ML13303A514
| ML13303A514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1981 |
| From: | Casey S ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13303A515 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8107100206 | |
| Download: ML13303A514 (25) | |
Text
REGULATO4INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION *TEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:8107100206 DOC.DATEt 81/07/05 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET #
FACILf:50-361 San Onotre Nuclear! Station. Unit 2, Southern Califor 50-362 San Onotre Nuclear Stationi, Unit 3, Southern; Californ AUTH.NAME' AUTHOR AFFILIATION CASEYS.B. Southern California Edison Co.
CASEYS.. San Diego Gas-.& Electric Co CASEYS,8, Orrick,.Herrinaton &. Suteliffe RECIPNAME RECIPIENT AFFILTATION Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SUBJECT:
Response in opposition to Friends of the,.Earth,et al 810622 proposed contention re emergency plani ng.Conten tion fails to meet stds for amend of contentions per 10CFR2.714(a)(3) .
Proposes cenl alternative contentions.
DISTRIBUTION CODE: 08038' COPES RECEVED:LTR ENCL . SIZE:
TITLE: Filings (Not' Orig by NRC)
NOTES:Send all FSAR & ER' amends to L Chandler, 05000361 1lcy:J Hanchett, (Region V).D Stcalett,1 cy of all envir. info Send all FSAR & ER amends to L,Chandler. 05000362 1 cy:J Hanchett (Region V).D ScalettiI cy of al1 envir info RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES' ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL :ID CODE/NAME. LTTR ENCL ACTION: LIC BR #3 BC 1 LIC BR #3 LA 1 ROODH, 1 INTERNAL: ASLAP 5 ASLB, 1, I&E 2' NRC PDR 1 OELDBLANTON 1 1 PUBLIC AFFAIRS 1 1 EXTERNAL: LPDR 1 NSIC 1 NTIS 1 JUL 1 5W TOTAL NUMBEROF COPIESIREQUIRED: LTTR 10t ENCL 19
1 DAVID R. PIGOTT EDWARD B. ROGIN 2 SAMUEL B. CASEY JOHN A. MENDEZ 3 Of ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE A Professional Corporation 4 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 5 (415) 392-1122 6 CHARLES R. KOCHER ISR 12 JAMES A. BEOLETTO 1 7 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Offic 0t P.O. Box 800 1, 8 2244 Walnut Grove'Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 9 Telephone: (213) 572-1900 10 Attorneys for Applicants SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY '
16 11 and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 12NITED STATES OF AMERICA A 13 4tq R79u NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO too~4i~p~'
14 15 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 17 In the matter of) 18 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ) Docket Nos. 50-361 OL COMPANY, et al. 50-361 OL 19 20 San Onofre Nuclear ) APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN Generating Station Units ) OPPOSITION TO CONTENTION 21 2 and 3). ) PROPOSED BY FOE, ET AL.
22 23 Appli'cants Southern California Edison Company, San 24 Diego Gas & Electric Company and the Cities of Anaheim and 25 Riverside (the "Applicants") pursuant to 10 C.F.R.§§2.714(c) 26 and 2.730(c) hereby answer and oppose "Intervenor: FOE, 8107100206 810705I PDR ADOCK 05000361 G PDRI
1 et al. Proposed Contention Re: Emergency Planning," dated 2 June 22, 1981 (hereafter "FOE Proposed Contention"), which 3 was first received by counsel for Applicants on July 1, 1981, 4 on the ground that the FOE Proposed Contention does not meet 5 the standards for amended contentions set forth in 10 6 C.F.R.§2.714(a)(3).1/ In lieu of the FOE Proposed 7 Contention, Applicants propose the Consolidated Contentions 8 set forth in Exhibit B of this memorandum.
9 10 I.
11 FACTUAL STATEMENT 12 On June 18, 1981, a final prehearing conference on 13 emergency planning was conducted. At that time, Applicants 14 offered on the record a set of two contentions generally 15 acceptable to Applicants, the NRC Staff, and GUARD, subject 16 to further review and final agreement. (TR. 591-94.) FOE, 17 et al. in an effort to avoid consolidation rejected these 18 contentions and asserted "the right to present . . .
19 contentions that they want to proceed with.". (TR. 595.)
