ML20078B830

Response to Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.Contention Re Analysis of Evacuation Times Litigated in Phase I of Hearings & Should Be Excluded.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20078B830
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/23/1983
From:	Dignan T, Gad R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8309270272
Download: ML20078B830 (12)

Text

., .. .

Dated: Scptember 23, 1983 i

DOCKETED usnec

- '83 SEP 26 P4 26 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0FricE cr 3:.c j -

C% nTj.nq ).jU

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .

f

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPARY OF NEW ) Docket Nos. 50-443 HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444

)

(Seabrook Station,'UniYs 1 & 2.1 )

)

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE m

SAPL LP-1 "The plans contain no specific information concerning the time required for notifying and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone. Therefore, the plans do not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (a)(1), 550.47 (b)(6) and NUREG-0654, E.6." .

The applicants do not object to admission of tihs

~

contention.

+ .

l 8309270272 830923 .

/

i J

PDR ADOCK 05000443 G -PDR w

1 I

. i SAPL LP-2 "The plans fail to specify the personnel responsibile for notifying the public through the use of mobile public address systems."

The applicants object to the contention as phrased because it assumes the need for moble public address systems. If the contention were rephrased as follows, applicants would have no objection: f "If and to the extent that it is necessary to use mobile public address systems for notifying the public, the plan should specify the personnel responsible ~for operation of such equipment."

~~

SAPL.LP-3 "The plans do not provide for adequate, off-site radiological monitoring capability as required by 10 C.F.R. 650.47(b)(9) and NUREG-0654, H.7.

Specifically, the independent monitoring cross-referenced to the Department of Public Health Services in the state plan cannot be implemented as stated in the plans." . ,

The applicants have no objection to this contention being admitted.

SAPL LP-4

~

"The plans are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency as required by 10 C.F.R. $50.47(a)(1) in that the plans are incomplete.

Specifically, the plans make no provisions for an evacuation of persons institutionally confined."

~ .

. l l

\

l As phrased, the contention assumes that evacuation is always necessary for persons institutionally confined.

Applicants would have no objection if the words "the protection" were substituted for the words "an evacuation" in the second sentence.

SAPL LP-5 rovide "The plansassurance reasonable are insufficient to p(te that adequ protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency as required by 10 C.F.R.' $50.47(a)(1) in that the plans are inccmplete. ,

Specifically, with the exception of the Greenland, Hew Hampshire plan, the plans do not include maps showing evacuation routes, evacuation areas, or preselected c

radiologi'al sampling,and monitoring points."

No objection is made to the admission of this contention.

SAPL LP-6 "The plans fail to comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. $50.47(b)(10),

and (b)(12), as well as NUREG-0654 J.12 as they include no description of the means of registering and monitoring evacuees at relocation centers.

Specifically, the plans should include a description of the equipment and personnel required to monitor the '

radioactive contamination levels of evacuees as they grrive at the centers."

Applicants have no objection to the first sentence as a contention. Applicants do object to the second sentence as there is no regulatory requirement that evacuees be

. monitored "as they arrive at the centers." NUREG 0654 9

II.J.12 only suggests it be done "within about a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> i

period."

SAPL LP-7 "The plans are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency as required by 10 C.F.R. 550.47(a)(1) in that no relocation centers have been identified. This is contrary to NUREG-0654 J.10.h. which requires f identification of relocation centers in host areas which are at least five miles '

and preferably ten miles beyond the boundaries of.the plume exposure EPZ.

(Note: This Contention applies to all towns with the specific exemption.fo Greenland.)"

No objection is ma'de to thA admission of this centention. ,

SAPL LP-8 "The plans fail to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. %50.47(t)(11) and NUREG-0654 K.5.b. because there has been no showing that the means for radiological decontamination of emergency personnel, wounds, supplies, instruments, and equipment have been established.

Further, there has been no showing that a means for waste disposal exists."

No objection is made to the admission of this contention.

