ML20077D110

Answer to NRC 830712 Response to Commonwealth of Ma Contentions I-V on State of Nh Radiological Emergency Response Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20077D110
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/21/1983
From:	Shotwell J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8307260358
Download: ML20077D110 (11)

Text

,_ . _ _ . . __ __

e

@ A.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI' #

//p, # ky -

-9

~

Before the Atomic Safety and Licens ngfBoard'N 6 Q%, Q -l '

K,4 ,

In the Matter of

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station D'niU , )

1 and 2) ) July 21,1983

)

)

ANSWER OF ATTORNEY GENERAL FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI TO THE STAFF'S RESPONSE TO HIS CONTENTIONS ON THE NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN On July 12, 1983, the Staff filed a pleading responding to I

,f the; contentions of Attorney General Bellotti and other parties l relative to the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response

-Plan. See "NRC Staff Response to Contentions on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan filed by the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution,"

.- [ hereinafter, "Staf f's Re sponse") filed July 12, 1983.

~

Attorney. General Bellotti submits this response to the Staff's stated positions -with respect to his contentions.

(007260358 830721 '

PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 PDR

r . .

CONTENTION I The Staff does not object to the admission of this

. contention, which challenges the f ailure of the draf t New Hampshire plan to demonstrate that the State has the necessary re sources to support an emergency re sponse. See Staff's

} re sponse, at 6. The Staff does suggest that the contention be

. treated as containing ten separate subcontentions, I. A. -

I.K.,

to facilitate' litigation. Ibid. Attorney General Bellotti is in agreement with that suggestion and supports the Staff's restructuring of the contention as set forth at page 6 of its Re spon se.

In their response to this contention the Applicants had ,

objected to the use of the word " assessment" on the ground that that exact word does not appear in the Commission's regulations. The Staff has no objection to the use of that word, undoubtedly agreeing that there can be no finding that the State has " adequate" resources in the absence of an assessment of its needs and resources. While Attorney General Bellotti remains willing, as he represented in his Answer to the Applicants' re sponse to his contentions, to redraft this contention to track the exact language of the Commission's regulations if the Board deems that either necessary or advi sable, it at this time seems unnecessary to undertake such redraf ting in light of the Staff's lack of objection to the current wording.

CONTENTION II Again, the Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention. See Staf f's Re sponse, at 7. Nor does it recommend any redraf ting. Ibid. Attorney General Bellotti has agreed to cure the Applicants' sole objection to this contention by dropping the second sentence. See Answer of Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti to the " Applicants' Re sponse to Contentions of Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti Relative to Emergency Pl?nning for the State of New Hampshire," [ hereinafter, " An swer to Apolicants' Re sponse] , filed July 15, 1983, at 5. The Staff'.3 lack of objection to the second sentence confirms, however, that there is nothing inappropriate or unacceptable about it.

While interposing no objection to a redraf ting which omits the second sentence, then, Attorney General Bellotti sugge st s that redraf ting is totally unnecessary. In the event that the Board does choose to omit the second sentence of the original contention, the new contention will read as we have set forth in our Answer to Applicants' Response, at page 5.

CONTENTION III The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention, but suggests that it be redraf ted to contain two

separate subcontentions. See Staf f's Re sponse, at 7. Attorney

, . General Bellotti has no ~ objection' to that suggestion, but has confirmed with counsel -for the Staff that he inadvertently omitted the- second sentence of the original contention in his redraf ted contention as set forth in the Staff's Response, at page 7. Applicants had again objected to that second sentence and Attorney General.Bellotti had agreed to drop it provided the regulations to which it referred were cited in the first sentence. See Answer to Applicants' Re sponse, at 5-6. Both

, the Applicants' -objection and the Staff's desire for subdivision are reflected in a. redraf ted contention which reads as follows, and to which the Staff has authorized us to 1

indicate its assent:

Mass. Contention III:

.j .

A. The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Re sponse Plan does not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47 (a) (1) or (b) (5) in that it does not establish procedures for notification of emergency personnel by the response organizations in the state.

B. The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan does not satisfy- the requirements of 10 l

C.F.R. 550.47 (a) (1) or (b) (6) in that it does i not demonstrate that provisions exist for prompt communications among principal response organizations to emergency personnel or to the public.

l.

l-l l

l l

CONTENTION IV.

Again, the Staff does not-object to the admission of this contention, but recommends redraf ting it into seven separate subcontention s. See Staf f's Re sponse, at 8. Attorney General Bellotti has no objection to such subdivision but has again confirmed with counsel for the NRC Staff that he inadvertently omitted certain critical phrases and regulatory references which appeared in the original contention in the redrafted ver sion set forth at page 8 of the Staf f's Re sponse. The Staff has authorized us tc' indicate its assent to a redraf ted contention which corrects those inadvertent omissions and reads as follows:

Mass. Contention IV:

The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan

. does not ' satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 50. 4 7 (a) (1) , (b) (10) or (b) (ll) in that protective actions for emergency workers and the public have not been sufficiently developed. Specifically:

[ Remainder to read as set forth in the Staff's Re sponse, at page 8.]

i The Staff, while not objecting to the admission of any

! a spect of this contention, suggests that summary disposition will be appropriate with re spect to the subcontention relating to evacuation time estimates unless we can demonstrate that the litigation of NECNP Contentions III.12 and 13, already accepted

l for litigation, should not be dispositive of this subcontention. See Staff's Re sponse, at 8, n.4, and 13 We, of course, will address this issue at such time las it arises by way of a motion for summary disposition. -

CONTENTION V With their objection to this contention the Staff inappropriately asks the Board to rule on the merits of the Attorney General's assertion that regulatory requirements have not been satisfied. The contention clearly states regulatory requirements which, it is contended, have not been met --

f namely, the Commission's requirements that there be " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be take n" to protect persons present in New Hampshire at the time of a radiological emergency, see 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (a) (1) , and that the State's emergency plans are " adequate" and " capable of i

l being implemented," see 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (a) (2) . The contention l in no way challenges the Commission's regulations but merely l

state s, with considerable specificity, . the bases for the

[

l-Attorney General's contention that certain of its requirements have not been satisfied. That being the case, the contention is admissible, the merits of the contention being irrelevant at this stage. If the Staff believes that the contention is devoid of merit as a matter of law, its recourse is a motion f for summary disposition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S*l.749.

