ML20215D695
| ML20215D695 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1987 |
| From: | Harbour J, Hoyt H, Linenberger G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3779 87-471-02-OL, 87-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8706190114 | |
| Download: ML20215D695 (15) | |
Text
' 3 7 7 '7
'l DCCKETED.
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MNb ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
arr!cy -r ne m
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson CCCM ' "
s' Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour SERVED JllN 191987
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL In the Matter of
)
50-444-OL (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (Offsite Emergency Planning) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
June 10, 1987 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 q
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Rulina upon Certain Motions for Summary Disposition)
In its submittal of March 25, 1987 Applicants moved for sumary disposition of all contentions previously admitted by this Board. The NRC Staff (Staff) responded on April 15, 1987, wherein it recomended the granting of summary disposition of the following contentions only:
Town of Kensington (TOK) Revised Contention 2, TOK Contention 4 and TOK Revised Contention 10; Town of South Hampton (TOSH) Contentions 1 and 6; Town of Hampton Falls (T0HF) Contention 4; and, NewEnglandCoalitiononNuclearPower(NECNP)
Contention RERP 2.
The Staff recomended that all other summary disposition motions be denied because Staff does not have the requisite FEMA findings upon j
which to base its position.
Subsequently, on April 29, 1987 the Staff advised the Board that FEMA had withdrawn its opposition to the granting 8706190114 070610 DR ADOCK 05000443 PDR DS42.
i 9
1 1
- a. of Applicants' sumary disposition motion re: Rye Contention 2; we infer that the Staff supports FEMA's position. Applicants filed a motion on May 7, 1987 wherein consistent with ALAB-864 they asked us to rule on their motions for sumary disposition of contentions submitted by the towns of Kensington, Hampton Falls, South Hampton, and Rye..This Memorandum and Order addresses the eight Applicants' motions for summary disposition that are supported by the-Staff, except for NECNP Contention RERP 2.
In a response dated May 7,.1987 Kensington requested that this Board deny Applicants' May 7, 1987 motion. We decline to do so, since our scheduling order of May 4,1987 is clearly appitcable to all l
parties.
Based upon our findings discussed below, we grant Applicants'
]
motions regarding TOK Contention 4 TOK Revised Contention 10; TOSH 1
Contentions 1 and 6; and Rye Contention 2.
We deny the motions a
regarding TOK Revised Contention 2, and TOHF Contention 4.
TOK Revised Contention 2 The subject contention reads as follows:
"The NHRERP, Revision 2 for 'TOK' does not provide for adequate notification, by licensee, of State and local response organizations, and for notification of emergency response personnel by organizations, as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5). Provision for notification of the town emergency response organization is inadequate in that it depends upon notification through the Rockingham County dispatch."
As noted in Board Memorandum and Order of February 18, 1987 at 2, this contention is limited to the means whereby TOK will receive emergency notification, namely, through the Rockingham County Dispatch Center.
In
t
, its basis, TOK states that the town will cease using this county dispatch center as of the end of 1986.
In its submittal of March 25, 1987 Applicants moved for summary disposition of this contention. Applicants' motion was accompanied by the affidavit of Gary J.- Catapano, President of A11com, Inc., a comunications specialty firm retained by Applicants. Affiant's l
professional qualifications have been reviewed and found to be appropriate. The motion also provided the following statement of material facts not in dispute:
1.
Rockingham County Dispatch is still capable of-comunicating with TOK and initiating notification, regardless of who provides-dispatch services for TOK.
2.
Any equipment required to implement the comunication link between Rockingham County Dispatch and TOK has been installed and is currently operational.
The Staff's response to Applicants' motion, filed April 15, 1987, is supported by two affidavits of a FEMA official:
" Affidavit of Edward A. Thomas in Support of Certain Motions for Sumary Disposition" and
" Affidavit of Edward A. Thomas in Opposition to Certain Motions for Summary Disposition". The first of these affidavits addresses the subject contention and concludes that Applicants' motion should be granted. The Staff so recomends.
The Board has reviewed these materials and offers the following comments. Applicants' affiant Catapano explains that the Rockingham County Dispatch Center (RCDC) will notify TOK of an emergency in accordance with the Radiological Emergency Dispatch Plan, Revision 2, by notification of the police officer on duty. The RCDC provides a 24-hour
.4
.a.
. dispatch service for the police department. Affiant describes the
. communication equipment available.for such purpose and the various
. frequencies assigned for.use. However, affiant is silent with respect to this equipment being installed and operational. Hence, Applicants' list of material. facts not in dispute is not completely verified by the-affidavit. : Staff's FEMA Affiant Thomas states that FEMA finds the RCDC to have both adequate equipment and personnel coverage for providing i
notification. There being no other responses to Applicants' motion, the Board now states 'its conclusion.