- SAPL LP-9 "The hospitals responsible for treating ill or injured persons suspected or known to be contaminated are not sufficiently equipped or staffed to handle the numbers of persons that would require such attention in a serious radiological emergency. Further,tua provisions are made for the transport of radiological

. 4

. . l l

l

l l

l accident victims to the designated hospitals. This violates 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(11), (b)(12) and NUREG-0654 L.1 and L.4."

No objection is made to the admission of this contention.

SAPL LP-10 "The plans are inadequately drafted in .

that they do not include a cross- f reference to NUREG-0654. This is in violation of 10 C.F.R. 550.47(a)(1),

50.47(b)(1) et seq. as interpreted in

• NUREG-0654 P.8."

No objection is made to the admission of this contention.

SAPL IP-11 "The plans are insuf,ficient to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the vent of a radiological emergency.

Specifically, the plans neither discuss nor analyze an account for behavioral variations among members of the public in the event of a radiological emergency.

Such behavioral variations would include evacueee disregard of evauation instructions resulting from panic."

i There is no regulatory requi ement that the plans f

i themselves " discuss or analyze" behavioral variations among I

members of the public. Indeed none is' cited by SAPL. 'The f

l .

contention should be excluded.

. SAPL LP-12 "The plans are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

Specifically, the plans neither discuss nor account for behavioral variations e

l among designated emergency personnel that would impair or extinguish their ability to carry out assigned duties."

Again there is no regulatory requirement that the plans contain analyses of the type requested. The regulations assume that public officials will do their duty. The contention should be excluded.

SAPL LP-13 r "The plans are inadequate because there are insufficient personnel available in '

the fire and police departments within the EPZ to fulfill designated obligations at the loca1 level."

The applicants do not object to admission of this

~~

contention. ..

SAPL LP-14 "The plans submitted are inadquate because they purport to provide for a feasible protective response, including evacuation, absent ardeclaration of assumptions."

• There is no regulatory requirement for inclusion of a

" declaration of assumptions" in these plans and none is cited. The contention should be excluded.

SAPL LP-15

" Procedures to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway EPZ required by 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(5) are inadequate in that the plans do not provide for bilingual message for the large numbers of French-speaking individuals who are often in the area in large numbers."

{

As framed it is objected to because it assumes as fact the existence of large numbers of " French speaking" individuals who also speak and read no English.

Furthermore, there is no regulatory requirement for bilingual messages in any event.

SAPL LP-16 "The plans do not contain adequate guidelines for the choice of prd'tective actions or information on which the

, choice of protective actions could be based in the event of an emergency.

Such gnidelines ,are not required in local plans. See NUREG-0654 Rev. 1 at 64, 1 II.J.m. The contention should be excluded. ..

SAPL LP-17 "The plans are inadequate because they do not contain maps of evacuation routes, predictions of the time required for evacuation, or the impact of inclement weather during evacuation procedures, and (This the need for siternative routes.

contention does not apply to the Greenland RERPL.)"

This is repetitive in part of SAPL LP-5 and to that extent should be excluded. The remainder of the contention is not objected to. ,

SAPL LP-18 "The local plans do not adequately provide for requesting and effectively using assistance resources, including private resources as wel', as the resources of other governmental entities.

This is in violation of 10 C.F.R.

. 550.47(b)(3). In particular, the plans do not set forth reqtisite letters of agreement detailing how assistance

• 6

1 resources will be provided as required under NUREG-0654 A.3."

No objection is made to this contention.

SAPL LP-19 "The plans are inadequate because they fail to address the impacts of egress route flooding upon an orderly evacuation. The plans cannot reasonably assure that adequate measures can and will be taken in the event af a radiological emergency without a#ddressing the flooding issue."

There is no regulatory requirement that such matters be '

i addressed in the local emergency plans. The contention l ,

! should be excluded. ..

~~

SAPL.LP-20 4

"The plans fail to a,ssure that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the health and safety of the public in the event of a radiological emergency.

Specifically, they fail to address the 1 impact of limited gasoline supplies

' within the EPZ upon an orderly evacuation." -

This contention raises the problem of cars running out of gas while in an evacuation queue. It is an issue already addressed in Phase 1 of these proceedings.

