|
|
Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:}} | | {{#Wiki_filter:- .- |
| | Yy l. |
| | Dated: June 17, 1988 UNITED STATES OF hMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD |
| | ) |
| | In the Matter of ) |
| | ) Docket Mos. |
| | PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-4 4 3 -OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-4 4 4 -O L |
| | ) Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues |
| | ) |
| | ) |
| | The Town of Newbury hereby submits ita reply to the responses of the applicant and NRC staff to the contentions previously filed by the Town of Newbury. |
| | : 1. Reply to responses to' contention 1: |
| | a) Reply to applicants' response: The Town of Newbury's first contention, which deals with the l inadequacy of evacuation routes, traffic control, points, inadequacy of bus routes, and similar issues, was written with a great deal of specificity. |
| | I j Applicant complains, however, that the contention is too broad (see Applicants' responses, pp. 203 - |
| | 204). The contention and its bases plainly provide the reasonable specificity required--the parties are more umaxacun. than sufficiently on notice so that they will know what itiLL,THitTOH 8 MrxxA33 |
| | " *" ="' they have to defend against or oppose. |
| | n.umt.mmw rn e 1 |
| | : m. mn m . , |
| | 8806300178 800622 PDR ADOCKOSOOggj3,- , |
| | 0 |
| | |
| | . s' ' |
| | b) Reply to staff response: The staff's similar complaint, i.e., that the contention is overbroad, should likewise be rejected. |
| | c) The applicant and the NRC staff both assert that issues dealing with human behavlor should not be admitted as those issues were fully litigated in the New Hampshire proceeding. That assertion should be rejected for the following reasons: |
| | : 1) The issues of human behavior were not fully litigated; |
| | : 2) The Town of Newbury did not participate in that litigation; and |
| | : 3) No decision has been rendered as a result of the New Hampshire hearings. |
| | : 2. Reply to responses to contention 2: |
| | No reply is necessary as neither the applicants nor the staff oppose admission of this contention for litigation. |
| | : 3. Reply to responses to contention 3 : |
| | No reply is necessary as neither the applicants nor the staff oppose admission of this contention to l |
| | l litigation. |
| | l 4. Reply to responses to contention 4 : |
| | a) Reply to applicants' response: |
| | The regulatory basis undergirding Contention 4 is l um a us.u nx. set forth in the contention. That regulation requires 1 |
| | 1 HILL 4HILTO4 6 MCG>lAE |
| | , y , n n,,, , that a plan include "projected traffic capacities of a m m r. m u m nie,m 2 |
| | l m ..i n .c . i |
| | |
| | t evacuation routes under emergency conditions." The Town of Newbury contends that such routes should be delineated. Applicants' further response to the effect that the capacity of roadway issue was fully litigated in the New Hampshire proceeding has no merit for the reason that such capacities were not fully litigated, Newbury did not participate in that proceeding, and no decision has been rendered regarding those proceedings. |
| | b) Reply to staff's response: The staff's objection that the contention is vague ar.d lacks a basis should be rejected as meritless. |
| | The staff plainly knows what issues in this regard the Town of Newbury wishes to litigate. The response of the staff that the contention does not articulate any regulatory basis is just plain wrong. |
| | : 5. Reply to responses to contention 5: |
| | Contention 5 deals with potential impediments to evacuation routes caused by snow, flooding or other potential impediments. The Town of Newbury asserts in its contention that the plan fails to adequately identify how such impediments will be corrected or addressed. |
| | a) Reply to applicants' response: The applicant asserts that the. plowing of snow is a governmental function. While this is true, the plan fails to address whether that governmental function can be l |
| | uooua uux, mtt.mttm mun fulfilled in a timely and meaningful way under a mrunm |
| | : m. mar ==== m a 3 |
| | |
| | 4 emergency conditions. The Town of Newbury contends that it will not be capable of maintaining its roadways in a. reasonable state of passability under such emergency conditions. |
| | In addition, while the plan asserts that the plan's personnel can fully implement it, the requirement of maintaining the roads in a passable state, or dealing with the impassability of same, is plainly being left to the municipalities within the emergency planning zone. |
| | b) Reply to staff's response: The staff's objection should be rejected for the reasons set forth in the reply to applicants' response to contention 5. |
| | : 6. Reply to responses to contention 6: |
| | No reply is necessary as neither the applicants nor the staff oppose the admission of this contention. |
| | : 7. Reply to responses to contention 7: |
| | Contention 7 addresses the lack of an adequate means of notifying the population of Newbury in the event of an emergency. |
| | Reply to applicants' response: NUREG-0 6 54 , |
| | a) |
| | Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.J.10.c requires plans to include the means for notifying all segments of the transient and resident population. This plan's failure to do so should be admitted for litigation in this proceeding. |
| | y Applicants' claim that this issue is within the mammm mu jurisdiction of the Onsite Board should be rejected for to ff at15Diff MtnetM*T.M&SWJa?iTT1h*W Yli tet ?) t*J f M |
| | |
| | that reason and for the reasons that the Town of Newbury has not participated in that proceeding and no decision has been. rendered as a result of that 4 |
| | proceeding. |
| | b) Reply to staff's response: For the reasons set forth in the reply to applicants' response to con'tention 6, the staff's response should be rejected. |
| | : 8. Reply to responses to contention 8: |
| | This contention deals with the fact that the Newbury evacuation bus transfer point is not permitted under applicable zoning laws. |
| | a) Reply to applicants' response: The applicants assert that this contention should be rejected as the Town of Newbury would never enforce its zoning laws in the event of an emergency.- Applicants' apparent belief that the appropriate officials of the Town of Newbury will ignore illegal activity can provide no basis for the rejection of this contention. |
| | b) Reply to staff's response: For the reasons set forth above, the staff's objection to the admission of this contention should be likewise rejected. |
| | : 9. Reply to responses to contention 9: |
| | a) Reply to applicants' response: The applicants' claim that the contention should be rejected as being without sufficient bases has no merit. The bases set forth unquestionably puts the t w ot m c w r. |
| | mtt. suum ucun applicant on notice of what issues it must defend or toifATitTHff net fa tim |
| | * f, M4MAtMMiit ti" 5 TTL (617) #19M) |
| | L |
| | |
| | oppose.- In addition, the applicants' claim that the bases raise in part generic human behavior issues which have already been litigated should be rejected'for the reasons set forth above, b) Reply to staff's response: The reply of the NRC staff should be rejected for the reasons set forth in the reply to the applicants' response. |
| | : 10. ly to responses to contention 10: |
