ML20205R476
| ML20205R476 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1988 |
| From: | Jonas S MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7439 OL, NUDOCS 8811100042 | |
| Download: ML20205R476 (35) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .
4yest
.s ba PXnETED UsNEc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ret': a g ,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ih [ '
t Before the Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) November 1, 1988
)
MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS On October 20, 1988, the Applicants filed their Motion for Sanctions Against Massachusetts Attorney General ("Mass AG")
for Failure to Comply with the Board's protective Order
("Motion"). The Applicants hope to eliminate important issues from the proceedings based on what they characterize as "repeated and apparent disregard of Board Orders." Motion at 11. In fact, the record does not support the Applicants' p claims and reduces the Motion to an attempt to avoid litigation of important safe'.y issues.
l l
l 89111000420$00443 PDR ADOCK O PDR
/pfh
I In support of their Motion, the Applicants point to one incident at a public meeting called by FEMA and two minor releases of protected information during discovery of the SpMC and the siten issue (before the on-site Board). The Mass AG's activities at the meeting neither violated the protective Order nor resulted in any release of protected information.
Moreover, the discovery incidents were inadvertent and quickly cured by the Mass AG and, as the Applicants acknowledge, cannot be shown to have caused any damage whatsoever. In short, the Motion should be denied.
ARGUMENT A. SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED FOR WHAT QCCURRED AT THE POST-EXERCISE PUBLIC MEETING.
Applicants claim that the conduct of one of the Mass AG's "authorized persons" (Mr. Fierce) at a FEMA-sponsored public meeting on Saturday, July 2, 1988, in portsmouth, New Hampshire constitutes the first act justifying sanctions.1# Applicants' 3
i 1/ Even if what happened at the FEMA public meeting was a violation of the protective Vrder, which it was not, the Applicants' characterization of the Mass AG's actions as "contumacious" is inflammatory and inaccurate. From the <
initial entry of the Board's temporary protective Order on February 17, 1988, until the FEMA public meeting on July 2 -- a l
. period of four and a half months -- the Mass AG complied with the Board's Order in every respect. Affidavits of non-disclosure were signed by each and every person required to
- do so; the protected information was stored securely; and those l who had access to it used the material only for appropriate ,
, purposes. To describe the reIy 1111t oossibig violation in !
l four and a half months as "contumacy" is inappropriate and should be disregarded by the Board.
- 2-
., ~
t Motion for Sanctions at 3-5. This claim is groundless. No public disclosure of any bus company names occurred at this meeting or in any of FEMA's public follow-up documents as a result of the Mass AG's questions, nor did the Mass AG intend that there be any public disclosure.A'
- 1. No disclosure occurred or was intended.
The Applicants have inaccurately portrayed what Mr.
Fierce said publicly at the July 2nd meeting. A copy of the entire portion at the transcript with all of Mr. Fierce's public comments is attached hereto as Attachment "A". The Applicants attached to their motion only the questions Mr.
Fierce submitted in writing prior to the meeting. The questions highlighted by the Applicants were not even mentioned at the public meeting. A reading of the transcript itself clearly reveals the following:
(a) At no time during the public portion of the meeting did Mr. Fierce ask for the names of bus companies, and no bus company names were disclosed.
(b) Mr. Fierce repeatedly indicated that he did not insist that FEMA immediately or publicly provide any of the information sought, but rather he would have been happy to receive the information directly from FEMA in writing at some reasonable time after the meeting. San Transcript at 146 ("Is 2/ Moreover, even if FEMA had publicly named bus companies, no violation of the order would have occurred because the order prohibits the Mass AG from disclosing protected information in its possession and not from agakina to obtain information about the bus companies from other sources.
-3 -
there any way that we can be provided with those times prior to your exercise report's completion?"), 150 ("I'm not asking for them (bus departure times) today. I'd be happy to get them next week or even the week thereafter if you could do that for me."), 151 ("I'm making the request now, and I don't ask for it (to be answered] today."), 152 ("And can I ask again, can this information (bus trip times and routes] be provided at some reasonable time in a week or two prior to your completion of your exercise report?"), 160 ("...but I have submitted a list of questions, and in fact, I have some more, and I would appreciate knowing whether you or someone from FEMA could respond to these questions in writing in some reasonable time in the near future.").
(c) Mr. Fierce's intent was plainly to gather information about the details of the exercise, not to trick FEMA into revealing protected information.
