ML20140E870

Transcript of 860325 Hearing in Portsmouth,Nh.Pp 2,029-2,206

ML20140E870
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/25/1986
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#286-642 OL, NUDOCS 8603280218
Download: ML20140E870 (180)

Text

'

ORIGINAL

'R UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. 50-444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

I 4

(.

4 LOCATION: PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE PAGES: 2029 - 2206 DATE: TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1986 g,0f o;

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, LNC.

OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street 8603280218 960325 Washington, D.C. 20001 PDR ADOCK 0500 4 3 (202)347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERACE

CR26226.0 2029 COX/sjg I

c- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -x In the Matter of:  :

5 l  : Docket Numbers d PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY.0F  :

et al.  : 50-443 OL 5liNEWHAMPSHIRE,  : 50-444 OL 7j (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)  : i 0  : l g 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x j Howard Johnson's Lodge  !

9 Interstate Traffic Circle l Salons A and B  ;

10 Portsmouth, New Hampshire i 11 '

Tuesday, March 25, 1986  !

12 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at j

( g 9:00 a.m.

M BEFORE:

15 JUDGE HELEN F. HOYT, Chairman 16 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g Washington, D. C. 20555 JUDGE EMMETH A. LUEBKE, Member 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission o Washington, D. C. 20555 7g JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2I Washington, D. C. 20555 22 23 i 24  !

Arm .

9,IerrJ Reporters, irm.

25

-- continued -- l L i 1  !

t I

ORIGINAL

@ UN11ED STATES 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. 50-444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1_and 2)

I L

I k

LOCATION: PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE PAGES: 2029 - 2206 l

l DATE: TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1986 l

I

,D h 0 L i

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, LNC.

r O'ficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street 8603280210 860325 Washington, D.C. 20001 PDR ADOCK 0500 4 3 (202)347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERACE 6

r- . -

CR26226.0 2029 COX/sjg I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i

2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

_____________ ____ _ _x In the Matter of:  :

5

,  : Docket Numbers PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF  :

5 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.  : 50-443 OL l  : 50-444 OL 7 ! (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)  : i 8' ~------ - - - - - - - - - - - ~*

Howard Johnson's Lodge l 9'

Interstate Traffic Circle l Salons A and B l 10 , Portsmouth, New Hampshire l 11 Tuesday, March 25, 1986 12 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at  ;

(w 1 g 9:00 a.m.

Id BEFORE:  !

15 JUDGE HELEN F. HOYT, Chairman 16 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g, Washington, D. C. 20555 JUDGE EMMETH A. LUEBKE, Member 16 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 g JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2I Washington, D. C. 20555 22 23 24

0. derd Reporters, Inc.

Aat 25 -- continued --

l t

I h

( 2030 1 APPEARANCES: l

(~3 I J

i > '

'~' 2 On behalf of the Applicant:

3 THOMAS'G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ.

R.K. GAD III, ESO.

4 . Hopes & Gray 225 Franklin Street 5 Boston, Mass. 02110 5 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:

7 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ 8 Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing ' Counsel Office of the Executive Legal Director 9! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 10 g On behalf of the Federal Emergency ,

II Management Agency *

(

12 i H. JOSEPH FLYNN _ l

(~h Assistant General Counsel l

\ 13 Federal Emergency Management Agency f

, 500 C Street, SW Id Washington, D. C. 20472 ,

4 15 On behalf of the Town of Kensington, New Hampshire:  !

16 BENJAMIN LOVELL i Civil Defense Director  !

17 SANDRA GAVUTIS Kensington, New llampshire 18 l-On behalf of the Town of Rye:

19 J . P '.' NADEAU i 70 Rye, New flampshire 21 j On ochalf of the Town of flampton,'New Ilampshire:

22 PAUL MC EACHERN, ESQ. I MATTHEN T. BROCK, ESQ. {

23 h Shaines & McEachern l-25 Maplewood Avenue 24 h; (s')

Ac~-Jers4 Resmrters, Inc. ll Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 i

25 [ f i

l i

1 2031 On behalf of-the I S taf f of the U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

2 VINCENT S. NOONAN, MALINDA MC DONALD and ELIZABETH DOOLITTLE i 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

' 4 Washington, D. C. 20555 4

5 On behalf of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League,-

Town of Hampton Falls and South Hampton:

6 ROBERT A. BACKUS,'ESQ.

7 Backus, Meyer & Soloman 116 Lowe11 ~ S treet

, 8 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 9j On behalf of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League:

i 10 f JANE DOUGHTY i Field Director

j. 11 ! 5 Market Street

Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 12 l

! On behalf of thelNew England Coalition on Nuclear i j V(] 13 ' Pollution:

14 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.

Harmon & Weiss 15 -

On behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General:

i

CAROL SNEIDER, ESQ. I 17 Assistant Attorney General

I 18 [ On behalf of the Town of Amesbury, Massachusetts

l9 WILLIAM LORD

,!l. Selectman ]

20 P Amesbury, Massachusetts i h 21 j on behalf of the New Hampshire Attorney General:

'i.

22 h GEORGE DANA BISBEE, ESQ.

! h Assistant Attorney General l 23 h Of fice of the Attorney. General i l State !!ouse Annex I

i 24hl v jeral Reporters, Inc. ]

Concord, New Hampshire 25 i k

I h

. .- ._ . . - . - - . _ _ ~ .- .___. - . . .~. . . .. _ _ -

c.

2

! 26226.0 cox 2032

. n)

! (

., v' i

1 ER2C EEDINGS j j 2 JUDGE HOYT: The hearing.will come to order. This  ;

)

i

! 3 is a prehearing conference on Dockets 50-443-OL and 50-444-OL fi 4 of site emergency. planning. This prehearing conference was  !

i 5 convened by order of this Board dated January 17, 1986. This i 4

l l 6 is scheduled for a two-day. conference. In the event that a l l 7 second day is needed, the Board will conduct the hearing I 8 starting again tomorrow morning at 9:00.

I 9 At this time, we will take appearances, starting 1

10 on my left with The Applicant, and moving around the room i

! 11 clockwise.

12 MR. DIGNAN: Madam Chairman, members of the Board, l [

j x_- 13 my name is Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. I am a member of the law  :

j 14 firm of Ropes f, Gray. With me is Robert K. Gad III of the i

15 same address.

16 It is our privilege to appear for the Applicant in i

f 17 this proceeding. I l

18 MR. TURK: Good morning, Madam Chairman and 19 members of the Board. My name is Sherwin E. Turk. I am j 20 appearing here today on behalf of the NRC Staff.  !

With me to i

l l 21 my right is Mr. Joseph.Flynn of the Federal Emergency  !

! 22 Management Agency. Also seated at counsel table are Linda  !

) i j 23 Mcdonald of the NRC Staff, Mr. Vince Noonan of the NRC Staff, 3 i

1 j 24 and Ms. Elizabeth Doolittle of the NRC Staff.

I l

25 JUDGE HOYT: I believe, Mr. Flynn, you had made an

{~D m- ,

I I

! ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage

) 202-347-3700 800-336-6646 m ___....__w

1 l

26226.0 )

cox 2033 l r"N t i l

\~/ l 1 appearance on this record for the purposes of replacing Mr.

2 Brian Casten of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; is 3 that correct?

4- MR. FLYNN: Yes, it is, your Honor.

5 MR. LOVELL: Good morning, your Honor. I am the 6 civil defense director for the Town of Kensington.

7 JUDGE H0YT: May we have your name?

8 MR. LOVELL: Certainly. Benjamin,.

9 B-e-n-i-a-m-i-n, Lovell, L-o-v-e-1-1. -I am here this morning 10 to represent the chairman of the Board of Selectmen.

11 JUDGE HOYT: We are just going to have one of you 12 speak for the Town of Kensington. Which will it be?

A

(_) 13 MS. GAVUTIS: Mr. Lovell will speak for the Town 14 of Kensington. I'm Sandra Gavutis, chairman of the Board of 15 Selectmen, Kensincton.

16 MR. NADEAU: I am J.P. Nadeau representing the 17 Town of Rye.

18 .MR. MC EACHERN: I am Paul McEachern of the firm 19 of Shaines & McEachern in Portsmouth. Together with Matthew 20 Brock, we are representing the Town of Hampton.

21 MR. BACKUS: Good morning. I am attorney Robert 22 Backus of Manchester. I am here with Jane Doughty, field 23 director.of th'e Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, to represent 24 the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League. I am also appearing for 25 the Town of Hampton Falls and South Hampton.

U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2034

,im i

ms

)

1 MS. CURRAN: Good morning. I am Diane Curran with 2 the firm of Harmon & Wise. I represent the New England 3 Coalition on Nuclear Pollution.

4 MS. SNEIDER: Good morning. I am Carol Sneider 5 representing Massachusetts Attorney General Francis X.

6 Bellotti.

7 JUDGE H0YT: May we have the spelling of your name 6 ma'am?

9 MS. SNEIDER: S-n-e-i-d-e-r, attorney.

'10 JUDGE H0YT: Are you going to replace --

11 MS. SNEIDER: Joanne Shockwell. I did final 12 appearance several years aco.

b,A 13 JUDGE H0YT: Yes, ma 'am . Thank you.

14 MR. LORD: Good morning. My name is William Lord, 15 selectman, Town of Amesbury, Massachusetts.

16 MR. BISBEE: Good morning, Madam Chairman,-members 17 of the Board. I am Dana Bisbee, Assistant Attorney. General 18 appearing in this proceeding on behalf of the State of New 19 Hampshire and Attorney General Stephen E. Merrill.

20 JUDGE HOYT: In beginning this conference, the 21 Board intends to proceed in this manner. We will hear from 22 each of the intervening parties in response to the pleadings 23 of the Applicant and of the ctaff, and of the State of New 24 Hampshire to your contentions. The contentions that we will 25 not take any argument on from any of the parties are the U

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3346M6

1 i- 26226.0 cox 2035

,Q j U j 1 following: For NECNP, NHLP-1; for the Town of Hampton, we J

2 will not take any argument on Hampton's Contention 1 and 3 Hampton's Contention 2.

4 For the. Town of Rye, we will not take any I

i 5 arguments on Contention 3. For Kensington,-we will not take i

l 6 any argument on Kensington Contention No. 16 and Contention

7 No. 9.

1 1*

8 For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, we will 9 not take any argument on Contention No. 22.

10 MR. NADEAU: Your Honor, I am new to these i

j 11 proceedings. Is it necessary to preserve an objection to a j 12 ruling that your Honor makes?

13 JUDGE H0YTi No, it is not.

1 14 MR. NADEAU: Thank you.

j 15 JUDGE HOYT: There is not any objection; we are 16 aimply taking argum'ents on that. We have not indicated to l

l 17 you what way we will eventually rule on that. I don't think l

l 18 it would take a great deal of thought to determine if we are 19 not going to take any argument on it, we have the necessary l

! 20 pleadings on the record as to admissibility of that

( 21 contention.

f 22 MR. NADEAU: Thank you.

l j 23 MS. CURRAN: Madam Chairman, I would like to make l

-2:4 an objection to that. I think we are entitled to make a

{ 25 response. I don't know how the Board is going to rule but if 7-t

('

I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3 % 6646

o k  !

. i i I j.

26226.0 3

cox 2036 i w 1 'it's possible we are going to be ruled against, I think it's 2 important we respond.

3 JUDGE H0YT: No, ma'am, we are not taking any 4 argument. If.you wish to object, it is now on the record.

5 We will proceed in the following manner and the 6 following times will be allotted to each of the parties-for l

7 your response.7. Let me caution you in advance that when we 1

0 tell you that you are allotted a block of time, that is it.

9 We are not going to take any argument beyond that time, so I

{

10 please pattern your responses accordingly.

} 11 In the case of Mr. Dackus, I believe you have the  !

l 12 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and the Towns of Hampton and q  ;

V 13 South Hampton --

14 MR. BACKUS: Hampton Falle. [

I 15 JUDGE H0YT: Hampton Falls, sorry. In that event, 16 I am not, and the Board has indicated we will not be adverse l

j 17 to having you allot your block, your total block of time,'in 18 any fashion that you wi'sh to concerning your own arguments.

19 The Town of Hampton Falls will go off with the

! 20 a rgume n t;s first and you will be allotted one half hour. The ,

4  ;

21 town of South Hampton will be the second Intervenor to be l 22 heard from, one half '.vu r. For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution  !

t t 23 League, one half hour. Your total time, Mr. Backus, is two  !

! I hours from beginning to end.

j 24 25 For NECNP, you have a total of two hours, you will ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Na ionwide Coverage 8@336-6M6 L_

26226.0 cox 2037 f}

\,._)

I be the fourth Intervenor to make argument.

2 For the Town of Hampton. you will have one half 3 hour.

4 For the Town of Kensington, you will have 45 5 minutes. For the Town of Rye, you will have 15 minutes.

6 For the Massachusetts Attorney General, who will 7 be the eighth person to be heard from, you will have one half 8 -hour.

9 Do you wish a moment, Mr.~Backus, in order to get 10 your materials ready?

11 MR. BACKUS: I would appreciate that.

12 JUDGE HOYT: We will recess for approximately five b(/ 13 minutes.

14 (Reces s . )

15 JUDGE HOYT: The hearing will come to order. Let 16 the record reflect that all the parties who were present when 17 the prehearing conference adjourned are again present in the 18 hearing room. Mr.'Backus.

19 MR. BACKUS: I believe Attorney Curran has a 20 preliminary matter.

21 JUDGE HOYT: I believe I recognized you, 22 Mr. Backus. Please proceed.

23 MR. BACKUS: All right. Perhaps I can inquire, 24 Madam Chairman, will we have an opportunity to address 25 motions to the Board sometime in your schedule regarding the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

s 26226.0 cox 2038

,s

( )

%)

1 schedule?

2 JUDGE HOYT: Yes.

3 MR. BACKUS: All right. C'est la vie.

4 In view of that, Madam Chairman, I will proceed 5 without the microphone. -

6 JUDGE, HOYT: Perhaps, does yours work, 7 Mr. Birbee? Is the gentleman from the company still with 8 us?

9 FROM THE FLOOR: He is turning it down. He is 10 checking it right now.

11 MR. BACKUS: Okay. I guess that's it. Might I x

12 inquire, Madam Chairman, am I to go through two hours of (7,/ 13 speech here or are we going to 's top a f ter each contention for 14 responses, or what is the Board'r pleasure on that?

15 JIIDGE HOYT: Mr. Badkus, you can use your two 16 hours in any fashion you wish for all of your three 17 representations. If the Board desires, it will stop you and 18 ask you any additional questions it feels necessary that 19 would help it in making the decision, and whether er not we' s

20 will take argument from other par (ies is at the discretion of 21 the Board. It will depend principally upon what you have to x

22 offer us here, s.

23 MR. BACKUS: All right. I will --

i 24 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Backus, Judge Harbour makes a q '

g 25 very ocod point. That is if you are stopped in your N] -

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2039

,x 1 response, it does count against your time -- I beg.your 2 pardon, does not count against your time.

3 MR. BACKUS: That is at least different from some 4 appellate courts I have been in before.

5 JUDGE HOYT: That's right. Much more gracious,

^6 Mr. Backus.

7 MR. BACKUS: Turni.ig to Hampton Falls Contention 8 1, Madam Chairman and members of the Board the Hampton Falls 9 Contention 1 provides that the plan fails to provide 10 reasonable assurance or to comply with 10'CFR 4 0. 57 (a ) (2) 11 because it is not a local plan but is a plan prepared for the 12 town by New Hampshire civil defense or its contractor and eg J 13 which will not be implemented. We have objections to that 14 from the Applicant, the Staff, and I believe also the State 15 of New Hampshire, all af which objections raise the point 16 that as far as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 17 concerned, the authority under state or local law to 18 implement -- to adopt the plan, is not a litigable issue, 19 because the only requirement under the federal regulations is 20 whether the plan can provide reasonable assurance from 21 whatever authority it came, and whether it can be 22 implemented.

23 However, the contention --

24 JUDGE H0YT: Mr. Backus, let me stop you at that 25 point and suggest to you perhaps you have not received then 7-U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

c. --- - - - - . - . . _ _ - .- ._ .. . . - . - --- - . . . . - - . . - . -

1 I

26226.0 cox 2040

/~

I N_/

i the copy of the State of New Hampshire's-compensatory plan g 2 which provides specifically at Appendix L under the New a Hampshire compensatory plan, 1.1, that the state responst, if 4 a municipality is unable to perform its responsibility, goes 5 to the state. Doesn't that undercut your argument there?

l 6 MR. BACKUS: Well, I think it changes the basis of 7 the contention, because Hampton Falls is willing to agree l 8 that the key issue here, given the position that the Town of 9 Hampton has taken, through the town meeting, is whether or 10 not this plan can be implemented. There is certainly 11 reasonable basis for believing it cannot or will not be 12 implemented by the town, and we have recently received l

I')

'w/ 13 something designated a compensatory plan; and what needs to 14 be done is the basis now needs to be changed or completed, so J

j 15 it includes reference to the compensatory plan. It's our 16 position that the conpensatory plan, as prepared by the 17 state, is inadequate to assure that the functions intended to 18 be carried out by the Hampton Falls plan will be carried L 19 out. Of course, at the time we filed this contention, we did ]

20 not have that compensatory plan. ,

'l I think one of the things that this Board will 1 l l 22 need to deal with is the time which this Board will expect i 23 contentions on what has been labeled a compensatory plan. I t 24 think we need to hear from the state as to whether or not i

,. s 25 that compensatory plan is, in the opinion of the State of New

/  ; I L) \

l l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

\

26226.0 cox 2041 1 Hampshire, now in sufficiently final form so that we should 2 be asked to go forward and file contentions to be litigated.

3 My copy, which came quite recently, came bound with a rubber 4 band. Many of these plans have been changed and updated, as 5 you know. I assume the fact that it was sent to us is 6 indicated to indicate that plan is now intended to be 7 complete, but that's not something I know definitely.

8 JUDGE HOYT: Isn't the whole nature of emergency 9 planning as such, Mr. Backus, a continuing dynamic process 10 which never really terminates, it's always being updated, it 11 is constantly being changed for the purpose of perfecting 12 it?

V) 13 M F< . BACKUS: That is certainly true, but there 14 needs to be a date at which the proponents of any plan, 15 whether it's the town or, not the towns in this case, the 16 state, and the other proponents of the licensing, say that 17 these plans, although we expect ; hem to be further refined, 18 are in a sufficient state of completion so that they can be 19 litigated, and on the basis cf what we'have, they should be 20 found to provide reasonable assurance that adequate 21 protective rueasures can be taken.

22 We need to have that declaration from the state, 23 and then we can go forward and not be faced with the prospect 24 that we will be litigating things which will be forever 7

25 changing. I mean, I think we need a definite position from O

ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage ' 800-33MM6

26226.0 cox 2042

%-)

1 the state that the compensatory plan now maked up for the 2 lack of a Hampton Falls plan which can be implemented.

3 JUDGE LUEBKE: I have a question, Mr. Backus. Did 4 Hampton Falls contribute to the compensatory plan, assist in 5 making it in any way?

6 MR. BACKUS: To my knowledge, not at all.

7 JUDGE LUEBKE: So that position remains the same?

8 MR. BACKUS: That's correct.

9 JUDGE LUEBKE: Why is this? In other words, how 10 can the state make a good plan if it doesn't get any 11 information from the town?

12 MR. BACKUS: Well, that will be a basis for the

('~)\

( 13 contention that the compensatory plan is inadequate.

14 JUDGE LUEBKE: But my looking at it, the state 15 needs information, and if it's incorrect, I think it's to the 16 town's best interest to nake it correct.

17 MR. BACKUS: Well, the town has taken a position, 18 both through its Board of selectmen, and through the town 19 meeting, which is the sovereign voice of the town here in New 20 England parts, that any town plan will not be implemented 21 until it is approved by the voters of the town. Now that 22 certainly has not happened.

23 As you are aware, Judge Luebke, from the state's 24 response, the issue of town authority versus state authority 3 25 has been the subject of one action in the superior courts 1

(\._)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTPRS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336- % 46

26226.0 cox 2043 g

d 1 here in New Hampshire, and the state, as you will recall, 2 attached a copy ot that decision to their objection to these 3 -- we can use the short term, process contentions. The case 4 is Vernay versus Exeter. I am sure that you have seen that.

5 That decision is under appeal. It is also my understanding .

6 that at the present time another town, Hampton, represented 7 by Attorney McEachern, who is here, is also filing an action 8 in Superior Court contesting the extent of state authority to 9 impose plans on the towns, so that is an unresolved issue 10 that I think may have to be decided before this Board can 11 make an ultimate decision on the question of whether a 12 compensatory plan can be implemented.

13 JUDGE LUEBKE: Thank you.

14 MR. BACKUS: I would note that this contention is 15 one which the Staff does not oppose.

16 JUDGE H0YT: Although, Mr. Backus, I believe they 17 do oppose it to the extent it will not implement its 18 emergency plan. There was a caveat on that, I believe.

19 MR. BACKUS: Yes.

20 JUDGE H0YT: Am I correct, Mr. Turk?

21 MR. TURK: Yes, Judge Hoyt, to a certain extent we 22 oppose, to a certain extent we don't oppose that it will be 23 implemented, but we do oppose' the assertion that the plan is 24 invalid per se.

f-.

25 MR. BACKUS: I think that's all I have to say on

V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2044 f-))

\_

1 Hampton Falls Contention 1.

2 Hampten Falls Contention 2 is essentially the same 3 as South Hampton Contention 2, and challenges whether the 4 plan provided for the town provides reasonable assurance that 5 adequate protective measures can be taken since it cannot 6 provide for continuous 24-hour operation on a protracted 7 period of local responsibility.

8 Now, the first thing I would like to note, in 9 dealing with this, that although the Applicant objects to 10 this contention as filed by both Hampton Falls and South 11 Hampton, it did not object to a substantially identical 12 contention filed by SAPL as No. 8. In fact, I think the last 13 time I looked, there were'aome 98 contentions filed. I think 14 the Applicant objected in whole or in' part to all but eight 15 of them. One of those eight was Hampton Falls -- I am sorry, 16 SAPL No. 8, which, is as I read it, is substantially.

17 identical to the one that they have objected to here. I 18 don't know why the contention seems objectionable in one 19 form, one sponsored by one entity and not by another.

20 JUDGE HOYT: Slip-up, Mr. Dignan?

21 MR. DIGNAN: No, your Honor, no slip-up.

22 JUDGE HOYT: Go ahead.

23 MR. BACKUS: In any event, the applicant 24 mischaracterizes the contention. They say poetic touch, that

- 25 we in Hampton Falls, being a small town, are attempting to (j

~

1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2045

(\

QJ 1 make the rurality, that may be the word, rurality an issue 2 itself. We did not say that the fact that Hampton Falls is a 3 small town of rural character gives any basis for an issue, 4 but the regulations in NUREG-0654 provide certain criteria to 5 be met by governmental units regardless of their size.

6 Hampton Falls, we think, has shown a basis for believing that 7 it does not have the capability for continuous 24-hour 8 operation for a protracted period.

9 JUDGE HOYT: What portion of 0654 are you relying 10 on for that argument, Mr. Backus?

11 MR. BACKUS: I think the reference is to A-4.

12 Yes, each organization shall be capable of continuous 24-hour fS

(_) 13 operations for a protracted period. The Town of Hampton 14 Falls, as ~is set forth in our basis, has just one full-time 15 police officer, although a second, I guess, is being 16 authorized. There is no assurance that the town will have

.17 tha t capability at all times.

18 Much of the Applicant's response in objecting to 19 this, we believe, really coes to the merits of the argument, 20 not to the admissibility of the contention. Certainly we 21 think that this is an admissible contention, because it's 22 clearly keyed to a NUREG criteria, and there is a clearly 23 stated, and, I think, specific basis for doubting that that 24 criteria can be net, 25 Whether the Applicant thinks that the argument is

(~s) v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646

26226.0 cox 2046 g

\

1 not going to ultimately succeed, because of compensatory 2 factors or otherwise, does not go to its admissibility; and 3 on that, I would say we read with appreciation Staff pointina 4 that out in their preliminary brief in their responses to our 5 contentions.

6 JUDGE H0YT: However, Mr. Backus, you would agree, 7 would you not, that the Applicant is correct in asking what 8 officials, the identity of the particular of ficials upon whom 9 the state plan places a reliance? Could you tell us who 10 those state officials are; can you identify them as the 11 Applicant suggests?

12 MR. BACKUS: State officials?

(/ 13 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. It's what the Applicant's 14 pleading at page 15 in the middle of the first paragraph on 15 that page. It's the Applicant's position that in order to 16 have supplied basis for contention, Hampton Falls should have 17 identified particular officials upon whom the state plan 18 places reliance and then demonstrated that those particular 19 officials would not be available to perform the function 20 called for in the s ta te plans. You have identified one, and 21 that was the police official and you indicated that there is 22 .one policeman in the town?

23 MR. BACKUS: Yes. In our statement of basis we 24 mention that the fire department is completely voluntary.

25 Many of the members work out of town, it's a volunteer board

/s1 v

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6666

1 l

~

26226.0 cox 2047 i

('))

\_

1 of selectmen. The capabilities of the town are obviously 2 very limited to respond to an accident that would require j 1

3 involvement of the entire population of the town.

i 4 JUDGE H0YT: I am coing to assume, Mr. Backus, you 5 name two for lack of officials, police officials and lack of 6 fire department, and that's all that you can identify; am I 7 correct?

8 MR. BACKUS: I also mentioned the selectmen.

9 JUDGE H0YT: The selectmen are not involved in 10 this; are they, Mr. Backus? Can you tell me how?

11 MR. BACKUS: I think we have overall 12 responsibility for commanding the resources of the town.

s 13 JUDGE HOYT: So does the Congress of the United 14 States,-Mr. Backus, but they don't involve themselves in the 15 details of everyday government affairs. So to that extent, 16 that is a supervisory body rather than the operational 17 official that wouldEbe responsible; isn't that correct?

18 MR. BACKUS: I believe the Board of Selectmen are 19 identified in the plans as having direct responsibilities for 20 control.

21 JUDGE HOYT: Let me caution you, Mr. Backus, and 22 other counsel here. In making your arguments, any arguments 23 that you do not make before this Board, and in your 24 pleadings, the Board will consider a waiver. You will not be 25 able to resurrect that again. That is-the reason I am asking s

('J x_

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2048 7-

'G 1 you very specifically, Mr. Backus, to identify these people 2 now. Because if you try to do it later, the Board will not 3 hear your complaint.

4 MR. NADEAU: Your Honor --

5 JUDGE HOYT: This is Mr. Backus' time.

6 MR. NADEAU: May I rise to a point of inquiry?

7 JUDGE HOYT: Let me hear it, then I will.tell 8 you.

9 MR. NADEAU: If one of the representatives of the 10 town wants to join in a particular point, how do we protect 11 our right's in doing so if Mr. Backus, for example, makes a 12 presentation other than we might make in response to an 13 inquiry?

14 JUDGE HOYT: That would not be applicable to your 15 case, Mr. Nadeau. If you have those other officials that you 16 wish to name, as in the case of.Mr. Backus here, you would 17 certainly be permitted to do so. We are speaking to the

{

18- individual presentation of each individual case. We are not 19 making any ruling that is going to affect your case. If you 20 don't make the argument at the time in which you have the 21 opportunity, is what I was speaking about.

22 MR. NADEAU: My concern, your Honor, was the 23 dialogue between you and Mr. Backus relative to the position 24~ of a selectmen in a town, for example, and how that is cs 25 regarded and to what role --

(v)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

- . _ . -. . - ~ _ _ _ _ ~ - - _ - . .

_ _.- _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ .. . . _ _ -

m ,

mps -

26226.0 cox 2049

,/

'%)

1 JUDGE HOYT: If you want to address that in your 2 period, you may.

3 (Discussion off the record.) ,

4 JUDGE HOYT: Mr..Backus, you may continue on with 5 your argument for Hampton Falls. <

i 6 MR. BACKUS: I apologize, Madam Chairman. I 7 wanted to check, in view of your caution there with.

8 Representative Cadire, who is in Hampton Falls, she informed 9 me in Hampton Falls there are no other public officials 10 responsib'le for public safety other than the full-time police 11 chief and the volunteer fire department, as I mentioned, and 12 the selectmen with their supervisory responsibilities.

A O 13 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

14 M R .. TURK: Madam Chairman, may I make an inquiry?

'5 If the Staff wishes to address a particular contention as we 4

16 are going, would it be appropriate for me to'so indicate?

i

17 JUDGE HOYT

What is the nature of your inquiry, 18 Mr. Turk?

?

19 MR. TURK: On this particular contention, I would 20 like to make a comment, if possible, which would emphasize 21 the Staff's response which we have previously filed on

(

22 paper.

l 23 JUDGE HOYT: What is it then, Mr. Turk?

)

'l 24 MR. TURK: The Staff had not opposed the admission 25 of this contention. We were reading the two paragraphs of 1 <

v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2050

(~h U

1 the basis together. The first paragraph of the basis 2 identifies police and fire officials. The second paragraph

'3 refers generally only to " local authorities." We had assumed 4 that was a reference back to the police and fire 5 authorities. So in not opposing the contention, we did that 6 with the perception that this vague category of " local 7 officials" was a reference back to fir.e and police 8 authorities.

9 JUDGE H0YT: Thank you for the clarification. All 10 right, Mr. Backus.

11 MR. BACKUS: The last thing I have to say about 12 this particular contention, Hampton Falls 2, is that insofar fm k_) 13 as the Applicants seem to contest the idea that Hampton Falls 14 needs to demonstrate a protracted 24-hour continuous 15 capability for dealing with an emergency, it seems to us that 16 it is the Applicants that are challenging the structure of 17 the Commission's regulations, since this is a NUREG quidance 18 that is specifically incorporated in the regulation.

~

19 Turning to Hampton Falls 3, which has to do with 20 the emergency operation center, this is again the same as the 21 contention filed for South Hampton as No. 6.

22 Basically,-it's the contention here that the plans 23 prepared by the state for Hanpton Falls, and for that matter, 24 South Hampton No. 6, assumed that an emergency operation 7- 25 center exists. If.one has not been created by the town, then s

<V i

l 1

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l

26226.0 cox 2051

'd 1 the state must create and operate one so the-local needs will 2 be met. This has'not been done, nor are there provisions for 3 doing so. The contention is that an operating license should 4 not be granted until the plan for equipment is in place, and 5 this should be before the time the plant goes into commercial 6 operation.

7 The town contends there is good reason to believe 8 that the plan for equipment and facility will not be 9 available because the town -- and this is because bo.th towns 10 have voted not to accept the donations, the town officials 11 have been prohibited from promoting the implementation on an 12 unapproved plan, and this has been held to include accepting g

\_/ 13 donations of equipment required for the plan and the 14 establishment of an emergency operation center.

15 The town has also voted not to expend its own 16 funds for equipment required for the plan and appears 17 unlikely to do so.

18 JUDGE H0YT: Would you tell me the basis of 19 refusing to take the equipment to protect your own citizens?

20- MR. BACKUS: I am not a citizen of these towns. I 21 did not vote a t the town' meeting. I did not go'to the town 22 meeting, and I can't tell you the basis for the town's 23 votes.

24 JUDGE HOYT: What I am concerned about, 25 Mr. Backus, in receiving these donations, be they from the

,t sa l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2052 em h

I Applicant or the state or any other source, for example, 2 radio notification equipment, was there some limitation en 3 the use of it that prevented the city from accepting, the 4 town?

5 MR. BACKUS: I don't think it was that. I think, 6 Madam Chairman, if I may -- this is not strictly related to 7 the contention, but I hope it is to your question -- I think 8 there is a. serious concern on-the part of town, the towns I 9 represented and the other towns who were here before you, 10 that plans are being prepared in which they do not have 11 confidence and they desire to preserve their freedom of 12 action to the extent they may. They feel the best way to f'/

(.

h 13 preserve their freedom of action and to preserve some local 14 autonomy is by not accepting equipment or participating in 15 exercises.

16 JUDGE H0YT: One moment, Mr. Abrams. Thank you.

17 Sorry for that interruption, Mr. Backus. If you will 18 continue, sir.

19 MR. BACKUS: In any event, Madam Chairman, I think 20 that that is sone of the basis that underlies the town votes 2'l 'that have been taken in the towns I represent, and which, 22 once again, are the subject of litigation, in the case of 23 Hampton Falls and South Hampton, both of which were parties 24 to the suit, both of which are issues going before the New 25 Hampshire Supreme Court.

7_

V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

i t

i l

26226.0 cox 2053 1 I will turn to Hampton Falls Contention No. 4.

2 Hampton Falls Contention No. 4 states that.the Hampton Falls 3 plan does not adequately meet the requirements of 10 CFR 4 50.47'A-1, B-5 and B-6, "and NUREG-0654 planning standard E, 5 because.there is no mutually agreeable basis for notification 6 of response organizations and much of the communications s

7 equipment referred to in the Hampton Falls plan is 8 nonexistent, i

9 The Applicant, in its objection to this 10 contention, refers to the fact that Hampton Falls has not 6

! 11 shown that there was a preferable means of achieving l

12 notification, or that Hampton Falls has proposed any

/'T

(_/

13 alternative means to the State Civil Defense Agency officials 14 and has been rejected. We respectfully suggest that that is 15 not part of the burden of establishing a contention, if we 16 have established.some alternative, or sugge ted some 17 alternative. But there is no requirement to do that.

18 The contention, which is one that I believe was 19 not opposed by the Staff, states a specific concern and has a -

t

20 basis for the statenent of that concern, and the contention 21 should therefore be allowed without the requirement that we

! 22 meet a brand new standard, to me, of proposing some  ;

}

23 alternative or m,aking some alternative suggestion.

f 24 The statement of basis that we provided again i

! ,_q 25 supports this by reference to the- f act that the personnel in i V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2054 rn

( )

v 1 Hampton Falls, to whom notification would have to go, may not 2 be available. In any case, the point of contact should.be 3 the town's. full-duty policeman. I think the statement of 4 basis is sufficient in~ detail on that.

5 That, I think, is all I have to say on the four 6 contentions offered by the Town of Hampton Falls.

7 JUDGE H0YT: All right, sir. Are you ready to 8 start with South Hampton?

9 MR. BACKUS: Yes. South Hampton Contention 1 was 10 the radiological emergency response plan for South Hampton 11 fails to provide reasonable assurance, because contrary to 12 NUREG-0654 A-3, the plan includes no written concepts for

(_) 13 referring to operations or local agencies. The entire 14 objection from the Staff to that was that the contention was 15 general in nature. When the volume containing the agreements 16 has been reviewed by South Hampton it should be required to 17 specify the deficiencies it finds, if any.

18 Well, thats the Applicant. The objection is 19 perhaps not really an ob j ec t i on' . Insofar as the issue of 20 generality is concerned, South Hampton would say that the 21 contention is not general in nature. It states that the 2:2 South Hampton plan, because it has not been approved by the 23 town, or its selectmen, is nothing more than the state's 24 concept of operations as to how the state and the town should p_ 25 work together.

't.)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

. 202-347-3700 ~ Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2055 g

N 1 It is unlikely that the plan will be approved by 2 the town or its selectmen. In effect, without a written 3 agreement,.there is no South Hampton plan and may never be a 4 South Hampton plan, and thus the state plan has a serious 5 deficiency specifically given that the same may be true of 6 other state plans.

7 JUDGE H0YT: When you say there will never be a 8 plan, Mr. Backus, I.think you are overreaching. There will 9 perhaps not be a South Hampton plan, but there will be a 10 state South Hampton plan.

11 MR. BACKUS: That again gets back to the issue of 12 compensatory plan, yes, ma'am.

/ T

(_/ 13 JUDGE HOYT: I think that is a distinction worthy 14 of note.

15 MR. BACKUS: Yes. I understand that distinction, 16 and, of course, we have not filed contentions on the 17 compensatory-plan at this date and expect to be doing so.

18 South Hampton No. 2 --

19 JUDGE HARBOUR: Mr. Backus, before you go on to 20 Contention 2, could I just ask you-~to what extent was South 21 Hampton Contention 1 filed simply because there was a Jack or 22 almost total lack of any written agreements.in the New 23 Hampshire plan at the time the contention was written?

24 MR. BACKUS: That was a key part of the basis for

_ 25 this contention, and it still is.

U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Na'ionwide Coverage 800-336-6646

.. y 26226.0 cox 2056 g:

5

\/

1 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Backus, let me follow that and 2 ask you, if you would review those written agreements that 3 have now become a part of it, could we anticipate a motion to 4 dismiss the contention? I will revise it.

5 MR. BACKUS: Yes, we expect -- I believe that we 6 got a volume of agreements at the same time we got the --

7 what was called the compensatory plan. I believe there were 8 no letter agreements having to do with South Hampton in that 9 volume.

10 JUDGE HOYT: Perhaps specifically not, but aren't 11 there some form letter agreements in that? Let me ask you, 12 Mr. Bisbee, to quickly refresh my recollection. Are there (3

(_) 13 some form agreements, letter agreements?

14 MR. BISBEE: There are form agreements, your 15 Honor, but I think there are specific ones for towns and 16 companies as well.

17 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

18 All right, go ahead, Mr. Backus.

19 MR. BACKUS: We don't believe there are aay 20 specific agreements in the materials we have been provided --

21 JUDGE H0YT: Let's argue about what we know, 22 Mr. Backus, not what may be. What else do you have on this?

23 MR. BACKUS: That's all.

24 JUDGE HOYT: Do you want to move on to South

,_s 25 Hampton 2, then.

I 1 l us 1

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80N36-6M6

26226.0 cox 2057'

> d

\_)

1 MR. BACKUS: Yes. South Hampton 2 is that the 2 plan for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance, 3 because contrary to NUREG-0654 A-4, the town lacks the 4 capacity for 24-hour continuous operation for protracted 5 periods, and obviously the argument made in regard to the l l

A Hampton Falls contention on that would be applicable here. I 7 au;"R H0YT: All right, sir. Anythi ng else, sir, 1 8 on your South Hampton s + hen?

9 MR'. BACKUS: South Jampton Contention 3 states 10 that the plan for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable 11 assurance because contrary to NUREG-0654 C-5 it contains no 12 letters of agreement from voluntary police officers,

~ 13 voluntary firemen, other emergency workers, school teachers, 14 transportation companies and bus drivers. It contains no 15 agreements from Midway Excavators and personnel at the 16 Tewksbury Pond campground.

17 Now, the Public Service objection says letters of 18 agreement are not required for police officers, firemen, 19 school teachers and other emergency workers. It should be 20 assumed that these people are the key to the success of a 21 response, as are bus drivers, transportation companies, 22 Midway Excavators and personnel at Tewksbury Fond campground, 23 which they admit might represent support organizations from 24 which NUREG-0564 recommends letters of agreement. The 25 police, fire department and school personnel are also l

I

[T

\J l

l l

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nanonwide Coverage 80N36-6646

ng 26226.0 cox 2058

.(.

L) 1 volunteers, with respect ~ to their participation in this plan, 2 absent the still-unresolved state authority to command in the 3 event of an accident, 4 So there.is no reasonable assurance, lacking 5 letters of agreement, that they will participate in training 6 for, or in implementing the planning.

7 If the state's plan is to substitute their own 8 personnel for local people who will not participate, they.

9 must know how many personnel are needed and what functions

-10 and what locations and that they are appropriately trained.

11 We submit even letters of agreement will not 12 guarantee that personnel or equipment will be available but 13 certainly they are a minimum requirement not yet available 14 here.

15 The town further contends that just because the 16 state has obtained letters from transportation companies, 17 there is no assurance that an adequate number of vehicles and 18 drivers will eventually be put under agreement. The town 19 would contend that adequate numbers of vehicles and drivers 20 will not be available and that if significant carriers .exis t, 21 bus companies and drivers may refuse to sian the agreements 22 for the completion of the task.

23- The Applicant believes that an agreement with 24 Midway Excavators is not needed because towing and plowing of

,_s 25 snow can be done by a surfeit of equipment to perform this i

b' /

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6666

26226.0 cox 2059

(-

t t

%J 1 level at state function if necessary.

2 The company, however, is discussing the merits of 3 the contention, and offers no proof sufficient to eliminate 4 this as an issue for contention that such equipment will not 5 be needed in other functions or that the equipment would 6 arrive at the town in a reasonable time or that the operators 7 would be available would be willing to work in the sole, or 8 you believed agreement to do so.

9 While state equipment is to be dedicated to 10 keeping evacuation routes clear, there is no provision for 11 feed or other routes. While it is the Applicas.t's position 12 that obtaining resources for Midway Excavators is desirable (s 13 but not essential to implementation of the South Hampton 14 local plan given the absence of any_ town vehicles, South 15 Hampton would argue otherwise.

16 The Company claims that Tewksbury cam'pground is 17 not a source of emergency workers. It is a special-18 facility. Yet the plan notes that the campground employees 19 will be responsible for alerting as many as 1500 campers who 20 may be there on a summer's day and also direct them to take 21 the proper evacuees back to work.

22 JUDGE HOYT: Let me ask~you what is your 23 definition of a special facility?

24 MR. BACKUS: I think the definition of a special 25 facility, as I uncerstand it, would be a facility where

/s;

+ 1

%J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2060 g

\~J 1 people may need assistance in transportation other than their 2 own private automobiles.

3 JUDGE HOYT: Go ahead.

4 MR. BACKUS: More people are i n the campground 5 than the rest of '

town during the rest of the summer, yet 6 adequate provision is not made for them in the state-created 7 plan.

8 In addition to those particular' factual-related 9 basis points, Madam Chairman, I would say that o'erall, v the 10 Applicant here, .as in many of the objections, we believe, is 11 dealing- with the meri ts of the contention as an issue for 12 final resolution, rather than the issue of its n

(m/I 13 admissibility.

14 We think that the contention as stated certainly 15 raises with the proper regulatory basis, an issue for 16 litigation,.and it certainly gives the Applicant clear notice 17 of what we are talking about, because they have gone to some 18 length to talk about the facts that will have to be 19 litigated.

20 South Hampton Contention No. 4.

21 JUDGE HOYT: Before you move on to 4, Mr. Backus, 22 let me ask you. What other transportation companies, other 2

.3 than buses, would'be involved in the evacuation that you 24 anticipate he:e, i.n this contention.

,- 25 You have two categories, transportation companies

()~

! Au:E-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 l

1 4r 26226.0 cox 2061

...)

1 and bus drivers. Is that because transportation companies-2 having to agree to supply the buses and the bus drivers 3 having to agree -- is that what we are talking about?

4 MR. BACKUS: Yes.

5 JUDGE HOYT: Thank you.

6 JUDGE HARBOUR: May I ask the same question that I 7 asked previously? That is, to what extent was this 8 contention submitted because of the lack of letters of 9 agreement at the time the contention.was wri tten?

10 MR. BACKUS: Again I would say, Judge Harbour, 11 that that was a key basis for it. We still find that the 12 letters of agreement do not provide f'or the assurance that f i

(_/ 13 these functions will be provided, and we understand that 14 there will need to be a definition of that.

15 JUDGE HOYT: Now, Mr. Backus, then, I have got to 16 go one question more then with you on this, what letters of 17 agreement specifically are'niscing that you find in the 18 transportation companies and bus driver categories only. I 19 am not interested in the other. listings here. What companies 20 and what~ bus drivers do you fail to have agreements for your 21 city or town?

22 MR. BACKUS: Can we look that up and get back to 23 you?

24 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. Any time today or tomorrow,

-.s 25 Mr. Backus.

I  ;

V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33(4 646

26226.0 cox 2062

,m 1 MR. BACKUS: All right. . South Hampton Contention 2 4 was that the radiological emergency response plan for South 3 Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance because 4 contrary to NUREG-0654 E-S reliance on a commercial FM S station, WOKQ, for follow-up information, is inadequate.

6 The objection to that, trom the Applicant, Madam 7 Chairman, was that it was factually in error because there 8 are at least three radio stations that will be employed for 9 emergency messages, one of which broadcasts on the AM band.

10 Well, I think that this again raises a factual 11 issue that would need to be disposed of by summary judgment 12 or passing that by hearing; but to respond to that, let me r

k_)x 13 just make a couple of points.

14 The AM radio station referrcd to in the pl'an, 15 WMVF, if I have got that correctly, only broadcasts from 16 sunrise to sunset, with less than adequate coverage. We have 17 had a lot of contentions about not having to plan for~a worst 18 case accident, but we certainly can't plan for an accident 19 that will necessarily --

20 JUDGE HOYT: That's one station, Mr. Backus. Do 21 -you want to run through all five of them?

22 MR. BACKUS: Let's see. Further reference is made 23 to WOKQ and five satellite stations as carrying emergency 24 broadcast messages. Section 2.1.5 of the New Hampshire plan

,_ 25 does not identify the satellite stations but only says they V

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6

26226.0 cox 2063

(/ '

1 "wi11 be identified in the emergency public information

~

2 booklet to be distributed to the public." This booklet has 3 not yet been provided to the town, I don't think. It.may 4 -have been by now. Has it?

5 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Bisbee, unfortunately the record 6 doesn't indicate a nod, but I think you nodded affirmatively 7 that it had been distributed; is that correct?

8 MR. BISBEE: Yes, it was included in the materials 9 submitted by.the Applicant in the last month.

10 MR. BACXUS: In any event a draft of the booklet 11 given to the. press at the February 26, 1986 drill does list 12 two AM stations, WHAB and YMYF, but again, neither broadcast (3

V' 13 from sunset to sunrise.

14 The town would submit that lack of 24-hour AM 15 radio coverage results in a lack of complete coverage, and 16 that there is no basis for believing that all residents.and 17 transients will have access to an AM/FM radio.

18 JUDGE H0Yt: I believe Staff opposes admission of 19 that contention, Mr. Backus, if you want to respond 20 specifically to the Staff on that.

21 You may have responded sufficiently, I just want 22 to be sure you didn't have any additional argument, 23 Mr. Backus.

24 MR. BACKUS: Staff objection was basically the 25 same.

)

v i

l l

l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

J. t j 26226.0 cox 2064 l V 1 No. 5 for South Hampton went to the lack of draft j

2 public messages, and as to that, we would say well it may be i

3 that it is the state and'not the towns that is responsible 4 for deciding what is to be published to the public in the way 5 of instructions during an emergency. It is town officials 6 who must give messages to the public when they call the ELC ,

7 for confirmation of emergency messages or directions to 8 reception centers or to request transportation or to pass i ~

9 along the protective action recommendations of state 10 officials, and the town and officials must give messages to 11 the public via bullhorns or directly via the alerting system, 12 siren system, for both the general public and special

7

(_/ 13 facilities.

14 The plans are def.icient in that they do not

! 15 contain copies of the messages being given'out by the state, l 16 do not have' messages to be used by local officials so that l

17 consistent messages may be given out at the local level.

l i

i 18 The drill of February 26 did not test this part of i

, 19 the communication chain, ELC to general public or to'special f 20 facilities. Had it done so it might have_ discovered that 21 scripts at the local level were needed.

22 JUDGE HOYT: I wonder if you would respond.

23 specifically to the Staff's problem with South Hampton 24 contention 5 at page 4, which states as follows, and I' quote,

,_s 25 "However, the Staff opposes admission of this contention to

(_)

l l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide coverage 800-336-6u6

26226.0 cox 2065 (3

(_/

1 the extent basis addresses A, the need for communication 2 instructions, and B, the need for such communication 3 instruction to be available from the special facilities."

4 They list two of them. The Staff's problen and 5 mine, frankly, Mr. Backus, is what do you mean by 6 " communication instruction"?

7 MR. BACKUS: Well, the town believes that it will 8 be, as I recited in responding to the Applicant's objection, 9 town officials will be called upon to provide information to 10 people in the town, and this should be, of course, consistent' 11 with what is Peing provided by state officials.

12 JUDGE H0YT: Mr. Backus, if the town chooses, as

[')

(_/ 13 you have indicated earlier, not to participate in practically 14- any level of this, they are not going to give any 15 communications instructions. What communications and 16 instructions specifically would be so vital from the town 17 that they would have to supplement those of the state?

18 I think the term " communication instruction" is a 19 term of art, and we are going to know what it is going to 20 mean.

21 MR. BACKUS: The town has, of course, taken a 22 position on the adequacy of the plan to date and attempted to 23 preserve its role in deciding --

24 JUDGE H0YT: We are not getting down to what you 25 mean by the term " communication instruction." I think it's a 7_s I \

G

^CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347d700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6

s s I

t 26226.0 cox 2066 -

i. /";

() --

1 very simple question. I understand all the positions the l 2 town has taken. I understand their concerns and I understand

I I

j 3 their actions, but what does the " communication instruction" t

i 4 phrase mean?

I l 5 MR. BACKUS: Assuming the towa's contentions on i

6 the other issues are not accepted, the town would then want l

7 to have, in determining that this plan is adequate and coult.1  !

8 be implemented by the town, that the people in town'that have 9 responsibility for communicating with the citizens, have the s

10 tools with which to d.o that in a. manner that is going to be 11 ef f ective and not work a t cross-purposes with anybody else.

! 12 Th a't is what we say is lacking.-

1 k_,)s khe town with its

~

13 JUDGE HOYT: Communication of 14 own people?

i 15 MR. BACKUS: Yes.

j 16 JUDOF HOYT: If the town refuses to participate in j i

! 17 the plan, Mr. Backus, how is the Board to determine whether  !

l 18 or not, if it has no plan, and you say it does not, and i

19 indeed will not, if I understand you correctly, then where l  ;

i 20 are the peo..le in the town going to get the communications s i

j 21 instructions necessary to protect themselves?

l -

! 22 We are just working at cross-purposes, unless we

) 23 understand -- if that's what you mean by the term, then it's

) 24 a barrier that we will simply have to try to resolve.

25 MR.~BACKUS: We understand that, although the town ,

} (~~)  :

, s_-  ;

t i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

f. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 1

u- - - ~ ._, - .... _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - , . _ - - - . _ - _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ - - - .

26226.0 I

cox 2067

(.

, s.

I has the position it has in this matter, that there is a state t

i 2 plan which will perhaps ask town officials to do things.

~

3 They may be ordered by somebody to do things, although in 4 their own judgment, they will-not do those things. If they t

} 5 are going to do things which they are going to be ordered to 6 do, there still is the issue of whether they can do then I 7 adequately with deficiencies we have outlined, which this t 8 contention addresses in 1. So I don't think there's any 9 inherent inconsistency between the town's position as 10 reflected in the town vote, and the town's promotion of this 11 contention on the lack of prepared scripts or public 12 information on the town level.

i d 13 I don't see any inconsistency in that, Madra 14 Chairman.

15 JUDGE H0YT: If those particular messages then are-16 in the town plan as promulgated by the state, is that 17 sufficient if the town officials have that information 18 available, and that is what they can communicate to their~

19 citizenry?

20 MR. BACKUS: No, that is not sufficient, e

21 JUDGE HOYT: We are not going to get an answer 22 from you, Mr. Backus. Let's move ahead then.

23 MR. BACKUS: I would like to finish my thought if 24 I could.

, 25 JUDGE H0YT: Finish the thought but make it very

(  !

w/

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6 4 6

26226.0 cox '2068

,/ m.,

N.]

1 quick because we want to move on to something else.

2 MR. BACKUS: The town officials, whether or not 3 they do so as an exercise of their own judgment or maybe 4 because they are deputized by the State of New Hampshire to 5 perform certain functions, are concerned about adequacy of 6 response; and the lack of appropriate messages for town 7 officials to communicate with their citize.ns is, I think, a 8 perfectly valid contention for this Board to consider.

9 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Mr. Backus, on Contention 10 6, then, do you have anything?

11 MR. BACKUS: Hampton Falls -- I am sorry, South 12 Hampton Contention 6 I have discussed, because there was a k,)g 13 similar Hampton Falls contention, and I won't repeat that, 14 but simply say the same argument is applicable here, as I 15 provide in regard to South Hampton, or Hampton Falls.

16 JUDGE H0YT: All right.

17 MR. BACKUS: The plan for South Hampton fails to 18 provide reasonable assurance, because contrary to NUREG-0654 19 J-10-A, there has been no provision made for sheltering 20 residents at the Tewksbury Pond campground despite a resident 21 population of 1500. Staff does not oppose admission of that 22 contention. The Applicant does.

23 This contention does mention the public at large, 24 but not in such vague terms that it would fail the basis test 25 even if the topic were admissible in general. The town

(,')

v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2069

/

( l v

1 refers specifically to South Hampton residents visiting the 2 beaches or other areas away from home where sheltering in the 3 home is not possible. The town would also contend that 4 sheltering provisions at the Barnard School are inadequate.

5 Now the Company claims it has been held that surveys of 6 sheltering facilities are not prerequisite to emergency 7 plans. Cites from the Philadelphia Electric decision go to 8 suggest if sheltering facilities are nonexistent or 9 inadequate, that shall be factored into the decisionmaking 10 equation at that time.

11 However, without a survey of shelters available, 12 our decisionmakers, presumably executive officers of the O

's _) 13 state, don't know how many people can be adequately sheltered 14 rather than evacuatud. Seabrook is a different site than the 15 Limerick plant. Decisions must be made in a short period of 16 time. There is nothing in the state or South Hampton plan 17 that shelter is not available for campers or others.

18 The Company contends that it is not the 19 Commission's intent that the authorization of operating 20 licenses be conditioned upon the construction of new 21 facilities. It is the unders'tanding of the town that the I

22 Commonwealth of Massachusetts is seeking that shelters be 23 provided for unprotected beach population or that the plant 24 not be allowed to operate during the summer. The position of 25 the town will be the same with regard to the residents or 7.-

V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2070 s>

1 transients, in the campground referred to.

2 JUDGE HOYT: Could you tell-us, Mr. Backus, in 3 what way the sheltering facilities at the particular 4 campground in question are inadequate?

5 MR. BACKUS: Well, it is a campground. They are 6 not intended to be permanent facilities for housing people 7 there.

8 JUDGE HOYT: But there are facilities that are 9 available, I would suppose, Mr. Backus. I don't know the 10 area, so I can't visualize precisely what may be there. But 11 usually on those campgrounds there would be a building of 12 some sort.

(~)s

(, 13 The testimony in that Limerick case was the 14 thickness of the wall, for example, the scalability of the 15 buildings, the fact that buildings in northern climates are 16 built very strong. It was a very decided issue there that 17 made the sheltering o~ption acceptaole.

18 MR. BACKUS: I cannot personally describe the -

19 building for you at this time. I think --

20 JUDGE HOYT: But there is a building there?

21 MR. DACKUS: There.is some sort of a building 22 there.

23 JUDGE HOYT: That's all I want to know. All 24 right. Let's go on.

25 MR. BACKUS: South Hampton No. 8 states that the

(-)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-66d6

26226.0 cox 2071 (G')

1 plan for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance 2 because contrary to fJUREG-0654 J-10-D it fails to provide for 3 the protection of those persons whose mobility may be 4 impaired due to such factors as institutional or other 5 confinement.

6 The basis offered for this contention is the fact 7 that the state provides only for one special needs vehicle, 8 despite the fact that it says on the South Hampton plan and 9 all the local plans, there are no known special needs 10- populations.

11 Many special needs vehicles would, in fact, be 12 required. The town is willing to provide an assessment to f~)

(_/ 13 this need, and would argue that these resources will not be 14 available for either the town or the state.

15 JUDGE H0YT: Will you address those factors that 16 the Staff opposes in the admission of South Hampton 8 for us, 17 Mr. Backus.

18 MR. BACKUS: They oppose the admission of the 19 contention on the basis that there is a need to locate the 20 non-auto-owning residents and pick them up in a single pass 21 through the town before traveling to IJashua . The second one 22 is that there is a need to find citizens of South Hampton 23 and, C, that the phone system may not be available to request 21 assistance in transportation.

m s 25 JUDGE H0YT: Let me stop you just a moment and ask ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2072 f3

%/

1 Mr. Turk. Mr. Turk, on your D, section B there, it states 2 there is a need to find the citizens of South Hampton. Is

~

3 that route alerting that you are talking about? That's not 4 route alerting, is it?

.5 MR. TURK: I am not sure what the thrust of the 6 contention is. Route alerting is a normal provision that is 7 made. Citizens are told where the buses will be, where they 8 go to meet the bus. I read this contention to assert that 9 someone has to go out and find people, if they are not home, 10 go to some shopping centers, just round them up.

11 JUDGE HOYT: It definitely does not touch on 12 routing. All right. That's what I -- it just dawned on me

(

(_)/ 13 there was a possibility that that might have been what you 14 meant. I didn't think it was. All right, Mr. Backus, go 15 ahead.

