ML20197E243
| ML20197E243 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1988 |
| From: | Chan E, Lisa Clark NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6454 OL, NUDOCS 8806080152 | |
| Download: ML20197E243 (133) | |
Text
_
000nCiLD
'$NHC
'88 M -1 P12:50 UNITED ST ATES OF AMERIC A (b', { i?./.h NUCLEA R REGUL ATORY COMMISSION C
9F A Nt.u BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO ARD In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMP ANY OF 50-444 OL N E W H A M P S HIR E, e_ti al.
Off-site Emergency Planning t
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS FILED B Y T OWNS O F AMES B U R Y, NEWB U R Y, S ALISBUR Y AND WEST NEWBURY, THE CITIES OF H AVERHILL AND NEWBURYPORT, AND BY THE M ASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENER AL, NECNP AND S APL Pursuant to the Licensing B oard's Memorandum and Order of March 23,1988 ("Order"), contentions addressing the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities ("SPMC") have been timely filed by the Towns of A mes b ury, N ew b u ry, Salisbury and West New b u ry, the Cities of Haverhill and Newburyport, the Massachusetts Attorney General (Mass AG), New E n gland Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NEC NP) and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (S A PL).
Those contentions generally challenge the adequacy of the SPMC (the A pplicants' offsite emergency plan for Massachusetts portions of the Seabrook emergency planning zone), which was transmitted to the Licensin g Board and parties on September 18, i
1987.
In accordance with the Licensing Board's Order, the Staff hereby 1
)
submits its response to the 3bove-referenced contentions.
In order to l
hOf l
3 avoid unnecessary repetition, in the balance of this memorandum the Staff addresses the legal principles governing the admissibility of contentions.
The admissibility of each of the contentions filed by the municipalities and Intervenors is then set forth seriatim.
I.
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ADMISSION OF CONTENTIONS The principles governing the admissibility of contentions are well esta blished.
C ontention s may only be admitted in an N RC licensing proceeding if they fall within the scope of issues set forth in the Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing and comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 c.714(h) and applicable Commission case law.
- See, e.g., Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), A L A B-216, 8 A E C 13, 20 (1974); Duquesne Light Co.
(Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1), AL A B-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973);
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), A L A B-107, 6 AEC 188, 194 (1973), affirmed sub nom.,
B PI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D. C. Cir. 1974).
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. ! 2.714(b), a petitioner (or irtervenor) is required to file "a list of contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity."
The degree of specificity with which the basis for a contention must be alleged initially, involves the exercise of
,iu d gm e nt on a case-by-case basis.
Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), AL A B-216, 8 AE C 13, 20 (1974).
A contention must be rejected where:
(1) it constitutes an attac k on a pplicable statutory requirements;
% (2) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (3) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the Intervenor's view of what applicable policies ought to be; (4) it seeks to raise an iss ue w hich is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (5) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litig able.
I d_.,
8 AEC at 20-21;
- accord, Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), L B P-82-76,16 N R C 1029,1035 (1982).
The purpose of the basis reovirement of 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(b) is:
(a)to assure that the matter sought to be put into question does not suffer from any of the infirmities set forth in Peach Bottom, supra; (b ) to establish sufficient foundation to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter; and (c) to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose."
Peach Bottom, supra, 8 AEC at 20-21; accord, Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), L BP-85-20, 21 NRC
- 1732, 1742 (1985);
Kansas Gas & Electric Co.
(Wolf C ree k Generating Station, Unit 1), L B P-84-1,19 N R C 29, 34 (1984).
In applying the "basis" and "specificity" requirements of 10 C.F.R.
i 2.714(b), it should be recognized that contentions are the means by which issues are framed for litigation in an N R C proceeding.
While an intervenor must identify the basis (i.e., the reasons) for his contention, l
the admissibility of a contention is not to be determined by evaluating its l
l m erits.
The Licensing Board has previously summarized these principles as follows:
l l
l l
1 1.
4 While the "basis with reasonable s pecificity" sta n dard requires a
contention to be stated with pa rticula rity, Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), A L A B-183, 7 A E C 210, 216 (1974), it does not require a
petition to detail s u p portin g evidence.
Mississippi Power and Light Co.
(Grand G ulf N uclear Station, U nits 1 a n d 2), A L A B-130, 6 A E C 423, 426 (1973).
Nor should a licensing board address the merits of a contention when determinin g( Allens its a dmissibility.
Houston Lightina and Power Co.
C reek N uclear Generating Station, Unit 1), A L A B-590,11 N R C 542 (1980).
What is required is that an intervenor state the ' reasons" for its concern.
Id. at 548.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
L B P-s2-106,16 N R C 1649,1654 (1982).
In accordance with these criteria, it has been held that contentions may not be dismissed at the pleading stage even if they are demonstrably ins u bstantial; 1/ that whether or not a contention is true is to be left to litigation on the merits following the contention's admission; 2/ and that a Licensing Board should not consider the safety significance of the matters stated in a contention, M or the qualifications or credibility of the expert who provided the basis for the contention. O Similarly, the admissibility l
1/
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.
I IT L B P-83-66,18 N R C 780, 789 (1983), citing Houston Lighting and l
Power Co.
( Allens Creek N uclear Generatin g Station,
U nit 1),
l A L/4 B-590,11 N R C 542, 550 (1980),
-2/
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.
2), A L A B-722, 17 NRC 546, 551 n. 5 (1983), citing Allens C reek,
I s u p ra.
l l
-3/
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian
- Point, U nit 3),
ITFE2-105,16 N R C 1629,1634 (1982).
l
-4/
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units l
1 and 2), L B P72-98, 16 NRC 1459, 1466 (1982), citin o Alle ns l
Creek, supra.
In Perry, the Board further noted (id.):
(F0OTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) l of a contention is not to be determined based upon the completeness 'of the facts offered in support of the contention; rather, following its admission, all parties will have an opportunity to develop their positions as to the merits of the contention with additional factual data gained through utilization of the discovery process. 5/
This is not to say that insubstantial or unsubstantiated issues are necessarily to be allowed to proceed to a n evidentiary hea rin g.
10 C.F.R.
! 2.749 provides a ready means whereby such issues may be su m marily disposed of followin g discovery, without requirin g an evidentiary hearing.
If an applicant believes that it can readily disprove a contentior, which is otherwise admissible, the proper course is for it to move for summary disposition following the contention's admission, not to assert a lack of specific basis at the plea din g sta ge.
Allens Creek, s u p ra, 11 N R C at 550-551; Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), L B P-82-119 A,16 N R C 2069, 2071 (1982).
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
[W]hile our procedures permit a p plicant to cite FSAR sections, thereby placing the burden of going forward on the intervenors to explain why those sections are not fully dis positive, a p plicant has not cited the FSAR or other a vaila ble, authoritative material and it may not refute a contention by an u n s u p ported ("ipse dixit") statement of cou n sel.
-5/
- See, e.g.,
Commonwealth Edison Co.
(B raidwood N uclear Power Tiition, Units 1 and 2), L B P-85-11, 21 NRC 609, 617 (1985);
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co._ (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 a n d 2), L B P-81-24, 14 N R C 175,182 (1981).
l l A licensing board is not authorized "to admit conditionally for any
- reason, a
contention that falls short of neetin g the s pecificity re q uire me nts. "
Duke Power Co. ( C ata w ba N uclear Station U nits I and 2),
AL A B-687, 16 NRC 460, 466 (1982), modified on other grounds, C L I 19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983).
The NRC's Rules of Practice do not permit "the filing of a vague, unparticularized contention, followed by an endeavor to flesh it out throu g h discovery against the applicant or Sta ff. "
I_d_.,16 N R C at 468.
Further, contentions concerning issues litigated in an earlier stage of this proceeding should not be admitted at this stage of the proceeding.
The licensing of Seabrook has a substantil history, and the commencement of this stage of the proceeding should not present an opportunity to relitigate matters that have been heard or w hich the parties had an op portunity to litigate whether in litigation involvin g onsite matters (where similar parties are involved) or in litigation of the emergency plan for the New H am ps hire portion of the EPZ.
See generally e.g.,
Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M.
Farley N uclear Plant, U nits 1 and 2),
A L A B-182, 7 AEC 210 (1974); Carolina Power and Light Co.
(Shearon H arris N uclear Power Plant), A L A B-837, 23 NRC 525, 536-40 (1986);
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
L B P-82-76,16 N R C 1029,1081 (1982).
These issues include such matters as protective action g uidelines, emergency action levels, recommended protective actions, evacuation time estimates, human behavior and the evacuation routes to the extent litigated.
Finally, a licensing board has no duty to recast proposed contentions to remedy infirrrities of the type described in Peach Bottom, supra, in order to make inadmissible contentions meet the rec uirements of 10 C. F. R. 5 2. 714 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2),
AL A B-226, 8 AE C 381, 406 (1974).
However, although a Board is not required to recast contentions to make them acceptable, it also is not precluded from doing so.
_ Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steen Electric Station, U nits 1 and 2), L B P-79-6, 9 N R C 291, 295-96 (1979).
Should a board elect to rewrite inadmissible contentions so as to make them acceptable, the scope of the reworded contentions may be made no broader than the bases that were previously provided by the intervenor in support of the inadmissible contentions.
Cleveland Electric muminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), AL A B-675, 15 N R C 1105,1115 (1982).
It is against these standards that the contentions proffered by the Towns and Intervenors uust by measured. 5/
The Staff's views as to the a dmissibility of each of those contentions, based upon the foregoing principles, is set forth in subsequent sections of this pleading.
The admission of these contentions to which the Staff does not object should be limited to the supporting bases.
II.
M ASS ACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENER AL'S CONTENTIONS M ASS AG CONTENTION 1:
State and local officials responsible for emergency preparedness and response in Massachusetts have no intention of implementing or following 6/
In a ddition to the general p rinciples set forth above, certain
~
additional legal principles are discussed in the Staff's response to particular contentions.
the SPMC in the event of a radiological emei gency at Seabrook.
Based on its dctermination that no adeouate planning is possible at this site, the Commonwealth will not participate in any tests, drills, exercises, training or otherwise engage in any planning for such an emergency.
State and local officials will respond to any Seabrook emergency on an ad hoc basis in light of the resources, personnel and expertise then availaTTe.
In light of this considered governmental position, the SPMC is irrelevant to this licensing proceeding.
No emergency plan exists that meets the planning standards of 9 50.47(b) and further provides a basis for the finding of "reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can a n d will be ta k e n. "
(emphasis s u p plied ).
[ Footnote omitted)
R E S P O NE:
The Staff opposes admission of this contentien which maintains that Massachusetts will not follow the utility plan.
The contention is a direct challenge to the recent amendment to 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(c)(1), w hich provides, inter alia, "the N R C will recognize the reality that in an actual emergency state and local government officials will exercise their best efforts te protect the p u blic health and safety" and that "it may be presumed that in an actual radiological emergency state and local officials will generally follow the utility plan," in the absence of another adequate and feasible pla n.
The Commission's Statement of Consideration concerning nf this amendment further indicates that the Conmission intended that it was to be presumed that the State would look to and follow a utility plan in contrast to acting in a less efficacious ad hoc basis in the event of an emergency.
51 Fed. Reg. 42078,42085(1987).
The contention is premised on a determination by Massachusetts that adequate plan ning is not possible for the Seabrook site.
- However, jurisdiction to determine the adequacy of emergency planning for licensing t
purposes rests in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and not in State or local govern ments.
See, PL 96-295, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., i 109; PL l
9 97-415, 97th Cong.
1st Sess.,
i 108; 10 C.F.R.
I50.47(a);
Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, U nit 1),
CLI-86-13, 24 N RC 22 (1986); Long Island Lighting Co_ (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
U nit 1),
C LI-86-14, 24 NRC 36 (1986);
Long Island Lighting Co.
v.
Suffolk Cou nty, N. Y., 628 F.
Supp. 654, 662-65 ( E. D. N. Y. 1986).
Further, to the extent the contention maintains that the emergency pla n does not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. i50.47(b) or is otherwise inadequate the contention lacks the specificity required by 10 C. F. R. ! 2.714(b).
In sun, this contention should be rejected for lack of basis and specificity.
P. ASS A G C O N T E N TIO N 2:
T here exists at present no record support for the application of 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(c)(1) to the litigation of the adequacy of the SPMC.
As a consequence, because, as noted, the SPMC will not be implemented or followed, there exists no plan that meets the planning standards of 6 50.47(b) or i 50.47(a).
.ESPONSE:
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention maintaining that there is no record support for the application of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(1) to test the adequacy of the utility pla n.
The entire purpose of this litigation is to see if there is record support for the application of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(1).
The purpose of this proceeding is to determir.e the extent to which the utility plan meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
l 5 50.47(b) or may be licensed under 10 C. F. R. I50.47(c)(1).
T his l
oroceeding should not be dismissed prior to giving a utility the l
l 1
l t
cpportur.ity to make such a showing.
Thus, "Basis A" fails to present a litigable issue.
Bases B and C are premised on an alleged failure by the Applicant to assert or demonstrate that its inability to meet emergency planning requirements results from the decision of state or local governments not to participate in energency planning.
There is no regulatory requirement that the Applicant identify how it does or does not meet the regulatory requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47.
That determination is the purpose of this proceeding.
This portion of the contention should be rejected for lack of bcsis.
Basis D seeks to raise an issue of the good faith effort of the utility to secure and retain participation.
Litigation of this issue is also foreclosed by Massach usetts' refusal to cooperate.
As stated in Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, U nit 1),
Memorandum and Order (Granting LILC0's Motion for Summary Deposition With Respect to Compliance With Section 50.47(c)(1)(1) and (ii)),
u n pu blished o pinion,
March 3, 1988, at 15, "[T]he good faith test specified in section (c)(1)(ii) can be met with a utility showing that the need for the utility to invoke the alternative procedures provided by regulation is genuine and that in the case before us there is no realistic opportunity remaining to pursue a cooperative planning effort between the utility 6nd the government."
The Mass A G has stated that there is no realistic opportunity to pursue cooperative planning.
See, Contention 1.
The test is whether the utility continues to seek the cooperation of state and local governments and whether those bodies maintain their refusal to participate.
The position of the parties set forth in their pleading L
demor trate that the good faith test in i 50.47(c)(1)(ii) has been met, and Basis D provides no support for the contention.
Basis E does not support admission of the contention because there is no requirement that the Applicant identify any "planning deficiencies" in the utility plan.
The utility plar was generated because Massachusetts refused to participate in emergency planning.
The plannino standards to be met are those in 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(c)(1)(iii).
The utility has submitted its plan under 10 C. F. R. 9 50.47(b) and (c).
Generalized statements provide no basis for a contention.
See, Response to Mass AG to 2B and 20.
In sum, Mass AG Contention 2 should be rejected.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 3:
Assuming arguendo that at some future time there is record support for the application of 10 C. F. R. 6 50.47(c)(1) to the litigation of the SPMC, the permissive presumption set forth at i 50.47(c)(iii) should not be ap plied to the S P M C.
As a result, although this Board might assume that State and local governments will exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public at the time of the emergency, no presumption should be entertained that those officials "would generally follow the utility pla n. "
In reality, as noted in Contention 1, these officials would respond to an emergency on an d hoc basis.
Such an inccmplete and uncertain state of emergency preparedness cannot support a finding of adequacy under 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(a), (b), (c)(1).
RESPONSE
The Shff opposes admission of this contention w hich questions whether Massachusetts officials would follow the utility plan rather than proceeding on an ad hoc basis.
This contention is a challenge to the Commission's determination in 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(c)(1)(iii) that State and local officials will follow a utility plan in the absence of another plan, and cennot be a dmitted for litigation.
10 C.F.R. 6 2.758,a),
long
- 12
- Island lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclaar Power Station, Unit 1)
LBP-88-9, 27 N R C
( April 8,1988), slip op. at 20-22.
Although 10 C. F. R. 9 50.47(c)(1)(iii) states that "it may presumed that in the event of an actual radiological emergency State and local efficials would generally follow the utility plan," it is clear that in the context of the regulat'on it is to be presumed that the utility plan would be followed.
First, the regulation is structured so as to establish two s pecific con ditior.s precedent for a pplication of the p resum ption that officials who had not participated in emergency pla n nin g would, in an actual emergency, respond by following the utility plan:
(1) a showing that ncn-compliance with Section 50.47(b) was wholly or substantially the result of offsite officials not participatin g in pla n ning (Section 50.47(c)(1)(i)), and (2) a showing of good faith utility efforts to secure offsite a uthorities' participation in planning (Section 50.a7(c)(1)(ii)).
Thus, the regulation expressly provides the criteria for application of the presumption, and provides that boards will examine the utility plan once those criteria are satisfied.
It mahes little lense te require spending resources on a determination of the adequacy of a utility plan if the ragulation does not also contain the presumption the plan will be followed by state and local officials in an emergency.
Second, the text refers to the presumption as "guidance" as to the canner in which "the N R C will recognize the reality that in an actual er ergency, state and local government officials will exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public." b52 Fed. Reg. at 42086 (emphasis added).
Such Commission "guidance" contained in the l
regulattens is in essence a procedural rule of the Commission, which is i
1 j
binding on the Commission's adjudicatory boar 6s.
Compare, Metropolitan j
Edison Co.(Three Mile Islanc' Nuclear Station, Unit 1), L B P-85-15, 12 NRC 1409, 1506 (1985); Cleveland Electric illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power.nlant, Units 1 and 2), L BP-81-24,14 N R C 175,176 (1981).
The further provision for a means of rebutting presumption -- by the showing of another pla n that would b_e relied upon in an actual emergency -- indicates that in the absence of such a showing, it is the utility pla n which would be relie d upon.
Thus, the structure of regulation demonstrates that both the application of the presumption (that the utility plan will be followed) and its non-application are expressly provided for.
Use of "may" in the context of this structure indicates application or non-application of the presumption only as indicated.
Finally, the Commission expressly found that its rulemaking findings supported the approach it has taken in CLI-86-13.
It found:
1 he rulemaking record strongly supports the proposition that state and local governments believe that a planned response is preferable to an ad hoc one.
Therefore it is only reasonable to suppose that in tTe event of a radiological emergency state and local officials, in the absence of a state or local radiological eme gency plan a pprove d by state or local governments, will either look to the utility and its plan for guidance or will follow some offsite plan that exists.
Thus, the presiding Licensing Board may presume that state and local government authorities will look to the utility for guidance and generally follow its plan in an actual emercency; however, this presu m ption may be rebutted...
52 Fed. Reg, at 42085, col.1.
As stated, the Commission rule is based on findings justifying the presumption established in the rule.
With these fin din g s in min d, the Commission stated, "[t]he rule establishes the framework" for judging the adequacy of emergency planning such cases.
Id. at col.
2.
Having engaged in generic rulema kin g to reach this co nclu sion, it would be contrary to the Commission's stated intent if
l l
l !
application of the presumption were left to the discretion of adjudicatory boards sitting in specific cases.
In sum, the text of the new rule, its origins in Ct.I-86-13, and the Commission's statements explaining the basis and purpose of the new rule all demonstrate that once the facts enumerated in subparagraph (1) and (ii) of the new Section 50.47(c)(1) are established,
use of the pres u m ption in su bparagra ph (iii) is not discretionary, but mandatory unless rebutted by the showing of another feasible and adequate plan that would be relied upon. U This contention predicated upon a misreading of the regulation must be re,iected.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 4:
Assuming arquendo that at some future time there is record support for the application of 10 C. F. R. i 50.47(c)(1) to the litigation of the SPMC, and this Board presumes that the relevant governments will
- generally follow" that plan, that presumption will either be rebutted or its evidentiary significance eliminated by the Commonwealth.
At a result, there would exist two evidentiary possibilities, neither of which could provide a basis for the requisite finding of "reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken":
1.
Once the presumption is rebutted, the Board will find that the relevant governments will not "generally follow" the SPMC.
As noted, in reality, the actual re;ponse of these governments would be d hoc.
2.
Once the presumption is rebutted, the Board will be unable to determine with any degree of certainty whether or not the releva nt governments will "generally follow "
the SPMC.
(The governments will establit.' in the record that they will respond to an 7/
In Basis B the Intervenor also rasted the issue of whether adequacy of the plan under i 50.47(b) should be considered before 6dequacy under 6 50.47(c)(1)(iii).
No reason is shown for following this course and in keeping with the goal of efficiency in NR C procetdings these two matters should be considered together.
Further this is a legal argument for a separation of proceedings and not the basis for a contention.
J
, emergency on an ad hoc basis but will not "generally follow" the SPMC.
Without benefit of the presumption, the Applicant will no doubt aver that the go ver n m en ts' res pont.e will res ult in the im plementation of the utility pla n. )
T he uncertainty surrounding this dispositive issue - whether the SPMC will be implemented - will make it impossible to fin d reasonable assurance that a dequate protective mearures "will" be taken.
PESPONSE:
The Staff opposes admission of this contention dealing with rebuttal of the presumption in 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(c)(1)(iii) for the same reason it opposed Mass AG Contention 3 i.e., it is based on a misreading of the subject regulation.
As discussed above, the presumption is mandatory absent a timely p roffer of "an a deq uate and feasible state and/or emergency plan that in fact would be relied upon in an emergency."
10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(1)(iii).
Further, it is noted that Basis A involves financial qualification questions which are before the Appeal Board.
P. A SS A G C O N T E N TIO N 5:
Assuming arguendo that at some future time f here is record support for the application cf 10 C FR 50.47 (c)(1) to the litigation of the SPM C and this Board presumes that the relevant gcytrnments will "generally follow" that pla n, the legal impediments to th! im pleme ntation of the SP M C, the factual uncertainties surrounding suc'1 implementation and the optional approach taken by the SPPC itself preclude a finding that the state of emergency preparedness is s ufficiently adequate to meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47 (a), (b) or (c)(1).
_RI S P O N S E :
The Staff opposes a d missfor of this contention allegir.g that the relevant governments will not follow the utility plan, on the basis that it constitutes an impermissible challenge to the reg u4tions.
See, Staff Response to Mass AG Contention 3.
Basis A asserts that the relevant governments would be severely limited in carrying out the plan under State law.
Again, this is contrary I
- - -__________ to the regulation and may not be tte basis of a contention.
10 0.F.R.
E.758(a).
Mass AG also apparently objects to the fact that the plan provides for alternate modes of response.
The fact that the Plan provides for various medes of response adds flexibility and does not provide any basis for concluding that the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
I 50.47(b) or (c) will not be met.
Likewise, the fact that the plan describes what the utility's response personnel would do and provides for advising governments how to carry out the plan is not indicative of any regulatory deficiency.
As set forth in 5 50.47(c)(1)(iii) in the absence of a State or local plan, the affected governments will follow the utility plan and look to utility personnel to guide and help them in carrying out the plan.
Basis A supplies no issue for litigation.
Basis B a p parently is premised on the pla n's provisions w hich recognize that affected governments may choose to perform all or part of the plan. Again, there is no regulatory prohibition against flexibility in emergency response.
BaJs C seeks to attack the presumption of section 50.47(c)(1) that govern mentr i 4 the absence of another plan, would follow the utility pla n.
