ML20151U738
| ML20151U738 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1986 |
| From: | Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#186-032, CON-#186-32 OL, NUDOCS 8602110095 | |
| Download: ML20151U738 (8) | |
Text
.b0hI i
Filed:
February 5, 19hhhEEN USMPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~
'86 FEB 10 A10:33 before the 0FFK-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 00W0ff;,
)
In the Matter Of
).
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF.
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE,-et al
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
(Offsite Emergency Planning)
)
. APPLICANTS'. RESPONSES TO (1) OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A SCHEDULE FILED BY. TOWN OF RYE; (2) HAMPTON FALLS JOINDER AND OBJECTION; (3) REQUEST. FILED ON BEHALF OF HAMPTON AND HAMPTON FALLS BY 4 NEW HAMPSHIRE REPRESENTATIVES; (4) NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S~ OBJECTION TO BOARD ORDER OF JANUARY 17, 1986 AND MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION INTRODUCTION On January 17, 1986, this Board issued a Memorandum and Order which, inter alia, set a " Schedule for Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions -- New Hampshire Plans- ",
(hereafter "ASLB Order").
The ALSB Order was issued after the Board's receipt of, but was specifically--stated not to be in response to, ALSB Order at 2 n.2, a motion of the applicants "for Establishment of a Schedule".
The schedule 8602110095 060205 DR ADOCK 05000443 PDn
.DSo3
r.
h:
16 oidered by the. Board l essentially parallels a similar schedule set by the Board in-a prior memorandum.and order issued.MayL23,. 1983 in this matter which set.forth " target
-dates", assuming issuance of plans on June 20, 1983, and
'which (like the order now under consideration) provided essentially _six' months from-the' time the plans were
~ available.to the commencement of hearings.
At_the. time this prior May 23, 1983 order was issued, no party objected to either it'or the particular-intervals set forth therein.
5: ace the issuance,-on January 17, 1986, of the ASLB Order,.foursdocuments'have been filed by various parties with' respect to-scheduling.
These are:
(1)
The Town of Rye's " Objection to Motion'for Establishment of a Schedule"' filed January 22, 1986: (hereafter " Rye Filing");
(2)
"Hampton Falls.Joinder'and Objection" filed January 24, 1986 which joins the Town of Rye's-Objection (hereafter "Hampton Falls Filing");
(3)
A' letter written on January 23, 1986 by-four members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives which, inter alia,' appears to be a request for an amendment to the schedule to allow more time for the parties to file contentions.
This letter purports to be written on behalf of the Town of Hampton and
(.
i.:
Hampton Falls (hereafter "Four Representatives
+-
Filing").
.(4)
"New England Coalition on. Nuclear Pollution's Objection to. Board. Order of January 17, 1986 and Motion for Reconsideration" filed January 31,.1986'(hereafter "NECNP Filing").
Herein the applicants reply to all-fcur of these documents and, for the reasons set forth-below, say that insofar as these documents constitute answers to the applicants' -motion to establish a schedule, they should be denied as moot and insofar as they constitute requests for the Board to-reconsider the schedule,-they should be denied on the merits'.
ARGUMENT A.
General Response In part B of this' argument we respond to particular-arguments made in particular. documents..Herein we set forth general responses which we feel constitute grounds for
-denial of all fcur requests or objections without reference.
to particular arguments set forth'therein.
To'begin with, the Rye Filing and the Hampton Falls Filing which simply adopts the Rye Filing are both moot
. objections to a motion which time has passed by.
The Board has made clear that the present schedule was not issued in response to the applicants' motion.
Thus, as a technical matter, both of these objections are now moot. _
m -
'A.more substantive defect in all the filings is that-
' *~
while all four of the filings object to what NECNP calls a
" draconian hearing schedule", NECNP Filing at 3, not one of them attempts to delineate how things have changed such that the time frames adopted on May 23, 1983,-without objection by any party, have now become unfair.
The fact is.they are not unfair.
There-is no reason why contentions cannot.be formulated in 30 days or discovery car 1ot be completed in 30 days (the two periods complained of most vehemently).
Offsite emergency planning issues, unlike other issues, require no elaborate preparation of contentions or major discovery. 'The plans are the plans; they are adequate or they are not.
There is no need to go.behind the plans to see how they get the way they did.
If the contention is that they are somehow incapable of being carried out, such a i
contention can be formulated without any elaborate investigation.
Indeed, discovery to formulate contentions nas never been part of NRC practice.
Northern State Power Co. (Prai.-ie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, reconsideration denied, ALAB-110, 6 AEC 247, affirmed, CLI-73-12, 0 AEC 241 (1973); Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),.CLI-74-45, 8 AEC 928 (1974)).
Finally, a good deal'of time is devoted to claiming unfairness on the part of the applicants (and the NRC) because time is so tight.
This is one area of the case -
e, t
t
- where the applicants and NRC. staff have no' control..The state and' municipalities are the entities responsible for formulating and filing the plans, not the applicants.
It does~not'seem to us to be " fair" to further delay.Seabrook for the convenience of'others when the applicants had no ability to speed up the process'of plan formulation in the first place.
B.
Specific Responses Herein we respond'to specific arguments made in two of the filings.
The Hampton Falls Filing is simply an adoption of the Rye Filing'and the Four Representatives Filing is wh'olly general in nature.
Thus, our efforts herein are confined to the Rye and NECNP filings.
1.
Rya Filing Rye makes four arguments in support of its request.
The first is an alleged lack of communication between the applicants and Rye.
As noted above,'the applicants do not formulate the plans.
If there was~no communication as alleged, it is of no legal consequence.
Next, Rye makes a due process argument based on (a) New Hampshire's failure to'obtain Rye approval before submitting
- the plans to FEMA; (b) FEMA's-failure to obtain Rye's approval before sending plans to NRC; and (c) NRC 'SSalf's
' failure to obtain approval of Rye before sending the plans to this Board.
The short answer to all of'this is that no such approval of Rye is required.for any of these steps. tu
Next, Rye argues that the Applicants proposed' schedule
~is unconscionable.. We have already addressed this argument
'in Part A' hereof.
~
Finally, Rye claims that.a local town hearing and town meeting approval'are required. -They are not; but, assuming arguendo they were, we are given no reason'why this fact should affect scheduling.
2.
'NECNP Filing NECNP makes no argument not already addressed except it argues, in essence, that'nothing should go forward until Massachusetts files its plans and that everything must be tried together.
NECNP does not enlighten us as to_the.
source of this edict, and it simply is not so.
If'the New.
Hampshire plans are fully litigated, a good deal of progress will have been made because the risk from accidents decreases with distance.
Thus, there is no reason to delay-resolution of difficulties, if any, with the New Hampshire g
plans because of the far* that Massachusetts.has.yet to act.
CONCLUSION The schedule should not be-altered.
Respectfully submitted
'ZA% o/
Thomas G.. D i 'g rtfin, Jr.
R.
K. Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel'for Applicants i-I t-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 00.t.ME l E D sypc I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.,
one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on February 5,
- 1986, I made service of the within document by mailing copggsFEB 10 A10:33
.thereof, postage prepaid,oto:
OFFid '
Administrative Judge Helen Hoyt Administrative JtE% @@ig ddon"J.
Chairperson Wolfe, Chairman
~
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory.
U.S. Nuclear Regulat6ry-Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr..Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomi'c Safety and Licensing Atomic, Safety and Licensing-Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Ms.~ Diana P. Randall G. Dana Bisbee, Esquire 70 Collins Street Assistant Attorney General Se ab rook', NH 03874 Office of the Attorney General 208 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Diane Curran, Esquire Robert G.
Perlis, Esquire Harmon & Weiss Office of the Executive Legal Suite 430
-Director 2001 S Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20009 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safecy and Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatury 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20553 Manchester, NH 03105 Atomic Safety and Licensing Anne Verge, Chairperson Board ~ Panel Board of Selectmen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Town Hall Commission South Hampton, NH 03827 Washington, DC 20555
John McEachern, Esquire JoAnn Shotwell, Esquire Shaines & McEachern Assistant Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Department of the Attorney General P.O.
Box 360 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor
- Portsmouth, NH 03801 Boston, JU(- 02108 Ms. Roberta C.
Pevear Mr. Patr;ck J. McKeon The Town of Hampton Falls Selectmen's Office
~Drinkwater Road 10 Central Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Rye, NH- 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A.
Canney The Town of Kensington City Manager RFD 1 City Hall East Kingston, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S.
Senate Chairman of the-Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn:
Tom Burack)
Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Richard E.
Sullivan 1 Pillsbury Street Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Donald E.
Chick Town Manager's Office Town Manager Town Hall Town of Exeter Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H.
Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH C3833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Philip Ahrens, Esquire Washington, DC 20472 Assistant Attorney General Department of tne Attorney Gene'ral Augusta, ME 04333 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire-Holmes & Ells 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 e
[ / O wb i om'a s G. Dig p Jr.