ML20151Y805

Forwards Revised Page 4 to NRC 880428 Response to Intervenors Applications for Subpoenas of Named NRC & FEMA Employees,Correcting Citations in Footnotes.Related Correspondence

ML20151Y805
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/29/1988
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Harbour J, Linenberger G, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#288-6215 OL, NUDOCS 8805050112
Download: ML20151Y805 (2)

Text

h S(A j- g na RELATED CORRESPONW

/ o UNITED STATES g

]r

E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 000KETEE' t U5HR0 p'c'

%,***** April 29,1988

'88 MY -3 P 6 :31 OFFICE vi HW iWf 00CKETi% & SE8vlCf.

BRANCH Ivan W. Smith Esq., Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 Off-Site Emergency Planning -86

Dear Administrative Judges:

Enclosed is a revised page 4 to be inserted in the "NRC Staff's Response to Intervenors' Appilcations for Subpoenas of Named NRC and FEMA Employees", filed on April 28, 1920. The revised page corrects several citations in the footnotes located on that page. I regret any inconvenience this oversight may have occasioned.

Sincerely, Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Enclosure cc: Service List e805000112Ogy43 PDR ADOCK O PDR 4 0 6\

l

.. i l

NI NRC -- and even if those views were communicated to FEMA in a i

particularly forceful manner (which the Staff does not concede has occurred), the only issue before the Board would be to determine whether 1

. - l those communications caused their recipients at FEMA to change that agency's position. In our view, the testimony of the named NRC employees could have no possible bearing on the effect any such ,

I communication may have had upon FEMA. 5,/

I 4/

"Memorandum of Understanding Between Federal Emergency Management Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission ," 50 Fed.

Reg. 15485 ( April 18, 1985) ("MO U") . The MOU "establishes a framework of cooperation" between FEMA and the NRC in radiological emergency response planning matters." While assigning a lead role to FEMA in offsite emergency planning matters, the MOU further provides that the "NRC will assist in the development and review of offsite plans and preparedness through its membership on the Regional Assistance Committees (RAC)," and that where questions arise concerning offsite planning and preparedness criteria, "such questions will continue to be referred to FEMA Headquarters, and when appropriate, to the NRC/ FEMA Steering Committee to assure uniform interpretation. . . . When the Steering Committee cannot agree on the resolution of an issue, the issue will be referred to NRC and FEMA management." in sum, the MOU contemplates a collaborative and cooperative relationship between FEMA and the NRC, and seeks to promote the development of mutually agreed upon interpretations of Federal criteria for emergency planning and preparedness. _See cenerally, _Long Island Lightino Co_._ (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), A L A B-7 7 3, 19 NRC 1333, 1338, 1347 (1984).

5/

~

On January 6, 1986, the Appilcants subpoenaed Dr. Robert Bores and another named NRC employee, seeking to compel their testimony as to the substantive positions expressed by RAC members at a RAC meeting held in July 1987, as to which Mr. Thomas of FEMA had previously testified. The Sta ff's argument that the reauested relevant to an issue before the Licensing Board l testimony was was (Tr. 8582-83) not rejected by the Licensing Board (Tr. 8587-91).

However, the Board's ruling in that instance does not compel a finding of general relevance here, where the issue raised by the Intervenors is FEMA's thought process rather than the existence of technical support for FEMA's position.

NRC b-- and even if those views were communicated to FEMA in a particularly forceful manner (which the Staff does not concede has occurred), the only issue before the Roard would be to determine whether

~

those communications caused their recipients at FEMA to change that agency's position. In our view, the testimony of the named NRC employees could have no possible bearing on the effect any such communication may have had upon FEMA. b 4/ "Memorandum of Understanding Between Federal Emergency Management Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission," 50 Fed.

Reg. 15485 ( April 18, 1985) ("MO U") . The MOU "establishes a framework of cooperation" between FEMA and the NRC in radiological errergency response planning matters." While assigning a lead role to FEMA in offsite emergency planning matters, the MOU furthu provides that the "NRC will assist in the development and review of offsite plans and preparedness through its membership on the Regional Assistance Committees (RAC)," and that where questions arise concerning offsite planning and preparedness criteria, "such questions will continue to be referred to FEMA Headquarters, and when appropriate, to the NRC/ FEMA Steering Committee to assure uniform interpretation. . . . When the Steering Committee cannot agree on the resolution of an issue, the issue wl!I be referred to NRC and FEMA management." in sum, the MOU contemplates a collaborative and cooperative relationship between FEMA and the NRC, and seeks to promote the development of mutually agreed upon interpretations of Federal criteria for ernergency planning and preparedness. See generally, Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power 5tation, Unit 1), A LA B-773, 19 NRC 1333, 1338, 1347 (1984).

5/ On January 6, 198f, the Applicants subpoenaed Dr. Robert Bores and another narred NRC employee, seeking to compel their testimony as to the substantive positions expressed by RAC members at a RAC meeting held in July 1987, as to which Mr. Thomas of FEMA had previously testified. The Staff's argument that the reauested relevant to an issue before the Licensing Board (Tr. 8582-83) l testimony waswas not rejected by the Licensing Board (Tr. 8587-91).

However, the Board's ruling in that instance does not compel a finding of general relevance here, where the issue raised by the Intervenors is FEMA's thought process rather than the existence of technical support for FEMA's position.