ML20195C017: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:c'    '.. +
i i.
Dated:  May 20, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA            -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                                \
                                                                .h
                                                                                        '\
                                                                            ~
before the                              g7 goEW ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD                            5 o - }s ..a,D,9y@"%
                                                                                  =    c
                                                                    'bh>
In.the Matter of
                                                )
                                                )
                                                                        / 'Dj 'i[j
                                                )
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF            )    Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.              )                      50-444-OL
                                                )        Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2    )          Planning Issues
                                                )
                                                )
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
 
==SUMMARY==
 
DISPOSTION OF NECNP CONTENTION NO. RERP-2 Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.749, on the basis of the Affidavit of Richard H. Strome re NECNP Contention RERP-2
("Strome Affidavit"); State of New Hampshire Answers to Interrogatories of NECNP and the statement of undisputed facts attached hereto, and for the reasons set forth below, the applicants move the Board to enter a decision summarily disposing of NECNP Contention No. RERP-2 in favor of the applicants.
REASONS FOR GRANTING ~
THE MOTION NECNP Contention RERP-2 reads as follows:
                      "The New Hampshire RERP violates 10 CFR
                      $ 50.47(b)(3) as implemented by NUREG-0654 at S II.C.1.b in that the t
8605290627 860520 PDR  ADOCK 05000443 G                PDR
 
F k
state has not specifically identified L
all areas in which it requires federal assistance or the extent of its needs; nor has it made arrangements to obtain that assistance; nor has it stated the l                  expected time of arrival of Federal i
assistance at the Seabrook site or EPZ."
This contention was admitted by the Board "to the extent to which it addresses required Federal assistance to the State."  Memorandum and Order (April 29, 1986) at 52.
The Strome Affidavit establishes there are only three areas where federal assistance is required (boat control; air control; shellfish examination); that the U.S. Coast Guard; FAA and some other agency will perform these services; availability and willingness is documented; and there is no arrival time problem with respect to those activities which are time dependent.FAA is "in place" to perform all its duties.                The Coast Guard is "in place" to perform its duty to broadcast a mariners' warning.                                    It will have haats on station to control traffic in one to three
        ' hours. NH Answers to NECNP Interrogatories at 12-13.
Shellfishing can be simply shut down until screening is accomplished.
By their attorneys,
                                                                      /          J/
                                                                          . OrM/
Thonias G7 pishan, Jr.
R. K. Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100
 
(    -
STATEMENT OF FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE
: 1. As set forth in Section 1.4 of thereof, there-are
          'three areas in which the State of New Hampshire requires federal assistance in carrying out emergency measures under the-New Hampshire-Radiological Emergency Response Plan
        '(NHRERP). These are regulation of boating activities (U.S.
Coast Guard); restriction of overflights of the PEPZ (FAA);
shellfish contamination screening.
: 2. The availability and willingness of the Coast Guard to regulate boating activities is set forth in a letter of agreement dated February 24, 1986. Coast Guard resources to provide mariners' warnings are in place. Vessels can be in the region in one to three hours.
: 3. The availability of FAA to control overflights is documented in a letter. FAA will require no " travel time" to be in position to act.
: 4. The shellfish contamination screening is not time sensitive. Shellfishing activities may simply be shutdown until samples are sent to the appropriate lab and results and analysis returned. Thus " arrival" times are irrelevant.
                                      }}

Latest revision as of 22:55, 16 December 2020

Motion for Summary Disposition of New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) Contention RERP-2 Based on State of Nh Answers to Interrogatories to Necnp & Encl Statement of Undisputed Facts Re Federal Assistance
ML20195C017
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/20/1986
From: Dignan T
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20195B803 List:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8605290627
Download: ML20195C017 (3)
v • d • e


Text

c' '.. +

i i.

Dated: May 20, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION \

.h

'\

~

before the g7 goEW ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 o - }s ..a,D,9y@"%

= c

'bh>

In.the Matter of

)

)

/ 'Dj 'i[j

)

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

) Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 ) Planning Issues

)

)

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSTION OF NECNP CONTENTION NO. RERP-2 Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.749, on the basis of the Affidavit of Richard H. Strome re NECNP Contention RERP-2

("Strome Affidavit"); State of New Hampshire Answers to Interrogatories of NECNP and the statement of undisputed facts attached hereto, and for the reasons set forth below, the applicants move the Board to enter a decision summarily disposing of NECNP Contention No. RERP-2 in favor of the applicants.

REASONS FOR GRANTING ~

THE MOTION NECNP Contention RERP-2 reads as follows:

"The New Hampshire RERP violates 10 CFR

$ 50.47(b)(3) as implemented by NUREG-0654 at S II.C.1.b in that the t

8605290627 860520 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR

F k

state has not specifically identified L

all areas in which it requires federal assistance or the extent of its needs; nor has it made arrangements to obtain that assistance; nor has it stated the l expected time of arrival of Federal i

assistance at the Seabrook site or EPZ."

This contention was admitted by the Board "to the extent to which it addresses required Federal assistance to the State." Memorandum and Order (April 29, 1986) at 52.

The Strome Affidavit establishes there are only three areas where federal assistance is required (boat control; air control; shellfish examination); that the U.S. Coast Guard; FAA and some other agency will perform these services; availability and willingness is documented; and there is no arrival time problem with respect to those activities which are time dependent.FAA is "in place" to perform all its duties. The Coast Guard is "in place" to perform its duty to broadcast a mariners' warning. It will have haats on station to control traffic in one to three

' hours. NH Answers to NECNP Interrogatories at 12-13.

Shellfishing can be simply shut down until screening is accomplished.

By their attorneys,

/ J/

. OrM/

Thonias G7 pishan, Jr.

R. K. Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100

( -

STATEMENT OF FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE

1. As set forth in Section 1.4 of thereof, there-are

'three areas in which the State of New Hampshire requires federal assistance in carrying out emergency measures under the-New Hampshire-Radiological Emergency Response Plan

'(NHRERP). These are regulation of boating activities (U.S.

Coast Guard); restriction of overflights of the PEPZ (FAA);

shellfish contamination screening.

2. The availability and willingness of the Coast Guard to regulate boating activities is set forth in a letter of agreement dated February 24, 1986. Coast Guard resources to provide mariners' warnings are in place. Vessels can be in the region in one to three hours.
3. The availability of FAA to control overflights is documented in a letter. FAA will require no " travel time" to be in position to act.
4. The shellfish contamination screening is not time sensitive. Shellfishing activities may simply be shutdown until samples are sent to the appropriate lab and results and analysis returned. Thus " arrival" times are irrelevant.
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20195C017&oldid=3042054"