ML20154S737
| ML20154S737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1988 |
| From: | Traficonte J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7196 OL, NUDOCS 8810050148 | |
| Download: ML20154S737 (7) | |
Text
'.', & ~/.. g3 Wr-N_.
q/ q t,
. ~
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUS TTS
' T j.
- EP A AT3.1ENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL J wru ceu...ute
.i, f r '.. V 20c'4 ACs S* A'E O Fr+CE BuLi*.G
%Nhc
$,;f 4j s jf-c'.E A sset a *oN PL ACE SOS'CN 02'*4109
- E8 GCT -3 P2 :30 F0.A t g g.;gMtwtc 4.
...,... y e.
.n
.'.. g September 28, 1988 Sherwin Turk U.S tiuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel 15th Floor 11555 Rockville Pike Rockvi3..e Maryland, MD 20852 RE:
August 22, 1988 Communication from flRC Staff to Offsite Licensing Board Dear Sherwin; I want to er. press my frustration with your response to my inquiry today concerning the August 22, 1988 communication from you to the Licensing Board by means of which you supplied the Doard with copies of two technical studies recently published by Dr. Thomas Urbanik, ("!!UREG documents").
I note the following:
1.
As I explained to you, I only yesterday saw a copy of your August 22nd letter (attached hereto).
From it I learned that in addition to providing the parties with copies of the 11UREG documents, you supplied these to the Board.
You failed, however, to move to reopen the record so that these documents might be considered by the Board.
SS10Gb0149 OGOW3 PDR ADOCK O '> 0
'[
G 3P
2.
In responce, you informed me that you had not intended that these documents be read or examined by the i
l Board.
Instead, in you words, you used a letter to the Board 2
with a carbon copy to the service list as &
vehicle" for distributing the NUREG documents to the parties,
)
3.
You further stated that such communications from the Staff to the Licensing Board are generally permitted in keeping with the Staff's affirmative obligation to keep the NRC's adjudicatory coards abreast of technical developments, j
4.
I reiterate my position:
a.
Your letter specifically states that during the hearings you had "agreed to distribute copies of the s
reports when available".
You stated thic in a letter to the Licensino Board Judoes.
Thus, a fair reading of your letter i
would lead one to assume that you intended these documents at f
the very least to be examined by the Board.
In fact, as the I
1 attached transcript pages which you referenced in you letter k
make clear, you had agreed, in response to a direct request
.)
1 from Mr. Fierce, to provide copies only in the parties.
i b.
The record is closed on these issues.
In i
such a situation it is simply inappropriate to forward i
substantive technical studies to the Board making misleading i
references to prior agreements te provide such documents.
It l
is even more troubling that you state that you had no formed i
i i
1 r
-e-
---r-ersy-m,.
,my
.-.,-y
,-,m,,u,.
-,-,-,%my_wr-
-_-_.__,-e7-r.._~_-,-.----r,_w ymm,,v_--.,,,em
intention that the Board read or examine these documents.
Why did you send them then?
Why did you reference specific transcript pages (inaccurately in any event) in support of you submission?
c.
I have found no NRC law holding that the Staff's obligation to keep the adjudicatory boards updated on technical studies overrides the Staff's obligation to seek to reopen the record when it wishes to put additional material before these boards.
Moreover, it is difficult to grasp how you meet your obligation to keep the offsite Board infermed of technical studies by submitting material to them which you claim you did not intend that they read or examine.
Either you j
i intended that they read it and you believe Staff obligations to submit material like this overrides the difficulties presented by a closed record, or you had no such intention in which case Staff obligations to keep the boards informed were irrelevant to your actions.
5.
I requested that you either move to reopen the i
record or otherwise clarify you August 22nd submittal.
You l
refused to do either.
I do not know whether the Board has i
"read or examined" the NUREG documents.
I do know that your i
letter of August 22nd (particularly in the absence of any
)
timely response by Intervenors) might be interpreted as j
i intending to fill a gap in the record left open when Dr.
i
Urbanik was actually cross-examined.
Of coutse, no such gap existed and the only appropriate and recognized way to seek consideration of these !!UREG documents was to move to reopen the record.
Again, I ask that you take the appropriate actions.
