ML20196G703

Applicant Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* Contentions Should Be Rejected & City Should Be Denied Admission as Party,Per 10CFR2.714.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20196G703
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/27/1988
From:	Trout J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#388-6628 OL, NUDOCS 8807060012
Download: ML20196G703 (11)

Text

. l$4:2 8' 00CMETED USNRC

'88 JUL -1 P5 :12

~

Jhkb,1,;1988$[

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  !

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

) (Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues)

)

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO "CITi OF HAVERHILL'S DETAILED CONTENTIONS" Under date of June 16, 1988, the City of Haverhill

("COH") attempts to submit 14 new "Detailed Contentions" on the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities ("SPMC").

COH makes no motion or argument for their admission as late-i filed contentions. Even if COH had made such a motion, moreover, the proferred contentions would not meet the l criteria for admission as late-filed contentions. Nor should these "Detailed Contentions" be admitted as additional bases for the COH contention previously filed, both because the new l

"Detailed Contentions" clearly exceed the scope of the prior contention and becauce the prior contention itself represented an impermissible challenge to Commission regulations. Nonetheless, Applicants respond herein.

8007060012 880627 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 PDR D

i

1. Admissfbility as Late-Filed Contentions The commission's rules prescribe that late-filed contentions may only be admitted after balancing five factors:

(i) Good cause, if any, .or failure to file on time.

(i) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.

(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be axpected to assist in developing a sound record.

(iv) The extent to wh4 5 petitioner's interest will be repreF' J by existing parties.

(v) The extent to unich the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues ur delay the proceeding.

10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 (a) (1) .

COH does not even make reference to the Commission's rule, let alone address the rule's five qualifying criteria.

For that reason alone, COH's new "Detailed Contentions" should be summarily rejected. Georcia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-499, 24 NRC 901, 927-928 (1986), aff'd, ALAB-872, 26 NRC 127 (1987).

Moreover, even if it had addressed the Commission rule, COH could not prevail upon a balancing of the five qualifying factors. COH offers no explanation why it makes this filing two months late, raising issues which presumably were known to COH for months or even years before the April 1988 l

I L

l I.

deadline. COH does not attempt to show that its interest in the "Detailed Contentions" is not protected by other means such as coverage by contentions of other parties. Nor does COH provide any bacis to expect it will assist in developing a sound record on these issues, as COH has not suggested it will adduce any evidence, testimonial or documentary, in support of its "Detailed Contentions". To the extent that they are not duplicative of issues covered by other contentions or bases, COH's "Detailed Contentions" would serve to broaden the issues and consequently delay the proceedings. Thus, no factor has been shown to weigh in favor of admission, and COH's "Detailed Contentions" should be rejected.

2. Admissibility of Oricinal Contention with "Detailed Contentions" as New Bases COH's "Detailed Contentions" are styled as new contentions and raise issues beyond the scope of the orijinal contention filed by COH on April 4. It nonetheless appears possible that COH may be attempting to add new bases to its original contention. Such addition, however, wculd not render the original contention admissible.

COH's April 4 "contention" consisted of the "demand" that Haverhill be included in the SPMC, on the grounds that "a portion of Haverhill is within the ten (10) mile limit" and "schools, nursing homes, hospitals and day care 1

centers- . . . are located in close proximity to the (ten) 10 miles." The "Detailed Contentions" of June 16 however, address such issues as the number of "access control points through out Haverhill" ("Detailed Contention" #7), evacuation routes for Amesbury, Newton, and South Hampton residents

("Detailed Contentions" #8), traffic direction ("Detailed Contentions #9 and #10), disabled cars ("Detailed Contention"

1. 13) and human behavior ("Detailed Contention" #14).1 These issues clearly exceed the scope of the original contention, and so should be excluded. Texas Utilities Electric Co.

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station), ALAB-868, 25 NRC 912, 932 n.83 (1987); Carolina Power and Licht Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-856, 24 NRC 532, 5445-546 (1986).

Moreover, to the extent that COH's "Detailed Contentions" could logically be treated as bases for its 1 Applicants are at a loss to understand, let alone classify, COH's "Detailed Contention" #12. It reads, in its l entirety, "Haverhills [ sic] Hale Hospital has not been included in any plans to deal with accident victims of evacuation [?] through the streets of Haverhill is [ sic) any thing less than perfect."

If COH's intent is to complain about the i nonparticipation of Hale Hospital in the SPMC, such complaint is particularly inappropriate coming from the COH. Hale Hospital is owned and controlled by COH, and is not included in the SPMC only because the city government instructed the hospital to refuse to cooperate with Applicants in any way.

i See letter of Hale Hospital Administration to Applicants, l attached hereto as Exhibit A. If COH truly believes that i

Hale Hospital should participate in the SPMC, then COH has the power to bring that about simply by reversing its prior position. Applicants have consistently sought, and would continue to welcome, the participation of Hale Hospital.

l

original contention, they suffer the same infirmity as that contention. COH seeks, at this late date, to expand the EPZ for Seabrook Station, for alleged safety reasons. It is j settled that such contentions constitute impermissible challenges to the Commission's regulations. Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-87-12, 26 NRC 383, 395 (1987). This June 16 filing, like that of April 4, should be rejected.

