ML20155F832

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Reply to Applicant & NRC Responses to Sapl Seabrook Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities Contentions 1-10 & Sapl late-filed Contention 11.* Svc List Encl

ML20155F832
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/10/1988
From:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#288-6523 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8806170070
Download: ML20155F832 (16)

Text

. - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.GSQ -

k 00CKETED USHRC i8 Jdi 13 NO U0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICAf[3j' [ "

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger , Jr.

Dr. Jerry Harbour In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL)

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al) (Of f site I: ergency Planning)

)

(Seabrook Station, )

Units 1 and 2) ) June _01, 1983 SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE 'S REPLY TO APPLICANTS ' AND STAFF 'S RESPONSES TO SAPL 'S SPMC CONTENTIONS 1-10 AER_S AEL 'S_ LATE:EILED_CONTENTIQU_11 Now comes the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and submits its reply to Applicants ' and Staf f 's Responses to SAPL 's SPMC Contentions 1-10 filed April 11, 1988 and SAPL 's Late-F iled Contention 11, filed on May 13. 1988.1 EAEL_CQD12D11CD_1 Contrary to the requirements of 10 CPR 550.47(a) (1) , 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E, Sec tions IV. A . 8. and IV.D .3. and NUREG-06 5 4, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.A.2.a. and b., II . A. 3, II . E.1. and 3. and NUREG-06 5 4, Rev . 1 I.E., the responsibilities, authorities and concept of operations between the NHY-ORO, State of New Hampshire' and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in ordering any protective action have not been suf ficiently defined nor set forth in advance in any written agreement to ensure a prompt and adequate emergency response. Further, the Implementing Procedures for coordination of response are inefficient and inadequate.

1/SAPL misnumbered its late-filed contention "SAPL Contention 10." It should be numbered "SAPL Contention 11."

8806170070 880610 ' DS O3 PDR ADOCK 05000443 v G PDR-

o

• 1 SAPL_'s_ PoS111DD The Applicants ' urge that this contention should be rejected because they claim there is no regulation or guidance related to the resolution of dif ferences between the governors of states regarding protective action decision-making. The Staff states slightly dif f erently that there is no regulatory basis for a written agreement between state governmental of ficials. There is indeed a regulatory requirement for definition of authorities and responsibilities of state ot!ficials in deciding on and controlling appropriate protective actions at 10 CPR Part 50 Appendix E at IV A. 8 and IV D. 3. Whether a letter of agreement is necessary may be an issue that can be argued, but there is no denying that the concept of operations between response organizations, including state governments, must he clearly set forth in the plans. The Staf f 's argument thct this decision-making issue is a speculative one is senseless because at this point any dif ficulties that could arise during a radiological emergency at Seabrook are a matter of speculation. One of the purposes of emergency planning is to put j

in place the framework for arriving at rapid protective action l

l decisions, to anticipate in advance any difficulties that may arise and to establish the mechanisms for resolving those l

1 difficulties. Even when the presumption that the governors of the two states will use their "best ef f orts" is accepted, the potential for conflicting protective action recommendations leading to a chaotic and ineffective response is not thereby 2

eliminated. An emergency response must be coordinated and 2

organized in order to be effective.

SAPL cited a specific representative example in.its 4

contention basis of an inefficiency in the implementing procedures ,

for coordination of the response. SAPL did not merely make a "broad assertion" without "basis and specificity" as the Staf f asserts. The staff claims that the circuitous communication is at least an indirect result of the lack of participation by state and

.\ocal entities. In the case of SAPL's cited example, this al\egation does not make sense since a non-participating state agency is called prior to the non-participating Governor 's of fice being called. Why this is necessary is not illuminated by the Staf f 's discussion.

Applicants ' claim that the notification of of f site authorities is under the jurisdiction of the onsite board. The only issue which that Board is addressing is offsite notification of the public via the public alerting and notification system.

EhEL Contentian 2 l The SPMC f ails to provide reasonable assurance of an adequate

! protective response because the staging area in Haverhill (see

. Figure 5.2-3) for buses designated in the plans will not be j available for use. Therefore, there is no AEallabla location designated in the SPMC at which buses can be coordinated and staged to pick up transit dependent, special needs and special i facilities populations in the 6 Massachusetts communities.