20 Accordingly, FOE, et al. proposed two different contentions.
21 The first contention challenged the emergency planning zones 22 established for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 23 24 25 1/ A true and correct copy of the FOE Proposed Contention is attached as Exhibit A to this memorandum.
26 2
1 2 and 3 ("SONGS 2 and 3").2/ The second contention alleged 2 certain deficiencies in emergency planning, and was largely 3 duplicative of the second contention offered by Applicants at the 4 final prehearing conference. (TR. 607-11.) In response to FOE, 5 et al.'s argument that it had a right to litigate its proposed 6 contentions, the Board clarified (emphasis added):
7 "it is the Intervenor's job to come in and offer contentions, but it is ultimately the 8 Board's job to shape them and it becomes a multi-party process . . . . You are certainly 9 entitled to consideration of all your contentions in all their parts and they may 10 get rewritten or accepted or rejected or modified or whatever." (TR. 612.)
11 12 On July 1, 1981, Applicants on the record presented 13 the Board with two forms of stipulation, each specifying two 14 contentions for hearing purposes. Two forms of stipulation 15 were necessitated by the fact that GUARD and the NRC Staff 16 could not agree on the precise wording of the first 17 contention challenging protective action capability 18 (hereafter "GUARD Contention No. 1"). Applicants prefer the 19 form of stipulation on GUARD Contention No. 1 agreeable to 20 the NRC Staff due to its greater specificity. Both forms of 21 stipulation evince agreement between GUARD, the NRC Staff, 22 23 2/ Applicants' opposition to this contention is fully set forth in "Applicants Memorandum of Law on Appropriate 24 Means for Determining Size of the Plume Exposure and Ingestion Pathway Emergency Planning Zones for SONGS 2 25 and 3 Under 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(2)", served herein on June 22, 1981.
26 3
1 and Applicants on the wording of the second contention (with 2 eight subparts) challenging certain areas of emergency 3 response planning for SONGS 2 and 3 affecting the offsite 4 transient and permanent population (hereafter "GUARD 5 Contention No. 2")
6 On the same day, FOE, et al. personally served the 7 FOE Proposed Contention on counsel for Applicants. The FOE 8 Proposed Contention is largely duplicative of GUARD 9 Contention No. 2. The substantive difference between these 10 two contentions appear to be additional subparts contained in 11 the FOE Proposed Contention challenging emergency planning 12 for the interim Emergency Operations Facility, the ingestion 13 pathway emergency planning zone, and reentry and recovery 14 operations.
15 On July 1, 1981, the Board gave the parties until 16 July 6, 1981 to deliver to the Board and the parties any 17 additional papers pertinent to issuance of a final prehearing 18 conference order on emergency planning. This memorandum is 19 submitted pursuant to this procedure.
20 21 II.
FOE, ET AL. HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE 22 THAT THE FOE PROPOSED CONTENTION MEETS THE STANDARDS FOR AMENDED CONTENTIONS 23 SET FORTH IN 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(a)(3)..
24 The FOE Proposed Contention constitutes a 25 substantial amendment from the original FOE, et al.contention 26 admitted "for discovery purposes" by Memorandum and Order, 4
1 dated January 27, 1978 (hereafter the "Original FOE 2 Contention"). The FOE Proposed Contention cannot be 3 considered for admission to this proceeding until FOE, et al.
4 makes the threshold showing for amendment of contentions at 5 this late stage in the proceeding, as required by 10 6 C.F.R.§2.714(a)(3). Applicants submit FOE, et al. has not 7 made the required threshold showing.
8 A. The Proposed FOE Contention is not 9 supported by the showing required to amend contentions set forth in 10 10 C.F.R.§2.714(a)(3).
11 10 C.F.R.§2.714(a)(3) in pertinent part provides 12 that FOE, et al. may amend the Original FOE Contention "only 13 with approval of the Presiding Officer," based upon showing 14 that the factors specified in 10 C.F.R.§2.714(a)(3) weigh in 15 favor of such amendment. These factors are:
16 "(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
17 (ii) The availability of other means whereby 18 the petitioner's interest will be protected.
19 (iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist 20 in developing a sound record.
21 (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
22 (v) The extent to which the pertitioner's 23 participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding." (10 C.F.R.§2.714(a)(1).)
