ML20247B230
| ML20247B230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/19/1989 |
| From: | Cook G PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8636 OL, NUDOCS 8905240058 | |
| Download: ML20247B230 (20) | |
Text
_
b
(:
fUlr:EiED nowc May 19,'1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Of4 C OUCH 3..
e.a C#W" before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE. COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
(Off-site Emergency
)
Planning Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION IN LIMINE TO THE ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MASS AG'S WITNESSES GERARD ST. HILAIRE, HOWARD SAXNER, AND BARBARA DAVIS Applicants object to and move this Board in the nature of a motion in limine to exclude as evidence in this proceeding the " Testimony of Gerard St. Hilaire, Howard Saxner, and Barbara Davis on behalf of James M. Shannon, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the Proposed Use of Evacuation Bed Buses in the SPMC"
[" Testimony").
In support of their motion, Applicants say that the Testimony is not material or relevant to the issues before this Board, and that sections of it suffer additional infirmities of form and completeness.
CCBEDBUS.NH 8905240058 890519 PDR ADOCK 05000443 T
PDR 1
- ll.
SUMMARY
OF TESTIMONY.
The first section of the Testimony is offered by Gerard St. Hilaire, who identifies himself as General Counsel for the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
St. Hilaire says that he is familiar with motor vehicle licensing procedures and, in p.
particular, that he is familiar with the requirements for registering ambulances.
Having looked at certain documents pertaining to the Applicants' use of evacuation bed buses during a radiological emergency, St. Hilaire asserts that the Registry would classify bed buses in the ordinary course of business as ambulances and would require a certificate from the state Department of Public Health before their operation was permitted.
Howard Saxner, whose staterents comprise the second section of the Testimony, works for the Commonwealth as Deputy General Counsel for the Department of Public Health.
Saxner states that he has developed procedures and regulations concerning the licensing and certification of ambulances.
He contends that bed buses "would be required to have certificates ah ambulances" and that "the entity operating such vehicles would have to be licensed as an ambulance service by the Department of Public Health."
Testimony, at 6.
The witness then lists several things that he says are required in order to obtain a license as an ambulance service, to receive a certificate to operate an ambulance, and to equip an ambulance with qualified medical _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l
1L.
personnel.
Saxner concludes that evacuation bed buses lack the necessary equipment and personnel to be certified as ambulances.
The final section of the Testimony is offered by Barbara l
Davis,.who is a manager of health care programs at the Commonwealth's Department of Public Health.
Davis, who says that she will discuss "what is meant by the various levels of care in nursing homes," testifies that the difference between
" Level I" and " Level II" patients only reflects the source of the funding for a patient's care.
ARGUMENT The sections containing the three witnesses' testimony are joined in a single document, but their testimony concerns distinct matters and is readily severable.
All three sections should be excluded in their entirety, for the reasons argued below.
(1)
St. Hilaire and Saxner.
The testimony of St. Hilaire and Saxner, the two attorneys for the Commonwealth, should be excluded for four independently sufficient reasons:
a) the allegation that bed buses would be illegal is late-filed; b) the testimony inappropriately concerns matters of law instead of fact; c) the witness's statements are irrelevant; and d) the testimony is so misleading that it hac no value. _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _
l.
(a)
The Testimonv's Central A11ecation is Late-Filed.
St. Hilaire and Saxner's allegation that the use of evacuation bed buses in a-radiological-emergency would be l
illegal amounts to a late-filed contention.
No contention admitted for litigation has alleged that it would be illegal to implement evacuation bed buses without having them certified as ambulances by the Department of Public Health.
Interveners knew, when they filed their original contentions on the SPMC in April 1988, that Applicants then planned to use bed buses.
They failed to raise the issue at that time,
- See, e.a., JI Contention 50, Bases I and J.
Interveners have no good cause for previously omitting the issue, and, as is explained in this motion below, the introduction Of St. Hilaire and Saxner's testimony will not assist in the development of a sound record.
