ML20236L855
| ML20236L855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1987 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4753 OL, NUDOCS 8711110088 | |
| Download: ML20236L855 (6) | |
Text
.
4rjg3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCHETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N TT 30 f3 3 before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD gFFICf 0; IECRETAA <
In the Matter of
)
"EI$ hic [jfI'VICf DocketNo.50-443-OLhyr/-O(
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
/
l OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al
)
I
)
(Offsite Emergency. Planning (Seabrook Station, Unit 1)
)
Issues)-
SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S OBJECTION TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE THE ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF FEMA'S PREFILED TESTIMONY l
The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League objects to Applicants' l
Motion to Strike from Evidence certain portions of the Prefiled Testimony of FEMA, to wit: pages 50, 59, 60, 91 and Exhibit C for the reasons set forth below.
Introduction Applicants argue, inter alia, that FEMA has made a legal argument in its testimony, and that the legal argument is erroneous.
Applicants further contend that because the FEMA testimony in question contains a legal argument it is not properly admissible into the evidentiary record.
I Applicants base their objection in part on a portion of the FEMA testimony in which FEMA states:
"Therefore, using the standard guidance for the initiation and duration of radiological releases, and the current New f
1 I
J
%a.
js
'p
-1 l )
Hampshire RERP including ETE, it appears that thousands of
.I people would be unable to leave during an accident at j
Seabrook involving a major release of radioactivity without 1
adequate shelter for as much of the entire duration of that I
release" FEMA Dir., Post. Tr. 3088 at (60) l Based on this testimony the Applicant.makes the assertion j
1 that FEMA believes:
"[T] hat NUREG-0654 and the applicabic NRC regulations, 10 CFR 50.47; 10 CFR 50 App. E, are to be read as requiring a i
demonstration that in the case of all accidents, or any J
particular accident, there is a guarantes that radiological-
)
injury will be reduced to a certain set acceptable amount."
(Applicants' Objection p. 5)
Aroument
]
l The FEMA witness, in stating that-FEMA was "using the standard guidance for the initiation and duration of radiological-releases", did not assert that there must be a guarantee that
]
radiological injury be reduced to a certain amount..Nevertheless
-l 1
the regulations referenced by FEMA do require that certain
/
standards be met.
There must be "a reasonably assurance that
{
1 adequate protective neasures can and will be taken'in the event of
)
J a radiological emergency," 10 CFR 50.97 (c) (1) ; and the evacuation plans " adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reasonable assurance that' appropriate. measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency." 44 CFR-
]
350.5(b).
If FEMA believes that the evacuation plans as they j
relate to the evacuation of the beach-going population do not provide reasonable assurance that adequate safety measures will be 4
i l
I a
, taken and the plans do not meet the regulatory standards, the testimony should be admissible as such.
.Furthermore, the testimony given by FEMA is not a legal
'j argument but an expert opinion.
This expert opinion was based on the standards set by NUREG-0654,10 CPR 50.47(a)(1), and 44 CFR1 350.5(b).
The fact that FEMA used these standards does not make its
.{
testimony inadmissible.
Quite the contrary.
The testimony demonstrates that PEMA was offering its expert opinion and i
properly performing its' functions as expected by the Commission.
I As a matter of law, the Commission must base its findings "on a review of the FEMA findings _and determinations as to whether there-is a reasonable assurance that they can be implemented."
10.CFR
- 50. 47 (a) (2).
As a matter of practice, the Commission' places great 4
weight as to FEMA's views on the adequacy of offsite emergency planning measures.
See Southern California Edison'Co., (San i
i Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, ' Un!.ts 2 and 3), CLI-83-10,17 NRC 528 (1983).
The Commission itself has stated that "the. basic goal'of emergency planning is the achievement of.naximum-dose savings in a radiological emergency."
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company (William Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Unit 1) ALAB-727, 17 NRC
~
760, 770 (1983). While this does not' indicate that the Applicant-must demonstrate that a particular level of radiological dose.be met, it certainly indicates the Commission's intent to be assured i
~ ~ - - ~ ~
~
1 i
1 at a minimum that adequate protective measures be taken.
FEMA has offered its expert opinion as it relates to the inadequacy of the protective measures offered by the Applicant and this opinion and the testimony as such is clearly admissible.
i 1
l Even assuming arguendo that the FEMA testimony makes a legal j
\\
agrument or is based on a legal argument, 1/ the testimony must 1
still be admitted.
