ML20235V778
| ML20235V778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1989 |
| From: | Talbot P MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235V769 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8903100330 | |
| Download: ML20235V778 (71) | |
Text
_-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.y
- 4.
g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
Before Administrative Judges:
Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom i
j
.)
)
In the Matter of
)
)
s PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket No.(s)
J NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL.
)
50-443/444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Offsite EP
)
February 21, 1989
)
I i
TRIAL BRIEF O U HE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORREX GENERAL ON JOINT INTERVENOR CONTENTIONS ON THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES (SPMC) i l
4
)
8903100330 890221 PDR ADOCK 05000443
)..
O PDR I
l i
1
- ~
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE l
INTRODUCTION 1-EVACUATION PROCESS 3
Contention JI 4 3
Contention JI 5 7
o L
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 8
Contention JI 9-8 Contentions JI 11 and 12 10 Contention JI 15 13 PAR GENERATION 15 Contentions JI 17, 18 and 19 15' EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS BY' TELEPHONE 22 i
Contention JI 30 22 l
PRE-EMERGENCY INFORMATION 26 Contention JI 39
'26 SCHOOL CHILDREN 29 Contention JI 45 29 SPECIAL FACILITIES 34 Contentions JI 46, 47 and 50 34 HOST SPECIAL FACILITIES 39 Contention JI 51 39 RESIDENT SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION 41 Contentions JI 48 and 49 41 ZONING LAWS IN HAVERHILL 53 Contention JI 53 53 AMERICAN RED CROSS 55 Contention JI 54 55 MANNED VEHICLES 61 Contentions JI 34(c), 55 and 58 61 EXECUTORY CONTRACTS 64 Contention JI 59 64
'l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
Before Administrative Judges:
j' Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom
)
In the Matter of
)
j
)
PUBLIC SERVICE' COMPANY OF
)
Docket No.(s)
.J NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL.
)
50-443/444-OL I
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Offsite EP
)
February 21, 1989
-l
)
IRIAL BRIEF OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL ON JOINT INTERVENOR CONTENTIONS ON THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES (SPMC)
Pursuant to the Licensing Board ORDER issued at the pr3 hearing conference on January 19, 1989, T.15586, the Mass AG hereby files a trial brief summarizing the testimony and documentation filed this date in support cf the " pure SPMC" q
Joint Intervenor Contentions.
The trial brief further explains l
in summary form how this evidence is probative on the issues raised in these Joint Intervenor Contentions, and how this evidence rebuts the FEMA presumption that the SPMC is adequate.1#
1 1/
The Mass AG has been authorized to state that the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution hereby adopts and incorporates the testimony, supporting documentation, and trial brief filed by the Mass AG to the extent relevant to those contentions that NECNP will litigate in this proceeding.
3 i'
Although this filing-is'made.in.accordance with this Board's Scheduling Order, Een ASLBp No.. 82-471-02-OL (1/24/89),
the Mass AG reasserts that the schedule is so compressed as to violate the due process rights of'the Massachusetts Attorney General, and has prevented the Mass-AG.from filing additional, probative testimony and other evidence in support of.various JI contentions'.
On certain additional JI Contentions, the Mass AG has'been precluded by'the schedule from preparing any direct u
testimony whatsoever.
Interveners' appeal of the scheduling order is presently.
l under review.
See, Joint Interveners' Motion For Directed Certification Of The Licensino Board's Schedulina Order of j
danuary 24, 1989 dated February 3, 1989.
1 )
_____---__-_-_-_-_-_-_-------Q
- v I.
EVACUATIQN_EBOCESS JI CONTENTION 4:
Traffic Management Plan A.
Contention and Issues Raised Contention JI-4 raises the issue of the adequacy of the SPMC's Traffic Management Plan.
It asserts that "[t]he evacuation plan contained in the SPMC is so poorly designed and so inadequately staffed that, even if State and local officials are assumed to make a best efforts response, there is no reasonable assurance that either the permanent residents or the transients can or will be evacuated as efficiently as possible."
As bases, the contention asserts that (A) the number of traffic control personnel relied upon is inadequate; (B) insufficient capacity-enhancing measures and other poorly conceived traffic control strategies are utilized; and (C) the traffic control diagrams contained in the SPMC (Appendix J) are not sufficiently clear to allow the SPMC's traffic management plan to be implemented.
Other contentions which bear on the adequacy of the traffic management plan will be the topics of testimony filed in the second phase, e.g.,
the adequacy of the training provided to the NHY ORO's Traffic Guides.
One factor that Interveners believe will have a major detrimental effect on the implementability of the SPMC's traffic management plan is the likelihood of substantial I
i i
unstable and disorderly driver behavior.
In a prior Board ruling, however, the Board has determined that this "is not l
_3_
1 l
1
l 1'
expected to be a significant factor in the event of an emergency at Seabrook."
NHRERP decision at 168.
In admitting JI-4's parent contentions (primarily MAG-37) this issue was excluded.
While the Interveners intend to vigorously appeal both these rulings, for now we have attempted -- to the extent possible -- to bypass this issue and present testimony on the l
underlying inadequacies of the SpMC's traffic management plan.
Nothing more than " normal" driver behavior on busy days was posited for this testimony.
B.
The FEMA Finding As will be established through cross examination of the FEMA witness (es), FEMA did not even attempt to evaluate the adequacy of the SpMC's traffic management plan.
FEMA's Review and Evaluation of the SpMC, in assessing " evaluation criterion" l
J.9, does contain this conclusory statement:
"NHY ORO has established the capabilities for effecting the evacuation of the general public and Special populations.
NHY ORO has designated staff, equipment, and resources to effect evacuation and to establish Secess control points (ACps) for evacuated areas."
FEMA Report at 57.
But no support is given for these conclusions, and indeed FEMA has no basis for making them.
All FEMA has done is to note, in checklist fashion, that the plan has something labeled " traffic management plan" and has identified ORO staffers to attempt to carry out that " plan."
Whether those ORO staffers have an adequate plan and can in fact carry it out has not been evaluated by FEMA.
C.
Identity of Witnesses The Mass AG understands that some of the Mass EPZ communities will be submitting testimony on JI-4.
In addition, the Mass AG will present the testimony of two witnesses to rebut the FEMA finding, to the extent that there is one.
These witnesses are Dr. Thomas Adler and Acting Chief Frank Beevers of the Salisbury, Massachusetts, Police Department.
D.
Puroose of Testimony The overall purpose of this testimony is to establish that the SPMC's traffic management plan is so poorly designed, inadequately staffed, and inadequately equipped (using only traffic cones) that it is not capable of producing any more efficient evacuation, especially of the the Massachusetts beach areas, than would occur if the SPMC's traffic management plan were not implemented at all.
In fact, the testimony will show that attempts to implement the SPMC's traffic management plan will likely increase evacuation times, not reduce them.
A much better plan could be devised, but it would take substantial additional manpower and equipment, and the thoughtful incorporation of a variety of additional traffic control strategies not employed in the SPMC.
The SPMC's " traffic management plan" is at best a half-hearted attempt at traffic control designed only to satisfy federal regulators with checklists.
It has not been designed to work in the real world. i
l
~
E.
Eummary of the Testimony 4
In his testimony, Frank Beevers, the Acting Chief of police for Salisbury, describes the roads in the Salisbury beach area f
and discusses the traffic conditions that occur in the beach area on most weekends in summer.
The traffic is extremely heavy and congested as it leaves the Salisbury beach area along Beach Road almost every Sunday afternoon in the summertime.
Lengthy traffic back-ups on Beach Road between the center of Salisbury and the beach area are very common.
This also happens on Route 286.
These conditions are substantially worse on Sunday afternoons when a rainstorm develops.
Severe traffic jams with certain gridlock points develop.
In such circumstances, the three Salisbury police officers are unable to have any practical effect in expediting the traffic flow.
In the event of an emergency at Seabrook which prompts the closing of the beaches, Chief Beevers states that the traffic conditions will be much more congested than in a sudden rain, j
because all of the people in the beach area, not just the l
day-trippers, will be leaving.
The traffic in the beach area will be so congested that it will be beyond the capability of his three patrolmen to control, with or without traffic cones l
to assist them.
In Beevers opinion, three ORO Traffic Guides
(
1 1
in the beach area would fare no better than his officers in
{
attempting to facilitate traffic flow, and they could make l
conditions worse.
Chief Beevers concludes that the SpMC's
{
i traffic management plan for Salisbury is wholly inadequate to l
l the task.
l i l
i 1
i t
1
t i
)
JI CONTENTION 5 A.
Contention JI 5 asserts that "[t]he method utilized by the SpMC for l
1 surveillance and removal of road blockages is not adequate to l
ensure that road blockages will be identified and removed promptly enough and the communications procedures for dispatching tow vehicles once blockages have been spotted are too cumbersome and ineffective."
B.
The FEMA Findino As will be established through the cross examination of the i
a FEMA witness (es), FEMA did not evaluate the adequacy of the j
method of surveillance for road blockages, the procedures for dispatching tow vehicles, or the plans for basing two tow vehicles in each community at the Transfer point.
C.
Witnesses The Interveners have no witnesses to present other than the I
Mass AG's investigators Maureen Mangan and John paolillo, who j
will be presenting testimony regarding the supply of manned
{
vehicles, including tow trucks.
