ML20205P859
Text
._
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
)
Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
Planning-. Issues
)
)
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON SAPL REASSERTED CONTENTION 8A Pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.749, on the basis of the facts set forth in " Affidavit of Richard H.
Strome, (SAPL-8 and 8A)," (Strome Affidavit) " Affidavit of William T. Wallace,
~
Jr. (SAPL-8 and 8A)," (Wallace Affidavit)'" Affidavit of i
Edward B.
Lieberman (SAPL-8 and 8A)," (Lieberman Affidavit) and the " Affidavit of Anthony M.
Callendrello, (SAPL BA)"
(Callendrello Affidavit) and for the reasons set forth below, Applicants hereby move this Board-to enter an order granting summary disposition with respect to SAPL Contention 8A in favor of the Applicants.
%40gO 5
3 G
r--
m
.t' 1
l REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS MOTION SAPL 8A contends that the "New Hampshire Compensatory Plan" lacks sufficient manpower to enable the State to provide support to local municipalities.
The contention specifically refers to NUREG-0654 Sections II.A.l.e, II.A.4 and II.F.1.a.
Each refers to the necessity of 24-hour coverage for an extended period.
The manpower providing a 24-hour emergency response capability and 24-hour manning of communication links required by the referenced NUREG-0654 elements, for municipalities unable or unwilling to provide a response IS provided by the State (Strome Aff., 1 2).
The FEMA RAC evaluation of these elements of the New Hampshire RERP evaluated these elements as adequate, with the exception of II.A.4 which was left open pending a resource allocation study by the State (Strome Aff., 11 2 and 3).
A personnel resource allocasion program has been undertaken and has shown there are stfficient numbers of personnel available to the State to implement the tasks contemplated in the New Hampshire RERP (Callendrello Aff., passim).
Additionally, the State will adjust the pre-planned resources as required to implement an emergency response (Strome Aff., 1 4).
Basis a) contends that if local officials "have opted not to participate in the implementation of the local plans,
[then] there is no basis for anticipating that school 1 _
i superintendents and principals, day care center directors and other special facility personnel will~ provide a response since no letters of agreement exist with these persons."
In the ASLB Memorandum and Order, dated May 21, 1986, in ruling on SAPL Contention No. 15, the Board specifically stated agreements with receivers of services are not required.
Additionally, the Board rejected the notion that letters of agreement are required with School Administration Units, school teachers, day care centers, and nursing homes.
As noted in the Strome Affidavit 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 Aff.,
1 5).
A method of contact between the State and all special facilities within the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ is documented in the NHRERP to provide the necessary notifications and communications required for the special facilities to implement a response (Strome Aff., 1 6).
Basis b) asserts that there are not enough bus drivers available to support a response.
This assertion is based upon an examination of letters of agreement with bus providers.
In ASLB Memorandum and Order, dated May 21, 1986, in ruling on SAPL Contention 15, the Board has rejected SAPL's assertion that letters of agreement are required with individual bus drivers.
c.
A total of 515 bus drivers are currently. required to support the response (Strome Aff., 1 8).
Volume 5 of the New Hampshire RERP contains letters of agreement with various organizations.
The number of bus drivers provided for in the agreements exceeds 515 (Strome Aff., 11 7 and 9).
Basis c) contends that there is no demonstration that there are sufficient Sheriff's deputies to carry out responsibilities of the plan.
The Strome affidavit establishes there is a minimum of 15 deputies identified to staff the State Transportation Staging Area and local transportation staging areas in non-responding towns (Strome Aff., 1 10).
Revised basis d) contends that local liaisons as now listed in the plan, must travel a considerable distance to respond, and therefore, there is no assurance that this function will be performed during a " fast developing accident."
There are 20 individuals identified as IFO Local Liaisons listed in Appendix C, Volume 4 of the New Hampshire RERP.
All are NHCDA permanent or auxiliary personnel within the agency's supervision and emergency notification powers (Strome Aff.,
11).
The New Hampshire RERP provides for a response in the case of a " fast developing accident."
The response time of IFO local liaisons does not significantly impair this response (Strome Aff., 1 12). -
r Basis e) contends that insufficient traffic control personnel are available, under provisions of the I
Compensatory Plan, to perform traffic control functions.
Furthermore, this basis contends that there will be a loss of control of traffic control points should traffic cones be knocked down by any errant drivers.
A total of 72 traffic control points are identified in the NHRERP which would require approximately 48 state police and approximately 72 local police officers.
There are 185 state police officers statewide available to assist in manning these positions (Strome Aff., 1 13).
The number of traffic guides assigned to individual traffic control point's in the New Hampshire RERP is consistent with the intended functions of the guides.
The absence of a traffic guide at a Traffic Control Post particularly if only for a few moments, does not imply " loss of control" and should have no important effect on evacuation travel time (Lieberman Aff., passim).