Given what actually transpired at the public meeting, it is unfair and inaccurate for Applicants to assert, as they do at page 4 of their Motion, that Mr. Fierce "demanded (a) public disclosure" of protected information. In fact, Mr. Fierce sought information only for the legitimate purpose of drafting exercise contentions. He repeatedly encouraged FEMA to provide him with the information in a non-public fashion, after the meeting. There was no ulterior motive, as the Applicants suggest. Neither the "spirit" nor the letter of the Board's
-4 -
protective Order was breached at the July 2nd meeting.A B. THE MINOR DISCLOSURE OF UNRELATED PROTECTED INFORMATION IN THE ON-SITE PROCEEDINGS WAS IMMEDIATELY CORRECTED AND CAUSED NO HARM.
On September 21, 1988, the Mass AG filed his Request to File Reply of Massachusetts Attorney General to "Applicants' Answers to Motion to Amend Basis Filed by Massachusetts Attorney General with Respect to Siren Contention." The attached deposition transcript was inadvertently not redacted and, therefore, briefly disclosed the name of a single private owner of a single siren acoustic location. Upon learning of the disclosure the Mass AG immediately telephoned all of the opposing parties, obtained all copies of the unredacted 3/ As the Applicants recognize, even had FEMA publicly identified bus companies at the meeting, the Mass AG would not have violated the protective Order. Applicants' Motion at 5.
With respect to "protected information," what the Order prohibits is set forth in ten separately numbered paragraphs under a heading labeled "Conditions of Access." Egg protective Order, 2-4. While the paragraphs cover a host of situations, the essential prohibition is that "protected information" shall not be disclosed, except to "authorized persons" on a "need to know basis". protective Order, Conditions of Access Nos. 1 and 2, p.2. As the Board noted in its March 23rd memorandum and order extending the interim protective order of February 17, "the protective order does not restrain the dissemination of identical information obtained through independent means."
Memorandum and Order, March 23, 1988, at 12.
Therefore, while information in the protected "documents" cannot be disclosed, information obtained elsewhere from other independent sources can be disclosed, even if it is "identical" to information in the protected "documents." A corollary to this limitation is that the Mass AG has the right to seek information from independent sources (so long as it does not release protected information to those sources). Mr. Fierce did no more than that here.
l transcript and sent redacted, substituted pages. The Applicants were apparently satisfied with the response.
Applicants' Answer to Request to File Reply of Massachusetts Attorney General to "Applicants' Answer to Motion to Amend Bases Filed by Massachusetts Attorney General with Respect to Siren Contention" at 2 n.3, dated October 3, 1988.A#
C. THE SECOND RELEASE OF INFORMATION WAS ALSO MINOR AND OUICKLY CORRECTEQ2 On October 7, 1988, the Mass AG filed his Supplemental Responses to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories. The document provided additional responses to an interrogatory of the Applicants asking, with respect to each SpMC contention, for all facts underlying each assertion in the contention.
With respect to JI 45 (MAG 47F, G, L), the Mass AG named four bus companies which will not participate in any emergency
. response and named an additional tour which the Applicants have not provided reasonable assurance will participate.E# Once again, immediately upon learning of the disclosure, the Mass AG 4/ The Applicants label tho event the "Mass AG's reckless approach of ' file what you feel like whenever you feel like it. . . . Motion at 6. The statement is irresponsible ar.d the lengths to which the Mass AG went to correct this mistake belies such a "reckless" approach.
1/ It is worthy of note that this disclosure of bus company names was in response to the Applicants' own discovery requests. Although obviously not required to do so, had the Applicants simply stated at the end of the relevant interrogatory that the question called for protected information, the attorney preparing the response could not have overlooked that fact.
Mass AG took all possible steps to retrieve the documents and substitute corrected pages. Mass AG Notice to Service List dated October 12, 1988; corrected page number seven to Massachusetts Attorney General's Supplemental '6..ponses to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories dated October 12, 1988; October 19, 1988 Letter from pamela Talbot (Mass AG) to Emile Julian (Chief, Public Documents Room).
D. THE APPLICANTS FALL FAR SHORT OF MAKING 6_ CASE FOR SANCT(UNS.
Given the exceedingly limited and completely corrected breach of the protective orders, no sanctions should be i
imposed. The extreme remedy sought by the Applicants --
l striking important contentions -- would unfairly penalize the Mass AG as well as improperly sweep aside significant safety l
issues without substantive resolution.
As the Commission has stated, "Boards should attempt to tailor sanctions to mitigate the harm caused by the failure of a party to fulfill its obligations and bring about improved future compliance." Statement of Policy _on Conduct of Licensina_Proceedinos, 13 NRC 452, 454 (1981). The propriety of particular sanctions is a function of the three factors articulated by the Commission, id., and set forth by the Applicants in their Motion. Egg Motion at 9-11. Their showing on each of the factors falls short of justifying any sanctions.
l
- 1. Relative Importance of the Obligation and Potential Harm to Other parties or Order 1v Conduct of the Proceedinas Since filing the SpMC in September 1987 with a substantial amount of information redacted, the Applicants have argued that the public disclosure of participants in and contractors with the NHY Offsite Response Organization would subject them to harassment and abuse by the public opposing the licensing of Seabrook. This Board's Protective Order was entered without any evidence of harassment or potential harossment of participants or contractors. Despite his opposition to the Order, the Mass AG has done everything possible to meet his obligations under the Order. Now, because of an inadvertent and minor violation of the Order and a similar one entered by the on-site Board, the Applicants argue that among the most severe of penalties should be exacted.
