ML20206M196

Memorandum & Order (Memorializing Telcon Board Rulings of 870413 & 14).* Parties Advised That ASLB Will Not Grant Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions Re Sheltering & Decontamination Facilities.Served on 870416

ML20206M196
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/15/1987
From:	Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
References
CON-#287-3127 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8704200051
Download: ML20206M196 (3)

Text

.. -

}l 2 ~)

?

• ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 00 t "! Before Administrative Judges: 0SN C Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson s, Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

, Dr. Jerry Harbour '87 APR 16 P3 :29 0FFICE OF HLRMAC

'+. n 00CKETiWi A '48VICf.

DRANCH In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443-OL ,

, 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) (Offsite Emergency Planning)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) April 15, 1987 9ERVED APR 161987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Memorializing Telephone Conference Call Board Rulings Of April 13 & 14, 1987)

On April 13, 19871 and again on April 14, 19872 this Board conducted conference calls with Counsel for the Applicants, NRC Staff, Federal Emergercy Management Agency (FEMA), Comonwealth of

. . s.

Massachusetts (MASS), New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution

! (NECNP), Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) 'and Town of Hampton (TOH). ,

The Board in these conferences advised the parties that the Board will not grant Applicants' motion for summary disposition on those l

1 Tr. 2379-2420.

2 s Tr. 2421-2460.

,y 8 8704200051 R 870415 l

t ADOCK 05000443 PDR %gb

~

g , 2 contentions concerning the issues of sheltering, ETEs and decontami-nation facilities. ,The specific contentions involved are

SAPL 16, ffa T0H VIII aid NECNP RERP-8 on sheltering; SAPL 31 and T0H III on ETEs; and SAPL 7 and 33 on decon'tamination facilities. Accordingly, the w

motions to extend the deadline for filing responses to motions for summary disposition on those contentions have been mooted. The motions -

are denied as applied to all other motions for summary disposition.

During the conference call on April 13, Counsel for Massachusetts Attorney General (MASS AG) advised the Board that a response to Massachusetts' motion to compel responses of Applicants on Interrogatory No. 137 (Motion March 30,1987) had not been ruled on by this Board in our order of April 7, 1987. (Tr. 2400). Although it had been the Board's intention to correct this, omission, the ruling was not made by the Board during the conference call. We do so now with the benefit of

\

Applicants' Answer In Opposition To MASS AG's " Motion To Compel Applicants' Responsb To Interrogatories and Answer To Applicants' Motion For Protective Order" filed April 13, 1987 and received by the Board on April 14, 1987. ,

Interrogatory 137. Please identify,.by indicating on maps or otherwise, each and every possible parking space in the beach area within ten miles 3

of the Seabrook plant that XLD Associates identified or counted in determining the peak numbers of vehicles, or other figures relevant to the number of persons, in the EPZ beach areas.

Applicants' Response: These can be identified by viewing the aerial photographs which will be available for your inspection at the XLD office (see response to Interrogatory No. 2).

V 3

Several times in these proceedings we indicated adherence to the prin'ciple that discovery should narrow issues in order to prevent lengthy hearings. The evidence that needs to be presented at the hearing is on those issues'actually controverted. We believe that in this case the identification of actual (as opposed to possible) parking spaces in the beach area associated with designated beaches (as opposed .

to the beach area within ten miles of the Seabrook plant) is the type of discovery that may narrow the issues. What is troubling about the MASS interrogatory, as set forth above, is that by asking for "each and every possible parking space in the beach area within ten miles of the Seabrook plant" MASS is posing more issues than those associated with the beaches in the area. The Applicants have been required elsewhere to identify the designated beaches. With the slides Applicants have provided of all areas of parking associated with the beaches, Applicants '

would not be unduly burdened if required to indicate which were used by KLD to count the parking spaces. We find that Applicants need not create for NASS maps if Applicants or KLD did not use them.

We direct that Applicants sort the slides of'the beach area and i

identify for MASS which of the slides were used.by KLD to account for parking spaces which KLD expressed in terms of cars.

IT IS S0 ORDERED.

FOR THE AT MIC SAFETY AND LICE SING 0ARD

/ ( .6 Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson)

Administrative Judge (/

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of April 1987.