As a further addition to the basis for Contention 8A and i
also for SAPL Reasserted Contention 8, SAPL contends that a
" serious conceptual flaw has been introduced into the plans that could potentially result in local emergency workers being removed from the area before the populace has been evacuated [since] local emergency workers are to be ordered out of the area once" an exposure of SR is reached.
The basis contends this since " Mandatory evacuation" of the t
public "will not be ordered until the projected whole body dose is expected to range between 5-25 rem."
The response to SAPL Contention 8 and 8A is the same.
State emergency workers can be authorized exposures greater that SR in accordance with Section 2.7 of Volume 1 of the.New Hampshire RERP.
In the event that radiological exposure to the population would exceed the conservative exposure _ limits established for local emergency workers, there is no intention to cause emergency workers to abandon their responsibilities for protecting the health and safety of the public (Wallace Aff., 1 4).
The State's policy in regard to radiation exposures to emergency workers is a sound protective action procedure that provides maximum protection to the emergency workers while ensuring a continued emergency work force (Wallace Aff., 1 5).
By their attorneys, e..
Thomas G.'
gnan, Jr.
R. K. Ga II Kathryn A.
Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 423-6100
' bb s
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE (SAPL 8A) 1.
The requirements of NUREG-0654 elements cited in the contention, II.A.l.e, II.A.4 and II.F.1.a for municipalities that fail to respond, are provided by the State.
The manpower, equipment and facilities and the concept for their use are described in the NHRERP.
2.
The RAC evaluation of the State of NHRERP (Rev.
2-8/86) found the NHRERP adequate for the NUREG-0654 elements II.A.1.e, II.A.4.,
and II.F.1.a.
Additionally, the
\\
RAC evaluation of the same NUREG-0654 elements in regards to State compensating actions for municipalities found the NHRERP adequate for NUREG-0654 elements II.A.1.e. and II.F.1.a.
The evaluation of NUREG-0654 element II.A.4. was left open pending the outcome of a resource allocation.
3.
The State will adjust pre-planned resources, as conditions change, to maintain the ability to implement an emergency response.
4.
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.
5.
The historical record for response to emergencies clearly shows that individuals with persons under their care fully implement any duties required to provide for the safety of their charges.
r.
1 e
6.
For each special facility in.the PEP-EPZ, a method and point of contact is established within'the New Hampshire RERP.
7.
In NHRERP Volume 4, Appendix I, (a copy of which is
' attached hereto and marked "C"),
the totals of 574 buses and 510 drivers are accurate and consistent with the numbers committed to in the letters of agreement.
.Only a total of 515 buses and drivers are actually needed.
NHRERP Vol. 2, App.
I, p.
I-3.
A letter of agreement has been executed with Local 633 of the Teamsters whereby they agree to supply up to 1,500 drivers.
Letters of agreement with owners are being obtained permitting the mobilization of these drivers by the union.
8.
The Rockingham County Sheriff's Department has identified a minimum of 15 deputies to assist with the establishment of the State Transportation Staging Areas.
9.
There are 20 individuals identified as local liaisons and listed in Appendix C, Volume 4 of the NHRERP.
10.
All the local liaisons are NHCDA permanent or auxiliary personnel within the agency's supervision and emergency notification process.
11.
Twelve telephone lines dedicated for their use have been installed at the IFO in Newington.
12.
The tasks associated with contacting each town's special facilities, as assigned by the IFO controller, will i
1 1
li
)
i be divided among the available. personnel on a priority basis to ensure the swiftest and most-efficient notifications.
13.
The arrival of local liaisons at the IFO (which-the state estimates to be approximately 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />) does not significantly impair the response effort.
.14.
A total of 185 state' police' officers statewide are available to assist'in manning traffic and access control.
posts.
15.
Emergency workers assigned duties for. response activities in regard for compensating for lack of local response are considered State emergency workers and as such can be authorized exposures in accordance with the provisions for State emergency workers contained'in Volume 1, Section 2.7 of the NHRERP.
16.
The protective action procedures for radiological exposures to emergency workers used by the state provide maximum protection to the emergency workers while ensuring a continued emergency work force.
17.
In the event.that radiological exposure to the population would exceed the conservative exposure limits established for local emergency workers, there is no intention to cause emergency workers to abandon their responsibilities for protecting the health and safety of the public.
9_
r 1
t t
18.
The number of traffic guide (s) assigned to an individual Traffic Control Post is consistent with the intended function of the guides.
19.
The absence of a traffic guide at a Traffic Control Post does not imply " loss of control" and should have no important effect on evacuation travel time.
20.
There are sufficient numbers of personnel available.
to the State as State employees,. members of support organizations, or emergency response volunteers to perform the tasks contemplated in the NHRERP.
21.
The ASLB Memorandum and Order, dated May 21, 1986, in ruling on SAPL Contention No. 15, the Board specifically stated agreements with receivers of services are not required.
l
\\ -1 1
- -