ML20069G500

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Answer Opposing Applicant Seventh Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions NH-21 & CCCNH-5.Motion Premature & Should Be Held in Abeyance.Discovery Not Completed.Issues of Fact Still in Dispute.Related Correspondence
ML20069G500
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/23/1983
From: Bisbee G
NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20069G449 List:
References
NUDOCS 8303250170
Download: ML20069G500 (6)
v • d • e


Text

___ - ._.

~t; .:: - ~... ._.,-- . . -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s

Before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the matter of: )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY dF NEW HAMPSHIRE)

ET AL. Docket Nos.: 50-443

) and (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

) 50-444

)

) March 23, 1983

- THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'S ANSUER IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT'S SEVENTH MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOEITION (CONTENTIONS NH-21 AND CCCNH-5)

answers the Applicant's Seventh Motion for Summary Disposition, j relative to Contention NH-21. _

s A. The Applicant's Motion For Summary Disposition Is Premature And Should Be Held In Abeyance l The Applicant filed its Seventh notion for Summary Disposition on February 14, 1982, which motion New Hampshire must answer by March 24, 1983.

Discovery on the subject of this motion, contention NH-21, however, is not yet complete in that the Staff has answered none of New Hampshire's interrogatories on that contention.1!

I 1.

, 1/ See Staff's January 21, 1983 Response to 1:su Hampshire's '

Second Set of Interrogatories, at p.

9.

i 8303250170 830323 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 PDR

f These interrogatories probe the Staff's position on the sufficiency of the Applicant's Emergency Plan to protect the health and safety of those persons on-site in the event of an accident. The 1

interrogatories address in particular the adequacy of medical transportation and medical facilities for the treatment of injured, contaminated individuals, and the adequacy of the Applicant's radiation exposure control program.

  • Without the benefit of the Staff's views on these issues New Hampshire cannot fully state its position in opposition to a summary disposition motion on this contention. Where the Applicant alleges i

i that it has met all the regulatory requirements for on-site emergency planning, which New Hampshire refutes, and the Staff has not yet stated its position on the issue, there exists " good reason" for the Board to defer judgment on this motion. The Board should so .

order, in accordance with its March 16, 1983 Order at p. 4. -

t B. There Are Issues Of Fact Still In Dispute >

t New Hampshire has contended in Contention UH-21 that the -

Applicant has not demonstrated that adequate protective measures can -

and will be taken to protect persons on-site in the event of an emergency at Seabrook Station. New Hampshire has focused its concerns on the Applicant's failure to describe the measures to be employed in minimizing personnel exposure to radiation and its failure to demonstrate that arrangements for adequate medical .

f l services have been made.

l l

r .

i e

n ~ vr -w w--- ,-n. -

w aam > ,, w w, -e ,e-w r- ,,no+-w e -w --m----~s-----n -

As to protection from exposure to radiation, the Applicant in its summary disposition motion and accompanying affidavit states that Sections 10.3,-10.4 and 10.5 of its nmergency Plan " describe" the radiation exposure control program. This description 4

constitutes the Applicant's complete case on the adequacy of its radiation exposure control program. Contrary to Affiant MacDonald's conclusion that the Applicant has " fully addressed" all the relevant regulatory requirements, it is New Hampshire's position that it has not.

1 r

Section 10.3 of the Emergency Plan refers cryptically to radiation control " measures" and " emergency radiological protection j

programs," with no explanation or further description of either term.

Interrogatories NH 21.3 and NH 21.4 propounded to the  :

Applicant (dated December 15, 1982) called for descriptions of these

" measures" and " programs." f The Applicant responded as follous: 7 r_

The " measures" that would be utilized consist of i emergency radiological protection techniques and -

approaches appropriate to the radiological aspects of .

the emergency conditions at the time.

~

i -

" Emergency radiological protection programs" .:

techniques and approaches would be developed by Seaorook Station Emergency Response Organization _

personnel at the time of an emergency conditton.

They would experienced. be specific to the radiological conditions being _

(See Applicant's January 5, to New Hampshire's Interrogatories, at page1983 Answers a

44.)

From the.above, it is obvious that the Applicant has not established "means for controlling radiological exposures" as that term is used '

~

o

-y y-- e y- 3p _ - . -

y _ - - - , . - -'

us'w- - - - - - - - - t-* - r*- - - - ' " '-

1 in 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(ll), 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, IV(E),

and NUREG-0654 SJ.

As to the requirement that the Applicant demonstrate that arrangements have been made for adequate medical services for injured personnel 40 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(12) the Applicant in its summary disposition motion with accompanying affidavit states simply that the Emergency Plan " fully addresses" the issue. New Hampshire takes strong exception to this statement, since the Applicant has admitted that the proper arrangements are only "now being made."

See Applicant's January 5, 1983 Answers to New Hampshire's Interrogatories,at p. 43.

Furthermore, neither the Applicant's Emergency Plan nor its answers to New Hampshire's interrogatories provides reasonable assurance that the contemplated arrangements for medical services,- I including emergency medical transportation, will be adequate .

Section 10.5.1 of the Emergency Plan refers in one paragraph to the range of medical services that will be provided to contaminated injured personnel, but it i is wholly lacking in support for the  :

adequacy of the proposed facilities and the qualifications of medical staff.

C. Conclusion New Hampshire maintains that (1) the Applicant's Seventh Motion for Summary Disposition is premature because discovery is not -

complete on the issue and New Hampshire in thus derrived of information that should be available to it in formul2 ting this Q

- . - ~ . -

4 ,

answer; (2) the papers filed in this case deuonstrate that there r.emlin genuine issues as to the adequacy of the Applicant's radiation exposure control efforts and its arrangements for adequate medical services for contaminated injured personnel; and (3) as a-i matter of law the Applicant is not entitled to summary disposition on this contention.

Respectfully sdbmitted, THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GREGORY H. SMITH ATTORNEY GENERAL

.t r By: I A George Dana Bisbed' Attorney Environmental Protection Division'

! Office of Attorney General State House Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 603-271-3678 Dated: March 23, 1983 I

e i

4 0

t b

" ' ' ' - " ' = ,ye - c .-n -. _ ,

I i STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO UHICH THERE IS DISPUTE 1.

The Applicant has not adequately addressed the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

Appendix E, 550.27(b)(11) and (12), 10 C.F.R. Part 50 SIV(E), and NUREG-0654, SSJ, K and L in that:

a.

The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated how its personnel radiation; and will be protected from exposure to

b. The Applicant has not demonstrated that arrangements for adequate medical services for emergency workers have been'made. -

. 2. The Applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that adequate protect protective measures can and will be taken to emergency. persons on-site in the event of a radiological 1

m m

I

.?

E o

i -

4 i

.-. -.. ._,,- .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20069G500&oldid=2920486"