ML20006B175

City of Newburyport Brief on Appeal of Partial Initial Decision of Spmc LBP-89-32.* ASLB Decision Should Be Reversed Due to Board Error in Finding Evacuation Plan Adequate.W/Statement of Issues & Certificate of Svc

ML20006B175
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/24/1990
From:	Egan S LAGOULIS, HILL-WHILTON & ROTONDI (FORMERLY LAGOULIS, NEWBURYPORT, MA
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#190-9730 LBP-89-32, OL, NUDOCS 9002010043
Download: ML20006B175 (19)

Text

m

.. h 9 I'XKE TED ,

U5NRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 110 JAN 25 P3:35  :

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD QFFICE DF $ECRf.TARY Before Administrative Judges OktC Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman -

Thomas S. Mooro Howard A. Wilber j

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP)

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. )

) .

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) January 24, 1990

)  ;

CITY OF NEWBURYPORT'S BRIEF ON APPEAL OF THE PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION OF THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES LBP-89-32 City of Newburyport Suzanno P. Egan Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton & Rotondi 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 (508) 462-9393  ;

1 9002010043 900124 PDR ADOCK 05000443 .

O PDR 1 9

m

> t-r lt >-

tam F OF CONTENTS

1. . Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 s 2. LIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. The Licensing-Board Committed Reversible Error in Finding the Traffic Management Plan for CON Adequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 3

, A. The Number.of TCPz Provided for in the SPMC is Inadequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. . The TCPs are. Inadequately Staffed and Equipped . . 5

TI. The Board Committed Reversible Error in Finding the-Bus Routes Adequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 III. The Board's Findings that the Bus Routes are Adequate is' Reversible Because there is no Automatic Contingency

~ Plan in ths Event of Flooding at the Tansfer Station. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 9 q

{:

1

". l

n. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES [

t CASIS Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire, i (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2) ALAB-832 . . . . . . . 10 .

,. E,ublic Service comoanv of New Hameshire, [

L - (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2) -924 (1989) . . . . . 10 t

i REGULATIONS

l L 10 C.F.R..-Ch. 1, Sec.

50.47(a)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . 3 i

b. .f

[ .

10 C.F.R., Ch. 1 Sec. 50.47(b)(6) . . . . . . . . - . . 11 i

i MISCMiANEOUS -

NUREG-0654 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . 4.11,14 4 h

^

l t

a I

)

.p t

+

b I

I N.

-t 11  !

n ._.-.,__y. c,_a., , .mm.. ,.-%, ,,w , , ,- ._mm , . _ . _ _~,m.. ,

?e <  :

1 i.s  !

f" i

! h p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION l

[

P ATOMIC' SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD o

Beforo Administrative Judges:

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Thomas S. Moore  ;

L Howard A. Wilber I

p ")  !

?

In ' tlK! Matter of )

) 1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) ,

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

INTRODUCTION  ;

This brief is subs.itted by the City of Newburyport,-

Massachusetts (CON) in support of its appeal of the Licensing LBoard's Partial Initial Decision (Scabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities ("SPMC") LBP-89-32 (November 9, 1989) "PID") CON is located within the ten mile Emergency Planning Zone (EFZ) for the LScabrook nuclear power plant. CON was granted intervonor. status in the licensing proceedings for Seabrook Station. CON was granted limited participation status to litigate the issues raised by CON in its original contentions on: November 23, 1988.

CON filed eight contentions regarding the traffic management plan and evacuation of transit dependent people.

This brief will raise primarily two issues: The Licensing ,

1 Board's error in finding the evacuation plan adequate with rogard l

to the traffic management plan for specific intersections and j t

1 i

.e...

routes and the Board's error in finding the-provisions for_the

' evacuation of transit, dependent individuals adequate. .

This brief is limited to issues unique and specific to_ CON.

Tha the extent that any other intervenor includes in its brief an argument or position relevant to any issue discussed herein, CON incorporates the argument by reference. In. addition, the '

Massachusetts Attorney General's brief is also incorporated by reference.

l. I. THE LICENSING BOARD COMMITTED REVEKJIBLE ERROR IN FINDING

?

THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CON ADEQUATE.

The fundamental overreaching standard for.the issuance of an I1 operating license for'a nuclear reactor is set forth in 10 CFR, Sec. 50.47(a)(1). -It provides:

t L [n3o. operating license . . . will be issued unless a finding is made by the NRC that there is a reasonable -.

r assurance that-adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of.a radiological emergency ..

