ML20059L849

Decision.* Reverses Board Rejection of Basis R of Commonwealth of Ma Contention 47 & Remands Proceeding to Board for Exploration of Two Subissues of Teacher Role Abandonment Issue.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900918

ML20059L849
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/18/1990
From:	Tompkins B NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:
References
CON-#490-10833 ALAB-937, OL, NUDOCS 9010020016
Download: ML20059L849 (38)

Text

._

i

/bf33 3

j C0thEIED USNRC j

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'90 SEP 18 A10:18 l

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOM'D t n'! J SECnf1/JY YdSdcU #

Administrative Judger,:

G.

Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman September 18, 1990 Alan S. Rosenthal

( ALAB-937) l Howard A. Wilber SERVED SEP 1 8 1990q l

l

)

In the Matter of

)

)

i PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

)

Docket Nos. 50-443-OL i

l NEW MAMPSHIRE, El AJ.

)

50-444-OL

)

(Offsite Emergency L

(Seabrook Station, Un,ts 1

)

Planning Issues) l and 2)

)

)

1 e

l I

John Traficonte, Boston, Massachusetts (with whom 1

Allan R.

Fierce, Leslie B.

Greer, Mathew T.

Brock,

)

and Pamela Talbot, Boston, Massachusetts, were on.

]

the brief), for the intervenor James M. Shannon, Attorney General of Massachusetts.

l Thomas G. Dianan. Jr., Boston, Massachusetts (with whom i

Georae H.

Lewald, Kathryn A.

Selleck, Jeffrey P.

Trout, Jay Bradford Smith, Qeoffrev C.

Cook, j

William Parker, and Barbara Moulton, Boston, j

Massachusetts, were on the brief), for the applicants Public Service Company of New l

I l

Hampshire, at al.

Mitzi A. Young (with whom Edwin J. Reis, Richard G.

Bachmann, Elaine I. Chan, Sherwin E.

Turk, and Lisa B. Clark were on the brief) for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.

DECISION In this decision, we single out for separate determination one of the issues presented on the pending 9010020016 900018 PDR ADOCK 05000943 b0R PDR O

r_4

['.:a N>

N.

2

' appeals from the Licensing Board's November 9, 1989 partial l

initial decision in this operating license proceeding l

involving the Seabrook nuclear power station.'

That issue l

f concerns the role assigned to school teachers in the a

Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC) -- the l

l utility-sponsored emergency response plan for the l

Massachusetts portion of the station's plume-exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ).2 Because it has become apparent both that the evidentiary record on that issue requires correction and supplementation, and that t

i legal error was committed below, we are now remanding the

?

matter to the Licensing Board for further consideration, without awaiting the outcome of our exploration of the remainder of the questions raised by the appeals at hand.

f Although we are not now suspending pendente lite the full-power operating license that has been issued for Seabrook, at the same time, we do not foreclose the grant of such 1

relief by the Licensir.7 Board.

I See LBP-89-32, 30 NRC 375 (1989).

1. Unless otnerwise indicated, all citations in this decision to the SPMC are to Revision 0, Amendment 6, effective date august 1, 1980.

'this document is Applicants' Exhibit No. 42.

In Massachusetto (unlike New Hampshire, where both the Seabrook f acility and the remaining portion of the EPZ are located), state and local governments are not participating in the emergency response planning effort.

Thus, it became necessary for the applicants to formulate an emergency response plan-of their own.

1 t

l 3

i i

I.

1 i

A.

In the event of a Seabrook radiological emergency while Massachusetts EPZ schools are in session, the SPMC i

calls for teachers in those schools to accompany their students on buses to a host facility (first located in Wilmington, Massachusetts, and subsequently relocated at i

Holy Cross College in Worcsster, Massachusetts -- a distanse of sixty miles or more from the communities in which the

,j schools are situated).3 In his Contention No. 47, the I

l r

intervenor Attorney General of Massachusetts (MassAG) i asserted that, because of role conflict (i.e., concern for the welfare of members of their own families), the teachers would not be prepared to escort the students to a reception i

t l

center or host facility.

(At the time this contention was t

proffered, the applicants contemplated the use of the Wilmington facility for school children; Holy Cross College was substituted at a later date.')

In a July 1988 memorandum and order, the Licensing l

Board rejected that claim at the threshold.

The Board's l

l l

3 See Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 6 (Protective Actions for Particular Populations), fol. Tr. 21,049, at 25, 75.

The Holy Cross facility will also accommodate children-in day-care centers and nursery programs, whose teachers or other staff members likewise will be expected to accompany them.

Unless otherwise indicated, all references in this opinion to school teachers or school children (students) encompass as well the staff and children involved in those centers and progra ms.

' See id. at tis ; Tr. 21,34 5.

See also SPMC, App. M at M-13.

l

'=

e s

\\

4 principal justification was that a similar role abandonment j

issue had been among the human behavior questions fully i

explored in the phase of the proceeding concerned with the i

emergency response plan for the New Hampshire portion of the l

i EPZ. 5 That plan contemplates that, 10 the event of an evacuation necessitated by a radiological emergency at I

Seabrook, teachers in New Hampshire EPZ schools likewise would accompany their students on t;hool buses to the i

students' prescribed destinations (reception centers).'

Five months later, the Licensing Board ruled on the teacher role abandonment issue in the course of its decision 4

on the general acceptability of the New Hampshire emergency j

response plan.

Discounting the testimony of thirteen New Hampshire teachers that, should a school evacuation be required, they (and a substantial number of other New l

Hampshire teachers aF well) would promptly leave their students without performing any of their assigned duties, H

the Licensing Board reached the conclusion that "(s)chool teachers and school officials, as a group, will not abandon their pupils in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook."I 5 Memorandum and Order - Part I (July 22, 1988) at 72-73 (unpublished).

The New Hampshire plan was formulated by the State.

See supra note 2.

' LBP-88-32, 28 NRC 667, 730 (1988).

7 4

Id. at 749.

- - ~ - -.

,n 4

I 5

This conclusion was reviewed by us in ALAB-932.8 We there held that, "at least insofar as teachers are performing duties' corresponding to those they generally undertake in connection with their normal duties and responsibilities," the Licensing Board correctly determined that " teacher role abandonment does not pose a substantial barrier to an adequate emergency response" under the New Hampshire plan.'

on this score, we drew a distinction between the teachers' performance of such functions as

" accounting for and supervising the children and assuring.

their safe boarding of evacuation buses" -- responsibilities that we believed " correspond sufficiently to their usual duties" -- and the discharge of bus escort functions." The latter role, we noted, "may necessitate the teachers' traveling for indefinite periods of time considerable distances from their school and very likely their homes and families.""

