ML20236E594
| ML20236E594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1987 |
| From: | Harbour J, Hoyt H, Linenberger G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4104 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8708030018 | |
| Download: ML20236E594 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _
Yl0 $
t. !' L I '
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
iU "O
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson o
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour SERT lED JUL 2 71987
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL In the Matter of
)
50-444-0L (A$LBP No. 82-471-02-OL)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (Offsite Emergency Planning) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, _et _a.l_.
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
July 24, 1987
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Applicants' Motion for Reconsideration of June 23,1987)
Background
Applica-ts on June 23, 1987 filed a motion for reconsideration of that part of the Board's order of June 10, 1987 that dealt with our rulings on Applicants' summary disposition motions with respect to two contentions: Town of Kensington (T0K) Revised Contention 2, and Town of Hampton Falls (T0HF) Contention 4.
In support of its subject submittal, Applicants provided amended affidavits of G. J. Catapano for the purpose of curing the deficiencies in their March 25, 1987 motion. Affiant Catapano is identified in our June 10, 1987 order.
The NRC Staff (Staff) filed a response to Applicants' n.otion for reconsideration dated July 13, 1987.
No other responses are before us.
Regarding TOK Revised Contention 2, the Board stated in its June 10, 1987 order that the supporting affidavit was silent with respect to 870803ooj8 870724 60
{DR ADOCK 0S000443 PDR
l
, certe.in communication equipment being insta? led and i.,perewteci, whereas i
Applicants' statement of materia'! facts not in dispute ( Applicants' motion of March 25,1987) had stated that it is installed and operatii:nal.
In the subject motion, affiant states as follows:
The equipment required to implement the communications capabilities as outlined in t.his afff davit is' currently installed and operational at both1.he Rockingham County Dispatch Center and in the Towti of Kensington.
With respect to T0HF Contention 4, the Board stated in its June 10, 1987 order that:
i
[T]here is an important consider & tion arguably within the ambit of ths contentior, namely, whether T0HF's communications equipment needs will be compensated by HHCOA as attested to io the Strome affidavit.
Based upon the above stated consideration, we de.nied Applicants' March 25, 1987 sumary disposition motion.
In the subject motion, counsel for Applicants states that:
The explicit means by which the compen?,atory measures will be implemented are set forth in the attached, " Addenda t6:
AFFIDAVIT OF GARY J. CATAPANO (T0HF -4)."
Contrary to that representation, the affidavit lists equipment available to the NHCDA and states that this equipment will allow the State to implement compensatory measures for T0HF. Appendix G to Volume 2 of the NHRERP Rev. 2 cited by the affidavit merely addresses the concept of NH compensatory measures. Explicit means to accomplish this are not discussed.
The Staff's response of July 13, 1987 states that the subject motion of Applicants cures the deficiencies previously. articulated by the Board and urges us to grant summary disposition of these two contentions.
I J
L 3-i i
Conclusion Based upon the subject motion of Applicants, we have carefully f
reconsidered our earlier rulings cnd now state our conclusions. The J
Board finds thet tiie aditional information submitted with respect to f
TOK-2 eliminates our basis for having denied Applicants' earlier motion.
L Accordingly upon reconsideration, the summary disposition motion is
~
4 I
granted in Applicants' favor and Contention 70K-2 is dismissed.
Regarding T0HF-4, we find that the additional information presented l
by Applicants' affiant does not dispel our concern regarding the
]
i adequacy of ccmpefisatory m asures. Hence the Board finds no basis to i
alter its cor,c!9sion of June 10, 1987. The conclusion stands;
)
Applicants' motion for reconsideration with respect to summary l
disposition of T0HF Contention A is denied and the contention wil'1 be litigated as to compensat6ry neasures for satisfying the needs of TOHF.
l IT IS S0 0RDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFE 1Y AND LICE NG BOARD s
en F. Hoyt, EMirperson uy Administrative Ju,dge A
f AM/
G JerryHarbour
~
Administrative Judge wn cm Guftatt A. LinenbeqQer, Jr.
Miinistrative Judge Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 24til day of July,1987.
a