| | a) Reply to applicants' response: The applicants complain that the contention should be rejected as it does not specifically identify the operating day care centers in Newbury. The complaint is bewildering. In its response to contention 1, in which the inadequacy of the proposed bus routes was addressed with specificity, the applicants complained that the contention and bases were overbroad. Here, they demand specificity. Plainly, the applicants are placed on adequate notice of what issues the Town of Newbury wishes to raise regarding day care centers and nursery schools, b) Reply to staff's response: No reply is necessary as the staff does not oppose the admission of this contention. |
| | : 11. Reply to responses to contention 11: |
| | a) Reply to applicants' response: The uoxus.aut applicants assert that the contention erroneously HILL 4HILTON da MOOLOE r.um nun assumes that the evacuation plan relies upon Town of m.n.mmmamm m |
| | ___ 6 i m i.in w .m |
| | |
| | Newbury personnel to implement it. As noted with regard to snow removal, for example, applicants indeed depend.upon Newbury personnel. That the Town of Newbury may be able to maintain its roads in a state of passability during normal circumstances cannot lead to the conclusion that it has the ability to do so during an emergency evacuation of' thousands of people during adverse weather conditions. |
| | The applicants also object to the point that Newbury officials will not implement or follow the plan. That simply is a statement of fact. Newbury officials, after exhaustive work and, indeed, cooperation with the applicants, concluded that it makes no sense to prepare any plan as there simply is none which can be conceived which will adequately protect the public. Thus, the presumption that Newbury will follow or generally implement the plan, one which is rebuttable, will be rebutted during the litigation phase of this proceeding. |
| | b) For the reasons set forth in the reply to applicants' response to contention 11, the staff response should be likewise rejected. The Town of Newbury does not contend, and has never contended, that it will refuse to act to safeguard the health and safety of the public. Indeed, the Town of Newbury Wmta m fully intends to exert its best effort to protect its IUll slitLTON & MODUIRI inhabitants and transients within its borders. Those |
| | .m,r. muow rn am 7 |
| | TR W M u14MB |
| | |
| | officials simply recognize that any response to an emergency will of necoseity be ad hoc. |
| | : 12. Reply to response to contention 12: |
| | a) The applicants' position has no merit. As noted above, the plan inc ee l contemplates the need for municipal linplementation of some of its portions, such as snow plowing. The plan does not adequately address how its portions which regt :.re municipal implementation will be dealt with or how the town officials and personnel who must become involved will be notified and assist in its implementation. |
| | b) Reply to staff's response: For the reasons set forth above, the staff's response should be likewise rejected. |
| | i Respectfully submitted, R. Scott Hill-Whilton 0 /( / '/f/ M Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton & McGuire 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 (617) 462-9393 4 |
| | LA(X)Ul!$. C1AR.K. |
| | HnLuuttTCN in MCIrtRE 7e siaT1 STini l M S RS1M ST hLASW HL*A f'11 M990 i __ |
| | 8 TTL (61F) ta; eMI |
| | |
| | I, R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Counsel for the Town of Newbury in the above-entitled action, hereby certify that I have caused copies of the enclosed documents.to be served upon the persons at the addresses listed below, by first class, postage prepaid, mail and by Federal ExpXess, postage prepaid, mail to those names which have teen marked with an asterisk. |
| | * Admin. Judge Ivan W. Smith |
| | * Judge Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. |
| | Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 |
| | *Dr. Jerry Harbour |
| | * Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 |
| | * 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. Stephen B. Merrill, Esq. |
| | Harmon & Weiss Attorney General Suite 430 Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20009 Concord, NH 03301 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Robert A. Backus, Esq. |
| | Office of General Counsel NRC 116 Lowell Street 15th Floor, 1 White Flint North P.O. Box 516 Rockville, MD 20852 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esq. Paul McEachern, Esq. |
| | Asst. Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Office of the Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Augusta, ME 04333 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Sandra Guvutis The Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey Chairman United States Senate Board of Selectmen Wachington, D.C. 20510 j Kensington, NH 03827 Mr. Thomas Powers H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. |
| | l Town Manager Office of General Counsel l Town of Exeter Federal Emergency Management Agency Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, D.C. 20472 (1) |
| | |
| | i . |
| | Gary Holmes, Esq. Stephen Jonas, Esq. |
| | Holmes & Ells Ass'.stant Attorney General 4 7 Winnacunnet Rood Off.ce of the Attorney General |
| | .Hampton, NH 03841 Boston, MA 02108 Mr. Calvin A. Canney Cbt-les P. Grahnm, Esq. |
| | City Manager Murphy and Graham City Hall 33 Low Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Newburyport, MA 01350 Barbara Saint Andre, Esq. Mr. William Lord Kopelman & Paige Selectman 77 Franklin Street Board of Selectmen Boston, MA 02110 Amesbury, MA 01913 Btentwood Board of Selectmen Richard A. Hampe, Esq. |
| | RPO Dalton Road Hampe & McNicholas B r e se t . c o d , NH 03833 3 5 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Ed Thomas Judith Mizner, Esq. |
| | FEMA Region I 79 State Street 44 2 McCormick P.O. Building Newburypor t , MA 21950 Boston, MA 02109 Mr. Robert Carrig, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town Office North Hampton, NH 03862 Signed under seal this /7 day of June, 1988. |
| | f (" |
| | ! b _ |
| | _R. Scott Hill--Whilton (2) |
| | $}} |
|
---|
Category:INTERVENTION PETITIONS
MONTHYEARML20209H9101999-07-20020 July 1999 Motion of Connecticut Light & Power Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Hearing.* with Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20199F7641999-01-21021 January 1999 Answer of Montaup Electric Co to Motion of Ui for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Requests Motion Be Denied on Basis of Late Filing.With Certificate of Svc ML20206Q0151999-01-12012 January 1999 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Answer to Petition to Intervene of New England Power Co.* If Commission Deems It Appropriate to Explore Issues Further in Subpart M Hearing Context,Naesco Will Participate.With Certificate of Svc ML20199A4331999-01-11011 January 1999 Motion of United Illuminating Co for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Company Requests That Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time Be Granted.With Certificate of Svc ML20198P7181998-12-31031 December 1998 Motion of Nepco for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* Moves to Intervene in Transfer of Montaup Seabrook Ownership Interest & Petitions for Summary Relief or for Hearing ML20237C6981998-08-18018 August 1998 Sapl/Necnp Reply to Naesco Response to Proposed Contentions.* Board Should Admit Sapl/Necnp Contentions 1-4 & North Atlantic Energy Svcs Corp Arguments to Contrary. W/Certificate of Svc ML20237C6791998-08-18018 August 1998 Sapl/New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to Staff Answer to Contentions.