ML20098A343
| ML20098A343 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1984 |
| From: | Silberg J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8409240453 | |
| Download: ML20098A343 (61) | |
Text
f:
l :* ' .
S eRC September 20, 1984 84 SEP 21 PI2:02 Fnci cr :Eoep tCChuthsa SEp, BRatlCH UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENS[NG BOARD In the Matter of )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) 50-441 d d,
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE'S PARTICULARIZED OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED EMERGENCY ~ PLANS IN SUPPORT OF ISSUE NO. 1 Jay E. Silberg, P.C.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (2020) 822-1000 8409240g3 0 0 PDR AD PDR O
September 20, 1984 L
h5b
t Table of Contents A. " Evacuation Time Estimate Defects" ....................... 3
- 1. Comments on Evacuation Time Estimate ................ 4
- 2. Summer Sunday Thunderstorm .......................... 4 B. " Lack of Identification of Route Impediments" ............................................. 6
- 1. Route Impeditients ................................... 6
- 2. Unit 2 Construction Workers ......................... 8 C. " Uncertain Chain of Command" ............................. 8
- 1. Consistency in Role of Commissioners ................ 9
- 2. Legal Basis for Plans .............................. 10
- 3. Declaration of Emergency by Governor ............... 11 D. " Protective Actions Decision-Making" ................... 13
- 1. Ventilation Control ............................... 14
- 2. EPA Guidance ....................................... 15
. 3. Evaluation of All EPZ Structures .................. 16 E. " Authority Lacking for School Bus Usage" ................ 17 F. " Insufficient Proofs of Volunteer Aid" .................. 18 G. " Failure to Stockpile KI for Public and Emergency Personnel" .................................... 20 H. " Inadequate Assurances of Worker Protection" ............................................. 22 i
! 1. Respirators ........................................ 23
- 2. Decision-Making for Doses Above 25 Rem ............................................. 23 I
l l
- 3. Cataclysmic Decision-Making ....................... 24
- 1. " Slick as EALs" ......................................... 24 J. "EALs are Incomplete" ................................... 27
7 K. " Implementation of Staff Recommendations on EALs" ................................................ 28 L. "EPZ Radius" ............................................ 29 M. " Independent Monitoring" ................................ 31
- 1. Lake County ....................................... 31
- 2. . Ashtabula and Geauga Counties ...................... 31 N. " Ingestion Pathway Monitoring" .......................... 33 O. " Evacuated Area Re-Entry" ............................... 34 P. " Hospitals" ............................................. 34 Q. " Fallacious Transportation Assumptions" ................. 36
- 1. School Buses and Drivers ........................... 37
- 2. Parents' Pickup of Students ....................... 39 R. " Insufficient Background Data" .......................... 40 S. " Unavailable Extension Agent" ........................... 40 T. " Shelter and Loading Buses" ............................. 42 U. " Disposing of Contaminated Personal Property" ..................................... 43 V. " Monitoring Contaminated Consumables" ................... 44 W. " Phantom Reimbursements" ................................ 44 X. " Source Term" .......................................... 45 Y. " Incoherent Ambulance Usage" ............................ 46 Z. " Bus Driver Protection" ................................. 46 AA. " Sunflower's Status Report" ............................. 47 BB. " FEMA's Interim Report" ................................. 48 CC. "The SER" ............................................... 48 DD. " Location of the EOF" ................................... 49 EE. " Reception Center Locations" ........................... 50
FF. " Remote Control Sirens" ................................. 51 GG. " Persons Without Technology" ........................... 52 HH. " Evacuees Not Going To Center" ......................... 53 II. " Evacuation Center Resources" ........................... 53 JJ. " Emergency System Equipment" ........................... 55 KK . - " Returning to the EPZ" ................................. 56 LL. "The Plans Will Not Work" .............................. 56 CONCLUSION .................................................. 57
(,;
F.
~
~,.
t I' -
September 20, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-CEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i-U In-the Matter of )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) 50-441
.)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
' APPLICANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS '
SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE'S PARTICULARIZED OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED EMERGENCY PLANS IN SUPPORT OF ISSUE NO. 1 In its Memorandum and Order (Particularization of Emergen-cy Planning Contention), dated July 26, 1984, the Licensing Board directed intervenor Sunflower Alliance, et al. ("Sunflow-er") to particularize Issue No. 1. Because of the changes in the underlying factual situation subsequent to the Licensing i Board's initial admission of the broadly framed Issue No. 1, l
i
'the Licensing Board directed Sunflower, as the lead intervenor, to " place a new set of cards on the table." Memorandum and Order, slip op. at 3.
l It is time for the intervenors to state with specificity, and with bases, the particular i i
deficiencies that currently exist in the
( draft plans.
0-After rejecting intervenor's arguments'against particulariza-tion,.the Licensing Board (id. at 5) ordered that Sunflower shall, prior to August 22, 1984, specify in a written filing the specific inadequacies al-leged to exist in the draft local and state
' emergency plans and shall provide a reasoned basis for believing that the. allegations con-
.cerning inadequacies are true. If.there are relevant sections of the applicable plans or.
of applicable regulations or guidance docu-ments,=those sections must be cited to sup-port the claim of inadequacy. ,
Sunflower purports to respond to the Licensing Board's order in " Sunflower Alliance's Particularized Objections to Proposed Emergency Plans in Support of Issue No. 1," dated August 20, 1984 (" Sunflower Objections). As set forth below, Applicants submit that Sunflower has totally failed to meet the requirements set forth.by the Licensing Board. Sunflower's
- - " particularized objections " are inadequate because they ei-ther
. 1. fail to cite to the relevant sections of.
the applicable plans, regulations or guidance documents;
- 2. do not specify.the nature of the claimed inadequacy;
- 3. provide no reasoned basis for believing that the allegations concerning claimed inadequacies are true;
- 4. seek to raise issues outside the scope
- of Issue No. 1; or 1
- 5. challenge Commission regulations.
Sunflower has all but ignored the State and local plans; L___ __ _ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
p-.
notwithstanding the Licensing Board's order that relevant sec-tions of appropriate plans must be cited. Where Sunflower does-cite to a plan, more often than not it'does not even cite to the correct plan.1/
Sunflower has failed to meet its obligations set forth.in
.the July 26, 1984 Memoran'um d and Order. Sunflower has had ample opportunity to identify specific, litigable issues.
Based upon Sunflower's noncompliance with the Licensing Board's directives, as detailed below, Applicants respectfully request that the' Licensing Board dismiss Sunflower's objections as issues in this proceeding, and in the absence of particularized-objections to dismiss Issue No. 1.2/
A. " Evacuation Time Estimate Defects" Sunflower poses two contentions under this topic. First, Sunflower argues that Applicants have failed to afford the State and the three involved counties (Ashtabula, Geauga, and Lake) the opportunity to comment or review the " Applicants' 1/ For example, most of Sunflower's references to the " State Plan" are to non-existent citations. See, e.g., Sunflower Objections at 6 (" Table 6-1 in the State Plan, Rev. 3 ap-pearing at 6-16," where there is no Table 6-1 or page 6-16 in the State Plan).
2/ Sunflower " expressly reserves the right" to submit new ob-jections. Nothwithstanding this " reservation", the rules for late-filed contentions apply and Sunflower's "reserva-tion" should be disregarded. Commonwealth Edison Co.
(Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-30, 12 N.R.C. 683, 689-90 (1980).
p estimated' time requirements for confirmation of evacuation" or to make specific recommendations for actions.that could signif-icantly improve evacuation times. Second, Sunflower alleges that Applicants have not adequately addressed the effects of a thunderstorm on a summer Sunday evacuation. Neither of these presents a litigable issue.
l'. Comments on Evacuation Time Estimate
. Sunflower's allegation that Applicants did not afford the State and the Counties an opportunity to comment on the evacua-tion time estimate study is simply incorrect. The evacuation time estimate study itself indicates the interaction with the counties in developing the report. Perry. Nuclear Power Plant
-Emergency Plan, CEI Report No. OM-15A, Rev. 3, dated April 23, 1984 ("PNPP Plan, Rev. 3"), App. D at vi. And, by letter dated March 9, 1984, CEI submitted the Evacuation Time Study to the Disaster Service Agency Directors and Sheriffs of the three Counties and the State's Nuclear Preparedness Officer and spe-l cifically invited their comments.
i l 2. Summer Sunday Thunderstorm i
Sunflower alleges that Applicants have " failed credibly to address the effects of adverse weather (i.e., a thunderstorm) on a summer Sunday evacuation." Sunflower objections at 2.
, The only " basis" presented is a reference to NUREG-0887, Sup-plement No. 4 to the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report ("SSER u
r_ -- _
q
.4") a
.t p. 13-16, and a quotation from.NUREG-0654 that a north-
- ern site with.a high tourist population should consider adverse summer weather conditions. In SSER 4, the Staff requested that Applicants' " evacuation time estimate study should address the effects of adverse weather (i.e., a thunderstorm) on a summer Sunday evacuation."- SSER'4,'5 13.3.2.10 at p. 13-16. Appli-cants responded to the NRC Staff's comments in SSER 4 by-revising Applicants' on-site emergency plan.3/ PNPP Plan, Rev.
3.
Sunflower fails to acknowledge, let alone reference, Applicants' explicit treatment of the impact of adverse weather conditions on a. summer Sunday evacuation. See, PNPP Plan, Rev.
3, App. D, at 2-3,'2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 6 6-10, 6-14, Fig. 6-5, Table 6.1.4/ All that Sunflower has done is to state without support of any kind -- or indeed without recognition of the ex-istence of the PNPP Plan -- that Applicants have " failed credibly" to address the effects of summer adverse weather.
3/ Applicants' April 28, 1984 letter transmitting PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 to the NRC Staff, explicitly stated that the revi-sion responded to the NRC Staff's SSER 4 review comments and included a cross-reference showing where in the PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 each review comment was considered.