Effective use of astistance resogrces is therefore not reasonably assured and the SPMC therefore fdils to meet the requirements of  ;

10 CFR 5 50. 47 (a) (1) , S 50. 47 (b) ( 3) , S 50. 47 (b ) (10) and NUREG - 0654, Bev . 1, Supp . 1, II .J .10.g and II .J .10.k .

i l

l 3

-t SAPL 's EDE1119D The Applicants' claimed that there was no basis for this contention since the City of Haverhill withdrew its suit and the matter of use of the staging area was before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

SAPL has been informed that the Zoning Board of Appeals d2D12d the Applicants' rdquest to use the staging area and the matter is under appeal by Applicants in Superior Court. Clearly, the current status is that the staging area is Qat available. The burden is upon the Applicants to show the existence of a viable staging area.

The Staff takes the position that a matter of local zoning is  ;

beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. SAPL is not seeking to get "

the Board to enter this zoning dispute but simply to deal with the adequacy of the SPMC in light of the f act that the staging area is not legally available. The Staff then argues that even though the  ;

area was not available for a drill, there is no showing it will not be available in a general emergency. SAPL would argue that the area will not be available for drills and exercises and that, therefore, any use of the area in an emergency would be an ad bec response, if it could be used at all.

SAPL_ CQQ1RD11QD_3 The SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate i personnel, equipment and f acilities for radiological monitoring and decontamination of general public evacuees, emergency workers ,

and special f acility evacuees (e.g. nursing home residents) have been established. Furthermore, the definition of "contamination" 4

is 600 cpm above normal background radiation in the SPMC, which allows a greater level of contamination of Massachusetts residents to remain unaddressed while New Hampshire residents are decontaminated at 100 cpm under the NHRERP. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 5 50.47(a) (1) , S 50. 47 (b) ( 8) , S 50. 47 (b ) (10) ,

S 50. 47 (b ) (ll) and NUREG - 06 54, Rev . 1, Supp. 1 II .H. 4, II .J .10.d ,

II.J.12, II, K.5.a and K.5.b. have not been met.

EARLls_Easillon Applicants do not contest the admission of the first sentence of the contention. The Applicants argue that the balance of the contention, related to comparison of allowable contamination levels in the two states, should be rejected as having no regulatory basis. SAPL would state that 10 CFR 550.47(a) (1) requires that there be reasonable assurance of "adequate" public protection and that a determination cs to what is "adequate" must be made and applied to the entire plant site. That the dif ference in cpm's is due to the use of dif ferent instrumentation has not been demonstrated. The plans on both sides of the border should also state the exposure levels in millirems per unit time to eliminate this ambiguity and assure adequate public protection.

SAPL notes with interest that Amendment 5 to the SPMC now states that the allowable contamination level on the Massachusetts side of the border is 200 cpm.

The Staf f argues that there is no regulatory requirement for the deco:.tamination of general public evacuees. The Applicants do not go quite this f ar. They simply argue that there is no time limit within which decontamination of evacuees must be accomplished. The Federal Emergency Management Agency witnesses 5

1 have asserted the position in the New Hampshire case that decontamination falls within the meaning of the phrase "range of protective actions. " A range of protective actions is required at 10 CFR S 50.47 (b) (10) . Further, the guidance that evacuees must be monitored, as the requirements are interpreted at NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1 Rev.1, Supp.1 at J.12,$1s rendered absurd by the notion that nothing is to be dono about the contamination af ter it is detected. SAPL would argue that the proper interpretation of the regulations is that since monitoring should be accomplished within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, the concatenate activity of decontamination of contaminated individuals should be accomplished within the same time frame.

The parts of SAPL's contention basis regarding the lack of j'

capacity of monitoring trailers is very specific and includes a calculation of the total number of people who, under optimistic l

conditions, could reasonably be expected to receive adequate services at the trailers. Please see "SAPL Contention 2" above for a reply to the Staf f 's "bect ef forts" argument in regard to the Haverhill staging area. SAPL would further state that it does not buy the argument that "best ef forts" are the appropriate legal standard for judging plan adequacy or that, even if they were, it could be construed to be a "best effort" to choose a legally i

unavailable staging area.

l EAEL_CDatent1Dn_3 l

l The SPMC f ails to provide adequate means for the handling and disposal of contaminated waste water and contaminated materials, 6

~~ - ~ - - - - - _ - __

contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 5 50.47(a) (1) , S 50.47 (b) (9)

S 50. 47 (b ) (ll) and NUREG - 06 54 II . I . 8 and k . 5.b .