* Petitioners Believe Board Can & Should Give Cases Consideration W/O Filing of Addl,But Not Substantively Different Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20237A0501998-08-10010 August 1998 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Response to Proposed Contentions.* Petitioners Failed to Propose Admissible Contention.Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene,As Applied to Both Petitioners Should Be Denied ML20236X9281998-08-10010 August 1998 NRC Staff Answer to Contentions.* for Reasons Stated,All of Contentions Proposed Should Be Rejected & Proceeding Should Be Terminated.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H2581991-02-14014 February 1991 Response of Ma Atty General & Necnp to ASLB Order of 910124.* Intervenors Believe ASLB Should Reopen Record, Permit Discovery & Hold Hearing on Beach Sheltering Issues. W/Certificate of Svc ML19332D7241989-11-21021 November 1989 Intervenors Motion for Clarification Or,In Alternative,For Reconsideration.* Clarification or Reconsideration of Scheduling Requirements Set by Commission 891121 Order Requested.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19332D5191989-11-15015 November 1989 Applicant Answer to Intervenors Motion to Admit late-filed Contention & Reopen Record Based Upon Withdrawal of Commonwealth of Ma Emergency Broadcast Sys Network & Wcgy.* Motion Should Be Denied Since Results Unlikely to Change ML19325E0171989-10-20020 October 1989 Applicant Answer to Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Motion to Assert Addl Bases for Original Onsite Exercise Contention JI-Onsite Ex-1 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML19325E0011989-10-20020 October 1989 Applicant Response to Intervenors Motion to Amend Intervenors Motions of 890929 & 1013 to Admit Contentions on 890927 Onsite Emergency Plan Exercise.* Issue Re Admittance Committed to Board Discretion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248J3511989-10-13013 October 1989 Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Advises That Applicant Contentions Filed on 890929 to Admit Addl Bases Re Scope of Onsite Exercsise Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248J0601989-09-28028 September 1989 Intervenors Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Requests Hearing & to Engage in Discovery for Hearing on Contention.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20247Q6761989-09-22022 September 1989 Intervenors Second Informational Suppl to Low Power Contentions Filed on 890721 & 0828.* Incorporates Encl Plant Startup Test Procedure 1-ST-22,Rev 2 Into Low Power Testing Contentions.W/Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc ML20246N1001989-09-0101 September 1989 Intervenors Reply to Responses of Applicant & Staff Re Intervenors Motion to Admit Contention,Or,In Alternative,To Reopen Record & Request for Hearing.* Contention Raises New Issues & Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E0321989-07-21021 July 1989 Intervenors Motion to Admit Contention,Or in Alternative,To Reopen Record & Request for Hearing.* Requests Contentions Re Deficiencies in Training,Mgt Control,Supervision, Communication & Procedure Compliance Be Admitted ML20246P2041989-07-0505 July 1989 Joint Intervenor (Ji) Contentions on Spmc & June 1988 Graded Exercise.* ML20248F4691989-04-0303 April 1989 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Trial Brief on Contention Ji 56 & Sapl Contentions EX-2,4,6,7,8,12,13 & 14.* Svc List Encl ML20206M9761988-11-23023 November 1988 NRC Staff Response to 881114 Board Order Requesting Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 for Seabrook Proposed General Exercise Contentions.* Contentions & Bases Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M9431988-11-22022 November 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 to Seabrook Offsite Exercise Contentions.* Svc List Encl ML20206M9031988-11-22022 November 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 to Exercise Contentions.* Svc List Encl ML20205R7201988-11-0202 November 1988 Town of Hampton Contention on Applicant Plan to Fund Decommissioning Costs of Seabrook Station.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R5661988-11-0202 November 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Applicant Plan in Response to NRC Order CLI-88-07.* Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205R5441988-11-0202 November 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Financial Qualifications to Operate Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R4971988-11-0202 November 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Contentions on Applicant Decommissioning Plan,Motion for Stay of Low Power Operation & Motion to Reopen Record.* Supporting Info & Svc List Encl ML20205R4821988-11-0202 November 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Decommissioning Plan for Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.* ML20205E0011988-10-24024 October 1988 Reply of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff & Applicant to Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Exercise Contentions.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205E0271988-10-21021 October 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) & Town of Hampton (Toh) Reply to Applicant & NRC Staff Responses to Contentions Toh/Necnp EX-2 & Toh/Necnp EX-3.* Svc List Encl ML20205D8051988-10-21021 October 1988 Town of Hampton & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to Responses of Staff & Applicant to Intervenor Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206C1951988-10-18018 October 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Reply to Applicant & Staff Responses to Sapl Contentions on June 1988 Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl ML20204G9731988-10-13013 October 1988 NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Proposed General Exercise Contentions Should Be Admitted for Litigation & Proferred Contentions Should Be Denied Admission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154S4571988-09-28028 September 1988 Applicant Response to Intervenor Contentions on June 1988 Seabrook Exercise.* Intervenor Contentions Should Be Disposed Of.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154P3461988-09-21021 September 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution & Town of Hampton Contentions Re 1988 Exercise of Offsite Plans & Preparedness for Plant Emergency Planning Zone.* Svc List Encl ML20154K8741988-09-21021 September 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Exercise Contentions Submitted in Response to June 1988 Plant Initial full- Participation Exercise.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154K9331988-09-21021 September 1988 Town of Hampton & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Emergency Planning Contentions on 880628-29 Exercise.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154N9061988-09-20020 September 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl ML20154D7431988-09-12012 September 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Petition for Review of ALAB-899.* Petition Should Be Granted on Basis That Integrity of RCS Significantly Paramount to Safe Operation of Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151A6461988-07-0707 July 1988 NRC Staff Response to Town of Salisbury Amended Contentions Re Applicant Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Applicant Untimely Amends to Contentions Should Be Rejected. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151A6301988-07-0606 July 1988 NRC Staff Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* City of Haverhill late-filed Contentions Should Be Rejected.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196G7031988-06-27027 June 1988 Applicant Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* Contentions Should Be Rejected & City Should Be Denied Admission as Party,Per 10CFR2.714.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A3761988-06-22022 June 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) Reply to Applicant & NRC Staff Response to Necnp Contentions on Spmc.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A3991988-06-22022 June 1988 Reply of Massachussetts Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff and Applicant to Contentions 7 Through 83 Filed by Massachussetts Atty General.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A5261988-06-22022 June 1988 Town of Amesbury Reply to NRC Staff & Applicant Responses to Town of Amesbury Contentions on Seabrook Plan for Massachussetts Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A8701988-06-20020 June 1988 Reply of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff & Applicant to First Six Contentions Filed by Commonwealth of Ma Atty General.* ML20151N6271988-06-17017 June 1988 Town of Salisbury Reply to Applicant Response to Intervenor Contentions on Seabrook Plan for State of Ma Communities ML20151A8361988-06-17017 June 1988 Reply of Town of West Newbury to Responses of Applicant & NRC Staff to Intervenors Contentions Re Seabrook Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151N6461988-06-17017 June 1988 Town of Salisbury Amended Contentions Re Applicant Plan for State of Ma Communities.Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-20
[Table view] Category:RESPONSES & CONTENTIONS
MONTHYEARML20209H9101999-07-20020 July 1999 Motion of Connecticut Light & Power Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Hearing.* with Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20199F7641999-01-21021 January 1999 Answer of Montaup Electric Co to Motion of Ui for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Requests Motion Be Denied on Basis of Late Filing.With Certificate of Svc ML20206Q0151999-01-12012 January 1999 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Answer to Petition to Intervene of New England Power Co.* If Commission Deems It Appropriate to Explore Issues Further in Subpart M Hearing Context,Naesco Will Participate.With Certificate of Svc ML20199A4331999-01-11011 January 1999 Motion of United Illuminating Co for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Company Requests That Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time Be Granted.With Certificate of Svc ML20198P7181998-12-31031 December 1998 Motion of Nepco for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* Moves to Intervene in Transfer of Montaup Seabrook Ownership Interest & Petitions for Summary Relief or for Hearing ML20237C6981998-08-18018 August 1998 Sapl/Necnp Reply to Naesco Response to Proposed Contentions.* Board Should Admit Sapl/Necnp Contentions 1-4 & North Atlantic Energy Svcs Corp Arguments to Contrary. W/Certificate of Svc ML20237C6791998-08-18018 August 1998 Sapl/New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to Staff Answer to Contentions.* Petitioners Believe Board Can & Should Give Cases Consideration W/O Filing of Addl,But Not Substantively Different Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20237A0501998-08-10010 August 1998 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Response to Proposed Contentions.* Petitioners Failed to Propose Admissible Contention.Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene,As Applied to Both Petitioners Should Be Denied ML20236X9281998-08-10010 August 1998 NRC Staff Answer to Contentions.* for Reasons Stated,All of Contentions Proposed Should Be Rejected & Proceeding Should Be Terminated.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H2581991-02-14014 February 1991 Response of Ma Atty General & Necnp to ASLB Order of 910124.* Intervenors Believe ASLB Should Reopen Record, Permit Discovery & Hold Hearing on Beach Sheltering Issues. W/Certificate of Svc ML19332D7241989-11-21021 November 1989 Intervenors Motion for Clarification Or,In Alternative,For Reconsideration.* Clarification or Reconsideration of Scheduling Requirements Set by Commission 891121 Order Requested.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19332D5191989-11-15015 November 1989 Applicant Answer to Intervenors Motion to Admit late-filed Contention & Reopen Record Based Upon Withdrawal of Commonwealth of Ma Emergency Broadcast Sys Network & Wcgy.* Motion Should Be Denied Since Results Unlikely to Change ML19325E0171989-10-20020 October 1989 Applicant Answer to Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Motion to Assert Addl Bases for Original Onsite Exercise Contention JI-Onsite Ex-1 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML19325E0011989-10-20020 October 1989 Applicant Response to Intervenors Motion to Amend Intervenors Motions of 890929 & 1013 to Admit Contentions on 890927 Onsite Emergency Plan Exercise.* Issue Re Admittance Committed to Board Discretion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248J3511989-10-13013 October 1989 Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Advises That Applicant Contentions Filed on 890929 to Admit Addl Bases Re Scope of Onsite Exercsise Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248J0601989-09-28028 September 1989 Intervenors Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Requests Hearing & to Engage in Discovery for Hearing on Contention.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20247Q6761989-09-22022 September 1989 Intervenors Second Informational Suppl to Low Power Contentions Filed on 890721 & 0828.* Incorporates Encl Plant Startup Test Procedure 1-ST-22,Rev 2 Into Low Power Testing Contentions.W/Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc ML20246N1001989-09-0101 September 1989 Intervenors Reply to Responses of Applicant & Staff Re Intervenors Motion to Admit Contention,Or,In Alternative,To Reopen Record & Request for Hearing.* Contention Raises New Issues & Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E0321989-07-21021 July 1989 Intervenors Motion to Admit Contention,Or in Alternative,To Reopen Record & Request for Hearing.* Requests Contentions Re Deficiencies in Training,Mgt Control,Supervision, Communication & Procedure Compliance Be Admitted ML20246P2041989-07-0505 July 1989 Joint Intervenor (Ji) Contentions on Spmc & June 1988 Graded Exercise.* ML20248F4691989-04-0303 April 1989 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Trial Brief on Contention Ji 56 & Sapl Contentions EX-2,4,6,7,8,12,13 & 14.* Svc List Encl ML20206M9761988-11-23023 November 1988 NRC Staff Response to 881114 Board Order Requesting Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 for Seabrook Proposed General Exercise Contentions.* Contentions & Bases Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M9431988-11-22022 November 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 to Seabrook Offsite Exercise Contentions.* Svc List Encl ML20206M9031988-11-22022 November 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 to Exercise Contentions.* Svc List Encl ML20205R7201988-11-0202 November 1988 Town of Hampton Contention on Applicant Plan to Fund Decommissioning Costs of Seabrook Station.