(emphasis added). "

The protective meaaures taken must be-implementable (NUREG 0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1.) Although an emergency plan may look adequate on paper, therelmust be a showing that is actually implementable. On the basis of the evidence presented co the 1 Licensing-Board by CON's witnesses, it is clear-that the SPMC is s both inadequate and incapable of being implemented. Although the development of a traffic management plan is not a regulatory requirement (PID, p. 117, Sec. 3.2), inasmuch as CON is concerned, a traffic management plan is essential as a protective measure in the event of a radiological emergency.

2

• lp

a-a g,

'ff d b -( ,

The SPMC must include,-in part, identification of and meano for dealing with potential impediments (e.g. seasonal impassability of roads) to use of evacuation routes and contingency measures (NUREG 06542, J10 rav. 1, Supp. 1). The SPMC has failed to provide for the above-mentioned requirement.

In its Partial Initial Decision, the Licensing Board has disregarded the requirements of NUREG-0654 in that it has found the plan to-be adequate although the record establishes the contrary. In the CON, designated TCP's lack sufficient barriors

\

and traffic guides. Major intersections were omitted from the SPMC altogether. In addition, SPMC does not include the Nowburyport sen cls, nursing home and hospital, all of which are located one-half mile from each other, as an area in need of traffic guidos or any specific traffic control devices. ,

Accordingly, the Licensing Board's finding that the SPMC is adequato is erroneous.

A. The Number of TCP's Provided for in the SPMC

,is Inadequate.

3 The traffic management plan for CON providos for seven TC P ' s '. They will be staffed by cightoon traffic guides who will use traffic cones to block intersections and redirect traffic.

Throc major intersections, essential to the safe and coordinated'ovacuation of CON have bocn omitted from the SPMC..

.Thore.is no provision for a TCP at the entrances to the hospital, Newburyport High School and Middle School and a convalescent home. (Profiled Tostimony of O'Connor at 10) These institutions are located within one-half mile of each other. Id. The SPMC 3

.\ ;

\b

c ,

j,

[

r i

h '.

provides that' buses will-enter and exit these institutions to '

evacuato the children from the schools, the sick from the hospital and the elderly from the nursing home. They are located on one.of CON's busiest intersections, (Id. at 11). The SPMC does not account for the number of vehicles driven by parents and ,

relatives attempting to rescue their-children.

The State and High Street intersection.is also not a planned TCP. However, it is included in the SPMC as an intersection four out of fivo bus routes will pass through. State Street is the '

major one way road on which all of the traffic leaving the downtown area must travel. High Street is an artery which bypasses the. downtown area and continues cast to Plum. Island and i

the Town of Newbury. '

Morrimac Street,'Mosley Avenue and Spofford Street'is another busy intersection which should have been included in the '

SPMC as a TCP. Here, three arteries merge into a narrow two lane road'which spans an old suspension bridge.

The omission of these intersections will essentially result in a confused and unplanned attempt to evacuate. In non-emergency situations, these intersections are very congested.

During an emergency, chaos will exist.

B. The TCP's are Inadequately Staffed and Equipped.

There have been two instances were an evacuation has taken place in Newburyport (Tr. 16508). During a chemical spill, the industrial area of Newburyport was evacuated (Tr. 16508). Around 900 to 1,000 people were directed to leave the area. The Newburyport police used twelve to fourteen officers for the 4

~

1 EE.

g. .

n-1 L'

ovacuation (Tr. 16510). In another instance, Plum Island was cvacuated (Tr. 16512). Throc to four officers woro required to )

facilitate this evacuation (Tr. 16514). At this samo ,

intersection, the SPMC only provides for one traffic guido. With-this experience in mind, CON contends that the number of traffic  !

guidos provided for the SPMC to evacuate the entire city is inadequato.

Traffic guidos and equipment are necessary for the safo '

evacuation of CON. With an insufficient amount of traffic '

guidos, the traffic will back up and the plan will fail. Traffic guides will primarily move traffic along, keep people from stopping and attempting to pass other cars (Tr. 16499).

j ,

From the record it is evident that the traffic management plan has significant problems. At. TCP No. E-NP-07, the intersection of Water Street, Plum. Island Turnpike and Ocean Avenue, only one traffic guide will be provided. During a ,

partial evacuation at. Plum Island-three to four polico officers were needed to control the situation. The evacuation of Plum Island during a radiological emergency will be an entirely different ballgame. Each. person on the island will have to be evacuated. Many people will want to find their friends, children "

and other relativos (Tr. 16496). Peoplo will need directions and reassurance (Tr. 16499). The traffic management plan for the evacuation of Plum Island is completely inadequato. The CON incorporates by reference all arguments and positions relevant to the evacuation of Plum island that is made in the Town of Newbury's brief.

