ML20206M558

Town of Hampton Answer Opposing Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition (Toh Vi).* Applicant Underestimated Peak Summer Population & Failed to Allocate Sufficient Personnel, Equipment & Resources to Implement Emergency Response Plan

ML20206M558
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/15/1987
From:	Brock M, Mceachern P HAMPTON, NH, SHAINES & MCEACHERN
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20206M356	List: ML20206M353 ML20206M558 ML20206M707 ML20206M776 ML20206M815 ML20206M838 ML20206M864
References
OL, NUDOCS 8704200133
Download: ML20206M558 (9)

Text

_

. 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0%;7)c'.

before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINefqMR6 g P4:3B

_ . y ,;;s y

) 0FFigt 00

ggyggg, In the Matter of ) ggg,gcq

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF - ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL ND1 HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL

) Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues

)

)

TOWN OF HAMPTON ANSWER OPPOSING APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION (TOH VI)

Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.749, the Town of Hampton submits this ANSWER OPPOSING APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION (TOH VI) and, on the basis of the Affidavits of Dona R. Janetos, Donald J.

Ziegler, Alan Luloff, Glen French, Herbert Moyer, Thomas J. Adler and TOWN OF HAMPTON MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION, and f or reasons set forth below, the Town of Hampton requests this Board to deny APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ON TOWN OF HAMPTON REVISED CONTENTION VI and to grant Town of Hampton motion for summary disposi-tion.

REASONS EQB DENYING APPLICANTS' MOTION Town of Hampton Revised Contention VI generally alleges that there are not suf ficient personnel to implement the Hampton RERP in the event of radiological emergency.

8704200133 870415 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR SH AINES & McEACHERN . seerssomas assocaaves. anon =ces

i First, Applicant has grossly underestimated the peak summer population f or Town of Hampton and thereby has f ailed to allocate sufficient personnel, equipment, and resources to implement the Hampton RERP in event of emergency. Hampton Contention VI, 2/21/86, basis A, Luloff Affidavit; French Affidavit. While Applicant presently alleges that the peak summer population for Hampton is only 36,63 5, LighgIman Af fidavit, Glen French, Executive Director of the Hampton Chamber of Commerce, has stated by affidavit that the Chamber of Commerce estimates the summer population for Hampton f rom between 150,000 to 200,000, with an upper peak population of 250,000.

Since KLD purportedly relies, in part, upon data obtained f rom

" Chambers of Commerce", Vol. 6, p.1-2, the Af fidavit of Glen French, as Executive Director of the Hampton Chamber of Commerce, is suf fi-cient to generate a f actual dispute regarding population estimates for the Town of Hampton and warrants denial of Applicants' Summary Dispo-sition on this issue.

Applicants' present population estimates for Hampton are further disputed by prior drafts of the NHRERP. The original population estimate contained in the NHRERP for the Town of Hampton stated a peak l

population of 61,50 8. Egg Applicants' Motion f or Summary Disposition (TOH VI) at p. 2. This figure was subsequently increased by Applicant to 110,000. Hampton RERP, p. I-ll; Hampton Contention VI, 2/ 2 1 / 86, basis A. Applicants' present peak population figure of 36,635 for

! Hampton therefore represents a forty (40) percent reduction over those I

i SH AINES & McE ACHERN .aorses'o== assoc a'e a'*oams

,m_ _ _ . _ . _

_=m_.

estimates originally admitted to by Applicant, and a sixty-seven (67 )

percent reduction over the figures contained in the first amended Hampton RERP. The prior draf ts of the NHRERP therefor cast substan-tial doubt on Appli cants' population estimates which Applicant apparently reduced in an effort to compensate for inadequate personnel to manage Hampton's actual population in an emergency.

Finally, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has employed Alan Luloff to review and critique the EPZ population figures contained in the present NHRERP. While Mr. Lulof f has been unable to complete his researches at this time, his preliminary findings are that little or no confidence may be placed in Applicants' population figures, parti-cularly those relating to beach goers and other transients special needs and transit dependent persons, and growth projections. Luloff Affidavit, p. 2. In accordance with 2.74 9(c), this Board should further deny Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition to permit Mr.

Luloff additional time to conduct necessary field research including aerial surveys, to refine and support his preliminary conclusions.

Egg Lulof f Af fidavit, p. 23, 24.

