ML20215J741

NRC Staff Response to Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Motion for Partial Reconsideration.* Staff Supports Portions of Ref 870527 Motion & Recommends Portions Be Granted,Per Licensing Board 870218 Memorandum & Order.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20215J741
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/16/1987
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#287-3790 OL, NUDOCS 8706250094
Download: ML20215J741 (13)

Text

37 9D 4

6/16/87 I

[ Viit?

a t wr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'87 JUN 17 P5 :42 DEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A_ND LICENSING BOARD [0h w,

.o b R t, tv '

in the Matter of

)

)

Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

)

50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.

)

)

Offsite Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

NRC STAFPS RESPONSE TO SAPL'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION INTRODUCTION On May 18, 1987, the Licensing Board issued a Memorandum and Order 1 setting forth the basis for its decision of February 18, 1987, ruling on the cdmissibility of contentions addressing Revision 2 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP). 2_/ On May 27, 1987, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) filed a motion seeking partial reconsideration of that decision. -

For the reasons set

-1/

" Memorandum and Order (Providing Basis for and Revision to Board's Rulings on Contentions on Revision 2 of NHRERP)", dated May 18,1987 (" Order").

-2/

" Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions - Revision 2 New Hampshire Radiological Emergency

Response

Pla n),"

dated February 18, 1987.

l

-3/

" Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Board's February 18, 1987 and May 18, 1987 Orders," dated May 27,1987 ("SAPL").

Motions for reconsideration were also filed by the Town of Amesbury and the Town of Hampton, to which the Staff has previously responded.

See "NRC Staff's Response to Motions for Reconsideration Filed by the Town of Amesbury and the Town of Hampton," dated June 15, 1987.

B706250094 870616

]

DR ADOCK 050 3

I

forth below, the Staff supports portions of SAPL's motion and recommends that those portions of the motica be granted.

DISCOSION SAPL seeks reconsideration of the Board's treatment of six contentions, and it provides additional comments concerning the Board's treatment of one other contention. EI The Staff's views with respect to these matters are as fc!!ows.

1.

SAPL Revised Contention 7.

SAPL asserts that the Board erred in rejecting its assertion that letters of agreement are needed (a) " committing hest community personnel to perform monitoring and decontamination functions," and (b) " securing the reception center facilities contemplated for these functions" (SAPL at 1-2).

SAPL explains that this contention ~was meant to require the execution of letters of agreement by the governments and fire departments of towns which are to provide emergency personnel and services, and by the principals of schools which are to serve as reception centers (ld., at 2).

The Licensing Board correctly ruled that letters of agreement are not required for in-dividual emergency response personnel. 5_/

Similarly, 3/

SAPL also states that it " reserves the right to challenge later" the Board's ruling of May 26, 1986 that letters of agreement are not required for individual bus drivers or other emergency workers, as had been contended in SAPL Amended Contentions 8 and 8A and in SAPL Redrafted Contention 15 (SAPL at 3).

Because SAPL does not now seek reconsideration of these rulings, the Staff does not address them here.

-5/

See "NRC Staff's Response to Contentions on NHRERP Revision 2, TTfed By Town of Amesbury, Town of Kensington.

SAPL and NECNP," dated December 19,1986 (" Staff Response"), at 13.

4.

letters of agreement are not required with local governments,, as the Board 'previously ruled in connection with SAPL Contention 15.

While SAPL now explains that it also meant to require !etters of agreement with the local fire departments which are to provide monitoring personnel, that I

explanation comes too late to cure the vague and overly broad assertion contained in the basis for the contention, that "there are no letters of agreement committing the host community personnel to perform [ evacuee monitoring and decontamination) functions." 5I However, SAPL did present an admissible issue in asserting that letters of agreement are required for reception centers.

While the Board notes that it previously had rejected a

related issue in SAPL Contention 15 (Order at 34, citing Order of May 21, 1986), neither Contention 15 nor the Board's prior order addressed the need for letters II Accordingly, the Licensing of agreement with reception centers.

Board should grant SAPL's motion for reconsideration to the extent it addresses the need for letters of agreement for reception centers, j

2.

SAPL Revised Contention 18.

I SAPL objects to the Board's exclusion of comparisons between prior and current versions of the NHRERP, concerning population estimates and

~6/

" Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Contentions on Revision 2 of the l

New Hampshire Radiological Emergency

Response

Plan, "

dated November 26,1986 ("SAPL Revision 2 Contentions"), at 17.

-7/

See " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Late-Filed Contentions of 5escoast Anti-Pollution League," dated May 21, 1986, at 7-8; and

" Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Second Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene," dated February 21, 1986, at 17-19.