5 T

0 h '

4

.The underlying purpose of a traffic management is to maximize dose reduction (PID at 147 3.62.). Traffic guides will serve this function by controlling the situation and ensuring that cars do not stop en route. In its analysis of the issue of the inadequate staffing of TCP's,-the Board found that:

While additional TCP's might be helpful in providing  ;

reassurance to evacuees and in assisting traffic movements, they would have a minimal impact on , ,

sv ~

reducing overall evacuation times . . . Because the existing plan-accounts fur restrictive locations that have ultimate control of the traffic flow, the placement of additional-TCP's elsewhere would not l reduce the ETE. ,

(PID at 152, pr. 3.70.)  !

This finding appears to fly in the face of reason.

Additional staffed'TCP's would serve the purpose of maintaining the traffic flow. The record clearly indicates that the number of TCP and an increase in staff at TCP's will increase the ETE~

(Tr. 16499-16503). In its findings concerning TCP's, the Licensing Board appears to have rejected all of the CON testimony and proposed findings and adopted the proposed findings of the Applicants. Even though specific examples of the number of officers needed to evacuate the area are in the record, they give

• CON testimony little weight. Accordingly, the Board's decision should be reversed.

L II - THE BOARD COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING THE BUS ROUTES ADEQUATE The SPMC's bus circulation plan skirts densely populated areas of Newburyport (Prefiled Testimony of O'Connor at 12).

1 y -There are no provisions for pickup points within the short h distances from residences and neighborhoods (Id. at 13). The north end and south end of Newburyport are high density resident 6

f i \

' i --

h districts (Id. at 13). Instead-of driving through these neighborhoods,.the buses are routed around the perimeter.

This will require. transit dependent people to walk a significant distanceoto designated waiting areas. This distance coupled with 1

the: waiting period for the bus pickups will defeat the objection of a safe, timely and officient evacuation of residents by bus.

(O'Connor profiled' testimony at 20). The SPMC is required to ensure the safe and efficient evacuation of transit dependent people, and transient summer people, as a protective and adequate  ;

emergency measure. The Licensing Board's finding that the bus routes are adequate to accomplish this purpose is clearly erroneous.

The major intersection of State and High Streets has been cmitted from the plans. It is the busiest intersection in CON, yet there is no provision for barriers, traffic cones or traffic guides under the SPMC (Prefiled Testimony of O'Connor at 13).

This is the point of passage for four out of five bus routes

)

(Id). The lack of TCP staffing at this intersection will_ delay buses from picking up residents. In spite of the inadequacy of the planning of bus routes and traffic control points, the Board has concluded:

Even in full evacuation, buses are not expected to encounter undue delays;when crossing heavily congested evacuation routes. The evacuating vehicles _will permit the bus to get through. The amount of time spent by evacuees waiting in personal vehicles for a bus to cross the evacuation will be minimal . . .

IApp. Reb. No. 9 at 68 (PID at 186, 4.21.]

CON has presented direct evidence which contradicts the Licensing Board's conclusion. There is no indication in the PID 7

k

[

o 3.

s

[

of that. Marshall O'Connor's testimony regarding the bus routes in CON was= considered 'by the Licensing Board. It stands to reason that in order for the traffic management plan to provide adequate protective. measures, the major intersection in CON should be policed by traffic guides and have some form of traffic control.

The Licensing Board has ignored the realistic and pragmatic concerns raised in record. It instead relics oL the supposition 1

that " people will give up activities that run counter to the good i of the collective" (PID at 186) and therefore do not need traffic F directors.

III - THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT THE BUS ROUTES ARE ADEQUATE IS REVERSIBLE ERROR BECAUSE THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE' CONTINGENT PLAN IN THE EVENT OF' FLOODING' OF THE TRANSFER STATION l

The Board concluded'in ALAB-832 and reaffirmed in ALAB-924 that:

(1) the probability of implementation was-irrelevant in determining whether emergency planning

-obligations had been properly satisfied and (2) the commission's regulations and emergency planning guidance supported evacuation preplanning rather than -;

.gui ad hoc response at the time of the emergency. i (ALAB-924 at 62.)

The bus routes and transfer station in the CON are sited on flood plains- (Prefiled testimony of Gaines at 2). The transfer station has in some instances flooded three to four times a year i There is no alternative contingency for the bus routes in the i event of flooding.

i, LIn a footnote the Licensing Board states:

1 We take note that Intervenors are again postulating accident scenarios tailored to fit their allegations. While the TCP argument, centering on H traffic congestion, comes from the extreme end of the spectrum of scenarios (fast breaking accident /pcak-8 L

I '

h1 c '

V

, .I transient population / sunny summer weather),

allegations with regard to transfer point focuses on evacuces facing inc1cmont weather.. Allegations with respect to flooding of roads and buildings disregards what measures local officials and residents would have taken prior to the flooding actually taking placc.

