ML20209E781
| ML20209E781 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1987 |
| From: | Sneider C MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3234 OL, NUDOCS 8704300118 | |
| Download: ML20209E781 (12) | |
Text
V 3
1 323f k
00CKETE0 USNRC
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s
P230 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
GFFICE U :MF.
1.'
'Before Administrative Judges:
00CEIN - r M
i Helen F.
Hoyt, Chairperson UANO' Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
Jerry Harbour s
')
?
(
4
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-443/444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
(Off-Site EP)
)
April 23, 1987
)
ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M.
SHANNON'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER LICENSING BOARD CONFERENCE CALL RULING OF APRIL 13, 1987 AND ORDER OF APRIL 15, 1987 Attorney General James M. Shannon pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.730 hereby moves the Licensing Board, to reconsider its ruling of April 13, 1987 that it will not consider Attorney General Shannon's Motion for Summary Disposition of SAPL
{
Contention 16 and TcH Contention VIII.1! Attorney General l
l l
1/
Although the Board's Memorandum and Order dated April 15, T987, memorializing the telephone conference call rulings of
., April 13 and 14, 1987, states only that "the Board will not
' grant Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on those contentions concerning the issues of sheltering, ETEs and g decontamination facilities," Board Order at pp. 1-2 (emphasis added), the Board ruled during the conference call on April 13, 1987 that in light of its decision not to consider applicants'
(
motion for cummary disposition on sheltering contentions (SAPL
(
16; ToH VIII, and NECNP RERP-8), it would also not consider the Attorney General's motion for summary disposition on sheltering coqtentions.
)
B704300118 870423 PDR ADOCK 05000443 4
g-)
G PDR
Shannon also moves the Licensing Board to reconsider its tiemorandum and Order of April 15,(1987, insofar as it denies, in part, Attorney General Shannon's motion to compel applicants' response to Attorney General Shannon's Interrogatory tio. 137.
As grounds fotl,this motion the Attorney General staces as follows:
- 1) Ruling of April 13, 1987 At the conference call of April 13, 1987, the Board determined not to consider the Attorney General's motion for summary disposition on sheltering contentions based on its decision not to consider the applicants' motion for summary l
disposition on those same contentions.
While on the surface this similar treatment of the applicants' and the Attorney General's motions would seem equitable, there are certain underlying considerations as well as distinctions between the two motions which would dictate that the Attorney General's motion be considered at this time, despite the Board's decision, in response to the Attorney General's motion, not to consider applicants' motion on those same contentions.
Applicants' notion for summary disposition on the sheltering contentions was supported by three affidavits asserting numerous issues of fact to which the Attorney General would have had to respond with extensive affidavits from his own experts.
Attorney General-Shannon moved the Board to extend the tilse to respond to applicants' motion, because I.
applicants had not responded to a number of the Attorney General's interrogatories relating to sheltering contentions S/and such responses were necessary for the Attorney General to adequately prepare his response to applicants' motion on this issue.2/
The Board, rather than extending the time in which the Attorney General could respond to applicants' motion (and thereby upset the remainder of the hearing schedule),
determined in light of the unanswered discovery not to consider applicants' motion at all.
By contrast to the applicants' motion for summary disposition, Attorney General Shannon's motion for summary disposition is not supported by any affidavits of fact.
The Attorney General references solely the NHRERP for his Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, and his motion raises only a matter of law for the Board's decision.
Moreover, unlike the Attorney General, applicants did not file any motions seeking an extension of time within which to file responses to summary 2/
Although the Board, in large part, granted Attorney General Shannon's motion to compel applicants' responses to these interrogatories, applicants have not even yet responded.
3/
An extension of time for responding to applicants' motion would also have been warranted in this instance on the ground that applicants raised numerous new issues of fact in their motion concerning the adequacy of provisions for sheltering the summer transient beach population that could not have been reasonably anticipated on the basis of the NHRERP, since the NHRERP does not in any place provide for the sheltering of the summer transient beach population. _
i P
disposition motions,A/ and did not otherwise request that the i
Board not consider the Attorney General's motion.
