ML20154R803
| ML20154R803 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-644 OL, NUDOCS 8603310196 | |
| Download: ML20154R803 (165) | |
Text
---
ORlG NAL UN11ED STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
50-443 OL 50-444 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
O LOCATION:
PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE PAGES:
2207 - 2370 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1986
'70 s
.L D\\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O amawm 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 hD ADO 443 PDR NATION %TDE COVERACE T
CR26227.0 COX/sjg 2207 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
- -x 4
I t
In the Matter of:
5 Docket Numbers PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 6
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~x 8
Howard Johnson's Lodge 9
Interstate Traffic Circle Salons A and B 10 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 11 j
Wednesday, March 26, 1986 12,
i The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened at
~
9:00 a.m.
14 l
15 BEFORE:
6 JUDGE HELEN F.
HOYT, Chairman
'I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 17' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 JUDGE EMMETH A.
LUEBKE, Member 19 l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 20 JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, Member 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Washington, D.
C.
20555 l
l 23 24 Ace-Fede,W Reporters, Inc.
25 i
-- continued --
j 2208 1
APPEARANCES:
()~
i 2
On behalf of the Applicant:
l THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR.,
ESQ.
l t
R.
K.
GAD III, ESQ.
4' Ropes & Gray L
225 Franklin Street i
5 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 6
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission Staff:
7 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ.
Deputy Assistant Chief i
8 Hearing Counsel Office of Executive Legal Director 9
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Washington, D. C.
20555 10 i
On behalf of the Federal Emergency y
Management Agency:
H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ.
l I2 !
Assistant General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency l
O 13 500 C Street, S.W.
l j
Washington, D. C.
20472 l
14 3
On behalf of the Town of Kensington, 15 New Hampshire:
i
~
BENJAMIN LOVELL 16 j
Civil Defense Director 17 h On behalf of the Town of Rye, New Hampshire:
f i
18 J.
P. NADEAU J
Rye, New Hampshire l
19 i
On behalf of the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire:
20 l I
PAUL McEACHERN, ESQ.
21 MATTHEW T. BROCK, ESQ.
I; 25 Maplewood Avenue i
22 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 1
i On behalf of the Town of Amesbury, 23 Massachusetts:
i 24 WILLIAM LORD
[ Ace-F 3 Reporters, Inc.
Selectman 25 Amesbury, Massachusetts
-- continued --
a p-m m...en-wn---
-m---
,-,,,---n--
-w.---
,-----_,,,e
_,ere,r-,--y
,,---------,-mng,.en.r-a-e--m
-.,m.,
~,-. -
w
2209 i
i I
APPEARANCES (Continued):
2 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
3 VINCENT S. NOONAN l
4 MALINDA MCDONALD ELIZABETH DOOLITTLE l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5
l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.
C.
20555 On behalf of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution j.
7 League, Town of Hampton Falls, and South Hampton:
l 8
I i
ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ.
l 4
Backus, Meyer & Soloman 9
116 Lowell Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 l
10 l
On behalf of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League:
11 j
i JANE DOUGHTY l
12 Field Director 5 Market Street
()
Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 l
13
\\
i On behalf of the New England Coalition i
14 on Nuclear Pollution:
i 15 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.
Harmon & Weiss i
16 l
On behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General:
I7 i
CAROL SNEIDER, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General On behalf of New Hampshire Attorney General:
19 l
GEORGE DANA BISBEE, ESQ.
20 Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State House Annex 21 Concord, New Hampshire 22 On behalf of the State of New Hampshire, Office of the Governor:
l 23 i
MICHAEL M. NAWOJ l
/~
i bem.},3a. porters.anc.
24 Director, Technological Hazards Division N.H. Civil Defense Agency State Office Park South 1
25 107 Pleasant Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301 l
26228.0 cox 2210 (ss 1
ERqCEEEIHgE 2
JUDGE H0YT:
Very well.
The hearing will come to 3
order.
This is the second day of the prehearing conference.
4 This is an informal conference of counsel and representatives 5
of the Intervenors, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff, 6
and the Applicant.
This conference yesterday had gone 7
through most of the contentions with the Intervenors here, 8
and today we would like to complete that work first.
9 I believe, however, you indicated that, sir, you 10 have a representation you would like to make on this record 11 at this time.
12 MR. LOVELL':
That's correct.
Madam Chairman and 13 members of the Board, I am Ben Lovell from the Town of 14 Kensington.
At this point, I would like to say that last i
15 night -- while I may begin by saying we appreciate the 16 Board's flexibility in allowing the town time to address the 17 Applicant's responses to our contention by moving our time 18 slot from yesterday afternoon to this morning, and yesterday 19 evening, after thoroughly flushing out the three locations 20 where the paperwork has been delivered in the Town of 21 Kensington, we did, in fact, discover the Applicant's 22 responses to our contentions.
23 I would like to extend a general apology to the 24 Board for any inconvenience this may have caused, and I would
/~)
25 like to extend a personal apology to Mr. Dignan and Mr. Gad.
\\J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
I 26228.0 coX 2211
['T V
1 I understand they went to considerable personal hardship to 2
acquire the written documentation that these responses were 3
delivered, and I deeply regret the personal inconvenience 4
that this caused to those two gentlemen.
5 MR. DIGNAN:
Thank you very much. I appreciate 6
that.
7 MR. LOVELL:
I hope it doesn't happen again.
8 JUDGE H0YT:
Do you have any response, 9
Mr. Dignan?
10 MR. DIGNAN:
I do not, Madam Chairman.
I would 11 suggest sometime at the end or at a time convenient to the 12 Board, if there are three different addresses to which 13 l
Kensington is being sent documentation, we oucht.to,try to 14 straichten this out so it doesn't happen in the future.
The 15 address we have been using is the one that appears on l
16 j
Kensington's official notice of appearance.
If they wish to 17 l
chance that, that's fine with me, but perhaps we ought to get i
18 that changed on the record at some point so we don't have 19 this difficulty again.
20 JUDGE H0YT:
I think yesterday I indicated that we 21 would go throuch this service list that had been sent to me i
22 by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission.
23 I had thought that the addresses were listed on 24 here.
However, the list that was sent to me by the office of O) 25 secretary did not contain those addresses.
It merely has the
\\_-
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nanonwide Coverage 800-136-6646
26228.0 cox 2212 O
V 1
phone numbers fer contacts and the name of the representative 2
and the party that they are representinc.
3 However, this mornino sometime during the day, 4
probably, one of the last chores that we would like to 5
accomplish is to ao through this list with people off the 6
record.
I don't think that this has to be a matter of 7
record.
Get the spelling and the names correct. get the 8
addresses correct, cet the phone numbers and locations 9
properly listed.
10 I will see that this list is returned to the 11 secretary.
It will be the list that we will use in the 12 future for contacts and orders, and it illustra,tes well the
,,U 13 point that we must get these service papers straightened out, 14 because it causes so much difficulty that it detracts from 15 the substance of what we are here for; namely, to ensure that 16 whatever plan or plans this Board must look at to make its 17 predicted findings on, has not been detracted from by such 18 mundane matters as service of papers, albeit how important 19 the service of documents in a case like this can be.
20 This is a very complex case from the point of view 21 of the numbers of parties that are involved.
22 Many of you can ensure that the service is well 23 carried out by your own administrative staffs, and we have 24 reminded a number of the parties that are in this case now,
(~)
25 this illustrates well the point that can occur when, I think
\\_/
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 M46
26228.0 cox 2213
.O V
1 the word is snafu, occurs.
2 I would thank the centleman for his work and for 3
your consideration, Mr. Dignan.
4 Very well.
Now, are you ready to start with the 5
more substantive participation.
6 MR. LOVELL:
Yes.
7 JUDGE H0YT:
On the contentions filed by Rye.
We 8
note now that all the parties to the hearing who were present 9
yesterday -- I beg your pardon, that is Kensington, thank 10 you.
I note now that all the parties are now present and --
11 that had been party to this hearing yesterday were all 12 present now in the hearing room.
7-U 13 Very well.
If Kensington will proceed. cir.
14 MR. LOVELL:
I would just like to add, Madam 15 Chairman, you mentioned it would be the response of the Town 16 of Rye.
This will be the response of the Town of Kensington i
17 to Staff and NRC and other state comments.
18 Contention No.
1, the December 1985 radiolocical 19 emergency response plan for the Town of Kensington does not 20 assure each principal response organization has Staff to 21 respond and augment its initial response on a continuous 22 basis as required by 10 CFR 50.47 B-1, because there are not 23 alternates in several of the key emergency response 24 positions, and other departments are inadequitely staffed to
()
25 respond to an emergency as outlined in the plan.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Na'.ionwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
_. ~. _ _. _. = _ -. _.
t i
l 26228.0 ox 2214 f
1 I would like to note that the NRC Staff and the I
i l
2 state do not oppose this contention.
The Applicant does l
3 oppose this contention.
They state that, one, the power'to 1
l 4
designate alternates resides at least in the first instance 5
in the selectmen of Kensington; and we respond that the 6
selectmen are unable to find town residents in a town that 7
has roughly 1400 individuals residing in it, by appointment i
j 8
or otherwise, who are willing to fill the vacancies currently 1
j 9
in the plan.
10 The other objection the Applicant has to the j
11 contention with regard to staffing, and they don't find any 1
{
12 problem with the inadequate staf fing in the fire department.
(:)
13 They say the inadequacy is not a planning deficiency.
The 1
14 fire department has minimal duties in any emergency response i
1 15 anyway.
16 We disagree with that presumption.
We think the l
17 fire department inadequacy of staff is a problem to the
{
18 extent that there are inadequate personnel to carry out the l
j 19 responses and duties as listed in the plan.
i t
20 I would like to note the fire department does have i
j 21 substantial responsibility outlined at page III-7 and III-8 4
l 22 in the plan.
I l
l 23 In addition, the office of the road agent is not i
24 adequately staffed.
The Applicant's argument is that "Should
()
25 the town's highway resources be insufficient, the road agent i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
26228.0 cox 2215
/*)
(_
1 may rely on support from the state, and a representative of 2
the New Hampshire Public Department cf Works and Highways 3
will be available at both the IFO and the EOL," and it goes 4
on.
5 We would respond that the road agent has
~
6 conflicting duties of being a medic and also a volunteer 7
fireman.
He may not even be available to advise the state of 8
the inadequate resources required in our town.
9 Additionally, the health officer in town is 10 required to go to the extra hospital immediately upon any 11 notification of an emergency, as he is a doctor at the 12 hospital.
He will not be available to carry out his duties O
(/
l 13 in the plan.
l 14
- he police department, initially, currently 15 consists of one full-time chief and four part-time officers, l
16 all of who have duties and would be required in the plan.
17 one of our part-time officers has conflicting duties in the 18 Rockingham County dispatch office and will be required to 19 carry out those duties under the plan.
Another has duties as 20 a driver of Al's Auto as a driver in the plan, and another 21 driver drives out of the state frequently and would not be 22 available to carry out his duties under the plan.
We think 23 we have sufficient basis regarding our contention that we 24 have inadequate personnel to carry out the duties under the
{}
25 plan.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33 & 6646
1 1
1 4
26228.0 cox 2216 s
)
1 Contention No.
2, "The Kensington emergency 2
response plan does not provide for adequate notification by 1
j 3
the licensee of state and local response organizations and L
l 4
for notification of emergency response personnel by I
5 organizations as required by 10 CFR 50.47 B-5.
Provision for l
6 notification of,the town emergency response organization is i
7 inadequate in that it depends upon notification through the 8
Rockingham County dispatch and does not assure that the
}
j 9
contact person will be available or can be reached in the r
10 event of a nuclear emergency.
1 j
11 "In each instance, there must be direct co6 tact t
12 between the state and the town, and there must be a dedicated
(:)
j 13 telephone line to a location where individuals will always be 1
14 on duty to receive the communication and then take action."
15 JUDGE H0YT:
I believe you misstated yourself I
l 16 there, sir.
I believe that's between the site and the town j
17 not the state and the town.
l
]
18 l
MR. LOVELL:
Pardon me, that's correct.
The NRC j
19 Staff and the state do not oppose this contention.
The i
j 20 Applicant does oppose this contention based on inadequate 1
l 21 personnel which we have addressed in the response to I
22 Contention No. 1; additionally, Applicant states that a i
i 23 dedicated telephone line is not an issue and is not j
24 particularly a litigable one.
1 l (}
25 I would like to note that at NUREG II-F-1-A there 4
ACE. FEDERAL REPORJERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 33H646
26228.0 cox 2217 r~S O
1 is a requirement that a provision for a 24-hour-per-day 2
notification to an activation of the state and local 3
emercency response network and at a minimum a telephone link 4
and alternate, including 24-hour-per-day manning of 5
communication links that initiate emergency response actions 6
is required.
7 The Applicant agrees that training and 8
communications procedures perhaps should not be limited to 9
the fire chief or, I believe, it's the dispatcher stated in 10 the plan, but should extend to other members of the 11 department who might receive the initial notification.
12 We feel that the lack of notification and the lack O
'. 3 of a clear, detailed plan of who was going to be. notified and 14 how they are going to take action represents a considerable l
15 inadequacy of the plan, and we think this contention should 16 be accepted as it is read.
17 Contention No. 3 reads:
"The December 1985 draft 18 radiological emergency response plan for the Town of 19 Kensington does not provide reasonable assurance that 20 adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the 21 event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook station, as 22 required by 10 CFR 50.47 A-1, because there is no provision 23 for alternative evacuation routes."
24 The NRC Staff and the state do not oppose this
()
25 contention.
We would like to amend this contention to read ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6M6
l j
26228.0 7y- -.
l cox 2218 I
1
-- let's see, 13 it necessary to read the entire contention l
2 again for an amendment or can I just pick up on where I would i
3 like to insert the amended portion?
j 4
JUDGE LUEBKE:
If it's clear, i
l 5
JUDGE HOYT:
If it's clear, there is no point in 6
reading the whole thing.
Just tell me where you are going to 7
pick it up first.
8 MR. LOVELL:
Yes, thanks.
After 10 CFR 50.47 A-1, j
9 I would like to delete the rest of the contention and insert 10 "because there is not an ability to accomplish a safe I
i 11 evacuation of Kensincton using only the designated evacuation 12 route."
7 l
13 This amendment inserts a question and. concern that i
14 the NRC Staff raised concerning this particular contention; I
i 15 and they noted that as they read the contention, we were not
)
16 contemplating new road construction; and they are correct in I
l 17 that assumption.
t j
18 It is, as they understood, the contention, we do 19 not feel the designated evacuation route has the ability to i
20 safely accomplish the evacuation of the town.
i 1
21 The Applicant's objections to this contention are i
22 made moot primarily by this amended version, so that -- no; i
j 23 is that not correct?
j 24 JUDGE HOYT:
Let me determine that from 1 (}
25 Mr. Dignan.
I i
]
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 336 4 646
26228.0 ox 2219 1
MR. DIGNAN:
My view is that is a substantial 2
change in the contention.
The contention came out saying 3
that the reason they were complaining was there was no 4
provision for alternative routes.
They have now changed that 5
wording substantially and as far as I am concerned we are 6
dealing with a late-filed contention.
7 This is not a mere amendment to clean up a 8
problem.
This is a substantial change in the thrust of the 9
contention.
10 JUDGE HOYT:
Let me go off the record here a 11 moment.
12 (Di'scussion off the record.)
O 13 JUDGE H0YT:
Let me correct an error I just nade 14 in not bringing us back on the record, Mr. Turk.
During the 15 off-the-record period, we had the Kensington representative
~
16 read'the contention as he wishes to amend'1t lnto the 17 record.
l 18 Now, Mr. Turk, you wanted to be recognized.
Would 19 you please start again.
20 MR. TURK:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.
The 21 Staff is content to have the contention remain as originally 22 stated when flied.
We concede that the contention raised an 23 issue that the designated evacuation was insufficient by 24 itself and that there should have been an alternate route
(])
25 designated.
We read that in the contention already, so we ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336-6646
1 l
26228.0 cox 2220 1
have no problem with the original framing of the contention.
2 Our only reservation on this contention was that if the 3
contention had asserted that new roads had to be built, we 4
would oppose its admission, but I never saw that as being 5
part of the contention.
6 JUDGE H0YT:
Anything further, Mr. Dignan?
7 MR. DIGNAN:
- Yes, I understand the Staff takes 8
that position, but I find great difficulty in reading it that 9
way.
The original contention as phrased ends up "because 10 there is no provision for alternative evacuation routes."
11 The case which we cited at page 18 of our response, Kansas 12 Gas & Electric, the Licensing Board decision, says there is O
13 no requirement for alternative evacuation ro,utes; and, in 14 addition, the NUREG we cited -- the NUREG provision that was 15 proffered says nothing about alternative evacuation routes.
16 Now, that's the way it was phrased.
17 Now what has been done is to drop that language 18 and say, now we are saying the designated route isn't good 19 enough.
That's a substantially different contention, and 20 there ought to be a showing that the late filing is 21 authorized under the usual tests.
It is not the same 22 contention merely modified, in my judgment.
23 To that might be added that you must read this new 24 contention, as I see it, rather than just an amendment,
(}
25 against the basis that they pled; because they are not ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
- - _ = _ _ _..
i J
i.
I 1
26228.0 cox 2221 1
pleading any new basis, as I understand it.
l 2
And the basis they pled was, "NUREG-0654 II-10-J
{
3 requires that there be maps showing ev3.cuation routes.
Only 4
one evacuation route has been designated for the Town of a
j 5
Kensington with no alternatives in the event of inclement
]
6 weather, high traffic density, or specific radiological l
4 7
conditions.
This is considered inadequate to protect the j
8 public in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook 1
l 9
station."
10 Now I submit, Madam Chairman and members of the i
j 11 Board, that no one could legitimately read that basis and i
1 j
12 that prior language as anything but a co,ntention that says i
13 you had to designate an alternative to the chosep route, per i
14 se.
I i
15 On that basis, I think Kansas Gas & Electric l
16 knocked the contention out.
This new contention is i
l, 17 substantially different, may or may not be litigable, I j
i l
18 haven't had a chance to think about it; but in any event, a
19 there will be a showing under the late filing rule, it seems i
20 to me.
4 L
1 21 JUDGE H0YT:
You understand what he is talking I
22 about under the late filing rule.
That is the test under the 23 Ca tawba decision.
24 MR. LOVELL:
Yes.
4 l (}
25 JUDGE H0YT:
Would you be prepared to meet those i
4 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS,1NC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33& o646
i 26228.0 cox 2222 1
if so ruled?
i l
2 MR. LOVELL:
I am not familiar with the fire test i
j 3
per se.
I am inclined to say that the Staff seems to 4
4 4
understand, I guess, and have no problem with the contention 5
as originally filed.
Maybe I will just waive the amendment 3
j j
6 and go back to the original filing and let it stand on its 7
basis, if that's -- can I do that?
l 8
JUDGE H0YT:
Is that what you would like to do?
i l
9 MR. LOVELL:
Yes, I would like to do that, i
1 10 MR. DIGNAN:
Then our original answer to that will j
11 stand as written, i
12 JUDGE H0YT:
Lack of any opposition from the Staff C:)
]
13 will take its stance as well; correct, Mr. Turk?.
i 14 MR. TURK:
Yes.
Okay, fine.
Madam Chairman, I 1
15 would note, however, that our answer indicates that we j
{
16 consider this to be an ETE type of an issue.
17 JUDGE H0YT:
Yes, I am aware of that, Mr. Turk.
I 18 Thank you, i
{
19 MR. LOVELL:
Going on to Contention No. 4,'"The i
20 December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for i
l 21 the Town of Kensington does not provide rearonable assurance 1
l 22 that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in i
23 the event of a radiological emergency at seabrook station, as
)
24 required by 10 CFR 50.47 A-1, because'there are no maps
()
25 showing adequate shelter areas and some existing structures I
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202 347 3700 Nationwide Comase 800 336 6646
- _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ - - _. _, - - - - -. -,, _ -.... _... -, - _. _,., _ ~. _ _ _. _ _
26228.0 cox 2223 1
which are proposed shelters provide inadequate radioloaical i
2 protection."
]
3 The Staff and the state do not oppose this 4
contention, the Applicant does oppose this contention and i
5 claims that regulations do not require shelter surveys or 6
maps.
.i 7
I would like to note that NUREG-0654 II-J-10-A l
)
8 specifically states that there be maps showing, in addition 9
to other things, shelter areas.
10 The Applicant also argues that the school
.i 11 inadequacy for sheltering is not applicable due to the fact
-)
12 that basements and interior rooms which were cited on our
(
)
13 basis are not required in buildings used for shelters.
They 4
I 14 also note that the air exchange is the important element
)
)
15 regarding safety of sheltering.
We would like to, propose 16 that the onus is not on us to prove that our school is an I
17 inadequate shelter; but that it is on the Applicant to prove j
18 that the school is an adequate shelter.
19 We would like our basis to rest with that in 20
- mind, t
l 21 Moving on to contention No. 5, I am inclined to i
22 let that stand on the basis of its merits, and I will move on 33 to Contention No.
6, "The December 1985 draft radiological i
i 24 emergency response plan for the Town of Kensington does not i
I ()
25 provide adequate arrangements for effectively using ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 4646
i i
)
26228.0 cox 2224 l
1 assistance and resources as required by 10 CFR 50.47 B-3,
{
2 because there are not appropriate letters of agreement to 3
identify and support organizations and other facilities which 4
.are to provide assistance."
S The state does not oppose this contention.
The 6
Staff opposes parts or the contention, and the Applicant c
i I
7 opposes the entire contention for lack of basis.
8 I will begin by addressing the Staff's opposition 9
and move onto the Applicant's opposition.
j l
10 Staff opposes omission of the contention 1
j 11 concerning the letters of agreement with teachers.
It states 12 that it is unclear what role the town believes the teachers i
f j
13 are required to perform in any emergency response plan.
1 l
14 I would like to point out that teachers are I
15 required under the plan at page F-2-5 through F-2-6 to board l
16 each bus and supervise students until they reach the host 17 community.
18 In addition, teachers also account for all 19 students prior to boarding of buses, accompany students to
}
20 the buses, and insure the students board them in an orderly i
l 21 fashion.
They are to supervise stu' dents at the reception l
}
22 center until they are picked up by their parents or legal 1
j 23 guardians.
I reference you to F-2-6 in the Kensington plan j
24 for that inf orma tion.
1 ()
25 This appears to us to be an unambiguous and l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
_ _ ~ -_-.
26228.0 i
cox 2225
(
1 important role for teachers in the plan.
NUREG-0654 II-C-4 l
2 specifically states that "Each organization shall identify i
3 individuals which can be relied upon in emergency to provide 4
assistance.
Such assistance shall be identified and 4
j 5
supported by appropriate letters of agreement."
i l
6 We feel the basis of this contention is clear, and j
7 we feel it should be accepted.
I 1
8 Contention No. 7 reads:
"The December 1985 draft 9
radiological emergency response plan for the Town of
}
10 Kensington does not provide reasonable assurance that 11 adequate protective actions have'been developed for emergency 12 workers and the public, as required by 10 CFR 50.47 B-10,
! (:)
l 13 because there are no provisions for the use of 14 radio-protective drugs or respiratory equipment for emergency I
15 workers or other persons within the plume exposure."
16 We note that the Staff does not oppose this 17 contention to the extent which it addresses emergency workers 18 and institutionalized persons.
4 i
}
19 In light of that, we would like to amend this 1
{
20 contention to read, on the last line, after " emergency i
21 workers," we would like to be inserted "and institutionall=ed
}
22 persons" as opposed to "or other workers within the plume 23 exposure."
l 24 I would also note the state does not oppose this
()
25 contention.
The Applicant does oppose the contention and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33HM6
i 26228.0 i
cox 2226 (E)
}
1 states that Kensington says there is "no discussion regarding l
2 radio-protective drugs in the Kensington plan."
3 The contention filed by the town states that there i
4 are no provisions, and I am paraphrasing, for use of j
I i
5 radio-protective drugs.
The basis further quotes, et cetera, 6
"the discussion from the plan for the argument that no i
7 radio-protective drugs are necessary in the plan."
- Clearly, 1
)
8 we feel there was a discussion in the plan, and it was an 1
9 inadequate one.
The Applicant's second argument is that the-4
}
10 state makes a decision concerning deployment of 3
1 11 radio-protective drugs, particularly potassium iodide.
The i
1 l
g deployment we feel is not the issue; availability and the 12 i
U i
13 provisions for the use of the drugs are the issues.
We feel 14 that the basis speaks for itself in this contention, and I 1
15 have a note here that in the proceedings yesterday there was 1
I 16 some amendment offered, and I can't remember --
i i
17 MR. GAD:
If I might, I think I can save a minute l
18 or two, your Honor.
19 JUDGE H0YT:
All right.
20 MR. GAD:
If I understand matters, the words, and 21 I quote "or other persons within the plume exposure pathway,"
22 have been deleted from the proposed contention, and that in i
23 their stead are the words "and institutionalized persons."
24 Am I correct?
l ()
25 MR. LOVELL:
No, I am sorry, no.
i
}
i I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 336 4646
'l 26228.0 cox 2227
(
1 JUDGE H0YT:
He intended to leave the expression 2
"within the plume exposure" in, f*6
)
3 MR. GAD:
But the "or other persona."
4 JUDGE H0YT:
Well, it's your contention, sir.
5 MR. LOVELL:
I deleted "or other persons" or those 6
three words.
I have inserted "and institutionalized 7
persons."
8 MR. GAD:
With that change, your Honor, I believe 9
that this would fall within the class of contentions that we 10 described yesterday as to which our position was now 11 consistent with the Staff.
I do not oppose the KI contention 12 that is limited to emergency workers or institutionalized O
13 persons.
This one apparently no lohger includes.the general 14 public.
Therefore, it would not be opposed by the 15 Applicants.
16 JUDGE H0YT:
Then we can rapidly move on to 17 Kensington Contention 8.
18 MR. LOVELL:
That's correct.
I am going to let 19 Contention 8 speak for itself and rapidly move on to 20 Contention 10, as Contention 9 will not be addressed.