16 MR. BACKUS: Well, the objection of the Staff to 17 the basic does go to the basis -- as I understand it, the 18 Staff is not opposing the contention. So I guess I really 19 have nothing to say to the Staff's response to the particular 20 ba. sis.

21 JUDGE HOYT: I will consider that a waiver, then, 22 Mr. Backus. How about 9 then?

23 MR. BACKUS: Okay, 9. Gouth Hampton 9 states that 24 the plan lacks reasonable assurance because contrary to 25 NUREG-0654 J-10-H and J-12 the Nashua Public Works f aci-li ty

('

Lj

\

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

r -

26226.0 cox 2073

/ i

.\_j' I will act as inadequate shelter fcr all _ potential evacuation 2 and will lack adequate medical and decentamination 3 facilities. The Applicant objects to this contention as too 4 speculative. The town respectfully disagrees.

S While the plan does not require South Hampton 6 personnel to man the reception' centers of the shelters in 7 Nashua or elsewhere, the local plan -- the plan prepared for 8 the locality does assume' that all South Hampton residents if 9 asked may stop at the center and thus to use the center as an 10 integral part of a local as well as the state plan. The 11 reception center is included in maps for local special 12 facilities, Barnard School, Tewksbury Pond campground, p)

(_ 13 Directio:n to reception centers are included in the EBS 14 messages and state plan telling South Hampton_ residents what 15 to do in the event of ordered evacuation. The adequacy or 16 lack thereof of reception centers is clearly a legitimate 17 concern as to whether or not the particular responsibilities 18 for manning it is a town responsibility. So we think that 19 the objection is without merit.

20 JUDGE H0YT: I find in the Staff's response they l 21 talk about the assertion that the State Department of Health 22 Service may be inaccessible; there may be lack of necessary 23 personnel, and that South Hampton personnel have not been 24 trained in Department of Public IIealth Service procedures.

25 Are you maintaining that they should be?

(vt l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2074

,r)

L' 1 MR. BACKUS: I think the town, again, to assist 2 the citizens, if they are going to assist citizens and go to 3 these centers, should be aware of these things.

4 JUDGE HOYT: That has nothing to do with 5 Department of Public Health medical personnel, Mr. Backus.

6 How about the health service may be inaccessible. In what 7 sense did you mean that?

8 MR. BACKUS: I think there is a basis to believe 9 -- I think this again goes back to the issue of -- strike 10 that. I don't mean to say that.

11 I think there is an issue as to the distance they 12 will to go, the number of personnel that will be available to A

(_) 13 assist personnel when they go to reception centers.

14 TUDGE HOYT: That's a state responsibility, to 15 provide that public health service there?

16 MR. BACKUS: Yes, it's a state responsibility, but 17 it does bear on the adequacy of the plan to provide for the 18 health of the citizens of the town.

19 JUDGE HOYT: But not the adequacy of the state, of 20 the city of South Hampton or the town of South Hampton's 21 plan; right?

22 MR. BACKUS: Well, I guess that's correct.

23 JUDGE H0YT: Can we nove ahead to Contention 10.

24 MR. BACKUS: The town plan does refer to the 25 citizens being taken to the state reception centers.

f3 N.]

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2075 m

.)

1 JUDGE HOYT: You haven't been very helpful to us 2 as to what inaccessibility or training you are talking about, 3 Mr. Backus. So that is not very responsive either.

4 Let's_go on to 10 now. What'do you have on that 5 for us?-

6 MR. BACKUS: -The South Hampton Contention 10 is 7 that the South Hampton plan fails to provide reasonable 8 assurance, in that, contrary to NUREG-06540-1 on page 75, 9 local personnel have not received adequate training. This is 10 based on a lack of staff positions, lack of equipment and 11 other considerations.

12 The Company suggests that this contention is vague 13 --

14 JUDGE H0YT: I think the Staff says it's vague.

15 MR. BACKUS: You are right, I am sorry, I am 16 looking at the wrong one. The town has nentioned barriers 17 which do exist in the implementation of training, lack of 18 equipment and personnel. While the Company refers to the 19 linited scope of responsibilities delegated by the state to 20 South Hampton and the limited nature of the training required 21 to discharge those responsibilities, the town has argued that 22 there are, in fact, significant responsibilities for local 23 emergency response workers: police, fire, teachers, drivers, 24 et cetera.

25 JUDGE H0YT: All right. I think we should have a 7-(_;'

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2076

(~')\;

g 1 brief recess, let's say 10 minutes. The hearing is 2 adjourned.

3 (Recess.)

4 JUDGE H0YT: Mr. Backus, are you ready? Very 5 well. The hearing.will come to order. Let the record 6 reflect that those parties to the hearing who were present 7 when the hearing recessed are again present. Mr. Backus, 8 will you continue on with your presentation. I believe you 9 were now up to South Hampton 10.

10 MR. BACKUS: I thought I was on the SAPL 1.

11 JUDGE HOYT: I am sorry, SAPL 1; you are correct.

12- MR. BACKUS: SAPL Contention 1, Madam Chair. man, p)

(_ 13 members of the Board, dealt with lack of reasonable assurance 14 for the state and local plans because they do no.t set out how 15 emergency vehicles will be able to make their way back into 16 the emergency planning zone to respective destinations 17 against a potential outgoing flow of the evacuating 18 vehicles.

19 The Applicants begin their objection by assuming 20 that emergency vehicles -- saying that we assume that the 21 emergency vehicles would be ordered onto routes which are 22 one-way. Again, there is no basis for such an assumption, 23 they say. We say that this is not an assumption that 24 underlies the contention or the basis for it, but that there

- 25 will be places where -- it's foreseeable that there will be G

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

.. . . - _ . = - - - -. . _ .. .- ..

l' 26226.0 cox 2077

,a i i G'

1 . places where traffic will not be controlled, which is 2 actually going to happen at the intersections, and that there l 3 will be use of more than one lane of travel for outgoing j 4 vehicles and that this can present a problem for emergency S personnel coming into the emergency planning zone to perform 6 their central functions; and that this is not a matter that's 7 been dealt with in the state and local plans.

8 JUDGE H0YT: Mr. Backus, let me short-circuit you 9 a bit here and suggest that you look a t the arguments of the

. 10 Staff in regard to this contention. They don't oppose the 11 contention as far as it concerns.the time required for buses, 12 vans and other emergency vehicles to enter the EP2.

]

(.

O) 13 However, the Staff notes this as an ETE issue, and

, 14 I think we would like that issue addressed. Do you wish to

!, 15 ma'<e an argument to defer this contention for the same reason- ,

l 16

. that Staff provided to Hampton's Contention.3?

l 1

17 MR. BACKUS: We don't have any problem with the 18 position the Staff takes that this could be deferred until we 19- have the ETE materials and incorporated as a contention in 20 relation to that.

21 JUDGE HOYT: I guess somewhere along hr a, 22 Mr. Bisbee, we are going to have to get into the issue of l

23 when that is forthcoming. I take it you are awaiting a great 24 deal of documentation on that for us?

25 MR. BISBEE: I am, your lionor.

4

( ,!

i i

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

~~._w.__.--.- _ __ . - _ _ _ _ _ ______._ _ ___ ___.=_ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _

4 26226.0 cox 2078

(')

G' 1 JUDGE.H0YT: Let's go on to No. 2 for SAPL,-

2 Mr. Backus.

'i .

3 MR. BACKUS: SAPL Contention No. 2 relates to the 4 coordination of operations between the States of New 5 Hampshire and Massachusetts and contends that these, the 6 concept of coordination and cooperation between the two 7 states, has not been sufficiently defined or set forth.

i 8 The Applicant contends there is no regulatory 9 basis for this contention; and it seems to us that the Staff 10 1s in disagreement, and we submit that there is, indeed, a i

11 basis for a requirement that the planning and implementation 12 -- not only the planning, but the implementation of plans be l

I

[d 13 done in a coordinated basis where we have a site which is 14 essentially on a border of two states. That is something g

15 that has been, so far as we are aware, totally unaddressed in i 16 any plans that have been addressed to date.

{ 17 JUDGE H0YT: For the sake of argument, Mr. Backus, 18 let's assume that Massachusetts does not wish to cooperate 19 with New Hampshire in some -joint venture of the nature that 20 you are mentioning here. Each of the states still has 21 responsibility for its own citizenry.

22 MR. BACKUS: There'is no doubt about that.

23 JUDGE H0YT: Desirability as opposed to 24 necessity.

73 25 MR. BACKUS: No, I wouldn't agree with that, Madam (v) i l

t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 i

26226.0 cox 2079 13 V

1 Chairman. I think that the overall requirement, of course, 2 is that there be reasonable assurance from the federal ~

3 standpoint, whether one state can assure adequacy considered 4 alone or another state can assure adequacy _ considered alone 5 1s not the issue. The issue is whether all the citizens, 6 regardless of which side of the border, and which authority 7 may be on which side of the border, can be protected, and 8 conflicting or uncoordinated actions on the part of the two 9 governme. could exacerbate the -- or prevent the 10 achievement of reasonable' assurance. That is something-that 11 has not been addressed and that's what this contention goes 12 to.

O V 13 JUDGE H0YT: Mr. Backus. if the Board were to 14 conclude that the State of New Hampshire's emergency plan 15 under the plans for the various townships in New Hampshire 16 provided reasonable adequacy and that' we provided also a 17 finding that the plans provided by the Commonwealth of 18 Massacnusetts for its citizenry provided reasonable 19 assurance, isn't that the reasonable assurance that this 20 Board is cha.iged with finding? Whether or not New Hampshire 21 chooses to coordinate its efforts with that of Massachusetts 22 or vice versa is not an issue that this Board can decide.

23 MR. BACKUS: I think this Board has to decide 24 wheLher there is reasonable assurance. I think in the g 25 absence of some plan --

(v)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2080 m

,/

1 JUDGE H0YT: Let me stop you right there, now.

2 Reasonable assurance as to what plan, Mr. Backus?

3 MR. BACKUS: Reasonable assuran'ce as to the 4 protection of all the citizens in the emergency planning zone 5 regardless of their state of residence or state of location.

6 JUDGE H0YT4 You just made the argument then that 7 there is no necessity that there be necessarily that 8 coordination if the Board can make that other finding or 9 finding that you suggested?

10 MR. BACKUS: If I made that argument it was 11- inadvertent, and I did not intend to make any such argument.

12 The argument I make is that we have here a site where many of

()%

s. 13 the egress routes go from one state into another. For 14 example, Route 26, very c1c'se to the reactor itself, starts 15 in New Hampshire,.goes on into Massachusetts and I.think noes 16 -- I think it goes back and forth. Route 95, a major route, 17 crosses the border right in one place.

18 -If the two states have plans ~that are not in 19 advance known to be congruent and mutually supporting, this 20 Board could easily find that overall reasonable assurance for 21 the protection of the citizens and the emergency planning 22 zone cannot be assured, even though one plan standing alone 23 or the other plan standing alone was adequate. But.they 24 don't stand alone; they have to'be reinforced and mutually 25 coordinated. Whether there will be that basis for I_')

\_/

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Natior: wide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2081 i

%J I coordination is an issue of fact that this Board will have to l 2 decide.

3 JUDGE HOYT: Do you want to go ahead with your 4 next one?

5 MR. BACKUS: SAPL Contention 3 goes to the --

6 JUDGE HOYT: Why don't you turn it back on now.

7 No explosion yet.

8 MR. BACKUS: A little whistle though.

9 JUDGE HOYT: Wait until he strikes, Mr. Backus.

10 MR. BACKUS: SAPL Contention 3 is that the State 11 of New Hampshire.and most community plans do not provide for 12 sufficient capacity in New Hampshire community reception O

1

(-) 13 stations for registration and monitoring within about 12 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> of all residents and transients arriving at the j 15 relocation centers. Theretore the plans, state and local

16 host plans do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR regulations  ;

i le cited.

18 Now, the Applicant, again, we think misconstrues j 19 our contention to f rane an objection to it. It does so by 20 stating that we have anticipated that all evacuees will be 21 registered and monitered and it would be a waste of time to l

! 22 estimate the evacuees. We say thic is essential to estimate .

1 23 the demands before' adequacy can be assessed. i i

24 JUDGE HOYT: How about the argument that the Staff

- 25 makes in footnote 3 to that, Mr. Backus? They make a note i \_J i  !

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 1

=___-___________

26226.0 cox 2082

,9 i )

v 1 that there is no requirement that the relocation center will 2 be able to accommodate all the evacuees from the ETES other 3 'than the fact that the evacuees go to relocation centers.

4 Aren't you asking for a requirement that is not in the 5 regulation? If I understand your contentions correctly, you 6 want a relocation center that registers the people that come

7. out of the EPZ, 100 percent.

8 MR. BACKUS: No. -We don't say that there is a 9 requirement that all percons that may be evacuated from the 10 zone need to be demonstrated to be bandled at the relocation 11 centers. But in order to assecc the adequacy of the 12 relocation centers, we say there has to be some assessment of O( J' 13 the likely demands on hose centers and that that has not 14 been done. To say that they don't all have to go doesn't 15 mean that you can get away with saying that there is no 16 new mer that is reasonably anticipated that will have to be 17 dealt with. We say that that has not been provided. You 10 know, this can get to a point where we can take one 19 relocation in somebody's g. rage and say it's adequate if you 20 only expect 10 people to show up. What are we testing this 21 against? There has to be some ascessment of the number of 22 people that are reasonably to be anticipated to need the 23 services of a reception center. That's not been provided.

24 JUDGE H0YT: Mr. Backuc, again, I must point out f_ 25 to you that you have used the words "in the contention, Y)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646

i

26226.0

! cox 2083 i (}

} V j 1 communitv reception centers for registration and monitoring f 2 within about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, all residents and transients arriving i

j 3 at the relocation center." As I understand your contention,

{

i 4 that's what you want. You want everybody to have to be-1 5 brought into the center and registered; and I am asking you l ,

) 6 what requirement demands that.

7 MR. BACKUS: I think our contention is consistent 4

8 with the statement I have said. It says "all residents and j 9 transients arriving at the relocation centers." We are not  :

t 10 saying that that will be everybody that is evacuated, but we

{

I 11 say it may be a substantial traction of those people who are I 12 evacuating and that we have to have some assessment of what i

l O

V 13 that number is before you can determine the adequacy of the-f I 14 centers. We cannot start out by saying we have got these I ,

15 centers and they will take so many people, and that's how 1 16 many people are going to show up and therefore they are

, 17 odequate. It has to be the other way around. We have to say 18 it's likely that X number of people will be there; do we have-19 the facilities to provide the necessary services?

20 JUDGE HOYT: How would registration during an l

21 emergency do that for you, Mr. Backus? That's what I don't 22 understand about the contention.

l 23 MR. BACKUS: I am not talking about registration.

! 24 JUDGE HOYT; It's your contention, Mr. Backus. If f

. ,3 25 you are not talking about it, then what are you talking U

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646

, .x - ~ , _ . -~ a - - ---.-~. -~ --- - .- . -.

q 26226.0 cox 2084 r~N k) 1 about?

2 MR. BACKUS: I am talking about adequacy of the 3 reception centers for the likely demands to be placed upon j 4 them, and the kind of action that we have to deal with, when i

5 we are going to deal with emergency planning response.

6 JUDGE H0YT: That's all. That's all I have. Do +

4 7 you have any additional argument you want to make?

8 MR. BACKUS: Of course we think it's gri.ng to be j 9 very important that monitoring be provided for people who may-l 10 themselves have a radioactive problem.

11 JUDGE HOYT: That is not the problem it's

12 addressing. Mr. Backus. We will deal with that later.

1 )

t

(_/ 13 MR. BACKUS: I respectfully suggest it does say

}

I 14 that, Madam Chairman. It does refer to monitoring, which is f 15 an important factor of the recept _on centers, we submit.  ;

16 JUDGE H0YT: Can you tell me where that is 17 provided for in the regulation, Mr. Backus? s I 18 MR. BACKUS: Yes, J-12.

1 I

19 JUDGE HOYT: 06549  !

I {

! 20 MR. BACKUS: Yes, ma'am. "Each organization shall ,

21 describe the means for registering and nonitoring of evacuees l

i 22 at relocation centers. The personnel and equipment available  !

23 should be capable of monitoring within about a 12-hour period 24 all residents and transients and the plume exposure EPC )

3

{ , 25 arriving at the relocation centers." So the contention is  ;

I )

(s_/ <

.i J

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2085 m

1 very closely keyed to'the criteria.

2 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Mr. Backus, let's.qg) 3 ahead with the SAPL 4, unless you have additional argument.

4 JUDGE HARBOUR: Just'for the information of the 5 parties, there are four other contentions which have been 6 submitted which address this. .These are, I believe, South 7 Hampton 9, Kensington 12, NECNP, HLP-12, to some extent 13, 8 and I believe -- wasn't Hampton Falls 2 addressed in this, 9 reception center issue?

10 MR. BACKUS: No. That dealt with 24-hour 11 evacuation capability.

12 JUDGE HARBOUR: All right.

f'T

(-) 13 MR. BACKUS: I think SAPL 4, New England Coalition 14 are the same, or close, and it is that the New Hampshire 15 state, local and host community plans failed to meet in 16 adequate fashion the requirements that provisions be nade for 17 medical treatment of contaminated individuals as set forth in-18 10 CFR 50.47 B-12.

19 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Backus, that's contaminated 20 iniured individuals.

21 MR. BACKUS: I am sorry, I misread that. Thank 22 you.

23 JUDGE HOYT: Staff doesn't_ oppose this, 24 Mr. Backus.

25 MR. BACKUS: Yes. The Staff and the Applicant O

NJ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2006 m

\

1 oppose this as inconsistent with the Commission recent policy 2 statement with regard to 10 CFR 50.47 B-12.

3 JUDGE H0YT: I think'I may have misspoke myself, 4 Mr. Turk. Do not worry. I understand you do oppose it. If 5 I said the Staff does not oppose it, Mr. Backus, I misspoke 6 myself. Go ahead.

7 MR. BACKUS: I guess our position on this is 8 pretty straightforward. We failed to see how there can be a 9 requirement'that provision be made for medical treatment of 10 contaminated individuals and that can simply be provided by 11 , providing a list of available facilities. AndIwe think that i

12 1 the Guard decision that both the.3taff and the Applicant have

[\_e') 13 referred to requires that this Board do more with that than 14 simply deal with, first of all, a list of facilities; and, l

15 7 secondly, a commitment to comply with whatever regulations 16 may be re scued as a result of the Guard decision. The Guard 17 decision, it seems to us, did set aside the nomination or 18 listing of medical facilities as adequate, and that it is not 19 sufficient, with all due regard to possible' interpretations 20 on the policy statement, to simply say that that will suffice 21 until further notica; and that's the legal position we take 22 on that one.

23 JUDGE H0YT: Before you move ahead, are you going 24 on to another contention?

25 MR. BACKUS: No, I have another point on this n

v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Natic.. side Coverage 800 336-6M6

26226.0 cox 2067

( m.

NY 1 contention.

2 MR. BACKUS: The other point that we would make 3 about this contention in regard to'this particular facility, 4 that I think makes it different, is that the Seabrook 5 facility is somewhat unique, as we are all aware. As this 6 Board is aware, from the. prior hearings that were had here in 7 August of 1983, at this particular facility we have the 8 populations at their densest, at least at certain times of 9 the year, not unusual times of the year, close to the 10 reactor; that, therefore, the need for adequate medical 11 arrangements may be more acute here than elsewhere. We have, 12 as everybody is aware, the beach populations with, so far as 13 I know, generally conceded inadequate sheltering provision, 14 for a substantial fragment of that fraction of that 15 population, that will be at risk in the event of an accident, 16 when the beaches are heavily occupied, without even the 17 protective clothing that we have here today and during the 18 Winter in New Hampshire, and that this is all very close to 19 +he reactor.

20 So that what may suffice in the meantime, while 21 the Commission is working through its response to the Guard 22 decision at some other plants, should not be held to be 23 sufficient here at Seabrook which is a site, we submit, with 24 peculiarly difficult problems for emergency planning

_ 25 generally and including the need for medical facilities.

U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2088 gN

.b 1 JUDGE HOYT: You are saying medical. facilities in 2 existence in the area, Mr. Backus?

3 MR. BACKUS: Medical facilities that could provide 4 care for those who could be affected in the event of an 5 accident.

6 SAPL No. 5 deals with deficiencies on the state 7 and local plans and that they do not ensure that there will 8 be adequate personnel or the timely arrival of personnel 9 trained in radiological monitoring in the plume exposure ETZ 10 following release of radiation from Seabrook station, nor is 11 there assurance that monitoring can be carried on for the 12 required time frame citing the requirements.

b'ss 13 Now, the Applicant in its objection assumes that 14 this contention goes to the choice of a protective action and 15 says that a protective action be decided upon prior to the 16 time that monitoring is necessary, or to, as they say, verify 17 dispersion calculations.

18 We believe.the Applicant has misread our 19 contention and that whatever the purpose of the contention, 20 it is a contention soundly based upon' the requirements and 21 criteria that we have cited, and it is therefore a sound 22 contention with a properly stated basis; and that, therefore, 23 the Applicant's assumption that the purpose of this 24 requirement is not one that is going to be met by the 25 requirement should notlbe a basis for opposing the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2089

(-

x 1 contention.

2 JUDGE H0YT: Do you want to go on to No. 6, sir?

3 MR. BACKUS: Yes, I will state that we are going 4 to waive that contention.

5 JUDGE HOYT: Are you withdrawing the contention?

6 MR. BACKUS: The contention is withdrawn.

7 JUDGE H0YT: That's SAPL Contention No. 6.

8 MR. BACKUS: No. 7 states the state and local 9 plans fail to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 40.47 B-11 and 10 NUREG-0654 K-5-B because there's been no showing-that the 11 means of radiological decontamination of personnel supplies 12 and equipment have been established. Further, there's not O( / 13 been an adequate means for showing adequate waste disposal 14 exists. Staff did not oppose this contention, except they 15 thought we'didn't mean emergency personnel and we did.

16 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Turk, was that your 17 understanding; does that change your response here?

18 MR. TURK: I understand Mr. Backus to be limiting 19 the contention now to emergency workers. On that basis, I 20 oppose.

21 JUDGE HOYT: We are on No. 7 now.

22 MR. TURK: SAPL 7?

23 JUDGE HOYT: Yes.

24 MR. TURK: That's correct.

7 25 MR. BACKUS: The Applicants have taken one

\-)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

26226.0 cox 2090 q

Q ,/

1 sentence from our statement of basis from this contention as 2 a basis for their objection.

3 We characterized a description of the l 4 decontamination centers at page 2.4-4 of the state plan as i i

5 the only description of the decontamination centers in the l 1

6 state plan. It is the only description of the 7 decontamination cente s in the state plan. It's true there 8 is scme description cf the decontamination procedures 9 elsewhere, briefly, and that is Appendix S and F in the 10 Department of Public Health Service's procedures. But the 11 means ~annot be considered adequate without the availability 12 of adequate tacilities, b

\_/ 13 The local plans state that the decontamination 14 centers will be co-located with reception centers. SAPL 15 stated as much as a basis for this contention.

16 SAPL did overlook the fact that numbers of showers 17 do appear on certain of the floor plans for the locker rooms 16 in reception centers. They do not appear on all of them, 19 however. For example, they are absent from the diagram on 20 the boys' locker room a t the the Spaulding High School in 21 Rochester. The number of showers indicated will not be 22 adequate. The Applicants do not make mention in their 23 response that the other issues dealt with in SAPL statement 24 of basis for.this contention and they don't say anything 25 about the lack of means for isolating contaminated waste

(_s) s.-

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80G.336-6M6

l l

l l

26226.0  !

1

'cox 2091 l sm (V )  ;

1 water. They do not touch upon the lack of provisions for 2 vehicle decontamination and they do not. address the is. sue of 3 waste disposal or lack of identification of the " local 4 brokerace" that is is supposedly going to accept the waste.

5 For all these reasons we think-SAPL Contention 7 is 6 adnissible.

7 MR. TURK: Madam Chairman, just to avoid'any 8 confusion on the record, I may be misunderstanding the thrust 9 of the contention. I would like to clarify for a moment.

10 JUDGE HOYT: Yes.

11 MR. TURK: The position we filed on paper 12 indicated we felt it was admissible but it had cited the k _, 13 wrong regulatory standard because the standard dealt with

. 14 emergency workers, and I read the contention to deal with the 15 general public.

16 I think I heard Mr. Backus agree with me before 17 that the contention is meant to address emergency workers, 18 but now I hear him explaining that it really does address the 19 public. So I an a little confused.

.~

20 JUDGE H0YT: Yes. I will join you, Mr. Turk.

21 MR. BACKUS: Okay. I guess Attorney-Turk is 22 correct. We do mean to include both here because we do refer 23 to the energency personnel specifically. When we are talking 24 about wound supplies and equipment we also did mean to 25 include the general public and waste disposal.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2092 f3 V

1 JUDGS HOYT: Does that change your interpretation, 2 Mr. Turk?

3 MR. TURK: No. Our position would be that the 4 contention is admissible. It iust cites the wrong --

5 JUDGE H0YT: But limited as to emergency personnel 6 only?

7 MR. TURK: No, that it cites the wrong provision, _

8 NUREG-0654 provision.

9 JUDGE H0YT: I misunderstood you. Do you want to 10 strike that NUREG-0654?

11 MR. BACKUS: I think we need to delete another 12 one, not these.

,"T

() 13 JUDGE HOYT: Why don't you add this to another one 14 you mentioned this morning and get back to this.

15 MR. BACKUS: No. 8, as we previously stated, is 16 the one SAPL contention out of 25 that drew no objection from 17 either the Staff or --

16 JUDGE H0YT: Then de will go to SAPL 9 then.

19 MR. DACKUS: I thought maybe you would like to go 20 to SAPL 9.

21 JUDGE H0YT: Right.

22 MR. BACKUS: SAPL 9 raises the issue of the 23 incompletion of the plans. Some of this material has, of 24 course, now been supplied. I presume by the end of this 25 prehearing conference, we wi11 know what the Board's pleasure U

ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

26226.0 cox ~ ~2093 m

(q;)

1 is on to deal with the more recently supplied materials.

2 But the basis of the contention is that there is 3 no reasonable assurance that the public will be adequately 4 protected in the event of a radiological emergency if plans 5 are lacking for a number of the special facilities, as I 6 believe they still are.

7 If plans are completed for the special facilities 8 noted in SAPL's contention such that they provide reasonable 9 assurance that the occupants of those special facilities can 30 and will be protected in the event of radiological emergency, 11 SAPL will waive the contention.

12 JUDGE H.0YT: Mr. Bisbee, can we get a response

(

v 13 from you on that before the end of these hearings?

14 MR. BISBEE: Yes, I can determine whether the 15 specific special facilities plans as indicated in this 16 contention are lacking or not.

I 17 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. We will take that from 18 you in your presentation.later then. All right. Mr. Backus, 19 do you have anything else on Contention 9?

20 MR. BACKUS: No.

21 JUDGE HOYT: How about 10 then?

22 MR. BACKUS: SAPL 10 states that the New Hampshire 23 plan fails to meet the requirements set out in the cited 24 regulations, because all the lists of-the names of the 25 Seabrook station EPZ, local communities listed.in Appendix K

%j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

\'

26226.0 cox 2094

/~T

()

1 of the plan are seriously outdated. The Applicant simply 2 says that this is not a matter for litigation absent a 3 showing of the state having these errors brought to its 4 attention, which will not correct the plan.

5 We say that this misses the point of SAPL's 6 Contention 10 whether by chance or otherwiso. A mere 7 correction of the present version of the statc plan will not 8 assure that the requirements cited in.the-contention have 9 been met. Adequate review and update procedures are 10 essential in assuring that the plans will be adequate to 11 fulfill their public protection function over time.

12 In essence, I guess, this contention goes on the D)

(_ 13 basis of t h.e incompletion of the plans that were furnished to 14 the ability to maintain the-plans in an updated and adequate 15 fashion.

16' JUDGE H0YT: How about Contention No. 11 for SAPL, 17 Mr Backus?

18 MR. BACKUS: Now, we are going to also withdraw l

19 that contention.

20 SAPL No. 12 states that the plans are.insu5ficient 21 to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective 22 measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological 23 emergency. Specifically the plais do not analyze or account 24 for behavioral variations among n.enbers of the public in the

, 25 event of radiological emergency. ""ch considerations are i e,'N V

l

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6 l

(. -. . . -.

i i

26226.0 cox 2095

/m.