In addition, "if a teacher embarks on a bus for the potentiL11y lengthy trip to a reception center, the teacher's opportunity to engage in actions designed to alleviate ' role strain' (e.g., calling home to check upon family members) could be severely hampered, if not 31 NRC 371 (1990).

The Commission declined review of a

ALAB-932.

See Memorandum from S.

Chilk (July 12, 1990).

' 31 NRC at 404.

" Id. at 406.

Ibid.

~_ __

, 4e s

i i

6 foreclosed, thereby adding to the possibility that role j

abandonment might occur.""

We went on, however, to decide in ALAB-932 that it was j

i not necessary to pursue that concern in assessing the i

adequacy of the-New Hampshire emergency response plan.

This was because there was record evidence that the provisions in that plan for teacher escorts on. evacuation buses were not l

required for the safety of the school children involved..

That conclusion on the part of New Hampshire state planning j

of ficials, we observed, apparently rested upon their "not unreasonable judgment that bus drivers will be.tble to transport the students safely to reception centors, where i

I j

the students will be cared for and supervised by the l

l personnel already assigned to staff the centers until such time as they are reunited with their parents or j

i L

L guardians.""

Given this consideration, we saw no purpose L

L in pursuing further whether teachers could be expected to

}

fulfill the bus escort roles assigned to them under the New

]

Hampshire plan."

I 1

l

" Ildil.

U Id. at 407.

" lhid.

We suggested that, "so as not to mislead 1

those involved in or relying upon emergency response efforts by school personnel, State planners may wish to revise the i

l l

plan to reflect their judgment about the precatory nature of teacher participation as escorts on student buses." -Id. at 407 n.161.

(I l

\\

-l

l

)

i-4 7

i B.

It is against this background that we'have examined the MassAG's challenge to the Licensing Board's refusal to_ allow him to litigate', through the vehicle of his Contention No. 47, the teacher role abandonment matter in i

the context of the SPMC (with.the consequence that there was no evidence adduced that was directed specifically to the issue of role abandonment on the part of Massachusetts teachers).

At the very inception of our inquiry, it appeared to us (as it did to the MassAG) that there were factual differences pertaining to the operation of the two emergency respcnse plans that might well have a bearing upon the likelihood that Masrachusetts-(as distinguished from New Hampshire) teachers would fulfill their assigned bus escort roles, as well as upon the necessity that such roles be fulfilled by those teachers.

We elaborated'on the point in a June 22 unpublished memorandum and order:

l

[T]he minimum sixty-mile distance:between L

the Massachusetts schools within the EPZ and Holy Cross College in Worcester (the l

host facility for those schools) is l

approximately twice the maximum distance l

between the New Hampshire schools and the reception centers to which their students l

are to be evacuated.

In this circumstance, the concern expressed in ALJO4932 respecting whether New Hamoshire teachers would be prepared to travel "for indefinite periods of time considerable distances from their school and very likely their homes and b

.-ne,

,~-vm.-

~v v..

e-.-

--e-

.,eg,

m 4

1 8

i families" would seen, if anything, to j

have greater foundation when the likely 1s at issue.gduct of Massachusetts teachers cour's" Df co In these circumstances, we thought it night "be particularly significant in the evaluation of the Massachusetts emergency response plan whether, as was I

testified and found to be the case in New Hampshire, it is i

not necessary for the teachers to accompany their students to the prescribed evacuation destination.""

On that. score

)

as well, we saw possibly crucial distinctions between the j

two plans in operation.

As explained in the June 22 order:

i The New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook EP2 does contain a significantly larger number of students in schools and children l

in day-care centers (including nurseries) than the more than 10,000 youngsters.now i

to be found~in schools and day-care / nursery facilities in the Massachusetts EPZ.-

But, as earlier noted, the New Hampshire plan i

calls for evacuation of these individuals to a total of four reception centers.

For j

)

this reason, it may well be that no single New Hampshire location will~ receive.more than the number of students and day-care children that will be dispatched to Holy Cross College -- the single Massachusetts facility that is to receive that segment of the population.

More important, however, the record discloses that the New Hampshire Department.

of Health and Human Services will allocate in excess of 400 individuals to staff the state's reception centers.

With such a large contingent of state employees, proper supervision of the students at the centers i

e

" Appeal Board Memorandum and Order (June 22, 1990) at 6 (emphasis in original; footnotes omitted).

" Id. at 7.

l m.

m w_*-,-,

.----e,

-~-v-

+

,e--"

e--

9 should be readily achievable.

Moreover, there is the real possibility that, should the need arise, the aid of adult evacuees j

could be enlisted.

For, in contrast to Holy Cross College, which will receive gnly students and still younger children, the New Hampshire reception < centers will serve all evacuoes from that state's portion of the EPZ, including but not restricted to j

studentsangthoseinday-careandnursery facilities.

All of this, combined with our then impression that the i

American Red Cross (ARC) had assumed the responsibility for i

staffing the School Host Facility at Holy Cross College, prompted us to pose certain questions to the parties.

Specifically, they were asked to inform us in supplemental memorandy as to the state of :.he existing record concerning i

i the capability of the ARC, in the absence of accompanying teachers, to care for and supervise the children sent t'o'the=

]

School Host Facility."

If the record established that it is necessary for Massachusetts teachers to serve as bus escorts, the parties were then to address the concerns expressed in ALAB-932 with respect to the likelihood that teachers will accept such a role."

J The June 22 order called for the applicants and the NRC staff to respond first to these questions.

In their 1

i

" Id. at 8-9 (emphasis in original; footnotes

i omitted).

" Id. at 9-10.

" Id. at 10.

ALAB-932 was issued after the filing of the briefs on the appeals and, thus, was not taken into account in those briefs.

i i

e-v

---

.r.a

t i

i s,

10 j

responses, both the applicants and the staff took issue with

{

our understanding that the ARC is to operate the School Host f

Facility.

Indeed, we were told by the staff that the SPMC, j

"as litigated, does not anticipate that the ARC will be i

present at Holy Cross College nor does it rely on the ARC to provide any staff to assist organizations at the host school facility."#0 Rather, according to the applicants and the t

staff, the ARC is to be involved only in the operation of the congregate care centers (located at quite different l

l sites) to which some children ultimately might be transferred from the School Host Facility.#'

We found this information rather~ surprising.

For one thing, the Licensing Board had expressly found that Holy

' Cross College would be one of two facilities " generally l

administered by ARC officials and volunteers," although

" trained personnel" accompanying the children to the College j

would be expected to provide "any necessary specialized ~

care. "22 Second, the staff's rejoinder in its appellate brief to the MassAG's assertion that the Licensing Board had failed to address the issue of staffing for the Holy Cross I

facility was that, as the Board's detailed findings reflected, such staffing is "a function left to the American i

i 20 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board's June 22, 1990 Memorandum and Order (July 13, 1990) # 1 n.1.