- Indeed, applicants have filed their response to the Attorney General's summary disposition motion, despite the Board's ruling of April 13th.
Thus, unlike the case for the Attorney General on the applicants' motion, applicants are not in a situation of
)
being unable to adequately respond to the Attorney General's motion, and there is no reason therefore that the motion should not be considered.
Attorney General Shannon moreover contends that, even apart from the essentially procedural reasons just discussed, the Board must decide the Attorney General's motion for summary disposition at this time in order that the parties will know what it is they are to litigate.
Applicants, in their own motion for summary disposition on sheltering contentions and in their response to the Attorney General's motion assert that the summer transient be ch population may be instructed to shelter even though the NHRERP makes no provision at all for sheltering the summer beach population.
(Even the affidavit of the New Hampshire Civil Defense Director in support of applicants' motion asserts that the NHRERP does not contain plans for the 4
sheltering of the transient beach population.
See Strome 4/
Indeed applicants could have had little ground upon which to file such a motion, since the.y can have no complaint about the hearing schedule (it being essentially the schedule proposed by Applicants), and (at least as to the Attorney i
General) they have made no complaint that discovery has not been answered.
i
'l -.
\\
Affidavit at 1 11.)
Applicants' position, that the beach population may be instructed to shelter, raises a number of issues concerning the adequacy of provisions for sheltering that population, which are not necessarily encompassed by the already admitted contentions 1/ and which intervenors have not prepared to litigate, because the NHRERP does not call for sheltering of the summer transient beach population.
Intervenors need to be apprised beforehand if Applicants' view
-- that the summer transient beach population may be instructed to shelter -- is in fact to be litigated, or whether the Board will instead rely on the language of the plans and determine that it is not an issue for hearing.
Therefore Attorney General Shannon moves that the Board rule on the Attorney-General's motion so that he may know what it is that will be litigated.
If the Board should determine in ruling on the motion that the transient beach population may in some instances be instructed to shelter, despite.the language in the plans, then Attorney General Shannon will seek to file a late-filed contention to address those new sheltering issues 5/
These issues include but are not limited to (1) the adequacy of the state's dose assessment methodology as it pertains to the beach population; (2) the adequacy of provisions, including the physical means, for instructing the beach population to shelter, including whether that population will be able to sufficiently hear the sirens on the beaches in their voice mode so as to receive the necessary instructions; (3) the adequacy of the facilities for sheltering the beach population; (4) the adequacy of.the state's consideration of shore meteorology in deciding whether to shelter the beach population; and (5) the adequacy of any plans for instructing.
the transient population to leave the shelters.
I 1
that would thereby be raised (and would also seek an extension from this Board to allow time to prepare testimony on these new sheltering issues).
If, on the other hand, the Board should find in accordance with the language of the plans, that there is no provision for sheltering the transient summer beach population, then the Board can easily decide the Attorney General's motion as a matter of law and spare all parties the time and expense of preparing testimony and cross-examination on these issues.
- 2) Board Order of April 15, 1987 (on Massachusetts Attorney General's Motion to Compel Responses on Interrogatory 137)
Attorney General Shannon moves the Board to reconsider its Order of April 15, 1987 narrowing the scope of applicants' required response to the Attorney General's Interrogatory 137.
As applicants did not object to or file a protective order in response to this interrogatory, they should be required to respond to the interrogatory in its entirety, that is, to designate, by indicating on a map or otherwise, each and every parking space identified or counted by KLD in determining the peak number of vehicles, or other figures relevant to the number of persons, in the EPZ beach areas.
The Board Order of April 15 suggests that the Attorney General's interrogatory asking applicants to identify "each and every possible parking space in.the beach area" is unnecessarily broad.
Nevertheless, according to Volume 6 of I
i s.
the NHRERP, the NHRERP's peak summer beach population figures were determined by calculating from slides of the beach area the numbers of vehicles that can be physically accommodated within the beach area.
- See, e.g.,
Volume 6 at 2-1; E-5.
