ML20237H044
| ML20237H044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1987 |
| From: | Bisbee G, Huntington G NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237H047 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4278 OL, NUDOCS 8709030090 | |
| Download: ML20237H044 (5) | |
Text
y2.7e I
SOCM'E q:: -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,.7 q
Before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
I I
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)
and j
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE
)
(Off-Site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2
)
Planning Issues)
)
August 19, 1987 RESPONSE OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TO INTERVENERS' JOINT MOTION TO ADMIT LATE-FILED CONTENTION INTRODUCTION By Order dated August 6, 1987, the Board directed the State of New Hampshire to respond to the July 17, 1987 Contention of Attorney General James M. Shannon, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL), New l
England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP), and the Town of Hampton and Joint Motion to Admit Late-Filed Contention.
The contention raises two distinct issues relative to Volume 36 of the i
k New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP), the City of Manchester Host Plan.
The Interveners first allege that the City of Manchester has voted not to participate as a host community or relocation center and has voted not to accept certain equipment i
necessary for its emergency response functions.
Therefore, they allege, the NHRERP does not satisfy certain decontamination and relocation requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
B709030090 B70819 pa AoOcx Osage y
The second allegation contained in the contention is that some 1
unnamed spokesperson for the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency stated that the City of Manchester "will not serve as a relocation center for evacuees from Hampton Beach".
Contention at page 6.
These two distinct aspects of the contention will be dealt with below l
separately, as to their admissibility under the 10 C.F.R.
Section 2.714(a)(1) late-filed criteria and their admissibility pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714(b).
DISCUSSION OF THE LATE-FILED CRITERIA As to th&t part of the cont'ention dealing with the alleged June 2, 1987 vote of the Manchester Board of Mayor and Aldermen, the State of New Hampshire concurs in the position on the late-filed criteria set forth by the NRC Staff in its August 3, 1987 Response to Joint l
Motion to Admit Late-Filed Contention, at pages 2-5.
The State, therefore, does not object to the admission of that aspect of the contention on the ground of untimeliness.
l The State objects, however, to the admission of that part uf the contention dealing with the alleged statement of a NHEM representative regarding the host community for Hampton Beach l
1 l
l n accordance with Chapter 162 of the Laws of 1987, the New I
Hampshire Civil Defense Agency is now called the Governor's Office of Emergency Management.
For purposes of this pleading and subsequent pleadings in this proceeding, that office will be called New Hampshire Emergency Management (NHEM).
l
?
a
evacuees.
The essence of that allegation is that, based on the statement of a unnamed NHEM spokesperson, the NHRERP provides that the City of Manchester is not to be used as a host community for Hampton Beach evacuees.
In an effort to shoehorn that remark by an unidentified NHEM representative into an admissible contention, the Interveners allege tnat, as a matter of fact, the State of New Hampshire does not intend Hampton Beach evacuees to go to the City of Manchester.
This is patently erroneous.
The plan specifically provides that evacuees from the Town of Hampton, including Hampton Beach, shall be advised that the host community to which they may go for assistance is the City of Manchester.
NHRERP, Volume 4-A, Appendix G, at page G-31, G-36; Volume 36, at page I-11.
Even assuming that a NHEM representative stated that evacuees from Hampton Beach would not be " instructed" to go to host facilities in the City of Manchester, that statement, to be consistent with the plan, must be read to mean that they will not " ordered" to go host facilities.
Any contrary interpretation would be inconsistent with the plan, and inconsistent with the continued position of the NHEM.
See Affidavit of Richard H. Strome attached hereto Appendix A, at paragraph 4.
Nothing in t;h'e.NHRERP has changed with respect to Hampton Beach evacuees since the publication of Revision 2.
It is now too late to raise a contention about that issue, as it fails the first of the 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714(a)(1) late-filed criteria.
l i
i DISCUSSION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CONTENTION That aspect of the contention' dealing with the alleged statement of a NHEM representative that Hampton Beach evacuees will not
" instructed" to go to host facilities in the City of Manchester does not satisfy the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(b).
The only factual foundation for this contention is the assertion that some NHEM representative stated that the NHRERP will not be carried j
out as it currently provides.
The conclusion drawn from that statement is patently false and totally unsubstantiated.
In any event, the official position of the New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management is that Hampton Beach area evacuees are assigned the host facilities in the City of Manchester as provided for in the NHRERP.
See Affidavit of Richard H.
Strome, attached hereto Appendix A, at paragraph 4.
Therefore, because of the total absence of any basis in fact to support that aspect of the contention, it is inadmissible.
As to that part to that contention dealing with the vote of the Manchester Board of Mayor and Aldermen not to participate in emergency planning, the State of New Hampshire has no objection to its admissibility in this proceeding, subject to the following caveat.
Where the factual issue raised by the Interveners in this contention is str,ictly that of the June 2, 1987 vote of the Mayor and Aldermen, the contention should be admitted solely on that factual
{
predicate.
Should, as the Interveners suggest, the vote be reconsidered, and subsequently changed, then that fact alone, when established, should vacate the effectiveness of the contention and it may then be dismissed.
I CONCLUSION In sum, the State of New Hampshire has no objection to the admission only of that part of the contention regarding the June 2, 1987 vote of the Manchester Board of Mayor and Aldermen.
The State i
objects to the remaining portion of the contention regarding an alleged statement by a NHOEM representative dealing with Hampton Beach evacuees on the basis of the late-filed criteria and the basic admissibility requirements of contentions.
I Respectfully submitted, THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STEPHEN E.
MERRILL ATTORNEY GENERAL
.r 1
I Date:
August 19, 1987 By:
/C#h George Dana Bisbee ( )
Senior Assistant AttMney General Office of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Tel. No.:
271-3679 i
s f
dbI Date:
August 19, 1987 By:
/-
(
1 Geoffrey M. HunQhgtokl Attorney Office of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Tel. No.:
271-3679
)
s' i