ML20215N633
| ML20215N633 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1986 |
| From: | Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1398 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8611070100 | |
| Download: ML20215N633 (41) | |
Text
_______
" /39f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ofsff' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'86 NOV -5 P2 :37 Before Administrative Judges:
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson
[0h Emeth A. Luebke Ojib/ ~ Tf Jerry Harbour SERVED NOV -61988 In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
(ASLBPNo. 82-471-02-0L) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, et a_1.
)
(Offsite Emergency Planning)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
November 4,1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Summary Disposition Motions of Applicants and State of New Hampshire and Establishing a Date for Filing of Late-Filed Contentions Arising out of Revision 2 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan)
A.
Introduction The Board, in reaching its decision on the ten motions for sumary disposition filed by Applicant and the two motions by the State of New.
Hampshire (NH), has considered a variety of pleadings filed by the parties in this proceeding.
In the discussion of each of these twelve motions we have listed the principal pleadings considered by the Board.
Where we have not specifically noted an answer, response, or a motion to strike, the Board has considered and found that it was not necessary for 8611070100 861104 PDR ADOCK 05000443 h [d 2. -
~
3 2
a detemination of whether to grant or deny these twelve motions for suninary disposition.I 2
B.
Statement of Applicable Law The provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.749 of this Commission's Rules of Practice govern the availability of summary disposition to a party to dispose of all or any part of the matters involved in a proceeding, as follows:
(d) The presiding officer shall render the decision sought if the filings in the proceeding, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the statements of the parties and the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.
We note the Commission's Statement of Policy on Conduct of
' Licensing Proceedings, 46 Fed. Reg. (May 27,1981) in which the Boards were directed to encourage the parties to invoke suninary disposition on issues where there is no genuine issue of material fact so that evidentiary hearing time is not unnecessarily devoted to such issues.
I The twelve motions concerned the disposition of nineteen offsite emergency planning contentions:
Kensington (4); So. Hampton (3)
NECNP (4), Rye (1), SAPL (6), and Hampton Falls (1).
2 The Board notes the NRC Staff's discussion in its answer of June 11, 1986 of the case law on sunriary disposition. We need not repeat the discussion here.
a 3
3 C.
Motions for Sumary Disposition by Applicants I.
(a) Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Kensington Contention No. 6 and South Hampton Contentions Nos. 1 and 3 -
May 20, 1986.
(b) Town of Kensington's Answer Opposing the Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Kensington. Contention No. 6 - June 8, 1986.
(c) Town of South Hampton's Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of South Hamptcn Contentions Nos. I and 3 -
June 9, 1986.
(d) NRC Staff's Answer to Motions for Sumary Disposition of Off-Site Emergency Planning Contentions - June 11, 1986.
(e) Applicants' Motion to Strike Portions of Staff Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition - June 16, 1986.
(f) NRC Staff's Answer to Applicants' Motion to Strike Portions of Staff Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition -
June 7, 1986.
Applicants base their motion for sumary disposition of these three contentions on an Affidavit of Richard H. Strome, Director of the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency (NHCDA), State of New Hampshire's answers to interrogatories and a statement of undisputed facts attached to their motion.
3 For the complete text of the contentions discussed in each of these motions for sumary disposition, See Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions and Establishing Date and Location for Hearing),
ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL, April 29, 1986 (unpublished).
~
4 The Board notes that in the Affidavit of Edward A. Thomas,#
attached to the NRC Staff answer on these three contentions at page 3, there were unresolved issues of material fact within the scope of these contentions. When FEMA and RAC reviewed the NHRERP after the planning exercise conducted on February.26,1986 and the State's compensatory plan and revisions to the plans, two areas of deficiencies were noted.
These are that the New Hampshire Towin'g Association letter of agreement of November 27, 1986 was unsigned and in the RAC review on June 2, 1986 of Volume 5, there was concern expressed that the letter of agreement also provided only for a " general willingness" for the organization to provide emergency towing as needed and does not reflect a comitment of specific numbers of vehicles or drivers. No letter of agreement was obtained for Midway Excavators.
In Applicants' statement of facts as to which there is no dispute attached to the motion, Applicants have asserted that there is no need for a letter of agreement with Midway Excavators, which we judge follows the Applicants' preceding assertion that there were letters of agreement with the New Hampshire Towing Association. The Board finds, however, if Applicants intend to rely on New Hampshire Towing Association to provide the assistance needed during an emergency, then that agreement needs to be perfected to the extent
'that we can reach a finding that reliance can be placed on the 4
Division Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division of Region I of the FEMA and Chaiman of the Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC).
l
5 organization to provide the identified service during a radiological emergency response at Seabrook.
The Applicants' motion to strike is based on the ground that the NRC Staff is requiring a degree of finality not demanded by the regulations in its response to this and all of the other contentions herein. Applicants argue that the Licensing Board is to make predictive findings; that the Board's concern should be focused on the plans and that consideration of the inadequacies which arise out of an exercise using these plans are not proper subjects for Board to consider in making predictive findings. The Board, however, finds that our predictive findings cannot be reached in so sterile a setting.. The plans and the various planning stages of development are part of the dynamic process which in our opinion will permit us to consider additions, revisions or deletions which serve to perfect the radiological emergency response plan. We will make our predictive findings considering any necessary corrective changes. The Applicants' motion to strike is denied. We do, however, recognize and agree with Applicants that the regulation standard for completeness for any radiological emergency response plan is not absolute finality of the plan.
In 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1) the applicable standard is the reasonable assurance that adequate protective treasures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. The Board finds that in its answers at page 3, Town of South Hampton has stated South Hampton 3 incorrectly.
As admitted by the Board in its April 29, 1986 Order at page 33, the contention deals only with letters of agreement with
-w
f 6
transportation companies and Midway Excavators. Nothing the Board admitted is concerned with letters of agreement from voluntary police officers, voluntary firemen, other emergency workers and school teachers. We specifically, at page 33, stated the remaining issues concerned only the agreements with transportation companies and Midway Excavators.
To the extent the deficiencies noted by FEMA /RAC in their review, Applicants' Motion for Sunmary Disposition is denied as to Kensington 6 and South Hampton 1 and 3.
II..
(a) Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of NECNP Contention No. RERP-3 and SAPL Contention No. 14, dated May 20, 1986 (Applicants' Motion).
(b) New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Opposition to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition, dated June 9,1986 (NECNP Response).
(c) SAPL's Response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of SAPL Contentions 5, 7,14 and 17 and Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of SAPL Contentions 18 and 25, dated June 9,1986 (SAPL Response).
(d) NRC Staff's Answer to Motions for Summary Disposition of
~
Off-Site Emergency Planning Contentions, dated June 11,1986(Staff Response).
