|
---|
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
- - -
~
,gb .
DOCKETED Filed: February 21,195gNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ggggy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gFFICE OCMEii .. if-!I V before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 50-444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF HAMPTON TO RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NOVEMBER, 1985 INTRODUCTION On January 17, 1986 this Board issued a Memorandum and Order which established a deadline of February 24, 1986 for filing contentions against the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP), and against RERP for local governments filed with the State plan. The following Contentions are submitted on behalf of the Town of Hampton in opposition to the Town of Hampton RERP that was prepared and submitted by the State to FEMA.
Based on the Contentions set forth herein, the Hampton RERP violates FEMA regulations and State law. The Town of Hampton RERP further fails to provide reasonable assurance that the plan is adequate or can be implemented in the event of radiological emer-gency. 10 CRF, Section 50.47.
CONTENTION I The State of New Hampshire violated FEMA regulations by denying the Town of Hampton the opportunity to prepare its own Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP), by failing to engage in integrated emergency planning with affected local units of government, and by failing to address substantial safety concerns raised by town officials on the inadequacy of the Hampton RERP prepared by the State. NUREG - 0654/PEMA - REP - 1, Rev. 1, Dqu2 19 - 24 (hereinafter NUREG).
86022302138gg22gq ADOCK O PDR PDR G
D503
i
}
O i . BASIS: While ignoring substantial emergency planning
. concerns raised by Hampton officials, the State of New Hampshire
- prepared and submitted to FEMA a local. Radiological' Emergency i Response Plan (RERP) for the. Town of Hampton. The State thereby i violated FEMA regulations by infringing upon the jurisdiction of
! the Town of Hampton to promulgate =its own RERP and by denying l Hampton officials any meaningful input into the Town emergency plan. 'NUREG, cas. 19 - 24; see also 44 CFR, Section 350.5 incor-l Doratina NUREG into FEMA reaulations.
l NUREG provides:
Contianous - Jurisdiction Government Emeroency Plannina i The conceot of Emeroency Plannina Zones (EPis)
, necessarily imolies mutually suonortive emer-cency plannina and orecaredness arranaements by several levels of covernment: federal, state and local covernments, including counties, townships and even villages. .
- .There are obvious permutations and combin-J ations of these situations but these are i examples of what is desirable in terms of cross-jurisdictional emergency planning. The imoortant ooint is that intearated emeroency i olannina will benefit all of the communities i within the Emergency Planning Zones. NUREG, oa. 19.
l By its terms, NUREG contemplates " multi-jurisdictional" i
planning, NUREG, ca. 20, which confers upon each governmental _ unit j final responsibility for promulgating'its own RERP.
$ The purpose of multi-jurisdictional emergency planning is j clear. Local officials are uniquely qualified to assess -
personnel, capabilities, road and traffic hazards,-and population i fluctuations which may significantly impact upon local emergency
- planning. Additionally
Local government plans and response mechanisms ,
i are particularly important for the ten mile
- EPZ. This is because relatively shorter times i
may be available to implement immediate pro-
- tective measures associated with the plume i exposure pathway (sheltering, thyroid blocking, j evacuation), as opposed.to the generally longer
- l times available for implementing protective j measures for the ingestion exposure pathway.
4 State covernment resources may be too far away I from the involved local iurisdictions to be of f much immediate belo for a olume exoosure oroblem in the eariv hours of an accident.
NUREG, cas. 20 - 21.
- 2
Since the Town of Hampton is located within the 10 mile EPZ ,
the Town will necessarily be required to implement and direct immediate protective measures in the event of emergency, relying exclusively on local personnel, until such time as state assist-ance can be provided. NUREG, oo. 20.
Given the substantial responsibilities placed upon Hampton officials to respond to radiological emergency, and the FEMA mandate for multi-jurisdictional planning, the Town must be permitted to prepare its own RERP to address significant local safety concerns.
Even assuming that " multi-jurisdictional" planning does not prohibit the State from imposing an RERP on local governments, at a minimum the State was required to provide the Town with meanino-ful input into its own RERP. In preparing the Hampton RERP, however, the State failed to address or remedy any of the numerous safety concerns raised by Hampton officials to the State by letter of October 29, 1985, see attached, and unilaterally terminated discussions with the Town on these issues.
