ML20212E990
| ML20212E990 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1986 |
| From: | Bronstein D, Sneider C AMESBURY, MA, HAMPTON, NH, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Edles G, Rosenthal A, Wilber H NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212E896 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8701050546 | |
| Download: ML20212E990 (42) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0<
00MEIED U?l!* C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ig Jm -2 PS :44 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION F
ATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEAL{fegpg M
g 1
y:.::?
BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE' JUDGES:
l j
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wilber
)
In the matter of
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
(Off-Site EP)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
December 30, 1986
)
l INTERVENORS' JOINT-MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE STAY OF ASLB PROCEEDINGS i
l Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Town of Hampton, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, Town of Amesbury, and New England Coalition on Nuclear' Pollution (hereinaf ter Intervenors) moves that this Appeal Board order an immediate stay of all proceedings and events leading to commencement of hearing on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan ("New Hampshire plans").
In support of this Motion, Intervenors l
state:
1.
On December 4, 1986, the ASLB issued its order establishing a schedule for litigation of the New Hampshire l
plans, attached hereto as part of Exhibit 1.
This schedule is, i
i l
8701050546 B61230 t
PDR ADOCK 05000443 O
PDR t
T on its face, unreasonable and allows an insufficient time for preparation of litigation of numerous difficult and complicated contentions.
2.
On December 18, 1986, Applicants filed their Petition Under 10 C.F.R. 2.758 and 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47(c) With Respect to the. Regulations Requiring Planning for a Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone in Excess of a One-Mile Radius, which requests that the ten-mile EPZ for Seabrook Station be reduced to one mile.
3.
On December 22, 1986, Intervenors filed a Joint Motion for Immediate Stay of ASLB Proceedings before both the ASLB and the Commission.
That Petition, which is attached as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated herein by reference, in essence seeks a stay of any proceedings on the New Hampshire plans until resolution of the Applicants' EPZ reduction request.
A stay is warranted as a matter of logic, judicial economy, and fundamental fairness for all the reasons set forth in Interventors' Joint Motion, attached as Exhibit 1.
4.
On December 23, 1986, the ASLB issued an order, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, directing intervenors to file their counter-affidavits and other responses to Appitants' EPZ-reduction petition no later than January 27, 1987.
This Order renders the concurrent litigation of New Hampshire plans i
even more unreasonable, j
5.
On December 24, 1986, the Commission entered its Order, 1
i attached as Exhibit 3, which:
(1) directs the EPZ issue to the t.
vy ms,
-,ur.y y.,--,
,f-.
.-mem-
_---we,y-,---,._,-w-we,n.%,yer,---,
,-,,--,1w-
-,,,-e,..yy.
__,y,,.-.-.,.w----,--,.-,-+w-
r-
.1 Chief Administrative Judge and (2) instructs intervenors-to file their stay request directly with this Appeal Board.
6.
The ASLB has taken no action on Intervenors' Joint Motion for Immediate Stay.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated in this motion and in the motion previously filed with the Commission, attached as Exhibit 1, intervenors request the Appeal Board to certify the question of the immediate stay, and to grant an immediate stay of ASLB proceedings on the New Hampshire plans.
Respectfully submitted, FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI el I
7<
By:
i Donald S.
Bronstein Assistant Attorney General f
[,*
j
</
4 Carol S. Sneider Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Department of the Attorney General one Ashburton Place, Room 1902 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2265 Dated:
December 30, 1986 The undersigned further says that he is authorized to submit this joint motion on behalf of all the named intervenors.
Respectfully submitted,
/
'lo-q/
_i,
- k.w Donald S. Bronstein 3-
u EXHIDIT 1 i
1 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
i before the i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
AND ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
i i
i In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos.
50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
Off-site Emergency
}
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2
)
Planning Issues i
l
)
I
)
i i
INTERVENORS' JOINT MOTION EQB IMMEDIATE STAY QE ASLB PROCEEDINGS i
NOW COME the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Town of Hampton, Seacoast Anti-Pollultion League, Town of Amesbury, and New England i
Caslition on Nuclear Pollution (hereinafter Intervenors) and r equest l
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to ORDER an immediate stay of of hearings on the i
all proceedings and events leading to commencement New Hampshire Radiological Em er gency Re spon se Plan.
See M E M CR ANDU M l
AND ORDER ESTABLISHING HEARING SCHEDULE ON OFFSITE ISSUES RAISED BY i
1 NHRERP, dated December 4,1986.
Alternatively, in the event this Board declines to grant this stay as requested, or f ails to act on Intervenors' motion prior to l December 29, 1986, Intervenors request the Commission, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.718(i), to direct the 'ASLB to certify to the Commis, I
sion the question of the stay, as raised by this Motion, and to grant i
i I
Intervenors a stay as prayed for herein.
i swamas a ucracwa m. ~......... ~..
g j
i l
1 In support of this Motion, Intervenors state:
1.
The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan Revision 2 (NHRERP) sets forth emergency plans for the 17 New Hampshire towns located within the ten mile EPZ for Seabrook Station.
The NHRERP consists of approximately 31 volumes, of hundreds of pages, I
including highly technical data and information.
This Board has i already admitted 28 contentions for litigation and has pending numerous other and supplemental contentions filed by Intervenors in I'
These contentions consist of dozens of pages which, in this case.
set forth significant health and safety concerns of residents
- summary, of the 17 New Hampshire Towns located within the ten mile EPZ including:
i a.
lack of adequate manpower to evacuate the tens of I
thousands of EPZ tourists and beach goers during the summer months; I
b.
lack of personnel to supervise and direct evacuation of i
EPZ schools; c.
lack of adequate drivers or buses to f acilitate an eva-cuation of EPZ residences; d.
lack of an adequate evacuation time estimate study to provide reasonable predictions f or emergency planning in the event of radiological emergency at Seabrook; lack of an adequate rogd system to permit reasonably e.
prompt evacuation f rom the EPZ l
1 For example, the Town of Hampton presently has admitted to this proceeding 3 contentions, with a 4th pending before this Board, which consist of several dozen pages addressing the above-referenced health and safety concerns.
A copy of CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF HAMPTON TO NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN REVISION 2 is attached hereto and incorporated by ref erence herein as Exhibit A.
The Town of Hampton represents only 1 of the 17 towns within the ten mile EPZ.
Intervenors Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution have additionally filed detailed contentions addressing numerous health and safety deficiencies posed by the NHRERP concering all 17 New Hampshire EPZ towns.