Once again, they cannot point to any harm resulting from the brief disclosure and rely only on their assertion that the Mass AG "cannot be heard to argue" no harm. Motion at 9. However, at some point, presumably well before the imposition of punitive sanctions, a demonstration of real effect must be made, particularly given the immediate corrective actions taken by the Mass AG, the Applicants must make some showing of harm rather than being permitted to bootstrap this issue into the summary elimination of contentions.
- 8 -
- 2. Pattern v. Isolated Incidents The Protective Order was initially entered on February 17, 1988. Memorundum and Order (Revising Schedule and Approving Protective Order), ASLBP No 82-471-02-OL. In almost nine months of vigorous litigation, the Applicants can point only to a single, minor violation of the Protective Order and an even more insignificant violation of a similar protective order entered by the on-site Board. Out of the hundreds of identities protected by the Orders, the names of eight bus companies, which will probably not participate in an emergency response in any event, and the name of the private owner of a single acoustic location have briefly strayed into public view. Although the Mass AG regrets any disclosures, even the most minor, the two at issue here are only unrelated, isolated incidents. In tact, two different assistant attorneys general
' working on different aspects of this licensing proceeding before two different boards were involved in these j incidents.E# There simply is no pattern of disclosures, as the Applicants so vigorously claim.
6/ The Applicants raised the on-site discovery incident l apparently to create the illusion of a pattern of behavior. !
That incident resulted in the release of information unrelated l to the bus company contentions which the Applicants hope to l eliminate by the Board's sanction.
9 -
- 3. Importance of the Safety or Environmental Issues Raised by the Party Again, the Applicants make no positive showing on this factor. Instead, they suggest that the Mass AG is prohibited from raising the importance of the issues and make the bald assertion that the underlying issue need not be litigated because sufficient members of buses sor.ohow will be available.
Of course, the unwillingness of bus Jompanies listed in the SpMC to actually respond to a radiological emergency is a serious safety matter. Buses are relied upon to evacuate transit-dependent populations, school children, hospitals, nursing homes and other special facilities. Unless those bus companies named in the SpMC can be relied upon in an actual emergency, these particularly vulnerable populations will be put at severe risk. The contentions were properly raised and admitted. Although the Applicants understandably prefer to have the factual disputes resolved in their favor without addressing the merits, that view is inconsistent with the purpose of this litigation. In short, the contentions raise vitally important safety issues which should not be dismissed on the basis of two isolated violations of protective orders.I' 2/ Commonwealth Edison. Cat (Byron Nuclear power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-678, 15 NRC 1460 (1982), cited by the Applicants, cuts against them. The Appeal Board reversed a Licensing Board decision dismissing an intervenor for completely failing to answer the Applicants' interrogatories.
The Appeal Board found that the appropriate sanction was only a short order requiring the answers to be filed. 15 NRC at 1421.
CONCLUSION l
l For all the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Sanctions should be denied.
l Respectfully submitted, l
- JAMES M. SHANNON l ATTORNCY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS l
By: t j
/N/ [-/ p Stephen A. Jfas Assistant Attorney General Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 l DATED: November 1, 1988
- 11 -
u.
.ow :
..acs 1-177 c . . . .t s 0 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REGION I
~
X IN THE MATTER OF: X X
SEABROOK PUBLIC MEETING X X
HEAD TABLE:
RICHARD DONOVAN, CHAIRMAN REGIONAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE, FEMA GEORGE GRAM, SEABROOK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS GEORGE THOMAS, VICE PRESIDENT NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE CRAIG CONKLIN, N.R.C. SENIOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS SPECIALIST, REGION I DAVE BROWN, DIRECTOR OF THE MAINE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY BILL DUNLAP, EMERGENCY PLANNER, SEABROOK DRILLS AND EXERCISES SCOTT McCANDLESS, NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT RICHARD STROME, NEW HAMPSHIRE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HELD AT: PORTSMOUTH HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03801 DATE: SATURDAY, JULY 2, 1988 2:00 P.M. - 5:30 P.M.
F 8 A R REPORTING SERVICE P9QFIlllONAL COUtf plPQttitt i
s OtPollflON6 - Artif aATIONS - COUtf HE AEINOS 18 P AL OtiVI. SMelwltuAf. Mall 01848 f tLIPHONt < 6t?) 7981774
('O j 1978488 *.e . c a es % . ..sese*,
L44 a 1 exercise report. '
4 0
2 MR. COGAN: The following
! t 3 .
questions are from Allan Fierce from '
t 4
the Massachusetts Attorney General's !
