ML20205N214
| ML20205N214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1987 |
| From: | Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205L804 | List:
|
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8704020625 | |
| Download: ML20205N214 (13) | |
Text
1 o
4 Dated:
March 25, 1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL 4
)
Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
Planning Issues l
)
)
i i
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION (TOH VI)
Pursuant to 10 CFR $2.749, on the basis of the f
" Affidavit of Richard H. Strome (TOH VI)" (Strome Affidavit), the " Affidavit of Anthony M. Callendrello (TOH VI)" (Callendrello Affidavit), and " Affidavit one -
The General Character of Public Behavior in Emergencies
("Miletti Affidavit One"), " Affidavit of Edward B.
Lieberman (TOH VI)" (Lieberman Affidavit) and for the reasons set forth below, the Applicants move the Board to enter an order granting summary disposition with respect to Town of Hampton (TOH) Contention VI.
8704020625 870325 PDR ADOCK 05000443 Q
i REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION This contention, as admitted by the Board in its April 1, 1986 Order, and as amended by the Board in its May 22, 4
1986 and February 18, 1987 Orders, alleges that the Town of Hampton Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP) fails to demonstrate that there are sufficient numbers of personnel available to provide an initial response and augment that response on a continuous basis.
Contention Basis A provided in the Town's filing of j
February 21, 1986 asserts that the peak summer population estimates relied on by the Hampton RERP are significantly under estimated and the size of the local emergency response organization may therefore be insufficient to carry out all of the requisite emergency response functions contemplated by the Town Plan.
1 Based on the analysis provided in the development of the Seabrook Station ETE, the population estimates relied i
on by the contention are, in fact, overly inflated i
themselves.
Although the local Chamber of Commerce
" relies" upon population estimates of between 150,000 to 200,000 people per day during the summer months, the road and parking capacities of the Town simply cannot support 4
i such estimates.
The original Hampton RERP depended upon the assumed peak summer population for the Town of Hampton of 61,508.
I 1 !
j-
+-
e s,-
s.
s y-f'
' m ;,.
4 The ETE analysis, however, eetablishes evp)n this escasate l 7,,
\\
y as conservative.
Lieberman Affifavit No. 3.
Theres F even if response functions woro_directly tied to population, a rise in that population would no,t over tax 1
?
a local responre beganintion constructed to itgle'.nent the i
Town 'of Hampton RERP.
\\
~.
R '
Bases B'and B, and further Bases A and B each allege p
various plan inadequacies based upon probinms assoc,tated
\\
withthe$vailabilityoflocalandstatepeliceperminnel.
Basis B asserts that the "Hampton REh? provides Lcoat a x
s i
total of 80 police officers and personnp. will be available to respond..
(but that] these figures are misleading in that they f ail to account. for the' fact, thAt 50 of the 80 polico personnel are J'Gpeclu t Officers' hind by the department on a part time or seasonal
.c basi s.
Furthermcre, the basis contends, due to this part-time or seasonal employment, these special officers lack the experience, skill and training necessary to provide an adequate offeLtc.amorgency response.
Although the total number of police paraoanel, according to the Town's Annual Report for.1986, haa.
^
increased to 91, the Hampton RERP, at Appendix C-1, does provid<3 a detailed breakdown of the 8C police parsonnel l
specified in the plan including the fact that 50 me "special officers".
Callendrello Affidaviti,_f,'p Tl:e feet that thest portonnel are part time or maasonn'. employees 1
L s,
.o f
N.
) N E, p t<
3, t 4.
..,1
.t
CT:
l i
k f
of the Town of Hampton does not in and by itself discount
(
thace personnel from being available for emergency response activities.
Furthermore, the Town has failed to demonstrate that part-time police personnel overly lack i
s the background qualifications needed to perform police 2,
\\)
duties or emergency duties such as directing traffic, l3 merely because they are part-time.
1 Not withstanding the above discussion, and as a result i
of an ongoing personnel identification and assignment program, it has been determined that 28 Traffic Control
_ Posts of the 30 Posts located within the Town will be manned by State Police as a result of the Town's J.
commitment to provide only two police personnel to support this function.
Callendrello Affidavit T 7.
Therefore,
('
there is no uncertainty that adequate numbers of local police personnel do in fact exist to provide local omergency response functions.
On the basis of that same program, it has been determined that 16 Hampton police personnel are needed to support the implementation of the Hampton's RERP.
