ML20236N858
| ML20236N858 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1987 |
| From: | Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4161 OL, NUDOCS 8708120134 | |
| Download: ML20236N858 (8) | |
Text
_
k Y/h{
07/31/87 l
DOCKETED Uall.RC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 AUG -3 P12 :09 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD (
in the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
Off-site Emergency Planning
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JUNE 30,1987 ORDER SCHEDULING HEARINGS TO BE HELD IN BOSTON On July 13,1987, 'the Town of Amesbury filed a motion M seeking reconsideration of the Board's June 30, 1987 Order, 2,/ and requesting that hearings on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan be moved from Boston to "the New Hampshire Seacoast region" (Motion,
at 1).
On July 10, 1987, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) filed a similar motion on behalf of itself, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP), and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, b
-1/
" Town of Amesbury's Motion for Reconsideration of Board's Order of June 30,1987" (" Motion"), dated July 13, 1987.
-2/
" Memorandum and Order (Modifying its Memorandum and Order of May 4,1987)" (" Order"), dated June 30, 1987.
-3/
" Joint Motion for Reconsideration of Order Scheduling New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plans for Boston, Massachusetts"
(" Joint Motion"), dated July 10, 1987.
The Joint Motion was filed before the Appeal Board in the Seabrook OL-1 (onsite emergency planning and safety issues) proceeding, although this appears to have been inadvertent; the Joint Motion explicitly requests that "this (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 8708.120134 g70731
[DR ADOCK 05000443
}$ol PDR
i.
,c' I.
l' For the.following reasons, the Staff does not oppose the motions for reconsideration, nor. does. It object to the Board's selection of the Boston courthouse as the site for the evidentiary hearings.
DISCUSSION in support of its Motion, the Town of Amesbury asserts that (a) hearings on New Hampshire emergency plans should only be held in New' Hampshire (ld.); (b) the Boston location is "nearly. 50 miles from the facility and the citizens most directly affected by that facility" (Id.);
(c) prior hearings have been held at a motel and church basement. In "close proximity". to the facility. without detriment, despite the fact that -
they were not held in a " federally secure facility" (Id. at 1-2); and (d) hearings in the vicinity of the plant would be the "most beneficial to the general public," considering such factors as " distance, travel time, expense' and absence from job and family" (id. at 2)..
Similar assertions are made by the joint movants, whc also note that they lack funding to remain in Boston overnight and that parking in Boston is difficult (Joint
' Motion at 2).
The fact that hearings on the New Hampshire plans are scheduled to be held in Massachusetts rather than in New Hampshire is of no import.
Seabrook Station is located only t.co miles from the Massachusetts border and a large portion of the plant's ten-mile EPZ lies within Massachusetts; (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
Board reconsider its O rde r," indicating that the movants had intended to file the motion before the same Board that had issued the scheduling order in question.
I
1.*.=
it is 'likely that Massachusetts residents, as well as New i;lampshire residents, may have an interest in the outcome of hearings on the New Hampshire emergency response plans -- as is demonstrated by the Town of - Amesbury and ~ the Massachusetts Attorney General's decisions to
' participate in litigation of the New Hampshire plans.
With respect to the distance of the Boston courthouse from the Seabrook facility, the Staff notes that Boston is located approximately
.38 miles from the plant site.
While hearings held in closer proximity to the plant certainly would facilitate ' attendance by persons residing in the
'~
New Hampshire seacoast region, the distance from the plant site to Boston does not appear to be so great as to preclude those persons' attendance at the evidentiary hearings. EI With respect to the costs associated with a Boston hearing site, both SAPL and NECNP are represented by counsel from outside the seacoast region, while the Massachusetts Attorney General's office is located in Boston.
AltL agh overnight accommodations and parking are likely to be somewhat more expensive in Boston than in the seacoast region, this factor is only one of many which should be considered by the Board in selecting a hearing site and is not so significant, by itself, as to be determinative.
4/
Consistent with Commission policy, evidentiary hearings on operating license applications are generally held in the vicinity of the plant in
~
question.
However, hearings in other proceedings have been held at greater distances from the plant than has been ordered here.
For instance, most of the 1985 evidentiary hearings in the South Texas operating license proceeding were held in Houston, some 80 miles distant from the plant site (located near Bay City, Texas).
Of
- course, the selection of a hearing location in any particular proceeding may be affected by factors unique to that proceeding, which factors may well not be applicable here.
i 1
l
A V
s3 s
_a_
l Notwithstanding the above, the Staff does not oppose the motions for reconsideration, and would not object if the Licensing Board should determine to rer,onsider its Order and reschedule the hearings to be held in the vicinity of the plant.
The Staff notes, as does SAPL (Joint Motion at 2), that dis uptions of the 1986 evidentiary hearings in the O L-1 proceeding largely ceased once ihe Licensing Board decided to schedule additional limited appearance sessions.
