ML20149D850

Memorandum & Order Setting & Proposing Schedule Milestones.* Finds No Reason for Delay.Litigation Clock on State of Ma Plan Should Not Run Until Redacted Info Released.Facility Proceeding Schedule Encl.Served on 880204

ML20149D850
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/03/1988
From:	Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NRC
References
CON-#188-5531 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8802100043
Download: ML20149D850 (8)

Text

{.i ,553/

0 SN c BD 2/3/88 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'88 @ .4 A10:i6 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

&. E W 3ECRE!ur Before Administrative Judges: Q'.j[iNicf.

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Jerry Harbour SERVED FEB o 41988 In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (ASLBPNo. 82-471-02-OL) 0FNEWHAMPSHIRE,e_t,al.

t (Offsite Emergency Planning)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) February 3,1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SETTING AND PROPOSING SCHEDULE MILESTONES During telephone conferences among the parties and the Licensing Board on January 27 and 23, 1938, the floard granted the NRC Staff's motion to defer the evidentiary hearing on sheltering issues, considered proposals for schedulir,g the hearing on the balance of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP), and considered a schedule for beginning the litigation of the eme rgency plan for the Massachusetts comunities.

As a consequence there are now three separate tracks for litigating Seabrook offsite emergency planning issues. In the schedule set or

proposed below, the NHRERP, without sheltering issues, is the subject of the "Main Track." The "Sheltering Track" describes itself. The "SPMC l

Track" relates to the litigation of the Seabrook Plan for the Passachusetts Comunities.

eso210oo4300ggoj43 ADOCK hpp g) L gDR

Most of the milestones listed below were agreed upon by the parties or set by the Board following thorough discussions with the parties.

Milestones indicated by asterisks (*), in contrast, are somewhat softer and are regarded by the Board as proposals open to further discussion.

The schedules are parallel in that the parties may be required to attend to more than one track at a time. For example, parties will be required to work on proposed findings and conclusions on the Main Track during the same period that FEMA's evaluation of New Hampshire's response to FEMA's concerns on the sheltering issue is being considered.

However, the Board does not believe that this presents any undue burden.

The Main Track issues have been heard in discrete segments since October 5, 1987; there have been generous gaps between hearing weeks; and specific responsibility for all issues has been allocated arnong lead intervenors from the very beginning. The Board expects that the parties will adhere to the lead-intervenor approach through the filing of proposed findings. In addition, the schedule for the Main Track affords to the intervenors eight weeks after the close of the record for filing proposed findings compared to the forty days anticipated by 10 C.F.R. 1 2.754.1 1

To provide even greater flexibility to the intervcnors, the Board has shortened the time available to the Applicants for filing proposed findings. Counsel for Applicants agrees to a shorter period. Tr.9118(Dignan). The time for filing proposed findings is counted on the assumption that the record of the Main Track closes on February 12. We expect to adhere to that timing even (FootnoteContinued)

)

l l

The Sheltering Track continues into the SPMC Track. The plan for the Massachusetts communities, except for redacted informaticn concerning service agreements, was filed in September 1987. The Board expects to make an early ruling on whether the redacted information will be subject to a protective order, but, in any event, the redacted ir. formation will be in the hands of the intervenors with or without a -

protective order long before contentions are due. The Massachusetts Attorney General and counsel for NECNP argue that the litigation clock e

on the Massachusetts plan should not run until the redacted information is released. We find no reason for such a delay.

The Board designates the Massachusetts Attorney General as the lead t intervenor on the plan for the Massachusetts ccmmunities. As has been  ;

the practice, other intervenors may take the lead on subissues en the ,

SPMC where their respective interests cannot be served by the Massachusetts Attorney General. .

j Miscellaneous Matters Although the schedule below establishes a traditional sequence for the filing of proposed findings and conclusions, the Board has additional requirements not apparent on the schedule. The Applicants shall, at their earliest convenience, propose to the other parties a (FootnoteContinued) though a clean-up session, reserved for the weer of February 22, may be required.

"O ,

stipulation for proposed findings of fact on all uncontroverted matters on the Main Track, for example, the procedural backgrour.d. so that the Board may adopt a stipulation as its own without delay. The Board will also require the parties to agree upon a corinon organization for their respectiva proposed findings and conclusions so that the Board may easily and reliably locate each party's position on a particular issue.