Conclusion Based upon the foregoing, the Board concludes that Applicants' Motion for Sunnary Disposition of TOK Revised Contention 2 is deficient in that their statement of material facts not'in issue is not fully supported by affidavit, as noted above. Accordingly, we deny Applicants' motion.
TOK Contention 4 TOK Contention 4 reads as follows:
The NHRERP, Revision 2 for "TOK" does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, as required.by 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), because the Kersington Elementary School provides inadequate radiological protection.
In its Memorandum and Order of November 4,1986 (pg. 34) the Board limited this cantention to a demonstration that said school has a dose reduction factor (DRF) of 0.9 and a showing of how such a determination was made by the State of New Hampshire.
l
)
8
- . On March 25, 1987, Applicants filed a motion for sumary disposition of TOK 4 and included therein a statement of material facts not in dispute and the affidavit of James A. MacDonald, Manager of Radiological Assessment for New Hampshire Yankee, whose professional qualifications are already before the Board. Applicants list nine statements of fact not in dispute, some of which are not directly relevant to the contention as limited by the Board. The MacDonald affidavit, however, provides in detail the computation of the DRF for the school and in addition gives a floor plan of the school, with dimensions, to support the inputs to the computation. Affiant states l
that he has visually inspected the school and has supervised the compilation of dimensions used in the computation. He cites by title a December 1975 report (author not given) as the basis for the computational methodology used. Affiant concludes that the DRF for the school is 0.77, indicating an improvement in radiation protection compared to the DRF value of 0.9 noted above.
The Staff's response to Applicants' motion, filed April 15, 1987, i
I is supported by two affidavits by an employee of FEMA: " Affidavit of q
j Edward A. Thomas in Support of Certain Motions for Summary Disposition" j
and " Affidavit of Edward A. Thomas in Opposition to Certain Motions for Sumary Disposition". The first of these affidavits addresses the i
subject contention and concludes that Applicants' motion be granted.
The Staff so recommends.
There were no other responses to Applicants' motion.
i-
, Conclusion Based upon our review of.the foregoing, the Board considers only those listed issues not in dispute that are directly relevant to the surviving portion of the contention and concludes that Applicants' motion prevails. Hence, we grant Applicants' motion for summary.
disposition of TOK Contention 4 and the contention is dismissed.
TOK Revised Contention 10 This contention states as follows:
The NHRERP, Revision 2 for "TOK" does not provide for communications with contiguous State / local governments within the plume exposure pathway EPZ, as required by 10 CFR 50.47 App. E. E. (9)(a), because provisions for connunications with the State government are inadequate.
The Board's Memorandum and Order of February 18, 1987 limited the contention to the availability and acceptance of equipment that will adequately provide communications with the State government.
Applicants filed a motion for summary disposition of this contention on March 25, 1987, supported by a list of facts not in issue and by two affidavits--Affidavit of Richard H. Strome (Strome Affidavit), and Affidavit of Gary J. Catapano (Catapano Affidavit).
Affiant Strome is Director of New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency (NHCDA). Affiant Catapano is President of Allcom, Inc., a firm under contract to Applicants for the specification, design and evaluation of connunication equipment for emergency planning purposes. The Board's review of the professional qualifications of both affiants shows them to be appropriate for the material covered. The information provided in these two affidavits attests to the fact that there exists, in place and 1
4
, 1 operational, the necessary equipment to comunicate with contiguous State / local governments. Additional requested equipment has been purchased and is available from New Hampshire Yankee's Production Warehouse and the NHCDA is ready to coordinate its installation at the i
1 request of TOK. The affiants' statements support and confirm i
Applicants' statement of facts not in issue.
The response of the Staff applicable here is the same Staff j
)
submittal noted in the previous TOK contentions discussed above. With l
l respect to the instant contention, affiant Thomas affirms the adequacy of the existing equipment and adds that the additional purchased
)
i equipment will further enhance this capability.
FEMA supports
{
Applicants' sumary disposition motion, as does the Staff.
There are no other responses to Applicants' motion.
/
Conclusion l
Based upon the Board's review of the materials discussed above, we I
conclude that Applicants' motion prevails. Accordingly, we grant the motion for sumary disposition of TOK Revised Contention 10 and that contention is dismissed.
TOSH Contention 1 l
This contention states as follows:
The RERP for South Hampton fails to provide " reasonable assurance" because, contrary to NUREG-0654 A.3, the plan includes no written agreement referring to the concept of operations or signatures of local agencies.
l
l6
, Applicants moved for sumary disposition of this contention on May 20, 1986.