Callendrello Affidavit V 8.
This number is well within the 31 persons stated as being full time employees in the Town of Hampton Annual Report for the year ending December 3,
31, 1986.
Callendrello Affidavit 1 9.
Basis A, proffered as a further basis in the Town of Hampton October 31, 1986 filing, asserts that Revision 2 4-i
?
6
.---.,,,y
,n..
,--a, n
-,-,.-, -~..---- -
9 I
.e at Vol. 6, p. 8-11, "provides that 28 local traffic guards.
l are required for the Town of Hampton and Hampton Beach".
j This is a gross misrepresentation of the plan.
What is called for is the need for 28 traffic guides on local roadwayE)not28localpersonnel.
Callendrello Affidavit l
1 10.
These personnel may be provided by the local
~
municipality or the State.
As a result of meeting with representatives of the Town, and as stated above, most of 4
these personnel will be provided by the State.
Basis B, proffered as a further basis in the Town'of f'
Hampton's filing of-October 31, 1986, and Basis H in part, i
assert that State Police Troop A, with limited personnel resources, is expected to provide personnel to staff access control points for the EPZ and to provide personnel i
to assist local municipalities which lack the personnel i
j resources needed to provide traffic control and other law enforcement functions.
This basis asserts that with all i
i of the functions needed to be performed, the requisite personnel needed are beyond the resources of Troop A.
In the case of providing support to a radiological 4
emergency response in and near the Seabrook Station EPZ, 3
an ongoing resource assessment. program of personnel resources has'shown that a total number of approximately 86 State police personnel are required.
Callendrello Affidavit T 11.
Although this commitment exceeds the resources of State Police Troop'A, which provides an-4
' t 3
V
i 4
immediate response of available personnel, the NH State Police have indicated that additional troopers can be made available within 3 to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> Strome Affidavit 1 2 out of a total force of 227 sworn personnel statewide, Callendrello Affidavit 1 11.
Basis H,'in part, contends that the plan provides only one state police vehicle to maintain municipal security and to report on local road and traffic conditions and that this is insufficient to support an evacuation.
Both municipal security and reports on traffic conditions are supported by traffic control personnel by virtue of their presence in the community.
Some 30 police personnel provide traffic control in support of the implementation of the Town of Hampton RERP.
In addition, and based upon the aforementioned personnel identification and assignment program, a minimum of six local police personnel could be made available by the Town of Hampton to support this function.
Callendrello Affidavit 1'11.
Basis C of TOH-VI, as admitted on April 1,
- 1986, asserts that the Town of Hampton Department of Public Works cannot field adequate numbers of department personnel due to the fact that many are " temporary" employees or emp -sees assigned to essential fields of work and thus would not be available to support response activities in the event of a severe radiological situation.
Here again, the Town of Hampton's assertion -
j-that Town personnel, because of temporary or part-time employment are somehow less able to respond than the year round employees.
This assertion should be discounted consistent with the Board's Order of April 29, 1986, which found in its ruling on the admissability of Basis (b) of Contention NHLP-2 that such circumstances of employment are not abnormal and therefore do not raise a litigable issue.
Order at 64.
Organizations, facilities and arrangements are in place to support the present needs of the Town.
The Hampton RERP does not contemplate any extraordinary measures beyond those faced routinely by town public works departments.
Furthermore, extraordinary measures are not required because a nuclear power plant is in the area, Southern California Edison Co.,
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLE-83-lo, 17 NRC 528, 533 (1973).
In any event, personnel are-available in sufficient numbers to support the Town through. Town and contractor resources.
Callendrello Affidavit T 15.
Nevertheless, if the need should arise, the capabilities and resources of the State may be brought to i
{
bear.
The State plan reveals a wealth of state-owned i
vehicles that can be used if necessary.
NHRERP, Volume 2, Appendix C.
In addition, the State plan provides that, 4
"The.New Hampshire Department of. Transportation is prepared to use its maintenance equipment, including plows
! l l
-~
4 and trucks, and towing equipment to maintain these
[ evacuation] routes during adverse weather and as unforeseen impediments to evacuation occur."
- NHRERP, Volume 1,.pp. 2.6-11b and 14.
The further assertion of this contention basis, that i
the Hampton RERP does not take into consideration
" accidents, breakdowns, driver disobedience, panic, and gas shortages", is simply unsupported.
