ML20077J465

Contentions on State of Nh Emergency Response Procedures, Implementing State Radiological Emergency Response Plan. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20077J465
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/11/1983
From:	Curran D, Jordan W HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8308160430
Download: ML20077J465 (14)

Text

. .. __

i S- *

!j f

UllITED STATES OF AMERICA U  !

l t1UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOli i l '83 AU315 R2:49 h BEFORE Ti!E ATOMIC SAFETY AllD LICEllSIl1G BOARD T

4 tre c: e; q j )

In the Matter of )

)

3 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPAt1Y OF ) Docket 11on. 50-443 i 11EW ll AMPSilIRE, --et al. ) 50-444 I )

! (Seabrook Station, Units 1 )

l and 2) )

i )

11ECt1P cot 1TE!!TIOt1S Oli 11EW ll AMPSilIRE l EMERGEt1CY RESPOt1SE PROCEDURES 11ECt1P submits the following contentions on the tiew l

!!ampshire emergency response procedures which implement the

! state's Radiological Emergency Response Plan. These procedures were forwarded to 11ECt1P by counsel for the State of tiew llampshire on July 7, 1983.

Commission regulations forbid the issuance of an operating l

l 1icense for a nuclear power plant unless a finding is made t

) "that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective I measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological l

e me r g ency . " 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(a)(1). 11UREG-0654 in turn sets l'

out detailed requirements for the contents of emergency plans necessary to support that finding. Under Section II.P.7 of 11UREG-0 6 5 4 ,

b Each plan shall contain an appendix listing, by title, j procedures required to implement the plan. The listing l

shall include the section(s) of the plan to be implemented j by each procedure.

11UREG-0654, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in 1

8308160430 830811 PDR ADOCK 05000443 PDR o

'i

0 l

support of Nuclear Power Plants, PEMA-REP.-l Rev. 1 at 69.

NUREG-0654 therefore contemplates that, either in the body of

.an emergency plan, or its appendix, each governmental organization submitting a plan must provide details on how the elements of the plan will be carried out. Unless the plan details the steps that must be taken in order to implement the

! plan's. directives, there can be no " reasonable assourance" that the plan "can and will" be effectively implemented to protect the public health and safety.

The New Ilampshire procedures do not provide this crucial information on.how the RERP will be implemented. The procedures generally list the responsibilities of.the agencies--adding little or nothing to the description of responsibilities given in the body of the plan. In some cases, they are even inconsistent with the plan. In the absence of any discussion of how, by whom, or with what training and capability these functions will be performed, . the procedures provide no assurance that the elements of the plan can or will-be carried out. The following specific deficiencies in the procedures are challenged by NECNP:

1.- The New Hampshire procedures do not provide a

. reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the' event'of a-radiologicallemergency in that provisions for contact and coordination between the New

!!ampshire' and Massachusetts state governments ;are vague, and call for ad. hoc decision making. Moreover, the procedures conflictLwith the plan.

4

.i

L ,

, *- ~ , . - , 3 l- ,4 % ~%

. n ,

s f '

4 aauis: In ti.e case of a site area energency or general

! emergency, the New Hampshire Civil hf C$se Agency Director is 1 , s r

to:

i Contact Massachusetts EOC [Emelgency Operations Center).

j Review summary status repwrt Jith Massachusetts officials (preferably Director MCDA). 'This may be delegated to the Operations Officer. Agree on plant status and coordinated protective actions to be taken by the two states.

l

! Procedures for New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency, EAL #3 item t,

7. This brief description of the procedures for i coordinating the New Hampshire emergency response with the state of Massachusetts contains no criteria for reaching r

! agreement on plant status and the correct emergency response, u

! No reference is made to any pre-existing agreements between the

states. Apparently, the states are expected to coordinate l

their repsonses on an ad hoc, last minute basis. This hit or miss approach to interstate emergency response coordination could cause substantial confusion and dangerous delay in the

! implementation of emergency response measures.

J

! NUREG-0654 requires that each emergency plan must include l

! written agreements between emergency response organizations, i

Those agreements must " identify the emergency measures to be

, provided and the mutually acceptable criteria for their I

( implementation, and specifcy the arrangements for exchange of

, information." NUREG-0654, S II.A.3. The procedures do not even l

• The New Hampshire emergency procedures have no page

.i numbers. Therefore, citations are to the relevant sections of j the procedures, e

!i ,

i l

,V '

I h

1 1 i I

acknowledge the existence of such agreements, let alone describe how they will be implemented.

Moreover, the procedures contradict the New Hampshire RERP f in that they establish the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency i

l as the principle contact with the state of Massachusetts, while y the RERP states tht the governor of New Hampshire " represents

( New Hampshire in coordinating policy level decisions such as l

ordering an evacuation." RE RP a t 1.3-3. The RERP calls f or a l conference call, and the maintencance of periodic telephone i

contacts with other states. Id. The emergency response

' procedures on the other hand, do not provide for any contact between the New Hampshire governor and the Massachusetts i governor. Instead, the governor is to receive " timely h

( briefings" on the status of interstate coordination from the 1

h Civil Defense Agency and the Department of Public Health.

Pr ocedures f or Governor's Of fice, EAL #3, item 6. The procedures should be corrected to be consistent with the New Hampshire RERP, which reposes responsibility for interstate coordination with the governor.

I 2. The procedures for the Emergency Medical Services violate 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(a)(1) in that they do not adequately describe how the EMS will carry out its numerous 4 responsibilities under the New Hampshire RERP. Therefore, the l

{ procedures do not provide a reasonable assurance that adequate measurca can and will be taken to protect the public health and J

k safety during an emergency.

l N (

g g .

Basis: Under the New Hampshire RERP, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is " responsible for coordinating ambulance i

! service for four emergency response tasks to the Seabrook or l Vermont Yankee plume exposure EPL." NHRE RP at 1.3-13. This F

includes maintenance of a list of hospitals with radiological treatment capability near the EPZ; and obtaining and coordinating ambulances from outside the EPZ to supplement the fleet that routinely services the area. I cl . The four specific tasks involved in coordinating ambulance services are: to evacuate non-ambulatory individuals requiring ambulance i

service; to assist individuals exposed to radiation levels that

! require 5. hem to obtain hospital treatment; to assist individuals arriving at the Reception Center (s) who have a need i

! for emergency medical treatment or special services; and to l

1 coordinate ambulance services for accidents that may occur in i

and around the EPZ. RERP at 1.3-14. The procedures purported to implement these weighty responsibilities consist of three l pages, which generally supply telephone numbers and identify a handful of individuals who will be "available" in the event of l a radiological emergency. No attempt is made to describe how, when, where, or by whom, the EMS will attempt to coordinate and provide ambulance service during an emergency. Neither in the plan nor in the procedures is any indication given of the capability of EMS to fulfill its tasks, or whether the necessary steps can and will be taken to fulfill its r

responsibilities.

r

q 4 .

l t l 3. The procedures for the Division of Public Health violate 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(a)(1) in that they do not adequatey describe the way in which the RERP for the Division of Public q Health will be carried out. -There is thus no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be i

taken by the Division of Public Health in the event of a

]

radiological emergency.

Basis: The New Hampshire RERP assigns the Division of Public Health seven tasks. RERP at 1.3-8. They include: (1)

"providing NHCDA with a~ continuous assessment of the status'of

-the' accident at the power plant and the predicted or current radiological levels in the plume' exposure and ingestion pathway EpZs; (2) " recommending specific protective actions which the d ta indicate should be taken to protect _public health;"=(3)

" radiological exposure control to protect the health and safety of emergency wotkers who may have to remain in the EPZ after sheltering or evacuation of the general public has been o rder ed" ; (4) " specification of criteria for determining the need.for decontamination of emergency workers;" (5) "providing for-proper disposal-of all waste materials that have been

~ radiologically contaminated or which result from the operation of the decontamination center;" (6) " determining'that.

radiological' levels have sufficiently decreased to allow-i-

re-entry cf EPZ by_ emergency Workers ~ and/or theLgeneral public-after antovacuation;".and-(7) "to request additional; assistance Efor the Federal'. technical ~ support, by_ direct request to~ DOE."~

1RERP at'l.3-8-10. .

k l

\--.' ..

l ), -

> 3;

~,

J a. '

The emergency procedures for DPH do not even begin to explain how these responsibilities will be carried out. With regard to monitoring, for example, the procedures simply state that during an alert, DPH must Initiate calls for monitoring team members, adjunct HP staf f and voluteers. See Appendix B for call list. Have three monitoring teams assemble and prepare equipment for departure. Ask volunteers and adjust HP staff to stand by for further calls.

No information~is provided as to who the team. members are (Appendix B does not identify the monitoring teams); where they will be; how they are expected to obtain their equipment; where they will go or. how long it will take ta) reach their monitoring positions.