(PID p. 185-186 fn. 38.)

This statement illustrates the Board's disregard of the NUREG-0654(J)(2) which specifically mandates that inc1cmont weather be taken into account and planned for. The transfer station which will house transit dependent people is in an .,

t c1cetrical substation which is subject to flooding. Flooding of the transfer station at the time of a radiological emergency would render the bus route plan for evacuation superfluous. The SPMC providos that the bus route will take its passengers to the transfer station. The passengers will be sheltered in the

-trahsfer station until they can board another bus and proceed out of.the EPZ. If this transfer station becomes inoperative due to flooding, a-largo segment of the population will be without shelter and suffer from increased radiological exposure. As the purpose of the emergency planning measurcs is to reduce the radiological exposure, it is common sense that the bus route plan will' fail in the event of flooding of'the transfer station, on

'this basis alone, the Board's ruling on the adequacy of the SPMC plan must be roversed.

In finding the bus routes adequate, the Licensing i Board concluded:

4.23 [Thore is a) probability of 0.01 or 0.002 that major flooding will occur on these roadways in any year. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that these roads will be rendered inaccessible by flooding concurrently with an emergency at Seabrook."

9

s

\

I 4.24 'If a segment of roadway which appears to be impassable due to local flooding or some other obstacle is-encountered, the Route Guide is to contact the Transfer Point Dispatcher, and, using the detailed j route map-(citation omitted), determine alternate roadways available to rejoin the assigned route. The Route Guides will " report an obstacle, stalled cars, or other impediments to traffic flow to the Transfer 4 Point Dispatcher... (citation omitted). SPMC procedures call for the evaluation of constraints such i as " road conditions, current weather conditions, and 1 special evacuation problems." If sufficient rerouting 'l is necessary, as determined in the Evacuation Support  !

Coordinator, Traffic Guide 3 will be reassigned =as '

necessary.

There are two obvious flaws in this analysis: First, the

- Licensing Board is disregarding the possibility of flooding, because of the alleged. improbability of implementing the evacuation plan at a' time-of flooding, and second, the Licensing Board finds that although there is no planning for flooding, an- '(

ad hoc contingency plan is adequate.

f For.both reasons, the Board's findings must be reversed. 1 NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, J(2)(10)(k) mandates that the 4

evacuation plan include identification of and means for dealing  !

i with potential impediments to the use of. evacuation routes-and contingency measures. It specifically. notes that impediments include the seasonable impassability of roads. Section i

' 50.47(b)(6) at 10 CFR Chap. 1 provides that the protective i

. measures must show that "the means to provide early notification  !

1 and clear instructions to the populace within the plume exposure l

. pathway EPZ have been established."

i The Licensing Board's finding that the bus route plan is adequate is erroneous. The plan does not provide for any means U

of communicating alternative bus routes or stops that may become 10 3

)

.__._.____.__.__.m _ _ ,-. , . .

necessary as a resultLof flooding. This is clearly in error as ,

it does.not conform to the regulations.

As the SPMC has no-contingency plan in the event of flooded bus routes, the plan fails to meet the requirements set forth in f the NUhEG-4605 and 10 CFR, Ch. 1, Sec. 50.47(b)(6) and thus the Board.has committed reversible error in that an "ad hoc" plan is sufficient.

CONCLUSION For.the reasons set forth above, the Licensing Board's .

decision-should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted, JN ew (Q Suzanne P'. Egan

~

Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton-& Rotondi <

79 State Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 Counsel for the City of Newburyport I

i ll l..

l>

l 11 e

j 00cKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAPs  % m 25 P3:2 l

Before Administrative Judges:

F ICE OF SECRETARY 00CMETING & SEifVICI-Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman BRANCH Thomas S.-Moore  !

Howard A. Wilber d

)' 'I In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. l

) 50-443-OL i PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444-OL  !

NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL, ) (Of f-Site EP) l; 4

)

s (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) ll

)  !

)

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL i

i Kindly enter my Notice of ~ Withdrawal as attorney '.!

1 for the City of Newburyport in the above-referenced i matter. ,

-l By its attorney, I j

' l 7-MM O  % %n wa w wh% SPE Dated. Barbara Saint Andre  !

