ML20008F979
| ML20008F979 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1981 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008F977 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105120433 | |
| Download: ML20008F979 (29) | |
Text
.
U'i?TED STATES OF A" ERICA fiUCLEAR REGULATORY C0 f11SSI0ff BEFORE THE AT0!!IC SAFETY'AfsD LICENSIfiG APPEAL ~ BOARD' In the Matter of
)
)
-SOUTH CAROLIfiA ELECTRIC & GAS
],
Docket tio. 50-395 4
COMPA!iY
}'
Virgil C. Sumer fiuclear Station,
-)
Unit 1)
)
{
fdRC STAFF BRIEF Ifl SUPPORT OF. APPEAL FR0f PARTIAL ORDER FOLLOWIfiG PREHEARING CONFERE! ICE IfiTRODUCTIR On April 30, 1981, the-Licensing Board issued an Order granting, in part, the unticely intervention petition of Fairfield United Action (FUA or Petitioner). This late petition was filed on l' arch 23 1981, alnost four months after the filing date set forth in the notice of opportunity II for hearing in this matter and within three months of the evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin on June 22, 1931.
The petition contained 27 proposed contentions.
Both the Applicant / and Staff 3/ opposed the late petition on the grounds that 2
l i
1/
42 F.R. 20203 (April 17,1977).
2/
See Applicant response, dated l' arch 30, 1981.
I 3/
See Staff response, dated April 13, 1981.
8105120 N
i it was not justified upon balancing the factors governing nontimely petitions set forth in 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a) E The Board's Order adnitted FUA as an intervenor along with ten of its contentions.
(See Attachment "A").
The Board did not admit the balance of the proposed contentions. The Staff agrees with the
~
rejection of this latter category of contentions for the reasons given in the Board's Order and the Staff's April 13, 1981 pleading. on the matter.
The Staff does not intend to discuss these proposed issues further. The Staff does not agree with the admission of the ten accepted contentions for the reasons given below.
DISCUSSI0?i The Board divided the late petition into two groups of contentions and applied the five factors contained in 10 C.F.R. 62.714 to each such group.
The Board placed contentions 1, 2 and 27 (which it denominated "nanagement competence" issues) and contentions 7 through 13 (which it denominated "energency planning" issues) into one group and placed the balance of the contentions into the other. The Board found that the late introduction of the first group of contentions was justified under 4/
These factors are:
(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii) The availability of other neans whereby the petitioner's intere:t will be protected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
+
y
+
w-
-. ~ - - -.
.--e-e-
-e.,-
r 10 C.F.R. 62.714 while the second group was not. -The Staff does not believe that a consideration of the five factors weighs 'in favor of the admission.of the 10 new FUA contentions.
The first factor in 10 C.F.R. 92.714(a) is whether there'is good cause for the filing delay. The Staff agrees with the Board's finding that Petitioner had not established good cause in general for its late petition.
The Staff disagrees, however, with the Board's finding that, under the circumstances -of this case, Petitioner's -reliance-upon post-TitI requirements provided good cause for late intervention with regard to corporate management and emergency planning contentions.
Order at 6-7.
In principle, significant regulatory developments can, under appropriate circumstances, provide good cause for late intervention.
However, such circunstances do not stain here.
The vast majority of the regulatory documents cited in support of these contentions were issued in 1F 3. E As ' the Board noted, one licensing board found that then recent changes in emergency planning criteria provided good cause for the acceptance of a late petition.
Order at 5 citing Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zincer Nuclear Station), LBP-80-14,11 fiRC 570 (April,1980).
Whatever the merits of granting late intervention on energency planning grounds in April, 1980, there is no merit to such a ruling in April, 1981.
The Board seems to acknowledge this to a degree.
It observes that, while good cause might have been present to raise management competence and 5_/
See, e.g., NURt.G-0731 (September,1980) and NUREG-0694 (ffay 1980)
(Contention 1); flVREG-0660 (ftay, 1980) and NUREG-0737 (October, 1980)
(Contention 27); NUREG-0694 (January,1980) (Contentions 7 and 13).
. _ _ - _ _ _ energency planning issues in 1980, petitioner did not file its petition until March, 1981. Order at 6.
The Board notes that this additional delay in filing was apparently influenced by FUA's reliance on the existing intervenor to handle these natters.
Ouite apart fra' the dicsinilarity in issues raised by FUA and those adnitted on behalf of the Intervenor, the Board properly concluded that such reliance is legally insufficient to constitute good cause for such delay.
Id.
Tionetheless, the Board inexplicably concludes that "[h]ad that added delay in filing disadvantaged any parties other than petitioner itself (by circunscribing its prehearing activities), or delayed the proceedings, we night find a lack of good cause."
Id. a t 6-7.
The Board, however, concluded that it would not delay the proceeding and found the factor to be of alnost no weight.
In fact, as discussed nore fully below in connection with consideration of the fif th factor, not only has the scope of the proceeding been substantially broadened but the proceeding inevitably will be delayed, either at the prehearing, hearing, or post-hearing stages. The late adnission of the new conten-tions certainly operates as a hardship on both the Applicant and Staff which have strived diligently to conduct this proceeding as expeditiously as possible.
From the star,dpoint of the Staff, its efforts in that regard nay be rendered unsuccessful gisen the substantial litigative burden the Board's action places on already straincd Staff rescurces.
This added litigative burden is one which the Board conpletely ignores.
The resources of an agency staff cannot be effectively nanaged and prioritized if the scope of a proceeding can be substantially expanded at virtually the last ninute.
Whatever legitinate interests FU" nay have had in thf s proceeding, they were lost by ' virtue of its failure to protect them in a tinely ranner.- Petitioner, not the other parties, should bear the responsibility for that.
The Board considered the second factor, whether other means are available to protect petitioner's interest, and the fourth factor, the extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties, togethe. and correctly notes that these factors are nor.Jally accorded lesser weight than the other factors. Order at 11. However, the Staff does not necessarily agree that they weigh in favor of late intervention.
While this proceeding is the best forua to litigate concerns regarding; radiological health and safety, Petitioner's interest could be protected by peraitting nenber(s) to nake lioited appearance statement (s) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Q 2.715(a). See, Tennessee Valley Authority (Brown Ferry Units 1 and 2), ALAB-341, 4.'iRC 95, 95 (1976). Petitioner is also free to furnish financial, technical or legal assistance to the Intervenor.
Virginia Electric Power Concany (ilorth Anna, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-289, 2 tiRC 395, 399 (1975).
In addition, Petitioner does have other meaas, outside of the adjudicatory process, to bring its concerns to the tiRC.
The ilRC Staff, for example, has yet to complete its review of energency planning considerations.6] Further, quite apart from the viger with which Intervenor prosecutes his case on energency planning, the 6j In this regard, the f(RC Staff held a local public meeting on emergency planning in July, 1930. A public meeting was held under the auspices of tne state and Federal Energency Management Agency (FEMA) on April 30, 1931, an emergency exercise was conducted at the plant on May 1,1981 and a follouup public meeting held under the asupices of the State, Applicant, fiRC, and FEMA on !!ay '2,1931 to review the exercise.
Staff has the statutory duty, which it intends to faithfully discharge, to protect the health and safety of the public.
The Board finds the third factor, the extent to which petitioner can assist in developing a sound record, to weigh most heavily in favor of admitting FUA on the designated contentions.
The Staff disagrees.
The Board cites FUA's participation in rate-making proceedings and familiarity with local emergency planning developnents. With regard to the former, management capability considerations for rate-naking purposes differ appreciably from those relevant to nuclear licensing proceedings.
Petitioner's adjudication of this issue may well constitute only a rehearsal of the extensive exanination conducted by FUA and the counsel who appeared on its behalf at the prehearing conference before the State Public Service Commission.
Petitioner possesses no expertise in the area of nuclear operations or managenent and apparently has no witnesses in this area.
1 In the area of emergency planning, FUA is apparently comprised of members with a layman's knowledge of local population, transportation and topography.
Petition at 15.
While such information is undoubtedly i
useful, it can be imparted outside of the hearing process to the NRC Staff or other agencies and instrumentalities with emergency planning responsibilities 7/ or in the proceeding through limited appearance statements.
Petitioner does not appear to possess any expertise or l
I intend to offer expert testimony on emergency planning in general, on Y
the health affects of radiation (ccatention 8), the c?iationship between 7/
See n. 6 supra.
i i
e.v
-,r..
rw
,_.7
_m, an environmental impact statenent and emergency planning requirements-(contention 10), the emergency risk from. the transportation of irradiated fuel (contention 12), or the necessity for placing certain nunber of-thermoluminescent dosimeters around the site (contention 13).
