ML20039B542

Motion to Reopen Record & Suppl Findings of Fact in Response to NRC 811202 Motion to Suppl Record.Fema 811113 Evaluations Demonstrate Need for Further Evidence Re Protection in Case of Radiological Emergency.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20039B542
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	12/16/1981
From:	Mcclung C CARSTENS, A.S., FLEMMING, ANDERSON, MCCLUNG & FINCH, GUARD
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8112230217
Download: ML20039B542 (8)

Text

1 l

D 37))b 1

PHYLLIS M.

GALLAGHER, Esq.

1695 W. Crescent Avenue, Suite 222 2

-Anaheim, CA 92801

'81 F.il 21 N0 54 3

CHARLES E.

McCLUNG, JR.

d144 f--

FLEMING, ANDERSON, McCLUNG & FINCH 4

24012 Calle de la Plata, Suite 330 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 m

o E

[$

6 lily'~',d,'

Y Q

7

~/

DEc2219ey

+

xy D

8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

' N,, ~' a..

~

9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION \\d f

V

^,f '

s 10 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD 11 12 13 ln the Matter of

)

Docket Nos. 50-361 OL

)

50-362 OL 14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FDISON

)

COMPANY, ET NL.

)

MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD 15

)

AND SUPPLEMENT FINDINGS OF (San Onofre Nuclear

)

FACT IN RESPONSE TO NRC 16 Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) )

STAFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT

)

THE RECORD 17

)

)

18

)

19 TO THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD AND ALL PARTIES:

20 The Intervenors and Guard and Carstens, et al. HEREBY MOVE 21 to Re-open the Record and Supplement their Findings of Fact as 22 set forth below, pursuant to the Board's Order dated October 6, 23 1981 and transcript page 11,362.

24 INTRODUCTION 25 This Motion is the Intervenors' response to the Staf f 's Motion 1)SGi3 26 to supplement the Record, dated December 2, 1981 in which the up-1 27 dated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) evaluations,

//

28 dated November 16, 1981 (New Findings) were served upon the Board 8112230217 811216 PDRADOCK05000gg G

_y_

~

I and the Parties.

that there is-reasonable 2

The applicants in their emergency plarining case e'r,t/as ',

3 surance that the health and safety of the public will be p'rotected-4 in the event of an accident with offsite consiequences at. San i

5 Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 (SONGS 2 a_nd.. 3).

6 The crux of applicants' position is that whatever ' deficiencies 7

exist in the various plans will be corrected before ful'1 power

~

8 operation of'the plant.

It is with this type"of argumeEt that s

9 the applicant derogates the FEMA findings, date'd June'3,~1981 and 10 the California Office of Emerge'ncy Services evaluation of the 11 various offsite jurisdiction plans and procedures.

The, applicants' 12 witnesses have stated categorically over and over'that the PEMA 13 review was inadequate because it did not look at certain SOP's 14 which were in existence and that all the deficiencies noted by 15 FEMA would be cured by November 1, pursuant to the action plan 16 negotiated between FEMA and the applicants, which is attached to 17 the New Findings.

18 The updated PEMA evaluation, dated November 16, 1981, casts 19 serious doubts on the applicants' promises to upgrade the. st atus 20 of emergency preparedness.

It is the Intervenors position that 21 further hearings and written testimony would be helpful, subject 22 to cross-examination to demonstrate that the applicants and tha i

l 23 offsite jurisdictions actually will do what they have promised to,dc 24 to test whether those actions are sufficient.

It is Intervenors' 25 position that without a further review and hearing the FEMA evalua-26 tions of November 16, 1981 can only be considered so far as they i

27 disclose deficiencies in the emergency planning and they c anot 28 be used in any way to demonstrate that the applicants have complied

+.

-r l

1 with the regulations or met its burden of proof on the contentions.

2 (Memorandum and Order (CLI-81-22) 9-21-81, Diablo Canyon low power.)

3]IccordinglytheIntervenorsbelievethatalimitedhearingcon-4 sisting of a FEMA witness, an applicant witness and one or two 5

local jurisdiction witnesses, is necessary to demonstrate that the 6

future promises and predictions of the applicant are valid in 7

light of this substantial evidence that they may not be.

8 The a6 n of the New Findings also adds significant weight 9

and importan-a to the licensing conditions proposed by the Inter-10 venors and the Intervenors Findings of Fact which rely upon many 11 of FEMA's earlier evaluations.

Accordingly the Intervenors request s.

12 that the Board allow them to amend their Findings of Fact or supple-13 ment their Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to incorporate

~

14 the New Findings.

15 SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO FEMA EVALUATION 16 The Board in its Order of October 6, 1981 asked for the par-17 ties to be specific in their showing of good cause for why the 18 record should be re-cpened.

With respect to that suggestion the 19 Intervenors hereby set forth a list of the serious deficiencies 20 noted by PEMA'with references to the New Findings.

21 The applicants' letter from Mr. Baskin to 22 a Mr. Sandwina of FEMA attached to the New Findings indicates the 23 app)icants believe that all the corrective measures in the action 24 plan have been completed.

The FEMA evaluation indicates that this 25 is not the case and significant deficiencies remain.

26 1.

So9s:

The New Findings indicate that the SOPS that 27 were promised by the applicants have not yet been 28 produced.

The SOPS made part of the evidence of

\\

,3 ~

j,

i 1

this hearing were draf ted by the applicants' con-2 tractor and will not serve as a basis for a 3

finding that the emergency planning and imple-4 mentation is adequate at this time.

(New Findings 5

III. D.;

G.,

l.,

3.; IV. A.)

6 2.

