ML20211N682
| ML20211N682 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1986 |
| From: | Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | HAMPTON, NH |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1912 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8612180281 | |
| Download: ML20211N682 (3) | |
Text
.
I' 6t' m
.M/L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COU Eit:
NC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'86 DEC 17 P3 :19 Before Administrative Judges:
Helen'F. Hoyt, Chairperson Emmeth A. Luebke 6FFn._ i Jerry Harbour 00GRi x (
m
$ERVED DEC 171986."
In the Matter of-
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-0L
)
50-444-0L PUBLIC SERVICE COXPANY
)
(ASLBPNo. 82-471-02-0L) 0F NEW HANPSHIRE, et al.
)
(Offsite Emergency Planning)
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
December 17, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Town of Hampton Objection and Motion for Reconsideration of December 4,1986 Order)
In this Board's Order of December 4,1986, we reviewed the November status report of the State of New Hampshire dealing with the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan. We noted, among other matters, that "The towns within the Seabrook EPZ are being asked to identify any remaining resource needs." (Page 2).
In reviewing contentions filed by Intervenors, we noted that contentions were before us dealing with the issue of the failure to provide reasonable assurance that adequate facilities, equipment and personnel would be available to provide that adequate protective measures can and will be taken.1 The Town of Hampton had placed 1
Town of Hampton, Revised Contention III to Revision 2, October 31, 1986, page 9.
The contention also spells out the types of needs and the concern that these will be provided to the Town of Hampton in event of a radiological emergency.
O
'b 8612180281 861217 1
PDR ADOCK 050004431*
G PDR
y V
'lt emphasis on adequate facilities, equipment or personnel in its own contention referenced in the footnote below.
By its " Objection" and Motion for Reconsideration of the December 4,1986 order, T0H states that, (1) the Board is attempting to shift the burden for emergency planning onto the town in the Seabrook EPZ; and (2) the Board in urging the town to identify to the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency their resource needs has placed the town ui der a threat of prejudice.2 T0H complains that the State of New Hampshire has never reciprocated in cooperation and has violated state law by imposing an RERP on Hampton officials and compelling their participation without their consent. We have already rejected this last argument in our Memorandum and Order of April 29, 1986.
The Board finds the TOH arguments are the ultimate catch 22.
If Hampton wishes to raise the issue of facilities, equipment and personnel by contention as it has every right to do and the contention is accepted for litigation, then it would be inconceivable for the opposing parties to be prevented from responding by asking Hampton to identify these resource needs. The State of New Hampshire has indicated in its status report that it was requesting the EPZ towns to identify the remaining 2
The entire footnote in our order of 12/4/86 reads as follows:
"The Board urges the towns within the Seabrook EPZ to identify any l
remaining resource needs for the NHCDA since a failure to do so would impact on this Board's determination of whether a town's resource needs questioned through a contention were genuine or not."
i
k 3
resource needs. We, on December 4,1986, urged that the towns do so and we reaffirm that in this order. We believe that the parties are entitled to this Board's view of the importance of supplying the NHCDA with the resource needs before litigation for little can be gained in days of hearing on hardware problems which could have been solved prior to hearing.
It defies all logic to have an Intervenor raise a resource needs issue, to have an avenue for response opened, and the Intervenor refuse to supply answers to what these needs are.
If the T0H does not choose to define the resources it needs, then it must be content to have those resources defined for it. Nothing we have provided for in our December 4,1986 order could or would prejudice any Intervenor including T0H. As T0H correctly quotes from our order of April 29, 1986, we view these disputes between local and state governments on cooperation problems as matters we will not be drawn into for we cannot force cooperation among governments. However, when these disputes spill over into our arena, we will take those actions that best provide this Board with the infomation to conduct an orderly proceeding, and reach a decision based on the record of the evidence of whether the plan will provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the Seabrook Station.
FOR THE 0MIC SAFETY A
LI NSINGBOARD M
k
/,,
HeTETFF. Hoyt, Chairppton Administrative Judge Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of December 1986.