ML20211E577
| ML20211E577 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1986 |
| From: | Curran D, Ferster A HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-555 OL, NUDOCS 8606160164 | |
| Download: ML20211E577 (29) | |
Text
<;6
,h June 9, 1986 i
Jround that a "h ighly reliable commu n ica t ions ne two r k" now exists in the Seabrook EFZ. In support of their motion, Ap-plicants enclose the affidavit of Gary J. Ca ta pano, which con-tains various assertions regarding the equipment that has now been supplied to the towns in the EPZ. Applicant s' summary disposition motion must fail as a matter of law because it Jives no indication that the assertions made in the Ca tapano af fidavit are reflected in the offsite emergency plans for the Seabrook EPZ. The Ca tapano af fidavit refers to " discussions" uith local safety officials and " purchases" of equipment that resulted in " improvements" to the communications system, but does not state when these actions took place or whether they were incorporated into any of the local plans. For - ;g - instance, the affidavit states that "In most communities within the EPZ new dual address pagers were supplied for the police and fire departments ana for use by the key municpal of ficials as outlined by the RERP. " 1 4. However, the plans that have been served on the parties do not reflect that information. A review l I of Par t J of Appendix C o f each local plan, which lists equipment possessed by each town, shows that most of the towns have no pagers. The generalizations offered by Mr. Ca tapano cannot sub-stitute for a listing in each plan of how many pagers the town possesses, who will use them, and what they will be used for. Without that information, there can be no basis for a finding that the New Hampshire local plans provide adequate assurance '] that there will be a reasonaole assurance of safety during a radiological energency. The Ca tapano af fidavit makes many other generalizations without reference to the local plans that cannot be confirmed by reference to the plans. For instance, the affidavit states that " base stations and other types of communications equipment was also purchased to f acilitate RERP communications." 1 3. Neither the affidavit nor the plans themselves contain any explanation of what the "other types of communications equipment" might be. Mr. Catapano also states that "new multiline telephone systems have also been purchased and additional phone lines will be added to the EOCs." 1 5. Again, the plans make no mention of such tele-phones. The only information given in the plans regarding tele-phones consists of a brief paragraph in II.C which states that i the plan employs "standaro commercial telephone equipment" and Figures 7 and 8, which show the communications channels that rely on telephones. There is thus no way to determine how the changes attested in the Catapano af fidavit af f ect the communications network described in the plans. Similarly, Mr. Ca tapano's af-fidavit also states that the towns of flampton and Seabrook have i " specialized communications systems." Again, this information is not reflected in the plans. It thus appears that in general, Mr. Catapano is attesting to recent changes in the communications system for the EPZ that have not been incorporated into the plans. The Applicants' a ttempt to dispose of this contention based on new and generalized information that is not specifically reflected in each local emergency plans must fail. Without a specific discussion in the plans that accurately reflects the type and amount of communications equipment possessed by each town and the means by which it will be employed in the communica-l tions network, neither the Board nor the parties have any basis i ,I for evaluating the adequacy of offsite communications for the 1 i Seabrook EPZ. The Board must base its finding on the adequacy of j the emergency plans themselves and not on the vague cost hoc gen-eralizations offered by Applicants in their motion. 1 STATEMENT OF MATERIALS PACTS AS TO WilICII TilERE EXISTS A GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING CONTENTION N11LP-3 1. Neither Applicants' surmary disposition motion nor the ) supporting Catapano affidavit allege or demonstrate that the al-i 3 k 1 m_ -.-__,__._._,_,-,,._..,__,__,.___,..____.._-r.___....__.,._______. Y, bY a 1 l _ 2, _ leged improvements to the communica tions system in the Seabrook EPZ are actually reflected in the local emergency plans; nor can this be discerned from comparing the Ca tapano af fidavit with the plans. 2. Fo r instance, the affidavit states that "In most com-munities within the EPZ new dual address pagers were supplied for the police and fire departments and for use by the key municpal officials as outlined by the RERP." 1 4. flo w e v e r, the plans that have been served on the parties do not reflect that informa-tion. A review of Part J of Appendix C o f each local plan, which lists equi; ment possessed by each town, shows that most of the towns have no pagers. 3. Mr. Ca tapano also states that "new multiline telephone systems have also been putenased and additional phone lines will be added to the EOCs." 9 5. Again, the plans make no mention of such telephones. The only information given in the plans regard-ing telephones consists of a brief paragraph in II.C which states that the plan employs " standard commercial telephone equipment" and Figures 7 and 8, which show the comniu nications channels that rely on telephones. There is thus no way to determine how the changes attested in the Ca tapano af fidavit affect the commu nica-tions network described in the plans. 