ML20205D926

Memorandum & Order (Rejecting Motion by Seacoast Anti- Pollution League for Partial Reconsideration of Board Memorandum & Order of 880930).Served on 881025

ML20205D926
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/25/1988
From:	Harbour J, Linenberger G, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
References
CON-#488-7344 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8810270254
Download: ML20205D926 (7)

Text

-.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-- I 7 3 Y't DOLME i U*

LB 10/25/88 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION 88 OCT 25 P12:44 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Orrr ', g.. r 00Cdi imd J. . evir:!

Before Administrative Judges: B E /K" Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Jerry Harbour SERVED OCT 2'i 1988

)

In the Matter of ) Occket Nos. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) (ASLBP No. 8 2 -471-02 -OL)

NEW HAMPSHIRE, 21 A1 ) (Offsite Emergency

) Planning)

(Seabrook Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

) October 25, 1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Rejecting Motion by Seacoast Anti-Pollution League for Partial Reconsideration of Board Memorandum and Order of Septeraber 30, 1988)

By its motion of October 11, 1988, Intervenor Seacoast 4

Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) moves the Board for partial reconsideration of its Memorandum and Order of September 30, i 1988 which approved the stipulation as to contentions among the Joint Intervenors, Applicants and NRC Staff for the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities. That part of the Board's Order for which SAPL seeks reconsideration is tne Board's ruling regarding Contention JI-8. This h$kO2Jggy h 4/

Y

2-

• Contention was one of two contentions submitted to the BoarL in alternative forms; the dispute as to proper wording was, by agreement among the parties, to be resolved by the Board.

The parties did not offer any arguments in support of either of the alternatives; the Board was simply notified that the wording of Contention JI-8 was in dispute and that it called for Board resolution. Stipulation As To Contentiens at 1, n.1.

The two alternative forms of Contention JI-8 set forth in the stipulation agreement read as follows:

No adequate planning has been done for the transit dependent population because the present plans call for the transit dependent to wait undetermined lengths of time outdoors thereby running the risk of increasing radiation dose and exposure to the elements.

(Ag_ptonosed by Intervonors)

No adequate planning has been done for the transit dependent population in West Newbury and Salisbury because the plans call for the transit dependent to wait unaetermined lengths of time outdoors thereby running the risk of increasing radiation does (sic) and exposure to the elements. (As nronesed by Annlicants; concurred in by Staff]

In its Memorandum and Order cf September 30, the Board ruled that Contention JI-8 should be admitted as proposed by Applicants and concurred in by NRC Staff. The Board's ruling was based in part on those original Intervenor contentions that were used to form Contention JI-8; as noted t

in the stipulation agreement, those were TOWN 8.10, SAPL 6

F ,

and TOS 19. Stipulation As To Contentions at 5. In the Seabrook litigation process, it has been the practice of the Board to narrow the scope of contentions to cover only those locales particularized in Intervenor contentions and bascs.

With this in mind, we reviewed the original Intervenor contentions TOWN 8.10, SAPL 6 and TOS 19 to aid our decision as to which alternative would be admitted. The Board found TOWN 8.10 and TOS 19 to be site specific on their face.

With respect to SAPL 6, the Board did not find the same specificity, but we did find other' reasons for not giving it weight in our decision. Our former rulings shaped the decision for us.

Thc original SAPL Contention 6 was admitted for litigation to the extent that it alleges an impractical method for moving transit' dependent populations utilizing bus routes with intervening transfer points; it was admitted 1

as a generic attack on the SPMC's approach to moving the j transit dependent. Moreover, SAPL 6 was not admitted with any supporting basis establishing a relationship between bus i

j routes and time factors or ETEs.

SAPL's original Contention 6 reads

! The SPMC fails to meet the requirements of 10 CFR

50. 4 7 (a) (1) , 50. 4 7 (b) ( 3 ) , 50. 4 7 (b) (10) and NUREG-0654 Rev. 1 Supp 1. II.J.10.C and J.10 g. because the method of picking up evacuees along predesignated bus routes, i transporting them to transfer points and then busing i

-4 - -

them to reception centers as described 3.n the SPMC is not a practicable means of providing adequate public protection.