-- . 2

~. .

Attorney General Bellotti takes issue both with the Staff's interpretation of the Commission's regulations referenced in this contention and with its view that the contention presents purely legal questions and could be dismissed as a matter of I law. While both of these issues are, as we have said, not properly before the Board at this early stage, it should be noted that the Staff's own response supports our position that the contention could not be dismissed in the absence of expert testimo ny. Thus, the Staf f argues that there is no reason why the data which Attorney General Bellotti asserts is critical to a sse ssing compliance with the Commission's emergency planning regulations "ought to be considered in assessing either the adequacy of protective measures or in determining that there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented." See Staf f's Re sponse, at 10. The Staff cites no regulation or Commission precedent for this proposition but relies, rather, on its own unsworn, u nte sted , and unsubstantiated testimony as to the need for the type of data which Attorney General l Bellotti's experts advise him is absolutely essential to any i

determiniation that the planned protective actions for this area will necessarily result in dose savings.1I The Staff's l

A/

i Note that the Staff agrees that the adequacy of planned l protective measure is to be judged by their effectiveness in providing dose saving s. See Staf f 's Re sponse, at 10.

I position, if accepted, would render the Commission's requirement set forth at 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (a) (1) superfluous and its entire emergency planning regulation ultimately meaningless. But, in any event, this is not the appropriate time for submission of what is effectively expert testimony on the need.for certain data to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's regulations.

4' Re spectfully submitted, FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI ATTORNEY GENERAL i

By: $0 01/10 YfU2<. .IkS.

Jo Ann Shotwell '

Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 *

(617) 727-2265 1

l e

l.

l - - _. . . . _ . -_ _. . _ _ _ _ . . . _ , _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ , - . _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . , _, _ . . ,

CERTIF.ICATE OF. SERV _ ICE I, Carol S. Sneider, Esquire, counsel for Massachusett's Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti, hereby certify that on July 21, 1983, I made service of the foregoing Answer, by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to the parties named below:

Helen Hoyt, Chairperson

• Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Atomic Safety and Licensing Coastal Chamber of Commerce Board Panel 209 Winnacunnet Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke* William S. Jordan, III, Esquire

• Atomic Safety and Licensing- Diane Curran Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1725 I Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20555 Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Dr.-Jerry Harbour

• Edward L. Cross, Jr., Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Dana Bisbee, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Attorney General 208 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire

• Board Panel * ,

David A. Repka, Esquire

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert G. Perlis, Esquire

• Washington, D C 20555 Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

• By Express Mail t

- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Board Panel 116 Lowell Street i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 516 l Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Dr. Mauray Tye Assistant' Attorney General Sun Valley Association Department of the Attorney 209 Summer Street General Haverhill, MA 01830 Augusta, ME 04333 David R. Lewis

• Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esquire **

Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert K. Gad, III, Esquire **

Board Panel Ropes & Gray 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 225 Franklin Street Rm. E/W-439 Boston, MA 02110 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. John B. Tanzer Ms. Olive L. Tash Designated Representative of Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton the Town of Brentwood 5 Morningside Drive R.F.D. 1, Dalton Road Hampton, NH 03842 Brentwood, NH 03833 Roberta C. Pevear .

Edward F. Meany Designated Representative of Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton Falls the Town of Rye Drinkwater Road 155 Washington Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Calvin A. Canney Designated Representative of City Manager the Town of Kensington City Hall RFD 1 126 Daniel Street East Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Patrick J. McKeon Jane Doughty Selectmen's Office Field Director 10 Central Road Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Rye, NH 03870 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Richard E..Sullivan, Mayor Docketing and Service Section Town Hall Office of the Secretary Newburyport, MA 01950 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

• By Express Mail

• • By Hand Delivery

Brian P. Cassidy Representative Nicholas J. Costello Regional Counsel 1st Essex District FEMA Region 1 Whitehall Road John W. McCormack Post Office Amesbury, MA 01913

& Courthouse Boston, MA 02109 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Diana P. Randall Newbury Board of Selectmen 70 Collins Street Town of Newbury, MA 01950 Seabrook, NH 03874 Patrick J. McKeon Anne Verge, Chairperson Chairman of Selectmen, Rye, Board of Selectmen New Hampshire Town Hall 10 Central Road South Hampton, NH 03842 Rye, NH 03870 Donald E. Chick Maynard B. Pearson Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter 40 Monroe. Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 New Hampshire 03833 Selectmen of North Hampton Mr. Daniel Girard Town of North Hampton Civil Defense Director New Hampshire 03862 25 Washington Street Salisbury, MA 01930 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 1 Pillsbury Street U.S. Senate Concord, NH 03302 Washington, D.C. 20510 (Attn: Herb Boynton) (Attn: Tom Burack)

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, this 21st day of July, 1983.

.(%>R .

5. Ba; dud ..

Carol S. Sneider Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 f

-