ML20062H587
| ML20062H587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1990 |
| From: | Tompkins B NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#490-11091 ALAB-941, LBP-89-32, OL, NUDOCS 9012050129 | |
| Download: ML20062H587 (35) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:I. g g. s . UNITED STATES-0F AMERICA 00LKEllD NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION- UWRC j d ATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEAg[)BWE) A10 :39- ' Administrative Judges: OrfICE CF SECR01/JY .
-G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman, Neveuib(6 '2p/ W i'690 4 Alan S. Rosenthal . (ALAlik41):
Howard A. Wilber .-
.' S M E D N O V 211990
'):
In the Matter of.. .)3
)- .. .
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos.'50-443-OL; NEW HAMPSHIRE, at 31.. )' .. . 444-OL 1
.) -(Offsite Emergency j!
(Seabrook. Station, Units 1 ) Planning Issues)" and 2) ) ,
)
John Traficonte, Boston, Massachusetts-(withwhom Alan i R. Fierce, Leslie B. Greer, Matthew T. Brock, and ! Pamela Talbot, Boston,. Massachusetts, were on1the-- brief), for.theVintervenor James M.;Shannon, Attorney General:of Massachusetts., , y Paul McEachern, Portsmouth,!New Hampshire (w'ith ? whom ' Diane curran, Washington, D.C. ,; was on'.the joint' brief), for,theLintervenors Town of.Hampton3anduthe d
-New-England Coalition onfNuclearLPollution,;
. respectively.-
. Robert A. Backus,> Manchester, New?.tampshire, forDthe intervenor Seacoast Anti-Pollution' League.. j N. .
s... . . -
. Thomas'G. Dianan. Jr. , . Boston, Massachusetts n (withLwh'omt .
Georce H. Lewald, Kathryn A. Se11eck',f Je f f rev ' P. . Trout,-Jav'Bradford' Smith,,Geoffrev C'.^ Cook,. Willlam:
' Parker, : and : Barbara Moulton=,z Boston- Massachusetts,1 were on the. brief) ,t for the applicants Public <
i Service Company;of New Hampshire, at-g1
, j Mitzi-A.-Younaf(with whom,Edwin'J. ~ Reis,[RichardiG Bachmann', Elaine'I.'Chan, Sherwin=EL Turk, sand;Lisa B. Clark were on the brief) for thetNuclear
- Regulatory Commission staff;- '
o , m DECISION-s In: June 1988', an assertedlyl" full paNticipation" X exercise of both the Scabrook Plan for Massachusetts; a u xx. 9012050129 901121
; y swen oww :
E
, g;
y e . , u il ' . ' ! 0' a 2 Communities (SPMC)1 and tho'New Hampshire Radiological, i d
. i Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP) for the New Hampshire .
L segment of the EPZ was conducted. In conjunction with-their , I l appeals from the Licensing. Board's disposition.of various ! f emergency planning issuesLin.this. operating license i proceeding, intervenors. Massachusetts Attorney General L (MassAG), Seacoast AntiAPollution League (SAPL),; New England ~ .: h . O t Coalition on Nuclear Pollution-'(NECNP), and the Town of ] Hampton, New. Hampshire:(TOH),rhave' raised concerns about-the , scope of that exercise. Itihas come to our a'ttention!thati ' , 3 i another full participation exercisetof both the SPMC and the NHRERP is scheduled for next month. ;Because'the'outoomeJof-g j our' examination of.these ircervenorllattacksiupon/the' scope- l of the previous exercise might; influence. the' dimensions :of I the upcoming exercise,'we address those partNular concerns- h now.2- ,
}
? ': , .p a
1 The SPMC is thegemergency response-plandforithe .: Massachusetts segmentLofJthe'Seabrook nuclear; facility's- 1. plume exposureipathway emergency? planning zone (EPZ). It~
~
was deviseo and.is to be' implemented:byuthe applicants in '
'i lieu'of:a. government-sponsored: plan.! ' ' , , 3 L
.p: ;
2 Previously din'ALAB-937,f320NRCL L(Sept ,' j we addressed 2that portion-of1the)Ma,ssAG's pendi(ngl appeal:l'8 , .119 "M questioning 1thefthresholdEdismissaliof-one t ofihis-' Icontentions.regardingEteacherfparticipationLin.:anLevacuati'on 3
.of theLMassachusettscEPZ0 schools.;(In subsequent! issuances, Q
;we will address?intervenorfappeals concerning/the Li' censing: ,
3 Board's threshold;~. rejection!of,other contentions challenging either"the SPMC ' or. the results tofc the June ;-1988', exercise,fas - -l
.welltasLthe Board's numeroushdeterminationston(the7meritsi 70 j regarding>the'SPMC and:thet exercisekwhichTareLcontainedMin' 3
[ its November 719895 initial: decision BLBP-89632,n30 NRC 375: 1 1 s ; (19 89)i. . e <
^
'~ '
n]. 11 ,) { , ,, ^? r N _ jf i 4 il .2 N. nf a q- n, y , , 1 - .
. m m. . . . . . _ 4 ..___o
% .4 . )
f - 1 a
.3 I. i I
- l. Following the coup etion'of,the full participation'
- exercise held on June 28-29,-1988,:thesLicensing Board.
provided the intervening-parties with an opportunity:to1 file l contentions challenging the conduct of the exercise.'- In.a L . j memorandum and order dated' December 15, 1988, theLLicensing; ;[ Board. ruled ~on~the.admissLbility.of theLvarious- t
, i contentions.3- Beforrs up, intervenors MassAG and SAPL:eacht protest the Board's threshold dismissalvof'one'of their' contentions relating to the scope of the JuneL1988 .
f
-.. 4 oxercise.' '
-t A. 'The MassAG-protests the Licensing Board'sithreshold J l
rejection of his. Contention EX-2). Bases-A,JB'- C, F, . andl G.5 f -
-9 s
.> :5 3
Memorandum-and' Order. (Dec. ( hereina f ter - Exercise : Contentions (15,41988) Order).' h (unpublished) '~ + ,, , L
' Althoughithe= rejection of theseMontentii8ns~'tooko place.in Rules of ancinterlocutory order, underJthe Practiceran< appellate challenge hadsto1 CommissionT[s1 await then j rendition of a. Licensing,BoardIinitial'~decisioniencompassing 1 theiJune 1988 exercise.. EggiloJC'.F.R. 562.'730(f)1. Northern ,
States Power ' Co. - (TyroneL Energy. Park, JUnit 1) ,l ALAB-492', V 8 .... J NRC '51'(1978), and casesithere= cited; JThat Edecision', dwhich L I
-covered both the,SPMC anditheLexerci_se)Jhavingunow(been._ '
i
' issued, gag supra notet2/ the? Board?s(earlier determinationc >
s rejectingLthose contentionsAis properlyibefore:ustion ,w .i intervonors' appealsttakentfrom fheJdecisi'on'.- - , ,
]q L
5 :As applicableihere, ac"c$ntention"9sh.ouldib':a e f 1 statementiof the? issue 1soughtjto be(litigatedLwhilelthel
" bases" e accompany.ing, thel contentionshould" be L the e f actual'
- a alleaations that provide?some: credible?foundationTfor the' ,
contention. Eng L 10 C. F;R.69f 2.714,(b)'.7 lUnder"thisbstan.dard,( 1
~1 many,of the ~ " bases" specifiedibf sintervenorm in1 thel 1 '* .-
f' proceeding might bet considered L" contentions't inlahdu ofl ' .l
- 1themselves, , soi that the ?Licensin,gEBoard fac%d :appropriatelyv :1 Din' reviewing and' ruling;uponDthelvarious?:interveno'r;
.w j
? contentions"'in.termsEoftthe-:specifico" bases" presented.,
, , # '1 1 *
.;[ .
y g , I
- I r r
, J gc (pf < g
- Y, . .