This is a contention which, j
bl't for the Board's unfairly compressed scheduling order, the Mass AG would have addressed with additional expert testimony from Dr. Thomas Adler.
Absent this testimony, the Mass AG will f
attempt to establish the validity of the assertions contained in this contention by cross examining FEMA's and Applicants' witnesses.
O o
l II.
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING JI 9:
STRIKES AND JOB ACTIONS A.
Statement of Issues Contention JI 9 asserts that the SPMC is inadequate since the plan fails to provide for compensatory procedures to be employed in the event ORO staff are unavailable for emergency response due to strikes or other job actions.
The issues presented by JI 9 include:
Whether the SPMC represents inadequate planning for failure to provide for alternative staffing of the ORO, or other i
compensatory measures, in the event of strikes and job actions.
1 B.
The FEMA Findina l
In evaluating the adequacy of the SPMC, there is no evidence that FEMA considered the issues presented by JI9.
There is no evidence that FEMA considered the impact of strikes or job actions on the adequacy of emergency response, or on the f
availability of necessary personnel to meet an emergency.
As a consequence of these failures at plan review, the FEMA finding of adequacy, including the finding concerning 10 CFR 50. 47 (b)
(1) and (2), and II. A.
and II.
B.
of NUREg 0654/ FEMA REP-1, REV-1, SUPP 1, is unsupported.
The prima facie case of plan adequacy is rebutted.
i C.
Identification of Witnesses
)
l The Mass AG will rely upon cross examination of FEMA l
personnel to establish the evidence supporting JI9.
I l l
b D.
Purcose and Summarv of the Evidence The purpose of_the evidence to be presented by Mass AG on JI9 is to demonstrate that provisions for emergency personnel-in the SPMC are not adequate or in compliance with regulatory requirements.- The Mass AG intends to-prove that the_ FEMA finding on the adequacy of the SPMC concerning'this issue lacks evidentiary support,.is entitled to no weight, and the presumption of' plan adequacy rebutted.
The' evidence will focus upon.the failure of the SPMC to provide for alternative personnel to staff the ORO in the event of strikes or other job actions, and the risks to public safety, and regulatory inadequacies, occassioned by these circumstances.
Egg Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), 21 NRC 644, 888 (1985).
l..
JI Contentions 11 & 12:
(Adequate Staffing for Evacuation -
Specific Positions)
A.
Contentions and Issues Contentions JI-11 and JI-12 assert that the SPMC does not provide for adequate, continuous (24-hour) staffing for certain key positions that are active only during an evacuation.
These positions are referred to in the SPMC and the contentions as
" evacuation-specific" positions.
JI-11/ Basis A asserts that the "SPMC does not provide for> capability of continuous operations for a protracted period of time," because inter alia, it " fails to identify adequate mechanisms for providing second shifts and backup personnel" and " fails to provide assurance of continuity of personnel from the contracted companies."
Basis B and D of JI-ll and all of JI-12 focus the concern about ORO's staffing (apart from contracted companies) on the SPMC's evacuation-specific positions:
Traffic Guides, Reception Center Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel, Reception Center Staff, Route Guides, and Dosimetry Record-Keepers.
B.
FEMA's Position i
As will be established through cross examination of FEMA's
)
witness (es), FEMA did not evaluate the adequacy of the mechanism in the SPMC for continuously staffing the evacuation specific positions.
In FEMA's Review and Evaluation of the SPMC (Dec. 1988),
l 1
FEMA evaluates the SPMC with respect to criterion A.4 of NUREG-0654.
That criterion states as follows:
i
_lo_
L L
l l
l The offsite response organization shall be capable of continuous (24-hour) operations for a protracted period.
The individual in the offsite response organization who will be responsible for assuring continuity of resources (technical, administrative, and material) shall be specified by title.
In assessing whether the SpMC met this criterion, FEMA noted that the plan designates two shifts of personnel "for most positions."
FEMA's SpMC Report at 13 (Dec. 1988).
The Report then summarizes what the SpMC does with the remaining positions:
The plan states (Section 2.1.1) that certain evacuation related positions, as identified in Figure 2.1-1, only require one shift.
In addition, the plan provides a 20%
staffing cushion for the single shift positions to account for those who might be unavailable at any particular time.
FEMA's SpMC Report at 13.
FEMA's evaluation of whether this one-shift staffing meets criterion A.4 is one word:
" Adequate."
Id.
No reasoning is given.
It appears, therefore, that FEMA has accepted without 1
i reservation the notion that these evacuation related positions i
require only one shift.
I C.
Identity of Witness Interveners will offer the testimony of Geary W. Sikich in support of their position of these issues.
D.
Purcose and Summary of Testimony The overall purpose of this testimony is to prove that the ORO will not be able to provide adequate, continuous staffing for the evacuation-specific positions.
The testimony establishes three main points:
i I
.~
t 1.
Is it not prudent to-presume for planning purposes that, after these evacuation-specific workers are mobilized, an evacuation PAR will issue and the functions these workers will perform will be comoleted before these workers need to be i
- relieved, i
2.
It is not adequate to rely on the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plan for the ORO's additional second-shift evacuation-specific workers.
This is not currently a viable or adequate mechanism.
3.
The SPMC's staffing plans are not adequate with respect to the drivers of the buses, vans, ambulances and otner manned vehicles, and some additional second-shift capability is required.
The SPMC's staffing plans for these drivers is inadequate without adding a second-shift capability.
i
)
1 l
l o
I l
JI 15:
Personal Liability of ORO Emergency Workers A.
Statement of Issues i
Contention JI 15 asserts that, as a consequence of the potential for the personal-liability of ORO emergency workers who implement the SPMC, the emergency response of these personnel is unpredictable and unreliable.
Under these circumstances, there is no reasonable assurance that ORO personnel designated to implement the SPMC will respond fully and timely to an emergency.
B.
The FEMA Finding In evaluating the adequacy of the SPMC, there is no evidence that FEMA considered the issues presented by JI 15.
There is no evidence that FEMA considered the impact of personal liability of ORO personnel on the adequacy of emergency response, or on the willingness and availability of these emergency workers to implement the SPMC.
As a consequence of these failures at plan review, the FEMA finding of adequacy, including the finding concerning 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1)'and (2) and II.A. and II.B. of NUREG 0654/ FEMA j
l REP-1, REV.1, SUPP 1, is unsupported.
q 1
The prima facie case of plan adequacy is rebutted.
j l
C.
Identification of witnesses
)
l The MASS AG will rely upon cross-examination of FEMA j
l personnel to establish the evidence supporting JI 15.
l a t
l l
--- a
D.
' Purpose and Summary of the Evidence The purpose of the evidence to be presented by MASS AG l:
<on JI 15 is to demonstrate that provisions for personnel in the SPMC are not adequate or in compliance with regulatory requirements.
The MASS AG-intends to_-prove that the FEMA l
finding on the adequacy of the SPMC concerning this~ issue lacks evidentiary support, is entitled to no weight, and the presumption of plan adequacy rebutted.
By cross-examination, the MASS AG further intends to establish that FEMA has failed to conduct a plan review of sufficient scope, or to consider whether an adequate and reliable response by ORO personnel may be reasonably assured, under circumstances where these individuals may be personally liable for implementing the SPMC.
The evidence will show that, on the present record, Applicants have failed to sustain their ultimate burden that there are adequate, available personnel who will actually respond to implement the SPMC in an emergency.
I _
l l
III.
PAR GENERATION JI 17, 18,.19:
CONTENTIONS DEALING WITH PROTECTIVE ACTION DECISION MAKING A.
Identify Contentions and State Issues The contentions addressed in the testimony filed in'this first phase of the proceeding include JI 17, JI 18 (except Basis F), and JI 19.
Although there are other SPMC' contentions l
that concern adequate protective action decisionmaking, these contentions involve exercise results in such a way that the parties have stipulated that the' testimony would be-filed on.
them in the second phase.
Nonetheless, the Mass AG-anticipates that for purposes of clarity and efficiency all of the contentions involving protective action decisionmaking - from both the first and second phase - would be grouped together and the testimony filed in regard to these issues would be treated as one bloc for purposes of allocating hearing time.
The issues presented-by the contentions for which the Mass AG is presently filing testimony include the following:
1.
Does the SPMC provide a range of protective measures for the population within the Massachusetts portion of~
the Seabrook plume exposure EPZ7 To the extent that the plan relies on evacuation no matter how effective or ineffective it may be in. tight of the particular circumstances as the protective action for large numbers of people has it provided a
" range" as required by the regulations? - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _.
l
~
L 2.
In the absence of any determination by the planners with regard to the relative effectiveness of 1
sheltering certain portions of the population as compared to evacuation does the planning effort for Massachusetts at this point support a finding that " adequate protective measures" can l
l and will be taken?
l
- 3. Have the planners properly considered the theoretical basis that supports the usual or " generic" protective action recommendations as set forth in the regulatory literature?
That literature makes clear that the relative effectiveness of evacuation versus sheltering (and therefore its appropriateness for any particular site) is based on a set of assumptions about the following factors:
a.
population density in the annular rings around the reactor site; b.
the speed with which an evacuation could be effected once it is begun; c.
the de facto exchange of one type of exposure (low levels at greater distances) for another (high levels for a different population located closer to the reactor) which is the basis of the " graded response" recommended by the NRC and the accompanying health effects; d.
the relative effectiveness of sheltering as compared to evacuation when certain j
assumptions about that evacuation and that
{
sheltering are made.