SAELla Esaltit -.

Applicants do not oppose the admisolon of this contention.

The Staff does not oppose the part of the contention dealing with waste water, which apparently means that the staff does object to the portion dealing with waste materials. No grounds are asserted for this opposition, however, and therefore the contention should be admitted in its entirety.

EAEL_ Content 1DD_5 The SPMC f ails to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 5 50. 47 (a) (1) , S 50. 47 (b) (12) and NUREG-06 5 4, Rev . 1, Supp. 1, II L.1, 3 and 4 because the hospitals identified in the SPMC are not sufficient to evaluate radiation exposure and uptake, are not adequately prepared to handle contaminated individuals and are not adequately prepared to handle contaminated injured persons.

Further, there are not adequate arrangements in the SPMC for transporting victims of radiological accidents to medical support facilities.

EhEkin_EDnitinD The Applicants have no objection to the admission of this contention into litigation. Thn Staff says that the contention lacks basis and specificity because it does not set out why the planning for contaminated injured individuals does not meet the criteria at 51 End. Eng. 32904 (September 17, 1986). While not specifically ref erencing the Commission 's "Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 5 50.47 (b) (12)", SAPL did point out why the hospital letters listed in the SPMC do not rise to the level of even an adequate list of local treatment 7

i- .

facilities. At 51 End. Egg. 32905, the Commission has stated that satisfactory medical arrangements should include:

(1) a list of local or regional medical treatment f acilities and transportation providers appropriately annotated to show their capacities, special capabilities or other unique characteristics, ( 2) a good faith reasonable effort by licensees or local or state governments to f acilitate or obtain written agreements with the listed medical facilities and transportation providers, (3) provision for making available necessary training for emergency response personnel to identify, transport, and provide emergency first aid to severely exposed individuals, and ( 4) a good faith reasonab. e effort by licensees or state or local ,overnments to see that appropriate drills and exercises are conducted which include simulated severely-exposed individuals.

These requirements have not been met, as the basis of SAPL's contention clearly sets forth.

EAELls_ Cont 2DticD_.6 The SPMC f ails to meet the requirements of 10 CFR S 50. 47 (a) (1) , 5 50. 47 (b) ( 3) , 5 50. 47 (b ) (10) and NUREG-0654 Rev.1 Supp.1. II.J.10.C and J.10 g. because the method of picking up evacuees along predesignated bus routes, transporting them to transfer points and then busing them to reception centers as described in the SPMC is not a practicable means of providing adequate public protection.

E&PL.'s _ Eosition The Applicants do not object to the litigation of this contention as long as no evidence is allowed on the issue of transfer points being in violation of local zoning ordinances.

The Staf f agrees with Applicants on this issue and further states 8

that the contention does not specifically indicate why the bus routes are insuf ficient or why there should be route maps.

On the latter points, SAPL would state that the length of the bus routes are matters related to the ETE's and the burden of proof is upon Applicants to show that the routes are a practical solution to provide adequately for the needs of transport dependent individuals. FEMA has required that adequate maps be provided f or the New Hampshire EPZ bus routes and it is indeed absurd to expect that the vast majority of emergency workers would know, without maps, what routes they are supposed to traverse to pick up evacuees.

The issue of the transfer points being in violation of local ordinances is a significant issue as regards plan adequacy.

Without drills and an exercise using the designated areas, any emergency response would be an ad bog effort and the specific transfer points could prove inadequate to the uses for which they are intended.

EML_ Contention _2 The SPMC f ails to provide reasonable assurance of adequate public protection because there are no plans and no specific designations of host f acilities to which each special f acility is to evacuate and no personnel specified to effect the appropriate protective actions f or those f acilities. Further, the lack of plans for the Anesbury schools affects students from So. Hampton, N.B. who attend Amesbury High School. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CPR 5 50.47(a) (1) , S 50. 47 (b ) (10) and NUREG -

0654 II J.10.d and Article XIV of the U.S. Constitution are not met.

9 I

SAELla_E981119n-Applicants and Staf f have no objection to this contention

-except for the portion which discusses the Amesbury High School ,

students from South Hampton, N. H. not receiving equal protection under the laws as required by Article XI*/ 10 the U. S.

