ML20207B556
| ML20207B556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1986 |
| From: | Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-003, CON-#386-3 OL, NUDOCS 8607180106 | |
| Download: ML20207B556 (8) | |
Text
_
July 10,1986 3
?$P UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M 15 P2:j6 6
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GFrwt BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINdCBD'ARD[ Trev
.y
- L In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW H AMPSHIRE, e.t_ _al.
)
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
4 NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO MOTIONS FOR CONTINUATION OF HEARING FILED BY FEMA, SAPL AND THE TOWN OF HAMPTON l
On June 20, June 27, and June 30, 1986, motions seeking a contin-uation of offsite emergency planning hearings were filed by the Town of M the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) and the Hampton,
b On June 30, 1986, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
the Licensing Board issued an order requiring responses to FEMA's motion to be filed by July 10, 1986 b Pursuant to the Board's Order and 10 i
C.F.R. 52.730, the NRC Staff hereby files its response to these motions.
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff does not oppose FEMA's motion 1_/
" Motion to Continue Licensing Hearings," dated June 20, 1986.
2/
" Motion to Continue Hearing," dated June 27, 1986.
-3/
" Motion by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for Continuation of Hearing on Emergency Planning Contentions," flied June 30,1986.
4/
" Notice to Parties (Ex Parte Communication and FEMA Motion for Continuance)," dated June 30, 1986.
~
8607180106 860710 PDR ADOCK 00000443 r
G PDR
e '
for a con,tinuance, but opposes the motions filed by SAPL and the Town of Hampton~.
A.
FEMA's Motion In its motion, FEMA requests that the hearing presently scheduled to begin on August 4,
1986 be postponed until October 20, 1986 In support of its motion, FEMA indicates that its motion "is made in the interest of judicial economy and the conservation of FEMA's resources" (filotion, t.t 1).
FEMA recites the fact that the State of New Hampshire submitted portions of its offsite emergency plans in December 1985, which submittal was supplemented by the submission of additional portions of the plans anc. various other revisions in February and April 1986 ( &, at 1-3);
and the fact that a full scale exercise of the New Hampshire plans was condreted in February 1986 (Id., at 2).
FEMA and the RAC duly conducted reviews of the December and February plan documents and of the exercise, leading to FEMA's issuance of four extensive documents in April 1986 (Id., at 3).
In addition, FEMA and the RAC have continued to review the New Hampshire emergency plans, which were again revised in June 1986 (Id.), and recently met with representatives of the State to explain the concerns which they had previously identified (Id. ).
The State of New Hampshire has committed to submit a further revision of its plans by August 25, 1986, to address FEMA and the RAC's concerns (Id.).
As this summary demonstrates, FEMA has expended, and continues to expend, significant resources in reviewing the New Hampshire emergency plans.
1 The Board has requested that parties responding to FEMA's motion 3-4 of FEMA's motion.
address reasons 1 and 2" appearing at pages
~
" Reason i" is a statement by FEMA which recognizes that the emergency which further likely to undergo revision indefinitely -- but plans are the current version of the plan "is not the operative one";
notes that FEMA and the RAC "have already identified significant areas needing improvement," and the plans "will again be substantially altered as a such as the February (1986] exercise and result of subsequent events, RAC reviews."
While other parties may be sensitive to the use of such adjectives as " substantial" or "significant" in describing the nature of the plan revisions which are to be submitted by the State in August, the Board is no doubt aware from reading the documents issued by FEMA and the RAC, that numerous deficiencies and/or areas for improvement have been identified with respect to the New Hampshire emergency plans and in contrast to the minor and routine nature of plan exercise results, changes which may be anticipated to occur continually, the Board may assume that the State's August 1986 revisions to the plans may well f
contain numerous substantive changes to meet the concerns of FEMA and the RAC.
Accordingly, the Staff anticipates that if hearings commence in August, additional hearings will be necessary after FEMA has received and reviewed the August plan changes, to allow for proper resolution of issues related to admitted contentions.
This would appear to be the case notwithstanding the " predictive nature" of the emcrgency planning findings which the Board is to make because, in the absence of a favorable FEMA finding on those matters during the August hearings, 1
y
t the Board may well lack a sound basis upon which to base its predictive I.
findings. " In that event, the Staff anticipates that the commencement of hearings in August will not materially. advance the date by which the hearings may be concluded.
For these reasons, FEMA's " reason 1" appaars to support the deferral of hearings as requested by FEMA.
" Reason 2" advanced by FEMA asserts as follows:
Review of the June 3rd and proposed August 25th sub-missions will be delayed in direct proportion to the time and resources which FEMA commits to litigation of the
- December, 1985, NHRERP.