At the level of Site Area Emergency, DPH is to'" review

- available adata with Rad Health Specialist at EOF." No

~

indication is given of where these date will come from. Are the monitoring teams to phone in data from the field? How long will it take-before-the data can be accumulated? The

. procedures are silent on these critical points.

' i At the Site. Area Emergency Level, DPH will also " assign

'available staff at EOC to contact volunteer and adjunct HP staff identified in Appendix B." All cLbers are to'" report to

State E'a for assignment." No description is given of what

~ '

those- :.aignments"might be, howLthe labor will.be divided among

'the 3cven-tasks assigned to.DPH,2or how longlit will take to Jdeploy..this. labor force. . . An " adjunct" staff'is to~be assigned to thb Emergency Operations Facility (EOF)-to augmentthe~ staff E .

'/ -

u-- _

q l '" " ,

1 l Ithere; to the Incidence Field Office (IFO) "to be available for plume monitoring and reception center monitoring;" and to

" undertake laboratory analysis work." No description is given

.; of the extent of-the need for personnel to perform these functions; how the labor force will be allocated; or whether there will be adequate numbers of trained personnel to perform

~these tasks.

In a General Emergency, DPli is to " undertake assignment of monitoring and laboratory analysis work and dosemitry distribution as deemed appropriate." No criteria are given for what is " appropriate." No indication is given of the need for

~

or capability of the staff to perform laboratory analysis, where it will take place, how it will be done, or how long it will take to.obtain results. Although it is given principle

-responsibility for distribution of dosimeters by the RERP, under the procedures DPil is to " coordinate dosimetry.

distribution with N!!CDA." The procedures do not describe how this coordinated effort will be undertaken, i.e. where the

-dosimeters.will be distributed from, how many are needed, or

-how it.will be assured that all emergency workers will: receive

'them.

The procedures barely address the DPil's responsibilities.

~

-for monitoring accidents and distributing dosimeters. Theyfdo.

'not address al all DPil's tasks.of recommeding specific-

! protective : actions (by what criteria will . recommendations _. be -

made?)'; -radiological exposure control for emergency workers k

n ir _ - ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

y _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .-

k -

4:

remaining in the EPZ (no controls are identified);

, specification of criteria for determining the need for i

decont' amination of emergency worker (according to the plan, f ( RERP a t 1.3-10) decontamination is to f ollow "DPH procedures" ,

which are nowhere described); providing for proper disposal of wastes (how is contaminated waste to be collected and disposed l

of safely?); determining that radiological levels have suf ficently decreased to allow re-entry; or requesting I

I additional assitance from the federal government (Have prior i

! arrangements been made? Wnat are the criteria for invoking assistance?) The New Hampshire procedures thus provide i

absolutely no assurance that the Division of Public Health's L responsibilities under the New Hampshire RERP can and will be

! implemented in the event of a radiological emergency.

l 4 The New Hampshire emergency response proecedures do not j provide a reasonable assurance that adequate protective l

l measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological It emergency in that the procedures for the State Highway Department do not describe how the department will carry out l its responsibilites.

l Basis: The procedures for the New Hampshire state highway Department consist of a list of responsibilities triggered by an accident, without any discussion of how they are to be carried out. In some cases, even the responsibilities are not described in any more than a vague manner. No indication is 1,

a a . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _

s t 1 I

I l

! t 4

! given of how the State Highway Department will carry out its function during an emergency, or whether the State Highway Department has the capability to do so. For example:

a. The procedures direct that:

[

The Commissioner, or his representative, should report j to the State EOC at 1 Airport Road to coordinate State j Highway Department emergency response support

} activities. Report availability to the ranking State Police Officer at the EOC and to the ranking NHCDA official.

No description is given of what exactly is involved in the

! " coordination" of the State Highway Department emergency j response support activities. Apparently the procedures l contemplate that " availability" of personnel to carry out the g

l emergency response will not be determined until an emergency I

arises.

l b. The State Highway Department must:

Be prepared to support emergency response activities of the State Police. Be prepared to assist with traffic control, communications, transportation, and

! maintenance of evacuation routes (including snow and debris clearance and towing as necessary.)

i No indication is given of what types of assistance the State Police may require; whether State Highway Department personnel j

are trained to provide that assistance; whether staffing is adequate; how much equipment the department has for towing, snow plowing, or clearing of debris. ,

I c. No description is given of now the highway department 5

I

?

I i

)

l N' l.-

k will communicate.with personnel who have been sent into the field, so that they may be assigned quickly to areas where they are needed.