I 1 )
l l
4.
Have the planners properly weighted the benefits of j
sheltering the Seabrook populations within the Massachusetts EpZ by correctly analyzing those factors to be assessed in calculating the benefits of a sheltering strategy?
Those factors include:
a.
the time required to implement sheltering which should include the time required to relocate the sheltered populations at the appropriate time; j
l b.
the appropriate shielding factor represented i
by the average structure available to those j
in the Massachusetts EpZ; c.
the ground shine dose from skin and car deposition that has to be factored into any accurate comparative benefits analysis in light of the length of any summer time evacuation strategy; d.
the appropriate air exchange rate reflecting the nature of the structures available to the population:
- 5. Have the planners properly designed their protective action strategy in light of the following factors:
a.
the goals of emergency planning for commercial nuclear plants; b.
the nature of the accident planning spectrum for purposes of articulating and realizing those f
goals; i.e.,
which accidents should the emergency plan be designed to handle and which accidents in the planning basis provide enough inherent lead time to permit ad hoc response to remain adequate; c.
the problem of uncertainty at the time at which a decision must be made; L
'l 1
d.
the possibility that any given site may be able l
to be reconfigure
- by reducing population, increasing the speed of evacuation or creating new sheltering opportunities - so as to lower the
[
I risks presented by a serious accident.
i l
B.
The FEMA findina As will be established through the cross examination of the FEMA wi'. ness (es) FEMA did not set itself she task of l
-establishing the effectiveness of the protective action decisionmaking set forth in the SpMC either in the sense that FEMA compared the absolute dose savings that might be realized I
as a result of the implementation of the SpMC as compared to no f
i plan at all or in the gente that FEMA comoared the relative dose savinos that the present desian of the SpMC would orovide as compared to the dose savinas that could hg achieved if different orotective action stratecies were implemented.
As a result of the limitations of the FEMA review, the issues presented by the contentions here are simply not addressed by the FEMA finding and therefore the Interveners have rebutted
{
the prima facie case of plan adequacy.
C.
Identity of Witnesses The Interveners offer the testimony of Robert Goble, Gordon Thompson, Jan Beyea and Thomas Adler in support of their position on these issues.
Dr. Adler's views will be presented in a separate piece of testimony filed this date.
l l - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _
D.
Ihr Puroose of the Testimony The overall purpose of the testimony is to establish that the SpMC does not provide an adequate basis for a finding that the protective action decisionmaking that will be employed in the event of a Seabrook emergency is effective in adequately protecting the public.
The testimony will establish this by setting forth the. underlying purposes of emergency planning-and.
the objectives inherent in it as a means of increasing public safety.
The testimony will make clear that Seabrook presents very special and unique challenges to effective emergency planning and that instead of developing a site-specific strategy that attempts to maximize dose savings in light of the constraints of the site, the planners have simply adopted the
" generic" protective action decision criteria as those criteria exist in the literature.
The basis for this approach by the planners' appears to be the notion that because no preset standard of dose savings exists under NRC law therefore any amount of dose savings achieved by a plan should meet the legal and regulatory standard.
In fact, although there exists no preset standard for dose f
savings against which to measure a plan the effectiveness of the protective action strategy should and must still be evaluated against both the results of no plan at all at that I
site (because if no benefit flows from the plan the purposes of
) t
- - - -l
~
the emergency planning regulations have not been met) and.the results of different strategies even if those strategies diverge from the " generic" strategy recommended at the normal site.
In this regard the testimony will establish that the assumptions and analysis that support the " generic" decision criteria simply do not apply to the Seabrook site and that evacuation in light of the constraints of the site is not essentially better than no plan at all.
E.
Summary Of the Testimony This testimony is intended to demonstrate that the SPMC does.not meet applicable standards and does not take appropriate account of relevant knowledge about the characteristics of nuclear plant accidents and the potential for mitigating the effects of those accidents through emergency-responses at the Seabrook site.
The testimony is divided into eleven sections:
I.
Identification of Witnesses This section outlines the background and professional qualifications of the panel.
II.
Overview of Testimony This section summarizes the testimony, including the panel's conclusion that the SPMC fails to meet applicable standards or appropriately mitigates the risk of effects of radiological accidents.
III. Structure of the Testimony This section outlines the sequence of the panel's presentation in the balance of the testimony.
IV, Planning of Objectives This section identifies.the relevant planning.
objectives and criteria for evaluation of emergency plans.
V.
Seabrook Emergency Planning' Issues This section identifies certain site specific planning issues presented by the Seabrook site.
VI.
SPMC Planning Approach This section discusses how the SPMC compares with the previously identified planning objectives and criteria.
VII. Analytic Approach This section sets forth the elements of the panel's analysis,. focusing upon the relative effectiveness of various emergency response strategies.
VIII. Emergency Response Strategies This section identifies the set of emergency response strategies, as to which the panel will measure relative effectiveness..
IX.
Analytic Findings This section discusses the relative effectiveness of the identified emergency response strategies.
X.
Implications for Resident Population This section presents the panel's observations concerning the effectiveness of the SPMC in protecting Massachusetts residents near Seabrook.
XI.
Assessment of the SPMC This section provides the panel's overall assessment of the SPMC.
I I
l I L_______-__--___--____--------
JI 30:
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS BY COMMERCIAL TELEPHONE A.
Statement of Issues Contention JI 30 asserts that the SPMC is inadequate since the plan relies upon commercial telephone links for essential communications in an emergency.
The issues presented by this contention include:
1.
Whether ORO's reliance upon commercial telephones in an emergency represents inadequate planning since special needs facilities lack sufficient phone lines to reasonably assure phone access for emergency i
communications.
2.
Whether ORO's reliance upon commercial telephones in i
an emergency represents inadequate planning since telephone use'will likely increase in an emergency, yet the telephone system presently available to certain EPZ communities lacks proper switching or related equipment reasonably necessary to avoid system overload.
The Mass AG will file testimony on the deficiencies of commercial phone lines for emergency communications involving special needs facilities, as part of its evidence cataloging various inadequacies in the SPMC to reasonably protect special j
1 needs populations.
The Mass AG suggests that the hearing on this evidence be structured accordingly.
To the extent additional issues are presented by JI 30, l
1 the Mass AG will rely upon cross examination of FEMA personnel.
j 1
l ]
I l
l l
e B.
(The FEMA Finding IN evaluating the adequacy of the SpMC, there is no l
evidence that' FEMA considered the issues presented by JI 30.
l There is no evidence that FEMA determined whether schools, hospitals, daycare centers, and other special needs facilities.
l in the Massachusetts EPZ have adequate phone lines to meet anticipated emergency demand.
There is no evidence that FEMA reviewed the capacity of the EPZ telephone system, or the potential for system overload from the high call volume generated by an emergency.
As a consequence of these failures 1
at plan review, the FEMA finding of adequacy, including the finding concerning 10C.F.R. 50.47(b)(6), and II.F of NUREG 0654/ FEMA REP-1, REV 1, SUPP 1, is unsupported.
l The prima facie case of plan adequacy is rebutted.
C.
Identification of Witnesses l
The Mass AG will offer the testimony of Geary Sikich to testify that the emergency communications system presently provided for in the SpMC for special needs facilities is not adequate.
D.
Purpose of the Evidence The purpose of the evidence to be presented by Mass AG on JI 30 is to demonstrate that emergency communications for the SpMC are not adequate or in compliance with regulatory requirements.
The Mass AG intends to prove that the FEMA l
finding on the adequacy of emergency communications lacks _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -. - _ _ _. _.
evidentiary support, is entitled to no weight, and'the presumption.of plan adequacy rebutted.
The evidence will focus on two issues.
1 First, the evidence will show that FEMA failed to conduct a l
k review of sufficient scope to properly evaluate the adequacy of l
1 emergency communications provided for in the SPMC, including the adequacy of commercial telephone lines available for emergency communications involving schools, daycare centers, hospitals, nursing homes, and other special needs facilities, the public, and ORO staff.
Second, the evidence will show that FEMA has not adequately evaluated the capacity of the commercial telephone system in the Massachusetts EPZ to determine whether that system may overload from increased use in an emergency.
This failure of review will demonstrate that FEMA lacks a proper factual basis to conclude that SPMC reliance upon commercial telephones is reasonable, adequate, or in compliance with the planning standards.
E.
Summary of the Evidence The Massachusetts Attorney General will offer the testimony of Geary Sikich, a consultant in the areas of environmental and energy management, and radiological planning.
Mr. Sikich will testify that the volume of telephone calls will increase in an emergency.
In addition, Mr. Sikich will state that information received from EpZ schools, hospitals, and other special needs facilities indicates that, under emergency conditions, there will not be sufficient phone lines available {
to reasonably assure access for emergency communications =
involving'these facilities.
Mr. Sikich will conclude that emergency communications provided.--for-in'~the SPMC'are not i
adequate or in compliance with regulatory-requirements.
I l.
! i 1
i t
b'
Contention Dealing with Pre-Emergency Information A.
Identify Contention and State Issue JI 39, concerning pre-emergency information to be made available to the public, raises the following issues.
Whether the public will respond as planned where pre-emergency information is ambiguous,-inconsistent, and incomplete;.whether information appropriate for special needs residents is made available to and will be recoived by those residents; whether transients will receive adequate pre-emergency information; whether the information adequately explains the ORO/ government relationship, or lack thereof; whether the'information adequately explains the protective actions for the beach populations; whether the information adequately explains protective actions for school children; whether the information adequately describes the nature of the threat, the nature of 5ornings, and the expected response; whether information adequately deals with the health risks involved; whether individuals having certain disabilities or impairments are provided with adequate information.
