ML20024A031

Motion for Admission of New Contention Re Adequacy of Emergency Planning.Somervell County & Hood County Commitment,Expertise & Resources Inadequate to Adopt & Implement Emergency Plans.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20024A031
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/09/1983
From:	Mathews J TEXAS, STATE OF
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8306150307
Download: ML20024A031 (9)

Text

, _ _

E%'KETED June 9, 1-983' 0

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '83 Jw" 7s Ml0 lld NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION

.In the Matter of S Docket Nos. 50-445 and S 50-446 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING S COMPANY, et al. S (Application for S Operating Licenses)

(Comanche Peak Steam S Electric. Station, Units S 1 and 2) S MOTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE ADMISSION OF-A NEW CONTENTION REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF EMERGENCY PLANNING Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.714(b) and 10 CFR S2.730 the State of Texas hereby files'this motion for the admission of a new conten-

. tion in this proceeding regarding the adequacy of emergency

. planning within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning . zone of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant. Specifically, it is the contention of the State of Texas that Somervell County and Hood County do not have the commitment, expertise, and resources to adopt and implement emergency plans that meet all fifteen appli-cable planning standards of 10 CFR S50.47(b) .

I.

BACKGROUND 10 CFR 550.47(b) sets forth sixteen emergency response plan-ning standards that must be met before an operating license for a 8306150307 830609 PDR ADOCK 05000445 roa o

3 .

'O i

nuclear power reactor will be issued. Fif teen of these sixteen planning standards apply to local emergency response plans within the plumefexposure pathway _ emergency planning zone. The criteria for evaluating whether these planning standards are satisfied are set..forth'in NUREG-0654. Somervell County and Hood County com-

-prise = the ' plume exposure pathway. emergency planning _ zone.

On Friday, May 20, 1983, Larry J. Skiles , Alton B. Armstrong, Jr., . Clarence 'L. Born,JArthur Tate,, Richard Jones, and Bobby Lancaster were called as witnesses on behalf of the Applicant and testified on the. subject of onsite and of fsite emergency planning within the plume exposure pathway emergency. planning zone. Their combined testimony raises serious questions concerning the adequacy of emergency planning now and in the future. This is-shown in the transcript at page 7237:

JUDGE BLOCH: I think I could shorten things a, bit.

What you are saying is that the [Somer-vell County] plan in its current form doesn't address all the' issues in the [NUREG-0654] eval-

' uation criteria; _ is ; that correct?-

WITNESS SKILES: That is correct, sir.-

JUDGE BLOCH: But that it represents a commitment that at some time in the future the State

.will accomplish these ' objectives?

WITNESS SKILES: No, sir. It respresents a commitment that when exercises are held in the future that the two local counties will cooperate with those exercises to the best of their abilities.

It represents a commitment to do what is required of the county by the ' state and federal guidelines.

1 i

(

- a. .

JUDGE BLOCH: Would you agree with me that to accomplish some of these. ev aluation . cri-teria that some additional planning may be necessary?

WITNESS SKILES: No, sir, I would not.

Mr.-Skiles' testimony that-the Somervell County emergency plan does' not and will not . satisfy the criteria of NUREG-0654- is supported by the testimony of Mr. Born at page 7264 of1the transcript: _ .

JUDGE BLOCH: Back on.the record. I've been told that Mr. Born has a statement to make.

WITNESS BORN: For the record, the evalua-tion criteria contained in the text of 0654 are gui-dance documents. We used those where applicable in our judgment, and where they would not do violence to the plans and the concept of operations at the

-state and county level.-

. We did accept and abide by the planning standards, which are regulation, the 16-planning standards, yes, we have accepted those.

We have made every effort to meet them. But specific-evaluation criteria, it may or may not be addressed in our plans. If they are not , our cross-

' reference shows that they are not, and shows why.

JUDGE BLOCH: Is the reason that they might not that sometimes they conflict with .the state

, -requirement?

WITNESS BORN: That-is correct. Also, some of them simply do not apply even though the planning-beside them in 0654 does show state, local and licensee.

JUDGE BLOCH: Are those the only two excep-tions,~either that.they don't apply, or-they are inconsistent with state law?

WITNESS BORN: I'll take that back. Some of them don't apply because they address using federal assistance. We were unable in the year and a half of developing-this plan to get from the federal government f

a- .

.a.defini' tion of that assistance. Therefore, we could not incorporate it. We instead made provisions for

~

getting state. assistance from other states.

JUDGE JORDAN: Will all these deficiencies show up :in the FEMA interim. findings?

v' WITNESS BORN: .They are not deficiencies.

To date, there has been no testimony in this proceeding from Somervell and Hood County of ficials concerning their commitment, expertise, and resources to adopt'and implement adequate emergency

. response plans within their jurisdictions. The FEMA interim findings indicate a: fundamental failure of the county plans to meet NUREG-0654 criteria. The foregoing testimony of Mr. Skiles and Mr. Born indicates a belief on their part that add itional planning is not necessary.