3. Admissibility of COH's "Detailed Contentions" Assuming arauendo that COH's late filing is authorized by the Board, the proffered "Detailed Contentions" should nonetheless be rejected for failing to meet the particularity and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(b).

Particularity requires that a contention both identify a regulation that ic supposedly being violated and contain sufficient detail as to the nature of the supposed violation as to permit the Board to determine how it is supposedly being violated. Public Service Company of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-106, 16 NRC 1649, 1656 n.7 (1982); Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-1, 19 NRC 29, 33 (1984).

Not one of the fourteen "Detailed Contentions" so much as l alludes to any alleged regulatory violstion, let alone illuminates how the regulations are allegedly violated.

1

9 The purpose of the specificity requirement is, inner alia, to put the Staff and the Applicants on notice at to what specific facts or issues they must litigate.

Philadelchia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974); Florida Power &

Licht Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4), LBP-Gi-14, 13 NRC 677, 686-687 (1981). The "Detailed Contentions", however, are in many places models of vagueness. For example, Applicants are at a loss to understand what it is supposed to litigate concerning the ,

proximity of the Whittier Regional Vocational High School, with its contended "vast residents from Haverhill and the E.P.Z. towns", to the EPZ. "Detailed Contention" #1. COH offers no explanation why the number of homes in Rocks Village raises a litigable issue. "Detailed Contention" #6.

How or why "persons unfamiliar with Haverhill may get lost or held up in traffic", or why that is relevant, is unexplained.

"Detailed Contention" #7. Such vague assertions, or bald statements unconnected to any legitimate regulatory concerns, do not contribute to this Board's adjudicative task.

_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _______ A

CONCLUSION COH's "Detailed Contentions" should be rejected, for the reasons stated above. Haverhill should be denied admission as a party under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714, since it has failed to file a single litigable contention.

Respectfully submitted, dpf T "Thomd G. Dignan, Jr.

Kathryn A. Selleck Jeffrey P. Trout Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 l

l l

l 1

EXHIBIT A

- . . HAVERHILL MUNICIPAL (HALE) HOSPITAL t401.INCOLN AVENUE

• H AVERHil.1, MASSACilUSETTS 0t830 e 617.M6 2000 3, [w V.w /

August 6, 1987 l

i i

Ms. Kathy Frank New llampshire Yankee Box 300 Seabrook, New llampshire 03874

Dear Kathy,

The Board of Trustees, at the urging of the City Council and the Mayor, has requested that we not participate in any way with Seabrook in terms of disaster planning.

I'm sorry for any inconvenience this might have caused. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call.

Si rely, Ow1 Tho as K. Sager Administrator TKS: jw

'I Cc: MaforRyan , ' "

c. J founcilPresidentPolosi Board Chairman McNamara

O M EiED i U3NPC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

'88 Ju_ -1 PS :12 I, Kathryn A. Selleck, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on June 27, 19 .g 7 madeserviceofthewithindocumentbymailingcopieh)9g.I_CKfiT0$YNVKI.

thereof, postage prepaid, to: BRANCH Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith, Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire Chairperson Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Attorney General Commission 25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20555 Concord, NH 03301-6397 Judge Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Doard Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Diane Curran, Esquire Board of Selectmen Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire Town Office Harmon & Weiss Atlcntic Avenue Suite 430 North Hampton, NH 03862 2001 S Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009 Adjudicatory File Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Docket (2 copies) Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street l Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 i

Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Roat General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 l

1 l

Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney 25 Maplewood Avenue General P.O. Box 360 One Ashburton Place, 19th Flr.

Portsmouth, NH 03801 Boston, MA 02108 l l

Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney l Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager  ;

RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall j Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street i Portsmouth, NH 03801 l i

Senator Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire 1 U.S. Senate Lagoulis, Clark, Hill- j Washington, DC 20510 Whilton & McGuire -

(Attn: Tom Burack) 73 State Street j Newburyport, MA 01950 j Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter S. Matthews ,

One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor l Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - 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 Energency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Ed Thomas Judith H. Mizner, Esquire FEMA, Region 7. 79 State Street, 2nd Floor 142 John W. McCormack Post Newburyport, MA 01950 Office and Court House Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 l

O charles P. Graham, Esquire Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire Murphy and Graham 376 Main Street 33 Low Street Haverhill, MA 01830 Newburyport, MA 01950 Leonard Kopelman, Esquire Kopelman & Paige, P.C.

77 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 i

~-

AaE[ryn A Selleck l

i I l l

1 l

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _.m ___ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _