ML20024C783
| ML20024C783 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1983 |
| From: | Patterson W, Perlis R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8307130283 | |
| Download: ML20024C783 (24) | |
Text
,
l.
July 12, 1983 UNITED STATES OF A'1 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 9L NEW HAfiPSHIRE, et _al.
)
50-444 OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS ON THE NEW IIAf1PSHIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FILED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF !!ASSACHUSETTS, SEAC0AST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE, AND NEW ENGLAND C0ALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION I.
INTRODUCTION Timely contentions addressing the adequacy of the State of New Hampshire's Radiological Emergency Response Plan ("NHRERP") were filed by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (" Massachusetts")
on June 23, 1983; by the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League ("SAPL") on June 22, 1983; and New England Coalitinn on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP") on June 27, 1983. TheStaffhereinrespondstothosecontentions.1/
--1/
Because Massachusetts submitted its contentions by express mail, the Staff response to that party's contentions was originally due on July 11, 1983. The Staff requested and was granted a one-day extension of time for its response to Massachusetts.
l DESIGN 7zy ogyg7pA, 8307130203 830712 t
m
/(f o
II. ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS IN GENERAL In order for proposed contentions to be found admissible, they must fall within the scope of the issues set forth in the Notice of Hearing initiating the proceeding, and comply with requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) and applicable Commission case law. See, eg., Duke Power Company (Catawba Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC (June 30, 1983); Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island, Unit Nos. I and 2),
ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 194 (1973), aff'd, BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1974); Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley, Unit No.1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973).
10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) l requires that a list of contentions which intervenors seek to have litigated be filed along with the bases for those contentions set forth with reasonable specificity.2/ The purposes of the bases requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 are (1) to assure that the contention in question does 2f A contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's views of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or I
(d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2and3),ALAB-216,8AEC13,20-21(1974).
l.
not suffer from any of the deficiencies enumerated in the Peach Bottom decision, supra, n.2, (2) to establish sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry of the subject matter in the pro-ceeding, and (3) to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Peach Bottom, supra, 8 AEC at 20. From the standpoint of basis, it is unnecessary for the petition "to detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention." Mississippi Power & Light C_o. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).
Furthermore, in examining the contentions and the bases therefor, a licensing board should not reach the merits of the contentions.
Duke power Co. (Amendment To Materials License SNM-1773 - Transportation of Spent Fuel From Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-528, 9 NRC 146, 151 (1979);. Peach Bottom, supra, 8 AEC at 20; Grand Gulf, supra, 6 AEC at 426.
Thus, at the petition stage, although petitioners need not establish the validity of their contentions and the bases therefor, it is incumbent upon petitioners to set forth contentions and the bases therefor which are sufficiently detailed and specific to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible and that further inquiry is warranted, and to put the other parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against or oppose.
A noteworthy Appeal Board decision governing the admissibility of contentions is Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542 (1980).
In Allens Creek, the Appeal Board overturned the Licensing Board's
rejection, in an unpublished Order,3_/ of a contention alleging that a marine biomass farm would be environmentally preferable to the proposed Allens Creek facility. According to the Appeal Board, the Licensing Board erred in holding that as a requisite to putting into litigation the marine biomass alternative (and the Staff's failure to have considered it), the petitioner was required not merely to allege that the alternative would be environmentally preferable but also to explain why that would be so.
11 NRC at 547. The Appeal Board held that the Licensing Board's holding could not be snuared with its 1973 decision in Grand Gulf, ALAB-130, supra, and therefore, the teach'ngs of Grand Gulf mandated reversal of the Licensing Board's determination. More specifically, the Appeal Board stated that all that was required at the petition stage was that petitioner:
... state his reasons (i.e., the basis) for his contention 1
that the hiomass alternative should receive additional cons idera tion. That responsibility was sufficiently dis-charged by his references to Project Independence and his assertion respecting the environmental superiority of a marine biomass farm.
