ML20206M372
| ML20206M372 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1987 |
| From: | Curran D HARMON & WEISS, PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206M376 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3141 OL, NUDOCS 8704200096 | |
| Download: ML20206M372 (8) | |
Text
L3Pl April 15, 1987 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINg,gggpD USHRC
)
In the Matter of
)
)
57 APR 16 P5:07 Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Nos.
)
CFFICE OF TE t #5 0-443 OL 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
0$pfjfjg[fkf$GENCY
)
PLANNING ISSUES
)
NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON CONTENTION NHLP-2 The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP")
opposes Applicants' Motion for Sammary Disposition of NECNP's Contention NHLP-2.
That contention asserts that The local emergency response plans for New Hampshire communities within the plume exposure emergency plan-ning zone do not assure that "each principal response organization has staf f to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis," 10 CFR S 5 0. 4 7( b) (1 )...
The admitted portion of the contention's basis challenges the adequacy of local police force and fire department personnel, and charges that the plans contain no demonstration that private com-panies or individuals who will be depended on to assist in an emergency will actually be able, committed, and willing to per-form those functions.
The contention also asserts that there is no assurance that local emergency response personnel will be reachable or that they will be able to respond soon enough to assure protection of the public health and safety.
Standard for Summary Disposition 8704200096 870415 C {} h PDR ADOCK 05000443 J
G PDR b
2-The burden of proof with respect to summary disposition is upon the movant, and the record and affidavits supporting or opposing the motion must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.
See Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-74-36, 7 AEC 877 (1974).
A contention will not be summarily dismissed. where the Licensing Board determines that there still exist controverted issues of material fact.
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-81-34, 14 NRC 6 37, 640-41 (1981).
The fact that the party opposing the motion fails to submit evidence controverting the' motion does not mean that the motion must be granted.
The proponent of the motion must still meet his burden of proof to establish the absence of a gen-uine issue of material fact.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-443, 6 NFC 741, 752 (1977).
Regulatory Requirements NRC regulations at 10 CPR S 50.47(b)(1) require Applicants to demonstrate, inter alia, that "each principal response organi-zation has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis."
This requirement is further explicated in NUREG-0654, S A, which requires, among other things, provision for 24-hour emergency response capability; clear descriptons of emergency response functions; and written agreements between government agencies and other support organizations having a role in the emergency response.
i 1
cn
\\0 1
< Reasons Summary Disposition Should Be Denied First, summary disposition must be denied because FEMA has not issued formal findings or taken a position in this proceeding which supports Applicants' motion for summary disposition.
Pur-suant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR S 50. 4 7( a ) (2 ), the NRC must
" base its findings" regarding the adequacy of offsite emergency planning "on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency findings and determinations as to whether State and local emer-gency response plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that theyfcan be implemented."
A FEMA finding is entitled to a " rebuttable presumption on questions of adequacy and implementation capability."
Id.
As-a matter of law, the Board cannot grant any of Applicants' summary disposition motions unless and until it has heard the views of FEMA on these issues.
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (Wm.
H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Sta-tion, Unit No.1), ALAB-727,17 NRC 7 60 (1983).
Moreover, the parties must be given an opportunity to respond to FEMA.
Second, Applicants have failed to demonstrate the existence of undisputed f acts that entitle them to a grant of summary judg-ment.
Applicants' Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute addresses only a part of the contention, and fails to assert any undisputed facts that would entitle them to summary judgment on even that part of the contention.
Applicants make two assertions in their Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute.
First, Applicants state baldly,
6 J and without citation, that "the State of New Hampshire can and will' compensate for any municipality which cannot or will not implement the local plan."
This is a conclusion, and not a fac-tual statement.
The correctness of that conclusion is a z
vigorously contested issue.
Second, Applicants state that "a resource assessment has revealed that there are sufficient per-sonnel to implement the local plans."
Applicants provide no doc-umentation of that assessment.
The accorpanying af fidavit of Anthony M. Callendrello also shows that the assessment is "ongo-ing."
1 3.'
Moreover, Mr. Callendrello's conclusion in 1 4 that police department personnel can be adequately supplemented, and his conclusion in 1 6 that fire department personnel are ade-quate, are not supported by any facts regarding the number of personnel that are needed and the number that are available.
Mr.
Callendrello's unsupported opinion that these resources are ade-quate raises nothing more than a dispute with NECNP's assertion that they are inadequate.
There is no basis here for finding that material issues t.s fact are not in dispute, or that Applicants are entitled to a grant of summary disposition as a matter of law.