21 See id.; Licensees' Response to Appeal Board

-1 Memorandum and order of June 22, 1990 (July 11, 1990) at 2.

22 See LBP-89-32, 30 NRC at 552.

1 L

L l

+

l 11 Red Cross (ARC)."23 The brief added that an ARC commitment to respond to an emergency had bean held by the Commission in the Shorehan prc :eeding to be suf ficient evidence that i

such a response would be not merely forthcoming, but adequate and offactive as well.

Third of all, at oral argument, the applicants' counsel observed that, if the school children are not accompanied by teachers.on the bus-l trip from the schools to Holy Cross College, there will be "a little more work for the Red Cross at the other end.""

l But even more compelling than these expressions by the Licensing Board and the appellees was the content of.the i

evidentiary record itself -- specifically, the SPMC and a November 30, 1988 Imtter of Agreement (ICA) between Holy Cross College and the lead applicant, Public Service company of New Hampshire.

As they appear in the record presented to us, both of those documents -- introduced by the applicants

-- clearly call for direct ARC involvement in the operation v

of the School Host Facility.

In section 3.6.3 of Revision Amendment 5, the SPMC deals with organizations providing O,

i I3 NRC Staff Brief in Response to Intervenor Appeals from LBP-89-32 and LBP-89-17 (Mar. 21, 1990) at 109, Id. at 109-10 (citing Lona Island Lichtina Co.

24 (shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-87-5, 25 NRC i

884, 888 (1987)).

As will be later seen, the staff now tells us that its brief was in error respecting ARC involvement at Holy Cross.

App. Tr. 99 (Apr. 18, 1990).

O

, b;.

o of 12 evacuation support.8' Subsection B of the section focuses upon the ARC.

It. states in pertinent part In the event that an incident at Seabrook Station results in the need to relocate a segment of the general public from the Plume Exposure EPZ, the American Red Cross (ARC), when activated, will orovide staff to coerate Congregate Care Centers and host facilities for moecial noculations (e.a..

school and nursing home host facility).

(Emphasis supplied.)

And, for its part, the LOA not merely provides that the'use and occupancy of Holy Cross College in the event of a declared omergency at Seabrook will be "under the direction of College officials in conjunction with the American Red Cross," but also stipulates that the contemplated uses of the College premises will include:

use of those portions of the Premises for processing approximately (11,000) eleven thousand school children, day care children and staff and under the ausnices of the American Red Cross, temporary shelter of school children, day care children and staff for approximately an (8) eight hour period and for gaintaining records and clerical support.

In short, a wide gulf existed between, on the one hand, what we were told by the applicants and the staff in their See SPMC (Plan) at 3.6-12 to -13.

Although the 26 version of the SPMC that is identified is Revision 0, Amendment 6, the List of Effective Pages (LOEP) at the inception of the plan reflects that section 3.6.3 was not altered between Amendments 5 and 6.

See id, at LOEP-4.

Applicants' Exhibit 41, at 604 (Holy Cross College 27 LOA) (emphasis supplied).

13 responses to the June 22 order and, on the other, the sum' total of the documentary evidence, Licensing Board findings, and prior explicit or implicit representations of those parties.

As a consequence, we were constrained to issue another unpublished order on July 17 that, after pointing to the apparent inconsistencies, requested the applicants and the staff to inform us whether.the record established that the SPMC and LOA had been amended in respects relevant to the matter of ARC involvement in the operation of the School Host Facility.

If the record did not so establish, those parties were to explain how the documents might nonetheless be reconciled with the parties' current position that no such involvement is contemplated.

In their responses to this order, the applicants and the staff acknowledge that it does not appear in the record that either the SPMC or the LOA has been amended to remove

.all references to ARC involvement at the School Host Facility.

We are told, however, that testimony adduced by the applicants reflected that, at the time of the hearing, the SPMC was in the process of alteration to remove such references and that the continued mention of the ARC in the LOA is to be disvissed as the product of inadvertent draftsman error.

To support their assertion that the MassAG was not misled by the terms of the SPMC and LOA in evidence, the applicants allude, inter Alin, to the fact that MassAG counsel asked one of the applicants' witnesses whether she

,.s ;

14 i

T (counsel) was correct in believing that the ARC was not being called upon "to provide any staffing or resources at j

f the host school facility in Worcester."i8 Although, by reason of an objection on the part of applicants' counsel, the question seemingly was never answered, in their response' to our June 22 and July 17 orders, the intervenors (including the MassAG) explicitly now agree that "the SPMC J

does not look to the Red Cross to respond to the School Host Facility at Holy Cross College.*"

1 II.

t As the foregoing recitation discloses, the record in j

this proceeding on an important ingredient of the teacher l

role abandonment issue is in a' state of disarray.

As fo'und to Tr. 21,328.

l i

i

" Response of the Intervenors to the Appeal Board Memoranda and Orders of June 22, 1990 and July 17, 1990 (Aug.

7, 1990) at 4.

l; In an August 2, 1990 letter to the members of this t

Board, the staff advised us that its appellate brief was in l'

i error in stating that the ARC would provide staffing at the School Host Facility.

See spin note 23 and accompanying text.

Although the letter also observed that the Licensing Board had made the same error, just eight days earlier (in 7

its response to our July 17 order) the staff had inplied that the Licensing Board findings on ARC staffing were directed to the Congregate Care Centers for special-needs evacuees located in Wilmington and Westboro, Massachusetts.

l See NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Memorandum and Order of July 17, 1990 (July 25, 1990) at 7 n.7.

This implication was unwarranted.

It is clear the ARC staffing findings in question had reference to the Holy Cross College and l:

Wilmington facilities.

See 11 9.14 and 9.15 of LBP-89-32, 1

30 NRC at 552-53.

The applicants so recognized in their l

response to the July 17 order.

See Licensees' Response to Appeal Board Memorandum and Order of July 17, 1990 (July 19, 1990) at 9 n.5.

l L

.l t

9 15 in the record, all of the pertinent documentary evidence t

introduced by the applicants -- namely the SPMC and the LOA

- unmistakably has the ARC fulfilling an important staffing function at Holy Cross College.

And even though the applicants and the staff now maintain that the testimony adduced by the applicants clearly establishes an intent that j

the ARC's involvement will be confined to congregate care centers such as those at Wilmington and Westboro, Massachusetts,30 that message obviously was not received by the Licensing Board.

Nor, seemingly, was it readily understood by staff counsel, whose appellate brief contains

?

the explicit (albeit now repudiated) representation'that

. there was no substance to the MassAG's claims respecting staffing at the Holy Cross College facility because, as the Licensing Board had found, that was "a function left to the 1

l American Red Cross."3' Perhaps this is because that precise l-l message was not, in fact, delivered.