5 office. There are 14 on this list.
e i
~
6 I'll-go through them one at a time. ,
! 7 f
Will FEMA provide us with a copy of 8 (a) the FEMA free play messages and t
s 9 ; controller messages, and (b) the NHY 10 controller messages?
11 l THE CHAIRMAN: FEMA did not 12 have any free play exercise messages.
13 i FEMA did not have controllers during 14 this exercise except for the control 15 cell that represented the nonparticipating 16 jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of
]
17 Massachusetts.
l I Is ; MR. CONKLIN: As part of the ,
19 docketing process, after an exercise is 20 complete, the scenario is put in the
- 21 public document room and the local public n document room.
23 . THE CHAIRMAN: The scenario is ;
24 over 4,000 pages and eight volumes, and i l l
, I l !
i 8 A R REPORTING SERVICE l 7 t
l
145 I the answer to your question is that all l-l l 2 ; the questions, all the controller questions 1
3 injects will be put in the document room 4 for your inspection and review.
5 MR. COGAN: Question 2: At what 6 specific times were each of the schools in 7 Massachusetts asked by ORO to shelter?
g f What specific instructions were given about i
9 i sheltering to each school?
I go ; MR. FIERCE: Excuse me. Before l
11 i we get into the schools, could I just ask 12 when that document will be in the document 13 room?
14 MR. CONKLIN: As soon as we get 15 back, the document will be forwa-ded to l
16 cur document control section and I honestly I
i 17 l
have no knowledge of how long that takes.
tg ! I apologize.
gg THE CHAIRMAN: Could you repeat 20 the question, Phil?
21 MR. COGAN: At what specific times 22 were each of the schools in Massachusetts 23 asked by ORO to shelter and what specific 24 instructions were given about sheltering i
I l
B A R REPORflNG SERVICE
L46 l l
1 to each sencol?
l t
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gram, do you l
3 want me to respond to that or do you want l
4 to respond?
5 MR. GRAM: No, I don't believe f
! i 6
l that I have the detailed information to '
7 respond to that at this point.
8 , VOICE FROM BACK OF ROOM: Could i
9 you use the mike, please?
10 MR. GRAM : Yes. I said I don't i
I 11 believe I have the detailed information to 12 respond to that question at this point.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: We will have those 14 times in our exercise report, sir.
15 .
MR. FIERCE: Is there any way 16 that we can be provided with those times I
17 prior to your exercise report's completion?
I 18 , THE CHAIRMAN: I can give you the gg times of the EBS messages. The New Hampshire 20 Yankee organization has offered and the 21 schools have refused to accept total n alert radios. The schools in New Hampshire 23 have accepted these radios. Those radios 24 ;
would have been activated at the time, and I
t
- 8 A R REPORTING 3ERVICE i l
1
1
.L47 1 . the sirens would have c'een sounded, and the EBS would broadcast, and I can give I 2
3 you those times right now if you like, j 4 because in most cases, assuming they t
5 accepted the radios or if they had a ;
6 radio in their school, those are the 1 7 times that they would have been informed.
8 MR. FIERCE: Well, I'm not 9 asking for the EBS message times in this to i question. That's actually in another 11 question.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, you're 13 ignoring my comments, sir. If they had t4 such a radio, they would have heard the 15 recommendation to evacuate or shelter 16 at the time the EBS message was announced.
g7 MR. FIERCE: I'm fully aware of ,
05 that, but. you also indicated that each of i ll p, the schools received a call.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: That's correct. i 21 MR. FIERCE: And I'm asking what ;
j 22 time the call was received at each school ;
23 when this recommendation to shelter occurred?
24 THE CHAIRMAN: I said I do not have !
i 5 A R REPORTING SERVICE t
! 1
_ - . - . _ _ . ~ _ - - - - - , - - -
L48 I
those' times with me.
2 MR. COGAN: Question 3: During 3
the evacuation were any instructions given i
4 to alter evacuation routes for buses for 5
schools and/or the special populations in 6
order to avert radiation exposure to 7
students and special populations -- radiation 8
, exposure which students and special 9 populations would receive?
10
- THE CHAIRMAN
- The scenario 11 contained two traffic impediments for the 12 State of New Hampshire and two traffic 13 impediments for the New Hampshire Yankee 14 Off-site Response Organization. One of 15 the two impediments for each organization
, 16 called for the organization to reassemble l 17 and redeploy its resources and establish l
18 rerouting and announce those rerouting 19 instructions. They both aptly demonstrated J' O their ability to do so.
