ML20028G386
| ML20028G386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1983 |
| From: | Gleason J, Raris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 81-466-03-SP, 81-466-3-SP, ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8302090234 | |
| Download: ML20028G386 (27) | |
Text
'
W!
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 83 FEB -3 P227 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD' Before Administrative Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris SERVED FEB 81983 Frederick J. Shan
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDIS0N COMPANY
)
Docke't Nos. 50-247-SP OF NEW YORK
)
50-286-SP
)
(Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
)
0F NEW YORK
)
)
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
February 7, 1983
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Fomulating Final Contentions on Commissions Questions 3 and 4)
Pursuant to the Board's request in our Order of January 7, 1983, responses to the reformulation of contentions under Commission Questions 3 and 4 have been received from the Power Authority of the State of New York (Power Authority), Consolidated Edison Company of l
(
New York (Consolidated Edison or Con Edison), the Staff, and the following Intervenors: Union of Concerned Scientists /New York Public Interest Research Group (UCS/NYPIRG), Parents Concerned About Indian Point (Parents), West Branch Conservation Association (WBCA), and Westchester Peoples Action Coalition (WESPAC). We here consider and render judgment on those responses in sequence of the numbered contentions.
First, some comments are necessary in connection with statements included in the responses of the Licensees, the Power 8302090234 830207 PDR ADOCK 05000247 O
PDR 1502;
. Authority and Consolidated Edison.
No purpose would be served by discussing their reiteration of the Comission's guidance to the Board of July 27, 1982 since the Board, itself, set forth those criteria in its January 7, 1983 order and we will continue to follow our understanding of those directives in the formulation of these contentions. We have, of course, evaluated Licensees' arguments that the Board only failed to apply,the Comission's guidance correctly on the contentions we have recommended retaining; on those~we deleted the Licensees' deemed our judgment discerning.
Both the Power Authority and Consolidated Edison discuss the effect that the FEMA "120 day clock" process should have in eliminating emergency planning issues in the proceeding.
They cite our prior statements that the relevancy of some of the contentions might change -
where the emergency planning deficiencies alleged in the contentions were involved in the remedial efforts. We believe the parties misconstrue both the Comission's intent and ours in delaying the reformulation of contentions until receipt of FEMA's report of progress on the deficiencies, which has since been given to the Commission and served on the parties.
It was our objective, and we believe the i
Comission's, s o delay hearing testimony on contentions under Questions 3 and 4 until after the FEMA report in order to make such testimony more relevant, and therefore more meaningful, than it would be if based on emergency planning deficiencies which no longer existed.
It was not our intent, nor could it be if we are carry out the Comission's charge, to substitute the Board's opinion of th. " current status and degree of conformance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines" of State and local
3-emergency planning for a judgment based on probative evidence of record resulting from the adjudicative consideration of these issues. We did require sponsors of emergency planning contentions to report their continued support or withdrawal of their contentions after reviewing the FEMA report. Whether their testimony and evidence is revised in the light of the emergency planning improvements embodied in that report remains to be evaluated at a subsequent point in these proceedings.
Here, we judge solely the admissibility of their contentions.
Contention 3.1 Emergency planning for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is inadequate in that the present plans do not meet any of the sixteen mandatory standards of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b), nor do they meet the standards of Aopendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
j i
Both the Power Authority and Consolidated Edison object to the admission of this contention as being too broad or vague in meeting specificity requirements.
Consolidated Edison asks that we reformulate the contention in light of the FEMA report, a subject discussed above.
Both Licensees object to a number of the bases cited on the grounds that they allege as deficiencies in planning standards matters not required by regulatory guidelines, a conclusion we concur with in connection with certain bases submitted by WESPAC and the Rockland Citizens for Safe Pro sjt ntervenors, such as WESPAC and RCSE, are not Energy (RCSE).
i held in NRC proceedings to a high degree of technical compliance with legal requirements and, accordingly, as long as parties are sufficiently put on notice as to what has to be defended against or opposed, specificity requirements will generally be considered satisfied.
However, this is not to suggest that a sound basis for each contention
. is not required to assure that the proposed issues are proper for adjudication in this proceeding. An acceptable basis in connection with Question 3 must allege some failure in meeting planning standards required by the regulations.
The following bases do not meet that test for this contention: WESPAC 1 g) h); 2 a) b); 3 a) b) c) d), and RCSE 2.
Accordingly, these bases will be eliminated from the contention.
The Licensees allege that NYPIRG's response to our January 7 order does not contribute anything to the specificity required for this contention, and the Board concurs. With regard to the remaining bases, the Board concludes the required degree of specificity has been submitted and these are cited in the Appendix to this decision.
For the reasons noted supra in treating of the FEMA report, we decline to reformulate this contention.
Contention 3.2 Emergency planning for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is inadequate in that the plans make erroneous assumptions about the response of the public and of utility employees during radiological emergencies.
This contention was eliminated by our January 7,1983 order on the grounds that it failed to identify a specific lack of conformance with NRC/ FEMA emergency planning guidelines, that it showed no clear nexus to the central point of this investigation, i.e., the high population density in the vicinity of Indian Point, and that it did not raise an it. !e unique to Indian Point.
The Licensees support our ruling on Contention 3.2 in their answers to our January 7,1983 order, and the NRC Staff takes no position with respect to it.
All of the Intervenors who responded to our January 7,1983 ord:r, on the other hand, object strenuously to the elimination of 3.2.
^
. UCS/NYPIRG argues that the contention challenges the methodology used by the planners to meet NRC/ FEMA guidelines in NUREG-0654 and the regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
UCS/NYPIRG considers a critique of the assumptions upon which the plans are based to be critical to determining the degree of conformance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines.
UCS/NYPIRG, WESPAC, and Parents all argue that human respon.se factors are uniquely important to Indian Point because the high population density in the vicinity of the plants would exacerbate consequences resulting from the failure of human factors assumptions to hold in a radiological emergency. They maintain that the dense population coupled with the geographical, meteorological, and roadway features of the area will adversely affect human responses in an emergency.
UCS/NYPIRG and Parents both noint out that this Board has already heard testimony from Westchester County witnesses which addresses erroneous assumptions about human response factors made in the emergency planning.
The Board is prompted to note that earlier in this proceeding we heard testimony from Rockland County witnesses which also addressed erroneous assumptions made about human responses in an emergency.
Similarly, the subject was addressed by the FEMA witnesses who-testified earlier.
Further, our perusal of testimony filed recently by the Power Authority (Testimony of Robert L. DuPont, M.D., at 9, 22) suggests that even the Licensees consider evidence on human response to a radiological emergency to be relevant; although that testimony is offered under Commission Question 1, it could as well have been offered under Contention 3.2.
9
4
.' We believe that the Intervenors have successfully argued their points with respect to the relevance of Contention 3.2 to determining the degree of conformance of the emergency plans with NRC/ FEMA guidelines and with respect to the unique importance of human factors assumptions in the Indian Point emergency plans. Moreover, the testimony that we have already heard on human factors from the counties and from FEMA, and that which has been offered by the Licensees, convince us that we should proceed to thoroughly ventilate this subject.
If we are to consider the evidence already heard on human factors, and we believe we must, it would be fundamentally unfair to the Intervenors if we did not also allow them to present evidence on the issue.
Therefore, Contention 3.2 must be reinstated.
In readmitting this contention ~, we feel compelled by our dissenting colleague's arguments to point out that we do not believe that the contention is a challenge to the Commission's regulations.
We do not read it to mean that there is no way a proper plan could be drawn using correct assumptions.
The contention challenges only the assumptions used in drawing up the plan that the Licensees have offered to demonstrate compliance with the regulations.
Our reconsideration of Contention 3.2 has also convinced us that, as originally admitted, it is overly vague.
Therefore, we have reformulated it to provide some additional specificity.
Contention 3.2 is reformulated and admitted as follows:
. Contention 3.2 (final form)
The emergency plans for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 do not conform with NRC/ FEMA guidelines because the assumptions made therein with respect to human response factors during a radiological emergency are erroneous.
Hence, the estimates of evacuation times and of the feasibility of timely evacuation for certain areas are incorrect.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GLEASON:
I have dissented from my colleagues in admitting this contention since, in my judgment it challenges NRC regulations. This, we have been directed to prohibit by the Commission's Order of July 27, 1982.
Additionally, I believe the contention is defective due to vagueness and as a result it lacks the requisite degree of specificity.
Contention 3.3 Thepresentestimatesofevacuationtimes[basedonNUREG-0654and studies by CONSAD Research Corporation and by Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc., are unreliable. -They are based on unproven assumptions, utilize anverified methodologies, and do not reflect the actual emergency plans.
The Power Authority objects to this contention on the basis that it does not contribute materially to Commission Question 3 because it fails either to rebut FEMA's evacuation time estimates or to provide any estimate of its own of the minimum hours warning needed for an effective evacuation of a 10-mile quadrant. The Board is unaware of any
~
contention that is more material to Question 3 than this one, and whether estimates by FEMA or others are valid in response to the Commission's directive to attempt to establish a minimum warning time can only be developed within the hearing environment itself.
The l
contention as stated heretofore will be retained.
i i
Contention 3.4 The Licensees cannot be depended upon to notify the proper authorities of an emergency promptly and accurately enough to assure effective response.
Both Licensees object to the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks specificity and factual bases.
The Power Authority argues additionally that the contention fails to identify any lack of confor...ance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines and therefore does not seem important to answering Commission Question 3.
The Staff takes no position with respect to Contention 3.4.
The Intervenors allege that the Licensees have a history of inadequate notification of the NRC when incidents have occurred at the plant, and they cite specific examples. We believe they have provided factual bases with adequate specificity.
Certainly a history of performance can be relevant to a judgment about future performance.
The current status of emergency plans should include revisions of administrative control to assure prompt notification in the future and hence compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50.47(b)(5 and 6), but we must determine in the hearing whether that is the case.
Therefore, Contention 3.4 shall be retained.-
We agree with the Licensees, however, that Contention 3.4 lacks adequate specificity.
We perceive that the Intervenors intend to challenge the adequacy of the administrative control involved in notification and shall reformulate the contention in light of that understanding.
The reformulated Contention 3.4 follows:
. Contention 3.4 (final form)
The administrative control of notification procedures at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is so deficient that the Licensees cannot be depended on to notify the proper authorities of an emergency promptly and accurately enough to assure effective response.
Contention 3.6 The emergency plans and proposed protective actions do not adequately take into account the full range of accident scenarios and meteorological conditions for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
This contention is objected to by both Licensees and the Staff.
They argue that there has been no proper allegation of noncompliance with regulatory guidelines since there is no requirement that a full range of accident scenarios be considered in the development of protective actions.
We concur that as far as accident scenarios are concerned, the position of the Licensees and the Staff is correct.
Accordingly, this part of the contention represents a challenge to the Commission's regulations which, pursuant to Commission guidance, is not permissible in considering contentions under Question 3.
This part of contention 3 will be deleted from the proceeding.
We reach a different result, however, for that part of the contention relating to meteorological conditions.
10 C.F.R. Part 50.47 (b) (9) calls for the development of adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition and this development requires site specific meteorological conditions and information.
See NUREG-0654, FEMA Rep. 1, Rev. 1, Appendix 2.
We accept this part of the contention for litigation, reformulated as follows:
l
i 1
. y Contention 3.6 (final form)
The emergency plans and proposed protective actions do not adequately take into account meteorological conditions for Indian Point Units 1 and 2.
The bases for this contention are indicated in the Appendix to this decision.
The basis (d) of WESPAC Contention 3 which deals with the effectiveness of drills is excluded from this contention since it relates to drills, not emergency plhns or protection actions.
Contention 3.7 The problems of evacuating children from threatened areas have not been adequately addressed in the present emergency plans.
This contention is objected to ay both Licensees.
The objection by Consolidated Edison is that the contention lacks specificity and adequate factual bases.
As interpreted by the Board, this contention challenges the adequacy of those provisions in the emergency plans that relate tr the handling and transportation of children during a radiological emergency where evacuation procedures are being implemented.
Accordingly, the contention possesses the required degree of specificity and is admitted to the proceeding.
Contention 3.9 The road system in the vicinity of the Indian Point plant is inadequate for timely evacuation.
Both the Power Authority and Con Edison raised objections to Contention 3.9.
The Power Authority suggests that the contention implies additional off-site planning measures and should be considered, l
if anywhere, under Commission Question 4.
In addition, the Power Authority asserts that the contention is unlikely to assist the review l
of warning time estimates because the bases supporting the contention
~ are insufficient and because the relationship between the contention and time estimates is unclear.
Con Edison also challenges the adequacy of the bases and argues that the contention does not address non-conformance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines as required by the Co,miission under Commission Question 3.
We have not been persuaded by Licensees
- arguments. We find that the adequacy of the road system for timely evaluation is central to Commission Question 3, both with respect to the question of the degree of conformance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines and with respect to determining the minimum number of hours warning for an effective evacuation of a 10-mile quadrant at Indian Point.
10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(a)(2) requires a review of " FEMA findings and determinations as to whether state and local emergercy plans are adequate and capable of being implemented." Whether or not the road system is adequate for timely evacuation is a key component for the determination of the adequacy of the plan and whether it is capable of being implemente '. Moreover, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Nov. 1980, Evaluation Criterion J8, requires that Licensees' plan provide time estimates for evacuation within the plume exposure EPZ and that these time estimates be in accordance with Appendix 4.
Section III of Appendix 4 requires a review of the road network and analyses of " travel times and potential locations for serious congestion in potential corridors."
We have already heard the testimony of NRC Staff witness "1omas Urbanik, II, concerning the evacuation time estimate studies for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
Both Dr. Urbanik's testimony and Appendix 4
~
. to NUREG-0654-FEMA-REP-1 clearly indicate that consideration of the roadway network is inextricably related to a determination of a time estimate for evacuation.
Therefore, Contention 3.9 shall be retained.
Contention 3.10 See Contention 4.4, infra.
Contention 4.1 The plume exposure pathway EPZ should be expanded from its present 10-mile radius in order to meet local emergency needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries.
Both Con Edison and the Power Authority object to Contention 4.1 on the grounds that the bases supporting the contention are inadequate and contemplate a larger expansion of the plume EPZ than "about 10 miles."-
The Power Authority acknowledges that the Commission has specifically expressed an interest in the substance of this contention and that the Commission indicated in its July 27, 1982 order that this issue should be litigated under Commission Question 3.
Upon consideration of these arguments we have determined that the size and configuration of the plume exposure EPZ is of particular interest to the Commission and should be litigated.
We note that the Commission stated in its July 27 order that it intended to address the plume exposure pathway EPZ under Commission Question 3.
We have considered reformulating Contention 4.1 to make it a contention under Commission Question 3 and decided against such a change.
The substance of the contention would be the same under either Commission Question.
Since we have already received testimony on this
. Contention the record will be less confusing if the contention retains its original number.
Therefore, Contention 4.1 shall be retained as reformulated in our January 7,1983 order.
Contention 4.2 The following specific, feasible off-site procedures should be taken to protect the public:
a) Potassium iodide should be provided in an appropriate form for all residents in the EPZ.
b) Adequate sheltering capability should be provided for all residents in the EPZ.
c) License conditions should prohibit power operation of Units 2 and 3 when the roadway network becomes degraded because of adverse weather conditions.
d) The roadway network should be upgraded to permit successful evacuation of all residents in the EPZ before the plume arrival time.
The Power Authority and Con Edison raise objections to Contention 4.2.
They allege that a " sound basis" has not been demonstrated for each of the suggested measures, as required by the Commission's July 27 Order.
Both assert that the bases provided fail to demonstrate that the suggested measures would have special risk-reduction significance at Indian Point in comparison with risks posed by other nuclear plants.
Power Authority suggests that such a showing is the " threshold test" for admission of contentions under Commission Question 4.
Con Edison claims that there must be a showing that "the risk of Indian Point is such that 'further exploration' in this proceeding of these measures which are not required by NRC/ FEMA guidelines is justified", i.e., the risk is greater than the spectrum of risks posed by other nuclear plants.
We dismiss these arguments as
. distortions of the Commission's guidance in its July 27 Order. The Commission did not establish a "two-prong test" for the admission of contentions under Commission Question 4 as Licensees seem to be trying to imply.
The Commission did' require that a " sound basis" be provided for these contentions.
Con Edison also asserts that the contention and its subparts lack the requisite specificity, do not show that the proposed me'asures are feasible, and make no nexus between the population density and the proposals.
Finally, both Con Edison and Power Authority argue that Contention 4.2(c) does not concern an off-site emergency procedure and is therefore beyond the scope of Question 4.
We have re-examined the contentions and their bases in light of We have decided to strike the basis listed in RCSE's these arguments.
Supplement, because on closer examination it does not appear to be a sound basis for any of the proposed measures.
However, we continue to find that UCS/NYPIRG did present in its bases a sound basis for the admission of the four subparts to Contention 4.2.
Whether these measures are feasible will be determined by our analysis of the evidence presented during the hearing.
These proposed measures are being considered in light of the population density in the vicinity of Indian Point.
There is no requirement that parties draw a nexus between each proposed measure and population density.
Finally, although Contention 4.2(c) may not appear to involve an off-site procedure, it is specifically related to an off-site condition which is important for consideration of off-site emergency planning at Indian Point.
l l
l
. Therefore, Contention 4.2 shall be retained as stated in our Order of Jan',ary 7, 1983 with RCSE's supplement deleted from the bases.
Contention 4.3 There are no feasible offsite emergency procedures which can adequately protect the public.
This contention was deleted because it and the bases offered to support it failed to offer specific suggestions for improving emergency planning and only. provided criticisms already covered in contentions under Commission Questions 3 and 1.
Both Licensees, in their responses to our January 7,1983 order support the deletio" of this contention.
The NRC Staff and Intervenors UCS/NYPIRG and Parents take no position on the elimination of Contention 4.3.
WESPAC does not object to the deleticn, either, provided it can present testimony with respect to roads under Contention 3.9; since WESPAC is co-lead Intervenor under 3.9 (which is being retained) we expect it to introduce such testimony.
Intervenor WBCA was the only party to object to the Board's deletion of Contention 4.3.
WBCA argues that the road network surrounding Indian Point would make offsite emergency procedures infeasible and that the Board should hear testimony on that subject.
But the adequacy of the road system will be covered under Contentions 3.9 and 4.2(d).
WBCA also argues that FEMA's estimate of population density within the EPZ is too low, which would make the emergency procedures infeasible.
The validity of the assumptions on which evacuation times are estimated, such as the assumed density of people in the EPZ, will be litigated under Contention 3.3, for which
WBCA is a contributing Intervenor. We need not litigate these issues twice.
For the foregoing reasons, we see no reason to reinstate Contention 4.3.
Contention 4.4 The emergency plans should be upgraded by taking account of special groups with special needs in emergencies.
In particular, provisions must be made for evacuating persons who are dependent upon others for their mobility.
We deleted this contention in our Order of January 7,1983, because the contention and its bases failed to offer specific additional emergency planning measures that should be required.
But because the contention's bases did mention specific inadequacies in the plan that are important to answering Commission Question 3, we reformulated Contention 4.4 and assigned it a new number, as follows:
Contention 3.10 The emergency plan fails to conform to NUREG-0654 in that, contrary to Evaluation Criterion II.J.10.d., proper means for protecting persons whose mobility may be impaired have not been developed.
Specifically, adequate provisions have not been made for groups named in the bases submitted by the following contentions:
WESPAC 6 Parents I, basis (22) and II, basis (7) l UCS/NYPIRG I(B)(2), basis (6) and I(A), basis (7).
Neither Licensee objects to the Board's reformulation and renumbering of Contention 4.4.
The Staff takes no position with respect l
to our action on this coatention.
Intervenors UCS/NYPIRG and Parents I
likewise take no position with respect to reformulation. WESPAC does not object to the reformulation and renumbering, based on its
" understanding that the ' groups' referred to in Contention 3.10 include
- =
. all groups originally identified in WESPAC Contention 6."
Finally, WBCA reminds the Board that it had been included as a co-lead Intervenor with WESPAC on Contention 4.4, on the basis of oral argument (Tr. 809 ff.;
Memorandum and Order of April 23,1982), and requests that it be designated co-lead with respect to Rockland County under Contention 3.10.
We find no reason to modify our ruling with respect to the reformulation of Contention 4.4 as Contention 3.10, and we rule that the Intervenor assignments to 3.10 will be the same as designated for 4.4.
