ML20214G880
| ML20214G880 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1986 |
| From: | Curran D HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1631 OL, NUDOCS 8611260211 | |
| Download: ML20214G880 (10) | |
Text
.
hdl November 21, 1986 DOLMETED USNRC
' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 16 NW 24 P4 :51 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CFFICE : E
)
00Cnifyh-o if i.
Tn the Matter of
)
)
Fublic Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 5 0-443 OL
)
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
OFFSITE EMERGENCY
)
PLANNING
)
NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CF MOVEMBER 4, 1986 Introduction On November 4, 1986, the Licensing Board issued a memorandum and order that ruled on pending sunmary judgment motions and es-tablished a deadline and admissibility criteria for the filing of contentions on the New Hampshire radiological emergency response plan, Revision 2.
The Board also requested the parties to submit proposed schedules for the litigation of the New Hampshire plans.
Finally, the Board ordered the parties to submit monthly status reports.
The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollutior.
("NECNP") hereby moves for reconsideration of the Board's order, proposes a schedule for litigation of the New Hampshire emergency plans, and submits a status report.
8611260211 861121 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
PDR DP3
. I.
Objection to and Motion for Reconsideration of Order A.
Summary Disposition Rulings.
NECNP notes for the record its objection to the Board's de-cision to grant Applicants' summary disposition motion regarding NECNP Contentions RERP-3, RERP-2, RERP-12, NHLP-4, RERP-10, and NilLP-3.
B.
Imposition of Late-Filed Contention Standard In its Response to Applicants' motion for the establishment of a hearing schedule, NECNP requested that the Board refrain f rom treating contentions on Revision 2 as late-filed.
NECNP argued that the imposition of the late-filed contention standard places an unfair and illegal burden on intervenors.
NECNP Response at 3-4 (October 15, 1986).
Without addressing NECNP's motion, the Board states in its Memorandum and Order that it intends to treat contentions on Revision 2 as late-filed.
Memorandum and Order at 37.
NECNP o b-jects to that ruling.
It is unjust and violative of. Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act for the Licensing Board to penal-ize NECNP f or the Applicants' delay in submitting a completed ap-plication for an operating license.
By saddling the intervenors with the onerous burden of justifying the acceptability of con-tentions that are otherwise admissible, the Licensing Board wrongfully obstructs NECNP's right to a hearing on all issues that are material to the issuance of an operating license for Seabrook.
See NECNP Response at 3-4 pg.
. C.
Deadline for Filing Contentions on Revision 2 In responding to Applicants' motion for establishment of a hearing-schedule, NECNP contended that in light of the conflict-ing obligations imposed on the parties in the technical and onsite emergency planning proceeding, the Board should establish a deadline of January 15, 1986, for filing contentions on Revi-sion 2.
Instead, the Board has set a deadline of December 1, 1986.
In setting this schedule, the Board has apparently f ailed to take into consideration the conflicting demands of the technical and onsite emergency planning proceeding.
During much of the
~
time that NECNP has been in possession of Revision 2, it has been engaged in discovery, trial preparation, hearings, and prepara-tion of proposed findings for the onsite proceeding.
The Board's ceder thus leaves little time for the review of Revision 2 and the preparation of contentions.
Mo reove r, we would p.oint out that the identification of issues raised for the first time in Revision 2 requires a much more thorough investigation than mere-ly examining sections that have been marked with a vertical line in the right-hand margin.
For example, NECNP discovered that Revision 2 contained extensive changes to the radiological emergency response plan for the Portsmouth and Exeter Hospitals.
Those changes were not flagged by any markers in the margin of Fevision 2.
They were discovered by painstaking and time-consuming comparison of Revision 1 and Revision 2.
NECNP seeks adequate time to make that comparison.
_4_
As discussed in Section D.
below, NECNP also seeks an op-portunity to file contentions on those aspects of the plan that appeared for the first time in Revision 1, and that are also con-tained in Revision 2.