Additional contentions have been filed by other particip3nts to this proceeding.
2 swamas a =cercsam. ~..
..... oe..
- 4. mastsecoe...sm,e, se aos see, ace +.ausum nse eseos
I p
2.
Necessarily, litigation of the numerous issues posed by the Intervenor contentions would require a substantial allocation of 1
Intervenors' resources to f ully and properly prepare these issues for final hearing.
r l
3.
By Memorandum And Order dated December 4,1986, this Board established a schedule of events leading to a hearing on NERERP which pr ov ides that Intervenors sh all comply with certain de adline s established by this Board.
For example, commencing on December 29, 1986, Intervenors are mandated to reply to Applicants and Staff responses to Intervenor contentions.
A copy of this Board's Memoran-dum In Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4.
Under filing dated December 18, 1986, Applicant s' submitted to this Board and to the Commission APPLICANTS' PETITION UlOER 10 CFR l
Section 2.758 and 10 CFR Section 50.47(c) WITH RESPECT TO THE REGULA-TIONS REQ UIRING PLANNING FOR A PLUME EXPOSURE PATHW AY EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE IN EXCESS OF A ONE-MILE RADIUS which requests that the ten-mile EPZ for Seabrook Station be reduced to one mile.
5.
Applicants' Petition is unprecedented, lacks technical support, and is contrary to the underlying purposes of Commission regulations.
Nevertheless, Applicants' Petition is premised upon highly technical data and immediately jeopardizes emergency planning protection for EPZ towns located more than one (1) mile from Seabrook Station.
These issues require Intervenors' full and immediate atten-tion.
6.
Applicants' Petition seeks to eliminate 15 of the 17 New Hampshire towns presently entitled to Emergency Planning Protection under Commission regulations and would render moot the NHRERP as presently draf ted, f or a ten (10) mile EPZ.
7.
By its Petition, Applicant itself renders the present NHRERP, which is premised on a ten (10) mile EPZ, no longer operative.
8.
Judicial economy thereby mandates that Appl icants' pe tition to reduce the EPZ be f ully litigated, and the merits finally deter-mined, before proceeding any further with the schedule established by the this Board under its December 4, 1986 order.
l 9.
Fundamental f airness requires that Applicants' petition be l
fully and finally litigated before proceeding f urther with the IGIRERP schedule, since Intervenors to this proceeding have severely strained Plainly Intervenors cannot continue to comply with this l
resources.
Board's schedule on the NHRERP, and to litigate contentions raised thereunder, while simultaneously litigating Applicents' petition to reduce the EPZ.
I 3
I sww seamesacwenn. -
. - ~..
I 10.
Unless an immediate stay is granted in this case, Interve-nors lack of resources to simultaneously litigate the NHRERP, and Applicants' Petition, will deny Intervenors a f air hearing as provided by law.
11.
In the event this Board denies the stay as requested herein, i
or f ails to act on said request-prior to December 29, 1986, by simul-taneous filings of this motion with the Commission, Intervenors hereby request the Commission, pursitant to 10 CFR Section 2.718(i), to direct this Board to certify to the Commission the question of the immediate stay raised herein, and to g: ant an immediate stay as requested.
Dated:
December 22, 1986 Respectf ully submitted, SHAINES & McEACHERN Attorneys f the Town of Ha ton Byt P ul McEachern
~ ~.
\\#
Ci_
-N By:
Matthew T. Brock The undersigned f urther say that they are authorized to submit this joint motion on behalf of all the named petitioners.
Respective y submitted, All th/amed itioners y,
orized Representative.
G~
g
.m c
Authorized Representative 4
SMAIP8ES & heCEACHERN. s re anas as cianos ammus.v.
ll (Braiducod Station Units 1 and 2), Docket Mos. 50-456, 50-457, 4/24/86 I
at p.4, and the Town of Hampton therefore believes it has fully and I-adequately addressed this factor as set forth above.
The Extent To Mhich The Petitioner's Participation Mill Broaden
)
I The Issues or Delav The proceedina.
The issues raised in the Town of i
Hampton's contentions,on Revision 2 are substantially related to the contentions previously filed by the Town of Hampton on the lack of personnel, equipment, transportation, and related matters, which render the NHRERP, as presently constituted, an unworkable plan.
These contentions should therefore not significantly broaden the issues for decision by this Board, since these issues have been consistently raised by the Town throughout this proceeding.
CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF HAMPTON TO MEW HAMPSHTRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN REVISION 2 If1TRODUCTION:
On September 9, 1986, the Town of Hampton was served with a copy of the New Hampshire Radioloaical Emergency Resconse Plan Revision 2 (hereinafter referred to as NHRERP or Revision 2) including an RERP for the Town of Hampton and other municipalities located within the CPZ.
The Town of Hampton hereby submits the following contentions in i
8 SM AINES waC41GAN & McEACME4N * **o' esse =es associano=
as.etawooo ave %s eo som see some== 03eot
I opposition to Revision 2, which is based upon inaccurate and unreasonable assumptions, incomplete cr biased data, and otherwise f
fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective i
measures can and will be implemented in the event of radiological t
l emergency at Seabrook Station.
10 CFR 550.47 (a) (1) and (b).
cOttrEMTIONS I.
II.
V. VII Contentions I, II, V, VII of the corrPEMTIOMS OF THE TOMM OF HAftPTOI; TO RADIOLOGICAL E!!ERCEMCY RESPONSE PLAM FOR THE TOMM OF i
{
HAf tPTON, MEW HAMPSHIRE. NOVEMBER, 1985, previously filed by the Town of Hampton with this Board, and bases for same, are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
REVISED COMTEtTPION III TO REVISION 2 The Evacuation Time Estimate Study (ETE) prepared by KLD Associates, Inc., Revision 2, Volume 6, is based upon inaccurate and biased factual data and unreasonable or misleading assumptions, fails to comply with !!RC regulations, and f ails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken, or that adequate facilities, equipment, or personnel will be provided to 9
SMaiPoES. M A0miGAN & Met.ACHERN **carsso=e6 assoc.com as wastawooo..ews. e o eos soo songwow'w== eseo, A
H I
the Town of Hampton, in the event of radiological emergency.