Contention 4.5 Specific steps must be taken by NRC, State, and local officials to promote a public awareness that nuclear power plant accidents with substantial offsite risks are possible at Indian Point.
Our order of January 7 eliminated Contention 4.5 for lack of sufficient basis. We noted also that the essence of that contention was encompassed in other contentions already admitted to litigation.
UCS/NYPIRG objects to our deletion of Contention 4.5.
Intervenor argues that the Commission's recent decision, CLI-82-38, permitting operation despite persisting emergency planning deficiencies, in some fashion "has undermined the planning process" and can be corrected only l
by " vigorous NRC action to promote the importance of emergency l
pianning."
We do not deem this statement to be the needed sound basis for the deleted contention.
Indeed, actions by the Commission are clearly l
binding on this Board, and the notion that we should admit a contention j
i based fundamentally upon criticism of the Commission's considered action l
1.
would fly in the face of the Commission's inherent right to supervise this hearing.
.We see no reason to alter our previous decision.
Contention 4.5 will not be litigated here.
J Contention 4.6 A maximum acceptable level of radiation exposure for the public must be established before any objective basis will exist for adequate emergency planning.
We rejected this contention in our January 7,1983 order as an impermissible challenge to the regulations with neither a basis nor clear connection to the unique environment of Indian Point.
UCS/NYPIRG would have us retain the contention, arguing that establishment of acceptable dose levels would "be a yardstick against which to measure evacuation time estimates." That clearly would be equally true at any other plant and clearly the Commission has not opted to establish this particular yardstick.
Nor can the assertion that Indian Point's milieu is especiall'y populous (or even especially l
difficult to evacuate) form a basis, ipso facto, for the use of this yardstick, absent some compelling reason fer assuming that the
" minimum-number-of-hours-warning" figure that the Commission directed us i
l to seek would be meaningless to the Commission without such a yardstick.-
The contention will remain deleted.
[
Contention 4.7 The emergency plans should be upgraded to provide more adequate methods for alerting and informing persons who are deaf, blind, too young to understand the instructions, or who do not speak English.
Both Power Authority and Con Edison raise objections to reformulated Contention 4.7. They argue that the contention should be i
i
. rejected ber.ause it fails to suggest the specific methods which should be provided.
In addition, they make the same assertion that they made with respect to Contention 4.2, that Intervenors must demonstrate how the nearby population affects the risk posed by Indian Point as compared to other plants and how the suggested measures would reduce that risk.
We reject Licensees' argument that such a threshold demonstration is required for admission of a contention under Commission Question 4 for the same reasons we set forth in our consideration of this argument under Contention 4.2.
We continue to find that the contention and its bases meet the required standard of specificity and that the bases provide a sound basis for the contention's admission.. We find it sufficient that Intervenors have identified the specific aspects of the plan which need to be upgraded and have provided sound bases for these recommendations.
Therefore, Contention 4.7 shall be retained as reformulated in our January 7,1983 order, t
l l
t I
. UCS/NYPIRG Proposed Contentions I and II and Parents' Proposed Contention XIV' NYPIRG Proposed Contentions I.
The exercise process is not an adequate basis for determining aspects of emergency response capability for an accident at Indian Point.
II.
Letters of agreement, memoranda of understanding, and mutual aid agreements signed by the responsible local officials and by the emergency workers themselves should be the determining criteria in evaluating emergency response capability.
Parents' Proposed Contention XIV.
Preparedness should be demonstrated by the willingness and ability of emergency workers in the field, by commitments in the form of letters of agreement from all emergency response agencies including schools, bus companies, fire departments, ambulance corpos, and local Red Cross chapters, and by the approval, in the form of signatures on the plan, of elected officials of local governments which will be called upon to implement the plans.
We deciined to admit these contentions, finding that they were
~~
~
either impermissible challenges to the regulations or were subsumed in other, previously admitted contentions depending on their exact interpretations.
I UCS/NYPIRG now argues that these contentions should be admitted.
i WESPAC also argues for their admission, and Parents argues for admission of its own Contention XIV.
l The gist of the arguments for admission of'UCS/NYPIRG I is that i
present scenarios for the planning exercise do not provide the " level of I
Parents' filing of December 24, 1982, at page 5, styled this Contention "XIV."
We used that designation in our Order of January 7, 1983.
