ML19332F926
| ML19332F926 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1989 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9557 LBP-88-32, LBP-89-32, LBP-89-33, OL, NUDOCS 8912190328 | |
| Download: ML19332F926 (56) | |
Text
P ,;
46x $h ?
- m; z y
EL}o'.
saEl (f. i' 4
'89 C -1 P1 :45 November 30, 1989 m,
M/,4
?.
, UNITEDESTATES'.OF AMERICA :
+
4 NUCLEAR REGUIATORY 4 :. w
-COMMISSION ln Before the Commission a r U, Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers Thomas M. Roberts ,
t )
- In the Matter of )
- ) Docket No. 50-44 OL
' '. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )
(Offsite Emerge c
(/- '
hi OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) (
E #( ) Planning Issues)
- (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) )
)
is ,
0' COMMENTS OF THE SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE OPPOSING IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF LICENSING BOARD DECISIONS LBP-88-32, 89-32, AND 89-33 N10 Respectfully submitted, A Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v By its Attorney, Robert A. Backus, Esquire
BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON 116 Lowell street
{' P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 i;. (603) 668-7272 wa l
p ,
i t
,- 8912190329 891130
,? PDR ADOCK 05000443
$ 0 PDR 0$0 ,
y + .;
h .C TABLE OF CONTENTS
, g INTRODUCTION 1
- 1. 'IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS" OF THE LICENSING DECISION WOULD BE IMPROPER BECAUSE, NOT ONLY CAN THE INTERVENORS SHOW A PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS ON THE D- MERITS, THEY BAVE ALREADY SUCCEEDED ON THE MERITS. 6 II . - NOTHING IN THE LICENSING BOARD'S ' MEMORANDUM SUPPLEMENTING LBP-89-32' CAN OR DOES JUSTIFY I. REVERSAL OF ITS PRIOR DECISION BY THE APPEAL BOARD IN ALAB-924. 15 A. The Licensina Board is not at liberty to decide the reversed oortions of its decision are not safetv-sianificant. 17 s B. The Board erred in its rulina that the recuirement for Letters of Aareements with teachers was not-safety sianificant. 19 C. The Board erred in holdino that no further I' Droceedina. in reaard to the soecial needs survey was recuired. 21 D. The Board erred in dismissina the remanded issue concernina advanced life suonort natients. 23 E. The Licensina Board erred in rulina that the remanded issue concernina the need for a suitable shelterino clan did not cravent immediate lasuance of a full nower license. 25 B
III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES BOTH DUE PROCES.S AND A TRULY " ADEQUATE
- EMERGENCY PLAN PRIOR TO, AND NOT AFTER, PULL POWER LICENSING. 28 D IV. CONCLUSION. 31 d (i) o
$6
. ~ - . . - . - -- - -. - - . - - -
y 1
i November 30, 1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission i Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman j i Kenneth C. Rogers Thomas M. Roberts l
, i
, )
l' In the Matter of ) !
! ) Docket No. 50-443-OL i
!. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY _ )
i OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) (Offsite Emergency J : .
) Planning Issues) i (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) )- !
i
- ^; . COMMENTS OF THE SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE OPPOSING IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF LICENSING-BOARD DECISIONS LBP-88-32, 89-32, AND 89-33 )
.i' INTRODUCTION 3 For ten years the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL)'has been urging the NRC to responsibly address the intractable L emergency planning problems surrounding the Seabrook plant. This O included a petition to have the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issue a 10 CFR 52.206 Show cause Order in light of the L then newly-adopted emergency planning requirements in 1979, the ig; commission's divided vote not to review the director's danial of 4
4 O
' A 06 3
1' c j f l 3: this petition,1 and the subsequent challenge of this non-review decision in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. SAPL v.
EEC, 690 F.2d 1025 (1982)
In that opinion, the Court, relying on the commitments made l l by the NRC in its Brief, stated that: 1 "According to the Commission, if it appears ; L at the operating license review that the infeasibility of EPZ evacuation renders it [3 impossible for PSC [Public Service Company 4 of New Hampshire] to provide the requisite
' reasonable assurance,' the operating license will not be granted." Id. at 1025.
In 1986, Massachusetts formally decided that " adequate" f3 ! emergency planning for the citizens within its roughly one-third
.of the EPZ was indeed infeasible and withdrew from the planning
'O . ! 1/ In dissenting from the denial of review, former Commissioners [3- Gilinsky and Bradford stated: \ l "Seabrook poses difficult, and perhaps unique, emergency planning problems. In light of the time and cost likely to be involved in improving Seabrook's emergency preparedness, we should l0 begin to seek solutions-now, and not some years from now, when the plant is almost ready to operate. i Moreover, at that time it will be much more ' difficult for the NRC to require remedial measures > which could delay plant operation.
- O Among the options which we should now be considering are improving parking at the beaches so as to permit rapid evacuation, adding improved access roads to the beaches, and constructing additional access roads to Interstate-95. It should be understood that if emergency preparedness is not j
43 improved sufficiently by measures such as these, Seabrook's operation may be contingent on restricted use of the beaches."
, a ~2-O6
-_ - , . - .~ .- .- .. - - - - - - _ - - - _ - . _ . - - - - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _
2 b' c l
- )
effort. In 1987, FEMA, in its profiled testimony on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP) concluded that the 'JHRERP-was fundamentally inadequate due to the size of the beach populations, the proximity of these populations to the 7 reactor, the lack of adequate sheltering for these people, and the ! extraordinarily long evacuation times associated with this at-risk group. In December, 1986, the Applicants petitioned for a rule
- waiver to shrink the Seabrook EPZ from ten miles to one mile.
l This amounted to a concession on their part that " adequate" emergency planning around Seabrook was very likely not feasible. ! (The fact that the rule waiver was not sought solely to deal with Massachusetts non-participation is demonstrated by the fact that, although the Massachusetts border is over two miles from the reactor, significant portions of the densely-populated beaches in l~ New Hampshire are within two miles of the reactor.) h In April, 1987 the Licensing Board denied the waiver I petition. This made it clear that Seabrook, like all other nuclear plants, would have to meet the existing emergency planning requirements: that is, the Applicants would have to demonstrate that they had in fact achieved ' reasonable assurance" that i i
" adequate protective measures" could and would be taken in the event of a major accident. (10 CPR $50.47 (a))
In its decision of December 30, 1988, (LPB 88-32) the Licensing Board found the NHRERP adequate in most respects, l 3 primarily except for an issue as to returning commuters within the
- a ;
~ ..
l y+ '
) EPZ. It made its finding based on a record which contained n2 evidence of the actual level of orotection afforded by the NHRERP, or, conversely stated, the level of risk faced by those persons j.
within the EPE, and in close proximity to the reactor, in the , event of a major release. This lack of evidence was the result of
- i
a Board ruling, in November, 1987, excluding the only testimony offered on the risk at Seabrook, a matter now before the i' Commission as the result of an Appeal Board certification L decision, ALAB-922, dated October 11, 1989. This Board decision was appealed, and a decision on issues in four areas was rendered by the Appeal Board on November 7, 1989. j ALAB 924. In each of the four areas decided, Letters of g Agreement, Transportation Availability and Support Services, [ Decontamination and Reception Centers, and Sheltering of Beach f' Populations, the Appeal Board found deficiencies in the Licensing , Board Decision. As to four specific matters, it found that the decision approving the NHRERP as adequate was so deficient that it ) [ ordered that, "we reverse and remand" the decision. l In a decision dated November 9, two days later, the Licensing Board did three things. First, it resolved the remaining NERERP* l [ l f issue on returning commuters in favor of the Applicants; second, I it upheld the utility plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC); , and third, it authorized the "immediate issuance" of a full-power l f } operating license for Seabrook. In a footnote, it indicated it would explain at a subsequent time why its decision on the NERERP, l . l A , I < O$ l l i l
{)' s O which had been " reversed and remanded" could still support "immediate issuance" of a commercial operating license. The Licensing Board never mentioned that the whole issue of 0; the status of emergency planning in assuring nuclear safety was then pending before the Commission as a result of the Appeal Board certification decision, ALAB-922. (It obviously simply assumed (); that the issue of the proper. standard to determine whether an emergency plan is " adequate" was not necessary to its determination that the SPMC was adequate.) O On November 16, the Licensing Board provided its
" Memorandum Supplementing LBP 89-32" (LBP 89-33) explaining its decision that its recently " reversed" decision on the NHRERP not
'O only remained fully effective, but could support the authorization for immediate issuance of a commercial license.
~
It is in this bizarre posture that the "immediate 1
- 0. - effectiveness" issue comes before the Commission. SAPL would note that it is unaware of any other example in the history of American jurisprudence of a lower tribunal treating one of its decisions O which had been " reversed" as still being fully effective, much less of a litigant having to actually argue that " reversed" means what it says to another higher ,tr1bunal, in this case the ,
l.
- O Commission.
L O
, O*
.. 1 fil , f 1
I. "IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS" OF THE .~ - LICENSING DECISION WOULD BE IMPROPER l BECAUSE, NOT ONLY CAN THE IllTERVENORS SHOW A PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS, THEY u BAVE ALREADY SUCCEEDED ON THE MERITS. h Under 10 CFR 52.788(e), the first criterion for granting a stay by the Commission is "whether the moving party has made a 1 l I strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits." In this case, if SAPL finds itself in the extraordinary position of being asked to request a stay when it has alreadv I orevailed on the merits on the very decision that the Licensing Board's claims can support zhe immediate issuance of a license. l
- In short, SAPL's probability of success on the merita is 100 l.
l percent.2 To be specific, the Appeal Board dealt with SAPL (and other L l intervenors) issues in four areas, Letters of Agreement, Transportation. Availability and Support Services, Decontamination [. and Reception Centers, and Sh'eltering of Beach Population." (ALAB-924, Slip Opinion, pp. 2-3.) In each of those areas the (
- Appeal Board'found problems with the Licensing Board's decision and, as to four items, " reversed and remanded' the Licensing p -Board's Initial Decision. In one of the four areas reviewed, i,
l Reception and Decontamination Centers, the Licensing Board weis indeed generally affirmed, but even as to that area, the Appeal l Board' required, rather than merely suggested, (as had the 4 > i 2/ As argued at pages 28-29, infra, this matter is not properly in a stay posture.