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R5661988-11-0202 November 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Applicant Plan in Response to NRC Order CLI-88-07.* Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205R5441988-11-0202 November 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Financial Qualifications to Operate Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R4971988-11-0202 November 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Contentions on Applicant Decommissioning Plan,Motion for Stay of Low Power Operation & Motion to Reopen Record.* Supporting Info & Svc List Encl ML20205R4821988-11-0202 November 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Decommissioning Plan for Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.* ML20205E0011988-10-24024 October 1988 Reply of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff & Applicant to Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Exercise Contentions.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205E0271988-10-21021 October 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) & Town of Hampton (Toh) Reply to Applicant & NRC Staff Responses to Contentions Toh/Necnp EX-2 & Toh/Necnp EX-3.* Svc List Encl ML20205D8051988-10-21021 October 1988 Town of Hampton & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to Responses of Staff & Applicant to Intervenor Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206C1951988-10-18018 October 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Reply to Applicant & Staff Responses to Sapl Contentions on June 1988 Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl ML20204G9731988-10-13013 October 1988 NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Proposed General Exercise Contentions Should Be Admitted for Litigation & Proferred Contentions Should Be Denied Admission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154S4571988-09-28028 September 1988 Applicant Response to Intervenor Contentions on June 1988 Seabrook Exercise.* Intervenor Contentions Should Be Disposed Of.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154P3461988-09-21021 September 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution & Town of Hampton Contentions Re 1988 Exercise of Offsite Plans & Preparedness for Plant Emergency Planning Zone.* Svc List Encl ML20154K8741988-09-21021 September 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Exercise Contentions Submitted in Response to June 1988 Plant Initial full- Participation Exercise.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154K9331988-09-21021 September 1988 Town of Hampton & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Emergency Planning Contentions on 880628-29 Exercise.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154N9061988-09-20020 September 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl ML20154D7431988-09-12012 September 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Petition for Review of ALAB-899.* Petition Should Be Granted on Basis That Integrity of RCS Significantly Paramount to Safe Operation of Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151A6461988-07-0707 July 1988 NRC Staff Response to Town of Salisbury Amended Contentions Re Applicant Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Applicant Untimely Amends to Contentions Should Be Rejected. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151A6301988-07-0606 July 1988 NRC Staff Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* City of Haverhill late-filed Contentions Should Be Rejected.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196G7031988-06-27027 June 1988 Applicant Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* Contentions Should Be Rejected & City Should Be Denied Admission as Party,Per 10CFR2.714.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A3761988-06-22022 June 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) Reply to Applicant & NRC Staff Response to Necnp Contentions on Spmc.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A3991988-06-22022 June 1988 Reply of Massachussetts Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff and Applicant to Contentions 7 Through 83 Filed by Massachussetts Atty General.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A5261988-06-22022 June 1988 Town of Amesbury Reply to NRC Staff & Applicant Responses to Town of Amesbury Contentions on Seabrook Plan for Massachussetts Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A8701988-06-20020 June 1988 Reply of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff & Applicant to First Six Contentions Filed by Commonwealth of Ma Atty General.* ML20151N6271988-06-17017 June 1988 Town of Salisbury Reply to Applicant Response to Intervenor Contentions on Seabrook Plan for State of Ma Communities ML20151A8361988-06-17017 June 1988 Reply of Town of West Newbury to Responses of Applicant & NRC Staff to Intervenors Contentions Re Seabrook Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151N6461988-06-17017 June 1988 Town of Salisbury Amended Contentions Re Applicant Plan for State of Ma Communities.Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-20
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217H9511999-10-21021 October 1999 Memorandum & Order.* Proceeding Re Nepco 990315 Application Seeking Commission Approval of Indirect License Transfers Consolidated,Petitioners Granted Standing & Two Issues Admitted.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 991021 ML20217N2561999-10-21021 October 1999 Transcript of Affirmation Session on 990121 in Rockville, Maryland Re Memorandum & Order Responding to Petitions to Intervene Filed by co-owners of Seabrook Station Unit 1 & Millstone Station Unit Three.Pp 1-3 ML20211L5141999-09-0202 September 1999 Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4006, Demonstrating Compliance with Radiological Criteria for License Termination. Author Requests Info as to When Seabrook Station Will Be Shut Down ML20211J1451999-08-24024 August 1999 Comment Opposing NRC Consideration of Waiving Enforcement Action Against Plants That Operate Outside Terms of Licenses Due to Y2K Problems ML20210S5641999-08-13013 August 1999 Motion of Connecticut Light & Power Co,Western Massachusetts Electric Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp to Strike Unauthorized Response of Nepco.* Unauthorized Response Fails to Comply with Commission Policy.With Certificate of Svc ML20210Q7531999-08-11011 August 1999 Order Approving Application Re Corporate Merger (Canal Electric Co). Canal Shall Provide Director of NRR Copy of Any Application,At Time Filed to Transfer Grants of Security Interests or Liens from Canal to Proposed Parent ML20210P6271999-08-10010 August 1999 Response of New England Power Company.* Nu Allegations Unsupported by Any Facts & No Genuine Issues of Matl Facts in Dispute.Commission Should Approve Application Without Hearing ML20210H8311999-08-0303 August 1999 Reply of Connecticut Light & Power Co,Western Massachusetts Electric Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp to Response of New England Power Co to Requests for Hearing.* Petitioners Request Hearing on Stated Issues.With Certificate of Svc ML20210J8501999-08-0303 August 1999 Order Approving Transfer of License & Conforming Amend.North Atlantic Energy Service Corp Authorized to Act as Agent for Joint Owners of Seabrook Unit 1 ML20211J1551999-07-30030 July 1999 Comment Opposing That NRC Allow Seabrook NPP to Operate Outside of Technical Specifications Due to Possible Y2K Problems ML20210E3011999-07-27027 July 1999 Response of New England Power Co to Requests for Hearing. Intervenors Have Presented No Justification for Oral Hearing in This Proceeding.Commission Should Reject Intervenors Request for Oral Hearing & Approve Application ML20209H9101999-07-20020 July 1999 Motion of Connecticut Light & Power Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Hearing.