4. Mr. Ca tapano's af fidavit also states that the towns of 11ampton and Seabrook have " specialized commu nications systems. " Again, this information is not reflected in the plans, i W ^ 5. . Appl icants ' semmary disposition motien appears to be based on recent changes in th'e communications system for the EPZ that have not been incorporated into the plans. Unless and until those changes are incorporated into the plans in sufficient detail to allow a reasonable evaluation of the adequacy of the Seabrook communication system, there is no basis for a reasonable .. assurance finding regarding compliance with 10 C.F.R. S (b) (5 ). F. Contention NHLP-4 The adicitted portion of Contention NHLP-4 asserts that the New Hampshire local plans make inadequate provision for the noti-fication of people with special notification needs. Applicants move for partial summary disposition on the adequacy of the State's measures for identifying those individuals who require special notification. In support of their motion, Applicants submit the afficavit of Richard'H. Strome, which states that the State of New Hampshire has performed a mail survey of all utility customers in the Seabrook EPZ, which will be updated annually. Mr. Strome also claims that the Civil Def ense Agency will make periodic public information announcements to inform the public of the distribution of the survey. The measures described by Mr. Strome do not provide a rea-l sonable assurance that the State can obtain identification of all I residents of the EPZ with.special notification needs. As Mr. l Strome concedes, "a utility customer list is not necessarily coextensive with the actual number of households" in the EPZ. 1 l i ) 6. Mr. Strome attests that the state has attempted to compensate for this problem by providing for public information announc-ements by the Civil Def ense Agency. P r e s uma bly, these announc-ements will be made over the radio. Therefore, they will not reach hearing-impaired individuals, non-English-speaking individ-uals, or those individuals without televisions or radios. The survey form used by the State also purports to identify i individuals who cannot speak English by asking whether there are i individuals in the household who do not speak English. This question will be self-defeating in many cases, since a person who cannot speak English is unlikely to be able to read the form. 5 Because of these deficiencies in the State's survey program, Applicants have failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable assurance that the State can identify all individuals with spe-cial notification neecs. For this reason, Applicants' partial summary disposition motion must be denied. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ON NHICH THERE EXISTS A GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING CONTENTION NHLP-4 1. In order to identify persons with special notification needs, the State of New Hampshire principally relies upon a sur-voy mailed to all residential customers of the two electric util-ities serving the Seabrook EPZ. 2. A utility customer list is not necessarily coextensive I with the actual number of households in the EPZ. Strome Af-fidavit, 1 6. The state has attempted to compensate for this ---,---,m- ---_--w-problem by providing for public information announcements by the Civil Def ense Agency. Id. 3. P r es uma bly, these announcements will be made over the radio. Therefore, they will not reach hearing-impaired individu-als, individuals who do not speak English, and individuals without televisions or radios. 4. The survey form used by the State also purports to iden-tify individuals who cannot speak English by asking whether there are individuals in the household who do not sperak English. This question will be self-defeating in many cases, since a person who cannot speak English is unlikely to be able to read the form. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Applicants' motions for summary disposition must be denied in their entirety. Respectfully submitted, Diane Curran Andrea C. Fe rs te r HARMON & WEISS 2001 S Street, N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D. C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 June 9, 1986 v
- g-u rs S
4 l e ~~ 23.~ y 9.a.m. 4.a sat sw 23 o. l ..a .e m e em e cc: l w W* l I 5g estistdee3 Je eien pomte4 .8 - 5
- n.=
Y"E ,w-oE, wE a E. 2*2 = a -c. x-D: g 3 W 7, t. 3 = s s e V= E 2 (I) e3enmeses! d (v) aloneep,
- a D
- s. e.e U.
. T ~ '. 3 1 -.4 l a 3 ,2 2, 3.:. l "ET .~2 g .a. .,. a. u ~.,. 1 .= 3, .., m. e a. .e.. 3 3 .=. es M A C U .a t. E L 1.. 3 .3 6 .k 2 g
- hQ
.. Y% .b .C E. 3 O U be y re W w T s ame* D 2 Mee<Baurut 9 ..** 's L.,, a s ( La .9. 6 l O CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 9, 1986, copies of New England Coalition en Nuclear Pollution's Opposition to Applicants' Motion for Summary disposition, Notice of Appearance of Andrea C. Ferster, and Supplemen-tal Response to Applicants' Interrogatories, were served on the fol-lowing by first-class mail or Federal Express as indicated, with the exception of the Licensing Board, the NRC Staff, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which were served by nand on June 10, Ir>86.