10 CFR I
' I 5 50.47 (a) (1), (b) (1) (10) ; :.'UREG-0 6 5 4, App. 4.
l BASIS:
The basis for Hampton Revised Contention III set forth ir i
i ffEMORAMDUM ON 10 CFR 9 2.714 (a) (1) AND REVISED CONTENTION III OF THE 1
TOUN OF HAMPTON TO EVACUATION TIME ESTTftATE REPORT BY KLD ASSOCIATES, DC. is hereby realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
By way of further basis:
1 (A)
Population Estimates.
KLD lacks adequate data to compute the permanent and transient l
population for the Town of Hampton since KLD computes beach population capacities by examining only the beach above the high tide line, Vol.
6, p. 2-12; counts parking spaces rather than motor vehicles, including vehicles in transit, Vol. 6, p. 2-1; counts beach blankets rather than people, Vol. 6, p. 2-12; utilizes a vehicle occupancy rate I
of 2.4 based upon two " field surveys" performed on weekends of frequent rain and poor beach weather, Vol. 6, p. 1-10; and counts beach populations using a limited number of photographs, of unspecified date or time, although KLD concedes the beach populations vary widely depending on weather, time of day, and day to day.
Vol.6, 1
10 SM AiNES. M ACRiC AN & veEACHERN * **c'essc=* *ssoc.f o=
1 49 wa.tev000 avg =wg. 0 eca zoo.0#Masou w== 0300'
+
r, m-
_ -~,
-.4-.
,,_--..,_-,e_
._c
_-,y_
p.2-10.
KLD thereby unreasonably reduces the actual population for the Town of Hampton and distorts this " critical" factor in conputing ETE.
Vol. 6, p. 2-1.
(B)
Weather Conditions.
Mhile recognizing that weather represents a " major factor" affecting ETE, Volume 6, p. 3-1 and 2, KLD concedes that it has
" limited empirical data on the effect of adverse weather conditions to reduce ETE." Vol. 6, p. 3-1.
KLD proceeds to arbitrarily reduce the ETE for rain and snow conditions for the Seabrook EP,Z by 20 and 25 percent respectively, Vol. 6, p. 3-11, although KLD lacks any site specific data on the extent of delay caused by these road hazards.'
KLD acknowledges the " issue of ocean fog," yet fails to provide any data on the impact of fog on ETE, Vol. 6, p. 3-11, and fails to respond to RAC concerns regarding wind changes, which may require contingencies for the redirection of evacuation vehicles, HRE Namnnhire Ranconse Actions to RAC Review. Auaust. 1986,Section VI, pp.
7, 12, (hereinafter RAC Review. Aucust. 1986) with additional delay to traffic and an increase in ETE.
KLD does not even estimate the effect of ice storms on ETE.
(C)
Road Capacities.
f
(
11 s *mes. waomca~ a ucuesca~
c e..em...oc ao-2g u ekswoce *ve%8.0 con No.089moum== CM
.-,._.._.-.-__,--_..,_____..___________.\\---
_ ~.... _... _ _ _. _..,.. _.,.. _ _, _ _ _ _. _ _, _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _.. _. _
When computing the " major factor" of road network capacity, and its impact on the time required to effectuate an evacuation, Vol. 6,
- p. 3-1, KLD makes numerous and unsupported assumptions including:
1.
All roads will remain passable during evacuation. Vol.
6, p. 10-70.
This assumption ignores the obvious and anticipated i
i i
vehicle breakdowns, gas shortages, overheating of vehicles, roadways
(
becoming impassable from snow or ice storms, gridlock between evacuating private vehicles, commuters, and emergency vehicles attempting to enter the EPZ, and snowplow operators who either refuse i
to plow during radiological emergency or are unable to reach their designated routes due to evacuation traffic congestion.
2.
KLD assumes that the " recommended traffic control tactics are in effect."
Vol. 6, p. 10-70.
This assumption is unsupportable in view of the avowed position of the Town of Hampton, l
and other towns within the EPZ, not to implement the NHRERP if called upon to do so.
The assumption is further unsupportable following BE Ermecisa Annannment and Review of the MHRERP which " cast (s) doubt" on the State's ability to provide adequate evacuation transportation.
RAC Review. Auaust. 1986,Section VI, p. 9.
Finally, the State has l
failed to demonstrate an ability to provide sufficient law enforcement i
and traffic control personnel, FE!!A, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86 I
1 12 SMAiNES W A0miGAN & McEACHE2N.ao*ssse= s associame=
ss maatswoco avs=ws 8 0 een Mo poe'suou'=== ossoe
I i
at p. 46, to compens' ate for non-participating towns.
Accordingly, i
"LD's reliance upon the State to supply adequate equipment and i
personnel for traffic control management is without reasonable foundation.
i 3.
KLD assumes that 3,000 "through" vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ at the time of notification of an emergency.
Vol. 6, p. 10-3. No support is provided for this assumption, which is rendered absurd by KLD's own calculation of " peak hourly flow" on I-95 of 6,912 veheles.
Vol. 6, p. 3-11.
Since I-95 represents only one road within the 200 square mile EPZ, the 3,000 "through" vehicle estimate represents a gross distortion of roadway demand.
4.
KLD concedes that its " estimates of available capacity may overstate the actual accessible capacity."
Vol. 6, p. 10-70.
KLt thereby admits that its highway capacities relied upon to compute ETE, and which represent a " major factor" to calculate the time required for evacuation, Vol. 6, p. 3-1, would generate an unreasonably low ETE, and would not reflect actual conditions.
5.
KLD unreasonably assumes that 25 percent of the EPZ population will spontaneously evacuate, Vol. 6, p.
10-3, and estimates Hampton employees who work at the beach, both during the week and on weekends, Vol. 6, p. 5-6, apparently by simple guess 13 swai~cs. wao=icas a venc tas...e 6... c:.ee-
- 3. usettwo00 avenegg 80 cos no.poogw0w.m.e03ece e
l l
work.
XLD thereby lacks adequate data to compute road demand for t
j
!!ampton employees during evacuation or to compute ETE when only partial evacuation of the EPZ is ordered.
i I
6.
KLD fails to adequately account for the impact of i
l disabled vehicles on reducing ETE.
Given the thousands of vehicles tc be evacuated, numerous disabled vehicles must be anticipated.
KLD's claim that such vehicles will simply be pushed aside by evacuees, without impacting on ETE, is unsupportable.
Vol. 6, p. 12-4.
(D)
ETE Preparation Time.
