ML20206T970
| ML20206T970 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1987 |
| From: | Eric Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206T825 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8704230285 | |
| Download: ML20206T970 (15) | |
Text
...
UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, ) Docket No. 50-443-OL et al. ) 50-444-OL
) Offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) Planning Issues
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD A. THOMAS IN OPPOSITION TO CERTAIN MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION I, Edward A. Thomas, under oath, do state that the following is true:
- 1. I am the Division Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division of Region I of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As such, one of my responsibilities is the management of FEMA's Radiological Emergency Planning Program in New England.
- 2. I also serve as the Chairman of the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC), an interagency committee established pursuant to 44 C.F.R., Part 350.
- 3. Since 1981, I have been responsible for leading and coordinating the FEMA and RAC reviews and evaluations of State and local radiological emergency planning and preparedness in FEMA Region I (comprising the six-state New England area). In this regard, I have reviewed or supervised the review of es kDk4230jCMh[Og o AD PDk
the radiological emergency response plans of numerous State and local jurisdictions within the New England area and participated in observing or evaluating the conduct of more than 20 radiological emergency preparedness exercises in FEMA Region I. l
- 4. FEMA and the RAC have reviewed the plans submitted by the State of New Hampshire designed to protect the public in the event of an accident at the Seabrook Station. These reviews were performed under my direction by FEMA staff, consultants to FEMA, members of the RAC, and other federal employees !
who assisted the RAC members.
l S. On February 26, 1986, FEMA observed an exercise of New Hampshire's l plans to protect the public in the event of an accident at Seabrook. The l
final report of the evaluation of that exercise was completed on June 2, 1986, l and mailed to the State of New Hampshire on June 6, 1986.
l l
l
- 6. I have read and am familiar with the emergency planning contentions which are the subject of motions for summary disposition filed in March, 1987, by the Applicants, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Town of Hampton.
- 7. As set forth more particularly below, FEMA opposes certain of these motions for summary disposition either because FEMA and the RAC require additional information to complete their review of the issues contained therein or because the FEMA and RAC review has not yet been completed.
b
- 8. Based on the continuing review by FEMA and the RAC of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plans, as well as the State's compensatory plan and revisions to the plans, and the evaluation of the emergency planning exercise conducted on February 26, 1986, FEMA and the RAC have identified certain unresolved issues of material fact pertinent to the motions for summary disposition mentioned above and instances where FEMA I believ'es additional information is required prior to its reaching a conclusion on the adequacy of the New Hampshire State plans to protect the public in the event of an accident at Seabrook Station. See 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(a)(2). In the following paragraphs, I have related these to specific motions and have offered FEMA's basis for urging that these motions not be granted.
SHELTERING ISSUES
- 9. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) opposes the Motion for l Summary Disposition filed by Attorney General James A. Shannon of the l Commonwealth of Massachusetts (MASSAG). The issues raised in that motion, 1
l namely the difficulty of sheltering transient beach populations in the 1
summertime and its relationship to the Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) for the l Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), are complex and integrally connected to the determination which this Board must make about the safety of the population of the EPZ. FEMA is still studying those issues and plans to have its position developed, in consultation with the RAC, within three weeks of the date of this affidavit.
- 10. The motions for summary disposition on the sheltering issue filed by the Applicants cite a study done by its consultants, Stone & Webster. This
study may provide valuable informations and insights; however, FEMA has not yet received a copy for its consideration.
- 11. FEMA would point out that the 7 1/2 hour evacuation period which the MASSAG refers to in his motion is the outer limit of a range of evacuation times described in t'he ETE. It does not represent the time necessary to evacuate the beach population under circumstances when the rest of the people in the EPZ are asked to take shelter rather than evacuate, e.g., in a fast breaking release scenario.
- 12. FEMA also opposes the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of Hampton Revised Contention VIII, SAPL Contention 16, and NECNP Contention RERP-VIII. In this case as well, the reason is that the issues raised in that motion are complex and integrally connected to the determination which this Board must make about the safety of the population of the EPZ. FEMA is still studying those issues and believes that a more complete record should be developed through the filing of written testimony and the cross-examination of witnesses. In addition, FEMA has not received for its consideration a copy of the Stone & Webster study cited in the supporting affidavit of Anthony M. Callendrello.
RESOURLI ISSUES
- 13. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding SAPL Contentions 7 and 33 dealing with contamination monitoring resources. In their review of the Host Plans, dated December 15, 1986, FEMA and the RAC ,
requested additional information from the State of New Hampshire concerning l
l
u the availability of monitoring equipment and staff to operate the equipment
< and clarification of underlying assumptions'.
- 14. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of Hampton Contention IV which deals with resources for transportation needs. FEMA believes that it would be premature for the Board to grant the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of Hampton Contention IV because the State of New Hampshire has not fully documented the pairings of available buses and bus drivers. The Applicants' Motion is supported by reference to a letter of agreement with the Teamsters Union.
However, FEMA has not yet received assurances that the employers of the drivers nominally made available by that letter of agreement will be willing to allow them to leave their jobs to respond to an emergency.
- 15. FEMA opposes the Town of Hampton's Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of Hampton Contention IV for the reason that there are unresolved issues of fact about (a) the extent to which the plans submitted by the State of New Hampshire for the protection of the public in the event of an accident at the Seabrook Station would be hampered by the unavailability or unwillingness of teachers to carry out roles assumed by the plans since the plans depend upon many persons other than teachers alone and (b) whether the State of New Hampshire's compensatory plan is adequate to provide personnel to fill the roles of local personnel who will be unavailable or unwilling to participate in the execution of the plan.
- 16. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of Kensington Contention I dealing with the availability of emergency response personnel for the reason that the motion is supported by a personnel resources assessment program which was served on FEMA by the Applicants on April 10, 1987, but which FEMA will not review because this document was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of 44 C.F.R., Part 350.
- 17. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding SAPL Contention 15 dealing with letters of agreement for the reason that FEMA has not yet received assurances that the employers of the drivers nominally made available by a letter of agreement with the Teamsters Union will be willing to allow them to leave their jobs to respond to an emergency.
- 18. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of Hampton Contention VI dealing with the adequacy of personnel resources for the reason that the motion is supported by a personnel resources assessment program which was served on FEMA by the Applicants on April 10, 1987, but which FEMA will not review because this document was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of 44 C.F.R., Part 350.
- 19. FEMA opposes the Town of Hampton's Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of Hampton Contention VI for the reason that there are unresolved issues of fact about (a) the extent to which the plans submitted by the State of New Hampshire for the protection of the public in the event of an accident at the Seabrook Station would be hampered by the unavailability or unwillingness of teachers to carry out roles assumed by the plans since the plans depend upon many persons other than teachers alone and (b) whether the State of New Hampshire's compensatory plan ts adequate to provide personnel to fill the roles of local personnel who will be unavailable or unwilling to participate in the execution of the plan.
- 20. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of South Hampton Contention 2 dealing with the adequacy of personnel resources for the reason that the motion is supported by a personnel resources assessment program which was served on FEMA by the Applicants on April 10, 1987, but which FEMA will not review because this document was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of 44 C.F.R., Part 350.
- 21. FEMA opposes the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding NECNP Contention NHLP-2 dealing with the adequacy of personnel resources for the reason that the motion is supported by a personnel resources assessment program which was served on FEMA by the Applicants on April 10, 1987, but which FEMA will not review because this document was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of 44 C.F.R., Part 350.
- 22. FEMA opposes the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of Hampton Falls Contention 2 dealing with the adequacy of personnel
-resources for the reason that the motion is supported by a personnel resources assessment program which was served on FEMA by the Applicants on April 10, 1987, but which FEMA will not review because this document was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of 44 C.F.R., Part 350.
b
- 23. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding SAPL Contentions 8 and 8A dealing with the adequacy of personnel resources for the reason that the motion is supported by a personnel resources assessment
~
program which was served on FEMA by the Applicants on April 10, 1987, but which FEMA will not review because this document was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of 44 C.F.R., Part 350.
