ML20196B013
| ML20196B013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1988 |
| From: | Hillwhilton R LAGOULIS, HILL-WHILTON & ROTONDI (FORMERLY LAGOULIS, NEWBURY, MA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196A981 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8806300178 | |
| Download: ML20196B013 (10) | |
Text
-
Yy l Dated:
June 17, 1988 UNITED STATES OF hMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
) Docket Mos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-4 4 3 -OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-4 4 4 -O L
)
Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
Planning Issues
)
)
The Town of Newbury hereby submits ita reply to the responses of the applicant and NRC staff to the contentions previously filed by the Town of Newbury.
1.
Reply to responses to' contention 1:
a)
Reply to applicants' response:
The Town of Newbury's first contention, which deals with the l
inadequacy of evacuation routes, traffic control, points, inadequacy of bus routes, and similar issues, was written with a great deal of specificity.
I j
Applicant complains, however, that the contention is too broad (see Applicants' responses, pp. 203 -
204).
The contention and its bases plainly provide the reasonable specificity required--the parties are more umaxacun.
than sufficiently on notice so that they will know what itiLL,THitTOH 8 MrxxA33 they have to defend against or oppose.
" *" ="'
n.umt.mmw rn e 1
- m. mn m.,
8806300178 800622 ADOCKOSOOggj3,-
PDR 0
s' b)
Reply to staff response:
The staff's similar complaint, i.e.,
that the contention is overbroad, should likewise be rejected.
c)
The applicant and the NRC staff both assert that issues dealing with human behavlor should not be admitted as those issues were fully litigated in the New Hampshire proceeding.
That assertion should be rejected for the following reasons:
1)
The issues of human behavior were not fully litigated; 2)
The Town of Newbury did not participate in that litigation; and 3)
No decision has been rendered as a result of the New Hampshire hearings.
2.
Reply to responses to contention 2:
No reply is necessary as neither the applicants nor the staff oppose admission of this contention for litigation.
3.
Reply to responses to contention 3 :
No reply is necessary as neither the applicants nor the staff oppose admission of this contention to l
l litigation.
l 4.
Reply to responses to contention 4 :
a)
Reply to applicants' response:
The regulatory basis undergirding Contention 4 is l
set forth in the contention.
That regulation requires um a us.u nx.
1 1
HILL 4HILTO4 6 MCG>lAE that a plan include "projected traffic capacities of
, y, n n,,,,
a m m r. m u m nie,m 2
l m..i n.c. i
t evacuation routes under emergency conditions."
The Town of Newbury contends that such routes should be delineated.
Applicants' further response to the effect that the capacity of roadway issue was fully litigated in the New Hampshire proceeding has no merit for the reason that such capacities were not fully litigated, Newbury did not participate in that proceeding, and no decision has been rendered regarding those proceedings.
b)
Reply to staff's response:
The staff's objection that the contention is vague ar.d lacks a basis should be rejected as meritless.
The staff plainly knows what issues in this regard the Town of Newbury wishes to litigate.
The response of the staff that the contention does not articulate any regulatory basis is just plain wrong.
5.
Reply to responses to contention 5:
Contention 5 deals with potential impediments to evacuation routes caused by snow, flooding or other potential impediments.
The Town of Newbury asserts in its contention that the plan fails to adequately identify how such impediments will be corrected or addressed.
a)
Reply to applicants' response:
The applicant asserts that the. plowing of snow is a governmental function.
While this is true, the plan fails to address whether that governmental function can be l
uooua uux, fulfilled in a timely and meaningful way under mtt.mttm mun a mrunm
- m. mar==== m a 3
4 emergency conditions.
The Town of Newbury contends that it will not be capable of maintaining its roadways in a. reasonable state of passability under such emergency conditions.
In addition, while the plan asserts that the plan's personnel can fully implement it, the requirement of maintaining the roads in a passable state, or dealing with the impassability of same, is plainly being left to the municipalities within the emergency planning zone.
b)
Reply to staff's response:
The staff's objection should be rejected for the reasons set forth in the reply to applicants' response to contention 5.
6.
Reply to responses to contention 6:
No reply is necessary as neither the applicants the staff oppose the admission of this contention.
nor 7.
Reply to responses to contention 7:
Contention 7 addresses the lack of an adequate means of notifying the population of Newbury in the event of an emergency.
a)
Reply to applicants' response:
NUREG-0 6 54,
Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.J.10.c requires plans to include the means for notifying all segments of the transient and resident population.
This plan's failure to do so should be admitted for litigation in this proceeding.
Applicants' claim that this issue is within the y
jurisdiction of the Onsite Board should be rejected for mammm mu to ff at15Diff MtnetM*T.M&SWJa?iTT1h*W Yli tet ?) t*J f M
that reason and for the reasons that the Town of Newbury has not participated in that proceeding and no decision has been. rendered as a result of that 4
proceeding.
b)
Reply to staff's response:
For the reasons set forth in the reply to applicants' response to con'tention 6, the staff's response should be rejected.
8.
Reply to responses to contention 8:
This contention deals with the fact that the Newbury evacuation bus transfer point is not permitted under applicable zoning laws.
a)
Reply to applicants' response:
The applicants assert that this contention should be rejected as the Town of Newbury would never enforce its zoning laws in the event of an emergency.-
Applicants' apparent belief that the appropriate officials of the Town of Newbury will ignore illegal activity can provide no basis for the rejection of this contention.
b)
Reply to staff's response:
For the reasons set forth above, the staff's objection to the admission of this contention should be likewise rejected.
9.
Reply to responses to contention 9:
a)
Reply to applicants' response:
The applicants' claim that the contention should be rejected as being without sufficient bases has no merit.
