ML20081G065

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re State of Nh Contention 20.Applicant Emergency Action Levels Inadequate

ML20081G065
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/31/1983
From:	Bisbee G NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8311040097
Download: ML20081G065 (6)

Text

- - .

n e.

, 'C:  :*

COCKETED J

' VC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'83 NOV -3 A10i48

.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' r

before the gria.ZGg

n . - - T

. '[M, ARAla

. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

^In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL

' 1 HAMPSHIRE ,' et al. ) 50-444 OL

)

(Seabrook Station, Units'l and 2 )- October 31, 1983

)

)

THE' STATE OF.NEW HAMPSHIRE'S PROPOSED.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLdSIONS OF LAW i

i Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I2.754 and.the Board's Order of September

.15, 1983:the State of New Hampshire offers the following proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law relative to Contention NH-20.

~

. Introduction Contention NH-20, admitted by Order of this Board dated September 13, 1982, states as follows:

-NH-20-Emergency Assessement, Classification, and Notification-

"The accident at TMI demonstrated the inability of all parties involved to comprehend'the nature of the accident as

'it unfolded; communicate the necessary information to one another, to the Federal,_ state and local governments and to the public in an accurate and timely fashion;,and to decide in a

~

8311040097 831031 PDD ADOCK 05000443

'i O PDR 2 9

4 -

t' s = timely manner.what course to_take to protect the health and1 safety of the public.'- The Applicant in these

. proceedings-has not adequately Ldemonstrated that.it has developed and will.be able to. implement procedures necessary to assess the impact of an accident, classify it properly, and notify adequately.its own personnel, the affected. government bodies, and the public, al,1 of which is required under 10 C.F.R.-50.47 and Appendix E and NUREG-0654."

The Applicants' offered testimony from a panel of witnessess consisting,ofl James A. MacDonald and George S. Thomas. The Staff

. - t offered _-the testimony.of John R. Sears. ,

1

ThegApplicant-submitted.to the NRC a documedt entitled i

" Emergency Classification System" by_lett'er datdd June 27, 1983. A copy of that-letter and enclosure is anne'xed to the Applicant's testimony on this contention as Exhibit 1. App. Dir., Post Tr. 1483 at 14 . ' This document'provides an emergency classification and emergency-action level scheme.

Findings of Fact 11.- The emergency' classification scheme and emergency action l'evels: describe'the manner by which emergency. conditions are catergorized into the four emergency classes of unusual event, alert, site area emergency, and general emergency. The emergency felassification system uses a "syptomatic approach" to Emergency Operating Procddures as an aid to emergency recognition and classification by the operator. App. Dir. at 15.

~

mm. . , r,, - --a ,

a .

(The emergency-classification.' system is

~

[2 . . "a means to1 smoothly

transfer;betweenLemergency! condition recognition and~the The

~

catergorizationiand classificationLstep". App. Dir-. at:17.

-purposes of the' Applicant's-classification scheme and emergency action-levels'arefto indicate to control ~ room operators 1 specific instrument' readings for_ deciding if an emergency s'ituation exists, andLto' classify-the emergency situationfat a particular emergency level. . This-allows-the operator to1 classify the emergency-and to

. correct or'm'itigate'the cause of the emergency. Tr. at 1495-1496, i

and.1502.

I 3'. According'to the Staff's witness the pu pose'of the emergency-ac' tion' levels is to giveEa! bas'is for the person

~

i

responsible'inith'e control room to declare an-appropriate emergency level and to-notify governmental authorities of an emergency. jrj[.

at 1700. -He also stated .that a purpose of' emergency action levels lisLto recommend protective actions. Tr. at.1701. However, the emergency action' levels themselves do not directly serve the purpose lofimaking' protective action-recommendations to state and local

~

-officials. Those recommendations are the " logical next step" in The basis.for such' recommendations-is

~

' responding to an. emergency.

described elsewhere in the Applicant's Emergency Plan, not in the

emergency, classification scheme and emergency action levels. Tr. at 1703.

/

4

-: h . - -

i .

r

-4 -

. = -

4. The Applicant'.has relied on the Westinghouse Owners. Group's L

preparation of; Emergency Response Guidelines in devising its own r

-: classification scheme and emergency action. levels. App. Dir., Post Tr. 1483, Exhibit l'; Tr. at 1488. The Westinghouse Cwners Group's Emergency' Response Guidelines have not yet been completed nor have

.theyLbeen accepted--by the NRC. There will undoubtedly be some more revisions of these Emergency Response Guidelines. Tr. at 1489-1490.

5. Because of the draft nature of the Westinghouse owners Groupfgeneric guidelines, and because these guidelines have not been accepted by the~NRC, an Applicant witnessi stated that he could not f

characterize the emergency action levels based an'the-Westinghouse Owners Group's guidelines as being ' final. Tr. ad 490.

6. In addition,.some emergency action level " set points" are Lnot yet complete because the1 Applicant has not yet converted all of these set points from the generic guidelines to specific Seabrook readings. This work was to have been completed within two to three months of the hearing. Tr. at 1491.

7. The emergency action levels have not yet been agreed on by

'the Applicant and State and local governmental authorities.

Conclusions of Law

-8.. The. Applicant's Emergency Plan must include:

" Emergency action levels that are to be used as. criteria for determining the need for notification-and m_.

~

.;y.... .

P

'+ .

. ~

. participation of' local and State

,  :-agencies, the Commission, and other

? Federal agencies, Land the emergency.

action.levelssthat are to be used for

" determining;when and what type of

-protective. measures should.be

-considered within and.outside1 the' site:

~

boundary-to protect health and.

. safety. R10'C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix

.E,-$'IV(B).

In addition,-the' emergency action' levels must be " discussed and agreed cnf by the Lapplicant- and ' State and local . governmental .

authorities...".- Id.

9.; The Applicant.'s1 classification scheme and emergency action

!~

levels do not fully-satisfythesefrequirements.jBut for the fact-

~

jthatfthe' classification ccheme and 1 emergency act on levels are'not

~

-yeti' fully complete, . theyL coul'd be found to : provide a basis for

~

-classi'ficationiof emergencies by control oom operators and for-notification to off-site authorities. ,

10'~. z The Applicant's emergency' action levels cannot, however,.be used for: determining when and what type-of protective measures

.should'be; considered within and outside the site boundary to protect 4

health ; and -- sa f ety, as requiredLby 10.C.F.R Part 50,' Appendix E, $

~

'IV(B). - (Nor do:the emergency action levels submitted by the

, JApplicant follow the' standard format'of NUREG-0654, Appendix 1, in.that they do not. include a' basis for making

protective action. recommendations. See, e.g., NUREG-0654, App. 1, pp. 1-4', 1-8,l1-12,' and l'-16.)

b .

a

~

ll. ,TherApplicant has not complied with 10 C.F.R. Part 50,

- Appendix'E,.f IV(B). insofar'as its emergency action levels have not

- been-agreed:on'by the applicant.and State and local governmental ~

authorities, nor' approved;by the NRC'.

Respectfully submitted, THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GREGORY H. SMITH ATTORNEY GENERAL

.By i George.Dpna Qisbee v Assistant Att'orney General Environmental' Protection Division Office'of the' Attorney General

. State' House Annex

-Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Tel'. .~603/271-3678

' Dated: hhh< M , 1983 A

- ..._._.~___

.