4/ Sunflower is obviously familiar with the PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 since its Objections refer to it. See, e.g., Sunflower objections at 13, 16, 20. The PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 was also specifically called to Sunflower's attention in Appli-cants' Amended and Supplemental Answers to Sunflower's First Round Discovery Requests, dated June 15, 1984, at 3.
i i
This clearly falls far short of specifying "the specific inadequacies alleged to exist" in the plans or setting forth "a
' reasoned basis for believing that the allegations concerning
~
inadequacies are true." July.26, 1984 Memorandum and Order at
- 5. Sunflower provides nothing to explain what is wrong with Applicants' evaluation; indeed Sunflower does not even recog-nize that Applicants have. addressed the issue. This showing (or more precisely, lack of showing) cannot conceivably meet the Licensing Board's tests.
B. " Lack of' Identification of Route Impediments" Under this heading, Sunflower appears to be posing two subissues -- (1) impediments to evacuation (such as stalled-cars and a snow emergency), and (2) logistics of evacuating construction workers at Unit 2. Neither issue meets the Li-censing Board's tests.
- 1. Route Impediments Sunflower alleges that " draft state and local plans nei-ther identify, nor propose options for dealing with, potential impediments to use of evacuation routes, as required by NUREG-0654 at 63." Sunflower apparently made no attempt to re-view the State and local plans, since the issue of route imped-iments is explicitly dealt with. Ashtabula Plan,5/ $ J.4.2; 5/ Ashtabula County Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan (May 10, 1984).
m.
Geauga Plan,s/ 5 J.4'.d; Lake Plan,2/ $ J-08; State Plan,s/_
ILII.J.4.a(1). Sunflower's failure to refer to the plans or to
.the asserted deficiencies in those plans demonstrates the total absence of compliance with the Licensing Board's July-26, 1984 Memorandum and Order.
Sunflower also includes an argument that northeast Ohio receives considerable snowfall and that the " considerable hard-ware and road-clearing equipment" maintained by State and local governments are "quite strained perhaps a dozen times in any given winter." From this allegation, Sunflower argues that PNPP should be restricted to' low or no-power "through the dura-tion of an immobilizing period of. inclement weather." Sunflow-er's argument evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of emer-gency planning requirements. Off-site emergency plans do not
-- indeed should not -- contemplate evacuation in all cases.9/.
One of the obvious situations where evacuation would be inap-propriate would be if adverse weather conditions make roads s/ Geauga County Radiological Emergency Response Plan (December 1983) (including Change No.1 dated March 1984).
2/ Lake County Emergency Response Plan for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, (Rev. 1, December 1983).
@/ State of Ohio Plan for Response to Radiological Emergencies at Licensed Nuclear Facilities (Edition of 1984).
9/ Indeed, NRC regulations speak of "a range of protective actions" for the plume exposure pathway EPZ. 10 C..F.R.
$ 50.47(b)(10).
l r 1
q
' impassable. In such a case,-where evacuation cannot be accom-
- plished in a timely-fashion, the appropriate protective action i~ .
would be shelter,-rather than evacuation. Consumers Power Co.
(Big Rock' Point-Nuclear Power Plant), Initial Decision, LBP , 20 N.R.C. , slip op. at 146 (August 29, 1984).
Nowhere.has it been suggested that plant derating or shutdown.
i is necessary or appropriate.
- 2. Unit 2 Construction Workers i
Sunflower asserts that there'is "[nlo discussion of the-logistics of evacuating the supposed thousands of construction workers who will be laboring to complete Unit 2 ...." Sunflow-er supports this allegation by citing to SSER 4. Once again, Sunflower has neglected to review the plans themselves or to cite to them. The issue of construction worker evacuation is dealt with in the PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 which, as noted above, re-l ,
sponded to the comments in SSER 4. See, PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 at j
$ 6.4.1, Figure 6-7, and App. D at 2-1, 2-8, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-14, 6-1 through 6-14, A3-2. Sunflower has failed to specifi-
! cally identify a reasoned basis for its claimed inadequacy.
l i
C. " Uncertain Chain of Command" Under this title, Sunflower has grouped a number of alle-gations -- none of which presents litigable issues.
i C_.._____
i l
- 1. ' Consistency in Role of Commissioners l Although Sunflower's' discussion.is.very confusing, its major complaint on this, issue seems-to be that "there is no consistently' defined role in a major or minor emergency for County Commissioners,-especially in conjunction with'any lead-l ership which would be forthcoming from the State-" . Sunflower
.. Objections at 4. Again, Sunflower has failed-to-address 1the plans themselves.10/..In fact, the three County plans do re-flect a consistent role for the County Commissioners. See, L-i e.g., Ashtabula Plan, 9 A.3; Geauga: Plan 5 A-5; Lake Plan
$5 5.2, 6.7; State Plan $ II.A.l.b. The only example of
inconsistencies" given by Sunflower simply does not exist.
Sunflower states that in Ashtabula County, the Commissioners order protective actions based on advice from County staff and
" recommendations" of the Governor's office,11/ while in Lake
! County, "the Lake County Prosecutor advises on emergency 10/ Although Sunflower claims (Objections at 3) that " Lake l County's Commissioners did not even rate a mention as to L their roles in the State Plan, id. [ State Plan, Rev. 3] at
- 5-25," there is no page 5-25 in the State Plan. Presuma-
! bly, Sunflower has erroneously cited to PNPP Plan, Rev. 3, I at 5-25, which summarizes the roles of certain Lake County l agencies. The role of all County Commissioners is summa-
.rized in $ 5.4.2 of PNPP Plan, Rev. 3. In any event, the State Plan does identify the role of the' Lake County Com-missioners. State' Plan, 5 II.A.1.b.
t 11/ Sunflower appears to cite the~Ashtabula Plan "at 4" for this statement. No such page number appears in the Ashtabula Plan, the State Plan, or the PNPP Plan.
l 9
g authorities and proclamations."12/ In fact, the plans for both Lake and Ashtabula Counties provide for'their Commissioners to
.make protective action decisions based on information and rec-ommendations from CEI and State agencies. Compare Ashtabula Plan, App. 6, with Lake Plan, Attachment A-4. Sunflower has failed to present a litigable issue.
- 2. Legal Basis for Plans Sunflower alleges that, despite the provision in NUREG-0654 that the plans contain their legal basis, "[n]owhere does any such-documentation or discourse appear." Sunflower Objections at 4.13/ Once again, Sunflower has failed to read the plans. The information is clearly set forth therein.
Ashtabula Plan 6 B.5; Geauga Plan $ B-4; Lake Plan, $$ 1.1-1.3, A-07, A-08; State Plan, $$ II.A.1, II.A.3.b(3)-(5). Sunflower has not met the Licensing Board's criteria for admission of this issue.
12/ Sunflower cites " State Plan, Rev. 3 at 5-27" for this statement. No such page number exists in the State Plan.
Sunflower has again apparently confused the PNPP Plan with the State Plan.
13/ Although Sunflower states that NUREG-0654 requires "Appli-cants' plans" to reference their legal basis, this is only required for State and local plans. Licensee plans are explicitly excluded. NUREG-0654, at 32 (Criterion A.2.b).
c -
- 1. .
p ..
3 .- Declaration of Emergency by Governor Sunflower sets forth a long,. rambling discourse on ques-p-
tions of state law, and specifically whether local l jursidictions might be subject to civil monetary damages. Sun-flower Objections, at 4-6. Mixed in with this is an apparent attack on the Price-Anderson'Act14/, an irrelevant reference'to NUREG-0654,15/ and a misreading of the emergency plans.16/
Sunflower's argument seems to be that (1) Ohio's " Good Samari-f l tan" statute only applies'to confer immunity to civil liability if the Governor declares an emergency, (2) the local plans do i not contemplate the counties awaiting-a Governor's action be-fore recommending or ordering protective actions, (3) 14/ Challenges to the' Price-Anderson Act are, of course, not
, permitted in licensing proceedings. Potomac Electric l Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units
! 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 A.E.C. 79, 81 (1974).
13
-/ Sunflower states that the legal issues it raises are com-plicated by the " official guidance for decisionmaking" of
( '
NUREG-0654. Sunflower Objection at 6. Sunflower presuma-bly means to suggest that the 15 minute time identified in NUREG-0654 cannot be met if the Governor must first de-l clare a state of emergency. However,.the portion of NUREG-0654 quoted by Sunflower,. id. at 1-3,~ specifies 15 l minutes as the time allowed for the utility to notify l off-site authorities, not the time for the off-site au-thorities to make protective action recommendations.
16/ Sunflower claims that " locally-involved entities" receive their notification of an accident from the Ohio Disaster Services Agency. Sunflower Objections at 3 (citing SSER 4 at 13-2). In fact, the same page referenced by Sunflower l (SSER 4 at 13-2) states that CEI directly notifies both the State and the Counties. See, also, PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 at 6 6.1.
l
r . .
~
unspecified Ohio judicial decision's have " virtually destroyed" the sovereign immunity doctrine,~and therefore (4) the County Commissioners.may tailor their' protective action decisions to avoid this potential liability.
Aside from the fact that NRC licensing proceedings do not appear to be the appropriate forum to litigate such points of-state law,17/ Sunflower's contention nevertheless fails to meet the Licensing Board's criteria for admissibility. Sunflower's conclusion that County Commissioners might order shelter rather-than evacuation "to avoid liability for such problems as a drunken or drugged or exhausted volunteer bus driver's antics,"
is nothing more than Sunflower's unsupported speculation. Cer-tainly, no " reasoned basis" has been presented.