The State thereby violated the integrated emergency planning between State and local governments required by FEMA. The Town of Hampton must therefore be afforded a reasonable opportunity to prepare its own RERP. Until this opportunity is provided, the Town of Hampton declines to participate in any RERP exercise since the local emergency plan, at present, cannot be implemented in the event of radiological emergency. The Town will not give tacit approval to the Hampton RERP, in which it was denied meaningful input, by participating in the RERP exercise.
CONTENTION II The State of New Hampshire violated State law by denying the Town of Hampton the right to prepare and submit its own RERP to FEMA and by denying the Town any substantial input into the Hampton RERP prepared by the State. New Hamoshire Revised Statutes Annotated, 107 - B (1) .
BASIS: New Hampshire law provides:
Nuclear Emergency Response Plan I. The Civil Defense Agency shall, 1D cooperation with affected local units of covernment, initiate and carry out a 3
nuclear emergency response plan as speci-fled in the licensing regulations of each nuclear electrical generating plant.
NH RSA 107-B:1.
By its terms, 107-B:1 requires a cooperative effort between state and local governments in the. preparation of a local RERP. The State's unilateral termination of. emergency planning discussions with local officials, however, plainly indicates that the State has abandoned its statutory obligation to cooperate with Hampton officials in the preparation of a local RERP in favor of the State's rush to present a Hampton RERP to FEMA. By failing to cooperate with local officials to-resolve substantial safety concerns raised by the town, and by denying the town meaningful input into the Hampton RERP, there-fore, the State violated New Hampshire law.
CONTENTION III The Evacuation Time Study for the Hampton RERP is based upon faulty assumptions and inaccurate factual data and thereby fails to provide reasonable asurance that adequate protective actions can be implemented, or that adequate facilities and equipment will be provided, in the event of radiological emer-gency. 10 CFR, Section 50.47f8), (10).
BASIS: The following contentions regarding the Evacu-ation Time Study (EOS), Appendix E, of the Hampton RERP ~are based upon the ETS prepared by Costello, Lomasney and Ihe Napoli, Inc. in association with C.E. Maguire, Inc., March 1984 (hereinafter the Maguire Report). By motion filed with these Contentions, the' Town of'Hampton has requested additional time to respond to any updated or amended ETS that may subse-quently be submitted by the State to FEMA.
The Maguire Report is based on the following inaccurate, unreasonable, or misleading assumptions:
- 1. The Maguire Report purportedly bases its population estimates, among other factors, upon data received from local chambers of commerce. Ha.auire Reoort III -~9. Allegedly based upon this information, the Maguire Report-concludes that summer weekend transients within the Town of Hampton number 78,040, page III - 13, a resident population excluding non-auto owning individuals of 10,837, page.III - 6, and an employee population of 2,845. Page III - 24. The total of these populations estimated in the Maguire Report, however, represent less than 4
!9 i
l 40 percent of the peak summer population within the Town of I Hampton as calculated by the Hampton Chamber of Commerce. See j French Affidavit attached. The Maguire Report's reliance upon
!- unreasonably low population estimates thereby raises sub-
! stantial doubts on whether the personnel, equipment, and evacu- ;
{ ~ ation times contained in the report are reliable and whether an j evacuation is in fact feasible utilizing this unrealistic data.
I
- 2. The Maguire Report assumes that beach visitors will 4 be evacuated at a rate of 5.5 individuals per vehicle. Page 1 III - 11. Even under normal conditions, it is wholly unreason-
! able to assume that this person to vehicle ratio is accurate. 1 l It can reasonably be assumed that a call for evacuation would
- precipitate panic and that many family members could be widely_
{ separated at the. time the evacuation notice is given. Accord-j ingly, it must be assumed that either substantially more i
vehicles will be required to evacuate the tens of thousands of beach visitors at Hampton Beach or, if additional evacuation i vehicles are unavailable, these beach visitors would simply be
} without any reasonable means to evacuate the EPZ.
- 3. The Maguire Report provides for a " clear time esti-i mate" of 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> 50 minutes within which to evacuate the '
- entire 10 mile EPZ on a summer weekend under normal weather
{ conditions. Page V - 6. Alternatively, the report hypo-thesizes a clear time estimate of 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> 40 minutes to evacu-l ate the EPZ on a summer weekend during rain or fog. None of the clear time estimates, including those cited above, make any
- provision for " unexpected events" or " unusual conditions." i j Page V - 7. As an example of an " unexpected event," the report i refers to a " vehicle breakdown on a busy evacuation-route."
