ML20206M412
| ML20206M412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1987 |
| From: | Curran D HARMON & WEISS, PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206M376 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8704200106 | |
| Download: ML20206M412 (14) | |
Text
.-
April 15, 1987 UNITEE STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
BEFORE THE~ ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICqg (
OBOARD
)
In the Matter of j
g gg 6 P5:07 Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket:Nos. 50-443 OL
) fghkG Q * "
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
OFFSITE EMERGENCY
)
PLANNING ISSUES
')
NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON CONTENTION NHLP-6 Introduction The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution- ("NECNP")
opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of NECNP's Contention NHLP-6.
As discussed in the introduction to NECNP's Cpposition to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on Con-tention NHLP-2, Applicants bear a heavy burden of proving that they are entitled to summary disposition on this issue.
NECNP demonstrates below that Applicants have not met their burden.
Contention NHLP-6 asserts that The local emergency response plans do not provide for an adequate range of protective actions,10 CFR S 5 0. 4 7( b) (10), because they contain inadequate means of relocation or other protection for those with special needs, those without private transportation, school children, or persons confined to institutions or else-where for health or other reasons.
Mo r eove r, the resources available to the towns for these purposes are inadequate to provide a reasonable assurance that the public will be protected in the event of an accident.
The admitted portions of the contention's bases challenge the adequacy of telephone communication systems for providing notifi-cation and assistance to people with special needs; the adequacy khDK05000443 6 870415 DR O
1 i
=
, of the State's pre-designated bus route system for protecting the health and safety of transit-dependent people; and the adequacy of the State's provision for protection of school children.
Regulatory Requirements NEC regulations at 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(10) require Applicants to demonstrate that "a range of protective actions has been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public."
NUREG-0654, S S J.10.d and 9 also require that emergency plans contain "me ans for protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as institutional or other confinement;" and "means of relocation."
Feasons Summary Disposition Should Be Denied First, summary disposition must be denied because FEMA has not issued formal findings or taken a position in this proceeding which supporte Applicants' motion for sunmary disposition.
As discussed in greater detail in NECNP's Opposition to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NHLP-2, FEMA's find-ings are treated as rebuttable presumptions in NRC hearings on the adequacy of emergency plans.
We understand that FEMA has still not received all information it requires in order to make a finding with respect to the adequacy of bus and driver pairs for evacuation of the special needs population in the Seabrook EPZ.
Unless and until FEMA obtains all information it requires and issues a finding, to which the parties have an opportunity to respond, summary disposition of this contention is premature.
0 We note that in its review of Revision 2, the Regional Assistance Committee ("RAC") has also posed criticisms or ques-tions regarding the manner in which the State arrived at its estimate of the total number of buses required in the EPZ, whether an adequate number of bus drivers has been provided, and the State's manner of calculating bus capacity.
See Statement of Material Facts In Dispute Regarding Contention NHLP-6,11 6, 7,
and 8.
Second, as demonstra ted in - the accompanying Statement of Material Facts In Dispute Regarding Contention NHLP-6, all of the-material factual issues raised by Applicants in their motion have been placed in substantial dispute by the parties and/or FEMA.
These include the accuracy of the State's estimates of resource needs and availability; whether the RERP relies on EOC telephone systems for notification and instruction of the special needs population; the adequacy of the State's plan to broadcast only the departure times of buses to their pre-designated routes; the adequacy of the State's provision for latchkey children; and the adequacy of letters of agreement to assure that sufficient num-bers of bus and driver pairs will be available during a radiological emergency.
Finally, Applicants fail to address a significant number of the assertions made by NECNP in the bases of contention NHLP-6.
Applicants ignore the significant risks and practical problems raised by NECNP with respect to pre-designated bus routes and the
4-availability of bus. drivers.
They also fail to address the ade-quacy. of the telephone system in the Seabrook EOCs for handling calls for asssistance.
Moreover, Applicants have f ailed to address basis (d) in its entirety, which challenges the State's cumbersome plan for coordinating school bus evacuation in the Seabrook EPZ.
Applicants have failed to demonstrate that there exists no dispute as to material facts or that they are entitled to summary disposition as a matter of law.
Fo r the foregoing reasons, Applicants' motion for summary disposition must be denied.
Respectfully submitted, m
lane Curran HARMCN & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009 (202) 328-3500 April 15,1987
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE REGARDING CONTENTION NHLP-6 1)
In the body of their motion for summary disposition, Applicants state that the inadequacy of the telephone system in the Seabrook EPZ, as asserted by NECNP, "does not exist," because
" notifications will be given not by telephone but by the emer-gency broadcast system."
Applicants have failed to allege material facts that are not in dispute.
First, Contention NHLP-6 not only challenges the adequacy of the telephone system for notification, but also for the rendering of assistance to individuals with special transportation needs who have already been alerted and call their Emergency Operations Centers.
Applicants have made no allegations with respect to the adequacy of the telephone systems in the ECCs for handling calls for assistance.