11 NRC at 548-549.
It is noteworthy that the Appeal Board's determination that the petitioner must be admitted to the proceeding on the strength of his contention "does not carry with it any imp,lication that [the Board]
view [s] the contention to be meritorious...." 11 NRC at 549.
Moreover, the Appeal Board emphasized that whether the petitioner will be able to prove the assertions underlying the contention is quite beside the point at this preliminary stage of the proceeding.
11 NRC
-3/
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), Unpublished Order of March 10, 1980.
1
at 549. According to the Appeal Board, it did not follow that this contention would have to be taken up at an evidentiary hearing on the Allens Creek application, since:
...- the Section 2.749 summary disposition procedures provide, in reality as well as in theory, an efficacious means of avoiding unnecessary and possibly time-consuming hearings on demonstrably insubstantial issues....
11 NRC at 550.
ALAB-590 did not purport to alter the existing precedent governing the admissibility of contentions. Rather, it merely emphasized that in ruling on the admissibility of contentions, a licensing board is not to venture beyond the contention and its stated basis into the merits of the contention. All that a licensing board need determine is whether there is a basis for the contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Any question concerning the validity of the contention or of its basis must be left for consideration when the merits of the controversy are reached, i.e., through summary disposition or in the evidentiary hearing.
III.
GENERAL COMMENT
S Before addressing the specific contentions of each intervenor, a few general comments are in order.
In many instances,fiassachusetts, SAPL, and NECNP have cited NUREG-0654 as if that document constituted a regulatory requirement. While NUREG-0654 provides guidance on how to j
meet the standards of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47, it is compliance with that latter regulation and not NUREG-0654 that is required. NUREG-0654 is accorded the status of a regulatory guide, not a regulation.
Metropolitan Edison Company, et al. (Three Mile Island Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-698, 16 NRC (October 22, 1982) (slip op. at 14-15).
While the Staff has no objection to the admission of most of the contentions propounded by the three parties, it does suggest that many of those contentions should be refined before actual litigation begins.
In particular, many of the contentions actually contain a number of different challenges to the NHRERP, and should be subdivided accordingly.
After such subdivision takes place, it may be that many of the contentions propounded by different parties can be consolidated.
IV. NASSACHUSETTS CONTENTIONS MASSACHUSETTS CONTENTION I The NRC staff does not object to the admission of this contention, which raises the question of whether NHRERP adequately assesses the State's emergency response needs and resources available to meet those needs in specified areas. To facilitate the litigation of this contention, however, the Staff suggests that it be treated as containing ten separate subcontentions, I.A-I.K, each of which would correspond to the areas of concern set forth in the statement of the contention. The reorganized contention would appear as follows:
Massachusetts Contention I The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan does not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. % 50.47(b)(1),
(8), (9), or (12) because there has been no assessment of the State's emergency response needs and resources or satisfaction of its resources requirements in the following areas:
A.
Overall emergency transportation; B.
Transportation for special facilities, schools, and people with special needs or without private transportation; C.
Emergency medical transportation; D.
Medical treatment for contaminated injured individuals; E.
Radiological monitorina and assessment equipment;
)
F.
Dosimeters and respiratory equipment for emergency workers; G.
Manpower for traffic management and access control; H.
Manpower for emergency transportation; I.
Manpower for security operations; J.
Manpower for emergency maintenance of evacuation routes and response to abandoned vehicles, traffic accidents, and other obstructions to evacuating traffic flow; and K.
Manpower for staffing of emergency response facilities.
In the absence of an assessment and satisfaction of the State's requirements in these areas, there can be no
" reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken" to protect persons present in the State of New Hampshire in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, as required by 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(a)(1).
MASSACHUSETTS CONTENTION II The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention, which asserts that the NHRERP does not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(b)(4) because it contains no emergency action level scheme.
