ML20235X595

Town of Hampton Response to Applicant Objection in Nature of Motion in Limine to Admission of a Hutchinson Re Town of Hampton Revised Contentions Iii,Iv & VI & Seacoast Anti- Pollution League Contentions 8,8A,15,31 & 37

ML20235X595
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/14/1987
From:	Brock M, Mceachern P HAMPTON, NH, SHAINES & MCEACHERN
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20235X598	List: ML20235X595 ML20235X615
References
CON-#487-4609 OL, NUDOCS 8710200053
Download: ML20235X595 (3)

Text

i-h$df e

90CNETED USNMC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ggggg before'the .

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444~OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al, )

) Off-Site Emergency (Seabrook-Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues

____________________________________)

TOWN OF HAMPTON RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION IN LIMINE TO THE ADMISSION OF ANN HUTCHINSON REGARDING TOH REVISED CONTENTIONS III, IV AND VI AND SAPL CONTENTIONS at Eat 15.t 11 AND 11 Relying upon a single case issued by another licensing board,1 Applicants seek to exclude the testimony of Ann Hutchinson, Division Manager of National School Bus Servica, Inc. (f ormerly Ber ry Transportation Company). That testimony, in summary, challenges the reliability of the numbers of drivers identified in letters of agreement and presents evidence that there w il l not be adequate k: available drivers to respond to an emergency at Seabrook.

Ebiladelsbia Electric Com LLimerich Gencrating Stationt Unita 1 and 21., LBP-85-14, 21'NRC 1219, 1273 (1985).

8710200053 871014 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 PDR s

SHAlNES Em McE ACHERN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

- . _ A - - - - ,, _ . _

t)

l I a ,.

..o ki

'As grounds for exclusion, ' Applicants claim that letters of agreement are not ' intended to constitute enf orceable contracts, that the opinions expressed by Division Manager Hutchinson "present.no specialized knowledge which might assist the trier of f act," that the Division Manager's opinions are " speculative," and " constitute a waste of time."

The Limerick decision, relied upon-by Applicants, refutes Applicants' own position. 'For whether or not letters of agreement constitute enforceable contracts, "the purpose of the agreement is to reasonably determine and confirm the available resources and to assure that the providers are. capable of providing those r esour ce s."

Limerick, n.1, supra, at 1273. The testimony of Division Manager Hutchinson demonstrates that only about 10% of the 65 drivers identified as. "available" under the present Letter of Agreement with National School Bus Service, Inc. (f ormerly Berry Transportation Company, Hampton Ex. 3) will drive in an actual emergency. During the emergency exercise in February, 1986, and at the request of the State of New Hampshire, Division Manager Hutchinson surveyed her 57 drivers and determined that 'only 6 would drive in an actual emergency. Ms.

Hutchinson, therefore, provides the best evidence indicating that there are not adequate drivers at her company to drive emergency l:

buses. Additionally, she raises serious concerns on the reliability l of all letters of agreement prof erred by the State.

Further, 'as ref erenced in her testimony, Ms. Hutchinson's "specializ ed knowledge" on driver availability was acquired through 2

$HAINES 6 McEACHERN - PROFES$IONA1. A5SOCsATION 25 MAMEWM.i AVENUE P O DOX 360 PORTsMOUTH. 74 M osttot l .-

y k y, iher direct contacts and surveys of her~ drivers and through her personal participation-in the emergency exercise. Having consented to conducting the ' emergency' exercise to test the NHRERP,- ' Applicants now seek to exc1'ude ' highly relevant information gleaned from that exercise,- not tiecause it is _ " speculative," but because it too clearly demonstrates significant inaccuracies.in the letters of_ agreement and a lac'k'of available drivers.

Finally, the Limerigk decision relied upon by Applicants otherwise' f ails to support Applicants' motion in limine since that decision f ollowed a full evidentiary hearing. See, Limerick, n.1 at 1227. Apparently, in Limerich, no motion to exclude testimony in advance of the hearing was made, and none ordered. Applicants' motion in limine, theref ore, is presented without legal or f actual support and should be DENIEQ.

Respectfully submitted, TOWN OF HAMPTON By Its Attorneys SHAINES & Mc HERN Professio Corporation By ________________________________

Paul McEachern Dated: October _/_ _, 1987 ___________ h.E___b__ ___

~

By_p__ Matthew T. Brock 3

SHAINES En McE ACHERN PROFESSION AL ASSOCaATON 26 MMifWOOD AVENUE P O BOX B60 PORTSMOVIN N H 09801

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _