ML19351D709
| ML19351D709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1980 |
| From: | Adler R, Carter K PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8010140586 | |
| Download: ML19351D709 (15) | |
Text
.
b
,s y
UNIIED SIKIES OF AMERICA
[@
IUCLEAR REGUIAIORY CDMISSION
[y y
Nf.; k.).y
{
7 2,
3 f
%f 4ll,'T, ' a g Before the Atomic Safctv and Licensing Board In the Matter of
/,,
' i n.. s \\ '
}EIROPOLITAN EDISON (D., Er AL.
Docket No. 50-289
~
(Three Mile Island Neclear Restart Station, thit No.1) 00tONWEALDI 0F PEETLVANIA FOSITIONS W D!ERGENCY PIANNING CONDiNIIONS, BASED m INEDRMATION AVAIIABLE AS OF OCIDBER 6, 1980 Introduction The C-mm=al h is required to present its positions en Emergency t
Planning Contentions, if any, by October 6, 1980. Mecnrandte and Order (September 15, 1980). This report is the product of extensive censultations between the Pemsylvania Depautt of EnyLm.tal Resources, Bureau of Radiation Protectica (DER), the Pemsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA), the Pemsylvania Department of Health (Health), and the Pemsylvania Department of Agriculture (Agriculture).
l In adopting the positiens set forth herein, Pennsyhenia in no way irplies a waiver of its additicnal rights to pardcipate in the proceedings as gpverned by 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c). Pemsylvania incorporates into this position report Part I ("Ccm:rmealth of Pennsylvania's General Plan of Participation") of its positicn report filed on July 25, 1980.
As acre information beccoes avniinhle, Pemsylvania may file a supplement to this position report.
Pemsylvania is particularly reluctant to present rigid positicas cn emergency plamiq cententions given the uncertain relatienship betwen these proceedings and the Federal F2nergency Management Agency's (FDR's) 1 pending review of the 'Ihree Mile Island enagency plans pursuant to the I
recently prcx:ulgated SRC Emergency P14 Regulations. 45 Fed. Reg. 8010 M hp
55402 (August 19,1980) (to be M4 Aa4 in 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 70).
It has not been made clear dether thit 1 will be perdtted to restart based solely on the findings in this proceeding and prior to formal FEMA emergency plan approval. If this issue is not clarified, Pennsylvania plans to request certification to the Comission.
This report is divided into two parts:
(1) Inforration, and (2)
Positions. A nuser of contentions raised by intervenors are based, in part, on misinterpreted, incocplete or inaccurate infomation. Pennsyl-vania wishes to correct these points, for the benefit of the Bcard and the Parties, without inplying disagreement with the main thrust of the centention. %%11y, this will help to narrow the issues that cust be litigated in the hearings. These points of information are contained in Part I.
There are also a nuser of issues on dich Pennsylvania takes a position as to the current adequacy of emergency plan:r efforts.
These posidms are contained in Part II.
I.
Information Points 1.
Newtxtrry Township #3, Metropolitan Edisen Plan, Point 5,
- p. 22: 'We Ccmconwealth of Pennsyhania did begin a radiological nrnitoring effort; however, since local =cnitoring randars were instructed as to how to read the nonitors, the FWth of Pennsylvania has not been soliciting their mdings and/or following up to determine dether the randings are be-mg =ade by the readers."
Coment: The CWth's Cocmunity Monitoring Prop
, sich was initiated to keep the -nity informed during the Krypton gas venting of 7MI-2, is not related to any mergency planning efforts. The monitors remain in place to provide the -mity with an independent nonitoring program around IMI. This program should not be considered in evaluating the adequacy of off-site tenitoring around IMI.
2.
Sholly, Revised contention #8(II)(C), page 9: "No provisions have been made in the Ccx:mxwealth's Arrex E plan for radiological monitoring during inclement weather."
r'amwit: "Jie plan does not depend exclusively on field monitoring data for making protective action race==mdmHms.