MASSACHUSETTS CONTENTION III The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention, which challenges the adequacy of emergency notification and communications provisions in the Plan. The Staff notes, however, that the contention challenges compliance with two separate regulatory requirements, and should therefore be treated as two separate subcontentions, as follows:
Massachusetts Contention III A.
The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan does not establish procedures for notification of emergency personnel by the response organizations in the state, as required by 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(5).
B.
The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan does not demonstrate that provisions exist for prompt comunications among principal response organizations to l
emergency personnel and to the public, as required by l
10 C.F.R. 6 50.49(b)(6).
l
MASSACHUSETTS CONTENTION IV Massachusetts Contention TV challenges the sufficiency of the Plan's provisions for protective actions for emergency workers and the public under the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(10). The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention, but urges the Board to treat it as containing seven separate subcontentions to facilitate litigation of the separate issues raised therein. The reorganized contention would read as follows:
Massachusetts Contention IV Protective actions for emergency workers have not been sufficiently developed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(10).
Specifically:
A.
No evacuation routes, traffic access or control points, or reception centers have been established; B.
Evacuation time estimates contained in the plan are inaccurate and fail to provide information needed by protective action decision makers; 4_/
C.
No plans have been made for the evacuation of special institutions (including schools) or people with special needs or dependent on public transportation; D.
No plans have been made for decontamination of all persons and vehicles exposed to radiation; E.
No plans have been made for sheltering the summer beach population or those seasonal residents whose homes provide inadequate shielding froin radionuclides; F.
The plan provides insufficient basis for protective action decisionmaking; and l
G.
The plan lacks adequate provisions for controlling the radiological exposure of emergency response personnel.
l
-4/
While the Staff does not object to the ad.nission of Contention IV.B, l
this subcontention should be treated the same as SAPL Contention 4, discussed on p. 13, infra.
I i
l w
w
_9 NASSACHUSETTS CONTENTION V Massachusetts Contention V asserts that in the absence of calculationsastothemeannumbersofspecifiedhealtheffectsEl associated with PWR-1 to PWR-9 accidental releases or SST-1 to SST-3 accidents at the Seabrook Station, the Comission cannot assess the effectiveness of evacuation or sheltering in minimizing radiological exposures, and therefore cannot find that there is reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency, or that State and local emergency plans are adequate and can be implemented, as required by 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(a)(1), (a)(2).
The Staff opposes the admission of Massachusetts Contention V because there is no regulatory basis for its assertion that such calculations are required.
AsisexplainedinNUREG-0654,5/ the "overall objective of emergency response plans is to provide dose savings (and in some cases, immediate
-5/
The health effects specified by the Attorney General are early fatalities and injuries, delayed fatalities and injuries, and genetic and developmental defects. See " Contentions of Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti Relative to Emergency Planning for the State of New Hampshire," at page 23. The Attorney General further asscrts that such calculations must be " based on realistic evacuation time estimates and shleiding factors, reflecting the peak transient population within the EPZ, and accounting for population growth over the lifetime of the plant."
Id., at pages 23-24.
l 6/
NUREG-0654; FEMA-REP-1, entitled " Criteria for Preparation and l
Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness l
in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," November 1980.
life saving) for a spectrun of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of Protective Action Guides (PAGs)."
Introduction to NUREG-0654, at page 6.
The adequacy of protective measures is therefore judged by their effectiveness in providing dose savings. The Commission has es-tablished standards by which the effectiveness of emergency response plans is measured, in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(1) through (b)(16). There is no mention in those standards, nor in the criteria of NUREG-0654 referenced therein,ofthecalculationsspecifiedinMassachusettsContentionV.II Nor is there any reason why such data ought to be considered in assessing either the adequacy of protective measures or in determining that there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented. The information that is essential to the assessment of an emergency plan's effectiveness is that information that addresses the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(1) through (b)(16). Regardless of what numbers might result from the calculations called for by the Attorney General, measures must be developed pursuant to those standards in order to minimize harmful exposure of the population to radionuclides. The calculations called for in Massachusetts Contention V are irrelevant to an assessment of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, and are not required
-7/
It should be noted, however, that the consequences of a full range of possible accidents, including a core celt, were included in the planning basis for NUREG-0654 See NUREG-0654, at pp. 6-7.