Therefore, it must be rejected.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 6:
The SPMC contemplates an unlawful delegation of the police powers of the Commonwealth by State and/or local officials to an unincorporated association or organization itself formed and maintained by a division of a bankrupt foreig n corporation not licensed to do business in the Com monwealth.
Activities envisioned for this entity are ultra vires under the relevant states' corporation laws.
As a debtor-in-possession, PS N H's activities outside the ordinary course of business -- such as being the unlawful delegatee of the police powers of a sovereign state -- require p rior a pproval of the ban kru ptcy court having,iurisdiction over the debtor's estate.
Without such approval these activities are not permitted i
under the B a n kru ptcy Code.
As a corporation not licensed to do business in Massachusetts, PSNH and its division NH ( are not authorized to engage in the contemplated activities - i.e., act as the delegatee of the police powers of Massachusetts.
In sum, the SPMC can not be "generally follow [ed]" by the relevant governments because it contemplates an unlawful delegation of power to an apparent entity behind which operates a corporation not licensed to engage in the contemplated activities in Massachusetts and not a uthorized to do so by the court w hich now supervises it.
Further, the activities themselves are ultra vires under the laws of New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes admission of this contention averring that the utility plan contemplates an unlawful delegation of State and local police
- powers, The Contention is contrary to the regulation which provides that in the absence of any other plan the affected governments will follow the utility plan and use their best efforts to take efficacious action.
Moreover, the fina ncial q ualifications of a p plica nts is a question pending before the Appeal Board and should not be considered here.
To the extent emergency planning is equired in order to obtain an operating license, and such a license is required for the applicants to conduct business it is within the Applicants regul.c course of business.
The s
Intervenor peints to no Bankruptcy Court Order prohibiting the Applicant from expending money on emergency pla n nin g, and to the Staff's knowledge no party before the Bankruptcy Court has asked for such an order.
l M ASS AG CONTENTION 7:
i At this juncture, the Lead Owner Public Service of New Hampshire
("P S N H *) is in ban k ru ptcy as is its Seabrook Operating division New Hampshire Yankee (NHY).
N H Y is ostensibly the immediate corporate form behind the organization identified in the SPM C as the NH Y-O R O.
At l
Plan 3.1-1, the SPMC asserts that "[t]he NH Y Offsite Response Director has been authorized by the President of New Hampshire Yankee to commit the resources of the Company (money,
- manpower, facilities, and equipment) through the NH Y [0R 01, to respond in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to protect the pu blic Further, the letters of agreement contained in Appendix C indicate that the Joint Owners and the bankrupts will share the expenses of emergency planning as they share ether Seabrook expenses -- PSNH will bear 35% of the cost and liability m11 be neither joint nor joint or several as to the other presently solvent Joint O w ners.
In light of these facts, there is no assurance that s ufficient funds will be available to maintain an adequate level of erergency preparedness.
Therefore, the utility plan is in violation of all of the pla n nin g standards set forth at 50.47(b) and no reasonable assurance finding pursuant to 50.47(a)(1) can be made.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission on this contention which addresses Applicants' financial q ualifications, on the grounds that this issue is outside the scope of this operating license proceeding. See,10 C.F.R.
t 50.57(a)(4).
Further, Intervenors' Petition for Waiver of this financial qualification regulation is currently pending before the Appeal Board and contentions addressing Applicants' financial cualifications are premature pending disposition of the waiver petition by the A ppeal Board.
Therefore, this contention should be rejected since it is a challenge to the regulations, and is outside the scope of the Board's jurisdiction while the issue is before the Appeal Board.
K ASS AG CONTENTION 8:
At an crganizational level, the SPMC fails to adequately establish and define the relationships between the ORO end other organizations which are expected and relied upon to perform emergency response activities.
Further, the SPMC does not adequately provide for effective coordination of effort between or clearly delineate the primary responsibilities of these other organizations and the ORO.
As such, the SPMC does not meet the planning standards set forth at 6 50.47(b)(1), (2), (3), (5) and (6); 10 C FR Part 50, Appendix E, IV, A.6, 7, 8; and the planning guidance set ferth in W U R EG 0654 II. A.1.b., c, 2.a., b, 3; B.6, 9; C.5 (Supp.1);
E.1; a n d F.1.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to this contention, limited to bases A and D th ough G.
However, the Staff objects to basis B and C concerning state and local resources, since these are not relied on in the SPMC and under 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1)(iii) state and local authorities are presumed to utilize the utility plan in the absence of any other plan.
Hence, these bases should be excluded for lack of basis.
MASS AG CONTENTION 9:
The SPMC fails to provide necessary procedures to insure that employees of NHY, PSNH and other utilities who staff the ORO and who will exercise critical functions such as command and control in the event of a radiolegical emergency at Seabrook have the requisite independence and a utonomy to exercise their emergency res ponsibilities effectively.
Because the OR O staff individually and collectively is not independent of the owners of Seabrook, it will not plan for, order, manage, coordinate or control the emergency response adeouately.
As a result the SPMC is not in compliance with 50.47(a)(1); 50.47(b)(1), (3); Part 50 Appendix E, IV, and N U R EG 0654 II. A.
RESPONSE
T his contention should be rejected.
The Intervenor cites a Lice nsin g Board decision in support of this decision without calling the Board's attention to the fact that the decision was reversed on appeal, j
- See, Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham N uclear Power Station,
Unit 1), A L A B-847, 24 N R C 412, 424-29 (1986).
The Appeal Board there stated:
"...the regulations and applicable regulatory guidance effecSvely rebut the notion that utility officials must be categorically excluded from l
exercising any command and control responsibilities."
24 N R C at 428.
The Appeal Board went on to note that the Commission is "prepared to l
assume that state and cou nty officials would participate in emergency response on a 'best efforts' basis by relying on the LILC0 plan as a source of energency pla n nin g information and options.
In such
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ circumstances, ndividuals not affiliated with LILCO, such as state and local officials, will presumably be involved in these discretionary command and control determinations normally the province of government.."
24 NRC 429.
Thus, the support Intervenor gives the contention is not present.
F urthe r, the Commission in the new rule at 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1)(iii) presumes that state and local officials will respond in an emergency using their "best efforts."
This contention lacks basis and shoud not be admitted.
M A SS A G C O N T ENTIO N 10:
No provision is made in the SPMC for procedures to be employed in the event of a strike or other form of,iob action affecting the availability of the emergency personnel relied on to adequately staff and maintain the NH Y ORO.
In the absence of such procedures, this utility plan does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will he ta k en.
See Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), 21 N R C 644, 888 (1985).
RESPONSE
This contention lacks basis and should be re,iected.
Intervenors provide no basis for this contention other than citing to Shoreham where a strike of utility employees actually occurred during litigation of the emergency planning phase of the proceeding.
See, L B P-85-12, 21 N R C 621, 888-95 (1985).
There is no nexus between the actual occurrence of a strike on Long Island and the speculation that a strike may or may not occur at some unspecified future date in New Hampshire.
M ASS A G CO N T ENTION 11:
The A p plica nts and their Lead Owner PSNH have a developed,
self-consciou s and articulated position and policy toward emergency planning for the 10-mile plume exposure EPZ, including the portions of that EPZ that lie within Massachusetts.
In a word, that corporate policy l
, cor.,iders emergency planning for such an area unnecessary.
Because of this leno-held public position, the utility in this case is completely and totally unable to develop and maintain an emergency response organization that would successfully implement the SPMC.
T hus, a utility plan in this case is u nab 7e to meet any of the plan nin g standards set forth in 50.47(b) and no findin g that "reasonable assurance that a dequate p rotective measures can and will be ta ken" is possible pursuant to i 50.47(a)(1).
RESPONSE
This contention is wholly lacking in basis and specificity and should be rejected.
Intervenors provide nothing to show that a particular "corporate attitude" has resulted in any deficiency in the plan itself other than mere s peculation that this "attitu d e" may affect the level of emergency preparedness in the future.
There is no reculatory basis for assessing "attitude" and Intervenors' generalization does not provide any basis for litigation of this contention.
M A SS A G C O N T E N TIO N 12:
C om m u nication systems relied on for the mobilization of ORO personnel and the activation of the E0C are not adequate because no back-up personnel will be contacted by these system s and critical positions are filled with only one designated person per shift.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning lack of back-up personnel for the communications system.
M ASS A G C O N TE N TION 13:
The SPMC fails to meet the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, A p pendix E,
IV.E.9 and 50.47(b)(6) and (8) because there is no in dication that the off-site com m u nication systems relied upon for emergency com m u nication s with emergency response personnel have a back-up power source.
l
_ - _ - - - _ RESPONSE:
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning lack of back-up power for the communication system relied upon in the SPMC.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 14:
The SPMC relies too heavily on commercial telephone links for critical and essential emergency com m u nications.
Because commercial telephone lines will be and should be assumed to be overloaded shortly after the orset of an accident at Seabrook, no essential emergency communications should be based in the first insta nc e on commercial telep hone com m u nications.
All of the liaison activities, all of the communications between contracted-for service providers and their personnel, most of the ORO to government communications and even elements of the notification of the public rely on the availability of commercial telephone lines.
As such the SPMC fails to meet the pla n nin g standards set forth at 50.47(b)(6) and planning guidance of NUREG 0654 II F.
D. E S P O N S E :
T he Staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning I
the possibility of overloaded com mercial phone lines.
However, many other subparts of other contentions concern this same matter and should be consolidated as bases for this contention and not separately admitted.
Bases of other contentions which should be considered under this single contention are:
47 C and D, and 54 E and F.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 15:
The SPMC fails to meet the standards of 6 50.47 (b)(6) because there is no provision for an effective horizontal or lateral network of communications directly linking emergency field personnel with each other.
As a result, all communications must be first vertically transmitted, processed and recommunicated leading to delay, miscom m u nication and gaps in the communications network.
The failure to provide a lateral ommunications system is a defect in the SPMC which will affect traffic ir.a n a ge m ent and evac uation,
secu rity,
timely response to
- ----- - j emergencies-within-the emergency and otherwise result in a wooden and ir. effective emergency response.
See Long Island Lighting Company (S horeham N uclear Power Station,
U nit 1).
L B P-88-2 at 50 et seg.
( February 1,1988).
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention regarding lac k of a horizontal or lateral network of comm unications lin king energency field personnel with each other.
However the Intervenors have failed to cite the portions of the LIL C O decision which found a vertical com m unication system s ufficient.
See, L B P-85-12, 21 NRC at 734-37.
F ASS A G C O N T EN TIO N 16:
The SPMC fails to meet the planning standards set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 50, A ppendix E, IV, E.
c., 50.47 (b)(6) and N U REG 0654, II.F.1 (Supp.
1),
because there is no provision for a dequate communications with State and local response organizations or E0Cs, or with other private response organizations.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention concerning the adequacy of comm u nications with state and local or private response orga nization s.
No requirement exists for a communication system that must obtain FCC a p proval.
No basis is given to conclude that the projected communication system does not meet regulatory requirements.
M ASS A G CO N T ENTIO N 17:
The SPMC states that O P0 "can direct activation" of the EBS but that authorization to broadcast an EBS message must be given by the Governor of Massachusetts. Plan i 3.7.
The SPMC, therefore, proposes that ORO will advise the public th roug h the EPS system upon a uthorization of the Massach usetts Governor.
Pro-2.13.
T his arrangement is alien to the purposes and design of the EBS.
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _. The EBS exists to provide government officials with direct access to l
broadcasting capabilities in times of crisis. Because the public needs and expects official guidance in emergency situations, it is extremely unlikely l
that the Massachusetts Governor would abdicate his duty to notify the public in the event of a radiological emergency.
Emergency notification responsibilities, as exercised through the EBS, are at the heart of the state's police power and are therefore inappropriate for delegation to a private third party.
- Further, Federal EBS regulation s and the Massachusetts EBS Operational Plan ("Operational Plan"), which governs operation of the EBS in Massachu setts, makes no provision for third party activation as envisioned by the drafters of the SPMC.
Rather, such provisions were designed to provide solely for government activation.
Absent amendment of the Operational Plan to expressly provide for authorization of ORO, activation by parties other than the government officials expressly named in the Massachusetts Operational Plan is therefore inconsistent with both Federal and State EBS design.
The pla n, therefore, inadequately provides for notification through the EBS system and does not meet the planning standards set forth at 50.47 (b)(5) and (7) and the planning guidance of N U R E G 0654, II.E.5.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to the admission of this contention concerning activation of the EBS for the same reasons as specified in the response to Massac h usetts contention 3 concerning Legal A uthority.
T his is an impermissible challenge to the regulation under 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1)(ii) that presumes that responsible state officials will utilize their "best efforts" to protect their citizens in an emergency and any basis which suggests that state officials will act otherwip should be re,4cted by the Board.
Further, FC C regulations do not limit EBS access to government officials.
See, 47 C. F. R. Il 73.935-937.
M ASS A G C O N T E N TIO N 18:
l The SPMC fails to meet the planning standards set forth at E 50.47(b)(5) and the guidance provided in N U R EG 0654, II.E.1. and 2.
I because the notification and mobilization of response organizations and personnel is not adequate.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning the adequacy of notification and mobilization of response organization and personnel on the bases set out in the contention, with the exception of basis C, D, and E.
Basis C labels bus drivers ambulance drivers and others as "key emergency personnel."
No basis is given for this a ss ertion.
Further, no specificity is provided as to "items."
Basis D calls for "back-up" assignments.
No regulatory requirement exists for such assignments.
Basis E concerning an "emergency worker tracking system" is not required by any regulation or regulatory guidance and absence of such a system does not provide any basis for challerging the adequacy of the notification and rr obilization system provided in the SPMC.
M ASS A G CO N TEN TION 19:
There is no adequate alerting system for the public in existence or proposed which meets the reg ulatory requirements set forth at f,50.47(b)(5); N U P E G 0654 II. E.6 and Appendix 3 and FEM A-REP-10.
For this reason, there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken.
i 50.47(a)(1).
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention on the ground that it lies beyond the jurisdiction of this Board.
Adequacy of the alert r otification [ siren) system is an issue pending currently before the onsite Board and should not be separately admitted for hearing before this Board.
_ l M ASS AG CONT ENTIO N 20:
The emergency messages to be utili.ted by the O RO in the event of an emergency at Seabrook are inadequate and will not be effective in com m u nicatin g necessary information to the pu blic.
As a result, the SPMC does not meet the planning standards set forth at 50.47(b)(1), (5) and (6) and the guidance provided by N U REG 0654 at II E.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 a n d 8, a n d F.1.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention regarding the adequacy of EBS messages, limited to bases A, B, and E through I.
Bases C and D concerning credibility of the ORO and the response of government officials should not be admitted as challenges to the 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1)(iii) which presumes e "best efforts" response of state officials and the mere speculations set forth in these basis are not sufficient to overcome that presumption.
M ASS AG CQNTENTION 21:
l l
The SPMC fails to provide adequate procedures for the coordinated dissemination of information to the public and fails to sufficiently plan for the role of the news media and, therefore, does not meet the planning standards as set forth at 50.47(b)(8) and N U REG 0654, II G.3.b.4.
RESPONSE
The Staff does net object to admission of this contention regarding the adequacy of coordination with the media limited to basis A.
Basis B,
however, should not be admitted, as there is no requirement for back-up facilities for the media.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 22:
The SPMC fails to provide adequate information and access to information at the time of an emergency to those State and local governments which are not participating in emergency planning.
W hile New Ha m pshire response officials will have access to the Emergency O perations Facility
("E O F")
and the Emergency O perations Center
("EOC"), officials from the Commonwealth will not be permitted at these J
, locations (assuming they could be reached in a ti ely fashion.)
As a m
result, no coordination of response, inclu din g
.oordination of pu blic r.otification and communication will occur and the planning (standards set forth at 50.47(b)(1),
(2),
(3),
(5),
(6),
(7) and
- 8) and the corresponding criteria set forth in NUREG 0654 have not been met.
CESP0FSE:
The staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning communications with state and local officials.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 23:
The SPMC provides inadequate procedures for rumor control during an emergency and fails to meet the standards set forth in i 50.47(b)(7) and N U REG 0654 II G.4.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning the adequacy of rumor control provisions in the SPMC.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 24:
The information to be made available to the public pursuant to the SPMC prior to an er:ergency does not meet the regulatory standards as set forth at 50.47 (b)(7), NUREG 0654 II.
G.
and 10 C F R Part 50, A ppendix E, IV. D 2.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this centention regarding dissemination of public information limited to the bases, A, C, D.1, and D. 2.
Basis B concerning dissemination of information to farmers outside the 10 mile EPZ should not be admitted, as there is no requirement to provide such information other than to the general population within the 10 mile E PZ. See N U R E C-0654, II. G.2.
Additionally, Bases 0.3, 4 ano 5 ue vague and wholly lacking the requisite specificity sufficient to put the
v I parties on notice as to what they would be litigating.
Therefore, bases B and D.3.4 and 5 should not be admitted.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 25:
In light of the absence of State and local participation in emeroency planning for the Seabrook stet 4n, the plume exposure EPZ defined by the SPMC to include only the 6 Massachusetts towns of Salisbury, Newbury, West Newbury, Newburyport, Amesbury and Merrimac is not large enough to provide reasonable assurance as required by 9 50.47(a)(1).
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention which seeks to expand the 10 mile plu nie exposure EPZ.
T his constitutes an impermissible challenge to the Commission's reculations which state:
Generally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power plants shall consist of an area about 10 miles in radius...The exact size and configu ration of the EPZs surrou nding a particular nuclear power reactor shall be determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land c haracte ristics, access routes, and jurisdictional bou ndaries.
10 C F R 50.47(c)(2).
The only basis cited for this contention is the lack of state and local participation in emergency pla n ning.
There is no regulatory basis for the assertion that lack of state and local participation requires expansion of the plume exposure EPZ.
There is no indication that demography, topography or jurisdictional boundaries are in some way adversely affected by the current configuration of the EPZ.
T herefore,
this contention should be rejected as an impermissible challenge to the regulations.10 C F R 2.758.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 26:
The SPMC fails to provide a range of protective action: for the public within the Seabrook plume exposure EPZ.
No choice of protective actions is set forth in the SPMC for large numbers of people.
Thus, the SPMC does not meet the s tandards set forth at i 50.47(b)(10) and NUP.EG 0654 II.J.9, 10.m. and does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken. 5 50.47(a)(1).
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning the range of protective act'ons for the public, limited to Basis A.
Basis A concerns the requirement that a Plan should provide for consideration of a range of protective action options.
However, Basis B raises the issue of the absence of available sheltering for the beach population.
Sheltering is not required for each portion of the EPZ population at all times.
See, Public Service Company of New Fampshire (Seabrook Station.
Units 1 and 2),
Memorandum and Order (R ulin g on Contentions),
u npu blis hed A pril 29, 1986 at 43-45.
T herefore, admission of this contention should be limited to Basis A.
M ASS AG C ONTENTION 27:
The S PM C's decision-ma king criteria for selectin g a sheltering as opposed to an evacuation PAR is inadequate and inaccu rate, and, therefore, fails to meet the planning standards set forth at 50.47(b)(10) and N U R E G 0654 II.J.10.m. and Appendix E, IV, A.4.
As a result, the SPMC fails to provide reasonable assura nce that a dequate protective rieasures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
50.47(a)(1).
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning the adequacy of decision-making criteria, except for Basis A and E.
There is no requirement for a study setting forth the time required for effectin g a
sheltering protective action recom men dation (PAR) and Intervenor cites to none.
Therefore this basis A should be rejected as lackin g any regulatory besis.
Basis E should be re.4ecte d as dose i
allocations ire not a ppropriate for review in emergency planning proceeding.
See, 52 Fed. Reg. 42078, 42084-85.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 28:
The SPMC fails to meet the plan ning sta ndard set forth at 50.47(b)(10) and N U REG 0654 II.J.10.m. because the decision criteria for P ARs ignore a significant special population.
The SPMC fails to take into account the significant number of persons who reside in trailers located throughout the Massachusetts Plume exposure EPZ.
These trailers would provide only minimal shielding from radiation (significantly less shieldin than would be provided by the typical house in the Massachusetts EPZ)g and therefore special consideration must be given to residents of these trailers in P AR decision-making, such as ordering them to evacuate or to seek shelter elsewhere when other persons in their municipality are ordered to shelter.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention regarding special consideration for people who reside in trailers.
Intervenors provide no basis for this contention ard there exists no regulatory basis for requiring special arrangements for various segments of the population due to differences in dwelling units.
The contention lacks basis and should be denied admission.
H ASS AG CONTENTION 29:
Because the residents of the six itassachusetts EPZ communities have so little confidence in and so much hostility toward the owners of Seabrook Station and the N R C, any and all efforts by the O R O during an emergency to provide the public with information, to direct traffic, or to provide transportation will generate a
- confused, disorderly, and u ncontrolled public response.
- Thus, the SPHC cannet meet the requirements of 10 C FR i 50.47(a)(1), 5 50.47(b)(10), and N UREG 0654, Rev.1, Supp.1,Section II.J.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention concerning hostility of the general population toward the owners of Seabrook and the NRC.
T his is a generic human beha vior issue w hich has previously been litigated in the earlier phase of this proceeding.
Speculation concerning possible future be havior of the public is not relevant to an inquiry directed at assessing the adequacy of the SPMC under the standards set forth in N RC regulations and guidance.
Hence, the contention should be rejected.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 30:
There is no assurance that snnw removal will occur promptly enough or be sufficiently effective to enable an evacuation to be feasible in adverse winter weather.
T herefore, the SPMC fails to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a), 50.47( b)(10), and NUREG 0654, Pev.1, Supp.1,Section II.J.10.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention concerning sr.ow removel.
10 CFR 50.47(c)(1)(iii) presumes that state and local officials will respond to an emergency using their "best efforts", and as snow removal from local streets cnd interstate highweys is a govern mental function, this contention is inadmissible to the extent it alleges that these officials will not fulfill their normal functions.
The accumulation of snow and the seasonal inpassability of roads are considerations in connection with protective action decision-making, but do not in and of themselves p reclude such d ecision-m a kin g.
Therefore, this contention should be rejected as an impermissible challenge to the regulations.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 31:
The SPM C, in conjunction with the N H R E RP, allows and encourages decision-makers to call for an evacuation of EPZ by sectors (S. SW, NE, SE, N), even within 5 miles, depending on w hich way the wind is blowing.
This is a deficiency in violation of 10 C.F.R. 65 50.47(a)(1),
50.47(b)(10), and N U RE G 0654, Rev.1, Supp.1,Section II.J.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to a dmission of this contention concerning evacuation of the EPZ by sectors as it is an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations and guidance.
In fact, sector evacuation is clearly contemplated in the regulations and to require a 360 degree evac-uation in all scenarios would violate the Commission's regulations and guidance.
See, N U RE G-0654 II.J.10.1 and Appendix 4 This contention s hould be reiected.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 32:
There is no evacuation time estimate study which has been done to assess what the realistic evacuation times would be in the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ in light of the special difficulties, circumstances, and delays in conducting an evacuation in Massachusetts under the SPMC.