Moreover, Edward Lieberman of KLD Associates, who performed the calculations, has represented to the Massachusetts Attorney General's office that in determining beach area population figures he in fact counted each and every possible space where a car could park in the beach area (including lawns).
Therefore, the Attorney General's interrogatory asking applicants to identify "each and every possible parking space t
in the beach area identified or counted by KLD" is indeed relevant and unnecessarily broad.
Furthermore, as previously stated by the Attorney General in his motion to compel, a mere production of the slides from which KLD identified the 25,470 parking spaces is not responsive to the interrogatory.-
A mere production of slides does not identify what spaces were actually counted.
- Moreover, it strains credibility to believe that although KLD counted over 25,000 spaces, it has no notations, memoranda or calculations that identify separately for each slide the numbers of spaces counted, or that in any other way identify the spaces that were counted or the manner in which they were counted.
The Attorney General therefore moves that the Board reconsider its Order of April 15 and require applicants to - _. _ _
n answer in its entirety the Attorney General's Interrogatory 137, which is directly relevant to one of the most key issues in this proceeding -- the size of the peak summer beach population.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON Attorney General b, b
\\)
-) A " - C L *s By:
Carol S.
Sneider Donald S..Bronstein Allan R.
Fierce Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Protection Division Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, Room 1902 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2265 i
Dated:
April 23, 1987 i
T.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C{-[f{ED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T7 AR? 24 P2 30 h{ ' jg' In the Matter of
)
)
EE;.Nca PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Carol S. Sneider, hereby certify that on April 23, 1987 I made service of the within document, by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, by first class mail, or as indicated by an asterisk, by Federal Express mail, to:
- Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson
- Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Third Floor Mailroom Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
- Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building Tenth Floor 4350 East West Highway 7735 Old Georgetown Road Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
- H.
Joseph Flynn, Esq.
- Stephen E.
Merrill Assistant General Counsel Attorney General Office of General Counsel George Dana Bisbee Federal Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 03301
I-A
- Docketing and Service Paul A. Fritzsche, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Public Advocate Commission State House Station 112 Washington, DC.
20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Roberta C.
Pevear.
Ms. Diana P.
Randall State Representative 70 Collins Street Town of Hampton Falls Seabrook, NH 03874 Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844-Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market Street Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Paul McEachern, Esq.
J. P.
Nadeau Matthew T.
Brock, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Shaines & McEachern 10 Central Road 25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH 03870 P.O.
Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Mr. Calvin A.
Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall Rte. 107 126 Daniel Street E.
Kingston, NH 03327 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angelo Machicos, Chairman U.S. Senate Board of Selectmen Washington, DC 20510 25 High Road (Attn: Tom Burack)
Newbury, MA 10950 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Mr. Peter J. Matthews 1 Eagle Square, Suite 507 i
Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Donald E. Chick Mr. William Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913 - _ - _
I o
i Brentwood Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
RFD Dalton Road Holmes & Ellis Brentwood, NH 03833 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Harmon & Weiss Department of the Attorney Suite 430 General 2001 S Street, N.W.
State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333
- Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
R.K. Gad III, Esq.
Campe & McNicholas Ropes & Gray 35 Pleasant Street 225 Franklin Street Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02110 Beverly Hollingworth Edward A. Thomas 209 Winnacunnet Road Federal Emergency Management Hampton, NH 03842 Agency 442 J.W.
McCormack (POCH)
Boston, MA 02109 William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Jewell Street, RFD 2 10 Front Street South Hampton, NH 03827 Exeter, NH 03833 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 Allen Lampert Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson Civil Defense Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Town of Brentwood Board Panel 20 Franklin Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Charles P. Graham, Esq.
4 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board McKay, Murphy & Graham U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Old Post Office Square Commission 100 Main Street East West Towers Building Amesbury, MA 01913 4350 East West Highway Third Floor Mailroom Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Silvergate, Gertner, Baker, Fine, Good & Mizner 88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02110 l 3
_~ -
Rep. Edward J. Markey, Chairman U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Room H2-316 House Office Building Annex No. 2 Washington, DC 20515 i
Attn:
Linda Correia StJS Sm db.)
Carol S.
Sneider Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Dated:
April 23, 1987 i
i
-.