The Applicants' Motion, supported by the Affidavit of Richard H.
Strome, Director of the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency, provides a statement of facts as to which they contend there is no dispute, stating:
1.
Brochures and informational material have been designed and samples printed which contain information in both French and English. These have been distributed to the parties to this proceeding.
~
7 2.
Extensive arrangements have been made for distribution of informational materials.
3.
Tape recorded messages are being prepared for broadcast over the public address-siren system.
In addition, arrangements are being made to have emergency information broadcast (EBS) in French as well as English. Applicants' Motion at 3.
Applicants also state at SAPL, in its answer to Applicants' Interrogatory XXXVIII-1, indicates that it no longer wishes to litigate its contention SAPL-14.
Iji.,at2.
SAPL, in its response (at 1) states that it does not oppose the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of SAPL Contention 14.
NECNP states that "[t]he materials that NECNP has received from the State largely satisfy NECNP's concerns in this area." NECNP Response at 13.
It provides no specific material facts or concerns, by Affidavit or otherwise, that it regards as not having been satisfied.
Rather, NECNP asserts that "the Board may not approve these measures unless and until 4
they are specifically incorporated into the New Hampshire RERP,"
~
(emphasis added) so that the plans accurately reflect.the State's current commitment to providing b'ilingual instructions, to the public throughout the forty-year term of the Seabrook license.
Id., at 13-14.
NECNP's statement, above, concerning the Board's authority to approve measures to be inserted in the New Hampshire RERP is without basis and wide of the mark. This Board neither " approves" nor
" disapproves" specific measures or procedures in, or proposed to be included in, the emergency response plans, but adjudicates issues in controversy to determine whether there is reasonable assurance, with respect to those controverted issues, that adequate emergency measures
8 can and will be taken to protect the public health and safety. The determination on the motion at bar is to be whether or not genuine material issues in controversy exist with resnect to NECNP Contention RERP-3. 10 C.F.R. SS 2.717, 2.718, 2.721, 2.749, 2.760a, 50.47(b)(5).
The NRC Staff, based on FEMA and RAC reviews of the New Hampshire RERPs, the State's compensatory plan, and the revisions to the plans which have been submitted, as well as the exercise held on February 26, 1986, concluded that no issues of material fact remain to be litigated with respect to SAPL Contention la and NECNP Contention RERP-3. Staff Response at 6-7 and supporting Af'fidavit by Edward A. Thomas of FEMA Region I, dated September 5, 1986 (3 pp.).
NECNP in its response (at 1-9) opposed all of Applicants' motions, as a matter of law, on the theory that summary disposition of these contentions is inappropriate prior to a finding by FEMA of the adequacy and implementation capability of the New Hampshire plan as a whole.
In the alternative, NECNP requests that it be given an opportunity to respond in the event that FEMA submits testimony-in support of any of Applicants' motions for sunnary. disposition (NECNP Response at 2, 9).
4 On 'the last point, l'0 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a) (Summary Disposition on Pleadings) provides that the party opposing summary disposition may within ten days after service (i.e., by June 10, as provided in our Scheduling Order dated January 17,1986) respond to new facts and arguments presented in any statement filed in support of the motion.
Section 2.749(a) also states "[n]o further supporting statements or responses thereto shall be-entertained." Neither NECNP, nor any other
i l
l party, has. fled a response to new facts or arguments presented in the NRC Staff / FEMA statement in support of three of the Applicants' motions that sought sumary disposition of NECNP contentions.
See Staff Response at 6-7 and supporting Affidavit by Edward A. Thomas of FEMA Region I, dated September 5, 1986 (3 pp.).
As to NECNP's theory that sumary disposition is inappropriate absent a FEMA finding on the adequacy of the New Hampshire plan, it is clear here that the Board can rely on the uncontroverted statements in the Thomas Affidavit, supra, which is deemed admitted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.749(b).
The motion by th'e Applicants and its accompanying Affidavit and statement, supported by the NRC Staff / FEMA answer and its accompanying affidavits, which are not controverted by any opposing party, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact with respect to these contentions. Accordingly, the Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of NECNP. Contention No. RERP-3 and SAPL Contention No.14 is granted.
III.(a) Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Rye Contention No. 2. - May 20, 1986.
(b) Rye Response.
(c) NRC Staff Answer to Motions for Sumary Disposition of Offsite EP Contentions. - June 16, 1986.
The Board was' concerned when Rye Contention No. 2 was admitted that there had not been proper accounting for the Rannie Webster Nursing and Elderly Home in the Rye Emergency Planning. The testimony in the
~
10 Affidavit of Richard H. Strcme, Director of the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency is that the agency is preparing materials to be inserted in the State Plan and the local RERP for the Town of Rye-Special Facilities Section. With the issuance of Revision 2 of Rye's RERP, the Webster plan has not yet been issued. The Board is concerned that the plan for this home be in place. We deny Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Rye Contention 2.
IV.
(a) Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of NECNP Contention No. RERP-2, dated May 20, 1986.
(b) NECNP's Opposition to Applicants' Motions for Sumary Disposition - June 9, 1986.
(c) NRC Staff's Answer to Motions for Sumary Disposition of Off-Site Emergency Planning Contentions - June 11, 1986.
(d) Applicants' Motion to Strike Portions of Staff Pesponse to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition - June 16,.1986.
(page 3, paragraph 4)
Applicants base their motion on the Affidavit of Director Richard H. Strome (May 19,1986) attached to Applicants' motion.
In the Strome Affidavit, three areas are identified in which the State of New Hampshire may require federal assistance in carrying out emergency measures under the NHRERP. These are regulation of boating activities by the Coast Guard; restriction of overflights of the EPZ by the Federal Aviation Administration; and shellfish contamination screening.
The Coast Guard agreed in a letter of agreement of February 24, 1986 (Vol. 5 of NHRERP) to perform the first function. The Coast Guard will be in place at the IFO at Newington Station in approximately one
11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />, or less if a helicopter is used. Depending upon availability of vessels and crews at Merrinac Station, Gloucester Station and Portsnouth Station and Marine condition at the time, the first response could be available offshore of the EPZ within one to three hours.
The FAA has control of overflight and in a May 14, 1986 letter to be incorporated in Vol. 5 of the NHRERP the procedures to be followed if a nuclear incident should occur were established in four steps. These include (1) notification by the NHCDA of Concord FSS; (2) the Concord FSS will issue a NOTAM with text of message to be sent; (3) the Concord FSS will then notify Pease Approach Control, the Watch Supervisor and the Traffic Management Unit at the Boston Center; and (4) NHCDA has the responsibility to notify Concord FSS for cancellation of the notice. We have also examined the State of NH's answers to NECNP interrogatories dated May 14, 1986 at pages 12 and 13 and find that the State's responses are in accord with those in the Strome Affidavit.
