ML20206M821
| ML20206M821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1986 |
| From: | Curran D HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#386-387 OL, NUDOCS 8608210408 | |
| Download: ML20206M821 (7) | |
Text
gf
.,~?o b
s ghJ
~
Augus0$kk[C S986 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1E RE 19 M1:06 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' APPEAL BOARD OFFICE 0F SECRLIARY 00CKETING A SERVICf.
)
BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
Public Service Company of
)
l New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 5 0-443 OL l
)
50-444 OL i
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
OFFSITE EMERGENCY I
)
PLANNING l
)
NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF AUGUST 11, 1986 The Appeal Board has asked the parties to respond to its proposal to consider challenges to the Licensing Board's rulings on the admissibility of contentions on the New Hampshire emergency plans.
With the modfications described below, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP") supports the Ap-peal Board's proposal.
In NECNP's view, the principal benefit of taking inter-locutory review of the Licensing Board's admissibility rulings would be to maximize the quality and efficiency of offsite emergency planning hearings when they resume.
Under normal prac-tice, the offsite emergency planning hearings would be bifurcated into. a hearing on contentions admitted by the Licensing Board, followed at the end of the licensing proceeding by a separate hearing on another set of contentions admitted on appeal.
This piecemeal approach is inefficient, and detracts from a meaningful review of the many integrated aspects of emergency plans.
.The current delay in tha offsite planning proceeding, however, gives the Appeal Board the opportunity to consider the admissibility of
~~
8608210408 860G18 PDR ADOCK 05000443
]
G PDR
s i contentions denied by the Licensing Board, and order that conten-tions admitted on appeal be litigated along with previously ad-mitted contentions.1 This would assure the conduct of a more comprehensive, meaningf ul, and efficient emergency planning. pro-ceeding.
NECNP therefore recommends that the Appeal Board establish a schedule for bri.efing the admissibility of denied contentions, and stay all further hearings on the New Hampshire emergency plans until the Appeal Board has ruled on the admissibility of those contentions and the parties have had sufficient time to conduct discovery on those contentions.
We request that in soing 1
It appears that the delay of a final resolution on emergency planning issues at Seabrook may be lengthy.
No plans at all have been submitted for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which is still reviewing the implications of the Chernobyl accident for emergency planning around Seabrook.
Moreover, the New Hampshire planning process may be significantly delayed by Applicants' ap-parent intention to petition for a reduction in the size of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone from ten to approximately two miles.
On August 6,1986, New Hampshire Yankee asked the NRC Staff to review a revised version' of the Seabrook probabilistic risk assessment and requested the NRC to consider whether the new PRA could support a request for a reduction in the size of the EPZ.
A representative of the NRC Staff has informed counsel for NECNP that the Staf f will be reviewing the PRA, and that the process will take several months.
Applicants indicated at the August 6 meeting that they will wait until af ter the NRC's review to formally petition for a reduction in the size of the EPZ.
Thus, the final resolution of this case could be extended for many months.
% doing, the Appeal Board direct the Licensing Board to depart from the expedited schedule that it has followed to date, and-in-stitute a normal hearing schedule that provides adequate time for meaningful litigation of the issues.
NECNP also urges the Appeal Board to establish a briefing schedule that does not conflict with the schedule for litigating onsite emergency planning and technical issues, or with the schedule for offsite emergency planning proceedings to the extent that those proceedings are not stayed by the Appeal Board.
The onsite and technical issues Licensing Board has scheduled the submission of testimony for September 22, 1986, with a hearing to commence on September 29.
In the offsite emergency planning case, the State of New Hampshire nas stated that it will be sub-mitting revisions to the New Hampshire radiological emergency response plans around August 25, 1987.
The parties will need time to review those plans and revise contentions or submit new l
The Licensing Board conducted both the aborted 1983-84 emergency planning proceeding and the most recent suspended pro-ceeding on an expedited schedule.
The result was that inter-venors were forced to make extraordinary efforts and to cut i
corners in order to meet many deadlines, only to have the pro-ceedings suspended at the last minute because the State.of New E
Hampshire and the Applicants were not ready to go forward with the hearings.
NECNP's July 8, 1986, request to the Licensing Board to discontinue the expedited hearing schedule has not been l
answered by the Licensing Board.
i
contentions on any new material in those plans.3 Finally, FEMA l
anticipates that it may be ready to resume hearings by the middle of October,_which would require the submission of testimony around the middle of October -- thus preparation time for offsite emergency planning hearings may fall during'the technical hear-ings in the beginning of October, and during the weeks afterward when proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law will be due.