Also, Sunflower's argument that the claimed destruction of the sovereign immunity doctrine by unidentified Ohio Supreme Court cases would cause County Commissioners to warp their 12/ .This seems particularly true where the Governor himself stated, in the letter transmitting the State Plan to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, that the plan fur-nishes "an adequate degree of protection" and that the plan is " designed to become effective without additional orders or directives from higher authority." Nor is it obvious that the statute quoted by Sunflower supports Sun-flower's proposition. The statute provides its immunity for persons "in good faith carrying out, complying with or attempting to comply with ... any federal law ...." Ohio Rev. Code 5 5915.10(A). Since off-site emergency plans and their implementation are required by " federal law,"
i.e., the Atomic Energy Act and NRC's regulations thereunder, the immunity would seem to apply.
i i
y ' ~
~..
. protective action' decisions in order to avoid liability is in-consistent with every other decision that the Commissioners make. If the County is not protected by sovereign immunity for l decisions made during an emergency at PNPP, then it vould be similarly exposed for every other type of decision -- both in non-nuclear'" emergencies" (floods, storms, chemical spills, etc.) and.in routine county business. This indicates the base-lessnecs of Sunflower's claim that the alleged demise of sover-eign immunity will uniquely affect decisionmaking.
D. " Protective Actions Decision-Making" Under this category, Sunflower raised a number of
, subissues concerning the criteria for deciding upon shelter as i
a protective action. Although, as discussed below, the specif-
! ic allegations are each deficient as contentions in this pro-f l ceeding, as a group they are inadmissible because they are out-side the scope of Issue No. 1. That issue was limited to
" emergency evacuation plans." LBP-81-24, 14 N.R.C. 175, 189 (1981); LBP-81-35, 14 N.R.C. 682, 685. This scope was again recognized by the July 26, 1984 Memorandum and Order (at 2) when the Board observed that " evacuation planning for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant is well advanced." The Licensing Board, in directing Sunflower to particularize Issue No. 1, did not broaden the scope of the Issue, but rather ordered Sunflower "to make its contention relevant to the current situation."
l
Since contentions on shelter do not relate to evacuation, these issuesiare inadmissible.
Even if sheltering were within the scope of emergency evacuation planning, the specific issues raised by Sunflower do not meet the Licensing Board's criteria, and must therefore be rejected.
- l. Ventilation Control-Sunflower cites to Table 6-1 of the " State Plan, Rev. 3" for thu statement that " shelter is to be with ventilation con-trol." Sunflower goes on to claim that ventilation control would be " unhelpful and potentially disastrous if hundreds are trapped in a rest home, shopping center or school in the plume exposure pathway, on a 95-degree August afternoon -- or a 5-degree January one." In the first place, the statement quoted by Sunflower does not appear in the State Plan.18/ Sec- -
ondly, Sunflower's complaint seems to be an argument that shel-ter is an inappropriate protective action under all circum-stances, notwithstanding the guidance provided in NUREG-0654 and EPA 520/1-75-001, " Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents" (September 1975, rev.
June 1980) that shelter is an appropriate protective action under some conditions. See, e.g., EPA 520/1-75-001 at 1.4-1.6; 18/ The State Plan has no Table 6-1. Presumably, Sunflower was referring to the PNPP Plan, Rev. 3.
1
NUREG-0654 at 9. Third, Sunflower's complaint fails to recog-nize that ventilation systems could be shut off for short peri-ods of time or switched to recirculation modes while a plume passed over without its speculative " disastrous" results.
Fourth, Sunflower has failed to address the criteria incorpo-rated directly or indirectly in each plan for selecting protec-tive actions. See, e.g., Ashtabula Plan, 5 J.3; Geauga Plan, 5 J-3; Lake Plan, 6 J-02; State Plan, 9 II.I.3.g(2). In short, Sunflower has set forth no reasoned basis for its claimed inad-equacy.
- 2. EPA Guidance Sunflower claims that " Applicant has ignored the plain in-tentions expressed in guidance from the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency" that "wholo-body exposures to airborne radioac-tive materials for the general public should not exceed 1-S rems." Sunficwer cites EPA 520/1-75-001 to support this state-ment. Once again, Sunflower has totally ignored the State and County plans, each of which identifies this very EPA document as its guidance in determining protective actions. Ashtabula Plan, 5 J.3; Geauga Plan, 6 J-3; Lake Plan, 6 J-02; State Plan, 5 II.I.3.g(2). Thus, Sunflower is simply wrong in stating that the plans are " refusing to follow this authoritative guidance."
Nor does Sunflower correctly read EPA 520/1-75-001 or under-stand the concept of protective action guides. That document u-
p- , 4
~
does not say that whole body exposures to the general public-should:noNi' exceed 1-5 rems. The 1-5 rem protective. action guide'is "theLprojected [whole-body] dose to [the general pub-lic]-which' warrants-taking_ protective action."
. EPA 520/1-75-001 at 1.1. It'is ne.ther an " acceptable" dose nor a dose. limit. Id.,at 1.1, 5.32. ' T.M language quoted by Sunflow-er merely Jatates that~the need'for protective action should be determined',at a projected dose of not more than 5 rems. Sun-flower has failed'to show any plan'which is inconsistent with-this guidanc: 19/- For these reasons, Sunflower has presented no litigable. issue meeting the Licensing Board's criteria. ,
3.- ' Evaluation of All EPZ Structures Sunflower seems to criticize State and local plans because they lack proposals "to evaluate the relative degrees.ofven-tilation control' within each and every structure in the EPZ.~"
q Sunflower points to no regulatory re'uirement or guidance even suggesting such an unreasonable requirement. Indeed, NUREG-0654 refers to the " expected local protection afforded in residential units or other shelter." NUREG-0654 at 64. Nor
~
))/ Table 6.1 of the PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 (miscited by Sunflower
-- Objections at 6-7 -- as part of the-State Plan) is fully consistent. Indeed, the PNPP Plan explicitly states that after off-site doses are projected, they "will then be compared to the Environmental Protection Agency's Pro- I cr'
.tective Action Guidlines to arrive at a Protective Action-Recommendation." PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 at 6-9.
8
does Sunflower suggest that the. representative' shielding fac-tors. set forth in PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 are in any way inadequate or inaccurate,20/ or that use of representative shielding fac-tors will result in inappropriate protective action decisions.
Sunflower has provided no " reasoned basis" for considering this issue.
E. " Authority Lacking for School Bus Usage" As in Section C.3 above, Sunflower is seeking to litigate in this pr:cceding a qacation of state law- Sunflower asserts that Ohio state law forbids the use of school buses for off-site evacuation of ir.dividuals without access to private automobiles.21/ As in that case, litigation of state law ques-tions is inappropriate here. As Sunflower recognizes, the Ohio Department of Education has issued an opinion that local school buses may be used for emergency purposes. All three County plans centemplate the use of school buses for transportation of the non-auto population, citing to the Department of Education opinion. Ashtabula Plan, 5 J.4.1 and App. 9; Geauga Plan, 6 J-4.a and App. 24; Lake Plan, S 6.9 and Attachment A-1. In 20/ The representative shielding factors identified in PNPP Plan, Rev. 3, Table 6-4, are from SAND 77-1725, a report whose consideration NUREG-0654 explicitly approves.
NUREG-0654 at 64.
21/ Presumably, Sunflower would agree that school buses could be used to evacuate students.
any event, while Sunflower states that FEMA "has previously noted_this" issue, citing p. 13 of the FEMA Interim _ Report on Off-site Preparedness for PNPP (transmitted by NRC letter dated April 20, 1984),-Sunflower neglected to point out that FEMA's resolution of this item as stated in the Interim Report is that
" Letters of Agreement will be needed with the School Districts involved to make the criteria item adequate." Interim Report at 13. Sunflower has not even alleged that agreements from school districts will not be forthcoming. Sunflower has-presented no litigable issue.
F. " Insufficient Proofs of Volunteer Aid" i-Sunflower claims that the " state and local plans are defi-cient because they fail to fix in unequivocal terms the avail-ability of volunteers." Sunflower Objections at 10. Sunfl'ower selectively quotes from NUREG-0654 to support this argument.
The full quotation of NUREG-0654 Criterion C.4 states:
Each organization shall identify nuclear and other facilities, organizations or individ-uals which can be relied upon in an emergency to provide assistance. Such assistance shall be identified and supported by appropriate letters of agreement (emphasis added).
By amitting the underscored language, Sunflower tries to give the impression that volunteer emergency workers must be identi-fled in the plan and letters of agreement obtained from them.
However, FEMA has stated, and NRC decisions have confirmed, that emergency workers need not be named in plans and need not i,
l l
sign letters of Agreement. Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station,-Unit.1), Initial Decision, LBP , 20 N.R.C. (July 2, 1984), slip op. at 41, 92.
The only hint of a basis for Sunflower's claim of the unavailability of volunteers is its citation to a 1983 " Status Report" entitled " Planning for an Accident at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant" by the " Perry Legal Defense Fund."22/ The rele-vance of the report is at least questionable since it was pre-pared before agency procedures had been finalized and prior to training of any significant number of off-site emergency workers. As a result, any conclusions it reached on the avail-ability of volunteers would be so totally out-of-date as to be irrelevant. Furthermore, the " Status Report" on its face is based on such limited information that it cannot conceivably be considered a " reasoned basis." For example, Table 9 of the
" Status Report" gives the results of a " survey" of school bus drivers. The Table is extraordinarily confused, and does not appear to provide information on a significant sample of school bus drivars. Also, Table 10 of the Report (entitled " Fire Chief Survey Response") states, "Only 8.9% of the fire chiefs surveyed responded." In either case, such information hardly constitutes an appropriate basis for a contention at this late stage.
I 22/ A copy of the report was served by Sunflower Alliance's Supplemental Discovery Response, dated December 5, 1983.
L-
~
1 G. '" Failure to' Stockpile KI for Public and Emergency Personnel"
. Sunflower urges that state and county plans.not be
~
'"approvable.[ sic]" unless supplies of potassium iodide ("KI")
are maintained 1for emergency workers and the public. As Sun-flower correctly notes,-the position of the State-of_ Ohio, as set forth.by the Director of Health, is that KI should not be issued for emergency workers or the general population. -State Plan, l'II.J.3.c. _The-three counties-have followed the State advice. Ashtabula Plan, 5 J.5; Geauga Plan 5 J-7; Lake Plan, 5 K-04.
Sunflower has presented no basis for requiring KI. While it cites to 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654, those do not mandate the use of'KI. 'As stated by the Appeal Board:
Neither these regulations [10 C.F.R.
$ 50.47(b)(10)] nor NUREG-0654 (which is a document designed to provide guidance and criteria for the development of radiological emergency plans) expressly mandates that such protective actions include the use of ra-dioprotective drugs.
Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-754, 18 N.R.C. 1333, 1334 (1983). The EPA document cited by Sunflower, EPA 520/1-75-001, does not apply to the general population.at all, and even for emergency workers does not require the de-ployment of KI. At page 1.42 of that document, the reference cited by Sunflower, EPA states:
1 E
The.use of stable iodine as a protective ac-
. tion for emergency workers has been recom-mended by EPA, but only in accordance with State health laws and under the direction of State medical officials as indicated above (emphasis added).
Here, the chief State health official has decided that KI should not be employed.
The Callaway Appeal Board stated that'the appropriate res-olution of the KI issue is to defer to the decision of the state.
Generally speaking, the Commission bases its decision regarding the. adequacy of emergency plans on a review.of findings and determina-tions made by the Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency (FEMA), which'is responsible for reviewing-offsite emergency plans. In turn, FEMA leaves to state governments the deci.sion regarding the distribution of KI. A FEMA in-terim policy guidance statement on the use of potassium iodide, dated December 1, 1962, in-dicates:
Each state has a responsibility for for-mulating guidance to define if and when potassium iodide is used as a thyroid blocking agent for emergency workers, institutionalized persons, and the gen-eral public. Where States elect not to include KI in their preparedness posture either for emergency workers or institu-
'tionalized persons, the plans should state under whose authority the decision was made and the rationale for the deci-sion.
Similarly, the Federal Radiological Prepared-ness Coordinating Committee, which is com-
. prised of representatives of numerous Federal agencies, including FEMA, the NRC, and the Environmental Protection Agency, states:
It is recognized that the decision to use KI for thyroid blocking to protect 1
j
the health'and safety resides with the State'and local health authorities.
Therefore, with the exception of the NRC
, licensee's personnel located on-site during the. accident, the decision for use of KI during an actual emergency by all other individuals.for whom the use of-KI is recommended are the responsi-bility of those authorities. In addi-tion, because the factors bearing on the
-desirability of stockpiling and distributing KI for thyroidal blocking of the general population within the Emergency Planning Zone for the Plume Exposure Pathway depend heavily on local conditions, this matter is a decision for State and local authorities to make.
Callaway, supra, 18 N.R.C. at 1335 (footnotes omitted). See, also, Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station)
Special Prehearing Conference Order, LBP-84-18, 19 N.R.C.
(April 20, 1984) slip op. at 13-17 (contention challenging state policy against distributing KI to public rejected based on prior litigation of issue in other proceedings). Sunflower has certainly presented no Perry-specific basis -- nor indeed
.any' basis -- for reaching a different conclusion.
I H. " Inadequate Assurances of Worker Protection" Sunflower links three separate issues under this topic --
availability of respirators, decision-making for exposures ex-i ceeding 25 rem, and decision-making for " cataclysmic moments."
None of these should be admitted.
+
, , ..m- __. -
o
- 1. Respirators Sunflower questions whether the Counties will make respi-rators_available. The question is based on a-footnote in EPA 520/1-75-001 quoted by Sunflower (Objections at 12) to the'ef--
fect that complete thyroid loss while warranted to save a life should not be necessary if respirators and/or KI were avail-able. There is no litigable issue presented. If Sunflower had reviewed the County plans, it would have observed that all in-clude the availability of respirators. Ashtabula Plan, App.
22; Geauga Plan, App. 20; Lake Plan, Attachment K-1,
- 2. Decision-making for Doses Above 25 Rem Sunflower cites the FEMA Interim Report at 15 for noting the absence in the. Lake County Plan of a decision chain to au-thorize whole-body exposures exceeding 25 rem. This presents no litigable issue since the Lake Plan now states:
, Should the need arise for an emergency worker to exceed the exposure limits in Attachment K-3 [which includes the 25 rem whole-body ex-posure value). the individual's department head will discuss the need with the-EOC Direction and Control group in consultation with the Ohio Department of Health, Ra-diological Section, in the State EOC. If concurrence is received, the department head will approve and document the increased expo-sure.
Lake Plan, S K-03.4. Similarly unsupported is Sunflower's al-legation that "Geauga County does not provide any decisional chain for authorizing excessive exposures of over 25 whole-body
rem." Sunflower Objections at 12. Such a decision-chain is explicitly set forth in the Geauga Plan, 5 K-4. Once again, Sunflower has failed to refer to the plans. Sunflower has failed to show any basis for-its claim.
- 3. Cataclysmic Decision-Making Sunflower claims that plans do not show how CEI, County and State officials will " render dozens, hundreds or thousands of such decisions [to exceed emergency worker protective guidelines) in the cataclysmic moments following a breach of containment or other consequential pluming radiation." Sun-flower Objections at 12. First, Sunflower has provided no basis to support its alleged cataclysm or that such major radi-ation leakage could occur in " moments." Second, Sunflower has failed to indicate why sheltering would not be the appropriate response should such a " cataclysm" occur. And finally, Sun-flower has shown no basis for even suspecting that excess expo-sure decisions could not be made for categories of individuals if its postulated catastrophe should occur. In sum, Sunflower has provided no " reasoned basis" for this claim of inadequacy.
I. " Slick as EALs" This issue, while long in verbiage, is short in substance.
Sunflower's claim is that the PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 only contem-plates protective actions within five miles of the plant. Sun-flower then argues that "the State of Ohio and the three I
i 1
l l
=
affected counties evidently have adopted these fallacious-fun-damentals lock, stock and syndrome ...." Sunflower Objections at 16.
Notwithstanding Applicants' suggestion in 1982 that the NRC Staff should reevaluate the size of the 10 mile " basic emergency planning zone" (see discussion in Sunflower objec-tions at 15),23/ Applicants have planned a plume exposure path-way EPZ of about ten miles, as called for by 10 C.F.R.
.9 50.47(c)(2). See PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 at S 2.3 and Figure 2-4.
All off-site plans have adopted the same EPZ. Ashtabula Plan, App. 5; Geauga Plan, App. 2; Lake Plan, Attachment 2.1; State
' Plan, Figures II-J-2 to -4, II-J-17.
Contrary to Sunflower's explanation,.the PNPP Plan does contemplate protective actions beyond five miles. Although the specific protective actions-extend only to five miles, the PNPP Plan explicitly states "that assessment activities will 23/ Sunflower claims that "[t]he Staff promptly scotched that suggestion in an April 13, 1982 letter from A. Schwencer to Vice-President Davidson, noting that the underlying source terms were now considered conservative." Sunflower objections at 15. Given the rather plain language of the Staff's letter, it is not clear how Sunflower totally mis-understands the use of the term " conservative." As the April 13, 1982 letter states:
Our current understanding of the postulated source term is that it may be too high by a factor of 2 to
- 10. Because we cannot technically justify the percise [ sic] magnitude of the conservatism in the source term at this time, we believe it premature to rethink the size of the emergency planning zones.
l continue to determine if additional protective actions should '
be recommended." 'PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 at 6-11. Later on that same page, it states that [r]ecommended protective actions may be extended depending on meteorological conditions, population distribution, and condition of roads'and major traffic ways."
Id. Since Sunflower cited to this page, it is not clear why Sunflower failed to acknowledge that the plan did contemplate protective actions beyond five miles.24/ And, of course, as Sunflower also fails to reflect, all three County plans are based on protective actions in the entire plume exposure path-way EPZ, not just five miles. Ashtabula Plan, 5 J.2; Geauga Plan, 5 J-2; Lake County Plan, 5 J-04.
In addition to these deficiencies underlying Sunflower's allegation, Sunflower.also fails to ack'nowledge that the plant status protective action methodology it criticizes is only one of two techniques in place for for generating protective action recommendations. The other methodolog'y, detailed on pages 6-9 24/ Sunflower observes (at 14) that its concern was shared by the Staff in a January 11, 1984 letter to Applicants. The January 11, 1984 letter commented on a few of the more than 200 Emergency Action Levels ("EALs"). None of the comments had any relevance to the protective action issue raised by Sunflower (5 mile evacuation), but related to such matters as whether two or more EALs should be linked by an "AND" or by an "OR." In any event, Sunflower failed to review the PNPP. Plan itself, because the comments were addressed in PNPP Rev. 3 (except for one addressed in Applicants' April 28, 1984 letter transmitting Rev. 3 to the Staff and two addressed in Applicants' August 20, 1984 letter to the Staff).
m - - - .
and 6-10 of the PNPP-Plan,.Rev. 3, generates protective action
- recommendations by calculating the projected off-site doses and comparing these with EPA Protective Action Guideline values.
The resulting recommendations would be determined by dose cal-culations, not by distance.
As shown by the foregoing discussion, the plans themselves demonstrate that Applicants' protective action recommendations are not limited to five miles. Nor are the County plans so limited. Sunflower's position can only be explained by its failure to refer to the plans themselves. Sunflower has pro-vided no basis to support its claim.
J. "EALs are Incomplete" This contention alleges that the detailed Emergency Action Levels set forth in Table 4-1 of PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 are "not technically complete." Sunflower Objections at 16. According to Sunflower, " Time and again as one reads Tr51e 4-1, one sees critical measurements or standr*ds left incomplete, marked
'later'." Sunflower's hyperbole does not supply a reasoned basis for this contention.