Second, it is clear from the plans themselves and by the instructional material that the State purportedly intends to dis-tribute to the public that the State intends local ECCs to make significant use of telephones for notifying and assisting those individuals with special transportation needs.
Fo r example, Revision 2 of the New Hampshire RERP for the Town of Seabrook provides that:
[T]he Selectman (Welfare Of ficer) in Seabrook maintains confidential lists of Seabrook citizens with special notification needs.
These include handicapped persons within the town who have made themselves and their needs known to the Town.
These persons will be notified by telephone, by dispatch of police cruisers or other emergency personnel, or by other suitable I
means devised by the Seabrook Fire Chief.
. Vol. 16 a t II-9 (emphasis added).
Similar provisions are also made in other local plans.
- See, e.g., Vols. 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 2 9 at II-7.
The "1987 Emergency Plan Information Calendar" that purports to contain guidance to the public regarding transportation for the handicapped also instructs members of the public with special transportation needs to use the telephones to obtain assistance.
On page one, the calendar states that "the Civil De fense Agency is prepared to help you in an emergency" and lists the phone num-bers of each local government EOC, to be called by those who "need special help" or "c re handicapped."
Calendar at 1.
(Pages 1-3 of the Calendar are attached. )
The calendar further states that " handicapped' people who have returned the special nceds card in this calendar or answered a Civil Defense special needs survey would be notified by emergency workers." Calendar at 3 (emphasis added). - Pre suma bly, this notice would be given by telephone.
Finally, the calendar tells handicapped individuals "For extra help during an emergency, call your Emergency Operations Center."
Id.
Thus, the New Hampshire RERP clearly contemplates the use of telephones to provide notice and assistance to handicapped indi-
- viduals, f
2)
Applicants assert that the August 1986 RAC Evaluation of State Response states that the concept of pre-designated bus routes is " adequate."
Statement of Material Facts as To Which There is No Dispu.e,1 1.
In this cursory statement, FEMA
. assesses only the bare " concept" of pre-designated bus routes, and does not evaluate the crucial issue of whether the New Hampshire RERP provides for safe and effective utilization of the pre-designated bus route system.
Neither the R AC Review nor.
Applicants' summary disposition motion addresses the concerns expressed in the basis to Contention NHLP-6 that a) i t will be virtually impossible for transportation dependent individuals to estimate the time of arrival of buses at any given point; b) people without transportation may be left standing outside for an undetermined amount of time, with potentially high and unaccep-table exposure to radiation; or that discouraged evacuees might further risk exposure by returning to their homes and giving up on evacuating.
3)
Applicants claim that the New Hampshire RERP makes pro-vision for notifying the transit dependent populatien of what time buses will begin travelling the pre-estaolished bus routes.
Statement of Material Facts as To Which There is No Dispute, 1 2.
However, the plan makes no provision for estimating the time at which buses will arrive at their pickup points.
See State of New Hampshire's Response to NECNP First Set of Interrogatories, Interrogatories 21 and 22.
If a bus pick-up point is several miles from the origin of the bus route, it may be minutes or hours before a bus arrives at the pick-up point.
Without any reliable way to estimate the time at which evacuees should leave the comparative safety of homes or shelters to get on a bus,
4-evacuees will have the choice of risking *significant radiation exposure by waiting outdoors at the bus stop until the bus comes, or possibly missing the bus by waiting too long indoors before going to the bus pick-up point.
Under these circums tances, there
.can be no reasonable assurance that the health and safety of transit-dependent individuals can be protected.
4)
In paragraph 3 of their Statement of Material Facts as To Which There is No Dispute, Applicants assert that " latchkey" children are accounted for in the RERP by allowing parents to return to the EPZ to pick up their children.
However, this will not accommodate the needs of latchkey children whose parents work a significant distance from home and who may not be able to get in touch with their children to tell them to wait at home.
Those children may attempt to leave because they do not know what else to do.
In that case, they may not understand how to get a ride from one of the special buses.
5)
NECNP does not dispute paragraphs 4 and 5 of Applicants' Statement of Material Facts as To hhich There is No Dispute, which attest to the existence of provisions in the RERP for transportation of school children.
However, it is the ade-quacy of the plans, and not their existence, which is in dispute here.
6)
Paragraphs 6 and 8 of Applicants' Statement of Ma terial Facts as To Which There is No Dispute state that the State and local plans provide summaries of transportation requirements for I
y.,.
. each New Hampshire tcwn in the EPZ.
Paragraph 6 also states that this information is "being updated."
This statement demonstrates that Revision 2 of the New Hampshire RERP does not currently con-tain accurate information regarding transportation resources for the 17 New Hampshire towns in the EPZ.
In fact, the 1986 R AC Review questions the manner in which the State arrived at its estimate of the total' nunber of buses required in the EPZ.
See RAC Evaluation of State Response to RAC Review of the State of Nene Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan For Seabrook,Section I, page 74 o f 134.
The accuracy of the State's estiniates regarding transportation requirements remains in dispute.