24 25 In addition, the amended contention must set forth 26 "with particularity" the factual basis of the contention.
5
1 10 C.F.R. §2.714(a)(3) citing §2.714(a)(2). The Proposed FOE 2 Contention does not meet these standards.
3 1. The Proposed FOE Contention is nothing but a vague generalized 4 assertion without a proper factual basis.
5 6 The Commission has interpreted the "particularity" 7 requirement in 10 C.F.R. §2.714(a)(2) to mean that "vague 8 generalized assertions, drawn without any particularized 9 reference to the details of the challenged facility . . . are 10 not appropriate for the adjudicatory process." Philadelphia 11 Electric Company, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 12 Units 2 and 3), CLI-73-10, 6 AEC 173, 174 (1971). This rule 13 makes good sense since Applicants who normally bear the 14 burden of disproving contentions have a right to know the 15 facts in controversy. See Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf 16 Creek Generating Station), ALAB-279, 1 NRC 559, 574 (1975).
17 As stated by the Appeal Board, 18 "The purpose of the regulation is to establish that there is an "issue" to be 19 presented [by the intervenor] and determined (by a licensing board) in the proceeding."
20 (Id.; citing Northern States Power Compan (Prairie Island, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 21 AEC 188, 192, affirmed, CLI-73-12 6 AEC 241 (1973), affirmed sub. nom. BPI v. AEC, 502 22 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1974).)
23 Given these practical considerations, contentions (like the 24 Proposed FOE Contention) which merely recite the regulatory 25 language or rely upon material incorporated by reference, 26 have been found inadmissible. See Kansas Gas & Electric Co.,
6
1 supra, 1 NRC at 575-76; Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns 2 Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-76-10, 3 NRC 209, 3 216 (1976).
4 FOE, et al.'s attempt to distinguish the Tennessee 5 Valley Authority case by citation to particular pages and 6 paragraphs in the Interim Findings and Determination 7 submitted by FEMA to the NRC Staff, June 3, 1981 (the "FEMA 8 Findings") is not particularly helpful. The FEMA Findings 9 themselves are not regulations and in many respects are too 10 vaguely worded to reveal the particular facts which form the 11 basis for a specific finding.
12 2. An analysis of each subpart of the FOE Proposed Contention 13 reveals a lack of the requisite specificity.
14 15 The introductory paragraph of the FOE Proposed 16 Contention is misleading when it states that "FEMA 17 concluded . . . the emergency plans submitted by the local 18* jurisdictions do not meet the requirements of NUREG-0654."
19 This is not true. FEMA concluded that "state and local 20 government radiological emergency response plans are 21 minimally adequate." NUREG-0654 does not impose any 22 "requirements," it is merely a guidance document. The 23 reference to 10 C.F.R., Part 50, Appendix E is also 24 misleading. FOE, et al. is not challenging on-site emergency 25 planning and preparedness, why then the reference to 26 Appendix E?
7
1 Subpart A to the Proposed FOE Contention fails to 2 provide the requisite specificity.. 10 C.F.R. §50.47(b) does 3 not prohibit or speak in terms of "conflicts." Nothing in 4 this subpart clarifies which "conflicts" are involved, which 5 "jurisdictions" are involved, and what, if any, nexus exists 6 between the particular "conflicts" involved and a legitimate 7 public health and safety concern. The reference to the FEMA 8 Findings does nothing to remedy this vagueness, nor does it 9 provide an indication of the facts in controversy.
10 Subpart B suffers from the same lack of 11 specificity. 10 C.F.R. §50.47(b)(1) does not establish 12 standards for "sufficient personnel" or "total response 13 requirements." The referenced FEMA Findings do not establish 14 or reference such standards. Absent specification of a 15 regulation establishing such standards, this subpart is too 16 vague and lacks the requisite factual basis.
17 Subpart C is similarly flawed. 10 C.F.R. 18 §50.47(b)(9) does not establish "minimum criteria" for 19 offsite radiation monitoring and dose assessment, nor does it 20 establish standards for "sufficient" radiological training.
21 The referenced FEMA Findings do not remedy this vagueness.
22 Subpart D is equally vague. Citation to 10 C.F.R. 23 §50.47(b)(10) and the FEMA Findings does nothing to inform 24 Applicants which "emergency facilities and equipment" are the 25 subject of the contention. No effort is made to specify what 26 facts in this.regard are in controversy.