! Page V - 7. In time of mass evacuation, however, it can only
- be assumed that numerous vehicle breakdowns, stalled cars, gas
- shortages, and related events will prove to be the norm. The j Maguire evacuation time estimates must therefore be dismissed out of hand as wholly unrealistic and unreasonable.
j 4. The Maguire Report states that.such special events as i
Fourth of July will have no effect on the clear time necessary I to fully-evacuate the EPZ. Page V - 7. The Hampton Chamber of i . Commerce, however, has advised-that the Fourth of July may
, increase the Town of Hampton population by as many as'100,000
- individuals. See Affidavit attached. On its face, the Maguire Report's statement that an additional 100,000 individuals would '.
i have no measureable impact on clear time estimates.is wholly j unreasonable and it must be assumed that this. substantial A
- population increase would only further strain available local j resources to respond to an emergency.
. 5. The Maguire Report unreasonably calculates clear time j estimates on the assumption that " generally, traffic rules and' a
5
4 controls will be obeyed." Page II - 13. Even under normal summer driving conditions within the Town of Hampton, however, it is common for individuals to drive in the breakdown lane on Route 51, the major evacuation route leading from Hampton Beach and to otherwise routinely violate local traffic laws in an effort to negotiate normal peak traffic. In the event of mass evacuation, where panic by at least significant portions of the driving public must be anticipated, it can only be assumed that individuals evacuating in private vehicles would routinely'and repeatedly violate local traffic laws in an effort to flee the EPZ.
- 6. The Maguire Report unreasonably assumes that "all major roads will be open and capable of carrying their full capacity." Page II - 13. The report therefore unreasonably fails to account for accident, vehicle breakdown, gas shortage, or population panic.
- 7. The Maguire Report asuumes that certain major evacu-ation routes from the Town of Hampton, including Routes 51, lA, and most of Route 1, will be converted so that all travel lanes will lead away from the EPZ. Page IV - 11, 12. In the event this scenario is carriea out during an evacuation, however, the report fails to account for how State representatives, other emergency personnel, and evacuation vehicles located outside the EPZ will be able to enter the evacuation area to perform their responsibilities mandated by the Hampton RERP.
- 8. The Maguire Report recognizes that more than one-half (467) of the total of 979 buses needed to fully evacuate the EPZ are located more than 20 miles from Seabrook Station. Page IV - 25. For reasons set forth above, it is unreasonable to assume that these numerous evacuation vehicles could promptly, if ever, reach the evacuation site in view of the mass of private vehicles exiting from the EPZ in time of evacuation.
If, as recommended by the Maguire Report, travel lanes within the EPZ shall be converted to lead away from the evacuation area, this would only further impede support personnel and evacuation vehicles from reaching the EPZ.
CONTENTION IV The Hampton RERP fails to provide adequate emergency equipment to support an evacuation in the-event of radiological emergency. 10 CFR, Section 50.47(8). l BASIS: NUREG requires that each local RERP include written agreements with any organization serving an emergency response role within the emergency planning zone.
4 NUREG, Da. l l
1 6 ,
l l . . -. .. . - _ _ _ _ - - . - .-- - - . - . .
l I
t t
i i
j 32f3). The State has entered into three agreements with trans-portation companies to provide buses and. vans to the Town of i Hampton in the event of evacuation. -See attached. Under these I agreements, the Town of Hampton will be provided with only
] sixty-seven buses and two vans for an evacuation emergency. To
- evacuate the~ anticipated populations from' schools, other special facilities, and the non-auto owning residents of the
, town, however, the Hampton RERP requires a minimum of seventy-l four buses, twelve vans, and twenty-three EMS vehicles. RERP, c pas. II-28,29. On its face, therefore, and even using State projections, the evacuation transportation allocated to Hampton is plainly inadequate to meet town needs.
Additionally,.while the RERP makes provision for providing
- transportation to non-auto owning residents of Hampton, the l
' plan does nel provide for any transportation for vacationers, transients, or other non-resident individuals who may lack 1 their own transportation in'the event of emergency. 'In view of j the substantial number of tourists and transients coming to 4
Hampton during the summer months, it is only reasonable to assume that a-significant number of additional public trans- ,
portation vehicles will be required in the event of evacuation.
i
) Finally, although three agreements for bus and van trans-portation for Hampton have been executed, only'the Berry Trans-d portation Company of North Hampton is located in reasonable proximity to the Town of Hampton in the event evacuation is The Jan-Car Leasing Corporatibn'of Nashua, and the
~
a required.