B.
The FEMA Findinos FEMA findings on the adequacy of pre-emergency information are many and varied (see FEMA REP-11, December 1988).
Some of these findings will be rebutted on a showing that the documents submitted for review by the Applicants either do not incorporate at all the very revisions requested by FEMA or that the revisions which were made in response to FEMA's critique are still inadequate.A#
To rebut findings of adequacy which.will not have'been settled prior to hearing, Interveners will cross examine FEMA as to the scope of inquiry made with respect to the pre-emergency.information.
This will entail, inter alia, a showing that FEMA did not address the aggregate effect of ambiguous, inconsistent and incomplete information.
In' addition, Interveners will show on cross examination that the o
scope of inquiry as to the notification of disabled and i
impaired individuals was so limited that a finding of adequacy is unsupported.
1' C.
Identity of Witnesses l.
Lynne Filderman.
A copy of Ms. Filderman's resume is attached to her testimony.
D.
Purcose of the Testimony I
Lynne Filderman's detailed and comprehensive analysis of j
i the content, form, and overall effect of the pre-emergency j
i information is intended to bring into focus those discrete (and j
i potentially easily " fixable") elements which mostly concern contents and lay-out.
In addition, her critique is meant to 1/
Since Interveners recognize that there may be some pre-hearing negotiation with the Applicants with respect to this matter, Interveners advise the Board that a good number of the existing inadequacies may be remedied.
1/
To the extent that testimony submitted for JI 48 and 49 overlaps and augments this testimony, those related testimonies (Dillman, Moriearty) are referred to and incorporated by reference. t A
i bring into relief those' patterns evident in the information which. lessen-thh111kelihood1of'a public response in the manner that is anticipated and planned for.
E.
S.ummary of Testimony Ms. Filderman's testimony concerns the contents, form, and overall effect of the pre-emergency information.
The first segment.is devoted to discussion of.the calendar and the inconsistencies, ambiguities and omissions that are contained.
therein.
Her discourse on documents' intended for the transient population includes the " calendar" analysis with respect.to content and form and also raises issues related to dissemination.
The. theme throughout this testimony is that l
effective. pre-emergency information will-educate the reader about the nature of the risk, the warnings to be issued, and the protective actions to take.
I u
Specific items which prevent the informational " packet" from being effective include the failure to refer the transient l
reader to the phone book insert; the ambiguity regarding ORO/ government relationship; inconsistency with which protective actions are dealt with; failure to acquaint the public with assisting the special needs individuals with protective measures; ambiguity regarding " closing" beaches. i
CONTENTION JI 45 DEALING WITH WHETHER THE SPMC PROVIDES ADEQUATELY FOR THE SCHOOL POPULATION IN THE MASSACHUSETTS EPZ A.
Identification of the Contentions'and Statement of Issues The contention concerning schools that is addressed in the testimony filed in this phase of the proceeding is contention JI 45.
However, not.all testimony concerning JI 45 is being filed at this time.
Only that testimony that deals purely with planning issues is being submitted at this time.
Because.come of the issues raised under JI 45 relate directly to' exercise contentions, those issues will have testimony addressed to them filed with the second phase of this proceeding.
The delay in filing testimony on the issues raised in JI 45 that relate to i
exercise contentions is pursuant to the scheduling order and a joint stipulation that has been previously filed on the matter.
The Massachusetts Attorney General expects that at the hearings, witnesses on both the plan testimony and exercise testimony will be scheduled to testify in blocks of time together for the purposes of providing a cohesive view of the evidence on the school issues.
The issues presented by the portions of JI 45 for which the Mass AG is presently filing testimony include the following:
1.
Does the SPMC offer reasonable assurance that l
l adequate protective measures can and will be taken in a timely fashion for schools and day care centers?
Are the rachanisms.___-________-____ _ _ -
for implementing protective measures for the schools'such that
. protective measures can be taken in a timely manner?
Is the staffing provided under the SPMC such that adequate protective measures can be taken in a timely fashion?
Are the provisions of the SPMC designed to furnish transportation to the schools such that adequate protective measures can be taken in a timely fashion?
2.
Does lack of school specific plans for each school in the SPMC result in there being no assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken for the school children?
Does the lack of site-specific assessment as to the layout and construction of the various schools result in an inability of the schools to know how to shelter children?
3.
Is there any assurance that the bus companies with whom letters of agreement exist, will in fact supply the required number of buses under the SPMC7 Will the bus companies be able to provide the required number of buses in a timely manner?
4.
Will schools respond to the offer by NHY ORO to contain school information in the EBS messages?
What result will that have?
5.
Will the schools understand how to implement sheltering from hearing the schools protective action message?
What should be done to ensure that schools have enough I
information to implement sheltering procedures?
I l 1
l
4 6.
Does the SpMC fail to provide adequate means to l
i ensure the safety of school children in that it fails to provide for students who walk or drive themselves to' school?
l L
B.
The FEMA rindino 1
FEMA found that the provisions for the. school populations l
were adequate under the evaluation criteria it' subjected them to.
It will be established through direct testimony that the evaluation of FEMA was flawed in that it failed to consider a number of factors.
It will be established'through cross examination of the FEMA witnesses that FEMA did not review the planning criteria with any consideration as to whether the provisions of the plan would be effective in providing adequate assurance for the school population.
C.
Identity of Witnesses The Interveners will offer the testimony of Geary W.
Sikich, Kathryn Barnicle, Maureen Mangan, and John paolillo..
D.
The Purcose of the Testimony The purpose of the testimony to be submitted is to establish that the SpMC does not provide for an adequate planning basis for the school population.
The testimony is being offered to rebut the FEMA finding that the SpMC is adequate and the particular evaluation criteria applicable to school populations.
The testimony will establish this by
)
i setting forth the flaws that exist in the planning bases and the specific factual application of these flaws as they pertain to the schools in the EpZ.,
E.
Summary of the Testimony Geary W.
Sikich will testify as an expert witness.
He will 1
tes'cify that he disagrees with the FEMA findings of adequacy on the evaluation criteria that pertain to the schools in the EpZ.
He will testify that there are inadequate personnel to carry out the various planning functions as they pertain to the school and inadequate resources to implement planning functions.
He will testify that the communication links to implement the planning procedures are flawed.
He will also testify that from a planning perspective, discussions pertaining to protective action recommendations for public schools should be directed to superintendents of the school systems in the first instance.
He will testify that from a planning perspective, the SpMC generic plans for schools are not sufficiently tailored to the various schools to be of any meaningful use because they do not address the specific realities that will be confronted by those schools in the event of a radiological emergency.
l 1
1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
L.
e l-Kathryn Barnicle will testify as to various statements'that l-she obtained from principals and other administrative personnel in the schools and school systems.
That testimony will show as a specific factual basis how the. provisions of the SPMC are 7 flawed as they pertain to schools in the Massachusetts EPZ.
-Maureen Mangan and John Paolillo will testify as to provisions for supplying buses.to'the schools in the EPZ.
Their testimony is found under the testimony being submitted on 1
the issue of the provision of manned vehicles.
1 L
i CONTENTION JI 46, 47, and 50 'ealing with whether the SPMC L
l provides adequately for'the institutionalized population resident in special facilities of the Massachusetts EPZ.
A.
Identification of the Contentions in the Statement of the Issues.
The Contentions concerned with the institutionalized population who reside in or housed in special facilities are contentions JI 46, 47, and 50.
Contentions JI 46 and JI 47 specifically address issues connected with institutionalized populations in hospitals in the Massachusetts EPZ.
Contention JI 50 addresses the institutionalized population in special facilities in the EPZ.
While the issues raised under the contentions-dealing with hospitals as a subgroup of special facilities are to some extent distinct from the generalized issues dealing with special facilities, in general the issues raised under those contentions and testimony being submitted on those issues is in large part the same if not identical.
The central issues common to special facilities in general under contention 50 and the subset of hospitals under Contentions JI l
46 and 47 are:
l 1.
Does the SPMC offer reasonable assurance that adequate notification can and will be made to special facilities and the i
I resident population in the event of a radiological emergency?
Does the reliance of the SPMC on commercial telephone linkage as the primary means of communication provide an adequate mechanism for transmittal of the notification?
4 2.
Does the lack of site specific plans for each special facility in the Massachusetts EpZ result in their being a lack of assurance that adequate measures can and will be taken for the resident population?
Does the lack of site specific assessment as to the design and' construction of the various special-facilities result in an inability of those facilities to effectively implement sheltering of its population?
Does the lack of site specific plans result in their being no assurance that notification can effectively be made because the phones in the facilities are not manned on a 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> basis?
Does the lack of site specific planning result in their being no assurance that protective measures can and will be implemented because the facility is not staffed on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> basis or has reduced staff during certain times?
3.
Does the SpMC's failure to furnish personnel and resources to special facilities other than transportation result in their being a lack of assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be implemented?
Apart from the stated issues that are common to all special facilities including hospitals, there are also issues raised in Contentions 46 and 47 that are particularly directed to hospitals.
These issues are:
1.
Will the host hospitals with whom New Hampshire Yankee ORO has letters of agreement be able to accommodate patients transferred to hospitals in the Massachusetts EpZ7 - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i i
l 2.