The Staff had not opposed this item in its response to SAPL's Revised Contention 7.

See Staff Response of December 19, 1986, at 13.

numbers of available buses.

SAPL states that it would have been

" enlightening" to be abic to compare the old with the new, and such a comparison "can only help in ascertaining.the true situation" (SAPL at 3).

The Licensing Board correctly determined that iltigation in this proceeding. should address the adequacy of the current NHRERP, and previous iterations. of that plan "are immaterial" (Order at 39).

Accordingly, this portion of SAPL's motion should be rejected.

3.

SAPL Contention 25.

SAPL states that it '"has no problem" with the Board's ruling on this contention, "so long as it is understood that the specific examples of Exeter Hospital, the Seacoast Health Center and O'Brien Ambulance were cited as indicators of a pervasive problem"; and SAPL states that it would have - been too burdensome for it to. have listed "each and every facility housing mobility impaired individuals in this basis" (SAPL at 3-4).

i SAPL's comments essentially constitute an untimely attempt to expand ' this contention ' to include facilities which were not discussed in the basis for this contention.

The Staff supported the admission of this contention, " limited to the specific bases presently offered by SAPL in its support" (Staff Response, at 16).

SAPL did not contest this limitation in its reply to the Staff's views, nor did it indicate that other facilities were intended to be included within the scope of this contention. 8_/

The Licensing Board then admitted the contention, "as limited to the specific bases offered by SAPL in its November 26, 1986 pleading that assert l

-8/

See " Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Responses to Applicants' and 5taff's Answers to SAPL's Contentions on Revision 2 of the NHRERP," dated December 23, 1986, at 6.

i deficiencies in the.NHRERP Revision 2" (Order at 40).

Accordingly, SAPL's ' untimely. attempt to expand the bases for this contention should be rejected.

4.

SAPL Revised Content' ion 31.

I

. SAPL objects to the Licensing Board's statement that it "need not consider further SAPL's previously filed contention of 5/15/86" (SAPL at 4, citing Order of February 18,1987 at 4 n.2). E SAPL notes that in revising Contention 31 to reflect the issuance of NHRERP Revision 2. It had made certain r* essary modifications to the original bases for the l

contention; in other respects, however, the prior bases were simply incorporated by reference (SAPL at 4). E j

SAPL's original basis for this contention consisted of some 11 EI The basis for its

)

unnumbered paragraphs printed on 6 pages.

revised contention, in add l tion to incorporating the prior basis by reference, consists of 20 numbered paragraphs _ printed on 9 pages, and largely addressed the same concerns that were addressed by the original

]

basis statement.

Although SAPL claims that in its revised basis, it

" modified" the original basis where necessary, the language of the two basis statements is so uncorrelated and dissimilar that it is.stmply

-9/

Simliarly, in a subsequent Order the Board stated, "we do not consider further the bases proffered in SAPL's Fourth Supplemental Petition, dated May 1$,1986," " Memorandum and Order (Corrections to May 18,1987 Memorandum and Order)," dated May 28,1987, at 1 (modifying Order of May 18,1987 at 40).

10/ See SAPL Revision 2 Contentions, at 7.

i 11/ See " Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Fourth Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene," dated May 15,1986, at 6-11.

~

j l

1

i impossible to discern which of the prior basis statements were modifleo, which were abandoned, and which were left intact. As the party framing the contention, it was SAPL's duty to present a clear and understandable statement of its basis.

The Board correctly determined that SAPL had failed to indicate properly which of the original basis statements were

+

modified and/or continue to apply to NHRERP Revision 2. EI

Further, even in its current motion for reconsideration, SAPL has failed to disclose which of its former basis statements were improperly extin0uished by the Board's Order.

Accordingly,. the Licensing Board should reject SAPL's motion with respect to this contention.

5, Hampton Revised Contention ill.

SAPL objects to the Board's treatment of the Town of Hampton's Revised Contention Ill, which SAPL indicated it wished to co-sponsor. E in particular, SAPL objects' to the Board's exclusion of Hampton's original basis for this contention and of basis item (C)(7) (SAPL at 5).

These matters were also cddressed by the Town of Hampton in its recent motion

-12/. In the Town of Hampton's motion for r econsidc: ration, a similar complaint had been raised as to the. Board's exclusion of the original basis "or two contentions.

'Hampton, however, had not purported to revise its ptrior basis but had only incorporated it by reference in the new basis.

The Staff supported Hampton'c rnotion for reconsideration of this matter, stating that the perties had not been precluded "from understanding the issues that are to be litigated,"

and that "tha Board's concern for overlap and duplication... can be addressed by the parties in the course of preparing their testimony on the merits of the contention. "

See "NRC Staff'S Response to Motions for Reconsideration Filed by the Town of Amesbury and the Town of Hampton," dated June H,1937, at 4-5.

