ML20197D976
| ML20197D976 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1988 |
| From: | Selleck K PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6404 OL, NUDOCS 8806080044 | |
| Download: ML20197D976 (8) | |
Text
+.
00CKETE0 USNRC May 27, 1988
'20 JN -1 A9 :32 UNITED STATES OF AMEBy:A 0; 9 crFasy 00C8 Ebb.i8. W M i.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI N C before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW RAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
(Off-site Emergency
)
Planning Issues)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO "SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON TO AMENDMENT 4 OF THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES" Under date of May 13, 1988, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ("MAG") submitted "Supplemental Contentions" on the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities ("SPMC").
MAG makes no motion or argument for their admission as late-filed contentions.
Nevertheless, Applicants respond herein.
1.
The Five Factors Analysis On the subject of determining the acceptability of late-filed contentions, the Commission's rules prescribe:
Nontimely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the.
atomic safety and licensing board.
that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the following factors (i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
8806080044 880527 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0
&3
(ii) 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 expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
MAG does not even make reference to the Commission's rule, let alone address the rule's five qualifying criteria.
For that reason, MAG's "Supplemental Contentions" should be summarily rejected.
Moreover, even if he had addressed the Commission rule, MAG could not prevail upon a balancing of any of the five factors.
Although the amendment purportedly giving rise to the supplementation was served after the date for filing contentions, MAG offers no explanation why he allowed nearly a month to elapse after receipt of the amendment betore late filing.
MAG does not attempt to show that his interest in the "Supplemental Contentions" is not protected by other means such as coverage by other contentions of his own or another party, nor does he provide a basis to expect he will assist in developing a sound record on these issues.
He has not suggested he will adduce any evidence, testimonial or documentary, in support of his "Supplemental Contentions."
To the extent they do not repeat issues covered by other contentions or bases, MAG's "Supplemental Contentions" will serve to broaden the issues and consequently delay the proceedings.
As no factor has been shown to weigh in favor _ - _ _
of admission, MAG's "Supplemental Contentions" should be rejected.
2.
Admissibility of MAG's "Sucolemental Contentionq" 2
Assuming arcuendo that the late filing is authorized, MAG's proffered bases, denominated "Supplemental Contentions," should be rejected.
"Basis U" to MAG Contention No. 47 reads as follows:
U.
The SPMC contains inadequate procedures for implementing dismissal or cancellation of schools (which results in children traveling back home) and early evacuation of schools (which results in the relocation of children outside the EPZ).
Ege Plan-3.6-8 (Amendment 4).
No real planning has been done to insure that:
(1) necessary resources are available for early dismissal or evacuation; (2) parents receive adequate and timely information about their children's whereabouts; (3) decision-criteria will result in the best possible decision; and (4) school officials understand and will implement these PARS.
"Basis U" should be rejected for failure to meet the requirements of particularity and specificity.
Particularity requires that a contention both identify a regulation that is 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 Comoany of New Hampshire (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).
Although the overall contention l
l to which "Basis U" may attach lists regulations which MAG claims to be violated generally by the plans, no effort is i
made to. detail how any of the regulatory provisions are supposedly being violated.
The purpose of the specificity requirement is, inter alia, to put the Staff and the i
Applicants on notice as to what they must defend against or oppose.
Eh,iladelchia 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-81-14, 13 NRC 677, 686-87 (1981).
MAG claims "no real planning has been done" with regard to resource availability, information to parents, proper decision criteria, and school officials' understanding of_ recommendations, but he fails to even allege any lack of resources, inability to inform parents, poor decision criteria, or the failure of school officials to understand recommendations.
Therefore, "Basis U" should be rejected as lacking specificity.
To the extent that "Basis U" seeks to i
litigate whether school officials will perform their duties, it should also be rejected on the ground that that issue of human behavior has been fully litigated in the NHRERP phase of the hearings.
"Basis G" and "Basis H" to MAG Contention No. 56 read as follows:
G.
The SPMC now proposes PARS for the transient population of the beach areas in the Massachusetts portion of the plume exposure EPZ which contradict and conflict with the same areas.
Under various plant conditions beach populations in Massachusetts are instructed to shelter at the same time that non-transient populations are instructed to evacuate.
See Pro-2.5 at 13, Attachment 2 (Amendment 4).
Such conflicting PARS will result in confusion and neither PAR will be effectively implemented.
H.
The SPMC provides that, under certain circumstances, the transient beach populations on Salisbury Beach and other Massachusetts beach areas are to be sheltered.
See Pro-2.5 at 13, Attachment 2 (Amendment 4).
No adequate shelter exists in these-beach areas for the transient population and no planning of any kind has been done to supplement or augment the sheltering capacity of these areas.
As a result, the PARS contemplated in the SPMC are totally inappropriate.
"Basis G" and "Basis H" should be rejected on the ground that MAG has misread the SPMC.
Sheltering is not one of the protective action recommendations for the transient population in the beach areas in the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook Station EPZ.
As the premise of both "Basis G" and "Basis H" is in error, the conclusions based on that premise are insupportable.
To be sure, this goes to the merits of MAG's proffered contentions.
Nevertheless, the error appears to be so basic as to warrant their dismissal at this threshold stage.
Respectfully submitted,
/
/
Thomps G.
Dignan, Jr.
George H.
Lewald Kathryn A.
Selleck Ropes & Gray l
- 3 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 i
I l
-s-l
OCKE TED U5NRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathryn A. Selleck, one E TAN altt&91Gfys for the i
Applicants herein, hereby certify that on May 27, 1988, I made service of the within docuqppgg by.mailin 00CXElmr/d QNS(g copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
BRAEH 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.
Ling.nycrger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic 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 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Diane Curran, Esquire Board of Selectmen Andrea C.
Ferster, Esquire Town Office Harmon & Weiss Atlantic 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 Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr.
J.
P.
Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333
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 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A.
Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey R.
Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire U.S.
Senate Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Washington, DC 20510 Whilton & McGuire (Attn:
Tom Burack) 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Mr. Peter S.
Matthews One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor 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 Emergency 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 79 State Street, 2nd Floor 442 John W.
McCormack Post Newburyport, MA 01950 Office and Court House Post Of fice Square Boston, MA 02109 i i
+
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
%Atbl XWthyYn'A.
Selleck