Protective action ree--
An-tions are based primarily on plant emdiHms and secondarily on mobile monitoring systems designed to determine whether the prM4rHms based on plant conditions are borne out by off-site readings.
3.
ENP, Centention 2-33. 'Ihe infant thyroid dose does not take into account the fetus or frh=1aHm exposure.
Ccxrment: 'Ihe 1.5 rem infant thyroid milk ingestion PAG is based on the U.S.
Depar=nent of Health, NaHm and Welfare res-.a-AmHms as publisbad on Dececber 15, 1978 in the Federal Register. "he DHEW did include consideration of fetal uptake in deriving the PAG. InbelaHm exposure is treated else-where in the plan.
4.
Sholly ContenH at No. 8, II E, p. 10: " Annex 3, the Depar=nent of Agriculture Plan for Nuclear Power Generating Station Tnches for the Cmmnwealth, has no provisions for criteria for the reactivation tW.
normal or restricted usage of previously contaminated property, equipment, f
l foodstuffs, and water supplies in the Ingestion EPZ or tra Plume Exposure i
EPZ."
Cocment: 'Ihe provisions for and the guidance for the normal or restricted usage of previously contaminated foodstuffs are contained in the Agriculture Plan f-
. VI. 'Ihe det*Hm that foodstuffs are contaminated will be based on laboratory analysis of sacples using the gn4 dance pruvided by i
t the Federal Drug AMnktration, EDA, in the Deceser 15, 1978 Federal Register (Vol. 43, No. 242).
Pennsylvania b *c/ anagement Agency Circular, " Fixed Nuclear M
6 Facilief Tne4dets Radiologien1 Wemm4ruttien (Offsite) Procedures,"
i provides guidance and direction to State agencies and Counef Fmergency Management Coordinarnes on d-me-inae4m of property, equipment, food-stuffs and water.
The material included in the Agriculture Plan,Section VI, provides the information for fact sheets similar to those included in Annex B for livestock and these would be issued as reeded taking into consideration the status of various agriculere products when the inr4dme occur:2.
]
i 5.
Newberry #3, York County Plan, Point 27, p. 16-17: "Moreover, the agriculemal part of the York County Plan provides that the County Fmergency Manageant Agency Director will charge and distribute dosimeters j
for agriculemal personnel who are required to enter the designat.ed risk area but does not state who will interpret the dosimeter randings.
L'ncil and unless these two facits of da York Counef Plan are remedied, it is the intervenor's cententien that the Plan remaira deficient."
cam==nt : Be dosimeter concept envisicned is the use of civil defense
)
type direct-reading CDV-133 (0-200 =r).
Exposure rxcrds will be mainenined i
by the individnni and the Depart.nent of Agriculture. In the event that i
i the Ccunty Eum.3&cf Management Office does me have the dosimeters, then the Agriculture personnel will be issued TLD 3 (Eerro-Luminescent Dosimeters) by the Bureau of Radiation Protection upon adval of de robile II.D capability.
(PTA Circular, Fixed Nuclear Facility Incidents 1
Radiological Decentamiraticn (Offsite) Procedures, July 25, 1980.)
6.
I mzber of contentions questien the use by the Coccenwealth of 1
a 10-mile plume exposure pacNay and a 50-mtle ingestien exposure pathway.,
EA, Sholly Revised Ccritention #8, In preparing for nuclear emergencies, Pennsylvania is following the Federal planning guidance in IGEG-%54.
Pennsylvania lacks the + W e necessary to undertake an independant, objectivt evaluation of NUREG-0654, and accepts it as the best pimnning iv'=nt currently available and as the legally binding criteria for emergency response plans under the new emergency planning regulations. 45 Fed. Reg. at 55409 (to be codified at 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b), n.1).