4 l
Without statistical support, KLD assumes that 90 percent of the I
EPZ population will be notified of an emergency within 15 minutes, j
i Vol. 6, p. 4-8, assumes that beachgoers will be able to leave the i
beach and access their cars within 30 minutes, Vol. 6, p. 4-12, although KLD concedes it has "no empirical data to support this d,istribution," Vol. 6, p. 4-11, fails to allow for " staging area preparation time" as reco'mmended by the RAC in computing ETE, R&C Review, August. 1986,Section VI, p. 10, and grossly underestimates the adverse impact on ETE of 95 percent of workers returning home, within 30 minutes, to prepare for evacuation following notice of radiological emergency.
Vol. 6, p. 4-9.
(E)
Growth.
14
.... cs u no aio* ~ a v.uc p *......
....c1.
..s,.....
.....,-e-.=,
KLD recognizes the "significant growth" in employment within the I
Town of Hampton between 1980 and 1984.
Vol. 6, p. 5-1.
It is also common kncsledge that the southern New Hampshire population, including the population of the EPZ, is one of the fastest growing in the j
country.
In compu':ing ETE, however, KLD has wholly failed to account for this reasonably anticipated and substantial growth in population and motor vehicles within the EPZ, has failed to obtain any data on projected changes in population distribution within the EPZ, and has otherwise presented a plan which, even assuming its accuracy at the l
present time, will soon be outdated and will not serve as a reasonable-l I
basis for emergency planning.
(F)
Choice of Host Locations.
KLD unreasonably assumes that evacuees will choose to evacuate tc i
their assigned host communities.
The assumption is unsupportable, particularly in view of the large number of beachgoers and transients within the EPZ during the summer who may be wholly unfamiliar with such host communities as Dover or Manchester.
But see Vol. 6, p. 10
(" virtually all drivers" familiar with EPZ coads).
Indeed, during the evacuation exercise, even bus drivers under letter agreement
" consistently experienced problems in getting to where they should be 15 s wo n v4e.o4% v u c c.~...e.......
...x....
.....s r
... %.....,e...
l I
l needed," FE!!A, Final Exercise Asssesment, 6/2/86 at p.43, and the RAC has recommended that KLD increase ETE to allow for " drivers getting lost or misdirected."'
RAC Review. Aucust, 1986,Section VI, p. 12.
Accordingly, if Hampton Beach transients chose to evacuate to i
!!assachusetts or to Maine (as might be more logical) rather than to I
ttanchester (as assigned), already crowded evacuation routes would be i
rendered impassable by the additional traffic and ETE thereby would be i
j substantially increased.
KLD has thereby selected a theoretically I
optimal, yet unrealistic, model to minimize ETE.
i REVISED CollTEttfIO!! IV TO REVISIOt! 2 Revision 2 fails to provide for adequate emergency equipment, fails to demonstrate that adequate protective responses can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency, and fails to correct deficiencies in emergency response capabilities apparent from the emergency exericse.
10 CFR 550.47 (1) (8) (10) (14).
16 sa a ucs w ao..oas a waac c e~. m.......
....e....
....w e
..,. ~...
BASIS:
The bases for Contention IV set forth in CONTEM? IONS Or f
THE TONN OF MAMPTOM TO RADIOLOGICAL EMERCENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR THE I
j TCMM OF MAMPTON, MEN MAMPSHIRE. MOVE!!BER, 1985, and revised Contentior l
IV set forth in COMTENTIONS OF THE TONN OF HAMPTON TO REVISED RADIOLOGICAL EMEROENCY RESPONSE PLAN AND TO COMPENSATORY PLAN FOR T!!E TONM OF MAMPTOM. MEf MAMPSHIRE are hereby realleged and incorporated l
by reference herein.
t l
By way of further basis:
(A)
Emergency Resources and Equipment.
1 Revision 2 fails to allocate adequate buses or EMS vehicles to the Town of Hampton to reasonably support an evacuation on grounds including:
1.
The State indicates that the bus companies under Letter Agreement will provide 553 buses and 496 drivers to support an evacuation in the event of radiological emergency.
Vol. 4, App.I-1 and 2.
These figures are inaccurate and misleading.
!!any of the buses to be provided by a particular bus company lack sufficient drivers and, conversely, other bus companies are prepared to provide drivers, but have no buses for them to drive.
Id.
FEMA correcbly notes that only " bus-and-driver pairs" under agreement should be counted to determine the marimum number of emergency vehicles 17 s.. es u.a.,o ~. u.e.e p ~........
....e....
,,..s,....
m-ou~ -.
4
j available to support an evacuation.
FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, I
6/2/86, at p. 39.
The state, however, can only demonstrate 431 bus-and-driver pairs, Vol. 4, App. I-1 and 2, or 13 bus / driver pairs less I
than the 444 necessary minimum required to carry out an evacuation, I
l Vol. 4, App. I-8, even using the State's own unreasonably low EP:
I l
population figures.
2.
The bus-and-driver pairs under Letter Agreement with the State represent an " absolute maximum," FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/06, at p. 39, and do ant provide reliable figures to measure available evacuation buses or personnel.
FEMA, Final Exereino Assessment, 6/2/86, App. I at p. 233.
Both common sense and i
conversations between FEMA and the bus companies indicate that in fact the actual bus-and-driver availability would be substantially less than as specified in the Letter Agreements, id, which could reasonably be expected to be reduced by reason of bus breakdown, driver unavailability, drivers who may get lost enroute to the EP2, or who may become imbedded in outgoing evacuation traffic thereby substantially delaying or prohibiting a driver from timely reaching the EPZ.
RAC Review. Aucunt, 1986,Section VI, p. 12.
3.
In an apparent effort to address FEttA's concerns on the inadequacy of available personnel and transportation resources, the 18
. 4 v enicas v cie a.~..
..........+..
l
~h 4
State has entered into an agreement with the Teamsters Union, apparently for the purpose of providing additional bus drivers for j
evacuation.
Vol. 4, App. I-ll.
Revision 2, however, fails to f
demonstrate that the Teamsters under agreement are in fact adequately trained to drive the school buses and emergency vehicles for the I
mobility impaired to properly effectuate an evacuation, fails to specify how these backup drivers promptly will be notified and coordinated with available buses, and fails to support the purported agreement with the Teamsters with Letter Agreements executed by the individual members of this union.
h j
(B)
Emergency Exercise.
I The February 26 exercise only confirmed the consistent position of the Town of Hampton and other intervenors that evacuation of the EPZ around Seabrook Station is not feasible and that the personnel and equipment allocated to support an emergency response are inadequate.