- Helen Hoyt, Es q.
Rep. Ro be r t a C. Pevear Administrative Judge Drinkwater Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hamp ton Fa lls, NH 03844 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
- Dr.
Emmeth A. Iuebke Phillip Ah rens, Esq. Administrative Judge Assistant At torney Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State House, Station 46 Washington, D. C. 20555 Augu s ta, ME 04333
- Dr.
Jerry Harcour Robert A. Ba ck u s, Esq. Administrative Judce 111 Lowell St reet Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Manchester, NH 03105 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- *Thoma s G.
Dignan, Esq. Wasnington, D. C. 20555 R.K. Gad, III, Esq. Ropes and Gray Atomic Safety and Licensing 225 Fr anklin Street Board Panel Boston, MA 02110 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Sa fety and Licensino Appeal Board Panel Mrs. Anne E. Goodman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board of Selectmen Commission 13 '5 New Ma r ke t Rd. Washington, D.C. 20555 Durham, NH 03824 Docketing and Service
- Sherwin E. Tu r k, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Of fice of the Executive Commission Legal Director Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission William S. Lord, Selectman Wasnington, D.C. 20555 Town Hall - Fr iend Street i Amesbury, MA 01913 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Board of Selectmen Jane Doughty Newbury, MA 01950 l' SAPL 5 Market St. 4 Portsmouth, NH 03801 1 d I Carol S. Sneider, Es qu i r e H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. Assistant Attorney Of fice of General Counsel General Federal Emergency Department of the Attorney Management Ag ency General 500 C Street, SW 1 Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Wasnington, D. C. 20472 Boston, MA 02108
- George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Edward A. Thomas Stephen E. Me r r ill, Esq. L FEMA As s istant Attorneys General i 442 J..W. McCo rmack ( POCH) State House Annex Boston, MA 02109 Concord, NH 03301 J. P. Nadeu, Se lec tma n Allen Lampert Town of Rye Civil Defense Director 4 155 Washington Road Town of Brentwood Rye, NH 03870 Exeter, NH 03833 Sandra Gavu tis Richard A. Hampe, Esq. Town of Kensington Hampe and McNicholas RFD 1 Box 1154 35 Pleasant St reet East Kensingtnn, NH 03827 Concord, NH 03301 1 I Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor Gary W. Ho lme s, Es quire City Hall Ho lmes & Ellis Newburyport, MA 01950 4 7 Winnacunent Rd Hampton, NH 03842 Alfred V. Sa rgen6, Chairman Board of Selectmen William Arms trong Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 Civil Defense Director 10 Front Street Senator Gordon J. Hump h r ey Exeter, NH 03833 U.S. Senate hasnington, D. C. 20510 Calvin A. Ca nney (Attn: Tom Burack) Ci ty Ma nager Ci ty Hall i Selectment of Nor thampton 126 Daniel St reet Town of Nor thamp ton Portsmouth, NH 03801 New Hampshire 03862 Senator Gordon J. Eumph rey Mathew T. Br ock, Esq. 1 Pillsbury Street Shaines & McEachern Concord, NH 03301 P.O. Bo x 3 60 Ma plewood Ave. Michael Santosuosso, Ch airman Portsmouth, NH 03801 Board of Selectmen Jewell St., RFD 42 Stanley W. Knowles, Chairman South Hampton, NH 03842 Board of Selectmen P. O. Po x 710 Nor th Hamp ton, NH 03826 - By Messenger ~'x - By Federal Express j Diane Curran ~. ~,...... - - -= .) UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION $V ~: BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BgAMD U u ).l ) / In the Matter of ) / ) ~~~_ - Public Service Company of ) New Hampshire, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL ) 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney, an attorney-at-law in good standing admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Court of Appeals, herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. S 2.713(b), the following information is provided: NAME: Andrea C. Perster ADDRESS: Harmon & Weiss 2001 S Street, N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D. C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 NAME OF PARTY: New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Respectfully submitted: /, ,/ +- Andrea C. Ferster Dated: June 9, 1986 c,03