ML19325D547
| ML19325D547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1989 |
| From: | Brock M MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325D548 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9323 OL, NUDOCS 8910250011 | |
| Download: ML19325D547 (8) | |
Text
s
' q$ s.
- f. ;
, ~
enxtito uwc L
UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'89 DCT 19 P3 :54 Lg' ATOMIC SAFETY AHD LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges; hhh Ivan W. Smith, Chairman
[
Dr. Richard F.
Cole Kenneth A. McCollom
?
~
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL_
y
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
)
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 2 and 2)
)
October 18, 1989 l
)
INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON CONTENTIONS JI-ONSITE EX-1 AND JI-ONSITE EX-2 Now come the Mascachusetts Attorney General, Seacoast
. Anti-Pollution League, and New England Coalition on Nuclear I
' Pollution (hereafter "Intervenors"), pursuant-to 10 CFR 52.749,
-)
and nove this Board to enter t.ammary disposition in Incarvenors'
]
favor on Intervenor contentions JI-Onsite Ex-1 and JI-Onsite f
Ex-2, (" Contentions") filed September 29, 1989 and October 13, 1989, respectively, on the grounds that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute, and Intervenors are entitled i
to summary disposition on these contentions as a matter of 8910250011 891018 PDR ADOCK 05000443 Q
()
M 7
er 4-
8;t
[
18-1
'4:
law.
This' motion is based upon the prior filings in this proceeding, including Intervenors' Motion to Admit contentions on the September 27, 1989 Emergency Plan Exercise filed September 29, 1989 and Intervenors' Second Motion to Admit i
Contentions on the September 27, 1989 Emergency Plan Exercise i
f dated October 13, 1989; the exhibits attached thereto including NRC Inspection Report No. 50-443/89-10 ("NRC Report") and New Hampshire Yankee Seabrook Station 1989 Graded Exercise Scenario
(" Scenario") ; Applicants' Response to Interveliors' Motion to Admit Contentions on the September 27, 1989 Emergency Plan Exercise dated October 11, 1989 (" Applicants' Response") ;
Intervenors' Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,
~ annexed to this motion; the Affidavit of Kelly-Anne Doherty; NRC Response to Intervonors' Motion to Admit Contentions on September 27, 1989 Exercise dated October 16, 1989; and the Memorandur. of Law filed herewith, and incorporated by reference herein.
As further grounds for this motion, Intervenors state that l
the NRC Report and Scenario, upon which Intervenors rely, in part, to support this motion, are public records, as defined in F.R. Ev. 003(8), and the NRC Report has been admitted to, and relied upon, as authentic by Applicants through attachment and filing of the NRC Report with Applicants' Response.
- Egg, p
Applicants' Response, p. 6 n.15 and Appendix 1.
Intervenors were also provided the Scenario by NRC in response to Mass AG's i
-c
W a
l, cf.,,.
{
o i
request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
Doherty l
'Af fidavit. -
he re f ore, these documents are admissible in evidence as public records, and in view of Applicants'
{
admissions, and may properly form the basis for a summary disposition m) tion.
Intervenors also note that motions for summary disposition "shall be filed within such time as may be fixed by the presiding officer".-
10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a).
Given
.i that hearings have been completed on all contentions admitted to date, and in light of Applicants' continued interest in earl) in resolution of all matters, Intervenors requests that this Board,'following receipt of responses by Applicants and staff, reach the merits of this motion.
)
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL
-s,
\\
~ L d.
( '.
~&
Matthew T.
BrocR*C f
Assistant Attorney General Nuclear. Safety Unit One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 4
Dated:
October 18, 1989 _ _.
g-
" qp k E t Inte rvenors ' Statement of Material Facts Not In Discutt
- 1) Applicants are required to conduct an onsite emergency a
planning exercise within one ycer before the issuance of a V
full-power operating 'icense for Seabrook Unit 1 ("onsite exercise one year rule '.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.F.1.
~
- 2) Applicants' application for an exe.mption from the onsite exercise one year rule was denied by the Commission.
Public Fervice Co. of New Hamoshire, (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2)
NRC CLI-89-19, (September 15, 1989).
- 3) In an effort to satisfy the onsite exercise one year rule, Applicants submitted a scenario package to NRC for the September 27, 1989 Exercise.
This scenario was approved by NRC u.
following minor revision.
NRC Report at P05.
- 4) The scenario approved by NRC established the scope, content, and extent of play for the Septenber 27, 1989 Onsite Exercise, Egg NRC Report at P05, and was filed by Intervenors in this proceeding as Exhibit 2 to Intervenors' Second Motion to Admit Contentions on the September 27, 1989 Emergency Plan Exercise, dated October 13, 1989.