Because the State has not provided the same easy form of identifying Revision 1 changes as it has for 1
Revision 2, some time is required to identify those aspects of Revision 1 which are perpetuated in Revision 2.
For these reasons, NECNP requests that the Board reconsider its order and establish a deadline of January 2, 1987, for the filing of contentions on the plans.
D.
Limitation of Scope of Contentions to Revision 2 The Board has ruled that contentions on Revision 2 must be based solely on new matters contained in that revision.
Memorandum and Order at 37, note 10.
While NECNP considers that it would be reasonable to exclude contentions that address mat-ters contained in Revision 0, we do not consider it fair to ex-clude contentions that raise matters which appeared for the first time in Revision 1 and which are perpetuated in Revision 2.
With good reason, NECNP did not review or file contentions on Revision 1 of the plans.
NECNP Aeceived Revision 1 in the second week of June, 1986.
The plans were accompanied by a letter from Richard 11. Strome, New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency to Henry G. Vick-era, FEMA, stating that Revision 1 would be followed by a later 1
In most sections of Revision 2, the State has marked the right-hand margin of each page of the plan:3 to delineate those sections of the plan that were added as a result of Revision 2.
That has not been done consistently for Revision 1.
4
. revision.
On June 30, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(" FEMA"). filed a motion for continuance of the August emergency.
planning hearing on the ground that the current set of plans did not constitute the operable plans for New Hampshire.
FEMA stated that it wished to postpone the litigation until October, after it had reviewed the next revision to the emergency plans for New ilamp shir e.
Given the Applicants' and NRC Staf f's f ailure to op-pose FEMA's motion, NECNP reasonably concluded that no useful purpose could be served by reviewing and filing contentions on a set of plans that would very soon be supplanted in the litigation by another set of plans.
Thus, there is no reasonable or just basis for excluding from this hearing issues that were raised for the first time in Fevision 1 and are perpetuated in Revision 2.
NECNP requests that the Board reconsider its decision to limit contentions to issues raised solely by new matters contained in Revision 2 to the New Ilampshire RERP.
II.
NECNP's Proposed Schedule for Litigation of New I!ampshire Emergency Plans In ita Memorandum and Order, the Board states that it believes the time frames established in its January 17, 1986, hearing schedule can be shortened for the litigation of conten-tions on Revision 2.
In support of its position, the Board cites the length of time that the parties have had the New Hampshire plans, as well as the two months that the parties have had Revi-sion 2.
As discussed above, however, the demands of the onsite and technical proceeding have left little time for the review of Revision 2.
6-As NECNP has argued throughout this proceeding, the ex-pedited schedule used by the Licensing Board is so compressed as to unfairly restrict the ability of NECNP and other intervenors to participate in this proceeding in a meaningful way.
To date, the haste of the proceeding has served no useful purpose.
- Twice, af ter conducting discovery and summary judgment proceedings in an expedited fashion, the Licensing Board has been forced to suspend emergency planning hearings when it became clear that Applicants could not proceed.
Moreover, there is no reasonable justifica-tion to expedite this next phase of the hearings, since Ap-plicants have given no indication that they will offer some means of satisfying the emergency planning requirements for the Common-wealth of Massachussetts at any time in the near future.
- Yet, the Board apparently intends to reduce even further the narrow time frames set forth in the expedited schedule of January 17, 1986.
We note that we continue in our opposition to the bifurca-tion of this proceeding, and urge that the Board postpone the proceeding until it can litigate plans for both New Hampshire and Ma ssachussetts in an integrated f ashion.
Given the Boerd's ap-parent determination to proceed with the separate litigation of the new Hampshire plans, however, we propose the following sched-ule, which we believe provides the minimum time necessary to permit the full and fair litigation of the plans.
m m '
January 2, 1987 Contentions due January 16 Response by parties other than Staf f January 23 NRC Staf f response due (three weeks allow'ed for intervenor replies, negotiation of wording of contentions)
February 17,18 ;
PIehearing Conference March 3 Board rules on admissibility of conten-tions, discovery begins (two months discovery provided to allow for two sets of interrogatories, depositions)
May 1 Discovery closes May 15 Answers to last interrogatories due May 29 Motions for Summary Disposition due June 19 Responses to Summary Disp.' motions due June 30 Replies to responses due July 14 Board rules on summary disp. motions August 17 Prefiled testimony due September 15 Hearings commence.