The very emergency response functions discussed herein include the clearing i
of accidents and breakdowns as part of the definition of serviceability of roadways.
Furthermore, driver 1
disobedience and panic have been shown, through the study of past events, not to be a significant constraint to an evacuation.
In fact, persons faced with such adversity generally act in just the opposite manner.
Miletti' Affidavit One, passim.
The issue raised in Basis D of TOH-VI similarly asserts that Selectmen, by virtue of potentially holding other positions of employment and by holding an annually I
]
elected position, may not be available to respond promptly and implement response procedures.
The fact that the position of Selectman for the Town is part-time is again within the purview of the Board's Order of April 29, 1986.
Id. at 64.
Basis E stipulates that as a. result of' town vote and by local resolution adopted by the Board of Selectmen,.
4
,,-s-n,
..-n-
-m
-,+.n-
-- m-r e
c "the Town of Hampton has declined and refused to partic'.pate in the preparation or implementation of the Hampton RERP."
Therefore, as a result of this position,
'the Hampton RERP fails to provide reasonable assurance that the plan will be implemented during an emergency response.
This contention basis is stikingly similar to TOHF-1 which was summarily disposed by the Board in their order of November 4, 1986.
In this regard, the State of New Hampshire has reaffirmed its position that insofar as the Town of Hampton is unable (for whatever reason) to implement the Hampton RERP, then the State can and will provide such response capabilities in conformance with Volume 2, Appendix G of the New Hampshire Plan entitled Concept of Operations for Providing State Assistance to Municipalities Unable to Respond to an Emergency.
Strome Affidavit 1 4.
Basis F asserts that, due to the fact that within the Town of Hampton, the Town Manager is presently serving as acting Civil Defense Director, and tasks associated with the positions of Town Manager and the Civil Defense Director as outlined in the Hampton RERP are far too burdensome for any one person to perform.
In fact, the basis further states, these tasks would appear to be overly burdensome for two persons to conduct. j i
i
c The contention incorrectly assumes that since one' j
person " presently" handles both of these positions on a daily basis, one person would also be expected to handle both positions during a time of emergency response.
This is not the case.
Personnel resources available to the Town allow for the adequate staffing and training of both these positions.
Callendrello Affidavit i 15.
Basis G asserts that the " State Compensatory Plan relies upon local school officials" to take actions, at the mandatory direction of the State, to provide for the safety of the school children within their care.
The duties performed by school superintendents and personnel at special facilities to implement the New Hampshire RERP are consistent with the duties they would perform for any emergency.
Strome Affidavit 1 3.
The inability or unwillingness of local communities' officials to implement local plans in no way absolves these
~?
individuals of responsibility for persons in their charge at the time of an emergency.
The historical record for response to emergencies clearly shows that for individuals who find themselves in a collective threat situation, their first priority becomes the collective safety of people and the community at large.
Miletti Affidavit One 1 4.
" Letters of Agreement" are formal messages of mutual agreement of assistance to be provided by a particular 4
' )
organization to aid the emergency response process.
Schools and other special facilities within the PEP EPZ are recipients of assistance during an emergency. response, j
therefore, letters of agreement with these' facilities are not included in the NHRERP.
In sum, each of the foresoing bases of Contention TOH-VI relying on the circumstances of part-time or temporary employment should be discounted as a litigable issue consistent with the Board's ruling on admissibility of Contention NHLP-2, basis (b) made on April 29, 1986.
Furthermore, the Town of Hampton has sufficient numbers of personnel to adequately staff a Town response as detailed in the Hampton RERP.
The State of New Hampshire has reaffirmed its position i
that insofar as the Town of Hampton is unable (for whatever reason) to provide the necessary emergency response capabilities for the Town, then the State can and 4
will provide such capabilities in conformance with Volume 2, Appendix G of the New Hampshire RERP, so entitled T
i 4
l l - -
a P..
Concept of Operations _for Providing State Assistance to Municipalities Unable to Respond to an Emergency.
By their attorneys, f
an, Jr.
Kathryn A.
Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 423-6100,
t
a
- h STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 1.
The fact that personnel are.part time or seasonal employees does not discount these personnel from being available for emergency response activities.
2.
If necessary. State Resources and capabilities can be utilized to substitute for needed local personnel.
3.
Past evacuations have demonstrated that disobedience and panic are not significant constraints to an evacuation..
e V