In its Moorandum and Order of November 4,1986, the Board denied the motion to the extent of deficiencies noted by FEMA, with respect to an unsigned letter of agreement that expressed a general willingness to cooperate, without reflecting any specific comitments. On March 25, 1987 Applicants filed a motion for sumary disposition of this I
contention, supported by a statement of facts not in dispute, and supported by the affidavit of Richard H. Strome, identified elsewhere.
i Attached to the affidavit is a copy of the letter noted above (from the 1
j New Hampshire Towing Association) appropriately signed. The affiant f
further states that there are sixteen letters of agreement noted in Volume 5 of New Hampshire's Radiological Emergency Response Plan comitting to provide about 42 towing vehicles with drivers and crews as i
needed. These comitments, affiant states, exceed the towing equipment resources recomended elsewhere in the plan. The affidavit supports and I
confirms the items in Applicants' statement of material facts not in dispute.
The Staff's April 15, 1987 response identified previously is applicable here. Affiant Thomas (of FEMA) finds the deficiency noted above to have been adequately resolved and he supports Appifcants' motion, as does the Staff.
There are no other responses to Applicants' motion.
l Conclusion The Board has reviewed the submittals discussed above and concludes that Applicants are entitled to sumary disposition. Hence, the Board
. grants Applicants' motion for summary disposition of TOSH Contention 1 and the contention is dismissed.
TOSH Contention 6 The subject contention states as follows:
The RERP for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance because, contrary to NUREG-0654 H. 3, the town of South Hampton does not have an EOC capable for use in directing and controlling response functions.
On March 25, 1987 Applicants filed a motion for sumary disposition of this contention, supported by a statement of four facts not in issue, and supported by two affidavits--the " Affidavit of Richard H. Strome (TOSH 6)" and the " Affidavit of Gary J. Catapano (TOSH 6)".
The employment affiliations and professional qualifications of these affiants have been previously noted. Affiant Strome states that the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP) reflects the use of the South Hampton Fire Station as the local emergency operations center (E0C). Attached to his affidavit are copies of several form letters (with addressee lists that include TOSH) from the NHCDA offering to coordinate the identification and installation of equipment needed to implement the plan. Affiant offers these for the proposition that TOSH was so notified. Affiant states that although TOSH has voted not to accept any such equipment NHCDA remains comitted to this offer.
Affiant Strome further states that the State of New Hampshire can and will provide for the necessary emergency response capabilities for the town if TOSH is unable to implement the emergency plan. Affiant Catapano also attests that the proposed E0C for TOSH is the new fire
- e i station. He states that the fire station has adequate space to accomodate the necessary communications equipment and personnel to carry out the NHRERP responsibilities and that a 15 KW generator has been purchased for TOSH.
Staff's response of April 15, 1987 noted above is supported by the i
affidavit of E. A. Thomas (of FEMA) who states that FEMA supports Applicants' motion regarding this contention, finding that the TOSH fire station would make a suitable EOC with the addition of the available equipment. Staff recomends the granting of Applicants' motion.
There being no other responses to Applicants' motion, based upon the foregoing, the Board makes the following observation. The affidavits sumarized above support and confirm the Applicants' statement of facts not in issue. We find as particularly persuasive affiant Strome's statement regarding the comitments of the NHCDA to support TOSH response functions.
Conclusion _
Having reviewed the above identified materials before us, the Board concludes that Applicants motion prevails. Hence we grant Applicants' motion for summary disposition of TOSH Contention 6, and the contention i
is dismissed.
TOHF Contention 4 This contention states the following:
The Hampton Falls RERP does not adequately meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), 50-47(b)(5), 50.47(b)(6) and NUREG-0654 planning standard E because there are no mutually agreeable bases for notification of response
n.
11 organizations and much of the comunications equipment referred to in the Hampton Falls RERP is nonexistent.
The Board's Memorandum and Order of April 19, 1986 admitted the contention but limited it to compensatory measures and equipment necessary for notification of emergency response personnel.
On March 25, 1987 Applicants moved for sumary disposition of the contention. The motion contained a statement of material facts not at issue, and was supported by affidavits of Richard Strome and Gary J.
.Catapano, whose employment affiliations and professional qualifications have been previously noted. Affiant Strome states that activation of the public alerting system for a radiological emergency is a primary responsibility of the NHCDA. Attached to this affidavit are copies of four fonn letters with addressee lists (that include T0HF) sent to TOHF during 1985 and 1986 to ensure that their resource needs including comunications equipment are met. Strome affirms that the State of New Hampshire is ready to provide the comunications equipment necessary for the initial notification requirements mentioned in the contention.
