ML20154G608
| ML20154G608 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1988 |
| From: | Backus R, Brock M, Sneider C, Weiss E BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, HAMPTON, NH, HARMON & WEISS, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#388-7093 OL, NUDOCS 8809210023 | |
| Download: ML20154G608 (24) | |
Text
>
.. : .1b1G&: .
,~, t 0 ~t a,i IE C MNkC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,28 EP 19 P2 :58 ;
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFICL . : W ast l 00 CME i % A
- iit d::l.
BPAhtH {
)
In the Matter of ) !
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL '
NE.W HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL
) ,
(Seabrook Station, ) Off-site Emergency Units .' and 2) ) Planning
_ _ _ )
INTERVENOR MOTION TO PERMIT RESPONSE IQ_ APPLICANTS' REPLY FIRDlHGS 7
- f. NOW COME the Intervenors (Massachusetts Attorney l
General, NECNP, Town of Hampton and SAPL) and respectfully request leave to be permitted to file a response to the. I Applicants' Reply to Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of Other Parties on Shelter Contentions dated August 31, 1988.
Applicants, by a pleading dated August 31, 1988, filad a i
Reply to Propor,ed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law cf l Other Parties on Shelter Contentions. Although Intervenors ;
recognize that the rules do not provide a right to reply to ,
i Applicants' reply findings, Applicants' reply findingo arc so ;
j i replete with inaccuracies and mischaracterizations of the record, as set forth below in Intervenors' Reply, that, in the l f L
interest of fairness, this Board should grant Intervenors' :
! i motion to file the reply set forth below. ,
i 8009210023gj$nok43 ADOCR f
n- . _ .
, 9 REPLY TO PART I: INTERVENORS' UNWARRANTED USE OF THOMA3 POSITION AND TESTIMONY Part I of this Reply deals with the testimony of Edward A. Thomas, and starts from the premise that what it describes as "the previous Thomas position1# should not be considered by the Board "because no witness adopted that position or attempted to defend it on cross-examination."
This is misleading, if not flatly untrue. In fact, Mr.
Thomas did adopt the pre-filed testimony of September 11, and the facts on which it was based, and would have defended it on cross-examination, had either of the pro-licensing parties, Applicants or staff, chosen to cross-examine him.
Mr. Thomas testified: (p. 13551)
Judge Smith: Mr. Thomas, when you sent this (FEMA's former position] down there (to Washington] did you believe it?
The Witness: (Thomas) Yes.
Mr. Dignan: Dous he still believe it, that's the question.
Judge Smith: Well, that's another matter.
Mr. Dignan: Hell, Your Honor, if you're taking for the truth of the mattern contained, the !
witness must testify to believes it. ,
r 1/ Actually, the "pre'tious Thomas position" (that the New !
Hampshire emergency plans fundamentally did not pass muster because of the problems of the beach population) was the -
previous official FEMA position, as all witnesses recognized. ;
(Itana. 3147, (Thomas), 12846 (McLoughlin), 14010 (Cumming),
12843-44, 12867 (Krimm). ;
i
) i I f f
_A
j
._.'. s-Judge Smith: Well, that's right. You cover Fhet on cross-examination. In the meantime it's accepted for the fact that on June the 3rd this was his judgment as to what the testimony should have been.
In short, contrary to the assertions in Applicants' Reply of August 31st, there was a witness who adopted the facts as set I forth in the FEMA Statement of position on June 4, which became the FEMA pre-filed Testimony of September 11, and that witness
- 'ever cross-examined.A# In other words, in an effort to get this Board to ignore the testimony of Mr. Thomas, the Applicants have either flatly chosen to contradict the record, l or have attempted to mislead, in suggesting that only witnesses t
( who appear with the official approved FEMA stamp on their testimony can be credited. Applicants state that what they l call the prior Thomas position, actually the prior FEMA position, was only admitted for a limited purpose, citing a ruling at Itans. 12862. However, at the time of this offer, a
the witnesses were McLoughlin, Krimm and petornon, who did 4
A/ In addition, the other FEMA witnesses who did testify with j the official FEMA stamp of approval on their testimony, Krimm, i McLoughlin, peterson, and Curaming, all agreed that they had no i reason to quarrel with the facts set forth in the FEMA Statement of position and pre-filed Testimony of June 4 and September 11, 1987, respectively, (Inang. 12873-76 (McLoughlin), 12077 (Krimm), 12878 (peterson, McLoughlin, Krimm)). Certsin of the FEMA witnesses did quibble as to whether the statements were entirely accurate, insofar as they dealt with the estimated 2 percent of the beach population that was transit-dependent and, as to Cumming, with the statement that the wood frame structures without basements would offer less protective dose protection than normal winterized housing.