Thus, there is no basis to conclude that Petitioner's participation.on nany of the ener-gency planning contentions will further the development of a sound record.
The final factor, the extent to which Petitioner's participation-wil? broaden the issues or delay the proceeding, weighs heavily against the Petitioner. The Board's consideration of this factor is fatally flawed. The hearing in this matter is approxinately six weeks away and the date for filing testimony approximately two weeks away. All parties have acknowledged the compressed natu're of the schedule.
The introduction of a new party and new contentions at this juncture, in contravention of 10 C.F.R. Q2.714, will inevitably broaden the issues and unduly delay the hearing, post-hearing, and post-decisional process.
With regard to broadening the issues, the Board concluded that "in view of the fact that the corporate management and emergency planning issues had already been admitted to the proceeding (by board question or intervenor contention), we see no broadening of issues..." Order at 8.
It is self-evident by comparing the Board question on nanagerent 0
competence I and the new contentions on that subject E/ that this issue 8/
This question was posed to the Applicant by the Board at the November 28, 1980 prehearing conference in the nature of a request to make a senior corperate officer with line responsibility for operations available to " develop a feeling for nanagement' attitudes" within the Applicant's organization. Tr. 322.
9/
See Contentions 1, 2 and 27. Attachnent A.
1 w
e-y
8'.
has been greatly broadened.
The same is true-in comparing -Intervenor Bursey's emergency planning contention E/ with new FUA contentions 7-through 13.11/
In both instances, additional Staff and FEf!A'wicnesses and testimony will be -necessary.
Apart from broadening the issues, the introduction of a new party and new contentions will inevitably delay some aspect of the proceeding and, in all likelihood, the issuance of any eventual operating-license.
The Staff is in the process of ascertaining the availability of additional witnesses to address the new contentions. Their availability is uncertain at this time.
Even assuaing there are witnesses available, it is uncertain whether they will be capable of generating the necessary-additional testimony within the prescribed tine period (namely, by liay -
28).
People will have to be diverted from other assignnents and people involved in this proceeding to a certain extent will have to becone more heavily involved now.
A nunber of Staff menbers in this latter category are also responsible for completing the Staff work on the Final Environmental Statement and second supplement' to the Staff Safety Evaluation Report which nust also be completed this month.
It is entirely possible that these assignnents will be adversely impacted.
The Staff believes that certain of the energency planning contentions are arguably inadnissible on the grounds that they exceed the scope of the Connission's emergency planning requirenents in 10 10/ His contention 8 states that "[t]he Applicant has made inadequate preparations for the implementation of his energency plan in those areas where the assistance and cooperation of state and local agencies are required."
H / See Attschnent A.
C.F.R. ' 650.47 which, as relevant to contention 10, relate to energencies at fixed nuclear reactor sites, and, as' relevant to contention 12, estab-lish general limits on the size of the Emergency Planning Zones.
Had the new contentions been tinely raised, these and the other contentions could-also have been clarified and simplified through discovery and the specifics underlying the contentions ascertained.
It is equally possible that certain contentions would have been amenable to sunnary disposition, either in whole or in part, and unnecessary litigation thus avoided. The parties have now been deprived of this opportunity.
The Board's supposition that these issues are not susceptible to summary disposition is unfounded.
See Order at 9.
One genuine effect of the Board's Order is to " shore-up" the existing intervenor, who, as the Board aptly noted, has been less than diligent in presenting his case. The late petition acknowledges this 12/
and the Board admits FUA in part with this in nind. El This should not be a function of the Board in this proceeding.
Almost four years since the inception of this case, the entry of a "t'resh" litigant in opposition to the license is fundamentally unfair to the other litigants and estab-lishes an undesirable precedent for future cases. As the Appeal Board in Virginia Electric & Power Company (fiorth Anna Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAS-289, 2 fiRC 395, 400 (1975) concluded, even if, as here, a petitioner is required to take the proceeding as it finds it " experience teaches that the adnission of a new party just before a hearing starts, is bound to confuse or complicate matters." The Appeal Board further stated that:
E/ Petition at 6-7.
13/ 0 der at 6-7.
. [D]elay can otherwise be avoided only if-the parties adverse 1
to the [ petitioner] forego _ important procedural. rights, including -the right to discovery.....It is scarcely ecuitable
.to_-give the [ petitioner]' credit for not causing _ delay'when that result could be achieved only because the circunstances would coerce other parties into waiving substantial rights.;
u ~re, as in fiorth Anna, an appeal was inevitable whichever way the
-Id.
a Board ruled. Therefore, like fiorth Anna, Petitioner's procrastination "cade it inevitable that'its entitlement.to intervene could not be finally resolved until_ just before the hearing began,-if.then.
Simple
~
fairness to all parties in these proceedings nandates.that such practices not be condoned."
Id.
Since Petitioner sat idly by as a spectator, and_ did not pursue its.
rights in a tir:ely manner, such procrastination should not-be allowed.
Itl
~
operates as a hardship on the parties and disrupts an orderly.adninistrativi process.
At a time of concerted Coanission and adainistrative efforts.to reduce the backlog of near-tena operating licenses, such as Sunrer, and to expedite the licensing process, in general, the Board's action below is a major step in the wrong direction.
C0'!CLUSI0'l In light of the above, the Staff subnits that the Board's order granting FUA's late intervention petition should be reversed and the petition denied in its entirety.
Respectfully subnitted,
" Al Steven C. Goldberg Counsel ~ for fiRC Staff Dated at Bethesda,l'.aryland this lith day of May,1931.
'. ATTACHMENT "A" FUA' PETITION, DATED t' ARCH 23,193:
Contention 1 The overall corporate. management of the Applicant is insufficient-ly experienced in the operations of a nuclear power facility and is. gen-erally deficient in management abilities essential to the safe coeration of a nuclear power facility or properly to rescond under accident' con-ditions.
SASIS FOR CONTENTION 1_
The accident and response to that accident by the operators of-Three Mile Island, Unit 2, amply demonstrated that the management abili-ties of the utility are crucial to safe normal operations anc to proper response to accident conditions.
4 The Applicant is the first utility to come before a Licensing Board for an Operating License since TMI-2 which does not have experi-ence in the coeration of a large nuclear power plant. This Applicant's only nuclear exoerienc' was over 15 years ago with the 17 M;; CVTR wnicn it operated in consortium with others.
f In response to Staff concerns about organizational structure, the Apolicant has undertaken significant steps to restructure corporate cr-gani:ation to consolidate corporate nuclear responsibilities under one senior corporate executive, the Vice Fresident and Group Executive for Nuclear Operations.
The incumbent in that position, Thomas C. Nichols, is a lon;-tire employee of the Applicant with extensive fossil plant experience.
Hew-ever, he has no training, background, or experience in nuclear opera-tions and is not qualified "to assure a continual understanding of plant
. conditions and safety considerations" (NUREG C69", "TMI-Related Require-ments for New Ocerating Licenses," I.S.I.2).
Under cross-examination in proceedings before the South Carolina Public Service Commission (Docket Nos. 79-196-E and 79-196-G), Nichols demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of technical issues relating to nuclear power ooera-tion.
He lacks the detailed knowledge and experience recuired to make informed decisions critical to the health and safety of the general pub-lic.
Examination of the resumes of nuclear operations personnel in the FSAR reveal serious deficiencies in the education, cualifications, and experience of management and operations personnel when compared to the Guidance Positions set forth in NUREG 0731 (" Guidelines for Utility Managerent Structure and Technical Resources").
Plant Manager Ollie S. Bradham does not hold either a bachelor's degree or an SR0 license.
Maintenance Sucervisor Steve Smith does not possess the bachelor's de-gree called for there. The examples are numerous (see T.C. Nicnols,
" Comparison of Management / Technical Resources to Reguistory Guidance,"
recort to NRC Staff, January 31,1981).
In comcaring '.he education and experience of his staff to regulatory guicance, Nichols argues that the guidance for the Training Manager is met because Training Manager B.T. Estes, Jr., and his deputy Al Sanders, if taken together, meet the regulatory guidance.
Other persons with eminent cualifications hold positions for which those qualifications are irrelevant or insufficient.
Mark Whitaker, Group Manager for Licensing and Nuclear Engineering, has held a nunber of responsible posts with the Apolicant. He is a lawyer and an M.B.A.,
as well as a trained Electrical Engineer.
However, he lacks the back-
. ground in nuclear ' engineering and nuclear operations adeo' 9tely te super-vise the corporate Nuclear Engineering function. 'Likewise Emergency Coordinator, Ken Eeale has extensive experience in' Health physics.
Hoe-ever, he has neither experience nor training in emergency planning.