Rebuttal and cross-examination III. Monthly Status Report NECNP asks that the Board reconsider its order that inter -
venors file munthly status reports.
In light.of the many other demands for filings that this litigation places on the. parties andthetightscheduleformakingthosefilings,NbCNPwishesto o avoid incurring the obligation to make monthly stat 0s-filings un-less it is actually necessary.
We 'cannot see' what. useful purpose would be served by requir'ing intervanors to file.sach reports.
The status of an intervendr? s participation in this proceeding may readily be ascertained by a review of the docket in'the case.
6
/
,,e,.,
~.
. If the Board wishes to coordinate this hearing schedule with the onsite and technical hearing board, it may consult the other board.
If the Board wishes to ascertain the progress of the ef-forts by an intervenor's attorney to develop its position in the case, NECNP submits that this information is privileged.
In conformance w'ith the Board's November 4 order, however, NECNP informs the Board that, aside from admitted contentions that are slated for hearing and this motion for reconsideration and proposed hearing schedule, it currently has no matters pend-ing before the Board.
Respectfully submitted,
/7
~, On-U J
Diane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009 (202) 328-3500 November 21, 1986
- - - _ _, _ _.., _ _ - _ _ _ +
,r.
.~,
o
~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 21, 1986, copies of NEW! ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERAT'I6N AND RESPCNSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF NOVEMBER 4, 1986 were served on the following by first-class mq);l gp 39 p4 32 otherwise indicated:
GFfiR F
- Helen F. Hoyt, Ch airman Rep.RobertaEE@efear,i
' "~
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Drinkwater Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, Falls, NH 03844 a
Washington, D.C.
20555 Phillip Ah rens, Es q.
- Dr. Jerry Harbour Assistant At torney General Atomi'c 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. Luebke R.K.
Gad II, Esq.
Atomic Safety and ' Licensing Board Ropes & Gray U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 225 Franklin Street Washington, D.C.
20355 Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Robert A.
Ba ck u s, Esq.
Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 111 Lowell Street Wa shing ton,' D.C.
20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
- Robert G.
Perlis, Es q.
Board Panel Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office 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, Ch airman Board of Selectmen Mrs. Anne E.
Goodman Newbury, MA 01950 Board of Selectmen 13-15 New Market Road H. Joseph Flynn, Es q.
Durham, NH 03842 Of fice of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency William S.
Lord, Selectman 500 C Street S.W.
Town Hall -- Friend Street Washington, D.C.
20472 Amesbury, MA 01913 George Dana Bisbee, Es q.
Jane Doughty Stephen E. Merrill, Esq.
SAPL Of fice of the Attorney General 5 Market Street State House Annex Portsmouth, NH 03801 Concord, NH 03301
o
, Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Allen Lampert Assistant Attorney General Civil Defense Director Department of the Attorney General Town of Brentowood 1 Ashburton Place,19th Floor Exeter, NH 03833 Boston, MA 02108 Richard A.
Hampe, Es q.
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, Es q.
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, Ma yo r Civil Defense Director City Hall 10 Front Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Exeter, NH 03833 Alfred V.
Sargent, Ch airman Calvin A. Ca nney 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.
Brock, Esq.
(Attn. Tom Burack)
Shaines & McEachern P.O.
Box 360 Selectmen of Northampton Maplewood Ave.
Northampton, 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)
Michael Santosuosso, Ch airman Boston, MA 02109 Board of Selectmen Jewell Street, RFD # 2 Sandra Gavutis South Hampton, NH 03842 Town of Kensington RFD 1 Box 1154 East Kensington, NH 03827 0
( ku U
Diane Curran
-