, h
I:. l ,
, s not originally sponsor the pre-filed test. mony. Later, on June 14, when Thomas, the original sponsoring witness, was under oath, he affirmed his belief in the truth of the facts in this t document, and the Board accordingly made the ruling referred to above, which serves to eliminate any limitation on the use of the prior FEMA positon of June 4 and Septmeber 11, 1987 for evidentiary purposes.I' THOMAS CREDIBILITY a In addition to attempting to get this Board to ignore j not merely the entire former FEMA position, but the salient and undisputed facts that underlie that position, the Applicants '
"Reply" unleashes yet another attack on the credibility of Mr. "
j Thomas. This attack is both unwarranted and unfounded.
The Intervenors would respond, as follows:
i
! A. As to the claim that the FEMA ore-filed _I2311 MODI of Seotem.ber was misleadina in that it implied that there wan RAC cop.cuirpacg_nn_EEMA cosition on the beach poRulati20: Mr.
i Thomas has explained that he was directed by FEMA's attorney, f
Mr. H. Joseph Flynn, to delete from the draft testimony (Mass.
, AG 50) text that explained the relationship of the RAC review i to the beach population. In the September 11, 1987 filing, I :
i 3/ In addition, the former FEMA position was admitted as Attachment 7 to the Goble testimony, at Eq11 II. 10962, 1
I R
-.. i 7
i Thomas had wanted the agency to explain how it had gotten to where it was on the beach population, to what extent the RAC 1
\
i was being relied on and that there was disagreement with NRC. :
t There was not time to do that. (Trans, at 13608) Mr. Thomas did make it clear in his testimony that the collegia 1' process .
l of review mentioned in the pre-filed testimony, although it !
included the RAC, did not consist solely of the RAC. (Trans. l 3104) 'f r
, Q. Okay, so the RAr i.s only part of the .
collegial? l A. (Thomas) That is also correct. ;
Finally, Thomas testified, without contradiction, that although there was not time to expand the pre-filed testimony on ;
I the beach population by the September 11 filing deadline, he e I
believed that the necessary explanation could be provided on direct examination. He said: f And I was involved with Mr. Flynn in creating that document, and we just, in terms of getting the testimony i pre-filed, we weren't able to get it done by the time of the pre-filed date, and so we were holding that Ithe status of the RAC review of the beach issue) !
for use on direct testimony when the {
beach panol was put on . . . I thought ;
it was very, very important for the (
agency to explain how it had gotten to I where it was, and how much we were relying on the RAC, and how much we weren't relying on the RAC, and that there was a disagreement with the NRC, and to really just lay it out on one sheet of paper.
f I
l t
I
- - l ,
. s And it was decided that, .yes, it was a great idea. We just didn't have time to do it at that point, and_we'd_ handle it on the direct examination _ portion.
(Itana. 13608)(Emphasis added)
B. As to Thomas' disavowal of "technical expertise" AE_affg.cting__ Thomas' credibility. Applicants state that Thomas conceded he lacked technical expertise on nuclear power and that "he depended on the technical expertise of the RAC members
. . . but he ignored their expertist. on the beach shelter issue." (Applicants' Reply, p.4)
Actually, Thomas did acknowledge he lacked expertise on ,
nuclear risk issues, but this is precisely why he was willing to let his judgment on plan adequacy at the April 15, 1987 RAC meeting be affected by the assertions about containment strength in Bores 1 (Staff Exhibit 5). He did not concede that the other RAC members had expertise on the beach issue, but rather he believed that he, and institutionally FEMA, had relevant expertise on that issue.
As to RAC expertise, Thomas testified:
Q. Is it-<could you describe for me, and I am not trying to restrict your Unswer in any way, as to what degree is particular expettise given weight in the RAC which, as I understand it, is a group of people from different uisciplines and different Jeportmonce of government if I fairly characterized it?