21 Contention 10 reads --
22 JUDGE H0YT:
You are not going to address 9 at 23 all?
24 MR. LOVELL:
I believe you told me yesterday.
(}
25 JUDGE HOYT:
That's correct.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M3364646
- 26228.0 cox 2228
(
1 MR. LOVELL:
Your Honor, 9 and 16 will not be 2
addressed.
Contention No. 10 reads:
"The December 1985 3
draft radiological emergency response plan for the Town of 4
Kensington does not provide for communications with 5
contiguous ~ state and local governments within the plume 6
exposure pathway EPZ as required by 10 CFR 50.47 Appendix E, 7
E-9-A, because provisions for communications with the state 1
8 government are inadequate."
j 9
We note that the NRC Staff and the state do not 10 oppose this contention.
The Applicant says Kensington's 11 focus on the telephone system is irrelevant in our basis.
We 12 would represent that it is not irrelevant, that the CE) 13 communications between the state and the emergency operations 1
14 center during an emergency situation are substantially by 15 telephone.
There are currently no direct phones in the 16 emergency operation center room which communicate directly 17 with the state.
18 There is only one outside telephone which is not 19 the direct " red line" communication with emergency responding
}
20 parties and the state in the emergency center operation room, 21 and we do not feel that the communications system currently i
22 in place is adequate to protect the Town of Kensington or l
23 adequate to connect and link us to the state communications 24' system.
(}
25 In addition, it's noted that there is a certain J
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
4 26228.0 t
i cox 2229 1
amount of ambiauous emergency equipment listed in the plan 2
which is not in place, and we would be happy to provide a 3
detailed list of exactly every piece of emergency equipment a
4 which the town currently does not have, if that will be 5
desired by the Board.
I do not have it with me at this time, 6
but I could go to the appropriate individuals and acquire 7
that list if that would be desired.
8 JUDGE H0YT:
I don't think the Board would want to 9
take that at this time.
I think that would be a matter of 10 evidence at the time of the formal hearing, Mr. Lovell, and 11 you may put on some testimony of that nature if you wish at I
12 that time.
j 13 MR. LOVELL:
Okay.
14 JUDGE H0YT:
Assuming that the contention would be 15 accepted.
16 MR. LOVELL:
Right.
Moving on to Contention No.
17 11, we would like to waive this contention at this time.
18 Contention No. 12 reads:
"The December 1985 draft 19 tadiological emergency response plan for the Town of 20 Kensington does not provide reasonable assurance that the 21 adequate protected measures can and will be taken in the 22 event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook station as 23 required by 10 CFR.47 A-1 -- sorry, 10 CFR 50.47 A-1, 24 because there is no description of means for registering and f
()
25 monitoring of evacuees at relocation areas in the host I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 33 MI646
a
{
26228.0 cox 2230 1
1 areas."
We would note that the state does not oppose this 2
contention.
The Staff and the Applicant both do oppose this 3
contention.
j 4
The Staff contends that the contention lacks basis 5
and fails to address any deficiencies contained in the host 6
community plan for relocation centers.
7 The contention by the town does not attempt to i
8 address deficiencies in the host community plan; rather, the 9
interpretation of the planning element at NUREG-0654 II-J-12 10 is that a description of registration and monitorinc of 11 evacuees at the relocation centers should be included in our 12 local plan to facilitate an orderly entrance into the host
()
13 community and relocation center.
2 14 The Applicant's objections to the contention are l
1 15 essentially identical to the Staff's and have just been 16 addressed, we feel, as well.
17 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Lovell, before you continue on, 18 may I assume that you have completed your discussion as 19 well?
20 MR. LOVELL:
Yes.
21 JUDGE HOYT:
Let me go back to Contention No. 11.
22 I think I heard you, the expression "We would waive it at i
23 this time."
You understand if you withdraw this contention j
24 at this time, it is with prejudice and it will not be l (}
25 refiled.
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 233Hn46
26228.0 cox 2231 1
MR. LOVELL:
Yes.
2 JUDGE HOYT:
You have that understanding?
3 MR. LOVELL:
Yes, thank you.
l 4
JUDGE HOYT:
That is withdrawn completely?
5 MR. LOVELL:
Yes.
Thank you for clarifying that.
l 6
Contention No. 13 reads:
"The December 1985 draft i
7 radiological emergency response plan-for the Town of 8
Kensington does not provide reasonable assurance that f
9 adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the 1
10 event of radiological emergency at Seabrook station as 11 required by 10 CFR 50.47 A-1 because there are inadequate i
12 provisions for notifying and locating all segments of the O
13 transient and resident population."
14 State does not oppose this contention.
The Staff 15 does not oppose the contention to the extent that it 16 challenges the level of detail provided for " compiling a list 17 of Kensington residents requiring evacuation by special 18 vehicle or requiring physical health."
It does oppose the 19 balance of the contention regarding transients for the lack 20 of basis.
21 We feel our contention is challenging the level of 22 detail for the transient population requiring transportation 23 in the same manner that it is challenging the level of detail 24 for the residents requiring the evacuation by special vehicle
()
25 or requiring physical help.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
~
i 1
26228.0 cox 2232 1
We further feel that to accept one aspect of the 2
contention and reject the other is inconsistent; and if the 3
Staff finds a basis for challenging the level of detail in 4
one instance, we feel it should apply in the other.
5 I do agree with the Staff that we have 6'
inappropriately cited the NUREG-0654 element in our 7
contention to provide the basis for the argument.
8 The Applicant opposes the contention primarily on 9
the basis -- on the grounds that the basis is inappropriately 10 cited; and Mr. Turk and the Staff have noted in the beginning 11 of the comments that perhaps due to our lack of legal 12 background, in many instances we have inappropriately cited O
13 several of the bases.
However, our contentions in these 14 instances apparently do have bases in other parts of the 15 NUREG criteria which the Staff in their expertise has been 16 able to link up with the questions we have raised.
We feel this contention falls within that category and we feel it 17 18 should be accepted on that basis.
19 Moving on to Contention No. 14 and Contention 15, i
20 we plan to waive both of those contentions.
Contention 16 21 will not be addressed, so that completes the Kensington 22 contentions.
t 23 JUDGE HOYT:
Again, Mr. Lovell, you are 24 withdrawing these two contentions?
(}
25 MR. LOVELL:
I withdraw those, 14 and 15.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
1 26228.0 cox 2233 1
JUDGE LUEBKE:
Mr. Lovell.
l 2
MR. LOVELL:
Yes.
1
{
3 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Some of your earlier remarks had to i
4 do with firemen working elsewhere and so on, and earlier in 5
this prehearing, other towns have remarked about the scarcity
]
6 of personnel.
Does this relate to the smallness of the l
7 governmental unit involved?
8 MR. LOVELL:
I think that's precisely what it 9
relates to, combined with the small population.
As everyone 10 is aware, these response plans are very, very complex I
11 documents, and they require several personnel to carry out 12 several vital functions with the town of 1400 people; it's O
13 extremely difficult to get individuals to carry put only one 14 function.
15 In our town, almost every public official has more a
16 than one role and is required to carry out simultaneous roles 1
i 17 just to keep the town government rolling.
18 In an emergency response situation, this creates 19 particular difficulties whcre you have conflicting roles for r
20 those individuals, whereas in the operational aspect of the 21 town, the dual or sometimes several roles of one individual 22 can be carried out in an emergency response situation.
This 23 is not appropriate.
And so this is where the lack of 24 personnel is particularly troublesome.
i
()
25 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Having heard this picture described ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 336 4646
i 26228.0 ox 2234 1
several times at this prehearing, is there any virtue to a l
2 concept where some of these governmental units are joined 3
together in the plan, so to speak, to give it a critical mass 4
as we say in physics, for planning purposes; and I raise this 5
question to you:
Does that make any sense?
6 MR. LOVELL:
I don't know if that would be 7
possible or not.
It's difficult for me to say, not knowing 8
the particular of the other towns's plans and the particular 9
-- in detail, certainly, the particular concerns of other 10 towns.
11 Certainly something is required, whether it is 12 goir.g to be additional help from the state and Federal O
13 Government in carrying out some of these duties, or whether 14 smaller towns have collapsed these functions together and 15 sprqad the chores around so there are not these conflicts of 4
16 du t.Ie s.
17 I am not sure what the answer is, but clearly that 18 could be a possibility.
19 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Another question is had you, 20 insofar as it has come, participated in helping the state 21 with their plan?
)
22 MR. LOVELL:
Well, the state has approached the 23 town and requested information on occasion.
In the instance e
24 of the Town of Kensington, we have had problems with the
()
25 state plan for several years, and we have felt that it has ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
._ _ ~ - -,,._
4 26228.0 cox 2235 1
not been a process where the town was included from day one, 2
and so we have been disenchanted and we feel disenfranchised 3
by the state, and we feel the plans are so inadequate at this 4
point that it is not to our benefit or helping any productive 5
end at this stage to assist in the implementation or in the 6
compilation of the plan.
]
7 JUDGE LUEBKE:
To review your comment, in the 8
early stages, there was some communication and then it broke 9
off; is that a fair summary of it?
10 MR. LOVELL:
That's a difficult question for me to 11 answer, Mr. Luebke, because I wasn't involved in the early 12 stages of the plan.
I presume that to be the case, although O
13 I couldn't say.
'l 14 JUDGE LUEEKE:
I might express my problem with it, 15 and that is if you are not helping the state make the plan, 16 there is a question in my mind as to how you can complain i
17 about it.
18 MR. LOVELL:
Well, we feel that the plan is one 19 that has been imposed upon the town without any input from 20 the town from the very beginning; and I think there have been 21' some very -- there's been some bad blood created right from 22 the start by having this plan imposed on the town without any 23 input or without any -- asking for any help from the town.
24 JUDGE LUEBKE:
So then one interpretation is that
(}
25 your contentions, together with the bases, explanatory bases, 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646
26228.0 cox 2236
- CE) 1 represent in a way some assistance to the state for planning 2
purposes?
3 MR. LOVELL:
That's correct.
In addition, I have 4
an additional 80 points regarding the plan which I have 5
compiled in a draft form.
Unfortunately, due to the time 6
constraints here, they weren't able to be entered as 7
contentions in the plan, but when they are in the final draft 8
form, I do plan to send them, forward them to the state.
9 JUDGE LUEBKE:
I was hoping you weren't going to 10 say to the Licensing Board.
11 MR. LOVELL:
No, I am afraid due to time schedule, 12 they cannot be entered as contentions, although several of
(
13 them would apply if the schedule were more amenable.
14 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Thank you, Mr. Lovell.
15 JUDGE H0YT:
Yes.
16 MR. MC EACHERN:
Madam Chairman, to help the Board 17 understand this situation a little better, it might be wise 18 to point out the historical perspective here.
In New 19 Hampshire, we have had a tradition of the state mandating 20 responsibilities to local communities without funding the 21 job; and that continues to the present day, and there has 22 been a resistance to that by the towns and significantly, in 23 the last election, the state adopted an amendment to its 24 constitution saying that, henceforth, there can be no.
(}
25 additional responsibilities farmed out to the towns and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage m 33 H 646
- ~ -.
26228.0 cox 2237 i
1 cities of this state unless they are funded by the state.
2 So that we have that tension between the towns and 3
state that may be unique to New Hampshire because of our 4
peculiar circumstances, it would be helpful to understand why 5
this has gone on and some of the background to it.
1 6
JUDGE LUEBKE:
So part of the problem in the past i
l 7
has been no money or shortage of money?
8 MR. MC EACHERN:
That's right, that's right.
l 1
9 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Is it the gist of of your statement i
j 10 that this has improved?
1 11 MR. MC EACHERN:
The gist of the statement is we 12
~have constitutionalized the issue now so the state cannot do
(:)
13 it anymore to the towns.
14 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Cannot do what now?
15 MR. MC EACHERN:
They cannot mandate out new 16 functions or increase cost of existing functions without l
17 paying for those functions or without a vote of the local 18 municipality.
19 JUDGE LUEBKE:
But you haven't seen the money from 20 the state, when you say it hasn't improved the situation?
21 MR. MC EACHERN:
No.
The state is quite free with 22 its mandates, but less willing with the money.
23 JUDGE H0YT:
Mr. Bisbee, you look as if you wish 24 to say something here.
()
25 MR. BISBEE:
Yes, I have several comments to make ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide r trage 800-33H646
26228.0 cox 2238 O
1 if I may briefly, your Honor.
2 JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
3 MR. BISBEE:
First of all, in response to 4
Mr. Lovell's explanation and contention of bases, I would S
like to think him for his explanation of the lucid issues I
6 raised by the town and encourage him to let all of us at the 7
state know what the remaining issues are that the town is 8
concerned about.
9 I certainly am appreciative of the fact that 1
10 several towns in the emergency planning zone of seabrook, 11 have remaining substantive issues about the plans.
They also 12
-- some of them also have concerns about the process that the 13 planners have gone through in,the last four or more years in j
14 developing these plans.
I would like first to remind the i
15 Board that there are, of course, other towns within the EPZ 16 that have cooperated with the state, continued to do so, and 17 are not represented here.
I also want to remind the Board 18 that the towns represented here have in the past, on 19 occasion, worked with the state in a cooperative fashion, and j
20 I hope that that will -- that effort will be reinitiated 21 soon.
22 Finally, as to the point raised by Mr. McEachern I
23 about the funding issue, continuing point he was making was 24 solely to the state-mandated programs which have not been
()
25 funded by the state in the past.
I don't know that is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-3364646
~
_ _ _ -. _ ~.
y-._.
' )
26228.0 4
2239 cox O
1 applicable in the present case, as to radiolocical emergency 2
planning,swhere a state statute already provides for the l
3 necessary funding to be routed through the Public Utilities 4
Commission and assessed to the utility.
5 I think the other point that needs to be made is i !
6 in relation to the pending lawsuits in state courts about the 7
planning process.
Those cases relate not only to the funding 8
aspect of the state-mandated civil defense responsibilities, 9
but the fact that it is the state that has been authorized by 4
1i 10 our legislature, the state Civil Defense Ager.cy, to develop fl 11 the plans for the Seabrook station, as well as any other i
j 12 nuclear generating station that involves New Hampshire.
I 13 just want to remind the Board that the Civil Defense Agency 14 of the State of New Hampshire, in developing these plans, is j
15 carrying out a mandate from the state legislature to, in 16 fact, implement -- first of all prepare, and then implement 17 necessary emergency plans to comply with federal 1
18 regulations.
i 19 Thank you.
20 MR. NADEAU:
Madam Chairman.
21 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Nadeau, just a moment.
Judge i
22 Luebke has a question.
23 JUDGE LUEBKE:
I want to follow up, Mr. Bisbee.
l 24 Mr. Lovell indicated that his contentions and their bases and' I ()
25 his further explanations this morning represented an input I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646 e.- -. _ _, -.. _ _ _ _
26228.0 cox 2240 l
3) 1 from their governmental unit to the state.
2 My question to you is during the process of this 3
prehearing yesterday, were there additional substantive 4
inputs that could be put into your state plan to approve it 5
to the extent of removing some of the adversarial contexts or 1
6 contentions?
7 MR ~BISBEE:
Thank you, your Honor, for asking 8
that.
It is very important.
We are reviewing this process 9
as an additional way of enhancing planning for the towns and 10 the state.
To the extent that issues can be raised here 11 which haven't been dealt with before, where there hasn't been i
12 time to resolve all the issues, we encourage everyone 2
1 13 participating here to use this forum as an additional way of 14 improving the plans.
15 JUDGE LUEBKE:
What would the mechanism be, in 16 your mind, as to how we would gain the fruits of this 17 communication effort we have had here in these two days?
18 Will it show up on papers to be issued and distributed to the 19 parties as further -- what do you call it, revisions of the 20 plans?
21 MR. BISBEE:
I suspect that there very well will 22 be changes made as a result of issues raised on the 23 proceeding.
Others may be resolved without having to 4
24 formally change the plan, but that can be done through a,
25 negotiations or discussions with the parties.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
l 26228.0 cox 2241 1
JUDGE LUEBKE:
Then reasonable people might expect 2
that in another go-around there would be fewer contentions?
3 MR. BISBEE:
That would be my assumption.
4 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Thank you.
4 5
MR. LOVELL:
Judge Luebke, if I might --
1 i
i 6
JUDGE H0YT:
I had recognized Mr. Nadeau, but if 7
that goes along with the discussion.
4
)
8 MR. NADEAU:
I would defer to Mr. Lovell.
i i
9 JUDGE H0YT:
Mr. Lovell.
I 1C MR. LOVELL:
I just wanted to add one more point 11 of information in regard to your response, Mr. Bisbee; that 12 is with the contentions filed in 1983, I think a similar O
13 process could be assumed regarding your questions as to 14 whether the contentions at that time, which obviously were i
15 available to all of the parties interested, would be 16 incorporated into the plan.
17 I would note that with Kensington, the personnel I
deficiencies in the notification are substantially identical 13 to the ones filed in
'83.
There's been virtually no action 4
20 taken in the three years subsequent to those earlier 21 contentions.
22 So this is something, one of the many points, that i
23 sort of adds to the bad blood between the town and the 24 state.
{}
I would like to further add that I think 25 I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 646
26228.0 cox 2242 1
Mr. McEachern's comment regarding the funding was no't so much 2
the funding per se, but allowed a background concerning the 3
relationship of town government to state government, and 4
perhaps an adversarial relationship in and of itself rather 5
than funding relationship, which Mr. Bisbee had alluded to.
6 JUDGE H0YT:
Now, Mr. Nadeau.
7 MR. NADEAU:
Madam Chairman, I feel it is neither.
8 As as for Rye --
9 JUDGE H0YT:
Would you use that microphone please, 10 sir.
11 MR. NADEAU:
I think it's important for the Board 12 to understand, at least from Rye's perspective -- and I would O
13 assume that my fellow representatives here share.the same 14 thing -- what is involved is several related issues.
I would 15 say to you, we have a situation where there's been complaints 16 about cooperation between the towns and the state.
You have 17 two peripheral lawsuits that have grown out of the process.
18 You have the cost aspect, which is a third category; but the 19 bottom line of Rye still is the standard, that the plans must 20 provide reasonable measures of assurance that adequate 21 protective measures can and will be taken.
So I don't like 22 to hear terms such as " bad blood" or " costs."
23 Rye, for example, hasn't had the time to deal with 24 the cost implications, although I know that our host towh of
(}
25 Dover is now considering it.
Our concerns -- these are all ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
26228.0 cox 2243
(:)
1 legitimate issues, I don't mean to say they are not, but i
2 Judge Luebke was saying, will these resolve that and amend 3
some processes?
Some things certainly will blend together, 4
hopefully with the cooperation of the Staff.
5 But the bottom line really is the standard, and j
6 our town has not been participating.
The reason for not a
7 participating is not so much the fact that we say the state i
8 has failed to cooperate with us as required by law as it is 9
that, as the plans sit now, we feel it fails in total under 10 that standard of reasonable measures of assurance.
l l
11 So, therefore, if we 'do participate, which is, 12 that is the next step in the licensing process, it's 13 inconsistent with the position that we are taking, that, as 14 they presently sit, it's just not in the interest of the 15 public safety that we can handle it right.
16 So we have some related issues, but I hate to i
17 think that that confuses, perhaps, the bottom line.
We have 18 home rule issues that we have to litigate because some of the 19 matters growing out of this, in some towns's opinions, usurp i
20 their responsibilities and their authorities.
21 We had a statute in New Hampshire that really only 22 gives the state the authority in this matter for emergency i
23 local planning, where the local governments cannot.
It's 24 really only in total disaster situations.
So that whole 25 gamut below, perhaps an evacuation or necessity of the
{}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26228.0 cox 2244 h
1 governor to declare an evacuation, I believe the s
2 responsibility lies with the towns and we are going to have 3
to deal with that.
4 So we have a lot of related matters.
I am sure 5
some of them will be ironed out, but the bottom line really 6
is the standard, whether these plans provide enough public 7
safety.
8 JUDGE LUEBKE:
I am trying to interpret your 9
remarks, and is one interpretation that, yes, you realize you 10 have this responsibility, and then you keep saying the plan 11 doesn't work; but, still, do you admit you have a 12 responsibility to make some other plan work?
O 13 MR. NADEAU:
I think our first responsibility 14 falls in the line of the public safety, ensuring the public 15 safety.
We have responsibilities, I believe, to follow an 16 orderly process in any matters that affect the town, which 17 this would be one aspect of.
18 But part of the problem has been the process 19 itself, really.
We have certain time deadlines on towns that 20 are inconsistent with and affect our ability to convey to 21 your Board what is reasonable for public safety protection, 22 so we have to deal with those, i
23 The only -- one of the only means was to say, 24 well, we can no longer participate at the present time, i
{}
25 certainly, because the plans are in a state of inadequacy.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-33H646
26228.0 cox 2245 1
We have had one of our concerns -- and I am not too sure 2
where it stands now, but there was a request by Public 3
Service Company to change the level or the standard of the 4
safety criteria for allowable leakage, that they wanted the I
]
5 NRC to approve by February 28.
6 I haven't heard what -- we haven't received any 7
word on what implications that has.
We were to file 8
contentions February 24; there was a drill February 26, 9
Public Service was attempting to change one safety criterion 10 by February 28.
So I am trying to say we are dealing with 11 that.
How can we participate when those types of things are
]
12 being changed and we don't understand that?
I don't know 13 what that criteria meant.
14 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Well, Mr. Lovell indicated that the 15 planning process started over two years ago, so that if I had 16 a positive planned concept that was better than the state 17 had, you have had some two years to generate it.
18 MR. NADEAU:
Well, the Town of Rye, for example, l
19 your Honor, filed contentions three years ago, one of them 20 very similar to the one we are now addressing, in different 21 fashions; we have all talked in terms of alternate evacuation l
22 routing or congested routing as designated.
I think 23 Mr. Lovell is correct on that one intention and the Staff 24 interpreted his contention to be the same, the route 25 evacuation we have is inadequate.
You talk in reverse, we
{
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
26228.0 I
cox 2246
(
1 should have some alternate routing.
2 2
We provided that in a cooperative spirit back in 3
'83, I believe it was.
But the plan was never changed, it 4
has stayed the same.
We still have the same routes and we 5~
still have the same problem.
I j
6 We are saying in Rye you cannot evacuate as you 7
predict you can under these plans in the summertime.
We 8
can't move there in the summertime to begin with, and that's 9
a real problem.
10 JUDGE LUEBKE:
I sense that the communication i
1 11 mechanism seems to be these hearings and contentions.
In l
12 other cases, we find that the adversarial parties negotiate O
13 behind the scenes outside of the hearings, outside of the l
T l
14 Licensing Board.
Does that ever happen in this case?
1 i
15 MR. NADEAU:
Well, not in Rye.
Nobody -- why they I
i 16 would even interpret that there would be a negotiated thing; i
17 how can you negotiate the public safety?
We talk about the 18 issue on whether you can evacuate on the routes we have, 1
19 whether we have the personnel to cover or the medical 20 facility, short of evacuation.
If we are going to stay l
21 there, you know, give us the ability to handle, or tell us i
22 what we need.
Rye really isn't even concerned with the 23 cost.
Tell us what we need in any situation short of
[
24 evacuation, to handle public safety and treatment, so that we 25 can plan for it.
i i
3 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
)
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-336-6646
I 26228.0 cox 2247 1
JUDGE LUEEKE:
It would seem to me then to move 2
this whole thing along, to ask that there be a means found 3
for trying to settle some of these matters without using the 4
Licensing Board.
5 In other words, behind the scenes, so to speak.
I 4
]
6 think it's up to the parties to see what they can do.
1 7
MR. NADEAU:
I disagree, your Honor.
I think what 8
the Board has to determine is whether or not sufficient 9
security for public safety is provided for in the Seabrook 10 situation, frankly.
You know, the towns should not be 11 responsible for a situation if in fact we cannot be safely 1
1 12 evacuated and someone has to accept that fact, if that's the O
13 bottom line.
14 Right now, we are saying, as things stand, at 15 least Rye is saying, we cannot be safely evacuated nor can we i
16 protect our public safety in situations short of evacuation.
l 17 So what is there to negotiate?
In good conscience we say it l
18 can't be done presently.
You can show us how.
We will 19 reconsider, so we will be cooperative, i
20 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Thank you, sir.
I think we have 1
21 reached the end of the line on that one.
22 MR. BISBEE:
If I could add one comment to that 23 line.
24 JUDGE HOYT:
Sure, proceed.
{}
25 MR. BISBEE:
So that the Board does not have only 1
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364646
26228.0 cox 2248 J
1 a narrow view of the process that is ongoing now, there are 2
plans being developed behind the scenes that is going on i
3 now.
The planners, Civil Defense Agency, consultants working 4
in conjunction with them, are still developing the plans.
5 Input from the towns is still being sought.
6 That's entirely outside the scope of these proceedings.
7 At the same time, within the scope of the 8
proceedings, it is certainly the state's view that we want to
)
9 talk with all those parties who have remaining issues about 10 the plans, to resolve as many of them as we can.
I don't t
11 suspect we will resolve all of them.
12 JUDGE LUEBKE:
The door is open, you say?
13 MR. BISBEE:
That's correct.
14 JUDGE H0YT:
Thank you.
Yes, Mr. McEachern.
15 MR. MC EACHERN:
Just briefly, your Honor.
The 16 Town of Hampton has a unique problem, and the problem is 17 this.
We start with the concept that the beach population in 18 the summertime cannot be protected, period.
So why does that i
19 leave us in negotiating.
Do we negotiate away their safety?
20 We can't do that in good conscience, and we feel that it's 21 our duty to make contentions on thic plan to point out that 22 the plan is deficient in protecting that beach population, 23 and it's not our duty to cooperate with the state when we, in 24 good conscience, feel that under no circumstances can the
{}
25 beach population be adequately I protected.
1 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646
26228.0 cox 2249 O
1 JUDGE LUEBKE:
So you are saying there is no 2
alternative to litigation at a Licensing Board?
