ML20211D869

Response to State of Nh Motion for Summary Disposition of Hampton Falls Contention 1 Re Implementation of Radiological Emergency Response Plan in Nonparticipating Town.Summary Disposition Opposed Due to Reasons Listed

ML20211D869
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/10/1986
From:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, HAMPTON FALLS, NH
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20211D874	List: ML20211D869 ML20211D892
References
CON-#286-530 OL, NUDOCS 8606130172
Download: ML20211D869 (8)

Text

3 ho .

I l

1 June 10, 1986

~

Filed:

UNIfES STATES OF AMERICA 7 , {if r

'$p ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

Before The T. pl --

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c 9s

\ # 'm j n g \sd In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) (Off-Site EP)

TOWN OF HAMPTON FALLS' RESPONSE TO THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'S MOTION FOR SUMVIARY DISPOSITION OF THE HAMPTON FALLS CONTENTION NO. 1 On May 20,19 86, the State of New Hampshire moved that the Board enter an order summarily disposing of Contention Hampton Falls No.

1. The Town of Hampton Falls opposes this motion for the specific factual reasons set forth below.

Summary Disposition Standards The Commission's Rules of Practice provide for summary disposition of any matter involved in a 1icensing proceeding "if the filings in the proceeding, depositions, answers to Interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the statements of the parties and affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuire issue as to any material f act and that moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law." 10 CFR 62.749(d).

8606130172 DR ADOCK h hPDR 43

r e e .

• The burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, however, is upon the moving party, and the record will be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., et al (Perry Nuclear Power Plan, Units 1 & 2) ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 753-54 (1977). The party opposing a motion for summary disposition may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his answer but must show by setting forth specific facts that there is a genuine issue of fact. 10 CFR 42.749(b).

The Town of Hampton Falls disputes the Applicants' so-called undisputed facts, and for the following specific factual reasons, opposes Applicants' motion for summary disposition of Contention No. 1.

Reasons for Denying Summary Disposition of Hampton Falls Contention No. 1.

Hampton Falls Contention No. I reads:

The Hampton Falls RERP fails to provide reasonable assurance or to comply with 10 CFR 950.47(a)(2) because i t is not a local plan, but is a plan prepared for the town by New Hampshire Civil Defense, or its contr' actor, and which will not be implemented.

The State of New Hampshire asserts that " insofar as the Town of Hampton Falls is unable (for whatever reason) to provide the necessary emergency response capabilities for the Town, then the State of New Hampshire will provide such capabilities in conformance with the New Hampshire Compensatory Plan."

The Town of Hampton Falls, in the statement of basis for Contention No. 1, stated that since there is no Hampton Falls plan that has been approved in accordance with town vote, the Hampton Falls plan will not be tplemented. This remains an unresolved issue i of State law, as the case of Penny Vernet, et al v. Town of Exeter, New Hampshire, is on appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Pending resolution of that appeal, there is no assurance that the l

l State of New Hampshire has the legal authority to override local wishes, as expressed by the town meeting vote, and implement a l

radiological emergency response plan in Hampton Falls, i

i The Af fidavit of Richard H. Strome, of fered by the State of New i

I Hampshire in support of its motion for summary disposition, offers I

a conclusory opinion that an emergency plan can and will be implemented I

i

for the Town of Hampton Falls, and that, in the event that Hampton Falls will not implement the Town of Hampton Falls RFRP, then the State will implement the New Hampshire Compensatory Plan to provide I

the necessary emergency response capabilities for the town. First of all, this Af fidavit makes no claim that the plan can be implemented in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance that an adequate emergency response can and will be carried out. The New Hampshire Compensatory Plan that has been developed is not adequate nor is there any showing that it can be implemented inn such a manner as to provide adequate protective measures. The examination of the results of the Feb. 26, 1986 FEMA graded drill revealed marked deficiencies in the implementation of the New Hampshire Compensatory Plan. The " Draft Final Exercise Assessment, Joint New Hampshire State and Local Radiological Emergency Exercise For the Seabrook Station Nuclear Plant" cited 4 deficiencies under the section on field implementation of the N.H. Compensatory Plan (pp. 55-57) wi-ich bring into question the reliability of transportation resources.