Although Sunflower has not identified the EALs which are incomplete, a review of Table 4-1 shows that of the more than two hundred individual EAL indications, only 12 are "incom-plete."25/ And in each case, where the value to be specified 25/ Table 4.1, EAL 66 I.3.1(a) and (2); II.1.a(1); III.11.a, b
.and c; and IV.6.a(2), b.
1
- l I
l "later" is unavailable,=a comparable value is specified.26/
But more importantly,_ Sunflower has not indicated what it would hope to litigate or why-the " missing" values need be included
-in Table 4-1 at this particular moment (especially since_the values can only be addeu after the appropriate instrumentation has been calibrated). Sunflower can point to no requirement compelling its. degree of " completeness." Certainly Sunflower has no basis to suggest that Applicants will not add the appro-priate values when those values are available. Contrary to Sunflower's remark, the PNPP Plan is not "at this juncture rather prehensible [ sic]," Sunflower Objections at 16. Rather, there are some rather detailed technical data which are simply not now available. Sunflower has not indicated what it would do with this data, even if it were available. There is no issue to litigate.
K. " Implementation of Staff Recommendations on EALs" Sunflower notes that the NRC Staff in a January 11, 1984 letter to CEI provided comments on the Emergency Action Level statements set forth in Applicants' on-site plan. Sunflower then " incorporates each of the Staff's criticisms of the EALs and realleges them herein by reference as particularized 26/ See, for e:: ample, Table 4.1, EAL S I.3.a.1 ("Off-gas pretreatment process radiation monitor high alarm with in-dication of: (1) increase of (later) mrem /hr in 30 min.
(equiv. to 100,000 uCi/sec)."
objections. Documents incorporated by reference "are not
' contentions'" and fail to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714. Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-76-lO, 3 L N.R.C._209, 216 (1976). Moreover, this kind of unevaluated I
repetition of the Staff filing does not meet the Licensing Board's intent for a particularized discussion, focusing on the specific provisions of the current plans. This is particularly true where the Staff comments were addressing earlier versions of the on-site plan.
The current version of the on-site plan, PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 (to which Sunflower specifically cites in other sections of its pleading), addressed the Staff's comments, as explicitly point-ed out in the April 28, 1984 letter from Applicants trans-mitting the Plan to the Staff. Sunflower's failure to even acknowledge the Plan itself disqualifies the contention.
L. "EPZ Radius" Sunflower " demands" that the radius of the plume exposure pathway EPZ be increased to "15 miles or more." Sunflower bcses this demand on the Staff's Final Environmental Statement f,r Perry (NUREG-0884, August 1982) ("FES"). In its discussion of the methodology for modeling the environmental consequences of core-melt accidents, the Staff stated that the calculational model assumes that people down-wind from the plant are l
evacuated to 15 miles and that "at the end of the travel dis-tance the evacuee is assumed to receive no further radiation
. exposure." NUREG-0884 at F-2. Sunflower interprets this statement as an admission that evacuees receive radiation expo-sure beyond the plume exposure pathway EPZ. Sunflower then ar-gues, presumably as a matter of law, that the EPZ boundary must be moved beyond the point that evacuees would~ receive any radi-ation exposure.
Sunflower has provided no basis to challenge the size of the EPZ. By regulation, the NRC has fixed the plume exposure pathway EPZ as "an area about 10 miles (16 km) in radius" whose
" exact size and configuration ... shall be determined in rela-tion to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land
- characteristics, access routes and jurisdictional boundaries. "
10 C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(2). Sunflower has identified no such fac-tors relating to the Perry EPZ. The citation to a generic con-sequence model hardly qualifies. Arguing that the plume expo-sure pathway EPZ must be big enough to protect evacuees from all radiation exposure is a challenge to the Commission's reg-ulatory definition and Sunflower has failed to make the showing required by 10 C.F.R. S 2.758 to support such a challenge.
i
t .
L
! :M. " Independent Monitoring" This objection has two parts. The first concerns the-i-
( -planned Lake County. radiation monitoring system, while the sec-E p
ond deals with the installation of similar systems for I Ashtabula and Geauga Counties.
'1. Lake County Sunflower " applauds" Lake County's planned system of inde-pendent radiation alert monitoring. Sunflower then poses a se-ries of questions -- where will the data be telemetered, how will the data be digested, what use will be made of the data.
While these might make interesting interrogatories, they do not constitute contentions. No issue is posed to litigate. Sun-flower does not allege any defect or deficiency in the proposed.
Lake County system. The Licensing Board's July 26, 1984 Memo-randum and Order required the submittal of specific conten-tions, not additional discovery. In any event, there is no regulatory requirement for such a system. See Section M.2, below.
l
- 2. Ashtabula and Geauga Counties Sunflower argues that because Lake County may have its own radiological monitoring system,-Ashtabula and Geauga Counties and "the area within a 50 mile radius of PNPP" should also have such systems. The only basis susggested is that the trustees of Jefferson Township filed with the NRC a resolution to L -. -.
1 1
I
[R]equest and' support the installation and maintenance of independent monitoring facili-ties and procedures at and around the Perry
, Nuclear Power Plant.
This resolution.does not support the need for. independent radi-ation monitoring for Ashtabula and Geauga Counties and within 50 miles of Perry. First, .the Lake County system would comply with. Jefferson Township's resolution because it would provide
" independent monitoring facilities and procedures at and around the Perry ~ Nuclear Power Plant." Nowhere does the Jefferson Township resolution state that the Township wants its own sys-
. ~
tem or wants onc.for Ashtabula County. Second, as Sunflower acknowledges, Jefferson Township is well outside the plume ex-posure pathway EPZ. Ingestion pathway issues are outside the scope of Issue No. 1. See Section N, below. Third, Sunflower is in error in stating that NUREG-0654 at 54, 58 " appears to require the use of independent data sources." Sunflower objec-tions at 17. There is no. regulatory basis for requiring an in-dependent radiation monitoring system. Sunflower's references do not support this claim. The only possibly relevant language on page 54 of NUREG-0654, Criterion H.7 (p. 54) states Each organization, where appropriate, shall provide for offsite radiological monitoring equipment in the vicinity of the nuclear facility. (emphasis added)
Sunflower provides no indication why any additional monitoring is appropriate. Similarly, the only possible source-for Sun-flower's reference to NUREG-0654, p. 58, states
l Each organization, where appropriate, shall provide methods, equipment and expertise to
~
make rapid assessments of the actual or
'~
potential magnitude and locations of any ra-diological hazards through liquid or gaseous release pathways. This_shall include activation, notification means, field team composition, transportation, communication, monitoring equipment and estimated deployment times. (emphasis added)
Evaluation Criterion I.10. As with Criterion H.7, Sunflower has provided no. basis for why independent radiation monitoring
. systems are " appropriate" or needed to assess th'e actual or potential magnitude and location of radiological hazards.
N. " Ingestion Pathway Monitoring" This contention charges that the State of Ohio lacks equipment and personnel to handle radiation monitoring and sam-pling in the ingestion pathway. The contention is outside the scope of Issue No. 1. As the Licensing Board has ruled, "the
, ingestion pathway is not part of this contention." Order (Con-cerning a Motion to Compel), dated August 18, 1981 slip op. at
- 5. See also Memorandum and Order (Concerning a Motion to Com-pel Answers About Emergency Planning), dated October 19, 1982, slip op. at 4. Nothing in the Licensing Board's July 26, 1984 Memorandum and Order has changed this scope. See $ D above.
O. " Evacuated Area Re-Entry"
-This contention states that th'e PNPP emergency plan does not adequately set forth plans and procedures for re-entry and. recovery of property within the 10 and 50 mile zones, nor does it set forth means by which protective measures are to be relaxed, all in violation.of NUREG-0654 at 70.
This contention is in violation of the Licensing' Board's criteria on many counts. First, it does not relate to emergen-cy evacuation, and is therefore outside the scope of Issue No.
- 1. The. Licensing Board,.in ordering particularization, did not broaden-the scope of Issue ~No. 1. See S D, above. Secoad, Sunflower makes no reference to the " relevant sections" of the PNPP emergency plan, as required by the July 26, 1984 Memoran-dum and Order. Third, the contention is totally unspecific, providing no hint of what the inadequacies in the PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 might be.27/
P. " Hospitals" Sunflower claims that "[h]ospital designations and medically-related decontamination procedures are incomplete or absent from draft plans." Sunflower objections at 19. Again, Sunflower has failed to cite to any specific provisions of the 27/ Section 9 of the PNPP Plan, Rev. 3, sets forth plans for recovery and reentry, as called for by NUREG-0654, Plan-ning Standard M (p. 70). The State and County plans deal with this topic in Part M of each respective plan. Sun-flower cited to none of these.
_~ _ - _ -
emergency plans. Sunflower also asserts that information is missing from the plans which does not belong in plans and which, in any event, is not required under Commission prece-dent.
As for " hospital designations," NUREG-0654 only recommends that lists of hospitals considered capable of providing medical support be included in the State Plan. NUREG-0654, Evaluation Criterion L.3 (at 69). Such a list appears in the State Plan (Figure II-L-2) and Sunflower has shown no reasoned basis for attacking it. Indeed, Sunflower has not even acknowledged that such a list exists. " Medically-related decontamination proce-dures".are not required to be included in emergency plans. Im-plementing procedures are not required at this stage and are not supposed to be the subject of this hearing. Louisiana )
Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station,. Unit 3)
ALAB-732, 17 N.R.C. 1076, 1107 (1983). As the Commission held in Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) CLI-83-10, 17 N.R.C. 528, 536 (1983), no additional medical facilities or capabilities are reqetred for the general public.
All of Sunflower's other allegations seem to be more in the nature of late-filed discovery requests (without any good cause showing). Thus, Sunflower asks a series of questions concerning resources ("[a]re operating rooms to be lead-lined")
or procedures ("[w] hat becomes of contaminated hospital
.I materials, such.as food trays ..."). Nowhere does Sunflower identify'particular deficiencies or supply reasoned bases for
-believing those deficiencies to-be true.
The remainder of Sunflower's complaints are that the Ashtabula Plan does not contain certain details (such as a
" complete inventorying of available resources for decontamination of personnel or patients at hospitals outside the 10-mile EPZ"). Sunflower fails to provide any citation to regulation or guidance requiring such detail in a plan. In-deed, NUREG-0654 specifies that "the plans should be kept as concise as possible." NUREG-0654 at 29. Nor has Sunflower provided a reasoned basis that any of the details which it claims should be in the plans, are in fact not adequately dealt with. At this stage of the proceeding, Sunflower should be able to do more than ask questions. The July 26, 1984 Memoran-dum and Order demands more.
Q. " Fallacious Transportation-Assumptions" Sunflower raises two separate issues under this heading --
the availability of school buses and drivers to evacuate school children, and the question of parents picking up children at school.
- 1. School Buses and Drivers Sunflower, citing PNPP Plan, Rev. 3 at A3-7, states that 21,393 children will need to be evacuated, and that the assumed basis-for 40 children per bus, 535 buses would be required.
-Sunflower then implies that there will not be enough buses.
To begin by correcting. Sunflower's numoers, the-40 student per bus value was used in the evacuation time estimate study included in the PNPP Plan, Rev. 3, App. D, at A3-7 fn.4, as an $
assumption to calculate the total number of vehicles using the road network. The number of vehicles was then used to deter-mine the estimated evacuation times. As stated in the evacua-tion time-estimate study, PNPP Plan, Rev. 3, App. D at 3-8, the Counties in fact plan to use 60 or more students per bus; the 40 students / bus was used as a conservative assumption for the time estimate study. As a result, the number of buses needed would drop to somewhat less than 360.
The question then to be asked is whether Sunflower has shown a reasoned basis for questioning the availability of enough school buses. The only support for Sunflower's argument is its unsupported statement that the 535 buses it assumes are needed "far exceeds the inventory of operating equipment which is extant in EPZ schools." Sunflower Objections at 20 (empha-sis added). Whether the correct number is 360 buses or 535 buses, Sunflower's unsubstantiated statement misses the point.
There is no requirement that the school buses to be used all be
L.
.from EPZ schools. Nor is this the case. Each of the three counties has a considerable portion of its geographical area
~
-(and as a result its schools) outside the plume exposure path-way EPZ.
Compare PNPP Plan, Rev. 3,. Fig. 2-4 with Fig. 2-5.
All plans contemplate'that school buses from districts outside the plume exposure pathway EPZ will be used to evacuate school children from within that EPZ. Ashtabula Plan, App. 6; Geauga Plan, App. 4; Lake Plan, 5 J-11 and Attachment A-1. Sunflower has provided no reason to question the number of school buses available from elsewhere in the counties.2g/-
Equally unsupported is Sunflower's request for "the docu-mentation of volunteer availability" to drive the buses. As Applicants stated in responding to Sunflower's discovery,.there are no volunteer school bus drivers. See Applicants' Amended and Supplemental Answers to Sunflower's First Round Discovery Requests, dated June 15, 1984 at 9-10. As discussed in & F above, Sunflower has provided no basis to question the avail-4 ability of emergency workers.
28/ In fact, Lake County has 346 school buses available for evacuation, while Ashtabula and Geauga Counties have 185 and 27,.respectively.
f je '2. . Parents' Pickup of' Students Sunflower _ states that "[p]revailing school' policies will' )
l callow a parent to pick up a-child at school during an emergency Lif a release is signed." Sunflower-then speculates that "thou-sands of near-panicked parents will converge on schools both within and without the.10-mile radius from'PNPP," with an at-tendant parade of horribles (traffic congestion, " redundant
~
bedlam", etc.). Sunflower Objections at 20.
Once again, Sunflower has completely. ignored the plans.
All counties provide that school children will be transported by. school bus from their schools to predesignated reception centers outside the plume exposure pathway EPZ. Ashtabula Plan, 5 J.4.1;'Geauga Plan, S E-6; Lake Plan, 9 J-11 and At-tachment A-1. The draft public information brochure states that children will be evacuated directly to a reception center j- outside the plume exposure pathway EPZ. See, e.g., Lake County
< Plan, Attachment G-1.
i The Lake Plan included the statement that "[p]arents in-
- sisting on picking up their children at school may do so, upon signing a written release'at school." Id. at 121.29/. Given the public information emphasizing direct evacuation of the 1
29/ The.most recent version of the Lake Plan has deleted this-statement. Lake Plan, Rev. 2 (June 15, 1984). Both Rev.
-1 and Rev. 2 included the statement that " School children are not released to go home prior to evacuation." Lake Plan at 121.
l l
.m, - - . - . - .
, , , , , , . , , - - , , , -_----, , _ -, .,,-,,r,,, -- - . . , , - - --
students by bus, and the deletion from the plan of the state-
. ment cited by Sunflower, there is no reasoned basis for Sun-flower's allegations of " thousands of near-panicked parents."
Sunflower has thus failed to meet the Licensing Board's criteria.
R. " Insufficient Background Data" Sunflower claims that "[b]ackground radiation readings must be taken before PNPP becomes operational for the entire 50-mile EPZ." Sunflower urges that " readings be taken and logged now of virtually every inhabitable space within the 50-mile zone." -
As noted in Section N above, Issue No. 1 does not deal with the ingestion pathway (50-mile) EPZ. Therefore, a conten-tion calling for radiation monitoring for "the entire 50-mile EPZ" is beyond the scope and must be excluded.3Q/
S. " Unavailable Extension Agent" Sunflower claims that the Ashtabula County Cooperative Ex-tension Service has not received the equipment or training to-advise on food and livestock protection. Sunflower fails to note that the Cooperative Extension Service is responsible only 39/ Although Sunflower claims that this monitoring is required "to conform with NUREG-0654 at 67", Applicante can divine no such ' recommendation from that page of NUREG-0654 or from anywhere else in that or any other document.
for ingestion pathway concerns. The Ashtabula Plan provides the following description of the Service's responsibility:
Assist the Ohio Department of Agriculture in the determination and evaluation of the im-pact of any radioactive material on crops and milk.
As discussed in Section N above, ingestion pathway issues are beyond the_ scope of Issue No. 1. Since the Licensing Board did not authorize Sunflower to expand Issue No. 1 beyond emergency evacuation planning, ingestion planning issues cannot be admit-ted.
Apart from this issue being outside the scope of Issue No.
1, Sunflower has failed to identify any equipment that the Ser-vice needs to carry out its functions under the-Ashtabula Plan which it does not already have. No equipment is needed. Simi-larly, no specification of the' additional training which the Service allegedly needs is provided. Finally, Sunflower erro-neously characterizes " internal service regulations" when it states that they " require [the Cooperative Extension Service Agent) to take whatever steps are needed for him to secure him-self and his family in time of accident." Sunflower Objections at 21. In fact, the " internal regulations" to which Sunflower presumably refers (Sunflower provided no citation) state that "each individual with an emergency assignment is responsible for arranging in advance for the care of his own family." U.S.
Department of Agriculture Emergency Operations Handbook For 4
l l
~
USDA State and County' Emergency, Boards (1975) at 12 (emphasis A__
added). The " conflict"~which. Sunflower wants resolved does not exist.
T. " Shelter and Loading Buses
Sunflbwerhereseemstobeattackingtheconceptofshel-ter as a protective action. Sunflower Objections at 22.
(" Sunflower objects to mere sheltbr precautions ....) This ar-gument is outside the scope of this issue. See Section D, above. Sunflower also quest' ions'-the effectiveness of a shelter recommendat' ion followed by a decision to evacuate, arguing that "the plans' effectively could cause school children to evacuate
~
outside[,] under or into a plume." Sunflower again totally ig-nores the County plans, which identify the factors to be con-sidered in choosing protective action.31/ Since the time availability and the projected dose -- the two factors raised by Sunflower'-- are.already identified in the plans as part of the protective action decision-making proc.ess, there appears to be no litigable issue presented. Certainly, Sunflower has presented no' reasoned basis for. challenging the decision-making p,rocess' identified in the plans (and ignored by Sunflower).
31/ For example, the Ashtabula Plan calls for consideration of the following variables: projected radiation dose, mea--
sured radiation dose, portion of EPZ at risk, time avail-able to take action to significantly reduce doses, path-Way, available resources, weather and road conditions.
9 J.3.
m e
U. " Disposing of Contaminated ~ Personal- Property"
-Sunflower complains that the~ plans do not' indicate that
-reception centers.will provide for " quarantining or isolating
- personal property'found to be excessively contaminated."
Again, Sunflower has failed-to reflect on the contents of the off-site-plans and as a result has failed to identify and sup-port any specific inadequacies. The State Plan explicitly
. addresses handling contaminated materials.
Radioactive waste from decontamination proce-dures will be monitored by [ Ohio Disaster Services Agency]' teams. Any involved' service-equipment will be decontaminated if measur--
able radiation levels greater than .75 mR/hr e are detected.
(a) :The means for decontamination of personnel, clothing, supplies, instru-ments,Jand other equipment may be found by referring to the Ohio DSA Decontamination SOP (Standard Operating Procedure], maintained as a matter of record by the ODSA.
State Plan, 9 II.K.3.a(10). The State Plan further states that the. ohio Environmental Protection Agency will employ
[a] means for the disposal of radioactive wastes with a reading cf above 75 mR/hr, which will be arranged for by contracting with a licensed firm to transport waste to a federally directed disposal site.
State Plan, 9-II.K.3.c(3).32/ See, also, Ashtabula Plan, 32/ No advance agreements with commercial radioactive waste disposal firms are needed. Kansas Gas and Electric Co.
(Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), Initial Decision, LBP , 20 N.R.C. '(July 2, 1984), slip op. at
- 40. "
i t
. ,v - -- ,e y v y - -w---e%---,---- wv,-e .- , - - - - -m--w w w-
5 K.6;.Geauga~ Plan, 6 K-6; Lake Plan, S K-03. Sunflower's failure to cite to or address the plans (or the SOP's. refer-enced therein) demonstrates its failure to meet the. Licensing Board's criteria.
V. " Monitoring Contaminated Consumables" Sunflower, without addressing the plans, states that the
" role of the State and county public health departments in mon-itoring the agricultural food chain" is given "little more than lip service." Sunflower Objections at 22. For the reasons set forth in Section N above, this ingestion pathway allegation falls outside the scope of Issue No. 1 and must be rejected.
Even if it were.not outside the scope, its failur.e to address the specifics of Part IV of the State Plan, and its attempt to raise Price-Anderson Act and similar issues, would also lead to this contention's exclusion.
W. " Phantom Reimbursements" 4
~
Sunflower seems to take offense at the State Plan's state-ment that, in the event of a radiological accident, " state agencies will keep accurate records pertaining to costs in-curred on a state level." State Plan at I-05. Sunflower com-plains that the Plan represents a " vicious falsehood" because it does not. resolve whether there will be reimbursement after
.an accident and where it will come from. Sunflower cites no support for the proposition that the Plan must definitively
, ~
~
identify who will reimburse the State. The State Plan
-identifies possible sources of reimbursement:
Reimbursement may be furnished from three_(3) major sources: (1) The utility companies for those costs of government; (2) The Federal Emergency Management Agency-(FEMA) if a fed-eral disaster / emergency is declared; (3)
Through a further request to the State of Ohio Controlling Board:
Id. Sunflower has not said why-the State must resolve in advance the source of reimbursement (if any) after an accident.
a Sunflower has not even alleged that the absence of a resolution
.would inte.iere with the response to the accident. Sunflower has obviously provided no reasoned basis for such an allega-tion. The issue must therefore be rejected.
X. " Source Term" Sunflower claims that NRC's on-going reevaluation of
" source terms" must be completed before the ' emergency plans can be approved. This argument, even if it had some basis, is a challenge to NRC regulations. NRC has defined the plume expo-sure pathway EPZ in 10 C.F.R. S SO.47(c)(2). If the source term reevaluation leads the NRC to choose a different size EPZ (and all the information to date indicates that any change will be to. reduce-the EPZ size), the appropriate step will be to amend 9 50.47(c)(2). Until that time, Sunflower cannot chal-
'lenge that regulation in this proceeding.
l
c.
s-i Y. " Incoherent Ambulance Usage" i Lake County may call upon ambulances from Ashtabula and Geauga Counties to evacuate people who cannot be moved by bus.
Sunflower states that.this " underscores-the possibility of con-flicting responses at the county level." Sunflower provides nothing to support this " possibility".
The Lake Plan provides that non-ambulatory persons would be transported "by ambulances from local' fleets and from adja-cent counties." ' Lake Plan, at S J-06. In addition, the State Plan identifies.65 National Guard ambulances to be called upon.
State Plan, Figure'II-J-1. Sunflower has provided no reasoned basis to indicate that there are insufficient ambulances. Nor has Sunflower provided a reasoned basis to question the three counties' ability to coordinate their ambulance requirements in light of the inter-county communications network (see, e.g.
Lake Plan, S F-05, Figs. F-1, F-3) and the in'er-county coordination function (Ashtabula Plan, $$ E.1.2, F.2.1, G.3; Geauga Plan, $$ E-6, F-2, G-4, App. 5; Lake Plan, SS 6.4, 6.7, E-07, F-05, G-03).
- 2. " Bus Driver Protection" Sunflower states that bus drivers will play "a crucial and dangerous role in evacuation" and that they must therefore be given protection gear such as respirators and goggles. Sun-flower _ Objections at 24. Sunflower has provided no basis for
. i why the bus. driver's role is a dangerous one -- or'at least more dangerous than other emergency workers, many of whom will remain in the plum exposure pathway.EPZ for an extended period.
Sunflower has provided no basis for expecting that protective equipment wculd be needed for bus drivers.33/
AA. " Sunflower's Status Report" In this contention, Sunflower " incorporates'by reference
[ and realleges herein'all objections to State and local emergen-cy plans which appear in the ' Status Report: )
Planning for an Accident at the Perry Nuclear Plant,' Perry Legal Defense Fund I
(1983)." Such a generalized recitation to whatever "objec-tions" Sunflower believes are lurking in the 32-page " status report" hardly qualifies as a specific statement of the partic-ular deficiencies currently existing in the plans. See 5 K, above. This is especially true where the most recent State and county plans post-date the status report.
33/ While Sunflower states without citation or support that the dosimeters to be provided to bus drivers will only show how much exposure has been received "after the fact."
The self-reading dosimeters to be provided are to be read at least every hour and show the cumulative dose as it is received. See, e.g. Lake Plan, 6 F-03.2, Attachment K-2.
Sunflower is also incorrect in implying that bus drivers' radiation exposures can only be determined by their dosi-meters. Off-site doses are projected and measured by PNPP (PNPP Plan, Rev. 3, S 7.3.11), Lake County (Lake Plan, Part I) and the State (State Plan, Part II.I). By knowing where bus drivers are (and how long they are there), their exposures can easily be determined.
~
i..'
BB. " FEMA's' Interim Report"
'Here, Sunflower." incorporates by reference and realleges-herein~each and every ' planning deficiency' set forth in" FEMA's March 1, 1984 Interim Report. This contention,-wholly apart from the general undesirability of incorporation by ref-erence (see 9 K, above), is clearly defective since it com-1 pletely ignores the corrective actions which appear in the In-terim Report itself. Immediately following each " planning deficiency," FEMA's Interim Report sets forth the corrective action taken by the State or County as well as FEMA's evalua-tion'of the corrective action. Sunflower has not only ignored the plans themselves, but even the content of the very document it cites. Sunflower thus violates the Licensing Board's direc- l j
I tion to provide a reasoned basis based upon the particular I deficiencies in cited sections of the plans.
CC. "The SER" As in the case of the preceding two contentions, Sunflower attempts to incorporate by reference "each and every 'resolu-tion item'" in the SSER 4. As noted above, incorporation by reference is inappropriate. See S K, above. Furthermore, Sun-flower has ignored the fact that PNPF Plan, Rev. 3 responds to
'"each and every ' resolution item'" in SSER 4. See footnot; 3 above. Sunflower's failure to reflect the contents of the plan should disqualify the issue.
DD. " Location of the EOF" Sunflower claims that the; location of the Emergency Opera-tions Facility (" EOF") at the-Perry site is contrary to the recommendations of NUREG-0814 and NUREG-0696 and would require
" decision-ma. king officials to come to the nuisance in the event of a_ severe accident." Sunflower Objections at 25.
' Contrary to Sunflower's unsupported claim, NUREG-0696 and NUREG-0814 do not recommend that the EOF be located off-site.
NUREG-0696, " Functional Criteria for Emergencv Response Facili-ties" (February 1981), provides criteria for EOF's located "within'10 miles of the TSC [ Technical Support Center]" and for EOF's located "at or beyond 10 miles of the TSC." Id. at 18.
For " EOF locations beyond 20 miles of the TSC," specific Com-mission approval is required. Id. No similar Commission ap-proval is required for. locations on-site or close to the plant.
Similarly, NUREG-0814, " Methodology for Evaluation of Emergency Response Facilities" (August 1981), does not recommend an off-site EOF, although it does identify different ventilation requirements for EOF's within 10 miles of the TSC that differ from those for EOF's beyond 10 miles of the TSC. In any event, SSER 4 reviews the EOF and does not identify its location as I inconsistent with any NRC guidance. SSER 4, S 13.3.2.8. l Sunflower cites nothing to support'its claim that the EOF l
location would' force County decision-makers to jeopardize them-selves by coming to PNPP in an accident. At no time do the
. decision-making officials come to the EOF. The plans provide that each county's decision-makers will convene in that coun-ty's emergency operation center ("EOC"). Ashtabula Plan,
- $$ A.3, B.3; Geauga Plan, SS-~A-5, B-3; Lake Plan, SS 5.1, H-Ol and Attachments 5.1 and H-3. The three'EOCs are linked by ded-icated communications systems. Ashtabula Plan, SF.2.1 and App.'
20; Geauga Plan, 9 F-2; Lake Plan, 59 F-05, H-02.
Thus, Sun-flower has provided no basis to support the argument that the
-EOF location will harm decision-making by county officials.
Once again Sunflower's' contentions have failed to reflect the contents of the plans.
EE. " Reception Center Locations" Sunflower argues that reception centers should be located more than 20 miles from PNPP. This argument appears to be a disguised attack on the plume exposure pathway since Sunflower claims that " prompt fatalities might occur as far away from a leaking plant as 20 or more miles." Such prompt fatalities would be inconsistent with a 10 mile EPZ boundary. This is also clear from Sunflower's reference'to the " undecided source terms." The contention must therefore be rejected as an attack on NRC regulations without the showing required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758.
l l
1 I
i l
l l
l
FF. " Remote Control Sirens" This somewhat confused contention seems to allege that CEI must activate the strens since it is required by NUREG-0654 to install and maintain them and therefore must hold the Federal Communications Commission license for the radio-activation sys-tem.
Applicants do not understand the starting point for Sun-flower's argument. Sunflower states that "NUREG-0654 requires (at 45) that CEI install and maintain sirens." Sunflower Ob-jections at 26. Applicants see no such requirement in NUREG-0654. Evaluation Criteria E.6 (NUREG-0654 at 45) does state in part:
It shall be the licensee's responsibility to demonstrate that such means exist (to notify and provide prompt instructions to the pub-lic), regardless of who implements this requirement.
Applicants understand this requirement to establish the burden of proof, not the burden of ownership. Sunflower has provided no basis for the argument that CFI must be the licensee. In any event, the plans explicitly state that the Counties will activate the sirens. Ashtabula Plan, S E.4.1; Geauga Plan, S E-5; Lake Plan, S E-07. Sunflawer ha- presented no issue to litigate.