8
1 Subpart E is sufficiently specific, but is merely 2 duplicative of Subpart B in GUARD Contention No. 2.
3 Subpart F is also sufficiently specific. However, 4 the reference to 10 C.F.R. §50.47(b)(10) is confusing since 5 this section does not pertain to the Emergency Operations 6 Facility.
7 Subpart G is vague, ambiguous, and misleading.
8 10 C.F.R. §50.47(b)(5), (10), and (13) do not establish 9 ."critical time frames" for "notification," "ingestion pathway 10 sampling and analysis," or "reentry and recovery operations."
11 Nor do these provisions require a "test" as a condition 12 prerequisite to an overall favorable finding on emergency 13 planning by this Board. Finally, nothing in the contention 14 indicates the type of "notification" being referred.
15 Analysis of the referenced FEMA Findings does not remedy or 16 otherwise clarify the matter with requisite specificity.
17 Finally, Subpart H is also vague and misleading.
18 Compliance with NUREG-0654 is not a regulatory requirement.
19 No effort is made to specify the "134 instances of lack of 20 full compliance" or to state the nexus between "lack of full 21 compliance" and a legitimate public health and safety concern.
22 In sum, with the possible exception of Subparts E 23 and F, the Proposed FOE Contention fails to meet the 24 specificity standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. §2.714(a)(3).
25 /
26 //
9
1 3. FOE, et al. has not demonstrated that the requirements for amendment 2 of the Original FOE Contention have been met.
3 4 FOE, et al. has made no attempt to show "good 5 cause" for failure to file the FOE Proposed Contention at an 6 earlier date. Failure to show "good cause" for late-filing 7 means an intervenor must shoulder a heavier burden with 8 respect to other factors in 10 C.F.R. §2.714(a)(1), quoted 9 above. Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, 10 & 3), ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460, 462 (1977). As stated by the 11 Commission, 12 "Late petitioners properly have a substantial burden in justifying their tardiness. And 13 the burden of justifying intervention on the basis of other factors in the rule is 14 considerably greater when a latecomer has no good excuse." Nuclear Fule Services, Inc.
15 (West Valley Reprocessing Plant, CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273, 275 (1975).
16 17 This rule requiring an intervenor to carry a "substantial" 18 burden on all the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. §2.714(a)(1) 19 has been interpreted to apply even in an operating license 20 proceeding where an intervenor, seeking to raise new 21 contentions, has a "marginally good excuse for the late 22 filing." South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Summer Nuclear 23 Station, Unit 1), LBP-78-6, 7 NRC 209, 212 (1978).
24 In this case, FOE, et al. has provided no "good 25 cause" for the late filing of the FOE Proposed Contention.
26 Thus, it bears a "greater" burden with respect to the other 10
1 factors. In this regard, the FOE has totally failed to even 2 address, much less satisfy, the other factors specified in 3 10 C.F.R.§2.714(a)(1).
4 FOE, et al. exclusive reliance on the FEMA Findings 5 to provide "good cause" is misplaced. It must be recognized 6 that the concerns expressed in the FEMA Findings are not new 7 or surprising and merely reflect a developmental stage in an 8 on-going improvement process which is not scheduled to reach 9 a final stage until the scheduled fuel load date for SONGS 10 2. The facts that may have given rise to the concerns 11 expressed in the FEMA Findings were available to FOE, et al.
12 through discovery which took place well in advance of the 13 FEMA Findings. FOE, et al. has failed to specify any of 14 these facts, but chooses instead at this late date to rely 15 exclusively on certain judgments contained the FEMA Findings 16 which themselves do not specify the facts upon which they are 17 based. The mere existence of these judgments should not now 18 relieve FOE, et al. of its obligation under 10 19 C.F.R.§2.714(a)(3) to specify "with particularity" the 20 factual basis for the FOE Proposed Contention; and to show in 21 what respects the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. §2.714(a)(1) 22 weigh in favor of amending the Original FOE Contention on the 23 terms set forth in the FOE Proposed Contention. Applicants.
24 submit that FOE, et al. has not met this obligation and for 25 this rehson alone the FOE Proposed Contention must be 26 rejected.