13/ See SAPL Revision 2 Contentions., at 2-3.

The Staff aid not oppose 5APL's adoption of this contention.

See Staff Response of December 19,1986, at 10-11.

) <.i.

for reconsideration.

' The Licensing Board should grant SAPL's ' motion as to these matters, _ for_. the reasons set forth in the Staff's response to Hampton's motion for reconsideration. N 6.

S_APL Contention 35.

SAPL' objects to the Board's rejection of this contention as untimely

' l and lacking in specificity (SAPL at 5).

SAPL further contends that "it is

- l of the utmost importance that potentially contaminated individuals seek out radiolegical monitoring services" (ld.),

e SAPL's objections fall to cure the deficiencies observed.by the Board with respect to this contention, in opposing the admission of this contention, ' the Staff oioserved that "the purported deficiencies in the informational materials do not appear to have occurred for the first time in Revision 2 to the NHRERP, ant! SAPL has failed to demonstrate good cause for not raising this issue sooner" (Staff Response at 18).

Rather

)

~

than core this defect, SAPL cites (a) an affidavit concerning an earlier version of the NHRERP -- filed on June 6, 1986, five months before SAPL's contention was filed -- and (b) a statement by the FEMA RAC, in

)

orcier to show the 'importance of the issue.

SAPL has failed, however, to.

show that the Board erred in rejecting the contention, b Accordingly, the Board should reject SAPL's motion with regard to this contention,

'-14/

See "NRC _ Staff's Response to Motions for Reconsideration Filed by the Town of Amesbury and the Town of Hampton,'; dated June 15, 1987, at 3-6.

-15/ SAPL's observation that FEMA has commented on the need for the informational materials to instruct evacuees to proceed to reception centers for monitoring (SAPL at 6) should provide SAPL with some assurance that its concern will be addressed, even if the issue has been excluded from this litigation.

I

.8. ;

7.

SAPL Contenti. ors 36.

SAPL objeck to' the Board's rejection of this contention, which had challenged New Hampshire's' reliance upon the Salisbury, MA police to -

1 implement po'rtions of the plans for the towns of Seabrook and Hampton, h

SAPL contends that this matter could not have been known to it prior to September ' 20, 1956, when the Governar of Massachusetts announced that s

State's withdrawal from emergency planning for Seabrook (SAPL at 7).

1Further, SAf% states that prior to the publicetion of NHRERP Revision 2, "thers was [in !ndication that the Salisbury, Massachusetts police were to i

be relied upon to help implement the plans for. New Hampshire F.

cammunities" (!d., at 6-7; emphasts in original).

in rejecting this contention, the Licensing Board found that Massachusetto' cessation of planning. was " unrelated to issuance of Nevision 2 af the. NHRFRP and SAPL has made no showing that the Seabrook RER P's asserted rullance upon a;tions to be taken by the Salisbury PoHce Department could not nav.e been raised earlier" (Order pf h y 16, 1987, at 4W.

Further, the Board fcund this contention to be

" essentially a restatement of SAPL' Contention 2" which the Board had.

relected on April 1,

1986; and the Board held that its reasons for j

Pejer, ting that earlicr contention " apply here as well" (Id.),

i The Licensing Board should reconsider its rulings with respect to

)

this contention and permit it to proceed to litigation, b With respect tc the timeliness issue, N'HRERP Revision 2 clearly discloses that the specific i

i

-16/ The Staff had not opposed the admission of this issue for litigation.

See Staff Response, at 19.

j 1

U

i I

- {

i i

issue recited in this contention (reliance upon the Salisbury plice to establish a traffic control polat at Lafayette Road and Route 286)

]

appeared for' the first time in Revision 2;,indeed, the Seabrook and Ha'opton plans explicitly indicate with marginal side-bbrs that this relisnce upon the Salisbury police is a new developrt:ent which arose with the pub',lcation of NHRERP Revision 2. EI I

I Further, the Board's prior ruling on SAPL Contention 7 doss not apply to this contention. -SAPL's Contention 2 essentially had asserted a l

need for Integrated planning between New Hampshire and Massachusetts, which SAPL contended should be formalized by a letter of agreement.

The ' Licensing Board rejected the contention on t,ha grounds that (a) the Massachusetts plans had not yet been issued und the Board could not yet determine what type of cooperation would exist between the two states; i

end (b) S APL had cited a regulatory provision which was inapplicable to the issues framed by the contention. El Hare, SAPL's Contention 36 J

ra'ises only the timited issue of whether New Hampshire reasonably relies upon the Salisbury, MA police force for implementation of portions of the New Hampshire plans. EI The Board need not -- and in light of the I

declared policy of Massachusetts, should not -- await the submittal of plans.for Massachusetts in order to resolve this issue.