21 MR. FIERCE: Excuse me. I think 22 that may be the inswer to the question, but 23 just as a follow-up -- does that mean that 24 no rerouting of bus routes occurred in order 8 A R REPOfflNO SERVICE
~x.
74 149 I to avoid the plume?
I
. 2 l MR. GRAM: I'd like to respond l
-3 -
to that. The normal evacuation process
}
I 4 sets up predetermined evacuation routes 5 l which are the most expeditious evacuation i i f 6 routes out of tne six communities in I
-l I
Massachusetts, and other than a major l I
- i 8 road impediment that would bicek traffic
- 9 and completely cut off traffic flow, those
-t to normal routes will be followed at all times. !
11 MR. FIERCE: So the answer is no 12 rerouting of school buses occurred to avoid 13 traveling through the plume?
14 MR. GRAM: I believe that's true, 15 yes.
I ,
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Next cuestion? !
17 l MR. COGAN: At what exact times !
I 18 l did each of the buses involved in the 19 exercise actually arrive at a school or 20 a special facility and identify the 21 school or special facility each bus went 22 to? At what time did each of these buses 33 leave the school or special facility after 24 I
a simulated loading?
l I
! l t
8 A R REPORTING SERVICE
.)
150 1
THE CHAIRMAN: Ne don't log those 2 times. We log the time of the departure I
from their destination point to make a 3
4 complete trip because that's the time that's.
5 appropriately supported in the evacuation
)
1 6 estimate. j 7 MR. FIERCE: Well, then, can we 8 be provided-with the times that you do have 9
l logged, Mr. Donovan, for the school buses?
I 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I said, sir, that 11 those times will be available when we 12 i produce our exercise report.
13 MR. FIERCE: And you're refusing 14 to produce them prior to the exercise report?
15 i
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not have them 16 with me today, sir.
l 17 MR. FIERCE: I'm not asking for them r
18 today. I'd be happy to get them next week gg or even the week thereafter if you could do 20 that for me.
4 21 MR. STROME: Could I ask you a 22 : question as a counselor, Mr. Pierce? Haven't 23 ,
you been provided with an opportunity to get I
24 :
responses to this kind of question through l
1 i
1 8 A R REPORTING SERVICE I
r- .
til I discovery? There are other legal 2 authorities here.
3 MR. FIERCE: We have no 4 opportunity ---
i t
5 MR. STROME: Perhaps you could l l
confer with them and make that request 6 !
7 through the normal legal channels. r i
8 MR. FIERCE: Mr. Strome, you i 9 ,
very well know we have no opportunity for lo discovery at this point -- at this point.
11 MR. STROME: At least you could 12 make the request.
, 13 MR. FIERCE: I'm making the .
14 request now, and I don't ask for it today.
MR. STROME: Then I would suggest 15 16 then that you use the normal legal form to 17 accomplish that. I
! I r
18 VOICE FROM BACK OF ROOM: Why is !
19 Strome trying to run legal I
20 interference ---
(
21 THE CHAIRMAN: May we have the i
22 next question? l l
33 MR. COGAN: Next question: At f what time did each of these buses arrive 24 ' l i
I t I i l i
i j
, 8 A R RSPORTING SERVICE ;
i :
1
, . . . 4 s . 152 L'* I at the relocation centers and what route l' (
2 did each bus take?
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Same answer as 4 before.
5 : MR. FIERCE. And can I ask again, I
6 can this information be provided at some ,
7 reasonable time in a week or two prior to l 8 ,
your completion of your exercise report? -
9 THE CHAIRMAN:
I'll follow the !
10 normal process of my agency, sir. That's 11 all I can say.
l 12 MR. FIERCE: Which is to do what, l 13 sir?
14 , THE CHAIRMAN: The normal process
)
4 15 is for us to prepare a draft exercise report !
16 which is shared between us and the exercise !
I o
g7 participants. Following that, we then l
('
is publish a final exercise report, and at that i 19 time it's available to members of the public.
30 MR. COGAN: Next ouestion: How
^
L 21 long was it assumed that it would take to 22 process the schools and special populations ;
23 from each bus through the reception centers?
24 , THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know how to I
- I l
I i
5 A R RSPORflNG SERVICE
o.
. 153 I
answer that because there are no 2
i l assumptions in the plan in how long 3
it takes to process individuals through 4 a reception center. The plan es11s for
(
5 individuals, whether they arrive by a 6 bus or by a car or other vehicle -- first t l
- hey have their vehicle monitored and then 8 the individuals are egressed into a 9 monitoring facility where they are 10 screened for potential contamination. i 11 This is done even though in some case 12 persons arrive at the reception centers i
13 before there was release, because both 1
14 organizations took precautionary protective i
15 actions. Once they are processed through !
l 16 this monitoring process, in that regard I
[7 believe the time estimate is less than l 18 a minute for the New Hampshire Yankee '
gg Off-site Response Organi stion and a time 20 estimate in the State of New Hampshire's 21 plans is three minutes per individual.
