ML20037D415
| ML20037D415 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1981 |
| From: | Raynard Wharton FRIENDS OF THE EARTH |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13303A515 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8107100210 | |
| Download: ML20037D415 (9) | |
Text
-_.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-361 OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY,
)
)
)
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, )
Units 2 and 3)
)
INTERVENORS', FOE ET AL. PROPOSED CONTENTION RE:
EMERGENCY PLANNING Intervenors FOE ET AL. hereby submits the following contention.
Said contention is sWamitted based on the Interim Findings and Determinations made by FEMA on June 3, 1981 and received by FOE et al. on June 10, 1981.
REVISED CONTENTION An operating license for SONGS 2 and 3 should not be granted because the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(" FEMA") concluded that the off-site capability for implementation of the emergency response plans is. inadequate and the emergency plans ' submitted by the local juris' dictions do not meet the requirements of NUREG-0654.
More specifically, the following requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E have not been met:
A)
Many conflicts exist in the emergency responsibilities of the various jurisdictions.
10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b).
In particular, monitoring and assessment duties for both plume and ingestion pathways have not been clarified.
See FEMA's Interim Findings and Determinations 3, t4 8107100210 810705 PDR ADOCK 05000361 Exhibit A G
PDR 1
Page 1 of 4
a (June 3,1981) (hereinafter cited.as FEMA Findings).
B)
Response organizations do not have sufficient personnel to handle total response requirements.
10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b) (1) ; See FEMA Findings 3, 55.
c)
Me thods, systems, and equipment for assessment and monitoring o'f actual or potential off-site consequences of a radiological emergency do not meet minimum criteria.
A number of jurisdic-tions lack equipment and capability to conduct monitoring; air sampling equipment is generally not available; assessment and monitoring teams do not have sufficient radiological training.
10 C.F.R.
S 50.47(b) (9); See, FEMA Findings 6, $1.
D)
The Utility has failed to provide the emergency facilities and equipment needadto support the emergency response.
10 C.F.R.
S50. 47 (b) (10) ; See, FEMA Findings 5, 54.
E)
The means for early notification and instruction to the populace within the plume exposure EPZ has not been established.
10 C.F.R.
S50.47(b)(5).
See, FEMA Findings 4, 53.
F)
The EOF is incapable of meeting emergency respons,e requirements because of.the following shortcomings:
lack of clear operating procedures, fragmentation of the facility, lack of management directions communications, and inadequate size of facility.
10 C.F.R.
S50.47 (b) (2), (3) and (10).
See, FEMA Findings 4, 51.
G)
Adherence to critical time frames for notification; ingestion pathway sampling and analysis; and reentry and recovery operations have not been tested.
10 C.F.R. S50. 47 (b) (5), (10) and (13).
See, FEMA Findings 5, $1 and 6, t 1, 5.
Exhibit A Page 2 of 4
_n_.-_-_---.___,__
H)
Emergency plans are inadequate in that the FEMA review of the plans dated April 27, 1981 found 134 instances of lack of full compliance with the planning standards and evaluation criteria of NUREG-0654.
DATED:
June 22, 1981 P.ICHARD J.
WHARTON Attorney for Intervenors' CARSTENS ET AL.
1 Exhibit A 3
Page 3 of 4
ADDENDUM Intervonors May Refer To Pertinent Portions of the FEMA Findings in'Their Contention And Sub-contention When Such Reference Supports And Clarifies Tne Particular Issue At the June 18, 19 81 Prc-hearing Conference the NRC Staf f suggested that Intervenors CARSTENS et al. could not refer to the FEMA Findings in their contention.
THE NRC Staff cited Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-76-10, 3 NRC 209 (1976), as authority for this point.
In Tennessee Valley Authority the petitioner attempted to incorporate by reference into his supporting affidavit "about 3000 pages of material including newspaper articles, magazine articles, opinions, and public statements by a large number of people about the Browns Ferry Fire, without any attempt to direct specific attention to pertinent portions particularly permane to the issues in this proceedina."
(Emphasis Added. )
Id. at 216.
The Licensing Board ruled that such non-selective incorporation frustrated the particularity requirements cf 10 C.F.R. S2.714.
Clearly, Tennessee Valley Authority does not app 1y in this situation.
Intervenors do not seek to incorporate the entire docu-ment by reference.
Quite the contrary, Intervenors refer to specific pertions of the FEMA Findings only for support and further clarifi-cation of each particular sub-contention.
Exhibit A Page 4 of 4
_-,aA e
A J
a_
,,.A__
m.___..:E A
h 4
J Exhibit B 4
1 i
f i
1 l
l
{
I h
APPLICANTS' PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS CONTENTIONS FOR HEARING BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD July 6, 1981 Based upon the two forms of " Stipulation and Order Specifying Certain Contentions for Purposes of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hearing" submitted herein on the record of July 1, 1980, as well as "Intervenors' FOE et al. Proposed Contention Re:
Emergency Planning," dated June 22, 1981, Applicants propose that the following emergency planning and preparedness contentions be specified under 10 C.F.R. 52.752 and consolidated under 10 C.F.R.