I
\
A. (Thomas) In terms of reaching a consensus, certainly we are going to listen very, very closely, for example if the representative of the United States Department of Transportation who is employed by the U.S. Coast Guard were to make a particular point about boating safety, I think, in reality, it would be listened to very, very closely, and possibly even be considered conclusive. (Iran. 3105-06)
D. As.to the sionificance of the SeabrQDh cantainment. Applicants in their Reply make the argument that Thomas' assertion that he, and other RAC members, were influenced by the reference to containment strength in Bores 1 (Staff Exhibit 5) is not credible. However, the vast preponderance of the evidence in this case indicates that the Bores technical paper known as Bores 1 (Staff Exhibit 5), that was furnished to the RAC for the April 15, 1987 meeting, was ind eed a very important f actor in the deliberations of the RAC '
members on the adequacy of the New Hampshire plans. '
See. Cor exaraple, the Flynn letter to NRC Attorney Reis, dated May 1 2 1987, (Mass. AG Exhibit 30), utating in part:
On the other hand, Dr. Bores, who serves as NRC's RAC Representative for the Geabrook Station, has providad information that resolved many of the RAC's reservations about the safety of the beach populatiott. A particularly important part of this information is that the probabilistic risk assessments for the Seabrook Station justify an assumption that it is highly unlikely that there will ever be an accident at the plant involving a serious release of radiation within one half hour of the onset of the emergency condition.
1
As you can see, the technical material provided by Dr. Bores is essential to the RAC's deliberation on this issue.
The ad twn attempts of the llRC witnesses to explain that they did not intend the RAC to rely on Bores' statements as to Seabrook containment strength is highly unconvincing, particularly in light of the fact that at least one RAC member continued to cite the Seabrook containment strength as reason 1
for supporting the flew Hampshire plans, even after the l reference to containment in Bores 1 (Staff Exhibit 5) was 1
withdrawn. (See reference to the DOT representative in Mr.
Dores' Memo of October 15, 1987). (Staff Exhibit 2).
Dr. Dores' October 15 memorandum (Staff Exhibit 2) of the July 30th meeting reflects that DOT member paul Lutz continued to believe that the containment strength was a factor that should be considered. Staff Exhibit 2, p. 3, paragraph 9, indicates that Lutz, on July 30 said that:
whether or not the paper (Boros 1) discussed the specific plant features did not change the facts of construction.
E. Ai_tqJ.Lv_ents_at_the_ July 31 -(sich _1101.W1C mEcting. Here the Applicants again attempt to re-visit the issue of whether a vote or poll was taken at the July 30 WAC meeting, as affecting Thomas' cedibility.
As to this, this Board has already emphatically indicated it did not desire to hear anything further about the l
1
_a_
l
issue of'a vote or poll at the July 30th RAC meeting.
At IIana. 13601, Judge Smith stated as follows:
Gentlemen, the Board has listened to this testimony and I recommended to my colleagues that we have just heard enough about the vote matter. My recommendation has been based upon, golly, more than three decades of trial experience in which totally. honest people have unbelievably diametric versions of the same events, we don't think that it is worthwhile inquiring any further into it. It is not going to play a large role in our decision. It is taking too much time.
It is causing anguish of people that is not deserved because of the facts, and we don't want to hear any more. That'.a our ruling.
The record is closed on it.
For the Applicants to again attack Mr. Thomas' credibility on the basis of this vote issue, after these comments from the Board, is to say the least, brazen and .
unwarranted.
F. As to romsonable assurance. Applicants' Reply suggests that Thomas "disagreed with the NRC on the meaning of
' reasonable assurance'." This appears to be correct, but it
- hardly goes to Thomas' credibility. Rather, it goes to the t
underlying fundamental issue in tais case, and that is whether the "reasonable assurance" and "adequacyd standards of 10 CPR S50.47(a) and 44 CFR S350.5(b) do indee6 have substantive !
- content, or only req _!re plans that are complete, and meet the checklist requirement of NUREG-0654 and 50.47(b).
l 1
4 9
i !
I i
_i:
G. A s_to__Ee akro nk_a s_a_s psc.i a kna s e . App 1icants' Reply attacks Thomas for describing Seabrook as a special case, based on FEMA rep-3, the 1981 report. (Mass. AG 48)
However, Thomas said that he was influenced to consider Seabrook as a special case, not only because of the caption on page 10 of FEMA rep-3, but because that report recommended measures to enhance the capability for protective action at Seabrook not suggested for any other nuclear plant site.