Having neglected to make any claim involving the legality of the use of bed buses during an emergency, Interveners cannot now introduce testimony whose main focus is to contest that subject and whose chief effect will be to appreciably increase the length of the SPMC proceedings.1 1 Thus, applying the five-factor test of 10 C.F.R.
52.714 (a) (1), Mass AG has failed to carry the first, third, and fifth factors.
Factors two and four, which as usual tend to favor Interveners, are " accorded less weight, under established Commission precedent, than factors one, three, and five."
Commonwealth Edison Comoany (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 245 (1986), citing with accroval, South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, 895 (1981).
Moreover, since Mass AG failed even to make reference i
.--___._:--a______.m.
.m
_m_._
(b)
The Testimony Is Imoroner Because It Addresses Lecal Issues.
Even if the issue were properly admitted for litigation, the testimony should be excluded because, instead of discussing factual issues, it concentrates exclusively on legal questions.
St. Hilaire, when asked about the subject of his testimony, said that it concerns "the requirements for the registration of ambulances as motor vehicles on the roads of the Commonwealth."
Testimony, at 1.
Similarly, Saxner directs his testimony to "the requirements for certification of ambulance vehicles and licensure of ambulance services."
Id. at 4.
After discussing those requirements, the witnesses conclude, respectively, that the state Registry of Motor Vehicles would refuse, under state law, to register evacuation bed buses without a certificate and that the Department of Health would deny, under state law, a certificate to all bed buses that do not meet the requirements for the operation of an ambulance.
Testimony, at 4, 8.
Courts, in general, do not permit opinion testimony on a question of law.
McCORMICK ON EVIDENCE 512 (3rd ed. 1984).
to the five-factor test, the late ~ filed contention should be rejected out of hand.
Egg Georcia Power Company (Vogtle l
Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-86-41, 24 NRC l
901, 927-928 (1986), modified, ALAB-859, 25 NRC 23 (1987),
l aff'd, ALAB-872, 26 NRC 127 (1987) ; ggg also Memorandum and Order (Rulina on Massachusetts Attorney General's Exercise Contentions 8.C.1, 8.C.3,
- 18. and 21.C) at 12-13 (January 13, 1989), and cases cited therein. l 1
I l
}
E__--_-_____----_-_
- - - -- __ J
6 9
" Expert testimony on law is excluded because 'the tribunal i
does not need the witness' judgment.
[T]he iudge (or the
- jury as instructed by the judge) can determine equally well.
Marx & Co.,
Inc. v. Diner's Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2nd Cir. 1977), cert. AfD. 434 U.S. 861 (1977).
NRC regulations, in particular, define a party's right to present evidence that "may be required for full and true disclosure 21 the facts" (emphasis added).
10 C.F.R. 52.743(a).
Since St. Hilaire and'Saxner's testimony makes assertions, not of fact, but about how the commonwealth's legal rules would apply to a set of facts, that testimony should be excluded.
(c)
The Testimony Is Irrelevant.
Even if.the issue of the legality of bed buses were before the Board and the Testimony were of a prcper type, the Testimony is irrelevant.
St. Hilaire and Saxner's testimony turns upon legal provisions that do not apply to the facts at issue.
Both witnesses allege that bed buses would be required to have certificates as ambulances before they could enter service, but neither evaluates the importance of the narrow, specific circumstances during which bed buses would be used.
Applicants do not seek to register and operate bed buses as ambulances in every-day operation, and Interveners have not alleged that they intend to do so.
Rather, Applicants plan to make emergency use of licensed buses that have had conversion kits installed.
Saxner actually recognizes this 1
l l '
4 when he notes that bed buses are "to be used only [ emphasis added).
in the event of an emergency at the Seabrook plant."
Such emergency use is entirely consistent with regulations issued by the Department of Public Health, which permit uncertified vehicles to render emergency medical transportation in the case of a major emergency.
Egg MASS.
REGS. CODE tit. 105, 6170.010 (1988), Attachment A hereto.
That regulation states, in part (A), " Uncertified vehicles may be used to render emergency medical transportation in the case of a major catastrophe when the number of certified ambulances capable of emergency dispaten in the locality of the catastophe 2s insufficient to render the required emergency medical transportation services."
Thus, St.
Hilaire and Saxner's testimony, the thrust of which is that Applicants could not register the bed buses as ambulances, is irrelevant.
(d)
The Testimony Is So Misleadina That It Has No Value.
Even if the Testimony were within the scope of the contentions, proper in for.m, and relevant, it should be excluded because of its highly incomplete characterization of applicable law.
The witnesses are not only attorneys for state agencies in this field; they also claim to have particular familiarity with the requirements for registering and certifying ambulances.
Nevertheless, their testimony makes no reference at all to section 170.010 of Title 105 of - - - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, Attachment A hereto, the provision which allows uncertified vehicles to be used during crisis situations to provide emergency medical transportation.
The omission by the witnesses of the
- controlling regulation on point renders their testimony so misleading as to be of no value to the Board.
Cf. FED. R.
EVID. 403.
(2)
Davis.
Davis's testimony should be excluded as irrelevant, because it never explains why Applicants should not use evacuation bed buses.
Davis contends that the only difference between nursing home patients' designated " Level I" and those designated " Level II" is the source of the funds for their care.
The witness further states that it is therefore wrong to assume that Level I patients need a higher level of medical or nursing care than Level II patients.
But Davis never asserts or explains why either type of patient might have difficulty being transported in evacuation bed buses.2 Consequently, this portion of the Testimony is irrelevant and should be excluded.
2 If the witness intends to imply that Level II patients cannot safely be transported by bed bus, the testimony should still be excluded.
The issue of the adequacy of bed buses was raised, litigated, and decided in the New Hampshire hearings.
See TOH Contention IV, Attachment B hereto; II.
7827-29; Public Service Company of New Hamoshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-88-32, 28 NRC 667, 698-99 (December 30, 1988).
i 1 pmmmmm__u-
i CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Testimony should be excluded.
Respectfully submitted, YV 6
Thomas $( Dip an, Jr.
George H. Mwald Kathryn A. Selleck Jeffrey P. Trout Jay Bradford Smith Geoffrey C. Cook William L.
Parker Ropes & Gray 1 International Place Boston, MA 02110
-(617) 951-7000 4 _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _
.h
ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 1) 105 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 170.002: Authorit y This chapter is adopted under the authority of M.G.L. c.111C and M.G.L.
f c.30A,s.2.
(
170.003: Citation This chapter shall be known and may be cited as " Regulations Goveming i
Ambulance Services and Coordinating Emergency Medical Care",105 CMR i
Medical Service Regulations." 105 CMR 170.000,The short form of citatio I
170.000.
{
170.010: Scope This chapter govems emergency medical services systems, ambulance services, ambulances, equipment, training and personnel.
{
(A) Uncertified vehicles may be used to render emergency medical transportation in the case nf a maior cett,trophe when the number of certified ambulances capable of emergency dispatch in the locality of the catastrophe is insufficient to render the required emergency medical transportation services.
(B) Nothing in this chapter is intended to preclude the public from choosing any mode of transportation to get to a hospital or other established site of medical care.
DEFINITIONS 170.020: Meaning of Terms The definitions set forth in 105 CMR 170.020 through 170.061 shall apply for the purpose of this chapter, unless the context or subject matter clearly requires a different interpretation.
iI 170.021: Advanced Life Support Advanced Life Support (ALS) means the pre-hospital use of medical techniques and skills by qualified personnel who are specially trained and shall include such functions as advanced airway and circulatory maintenance and the management of cardiac disorders.
j 170.022: Ambulance Ambulance means any aircraft, boat, motor vehicle, or any other means of transportation, including a dual purpose vehicle, however named, whether privately or publicly owned, which is intended to be used for, and is maintained and operated for, the transportation of sick, injured or disabled patients.
170.023: Ambulance Attendant Ambulance attendant means an Emergency Medical Technician trained and certified in accordance with these regulations who provides emergency medical care to sick or injured persons prior to and during transport by an ambulance.
The term ambulance attendant includes the EMT who operates the ambulance.
170.029: Ambulance Service Ambulance service means the business or regular activity, whether for
- yrcfil c,I s,et, ut linnapun iing sick, injured ur disabled individu' ls by ambulance.
a 6/10/88 105 CMR - 822
ATTACHMENT B (Page 1 Of 7) emergency vehicles.
(FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86, p. 39).
The letters of agreement in Volume 5 of the plans only demonstrate a total of 445 bus pairs.
As stated above,
-and-driver the local plans alone show a need for 482 buses, buses are needed for those communitiesthough th only 444 "Because the State of New Hampshire has erroneou l needed by reducing population estimates a sy the percentage of non-auto owning individual e
g because there are insufficient emergency vehi lp s to be carried out due to personnel shortages,and becaus c e drivers:
e will be provided or that those resources that are there is no ces available can be used effectively."
Limitation
" Limited to issues concerning availability assistance and ability of transport vehicles toveh of evacuation transverse EPZ to reach designated areas in a cmergency."
n Sources Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Contentions the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Resp on Revision 2 of November 26, 1986, at 35-38; onse Plan, Memorandum and Order, February 18, 1987, at 5.
j i
k TOH IV contention equipment," Revision 2 fails to provide for adequate e responses can be implemented in the event offails to de{
i mergency radiological emergency
)
and fails to correct deficiencies in emergen,cy response capabilities
{
from the emergency exercise.
i 10 CFR, apparent 5 50. 4 7 (1) (8) (10) (14 ). "
Basis
.- =
"NUREG requires that each local RERP include writte
~
response role within the emergency planning zone
~
^
\\
n
. o
(page 2 of 7)
NUREG. ca. 32(3)._
The State has entered into three I
agreements with transportation companies to provide buses and vans to the Town of Hampton in the event evacuation.
Set attached.
of buses and two vans for an evacuation emer en evacuate the anticipated populations from.?chools, To special faciltiies the town, however,,the Hampton RERP requires a minian other of' seventy-four buses, mum twelve vans, and twenty-three EMS vehicles.
RERP. Das. II-28.29 and even using State projections, On its face, therefore, 1
inadequate to meet town needs. transportation allocated to H f
"Ad:litionally, while the RERP nakes provision fo Hampton, the plan does not provide for anyprovidi r
transportation for vacationers, transients, or other transportation in the event of emergencynon-residen to Hampton during the summer months,the substantia In view of s coming it is only additional public transportation vehicles will bereas required in the event of evacuation.
" Finally, although three agreements for b l
transpol
.ation for Hampton have been executed, us and van Barry Transportation Company of North Hampton is lo only the in reasonable proximity to the Town of Hampton in th cated event evacuation is required.
e Corporation of Nashua The Jan-Car Leasing Company of Salem, are, located in the south centr land the Ti portion of the state, thirty-five and forty milesa respectively from the town of Hampton.
i
- RERP, to Nashua, EEFP. individuals evacuated from Hampton will be t kSince ca. II-17, a en the buses attempting to to maneuver through evacuation traffic leaving Hr The likelihood of substantial delay, ampton.
therefore rasies significant questions on theimpos if not mpton t'1e town under its RERP. feasibility of the evacuation transportatio e
o access to evacuated areas and fails to consid provitting JNaduation vehicles to the town. potential im
~
pc. 63.
Protective Response."
NUREG. !
l
{'
(page 3 Of 7) i.
