ML20247E990

Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Reply to Certain Applicant Responses to Proposed Findings.* W/Certificate of Svc

ML20247E990
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/11/1989
From:	Fierce A MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
Shared Package
ML20247E968	List: ML20247E963 ML20247E990
References
OL, NUDOCS 8909180060
Download: ML20247E990 (10)

Text

_- - -. - _ - _ - _ _

F b.c

,s ,

DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UhNEI NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 'E7 SD 13 PS :08 i

Before Administrative Judges: en  !

o ,s  !

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman l Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom l l

l

\

) l In the Matter of )

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

) September 11, 1989 l (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

)

l MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REPLY  :

TO CERTAIN APPLICANT I RESPONSES TO HIS PROPOSED FINDINGS j

.The Massachusetts Attorney General (" Mass AG") has sought leave to' respond to a very limited number of the Applicants' responses.to his proposed findings of fact.1# In each i

instance, the number of the relevant Mass AG proposed finding is set forth followed by the full text of the Applicants' response, and the Mass AG reply follows this.

112.1.36.N.-2.1.36.0, (pp. 117-118)

ADDlicantS' Re5DOnSe The Social Data Analysts survey employment data referred to

.in these findings and elsewhere in whatever form it may exist has never been made part of the record in this proceeding.

8909180060 890911 PDR ADOCKODOOOgg3 G

1/ Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon's Proposed Findings of Fact, Rulings of Law, and Conclusions With Respect to the Seabrook For Massachusetts Communities and the Exercise Contentions, dated August 14, 1989.

.9

. a m

Mass AG Reply The statement is misleading. The original Social Data Analysts survey. employment' data,-as was all the' data from.this survey, was provided to the' Applicants during the discovery phase of'the NHRERp proceedings. While it is true thatLthe-original employment data obtained from the 1404-respondents has not been made a part of the record in this proceeding,'an extrapolation of that data to the-full population of the EpZ is contained'in the record at Attachment F to the Supplement to Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 16, ff. Tr. 28135. As the Applicants acknowledge, this data describes employee distributions within the EpZ on a town-specific basis. Supp.

App. Reb. No. 16, ff. Tr. 28135, at 37. Applicants.do:not complain that this data is not an accurate' projection of the original survey data.

13.1.31.H. (pp. 156-57)

Applicants' Resoonse This is not within the scope of any contention admitted into litigation as the contentions were refined by discovery; Mass AG Reply The relevant contention is JI-4, with Basis B. The contention itself asserts that the "[t le evacuation plan contained in the SpMC is so poorly designed . . . that there is no reasonable assurance that either the permanent residents or the transients can or will be evacuated as efficiently as l

possible. . . . Basis B contends that [ insufficient capacity-enhancing measures and other poorly conceived traffic control strategies are utilized by the SpMC's traffic L=_____-___________-________.

. . k)

'T ,.

management plan." Unquestionably, a critical-ingredient in the, SPMC's traffic management planlis the information about

' evacuation destinations (and routes thereto) provided to evacuees. In the SPMC, these destinations.(and routes to them) are pre-established for each EPZ' community and provided'to~the public-in EBS messages and pre-emergency information. SpMC S3 6.1.A; Appendix J at J-39, J-40, J-48, J-49, J-60, J-61, J-79, J-80, J-99, J-100, J-ll5, J-116. The basic assertion 1;

made'in this Mass AG proposed finding is simply that the pre-established destinations and routes provided to evacuees from Salisbury (including Salisbury Beach) will not produce as-rapid an evacuation of the Salisbury Beach evacuees through this intersection at I-95/ Route 110.as could be achieved. This assertion is practically identical to that made in'JI-3, Basis D, which asserts that the SPMC's "ETEs are based on a traffic management. plan that overestimates the traffic flow rate through the intersection of Route 110/ Route I-95/ Elm Street in Amesbury." There is no question that the ETE dispute at this much-litigated intersection focuses on some underlying issue raised here: how many evacuating vehicles will stay on Route 110 westbound rather than accessing I-95. In the ETE findings, the Mass AG made the point that, because of the destinations and routing instructions given to evacuees, i.e., to head to the Beverly reception center, the traffic flow rate through this intersection will be less than the Applicants have assumed. Here, in focussing not on the ETEs but on the  ;

evacuation plan itself and how it could be made more efficient,

~3-Q-__-_____________.

=

the Mass AG-is simply making the correlative statement that the flow rate.through this intersection would be improved if, at

-least during the latter stages of the evacuation, some portion of.the' evacuees from Salisbury Beach were oiven routing instructions to proceed to the North Andover reception center.

Applicants can hardly be surprised by this corollary proposed finding, particularly at this intersection, where no litigational (curb) stone has been left untouched.

13.1.31.L.-3.1.31.M. (pp.160-62)

Acolicants' Response The assertions concerning traffic guide recruiting and the need for'four-hour shifts for traffic guides are not within the scope of any contention admitted into litigation as refined by discovery.

Mass AG_Renly Paragraph.3.1.31.L. pertains to the late staffing of the TCPs after a Site Area Emergency. This is one of the most serious of the SPMC's traffic management deficiencies, and it ie contained within the scope of JI-4, Basis B. In answers to.

discovery, the Mass AG directly addressed the traffic management problems that would ensue from late staffing. Egg Mass AG answer to Interrogatory 46 in Answers and Responses of l the Mass AG to the Applicants

• Interrogatories and Request for production Ccncerning JI Contentions 1-26, dated December 19, 1989.

Paragraph 3.1.31.M. pertains to the number of traffic guides provided by the SPMC -- two shifts of 12-hours each.

The Mass AG asserts here that more traffic guides are needed

[

m, g.

f;n because the guides cannot' work 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> at that task.' This is clearly covered by JI-4, Basis A, and'is also Lddressed by JI-11,' Bases A', B, and especially Basis D.

Also JI-12 includes this sub-issue, and JI-13, Basis A asserts that.the

~

pre-requisite experience and training provided to the traffic guides is inadequate to ensure that they can perform their tasks.

19.1.78.I. (p. 447)

AppJicants' Response MAG Exh. 120 was received for only a single, limited purpose. Tr. 25882-89. 'It was rejected when offered for the purpose it is used in,this proposed finding, and the Board noted. that such later use. would afaount to ' a f raudulent

-citation. Tr. 24885, 25887-88.

Mass AG Reolv

'The purpose for which this exhibit was received _was exactly the purpose for which it is cited in 19.1.78.I. -- to provide the actual language from the source document referenced by the Applicants themselves in the " Discussion" in section 3.0 of Attachment A to App. Reb. No. 17, ff. Tr. 25423. Egg Tr.

25887-89. The Exhibit was offered for four discrete purposes.

Tr. 25885-87. While the Board specifically excluded use of MAG Ex. 120 for three of these purposes (e.g., monitoring for internal contamination, Tr. 25862; the effect of layers of clothing over contamination, Tr. 25862; and further explanation of Applicants' study and test data, Tr. 25885), the Applicants themselves had no objection to admission of the exhibit for this limited purpose. Tr. 25888 ("MR. TROUT: When the offer i

I i_i__1_________.__._____ __ 'l

p . .

is limited to the historical purpose, having a reference in the study, Applicants have no objection."). Thus, there is no basis for the Applicants' charge that the Mass AG has "fraudent[ly] cit [ed]" the record. This fact must have been obvious to the Applicants when they reviewed the very transcript pages they cite on page 21 of their August 30, 1989 Response. Tlp only possible explanation for this conduct was a conscious decision by Applicants to: 1) assert a baseless claim against the Mass AG; 2) hope that the Mass AG did not file or was not permitted to file a reply to this claim; and 3) anticipate that this Board would not take the time necessary to check the record citations. Without more, such a strategy supports the admission of this Mass AG Reply to the Applicants' August 30 Responses. l 19.1.78.N. (pp. 449-50)

Applicants' Resoonse No contention ever questioned the technical reliability of Applicants' probes, and MAG gave no hint of the issue in his discovery responses.

Mass AG Reolv The Applicants feig:1 surprise once again. The relevant contention is JI-56, with Basis A. The contention asserted that the "SPMC fails to provide that reasonable assurance that j l

adeouate procedures, personnel, eauioment and facilities for i i

radiological monitoring . . . of general public evacuees, i

emergency workers and special facility evacuees (e.g., nursing home evacuees) have been established." JI-56 (emphasis 1

)

1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - .)

. z. ; ,

( . .<

N I . supplied)'. Basis'A challenges the SpMC'for failing to provide "even a reasonably: complete description of the.. . . eouioment" to'be used forLmonitoring these groups. In discovery, the Mass AG1 asked the Applicants for.information about the technical capabilities of their monitoring instruments, and information.