1 Timberland Transportation Company of Salem, are located in the j south central portion of the state, thirty-five and forty miles respectively from the Town of Hampton. Since under the RERP, individuals evacuated from Hampton will be taken to Nashua, RERP, ca. II-17, the buses attempting to reach Hampton for-evacuation purposes will be required to maneuver through'evacu-ation traffic leaving Hampton. The likelihood of substantial delay, if not impossibility, of evacuation vehicles reaching
-! Hampton therefore raises significant questions on the feasi-
{ bility of the evacuation transportation provided to the town under its RERP.-. The Hampton RERP therefore fails to provide reasonable assurance of control of access to evacuated' areas and fails to consider the potential impediments <of evacuation traffic in promptly providing evacuation vehicles to the town.
NUREG, ca. 63, Protective ResDonse.
i
! CONTENTION V l'
The Hampton RERP fails to provide reasonable assurance that evacuation procedures appropriate to the locale can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency.. 10 CFR, 1 Section 50.47(10).
I 7 i
i i
l' BASIS: The present road system available to Hampton residents and transients is wholly inadequate to implement an evacuation in the event of radiological ~ emergency. As Town
- Selectmen advised the State by letter of October 29, 1985, 3
" Nuclear plant owners and regulators have known-for over 6 years that evacuation plans would be necessary; during that time no serious work has been done on Seacoast roads nor do
! there seem to be plans to improve these roads significantly."
To date, the Town has received no response whatsoever from the j State concerning these substantial emergency planning
- concerns.
l Many of the evacuation routes prescribed in the Hampton t RERP are narrow, two-lane roads which may easily be blocked by
] accident or vehicle breakdown. Hamoton RERD II - 31. Route
- 51, which is the main access road from Route 95 to Hampton i Beach, could reasonably be expected to become impassable either 4
by the tens of thousands of beachgoers attempting to evacuate
- the town or by emergency personnel attempting to reach traffic j control points. Route 51 also suffers from a serious bottle-j neck at the Tide Mill Bridge.
1 j The Hampton RERP further fails to give consideration to i the fact that Route 1, during the summer months, is frequently I comparable to a parking lot even under normal driving con-i ditions. The State, however, in preparing the Hampton RERP, i has elected the ignore these substantial safety concerns by Town officials.
]
I The Hampton RERP provides for evacuation to the reception j center located in Nashua, New Hampshire. .RERP II - 17. The
- . Hampton RERP therefore fails to account for the' fact that wind i
direction or other adverse weather conditions could direct the plume exposure pathway directly towards the evacuation center.
f It is only reasonable that the plan provide for alternative
! evacuation centers under'this scenario to insure adequate i
safety protection to the public. Under the Hampton RERP, no
! alternative reception centers or evacuation sites'are
! provided.
- CONTENTION VI i
l The Hampton RERP fails to demonstrate that local personnel- .
I are available to respond and to augment their. initial response on a continuous basis in the event of radiological emergency.
I 10 CFR, Section 50.47 (b) (1) .
l I
I 8 i
~ . _ . . , _ , _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . . _ . . . _ _ , , , _ , . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , . . _ _ . . , _ . , _ , _ - . _ _ . _ , , . . - _ _ _ _ .
..7_ ,
1 i
D-t j
(
BASIS:
(A) Population estimates. In establishing adequate levels of local personnel to respond in the event of a radio-logical emergency, the Hampton RERP relies upon a_" peak season-able population" of 110,000 for the Town of Hampton. This l population estimate is purportedly "the maximum population
! which may be expected in the Hampton area at any time during
, the peak summer months," Hamnton RERP, ca. I-ll, and was "
I computed utilizing second hand information prepared by non-i local sources. The Hampton RERP thereby violates FEMA reg-
- ulations since " estimates of transient population shall be
) developed using lpcal data such as " peak tourist volumes." t
- NUREG, Anoendix 4 - 3.
i By letter of October 29, 1985, the Town of Hampton I specifically advised the State that the Hampton RERP peak
! population estimate of 110,000 was substantially below traffic-
! counts and local business figures. As set forth on the f attached Affidavit of Glen French, President of the Town of j Hampton Chamber of Commerce, the local Chamber of Commerce i routinely relies upon population estimates of between 150,000 l l to 200,000 people per day for the Town of~Hampton during the >
- suramer season. As many as 250,000 people can be expected
{ within the town on each day over the Fourth of July weekend.