For example, at-one l

I l

point the prepared direct testimony ~in question mentioned the " School Host Facility" and, in the next breath, alluded

[

to "those host facilities operated by the American Red Cross."3#

It may well be that the latter phrase was not 30 Those two Centers will be employed to care for certain evacuated special-needs individuals (such as nursing home patients).

3' See supra pp. 10-11.

There 4.s also the matter of applicants' counsel's statement at oral argument.

See supr_a p

p.

11.

32 See Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No.

6, at 25.

L e

)

+

m m

2 a

16 intended to refer to host facilities such as Holy Cross College but, rather, had in mind congregate care facilities such as Wilmington that were also regarded as serving the function of a " host facility" for special-needs evacusas.33 At the very least, however, the reference is less than a model of clarity.

We have dealt with this matter at length, not because there remains reason to believe that the ARC will be involved in staffing the School Host Facility.

Manifestly, we mus'. respect the current agreement of all of the parties that, notwithstanding the most probative existing evidence of record and the Licensing Board's findings, such is simply not the case.

But this consideration only heightens our concern regarding the treatment that the applicants and the staff have accorded the questicn of School Host Facility staffing.

We appreciate, of course, that those parties profess to see no substance whatever in the. position of the MassAG that significant numbers of school children might not be accompanied to Holy Cross College by their teachers.

But even were their view on the issue of teacher response indisputably meritorious (and, as will be seen, it is not),

33 This is suggested by other portions of the same prepared testimony.

See, e.g.,

id. at 75.

It is, of course, unfortunate that applicants' counsel successfully objected to a question by MassAG's counsel that was designed to lay to rest the matter of ARC staffing at Holy Cross College.

See supra pp. 13-14.

1

l l

17 the question of the staffing of the School Host Facility scarcely would be stripped of any significance.

No matter f

i how many teachers might elect to serve as bus escorts, it is j

beyond cavil that the arrival in a relatively short time period of more than 10,000 children (ranging in maturity I

from toddlers in day-care or nursery situations to high school seniors) would give rise to a high potential for chaos in the absence of the presence of individuals trained and ready to assume overall direction of the activities at i

the facility."

Thus, in all events, it is of considerable moment whether such individuals will be supplied and, if so, by whom.

i In sum, in this matter both the Licensing Board and this Board were not well-served by the applicants an' the staff.35 Inasmuch as it is now, nt last, clear that the ARC

" Although there is no evidence on the point, it seems reasonable to suppose that relatively few of the teachers i

within the Massachusetts EPZ have ever set foot on the Holy i

Cross College campus and even fewer would have had prior experience of value in coping with the situation that would confront their charges after a 60-mile or more bus trip to a i

strange location in a crisis atmosphere.

35 It is most disturbing to us that the applicants and the staff -- the sponsors and supporter of the SPMC, respectively -- were prepared to allow the record on School L

Host Facility staffing to close in a state of such I

confusion.

And we find even more distressing the failure of either of those litigants to take timely steps to correct i

the misapprehension of the Licensing Board -- not surpricing in light of the condition of the record -- that the ARC would be involved in staffing the School Host Facility.

Insofar as the staff is concerned, apparently it shared the Licensing Board's misapprehension at the time it filed its appellate brief last March.

At some point before the filing (continued...)

c.

18 is to provide no assistance at the School Host Facility at Holy Cross College, we move on to the issues that remain' l

open in connection with the Licensing Board's rejection of MassAG Contention No. 47 on the matter of teacher response.

III.

A.

Basis R of MassAG Contention No. 47 asserts that There is no reasonable assurance that sufficient teachers, or other school staff, will volunteer on an ad has basis to accompany and supervise the_ students j

on the evacuation buses, at the Reception Center, and at the Host Special Facility.

ORO Bus Drivers, Route Guides, and other,ORO staffers are inadequate substitutes As earlier noted, in a July 1988 ruling the Licensing Board declined to allow the MassAG to litigate-this claim for the reason that the teacher role abandonment matter had been fully explored in the New Hampshire phase of'the proceeding.

f Although'by that time the evidentiary record in that phase-1 had closed, the Board had not as yet decided whether New 35(... continued) of its July 13 response to our June 22 order, however, the staff presumably discovered its error.

For reasons that s

have gone unexplained, even then it did not see any occasion to call our attention to the error (and to the Licensing Board's similar misimpression).

Rather, once again, it was not until early August -- well after the ARC staffing _ matter had come to the fore -- that the staff otfered its acknowledgment that both it and the Licensing Board had held a mistaken view on that matter.

" Attorney General James M. Shannon's Contentions Submitted in Response to the (SPMC) (Apr. 13, 1988) at 123.

ORO refers to the applicants' Offsite' Response Organization, which has overall responsibility for the execution of the SPMC.

i i;

l 19 i

i Hampshire teachers could be counted on to accompany their 1

students to designated evacuation destinations in that state.

But the Board obviously thought that there was no i

i basis for distinguishing between New Hampshire and j

Massachusetts teachers insofar as concerns their likely response in the event of a seabrook emergency, with the l

t consequence that whatever evidence had been adduced regarding the former would necessarily apply with equal force, and produce the same result, with respect to the l

f latter.

The Board did not, however, explain the foundation i

for such a conclusion.

More significant, we have been referred to nothing in the record to suggest that the Board put the intervenors on L

notice before the commencement of the hearings on the Egg j

Hamoshire emergency response plan -- or, for that matter, at i.

any point durina those hearings

-- that any. evidence I

relating to the likely reaction of Massachusetts teachers to

(

t the fulfillment of duties imposed by the SPMC would have to t

be offered in the New Hamoshire hearings.

As a consequence, as the MasWAG suggests, it is not unreasonable to assume l

that, had he endeavored during the hearings on the New' Hampshire plan to introduce the testimony of Massachusetts teachers as to role abandonment under the SPMC, there would I

have been an immediate and sustained objection on the part l

l of the applicants and staff on grounds of relevancy.

For it i

is our firm impression that the Licensing Board was i

1

. ~.,.. _.

1 I

[j..

i 20 1

determined to keep the two phases of the proceeding separate to the maximum extent possible, i.e.,

not to allow generally an intermingling of the challenges to the terms or implementation of the two quite distinct emergency response plans.37 Thus, there was no reason why the MassAG should j

l have assumed that any evidence related peculiarly to Massachusetts teachers would have to be presented in the New i

Hampshire phase.

Nor is there merit to the applicants' argument in

)

support of the threshold rejection of Contention No. 47.

In this connection, the applicants observe that, at the time Contention No. 47 was filed and acted upon, Holy Cross i

College had not as yet been selected as the School Host j

Facility."

They also stress that none of the assigned bases for Contention No. 47 attached any significance to the fact (if such-was then the case) that the Massachusetts l

teachers would have to ride the busec for greater distances than would be required of New Hampshire teachers.

While that may be true, it is also quite beside the point on the question whether the Licensing Board's disposition of the contention can stand.

To be sure, once Holy Cross College o

I became the chosen School Host Facility, the differences

-s between the demands being made on the teachers in the two l

l 37 Compare LBP-88-32, 28 NRC at 669 with LBP-89-32, 30 l

NRC at 380.

L

" That selection apparently was made in the October -

November 1988 time period.

See Tr. 21,345.

f

i 9

N-c 4

21 states became particularif noteworthy.

But it scarcely follows that solely the travel distance factor might provide a'line of demarcation between expected teacher response in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

More specifically, the ultimate issue on teacher l

response is not whether teachers might experience a role conflict (i.e., might be called upon to choose between i

fulfilling their assignment ander an emergency response plan

.l and addressing, instead, real or perceived personal or family needs).

Clearly, in many if not most instances, such a conflict will exist and what must be decided is the l

likelihood that it will be resolved in one manner rather than in the other.3' on that score, notwithstanding.the Licensing Board's seeming view to the contrary, we do not eo readily dismiss the MassAG's assertion that the New Hampshire emergency response plan stands on an entirely c

different footing from the SPMC.

The New Hampshire plan is not merely state-sponsored but represents the judgment of senior New Hampshire officials that an adequate response to an emergency at Seabrook will be achieved under that plan.

i In contrast, far from enjcying state sponsorship or even l

endorsement, the utility-sponsored (and administered) SPMC was issued in the teeth of the insistence of high-level Massachusetts officials that a satisfactory response to a l

Seabrook emergency is simply not achievable.

Even if that i

3' See generally ALAB-932, 31 NRC at 398-408.

l i

a<y,

",j.

l 22-posicion is' insubstantial, it?can scarcely-be gainsaid that-

~

-it--might have some influence on the choice of Massachusetts terahers between accompanying their students to_a School _

Host Facility (whether at Holy Cross College or elsewhere) and looking out for the interests of their: own' children '(or other family members) instead, b

This is. not to say, of course, that, following a full ventilation of the matter, thr Licensing Board perforce.

would be require to reach a different conclusion respecting.

r Massachusetts teachers than it reached in its December 1988

' decision on New Hampshire beacher response. _ All that we i

need or do conclude at this juncture is_that the MassAG was, improperly denied the opportunity to present a case in support of his proposition, embodied in Basis R 'or Contention No.

47_, that there is no reasonable' assurance j

that a sufficient number of Massachusetts teachers will

.1 accompany their students to the~ School Host Facility (now located at Holy Cross College).'O Among other things,_as

'O It Ollows from this conclusion that there is.no merit to the insistence of the applicants that, following i

the substitution of the College as the School Host Facility, the MassAG was obliged..to file a new, and-late-filed, R

contention if he wished to litigate Massachusetts teacher role abandonment,

.As the discussion in the text i

undergirding-the conclusion indicates, Basis R of Contention' No. 47 provided a-sufficient foundation for the pursuit of the role abandonment issue both before and after the College came into the picture.

It might be added that, given the ground assigned by the Licensing Board for~ refusing to allow the MassAG to litigate the issue when presented in a timely-filed contention, it appears most unlikely that an untimely contention would have had any different fate.

For such a (continued...)

1

- ~

a-r

lJi' 9

,O

• =

a 23 u

the:MassAG: suggests, but for that unwarranted' denial he might have both introduced the affirmative' testimony of Massachusetts teachers on their likely response to'a-Seabrook - emergency and cross-examined, in:the context of the o

demands imoosed uoon teachers by the SPMC, the applicants' principal' witness (Dr. Dennis S. Mileti) on the application L

to the Massachusetts situation of his thesis that, as_a 1

[

generic matter, teachers will meet any obligations imposed upon them."

Once again, neither of these opportunities was-1 made available to the MassAG during the hearings on the New Hampshire phase, and that failure amounts to reversible error.42

'0(... continued)-

such a contention must survive a balancing.oi a number of factors, only one of which pertains to whether it could have' i

been filed at any' earlier time.

See.10 C.F.R.

S L

2.714 (a) (1) ; puktfower Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 - and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983).

Ls

" The substance of Dr. Mileti's' testimony is set forth in ' ALiiP-932, 31 NRC at 392-96, 399-400,. and need not be l

rehearced in detail here.

Suffice 'it to say that, although

l we there determined that his testimony supported:the' view that_New Hampshire teachers would perform those duties-assigned to them by the New Hampshire plan that clearly L,

correspond to their usualiduties, Ewe also thought a serious question remained raspecting whether the same could be said-regarding the role'of bus escort.

See supra pp.

5-6.

In H

the case of Massacht setts teachers, such a question perforce is at least equally present.

42 In-its "immediate effectiveness" decision concerned with LBP-89-32, the ;ommission expressed the view that school children can be evacuated to Holy Cross College h

without teachers on the buses.

See-CLI-90-3, 31 NRC 219, 254 (1990).

The Rules of Practice specifically provide, however, that, unless the Commission otherwise so dirrots (and it did not do so here), we may not attach "any weight" (concinued...)

L 1

.l

' c, ;. - c '

_e 24 B.

'The. foregoing conclusionsiare not affected by.the-

]

insistence of both the applicants and the staff that school

~

teachers are subject to the " realism /best efforts" presumption (i.e., " realism. rule") embodied in 10 C.F'.R.

S 50.47 (c) (1) (iii).

In ALAB-932, we noted our doubt that J

such is the case.'3 Nothing that we are now told has removed that doubt as applied to. Massachusetts-teachers (including day-care ' center pa*connel).

1.

The essence of the 19:l ism rule, as set forth-in j

L l

section 50.47 (c) (1) (iii), is that, in the evaluation of the L

adequacy of a utility-sponsored emergency response. plan, the

.NRC will recognize the " reality that in an actual'. emergency, state and local ~ government officials will' exercise-their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the j

k public."

By. reason'of this recognition, the sectica

' declares that "it may be presumed'[in the evaluation L

process) that in the event of an actual radiological

,l L

l 42 (... continued) l to statements contained in immediate effectiveness I

determinations.

See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.764(g).

In addition, the U

Commission rested its belief upon its earlier: conclusion L

that thereEwas no need for the participation ofiNew

]

L Hampshire teachers as bus escorts.

31 NRC'at 235.

But that L

conclusion was in turn founded upon.the testimony of the Hgw Hamoshire Director of Emergency Management.