- 24. FEMA opposes the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding NECNP Contention NHLP-6 for the reason that the State of New Hampshire has not fully documented the pairings of available buses and bus drivers. The Applicants' Motion is supported by reference to a letter of agreement with the Teamsters Union. However, FEMA has not yet received assurances that the employers of the drivers nominally made available by that letter of agreement will be willing to allow them to leave their jobs to respond to an emergency.
- 25. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of South Hampton Contention 8 for the reason that it does not have enough information on which to base a conclusion. In the December 15, 1986, FEMA /RAC review of the Compensatory Plan, FEMA and the RAC withheld judgment until the resource assessment study was completed. A personnel resources assessment study was served on FEMA by the Applicants on April.10, 1987, but FEMA will not review this document because it was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of 44 C.F.R., Part 350. Until the resource assessment study is submitted to FEMA under the Part 350 process, FEMA and the RAC cannot complete their assessment of the adequacy of compensatory resources.
-.n-q -g - -.- y
W
- 26. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding SAPL Contention 18 for the reason that the Regional Assistance Committee, which FEMA chairs, has noted a discrepancy between the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency (NHCDA) special needs survey and a telephone survey conducted by KLD Associates in connection with its ETE study. In their review of December 15, 1986, FEMA and the RAC requested additional.information from the State of New Hampshire to resolve or explain the discrepancy.
- 27. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding SAPL Contention 25 for the reason that the letter of agreement with Clipper Home Affiliates, which the Applicants cite in support of their motion, has not yet been submitted to FEMA.
- 28. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding SAPL Contention 34 for the reason that the issues concerning the assumptions used in preparation of the Seabrook ETE are complex and integrally connected to the determination which this Board must make about the safety of the population of the EPZ. In their review of December 15, 1986, FEMA and the RAC requested clarification of such issues. FEMA is still studying those issues and believes that a more complete record should be developed through the filing of written testimony and the cross-examination of witnesses.
- 29. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding SAPL Contention 37 for the reason that the Applicants' Motion is supported by reference to a letter of agreement with the Teamsters Union. However, FEMA has not yet received assurances that the employers of the drivers nominally
i made available by that letter of agreement will be willing to allow them to leave their jobs to respond to an emergency. In addition, the motion is supported by a personnel resources assessment program which was served on FEMA by the Applicants on April 10, 1987, but which FEMA will not review because this document was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of 44 C.F.R., Part 350.
- 30. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of Kensington Contention 6 for the reason that the Applicants' Motion is supported by reference to a letter of agreement with the Teamsters Union.
However, FEMA has not yet received assurances that the employers of the drivers nominally made available by that letter of agreement will be willing to allow them to leave their jobs to respond to an emergency.
- 31. FEMA opposes Appil ants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of South Hampton Contention 3 for the reason that the Applicants' Motion is supported by reference to a letter of agreement with the Teamsters Union.
However, FEMA has not yet received assurances that the employers of the drivers nominally made available by that letter of agreement will be willing to allow them to leave their jobs to respond to an emergency.
- 32. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding SAPL Contention 31 for the reason that the issues concerning the assumptions used in preparation of the Seabrook ETE are complex and integrally connected to the determination which this Board must make about the safety of the population of the EPZ. In their review of December 15, 1986, FEMA and the RAC s
4 requested clarification of such issues. FEMA is still studying those issues
, and believes that a more complete record should be developed through the filing of written testimony and the cross-examination of witnesses.
- 33. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of Hampton Contention III for the reason that the issues concerning the assumptions used in preparation of the Seabrook ETE are complex and integrally connected to the determination which this Board must make about the safety of the population of the EPZ. In their review of December 15, 1986, FEMA and the RAC requested clarification of such issues. FEMA is still studying those issues and believes that a more complete record should be developed through the filing of written testimony and the cross-examination of witnesses.
SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS
- 34. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Town of Rye Contention 2 for the reason that the revision of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan addressing the needs of the residents at Rannte Webster Nursing Home has not yet been submitted to FEMA for review.