To the extent that the Board deter =ines that these planning distances are not adequate based on nore severe accident scenarios than those considered in BUREG-0654, Pennsylvania acknowledges that its emergency response plans would have to be reevaluated.
7.
Sholly #8 IIB (2), p. 9:
(2) " Federal agencies will provide for the C W th's essential " unmet" needs en a timely basis." (Assumtion is without basis.)
C'mmt: Ihis assurption is based upcn Federal agencies' =issions durhig emergencies and experiences of Federal agency response during past emergencies.
8.
Sholly #8 IIB (3), p. 9:
(3) "For planning purposes, persons evacuated from a risk area will prepare to r eairi outside that risk area for at least three days." (Assugtion is without basis).
1 Ccx: ment: Evacuees would be expected to take essential clothing, be.dding, medications, baby and pet supplies to last a minime of three days.
If a longer stay than three days is required, then resupply of essentials can reasonably be anticipated.
9.
Sho'ly #8 IIB (5), p. 9:
(5) "At least 507. of the population at risk will make independent provisions for sheltering in the event of necessity to evacuate." (Assurotion is wit %ut basis).
Conment: Experience factors associated with other disasters indicate that less than 507. of evacuees require public shelter. As an eu.:ple, less than 10,000 of the 250,000 persons evacuated in the Mississauga, i
l l l
l
Canada, hazardous spill in 1979 required public shelter.
- 10. Sholly #8 IID, p. 9: " Evacuation routes and time estimates for M-1 do not reflect possible inpadb=nts to egress routes,..."
cmemt: EvammHm routes and time estimates were prepared on the basis of noving 1007. of the populatton; assudng three people per auto; utilizing route capacity by specific highway; coordinating PennDOI ree==ndations i
with each county plan to assure no conflicting guidance; centitnxing two-way traffic reutes; assuning prior tobilizaticn and stationing of emergency forces from State and county; excluding consideration of traffic using semAmry roads; assuming no adverse weather cct:plications, and a speed l
of 30-35 MPH. Obviously, each situation will require careful consideration cf all variables before a recccmendation for wptepulate response ac* den.
- 11. A number of contentions refer to the lack of H2% apprcval of the CWth's mergency response plans.
E.g. Sholly #8 IIF,
- p. 10., Sholly 8 IIII, p. 12.
e-al h has' subcd.cted the State and 10-mile M risk Cocment: The t
counties' plans to H2% for review toward accepting these plans based upon NUREG-0654 guidance and Federal Regulation 44 Cm 350.
- 12. Sholly II G, p. 10: '%e Ccrzonwealth's method of testing its emergency preparedness by using drills where the specific scenario is known by all participants well ahead of the scheduled date limits the effectiveness of such testing to very 1cw levels."
Cocuent: 'Ibe exercise scenario cnly provides a vehicle for the ccnduct of training in a practical and realistic fashion designed to initiate desired aed.ons. The primary factor is to evaluate the objectives that 1.
For further cecments on the lace of weather-dependent analysis, see position 4, infra. -.
i have been set forth for achievec)ent during the exercise. For exanple, the objectives of the July,1980 exercise at Diree Mile Island are set forth in " FIXED M.XIEAR FACILITY EXERCISE, DREE MILE ISIRO NUCLEAR POWER SIATICE (July 16, 1980) AFIER-ACTION REPORT AND EVALIATION."
- 13. Newberry Tcunship #3, York County Plan, Point 3, p. 5:
"It i
is contended that the plan is still deficient in this area unless and until the c-alth of Pennsylvania, through ics police powers, provides that those who are considered to be emergency service forces within the local boroughs and townships are given non-prejnd4Mm1 paid leave time by their enployers in order to participate in such an exercise."
Connent: P.L.1332, kHm 7511 grants every political subdivision the power to make oppwy&I_mHma for the payment of expenses of the local organ 4 nHm in the manner provided by law for making appmpciations for the other expenses for the political subdivisions.