11
1 III.
2 TO THE EXTENT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN 10 C.F.R. §2.714(a)(3), THE FOE 3 PROPOSED CONTENTION EITHER DUPLICATES GUARD CONTENTION NO. 2 OR SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED 4 WITH IT.
5 A plain reading of the issues alleged in the FOE 6 Proposed Contention reveals it either duplicates issues 7 already specified in GUARD Contention No. 2, or may be more 8 appropriately consolidated with GUARD Contention No. 2.
9 Accordingly, Applicants have attached as Exhibit B to this 10 memorandum "Applicants' Proposed Consolidated Emergency 11 Planning and Preparedness Contentions for Hearing Before the 12 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board" (the "Consolidated 13 Contentions").
14 Applicants submit the Consolidated Contentions 15 adequately set forth w.ith the requisite specificity those 16 contentions, raised by either GUARD or FOE, et al., that may 17 properly be subject to hearings in this matter.3/
18 19 3/ Applicants submit that Consolidated Contention No. 2 generally covers the FOE Proposed Contention, where 20 appropriate, as follows:
21 FOE Proposed Contention Consolidated Contention No. 2 Subparts: A. Subparts: 2.H. and 2.J.
22 B. 2.F.
C. 2.H. and 2.J.
23 D. 2.E.
E. 2.B.
24 F. 2.1.
G. (except re- 2.A., 2.B., and 2.J.
25 entry and recovery) 26 H. All 12
1 IV.
2 CONCLUSION 3 The FOE Proposed Contention must be rejected for 4 failure to meet standards for amendment of contentions set 5 forth in 10 C.F.R. §2.714(a)(3). The Consolidated Conten 6 tions set forth in Exhibit B are proposed by Applicants for 7 purposes for hearing in lieu of all contentions previously 8 proposed by the parties and submitted to the Board. Based on 9 this memorandum, the other memoranda served by the Applicants 10 on June 22, 23, and 29, 1981, and the Applicants' pending 11 motion for consolidation and designation of lead intervenor 12 on emergency planning contentions, Applicants request this 13 Board to issue a final prehearing conference order under 10 14 C.F.R.§2.752 which specifies final emergency planning 15 contentions in the consolidated form set forth in Exhibit B; 16 consolidates intervenors GUARD and FOE et al. and designates 17 a lead intervenor for purposes of evidence presentation, 18 cross-examination, briefs, proposed findings of fact, and 19 conclusions of law and argument under 10 20 /
21 //
22 23 24 25 26 //
13
1 C.F.R.§2.715(a); and schedules hearings on said contentions 2 shortly after conclusion of seismic hearings.
3 Dated: July 5, 1981 4 Respectfully submitted, 5 DAVID R. PIGOTT EDWARD B. ROGIN 6 SAMUEL B. CASEY JOHN A. MENDEZ 7 Of ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE A Professional Corporation 8
9 CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A. BEOLETTO 10 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 11 12
._-amuel B. Casey 13 13 One of Counsel for Appli ants Southern California Edison ompany 14 and San Diego Gas & Electric Company 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 14
Exhibit A e0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-361 OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ) 50-362 OL ET AL.
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) )
INTERVENORS', FOE ET AL. PROPOSED CONTENTION RE: EMERGENCY PLANNING Intervenors FOE ET AL. hereby submits the following contention.
Said contention is submitted based on the Interim Findings and Determinations made by FEMA on June 3, 1981 and received by FOE et al. on June 10, 1981.
REVISED CONTENTION An operating license for SONGS 2 and 3 should not be granted because the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")- concluded that the off-site capability for implementation of the emergency response plans is, inadequate and the emergency plans 'submitted by the local jurisdictions do not meet the requirements of NUREG-0654.
More specifically, the following requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.47 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E have not been met:
A) Many conflicts exist in the emergency responsibilities of the various jurisdictions. 10 C.F.R. § 50.47(b).
In particular, monitoring and assessment duties for both plume and ingestion pathways have not been clarified.
See FEMA's Interim Findings and Determinations 3, 114 81o71002 10705 Exhibit A PDR ADOCK 05000361E G PDR 1 Page 1 of 4
(June 3, 1981)(hereinafter cited.as FEMA Findings).