The Final Report of the KLD Evacuation Time Estimate Study and Traffic Management Plan U pdate, completed in August 1986, did not take into account these special circumstances, difficulties, and deleys.
A new evacuation time estimate study needs to be conducted before the SPMC can meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(10),
N U R E G 0654, Rev.
1, Supp.
1,Section II.J.10.e, and A ppendix 4 of N U R EG 0654 Rev.1.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to this contention concerning the KLD evacuation time estimate study, as that issue has been exhaustively litigated in the earlier phase of this proceeding, and Intervenors here point to nothing l
w hic h shows the Massachu setts com m u nities were not adequately considered in that generic 10 mile EPZ study.
l 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MASS AG CONTENTION 33:
Even if there were an a p propriate ETE study accompanying the SPMC, the SPMC's procedures do not instruct O RO werkers to refer to it at all, let alone describe how to use it to adjust an ETE contained in the table in Attachment 4 of IP 2.5.
Absent such procedures, the SPMC fails to assure that the ETEs used by protective action decision-makers can or will be adequately ad,iusted to account for road conditions, transient repulation fluctuations, road impediments, weather, delays in staffing traffic control or access control points, or other special evacuation problems that vary from the conditions assumed when the ETEs in the l
SPMC were calc ulated.
The SPMC therefere fails to comply with 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(10), and N U R EG 0654, Rev. 1, Supp.
1, l
Section II.J.10.
1
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to this contentien regarding the adequacy o' the SPM C procedures for utilization of the ETE study.
H ASS AG CONTENTION 34:
There is no reasonable assurance that there are sufNcient resources available to provide gasoline to hundreds of vehicles which are likely to run out of gas d urin g an e vacuation from the EPZ.
Absent these resources, the SPMC does not meet the sta ndards set forth at 50.47(b)(10) and N U R E G 0654, Supp.1, II.J.9 and 10.g.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to this contention concerning the absence of provisions for providin g gasoline to rrotorists d urin g an evac uation.
There is no regulatory basis for any such requirement and the contention should be rejected as lacking any basis, l
MASS AG CONTENTION 35:
If an evacuation is required on het summer days when the beaches are crewded, the SPMC provides no contingencies for those thousands of beach area evacuees whose vehicles can reasona bly be anticipated to overheat and stall as they prneeed along the congested beach area roads at the rate of about one car length per minute in weather that may well exceed 90'.
The pla n s do not provide sufficient tow vehicles to adequately respond to this problem.
It is unrealistic and imprudent to rely on ride-sharing to resolve a problem of this magnitude.
For those whose vehicles will stall, there is no reasonable assurance that they will have a means of evacuation.
Therefore, the SPHC does not meet the requirements of 10 C FR i 50.47(a)(1), 6 50.47(b)(10), or NUREG 0654 Rev. 1. S u p p. 1. II.J.
RESPONSE
The Staff obfects to admission of this contention regarding the adecuacy of provisions for dealing with roadway impediments.
Except for the issue of the adequacy of the number of tow trucks, this is a generic issue which was fully litigated ir, the earlier phase of the proceeding in connection with the evacuation time estinates for the 10 mile EPZ and should not be relitigated here.
The adeoutcy of the number of tow trucks should be consolidated with MAG Contention 73 and should not be separately admitted here.
The contention should be rejected.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 36:
There is no reasonable assurance that a vehicular evacuation, the only protective action utilized by the SPMC to protect those in the Massachusetts beach areas, will be feasible on summer days when the.
beaches are crowded. The SPMC therefore does not ruet the requirements of 10 C FR 6 50.47(a)(1), f 50.47(b)(10), NV REG 0654. Rev.1, Supp.1 Section II.J. and N U RE G 0654, A ppendix 4.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention which alleges that vehicular evacuation is infeasible in the summer.
The contention is grounded on assumptions which have no basis and are highly speculative.
Neither the regulations nor the regulatory guidance call for vehicular evacuation of all occu pants of the EPZ under every conceivable l
com bination of circu msta nces.
Intervenors provide no reasonable
(
explanation for concluding that evacuatin g drivers would engage in dangerous activities, such as abandoning their
- cars, during an 1
l
- 35 c evacuation.
Further, these human behavior issues were previou sl3 litigated and should not be admitted here.
MASS AG CONTENTION 37:
The evacuation plan contained in the SPMC is so poorly designed and so inadequately staffed that, even if State and local officials are assumed to make a best efforts response, there is no reasonable assurance that either the permanent residents or the beach area transients can or will be evacuated significantly faster than can be achieved by an uncontrolled evacuation.
Thus, the SPMC will not achieve any reasonable or feasible dose red uction through evacuation.
With additional manpower 6nd inteliigent plan revisions some feasible dose reduction could be achieved.
But even then the SPMC could not obtain either reasonable dose reductions or reductions which are generally comparable to what might be accomplished with full Massachusetts governmer.tal cooperation. Thus, the SPMC docs not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be ta ken, and it fails to comply with 10 C FR 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(10), 50.47(c)(1), and N UREG 0654 Rev.1, Supp.
1,Section II.J.
RESPONSE
T his co r.tention regarding "reasona ble or feasible dose reduction through evacuation" should be rejected.
As the Commission made clear in the Statement of Considerations accompanying the amended emergency planning rule, "...every emergency plan is to be evaluated for adequacy on its own rr.erits, without reference to the specific dose reductions which might be accomplished under the plan or to the capabilities of any other plan." 52 Fed. Reg. 42078, 4?C84-85 (November 3,1987).
T herefore, this contention should not be admitted as it lacks basis and raises no litigable issue in this proceeding.
Further, Massachusetts officials, using their "best efforts" would do all they could in actual emergency to protect its citizens.
See,10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(1).
To the extent the contention alleged that the plan does not provide for enough traffic control personnel, it is covered in Contention 38.
,l
. MASS AG CONTFNTION 38:
There are inadequate traffic control personnel assigned along heavily travelled evacuation routes, especially Rt. l A and Rt. 286 in Salisbury ar.d the Plum Island Turnpike in Newbury and Newburyport, to ensure that two-way traffic flow can be maintained on these roads during an evacuation of the Massachusetts beach areas when the beaches are crowded, as reouired by the SPMC.
Thus, there is no assurance that the SPMC's evacuation plan can or will be implerrented to permit inbound returning commuters, emergency vehicles, tow trucks, or buses to use these roads.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning u* equate staffing of traffic control personnel.
M A SS A G C O N T E N,TIO N 39:
The evacuation time estimates contained in the SPM C, Pro-2.5 at, are too unrealistic to form the basis of adequate protective action decision-me kin g.
Realistic ETEs would be much longer.
The
- SPMC, therefore,
does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), 5 50.47(b)(10), N U REG 0654, R e v. 1, S u p p. 1. II. J.10.1, and N UREG OC54, Appendix 4.
P. E S P O N S E :
The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention to the extent it is prenised on f aults alleged in Bases A, C O, G,15, J. N. P, V,
X, Y,
A A, BB, EE and FF w hich a p ply s pecifically to u nique ecnditions ir. Massachusetts and therefore appear to raise issues which have not been litigated.
The Staff objects to the admission of Bases E, F M.
T and CC because they raise human behavior issues which were previously litigated.
B ases B, H, II,12 a nd 14, L, Q, S. U, W, Z a nd D 0 should be rejected because they raise generic questions about ETE's which were previously litigated.
Basis F should be rejectec for the additional reason that
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l there is no regulatory requirement that ETE's consider dose savings in the modelling assumptions.
The Staff objects to the admission of bases H & X,1.3 on the grounds that they are overly vague.
Intervenors do not specify what assumptions in the plan are alleged to be unrealistic or what intersections are alleged to experience com peting traffic flow demands or discharge headways.
Basis O should be rejected for lack of basis sirice Intervenors cite no authority in the plan or regulations for the requirement that ORO traffic guides must be able to move traffic as fast as professional traffic ha n dlers.
Basis R concerning alert notificatior, is an onsite issue outside this Board's jurisdiction and therefore not admissible here.
P A SS A G C ONTENTION 40:
In making the choice of protective actions during an emergency, it is extremely irr portant for the decision-makers to have ready access to maps w hich accurately shew the pop ul6 tion distribution around the nuclear fa cili'.y. The SPMC fails to include such maps.
N U R EG 0654, Rev. 1, Supp.
1,Section II.J.10 states:
"T he offsite response organization's plans to implement protective measures for the plume exposure pathway s hall inclu de:
... (5) Maps showing population distribution around the nuclear facility.
This shall be by evacuation areas (licensees shall also present the inforrration in a sector format)."
Absent such maps, the SPMC fails to comply with 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(10), and N U REG C654 Rev.1, Supp.1 Section II.J.10.b.
RESPONSE
The Staff has no objection to admission of this contention regarding the absence of population distribution maps in the SPMC.
M ASS AG CONT ENTION 41:
There is no reasonable aswrance that the SPMC is adequate to protect the health and safety of the public because for the transients in
~
~ 38 -
the beach areas for whom no cheitering or other protective action option is provided, the ETEs on crowded beach days are simply too long.
W hile there is no NR C limit on evacuation times for populations for which the other p rotectiv e acticn option of s helterin g is a vaila ble, where no sheltering option is provided, ETEs must have limits to ensure adequate p rotection.
Those limits are exceeded here because the beach populations are entrapped and uneble to timely evacuate.
Therefore, the SPMC does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(10), and N U R E G 0654, Rev.1, Supp.1, II.J.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention which alleges the evacuation time estimates are "too lo n g. "
There is no basis for Intervenors claim that E T E's must have limits to ensure a deq uate protection.
Intervenors, in fact, cite case precedent which affirms that there are no maximum limits on ETE's and ETE's are simply a tool to be used by protective action decision-ma kers to aid in making protective a ction recom me n dation s, e.g.,
Cincinnati Gas & Electric h (Wm.
H.
Zinner N uclear Power Statinn, U nit No. 1), A L A B-707, 17 NRC 760 (1983).
There is no basis for their claim that the underlying rationale does not apply in this case.
T his contention should be rejected as lacking any regulatory or factual basis, l
l M ASS AG CONTENTION 42:
The SPMC does not provide protective action decision-makers with sufficiently realistic ETEs for the Massachusetts EPZ population for a wide rance of times and conditions in the summer months.
O nly one pre-determined ETE is provided for a summer weekend with good weather, despite the fact that ETEs for such occasions vary dramatically es the l
site of th e beach population (a factor to which the ETEs are highly sensitive) rises and falls.
T hese beach population changes are i
substantial and occur from hour to hour day to day, and week to week.
Absent a real-time, com p uter-ba sed system to monitor the size of the I
beach population and compute real-time E T Es, the SPM C is deficient, because there 4 no reasona ble assurance that adequate protective l
r.easures can ar 3 will be taken as required by 10 CFR $ 50.47(a)(1).
1 l
1 l
, RESPONSE:
The staff objects to admission of this conter tion concerning the necest.ity for a "real-time computer-based data collection /ET E calculation sy ste m. '
There is no requirement for such a system in the Commission's regulations or guidance and hence, the contention lacks any regulatory or factual basis and should be denied admission.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 43:
Because the SPMC's evacuation time estimates have been rejected by State and local officials as totally unrealistic and unreliable, in the event of an emergency at Seabrook Station, Massach u setts State and local decision-makers will always reject any irrmediate implementation of 0 R0's protective action recommendations based on those ETEs.
As a result, and because those decision makers have no alternative set of ETEs available to them, State and local decision-ma kers will make an ad hoc judgment regarding what protective actions are likely to maximize 70se reductions.
However, there is no rea sona ble assurance that a deq uate protective measures can or will be taken through such an ad hoc decision-making process.
Therefore, the SPMC does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), (b)(10),
(c)(10), and NUREG 0654, Supp.
1, Sections II.J.10.1 a n d 10. m.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to adnission of this contention which alleges that state and local of'icials will "always reject im plementation of ORO's protective action recommendations based on those E T E's."
This is an attack on the rebuttable presumption under 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1)(iii) that states and localities would follow a utility plan in the absence of any other feasible plan of their own.
The mere allegation that they would not use the utility plan is insufficient to overcome this presumption and does not provide any basis for litigation of this contention.
e.g.,
- see, Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
L B P-88-9, 27 N R C
( A pril 8, 1988), slip op, at 21, 24 T herefore this contention should be rejected as lacking any basis.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 44:
The SPMC is deficient because it utilizes a set of evacuation time estimates which have been rejected by Massachusetts State and local officials as totally u nrealistic and u nrelia ble.
In the event of an emergency at Seabrook Station Massachusetts officials will always reject any immediate implementation cf ORO's protective action recommendations based on those ETEs until they have had a chance to assess the situation in de pen d ently.
Because Massachusetts decision-makers f. ave no reliable evacuation time estimates of their own, this independent assessment can and will require an uncertain amount of time.
T h u s, the S P M C fails to provide reasonable assurance that in the event of an emergency Massach usetts officials will make protective action decisions prom ptly enough to permit the effectuation of protective measures w hich are "adequate" or wh,'ch achieve dose savings that are generally comparable to what would reasonably be accomplished were State and local officials fully cooperating in the planning process and were in possession of a set of ETEs in which they had confidence.
At best, because of this SPMC deficie ncy, there is sim ply too much u ncertainty with respect to how prom ptly Massachusetts officials can and will make protective action decisions.
At worst, this deficiency guarantees that such decisions cannot and will not be made promptly.
The SPMC therefore violates 10 CFP Q 50.47 (a)(1), 50.47(b)(10), NUREG 0654, Rev.
1 Supp.
1, Sections II.J 9, J.10.1, and J.10.m.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention which essentially l
repeets the same assertions as contention 43, that state and local officials l
will reject ORO protective action recom men dation s based on the SPMC E T E's.
This contention has no basis as previously stated in the staff l
response to contention 43.
A dmission of this contention should be de nied.
l l
M_A SS A G C O N T E N TIO N 45:
The SPMC fails to meet the planning sta n dards set forth at i
50.47(b)(10) and N U REG 0654 11. J. because no adequate provisions for security in evacuated areas have been made.
The SPMC contains no l
l discussion of security in evacuated areas.
Table 2.0-1, the "Key Position Desponse Function Matrix," provides that primary re',ponsibility for law enforcement lies with the State Police and local police authorities.
No precedures are set forth for coordinating these agencies' activities and providing for security in evacuated areas.
Moreover, the Local EOC Liaison Coordinator has secondary responsibility for law enforcement but neither PRO-1.8 nor any other portion of the SPMC indicates what O R0's capabilities in this regard actually are.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to a dmission of this contention concerni.g provisions for security in evacuated areas.
T his concention contravenes the irrebuttable presumption that state and local officials will respond to an emergency using their "best efforts" and will perform those functions r.ormally entrusted te them by their citizens, including law et.forcement.
To the extent this contention addresses the behavior of the governments, it has no basis for litigation in this proceeding.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 46:
The SPMC feils to meet the plan nin g standards set forth at 50.47(b)(10) and the guidance of N U R E G 0654 II. J.10.a because the bus routes as delineated in the SPMC are totally unrealistic and cannot form the basis for adequate planning.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning bus reutes for the Massachusetts communities.
M, A SS A G C O N T EN TIO N 47:
The SPMC fails to offer reasona ble ass urance that a dequate protective measures can and will be taken in a timely fashion for school c hild ren.
- Thus, it fails to com ply with 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1),
50.47(b)(10), 50.47(b)(14), 50.47(b)(15), 50.47(c)(1); N U R EG 0654, Rev.
1, Suop.1. I!.J, II.N and 11.0; and N U R EG 0654, Rev.1, Appendix 4.
t
.- RESPONSE:
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent it is premised on alleged faults in the utility plan set out in bases B, C, D, F, G, H, I, and T.
However, as detailed in the discussion of contention 14, the Staff believes that bases C and D
should be consolidated with all other contentions pertaining to the ava ability of telephone lines.
Bases A, J. L, M and the second "S" should be rejected because they are not grounded on any regulatory requirement or the guidance provided in N U REG 0654.
Neither the regulations nor NUREG 0654 call for school-specific emergency response or sheltering plans, EBS messages of any particular length, provision of transportation options for schools, s pecial tra ns portation arrangements for children who walk or drive themselver to school, or sheltering for the entire population in the EPZ.
Basis J is also so vague that it does not raise any concrete issue for litigation.
Basis K should be rejected as there is no requirement that schools be informed how to shelter children or that they be told how to perform that task at the time of an emergency.
While basis M is premised on an a s su m ption that tra ns portation assistance would not be timely offered to the sc hools, a bsolutely no basis for that conclusion is provided.
Therefore, it should be rejected for the additional reason that it is not sufficiently specific.
Basis E
should also be re,iected because it lacks sufficient s pecificity.
Although the Intervenor states that a lack of clarity in the l
implementing procedures will "create a host of problems", no explanation of the resulting problems is provided and no nexus to the regulatory
. requirements is alleged.
Similarly, basis G lacks specificity as it is only an allegation without any specificity.
Bases N, R and the first "S" should all be rejected because they are premised on generic human behavior matters which were previously litigate d.
Furthermore, bases 0, P,
Q, and the first "S" are simply s peculation about the behavior of certain individuals w hich is not supported by any reasnnable explanation or authority.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 48:
The SPMC fails to provide reasona ble assurance that adeq uate protective measures can and will be implemented for all those persons who are patients in the two hospitals within the Massachusetts EPZ and for those who become injured durin g the emergency.
4her from natural causes such as a utomobile accidents from ra diation conta mination/ex pcs ure.
The SPMC therefore
- 1.., to c o m ply with 10 C.F.R. 66 50:47(a)(1), 50. 47( b )(10), 50.47(b)(12) and NUREG 0654, R e v. 1, S u p p. 1, II.J.10. d, 10. e, 10. g ; a n d II. L.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that it is alleged that the receiving hospitals identified in the SPMC could not accummodate the patients in the two hospitals located within the EPZ (a portion of basis A).
All other bases for this contention should be rejected.
Although it is alleged that the plan fails to provide a dequate accom modations for the radiologically injured or a deq uate decontamination facilities (portions of basis A), neither the l
regulations nor NUREG 0654 require that the facilities listed by the applicant have any specific capacity.
See Policy Statement on "Emergency Planning-Medical Services," 51 Fed. Reg. 32904 (Sept.17, 1986).
No l
s pecial arrangements are required by regulation for injured non-contaminated individuals.
Further, the allegations are based only on 1
l t
allusions to "reasonable estimates" and therefore lack basis.
Bases B and C concern generic human behavior matters which were previously litigated while bases D,
E, F,
G and H are all overly vague and lack basis.
Intervenor articulates absolutely no reason for finding that the provisions for transporting hospital patients, or for sheltering or providing KI in-hospitals, are inadequate, f ASS A G CONTENTION 49:
There is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be ta ken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station for institutionalized persons (e.g., patients in medical facilities) who cannot be evacuated.
The SPMC therefore fails to comply with 10 C FR 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(10) and N U R EG 0654, Supp.1, II.J.9, II.u.10. d a n d II.J.10.e.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes admission of this conte ntion because it lacks basis.
There is no regulatory requirement or NU REG guidance that calls for particular steps to occur for staffing of hospitals, or the stockpiling or use of XI.
Further, issues involving "role conflict" have already been litigated in this proceeding.
M ASS AG CQNTENTION 50:
The SPMC is deficient because it has not identified all or even most of the special needs resident population, has not sufficiently assured the security of acquired inforrr.ation about special needs individuals, has not adequately determined all the facters needed by individuals identified to cope with a radiological emergency, has not identified other individuals and organizations capable of assisting and the type of assistance required, and has no adequate procedures for assuring that this data is periodically validated.
Thus, the SPM C does not comply with 10 CFR l
50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(7), 50.47(b)(10), 50.47(c)(1), and N U R E G-0654, Rev.1, Supp.1, Sections II.G and II.J.
l
. RESPONSE:
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention because it lacks basis.
Bases A and E are simply speculative conclusions which are not supported by any authority or reasonable explanation.
Neither basis B nor basis D is founded on any regulatory requirement or guidance.
No regulation or provision of NUREG 0654 has been identified which requires the utility to ensure that information contained in its plan be secured or to id er.tify all individuals and organi:ations capable of assisting handicapped persons.
Basis C is overly vague beceuse it provides no ex planation of what additional information it is alleged that the utility shculd obtain about the special needs resident population.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 51:
T he S P M C's provisions for assisting the s pecial needs resident population in taking protective actions are grossly deficient and provide no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be ta ken t'y this population.
The SPMC therefore fails to comply with 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), 50.47( b)(10), 50.47(c)(1) or NUREG 0654, Rev. 1 Supp. 1 Section J, and FEM A Guidance Memorandum 24 ( Radiological Emergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons.)
RFSPONSE:
The Staff opposes admission of this contention because of lack of basis.
Each of the bases provided avers only that the utility plan fails to comply with a FEM A guidance memoraridum.
Since the purpose of this litigation is to determine the adequacy of the utility's plan under N R C standards, failure to comply with FEM A guidance per se is not relevant unless some nexus to the reaulatory requirements is alleged.
The bases do not describe any task required by regulation.
M ASS AG CON f ENTION 52:
The SPMC does not contain an a p propriate or timely alert and notification system for residents who have special notiNeation needs.
The SPMC therefore fails to com ply with 10 C.F.R.
$$ 50.47(a)(1),
50.47(b)(5), 50.47(b)(7), 50.47(b)(10),
and NUREG 0654, Rev.,
1, Su pp.1, II. E II. G a nd II.J.
RESPONSE
The Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention concerning notification of residents with special needs.
H A SS A G C_0N T EN TIO N 53:
The SPMC does not provide for a deq uate pre-emergency pu blic information to establish the preparedness needed to adequately meet the special needs of persons with handicaps during a radiological emergency.
The SPMC therefore fails to comply with 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1),_
50.47(b)(7), 50.47(b)(10), 50.47(c)(1), and N U R EG 0654, Rev.1, Supp.
- 1. Sections II.G and II.J.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis and s pecificity.
Bases A,
C and D lack the requisite specificity, basis B is premised only on speculation, and basis E is simply a generalized statement of the intervenor's view of emergency planning.
i M ASS AG CON T EN TION 54:
The SPMC plans to minimize initial radiation exposure for those in s pecial facilities through the im plementation of a PAR to s helter or e vac uate.
See Plan 9 3.5.3; Pro-2.7, Attach m ent 3.
Other than l
hospitals, these special facilities include nursing homes, homes for the l
l mentally retarded, elderly housing projects, and the like.
The SPMC
)
specifies that Special Population Liaisons from NHY's ORO will telephone l
each special facility listed in Appendix M to relay the recommendations to shelter or evacuate.
See generally P ro-1.10 ; Pro-2.7; A p pen dix M.
Sheltering is to be implemented by the special facility staff without ORO support.
Evacuation is to be assisted by the ORO to the extent that special facilities need transportation assistance.
The plan, however, fails I
to identify all of the special facilities which exist in the EPZ.
Even for those facilities w hich have beer, ide ntified, there is not reasona ble l
l assurance that either sheltering or evacuat'on can and will be implemented in a timely manner or in a manner that alkws all those in special facilities with handicaps, especially those whose movement is impaired, to take advantage of these protective responses.
