ML20076L497

Answer to Applicant Response to Commonwealth of Ma 830623 Contentions on Emergency Planning.Commonwealth Has Standing as Full Party.Issues Are within ASLB Subj Matter Jurisdiction

ML20076L497
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/15/1983
From:	Shotwell J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20076L499	List: ML20076L497 ML20076L514 ML20076L526 ML20076L545 ML20076L588 ML20076L596 ML20076L619
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8307190212
Download: ML20076L497 (19)

Text

, ..

l l

1

./

xu

!$7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L i] ' ,r,'!]b' y-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION $$6 p.+ j g; A[ .

before the Mk 4

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) ,

and 2) ) July 15, 1983

)

)

ANSWER OF ATTORNEY GENERAL FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI TO THE " APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI RELATIVE TO EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE "

On June 23, 1983, Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti filed his contentions relative to emergency planning for the State of New Hampshire. In their response thereto, the Applicants appear to contest the Attorney General's standing to participate in this proceeding. And yet, the Applicants long ago stated, and the Board long ago determined, that Attorney General Bellotti does have the requisite standing to 1

8307190212 030715 PDRADOCKOSOOOggg -

0 l_ . -. _ - . -- .. - . .

3603-_

.~

! participate in thic proceeding. See Applicants' Answer to the Petition to Intervene of the Attorney General of Massachusetts, at 1; ASLB Memorandum and Order of September 13, 1982, at 86-90. It is true that the Board limited the Attorney f

General's involvement to participation as the representative of i

4 an ir.terested state under 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 715 (c) until such time as he refiled contentions on off-site emergency planning in f

accordance with the Board's order. However, the same showing which led the Board to accept the Attorney General as the representative of an interested state entitles him to ,

full-party status under 10 C.F.R. 52.714. Moreover, the Board j

could not even have reached the question of the admissibility of Attorney General Bellotti's contentions had it not i

determined that he has standing to participate as a party to this proceeding.

4 i

Thus, Applicants' argument on this score amounts to an extremely late-filed objection to the Board's order admitting Attorney General Bellotti to this proceeding, any such objection having been due within five days of the issuance of I In any event, for the the order. See 10 C.F.R. 52.751a(d).

i reasons outlined in his original Petition to Intervene, a copy 1

of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, Attorney General Bellotti clearly does

-++n-- v*w +- m &-e, v t- * - - m--ew wy---e - y--e ,*-----7 -v c 7 m **--pw --

wq- - - - - - -f r y a-+++r+p +

~

[ T i

have standing to participate in this proceeding as a full party.

j In their Answer to Attorney General Bellotti's contentions ,

the Applicants proceed to argue that, even where a party has the necessary standing to participate in a license proceeding

-and the Board has jurisdiction to entertain certain claims, that party may somehow be unable to raise those claims. Thus Applicants contend that, while this Board clearly has subject matter jurisdiction over the adequacy of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Plan for licensing purposes, Attorney ,

General Bellotti (even if a proper party to the proceeding) cannot ask it to exercise that jurisdiction. Sgg Applicants' Response to Contentions of Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti Relative to Emergency Planning for the State of New Hampshire" (undated) (hereinafter, " Applicants' Response"), at 2-5. (For the Applicants' admission that the Board does have jurisdiction over the adequacy of the plan for purposes of licensure see particularly page 5, n.4.) This novel argument is not really a

" standing" argument, as Applicants suggest, but depends entirely on their dramatic and patently erroneous assertion that what is involved here is a controversy between states as to which the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction. Egg l .

Applicants' Response, at 5. Suffice it to say that l

l

.~..o . . - - . . .

j .. -. ..

-4 Massachusetts has not sued New Hampshire. Attorney General Bellotti has no claim against and seeks nothing from New  ;

Hampshire. He has merely asked the Board to exercise its jurisdiction, acknowledged by the Applicants, not to license this plant.

CONTENTION I Attorney General Bellotti's first contention addresses the failure of the draft New Hampshire plan to demonstrate that the State has the necessary resources to support an emergency ,

response. As we discussed at length in the bases for the contention, the Commission's regulations require the plan to demonstrate that response organizations have the necessary personnel, equipment, facilities, and vehicles to carry out emergency action. See Contentions of Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti Relative to Emergency Planning for the State of New Hampshire [ hereinafter, " Contentions"], at 2.

Applicants agree that the plan must demonstrate that the State has " adequate" equipment and other resources, but take issue with the Attorney General's use of the word " assessment" in his contention. See Applicants' Response, at 8. While it is true that the word " assessment" does not appear in the Commission's /

regulations, there can be no finding that the State has l

l 1

^

a^ - a- ~ -

n .. ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,"sdequate" resouces or that "

adequate protective measures can

and will be taken" when there has been no determination as to the extent of either the State's needs or its resources.

In order to foreclose needless debate, however, Attorney General Bellotti is willing to redraft his first contention to track more closely the exact language of the Commission's regulations. Before doing so, however, he wishes to await the Staff's response to his contentions, for he has been informed that the Staff may recommend redrafting of certain contentions and wishes to take those recommendations into account as we'll.

We do note that NECNP has submitted a contention (number 8) which addresses many of the same concerns as does this contention and the bases for-which provide additional facts supporting this contention. Rather than restating those additional facts here, we attach a copy of them hereto marked Exhibit B and incorporate them herein by reference.

CONTENTION II Applicants have indicated that they have no objection to this contention provided the second sentence is deleted. See Applicants' Response, at 9. While strongly disagreeing with Applicants' characterization of the second sentence as e--, e-w, -.--,-,,--,-----ev-, , - , , -- , . -

7- ,, , -w--, ,4- . , ,

containing "various conclusions" (the sentence exactly tracks the language of a regulatory requirement and states that it has

not been satisfied), Attorney General Bellotti will agree to drop the sentence. Contention II so amended reads as follows

"The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan does not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47 (b) (4) because there is no emergency action level scheme for an emergency at the Seabrook

- Station."

CONTENTION II_I Again, Attorney General Bellotti disagrees that his quotation of a Commission regulation and simple statement that it has not been satisfied constitutes a " legal conclusion" inappropriate for a contention. However, he will agree to delete the second sentence of Contention III so as to cure the sole defect alleged by the Applicants (see Applicants' Response, at 10), provided the first sentence is amended to include a citation to the regulatory requirement now referenced in the second sentence. The new contention would read as follows:

The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency

-Response Plan does not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (a ) (1) ,

1 l

l (b) (5) or (b) (6) because procedures have not been established for notification of emergency personnel by the response organizations in the state and there is no demonstration that provisions exist for -

prompt communications among principal response organizations, to emergency personnel, or to the public.

CONTENTION IV Applicants do not object to either the regulatory basis of this contention or the specificity of the stated bases, but imply that there is some requirement that any given contention recite only one regulatory requirement which has been violated. See Applicants' Response, at 11. There is no such 1 requirement. Nor does the contention contain " rhetoric" as the Applicants so love to assert. It contains a detailed specification of the respects in which the fairly general regulatory requirements set forth at 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47 (b) (10 )

and (11) have not been satisfied -- specification which, if omitted, would have led the Applicants to contest the admissibility of the contention.

There is simply no basis in the Atomic Energy Act or Commission regulations for Applicants' suggestion that a contention can be rejected because it is too long or cites more than one regulatory requirement. If Applicants are requesting that Attorney General Bellotti subdivide his contention for

their convenience, he is willing to consider doing so but would expect some greater contribution from the Applicants as to the manner in which they would like to see that favor performed. .

Again, it appears that the Staff may recommend such subdivision and, fully expecting that the Staff will offer concrete suggestions as to both the goals which we should be seeking in undertaking any redrafting and the ways in which those goals might be accomplished, we will await the Staff's response to the contentions before attempting any redrafting.

CONTENTION V This contention and the bases therefor are identical in substance to a contention which Attorney General Bellotti submitted at the commencement of this proceeding, with the exception of the reference to the New Hampshire plan. See Supplement to the Petition to Intervene of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, filed April 20, 1982, at 6-18; Brief of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Support of its Contentions, filed July 22, 1982, at Exhibit B [containing the contention redrafted to incorporate the bases previously provided). In its Memorandum and Order dated September 14, 1982, the Board ruled that the original contention was premature and could be

I l

I reframed and refiled once off-site emergency plans were made available. See ASLB Memorandum and Order, September 14, 1982, at 86-90. The New Hampshire plan having been made available, Attorney General Bellotti has refiled the contention. And now Applicants claim that it is late-filed. Applicants' counsel should be censured by the Board for even making such an argument. Suffice it to say, if Applicants disagree with the Board's judgment that the contention was premature when originally filed or its determination that the appropriate time for refiling was following submission of off-site emergency plans, they long ago lost the opportunity to contest those decisions.

Attorney General Bellotti agrees that the data which this contention refers to should be contained in the Applicants' or Staff's filings, rather than the New Hampshire plan, and will therefore agree to omit the reference to the plan in the first sentence of the contention as currently drafted. The first sentence would then begin as follows:

The FSAR, ER-OL, SER, and FES contain insufficient data . . .

The final sentence would then need to be revised to indicate the source of information as to " planned protective actions" as follows:

l l

l I

1

. There is, therefore, no basis at this time for determining that " adequate protective measures can and will be taken" to protect those present in New Hampshire at the time of an accident, as required by 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (a) (1) , or that the planned ]

protective actions as_ set _for_h_in_the t New Hampshire Radiological' Emergency Response _ Plan are " adequate" and " capable of being implemented," as required by 10 l C.F.R. 550.47 (a) (2) . [New material underscored.]

Respectfully submitted, ATTORNEY GENERAL FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI By: / -

gp'AnnShotwell assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2265 Dated: July 15, 1983

i

. . . " EXHIBIT A" .

UNITED STATES OF AME'RICA 0 '.7.ETED

P:::

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r~.

cv.'

'- ?3 P G' In the Matter of )

i

\ n h,Ll.

) Docket:Nos.

PU3LIC SERVICE COMPANY 50-(43::I OF NE'.i EAMPSHIRE , et al. )

50444

)

Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 )

)

)

PETITION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INTERVENE IN OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, hereby petitions the Commission for leave to intervene in the operating license proceeding for the Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2. Attorney' General Bellotti is a duly elected representative of-the citizens'of Massachusetts and seeks to participate in this proceeding on their behalf with respect to-the subject areas of accident prevention and mitigation and em,ergency response.

In its regulations on emergency planning the Commission .-

. )

requires that ~ plume exposure pathway and ingestion pathway

. emergency planning zones'be established around each light-water The nuclear power plant. 10 C.F.R. S50.33 and 550.47( )(.2).

rules provide that."[glenerally, the plume exposure. pathway EPZ for nuclear power reactors shall consist of an area about 10 '

~

miles (16 'km) in radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ shall l a

s

+ , .7 w - -r . .- . , - - - y -- ~e , - , - - w-- ,

o .

. . (

consist of an area about 50 miles (80 km) in radius." And no operating license will be issued until the Commission ' finds that [a] range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public . . . . and protective actiens for the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ appropriate to the locale have been developed." 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47 (b) (10) .

The Commission recognizes, then, that citizens within 50 miles of a reactor (and particularly those within 10 miles) are within the Zone of danger in the event of a bevere accident and ,

that protective actions may be necessary within those areas to prevent or mitigate adverse consecuences to public health and welfare. Since the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has several communities located within ten miles of the Seabrook site, and since a large portion of the state (including much of the metropolitan Boston area) is within fifty miles of the site, the citizens of Massachusetts have a clear and significant interest in the safe operation of these plants.

In addition, many citizens of Massachusetts have an interest in the safe operation of and the emergency plans for the Seabrook Station because they frequently visit the beaches

. located within five miles of the site. In a document already on -file-in this matter , " Memorandum of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Support of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Request for an Order to Show Cause dated June 30, 1980"

--r--.- ,--.w w -- -,,-- ~wr ,-w - - - -

~

(

'. .. C I" Memorandum") , Attorney General Bellotti discusses in some detail the severe difficulties aseccia ei ei:n e.2:utt'icn cf these beaches and the inadequacy of current evidence as to the feasibility of safe evacuation. The difficulties associated with evacuating the beaches have long been recognized by the

. NRC Staff, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and other parties. See Memorandum, at 6. Recently two members of the Commission concluded that the beaches in the vicinity of Seabrook pose " difficult, and perhaps unique, emergency planning problems" and that "if emergency preparedness is not improved sufficiently . . ., Seabrook's operation may be contingent on restricted use of the beaches." See Separate Views of Commissioner Gilinsky, Commissioner Bradford concurring, on September 11, 1981 Commission vote declining review of decision DD-81-14, Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444.

The problems posed by the beaches in the Seabrook vicinity alone give rise to serious concern for the safety of Massachusetts citizens. Only by participating fully as a party to this proceeding can Attorney General Bellotti help ensure that adequate steps are taken to prevent and to mitigate the eff ects of a severe accident at the Seabrook Station. Attorney

., General Bellotti will seek to ensure that proposed protective actions are feasible and will adequately protect the public and that the citizens of Massachusetts are receiving the benefit of the lessons to be learned from the accident at Three Mile Island.

~

(

_4 The Atomic Energy Act, at 42 U.S.C. 52021(1),

specifically recognires the right of states having an in eres; in the proposed construction or operation of nuclsar power Plants to participate in the proceedings relating thereto. For the reasons, outlined above, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts clearly has such an interest in this proceeding and is entitled to participate fully therein through its Attorney General.

Respectfully submitted, FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI ATTORNEY GENERAL l By: PAULA GOLD Assistant Attorney General Chief, Public Protection Bureau-STEPHEN M. LEONARD Assistant Attorney General Chief, Environmental Protection Divi

%/ fl... J '.b.f wf'l JO' ANN SHOTWELL

4'ssIstant Attorney General

~

Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau Departm'ent of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2265 Dated: November 18, 1981 O

e S

6- - -

__m .

' (

_5_

('

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j l

I, Jo Ann Shotwell, hereby certify that I have this day 1

serted a ecpy of the foregoing Petition on the NRC Staff by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, to the Executive Legal

~

Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

20555.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 18th day of November, 1981.