N; [h _
, y
( 4 i Bacis A alleges.that, contrary to the dictates of 10 C.F.R.- Part 50, App. E,'l IV.F.1 relative to exercise scope,' neither the hardware involved in the Vehicular. Alert Notification' System-(VANS): portion-of-the-alert and i notification-system for the Massachusetts EPZinor the~ e n capability of applicants' emergency response organization'to. ' utilize the VANS hardware in,a timely-and effeMive-manner
, . :c !
was tested:during the June 1988 exercise. xIn Bases;B and/CL the MassAG challenges:the' adequacy of,thetscope of the exercise as;it tested:another aspect of:the Massachusetts; - alert and notification system,.:the' emergency broadcast system (EBS). Bases F focuses.on the, fail'urelof:the t'estifto: )
-demonstrate the abilityJ of;the Massach0settsShaptierj of Lthe j
American Red Cross-.(ARC) to establish and: maintain- ' l conjregate care and other. planned mass shelteh facilities ~, In pertinent;part,[10 C.F.R.DPart 50W App._E',1 5 IV.F.1'providest
~~
~
'1 A:fullparticipation[exerciskwhich 'l tests: as much ' .of the -licensee',: State.:andJ '
l local emergency < plansn asi is? reasonably, "
-i
-achievable'without mandatory;publici ' ' '
# 1
' participation;shall be.conductedLfor.- 1 L each site at'which aapower; reactorJiisi j
-located . . .'within:twolyearsibefore, ,
i theD issuance L of > the - . .. . : . t operating l <
>; ,t license for:fullfpower m . ..
a mj y y q" c4/L " Full partiicipation" , i.m.$ncludes testiiig the': major: observable portions?of the 4 - '
'4
!onsite and offsitel emergency; plans'and' .1
. - , -mobil'izationlo.fDState,flocalcand licensee ' ,
g 1,3 llj personnel and!otherfresources"inisufficient "
t) numbers (toaverifylthelcapability[toirespondi >
d to the: accident > scenario.; ' ~
- P ,
J [ x ;;; M
- V '
y
} 3
}l g b
, s j; n%:
.n ; , , ; , x. . .
. m. 3,
5 due to the ARC chapter's nonparticipation in emergency planning. Finally, in Basis G the MassAG alleges that the scope of the exercise was insufficient in light of purported inadequacies in the Federal-Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). evaluators' assessments of the response preparedness of school, hospital, and other special facility administrators.. As we made clear > in our decision in ' ALAB-900 in the Shoreham proceeding, both the commission's regulations and its " fundamental flaw" criterion governing the admission of , exercise-related contentions establish that a contention , questicAing the adequacy of the scope of a full' participation exercise is appropriate as part of an adjudicatory challenge to the' sufficiency.of the exercise.7 We further determinedLthere that the scope of,actu11 E participation exerciseLis to encompass the " major o'se 'abl e . portions" of both onsite and offsite emergency l plans (includin; the mobilization'of state,-local,'and' applicant personnel and- resources), in a manner sufficient; to; verify that, in the context of.the accident scenario, emergency, 2
.rosponse capabilityeis adequate.6 As we pointed out in ALAB-900, to: preclude consideration.of the'sufficiencyfof a
7 Lona Island Lichtina Co.'(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit a l) , ALAB-900, 28 NRC 275,.285-93,; review declined, CLI-88-11, 28:NRC'603'(1988).1 a Id.1 at ' 292-93 : (citing.10 C.F.R.;Part 50,~ App. E.,- 15,IV.F.1 n.4)'. i 3 i .T .- ik j xw,
I 6 i the scopt of the exercise would seriously undermine the l purpose behind allowing litigation relative to the exercise, i.e., to ascertain if there are any fundamental flaws in the emergency plan being tested. Providing for challenges to - the scope of the exercice ensures that the drill is not [i unduly limited to either strong.or weak planning areas that would not reflect a fair measure of'overall emergency rosponse capability.' ,
- i. In rejecting Bases A, B, and C of MassAG Contention ,
EX-2, the Licensing Board'deciated that, in light of ALAB- ,.
~
900, the allegations therein-about the scope-of the exercise , i with regard to the VANS'and the EBS were deficient because l. they failed to assert that major observable elements of the , plan were not tested. More specifically, the' Board held , that these bases pointed only:to " isolated' portions" of the , i major observable element (i.e. , the public notification n system) that were not tested and found that "little' information of significant= independent. utility would have-
'I L been gained by testing these' isolated' portions of,those l-l elements."" The Board also'statedithat these bases were '
deficient because the MassAG: failed to make aL" convincing . showing why these isolated-portions of'the major observable. L elemont:were critical to a fu111 participation' exercise. .'Any p t-defects which might be' revealed by; testing them;would appear
' Id. at 286..
" Exercise Contentions Order.at-18.
1 i t> e
i 7 j to be minor, readily correctable problems, not. fundamental ' flaws in the plan."" ! i The MassAG asserts before us that the. Licensing Board's l attempt to categorite'the VANS and the EBS as " isolated , i portions".of the public notification system fails to .. recognize that these two components are, in fact, the heart 3 of that notification system, and that neither.was j sufficiently-tested. He also' disputes the Board's finding that little information of independent utility would be gained by fully testing these portions of the system, l asserting that testing both the VANS and-the EBS would reveal significant'in'ormation about the public notification i system's ability to comply with'the\ fifteen-minute " initial l' L 4 notification" requirement of 10'C.'F.R. Part,50, App. E,.
$ IV. D. 3.12 Applicants and the NRC staff urge. affirmance of j the Licensing Board's determination for the reasons given by the Board.
l ALAB-900 established. that a facility's public ' alert end , notification system,fwhich is referred.to:as the Prompt f / Alert and Notification System (PANS) in'the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook EPZ,'is a "majoriobservable portion" -[ t,
" Ibid.-
12 Recently, in ALAB-935, 32 NRC 57 (1990), we , interpreted this regulatory requirement as c it applies to the' i ~ Seabrook alert-.and notification system.- The-Commission declined review- of' ALAB-935 on: October 11, 1990.'~ '
. I
=< (
r i
1
- l of an offsite emergency plan." That decision also held j that the EBS portion of the system is "an integral component :
l of the public notification system."" This holding applies ] t i with equal force to the system's other major component,
~
i siren alerting,: which in the Massachusetts EPZ is provided ' by the VANS. Each of these elements constitutes a separate , portion of the overall alert and notification system; each { must function adequately, however, in order for the'public. .I notification' system.to be fully operational. To dismiss-the MassAG's separately stated concerns about the scope of-the; ( i test for either the VANS or the EBS component on the ground ( . that one or the other was only an'" isolated-portien" of the i l notification system fails to account for the independent importance within the system of each part and the ! concomitant need to exercise each component 11n a full ' participation exercise." Nonetheless, the result' reached ~ by the Board with respect to.the-basesifor the contention i E proffered by the MassAG was correct. o ,
'f
" Egg Shoreham,'ALAB-900, 28 NRC at 294. i
" Ibid.
.[
Citing Carolina Power & Licht Co. (Shearon Harris . .. Nuclear. Power Plant), ALAB-852,- 24 NRC 532, 546-(1986), both applicants and the staff ~ contend'that there'istno' regulatory-1 requirement that the: siren' system be includedias/part'of'an exercise.1 That' case, in which'we heldLthat the; final FEMA
. test or findings concerning the siren system desian-need.~not; be completed prior to'a Licensing Board finding concerning-
- the' adequacy'of plannina efforts regarding:the system,Edoes <
not. speak.to the need'to, include system testing when the i plan is exercised. L i
?
3 I a D'? W r n d -
I l h.s we have described in some detail previously, the i
~
VANS system is a mobile siren alerting system utilized in the Massachusetts EPZ as a substitute for pole-mounted sirens. The FEMA report concerning the June 1988 exercise indicates that the VANS system was tested by deploying f v vehicles to the vari'ous predesignated acoustic locations and { thereafter simulating siren activation." In Basis A'of.-his
- Contention EX-2, the MassAG maintains'that the scope of the [.
exercise was not adequate because vehicles'other than the actual VANS trucks were-used, which resulted in differences i in activation timing and an inability to test whether the drivers knew the proper procedures-for deploying:the ! sirene.1s By order dated. October 24, 1990, we noted$that'an
~
l additional full participation exercise of the New Hampshire and Massachusetts emergency plans'is scheduled for December
- 13. 1990, and requested that the parties address ~whether~the' I scope of this exercise'would address'anyfof the alleged problems' relating to the scope of:the June ~1988 exercise
Sit ALAB-935, 32 NRC at 61.
l
'I Applicants' Exh. 43F (FEMA Exercise Report-(Sept. 1,-
1988)) at'222.
'8 In addition,' the:MassAG-asserts that the fallure to- .
utilize-the actual VANS vehicles meant thatLthere was no 'I showing' establishing the suitability 1of each acoustic' site a for VANS: deployment.- This clearly is-a challenge directed, ! to the slesian basis of the -VANS: system, not" the scope' of: the ; exercise, and.should have been: raised previously as part of' , the- MassAG's attack upon _ thr.c basis. ; S.g.gl ALAB-935, 32-NRC~ at 62.- ' '
. 4
, [k
. _ , . , , , , . . . - . , , , , ~
10 identified by the MassAG or other. intervenors in their - ; pending appeals. The response from applicants indicated that in the upcoming December 1990 exercise "[t]he actual VANS trucks will be driven to the' acoustical locations during this exercise; in June 1988, other vehicles were used."" 'The MassAG responds that this "may". ultimately ] moot his Basis A concerns. This equivocation q notwithstanding, the crux of the MassAG's concern about the ; exercise clearly is the failure to utilize and deploy the i actual VANS' vehicles.II The circumstances of the upcoming test with respect to the VANS essentially-encompass the l relief to which intervenor would be entitled if the scope of the earlier exercise without the VANS vehicles was found , t l t
" Licensees' Response to Appeal Board' Order of October '
24, 1990 (Nov. 1,'1990) at 2 n.3 (hereinafter Licensees' Response to Appeal = Board Order). 20 ' Response to the Appeal-Board's order of October 24,. 1990 (Nov. 13, 1990)'at 3. 21 In its responsive filing,'the steff. notes <thatithe- I VANS system was tested during the spring of this year and - suggests.that this provides grounds-for. declaring Basis;A moot. Staff Letter to Appeal: Board (Nov.J5, 1990)7at 2:n.3.- : our review of the referenced FEMA test; roport, indicates,. I however, that the May-1990-testing-was" directed?toward' siren signal covecage, an issue distinct from<the VANS hardware /
~
, deployment /at+1vation concerns, expressed by the_MassAG.in-
~
-Basis A to his-C;ntention EX-2.,
, i 4
i f
~ = . .
i 11 deficient.22 Basis A of the MassAG's Contention EX-2 thus j I has been rendered moot.23 i Also wanting, although for a somewhat different reason, ; i are the MassAG's allegations regarding inadequate exercise ; scope relative to the EBS portion of the public notification system. The MassAG asserts that ALAB-900, which also dealt i with allegations relating to scope of EBS-testing, compels a ]1 finding that the scope of the June 1988 exercise was ) deficient on this score. We'do not agree. -) 1 In ALAB-900, the unrebutted assertion was that no attempt was made to' implement any part:of the EBS process with respect to the designated.EBS station, including. ' providing the appropriate ~EBS message-to the station or- , having a message actually' broadcast. Here,.however, th ,
~
contention is that particular aspects of-that-process were not adequately exercised. Unlike the exercise atLissue in ., . 22 Sag Shoreham, CLI-88-11, 2'8 NRC'at 604 (cure for. .[ exercise scope deficiency.is1to provide for-. testing cf , component in a remedial exercise). .; 23 Further, we note ~that the applicants.have established'a regular schedule for testing tne-hardware, deployment,-and activation;of:each VANS vehicle,Eincluding/ -{ biweekly, quarterly, and annual tests'and inspections of
~
various. VANS vehiclo siren components and' functions. Sag Applicants' Exh.11-A (Seabrook Station' Public Alert and 1 NotificaH nn System FEMA REP-10 < Design Report (Apr. 30,; , ! 1988)) at 2-22 to (cited;in ALAB-935, 32'NRC at 61;n.3 as admitted'into evidence in that portion of Seabrook. q licensing proceeding concerning VANS design adequacy); ! Applicants'.Exh. 11-B (Seabrook Station Publ.ic Alert and.? J, Notifichtion System FEMA-REP-10 Design Report (Addendum 1,.
~
Oct. 14, 1988))', Attach.-E-(same). 24 = Shoreham, ALAB-900, 28 NRC at 293.' i I 'g,
., - - r ;~.n. - , . , 4.- , n
. o l
12 ! ALAB-900, the LBS process for the Massachusetts EPZ was l tested, first, by making a facsimile transmission of the appropriate emergency message to the EBS station and, then, s by both a simulated and an actual broadcast of a test l message.25 The MassAG maintains that_the message broadcast process should have been tested further, i.e., there should ; i i have been a measure of how much time it takes'to prepare an announcer to read the message and how well he or she will . read it after that preparation. These actions, however, q only entail an announcer. performing his or her usualiduty of preparing for and presenting a broadcast message. .Thus, as J an indicator of fundamental planning' flaws in this major i observable. portion of the exercise, . their role is hardly so , central that it compels a finding-that-the absence of any j j 25 Applicants' Exh. 43F, at'222. According to FEMA's exercise report, the actual' broadcast of:the EBS tect message came several minutes after the message broadcast was simulated as part of a prearrangement with the EBS station . so as not-to cause undue'interruptionLof f its regular programming. SAA ib.id. 1 The MassAG asserts in Basis C that the scopaldeficiency l, in the exercise also is illustrated by)therfact that a more comprehensive test would-have revealed:that the then-primary. EDS station.(WCGY) did notihave the' requisite equipment to-link-it with the applicants,'~ response organization. .Brief , of the-(MassAG)Lin Support 1of"His Appeal of LBP-89-324 f (Jan. j 24, 1990); at 41 (hereinafter MassAG Drief).J But our finding. j in another context that intervenor has failed to establish t any safetyfsignificance in'WCGY's subsequent-withdrawal and; ' replacement byj WLYT-FM as ~ a primary EBSi station, ALAB-936, 4 32 NRC 75,:82-83 (1990),' deprives.the MassAG's scopej ! allegation of-any practical significance. Moreover,.WLYT,'- ! not WCGY, was the station' utilized for-the EBS broadcast ' during the June 1988. exercise. Egg? Applicants'.Exh.:43F,lat 222. ( q
~ <
s
, -, , - 6 v v- w - - .
I 13 assessment of these activities establishes a material deficiency in the scope of the exercise.
- 2. Following the lead of the Commonwealth, the l Massachusetts chapter of the American Red Cross previously ]
had announced its intention not to be involved in the Seabrook emergency planning process in that state.'? Consistent with that position, the ARC did not participate ! I in the June 1988 exercise. As.a result, none of the more- ! l than two dozen congregate care centers due to be' ; administered and staffed by the Massachusetts ARC were I activated. With Basis F of Contention EX-2, the MassAG 1 seeks to establish that this is a deficiency:in the scope of- , the exercise that requires correction. l l In rejecting this basis at-the threshold, the Licensing .c Board noted the Commission's conclusion in theLShoreham proceeding that it can be assumed, based upon the ARC's historical-practice, organizational policy,fand-
~
congressional mandate,.that the ARC will respond in the event of an emergency, including a, radiological emergency.2a h l I' In addition although'the MassAG asserts o thatsthe station's message-p,rocessing. actions are necessary to establish the public' notification system's-compliance with the 15-minute initial notification requirement of 10 C.F.R. l l Part 50, App..E., I IV.D.3, we previously have held-that'the i timing of the EBS broadcast, as opposedLto thetsounding of the. sirens, is irrelevant to compliance with that'particular4 , standard. Eag ALAB-935, 32 NRC at 68-69.- t 27 Eng'LBP-89-32, 30 NRC at 584-85. ' 28 Eng Exercise < Contentions, Order at 20 (citing Shoreham, CLI-87-5, 25 NRC 884, 887-88 (1987)). 1
- . . - -. . -. . . . .- ~. ~ .
i
}
i Finding that this created a presumption that the ARC would respond," the Licensing Board declared the Massachusetts : chapter's refusal to do so in the context of an exercise i rendered the testing of congregate care facilities "not l. reasonably achievable" within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. E, 5 IV.F.1.30 The MassAG now challenges this i conclusion as based on the erroneous assumption that ARC , nonparticipation precluded exercise of this' element of the , plan. l For the reasons set forth in AIA8-900 concerning the section IV.F.1 proviso that an exercise must test as much of , the emergency plan as is " reasonably achievable without ; mandatory public participation,"31 we have a serious- ; question whether the failure to activate the congregate care ; centers because of ARC nonparticipation can be condoned-as ,
"not reasonably achievable" within the' meaning of.that !
section. We would not generally consider that provision's t exemption of the public from actual participation in , exercises.to extend to a private emergency relief-organization like the' ARC whose participation is contemplated by the emergency. plan.. Nor does.it appear that' by its terms the additional exemption'for gove nmental ~l l- nonparticipation in exercises _found in section IV.F.6 of. l
# Ibid. S.p_g piso LBP-89-32,'30 NRC at 586-87.
30 Exercise Contentions Order-at 20-21. " 31 Shoreham,. AIAB-900, 28 NRC at ; 295-96.
l 1 1 I 15 H Appendix E is applicable to the ARC as a private. ) ! organization.32 , In this instance, however, we conclude that the Licensing Board's exclusion of Basis F was correct. The ; duties assigned by the plan'to the ARC infolve administering f and staffing several'"special population" aad general evacuee shelter facilities located outside?the EPZ. It is boyond challenge'that prov! ding shelter maintenance services is a traditional ARC'emer*- , response rold that the f organization has perfe. in the face of allitypessof I natural and technolog. ~ disasters.33 in'lightIof,the Commission's recognitiLn that' it can be-assumed'that the ARC- , ! will answer a request for emergency assistance,~1n an ; l instance such as this, in-wh'ich t'he response rdle assigned t . - to the ARC in an emergency plan conforms tcrone:lt- i traditionally has fulfilled, we-see"little use,:initermsLof- - e e identifying fundamental flaws in the emergency plan,'in ; o a l 32 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App./E, $;IV".F;6 provides: . !
. , M. i The participationnof staterandi. local, !
governmentsi in j an(emergency : exercise !:is' not required"to thetextent that.the' ; applicant has identified;those, t governments refusing to participate- , j further in energency' planning , activities, pursuant to.10=CFR . .
- 50. 47 (c) (1) . : In such cases, an exercise: :
shall be' held with:thefapplicant or- , t licensee and such. governmental: entities as elect:to participate in-the' emergency- ! planning process.-' 1 33 Egg LBP-89'-32, 30 NRC'atiS89. , s N
,- A i
. f-F 4 T J ,
)
1G l admitting a contention challenging the scope of an exercise founded solely upon the ARC. declination to participate in an [ l exercise. This is especially so in the absence of any j specific information indicating that the organizat' ion lacks j the ability to discharge its conventional and oft-fulfilled I role.
.{
- 3. In Basis G of his Contention EX-2, the:MassAG ,
asserts that FEMA evaluators improperly failed to' include l t school,' hospital, and other special' facility administrators among those exercise participants that were quizzed concerning their knowledge and capability (and those of j o i their staff) to implement the. role assigned under the.SPMC. In rejecting.this basis, the Licensing Board referred to our o expressed concern in' ALAB-900 that a similar- argument raised j questions.about "the fairness of penalizing a111 cense 'I applicant for the shortcomings in an-exercise' evaluation (as r contrasted with the exercise itself) that'are solelv 3 attributable to FEMA."3' - On appeal,.the MassAG.assertsithat the Licensing' Board misread Basis G as a " critique of FEMA's y evaluation" and contends .that it !.n: fact is afchallengeLto: p =.. the scope'of the exorcise basso'upon the!failureito~obtain the participation of' hospital, school,.and other special L : facility personnel."' i 3' Shoreham, ALAB-900, 28 NRC at 300'n.27 (emphaseo in-original)~. 1
"-MassAG'Brief'at 42. #
h
'O t i
-n. - - .w ,
. o 17 The MassAG's argument is little more than a belated attempt to recast this basis.for his contention. This.is easily seen by contrasting Basis G with TOH/NECNP Contention EX-1, discussed more fully infra, the clear gist of-which is that, for New Hampshire EpZ schools, the exercise failed to test adequately a major observable portion of the plan and r therefore was insufficientLin scope. Just as plainly,'the' focus of Basis G is the failure by FEMA' officials in the course of their evaluation of the exercise to question administrators of special facilities.(including schools and hospitals) in order to assess their knowledge of emergency planning. Our observation in ALAB-900 about penalizing the applicant for alleged FEMA' evaluation deficiencies applies '
with full force to this portion-of MassAG Contention EX-2 and the Licensing Board properly' dismissed it. ; B. In its Contention EX-12, SAPL sought'to challenge
'he adequacy of various aspects of the evacuee registration, I
t radiological monitoring, and decontamination program for the Massachusetts EPZ as demonstrated-in the~ June 1988 full. , participation exercise.- Although-the Board admitted for-- litigation.the~ contention concerning the; implementation. f difficulties alleged, ik1 rejected other aspects.of the basis- .t for the contention.c Before-us?SAPL1 challenges the Board's. ruling'that, because."[t]he exercise included one large'and one.small-(reception]1 center;out of two-large and two small' i
.[
J
?
'f
. I, . - -_ .. ,
a' . l 18 centers,"3' it was suf ficiently representative in scope with ; respect to the number of reception centers activated and staffed in the Massachusetts portion of'the Seabrook EPZ. Both applicants and the staff urge affirmance of the Board's I action. i As-the Board indicated in its ruling regarding this-scope aspect of the contention's basis, there is no regulatory requirement that a full participation exercise include the activation and staffing of all reception conters 1
'1 designated as part of the emergency. planning process.. In l i
i describing a full participation exercise,' Appendix E to Part 50 declares that response personnel and resources are to be mobilized in " sufficient numbers to verify 7 the capability to' respond to the accident-scenario."37 In the context of determining the' appropriate scope of an. exercise, ascertaining just what are " sufficient numbers"Linvolves the application of reasoned judgment that takes account.of both-the intricacies of the emergency plan, as well as the- - general exercise objective of testing the adequacy of the plan. In this instance, we have no hesitancy'inlconcluding that the activation of two-of the rout . planned Massachusetts'
.EPZ reception centers, each of which was.rouoSly- 5 representative of one of the unactivated reception-centers,- I 36 Exercise Contentions Order at 61.. j 37~10 C.F.R. Part 50,' App. E, E IV.F.1 n.4;.s_qa shoreham,.ALAB-900, 28'NRC at 297.' a s
i 5 y ,-w,
r 1 19 1 was a judicious exercise of such judgment so as to con. ply 1 with the governing standard." l II. In addition to rejecting the foregoing exercise scope l contentions at the threshold," the Licensing Board admitted
" In addition to protesting the Licensing Board's disposition of.that portion of the basis of Contention EX' 12 that concerned exercise _ scope, SAPL contests the Board's !
rejection of-that part of the basis alleging that employees ! of the New Hampshire Department. of Public Health Services 1 (DPHS), who staffed the New Hampshire' state: emergency . operations center and are intended to be a resource to the ! reception center personnel, nonetheless were unfamiliar.with. _ their responsibilities and duties.- We agree,with the Board that SAPL failed to provide sufficient information in' ] support of its claim of inadequacies. 1 i As we'have indicated previously, in alleging that ; emergency plan deficiencies, as revealed in an exercise, are ' sufficient to suggest a. fundamental flaw in the' emergency g plan that requires-correction, the contentions must be "well-focused" and " concrete" with " greater detail" than' .- nonexercise contentions. Shoreham, ALAB-903, 28-NRC 499,- 1 506 (1988). In contrast to_the other, admitted portions of ., the basis.of this contention, which alleged a' number of ' specific incidents at specific times and places).the> t allegations about DPHS employees'in the-original contention contained no reference to particular_ incidents that occurred 1 during the. exercise or_any other indication of'the' factual l! grounds supporting the SAPL' allegation'of inadequate' training and preparation.. Although SAPL purported l to of fer i the Board some' specifics concerning the DPHS in"its' reply to the objections'of the applicants and the-staff concerning : this portion of its contention,-its reference.to a' FEMA report on the exercise,.without even specifying what part:of-
~
l the ' report might provide a foundation for .its -allegations, is. totally.wanting.under this standard.- Egg CLI-89-3, 29: NRC 234,:240-41 (1989). Thus, the Licensing Board properly , dismissed this-portion of.the contention's~basiscas.well'. , I While?the staff: suggests that rejected TOH/NECNP L Contention.EX-2 (the ' dismissal- of which -those parties- , appeal) -also is , a c scope conter.cien,_ gan NRC Staff Brief in ~ Response to Intervenor Appeals froe LBP-89-32.1.nd: LBP-89-17 (Mar. 21, 1990) at 63, fwe ag' tee with. the1 applicants that' , (continued...)- b 4
20 and decided on the merits TOH/NECNP Contention EX-1, which concerns the scope of the June 1988 exercise as it pertained to the NHRERP.40 Its assigned bases focus specifically upon aspects of the exercise directed to protective measures for school children; traffic movement and control during an evacuation; and available transportation resources to meet evacuation needs. These biscs are said to support the overall claim that, in contravention of Commission regulations," the reach of the exercise was too limited either (1) to yield " valid or meaningful results regarding
~
the capability to implement" the NHRERP; orJ(2)-to permit a finding that the exercise " evaluated major _ portions of emergency response capabilities. " We consider the various , portions of the contention seristim. A. As initially presented, Bases (a)'and (b) of the-contention were directed to'the absence of the-participation in the exercise of any teachers employed in schools:within-the New Hampshire EPZ. Subsequently, however, the issue'was 3'( . . . continued)- , .. this.is in fact an exercise " performance" contention, gag. i Liconsees' Response to Appeal Board' Order at 2 n.2. Accordingly, we will address itiin a subsequent-issuance.
'O LBP-89'-32, 30 NRC'at 630-33, 638-49.
"~The contention-refers to 10 C.F.R.
99 50.47(a)(1), (a) (2) , and - (b) (14) , in addition to - 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. E, l IV.F.1. 42 (TOH/NECNP)^ Emergency Planning Contentions-on the June 28-29, 1988 Exercise (Sept.- 21,-1988) Eat 1-2. b { l 1 1
21 broadened to include as well the asserted lack of participation on the part of school administrators.'3
- 1. The essential facts pertaining to this issue do not appear to be in dispute. As summarized in the-TOH/NECNP Brief without contradiction, there are 113 schools and day-care facilities within the seventeen towns in the New Hampshire EPZ." Each town has a separate emergency response plan and, in appendices to those plans, there are individual school plans-for each school (public or private) and day-care facility in the particular town.'3 Although the' plans assign to the administrator of each school specific emergency preparedness and response-undertakings, none of those administrators participated to any significant extent in.the June 1988 exercise. To the' contrary, it appears that the participation of'the schools in the exercise consisted solely of the receipt of telephone-calls by two of the 113 institutions -- one of which (the
'3 In their joint brief, TOH/NECNP, explain how the broadening occurred. Town of Hampton and Nev' England Coalition-on Nuclear Pollution.Brief on Appeal of LBP-89-32 (January = 24,-1990) at 8 n.12 (hereinafter TOH/NECNP Brief).
That explanation has not:been challenged ~and it'is: apparent that, in the November 1989, initial decision,the Licensing Board treated the. issue as covering both teachers and administrators. San LBP-89-32,-30 NRC atL638.
".TOH/NECNP Brief at 9-10. Thirty-five of these institutions are publict the remaining 78' are private.
Egn . ibid. 45 E.a., NHRERP (Town of Seabrook),1Vol. 16,-App. F i (rev. 2 1986).- Unless otherwise indicated,-henceforth the.
. term " school" will be used-to-include nursery or day-care facilities. j 3 ~ m.sg ,
O 22 public swasey Central Schcr .cated in the Town of Brentwood) reported that it was not in session,46 and the other (the private Country Kids nursery or day-care facility . located in the Town of Stratham) provided a census of eight students. In addition, an " administrative representative" , for each of the five New Hampshire School Administration i Units (SAUs) with jurisdiction over the oublic schools in the EPZ received at least one telephone call from state emergency response personnel during the exercise. The intervenors tell us, however,,that the applicants were unable to shed light upon the identity of the-contacted j individuals and, thus, could not say whether those persons , had decisionmaking authority. !
- 2. In ALAB-900 in the,shoreham proceeding,- we.took -l note of the fact that "the potential evacuation of schools within the emergency planning zone-(EPZ) is~a major element ., i of offsite emergency planning."'7 - For this reason, we i
- l. concluded, "[a] sufficient number of school and related L
I personnel must ..... participate in a full participation l ! exercise so as to permit verification.of their integrated P capability to respond to the accident scenario."4s
~
In the l L exercise rpder reviewfin ' ALAB-900., onlytone high school -- L !
" BecauseTthe exercise'took; place on!Junef28-29, the academic year had come:to an:end for schools (although presumably' day-care facilities remained in-operation).
'I '
28 NRC at 297.
" lb.idI ,
N s k
. . l t
t . 23 3 out of a total of forty-eight public and private schools in the Shoreham EPZ -- was a participant. Even the Shoreham 5 l applicant acknowledged that was not enough.to satisfy the regulatory standard. Msroover, for its part, FEMA ! determined that much broader school participation would be l necessary before it could verify the ability of the schools
- generally to respond in-the event'of an emergency at Shoreham and, indeed, recommended that,gli schools within {
the EPZ be included in offsite exercises.60 In these I circumstances, we found wholly insubstantial the applicant's
?
attack upon the Licensing Board's finding that there had , been inadequate school participation in the exercise and , t that, consequently,.the exercise was deficient." 3
- 3. On the face of it, the situation at hand does-not call for a disparate result. Contrary to the view of the- l Licensing Board,5i we are unable to discern a' material .
difference between the extent to which EPZ schools were involved in the shoreham exercise and what' confronts us here. As we have seen, in no real sense <were'anylof the~113- , schools in the New Hampshire EPZ called'upon to participate in the -June 1988 exercise of the NHRERP. cAnd~the telephone' calls to the SAUs' scarcely cured that' omission.n Leaving l ; i
'l
Ib.id.
50 Ibid. M Id. at 296-97. 52 See LBP-89-32, 30 NRC at 639.; t i e r
i l
. . i 24, aside the fact that t'se applicants apparently could not l establish that those calls were received by persons in l authority, the SAUs serve the thirty-five public schools alone and, thus, have no jurisdiction over the seventy-- I eight private educational institutions. consequently, j insofar as concerns the schools, the exercise-fell far short, of enabling an informed judgment on the existence of a.
" fundamental flaw" in the NHRERP. That plan is undergirded i
by seventeen individual town emergency response plans and i 1 113 individual school plans, covering a wide variety of institutions (in both type and size). On the basis of the exercise at least, it is impossible to determine whether any of those plans, and.thus the master NHRERP, will fulfill'its- l intended objective of ensuring that adequate protective , measures will be taken for school children'within the EPZ2in l the event of a'Seabrook radiological emergency."
" With respect.to schools,Lthe Licensing Board viewed [ l the purpose of the exercise to be-to demonstrate that.the State of New
- Hampshire and the (applicants' offsite response organization) had the capability to? notify schools of the '
existence of an emergency,-to- , communicate protective action
. recommendations or-decisions, to ascertain whether the~ schools'or da'y-care centers required transportation assistance for their children,'and to- '
deliver that assistance.when, requested. ;
-14. at.638. . Assuming, without deciding,fthe sufficiency of-that objective, it' scarcely could'have been fulfilled by the ,
. telephone calls to.two schools and to unspecified individuals in the five SAUs. ,
l: .e
.c N w
L , , e e l ='
1 25 This is not to say that the exercise required the direct involvement of classroom teachers, as distinguished from school administrators. For one thing, inasmuch as the schools were not in session at the time of the exercise, such involvement would not have been possible. That consideration Lc en: .ide, we determined earlier this year that, should a Seabrook emergency occur, there will be no necessity for New Hampshire teachers to embark upon any undertaking not analogous ta) those that are part of their normal duties and responsibilities.54 Because it-is reasonable to assume that'the teachers are fully capable of-performing such functions as " accounting for and supervising-the children and assuring their safe boarding of evacuat3nn buses" -- functions not dissimilar to the duties they
.outinely discharge - 55 their' inclusion in the exercise hardly would have been necessary to' ferret out any s fundamental flaws in the NHRERP.
Nor do we suggest.that it was obligatory that the administration of every New Hampshire EPZ school. participate in the exercise. -Although, as noted in ALAB-900,'; FEMA i strongly recommended such-all-inclusive participation in the i 54 Egg ALAB-932, 31 NRC 371',- 398-4 08 - (1990) . The Commission declined review of ALAB-932 on'Julyf12, 1990~. 55; Egg id. at 406.
. ,o 26 case of the Shoreham Ep3 schools,56 we think it would have sufficed had the exercise encompassed a reasonable representative sample for each school category -- public, private, and nursery / day-care.57 Such a sample likely would have enabled, in the words of ALAB-900, the " verification of their integrated capability to respond to the accident scenario."5' Once again, without the real participation of a single school -- and particularly not one of the seventy-eight private institutions outside of the domain of the SAUs
-- such verification simply was not possible.
Accordingly, the Licensing Board's' disposition of Babes (a) and (b), as litigated, cannot stand in full.moasure. Insofar as concerned the school administrators (but not the teachers), those bases were meritorious. As a consequence, in line with the Commission's guidance concerning the correction of exercise scope deficiencies,5' the f aliure to - elicit sufficient school participation in the June 1988 exercise should be corrected in a subsequent exercise. B. Basis.(d) of TOH/NECNP Contention EX-1-raises questions respecting the scope of the exercise in the area
'5' In-the case of'Seabrook, and for reasons that are not fully-apparent, FEMA has;not merely retreated.from that I recommendation, but now seemingly entertains no' difficulty p with' the lack of significant participation: of ~ anY schools. -
57
.S.qg supra pp. 17-19.
58 28 NRC at 297. 5 S_tg supra note 22. 4 ! 1 -: l
i i o o J 27 of traffic control during an evacuation of the New Hampshire . EPZ. In sum, this basis asserts the lack of sufficient New ; Hampshire State Police participation in the exercise, with j particular reference to the staffing of traffic control j posts (TCPs).- Essentially for the reasons detailed by thef l Licensing Board, which require no rehearsal here,'O we l conclude that there is insufficient substance to-that assertion. l C. The remaining bases of the contention assert an inadequate participation in the exercise of transportation
.l resources. According to Basis (f), only three of the eighteen bus companies relied upon by the NHRERP.for the transportation of special facility populations, 'e.g. , 1 1
nursing home and school populations, were involved in the exercise. Moreover,~the eighteen " regular" buses provided d 60 Egg LBP-89-32, 30 NRC at 630-33. .
In their bricf, intervenors allude specifically to the Hampton Beach TCPs. TOH/NECNP Brief-at 21. We noe no '
reason, however, why' they should have been singled out during the exercise for State Police participation.- It may ] well be that during the summer months an' evacuation from the i beach crea would produce." bumper to bumper" traffic.- But severe traffic congestion can also be expected 11n other portions of the EPZ in the event- of an. emergency dictating ^ ; evacuation.- Moreover, as intervenors themselves~ stressed in 1 Basis (e).of this: contention (whose threshold-rejection, ang Exercise Contentions Order at 67-68, .they do not appeal), in- -l nonemergency. situations the State Police routinely encounter l such congestion at Hampton Beach.. That being;so, the actual l prior experience'of:the State Police and other traffic , control authorities in dealing 'with beach congestion 1 ! provides.at'least as' good an indication of how such J congestion might'be confronted in an evacuation as would j have been obtained in- a. simulation of1 accidents and other tie-ups during the exorcise. 1 J k
O ee o s-28 by those companies represented only four percent of the total number of such buses that'would be neede'd in the event of an evacuation of the New Hampshire EPZ. . Additionally, Basis (f) asserts that but one of forty-eight ambulances and-two of seventy-one "special needs" buses took part in the exercise. Basis (g) takes issue with the purported _ failure-to determine, during the exercise, the actual number of bus drivers available to carry out their assigned evacuation duties, on this score, the basis claims that the telephone calls to the bus companies had as their= purpose merely a restatement of the number of drivers specified in each company's letter of agreement. The principal difficulty with Bases (f) and (g) is that they rest explicitly on the erroneous premise <that a purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate-(in the words of Basis ; (g)) "the actual availability of necessary transportation resources." The NHRERP makes specific provision, in the i form of the letters of agreement with the various bus and other transportation companies,:for the transportation of those having_a special need for~such service in the event of an accident. Obviously, the assumption l's that,'in the. event of aur ordered evacuation,: each company- will be1 able tot meet its contractual obligation.- In aid of that assumption,; t as the Licensing Board noted, FEMA conducted.its own? survey of _the transportation facilities forf Seabrook.62
- l
- 62. S,gg LBP-8 9-3 2, , 3 0 - NRC ati648. =S.RA also id.-at=644.
, , 1
-y
. f' . . . 29 Nonetheless, the possibility always exists that, on the day of either an exercise or an actual emergency calling for an evacuation, some extraneous circumstance -- such as, for example, a region-wide bus drivers' strike -- will preclude the fulfillment of the terms of the letters of agreement. That possibility' manifestly does-D2t constitute a
" fundamental flaw" in the plan,'3 but doubtless-explains why, as part of the exercise, the State of New Hampshire placed an additional eighty-seven possible drivers under its jurisdiction on standby."
In short, no matter what the extent of bus or driver participation in it,'an exercise cannot ascertain the actual availability at all-times of the number of drivers prescribed in the letters of' agreement.and, therefore,. cannot have the assurance of such availability as an objective. '(It is this factor that makes' provision for backups a desirable part of an emergency response plan.)- Rather, insofar as the: transportation ;of 'special' facilities populations is concerned, the aim of the June 1988 exercise-
.was simply to test such elements of the NHRERP as the channels of communication and'the' sufficiency offthe instructions that will be provided to the drivers.: HTo this end, sixteen of the eighteen bus companies were contacted and-the buses that participated.in thefexercise completed
'3
. Egg Shoreham, ALAB-903, 28 NRC'at'505.
" Egg LBP-89-32, 30 NRC at 646-47.-
l 30 207 out of the 224 evacuation routes established in the NHRERP for the transportation-dependent.'5 In light of these considerations, it cannot be said that, as is insisted in Bases (f) and (g), the lack of greater participation in the exercise on the part'Of transportation resources represented "a fundamental flaw in the NHRERP." Of course, in no circumstance can a lack of appropriate scope in an exercise per se establish a Lundamental flaw in the olan that is the subject of.that-exercise. Rather, the result of an unduly limited exercise. in e M ,n ( noncompliance ~with the Commission's-regulations requiring full participation,-is an inability to. ; determine whether the plan is, in fact, fundamentally flawed in some' essential respect. Here,.however,'except with regard to the participation-of.certain school personnel (Bases (a) and (b)), the scope was. satisfactory insofar as the testing of. transportation resources is concerned. i For the' foregoing reasons, the Licensing Board's determination in LBP-89-32,J30'NRC 375, regarding Bases.(a) li and (b) offTOH/NECNP Contention'EX-1 is reversed.' The Board's disposition'in that initial decision of Bases (d), (f), and (g) of-TOH/NECNP' Contention lEX-1.is affirmed. The-
'S Sp_d id, at 646, 647. .. This was in. sharp. contrast to the situation with respect to the schools. As.previously; noted, only two of the'113 schools were even contacted :and none became significantly involved.in the exercise.
~
a e it. .
4... d i i , i ? 31 i Board's disposition, in an unpublished Memorandum and Order (Dec. 15, 1988), of MassAG Contention EX-2, Bases B, C, F, ! and G, and of SAPL Contention EX-12, concerning exercise l scope and New Hampshire DPHS personnel adequacy, is I affirmed. The MassAG's appeal from the Board's disposition h of Basis A of his Contention EX-2 is dismissed as moot. It is so ORDERED. ; 4 FOR THE APPEAL BOARD i
~
A ^ A A, _
- n. - -
7 ..' Barbara A. Tompkins
- Socratary to the Appeal Board !
t P 1 j l l . I i I 3 g h 5 I t t
'A
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ . _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ - - _ . _ .
h
* * *
- i j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMISSION l In the Matter of I <
l FUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW I Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL l HAMPSdlRE. ET AL. I J (Seabrook Station. Units i and 2) i i i i ! t ! I ! l $ CENTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
?
I hereby certify that copies of the forecoine AB DEC1810N (ALAB-941) - 11/21-have been served upon the f ollowine persons by U.S. asil, first class sucept
- as otherwise notet and in accordance with the reautrements of 10 CFR 8ec. 2.712.
1 Administrative Judae Administrative Judae .
- 6. Paul Bollwerk. !!! Thomas-8. Moore. Cheiraan j Atoalc Safety and Licensine Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensino Appeal Board Board
- U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Consission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission :
Washington, DC 20555 Washington. DC 20555 !
.i 1
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge l Howard A. Wilber Alan 8. Rosenthat ' Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic. Safety and Licensing Appeal : Board Board- I U.S.' Nuclear Reculatory Consission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission t Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 1 i Administretive Law Judge Administrative JudgeL ! Ivan W3 Smith, Chatraan Richard F. Cole ' Atomic'Befety-aad Licsnsing Board Atomic Safety and Licer. sing Board. j U.S. Nuclear Requistory Consission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ! i Westington, DC 20555 Washington. DC 20555 : L I Robert R. Pierce. Esquire i l . Administrative Judge i t Atomic Safety and Licensing Board- Kenneth A. McCollon. , o U.S.= Nuclear Regulatory Consission !!07 West Knapp Street -! Washington, DC 20555 Stillwater. OK : 74075 i s I Edwin J. Reis. Esc. ;Mit:1 A.: Young- l Office'of the General Counsel -Attorney ! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. commission Office of the General Counsel. , L Washinoton DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, DC 20555 '
, I
-l n
C o Docket No. (t)50-443/444 0L AB DECISION (ALAB-941) - 11/21 i Diane Curran, Esc. Thomas 6. Dianan Jr., . J. Harmon, Curran & Tousley Ropes & Bray 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 One International Place- ! Washinoton, DC 20009 Boston. MA 02110 i Robert A. Backus. Esc. Paul McEachern Esc. Backus, Meyer & Solomon Shatnes 6 McEachern ~I 116 Lowell Street 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Box 360 ~ 3 Manchester, NH 03106 Portsmouth, NH 03001: I I Sary W. Holmes, Eso. Judith H. Minner Esc.' . Holmes & Ells- Counsel for West Newbury 47 Winnacunnet Road 79 State Street' Hampton, NHc 03842 Newburyport, MA01950-l t tBarbara J. Saint Andrei:Esh. 1' Suzanne P. Egan Counsel 1for~Amesbury, Newbur'y port City Solicitor _ 618alisbury 'l Lagoulis,-Hill-Wilton and Rotondi - KopelmanEand Paige, P.C. 79 State Street 101. Arch Street Newburyport, MA- 01950 - Boston, MA 02110 ,
~ Jane Doughtyi Ditector Beacoast Anti-Pollution League AshedLN. Amirian', Esq.
5 Market Street '145 South Main Street, HP;0.' Box :38 U 1
,Portsmouth.--NH '03001 -Bradford, MAf01830L '
H 6eorge- !verson Director
=+
GeorgeLW. Watson, Esq. - N. H. Office cf Esergency Management' G Federal'EnergencysManagement' Agency-~ 1' State House Office 1 Park. South 500 C18treet, 8.W.s
~
107-Pleasant Street- -Washingtonk,DC 20472: j Concord ,~,. NH 03301~ . l Jacb Dolan _ 8eorgeLDJBisbee-Esq. Federal Energency Man *gotent Aconcy- Assistant > Attorney Generali .. ' 442 J'.W. McCormack (PDCH): Office anf the Attorneyj6eneral. i Boston,'MA 02109 25 Capitol'Streett ' ' Concord, NH. 03301. a
#1 .
1
, e ,
4 L g
1
* ' '
- Docket No.(s)50 443/444-OL i AB DECISION (ALAB-941) - 11/21 j l
Paul A. Fritzsche, Esc. Suzanne Breiseth 3 Office of the Public Advocate Board of' Selectmen 1 State House Station 112 Town of Hampton Falls I Augusta. ME 04333 Drinkwater Road- I Hampton Falls. NH 03844 . l :l { Leslie Greer. Esc. Peter J. Brann, Esq.-
! Nuclear Safety Unit' Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Office of'the Attorney General {
-j
! One Ashburton Place State House Station.-86 i Aoston MA 02100 Augusta. ME 04333 i
=l Allen Lampert William LArmstronc Civil Lafense Director Civ11EDefense Director-Town of Brentwood l Town.of Exeter- '
20 Franklin Street 10; Front StreetL Exeter. NH 03833 Exeter, NH- 03033 Anne Goodman. Chairman Board of Selectmen Michael Santosuosso. Cha'irean ~ 13-15 Newmarket Road Board of Selectmen. Durham. NH 03824 South Hampton,'NH 03827' J
- i t
R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
~
Stanley'W.!Knowles, Chairman-Laoculis, Hill-Whilton & Rotondi Board-of, Selecteen' 79 State Street P.O.~ Box 710-Newburyport , MA 01950 North Hampton NH 03862.: a i Norman C. Katner Sandra F. Mitchell ._ Superintendent ~of Schools ._ Civil-Defense ~ Director-School-Administrative Unit No. 21 ' Town of Kensington=
- Alumni-Drive' Box 10, RRli
- j. Hampton NH 03B42' East Kingston', NH' m3827s o
a p. l The Honorable sBeverly -Hollinomorth Gordon J'.'Humphreyo ; 209 Winnacunnet-Road ATTNU Janet' Colt ' ~' Hampton. NH 03842' Lunited States Senate, L
'Washincton. DC 20510- a y
I; i '.
;{
, i og- , 7
_;, - .._ c _1 _._: M_ _h----
*- O Docket'No.(s)50-443/444-OL l AB DECISION (ALAB-941) - 11/21 1
l The Honorable Michael C. Sinclair- 1 Nicholas Marvoules Graystone Esercency Management. . ATTN Michael Greenstein Associates i 70'Washincton Street 13 Busmer.' Street 1 Sales. MA 01970 Hillsboro, NH 03244 s i 1 l I
.(
Dated at Rockville. Md. this ,. 21 day of November 1990 tf)m ,
~ ~
6 $ the Secretary of ihe Co$aission
.i i
l l \ ll I a d 1 <
- l s
l
)
, i i
i, .- t f
, q
' ij {
-1,
' ,, '.j 9 .
._m _
.}}