* with Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20195H1911999-06-15015 June 1999 Application of Montaup Electric Co & New England Power Co for Transfer of Licenses & Ownership Interests.Requests That Commission Consent to Two Indirect Transfers of Control & Direct Transfer ML20206A1611999-04-26026 April 1999 Memorandum & Order.* Informs That Montaup,Little Bay Power Corp & Nepco Settled Differences Re Transfer of Ownership of Seabrook Unit 1.Intervention Petition Withdrawn & Proceeding Terminated.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990426 ML20205M7621999-04-15015 April 1999 Notice of Withdrawal of Intervention of New England Power Co.* New England Power Co Requests That Intervention in Proceeding Be Withdrawn & Hearing & Related Procedures Be Terminated.With Certificate of Svc CLI-99-06, Order.* Joint Request for ten-day Extension of Schedule Set Forth in CLI-99-06 in Order to Facilitate Parties Settlement Efforts Granted,With Exception of Date of Hearing. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 9904071999-04-0707 April 1999 Order.* Joint Request for ten-day Extension of Schedule Set Forth in CLI-99-06 in Order to Facilitate Parties Settlement Efforts Granted,With Exception of Date of Hearing. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 990407 ML20205G0921999-04-0505 April 1999 Joint Motion of All Active Participants for 10 Day Extension to Permit Continuation of Settlement Discussion.* Participants Request That Procedural Schedule Be Extended by 10 Days.With Certificate of Svc ML20205G3091999-03-31031 March 1999 Petition That Individuals Responsible for Discrimination Against Contract Electrician at Plant as Noted in OI Rept 1-98-005 Be Banned by NRC from Participation in Licensed Activities for at Least 5 Yrs ML20204E6401999-03-24024 March 1999 Protective Order.* Issues Protective Order to Govern Use of All Proprietary Data Contained in License Transfer Application or in Participants Written Submission & Oral Testimony.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990324 ML20204G7671999-03-23023 March 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50.54(a) Re Direct Final Rule,Changes to QA Programs ML20207K1941999-03-12012 March 1999 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Participation in Proceeding.* Naesco Wished to Remain on Svc List for All Filings.Option to Submit post-hearing Amicus Curiae Brief Will Be Retained by Naesco.With Certificate of Svc ML20207H4921999-02-12012 February 1999 Comment on Draft Contingency Plan for Year 2000 Issue in Nuclear Industry.Util Agrees to Approach Proposed by NEI ML20203F9471999-02-0909 February 1999 License Transfer Application Requesting NRC Consent to Indirect Transfer of Control of Interest in Operating License NPF-86 ML20199F7641999-01-21021 January 1999 Answer of Montaup Electric Co to Motion of Ui for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Requests Motion Be Denied on Basis of Late Filing.With Certificate of Svc ML20199H0451999-01-21021 January 1999 Answer of Little Bay Power Corp to Motion of Ui for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Requests That Ui Petition to Intervene & for Hearing Be Denied for Reasons Stated.With Certificate of Svc ML20199D2461999-01-19019 January 1999 Supplemental Affidavit of Js Robinson.* Affidavit of Js Robinson Providing Info Re Financial Results of Baycorp Holding Ltd & Baycorp Subsidiary,Great Bay Power Corp. with Certificate of Svc ML20199D2311999-01-19019 January 1999 Response of New England Power Co to Answers of Montaup Electric Co & Little Bay Power Corp.* Nep Requests That Nep Be Afforded Opportunity to File Appropriate Rule Challenge with Commission Pursuant to 10CFR2.1329 ML20206R1041999-01-13013 January 1999 Answer of Little Bay Power Corp to Motion of New England Power Co for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* with Certificate of Svc ML20206Q8451999-01-12012 January 1999 Written Comments of Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co.* Requests That Commission Consider Potential Financial Risk to Other Joint Owners Associated with License Transfer.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990114 ML20199A4741999-01-12012 January 1999 Answer of Montaup Electric Co to Motion of Nepco for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* Nepco 990104 Motion Should Be Denied for Reasons Stated.With Certificate of Svc ML20206Q0151999-01-12012 January 1999 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Answer to Petition to Intervene of New England Power Co.* If Commission Deems It Appropriate to Explore Issues Further in Subpart M Hearing Context,Naesco Will Participate.With Certificate of Svc ML20199A4331999-01-11011 January 1999 Motion of United Illuminating Co for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Company Requests That Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time Be Granted.With Certificate of Svc ML20198P7181998-12-31031 December 1998 Motion of Nepco for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* Moves to Intervene in Transfer of Montaup Seabrook Ownership Interest & Petitions for Summary Relief or for Hearing ML20198P7551998-12-30030 December 1998 Affidavit of J Robinson.* Affidavit of J Robinson Describing Events to Date in New England Re Premature Retirement of Npps,Current Plans to Construct New Generation in Region & Impact on Seabrook Unit 1 Operation.With Certificate of Svc ML20195K4061998-11-24024 November 1998 Memorandum & Order.* North Atlantic Energy Services Corp Granted Motion to Withdraw Proposed Amends & Dismiss Related Adjudicatory Proceedings as Moot.Board Decision LBP-98-23 Vacated.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981124 ML20155J1071998-11-0909 November 1998 NRC Staff Answer to North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Motion for Leave to File Reply.* Staff Does Not Object to North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20155D0041998-10-30030 October 1998 Motion for Leave to File Reply.* Licensee Requests Leave to Reply to Petitioner 981026 Response to Licensee 981015 Motion to Terminate Proceedings.Reply Necessary to Assure That Commission Is Fully Aware of Licensee Position ML20155D0121998-10-30030 October 1998 Reply to Petitioner Response to Motion to Terminate Proceedings.* Licensee Views Segmentation Issue as Moot & Requests Termination of Subj Proceedings.With Certificate of Svc ML20155B1641998-10-26026 October 1998 Response to Motion by Naesco to Withdraw Applications & to Terminate Proceedings.* If Commission Undertakes to Promptly Proceed on Issue on Generic Basis,Sapl & Necnp Will Have No Objection to Naesco Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20154K8751998-10-15015 October 1998 Motion to Withdraw Applications & to Terminate Proceedings.* NRC Does Not Intend to Oppose Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML17265A8071998-10-0606 October 1998 Comment on Integrated Review of Assessment Process for Commercial Npps.Util Endorses Comments Being Provided by NEI on Behalf of Nuclear Industry ML20154C8171998-10-0606 October 1998 Notice of Appointment of Adjudicatory Employee.