Very truly yours, n
l lpj~,IL,I 'ls l * ( +' - L'
[AssistantAttorneyGeneral ohn Traficonte J
CC:
Service List
.t"g n e g 5
UNITED s?ATES
$/
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATCAY COMMISSION
- 4. <
r W ASHINGTON. D C. 20S99 s
r s, -
/
i
.udG ; 2 1969
! van W. Smith Esq., Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
4 dministrative Judge Administeative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien U.S.
N uclea r R eg ulatory C ommission
(
Washington, D C 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour l
)
A dministrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
Washington, D C 20555 a
In the Matter of i
PUBLIC SERVICE CCMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
(Seabreck Station, Units 1 and 2) 1 Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 Off Site Erergency Pl nning
[
i ti 1
Oaar Administrative Judges:
i Enclosed please find the 'etlowing docurents related to the I-0YNEY L
avacuatien t'.re estimate co"puter code:
1.
NUREG/CR-48 9, PNL-6171, "Benchrark Study cf the I-0YNEV J
Evacuatien Tir.e F '. irate Computer Coda," by Dr. Thomas Urbanik, et al.,
i pacific Nort Ntst Laboratory (June 1938); and 4
.1 NUREG/CR-4874, PNL-6172, "The Sensitivity of Evacuation Tire l
Est' stes to Changes in input Parameters fnr the.1-0YNEY Computer Code."
'y Jr. Theras Urbanik, g al., Pacific Northwest Laboratory (June 1968).
i Some reference to these studies was cade by Dr. Urbanik in his l
testimeny en December 4,1987, at which tire ! agreed to distribute copies j
i of the reports ween available.
See Tr. 7443 44 e
j Sincerely,
(
4 i
440
(
l
(
1 Sherwin E. Turk
\\;I Senior Supervisory
,[
Trial Attorney a
g:
q
^'l
, Enclosures
/
g (j
Cc w/ Encl.: Service List w >
1 s
e 2
t s
vu i
i i
l
4 URBAN!K - CROSS 7440 1
A (Ureantk)
Certainly you had to know the answers to 2
those kinds of questions to be a credible Witness, yes.
3 You had to do the research.
What we proposed was a 4
research study, answer the questions.
5 Q
What was the study that the NRC. funded you to do?
6 A
(Urbanik)
Well, it has two aspects.
One aspect of 7
the study was a small validation of the model against real 8
traffic data, where what we were wanting to confirm or deny was 9
whether or not the model could replicate real life traffic 10 under heavily congested conditions.
11 The other part of the study was a sensitivity study 12,
to look at how transportation networks, at generic nuclear 13 power plants affects h e'w ETE's at these generte nuclear 14 power plants are affected by different assumptions so that you 15 could have an idea of how the model -
you get two things out 16 of it -- how the model works and also how sens1tive the 17 estimates are to the various assumptions, cecause clearly, it 13 has been unfortunate in this process, that we spent a lot of l
13 time argutng over the model when the model really shouldn' t be 20 the issue.
21 The assue really should be the numbers going into the 22 model.
23 Q
This study was completed when, Dr. Urbansk?
24 A
(Urbansk)
Well, it is not complete.
We just ran out 25 of money.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62S-4888
+
e URBANIK - CROSS 744*
1 Q
You mentioned a report.
2 A
(Urbanik)
Well, we are in the process of crafting 3
the report.
The report is not yet in draft form.
My 4
colleague, Matt Moeller at Battelle, and I, have both been 5
extremely busy with other matters in recent months and have noe 6
been able to get the final draft of the report complete.
7 MR. FIERCE:
Can I request, Mr. Turk, that we be 8
provided with a copy of this report, as soon as it is even in 3
draft form 7 10 MR. TURK:
Yes, as I had previously committed to the 11 Massachusetts AG, as soon as that draft is in final pubitshacia 12 form, it will be distributed to all parties in the proceeding.
13 MR. FIERCE:
I am asking for a copy of the first 14 draft. Mr. Turk?
15 MR. TURK:
No, I cannot and will not send out 16 incomplete drafts which have not yet reached approval stage.
17 BY MR. FIERCE:
IS G
So, Dr. Urbantk, you have not evaluated spectftcally, 13 this si te-speci fic t riput assumptions that were made in the KLD 20 ETE study for Seabrock, have you?
21 A
(Urbanik)
Yes, I have.
22 Q
But you haven' t evaluated the sonsttivity of those 23 input assumptions in !-DYNEV, for Seacrook, have you?
24 A
(Urbanik)
! think that the Applicant has dono the 25 more than adequate Joe of doing sonsttivity stuctes.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888