ML20151A555
| ML20151A555 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1988 |
| From: | Curran D, Weiss D AMESBURY, MA, HAMPTON, NH, HARMON & WEISS, KENSINGTON, NH, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6714 OL, NUDOCS 8807200039 | |
| Download: ML20151A555 (13) | |
Text
,
.w 7/9 I-00CKETE0 July 13, 1988 USNRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'E8 JL 15 PS :50 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD cpq_ - -
)
00Ct'.; i m i,..
In the Matter of
)
)
Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL
)
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
OFFSITE EMERGENCY
)
PLANNING
)
INTERVENORS' JOINT RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR SCHEDULE Intervenors New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, Town of Hampton, Town of Ames-bury, Town of Kensington, and Commonwealth of Massachussetts (hereafter "Intervenors") hereby respond to Applicants' "Motion for Schedule," dated July 1, 1988.
The motion, which proposes a schedule for the litigation of the Seabrook Plan for the Massa-chussetts Communities ("SPMC") and the Graded Exercise ("GE")
that took place in the-last week of June, should be rejected because it is premature.
At this point in time, tnere is no basis for cstablishing
}
even tenative time frames for the litigation of the SPMC and the f
GE, let alone a full schedule.
The Licensing Board now has before it hundreds of contentions on the SPMC.
Only after the Board issues its decision on the admissibility of those conten-tions will the parties have any idea of the scope or factual com-plexity of the issues to be litigated, and hence the time needed for case preparation.
It is simply absurd to set schedules for discovery and a hearing before the Board and the parties know the SSR72882K8S8ohj;3 ld*h O
+
-2 size of the' case that is to be litigated.
Intervenors request that the Board offer all-parties an opportunity to propose a schedule for the litigation of the SPMC after it has issued.a' prehearing conference order on the admissibility of contentions, so that the parties may make informed judgments on their schedul-ing needs.
Similarly, there is as yet no basis for setting a litigation schedule for the GE..
Intervenors have no idea how much time will be needed for the first step of the litigation, preparation of contentions, because the documents needed for that task -- FEMA's final report on the exercise and the controller messages issued by the utility and the state of New Hampshire -- have not been provided.
Intervenors have no idea how long it will take to review those documentsl and to piece together the events of the exercise by comparison of controller messages, participant logs, and the FEMA report.
Moreover, before contentions are filed and ruled on, there is no way to determine how much time will be needed for discovery, summary disposition motions, or preparation of testimony.
l l
1 1'
1 We note that at the post-exercise public meeting, a FEMA official stated that controller messages, which describe the i
i events of the accident and the utility's responses thereto, con-stituted as many as eight volumes of written material.
While these critical documents have purportedly been sent to the NRC's l
Public Document Room, they have not arrived there at this writ-l ing; nor have they been sent to the parties, u
i-
-3
-While Intervenors consider that establishment of a schedule for litigation of either the SPMC or the GE is of no utility to the Board or the parties at this point in the litigation, we believe it is important to address a number of general prob 11ms raised by Applicants' proposal that are likely to be relevant later in the litigation.
First, the Applicants' proposed schedule omits the special prehearing conference that is provided for by 10 CFR 9 2.751a and to which the Licensing Board had appeared to commit itself.
Sec-tion 2.751a contemplates that the Licensing Board will hold prehearing conferences at the outset of a hearing in order to take additional steps to identify key issues, to consider all petitions to intervene, and to establish a schedule for the pro-ceeding.
While such a prehearing conference is technically required only at the outset of a licensing case, the Board should exercise its discretion to hold such a conference with respect to the commencement of litigation of the SPMC.
Here the Board has opened a major new segment of the operating license case and is entertaining petitions to intervene from a number of parties who were not previously involved.
Moreover, given the novelty and complexity of the issues involved, and the fact that this litiga-tion involves the application, for the first time, of a new and controversial rule, a special prehearing conference is highly warranted.
Given the large number of overlapping contentions in this proceeding, efficiency would also be greatly served by con-1 l
-4 vening the parties in order to consolidate and/or-streamline con-tentions.
In fact, the Board indicated to the parties that it con-templated holding a special prehearing conference in mid-July in order to address the admissibility of the SPMC contentions.
As stated in a letter to the Board dated July 7, 1988, the Massachu-ssetts Attorney General's office drafted its reply to Applicants' and the NRC Staff's responses to its SPMC contentions in specific reliance on the Board's stated intention.
They also notified other intervenors to expect a pre-hearing conference in mid-July.
A second defect in the proposed schedule is that the provi-sion for only 30 days of discovery is based on the erroneous assertion that this is "plenty" because "the intervenors were permitted to observe the exercise, and the FEMA report will have amounted to complete discovery on the exercise."