At a number of critical positions, the - Applicant has appointed ex-perienced and cualified assistants to a nunber of these unqualified c.ana-gers. That is laudable, but leaves the responsibility for decisions to men not qualified "to assure a continual understanding of plant con-ditions and safety considerations."
Examination of the management ane technical resources-of the Acoli-cant should extend beyor.d the scoce of N'JREG 0731 into the upoer eche-lens of corporate management.
Examination of senior corocrate officials would reveal that they lack the experience and understandinc of nuclear operations recuired to oversee and be involved in the normal or accident-condition operation of tne Sumcer plant.
No Operating License should be granted until responsible corporate management and operations cosi-tions are filled by cualified individuals.
Hearings in other preceedings involving the Acplicant (50FSC Docket Nos. 79-195-E, 79-196-G, and 76-645-E) have raised serious cuestions about the general managerent of the Applicant.
Evidence presented in those hearings suggests that the Licensing Board should have little faith in corporate procedural manuals as establishing effective administrative controls.
i The Board has indicated its desire to have senior corporate of-1 i
w
.. - - _ - - - =-.
~.
4; i
5.
- s 1
4 j
ficials available during -the Operating License ' hearings.- Petitioner L
would offer to build a record cn these issues through cross-examination' I
of these witnesses as well as ' through ' discovery of recent -studies of.
2 I
the Applicant's coorporate operations referenced in other proceedings or which Fetitioner is inforced and believes to exist.
3 b
i, I
i 1
+
i h
I 4
i i
i 1
4 t
i k
I 1
i 4
i 4
I I
i e
i I
l 1
l l
h l:
-6 Contention 2 The Applicant lacks sufficient " hands on" exoerience among its reactor operator staff to safely run the 'iirgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, and no Ooerating License should be granted until adecuate
" hands on" experience is had by the Applicant's reactor operations staff.
BASIS FOR CONTENTION 2_
During a July 8-10 ' visit by Staff members, Staff expressed major concern to the Applicant that "There appeared to be insufficient hands-on operating experience with large pressurized water reactors in the i
operating organization (see SER at 22-13,14).
Examination of the resumes of Reactor Operators, Senior Reacter Operators, anc Shift Supervisors reveals a dearth of experience on large operating pxRs.
A number of the SRO's total nuclear power clant ex-perience has been spent in training at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Sta-tion, Unit 1, with some additional simulator time.
6
13 -
Con:ention 7 The Emergencj Response Plans of the A:?licants, the surrounding counties, and the State of Scoth Carolina d: n;; pr: vide reisenable assurance that. adequate protective measures can and will be taken in tre event of a raciological emergency _ and do not conform to the repuire-rents of N'JREG C554, Rev.1, in that:
a)
(II.3.1.) The Applicants plan does not meet tne r/nirs, staffing requirements as set forth in Table 5-1.
b)
(II.E.9.) The Applicants's plan includes agree ents witn local crganications which fail to delineate the authority, resp nsibilities, and limits en :neir actions.
c)
(II.E.1.) The Applicants have failec to ce Onstrate the ability to notify local Ecergency Preparedness officials, as distinguisned from communicaticns centers, within 15 minutes.
d)
(!I.G.1.) The Applicants have not adecuately :lanned for the distribution of informational materials.
e)
(II.J.5 and Appendix 4.)
The Acolicant has not ceveloced re-alistic estimates of evacuation tires and has not em:loyed the retho-dology se: forth in Appendix A.
f)
(II.J.10.c.) The Applicants have failec tc provide adecuate reans fcr protecting those whose lack of mobility is ir aired by lack of vehicles.
g)
(II.J.10.e.)
No plans have bece. made for the distribution and use of radioprotective drugs, such as Potassium Icdide, as a Protective Response for the general public.
y
~
. la -
h)
(II.J.lG.h.)
Relocation centers are not located at least 5 miles from the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ, e.g., Winnsboro High School is a scant 2-3 miles from the EFZ.
All of the relocaticn centers in Fairfield County are within 10 miles of the EPZ.
i)
(II.J.10.) Table 5.2 in Applicant's Plan suggests that shel-tering is the only Protective Action contemplated for the ger.eral pub-lic.
j)
((II.J.10.M.) The plans do not set forth the bases for the choice of recommended Protective Actions from the plume' exposure path-way during emercency conditions.
k)
(I!.L.1.) Hosoital and medical services for the general cub-lic are not provided for.
1)
(II.L.2.) On-site emergency first aid capability is inadecuate.