- 35. FEMA opposes the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding NECNP Contention NHLP-4 for the reason that it is not clear from the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan how hearing impaired individuals will receive further instructions once they are alerted to an emergency by a visible signal from their tone alert radios.
l
- l AFR.15 '87 17:01 FEN REGICri I BOSTON 1 P.02 ,
l
. . t. .
- 36. For the rea' sons set forth above, FINA believes that it would be inappropriate for the Motions for Summary Oisposition referred to in l Paragraphs 9 through 35 to be granted.
Gt EDWARD A. THOMA5 i
Subscribed and sworn to before me, the undersigned Notary Public, in the County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this /S P' day of April, 1987.
AU. L hotaryP'public e
My comission espires:[p[k' 3
/
l
- II -
l_ R dL - _ _ ___ _ - -
I s DOCKETED USNRC l w l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 87 APR 21 P2:08 '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GFf'CE CF E AT ' #"J-DEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAggpET{
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL NEW liAMPSHIRE, g al. ) Off-site Emergency Planning
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS" in the above- captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated
(*) by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or (**) overnight delivery, this 15th day of April,1987:
Helen Hoyt, Esq. , Chairman
- Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Ms. Carol Sneider, Esq.**
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Beverly Hollingorth Richard A. Hampe, Ecq.
209 Winnacunnet Road New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency Hampton, NH 03842 107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Calvin A. Canney, City Manager Ecard of Selectmen City IIall RFD 1 Box 1154 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NII 03801
Stephen E. Merrill Paul McEachern, Esq.
Attorney General Matthew T. Brock, Esq.**
George Dana Bisbee Shaines & McEachern Assistant Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Ofnce of the Attorney General P.O. Box 360 25 Capitol Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Concord, NH 03301 Roberta C. Pevear i Angie Machiros, Chairman State Representative Board of Selectmen Town of Hampton Falls 25 High Road Drinkwater Road Newbury, PIA 09150 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Allen Lampert, Mr. Robert J. Harrison Civil Defense Director President and Chief Executive Officer Town of Brentwood Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 20 Franklin Street P.O. Box 330 Exeter, NH 03833 Manchester, NH 03105 Charles P. Graham, Esq. Robert A. Backus, Esq.
McKay, Murphy and Graham Backus, Meyer & Solomon 100 Main Street 116 Lowell Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Manchester, NH 03106 Diane Curran, Esq. Philip Ahren, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss Assistant Attorney General 2001 S Street, NW Office of the Attorney General Suite 430 State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333 Edward A. Thomas Thomas G. Dignan Jr. , Esq.**
Federal Emergency Management Agency Ropes & Gray 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH) 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02109 Boston, MA 02110 H.J. Flynn, Esq. William Armstrong Aesistant General Counsel Civil Defense Director Federal Emergency hianagement Agency Town of Exeter 500 C Street, SW 10 Front Street Washington, DC 20472 Exeter, NH 03833 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel
- Board
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Jane Doughty Docketing and Service Section*
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Office of the Secretary 5 Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555
-j w Maynard L. Young, Chairman William S. Lord Egxd of Selectmen Board of Selectmen 10 Central Road Town Hall - Friend Street South Hampton, NH 03287 Amesbury, MA 01913 Michcel Santosuosso, Chairman Peter J. Matthews, Mayor Board of Selectmen City Hall South Hampton, NH 03287 Newburyport, MN 09150 Mr. Robert Carrigg, Chairman Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Silverglate, Gertner, Baker Town Office Fine and Good Atlantic Avenue 88 Broad Street Forth Hampton, NH 03862 Iloston, MA 02110 R. K. Cad III, Esq. Mrs. Anne E. Goodman , Chairman Ropes ts Gray Board of Selectmen 225 Franklin Street 13-15 Newmarket Road Boston, MN 02110 Durham, NH 03824 Gary W. Holmes, Esq. Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey, Holcies & Ellis United States Senate 47 Winnacunnet Road 531 Hart Senate Office Building Hampton, NII 03842 Washington, DC 20510 Elaine I. Chan Counsel for NRC Staff i
- - ----- . _ -- ___ _ _