Appl icants' further claim that the Town has agreed to provide at least limited personnel and resources to implement the RERP and that the State, acting with or without Town assistance, has suf ficient

! personnel to implement the NHRERP. The Town denies these claims.

Janetos Af fidavit.

Additionally, Hampton part-time seasonal special police of ficers

do not receive training in the NHRERP, including emergency and evacua-I SHAINES & McEACHERN . ==orrsso.as assoc.**o. a no==res

s 1

tion procedures. Janetos Af fidavit. Even if trained, these special 1

officers typically do not live within Hampton and are not reasonably available in the event of actual emergency. Janetos Affidavit.

Although sixty (60) part-time special officers were authorized in the

]

Town's budget, not all of these positions could be filled. Janetos Affidavit. There are only a maximum of five (5) to seven (7) full-time police officers on duty in one shift. Even assuming its partici-pation, therefore, the Town would not be able to provide an adequate j and immediate response of " sixteen local police personnel" which the State claims is necessary to support implementation of the Hampton RERP. Callendrello Affidavit Paragraph 8. M r. Ca11endre11o's j Affidavit, proferred by Applicant, is therefore a mere compilation of numbers, contained generally in the Town budget, which bears little relation to actual, available and trained personnel to implement the NHRERP for Hampton.1 1 In its Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Disposition, i Applicant's attempt to overstate the prior holding of this Board that an allegation of part-time employment, without more, does not generate i an issue of f act that the personnel will not be available to implement i the NHRERP in the event of emergency. Memorandum and Order 4/29/86 at

, Page 64. As set f orth above, the Town by no means relies solely on l the f act that special police of ficers f or Hampton are employed on a part-time basis. The Affidavit of Chairman Janetos makes clear that

these part-time, seasonal police of ficers have ng trainina in the l

NHRERP or. in emergency or evacuation procedures, in view of their

relatively limited duties and brief tenure with the town. Even

! assuming such training, typically most of these special officers reside outside of Hampton and therefore would not be readily available to implement an NHRERP. Applicant's reliance upon this Board's Order

to support its position is misplaced, overstated and should be j rejected.

i i

SH AINES & McE ACHERN eacetoso.% associate swom=rve

-._,___,_-.,___,,_,_..._,,_m.. _ . , _ , _ _ . _ . , . . . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ , _ , _ _ _ _ . , . _ . - _

9 i

Contrary to Mr. Callendrello's inferences f rom personnel numbers contained in the budget, employees of the Town of Hampton Public Works Department are not employed by the Town f or traffic management, to oversee and or remove disabled vehicles from the roadways, or other-wise to maintain the f ree flow of traffic on Hampton roads as required of these individuals under the NHRERP. Vol.18 p. III-12; Janetos Affidavit. These individuals therefore lack the requisite training, even assuming their partcipation, to implement the NHRERP. Virtually none of the individuals employed in the Hampton Department of Public Works have received training in, or are apparently f amiliar with, their duties as assigned in the Hampton RERP. Janetos Affidavit. The part-time employees in Public Works are typically high school or college students who are employed to clean up trash f rom the beaches and have no experience, training or knowledge of the Hampton RERP.

Most of the other public works personnel are involved in waste water and solid waste treatment and their employment duties have no relation to traffic management and/or servicing of roadways as assigned under the NHRERP. Janetos Affidavit.

The Affidavit of Richard H. Strome, New Hampshire Civil Def ense l

Director, submitted by Applicant, f urther supports the Town's position i

! that Applicant lacks adequate personnel to respond and augment its l

initial response on a continuous basis. 10 C.F.R. S 50.47 (b) (1) . In its Memorandum, Applicant admits that "anoroximately eichtv-six (86)

State Eo1 ice personne1 AIR Iggnirgi" in 1EPlamant the EHEEEEt an.d l

l l.

• EStea. #$Et&T*O% 8"M%f v9

_y i

i I _ ,.

- ge.

2.*

"this gDamittEtat AXCiada the I.esonnes nf State Police Ig gy & ,

Applicant Memorandum p. 5 2 Sag Strome Af fidavit.

The Af fidavit of Mr. Strome further candidly states that it_ will be three (3) to four (4) hours before " additional troopers can be made available". This Board should therefore rule, as a matter of law, that Applicant has f ailed to demonstrate adequate availability of 1

personnel as required by '50.47 (b)(1) and NUREG-06 54 Pages 31 et seg.