5. The New Ilampshire emergency response procedures do not comply with the regulatory requirement that "adquate emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergency response are provided and maintained," in that they do not assure the availability of enough buses for evacuation of schoolchildren from the Emergency-Planning Zone. 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(8).

Basis: The procedures for the Pupil Transportation Safety Supervisor-provide absolutely no assurance that the Director will be able to procure enough buses for the evacuation. -No information is provided regarding how many buses are available;

~

where they'are located; how long it will take to get them to where they are needed; or whether there are enough trained

' drivers who are willing to perform the task of transporting the students. There is not even complete data on the need for

-transportation. -For example, Appendix A, which contains procedures for'the Director.of Pupil Transportation safety,

.gives the names and phone numbers of emergency response I' . personnel and the numbers of studentsineeding.tranpsortation A

for only 10 counties.

!Mo'reover,the procedures make no mention ofEthe Supervisor's

~

responsibility under the New Hampshire RERP to transport ,

~

nonstudents.who require'public. transportation. .Therefore,

7- -

2 1 - -

i l there is no reasonable assurance that those people can and will be evacuated if necessary in the event of an emergency.

Respectfully submitted, G

i Diane Curran J

f William S. Jor n III

)

HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.

Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 Dated: August 11, 1983 I

i i

l l

?

N s

,1

,i . . . . . . . , . . . . . _ . - _

-~y~ ~~.

/1

• l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify _that on August 11, 1983 copies of NECNP CONTENTIONS ON NEW HAMPSHIRE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES were served by i

first-class mail or as otherwise indicated on the following:

• Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairperson Rep. Roberta C. Pevear Atomic Saftey and Licensing Board Drinkwater Road Panel Hampton Falls, NH 03844 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

• Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Phillip Ahrens, Esq.

Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Saftey and Licensing Board State House, Station #6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Augusta, ME 04333 Washington, DC 20555

• Dr. Jerry Harbour Robert A. Backus,-Esq.

Administrative' Judge 111 Lowell Street' Atomic Saftey and Licensing Board Manchester, NH 03105 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic' Safety and Licensing' Board ** Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.

Panel R. K. Gad, III,- Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes and Gray Washington, DC 20555 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110-Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Dr. Mauray Tye, President

~ Board Panel _ Sun Valley'Asociation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 209 Summer' Street

. Washington, DC 20555 Haverhill, MA 01830 Docketina and Service *Roy P. Lessy, Jr. Esq.

U.S. Nuclear ~ Regulatory Commission Robert G..Perlis, Esq.

. Washington,-DC -

20555 . William F. Patterson

, Office of the Executive Legal Director Town Manager's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory'

-Town Hall - Fr iend St. Commission l~ Amesbury,fnA 01913 Washington,~DC '20555 Jir. Angie Machiros Anne Verge,. Chair Chairman ~ BoardLof Selectman.

L ' Board'of Selectmen Town Hall South Hampton, NH 03842 l' Town-of Newbury Newbury,cMA. 09150 L

i p

q- 4 1

- = - --

.[

y LJo' Ann Shotwell, Esq. George. Dana Bisbee, Esq.

Assistant. Attorney General Edward L.-Cross, Jr., Esq.

Department of the Attorney Asst. Atty. Generals General State Ilouse Annex 1 Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02108 John B. Tanzer Le t ty. IIe t t , Selectman Town of Hampton Town of Brentwood 5 Morningside Drive RFD Dalton Road L  !!ampton, NH -03842 Brentwood, NH 03833 Edward F. Meany Sandra Gavutis Town of Rye Town of Kensington 155' Washington Road RFD 1 Rye, . tHI 03870 East Kensington, NH 0382'7

• David R. Lewis, Esq. Diana P. Sidebotham l Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board R.F.D.2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Putney, VT 05346 Wa3hington, DC 20555 Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor City Hall Newburyport, MA 01950 Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Donald E. Chick Board of Selectmen Town Manager Town of Salisbury, MA. 01950 10 Front Street Exeter, NH. 03833 i l Diana P. Randall 70' Collins Street l

Seabrook, NH. 03874 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphrey

, -U.S. Senate. '

1 Pillsbury Street Washington, D.C.f20510 Concord, NH 03301 (Attn: Tom Burack) -(Attn: Herb Boynton)

Selectmen of Northampton Town of Northampton New Hampshire 03862 o

hDiane Curran

^h

• Iland Delivered l'

. *

• Federal Expr ess -

f l .

__ ___ _ __ _ - _ _