3 MR. MC EACHERN:
That's correct.
That leaves you 4
with a very difficult decision, but that's the process, I 5
guess.
6 JUDGE H0YT:
I believe, though, in hearing the 7
input from the towns and from Mr. Bisbee on behalf of the 8
state.
There are some of these contentions that from the 9
point of view of negotiation should certainly be able to be 10 settled outside of the scope of litigation.
J 11 I am concerned that if we have such a mass of 12 contentions, we may lose sight of some of the very, very 13 important elements we need to focus on from the Board's point j
14 of view of getting the predicted findings that we must be 15 charged to be making.
We are certainly agreeable to aiding
)
16 those negotiations in any way the Board could be of service j
17 to the parties.
It's always very difficult, if you are i
18 trying to remain as an impartial judge and trying to 19 participate in some of the management features of the case.
20 However, I think the Board is willing to have that input if 21 it would be productive for the parties.
22 One of the things I am concerned about is simply 23 this, and that is, that if you get into the litigation of 1
24 such a. massive amount of issues, I don't think some parties 25 may be aware of what litigation costs are in the modern day ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(Hi646
-, _ _ _. ~
26228.0 cox 2250 0
1 forums; and to aid you in your thinkina, for example, I 2
totaled up the cost of the transcript in one of the 3
proceedings that I had been Chairman of the Board and found 4
that we had spent some $250,000 merely on transcripts.
5 So just from a cost point of view, both for your 6
own towns, it is well spent in cooperation in the necessity 7
of putting together some sort of negotiation.
You don't have 8
to like your adversary to negotiate with him.
I think this l
9 is one of the features that we would like to urge the parties 10 to consider.
l 11 Certainly, I have encouraged -- I feel my 12 colleagues are as well, with Mr. Bisbee's input this morning 13 as well as all the towns.
I find that I certainly have 14 learned a great deal in the bases and consideration of these 15 contentions and the formulation of them.
That doesn't mean 16 you may get them in, but certainly they are, in many cases, 17 very productive of the total picture that we must look at.
18 MR. BISBEE:
May I be heard briefly, again, your 19 Honor, hopefully finally on this point.
The remark you made 20 necessitated my adding a further remark here, that is, the 21 state does not want to lose track of the ultimate goal here 22 either, in the litigation or outside of it.
23 We want to have safe plans.
That is the state's 24 goal as it is obviously the towns'.
That would mean that we 25 would want to deal with the issues that have been raised in j
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
26228.0 cox 2251 1
the proceeding and any other issues tha t haven't been raised 2
in the proceeding which need to be addressed in order to I
l 3
assure the public safety.
That relates to the numerous 4
issues that the Town of Kensington has that they did not ti raise in contentions; it relates to issues that other towns 6
may have that have not been raised here as well.
I just want 7
to clarify that for all the parties here.
1 8
JUDGE HOYT:
I know in the past the Board has been i
9 encouraged by the Staff and the Appliennt's participation and l
10 willingness to participate.
I believe that we have now, 11 counsel and persons before us, who represent the various 12 interests and are representing them well; and we wish that '
13 you do make your concerns known to these parties, so that 14 they may have the input and very well satisfy the concerns.
]
15 Mr. McEachern, there is one point I feel compelled 16 to answer you on, and that is the ultimate issue on whether 17 or not there is a plant that operates, and that there is a 18 plan that you do not like, and that's not what we are charged 19 with.
What we are charged with is litigating an evacuation 20 plan and off-site emergency procedures that will ensure the 21 public safety.
It is thought we will ensure the public 22 safety.
23 We can't get into the issues that I think you may 24 feel should be raised.
Whether or not any plan,'in your
(}
25 opinion, will or will not work -- and you have elected to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33646 4
i 26229.0 4
cox 2252 1
consider that they will not work -- is not what we can 2
litigate.
What we can litigate and come up with is the best 3
plan that, in the opinion of this Board, will provide for the 4
public safety.
5 We have to make predicted findings.
We may not 6
have all of the material on -- or rather, in hand, at the 7
time.
So we must do the very best we can, what we have.
I 8
think that concerns part of what Mr. Nadeau was saying too.
9 MR. MC EACHERN:
Yes, Madam Chairman, you may be 1
10 compelled by the evidence to find that all of the plans are 11 not adequate in protectin'g this unique population.
12 JUDGE H0YT:
That's correct.
We must look at all
(
13 aspects of it and make a predicted finding of whether they j
14 can or cannot.
1 15 MR. MC EACHERN:
I have no dispute of that.
jl 16 JUDGE HOYT:
So long as you can understand that's 17 I what we can do, we cannot veto all of the prior licensing and 1
18 construction permits and so forth that have been issued in l
19 this case.
20 MR. MC EACHERN:
You understand we are using the 21 advocacy process here to best get at that evidence, and my 22 function is an advocate.
23 JUDGE HOYT:
We receive you in that capacity, 24 sir.
{}
25 MR. NADEAU:
I just didn't know if I misunderstood i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4 646
.. _ _., ~ _ - -... _ -,. - -. -,. _ - -, - -.. -.. _, -., -..,. -., _, _ __.- -,., - -, -,,.
26228.0 cox 2253
(
1 you, Madam Chairman.
Are you saying that the Board will make i
2 a determination as to the best plan; or if the Board 3
determines that reasonable measures of assurance cannot be 4
given, you would not pass upon licensing?
Are you saying 5
that it's your function to come up with the best plan to keep i
6 this process going?
7 JUDGE HOYT:
No.
If you interpreted my remarks in 8
that fashion, Mr. Nadeau, I think I should tell you, no, i
9 that's not correct.
What I am trying to say to you is simply 10 that we must make the predicted findings of whether it will 11 or will not work.
12 There have been licensing boards and members of O
13 this Board that I have been associated with on other cases.
i i
14 We have made determinations that certain aspects of the whole 15 plan were not correct, and they had to be, if I may use the i
16 trite expression, beefed up in that aspect.
17 The Board simply has to take that evidence that it 18 has before it.
i 19 Mr. Dignan, did you wish to add something?
)
20 MR. DIGNAN:
No, I have not engaged in this 21 debate.
I am prepared to address the arguments that have 22 been made with respect to the contentions to the extent the 23 Board would like to hear further argument.
i 24 JUDGE H0YT:
I think we have some more.
We have I
(}
25 Massachusetts, and we also have the Town of Amesbury.
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
26228.0 cox 2254
('%
v 1
MR. DIGNAN:
Amesbury has no contentions, does 2
it?
3 JUDGE H0YT:
No.
But it asked to be heard and
't 4
they have been recognized.
Let's have about a five-minute 5
break.
l 6
(Recess.)
7 JUDGE H0YT:
The hearing will come to order.
Let i
8 the record reflect that all of the parties to the hearing who i
I 9
were present when the hearing recessed are again present in l
10 the hearing room.
I believe we have completed all of the 11 presentations on the contentions that have been filed except 12 yours, Ms. Sneider.
That is for the Commonwealth of
, O 13 Massachusetts.
I 14 MS. SNEIDER:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has 15 filed one single contention in this proceeding, which relates i
l 16 to the protection of the summer beach population in the I
17 Seabrook area.
The contention reads:
"The draft 18 radiological emergency response plans for the towns of 19 Seabrook, Hampton, North Hampton and Rye do not provide 20 reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can 4
21 and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at i
22 the Seabrook station, as required by 10 CFR section 50.47 23 A-1, because in the event of a severe accident on a summer i
24 weekend, some or all of the beach area transient populations t
{}
25 within those communities cannot, under many plausible i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26228.0
{
cox 2255 CE) i 1
meteorological conditions, be protected by means of 2
evacuation, even from early death, and because there are not 3
adequate plans or provisions for sheltering the beach area 4
transients within those communities."
~
5 There has been a number of varied objections to 6
the admission of our contention.
I believe just the 7
Applicant objects to the total admission of our contention.
8 The commonwealth has filed an answer to those objections, and 9
we intend to rely, for the most part, on that answer which 10 has been filed.
11 I would just like to take the time now to l
12 highlight some of the issues which we consider to be O
13 especially important in considering the admission of our 14 contention.
15 JUDGE H0YT:
Ms. Sneider, may I interrupt you to 16 ack you if the answer of the Attorney General on March 24 is 17 the one that you are referring to in your last remark?
18 MS. SNEIDER:
Yes, ma'am.
19 JUDGE H0YT:
That is in addition to the basis that 20 you filed originally?
i 21 MS. SNEIDER:
Yes.
22 JUDGE H0YT:
Are you going to take them all 23 together at this time?
That's all right, go ahead, proceed.
4 24 MS. SNEIDER:
That is responding particularly to 25 the objections.
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
26228.0 cox 2256 1
JUDGE HOYT:
Thank you.
2 MS. SNEIDER:
First, I think there's been a bit of
~
3 confusion over what our contention is.
The Attorney General 4
has never contended that there must be absolute protection of 5
this population.
We are not talking about a situation where 6
we say there may be one or a few deaths.
In the basis for 7
our contention we indicate that we have evidence that in many 8.
types of severe accidents, there could be as many as 15,000 9
or more immediate deaths to the beach population.
10 I think this is a very serious issue that we are 11 considering.
The Applicants have argued, however, that no 12 level of protection is required by the regulations.
The O
13 Attorney General's response is that the regulations do impose 14 a level of protection, and that's one of adequate protection, 15 and that is the finding that this Board must make, that there 16 is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can 17 and will be taken in the event of an accident at Seabrook.
18 The Applicant has also stated that the only thing 19 NUREG-0654 requires is that there be a showing of dose 20 savings.
It is the contention of the Attorney General that 21 in many types of accidents, the New Hampshire plans do not 22 provide any meaningful reduction, any meaningful level of i
23 dose savings, that in many instances the summer beach 24 population just is not protected.
The Staff has also 25 objected to the introduction of certain evidence,-which we
{}
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
i 26228.0 cox 2257 1
indicate in the basis for our contention t' hat we would 2
submit.
3 I would like to say that this is a unique 4
situation, and I think that's been said over and over again 5
in the past two days, aurrounding the Seabrook site, 6
FEMA has said to Massachusetts officials, just on 7
Friday, that the situation around Seabrook is so unique that 8
it would require the best plans in the country in order to 9
adequately protect this beach population.
The Commonwealth 10 of Massachusetts takes this issue of protecting its citi= ens 11 very seriously, and we are really concerned.
12 We are dealing here with a plant which -- where O
13 the average plant in the country, you could evacuate the area 14 within several miles of the plant in an hour and a half, here 15 we are talking about hours.
We are dealing with a plant 16 which has the densest population -- in the summer months, it 17 has the densest population of any other plant within a 18 two-mile area of the plant.
There is no sheltering for these 19 people; sheltering that may exist is not adequate.
These 20 people are not even wearing the normal protective clothing 21 that would ordinarily protect people in the event of an 4
22 accident.
23 What we are saying, then, there are a number of A
24 accident sequences where at the average plant would just not
(}
25 be a problem, which, at Seabrook, does pose a problem; and 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
26228.0 cox 2258 i
1 for that reason, we may have to look 5t evidence in this 2
proceeding that would not be met.
In order to make that 3
determination of adequate protection, we would have to look 4
at different evidence than would ordinarily be looked at to 5
make that determination.
6 It may well be that at the average plant you can 7
just say there is an evacuation plan.
That's all that is 8
required.
9 There is some sheltering here, because both of 10 those can provide adequate protection to the people.
11 In this situation, we say that's not enough, 12 because there are many types of accidents where the O
13 sheltering and evacuation options provided by the New 14 Hampshire plans just do not provide that protection.
15 There are some real serious problems.
We don't 16 want to be confined as the Staff suggested, just examining 17 whether there is adequate sheltering in the area, because we 18 suggest there may be other options.
NUREG-0654 says there 19 has to be a range of protective options, range of protective 20 responses, to respond to it, number of different types of 21 accident sequences.
22 We say they must be adequate protective 23 responses.
24 I don't know that evacuation sheltering -- our 25 evidence shows that in many instances it's not sufficient,
[
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
26228.0 cox 2259 1
that we have to look beyond that.
So we are not going to be 2
limited to the issue of just whether there is adequate 3
shelter in the area.
We want to see some protective response 4
that can protect this beach population, whatever that may 5
be.
6 I would just like to say, as a final statement, I 7
think, stressed again, I think this is a very serious issue 8
that the Board has to look at and it will be up to the Board 9
to decide if these people can be adequately protected, or if 10 there is reasonable assurance, and I would say that we must 11 examine this issue closely.
It is very serious, and we hope 12 that we can come up with some solutions to this'.
O 13 JUDGE HOYT:
All right.
The Town of Amesbury has 14 asked to be recognized, although they do not have any 15 contention here.
Would you like to make your presentation 16 now, sir.
17 MR. LORD:
Thank you very much.
My name is Bill 18 l
Lord.
I am a member of the Board of Selectmen in the Town of 19 Amesbury.
We have been admitted to these proceedings under 20 10 CFR 2.715 as an interested municipality and have not filed 21 contentions.
1 22 But I would like to at this time be able to pose 23 certain questions and statements for a number of reasons, 24 principally to define our role in this process and to give
{}
25 the Board some background as to why we are in this process.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
I l
26228.0 cox 2260 t
/~T U
1 Before I go on, I definitely want to thank the 2
Board for this opportunity of dealing with a legal layman, 3
let's say, in the process, too.
4 My principal question that I would like to have 5
answered for the record is a definition of when and will-the 6
Town of Amesbury be afforded the opportunity of 7
cross-examination in the actual hearings?
8 JUDGE H0YT:
I believe, Mr. Lord, you had filed 9
and requested to be admitted as a party to this proceeding as 10 some of your predecessors.
11 However, I believe you have never listed with us 12 the limit of your concerns or the scope of your concerns.
O 13 MR. LORD:
That is correct.
i 14 JUDGE H0YT:
We have asked, I believe, very 15 recently, there is an order --
16 MR. LORD:
There's an order dated February 28, it s
17 was docketed for distribution on the third,'and I believe we 18 received it in our office on the 17th of March.
3 19 JUDGE H0YT:
17th of March?
20 MR. LORD:
A lot of things have been coming in 21 late and maybe our discussion yesterday with the problems of 22 the list may correct all of that.
23 JUDGE H0YT:
In that order, we ask that you list 24 those concerns and interest with the Board *and that we i
25 withhold any further action on the Town of Amesbury's ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3366646
j 26228.0 cox 2261 1
1 participation under the 2.751-C until the Board received that 4
2 precise statement.
I had thought perhaps that's what you had 3
intended to give us today.
1 4
MR. LORD:
Yes, I do.
5 JUDGE HOYT:
If you want to read it into the 6
record, I would just as soon take that, if you will, in the l
7 form of a pleading.
I think that would save your time and I
8 the Board's time this morning.
Let me say that when we get 9
that statement, and you know what your concerns and interests 10 are, that at the time that any contention is being litigated, 11 and if your concern has previously expressed an interest'in i
j 12 that phase with the precise enough indication to the Board,
(
13 then we will permit you to conduct some cross-examination, or 14 to be joined with a lead counsel.
15 Remember that a n er of parties here have large I
l 16 numbers of contentions.
nen those contentions are heard, 17 the lead counsel for those contentions, for example, 18 Ms. Curran, Mr. Backus -- certainly Kensington has a large 19 number of contentions -- your interest may very well fall in
{
20 the same group as this.
We can join your interest with l
21 theirs in determining what cross-examination you would be 22 afforded.
i j
23 More than likely, your concerns would be 24 cross-examined on by the lead counsel.
If they are not, then 4
25 we would expect that the lead counsel would afford you some 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646 l
-... ~ -, -
-~
d 26228.0 cox 2262 1
time in the litigation of that contention.
We will assign 2
out a box of time on the cross-examination, and we expect 3
lead counsel to accommodate the needs of other parties such 4
as yourself who would not have contentions before us as 5
such.
Does that answer it?
6 MR. LORD:
That explains a lot to me as to what 7
the level of participation is.
The town had prepared to file 8
with this Board both contentions and interests in a number of 1
9 veins.
10 The unfortunate thing that happened was the 11 arrival of New Hampshire plans, the changes in host l
12 communities, the incompletion of the KLD evacuation study 0
13 work, and that has delayed our action, because so much of it 14 was intricate to what we were dealing with.
15 We would hope to be heard in regard to a 4
16 contiguous jurisdiction as outlined by NUREG-0654, I believe 17 it's Roman numeral IV, example No.
2, that deals with the 18 boundary of a state bisecting the zone.
i 19 We will be very interested in dealing with SAPL j
20 Contention No. 2 and the Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's 21 RERP 4-B, which are essentially very much the same arguments, 22 and not knowing which of the two would be admitted to the 23 hearings, I would like it on the record that those are the 24 two that we would concern ourselves principally with.
j
(}
25 The other thing we are concerned with very heavily I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
26228.0 1
cox 2263 4
1 is the entire final record from KLD, which, as we have 2
discussed in the past. day, is in bits and pieces throughout a 3
lot of areas at this point in time, and we have no 4
substantive answers as to when it will arrive.
5 JUDGE H0YT:
I am well aware of that, Mr. Lord.
6 MR. LORD:
I would like to mention we are 7
interested in KLD in its entirety.
At numerous times 8
yesterday it was referred to as " time estimates."
9 If one reviews at least progress reports 1 through 10 5 at this time, there is far greater information beyond just 11 time estimates.
We are dealing in that study with routing 12 and traffic control right down to-the fine line of where you
(
13 put the little orange cone in the street.
So it.is far more 14 than simply times, and I would hate to see any action taken 15 or misstatement of calling it a time study end up that the 16 arguments could only be with the times and not with the other 17 logistical parts of that study.
18 Also, for the record, I would like to explain, the 19 Town of Amesbury has taken action very similar to what the 20 Town of Hampton has, that we, by vote of town meeting, 21 refused to participate in planning exercises, drills or 22 training with regard to radiological response of Seabrook.
23 This was taken at a town meeting in November, the action was 24 endorsed previous to that by not only the Board of selectman
(}
25 but the response plan committee that was assembled to study I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
4 l
26228.0 cox 2264 OV 1
and recommend to the Board of Selectmen what actions should i
2 be taken.
That committee did put in close to 6000 hours0.0694 days <br />1.667 hours <br />0.00992 weeks <br />0.00228 months <br /> of 3
work.
4 It was endorsed by our planning Board, Board o#
~
S health, housing authorities, teacher's union, Cinance 6
committee, school committee on administration and local 7
physicians throughout the communities, so we did not take any l
8 arbitrary action and it was not a well thought out action to 9
remove ourselves from the planning process.
10 As I mentioned, we did not file written 11 contentions or written statements, because we wanted to hear, i
12 in this process, where we stood, and a lot of that was based
(
13 on the confusion of -- what did I mention -- KLD,and the I
14 other new plans arriving.
l 15 Our initial findings and initial contentions were 16 going to be based on what we saw in the New Hampshire plang 17 as a total disregard for contiguous jurisdictional planning; 18 and I would like to just outline a few facts as to why we 19 spotted this, i
20 In one part of the New Hampshire plan, principally 21 the emergency broadcast section; if someone took it very
]
22 literally, as it was written, seven towns are going to be 23 evacuated through group 495 which is in Massachusetts.
There 2
i 24 are no provisions in any Amesbury or other local plans or-25
}
state plans in Massachusetts to identify the fact that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
-..~- -. - - - -
26228.0 ox 2265 1
according to the peak populations in the New Hampshire plans, 2
that $112,810 could extend on the Commonwealth and our local 3
officials would not know they are coming.
4 According to KLD 1 through 5, at this time, KLD is 5
saying, use 2.8 people per vehicle, it works out we were 6
going to see 40,289 vehicles come through the Commonwealth, 7
and at 6000 vehicles per hour on 495, which we doubt, because 8
we have seen Massachusetts Department of Public Works 9
documentation that ranges up to about 4800 vehicles per 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
Let's use the 6000 for argument purposes, we saw it 11 was going to take over six, nearly seven hours to pass any 12 single point on 495.
This did not comply at all with what O
13 KLD was saying were the best times available to get out of 14 the area.
15 We did some -- it might even be looked upon as 16 humorous math.
If we took several Chevettes and put them 17 bumper to bumper -- and they aren't big cars -- four lanes 18 wide on 495, 28.6 miles of roads would be gridlocked.
These 19 numbers do not integrate anything in froi Amesbury, Merrimack 20 or West Newbury, which are designated to use 495 for 21 evacuation purposes, so we can add in a population of 26,000 22 permanent, plus whatever our transient populations would be 23 and further compound our problems and New Hampshire's 24 problems.
(}
25 Like I said, in the last few days we have suddenly j
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33H646
26228.0 cox 2266 4
)
I 1
seen changes.
Nashua is no longer a host community.
But i
2 resources from that general area will be coming here to take s
3 people maybe to Dover.
It is becoming very difficult for the d
4 Town of Amesbury to finalize what our arguments should and 5
should not be with contiguous planning because of the 6
incompletion of work done by the State of New Hampshire.
7 To kind of sum up and finish here at this point, f
8 there are no finalized plans in Massachusetts at this time.
l 9
Our question from our Board of Selectmen is how does your 10 Board or the NRC proceed in these hearings when it's 11 evidenced that there is a great need for contiguous planning.
12 but,there is no knowledge of what planning is taking place in
(
i 13 Massachusetts with regard to New Hampshire and vice versa.
l l
14 And if we are to assume that certain evacuation i
15 routes and resource demands will crisscross each other, at 16 least based upon tests to date in formal submission of plans, l
17 our Board of Selectmen is finding it difficult to determine j
18 if someone can make finite rulings at this time.
So we are j
19 anticipating or hoping to anticipate that these subjects 20 dealing with all contiguous planning, decisions -- are they 1
i 21 going to be held pending any time that -- well, if and when 22 Massachusetts plans are submitted and acted upon, and if that l
i 23 occurs, will those subjects be available for reopening for i
24 retestimony or recross examination.
(}
25 JUDGE H0YT:
Let me first remind you what this j
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ _ _,. -347 3700,, - _, - -., _ _ _.. - - -. _ _. ~.. _.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26228.0 cox 2267
[~)
\\v' 1
Board is doing at the present time.
2 As I indicated to you when we opened the hearings 3
yesterday, the Board was convened under the order of January 4
17, 1986, that we were proceeding with the State of New 5
Hampshire radiological emergency plans that had been filed.
6 Obviously, documents that have not been filed 7
cannot -- we cannot perceive that there is an intelligent 8
contention that can be filed on that document.
That is all 9
that we are doing at this time.
10 We have no indication, we have no formal 11 knowledce, I will even go so far as to say no informal 7s knowledge -- which would be newspaper or printed publication 12 s ')
13 of some sort -- when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' plans 14 will be available.
That is something you will have to work 15 out with Ms. Sneider and her office.
What we will litigate 16 in these procee< lings this Board is now sitting on are those 17 contentions with regard to the New Hampshire radiological 18 emergency plans.
That's all.
19 l
MR. LORD:
Is there an opportunity in the future, 20 though hypothetical this may be, that those specific 21 contentions that I mentioned, for example, SAPL No. 2 and 22 coalition's RERP 4-B, is there provision for reopening those 23 because of the potential for introduction of the 24 Ma'ssachusetts plan sometime in the future?
f) 25 JUDGE H0YT:
That's, of course, one of the x-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
l i
i 26228.0 cox 2268 l
1 decisions that the Board will reach.
Some of these f
i 2
contentions, for example, the Staff has indicated they would i
3 recommend a -- either withholding of the contention, 4
deferring the contention, withholding the action on 4
i i
S contention or deferring it.
}
6 Dismissing it with the right to refile.
7 There is a variety of options that we have.
Which 8
one we will eventually decide upon, of course, remains to be 4
9 seen.
Even the Board at this point will not commit itself to 10 any course of action as to how it will proceed on those.
1 11 But the contentions that we accept on the l
12 radiological emergency plans of New Hampshire are all we are
)
13 going 'to be litigating in this phase of the proceeding.
14 I assume that somewhere along the line the 15 Commonwealth of Massachusetts' plans will be out and, when 16 they are, then we will, upon receiving those, go through the 17 same process of having contentions filed by those plans.
I I
18 MR. LORD:
If I could just very briefly like to i
19 emphasize one final point, for the need to emphasize this
)
20 contiguous planning, town of South Hampton population, I 21 believe is a population of 751 permanent residents.
There is i
22 no evidence in New Hampshire plans that anyone is 23 knowledgeable that within 100 yards of the boundaries of I
24 South Hampton there is a proposal that construction will I
(])
25 start in the next few weeks to build enough homes that will ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 4646
_ _. _ _ _ ~.. _ _.. _,,. _. _. _, _. _ _, _, _ _, -. - _. _
26228.0 g ox 2269 N-]
1 exceed the population of South Hampton, and it will be closer 2
to South Hampton and to Amesbury.
We are coing to double the 3
population in that small area and this contiguous planning is 4
very vital because of that.
5 JUDGE H0YT:
I am sure that Ms. Sneider is hearino 6
this with great interest --
7 MR. LORD:
We communicate very often.
8 JUDGE H0YT:
-- and will hear those determinations 9
as to the plan.
We have no input whatsoever as to what goes 10 into the plans when they are filed by the various 11 jurisdictions.
{}
12 MR. LORD:
That I understand. <
,ecially from the 13 l
earlier conversations today.
14 JUDGE H0YT:
You understand also as a town I
15 I
admitted under 2.715-C, you do not have to have a contention l
16 lbeforetheBoard--
i 17 l
MR. LORD:
Correct.
l 18 JUDGE H0YT:
-- to participate.
You may, as we 19 indicated earlier, join either with other counsel in this 20 case in conducting cross-examination, or you may 21 independently, if you wish, present evidence.
That is all 22 provided for in the regulation itself.
23 MR. LORD:
What I related today, that is now in 24 the official record.
Should that be followed up at this time O) 25 and be served upon all parties with those contentions and to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Covern 800-336-6646
i i
1 26228.0 I
c o::
2270 1
be active in those contentions?
2 JUDGE H0YT:
You may do so if you wish.