- )
(II.G.3.b.) The News Media Center is not located at the A::licant's Emergency Operations Facility.
n)
(I!.H.2.) The Interim Emergency Operations facility does not comply with the requirements of NUREG 06g6, Rev.1.
n)
(Appendix 2.) The Applicant's meteorological monitoring ecuis-ment does not meet the requirements of Appendix 2.
It lacks a viable back-up system with emergency power and is not seismically cualified, o)
(Appendix 3.B.2.)
The Applicant has failed to denonstrate that its siren system will meet the requirements of Appendix 3, that the tests conducted by the Applicant on audibility were sufficient, and that the siren system to be installed has a high level of reliability including under seismic conditions which might occasion a radiological
. erergency.
p)
(Appendix 4.)
The Applicant has failed to conoly with the requirements of Appendix 4 for determining and describing evacuation times, has failed to establish the acceptability of' criteria used.to establish evacuation tires, and has failed to demenstrate tne capabili-ty of loolicant and State and local governments to assure timely evacu-ation under accident conditions.
q) Acolicant's and local plans demonstrate a lack.of cooperation in thEir development and planned imolementation.
r) The.Plure Excosure Fathway EPZ boundaries established in local plans are not based upon reasonable criteria which have been explicitly stated and ceronstrated.
s) The failure to base Flure Exocsure Fathway EFZs on rational and scientifically defensible bases wnich cive reasonable assurance that the healtn and safety of the general public will be protE".ted exposes students at Kelly Miller Elementary School and Greenbrier Head Start Center in Fairfield County to unwarranted risks to tneir health and safety.
t) And in other ways the Radiological Erergency Response Plans of the Acolicant, the State of South Carolina, and the surrounding counties fail to comply with the recuirerents set forth therein.
SASIS FOR C07;TE: TION 7_
Petitioner and itsmembers possess unicue knowledge of the people, roads, traffic patterns, and topograohy of Fairfield County and nearby communities and would assist the Licensing Ecard to build a record on the adecuacy of emergency planning for the region.
In additicr. :: bases effered in the s*aterent of tne Contention, Petitioner would shew that: (tases are listed by sub-cententien letter) a) Applican *s Table 5-1 sets fortn that.A;olicant woulc be un-able to provide back-up sue: Ort for several functions within :ne re-quired thirty cinutes. That. the~ Chemistry / Radiochemistry fun :icn.
would not be staffed at all tires.
d) Appif cant plans only to tail informatier.al caterials to every postal holder.
Many tail addresses in the area serve several h: se-holds, so that a single " Occupant" r. ailing to each postal b:x would not reach every household.
Festing of informational r.aterials in local businesses will net sufficiently su;olerent inadecuate mailines.
ditional cistributien rethods should be re:uired.
k) Arrangements for redical servi:es at the Finner Ciiric in Farr, Soutn Carolina, and F.ichland.Mercrial H spital in Coluccia, South Carc-lina, a:Parently a:cly only :: er:loyees cf :ne A;;1icant and n:t ::
the general public.
- 1) A:piicant's plan : alls for only one person qualified in first aid techniques en each shift.
Injury to that pers:n er a :icent cen-ditions requiring first attention :: accident centrol duties ::uld nullify that ca: ability.
n) The Interie Emergen:y Operatiens Facility is icested en-site.
The facility is a temporary office structure whicn is not engineered for the design life of the plant, does not provide a prote: icn facter equal to or greater than 5, and lacks adequate ventilation protecti n as require,in,.s-co 00:0,
.n 1,. ule 2.
.ev.
ia.
n
. q)
For example. All persons in Fairfield County are expected to evacuate to Winnsboro High School. Under typical wind conditions, that would be the least appropriate response for the majority of persons in the EPZ in Fairfield County. Those in the. southern part of the County would ';e safer evacuating towards the Richland County facility.
Those in the northern part of the EPZ would more wisely evacuate to the Neaberry County center.
No such coordination exists, however.
s) Young persons are especially susceptible to radfation injury.
However, the Plune Expesure Pathway EPZ, which extends to nearly 12 miles just north of Kelly Miller School in Fairfield County, swings in to miss including that school in the EPZ by, quite literally, " shouting distance".
Kelly Miller is an all-black elementary school. The Green-brier Pead Start Center is located nearby and also within view of the EPZ but not included in it.
t)
Final plans have not been available to Petitioners from the four counties and the State of South Carolina.