On the issue of the admissibility of expert testimony, the Commission has stated that testimony "need only (1) j assist the trier of fact, and (2) be rendered by a properly i
qualified witness.
See Fed.
R.
Evid.
702."
Louisiana Power and Licht Co.
(Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, I
l 17 NRC 1076, 1091 (1983).
The FEMA testimony satisfies both criteria.
Further, under
)
l 10 CFR 2.743 evidence is admissible in a Nuclear Regulatory proceeding if it is " relevant, material, and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious."
The evidence offered by the FEMA witness is irrefutably relevant, material and reliable and j
l must be admitted.
Conclusion l
The Applicants' objection should be overruled.
The FEMA l
testimony is relevant and material and necessary to this proceeding.
1/
FEMA witness Thomas has already flatly testified that the challenged testimony is not a " legal conclusion."
l l
.)
Respectfully submitted, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League By.its Attorneys BACKUS EYER & SOLOMON Dated: October 27, 1987 I
e 4
46111Idt 'A.' Backus.
~
116 Lowell Street-Manchester, NH 03105 l
660-7272 CERTIFICATE.OP SERVICE 3
I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing " Seacoast
'l Anti-Pollution League's Objection to Applicants' Motion to Strike j
the Admission Into Evidence'of Certain Portions of FEMA's Prefiled Testimony" was sent to this date, first class' mail, postage prepaid to all names on the attached service list.
s' is.
Rob'e r t' A. Backus
]
s 1
i f
J l
I b
I r
1
DOCHE RED USHRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND SERVICE LIST
'87 OCT 30 P3:27 ThorollSCOigngggggg.
- Jose Asst.Gn.Cnsl.
Fed. ph Flynnhigmt. Agcy.
Ivan Smith RopdISClifi0tSa4'3ERVICf.
Emerg.
500 C.St. So. West Atomic Safety & Lic Brd.
225 FranEff4iHSt.
Washington, DC 20472 USNRC Boston, MA 02110 Washington, DC 20555 Office of Selectmen Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Docketing & Serv. Se l Town of Hampton Falls Admin. Judge Office of the Secret, Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Lic Brd.
USNRC USNRC Washington, DC 2055 i Washington, DC 20555 i
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. #
Jane Doughty Dr. Gustave A. Linenberger
- Office of Exec. Legl Dr.
Admin Judge ZAPL j
USNRC Atomic Safety & Lic. Brd.
5 Market Street
]
Washington, D.C.
20555 USNRC Portsmouth, NH 0380I Washington, DC 20555 f
3 Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
Paul McEachern, Esq.
Ceorge Dana Bisbee, Esq. !
Asst. Atty. General Shtthew Brock, Esq.
Attorney General's Cl State House, Sta. #6 25 '.laplewood Ave.
State of New Hampshi1 Augusta, ME 04333 P.O. Box 360 Concord, NH 03301 l
Portsanuth, NH 03801
]
l 1
Carol Sneider, Esq., Asst.AG Diane Curran, Esq.
William S. Lord One Ashburton Place, Harmon, Weiss Ecard of Select:mn
)
19th Floor 20001 S Street NW Suite 430 Town Hall-Friend St.
Boston, MA 0210S Washingcon, DC 20009 Amesbury, MA 01913 Richard A. Ha:ge. Esq.
Maynard Young, Chairan Sandra Gavutis l
New Hampshire Civil Delense Board of Selectmen Town of Kensington l
Agency 10 Central Road Box 1154 l
Harme & McNicholas Rye, NH 03870 East Kingston, N.H. 0:j I
35 Pleasant St.
Concora, NH 03301 J
Judith H. Mizner, Esc.
Edward 'Ihomas Mr. Robert Harrison Pres. & Chief Exec. Of fic,
Silverglate, Gertner,'
FEMA Baker, Fine, Gccd &.Mizner 442 J.W. McCoranck (FCCH)
PSCO j
88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02109 P.O. Box 330 Ecston, MA 02110 Manchester, NH 03105 l
Ecberta Pevear State Rep.-Town of Ha.pt Falls Drinkwater Road Ha.Tpton Falls, NH 03SM Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
NRC Washington, D.C.
20555
.i