This 3
record is a hearing of that itself, so also of record.
4 However, I think that we are going to ask you to 5
give the concerns that you have formally in response to the 6
order of the Board, in order that we may know it is where 7
your interests lie; and in determininc when counsel has a 8
contention -- and you may wish to join in that -- we would 9
know how much time is going to be necessary for that 10 cross-examination to be conducted.
11 We just don't open up the hearings and throw them 12 out to take whatever time you need.
We,try to structure 13 these in order to get the maximum benefit out of.the time 14 that is available to us each day.
15 MR. LORD:
Thank you.
16 JUDGE H0YT:
Just one second.
There was one other 17 thing I had in mind now.
That's all right.
18 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Mr. Lord, you had mentioned 19 something about a resolution passed in November?
20 MR. LORD:
Yes.
21 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Could you briefly repeat the gist 22 of that?
23 MR. LORD:
Based on a committee appointed by*the 24 i
Board of selectmen, whose charge was to fully review and I
()
25 recommend to the Board actions to be taken on radiological ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
~
l i
a 1
l 26228.0 cox 2271 O
1 response plans for the Town of Amesbury, the Board of f
2 Selectmen went to town meeting and posed the question:
Do we 3
or do we not continue to participate in this planning i
4 process?
j 5
Our local committee went beyond the boundaries of 6
the Town of Amesbury in looking at plans.
We reviewed all i
7 local plans, state plans, public health plans, et cetera, and 8
especially put major emphasis on what at the time was the 9
third time estimate or ETE that was produced by KLD.
Those j
10 recommendations were carried to town meetings because of its j
11 adverse impact on towns, so we are on record with the town 12 and the state as to our standing in that regard.
C:)
13 JUDGE LUEBKE:
In other words, the town has 3
1 i
14 officially resolved not to participate?
l 15 MR. LORD:
Correct.
16 JUDGE LUEBKE:
But you sound to me today like you
]
17 are participating, and I find it a little bit inconsistent.
18 MR. LORD:
I am, in anticipation that the 19 Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be producing somewhere 20 along the way what is known as a compensatory plan for the i
21 Town of Amesbury.
If and when that comes forward, our charge l
22 now as a Board of Selectmen -- I am a selectman as well as i
23 chairman of the board -- is to continue to update the town 24 through the Board of Selectmen as to the impact and any
()
25 effects that will be created upon the residents of the l
l 1
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
I l
i i
26228.0 ox 2272 I
community.
2 JUDGE LUEBKE:
That resolution in November wasn't 3
all that binding.
4 MR. LORD:
Yes, it is.
1 5
JUDGE LUEBKE:
And complete.
In other words, work j
I 6
goes on.
I r
7 MR. LORD:
Review and criticism.
The charge of i
j 8
the committee today is to continue to review, to monitor, to I
l 9
lobby at the state level, when necessary, and to share l
10 information with other communities based on the research 11 conducted on the Town of Amesbury.
12 JUDGE LUEBKE:
My problem is that if your (Z) government said absolutely we are not going to participate, 13 14 then I raise a question of what rights you have to bring in 15 contentions which I consider to be complaints.
l 16 MR. LORD:
We did not bring in contentions, but we 17 are hoping to pose certain cross-examination and be a party i
18 to that cross-examination, based on the fact that we feel we l
19 have a massive amount of knowledge as to what has gone on in 20 the planning process in Massachusetts and can hopefully shed
}
21 more light on the planning process as it affects, especially, 1
l 22 the boundary between the two states.
23 JUDGE LUEBKE:
That can be viewed as a i
1 24 communication process you are speaking of?
l ()
25 MR. LORD:
Correct.
I think we are much in the l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 3)2 347 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
__ _ _.._., _ _,.. _3700_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _,., _ _ _
i 4
j 26228.0 cox 2273
{
1 same vein as Attorney McEachern announced for the Town of 4
{
2 Hampton.
He is here pleading, but his town has voted not to i
3 participate.
All employees are under strict orders from the i
4 town manager and Board of Selectmen they will not 5
participate.
6 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Now that you have mentioned it, I i
7 have the same problem, Mr. McEachern.
If the Town of Hampton 8
has positively decided they will not participate in planning,
{
9 it raises some question as to whether you should be I
1 10 complaining about the plan if you are not involved in the i
11 plan.
l 12 MR. MC EACHERN:
We have that legal right.
It's I
13 our position thst that beach population cannot be protected.
I l
14 The state has ignored that concern and has, in fact, ignored I
15 the beach population in their planning.
i I
16 We have a legal right to tell you and a moral duty
{
17 to inform you, that by adoption of the present state plan, i
18 you are, in effect, condemning a certain segment of the i
j 19 population to unreasonable risk; and for us to say because we j
20 are not participating, we don't have any duty, would be 21 unreasonable and immoral,
?
22 We do have a duty, and we have a duty to point out 23 deficiencies in the planning process.
The state has a duty j
j 24 to adopt a compensatory plan to go beyond our town in 1
- (}
25 resources to effect evacuation, sheltering or temporary ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverser 800 33H646
l 26228.0 cox 2274 rO) 1 closure of the plant or whatever to protect that population, 2
and these are all set out.
3 We are playing by the rules.
We understand the 4
law and we have sought relief in the state court to, in fact, 5
point out that the state plan is not only unreasonable, but 6
it is illegal.
And all of these things have to be resolved, 7
and it may not make your job any easier, but nevertheless, 8
you have a job to do, and we have a job to do; and, together, 9
hopefully, the people, the summer residents of Hampton Beach, 10 will not be at risk by visiting that beach.
11 MR. LORD:
Your Honor, if I micht a' Iso respond in 12 the same question, we do not feel it's consistent for the O
'^J
\\
13 Town of Amesbury to be here, not only on resolution of the 14 town meeting, but an enactment as binding policy by the 15 l
Board, because we are still a party to the process by our 16 nature of our existence since time and space, we are there in 17 the town.
18 l
If actions take place that affect the community --
19 my colleague over here used the word " moral" -- we have a 20 moral obligation to be able to inform our citizenry as to 21 what is happening.
We made determinations that no plans were 22 acing to protect the.. lives, property and safety of our a
23 citizens; and it wdi on that basis that we are arguing here 24 today and will argue if and when plans are submitted on I~
25 behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
(l/
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26228.0 cox 2275
( )
i>
1 JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
I think we have closed 2
the issue.
Eut Mr. Nadeau, do you have something you wanted 3
to add?
4 MR. NADEAU:
I would like to ask or request, your 5
Honor, is there any opportunity for the Board to consider, 6
since we don't have the Massachusetts plan submitted, there's 7
been no Massachusetts drill, our own host community of Rye 8
and I believe the other towns is not in, is there any 9
opportunity for the Board to consider some delay to allow 10 that in so that things can be litigated together?
Rye is a 11 little bit at a loss to understand where we are litigating 12 one section of the New Hampshire plans, when we don't have 13 the input on the host plan for Rye and we don't know whether 14 the contiguous relationship with Massachusetts. if there's a l
15 problem on the Massachusetts end, and people are being 16 evacuated there, and we have litigated our plans; I think we 17 l
are goino to have a traffic impact.
1 18 I was wondering if it would be appropriate if we 19 could ask the Board to consider some type of rescheduling, l
20 because that's one of the problems the towns have been 21 dealing with.
22 JUDGE H0YT:
We will have that on the record, if 23 that's your concern.
I will not respond to it, however.
24 MR. NADEAU:
I don't know how to request it.
Can
(/)
25 we file a formal motion to that effect?
x_
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33 & 6646
I 26228.0 cox 2276 1
JUDGE H0YT:
If you choose, if you wish.
There is 1
2 nothing that prevents you from filing anything you wish.
i j
3 What acts will be taken on it is another matter, of course.
4 The mere filing is not the relief you may want to get.
5 All right.
At this time I wanted to go through 6
the service list that we had some problems with; and at this
?
7 time we will go off the record.
8 (Discussion off the record.)
9 JUDGE H0YT:
We had a brief discussion off the 10 record concerning whether we would proceed.
Let's proceed j
11 until 12:00, Mr. Bisbee.
It may be that we can take some l
- l O 12 other comments that I think the state and perhaps Staff j
13 wishes within that period of time.
If not, we can do it this 14 afternoon.
We will recess at 12, reconvene at 1:30.
Now we
{
15 will proceed with Mr. Bisbee's notations here.
We will go 16 through the service list problems that we have had later on i
17 at the very end, perhaps, would be even better than now.
18 MS. CURRAN:
Madam Chairman, I wonder if before we 19 move on from the substance of the contentions, I might just 20 close off two issues that were left hanging yesterday.
I was i
l 21 going to get back to the Board today.
l 22 JUDGE H0YT:
Yes, I think this is probably a good I
l 23 I time to do that.
Go ahead, Ms. Curran.
]
24 MS. CURRAN:
The first contention was RERP 6, i
l ()
25 which dealt with the adequacy of siren notification at i
i I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
26228.0 cox 2277 O
1 night.
2 JUDGE H0YT:
Yes.
3 MS. CURRAN:
Ycu asked if I could find any further 4
information to clarify our position on that.
I wasn't able 5
to find a siren expert last night, and I don't have anything 6
to add beyond what is already stated in writing and what was 7
discussed yesterday.
8 With respect to RERP 10-E, that dealt with the 9
24-hour capacity of the radiological monitoring labs.
After 10 discussion with the Applicants and explanation of a table, 11 that contention is withdrawn.
12
~
JUDGE H0YT:
Let me get that number again.
O 13 MS. CURRAN:
RERP 10-E.
14 JUDGE H0YT:
10-E as in " easy"?
15 MS. CURRAN:
Yes.
Can I add just one more c.onment 16 with respect to RERP 6?
That contention concerns the riren 17 assessment that was just submitted a couple of weeks ago, and 18 we would like an opportunity to have an expert review that.
19 It was not available at the time that we filed the 20 contention, and considering the amount of activity there's 21 been in the meantime, we haven't had a chance to get an 22 expert to look at it.
23 JUDGE H0YT:
I believe you had some additional 24' information that you were to give to the Board, Mr. Backus.
()
25 MR. BACKUS:
I think Judge Harbour indicated ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 344646
i I
i 26228.0 cox 2278 l
1 yesterday that I would be given an opportunity to offer 2
further argument on the SAPL contentions, and I have nothing
}
}
3 further to offer at this time.
i l
4 JUDGE H0YT:
Very well.
Now, Mr. Bisbee.
5 MR. BISBEE:
Thank you, your Honor.
The Board i
6 yesterday asked several questions of the state with regard to j
7 the status of the New Hampshire RERP.
I also have several i
j 8
housekeeping matters I would like to bring up with the Board l
9 and the parties.
I would like to start with one of those, if l
10 I may.
I 11 JUDGE H0YT:
All right.
j 12 MR. BISBEE:
That deals with the process that we
(
1 j
13 are now following and submitting plans, parts of.the plans, 1
14 and that subsequent service of those documents on the parties t
4 15 and on the Board.
16 As the Board will recall, three years ago, a i
17 process was instituted for the service of the state 1
18 radiological emergency response plans on the parties, which 4
19 called for FEMA, once it had received copies of the state t
20 plans, to then send them to the NRC, who took it upon itself, i
l 21 then, to make copies of the documents and serve them on all k
l 22 the parties.
That's the process we followed, until just thia 4
13 month.
l 24 And now it's changed so that rather than the NRC l
(])
25 taking that responsibility of copying and serving the
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
= -
i i
i 26228.0 cox 2279 1
1 documents, the Applicant, as part of the application process, J
2 I understand, has now taken on that responsibility.
3 So the process has changed slightly so that now i
4 the State of New Hampshire files documents to FEMA.
They are i
j 5
then transmitted to the Board and the parties, to the service 6
process, by the Applicant.
1 i
7 I would like now to make a suggestion to the Board I
)
8 and the parties, a suggestion that I have discussed with some 9
of the counsel present, in terms of how we proceed from here j
10 to deal with future filings of revisions to the New Hampshire 1
11 s tate plan.
j I
12 The planning process, requires that the state l
l I
i 13 planning officials in New Hampshire the Civil Defense Agency 1
14 have a direct working relationship with FEMA, and that i
}
15 process should and will continue, so that submission of i
l 16 documents in the planning process between the state and the l
17 Federal Government will still be between the Civil Defense I
i 18 Agency and FEMA.
I i
19 The suggestion I make is that for purposes of I
20 clarifying which documents are to be made formal additions to 21 or modifications to the New Hampshire plan, which are then l
22 subject to litigation in this proceeding, that simultaneous 23 with the submission of documents to FEMA by the Civil Defence j
24 Agency, that my office transmit a letter to counsel for the
()
25 Applicant and serve that letter upon the participant Board, l
i i
Au:E FEDERAL REPORTERS,1NC.
{
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33H646
26228.0 cox 2280 1
indicating which of the documents that are being submitted to 2
FEMA are formal parts of the plan, which should be considered 3
in the litigation in this proceeding.
4 This, I hope, would clarify for everyone which 5
materials FEMA receives which are, in fact, the plan or part 6
of the plan, and which materials are simply working documents 7
or support documents to the plan which have no part in the 8
plan itself.
9 The problem that I think this will resolve will 10 come up, as I go through some of the materials that we all 11 have received in the last month, some of which are not 12 intended to be part of the plan, and which needs to be
~
13 clarified.
14 I think for future purposes, that can be done with 15 a transmittal letter from my office, indicating for the state 16 planners, on behalf of the state planners, which of the 17 documents they have submitted are, in fact, a part of the 18 state plan.
19 JUDGE H0YT:
Mr. Bisbee, before you proceed, an I 20 hearing correctly, you speak of your office as the state 21 office, and then there is the Civil Defense Agency.
Are you 22 filing for both; are you filing separately?
I am afraid I am 23 confused on that.
24 MR. BISBEE:
I am just referring to a letter that
()
25 I would initiate from the Attorney General's office on behalf ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
l 26228.0 cox 2281
/~3 im/
1 of the state.
Wouldn't be anyone -- it would be the 2
letterhead of the Attorney General, but it would be a letter 3
from the State of New Hampshire.
4 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Would it be explanatory in nature?
5 MR. BISBEE:
- Yes, Perhaps if there are comments 6
by the parties we could sort of resolve this and get a clear 7
understanding as to how we should proceed in the future.
8 JUDGE H0YT:
Does the Applicant willingly join in 9
there?
10 MR. DIGNAN:
There's been some confusion.
I am 11 glad to get it straightened out.
As the Board will recall, 12 the Staff had originally made a commitment to, as FEMA sent G
13 them over, they would serve them.
We now are going to a 14 situation where the Applicants can do the serving.
I think 15 Mr. Bisbee is correct, because what we did when we caught on 16 to that one, that is to say, when we started doing the i
17 i
serving ourselves, we ran around and located a box full of l
18 material that had been sent to FEMA by the State of New 19 Hampshire.
We got that out.
I think we had two Jervices of 20 that nature.
21 But Mr. Bisbee's concern is, I think, very 22 legi tima te.
In doing that, all we did was put on the docket 23 everything that had been sent to FEMA.
24 What Mr. Bisbee is correctly pointing out is that
()
25 certain things that are sent to FEMA are not really part of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
. =
1 4
f 1-i 26228.0 i
coy 2282 1
the plan.
I guess he,is going to go through the list to 2
date, but in example"-:ould be a KLD progress report, for 3
example.
4 As'I unde'rstand what Dana is saying is now what he 5
is going to do is put a clarifying letter out to everybody
~
6 which states, in efreet, this is what we have sent to FEMA, 7
these parts of it are the' plan.
I assume he will see to it 8
that -- Dana, am I ridht? -- that there is transmitted to me 9
a copy of the material that is to go out to the parties.
We 10 will undertake, then, to' duplicate that material and serve it 11 on the parties and docket it on the docket.
That is the 12 process we are going to use and we are perfectly willing to O
13 do that.
14 JUDGE HOYT:
What about the Staff.
Why did you 15 l
want to change; did you initiate something?
16 MR. TURK:
Yes, your Honor.
We had been concerned 17 that the utility was not submitting the off-site plans for 18 formal review as is requLied by 10 CFR 50.33 G.
That 19 provision states that where an application is for an t
20 operating license, "The Qpplicant shall submit radiological 21 emercency (Jest.onse plans' of state and local governmental s
22 entities in the< United States -that are wholly or partially 23 within the' plume exposure 'athway EPZ."
p o
24 We are in a situation' then, where even though
(-
()
25 off-sit,e plans are being submitted to the parties and to i
/ ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Na:ionwide Coverage 800 33H646 j
l
J i
26228.0 CoX 2283 k
1 FEMA, they were never being docketed as required by NRC 2
regulations.
1 j
3 Also, we were concerned about the confusion,'which 4
we perceived, in not knowing which ETEs were actually going 8
5 to be relied upon by off-site authorities and other confusing li j
6 matters where materials were submitted to FEMA, and we didn't i
7 know if that was a matter that was within the plan or not, i
f 8
So we indicated to the Applicants that it is their.
I 9
burden to docket the off-site plans under NRC regulations.
1 i
10 And further, we felt that the expense involved in the
{
11 reproduction of these off-site plans 2 which, as you ma'y 12 know from looking at the siren study that has come out 1 O 13 recently, often includes over-sise documents that we would j
14 have to send out for reproduction to outside companies --
I j
15 that was an expense that was not appropriate for the Staff to 1
1 16 undertake.
It was realty Applicant's burden.
So we asked to 5
j 17 qet out of the business of being a reproduction center and 18 asked the Applicant to assume the burden which is rightfully 1
19 its.
I 20 JUDGE H0YT:
Very well.
I j
21 MS. CURRAN:
I just have one comment to add.
I J
]
22 think I understand, though, what is being said here.
I would j
I 23 just like to say that I think it's a good idea for the State
{
24 of New Hampshire to identify what materials that are going to i ()
25 FEMA are actually the plans on which we must submit 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364646
_ __ - - = _ - -.
26228.0 cox 2284 1
contentions.
2 However, NECNP is also interested in reviewing the l
3 other material which does go to FEMA which supports their l
l 4
refew of the plan.
1 J
5 JUDGE H0YT:
Apparently you are going to get them i
I 6
both, Ms. Curran.
With the identification of which is l
7 official and which is explanatory material, I would suppose l
8 it is as good a definition as any.
Mr. Nadeau.
i 9
MR. NADEAU:
My concern was similar, because 10 although Mr. Bisbee didn't identify the KLD study, does this 11 mean that we will get all those materials, even though 12 portions of them may not be considered as submission?
Are we
(
13 still going to get all of the materials.
l 14 JUDGE HOYT:
I am not quite sure what you mean by l
15 "all of the materials."
You will get all of the plan, all of 16 the explanatory material that goes along with it.
Is there i
17 anything else you are trying to ask for?
18 MR. NADEAU:
I am understanding that the new 19 process will be one whereby the Applicant is going to be 20 reproducing what goes to the parties; is that correct?
21 MR. DIGNAN:
That is correct.
22 MR. NADEAU:
You mentioned the KLD study, which 23 concerns all of us, although Mr. Bisbee didn't.
I am just 24 wondering, are we still going'to get all the material with (J
25 regard to the KLD study of Mr. Bisbee, although when it goes a
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Na:ionwide Coverage 800 33Mi646
26228.0 cox 2285 1
to the Applicant, is the Applicant going to say we are only 2
going to be able to use a certain portion of it and thereby 3
we don't get access to it?
4 JUDGE H0YT:
They are not going to have that 5
option, if that's what you are concerned about.
I think 6
Mr. Dignan is going to tell you that.
7 MR. DIGNAN:
Let me put something in perspective 8
here; I just need Dana's okay for the record here on this.
9 It is my legal view that you people are entitled not only to 10 the plan, but everything the state sends to FEMA of any 11 nature.
I take that view simply because there is case law in 12 the agency that says when the Applicant sends any O
13 correspondence to the Staff of the agency p'ertaining to an 14 issue in litigation, the Applicant must serve the parties 15 with that correspondence.
While there is no case law that 16 goes this far, if it were put to the Appeal Board of the 17 Commission or the Commission itself -- and I assume these 18 judges would so rule if asked -- in the setting of emergency 19 planning, the state, in a sense, almost becomes the Applicant 20 and its correspondence with FEMA is similar to 21 Staff / Applicant correspondence because FEMA is asking them 22 questions and they are answering them and that sort of 23 thing.
i 24 So it would be my view under that prior case law,
()
25 that you are entitled to all of that correspondence as soon ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
26228.0 i
cox 2286 1
as it goes to FEMA.
2 Now we have a practical problem.
The practical 3
problem is that the state, just like the NRC, probably 4
doesn't want to undertake to pay for reproducing and sending l
5 out~this mass of material.
]
6 I acree with the Staff that that burden probably 7
properly should fall on the Applicant.
So what we are trying 8
to do is get a practical solution.
9 As I understand it from Mr. Bisbee, anything that 10 goes down to FEMA, his office will take a copy of it with a 11 letter explaining it, send it to the Applicant.
The 12 Applicant will then reproduce all of the material, infornally O
13 docket the part that is part of the application, as the Staff 14 indicated, and will serve on all the parties everything.
Not i
15 only the material that is docketed, but the other material 16 that was sent out.
17 Am I correctly stating procedure, Dana?
18 MR. BISBEE:
Yes.
That's what I intend to do with 19 everyone's concurrence.
If I could add one point as well, 20 Madam Chairman.
l 21 JUDGE H0YT:
Proceed.
22 MR. BISBEE:
The effort I am trying to make here 23 is to avoid the problem of parties spending a lot of time 24 reviewing documents for purposes of possibly filing
(}
25 contentions, if they are not part of the plan.
It's not to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80033dHl646
26228.0 cox 2287 1
keep any documents from you.
I applaud the Applicant'Js 2
willingness to provide you whatever is submitted to FEMA, and 3
we want to encourage that.
It's my understanding that'that 4
will continue.
I just want to avoid the problem of people 5
spending time unnecessarily on matters that aren't within the 6
scope of the litigation.
7 MR. NADEAU:
My concern, your Honor, was the fact 4
8 that-Mr. Bisbee's office, representing the state in the first 9
instance, or in one instance, will choose what is being 10 transmitted.
The Applicant then will choose what is going to 11 FEMA or not.
12 MR. DIGNAN:
No.
O l
13 JUDGE H0YT:
No, I,think you misunderstood the 14 process.
You can have your shot later, Mr. Dignan.
15 As I understand it, the state will file it with 16 FEMA and a copy of whatever they file to FEMA is sent to the 17 Applicant and the sole responsibility of the Applicant is 18 going to be as a clearinghouse of clearing it through.
They 19 are not going to have the option of filtering out anything 20 that you will not receive; anything that goes to FEMA will be 4
21 transmitted to you, buc' it will be the Applicant who is 22 going to assume the cost.
That's all that is involved.
23 Have I misstated it?
24 MR. DIGNAN:
Absolutely correct, your Honor.
()
25 JUDGE LUEBKE:
I think Mr. Bisbee has a longer i
[
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-M46
d 26228.0 cox 2288 1
list to clarify this, doesn't he?
2 JUDGE H0YT:
Only the list of items that he is 3
going to tell us has been submitted or will be.
]
4 MR. BISBEE:
What I would like to do now is go 5
throuch what was submitted in the last month as well as the 6
subnittal in January.
7 JUDGE H0YT:
I want to be sure that I have the 8
understanding that the Staff has concurred in this as it has 9
been stated here.
10 MR. TURK:
We concur in the procedure that the 11 state and Applicants submitted.
12 JUDGE H0YT:
I think there is only one problem I
(
13 am having with it, and I think it is raised by Mr. Nadeau's 14 concern, is I would assume that there will be a check made by 15 you, Mr. Bisbee, that anything that is, in fact, sent to 16 FEMA, then served on the parties by the Applicant, is 100 17 percent correct in each case; not that I am questioning you, la Mr. Dignan, it's merely that I want to be sure of that, like 19 the certificate of services that we all signed --
l 20 JUDGE HARBOUR:
On quality control.
21 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes, Judge Harbour has rightly 22 identified as quality control.
i 23 MR. BACKUS:
Madam Chairman?
24 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes, Mr. Backus.
()
25 MR. BACKUS:
This may be a very small point, but i
i I
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 6646
26228.0 cox 2289 O
1 we have been getting these documents both at my office and 2
the SAPL office here at Portsmouth.
That's been quite 3
important.
I assume that the Applicant would be willing to 4
serve on me and my office and on Ms. Doughty at the SAPL 5
office.
f 6
JUDGE H0YT:
Mr. Backus, let's reserve that 7
particular question for the time that we go over the service
)
1 l
8 list, keeping in mind that the cost of reproduction of these j
9 documents, particularly these over-size maps and studies and 10 all, can sometimes get to be very great, I would like to g.
11 eliminate all of the actual service of some of these 3
12 documents that is not really necessary, but it's nice to have 13 a copy at the office and a copy at home, sometimps, but I 14 think we are going to have to find some mechanism whereby we 15 can eliminate that.
That is a concern I think we can take up i
16 later when we go through the service list.
17 MR. LORD:
Madam Chairman, is there any 18 methodology, direction from your Board, to mandate expediency 19 in the process, i.e.,
number of hours upon receipt that it 20 will be in the mail?
21 JUDGE H0YT:
I think that knowing the character of 22 the counsel that we have in this case, that I don't have to 23 concern myself too much about that.
They will send me more i
24 than I want, sometimes sooner than I want, rather than vice 1
()
25
- versa, i
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
A 26228.0 cox 2290
(:)
1 MR. LORD:
I think it's been noted, though, on 2
numerous times, because of even just the mail delays, and I 3
brought up one myself, that things sometimes are slow, and I 4
know it's an arduous task.
5 JUDGE HOYT:
Well, in the imperfect world that we 6
live in is an imperfect postal system, so we have to live 7
with what we have.
8 Let's get on with Mr. Bisbee's presentation.
9 MR. BISBEE:
In January, the State of New 10 Hampshire received one box of documents, and then early this 11 month, on March 4, March 5 and March 11, we received packets, 12 separate packets of materials relating to the New Hampshire O
13 plan.
I would like to go briefly through what those -- what J
14 each of those four packets of materials consisted of.
15 JUDGE HOYT:
You want to tell us, of course, where 16 they came from.
17 MR. BISBEE:
I will.
The first one came from the 18 NRC.
It was the box of plans that was the subject of the 19 contentions that have been argued the last couple of days, 20 that was sent under cover of a letter dated January 10, 1986, 21 that was sent to you three members of Board and served on the 22 parties.
23 I don't think there is any question about the fact 24 that each of the documents contained in that submittal
()
25 constitute parts of the New Hampshire state plan.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33H646
i 26228.0 cox 2291 1
If tnere are no questions on that one, we will get 2
into the more confusing ones.
3 JUDGE H0YT:
I don't think there is any question f
4 on that.
Let's go ahead on that.
5 MR. BISBEE:
The next three submittals came from I
6 the Applicant on letterhead of Public Service Company of New 7
Hampshire.
8 The first one, and the larger submission, was 9
dated March 4, 1986.
10 There are seven referenced materials in that 11 letter.
I would like to go through each of them briefly.
12 This is a letter, by the way, to Mr.
H.R.
Denton from William O
13 B.
Derrickson.
14 JUDGE HOYT:
I believe it's dated March 4, 1986; 15 is that correct?
16 MR. BISBEE:
Yes, thank you, your Honor.
The 17 first referenced set of documents is called the "New 18 Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development 4
19 Response Emergency Procedures."
That was a 1/8 inch thick of 20 materials that are part of the DRED procedures in volume four i
21 of the state RERP.
22 Second item is called " Appendix L, New Hampshire 23 Compensatory Plan."
Excuse me, let me back up for a minute.
24 The DRED procedures that I referred to initia'lly
()
25 are, in fact, changes to the plan, only incorporate some ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26228.0 cox 2292 1
revisions to the plan, and should be treated as such.
2 Second item, again, is " Appendix L, New Hampshire 3
Compensatory Plan."
This document also, while it will be 4
revised, is considered now to be part of the plan.
5 It was exercised; that plan was in place during 6
the February 26, 1986, exercise.
And while it is in draft 7
form and will be revised, it should be considered part of the 8
plan for present purposes, for purposes of litigation.
9 The third item is called here on the March 4 10 letter, "New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency Director and 11 Procedures."
This was a large packet of material.
This is 12 my copy here.
It contains not only procedures of the civil 0
13 defense director but other individual positions within the 14 Civil Defense Agency.
15 So the appellation on the cover letter is somewhat 16 misleading.
17 All of these procedures and the materials 18 accompanying these procedures are considered changes to the 19 state plan.
They are a part of the civil defense procedures; 20 in, again, volume 4 of the state RERP.
+
21 The fourth item included in the March 4,
- 1986, 22 submittal, is called " Revised Radiological Emergency Response 23 Plan for Town of Hampton, New Hampshire."
The fifth is the 24
" Revised Radiological Emergency Response Plan for the Town of
(}
25 Seabrook, New Hampshire."
\\
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
l j
26228.0 l
cox 2293 1
1 These materials were complete copies of each of 2
those towns' plans, with few changes in them.
Nevertheless, 3
a copy of the entire plan was made and served on the 4
parties.
5 Those are the present plans that are incorporated 4
6 within the entire state plan.
7 The sixth item in the March 4 letter is " Revised 8
New Hampshire Objectives for February 26, 1986 Exercise";
9 that is not part of the state plan.
10 The seventh item is "New Hampshire Draft Public 11 Information Material, e.g.,
Calendar, Telephone Book 12 Inserts."
There were many other items, you may know, 13 included in that packet.
My materials came in a separate 14 envelope inside the packets that I received.
They are all 15 marked " draft."
But they are, nevertheless, considered the 16 present status of those public information materials and 17 should be considered such for purpodes of raising any issues 18 about them in this proceeding.
19 That's it as to the March 4 submittal.
20 MS. CURRAN:
Madam Chairman?
21 JUDGE H0YT:
Yes.
22
'MS.
CURRAN:
Before Mr. Bisbee goes on, I would 23 just like to raise a problem that NECNP has had here and 24 maybe he could help me out a little bit.
He mentioned with
()
25 regard to the Appendix L of the New Hampshire compensatory I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 33 Ml646
I 26228.0 cox 2294 O
\\.)
1 plan that this plan is going to be revised.
The other, the 2
plans for the towns of Hampton and Seabrook are now the third 3
sets of emergency plans that we have received for these 4
towns.
5 I think it would help us a great deal if the state 6
could describe at some level what kinds of revisions it 7
expects to be making to these plans, so that we know where to 8
put our resources.
Every time a set of plans comes along, we j
9 have to, number one, figure out what is different, and, 10 number two, write a whole new set of contentions on the l
11 issues that have come up.
That's really quite an expenditure 12 for us.
We would like a little more guidance as to what the 13 state expects will be concluded in these plans, at least as 14 far as the state can reasonably judge.
15 I realize that plans do evolve, but I think 16 there's probably a point at which they are essentially
)
17 completed, and we would like to know what that is.
1
(
18 JUDGE H0YT:
There may not be an answer to that, 19 Ms. Curran, as you possibly know.
But let's see what Mr.
20 Bisbee has to say on it.
21 MR. BISBEE:
We are going to get into some of 22 those items as we are going to get into issues that were 23 raised by the Board yesterday.
l 24 JUDGE HOYT:
Could you reserve your question,
()
25 then, Ms. Curran.
Perhaps it will evolve through ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
26228.0 cox 2295 1
Mr. Bisbee's presentation here.
2 MS. CURRAN:
Sure.
3 JUDGE HOYT:
If not, please renew your question.
4 Question, Mr. Lord?
5 MR. LORD:
Yes, Madam Chairman, I had a question 6
regarding Appendix L, New Hampshire compensatory plan.
Is it 7
my understanding that that was served upon the Board and 8
parties on March 4, 1986, and yet that is the plan which was 9
used in the February 26 exercise and the Board had not seen 10 that compensatory plan at the day of the exercise; is that 11 understanding correct?
12 JUDGE HOYT:
The plan was transmitted to us, 13 evacuation plan update for the Seabrook station,. progress 14 reports.
15 I am sorry, you are talking about the compensatory 16 plan.
17 MR. LORD:
That's correct.
18 JUDGE HOYT:
This was transmitted to us as 19 Appendix L on March 4.
20 MR. BISBEE:
It was transmitted to FEMA, I 21 believe, on February 18, which was prior to the exercise.
i 22 JUDGE HOYT:
Have you seen?
23 MR. LOVELL:
I have been served a copy of it.
i 24 JUDGE HOYT:
It's indicated on the service list 1
()
25 that your Kensington representive received it.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 900 33tWi646
i 26228.0 cox 2296
,O 1
MR. LOVELL:
That's correct.
j I
2 NR. BISBEE:
I,.and I suspect most of you, 3
received another packet the next day, under cover of a letter 4
dated March 5, 1986.
This one was from Wendell P.
Johnson of 5
Public Service Company of New Hampshire to H.R.
Denton of the 6
NRC.
There were three types of materials included in this i
7 package.
The first is entitled the " Final Design Report, 8
Seabrook Station Public Alert and Notification System," dated J
9 January 1984."
That is a formal part of the State of New i
10 Hampshire plan.
I believe it will be volume 7 of the state 11 plan.
4 12 The second category is called " Current Letters of 13 Agreement."
That mate, rial too is now part of the plan; I 14 believe tho,se are in volume 5.
15 The third and last item sent under cover of the j
16 March 5 letter is called "ETE Materials Including Program 17 Report No. 5 and Appendix I, Traffic Management and 18 Control."
19 This is a portion of the KLD study progress 20 reports, and is not part of the state plan.
21 The final material submitted to us this month was 22 sent under cover of a letter dated March 11, 1986, the Public 23 Service Company of New Hampshire by William B.
Derrickson, J
24 again to H.R.
Denton of the NRC.
This included one packet of
()
25 material called "ETE materials" which includes KLD progress f
f 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336 4646
26228.0 cox 2297 1
report numbers 1 through 5 and Appendix I, traffic management 2
and control.
There is an added notation; it should be noted 3
that progress report 5 and Appendix I were transmitted to you 4
previously in Appendix C and are being included herein for 5
the convenience of having all ETE materials transmitted to 6
FEMA under one cover.
7 This was some additional KLD materials that had 8
not been submitted earlier.
All that material too is not 9
now, as in that package, part of the state plan.
Parts of it 10 may be included, I should mention, separately, in the various 11 local plans and in the state compensatory plan, but those are 12 in other volumes of the plan.
O I
13 Those are all the materials that I received to l
14 date that have been served on the parties.
15 MR. TURK:
Madam Chairman, may I ask a question 16 and make a small point?
17 JUDGE H0YT:
Proceed.
18 MR. TURK:
The compensatory plans, to my 19 knowledge, were transmitted to FEMA on February 19, not on 20 the 18th, as Mr. Bisbee has stated.
I am looking at a letter 21 of that date from Mr. Strome of the New Hampshire Civil 22 Defense Agency, to Mr. Vickers of FEMA.
23 I also have a question, and that relates to 24 certain of the materials included in the March 4 letter.
()
i 25 Mr. Bisbee had mentioned that the compensatory plan is part 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
_.~.
_~. -
i 26228.0 i
cox 2298 1
of the state plan.
Just as a housekeepina matter, I would 2
like to know where I insert those in the state plan?
Do they 3
have designated volume numbers; are they replacing other l
4 pages that currently exist?
Then I have the same question as 5
to the director of procedures volume, which I believe is also 6
part of the compensatory plan.
Also for the revised Hampton 7
and Seabrook plans, are we now simoly to take out from our 8
volumes of the state plans the current or the previous 9
Hampton and Seaorook plans and replace them with these i
10 revised ones in total?
l 11 JUDGE H0YT:
Do you want to respond, Mr. Bisbee?
12 MR. BISBEE:
Okay, last one first.
I think that 13 we all received complete copies, complete up-to-date copies 14 of the Hampton and Seabrook plans, so that they should 1
15 supplant the earlier copy that you had.
16 The Civil Defense Agency procedures, which include 17 some materials relating to the compensatory plan, are part of 1
18 Appendix 4, which is the state agency procedures section, is 19 to insert in that section dealing with the -- there are five
)
20 or six different positions which are treated by these new i
l 21 materials that should be inserted in the appropriate spot in 1
i i
22 volume 4 under the Civil Defense Agency procedures.
23 MR. TURK:
Is that true also of Appendix L?
24 MR. BISBEE:
I think I am accurate in saying that
(}
25 the actual location, if I can use that term, of the ACE-FEDERA'L" REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
4 26228.0 cox 2299 O
1 compensatory plan within the 38 -- whatever number of volumes 2
of the New Hampshire plan, has not been finally determined 3
yet.
4 In fact, I think it would be easier if we refer to 5
it as the state compensatory plan for reference as opposed to 6
Appendix L, because I am not sure that it's eventually going 1
7 to be Appendix L to anything.
I don't think it's been 8
decided just where it will be placed in the plan yet.
9 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Turk, I find that the the 10 radiological response plan, State of dew Hampshire, which was 11 an index that was sent to us, had appendix -- appendices 12 through K, so I assume Appendix L would be inserted in your O
i 13 volume at that point ~.
14 MR. BISBEE:
Your Honor, if I might, I think that j
15 was the initial understanding.
I am just not sure that the 16 Civil Defense Agency has made a final decision as to where 17 the materials in what we now call the state compensatory plan 18 will eventually be in the plan itself.
19 JUDGE H0YT:
Then you must revise this index 20 because we rely upon that to find something.
I would place 21 it in Appendix L, in that position in our files.
At least, I 22 think it's a logical place to put it.
All right.
23 MR. BISBEE:
So, if there are no further questions 24 on the materials that have been submitted to date, then
(}
25 perhaps I can address some of the questions that the Board ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646 i
26228.0 cox 2300 1
heard yesterday.
2 If I might first mention again the general 3
categories of materials that are yet to be submitted with 4
respect to the state plan.
5 JUDGE H0YT:
Very well.
6 MR. BISBEE:
First category is the one we 1
7 discussed at some length yesterday relating to the evacuation 8
time study, which includes the time estimates and evacuation
]
9 routing and control points, as Mr. Lord pointed out earlier.
10 I think I covered that adequately yesterday.
11 We also spoke of Appendix K of the department of 12
-- excuse me, the.ivision of-Public Health Services O
13 procedures in volt te 4 of the plan.
Some of those pages.were 14 missing.
Those will be supplied.
15 One of the facilities raised, I believe, in SAPL 16 Contention 9, was the county nursing home in Brentwood.
I 17 had checked on that, and it appears there is no plan in the 18 material submitted to date relating to that nursing home.
a, 19 There are, however, plans that have been drafted 20 for the entire Rockingham County complex, which includes, I 21 believe, the nursing home, sheriff's department there, and a 22 third facility that I don't recall right now.
23 Those will also be submitted soon by the state.
24 There will also be a major revision of all plans
(}
25 that will address some of the issues that have been raised by l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
.. ~
l
i 26228.0 cox 2301
(
1 the parties, i
2 We will generally update all the information 3
included ir. t!.c;c plans.
4 JUDGE H0YT:
Let me ask you, Mr. Bisbee, is there 5
any way, when you issued those draft revisions -- major 6
revisions, I think you labeled them -- that you could j
7 distinguish where the changes were made?
I think that might l
8 colve some of your problem, Mr. Curran.
Not necessarily all 9
of it, but I think that could be of some help.
- Yes, 10 Ms. Sneider.
l 11 MS. SNEIDER: 'Could we get some information as to 12 what type of revisions substantively is envisioned in the way 13 of major revisions?
14 JUDGE H0YT:
You want a list of the major i
15 categories and types of things changed?
16 MS. SNEIDER:
Right.
17 JUDGE HOYT:
While you are looking at your 18 revisions, if you can tell us, Mr. Bisbee.
19 MR. BISBEE:
Yes.
I will provide you now what I I
{
20 can.
I will also indicate where the chances have been made 21 in the new materials that are submitted.
22 Let me briefly explain the process again, if I 23 might, which is -- which leads to or which will lead to, in 24 large part, the first major revision or the comprehensive
()
25 revision of all the plans.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
l 1
26228.0
)
cox 2302 1
All the towns received draft copies of the plans 2
that were submitted to FEMA in December of 1985; I believe l
j 3
that was accomplished in January of this year.
I 4
Since then, what are now being called controlled 5
copies of the local plans have been submitted to the towns.
6 These will be the copies that will -- through which the towns 7
will be able to indicate to the state additional changes that 8
should be made.
Those changes will be updates, in large 9
part.
Any new names that need to be added, changes and 10 telephone numbers and addresses and the like, I am not sure, 11 to the extent.-- I am not sure of the extent to which other 1
12 substantive changes generally will be made during this O
13 revision process.
I guess that will depend upon_the response 14 from the towns.
t 15 I have in front of me a letter dated March 17 from 16 the Civil Defense Agency of New Hampshire to the civil 17 defense director in East Kingston.
It's an example of 18 letters that I understand have been sent to all of the 19 communities, which indicates that control copies of the plans 20 have been sent to the communities, one or more copies to each 21 community, and that May 1 is the deadline that has been set 22 by the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency for comments on 23 that copy so that changes can be incorporated by June 1 of 24 this year.
That's the general thesis that will be followed.
1 i
) (}
25 Now, there are specific matters that were raised 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 4646
.~
l 26228.0 cox 2303 O
1 yesterday as well.
Also, in contention SAPL No.
9, I believe 2
that contention references the absence of volume 5, 6 or 7 of 3
the plan.
Volume 5 is the letters of agreement; volume 7 is-4 the alert notification system which have been provided now; 5
volume 6 is for the evacuation time study; so that is still i
6 not provided.
7 There are references to eight camping areas in the 8
Town of Kingston in that contention, in SAPL 9.
There are no 9
separate plans for those camping areas nor is there a present 10 intention by the agency to formulate, draft and implement a 11 special facility plan for each of those campsites.
It is my 12 understanding that the approach taken to the eight campsites O
q 13 of Kingston is to include them in the general population.
I 14 SAPL 9 makes reference to the Adams campground.
15 The same explanation would apply to that campground as would
]
16 the eight in Kingston.
{
17 The final reference in that contention is made to 1
l 18 the vocation center, the region 18 probation center in the 19 Town of Exeter.
I understand that that is located with a 20 high school in the Town of Exeter, and that while there may 21 not be special reference to the vocation center in the Exeter
)
22 High School special facilities plan, that is, in fact, how 23 the vocation center is to be handled with the Town of Exeter, l
24 and there is a special facilities plan for the high school in 1
I
(}
25 the Town of Exeter.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
26228.0 cox 2304 O
1 SAPL Contention 10, another contention which led 2
the Board to make an inquiry as to what the state's progress 4
3 was, I think, was covered by my remarks about the revision 4
process.
That was the contention that raised issues about
~
5 the lack of up-to-date information on individual persons in 6
various positions in the local governments and their 4
7 telephone numbers.
8 The last item I have on my list, I believe, 9
relates to NECNP contention NHLP 12, and that was the one 10 that relates to the Na'shua relocation center.
I have checked 11 on that, and I can provide everyone the following 12 information:
Nashua is not a primary host community any 13 longer.
It is, however, a secondary host community.
Three 3
14 of the communities that were to have used Nashua as a 15 relocation center -- those three are the towns of Hampton, 16 Hampton Falls and North Hampton -- are to be designated to go 17 to the Dover relocation center, using Dover as the host s
i 18 community.
19 The two others that were formally designated to 20 use Nashua as a host community will now go to Salem.
Those i
21 two communities are South Hampton and Seabrook.
22 JUDGE H0YT:
Yes, Ms. Curran.
23 MS. CURRAN:
I would just like to clarify, is that i
24 information in the material that's been sent to us in the
(}
25 last couple of weeks?
1 h
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33Mi646
i i
i J
26228.0 cox 2305 i
- (
- )
l 1
MR. BISBEE:
I don't believe so.
l 2
JUDGE H0YT:
This is new information that we asked t
p-l 3
for yesterday, and we are getting the update on it now.
I 4
MR. LORD:
Are we then dealina with the fact that l
5 a whole new host community for the city or town of Dover will l
l 6
have to be produced?
I I
7 JUDGE H0YT:
We will have to inquire from 8
Mr. Bisbee if that's the intent of it,.
I have no idea what 9
the planning is.
Do you want the answer?
I say yes, there 10 will be a host community plan for the City of Dover.
11 MR. LORD:
Will there be a new contiguous l
12 jurisdictional planning with regard to the State of Maine Ii 13 because of rece,nt mailings that have indicated the i
i i
14 possibility of using Memorial Bridge in Portsmouth as an 15 evacuation route now, adding another state?
16 JUDGE HOYT:
Do you want to answer th it?
17 MR. BISBEE:
I don't have a specific answer, but I i
18 know that the issue of coordination with both the 19 Commonwealth of Massachusetts and State of Maine will be 20 taken into account.
l 21 JUDGE H0YT:
Is that your question also, 1
i 22 Ms. Sneider?
23 MS. SNEIDER:
No.
My concern was when we should j
24 expect to receive these new host community plans.
()
25 JUDGE H0YT:
Do you have something other than J
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
1 l
26228.0 l
cox 2306 i
)
1 "soon," Mr. Bisbee?
2 MR. BISBEE:
I don't right of f here.
If we take a 3
minute break here, I can find out or I can provide it later.
4 JUDGE H0YT:
Why don't you provide it after the 5
noon recess, Mr. Bisbee.
6 MS. CURRAN:
I had a couple of questions.
7 JUDGE HOYT:
All right, let's take them here.
If 8
we need answers, maybe we can get them over the lunch hour.
9 What are they, Ms. Curran?
10 MS. CURRAN:
I want,to know to what extent 11 Mr. Bisbee thinks the evacuation time study will also result 12 in revisions of the plans.
(
13 JUDGE H0YT:
If you know.
14 MR. BISBEE:
I can't address that.
I 15 JUDGE H0YT:
I think that's going to be a 16 difficult question to answer, Ms. Curran.
If you want to try 17 to secure some answers, fine.
18 MR. BISBEE:
I think I have as much of an answer i
19 as I can provide now.
l 20 JUDGE H0YT:
All right, go ahead.
21 MR. BISBEE:
The civil defense director hasn't 22 determined yet how he should use the new KLD study in terms 23 of bases for protective action decisions as far as evacuation 24 routing is concerned, as well as traffic control pl.ns.
(}
25 I think it's fair to say that -- maybe it's not ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433H646
l l
26228.0 co:-
2307 1
fair to say.
Perhaps I should defer until after the break.
2 JUDGE H0YT:
All right.
What was your second 3
question; was that all of them?
4 MS. CURRAN:
That's all.
5 JUDGE H0YT:
Mr. Nadeau.
6 MR. NADEAU:
Your Honor, I wonder if Mr. Bisbee 7
could tell us whether or not the City of Dover has agreed to 8
be a host community as yet, because now they are adding 9
Hampton, Hampton Falls, along with Rye and others.
It was my 10 understanding they have not; and if they aren't one, is there 11 a backup community that the state is considering, so that we 12 will know?
Os 13 JUDGE H0YT:
All right, if you want to get that, 14 we will take care of that after lunch.
We wi'll recess now 15 for lunch.
We will reconvene at 1:30.
16 (Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m.,
the hearing was 17 recessed, to be reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
this same day.)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C) 5 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Ml646
26228.0 cox 2308 1
AFTERNOON SESSION (1:40 p.m.)
2 JUDGE HOYT:
The conference will come to order.
I L
i 3
Let the record reflect that all the partiea in the proceeding i
except the representative of Kensington and the 5
representative of FEMA are now present in the hearing room as 6
they were at the termination of the morning session.
7 Mr. Backus, do you have a question?
8 MR. BACKUS:
Yes.
I have a question about i
9 yesterday's transcript.
I have reviewed Staff's copy of that l
10 transcript and I find that it does not contain all of your I
11 discussion with me about the on the record /off the record 12 matter, and I would like to have that corrected.
13 Specifically, it does not contain your reference.to the fact j) 14 that I would not be permitted to make certain statements on 15 the record, and I think it should contain at least all of j
16 your remarks, Madam Chairman.
)
17 JUDGE H0YT:
Very well, Mr. Backus, you may file a i
18 motion for the correction of the transcript.
l i
19 MR. BACKUS:
Can I do that orally right now?
20 JUDGE H0YT:
No, sir.
21 MR. BACKUS:
I may not make it informally?
22 JUDGE H0YT:
No, sir.
23 MR. BACKUS:
I have something --
24 JUDGE H0YT:
No.
That terminates it, sir.
That
(}
25 terminates it, sir.
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
l 26228.0 cox 2309 1
MR. BACKUS:
Can I ask the other members of the 2
Board, perhaps to be consulted, Madam Chairman on this?
3 JUDGE HOYT:
No, sir, please, I wish to get ahead i
4 with the proceeding.
I ask you if you wish to make any 5
correction as to the transcri'pt, you may file a written 6
motion.
The Board does not want to take it at this time.
We 7
have nothing further on this discussion.
8 Now, Mr. Bisbee, have you completed your 9
submissions, did you have anything in addition?
10 MR. BISBEE:
I have answers to two questions that i
11 were raised just before we closed before lunch.
12 JUDGE H0YT:
If you will.
O 13 MR. BISBEE:
I have to correct part of my comments 14 on the Dover host community plan.
There already is a Dover 4
j 15 host community plan that was submitted as part of the package 16 from December of 1985.
It will have to be amended.
It is 17 being amended now to incorporate three new towns that used to 18 go or were designated to go to the Nashua relocation center; 19 so it's not a new host community plan that will be submitted, 20 but a revised one of one that already exists.
21 There is a further question as to whether the City 22 of Dover has agreed to receive evacuees from these three 23 additional towns.
I don't know that they have acted on that 1
l 24 specific question.
I do understand, however, that they are
()
25 continuing to work with the State of New Hampshire in i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3)2-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 6646
j a'
1 v
26228.0~i cox 2310 s I
)
^
i.
/
,1 developing these plans and have indicated no objection at all 2
to continuing the revisions as necessary to treat the 3
additional three towns that would now be going to Dover.
,4 JUDGE H0YT:
I think that answered your question.
[
5
~Do you have something else, Mr. Nadeau?
6 MR. NADEAU:
It answers in"part, your Honor.
I-r 7..
know for a fact that Dover has not agreed to be a host town 8
to these communities, which includes Rye, and I was wondering 9
how that affects our entire proceedings, back to the issue of 6
10 the time schedule the towns are being placed on, since we 11 don't have -- even if Dover agrees t'd-be a host town, we l
12 don't have that element of coordinatioa, together with O
13 Massachusetts.
So I was wondering how that affects these 14 proceedings, your Honor.
Are we going to have a new 15 opportunity to make contentions based on that?
16 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Well, I heard Mr. Bisbee say he 17 used the words " major revision" a little while ago this 18 morning.
1 1
19 MR. NADEAU:
All right, your Honor, I think you 20 are right.
Thank you.
21 MR. BISBEE:
I do need to comment upon that 22 variation, as'well, when I complete the answer to the second 23 question that had been raised, relat'Ing to the extent of 24 changes due to the new KLD evacuation time estimate study.
()
25 The three bdsic components, as you all are aware J
l s
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nazbnwide Coverage 800 33(Hi646 L.
.a
4 26228.0 cox 2311 0
1 of this study, are the time estimates themselves, the traffic 2
routing, and the traffic control points.
3 I have conferred with the Civil Defense Agency 4
people here over the lunch hour, and I am told that the -- as 5
to the evacuation routes themselves, there are some now 6
included in the plans as submitted.
They are located in 7
parts of the local plans; there are some routes indicated in 8
the special facilities plans in Appendix F of the local 9
plans, and there are also routes indicated on the public 10 information materials that have been made availab,le to the~
11 parties this month.
12 It's unlikely that those will change in any O
13 significant way based upon the completion of the,KLD study.
14 The same is true for control points, traffic 15 control points.
They are now -- excuse me.
They are now a 16 part of the plan in the state compensatory plan.
A large 17 part of the recent submission relating to the Civil Defense 18 Agency procedures incorporates the state compensatory plan as 19 it relates to traffic control points.
20 In the submission relating to the state l
21 compensatory plan itself, there are also many pages dealing 22 with the traffic control points.
It's also unlikely that 23 those will change in any significant way.
24 JUDGE HARBOUR:
You say it is also unlikely?
(}
25 MR. BISBEE:
That's correct.
In fact, those ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433H446
26228.0 4
cox 2312 1
traffic control points are the ones being developed by KLD 2
and it is likely that those will be the ones relied upon in 3
large part.
I think that answers Ms. Curran's questions.
4 JUDGE HOYT:
Does that satisfy you?
All right.
5 MR. BISBEE:
If I might sum up on the issue of the 6
status of the New Hampshire plan.
I think it will also serve 7
as a prelude to the discussion which will follow on 8
scheduling of issues.
The basic plan has been submitted to i
9 all the parties, has been supplemented this month by the i
j 10 letters of agreement and the alert notification system, and a
11 other smaller aspects of the plan.
12 The two comprehensive changes that are still to O
13 come are, first of all, the ETE study.
That will be 14 eventually a separate volume of the plan, and that yet is not 15 submitted as part of the plan.
As I have just indicated, as 16 it relates to other parts of the state plan, evacuation 17 routing and traffic control points, it's likely that there 18 will be few changes as a result of the submission of the ETE l
19 report.
20 The only other anticipated change relates to the 21 Revision 1 that I referred to this morning, which is 22 primarily a housekeeping matter.
Certain pages that have not 23 been submitted that are presently drafted will be submitted, 24 updating information on names and telephone numbers and the
(}
25 like will be submitted, and that's about all.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-3364646
i 26228.0 cox 2313 1
When I used the phrase " major revision," I should 2
have used " comprehensive," meaning all the volumes and the J
3 plans will be gone over to bring them up-to-date and changes j
4 inserted as necessary.
j 5
So there really isn't as much yet to cone as it 6
may have appeared in my comments this morning.
7 JUDGE H0YT:
Mr. Bisbee, can I inquire, after some i
8 of the discussions that we have heard here, and the concerns i
9 of the towns, is there some mechanism that you can put in i
10 motion that would help these communities participating in 11 these?
Would you have some person you could contact; would 12 you give some indication of where it is that the person O
13 preparing -- that particular person or persons that may be J
]
14 preparing that particular section applicable to a town, may 15 contact an individual?
I think from what we have heard, many I,
16 of these towns may be just kept in the dark to such an extent i
17 that they feel, and apparently rightly'so, left out.
We can 18 get them at least advised of it; they don't have to agree 4
l 19 with it, but certainly I think they are entitled to'having a 1
)
20 little bit better informational distribution system in j
21 place.
22 Is there any way that you could implement such a 3
)
23 scheme?
24 MR. EISBEE:
As I alluded to this morning, that
(}
25 process is under way now.
Draft copies of all the plans were ACE-FEDERdL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
26228.0 ox 2314 1
made available early in the year, control copies so-called.
2 Multiple copies for each town are being submitted to every 3
town.
4 I was asked by. Michael Nawoj of the Civil Defense f
5 Agency to let everybody know who is present today that if a 1
6 town'has not yet received its control copies, that they need 7
only see him to make arrangements for the personal delivery l
8 of that particular town's copies.
That's ongoing now.
I 9
think the local officials know who they can contact at the 10 civil Defense Agency to get whatever they need.
11 What I might suggest that I might do, however, is 12 come up with a list that I can serve on everyone to indicate 13 who at the Civil Defens'e Agency is responsible for what 14 towns.
15 JUDGE H0YT:
Yes I think that might be very 16 helpful.
Mr. Nadeau, would that somewhat help you and the 17 representative of Kensington?
18 MR. NADEAU:
It would improve it considerably.
19 JUDGE H0YT:
We are not asking you to agree with 20 anything; we are trying to get the information to you on 21 which you can base your decision.
22 MR. NADEAU:
I am still a little concerned with 23 the change from " major revision" to " comprehensive 24 revision."
I don't know if they are contemplating any
()
25 significant -
"significant" is another word -- revisions, i
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
~ _ _ _ _-
26228.0 ox 2315 1
based upon the significant grading of FEMA, based on the 2
February 26 drill.
3 JUDGE H0YT:
That's a pretty fair question, 4
Mr. Bisbee, can you answer that?
5 MR. BISBEE:
Of course it's unethical till we see e
6 the results and all my comments are related to what we know 7
right now.
To the extent that FEMA will have suggestions 8
that should be incorporated in the plans, they will be so 9
incorporated.
I can't say now to what extent the plans will 10 be changed.
11 JUDGE H0YT:
That is usually the. method that is 12 used, Mr. Nadeau.
Those would be incorporated as they are O
13 discovered through that exercise process, which is the 14 purpose of the exercise in the first place.
15 MR. NADEAU:
If it is significant, then the towns 16 would have the opportunity to present you with the 4
17 contentions that would be heard on.
18 JUDGE H0YT:
We would reserve judgment, depending i
19 on what it was that was revealed in that particular thing.
I 20 am not going to commit myself, or I don't think the other 21 members of the Board wish to commit themselves, to any 22 particular methodology that we will adopt when and if such i
23 changes are involved.
24 JUDGE LUEBKE:
If this organization list'is 2
()
25 published, then people can identify a person to contact that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26228.0 cox 2316 1
is likely to have the information they are looking for.
(
2 MR. BISBNE:
Yes.
If I might add, Madam Chairman, 3
I am sorry I interrupted you a minute ago.
I wanted to add-4 that changes made on the basis of FEMA's recommendations, as 5
well as changes based upon continuing suggestions coming in 6
from the local governments, will also have to be considered
~
7 in future revisions, and I won't address those now.
That's 4
9 all I had.
9 JUDGE HOYT:
Let me ask the representative.
10 Mr. Flynn, is it not, sir?
11 MR. FLYNN:
.Yes,'ma'am.
12 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Flynn, do you have a date on 13 which you are going to get that exercise report put?
i 14 MR. FLYNN:
I am not sure what the' projected date i
15 is, Madam Chairman.
I would be glad to check and get back to 16 you in a few minutes.
17 JUDGE HOYT:
All right.
If you could do that it i
i 18 might be helpful.
Yes, Mr. Nadeau.
1 1
19 MR. NADEAU:
All the report --
20 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Flynn, can you hold on just a l
21 moment, Mr. Nadeau had something he wanted --
22 MR. NADEAU:
I know that a formal repo.t is i
23 coming, but I was wondering whether Flynn already knows the l
24 substance of the report, because I hear different things.
l
' (}
25 JUDGE HOYT:
Well, I don't want to get into the l
l i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Na:ionwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26228.0 cox 2317 O
1 substance of it, what could be or what could not be in the 2
report.
Let the report speak for itself at the time it is 3
issued, Mr. Nadeau.
We have got enough ifs, ands and buts on 4
the record without inserting some more in here.
Go ahead, 5
Mr. Flynn.
6 MR. FLYNN:
We anticipate that the full exercise 7
report will be issued in mid-April.
8 In the meantime, within the next two weeks, there 9
will be a preliminary report identifying the deficiencies in 10 the exercise.
11 JUDGE H0YT:
Does that answer your question then?
12 MR. NADEAU:
Yes.
The only reason I raised it, O
13 your Honor, is a lot of towns have used a lot of. resources to 14 get us to this point in time, and we spent two days here and 15 I assume Mr. Flynn might know some of the key areas and while 16 we are here we might address them.
17 JUDGE H0YT:
I am not going to get into that area, 18 Mr. Nadeau, it's too risky.
19 MR. NADEAU:
I respect your judgment.
20 JUDGE H0YT:
Because if something were to be 21 mentioned here, it may seem to be cast in concrete and it may 22 not even be part of the final report when it is issued.
I 23 don't want to get into the substance of the final report.
24 Yes, ma'am.
(}
25 MS. SNEIDER:
I am interested whether FEMA could ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26228.0 cox 2318 OV 1
indicate it is their opinion, if they could indicate whether 2
there need to be substantive changes.
3 JUDGE HOYT:
I think that's in the area Mr. Nadeau 4
is bringing up.
I think it's best left for the report and 5
let it speak to whatever areas those matters are going to 6
be.
It's only going to be a matter of a couple of weeks or 7
so that the final report is anticipated.
I shouldn't say 8
final report, but the report of the exercise and then even a 9
shorter time for some sort of a draft on an initial report 10 indicating those areas Mr. Flynn has mentioned for the area 11 of deficiencies, and I think we will let it stay at that 12 point.
Do you have something else, Mr. Flynn?
O 13 MR. FLYNN:
Not at the moment, thank you, your 14 Honor.
15 JUDGE HOYT:
Do we have anything else from the 16 Intervenors that they needed to mention?
Mr. McEachern.
17 MR. MC EACHERN:
Yes, your Honor.
The Hampton 18 report, the Hampton plan and the comprehensive plan were both 19 submitted subsequent to the filing of our contentions.
It's 20 suspected that the ETE study will be submitted on May 1.
21 My question is should we be filing contentions on 22 the Hampton plan and the comprehensive plan now, or should we 23 be waiting until the ETA /ETE study is done and the state 24 tells us whether they are going to to adopt the new KLD study
()
25 to file contentions on those two late arriving items.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M33H646
26228.0 cox 2319 1
JUDGE H0YT:
I don't think we will do that at this j
2 point in time, Mr. McEachern, to give you a response to that 3
particular question.
I would refer that the order coming out 4
of this hearing will address that point.
~
5 MR. MC EACHERN:
Thank you.
8 6
MR. BACKUS:
Did I understand you to say that the 1
7 order coming out of this conference will address the time for 1
8 filing contentions on the materials that Mr. Bisbee has 9
identified as having been submitted?
10 JUDGE H0YT:
No, Mr. Backus.
You heard me respond 11 to the gentleman's question, and that's all I said.
I didn't 12 elaborate as you would choose to have me do so.
That's all i (:)
13 we have addressed.
I responded to his question._
l 14 MR. BACKUS:
Well, at some point, then, Madam 15 Chairman, I have a couple of concerns I would like to address 16 to the Board in regard to the materials that Dana Bisbee has 17 identified and the process that we are going to use in regard 18 to those.
19 JUDGE H0YT:
In what sense, Mr. Backus?
e 20 MR. BACKUS:
Well, I guess there are two related
]
21 things; in our opinion, they are related.
There is the l
22 process that we are going to use on the materials that have j
23 been forwarded to us since the December 9 submission on which 24 we were asked and did file contentions on February 24;
(}
25 whether the order of the Board of January 17 is applicable to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
i i
26228.0 cox 2320 1
those materials insofar as filing contentions and discovery, l
2 motions for summary judgment or not.
If that is the 3
situation, I think we would all like to.be advised.
4 The second issue is one that Brother Nadeau l
f 5
referred to this morning and that is, in our view, at least, 6
all of these things as clearly reflected in NUREG-0654 are 7
clearly intended to be dealt with on a local basis, state l
8 plans, plans for contiguous states between the emergency 1
j 9
zones.
l 10 JUDGE H0YT:
As you know, Mr. Backus, there has 11 been no plan submitted by Massachusetts.
12 MR. BACKUS:
- Yes, 4
j 13 JUDGE H0YT:
>Now, that is not going tp deter the 14 Board and indeed should not from conducting the litigation as 15 necessary on the New Hampshire plan.
These contentions, 16 these plans, the entire growing process, as I am sure if you i
17 had participated in some of these off-site hearings before, i
18 you wculd understand, necessitates a constant changing of j
19 positions and sometimes a washing out of contentions that you 20 mav have had after the blanks in the plans have been filled j
21 in.
We can't address an integrated plan, because there isn't l
l 22 one from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or anyone else at 1
23 this point in time.
24 MR. BACKUS:
The Board will, of course, set its
()
25 schedule and we will be bound by it, i
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
1 l
i 26228.0 cox 2321
! (:)
1 I would like to state our position on the record 2
for SAPL, South Hampton and Hampton Falls.
It is where there i
i i
3 1.
no indication where there is ever going to be 4
Massachusetts plans, so far as I know, that they are i
5 anticipated to come --
1 6
JUDGE HCYT:
I don't think, sir, that we are going I
7 to accept that.
I think the representative of Massachusetts i
j 8
is the person to address that subject.
You can't speak to j
9 whether or not there will ever be a plan of Massachusetts.
]
10 It is my understanding, Mr. Backus, you are a New Hampshire i
11 attorney.
You are not even associated with the legal system 1
12 of Massachuse,tts.
I would prefer to let the counsel for O
13 Massachusetts address that.
Can you give us any information, l
14 Ms. Sneider, on that?
I 15 MS. SNEIDER:
I can say that the state is 16 diligently proceeding.
We are working on the plan.
I can't 1'
17 say ultimately, when the plan will be submitted, but the i
18 people in the state are working very hard.
i 19 JUDGE H0YT:
You can't give us any indication of a 1
j 20 date; will it be three months, six months, whatever?
i
(
21 MS. SNEIDER:
It really is too difficult to say l
22 right now.
i l
23 JUDGE H0YT:
We will accept it.
That's your 24 planning process.
Now that, Mr. Backus, there is nothing we
()
25 can do about that.
1 l
1 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
i.
i 26228.0 i
cox 2322 C:)
I 1
MR. BACKUS:
I understand.
I was making a l
2 preliminary observation as far as we know.
We anticipated at i
3 some point there will be some Massachusetts plans and we have 4
no reason to believe that point will ever come.
That being 5
so, it's our position, since these are intended to be dealt 6
with in an integrated coordinated fashion, that we should j
7 have a hearing in an integrated coordinated fashion, j
8 JUDGE H0YT:
We are going to proceed in the 9
hearing, Mr. Backus, on the contentions that we have before 10 us.
If that answers your question, that is the way the Board 11 is intending to proceed.
1 12 MR. BACKUS:
I suggest I have stated my position O
13 to the extent I have been allowed to do so.
14 JUDGE H0YT:
Mr. Backus, that's an interesting l
15 point.
What other points did you have in your position that 16 you wanted to state?
17 MR. BACKUS:
My position was going to be that 18 given the status of the record that we have here, with the j
19 Massachusetts plans not before us, with the FEMA exercise on 20 the New Hampshire plans having been conducted but the results 1
21 not in, with the KLD time study, traffic planning and traffic i
22 rules anticipated, with what was just described before lunch 23 as major revisions to the New Hampshire plans, and sircce i
24 lunch described as comprehensive, but perhaps not major
(}
25 revisions to the New Hampshire plans, that the present j
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 33 H 646 800
.. ~.
._ ~
26228.0 cox 2323 1
schedule this Board is asking us to litigate is not 2
appropriate and the schedule should be reconsidered.
3 JUDGE HOYT:
You have just said the same thing.
4 You haven't made any additional points, Mr. Backus.
You just 5
repeated your previous point.
If you had something else to 6
add we would have liked to have heard it, but apparently you f
7 only had the one point.
All right, Mr. McEachern.
8 MR. MC EACHERN:
May I correct the record?
I 9
previously referred to the compensatory plan as the l
i 10 comprehensive plan, and I misspoke.
We have " comprehensive" l
l 11 in the plan and I was affected by it.
I 12 JUDGE H0YT:
I thought I heard that, but I 13 interpreted it to be that.
1 i
14 JUDGE LUEBKE:
I have been listening to i
15 Mr. Backus, and as I listen, I hear that we might be 16 litigating what I could call obsolete contentions.
I am l
17 adverse to that, spending time litigating obsolete i
18 contentions.
I 19 So, if we can determine, in collaboration with the 20 State of New Hampshire, which are the likely positive parts i
21 of the plan and which are the unsettled parts of the plan, j
22 then, as Judge Hoyt is, I know, anxious to move forward, 23 maybe we can determine which contentions are positive and 24 which contentions are still a little nebulous, hopefully, and
()
25 make some progress that way.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j
,. -.. _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 202-34?-3700 -,,
_ Nahnyp Coverage
_j_
8E3364646
I i
26228.0 l
.c o x 2324 1
JUDGE H0YT:
We had not had any input from the 2
Staff on the Applicant, on the total picture of what we have 3
been doing these past two days.
We do not wish to cut off 1
4 either one of you gentlemen, if you wish to make any comments 5
on all of this, before we get into scheduling matters.
~
6 Do you want to defer to Mr. Dignan, Mr. Turk, or i
7 do you want to proceed?
)
8 MR. TURK:
I would let Mr. Dignan make his 9
statement.
10 JUDGE H0YT:
I would like to have the Staff go t
l 11 last, as is usual, which is customary in these proceedings.
12 Proceed, Mr. Dignan.
]
13' MR. DIGNAN:
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I do not l
14 believe it would be a useful exercise for me to attempt to go 15 through all of the presentations that have been made in j
16 support of contentions, and for the most part, intend to l
17 simply rely on the written objections which we have filed.
i l
18 With your permission, however, I would like to 19 address one particular contention and then address a few i
20 principles which I think, frankly, have been lost sight of in 21 some of the argument that you have heard for the past day and i
22 a half.
23 Particular contention I would like to address is l
24 the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts j ()
25 contention.
The Board will recall that the Applicant opposed I
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33H646
26228.0 ox 2325 1
j 1
the admission of that contention, and will also recall that 1
2 the Staff opposed it, in part, but found on their -- upon i
j 3
their reading, that there was a matter that could be fair 4
game for litigation.
The only point I wish to make is after 5
hearing the very candid argument of the Assistant Attorney j
6 General of the Commonwealth and reading her excellent i
7 presentation that was served on us yesterday, it is clear in f
8 the vernacular that the Staff may have thrown the Attorney j
9 General a liferaft to save that contention, but that the
)
10 Commonwealth has neglected to pick up the liferaft.
That is, 1
j 11 the Commonwealth tak'es the position that it will not be l
12 limited in the sense that Staff thought it was admissible.
I i
13 Therefore, I respectfully suggest, we will stand.on the 14 argument we have made, that this intention, in fact, is 15 exactly as we characterized it, and on the basis of what we j
l 16 said in straight opposition, and what the Staff said in l
17 partial opposition, I think the contention should be rejected j
18 for litigation in this proceeding.
l 19 Turning now to certain of the principles that I 20 think are important to underline, j
21 JUDGE H0YT:
Mr. Dignan, could I ask you, on the l
22
-- in an area of your opposition of that contention, I wonder 23 if you could give us a legal brief on that, the admissibility l
24
-- I am sorry, the inadmissibility of that contention as you
()
25 discussed it.
I would like a legal brief on that, if you I
I 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- - -, Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646 202-347 3700
26228.0 cox 2326
,s l\\s) 1 will.
2 MR. DIGNAN:
On the Massachusetts Attorney 3
General?
4 JUDGE H0YT:
Yes, your Honor.
5 MR. DIGNAN:
By what time would the Board want 6
that?
7 JUDGE H0YT:
How about 10 days, which will make it 8
about the 6th of April.
9 MS. SNEIDER:
Madam Chairman, if I could just 10 speak.
11 JUDGE H0YT:
Do you want to file a brief also?
rg 12 MS. SNEIDER:
I am just objecting, to begin with,
' _)
(
13 to their filing a brief.
It was my understanding they cited 14 legal argument.
15 JUDGE H0YT:
We are asking for additional legal 16 argument.
Certainly we would like to have a brief from you 17 if you would like to file one, simultaneous briefs.
i I
18 MS. SNEIDER:
I would ask that I be allowed to 19 respond to their brief afterward.
20 JUDGE H0YT:
I would prefer simultaneous briefs, 21 Ms. Sneider, on that.
Would you want more time than the 10 22 days we indicated?
23 MS. SNEIDER:
If that's possible.
24 JUDGE H0YT:
All right.
Shall we take it then by
()
25 the --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1 4
i 26228.0 t
cox 2327 1
MR. DIGNAN:
Madam Chairman, could I respectfully 2
note, am I in error or did the schedule that you put out 3
indicate that the Board was planning to rule by April I?
4 JUDGE H0YT:
That's what our plans are.
We may i
5 have to revise that.
I 6
MR. DIGNAN:
I would be prepared to commit to a l
i 7
shorter time if the Board would prefer.
l 8
JUDGE H0YT:
What we would do in such a case, if I
9 we chose to try and meet that schedule, is we would defer l
1 10 that contention till later.
I would rather have the briefs, 11 Mr. Dignan, thoroughly researched on the admissibility and 12 the litigation of two different ETEs.
As far as I know, this I O
(
13 is the first time that kind of issue has come up, l
l 14 MR. DIGNAN:
This is not the two ETE issue; this 15 is the Attorney General?
I
]
16 JUDGE H0YT:
That's right.
Was it the two ETE or i
i 17 Attorney General's arguments?
i 18 JUDGE H0YT:
I want the Attorney General's l
l 19 argument.
You may file a simultaneous brief.
Let's go to 20 the 15th of April on that one then.
That will give you 21 additional time.
1 22 MR. TURK:
I was just going to ask.
Would you 23 find it helpful for the Staff to file a brief?
i l
24 JUDGE H0YT:
That was the next thing I was going
! ()
25 to suggest, Staff may wish to file.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800
.. _ _ _ _ __.,_. _. _,,. _. -. _,_. _ 33 H 646
26228.0 cox 2328 i
ss/
1 MR. TURK:
That would be April 15?
i 2
JUDGE H0YT:
April 15.
We are going to take l
3 simultaneous briefs on all parties, a
4 MR. DIGNAN:
Madam Chairman, could I inquire, 5
because when a judge has a question, I want to be sure it's 6
answered, would the Board like us to brief the two ETE issues l
7 so-called?
l 8
JUDGE HOYT:
I think -- yes, I think so, 9
Mr. Dignan.
In particular, in view of your arguments in that j
10 opposition to the Attorney General, if you don't wish to i
l 11 verse that particular portion of it.
12 MS. SNEIDER:
I am not sure what the ETE issue 13 referred to.
14 JUDGE HOYT:
Prior to this time, Ms. Sneider, in I
i 15 off-site emergency planning hearings, the ETE that had always 16 been litigated was the one that had been filed by the 17 Applicant.
In this case that has been flied by the
(
18 Applicant, and, in part, litigated previously.
19 However, there has been a choice made by the i
{
20
' Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of New Hampshire I
21 to file a separate ETE study, whether or not any of it is i
22 going to be litigated, we don't know at this time.
23 But the position that Mr. Dignan took in hic brief I
24 in response to your contention was that only one ETE was
()
25
- used, i.e.,
the ETE of the Applicant.
I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
!. __ _._ _ - - - _._._, --.--._202-347 3700 Na:ionwide Coverage 800
- _ _,. _.-.-_ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _, _.33 H 646 m-...
- _.. ~..
i 1
i 26228.0 ox 2329 S
1 MS. SNEIDER:
Excuse me, I don't think Mr. Dignan j
2 used that in response to my contention, j
l 3
JUDGE HOYT:
Maybe it was in another portion of f
4 it; that's correct.
Was it in response to yours?
5 MR. MC EACHERN:
That's correct.
We would like to e
be able to brief that if there is going to be briefing.
}
7 JUDGE HOYT:
If you would like to, sir, we will 1
8 take a brief from you.
Because you had a contention that 9
involved that particular issue.
I 10 MR. TURK:
Madam Chairman, I think it was the
}
j 11 Staff's response to contentions that may be provoking the i
12 need for a brief from the utility.
I would be happy to file 13 further legal briefs on the issue if you desire,.if you think i
{
14 it's necessary.
We basically, in our response to 15 contentions, have cited some authority from the regulations 16 on NUREG-0654.
l 17 JUDGE H0YT:
Yes, I know you did.
If you want to l
l 18 file further briefs on it, I will take it from wherever I can 1
19 get it, Mr. Turk.
r i
i 20 MR. TURK:
I was hoping we were comprehensive
{
21 enough the first time around.
But I will consider whether we 22 need to file something additional.
23 JUDGE H0YT:
I will leave it to your election to i
j 24 flie or not to file.
O 2s MR. Tuax:
I weu1d aise note thet whether er eet l
.l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I DNN.ED Nr:rCCm C M X""L U
l 26228.0 ox 2330 j
1 there will be a different ETE filed by the states of New j
2 Hampshire and Massachusetts different from that of the 3
utilities is really academic at this point.
None of us i
4 knows.
If Mr. Dignan would be able to secure from his client l
5 an indication as to which BTE they will rely on, it may be
?
6 they are going to switch to KLD after all, in which case we l
7 don't need to concern ourselves.
4 b
)
8 JUDGE H0YT:
I think it's quite fair to ask that, i
r i
~
9 Mr. Turk, because they don't know any more than the other j
10 parties as to what is is going to be in that study.
I don't l
l 11 think we can ask anyone, including the Applicant, to commit t
12 to tha,t when we don't know what is going to be in that study 13 from KLD.
14 MR. TURK:
That may be the case.
I don't know 15 whether the utility is having discussions with the states at 16 this time.
i l
17 JUDGE H0YT:
If you want to respond, Mr. Dignan.
i 18 MR. DIGNAN:
You have responded very well for me, i
19 very well, your Honor; that's precisely my position.
i 20 MR. MC EACHERN:
I would be saying, Madam 21 Chairman, that this is a point we might not reach then, we i
i 22 don't know, yet, whether we will reach it and whether the 23 Doard will need briefs on the issue.
4 24 JUDGE H0YT:
We are going to take them anyway, I ()
25 Mr. McEachern.
If we have got them anyway in the office, we t
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
E
. E 7' E d ? D E E.
E D
26228.0 ox 2331
'-w I
can use them.
If not, we have all performad a very 2
interesting legal exercise.
Mr. Nadeau.
3 MR. NADEAU:
On these briefs, your Honor, I am not 4
going to be writing a brief or offering to be writing a brief 5
on this issue.
6 JUDGE H0YT:
Thank you, sir.