-Applicants dismiss the third area where the State finds federal assistance is required with the simple statement that, "Shell fishing can be simply shutdown until screening is accomplished."
In the NRC Staff Answer to Motion for Summary Disposition by Applicants, the Affidavit of FEMA's Edward A. Thomas disputes that the State's agreement with the Coast Guard is clear or complete in several details including signatures and correct telephone numbers.
In addition, FEMA did not have a copy of the FAA agreement. The latter.
~ deficiency has been cured because the May 14, 1986 letter of DOT's Federal Aviation Administration, attached to Director Strome's Affidavit
p 12 of May 19, 1986 as exhibit "A," memorializes.the oral agreement between the FAA (Concord FSS) and the State of NH's civil defense agency. This letter was signed b'y Wayne A. Kenney, Manager of Concord FSS..
The Board does not find any merit in NECNP's argument that New Hampshire, in responding to the Intervenor's interrogatories 3(a) and (d) fail to describe all required arrangements for federal aid.5 The thrust of the contention-is to identify areas where the state requires federal assistance, the extent of its needs and the arrangements necessary.
In regard to fulfilling the need for-placing a signed copy-of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Coast Guard, inserting the correct telephone number and placing specific measures in the plan that provide for the shell fishing examination which NH has identified as an area where federal assistance is required, the Board denies Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of NECNP Contention No. RERP-2.
V.
(a) Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Kensington Contention No. 7 and NECNP Contention No. RERP-12, May 20, 1986.
(b) Town of Kensington's Answer Opposing the Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition Of Kensington Contention #7 - June 8,1986.
(c) NECNP's Opposition to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition - June 9,1986 and NECNP's Supplemental Response to Applicants' Interrogatories - June 9,1986.
5 NH resperded in its answers on May 14, 1986 with citations to the NHRERP and noted where existing arrangements for federal assistance are found, and further noted that the State may chcose to use other federal resources in the FRERP, 50 Fed. Reg. 46542 (Nov. 8,1985).
The state response on FRERP is a gratuitots statement of matter not in issue through the contention.
i
e 1
i 13 l
(d) NRC Staff's Answer to Motions for Sumary Disposition of Off-Site Emergency Planning Contentions - June 11, 1986.
Kensington Contention No. 7 and NECNP Contention No. RERP-12 were admitted in our Memorandum and Order of April 29, 1986. Neither the Kensington plan nor the New Hampshire State RERP contained provisions for radioprotective. drugs for institutional 1 zed persons and emergency workers.
Included in an Affidavit by Dr. William T. Wallace, Jr.,
Director of the New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services'(DPHS) were copies of revised section 2.7.3 of the New Hampshire RERP,-Appendix K to DNPS procedures for distribution and administration of radioprotective drugs to local and state emergency workers, and a copy of the procedures of DPHS for administration of radioprotective drugs to institutionalized individuals and how KI will be made available to the two classes of persons mentioned in the contention, emergency workers and institutionalized persons. Kensington's answers are n'o longer valid in view of the revisions in the NHRERP which clearly show that KI will be distributed to state.and emergency workers at the time dosimetry is issued.
NECNP asserts that the storage ard means of distribution of KI has not been demonstrated. Yet, NECNP acknowledges that KI will be predistributed, thus avoiding the storage issues.
The distribution and administration of radio protective drugs to the two classes of persons as provided in the revised NHRERP set out procedures for the decisionmaking and administration of drugs and leaves us with no issue to be heard. NRC Staff suppo-+e dismissal based upon a
14 review of the NHRERP, the State's Compensatory Plan and-the revisions submitted. We grant Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Kensington Contention No. 7 and NECNP Contention No. RERP-12.
VI.
(a) Applicants' Motion for Partial Sumary Disposition of South Hampton Contention No. 8, NECNP Contention NHLP-4 and SAPL Contentions 18 and 25 - May 20,1986.
(b) Town of South Hampton's Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of South Hampton Contentions 1 and 3 and Motion for Partial Sumary Disposition of South Hampton Contention 8 -
June 9, 1986.
(c) New England Coalition o'n Nuclear Pollution's 0pposition to Applicants' Motions For Sumary Disposition - June 9,1986.
(d) SAPL's Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of SAPL Contentions 5, 7,14 and 17 and Motion for Partial Sumary Disposition of SAPL Contentions 18 and 25 - June 9, 1986.
(e) NRC Staff's Answer to Motions for Sumary Disposition of Off-Site Emergency Planning Contentions - June 11, 1986.
(f) Applicants' Motion to Strike Portions of Staff Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition - June 16, 1986.
(g) NRC Staff's Answer to Applicants' Motion to Strike Portions of Staff Response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition -
July 7, 1986.
These four contentions have in comon the notification of persons.
with special notification needs.
In the case of SAPL Contention 18 the methodology utilized to calculate the numbers of non-auto owing population was the issue; SAPL Contention 25 is concerned with whether mobility impaired individuals had been identified.
In opposing Applicants' Motion, South Hampton relies upon the Affidavit of Frederick H. Anderson, Jr. submitted by SAPL in its answer to these sumary disposition motions of the Applicants. The Anderson
15 Affidavit disputes the matters set forth in the Affidavit of_ Richard H.
Strome concerning the special needs survey conducted by the NHCDA in March 1986. The Strome Affidavit established that a survey of special needs residents within the NH emergency planning zone was conducted which requested infonnation on the type of assistance needed from three categories of persons needing special assistance. Thesepersonsare(1) persons that may not have access to private vehicles, (2) persons with physical disability, and (3) persons with hearing impainnent. The survey responses were received from 2,904 persons out of the 33,812 households queried within the NH communities of the Seabrook Station emergency planning zone who are customers of the Exeter-Hampton Electric.
Company. The Anderson Affidavit maintains that NH methodology is faulty in that (1) it does not provide for "special needs" persons living in apartments or those staying in motels; (2) there was no " motivation" to respond to the survey; and (3) an assortment of " deficiencies" dealing with the questionnaire design. The complaint that language may have been a barrier to response is not persuasive since only 9 persons were identified in the area who may require special notification.because of inability to understand English.
NECNP also seeks to discredit the Strome Affidavit. The use of the utility customer list, NECNP maintains, cannot "obtain identification of all residents of the EPZ with special notification needs." (Emphasis supplied). Further, the public information announcements by the CDA will be over the radio and will not reach hearing-impaired, or non-English speaking individuals or those without televisions or radios.
16 SAPL also disputes the adequacy of the procedures for identifying special needs persons because of the design and frequency with which the survey is to be conducted.