- Thus, protective measures developed in accordance.with the criteria of NUREG-0654 are grounded on a consideration of these consequences and dre responsive thereto.
l l
bytheCommission'sregulations.8/ The Staff therefore opposes the j
admission of Massachusetts Contention V.
V.
SAPL CONTENTIONS CONTENTION 1 In this contention, SAPL broadly challenges the NHRERP by asserting a general lack of completeness of the document.
In the basis provided for the contention, SAPL cites nine "of the many incompletions" in the NHRERP. The specific deficiencies identified by SAPL include:
1.
Town E0C's have not been set up.
2.
State police have not received high-band portable radios.
3.
Line of succession has not been established.
4.
Radios for field units, especially DPH field monitoring teams, are not yet available.
5.
The four-channel emergency medical communication system has not yet been installed.
6.
A dispatch center for emergency medical mobile units has not yet been installed.
7.
Reception facilities have not yet been designated.
8.
Monitoring locations for the Seabrook EPZ have not yet been determined.
9.
Decontamination centers have not yet been determined.
The Staff would not object to the admission of the above-listed defi-ciencies as discrete contentions, but contends that SAPL's contention
-8/
In fact, these calculations would be necessary in assessina a plan's adequacy only if its adequacy were measured, not by the planning standards set forth in the regulations, but rather by a numerical threshold of deaths or injuries deemed unacceptable. There is, however, no such threshold established by the Commission's regulations for use in assessing the adequacy of emergency plans.
Insofar as the Attorney General is arguing in Massachusetts Contention V for the establishment of such a threshold, the contention constitutes an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations, and must be rejected on that ground.
See Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-ffE, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974),
t
q should be limited to the incompletions cited. A general statement of lack of completeness does not constitute a contention, and the Staff objects to SAPL's originally worded contention on grounds of vagueness and lack of specificity.
CONTENTION 2 In this contention, SAPL raises the issue of the governor's authority under New Hampshire State law to order a protective response.
This contention involves only a question of law; there is no factual issue put before the Board. The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention, but believes that it can be completely resolved through the filing of legal briefs.
It may be helpful, in this regard, to inquire of the New Hampshire Attorney General that party's views on the governor's authority.
CONTENTION 3 In this contention, SAPL asserts "there is no designation of the role of each organization and sub-organization in the NHRERP."
In the basis, SAPL explains the contention as follows:
"The plan fails to define the role of the municipal corporations in the plan and fails to acknowledge the lack of town plans." The contention as worded is overbroad; the role of many organizations and suborganizations is in fact designated in the NHRERP. See NHRERP QS 1.2 and 1.3.
The Staff would not object to an otherwise properly worded contention specifically asserting the NHRERP's failure to define the role of municipal corporations in the plan. The Staff also would not object at this point to an otherwise properly worded l
contention asserting the nonexistence of local plans.
But see Staff Response to NECNP Contention 2, p. 16, infra. The Staff does, however, object to the contention as presently worded.
CONTENTION 4 SAPL here asserts that the time estimates in the NHRERP (which are identical to Applicants' estimates) are unreliable and underestimated. This identical issue has been raised by NECNP in its Contentions III.12 and III.13 which are being addressed at Phase I of this hearing. SAPL received the NHRERP in May, a point at which it would have been possible to consolidate SAPL's interest in this issue with NECNP Contentions III.12 and III.13.