L Hn e H i b -Licensing Board), that adequate staffing of the centers by non- I host community firemen be assured. (ALAB-924, p. 24, note 121.) Having gone four for four, and having succeeded in outright l reversal on four important points, it is beyond doubt, first, that 1 SAPL has already orevailed as to certain issues appealed, and hence meets, and;indeed actually exceeds, the first stay criterion
) and', second, that the probability of success on the remaining I issues is likely to be high.
The remaining issues before the Appeal Board on the NHRERP are indeed substantial. They include the hotly contested issue of : 1 i- the adequacy of the evacuation time estimates. (The Appeal Board, in ALAB-924, of course has already reversed the Licensing Board on ! the adequacy of ETE's for special facilities. (ALAB-924, pp. 26-27)) The Appeal Board found a range of ETE's, for the entire EPZ, 4 l between 7 hcurs and 30 minutes and 8 hours and 30 niinutes. There l l d' was extensive testimony from intervenor witnesses, however, not yet dealt with by the Appeal Board, suggesting that the evacuation ; l l time estimates for a peak population scenario would be in excess i
)
of 11 hours. ; Another issue not dealt with is the question of human l l behavior in the event of an accident, given the unique conditions q b- at the seabrook site. That issue was succinctly summarized in a MAG Exhibit, FEKA. Rep. 3, a 1981 FEMA document surveying evacuation problems at 12 nuclear plant sites:
^ i
. l h3 '
i b o "The behavior of drivers who are caught in congestion within direct sight of the Seabrook Station can only be quessed at this time. Any, i breakdown in orderly evacuation traffic flow will l p result in evacuation times greater than the ones y estimated above. Total _ evacuation times could ; range from 10 hours 30 minutes to 14 hours 40 t, minutes for an evacuation in which traffic control l- is. generally ineffective.' L [ _A third unresolved issue includes the entire area of h " Transportation Availability and Support Services," a matter as to , which the Appeal Board reserved judgment pending the remanded
. proceedings on the adequacy of the special needs' survey.3 These areas concern the NBRERP and LBP-88-32. There is also ;
I the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC)' and LBP 89-
- 32. However, the-probability of success on the SPMC decision is also high. That decision, too, ignored the Appeal Board decision in ALAB-924, two days earlier, on certain critical issues. One example is the so-called Reception Center / Decontamination 3 Facility Issue. ,
One of the requirements for an " adequate" emergency plan is t that there be established certain centers to which evacuees can go i
.to receive services, including radiological monitoring for themselves and their vehicles and, if necessary, decontamination.
3/-In ALAB-924, p. 19, the Appeal Board stated, "Further, in 7- light of our romand of this issue for additional proceedings, it is. premature for us to render any judgment regarding intervenor SAPL's: challenges to the Licensing Board's findings concerning availability of adequate numbers of vehicles and drivers." By the footnote reference to SAPL Brief, pp. 37-39, the Appeal Board made clear that it was reserving judgment not merely as to the adequacy 3 of special needs transportation and support services, but of transportation and support services for the entire transportation-dependent EPZ population. l^ l 76
)* .
l 2 Under the NHRERP, four such centers were planned, all in high j 1 schools in communities beyond the ten-mile radius. An obviously important question in determining the adequacy
)- of the so-called Reception Centers is the likely number of f evacuete each center will have to handle. This number will largely determine the levels of staffing and equipment that are
[ needed to make the centers " adequate." In the NHRERP litigation, both Staff and Applicants chose to rely on a 20 percent planning standard, meaning that 20 percent of
)' all EPZ evacuees could be anticipated to go to the Reception Centers for services. This standard came from an internal FEMA memorandum, known as the Krimm Memorandum, after its author, FEMA's Richard Krimm. (See ALAB-924 at 29-30.)
In ALAB-905, 28 NRC 515 (1988), the Appeal Board struck down i i- .a Shoreham Licensing Board's decision relying on the Krimm Memorandum, finding the memorandum unsupported, and directed that j the appropriate planning standard should be determined on a site-specific basis. Notwithstanding the Appeal Board's holding in ALAB-905,-which the Commission made final by declining to review i _in an order entered on February 17, 1989, the Licensing Board, in a decision one month subsequent to ALAB-905, found the NHRERP adequate as to Reception Centers on the basis of the 20 percent standard. In ALAB-924, the Appeal Board affirmed, holding that SAPL had
) not sufficiently challenged the Krimm Memorandum in its testimony
)- f.. 4 i
I l
) or cross-examination at the hearing, and that therefore the Seabrook Licensing Board could find adequacy based upon the 20 )
percent standard, although the Shoreham Board had erred in doing :
)
3o.4 - Even if one were to acquiesce in the Appeal Board's holding that the 20 percent planning standard could be used and j found " adequate" as to the NHRERP, due to inadequate intervenor j 3- : lawyering in that proceeding, such a holding cannot be justified d as to the SPMC. However, the Licensing Board did uphold the use of the 20 percent standard as to the SPMC in its November 9 decision. (LBP-89-32, Finding 19.49, at p. 384). l i As the Licensing Board points out, after having upheld the ! use of the 20 percent standard in the New Hampshire litigation, the Licensing Board went on to hold that its approval of that ), standard would be Igz iudicata for the proceedings on the SPMC. In short, even if the NERERP Reception Center holding could be
- upheld because of the claimed failure of intervenor advocacy, the SPMC use of the standard cannot be upheld on this basis because f
!' the parties were wholly foreclosed from any occortunity to cresent ; i~
- . 4/ SAPL of course strongly believes that in upholding the use of a 20 percent planning standard for Seabrook the Appeal Board committed an astonishing error. Even if SAPLi s advocacy on the j- issue was deficient, which SAPL denies, it is incomprehensible how a planning deficiency, such as use of an unsupported standard for determining staffing for Reception Centers, can be ignored because of a claimed lack of intervenor advocacy. How can a decision to ignore a possible safety deficiency be based solely on a claimed failure of intervenor lawyering? What about the commission's obligation to assure public safety? Can this be ignored by merely
]
, dwelling on the claimed inadequacy of an intervenor's witness or cross-examination? According to the Appeal Board, the answer is
, yes. SAPL disagrees.
witnesses or cross-examine on the standard in the SPMC proceeding. In other words, insofar as the adequacy of the 20 percent standard for the NHRERP was upheld solely on the claimed failure of advocacy at the New Hampshire hearing, it cannot be upheld on this basis as to the SPMC, because any attempted advocacy on this issue
= in the SPMC was foreclosed by the Licensing Board's Igg judicata holding. Accordingly, the probability is high, if not 100 percent, that the SPMC decision on Reception Centers will be reversed.
There are other major issues in the SPMC decision, LBP-89-32, now on appeal, and as to which the intervenors have a high probability of success. They include the ruling that the joint qualifying exercise held in June 1988 on both the NHRERP and the SPMC was of adequate scope to establish that these plans could be effectively implemented. For example, the entire exercise used only one ambulance, and one wheel chair van, to demonstrate the capability to evacuate special needs facilities, although the NHRERP calls for 48 ambulances. (LBP-89-32, 112.72). This was considered sufficient because " transporting persons to and from hospitals, nursing homes and other special care facilities is a normal day-to-day routine of the wheel chair van and ambulance i personnel . . .
" (14., 112.76 (2)) of course, if it is - sufficient to demonstrate ambulance capability on the basis of one ambulance, on the theory that ambulance drivers are only
= performing their day-to-day duties, there would be no reason to
- _11 49
53 ' . k 10~ l require any ambulance demonstration at all, and zero ambulances would be sufficient. However, the notion that ambulence drivers are only doing O~ what their normal day-to-day duties require is f alse. Transporting patients who are possibly contaminated, by drivers who may be unfamiliar with the particular routes they are being C: requested to use, is not a normal day-to-day activity. In ALAB-900, 28-NRC 275 at-300 (1988) the Appeal Board held that the exercise of a plan that tested only one ambulance and one O ambulette was not sufficient. There are similar glaring deficiencies in the exercise as to the monitoring teams dispatched by the Department of Public Health O Services. Only two out of three environmental monitoring teams provided under the plan were sent into the field, and one of those teams sampled at the wrong location. Cbl., 112.17, 112.20) O-Only four State Police officers were placed at traffic control posts, out of a planned 74. CO2., 112.27) Only three out of 18 bus companies relied on to provide transportation resources were actually utilized in the exercise. CLd., 112.90 (6)) Again, l in justifying the limited participation of transportation I I companies, the Board merely states: 'Nor it is necessary to test O I the bus driver's ability to drive a bus (although apparently ' l accurate and readable maps might still be a consideration to be l' addressed). The bus drivers, as with teachers and ambulance O drivers, do not have to be tested in what they do professionally."
.O-
w 1 or . 1 I (M. ,112.89, at p. 559) The fact, of course, is that the bus drivers are not driving the routes that they normally expect to do, and may not even be in driving the equipment that they ; normally use. Thus, simply assuming that their day-to-day jobs qualify them for adequately performing in an exercise is wholly . 1 unfounded, and in no way justifies the limited scope of the exercise. l I No school evacuations were actually undertaken, and no teachers participated in the exercise. (M. , 13 2. 5 8) . There was no attempt to demonstrate second shift capability, by an. actual shift change, at the Reception Centers. (112.58) As to this I latter point, the Board felt that a mere telephone call to Vermont,:to request additional assistance, was a sufficient demonstration of a capability to mount a second shift at the-Reception Centers. ("In PEMA's judgment, making the necessary O telephone call to Vermont requesting certain people was sufficient; it-was not necessary to actually bring people from Vermont to demonstrate a shift change." (M. , 112. 53) The Board finds this demonstration adequate, although it concedes that at the salem Reception Center, there was " confusion" about the i handling of the Reception Center, and inadequate personnel were present, due to the existence of real life emergencies. In conclusion, the Commission cannot let stand the Licensing Board's astonishing "immediate issuance" ruling in LBP-89-32. D That ruling ignores the fact that its prior licensing decision,
# O-
- O ' s P
LBP-88-32,-was " reversed and remanded" and hence, as a matter of i law, can no longer support licensing. In addition, the immediate issuance ruling, if implemented by [ O being allowed to stand by the Commission, would in effect make meaningless the appeals of both LBP-88-32 (as to which SAPL has ! already prevailed, as pointed out above) and LBP-89-32, as to O which SAPL expects, to a high degree of probability, to prevail. Permitting the Licensing Board's "immediate issuance" ruling to , stand would thus make a travesty of the Commission's adjudicatory O process. It would mean the abandonment of appeal rights granted by the Commission's regulations, and which the Commission always , insists be exhaustively pursued prior to any court appeal. It k wouldi be the ultimate trashing not only of the Commission's l, process, but of due process.- This situation' demands, without any possibility of doubt, that this Commission vacate the immediate issuance. ruling of its Licensing Board.
- The situation actually demands more. The Commission's l Licensing Board, as chaired by Judge Ivan Smith, has proved itself to be an outlaw, and a rogue. The Commission, if it is to expect
, anyone to have any confidence in its adjudicatory processes, must l establish a different licensing board, with different judges, who l , are prepared to comply with the law. (For examples of the depth of cynicism the Commission's bizarre procedures have caused, see the attached editorials from the Eg.tDe (N.B.) Sentinel *The NRC D
.= -14
. E (3 * .-
i 1 ( {) Stench,":the concord (N.H.) Monitor 'More Power Games,' and the ) L 1
- editorial cartoon from the Boston Herald, Appendix A.
II. NOTHING IN THE LICENSING BOARD'S ' MEMORANDUM { SUPPLEMENTING LBP-89-32' CAN OR DOES JUSTIFY I 13 REVERSAL OF ITS PRIOR DECISION BY THE APPEAL BOARD IN ALAB-924. 1 The Licensing Board, in LBP-89-33, attempts to justify its insubor'dinate and illegal refusal to acknowledge the fact that its prior licensing decision, LBP-88-32, was " reversed and remanded.' l l The Board's attempted justification is based on a wholesale, but l unjustified, description of the ' reversed and remanded' issues as :
'0 not being 'significant" to nuclear safety. This conclusion is i then coupled with a bald misstatement of or ignoring of certain critical facts appearing on the record. SAPL again submits that the conduct of the Licensing Board warrants its immediate removal
- from any further responsibility for the Seabrook licensing, and perhaps even disciplinary proceedings.
The incredible dishonesty of the Licensing Board is nowhere more succinctly displayed than on page 35 of LBP-89-32, where the Board states: O "After many years of full and fair adjudication, on all matters in controversy Applicants had prevailed on all issues.' How an honest tribunal could make this statement in the face of .0 ALAB-924, decided only 13 days earlier, and which had " reversed and remanded' its own prior decision approving the NHRERP on four major points, is not apparent. Is it not basic to the American system of justice that inferior tribunals must comply with
- .O .
OF ,. l
)
'OL I decisions of their superior, reviewing appeals tribunals? What is ' the purpose of the NRC's Appeal Board if its decisions on appeal can be ignored? D: -
" Finally, and most important to the ordinary functioning of the adjudicatory process-- '
licensing boards are bound to comply with appeal board directives, whether they agree with them or not . . . any other alternative O' would, in our view, be unworkable and unacceptably undermine the rights of the parties." South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (Viroil C. Sumner Nuclear Station) ALAB-710, 17 NRC 25, 28 (1983). O This Licensing Board, however, lives in a Brave New World where words have only the immediate expedient meanings the-Licensing Board chooses to assign; where " reversed and remanded' O means ' affirmed with directions" and where a mandate that lack of a sheltering plan is a " deficiency that must be remedied" means a nuclear license can issue, and any attempted correction can be 4k assumed-to be in place before the beaches are said to be filled in July. '(ALAB-924, at 68) (As to the July reference, see pp. 25-27, infra.) O This shabby and dishonest trifling with justice and the very integrity of the English language must be stopped.5 0 5/ SAPL believes that the destruction of the integrity of the English language is perhaps the greatest sin that this Licensing O Board has committed. Without basic integrity in the use of our language, we cannot communicate, and in fact are lost, see, for example, the Time of Illusion, by Jonathan Schell, "An Account of
. the Nixon Presidency."
O.
1
. j i
l O A. The Licensina Board is not at liberty to decide the reversed nortjons of its decision are not safety sianificant. The leitmotiv of the Licensing Board's ' Memorandum OL Supplementing LBP-89-32' is that the remanded issues can be ignored because they are not ' safety significant.' However, each and every one of those issues was admitted as a ~O. contention in a licensina hearing. If they were not significant to licensing they should never have been admitted as licensing contentions--but they were. In other words, the Licensing Board
.O cannot admit contentions in a proceeding, the object of which is to determine whether or not to authorize a nuclear operating license, and then, when the intervenors prevail on those O contentions, say they are not important to licensing. This would be the ultimate NRC procedural "gotcha' and a despicable I
i' dereliction of duty, and abuse of adjudicatory power. In addition, the Licensing Board's ad hg.g "no safety significance" rationalization ignores another elementary principle the Applicants are supposed to establish compliance O with the Commission's emergency planning requirements before, not after, a license issues. (SAPL v. NRc, 690 F.2d 1025, 1030, (D.C. l Cir. 1982). See also, Cerolina Power & Licht Co. (Shearon & h Barris Nuclear Power P)_ Ant),'7 A.E.C. 939, 951-952 (1974) After all, it is only in Alice and wonderland, where it is I permissible to have " sentence first, verdict afterwards," a system 0 that sorely perplexed poor Alice as she tries to bring a rational 17_ l0 l
O' . i O. point of view to an irrational world. Of course, " sentence first, verdict afterwards" satisfied the Queen perfectly. It is of course true that some matters can be dealt with C) post-licensing by staff oversight, as the Licensing Board states. (LBP-89-32, at 14) These matters cannot extend to contentions admitted in a licensing proceeding as to which the interver. ors O have prevailed. Even the Licensing Board, insubordinate and irrational as it is, acknowledges that it would have to accord the intervenors some O rights to be heard on the remanded issues--after licensing has occurred. (See p. 2, n. 1, and pp. 4-5) Thus, the Licensing Board is prepared to let the intervenors continue to " exhaust" O themselves in further administrative proceedings, but only after the intervenors have lost the case: 1. e. , thei r " r emedy. " Thus
- the Licensing Board also makes a travesty of the legal requirement Ch for " exhaustion of administrative remedies" as a prerequisite for appeal to a higher tribunal, by first denying the intervenors their " remedy" and then offering them an opportunity to be further O beard before the lower tribunal.6 This is justice only in the 6/ The Licensing Board believes that it can treat parties this (3 way because some parties are "better" than others, depending upon I their position on the ultimate issue. SAPL bas to acknowledge the l Board has a point here, and it is guilty, as charged, of opposing the issuance of a commercial operating license for seabrook. SAPL had no notice, prior to its experience with this Licensing Board, l that this meant its legal rights could be trifled with, ordinary
<3 rules of justice could be perverted to permit rulings against it, and that its attempts to participate in a legal process could be at every turn frustrated on novel and irrational grounds.
. O.
I 37 : J O. bizarre and anomalous world of the Licensing Board chaired by ! Judge Ivan Smith. Only here is a litigant given a chance to ! continue his efforts and be' heard after the tribunal has ruled O against the litigant on the very matter in controversy, the issuance of a nuclear license. B. The Board erred in its rulina that the j3' reauirement for Letters of Aareements with teachers was not safety sianificant, i The Licensing Board continued its illegal rush to judgment by 4 1 ignoring the entire record evidence regarding the EPZ teachers. l
-It states l " Contrary to the Appeal Board's understanding (ALAB-924, slip Opinion, n. 24), we did not i intend for that conclusion [that teachers will continue to stay with school children), to stop (O at the school bus steps. If needed, school >
l personnel will stay with their charges until
.- they are safe. (Slip Opin' ion, at 9)
This astonishing dictak flies in the face of the unanimous testimony of a panel of 13 teachers, and the survey which they l sponsored, indicating the opinion of 547 out of 564 teachers in 15 EPZ-schools. That testimony was that the teachers would ngt board 0 -t'he evacuation buses, but would see to the safety of their own L children as the first priority. (See Essi II. 3954, pp, 8 & 9, Appendix A hereto.) In its decision on the NHRERP, (LBP-88-32), 0- the Licensing Board attempted to overcome this testimony, which, astonishingly enough, it actually found credible, by referring to the " hundreds of teachers who did not volunteer to testify." O (P.I.D., 17.20) The Licensing Board, in other words, chooses to L O. 1 o___=________________________. ___ . _ _ . _ _ . . __. _ _ ..._._,
LO ' .: I O credit the absence of testimony, which it blithely assumes would support its preconceived notions of how teachers will behave, over the admitted, sworn, and credible testimony of witnesses who (1. appeared before it! This is not the end of the Licensing Board's irrationality. At one and the same time, the Board justifies the lack of teacher () agreements on the grounds that they would be acting " collectively as school system employees," (LBP-89-33, at 110) which means, for some unknown reason, that no Letters of Agreement are required; O and that they can be counted on to perform evacuation duties because of their individual " exercise of the altruistic and voluntary care of their charges." (1d. at fil) O Thrashing about, the Licensing Board is prepared to grasp any straws, offer any vacuous justification, and rely on blatantly inconsistent premises, in its desperate attempt to uphold its gk "immediate issuance" ruling. It does not care that at one and the same time it calls the teachers a collective entity, requiring no LOA, and relies on their individual " altruism" to say no LOA is O needed. Grasping at another straw, the Licensing Board further ~ states, "obviously some teachers would rely upon school buses for
.O their evacuation--probably the teachers most likely to volunteer .