The State therefore relies upon a peak population estimate
! less than one-half of actual figures, as determined by local j officials uniquely qualified to make these computations based 1
upon parking, both legal and illegal, business receipts, and
{ seasonal shifts in the demand for municipal services. At a j minimum, NUREG, Appendix 4 - 3 requires the State to fully 4
explore with local officials the basis-for the disparity in
- State and local population figures. The State, however, termin-ated all discussion on this issue.
i Necessarily, the State's reliance upon unreasonably low population estimates raises substantial questions on the ade-quacy of local personnel allocated to the Town under the RERP to respond to a radiological emergency.
(B) Police Departments. The Hampton RERP provides that a
- total of 80 police officers and personnel will be available to
, respond to a radiological emergency. Hamnton RERP, Apoendix C-i I
1 These figures are misleading and fail to account for the fact that 50 of the 80 police personnel are "special officers" i hired by the department on a part time or seasonal basis.
l These special officers' therefore lack'the experience, skill,
- and training necessary to promptly implement adequate protect-ive responses in the event of radiological emergency.
[
9 I _ _ _ -_- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ ._ _ _ _ _ ,_
c P
(C) Department of Public Works. The Hampton RERP provides that a total of 60 personnel are available from the Hampton Public Works Department to implement protective responses in the event of radiological emergency. Hamoton RERP, Appendix C-3. These figures are misleading. Of the 60 department personnel, 24 of these individuals constitute
" temporary" employees, who, by reason of inadequate tra'.ning and experience, cannot reasonably be expected to promptly and appropriately implement necessary evacuation procedures.
Similarly, an additional 19 members of the Public Works Depart-ment are routinely employed in waste water treatment and sewer maintenance. Accordingly, these individuals cannot reasonably be expected to implement the traffic control, evacuation trans-portation, or maintenance of evacuation routes which represent the primary responsibilities of the Hampton Public Works Department in the event of evacuation. Hampton RERP, IV 1E.
The remaining department personnel consist of the director and 16 highway personnel upon which would fall primary respons-ibility for initiating and implementing protective responses in the early stages of a radiological emergency. See NUREG, oo.
- 20. These duties include:
- 1. Responsibility for evacuation of all individuals without automobiles, families without the use of their vehicle, and people with special transportation needs. NUREG, Accendix IV - 27(7). Plainly the limited staff of 17 in the Public Works Department who are familiar with highway and trans-portation problems are wholly inadequate to insure the trans-portation of the thousands of individuals who may be located on the beach at the time evacuation is implemented, even assuming this was the sole function to be performed by the department in the event of radiological emergency. The additional and sub-stantial duties of the department to canvas the town and direct evacuation of special needs individuals, families, vacationers, and other non-auto owning individuals, merely underscores the gross inadequacy of local public works personnel to meet their responsibilities under the RERP. 10 CFR, Section 50.47(b)(1).
- 2. Under the Hampton RERP, the Public Works Department is responsible for ensuring that "all evacuation routes are serviceable throughout the course of an evacuation." Hamoton RERP II - 31. Clearly the available Public Works Department personnel are inadequate even to carry out this single function mandated by the Hampton RERP.
More significantly, the Hampton RERP unreasonably assumes that maintaining accessibility of evacuation routes will "entall normal adverse weather route maintenance only." RERP, oo. II - 31. The RERP therefore unreasonably fails to account 10
for accidents, breakdowns, driver disobedience, panic, and gas shortages which must be reasonably anticipated in the event of mass evacuation. The Hampton RERP therefore fails to provide reasonable assurance that the town has adequate staff to carry out its evacuation responsibilities, NUREG, ca. 31, Assianment of Responsibility, and the RERP relies upon an unreasonable and unrealistic model in determining staff capability to implement the plan. NUREG, oc. 61. Protective Response.
(D) Selectmen. The Board of Selectmen for the Town of Hampton are provided ultimate authority to direct radiological emergency operations for the Town. Hampton RERP I - 16. The RERP ignores the fact, however, that Selectmen are only part-time officials who may have full-time jobs even outside the Town of Hampton. It is reasonable to assume that at least certain members of the Board of Selectmen would be unavailable to promptly respond, implement, and direct an appropriate protective response. Additionally the Hampton Selectmen are annually elected which may thereby seriously compromise effective RERP education and training for newly elected officials.
CONTENTION VII Hampton RERP exercises are inadequate to permit a reason-able evaluation ~of major portions of the Town of Hampton's emergency response capabilities. 10 CFR, Section 50.47(14).