. Contention 8 Public Information Materials distributed by the Apolicant relative to radiological emergency response planning are inaccurate, intentionally deceptive regarding the potential health effects of radiation, and cre-sent evacuation routes which could result in persons unwittingly evacu-ating through the plume.
EASIS FOR CONTENTION 8 The brochure entitled "V.C. Su rer Emergency Infomation," which the Applicant says will be mailed to every household in the Plume Ex-ocsure Pathway, includes the following untruthful and inaccurate infor-mation:
a) that the secondary water system in tne steam line is "uncontami-nated" anc " pollution-free";
b) that radiatien health effects can only be detected at levels of 25,000 millirems and above.
These state ents and additional verbiage in the brochure are 1
designed to give residents a false sense of security.
By failing to accurately describe the genuine health hazards, which are recc;ni:ed by the body of the scientific corrunity, the Acolicant may lead residents to believe that accidents with long-term health consecuences are not sufficiently important to warrant evacuation.
Further, the evacuation routes laid out in the brochure are ir-rational and could result in individuals unwittingly evacuating tnrough the plume. A resident of Southwest Fairfield County (Zones C-1 and C-2) is directed to drive towards Winnsboro, which is the direction the pre-vailing winds could be expected to carry the plum.
Centention 9 l
The State of South Carolina and the counties surrounding the Sum er station do not have the cacability for implementing protective reasures based upon protective action guides and other criteria as tney aoply to residents of the Plume Expcsure Pathway who do not own or have access at all times to private vehicles.
BASIS FOP. CONTENTIO!! c The area within the Plume Exposure Pathway is predominantly rural and no public trarsportetion system exists. Many of the residents of the area are old, sick, or poor and do not have transportation or are without transportation during significant periods of the day.
Existing plans in Fairfield County, for example, call for the use of a) school busses when school is not in session, b) vans from tne Council on Aging and Com.munity Action Program, or c) city busses brought in from Columbia.
School busses in South Carolina are driven by high school students.
If sch001 were not in session, the drivers would not be available. The number of vans is limited and inadeouate. The city busses from Columbia i
could not arrive in time, are unsuited to many of our country roads, and would be driven by drivers unfamiliar with the many nooks and crannies of the county.
Moreover, no door-to-door survey to identify the need has been.under-taken.
tiewspaper ads were placed in the Winnsboro papers asking people who needed transportation to call the Emergency Preparedness Director's office. A good many people in rural Fairfield County do not read.
Few
.m
- e
- ple in western Fairfield Cecr.ty read the Winnsboro pa:ers. Many people in the area do not have tele:hene, and for many it is a long-distance tele:h:r.e cal' :: Winnst:ro.
Not surprisingly, tne ads crea-no response.
21 -
Cententien _1_0_
Radiological Erergency Response plans of the Applicant, the State of South Carolina, and the surrounding communities have been formulated without reference to the Draft Environmental Staterent, Sucolerent (NUREG OE3i, Supplement) and thus fail to acdress appropriate protec-l tive measures needed to provide radiological-protecticn to all residents in the vicinity of the Sumrer station who might be tnreatened with in-jury er death from an accident greater than a design basis accident.
E' SIS FOR CONTE'CION _10_
During testimony before the ACRS Subcommittee on Electric Pcwer I
(February 25, 1921', Emergency Coorcinator Ken Eeale conceded that no reference had been made to the Draft ES in precaring the emergency plans.
Tne first ES wnich evaluates the environmental impacts of a so-called Class 9 accident, :nis Supplement should have served as ne cornerstone of emergency clanning.
Instead, it was ignored.
i i
a 8
i e
i 1
-r e-
,r.m,----w.,-----n-ya,
, ~ ~
e,
.-.4
~ Contention H The Applicant and the surrounding counties do not possess the experience and technical ability adequately to plan for emergency pre-paredness, to prepare for a radiological emergency, or the capability for implementing protective measures based upon protective action guides and other criteria as recuired under NUREG 0654, Rev.1, at II.J.9.
BASIS FOR CONTENTION R The capability to plan and carry out protective measures in the event of a radiological emergency presumes the personnel with experience and training in emergency planning and an understanding of the characteristics of radiological effluents and their potential health effects.
The Applicant and the governments of the surrounding counties lack that capability.
Corporate Emergency Coordinator, Ken Seale, of the Applicant, has training and experience as a Health Physicist.
His resume reveals'neitner training nor experience which would qualify him for his cserent oosition and responsibilities.