Thomas testified as follows:
The thing which struck me most of all about i this when I read it and as I read it again I was, Seabrook of the 12 sites that we at l FEMA had been acked to look at, was l considered a special case. And_sp_eni.a1 1 I_g_comatend3_tions__HgIg_made with resa rd to l Seabrook. The statement that Seabrook is a .
special case is located on page 10 of the '
l document in paragraph, that has the letter "C".
And other things that struck me were on page 46, talking about the behavior of drivers caught in congestion within direct sight of Seabrook can only be guessed at, at this l time.
l l And the other thing that struck me was that we were making specific recommendations on page 48 in the paragraph numbered eight with respect to behavior of drivers on the beach within sight of Seabrook, looking at l sequential evacuation, sheltering the population, and buildina supplemental evacuation, only ramps onto I-91.
That--those thoughts made an impact on me, a very great impact. And that impact has continued right through to this day.
(IIana. 13384-85)(Emphasis added)
In short, Mr. Thomas relied on the FEMA REP-3 report for his conclusion that Seabrook was a special case, not only becau.nd of the caption of the description of Seabrook on page 10, but in the recommendations and text in that FEMA rep-3 pertaining to Seabrook, which suggested unique protective measures.
REPLY TO PART II:
PARTICULAR INTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS HHICH DO NOT STATE THE EVIDENCE CORRECTLY Part II of Applicants' reply findings is directed at "Particular Intervenor Findings which do not state the evidence correctly." Applicants' own reply disputing Intervenors' findings is replete with distortions of the evidence, and in many instances has no support at all in the record.
Intervenors respond herein only to the more egregious of Applicants' reply findings.
MASS AG PROPOSED FINDINGS 10.1.7 Throughout the testimony the justification given by the State of New Hampshire for not relying on a sheltering response for the transient beach population (except "in limited circumstances") is that it believes evacuation is the option which provides "maximum dose savings" against the biggest problem." E.g.., Trana. 10413-414; Egg alan FEMA Testimony at 14256. All the decision making in the NHRERp is premised on this assumption. Thus the issue does become whether evacuation is indeed the option which provides maximum dose reduction against the biggest problem. To the extent this may change the precise issue raised by the contentions that is only a result of the numerous changes in the NHRERP, as well as the State's position, with respect to sheltering which have occurred throughout this proceeding.
10.1.8 App'sicants' witness agreed with the statement, which was cited from Applicants' previously filed Direct Testimony on Sheltering Contention, without any of the qualifications Applicants would now insert. Een Irana. 10374.
10.1.10 At Trans. 10224, Applicants' witness was asked directly whether he "would agree that the New Hampshire RERp l l
should be able to cope with the fast-develogina accident involvina a larae g_cale releale", to which he replied, "That is l the guidance that's indicted in NUREG-0654 . . .. ERR Ala2, l
1 Mass AG Nos. 10.1.12 and 10.1.14.
10.1.23 Mass AG Finding No. 10.1.23 only represents l
l that it is uncontradicted that "the most serious core-melt l
l accidents, pWR-1 through pWR-5 . . . wculd likely have warning 1
times of only one to two hours and that the major portion of the release in these accidents could occur very quickly within one to two hours after the start of the release." Applicants cite no testimony which contradicts this statement. AlthouJb Applicants' witness placed pWR-1 through pWR-5 accidents at the very end of the planning spectrum, Egg Mass AG No. 10.1.15, he I
. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . I
\ . . .
did agree that warning times for such accidents were in the range of one to two hours.
10.1.25-26 Although Mass AG does not necessarily i
dispute that it may be difficult to reliably predict the time to release and duration of release prior to the event, See Mass AG Nos. 10.1.51-10.1.56, Applicants provide no citation to support their claim that Applicants' own witnesses testified
- regarding these uncertainties. In fact, Mr. MacDonald testified that the utility "would have pretty good insight as to what the possibility was for containment failure" and "when l containment failure could occur". Trans. 10502-503. Dr.
Wallace testified that, "depend [ing) on the information that's available at the time . . . we may or may not know exactly how
- much time to release." IIana. 10448-449.
10.1.29 Mass AG did not inaccurately characterize Mr.
Keller's testimony at IIana. 14196-197. At Trans. 14197, Mr.
Keller agreed with Ms. Weiss that he thought she had asked him at Irang. 14196 whether evacuation must begin shortly or after 1
a release for it to "reduce doses" to the public substantially, s
and that the "question and answer [at Trans. 14196] should be 1
4 understood with that in mind." (Emphasis added) i i 10.1.31 Although Applicants claim that its testimony "controvert (ed] the statement that accidents with warning times of one to two hours account for a significant portion of the accidents for which off-site protective actions would be j !