/

.t .

c . .

y-

.~..-*;,-..,,

gy. . - -% C JO' ANN SHOTWELL ' ,

kssistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau Department of the Artorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617)-727-2265 e

G I

t ..

I

- ~

t .

_S.

(

-r e_ r_r.u ~- r u _ u. m. r_ _ u.- .m. e n. e.

I, Jo Ann Shotsell, hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Petition on the Applicants by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, to their attorney, Thomas G. Dignan, Esq., Ropes and Gray, 225 Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 18th day of November, 1981.

.?

m ,..

,., ..4 .-

5

.e :'" " _; r,

s. ;i ,

By: C -

.e.~'~--"'-*'

JO ANN SHOTWELL ~

Assistant Attorney Genera 1 Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2265 l

l i

I e

e

" EXHIBIT B "

3 English. Yet, the New Hampshire RERP does not provide for l$(2

'rilingual emergency announcements. In order to provide a f

reasonable assurance that the entire transient adult population in the Seabro'ok EPZ can be properly instructed during an .

emergency, the RERP must provide for emergency instructions in both English and Fr ench.

8. The New Hampshire RERP violates 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(1) in that it does not adequately demonstrate that "each principal its response organization has staff to respond and to augment initial r esponse on a continuous basis."

3 asis: NRC regulations at 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(1) require

" adequate staf fing" for a continuous response to an emergency.

As pr ovided by NUREG-0654, the organizations must be capable of response on a 24-hours basis. S II.A.l.e. The RERP gives many emergency response organizations major tasks without assuring that they have adequate staff to to fulfill their responsibilities, or that they can be carried out on a 24-hour basis. For example,

a. The Division of Public Health is given the

responsibility for all field radiological monitoring and conducting f ood and water screening, but only 3 two-person teams with 6 monitors are provided for all the ground level monitoring in the entire EPZ and 50-mile ingestion pathway zone. RE RP a t 2 .5-7 . It is simply impossible to expect this small number of people to be able to cover such a wide area.

l

3 s

I N

l The staffing.of.the DPH laborator.ies is also insufficient (

a to assure. operatienc on. a: continuous basis. The lab time j 1

estimates for a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> day contain the cautionary footncte "pr esupposing the availabilty of personnel." RERP at 25-21 - ,

(Table 25-4). Unless the availability of personnel is assured r ather than "pr esupposed" , the plan is inadequate. The DPH is also given responsibility for running the decontamination centers, but no decontamination centers have been designated, nor have the personnel needs at these centers been assessed, much less assured.

b. The Emergency Medical services Organization is recuired by the REF2 to coordinate ambulance and hosptial facilities for a variety of needs, such as emergency medical treatment and special services, transportation of contaminated individuals to hospitals, treatment of injured individuals, and evacuation of non-ambulatory individuals requiring ambulance service. RERP a t 1. 3 14 . Yet, no assessment has been made of the number of . personnel needed to carry out these functions or the kinds and amounts of equipment needed to carry out the tasks. For instance, there is no discussion of the number of ambulances bnd ambulance drivers needed to evacuate nonambulatory patients and injured individuals from the EPZ. The RERP cites only the

- names of the ambulance services. Unless the state assesses these needs and provides assurances that these needs will be met, the plan is adequate.

l l

m-

~ .

c. The Pupil Transportation supervisor is responsible for coordinating bus evacuations for the school children in the RE RP at EP2, as well as assisting the general evacuation.

1.3 -17 . No information is provided on the number of bus drivers available; whether they will be trained in emergency procedures; or whether enough buses are available to evacuate n'r.e childr en. The bus drivers' other general evacuation responsibilities are too vaguely descrioed to provide any assurance they they can and will be carried out,

d. The American Red Cr oss has been given r esponsibility bcth to assist at the relocation centers (whose location and nrmerical capacity are still undetermined) and to operate the 1 ng-tern mass care centers. The plan provides no basis for assurance that, the Red Cr oss is adequately staf f ed to perf orm both these tasks on a 24-hour basis.

e. The Civil Air Patrol is given three major tasks by the RERP : aerial observation of the EPZ; air and ground transportation of key of ficials in the emergency response organizations; and the transportation of field samples. Yet, there is no assessment of the number of trained pilots available to perform the tasks, and the plan provides no basis f or assurance that the CAP will be able to respond adequately on a continuous basis.

9. The New Hampshire RERP violates 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(7) in that the Media Center is located inside the Emergency planning Zone.

1

.