ML20080L958

Comments on Scheduling of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions.All Offsite Planning Contentions Should Be Litigated Together.Issues Similar & Some Witnesses Will Testify on Both Plans.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20080L958
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/26/1983
From:	Bisbee G NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8310030397
Download: ML20080L958 (7)

Text

r *1 e

00CKETED UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION _'8 3 g g) p g p be? ore the 0 Ficr 0F SEC: * '

• ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Uhfk NU)

)

)

In the Matter of )r

)'

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444 OL

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 )

) September 26, 1983 COMMENTS OF THE-STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ON THE SCHEDULING OF OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS The Licensing Board indicated orally at the hearing on August 31, 1983, that in light of the delay in filing certain state and local emergency response plans, it was reconsidering its Order of May 23, 1983 on the scheduling of off-site emergency planning contentions. The State of New Hampshire offers for the Board's consideration the following discussion on three issues inselving the scheduling of off-site emergency planning issues.

First, it is the position of the State of New Hampshire that all off-site emergency planning issues should be litigated together. It was New Hampshire's understanding at the April 7- 8, 1983 pre-hearing conference (and from the May 23, 1983 Order) that the G-831003039793y26;g 7 AoOcx e g gc )

2 a ,

t f.

Massachusetts and New Hampshire plans would follow along the same litigation schedule, and would be heard together. That the two states' plans have not been made available to the parties by the same date should not affect the Board's earlier determination that ,

emergency planning issues af fecting plassachusetts and New Hampshire

hould be litigated at the same time.

The interests of judicial economy dictate that the two states' plans should be litigated together. The issues involving both the states' plans are similar, and many witnesses who will testify on the New Hampshire plans, will also provide testimony on the Massachusetts plans. Much hearing time and effort will be saved if

.similar and overlapping issues are heard by the Board at one time.

Furthermore, the general issue of emergency response coordination between the two states, and between localities in the two states, can best be addressed by consideration of the two states' plans concurrently. This issue of the inter-relationship of the Massachusetts and New Hampshire plans, and the comprehensive issue of emergency planning for the entire Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone, can most effectively be understood by the B0ard if the two states' plans are litigated together.

n - - . . _ _ , - - - . . _

7 .

-j J ,

Second, while the Board may determine that time constraints mandate.that hearings on the New Hampshire plans should p' recede hearings on the Massachusetts plans, the New Hampshire state and local plans should-nevertheless be litigated together. The New Hampshire state plan was distributed to the parties about one month r

before~the local plans. Accordingly, while the Board has already cruled.on the admissibility of contentions on the state plan, it has not yet issued an order relative to the contentions filed'on the

. local plans. In theory, then, the New Hampshire state plan would be 4 ready for-hearing before the local plans. However, as'a practical matter, contentions on the New Hampshire state and local plans should be litigated together. New' Hampshire emergency response capabilities rely on both state and local resources, and most of the

' filed contentions relate to matters involving state and local capabilities. In fact, the local plans themselves are appendixes to the sta'te radiological emergency response plan. Therefore, New Hampshire emergency planning issues can most logically be litigated

. .and understood together, rather than separately.

If the Board chooses to proceed with hearings on the New

~ Hampshire state plan before New Hampshire's local plans are ready for hearing,-the Board should carefully select those issues which involve the state plan exclusively to be heard first. Contentions involving both the state and local plans may then be deferred for consideration when contentions on the local plans reach the hearing stage of the proceeding.

n 4 4

Third, should the Board wish.to conduct hearings on the New Hampshire plans earlier than and separately from the Massachusetts plans, the anticipated December 13, 1983 date for the commencement of hearings may no longer be feasible. New Hampshire does not seek to expand the relative deadlines estpblished in the Board's May 23,

'1,983 Order, but New Hampshire urges the Board to leave unchanged the time it has allotted for litigation of off-site emergency planning issues.

The May 23, 1983 scheduling order called for a ruling on the admissibility of off-site emergency planning contentions by August 15, 1983 and a hearing on the admitted contentions approximately four months later. One month of this time was scheduled for discovery requests, and the subsequent one and a half months was scheduled for the preparation of and ruling on cummary disposition motions. The remaining time was allotted to the preparation and filing of direct and rebuttal-testimony. These relative deadlines, in New Hampshire's view, constitute the minimum time necessary for the parties to prepare and respond to discovery requests, to address summary' disposition, and then to develop testimony and otherwise prepare for hearing. Shortening the time period allotted for discovery, summary disposition, or the preparation of testimony would unduly hamper the parties' ability to develop their case, and present the issues fully.for the Board's consideration.

L.

' /1 Moreover, New Hampshire' notes that many of the emergency planning issues raised may be resolved through negotiation. It is in_each party's, and the Board's, interest 'o promote such negotiation to the fullest extent possible. The Board should avoid f

compressing the time allotted for litigation of emergency planning issues where such action will also diminish the time available for informal settlement negotiations among the parties.

Respectfully submitted, THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GREGORY H. SMITH ATTORNEY GENERAL L{-.

By: h bT

• George Dana Bisbee 3( )

-a Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division

• Office of the Attorney General State House Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301

[

Dated: ftb(ikb Telephone: 603/271-3678 i .

7 z . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ .

.j.

00lKETED USNEC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, George Dana Bisbee, Esquire, do hereby certi t ha PcpJ of the foregoing BRIEF OF THE ETATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ON THE SCHEDULING OF OFF-SITE' EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS has bee @ jleilt.this 26th day of September, 1983, by first class mail, posta g $hj g 31V.to:

Helen F. Hoyt, Chm.* Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel rBoard Panel U.S. NRC U'.S. NRC Wa,shington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555  ;

Dr. Jerry Harbour Jo Ann Shotwell, Asst. AG Administrative Judge Office of the Attorney General-Atomic Safety and Licensing One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Board Vanel Boston, MA 02108 U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555 Mrs. Beverly Hollingsworth 822 Lafayette Road Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 596 Robert Perliss, Esquire Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 Office of Executive Legal Dir.

U.S. NRC William S, Jordan, II, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Harmon and Weiss Robert A. Backus, Esquire 1725 I Street, N.W.

116 Lowell Street Suite 506 P.O. Box 516 Washington, D.C. 20006 .

Manchester, N.H. 03105 Anne Verge Phillip Ahrens, Esquire Chairperson Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen State House, Station #6 Town Hall Augusta, Maine 04333 South Hampton, N.H. 03842 R. K. Gad, III, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing

• Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esquire Board Panel Ropes and Gray U.S. NRC 225 Franklin Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 David R. Lewis, Esq.

Law Clerk to Board Office of Selectmen Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Town.of Brentwood U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Brentwood, New Hampshire 03833 Washington, D.C. 20555

7 .-- .,

r.,,,

Rep. Roberta C. Pevear

. Town of Hampton Falls

.Drinkwater Road Hampton' Falls, New Hampshire 03844 Office of Selectmen Ms. Sandra Gavutis Town of Kensington Office of Selectmen Kensington, New Hampshire 03833 Town of East Kingston RFD 1 East Kingston, New Hampshire 03848' Mr. Calvin A. Canney Mr. Patrick J. McKeon City Manager Office of Selectmen City of Portsmouth Town of Rye 126 Daniel Street 10 Central Road Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 Rye, New Hampshire 03870 Dr. Mauray Tye Mr. Angie Machiros President Ch_ airman Sun Valley Assoc.tation Board'of Selectmen 209 Summer Street Town of Newbury Haverhill, MA 01830 Newbury, MA 01950 Brian Cassidy, Regional Counsel Mr. Maynard B. Pearson Federal Emergency Management Agency Director of Civil Defense Region I for the Town of Amesbury J.W. McCormack POCH 40 Monroe Street Boston, MA 02109 Amesbury, MA 01913 Charles Cross, Esquire Shaines, Madrigan and McEachern 25 Maplewood Ave.

P.O. Box.366 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 N.

Dated: Tla h -

t I

• Served by Express Mail i

L