BASIS: Given the substantial deficiencies, as set forth above, in the Hampton RERP, and the State's failure to address the town's specific concerns over RERP inadequacies, the Town of Hampton officials have advised the State that the town will not participate in the RERP exercise currently scheduled for February 26, 1986. The Town of Hampton therefore declines to give tacit approval to a local plan in which they were denied meaningful participation and input.
Prior to approval of state or local RERP, PEMA regulations require that state and local government emergency personnel participate in a RERP exercise "in sufficient numbers to verify the capability to respond to the actions reauired by the accident scenario." 44 CFR, Section 350.2Mir 350.9. Since no local Hampton officials will be participating in scheduled exercise, the State exercise will not provide any reasonable assurance that the plan in fact can be implemented in time of emergency and, absent local participation, FEMA should decline to approve the RERP for the Town of Hampton.
11
e Even assuming that, for purposes of the exercise, the State utilizes State personnel to carry out local functions established by the RERP, in the event of actual emergency those State officials will likely be far removed from the site of the accident and unable to immediately implement reasonable protective measures. As presently designed, therefore, the RERP exercise cannot show personnel capability for implementing the RERP in time of crisis.
CONTENTION VIII The Hampton RERP fails to provide for adequate emergency facilities to support an emergency response. 10 CFR, Section 50.47(8).
BASIS: In preparing the Hampton RERP, the State relies upon a " shelter-in-place" concept as a " valuable protective action" (in) that it can be implemented quickly, usually in a matter of minutes." RERP, cas. II-25, 26. The Hampton RERP acknowledges, however, that " sheltering may agt be considered as a protective action on Hampton Beach during the summer."
RERP, oc. II-RS. The plan thereby fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate and immediate protection measures will be available to the thousands of beachgoers in the event of emergency. Under its RERP, therefore, the Town is required to rely upon evacuation as the sole means of avoiding radiological exposure to large segmento of the population. Since a " major portion" of radioactive material may be released within one hour of the initiating event, NUREG, oc. 17, and present estimates indicate evacuation could take up to seven and one-half hours, RERP, II-32, RERP measures for evacuation are a wholly inadequate protective response to meet an emergency.
SHAINES & McEACHERN
-h By Matthew T. Brock Attorney for the Town of Hampton, NH 12
r 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE NkC I, Matthew T. Brock, one of the attorneys for the Aglgants herein, hereby certify that on the 21st of February,198W Ittade N1 :36 service of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to: LFF CE F OXMG. ., .
Administrative Judge Helen Hoyt Administrtive Judge Sheldon.. -
Chairperson J. Wolfe, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing o Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Thomas J. Dignan, J r. ,
Assistant Attorney General Esquire, R.K. Gad, III, Department of Attorney General Esquire, Ropes & Gray State House Station 6 225 Franklin Street Augusta, ME 04333 Boston, MA 02110 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Robert G. Perlis, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Executive Legal Department of the Attorney Director General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Commission Boston, MA 02108 Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Diana P. Randall Robert A. Backus, Esq.
70 Collins Street 116 Lowell Street Seabrook, NH 03874 P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 Diane Curran, Esquire Anne Verge, Chairperson Harmon & Weiss Board of Selectmen 1725 I Street, N.W. Town Hall Suite 506 South Hampton, NH 03827 Washington, DC 20006
i Ms. Roberta C. Pevear Mr. Patrick J. McKeon The Town of Hampton Falls Selectmen's Office Drinkwater Road 10 Central Road Hampton Falls, NH Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney The Town of Kensington City Manager RFD 1 City Hall East Kingston, NH 03827 125 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S. Senate Chairman of the Board of Washington, DC 20510 Selectmen (Attn: Tom Burack) Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Richard E. Sullivan U.S. Senate Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas Powers Town Manager's Office Town Manager Town Hall Town of Exeter Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn Brentwood Board of Selectmen Assistant General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Office of General Counsel Brentwood, llH 03833 Federal Emergency Management Agency Gary W. Holmes, Esquire 500 C Street, S.W. Holmes & Ella Washington, DC 20472 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire Hampe & McNicholas Attorney General 35 Pleasant Street Office of the Attorney Concord, NH 03301 General 25 Capitol Street George Dana Bisbee Concord, NH 03301-6397 Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 5 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301-6397 1
\%xT.3d Matthew T. Brock ,
i