Thus, the people in special facilities will not be adequately protected in the event of an emergency, and the SPMC, therefore, fails to com ply with 10 CFR 6 50.47 (a)(1),
50.47(b)(3),
50.47(b)(8),
50.47(b)(10?
and NUREG 0654, Supp.
1, II. A.3, II. C. 4, II.J.10. d, II.J.10.e a n d II. J.10. g.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent it is pomised on alleged faults set out in bases A, D, E, F, H, I, K, L, M and N.
However, as explained in the discussion of contention 14, the Staff believes that bases E and F should be consolidated with all other contentions relating to the availability of telephor.e lines.
Bases B, C and J should be rejected because they lack any regulatory foundation._
There is no requirement in the regulations or Commission guidance that the utility prepare separate emergency response plans for each special facility, or have procedures to substantiate bed buses.
Fu rt hermore,
with regard to basis C, no reasonable explanation is provided to support the allegation that special patients in the absence of a facility-specific pla n.
It should therefore be rejected for the additional reason that it is not sufficiently specific.
Bases G should be rejected for lack of specificity.
The Intervenor provides no explanation as to why a failure to differentiate between P A R's on the basis of whether they have been authorized will create a "host of p ro blem s ".
M ASS AG CONTENTION 55:
The SPMC Proposes that individuals who have been evacuated from special facilities will be relocated to a single "host special facility" (the name of which is known to the Attorney General but cannot be made public pursuant to the Board'r protective order).
See Appendix b, at M-148 (w hich indicates one ruch facility).
T his special host facility contains a large auditorium, an arena, and rriscellaneous space on two floors.
The S P M C 's plans for use of this facility do not provide reasonable assurance that this facility will be ready and available in a timely fashion in the event of an emergency or that, even if ready and available, it will be adequate or even lawful for use as a congregate care center for the number and kind of special needs individuals to be sent there.
The SPMC thereforc fails to comply with 10 C FR 50.47(a)(1),
50.47(b)(3), 50.47(b)(8), 50.47(b)(10), and NUREG 0654 1, II A.3, II C.4, II J.10. d., a nd II J.10. g.
(footnote omitted), Su pp.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that it is premised on the alleged inadequacies of the designated host special facility set out in bases A and B.
Basis C should be rejected as it presumed that the American Red Cross will respond to a radiological emergency.
See Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear ~
Power Station, U nit 1), C LI-87-5, 25 N P C 884, 888 (1987).
Bases D and E should also be rejected for lack of basis.
Both are founded on the assumption that the utility must provide medical care and attention at receiving facilities for individuals with special needs.
This assumption is not founded on any regulatory requirement or guidance and therefore does not raise any litigable issue.
Bases H, I and J should also be rejected for lack of basis since there is no regulatory requirement that host facilities be certified by the American Red Cross.
Furthermore, to the extent that it is alleged that the Red Cross will not use the facility absent certification, no reasonable ex planation for that co nclusion is a rticulated.
By virtue of its Congressional charter and national policy, the Red Cross would be required to assist in protecting the public during a radiological emergency.
Basis J also has no specificity.
Bases F and G shculd also be rejected as without basis.
To the extent it is asserted that implementation of the utility plan is unlawful under federal law, no statute, regulation or constitutional provision has been identifie d.
The question of whether implenentation of the plan would violate State la w is outside the scope of this proceeoing.
A dditionally, in basis F,
Intervenor speculates that the alleged legal impediments would prom pt local government officials to enjoin implementation of the utility plan during an actual radiological emergency.
This assertion directly contravenes 10 C.F.R.
(c)
(2) (iii), which requires the N R C to recogrive the reality that government officials will i
exercise their best efforts to protect the public health and safety in the event of a radiological emergency and to presume that their best efforf response will utilize the utility plan as the best scurce for emergency planning information and options.
S horeha m, C LI-80-13, 24 N R C at 31.
See also response to Mass AG contention 6.
Basis K should be rejected for lack of basis.
Any "transfer trauma" that might be caused by evacuating elderly individuals has no relevance to the question of whether the utility's errergency plan complies with the regulatory requirements.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 56:
The SPMC does not establish or describe ccherent decision criteria to be used by emergency decision-m a k ers in formulatin g an a p propriate protective action recommendation ("P A R") and otherwise fails to provide guidelines for the choice of protective actions consistent with federal policy.
Thus, the SPMC does not meet the planning standards set forth at 50.47(b)(10) and N UREG 0654 II.J 10.m. and Appendix E, IV, A.4 and does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures ca n a n d will be ta ken. 50.47(a)(1).
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to ad mission of this contention regarding the criteria for protective action recom men dation s as an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations and guidance.
The standard emergency classification and action level scheme must include as bases the facility system and effluent parameters, and the offsite plan must rely on the facility licensee for determinations of minimum initial offsite response measures.10 C FR 50.47(b)(4).
It is not alleged that the offsite system is inconsistent with those established by the licensee.
See N U R E G-0554, Rev. 1, S u p p. 1, Sec. II. D.3.
The recitation of various parameters that Intervenors believe should be included in protective action decision-making is nothing more than a generalized statement regarding Intervencrs view of what a p plicable policies ought to be, and thus constitutes an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations.10 C.F.R. 6 2.758; Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, U nits 1
and 2),
A L A B-875, 26 NRC
- 251,
?64 (1987);
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),
A L A B -216, 8
AEC 13, 20 (1974).
- Further, the emergency clas sification and action levels for Seabrook were litigated and fou n d adequ ate by the Licensing Board in the p rior on-site proceeding.
Public _ Service Co. of New 14amoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
L B P-87-10, 25 N R C 177 (1987).
This matter is not open for relitigation in this offsite planning proceeding.
Therefore, this contention presents no litigable issue in this offsite proceeding and the contention should be rejected.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 57:
PAR decision-making is over reliant on computer-generated dose assessment and the SPMC does not provide for a shift to, or demonstrate a capability to rapidly incorporate, real-time dose monitoring information as soon as possible after a
release as recent federal guidance recommends.
In addition, the default values used to assess doses (see Pro-2.2, at 36) underestimate the potential ratio of iodine to noble gases.
In severe accident releases the values could be much greater and the default values would, therefore, result in incorrect dose projections.
Thus, the SPMC does not meet the planning sta n dard set forth at 50.47(b)(10).
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention regarding the necessity for real-time dose monitoring information for the same reason it objected to Mass AG contention 56 and because H lacks any regulatory or factual basis.
Intervenors provide no basis for the speculation that default values used to assess doses underestimate the potential ratio of iodine to noble gases.
Therefore, this contention should not be admitted, since it lacks any basis in the Corrmission's regulations or in fact.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 58:
Under some circumsta nces the Sea brook Station S hort-Term Emergency Director is responsible for initial decision-ma kin g and contacting the Governor of Massachusetts.
Pro-2,14 at 3.
However, his position and job description were created before the SPMC was formulated and the SPMC does not indicate whether this responsibility and the requisite knowledge and training have been incorporated into the Seabrook Station Radiological Plan.
For this reason, the SPMC fails to meet the planning standards set forth at 50.47(b)(1), (2), (3) and (10) and the guidance of'N UREG 0654 II A., B.,
B., C. and J.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention concerning the incorporation of the responsibilities of the Seabrook Station Short-Term Emergency Director into the SPMC.
This information is clearly set forth in the Plan at 3.2.17-18.
Therefore, this contention lacks basis and should not be admitted.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 59:
The decision criteria described in the SPMC are not coordinated with those set forth in the NHRERP.
Thus, the possibility e.' ists for conflicting P ARs being formulated, transmitted and recommend <sd to the releva nt State governments. The SPMC has no adequate procedures to prevent this and therefore does not meet the planning standards set forth at 50.47(b)(1) and (10) and the guidance of NUREG 0654 II. A. and J.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning the coordination of decision criteria in the SPMC with that set forth in the New Hampshire RERP.
MASS AG CONTENTION 60:
The E ALs described t'y the SPMC have not been discussed with or agreed upon by relevant Sta local govern mental authorities as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Ap;e and pendix E, IV.8.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to this contention regarding Emergency Action Levels (E ALs).
There is no requirement that E ALs be agreed upon by State and local a uthorities w here the State and local officials have specifically declined participation in emergency pla n nin g.
10 CFR 50.47(c)(1)(fii).
- Further, as discussed s u p ra, the issue of the Applicant's classification scheme and emergency action levels (E ALs) was litigated and found adequate by the on-site Licensing Board and that finding was not disturbed on appeal.
Seabrook, supra, 25 N R C at 183 (1987); rey, on other g rou n ds,
A L A B-875, 26 NRC 251, (1987).
Therefore, this contention is both lacking any basis and is outside the
.yy.. - -
.y scope of this Board's jurisdiction.
The contention should be denied admission for litigation in this proceeding.
M A SS A G C O N T EN TION 61:
Only a small handful of O R O personnel appear to be trained and qualified to make protective action recommendations, Pro-2.5 at 3, and only one individual is designated as having the responsibility to "formulate" these P A Rs - the Radiological Health Advisor ("R H A").
The R H A will not assume his responsibilities until arrival at the E0C and that arrival will be delayed because the RH As live and work too far from E0C and will have to transit the EPZ to reach it. Pro-1.2 at 4, Append'x H at A.4.
As a result, the SPMC does not meet the standards set forth at 50.47(b)(1), (2), (3) and (10); Appendix E, IV. A.4 and the guidance set forth in N UREG 0654 II. A.2; B ; C and J.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning adequate staffing for the Radiological Health Advisor position.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 62:
There is a lack of coordination between the EOF, the Seabrook Station Response Manager and those at the E0C who are responsible for formulating PARS.
P ro-2. 5.
As a result, inconsistent PARS may be formulated and the SPMC does not meet planning standards 50.47(b)(1),
(2), (3) and (10) and the guidance set forth in NUREG 0654 II. A.2; B; l
C and J.
1
RESPONSE
The staff does not object to the admission of this contention concerning the lack of coordination between the EOF and the EOC regarding formulation of P A Rs.
l l
M ASS AG CONTENTION 63:
1 The SPMC fails to meet the plan ning standards set forth at 50.47(b)(1), (3), (9) and (101 and the planning guidance of NUREG 0654 II. A.,
C.,
I. and J. 11; FEM A Guidance Memorandum IN-1 and FEM A REP-2, REP-12 and WINCO-1012 because the provisions, procedures and planning for the 50-mile ingestion pathway emergency planning zone are not adequate.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not object to admission of this contention concerning in gestion pathway procedures and planning, limited to Bases A, D, E, and F.
However, the Staff objects to Bases B and C as having no factual or regulatory basis.
There is no requirement that advance public information be distributed to the ingestion pathway EPZ population (basis B) and Intervenor fails to show how the absence of the identity and location of food and milk producers in the published information impacts the utility plan's ability to respond in the event of an emergency (basis C).
Therefore, this contention should be admitted, limited to Bases A, D, E and F.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 64:
The SPMC fails to meet the planning sta ndards set forth at 50.47(b)(1), (8) tod (9) and the guidance of NUREG 0654 II. A.3.
1 because there is no assurance that resources relied on in the SPMC will j
be adequate at the time of an emergency.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the a dmission of this contention.
Matters pertainin g to P S N H's ban kru ptcy are outside the scope of this proceeding.
Additionally,10 C FR 50.57(a)(4) prohibits consideration of the financial qualifications of the a p plicant durin g this stage of the litigation.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 65:
The SPMC fails to meet the planning standards set forth at 50.47 i
(b)(1), (8), (9), (12) and (13) and the corresponding guidance of I
1 NUREG 0654 because adequate resourcos including personnel, facilities and equipment have not been securad to a deq uately respond to a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station.
As a result, there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be ta k e n. 50.47(a)(1).
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the adinission of this contention for lack of basis and s pecificity.
Intervenor's generalized statements and broad conclusions do not afford the parties adequate notice of the issues to be litigated.
No allegation is made that provision to treat contaminated-injured individuals does not meet the standards set in the Commission policy on "Emergency Planning-Medical Services," 51 Fed.
Reg. 329Cs' (1986).
M_A SS A G C O N T E N TIO N 66:
The facilities identified in the SPMC as the Emergency O perations Facility ("E O F") and the Emergency O peration s Center ("E 0 C") are inadequate for the purposes required.
As a result, the SPMC fails to meet the pla r r.in g standards ' set forth at 50.47(b)(8); NUREG 0654 II.H.2. and 3 and A ppendix E, IV, E, 8.
RESPONSE
The Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention dealing with the location of the EOF and E 0 C facilities.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 67.
The facility identified as a Sta ging Area located in Haverhill at 145-185 Water Street is not now available to the O R0 for this purpose and no other facility has been identified.
The City of Haverhill on February 26, 1988 issued a Cease and Desist Order as to all uses of the premises as a Staging Area based on violations of the City of Haverhill Zoning Code, i 255.13.
In A p ril, 1988, the S u perior C ourt of the Commonwealth entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting any further use of these premises for the purpose. In light of the function and role of the Staging Area in the SPMC, the absence of any identified lawful location for such a facility makes the effective implementation of the SPMC impossible and the SPMC fails to meet the standards set forth at 50.47 (b)(8) and N U R EG 0654 II H.4.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes admission of this contention.
Local zoning matters are outside the scope of this proceeding.
Furthermore, even if local law prohibits the use of the designated staging area at the time of a radiological emergency, the C om mis sion's regulations require Licensing Boards to recognize the reality that state and local governments will exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public.
10 C FR 50.47 (c) (1) (iii).
While responding to an actual emergency, it is presumed that the local governments will follow the utility plan, Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham N uclear Power Station,
U nit 1)
C LI-86-13, 24 NRC 22, 31 (1986), and thus permit th e use of the designated staging area.
H ASS AG CONTENTION 68:
T he Media Center located at the Town H all, N ewington,
New Hampshire is improperly sited and timely access by Massachusetts State and local public information personnel would be impossible because to reach that location in a timely fashion the entire Seabrook 10-mile plume l
exposure EPZ would have to be crossed.
Thus, the standards set forth in 50.47(b)(7) and (8) and N U REG 0654 II. G. and H.4 have not been i
met.
RESPONSE
f The Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention l
concerning the siting of the Media Center.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 69:
The SPMC relies upon the A merica n Red Cross to establish and operate all 27 congregate care centers and the host special facility, yet it l
does not contain any kind of written agreement with the American Red l
C ross w hicn identifies the emergency measures to be provided in Massachusetts and the m utually accepta ble criteria for their im plementation.
The SPMC therefore fails to comply with 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1),
50.47(b)(1),
50.47(b)(3),
50.47(b)(8),
50.47(c)(1) and N U R E G 0654, Rev.1, Supp.1, II. A.3, II.C.5, and II.H.4.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to the admission of this contention.
The A merican Red C ross under its charter and national policy will respond to an emergency.
See C L I-87-5, 25 N R C 884, 888 (1987).
No letters of agreement are needed with the AmerMan Red Cross.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 70:
The SPMC fails to provide adequate arrangements for requesting and effectively using assistance and resources that 4re purportedly available to the State and local governments.
Pla n 5.3-1.-
The SPMC clains that State and local emergency facilities are described for informational purposes only and that implementation of the utility Plan does not rely on these facilities.
Flan 5.3-1.
This is doubly incorrect.
First, only if the SPMC were to be implemented in Mode 2 with O R O authorized to perform the entire response would these State and local facilities not be relied upon ex pres sly for plan im plementation.
Second, even in that Mode, the existe nce of adequately staffed and mobilized local E0Cs is assumed.
Pla n 2.1-21. -22.
Adequate emergency facilities and equipment are not provided and maintained by State and local governments for an emergency at Seabrook.
Thus the SPMC has not met 50.47(b)(3) and (8) and a reasonable assurance finding under 50.47(a) cannot be made.
RESPONSE
l The Staff does. not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that it is alleged that the utility plan does not include a liaison for the state police.
To the extent that the contention is premised on other alleged facts in basis D it should be rejected for lack of basis.
There is 1
no regulatory requirement that the utility engage in emergency planning with non-participatin g govern mental c Wties.
Furthermore, the i
I
. presumption that such entities will follow the utility plan in the event of an emergency is mandated by 10 CFR 50.47 (c) (1) (fii).
Bases A, 8 and C should also be rejected for lack of basis.
As explicitly stated in the utility plan, no resources of the state or local governments are required for implementation.
SPMC 2.2.1.
Thus, there is no need to ascertain whether state resources, such as EOC's, meet the regulatory requirements w hich a pply to the facilities and equipment utilized to support the planned emergency response.
Likewise, there is no need to determine whether the utility has engaged in coordination or planning to utilize state resources such as laboratories.
M A S S A G C O N T E N 110 N 71:
The SPMC fads to provide reasonable assurance that an adequate number of buses, vans and drivers can and will respond in a timely fashion to evacuate hos pitals,
s peclal facilities,
schools,
day care / nurseries and the remaining transit-dependent or mobility-impaired pop ulatio n.
T herefore,
the
- SPMC violates 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1),
50.47(b)(1), 50.47(b)(3), 50.47(b )(10), 50.47(c)(1) and NUREG 0654, R e v. 1, S u p p. 1, II. A 3., II. C.4., II. C. S. a n d II.J.10.
RESPONSE
j The Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention alleging that the utility plan does not provide for an adequate number of i
buses, vans and drivers to effectuate a timely evacuation of hospitals, i
special facilities and. schools for the reasons set out in the Bases.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 72:
The SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance that an adequate number of ambulances, wheelchair vans, and drivers can and will respond in a timely fas hion to evacuate all those who reasonably may need transport by ambulance or wheelchair van durin g a
radiolo 50.47(a)gical emergency.
T herefore,
the SPMC violates 10 CFR (1),
l 50.47(b)(1), 50.47(b)(3), 50.47(b)(10), 50.47(b)(12), and N U REG 0654, Rev.
1, Supp.
1, II. A. 3, II. C. 4, II.J.10(d), II.J.10(g), and II. L. 4.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that it is alleged that the utility plan does not provide for an adequate number of ambulances, wheelchair vans and drivers to transport mobility-im paired individuals who have been pre-id e ntif'e d.
All other bases for this contention should be rejected.
Neither the regulations nor N U REG-0654 require the utility to provide transportation for individuals who may need assistance d urin g an emergency by virtue of injuries s ustaine d due to natural events or auto accidents.
Also, Intervenor provides no basis for the allegation that the utility enlisted the participation of ambulance companies through misrepresentation.
M ASS AG C O N TEN TION 73.
The SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance that an adequate number of tow trucks and drivers can and will respond in a timely and adequate fas hion on a 24-hour basis to clear disabled vehicles from evacuation rou tes.
The SPMC therefore fails to comply with 10 C F R 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(1), 50.47(b)(3), 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG 0654, R ev. 1, S u p p. 1, II. A.3, II. C. 4, II. C. 5, a n d II.J.10. K.
RESPONSE
The Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention dealing with adequacy of the number of tow trucks and drivers.
l j
M ASS AG CONTENTION 74:
l l
The SPMC contains no provision for snow removal on the evacuation routes.
Therefore, the SPMC violates 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(1),
50.47(b)(3), 50.47(b)(10), and N U R E G 0654, Rev. 1, S u p p. 1, II. A. 3, i
II. C.4, II. C. 5, a n d II.J.10. k.
l l
-w ewn<--
---m-s e-amr-
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on snow removal for the reasons detailed in responses to Massachusetts contention 30.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 75:
The SPMC fails to provide adequate arrangements for requesting and effectively)using Federal assistance resources and does not comply with 50.47(b)(3 and N U R E G 0654, II. C 1.a., b. and c.
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention concerning arrangement for requestin g and effectively using Federal assistance resources.
The bases for this contention all relate to the expected response of federal agencies and personnel and do not relate to the utility pla n.
However,Section I. D.3 the Federal Radiological Response Plan (FRERP) provides that "The Federal government will respond when a State, other governmental entity with jurisdiction, or regulated entity requests Federal S u p port...."
50 Fed.
Reg.
- 45642, 46544 (November 8,1955).
The FRERP further provides in Section II. C.1. :
"The owner or operator of the facility or radiological activity is generally the first to become aware of a radiological emergency, and is responsible for notifying the appropriate State and Federal authorities."
50 Fed.
Reg. 46546.
Thus, a N RC regulated utility can request support under the FRERP, Furth'er, to the extent the bases allege that the federal interface is geared only to state and local government participants in the response, it is a c hallenge to the Commission's regulation under 10 C. F. R. I 50.47(c)(1).
The matter alleged in Bases C and D in relation to a Zion exercise are not shown to be germane here.
Bases E and F are
.m vague too give notice of what is to be litigated.
Therefore, this contention should be rejected as lacking any basis.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 76:
The SPMC fails to meet the planning standard set forth at 50.47(b)(12) and the guidance of NUREG 0654 II.L. because it fails to provide adequate arrangements for medical services for the contaminated injured individuals. In light of the candid acknowledgment by the Applicant that emergency planning at Seabrook does not provide any particular level of protection to the 3ummer beach populations in the event of a serious fast-paced accident, the SPMC should provide sufficient medical services to treat and care for those who were neither able to shelter or evacuate and as a result suffer contamination injury.
As the Atomic Safety and Licensin g A p peal Board has stated :
"Thus, for a serious nuclear accident to result in the hospitalization of large numbers of people, not only must an already unlikely accident be serious [ sic], but also the emergency response to protect the Public must be ineffectual. "
Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generatin g Station, U nits 2 and 3),16 N R C 127,138 (1982).
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention concerning the adequacy of arrangements for medical services for the conta minated e
injured individuals.
The Plan at 3.8.1 provides for the identification and evaluation of hospitals capable of treating contaminated injured individuals in accordance with the joint NRC and FEM A guidance, FEM A Guidance Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services.
This is consistent with the Commission's Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) wherein it stated that:
...the Com mission believes that satisfactory arrangements should include (1) a list of local or regional medical treatment facilities and transportation providers appropriately annotated to show their ca pacities,
special capa bilities or other unique characteristics, (2) a good faith reasonable effort by licensees or local or state governments to facilitate 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 reasonable effort by licensees or state or local governments to see that appropriate drills and exercises are con ducted w hich include simulated severely-exposed individuals.....the Commission directs the N R C staff to develop
[in consultation with FEM A) and issue by 11/17/86 a p propriate detailed guidance on the exact contou rs of the necessary arrangements consistent with the C om mission's determination that planning standard (b)(12) require arrangements for medical services...
51 Fed.
Reg.
32904-5
( Se p t. 17, 1986);
Southern California Edison Com pa ny (San Onofre Nuclear G eneratin g Station,
U nits 2 and 3),
Remand Order. (unpublished), September 12, 1986 at 2.
Therefore the contention lacks basis to the extent it complains that local communities would not make emergency medical services available, since there is no regulatory requirement for such ser. ices beyond that set forth in FEM A Guidance Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 77-The SPP C fails to provide for the adequate or continuous staffing of O R0 personnel to maintain or sustain an emergency response.
For these reasons, the SPMC fails to meet the standards set forth at 50.47(b)(1),
(2), and (5), and the regulatory guidance established by N UREG 0654 II.
A.1.e.4., B, a n d E. 2.