His assistant, Site Emergency Coordinator, is totally lacking in any cualifications for a role in emergency planning or any training beyond a brief practicum on nuclear power generation at an elementary level.
Fairfield County Director of Emergency Preparedness admits that he knows nothing about nuclear power or the health effects of radiation.
Cententien 12 The Applicant and the surrounding connunities lack Radiological Erergency Response plans wnich would pernit quick and adeptate response to an accident involving the transoortation of radioactive wastes, es-pecially irradiated fuel assemblies. Without such plans, the health and safety of the gereral public cannot be reasonably assured.
The Ap-plicant shculd not be granted a license to operate the Sumner plant until such plans are developed.
E' SIS F0;. CO'iTENTICW 12__
The counties surrounding the Suncer station do not have plans for responding to erergencies involving radioactive caterials other than at fixed sites.
0:eration of the Sunmer plant would repuire transshiorent of low-level wastes and, perhaps at scre future date, irradiated fuel assemblies (F5AR 3.3-1 and 2).
The counties lack the ability to respond to an accident involving such materials.
No cperating license should be granted the A:plicant wnich could result in the movement of sur, naterials until the affected counties are prepared to deal with potential accidents.
y
.._....-.-4
_y
,y-,.,,y r
r.
m.~,-
y
.,..,__-.,4,,
w
~,.,.w Centention _13 The NEC anc the A:plicant have failed to comply with the require-ment of NUREG C69* (III.D.2.0) that 50 thermoluminescent desireta s be placed around the site in coordination with the State and the Applicant.
The Staff sn:uld be re:uired to decor. strate that those TL0s are ca;able 60 of accurately readin; Co By themselves, the TLDs are not adecuate to providing e:ergency operations personnel with the information re:uired to corretently make the decisions required to reasonably assure tne health and safety of the general public under accident conditions.
Real-time monitors caoable of reading ganma radiation levels should be recuired at the sites wnere TLDs are currently planned.
5' SIS FOR CONTENTION 13 According to the SER (NUREG 0717) at 22-99, the NRC will enly olace 40 TLDs.
Under accident conditions, TLDs do not provide information quickly enough to adequately assist aporceriate decision-makinc. Only real-tire monitors tied into the Aohlicant's DAMS system with monitors olaced at many locations and not just within 1,000 m. of the plant can provice those necessary inputs.
O Centention 27 The Applicant lacks the technical and management resources to fulfill the post-TMI requirenents set forth in NUREG' 0660,- NUREG 0694, and NUREG 0737.
BASIS FOR CONTENTION 27 The Applicant is a small utility, new to the nuclear field.
Its managenent lacks experience in nuclear operations and its operators do not have sufficient " hands on" experience to safely run a plant.
The new requirements of post-TMI regulation have raised the skill and resources level required for operation of a nuclear facility beyond the abilities of the Applicant.
i O
UNITED STATES OF A'-l ERICA NUCLEAR REG'JLATORY C0f011SSION BEF0RE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter 50' TH CAROLIriA ELECTRIC & GAS
)
Docket No. 395 J
COMPANY
)
)
Virgil C. Summer fluclear Station, Unit 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF NOTICE OF ADPEAL FROM PARTIAL BOARD ORDER FOLLOWIfG PREHEARING CONFERENCE and NRC STAFF BRIEF Ifl SUPPORT OF APPEAL FROM PARTIAL ORDER FOLLOWIfiG PREHEARING CONFERENCE in the above-captioned pro-ceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear-Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this lith day of May,1981.
Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Brett Allen Bursey Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Route 1 Box 93-C U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormiission tittle Mountain, South Carolina 23076 Washington, D.C.
20555 Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.
Dr. Frank F. Hooper Debevoise & Liberman School of Natural Resources 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
University of Michigan Washington, D.C.
20035 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Randolph R. Mahan, Esq.
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger S.C. Electric & Gas Company Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel P.O. Box 764 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Columbia, S.C.
29218 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board George Fischer, Esq.
Panel Vice President and General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission South Carolina Electric and Gas Washington, D.C.
20555
- Company P.O. Box 764 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- Assistant Attorney General S.C. Attorney General's Office Docketing and Service Section P.O. Box 11549 Office of the Secretary Columbia, South Carolina 29211 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington,-D.C. 20555
- Mr, John Ruoff P.O. Box 96 Jenkinsville, S.C.
29065 b AAd Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff
-