%s j 1 required by 10 CFR 50.47 A-4 as interpreted by NUREG-0654 i

2 IV.4-B.

I i

l 3 The Applicant's objection to this is-sort of a -- ,

I 4 som^ thing akin to saying this is res judicata, that other ,

l l 5 licensing boards at other sites have considered questions of 6 behavioral characteristics and found that there was no cause i

i 7 for finding a lack of reasonable assurance as a result.

l, j 8 Of course, as the Staff poir.ted out in its  !

> i

9 respinse, this is not res judicata as to us. Le were not j .

l 10 parties to those proceeding, and we are entitled to have this e

j 11 issue litigated for the Seabrook case as well.

12 Again, we think that this is not merely an

(_-) 13 exercising cf legal right but it is a substantial matter I

14 because of the unique features at Seabrook which were the ll 1

15 subject of something that we cited on the basis for this 16 contention about the concern that one consultant, traffic 17 planning, had for behavior of populations who may be

'l 18 evacuating in a generally -- generally in a reaction back 19 toward the perceived source of the arrest of the reactor, and

. 20 at least at times within the source of the site of tnat l

! 21 '

risk. We think the Applicant's rejection of this c/.stention I ~

22 should be rejected and the contention be admitted, f

23 JUDGE H0YT: You understand, though, Mr.-Backus,

! 24 that were the Board to accept that contention, that the i

i l

/-s\

25 limitation that is placed on 0654 appears to me to be very l-V r

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Co /erage 800-336-6646

-- . - - - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - = _ . _ _ - . .- - n. - _ - _ - - - . _ . . .

26226.0 cox 2096

(\

U 1 restrictive.

2 MR. BACKUS: I'm not sure I understand you, Madam 3 Chairman.

4 JUDGE H0YT: 0654 at 4-10 provides that weather 5 conditions and time of day conditions shall be considered.

6 Consideration shall be given to the impact of peck

~

7 populations, including behavioral patterns. Jt's very --

8 excuse me, behavioral aspects. Thet's a very limited -- you 9 understand that.

10 MR. BACKUS: I am not sure how you understand it 11 so I am not sure if my understanding of it is the same as 12 yours. I read that as a recognition on the authors of 0564 s) 13 that behavioral characteristics, I think, influenced by this 14 particular situation we have got here, are an appropriate 15 subject to be dealt with in emergency planning and therefore 16 an appropriate subject for litigation.

17 JUDGE H0YT: I think, Mr. Backus, it may help you 18 if you -- strike th'at. Go ahead.

19 MR. BACKUS: SAPL 13 states the plans are 20 insufficient to provide reasonable assurance that adequate 21 protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a 22 radiological emergency as required by 10 CPR 50.47 A-1, 23 specifically the plans needed and discussed to account for 24 behavior variations among designated emergency personnel that n 25 would impair or extinguish the ability to implement the

( )

\ /

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6

26226.0 cox 2097 d -

1 plans.

2 I think basically the same point is made in regard 3 to 12 dealing with the general public's behavior would be 4 applicable in regard to the behavioral characteristics of 5 emergency workers. I would say at Seabrook the evidence 6 would be that a large number of the emergency workers that 7 can be counted on will be volunteers in the sense that the 8 bus drivers, many of them will be volunteers; the police in 9 many of the towns; firemen, particularly, are on a volunteer 10 basis; and so there is, I think, a particular basis, perhaps 11 here, for this contention as well, although I recognize it 12 has been litigated eleewhere.

s-

) 13 JUDGE HOYT: It has been litigated elsewhere. Can 14 you tell me what cases are you referring to, Mr. Backus?

15 MR. BACKUS: I think there was reference to this 16 in tne Shoreham case.

17 JUDGE H0YT: I think it is still going on; I am 18 not sure.

19 MR. BACKUS: In the Licensing Board decision. I 20 don't have the case number for it, but the April '85 21 Licensing Board revisions is what I was referring to. I can 22 certainly provide a citation to that if it's needed.

23 JUDGE H0YT: Mr. Backus, then, are you including 24 emergency workers in the impact of the meaning that you place 25 on 0654, behavioral aspects of emergency workers? I thought

/_T U

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Natio:: wide Coverage 800-336-6646

l 26226.0 cox 2098

'M (U

1 your first contention dealt with the general public. You 2 want to apply it to a special category as eneroency workers?

3 MR. BACKUS: That's correct. In the sense of 4 whether or not the criteria requiring emergency workers to 5 perform certain functions, whether that could be reasonably 6 assured.

7 JUDGE H0YT: Do you have any legal basic for that 8 at all, Mr. Backus? Where do you find that is required?

9 MR. BACKUS: I think it's necessary to make an 10 ultimate find --

11 JUDGE H0YT: Mr. Backus, that wasn't my question.

12 Where do you find a legal requirement for it?

13 MR. BACKUS: That's where I find it, 50.47 i

14 A-16789.

I 15 JUDGE HOYT: 'You have no other legal basis for 16 it?

17 MR. BACKUS: If I have any further I want to cite 18 I will give them to you promptly.

19 JUDGE HOYT: That's right. You referred to that 20 earlier.

21 MR. BACKUS: Madam Chairman, if I just might, I 22 want to make a point on the record.

23 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Backus, you are not going to nake 24 any statements on the record. Let's get on.

25 MR. BACKUS: Madam Chairman, I would like to beg I,,1 v 5 ACE-FEDE'RAL REPORTERS, INC.

, 202-347-If00 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6

! i 1 .

26226.0 cox 2099 d 1 your indulgence to make one statement on the record in regard 2 to that ruling.

3 JUDGE H0YT: No, sir, you will.not. You will 4 continue on, Mr. Backus. We will consider your argument. Do [

l 5 you wish to continue or do you wish to cease at this point?

I 6 MR. BACKUS: I wish to continue and I wish to i 7 preserve my rights on the record.

8 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Backus, you are to continue on.

9 the arguments only. i l 10 MR. BACKUS: SAPL 14 provided as follows:

11 " Procedures to provide early notification and clear i i 12 instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway n

d 13 EPC required by 10 CFR and plans do not provide for bilingual 14 messages for the large numbers of French-speaking individuals 15 who are often in the area in large numbers."  ;

16 Now, the Applicant's objection to this went to 17 taking some official notice that French-speaking people I

18 usually speak English and so forth, all of which we submit is

19 as a matter of proof. However, we are aware at this point 20 that we do have come draft messages from New Hampshire civil 21 defense that are printed bilingually, French and English, and 22 we will, I.think, want to reassess the status of this .

23 contention after we have a chance to review those to see to 24 what extent they provide information to those who may not be I

,s 25 fluent in English.

l i

U l

1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 i

26226.0 cox 2100

~

1 So I think a final ruling on this contention is 2 premature in light --

3 JUDGE H0YT: When would you'have that information, 4 Mr. Backus?

j S MR. BACKUS: I don't know. The materials we have 6 gotten from New Hampshire civil defense say " draft," and I 7 don't know whether that is the final thing. If that is the 8 final thing, if it is in fact what we are to treat as final 9 for purposes of this hearing, I suppose it's not going to be 10 something that's going to take a very lengthy period of 11 time.

12 MR. BISBEE: Madam Chairman, I think we can treat sJ 13 the so-called draft, public information materials, that was 14 submitted by the Applicant within the last two or three 15 weeks, as final for purposes of litigating them in thic l

16 proceeding.

I 17 JUDGE H0YT': All right. With that assurance, 18 Mr. Backus, do you.have anything in addition?

19 MR. BACKUS: No, except to note th'at the draft 20 calendar only had two months. A joke, a joke, I am sorry.

21 JUDGE HOYT: What is the trial?

, 22 MR. BACKUS: EmeIgency planning draf t, Madam 23 Chairman.

24 JUDGE HOYT: I am trying to determine where the 1

25 rattles are coming from. Whatever it is, it stopped.

n U

l 1

l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 'I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

l 26226.0 l cox 2101 ,

/'"s L,) i 1 JUDGE HARBOUR: Can you put it on a piece of 2 paper, please?

3 MR. BACKUS: It was tipping. Now it's whistling. I E

4 JUDGE HOYT: Whistling is better than tipping.

5 Let's go on to 15. Before we leave 14, however, L

6 that's your two hours, Mr. Backus, but I think we will give 7 you a little bit of extra time, make it 10 more minutes here 1

8 to' complete it. When do you expect to get back to us on the 9 other business of the --

10 Mh. BACKUS: South Hampton Contention 3?

i 11 JUDGE HOYT: Yes.

12 MR. BACKUS

I can do that now, if I can find the 13 paper we wrote on. Well, I will do'it in just a minute when 14 we find the paper. We have the information available.

15 JUDGE HOYT: Let's go ahead with your 15. I would l 16 like to get as many of these as possible in.

I 17 MR. BACKUS: 15 goes to the letters of agreement 18 which were not provided in the plans and which we were asked l

l 19 to file contentions by your deadline, the Board's deadline.

20 We do know that there is now a volume full of letters of j 21 agreement.

22 J.UDGE HOYT: That's-probably a good subject for a 23 motion for dismissal at a later time. So let's go on to 16

! 24 n o w'.

c 25 MR. BACKUS: May be a good subject for --

v) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage ~800-336-6M6

. - - - . . , . . - - . . - - . - - - , - . . ~ . . ..- _ __ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

26226.0 cox 2102

~E 1 JUDGE H0YT: You want to dismiss it, is that what 2 you are saying?

3 MR. BACKUS: We are not satisfied. We have been 4 .through the entire volumes of letters of agreement. We do S not think they meet the requirements of regulation or provide 6 reasonable assurance, but we can no longer say they don't 7 exist. We think it's a time for us to perhaps. readdress this 8 contention and put it into a form where it now meets the 9 present situation.

10 JUDGE HOYT: Revise the contention is what you are 11 saying?

12 MR. BACKUS: Yes.

in f I

\_/ 13 JUDGF H0YT: Let's go on to 16 then.

14 MR. BACKUS: 16 is a sheltering contention. The 15 Applicants, we think, again, base their objection on a 16 misconception of the contention, assuming.that we are saying 17 that there must be a demonstration of adequate sheltering for 18 all, and that is not the law, that la not our contention.

19 Ag'ain, we point out, and I won't repeat it,

~

20 because you have heard it, the particular characteristics of 21 the Seabrook site and the potentially af f ected populations 22 that make this a critically important issue; in fact, it is 23 the subject of the only Massachusytts contention that is 24 before the Board at this present moment.

,_ 25 I think it's a precise contention and certainly

( )

\d ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2103 rw i  !

w/

1 has a sound basis.

2 SAPL 17 deals with the issue of whether the plans 3 provide adequate provisions for prompt communications among 4 principal response organizations to emergency personnel.and 5 to the public. The Applicants generally challenge a basis 6 for this contention, and we think that we have stated a fully 7 adequate basis for this contention.

8 The Applicants extract a quote from Limerick and 9 try to apply it to our ' contention about the communications 10 system around Seabrook. In that case, the Board 11 characterized the communication system as " diverse and 12 redundant." We say that the similar statenent cannot be 1"%

() 13 applied in blanket fashion by the Applicants to the entire 14 communications system relied upon by emergency response pla'ns 15 for Seabrook. As SAPL specifically stated in its contention, 16 if we submit to broadside attack, the only means of 17 communication between the emergency operation centers and the 18 schools as the commercial telephone systec.. There'is neither 19 diversity nor redundancy in that arrangement as a 20 communication link that can easily fail in a radiological 21 emergency situation requiring actions relative to the safety 22 of school children. We expect to have evidence that the

~

23 commercial phone system can easily reach a pointlof overload 24 in the conditions that would be anticipated in the event of a n 25 major accident.

(v)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2104 a

f

'\_)

1 JUDGE H0YT: I don't want to get in the merits, 2 Mr. Backus.

3 MR. BACKUS: Right.

4 JUDGE H0YT: We don't want to cut your time by 5 having you go through some of these we may not need an 6 argument on. Contention 18 we will not take any argument on 7 in an effort to get you within your time proposed earlier.

8 We don't care for any additional argument on Contention 22.

9 MR. BACKUS: Right. 19 states that the plans are 10 inadequate because they fail to address the egress routes of 11 flooding, snow, excess accumulation of icing on roadways or 12 an orderly evacuation.

(_) 13 JUDGE HOYT: That's an ETE issue, Mr. Backus.

14 Let's. avoid discussion of that to keep'your time down. How 15 about Contention No. 24, 16 ! MR. DACKUS': Contention 24 has to do with 17 Ingestion of contaminated food and water which may originate 18 within the 50-mile ingesti'on pathway EPZ. We find it i

19 remarkable that the Applicant suggests that their assertion 20 that there is no obstacle to' bringing the plans into accord 21 with the requirements of their regulation should be grounds  ;

22 for excluding contention. I .hink that's an issue-that goes 23 to the merits of the contention as a proper _ basis, and has i

_24 been stated with reasonable specificity.

25 If there is no obstacle to bringing the plans into i

q D' 1 1

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 A -

26226.0 cox 2105 i ,,

(_/

1 a state of compliance, we find it hard to wonder why they are 1

2 not yet in such a state after several years of emergency i

3 planning' efforts and many versions of the plans, or as they 4 are sometimes callei, iterations of the plans.

5 JUDGE HOYT: Let me ask you specifically,

, 6 Mr. Backus, what you respond to from the Staff here in their 7 understanding of the 'g nrase " cross-referencing" that you use 8 in that basis.

i 9 MR.-BACKUS: We mean by that cooperative planning

10 at the higher level of government.

j 11 JUDGE HOYT: Does that answer your question, 12 Mr. Turk?

{ / 13 MR. TURK: Yes, it does.

14 JUDGE HOYT: Do you have anything further? We

! 15 don't want any argument on 25, but do you have anything i

i 16 further, Mr. Backus?

! 17 MR. BACKUS: No.

4

{ 18 JUDGE HOYT: If not, we will recess for lunch.

19 MR. BACKUS: I would just note my objection for I 20 the failure --

! 21 JUDGE HOYT: Just a moment, Mr. Backus. That's 1

j 22 been ruled upon and you will not make any additional 23 argument.

i 24 The hotel has asked that the persons in attendance

! ,., 25 here please leave by the center door, and we would appreciate i ')

%J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

,_.____m

26226.0 cox 2106

% ,Y 1 it if you would comply with the instructions. We will 2 convene again at -- before we adjourn, Mr. Backus, there was 3 one question that Judge Harbour had and thac concerned SAPL 4 20, limited gasoline supply issue that you brought up.

5 JUDGE HARBOUR: My question is: Do you have 6 something which specifically would indicate the nature or the 7 degree of ths limitation or whether indeed the supply is 8 limited?

9 MR. BACKUS: What we did with that is come op with 10 some idea on the number of cars that might potentially run 11 out of cas if you just took some certain percentage of the 12 number of cars that are anticipated to be evacuated. That's

(~s

(_) 13 all we have at this time 14 JUDGE HARBOUR: That's not supplies for sale, you 15 are talking about supplies of gasoline in the tank of the

1. 6 automobiles; is that correct?

17 MR. BACKUS: ~ Yes. Th.en being able to provide 18 supplies to the cars that might not have sufficient 19 supplies.

20 JUDGE HOYT: Could we convene acain at 1:15. Is 21 that ample time for everyone to obtain lunch? Appareatly it 22 is. Very well. The hearing will -- Judge Harbour suggests 23 1 36, anu I will go along with that. 1:30, then.

24 (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was 25 recessed, to be reconvened at.1:30 p.m.)

,, )

(Q ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nattonwide coverage 800-336-6646

.-]

26226.0 cox 2107 A

\ l

%/

1 -AFTERNOON SESSION (1 :30 p.m. )

2 JUDGE liOYT : This morning I forgot to introduce 3 Mr. Carl Abrams,'who is the gentleman -- if you will, Carl, 4 please stand. He is the regional public relations officer 5 from King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

6 Mr. Abrams has been very kind to come to 7 Portsmouth and be with us and will answer any questions that 8 the press may have. Ele will be happy to give you a 9 briefing. Do you have a briefing kit or anything like that 10 at this time?

11 MR. ABRAMS: Yes.

12 JUDGE H0YT.: Anyone that would like a briefing kit f'%

(.) 13 may obtain it from Mr. Abrams. Pe wi'11 give you telephone 14 numbers to call and places to locate documents that you may 15 be interested in.

16 Very well. Are all the parties ready to go? Very 17 well. The hearing will come to order. Let the record 18 reflect that all the parties to the hearing who were present 19 when the hearing recessed are again present in the hearing 20 room.

21 I believe we had completed your presentation this 22 . morning, Mr. Backus. If you have anything else to offer that 23 changes those things that we discussed this morning, I think 24 we had asked you for one or two responses and you indicated

- 25 that you would have a -- are you ready for that now or would

(

4 /

ACE-FEDERAL REFORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M336-6666

26226.0 cox 2108 p ).

.v 1 you like to do it later on?

2 MR. BACKUS: I would just as soon do it now, Madam 3 Chairman. I had a question with regard to South Hampton 4 Contention 3 with regard to letters of agreement, and what 5 the recen't additional volumes of the state plan provided in 6 that regard. Our review of that volume would indicate the 7 following three points: South Hampton, according to letters 8 of agreement recently filed with the parties, is to get buses 9 from Timberline. Timberline Bus Company is to-provide 32 10 buses to overall EPZ evacuation effort, but lists only 27 11 drivers available during emergencies. So assuming these 12 letters of agreement are otherwise adequate, they do not

((^)) 13 provide assurance that the five buses without drivers will 14 not include the buses supposedly going to South Hampton.

15 Number 2, there are no letters of agreement with 16 bus drivers, voluntary police officers, voluntary firemen, 17 school teachers or other emergency workers provided in the 18 new submission.of letters of agreement by the state.

19 Number 3, there are no agreements with Midway 20 Excavators and personnel of the Tewksbury Fond campground.

21 JUDGE HOYT: What other emergency workers did you 22 have in mind again? We are-not interested in the police, the 23 fire and those officials that are charged with execution of 24 public duties, but we are -- the other emergency workers.

,,s 25 Who is it that you are speaking to in that context?

I

\_-)

- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646

=______-__-_______-__-__-____-_-

26226.0 cox 2109 f  !

.N_/

1 MR. BACKUS: I have no specific title to encompass 2 in here. Just indicating that we have no letters of 3 agreement with those people.

4 JUDGE H0YT: Would it be the tow company, tow 5 companies, for example?

6 MR. BACKUS: I an informed there is one agreement 7 with a New Hampshire towing company which is unsigned, New 8 Hampshire Towing Association.

9 JUDGE HOYT: Thank you'. Anything else?

10 MR. BACKUSi No.

11 JUDGE H0YT: Ms. Curran, you have the contentions 12 of the New Encland Coalition'for Nuclear Pollution. I (3

\_) 13 be:ieve we have given you two hours. You have 25 14 contentions.

15 You have also submitted a written brief to us this 16 morning. Do you wish to make some oral argument on your 17 contentions in addition to what you have here?

18 MS. CURRAN: Yes, I do.

19 JUDGE H0YT: Flease proceed, t

20 MS. CURRAN: I would like to start with RERP 1, 21 which states the New Hampshire radiological erergency 22 response plan does not support the reasonable assurance 23 finding required by 10 CFR section 50.47 A-1, in.that it 24 relies for implementation of the plans on local governments 7s 25 that have not approved or adopted the plans and they have (v)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M5

26226.0 cox 2110

\ /

1 refused to participate in the testing of the plans.

2 The Applicants object to this contention. The NRC 3 Staff does not object to the contention to the extent that it 4 asserts that local governments --

5 JUDGE H0YT: Isn't that the -- I beg your pardon, 6 that was NHLP?

7 MS. CURRAN: That's right.

8 JUDGE HOYT: Go ahead.

9 MS. CURRAN: Staff doesn't object to the 10 contention that asserts that local governments that are 11 relied upon to implement the plan have not indicated they 12 will do so, but Sta f f objects to our contention to the extent (m)

\/ 13 that it asserts the failure to adopt the plans makes them 14 invalid as emergency plans for the state.

15 I would like to reword this contention, in view of 16 the Staff's objection, to state that the New Hampshire 17 radiological emergency response plan does not support the 18 reasonable assurance finding required by 10 CFR 50.47 A-1 in 19 that there is no reasonable assurance that the local 20 governments relied on to implement the plans can or will 21 carry them out, and the basis for that contention would be 22 the same as it is here.

23 Our concern with this contention is that the 24 failure to adopt the plans in some cases, the rejection of

- 25 the plans and the failure to participate in exercises, fails

\. /

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

26226.0 cox 2111

,- \

! i V

1 to give a reasonable assurance that these plans can and will 2 be carried out; and I think the rewording should satisfy the 3 Staff.

4 JUDGE H0YT: I don't think Staff needs to be 5 satisfied in this, Ms. Curran. I think the Board needs to be 6 satisfied.

7 MS. CURRAN: That's true.' We think it's a very 8 legitimate issue.

9 JUDGE H0YT: .It meets the. objection of the Staff.

I 10 JUDGE HOYT: Would you give me the wording of that 11 again, Ms. Curran?

j 12 MS. CURRAN: The New Hampshire radiological f'h

() 13 emergency response plan does not support the reasonable 14 assurance finding required by 10 CFR section 50.47-A-1, and i

15 that there is no reasonable assurance that the local 16 governments relied on to implement the plans can or will 17 carry them out.

18 Now, we understand that compensatory plan has been 19 filed for at least one of the towns, which we plan to submit l 20 additional contentions on, but as long as these plans have 21 not been withdrawn, we consider them to be ripe for 22 litigation here.

23 JUDGE HOYT: Do you want to.use your microphone, l

i i 24 Ms. Curran.

m 25 Mr. Turk, you heard the reading, does that meet (v\ i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Na:ionwide Coverage 804 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2112

\N 1 what you had opposed in the contention?

2 MR. TURK: With that wording, I believe it does 3 meet our objections, assuming that the basis is limited to 4 that type of an assertion.

5 JUDGE HOYT: Anything else on NECNP 1?

6 MS. CURRAN: No, I will move on.

7 JUDGE HOYT: I think for the. benefit of those who 8 are in attendance, we should tell them what we are talking 9 about in the various letterings'here. New England Coalition 10 on Nuclear Pollution has filed their contentions in two 11 phases. One is the RERP, which is the local plans and the 12 contentions that are based on those plans, and then another p\

() 13 category of numbers here, NHLP, which is those contentions by 14 NECNP directed to the New Hampshire radiological emergency 15 plan. Is that a proper representation, Ms. Curran?

16 MS. CURRAN: That's correct.

17 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. We are discussing the 18 first category of the contentions dealing with the local 19 plans. If you will go on to RERP 2 then.

20 MS. CURRAN: These contenti~ons deal with the state 21 plan, the first category.

22 JUDGE HOYT: I am sorry.

23 MR. TURK: I am sorry, Judge Hoyt. It was my 24 understanding that the RERP contentions addressed the state 25 plan.

> 1 x_/

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Na:ionwide Coverage. 800-336-6M6

26226.0 CoX 2113

(.

N-] i 1 MS. CURRAN: That's right. l 2 JUDGE H0YT: I reversed it in reading it. You are 3 quite correct. These contentions that we are talking about 4 here deal with'the state plans. The second category of S contentions, which are identified by NHLP, are New Hampshire 6 local plans, are those contentions on the local response 7 plans. Go ahead, Ms. Curran.

8 MS. CURRAN: All right. Contention RERP-2 faults 9 the New Hampshire RERP for failure to specifically identify 10 all areas in which it requires federal assistance, the extent 11 of its needs, tha arrangements necessary to obtain that 12 assistance, or the expected tin e or arrival of federal

("T)

% 13- assistance at the Seabrook site or EPZ.

14 Applicants register an objection. Neither the 15 Staff nor the state object to this. I would just like to 16 make three points in response to Applicant's objection.

17 First, their objection that there is no litigable issue 18 because the process for requesting federal aid is "well 19 developed" goes straight to the merits of this contention.

20 It's an issue that should be heard in litigation and does not 21 go to the admissibility of the contention. We have provided 22 a reasonable basis.

23 Second, Applicants don't address the . fact that the 24 plans don't show the existence of arrangements for federal 2:5 monitoring; nor do they show the expected time of arrival of O

v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 ccx 2114 g

C 1 aid in the EPZ.

2 I would like to move on to contention RERP 3.

3 JUDGE. HARBOUR: A question the Board had on RERP 2 4 is: Where is there a requirement as far as discussing the 5 time of arrival of any federal assistance?

6 MS. CURRAN: It's in NUREG-0654. I will take a 7 minute and find it.

8 JUDGE HOYT: It's on page 40.

9 MS. CURRAN: That would be section 2-C-1-B.

, 10 Contention RERP 3 states that the State of New Hampshire HERP 11 does not satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 B-7 12 Appendix E, section 4-D-2, and NUREG-0654, and that it does

! 13 not adequately. provide that information will be made 14 available to the adult transient population within the EPZ 15 regarding how they will be notified and what~th~eir initial i 16 action should'be in an emergency.

i

17 The contention has four parts. State of New 18 Hampshire doesn't object to the contention and the NRC Staff '

i 19 does not object to those parts of~ the contention that i

1 20 question the durability of posters and the adequacy of 21 provisions for French-speaking transients, but objects to the~

j 22 remainder of the contention. The Applicants object to the f

23 entire contention.

! 24 I would like to deal with each subpart

, 25 separately. Part A states that there is not adequate U

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

. . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ . . . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - , . _ - -

I i i

~

'26226.0 (

cox 2115 l

(g_J i I provision for posting of notices in public places, and l

2 suggests that the posting of public education materials

! 3 should be mandatory rather than discretionary since many (

i i 4 Seabrook area merchants and proprietors are unlikely to 5 voluntarily post labels with a discouraging message.

6 Now, both the Applicants and the NRC Staff argue i 7 that there is no regulatory basis for this. contention. It's 8 our posi tiori that the Seabrook EPZ presents special

9 circumstances in which some special measures are needed to 10 cope with a large number of transients in~the area.

11 We don't believe that NUREG-0654 is completely 12 limiting on what is required and that this is necessary to

/~N

(_) 13 provide a reasonable assurance.that the public will be 14 educated.

• 15 JUDGE H0YT: What portion of-NUREG-0654 are you

16 referring to in your contention; Ms. Curran? You cite the 17 regulation but not what provision.

I 18 MS. CURRAN: 2-G-2. "The public information 19 program shall provide the permanent and transient adult 20 populati n within the plume exposure EPZ an adequate 4

21 opportunity to become aware of the information annually.

22 Signs and other measures shall also be used to disseminate to ,

23 any transient population within the plume exposure pathway l 24 EPZ appropria te inf orma tion that would be helpful if an 4

'_y 25 emergency or accident occurs." We contend that this is an

/

( -)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80r*336-6646 l

'26226.0 cox 2116

7. .

I

.( v 1 appropriate measure to take. So contention B --

2 JUDGE HOYT: Will you wait just one moment, 3 please.

4 MS. CURRAN: Sure.

5 JUDGE HOYT: Ms. Curran, in looking at section 2 6 under G, such a variety of places in which these notices and 7 de'cals can be.placed, wouldn't it be almost humanly 8 inpossible to discourage that type of posting?

9 MS. CURRAN: I am not sure.I understand.

10 JUDGE H0YT: As I understood your argument, you 11 were saying that the posting of any discouraging notices by 12 nerchants, if I recall your remark precisely, the provision k_\) 13 here cives such a variety of places in which notices ought to 14 be posted, that isn't it almost an impossibility that a 15 substantial amount of those notices would not be received and 16 placed on, for exanple, gasoline stations, telephone booths 17 -- ~ can't think that there would be even the most 18 discouraging of telephone messages -- would be discouraged 19 from posting?

20 MS. CURRAN: I think that most of the facilities 21 where the summer transient population is going to be.are 22 commercial facilities, hotels, restaurants. Even gas 23 stations are-private businesses that may not be inclined to 24 discourage the tourist trade'by putting up these negative

- 25 messages. I agree there will be some places, li b ra ri es ,

(3 8 v

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 ' Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2117 V

1 police station, fire department, where they will probably go 2 up; but we would like to see more assurance that they will go 3 up throughout the EPZ and we think that there may be a 4 problem with that. ,

5 JUDGE H0YT: Do you have any basis, other than 6 this, for your contention, other than this one section here?

7 MS. CURRAN: The basis is that this particular 8 community relies for a large part of its income on the summer 9 tourist trade and may be reluctant to jeopardize.that. I 10 think that is stated in the contention.