Instead, for reasons of its own choosing, SAPL chose to defer showing its interest in the evacuation time estimates until it filed its contentions on the NHRERP. The contention raises a litigable issue, and the Staff does not object to its admission. The Staff is, however, of the view that the Board should not and need not relitigate this issue and that sumary disposition of this contention would be l
appropriate unless SAPL can affirmatively demonstrate why the litigation in Phase I should not be dispositive of SAPL's contention in Phase II.
l l
CONTENTION 5 In this contention, SAPL asserts that the NHRERP fails to show that 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day capability exists to determine doses received by emergency personnel.
In the " Basis" provided by SAPL for the contention, SAPL identifies two separate concerns:
the adequacy and sufficiency of monitoring equipment; and the staffing capacity of the Division of Public
I Health to monitor and evaluate emergency personnel exposure. The Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention, but suggests usat it be divided into its two separate parts.
CONTENTION 6 Contention 6 raises two discrete issues: the adequacy of decon-tamination measures for emergency personnel and their equipment; and the means of disposing of contaminated waste or materials associated with emergency personnel. The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention, but suggests that it be subdivided into its two separate parts.
CONTENTION 7 This contention challenges the provision for emergency response exercises on the ground that the NHRERP does not call for any unannounced exercises. The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention.
CONTENTION 8 Contention 8 asserts inadequate measures to protect the public from contamination thrcugh the ingestion exposure pathway. The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention.
CONTENTION 9 Contention 9 raises a number of challenges to the provisions for registering and monitoring evacuees at relocation centers. The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention.
J
VI. NECNP CONTENTIONS CONTENTION 1 NECNP Contention 1 asserts that the NHRERP violates 10 C.F.R.
Q 50.47(a)(1) and NUREG-0654 in that it does not include detailed implementing procedures. A simihr contention addressing implementing procedures in an applicant's on-site emergency plan was recently discussedbytheAppealBoardinWaterford.El The Appeal Board in i
Waterford noted the essentially predictive nature of emergency planning decisions (slip op. at 44-48), and determined that the on-site implementing procedures are not needed for the Commission to make the requisite finding under 10 C.F.R. Q 50.47(a)(1) that "there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency."
In sum, the Appeal Board found that
" implementing procedures supplement the plans with all the details that
^
will be necessary in the event of an actual emergency" (slipop,at52),
and held:
[T]he Comission never intended the implementing procedures to be required for the " reasonable assurance" finding and thus to be prepared and subject to scrutiny during the hearing. Although there is litte " administrative history" on implementing procedures, we believe the Comission did not want licensing hearings to become bogijed down with litigation about such details.
Instead, the focus should be on whether an applicant's emergency plan itself satisfies the 16 more broadly drafted standards of 10 CFR 5 50.47(b). Thus, because Joint Intervenors' complaint about the nonfinality of the implementing procedures amounts to a challenge to the Commission's regulations, we must reject it.
See 10 CFR i 2.758, supra, note 44.
1
~-9/
Louisiana Power & Light Company (Waterford Station, Unit 3),
ALAB-7s2, 17 NRC (June 29,1983).
Id. at 53-54, footnotes omitted. The Staff submits that there is no reason to treat off-site implementing procedures in a different manner from on-site procedures and that the adequacy of the NHRERP can be determined without resort to the implementing procedures. NECNP's Contention 1 is therefore without regulatory basis and must be rejected.
CONTENTION 2 In this contention, NECNP asserts a deficiency in the NHRERP for its reliance on as yet nonexistent local emergency plans. The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention at this time, but it notes that the contention will become moot when all local plans are developed.
CONTENTION 3 NECNP Contention 3 addresses the NHREPP's treatment of arrangements for federal assistance. The Staff does not cbject to the admission of this contention.
CONTENTION 4 Contention 4 addresses the communications requirements of 10 C.F.R.
Q50.47(b)(6).
In the " Basis" provided for the contention, NECNP lists three specific defects:
reliance on commercial telephones for back-up communications; radios for communication with field personnel; and communication with medical emergency services. The Staff has no objection to the admission ~of this contention, but suggests that it be
divided into three discrete subcontentions corresponding to the three specific defects identified in the basis.