(Id.) There is no citation to support this theorem, and it is certainly not at all ' obvious" that teachers will evacuate 13 on school buses. After all, teachers arrive at schools in their
~20-O,
r- , )# ,- 0 l L I ) own cars, and it is far from obvious that they would not want to evacuate in their own cars, to their own homes, or to the places where their own children are located. I C. -The Board erred in holdina that no further ertceedinas in reaard to the special needs ; survey was recuired. The Appeal Board " reversed and remanded" the Licensing D Board decision on the NBRERP because it had wrongly granted summary disposition on the issue of the adequacy of the survey of people in the EPZ with special needs. This of course includes the D blind, the deaf, and those with orthopedic disabilities. When a summary disposition is reversed, as in this case, it means that the lower tribunal has wrongly held, on the materials before it, D- that there was no factual issue to be tried; it means that'there is an issue that ought to have been tried on the facts, but was nott it means there should have been a trial. i D* The Licensing Board, although chaired by a person who clains to be a lawyer,-did not understand this elementary principle of law. In LBP-89-33, the Board simply decides that it can again, D~ and without any further proceedings or materials being presented, re-enter summary disposition ruling. It does this in the face of l the Appeal Board's statement that: B eOnce the propriety of this special needs studies methodology has been aired, it will then be appropriate for the Licensing Board to consider whether the number of vehicles and drivers identified as available to assist in transportation of the 'special needs' D population is sufficient." (ALAB-924, at pp. 19-20) e S.
f h l i: h The Licensing Board, with no ' airing" whatsoever, has simply again re-entered its summary disposition. Again, the Licensing Board's rationale, or more accurately, irrational, is that the
' issues regarding the 1986 survey do not present significant safety irregulatory considerations." (LBP-89-33, at 17)
! First, says the Board, 'Any failure to identify summer ) I special needs individuals is of consequence-only in the summer, some eight months hence.' (M ., p. 19) This is more " sentence L ! first, verdict afterwards' reasoning. It also ignores the fact ) that no remedial requirements, much less a hearing or ' airing' on i any remedy that may be offered, is ordered to be held before summer, or after summer, or ever.7 , jf l Second, according to the Licensing Board, no possible
. problem with the survey, such as the underreporting of the people ,
with special needs, is safety significant 'given the NHRERP's allocation of transportation resources equal to 150 percent of the 1986 identified transit-dependent needs.' (M. , p. 19) The Licensing Board has, however, overlooked a major problem. How ! are these allegedly surplus transportation resources to find the specially needy if the survey has not been sufficient to make L them known to those dispatching the ambulances and ambulettes? D Reliance on ad hp.g notification by the special needy l themselves, including the deaf, the blind, and the comatose, and 7/ It also ignores the fact that summer is not eight months hence, or in July, insofar as maximum beach populations are concerned. (See pp. 25-27, infra.)
, O, i
l
g' i O' in the middle of a major catastrophe, with quite possibly all , communication links being totally utilized, cannot be a l l sufficient response, in the face of a regulatory requirement that j 40 - there be an adequate plan for emergency response prior to, and q l not after, a major accident occurs. Third, the Licensing Board states that one concern, the "need for the hearing impaired to speculate on their need for - l [ special assistance . . . has been mooted. The New Hampshire i ! Siren Notification System has been tested." (Id., p. 20) This O is false. As the Applicants have now advised the Licensing Board, no-overall test of the New Hampshire siren system has ever ! occurred. (See-Applicant's Advice to the Licensing Board with l Respect to LBP-89-33, Appendix C). Thus, as to the issue of the special needs survey, the I insubordination, irrationality, and bias and hostility of the k 1
# Licensing Board is~on full display. l D. The Board erred in dismissina the IgElgaded issue concernino advanced l life sucoort natients. ;
The Appeal Board found the testimony of a SAPL witness, the i I , late Joan Pilot, was uncontradicted on the issue of the time I l j'n needed to prepare advanced life support (ALS) patients for 1 evacuation. Accordingly, it held that the Licensing Board had ! erred in upholding the evacuation time estimates (ETE's) for special medical facilities, and reversed and remanded on this e issue. l I ,- :0. 1 N l
- i 9' ..
i Again, the Licensing Board finds the reversed and remanded issue to lack safety significance. This time it does so by attempting to make a virtue out of a weakness in the NHRERP the
^
O very long time it will take the EMS vehicles, ambulances and ambulettes, to arrive at EPZ nursing homes and hospitals. i According to the Licensing Board, this may take as long as 3.3 O hours. (M. , at p. 25) Noting that the alerting of providers of vehicles and their 'possible mobilization' may occur at the Alert stage, the Licensing Board states:
"The fact that the staffs of the special facilities are giving advanced warning of a pending emergency evacuation, and the fact l- that ambulances are not dispatched from the
- TSA to the special facilities until an order to evacuate has been issued, provides an
- 9 extra margin of time within which ALS patients can be readied for evacuation--a margin of time beyond that assumad as loading time for those patients in the NHRERP ETE-for that population.
This extra margin of time is an added measure
, of conservatism to the Applicants' ETE for the ALS population and further tends to support
' the ETE's adequacy for protective action i decision-making. (M. at 27) All of this ignores another uncontradicted part of Joan Pilot's testimony, and a part that was indeed noted by the Appeal Board: It is not possible to creoare ALE natients for loadina in l ! advance of ambulance or ambulette arrival. 'Intervenor's witness Joan Pilot testified, without apparent contradiction, that because of the intravenous lines and the medical complexity of 1; the cases involved, it would take from '28 minutes to an hour' to l move an ALS patient from a bed to a stretcher adjacent to the bed I f* 1 Q l .. l ' l
[y , , s Cb and that none of this activity can be accomolished before the arrival of an evacuation vehicle." (ALAB-924, p. 25, emphasis added.) [b The ALS patients are therefore, by definition, in need of an intensive level of care. As the Appeal Board noted, they may be connected to tubes. Accordingly, they cannot be simply D disconnected and hauled down to a loading dock to wait for Perhaps three hours while an ambulance or ambulette comes from 90 miles away. The Commission should note how easily the Licensing Board goes astray, even into absurdity, when it attempts to ignore the ordinary judicial process, and the parties, to decide itself how-I to treat the remanded issues, with no hearings, and no input from the parties. There is a reason for the judicial process, and one that the Licensing Board by its obvious irrationality, Ek demonstrates is ignored only at great cost. E. The Licensina Board erred in rullD2 that the remanded issue concernina O the need for a suitable shelterina clan did not crevent immediate issuance of a full never license. The Appeal Board in ALAB-924 held that the lack of a D sheltering plan for the beach population was a ' deficiency that l l aust be remedied." (ALAB-924, p. 68, n. 192).
.The Licensing Board treats this " reversed and remanded" issue with an attitude no less cavalier than it applied to the . Dw
I). E) . other remanded issues, despite its acknowledgment that: 'It is likely that this issue cannot be resolved on the existing recording."- (LBP-89-33, at 31).
'O! Bowever, it treats this as an issue that can be remedied post-licensing because: 'The New Hampshire beach population does ,
not peak until July." (14.) C). First, this is obviously another ' sentence first, verdict afterwards" justification. The license can issue, the risk can be created, and the Licensing Board is prepared to hope that the O remedy will be affected some time in the future. Second, it is simply not true that the "New Hampshire beach population does not peak until July." This was the clear II testimony of.Hampton Police Sergeant Victor DeMarco and Detective Thomas Lally, the relevant portions of which are attached hereto as part of Appendix B. These experienced police officers know, Oh and testified, that the beaches are packed on any warm day, and - certainly by May. More basically, the Licensing Board has absolutely no basis O for assuming a remedy, sufficient to address the lack of a sheltering plan, can be affected by either May, or July.
- After all, the difficult issue of sheltering of the beach 0: population, which cannot simply shelter in place, has been a concern of the parties, and even of FEMA, for years. The prefiled FEMA testimony of September 1987 specifically held the >
- O l
3
- 04
l i 3 NBRERP was inadequate, because there was no adequate sheltering for the beach population. All that has ever esisted is a sheltering survey, purporting O to show that there is enough square footage available to contain transient beachgoers. This is the so-called stone & Webster survey. This survey, however, has never been made a part of the Q NHRERP, and the faci remains that the Licensing Board itself found, in LBP-68-32, dat the overall sheltering characteristics [ of the residential housing stock available in the beach area was O only about 10 percent. i i There is in addition the rather difficult problem of deciding which beachgoers are to go to which structure, whether 0- an unwinterized cottage, a clam shack, or an ice cream parlor. t No EBS messages have been developed to direct the beach population to shelters, no specific shelters have been O designated for any portion of the beach population, and there is, in short, absolutely no sheltering plan, and no basis for believing an effective and meaningful plan can be developed post-O licensing. Thus, there is absolutely no proper basis for the Licensing Board's "immediate issuance' ruling in light of the Appeal O soard's decision to " reverse and remand' the Licensing Board's prior decision on the NHRERP as to sheltering of the transient beach population. O-( , O.
I J e e i i 1 III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES BOTH DUE
- PROCESS AND A TRULY ' ADEQUATE' EMERGENCY I PLAN PRIOR TO, AND NOT AFTER, FULL !
i POWER LICENSING. SAPL has already addressed the first of the 10 CFR $2.788 stay criteria, the probability of success, and has touched on
- other criteria previously in these comments. j Rowever, SAPL is not styling this pleading as a stay motion
- becaure in SAPL's view no stay motion is now due. The 'immediate ;
I issuance
- ruling of the Licensing Board in LBP-89-32 is illegal, l
unsupportable, and improper. (See Intervenors' Motion to Vacate j l Those Portions of LBP-89-22 Authorizing Issuance of A Seabrook ' l License (November 13, 1989)) The ruling should be immediately p declared of no force and effect. l However, if it were now timely to present stay motions, this i !' case would require a stay be granted. Not only is SAPL's I
- i
> probability of success 100 percent, as argued at pp. 6-13, supra, but SAPL clearly will be irreparably injured unless a stay is , granted. That is because a license will have issued, creating ! the very risk (of a major nuclear accident) that requires an ! adequate emergency plan to be in place prior to licensing, but I without such a plan in place. In addition, licensing would create the irreparable harm of a major contamination of the fuel, the reactor, and portions of the entire facility, without any assurance of full power
) operation, and hence without a fully funded decommissioning capability. See, CLI 88-10, which established the requirement D%
> l l
i
) for a $72.1 million decommissioning fund for low power operation, I against precisely the possibility of an early need for decommissioning, without full power operation. See also, New l ) Rampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, Chapter 162:F, Sections 19-25, the New Hampshire Nuclear Decommissioning Finance Act, which requires a segregated decommissioning fund to be established, but ; ) not to be fully funded for estimated costs of full power operation, until the end of what the Committee determined would i be an estimated life of 40 years. ) In short, none of the regulations, decisions, or statutes providing for funding for decommissioning assure adequate funding for decommissioning should the license be reversed, as a result i
D of having been illegally granted, after perhaps a year or more of full power operation. As to whether a stay 'would harm the other parties," SAPL k notes the Licensing Board's claim that granting pending motions for hearings would be " unfair' to the Applicants. (LBP-89-33, at
- 36) This claim of ' unfairness' is based on the Licensing Board's Judicrous belief that "after many years of a full and fair adjudication on all matters in controversy Applicants have l (14., at 35) A delay might be unfair !
prevailed on all issues.'
) to the Applicants if this were a true statement, but it is not true.
All that fairness to the Applicants requires is that when, l
) and not before, they have fully complied with all the
)
1.