NRC Staff, relying on FEMA's evaluation contained in the Affidavit of Edward A. Thomas, opposes summary disposition of these four contentions until " additional work" is done to identify the "special.
needs" population. However, nothing in the Thomas Affidavit of June 11.
1986 reflects wheth'er the survey of special needs of residents within the NH emergency planning zone conducted in March 1986 was considered by FEMA.
Indeed the survey of March 1986 and the' survey which annually will update the special needs survey will ensure current information for the local civil defense officials who must utilize the results. NH has gone a step further and met the objections to the basic survey from the utility customer list by providing that "public information announcements have been and will be periodically made by the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency to inform the public of the distribution of the survey, to encourage responses.by persons who may require special assistance, and to provide a means for persons to request survey forms if they may not have received them."
The Board accepts the testimony of Director Strome of the NHCDA as the official who must establish the procedures to identify special notification persons. We believe he has made a strong beginning and has provided for future measures that will prefect the identification of persons who at some later date fall into the category of a special needs We agree with Applicants that any additional requirements would person.
17 fall into the category of " extraordinary neasures" not required by the regulations of this Commission. Accordingly, the Board grants Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition insofar as these contentions assert that adequate procedures for identifying persons with special needs do not exist.
VII. (a) Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of SAPL Contention No. 5 and NECNP Contention RERP 10, dated May 20, 1986 (Applicants' Motion).
T
.(b) New England _ Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's 0pposition to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition, dated June 9,1986 (NECNPResponse)..
(c) SAPL's Response to Applicants' Motion for Sunnary Disposition of SAPL Contentions 5, 7, 14 and 17 and Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of SAPL Contentions 18 and 25, dated June 9, 1986 (SAPL Response).
(d) NRC Staff's Answer to Motions for Summary Disposition of Off-Site Emergency Planning Conter tions, dated. June 11, 1986 (StaffResponse).
Both of these contentions allege inadequacy of radioactivity
~
monitoring methods, systems and equipment, specifically alluding to the number of monitoring personnel and teams, their training and their response time during an emergency, as well as the absence of predesignated fixed monitoring locations. Board Memorandum and Order, 1
April 29, 1986, supra, at 59-60, 83-84; our Revision of that Memorandum and Order, May 6,1986; SAPL's Second Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene, February 21, 1986, at 5-7; NECNP Contentions on the New Hampshire State and Local Radiological Emergency Response Plans, February 24, 1986.
y 4.---
-,,--.g.,y.----,w+-r..--r-
.r
- w
--,m--
18 Supported by the affidavits of William T. Wallace, Jr., Director of the New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services (DPHS), and James A. MacDonald, Radiological Assessment Manager of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, the Applicants provide statements of fact as to which they contend there is no dispute.
Essentially, the Applicants contend that 13 persons (monitors) in
'the DPHS have been adequately trained to perform their emergency response functions; that the number is sufficient to conduct adequate field monitoring on a 24-hour basis with a minimum of three two-person teams on the ground, with two persons designated for aerial monitoring as deemed advisable; that the teams can be deployed to monitoring locations within li hours after declaration of an Alert; and that the -
State of New Hampshire will base its assessment of accident conditions and protective response decisions, if necessary prior to the arrival of DPHS monitoring teams at the monitoring sites, on results of monitoring.
and dose projections conducted by the utility.
Seabrook Station has the capability to deploy three field monitoring teams from the Emergency Operations Facility (E0F) within 60 minutes of an Alert. Ap911 cants further contena that the plan contains procedures for the State of New Hampshire to request field monitoring and laboratory analysis f
assistance, if necessary, from the five other parties to the New England Compact on Radiological Assistance, and that support can be provided for radiological monitoring by the U.S. Department of Energy at the request of the DPHS. Applicants' Motion at 4-7, Wallace Affidavit (5 pp.),
f MacDonald Affidavit (2 pp.), both dated May 19, 1986.
t 19 Based on FEMA's and the RAC's reviews of the NHRERP, the State's compensatory plan,'the revisions to the plans which have been submitted, and the test exercise held on February 26, 1986, the NRC Staff concludes that, as to SAPL Contention 5 and NECNP Contention RERP-10, the NHRERP appears to be adequate and no issues of material fact remain. to be litigated. Staff Response at 6-7, Thomas Affidavit, dated June 11, 1986 (3pp.).
SAPL disagrees with the Applicants and provides a statement of.
material facts as to which they contend that SAPL Contention No. 5 raises a genuine issue. SAPL's statement largely repeats bare allegations.without f' acts to controvert Applicants' statement (SAPL
- Response at 5-7, items 2, 3, 5, 6) or assertions or issues outside the scope of its contention (id., items 6 (no signature page), 7,-10, 11),
4 Additionally, in items 8 and 9 SAPL provides no facts concerning the RAC reviews sufficient to controvert the Affida'vit of the RAC Chairnen with respect to this contention that the State plans appear to be adequate l
and no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated (Staff Response, Thomas Affidavit (3 pp.)). Also, item 9 is outside the scope of the contention.
SAPL in its response (at 5, item 1) is correct in stating that the deployment time of li hours for DPHS monitoring personnel applies to j
arrival at the IF0, rather than to monitoring locations as contended by the Applicants. However, this is in agreement with the statement in the Wallace Affidavit (14) which the Applicants apparently misstate.
Applicants' Motion at 4, 1 3, and Wallace Affidevit at 2.
The same i-
4
\\
20 paragraph of the Affidavit attests that prior to arrival of DPHS personnel, who are deployed at the Alert level notification, the State will base its assessment of accident conditions and protective response recommendations, if necessary, on results of monitoring and dose projections provided by the utility. Because Seabrook Station has the capability to deploy three field monitoring teams from the EOF within 60 minutes after declaration of an Alert (Applicants' Motion, MacDonald Affidavit at 1, 1 2) commencement of ground level monitoring is not dependent upon the exact arrival time of the DPHS personnel at the IF0.
Thus, the ' potential for traffic delay of the DPHS monitors does not impair the State's or the Applicants' ability. to obtain the information.
SAPL raises a question, based on the arithmetic of the number of DPHS monitoring personnel, of how many ground monitoring teams can be formed therefrom.
Essentially, SAPL argues that 13 people are inadequate to form six ground monitoring teams of 2 persons each, if two persons must do aerial monitoring. SAPL Response at 6, 1 4.
While SAPL's arithmetic is good, its conclusion is insufficient to controvert the statcment in the Wallace Affidavit that thirteen monitoring personnel is a sufficient number to conduct field monitoring for the purpose of confirming off-site dose projections and for tracking plume direction for an extended period. The New Hampshire DPHS and Applicants clearly contemplate the part-time availability for ground monitoring, of the two persons designated for aerial monitoring if such is necessary, as well as deployment of both DPHS and utility teams for field
21 monitoring. Applicants' Motion at 4-5, 11 2-4, Wallace Affidavit at l
1-3, 11 4-6.