6 l
l l
l
Fv
? , g --
GG . - " Persons Without Technology" Sunflower claims that "there is a rather large Amish popu-
- lation in northeastern Ohio, many of whom adhere to traditional religious beliefs, rejecting much twentieth-century technolo-gy." As a result, Sunflower argues, notification means other than. radio and television must be developed.
The requirement to provide early. notification and instruc-
- tion only applies within the plume' exposure pathway.EPZ. 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(5). Therefore, Sunflower's concern'(even if valid) would only apply if there were a substantial Amish popu-l 'lation within the plume exposure pathway EPZ.
_ Sunflower has provided no support for the existance of any Amish population within that area, and. Applicants are aware of none. While it may be true that, as Sunflower states, many Amish-live in
" northeastern Ohio," northeastern Ohio is a much larger geo-graphic area than the Perry plume exposure pathway EPZ. And even if there were. Amish in the Perry plume exposure pathway -
EPZ, the county plans already set forth the mechanisms for alerting such individuals-(sirens, brochures, notification con-firmation). Sunflower has failed to recognize these mecha-nisms, cite to them- or explain why they are inadequate.
, The contention therefore should be excluded.
4 I
i y , a ~ .- .wp- -.
t 7-e- -
- p4 ..% -..-y y9 + .-.m*- 5wm 9
.~ _
HH. " Evacuees Not Going To Centers" This contention asserts that the plans do not address the identification.and monitoring of evacuees who do not. report to
. reception centers. .The counties will be screening for contami-nation those evacuees who report to reception centers.
Ashtabula Plan, 9 J.4.3; Geauga Plan,'S J-4.e; Lake Plan, 6 J-12. Other information on the likelihood of contamination would be available as part of the accident assessment process.
Ashtabula Plan, S I.2; Geauga Plan, 9 I-2; Lake Plan, Part I.
If necessary, evacuees not reporting to reception centers would be told to do so via the Emergency Broadcast System and the news'meuia. See Ashtabula Plan $$ E.4.2, G.3; Geauga Plan, SS E-6, G-4; Lake Plan, SS E-07, G-03. Sunflower, again with-out referencing the plans, has failed to supply a reasoned basis for its allegation.
II. " Evacuation Center Resources" Sunflower states that the plans do not cover the avail-ability of food, drugs, beds, etc., that no " documentation is provided of the potential length of stays, and the no mention is made of psychological services to assist those who cannot accept the possible facts that they may never be able to return to homes, pets, etc., or might not be able to cope with the loss of friends or relatives in a nuclear accident.
1 i
l
,,' ~
1 .
~
Sunflower's compl'aint that " data on available resources" e
fshould^be-included inLthe plans is.without foundation.
t
~
NUREG-0654. indicates.that the plans should be written:to a more
. general level, without including lists of how many beds, sheets
- and pillows.aretin stock.
The plans should-be kept as' concise.-as possi-ble. The. average plan should consist _of per -
haps hundreds of pages, not thousands. The plans should make clear what is to be done in an emergency, how it is'to be done, and by whom.
- NUREG-0654 at 29. 'The level of resource detail called for by
, Sunflower'is inconsistent with this guidance.34/ Sunflower has-provided-no. support for the-contrary position. As a legal ar-
- gument on the' level of detail necessary in the plans, Sunflow-er's claim is baseless.35/
- Sunflower's contention-that the plan must include "docu-
- mentation of the potential lengths of stays which might be ne-
.t E cessitated by a severe accident" is likewise unsupported. No citation is provided for such a requirement. And, in any 4
34/ As the Appeal Board stated in ruling that implementing
, emergency procedures were not to be considered in a hear- i f ing, "we believe the Commission did not want licensing hearings to become bogged down'with litigation about such
!' details." Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 N.R.C. 1076, 1107 (1983).
. 35/ Since the American Red Cross will handle registration, feeding and lodging at reception centers,~Ashtabula Plan, App. 6; Geauga Plan, 5 B-4; Lake Plan $ 6.13, it is not
- surprising that Sunflower does not allege that the neces-sary equipment and. supplies will be unavailable.
- . = . . ._- - - . .--.-,.-.u- - . - . - . - . - - - - . - - - . -
I I event, since it does not relate to emergency evacuation plan-ning it is beyond the scope of Issue No. 1. See Section D, above.
The claim that the plans should discuss " psychological services" is similarly far-fetched. In addition to going be-yond the scope of emergency evacuation planning, Sunflower pro-vides no reasoned basis why such services are necessary, and if necessary, why they would be any different from the counseling which could be available in any emergency.
l
. JJ. " Emergency System Equipment" This contention argues that the plans should address the availability of electric power "to compensate for the loss of power from PNPP that would accompany an accident." Sunflower provides no support for the claim that an accident at Perry will cause a loss of power in the area surrounding the plant.
Nor does Sunflower suggest any error in the analysis showing that accidents at PNPP would not cause a power outage. Final Safety Analysis Report, SS 8.2.2.1, 8.2.2.2, 8.2.2.3. In any event, the plans do indicate the availability of backup power.
PNPP Plan, Rev. 3, $$ 7.2.1, 7.2.5 (communications, sirens);
Geauga Plan, App. 18 (shows EOC emergency generator); Lake Plan, Attachment H-1 (shows EOC emergency generator). (The Ashtabula EOC has an emergency generator as well, although not shown in its plan.) Suqflowersimplyprovidesnobasisforthe absence of adequate electricity.
KK. " Returning to the EPZ" In this contention, Sunflower states without suppcrt that
"[t]he issues of-securing the cordoned area while allowing ac-cess to bona fide residents is difficult to menage." No expla-nation or basis is provided as to why it is so difficult. And in terms of radiation exposure control for persons reentering the evacuated area, such an issue is beyond the scope of emer-gency evacuation planning, and is therefore inadmissible. In any event, radiation exposure control is covered in Part K of the County Plans and Sunflower has not identified any inadequacies therein.
LL. "The Plans Will Not Work" This generalized contention merely asserts that the evacu-ation plans are " unworkable because they.have not been sub-i mitted to these myriad acid tests which implementation would i impose." It is precisely the vagueness of this type of allega-tion that led the-Licensing Board to order particularization.
l No such particularization appears here. If anything, this issue is a challenge to the Commission's regulations, which base the reasonable assurance finding not on the outcome of drills and exercises, but on the plans themselves. Waterford, supra, 17 N.R.C. at 1107-08.
h.
n..
b
- o :..
CONCLUSION The Licensing Board's July 26, 1984 Memorandum and Order directed Sunflower'as lead intervenor on Issue No. 1, to pro-vide specific contentions related to emergency evacuation
-plans, supported by a reasoned basis and citations to relevant sections of-the appropriate plans. As Applicants' analysis above indicates, Sunflower has failed to comply with the Li-censing Board's directives. Sunflower's " particularized objec-tions" totally ignore the State and County plans, challenge Commission regulations, and have no basis (and certainly not a
" reasoned basis"). Sunflower has incorporated other documents by reference and has "realleged" every unspecified " objection" in those documents, without even acknowledging that subsequent documents or events have resolved those " objections."
Sunflower has had wide-ranging discovery on this Issue.
See Applicants' June 26, 1984 Motion for Particularization of Issue No. 1, Attachment 1. Applicants' attempt to informally discuss particularization of this Issue with Sunflower was re-buffed. See id., at 5. The Licensing Board's attempt to achieve particularization has likewise been rebuffed by Sun-flower. Sunflower has set forth no acceptable contentions. As a result, Applicants respectfully submit that Issue No. 1 no longar belongs in this proceeding. The Licensing Board's July 26, 1984 Memorandum and Order pointed out that subsequent to the admission of Issue No. 1, "the underlying factual situation
- t. . .
-o has shifted so dramatically that the original basis for the contention has been undermined." Memorandum and Order at 3.
. Sunflower's " particularized objections" have failed to supply the necessary basis. Sunflower has been given the opportunity to submit properly supported contentions, and has essentially
- brushed aside.the Board's directives. Applicants therefore submit that the Licensing Board should dismiss Issue No. 1.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE BY: / f.fAr /
JAYNE. L'BERGr'P.C.
1800 I t eet, N.W.
Wash'n to , D.C. 20036 (202) 822 1000 Counsel for Applicants DATE: September 20, 1984 l
I I
i o
l' Y
i t DeCKETED UShRC September 20, 1984
'84 SEP 21 P12:02 l
OFric{ t. 5i.d ti !!
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00 Chi.Tihu & SEi'V C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W NCH BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) 50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Motion to Dismiss Sunflower Alliance's Particularized Objections to Proposed Emergency Plans in Support of Issue No. 1" were served by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 20th day of September, 1984, to all those on the attached Service List.
I 4 7' T/
ilbercf "
DATED: September 20, 1984 h
,w?
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, _E T _A L . )
50-441
-(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
- SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and L(censing Board Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss:
Washington, D.C. 20555' Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Legulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss:
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 f
- Mr. Glenn O. Bright Colleen P. Woodhead, Esquire i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss:
i Washington, D.C. 20555 4
Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Ms. Sue Hiatt i Atomic. Safety and Licensing OCRE Interim Representative l Appeal Board 8275 Munson Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mentor, Ohio 44060 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Terry Lodge, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing 618 N. Michigan Street, Suite IL Appeal Board Toledo, Ohio 44060 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gary J. Edles, Esquire Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire
, Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 4
Appeal Board Lake County Administration Cent
., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 105 Center Street i Washington, D.C. 20555 Painesville, Ohio 44077 Atomic Safety and Licensing John G. Cardinal, Esquire Board Panel Prosecuting Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ashtabula County Courthouse Washington, D.C. 20555 Jefferson, Ohio 44047
- -. - -- -.-,-.-, - - . - . - - _ . - - - - - - , - . _ - - _ . _ _ -