Will the host hospitals and the MSl hospitals have
]
adequate accommodations for the radiologically injured in addition to the patients transferred from the EPZ hospitals?
I 3.
Are there adequate provisions at the MS and host hospitals for the decontamination and treatment of the radiologically injured?
I 4.
Are the provisions of the SPMC for distribution of
{
I potasium iodine to persons in hospitals whose immediate
]
evacuation may be difficult or infeasible adequate?
B.
The FEMA Findino FEMA found that the provisions of the SPMC for the institutionalized population resident in the special facilities were adequate under the evaluation criteria it subjected them j
l to.
It will be established through direct testimony that the evaluation of FEMA was flawed because it failed to consider or account for a number of factors that undermine and preclude the SPMC from meeting those evaluation criteria.
j l
C.
Identity of Witnesses l
k The Interveners will offer the testimony of
{
j Geary W. Sikich, Kathryn Barnicle, Dr. Jennifer Leaning, Guy
)
l Daines, Maureen Mangan, and John Paolillo.
D.
The Purcose of the Testimony
/
The purpose of the testimony being submitted is to l
I rebut the FEMA finding of adequacy with respect to those 1
\\
provisions of the SPMC that pertain to special facilities in j l l
l l
1 I.
l general and hospitals in particular.
The testimony will' rebut I
the FEMA finding by establishing that inadequacies exist with i
respect to the plan's provisions for procedures and resources as they will be needed to implement the SpMC with respect to special facilities.
E.
Summary of the Testimony Geary W.
Sikich will testify as an expert witness.
He I
will testify that he disagrees with the FEMA findings of adequacy on the evaluation criteria that pertained to the special facilities in the EPZ.
He will testify that there are inadequate personnel-to carry out the liaison functions and i
'that the reliance on commercial telephone as the primary communication link to '.he special facilities is misguided.
He will also testify that from a planning perspective there should be facilities specific plans in order to insure that notification can be effectively made to the resident population and that adequate staff and resources are available to the special facilities to provide for adequate assistance and support in implementing protective measures.
Kathryn Barnicle will testify to statements obtained.
from administrators in special facilities.
That testimony will show that the factual realities of those facilities are such that the provisions of the SpMC are flawed in that they cannot l
be implemented in such a way as to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken for the special facilities in the Massachusetts EpZ. l' L___________________-_---_-
Maureen Mangan and John Paolillo will testify to provisions for supplying manned vehicles to the special facilities in the EPZ.
Their testimony is found under the testimony being submitted on the issue of manned vehicles.
Dr. Jennifer Leaning will testify on the resources that are needed by the radiologically injured.
Guy Daines will testify on the need for additional staff to implement protective measures in connection with special facilities. _ _ _. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ -
CONTENTION JI 51 DEALING WITH WHETHER THE SPMC PROVIDES ADEQUATE ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT FOR THE SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION IN THE MASSACHUSETTS EPZ WITH RESPECT TO THE HOST SPECIAL FACILITY, THE SHRINER'S AUDITORIUM.
A.
Identification of the Contentions and Statement of the Issues The Contention concerning the provision of the Shriner's-Auditorium as the host special facility is Contention JI51.
The issues presented under that contention include whether the use of that facility can be provided for in a timely fashion; whether it will be adequate for use by the special needs population as a congregate care center, whether the resources of that facility are adequate for the special needs population.
B.
The FEMA Finding FEMA found that the provisions for support and assistance to special needs populations were adequate under the evaluation criteria it subjected them to.
It will be established through direct testimony that FEMA's evaluation was flawed because it failed to consider a number of factors affecting the special needs population and pertaining to the Shriner's Auditorium.
It will be established through cross-examination of FEMA witnesses that FEMA did not review its evaluation criteria with any consideration as to how effective Shriner's Auditorium would be as a resource to provide for support and assistance to the spacial needs population.
C.
Identification of Witness The Interveners will offer the testimony of Geary W.
Sikich and Kathryn Barnicle.
1 '
l j
1 l
D.
The purpose of the Testimony The testimony is being offered to rebut the FEMA finding of adequacy with respect to the particular evaluation criteria applicable to special needs populations.
The testimony will establish that the provision of the Shriner's Auditorium as a host special facility for the special needs population will not afford that population adequate assistance and support in the event of an evacuation.
E.
Summary of the Testimony Geary W.
Sikich will testify as an expert witness that the provision of the Shriner's Auditorium as a congregate care center demonstrates a lack of planning forethought as to the particular needs and requirements that that population has.
He will testify that from a planning perspective that the facility i
lacks adequate personnel and resources to afford adequate i
support and assistance to the special needs population in the even'c of an evacuation.
Kathryn Barnicle will testify as to the factual reality that exists at that congregate care center.
l I L__________-__________-_______-_____
,~
CONTENTIONS DEALING WITH PROTECTIVE ACTIONS FOR PARTICULAR POPULATIONS A.
Identify Contentions and State Issues
.The contentions concerning the resident special needs population are JI 48 and JI 49.A They deal with the identification of special needs residents and the assistance,.or lack thereof, that is provided'for in the SPMC for the-special needs residents in the event of a protective action to evacuate or shelter.
The text of the-admitted contentions and bases thereto overlap to some degree.
In essence,-the two contentions cannot be treated totally apart from each other.
Ac such, to avoid redundancy, testimony with respect to JI 48 concerns the adequacy of the survey which was conducted to identify special needs residents and their particular needs in the event of a radiological emergency.
I Testimony related to JI 49 mainly concerns the adequacy of J
notification, support, and assistance-that'is provided for in the SPMC.
To the extent that testimony on one contention augments, adds to or clarifies an issue or point in testimony on the other contention, the respective testimonies should not be considered or read as being unrelated or mutually exclusive.
Rather, they work together.
Similarly, to the A/
Portions of JI 49 that concern the " manned vehicles" aspect of assistance for special needs are not addressed here.
That matterisaddressedintestimong_filedwithrespecttoJI 55.
l
~
l
-i extent that issues raised in JI 39 bear on matters related to the disabled, portions of that testimony are intended to augment that which is submitted here.
The issues presented by the contentions, for which the Mass AG is presently filing testimony include the following.
1.
JI 48 Whether the survey conducted by the Applicants reached and identified those members of the population to whom it was targeted.
Whether the survey elicited information from the residents it did reach which could be used to adequately assess necessary special assistance.
Whether the SPMC provides adequately for the validation, update and confidentiality of the survey.
2.
JI 49 Whether the SPMC provides adequate assistance and support for various types and levels of disabled residents directed to evacuate.
Whether the SpMC provides adequate assistance and support for various types and levels of disabled residents directed to take shelter.
Whether the SPMC provides adequate notification procedures and mechanisms which are geared to resident disabled individuals., other than those with hearing impairments, for whom telephonic notification is inappropriate.E#
1/
Please note that the issue of the adequacy of notification for residents who are hearing impaired is not being argued because the Applicants have agreed to provide TDDs, as is suggested in FEMA Guidance Memo 24, to those residents with hearing impairments.
However, the issue of whether the SPMC has adequately identified residents needing such devices has not been settled.
Nor has the issue of non-telephonic notification for disabled residents who are not hearing impaired, but for whom telephonic notification is inappropriate, been settled. - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ -. _ _
l
B.
The FEMA Findinos 1.
JI 48 FEMA's finding of adequacy with respect to notifying, supporting, and assisting those residents listed in Appendix M includes Statement J.10.d
" Lists of persons with special needs are to be maintained via mail-in cards, posters, phone inquiries, and personal visits"nand Statement G.1, referring to FEMA-Rep-11, which finds at number 32 that "(a] method of identifying special needs has
~been provided in such a way that it cannot be lost during shipment or during the initial reading" and that the rating
-of "Yes" (meaning adequate) "is based on the assumption that the survey card and sticker will ultimately be bound into the calendar".
As to the " consideration" that has been given to the special needs population, FEMA, at number 33 of the Rep-11 Evaluation Criteria references to the aforementioned finding regarding number 32.
Thus, adequate consideration of special needs residents, is assurance that the_ calendar response card will not get lost in the mail.
Cross examination of FEMA will show that the content and results of the response survey materials were never examined.
)
1 Rep-ll, Attachment A at 28 finds the "special needs poster" to be adequate because of its graphic appeal and I
typographical content and the fact that its' distribution l
l 1 l
l l
i
1 1
I "should assist in compiling a more complete database".
I Cross examination of FEMA will show that the actual database was never discussed, nor is the fact that this
)
type of notice is inappropriate for those for whom the written word is not able to be read or understood, l
In sum, FEMA's finding of adequacy with respect to L
assisting and notifying the special needs residents, will i
be rebutted where it is shown, on cross examination of l
i that the results and the adequacy of the
- FEMA,
" handicapped" survey materials were never questioned or
]
I inquired into.
2.
JI 49 3
FEMA's finding that the means for notifying assisting and supporting residents with special needs is adequate is I
apparently contained in statement J.10.d which says I
" Appendix M indicates that there are needs for 107 j
wheelchair vans and ambulances and 57 buses to evacuate I
2,638 persons plus staff who are either in special j
facilities and hospitals or who have mobility impairments.