CONTENTION 5 This contention addresses the establishment of relocation centers.
The Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention.
CONTENTION 6 This contention addresses the provision of information to the adult transient population. Again, NECNP identifies five specific defects in its " Basis." Ths Staff has no objection to the admission of the contention, but suggests that it also be divided into five discrete subcontentions corresponding to the specific deficiencies identified in the basis.
CONTENTION 7 This contention addresses early notification and instructions to the public within the EPZ. The " Basis" here identifies four specific deficiencies. The Staff does not object to the admission of the contention, but again suggests that it be subdivided into its four component parts.
CONTENTION 8 This contention asserts staffing inadequacies in response organizations. Five specific areas are covered in the " Basis." The
Staff does not object to the admission of this contention, but suggests that it be subdivided into five subcontentions.
CONTENTION 9 This contention attacks the iocation of the media center. The Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention.
CONTENTION 10 This contention addresses the NHRERP's treatment of sheltering as a protective action. The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention.
CONTENTION 11 This contention raises the issue of evacuation time estimates, an issue already raised by NECNP in this proceeding.
Indeed, NECNP attempts to incorporate by reference its Contentions III.12 and III.13 into Contention 11. Contentions 111.12 and III.13 were discussed and modified in the Board's June 30, 1983 Memorandum and Order ruling on summary disposition motions.
In addition to reasserting its earlier contentions, NECNP offers three additional bases for its contention.
The Staff believes it would be pointless for the Board to consider NECNP's earlier contentions (as modified in the June 30 Order) as part of NECNP Contention 11, since the adequacy of Applicants' time estimates (which are incorporated into the NHRERP) will already have been litigated l
. i by NECNP. The Staff strongly objects to relitigating the adequacy of Applicants' time estimates in the absence of specific tie-ins with the offsite plans.
As mentioned, NECNP offers three additional bases for the proposition that the estimates are inadequate:
a.
The State RERP contains no analysis of whether there are enough buses and bus drivers to evacuate school children in one shift, or whether the buses must return several times to pick up children from schools, b.
The State RERP contains no discussion of traffic patterns in the Seabrook EPZ, including capacity for traffic
.ontrol; congested intersection; vehicle mix; or roadway capacity.
c.
The RERP states that it relies on the assumption that people will evacuate in private vehicles.
RERP at 2.6-9.
The plan includes no discussion of evacuation of people in hospitals and rest homes, people without automobiles; or people who have been dropped off at the beach by buses that have then left the area.
NECNP Contentions at 19. The Staff contends any new contention by NECNP in the area of evacuation time estimates must be controlled by the liti-gation of NECNP Contention III.12 and III.13. The Staff views two of the areas cited in NECNP's basis as raising issues partially distinct from NECNP's earlier contentions, but only to the extent that they raise issues addressing the channeling of school children and people without automobiles into the road network. Once the people identified in Basis (a) and (c) i are on the roads, the results reached in the litigation of NECNP III.12 and III.13 will attach. Basis (b)quotedaboveissubsumedwithinNECNP's Contentions III.1:' and III.13; the Staff objects to relitigating this issue under the guise of the NHRERP. The Staff does not object to the admission of a contention challenging the accuracy of the time estimates
[
for evacuation of school children, provided it is clear that this L
i
contention does not entail relitigating the overall time estimates, but only addresses the additional time (if any) needed to evacuate school children. Similarly, the Staff does not object to a contention raising the issue of the additional time needed to evacuate people in hospitals or rest homes, people without automobiles, and people who have been dropped off at the beach by buses that have left the area. The Staff suggests that these two issues (school children and people without cars) be treated as separate contention *. The Staff objects to the remainder of NECNP Contention 11 as duplicative of Contentions III.12 and 111.13.