II.

MOTION For the foregoing reasons, the State of~ Texas respectfully requests that.the Licensing Board admit the following contention in this proceeding:-

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's preliminary evalua-tion ~of the Somervell and Hood County emergency plans . identified deficiencies in twelve of the fifteen applicable planning stan-dards of NUREG-0654. The number of deficiencies for each planning

. stand ard , J based upon NUREG-0654 criteria , is as follows:

Somervell Hood County County PLANNING STANDARD -

1. Assignment of Responsibility 2 2 i

2. -Onsite Emergency Organization (Not applicable)

3. _ Emergency Response 1 1

4. Emergency Classification System

5. Notification Methods & Procedures

'6. Emergency Communications

.7. Public Education & In format ion 3 3

8. Emergency Facility & Equipment 4 4

9. Accident Assessment 2 2 1

j 10. = Protective Response 2 2

11. Radiolog.ical Exp'osure Control 5 5 i 12. - Med ical & Public Health Support 1 2

'13. Recovery & Reentry Planning 1 1

14. Exercises & Drills 1 1 l 15. Radiological Emergency Response Training 1 1

16. Responsibility for the Planning Ef fort 3 3 SomervellL County and Hood County do not have the commitment, expertise, or resources to adopt and implement emergency plans l~

l that meet all fif teen applicable planning standards of 10 CFR i

S 50. 4 7 ( b) .

[ In support of this late-filed contention, the State of Texas would lshow the Board the following reasons-for the admission of

-this contention at this time.

I L

! l- i

.1 . Good Cause Emergency planning is an " iterative process." However, the testimony of Mr. Skiles and Mr. Born, quoted above, indicates a rejection of the FEMA interim findings and a belief that no additional planning is necessary. This testimony only came to light during the most recent round of hearings. If the numerous deficiencies are not rectified, Comanche Peak cannot be licensed.

10 CFR 550.47.

2. Other Means to Protect Petitioner's Interest Your petitioner desires emergency planning within the plume exposure pathway that meets all of the planning standards at 10 CFR 550.4 7(b) . The only practical means of ensuring that this goal is accom'plished is in the licensing process.

3. Role of Petitioner in Developing a Sound Record The State of Texas is very interested in this issue and took an active role in this regard during the last hearing. The State intends, if this contention is adm5tted, to continue to partici-pate in the litigation of this issue. Ultimately, the State seeks a full and complete record on the adequacy of local emergency plans.

4. Representation by Existing Parties The State of Tex as is already a party to this proceeding.

m

~

a .

5. Broadening of Issues and Delay Petitioner does not seek to open the entire spectrum of emer-gency planning _ to litigation 'in this proceeding. The adequacy of the State of Texas emergency planning is not called into question.

The contention is ' limited to the adequacy of the Somervell and Hood County emergency plans.-

Furthermore, the State does not seek to delay the licensing of this plant if all of the planning deficiencies are corrected in a tinely fashion.

Respectfuly submitted, JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas DAVID R.~ RICHARDS Executive Assistant Attorney General a ss __

JIM MA WS '

Assis a t Attorney General-

.Chie Environmental Protection 4

Division

~

4 DAVID J. PREISTER Assistant Attorney General

, Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 475-4143 l

,s.

dbl.UfD r

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.d,3 ,:3 ;3 gg,.,5 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S Docket Nos. 50-445 and S 50-446 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING S COMPANY, et al. S (Application for S Operating Licenses)

(Comanche Peak Steam- S Electric Station, Units S 1 and 2) S June 9, 1983 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing State of Texas for the Admission of a New Contention Regarding the Adequacy of Emergency Planning in the above-captioned matter, were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail first-class postage prepaid, or by Federal Express where indicated, this 9th day of June, 1983:

Peter V. Bloch Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Maryland National Bank Bldg.

Licensing Board 7735 Old Georgetown Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Room 10105 Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20014 4350 East / West Highway (Federal Express)

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

( Federal Express) Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 881 W. Outer Drive Dean, Division of Engineering Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Architecture and Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074

Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. John Collins Appeal Panel Regional Administrator ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Region IV Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Nicholas S. Re ynold s , Esq. Suite 1000 Debevoise & Liberman Arlington, Texas 76011 1200 - 17th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Scott Stucky

( Federal Express) Docketing & Serv ice Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mrs. Juanita Ellis Commission President, CASE Washington, D.C. 20555 1426 Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 Mr. R. J. Gary Executive Vice President and General Manager Lanny Alan Sinkin Texas Utilities Generating Co.

838 East Magnolia Avenue 2001 Bryan Tower San Antonio, Texas 78212 Dallas, Texas 75201 k

JIM MA 4 EWS