)
Further Basis i
\\
"NUREG requires that each local RERP include writt
{
agreements with any organization serving an emergency en response role within the emergency planning zone NUREG, page 32 (3).
agreements with transportation companies to providThe buses and vans to the Town of Hampton in the ev e
evacuation.
two bus companies will previde theUnder the Compensatory Pla ent of
, only Hampton in the evenu of emergency. transportation for page 7A-24.
Compensatory Plan, Hampton under the Compensatory Plen and Revise fail to provide reasonable assurance of adequate RP f.
protective measures mandated by 10 CFR $50.47(A)(1) the following reasons:
for 1
"(A) shall provide the Town of Hampton with 40 busesU ompany Page 7A-24.
with Berry Bus,Under the terms of the letter agreement obligated to provide 31 buses in the event of emerhow or 9 fewer Luses than even the Statu acknowledges ar
- gency, necessary in the event of radiological emergency e
"(B) evacuate Aslan's Pride SchooThe Compensatory Plan provides o o
the Taylor School. emergency.l, Happy Apple Nursery, and Rather than provide a van to evCompensatory Plan, page 7A-7.
t of these schools in the event of emergency,acuate each to maneuver through heavy evacuation trafficcom the proceed to each of the three schools to evacuate the and to children.
Substantial delar, if not impossibility requiring a single bus drivar to evecuate three schools
, of is unreasonable and would likely result in delay in removing these children from the EPZ substantial
"(C) acknowledge that 23 emergency and special ne will be required to evacuate the Town in the event of es emergency.
Compensatory Plan, page 7A-7; Revised Hampton RERP, page II-30.
Hampton's transportation needsThe letter agreements for the Hampton population. allocate a single emergency or,specia however, fail to r
"(D) trange*etich-for any vacationers,The Revised Hampton
~~
~
transportation andnon-resident individuals who may lack their owntransien time of emergency. may be present in the Town at the In view of the substantial number of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i
(page 4 of 7) year, and particularly during the summer mont out the additional public transportation vehicles will beo it is required to promptly carry out an evacuation.
"(L)
Company of Salem, New Hampshire shall provide of Hampton with 35 buses in the event of emergency own Salem is located approximately 40 miles from the T Hampton.
Since under the Revised Hampton RERP, own of Nashua, immediately adjacent to Salem, Revi
'l page II-17, Hampton for evacuation purposes will be required tot maneuver through evacuation traffic leaving Hampton The likelihood of substantial delay, if not impossibility, of evacuation vehic3es reachin therefore raises significant questions on theg Hampton the Town under its Revised RERP. feasibility of the evacua o
RERP therefore fails to provide reasonable assuranThe Revised Ham prompt access for emergency vehicles to the EPZ andce of fails to consider the potential impediments of vehicles to the Town. evacuation traffic in promptly providing evacuatica NUREG-0654, page 63."
Further Basis
"(A)
Emergency Resources and Equipment.
" Revision 2 fails to allocate adequate buses or EMS vehicles to the Town of Hampton to reasonably support an evacustion on grounds including:
"1.
The State indicates that the bus companies under Letter of Agreement will provide 553 buses and 496 drivers to support an e radiological emergency.vacuation in the event of Vol. 4, App. I-l and 2.
figures are inaccurate and misleading.
These buses to be provided by a particular bus company lack Many of the are prepared to provide drivers, but have no bus them to drive.
Id.
FEMA correctly notes that only to determine the maximum number of emergency available to support an evacuation.
Exerciep Assessment, 6/2/86, at p. 39.
The state FEMA, Einal howevsL=gan only demonstrate 431 bus-and-driver p, airs Vol. 4, App. I-1 and 2, the 444 necessary
- nimum required to carry out anor 13 bus / driver
(page 5 of 7)
\\
evacuation, Vol.
4, App.
I-8, unreasonably low EPZ population figures.even using the State's own "2.
Agreement with the State represent an 'absoluteThe b maximum,' FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 39, 6/2/86 available evacuation buses or personnel.and do nat pro Exercise Assessment, 6
FEMA, Final common sense and conve/2/86, App.
I, at p. 233.
Both companies indicate that in fact the actual bus-and-rsations b driver availability would be substantially less than specified in the Letter Agreements, as id, which could reasonably be expected to be reduced by reason of bus breakdown, driver unavailability, drivers who may get lost enroute to the EPZ, outgoing evacuation traffic thereby substantiallyor who may delaying or prohibiting a driver from timely reachin the EPZ.
RAC Review, Auoust, 1986,Section VI, p. 12.
g "3.
concerns on the inadequacIn an apparent effort to address FEMA's transportation resources,y of available personnel and agreement with the Teamsters Union, apparently for thethe S purpose of providing additional bus drivers for evacuation.
Vol.
4, App. I-11.
fails to demonstrate that the Teamsters under agree, t Revision 2, however are in fact adequately trained to drive the school buses men and emergency vehicles for the mobility impaired to these backup drivers promptly will be notified andpr coordinated with available buses, Agreements executed by the individual members i
er union.
s
"(B)
Emergency Exercise.
position of the Town of Hampton and other inter that evacuation of the EPZ around Seabrook Station i not feasible and that the personnel and equipment s
allocated to support an emergency response are inadequate.
For example, even the limited demand for buses of communitiesthe State could n participating in the exercise, FEMA. Final Exereign Assessment, p. 40, could not provide adequate EMS or ambulance service, FFMA.
employees, RAC Review.447 Jid3uses were alTocated for sum 42.
pp.
~
-~
Aucust 1986,
~
buses were available to support en evacuationthe S 9,._
p
- FEMA,
~40-l l
L_ - - -_-____-_-________
\\
(page 6 of 7)
Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2' /8 6, p. 42, and the State who may have a vehicle in the householddid not allo v uals may be unavailable at the time et an eme,rgencyyet the vehicle Review, Auaust,1186,Section I, p. 71.
bag to correct t.
le and related deficienciesRevision 2 fails Additionally, if the State was unable to reasonably carry out a limited and preplanned evacuation exerci with no requirement for coordination with M se, ts, summertime beach population is wholly unrealistic and unworkable.
"(D)
Compensatory Plan
" FEMA has recommended that the State Compensato be revised of the local jurisdictions in the Seabrook plume EPZ ry Plan FEMA, final Exercise Assessment 6/2/86, p. 44.
Based upon the FEMA recommendation, an,d from the avowed non participation of the Town of Hampton and numerous othe towns within the EPZ to implement the NHRERP r
has promulgated a compensatory plan consisting of the State five pages.
Vol. 2, App G.
only Compensatory Plan wholly fails to allocate adeAs presently drafted, the personnel, equipment, quate evacuation on grounds including:or resources to implement an "1.
The plan erroneously assumes the cooperation no letter agreements confirming this participat been obtained.
Vol. 2, App. G-2.
"2.
of ' law enforcement activities and traffic controlAsida vol. 2, App.
G-3, specify where this additional law enforcement personn will be obtained to make up for those local police who will not participate in the implementation of the
{
- NHRERP, I
including the Hampton Police Department.
the plan erroneously assumes local participatio Either n the so participate, or the plan relics upon the inadequate l
o
{
number of personnel in State Police Troop A to carry out local law enforcement duties.
With its 35 troopers, however, Troop A does not even have sufficient personn l to staff access control points for the EPZ e
under Revision 2, manac
~
let alone take over the trnfficas required Hampton and other local police departmentsmment-~KTici s
~~
Exercise Assessment, FEMA, Final 6/2/86 at p. 46.
(page 7 of 7)
"(E)
Transit Dependent Individuals
" Revision 2 adopts a to evacuate transit dependent residents and' co routes' transients without private transportation Auaust, 1986,Section I, p. 73.