7 MR. NADEAU:
But as an interested party, what 8
concerns me here is the process we have gone through.
We 9
have all had our separate presentations.
The plans call for 10 an integrated fashion which some of us-have addressed.
11 Now, Mr. Dignan, his main concern appears to be
,e w 12 the sister state of Massachusetts.
There is going to be a
)
\\
13 brief written on that.
I think I can understand.why, and I i
14 would like your Board to weigh very seriously this issue l
15 particularly on the Massachusetts contention, because many of 16 the New Hampshire towns have raised similar contentions 17
! comprehensively covered by our sister state of l
18 Massachusetts.
19 Now, we have had to file contentions two days 20 before there was a drill, we have had to come to this type of i
21 a hearing before the drill results have been even made i
1 22 known.
23 JUDGE H0YT:
Let me correct just one thought you 24 had there, Mr. Nadeau.
This is not a hearing in the sense
()
25 that we are taking evidence, that we are fixing any l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
202 347 3700 Nationwide CovGt~)
804 336-6646
i i
i 26228.0 ox 2332 1
position.
This was merely an opportunity to attempt to sift 2
through the system, some of these particular difficult i
3 situations that have been raised by the contentions. and to I
j 4
give everyone an oppori. unity to make these changes.
I 5
I think it is a useful prehearing conference.
i 6
It's not a hearing.
7 MR. NADEAU:
The future is going to be based on j
8 this, your Honor.
We have already been deprived of l
9 integration of Massachusetts by virtue of their plan not
?
}
10 being filed and having to go forward.
Massachusetts offers j
11 great insight in the contention that she has filed, so I take 1
i 12 great exception to the ruling on her conception.
I hope the l
13 Board will consider Rye's input in support of that.
l 14 JUDGE HOYT:
Don't you think, Mr. Nadeau, that the 1
j 15 Board's request of briefs from the Applicant, from the 16 Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Attorney and from'the Staff; 17 and now the counsel for the City of Hampton, Town of Hampton, 1
i 18 has asked also to file a brief.
I think in those cases we l
l 19 have indicated we are going to take those briefs and that we
)
20 welcome.
I don't know of any additional prayer meeting we 21 can attend that will help.us do this any better than to take
)
22 the briefs of the very parties that are involved in these 23 things.
1 24 MR. NADEAU:
It seems to me that if the standard O
2s seectriea re so= 81e seeciticitv ea the ce=teotiee 1# the l
l
]
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Com 800 33H646
26228.0 ox 2333 1
bottom line is determining if reasonable assurances are given 2
for adequate protective actions, I don't see why either of 3
them have to make a brief to begin with.
I am sure the Board 4
could look at the Massachusetts contention and determine that 5
that is specific enough and it relates to the under1'ying 6
issue that we are all concerned with.
7 JUDGE HOYT:
Of course that is within the purview 8
of the Board to call for a brief, sir.
I think we have, and 9
that's going to be the way we proceed.
Do we have anything 10 else on that particular point?
11 MS. CURRAN:
Not on that point, no.
I do have --
12 I am sorry.
13 JUDGE H0YT:
Before we get to the Staff, if you i
14 have a brief point, Ms. Curran, go ahead.
l 15 MS. CURRAN:
Actually, I wanted to make a couple 16 of procedural motions with relation to contentions on the new 17 information that's come up.
We are trying to cope with, keep 18 up with the Board's schedule.
I would like to get these i
19 points in here at some point today before we leave.
i 20 JUDGE H0YT:
What motions do you have?
21 MS. CURRAN:
The first one is with regard to the 22 material that came in after we filed the contentions.
There 23 is the compensatory plans, the new plans for Hampton and 24 Seabrook.
I can't remember richt off' hand what that all
()
25 includes, if the siren study as well.
We don't have any 1
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L... ___ _ ~.__ _. _ _.._. _ _.M-M 38_ _. -- Nelonwide comase_ _,
.,000 336 4646
.~
I j
26228.0 i
cox 2334 l
1 specific guidance on when contentions are due for those, and i
2 I would like to specifically request that we be given 30 days 3
from today to file contentions on those materials.
4 I realize we have had them for a few weeks, but we 5
have been very busy preparing our presentations here today 6
and NECNP would like the additional time.
7 JUDGE H0YT:
I hesitated to get into this, 1
1 8
Ms. Curran, because there were some additional materials that 9
Mr. Bisbee indicated would be coming out, revisions, be they l
10 major, comprehensive, however one wishes to categorize them.
]
11 Is' there anything coming out 5ithin the next few I
l 12 days, Mr. Bisbee, that you can think of, following that same i
I I
13 category of what materials you could go through?.
l 14 MR. BISBEE:
There are just a few pages, your i
l 15 Honor, that were omitted from the submission which have been 16 prepared.
We haven't decided when the appropriate time would j
17 be to serve those on the parties yet, though.
l 18 MS. CURRAN:
Could I make an alternative I
i I
19 suggestion?
l 20 JUDGE H0YT:
All right, go ahead.
21 MS. CURRAN:
Perhaps we could establish a date at j
22 which the state expects to have the substantially completed i
3 23 plans and the evacuation time estimates, and at that point, l
l 24 we would take 30 days and submit contentions on all this
()
25 material, and that way we could tell what material was l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 806 336 4 646
. _ _. _. _ _.. _. _. _ -. _.. _ _ _ _. _ _, - -.. -. _. ~ _ _., _.. _ _
- = -.
.l 1
i
)
26228.0 t
cox 2335 h
4 l
1 duplicative, what we didn't need, rather than do all this I
l 2
twice.
t 3
JUDGE H0YT:
I believe, if I recall correctly, 4
that Mr. Bisbee indicated the ETE study would not be out j
5 until mid-May; is that correct?
6 MR. BISBEE:
Early May.
7 JUDGE H0YT:
I wanted to try to get these new 8
contentions, if there were to be any, tied into the hearings l
9 on the July through August area time; and that was the reason i
j 10 I was reluctant to make a decision on that at this point.
j 11 MR. DIGNAN:
Madam Chairman, i
12 JUDGE H0YT:
Yes.
i 13 MR. DIGNAN:
This question of scheduling an l
14 automatic time period after which something comes in for i
15 contentions, I respectfully suggest there is no place --
i I
j 16 JUDGE H0YT:
I am sorry I didn't get that, did I?
{
17 MR. DIGNAN:
I respectfully suggest it has no 18 place at this point for this reason, in FERC proceedings, l
19 whether it be on an emergency plan, FSAR or environmental l
l 20 report that is being litigated, the automatic time for filing 21 contentions is after the notice of hearing goes out.
In all l
22 those cases, revisions come in and so forth and so on.
A 23 party has a right, whenever it wants to, indeed up until the 24 last day of hearing, I suppose, to file a late-filed
()
25 contention and meet the tests.
I don't see why this isn't I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,1NC.
I __.-.__~ -.___. 202:g?:37_00___ Nationwide Coverase_
_800 33H646
26228.0 ox 2336 1
the method we apply here.
2 JUDGE HOYT:
That was an alternative.
3 MR. DIGNAN:
It seems to me that is the one to 4
apply, because that's the one the rules grant everybody and 5
the showing has to be made on a late-filed contention.
It 6
will be easily made, presumably, if the contention truly 7
comes out of the document and couldn't have been made before 8
that.- If it can't be -- if that showing can't be made, 9
there's no reason in equity or justice the contencion should 10 be allowed in and potentially move the heurina date.
I 11 respectfully suggest we stay with the normal rules of the 12 practice of the commission which is, from here on out they 13 are late-filed contentions, and the Catawba decision seems to 14 dictate that.
15 JUDGE H0YT:
With the understanding, of course, 16 the alternative suggestion is, with the understanding that 17 the Board would look favorably upon any late-filed 18 contentions, based upon a plan that was not in existence 19 until such time.
20 MR. DIGNAN:
I assume they would.
21 JUDGE H0YT:
The B Jard intends, of Coursc, to do 22 that, if we proceed in that fashion, Ms. Curran.
I don't 23 want to -- given the nebulous timeings that I have heard 24 here, they are just all over the wall.
It seems to me, if we
()
25 want to tie ourselves to that, it would be more unfavorable ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide cow 800 3 5 4646
i i
26228.0 l
cox 2337 i
1 to you in the long run than it would be favorable.
J l
2 MS. CURRAN:
What we are concerned about right now 3
that has been unfavorable to us is we had to repeatedly file l
4 contentions --
5 JUDGE H0YT:
Let's be fair, Ms. Curran.
You have 1
l 6
had two filings.
You had the one back in
'83, in which time l
7 everything fell apart and nothing was done, and now we are 1
8 three years later down the road and there are new plans and
]
9 this is the second time around.
I understand what you are i
10 saying, but let's be also fair that these are matters that i
11 were totally outside the scope of anybody's control, l
12
- actually, i
13 MS. CURRAN:
I could count another set of plans, 14 too.
Right now we have just received another set of plans 15 for the towns of Hampton and Seabrook.
16 JUDGE H0YT:
What you have received is revisions 17 to those plans; isn't that correct?
18 MR. BISBEE:
Yes, your Honor, there are 19 revisions.
Included in the package we all received was the 20 cover letter of the Civil Defense Agency to FEMA explaining I
21 what the changes were in the local plans, and they are very i
22 limited in scope.
I j
23 JUDGE H0YT:
I am not unsympathetic, because I 24 understand what you are saying, Ms. Curran.
It does put a
()
25 strain on your resources to have to come back over and over ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nadonwide coverase 800 336 4646
=. - =.
/
26228.0 rox 2338 I
and over again.
But given the nature of the planning process 2
in the first place, there doesn't seem to be any solution in l
3 the system; and I don't think that cutting a time 30 days 4
from the date you will file -- I think may be more unfair to I
5 you than it would be fair to you, because you may want to I
6 file something on the 32nd day, and then you would be cut off 7
on that -- if we were to agree to any such limitation.
8 I would rather you have the opportunity to file on j
9 the 32nd day, for example, beyond what we would come up wit'h 10 today, than to cut it off with the 30-day, if it would 1
]
11 enhance the hearing process here, and we would come out with 12 better testimony and better cross-examination.
13 MS. CURRAN:
Well, then, I just would-like some 14 guidance from thesBoard and fairly soon on what we will be 15 permitted to do with regard to this information.
As you 16 know, we are going into a period of discovery very soon, and 17 we would just like to 2now how to integrate all these various 18 pieces of information.
j l
19 JUDGE H0YT:
That, of course, is the planning 20 process in handling your case that I can't much even inspect 21 scheduling to help you with, except to tell you if you wish 22 to file contentions and you wish discovery on those 23 contentions, then we will just normally apply the rules of 24 -
the Commission, with the understanding that if those new
()
25 plans come out, or new information on which you -- in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage GM3H646
i 26228.0 ox 2339 1
representing your clients, feel that the contention should be 2
filed, we will have to apply the Cat wba test, but we will do I
3 it certainly with a very liberal hand.
I think it's obvious 4
we would.
Mr. McEachern, you had something.
5 MR. MC EACHERN:
Yes, your Honor, I would hope
)-
6 that the Board's dilemma be solved by some liberal test.
I i
f 7
can appreciate my brother's remarks for the Applicant, but I i
8 remember just this morning when the Town of Kensington tried l
9 to change a clause in a contention and they were pounced on i
l 10 by the Applicant as trying to file a late charge, a late 11 contention; and the Applicant may say that they are going to i
12 be liberal now, but when we get to it --
(
l 13 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. McEachern, there is a test that 14 will be applied and the test that will be ruled upon is the 15 test the Board will apply.
It is the Board's intention, as 16 we have enunciated to you here today, that we would apply 17 that tes t in such a fashion, and I think that it -- certainly 18 the proceedings of this Commission have always intended that 19 that be done.
I don't think there is any additional urging 20 that we need on that.
21 I think, though, in all fairness to the changing 22 of the contention this morning, that was, if you followed 23 through with the process, that was a pretty rough change.
24 That was more than just a three word change.
Maybe even one
()
25 word can so change a contention, so I think you have to give i
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 NationwideCovera e 800 336
._..____._.-.__.____-._._..__.__.,_...._-_s_~._.._...._.-6646, _. _ -. _. _ _
26228.0 cox 2340 0
1 credit to the fact that the Applicant, Mr. Dignan and 2
company, are entitled to represent their clients fairly as 3
well.
4 MR. BACKUS:
Can I make a response to Mr. Dignan's 5
suggestion too, Madam Chairman?
6 JUDGE HOYT:
All right, Mr. Backus, go ahead.
7 MR. BACKUS:
On the issue of whether we should 8
treat any contentions from this point on as late-filed 9
contentions, in light of the Catawba criteria, as you have 10 indicated, liberally construed by the Board, in view of the 11 fact that we don't have documents yet, I would just like to 12 say that I would prefer to continue the practice we have had 1
13 of having a definite date for contentions.
I can imagine 14 issues coming up which the Applicant might raise and the I
15 Board would have to consider, well, they had this for two 16 weeks or four weeks before we filed the contention; that was 17 too long.
The system we have been using has the virtue of we 18 have a certain date in which you required things to be 19 delivered to us and we can add up on our calendars what 20 number of days from that date is and we know what it is.
21 I think we will be entering a new realm of 22 certainty where contentions could get contentious if we don't 23 have that clarity and simplicity, which I don't think we have 24 had.
So I would support the suggestion that documents that
()
25 are going to be coming that are identified as part of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l.
? ? ? ?
-- ?$"W"-- -
26228.0 ox 2341 1
state plan, that we do what Attorney Curran suggested, have 2
one day from the last day everything comes in, or do them as 3
we get them, and I would recommend that to the Board.
4 JUDGE HOYT:
Just briefly, then, Ms. Curran.
5 MS. CURRAN:
I have one more of these procedural 6
motions I would like to make; that is, with respect to 7
summary disposition, which is coming up fairly rapidly.
In 8
view of the fact that the deadline set in the January 17 9
order is May 21, I sould just like to suggest that in view of 10 the existence of additional materials that are supposed to be 11 coming in from the state, and in the view of the fact that we 12 have not heard from FEMA yet, any interim findings on the 13 adequacy of these plans, that the deadline for mptions for 14 summary disposition be deferred until we have had a chance to 15 receive all of the material that's going to be submitted in 16 this case and until FEMA has issued some kind of a review.
17 This is consistent with the NRC practice in the technical 18 I
area in which summary disposition cannot be ruled upon until 19 the NRC Staff has issued a safety evaluation report.
20 FEMA is relied on here as the governmental agency 21 with the expertise to evaluate the plans, and as Intervenor 22 groups with limited resources, we rely on that expertise, to 23 an extent, to assist us in evaluating the adequacy of the 24 plans.
()
25 JUDGE H0YT:
I believe you indicated the date for ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26228.0 ox 2342 I
summary disposition motions was May 21.
I had heard, I j
2 thought, April 21, I went back to check it and it is May 21.
l l
3 All right, we have your motion, Ms. Curran, thank 4
you.
5
.MR.
NADEAU:
Rye would join in both of motions, 6
your Honor, by the way.
7 JUDGE HOYT:
If you wish.
j 8
MR. TURK:
I would like to speak for a moment for 9
the Staff in response to the two motions I have just heard 10 from NECNP.
As the Board can appreciate, the Staff does not 11 want to delay licensing, if in fact the plans come to be in a 12 stage where Staff and FEMA can find reasonable assurance and 13 the Board can find reasonable assurance that adequate 14 protective measures can and will be taken in emergency.
We 15 recognize that the cost of delaying a plant, particularly one 16 like Seabrook, which is a large plant and cost a lot of money 17 to build -- delays are expensive.
We hear objections from 18 the utility that a range of, I guess, go beyond $1 million a 19 day for delay.
We do not want to cost the ratepayers of New 20 Hampshire and the other states in this area that additional 21 charge unnecessarily.
22 I would have to report to the Board, however, that 1
1 23 it is likely that the FEMA evaluation of off-site plans of l
24 New Hampshire in their current state will be such that FEMA
()
25 will not be able to support motions for summary dispositions ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.. 202:347-3700 Nationwide Coverap _
,,__ _ 800 336 4646
26228.0 cox 2343 O
1 on many of the different contentions, under the current time 2
schedule.
3 What normally happens is that FEMA and the state 4
will work together to resolve FEMA concerns, so that at some 5
point in time,. FEMA may well be able to support the plans as 6
being adequate.
7 I want to advise the Board, however, that under 8
the current schedule, it is questionable whether we will be 9
able to proceed with a government -- Federal Government view 10 of adequacy under the current schedule.
I can't make a more 11 definite statement, but I do want to alert you to the fact 12 that various problem: have been identified to date which 13 could well delay the Federal Government being ready to 14 support the plans.
15 I have discussed this briefly and representatives 16 of the State of New Hampshire and of the Applicant, for 17 various reasons, the Applicant is not prepared to delay this 18 current schedule, nor is the state willing to be the party to 15' suggest delay.
I 20 As I mentioned, the Staff does not want to cause 21 delay, but these are facts which should come to the Board's 22 attention and probably will in the next several months.
I 23 want to g..ve you early warning at this time of those facts.
24 JUDGE H0YT:
Thank you, then, Mr. Turk.
~
()
25 Now, we were going to hear, are we, anything ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 1100 336 6646
26228.0 2344 0cox 1
further from you, Mr. Dignan?
2 MR. DIGNAN:
Well, I believe I started an argument 3
in response to the various arguments we have been hearing.
I i
4 got through point 1 --
5 JUDGE HOYT:
Do you want to try for two?
6 MR. DI3 NAN:
-- and we moved off.
With'the 7
Board's indulgence, as I said, there are a couple of 8
principals, general remarks I would like to make about the 9
arguments that have been made to you.
10 First is that there seems to be being lost sight 11 of occasionally -- perhaps not, perhaps just my listening --
r 12 that the New Hampshire plan is one plan.
The local plan 13 so-called -- and we deliberately, at least hopefully in our 14 case put a lower case out -- are the chapters of the state 15 plan.
The reason I think it's important to keep this in i
16 front of us is there are a number of contentions on local 17 state plans that say something on the nature of, i
18 decontamination procedures aren't described in the X town 1
19 plan.
I agree, they aren't.
t 20 But they are described in the DPHS procedures, for 21 example, which are part of the volume that has the state 22 plan.
It is for this reason we have resisted these 1
23 contentions as being without basis, because the question is, 24 does the plan as a whole have a description as it is supposed
()
25 to, not the question of whether a reiteration of that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364646
26228.0 cox 2345
,m
(
)
a 1
description is placed in a certain volume et the plan.
2 Secondly, it seems to me that we part company 3
cometimes with the Staff perhaps on a principal that I think 4
the Board has to rule on as a matter of law.
I suggest there 5
is no need to let a contention in to be litigated that is 6
demonstrated to be without factual basis by reading the plans 7
themselves.
8 This is not a situation like the famous biomass 9
farm case which got Drs. Buck and Rosenthal so much at odds 10 on the Appeal Board.
In that case, what somebody has said 11 is, biomass is an alternative to this nuclear power plant.
J]
12 Dr. Buck thought this was ridiculous and wanted to get rid of
(./
13, the contention.
Judge Rosenthal, writing for the maiority, 14 l
pointed out that the contention had been made that a factual i
15 l basis had been stayed -- they had some report or something i
16 about the possibility of biomass -- and on that basis it had 17 to be liticated.
Granted it might have been gotten rid of by 18 summary judgment but it had to be litigated.
19 It is not the case here all the time that we have 20 that.
If somebody makes a contention that X is not in the 21 plan, and you pick the plan up and there it is, it seems to 22 me it's like the motion to dismiss in federal court at that 23 point and out goes the contention.
24 You don't get the contention in simply by
/s(_)
25 asserting something that isn't so about the plan, and there ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage CTM36-6M6
26228.0
_cox 2346
^
k_)
1 are a number of occasions where we have cited portions of the 2
plan, where we have said, we suggest, at least, that if the 3
Board looks at that portion, they will find the material that 4
the Intervenor claims isn't in the plan is there; and we 5
recommend those cites to you.
6 I was intrigued that not once in all of the oral 7
argument I listened to for a day and a half did I hear 1
8 anybody take our brief and say the Applicants said the 9
material is at such and such a page and it isn't there.
10 I bid fair to say that when the Board checks those 11 cites, they will find that the material we say is there is 4
12 there.
13 In that situation, I suggest the contention should 14 go out, because, as a matter of law, the Board can read the 15 plan and see that it'e there, and they don't have to admit it 16 and put it through the summary disposition process, and I 17 think that is proper procedure under the NRC rules.
18 That is not the same case as the so-called biomass 19 case.
20 In addition, I do not feel it is necessary for a 21 Board of this Commission to but on blind sides about 22 assertions.
There is an assertion in one of these 23 contentions that the dog track holds 100,000 people.
The f
24 Board has been by the dog track.
100,000 is the size of
(/
25 Michigan stadium.
The dog track is not the size of Michigan ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700,. _
, _ Nationwide Coverage._ _ _800 336 6646 _
26228.0 2347 i
(~.cox
\\
U 1
stadium.
I don't think the Board has to take that on faith j
2 when they can walk by the dog track and see how big it is and l
t i
3 is not.
In these kinds of contentions, I should say, the 4
Board is allowed to read the plan and allowed to state in its i
5 decision that it is officially noticing facts that the sun I
6 rises.
It is on that basis, I knowy we have opposed some 7
contentions that the Staff hasn't.
But I respectfully 8
disagree with the Staff view of what the procedural law is on 9
the admission contentions.
10 The next principle, we have often heard NUREG-0654 11 is a regulation.
It isn't.
The Appeal Board has twice held 12 it isn't.
It.is not a regulation of the Commission.
13 The fact that there is a thing in NUREG-0654 that 14 says, thou shalt have such-and-such a thing, does not make it 1
15 a regulatory requirement.
Now, I bring this up particularly 1
i 16
-- there are times when we have opposed a contention, where 17 the contention is the town of X has not demonstrated 24-hour 18 capability to do Y.
We have pointed out, if you read the 19 plan, you find out they don't have to have 24-hour capability i
20 for that function, because the theory of the plan is that 21 they will stay there for a certain number of hours doing 22 their duty, at which time the state will take the function 23 over, or in the alternative, the town will have been 24 evacuated.
We are pointing out, despite the fact that there
()
25 is a box to be checked in NUREG-0654 to have 24-hour ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide @stE"3 800 33Mi646
26228.0
_gox 2348
%)
1 capability in a " local plan," the fact of the matter is it's 2
not required by the regulations and it's not applicable to 3
this situation.
It is also probably not applicable to even 4
check off local plan in NUREG-0654, for the reasons I stated 5
earlier, to. wit: there is one state plan in this jurisdiction 6
of which the local plans are a chapter.
We are not dealing 7
with a situation as you do in some states further to the west 8
where you have a major local county government or a major 9
local township-type government, which, indeed, takes the 10 functions that the State of New Hampshire takes and the 11 Commonwealth of Massachusetts takes, in our more localized 12 New England form of government.
13 So I think it is important to keep in. mind that 14 this NUREG-0654 is regulatory guidance.
It has been 15 consistently so held and the mere fact that it says something 16 does not mean it has to be followed where it's not l'
applicable.
It is not applicable in many cases, and that's 18 what we tried to point out in our oppositions.
19 The next principle that seems to be being lost 20 sight of is the emergency planning rule as it stands on the 21 books of the Commission was never intended to, nor does it 22 overrule or in any way amend the siting criteria in part 23 100.
The issue before this Board is not the question of 24 alternate safety of every person outside this plant.
It is
()
25 not intended to be.
The protection of the public from a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26228.0 ox 2349 1
nuclear power plant is mainly built into the siting criteria, 2
the concrete and hardware that sits over there on that site.
3 The emergency planning exercise is an exercise done to 4
provide a last ditch protection if necessary in a highly 5
improbable event.
~
6 I get a lot of arguments that I see as mixing the 7
siting criteria with the emergency planning rules.
They are 8
two separate things; they are two separate ways of protecting 9
the public.
All the emergency planning rule is is part of 10 the defense in depth, and a part of the defense in depth that 11 does not come into play until way down the line after the 12 plant's integrity has been challe'ged by an event.
n O
13 Finally, there seems to be lost sight.of a 14 principle, a basic judicial principle, that somehow this 15 Board can overrule the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
We 16 have a number of contentions on contaminated / injured.
N o w,,
17 maybe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission's response 18 to the Guard decision is wrong and some sort of appeals will 19 so tell them.
Maybe it should have been different, but they 20 have put a policy statement out that binds this Board, and i
i 21 the policy statement is very clear.
The policy statement
~ 22 says "Thou shalt list the hospitals and commit to the Guard 23 decision."
We have done both.
We have committed to the 24 Guard decision and as n' ear as I can figure out, the State of
()
25 New Hampshire has listed the hospitals correctly.
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M 336 6646
26228.0 cox 2350 C) 1 If somebody says one hospital is mislisted, that's 2
not the point; but that's not the thrust of those 3
contentions.
4 Finally, there is a paragraph we quote in each of 5
our responses.from the San Onofre decision CLI83-10.
In the 6
context we quoted it, we were quoting it in dealing with this 7
question of extraordinary measures.
It is on page 6 of each 8
of our responses, and it's a statement where they say, "It 9
never was the intent of the regulation to require directly or 10 indirectly that state and local governments adopt 11 extraordinary measures, such as construction of additional 12 hospitals or recruitment of substantial additional medical O
13 personnel, just to deal.with nuclear power plant. accidents."
14 The emphasis is on prudent risk reduction measures.
Then it 15 goes on to say the regulations did not require dedication of 16 resources to handle every accident imagined.
17 Now, that passage from the Commission itself, 18 which binds this Board, is not only important in the concept 19 of dealing with whether extraordinary measures must be taken; 20 but it is, I submit to this Board, a recognition by the 4
21 Commission of the fact that local entities play a very real 22 role in determining how far we are going to go.
And what do 23 I mean by that?
The new emergency planning regulation, 24 without which this industry and this agency functioned for
()
25 many years, came about after Three Mile Island.