22 l The individual is then, or individuals, 23 are moved into a registration area, and I 6
l 24 if they need assistance, they're provided ;
,l I
J B A R REPORTING SERVICE i i I i
154 I assistance and registration and given 2 directions at that point to other locations.
i 3 MR. FIERCE: As you can see, I'm 4 not terribly concerned about the generalities 5 which I already know, but I am still 6 interested in knowing either what assumptions
,I 7
i were made about the times for processing i
g school children, particularly young school I'
9 children, and if there are no assumptions, I
to then what was done during the exercise to 11 l- test that capability of running young school 12 children through one of these decontamination 13 trailers?
g4 ,
MR. COGAN: Question 7 was who is 15 assumed to be on the buses with the 16 Massachusetts school children and what is i I
g7 the basis for this assumption? l gg THE CHAIRMAN: We don't make such gg an assumption. The premise of the exercise 30 evaluation and the premise of the Off-site 21 Response Organization is that schools on a 22 day-to-day basis have their own relationships 23 and means to move their students. The 24 Off-site Response Organization and/or the t
, 8 A R REPORTING SERVICI -
t i
15S I State of New Hampshire offers.to provide 2 supplemental assistance if-those schools i
3 so request. If they so request assistance, l
4 I guess the only assumption one can make is i
5 the schools would assist in loading the 6 l students on the buses and acccmpanying those 7 students. If not, at least with regard to 8 the Off-site Response Organization, there
.I 9 is a person assigned to a convoy of buses to or bus depending on how many are required i
11
'by facility who would assist in this fashion.
I 12 MR. FIERCE: One comment on that 13 , point, Mr. Donovan. Prior to the rule change I
14 which occurred recently that allows these i'
15 exercises to proceed without State or local t
16 involvement, FEMA required, and it had a g7 guidance memo which so stated, that it i
18 would be a requirement that each school gg system have a site specific radiological 20 emergency response plan that set forth who 21 would be responsible for loading children on 22 buses and directing evacuation of school 23 children. Since that rule change, FEMA I
24 f has gone ahead and participated in exercises i
e
! e A R RSPOfflNO 88RVIC8 l
. jf .
w 136 I
e like these where there is no State-or local- I 2- involvement. Yet I am not aware that it l
3 , has changed that guidance meme which still
)
4 requires that there be site specific school ,
i .
5 j plans. How will FEMA evaluate the situation f
6 in Massachusetts where there are no site j t
7 specific school plans, and on what basis -
I 8
then can you continue to make the assumption h
9 3 unfoundedly that school pe rsonnel- will help 10 load the children on the suses and actually i
11 1 ride along with them to make at least two 12 .
stops -- one at the reception center and 13 the second at a school host facility?
14 , ,
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, perhaps the I
15 law is different in Massachusetts, but in i
16 , the state where I live school district i
17 , administrators are responsible and liable i '
18 for the custody of those children until 19 they are discharged to their parents. (
l 20 The school district administrators do not 21 want to discharge their liability. That's 22 their business. With regard to our guidance a memo, our guidance memo requires plans.
I 24 ; It doesn't necassarily say that a school has ;
! i t
R A R RRPORTING SERVICS I ,
k
'57 1
to have a specific radiological plan. In 2 most states Boards of Education requires 3 schools to have plans for fires, earthcuakes 4
and cther disasters. And most schools that I 5 know have plans for early dismissal for i I
6 inclement weather and other types of l.
I 7 incidents, so the same plan that exists ,
i 8 for these type of phencmena are used --
I 4
I 9 VOICE FROM BACK OF ROOM: Ne're l 10 not talking about a snowstorm.
I 11 .
f THE CRAIRMAN: --
are used if i
there is a need to dismiss school early 12 I
i 13 and provide transportation resources to l
14 , return those students to their homes. f i
' I 15 MR. FIERCE: So FEMA is makinc, 16 no separate assumption or utfferent 17 assumption as a result of t'ae rule change 18 regarding schools and will blind itself .
19 to the fact that the schools in Massachusetts i
20 have no snah specific plans for sheltering !
1 21 or evacuation in a radiological emergency? I i
l i
22 THE CHAIRMAN: That's not true. l l '
- i. .
l l
23 But that's your statement. You're entitled l I
l l
24 to your cpinion.
l I
1 i
i
! 8 A R REPORTING SERVICE
. 158 1
MR. FIERCE: That's a cuestion.