- 14. A nunber of contentions question the chain of 0 z ad with respect to support forces such as the National Guard, de State Police, the sheriffs of local police departments', etc.
E.g., Newber: / Contention
- 3, York County Plan, points 8, p. 7 and 17, p.12; Dauphin County Plan, point 9, p. 27.
r - nent: Support forces from outside the jurisdiction will be under the coerational control of the department, agency or office furnishing the force.
'Ihe use of these support forces, however, will be coordinated at the level of the county civil defense coordinator.
- 15. Newberry Township #3, York Counef Plan, Point 23, p. 14, contends that the plan does not state whether the Guar sd will be protected by radiatic7-proof equipment.
Cacment: Inquiries regarding the availabilief of special protective clothing and equipment have made to the National Guard Bureau and -
the Raclear Regulatory I'mmiasion. Both agencies do not :=O ---A v 4=1 anti-eme==4n="4m clothing for National Guard. Protective clothing idtich protects an individual from penetrating red 4=e4m has not been developed as yet. Military clothing will prevent particles of radio-active meerial from conence4ng the skin. 'Ihe protective clothing and equipment designated for 'IMI, i.e., fatigue uniform, field jacket, poncho, l
helmac liner, conbat boots, gloves, wind resistant trousers and ML7 protective ask provided a higher degree of protection than required for the situation.
- 16. Fr b y Township #3, York County Plan,. Point 37, p. 19: "...,
there appears to be a em f14ct in the estimates in that urban roads with parking are estimated to handle at least 1,700 cars per hour whereas major arteries could hanc".e 1,300 per hour..."
t'mmerte: 'Ibe reference to major arteries is listed tmder " Rural Roads" with a 12-foot wide lane, while under " Urban Roads" is listed a 30-foot wide one-way road with parking. It appears logical that the wider one-way road would carry greater traffic capacity.
- 17. Newberry Township #3, Metropolitan Edison Plan, point 5, p. 22:
"It is the intervenors contention that at the present time, such==m4 cations and warning are either not in place within the surrounding connunities or are not being =4ne=4nad by operators within the surrounding -mities,"
and that =m=11y the training exercise will test such systeas.
1 Conment: 'Ihe==m4rae4rma system for State, County and local response that will be nei14-ed to initiate response efforts are currently in position and are nr414 a4 on a daily basis for normal activities. During exercises, these same systems will be brought to bear to fulfill the
-m4 rations objectives outlined within the exercise. Currently,
_g_
cmmrtication and warning systems which are below the level of criteria established by NUREG-0654 and which currently require upgrading to overcome deficiencies are being reviewed by the facility.
- 18. ECE II 36, p.12: "ECE contends that the routing of all information through the Governor's Press Secretarf to the public adds trmecessary couplexities to the entire plan."
em = 1t: D:e Governor's Press Secretary is the spokespersen for information released to the media at the State level but not a central point of dissanHnn of protective actions. Protective actions to be taken by the public are disper::ed through the aumsgecf management chamels as n-dad by DER and passed to the county coordinators for inplementation.
- 19. ANGtY's Revised Contentiens are based en information avniinhle in nac h, 1979. More recent state and local pLmning efforts and Federal plaming g"4 dance render response to these contentiens difficult.
II. Positiens 1.
Evacuation and care of livestock.
(Aamodt #5; Ne/oerrf #3, 1
York County Plan Point 27).
Evacuation of lifestock as a precanH=rf action to protect tFa health of livestock does not have the same pnority in the Pennsylvania plan as the evacuation of people, because of the relatively high tolerance livestock have to the effects of low level rad 4* Men.
The acticns for livestock a:phasize sheltering protected foods and water until an assessment can be made of the release and transport of radioactive ::nterial to the affected areas. Annex B to the Depar rent of Agr4cnit,re Plan for Nuclear Pcwer Station Incidents (Appendix 7, C"wmailth of Pemsylvania Disaster Operations Plan, Amex E) provides guidance for protecting livestcck and pcultrf frem radiaticn injurf. Iba plan advises farm operators to report their status and the status of their livestock to their county agent and/or their county emergency ranagement
-9 uf m
office if a pre =Hmarf evacuatim of people advisory is issued.