As demonstrated in the attached letters to Applicants from SAPL and the Com-monwealth of Massachussetts, Intervenors were completely blocked from observing the Applicants' Emergency Operations Facility; and were obstructed in their efforts to observe at a number of other exercise sites.
l Moreover, release of a FEMA report hardly amounts to com-l plete discovery on the exercise.
Discovery documents would also l
include voluminous logs and reports prepared by Applicants, FEMA, l-and the State of New Hampshire.
It should be noted that while l
the State of New Hampshire has agreed to grant Intervenors access I
1 j.
.a 1 to its logs, reports, and other exercise-related documents within two weeks after the exercise, Applicants have refused to provide
(
full access to its own relevant documents until the issuance of a discovery order.
Thus, they can hardly be heard to argue that discovery will be "complete" by the time the FEMA report is issued.
Finally, even for a relatively simple proceeding -- which this clearly is not -- the overall scope of the hearing schedule proposed by Applicants is so compressed as to deny Intervenors a meaningful opportunity to present their case.
The schedule con-tains no allowance for a prehearing conference following the close of discovery under 10 CFR S 2.752; nor does it provide time to resolve discovery disputes.
Virtually no time is allowed to.
review discovery answers before summary' disposition motions must be filed.
Similarly, the schedulo provides only two weeks after summary disposition rulings for preparation of testimony on those issues that will go to trial.
This type of hearing schedule is precisely the kind that was rejected by the Appeal Board in Pub-lic Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-864, 25 NRC 417 (1987), as violative of the Inter-venors' due process rights.
CONCLUSION The schedule propcsed by Applicants is not only premature; but by any standards it is too compressed to guarantee Inter-venors a meaningful opportunity to participate in the offsite
g g
4
. emergency planning proceedingsfor Seabrook.
Intervenors request that the' Board reject Applicants' motion and instead take the following actions:
1) hold a prehearing conference'to discuss petitions to
'iatervene, the admissibility of contentions on the SPMC, and the nature of hearings on the General-Exercise; 2) wait to establish a hearing schedule for'the SPMC until after it has issued Its ruling on admissibility of. contentions and taken comments from.the parties on what the schedule for lit-igation of the SPMC should be.
3) set a schedule for filing of contentions on the emer-gency planning exercise which commences with the issuance of FEMA's final exercise report and the time frame of which is based on the volume of documents that must be reviewed in order to prepare contentions; 4) wait to establish a hearing schedule for the exercise
~
until after it has issued its ruling on admissibility of conten-tions and taken comments from the parties on what the schedule zfor litigation of the exercise should be.
Respectfully submitted, f
6 lane curran l
HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W.
Suite 430 l
Washington, D.C.
20009 l
(202) 328-3500 1
i
)
l 1
l c
'g, on behalf of Intervenors New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Seacoast Anti-f Pollution League,. Town of Hampton, Town of Amesbury, Town of Kensington, and Com-monwealth of Massachussetts July 13,'1988 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 13, 1988, copies of the foregoing pleading were served by hand, overnight mail, or first-class mail on~all parties to this proceeding, as designated on the attached service list.
Diane curran i
2 3
{.
l
I
.e b
THE COMMONWEALTH OF M ASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
\\
f' JOHN W. McCoRMACK STATE OFFICE BUILolNG gjh oNE ASHBURToN PLACE. BOSTON o21o81698 JAMES M. SHANNON mon ~,v oeuian July 1, 1988 Kathryn Selleck, Esq.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110
Dear Ms. Selleck:
This letter documents the extent to which your promise of fair access to the Salem Staging Area for purposes of observation during the June 28 and 29, 1988 exercise was not honored.
As you know, you and Allan Fierce reached an agreement that whatever access was given to Massachusetts Attorney General participants in the exercise upon arrival at each of the various facilities would not be withdrawn arbitrarily.
I arrived at the Salem Staging Area with an investigator from my office, Maureen Mangan, at approximately 7:30 a.m.
We were accompanied into the facility at 7:50 a.m. with our escort, Peter Kearns, one of New Hampshire Yankee's attorneys from Sheehan, Phinney in Portsmouth.
Mr. Kearns and the individual who greeted us at the facility (his first name is Dick, I do not remember his last name) told Ms. Mangan and me that we were given full access to the. briefing rooms, the special vehicles room, the liaison room, and the staging area leaders' room.
The only limitation was that should a full briefing take place in the staging area leaders' room, and the room became crowded with people, we would be asked to leave and observe from outside.
I accepted that arrangement as fair and reasonable.
l At approximately 9:20 a.m.,
I entered the staging area leaders' room and observed a discussion between Mr. Michaels, the New Hampshire Yankee controller, and two FEMA evaluators.
The discussion centered around a bus evacuation and traffic control point problem which, judging from Mr. Michaels' reaction, was unanticipated by your client.