R_C S P O N S E :
(
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention concerning adeq uate or continuou s staffing to the extent that it is l
premised on the facts alleged in bases A, B, C and D.
Bases E and F, however, should be rejected as speculation about the values and beliefs of utility company em ployees.
Intervenor articulates no reasonable expla nation or authority for conclu din g that ORO workers view their response roles as only "paper com mitments", believe it is to their 1
advantage to respond late in the event of an emergency, or wish to find l
new jobs as soon as possible.
Moreover, such questions are not appropriate matters for litigation.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 78:
There is no reasonable assurance that there will be adequate second shift manpower ca pability for certain evacuation-s pecific positions.
Therefore, the SPMC fails to comply with 10 C FR 50.47(a), 50.47(b)(1),
50.47(b)(15) and N U REG 0654, Rev.1, Supp.1, II. A.4. and 11.0.
RESPONSE
The Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention dealing with the availability of "second shift" personnel.
y ASS AG CONTENTION 79:
The prerequisite experience required for qualification to hold numerous critical OR0 Positions, and the training provided by the SPMC for these positions, is inadequate to provide reasonable assurance that ORO can and will implement adequate protective measures in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station.
Therefore the SPM C fails to comply with 10 CFR 60.47(a)(1),
50.47(b)(I),
50.47(b)(14),
50.47(b)(15), NUREG 0654, Rev.
1, Supp.
1, II. A II. N, 1I.0.1 and 11.0.4.
RESPONSE
The Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention on the qualification and training of emergency response personnel limited to the examples set out in the bases for the contention.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 80:
The SPMC provides inadequate training to members of OR0, and the State and local governments employees and other organizations who may l
have to respond in an ad hoc fashion to an emergency are not receiving The SPMC therefore violates 10 any training)at all on SMic procedures.C FR 50.47(a (1), 50.47(b)(15), and N
64 -
e
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent it is alleged that state and local officials have not been provided with copies of the utility emergency plan.
However, Intervenor's broad i
generalizations about the inad6quacy of the utility training program do
]
not provide notice of any specific issue to be litigated and therefore should be rejected for lac k of basis and s pecificity.
Similarly,
Intervenor's allegation that state and local officials, as well as unspecified organizations, have not received training by the utility should be rejected for lack of basis.
The regulatory provisions and guidance only require the utility to make training available to non-participating governments._
N U R E G 0654, Rev.1, Sup p.1,11. 0.6.
M A S S A G C O N T E N TIO N 81.
Provisions in the SPMC for radiological monitoring are inadequate.
As a result, the SPMC fails to' meet the Planning standards set forth at 50.47(b)(9); NU R EG 0654 II. I and Appendix E, IV, E, 2.
l
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the I
t.xtent it is premised on the alleged inadequacies the applicant's radio-logical monitoring plan as set out in bases A, B, D and E.
Basis C,
l however, should be rejected because it is founded on the assumption that state and local officials will not request federal assistance for radiological l
monitoring during an emergency.
Such an assumption is not permitted 1
under 10 CFR 50.47 (c) (1) (iii) which requires the N RC to recognize that government officials will exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public.
Further, there is no basis for the l
l l
presumption that federal monitoring will not be avialable in the event of an emergency whether or not requeisted by the state or local g o v ern m e nts.
See response to Mass A G contention 75.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 82:
The SPMC fails to p rovide reasonable assurance that a deq u t.te me. hods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency are in use or could be used
- and, th erefore,
does not comply with 10 CFR 66 50.47(b)(2),
(4),
(8),
(9) and (10),
and 10 C FR Part 50, Appendix E, IV.B.
E.
The SPMC provides no assurance that adequate coordination of dose assessment activities taking place at the E0C and the EOF based on a variety of different field monitoring teams will exist.
Plan 3.3-2.
Resp 0NSE:
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent it is premised on the alleged ina deq uacies of the applicant's radiological monitoring plan set out in bases B,
C and E.
Basis A,
however, should be rejected. *During litigation of the onsite plan, the Licensing Board found that the applicant's emergency classification and action level scheme fully cortplied with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, A ppendix E.
Seabrook L R P-87-10, 25 N R C at 183.
See response to Mass AG contendons 56 and 60.
M ASS AG CONTENTION 83:
The SPMC fails to recognize three distinct and unique aspects of human behavior during a radiological emergency at Seabrook which will pervade the response to such an emergency by ORO personnel and the p u blic.
As a result, the SPMC does not meet the planning standards set forth at 50.47(b) and does not support and predictive finding that measures can and will be ta ken pursuant to 50.47(a)(1) protective adequate
- 66 e i
RESPONSE
The Staff objects to admission of this contention to the extent it alleges t!st role conflict will afflict the response of the ORO emergency workers (basis A.1-3).
Intervenors provide no basis for the speculation that O RO workers belief-structure would impair their ability to respond in an emergency, and Intervenors further fail to show that these peop?e are somehow unique and that they are different than any other emergency workers who may experience role conflict, an issue that was previously addressed in detail in the earlier phase of this proceeding.
The Staff also objects to Bases B and C which concern the behavior of the general Massachu setts pop ulation.
The s peculation that the behavior of the general population will be irrational does not provide any issue for litigation in this proceeding.
The contentien should be denied admission as it lacks 2ny factual or regulatory basis.
T0 A CONTENTION NO.1:
The SPMC fails to demonstrate that each principal response organization has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis, fails to provide for an adecuate number of available manned eme gency vehicles, and otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance that adeouate protective measures can and will be taken in the violation of 10 CFR 950.47(a)(1),
event of a radiological emergency,)(in6), 50.47(b)(8), N U R EG-0654-FEM A-50.47(b)(1), 50.47(b)(3), 50.47(b REP-1, REY. 1 (hereinafter "N U R E G-0654") II. A.1.e, II. A.3, II. A.4, II. C.4, and II. F.1.a.
ESPO N SE:
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that it questions the adequacy of the number of available manned emergency vehicles.
The admitted contention should be limited to the bases identifyirg letters of agreement which are only proposed but not m
--gy executed and specifically listed missing LO As for service providers.
The actual availability of individuals to perform emergency services, and how they will be located, notified and deployed are proper s ubjects for litigation in this proceeding.
The overly vague reference 'in the contention that the SPMC "otherwise fails to provide..." does not put other parties sufficiently on notice as to the issues which they would be required to litigate within the scope of the contention and thus that nart o# the contention should be rejected for lack of specificity.
Speculation concerning traffic accidents or additional delay due to encounters between some individuals and outgoing evacuation traffic or queues at the EPZ perimeter was litigated in an earlier part of this proceeding and also lacks basis and that portion of the contention relying on those bases should not be admitted.
T0 A CONTENTION NO. 2:
The SPMC fails to establish a system for dissemint. ting to the public appropriate information to respord to an emergency, fails to estallish the administrative and physical means for providing prompt instructions to the public, fails to demonstrate that there is an adequate legal basis for the actions to be taken by emergency response personnel and otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, in violation of 10 C F R 550.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(1), 50.47(b)(5), N U R E G-0654 II. A.2.b,
II.E.E and II.E.6.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes admission of basis A
of this contention contravenes the "best efforts" presu m ption of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(1)(fil).
The Staff does not oppose the admission of B asis B of this cot:tention concerning the need to coordinate the EBS messages and P ARs between the Commonwealth and the State of New Hampshire.
The Staff opposes Basis C of the contention which questions the reliability and effectiveness of a_d, hoc E B S messages.
As there is no averment that such messages will be used.
Further, that portion of Basis C which speculates about the public response to the EBS messages which would allegedly contravene the SPMC, includin g shadow evacuation, aberrant driver behavior, role conflict among emergency response personnel and other human behaviors, should be rejected as speculative, overly broad and previously litigated.
TO A CONTENTION NO. 3:
The SPMC fails to make adequate provisions for prompt com m u nications among principle response organizations,
emergency personnel and the public, fails to specifically establish the emergency res ponsibilities of the various supporting organizations, and otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures 550.47(a)(1), radiological emergency (1 can and will be ta kan in the event of a at 50.47(b)
Seabrook Station in violation of 10 C F R 50.47(b)(6), N U RE G-0654 II. A dnd II.F.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes part of the basis of this contention in that it coretravenes the "best efforts" presumption of 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(1)(iii).
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that the basis is limited to the listed examples of the conflict resulting from a lack of coot dinated planning and emergency response -training.
Specif3c. y, the effect on the beach population of the conflicting policies on beach closure in the Massachusetts and New Hampshire plans may be addressed during litigation on the merits of this contention.
While the reliance on a shelter alternative for New Hampshire beach population is not a proper issue for litigation of the SPMC, possible con flictin g
r protectiv3 actions for the beach populations is appropriate for litigation in this proceeding.
Divergent politics and policies of the governors of the adjoining states concerning emer[,ency planning are not proper issues for this proceeding and any speculation as to the impact of these divergent views on the emergency response is too speculative to provide a basis for admission of this contention.
The overly vague reference in the contention that the SPMC "otherwise fails to provide..." does not put other parties sufficiently on notice as to the issues which they would be required to litigate within the scope of the contention and thus that part of the contention should be rejected for lack of specificity.
TO A CONTENTION NO. 4:
The SPMC fails to provide for adequate personnel or resources to im;!ement the SPMC, including a comprehensive traffic management plan, fails to provide for appropriate means of relocation for the public, and otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station in violation of 10 C F R 550.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(1),
50.47(b)(8), 50.47(b)(10), N U R E G-0654 II. A and II.J.10.
RESPONSE
A.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of that portion of the contention related to bus companies if limited to the stated bases that the l
Letters of Agreement do not accurately state the number of manned i
i vehicles available in an actual emercancy, but rather the determination is made at the time of the emergency. Since no basis is provided to suggest that any bus deployment delays caused by this assessment would significantly affect the ETE, this part of the contention must be rejected l
l for lack of basis and specificity.
l l
B.
The Staff opposes for lack of basis the admission of that portion of this contention supported by the statement that the Town of Amesbury does not have adeouate personnel to provide traffic control guides called for in the SPMC and the police will have other duties in the event of an emergency.
The SPMC does 'not rely on the participation of local resources for its implementation and the other duties of police at e purely s peculative.
The assertion that Amesbury will require more than the 16 traffic guides called for in the plan is speculative, overly vague and lacks ba sis.
The choke points allegedly requiring additional traffic guides are characterized as "a nticipated and sig nificant" without any articulation of the reasons to support these generalizaions.
T he admitted contention should not be permitted to rely on such a speculative basis.
C.
The Staff does nct oppose the admission of the portien of the l
contention on traffic manageme,nt to the extent that that traffic guides may not have adequate trai:.ing.
r l
D.
T he Staff opposes for lack of basis the admission of that portion of contention concerning the relocation of the public to the extent that it is based on the lack of personnel to assemble, supervise, board or evac ate students, nursing home residents or other special needs l
individuals.
The staff of facilities such as schools, nursing homes, and special facilities are assumed to perform their normal duties. Even if thrv fail to do so, they are not considered to be emergency workers and there is no requirement that the SPMC provide personnel to perform their l
d uties.
See, Shoreham, 21 N R C 644, at 834-835.
1 Except for the lack of procedures and plan to implement the PARS, the basis discussed at 2.D.(2) of Amesbury's Contention 4 is not clearly articulated and does not put the other parties on notice so as to know generally what they will have to litigate and should be rejected for lack of specificity.
E. and F.
The Staff opposes the admission of these portions of the contention for lack of basis.
The indivio uals iden tified, inclu ding,
transportation service providers, teachers and health care workers, are not considered emergency workers. See, Response to 4D above.
These contentions should be rejected because they are alto overly vague.
G.
The Staff opposes the admission of this basis as an impermissible challenge to the Commision's regulations and also because it is speculative and lacking basis and s peci'icity.
The role conflict of local officials challen ges the presum ption in 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(1)(c)(iii) that local officials will use their "best efforts" to protect the health and safety of the public.
A d ditionally, there is no apparent link between the local government officials and the special needs populations, thus the parties are not put on notice as to what issues are to be litigated.
H.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of the portion of the contention relying on the basis that the plan does not demonstrate that bus drivers will respond to an emergency at Seabrook or give reasonable assurance that they have sufficient experience and training to perform that function.
The Staff opposes the rest of this part of the contention dealing with role conflict as lacking basis, and as previously litigated.
I.
The Staff opposes the admission of that portion of the contention premised on the lack of resp 6nse of law enforcement, fire and rescue, and snow removal agencies on the grounds that it challenges the "best efforts" presumption and lacks basis.
J.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of that portion of the contention which concerns the Traffic Management Plan for the Town of Amesbury to the extent that it relies on bottlenecks, choke points, and, the need for additional traffic management identified in this paragraph of the contention.
K.
T he Staff objects to the, admission of the portion of the contention concerning the intersection n' i-95 and Route 110 as it has already been litigated.
(
L.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of the portion of the contention relying on the omission of many maps of traffic control posts from the Traffic Management Plan.
l M.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of the portion of the contention relying on the omission of many maps of evacuation bus routes l
from the Traffic Management Plan.
... N.
The Staff opposes that portion of the contention which relies on the assertion that special traffic control is needed on Route 110 on the grounds that it lacks basis.
No reason is given to support the assertion that restricted lane access or other special considerations are necessary to accommodate evacuating and incoming traffic.
O.
The Staff opposes the admission of the portion of the contention that relies on the speculative proposition that traffic guides are not familiar with the local area and cannot fu nction under various errergency situations.
There is no reason offered to support this assumption ar.d thus the assertion is without basis and should not be admitted.
The Staff dces not oppose the admission of that part of the contentior w hich questions the adequacy of the traffic guides' trainin g. See, Response to T0 A 40.
P.
The Staff opposes the admission of the portion of the contention which concerns the violation of a TO A zoning ordinance by the planned use of sirens on the grounds that the issue is beyond the scope of this proceeding and falls within the on-site portion of the Seabrook proceeding.
The Staff opposes the portion of the contention which asserts that the establishment of an evacuaden transfer area in a residendal zone is a violation of T0 A zoning ordinance on the grounds that this Board lacks jurisdiction on the issue of zoning violations.
Further the Staff objects to the co nte,ition on the basis that local officials u sing their "best efforts" to protect the public will not be enforcing zoning ordinaaces which may conflict with that protection during an emergency.
Q.
The Staff opposes for lack of basis the admission of this contention w hich asserts that due to plan inadequacies identified in the TOA contentions, the public may receive radiation doses at least as great as if the SPMC were ignored entirely, or if emergency response was solely M hoc.
Dose consequences are not an acceptable issue for litigation in this p roceedin g.
- See, Statement of Considerations 52 Fed. Reg. 42084 (November 3, 1987). In its Statement of Considerations the Commission specifically stated:
"We do not read that deci:fon [24 N RC 22,30] as req uiring a finding of the precise dose reductions that would be accomplished either by the utilitiy's plan or by a hypothetical plan that had full state and local pa rticipation :
such fin din gs are never a requirement in the evaluation of emergency plans.
The final rule makes clear that every emergency plan is to be evaluated for adequacy on its own merits, without reference +.o the specific dose reductions which might be accomplished under the plan or to the capabilities of any other pisn."
(52 Fed. Reg. 42084, November 3,1987).
The contention fafis to provide any basis such as d ata,
assu m ptions,
considerations,
or analyses considered in reaching this conclusion.
The contention i; a challenge to the Commission's regulations, as well as highly speculative, over broad and its conclusion is totally without factual support.
This portion of the contention should be rejected.
T0 A CONTENTION 5:
The SPMC fails to provide reasonably adequate methods for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency, fails to esta blish adequate guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, fails to ' provide adequate bases for the choice of recommended protective actions and otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiolog(ical emergency, in violation of 10 CFR i 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(9), 50.47 b)(10), and N U R E G-0654 II.I.,
II.J.9 and II.J.10.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission cf this contention on the ground that it is speculative and lacks basis. The contention fails to provide a technical basis for attacking the assessment and monitoring methods set forth in th e pla n.
The contention criticizes the pla n's p rom pt, implementation of the most apparently appropriate PAR on the grounds that a more refined judgment might be possible later when more data is collecte d.
This course would be contrary to regulation which requires that the ability for prompt notification exists.
See, 10 C. F. R. Part 50, A p pen dix E, Para. IV.D.3; 10 C. F. R. I50.47(b)(5).
The contention speculates that the public might realize greater dose savings if the P AR was decided based on more data.
Delay might well counteract any dose savings which might have been realized.
Further, dose savings are not a proper issue for litigation in this proceeding. See, Response to TO A Contention 4.
This contention should be rejected as an impermissible l
l challenge to the Commission's regulation and for lack of basis.
l TOA CONTENTION 6:
The SPMC fails to provide for a range of protective actions for the l
public, including the beach population, and otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be l
ta ken in the event of an actual emerge 1cy in violation of 10 CFR 6 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(10), and N U R E G-06'34 II.J.9, II.J.10.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks the requisite specificity and basis.
The contention fails to provide any basis for its conclusion that there are not shelters available which would provide meaningful dose savings.
The contention fails to provide a basis for the assertion that thousands of peop'e could be unable to leave during an accident at Seabrook and would be without adequate shelter for as much as the entire duration of the release. In this respect the contention is speculative and overly vague. The contention presumes that the SPMC or some ad hoc emergency procedures will either not be implemented or that the public will not respond to notice of a radioactive release.
Moreover, "a range of protective actions" does not require that there be a range of protective actions for each accident scenario, in every part of the EPZ for eacfi hour of the year.
This contention lacks basis in fact or regulation.
It should be rejected.
IV.
CITY OF H AVERHILL CONTENTIONS C0H CONTENTION:
The Emergency Response Plan does not consider Haverhill in its evacuation plan even though a portion of Haverhill is within the ten (10) mile limit.
The City of Haverhill with a population of 50,000 demands to be included in the Emergency Response Plan.
No provisions have been made for evacuation of schools, nursing homes, hospitals and day care centers or for any other related facility.
Said facilities are located in close proximity to the (ten) 10 miles.
Also, note that Public Service of New Hampshire intends to use the Massachusetts Electric Facility on Water Street for a staging area.
The City of Haverhill has obtained a temporary injunction in the Massachusetts Superior Court prohibiting seid facility from being used as a staging area.
RESP 0NSE:
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks specificity and basis.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R 50.47(c)(2), the exact size and configuration of the plume exposure EPZ surrounding a particular nuclear power reactor is determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes and jurisdictional boundaries.
The Town of Haverhill demands to be included in the Emergency Response Plan on the grounds that a portion of Haverhill falls within the 10 mile radius of Seabrook.
The contention does not articulate why that the portion of the town locatea within 10 miles of the site should be included in the SPMC based on any s pecific demog ra p hic, topographic or other consideration.
On the contrary, the contention speciffcally states that the facilities which should be included in evacuation plans-- schools, nursing homes, hospitals and day care centers-- are located beyond the 10 mile EPZ.
The Town has not expressed any reasons why the portion of Haverhill lying closest to the Seabrook site requires the inclusion of the entire town in the SPMC.
This attempt to explain the EPZ sig nificantly beyond 10 miles is an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations.
I.
TOWN OF NEWBURY CONTENTIONS TON CONTENTION 1:
The Seabrook Plan for Passachusetts Comunities ("SPfiC") does not meet the requirement that there must be a reasonable means of evacuation and relocation as required by NUREG-0654, Rev.1. Supp.1 J.10 9 and J.10.1. Therefore, there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
E0.47(a)(1)and(a)(2),(b)(1),(b)(2)and(b)(10).
RESPONSE
The Town of Newbury Contention 1 is a combination of one over broad generic contention followed by a long series of bases that resemble conte ntion s.
The contention itself is overbroad and fails to put the other parties on notice as to the issues to be litigated.
However, various parts of bases w hich are commented upon below, do provide a basis for litigation.
a.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this basis to the extent it maintains that the intersection of Plum Island Boulevard and Northern Boulevard needs traffic control, b.
The Staff cpposes the admission of this basis for lack of s pecificity.
The contention fails to identify which roads are subject to seasonal impassability.
T he, contention does not provide a basis to support a distinction between the Massachusetts roads from those in New Hampshire with respect to the reduction of traffic flow speed due to rain or snow, or the procedures for dealing with disabled vehicles.
T hese generic issues were litigated in the New Hampshire phase of the hearing and there is no basis for revisiting these issues in this phase of the proceedin g.
The Staff does not oppose that part of this basis which asserts c.
that roads from Plum Island are too narrow in places along the bus routes to permit the bus to turn around or to permit two-way traffic if a bus is in one lane.
The balance o' this contention is over broad or speculative and dres not clearly identify issues to be litigated.
It should be rejected.
- d. through g.
The Staff opposes the admission of the parts of these bases dealing with driver behavior for lack of basis.
Contentions d, e, f and g share a common thread, which is, driver response to variou s situations inclu din g, traffic control, two-way streets, traffic congestion, unfamiliar areas, the lack of signs, and disabled vehicles.
Since these contentions do not distinguish the responses of Massachusetts drivers from those of New Hampshire drivers, this subject, which was raised in an earlier phase of this proceeding, should not be reheard.
The Staff does not oppose the admission cf those parts of these bases, which specifically identify a shortcoming in the traffic management plan or particular bus routes, including the assertions that signs are needed at specified locations, that specific roads designated for use in the evacuation are subject to fl,ooding or that particular routes should be changed.
h.
The Staff does not oppcse the admission of this basis to the extt1t that the map in Appendix J., p. N-10 indicates a bus evacuation route on a street that does not exist, i.
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis.
The contention does not point to any regulatory requirement or guidance which calls for the identification of alternate routes for roads subject to potential flooding.
j.I.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this basis to the extent that it asserts that traffic control is necessary to prevent congestion on Rolfe's Lane due to Newburyport evacuees, and that the 1
controls (cones, barricades and route guides) at the intersection of Rolfe's Lane and Route 1 A are inadequate to permit timely evacuation.
J.II.
The Staff opposes the admission of this basis on the grounds that it lacks support.
The contention fails to provide any regulatory or factual basis to jurNfy special provisions to assist evacuees not familiar with local routes in locating the main evacuation routes.
This contention is nothing more than a generalization regarding the Town's view of what applicable policies ought to be and as such, should be rejected for lack of ba sis.
J.Il!.
The Staff opposes the admission of this basis on the grounds that it lacks basis or specificity.
It does not inform the other parties of the matter to be litigated.
Further, the issue of driver response was litigated in an earlier phase of this hearing.
Without an assertion that this situation differs from that previously litigated, this contention lacks basis and should be rejected.
j.I V.
The Staff opposes the admission of this basis to the extent that it asserts that traffic control is necessary at Parker Street at the l
New bur; Elementary School or other capital areas.
The assertion that traffic control is also needed at "other critical areas" lacks requisite l
specificity and should not be admitted.
I
- j. V.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that adequate and timely removal of disabled vehicles along bus and evalucation routes is due to inadequate arrangements with towing I
l companies and not driver response to this impediment.
l
- j. VI.
The Staff opposes that netion of the this basis concerning I
the driving of buses on the grounds that it is vague.
- The Staff does not oppose the admission of the basis which o Jestions whether there will be a sufficient number of buses.
ENCONTENTION2:
The SPMC fails to adequate'ly identify the emergency equipment available for use in implementing the plan. The SPMC thus fails to provide a reasonable assurance that adequate equipment is provided and maintained as required by NUREG-0654, Rev. 1. Supp. 1. II.H.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that it relies on the bases a and b..
The Staff opposes the contention to the extent it relies on Basis c.
on the ground that it is without support.
Section 2.0 of the SPMC-specifically states that "the N H Y Offsite Response Organization is fully capable of implementing an adequate emergency response in the absence of State a n d local participation...."
The SPMC is a compensatory plan and does not rely on the Town of devbury to provide resources which it does not have.
TON CONTENTION 3:
The SPMC does not meet the requirement that there must be a means of protection those persons whose mobility may be impaired as required by NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.J.10.d.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that it is based on the failure of the SPMC to provide for the protection of mobility impaired persons at the five schools within Newbury and five special facilities identified at I.P. 2.10, p.19 in the SPM C.
.. TON CONTENTI0? 4:
The SPMC fails to adequately project traffic capabilities of evacuation routes under emergency conditions.
The SPMC accordingly fails to conform to the requirements of NUREG-0654, Rev.1 Supp.1. II.J.10.i.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it is vague and lacks basis.
The contention does not articulate any regulatory or factual basis to support its assertion that the SPMC must identify pre-designated evacuation routes for specific evacuees in addition to identifying the main evacuation routes.
The subject of projected traffic capacity of evacuation routes or roadway capacity was litigated in the ETE portion of in earlier phase of this proceeding.
Since the contention does not assert a basis for distinguishing the capacities of the roads in q uestion from those addressed in the ETE a nalysis, this contention should be rejected for lack of basis.
TON CONTENTION 5:
The SPMC fails to adequately identify the means of dealing with potential impediments to the use of evacuation routes and thus fails to confonn to the requirements of NUREG-0654, Rev.1, Supp.1, II.J.10.k.
l
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of that portion of this contention which asserts that the SPMC fails to adequately identify the means for dealing with the potential impediments other than disabled vehicles.
With regard to disabled vehicles, the admissible basis should be limited to the availability of an acequate number of tow trucks to remove the disabled vehicles.
Snow removal is the responsibility of local government and 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(c)(1)(fii) allows the N R C to assume that in an actual emergency, local government officials will use their "best efforts" to protect th'e health and safety of the pu blic and remove th a snow.
F u rther, there is no showing that evacuation is a required protective action when weather conditions make roads impassable.
Therefore, the Staff opposes that. portion of the contention w hich relies on the assumption that the SPMC mtist plan for snow removal, on the grounds that it lacks basis.
TON CONTENTION 6:
The SPNC does not meet the requirement that there be maps showing the population distribution around the facility as required by NUREG-C654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.J.10.b. Therefore, there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1) and (b)(10).
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention.
TON CONTENTION 7:
The SPMC fails to provide a means of notifying all segments of the transient and resident population of Newbury and the Refuge as required by h0 REG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1. J.10.c and 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(5) and (7).
R E S P 0,NE:
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention concerning the prompt alert and notification system on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the Sea br.cok offsite proceeding and the jurisdiction of this Board.
This is an onsite issue before a different Beard and for this reason should be reScted.
TON CONT _ENTION 8:
The SPMC's Newbury evacuation bus transfer point is not pertnitted under applicable zoning laws. Accordingly, the SPMC fails to adequately provide a means of relocation as required by NUREG-C',54, Rev.1, Supp.1, J.10.g.
RESPONSE
The Staff oppcses the admission of this contention on the grounds that issues concerning the violation of local zoning laws are beyond the jurisdiction of the Board.
This contention should be rejected for lack of juris diction.
Further, there is no averment that these zoning laws are a p plicable or will be enforced upon the use of the property in an emergency when local officials will use their "best efforts" to protect the p u blic.
See,10 C. F. R. I 50.47(c)(1).
TON CONTENTION 9:
The SPMC fails to provide a reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency in that it does not provide reasonable assurance that sheltering is an adequate protective measure for Seabrook or provide adequate criteria for the choice between sheltering, evacuation or other protective measures, as required by C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10),and NUREG-0654, Rev. 1. Supp. 1, J.10.b.
Nor does the SPMC include expected total protection afforded in residences or other shelters as required by NUPEG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, J.10.m.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis.
To the extent that the factors called for in NUREG l
0654 II.J.10.m. are listed in the SPMC, this contention lacks basis and must be rejected.
N U REG II.J.10.m calls for the inclusion in the plan of "bases for the choice of recommended protective actio ns... w hic h s hall include the expected local protection afforded in residential or other shelter for direct and inhalation exposure."
There is no regulatory requirement or federal l
guidance callin g for a shelter survey w hich the contention suggests i
. should count public buildings or evaluete shelter materials to assure that potential shelters would provide any specified level of protection.
in this respect the contention is nothing more than a generalization regarding the Town's unsupported opinion of what applicable policies ought to be and for this reason should be rejected.
TON CONTENTION 10:
The SPMC fails to adequately provide a means of protecting persons whose mobility may be impaired and, accordingly, does not provide a reasonable assurance that a range of protective actions have been developed for the public as required by 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10).
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention.
TON CONTENTION 11:
The SPMC fails to provide that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Newbury as the SPMC relies upon the erronecus assumption that the Town of Newbury will, and has adequate sources to, implement the SPMC. The SPMC thus fails to conform to the requirements of NUREG-0654. Rev.1. Surn.1, II.J.9 and 10.a.c.d.e.g.i.j.
and k.
There is accordingly no basis by which to conclude that adequate protective measures can and will be taken as required by 10 C.F.R.
50-47 a and the SPMC fails to neet the planning standards of 10 C.F.R. 50.47 b.
RESPONSE
T he Staff opposes the the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis. The contention rests on the assumption that the SPMC relies on the cooperation, personnel and equipment of the Town of Newbury for its implementation.
Section 2.2.1 of the SPMC clearly articulates the it "does not rely on [ State and local] support and maintains the capability to implement (emergency response) duties if the State and local organizations are unable or unwilling to do so."
___________ ___ _______ _ __ The contention's secc id basis for asserting that inadequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Newbury consists of a refusal by the Town to implement or to follow the SPMC in the event of an emergency, preferring instead to respond on an ad hoc ba sis.
This is directly contrary to 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(1)(iii), and thould be rejected as an attack on Commission regulations.
See also, 52 Fed. Reg. 42078, 42085 (November 3,1987).
Further, the Commission, in Shoreham observed that in an accident, the "best efforts" of state and county officials would include utilizing the utility's plan as the 'the best source for emergency planning information and options."
24 N R C 22, 31.
The Commission reasoned in adopting the recent amendment to 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(1) that the state and local officials, in the absence of a state or local radiological emergency plan ap proved by state and local governments, will either icok to the utility and its plan for guidance or will follow some other plan that exists.
T his presu m ption may be rebutted by a good faith and timely proffer of an adequate and feasible state or local radiological response plan which would in fact be relied upon in an emergency.
The Commission stated upon adopting this rule that licensing boards "should not hesitate to reject any chain that state I
anJ local officials will refuse to act to safeguard the health and safety of the public in the event of an actual emergency."
52 Fed. Reg. 42085 (November 3,1987).
l l
l TON CONTENTION 12:
I The SPMC fails to adequately meet the requirement of 10 C.F.R.
j 50.47(b)(5) in that it does not provide adequate procedures for notifying l
local response organizations. The SPMC also fails to conform to the l
requirements of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1 Supp. 1, !!.E.8 and II.F.1 which, 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. respectively, require provisions for coordinating response messages with local governments and for communicating with local governments within the emergency planning zone.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis.
The contention fails to provide any basis for its assumption that NH Y personnel must communicate and coordinate with the Newbury selectmen in order to implement the SPMC.
Section 2.2.1 of the SPMC clearly articulates the it "does not rely on [ State and local) support and maintains the capability to implement [ emergency response] duties if the State and local organizations are unable or unwilling to ao so."
Table 2.2-2 relieo on in the contention does not depict responsibilities assigned to the selectmen as contended, but rather, by its very title, lists the local counterparts of the NHY O RO compensatory personnel who will be assuming the emergency response functions called for in the SPMC.
The SPM C clearly does not require communication with the Newbury selectmen since the local government has no mandatory role in the implementation of the plan.
This contention should be rejected for lack of basis.
VI.
CIT Y OF NEWB U R YPORT CONTENTIONS The City of Newburyport prefaces its submittal of Contentions with i
an "Executive Summary ' Introduction'" and "Findings."
These are not contentions and do require reply.
The Contentions averred are discussed below.
CON CONTENTION 1 l
T R AFFIC C0NTROL POIN TS ( T C P's)
Several major intersections that would be essential to a safe and coordinated evacuation have been omitted from the plans.
Additionally, modified T C P's (Blocking of street l
l
f :nds in congested areas to h elp direct the flow of traffic) are not included at all.
Some of the potential trouble spots are as follows:
State and High Streets - This is a crucial and, perhaps, the busiest intersection in the Chy.
It is also the point of passage for four out of the five Bus Routes cited in the plans.
Merrimac Street, Nosley Avenue and Spoffard Street T his is another major intersection servicing the North End of the City and Rt. 495.
Its omission creates the possibility of panic and confusion for almost half of the City's population.
It also creates a potential "c ho ke-p oint" as these three major thorou g hfares merge into a na rrow,
two lane roao that spans a
suspension brid ge of questionable integrity (the oldest such bridge in the United States).
Low Street, Route 1 and Pond Street - This is a lighted intersection with several major routes converging at this point.
T his intersection has the potential for major traffic flow and thus creates the possibility of bac king traffic into designated T C P's.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that the a d mitted bases be limited to the cmission of modified traffic control points which block street ends in congested areas and the three s pecifled intersections.
The reference to "several major inter-sectior.s omitted from the pla ns" lacks s pecificity and cannot constitute part of the basis for an admitted contention.
CON CONTENTION 2 INADEQU ATE TCP PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT All T C P's listed in the plan do not account for impedance, traffic volume, breakdowns, pa nic, speed of approaching vehicles nor adjacent topog raphy (0 pen parking lots, blind corners and pass-throug(hs). There is no coordination of T C P's to major in stitutional centers Sc hools, hos pitals, etc.) or establishment of special T C FN in relationship to these centers.
This is particularly problematic to the City of Newburyport as the High School, Nock Mid dle School, Anna Jacques Hospital as well as several elderly housing complexes are all located within a quarter mile of each other.
Hence, the required number of person nel to effectively monitor the control these areas as well as the amount of the equipment (barricades, cones, etc.) that is r.ecessary for securing such intersection is grossly ina deq u ate.
Additionally, there needs to be perhaps as many as eight to ten new T C P's.
This combined with the deficiencies at the present T CP's
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ould mean that perhaps as many as ten times the number of personnel ad equipment would be necessary to adeq uately cover the City of N ew b u ry port.
- ESPONSE The Staff dces not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that the number of personnel, barricades and cores are inadequate
- control traffic at the locations specified in the SPMC and in the c0ntention, namely:
the high school, Nock Middle School, Anna Jacques Hospital, and several elderly housing complexes.
T he contention should
' cps beyond those r at be expanded to include additional unspecified i
rovided in the plan.
C O N C O N T E N TIO N ;}
T R ANSIT DEP E N DE N T IN DIVID U AL S - T he five pre-designated bus r:utes that have been included in the Plan for the City of Newburyport are designed to expedite the retrieval of transit dependent individuals as
- pposed to door to door pickup.
However, these bus routes will have, in
'act, the opposite effect of actually prolonging the evacuation of transit cependent persons.
This will occur because the bus route assignments illow along the heaviest traveled roads in the City, which will already be congested with evacuees.
Five out of the six bus routes cross through a ajor intersection with no T C P in place.
And because the routes are circuitou s in desig n and by-pass all the major concentrations of the
- op ulatio n, it will then be necessary for transit dependent persons, ir.cluding the mobility-impaired, to leave their homes and to locate the pre-designated bus routes during a radiological emergency.
T his will require those persons to remain outdoors and to be subject to increased radiological exposure.
A d ditionally, this method of circulating buses significantly reduces the reliability of actually accomplishing the retrieval cf these individuals and increases the potential for a broad spectrum of
-he populace (elderly, non-ambulatory, etc.) to be left behind.
- . E S P O N S E The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the e xtent that the six bus routes are not well laid out to best serve the transit-dependent population.
The assertion that the present bus routing will su bject the bus dependent population to increased radiological
, p exposure is speculati' e and without su p portin g basis and should be r?aected.
CON CONTENTION 4 B US R O U T E CIRC UL A TIO N E R R O R S - Pre-designated bus routes #1 and #5 include in their route assignments, return trips that 90 the wrong way down a major one way street (State Street) in the plan.
This is
'urther complicated by the lack of any T CP's at the intersection of State Street and High Street ar.d at the intersection of Water Street and State Street.
It is likely that because this thoroughfare is utilized by area residents as a primary route out of the City and that there are numerous ir.-feed streets from the Central Business District, the North End and the South End, that lower State Street will be extremely congested with evacuees and returning buses could not be directed thruugh the grain of traffic under any circumstances.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that predesignated bus routes require buses to go the wrong way en one way streets and cross evacuating traffic without adequate T cps at State ano High Streets.
CON CONTENTION 5 COMMUNIC ATIONS The pla n refers to TCP personnel ( T raffic Guide Procedures J-2 #13) utilizing commercial telephone for the reporting i
of dosimetry readings.
In six out of the seven T CP's identified in the report, there are no pu blic tele p hones available.
A d ditionally, TCP person nel leaving an assignment to make such a telephone call would I
sevarely nertax the limited number of TCP personnel referred to in the pla n.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that TCP personnel do not have adequate means to communicate dosimetry readings as required in the plan.
No basis is given for the "est of the contendon.
CON CONTENTION 6 RO AD C REW PREP AR A TIO NS - There are no provisions in the plan for the stcra ge and sta gir.g of TCP equipment (cones, lig hts and tarricades), so that they would be readily available during the advent of a radiological emergency.
Furthermore, there are no provisions for the tran s portation of TCP equipment to designated areas.
T here is no identification of trucks or other transports to transfer such equipment nor is there any identification of procedures for establishing T C P's during an evacuation that will mest likely already be in progress by the populace, once notification has been given.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that the SPMC does not include provisions for the storage and transportation of TCP equipment (cones, lights and barricades) or T CP set-up procedures for the designated areas.
CON CONTENTION 7 T R ANSFER POINT IN ADEQU AC:ES T here are several physical inadequacies with the identified T ra nsfer Point in the plan.
First and forem ost, it is located in a floodplain along the banks of the Merrimac River and as such is su bject to periodic flooding and severe tidal con dition s.
Secondly, it is primarily an electrical sub-station for the Massachusetts Electric Company and as such is not suitable for the safe sheltering or even staging of large numbers of people.
And thircly, it offers poor visibility and turning access for buses coming into and out of the facility.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that the transfer point identified may be inapprcpriately located.
CON CONTENTION 8
- n...R U R Y PO R T'S PL U M ISL A N D P O PU L A TIO N Under the present
- )lan, the Newburyport end cf ' Plum Island (representing between 5% to 15% of the City's population, depending on the season) comes under the Newbury plan.
This constitutes an abrogation of the City's responsibility for its residents and prevents the City from assuring the safety and well being of its populace.
The City would want any plar. to incorporate all of its residents including, and particula rly, those on Plu m Isla n d.
T his would mean that the Newburyport plan must be amendeo to accommodate the Plu m Island population (both peak and ncn-peak periods ) into its evacuation with all the attenda nt resource a dju stm ents that is,
aaditional T C P's, bus routes, etc.
RESPONSE
T he Staff opposes the admission of this contention.
T he contention coes not aver the residents of the Newburyport portion of Plum Island will not be adequately protected by being under a Newbury rather than a Newburyport plan.
Newburyport has not adopted a plan to protect these residents.
CON CONTENTION 9 P U BLIC N O TIFIC A TIO N DEVICES - The plan refers to the emergency warning system (sirens) that Newburyport has in place.
T his is erroneous information, in that, the City dismantled and removed four out of seven sirens, that are referred to in the plan, last fall.
None of the remaining sirens are capable of voice activation and hence would not be suitable for giving evacuation instructions.
City ordinances also prohibit the use of mobile sound trucks (See Section XI - Performance Standards).
Hence references in Appendix N of plan as to the ongoing maintenance and testing of such warning devices are erroneous as well.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention concerning the siren and prompt alert and notification system on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the Seabrook offsite proceeding.
This is an onsite issue before a different Board and for this reason should be rejected.
C O N C O N T E N TIO N 10 The plan inaccurately states l
OVER ALL COMM AND AND CONTROL I
the Board of Selectmen (SIC, City C ou ncil) have the Overall Commano and Control in terms of jurisdiction during an emergency.
Under the present charter and form of government, the Mayor has the O verall Command and Control and may authorize Protective Response Procedures.
The plan also inaccurately lists the Mayor of Newburyport as Peter S.
M atthe ws.
RESPONE The Staff dces not oppose the admission of this contention.
VII.
TOWN OF SALISBURY CONTENTIONS TOS CONTENTION 1 T he SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury as it fails to provide any reasonable assurance that timnly notice will be received by any member of the executive board of the Town of Salisbury, in the event of an incident requiring local response, and failing such timely notice the plari sets forth no assurance that local resources will be mobilizec or timely authority will be given for the applicants implementation of the pla n.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis and is speculative.
The contentien asserts that the SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance that any member of the executive board will receive timely notice and speculates that this lack of notice requires an assurance that local rcsources will be mobilized and that timely authority be given for the applicant's implementation of the plan--without providing any basis for the assertion or the need for the additional assurances suggested.
There is no regulatory requirement or guidance in NUREG 0654 w hic h calls for the notVication of a to,' re's executive board per g, only the appropriate local officials identified in the SPMC, Appendix M, page M-173.
Since Salisbury's executive board does not require any special notification, the consequences suggested in the contention arising from this lack of timely notification, namely, the
____ ____ r.obilization of local resources and the timely granting of authority, are r.either relevant nor litigable.
TOS CONTENTION 2 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can anc will De taken to protect the public in the Tcwn of Salisbury as it fails to provide for a local E.O.C. in the Town of Salisbury for coordination and cispatch of Salisbury 0.R.0. personnel, thus enhancing the likelihood of an uncoordinated and ineffective response in the critical high traffic areas of the town.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it is speculative and lacking in specificity and basis.
T he contention is based on the premise that every town or municipality must have a local EOC to coordinate and dis patc h person n el.
T his is a false premise because neither the C om mission's regulatory requirements nor the guidance found in NUREG 0654 calls for separate local E0Cs in each town.
Section 50.47(b)(8) of 10 C.F.R.
requires that "adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergency response are provided a nd maintained."
Offsite response organizations, such as State or State and local government orga nizations, are responsible for establis hin g emergency operations centers.
N U R E G 0654 II. H.3.
As long as the Town of Salisbury is supported through another E00, there is no need for another EOC in the town.
The contention speculates that the lack of a local E0 C will produce an "uncoordinated and ineffective response in the critical hig h traffic areas of the town."
The mere allusion to some allegedly critical hig h traffic areas without ad ditional s pecific details concerning the location of these areas, whether or not these areas were identified or overlookeo in Appendix J of the SPMC, or the basis for
,. ~. ___.. _ _.
c haracterizin g them as critical, and why the response would not
'a e coordinated or effective is insufficient to identify a litigable issue.
TOS CONTENTION 3 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury as it fails to establish any reasonable basis from which it may be assumed that the offsite response organization will be sufficiently equipped and replenished to continue 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> operations for a protracteo period within the Town of S alis b u ry.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention because it lacks s pecificity and basis.
The contention asserts that the SPMC does not provide a s u p porting basis or demonstrate that the offsite response orga nization will be capable of con d uctin g 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> operations for a protracted period within the Town of Salisbury.
T he contention does not specifically identify the response organization in questio n but makes a vague reference to the offsite organization which could bc, but is not identified except in connection with its responsibilities for Salisbury.
No basis is given for questioning the ability of the unidentified organization.
It is ur. clear from the wording of the contention whether the proposed issue is limited to the initial stocking and replenishing of equipment for 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> operation or whether "replenished" refers to personnel.
In this respect the contention is also too vague to present a litigable issue.
If the contention questions the sufficiency of the equipment to continue 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> operation it fails to specify which equipment or to provide any basis for asserting such an insufficiency.
If the contention means to question personnel adequacy, it should so state and provide a sufficiently detailed basis.
3 5 C 0 h T E N T10 N 4 7 he SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salis b u ry because the
' tility's plan fails to conform to NUREG 0654 '. '.. J.10. a. as it depicts ron-existent roads in the Town of Salisbury as evacuation routes which routing would in numerous instances strand motorists and corr.plicate the everall traffic fluw from the area in the event of an evacuation.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose this contention to the extent that the U tility's plan depicts non-existent roads in the Town of Salisbury as evacuation routes.
To the *xtent that the contention speculates on the stranding of m otorists, the Staff does not support these speculations without additional bases.
The extent to which this particular shortcoming
~
- f the plan might complicate the overall traffic f.ow is a matter which may be addressed in litigation on the merits of this contention.
'05 C0hTENTION 5 T he SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can ana will te taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Ltility's plan relies upon seasonally unpassoble, one lane, dirt roads as evacuation routes and alternative routes, for which reads the plan does not provide traffic guides or tow crews or any other mechanism for the control of traffic along such roads in the event of evacuation.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that the plan may rely upon seasonally unpassable, one lane, dirt roads as evacuation routes and alternate routes.
Under the category of p rotecdve acdons for the plu me ex posu re EPZ in 10 C. F. R.
? 50.47(b)(10),
NUREG 0654 Section II.J.10.j provides for the "identification of and means for dealing with potential impediments (e.g.,
Seasonal im passa bility of roads) to use of evac uation routes ano
- ontingency measures."
The Staff, however, opposes admission of that part of the contention w hich asserts that the plan must provide traffic guides or tow crews or any other mechanisr for the control of traffic along such seasonally snpassable roads in the event of an evac uatio n.
This portion of the contentior. lacks specificity and should not be admitted.
There is neither
- eg ulatory basis nor N U P.E G 0654 guidance to require traffic guides or
- ow crews en particular roa d s.
T he contention does not identify the
-oads nor does it address whether these roads are or should be included in SPMC, A p pen dix J.
The portion of ihe contention w hich makes _a
< ague, sweeping reference to "any other mechanism" lacks the specificity necessary to identify the issut to be licigated and should not be admitted.
~0S CONTENTION 6 T he SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will De taken to protect the public in the Town of Salis bu ry because the Jtility's plan fails to provide for the dispatch of sufficient numbers of traffic guides and supplies along major evacuation routes and at major
'ntersection s in the Town cf Salis b u ry particularly at the Salis bu ry T ransfer Point and at points on Beach road where traffic becomes restricted to fewer travel lanes, which failure would promote disorder and delay in evacuation of the beach areas of the town.
D. E S P O N S E The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis and constitutes a generalization regarding the Town's view of what applicable policies ought to be.