Nor does SAPL

-17/ See NHRERP Revision 2,

Volume 18A ("Hampton Special Facilities PTiins"), Appendix G at G-4; see also, Id., Voluma 16 ("Seabrook"),

I Appendix G at G-4.

-18/ " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions and Estat;lishing Date and Location for Hearing," dated April 29, 1986, at 8D-81.

H/ The Staff had supported the admission of this contantion.

See Staff Response of Daccmber 19,1986, at 19.

\\

A

o l rely here upon an inapplicab!c regulatory provision to support this contention.

Accordingly, the Board should grant this aspect of SAPL's motion for reconsideration.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Licensing Board should grant SAPL's motien for reconsideration to the extent set forth above.

Respectfully submitted,

/

WIw l

Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 16th day of June,1987 i

l

=

b i.

4

{

I OZqis I

l t: m 1

j l

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i

l HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'87 JLN 17 PS :42 BEFORE, THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ['0h:m.

f.,

j r

a n w.

j 1

in the Matter of

)

l

)

Docket Nos. 50-443 -OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

)

50-444 OL j

NEW HAMPSHIRE, g al.

)

Off-site Emergency Planning l

}

}

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2}

)

l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i

i 1

hereby certify that cop'les of "NRC STAFF'S

RESPONSE

TO j

l SAPL'S MOTION FOR PARTI AL RECONSIDERATION" in the above-captioned l

l proceeding have been served on the follOwing by deposit in the l

United States mall,

first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by j

deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internai mall ' system, j

this 16th day of June,1987.

Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman

• Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.*

.o

)

Adniinistrativ<e Judge Adininistrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Y/ashington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour

• Ms, Carol Sneider, Esq.

j Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General l

)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General J

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place,19th Floor j

l Washington, DC 20559 Boston, MA 02108 Beverly Hollingworth Richud A. Hampe, Esq.

209 Winnacunnet Road New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency l

Hampton, NH 03842 107 Pleasant Street l

Concord, NH 03301 l

i Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Calvin A. Canney, City Manager l

Board of Selectmen City Hell i

RFD 1 Box 1154 126 Daniel Street

{

Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801

{

\\

l l

l I

l l

1 1

2--

i Stephen E. Merrill Paul McEachern, Esq.

j Attorney. General Matthew T. Brock, Esq.

f George Dana Bisbee Shatnes 6 McEachern Assistant Attorney 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 I

Allen Lampert Mr. Robert J. Harrison I

Civil Defense Director President and Chief Executive Officer f

Town of Brentwood Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 20 Franklin Street P.O. Box 330 Exeter, NH 03833 Manchester, NH 03105 Charles P. Graham, Esq.

Robert A. Backus, Esq.

McKay, Murphy and Graham Backus, Meyer 5 Solomon 100 Main Street 116 Lowell Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Manchester, NH 03106 Diane Curran, Eso.

Philip Ahren, Esq.

Harmon c Weiss Assistant Attorney Generai 2001 S Street, NW Office of the Attorney General Suite 430 State Hwse Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333 Edward A. Thomas Thomas G. Dignan Jr., Esq.**

Federal Emergency Management Agency Ropes & Gray

/142 J.W. McCormack (POCH) 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02109 Boston, MA 02110-H.J. Flynn, Esq.

William Armstrong Assistant Gcneral Counsel Civil Defense Director Federal Emergency Management Agency Town of Exeter 500 C Street, SW 10 Front Street Washing on, DC 20472 Exeter, NH 03833 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety ared Licensing Appeal Panel

• Board

• U.S. Nuclear Regulator y Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 1

. l Jane Doughty Docketing and Service Section*

l Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Office of the Secretary

)

5 Market' Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 2055b Maynard L. Young, Chairman Wililam S. Lord Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen

}

10 Central Road Town Hal! - Friend Street South Hampton, NH 03287 Amesbury, MA 01913 Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Peter Jc 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 3

Town Office Fine and Good Atlantic Avenue 88 Droad Street North Hampton, NH 03862 Boston, MA 02110 j

R. K. Gad 111, Esq.

Mrs, Anne E. Goodman, Chs'rman Ropes & Gray Board of Selectmen 225 Franklin Street 13-15 Newmarket Road Boston, MN 02110 Durham, NH 03824 Cary W. Holmes, Esq.

Honcrable Gordon J. Humphrey Holmes 6 Ellis United States Senate 47 Winnacunnet Road 531 Hart Senate Office Building Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20510 l

N WQ Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney

-