As instructed, I did not ask questions; did not obstruct movement; and I merely observed and took notes on the conversation.
L
i Kathryn Selleck, Esq.
July 1, 1988 Page 2 One-half hour later, Mr. Kearns infc med me that Mr. Michaels had restricted my access to oatside of the leaders' He gave no reason but promised'to open the windows in room.
the office.
Shortly thereafter, two windows ?.o the office, which had earlier been closed, were cracked opyn by two inches.
After I complained that this action hardly amou.ted to an accommodation, the windows were opened further.
Nevertheless, I could not hear any conversations in the staging area leaders' room (mostly because of the hushed tones used whenever I was in the vicinity) either from outside of the open windows or from the doorway.
In any event, by noon one window and then the other one were again closed.
Early in the morning, I had introduced myself to Mr. Tanzman, the lead FEMA evaluator.
At his own initiative, ha later gathered his four onsite evaluators and introduced them to ne and to Ms. Mangan.
He told me that he would be happy to answer any questions I had, to the extent time permitted, but would prefer that I directed them at him rather than at his evaluators.
Shortly thereaf ter, Mr. Kearns informed me that riotwithstanding Mr. Tanzman's offer, I was not permitted to ask questions of anyone.
At 3:30 p.m., three observers from the NRC entered the faci.lity and were permitted unrestricted access to the staging area leaders' room.
Given the reason for limiting my access to that room, namely that it was too crowded and my presence would obstruct the views of the boards, I do not understand why NRC observers were permitted in that room.
Moreover, at no point during the day was the room so crowded as to render my presence obstructive.
At 3:45 p.m.,
while I was observing activities within the special vehicle room, Mr. Kearns again came in and informed me that I was being asked to stay out of that room as well as the liaison room.
At 4:15 p.m., Mr. Kearns informed me that Mr. Badger had restricted my access to the hallways and that ;
was not to enter any of the briefing rooms.
No reason was given.
At 4:30 p.m.,
while I was observing activities within the staging area leaders' room through the windows, the assistant staging area leader instructed a member of his administrative staff to move the information table underneath the windows so as to prevent me from viewing from that location as well.
i t
i Kathryn Selleck, Esq.
July 1, 1988 Page 3 At approximately 4:40 p.m., Mr. Kearns informed me that I would be permitted in the briefing rooms but not in the liaison or special vehicles room.
He told me it was Mr. Badger's feeling that those rooms were too crowded.
In fact, the special vehicles room was nearly empty for the vast majority of the afternoon and the liaison room was large enough to accommodate several observers, although few actually went through that room.
As you know, through the course of the day 1 attempted to remcVe these unreasonable restrictions on my access by having other members of our team contact you.
Either you did nothing to instruct the staging area ' personnel to abide by your o:iginal agreement or your efforts were completeV ineffectual.
In either event, the conduct of New Hampshire Yankee employees toward
)
Ms. Mangan and myself was reprehensible.
Un for tu.Ta tely, that conduct did not abate but rather worsened during the second day of the exercise when Pamela Talbot cook my place at the Staging Area.
She was not permitted even near-the special vehicles room or liaison room; the remaining I
observation spot into the staging area leaders room -- the windows -- was removed; and the briefing rooms were accessible only if Ms. Talbot and Ms. Mangan remained in the back of the r.coms, often out of hearing range.
Once again, New Hampshire Yankee representatives used the excuse that too many people would be in those rooms to permit us access.
However, they were near empty for the entire day.
Particularly inexcusable is the fact that several of your client's employees were rude to Ms. Talbot and Ms. Mangan.
The agreement on access reached between you and the inter-venors was premised on the notion that we should and would be given meaningful opportunities to observe all facets of the exercise.
At all times during the course of the two days, Ms. Mangan, Ms. Talbot and I abided by the rules set forth in the agreement.
On the other hand, you, or at least your l
clients, did most everything possible to interfere with our observations.
The result was not only a breach of the agreement but also our constructive removal from the facility.
Very truly yours,
,f n s'
Stephe
. Jonas Deputy Chief Public Protection Bureau i
(617) 727-4878 SAJ:bm
e RECEIVED-4%
i Lt c SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE 5 MARKET STREET PORTSMOUTH, NEW BAMPSHIRE 03801 July 6, 1988 Kathryn'A. Selleck, Esquire Ropes & Gray 225'Pranklin Street Bosten, MA 02110 Geoffrey M. Huntington, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Concord,-NH_ 03301
Dear Ms. Selleck'and Mr. Huntington:
This is to record SAPL's concerns as regards the treatment accorded to intervenor observers on the date of the graded
~
exercise of the radiological emergency response plans for Seabrook Station.
SAPL does not believe that there was a full and -f air opportunity to observe the exercise and notes the following:
1.