CONTENTION 12 NECNP Contention 12 addresses offsite radiation monitoring. The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention.
CONTENTION 13 NECNP Contention 13 addresses the arrangements for medical treatment of contaminated injured individuals. The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention.
It notes, however, that pursuant to the Commission'sdecisioninSanOnofre,$E/ the arrangements required for onsite personnel and emergency workers are" considered sufficient for treatment of members of the general public. Any allegation that additional arrangements are required for the general public would be barred under San Onofre. See Slip Op. at 2.
~~~10/Southern California Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-83-10, 17 NRC (April 4, 1983).
VII. CONCLUSION For the reasons given above, the Staff objects to the admission of Contentions Massachusetts V, SAPL 1 and 3, and NECNP 1; objects to portions of Contention NECNP 11; and does not object to the remainder of the contentions discussed herein.
Respectfully submitted, Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff g
William F. Patterson, Jr.
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of July, 1983
~
L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS ON THE NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FILED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS, SEAC0AST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE, AND NEW ENGLAND C0ALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mil, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, or as indicated by two asterisks, by express mail or hand delivery, this 12th day of July,1983:
Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. Emeth A. Luebke*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Jo Ann Shotwell, Asst. Attorney **
Administrative Judge Office of the Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Environmental Protection Division Panel One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Boston, MA 02108 Washington, D.C.
20555 Nicholas J. Costello Beverly Hollingworth 1st Essex District 7 A Street Whitehall Road Hampton Beach, NH 03842 Amesbury, MA 01913 Edward L. Cross, Jr., Esq.
Sandra Gavutis George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Town of Kensington, New Hampshire Environmental Protection Division RFD 1 Office of the Attorney General East Kingston, NH 03827 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301
... u....
Calvin A. Canney, City Manager City Hall Edward F. Meany 126 Daniel Street Town of Rye, New Hampshire Portsmouth, NH 03801 155 Washington Road Rye, NH 03870 Roberta C. Pevear Town of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire Mr. Robert J. Harrison Drinkwater Road President and Chief Executive Officer Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire P.O. Box 330 Manchester, NH 03105 William S. Jordan, III, Esq.**
Robert A. Backus, Esq.**
Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
116 Lowell Street Harmon & Weiss P.O. Box 516 1725 I Street, N.W.
Manchester, NH 03105 Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Brian P. Cassidy Regional Counsel Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
FEMA, Region I Assistant Attorney General John W. McCormack Post Office &
State House Station #6 Courthouse Augusta, ME 04333 Boston, MA 02109 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Donald L. Herzberger, MD U.S. Senate Hitchcock Hospital Washington, D.C.
20510 Hanover, NH 03755 (Attn: Tom Burack)
Sen. Robert L. Preston Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
State of New Hampshire Senate Ropes & Gray Concord, NH 03301 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Panel
- Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 John B. Tanzer Town of Hampton, New Hampshire l
Jane Doughty 5 Morningside Drive Field Director Hampton, NH 03842 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street Letty Hett Portsmouth, NH 03801 Town of Brentwood RFD Dalton Road Brentwood, NH 03833 i
Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Patrick J. McKeon Washington, D.C.
20555 Chairman of Selectmen, Rye, New Hampshire David R. Lewis, Esq.
10 Central Road Law Clerk to the Board Rye, NH 03870 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Anne Verge, Chairperson Washington, D.C.
20555 Board of Selectmen Town Hall Dr. Mauray Tye South Hampton, hH 03842 209 Summer Street Haverhill, MA 01830 Mr. Maynard B. Pearson Town of Amesbury, Mass.
Town of North Hampton 40 Monroe Street North Hampton, New Hampshire 03862 Amesbury, MA 01913 R. K. Gad III, Esq.
Senator Gordan J. Humphrey Ropes & Gray 1 Pillsbury St.
225 Franklin Street Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02110 (Attn: HerbBoynton)
' Robert G. Perlis
~_-
Counsel for NRC Staff I