It is therefore essential that the Appeal Board establish a schedule for submitting appellate briefs that does not interfere unduly with the part.ies' ability to prepare for licensing hear-ings.
i Finally, in making this unusual proposal to take inter-locutory review of the admissibility of emergency planning con-tentions, the Appeal Board seems to have been motivated in part by the sheer number of contentions -- 100 -- that the Licensing i
3 its motion for a continuation of the hearing schedule In dated June 30, 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(" FEMA") stated that it had identified "significant areas needing imp r ovement" and that the State of New Hampshire had committed to a " comprehensive revision" of the New Hampshire plans, in 4
response to FEMA's concerns.
Considering the extent of the planned revisions, the parties may well wish to change and resum-bit or abandon contentions that were denied by the Board early in the proceeding.
Accordingly, the Appeal Board might better con-serve its own and the parties' resources by waiting to entertain appeals until at least 30 days af ter the revisions are submitted.
I i
-. ~ -. - - - -,
-n..n
d e
. Board denied.
However, this is not the first occasion on which the Licensing Board rejected contentions on a massive scale.
In the technical and onsite emergency planning phase of the hearing, the Licensing Board denied 65 of the 93 contentions submitted by the parties -- or 70%.
It is NECNP's position that many of these rejections constituted egregious errors.
The Licensing Board's broadsweeping and arbitrary denial of contentions in the techni-cal and onsite phase of the hearings also deserves the scrutiny of the Appeal Board.
NECNP therefore recommends that the Appeal Board take review of all contentions denied by the Licensing Board during the Seabrook proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, Y)
A Diane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Wa shington, D. C.
20009 (202) 328-3500 August 18, 1986 4
1, e
2
s.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 18, 1986, copies of NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON - NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF AUGUST 11, 1986, were served on the following by first-class mail:
Helen F.
Hoyt, Ch airman Rep. Roberta C. Pevear Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Drinkwater Road U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, Falls, NH 03844 Washington, D.C.
20555 Phillip Ah rens, Esq.
Dr. Jerry Harbour As sistant At torney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State House, Station # 6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Augusta, ME 04333 Washington, D. C.
20555 Thomas G.
Dignan, Es q.
Dr. Emmeth A.
Lu ebke R.K.
Gad II, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ropes & Gray U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 225 Franklin Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ro be r t A. Ba ckus, Esq.
Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 111 Lowell Street Washington, D. C.
20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Robert G.
Perlis, Esq.
Board Panel Sherwin E.
Tu rk, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of the Executive Legal Washington, D. C.
20555 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Board of Selectmen Mrs. An ne E. Goodman Newbury, MA 01950 Board of Selectmen 13-15 New Ma rket Road H. Joseph Flynn, Es q.
Durham, NH 03842 Of fice of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency William S.
Lo r d, Selectman 500 C St reet S.W.
Town Hall -- Friend Street Washington, D.C.
20472 Amesbury, MA 01913 George Dana Bisbee, Es q.
Jane Doughty Stephen E. Me r rill, Es q.
SAPL Of fice of the Attorney General 5 Market Street State House Annex Portsmouth, NH 03801 Concord, NH 03301 Carol S.
Sneider, Esquire Allen Lampert Assistant At torney General Civil Defense Director Department of the Attorney General Town of Br entowood 1 Ashburton Place,19th Floor Exeter, NH 03833 Boston, MA 02108 s.
Richard A. Hampe, Es q.
w a
, Stanley W. Knowles Hampe and McNicholas Board of Selectmen 35 Pleasant Street P.O. Box 710 Concord, NH 03301 North Hampton, NH 03826 Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
J.P.
Nadeau, Selectman Holmes & Ellis' Town of Rye 47 Winnacunnent Road 155 Washington Road Hampton, NH 03842 Rye, New Hampshire 03870 William Armstrong Richard E.
Sullivan, Mayor Civil Defense Director
~ City Hall 10 Fr ont Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Exeter, NH 03833 Alfred V.
Sa rgent, Chairman Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 City Hall 126 Daniel Street Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Portsmouth, NH 03801 U.S.
Se nate Washington, D.C.
20510 Matthew T. Br ock, Esq.
(Attn. Tom Burack)
Shaines & McEachern P. O.. Bo x 3 60 Selectmen of Northampton Maplewood Ave.
No r thamp ton, New Hampshire 03826 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Edward A. Thomas 1 Pillsbury Street Federal Emergency Management Concord, NH 03301 Agency 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
Town of South Hampton Boston, MA 02109 P.O.
Bo x 10 East Kingston, NH 03827 Sandra Gavutis Town of Kensington Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman RFD 1 Box 1154 Atomic Safety and Licensing East Kensington, NH 03827 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Howard A. -Wilber Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Gary J.
Edles U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NECNP Washington, D. C.
20555 Box 545 Br attleboro, VT 05301 Diane Curran
.