Finally, affiant cites the NHRERP, Volume 2. Appendix G for the proposition that if T0HF cannot implement the T0HF plan then the State of New Hampshire can and will provide the necessary emergency response capabilities. Affiant Catapano states that adequate means currently exist for initial emergency notification from Rockingham County Dispatch Center (RCDC) to TOHF through the police network, through which the RCDC currently communicates with TOHF on a 24-hour basis. According to Catapano, additional comunications equipment, telephone equipment and
-e an emergency power generator have been purchased and are available for installation, but'.TOHF has elected not to accept these items.
. The' Staff's April' 15, 1987 response to Applicants' motion, supported by two affidavits of FEMA's E. A. Thomas is identified above and is applicable here. Affiant Thomas concludes that the RCDC can provi s notification to T0HF using existing equipment, and that the additional equipment and emergency power supply already purchased would further enhance this capability. Thus FEMA supports Applicants' motion, as does the Staff.
The' Board's. review of the above materials submitted to us by Applicants indicates that the affidavits contained therein support and confirm Applicants' statement of facts for which no issues exist, and that Staff has an acceptable basis for supporting Applicants' motion.
However, there is an important consideration arguably within the ambit of.the contention, namely, whether TOHF's communications equipment needs will be compensated by NHCDA as attested to in the Strome T0HF f
affidavit. There are no other responses to Applicants' motion.
Conclusion Owing to the unresolved matter stated just above, the Board'is j
unable to' conclude that Applicants have prevailed in their motion.
f i
Accordingly, we deny Applicants' motion for the summary disposition of T0HF Contention 4.
rr
1 1
. Rye Contention 2-J This contention states as follows:
The proposed Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Rye is unworkable because of the lack of provisions for any means of 1
protecting the safety of Rye's special needs populations. Rye j
has at least four (4) major special needs groups, not j
including special needs people living at home, for which no 1
provisions are made in the plan; and, while the plan attempts to make provisions for Rye's special needs facilities (5 schools), nevertheless, those provisions are inadequate particularly with regard to transportation and sheltering.
In our Memorandum and Order of April 29, 1986 admitting this contention the Board limited the contention to the consideration of the Rannie Webster Nursing and Elderly Home. Subsequently, in our Memorandum and Order of November 4,1986 we denied a motion for sumary disposition of the contention on the basis that said motion asserted that a plan for the Home was being developed, but the plan was not yet in the NHRERP.
Under date of March 25, 1987 Applicants' again moved for summary disposition of this contention. Their motion was accompanied by a statement of two material facts not in dispute and was supported by the affidavit of R. H. Strome whose employment affiliation and professional qualifications have been dealt with previously. Affiant states that the special facilities plan for the Home (designated as Webster at Rye) was developed over a period of several months with the Home's administrator and that the plan was completed in August 1986. Affiant further states that said plan is contained in Volume 20 of the NHRERP and that the J
I index of Appendix F of Volume 20 of the NHRERP will be changed to delete the reference to the plan's currently being developed.
-p
.h In an undated submittal received by the Board on April-29, 1987, the Staff forwarded an affidavit, dated April 28, 1987, of Edward A.
m
' Thomas of FEMA. Affiant Thomas states that whereas his April-15, 1987-affidavit opposed the granting of summary disposition of Rye's Contention 2 FEMA has since reviewed the NHRERP - Revision 2 plan for.
the Rannie Webster Nursing Home, and finds it to be adequate. Hence, FEMA withdraws its opposition to Applicants' motion.
There being no other responses to Applicants' motion, the Board
' sets forth its. findings. The affidavit accompanying Applicants' motion ~
supports and verifies the statement of material' facts not in controversy contained'in' that motion. We have verified that, as attested, Volume 20 of the Board's copy of NHRERP-Revision 2 contains the Webster at Rye ~
RERP in Appendix F, despite the. fact that the contents list the plan as.
" currently being developed"..The facility plan is stated by FEMA's E.
.A.' Thomas (in Staff's submittal of April 29, 1987 notedabove)tobe adequate and unopposed. The Board infers that Staff also. supports Applicants' motion.
Conclusion Based upon our review of the information summarized above, the i
Board concludes that Applicants are entitled to the granting of summary disposition of Rye's Contention 2.
Accordingly, Applicants' motion is i
granted and Rye's Contention 2 is dismissed..
7 4
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN G BOARD i
i M
Helen F. Hoyt Chairpp stn Administrative Judge ADr. Je/ry Harbour Administrative Judge 4.
oh
' stave A. Linenber er, Jr.
pAcministrative Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of June,1987.
I 4
I