ML20076E897
| ML20076E897 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1983 |
| From: | Bisbee G NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306010342 | |
| Download: ML20076E897 (7) | |
Text
__
~>
CSCf,N[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NL'"'. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g3 eM 31 P1 69
,~
Before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the matter of:
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE)
Docket Nos.:
)
and
)
50-444 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
May 26, 1983 OBJECTION OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TO THE BOARD'S MAY ll, 1983 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.752 (c), the State of New Hampshire hereby objects to the Board's Memorandum and Order
(" Order") of May 11, 1983.
New Hampshire respectfully requests the Board to reconsider its Order as it pertains to Contentions NH-9 and NH-13 and the underlying rationale for the granting of summary disposition on those two Contentions.
A.
Contention NH-9:
Radioactivity Monitoring New Hampshire asserted in this Contention that Applicants have not yet complied with the requirements of NUREG-0737, Item II.B.3.
Neither the Applicants, the Staff, or the Board has stated that Applicants have so complied.
In fact, Applicants admit that to 8306010342 830526 PDR ADOCK 05000443 O
\\
date they have not developed the post-accident monitoring system (PAMS) for Seabrook.
See Applicants' November 3, 1983 Answer to Interrogatory, NH-9.14.
Nevertheless, the Board granted Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on this Contention on the strength of Applicants' " commitment" to comply with NUREG-0737, Item II.B.3.
See Order at 14.
New Hampshire objects to, and asks for reconsideration of, the Board's determination that a commitment to comply with Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC") requirements is evidence of actual compliance.
It is New Hampshire's position that the Board must deny the applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition because the uncontroverted evidence-shows a failure to comply with NUREG-0737, Item II.B.3.
To grant the Motion for Summary Disposition as the bases of the Applicants' " commitment" to comply with the regulations imposes on New Hampshire the heavy burden of disproving the Applicants' commitment to comply with NRC regulations.
The Board
' alludes to this on page 14 of its Order, stating that "[N]o evidence has been offered to cause the Board to question the credibility of
[ Applicants'] commitment."
Assuming that " proving the negative" of this commitment were possible, New Hampshire has not questioned in this contention Applicants' commitment to comply.
The issue New Hampshire raised is whether Applicants have complied with NUREG-0737, Item II.B.3, and on this issue the Board must rule that Applicante have not.
The Catawba decision, Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687, 16 NRC (1982), is not
\\
P
. contrary to New Hampshire's position.
The Appeals Board in that
~
case held that Licensing Boards may not admit conditionally any contentions which do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 2.714 (a).
Id., Slip Op. at 11.
The holding of this case does not bar the admittance of contentions, such as Contention NH-9, based specifically, not conditionally, on the absence of certain required documents.
On a related matter, even if the Board reaffirms its dismissal of Contention NH-9, New Hampshire recognizes that under the terms of the Board's Order, it will hLve an opportunity at some future, unspecified and unknown date to raise specific contentions on Applicants' compliance with NUREG-0737, Item II.B.3.
Order ct 14.
In this regard, New Hampshire notes that although Applicants expect to complete the PAMS "sometime this summer" (Order at 13, quoting the Transcript at 690), it is not inconceivable that the PANS will be submitted to the NRC after both phases of the hearing have ended.
It is New Hampshire's understanding that in this eventuality, the Board would order the hearing to remain open (and i
not authorize the issuance of a license) until New Hampshire has a j
reasonable opportunity to be heard on this issue.
See Catawba, Slip f
0 Op. at 17 ("[N]o procedural requirement can lawfully operate to t
preclude... a hearing on an issue both within the scope of E
petitioner's interests and germane to the outcome of the
[
proceeding.")
To confirm this assumption, New Hampshire requests a
the Board to clarify its Order as to this issue.
t 5
c C.
+
U
1 l
4_
B.
Contention NH-13:
Operations Personnel Cualifications and Training In its May 11, 1983, Order, the Board dismissed the two outstanding issues in Contention NH-13; namely, (a) whether applicants have complied with NUREG-0737, Item I.A.l.1, and (b) whether applicants have complied with NUREG-0737, Item I.C.l.
The Board based its dismissal of the latter issue on the basis of Applicants' commitment to comply wi th NRC regulations.