In their present filings, both Parents and UCS/NYPIRG style the contention " Contention IV."
We here retain the original designation.
. extensiveness of testing... to identify all defects" (WESPAC) nor do they " test a major portion of the elements" (UCS/NYPIRG) in emergency planning. UCS/NYPIRG also states that our failure to provide an opportunity for intervenors to present a direct case will deprive this Board and the Commission of needed information.
An intervenor seeking to introduce a contention so late in the process must bear a heavy burden to show that the coatention is admissible. We see no strong basis for admissibility in the bare assertions that a carefully constructed exercise, devised by experts in the field, cannot accomplish its purpose.
We still decline to admit new Contention I.
As for new UCS/NYPIRG II and Parents' XIV, the present submissions do not offer any substantial additional bases for the contentions nor do they point to matters which would be unresolved by the admission of the earlier contention our order named.
In the latter regard, WESPAC expresses the " hope" that " testimony regarding the commitment of emergency workers to fulfill their roles" will not be excluded in treating Contention 3.1.
We see no reason why such testimony should be excluded.
Our decision on admitting the proposed new contentions stands:
all three will be rejected.
TIME FOR FILING SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY The due date for submission of supplemental testimony under Commission Questions 3 and 4 shall be extended one week, from February 14 to February 21, 1983.
l l
. ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 7th day of February 1983 ORDERED 1.
The following contentions shall be retained without reformulation:
3.1, 3.3, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.7; 2.
The following contentions have been reformulated and admitted:
3.4 and 3.6; 3.
The following contention has been reinstated and reformulated:
3.2; 4.
The following contentions have been deleted:
4.3, 4.5, 4.6, and all proposed new contentions.
5.
The date for filing supplemental testimony on Commission Questions 3 and 4 is extended to February 21, 1983.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
(
s
~
acies P. Gleasch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Cd Y (WIS Dr. Oscar H. Paris ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE b
!w Frederick J. SlWn ADMINISTRATIV JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland
APPENDIX Commission Question 3 What is the current status and degree of conformance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines of state and local emergency planning within a 10-mile radius of the site and, of the extent that it is relevant to risks posed by the two plants, beyond a 10-mile radius?
In this context, an effort should be made to establish what the minimum number of hours warning for an effective evacuation of a 10-mile quadrant at Indian Point would be.
The FEMA position should be taken as a rebuttable presumption for this estimate.
Contention 3.1 Emergency planning for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is inadequate in that the present plans do not meet any of the sixteen mandatory standards of 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b), nor do they meet the standards of Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
The bases for this contention are set forth in the following filings:
- 1) UCS/NYPIRG's " Contentions of Joint Intervenors Union of Ccncerned Scientists and New York Public Interest Research Group", dated December 2, 1981 (hereinafter UCS/NYPIRG Contentions) (See Contention I(A));
- 2) NYPIRG's Submission of December 28, 1982; a tion
- 3) WESPAC's " Contentions of the Westchester People's c
Coalition", dated December 1,1981 (hereinafter ';ESPAC Contentions) (See Contentions 1(a-f,1-j) and 2(c-f); and
- 4) RCSE's " Supplement to Petition:
Contentions", dated December 1,1981 (hereinafter RCSE's Supplement) (See Contentions 3 and 5).
Contention 3.2 The emergency plans for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 do not conform with NRC/ FEMA guidelines because the assumptions made therein with respect to human response factors during a radiological emergency are erroneous.
Hence, the estimates of evacuation times and of the feasibility of timely evacuation for certain areas are incorrect.
The bases for this contention are set forth in the following l
filings:
- 1) UCS/NYPIRG Contentions (See Contention I(B)1);
O A-2
- 2) WESPAC's Contentions (See Contention 4 and bases (g) and (h) of Contention 1);
- 3) Parents' " Contentions of Parents Concerned About Indian Point",
dated December 2, 1981 (hereinafter Parents' Contentions) (See Contention III (bases 1-5)).
Contention 3.3.
The present estimates of evacuation times, based on NUREG-0654 and studies by CONSAD Research Corporation and by Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc., are unreliable. They are based on unproven assumptions, utilize unverified methodologies, and do not reflect the actual emergency plans.
