ML20148D382
| ML20148D382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1988 |
| From: | Curran D HUNTON & WILLIAMS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5920 OL, NUDOCS 8803240028 | |
| Download: ML20148D382 (8) | |
Text
, 6 9 f-6 Ma rch 18,1988 DOCXETED USNRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD T8 HN? 22 P2:18 i
l GFFICE 0: SEc. v, l
)
DCC:\\Ein:3 a i mr,;'
In the Matter of
)
W NDi
)
Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL l
)
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
OFFSITE EMERGE!!CY
)
PLANNING ISSUES
)
JOINT INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR
_ EXTENSION OF HEARING SCHEDULE I.
Introduction Intervenors New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Seacoast An ti-Pollu tion League, Town of Hamp ton, and Town of Amesbury, (hereaf ter "Intervenors") respectfully request the Licensing Board to extend the schedul'e established in its Fe bru-ary 17, 1988, order, l
for litigation of offsite emergency planning issues.
In tervenors seek more time for the preparation of pro-posed findings on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan ("RERP") and contentions on the Seabrook Plan for the Massachusetts communities ("SPMC").
Earlier, the Licensing Board overruled Intervenors' oral objections to the February 17th schedule.
Since that time, however, new circumstances and obli-gations have arisen which make an extension of the schedule all the more warranted.
Intervenors therefore seek renewed consider-ation of the schedule.
8803240028 090318 PDR ADOCK 05000443 o
PDR Ob
. II.
Factual Background On February 3,1988, the Licensing Board proposed a schedule for the litigation of offsite emergency planning at Seabrook.
That schedule included a deadline of April 6 for proposed find-ings on the NHRERP on all issues except sheltering and May 6 for the filing of contentions on the SPMC.
The Board also proposed a schedule for litigation of the sheltering issue, setting March 14 as the deadline for FEMA's evaluation of the New Hampshire response on sheltering, March 28 for prefiled testimony on sheltering, and April 18 for the commencement of hearings on sheltering on April 18.
Intervenors generally accepted the proposal while noting that supervening events, such as FEMA changing its position, might require changes.
In response to an objection from the Applicants, however, the Board reduced the time for filing con-tentions on the SPflC by a month from May 6 to April 1,1988.
In apparent recognition of the resulting hardship to Intervenors, the Board also extended the hearing schedule on sheltering issues by approximately two weeks, calling for the prefiling of testimony on April 18 and the commencement of hearings on May 2, 1988.
The new schedule was set out in a Memorandum and Order dated Fe bruary 17, 1988.
The Board therein overruled oral objections to the schedule made by Intervenors during the February 10th hearing session.
Intervenors petitioned for directed certifica-tion of the February 17 order, which the Appeal Board denied by
3-order of March 9,1988 for f ailure to satisfy the standard for interlocutory review.
However, the Appeal Board stated that its decision did not preclude Intervenors from returning to the Licensing Board for scheduling relief.
III. ARGUMENT Since the Board's order, a number of events have taken place which further reduce the time available to Intervenors to prepare proposed findings on the New Hampshire RERP and contentions on the SPMC.
They include the following:
1)
Within the past week, FEMA has completely changed its position and the makeup of its witness panel on the adequacy of protective measures for the beach population.
Intervenors have noticed the deposition of 9 FEMA witnesses and substantial docu-ment requests; those depositions are to take. place over several days beginning on March 23rd.
Through informal discussions with FEMA counsel, Intervenors have also learned that FEMA may oppose some of these depositions; therefore, some time will probably be taken up in discovery disputes.
2)
Intervenors have also received a substantial amount of new information relating to the SPMC, which must be reviewed and assimilated into contentions.
Significant portions of the SPMC were redacted from the plan, and were not provided to the Inter-venors until February 24, 1988.
Intervenors have also received three supplements to the SPMC, which were served on February 18, 22, and 23,1988.