. . . - - . - - ___m_ _ _ _ . . _____________.___________s___ __ -- -
O' , O Commission's regulations, including the emergency planning requirement, they can be authorized to obtain an operating 1 license. That has not happened. (ALAB-924) Therefore, no issue l C) l of " fairness' arises in the circumstances of this matter at all. j In this regard it is worth noting the Licensing Board's treatment of the pending motions for hearings. (See LBP-89-33, l 'O at pp. 33-41) One set of motions concerns the September 27, 1989
'onsite" exercise, and the other moves admission of a contention f on the withdrawal of a major Massachusetts radio station from the f O As to both the Licensing Board public notification (EBS) system.
notes that it, 'as a matter of the Board's highest priority" intends to deny these motions in the future. (1d. at 40) O In other words, the Licensing Board has gone from a decision, LBP-89-32, where the Board ruled it could authorize
'immediate issuance' of a license, but where it promised, by footnote, to justify its ruling at a later time, to a decision, LBP-89-83, in which it promises to deny, at a later time, pending motions. In doing so, the Licensing Board has served notice that O
nothing brought up by these intervenors, regardless of the merits, can succeed with this Board. The intervenors, merely because they have the bad judgment to oppose the Applicants and , O Staff, are to lose on all issues, with no reasons being necessary, no matter what. This is not American justice. This is the ' justice' of the O Third Reich, and the intervenors are the subhumans of that
? _30 Oi
lO ' . ; () . reich, the Jews, who lose because of who they are, not because of what they have done, or because the facts and law justify their losing. 43 There is another point about the " unfairness' of considering the granting of intervenors motions for hearings on the september 27 exercise. The Applicants of course knew that, under the , case of Union of concerned scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. () Cir. 1984) ggII denied 469 U.S. 1132, the exercise could trigger intervenor hearing rights. Indeed, in light of this knowledge, O they unsuccessfully sought a Commission ruling to exempt them from being graded on the exercise, because of their awareness of those hearing rights. The Board, and the Applicants, ignore the basic fact that the decision of when to hold the exercise, o whether in September, or earlier, was a decision made by the Applicants. If the Applicants are concerned that the hearing () rights attaching to the exercise might cause them a serious , l l delay, they should have scheduled the exercise at an earlier time. IV. CONCLUSION. O The final stay criteria is 'where does the public interest lie.' This is something the Commission truly does need to O address. For far too long this agency has perverted its own proud claim that safety is its 'first, last, and a permanent consideration' in all its licensing activities. Power Reactor q) Develoosent Co. v. Electrical Union, 367 U.S. 396 (1961). 1 10 l
- i. -- _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ... _ ._ _ ___ __. _ , _ __ _ _ _ _ _
I
)* , )
In the case of Seabrook, the agency has long been prepared to honor its claim concerning safety mostly in the breach because ; it believed that the only motive for opposition to the emergency
! plans for seabrook was political. The Commission has absol'ately no evidence for this theorem, but it obviously devoutly believes #
it. The Commission is wrong, both as to its impression as to the h ' motives of the intervenors, and as to the relevance of the ! intervenors motives, even if it had correctly devined them. 1^ Regardless of the intervenors' motives, the intervenors require, and the public interest requires, truly fair adjudication on what - i all concede are substantial safety issues regarding emergency i planning at seabrook. SAPL is not a political organization. It is solely concerned with what it honestly believes are major issues of safety and well-being posed by the location of the Seabrook plant, and the intractable and unsolvable problems of attempting to evacuate the citizens around that plant, including SAPL's i members, in the event of a major accident. The public interest requires that those interests be responsibly addressed, in accordance with the facts and the law. That has not been done. The public interest however requires more. It requires both the substance and the appearance of a fair process of decision-making. Neither the substance or the appearance of fairness has been afforded by the Licensing Board in this case,
)
as the editorials attached in Appendix A suggest.
). ,
When the history of Seabrook is written, no one will ever say that the NRC was fair, judicial, or even truly had safety as its 'first, last, and a permanent" consideration in its handling of this matter. Respectfully submitted, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League By their Attorneys, BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON
,s' .,#'~
By: [ h'* / M-Rober't A. Backus, Esquire 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 (603) 668-7272 9 4 I
l W
.. r. ~, - . . s n u m oo.,
L l O'- She geene i Scalinel,' :?.ri , APPENDIX A OPINION PAGE som - as.a en.imode. imaw.d. im iO .- The ERC stench .
- hee.a.g so.or es r tenh ove m.e areer eps this week Linless Ceapeso mape la guishly, the
'O'
- ""*'", '"'"' " "' '" " " '"u's'ep' leas,'
ing usasse desphe eartaus Sees la its euesue
- censider these sessesmenia. ,
Last sumsmer, the NBC's Aasmis taistr and IJssening Saud doneraiand that the New Mempshire part of the See-
- hreek ovesunties pina was good enough hr government vak. hn was 'emme emeu naidual rish? en NAC en-elal admissed, but *we de est holieve that this rhk is unne-
'O **hk ""'*"""'r 8"* l populaind eines* verinenwis 's 'h*' . h But the Aa mae Salser and IAsemanag Sysal Beard - a i highw autherur wishna the NRC - esapsed. Ten dare ap. h nited that the New Hampshke esesueues plan dad not pamentee the enfotr of beeshgeen and peeph la houw-Heat k sent the, plan bask u the tissasing heard ler knhor hearings.
- then, earlier this week,'ihe llsemelas haud apprend O the seat of the eveauatina plea, the pen parentains to Maens-l i: ehuutu medena. That plan was devised hr sembreehe j eween, hesaws Messeshunsus easians sehmed u esepw -
! ele en the pounds that a esis evesunues was imposelbb. ! The hsenaams heard went en to aussess the opinies that ( the appeal hearte ndsenies of the New Alampshin evaew- ! time plan - and, esemag between the linse, he liheir niest , , () Isa er the Massesbuseus pies as'wou - sheeld not he I allowed is deler the plane's operating liseen la enher owds, the Asemle sehtr and i a===a1=, tened - I - which is obvisuelt panir misnamed - thinks the NAC
- t. . esamissineen shouM peat amebreak a lisease wee eheugh 1 amisty queouans remala menselved-I- The ressuna w that suggeouse was owth. Manhen er
. Ceapees ten Masseshussus dreAed the following neuer to lO the two _ " e menues that e.=e=* ihe estivain '
'e ~ - -
of the NRC: ~ ! - , "we are the sommines le inquin late how the NAC - L enn sentinue insulag besases when the appeal houd has ee
- haowledged that k has ne ides what the goverslag statuaery ,
manded evenseeable esemana 'er.edevinne preinuve asesuns') anu wah assem u 'a== t planning,'and" the somnission heenf has nada.resqsaur,.senAnadag n
,o . m ,* < s y O -
si.nem.ansaitseen ,s6ee i. w.. . Anasier Edwest Esasser et Masseshasseeas embed the 11 emaning hearde ruhag apsehaps 'the mest irresponsible es- l - eins that I han esse taham by ear adelaisseuw agener in l . the 5 yeus ! bow been la the Beases? Senater Jeha Earry
- af Masseshunsus said the desisian was 'abonne' and *ar. . 8
, segna6' assaior om6m semphser af me uompshin said, O - , tir,'est a a' mansion pathe ama'dama6 i The s'ensk b over-poeslag? -
~
- . asseur venen animan of New Emmpbhe nsened b ble the seR hr a esapenismal losestigshes, enring emir ,
that eks BBC should meise eher haams hefen R peak Seahreakahugswernissase. , Badman's faith in the inesgrier of the NRC h unde. O **a*' ** l' * *"da=' 'h' " 8 * "r'a"""-
. eignWe, the NBC sommismosere desided yesterder to
. hypes the safety appeal heard and begin as immenau n-view of the Seahmek lissem appheauss, Suppmun and ep-pensens of the plant eyes that thh men k likelr a had
? gnishir m e sun., ewer 36 anseer he damnedc this weari essau show that es seinenauty has ha the
. asseur absts suppease a hak out du puhue salms new no-Os ema, piness s.ne.dr. u.ny and isumphnr en eighe if ner share was s sem that eriod out for immedsete mapw-alemalevenight,kis thisone. ,
- .- . ~ . . - . - - . - - . . - . . . - -- - - - - - - - - . - - . - .-
.e, ;
. 4r . . .
- g. .
- Hore power; games
.t.~ . - - . .
- g . . "
J :
- "/"' ' '
{. regulatory We believe the nation's nuclear ' *-***"* system,like its system i
- O E 8 -for regulating savings and loan
' banks and its oepartment of Editorial PINION . H6using and Orban Develop-
" ment,haslongbeen corrupt.How else to explain deelslons like that tem's deelslons have long been '
*; * [ stade last week by the Atomic forsordained. But they will be
; Safety and Licensing Board? tested, Arzt in the federal appeals
'O
- Overruling a higher authority, court in the D', strict of Columbia l.Ms.own appeals board, the licens- and ultimately in the U.S. Su- ^
;hd board decided that Seabrook preme Court.Congressionalscru-
!Ean go to full p6wer despite prob. tiny would help to ensure the im-
' ; ms with the evacuation plans in. partiality of the appeals court
- ew nampshi,e and the non. par. 3udge assigned the case when
.O CONCORD @MO.N) TOR i 1 icipation the of wassachusetts.of nale ' unssachusetts, among othl laterests
, p.g. s8 / wednesday. November 15,1989 l7in
- arding the credibilityof govern license. quests a stay of Seal ent and the welfare of. New power It [s also long past time for Wampshire's cittnens and tourists, Gov.Judd Gregg to act.The state
$t urge New Hampshire Sen. is going to grsat lengths to pro-
- . warren nuaman to join with Sen. teet the escal health of its citi-
)
O .
- Cordon Humphrey and Massa- sens, but it has ignored their
. . ; hetts Senators Edward Ken- health and safety by deferring to
; dy and John Kerry'in calling 'a debased higher authority. The r: a congressional investigation state's own evacuation plans, con-1 of the Seabrooklicensing process. ceived as they were by appoint-l x, S O ' gn'eabrook's
! .tto s nuclear power ownen, industry the andna ees nors, have of as windy much pro.
credibility nuclear as se I
- s. ! q federal . Nuclear Regulatory the foolish emergency calendar _
~ ! punission are ramming the llb residents are supposed to consult l cdats. plant down its neighbors when the strens go of. .