'was provided without objection. S.ge Applicants' Response to

"[ Mass AG's] Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants on the

[SpMC)," Interrogatory No. 75 and Applicants' Response at 44

~

(dated November 1, 1988); Applicants' Response to "[ Mass AG's]

Second Request For the production of Documents to the Applicants Regarding the (SpMC)," Request No. 27 and Applicants' Response at 10 (dated November 15, 1988) (producing the document which became Mass AG Ex. 118 along with other technical materials about the probes). The Mass AG also did more than'" hint" at the technical issues in his discovery responses. In answer to the Applicants' interrogatories seeking the " facts underlying" some of the concerns expressed in JI-56, the Mass AG, inter alia, referred the Applicants back to the facts they had provided to the Mass AG through his discovery requests. Answers and Responses of the Massachusetts Attorney General to the Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for production Concerning JI Contentions 6 and 27-63, Interrogatories 255 and 257 and responses thereto (dated December 19, 1988).

Applicants' own testimony on JI-56 indicates clearly their recognition that the technical capability of their monitoring equipment was an issue pursuant to J1-56. That testimony contains a section which describes that equipment, and Appendix A is a technical performance evaluation of the SpMC's primary

_7_

_ __=- _ -- --_ -__ _ __. ._ __ ._.---__--_-.___-_________-_______-____i

. ,a s

-probe (the Aptec' probe). The only thing that is surprising about this issue of the technical capabilities of the L Applicants' probe is that, having provided the Mass AG with i

technical information that their probe has a condensation problem when brought from a warm to a cold environment, the l

! Applicants nevertheless admitted on cross-examination that their monitors plan to be stationed out of doors in the wintertime-(Tr. 25841) and will ao into and out of the buses to

~

monitor people on them as they' arrive. This procedure for monitoring those on the buses, now that it finally has been explained by the Applicants, is woefully inadequate for it will produce the very condensation problem which the authors of MAG Ex. 118 sought to prevent.

Respectfully submitted, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL

.r .

e MDbe -

John Traficonte Chief, Nuclear Safety Unit Allan R. Fierce Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Dept. of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Fl.

Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 Dated: September 11, 1989

^ .

n

!f. .f f ,

cg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T9 51EP 13 P5 :09 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges: ((gg 7 ,

!?: t, Ivan W. Smith, Chairman 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, ET AL. )

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

September 11, 1989 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Allan R. Fierce, hereby ce.tify that on September 11, 1989, I made service of the within MOTION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY TO CERTAIN OF APPLICANTS' RESPONSES TO HIS PROPOSED FINDINGS and MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REPLY TO CERTAIN APPLICANT RESPONSES TO HIS PROPOSED FINDINGS by Federal Express as indicated by (*), by hand delivery as indicated by (**), and by first class mail to:

• Ivan W. Smith, Chairman *Kenneth A. McCollom Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1107 W. Knapp St.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Stillwater, OK 74075 Commission East West Towers Building

• Docketing and Service 4350 East West Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Sethesda, MD 20814 Commission Washington, DC 20555

• Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety & L censing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Su11 ding 4350 East West Highway 1 Sethesdd, MD 20814

- - _ - - - - - - - ___________j

. g g g~- -.

• Robert.R. Pierce, Esq. *

• Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

Atomic Safety.& Licensing Boa d Katherine Selleck, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray East West Towers Building One International' Place 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 E Office'of General. Counsel "ommission Federal Emergency Management Office of the General Counsel Agency 15th Floor 500 C Street, S.W. '11555 Rockville Pike Washington, DC 20472 Rockville, MD 20852 Atomit_ Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq.

AppealEBoard Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manche'ter, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Jane Doughty U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Washington, DC 20555 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Charles P. Graham, Esq. Barbara St.' Andre, Esq.

Murphy & Graham Kopelman & Paige, P.C.

33 Low Street 77 Franklin Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Judith H. Mizner, Esq. R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.

79 State Street Lagoulis, 9111-Whilton 2nd Floor- & Rotondi 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 20008 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphrey U.S. Senate One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Washington, DC 20510 Concord, NH 01301 (Attn: Tom Burack) (Attn: Herb Boynton)

_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _._.__ _ ____________________O

,.~

a:- '

.; : ,s.

i t.y f(

[ '

)

L , J6hn P.; Arnold, Attorney General '

Phi 111p Ahrens, Esq.

Office of the. Attar.a' "eneral- Assistant Attorney General, 25 Capitol: Street; Department of the' Attorney Concord, NH:03301 General Augusta, ME 04333 William S.: Lord .. :. Board of Selectmen Town Hall ~ Friend Street-Amesbury, MA 01913-COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY' GENERAL e

&= e &

AllanLR. Fierce AssistantLAttorney General Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED:. September 11, 1989 O

I l

i

._==-___ -_ -

,