For example, the State could not satisfy even the limited demand for buses of communities participating in the exercise, FEMA, Einal Exercise Assessment, p.40, could not provide adequate EMS or ambulance service, FEt1A, Final Exercise Assesment, pp. 42, 44, no buses were allocated for summertime employees, RAC Review. August 1986,Section VI at p. 9, the State f ailed to demonstrate that adequate backup buses l
l l
l
[
l l
19 l
SM AINES. M AORtGAN & McEACMERN * **CetSS4*as assocacom 23 wastg* COO avt%E
- O 90 180 *C#f5w0WD* *** C200*
E I
I k
were available to support an evacuation, FEMA, Final Exercice Ancessment, 6/2/06, p. 42, and the State did not allocate l
l transportation for those individuals who may have a vehicle in the
'1 household, yet the vehicle may be unavailable at the time of an
- }
i emergency.
RAC Review, Anoust 1136.,Section I, p. 71.
Revision 2
.].j fails to correct these and related deficiencies.
Additionally, if the State was unable to reasonably carry out a limited and preplanned o
s evacuation exercise, with no requirement for coordination with 3.
Massachusetts, and in the dead of winter, an actual evacuation of the summertime beach population is wholly unrealistic and unworkable.
(C)
Special Needs Population.
Revision 2 calculates the special needs population for the Town of Hampton based upon an " annual survey."
Vol. 18, p. II-30.
This
" annual survey" is'in fact a mere " postage paid mail back card" sent out by the State purportedly to all persons residing within Hampton.
Id.
Less than 2 percent of the Town responded.
Vol. 18, p. IV-34.
The survey is a grossly inadequate vehicle to compute the special needs and transit dependent populations of the Town of Hampton and unreasonably places the burden upon handicapped, mobility-impaired, and other transit dependent or special needs individuals to l
affirmatively request transportation or be ignored under the State's I
s i
l 20 SHAAES. MACRiCAN & McEACHERN **CFElsomas ASSOC. aeon 23 wastgwCOO avt=wt 8 0 90s 100 - *ON'9**Cufw ae= 03e0'
~,. - -,,
..,._-I.-.C:O._,-._-..---..,.-
The State itself recognized the inadequacy of its owr.
I survey since it increased by 50 percent the transportation allocation I
for the special needs populations for all towns, in view of the "small sample sizes" received from each community.
RAC Review, Aucust.
1216,Section VI, p. 6.
As the RAC pointed out, however, no statistical justification has been provided by the State for this 50 percent increase.
Id at p. 5.
The special needs populations for the i
Town of Hampton, and for other EPZ towns, therefor represent an j
unknown quantity for evacuation planning.
I I
(D)
Compensatory Plan.
FEMA has recommended that the State Compensatory Plan be revised I
"to anticipate the non-participation of any of the local jurisdictions i
in the Seabrook plume EPZ."
FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86,
- p. 44.
Based upon the FEMA recommendation, and from the avowed non-participation of the Town of Hampton and numerous other towns within the EPZ to implement the NHRERP, the State has promulgated a compensatory plan consisting of only five pages.
Vol. 2, App. G.
As presently drafted, the Compensatory Plan wholly fails to allocate j
adequate personnel, equipment, or resources to implement an evacuatior
(
on grounds including:
1.
The plan erroneously assumes the cooperation and participation of Hampton school officials, although no letter I
l 21 SHAINES M ACRICAN & ucEACHERN ** orts $4*as assocracoe.
(
gg enam avg =wg 8 0 00m 380 po*Ma*C6N *** C3ece
.~,
l agreements confirming this participation have been obtained.
Vol. 2, j
App. G-2.
I 2.
Aside from vague reference to the coordination of " law enforcement activities and traffic control," Vol. 2, App. G-3, the i
compensatory plan wholly fails to specify where this additional law t
1 l
enforcement personnel will be obtained to make up for those local police who will not participate in the implementation of the NHRERP, including the Hampton Police Department.
Either the plan erroneously assumes local participation in the face of the express vote of the Town of Hampton not to so participate, or the plan relies upon the inadequate number of personnel in State Police Troop A to carry out local law enforcement duties.
With its 35 troopers, however, Troop A does not even have sufficient personnel to staff access control points for the EPZ, as required under Revision 2, let alone take over the traffic management and security duties presently assigned to Hampton and other local police departments.
FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86 at p. 46.
3.
No letter agreements have been obtained from the bus drivers who have primary responsibility for transporting the 22
$H AINES. M ADRIGAN & MCEACHERN * **0'ESSC%% *Sloctanom 29 ***LEWooO avt'sut 8 0 con 300 poeMwoum
'*a 03808
f population, including school children, out of the EPZ in the event of l
radiological emergency.
I j
On its face, therefore, the five page Compensatory Plan.
offered by the State in response to FE:1A's recommendation for,a plan to anticipate the non-participation of any or all of the EPZ towns is vague, inadequate, and unworkble.
(E)
Transit Dependent Individuals.
Revision 2 adopts a " concept of pre-designated bus routes" to evacuate transit dependent residents and transients without private transportation.
RAC Review. August, 1986,Section I, p. 73.
I l
Appparently this procedure has been adopted to purportedly increase the speed of evacuation, by eliminating the need for door to door pick i
ups of transit dependent individuals as provided in the prior NHRERP.
These pre-designated bus routes, however, will require individuals, including the " mobility-impaired," to leave their homes during a radiological emergency, to locate the pre-designated bus routes, and to remain outdoors subject to increased radiological exposure, awaiting evacuation buses which FEMA has already indicated may, reasonably be expected not to arrive.
F EI1A, Final Exercise Ascessment, 6/2/86 at p.
40.
This procedure unreasonably compromiset 23 SM AINES. wACRIGAN a McEACHERN **ortsse=as assooseO=
23 maPLEwo00 avt=wt PO 00s 340. *C#MuovN asw C300*
...............-3
,7.,
,y-.
-g..
.m,.-,-y,,m
,m,,
e-
,,e c-
1 the public health and will not adequately protect the Hampton population from radiation injury.
Additionally, the transportation allocated for the Town of Hampton under Revision 2, Vol. 18, p. 34, does not include buses for the substantial number of transients, including the beach population.
Vol. 4, App.
I-8.
l I
I REVISED CONTENTION VI TO REVISION 2 Revision 2 fails to demonstrate that adequate personnel are available l
to respond, or to augment their initial response on a continuous l
l basis, in the event of radiological emergency.