Ibid.

Apart' B'*

from the f act that the Director was not addressing school L

evacuation in Massachusetts, as we have observed the situation in'the two states is not identical.

Moreover, we 1

j, cannot say to what extent, if any, the Commission's 1

conclusion respecting school children evacuation under the

{

u SPMC was influenced by the Licensing Board's finding that the School Host Facility would be staffed by the ARC.

'3 See 31 NRC at 404 n.145.

i l

s

- ~ ~

e

~. -

f.-

5

-25 l

emergency state and local officials would generally follow

^

the-utility' plan."

The applicants seemingly would have it that the teachers are to be-deemed " government officials" for this

~

purpose, with the consequence that'it is-to be presumed that they will meet-whatever obligations m ght be imposed upon i

them by the SPMC.

Leaving aside (as the MassAG stresses) that many of'the school teachers (and likely-virtually all of the day-care center personnel) are not in:the public employ,.there is no cause to believe that the Commission thought the term- "of ficialc" to embrace non-supervisory government employees such as classroom teachers.

To.the contrary, we are satisfied from all available indicia that the Commission had in mind solely those persons in l'eadership positions (such.as governors, mayors, civil-defense directors, and state police superintendents) whose Lregularnduties include the initiation of~ measures to protect

~

the public health and safety.in the event of an emergency

.that puts-the populace at risk."

" Quite apart from the realism rule as promulgated:in-section 50.47 (c) (1) (iii), there may well be reason to assume that, because of the nature of their regular duties, most-individuals in certain. occupations will respond in-emergen:y situations.. We have in mind, for example, police officers, professional firefighters, and civil defense workers, all of whom routinely confront emergencies in the discharge of their assigned functions.

Clearly, the professional undertaking of teachers is not generally regarded as encompassing the same responsibilities and obligations.

7.q

'1

' n',-

i 26 3

i' P

The' realism rule had-its genesis in a Commission decision in the Shoreham proceeding.45~ In.that decision,-

B the Commission Jame to' grips with the. assertion! of both the Governor of New York and the County Executive of!the county i

in which the Shoreham facility was located that, in the-event of.an' accident, they would not cooperate in the E

emergency response effort.

Declining to credit that pledgs 1

P the Commission stated'its belief that:

i 1

L

[I)f Shoreham were to go into operation

('

and there were to be a serious' accident l'

requiring consideration of protective actions for'the public, the State and County officials would be obligated.to assist, both as a matter of law and as a.

matter of discharging their public

~

trust.

Egg'N.Y. Exec. Law art. 2-B, 5

25.1.

See also' H.R. - Rep. No. 212, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985),- ouoted in cart in note 7, supra. Thus, in evaluating.

the [ utility). plan we believe that we can reasonably assume some "best ef fort" State and County response in the event of an accident.

We also believe that L

their "best effort" would utilize the (utility) plan as the b.ast ' source: for emergency planning info::mation and options.

After all, when faced with a serious accident,- the State and County must recognize that the.(utility) plan" is clearly superior to nol plan at all.

h The Statement of Consideration accompanying the 1987 V

l

)

codification of Shoreham in section 50.47 (c)(1) (iii)

E L

h E

45 See Lona Island Liahtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power L

Station, Unit' 1), CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22 (1986).

" Id. at 31.

The Commission went on to note that it was unwilling to assume further "that this kind of best-effort government-response would necessarily be adequate."

Ibid.

1 v

e

[,.e

>27

-referred to the holding in that-decision as being that, "in an actual' emergency, state and local governmental-authorities will act to protect their citizenry.6'I

Th0s, the Commission added, "the presiding Licensing Board may -

presume that state and local governmental authorities will1 look to the utility for guidance,and generally follow.its plan in an actual emergency.""

In rejecting the challenge of several; Seabrook intervenors to the realism rule the..following year, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also '

evinced an understanding that the rule is directed-to the As the response of those-holding the reins of government.

court observed:

That state and local governments have

. refused to participate inLemergency planning, or have-indicated'a belief that'such planning is inherently impossible in a particular: plant location, does not indicate how these governments would respond in an actual It is hardly unreasonable emergency.

for the NRC to predict that state and; local governments, notwithstanding their misgivings about the adequacy 1of.a utility plan orLtheir opposition to a particular: plant location,-would,-in the event of an actual' emergency at a plant they were lawfully obligated to coexist

)-

with, follow the only existing. emergency plan.

This prediction is supported by common sense, and also by the uncontested fact -- part of the administrative record of this rule --

'I 52 Fed. Reg. 42,078, 42,082 (1987) (emphasis supplied).

Ibid. (emphasis supplied).

sa i

^ ' ' ' ' - - - ' ~ - + - - _ ~ _. _ _ _ _ _

._.s

+-

, +.

.a.

. -..~.

L 73.y..

ce

~

28 that state and local governments prefer a planned emergency. response to anLad hoc rasgonse.

Eta 52' Fed.-Reg.'42,082 (1987)

'Accordingly, on the basis of its history, We areLunable to conclude"that the realism rule was intended to cover school personnel such as those expected to serve as bus escorts under the SPMC.

2.

Both the applicants and the staff maintain, however, that all municipal employees in Massachusetts,

- including school tetchers,,have a-legal obligation, saidsto be imposed by the Massachusetts Civil' Defense Act,50 1

to i

comply with any directives-that they might receive from-s either the Governor or the-Director of Civil' Defense in the o

event of a Seabrook emergency.

In support of this

. proposition, we are referred to an April 24,'1989 memorandum f

- from Charles V. Barry, the Secretary of 'the Executive Of fical of Public Safety, to Robert J. Boulay, the Director of the.

)

(-

D L

Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency andLoffice of Emergency:

q Preparedness, and an accompanying December 30, 1988-opinion letter prepared by the Town Counsel of Plymouthi L

Massachusetts.

But, as the applicants'(albeit not the q

l staff) acknowledge, neither the memorandum-nor the letter O' i "i'

1

" Massachusetts v. United States, 856 F.2d 378, 3L3 (1st Cir. 1988).

50 St.'1950, c. 639, 5 20.

,g

1, 8

/

7

i 29 a

was. admitted:into evidence in the record at hand."

In that q

circumstance, it is problematic wh' ether we may properly rely.

upon: either of them here.52

-i The position of the applicants and the staff is not, improved even if that consideration is put to one side, and

{

we also ignore for present purposes the fact that the school teachers and day-care center personnel. employed in private (including parochial) institutions manifestly and concededly:

l do not come within the invoked provisions of the

[

Massachusetts Civil' Defense Act.