B) Response organizations do not have sufficient personnel to handle total response requirements. 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(1); See FEMA Findings 3, 5.
C) Methods, systems, and equipment for assessment and monitoring of actual or potential off-site consequences of a radiological emergency do not meet minimum criteria. A number of jurisdic tions lack equipment and capability to conduct monitoring; air sampling equipment is generally not available; assessment and monitoring teams do not have(.sufficient radiological training.
10 C.F.R. § 50.47(b)(9); See, FEMA Findings 6, I1.
D) The Utility has failed to provide the emergency facilities and equipment needadto support the emergency response. 10 C.F.R.
§50.47(b)(10); See, FEMA Findings 5, 14.
E) The means for early notification and instruction to the populace within the plume exposure EPZ has not been established. 10 C.F.R.
§50.47(b)(5). See, FEMA Findings 4, 13.
F) The EOF is incapable of meeting emergency response requirements because of.the following shortcomings: lack of clear operating procedures, fragmentation of the facility, lack of management directions communications, and inadequate size of facility.
10 C.F.R. §50.47(b)(2), (3) and (10). See, FEMA Findings 4,.
1.
G) Adherence to critical time frames for notification; ingestion pathway sampling and analysis; and reentry and recovery operations have not been tested. 10 C.F.R. §50.47(b)(5), (10) and (13).
See, FEMA Findings 5, I1 and 6, 1 1, 5.
Exhibit A Page 2 of 4
H) Emergency plans are inadequate in that the FEMIA review of the plans dated April 27, 1981 found 134 instances of lack of full compliance with the planning standards and evaluation criteria of NUREG-0654.
DATED: June 22, 1981 RICHARD J. WHARTON Attorney for Intervenors' CARSTENS ET AL.
Exhibit A 3 page 3 of 4
F
- ADDENDUM Intervenors May Refer To Pertinent Portions of the FEMA Findings in 'Their Contention And Sub-contention When Such Reference Supports And Clarifies The Particular Issue At the June 18, 1981 Pre-hearing Conference the NRC Staff suggested that Intervenors CARSTENS et al. could not refer to the FEMA Findings in their contention. THE NRC Staff cited Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-76-10, 3 NRC 209 (1976), as authority for this point.
In Tennessee Valley Authority the petitioner attempted to incorporate by reference into his supporting affidavit "about 3000 pages of material including newspaper articles, magazine articles, opinions, and public statements by a large number of people about the Browns Ferry Fire, without any attempt to direct specific attention to pertinent portions particularly germane to the issues in this proceeding." (Emphasis Added.) Id. at 216. The Licensing Board ruled that-such non-selective incorporation frustrated the particularity requirements of 10 C.F.R. §2.714.
Clearly, Tennessee Valley Authority does not apply in this situation. Intervenors do not seek to incorporate the entire docu ment by reference. Quite the contrary, Intervenors refer to specific portions of the FEMA Findings only for-support and further clarifi cation of each particular sub-contention.
Exhibit A Page 4 of 4
Exhibit B APPLICANTS' PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS CONTENTIONS FOR HEARING BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD July 6, 1981 Based upon the two forms of "Stipulation and Order Specifying Certain Contentions for Purposes of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hearing" submitted herein on the record of July 1, 1980, as well as "Intervenors' FOE et al. Proposed Contention Re: Emergency Planning," dated June 22, 1981, Applicants propose that the following emergency planning and
,preparedness contentions be specified under 10 C.F.R. §2.752 and consolidated under 10 C.F.R. §2.715a for purposes of hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board:
- 1. Consolidated Contention No. 1 Whether the state of emergency preparedness for SONGS 2 and 3 provides reasonable assurance that the offsite transient and permanent population within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone, 10 C.F.R.
§50.47(c)(2), for SONGS 2 and 3 can be evacuated or otherwise adequately protected in the event of a radiological emergency with offsite consequences occurring at SONGS 2 and 3, as required by 10 C.F.R.
§§50.47(a)(1), (b)(10), and Part 50, Appendix E.IV.
(solely as it pertains to evacuation time estimates), in that the guidance set forth in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 (Rev. 1), parts II.J.8 and J.10, has not been satisfied.
- 2. Consolidated Contention No. 2 Whether there is reasonable assurance that the emergency response planning for SONGS 2 and 3, affecting the offsite transient and permanent population, will comply with 10 C.F.R. §§50.47(a)(1) and (b) or (c)(1) as regards:
A. the procedures for notification by Applicants of State and local response organizations, 10 C.F.R.
§50.47(b)(5), and for notification of and continued Exhibit B/Page 1 of 2
communication among emergency personnel by all involved organizations, 10 C.F.R. §50.47(b)(6);
B. the means for notification and instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone, 10 C.F.R. §50.47(b)(5);
C. the information and the procedures for dissemination of the information to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone on a periodic basis on how they will be notified and what their actions should be in the event of an emergency, 10 C.F.R. §50.47(b)(7);
D. the arrangements for medical services for contaminated and injured individuals, 10 C.F.R.
§50.47(b)(12);
E. necessary transportation and communication equipment, and the operation of the emergency operations centers of the principal response organizations, 10 C.F.R. §50.47(b)(8);
F. the capability of each principal response organization to respond and to augment this initial response on a continuous basis, 10 C.F.R.
§50.47(b)(1);
G. radiological emergency response training to those who may be called on to assist in an emergency, 10 C.F.R. §50.47(b)(15);
H. the methods, staffing, systems, and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for SONGS 2 and 3, 10 C.F.R. §50.47(b)(9);
I. the physical design, communications equipment, and operating procedures for the interim Emergency Operations Facility, 10 C.F.R. §§50.47(b)(3) and (b)(8); and J. the methods, systems, and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition within the ingestion pathway EPZ for SONGS 2 and 3, 10 C.F.R. §50.47(b)(9).
Exhibit B/Page 2 of 2
4*
- 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL OR COURIER 3 I declare that:
4 I am employed in the City and County of San 5 Francisco, California, as one of counsel appearing for 6 Applicants Southern California Edison Company and San Diego
- 7. Gas & Electric Company herein.
8 I am over the age of eighteen years and not a 9 party to the within-entitled action; my business address is 10 600 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, California 11 94111.
12 On July 5, 1981, I served the attached 13 "APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO CONTENTION PROPOSED 14 BY FOE, ET AL." in said cause, by placing a true copy 15 thereof enclosed in the United States mail, first class, or 16 where indicated by an asterisk by Network Courier, at San 17 Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
18 19 *James L. Kelley, Chairman David W. Gilman Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Robert G. Lacy 20 Mrs. Elizabeth B. Johnson San Diego Gas & Electric Company Administrative Judges P.O. Box 1831 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing San Diego, California 92112 Board 22 c/o Stardust Hotel & Country Club Robert Dietch, Vice President 23 950 Hotel Circle, North Southern California Edison P.O. Box 800 Company 24 San Diego, California 92108 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue (3 copies) Rosemead, California 91770 25 26 15
0 0 1 *Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq. Alan R. Watts, Esq.
Office of the Executive Rourke & Woodruff 2 Legal Director California First Bank Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 10555 North Main Street 3 Commission Santa Ana, California 92701 c/o Hanalei Hotel 4 2270 Hotel Circle, North Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
San Diego, CA 92108 J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.
5 Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.
Mr. Lloyd von Haden California Public Utilities 6 2089 Foothill Drive Commission Vista, California 92083 5066 State Building 7 San Francisco, California 94102 Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks 8 GUARD Atomic Safety and Licensing 3908 Calle Ariana Board 9 San Clemente, CA 92801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion 10 Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 1695 W. Crescent Avenue, 11 Suite 222 Docketing and Service Section Anaheim, California 92801 Office of the Secretary 12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory James F. Davis Commission 13 State Geologist Washington, D.C. 20555 Division of Mines and Geology 14 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341 *Richard K. Hoefling, Esq.
Sacramento, CA 95814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission
- Richard J. Wharton, Esq. Office of the Executive 16 School of Law Legal Director University of San Diego Washington, D.C. 20555 17 Alcala Park San Diego, California 92110 *Charles E. McClung, Jr., Esq.
18 Fleming, Anderson, McClung &
Finch, Inc.
19 23521 Paseo de Valencia, Suite 308 20 Laguna Hills, California 92653 21 22 23 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISION COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
24 25 26 16