10 CFR 5 50. 47 (b) (1) (10).
BASIS:
The bases for Contention VI set forth in CONTENTIONS OF THE TOMM OF HAMPTON TO RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR THE TOmi OF HAMPTON. NEW HAMPSHIRE. NOVEMBER, 1985, and revised Contentior VI set forth in CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF HAMPTON TO REVIST,D.
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN AND TO COMPENSATORY PLAN FOR THE TOWM OF HAMPTON. NEW HAMPSHIRE, are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
By way of further basis:
(A)
Revision 2 provides that 28 local traffic guards are required for the Town of Hampton and Hampton Beach, Vol. 6, p. 8-11, 24 SMalNES M ACRtGAN & McEACHERN ** oats 5Ch*L ASSOC 3&Po=
as maetrwooo ave =us eo son aeo eoenwow*== 03eo'
- - * ~
l i
although the Hampton Police Department only has a total of 24 j
i j
full time officers in the entire force.
Vol. la, p. IV-41.
Even adopting the State's implicit, and unreasonsable, assumption that the l
entire Hampton police force would be immediately available to respond l
l to a radiological emergency, the force simply does not have adequate personnel to man the traffic control points, Vol. 6, p. 8-11, Vol. 18, i
j
- p. IV-43, to provide EOC security, Vol. 18, p. IV-42, to provide security patrols throughout the Town, Vol. 18, p. IV-43, to provide those people within Hampton at the time of emergency with backup l
public alerting, Vol. 18, IV-41, or to close and patrol the town beaches.
Vol. 18A App. G-3.
i (B)
In an effort to compensate for the lack of local personnel to adequately respond to a radiological emergency, Revision 2 provides that the New Hampshire State Police will provide " assistance to local police departments for law enforcement and traffic control."
Vol. 1,
- p. 1.3-20.
State Police Troop A is the only State Police force in reasonable proximity to the EPZ.
Since Troop A, however, has only 35 troopers, and 44 officers are required to staff the access control points for the EPZ, FEMA has properly concluded that Troop A does not even have sufficient personnel for access control, FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86, p. 46.
Necessarily, Troop A has no 25 SM AiNES M AORiGAN & MCEACHERN * **CFESSC=46*SSOC:**0%
29 wa*LDrOOO avg %wg o o con 340 - 'O*'1wou
%= C380'
additional personnel to assist local municipalities, such as Hampton, vol. 1, p. 1.3-20, lacks resources to provide any traffic control t
beyond access control within the EPZ, will be unable to respond to requests from DOT to provide road barriers, signs, or road clearance l
during evacuation, or otherwise to perform the excessive number of j
i duties assigned to the State Police under Revision 2.
Vol. 2, p.
i i'
l.3-20 and 21.
FEMA has therefore properly noted that "even with help from other troops, the State Police force could be seriously depleted and law enforcement possibly impaired."
FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86 at p. 46.
i (C)
Revision 2 additionally fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate personnel are available to implement the NHRERP in the event of radiological emergency on grounds including:
1.
The Hampton Public tiorks Director is responsible for transporting transients out of the EPZ, Vol. 18, p. II-28, although it is unclear where this additional transportation may be obtained; 2.
The Hampton Town Manager is responsible for insuring 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> staffing of all town departments during an emergency, Vol. 18, p.
IV-9, although Revision 2 fails to specify what personnel is.available to insure an adequate personnel pool; 26 I
$MaiNES. waomiGAN & McEACHERN - **ortsse=as assoc eno=
29 ****LfwooO avt'ewg
- o Don 360 moetguoyfte som osmos
4 3.
The Public Norks Department is required to keep evacuation routes free during evacuation, Vol. 18, p. IV-27 to 33, although most members of the Public Works Department are not tiained l
for, and have no experience in, traffic control management.
Vol. 18, i
App C-3.
4.
There is no showing that the Rockingham County Sheriff's Department has adequate manpower to carry out its duties under Revision 2.
See e.g. Vol. 18, p. II-16a.
5.
There are no letter agreements with Hampton school personnel, many of whom have indicated, understandably, that in the event of evacuation, their first duties would lie with their families, and not in carrying out their duties under Revision 2.
REVISED CONTENTION VIII TO REVISION 2 Revision 2 fails to provide adequate emergency equipment, facilities, or personnel to support an emergency response and fails to demonstrate that adequate protective responses can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency.
10 CFR 50.47 (1) ( 8) (10).
27
$N ALN ES. M AD RIG AN & MC EACM ERN + **CFtS94*ag a950Cs.*Om 29 ma*LEWCCO avtmug 80 som MO *C#7woum==C M
i l
BASIS:
The bases for Contention VIII set forth in COMTEM* IONS OF l
l THE TOMM OF HAMPTON TO RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPOUSE PLAN FOR THE TOMM OF HAMPTOM. MEN HAMPSHIRE, NOVEMBER, 1985, and Revised Contention VIII set forth in CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF HAMPTOM TO REVISED RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN AND TO COMPENSATORY PLAN FOR THE l
TOWN OF HAMPTOM. NEW HAMPSHIRE, are hereby realleged and incorporated I
i by reference herein.
By way of further basis:
The Seacoast Health Center is a residential facility for the elderly located in Hampton, New Hampshire.
The State has indicated that evacuation of handicapped and special needs individuals is a g
" municipality responsibility."
RAC Review, August, 1986,Section I,
- p. 66.
Since Hampton will not implement Revision 2 if called upon to do so, and, as evidenced by the exercise, the State is unable to provide local communities with adequate bus transportation, FEMA, Final Exercism Assessment, 6/2/86 at p. 40, Revision 2 fails to provide reasonable assurance that the 107 elderly residents of the Seacoast Health Center will be properly and timely evacuated in the 28 5H AINES. W AORIGAN & MCEACHERN
- ortsso=46 assoc..co=
23 wastesroco avgesyg. e O 90s 100 *C#MwCbN== C3ece
. - =
- ~ -.
v
~w-n
event of radiological emergency.
Vol. 18, Attachment B-1.
Additionally, the State assumes that 40 special facilities individuals, including residents of the Seacoast Health Center, may be boarded on an evacuation bus, with personal belongings, medical supplies, and related items, within 10 minutes.3 RAC Review.
l August. 1325,Section VI; Vol. 18A, Seacoast Health Center, pp. 13, 14, irrespective of time of day, time of year, variations in staff depending on shift, or number of residents which may happen to be bedridden for medical reasons.
The proposition is absurd.