Based upon TOWN OF HAMPTON MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION, including the Af fidavit of Herbert Moyer, previously filed with this Board, the Town f urther requests this Board to rule, as a matter of law, that Applicant has f ailed to demonstrate that adequate teachers and health care personnel will be available to implement the NHRERP in the event of emergency. Moyer Af fidavit and petition of EPZ teachers.

The Affidavit of Mr. Milletti (Milletti Affidavit One) proffered by Applicant in support of its motion wholely f ails to address the issue of conflict.ing duties for teachers and health care workers (e.g.

family / student or f amily/ patient) and therefore provides no support for Applicant's position that teachers would implement the MIRERP in the event of emergency. Egg Ziegler Af fidavit. Applicant finally claims that its compensatory plan will adequately supplement for any lack of participation by the Town of Hampton or other area towns. The 2 There are approximately thirty-five (3 5) personnel in State Police Troop A. See FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment 6/2/ 86 Page 46.

SH AtNES & MCE ACHERN . *=oassee.a assoc.aew. arve=%e,s

Town denies this claim. Janetos Af fidavit. Further, since the State admits a' substantial deficiency in State Police troopers to implement the NHRERP until three (3) or four (4) hours after the onset of an emergency, the Applicants' claim is refuted by M r. Strome's own affidavit. Additionally, the only mechanism for providing supplemen-tal personnel, according to the State, is "in conformance with Vol. 2, App. G of the New Hampshire Plan entitled Concept of Operations f or Providing State Assistance to Municipalities Unable to Respond to an Emergency". Applicants' Memorandum p.11; Strome Affidavit. A review of this compensatory plan, however, plainly demonstrates that the State has made nn provision to supplement for teachers and health care personnel who may refuse to implement the MIRERP. See Vol. 2, App. G,

p. G-2 (Special Facilities and School Personnel are still relied on in compensatory plan as sole means for implementation). Accordingly, the Affidavit of M r. Strome stating that "the State of New Hampshire can and will implement the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Vol. 2, App. G" to compensate f or lack of local covernmental participation, which the Town denies, is in any event irrelevant on the issue of whether the State can adequately compensate for the lack of private citizens, including teachers and health care personnel, based upon their avowed refusal to implement the NHRERP during an emergency. Moyer Affidavit.

For reasons set f orth above, this Board should deny Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition on Town of Hampton Revised Contention SH AINES & Mc E ACHERN . ==orsso o=4s associaec= ano== eve _

3 l

VI and grant the Town Summary Disposition Motion, date6 March 25, 19 U, previously filed with this Board.

Respectively submitted, Town of Hampton By Its A orneys SHAINE McEACHERN, P.

4 L aul McEachern Dated: April [b', 19 87 -

'A * <

Matthew T. Brock I

SH AINES & McE ACHERN = mowesso.a. assoc.ation anomances

STATEMENT QE MATERIAL PACTS IB DISPUTE (TOH y_I)_

l. The Applicants' population estimates, including beach, transient, transit dependent, and special needs, for the Town of Hampton, and for the entire EPZ are inaccurate and unreasonably low.

2. The seasonal and part-time special police of ficers for the Town of Hampton lack the training to implement the NHRERP in the event of actual emergency at Seabrook.

3. The part-time and seasonal special police of ficers f or the Town of Hampton, even assuming adequate training in the NHRERP, will not reasonably be available to implement the NHRERP in the event of actual emergency at Seabrook.

4. The State lacks suf ficient State Police Troopers to provide an initial response to implement the NHRERP in the event of actual emergency at Seabrook.

5. Virtually all teachers and health care workers within the EPZ, including the Town of Hampton, will not implement the NHRERP in the event of actual emergency at Seabrook.

6. The State has no means within the NHRERP to compensate for the lack of participation by private citizens, such as teachers and health care workers, in the event of actual emergency at Seabrook.

l

7. The State has no adequate means to compensate f or the lack of I

participation by Hampton officials in implementing the NHRERP.

8. No personnel, equipment or other resources f rom the Town of Hampton will be made available in the event of actual emergency at Seabrook and the State lacks adequate participation by the Town.

l SH AlNES & McE ACHERN - e=orasso.ac associato. **tonwes i