983

. e I

l -

m e

t

CERTIFfCATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April 13, 1983, copies of NECNP REWORDED CONTENTION I.D.2., TESTING OF MANUAL REACTOR -.-

TRIP ACTUATION FUNCTION and NECNP P'ROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR' i

' EMERGENCY PLANNING HEARINGS were served by first-class mail or as otherwise indicated on the following: -

'83 $ 13 ml:15  ;

i . 1 4

Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairperson Rep. Roberta C. -Pevear Atomic Saftey and Licen' sing Board 'DrinkwateriR' oad:

l Panel Hampton Falls, NH 03844 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth 7. Luebke -

Phillip Ahrens, Esq.

Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General

. Atomic Saftey and Licensing Board . State House, Station #6 I

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Augusta, ME 04333 Washington, DC 20555 ,

Dr. Jerry Harbour Robert A. Backus, Esq.

, Administrative Judge 111 Lowell Street

"' Atomic Saftey and Licensing Board - c -Manchester, NH 03105

) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Saftey and Licensing Board Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.

Panel R. K. G a d ',, I I I , Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes and Gray Washington, DC 20555 225 Frank,lin Street Boston', MA 02110

^

Atomic Saftey and Licensing Appeal Dr. Mauray Tye, President Board Panel Sun Valley Asociation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 98 Emmerson Street Washington, DC 20555 Haverhill, MA 01830 Docketing and Service Roy P.*Le'ssy, Jr. Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert G. Perlis, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Executive

. Legal Director

! Maynard B. Pearson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director of Civil Defense Commission -

Town Hall Washington, DC 20555 Amesbury, MA 01913 Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Anne Verge, Chair Coastal Chamber of Commerce Board of Selectmen 822 Lafayette Rd. ,

Town Hall P.O. Box 596 .

South Hampton, NH 03842 Hamptop, NH 03842 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esq. George Dana Bisbee, Esq.

Assisfant Attorney General Edward L. Cross, Jr., Esq.

Department of the Attorney Asst. Atty. Generals General State House Annex 1 Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Concord, NH 03301

- .Bo,ston, MA 02108 .

J

John B. Tanzer Letty Hett, Selectman Town of Hampton. Town of Brentwood 5 Morningside Drive RFD Dalton Road Hampton, NH 03842 Brentwood, NH 03833 Edward F. Meany Sandra Gavutis Towntof Rye Town of Kensington 155 Washington Road EFD 1 ,

Rye, NH 03870 East Kensington, NH 03827 Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq.

• Diana P. Sidebotham Law Clerk to the' Board R.F.D.2 Atomic Safety and Licen' sing Board Dutney, VT 05346 U.S. Nuclear Regul'atory Comm'ssion Uashing ton, DC 20555 Diane Curran

{ _

t e

e -

.hw a

G <S O

e 9

8 o

e S

e e

e 4

=

• 8 4

-w