For, as the MassAG n

correctly insists, there is no. evidence in the present l-record to. indicate that the public school employees 1 are both c

aware of the interpretation given that -tatute and prepared-L to act in accordance with it.

We also conclude that the j

MassAG is entitled to an opportunity to demenstrate that, even as interpreted by the Plymouth Tcwn Counsel, the Civil ~

Defense Act provides inadequate assurance that sufficient 1

M See Licensees' Response to AppealLBoard Memorandum Q

l L

and Order of June 22, 1990 at 9 n.18.

Both the Barry memorandum and the' Plymouth opinion letter endorsed therein, I

however, were attached to the Licensees' July'11 Response-(

and.also were provided by the applicants to the. Commission in connection with its decision'on whether'to give immediate effectiveness to the Licensing Board's' authorization'of-a full-power license for Seabrook in LBP-89-32.

52 In this regard, because the documents in question have not'found their way into evidence in connection with the litigation of Contention No. 47, neither the correctness of the opinion expressed by the Plymouth Town Counsel nor Mr. Barry's authority to provide a binding endorsement of that opinion has been established.

/

v

..w a

-.- L -.--.

.--..-.l -L

.3 4

,,4,9

~

30 numbers of public school-teachers can be counted'on.to~

accompany their charges to Holy Cross College.

In'this regard,_we do not understand the Commission, in its realism-rule or otherwise, to have fashioned a conclusive

-presumption that, in any and'all circumstances, teachers will comply with any and all directives received from l

government officials.

Moreover, here such a presumption-

-might be difficult to' sustain as reasonable.

Among other things, the Plymouth Town Counsel's opinion letter itself notes that the Civil Defense Act contains nofspecific enforcement' mechanism, but simply authorizes the Governor to I

p:omulgate-implementing regulations and executive orders in anticipation of an emergency, the violation of which could L

be punished by imprisonment and/or fine.53 If the Governor L

of Massachusetts has undertaken such a step with-respect to-i

(

a possible Seabrook emergency, that development has.not been l

called' to our attention.54 -

C.

We now turn-to the further claim of the applicants and the staff that, in any event, there is no need for the presence of teachers.(includingiday-care center personnel)-

a on the buses or at the School Host Facility at Holy Cross j

1'

\\

O 53 See letter from Barbara J. Saint Andre to William E

Griffin (Dec. 30, 1988) at 2.

As earlier noted, thel letter L

accompanied the applicants' response to our June 22 order.

5' As we have seen, in terms the realism rule applies

,only to official action once an actual emergency has occurred and thus makes no assumptions respecting pre-j J

emergency conduct.

n

;p s or

-31

- E.

l This' claim is;not wholly rooted'in evidence in the College.

existing racord.

Rather, it rests in considerable measure i

upon affidavits supplied in response'to.our June 22' order, j

as well as upon other extra-record.saterial,-that assertedly-t p-establish that'a sufficient number of persons' (many of whom-are associated with ORO, the applicants' emergency. response-organization)' will be-available to ~ compensate for-any lack'.

of accompanying teachers."

If, in actuality, there uill be no need.for teachers-on

~

the buses and at the School Host Facility, then the question of teacher role abandonment becomes academic.5' But on the l

. no finding to that'effect is present state of the record, k

[

possible -- and, indeed, none was made by the Licensing Board.

Standing as an insuperable barrier to the acceptance-

]

dt this iuncture of the position of the applicants and the staff on the matter of the need for accompanying teachers

,s are the-following four considerations.

First, the:MassAG-specifically challenged in Basis R of-Contention No. 47 the

'l L

" See affidavits of Anthony M. Callendrello-(July 10, 1990) and Richard W.

Donovan (July 3, 1990), appended.to, respectively, the applicants' July 11 rand the staff's July.

13' responses to our June 22 order.

-Mr. Donovan, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regional A3sistance Committee Chairman for Seabrook, refers to c FEMA review of two support plans for the Holy Cross College School Host-Facility that, according to the staff, identify the classes) l of persons, other than the school bus drivers and accompanying route guides, who will be at the College.

The L

staff acknowledges (July'13 Response at 6) that these support plans are not in evidence.

56 See ALAB-932, 31 NRC at 406-08.

i

.9

,o

' cy.n *

+.

l 32 adequacy!of~ bus drivers, route. guides, andzother ORO personnel as substitutes for teachers who failed to g

L accompany. children.to the Holy Cross facility.. Second, l

because of the improvident x-sjection of Basis R at -the threshold, the MassAG was denied >an opportunity to; pursue

~

ll that challenge.

Third, the Licensing ' Board's decision on the SPMC reflects the Board's erroneous understanding, not surprising given the' confused state-of the applicants' evidence, that the American Red Cross would staff the School' Host Facility at Holy Cross College.

And fourth, as just noted, the applicants and the staff offer extra-record; matter in justification of their present. claim that teachers.

are-not needed at the School Host Facility.

IV.

For the' foregoing reasonst we must-reverse the Licensing Board's threshold rejection =of Basis R'of.MassAG's h

-contention No.'47 and-remand this proceeding to the Licensing Board.for an exploration of the two subissues of-h h

the= teacher role abandonment issue that-Basis R presents:

1.

Is there reasunable assurance that, in the event.

of a radiological emergency at Seabrook necessitating an-evacuation of children in schools and day-care centers within the Massachusetts EPZ, a suf ficient number oi' g

r teachers and day-care center personnel will escort the children to the School Host Facility at Holy Cross College

~

O '

4

, o ;. ' f> ' '

o

-33

- and: remain with those children until' relieved of that assignment?

.If such-reasonable assurance does not'existi;have.

2 '.

the. applicants made satisfactory alternative-arrangements for the care and supervision of the1 children both oniths bus trip to Worcester and during their stay at the School Host:

Facility?

The question remains whether the full-power operating license may be allowed to continue in-effect pending the-outcome of the remand.

Given.the as-yet uncontroverted-(but^

extra-record)' affidavit of Mr. Callendrello, the applicants!

Emergency Planning P icensing Manager,57 to the effect that ample ORO personnel will be'available to substitute for teachers and day-care center personnel, at this point we-are.

unable to conclude that_there are significant_ deficiencies in the SPMC relative to. teacher role abandonment for which This being so,.

adequate compensating _ measures do not exist.

I we do~not have sufficient warrant to take the drastic step of-license suspension.se On the other hand, should the MassAG challenge the representationc-in the callendrello v

affidavit (on grounds'of either insufficiency or inaccuracy) in a motion before-the Licensing Board seeking such a suspension, the-Board is to act upon the motion, following o

receipt of responses, with all possible expedition.

E 57 See suora note 55.

se See 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47 (c) (1).

l

~

l

- - - - - - - ^ - - - -

.___._s_

,f *' '

d 34

.The teacher role abandonment' issue <is remanded to the T.