T he contention asserts without any supporting factual basis that an insufficient number of traffic guides and supplies are to be dispatched to major evacuation routes and intersections, ano speculates that this would promote disorder and delay in the evacuation of beach areas.
The contention lacks specificity in that
.he number and placement of traffic guides are not addressed other than to conclude that those called for in the plan at the Salisbury T ra nsfer Point and elsewhere are insufficient.
The contention should be rejected
'or lack of specificity and basis.
~0S CONTENTION 7 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Towr. of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to compensate for emergency personnel vehicle parking at tranfer points and other traffic sensitive areas in the town where any parked vehicles would impede evacuating traffic and cause critical delay in evacueting populated areas of the town.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it fails to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R.
( 2.714(b).
The contention states that the plan fails to compensate for
- he parked vehicles of the emergency personnel at transfer points and other traffic sensitive areas, and the these vehicles would cause critical celay in the evacuation of the populated areas.
There is no stated basis for the assumption that knowledgeable emergency personnel would park in such a manner or that the roadway characteristics would preclude parking in any other manner.
The contention lacks specificity in that w hile transfer points and other traffic sensitive areas are mentioned, none are specifically identified.
Without specific identification of the subject areas, there is no concrete issue to litigate.
Furthermore, the contention fails to provide a basis for concluding that evacuating traffic would be affected
- r that populated areas of town would be affected any differently than some other area.
Finally, the basis for concluding that a "critical delay" l
would result is not addressed in terms of the E T E or any other criteria er analysis.
T bese aspects of the contention lack specificity and basis and shoulo be rejected.
T O S C O N T E N f10 N 8 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the plan provides for bus turn arou n d location s at tra nsfer points and other locations within the town where there is insufficient width of roadway to turn a bus and where no traffic guides have been assigned to assist bus turn arounds thus enhancing the possibility that the populations to be served by buses may not in fact be removed ir, the event of an evacua-tion as well as adding to traffic difficulties ar.d evacuation times within the tow n.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks specificity and basis and is nothing more than a generaliza-tion regarding the Town's view of what what applicable policies ought to be.
T he contention asserts that the pla n is inadequate because the roadways at some locations are not wide enough for buses to turn around,
- hat there are no traffic guides to assist the buses attempting to turn around and that this m i.y result in added traffic difficulties and evacuation time and stranding the bus-dependent population.
There is no reg ulatory basis or NUREG guidance stated in the contention w hich controls the location or specific requirements for bus transfer points.
T he contention does not provide a factual basis for asserting that a certain turning radius or minimum roadway width is necessary or that buses cannot turn around without traffic guides.
Similarly the contention fails to provide a basis for the conclusion the that bus-deper. dent population may not be removed or that this situation would affect the l
l
- = -
-=
- 100 -
ETE.
This contention also lacks specificity in that the transfer points and other locations within the town are not specifically identifiea so that
. heir adequacy or inadequacy in this regard can be litigated.
The contention should be rejected for lack of basis and specificity.
TOS CONTENTION 9 T he SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will de taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the i.,tility's plan fails to provide any compensatory measures for south bound evacuating traffic on. U.S. Route I which may be substantially impeded by closure of the Gillis Bridge for the passage of boats, and as U.S. Route
. is the major south bound evacuation route from the most populated area of the town any delay on this route is likely to have a severe ripple effect along major routes to the north and east of the brioge.
- , E S P O N S E The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it is speculative and lacks basis and s p ecificity.
The contention concludes that compensatory measures are necessary because evacuating traffic may be substantially impeded by the closure of a bridge for the passage of boats, and the resulting delay is likely to have a severe ripple effect on other evacuation routes.
First no basis is given for the conclu-sien that the Gillis Bridge would be opened when Route 1 is being used for emergency evac u atio n.
The contention provides no basis for its foregone conclu sion that the b rid ge-cau sed delays have not been accounted for in the ETE analyses and that their effect is so substantial to require that compensatory measures be taken.
W hile N U R E G 0654,Section II.J.10.j provides for dealing with potential impediments end the use of evacuation routes and contingency measures, the coatention fails to specifically address the effect of the bridge delays on the ETE in order to justify the need for compensatory measures.
As to the contention's L
- 101 -
reference te a severe ripple effect on ot ier routes, this is constitutes
'r,ere speculation without the benefit of any reference to the actual effect c n traffic movement and the E T E analyses.
As the basis for the conten-tion is speculation, it may not be admitted.
T O S C O N T E N TIO N 10 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to provioe traffic control at critical points on Route 110 in Salisbury where eastbound emergency traffic is likely to be obstructed by westbound traffic entering from side streets and attempting to travel against the planned flow of traffic.
Resp 0 HSE The Staff opposes the admission of this contention to the extent that traffic control is not provided at the points specified on Route 110 where eastbound emergency traffic is likely to be obstructed by westbound traffic entering from side streets and traveling against the planned flow of traffic, as this has been previously litigated.
T O S C O N T E N TIO N 11 The SpMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the plan fails to provide any reasonable basis from which the assumption may be safely drawn that contracted support organizations will be able, at any time of day and at any time of year, to provide the contracted resources in sufficient quantity and in time to carry out the plan in a fashion that provides adequate protection to the public.
Resp 0NSE The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it is speculative and totally lacks basis.
The contracts of support organizations are valid on their face and the contention fails to provide
.=
i
- 102 -
any basis for asserting that the contracting parties will not perform as 69 reed.
T O S C O N T E N T IO N 12 The SpMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the U tility's pla n fails to provide for reasonable primary and backup
- ommunication to transfer point cispatchers from Special Vehicle dispatchers and in certain locations there exists no reasonable back up telephone communication to transfer point dispatchers who according to the pla n direct buses to continue routes in the area or travel to a reception area, and without such backup communication critical information regarding bus dependent local populations may never be received by transfer point dispathcers.
Bus dependent persons left behind would require additional compensatory resourses which are not provided for in the plan.
RESP 0NSE
~
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it is speculative and lacks basis.
Section 50.47(b)(5) through (7) of 10 C.F.R. provide regulatory requirements for notification and communi-cation requirements in emergency response plans.
S p ecifically, 10 C. F. R.
- 50.47(b)(6) requires that "provisions exist for prompt communications among principal response organizations to emergency personnel and to the p u blic. "
N U REG 0654 II. F.1 provides further guidance the need for "reliable primary and backup means of communication for licensees, local and State response organizations." There is no regulatory requirement or guidance w hich calls for p rim ary and backup com mu nication between transfer point and vehicle dispatchers as asserted in the contention.
The assertion that the Utility's plan is inadequate for failing to provide this level of communication for the dispatchers is totally without basis and constitutes nothing more that a generalization regarding the Town's view of what applicable policies ought to be.
The purported consequences of
- 103 -
tnis' perceived deficency, that bus dependent persons will be left behind and thus a dditional com pensatory resou rces would be
- needed, is speculative at best and lacks basis.
The contention should be denied for tack of basis.
T OS C O N T E N TIO N 13 T he SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will oe taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the
. tility's pla n fails to provide for p rotectiv e measures for possibly r.undreds of commercial and pleasure beaters on the Merrimac River all or great numbers of whom may be confined to the river basin by frequently
- ccu rrin g conditions of wind and tide, withc ut adequate dockage and transportation ashore.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis and specificity.
The contention states without any supporting basis that hundreds of boaters will be stranded in the river basin.
The contention does not provide any details concerning the
'requency or severity of the winds and tides that form the basis for the s ntire assertion that boaters will be prevented from doc kin g, coming
- 3. shore, or going out of the EPZ.
Moreover, the U.S. Coast Guard and r at the Town of Salisbury is responsible for taking emergency action to warn and protect the boating population on navigable waters in case of an emergency at Seabrook.
This contention lacks specificity and basis and should be rejected on those grounds.
7 0 5 C O N T E N TIO N 14
'he SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will l
Ne taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the i
tility's plan fails to conform to N U R E G 0654 11.J in that it depicts bus i
I l
- 104 -
routes throu g h a flooding marsh in the Town of S alis b u' y that is
- w. passible depenoing upon weather and tide.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that the SPMC depicts bus routes through a ficooing marsh that is impassible under certain weather and tide con dition s.
NUREG 0654 11.j.10.k call for the identification of and means for dealing with potential impediments to the use of evacuation routes.
T O S C O N T E N TIO N 15 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility plan fails to provide for an adequate equipment inventory, in particular blinking light cones, to be maintained at the staging area, and therefore, fails to provide for adequate measures to protect the public.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks an adequate basis.
The contention oces not provide any basis for claiming that there is a shortage of blinking light cones in the staging area nor suggest w hat number of cones would be adequate te, protect the public.
This contention should be denied admission for la :k of basis.
T O S C O N T E N TIO N 16 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's Plan provides that special populations evacuated via buses are to be instructed to bring sufficient belongings for several days, yet the delays occasioned by this instruction and the space consumed on each bus for such belongings has not been compensated for in the Utility's Plan.
- 105 -
SESPONSE 1 he Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the ground that it lacks basis.
T he contention fails to provide any regulatory or factual basis for concluding that the plan must consider additional time and space to permit special populations to gather and transport their belongings in an evacuation.
This is nothing more than a generalization regarding the Town's view of what policies ought to consider and has no basis in fact.
The contention should be rejected for lack of basis.
T OS C O N T E N TIO N 17 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the U tility's pla n fails to provide for traffic congestion caused by tractor trailers stuck at the B & M R ailroa d Bridge over Lafayette Road in Salisbu ry where trucks diverted along this road will find the clearance too low for passage and cause north-south traffic obstruction.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounos that it is speculative and lacks basis and specificity.
T he contention fails to express any basis for asserting that trucks would be diverted to a road with a low railroad bridge.
Furthermore it is highly speculative to conclude that diverted trucks would actually attempt to pass under and get stuck under a low clearance obstacle.
This contention should be rejected for lack of basis.
TOS C 0 h T E N TIO N 18 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be ta ken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan Transfer Pcint Surrmary table provides an unrealistically low estimated passenger demand for all bus routes in Salisbury wholly failing to accommodate transient and seasonal populations of the Town of
- 10(, -
Salisbury and thus fails to provide fc adequate measures to protect such pop ulations.
RESPONSE
The Staff dces not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that adequate accommodations are necessary for the bus dependent p op ulation.
T O S C O N T E N TIO N 19 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be ta ken to prctect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Ltility's plan fails to provide for nctification to bus dependent populations as to the arrival times of buses in different areas of the town and thus creates the potential for elevated radiological exposure to persons walking and waiting for buses at out of doors locations within the town.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the ground that it lacks basis.
This contention failed to consider the provisions of the SPMC at 3.6.1.B which call for buses to drive along pre-designated and routes and for evacuees to be informed of the routes and any changes to the routes through EBS messages.
Moreover, as a protective a ction, evacuation is ge nerally utilized p rior to the appearance of a radioactive plume and, except in a fast-breaking release of long duration, it is unlikely that prospective bus users would be instructed by the EBS to meet buses if it would result in additional radiation exposure.
TOS CONTENTION 20 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the U tility's plan fails to to conform to NUREG 0654 11.J as it fails to accurately depict the width (in lanes) available for inbound and outbound traffic on the entire length of Beach Roao in Salisbury and thus fails to s
o-t
- 107 -
compensate for the in adequate space for emergency tra ns portation eastbound on Beach Road.
RESPONSE
T he Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis and specificity.
There is no regulatory requirement or federal guidance which dictates that the width of traffic lanes must be set forth in an emergency pla n.
N U RE G 0654 ti.J.10.k addresses potential impediments and the use of evacuation routes but does not reach such minor specifications concerning the evacuation roadway.
This contention constitutes a generalization regarding the Town's view of what applicable policies ought to be and should be rejected for lack of basis.
T OS CO N TEN TION 21 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to provide adequate measures to protect the public in the event of a snow storm emergency as it.rils to identify necessary resources for expedited snow removal and additional buses necessary to compensate for snow bound passenger cars.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention which suggests that the SPMC is responsible for identifying resources for expedited snow removal for lack of basis.
Snow removal is the responsibility of the local government and 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(c)(1)(iii) permits the N RC to presume that in an actual emergency, local government officials will use their "best efforts" to protect the health and safety of the public, and will endeavor to remove the snow where this is feasible.
TOS CONTENTION 22
r:
- 108 -
The SPMC fiils to provide assurances that adequate reasures can and will be ta ke ri to protect the public in the Town cf Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to provide adequate and reliable means to acquire up to date local weather conditions and wind information at various altitudes
' r. m e dia tly above the E.P.Z.
from w hic h evac uation priorities are presumably to be determined.
RESPONSE
T he Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis.
T he contention fails to articulate any reg ulatory requirement or federal guidance which calls for information on weather condition s at variou s altitu des above the EPZ.
NUREG 0654 II.I.5 provides that the Licensee "shall have the capability of acquiring and evaluating meteorological information...".
This requirement is addressed in Implementing Procedure 2.5 Step 5.3.2 of the SPMC which provides for the latest regional meteorological information from Weather Services
- nternational.
The contention neither acknowledges this provision of the plan nor asserts that it is inadequate.
The contention should be rejected for lack of basis.
TOS CONTENTION 23 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will l
be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan relies upon the assumption that local governments have the adequate resources to implement the Utility's Plan, which assumption is rebutted and fails as a matter of fact in the case of the manpower and i
j equipment resources available to the Town of Salisbury, because Salisbury does not now have nor is it likely to acquire sufficient police me n,
firemen, public works employees, or civil defense employees to effectively implement, oversa, or participate in a safe evacuation of the entire town.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the ground that it lacks basis.
The SPMC is a compensatory plan and clearly states in its Introduction at 1.1 that "[t]he purpose of the offsite response
- 109 -
cescribed in the plan is to fully compensate fcr the lack of State and Iccal government planning to carry out their responsibilities to protect the public should an actual emergency occur at Seabrook Station."
The SPMC further state at 2.0 that "the NHY Offsite Response Organization is fully capable of implementing an adequate emergency response in the absence of State and local p a r tici p a tio n.... "
Contrary to the assertion in the contention, the SPMC does not rely on the Town of Salisbury to provide resources which it does not have.
The contention lacks basis and should De rejected on that ground.
V I!!.
TOWN OF WEST NEWBURY CONTENTIONS TWN CONTENTION 1:
The plan fails to provide a reasonable basis for a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective treasures can and will be taken as required by 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(a) and fails to mest the plan-ning standaros of 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(b) and NUREG-0654 FEMA REP-1 Rev.1 Supp.1 (hereinafter referred to as "NUREG-0654").
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks both specificity and basis.
The contention is overly broad and fails to put the other parties on notice of the issue to be litigated.
The stated basis relies on the premise that a refusal by the local officials to follow the SPMC, and a refusal to undertake any preplanning will successfully rebut the presu m ption set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(1)(iii) that in an actual emergency assurance adequate p rotectiv e measures can and will be taken as required by 10 C.F.R. 1 50.47(a).
On the contrary, it is presumed that local officials will use their "best efforts" to protect the public using the utility plan in the
- 110 -
absence of another plan.
See Staff Response to Newbury Contention 11 and Mass AG contendons 1-6.
TWN CONTENTION 2:
Thepermissivepresumptionof10C.F.R.sec.50.47(c)(iii),providing that "it may be presumed that in the event of an actual radiological emergency state and local officials would generally follow the utility alan" should not be applied to the plan submitted by the applicant.
Accordingly, there is no support for the findings of adequacy required by 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(a), (b), or (c)(1).
RESPONSE
1 he Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it constitutes an impermissible challenge to the Commission's re g ulation, 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(c)(1)(iii).
The conte ntion claims that, since local officials have not and will not participate in training and the Town has inadequate resources to implement the SPMC, the presumption should not be applied.
The presumption is that local officials will use their "best efforts" to protect the health and safety of the pubik and unless they submit a plan of their own, it is assumed that they will follow the U tility's pla n.
See Staff Response Mass AG contentions 1-6 and Newbury Contendon 11.
TWN CONTENTION 3:
The plan fails to adequately meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
sec. 50.47(b)(5) requiring procedures for notification of local response l
organizations, hUREG-0654 II.E.8 requiring provisions for coordinating emergency response messages with participating and non-participating local governments, and NUREG-0654 II.F.1.b requiring provisions for consnunica-tions with local governments within the Emergency Planning Zone.
RESP 0 HSE:
I
- 111 -
The Staff opposes that part of the contention which suggests that the Board of Selectmen must be contacted in order for the SPMC to be mplemented on the grounds that it lucks basis.
The SPMC oces not rely c n the selectmen for its implementation.
The Staff does not oppose that part of the contention which suggests that an adequate backup communication system is required in the event of a failure of the commercial telephone service.
TWN CONTENTION 4:
The assumption of NUREG-0654 I.D.1.c. is erroneous as applied to the Town of West Newbury. Accordingly, the.e is no support for the findings of adequacy required by 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(a), (b), or (c)(1).
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it is a challenge to the Commission's regulations and lacks basis and s pecificity.
The contention ignores the "best efforts" presumption which
' eaves the res ponsibility for snow removal in the hands of the local government as one of its normal duties in non-emergency situations.
The SPMC does not rely on local resources for its implementation; however, the resources such as emergency response vehicles and equipment are normally available for use by the local government and under the "best efforts" presumption, these resources would still be available.
The SPMC does not rely on the Town to supply equipment that it does not have.
Further, the lack or presence of snow removal is factored into protective action recommendations and removal is not required.
TWN CONTENTION 5:
- 112 -
The plan fails to adequately comply with the requirements of NUREG-t Ci54 FEMA-REP-1 Rev.1, ll.J.8. anc NUREG-0654 II.J.10.1.
EESPONSE:
(
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention because it lacks specificity and basis.
The contention fails to indicate that the differences in the number of transit-dependent and other individualr. and vehicles will sig nificantly affect the results of the ET E.
Without additional details, there is no basis for alleging an effect on the ETE which has already been litigated.
Therefore, this contention must be rejected.
L N CONTENTION 6:
The plan fails to provide a reasonable basis for a finding of reason-able assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken as required by 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(a) and fails to meet the planning s andards of 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(b)(5) and (6) in that procedures to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway EPZ, and provisions for prompt communications areng principle response organizations to the public, as required by 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(b)(5) and (6), and NUREG-0654 II.E.6 and 11.J.9 and 10 are inadequate.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the ground that it is outside the scope of this proceeding on offsite emergency l
pla n nin g.
The subiect of the prompt notification system is within the jurisdiction of the onsite Board.
TKN CONTENTION 7:
The plan fails to provide a reasonable basis for a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken as required by 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(a) and fails to meet the plan-r.ing standards of 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(b)(8) and (10) and NUREG-0654
- !.J 10.d and !!.J 10 9 in that the plan does not provide for an adequate range of protective actions and contains 'nadequate means of relocation or reans for protecting those with special needs, v.ase without private I
- 113 -
transportation, schoolchildren, or persons confined to institutions or elsewhere for health or other reasons. Moreover, the resources available to the towns for those purposes are inadequate to provide a reasonable assurance that the public will be protected in the event of an accident.
RESP 0NSE:
The Staff does not oppose the admission of the contention premised on Bases 1, 2A, 28, 20 and 3.
The Staff opposes the admission cf that part of the contention premised on Basis 2C except for intersections along the main evacuation route for the northern part of the Town of West Newbury because it lacks specificity and basis.
Other "critical" intersections are not identified and there is no basis provided for the belief that "sig nificant traffic congestion" would occur at these unidenti'ied points.
TWN CCNTENTION 8:
The plan fails to provide a reasonable basis for a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be takenasrequiredby10C.Fp.sec.50.47(alandfailstomeettheplan-ning standards of 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(b)(1, (8) and (10) and NUREG-0654 11.J.10.g and II.J.10.k in that the plan does not provide for an adequate range of protective actions and contains inadequate means of relocation and identification of and means for dealing with potential impediments to use of evacuation rcutes and contingency measures.
RESP 0 HSE:
The Staff opposes the admission of the part of this contention identified as "Contention 8" because it is overbroad and lacks basis and s pecificity.
The Staff addresses the listed "bases" as separate conten-tions when read with Contention 8 as a preface.
i 1.
The Staff opposes the admission of that part cf this contention concerning flooding for lack of specificity because the streets and the parts of the streets subject to flooding are not adecuately identified to
114 -
e put the parties on notice of the matter to be litigated.
This part of the contention should be rejected.
2.
The Staff opposes for lack of basis the admission of that part of this contention concerning the means for dealing with disabled vehicles because the Town does not distinguish this issue from that litigated in the earlier portion of the proceeding concerning the same generic issue in New Hampshire.
This part of the contention should be rejected for lack of basis.
To the extent that the contention alleges inadequate LO As with tcwing companies, the Staff does not object to its admission.
3, 4,
5, and 6.
The Staff opposes the admission of these contentions for lack of specificity.
In 3. "critical traffic areas" are not identified.
In 4.,
"other mechanisms" and "alon g roads" do not adequately identify the issue to be litigated.
"C ritical points and intersections" allegedly in need of traffic control are not identified in 5.
The traffic sensitive areas in basis 6 are not identified and no basis is provided for the proposition that the vehicles of emergency personnel will impede traffic or cause delays.
Basis 6 should be rejected for lack of both basis and speci6 city.
Bases 3, 4, and 5 should be rejected for lack of specificity.
7.
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention for lack of basis and specificity.
There is no basis provided to support the need for traffic guides nor are the bus routes allegedly requiring management id en tified.
This contentien should be rejected for lack of basis and s pecificity.
8.
The Staff opposes this contention on the ground that it lacks basis.
The executed LO As are valid on their face and the contention
- 115 -
fails to provide any basis for asserting that tha signatories of the LO As do not intend to abide by their commitments in a timely manner.
T his contention should be rejected for lack of basis.
9.
T he Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it challenges the Commission's regulation which assumes that local officials will use their "best efforts" to protect the public, including their normal duty of snow removal.
No special arrangements are needed for snow removal, 10.
The Staff opposes the cdmission of that portion of this conten-tion which concerns the potential for increased exposure to radiation on See the ground that dose reduction is not a proper issue for litigation.
Response to N E C NP Contendon 1.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of the part of the contention w hich suggests that the number cf buses on the three bus routes in West Newbury is inadequate.
11.
The Staff cpposes the aamission of this contention on the grounds that it challenges the Commission's regulations and lacks basis.
See, Response to West Newbury Contention 4 on the same issue of local emergency response vehicles and equipment resources.
12.
The Staff opposes the admission of part of this contention on the grounds that it lacks specificity ano basis.
Except for blinking light cones, the contention fails to indicate what part of the equipment at the staging area is inadequate.
Even though the contention does not provide a basis for alleging inacequacy, the Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention on the issue of adequate inventory of blinking light
i l
.16 -
The balance of the contenti>n should be rejected for lack of basis cones.
and specificity.
TWN CONTENTION 9:
The plan fails to provide reasonable assurance of adequate public protecticn because an adequate nt,mber of emergency vehicles are not provided for in the plans.