11 JUDGE H0YT: Go ahead, please.

12 MS. CURRAN: Part 2-B is similar to part A, and.I f'N

(_) 13 think the same objection is registered by the Applicants.

14 Again, we are concerned that there should be some means for 15 assuring that these posters are actually hung, and it's not 16 clear.from the plans that the state will take that 17' responsibility.

18 Then in part C, NECNP contents that the plans 19 don't give assurance that the posters will be made of durable 20 material that will remain legible through 6. season of wind, 21 rain and storms. The Staff didn't object to this part. The 22 Applicant did. We have received some of the naterials from 23 the state and and we would be happy to review this contention 24 in light of what we have gotten.

, 25 Finally, as with part C, part D concerns some LJ ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2118 NJ 1 contention from which some new information has come in. This 2 states that although a significant portion of tourists in the 3 Seabrook area are French Canadians, the RERP does not provide 4 for bilingual public instructions. Some bilingual public 5 instructions have come out now and we'will have to review 6 those and get back to the Board on whether we still wish to 7 press this contention.

8 JUDGE ilOYT: That was NECNP RERP 3?

9 MS. CURRAN: That's right.

10 MS. CURRAN: RERP 4 challenges the adequacy of the 11 New Hampshire RERP's provision for early notification and 12 clear instruction to the populace within the EPZ. Neither

- l( /) 13 New Hampshire nor the Staff objects to the admissibility of 14 tnic contention. Part A of the contention challenges the 15 failure to submit a siren study, which we received after we 16 submitted this contention; so for the time being, we would 17 like to drop part A with the reservation that we would like 18 to have a chance to submit contentions on that plan at a 19 later time.

20 Part B asserts that the New Hampshire RERP makes 21 no provision for a coordination of public alerting between 22 New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The Applicant objects to 23 this part of the contention on the grounds that there is no 24 legal responsibility for such coordination; and I simply 25 direct the Board to page 21 of NUREG-0654, which does require

(_

\_/

s)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2119 7  ;

t N_ '

1 coordination between state governments when the state border 2 falls within the EPZ.

3 JUDGE HOYT: Were you looking at example 2 at page 4 21?

5 MS. CURRAN: Yes, I am.

6 JUDGE H0YT: That could be, if I read this 7 correctly, between counties, and doesn't have to be between 8 the two states.

9 MS. CURRAN: Says, "The EPZ makes it necessary to 10 have contiguous state planning within the EPZ."

11 JUDGE HOYT: My sentence reads, "this should not 12 preclude cooperative planning between adjacent towns,

- 13 counties and townships located in different. states though."

14 MS. CURRAN: Part C and E of this ' contention also 15 relate to the siren study; and therefore, NECNP withdraws 16 those parts pending an opportunity to submit additional 17 contentions on this study. Finally --

18 JUDGE HOYT: I am sorry.

19 MS. CURRAN: C and E relate to the siren' plan.

20 JUDGE HOYT: The study, very well.

21 MS. CURRAN: Part D relates to the significant 22 proportion of the summer visitors to the Seabrook EPZ are 23 French-speaking Canadians, and the contention states that 24 bilingual emergency announcements should be made available 25 for them. We have provided substantial basis for raising of 7,,)

'w/

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6

26226.0 cox 2120

(-

1 concern regarding the ability of French-speaking Canadians to 2 understand emergency instructions in English and the 3 contention should be admitted.

.4 Contention RERP S asserts that the New Hampshire 5 state and local emergency response plans do not comply-with 6 the requirements of 10 CFR section 50.47 B-5, section 4-D-3

7. of Appendix E to part 50 or NOREG-0654 2-E-6, and the audible 8 alert systems upon which they relied cannot be depended upon 9 to provide prompt notification to the public in an 10 emergency. This contention has been dealt with somewhat in 11 the ciren study. I did have a chance to look at that study 12 and found that most of the sirens are battery operated, which

(~~\

(_) 13 would eliminate the need to concern the Board with the loss 14 of off-site power in those cases. However, there are-some 15 sirens that are not battery operated and that part of the 16 contention would remain valid.

17 JUDGE HARBOUR: I'would point out specifically 18 that that contention has been rejected previously because of 19 the absence of any necessary connection between loss of 20 off-site power to the power plant and the loss of power to 21 sirens; and I don't see anything in here which would make it 22 different from the way it was submitted previously when we 23 reviewed it before.

24 MS. CURRAN: We are relying on that basis.

25 JUDGE H0YT: Did you notice also in these

(-),)

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

26226.0 cox 2121

(.

i  ;

i._ /

1 contentions, Ms. Curran, there was one litigant that says the 2 sirens are too loud?

3 MS. CURRAN: Yes. Yes, we think that's a serious 4 problem, caught betw.xt and between here.

5 JUDGE hOYT: All right. Go ahead, Ms. Curran.

6 MS. CURRAN: All right. RERP 6 challenges the 7 adequacy of sirens for night-time notification. This 8 contention arose in the Sharon Harris proceeding, and the 9 Licensing Board considered it serious enough in that case to 10 write to the Conmission and suggest that it might be a 11 generic. safety issue.

12 That issue was whether sirens that are providing q

(/ 13 an alarm at 60 to 90 decibels in that particular EPZ would be 14 sufficient to awaken people sleeping behind closed-windows, 15 especially where air conditioners or fans were running.

16 Now, the siren study for the Seabrook EPZ does say 17 that the si rens there have an initial capacity of,.I believe, 18 it's 125 decibels, but it'also describes the fact that there 19 is an attenuation of sound from the sirens; and I believe 20 .that it would be more appropriate to defer this contention 21 until NECNP has had a chance to have an expert evaluate the 22 siren study and determine whether this is also'a serious 23 issue for Seabrook.

24 MR. BISBEE: Madam Chairman, I am now providing

,_ 25 you with a copy of the final siren alert report.

N]

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2122

/^%

> 4

\,_,/

1 JUDGE HOYT: I am sorry, I did bring ~that. Thanks 2 for reminding me.

3 Is'the siren alert you are talking about 3.8 of .

4 the siren activation sequence, 3.9, 3.10; is that the 5 section?

6 M5. CURRAN: I don't have a copy. I will have to 7 nake it available.

8 JUDGE H0YT: Thank you.

9 . Mb. CURRAN: I am looking at ager 15 and 16 of '

10 the siren study. The reason that I would like to give this 11 contention for their study is that page 15 of the plan says 12 that the Seabrook siren system has been designed'in

~ ~

\_/ . 13 accordance with section C-3-E of Appendix E of NUREG-0654, 14 which a pparently was the situatioo in Sharon Harris. 'But on 15 the next page_the ciren ratings seem to be somewhat hidher.

s s 16 So we would iust like to have an opportunity to t

17 resolve that question't, hat we have about this siren plan.

18 JUDGE H0YT: I<am going to take the contention as 19 you have submitted, Ms. Curran, unler.3 you have come up~with 20 something by tomorrow at the time we finish these. Wp will 21 go ahead and rule on it as the, contention is written.

22 MS. CURRAN: All right. I will go on to 23 contention RERP 7. s -

24 JUDGE HOYT: You understand that you can do it any '

V 25 time that this conference is'in session tomorrow as well.

f._

t )

w-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

202-347-3700 Nat,ionwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646

A 26226.0 cox 2123

/"T s 1 MS, CURRAN: Yes, I understand.

2 JUDGE H0YT: Do ahead.

3 MS, CURRAN: RERP 7 is dropped.

s 4 JUDGE H0YT: Are you w'thdrawing; is that what you 5 are saying?

', 6 MS. CURRAN: Yes, it is.

7 JUDGE HOYT: That's NECNP contention RERP 7.

8 MS. CURRAN: Yes. Contention RERP 8 disputes the 9 adequacy of sheltering for the Seabrook E 2 ar.d the 10 sufficiency of the basis for making choicet among protective 11 actions. The NRC Staff does n o.t object to the admission of 12 the contention, and the State of New Hampsh.re objects t' hat

(_) 13 the contention raises no litigable issue beciuse the Board 14 must review all protective measures as a who e.

15 However, the point of the regulationJ is that

\

16 there must be sufficient information in order to choose 17 between various alternatives; and that requires a sufficient 18 description of what the alternatives are. The Applicants 19 also object to this contention-basically on the merits, 20 contending that the plans do have.the information which NECNP 21 says they lack. NECNP has provided substantial basis and 22 citations for this contention. There is sufficient support 23 that it should be admitted.

24 Finally, with regard to contention NHLP 7,,which

- 25 also challenges the measures taken for' sheltering in the

/ _\

V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80N36-6646

26226.0 cox 2124

,a

! )

\_/

1 local plans, we have reworded this contention to incorporate 2 the local plans.

3 Our concern here is just that we'want to be sure 4 that the description of the sheltering is included in one set 5 of plans or another.

6 MS. CURRAN: You didn ' t .aean to say RERP 7, you 7 meant to say 8 didn't you?

8 MS. CURRAN: NHLP 7, a contention on the local 9 plans, also challenges the description of the sheltering 10 capacity. So.we would just like to fold them together into 11 this contention and address both the state and local plans, 12 and the new language is included in our filing.

p)

( ,- 13 JUDGE HARBOUR: So you would just combine RERP 8 14 and the local plan 7?

15 ft S . CURRAN: We are combining them, yes.

16 RERP 9 attacks the absence of an ETE for the State l

17 of New Hampsh're. The Staff suggests th&c tnis should be 18 deferred until we have a chance to submit contentions on a

-19 completed evacuation time estimate, and we would agree to 20 that suggestion.

21 However, the Applicant suggests that this issue is 22 essentially res judicata because evacuation time estimates 23 prepared by the Applicants were litigated several years ago.

24 The point here is that the state is planning to fir.ich an

- 25 evacuation time estimate which it intends to use in making

'd ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 l

26226.0 cox 2125 V

1 decisions on the choices of protective actions. If that is 2 the tool that the state plans to use, it's material to this 3 licensing decision and we are entitled to a hearing on it.

4 JUDGE H0YT: I quess Mr. Dignan and Mr. Gad raises 5 the issue of when we are going to get this time study. Are 6 you calling it an ETE, ETS?

7 MR. MC EACHERN: Excuse me, I didn't hear. I 8 heari you, Madam Chairman. I didn't hear what he stated.

9 JUDGE H0YT: He hasn't said anything yet.

10 MR. BISBEE: Are you asking whether the state 11 report is called an ETE or ETS?

12 JUDGE H0YT: That was one of several concerns I

/~

(_N ) 13 had, Mr. Bisbee.

14 When is it coming out; and the time is now, we 15 have got to have soma ind.ication from you.

16 M R '. BISBEE: You wish now to address the question 17 ot the submission?

18 JUDGE H0YT: Can you tell me when it's coming 19 out?

20 MR. BISBEE: It's a little more complicated than a 21 simple answer as to when this new report will be'out and what 22 impact it will have on the emergency plans. I can go into 23 i t, if you like, at this point.

24 JUDGE H0YT: We will total your time, Ms. Curran.

- 25 I guess the time has come. Mr. Bisbee, we are going to have U

Acs-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6

26226.0 cox 2126

/3 t i

%s/

1 to face up to what it is and when it is we are going to get 2 it. Mr. Dignan and Mr. Gad, we are going to want to hear 3 from the Applicant as well. There is that issue, the single 4 issue.that we want something in the way of input from the 5 Applicant is the submission of two time studies; and I think 6 that the -- I believe it was the Staff's pleadings on this 7 that pretty much raised all the arguments that we need to 8 have answers on. There is a possibility that we will take 9 that on brief, so you might keep that in mind.

10 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, ma'am.

11 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Bisbee, I am sorry to interrupt 12 you so many times. but go ahead. l m

_)- 13 MR. BISBEE: The Board at.d the parties will recall 14 that the State of New Hampshire did have an evacuation time 15 estimate or. study done for it some three years ago, that was 16 done by the consulting firm'of Kostelli, Lamasoni and 17 Dinapoli, otherwise known as KLD, und they subcontracted out 18 much of that work to McGuire. That study was incorporated in 19 an earlier draft of the Neu Hampshire state plan at volume 20 6. When the most recent version of the state plan was 21 submitted to FEMA in December of '05 and then served on the-2 '2 parties in early '76. New Hampshire had indicated to FEMA 23 that it had wanted the old volume 6, which was the earlier 24 evacuation tine study, to be part of the'many.-volume plan

_ 25 which was submitted in December of '85. The parties did not v

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

M)2-347-3700 Nationwide Coserase 80 4 336 4646

26226.0 cox 2127

/

v' 1 receive, however, copies of that volume 6, so that there was 2 no evacuation time study or evacuation time estimate volume 3 included in the series of volumes that we have received 4 through the service in.this proceeding early this year. So 5 at the present time there's been no service of an evacuation 6 time estimate on the parties.

7 In the meantime in an effoIt to enhance the 8 evacuation time estimates that have been done to date to 9 approve the pla.ning process, an additional evacuation time 10 study was initiated.

11 It was done under contract with the Commonwealth 12 of Massachusetts with the firm of KLD, that study is ongoing O(/ 13 now, the parties have received up to five progress reports 14 submitted by that consulting firm ~of KLD. I do want to point 15 out, however, that the materials received relating to the KLD 16 report, or the KLD study, are not at-this time formal parts 17 of the New Hampshire state plan.

18 The final report from KLD is expected to be 19 submitted to the commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State 20 of New Hampsnire early, probably in the first week, of the 21 month of May.

22 That report itself may or may not be made part of 23 the New Hampshire s ta te plan. The civil defence agency of 24 the State of'New flampshire has yet to determine how it will 25 use the new ETE study done by KLD or how it will use the k ,I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3E6646

26226.0 cox 2128 t'3 i )

1 earlier ETE that it had relied on before. Those decisions 2 will be made again early in the month of May soon after the 3 final report is out, as to what parts of what evacuation time 4 estimat.es will be relied upon by the State of.New Hampshire.

5 To answer your specific question, we expect a 6 final report again in the first week of the month of May.

7 Very soon thereafter, the civil defense 8 authorities will decide how it will use that new study to 9 modify the existing evacuation time, materials that are 10 included in the plan, and the other parts of the plan that 11 rely upon that evacuation time study.

12 . JUDGE H0YT: I have those progress reports, I have

\_) 13 five of'them, Mr. Bisbee. The sixth one was supposed to have 14 been issued March 3 but we have never received a copy of it.

15- MR. BISBEE: I have not received a copy of report 16 No. 6 either.

17 JUDGE H0YT: We have a' title sheet. That's all we 18 have.

19 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Dignan, let me ask you,.who 20 prepared the ETE study that the Applicant submitted?

21 MR. DIGNAN: 'HMM.

22 JUDGE H0YT: That's completely different than the 23 one that has been preparing these progress report, KLD 24 Associates?

25 MR. DIGNAN: That's right.

A 7,i

(/

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33 4 6646

J 26226.0 cox 2129 (D

\,,/

1 JUDGE HOYT: Since 1983 that' ETE prepared by HMM, 2 has it been. revised restated in any way?

3 MR. DIGNAN: It has not to my knowledge, your 4 Honor.

5 .TUDGE H0YT: Do you intend to do it?

6 MR. DIGNAN: I would think not.

7 If I may be permitted to address the subject 8 briefly,'we continue to feel ~that that study is perfectly 9 credible, the one that was litigated before this Board, and 10 is now under the sub judis of the other Board, and is still 11 valid.

12 What has occurred, as Mr. Bisbee indicated, is the n

I V) 13 states have contracted for other studies to be done.

14 The problem we all face now, and I think Mr. Turk

15. elucidated it very well in his pleading, is until we know who 4

16 is going to adopt what study, it is not entirely po'ssible to i

17 decide in this area what issues are legitimate for litigation 18 in my judgnent.

i 19 If, for example, the State of New Hampshire and 20 eventually the State-of Massachusetts, should decide to adopt 21 the HMM study as their ETE, then it would seem to me there is I

22 nothing to do on ETEs that's been litigated and that's the 23 end of it.

24 If, on the other hand, nne or the other of the 25 states. select KLD and the Applicants chose to keep the HMM T

cT /

i Q./

I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MJ0-3366646

26226.0 cox 2130

()

( (/

1 study as their' basis for making their decisions, then, as

! 2 Mr. Turk has pointed out, you might run into a situation 3 where there could be issues of coordination. The reason I 4 say could be and not necessarily must be, is because somebody i

5 would then have to frame a contention that demonstrat'ed that 6 the distinctions between the two plans really gave rise to a 7 litigable issue; if, for example, all three plans should be

! 8 deemed to be essentially the same, study should reveal 9 essentially the same numbers; if all the numbers were, to use 10 a more technical expression, within the noise of each other, 11 I am not so sure you could really frame a contention-about 4

12 coordination.

("N

\- 13 If, on the other hand, there was a substantial i

i 14 difference in time, between some of the studies, then as i 15 Mr. Turk points out, it may.be that a properly framed ,

! 16 contention could be put before the Board, questioning whether i

j 17 a coordination would be possible in that circumstance.

1 l 18 So I think where the Applicant comes out is until t

! 19 we all see KLD and then we know which studies are beino I

~

j 20 adopted by the states, it doesn't seem to me there is any l

l 21 issue that can be litigated before this Board at this time.

l 22 Now, I have prefaced in my remarks, and if you I

23 wish to hear the more legal argument which you indicated t

l 24 possibly you would rather hear on brief, I will defer to my l

25 partner, Mr. Gad. .I should advise the Board we sort of split i I-3

%/

l i.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC,

! 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3 4 6646 ,

1

1 26226.0

. cox 2131

? 10 V

1 things up between us. We hate to be in the position of 2 popping up, but we have divided it by subject as opposed to 3 intervenor. We apologize if that caused an inconvenience.

l 4 If you wish to address that there is also the overarching 1 5 issue we have raised which is whether or not this-is'just a i 6 draftsman not covering all the bases, the fact of the matter 7 is the regulations of this Commission only require that.one 8 ETE be lying around and that's the one put in.by the 9 Applicants. That one, in our judgment, has been litigated.

.)

I 10 As you know from our pleadings, it is our position 11 that if a state elects.to utilize another ETE, so be it; but

! 12 that ETE is not fair game for litigation before the Atomic OL' 13 Safety and Licensing Board. That is a legal position that j 14 the Board may wish more briefing on or more legal argument 15 on.

I

! 16 JUDGE HOYT: You can be assured we will want that l

l 17 taken up on brief.

i 18 Gentlemen, . Judge Harbour has reminded me that the l 19 ETEs are under this Board, not the Wolf Board, the'previously 20 litigated one, now, under this Board's jurisdiction.

21 MR. LIGNAN: As I understand it the call has been i'

22 made in the agency that the ETEs have become an off-site 1

23 issue so-called and will remain under the iurisdiction of 24 this Board?

i

) 25 JUDGE HOYT: I am not going to use your

{

4 V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202,347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6646

-- - - . . - - - - - . .._ _ _ _ __. -. ~ ...._.-___._. .--_:.__~-_.--.... _ _ . _ - . . _ . = -

26226.0 cox 2132 LJ 1 terminology, but I am going to agree with you to the extent 2 you are corre.ct in assuming that those matters, the ETE, will 3 be under this Board. The only difference between this Board 4 and the Wolf Board is that Judge Wolf has taken over the 5 safety issues that were left unwritten; and while I proceeded 6 on this Board, the other two members of the Board are the 7 same.

8 MR. DIGNAN: I appreciate that advice, 9 Madam Chairman. I was not aware of that. That simplifies 10 it.

11 JUDGE H0YT: We began to read through the briefs 12 and discovered that was probably what happened. There may be

(')N

(_ 13 other parties here that had that.

14 Mr. Turk, were you in that same boat?

15 MR. TURK: Which boat was that?

16 JUDGE HOYT: That's the Dignan boat. One does 17 take liberties at prehearing conferences that we will be a 18 little less formal.

19 But the posture, to put it in a more legal-manner, 20 is that this Board has, under its jurisdiction, the 21 litigation of the ETE issues, both the on-site issues, I beg 22 your pardon, the previouc litigation of the ETE, and of any 23 litigation in this. hearing on the ETEs.

24 MR. TURK: Judge Hoyt, I don't have a position at 25 this time as to whether the formally litigated ETEs are

.l')

x-l l

I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336 6646

26226.0 cox 2133 tm

! )

G/

1 within the jurisdiction of_this court or the panel.

2 JUDGE HOYT: Well, they are, so that's your 3 pecition as of now. Do you have another question there?

4 MR. TURK: I was going to make a further point, if 5 I may.

6 JUDGE H0YT: Yes, please.

7 MR. TURK: Getting back to a comment _Mr. Disbee 8 had, but I want to make sure I address any questions you had 9 of me. Is there anything you need to hear from me?

10 JUDGE H0YT: Not a t this time. I am sure there 11 are many things we want to talk to you about at a later 12 portion'of this hearing, out at the moment there is nothino (3

\_/ 13 we wanted to hear from you all.

14 MR. TURK- I would make one point.

15 JUDGE HOYT: Yes.

16 MR. TURK: There is a letter that had been sent 17 from the director of civil defense for New Hampshire, 16 Mr. Richard Strome, to Henry Vickers, regional director of 19 FEMA. This is dated February 18. We had referred to this in 20 our response to Hampton contention No. 3, I believe it is.

21 Highway intention to use these materials to supersede the 22 previously ETE studies done by CLD." So Mr. Bisbee's 23 statement ne is not clear what will be done_that will relied 1

24 upon by the State of New Hampshire seems a little bit at odds i

_. 25 with this previous statement by the ~ director of civil defense l Ns' l

l l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 33MM6 J

26226.0 cox 2134

/"N 1 of New Hampshire.

2 In addition, Mr. Strome seems to leave no room for 3 Mr. Dignan's position. Maybe that will' occur but I don't see 4 a basis for assuming that at this point.

5 JUDGE H0YT: I think he raised the possibility, 6 but the reality, I agree, there would be a wide margin 7 there.

8 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Bisbee, did you have somethino?

9 MR. BISBEE: If there are no further questions 10 that I.can answer at this point.

11 JUDGE HARBOUR: I would like to ask you one more 12 question. Can you explain the contractual arrangement that O)

(_ 13 confused the Board slightly as to how the reports, progress 14 reports on the ETS seem to have been prepared under contract 15 for the Commonwealth of the State of Massachusetts. Is thin 16 an arrungement between New Hampshire and Massachusetts?

17 MR. BISBEE: Yes, Judge Harbour. Please 18 understand I.am one step removed from the direct involvement 19 in the arrangements here. .t's my understanding that 20 Attorney-Sneider from the' Attorney General' of Massachusetts 21 can answer this, but it's my understanding the Commonwealth 22 of Massachusetts contrac ted directly with the consulting firm 23 of KLD for this study, but there is an understanding between 24 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and State of New Hampshire i

.s 25 that New Hampshire will assist KLD in the process,

'\ _)r -

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800 336-MA4

26226.0 cox 2135 (OD 1 participate in the process of its evacuation time estimate 2 study; and the study will address issues in both states.

3 JUDGE HOYT: Is this KLD study then the one that 4 is there was sone controversy about a while back. We 5 received some correspondence, and not some other 6 correspondence. We asked, I be. li eve , your predecessor, 7 Ms. Sneider, for a copy of the study; is that this KLD 8 study?

9 MS. SNEIDER: I don't know.

10 JUDGE HOYT: Would.you mind finding out?

11 MS SNEIDER: I don't know what the controversy is 12 either.

/~N l

(_ 13 JUDGE HOYT: There was some correspondence, part 14 of which filtered into the Board and part of which did not 15- come to the Board. One of them was mentioning a study that 16 Massachusetts apparently had commissioned. We were totally 17 in the dark and we are getting all these --

18 MS. SNEIDER: Dr. B.A.'s study is something else.

19 MR. BISBEE: Although I wouldn't necessarily 20 agree, your Honor, respectfully-that it should be led.a 21 controversy but the issue I think you are referring to did 22 concern a study apparently done for the Commonwealth of 23 Massachusetts by its expert Dr. B.A. and did not involve the 24 .KLD study.

,,_ 25 JUDGE HOYT: In any fashion.

\-)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 - Nationwide Coverage 800 3%(M6

26226.0 cox 2136

['T LJ 1 MR. BISBEE: That's my understanding.

2 JUDGE HOYT: We had some problems trying to filter 3 through what all of these studies were, and we didn't have a 4 great deal of success.

5 Yes, Mr. Nadeau.

6 MR. NADEAU: Your Honor, my understanding is the 7 same as Mr. Turk's, in that I understand th'e civil defense 8 director is saying that the KLD study represents the state of 9 the art, and I am concerned with Mr. Bisbee's pos1 tion that 10 the state's civil defense may-opt either for the HMM or the 11 KLD and Mr. Dignan is saying that if the state goes with the 12 HMM, that will be binding upon the. Board.

()

%._ 13 I am wondering from Rye's standpoint where the 14 Board shares the same philosophy in that if HMM is picked as 15 the study for the state, will this Boara regard those issues 16 concerning the ETEs as foreclosed and that the towns 17 therefore cannot file contentions?

18 JUDGE HOYT: We have reached no decision on that.

19 Very frankly, we nave not reached any decision. That's part 20 of the reason.

21 .MR. MADEAU: May I be heard, your Honor, at some 22 point in time before you make a decision?

23 JUDGE HOYT: This'is it, Mr. Nadeau, these two 24 days we devoted to the prehearing conference, we intend to 25 cover all subject matters that may have a bearing upon the Is \

(_/ I l

ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2137

(^T Y.]

1 contentions that will be admitted for the off-site 2 litigation.

3 MR. NADEAU: How can we do that, your Honor, if, 4 khat I understand is being represented is there may be a 5 choice for the state to pick one or two.

6 JUDGE HOYT: At this point in time, we don't know 7 that. We don't know where we are going with it, so we can't a give you any advisory opinions as to what will or will not be 9 litigated.

10 JUDGE LUEBKE: Isn't the status of the information 11 incomplete?

12 MR. NADEAU: Well, I know, but what I understand e-k_)g 13 is beina said is if that information isn't provided in the 14 next two days, it doesn't much matter to us because we won't 15 have an opportunity to give you input because you are going 16 to make a decision; do I have that wrang?

17 JUDGE H0YT: Yes, you have that wrong.

18 Mr. Bisbee, I,would like to have from you on the first day of 19 every month, until that report is issued, a status report 20 from you.

21 Very frankly, the Board has been sort of on a 22' string dangling with these problems of that have study. We 23 want the state to move one way or the other on it.

24 You have heard the problems that have been raised 25 concerning the' civil defense. Do you have that copy of the 7-O

' ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6644

1 1

'26226.0 cox 2138

(~)

L.)

I letter, Mr. Turk. I am sorry, I apparently did not bring

2. that with me, but I know of the letter, and I want.to be sure 3 that you can answer any questions that the Board may have on 4 this. Thank you.

5 Are you familiar with this letter, Mr. Bisbee?

6 MR. BISBEE: I am, your Honor.

7 JUDGE H0YT: Can you comment to us what the first 8 paragraph ever that letter is talking about here?

9 MR. BISBEE: My recollection of that letter.

10 JUDGE H0YT: Here is the letter. Why don't you 11 read it.

12 MR. BISBEE: Mr. Turk's quotation from it is

,O

(,) 13 accurate. There's langtage aleo in the letter which leaves 14 open the possibility of using some or all cf the new study.

15 I don't know that it was intended by the director, but if the 16 Board wishes, he is certainly -- I believe he is still here, 17 he would be available for you for direct questions if you 18 would like.

19 But it is my understanding from talking with him 20 about this, that it is not his intent to indicate that he 21 would definitely use the new study to supercede all other 22~ parts of earlier studies; and the evacuation routing and 23 traffic control points that come with that study. The 24 decision has not been finally made.

25 We will be very happy to provide the sta'tus report O

')

'w ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwkle Coverage Nn336-6646

26226.0 cox 2139

(

Q}_J 1 that you requested to give you a precise indication as to 2 when it will be completed and when the final determinations 3 will be made as to how that study will be used.

4 I believe the'information I have provided you is S accurate, that early -- early to the month of May, a final 6 decision will be made as to how that new study will be 7 incorporated in the present plan.