SAPL's statement in 110 (at 7) that questions the sensitivity of instruments to be used by the monitoring teams and supported by the letter signed by Drs. Piccioni, Eyler and Meshnik and attested to by Affidavit dated June 9,1986, actually is an argument as to what may constitute a dangerous level'of radiation, not that instrument sensitivity is inadequate, and assumes no protective action is taken prior to field monitoring (Piccioni, Eyler and Meshnik letter). As-stated, supra, this statement is outside the scope of SAPL's contention and its proffered bases.
Further, the Board finds neither legal basis i
nor safety concern warranting its litigation.
For the foregoing reasons the Board finds that the statements in the motion by the Applicants and its accompanying affidavits are not controverted by SAPL's statement contending that SAPL Contention No. 5 raises a genuine issue, and there remains no genuine issue as to any material fact with respect to SAPL Contention No. 5.
Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of this Contention is granted.
NECNP in its opposition to Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of its Contention RERP-10 relies entirely on SAPL's l
opposition, with which it joins, incorporating by reference the letter signed by Drs. Piccioni, Eyler and Meshnik. NECNP Response at 14, 1 C.
For the same reasons stated above, the Board grants Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of NECNP Contention RERP-10.
22 VIII.(a) Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of SAPL Contention No. 7, May 20, 1986, supported by Affidavit of William T.
Wallace, Jr., dated May 19, 1986 (Applicants' Motion).
(b) SAPL's Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition i
of SAPL Contentions 5, 7, 14 and 17 and Motion for Partial Sumary Disposition of SAPL Contentions 18 and 25,-June 9, 1986, pp. S-14, and supported by Affidavit of Donald L.
Herzberg, M.D., dated June 6,1986 (SAPL's Response).
(c) NRC Staff's Answer to Motions for Sumary Disposition of Off-Site Emergency Planning Contentions, June 11, 1986, supported by Affidavit of Edward A. Thomas ~(FEMA) (Staff's Answer).
SAPL's Contention No. 7 in its entirety, is given here:
The New Hampshire S' tate and local plans fail to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(11) and NUREG-0654, i K.5.b, because there has been no showing that the means of radiological decontamination of emergency personnel, wounds, supplies and equipment have been established.
Further, there has not been a clear showing that adequate means for waste disposal exist.
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Second Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene, February 21, 1986, at 7-8.
The substance of this contention clearly is a paraphrasing of NUREG-0654, criterion II.K.5.b (at p. 67). Planning Standard K (p. 66), to which the criteria in this section of NUREG-0654 pertain, is the same as 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(11), which is averred by SAPL in its contention No. 7 to be the appropriate regulatory requirement.0 0
The Staff, in its " Attachment to NRC Staff's Response to Contentions Filed by - - - and'SAPL," March 14,1986at5(SAPL),
n.5, indicated its belief that more appropriate citations to the regulatory (requirement for SAPL Contention 7 might be 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b) 10) and NUREG-0654, 9 II.J.12. SAPL, however, has
-(Footnote Continued)
23 On its face,10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(b)(11) requires the establishment of means for controlling radiological exposures, in an emergency, to emergency workers, not the general public. However, except for decontamination of State emergency workers at the IFO-EOF in Newington, other emergency workers requiring decontamination will be referred to the saire facilities where monitoring and decontamination of the evacuating general public will be accomplished.
(See Wallace Affidavit supporting Applicants' Motion, 11 2, 3 and 4, and attachment "B," pp.
2.7-9and2.7-10). SAPL Contention 7 was admitted based on assertions of inadequacies in, inter alia, decontamination facilities and supplies for emergency workers and the general public (Board Memorandum and Order, ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL, April 29, 1986 (unpublished), at 84-85).
Applicants, in their Motion, mainly address monitoring and decontamination procedures for State and local emergency workers. The thrust of the supporting Wallace Affidavit goes largely to emergency workers but does attest to~ planned capabilities at the reception center decontamination facilities, which will accommodate both emergency workers and the general public. While the procedures described in Applicants' Motion and supporting documents appear to be adequate, qualitatively, no specific basis is averred for quantitative adequacy of (FootnoteContinued) continued to rely on 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(b)(11) and criterion II.K.5.b. of NUREG-0654 in its Response (at 0).
24 the six monitoring and decontamination facilities planned for the reception centers.
In its Response, SAPL challenges the adequacy of the capabilities of the reception center decontamination facilities. Except for a reference to the presence of only one shower at the. IF0/E0F, unsupported by any fact to indicate why it might be inadequate, SAPL's concerns are
' based on the large numbers of persons it expects to present themselves for decontamination at the reception centers. The accompanying Herzberg Affidavit raises only the question of the adequacy of the plans for decontamination centers, primarily the numbers of personnel assigned to accomplish the required tasks of monitoring and decontaminating the large numbers of persons expected to report there.
SAPL, in its response, also raises the point that several local RERPs do not list the individuals who will be essigned monitoring responsibilities of local emergency workers prior to their possible referral to decontamination centers (at 8,12) and reasserts the claim that the State of New Hampshire has no contract or other arrangement in place for acceptance of low level wastes that will be generated as a result of decontamination activities (at 10,16).
It also questions
.the effectiveness of certain details of administration and communications associated with the monitoring and decontamination procedures (at 11,17), but without supporting facts as to why the procedures are deficient.
It also attempts to raise an issue not within the scope of the original contention, or its bases, that levels of contamination which would require additional actions (bioassays) or
25 other treatment should be stated in the plan (SAPL's Response at 11, 1 8).
The Staff's Answer (at 7) concludes that certain unresolved issues of fact with respect to this contention remain, and those identified in the accompanying Thomas Affidavit (11 G.1 and G.2) pertain to adequacy of personnel and equipment to monitor and decontaminate both emergency workers and the general public at the decontamination facilities of the reception centers. However, the plans for disposal of wastes as described ir. the NHRERP (see Section 1.3.3, p.1.3-10; Section 2.7.5,
- p. 2.7-10) have been reviewed and found to be adequate by the RAC (Thomas Affidavit, 1 G.3).
This latter conclusion as to adequacy is further supported in the Wallace Affidavit (at 118-9), and is not controverted by SAPL's unsupported assertions in its. statement of material facts as to which it contends its Contention No. 7 raises a genuine issue (at 10-11 1 6), that a contract or other arrangement does not now exist, and that no showing has been made that a locatien to receive the low level wastes will exist. SAPL has made no showing of why these details of arrangements for waste disposal are necessary for the Board's predictive findings.