* Notice Given That W Reckley Appointed as Commission Adjudicatory Employee to Advise Commission on Issues Related to Review of LBP-98-23.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981006 CLI-98-18, Order.* Grants Joint Motion Filed by Naesco,Sapl & Necnp for Two Week Deferral of Briefing Schedule Set by Commission in CLI-98-18.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 9810061998-10-0505 October 1998 Order.* Grants Joint Motion Filed by Naesco,Sapl & Necnp for Two Week Deferral of Briefing Schedule Set by Commission in CLI-98-18.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981006 ML20153H4471998-10-0101 October 1998 Joint Motion of Schedule Deferral.* Naesco,Sapl & Necnp Jointly Request Temporary Deferral of Briefing Schedule as Established by Commission Order of 980917 (CLI-98-18). with Certificate of Svc ML20154F9891998-09-29029 September 1998 License Transfer Application Requesting Consent for Transfer of Montaup Electric Co Interest in Operating License NPF-86 for Seabrook Station,Unit 1,to Little Bay Power Corp ML20154D7381998-09-21021 September 1998 Affidavit of FW Getman Requesting Exhibit 1 to License Transfer Application Be Withheld from Public Disclosure,Per 10CFR2.790 ML20153C7791998-09-18018 September 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Util Endorses NRC Staff Focus on Operability & Funtionality of Equipment & NEI Comments ML20151Z5611998-09-18018 September 1998 Order.* Pursuant to Commission Order CLI-98-18 Re Seabrook Unit 1 Proceeding,Schedule Described in Board 980904 Memorandum & Order Hereby Revoked Pending Further Action. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 980918 ML20151Y0331998-09-17017 September 1998 Order.* All Parties,Including Util,May File Brief No Later than 981007.Brief Shall Not Exceed 30 Pages.Commission May Schedule Oral Argument to Discuss Issues,After Receiving Responses.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 980917 ML20153E8771998-09-16016 September 1998 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Recommends That NRC Reverse Decision to Revise Emergency Planning Regulation as Listed 1999-09-02
[Table view] |
Text
- .-
Yy l.
Dated: June 17, 1988 UNITED STATES OF hMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket Mos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-4 4 3 -OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-4 4 4 -O L
) Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues
)
)
The Town of Newbury hereby submits ita reply to the responses of the applicant and NRC staff to the contentions previously filed by the Town of Newbury.
- 1. Reply to responses to' contention 1:
a) Reply to applicants' response: The Town of Newbury's first contention, which deals with the l inadequacy of evacuation routes, traffic control, points, inadequacy of bus routes, and similar issues, was written with a great deal of specificity.
I j Applicant complains, however, that the contention is too broad (see Applicants' responses, pp. 203 -
204). The contention and its bases plainly provide the reasonable specificity required--the parties are more umaxacun. than sufficiently on notice so that they will know what itiLL,THitTOH 8 MrxxA33
" *" ="' they have to defend against or oppose.
n.umt.mmw rn e 1
- m. mn m . ,
8806300178 800622 PDR ADOCKOSOOggj3,- ,
0
. s' '
b) Reply to staff response: The staff's similar complaint, i.e., that the contention is overbroad, should likewise be rejected.
c) The applicant and the NRC staff both assert that issues dealing with human behavlor should not be admitted as those issues were fully litigated in the New Hampshire proceeding. That assertion should be rejected for the following reasons:
- 1) The issues of human behavior were not fully litigated;
- 2) The Town of Newbury did not participate in that litigation; and
- 3) No decision has been rendered as a result of the New Hampshire hearings.
- 2. Reply to responses to contention 2:
No reply is necessary as neither the applicants nor the staff oppose admission of this contention for litigation.
- 3. Reply to responses to contention 3 :
No reply is necessary as neither the applicants nor the staff oppose admission of this contention to l
l litigation.
l 4. Reply to responses to contention 4 :
a) Reply to applicants' response:
The regulatory basis undergirding Contention 4 is l um a us.u nx. set forth in the contention. That regulation requires 1
1 HILL 4HILTO4 6 MCG>lAE
, y , n n,,, , that a plan include "projected traffic capacities of a m m r. m u m nie,m 2
l m ..i n .c . i
t evacuation routes under emergency conditions." The Town of Newbury contends that such routes should be delineated. Applicants' further response to the effect that the capacity of roadway issue was fully litigated in the New Hampshire proceeding has no merit for the reason that such capacities were not fully litigated, Newbury did not participate in that proceeding, and no decision has been rendered regarding those proceedings.
b) Reply to staff's response: The staff's objection that the contention is vague ar.d lacks a basis should be rejected as meritless.
The staff plainly knows what issues in this regard the Town of Newbury wishes to litigate. The response of the staff that the contention does not articulate any regulatory basis is just plain wrong.
- 5. Reply to responses to contention 5:
Contention 5 deals with potential impediments to evacuation routes caused by snow, flooding or other potential impediments. The Town of Newbury asserts in its contention that the plan fails to adequately identify how such impediments will be corrected or addressed.
a) Reply to applicants' response: The applicant asserts that the. plowing of snow is a governmental function. While this is true, the plan fails to address whether that governmental function can be l
uooua uux, mtt.mttm mun fulfilled in a timely and meaningful way under a mrunm
- m. mar ==== m a 3
4 emergency conditions. The Town of Newbury contends that it will not be capable of maintaining its roadways in a. reasonable state of passability under such emergency conditions.
In addition, while the plan asserts that the plan's personnel can fully implement it, the requirement of maintaining the roads in a passable state, or dealing with the impassability of same, is plainly being left to the municipalities within the emergency planning zone.
b) Reply to staff's response: The staff's objection should be rejected for the reasons set forth in the reply to applicants' response to contention 5.
- 6. Reply to responses to contention 6:
No reply is necessary as neither the applicants nor the staff oppose the admission of this contention.
- 7. Reply to responses to contention 7:
Contention 7 addresses the lack of an adequate means of notifying the population of Newbury in the event of an emergency.
Reply to applicants' response: NUREG-0 6 54 ,
a)
Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.J.10.c requires plans to include the means for notifying all segments of the transient and resident population. This plan's failure to do so should be admitted for litigation in this proceeding.
y Applicants' claim that this issue is within the mammm mu jurisdiction of the Onsite Board should be rejected for to ff at15Diff MtnetM*T.M&SWJa?iTT1h*W Yli tet ?) t*J f M
that reason and for the reasons that the Town of Newbury has not participated in that proceeding and no decision has been. rendered as a result of that 4
proceeding.
b) Reply to staff's response: For the reasons set forth in the reply to applicants' response to con'tention 6, the staff's response should be rejected.