2 That's the way I understood your response.
3 If I'm wrong on that, I'd like you to 4 clarify it.
I 5 l THE CHAIRMAN: We look for 6 compensating actions on behalf of the i 7 Off-site Response Organization. The 6
8 Off-site Response Organization has [
f g developed compensating plans to provide information, notification and offer of !
10 11 assistance to the schools. !
I
'2
. MR. FIERCE: And what is the i
13 compensating action that would occur
- 14 when teachers and school administrators '
15 ,
are not av>.41able to accompany the studence 16 on the buses?
g7 MR. GRAM: Excuse me. Could I i respond to that?
is I believe this same 19 issue is being litigated in New Hampshire y Emergency Response Panel litigation, 21 and it'll be resolved in the ASLB hearings.
3 MR. FIERCE: I'm not talking g
o about New Hampshire. I'm talking about 24 Massachusetts. As Mr. Strome has already I
4 A R REPORTING $8tVICE
. (/
139 I indicated, there are different State laws 2 that apply in New Hampshire.
I 3 . THE CHAIRMAN: If I have yoiv i concurrence. people, I would like to take i
i 5 l a five-minute break.
6 (Five-minute recess.]
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Whose questions 8 .
have not been addressed.
9 MR. EHRENBERG: Mr. Fierce still to has the floor.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: He does rtot. He's 12 exceeded his time limit.
13 MR. EHRENBERG: If you guys can't 14 answer a question, what are you doing here?
15 ; THE CHAIRMAN: These questions J 1 are not germane, sir. There's ---
17 l MR. EHRENBERG: Bull. What we think 18 is germane is germane because we have to live tg with this plan and you answer his questions 20 now. !,
21 MR. FIERCE: Mr. Donovan, I'd be 22 happy to sit down if you kindly answer one n ,
final question. I realize there are time n
24 i
limits here, and I'm not trying to bully I
t .
8 A R REPOfflNO 88RVKI ;
1 -
1
L60 I ; more time than I deserve, but I have 1
2 submitted a list of cuestions, and in 3 fact, I have some more, and I would l
4 l appreciate knowing whether you or someone i
5 from FEMA could respond-to these questions 6 ; in writing in some reasonable time in the 7 near future.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: The answer to that 9 question is yes. We said if we could not 10 respond to the questions adequately at 11 this public meeting, we would respond to 12 them for tha record, and the answer to that 13 question, yes. We told you that before.
14 I will be happy to see to the best of our 15 agency's ability that all of your questiont l
16 .
are addressed. If you want to ask one final !
l 17 question. I will entertain that question, and .
18 then I would like to give the other citizens to who have questions to be answered an 30 opportunity to have their questions answered.
21 MR. FIERCE: My final question is, 22 if there is time, and I don't know how long 23 i you all want to stay tonight, would you- after 24 everyone else has asked questions, allow me i
! i 1
B A R REPOtflNO SERVICI i
t 161 '
I to have say ten more minutes?
2 THE CHAIRMAN: We have exceeded i
3 cur noticed public meeting time by already t t
4 20 minutes. We have only made arrangements '
5 for this facility. We are past that time.
6 The people who have the responsibility to 7 close it up would probably like to have ?
(
3 the opportunity to close it up. '
9 VOICE FROM BACK OF ROOM: They'll f
to i probably stay. They'll stay. !
i 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, you don't ---
12 VOICE FROM BACK OF ROOM: We're I 13 taxpayers. They'll stay for us.
14 MR. FIERCE: I did want to make l
15 one observation, which is that the judgment ;
16 : call you made about this being a good day i
i 17 to do this particular meeting has to be I i
18 described as just a poor judgment call.
gg There are only four or five people here f
g from Massachusetts, and we are seriously 21 pleading with you, begging you to have {
i 22 another meeting in Massachusetts at a day [
23 and time of your choice, but have it in 24 Massachusetts where the communities there 5 A R REPORTING SERVICE i
, f
. 162 1
can have a real opportunity to provide 2 their input to you. Thank you. 1 t
3
[Applauce.]
4 MR. COGAN: Questions are frcm "
5 Mary Roy, I believe, from Amherst, i 6 , New Hampshire. How many accidents were
}
7 I
there at nuclear plants in the United States .
I 't 8 last year, and how much did each one cost l (
9 local taxpayers?
i .
10 MR. CONKLIN:
i There were no nuclear 11 ! accidents last year.
l 12 VOICE FROM BACK OF FLOOR: You liar.
l '
13 ,' MR. COGAN: Additional question from l
14 ,
t Mary Roys In all the questions about school I
15 buses I want to know where are these buses 16 at the time of a supposed emergency? In my f
17 experience school buses are garaged at some l !
l !
18 distance miles from schools and have to be '
l 13 summoned to the school. Has that time been 5 30 figured into the plan? i t
t 21 MR. STROME: What we have done, 22 ma'am, is to talk to the various bus .
i l
23 companies. Many of them are staged from i 24 outside the local area, and we have agreements l i :
, l
> 8 A R REPORTING SERVICE !