These supplements, which total hundreds of l
pages, substantially modify the SPMC.
t I
4-3) on March 1, Intervenors were required to file briefs before the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in their appeal of the NRC's emergency planning rule amendments that af fect the Seabrook litigation.
This appeal, which is pivotal to the outcome of the Seabrook licensing case, required extensive legal research and review of an enormous factual record.
Re ply briefs are due on April 14.
At the end of February and beginning o f Ma r ch, Intervenors also prepared comments on the joint PEMA/NRC criteria for implementation of the new rule.
4)
At the invitation of the Appeal Br '"d, on February 23, Massachusetts filed a supplemental briet concerning Applicants' financial qualifications to operate the Seabrook plant, in light of Public Se rvice Cotpany's bankruptcy filing.
5)
In the onsite technical phase of the hearings, NECNP has a deadline of March 22 f or filing with the Appeal Board its response to the Licensing Board's decision regarding the environ-mental qualification of RG-58 coaxial cable.
By April 8, NECNP 1
must also brief its appeal of the Licensing Board's recent deci-sion to re-issue a license for low power operation.
I 6)
NECNP is in the active pre-trial phase for the hearings on the safety issues remanded by the Appeal Board.
This has required substantial time to be devoted to consultation with experts, discovery disputes on both issues as well as extensive briefing on the scope of the issue regarding corrosion of piping at Seabrook (now pending a decision on NECNP's tbtion for Re conside ra tion).
5-The record shows that since the Board's order was issued in mid-February, the Intervenors have been faced with major filing deadlines and/or discovery obligations virtually every week.
There has been almost no opportunity for the time-consuming pro-cess of reviewing the hearing record and the SPMC and preparing proposed findings and contentions.1 The proposed findings and contentions are not only due within one week of each other, but during the same week, NECNP must file a brief appealing the low power license.
A litigation schedule may not be so compressed in time as to deprive parties of a fair opportunity to be heard.
Such a sched-ule violates the procedural due process requirement of fundamen-tal fairness.
See Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, ALAB-864, 25 URC 417, 4 21 (1987).
This schedule, unless modified, requires so many different tasks of great importance to be completed at the same time as to make it impossible for the Intervenors to meet their obligations to their clients to perform the tasks in a competent and complete fashion.
Having come so far with this case, it would be a violation of due process if Int'ervenors were i
denied an opportunity to prepare full findings or to identify the issues of importance for the !!assachusetts plans.
Given the many
=
1 It should be noted that significant revisions to the SPMC, I
along with protected information, were not received until the third week of February.
There has been little time since then to review the thousands of new pages of data that have arrived.
. other obligations that have been imposed in the Seabrook licens-ing case and related litigation since the Board's February 17 order was issued, Intervenors have been able to acconplish little more than a cursory review of the vast hearing transcript or the SPMC.
They cannot possibly hope to meet the filing deadlines for the NHRERP proposed findings and the SPMC contentions in any meaningful way.
Therefore, Intervenors propose that the April 1 deadline for filing SPMC contentions be extended until April 6, and the April 6 deadline for proposed findings be extended until May 6.2 This extension would allow Intervenors the minimum time required to focus intelligent attention on each issue and develop findings that will be adequate to protect their interests a'13 to provide some help to the Board in resolving this litigation.
Intervenors are aware that the Board expects them to adhere to the lead intervenor process as they have throughout this pro-ceeding.
Intervenors do intend to ao so.
Even so, the prepara-tion of findings is an enorrous task, considering the n.any pages of testimony devoted to the issues and the considerable overlap 2
The Board's proposed schedule of February 3 set April 6 as the deadline for proposed findings on the NHRERP, and May 6 as the deadline for filing of contentions on the SPMC.
- However, in light of Applicants' e xpressed wish to expedite the litiga-tion of the Massachusetts plan (Tr. at 9756-57], we have inverted that proposal to put the filing of contentions before the filing of proposed findings.
Moreover, the extension of the deadline for proposed findings on the NHRERP will not delay the overall litigation of the New Hampshire plans in any way, due to the f act that litigation of the sheltering issue is still underway.
