ML20247L560

Forwards Corrected Pages 36-37 of NRC Staff Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law W/Respect to Spmc & Exercise Contentions

ML20247L560
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/11/1989
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Cole R, Mccollom K, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#389-9172 OL, NUDOCS 8909250010
Download: ML20247L560 (3)

Text

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

8/7 V q.

>3CERO

'o.,, UNITED STATES yg 2- 8 n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' W.?

g -E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655

% ,,,,, / '89 SEP 14 All:13 September 11, 1989 00Dn : a; t n 6FI,hi+

Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. N uclear Reg ulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, D C 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1107 West Knapp Street Stillwater, O K 74075 In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 Off-Site Emergency Planning - g?d

Dear Administrative Judges:

It has come to our attention that certain transcript citations provided at pages 36-37 of the "NRC Staff's Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law With Respect to SPMC and Exercise Contentions," filed on August 31, 1989, require correction.

Enclosed are corrected pages to replace pages 36-37 of the Staff's supplemental findings, on which all incorrect citations are lined out

[---'-]andcorrectedcitationsareunderlined,foreaseofreference.

I regret any inconvenience which may have been caused in this regard.

Sincerely.

hic /th Y (W _

Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff cc w/ Encl.: Service List W2gg 0

empj3

} SOY

g.

l l

10. COORDINATION OF GOVERNMENTAL RESOURCES AND RESPONSE MAG 10.1.1.A., 10.1.1.F., 10.1.1.H. and 10.1.2.A. Since local governments within the EPZ refused to participate in emergency planning for Seabrook, it was not possible to evaluate those governments' interaction, communication and coordination with the OR0. However, the SPMC provides for trained liaison personnel to work with the Commonwealth

.and local governments. App. Reb. No. 21 ff. Tr. 23537 at 36. See generally section 1, supra.

MAG 10.1.2.C, 10.1.32, and 10.1.32.C. FEMA's evaluation of Exercise Objective 37 is contained in its Exercise Report. App. Ex. 43F at 204 240 (global'248). .The objective was to demonstrate the OR0's capacity to provide advice and assistance to the Commonwealth and the Massachusetts EPZ communities. Tr. 21666-07 -67 MAG Ex. 93. The exercise was conducted in Mode 2 in order to permit as extensive an evaluation of the OR0's capabili-ties as was reasonably possible under the scenario. Tr. 22384, 22389-93, 22468-71, App. Ex. 43F at 4 (global 12). As a consequence, and because local Massachusetts governments decided not to participate in any exercise of the SPMC, the response capabilities of those governments (e.g., the depth of their personnel rosters, the quantity and quality of their training and equipment) were not and could not be evaluated.

During the exercise, the roles of The Commonwealth and of local officials were played by FEMA controllers [not evaluators?. Tr. 21738, Tr. 21740. Their only assignment was to inject controller messages simulating the delegation of legal authority to the ORD. Tr. 21741-42.

The controllers were specifically instructed not to simulate the commitment of any resources or personnel to the exercise play. See App.

Ex. 43F at 242 (global 250). The purpose of the FEMA Control Cell was to

z.

enable FEMA to evaluate the OR0's ability to communicate and interact with the governments and to respond to the governments' requests for assistance. App. Ex. 43F at 3 (global 11); Tr. 21666; Tr. 21738. The responses of the governments, simulated or otherwise, were not graded in any sense. -Ter-21823.

MAG 10.1.2.E. In arguing that FEMA misunderstands the " realism" doctrine and has no basis to assume that Commonwealth officials will know what they are to do under the SPMC, the Mass AG faults FEMA for not having evaluated the familiarity of Commonwealth officials with the plan. This is nonsensical. As indicated in Section 1, supra, The Commonwealth has declared that it has no intention of participating in emergency planning for Seabrook Station and that it would return the SPMC unopened if the plan is sent to them. In these circumstances, FEMA has appropriately evaluated the OR0's resources and its ability to coordinate with Commonwealth officials; FEMA's evaluation of these matters is provided in its Exercise Report. App. Ex. 43F. FEMA's assumption that the Commonwealth will follow the SPMC reflects a proper understanding of the

" realism" doctrine, consistent with the presumptions which this Board has voiced on several occasions that the Commonwealth will act in the best interests of its citizens and follow the SPMC in the absence of a better plan.

11. MISCELLANEOUS EXERCISE CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO SPMC MAG 11.1.1.E. The Mass AG incorrectly asserts, citing ALAB-900, that exercise scope should be presumed to be inadequate absent proof that participation in the exercise was all that was reasonably achievable.

This assertion is not supported by ALAB-900. There, the Appeal Board only ruled that the applicant had "the burden of proving that the pertinent