The bases set forth unquestionably puts the t w ot m c w r.
applicant on notice of what issues it must defend or mtt. suum ucun toifATitTHff net fa tim
- f, M4MAtMMiit ti" 5
TTL (617) #19M)
L
oppose.-
In addition, the applicants' claim that the bases raise in part generic human behavior issues which have already been litigated should be rejected'for the reasons set forth above, b)
Reply to staff's response:
The reply of the NRC staff should be rejected for the reasons set forth in the reply to the applicants' response.
10.
ly to responses to contention 10:
a)
Reply to applicants' response:
The applicants complain that the contention should be rejected as it does not specifically identify the operating day care centers in Newbury.
The complaint is bewildering.
In its response to contention 1, in which the inadequacy of the proposed bus routes was addressed with specificity, the applicants complained that the contention and bases were overbroad.
- Here, they demand specificity.
Plainly, the applicants are placed on adequate notice of what issues the Town of Newbury wishes to raise regarding day care centers and nursery schools, b)
Reply to staff's response:
No reply is necessary as the staff does not oppose the admission of this contention.
11.
Reply to responses to contention 11:
a)
Reply to applicants' response:
The applicants assert that the contention erroneously uoxus.aut HILL 4HILTON da MOOLOE assumes that the evacuation plan relies upon Town of r.um nun m.n.mmmamm m i
6 m i.in w.m
Newbury personnel to implement it.
As noted with regard to snow removal, for example, applicants indeed depend.upon Newbury personnel.
That the Town of Newbury may be able to maintain its roads in a state of passability during normal circumstances cannot lead to the conclusion that it has the ability to do so during an emergency evacuation of' thousands of people during adverse weather conditions.
The applicants also object to the point that Newbury officials will not implement or follow the plan.
That simply is a statement of fact.
Newbury officials, after exhaustive work and, indeed, cooperation with the applicants, concluded that it makes no sense to prepare any plan as there simply is none which can be conceived which will adequately protect the public.
Thus, the presumption that Newbury will follow or generally implement the plan, one which is rebuttable, will be rebutted during the litigation phase of this proceeding.
b)
For the reasons set forth in the reply to applicants' response to contention 11, the staff response should be likewise rejected.
The Town of Newbury does not contend, and has never contended, that it will refuse to act to safeguard the health and safety of the public.
Indeed, the Town of Newbury fully intends to exert its best effort to protect its Wmta m IUll slitLTON & MODUIRI inhabitants and transients within its borders.
Those
.m,r. muow rn am 7
TR W M u14MB
officials simply recognize that any response to an emergency will of necoseity be ad hoc.
12.
Reply to response to contention 12:
a)
The applicants' position has no merit.
As noted above, the plan inc ee l contemplates the need for municipal linplementation of some of its portions, such as snow plowing.
The plan does not adequately address how its portions which regt :.re municipal implementation will be dealt with or how the town officials and personnel who must become involved will be notified and assist in its implementation.
b)
Reply to staff's response:
For the reasons set forth above, the staff's response should be likewise rejected.
i Respectfully submitted, 0 /( / '/f/ M R.
Scott Hill-Whilton Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton & McGuire 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 (617) 462-9393 4
LA(X)Ul!$. C1AR.K.
HnLuuttTCN in MCIrtRE 7e siaT1 STini l M S RS1M ST hLASW HL*A f'11 M990 8
i TTL (61F) ta; eMI
I, R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Counsel for the Town of Newbury in the above-entitled action, hereby certify that I have caused copies of the enclosed documents.to be served upon the persons at the addresses listed below, by first class, postage prepaid, mail and by Federal ExpXess, postage prepaid, mail to those names which have teen marked with an asterisk.
- Admin. Judge Ivan W. Smith
- Judge Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Thomas G.
Dignan, Esq.
A.S.L.A.B. Panel Ropes and Gray U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 225 Franklin Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Boston, MA 02110 Diane Curran, Esq.
Stephen B.
Merrill, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss Attorney General Suite 430 Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20009 Concord, NH 03301 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Office of General Counsel NRC 116 Lowell Street 15th Floor, 1 White Flint North P.O.
Box 516 Rockville, MD 20852 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Paul McEachern, Esq.
Asst. Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Office of the Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Augusta, ME 04333 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Sandra Guvutis The Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey Chairman United States Senate Board of Selectmen Wachington, D.C.
20510 j
Kensington, NH 03827 Mr. Thomas Powers H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
l Town Manager Office of General Counsel l
Town of Exeter Federal Emergency Management Agency Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, D.C.
20472 (1)
i Gary Holmes, Esq.
Stephen Jonas, Esq.
Holmes & Ells Ass'.stant Attorney General 4 7 Winnacunnet Rood Off.ce of the Attorney General
.Hampton, NH 03841 Boston, MA 02108 Mr. Calvin A.
Canney Cbt-les P.
Grahnm, Esq.
City Manager Murphy and Graham City Hall 33 Low Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Newburyport, MA 01350 Barbara Saint Andre, Esq.
Mr. William Lord Kopelman & Paige Selectman 77 Franklin Street Board of Selectmen Boston, MA 02110 Amesbury, MA 01913 Btentwood Board of Selectmen Richard A.
Hampe, Esq.
RPO Dalton Road Hampe & McNicholas B r e se t. c o d, NH 03833 3 5 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Ed Thomas Judith Mizner, Esq.
FEMA Region I 79 State Street 44 2 McCormick P.O.
Building Newburypor t, MA 21950 Boston, MA 02109 Mr. Robert Carrig, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town Office North Hampton, NH 03862 Signed under seal this
/7 day of June, 1988.
f
("
b
_R.
Scott Hill--Whilton (2)
$