The Licensing Board partially grants summary disposition of SAPL Contention No. 7, in regard to the issues of monitoring and decontamination of emergency workers at, and deployed from the IF0-EOF at Newington, the monitoring of emergency workers at local emergency operations facilities. and the adequacy of arrangements in the PERPs for disposal of low-level radioactive wastes derived from decontamination
26 activities. With regard to SAPL's allegations of the absence in the plans of. designated persons to monitor emergency workers at specific localities, the Board notes that these allegations are unsupported by Affidavit and, if true, verifying the assignment of specific individuals to accomplish this planned function is a ministerial task, the accomplishment of which can be, and is, delegated by the Board to the NRC Staff. See Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric
~
Station, Unit 3),ALA8-732,17NRC1076,1104-07(1983).
With regard to the adequacy of personnel and equipment (including that for collection and storage of radioactively contaminated water) to accomplish the monitoring and decontamination of the numbers of emergency workers and general public expected at the decontamination centers located at the host community reception centers, the Licensing Board finds that there are unresolved issues of material fact; hence, summary disposition of these issues as part of SAPL Contention No. 7 is denied.
IX.
(a) Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of NECNP Contention NO. NHLP-3 and SAPL Contention 17 - May 20, 1986.
(b) New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's 0pposition to Applicants' Motions for Sumary Disposition - June 9,1986.
(c) SAPL's Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of SAPL Contentions 5, 7,14 and 17 and Motion for Partial Sumary Disposition of SAPL Contentions 18 and 25 - June 9, 1986.
(d) NRC Staff's Answer to Motions for Sumary Disposition of Off-Site Emergency Planning Contentions - June 11, 1986.
(e) Applicants' Motion to Strike Portions of Staff Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition - June 16, 1986
27 (f) NRC Staff's Answer to Applicants' Motion to Strike Portions of Staff Response to Applicants' Motion for Sunnary Disposition -
July.7, 1986.
(g) Applicants' Motion for Decision on Motions for Summary Disposition on File and for Hearing Schedule with Respect to New Hampshire Emergency Planning Issues - September 25, 1986.
(h) NRC Staff's Response to Applicants' Motion for Decision on Motions for Summary Disposition on File and for Hearing Schedule with Respect to New Hampshire Emergency Planning Issues -
October 15, 1986.
Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition of NECNP-NHLP-3 and SAPL-17 was supported by the Affidavit of Gary J. Catapano. As a result of his studies, a complete complement of radio communications equipment was purchased for all EPZ police departments. This provides' sufficient quantities of portables and pagers and mobile units to insure adequate communications at all traffic control posts and have portables available for routine police activities that may. occur at the same time an incident occurs at Seabrook Station. To facilitate RERP communications, base stations and other types of communications equipment was purchased.
New mobile units, portables, and pagers were purchased for the fire department.
All of the equipment purchased is wideband multifrequency, capable of allowing communications to occur on numerous frequencies.
In most communities with the EPA, new dual address pagers were supplied for the police _and fire departments and for use by the key municipal officials as noted in the RERP.
A complete communications package was purchased for each local EOC.
This included a NHCDA command and control radio and a (2) meter Races c
)
28
\\
radio which serves as a backup system for comand and control. New high power multifrequency scanning base stations were purchased to allow comunications with surrounding comunities emergency response organizations and other agencies that might be sent in to assist. New multiline telephone systems have been purchased and additional phone lines will be added to the EOCs to provide adequate telephone comunications. Sufficient portables, pagers and mobiles have been purchased to allow the fire and police departments to conduct their-routine public safety activities at the same time that comunications resources are being used for comunicating information related to the RERP.
The local comunications network is engineered to allow the EOC in each local comunity to coordinate and control the town's emergency response activities and comunicate directly with RCD, the State, surrounding EPZ comunities, host comunities and other agencies that may be sent in to assist. In the case of the beach comunities this will incl'>de the USCG. Specialized comunications systems were designed for the Towns of Hampton and Seabrook.
A number of improvements have been made at the Rockingham County Dispatch Center to allow for the additional comunications associated with Seabrook Station and the RERP. Special paging encoders have been installed to facilitate the required paging notifications and to simplify the actions required by the dispatcher to achieve them. The transceiver primarily utilized for the paging notifications is being replaced with a new continuous duty rated, high power station. A new
29 phone system has been installed at the dispatch center along with specialized emergency line and call logging recorders. An additional communications console and fire dispatch area have been added 'to allow greater flexibility for dispatch operations and to accommodate the status display board and siren activation equipment. The signal strength from the transmitter sites at Rockingham County Dispatch to communicate with all EPZ communities is more than adequate for all paging and mobile communications. Numerous channels exist for RERP communications to provide redundancy should a channel become unusable for any reason.
The Board notes that the purchases and installations recited above from the affidavit represent actual actions taken.
When the State IF0 at Newington becomes operational, the primary responsibility for providing RERP notifications and RERP communications to the local EPZ communities shifts to the IF0. The IFO is equipped with a sophisticated communications network that will allow personnel at the IF0 to coordinate response activities directly with field personnel.
Should the command and control radio system encounter high. traffic, the IFO can communicate directly with the local communities on their own fire, police and highway department local frequencies. Additional radio communications capabilities exist to allow the IF0 to communicate directly with the state Civil Defense and state police agencies in Maine and Massachusetts, all EMS vehicles, USCG, and the New Hampshire
. Department of Parks and Recreation.
Improvements were made to the state police communications systems for both Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
~.
30 An emergency power generator is planned for the E0C in each community where a reliable source of AC backup power does not already exist.
The Staff response dated October 15, 1986 included.the Affidavit of Edward A. Thomas and on p. 5 he recites results of an RERP Exercise which occurred on February 26, 1986. Numerous deficiencies and areas requiring corrective action are listed. The Board notes that this exercise was conducted at a very early stage of the Seabrook project and as such served as a learning experience from which plan-makers have benefited. The Board notes that NHRERP calls for monthly communications drills..This should adequately supplement the original Exercise.
NECNP Contention NHLP-4 challenges the New Hampshire local emergency plans for failure to make adequate provision for notification by the licensee of local response organizations and for notification of emergency response personnel by all organizations. NECNP asserts that Applicants' sunmary disposition motion must fail as a matter of law because it gives no indication that the. assertions made in the Catapano Affidavit are reflected in the offsite emergency plans for the Seabrook EPZ.
NECNP asserts that there can be no basis for a finding that the New Hampshire local plans provide adequate assurance that there will be.
a reasonable assurance of safety during a -radiological emergency, because there is no listing in each Town plan of how many pagers the town possesses, who will use them, and what they will be used for.