1 Cross examination of FEMA will show that there was no inquiry into what, if any, assistance would be available to 1
disabled residents needing assistance during a protective l
action to shelter; that there was no inquiry into assistance to be made available to disabled residents in the event of an evacuation, other than the dispatch of _
"special vehicles", that the FEMA inquiry that was made was so limited that'it was essentially restri~cted to providing-some level of assistance for the " mobility impaired"; that FEMA did not take into account any of its' own guidance with respect to notifying and assisting the " handicapped" during a radiological emergency.
There is no presumption that notification of the disabled is adequate with respect to pre-emergency information.
The inadequacy of provisions dealing with such notification will be established through cross examination of FEMA.
C.
Identity of Witnesses 1.
JI 48 Interveners offer the direct testimony of Dr. Don Dillman and Ms. Sharon Moriearty in support of their position regarding the failure of the Applicants to I
identify the number of special needs residents needing assistance in an emergency.
In addition, portions of Mr.
J i
Geary Sikich's testimony, submitted on JI bear on the
)
issue of confidentiality and are referred to and
]
incorporated by reference as part of the testimony offered on JI 48.
2.
JI 49 Interveners offer the direct testimony of Ms. Sharon Moriearty in support of their position regarding the inadequacy of notification, support, and assistance I
provided for disabled residents in the SpMC.
Interveners also refer to and incorporate by reference the testimony of I
Mr. Geary Sikich regarding JI 49, which concerns the 1 i 1
1 w_____________________
failure of the SpMC-to provide the aforementioned assistance for special needs residents.
D.
The Puroose of the Testimony 1.
JI 48 The purpose of testimony offered by Dr. Dillman and Ms. Moriearty on the "special needs" survey is to show that the results of this survey are so inadequate that reliance thereon can in no way-assure that disabled and special needs residents in the EpZ will be provided with the i
assistance necessary to ensure that they will be afforded adequate protection.
The purpose of that portion of Mr. Sikich's testimony which bears on the survey issue is to show that the procedures in the SpMC are inadequate for purposes of providing or ensuring that information will be kept confidential.
j i
2.
JI 49
]
The purpose of Ms. Moriearty's testimony is to show that the SpMC provides for little if any assistance to those residents with disabilities.
This is accomplished through a comprehensive discussion of the disabilities described in FEMA GM 24 and the kinds of assistance that respective individuals would need to shelter or evacuate.
The purpose of this testimony is also to discuss the degree i
to which " unplanned assistance" can be relied on and the 1 - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _
' types of efforts that can be-made with respect to organizing assistance for the disabled.
The purpose of Mr. Sikich's testimony, which is referred to and incorporated by reference, is to show that the SPMC's provisions for special needs residents are inadequate.
In short, the purpose of all the aforementioned testimony is to show that no reasonable assurance of adequate protection has been afforded to this segment of the population.
As such the SpMC fails to comply with 10C.F.R. 50.49(a)(1), 50.47(b)(7), 50.47(b)(10),
50.47(c)(1); NUREG 0654, Rev. 1 Sections G and J; and FEMA Guidance Memorandum 24.
E.. Summarv of Testimony 1.
JI 48 Testimony regarding JI 48 is presented from two different and complementary angles.
Dr. Dillman, who literally wrote the book on telephone and mail surveys, I
takes the reader through the survey step by step and critiques the content, form, and manner in which the survey was conducted.
In short, the survey components he analyzes and finds lacking are the sources from which the initial mailing list was drawn; the terminology and language used in the cover letter and survey questionnaire; the method i
for " verifying" i - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
the survey results; and the resulting tally of' targeted individuals.
This testimony also sets out the extent to which the common errors of non-coverage, measurement and response rate, all of which must be taken into consideration when conducting surveys of this type, are evidenced in the subject survey.
Dr. Dillman's opinion on the effect of open-ended questions in a survey of this sort corresponds to Ms. Moriearty's comments on the importance of properly framed survey questions when conducting a needs assessment survey.
In short, open-ended questions like those in'the survey are not conducive to accuracy.
Ms. Moriearty approaches the problematic survey from the perspective of-a demographer with many years of practical experience-in assessing needs for the disability community.
She describes in brief what kind of information a survey of this nature should have focused on.
She discusses the importance of addressing functional needs in I
order to determine appropriate assistance.
She also gives I
a comprehensive discourse on the results of the 1985 United l
States Census Bureau Survey which focused exolicitly on assessing functional limitations and needs.
Her testimony also corresponds with Dr. Di11 man's in that she also recognizes and emphasizes the significant problems concerning confidentiality and the problems arising from d
the use of open-ended questions.
1.
Both of the experts find unacceptable the Applicants resulting number (s) of identified residents with
" impairments" who would require assistance.
Dr. Dillman, estimates that the number of residents in the EPZ needina assistance would be approximately 2,472.E#
l He arrives at-this' number using methods of calculation acceptable and commonly used by the sample surveyor.
Ms.
Moriearty estimates that the number of disabled residents in the EPZ needina assistance would be approximately 2,235.
This number is extrapolated from the U.S. Census Survey discussed earlier.
Both of these estimates are a far cry from the reported results of 352, 502, or 653.
In sum, this testimony describes in detail the i
inadequacy with which this survey approached the subject matter, the inadequacy with which it was implemented, and the inadequate results arising therefrom.
Where the special needs survey results have been shown to be so i
inaccurate, an additional issue is raised with respect to JI 49.
In short, if the needs of disabled and impaired residents are not identified, they cannot be adequately addressed and provided for.
l n/
Please note that in response to questions regarding the j'
actual number of identified residents needing assistance, the Applicants provided different numerical responses.
As such, Dr. Dillman, when projecting what the appropriate number should have been, came up with two approximations by using two of the different answers given by the Applicants.
The real point to be made however, is not the inconsistency of Applicants "results", rather it is the woeful inadequacy of any of the
" total" numbers proferred as the result of this survey. l l
__--___-----]
l L
2.
JI 49 1
L Ms. Moriearty, who has had fourteen years of l
experience in the disability field,-including needs assessment and service delivery planning, begins her testimony by tracking the items contained in FEMA' Guidance.
Memorandum ("GM") 24.
This includes a broad description of various " impairments" and a generalized description of the types of assistance that would correspond to a protective action to shelter or evacuate.
This testimony continually emphasizes the importance of individualized needs assessment, a point that bears on issues raised in testimony for JI 48.
Naturally, when needs are assessed on an individualized basis, the corresponding assistance becomes more tailored to the functional limitations of the particular individual and safety risks are minimized.
In 1
some cases, in addition to being informed, the providers of assistance would have to be trained.
This testimony also discusses the availability of and role of community and volunteer organizations in profferring assistance.
In sum, emergency response of the l
type being discussed is not the mission of these groups.
Thus, reliance on them, in the absence of planning which I
would ascertain their capabilities and availability, is for naught.
1 While portions of this testimony may be rather sobering (i.e.:
the fact that disabled individuals are 1
disproportionately poor, and that they generally have-insufficient family resources to fall back on in times of crisis or emergency), the effect is that the reader understands that this population has in ha provided for.
The last section, the testimony talks about how and if the provisions of the SpMC address the-functional needs of disabled residents.when held up against the reality of disability, as set forth in detail by Ms. Moriearty and as described in abbreviated form in FEMA GM 24.
The conclusion reached by Ms. Moriearty is that the SPMC essentially ignores the plight of a disabled person needing assistance during a protective action to shelter.
Regarding evacuation, the only "needs" addressed are those which would entail transoort by special vehicle or special arrangement.
Moreover, even this type of assistance is suspect where mere transport on its own would not adequately address the particular situation.
Those needing other types of assistance are unplanned for.
The testimony makes one telling observation regarding the FEMA finding of adequacy - the only " type" of disability that FEMA really discusses is the mobility impaired.
Correspondingly, the focus and main concern of the SPMC with respect to this issue is the dispatch of "needs code" vehicles.
In short, it appears that those disabilities other than or in addition to those requiring only a special needs vehicle, are unplanned for in the l I
l
1 i
i
~~
event' of an evacuation just as all disabilities are unplanned for~in the event of an. action to shelter.
J The testimony of Mr. Sikich is referred to and j
incorporated by reference (See Testimony of Gary Sikich on The Inadequacies of the SPMC As It Pertains to Special populations.)
He is an expert in' emergency planning and discusses those provisions of the SPMC which concern notification, support and assistance of the special needs residents and the correspondent FEMA finding of adequacy.
Mr. Sikich believes that the SPMC sections bearing on this issue are inadequate because they fail to address in any detail assistance other than the dispatch of special vehicles pursuant to the information contained in Appendix M.
There are no provisions for providing assistance during sheltering, other than a message directing the person being called to take certain actions.
There is no mechanism for calling people not on the list and there is no procedure for administering informed assistance to someone unable to understand the directive or unable to take the necessary actions.
Mr. Sikich also refers to the testimony of Guy Daines with respect to the adequacy of a plan which would include staff and resources available to assist those members of the special needs population who have nat been pre-identified. i i
Je y ;,.
ii
~
As'it stands, Mr.,Sikich does not believe that the
- a..
plan provides'for adequate notification, assistance or l
support for those members of the resident special needs population, whether pre-identified or not.
-JI 53:
Designated Staging Area Violates Zoning Laws of. City of Haverhill A.
Statement of Issues Contention JI 53 asserts that the SPMC is inadequate since'the plan designates a' facility located in the City of' Haverhill to be used.as a staging area in an emergency, although this use violates the provisions of the City of Haverhill : zoning code.
Under these circumstances, the SPMC fails to comply with local law, fails to identify an alternative, lawful site for the emergency response, and fails to provide reasonable assurance that the SPMC can and will be implemented in an emergency.
B.
.The FEMA Finding In evaluating the adequacy of the SPMC,.there is no' i
evidence that FEMA addressed the issues raised by JI 53.
There is no evidence that FEMA considered that the SPMC provisions designating the Haverhill staging area stand'in violation of 1
local law, or that this violation renders it impossible to fully and lawfully implement the SPMC in an emergency.
l As a consequence of these failures at plan review, the FEMA finding of adequacy, including the finding concerning 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3)(8), (10), and II. C.
II.H, II.J of NUREG 0654
)
FEMA-REP-1, Rev.
1, Supp 1 is unsupported.
The prima facie case of plan adequacy is rebutted.. _ _ _ - _ _ _ -
+
t
'I l
C.
Identification of Witnesses The MASS AG will rely upon cross examination of FEMA i
personnel to establish the evidence supporting JI 53.
-D.
Puroose and Summary of the Evidence The purpose of the evidence to be presented by Mass AG i
on JI 53 is to demonstrate that provision for staging area facilities in the SpMC are not adequate or in compliance with l
regulatory requirements or local law.
The Mass AG intends to i
prove that the FEMA finding on the adequacy of the SPMC concerning this issue lacks evidentiary support, is entitled to no weight, and the presumption of plan adequacy rebutted.
In addition, Applicants' Response to Interveners' Contentions dated April 26, 1988, concerning JI 53 (formally MAG 67), acknowledges that the legality of the proposed use is the subject of "further proceedings bending.(sic) in the Haverhill Zoning Board of Appeals."
Id. at p.
115.
The= Mass AG believes there is no dispute that those proceedings continue, that following remand from the Land Court of the 1
1 Commonwealth, the Building Inspector for the City of Haverhill j
is again reviewing the propriety of the proposed use, and that J
a decision is anticipated in the near future.
Depending upon the outcome of this decision, the Mass AG may supplement its evidence on JI 53.
1 I.-
CONTENTION DEALING'WITH'AMERICAN RED' CROSS (" ARC")
A.
Identify contention and State Issues j
l JI:54 concerns the absence of LOAs with ARC and thel perceived inadequacy of an ad hnc response by ARC in the j
absence of appropriate compensatory measures.
It should be noted out front that there is no dispute regarding the fact that ARC will respond.
The adequacy of that response'is what-is at issue.
.)
i The. issues raised by this contention are as follows:
{
l.
Whether industrial. facilities which have been designated for.use as Congregate Care Centers and which will presumably be available for such use when and if they.are cleared out, will i
be adequate in the absence of. site specific plans designed to ensure that the space can be converted or "made a
ready" for use by evacuees and in the 1
absence of staff available to clear the space.
2.
Whether, in the absence of planning with respect to the selection of mass care facilities and with no compensatory q
measures having been provided by NHY ORO, the ARC chapter (s) responsible for providing equipment and staff to approximately 26 Congregate Care Centers can organize and dispatch those staff l
I and equipment necessary in a timely and adequate manner.
B.
The FEMA Findinas FEMA findings bearing on ARC are numerous (A.1.a; C.4; H.4; J.10.h)
Each of the aforementioned findings addresses in some manner the fact that even in the absence of LOAs, it is deemed (as a matter of law) that ARC will respond in a radiological l
( i i
I
emergency and that the natut.e of this response is the staffing of Congregate Care Centers and the provision of aid consistent l
with ARC policy.
This fact-is not in dispute.
However, cross examination of FEMA witness (es) will show that the capability and procedures for converting or " making ready" the space in the various industrial l_
facilities designated for use in the event of a radiological emergency were never adequately addressed.
Because of the l
limited focus of the FEMA review with respect to ARC's ability to adequately staff Congregate Care Centers and because of the assumption contained in FEMA's review, that somehow the
" generic plan Congregate Care setup" will address procedures and staffing problems related to the conversion of industrial space, Interveners have rebutted the Applicants' prima facie case of adequacy.
In addition, cross examination will show that FEMA never
)
inquired into the adequacy of an ARC response where no measures l
1 have been provided to compensate for certain conditions which
)
i arise as a result of the lack of participation by state and local governments, including the aforementioned matter and j
i problems related to medical care at mass care facilities.
For all of the aforementioned reasons, the FEMA finding of adequacy regarding the timeliness and adequacy of an ARC response is rebutted and corresponding FEMA findings concerning 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(1), 50.47(b)(3), 50.47(b)(8) and 50.47(c)(1) are unsupported. I l
l
~*
C.
Identity of Witnesses The Interveners offer the direct testimony of Geary Sikich and Arthur Lonergan in support of their position.regarding the SPMC's failure to allocate space which will be readily accessible due to a lack of planning for conversion of space and lack of staff to provide the manpower to clear the space.
D.
The Purpose of the Testimony 1.
Mr. Arthur Loneraan The purpose of Mr. Lonergan's testimony, which concerns the results of a telephone survey he conducted of named contact people at the various Congregate Care Centers is to show that the issue of converting industrial space into space able to be used as a Congregate Care Center has not been adequately addressed.
Irrespective of the square footage potentially available, the sources for drinking water and the number of restrooms, the adequacy of this space is conditioned on its being vacant and, in fact, ready to receive evacuees.
Mr. Lonergan's testimony shows that this factor has not been adequately considered or planned for.
2.
Mr. Gearv Sikich The purpose of Mr. Sikich's testimony is to show the inadequacy of the Congregate Care Management Plans.
Specifically these plans provide no guidance or recommendations I
to Congregate Care Center managers with respect to making the designated space ready other than general directives to do things like turn on lights and heat and wait for ARC Shelter - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _. _ _ - _ _ _.
E s
i i
l, Management Team.
"If necessary," they are to " clear the designated area".
This testimony, in combination with Mr.
j Lonergan's, discussed supra, which shows that almost all of the-1 designated areas are not vacant and that many house equipment, vehicles in various state of repair, and/or several thousand feet of furnished areas, will show that because of the inattention that has been paid to this matter, existing l
procedures and plans, or lack thereof, do not ensure that such
)
space can be cleared in a timely and adequate manner such that Congregate Care Centers will be open to receive incoming evacuees and ARC shelter teams can go about their business' without disruption or delay.
E.
Summary of Testimony 1.
Mr. Arthur Loneraan Mr. Lonergan's survey shows that the industrial facility spaces designated for use as Congregate Care Centers are used in a variety of ways during normal business hours.
Some are used for offices, warehouse space, vehicle repair, garages, truck maintenance, guest rooms, aircraft hangar, cafeteria, etc.
Out of the twenty-five facilities that Mr. Lonergan called, only nine indicated that they have procedures or plans drawn up to address the matter of clearing the designated space.
Of those nine, five would apparently rely on a plan given them from "Seabrook".
presumably, this is the Congregate Care Center Management plan, referred to in Appendix F of the SpMC, the 1
l L'
~=
. inadequacy of which is addressed in Mr. Sikich's-testimony.
l The remaining four apparently have "in house" plans that would cover this type of activity.
None were reviewed by-FEMA.
Only two of these appear to be in written form.
As to the rest of the facilities, three stated.that they, had no plans dealing with this matter, two were "not sure" if there was such a plan in existence.
One individual indicated that clearing and making the space usable for evacuees would:
entail reliance on a " directive".
The general manager of one facility had no idea that the facility had been designated for use as a Congregate Care Center.
Two contact people are relying on "Seabrook" and " Red Cross" to deal with space conversion or-clearance.
Six facilities would not engage in any discussion with Mr. Lonergan.
One facility is no longer open.
Questions pertaining to the staffing of either a planned or unplanned movement to clear or convert the space had equally divergent responses.
As stated earlier, two facilities rely totally on outside sources ("Seabrook" and " Red Cross").
{
l Ten of the facilities said that they had a " call list" whereupon they would apparently garner personnel to provide the manpower during non-business hours.
There has been no review as to the number of people who would be available by means of this " call list" or whether additional staffing would be required relative to the job at hand.
Four of the facilities stated that they had some type of 24-hour staff coverage as a matter of course but again, there i
has been no review as to the actual number of staff people.
O available on the "off" shifts and whether, in fact, assistance would be needed to ensure a timely and adequate response.
One individual stated that the facility would use its own personnel but did not say where from or how this personnel would be available during non-business hours.
Again, six individuals at various facilities would not discuss this matter, one facility is no longer opened and one spokesperson reported that he had no idea that the facility had been designated for use as a Congregate Care Center.
2.
Mr. Gearv Sikich Mr. Sikich's testimony shows that, as a matter of fact, there are no provisions in the SpMC for NHY ORO assistance in converting or clearing spaces to make designated areas which need to be cleared or rearranged ready for evacuees.
Moreover, the Congregate Care Center Management Plan i
is not at all useful in terms of ensuring that designated space will be made ready in a timely manner.
[
4 3
1 t
l J
i
! l
- z..
Contentions Dealing with the Availability of Manned Vehicles (JI;34(c),~JI 55, JI 58)
A.
Contentions and-Issues Addressed Contention'JI 55 asserts that the "SPMC. fails to provide-reasonable-assurance that an adequate number of buses, ambulances,. wheelchair vans, vans, tow trucks,1 drivers and road crews'can.and will respond in a timely fashion."