To that end, when the . Gov. Gregg and his parents 3 t iommission's own rules have have summer residences at Wal-
- O i stood in the way of a Seabrook 11; lis Sands, which is wen within the i
I cense, the ' commission has al Seabrook i evacuation sone.- l ways changed the rules. Gregg's own experiences in Sea-
,' ! It has done so. Once again by' coast tralBe should persuade him
- saying that for Seabrook to be 11 that the evacuation plans are a censed, evacuation plans don't farce.!t is time for Gregg to with-
.g . 3mii'e to work, they simply must draw the state's evacuation plans
- exist. That change was made be- and to oppose the plant's licens-
;dause no evacuation plans for the lag on safety grounds. 'that will
- drowded resort areas could be ex not stop Seabrook, but it would Sected to work.
. help lead to a fairer anahsis of
- The plans themselves, based this surrealscheme.
- ss they are on the participation of in joining the call for a cen-O :ichool bus drivers, taachers, po grossional investigation, Sen.
- llce ofEcers and others who have Humphrey said:"By rejecting the
* :(ald they would look out for their decision of the appeals board, a hwn families' safety Erst in the superior body I might add, the 11-hvent of a catastrophe, have been censing. board has undercut due ,
Ia sham all along. They were process, fairness and safety, not i 1 .O . batched without regard to the to mention public confidence.The
- dosages of radioactivity the popu/ stenchis overpowering."
- tace might receive in the event of . . The smell, Sen. Rudman and
- in accident. The regulators are Gov. Gregg. Is not coming from
# : cold bloodedly willing to sacrl5ce l Esh rotting on Hampton Beach.
- human safety to safeguard inves What stinks is the system being Lor douars. used to steamroter the people g, .
i The nuclear regulatory sys wholive near
- the Seabrook plant. i
. ~:
J, . . ,.s., - , . -.an- n ,w. *- s ss + - . . . .,-_.e ay ~.,an.. *ra~-.a.,eea..ue. .-+-,.a -.2. a.ma,-,,m,,e.-- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , _ - _ _ _ . , O' . .
\
s .
\
!D .
.WED"E" k i y; iO O
p'&a ,, p \ ik ., I Y 4 4% ,,
.:? ';
a 1 I g e-l . O O' j 4 'O-O lY41( 'g , 4 G Tis .
- i i , j. . .r -
ammmmm. . -m . a. O' , APPENDIX B l 1 l
- \
l lo s i TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS s ' 1 Q
- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULAYDRY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD PANEL
- l. ~)
)
fQ " In the Matter of: ) t-
)
l EVIDENTIARY MEARING
)
i
) i PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
NEw NAnesN2RE, et ni > poCNET: so-443-ot , .O so-444-OL (SEABROON STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) > 0FFSITE ENERGENCY E PLANNING +
)
L
) ' )
- o. I 1 ,
h
~
Q Pages: 3639 through 3796
; Place: Consord, Nee Wampshire f< . .: .
.ase s o.s.wr i., swr . .
' .t . 'o^ . w Y ' Heritage Reporting Corporation :.-
- c.
erw seronm .
- me u n.w.
. We'hinees. D.C. 2000$
O t 4302) M8 L -J', y l'3 * . . l .
. sk .. .
'. .. . art
*; ...
- 2 .0, , _ . , , ,, , ,_,_Z,,,__, . .
r E _ m s < ,
t' . l =s ' DEMARCO, LALLY - DIRECT 3656 I h 1 Honor, to provide the Board with the latest corrected j 2 testamony. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Gent lemeti, would you atand and be { _ j 4 sworn. 5 Whereupon, _[
- f. & WILLIAM LALLY
'I 7 VICTOR DEMARCO ' ?
8 having been first duly sworn, was called as witnesses herein 9 and were examined and testified as follows: 1 I to DIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. BROCK: 12 Q Gentlemen, would you atata your names, please, for [ 13 the record? O. b 14 A (tally) my n.me is William tally. 15 A (DeMarco) My name is Vietor DeMarco. 16 Q And could you identify your positions with the 0 17 Hampton Police Department? 18 A (Lally) I'm a detective with the Hampton Police 19 Depart ment. 20 A (DeMarco) I'm a patrol sergeant assigned to the O k_
}
21 Administration Division.
- . 22 O And did you both peeviously submit to this Board
. 1.tt t3 through coEnsel profiled pstimony in this proceeding.
-/ , 24 A (Lally) Yes, sir.
4 M 25 A (DeMarco) Yes, me did. .
,B . ! .g Heritage Reporting Corporation (R02) 688-4868 1
( ;
' ?- .
~..
.6 i
Q. . DEMARCO, LALLY - CROSS 36M
- . -DMAR 1 Q Sorteent, what is the longest time that you can 2 recall, it took to clear tha beach at Hampton Deach, clear the 3 beach of beach goers?
~9' 4 A (DeMarco) Of beach goers? ( 5 0 Yes.
& A (DeMarco) We have never done that. Do you mean O 7 voluntarily elear the beach?
4 Q Well, for the beach to empty, if you will, at night-9 time? O to people come to the beach in the day time ostensinly 11 to swim and some time, I assume that the beach shuts down at
; la night, does it not?
r' 13 A (DeMarco) It closes at 1 a. m. but people usually p8 14 leave around dusk to darkness. 15 0 Well, what is the longest time that you can recall 16 that took people to clear this beach area? y 17 A (DeMarco) I see traffic at Hampton Beach from 8 18 o' e16ck in the morning, to 9 o' clock at night, bumper to O k 20 0 Those are people coming and going is it not? t 21 A (DeMareo) Coming and going, it kind of like does a 22 fi?::le omitch-off .there. I can % ell you that I live less than 9 a mile and a half from the police etation and 1% %ook me ttoo 1- 83 24 hours to get there on day in May. 25 (Interruption from andionce. ) ig, E
!; Heritage Reporting Corporation k.. (aoa) sea-4asa
.Y' m
+
-i,...-
\
lOT 4 1 t' j DEMARCO, LALLY - CROSS 370. Q g for commuters to return to the EPC to pick up their families,
- _u, ..
S or close up their homes? 2
, F
/ 3 A (DeMarco) I read that.
4 ; G !s there any reason for you to believe that police
*~
5 coming, or reportin0 for duty would not also be able to enter 6 the area along with these returning commuters? 7 A (DeMarco) ; O t Ninety percent of our police officers are i s
~.,
a located outside the immediate area of Hampton. In 9 Massachubetts, a great number. 30 0 , 1 don' t know by looking at the Haepton plan how they 31 could possible get i n. It G How they could possibly - excuse me, I didn' t -- 13 A (DeMarco) Get into the beach area to assist O us. I 14 don' t know how they could do that.
, 15 0 When you say you don't know how they could, do you 16 mean that their access would be impeded by access control 17 measures?
18 A (DeMarco) From what I observed that was in the plan, . 19 it shows that the access of various roads are impeded. O ao o in your testi.ony you state tnat tens of thousands of 21 residents, tourists and others are in the Hampton Beach area. 22 Would you 31 case clarify what months, days of the weeks or Q 23 . times you would expect to find this number of individuals? 24 A (Lally) That could go en any time. It wouldn' t make 25
,n
.~
a difference if it were sumsser or winter. On a 40-degree day
./ h
- 4- Heritage Report ing Corooratien
%i t202) 628-4468 h *:. <
- h n
0..<
.__-_--_--_i-----_-------
DEMARCO, LALLY - CROSS 3709 in January, that beach i m J amined wi t h people.
~
It doesn' t have 1
}
2 to be the summer, and that's easily verified by checking the police log from any past winter. That's a matter of public k 3 I' 4 record. in 5 0 Are you testifying that the people go to the beach
& January?
7 A (Lally) I certainly am.
& R (DeMarco) Cert ai nly.
I woulu like to stress that. And if you 9 A (Lally) g to would go down on a weekend that has warmed up a few degrees in 11 the winter, people from the Merrimack Valley like to go for 12 eides to Hampton Deach, and I'm talking about thousanda of 13 people in the Merrimack Valley. y - 14 A (DeMarco) The beach has an attraction to people for 15 some reason. The minute the sun comes out, they c'ome to the 16 beach. 17 Q Do people tend to drive up and down the beach as 18 opposed to get out and sun themselves? 19 A (DeMarco) Well, they fill all the parking spaces and 20 then attempt to find more in %he winter months. 21 A (Lally) I'm not suggesting those people are swimming l 22 in January, but we'i-a talking thousands of people do go for 9 rids on the weekend and go to the beach. (c 23 (DeMarco) Bood people to check eeould be the
? 24 A p
25' realtors. They do most of their renting on the weekends in the 3 Reporting Corporation Heritage
)? .
(202) 628-4888
,{,
m ..
- l. .W~~
$y pf(f p $YfWA &r&p,q)ts)b Tf'Wf1Gd6 l -.
PANEL - REDIRECT q.
- v. ,
4030
~.. 1 position?
r-Q; 3 A (Moyer) That is what I understand his research to N .$ (3 andtcate, yes.
- e. ;;} 4 And I have emplained my disagreemer.t with some of the
', N5 assumptions of that.
t)- 6 Q Can you tell me then, why you, personally, a r.d 1 3
- g. ; . ,
7 guess I would ask each panel member briefly to respond to this,
. C d.k m
ag, 8 why have you come down here, before this Board, to present the
,9 i 9 r.v[,jfj. .
testamony which you have discussed this afternocn?
% 10 And maybe you could start?
p.2.
,_Q 11 A (Moyer) Well, I take the job of educat ing st udent s
{ t
-{. 12 seriously and I take the job of making them aware of
.e Y$ 13 situations. I am very concerned about the safety imp 1tcattons Mr.
~
14 that the potential operating nuclear plant poses for them, not q-L.f4' 15 just for them, but obviously for my family, too. J 4 76~. bj[hY wC., 16 s l And I think that teachers have a role to play.
-.X' 17 Clearly the way that the whole thing has been presented.
nMr 18 teachers are very unhappy witn the present situation. M
., #,$ 19
.; . And I wanted to let the Board know that there was
'M 20 real dasagreement over what teachers would potent 1 ally do and I
. 21 am really disheartened to find that teachers are, according to i
%, 22 the State and according to the utility, teachers are assumed to 23 be voluntary compliance with this plan, when they A, were not l ' 24 asked, and then to find out that B, that objections were raised U
- . 25 by the utility to even prevent us from giving that testimony as h r-s-
~- '
Heritage Reporting Corporation q (202) 628-4888 j l $ M - --- p -i.,i-i .. " ' '
i . .. . T
.?
. ?
t ,I.) jd ' PANEL - REDIRECT 403t
,i to whether or not i
we would voluntarily agree to be emerger.cy
,l.' , 2 workers. .. , u x. -
l ,3 g} s. *}, . I find that very disheartening and disillusioning. 4.