Intervenors' response was filed June 9, 1986. There is adequate information now in the Town plans, Revision 2 dated August 1986. To
31-illustrate, we note section C. Emergency Communications for Town of Seabrook, Vol. 16, pp. II-10 to~16 as an example. New information placed in Rev. 2, 8/86 explains who does what to whom in case of an emergency. A listing of communications equipment and location is illustrated by Appendix C, p. C-6, Rev. 2, 8/86-for the Town of Seabrook.
Sixty-six pagers are listed and their location is given.
SAPL responds that the Catapano Affidavit does not address the communication systems.availabl.e at special facilities within the EPZ.
The Board observes that these are included in Appendix F of the Town Plans, titled Special Facility Plans. The example of plans for the the Town of Seabrook, page F-1, Vol. 16, Rev. 2, 8/86, illustrates the point.
It lists the special facilities and is followed by 24 pages of text. This describes the emergency response procedures which include designation of the communication system'and devices to be used.
-The matters at issue in Contentions NECNP-NHLP-3'and SAPL-17 are contained in the new revised NH-RERP issued in August, 1986. The information therein is currently complete. The motion for summary disposition of NECNP-NHLP.-3 and SAPL-17 is oranted.
X.
(a) Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of. Kensington Contentions hos. 2 and 10 - May 20, 1986.
(b) ' Town of Kensington's Answer Opposing the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Kensington Contentions #2 and #10.
(c).NRC Staff's Answer to Motions for Summary Disposition of' Off-Site Emergency Planning Contentions - June 11, 1986.
(d) Applicants' Motion to Strike Portions of Staff Response to i
l Applicants' Motion for Sunnary Disposition - June 16, 1986.
4
. ~.,. -,
32 i
(e) NRC Staff's Answer to Applicants' Motion to Strike Portions of Staff Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition -
July 7, 1986.
The basis of Applicants' Motion is that the notification sequence 7
will be in the Kensington RERP. An examination of the plan disclosed that in the current plan, the notification sequences which earlier had been only described, are in fact in place.
(Town of Kensington, NH, RERP, Vol. 29/II-2 through 7). The response to TOK complaint that there is no showing that the equipment " exists" is refuted by the plan (Appendix C - Kensington Emergency Resources and Equipment - Vol. 29 -
Rev. 2 C-1 through 5). The emergency resources and equipment are
-reflected as to quantity and location. TOK's response of June 8,1986 that no RERP had been served upon the town is no longer the case in view of service of the TOK RERP plan of August 1986, served upon all the parties.
With the purchase of a complete complement of radio communication equipment now' available for TOK's various departments including fire, police and the E0C, there is available means for comunications between the contiguous. state and local governments. The equipment and locations are detailed in the Applicants' Statement of Facts Not in Dispute (Section 3-10) and supported by the Affidavit of. Gary J. Catapano.O 7
The plan referred to in this Memorandum and Order is the Revision Number 2, dated August 1986..
8 President of A11Com, Inc., Contractor for evaluation and design (Footnote Continued)
"33 However, the Catapano Affidavit acknowledges that the installation of the purchased equipment has not been accomplished.
The Board grants Applicants'. Motion for Summary Disposition of Kensington Contentions 2 and 10 except for the need for a demonstration that the purchased communication package has been or is available for installation in Kensington E0C.
4 D.
Motions for Summary Disposition by the State of NH I.
(a). The State of NH's Motion for Surimary Disposition of Contention Kensington 4 - May 20,1986.
1 (b) TOK's Answer Opposing the State of NH's Motion for' Summary Disposition of Kensington Contention No. 4 - June 3,1986.
(c) NRC Staff's Answer to Motions for Summary Disposition of Off-Site Emergency Planning Contentions - June 11, 1986.-
The Town of Kensington in opposing the State of NH's motion for summary disposition assert that there has not been a showing that the Kensington Elementary School has a Dose Reduction Factor (DRF) of.9 as
- maintained by Director Richard H. Strome.in his affidavit supporting-NH's motion. Further Kensington submits that Director Strome is not "an expert on the sheltering capability of structures."
The Staff opposes the motion.
(Footnote Continued) of communication systems. This contractor also specified the communication equipment for emergency planning purposes at the Seabrook Station.
i i
,. _. ~,,.. - _.. -. _,. -. - _ _ _ -,, _ _ - _... - _. -.
34 The Board denies the State of NH's motion but limits the issue to be litigated to a demonstration that the Kensington Elementary School I
building has a DRF of.9 and how this determination was made by the State of NH.
II.
(a) The State of NH's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hampton Falls Contention No. 1 - May 20, 1986.
(b) Town of Hampton Falls' Response to the State of-NH's Motion for Summary Disposition of the HF Contention No.1 - June 10,1986.
(c) NRC Staff's Answer to Motions for Summary Disposition of Off-Site Emergency Planning Contentions - June 11, 1986.
(d) Applicants' Answer in Support of the State of NH's Motion for Summary Disposition of Hampton Falls Contention No. 1 - June 6, 1986.
In admitting this contention in our order of April 29, 1986 this Board limited it to the issue of whether a Town of HF plan can and will be implemented. We stated that the " sole litigable issue here is whether the emergency plan of HF will be implemented." There is nothing in that issue which concerns those matters that Town of HF responded to in its answer. The contention as framed by HF complained that the plan was not a local plan and not prepared by HF. While correct, the matter nas now moved beyond whether it is a local plan or one by the State through its contractor. There is a plan and the Director of the State's CDA has provided in his Affidavit testimony that an emergency plan can and will be implemented for the Town of Hampton Falls.
If the l
_-, -_ l
35 9
town does not implement the RERP for Hampton Falls, NH then the State of NH will implement tae NH Compensatory Plan for the necessary emergency response capabilities for the town.
The concerns expressed by FEMA, through the Affidavit of Director Thomas, dealt with the deficiencies of the Compensatory Plan - an issue not embraced by the Town of HF in framing its contention.
As this Board has previously noted in this proceeding, we will consider only those matters properly placed-in issue before us. We specifically reject Town of HF's attempt to expand this contention to embrace concerns not included within the framework of the contention.
The State of New Hampshire's Motion for Summary Disposition of HF Contention No.1 is granted.
E.
Establishing a Date for Filing of Late-Filed Contentions Arising out of Revision 2 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan. Monthly Status Reports Required.
The Board also has considered Applicants' Motion for Decision en Motions for Summary Disposition on File and for Hearing Schedule with Respect to New Hampshire Emergency Planning Issues, dated September 25, 1986; NRC Staff's Response to Applicants' Motion for Decision on Motions for Summary Disposition on File and for Hearing Schedule with Respect to New Hampshire Emergency Planning Issues, dated October 15, 1986; 9
Revision 2, 8/86.