8 JUDGE H0YT: Do we have copies of that present 9 plan? I don't believe we have ever had that at the-Board.

10 MR. BISBEE: Volume 6 of the plan, which will be 11 the evacuation time study, has not been served on the parties 12 or on the Board.

O(/ 13 Parts of evacuation time. studies are incorporated 14 in various volumes of the plan, however, in the local plans, 15 for instance, there are preferences to traffic control 16 points, evacuating routing, ~evacua ting routing and the like.

17 So there are parts of ETEs which are included in 18 the present plan which has been served.

19 JUDGE H0YT: Anything else, Mr. Bisbee?

20 MR. BISBEE: I have nothing, your Honor.

21 JUDGE H0YT: I wonder if you would consult then 22 wi th Mr. Strome, the director of the Civil Defense Agency for 23 New Hampshire and see if he has any additional information 24 you.should give to the Board before he leaves today. Will he 25 be back tomorrow?

73

(_)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrase 800-33&&A6

l 26226.0 I cox 2140 i

(

l

%, /

1 MR. BISBEE: I believe he will, yes.

2 MR. MC EACHERN: Madam Chairman, can we be assured 3 that the state will be providing an update on the first of 4 the month of the status of this matter?

5 JUDGE H0YT: That was the commitment that 6 Mr. Bisbee made, counsel. I have no reason to believe that 7 he will not.

8 Yes, I think, you may have misspoke. That's not 9 an update, that is a status report as to where the report 10 is.

11 Thank you, Mr. Turk, for using this letter. I 12 appreciate it. I had seen that, but we didn't bring it, a 13 cope with us.

14 All richt. We will have a five-minute break.

15 (Recess.)

16 JUDGE H0YT: All right. The parties will please 17 take their places at the counsel table. The hearing will 18 come to order. Let the record reflect that all the parties 19 to the hearing who were present when the hearing recessed are 20 again present in the hearing room. I think that completes 21 our discussion. I will remind the persons that are here as 22 the spectators that they will take their seats and 23 conversation will stop so that the parties may do their job 21 here.

- 25 Ms. Curran, I think the parties have finished wi tra U

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3XO - Nationwide Coverage W) 336-6646

l 26226.0 cox 2141 l

('~)

\_/

1 the particular problem that we had with the ETEs, and we are 2 ready to continue with your presentation.

3 MS. CURRAN: All right. Go on to RERP 10 which 4 attacks the sufficiency of the RERP's program for 5 radiological monitoring. State doesn't oppose this 6 contention and the Staff opposes only sections C and F.

7 Those two sections of the contention are withdrawn.

8 The only remaining objections are from the 9 Applicants, and I will go through them one by one.

10 With respect to part A, NECNP challenges the 11 sufficiency'of staffing for a radiological monitoring. The 12 Applicant's objection to this is simply an objection on the 13 merits. They are arguing about whether the facts that we 14 have set forth mean that the staffing will be adequate or 15 not. That's a matter for litigation. We have submitted a 16 reasonabl'e basis for questioning that adequacy.

17 Applicants objection to part B challenges' --

18 Applicants also object to part B which challenges the lack of 19 monitoring locations; and I would just like to point out that 20 the plan itself purports to designate monitoring locations, 21 but the table, there is a map that contains no such 22 designations. We would just like to see those put into the 23 plan; and the cite to that is RERP a t 2.5-7.

24 On part D, NECNP alleges that the time n<cescary 3 25 to deploy the monitoring teams must be drastically reduced if

's J

. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 ' Nationwide Coverage 800 33&MA6

26226.0 cox 2142 y/

1 the monitoring is to be effective in providing a basis for 2 choices of protective actions. We have a disagreement on the 3 meaning of the standard; NECNP contends that NUREG-0654 4 requires rapid assessment, including deployment times; and 5 that this is not met by the lengthy time that it will take 6 for the monitoring teams to be deployed.

7 Finally, with respect to part E, NECNP contends 8 that the plan does not show that lavatory facilities will be

9 available on'a 24-hour basis. Applicants contend that we 10 have misread the table at page 2.5-20. Ge read it-again, and 11 we still don't see the 24-hour capability is provided. We 12 would be certainly willing to discuss that with the

~

13 Applicants here and addre'ss it again tomorrow.

14 JUDGE H0YT: Yes. This is a goCd time too, 15 Ms. Curran, to remind the parties that if there is anything 16 in the way of bookkeeping sort of problems arising such as 17 the one you talk about here, that could be discussed with the 18 Applicant, and you could reach some decision on it, we would 19 like to know that and give you the time to make those 20 arrangements with the Applicant. I am sure, Mr. Dignan, you

, 21 and Mr. Gad will be available for discussions with any of the 22 parties in order that some of these contentions may be 23 disposed of during this two-day conference.

24 MR. GAD: Absolutely, your Honor. .

- 25 MR. DIGNAN: Absolutely, your Honor. Your Honor, s_ ,

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage fl00-33MM6 J

7 l

1

?

26226.0

{ cox 2143 i %/

1 Oi i 1 before we go on in the contention, may I point out'a typo?

i l 2 JUDGE H0YT: Is it on yeurs or ours?

i 4

3 MR. DIGNAN: Ours.

i,

! 4 JUDGE HOYT: All right.

l 5 MR. DIGNAN: On page 36, which is part of our 1

i 6 response to the contention that Ms. Curran was just 4

7 addressing, it may have been obvious to everybody, on the i

8 fourth line at the end appears the word " agreed" after the

! 9 parentheses, and that word should read two words: "a crid "

i j 10 JUDGE H0YT: It did bother me. Thank you for [

11 clearing it up, Mr. Dignan. Is that going to make any 12 difference, Ms. Curran?

4 n i \_) 13 MS. CURRAN: No, I think we can talk about this '

i I 14 after the hearing. i l

l 15 JUDGE H0YT: I didn't think it would. Please  !

16 proceed. l I 17 MS. CURRAN: All right. Contention RERP 11 18 challences the adequacy of arrangements for medical care for 19 contaminated iniured individuals. This is similar to j l

20 contentions that have been raised here by GAPL. We would 21 like to say that we join in the position that SAPL has taken l P

I 22 on this. We understand that the Commission 13 stili in the  !

I 23 process of developing a rule in response to the Guard 24 decision. However, we think it's clear from presidents set 25 in union of concerned scientists versus NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 O

\_)

l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800 336 4646 L---

26226.0 cox 2144

/ h

( )

j \/

i 1 that we are entitled to a hearing on the adequacy of medical j 2 arrangements before an operating license is issued.

l 3 And that the Court.of Appeals in the Guard case i

4 decided that the arrangement specified in the Commission's 5 current policy statement were not adequate to meet'the 6 regulation.

7 JUDGE H0YT: Are you talkinc strictly from the 8 medica.1 arrangements of the contaminated injured l 9 individuals?

l 10 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

11 JUDGE H0YT: Not all injured individuals?

12 MS. CURRAN: Those who are contaminated and/or O

b 13 inioted.

l 14 JUDGE H0YT: I will remember what the problem was i

j 15 in the Guard case and all along the line there. There were I

! 16 various readings of that expression, that phrase; and it i

1/ comes out to mean the individual has got to be contaminated, f

18 got to be injured. It's in conjunction or not at all.

I 19 That's the way it's been litigated. We just finished that in

{

I j

20 Limerick. We had some recent rulings on that as to the i

l 21 facilities.

I j 22 MS, CURRAN: All right. I would just simply say b

23 that the Guard decision must be complied --

24 JUDGE HOYT: A contaminated individual. I want to I

{

25 be sure you understand what we are going to litigate in j

(s V) l I

j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage. 800 336-6646

!-. _ - - . . . . . . . _ . . . - . - _ . _ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ _

t 26226.0 l cox 2145

<~%

~

1 these. Go ahead.

l 2 MS. CURRAN: RERP 12 asserts that the state RERP

$ 3 does not adequately provide that the distribution of

{ 4 radio-protective drugs to institutionalized persons or 5 consider the circumstances under which drugs should be 6 administered to the general public. The state does not i

7 object to the contention. The NRC Staff does not object to 8 the extent that the contention addresses the needs of 9 institutionalized persons.

10 Both Applicants and the Staff claim that

11 distribution of. radio-protective urugs to.the general public i

4 12 is a manner within the state's discretion.

i' f'l x- 13 Our point here is that although the state may have  ;

i j 14 some discretion that is required to give some explanation of 15 the factors, that it is considered in reaching its decision i

16 not to distribute radio-protective urugs to the general 17 population; in particular, in the situation of Seabrook, i

j 18 where there will be serious -- we have already seen serious 4

l 19 problems with sheltering and evacuation of the general i

l 20 public; this is a particular important case, where the use of 21 radio-protective drugs to be considered.

22 I understand, through conversation, that the state 1

, 23 is considering distributing radio-protective drugs to some 1 .

< 24 part of the population; and we may be amending this i J

] 25 contention to address that new provision in the state plan.

O v

i  ;

i I

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l '202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646

26226.0 cox 2146 T'N

( )

v 1 MR. GAD: Madam Chairman. I am sorry, I didn't 2 mean to interrupt.

3 JUDGE H0YT: Go ahead.

4 MR. GAD: With respect to this contention, and the 5 matter.will arise two other places. After reviewing the j 6 Staff's response on the question of the distribution of 7 potassium iodide, the Applicants are witndrawing their J

8 opposition to the contention insofar as it goes to 9 insLitutionalized people, but not insofar is it goes to the 10 general public.

11 JUDGE H0YT: Will that be institutionalized 12 persons and emergency workers?

A

(_) 13 MR. GAD: It would be in the other contentions.

14 This particular one is just institutionalized in general.

15 Some of the others are institutionalized, emergency workers 16 and in general. We continued to oppose it insofar es it goes i

17 to the general population, but not insofar as I goes to l

1

! 16 emergency workers, if that's wi thi n the scope of contention.

19 JUDGE H0YT: The basis of your objection la there 20 is no regulatory requirement of distribution to the general i 21 public.

I j 22 MR. GAD: That the judgment of whether to do no l

23 and if s o ' Tow to do so is up to the state to make and that 1

j 24 the agency is not going to review that judgment.

,s 25 JUDGE H0YT: All r i g,h t . We understand.

\._ ')

I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347-3700 Narionwide Coverage M433Gud6

26226.0 cox 2147

,o i

v) 1 Mr. Bisbee, that's a relatively simple matter to decide.

2 When are you going to have.something on that? I probably 3 characterized that a little. bit too easily. Probably isn't 4 an easy subject; but have you any indications as to how the 5 state is going to rule on that?

6 MR. BISBEE: It is has been a difficult decision.

7 The Division of State Public Health Services has made a 8 decision though.

9 JUDGE H07T: Do you know what it is?

10 MR. BISBEE: I wanted to ask the parties.here, on 11 a logistical question here, my copy, that I received in 12 January or February from the NRC, when they sent the copies

('_/)

s. 13 of the plans around, was missing five pages trom Appendix K 14 to the Division of Public Health Servicer procedures in 15- volume 2, the Appendix K happens to refer to potassium iodide 16 administration.

17 JUDGE H0YT: At the risk of your life, Mr. Turk, 18 can you help us?

19 MR. TURK- My life is not in any danger.

20 Mr. Bisbee and'I have talked about this. When the Staff 21 received the plan from FEMA, those pages were not in the 22 plan. I don't know what was transmitted to FEMA. I suspect 23 .maybe I am giving FEMA the benefit of the doubt in lieu of 24 the state. I suspect we never received it from the State 25 Commission.

O v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8m 3364M6

26226.0 cox 2148 RJ l MR. BISBEE: I did not intend to suggest that FEMA 2 or NRC had neclected to make the copies, whatever the cause 3 may have been. My copy did not have the missing pages. I 4 wanted to find out whether the other parties, in fact, were

~

5 missing the same pages that I was. If so, then we will make 6 those pages available immediately.

7 MR. DIGNAN: What pages are we talking about?

8 JUDGE H0YT: Six pages.

9 MR. DIGNAN: The numbers?

10 MR. BISBEE: Pages 1 through 3 of Appendix K and 11 the following three pages. That's in volume 2 of the state 12 RERP. The decision has been made, your Honor, to address the n)

(_ 13 administration of KI to local and state emergency workers.

14 JUDGE H0YT: How about institution?

15 MR. BISBEE: The decision was made, it is my 16 understanding, not to make provisions for that. It has been 17 considered but the plan does not now call for that. I cannot 18 at this point get into specifics with you as to the basis of 19 that. I can do so. They are not here today, any 20 representatives of that agency.

21 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. All right, Ms. Curran, 22 let's go ahead. I think that if you can get some local 23 update of this during your stay.here, these two days, 24 Mr. Bisbee, we would appreciate having the best available 25 estimate on that as to what the state intends to do on-the 7_

Y.]

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2149

('

L; 1 KI.

2 All right, Ms. Curran.

3 MS. CURRAN: I will skip over NHLP 1, which the 4 Board doesn't want to hear argument on, and move on to NHLP 5 2. These contentions address the local plans for the

'6 communities inside of the Seabrook EPZ.

7 This contention asserts that the local plans do 8 not assure that each princi. pal and emergency response 9 organization has a Staff to respond to and augment its 10 initial response on a continuous basis. The contention has 11 nine parts, which I will go through.

12 First of all, none of the parties object to parts b)

\_ 13 A, F, G, H or I. All of the parties objected to part E, 14 which MECNP withdraws here. Also, J had no objection too.

15 So I will address Applicant's objections to parts B, C and 16 D.

17 Part B asserts that th'ere is no assurance that 18 necessary police and fire department personnel will be reach 19 able or capable of responding promptly in the event of a 20 radiological emergency.

21 The' Applicants object on the grounds that the 22 contention calls for extraordinary measures which are not 23 required because a nuclear power plant is in the area. In 24 support of their argument they cite the San Onofre case,

~~ 25 ~which dealt with the adequacy of medical arrangements.

I J v

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

s 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

i 26226.0 cox 2150 I 'I

\_/

1 In our case, we are not calling for any particular 2 measures. We are simply asserting that the regulation is not 3 met.

4 If the licensee or some other party should offer 5 measures to compensate for this deficiency, the 6 appropriateness of those measures is a question of fact for 7 the Board to decide in the hearing process. It is not a 8 barrier to the admissibility of this contention.

9 JUDGE HOYT: Let me ask, Mr. Bisbee, anywhere in 10 the compensatory plans is there provisions on the police 11 forces and fire departments as such? Well, while you are 12 looking for that, let's go ahead with Ms. Curran; and then

(/ ' 13 when.you locate it let me know, if you will, please, 14 Mr. Bisbee.

15 MR. BISBEE: I will be happy to.

16 JUDGE HOYT: All right, Ms. Curran. Have you 17 checked _the New Hampshire compensatory plan to determine that =

18 either?

13 MS. CURRAN: No, I haven't. We plan to address a

20 that separately. j 21 JUDGE HOYT: All right.

l 22 MS. CURRAN: Part C contends that there is no q 23 assurance that emergency response personnel can.be relied on i

24 to fulfill their responsibilities under the emergency plans.

gs 25 NECNP submitted substantial factual information in support of

( )

%_./

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2151 O:

(V 1 this. contention. The Applicants state that this issue has 2 already been ruled on in the Limerick case, in which the 3 Commission upheld the Licensing Board's denial of the 4 contention that there was no reasonable assurance that quards 5 and inmates ~of the prison would not spontaneously evacuate 6 during a radiological emergency.

7 However, in that case the Commission found a 8 prison incident cited by Intervenors in support of the 9 contention did not contain "any indication that the guards 10 deserted or that the inmates spontaneously evacuated." ,

11 Therefore, the Commission found there was no 12 reasonably specific basis for the contention. However, in k_) 13 this case, NECNP has interviewed a number of emergency 14 response personnel and found out that there are extensive 15 practical problems wi th the availability of emergency 16 response personnel.

17 JUDGE HOYT: That was the same condition in 18 Limerick, Ms. Curran; and that was not litigated because of 19 the reasons you just stated a moment ago.

20 MS. CURRAN: From what I understood from that 21 case, that was a case where Intervenors cited a prison 22 incident in which there was no problem, as far as the 23 behavior of the inmates or the prison guards.

24 JUDGE HoYT: Ma'am, there were four~ separate

,_ 25 instances, and there were riots that they cited. It was.

(Q ,!

)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2152

<s l )

is) 1 quite extensive evidence. I know, I wrote-the decision.

2 MS. CURRAN: Well, I read the Commission --

3 JUDGE HOYT: So you are going to have to persuade 4 me on this one. I wanted you to know that so you would give 5 you the full benefit of what you were talking about here.

6 MS. CURRAN: Well, on this case, where we don't 7 have a situation where this has happened before, and where we 8 are trying to find out what is the availability of the this 9 emergency response personnel, and they have actual logistical 10 problems, coming to the site of the emergency and assisting 11 with the evacuation, I think that's a different issue.

12 We have people that live out of town, that work f(_%) 13 outside the EPZ, that have to return to the EPZ to assist --

14 JUDGE H0YT: We had the same situation in 15 Limerick, Ms. Curran. Move ahead, if you will, unless you 16 have some very persuasive arguments.

17 ~ MS. CURRAN: No, I rest on my contention.

18 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

19 MS. CURRAN: Part D contends that the plans 20 contain no demonstration that private companies or 21 individuals who will be' depended upon to assist in the 22 emergency will actually be able, committed and willi.nq to 23 perform the functions. As a basis for this contention, NECNP

. 2: 4 cites a lack of letters of agreement in the plans and 7-25 conversations with owners of private companies who were-U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 646

26226.0 cox 2153 m

.(s_-)

1 either unaware that they were being relied upon for an 2 emergency response or who lack the equipment that they were 3 alleged to have.

4 JUDGE H0YT: Are you talking about bus operators 5 and their commitment to so many buses per company with so 6 'many drivers?

7 MS. CURRAN: Yes, bus companies were included and 8 towing facilities as'well, yes. The Applicants make an 9 attack on this contention on the merits alleging that there 10 is a wealth of state-owned vehicles that-can be relied upon 11 in emergency and therefore the absence of letters of.

12 agreement does not'by itself raise a litigable issue.

O

(_/ 13 However, we have provided factual information that 14 indicates that some of these providers are not aware that-15 they are going to be relied upon for an emergency response; 16 and at the time that we filed this contention, there were no 17 letters of agreement. We will review the letters and update 18 this contention as necessary.

19 JUDGE H0YT: I think, also, Ms. Curran, you should 20 review with Mr. Bisbee the use of the various National Guard 21 and police tow vehicles and the response personnel that we 22 used in the Limerick, which.was the evidence that I have. I 23 am trying to save you some litigation time is what I am 24 trying to do. All right. Go ahead. Do you have anything on 25 3?

v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 i

l 26226.0 cox 2154 A

t i V

1 MS. CURRAN: The next contention is NHLP 3, which 2 is a two part contention.that challenges the adequacy of 3 measures for emergency notification for emergency response 4 organisations and personnel. The Staff objects only to part S B which NECNP hereby withdraws.

6 The Applicants object to part A which asserts 7 numerous deficiencies and the means for prompt notification 8 of local officials.

9 According to the Applicants NECNP erroneously _

10 seeks perfection in the emergency notification schemes. To 11 the contrary NECNP seeks'a reasonable assurance that the NRC 12 regulations and requirements of NUREG-0654 are met. We have h

(d 13 provided substantial support for our assertion that these 14 requirements are not satisfied.

15 The State of New Hampshire also objects to part A 16 of the contention on the ground that there is no regulatory 17 requirement for dedicated telephone line from the county 18 dispatched to each town. We drop that sentence from the 19 contention.

20 JUDGE H0YT: Let's see if we can determine where 21 at is you a re droppa r. ; it 22 MS. CURRAN: It's the last sentence of the.

23 contention.

24 JUDGE H0YT: Each instance?

25 MS, CURRAN: That's right.

O V

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2155 r3

! )

v 1 JUDGE H0YT: In each instance there must be a 2 dedica ted telephone line to a location where an individual 3 will always be.on duty to receive this communication and take 4 further action. That is the portion that you wish to drop S from section-A?

6 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

7 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Will the parties please 6 note that.

9 MS.-CURRAN: Contention NHLP 4 challenges the 10 adequacy of measures for early notification and clear 11 instructions to the populace within the plume exposure EPZ.

12 This contention has five parts. Part A relates to th'e siren Vb 13 study which we received after we filed this contention, we 14 will withdraw part A with the provision that we will study 15 the plan and submit contentions as necessary.

16 JUDGE H0YT: I am sorry, Ms. Curran. I lost my 17 place here. Would you please review that with me again. I 18 am sorry, Ms. Curran. I didn't realize that was going to be 19 an imposition. I will get it from the record. Go ahead.

20 MS. CURRAN: Okay. I will continue with part C.

21 Part B was lef t out as a typographical error. Part C asserts 22 that there has been no attempt by any of the emergency 23 response organizations to determine or establish the time 24 required for notifying and providing prompt instructions to 25 the public within the plume exposure EPZ.

O v

ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2156 7'N

1 Q/

1 The Applicants and Staff object to this part on 2 the ground that there is no regulatory requirement for such 3 an action.

4 In addition, the Staff argues that NECNP has 5 provided no factual basis to suggest that the responsible 6 off-site organizations cannot provide prompt notification to 7 the public within 15 minutes after receiving notification 8 from the licensee.

9 This contention is based in NUREG-0654's 10 requirement that the licensee "has the responsibility to 11 demonstrate" the administrative and physical means to exist 12 for prompt notification of the pubilc. That is section 2.E.6 O

b 13 of NUREG-0654.

14 JUDGE HARBOUR: Excuse me, Ms. Curran, how does 15 the licenner's roquirement relate to the loca.1 plann?

16 MS. CURRAN: The licensee is responsible for 17 aponsoring the plans; and if the requirement isn't met in the 18 plans, then the licensee has not met a licensing d

19 requirement.

20 JUDGE HARBOUR: I understood this to be a local 21 plan contention; and I thought that the requirement you read 22 was a licensee requirement. Did I mishear?

23 MS. CURRAN: We consider that the phrase " prompt 24 notification of the public" means a prompt notification of 25 the public, however that 13 achieved.

O l

)

i 1

1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 l

l i

l t

26226.0

cox 2157 l V O '

1 Part D alleges the lack of bilingual notification

2 and communication measures for the French-speaking transients 3 in the Seabrook EPZ. We have incorporated this into 4 contention IJHLP 5, which raises essentially the same issues, 5 just to avoid duplication.

l 6 Part E asserts that the local plans do not make

{ 7 adequate provision for notification of people with special  !

! l 8 notification needs. i 1

i 9 The IJRC Staf f has no objection to this part of l f 10 contention: Applicants, again, argue on the merits that 1

j 11 adequate notification measures are provided. IJECNP has-I t l 12 provided a substantial basis for this contention, and it's  ;

O lh 13 not appropriate to dismiss it on the merits at this point.  !

14 With respect to rJHLP 5, that contention challenges l

i

} 15 the adequacy of protective measures for French-speaking I

16 individuals in the Seabrook EPZ. I have already discussed 17 that with respect to contention RERP 3. So I won't repeat my 18 response here.  !

l I 19 tJo one objected to contention tHILP 6; tJ H L P 7 '

1 20 raised the -- challenged the adequacy of the guidelines for i 21 the choice of protective actions; and as I mentioned with 22 respect to contention RERP 0, that contention has now been P

23 reworded to encompass both the state and local plans. The 24 duplication was used nerely to assure that the requirement

{

25 would be met in either the state or the local plans.

l t

I l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage - BM3346M6 l

I I

26226.0 cox 2158 I

,(~h; '

l L'

1 Contention NECNP-8 challenges the local plan's 2 provision for the use of radio-protective drugs for emergency 3 . workers or institutionalized persons whose immediate i .

4 evacuation may not be feasible; and the lack of a description i

5 of the methods by which decisions for administering 6 radio-protective drugs to the general popul'ation are made 7 during an emergency and the predetermined conditions under 8 which such drugs can be used.

9 Applicants contend that the means of distribution

! 10 of potassium iodide are described in the 'New Hampshire RERP.

i j 11 However, the plan describes only the storage locations and i

i 12 does not describe how distribution will be assured.

l l

(~)

(- 13 Both Applicants and Staff also object to that part 14 of the contention which challences the plan's failure for 15 failure to provide distribution of radioactive-free drugs to

16 the aeneral public. That already is discussed in response to t 17 contention RERP 12. 4 I i 18 MR. TURK

Judge Hoyt, just to make sure that our

(

1 I

i 19 position is clear. .

l

?

I j 20 JUDGE H0YT: Yes. l 4

21 MR. TURK

The Staff is opposing to the extent i

22 that contention addresses the general public. I think our  !

23 paper reflects a different position, but we do, in fact,  ;

24 propose potassion iodide for the general public. <

4

! 25 JUDGE H0YT: I think in paragraph A, though, they

(^ >

\.)) i i

1 i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 33 & 6646

1 26226.0 cox 2159 8

o i

1 have worded it " emergency workers or institutionalized 2 persons".

3 MR. TURK: That's right. Their item B refers 4 refers to the general public. In our response we said we l 5 don't oppose it, when, in fact, we do.

i 6 JUDGE H0YT: All right. Section B was the one i

i i 7 that had the ceneral public.

8 MR. TURK: Yes.

! 9 JUDGE HOYT: Anything else?

i

} 10 MS. CURRAN: Not on that contention.

]

1 11 JUDGE H0YT: Very well.

i ,

12 MS. CURRAN: Contention NHLP 9 has nine parts.

) 13 The contention challenges the adequacy of measures for 14 evacuation of the Seabrook EPZ. I will discuss each part in l

15 ,1 turn.

]' Section A asserts that the co n s eq u e n c e:s of ait a c c id e si t 16 at Seabrook are such that evacuation'must be completed 17 promptly in order to avoid unacceptable damage to the public 5

f 18 health and safety.

i 19 Hoth the Applicants and the Staff object to this 20 contention. This contention is based, in part, upon

21 evacuation time estimates that have already been presented in i

i 22 this case and on two studies, one on a study done by Sandia 23 National Laboratories and the other, the probabiliutic safety i

j 24 assessment prepared for Seabrook under contract with the i

4 25 Applicants. Both of those studies showed that severe

< v ,

1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I 202 347 3700 Na:ionwide Coverage 800-336-MA6 I

,...,-1

26226.0 cox 2160 A

1 consequences may occur within a relatively short period of 2 time at the Seabrook site.

3 Both th9 Applicants and Staff argue that this 4 contention improperly asserts that there is some maximum S exposure level that can be not exceeded under the NRC 6 regulations. That is not'the basis of this contention.

7 However, the regulations do require that the Commission 8 determined what is an adequate level of safety as far as 9 evacuation and sheltering at the Seabrook site go; and that 10 this does not -- that in this case, the fact that the plant 11 has already been substantially completed, doeu not mitigate 12 the recronsibility to independently determine what is an O

V 13 adequate level of protection for,this site, and that it is 14 not a situation where.the Board is required to make the best 15 of a bad situation; and do whatever is -- tne most that can 16 possibly be done under some very serious circumstances.

17 In our judgment, this contention must be 18 admitted.

19 The remaining parts of this contention challenged 20 the adequacy of evacuation as a protective measure in 21 numerous respects. The Applicants object to the entire 22 contention. The NRC Staff does not object to parts B, D, F 23 and G, but does object to parts H and I. NECNP withdraws 24 part H.

25 Doth the Applicants and Staff suqgest that some of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6

26226.0 cox 2161 v

1 the subcontentions should be deferred until submission of the 2 evacuation time estimates for Seabrook.

3 NECNP would agree to that. However, we do note 4 that in addition to the existence of evacuation time 5 estimates, that the regulations do require that the plans 6 show that these various problems have been coped with, and 7 whether that is done in the context of an evacuation time 8 estimate or the plans, we would agree.to waiting to see what 9 it is that the evacuation time estimates contain.

10 JUDGE H0YT: Are you addressing some of this 11 contention? I have heard an awful lot of argument, but we 12 would like to have the answers to the parts that the Staff b) 13 raised here. Those are interesting arguments, perhaps, but 14 they don't go to the contentions. This needs to go to the 15 contention, Ms. Curran.

16 MS. CURRAN: The objections that have been raised 17 to these contentions are objections to the meritu o f. the 18 contention, and we contend that we have submitted reasonable 19 baces, factual bases, for the admission of the contentions.