. between them.
Also, all intervenors have a' great interest in the SPMC and our obligation to our clients requires us to do a thorough job in reviewing the plans and advising them with regard to the issues that should be pursued.
Counsel for the Applicants and the Commonwealth of Massachu-setts assent to this motion.
Counsel for the NRC Staf f assents the deadline for Staff findings will be adjusted accordingly.
on Respectfully submitted, h{,8_
N 'I b L Diane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" St reet N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009 (202) 328-3500 March 18, 1988 r
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing has been served on all parties this 18th day of March 1988 by first-class mail or over-night nail as indicated on the enclosed service list.
By
__ _ _ ___ _________________ D__
Ellyn R. b'e i s s f
l
,v
+
SEABROOK SERVICE LIST - OFFSITE LICENSING BOARD f
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Rye, New Hampshire 03870 U.S. NRC (POCH)
U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555 Boston, MA 02109 Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor City Hall Mr. Angie Machiros, Sandra Gavutis Dr. Jerry Harbour Newburyport, MA 01950 Chairman RFD 1 Box 1154 U.S. NRC Town of Newbury East Kensington, NH 03827 Washington, D.C. 20555 Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Town Hall,25 High Road Board of Selectmen Newbury,MA 01951 Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Gustave Licenberger Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 McKay, Murphy and Graham U.S. NRC H. Joseph 9ynn, Esq.
100 Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Senator Gordon A Humphrey Office of Geaeral Counsel Amesbury, MA 01913 U.S. Senate FEMA Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20510 500 C Street S.W.
Board Panel (Atta. Tom Burack)
Washington, D.C. 20472 U.S. NRC g$;
g Washington, D C. 20555 Selectmen of Northampton George r,ana Bisbee, Esq.
p Northampton, New flamp-Geoffrey M. Huntington, Esq.
y g
us Atomic Safety and Licensing shire 03826 Office of the Attorney General EiE En 3R5 Appeal Beard Panel State House Annex Q
5 U.S. NRC Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Concord, NH 03301 2x
'S' Washington, D.C. 20555 1 Eagle Square, Ste 507 Q
o Concord, NH 03301 Allen Lampert M
M Docketing and Senice Cisil Defense Director
~N U.S. NRC Michael Santosuosso, Town of Brentowood Washington, D.C. 20555 Cinairman Exeter,NH 03833 Board of Selectmen Mrs. Anne E. Goodman Jewell Street, RFD # 2 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Board of Selectmen South Hampton, NH 03842 Hampe and McNicholas 13-15 New Market Road 35 Pleasant Street Durham, NH 03842 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Coccord,NH 03301 Silverglate, Gertner, et al.
William S. Lord, Selectman 88 Broad Street Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Town Hall Friend Street Boston,MA 02110 Holmes & Ellis Amesbury, MA 0191';.
47 Winnacunnent Road i
Rep. Roberta C. Pevear Hampton, NH 03842 Jane Doughty Drinkwater Road SAPL Hampton, Falls, NH 03844 William Armstrong 5 Market Street Cisil Defense Director Portsmouth,NH 03801 Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
10 Front Street Assistant Attorney General Exeter,NH 03833 Carol S. Sneider, Esquire State House, Station # 6 Assistant Attorney General Augusta,ME 04333 CaMn A. Canney 1 Ashburton Place,19th Floor City Manager Boston, MA 02108 Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
City Hall R.K. Gad II, Esq.
126 Daniel Street Stanley W. Knowles Ropes & Gray Portsmouth,NH 03801 Board of Selectmen 225 Franklin Street P.O. Box 710 Boston, MA 02110 Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
North Hampton, NH 03826 Shaines & McEachern Robert A. Backus, Esq.
P.O. Box 360 J.P. Nadeau Backus, Meyer & Solomon Maplewood Ave.
Town of Rye 111 Lowell Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 155 Washington Road Manchester, NH 03105 Edward A. Thomas Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
FEMA Office of General Counsel 442 J.W. McCormack y
y-
- m.
-,