ML20214N503
| ML20214N503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1987 |
| From: | Lord W AMESBURY, MA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3607 OL, NUDOCS 8706020194 | |
| Download: ML20214N503 (3) | |
Text
.
.s g?D*""
DOLEU UNC j
l l
)
- 87 MAY 28 P2 :17 Q@ ]Q[
+
ins,
Board of Selectmen OFFf:.
- a, J 00cKLiftg:...
Town Hall, Amesbury, MA 01913 Tel. 388-0290 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPAtE
)
OF NEW' HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
Offsite Emergency Planning
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
May 26, 1987 TOWN OF AMESBURY'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION NOW COMES THE TOWN OF AMESBURY, and moves this Board reconsider its Memorandum and Order of February 18, 1987 announcing its rulings on the admissability of numerous contentions filed by five parties to this proceeding. The TOA seeks reconsideration of the Board's order as it relates to TOA contentions 7 & 8, and that this Board admit same for litigation.
This Board, in its Memorandum and Order of May 18, 1987, provides the basis for its February 18, 1987 rulings on contentions. The Board explains its rulings based on its previous order that these contentions must meet tha requirements of 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (1).
In its Memorandum and Order of May 18, 1987, the Board indicates that the TOA contentions meet the factors (ii) and (iii).
The Board also rules that factors (1), (iv) and (v) weigh against admission of TOA contentions.
In support of this motion, the TOA states:
1.
The TOA contentions #7 & 8 are timely. Both contentions are based substantially on facts unavailable prior to September 20, 1986.
8706020194 870526 PDR ADOCK 05000443 1)0$
0 PDR
)J'
TOA, page 2.
On that date, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts established the State's policy of non-participation /non-implementation of any RERP for Seabrook Station. Contentions 7 & 8 deal with the ability of the Applicants to call upon responses by employees of both State and local governmental entities. At no time prior to September 20, 1986 could the TOA argue that the roles outlined in KLD ETE would not be filled by employees of the Commonwealth under the direction of the Governor.
Clearly, conditions with respect to the ability to utilize KLD ETE have changed substantially.
Thus, evidence is now available to the TOA and this Board which must be recognized as fact, not theory, until such time as proven differently. The contentions fulfill the factor of 10 CFR 2.714(a) (1) (1).
2.
The TOA interests are not represented by other parties to this proceeding. This Board asserts that the interests of residents of the Commonwealth will be represented by the admission of SAPL contention #31. With due respect to both this Board and to SAPL, the TOA finds no basis in the Board's decision that a private, non-profit organization has any authority to represent the interests of governmental entities within the Commonwealth, their employees or residents. As a Town incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth, the TOA does have the authority to' represent a great many residents and governmental employees. This Board has also stated that the Attorney General of Massachusetts, a party to this proceeding, has the ability to represent those interests.
Unfortuatoly, this Board has not admitted the Mass AG's contention, leaving the AG in a position of spectator to the proceedings.
True, the Mass AG has filed an intent to participate in certain contentions, however that role may bo either diminished or eliminated by the Board's bases
=.
TOA, page 3.
for admission of other parties' contentions. The TOA contentions fulfill the requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(a) (1) (iv).
3.
The TOA contentions will not broaden the issue or delay the proceedings. The KLD ETE must be fully adjudicated at some time during the licensing process. Since no other hearings are scheduled on matters which may include the review of KLD ETE, the time is ripe for its total litigation. Furthermore, the prospect of a final decision on full-power licensing appears to be many months away. The proceeding will in no way'be delayed. The TOA contentions fulfill the requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(a) (1) (v).
4.
The TOA contentions do not deal with " deficiencies in Massachusetts' planning", but rather with the incontrovertable fact that the Governor of Massachusetts has set policy of non-participation /
non-implementation of any RERP for Seabrook Station. The Board's reliance on the Shoreham " realism theory" has no substantiation, especially when weighed against the statutory authority and obligations i i o
of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Board ~ Order of February 18, 1987 should be reconsidered, and TOA contentions 7 & 8 admitted.
I For the own rAmesbury, t
N-f 4Ms'y m
I w
William S. Lord j-Amesbury Board of Selectmen
..I Amesbury, MA 01913 is I, William S.
Iord, cerr.ify that the TOWN OF IESBURY' MOTION 8)
FOR RECONSIDERATION has been served on the attac ed list of parties, by first-class mail, this 26th day of May, 1987 t'
t' 4
d/)"[
Jr w-William S. Lord F
.m--
-