'??
4 Q Mr. Pennington? fL wj)J
+ .' ,d 5 A e ....
(pennington) S i r, well, I am here for a couple of f 7
'. Q.i5 7 6 different reasons. Number one, I was elected president and the .e 'z <g-.: '-;*.* _
s., :,;gg r 7
?[' Association of Portsmouth Teachers, pan _t_an record. as saying ih[cx,- 0jht 8 that we were not prepared to carry out the plan.
- .m.
* ~.' . i.fi 9
.1 - 'dbr So that was the initial reason that I was asked to UG h?yE- 10 come to testify.
% s
.: - ..g. A*
11
,n,j :Mc And secondly, and probably more importantly, I am the i
,}, hf 12 parent cf three children in portsmouth and I just don' t feel 13
., ~-
that this plan is going to provide for their safety. So I feel, L,', OQ f 14 that on behal f of my own children, who asked if they could come
' . * , Uh
) . /,Gl 15
, .6 today, but I told them that they could not, that I had to ccme
,[;fp,[ 16 and make that statement.
.s *r 2 27 17 That you are asking people who are not volunteers,
! ^
Us' 18
,,){, they are not paid, they are not anything to carry out an
'bh 19 evacuation plan.
y b.
.s You know, I think that is being a mandatory
.* (({ ' 20 volunteer is an oxymoron. It is ridiculous.
- f. It');b 4 f.z;, 21 4 - So, people are asking us to do things, assuming that
[g ,h,g, [ 22 we are going to do things, and they are not even consulting
~
[ mW '*; 23 with us first. So that is the main rsanon that I came down 2-24 here. pc 25 Q s And Ms. Nudd? es Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 - 1 i I i 1
YI
^
- 9. , "'p
,k $. ! ' PANEL - REDIRECT d'If. 4032
] ',
*ffr{g' A (Nudd) I came down here, partly because I have a s,'s= , .
f** U belief in people will be heard. And that all of the people will y,p; ~e s, 2
)yr.F be heard.
'('$> yg 4.Yk"3
' {N, k kh,Y.y.Nf,
.T I believe that we have a responsibility to the safety
;t-s D'>h. 5 and well-being of our children, of the children of our schools.
e . . . , . I think that they should know where we stand. it
-4.:$.r.7..6 I think that k*!hhh[
- r. a, a . 7 parents should know where we stand, and I came here because I
[*w.[,Yi[r' ,8 , think that I am a little bit unusual as far as my life D@.. . :dYga experiences.
.I 1.$..MM. ,f, 3 e.a And I have been in life threatening situations Q*[v.fA ;[ ';,. ' and I understand what a life threatening situation is and I
- y. .., q.. 1 J O y' 11 have been in those situations by choice.
p .
,hq.
...g. ; ,12 No one has forced me into them. I resent, as a free
~.I T.T., 13 citizen, being forced. That is fine in a country that is not a
. r . ..r t . .
' i ,: . 14 democracy, but it is not fine here.
N s. -:' ' ] . ~ I 15 I am not afraid of those situations.
. 2.$ 16 (Applause from the audience.) .$.I 3 T.?-
L &d.E 17 JUDGE SMITH: The only thing that that will S$$~.i r ' ' S 18 accomplish is that I will cut off the testimony. If that as
?f 19
, ; . .. . . : what you want, that is what you can get. These people have 20 come a long way, they have waited a long time, and they have
.$5&I '
~ Q .,21 something that they want us to hear, and we want to hear from 3 .. ..;
; ,22 them.
?-
[ $*
- e. .f 23 If you want to disrupt it, s i r, I am looking straight kG :.t.:
T. . 24 at you, that is how you can do it, and you will face the
' .?
r ,,,45 consequence.
. j'~
Heritage Reporting Corporation 4 (202) 628-4888 Y 4.3 g, -
L g{,E' .1 ' i
.: 's.g ;
t ;\ ( r. W '* . g,f'. '* PANEL - REDIRECT 4033
;p$,1,i,$/, '
You understand? I am looking at you, do you " E -
- r. M ;c..- 3 u nderstand what I said?
%'{.[l',' .. 12
> F. , " . 3 (Voice from the audience.)
Edh.l .$ JUDGE SM1TH: I just said, do you understand, because 3 3y;l, , 4 , those people D rt - he only thing that you are going to do is to cut -$'is' 5 t
/M'
& off.
. a.. .
- 4; 7 (Voice from the audience.)
Wit JUDGE SMITH: We want to hear from you, if we can.
" V. . 8 Thank you.
9 THE WITNESS (Nudd): we have
. 10 I feel that we should teach our children that to intentionally D' -
11 but one earth and we don' t have the right I would hope that you people would hear that 12 contaminate it. 13 and I would hope that you people would hear the voices of all 1 14 of us and hear the cry of the children. 15 Thank you. THE WITNESS (peeke): I am Beverly'Peeke and I thinx 16 that I am here today, because I don' t want to deceive anyone. W. 17
~
18 I have been brought up and raised to think that family is very important, that my family is very important to me. 3 19 I 20 And I don' t want to deceive parents by letting them
?. ~. .i 21 think that I would, in any way, participate in a plan that !
I d. L 22 don' t believe will work. I Barbara Knapp, and I came hert
,~ .' THE WITNESS (Knapp) : i 23 L
[}O; ,}{24 today, because I wanted not only the community and the parents to hear me, but I wanted the NRC to hear, now, and not when it i-y
'.K 25
..n h t
Y i hh{:- nW . Heritage Reporting Corporation i Qy? (202) 628-4888 s er ' ! k J
- w. . . -lj . _ . M
Cu l 7.$s,x m :r-
' L :e . . %[S;. .. PANEL - REDIRECT 4034
" *lA4. ' 1 is too late, ar.d an alarm has gone off that I am going to leave
- .h.'.,i.
2 school. Because that is what I intend to do and I war.t to be
>. :E;
} ',@,.$ g. 3 upfront now.
- :.'fl. 4 Five years down the My family is important to me.
(f ./ J ;.{ 5 road, 10 years down the road, I might have parents who are in a
'G:<r.
'. .. 6 wheelchair somewhere and will need my assistance. I have two
.i 7 children and they will need my assistance, and it is important
. i.. . :f- 8 for me to take care of the health and safety and welfare of my l
'. l '; , 9 family first. ;
.. {
I am Janice Galloway and 1 0 l" to THE WITNESS (Galloway): 11 em here today, under duress in a way. I had a beautiful field D ' ,, ,'. 12 trip lined up to get ready for my children to go on, marir.e k 13 studies. I was to go down to Gloucester and I felt that this k S ,; 14 was more important.
' ~ .,g 15 I want you to realize that we want the best for our O'p-
% 16 st uder.t s and we want the best for our communities, and I don't 17 think that the Plan is feasible.
S. }'9[
*'i: 18 THE ' 1TNESS (Sargeant ) : I am Mary Ellen Sargent from
. . is t jd.p 19 North Ha aton Elementary and I believe snat it is my
.-:Ns e. .- gO
$y ip:. professional responsibility to tell you people, the parents, 21 and the childre, that in this one instance, I cannot be wtth
$d.[j e1 I 22 them. I feet ; .* a t my responsibility is at home and will j,5 4..w, ..h.
g ' ,' d . 23 supercede tnose,
.5 24 THE .*,TNESS (Shepard): I am Andrea Shepard and I
- - J
~. 5 have come Mare to represent the teachers in my school who sent i
k.
.,,', ,oritage Reporting Corporation (202) 624-4488 n..
- 6 :.
.n m
*~i.a. . _ . , _ __.
p - y;. :, 'OI.j$ V PANEL - REDIRE;;T 403=
. r e. . " d.- . " fi' w . 4:
( ,
*i.;; /c. R.W Q '; 1 me with a message.
9- 2 The message is that we do care about our students and
- @gv%- .Jrt;',. 3 we care about our students so much that we also cannot deceive
[ dY[f , 4 the students or the parents and participate in a plan that we
- s. W M 5 know would pctentially harm them.
O.'.'d.j w. : .V 6 And I was not going to be this emotional about it,
, C;w e.'?
s- $M . .
. M h?.17 7 but I look around and I see a lot of smirks and a lot of
. -.':.bT&5..
~
8 smiling faces, and it really, really scares me that we are not ' Og.S. g 4-M.J.'Ofic. 9
^
beingPtaken
.fR seriously but we will not participate in thts
~
s s
- ~;-~,N ,.-
'i.r.:;ri.'.'s f.?q.- #* ' 10 evaeuation p1an. ' . $[.j' THE WITNESS (Berry):
O'-J.*2'as w. w
.[.[jll 11 My name is Ellen Berry and I am
. Gg..w:,;-.n>u 12 'g' because I believe in democracy and I feel that it is a here h...,.'fb ' f; . 13 very, very important thing. If I feel that the plan is not
- .~.: ' 2 Mrl4 14 going to be the best thing for my community, my family, the O' p.g .~.=- .
15 students that I teach, that I must speak up.
.f.D*'I.i-:.v.M. :. '
5
, ;[9:..M, j,Q 16 And I feel that I will be deceiving every parent who Aj.d:g Z.s*: ';
OI'iLYEEF 17 has a child in my class if they think that I am going to be
-f O '%:r1 p a~ c*vJ v .:m 18.ew.. able to stay with that child ano protect that child from any of keh$
." Q'p.$c:p; 19 the circumstances that will surround in the community with the e a.gw? '
. . wv 20 radiation from Seabrook.
.C .< c Q .D w ~,
.- '.., , IAL. 21 And I feel that it is really important that you T. i.
?:'.
TI A #r1 ] ,t. 22 people not play political games, lawyer games, games of words, e:+ - <
^ 23 V.P J but look at what we are talking about.
M X E M* 24 THE WITNESS (Mathews): My name is Marie Mathews, and
. 1%
- g. . 25 I am a teacher and I am a caretaker of little kids. And I 70
*k O- ' -
Heritage Reporting Corporation c (202) 628-4888
.s 6-
) . . . , . . ,
.? s . ,
4 }. r h.,, p'/.
- . 4036 g
.."I{QT' PANEL - REDIRECT
., 1 have a real conflict with this role today, but I wanted people
,gQ.@ to know that I don't feel that this plan can work. We are not I ID
.Q.y$I 2
; 9 jY' 3 talking about the evacuation of a school, we are talking about 4 the evacuation of a region, and in my mind that is not lQ. ' *}*.'