4 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coveray 800-336 6646
26228.0 cox 2351 1
At the time, this was a recognition by the 2
Commission that perhaps the defense in depth had to be 3
deepened, and we would go out to an arbitrary area of 10 4
miles to do that.
5 At the same time, the Commission recognized that 6
not every town, state and location had the same resources 7
available to it.
This is the reason there are no set number 8
criteria in the regulation; and if, to put it plainly, if a j
9 local community elects to run its life with one voluntary 10 policeman, one voluntary firefighter, and one road agent --
11 and I love that expression, " road agent," they have here in 12 this state -- that's fine, but that's the way we are going to 13 deal with a chlorine spill; that's the way they are going to 14 deal with a hurricane; that's the way they are going deal 15 with a cyclone; that's the way they are going to deal with a i
16 tornado.
They have elected to do that.
The fact that the 17 nuclear power plant comes next door does not mean that that 18 town is required or the state is required to change its 19 philosophy of what is the necessary general level of 20 protection for its citizens and put in a full-time 21 firefighting force and a full-time police force.
22 I state that that statement in the San onofre decision is a recognition of that principle, and it's a 23 i
24 principle that is going to become more and more important in j (}
25 this case.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
., _. -_ ~
26228.0 cox 2352 1
The towns are free to decide for themselves what t
2 level of general protection they want for their citizens.
3 The coming of the nuclear power plant is simply one more 4
possible threat to public safety that joins the list of 5
storms, fire, pestilence or anything else you want to talk 6
about; and if the election has been to go with volunteers, 7
all the state planner can do is plan and that is the best he 8
can do about it.
That is the end of my statement.
9 JUDGE HARBOUR:
Mr. Dignan, you stated that your 10 client has complied with the Guard decision.
Can you tell 11 me, give me a reference as to when this was, where it was, as 12 such.
Has it be'n filed with the NRC?
13 MR. ;IGNAN:
Yes, it has.
The letter _is on record 14 and I can give you the date.
15 MR. MC EACHERN:
Madam Chairman, while Mr. Dignan i
16 17 JUDGE HOYT:
I would prefer to let us get this j
18 completed, then we will recognize you, sir.
19 MR. DIGNAN:
The letter is dated March 12, 1986, 20 Judge Harbour.
Its numerical designation from the Applicant 1
21 is SBN 966.
It's a letter addressed to Mr. Vincent S.
22 Noonan, the project director, PWR project director at No. 5; 23 it is from John DeVincentis, director of engineering and i
24 licensing.
It says, "We are in full compliance with the '
j
{}
25 Guard remand."
It is what is required of the policy i
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
l J
26228.0 l
cox 2353 O
l 1
statement.
]
2 JUDGE HARBOUR:
Thank you.
3 JUDGE HOYT:
Has that been distributed?
r 4
MR. DIGNAN:
It has been distributed to the 5
parties, to the ASLB service list.
We should distribute 6
separate copies to the Board, because the service list may 7
get things the Board doesn't.
If that be the case, we would 8
be glad to send a copy to the Board.
9 JUDGE H0YT:
I don't recall seeing that, 10 Mr. Dignan, which doesn't mean it doesn't arrive.
You 11 brought up a point yesterday, Mr. Backus, and I think it was 12 a well-noted one, that the copy of a letter that Staff
(
13 counsel filed yesterday, I referred to yesterday, should be 14 attached to the record.
Do you recall that letter you handed 15 to me yesterday?
16 MR. TURK:
Yes, it was from Mr. Strome.
17 JUDGE HOYT:
I would like for that copy to be 18 distributed or rather given to the reporter, so that when the 19 list of persons receiving the transcript goes out, that 20 letter could be inserted into the record of yesterday's i
21 proceedings.
22 MR. DIGNAN:
We will take this letter and insert l
23 it in today's proceedings.
2 i
24 (The document follows :)
1 25 C:)
I i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
-r o e e A 1
-, t a t, t ; c.
500 coa *
~
PENHI E
March 12, 1986 gg SBN-966 New Hampshire Yankee Division T.F. B7.1.8 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Mr. Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director PWR Project Directorate #5
References:
(a) Construction Permit CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos.
50-443 and 50-444 (b) USNRC Letter, dated October 25, 1985, " Interim Guidance on Emergency Planning Standard 10CFR50.47(b)(12) Regarding Seabrook Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2," G. W. Knighton to R. J. Harrison (c)~ PSNH Letter, SB'N-927, dated January 29, 1986, " Response to Interim Guidance on Emergency Planning Standard 10CFR50.47(b)(12) Regarding Seabrook Station,"
J. DeVincentis to V. S. Noonan Subj ect: Additional Response to Interim Guidance on Emergency Planning Standard 10CFR50.47(b)(12) Regarding Seabrook Station
Dear Sir:
In response to your request in Reference (b), we offer the following additional information which was not explicitly stated in Reference (c):
We commit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the GUARD remand.
Should you have any questions regarding this additional response, please contact Mr. James A. MacDonald, Radiological Assessment Manager, at (603) 474-9574, extension 2754.
Very truly yours, M
John DeVincentis, Director Engineering and Licensing cc: ASLB Service List P.O. Box 300 + Seabrook, NH O3874. TelepW;ne(603)474-9321
26228.0 cox 2354 1
MR. TURK:
If you like, I can submit my letter and 2
it can be in today's transcript.
I 3
JUDGE HOYT:
Do you have three copies of it?
4 MR. TURK:
No, I don't.
l 5
JUDGE HOYT:
Would you deliver three copies before 6
the reporter departs here this afternoon?
7 MR. TURK:
Yes.
8 JUDGE H0YT:
We are going to have a five-minute 1
9 break before we take your submissions, sir, Mr. Turk.
10 (Recess.)
l 11 JUDGE H0YT:
Mr. Turk, gould I ask you to have one 12 of the Staff see if we co'uld find Mr. Bisbee.
Here he is, we i
13 have him.
The conference will come to order.
At the.
14 termination of the last session, I.think you had completed 15 your statement, Mr. Dignan, and I believe you had a question, j
16 sir.
i 17 MR. MC EACHERN:
Yes, just briefly, Madam 18 Chairman, Brother Dignan in his remarks' invited the Board to 19 visit the dog track.
I would cordially extend an invitation j
20 to the Board to walk the boardwalk on Hampton Beach some i
21 summer weekend this summer.
22 JUDGE HOYT:
Send me the tickets and reservation, t
23 sir, we will be here with swimming suit.
24 MR. BISBEE:
On that light note, your Honor, j
()
25 please forgive my late appearance.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26228.0 cox 2355
(
1 JUDGE H0YT:
All right, Mr. Bisbee.
Very well, 2
Mr. Turk.
3 MR. TURK:
I only have a few points, you.- Honor.
4 Generally we will stand on our uritten submissions in 5
response t* the contentions.
There are a few small points I 6
would like to make in response to NECNP's oral presentation 7
with respect to their contentions, and there really are only 8
four contentions involved here.
9 In two contentions, NECNP's RERP 1 and NHLP 1, 10 they raised what I considered to be identical concerns.
The 11 first of those two contentions asserted that the state plan a
12 is inadequate because it relies upon local organizations to 13 implement "the plans," and in the second of the pontentions I 14 cited, states that the local plans are inadequate because 15 they rely upon the local organizations.
I had read those as 16 stating the same thing, essentially.
17 NECNP apparently now wants to merge the two into a 18 single contention.
I just want to note that we had closed 19 the second of those contentions as being duplicative, if in 20 fact NECNP's contention is that the local plans are not 21 implementable because the local organizations will not be 22 implementing them.
That's as I stated previously.
That's a 1
23 misspoken contention but I don't understand how the state 24 plan becomes inadequate merely by the fact of the local plans l
()
25 being inadequate.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646
f 26228.0 cox 2356 O
1 MS. CURRAN:
May I respond to that, Madam l
2 Chairman?
3 JUDGE HOYT:
No, ma'am.
Let Mr. Turk complete his 4
presentation.
If there's something that you would like to 5
add on that, Ms. Curran, we will give you an opportunity.
At 6
the risk of getting shocked, will some of you folks turn off 7
those mikes?
8 MR. TURK:
I think NECNP did the same thing on the 9
6th.
10 Next set of contentions which I will comment on 11 briefly; that is, their contention RERP 8 and NHLP 7.
- Again, 12 these were contentions which, in the first case, addressed O.~
13 the state plan; and, in the second case, addressed the local 14 plan.
The Staff's position on these have been that we don't t
15 oppose the contention with respect to the state plan --
16 that's the RERP 8 contention -- but that we did not find any 17 adequate basis stated on the local contention.
That's NHLP 18 7.
I just wanted to point out that they attempt to merge 19 them together, will cause some basis problems, in our view, 20 and I would ask the Board to rule on the contentions as they 21 were originally drafted.
22 That's all I have.
3 23 JUDGE HOYT:
Fine.
Ms. Curran.
24 MS. CURRAN:
Yes.
Now, I am a little confused
()
25 now, because I have heard today that there is no -- there are T
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 33 H 646 J
26228.0 cox 2357 O
1 no local plans, there's only one state plan with chapters 2
that are the local plans, and I think I have been trying to 3
cope with the distinction all along; and that's one reason 4
that some of my contentions have been a bit duplicative.
I 5
wanted to just make sure that 6ur contentions, our. concerns 6
were dealt with in either one arena or the other:
in the 7
state plans or local plans.
That was the purpose of 8
rewording these two contentions to include references to both 9
the state and local plans.
10 As for RERP 1, it's our position that if there is 11 only one plan, which is the state's plans to have the local 12 governments implement thei'r plans in accordance with the 13 states, then I think that's an admissible contention.
I 14 would like to address the plans that exist the way they 15 exist.
That's all I am trying to do.
And I would hate to 16 see this dismissed because of the confusion that legitimately 17 exists.
18 JUDGE HOYT:
Thank you.
I appreciate your 19 position, too.
Anything else?
All right, I think that we 20 have completed all the matters that we wanted to talk about 21 on the record, except for the scheduling.
22 We are looking at our. order of January 17, and the 23 schedule that was provided for there.
Whatever schedule we 1
l 24 ultimately come'up with, we have to follow as a result of our 1 ()
25 ruling on the next event that will occur that will trigger l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
26228.0 2358 Oscox I
anything is the Board's ruling and the contention and 2
immediately the discovery starts on the service of that 3
order.
Given the amount of material that we have heard these 4
last two days, if the Board did not make its April 1 ruling, j
5 it would certainly expect that the discovery would be 6
provided for 30 days after the date on which that order was, 7
in fact, issued by the Board.
8 Now, before we hear about how we are not going to 9
get these rulings on time, and we are not going to get the 10 service of them from you for five days -- I think was
~
11 mentioned over here by one person, they didn't receive i
12 something until five days after the date on which the Board 13 has issued it -- we are going to send them to you Federal 14 Express and I am going to have some receipts, so that is 15 going to end that problem right now.
16 We are going to have those in your hands.
Whether 17 you open them or not is another question.
18 If you have closed discovery 30 days after the 19 Board has issued its order, then the next triggering event 20 would be the answers to the last interrogatories would be due l
21 within 14 days after the close of discovery.
What I am i
22 really saying to you is all time frame for these dates in l
23 here would simply be slipped according to the figures that 24 are compiled in these frames in this order.
l ()
25 Does that explain it or does that confuse it?
The ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
__ _ _ _ _,._ _202-347-3700,
Nationwide Coverage. _
800 336 4646
26228.0 cox 2359 1
intervals remain the same.
2 Now, realistically, if we slip in one date, we are 3
going to get past the July 21 date on which these hearings 4
would begin.
Might I say that we have slipped it 10 days and l!
5 we come into August, then that will mean that the hearing 6
will start in August.
It's not going to start on July 21.
7 The filing on your prefiled testimony is going to be very 8
critical to this Board and to the parties that it will have 9
to conduct their cross-examination.
1 10 We expect every single document that passes
)
11 between you as parties will be done by the most expeditious 12 manner possible; and as we have consistently emphasi, zed in 13 our orders in the past, the dates that we give ypu for the 14 filing of documents will mean that they will be in the hands 15 of that party on that day, not following that day, and given 16 to the tender loving care of a postman, but it will be in the 17 hands of that party and opposing party.
18 I think the Staff well understands what we are 19 saying when the Staff is in the posture, as I indicated to 20 you the other day, getting even from this Board, its orders 21 three and five days later because of an internal postal 22 system within the nine buildings that this Nuclear Regulatory 23 Commission occupies in Washington, that a filing goes down to 24 Mr. Turk's office five blocks away will not get to him for
()
25 three days because, first of all, it leaves our office and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 334Wl646
26228.0 cox 2360 0
1 goes through the office downtown in Washington and then back 2
out to Mr. Turk in Bethesda.
3 That might not be important to some of you people, 4
and I can understand that, but I also have to provide that 5
the Staff has thi.e document because their participation is 6
vital in this hearing.
7 So whatever system of distributing your documents 8
to meet these deadlines you use, remember that the Board's 9
direction will be that on the date the document is due, it is 10 an in-hand date to the party on whom the document is being 11 served.
12 Now as to place of the hearings in the schedule, 13 the Board has heard long and hard from many of the parties 14 here and some not here about where to hold these hearings.
15 No matter what we have selected, I tried to select and there l
16 has been opposition.
Now let us tell you where they are 17 going to be held.
They are going to be held in Portsmouth, i
18 very probably in either a facility of the state which is not 19 always available to us or perhaps a site such as this, if not 20 this site.
We believe this to be the most centrally located 21 position and will also be in an area where those attorneys 4
22 who are on limited per diem, budgets, must have car 23 accommodations.
We can obtain them for the parties in this 24 area.
If we go in to them on the beach itself during a
()
25 period of time in July or August, we are going to be paying i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-336-6646..
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800
26228.0 cox 2361 0
1 premium rates, and the per dien rates for this Commission 2
does not provide that; and, indeed, perhaps some of the other 3
counsel here are faced with the same problem.
4 That is to the timings and is to the location, and 5
I think that's all of the schedule matters that I had in 6
mind.
Judge Harbour, do you have anything?
7 JUDGE HARBOUR:
I haven't anything.
8 JUDGE LUEBKE:
I would like to ask if the 9
Applicant has any comment.
Two, three years ago, we operated 10 on what I viewed as a prompt schedule, and I guess you used 11 the word this morning, it fell apart.
How credible are the 12 power plant schedules these days?
O 13 MR. DIGNAN:
The power plant date we have to load l
14 fuel is June.
j 15 JUDGE H0YT:
First part or last part?
16 MR. DIGUAN:
June 30 is the official date.
17 Construction is on schedule.
The financing is done.
I don't 18 anticipate any problems.
My understanding is that the 19 as-built audit has been done by the Staff; the exit interview 20 on that went very well, and I assume the report will be out 21 in due course.
22 JUDGE LUEBKE:
You dors ' t exoect any quality I
23 control hassles like they have at some plants?
24 MR. DIGNAN:
We anticipate none.
We have been
()
25 informed, as I understand it, the exit interview, the Staff ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4 646
26228.0 cox 2362 0
1 was thoroughly satisfied with the construction quality of the 2
plant.
3 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Mr. Turk said something earlier 4
today about early warning, which I didn't appreciate.
Does 5
that have a bearing on Judge Hoyt's recitation of the 6
schedule?
7 MR. TURK:
It could.
Let me first, if I may, note 8
that I have asked the technical staff, the NRC Staff members, 9
to indicate to me whether Mr. Dignan's date is a correct one, 10 and they have told me that the date of June, the June 30 date 11 for fuel load is a credible date.
They have also indicated 12 that the October 31 date, which Mr. Dignan has not mentioned, y
13 if that is still the projected date for full power, that is a 14 date, if we are going about 5 percent, that is a date that's 15 achievable also, 16 MR. DIGNAN:
Yes.
Let me elaborate.
The October i
17 31 date is the date that if we had a license, we believe we 18 could be at full power, commercial operation.
i 19 We know of no reason to slip that date either and 20 Mr. Turk is confirming that.
I had assumed it was the fuel 21 load date you were interested in.
22 JUDGE H0YT:
Yes, it was the fuel load date that 23 you wanted, wasn't it?
24 MR. TURK:
The early warning, I am sorry.
()
25 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Go ahead, a
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
d 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
f 26228.0 ox 2363 t
1 MR. TURK:
The early warning comment which I had 2
made previously before we recessed was an attempt on my part 3
to inform you that at least on this date, on March 26, FEMA 4
and the Staff are not getting in a position to be able to 5
support the utility on many of the contentions; so that if we 6
do go to hearing in July, it may be on some contentions the 7
FEMA or Staff or consultant testimony may not be supportive 8
of their position.
j 9
JUDGE LUEBKE:
Meaning you couldn't put on your 10 principal case on that contention; is that what you are 11 meaning?
12 MR. TURK:
Either that or there would be an i
13 interim position which later might change.
Now,.I cannot 14 make any firm prediction on that.
I have heard during these 15 last two days that the state, represented by Mr. Bisbee, 16 intends to work with some of the towns to represent their 4
17 concerns.
We also u'nderstand that FEMA and the state will 18 continue the process of addressing the concerns that FEMA has 19 identified.
It may be a very serious effort on everyone's 20 part with total dedication of resources, with resources being l
21 made available, but we will work very hard to achieve the 22 schedule.
23 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Of course, this schedule only 4
24 relates to the New Hampshire part, doesn't relate to the
()
25 Massachusetts part.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20237]00_ _ -,
Nationwide Coverage _
800 336 6646 3
26228.0 cox 2364 1
MR. TURK:
That's correct.
2 JUDGE H0YT:
Mr. Flynn.
3 MR. FLYNN:
Yes, thank you.
I have been asked to 4
convey some serious concerns about the coordination of the 5
hearing schedule with the other tasks that FEMA has been 6
asked to perform.
We have parallel schedules.
I want to say i
7 at the outset, FEMA is committed to fully complying with i
8 whatever schedule the Board establishes, but we also have to 9
recognize.that the same people who will be preparing for the 10 hearing are the same people who will be reviewing the revised i
11 New Hampshire plan whenever it is submitted.
We will be 12 reviewing the Massachusetts plan when it is submitted, and we (2) 13 will be holding remedial exercise in the New Hampshire plan 14 and exercise on the Massachusetts plan.
15 With the resources that are presently available,
{
16 not all of those things can be accomplished within the 17 schedules as they were originally projected.
As a 18 consequence of that, we have suggested deferral of some of 4
19 the items that have been identified in the contentions and we 20 would like to, at this time, suggest that others be deferred 21 as well.
22 There are some items that it has become clear, 23 during the course of the discussion in the last day and a 24 half, are appropriately deferred because information is about
()
25 to become available or has recently become available; l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
. -347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 202
(,
26228.0 cox 2365 v
1 specifically, contentions having to do with the evacuation 2
time estimates,. letters of agreement, the alert notification 3
system, specifically, the design report for the siren system 4
and so on.
5 And the issue of the coordination between the i
6 State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetta j
7 in each of those cases, the information that was available at 8
the time the contentions were filed was changed or will 9
change, and will influence the testimony that might be 10 presented.
11 There is a second category of issues which we i
12 would suggest be deferred primarily because it_will permit 13 FEMA to complete 'the reviews of the items I have. mentioned 4
14 earlier, and, therefore, prepare better testimony, more 15 competent and thorough testimony.
And the it' ems,which I am
}
i 16 referring to now have to do with the identification of 17 exercise deficiencies, or the alert notification issues other 18 than the siren issues, the compensatory plans and the issues 19 concerning protective actions in general.
20 It makes sense to us that the co'ntentions which j
21 are presently before the Board on those issues be 22 consolidated with the contentions that are likely to be 23 generated by the revised New Hampshire plan or the revised i
24 Massachusetts plan.
Madam Chairman, you had a question?
()
25 JUDGE H0YT:
I wonder if that list that you are e
h ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage.
800 3M 6646
26228.0 ox 2366 1
giving us is the same one that Mr. Turk in his pleadings 2
suggested be deferred; is that different from your list, 3
Mr. Turk?
4 MR. TURK:
I am no t" sure that I understand 5
entirely which Flynn is referring to.
6 JUDGE HOYT:
The items that you want deferred, 7
Mr. Flynn, where do we find these items other than -- is this 8
your recitation of them?
I 9
MR. FLYNN:
No, I am today suggesting the deferral i
10 of additional items, items in addition to the ones which the "l
j 11 Staff response has identified as appropriate for deferral.
i 12 We have agreed that those items in the written response O
13 should be deferred, but I am also suggesting additional 14 ones.
I have a comprehensive list.
I can go into it now or 15 I can file it in writing.
16 JUDGE HOYT:
I think you should file that in l
17 writing with us, Mr. Flynn.
18 MR. FLYNN:
Yes, thank you.
19 JUDGE HOYT:
If the parties wish, we could have it 20 read into the record today.
j 21 MR. FLYNN:
It would take about 10 minutes.
22 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes.
i 23 MR. DIGNAN:
Your Honor, before it's read, could I 24 get a definition of " deferred."
By " deferred" do we mean the
()
25 Board doesn't even rule on the admissibility?
There's no 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
]
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
T 26228.0 2367 g
ox
\\
1 sense of deferring the Board ruling.
If the Board says the 2
contention is inadmissible, it's out.
That's the end of it 3
and we don't have to deal with it any further.
4 JUDGE H0YT:
Mr. Turk as was indicated, the Board 5
could elect the options that were open to it.
In some cases, 6
if you did not wish to defer it, and the Board decided to 7
rule on it and did not admit it, then it would admit it.
8 MR. DIGNAN:
All I am asking was if, respectfully, 9
you could inquire of FEMA.
When chey say they are suggesting 10 deferral, are they meaning they are suggestina you defer it 11 right down the line and not even take up the question of 12 admissibility now?
Or are they saying assuming it is 13 admitted by you, we would then start deferring?.Because 14 that's at least two different things, and from my point of 15 view, quite important what they mean by that.
16 JUDGE HOYT:
It's a fair question, Mr. Flynn.
17 What do you mean by " defer"?
18 t'E PC' IN:
What I am referring to is that once a 19 decision on admisusbility is made, assuming that the 20 contention is admitted, that the discovery and the hearing on 21 that contention be conferred and consolidated with similar 22 contentions on the later developments.
23 MR. DIGNAN:
I understand what he is saying now.
24 JUDGE HOYT:
Any questions from any Intervenors.
l ()
25 All right.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 4
26228.0 cox 2368 i
1 MR. FLYNN:
May I ask your indulgence to consult 2
first with Mr. Turk about this?
3 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes, I think that might be a good t
4 idea.
Let me put it in an off-the-record version of this 5
conference and we will take up the service list problem, 6
which is the last thing we are going to do anyway, and then 7
we will go back on the record and take up yours.
We will go 8
off record for a few moments.
T 9
(Discussion off the record.)
10 JUDGE H0YT:
Let's go back on the record and do 11 this first.
We will return to the record.
During the 12 off-the-record period of time, the Board has,been checking on I
13 the service and docketing list of addresses in view of the l
1 14 fact that there had been difficulties with service in some i
j 15 submissions in this case.
There having been only one 16 additional statement, I think, that needed to be made; was 17 that yours, Mr. Flynn?
Did anyone have anything else to add 18 on the record?
19 MR. DIGNAN:
I had one minor thing.
I just want 20 to inform the parties, I have been talking with Mr. Bisbee.
I 21 Both of us want everybody clear as to what is going to be 1
22 done with the plans.
Mr. Bisbee, as he indicated, will send 23 everybody a letter from his office, which will indicate what 24 has been filed with FEMA, whether any given piece is part of
()
25 the plan or is not part of the plan.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
a 26228.0 ox 2369 1
At the same time -- and this is mechanically how 2
it's going to work, and I want everybody to understand it so 3
we don't get a phone call the day after they get Bisbee's 4
letter.
I will get the letter at the same time everybody 5
else will.
6 Mr. Bisbee at that same time will put either in 4
7 the mail or Federal Express down to Yankee Atomic Electric 8
Company -- he has the address -- the full context.
Yankee 9
Atomic, which is our contractor, as you know, on the thing, 10 does the reproduction because they have better facilities a
11 than anybody for this.
They will then transmit it out with 12 an appropriate transmittal letter to the agency and so forth, I
13 and the docketed materials to everybody.
That is how it's 14 going to work, so that the only delay that will occur between 15 the time Mr. Bisbee sends things to FEMA, is the time it 16 takes Yankee to reproduce and re-send out.
17 JUDGE HOYT:
Does everyone understand that?
18 MR. DIGNAN:
Anyone that has a question and feels 19 they have been left out, don't call Yankee, call me or Bob 20 Gad and we will take care of it.
21 JUDGE H0YT:
Does everyone understand that now so 22 you know where your materials will be coming from in the 23 future?
All right.
j 24 No further matters to come before this Board on
()
25 this record.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202*?-3m _,,
, p atk m ide Coverage.
soo.33H646
26228.0 2370 0.cox 1
MR. BACKUS:
Did we finish the service list?
2 JUDGE H0YT:
We are not finishing the service 3
list, we are going to have to release the reporter in a 4
moment.
Did you have anything, Mr. Bisbee?
5 MR. BISBEE:
I just want to clarify that the plans 6
that will be sent to FEMA will be sent by the Civil Defense 7
Agency.
8 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Flynn, did you have anything?
I 9
MR. FLYNN:
Excuse me, your Honor, the matter of 10 going through the list of contentions turned out to be more 11 complicated than I had anticipated at the time I offered to 12 do that.
The best thing to do would be for me to submit a O
4 13 list in writing within the next few days.
14 JUDGE H0YT:
I think that's better done too, 15 Mr. Flynn.
We will take that in writing.
Then I think there 16 is no further matter to come before the Board on this 17 record.
The hearing is closed, i
18 (Whereupon, at 4 : 00 p.m., the hearing was 19 adjourned.)
l 20 21 i
22 I
23 i
24 j
25 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-.EM9.M, Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
l This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
DOCKET NO.:
PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE DATE:
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) book (TYPED)
WENDY S. COX Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
Reporter's Affiliation, i
O l N)
I l
l l
r
-