Nor is inere any assurance that effective use of these vehicles will be possible in view of a potential outgoing flow of evacuating traffic and a significant lack of drivers. Therefore, these plans do not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(a)(1),
50.47(b)(3), (8) ano (10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.d. !!.J 10.g. and II.J.10.k.
_R E S P O N S E :
The Staff opposes the admission of the part of this contention
~
concerning the effect of the potential outgoing flow of traffic on incoming vehicles and the lack of drivers for lack of basis.
T hese generic issues were addressed in the NHRERP portion of the hearing in the human behaviur section and this contention does not distinguish the effect in i
l Massachusetts from that already litigated.
The Staff dces not oppose the contention as supported by Basis 1 with the exception discussed above concerning traffic.
The Staff opposes the acmission of Basis 2 on the grounds that it challenges the Commission's regulations and lacks basis.
See Response to West Newbury Contention 4.
The Staff dras not oppose the admission of of Basis 3 concerning the number and effective dispatch of ambulances and other emergency vehicles for transportation of the special needs population in West Newbury.
TWN CONTENTION 10:
i
- 117 -
The plan fails to provide for adequate dissemination of infennation to the public regarding how they will be notified and what their actions should be in an emergency as required by 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(b)(7) and htREG-0654 FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, 11.G.1 and 2.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention.
IX.
HEW ENGL AND C0 ALIT 10 A 0F NUCLE AR POLLUTION'S CCNTENTIONS i
In an "Introductory Statement" NEC NP claim that the question of l
w hether emergency planning is inherently infeasible must be answered before addressing contentions regarding the adequacy of the Seabrook Plan fc
'e Massachusetts Communities ("SPMC").
NEC NP misinterprets r
the N R t, <
gency planning regulatio" and precedent.
The adequacy of an emergency plan for any site, be it state and local or a utility plan, is what must be assessed in orcer to make a determination as to whether emergency planning provides reast ble assurance that protective measures can and will be taken.
The Commission has an obligation to j
consider a utility plan in the absence of State and local government 3
approved plans anc has the ultimate authority to determine whether such l
a submission is sufficient to meet the prerequisites for issuance of an operating license.
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham N uclear Power Station, U nit 1), CLI-83-13,17 N h c 741, 743 (1983).
I' Further, as the Commission made clear in the Statement of Consid-erations accompanying the amended emergency planning rule (52 Fed.
Reg. 42078 [ November 3,1987]):
The final rule makes clear that every emergency plan is to be evaluated for adequacy on its own merits, without reference to l
the specific dese reductions which might be accomplished under the plan or to the capabilities of any other plan.
It further l
makes clear that a finding of adequacy for any plan is to be
(
i
- 118 -
consic ered generally compa able to a finding of adequacy for any other plan.
52 Fed. Reg. at 42084.
The Commission also observed that "other than
'a d e q u acy ', there is no u niform passing grade for emergency plans whether they are prepared by a state, locality or a utility.
Rather there is a case by case evaluation of whether the plan meets the standard of
' adequate protective measures.'" I d_.
NECNP also argues that 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(c)(1)(iii) requires Appli-cants, at the threshold, to distinguisn between those portions of the plan that seek to fulfiil the requirements of 6 50.4!(b) and those pcrtions where "due allowance" shoulo be made for compensatory measures. NEC N P
~
misreads the regulation.
Section 50.47(c)(1)(iii) provides that a utility plan will be evaluated against the same planning standards applicable to a state or local plan...with due allowance made for those elements for which state and/or local non-participation makes compliance infeasible and the utility's measures Jesigned to compensate for any deficiencies resulting from state and/or local non-p articipation.
This ooes not require any threshold ad mission by A p plicants' that the requirements in 50.47(b)
- annot be met.
Hence, N E C N P's argument that any such threshold showing that emergency planning is possible prior to submission of contentions on the SPMC is directly contrary to the Commission's regulations, and must be rejected.
NECEP CONTENTION 1:
Due to the unique features of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone
("EFZ"), adequate emergency planning for the Seabrook EPZ is inherently l
I impossible. 1 herefere Applicants cannot satisfy 10 C FR % 50.47(a).
l l
l l
l l
l
- 119 -
1
RESPONSE
The only bases for this contention are that evacuation times are too long and sheltering facilities would not provide sufficient protection to the pop ulation.
However there are no set times in which evacuation must take place.
Clearly, NECGP here seeks to challenge the Commission's regulations which specify that the adequacy of a plan is not to be judged in terms of specific dose reductions.
52 Fed. Reg. 42C84 This is consistent with the Commission directions in San Onofre that:
It was never the intent of the regulation to require directly or indirectly that state and local governments adopt extraordinary m ea s u res...ju st to deal with nuclear plant accidents.
The em phasis is on prudent ris k red uctica measures.
The reg ulation does not require dedication of resources to handle every possible accident that can be imagined.
The concept of the regulation is that there should be core plan ning with sufficient planning flexibility to develop a reasonable ad hoc resporise to those very serious low probability accidents which could affect the general public.
Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
U nits 2 and 3), CLI-83-10,17 N RC 528. 533 (1983).
Hence this contention seeks to impermissibly challenge the C om mission's reg ulations and must be _ rejected.
10 C.F.R. 9 2.758; Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Station, Units 1 and E), L 8 P-80-30,12 NRC
- 683, 692-95 (1980);
Kansas Gas and Electric Co.
(Wolf Creek Generating Station, U nit 1), AL A B-784, 20 N R C 845, 846 (1984).
NECNP C0hTENTION 2:
A p plica nts have failed to identify those portions of the SPMC for which they ir.voke the provisions of 10 C FR 6 50.47(c)(1).
RESPONSE
l l
l
- 120 -
The basis for this conte ntion is N E C N P's interpretation of the requirements set forth in the cited regulation.
As pointed out s u p ra,
NECNP misreads the regulation.
There is no requirement that specific provisions of the SMPC be identified as meeting the provision of 10 C. F. R.
9 50.47(c)(1).
Section 50.47(c)(1)(iii) sets th e standard against which to judge a utility plan.
Nothing in the regulations require an A p plica nt to identify deficiencies w hich may be caused by the non-participation of state and lccal governments.
T Se alleged duty to identify areas where non-participation make compliance infeasible is an invention of the Intervenor, not grounded in regulation.
T he contention has no basis and should be rejected.
See Response to Mass A1G contention 2.
NECNP CONTENTION 3:
Applicants have not met the requirements of 10 CFR Q 50.47(a)(1) to provide a "reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Radiological emergency" at Seabrook because they have failed to show what emergency response measures will be taken by the Massachusetts state and local governments in the event that Mode 1 of the SPMC is followed.
RESPONSE
The contention is directly contrary to the Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(1) which provides that "it may be presumed that in the event of an actual radiological emergency state and local officials would generally follow the utility plan."
The assumption is that State and local government officials will exercise their "best efforts" to protect the health and safety of the public.
To the extent the contention seeks to require more it is an attack on the Commission's regulations and should be rejected.
See 10 C. F. R. 6 2.758(a).
Further the contention lacks
- 121 -
specificity in failing to set out the manner in which utilization of the resources provided by the Offsite Response O rga nization would not provide reasonable assurance of the public health and safety.
- Further, no basis is provide d in that it cannot be averred under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(a)(1) that state and local authorities would not generally use the scheme of the utility plan, ubout any other plan, in taking action to the public health and safety.
Scc Response to Mass AG contention 1.
NECNP CONTENTION 4:
To the extent that Mode 2 of the SPMC contemplates the substitution of A pplica nts for state and local governments in carryin g out an emergency
- response, it violates the emergency planning rule and Massachusetts state law.
Moreover, to the extent that it contemplates integration of the utility's functions with state and local emergency response functions, it does not compensate adequately for the lack of preparedness of state and local officials to respond to a Radiological emergency at Seabrook.
RESPONSE
NECNP's basis is lack of legal authority, and that the SPMC does not provide a "mechanism by w hich the state and local governments can swiftly and efficiently interact with O RO officials to mount a timely and adeouate response to an accident."
This contention essentially repeats NECNP's contention 2, and should be rejected for the same reasons stated in response to that contention.
A d ditionally, to the extent this contention raises "legal authority" as an issue, it lacks basis, since under 50.47(c)(1)(iii) it is presumed that the state will use its "best efforts" to protect the public health and safety, and absent presentation of a feasible response plan of its own, the assu m ption is that the SPMC will be utilized.
T he contention should thus be rejected as an attack on the Commission's regulations and as lacking basis and specificity.
Further to
- 122 -
the extent the basis of the contention refers to the utility plan or procedures under that plan as being "cumbersome and confusing" not providing " g uid elines" it is extremely g e ne ral, dces nut provide the specificity necessary for a co nte ntion, and should be rejected.
S3 Response to Mass AG contentions 3-6.
S APL CONTENTION 1 Contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R 6 50.47(a)(1),10 C F.R.
Pcrt 50 Appendix E Sections IV. A.8. and IV.D.3. and N U REG - 0654, R ev. 1, S u p p. 1, ll. A.2.a. a n d b., ll. A.3., !!. E.1. a n d 3. an d N U R E G 0654, Rev. 1 1.E.,
the responsibilities, authorities and concept of between the NHY-0RO, State of New Hampshire and the operations Commonwealth of Massachusetts in ordering any protective action have not been sufficiently defined nor set forth in advance in any w ritten agreement to ensure a prom pt and adequate emergency response.
Further, the implementing Procedures for coordination of response are inefficient and inadequate.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of the portion of this contention concerning the governors' authorities on the g rou nds that it is speculative and lacks basis.
The contention is based on the speculative prospect that the differing policies of the governors in question may lead to disagreements in an emergency situation.
T he contention does not offer any information or insight to suggest that these officials will not take positive action to protect the nealth and safety of the p u blic.
Furthermore, the irrebuttable presumption of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(c)(1)(iii) applies to state and local officials.
It is presumed that these individuals will use their "best efforts" tc protect the public in an actual emergency.
There is no regulatory basis cited for requiring the kin d of written agreement between state govern mental officials suggested in the contention.
In this respect the contention is nothing more than a
- 123 -
generalization regarding S APL's view of what applicable polic.es ought to be, without any factual or regulatory basis and should be rejected.
The Staff opposes the admission of that portion of the contention w hich states that imple menting procedures for coordination of the response are inefficient and inadequate and that notification of governmental agencies and the public will not be timely.
This broad assertion lacks basis and specificity and should be rejected.
The potential delays and allegedly circuitous communication forming the basis of the contention are at least the indirect result of the lack of participation by state and local entities.
T he party who chooses not to cooperate should not be granted standing to complain that compensatory measures add another layer of com m u nication.
T his portion of the contention lacks basis and should be rejected.
S APL CONTENTION 2 The SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance of an adequate protective response because the stagin g area in Haverhill (see Figure 5.2-3) for buses designated in the plans will not be available for use.
Therefore, there is no available location designated in the SPMC at which buses can be coordinated and staged to pick up tra nsit dependent, s pecial needs and special facilities populations in the 6 Massachu setts com m u nities.
Effective use of assistance resources is therefore not reasonably assured and the SPMC therefore fails to meet the requirements of 10 C FR 950.47(a)(1), 550.47(b)(3), 650.47(b)(10) and N U RE G - 0654, R e v. 1, S u p p. 1, II.J.10. g a n d II.J.10. k.
RESPONSE
i l
The Staff objects to the admission of this contention that the City of Haverhill has temporarily or permanently enjoined the use of the Haverhill bus staging area.
To the extent that the issue concerns a violation of local zoning laws, it is beyond the jurisdiction of this Board and should j
be rejecte o.
Moreover, there is no averment that while zoning may l
- 124 -
prohibit the general use of an area for particular purpose, such an area might not be used in a manner contrary to general local zoning in an emergency, particularly when state and local authorities are using "best efforts" to protect their citizens.
There is no showing that while the area was not available for a drill it will not be available in actual an emergency.
SAPL CONTENTION 3 The SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate person nel, equipment and facilities for radiological monitoring and and emergency ) workers decontamination of general pu blic evacuees, residents have been s pecial facility evacuees (e.g.
n u rsin g home e sta blished.
Furthermore, the definition of "contamination" is 600 cpin 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, T herefore,
the requirements of 10 C F R 550.47(a)(1),
150.47(b)(8),150.47(b)(10), 650.47(b)(11) and NUREG - 0654, Rev.1, S u p p. 1 II. H.4, II.J.10.d. 11.J.12, II, K.S.a a n d K.5.b. have not been met.
RESPONSE
T he Staff does not object to the admission of the contention to the extent it calls into question the adequacy and dispatch of the Monitoring Trailers to North Andover, Beverly and Haverhill, M A.
To the extent the contention questions the availability of Other resources it lacks s pecificity and should be rejected.
Further there is no reg ulatory requirement w hich calls for the decontamination of general pu blic No averment is made that the Haverhill staging area will not evacuees.
actual emergency where "best efforts" are used to be available in an protect the pu blic.
- See, Response to SAPL contention 2.
The comparison between the allowable cpm's in Massachu setts and New Hampshire should be redected for lack of basis, as there is no averment t
- 17.5 -
that the 600 cpm measurement is iot sufficient to protect the pu blic health and safety.
In fact there is no difference in allowable radiological exposure between the New Hampshire and Massachusetts pla ns.
The perceived difference in allowable counts per minute is due to different instru me ntation.
See, Applicants' Responses to Intervenors Contentions on the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC) p. 159, fn.
1.
S APL CONTEhTION 4 The SPMC fails to provide adequate means for handling and disposal of contaminated waste water and contaminated materials, contrary to the requirements of 10 C F R 950.47(a)(1), 550.47(b)(9), 650.47(b)(11) and N U REG - 0654 II.I.8 and k.5.b.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent detailed in its "basis" dealing with waste water from showers at a reception centers and EWF Trailers.
S APL CONTENTION b The SPMC fails to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 650.47(a)(1),
0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1 II L.1, 3 an 4 650.47(b)(12) and NUREG because the hospitals identified in the SPMC are not sufficient to evaluate radiation exposure and uptake, are not adequately prepared to handle contaminated ir.dividuals and are not adequ ately prepared to handle contaminated injured persons.
Further, there are not adequate arrange-ments in the SPMC for transporting victims of radiological accidents to medical support facilities.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis and specificity by failing to state why the planning for contaminated injured individuals dces not meet the criteria set out in the
- 126 -
Commission's Policy Sta'.ement on "Emergency Planning-Medical Services."
S1 Fed. M. 32904 (September 17,1986).
S APL CONTENTION 6 The SPMC fails to meet the requirements of 10 C FR 950.47(a)(1),
650.47(b)(3), 550.47(b)(10) ano N U REG - 0654 Rev.1 Supp.1. !!.J.10.C and J.10 g. because the method of picking up evacuees along predesig-nated bus routes, transporting them to transfer points and then busing them to reception centers as described in the SPMC is not a practical means of providing adequate public protection.
RESPONSE
T he Staff opposes the admission of this contention as it does not indicate with s pecificity why the bus routes are in sufficie nt.
No
~
requirement is shown for maps.
T hose portions of the contention which concern violations of local zoning should be rejected because this Board lacks jurisdiction and because it cannot be avered that use of transfer points would be governed by and p rohibited by zoning laws in an emergency.
S APL CONTENTION 7 The SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance of adequate public protection because there are no plans and no specific designations of host no personnel facilities to which each special facility is to evacuate and specified to effect the appropriate protective actions for those facilities.
Further, the lack of plans for the Amesbury schools affects students from So. H a m pton, N.H. who attend Amesbury high School.
T herefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 550.47(a)(1), 650.47(b)(10) and NUREG - 0654 II J.10.d and Article XIV of the U.S. Constitution are not met.
RESPONSE
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention provided that the reference to the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution is withdrawn for lack of basis.
The averment that the South
- 127 -
Hampton students attending school in Amesbury, Massachusetts would not receive the same protection offered to other students and transients in the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ is without basis.
S APL CONTENTION 8 The area of plan ning of the plu me exposure Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) under the SPMC is not of sufficient extent to previde reasonable assurance of adequate public protection because it excluoes the City of Haverhill, Massachusetts which is a significant population center through which a major evacuation route, 1495, traverses.
T herefore,
the requirements of 10 C FR 650.47(a)(1) and 650.47(c)(2) have not been met.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it seeks to require matters not required by regulation and because it lacks specificity and basis.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(2),
the exact size and configuration of the plume exposure EPZ is an area of about 10 miles surrounding a particular nuclear power reactor determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such con ditions as demography, topography, land charac-teristics, access routes and jurisdictional boundaries.
This contention fails to articulate that the portion of the town located within or within close proximity of the 10-mile E P Z should be included baseo on any specific demographic, topographic, access or jurisdictional consideration.
The mere fact that I-495 runs through Haverhili is insufficient basis to include the entire town in the SPMC.
This attempt to expand the EPZ sig nificantly beyond 10 miles is an impermissible c hallenge to the Commission's regulations.
- 128 -
S APL CONTENTION 9 The SPMC fails to provide reosonable assurance of adaquate public alerting and notification because there are no longer fixed sirens in the M assach usetts portion of the E P Z, the Vehicular Alert and Notification System (V AhS) for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ is impractical in certain weather and accident scenarios, and it will not provide the required public alerting within a 15 minute time span.
Further, the means by which transients in the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge on Plum Island are to be notified by the U.S. Dept. of Interior are not s pecified.
T he refore,
the requirements of 10 C F R 650.47(a)(1),
550.47(b)(5} and 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E Section IV.0.3 and NUREG
- 0654 Rev.1, Supp.1, II, E.6 have not been met.
RESPONSE
T he Staff opposes the ad mission of that part of the contention cealing with the public alerting and notification by siren or V ANS on the
~
grounds that it is outside the scope of this, the Seabrook offsite proceeding.
This issue comes under the jurisdiction of the onsite Board.
S APL C O N T EN TIO N 10 The SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance of adeqeate oublic protection because the SPMC does not address the situa uen w here evacuees in the beach areas will be trapped in traffic for hours without option to take shelter or implement any other realistic measures to an protect themselves.
The SPMC therefore does not meet the requirement of 10 C FR 550.47(a)(1), 650.47(b)(10) and N U REG - 0654 Rev.1 Supp.1 at J.9 a n d 11 J. 10 d., g, k a n d m.
RESPONSE
The Staff opposes that part of the basis of the contention which asserts that the SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance of adequate pu blic protection because the NHY-0R0 will not recommend any precautionary measures prior to the declaration of a Site Area Emergency or a General Emergency.
T here is no requirement that precautionary measures be taken as contended.
While there is some question regarding the beach transients on the border between New Hampshire and
- 129 -
Massachusetts based on differing actions called for in the two plans, this contention must be rejected for lack of regulatory basis.
The Staff opposes the admission of other parts of this contention on the grounds that they lack basis and s pecificity.
The contention is overly vague in that the issue it seeks to raise is unclear.
If the contention is asserting that s helter is required for the entire beach population it must be rejected for lac k of regulatory basis.
If the contention was intended to raise some other issue, it should be rejected on the grounds that it does not put the other parties on notice concerning the issue to be litigated.
The contention characterizes evacuees w aitin g in their cars in traffic tie-ups as mobility-im paired The persons and cites N U REG-0654 Rev.1 Suppl ll.J.10.d as its basis.
1 mobility-im paired persons referred to in the hb F.EG were so-designated based on their physical limitations and their need for special consioerations in the relocation effort.
In contrast, the lack of mobility for evacuees in cars merely relates to their temporary status and does not entitle them additional protective measures.
As the contention has no proper basis and appears to question Commission regulatory requirements, it must be rejected.
- 130 -
C O N C LUSIO N The SPMC contentions filed by the municipalities and Intervenors sk'ould be admitted for litigation in this proceeding to the extent set forth T
in the discussions above.
In all other respects, the proffered contentions should be denied for the reasons set forth above.
Respectfully submitted,
$W Elaine 1. C han Counsel for flRC Staff
[
Mo d
.:sa B. Clark Counsel for it P.C Staff Dated at Rockville, MD this Uth day of May,1988 4
DOLMETED hMPC U NIT E D S T A T E S O F A M E RIM JN -1 P1 '07 NU CLE AR REG UL AT O R Y C OMMIf3IO F QFHCL - V a1L '
B E F O R_E T H E A T O MIC S A F E T Y A N D LIC ET$fMd.d t
Ir. the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL FUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW H AMPSHIRE, et al.
)
Off-site Emergency Planning 1
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC ST AFF'S RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS FIL E D BY TOWNS OF
- AMESBURY, NEWBURY, S ALISB U R Y AND W ES T
.NEWBURY, THE CITIES OF H AVERHILL AND NEWBURYPORT, AND BY THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENER AL, NECNP AND SAPL" in the a bove-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the U nited States m ail, first class or, as indicated by an a ste ris k,
by deposit in the N uclear Reg ulatory Commission's internal rail system, this 27th day of May 1988.
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing A dministrative Judge Bcard*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L'ashin gton, D C 20555 Washington, D C 20555 Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.*
Cocketing and Service Section*
Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D C 20555 Washington, D C 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- T homas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Administrative Judge Robert K. Gad, III, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Ropes & Gray U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 225 Franklin Street Washington, D C 20555 Boston, M A 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing H. J. Flynn, Esq.
Appeal Panel
- Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC 20555 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 Philip Ahren, Esq.
Calvin A. Canney Assistant Attorney General City Hall
- Office of the Attorney General 126 Daniel Street State House Station Portsmouth, N H 03801 Augusta, M E 04333 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Carol S. Sneider, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Assistant Attorney General 25 High Road Office of the Attorney General Newbury, M A 09150 One Ashburton Place,19th Flcor Boston, M A 02108 George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Allen Lampert Assistant Attorney General Civil Defense Director Office of the Attorney General Town of Brentwood 25 Capitol Street 20 Franklin Concord, NH 03301 Exeter, N H 03833 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
William Armstrong Diane Curran, Esq.
Civil Defense Director
~
Harmon & Weiss Town of Exeter 2001 S Street, NW 10 Front Street Suite 430 Exeter, N H 03833 Washington, DC 20009 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Holmes & Ellis 116 Lowell Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Manchester, N H 03106 Hampton, N H 03842 Paul McEachern, Esq.
J. P. Nadeau Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Shatnes & McEachern 10 Central Street 25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, N H 03870 P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, N H 03801 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Silverglate, Gertner, Baker, McKay, Murphy & Graham Fine & Good 100 Main Street 88 Board Street Amesbury, M A 01913 Boston, M A 02110 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Robert Carrigg, Chairman Board of Selectmen 8oard of Selectmen R F D #1, Box 1154 Town Office Kensington, N H 03827 Atlantic Avenue North Ham pton, N H 03870 William S. Lord Peter J. Matthews, Mayor Board of Selectmen City Hall Town Hall - Friend Street Newburyport, MN 09150 Amesbury, M A 01913
i l
1 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Michael Santosucsso, Chairman Bosrd of Selectmen Board of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Road South Hampton, NH 03827 Durham, NH 03824 Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey Ashod N. Amfrian, Esq.
U nited States Senate Town Counsel for Merrimac 531 Hart Senate Office Building 376 Main Street Washington, D C 20510 Haverhill, M A 08130
^
Elaine I. Chan Counsel for N R C Staff h
i l
L
]