In fact, litigating the earlier version may be counterproductive to the efficient resolution of the offsite emergency preparedness issues at Seabrook.
The Staff is aware of certain resource limitations which adversely affect FEMA's ability to review the New Hampshire plans while, at the same time, it must prepare for hearings in August.
The Staff anticipates that if FEMA is required to prepare for and attend the August hearings, its review of the New Hampshire plan revisions will be delayed, resulting in concomitant delays affecting FEhiA's ability to reach its required
" reasonable assurance" finding. We further note that, apparently for this reason, the Applicants do not oppose the deferral of hearings as has I
been requested by FEMA. b For the reasons set forth above, and in the l
4 i
-5/
See " Applicants' Answer to Motions to Continue Hearings Filed by FEK1A, by SAPL and by the Town of Hampton," dated July 3,1986, at 2.
't
~ ~ " "
\\
\\
-s-interest gf averting any unnecessary delay in concluding the offsite emergency" planning hearings, the Staff does not oppose FEMA's motion for a continuance.
B.
Motions of SAPL and Town of Hampton.
SAPL and the Town of Hampton have filed separate motions seeking a continuance of the August hearings, although neither of those parties has proposed any date upon which they believe the hearings should commence.
The Staff believes that a continuance of the hearings on FEMA's motion, until October 20, 1986, would satisfy the objections and concerns expressed by SAPL and the Town of Hampton, and those motions would thereby be rendered moot.
Further, to the extent that these motions seek to continue the hearings to an unspecified date or otherwise seek to postpone hearings beyond the date proposed by FEMA, the Staff opposes these motions on the grounds that they are unsupported and could cause unnecessary delays in this proceeding.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff does not oppose FEMA's motion for a continuance, but opposes the motions filed by SAPL and the Town of Hampton.
Respectfully submitted, W
Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of July,1986 l
s l
\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
In the Matter of
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444 OL
)
4 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1
1 hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO MOTIONS FOR CONTINUATION OF HEARING FILED BY FEMA, SAPL AND THE TOWN OF HAMPTON" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 10th day of July,1986.
Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Ms. Carol Sneider, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Washington, D.C.
20555 Boston, MA 02108 l
Beverly Hollingworth Stephen E. Merrill 209 Winnacunnet Road Attorney General Hampton, NII 03842 George Dana Bisbee
=
Assistant Attorney General i
Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Office of the Attorney General Board of Selectmen 25 Capitol Street RFD 1 Box 1154 Concord, NH 03301-6397 Kensington, NH 03827 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency 107 Pleasant Street 2
i Concord, NH 03301 4
1 l
6 Calvin A.(Canney, City Manager Allen Lampert City Hall,,
Civil Defense Director 126 Daniel Street Town of Brentwood Portsmouth, NH 03801 20 Franklin Street Exeter, NH 03833 Roberta C. Pevear State Representative Angie Machiros, Chairman Town of Hampton Falls Board of Selectmen Drinkwater Road 25 High Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Newbury, MA 09150 Mr. Robert J. Harrison Jerard A. Croteau, Constable President and Chief Executive Officer 82 Beach Road, P.O. Box 5501 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire Salisbury, MA 01950 P.O. Box 330 Manchester, NH 03105 Diane Curran, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss Robert A. Backus, Esq.
2001 S Street, N.W.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Suite 430 116 Lowell Street Washington, D.C.
20009 Manchester, NH 03106 Edward A. Thomas Philip Ahrens. Esq.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistant Attorney General' 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
Office of the Attorney General Boston, MA 02109 State House Station #6 Augusta, ME 04333 H.J. Flynn, Esq.
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Ropes & Gray Federal Emergency Management Agency 225 Franklin Street 500 C Street, S.W.
Boston, MA 02110 Washington, D.C.
20472 l
Jane Doughty Atomic Safety and Licensing Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Board
- 5 Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, D.C.
20555 4
Atomic Safety and Licensing Paul McEachern, Esq.
Appeal Panel
- Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaines a McEachern Washington, D.C.
20555 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 i;
o D Docketing,and Service Section*
William Armstrong Office of the Secretary Civil Defense Director U.S. Muclear Regulatory Commission Town of Exeter Washington, D.C.
20555 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Maynard L. Young, Chairman Board of Selectmen Peter J. Matthews, Mayor 10 Central Road City Hall Rye, NH 03870 Newburyport, MA 09150 Michael Santosuosso, Chairman William S. Lord Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen South Hampton, NII 03827 Town Hall - Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Mr. Robert Carrigg, Chairman Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NII 03862 R. K. Gad III, Esq.
Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Holmes & Ellis Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Boston, MA 02110 Hampton, NH 03842 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Silverglate, Gertner, Baker Fine and Good 88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02110 N_.C-. {L O _
Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney 1