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. b
e ..
- warranted," Applicants cite to no testimony to support that claim. The conclusions set forth at Mass AG No. 10.1.31 are indeed amply supported by and/or logically deduced from the testimony cited therein.
10.1.35 Mr. Callendrello testified that it is possible for a plant condition that triggers an "Alert" or "Unusual Event" classification to proceed to a release within one-half hour. Irans. 10311.
10.1.36 Mr. Callendrello in fact testified contrary to Applicants' assertion:
Clearly, precautionary actions would be associated with a time frame that [ sic] you are going through accident classifications, the various accident classifications.
In a more rapidly developing accident where you have maybe skipped an accident c 1 a s s i f i c a t i o n , yo u phy.is us.l y_Rould.Jtot 10pl_Rm. ant _tIULp reca utiolta ry a c t i on__t h af.__ro.u had intended, or developed a plan for.
Itans . 103 3 4 . (Emphasis added) 10.1.38 At ItaDn. 10435-436, and T_tana. 10446-448, the State of New Hampshire witnesses testified that the State would still need to verify the utility's recommendation before notifying the public, and at Irans. 10436-10441, the witnesses l
outlined the specific steps which would be taken, which are those set forth at Mass AG No. 10.1.38.
10.1.40 The cited interrogatory is in fact a guote from Applicants' previously filed Direct Tesimony on Sheltering Contentions. The State of New Hampshire did agree on
cross-examination without qualification that, "Sheltering, for example, may be the appropriate protective action for a puff ;
release, a gaseous or gaseous and particulain release, of less '
than two hours duration." Trans. 10374 (emphasis added).
10.1.4G Contrary to Applicants' assertion, FEMA -
t es t imo ny a t EEMILD_if., EoAL T_ tans. 13968 at 9-10, does address the dose reduction that would be achieved from the cloudshine, inhalation and groundshine components of dose by sheltering in 1
"the 'unwinterized' structures in the New Hampshire beach i
, areas," and relies on that testimony, in part, to justify the l ultimate conclusion in its testimony.
! 10.1.50 Mr. Keller indeed testified at Trans.
I 14241-242 that he could generate "several" scenarios in which sheltering would be "a better choice" than evacuation.
10.1.56 Applicants characterize the testimony of Dr.
Goble cited at Mass AG No. 10.1.56 as "muddled I miscomprehenison" without citation to any testimony or evidence in the record that would contradict Dr. Goble's analysis.
J
! Applicants did not cross-examine Dr. Goble on this analysis and i
f did not offer any testimony to rebut his analysis. Obviously,
! the quote cited by Applicants from Irant. 11662 is a mistake, ;
I
! whether caused by a slip of the tongue of the witness after a j l lengthy several days of cross-examination or by an error in i
transcription, and is intended to read "the core melts through !
4 >
the reactor vessel." f I
i i :
i i
! i
) !
i
o . . .
10.1.57-58 Applicants are completely wrong on this point. There is considerable testimony from Dr. Goble to the effect that evacuation times at this site may preclude the evacuation of the beach population prior to plume arrival and indeed the fact that the beach population may not be able to evacuate the beach area prior to plume arrival forms the basis for his testimony regarding consideration of sheltering for the beach population. Sam, e A , Goble, et al Dir, Post Ttana.
10963 at 13-17. I F. is implicit in Dr. Goble's testimony at Itana. 11664 where he states: "If it turns out that the (imminent] release does not occur, that the containment has held, then . . . there would be ample time at that goint to l
l evacuate the beach population," that if the reversed occurred, l
that is, the containment does not hold early on, then there l
l would nat be ample time to evacuate the beach population.
l l
Especially when read in light of Dr. Goble's other testimony l concerning the timing of releases and his definition of the 1
term "imminent release", 2221, IIana. 11465-467, Trana.
11614-614, no other reading of the testimony at Irana. 11664 is possible.
10.1.60 There is no evidence to support the conclusion suggested by Applicants that, although dose rate decreases with i distance, the total dose would be less for a person evacuating l
from the beach area in line with the plume than for a person who remains in a shelter in a section of the beach area over
o ,. ,
which the plume passes. This would obviously depend on many factors, including the length of time the plume remains in the beach area as well as the amount of time the person in the car must remain in the beach area prior to evacuating.