- Finally, the State relies upon an unspecified " technical assessment" of the sheltering capabilities of the Seacoast Health Center, which will form the basis for ordering protective actions, including ordering staff and residents of the Health Center to shelter, while the general population evacuates.4 Vol. 18, p. 15.
Absent further i
3 A similarly erroneous acsumption is made to compute evacuation times for Hampton schools.
Since school children will be evacuated by bus only if their parents have not already picked the children up at school, Vol. 18A, App. F, p. 1-5, a major traffic jam at the schools must be anticipated.
4 Revision 2 is unclear whether a similar " technical assessment" for Hampton schools has been compiled, as part of emergency planning.
29 1
SNAINES. M ACRIGAN & MCEACHERN
- cFE55Chak *Stocta*om as meetswooo avawus eo son zoo aceswoum== ossos
I documentation in Revision 2, such a procedure would appear to avoid j
the inherent and substantial difficulties in evacuating this special needs population, by relying on the expediency of sheltering, j
I notwithstanding the increased threat of radioilogical exposure to the I
residents.
i Dated:
October 31, 1986 Respectfully submitted, SHAINES & McEACHERN
[
Attorneys for the Town of Hampton j
I
.h
\\c By:
Matthew T. Brock i
e 30 r
SM AINES. M ACRIGAN & MCEACHERN - *=ortssc=*wassocianose as unemo avsa.us e o son 3eo *oenuouw== ossoe
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0 x wE:E.
"i' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD T:6 DEC -5 A1C:d2 Before Administrative Judges:
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson rF.:
.';C; Emeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (ASLBPNo. 82-471-02-OL) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, g d.
(Offsita Emergency Planning)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
December 4, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Establishing Hearing Schedule (On Offsite Issues Raised by NHRERP_)
On November 12, 1986 the State of New Hampshire, through its Attorney General, repcrted on the status of the NHRERP. The Board notes l
the progress of the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency in distribution,
of the copies of the HH plan, Revision 2, to cogtrolled' copy holders and the continued review of the plan by state planners as well as questions and comments by the holders of the controlled copies ~, FEMA and the
^~
- n..:.w -. -
..~
.:..'--*i..' E Regional Assistance Cosetttee' reviewers. With the early filing of l
^
~
(
.u.contentions.by several parties. based on, Revision 2.,the Board has seen -
n 2.
. _, r..
n.
- that parties..to.this proceeding h' ave alsd been engaged in review and.
~
' 1 T. "'. l 7 ~
1.~:.% w. :
-. ~...
?f, C
. 8 9 @.~. E.
quest. ions on the NHRERP (Revision 2). formulated as~ late-filed -,
,......,...-i:..--
- r ~.. ;..
~
coni.ention's'.'~We ' note'also,the two,ta'sks tha't).are',o'ccupying the NHCDA i
.4.
are the final development on a program for training'of emergency
)
\\
responders which will permit training efforts to begin soon.~ The second T..
t..n +
D
_,.___._,,_,,.,_.,m_,,
.-_,-....-.,_y,.,,y__
.-e-,.
(
2 task is the hardware side where NHCDA is conducting a review of the resource requirement for the state and local entities and an inventory of the emergency equipment already purchased and installed to date. The towns within the Seabrook EPZ are being asked to identify any remaining resource needs.I "The resource inventory and needs detennination will be cross-checked with Revision 2 of the NHRERP to ensure that all resources identified in the plan vill be in place." (Report of the Status of the NH RERP, November 12, 1986, page 2).
In response to our Order of November 14, 1986 requesting that parties submit a proposed hearing schedule for contentions based on.
NHRERP, we have received several schedules varying from a start for these hearings in March 1987 or September 1987.2 We note that four
'..'y I
The Board urges the towns within the Seabrook EPZ to identify any remaining resource needs for the NHCDA since a failure to do so y
.;~
wculd impact on this Board's determination of whether a town's resource needs questioned through a contention were genuine or not.
l 2
l Applicants' Proposals for Scheduling Order for NH Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions - November 20, 1986; SAPL's ResDonse and "7
Objection to Memorandum and Order of Novemoer 4,1986 and Motion
'f.
8*
for Clarification and Reconsideration - November 15, 1986; Town of Hampton Response to Board Order of November 4,1986 and Motion to i
Defer Hearing Schedule and Alternative Proposed Schedule -
4 November 19, 1986; Response of State of Ntt to Board's November 4,
..s L 1986 Memorandum and Order - November 20, 1986; Town of Amesbury's Proposed Hearing Schedule - November 20, 1986; NRC Staff's Proposed Schedule for Hearings on the NHRERP - November 21, 1986; NECNP's Motion for Reconsideration and Response to Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of November 4,1986 - November 21, 1986; and Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti's Response and Objection to Memorandum and Order of November 4,1986 and Motion for Reconsideration - November 21, 1986.
3 intervenors (MASS AG, NECNP, TOH and SAPL) filed nearly identical schedules.
The Board has considered those proposed schedules in addition te our understanding of the continuing dynamic process for the NHRERP described to us by the State of NH in its November status report.
The Board finds that there has been a strong showing by NH that the NH plan is ready for litigation and there is no reason to reconsider our November 4,1986 Order. The matter of " integrated hearings" (NH and MASS RERP) is a non-issue and will not be revisited by the Board. Our determination that all contentions based on the NHRERP would be heard in one series of hearings is reaffirmed. To accomplish this task, we set forth the following schedule:
Schedule for NH Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions Deadlines
. :.3.
Date l
% December 1,1986 Late-filed contentions arising out of NHRERP Rev. 2 due.
l December 16, 1986 Parties other than Staff respond.
, o. e... '.a i.
. ^' ' December 22, 1986 Staff response to contentions.
.. ~. s December 29, 1986 Replies of Intervenors to Applicants
. U 6:.'c
. and Staff Responses.
- .: t.E '
' ', J ' I
~ ~ January 16, 1987 Board Order ruling on contentions, discovery connances.
i.'-J., '
J;..' i February 3,1987-
. :- Discovery closed (last discovery
!;y "
request due).-
- l. '..
' A.. ';
.h
,f.f.'5.'.
~~
,a
[
~
4 February 16, 1987 Answers to last interrogatories due within 14 days after the close of discovery.
February 23, 1987 Deadline for motions for sumary disposition on late-filed Rev. 2 Contentions admitted or for other contentions as to which circumstances have changed such that sumary disposition is now appropriate.