Should the assessment of the inc4 dant indicate that the evacuation of people will be for a protracted period and that acet-lated doses win be a hazard, then da 4 aims will be ude to permit farm operators, on an individual case-by-case basis, to evacuate livestock. Of prime inporme to tnca decisions will be conside;ation of the consequence of movement of livestock relative to infectious or contaginus diseases.
Since pre =Hanarv evacuations of livestock are not provided for in the existing plans, the a=-- Mc interests of fam in the emergency planning zones are not necessarily protected.2 Recovery for such losses after an accident are li=ited by the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act. 42 U.S.C. $2210 el sec. Pennsylvania supports measures to protect an businesses in the vicinity of M, incinA4ng agricultural businesses thrcugh increased indemnification programs.
2.
Civil Defense Warning Systems:
(Sho ny #8 III E; Newberry Temship #3, York County Plan, point 1) 'Ihe alert /wrning system capability is not presently adequate to meet 10 C.F.R. Part 50 re@ements for any of the five M risk counties. Further efforts are required to upgrade 6.e system.
I 3.
Shony # III A, p.10: "No - gegrf plans for any political jurisdiction===11er than a comty have been served en the parties..."
Federal emergency planning guidance relies heavily en local goverr. ment 2.
Pennsylvania does not necessarily believe that farmers would stay behind to protect their livestock rather than evacuating to protect themselves and their fami. lies.
l
. l l
I
(4ncinding =nic4n=1 and township) plaming efforts and response capabilities.
- See, e_.,g.,, IG EG-0654 at 16. It is not clear why this proceeding focuses culy on state, county and utility emergency plans while the pending m %
review will judge the adequacy of nunicipal and township plans as well.
As stated in the introAncHm, Pennsylvania intends to seek further clarifi-cation of this issue. Moreover,. Pennsylvania believes that this proceeding j
should test the adequacy of Federal emergency plaming and response 1
capabilities.
i 4.
Weather-W ant Evacuation Analysis: Pennsylvania acknowledges that the state and county aur.upcy plans do not attenpt to analyse the l
precise inpact of the many variables that cust be considered in inplementation.
Each simmHm will be different--with time of day, weather conditicns, road mnA4Hms, unbi14 mHm time available, and other considerations requiring careful evaluation. A good basic plan provides previously developed solutions for many details not dependent en the specific situation, and frees the decision maker to adjust plan frplementation to that specific simm Hnrt.
It is not possible to denonstrate that a couplete and safe evacuation will be possible within the required time objectives under all conceivable condiHms, e.g. a severe blizzard. Pennsylvania's position, therefore, is that a couplete weather-dependent analysis should be conducted prior t.o restart. 'Ihis analysis should define those weather (and other) condiHms where there is a low probability that a successful evacuation can be con-ducted. 'Ibese parameters should then be inposed as corA4Hms on tle HE-1 operating license, so that the reactor may not be operated at times when the ayywyulate protective actions are not possible. i i
l
'Ihe question of who should perform this analysis is diff4 cult. Although Pennsylvania can provide the input data based on its emergency plaming information, it does not have adecuate ay=We and resources to conduct the necessary statistical analysis and to combirm the evacuation planrdng statistics with the relevant accidmt probability statistics. Moreover, it is NRC's 6_mceim to establish the ayyivycf. ate standards and criteria.
'Iherefore, the analysis should be pufv&M by the NRC staff and reviewed by the licensing board.
5.
Newberry Township #3, York County Plan, Point 40, p. 19:
"As a general overall cemmmt, evacuation routes as set forth are not wind-dependent,..."