20 JUDGE HOYT: The Board's findings are predicted 21 findings, f4 3 . Curran. I would like to remind you of that.

22 Go ahead with the next one then, No. 10.

23 f1R . CURRAN: Contention NHLP 10 asserts 24 noncompliance,with 10 CFR 50.47 D-12's requirement for g 25 emerqency medical services. The contention has two parts.

U ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 147 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 334 6646

26226.0 cox 2162 tQ

\j 1 Part A asserts that the towns within the Seabrook EPZ do not 2 have sufficient ambulances or emergency medical equipment to 3 care for contaminated injured individuals. Part B asserts 4 that the towns have insufficient emergency vehicles to 5 evacuate hospitals, convalescent homes and the nonambulatory 6 population.

7 The Staff has pointed out that these two subparts l

8 actually address different regulatory issues; and, therefore.

9 we have reworded the contentions to address those separate 10 issues.

l l

11 JUDGE H0YT: Well now, Ms. Curran. Would you l

l 12 share with the Board what you want in the way of rewording; I

l b

v 33 and is that in your -

I l

14 MS. CUR R AtJ : It's on page 24 of our response.

15 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Contention 10 is reworded l

16 as follows: A local plans do not contain adequate 17 arrangements.for medical services for contaminated injured i

18 individuals because the towns within the EPZ do not have 19 sufficient ambulances or emergency medical equipment to care i 20 for contaminated, iniured individuals.

1 1

21 The contention has the same basis as N!!LP 10-A.

22 This, of course, raises the same issues as the NECNP's other l 23 contentions with regard to medical arrangements; and we would l

l 24 refer to the Board to our arguments in support of the i

I 25 contention, O

l C/

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6

26226.0 cox 2163 g.

', )

v 1 JlfDGE HOYT: Mr. Turk, have you looked at this; 2 does that cure the objections that the Staff had to it, to 3 the contention?

4 MR. TURK: Frankly, I haven't had time to review 5 Ms. Curran's changes.

6 JUDGE HOYT: I agree.

7 MR. TURK: But on the surface, one of our 8 obiections have been that they refer to contaminated iniured 9 individuais and 10 CFR 50.47 B-12, our paper'had said these 10 are inappronriately included in the rontontion which in our 11 mind raises an anbulance and eneraer.:y vehicle issue and not 12 contininated injured issue as defined in that. I don't think r

(3 )

( '

13 she has' defined that out based upon a quick scan of her 14 pleading.

15 JUDGE H0YT: I think we are qoinq to want to hear

~

I ti nore trom you on that problen, Mr. Turk. Mr. Gad, or 17 Mr. Diqnan --

18 MR. GAD: Pa r t. A, your Honor, is unchanged. Part 19 B I would have to take a look at.

20 JUDGE HOYT: 411 right. It's unfair to ask the 21 parties for anything definitive, given the fact that you just.

22 got this this nornity. I would assume it was just 23 distributed this morning.

24 MU. CtlRRAtJ: Yes.

,, 25 JUDGE HoYT: Al1 rioht, Ms. Curran, go ahead.

( )

\_/

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nanonwide Coserage 800-336-(M6

. .. -- ..-..-- -. - .-.-. - _ - - - . . . - - _ - - . - _ - . . . _ ~

l 4

l 26226.0 cox 2164 n

l L.) 1 JUDGE FIOYT: Well, in trying to re+: pond to the l

J j 2 concerns of the Staff, we have also written a new contention, I

l 3 NEILP 14, which reads as follows: The local plans do not  !

i

i 4 demonstrate that there are sufficient numbers of vehicles to 5 evacuate hospitals, convalescent homes and the nonambulatory  !

} 6 residential population, many of whom must be transported by i

}

{ 7 emergency medical vehicles. The citation for that contention ,

4 i i

J 8 is 10 CFR 50.47 B-8; and NUREG-0654 s ec ti on 2-J D . j l

j 9 I think that the confusion that was created by the i

10 contention as originally worded is clarified by that 11 rewording.

} 12 JUDGE H0YT: Is that it, Ms. Curran; do you have  !

13 anythina else?

l

} 14 MS. CURRAN: Not on that one, no. h i

1 15 JUDGE HOYT: I believe that's the last one; isn't 16 it?

17 MS. CURRAN: No, I have three more. f I

i 18 JUDGE 110YT : I am sorry, you are putting that in

, 19 as 14.

4 l 20 MG. CURRAN: That's right. The'next contention is i 4  :

I I j 21 NHLP 11, which contends that the local plans failed to take l 1  :

! 22 into accounta the effects of the loss of off-site power on 23 the ability of local governments to take adequate protective l 24 measures.

25 I have nothing more to add to my argument on this, ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 334 6646  !

w_ . - - . _ _ _ . - - - _ _

}

i 4

i i 26226.0 l cox 2165 I l A V

1 other than what has already been asserted with respect to 2 RERP 5.

t l 3 JUDGE H0YT: Do you want to respond to any of the i

i 4 arouments that Staff raised?

! 5 MS. CURRAN: Well, I think that both the  ;

i j 6 Applicants and Staff say that a loss of off site power would 7 not necessarily have the effects posited by NECNP, it's I

8 NECNP's position that we have raised a reasonable basis for i

j 9 investigating this si tua tion, and that neither one of the i

10 parties has supplied any f actual information to review that i

i 11 basis.

] 11 JUDGE ilOYT: Is that evidence on that?

1 J

\ 13 MS. CURRAN: We would be prepared to go ahead and 14 pursue it throuqh discovery in our own investigation.

1 15 JUDGE ilOYT: All right. Then 12, I think is i 16 next. NflLP 12.

I i 17 MS. CURRAN: NilLP 12 challennes the adequacy of I ,

, r l 10 host plans and relocation centers. The NRC Staff does not 1 19 object to the contention as long as it is limited to the host i

20 plan of Nashua, New llampshire. I understand, however, that 21 host plans have recently been chanqed and Nashua is no longer l

22 a host community.

23 MR. BICUEE: This brings up another issue involved j 24 witn the KLD atudy, your lionor. Based upon the most recent 25 data available and the enhanced investication study of the i

! l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-34*,.3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

{

. - ,-. - - -. _ ,- -_ - . - - . - - - . _ ~ _ _-

1 i

! l

! I I I i

26226.0 I cox 2166 i O I

, V '

! 1 ETEs, I understand that there have been chances made, ,

1 j 2 although they have not been formally added to the plan yet, e f '

l 3 as to which communities will ao to which host communities in I

j 4 an evacuation.

I 5 JUDGE H0YT: What have you just said, that you i

6 don't have any information?

I  !

7 MR. BISBEE: There have been changes in the host i l .

i j 8 communities selected from various communities, based upon the l l

9 KLD study, that have not been incorporated yet in the plan.

i

]

10 JUDGE HARBOUR

Has Nashua been deleted as a host j 4

11 community; or do you know?  !

I

! 12 MR. BISBEE: 'I am not sure, to be honest. I can 1 n 13 find out very quickly.

i, JUDGE H0YT:

14 All right. L 15 MS. CURRAti: I would like to ask for an  ;

16 opportunity to submit contentions on whatever new host 17 communities are designated and to just hold this contention 10 in abeyance until we are sure what the host communities will  :

l  !

i 19 be. l

! I l 20 JUDGE H0YT: I think that's probably the way we 1

1 3

21 are going to have to go with that, Ms. Curran. I agree w.ith 22 that.

23 MR. BISBEE: If I may be heard briefly, your 24 Honor.

i ,

l 25 JUDGM H0YT: Yes.

i O '

1 '

i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8M336 6646 L - - - - - - -

26226.0 cox 2167 i

V 1 MR. BISBEE: I understand the consternation, if I 2 might call it that, on behalf of the Board and the parties on 3 issues of submission of parts of the plan. As indicated 4 today, it's a dynamic process. We don't want to refrain from S submitting changes where they are appropriate based upon the 6 new work that is being done.

7 JUDGE HOYT: Well, that's what we would like too, 8 Mr. Bisbee. It's not that the word wants something so 9 definitive; because, after all, the Daard too is in the 10 posture of making predicted findings on these matters, i

11 t;othing is cast in irreversible concrete on these things.

12 All right, Ms. Curran, I think we will have to 13 find out what host communities, if any, remain, and then that 14 would, of cours.e be fine if you want to f;1e a follow-up 15 contention. I think that's a fair handling of that for 16 everybody.

17 MS. CURRAti: Fine. Finally, contention flHLP 13 18 asserts that the host plans do not provide assurance that 19 evacuees from the Seabrook EPZ will be monitored and will be 20 decontaminated if necessary. The plans thus pose a threat 21 that evacuees will carry radiological contamination into 22 other areas of this state and even into other states and 23 Canada.

24 The basis for this contention in that the host 25 plans assume that not all evacuees will go to the evacuation n

V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

e - - _ _ . - - - . - - -- . _ _

P i

26226.0 cox 2168 O 1 centers, but will stay with f riends or relations in other l 2 areas outside of the EPZ.

1 3 6

! 3 In fact, this may be a significant portion of the i .

4 transient population, who the state expects will return home l

5 or continue with vacation or business activities in other 6 areas.

I 7 Both the Applicants and Staff object to this l  !

j 8 contention on the grounds that there is no mandatory r

9 requirement for monitoring of evacuees or attendance at I

! i 4 10 evacuation centers.

! 11 Certainly NUREG-0654 does not explicitly address i l

) 12 the:e issues. I think it speaks of the arrangements that

! C 13 should be available for evacuees that are arriving at the 14 relocation centers. ,

t 15 If oweve r , it is !J EctJ P 's position that in this ,

t 16 instance, where there seems to be a very high proportion of 17 transiente in the area who may not be going to these 18 evacuation centers but may be continuing on to their homes or I 19 to their businesses, that there is a serious threat to the 20 public health and safety outside the EPZ, and that this ir an 21 issue that the Board should recolve. I have no more on 22 flECf1P's contentions.

23 JUDGE I!OYT: All right. Thank you. We have not 24 completed the presenta tion of everyone f or llampton, 25 hensington and Rye and for the State at Massachusetts

'u.]

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Co$erage 800 33& 6646

- _ - _ _ _ _ ~ . _ . _ _ _ . ._____..__A

i J

4 1

26226.0 cox 2169 l-O V 1 Attorney General. Let's take the Hampton issue first.

2 MR. MC EACHERN: Madam Chairman, members of the

3 Doard I have the honor of representing the citizens of the

4 City of flampton for this matter. I am Rob McEachern of the 5 City of Portsmouth. I am going to cover the remaining six t

i 6 contentions. I don't think I will take very much time. I do l 7 believe that in view of recent actions in the Town of flampton a 1 j 8 that a few appropriate introductory remarks should be made.

i i 9 JUDGE HOYT: Counsel, let me stop you at that l

10 point. This morning, earlier, we indicated to you that we 11 did not wish to have any argument on llampton's Contention 1 l

) 12 and flampton 's con t ention 2. So you just have the four I O l (/ 13 remaining.

I i 14 MR. MC EACffERN: I started out with eight, I l 15 believe.

16 JUDGE ilOYT: Thank you, I am sorry.

l 17 MR. MC E ACliERN : Now you have six remaining; is 18 that correct? ,

l ') JUDGE flOYT: Sir?

20 MR. MC E A C il E R N Do I have six remaining?

l l 21 JUDGE ilOYT: Yes. You had eight and you have not l

22 six now.

I 23 MR. MC EACiiERN: Thank you. Madam Chairman, I 24 think we all start with some assumptions coming into this 1

25 process. G o m r- of them may be proven accurate and some of ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nation *ide Coverage 800 3364M6

26226.0 cox 2170 m

1 them through this process may be proven inaccurate. For 2 better or worse the citizens of the Town of Hampton, I 3 believe, start out with an assumption that Hampton presents a 4 unique challenge to this Board due to the influx of its 5 summer population and proximity to Seabrook. It's my belief 6 that the citizens of the Town of Hampton rightly or wrongly 7 do not believe that adequate protective measures can be taken 8 to protect the summer beach population in Hampton; and 9 because of that belief, the town, acting through its 10 legislative body, the town meeting, and the selectmen, 11 pursuant to the action of the town meeting, have taken 12 certain steps which I have been asked to intorm you of.

V 13 on March 15 of this year, the town meeting enacted 14 an article, article 13, of the town warrant, which instructed 15 the celectmen to bring any town related emergency evacuation 16 response plan to Seabrook nuclear power project, which may be 17 developed by a town meeting for approval by majority vote.

18 Furthermore, that no town official, that is no town official, 19 or agency, be allowed to actively encourage the adoption of 20 any plan until such plans are approved by the town meetlog.

21 Last night, in a meeting of the selectmen of the 22 Town of Hampton by a vote of 4 to 0 with one abstension, the 23 selectmen, which are the chief executive officers of the 24 town, adopted the following resolution: He it resolved, 25 pursuant to the adoption of article 35 of the town meeting, v)

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 1700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

26226.0

-c o x 2171 A

( l v

1 the town, any of its duly elected or appointed officials, and 2 employees, will take no further action to implement any 3 radiological emergency response plan, and will advise the 4 appropriate governmental bodies that the town will not 5 implement the plan'if called upon to do so.

6 And that furthermore, be it further resolved, that 7 the town will seek a declaratory judgment to determine the 8 validity of warrant article 35 as passed by the vote of the 9 town assembled on March 15, 1986; and this resolution; and 10 the town, this morning, has filed a declaratory judgment, 11 petition in the Rockingham Superior Court asking the question 12 whether or not the state has'a right to basically conscript

/G U 13 employees and officials at the Town of I-lampton in the 14 furtherance of this plan; and that, we expect, will be 15 decided'by state court as has been appropriately said here, 16 the legality of the plan is subject to the state courts of 17 the State of IJew ilampshire.

18 It may well be said that the state has a 19 compensatory plan that takes care of this. This plan hasn't 20 been tested and this plan also uses town employees who have 21 not taken an oath as civil defense officers of this state and 22 who have been at this point directed by the officials of the

, 23 fown of flampton not to implement any plan.

24 I think that that, I hope, conveys to you the 25 level of feeling in the Town of Ilampton immediately adjacent O

V ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Natsonwide Coverage 800 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2172 g

+,%/)

1 to this plan, that they do not believe that the measures that 2 have been taken by the state so far provide any reasonable 3 assurance that adequate protective measures can be taken to 4 protect the beach population of the Town of flampton.

5 With that, I will go through my six contentions, 6 Madam Chairman.

7 JUDGE H0YT: Counsel, let me stop you right there, 8 before you go ahead. That is a very interesting argument and 9 the Board did want to extend to you as the new counsel here 10 the courtesy of hearing your argument to its completion.

11 MR. MC EACilEHff: I appreciate that.

12 JUDGE 110YT: However, let me advise that you this 13 Doard has no jurirdiction over such matters. Our sole 14 jurisdiction in this case is to detarmine whether or not 15 there is a plan to evacuate Hampton or any other town within 16 the EPC. We will hear only arguments concerning that.

17 The matters concerning the disagreements between 18 the Town of Ilampton, interesting though the issues may be 19 from a legal point of view, 1 find myself a little surprised 20 to come to riew England to hear state rights arguments.

21 However, they are a century too late in my case.

22 The arguments simply are not applicable in this 23 forum, and I will understand from you that you appreciate 24 that position.

25 MR. MC EACilEHti: Thank you, Madam Chairman. As

( )

v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

7-.-

I 26226.0 cox 2173 l n

1 l

\s

! I pointed out, I have just six contentions to go through, Not 2 to' confuse the Board, but from my own logical routing, I am 3 going to cover Hampton contentions 6, 8 , ' '4 , 5, 7 in that 4 order. ,

5 JUDGE HOYT: Any way you feel more comfortable, l 6 counsel.

j

7 MR. MC EACHERN

Contention 6 simply states that

! O the Hampton RERP fails to demonstrate that the local  !

9 personnel are available to respond and to auament their 10 initial response on a continuous basis in the event of

+

11 radiological emergency, there's been no objection by the 12 state, by the Staff or by the Applicant to this; and I just 0

V 13 want to point out that as of today, there are no Hampton 14 people available to carry out this plan.

15 our inquiry shows that there is one' civil defense

! 16 person in the Town of Hampton, the town manager. He has not

! 17 taken an oa th as required by the state civil defense 18 statute.

i 19 Next Contention No. 8, this deals with sheltering, 20 and says that the Hampton RERP fails to provide adequate --

21 for advocate emergency facilities to support an emergency 22 response citing 10 CFR section 50 -47 (8) .

23 This goes to the heart of the matter and the 24 concern of the citizens of the town that on the state of the 25 plan to date, there is no sheltering; and it's our belief v

i

! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6M6

26226.0 cox 2174 O

V 1 that you can't evacuate the beach. That leaves that 2 population at risk and I think the Board should deal'with 3 this.

4 I think'that this Board should deal with that 5 contention. I think the Staff has a limited okay on this 6 contention. The state doesn't address it and the Applicant 7 opposes it.

8 I suppose at the heart of it is what is the beach 9 population in the summer; is it 250,000 on July 4, as we have 10 suggested in our appended affidavit; or is it 110,000 peak as 11 suggested by the state at this point.

12 We believe that it's a matter that should be u) 13 looked into.

14 Contention No. 4 deals with buses. The' contention 15 says that Hampton RERP fails to provide adequate emergency 16 equipment to support an evacuation in the event of i 17 radiological emergency.

18 Basically, the buses that are contained in the 19 plan, 36 of them under the state plan and 357 in the 20 compensatory plan, are coming from Salem, New Hampshire, 21 which is a good 40 minutes drive from Salem to Hampton; and 22 then going against traffic that is one way in the other 23 direction; and we believe that that presents a real problem 24 as to how those buses, if they were manned, are physically n 25 going to get from Salem to Hampton when they are driving (v)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2175

-3

\ .]

1 against the evacuation trail. The Staff, I believe, has no 2 objection and the Applicant has no objection to this 3 contention.

4 JUDGE HOYT: I think, however, sir, though, the 5 contention is limited to the emergency equipment. I believe 6 I hear you to say that the roadways are inadequate in there, 7 and that's not what the contention says, and that's not.what 8 Staff has agreed to. Am I interpreting you correctly, 9 Mr. Turk? You are limiting it just to the emergency 10 equipment?

11 MR. TURK: Yes, and to the particular equipment 12 that is specified on the basis of the buses and vehicles, 13 rather than other unnamed types of equipment.

14 JUDGE HOYT: I am sorry, I didn't hear the last 15 part of that, that last phrase, sir.

16 MR. TURK: The contention itself talks broadly in 17 terms of emeroency equipment. We are not opposing the 18 contention to the extent that the basis identifies what 19 equipment is at issue, that is the vehicles. .

20 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Please continue if you 21 would.

22 MR. MC EACllERN: Next contention, contention 5, 23 and this la the roads contention, stated, it says, that the 24 llampton RERP fails to provide reasonable assurance that 25 evacuation procedures are oppropriate to the locale can be (qv)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

232 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2176

( )

v 1 implemented in the event of radiological emergency 10 CFR 2 section 50.47 (10). It's our basis for this contention that 3 the road system in or around Hampton Beach, which is a maior 4 New England summer resort, which attracts a high percentage 5 of daily transients, has inadequate roads. It's our belief 6 that rcute 1 from April to November is virtually a parking 7 lot as it exists now.

8 I would hope that when the Board returns in July 9 you will have a first-hand opportunity to look at the road 10 system as it exists in the summertime.

11 It's our understanding that the Applicant has 12 taken the position that they have no requirements to build f3 a

C) 13 roads and we agree with them, that they have no 14 requirements.

15 But I think the Board has to look at the. road 16 system as it exists, and does it prevent the implementation 17 of reasonable protected measures, because of their 18 inadequacy. I believe it's something that has to be dealt 19 with.

20 I cuess the Staft -- I am not clear what the Stoft 21 say" on this. It's a limited non-opposition, your Honor.

22 I will go on to the last two contentions.

23 Contention 3, which deals with the evacuation time estimates, 24 we have a very extensive basis for this contention; and g 25 basically we are in a quandary, because at the present time',

(v)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2177

(~)m.

I the state has adopted the McGuire report to which we address 2 our contention. The state seems to want to have it both 3 ways. We are saying, well, the state isn't saying it's 4 inappropriate, but Staff is saying we should forego any 5 contentions on the McGuire report to receive what the status 6 of the report finally is in May.

7 And yet I hear the Applicant saying that it the 8 state finally stays with the McGuire report, we shouldn't 9 hear any contentions on this. We shouldn'.t hear contentions 10 on this because it's been li tigated. We agree with the Staff 11 that the state nas to adopt some ETE, whether it's the 12 Applicants or some -- whether it's the KLD.

O).

(. 13 But I would ask that the state be requested to 14 withdraw the McGuire report on the record until it makes up 15 its mind as to which ETE it's going to adopt; and at that 16 tina, then we can file appropriate contentions.

17 JUDGE HOYT: Counsel, I don't think it would be 18 fair to ask Mr. Bisbee that determination within these two 19 days of hearings.

20 I will ask, Mr. Bisbee, however, that you give a 21 report to this Beard'and to the parties along with the 22 previously requested status report.

23 MR. BISBEE: That's fine.

24 JUDGE H0YT: If when you return to the

_ 25 headquarters, if you will find out what you can and write us V

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2178 (a) 1 an update of what information is available, we would 2 appreciate that. I think that's about all we can ask of 3 counsel here.

4 MR. MC EACHERN: I think we can ask one more 5 thing.

6 JUDGE H0YT: Let's see what it is first.

7 MR. MC EACHERN: There's been a new Hampton plan 8 which is listed as a. draft. We would like to know when the 9 Hampton, the new plan is going to be a final plan, as far as 10 the state is concerned.

11 Go ahead and answer it.

12 MR. BISBEE: If I could ask, Mr. McEachern, are O

V 13 you referring to the recently submitted revised Town of 14 Hanpton plan?

15 MR. MC EACHERN: Yes, February 18, 16 MR. DISBEE: That is the most recent version?

17 MR. MC EACHERN: Yes. It has on the front page, 18 "drafL."

19 JUDGE H0YT: You will probably find that, 20 Mr. McEachern, on any of these plans. Unfortunately no one 21 ever puts the word " final" on one of these, because as we 22 indicated earlier it's a growing,- dynamic process. It 23 necessarily is not the last word cast in concrete.

24 MR. BISDEE: Your Honor, I had expected at some g, 25 point during this hearing, perhaps tomorrow, to go through

! l

%_J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2179 73 k.

I carefully new materials that have been served on the parties 2 to be sure that all of us understand what those materials are 3 and how they fit in with the state emergency plan. That 4 would be part of it, both the Town of Hampton and town of 5 Seabrook plan.

6 JUDGE H0YT: If you could overnight, also, 7 Mr. Bisbee, try to relate them to those issues that you have 8 heard raised; to the questions here today, in'these 9 contentions, we have to rule on too.

10 MR. BISBEE: Yes, I intend to do that. As to the 11 evacuation time estimate status report that you have 12 requested, just to be sure that I understand what is expected f')

\m/ 13 of me, what I anticipate doing is providing you on the first

'14 of April, the.first instance, a status report of the report 15 itself that is being prepared by KLD. I w311 attempt to get 16 as much information f or you and the parties about how that 17 plan is going to correlate with the eventual formal state 18 plan, how it's going to be incorporated in.the New Hampshire 19 -RERP at the same time; .i s that the general idea of what you 20 are looking for?

21 JUDGE H0YT: I think you have described it. Does 22 anyone have any input on this? All right. Mr. McEachern, do 23 you have any additional presentation?

24 MR. MC EACHERN: One last point, your Honor, our 25 Contention No. 7, which relates to the drill, previously

(,~)

v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2180 y

%-)

1 stated Hampton RERP exercises are inadequate to make a 2 reasonable evaluation of major portions of the Town of 3 Hampton's emergency response capabilities. As you know, the 4 town voted not to participate; and the state has its option 5 in the compensatory plan, but that pian hasn't been tested, 6 and there is no projected test of the compensatory plan, and 7 I would suggest that that is~in order at some point, because 8 on the state of the record, the state has no available 9 personnel in the town to carry out any test of its plan or 10 any participation in its plan.

11 JUDGE H0YT: Let me ask the FEMA counsel, or, 12 Mr. Turk, either one'of you gentlemen, since we have the 7-(_) 13 counsel for FEMA here. How do you handle the compensatory 14 plan exercises; do you conduct an exercise on that?

15 MR. FLYNN: In fact, there was an exercise in 16 February, and the compensatory plans were tested, there were 17 people at the emergency operations centers. Yes, that has 18 been tested.

19 JUDGE HOYT: All right.

20 MR. MC EACHERN: I would just add, your Honor, 21 compensatory plan also uses Town of Hampton personnel, school 22 teachers, police, and these people have been directed by the 23 selectmen not to carry out a plan; so that I would suggest 24 that the plan that was tested isn't going to do it; and the

~ 25 state has to reconsider its compensatory plan.

(s)

V l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2181 i J

's_/

1 JUDGE H0YT: I understand your argument, 2 Mr. McEachern.

3 MR. MC EACHERN: Thank you, your Honor.

4 JUDGE H0YT: Let's take about a five-minute 5 break.

6 (Recess . )

7 JUDGE H0YT: The next arguments will be heard from 8 the Town of Kensington. You have 45 minutes, sir.

9 MR. LOVELL: Thank you, Madam Chairman and members 10 of the Board.

9 11 JUDGE H0YT: Can you use one of those

-12 microphones. Let's don't risk moving it. The hearing will

(-

(/ 13 come to order. Let the record reflect that all the parties 14 who were present when the hearing recessed are again 15 preaent. The Town of Kensington is going to address their 16 16 contentions, less the two that we indictited to you this 17 morning we did not care for argument on. You have 45 minutes 18 maximum time. It's the Board's intention to recess this 19 evening at 5:00, 20 Proceed.

21 MR. LOVELL: Thank you, Madam Chairman and members 22 of the Board. My name is Ben Lovell. I am civil defense 23 director for the Town of Kensington. I ask for.your patience 24 this afternoon, as a volunteer citizen representative of the 7_ 25 town, I speak to you for the contentions filed by the Town of (v)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

r l

26226.0 c o'x 2182

. \(ji 1 Kensington.

2 With inclusion of the' Town of Kensington in the 3 service list for the Applicant's contentions to our i

e 4 responses, we were not-served with the Applicant's responses 5 and had not seen these responses until late last night when 6 we were provided a copy by another one of the Intervenors.

i 7 Due to this fact, I request ~from you this 8 afternoon the opportunity to.have our time allocation 9 postponed until tomorrow in order that we may more 10 thoroughly, not even more thoroughly, really, read on a first 11 ao around, the Applicant's responses to our contentions ~ and 12 have the opportunity tomorrow to respond to the Applicant's 73

(,) 13 responses to our contentions.

4 1 14 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. I have the most current 15 service list. Perhaps I did not bring it downstairs from the 16 hotel, but I will look at it again when I retrieve it. l 17 MR. LOVELL: I have been told that the town was i 18 included on the service Jist, but for some reason the l 1

, i

19 responses were never received by the chairman of our Board of {

t 20 Selectmen. I don't know whether it was through the mails or t

1 21 what the process of delivery was. But for whatever reason,  !

1 22 we never did receive a copy of the Applicant's responses, j

, y --

1

.  ; 23 I IUDGE HOYT: I believe my best recollection is t

l 24 that a Sandra Gavutis, is that you, ma'am?

79 MS. GAVUTIS: Yes.

() ,

V  !

l l {

. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646

I 26226.0 cox 2183 g i i s

\,_.) 1 1 JUDGE HOYT: Your name is on the service list, I i

i 2 recall that. j 3 MS. GAVUTIS: Yes.

r 4 JUDGE HOYT: Did you receive that?

5 MS. GAVUTIS: No, I did not.

6 MR. DIGNAN: Did you receive any of the i i

7 responses?~

8 MS, GAVUTIS: Not the Applicant's responses.

9 MR. LOVELL: We had been given a copy of the 10 Kensington responses by the o ther Intervenors.

11 JUDGE HOYT: We are going to give you the time in 12 all fairness, if that is what you are asking for. I must

(~

kJ 13 tell you - that the designated town representative for 14 Kensington is on the service list of that -- on the 15 certificate of service of the Applicant for the March 5 16 responses to your contentions, and Mr. Dignan is the 17 gentleman who signed it, 1 believe.

I 18 JUDGE HQYT: Ordinarily, that is served by first 19 class mail. Will-all these be served by first class mail, 20 Mr. Dignan?