$2.715a for purposes of hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board:
1.
Consolidated Contention No. 1 Whether the state of emergency preparedness for SONGS 2 and 3 provides reasonable assurance that the offsite transient and permcnont population within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone, 10 C.F.R.
$50.47(c)(2), for SONGS 2 and 3 can be evacuated or otherwise adequately protected in the event of a radiological emergency with offsite consequences occurring at SONGS 2 and 3, as required by 10 C.F.R. 5550.47(a)(1), (b)(10), and Part 50, Appendix E.IV.
(solely as it pertains to evacuation time estimates), in that the guidance set forth in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 (Rev. 1), parts II.J.8 and J.10, has not been satisfied.
2.
Consolidated Contention ho. 2 Whether there is reasonable assurance that the emergency l
response planning for SONGS 2 and 3, affecting the offsite transient and permanent population, will comply with 10 C.F.R. 5550.47(a)(1) and (b) or (c)(1) as l
regards:
A.
the procedures for notification by Applicants of State and local response organizations, 10 C.F.R. 650.47(b)(5), and for notification of and continued Exhibit B/Page 1 of 2 i
communication among emergency personnel by all involved organizations, 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(6);
B.
the means for notificatica and instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone, 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(5);
C.
the information and the procedures for dissemination of the information to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone on a periodic basis on how they will be notified and what their actions should be in the event of an emergency, 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(7);
D.
the arrangements for medical services for contaminated and injured individuals, 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(12);
~
necessary transportation and communication E.
equipment, and the operation of the emergency operations centers of the' principal response organizations, 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(8);
F.
the capability of each principal response organization to respond and to augment this initial responso on a continuous basis, 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(1);
G.
radiological emergency response training to those who may be called on to assist in an emergency, 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(15);
H.
the methods, staffing, systems, and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for SONGS 2 and 3, 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(9);
I.
the physical design, communications equipment, and operating procedures for the interim Emergency Operations Facility, 10 C.F.R. 5550.47(b)(3) and (b)(8); and J.
the methods, systems, and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition within the ingestion pathway EPZ for SONGS 2 and 3, 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(9).
Exhibit B/Page 2 of 2
1 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL OR COURIER 3
I declare that:
4 I am employed in the City and County of San 5
Francisco, California, as one of counsel appearing for 6
Applicants Southern California Edison Company and San Diego 7
Gas & Electric Company herein.
8 I am over the age of eighteen years and not a 9
party to the within-entitled action; my business address is 10 600 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, California 11 94111.
12 On July 5, 1981, I served the attached 13
" APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO CONTENTION PROPOSED 9
14 BY FOE, ET AL." in said cause, by placing a true copy 15 thereof enclosed in the United States mail, first class, or 16 where indicated by an asterisk by Network Courier, at San 17 Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
18 19
- James L.
Kelley, Chairman David W. Gilman Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Robert G.
Lacy 20 Mrs. Elicabeth B. Johnson San Diego Gas & Electric Company Administrative Judges P.O. Box 1831 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing San Diego, California 92112 Board 22 c/o Stardust Hotel & Country Club Robert Dietch, Vice President 23 950 Hotel Circle, North Southern California Edison P.O.
Box 800 Company 24 San Diego, California 92108 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue (3 copies)
Rosemead, California 91770 25 26 15
1
- Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.
Alan R. Watts, Esq.
Office of the Executive Rourke & Woodruff 2
Legal Director California First Bank Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 10555 North Main Street 3
Commission Santa Ana, California 92701 c/o Hanalei Hotel 4
2270 Hotel Circle, North Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
San Diego, CA 92108 J.
Calvin Simpson, Esq.
5 Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.
Mr. Lloyd von Haden California Public Utilities 6
2089 Foothill Drive Commission Vista, California 92083 5066 State Building 7
San Francisco, California 94102 Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks 8
GUARD Atomic Safety and Licensing 3908 Calle Ariana Bcard 9
San Clemente, CA 92801 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Phyllis M.
Galla9her, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 1695 W.
Crescent Avenue, 11 Suite 222 Docketing and Service Section Anaheim, California 92801 Office of the Secretary 12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory James F.
Davis Commission 13 State Geologist Washington, D.C.
20555 Division of Mines and Geology 14 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341
- Richard K. Hoefling, Esq.
Sacramento, CA 95814 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission
- Richard J.
Wharton, Esq.
Office of the Executive 16 School of Law Legal Director University of San Diego Washington, D.C.
20555 17 Alcala Park San Diego, California 92110
- Charles E.
- McClung, Jr.,
Esq.
18 Fleming, Anderson, McClung &
Finch, Inc.
19 23521 Paseo de Valencia, Suite 308 20 Laguna Hills, California 92653
(--
~>
(3 kh tQC a\\
22 SAMUED'B. CASE?
One of the Counsel for Applicants 23 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISION COMPANY l
and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
24 25 26 l
16
-__ _.-----