ML20234F491

NRC Staff Response to Motions for Summary Disposition of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions.* Forwards Affidavits of EA Thomas in Support of & Opposing Certain Motions for Summary Disposition

ML20234F491
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/02/1987
From:	Chan E NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20234F494	List: ML20234F491 ML20234F548 ML20234F582
References
CON-#387-3949 OL, NUDOCS 8707080242
Download: ML20234F491 (5)

Text

I 9M July 2, ]987 ff o

De a !:ii ,

F 1 1 l

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR, REGULATORY COMMISSION '87 x -6 P 2 :10 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BdARD ,

in the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al,. ) Off-site Emergency Planning

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) 3 I

l l

NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR I

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF OFF-SITE j EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS J l

1 On June 11, 1987, the Applicants filed fourteen motions for sommary disposition of various off-site emergency planning contentions; II on the same date, the Town of Hampton filed a motion for summary disposition of Town of Hampton-4 and 6 and Attorney General Shannon of Massachusetts 1 l filed a motion for partial summary disposition on Town of Hampton-8, SA PL-16 and N E C N P-R E R P-8. On June 10, 1987, the Board granted cariier motions and summarily disposed of Town of Rye-2, Town of South Hampton-1 and 6 and Town of Kensington-10.

The NP,C Staff hereby files its response to these motions and reiterates its support for the Applicant's March 25, 1987 motion for summary disposition of NECNP-RERP-2 which the Board did not address ,

i

-1/ Appilcant's motions addressed Town of Rye-2, Town of South Hampton-1, Town of South Hampton-6. Town of Kensington-10, S A PL-15 , N ECN P-N H LP-6, Town of South Hampton-8, S A PL-18, SA PL-25, Town of Kensington-6, Town of South Hampton-3, N EC N P-N H LP-4, Town of Hampton Falls-4, and Town of Kensington-2.

{1%' 2888i % 8 % 95g7

. in its June 10, 1987 Memorandum and Order. For the reasons set forth below, and in the attached affidavits, - there are no genuine issues of material fact on two of the subject contentions and summary disposition is appropriate for those contentions. The motions for summary disposition on the remaining contentions should be denied because FEMA has not yet made the findings required by the Commission's regulations that the relevant parts of the emergency plans are adequate. The material facts still in issue are set forth in the attached affidavits and the letter provided to the Board and parties by the Staff on June 12, 1987. b DISCUSSION A discussion of the legal principles underlying summary disposition and the significance of FEMA findings to the NRC's determination of the adecuacy of off-site emergency plans was provided in the NRC Staff's April 15, 1987 Ar.swer to Motions for Summary Disposition of Off-Site Emergency Planning Contentions and will not be repeated here.

The Applicants', Town of Hampton's and Attorney General Shannon's Motions The Applicants, Town of Hampton and Attorney General Shannon have filed motions for summary disposition of off-site emergency planning

-2/ The Staff has attached hereto " Affidavit of Edward A. Thomas in Support of Certain Motions for Summary Disposition" and " Affidavit of Edward A. Thomas in Opposition to Certain Motions for Summary l Disposition." The first of these affidavits reiterates FEMA's support for summary disposition of NECNP RERP-2, notwithstanding the fact that the Applicants have not refiled their motion for summary disposition thereof.

-3/ Letter from Robert J. Bores (NRC RAC Member) to Edward A.

Thomas (FEMA RAC Chairman), dated June 4,1987.

I

. contentions. These contentions raised various concerns as to the adequacy of the New Hampshlre radiological emergency response plans for the Seabrook Station, j i

As set forth in the attached affidavits of Edward A. Thomas, the j i

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Regional i

Assistance Committee (RAC) have evaluated and reviewed the radiological cmergency response plans submitted by the State of New Hampshire, as well as the compensatory plan and the revisions to the plans which have been submitted by the State. In addition , FEMA has conducted and i

evaluated an exercise of the New Hampshire radiological emergency l response plans, held on February 26, 1986.

Based upon the continuing FEMA review of the New Hampshire l l

radiological emergency response plans, the State's compensatory plan and the revisions to the plans which have been submitted, as well as the exercise held on February H,1986, it has concluded that, as to two of the subject content?ons and the matters embraced by those contentions, the New Hampshire radiological emergency response plans appear to be adequate to FEMA and no issues of material fact remain to be litigated.

FEMA supports the Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition regarding Town of Kensington-2 and NECNP-RERP-2.

The motions for summary disposition on the other contentions should be denied. FEMA has identified unresolved issues of fact within the scope of those contentions. Pertinent unresolved matters which have been identified to date by FEMA are set forth in the attached, " Affidavit of Edward A. Thomas in Opposition to Certain Motions for Summary Disposition."

1

l

. i in addition to the reasons set forth in the Thomas affidavit' opposing the motion for summary disposition of Town of Hampton-8, SAPL-16 and NECNP-RERP-8, an additional factual issue exists regarding the adequacy ,

of the protection afforded the transient beach population. The FEMA position is inconsistent with that of the NRC's representative on the FEMA J RAC.

In contrast to the position expressed by FEMA, the NRC RAC ]

l member had recommended a finding that NHRERP does provide " reasonable assurance" for beach populations:

1 Based on the above, it appears that contingent on l the completion of action by the State to resolve the other RAC concerns with respect to the New Hampshire and local plans, those plans appropriately provide for dose savings for the spectrum of possible accidents and are adequate to i provide reasonable assurance that the beach and l unwinterized housing populations will be protected l and that these plans will essentially meet the criteria of NUREG 0654 ag the intent of the NRC regulations in this area. 1 As the Staff noted in its June 29, 1987 filing to the Commission, I 10 CFR $ 50.47(a)(2) provides:

with respect to offsite matters , by the Commission's finding is to be based upon a review  !

of the FEMA findings and determinations as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented.

However, that regulation further provides that

"[lln any licensing proceeding , a FEMA finding will constitute a rebuttable presumption on 4/ See footnote 3.

-5/ NRC Staff's Response to Joint Motion for Leave to File a Supplement to Motions for Stay of Partial Initial Decision Filed by SAPL, Town of Hampton, and Attorney General Shannon at 4-6

j questions capability."

of adequacy and implementation l j

Although the Thomas Affidavit opposing summary disposition states at paragraph 9 that its current position on this issue "does not constitute i

a finding" the difference of opinion between FEMA and the NRC RAC j member confirms that a genuine factual issue remains.

Since FEMA is unable that at this time to make the required findin'gs of fact required by 10 C.F.R. 9 50.17(a)(2) on the adequacy of the relevant aspects of the Seabrook Station Emergency Off-Site Plan, or because FEMA's position on beach transient protection differs from that of the NRC member of the RAC, summary disposition of these contentions cannot now be granted, j l

CONCLUSION For the reasons more fully set forth above and in the attached affidavits of Edward A. Thomas, the Licensing Board should grant the motions for summary disposition of Town of Kensington Contentions 2 and NECNP Contention RE R P-2. As to all the remaining contentions, the motions for summary disposition should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, s

Elaine i. Chan Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 2nd day of July,1987

- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _