ML20083A674

Answer to Applicant & NRC Response to Contentions Re Evacuation Time Study.Amend to Basis for Contention 8 Provided

ML20083A674
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/14/1983
From:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20083A678	List: ML20083A674 ML20083A705
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8312200367
Download: ML20083A674 (8)

Text

-_ _ _ _ _ _ .

l ,

FILED: D e 'e r 14, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COANISSI N OIO 16 A p ,,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICP3 SING-BOARD

- aER$j.

r..f -- Q?'. .

In the matter of:

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

SAPL'S ANSWCR TO APPLICANTS AND STAFF'S RESPONSE TO SAPL CONTENTIONS ON THE EVACATION TIME STUDY.

The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (hereinafter "SAPL") seeks leave to answer the Applicants and Staff's responses to its Contentions on the Evacuation Time Study.

I. THE APPLICANTS ' OBJECTIONS.

The Applicants raise a simple, comprehensive objection to all of the ETS Contentions. They al'lege that the NHRERP need not contain evacuation time estimates, and that such estimates are only required for " implementation" plans. (See Response to SAPL's Contention on New Hampshire ETS, filed 12/5/83, page 2. Thus, it is argued, that since there is no legal requirements for the estimates to exist anywhere outside of the "implementaton plans", they constit'ute improper subject matter for adjudication in these proceedings.

The f act is that the Evacuation Time Study was prepared by the Applicants' contractors as an inseperable part of the NHRERP.

This is an entirely different situation from that cited by the Applicants in Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric 8312200367 831214 -

PDR ADOCK 05000443 O PDR \ Q3

• ~

Station, Unit 3) ALAB-7 32,17 NRC 107 6, 110 6-7 (19 8 3 ) . In Louisiana Power, Intervenors objected to the fact that, at the time of the hearing, the " implementing procedures" .for Applicant's emergency

. plan were not yet in final form and were not made part of the record.

Those procedures are required for submission no less than 180 days prior to the scheduled issuance of an operating license pursuant to 10 C.F .R. Part 50, Appendix E,Section V. In ruling against the Intervenors on this matter, the Appeal Board found that:

"The timing of the submission, however, convinces us that the Commission never intended the implementing procedures to be required f or the ' reasonable assurance' finding and thus to be prepared and subject to scrutiny during the hearing."

It is also apparent from the Louisiana Power Decision that 1

implementing procedures were, in fact, available in draft form at t

the time of the hearings. Apparently, joint Intevenors counsel declined to question Applicants and Staff witnesses about them. It would appear that this lack of concern at the bearing stage is a significant factor in the Appeal Board's ruling in this matter.

Unlike the situation in Louisiana Power, the ETS does not constitute some part of a presently undeveloped set of " implementation plans". It has been prepared and submitted as a part of the NHRERP for compliance with NUREG 0654/ FEMA Rep. 1, Revision 1, Planning Standard'J. (Please ref er to letters of Richard H. Strome, Director,

.New Hampshire Civil Def ense Agency, and Brian Cassidy, Regional FEMA Counsel, which accompanied submission of the ETS to the NRC and all other parties to this proceeding.) It is also clear that the time estimates for evacuation are crucial in assistin'g State emergency personnel with their protective action decision making.

These' estimates are a part of the State plan, are required by law, and have been susmitted for review in these proceedings. They are of crucial-importance to the functioning of State personnel in an emergency. Therefore, they are appropriate for adjudication.

Finally 'we note that neither counsel f or FEMA nor the NRC staf f have ,

j taken the Applicants position on this . position. See NRC Staff Response to SAPL's antentions on NH ETS, filed November 17, 1983.

The Staff Response does not object to the majority of SAPL's Contentions. -We believe this indicates Staff't agreement that the.

ETS is in' deed an appropriate subject for review by the Board.

In addition we note the Applicants' specific argument with regard to SAPL Contentions 1 and 2 concerning notification times and emergency vehicle capability. They argue generally that such issues are not." properly part of" an evacuation time study.

-Taken to its logical conclusion, the Applicans' argument suggests that the only thing litigable with respect to evacuation time estimates are the numbers themselves. The argument is without basis: virtually everything contained in the study bears to some extent upon the accuracy and overall validity of the estimates themselves.

This is ce'rtainly true with the notification time issue. It makes-no sense to continually " assume" that full, 100% notification will, in fact,-be. carried out within the required 15 minute time frame. The length of time required for notification relates directly to evacuation time estimates. This is borne out by the Applicants continued assertions that one merely adds 15 on to the evacuation i T

-em e- - ~~ ,..e-,v , ,,---,,--wwc...+,e-,. -

.w,,, -re..,w,, ym -u mem~,~,,--w,...-r e-. --,-~-..e,--._.-wc.---- r-,.----,-,,c-y-v.--c----,,-y-.,,c-.- -

t ime to account for notification. Should notification take longer, the evacuation time estimates will be longer.

This direct relationship shows the significance of notification issues in calculating likely time frames for clear evacuation.

Therefore, it is an appropriate subject for litigation.

Finally, we say the same is true regarding emergency vehicle capability. The authors of the ETS go into great detail in analyzing the need for and availability of transport vehicles for institutionalized and non-auto owning evacuees. ETS, Section 4 E.

As with notification times, the accuracy of the vehicle data bears a direct relationship to the validity of the ET estimates.

The same is true with the ETS plan for making up vehicle shortfall, i.e. the assertion that some vehicles will make more than one trip, all within the clear times estimated. ETS, Section 6 D. Clearly should the vehicle shortf all be greater than provided for, or should return trips take longer than anticipated, then overall evacuation time estimates may be lengtheued considerably. For this reason these factors are also appropriate subjects for adjudication: they are integral components of the NHRERP.

I1. THE STAFF'S OBJECTIONS CONTENTION 1:

The Staf f objects to the admission of Contention 1 on two grounds.

First, it alleges the Contention "is more properly a challenge to the off-site plans themselves". Staff's Response, page 2. It notes that similar contentions on the issue had been filed against the local plans. Id. -

In response we say, again, that the ef fectiveness of the public notification system bears a direct relationship to_the length of evacuat ion t ime estimates. If notification cannot be carried out in 15 minutes, which we allege it cannot, then the estimates are necessarily wrong: the 15 minute " assumption" fails.

Secondly, the Stcff argues that Appendix IV of NUREG-0654  :

indicates that evacuation time estimates "need not delve into the specifies of a notification system." The Staff is wrong. Appendix IV does implicitly require such specifics.

"Because the evacuation time f rame estimates will be used by those emergency personnel charged with recommending and deciding on protective actions during.an emergency the evacuation time estimates should be updated as local conditions change, e.g.,-change in type or effectiveness of public not i fication system." NUREG 0654, FEMA Rep.-1, Rev. 1, Appendix IV, page 1. [ Emphasis added.]

The above statement demonstrates the direct relationship between

. viability of the notification system and the accuracy of evacuation time estimates. If this relationship did not exist, there wo'lld be no requirement to update the plans. Moreover , this requirement runs counter to the argument that ?S minute notification should merely be assumed for ETS purposes. .

We disagree strongly with the~ Staff's conclusion that there is

- no regulatory basis for discussion of means to insure 15 minute J

-notification. We believe the 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Regulations ref erred

. to by the Staff'are clear.

c r ,-~,.---c-, ,,,~...-,-,._y ,,,,ym,w,.,

l "The licensee shall demonstrate that the State / local of ficials have the capability to make a public notification decision promptly on being informed by the licensee of an emergency condition...the design objective of the prompt public notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes." 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix D. 3.

The Applicants have yet to demonstrate any capability whatsoever for public notification. We therefore submit there is no factual or legal basis for an assumption of 15 minute notification for purposes of calculating evacuation time estimates.

CONTENTION 2:

This Contention asserts that the ETS does not contain suf ficient provisions to insure that buses and emergency vehicles will in fact be available during emergencios.

The Staff objects to this Contention on the basis that:

"This Contention incorrectly asserts that something to be included in the plans must be discussed in depth in the ETS...." Staff's Response, page 3.

It also objects on the basis that the Contention is "duplicative",

since a similar Contention was filed with respect to the local plans.

With regard to the legal basis, SAPL asserts that the availability of sufficient transportatior, is of crucial importance in determining the accuracy of evacuation time estimates. The fact is that transportaton capabilities are addressed in depth in the ETS as submitted or review. They are a part of the overall analysis conducted by the ETS authors in calculating evacuation '.ime estimates.

As stated in the ETS Statement of

Purpose:

"The evacuation clear time estimate is a eritical factor in determining whether or not an evacuation should be ordered." ETS, page I-6.

Therefore, the validity of those estimates, premised upon the validity of assumptions used in their calculation, is a wholely proper issue for adjudication. l With regard to the "duplicative" argument, SAPL says that any reference to Contentions filed on local emergency plans is irrelevant.

The Board has not yet ruled on the admissibility of any of those Contentions.

(DNTENTION 6 :

In this Contention SAPL adopted Contentions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 filed by NECNP on October 13, 1983. To the extent that the Staff has noted partial objections to the Contentions, SAPL defers its response to NECNP as the sponsoring party.

CONTENTION 7:

This Contention states that the ETS does not'suf ficiently account for the time required to evacuate non-ambulatory patients in health care facilities and other institutions.

It is clear from the Staff's response that SAPL's statement of basis should be clarified.

First, we say that H in fact there are persons left behind in an evacuation, numerous support personnel would need to remain behind as well. This would nullify any " clear time" estimates since there would be no point at wh'ich the EPZ could be certified as fully evacuated.

The Staff correctly points out that the ETS estimates assume all institutionalized persons will be evacuated. We realize that.

Our point is that if some non-ambulatory patients will left behind, then any estimates ,

in fact be reflecting the persons become instantly invalid. evacua t ion of ay More impor tant ly, we say that under th evacuation, e ETS assumption of total 88 minutes is overly optimistic relationship to reality. and bears little In order Contention more fully, we wish to herebto establish the basis for this 8 by inserting the following stateme ty amend the basis for Contention "We assert that n s as additional paragraphs.

face due to the 88 minute figure is invalid determine itsthe total validity. lack of information upon which on its es tablishing tha t validi ty.Applicants have the burden of to basis upon which it was calculatedthe .

nformation as to the 88 minute estimat Morecer at , Dr. Al f red Bates , a physi cia the Exeter impossible to prepareHospital, has statedn practicing medicine that the patients in that itfacility would for be directly toto resource constraints required me. andevacuation within the 8 This is due transpor tation. prepare seriously the length of time ill patients for SAPL believes _

the above amendement a wholly adequate basis and clarification provides for admission of this Contention .

Respectfully submitted, By its attorneys, Seacoast Anti-Pollution Lea BACKUS, SHEA & MEYER By: _,

f6beft A. Backus _.

116 Lowell St.,

ecember 14, 1983 Manchester, N.H. Box 516 Tel: 03105 (603) 668-7272

- - - - - - - - -