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions at 10. SAPL's basis in support of this contention contained a rather ambiguous first sentence - "There are no time factors provided in the SPMC for the traversing of the bus routes in the 6 Massachusetts communities." Id. This was the only statement made in the basis portaining to timo factors. The NRC Staff opposed the admission of SAPL 6 because the contention did not articulate with specificity why the bus routes were insufficient. NRP Staff Response To Intervenor Contentions at 126. In SAPL's Reply to the Staff's Responso, SAPL attempted to add substance to its argument by stating "(ojn the latter point () addressing why the bus routes are insufficient), SAPL would state that the length of bus routes are matters related to the ETEs . . . . " SAPL Reply to Applicant Responsee.to SAPL Contentions at 9.

After reviewing the contention documents submitted by the partion, the Board agreed with the NRC Staff that SAPL had failed to provido specific allegations as to why tho bus routes were insufficient. But we did find bread challengo to the transportation schumo as a wholo. As a result, wo admitted 0APL 6 as a generic attack on the SPMC's approach to tho transit dopondent:

r SAPL Contention 6 is admitted to the extent that it challenges the practicality of the procedure of picking ;

up evacuees along predesignated bus routes, l transporting them to transfer points and then busing  !

them to reception centers, as described in the SPMC.

Memorandum and Order Part I, at 122. We also found SAPL's reference to the relationship between the lenath of bus routes and ETEs to be untimely since it had not been raised l

as part of-the original contention. Id. l The Board's pronouncements should have been enough to allow a reasonable interpretation of its ruling; enough to give SAPL notice that we had not admitted the contention on

{

the basis of any relationship between bus routes and time I factors. Furthermore, if we had then viewed SAPL 6 in light of its new interpretation of this sentence, we still would have found the basis to lack specificity and granted NRC Staff's objection to the contention. Therefore, our original ruling stands; SAPL Contention 6 was admitted, but it was admitted without a supporting basis establishing a relationship between bus routes and time factors in the six EPZ communities.

We dwell on this matter a moment longer to address the timeliness of SAPL's motion. While on its face it is a timely response to our ruling on JI-8, it has the force of a motion for reconsideration of the Board's original ruling ori SAPL 6 made last July. Memorandum and Order Part I, at 122.

i 1

l All parties to the litigation woro given ample opportunity to sock Board clarification of its July rulings at the Prehearing Conference hold on August 3 and 4. Tr. 14388-14640. SAPL requested clarification of SAPL Contention 1 only. Tr. 14531. If SAPL had doubts as to what was in fact admitted as a contention or a supporting basis, its concerns should have been raised at that time. Furthermore, Applicants question the timeliness of raising this issue in the discovery process. Applicants say that SAPL did not make this argument during the period the Massachusetts Attorney General was negotiating the stipulation as to JI-8 or its form. Applicants' Responso To Partial I

Reconsideration Motion at 2, n.3. If the motion were to be granted, Applicants would seek clarification from the Massacnusetts Attorney Gonoral, in its role as load

{ Intervonor, as to why the issue is being raised at a point after the Staff's submission of the proposed stipulation on

, contentions. Id. For our own reasons, we agree with the t Applicants. JI-8 is admitted in the form proposed by the Applicants and concurred in by the NRC Staff. The contantion may only be litigated in a nannor consistant with the Board's rulings on contentions.

f L

i l

L 1 . --

,. ORDER Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Motion for Partial.

Reconsideration of the Board's Memorandum and order of September 30, 1988 is denied.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i ed

D'r. Jerry Harbour ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE N ' NY.w.N viss

-Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

l A'DMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PW Ivan W. Smith, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland October 25, 1988 l

1 l

_____ _ _ ___