10.1.61 Dr. Goble speaks to the significance of inhalation dose in several portions of the testimony. E.c.,
Trans. 11574; 11623-624; 11665. While Dr. Goble did not agree that the greatest significance of the iodine release would be with respect to the inhalation dose, he went on to explain that:
the critical doses that are received . . . in any sort of mix from groundshine, cloudshine and inha l a_tino_to__the__Hho_le body , to the_ lung; these are the areas . . . along the gastrointestinal tract (that] are the . . .
most sensitive for early injuries and possibly fatalities.
And . . . the mix of iodine contributes very importantly when there's a large percentage of iodine released in such accidents to the exposures to those organs; and that's as much from cloudshine, groundshine as_Lrom the inhaleILdcre which__ coes into th othy_ told.
T ta na . 1162 3 - 6 2 4 . And at Irans. 11665, Dr. Goble testified, "For particulates, you do worry about inhalation of particulates as well as ground deposition. IIana. 11665.
10.1.64 There is a typographical error in the Mass AG proposed finding. The citation which read "Itars. 229-230" should read "Itans. 14226; Irans. 14229-230."
10.1.67 Mr. Keller testified at Trans. 14194 that his "belief that there will be some dose savings afforded the beach population in the fast-breaking accident is based on (his]
i
o ,,s opinion that some undetermined number of people will be able to move off the beaches before they're exposed to the plume."
10.1.90 Mr. Cumming actually testified that:
Based on my review of the ttanactints, there is implementing detail now for transit-dependent transients, Aq_Eome degren.
If the pran, i.f._my_undarstanding_of the LIARE11pt is cortect, and the plan calls for sheltering the 98, the so-called 98 percent, that would be a different factor.
Trans. 14252 (emphasis added). Mr. Cumming went on to say with respect to the option of sheltering the 98 percent:
1 And for decisionmakers to use that option, they've got to know exactly what they're I i doing, or people could be hurt, especially in l l
the two to three-mile inner ring. l I.ta na. 14 2 5 3.
l 10.1.98 Even with respect to shelter for the transit-dependent population, the State of New Hampshire has not yet identified any specific shelter locations. Trans.
10205-207.
10.1.99 There are no plans to designate or train personnel to assist the beach popul6 tion in sheltering. Itans .
( 10568.
10.1.123 In fact, two errors were established in the record at Trans. 10618-631: the inclusion of 2,886 square feet of frame building plus 962 square feet of basement for a building that had been torn down; and, for another designated
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0
o . .. e shelter, the inclusion of square footage for a second story that does not exist.
10.1.59 Mileti actually testified at Irans.10132 that although he "certainly (does) not have the technical expertise", he "(doesn't} think that transcends into the kind ot emergency we're planning for here." i 10.1.137 Although there is no reference in the record i to the precise number of buildings in the beach area with reduction factors less than 0.9 or air exchange rates greater ;
i 3
than 2 per hour, there is considerable testimony and evidence j in the record that would support the conclusion that it is a relatively high percentage of the buildings. Sam, exgi, IIana.
11569-571.
i i 10.1.163-164 In fact, Dr. Eckert, who spent i i j approximately four months in the beach area photographing, I i I i measuring and viewing the interiors and exteriors of the i shelters on the Stone & Webster study, Irans. 11698, testified I
that "the vast majority of available public shelter space in
) Hampton Beach consists of rented rooms in hotels and motels." f I !
- Gable _et._al..Dir., Post Trana. 10973, at 65. This testimony
!l was never challenged, either by cross-examination or by l rebuttal testimony and Applicants provide no citation in the .
record to dispute this fact.
r 1 L t
t l
J !
i i 1
_D
7
- c. [h CDHCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Board should reject the Applicants' Reply Findings.
SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS O C' i > , r e R I.at,kt..,f(<*?> -O a , , \, N ~.) M ( i, r , *^,
Robert A. Backus, Esq. '
Carol A. Sneider '
Dackus, Meyer & Solomon Assistant Attorney General 116 Lowell Street, PO Box 516 Nuclear Safety Unit Manchester, MA 03105 Public Protection Bureau (603) 668-7272 One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 TOWN OF HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION l} h /Sttu.. T 'i!rre e l' /cn:> _
E k FT), LG e r% lc ss Matthew T. Brock, Esq. 511yn 9eiss, Esq.