Constitution (the Fourteenth Amendment) . 'as Staff states that there is no basis for the statement that tne South Hampton, N. H.

students would not receive the same protection offered to other students and transients in the Massachusetts portion of the E" ,

That is not the point being made. The point being made is tha a those students will not receive equal protection to that afforded to other New Hampshire citizens. The Applicants simply state that the New Hampshire students could choose to go to school in New Hampshire without any showing that that is a viable option. They further state that the equal protection clause applies to state action. SAPL does not dispute that. It is citizens of the State of New Hampshire who are not receiving equal protection. However, SAPL finds it interesting that Applicants advance the argument that because the Commonwealth "is not authoring" the SPMC, there is not a requirement for equal protection for the Commonwealth's citizens. As long as the presumption that state governments will participate in an emergency response is the legal interpretation applied, any laws applying to said states must be construed as being in force.

10

SAEL_ Cont 2D11Qn_3 The area of planning of the plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) under the SPMC is not of sufficient extent to provide reasonable assurance of adequate public protection because it excludes the City of Haverhill, Massachusetts which is a significant population center through which a major evacuation route, I 495, traverses. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 5 50. 47 (a) (1) and S50.47(c) (2) have not been met.

ShELin EDaition The Applicants and Staff claim that this contention constitutes an impermissible attack on the Commission 's regulations sehen it is, instead, simply pointing out that in accard with the Commission 's regulations at 10 CFR S50.47(c) (2) the EPZ should be expanded to encompass the City of Haverhill in a f ashion directly analogous to the inclusion of the City of Portsmouth in the Ncw Hampshire portion of the EPZ.

EAELls_CQntention_3 The SPMC f ails to provide reasonable assurance of adequate public alerting and notification because there are no longar fixed sirens in the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ, the Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ is impractical in certain weather and accident scenarios, and it will not providc the required public alerting i within a 15 minute time span. Further, the means by which transients in the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge on Plum l Island are to be notified by the U.S. Dept. of Interior are not l specified. Theref ore, the requirements of 10 CFR S 50. 47 (a) (1) ,

l S 50. 47 (b ) ( 5) and 10 CFR Par t 50 Appendix E,Section IV D.3 and .

NUREG - 06 5 4 Rev . 1, Supp. 1, II, E.6 have not been met.

l l SAPL'S EDalt1DD l The Staff and Applicants oppose the admission of this

! contention because the onsite Board has it under jurisdiction.

l SAPL will conditionally waive this contention unless the proposed

! 11  ;

l

NRC rule change on low power requirements somehow removes this issue from the jurisdiction of the onsite Board. SAPL reserves the right, in that eventuality to litigate this contention before this Board.

SbPL_CQalRD110D_1D The. SPMC f ails to provide reasonable assurance of adequate public protection because the SPMC does not address the situation where evacuees in the beach areas will be trapped in traf fic for hours without an option to take shelter or implement any other realistic measures to protect themselves. The SPMC theref ore does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR S 50.47 (a) (1) , S 50. 47 (b ) (10) and NURDG-06 54 Rev. 1 Supp.1 at J. 9 and II J. 10 d . , g , k and m.

SbEkla EDEltkDD This contention is opposed by both the Staf f and Applicants.

The contention states in essence that there is no viable protective option f or the evacuees in the beach area because they can neither evacuate nor take shelter. There is therefore no reasonable assurance of adequate public protection. SAPL is not claiming that there is some minimum dose standard that will not be met as Applicants allege. SAPL is merely stating that the conditions in the beach area preclude any reasonable person f rom arriving at a conclusion that there is reasonable assurance of adequate public protection in the event of a radiological emergency as NRC regulations clearly require. The Staff seems to j reluctantly concede that having dif fering Emergency Classification l Levels (ECL 's) for precautionary actions in the two states could j lead to confusion along the border , but the Staff too refuses to recognize the clear import of this contention as described above.

l 12 l

L

SAPL believes the contention is clear, but to spell it out once again--there is no viable protective action strategy in the beach area.