Licensing _ Boa'rd for further proceedings-consistent with this opinion."

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL. BOARD k

d

-ad rA ?

Barbara A.-Tompkins' Secretary to the Appeal-Board

" In the brief in support of his appeal, the MassAG also' complains of the' threshold rejection of certain additional assigned bases for Contention-No.<47, concerned with the possible behavior ir. the eventiof a

emergency of persons-other than school. teachers-(e.g., bus drivers).

Brief of the (MassAG) in Support ofjhis Appeal of'LBP-89-32 (Jan. 24, 1990) at~34-35.

The entire discussion of.

Contention No.-47-in=the brief is little more than a page in length and refers specifically only to-the teachers.

In'the circumstances, we find that solely the rejection of Basis R, concerned with teacher response, was adequately briefed and,.

thus, warrants our consideration.

See, e.a.,

Georaia Power 99 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)', ALAB-87 2, 26 NRC 127, 131 (1987).

1 5

- ~

-3 Q

,1 :

j L* J ' # '

-UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA-c NUCLEAR RESULATORY' COMMISSION 6

.In the Matter of-1-

i I

.PUBL1C SERVICE COMPANY'0FJNEW l

Docket Nc.(s)' 50-443/444-OL-Hr.MPSHIRE,' ET AL.

1

-(Feabrook= Station,. Units 1.and 2.'

I I

l r

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i

1 hereby certify that copies lof the foregoing AB, DECISION (ALAB-937) 9/10/90 l

have-been served upon the'f ollowing persons by.U.S.

asil, first class,- except as otherwise noted~and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

p a

L Administrative Judge Administrative Judge H

6. Paul Bollwerk, !!!

Thomas S. - Moore, Chairman Atcalc Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal E

Board Board U.S.LNuclear. Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Consission 3

!4ashington, DC. 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative' Judge

-Howard A. Wilber Alan S. Rosenthal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atcalc Safety and Licensing Appeal p

Board Board l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Law Judge Administrative Judge-Ivan-W.' Salth, Chairman Richard F.' Cole p,

' Atomic Safety and' Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

t

?

<U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory.Consission.-

y Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC '20555 Robert R. Pierce, Esquire Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kenneth-A. McColloa U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1107 West Knapp Street Washington, DC ~20555 Stillwater, OK 74075

'Edwin J. Reis, Esq.-

Mit:1 A. Young Office of the Beneral Counsel Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

=,

/

i *'

Docket No.(s)30-443/444-OL-

~

' AB DECISION (ALAB-937U 9/10/90.

Diane Curran, Esq.'

-Thomas 6. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

Harmon Curran'& Tousley:

Ropes & Gray

- 2001 S Street,-N.W., Suite 430 One International Place :

- Washington, DC 20009 Boston, MA' 02110

~

Robert:A. Backus, Esq.

Paul

-McEachern,'Esq.

Backus, Meyer & Solcean Shaines & McEachern 116.Lonell Street 25 Maplewood Avenue, P.O. Box 360 danchester, NH 03106 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Gary-W. Holmes, Esq..

Judith H. Mizner Esq.

Holmes & Ells Counsel ^for West-Newbury 47 Winnacunnet Road' 79 State Street Hampton, NH 03042 Newburyport, MA 01950 Barbara J. Saint Andre,'Esq.

Suzanne P. Egan Counsel for Anesbury, Newburyport City. Solicitor

& Salisbury.

Lagoulis, Hill-Wilton and Rotondi Kopelean and Paige,-P.C.

79 State Street 101 Arch Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Jane.

-Doughty, Director Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Ashod N. Amiriani Esq.

5 Market' Street 145 South Main Street, P.O. Box 38 Portsmouth,'NH 03801 Bradford, MA 01830 George

, Iverson, Director George W. Watson, Esq.

N. H. 0ffice of Emergency Management Federal Emergency Management Agency

. Stats House Office Park South-500 C Street, S.W.

107 Pleasant Street.

Washington, DC -20472-Concord,, NH 03301 Jack Dolan George D. Bisbee, Esq.

. Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistant Attorney General "e

442 J.W. McCornack (PDCHI Office of the Attorney General 1

Boston, MA 02109 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 j

l Laz Docket No.(s)50-443/444-OL-1 AB DECIS10N1(ALAB-937)L9/10/90 1

l Paul A. Fritzsche, Esq.-

Suzanne Breiseth Office of'the Public' Advocate Board of. Selectmen 1

j>

State House Station 112 Town of-Hampton Falle p~

Augusta, ME: 04333:

Drinkwater' Road Hampton Falls,,NH 03044 i

John

'Traficonte Esq.

Peter J. Brann, Esq.

J Chief, Nuclear-Safety. Unit Assistant Attorney 6eneral-

0ffice of=the Attorney General Of fice. of the Attorney Beneral-One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor State House Station, 46; Boston,'MA 02100 Augusta, ME 04333' 4

Allen Lampert William Armstrong l

Civil Defense 1 Director-Civil Def ense Director Town of Brentwood-Town of Exeter-20 Franklin Street 10 Front Street

.Exeter, NH 03833 Exeter, NM 03033 Anne

, Goodman, Chairman Board of-Selectaen Michael Santosuosso, Chairman

'i 13-15 Newaarket Road Board of Selectaen Durhaa,'NH 03824 South Hampton, NH 03827 Li

'R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.

Stanley:W. Knowles, Chairman Lagoulisi Hill-Whilton & Rotondi Board:of Selectmen 79, State Street.

P.O. Box 710 Newburyport',iMA '01950 North Hampton, NH -03B62-a y

Norman C. Katner Sandra F. Mitchell (Superintendent of Schools Civil Defense Director

.c School Administrative Unit No. 21 Town'of Kensington Alumni Drive Box 10RR1

~

Hampton, NH- 03942 East Kingston, NH 03027 The Honorable-

_ Beverly Hollingworth Gordon J. Huaphrey

[

r 209 Winnacunnet Road ATTN Janet Coit Hampton, NH 03842 United States Senate i

Washington, DC 20510-

4-i S.,-

'.,a.Dockit'No.(s)50-443/444-OL'

- AB' DECISION (ALAB-937)L9/18/90:

}

i

. The Honorable Michael C. Sinclair I

Nicholas Marvoules Braystone Energency Management 1

ATTNi: Michael Greenstein Associates 70 Washington Street 13 Suaner Street a

Salen, MA- 01970 Hillsboro, NH 03244 u

- Dated at Rockville, Md. this 18 day cf September 1990

=l

..........P.v...........................

Of fice of; the Secretary of the Cosatssion i

i

.it r

n t

k\\

3~~

9

.t s

r s

i

-.