Shaines & McEachern Harmon & Weiss 24 Maplewood Avenue 2001 S Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 360 Suite 430 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20009
] (202) 328-3500 Datod: September 16, 1988 i
1 1
J 4
r 4
1
.f
- ~ -
t .- - .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p:Ed '
ti i I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
BacM i. I
)
In the Matter of )
) ,
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket No.(s)
NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) 50-443/444-OL
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) '
~~
) (Off-site EP)
)
} I CERI1EICATE OF SERVICE j a !
I, Carol $. Sneider, hereby certify that on September 16, 1988, I ;
)I ;
} made service of the within Intervenor Motion To Permit Response To l
- Applicants' Reply Findings, by firut class mail or by Federal Express (
i I
as indicated by (a) or by hand deliver as indicated by (aa) to:
f
- Ivan Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
i Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board j i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
! Comnission East West Towers BuiPjing i
) East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway i
Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. (
) Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of General Counsel !
i Commission 15th Floor !
i East West Towers Building 11555 Rockville Pike j 4350 East West Highway Rockville, MD 20852 '
j Bethesda, MD 20814 i L I h t i i
i i i
(
t
a H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. Stephen E. Merrill Assistant General Counsel Attorney General Office of General Counsel George Dana Bisbee Federal Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General Agency Office of the Attorney General 500 C Street, S.W. 25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 03301 I
- Docketing and Service Paul A. Fritzsche, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Public Advocate {
1 Commission State House Station 112 l Washington, DC. '20555 Augusta, ME 04333 I I
Roberta C. Pevaan Diana P. Randall I State Representative 70 Collins Street Town of Hampton Falls Seabrook, NH 03874 Drinkwater Road flampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market Street Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Matthew T. Brock. Esq. J. P. Nadeau Shaines & McEachern Board of Selectmen 25 Maplewood Avenue 10 Central Road P.O. Box 360 Rye, NM 03870 Portsn.outh, NH 03801 Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall Rte. 107 126 Daniel Street E. Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Angelo Machiros, Chairman U.S. Senato Board of Selectmen Washington, DC 20510 25 High Road (Attn: Tom Burack) Newbury, MA 10950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Edward G. Molin 1 Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: !! erb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 t _ -- _ - ---- -
. I i
Donald E. Chick William Lord
- Town Manager Board of Selectmen l Town of Exeter Town Hall ,
10 Front Street Friend Street !
Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913 [
Brentwood Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
RFD Dalton Road Holmes & Ellis !
i Brentwood, NH 03833 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 :
Philip Ahrens, Esq. Ellyn Weiss, Esq. f Assistant Attorney General Harmon &' Weiss I Department of the Attorney Suite 430 j General 2001 S Street, N.W.
State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 i Augusta. ME 04333 l l
- Thomas G. Dignan, Esq. Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
i Ropes & Gray Hampe & McNicholas ,
, 225 Franklin Street 35 Pleasant Street !
j Boston, MA 02110 Concord, NH 03301 l j Beverly Hollingworth Ashod N. Amirian, Esq. i i 209 Winnacunnet Road 376 Main Street l j Hampton, NH 03842 Haverhill, MA 01830 l 1 )
i William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman t j Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen :
4 Town of Exeter Jewell Street, RFD 2 i
! 10 Front Street South Hampton, NH 03827 I i Exeter, NH 03833 !
i l
) Robert Carrigg, Chairman Anne E. Goodman, Chairperson i
Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen i 3
. Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road l
! Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 i i North Hampton, NH J3862 ;
) [
Allen Lampert Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairpersori j Civil Defense Director Atomic Safety and Licensing
. Town of Brentwood Board panel ,
20 Franklin Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l l Exeter, NJ 03833 Commission l l Washington, DC 20555 l Charles P. Graham, Esq. Barbara St. Andre, Esq.
Murphy & Graham Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
33 Low Street 77 Franklin Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 i
l l
4 4
r-
, e .
Judith !!. Mizner, Esq. R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Lagoulis, Clark, Ilill-Whilton Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton
& McGuire & McGuire 79 State Street 79 State Street flewbu rypo r t. , MA 01950 llewburyport, MA 01950 N
e c' :
I.o. 06 -t M JJ i L L (( ( ..
Carols. Sneider Assistant Attorney General fluclear Safety Unit Department of~the Attorney Generel One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED: September 16, 1988 l
%