4 36 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, Town of Hampton, Town of Hampton Falls and Town of South Hampton Response to Applicants' Motion for Decision on Motions for Summary Disposition and ~for Hearing Schedule with Respect to New Hampshire Emergency Planning Issues, dated October 6,1986; Town of Kensington's Joinder to Seacoast' Anti-Pollution League's, Town of
.Hampton's, Town of'Hampton Falls' and Town of South Hampton's Response to Applicants' Motion for Decision on Motions for Summary Disposition and for Hearing Schedule with Respect to New Hampshire Emergency Planning Issue, dated October 7,1986; Town of Hampton Motion to Establish Hearing Schedule and for Additional Time to File Contentions and for 'ncorporation of Contentions, dated October 8,1986; Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti's Answer to Applicants' Motion for Decision on Motions for Summary Disposition on File and for Hearing Schedule with Respect to New Hampshire Emergency Planning Issues, dated October 10, 1986; New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Response to Motion for Decision on Motions for Summary Disposition anc for Hearing Schedule with Respect to Emergency Planning Issues, dated October 15, 1986; Applicants' Answer to Town of Hampton Motion to Establish Hearing Schedule and for Additional Time to File Contentions and for Incorporation of Contentions, dated October 20, 1986; NRC's Staff Response to Town of Hampton Motion to Establish Hearing Schedule and for Additional Time to File Contentions and for Incorporation of Contentions, dated October 27, 1986; and'NECNP's Motion to Hold Offsite Emergency Planning Proceeding in Abeyance, dated October 28, 1986.
4 37 The Board establishes the date of December 1, 1986 for filing of late-filed contentions arising out of Revision 2 of the NHRERP. Parties are directed that any late-filed contentions must confonn with the applicable rules of practice and be delivered in hand to the Board and the parties no later than close of business on the above date.10 The Town of Hampton in its motion to establish a hearing schedule also seeks to incorporate "all previous contentions and objections to the NHRERP" by realleging them against Revision 2 of the NHRERP. The Applicants' answer deals only with the deadline for late-filed contentions arising out of Revision 2 of the NHRERP and opposes TOH date of January 1,1987 for filing of late-filed Revision 2 Contentions.
The Staff states it does not understand what relief, if any, the T0H seeks with respect to the incorporation of its previous contentions.
The Staff assumes that Hampton wants only to ensure that "those contentions are not dismissed as moot" in light of Revision 2 of NHRERP.
The Board will not assume what T0H intends in this instance.
Hampton's previously admitted contentions are before the Board. The Board will not revive for T0H its prior contentions and objections already ruled upon.
If T0H wants to file late contentions based solely on new material contained in Revision 2 of NHRERP of August 1986 then it 10 The Board emphasizes that any late-filed contention must be based upon the new matters solely contained in Revision 2 oTNHRERP.
38 must comply with the Comission's Rules of Practice for late-filed contentions.
In its Motion for a Hearing Schedule with Respect to NH Emergency Planning Issues (September 25,1986) the Applicants requested that a schedule be 9stablished for the adjudicatory hearing on NHRERP contentions. The NRC Staff in its response of October 15, 1986 agreed but submitted that the Board should elicit the parties' views on a schedule.
We agree with -the Staff's position that the parties should submit their v1ews on these future adjudicatory hearings. We advise the
~
parties that the Board in establishing past schedules has relied upon the time frames for the various events leading to the comencement of the hearings as expressed in the attachment to our order of January 17, 1986. However, we believe that those time frames can and should be shortened in view of the time the parties have had the NH plans and the approximate two months that Revision 2 of the NHRERP has been in the possession of each of the parties. Massachusetts Attorney General Bellotti in his answer has mischaraterized the NHRERP. The basic NH plan had been served on the parties Jar.uary 10, 1986. The Massachusetts Attorney General states that on September 10, 1986 he received 11 "approximately 30 volumes that would require a month of intense work."
11 The' Board counted 31 volumes that pertain to the Seabrook Station.
These are volumes T 2, 4, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 19, 20, (FootnoteContinued)
39 What in fact was issued was an orderly assembled series of loose leaf volumes in which Revision 2 was incorporated and the NHRERP republished in its " entirety and distributed as complete volumes in binders with tabs."
(Instructions for Insertion - NH RERP - August 1986. This page was included in each volume of this republished plan.) Each addition or revision made has been clearly marked in the margin of the applicable section. The Board rejects the AG's attempt to use the filing of NHRERP Revision 2 to prevent the establishment of a realistic new schedule.
There is no de novo review of the NH plan necessary. The parties have had considerable time to establish their concerns as the NHRERP has developed.
The Board intends to hear all contentions based only on the NHRERP in one series of hearings. 'We believe that, by concentrating on the NH contentions, the parties will be materially aided in development of the evidence on the NH plans which will provide the needed input for the Board to make its predictive findings.
By establishing this procedure, we specifically reject SAPL and et al. position (October 6, 1986) that the NH and MASS plans be litigated together. The Board has no MASS RERP before it at this time.
On October 28, 1986 NECNP submitted its Motion To Hold Offsite Emergency Planning Proceeding in Abeyance. The position NECNP takes is (Footnote Continued) 21, 21A, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 26A, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 38.
40 similar to that of SAPL el al. and the Board finds NECNP merely argumentative. We find such argument that " rumors" that the Applicants will submit a "Shoreham" type of plan for Mass is mere speculation.
On or before November 21, 1986, the Board directs that the parties submit proposed schedules guided by.the concerns the Board has expressed in this Memorandum and Order. To conserve the resources of each of the parties, as well as the Board's, we urge that arguments already made not be repeated in the response for a schedule. We are aware of other preparations which all parties have in this and possibly other proceedings. However, the Board must consider the interest of all the competing parties in this proceeding for setting forth a schedule as fair to each as possible recognizing that no schedule can (or perhaps should) be universally acceptable.
The Board finds'that factors which impact on the orderly conduct of this proceeding often are not brought to the attention of the Board until innediately prior to an event. To permit the Board and all parties an opportunity to operate with current information concerning this proceeding, the Board establishes a monthly status report 12 requirement of each participant in this proceeding. This report will be submitted on or before the fifteenth day of each month. Failure of a 12 To ensure that no misunderstanding is read into this requirement, the Board defines "each participant" as any party, with or without contentions whether admitted under 10 C.F.R. 2.714 or 2.715(c).
Applicants and Staff.
41 participant to file e status report will be considered as a negative report.
FOR TH ATOMIC SAFETY ND CENSI B0 W ^
. h sa w Helen T. Hoyt, Chaf rpEr Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of November 1986.
l
. _.. _ _ _.... _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _.. _. _.. _