I 3
t'Of.KQLD wmv UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.gg t;0y -4 NO 33 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r , , s' foh:1l; -#
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket No.(s)
NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) 50-443/444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
) .
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
~b i I, Stephen A. Jonas, hereby certify that on November 1, 1988 I made service of the within Massachusetts Attorney General's Answer to Applicants' Motion for Sanctions, by mailing First Class or by Federal I 4
1 Express as indicated by [*] to the following parties: I Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 r 13th Floor L 11555 Rockville Pike
- Rockville, MD 20852 Ivan Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board '
O.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. NuclearRegulatoryCommission{
Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway i 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 ;
Bethesda, MD 20814 1
)
t i
.. m_.- _
. . - , _ , . . . , , . . - . _._r_ _ ,. _...,., _ _ _,__,.,_,,. _ ___. ,_--_.,,._.._r--._-.--r,_ -
t
'O Dr. Jerry Harbour Robert R. Pierce, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. Stephen E. Merrill Assistant General Counsel Attorney General Office of General Counsel George Dana Bisbee Federal Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General Agency Office of the Attorney General 500 C Street, S.W. 25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 03301 Docketing and Service Paul A. Fritzsche, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Public Advocate Commission State House Station 112 Washington, DC. 20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Roberta C. Pevaar Diana P. Randall State Representative 70 Collins Street Town of Hampton Falls Seabrook, NH 03874 Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & SS1omon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market Street Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Matthew T. Brock. Esq. J. P. Nadeau Shaines E.McEachern Board of Selectmen 25 Maplewood Avenue 10 Central Road P.O. Box 360 Rye, NH 03870 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall Rte. 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 a
i Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Angelo Machiros, Chairman U.S. Senate Board of Selectmen Washington, DC. 20510 25 High Road (Attn: Tom Burack) Newbury, MA 10950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Edward G. Molin 1 Eagle Sr,uare, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Hisrb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Donald E. Chick William Lord Town banager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913
' Brentwood Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
RFD Dalton Road Holmes & Ellis Brentwood, NH 03833 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 Philip Ahrens, Esq. Diane Curran, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Harmon, Curran & Towsley Department of the Attorney Suite 430 General 2001 S Street, N.W.
I State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 l Augusta, ME 04333 l
- Thomas G. Dignan, Esq. Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Ropes & Gray Hampe & McNicholas 225 Franklin Street 35 Pleasant Street Bosten, MA 02110 Concord, NH 03301 Beverly Hollingworth Ashod N. Amirlan, Esq.
209 Winnacunnet Road 376 Main Street Hampton, NH 03842 Haverhill, MA 01830 William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Jewell Street, RFD 2 10 Front Street South Hampton, NH 03827 Exeter, NH 03833 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Anne E. Goodman, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 Allen Lampert Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson Civil Defense Director 1114 Wimbledon Drive Town of Brentwood McLean, VA 22101 20 Franklin Street Exeter, NJ 03833
4 Sonator Gordon J. Humphrey Angelo Machiros, Chairman U.S. Senate Board of Selectmen Washington, DC. 20510 25 High Road (Attn: Tom Eurack) Newbury, MA 10950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Edward G. Molin 1 Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Donald E. Chick William Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913 Brentwood Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
RFD Dalton Road Holmes & Ellis Brentwood, NH 03833 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 philip Ahrens, Esq. Diane Curran, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Harmon, Curran & Towsley Department of the Attorney Suite 430 General 2001 S Street, N.W.
State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333
- Thomas G. Dignan, Esq. Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
4 Ropes & Gray Hampe & McNicholas 225 Franklin Street 35 Pleasant Street Boston, MA 02110 Concord, NH 03301 Beverly Hollingworth Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
209 Winnacunnet Road 376 Main Street Hampton, NH 03842 Haverhill, MA 01830 William Arm.*trong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exe&er Jewell Street, RFD 2 10 Front Street South Hampten, NH 03827 Exeter, NH 03833 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Anne E. Goodman, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 Allen Lampert Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson Civil Defense Director 1110 Wimbledon Drive Town of Brentwood McLean, VA 22101 20 Franklin Street Exeter, NJ 03833
4 l
Charles P. Graham, Esq. Barbara St. Andre, Esq.
Murphy & Graham Kopelman & Paige, P.C. l 33 Low Street 77 Franklin Street '
Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Judith H. Mizner, Esq. R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq. i Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton
& McGuire & McGuire 79 State Street, 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Newburyport, MA 01950
"$ b
/ ' c ." / ,
' S'tiepfien A. nas Assistant torney General .
Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 !
(617) 727-2200 ;
DATED: November 1, 1988 e
p 1
I L