Similarly, JI 58 asserts, inter alia, that the SPMC " fails to provide for an adequate number of available manned emergency vehicles."
Contention JI 34, Basis C, alleges further that the "SPMC
\\
provides,no adequate means of alerting, notifying, and-mobilizing bus drivers, ambulance drivers and others,"
but instead " simply leaves this function to the contracting employers."
The key issues raised by these contentions are j
1.
How many ambulances, buses, wheelchair vans,-
vans, tow trucks, and other emergency vehicles are needed-to provide an adequate emergency response?
2.
For how many of each of these categories of manned vehicles (with drivers) is there reasonable assurance that they can be counted on to respond in a real emergency.
3.
Is the procedure for con".:: ting these drivers adequate.
B.
The FEMA Findina I
f Again, as will be established through the cross examination of the FEMA witness (es), FEMA did not evaluate these issues.
1 l
FEMA's findings on related NUREG-0654 evaluation criteria 1 I
\\
e should not be globalized to include all issues related to manned vehicles, and no presumption of the SpMC's adequacy should be applied to the issues raised in these contentions.
C.
Identity cof Witnesses In addition to cross examining FEMA and Applicant witnesses on these issues, the Mass AG intends to offer the testimony of one panel comprised of two investigators from the Mass AG's Office:
Maureen Mangan and John Paolillo.
D.
Purpose of Testimony The overall purpose of this testimony is to describe with particularity the actual availability of manned vehicles from the private companies being relied upon by the SPMC.
These two investigators recently contacted each of the bus, ambulance, and tow companies which, in responding to discovery requests, the Applicants have stated that they will be relying on to supply vehicles to support the SPMC's evacuation plan.
In other words, this testimony examines the " supply" side of the issue.
The " demand" side -- how many of each kind of vehicle will be needed to ensure an adequate response -- will be established in various other ways, including the SPMC itself, the Interveners' testimony on the Special Populations, and through cross examination.
E.
Summary of the Testimony The investigators will present, company by company, the results of their investigation, summarizing their results to the extent possible.
For most bus companies willing to speak with them, it is not possible to say definitely how many manned-l vehicles will, with reasonable assurance, be able to respond on the day of an emergency. :The numbers vary greatly, depending l
on time of day, day of week, and even time of year.
What is certain, however, is thatson many occasions the number of buses, vans, and other vehicles that will, with reasonable assurance, be able to respond, is substantially less than the j
nu'nbers set forth on the SpMC's letters.of agreement ("LOAs").
Ther.ie are all "up to" agreements, i.e.,
they set forth maximums, not minimums.
In many cases, this is not the number of vehicles which the managers / owners of the companies expect to respond.
As to ambulances, it appears that no more than 51 ambulances and 4 ambulettes can be counted on, with reasonable assurance, to respond.
In addition, more than half of these cannot be counted on to drive into contaminated areas.
There is only one tow company participating, and it will likely supply three inrge tow vehicles, three carriers, and j
l nine standard wreckers.
-]
t i
1 i
l l
i l
u JI 59:
EXECUTORY CONTRACTS A.
Statement of Issues
{
l Contention JI.59 asserts that the SPMC is inadequate since Applicants' lead owner, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, as debtor in possession, has failed to assume, and l
obtain Bankruptcy Court approval for the assumption of, the l
executory service contracts to implement the SPMC.
The continuing' failure of Applicants' lead owner to declare its intentions as to these executory contracts, or to obtain confirmation from the Bankruptcy Court, as provided in 11 USC S365(a) renders the agreements unreliable and unenforceable.
B.
The FEMA FINDING In evaluating the adequacy of the SPMC, there is no evidence that FEMA considered the issues raised by JI 59.
There is no evidence that FEMA weighed the uncertainty, created by 11 USC S365(a), on the availability of resources designated by letters of agreement to perform emergency services.
There is no evidence that FEMA evaluated PSNH's continuing failure to assume and reaffirm these executory agreements, as required by statute, or the failure of PSNH to promptly seek Court approval to resolve this uncertainty.
As a consequence of these failures at plan review, the FEMA finding of adequacy, including the finding concerning 10 CFR - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
-50.47(b)(1)(8) and (9), and II.A, II.H, and II.I of NUREG 0654
~
FEMA-REP-1, REV.-1, SUPP.
1, is unsupported.
4 1
The prima facie case.of plan adequacy is rebutted.
C.
Identification of Witnesses The Mass AG will rely upon cross examination of FEMA personnel to establish the evidence supporting JI 59.
D.
PurDose and Summary of Evidence l
The purpose of the evidence to be presented by Mass AG on JI 59 is to demonstrate that Applicants have failed, and continue to fail, to provide reasonable assurance that SPMC emergency resources identified in letters of agreement or other executory contracts will be available for an emergency.
As a l
matter of law, 11 USC S365(a) renders the status of all executory service contracts entered into prior to the filing of bankruptcy on January 28, 1988, uncertain.
This uncertainty may only be resolved by the debtor in possession, who must affirmatively assume or reject each executory contract.
The J
debtor may make this express election at any time'before the confirmation of a reorganization plan, 11 USC $365(d)(2),
subject to Court approval.
More than one year has passed since PSNH filed for protection under the bankruptcy laws, however, and PSNH has not yet moved to resolve this uncertainty, created by statute, on the availability of emergency resources.
At l i
1
~
l o.
L
'this time, the' requisite reasonable assurance on the availability of emergency resources cannot be demonstrated.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M.
SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
}
~
By:
h'_
t'
- b(I/
John Traficonte, Chief Nuclear Safety Unit Allan R.
Fierce Leslie Greer Pamela Talbot Mathew Brock
' Assistant. Attorneys General Department of the Attorney General l
One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2200 l
1 1
1 1
b
-d
[0LKEii2 l
UNITED STATES OF-AMERICA 4'b M C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'E0 N 3 0 Before the' Administrative Judges:
,9 OFn. w DOCKEi M ? P M" -
Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman IS^E" Dr. Richard F.
Cole Kenneth A. McCollom
)
In the Matter.of.
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
(Off-Site EP)'
OF.NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL.
)
)
(Seabrook Station,. Units 1 and 2)
)
February 23, 1989
')
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
Pamela Talbot, hereby certify that on February 22, 1989, I made service of the within ERRATA SHEET RE: TRIAL BRIEF OF THE
]
MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL ON JOINT INTERVENOR CONTENTIONS.ON THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES (SPMC) and ADDITION TO APPENDIX'OF MS. SHARON MORIEARTY REGARDING JI-48, via First Class Mail on February 22, 1989, to:
Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Kenneth A. McCollom -
Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd.
1107 W.
Knapp St.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Stillwater, OK 74075 Commission East' West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Richard F. Cole Docketing and Service Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20555 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
i W-
.c Robert R.
Pierce, Esq.
Thomas G..Dignan, Jr.
Atomic-Safety & Licensing Bd.
Katherine Selleck U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes &_ Gray East West Towers Building.
225 Franklin Street 4350 East West Highway Boston, MA 02110 Bethesda, MD 20814 H.
Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Sherwin E.
Turk, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory l
Office of General Counsel Commission
[
Federal Emergency Management Office of the General'CounselI Agency 15th Floor 500 C Street, S.W.
11555 Rockville Pike Washington, DC 20472 Rockville, MD 20852 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street i
Commission P.O.
Box.516 h
Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 j
Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leagui U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market Street Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 l
Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Barbara St. Andre, Esq.
Murphy & Graham Kopelman &: Paige, P.C.
33 Low' Street 77 Franklin Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, W4 02110 i
Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
R.
Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
79 State Street Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton 2nd Floor
& McGuire Newburyport, MA 01950 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Dianne Curran, Esq.
Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Harmon, Curran, & Towsley 145 South Main Street Suite 430 P.O.
Box 38 2001 S Street, N.W.
Bradford, MA 01835 Washington, DC Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey U.S. Senate One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Washington, DC 20510 Concord, NH 03301
)
(Attn: Tom Burack)
(Attn: Herb Boynton)
]
George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Department of the Attorney 25 Capitol Street General Concord, NH 03301 Augusta, ME 04333 l
l
1 l
s.
a John ~H.
Frye, III Alternate James H' Carpenter, Alternate Chairman Technical Member
_ Atomic l Safety and Licensing Atomic. Safety and Licensing.
. Board; Panel Board Panel-j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
. U.S. Nuclear and Regulatory:
R Commission' Commission-Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 l
l Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Calvin A.
Canney-Board of Selectmen City Manager l
RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall
'l Rte. 107 126-Daniel Street
]
Kensington, tui 03827 Portsmouth,_ NH ~03801 q
Gary W. Holmes,'Esq.
Richard A.
Hampe, Esq.
]
Holmes &_Ellis Hampe & McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street k
Hampton, NH-03842 Concord,.NH 03301
)
~
l Robert Carrigg, Chairman J.P. Nadeau' I
' Board of~ Selectmen Selectmen's Offices l
Town Office 10 Central Road Atlantic Avenue Rye, NH 03870 J
North Hampton, NH 03862-William'S. Lord
' Board of-Selectmen Town Hall - Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 JAMES M. SHANNON p
ATTORNEY.GENERALu COMMONWEALTH OF MASS._.ACHUSETTS g
dt L
- h
,'ff" John Traficonte Allan Fierce Pamela Talbot Leslie Greer Assistant Attorney Generals Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED:
February 23, 1989