Training:

The New Findings indicate that the 7

training program is incomplete and that materials 8

submitted to FEMA (which it can be assumed are 9

the same as those materials provided by the ap-10 plicants as evidence in this proceeding) are 11 insufficient.

(New Findings III. G.

6.; IV. H.)

12 3.

Drills:

FEMA has indicated that it is impossible 13 fer them to evaluate whether the new SOPS for 14 radiation, monitoring and assessment and whether 15 the training program is appropriate without further 16 drills.

The New Findings indicate that no drills 17 have been conducted.

(New Findings II. B.; III.

18 G.

l.,

6.; IV. F.)

19 4.

Public Notification and Warnings:

The New Findings 20 indicate that the siren system has not yet beer.

21 tested and that the tests were in fact cancelled 22 and postooned to an uncertain date next year.

23 It is crucial that FEMA review whether or not 24 the siren coverage is as set forth by the applicants 25 in this proceeding.

The fact that the applicants 26 did not allow FEMA to have an updated review of 27 the siren capability as part of these New Findings 28 can only be interpreted that there are currently 1

problems with the siren system.

FEMA also points 2

out again that the siren system does not reach 3

the areas of Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano 4

which should be part of the emergency planning 5

zone.

(New Findings III.

C.,

G4. ; IV. C.)

6 The FEMA evaluation concludes (again) by sayina that if all 7

corrective actions are taken to correct these deficiencies then 8

(tautologically) there will be reasonable assurance that the 9

health and safety of the populace will be protected around SONGS 10 2 and 3.

The problem with this analysis is that promises of work 11 to be done in the future taken together with demonstrated non-12 performance of prior promises cannot provide reasonable assurance 13 that the corrective actions will be taken in the future.

In fact, 14 of the utilities action plan, only the public information program 15 and the interim EOF are found to meet a standard of adequacy, and 16 in both of those cases FEMA recommends as do the Intervenors in 17 their proposed licensing conditions that the F0F be tested and 18 drilled and that the publir information program be tested to 19 see whether the informatic,n is actually reaching the people.

20 CONCLUSION 21 It is therefore respectively submitted that the further FEMA 22 evaluations, dated November 13, 1981 demonstrate the need for 23 further evidence in this record to prove that there is reasonable 24 assurance that the health and safety of the surrounding population 25 can be protected in the event of a radiological emergency at SONGS 26 2 and 3.

This Board should reopen the record and allow ft rther 27 hearings in this matter and allow fOr supplementation to the Find-28 ings of Fact filed by the parties.

Without such a hearing it is l

I the Intervenors position that the New Findings can only be used so 2

far as they demonstrate deficiencies in the emergency planning and 3

they cannot be used to support the applicants' case.

4 DATED:

December 16, 1981 5

6 Respectively submitted, 7

8 PHYLLIS M.

GALLAGHER and CHARLES E.

McCLUNG, JR. of 9

FLEMING, ANDERSON, McCL'JNG & FINCH 10

/

'f 11 By

,s Charles E. McClung, Jr.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Yr e s',

gj B3 21 I

] J ' "9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICN""~'

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TEE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

Docket Nos. 50-361 OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY,

)

50-362 OL ET AL.

)

)

(San Onofre Nur-lear Generating Station,)

~ Units 2 and 3)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Motion to Reopen the Record and Supplement Findings of Fact in Response to NRC Staff's Motion to Supplement the Record, dated December 16, 1981 in the above captioned proceedings was served on the following parties by deposit in the United States mail or, if indicated by an asterisk, by express mail or expedited service on December 16, 1981.

eg, David R.

Pigott, Esq.

Jh, James L.

Kelley, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge Samuel B.

Casey, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board John A. Mendez, Esq.

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Edward B.

Rogin, Esq.

Washington, D.C.

20555 of Orrick, HerringtCn & Sutcliffg A Professional Corporation Dr. Cadet H.

Hand, Jr.,

600 Montgomery Street d,

Administrative Judge San Francisco, California 94111 c/o Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California Alan R.

Watts, Esq.

P.O.

Box 247 Daniel K.

Spradlin Bodega Bay, California 94923 Rourke & Woodruff 1055 North Main Street, #1020 Santa Ana, California 92701

e t

o gg,Mrs. Elizabeth B. Johnson, Richard J. Wharton, Esq.

Administrative Judge University of San Df_ ego O2k Ridge National Laboratory School of Law Alcala Park P. O.

Box X, Building 3500 San Diego, California 92110 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks Janice E.

Kerr, Esq.

GUARD J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.

3908 Calle Ariana Lawrence O. Garcia, ESg.

San Clemente, California 92672 California Utilities Commission 5066 State Buildina A.

S. Carstens San Francisco, California 94102 2071 Caminito Circulo Norte Mt. La Jolla, California 92037 Charles R. Kocher, Esq.

W Richard K. Hoefling, Esq.

Jcmes A.

Beoletto, Esq.

Southern California Fdison Company Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.

4244 Walnut Grove Avenue Donald Hassel, Esq.

Rosemead, California 91770 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission David W. Gilman Office of the Executive Robert G. Lacy Legal Director San Diego Gas & Electric Company Washington, D.~C.

20555 P.O.

Box 1931 San Diego, California 92112 Atomic Safety and Licensing.

Appeal Board Panel Phyllis M.

Gallagher, Esq.

U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory 1695 West Crescent Avenue Commission Suite 222 Washington D. C.

20555 Anaheim, California 92701 Secretary Robert Dietch, Vice President U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Southern Edison California Company Attn:

Chief, Docketing &

P. O.

Box 800 Service Branch 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Washington, D. C.

20555 Rosemead, California 91770 4

\\

Charles E. McClung, Jr.

v