Order at 18.
For the reasons set forth above in New Hampshire's comments on the Board's ruling relative to Contention NH-9, it is New Hampshire's position that evidence of Applicants' commitment to comply is not relevant to the issue of whether they have complied.
In the face of Applicants' admission that the required emergency I
response guidelines are not yet completed, New Hampshire's contention that Applicants have not complied with NUREG-0737, Item J
I.C.1, should not have been dismissed.
With respect to the issue of the shift technical advisor (STA), New Hampshire maintains that Applicants may eliminate the separate STA position only if they comply with the requirement of NUREG-0737, Item I.A.l.l.
That item requires applicant to demonstrate that they have upgraded the training of the Shift Superintendent and Unit Shift Supervisor and have acceptably t
upgraded the man-machine interface in the control room.
NUREG-0737, f
7 at p.
I.A.l.1-1.
With no demonstration that this latter requirement a
has been satisfied by Applicants or addressed by the staff, the NRC cannot properly approve the elimination of the STA position.
- Thus, i
O
. as a matter of law, Applicants' motion for summary disposition on this Contention should have been denied.
For the above reasons, New Hampshire respectfully requests that the Board reconsider its Order of May 11, 1983 and re-admit Contentions NH-9 and NH-13.
Further, should the Board not deny Applicants' summary disposition motion on Contention NH-9, New Hampshire requests that the Board clarify as needed the procedural implications of its ruling on that contention.
Respectfully submitted, THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GREGORY H.
SMITH A'ITORNEY GENERAL D
(
)
By:
George Dana Bisbeds)
Attorney Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General State House Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Telephone (603) 271-3678 Dated: May 26, 1983 1
r
. QQED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 Kg 31 p j 39 I, George Dana Bisbee, Esquire, do hereby c'ertify that a copy of the foregoing Objection and Motion has been mailed the~27th day of May, 1983, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to:
Helen F.
Hoyt, Chm.
Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S.
NRC U.S.
NRC Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Jo Ann Shotwell, Asst. AG Administrative Judge Office of the Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Board Panel Boston,'MA 02108 U.S. NRC washington, D.C.
20555 Mrs. Beverly Hollingsworth 822 Lafayette Road Roy P.
Lessy, Jr.,
Esquire P.O.
Box 596 Robert Perliss, Esquire Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 Office of Executive Legal Dir.
U.S.
NRC William S. Jordan, II, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Harmon and Weiss Robert A. Backus, Esquire 1725 I Street, N.W.
116 Lowell Street Suite 506 P.O.
Box 516 Washington, D.C.
20006 Manchester, N.H.
03105 Anne Verge Phillip Ahrens, Esquire Chairperson Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen State House, Station #6 Town Hall Augusta, Maine 04333 South Hampton, N.H.
03842 Robert K. Gad, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr., EFquire Board Panel Ropes and Gray U.S.
NRC 225 Franklin Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq.
Law Clerk to Board Office of Selectmen Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Town of Brentwood U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Brentwood, New Hampshire 03833 Washington, D.C.
20555 4
.t E
/
i
' Office of Selectmen Rep. Roberta C.
Pevear Town of Hampton Town of Hampton Falls Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, New Hampshire 03844 Office of Selectmen Ms. Sandra Gavutisson Town of Kensington Office of Selectmen Kensington, New Hampshire 03833 Town of East Kingston RFD 1 East Kingston, New Hampshire 03848 Mc. Calvin A. Canney Mr. Patrick J. McKeon City Manager Office of Selectmen City of Portsmouth Town of Rye 126 Daniel Street 10 Central Road Portsroouth, New Hampshire 03601 Rye, New Hampshire 03870 Dr. Mauray Tye Mr. Angie Machiros President Chairman Sun Valley Association Board of Selectmen 209 Summer Street Town of Newbury Haverhill, MA 01830 Newbury, MA 01950 Brian Cassidy, Regional Counsel Mr. Maynard B.
Pearson Federal Emergency Management Agency Director of Civil Defense Region I for the Town of Amesbury J.W. McCormack POCH 40 Monroe Street Boston, MA 02109 Amesbury, MA 01913
\\
o 4
D' l
I d'
Dated:
'1b l
l I