Shortly before the exercise, it was stated that no intervenor observer was to be given access to the EOF portion of the emergency response facility.at Newington Station, blocking a key area of the emergency response effort from any review.
2.
On the day of the exercise, intervenor observers who l
reported to the Omne Mall Staging Area were barred from' being in the Mobil Unit from which the response at that location was directed.
This made it impossible for them both to see the status boards and to hear the conversations of the emergency response workers in the unit.
3.
The intervenor observer who reported to Exeter Hospital to observe the response there was told to stay in a hallway where nothing could be seen or heard. That situation was never corrected and the observer left.
l-l l
L
.y.
i
~..'jj; '
s Kathryn'A. Sellick, Esquire Geoffrey/M. Huntington, Esquire Page 2' July 6, i'?88 4.
The intervenor observers who reported to the Dover High-School Reception / Decontamination Center were barred entry to the rooms where things could be observed for a period of-time and were able only to see a portion of the Reception center from the hallway where they were told to_ stand during that time.
That situation did ultimately get corrected, though it took some time.
SAPL believes that these problems of access were detrimental to the overall intervenor effort to track the progress of the exercise and to evaluate the performance of personnel in important areas.
SAPL would ask that.all documents from the graded exercise be made available.within two weeks for review by intervenors.
SAPL understands and appreciates that the State of New Hampshire has already expressed a willingness to provide all' documents in that
. time frame.
SAPL holds that Applicants should do likewise, especially in view of the "Applicants Motion for Schedule" filed in this proceeding on July 1 which requests a very constricted schedule for litigation of graded exercise issues.
Sincerely, Jane Doughty Field Director SAPL JD:jsr l
cc:
Allan Fiercej l
Diane Curran Matt Brock i
l
00f;nEiED '
4 iME 1
SEABROOK SERVICE LIST -- OFFSITE I.ICENSING BOARD i
. U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555
. (PNHpt 15 P5:50
- 1' van W. Smith. Chairman Rye, New ifampshire 03870 '
U.S. NRC Boston, MA' 02109 Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor
.ggj;;&;w
. City liall R. Scott liill-Whilton.
Sa040K6avutin 'iEHVICI
'Dr. Jerry liarbour Newburyport, MA 01950 Lagoulis, Clark, !!ill-RFD 1 BoitW
. U.S. NRC _
Whilton & McGuire East Kensington, Nil 03827 L Washington, D.C. 20$55 :
Alfred V.Sargent, Chairman 79 State Street-Board of Selectmen Newburyport, MA 01950 ?
Charles P. Graham, Esq.
~ *Gustave Linenberger -
Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 McKay, Murphy and Graham :
. U.S. NRC
~
H. Joseph Flynn, Esq..
100 Main Street
,. Washington, D.C. 20555 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Office of General Counsel Amesbury, MA ~ 01913 U.S. Senate FEMA
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20510 500 C Street S.W.
- Board Panel (Attn.Tc,m Burack)
Washington, D.C. 20472
. - U.S. NRC
" By Overnight Mail y
Washington, D.C. 20555 Selectmen of Northampton George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Northampton, New Hamp-Geoffrey M. Huntington, Esq.
- By Hand Delivery Atomi: Safety and Licensing -
shire 03826 Office of the Attorney General
- AppealBoard Panel State House Annex U.S. NRC.
Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Concord, NH 03301 Washington, D C. 20555 1 Eagle Square, Ste 507 Docketing and Service.
, Concord, NH 03301 Allen Larnpert Civil Defense Director i
U.S. NRC Michael Santosuosso, Town of Brentowood
- Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman Exeter, NH 03833 Board of Selectmen Mrs. Anne E. Goodman Jewel.' Street, RFD # 2 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Board of Selectmen South Hampton, NH 03842 Hampe and McNicholas 1315 New Market Road 35 Pleasant Street Durham,NII 03842 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Concord, NH 03301 Silverglate, Gertner, et al.
William S. Lors Selectman '
88 Broad Street Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Town liall-- Friend Street Boston, MA U2110 Holmes & Ellis Amesbury,MA 01913 47 Winnacunne.nt Road Rep. Roberta C. Pevar Hampton,NH 03842 Jane Doughty Drinkwater Road -
JAPL Hampton Falls. NH 03844 William Armstrong 15 Market Street Civil Defense Director
' Portsmouth, Nil 03801 Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
10 Front Street Assistant AttorneyGeneral 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 Manage Boston, MA 02108 "Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
City Hall 4
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 flampton, Nil 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, Nil 03105 Edward A. Thomas
'Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
FEMA Office of General Counsel 442 J.W. McCormack
-yw+-x-y--w-
+w
-m-w,--..w- - -. -
--e-e-a---w-eew w
- u--
m s
b
- u-rN**