21 MR. DIGNAN: As far as we know, Kensington was 22 Federal Express prepaid and that's only where asterisks were 23 that got it by ordinar'i first class mail. In other words, t

g 24 because of the Board's order to have things in the hands of l

25 parties, we went Federal Express to everybody.

I ,)

sa ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2184 d

1 I am somewhat surprised at this, because, in fact, 2 as the Board may be aware, Kensington.did not serve us with 3 their original contentions, indeed, our name isn't on the 4 certificate of service. When I learned this, I was able to 5 obtain a copy from the Staff, and I called Ms. Gavutis who 6 finally returned my call asking the question, and I said 7 could I have a hard copy because the one I had was a wire 8 copy.

9 If they did not receive it, I know of no reason 10 they did not. They were checked out by Federal Express. I 11 received no telephone call from anybody indicating they had 12 not received them by the gay the boarded ordered them

)

(sm. 13 received. If somebody had called me, we could have got 14 another set up to them, I am sorry.

15 JUDGE HOYT: I am not intending to pursue this too 16 far, Mr. Dignan. However, I would be interested to know if 17 you could check that through Federal Express.

18 MR. TURK- Judge Hoyt, I think I may have the 19 reason for the confus-ion here. I am looking at the 20 Applicant's service list. They indicate that Ms. Gavutis 21 lives at RFD 1 East Kingston, New Hampshire, no zip code. My 22 service list indicates she is at RFD Box 1154 in Kensington, 23 New Hampshire with a zip of 03287. This may relate to a 24 problem I was gone to'go raise later on in.the proceeding,

,_ 25 that is a need for the representatives of each of the

(~- )

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2185 g

C)'

I different towns and parties to check and to specify who the 2 representatives are, what the correct addresses are for 3 service.

4 JUDGE H0YT: I had the secretary's of fice at the 5 Commission run off a copy of the service list that they use 6 there.

7 That is an attorney in that office, so he knew I 8 wanted it to be very accurate. I brought that with me. I 9 believe t h a t' is the copy I have left in the hotel room 10 upstairs. I wil'1 bring that down to the hearing tomorrow.

11 But it is my intention, while we are here, to determine on 12 the correct addresses, if this has occurred in anyone else's s_,/ 13 case, then that too should be brought to the Board's 14 attention, and we will rectify by. going through that service 15 list.

16 That's as far as we want to pursue that. Is the 17 Town of Rye ready to go. If Kensington's representative will 18 he ready tomorrow first thing, we will take your submissions.

19 early.

20 MR. LOVELL: Absolutely.

21 MR. NADEAU: At the ov;uet, your Honor, Rye would 22 like to join in the contentions filed by NECNP, specifically 23 RERP 5, 6, 9 and 11, and NHLP 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 12.

-24 JUDGE H0YT: Very well, now, let me explain to you 25 what the Board will do in tha t case. We will not, during the O

V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2186

,7q L..)

I time, any -- if any of those contentions are litigated, will 2 you be permitted to become the lead cross examiner on that 3 material.

4 Mr. Nadeau. That will be the responsibility of 5 the lead counsel who in the case of the contentions, I 6 believe you read, would be Ms. Curran. If you have any 7 information or coordination that you wish to work with on 8 those contentions, you will do so with Ms. Curran. We will 9 not have two different counsel conducting cross-examination 10 on the same contentions.

11 MR. NADEAU: I understand that. But for the 12 purpose of this hearing, I had wanted to reserve an objection p

(_- 13 initially for not being able to comment cn my tellow 14 representatives when they had a contention that I felt 15 affected Rye that perhaps was not incorporated in Rye. So I 16 at least want this Board to know that the Town of Rye joins 17 in those contentions and feels that those contentions have 18 merit and have application in Rye. I didn't try to interject 19 myself because I understood, at the odtset of the hearing, 20 that that wasn't the way it would be done.

21 JUDGE HOYT: Right. And let me also advice you 22 that you may even take those positions if you wish.

23 However, the time for filing any contentions has 24 passed. We understand your sentiment and you have expressed

_ 25 it-on the record; and for whatever value it may have to the U

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M646 l l

26226.0 cox 2187 b

%J 1 record, it is now memorialized. -Let's get to your contention 2 now.

3 MR. NADEAU: For additional value and 4 memorializing, I also join in Hampton's 4 and 6. I also want 5 the Board to reflect my continuing desire to be able to 6 address this Board on Rye's No. 3, which you have said you 7 don't want to hear today, and I certainly want it known that 6 we want to address that before a decision is made.

9 With regard to the remaining three contentions, 10 Rye filed 4, and there are three to be allowed to be 11 considered today; the way I assess the Staff's responses and 12 the Applicant's responses, they basically say that they are O

(_) 13 not specific enough,.at least that's the~ bottom line I get.

14 I believe the state only filed a response to one of the 15 contentions.

16 Now, the -- it's my understanding that contentions 17 are to be considered on-a case-by-case basis, and that's the 18 premise that I believe that your Board is to operate under.

19 Therefore, I want to stress the fact that I feel that each of 20 these contentions certainly from the Town of Rye should be 21 considered in light of their uniqueness to the Town of Rye, 22 although I recognize that there could be some overlappings 23 with other towns.

24 With regard to the first contention that was

,, 25 filed, we said that in essence the bottom line in all of this L) l l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6t,4o

1 i

i l

l 26226.0 cox 2188

(

w.-

)

1 is whether or not reasonable assurance that adequate 2 protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a 3 radiological emergency, and I believe that we, in citing in 4 the first contention that we feel that we.have inadequate 5 roadways, we have congested roadways, the population issues 6 that we raised, although they were objected to, they were not 7 objected to when raised in Hampton's, essentially the same, 8 Hampton's 4 or 6.

9 We cited, in Contention No. 1, NUREG-0654, 10 2-J-10-K and the mandate of that particular provision, which 11 also calls for the use of contingency evacuation roots, and 12 we feel that our plan certainly is insufficient in that

(.

'v/ 13 regard.

14 We have also raised in that firs t contention that 15 the ti me e.;tima te , and I am not too sure where we stand now 16 on time estimates, but I think that whatever time estimates 17 are being picked, they certainly have been unrealistic-to 18 date, and I don't believe they have been based on local data 19 from Rye.

20 I am not making that as a conclusionary -- as an 21 off-the-cuff statement. I have been in the Rye town office 22 for three years and I don't ktow really of any concrete 23 attempt to really confirm an appropriate means the necessary 24 statistical data on which we are going to have to base our

,, 25 lives in the future in the event of an emergency.

(v)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwife Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2189

(~ '\

L) 1 I think that is a degree of specificity that is 2 incorporated in the first contention. We have also cited 3 NUREG-0654, FEMA RERP 1, which we say cur plan does not 4 provide for the capability for a rapid.and and coordinated 5 response to any possible emergency. Now, the Applicant, in 6 objecting to this_ contention of Rye, seems to indicate that 7 we are saying we must have -- be able to evacuate rapidly 8 under every scenario. That's not what Rye is saying. What 9 Rye.is saying is as the plans presently stand, they do not 10 present us with the ability to do so in.any event. We are 11 not taking the wo'rst case scenario, which seems to be thrown 12 out in much of: the responses to what the town sometimes e~

k_)s 13 applied by way of their contentions. We are saying-it's just 14 not realistic in these plans and that we can't -- we cannot 15 coordinate a rapid evacuation under any of the scenarios; 16 and, therefore' the plan, under the first contention, fails, 17 because it doesn't provide the reasonable assurance that 18 adequate protective measures can and will be taken.

19 With regard to the second contention filed by Rye, 20 which really addresses a special needs category, of all the 21 special needs that we cited, it seems that there is no 22 objection to our razing a home for the olderly that we have 23 in our town; but that seems to be with regard to the 24 commercial fishing in Rye, the pleasure boating industry in

-, 25 Rye, the five schools we have in Rye, as special-need groups,

/ 3

(_)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2190

(~h i x- !

1 I think, is being overlooked with regard to our true. concern; 2 because with regard to those schools, there has not been 3 confirn to her cooperation and :oordination with those 4 schools, the private schools that we have in the town.

5 I have talked with some of the -- and I know some 6 of the owners of those schools. Early on, maybe three, four 7 years aco, five years ago, whenever they may have received a 8 telephone call, this they.certainly don't know what their 9 responsibilities are or what is expected of them. I think 10 there has been a severe lack of coordination in that regard.

11 JUDGE HOYT: You are not proposing, however, that 12 your pleasure boats or fishing boats be considered special 78

(_) 13 facilities; are you?

'14 MR. NADEAU: I certainly do, because the response, 15 as I believe it from the Staff, and from the Applicant, is, 16 well, they are going to be out on the water, the Coast Guard 17 is going to take care of t h e.n . But we have charter fishing 18 businesses in Rye, we have commercial fishing fleets, and 19 what happens when they are either -- when a great deal of 20 tourists either come to these fishing fleets and they are 21 dropped off and their wife goes and-they are either in a 22 state of transition right there at the water; is the Coast 23 Guard going to handle that or is Rye going to handle it? I 24 don't think those cat'cories were taken into consideration I i

25 really in what kind of communica tions they are going to  ;

(~s\

%J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

26226.0 cox 2191 7_

k)

I receive and what-demands they are going to place on Rye to do 2 that. I think they should be taken care of.

3 JUDGE HOYT: Excuse me, you are confusing me. I 4 am not sure we are talking about the same thing. Are you 5 talking about evacuation of special facilities or 6 notification of special facil'ities?

7 MR. .NADEAU: You have got to notify them and 8 evacuate them, I am talking about both of them. Notification 9 as well as evacuation concerned the Town of Rye. Maybe they 10 can notified by ship to shore radio, I don't know, but 11 certainly, if they are either at the shore's edge, or don't 12 get that notification, I don't know what.means of O)

(_, 13 notification that necessarily would be at times or how would 14 you rely on them.

15 I have to build into this notification as well the 16 fact that these sirens, we can't rely on, because many of 17 them have been destroyed. I suspect that's only'the 18 beginning, perhaps. So I don't'have much confidence in the 19 siren approach.

20 JUDGE H0YT: You mean by vandals they have been 21 destroyed?

22 MR. NADEAU: Certainly, certainly. That's what I 23 read in the newspapers, that several have been destroyed.

24 JUDGE H0YT: I am not interested in what you read 25 in tlie newspaper, sir. I want to know whether they have been I-)

s_,

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2192 7- f t

x/

1 destroyed. Let's -- do you have any legal basis for that?

2 MR. NADEAU: NUREG-0654 2-J-10-K and L, 3 NOREG-0654-2 C-4 all relate, I believe, to this contention 4 with regard to identifying facilities and individuals upon 5 whom Rye must rely for evacuation assistance, requiring 6 estimates for evacuation of various sectors and identifying 7 the means of dealing with impediments to evacuation, and I' 8 believe that the boating aspect and being in between water 9 and land does create an impediment to evacuation, 10 particularly if there is a disaster we don't know in what 11 direction it's going to be going.

12 I don't think that's been addressed at all. I p

(_/ 13 don't think it was appropriate for our town plan to have 14 specified there are no special needs groups in Rye, because 15 there are. There are the schools, there is the nursing 16 home. There are people confined at home alone in 17 wheelchairs, 18 I am at a loss why the third contention is an 19 appropriate one. I will pass it, but I think the validity of 20 the plan should be an issue.

21 JUDGE HOYT: Let's go to 4.

22 MR. NADEAU: The fourth contention relates, again, 23 to the -- well, on that special need one, your Henor, backing 24 up, t h e> Applicant admitted that this ' issue would be a 7

25 litigable issue in their opinion if the bus drivers, tied f, )

v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6

26226.0 cox 2153 LJ 1 into the school as a special need group was Rye's feeling

~

2 that you just can't rely on a letter of agreement or a piece 3 of paper from a bus company that transport's school children.

4 But they said that they would consider it a S litigable issue if we had identified the buses and the bus 6 drivers or whatever. We had to file our contentions February 7 24, the drill was February 26, and I would suspect that FEMA 8 has not issued its report yet, but I would suspect when they 9 do issue the report, they might very well disclose that that 10 was a severely lacking area in these plans, without which it 11 was very difficult, before handled, to put into a contention 12 when we did apply for an extension of time and were denied

/'l V 13 that.

14 The fourth contention addresses a similar one that 15 I believe one of the other towns had raised and was not 16 necessarily objected to, and that was our contention that the-17 energency response plan makes no provision for adequate 18 protected measures that would reasonably assure the health 19 and safety of Rye's citizens.who may be exposed to 20 radioactive releases in situations not regarded as major.

21 disasters requiring the evacuation, or in situations of major 22 disaster where evacuation procedures are activated but which 23 for any reasons aren't sufficiently implemented or prevented 20 from expected completion.

7s 25 If there is any such scenario short of disaster (oi l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646  ;

26226.0 cox 2194

\_]

1 requiring evacuation, which has the release of radiation, the 2 Town of Rye cannot possibly handle what could result from 3 that. We have no medical facilities, and we have a volunteer 4 ambulance corps, limited personnel, limited capabilities. It S was raised here earlier about, well, are people suggesting 6 that you have to have a hospital in your town. Rye'isn't 7 suggesting that in order to license Seabrook they have to 8 build a hospital in Rye.

9 I know that they can refer to other hospitals; b e. c 10 the capability of medical treatment-for Rye residents is 11 severely lacking. Pease Air Force Base is one facility that 12 they have in their documentation said they could handle 70 C

(_ 13 ambulatory radiologically contaminated people, and, however, 14 the bottom line was that they must, of course, attend to 15 their own personnel first.

16 So I don't think Rye can count on necessarily the 17 Pease Air Force Base who can only. handle, I guess, 70 18 patients, and are not too sure what the capabilities are for 19 Portsnouth hospital to handle specialized' treatment.

20 So our concern is a host of things that could 21 accur short.of requiring evacuation. Le had absolutely 22 nothing in Rye to cope with that. We have one ambulance, we 23 have no -- our ambulance is not equipped for specialized --

24 it's not a specialized thing.

'_s 25 The basis for Contention 4, of course, we have

\

(U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2195

,m M

1 recited NUREG-0654 2-J-10-E, which we read as the mandate 2 type of regulation, which calls for things in two categories; 3 and that is the emergency response plan must contain specific 4 provisions for implementation of protective measure's and for 5 the use of radio-protective drugs in sufficient quantity; and 6 I don't know what protective measures are provided that could 7 be implemented for Rye in case of a release of radiation 8 where we are not evacuated for some reason or another, 9 So I think that when the b.ottom line of all of 10 this is providing a reasonable measure of assurance that 11 adequate protective measures can and will be taken, I don't 12 think there are reasonable assurances in these categories

(~/

x, 13 that Rye addresses, and I think that the adequacy of ~ the-14 neasurec doesn't exist; and we are only dealing with that. I 15 think it's inadequate.

16 I think that there is substantial basis on'all 17 three of those contentions of Rye to at least be granted a 18 hearing on the merits of that; so that we can present to you 19 in testimony, as we said we would do, the uniqueness of this 20 area, that many of the towns have raised.

21 It is a highly dence area. We will present to you 22 elements on density. The geograp'aic region is basically 23 connected by bridges over waterways.

24 of course, we have raised in ours the fact that we 25 have to rely on the General Sullivan Bridge, which is the 7-U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-664#

26226.0 cox 2196

'O

, 1 only means of access to our host town. Another element we 2 would address to you is the failure of the plan to provide 3 for reasonable protective measures is the fact that the host 4 town was supposed to be going through as of this date, to my 5 knowledge, has not even agreed to be a host town and 6, basically began consultations last Thursday. I know this is 7 an ever progressing process, and that's probably part of the 8 problem that concerns us, because we get a chance to address 9 you now and it's still going to be changing.

10 And I just think, as we sit here now, our burden 11 is to convince you on the merits of our contentions to be 12 litigable, I think, as we sit here now, you should definitely r

( }/ 13 consider ours as being litigable, because we don't have a 14 host community to go to.

15 JUDGE HOYT: We are not going to take any.

16 arguments on Rye 3. Do you have anything else?

17 MR. NADEAU: Would you give me one moment to look, 18 Madan Chairman?

19 JUDGE HOYT: Sure.

2:0 MR. NADEAU: I think there probably is some 21 comparison between Hampton's 5, as I recall in my notes, and 22 Rye's 1. I believe that the Staf f did not oppose .I!ampton 'c 5 23 and it's probably a matter of wording. I think much of what 24 was said was intended to be incorporated in that. I think 25 that's sufficient.

('s) s_s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2197 R.J 1 JUDGE H0YT: Would counsel for the Commonwealth of 2 Massachusetts like to go this evening, or would you like to 3 wait until in the morning?

4 MS. SNEIDER: I would prefer to wait until the 5 morning, if that's all right.

6 JUDGE HOYT: Surely.

7 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor?

8 JUDGE H0YT: Yes, Mr. Dignan.

9 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, just as a record matter 10 my brother representing the Town of Rye read a number of 11 contentions at the beginning he wished to adopt. So there 12 can be no mistake in the record it is the Applicant's 13 position that that adoption can only be made if Rye satisfies 14 the Board under the test of a late-filed contention. The 15 time for filing contentions closed a long time ago.

16 JUDGE H0YT: I think I mentioned that to him, 17 Mr. Dignan.

18 MR. DIGNAN: I just want to protect myself on the 19 record that I haven't aquiesced in that adoption, because I 20 do not.

21 JUDGE HOYT: Sure. Do you have anything, 22 Mr. Turk?

23 MR. TURK: We have nothing further to add.

24 JUDGE H0YT: I indicated, I believe, Mr. Dignan, 25 that if you wished to consult or contribute anything to the 7s s

( )

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

l l

l l

26226.0 cox 2198

,, l

'(_Y 1 evidentiary matters, that that would be the responsibility of )

2 the lead intervenor on any individual contention.

3 MR. DIGNAN: The reason for my concern, 4 Madam Chairman, and the reason I took the time of the Board 5 to express it on the record, is we have opposed all of Rye's 6 contentions, as the Board is aware. No one knows how the 7 Board will rule, but should the Board sustain us,.should the 8 Board sustain us in that, Rye would have no contention; and 9 if they are allowed to adopt a contention, they are allowed 10 te remain in.a status that they should not be allowed to 11 remain in,-and that is my concern.

12 JUDGE H0YT: I am aware of that, Mr. Dignan.

f3 q ,) 13 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you.

.14 JUDGE LUEBKE: I would like to ask a question of 15 the representative of Rye. Did the state offer inquire of 16 your town for information or assist stands in making a plan 17 in the past?

18 MR. NADEAU: 2 the problem has that the state has 19 .had some problem with communica tions at times with our police 20 chief or fire chief. They had really no direct 21 communication, as far as I am concerned, with the selectmen 22 until we started complaining when they had sent the plans out 23 a month before notifying us of it.

24 The problen, as I see it, is that the celectmen

,~

, 25 are the governing body of the town, and the townspeople are

( l

%)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

26226.0 cox 2199 g

(A 1 the legislative body.

2 Under our state statute is the local unit 3 government of Rye, and the governing body is' the selectmen, 4 and thele's been no corporation with us in the preparation of 5 these plans. We didn't even know they had been filed until a 6 month after they had been filed.

7 JUDGE LUEBKE: So the state essentially pushed the 8 wrong official button?

9 MR. NADEAU: No. When you say "the wrong official 10 button," it seems to me that they did not cooperate with the 11 Town of Rye in_ developing the plants. It's easy.

12 JUDGE LUEBKE: They might have thought they were n

(y) 13 but they actually weren't?

14 MR. NADEAU: I am not even too sure they thought 15 they were because it's been combined, frankly, with providing 16 radios and offering this and everything. It's been a 17 hodge-podge affair as opposed to a realistic evaluation of 18 public safety in my opinion, sir.

19 JUDGE LUEBKE: It wasn't considered an official 20 communication; is what you are saying?

21 MR. NADEAU: That's right, sir. And there's been 22 -- we have not -- w'e have made some communications and in 23 some cases communications have also been delayed.

24 MR. BISBEE: Madam Chairman, if I might comment on 25 a question of Judge Luebke. While I do not have.your Honor's A

V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

26226.0 cox 2200 J

1 in front of me a list of specific contacts made by all the 2 states, I would like to state for you and the parties that 3 the state's efforts over the years and continuing at present 4 to cooperate to the ext ~ent possible with every town who? the 5 EPZ that has a plan included within the state !?ERP.

6 JUDGE LUEBKE: Because it can be said that the 7 same situation applies to.some of the conversations this 8 morning about Hampton Falls and South Hampton, same kind of 9 thing.

10 MR. BISBEE: I am not quite sure what you are 11 referring to there, sir.

12 JUDGE LUEBKE: Well, again, the question of.

(,/ 13 whether the state went to the towns and tried to solicit 14 information and get cooperation, that sort of thing.

15 MR. BISBEE: Yes, it does relate to that 16 question.

17 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Bisbee, two categories of towns 18 you were working with, they could but they wouldn't 19 participate; and if they wouldn't they probably coald.

20 M9. BISBEE: I think I followed that, and your 21 statement --

22 JUDGE HOYT: I-won't repeat it.

23 MR. BISBEE: I think your understanding is 24 accurate, generally.

_s 25 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. Mr. Uadeau, do you fall in the tj i

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

26226.0 cox' 2201 n

( )

%J 1 category of a town that would have participated?

2 MR NADEAU: I understand the question you are 3 going to ask and I am glad you asked it because Rye always 4 was, in my opinion, a cooperative town. It was participating 5 up until recently, as far as I am concerned. When the siren 6 issue came to front, that was a separate issue; but then when 7 the thrust to push the plants forward, why wouldn't we get a 8 copy of the cover letter when the plans were submitted? We 9 found out a month later so we lost 30 days and we are trying 10 to deal with your deadlines, which is fine, they were set 11 up.

12 But all of a sudden, we always lost either a month

(~3

(-) 13 or two-week block. We lost a month when the plan was 14 submitted and then layer on when something else was found in 15 the deadline, we got it two weeks after its filing, your 16 Honor. So all of a sudden I think we became a little less 17 acceptable to the way the process that was thrown upon us.

18 MR. MC EACHERN: For the record, your Honor, the 19 Town of Hampton used to be in the category of cooperating 20 until without their knowledge or input plans for the town 21 were submitted by the~ state and they have reacted based upon 22 the state's action in this matter.

23 JUDGE HOYT: Let me answer the question that 24 Mr. Nadeau raised about the service of various papers. I

_ 25 think probably any administrative law proceedings that I have U

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646

26226.0 cox 2202 r~ .

U 1 been associated with through the years had snafus occur.

2 They certainly do occur in Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 proceedings.

4 The hearing room this morning was a good example 5 of it. We had a completely good, workable situation, we went 6 upstairs, came back the next day, and nothing worked. So 7 that I am somewhat in sympathy with you not getting the 8 papers. The Applicant had filed one matter that was not 9 forwarded to our offices and there we were expected to 10 respond and we had to call and have them thermofax down a 11 copy to us.

12 I can only urge, and f or whate ver it may be worth,

(~J 13 that there be the greatest of care exercisad in sending out 14 pleadings, reports, position pcpers, maps, documents of any 15 sort. And maka sure that they are addressed to the right 16 party, and that you assure that they get there.

17 We have been so snake-bitten in our office that I 18 have a little list where I call and check to see if something 19 has sometimes arrived in an office, just because we are 20 uncertain both as to the postal deliveries that occur and/or 21 don't occur on critical matters.

22 One of the reasons in this case that we have 23 ordered such careful considerations of documents with the 24 filing of particularly difficult pleadings such as the stage 7

25 that we are in now is that we found that that we were not i 3 v

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2203 r.

N, 1 cetting them in the hands have had individuals until three or 2 four days after we had thought the individual had received 3 it.

4 So, n o ..' . we require people to make those pleadings 5 available on the day that we have indicated in the order; 6 because that's the day we are looking to for that document to 7 be in the hands of the individual to whom it's addressed.

8 That's the reason Mr. Dignan is going to find out what 9 happened to the ERIC pleadings that came in the case of the 10 of the Kensington. We will bring down tomorrow that list and 11 I will go through each one of these.

12 I will not do it on the record, I will do it in an p).

(_ 13 open -- just go over and see if we have postal zones, box 14 numbers and everything complete,, but it's going tc take the 15 cooperation of every party that sends out pleadings. I know 16 the Staff has to do the same thing. You might be interested 17 to know that when we sent something to Mr. Turk we just can't 18 send it through the service list or he won't get it_for three 19 days after you have it. So what we have to do is ensure that 20 a copy is sent to his office so that it will arrive on the 21 day that it's indicated that a pleading will De -- cur ruling 22 will be coming forth from this point.

23 There are all sorts of problems, and I am not 24 unaware of them, and we will'try our best to solve them. I

,_ 25 deeply regret that you were friendly and have become (x_-)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

26226.0 cox 2204 p

\-)

1 unfriendly as a result of some apparent snafus.

2 MR. NADEAU: I don't consider we are unfriendly, I 3 think we are --

4 JUDGE H0YT: Let me put it as in not representing 5 the powers of darkness. How is that. Very well --

6 MR. TURK: Judge Hoyt, one little housekeeping 7 matter, if I may.

8 JUDGE H0YT: All right.

9 MR. TURK: In Mr. Dignan's comments concerning the 10 possible rejection of all of the Town of Rye's contentions, 11 he had pointed out that if the Board does so rule then Rye 12 will not have any contentions of its own. I would only note (3

(,) 13 that it's my understanding that Rye is an interested 14 municipality here, and they are not really re, quired to have 15 contentions of their own.

16 JUDGE H0YT: That's right.

17 MR. TURK: I think Mr. Dignan recognizes the point 18 too.

19 JUDGE H0YT: I am not sure that all the parties 20 know that either much those towns who may not end up, or 21 those parties who have been admitted as a 2.715 party, an 22 interested state or municipality, do not have to have '

23 contentions in order to participate.

24 However, as I indicated to you earlier, 25 Mr. Nadeau, we would not consider any cross-examination from o

d ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

I i

26226.0 l cox 2205

$. l v

1 you because the proponent of those contentions would have 2 counsel.

3 MR. NADEAU: I have enough to handle just as it 4 is, your Honor, but I hair the viewpoints with the others on 5 those as well.

6 -JUDGE H0YT: Do we have thing else?

7 MR. BACKUS: Madam Chairman, I just wonder if the 8 Board has anything they want us to be prepared to address 9 tomorrow.

10 JUDGE H0YT: No, what we are going to do is we are 11 going to take the other two parties that are left over, 12 Kensington and, that's not intended to be an unpleasant I

( ,- 13 leftover, that's a very kind leftover, that will be Rye and

. 14 -- I am sorry, Kensington and the Massachusetts Attorney 15 General. When we complete that, we are going to probably 16 want to go into some of the scheduling problems that we feel 17 may come up. Do you want to go through any of the ones that 18 you didn't complete today, within that time limit?

19 MR. BACKUS: If there is an opportunity, I would 20 'like to review my notes and see if there is something more I 21 would like to say tomorrow. I can't answer that right now.

22 JUDGE HOYT: Some of those contentions we didn't 23 take any argument. Not the ones that we indicated to you 24 that they were not going to take argument on.

,s 25 MR. BACKUS: I understand.

/ h c./

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

i 26226.0

cox 2206

o 1 JUDGE HOYT: Some at the very end we were rushing 2 through. There may be something there you want to go I 3 through. All right. Anything else? Very well. The Board i

l 4 is recessed to meet tomorrow mornino at 9:00.

S (Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the hearing was 6 adjourned, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m., on March 26, 1986.) I l

7 2

8 9

10 l 11 12 13  ;

! 14' i i 15 l

16 17 18 l l l 19 e i l f 20 l 21 l 22 23 24 i i

25 l

l \

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6 l_-_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ , . _ _ . . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ -

CERTIFICATE OF~ OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify, that the attached proceedings before O the UNITEo STATES NUCtEAR REOUtATORY CONMISSION- in tae-l m'atter of:

j NAME OF PROCEEDING: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,

et al.

4 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) i DOCKET NO.: 50-443 OL; 50-444 OL l

1 I

PLACE: PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE i

DATE: TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1986 l

were held as herein appears, and that this is the original l

transcript thereof for the file of the United States' Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

i i

i (sigt) _ Jh_ -- ,.

(TYPED)

WENDY S. COX l Official Reporter

~ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Reporter's Affiliation l

e

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