RAC Review Apparently this speed of evacuation, by eliminating the need fo s
door pickups of transit dependent individuals a e
oor to provided in the prior NHRERP.
s These pre-designated bus routes, however, will require individuals,' mobi radiological emerge,ncy, to locate the pre-designated b routes, and to remain radiological exposure, outdoors subject to increased us-FEMA h%s already indicated may reasonably beawaiting evac D21 to arrive.
FEHA Einal Exercise Assessment, expected at p.
40.
public health and will not adequately protect the 6/2/86 Hampton population from radiation injury e
the transportation allocated for the Town of Additionally, under Revision 2, Vol. 18, p. 34, ampton beach population.for the substantial number of transientsdoes not incl including the Vol. 4, App.
I-8."
Limitation
" Limited to matters raised by NHRERP Revision 2 "In summary, TOH Revised Contention IV (Octob 1986) is admitted, as limited to the bases offered by er 31, TOH, as follows:
Basis (A),
(A)2 admitted; Emergency Rsources and Equipment:
(A)3 admitted, (A)1 and Union members who volunteer to drive. Letter Agreem eamsters Basis (B), Emergency Exercise:
Allegations of Exercise Assessment, uncorrected deficiencies in NHRERP from FEM admitted, except conclusionary
{
assertion of applicability of February 1986 exercise t actual evacuation.
Supplementary basis o
November 19, 1986 (at 3-4)
(B) proffered entiret Special Needs Population:is reiected in its entirety.
Basis (C),
Basis (y.
reiected in its D), Compensatory Plan:
(D)3 reiected.
(D)1 and (D)2 admitted; Basis (E), Transit Dependent Individuals:
admitted."
dispositively allayed by Applicants and other"(T*fn
\\
een'~~
\\
that we cannot resolve from the materials bef
{
concerns Thus, there remain material facts in dispute ore us.
{
l
f i'Mi ii D 8i y'.
'89 MAY 22 P4 52 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Geoffrey C.
Cook, one of the attorneys?for_the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on May iflt 1989,JI
made service of the within document by mailing copies' thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Administrative Judge Ivan W.
- Smith, John P. Arnold, Esquire Chairman Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Attorney General Commission 25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20555 Concord, NH 03301-6397 Administrative Judge Richard F.
Mr. Richard R.
Donovan Cole Federal Emergency Management Atomic Safety and Licensing Agency Board Federal Regional Center U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 130 228th Street, S.W.
Commission Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Washington, DC 20555 l
Administrative Judge Kenneth A.
Judith H. Mizner, Esquire McCollom 79 State Street, 2nd Floor 1107 West Knapp Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Stillwater, OK 74075 Diane Curran, Esquire Robort R.
Pierce, Esquire Andrea C.
Ferster, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Harmon, Curran & Tousley Board Suite 430 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 2001 S Street, N.W.
Commission Washington, DC 20009 Washington, DC 20555 Adjudicatory File Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Docket (2 copies)
Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105
Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J.
P. Nadeau i
Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of.the Attorney 10 Central Road-3 General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire John Traficonte, Esquire Shaines & McEachern Assistant Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Department of the Attorney i
P.O.
Box 360 General l
Portsmouth, NH 03801 One Ashburton Place, 19th Fir.
l Boston, MA 02108 i
Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr.' Calvin A. Canney.
Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall j
'Kensington,-NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire U.S.
Senate Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &
Washington, DC 20510 Rotondi (Attn:
Tom Burack) 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Leonard Kopelman, Esquire One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
1 Concord, NH 03301 77 Franklin Street
'(Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Boston, MA 02110 Mr. Thomas F.
Powers, III Mr. William S.
Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall -' Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire Office of General Counsel Murphy and Graham j
Federal Emergency Management 33 Low Street Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas i
47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03842 Concord, NH 03301 j
Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire 145 South Main Street P.O.
Box 38 Bradford, MA 01835 l
Y_
f_
s s
ccortrey y c p '
~
p I
l j_
1 l
lE-__-- - _ -.--- -
I