Position: 'Ihe evacuation routes are not stid-dependent by design. 'Ihe State does not contemplate ordering or rec-ding an evacuation by sector within 10 miles of a nuclear facility. A 360-degree evacuation wuld be anticipated. Wind shifts of 180-degrees during the 'IMI incidant provided the basis for this position. However, if the simm"4nn permits, resources and emerg e cy forces would be directed to concentrate in that direction perceived to be at greatest risk.
Respectfully submitted, dhiv i0 KARIN W. CAKas ROBERT W. ADIIR Assistant Attorneys Geraral 1
1
- __y,
INI'IID STATES OF AMERICA 1.UCLEAR REGG.AIORY COMISSION Before the M M c Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of MEIBOPOLIIAN EDISON (D., EI AL.
Docket Ib. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Neclear Restart Station, thit No.1) cua m CATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the attached "rmulth of Pennsylvania Positions on Emergency Planning Contentions, Based on Information Available as of October 6,1980" ws mailed, postage prepaid, this 6th day of October,1980 to the perscas on the attacFad service list.
Y
/,0 G
u am u. c m Assistant Attorney General Ferrrwealth of Pennsylvania Dated: October 6, 1980
UNITED STAES OF AMERICA IUCLEAR REGCIAIORY OltiISSION BEEURE THE A'IMIC SAFELY AND LIGNSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON (DfANY,
)
)
Docket Ib. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Restart)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST George F. Trowbridge, Esquire
'H:eodore A. Adler, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Widoff, Reager, Selk m it: & Adler 1800 M Street, N.W.
P. O. Box 1547 Washington, D.C. 20006 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Ms. Marjorie M. Aar:odt Ivan W. Sc:ith, Esquire R.D. #5 Chairman
~
Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Atccac Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatorf Cc::cassion i
Ms. Holly S. Keck, Iag. Chairman Washingten, D.C. 20555 Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York (ANGRY)
Dr. Walter H. Jordan 245 W. Philadalphia Street Armie Safety and Licensing Board Panel 4
York, Pennsylvania 17404 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Coalitica for Nuclear Power Dr. Linda W. Little Plant Postponement Atocic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 2610 Grendon Drive 5000 Ferage Drive Wilmingten, Delaware 19808 Raleigh, brth Carolina 27612 Mr. Robert Q. Pollard Docketing and Serrice Section 609 Montpelier Street Office of the Secretary Balitmore, Maryland 21218 U.S. Nuclear Regulatorf Conmissicn Washingten, D.C. 20555 Walter W. Cchen, Esquire Consumer Advocate Ellyn R. Weiss Department of Justice Sheldon, Har:non, Roisman & Weiss Strawberr/ Square, 14th Floor 1725 I Street, N.W.
Ha d burg, Pennsylvania 17127 Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsral Karin P. Sheldon, Esq.
(PAIE)
Emri.mtal Coalition en Nuclear Sheldon, Har:cn, Roisman & Weiss Pcuer 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 433 Orlando Avenue Washington, D.C. 20006 State College, Pennsylvania 16801 James A. Tourtellotte, Esquire Mr. Stevt=n C. Sholly Office of the E:<ecutive Legal 304 South Market Street Director Wehanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc.:n:ission Uashingum, D.C.
20555
John A. Iavin, Esquire Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Assistant Counsel Attorney for Newberry Township Pennsylvania Public Utility T.M.I. Steering Cocmi.ttee en=d asion 2320 North Second Street P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 H d aburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Marvin I. Iewis Robert L. Knupp, Esquire 6504 Bradford Terrace Assistant Solicitor Philadelphia, Pennsyhmiia 19149 County of Dauphin P.O. Box P Jane Iae 407 North Front Street R.D. 3, Box 3521 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 John E. Mdanich Chairman, Dauphin County Board of CNmdtsioners Dauphin County Courthouse Front and Mari<et Streets Farrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 3
i 1
1 1
1
(
I 1
e
-