ShEL C9atantian_ll The SPMC Amendment 4 fails to provide reasonable assurance that there will be adequate means of relocation for special f acility populations in the 6 Massachusetts communities because numbers of buses for those special facilities have been drastically reduced. There are no compensating measures to make up for the reduction in bus numbers to assure reasonably the saf ety of the residents of the f acilities.

Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 5 50.47 (a) (1) ,

. S 50. 47 (b ) (10) , and NUREG-06 5 4, FEMA-REP-1, Rev . 1, Supp. 1, J .10d and J.109 have not been met.

EAEL 's Eas1L19n The NRC Staff does nce oppose the admission of this contention and holds that the balancing of the five f actors of 10CFR S 2.714(a) (i) weighs in favor of admission of this contention. The Applicants have no opposition to the contention RRI Hg, but state that they do not agree with the position that there has customarily been a 30-day time frame for filing contentions on plan amendments in this case. SAPL believes that l

the record of the case supports SAPL 's Statement that there has l

l 13 l

customarily been a 30-day time frame for late-filing contentions on late-submitted material f rom Applicants.

Dated: Ju: e [JIf,1988 Respectfully submitted, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League By its Attorneys, Backus, Meyer & Solomon

/.n ,/f By:

' M h N --

Robert A. Backus, Esquire 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 (603) 668-7272 I hereby certify that copies of the within Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 's Reply to Applicants ' and Staf f 's Responses to SAPL 's SPMC Contentions 1-10 and SAPL 's Late-Filed Contention 11 have been furnished to all parties as per the attached service list. .

b' , .

l .:f.s '.

Robert A. Backus, Esquire i

1 1

14

.Ivan W. Smith, Chairnan - Roberta Pevear Edward Thomas

~ Atonic Safety and Licensing State Rep. Town of Hampton FEMA Board Falls 442 J. W. McCormack (POCH).

U.S. NRC Drinkwater Road Boston, MA 02109 LWeshington, DC 20555 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Dr. ' Jerry Harbour Docketing & Serv, Sec. Thomas Dignan, Esquire Atomic Safety _ and Licensing Office of the Secretary Ropes 6 Gray Board U. S.'NRC 225 Franklin Street U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555 Boston, FM 02110 Washington, DC 20555 Gustave A. Linenberger Jane Doughty Office of Selectmen Atomic Safety and Licensing SApt Town of Hampton Falls Board 5 tbrket Street Hampton Falls, NH 03844 U. S. NRC Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire Joseph Flynn, Asst. Gen. Cnsl. (korge Cana Bisbee, Esquire 376 Main Street Fed. Emerg. Mgmt. Agey. Attorney General's Office Haverhill, MA 01830 500 C Street SW State of Ner Hampshire Washington, LC 20472 Concord, NH C3301 Carol Sneider, Esquire Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Sandra Gavutis Assistant Attorney General Office of Exec Legl. Dr. Town of Kensington One Ashburton Place U. S. NRC Box 1154

-19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 East Kensington, NH 03827 Boston,-MA 02108 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire Town of Newbury Silvergate, Gerner, Baker, McKay, Murphy and Graham Town Hall Fine, Good & Mizner 100 ) bin Street 25 High Road 88 Broad Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Newbury, MA 01951 Boston, MA 02110 Ellyn Weiss, Esquire Paul McEachern, Esquire William S, Lord, Selectman Harmon & Weiss Fbtthew Brock, Esquire Town Hall 20001 S Street NW 25 Maplewood Avenue Friend Street Suite 430 P.O. Box 360 Acesbury, FM 01913 Washington, DC 20009 Portsmouth, NH 03801

, , ._ - -. . ._ _ _. _ __ _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ - - - , _. _ _ . _ . , . . _ . _ , . _ _ - - _ _ .

F

~

LSanstor' Cordon J. Humphrey U, S.. Senate E ; Washington, DC 20510-Attn:' Janet Coit

~ Atonic Safety and Licensing .

Board.

U. S. NRC Fourth Floor Reception Area Ecst West Towers, West Bldg.

- 4350 East West Highway Bathesda, MD 20814 s

J. P. Nadeau Town of Rye.

155 Washington Road

. Rye, NH 03870 Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. NRC Washington, DC 20555 e