While Applicants have of fered only two limited and unsup-ported assertions in their Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute, their motion and af fidavits make numerous other asser-tions that are irrelevant or fail to show that there exists no dispute on the issues.
Mr. Callendrello, for example, asserts
. that fire department personnel are not responsible for monitoring evacuations or decontamination tasks.
Affidavit, 1 5.
The local emergency plans, however, assign fire department personnel responsibility for monitoring radio stations and Civil Defense radios during an emergency.
This effectively constitutes I
monitoring of the evacuation.
- See, e.g. RERP, Vol. 18 a t IV -18, Vol. 21 at IV-17, Vol. 17 at IV-14, Vol. 2 9 a t IV-13-14.
While fire department personnel may not be responsible for decontamination, their responsibilities are significant, consist-ing of set-up and operation of the EOC, which is responsible for extensive communications and coordination of the emergency response.
See, generally, local emergency response plans, S I V.
"he question of whether fire department personnel are adequate _ to perform these tasks is an issue of fact for trial.
Mr. Callendrello also states that " steps are being taken, or have been taken, to identify primary and alternate personnel to fill emergency response positions consistent with the local RERPs."
This statement makes it clear that these tasko have not been completed.
His affidavit thus fails to demonstrate that Applicants have complied with the law and that no material issue of fact remains with respect to bases (i) and (j).
Mr. Strome's affidavit says nothing at all about the ade-quacy of the New Hampshire RERP to provide for adequate emergency response personnel in the event of a radiological emergency.
His affidavit merely states, in paragraph 2, that the State will use
- its resources consistent with the provisions of the New Hampshire RERP.
This statement provides no information about the adequacy of the plan, which is the issue that NECNP is contesting in this case.
In paragraph, 3, Mr. Strome states that local plans can and will be implemented in the event of an emergency, and that the State can and will compensate for any lack of local emergency response capability.
This paragraph does nothing more than state the ultimate conclusion that is in dispute in this case.
In the body of Applicants' motion, Applicants cite letters of agreement in an apparent attempt to defeat NECNP's assertion that there is no reasonable assurance that bus drivers and tow truck company employees will be able, committed, and willing to perform their responsibilities in a radiological accident at Jeabrook.
Applicants have done nothing to controvert the asser-tions in basis (d) of Contention NHLP-2, that in spite of the apparent existence of letters of agreement with towing companies when this contention was filed, two company officials said they were not aware that they were never informed that they were listed in the plans; an owner of one of the companies told NECNP that he did not believe any of his employees would stay to assist in a radiological emergency; and another company told NECNP that it contracts its towing from another company and does not have any vehicles.
These assertions raise material issues of fact as to whether tow trucks and drivers will actually be available in an emergency.
4 7-Moreover, the letter of agreement with the Teamsters is inadequate to assure that drivers will be available in a rea--
sonable amountlof time, will be able to leave their jobs to assist in an emergency, or are aware of and committed to their responsibilities under the plans.
See NECNP opposition to Applicants' motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NHLP.
6.
Finally, Applicants have f ailed entirely to address basis (h) of Contention NHLP-2, which asserts that there is no assurance that local emergency response personnel will be reach-able or that they will be able to respond soon enough to assure protection of the public health and safety.
This issue must be tried in adjudicatory hearings.
. Applicants have failed to demonstrate that there exists no dispute as to material facts or that they are entitled to summary disposition as a matter of law.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicants' motion for summary disposition must be denied.
spectfully submitted,
( W&
Diane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D. C.
20009 (202) 328-3500 April 15,1987
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL PACTS IN DISPUTE REGARDING CONTENTION-NHLP-2 1)
In paragraph 1 of their Statement of Material Facts Not
]
In Dispute, Applicants state baldly, and without citation, that "the State. of New Hampshire can and will compensate for any municipality which cannot or will not implement the local plan."
This is a conclusion, and not a factual statement.
2)
In paragraph 2 of their Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute, Applicants state that "a resource assessment has revealed that there are sufficient personnel to implement the local plans."
The accompanying af fidavit of An thony M.
Ca l-lendrello shows that this assessment is " ongoing."
1 3.
More-over, Mr. Callendrello's conclusion in 1.4 that police department personnel can be adequately supplemented, and his conclusion in 1 6 that fire department personnel are adequate, are not supported by any facts regarding the number of personnel that are needed and the number that are available.
Mr. Callendrello's unsup-ported opinion that these resources are adequate raises nothing more than a dispute with NECNP's assertion that they are inade-quate.
/