- 8. Reply to responses to contention 8:
This contention deals with the fact that the Newbury evacuation bus transfer point is not permitted under applicable zoning laws.
a) Reply to applicants' response: The applicants assert that this contention should be rejected as the Town of Newbury would never enforce its zoning laws in the event of an emergency.- Applicants' apparent belief that the appropriate officials of the Town of Newbury will ignore illegal activity can provide no basis for the rejection of this contention.
b) Reply to staff's response: For the reasons set forth above, the staff's objection to the admission of this contention should be likewise rejected.
- 9. Reply to responses to contention 9:
a) Reply to applicants' response: The applicants' claim that the contention should be rejected as being without sufficient bases has no merit. The bases set forth unquestionably puts the t w ot m c w r.
mtt. suum ucun applicant on notice of what issues it must defend or toifATitTHff net fa tim
- f, M4MAtMMiit ti" 5 TTL (617) #19M)
L
oppose.- In addition, the applicants' claim that the bases raise in part generic human behavior issues which have already been litigated should be rejected'for the reasons set forth above, b) Reply to staff's response: The reply of the NRC staff should be rejected for the reasons set forth in the reply to the applicants' response.
- 10. ly to responses to contention 10:
a) Reply to applicants' response: The applicants complain that the contention should be rejected as it does not specifically identify the operating day care centers in Newbury. The complaint is bewildering. In its response to contention 1, in which the inadequacy of the proposed bus routes was addressed with specificity, the applicants complained that the contention and bases were overbroad. Here, they demand specificity. Plainly, the applicants are placed on adequate notice of what issues the Town of Newbury wishes to raise regarding day care centers and nursery schools, b) Reply to staff's response: No reply is necessary as the staff does not oppose the admission of this contention.
- 11. Reply to responses to contention 11:
a) Reply to applicants' response: The uoxus.aut applicants assert that the contention erroneously HILL 4HILTON da MOOLOE r.um nun assumes that the evacuation plan relies upon Town of m.n.mmmamm m
___ 6 i m i.in w .m
Newbury personnel to implement it. As noted with regard to snow removal, for example, applicants indeed depend.upon Newbury personnel. That the Town of Newbury may be able to maintain its roads in a state of passability during normal circumstances cannot lead to the conclusion that it has the ability to do so during an emergency evacuation of' thousands of people during adverse weather conditions.
The applicants also object to the point that Newbury officials will not implement or follow the plan. That simply is a statement of fact. Newbury officials, after exhaustive work and, indeed, cooperation with the applicants, concluded that it makes no sense to prepare any plan as there simply is none which can be conceived which will adequately protect the public. Thus, the presumption that Newbury will follow or generally implement the plan, one which is rebuttable, will be rebutted during the litigation phase of this proceeding.
b) For the reasons set forth in the reply to applicants' response to contention 11, the staff response should be likewise rejected. The Town of Newbury does not contend, and has never contended, that it will refuse to act to safeguard the health and safety of the public. Indeed, the Town of Newbury Wmta m fully intends to exert its best effort to protect its IUll slitLTON & MODUIRI inhabitants and transients within its borders. Those
.m,r. muow rn am 7
TR W M u14MB
officials simply recognize that any response to an emergency will of necoseity be ad hoc.
- 12. Reply to response to contention 12:
a) The applicants' position has no merit. As noted above, the plan inc ee l contemplates the need for municipal linplementation of some of its portions, such as snow plowing. The plan does not adequately address how its portions which regt :.re municipal implementation will be dealt with or how the town officials and personnel who must become involved will be notified and assist in its implementation.
b) Reply to staff's response: For the reasons set forth above, the staff's response should be likewise rejected.
i Respectfully submitted, R. Scott Hill-Whilton 0 /( / '/f/ M Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton & McGuire 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 (617) 462-9393 4
LA(X)Ul!$. C1AR.K.
HnLuuttTCN in MCIrtRE 7e siaT1 STini l M S RS1M ST hLASW HL*A f'11 M990 i __
8 TTL (61F) ta; eMI
I, R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Counsel for the Town of Newbury in the above-entitled action, hereby certify that I have caused copies of the enclosed documents.to be served upon the persons at the addresses listed below, by first class, postage prepaid, mail and by Federal ExpXess, postage prepaid, mail to those names which have teen marked with an asterisk.
- Admin. Judge Ivan W. Smith
- Judge Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- 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. Stephen B. Merrill, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss Attorney General Suite 430 Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20009 Concord, NH 03301 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Office of General Counsel NRC 116 Lowell Street 15th Floor, 1 White Flint North P.O. Box 516 Rockville, MD 20852 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esq. Paul McEachern, Esq.
Asst. Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Office of the Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Augusta, ME 04333 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Sandra Guvutis The Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey Chairman United States Senate Board of Selectmen Wachington, D.C. 20510 j Kensington, NH 03827 Mr. Thomas Powers H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
l Town Manager Office of General Counsel l Town of Exeter Federal Emergency Management Agency Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, D.C. 20472 (1)
i .
Gary Holmes, Esq. Stephen Jonas, Esq.
Holmes & Ells Ass'.stant Attorney General 4 7 Winnacunnet Rood Off.ce of the Attorney General
.Hampton, NH 03841 Boston, MA 02108 Mr. Calvin A. Canney Cbt-les P. Grahnm, Esq.
City Manager Murphy and Graham City Hall 33 Low Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Newburyport, MA 01350 Barbara Saint Andre, Esq. Mr. William Lord Kopelman & Paige Selectman 77 Franklin Street Board of Selectmen Boston, MA 02110 Amesbury, MA 01913 Btentwood Board of Selectmen Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
RPO Dalton Road Hampe & McNicholas B r e se t . c o d , NH 03833 3 5 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Ed Thomas Judith Mizner, Esq.
FEMA Region I 79 State Street 44 2 McCormick P.O. Building Newburypor t , MA 21950 Boston, MA 02109 Mr. Robert Carrig, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town Office North Hampton, NH 03862 Signed under seal this /7 day of June, 1988.
f ("
! b _
_R. Scott Hill--Whilton (2)
$