D ~.' 5 workable. 1 6 And I also do not want to deceive parents to let theml ; {c.7 7 believe that I will be there to take care of their children. 1 j., g Y. ' i a have come here to take care of my own children and that is my j 9 prime responsibility. i 10 THE WITNESS (Millette): I am Joanne Millette and 1 g 11 am here for two reasons. The first is that I have never before 12 been placed in as serious a conflict between my job, f 13 i professionalism and my family. And sincei I have been backed J- 14 to the wall, I an saying very clearly the choice is my famtly. g 15 Secondly, in answering the Judge's questions to Mr.
~
16 pennington, I would also like to indicate something that we 17 have not brought up before and that is that the Sea Coast p la Education Association of some 260 teachers, also waited very, i 1 . 19 very carefully, feeling that perhaps the decision should be 20 made or the spokespeople for our sea coast area, should be the 21 superintendents or the principals, or the school boards, and I
,{ ,h 22 af ter waiting and waiting and waiting for them to take the 23 role, finally we decided that we had to do it as teachers. ;
j 24 That was not a position that we were comfortable '
*.- pj[-f
*;Td
- A.. So we drafted l 25 with, but we thought that someone had to do it.
1%; . .
*g ig u
Q,f: ._ Heritage Reporting Corporation (2o2) s2a-4aas
;3 g g
- .s u -
c d,'
=
Q
- p. .s
-l o 3.rJ.,. ? , ;
4.'.$,J*:. I
. hh,I[b '. ' PANEL - REDIRECT 4037 f,(.p[{Y' we sent it to FEMA,
'1 a letter, after careful consideration and and to l'.
": '0 ;'
. P.
2 and to the Civil Defense and to the Governor's Of fice, hl. * ~.W ' 3 all ot' the NRC, to superintendents in the area, to everybody l [f. .. t ' ' 9f a.,.. l 4 that we could think of, school boards, indicating that we had l E.I".1 2.' l not been asked directly, either by our superintendents or by
. G':= l.Y
. gc' , 5 1
';- l the school boards, or by you, people, that we felt very
( c L f' 6 L-7 strongly that this plan is not going to work. [i
- 8 So the reason that a lot of us are here, also, is t I ' gi
; 9 that this is our only opportunity to tell you, yes, we wrote to '
We did not drearn this up E you and yes, we have those concerns. [ 10 we have had these concerns for a couple of years f 11 last month, } and no one has taken us seriously. I 12 now, 1, l 13
)
14 L h ; 15 16 17 y ta 19 i 20
~
n 21 i , 22 i y; 23 24 ' h.k /"m . j 25 3 h
.b Reporting Corporation
- Heritage
'! (202) 628-4888
. 1 -
f'"4 I a
. ~
- -_; 1-: :_we=_' _" = w
--. 8
_ _ - _ . _ . . - ~ . - - _ . . _ _ . _ _ . -
U j< /7%. ,. ' . . 4f*jk
- j .'. r I*
4038
- o. ...e. w... '
PANEL - REDIRECT S"g'4W<
- a . (Dunfey) I' m Dianne Dunfey.
THE WITNESS: fhe kV 1
- tsK, . ,,, I said before that I have no children, but it occurs V , JEW.? 2
'qc ., ; everybody sitting with me will agree.
g 'f A, s. .,. , , ,. 3 to me and I' m sure that
; , yp;-
4 have over 100 children in Seabrook, because I interact with 7Yi.ibY I ' kI and I have developed a very strong 5 t hem overy single day,
' :.. hs*/ - And I am here out of my >, ..ncrt . .-
J, . R, 6 p ersonal relationship with them. c oncern for them as well as for those students unknown to me, f.? 7
>;;: d.' . *...:,.
'rd & a s well as all the children of the community.
3,< is something underlying a
,. c.
9 I want to -- I think there y.- 'f Mr. Dignan, in his tot of this that needs to De said. ( 5," .' 10 1 gli UJ ri: - 11 insistence on suggesting that we are abandoning children, 5.'
.: - c
- is an implicit morality judgment taking place hU .
12 believe there with that sort of line of questioning, and I just think it p,.
, ,((y ' 13 j Dignan and g {g.)
cr.- 14 needs to be -- people need to be reminded that Mr.
..y his law firm are being paid handsomely by the very private
(- <>. 15
*E W$ company that endangers these children willingly in their 16
[. }d c P*t,.t.. s *u-f 17 pursuit of profit. The
. gr -
o JUDGE SMITH: I want to put your mind at rest. g .g;.y 18 in any Board did not accept the use of the word " abandon" 19 I *d ' y- [s?F..i[d..c.s
,. . . and Mr. Dignan did stop using it when he
[%9; 20 pejorative sense, u ' @. But the word " abandon" does 5? fr ,id[ 21 perceived that it was offending. Yi.%4- and we are capable as I' m sure fIdi.'. Apff 22 have non-pejorative meanings, f the 23 the teachers are of understanding the various meanings o B N.af55',7: . 24 word.
$%Fp?q7 and I' m responding to
.-- . (Dunfey) Okay, t 'f@t 25 THE WITNESS:
., 2-O s.a j. ' Corporation Heritage Reporting
'c
[g (202) 628-4888 lk _- _.-.
$0
4 o,' h..
'.-- 5,3 i * .5.5 ;}* el';
c;5;- f - . Myl . p ANEL. - REDIRECT 4c39
^..
X . m y real personal feeling that there was some inquisite . ) .;e:
; 9. g*,
m .m . 1 I needed to address just then. I- .t 2 s uggestion of tramorality that
- -S %,,' . the
.W/ - 3 Also l' m here because I understand that 71/t ^ )
as.x; , s O!./* v. n: 4 A pplicant's response to the testisaony of the teachers assuraes
.g .
,,7. ..n .*g.g we do not accept this role , ,
that although we have declared that
*W.
I I
". . ,.3.,/.y;*p--
5 l , And I think j
. ;* ; h.: ' ,.
6 and will not carry it out, that in fact we will. i , T,'. . *%:. ! y
.t ' p.acc that's an incredibly arrogant and dangerous assurnpt ion.
,l. ,.h . o ,{;. 7 I
) ! We are here to tell you we won't. We know that in
+
l . }.1[..j] ., 8 y 3*;. our hearts. And what I would prevail upon the members of the
..,. . :... ;. :.. ., 9
.;.,g .';j,- if there is any doubt as to
- } f. ' 10 Board to do is to understand that I can't help but think
~.
- what we will do, that should be enough. .
2 h' d . ' . 11 of the fact that we won' t convict or sentence an accused
. .T .,. ..- ,
/? . 12
-. vernaini ng. And I criminal if there is any reasonable doubt s . ,. - '
13 would suggest t h at if there is any reasonable doubt in yout-J .,.s..
..~.*
14 i
~
g.p.s :,:.. the care and safety of these
* *'~ f 'l
- 15 raines as to whether or not
,(*c.:.'~' And I -
. e L > r.** *"
+ - ' * -
16 children is provided for, please don' t do it to them. L
) l.i.'s-i Y. " .
would ask you to the next time you look in the eyes of the
- g-17 s,
q, 18 cnildren important to you, please think of my 100 stucents in I.'C Seabrook. And if you have a doubt, please do not accept this '
^
'yl' 19
) ~
d d54
.' JR.h 20 plan because it puts those dear children at risk.
X.V .u. Mr. Brock. >
.6 21 JUDGE SMITH:
.: ? e., f..'
p, j MR. BROCK: Nothing further, Your Honor.
- e- 22-3 .
;c. Any recross?
- 23 JUDGE SMITH:
MF
\>
MR. DIGNAN: Nothing,'Your Honor.
'I 24 S~'*
JUDGE SMITH: Aay further questions of this panel? 1- 25 Y a n Reporting Corporation Hecttage _.' (202) 628-4888 o . ,
-* - * . , .sp ,e . . M w w .. w
- t.
3_
\4 o
. - sw in APPENDIX C . ggdO A' g November 22, 1969
)' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 11 31 50-444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 (Offsite Emergency and 2) Planning Issues) t b
APPLICANT 88 ADVICE TO THE LICENSING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO LBP-89-33 D At page 20 of this Board's recent gemorandum denominated o LBP-89-33, this Board stated on the besis of a citation to App. Ex. 43F at 157-58, "The New Hampshire siren notification system P has been tested." This was in the context of a response to an assertion by SAPL affiant Anderson that since the siren system had not been audibly tested, the hearing-impaired would have to D speculate on their need for special assistance in responding to the special needs survey. In fact, the test described in the referenced site was not B an audible test, and, in fact we understand that not all of the sirens in New Hampshire have been audibly tested. Thi.s Board's error in context is harmless because there is no regulatory D requirement that sirens be audibly tested before a license is ADYt9*13.$8 ' e.
,. O. O authorized. Carolina Power & licht Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear power Plant) , ALAB-852, 24 NRC 532, 546 (1986). Thus, as a matter of law, SAPL would have been precluded from obtaining a f finding to the ef fect that a special rieeds survey held prior to licensing was invalid for lack of there having been a siren test.
However, we bring the foregoing to the attention of the Board in the event it may wish to correct the decision in any way. R'espectfully submitted, e W Y Thomas'G. Dr$han, Jr. George H. Lewald Jeffrey P. Trout Jay Bradford Smith
; Geoffrey C. Cook William L. Parker Ropes & Gray One international Place J Boston, MA 02110-2624 (617) 951-7000 counsel for Applicants l,
l l
<0 i
. I 1
l 9 A l
,~)
m i Novembe r',l3 0, 19 89 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '89 DEC -1 P1 :45 1 i Before the Commission f,,,, i,0cni i o .4,- i Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman 19t, , Kenneth C. Rogers Thomas M. Roberts
)
In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
)
)
Docket No. 50-443-OL g hk. ' OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) (Offsite Emergency l
) Planning Issues)
(Seabrool: Station, Unit 1) )
) '
l COMMENTS OF THE SEACOAST ANTI-POLI.UTION LEAGUE OPPOSING IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF LICENSING - BOARD DECISIONS LBP-88-32, 89-32. AND 89-33 1 CERTIFICATE OP SERVICE j . DATED: November 30, 1989 I hereby certify that copies of the within Comments of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Opposing Immediate Effectiveness of Licensing Board Decisions LDP-88-32, 89-32, and 89-33 have been ' forwarded this date by Federal Express to those parties indicated by an asterisk and copies of have forwarded by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the remaining parties on the attached service list.
' Robert A. Backus, Esquire 1
0 3 S03.. .; J}}