At tached is a copy of a let ter by Brian N. Buckley, Principal of the

! Lincoln Akerman School, which details concerns arising from this l

l gentleman's observat ions of problems wi th the implementat ion of the l plan during the Feb. 26, 1986 graded FEMA exercise, i

l Fur ther, the "Def iciency Repor t Summary" prepared by FEMA Region I

> I for the February 26, 1986 exercise raises the concern that the number of local liaison officers at the IFO wer, insufficient to meet the needs of non-participating communitles. The State of New Hampshire has supplied no evidence that this situation has been or l

l can be corrected.

l F

For these. specific reasons, Town of Hampton Falls holds there are genuine i ssues of material fact which support litigation of Hampton Falls Contention No. 1.

4 1

1 k

4 I

l i

1 i

f 1

1 t

4 ,

i.

t I.

h f&

4:

I

. I :

h-i i . ,

{!

t '

4e- +v-- ewew- w y- wJ m eaw ev --g 't--W-'--Tw+ W W*9"1 'e w v 5: eww* -

• % --'---==r w'fMP+T:'" t'tt?*- '*-twt'T=*w-9vvr - - 1sqSw%'e-'--?

Genuine Issues of Material Fact Raised By Hampton Falls Contention No. 1.

1) There is a pending appeal before the N.H. Supreme Court that challenges the assertion that the State of New Hampshire has the legal authority to override local community votes and implement a radiological emergency response plan in a non-participating town.

2) Other than of f ering a conclusory opinion that either the Hampton Falls plan or the N.H. Compensatory Plan can be implemented to provide emergency response capabilities for the Town of Hampton Falls, no facts are offered in the Strome Affidavit to show that adequate protect ive measures can and will be implemented.

3) The FEMA " Deficiency Report Summary" dated April 4, 1986 and the "Draf t Final Exercise Assessment, Joint New Hampshire State and Local Radiological Emergency Response Exercise for the Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant" point out significant deficiencies that occurred in the implementation of the N.H.

l Compensatory Plan during the February 26, 1986 drill. No evidence has been of fered to show that these deficiencies have l

been corrected.

l i.

Respectfully submitted, TOWN OF HAMPTON FALLS Ey Its Attorney June 10, 1986 M-R6Dert A. Ba e'K u s BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON 116 Lowell Street PO Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 603)668-7272 I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing have been sent to all persons on the at tached service lis t, by first class postage prepaid mail and by Federal express as indicated by an *.

R94 eV( K.'Backus l

l l

a e p 8 LINCOLN AKERM AN SCHOOL HAMPTON FALLS SCHOOL DisTmicT H AMPTON T ALLS. NEW HAMPSHIRE February 27, 1986 Mr. Richard Strome Civil Defense Agency State Office P, ark South 107 Pleasant Street Concord, N.H. 03301

Dear Mr. Strome:

On behalf of the Hampton Falls School Board and the students and staff of Lincoln Akerman School, I would like to express our concern with the response time and apparent transportation confusion during yesterday's emergency response drill.

I was informed by the New Hampshire Department of Civil Defense at 9:55 a.m.

that a drill was in process. According to area news broadcasts, the drill com -

menced at 8:15 a.m. To learn of "potentially harmful radiation escaping from a containment dome" one hour and forty minutes af ter the start, is a concern the entire school community shares.

At 1:05 p.m. a bus driver arrived prepared to drive students and staf f to the host site in Dover. The bus driver had been dispatched from Manchester to a command center in Brentwood. The driver stated that he had gotten lost and had spent an hour and a half " driving all around Exeter and Kingston" trying to find the Lincoln Akerman School in Hampton Falls. The driver became confused When told that the students and staff were on winter vacation and that he wouldn't be driving anyone to Dover. I suggested that he phone the commend center in Brentwood for instructions. He did this and was told to return to Manchester.

In the event of lui actual evacuation, we would need three buses to evacuate our students and staff. One arrived during yescerday's drill.

I realize that this was a drill and the frist one at that. However, it 's our sincerest hope that, to ensure the safety and welfare of our students and sraff, the response time for the arrival of buses will be reduced considerably from four hours and fifty minutes.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely, THE LINCOLN AKERMAN SCHOOL k

• Brian N. Buckley, Princip BNB/ sin cc: Hampton Falla Board of Selectmen Hampton Falls School Board Superintendent of Schools, SAU #21 Hampton Falls Civil Defense Director RECENED MAR 2 4  ;

l