This too wil? be Applicants' lead. Those parties with the capability to do so are required to file their proposed findings in electronic format so that the Board may readily adopt proposed findings with which it agrees. These and other matters pertaining to proposed findings will be discussed at the evidentiary hearing during the week of February 8.

The schedule for the Sheltering Track calls for the filing of "hypothetical testimony" by the NRC Staff on February 22. The Board recognizes that the Staff has agreed to file such testimony as an accomodation to the Board so that a prehearing schedule can be set and discovery problems avofded. Tr. 9113 (Turk). The Staff has not yet decided whether it intends to present testimony on the sheltering issue.

In the event that the Board rules that the information redacted from the plan for the Massachusetts comunities should be released under a protective order and agreement, the Applicants will have the responsibility of proposing the tems of the order and agreement. To save time, if Applicants choose, they may seek in advance the approval of the other parties as to the fom of any such order and agreement. By agreeing to a possible format, the parties opposing any protective order would not be deemed to be abandoning their opposition.

e. ,

l 0

The transcript of a dialogue between Judge Smith and Mr. Flynn,  ;

counsel for FEMA, needs to be corrected. On page 9106, line 23, the l words "even though" should be inserted in place of the word "because,"

and the word "not" should be inserted between "does" and "provide." The corrected version now reads:

JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Flynn, let me ask you some questions about 1 your testimony to see if I can enhance my understanding of it. ,

As I understand it now, you do not categorically rule out finding a plan adequate [because] even though it does not provide for sheltering.

MR. FLYNN: ihat's correct.

Tr. 9106.

SCHEDULING MILESTONES Date Event Track 2/5/88 FOIA determination by NRC SPMC Hearings begin - rebuttal Main 2/8/88 2/11/88 New Hampshire response to FEMA supplemental position Sheltering 2/12/88 Record closed, except for sheltering Main Massachusetts brief on redacted infomation SPMC 2/16/88 Possible hearing to finish rebuttal Main 2/22/88

itaff hypothetical testimony on sheltering Sheltering 2/22/88 2/23/88 Applicants brief on redacted information SPMC Discovery requests, if any, on sheltering Sheltering 2/24/88 Staff brief on redacted information SPMC 2/26/88

, 3/1/88 Goard ruling on protective order for 1 redacted infomation SPMC

.6 3/9/88 Applicants proposed findings, except Main sheltering 3/14/88 FEMA evaluation of New Hampshire response on sheltering Sheltering 3/28/88 Prefiled sheltering testimony Sheltering 4/6/88 Intervenors proposed findings, except sheltering Main 4/18/88

• Evidentiary hearing on sheltering begins Sheltering 4/18/88 Staff proposed findings, except sheltering Main 4/26/88 Applicants response to proposed findings Main 5/2/88

• Record closed on sheltering Sheltering 5/6/88

• Contentions due on SPMC SPMC

• Proposed milestone Another version of the foregoing schedule, organized according to tracks, is attached for the convenience of the parties.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/

o Ivan W. Smith, chairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland

. February 3,1988 ATTACHMENT: Seabrook Proceeding Schedule

4. ,

SEABROOK FROCEEDING SCHEDULE OFF SITE EMERSENCY PLANNING MAIN TRACK SWELTERING TPACK SPRC TRACK (Seabrock Plan fer Pass. C:eeunities) 02/05/88 FO! A DETEPRINATICN SY NGC 02/08/98 1 WK HAGS-REDUTTAL 02/11/88 NH #ESPCNSE TO FEMA F0S 02/12/89 RECORD CLOSED EIC shelf 02/16/88 MASS BRIEF/ REDACTED !W O 02/22/88 POSS HR6S/ FINISH RE9UTTAL 02/22/88 STAFF HYPOTHET. POS!i!CN 02/23/98 APPPL BRIEF/ REDACTED INFO 02/24/98 SISCOVERY Pt90ESTS,lF ANY 02/26/88 STAFF BRIEF/RIDACTED I W O M/01/88 80 RULE ON PROTECT CRDER 03/01/88 APPL PROP FD63 Et SHELT 03/14/88 FEMA EV4. OF N4 SHELT POS 03/28/33 FREFILED SHELT TESf!P.CNY 04/06/88 INTERV P OP FOSS El SkElf 04/10/13 IST W( FEARING CN SHELT 04/19188 STWF PROP FD65 El shelf 04/26188 APPL RESP PROP FD65/ MAIN I

0$!02/88CtCSEFECCRDISHELTERING 03/06/18 CCNTENTICNS CUE C1 SFPC