The bases for this contention are set forth in the following filings:
- 1) UCS/NYPIRG Contentions (fee Contention I(B)(2);
- 2) WBCA's " West Branch Conservation Association's Reply to Objections to its Filed Contentions", dated January 11, 1982 (hereinafter WBCA's Reply) (See Contention in reply to (Question 3).
- 3) RCSE's Supplement (See Contention 1).
Contention 3.4 The administrative control of notification procedures at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is so deficient that the Licensees cannot be depended on to notify the proper authorities of an emergency promptly and accurately enought to assure effective response.
The bases for this contention are set forth in the following filings:
- 1) RCSE's Supplement (See Contention 2, bases (a) and (b));
- 2) WESPAC's Contentions (See Contention 2, bases (a) and (b)).
Contention 3.6 l
The emergency plans and proposed protective actions do not adequately l
take into account the full range of meteorological conditions for Indian l
Point Units 2 and 3.
The bases for this contention are set forth in the following l
filing:
l UCS/NYPIRG Contentions (See Contention I(B)(3)).
l l
A-3 Contention 3.7 The problems of evacuating children from threatened areas have not been adequately addressed in the present emergency plans.
The bases for this contention are set forth in the following filings:
1)
Parents' Contentions (See Contention I, bases (4), (5), (6),
(7)and(15);and 2)
Parents' Revision (See Contention V, bases (1) - (10)).
Contention 3.9 The road sjstem in the vicinity of the Indian Point plant is inadequate for timely evacuation.
The bases for this contention are set forth in the following filings:
- 1) WESPAC Contentions (See Contention 5); and
- 2) WBCA's Reply (See Contention in reply to Question 1).
Contention 3.10 The emergency plan fails to conform to NUREG-0654 in that, contrary to Evaluation Criterion II.J.10.d., proper means for protecting persons whose mobility may be impaired have not been developed. Specifically, adequate provisions have not been made for groups named in the bases submitted for the following contentions:
WESPAC 6 Parents I, basis (22) and II, basis (7)
UCS/NYPIRG I(B)(2), basis (6) and I(A), basis (7).
The bases for this contention are set forth in the following filings:
- 1) WESPAC's Contentions (See Contention 6);
- 2) Parents' Contentions (See Contention I, basis (22) and Contention II, basis (7)T; 3)
Parents' Revision (See Contention X); and
- 4) UCS/NYPIRG Contentions (See Contention I(B)(2), basis (o) and Contention 1(A), basis ('/).
A-4 Commission Question 4 What improvements in the level of emergency planning can be expected in the near future, and on what time schedule, and are there other specific offsite emergency procedures that are feasible and should be taken to protect the public?
Contention 4.1 The plume exposure pathway EPZ should be expanded from its present 10-mile radius in order to meet local emergency needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries.
The bases for this contention are set forth in the following filings:
- 1) UCS/NYPIRG Contentions (See Contentions II(A), II(B), and III(C));
- 2) Parents' Contentions (See Contention II, basis (7); and
- 3) Parents' Revision (See Original Contention II and Proposed Contention VII, based on Memorandum and Order, April 23, 1982 _______
basis 2).
Contention 4.2 The following specific, feasible off-site procedures should be taken to protect the public:
a) Potassium iodide should be provided in an appropriate form for all residents in the EPZ.
b) Adequate sheltering capability should be provided for all residents in the EPZ.
c) License conditions should prohibit power operation of Units 2 and 3 when the roadway network becomes degraded because of adverse weather conditions.
The roadway network should be upgraded to permit successful d) evacuation of all residents in the EPZ before the plume arrival time.
The bases for this contention are set forth in the following filing:
UCS/NYPIRG Contentions (See Contention III(A),
subparts (a),(b), (c), and (e)).
A-5 Contention 4.7 The emergency plans should be upgraded to provide more adequate methods for alerting and informing persons who are deaf, blind, too young to understand the instructions, or who do not speak English.
The bases for this contention are set forth in the following filings:
- 1) Parents' Contentions (See Contention I, bases (2), (17), and (22); and Contention II, basis (7));
- 2) Parents' Revision (See Contention XIII); and
- 3) WESPAC's Contentions (See Contention 2, bases (e) and (f)).
i 8
e i
f I
l-J
- --.