SAPL LP-21 ,

"The local plans are inadequate to protect the health and safety of the public because they make no provision for radiological emergency notification of response personnel in advance of news releases to the public. This allows for no lead time allowing emergency response '

l personnel to initiate designated l ,

procedures, and will result in non-dedicated telephone Iines to county dispatchers, fire, and police departments O

l l

t I

being tied up with public inquiries co'.cering the incident."

This contention as framed is argumentative and wordy.

Applicants would have no objection to a contention framed as

?

follows:

"SAPL contends that all local plans should require that emergency response personnel should be notified of any ,

cmergency minutes before the general public is told." f SAPL LP-22 "The local RERP's fail to make an adequate showing that 24-hour per day capabilitie~s exist to determine the doses received by emergency personnel and hence f ail to comp-ly with 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (b)(ll) and RUREG-065G K.3."

Applicants have no objection to admission of this contention.

SAPL LP-23 "The plans are inadequate to protect the health and safety of the public because they fail to assess the time it will take to evacuate permanent reside'ts nad transient populations from tne respective localities within the EPZ. An analysis of these evacuation times is crucial if local officials and emergency personnel are to plan adequately for an effective evacuation should one be necessary." ,

4

. .g.

e

- - -. -pm-

J This contention was litigated in Phase 1 of these hearings. The contention should be excluded.

Respec ully ,bmitted

/

i

. C. C A a.

Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.

R.K. Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 1

(617) 423-6,00 i

e' 9 e e e O

0 9

4 1 .

4 r

l l . ,

4

I '\ ,

L,.Y / 2

~ i~

l A ,9

-  ! ' CERT 5FICATE OF SERVICE s

C1, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.., one of the attorneys for the Applictnts herein; he'reby certify that on September 23, f

1983, 1 made service of the within document by mailing feopies'thereof,-postage propsid, to:

3

' Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Brian P. Cassidy, Esquire

' ~ Atomic l. Safety and Licensing Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Board Panel ,

Agency - Region I U.S. Nuclear Reg 21atory ' Commission 442 POCH Washington, D.C. 20555 -

Bostfon, MA 02109 William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Dr.lEameth A. Luebke. s Harmon & Weiss Atomi'c Safety and Licensing 1725 I Street, N.W.

Board Panel ~

U.S Nuclea'r Regulatory Comnission Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Habbour - George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licedsing

~

Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Board Pan'el U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmi,ssion 208 State House Annex Washington, DC 20555' Concord, NH 03301 Atomic' Safety and Licensing Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Board. Panel ,

U.S. Naclear Regulatory Commission- Director Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Robert A. Backus, Esquire Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissibn P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Anne Verge, Chairperson Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Department of the Attorney . Town Hall General - South Hampton, NH Augusta, ME 04333, Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire David R. Lewis, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of the Attorney General 20555 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Washington, DC Boston, MA 02108

\

i i

~ '

j

' ~

l l o' . -

l

< s ,

s.. ->

Mr. Charles Cross, Esq. Brentwood Board of Selectmen Snaines, Madrigan, & McEachern R.F.D., Dalton Road 25 Maplewood Avenue Brentwood, NH 03833 P.O. Box 366 Portsmouth, NH 03801 State Rep. Roberta C. Pevear Calvin A. Canney, City Manager Drinkwater Road City Hall, 126 Daniel Street Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Patrick J. McKeon RFD 1 Selectmen's Office East Kingston, NH 03827 10 Cfntral Road Rye, 151 03870 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros' U.S. Senate Chairman of the Board of Washington, DC 20510 Selectmen (Attn: Tom Eurack) - Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Town Manager's Office Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor

~

Town Hall - Friend Street City Hall Amesbury, MA 01913 ,

Newburyport, MA 01950 Ms. Diana P. Randall Donald E. Chick, Town Manager 70 Collins Street Town of Exeter Seabrook, NH 03874 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey One Pillsbury Street .

Concord, NH 03301 (Attn: Herb Boynton)

O e

-/-j h Thon(aFG. Di rr O O b