March 16, 1987 Response opposing or supporting motions due within 20 days.
March 27, 1987 Opposing parties may file responses to new facts and arguments presented in statements supporting motions for sununary disposition.
April 10,1987 Board Order ruling on motions for sunmary disposition.
April 20,1987 Prefiled testimony due 10 days after Board ruling on motions for summary disposition.
No sooner than Hearings comence.
April 27,1987.3 I
The Board directs that service of' papers relating to offsite
~
emergency planning contentions be effected by express mail or personal 4
delivery in any instance where nomal service would not result in actual receipt of those papers on or before a deadline for the filing of those l
l papers. As has been this Board's custom, the date for filing of any l
.1..
c -
3 The Board has left this date uncertain depending on arrangements for space and location. Board will issue an order when it has completed the arrangements.
4
i 5
i d
pleading means that the pleading be delivered in hand to the par this Board on that date.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN ING BOARD
/_ ]
/
s.
'4LHelen F. Hoyt, Gnaifp6 Administrative Judge Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of December 1986.
I l
l l
l l
EXHIBIT 2 ijn!TED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q/{@MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 56 DE 23 A1: :0t..
Before Administrative Judges:
DEC 2 6 1986 seien F. Hoyt, Chairperson s.
~
Emeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour E. p. g.
ggg.; w osc 2 5 isas in the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-0L
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
(ASLBP No. 82 471-02-OL) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
(Offsite Emergency Planning) 1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
December 23, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Applicants' Petition Under 10 CFR 2.758 and 10 CFR 5].47(c) with Respect To The Regulations Reouf ring Planning Fcr A Plurre Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Znre In Excess Of A One-Mile Radius together with supporting docurents was filed with this Board on December 19, 1986.
As provided by 10 CFR 2.758(b), any other party to this proceeding nay file a response to Applicants' petition by counter-affidavit or otherwise.
All responses from the NRC Staff and parties will be #iled for delivery in hand to the Board no later than close of business on January 27, 1987.
After examination of the responses, the Board will determine if oral arguments are deemed necessary.
FOR THE AT MIC SAFETY AND LIC SING BOAPD
/
va[
dse.
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairpersy Administrative Judge I
1
EXHIBIT 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00 OC 24 E2 I6 MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!ON L
COMMISSIONERS:
Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Chairnan Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal Kenneth M. Carr 912 DEC 24 GR6 i
)
In the Matter of
)
}
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, E2 AL,
) (Off-site Emergency Planning)
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
)
ORDER Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.7~2, Intervenors' Joint Petition for Appointment of Administrative Judge and Request for Hearing, dated, December 22, 1986 is directed to the Chief Administrative Judge of the Cornission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
With respect to Intervenors' alternative request to the Commission under 10 C.F.R. 2.718(i) in Intervenors' Joint Motion for Immediate Stay of ASLB Proceedings, dated December 22, 1986, Commission authority under 10 CFR 2.718(1) has been delegated to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
Accordingly, any such motion Intervenors may wish to file should be filed directly with the Appeal Board.
r g;
It'is so ORDERED.
gf Aa R q 4>**
~
For.the Commission 5:
\\
r_ (
/5lV ANDREW L.
3ATES Acting Secretary of the Commission Dated at Washington, D.C.
ay of O.
c.
-l 1986.
this
'I
p er-eisre D DEC 2 9 1986 E. P. IJ.
l
A.
g DOLKETEP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA usNPC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 JMI -2 P5 :44 In the Matter of
[0
.[J
)
Draw.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald S.
Bronstein, hereby certify that on December 30, 1986 I made service of the within documents by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, by first class mail, or as indicated by an asterisk 7
by Federal Express mail, to:
- Helen Hoyt, Chairperson
- Dr.
Emmeth A.
Luebke Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Third Floor Mailroom Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
- Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building Tenth Floor 4350 East West Highway 7735 Old Georgetown Road Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Stephen E. Merrill Assistant General Counsel Attorney General Office of General Counsel George Dana Bisbee Federal Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General
. Agency Office of the Attorney General
-500 C Street, S.W.
25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 03301
.]
t,
' Docketing and Service Paul A.
Fritzsche, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Public Advocate Commission State House Station 112 Washington, DC.
20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Roberta C.
Pevear Ms. Diana P. Randall State Representative 70 Collins Street Town of Hampton Falle Seabrook, NH 03874 Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty
. Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market Street Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Paul McEachern, Esq.
J.
P.
Nadeau Matthew T.
Brock, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Shaines & McEachern 10 Central Road 25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH 03870 P.O.
Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Mr. Calvin A.
Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall Rte. 107 126 Daniel Street E.
Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator <Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angelo Machiros, Chairman U.S.
Senate Board of Selectmen Washington, DC 20510 25 High Road (Attn: Tom Burack)
Newbury, MA 10950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter J.
Matthews 1 Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Donald E. Chick Mr. William Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913._ -- -_-
a Brentwood Board of Selectmen Gary W.
Holmes, Esq.
RFD Dalton Road Holmes & Ellis Brentwood, NH 03833 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Harmon & Weiss Department of the Attorney Suite 430 General 2001 S Street, N.W.
State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333 Thomas G.
Dignan, Esq.
Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
R.K.
Gad III, Esq.
Hampe & McNicholas Ropes & Gray 35 Pleasant Street 225 Franklin Street Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02110 Beverly Hollingworth Edward A. Thomas a
209 Winnacunnet Road Federal Emergency Management Hampton, NH 03842 Agency 442 J.W.
McCormack (POCH)
Boston, MA 02109 William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Jewell Street, RFD 2 10 Front Street South Hampton, NH 03827 Exeter, NH 03833 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 Allen Lampert Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson Civil Defense Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Town of Brentwood Board Panel 20 Franklin Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, DC 20555 Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
McKay, Murphy & Graham Silvergate, Gertner, Baker, Old Post Office Square Fine, Good & Mizner 100 Main Street 88 Broad Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Boston, MA 02110 4 -.
Rep. Edward J. Markey, Chairman
- Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman U.S. House of Representatives Atomic Safety & Licensing Subcommittee on Energy Appeal Board Conservation and Power U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room H2-316 East West Towers Building House Office Building Third Floor Mailroom Annex No. 2 4350 East West Highway Washington, DC 20515 Bethesda, MD 20814 Attn:
Linda Correia
- Gary J.
Edles
- Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building Third Floor Mailroom Third Floor Mailroom 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Y
+1 (
Donald S.
Bronstein Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division December 30, 1986 l
4-
_