Accordingly, it may well be that future hearings in the seacoast area will proceed without disruption if the Board permits interested persons to present limited appearance statements.. If any s}gnificant disruptions chould nonetheless occur, the Board could determine to recess and move all subsequent hearing sessions to the Boston courthouse location. EI I
-5/
Regardless of whether the Board determines to relocate the evidentiary hearings, additional limited appearance sessions should be scheduled if sufficient interest in such sessions is expressed by members of the public. On the one hand, if the Board determines to hold the hearings in Boston, the scheduling of limited appearance sessions in the vicinity of the plant would permit pcrsons who might be unable to attend the hearings to express their views, and would satisfy some of their interest in being present during the hearings; this procedure was followed in South Texas, referred to supra at 3 n.4, where the Board held limited appearance sessions in the vicinity of the plant despite its selection of Houston as the hearing location.
i On the other hand, if the Board determines to move the hearings to the seacoast region, the scheduling of limited appearance sessions may help to avert sny significant disruptions and would facilitate the i
conduct of an orderly hearing.
l 1
bl CONCLUSION The selection of a hearing. site is within the sound. discretion of the
- Licensing Board..
For the reasons set forth above, the Staff does not oppose the Boston hearing location established by the Board's Order of June 30,.1987, nor does it oppcse the pending. motions seeking to move the hearings to the New Hampshire seacoast region.
Respectfully submitted, Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Dated at Bethesda, Maryland
'this 31st. day of July,1987 at l
- r-DCLKDiZ
,+.
pgn UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
87 E _3 g.09-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Y bdi ((
.in the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
Off-site Emergency Planning
)
-(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
hereby_
certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S
RESPONSE
TO MOTIONS -
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JUNE 30, 1987 ORDER SCHEDULING
. HEARINGS TO BE' ' HELD IN BOSTON" in the above-captioned Tproceeding have been ' served on the following by deposit in the United States. mall, first.. class or, as indicated-by an asterisk, i
by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mall system, j
this 31st. day of July,1987.
- Helen ' Hoyt, Esq.,: Chairman
- Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.*
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, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
~
Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Ms. Carol Sneider, Esq.
~ Administrative Judge-Assistant At'orney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office'of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place,19th Floor
..ashington,. DC' 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Beverly Hollingworth Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
- 209 Winnacunnet Road New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency Hampton, NH 03842 107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Calvin A. Canney, City Manager u
- Board of Selectmen City Hall l
RFD 1 Box 1154 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 4
L-__--___.__--_
- - -. ~ _ _ _ _. _.
l
.I '
6'
-2' i
Stephen E. Merrill Paul McEachern, Esq.
Attorney General.
Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
-George Dana Bisbee Shaines 6 McEachern Assistant. Attorriey General 25 Maplewood Avenue Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 360
~
25 Capitol Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Concord,. NH. 03301 Roberta C. Pevear Angle Machiros, Chairman State Representative Board of Selectmen Town of Hampton Falls 25' High Road Drinkwater Road Newbury, MA 09150-Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Allen Lampert Mr. Robert J. Harrison
' Civil Defense Director President and Chief Executive Officer Town' of Brentwood -
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 20 Franklin Street P.O. Box 330 Exeter, NH 03833 Manchester, NH 03105 Charks P. Graham,. Esq.
Robert A.- Backus, Esq.
McKay, Murphy and Graham Backus, Meyer 6 Solomon 100 Main Street 116 Lowell Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Manchester,- NH 03106
- Diane. Curran, Esq.
Philip Ahren, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss Assistant Attorney General 2001 S Street, NW -
Office of the Attorney General F-
. Suite 430 State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME ' 04333 Edward A. Thomas Thomas G. Dignan Jr., Esq.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Ropes & Gray 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH) 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02109 Boston, MA 02110 H.J. Flynn, Esq.
Wililam Armstrong Assistant General Counsel Civil Defense Director Federal Emergency Management Agency Town of Exeter 500 C Street, SW 10 Front Street Washington, DC 20472 Exeter, NH 03833 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel
- Board
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
e u
. Jane Dough'tp D'ocketing and Service Section*
' Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Office of the Secretary 5 Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Maynard L.. Young, Chairman William S. Lord Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen 10' Central-Road Town Hall - Friend Street South Hampton, NH 03287 Amesbury, MA 01913 Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Peter J. Matthews, Mayor Board of Selectmen' City Hall South Hampton, NH 03287 Newburyport, MN 09150 Mr. Robert Carrigg, Chairman Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Silverglate, Gertner, Baker Town Office Fine and Good Atlantic Avenue 88 Broad Street North Hampton, NH 03862 Boston, MA 02110 R. - K. Gad Ill, Esq.
Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Ropes & Gray Board of Selectmen -
225 Franklin Street 13-15 Newmarket Road Boston, MN' 02110 Durham, NH 03824 Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey Holmes & Ellis United States Senate 47 Winnacunnet Road 531 Hart Senate Office Building Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20510 6
Sherwin E. Turk i
Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney
._ _