Doherty Affidavit.
- 5) The scope of the September 27, 1989 Onsite Exercise
(" Exercise") did.not require or include a demonstration by ApplicantE onsite personnel of an actual shift change or a
~denonstration of the capability to provide staffing for continuous -(24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) operations for a protracted period or for second shift staffing.
Scenario pp. 2.1-1 to 2.1-3, 3.1-1 to 4
- y., -,,
_v
_ _ ~ _ _
c D
i 0
- 3.1-12..
The'NRC did not evaluate these capabilities ditring the Exercise. -NRC Report at P06.
?
- 6) The scope of the Exercise did not require or include a demonstration of the public notification system for the Massachusetts EPZ.
Scenario pp. 2.1-1 to 2.1-3, 3.1-1 to 3.1-12.
The NRC did not evaluate this capability during the Exercise.
NRC Report at P06.
- 7) The scope of the September 27, 1989 Onsite Exercise did not require or include a demonstration that the administrative and physica) means, including a siren system, have been established for alerting and providing prompt instruction to the public within the: Massachusetts EPZ.
Scenario pp. 2.1-1 to 2.1-3, 3.1-1 to 3.1-12.
Such a siren system is within the exclusive control of the Applicants and is described in the SSRERP at 11-1 and Appendix E.
The NRC did not evaluate these capabilities during the exercise.
NRC Report at P06.
- 8) The scope of the Exercise did not require or include a demonstration of Applicants' VANG system for the Massachusetts l
EPZ.
Scenario pp. 2.1-1 to 2.1-3, 3.1-1 to 3.1-12.
The VANS E
system requires Applicants personnel to be mobilized, to i
proceed to designated locations for siren setup, and to prepare l
for siren activation.
The NRC did not evaluate the VANS system l
during the September 27, 1989 Onsite Exercise.
NRC Report at P06.
b 1.
- l. '
l l:
l l
y l
x
- 9) The Applicants' VANS system has ne ar been field tested in an exercise.
~ 10) The scope of the Exercise, as limited by the scenario,
~
did not include a simulated major release of radioactivity.
NRC Report at P06.
The Exercise did not advance beyond a declaration of Site Area Emergency.
Scenario at 5.0-1.
- 11) The scope of the Exercise did not require or include a demonstration by Applicants' onsite emergency response personnel of their capacity to.actually formulate or communicate Protective Action Recommendations (PARS) to offsite officials, or adjust PARS based upon changed meteorological or
+
plant conditicas.
NRC Report at P10-11.
The NRC did not evaluate this capability during the Exercise.
Id.
- 12) The scope of the Exercise did not require or include participation by-a medical team from a local support services agency (the Seabrook Fire Department-pursuant to the Seabrook RERP).
Scenario at 2.1-1 to 2.1-3, 3.1-1 to 3.1-12; NRC Report at P06-P12.
- 13) The scope of the Exercise did not require or include participation by an offsite medical treatment facility (Exeter Hospital.according to the SSRERP).
Scenario at 2.1-1 to 2.'l-3, 3.1-1 to 3.1-12; NRC Report ct P06-P12.
- 14) The scope of the Exercise did not require or include a demonstration of fic'i monitoring or plume tracking.
NRC Report at P11..
c.
l o I
f
- 15) The scope of the Exercise did not require or include a j
' demonstration by onsite emergency response personnel of
~
monitoring and decontamination at the offsite locations designated for that purpose under the emergency response plan (Seabrook Dog Track and the "Harehouse" on Route 107).
Applicants' Response at 6 n.15.
i 6
l l
1 o
il 'o
u i
AFFIDAVIT OF KEI LY-ANNE DOHERTY 1.
I, Kelly-Anne Doherty, having been duly sworn, do hereby depose and state that I am a paralegal with the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office in the Nuclear Safety Unit.
2.
On July 31, 1989, this office requested the Scenario for the Seabrook Station Emergency Onsite Exercise
(" Scent.rio"), conducted on September 27, 1989, from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC").through a Freedom of Information l
t Act Request ("FOIA").
3.
On October 10, 1989, Natalie Brown of the FOIA Branch of the NRC. forwarded the Scenario to this office as requested.
4.
The Scenario was attached as Exhibit 2 to Intervenors' Second Motion to Admit Contentions on the September 27, 1989 Emergency Plan Exercise filed on October ".3, 1989.
Sworn'to under the pains and penalti<ss of perjury this 18th day of October, 1989.
\\
lG4 k
- YW Kellyianne Doherty g
1 1
i
-