Kopelman and Paige, P.C. ]

77 Franklin Street -l Boston, MA 02110 l (617) 451-0750 i i

i i

i i

i il

?  ! ?. -' ,

'1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Uf[hhf0 i

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL B05SDJAN 25 PJ :35 Before Administrative Judges: p gy 00CKEliNG & SERV Cl Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman BRANCH Thomas S. Moore

! Howard A. Wilber

-)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos.

{ _

-) 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444-OL-NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) (Of f-Site EP)

)

'(Seabrook Station,_ Units 1 and 2) )

)

)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter my Notice of Appearance as attorney _

for the City of Newburyport-in the above-referenced matter.

By its attorney, ik 39 k90 is 'O V' Dated Suzanne P. Egan, City Solicitor Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &

Rotondi 79 State Street Newburyport,'MA 01950

. (508) 462-9393 LAcocus, Hu. WHR. TON & RotoNnt

'19 STATE STMBT

Nacsuavvont, MAS 3ACHUSETTs 01950 TEL.(508)462 9193

00tKE1ED i USNRC 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 0- JN 25 P3 :35 I, Suzanne-P. Egan, Counsel for the City.of Newburyport in the above-entitled. action, enclosed documents hereby to be certify served uponthat I have,7pg@uspd the persons}pgK E

ggnipe of the-hE ad&feWaes listed below, by first class, postage prepaid, mail aK@Ey Federal Express, postage prepaid, mail to those names which have been marked with an asterisk.

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Robert R. Pierce, Esq.

• Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street East West Towers Building Washington, D.C. 20555 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814

• Thomas G..Dignan, Esq. A.S.L.A.B. Panel Ropes and Gray U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

'225-Franklin Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Boston, MA 02110

Diane Curran, Esq. John P. Arnold, Attorney General Harmon,HCurran & Towaley Office.of the Attorney General Suite 430' 25 Capitol Street 2001 S Street, N.W. Concord, NH 03301 Washington, D.C. 20009 Mitzi A. Young, Esq. Kenneth A. McCollom Edwin J. Reis, Esq. 1107 W. Knapp Street u Nuclear

Regulatory Commission Stillwater, OK 74075 Office of the General. Counsel 11555 Rockville Pike, 15th Floor l

Rockville, MD 20852 Jane Doughty Paul McEachern, Esq.

p Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Shaines & McEachern Five Market Street 25 Maplewood Avenue Portsmouth, NH 03801 Portsmouth, NH 03801 1

Robert A. Backus, Esq. The Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey 116 Lowell Street United States Senate P.O. Box 516 Washington, D.C. 20510 Manchester, NH 03100 1

1 ll _ _

..~

H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. Stephen Jonas, Esq.

Office of General Counsel Assistant Attorney General

' FEMA. Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20472 Boston, MA 02108 Barbara Saint Andre, Esq. Mr. William Lord a' Kopelman & Paige Selectman 77 Franklin Street Board of Selectmen t Boston, MA 02110 Amesbury, MA 01913 Phillip Ahrens, Esq. Judith H. Mizner, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General 79 State Street Department of the Attorney General Newburyport, MA 01950 Augusta, ME 04333

• Howard A. Wilber Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing 145 South Main Street l Appeal Board P.O. Box 38 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bradford, MA 01835 l Washington, D.C. 10555 l Jack Dolan *G. Paul Bollwerk. Chairman l FEMA Atomic Safety and Licensing i

Region I Appeal 1 Board J.W. McCormack Post Office & U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Courthouse Building, Room 442 Washington, D.C. 10555 Boston, MA 02109 i

• Alan S. Rosenthal George Iverson, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing- N.H. Office of Emergency Mgmt.

Appeal Board State House Office Park South-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 107 Pleasant Street i Washington, D.C. 10555 Concord, NH 03301 Signed under seal this M day of uurt 1990.

L. A r~

Suzadne P. Egan l

ll l

L 2

Y: +

UOLKEIED ubHHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g .y l

ATOMIC ~ SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BO%1CE OF SECRflAy- l 00ChlllNu & SEi<V l BRANCH

, Before Administrative Judges:

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Thomas S. Moore Howard A. Wilber ,

)  !

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP) i OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. )

)

i (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

CON'S STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED REGARDING APPEAL OF LBP-89-32

,j

1. Did'the Licensing Board err in finding that the SPMC -i provided a reasonable assurance of adequate protection with respect to the traffic management plan (JI-4) and the evacuation  !

i of transit dependent persons (JI-7) in LB2-89-32; Findings' i

.3.128-3.131, page 185.n. 38, Findings 4.21-4.30? i n

City of Newburyport . _._.. _.

l l

l1 8 f730