7)
In paragraph 7; Applicants claim that letters of agree-ment with bus and ambulance companies, Teamsters Local No. 6 33 of-New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire School Transportation Asso-ciation show that these organizations "should be able to provide transportation resources in excess of the numbers required. "
This assertion is in dispute.
First, the letter of agreement signed by a representative of the Teamsters Union does not pro-vide any assurance that the members themselves know of, under-stand, or accede to the ' commitment that has been undertaken on their behalf by the union; or that their employers will allow them to leave work in order to participate in the emergency response.
Moreover, there is no i.ndication in the letter of
~
agreement of where the bus driverr, are and how long it would take them to arrive at the EPZ, get a vehicle, and undertake their i
6-emergency response functions.
Finally, Applicants do not assert that these bus drivers have been trained with respect to their responsibilities under the plan.
Second, the letters of agreement do not assure that a suffi-cient number of bus and driver pairs actually will be available during a radiological emergency.
Applicants have failed to address the logistical problems raised in section e) of the basis to Contention NHLP-6.
These nroblems are not solved by the exis-tence of a letter of agreement.
They include the unavailability of drivers who have second jobs, live far from the bus company, are unreachable in between runs, and have no radios in their
/cses.
In addition, regular schools buses are not in the parking lot all day in between the start and the end of the school day, but are on the road for special runs and field trips as much of the time as possible.
Applicants fail to address these issues.
Third, the af fidavit of Ann Hutchinson, submitted in support of the Town of Hampton's opposition to Applicants' s ummary judg-ment motions, demonstrates that a significant number of bus drivers were unavailable er-refused to participate in the 1986 exercise of the New Hampshire RERP.
1 5.
In addition, those bus and driver pairs actually attempting to implement the RERP f ur-ther experienced mechanical problems, delays, miscommunications and lack of information from the State.
1 6.
Fourth, a significant portion of the bus drivers relied on during a radiological emergency at Seabrook are likely to attempt
. to assist their families before or instead of performing their duties under the emergency plan.
See Af fidavit of Donald J.
Zeigler, submitted in support of SAPL's Response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition.
Mo r eove r, emergency response workers who might otherwise perform their emergency response functions may assist their fahilies first because they are unable to contact their families by telephone to assure that they are safe or are being assisted by someone else.
See Zeigler Affidavit.
See also "198 7 E PZ Ca lenda r, attached to NECNP Oppo-Sition to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on Conten-tion NHLP-4, which asks EPZ residents not to use the telephones during a radiological emergency.
Finally, FEMA has not reached a final conclusion as to i
whether the number of bus and driver pairs for the Seabrook EPZ is adequate.
The RAC review of August 1986, raises significant questions about the adequacy of the plans with respect to trans-l portation.
See RAC Evaluation of State Response to RAC Review of the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan For Seabrook,Section I, page 74-b of 134, which states that bus I
requirements are "well in excess" of the number of bus drivers who have agreed to drive.
(
8)
In paragraph 9, Applicants state that "in each case, the capacity of buses allotted surpasses the number of students that may require transportation assistance."
The State's method of calculating bus capacity has been called into question in the
.. FEMA /RAC review of Revision 2.
See RAC Evaluation of State Response to RAC Review of the State of New Hampshire Radiological l
Emergency Response Plan For Seabrook,Section I, page 74-a of 134, which states that " based on Table 11-7, Appendix E, Vol.
2,
- p. 39, the average load of each bus used to evacuate transit dependent persons is estimated to be 24.
Thus, for transit dependent residents only about a third of the seats available on a 65 seat bus are ef fectively available.
Seat availability is therefore not an appropriate indicator of bus adequacy."
Thus, a material issue of fact exists with respect _ to the ouestion of adequacy of school bus capacity.
9)
Applicants have f ailed entirely to address basis (d) of Contention NHLP-6, which asserts that the State has established an extremely cumbersome procedure for coordinating school bus responses, thus inviting confusion and delay in the evacuation of school children.
As discussed in the contention, by having some buses go directly to schools while others go to staging areas, the State creates a need for extensive communication between schools, the ECCs, and bus drivers and companies, making it extremely difficult to effectively coordinate an emergency response.
In view of Applicants' failure to address this issue at all, it remains a litigable issue in this proceeding.
(-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April 15, 1987,' copies of NECNP's i
Oppositions to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition on Contentions NHLP-2, NHLP-4, and NHLP-6, were served 0ttrtEtHie parties to the Seabrook offsite licensing proceedingU $ Cfirst-l class mail or as otherwise indicate n the attached service list.
(
r.
&g p$ gg D1'ane Cu r r an GFFICE Gr Ent.!AFY 00CKETitG r. SERVICf.
BRANCH.
a SE4b001 SERVICE LIST -- 0FFSITE LICENSING BOARD eMelenF.Hovt.Chairain North Hasaton NH 03326 442J.W.McCoreack(P0CH)
Atoalc Safetr and Licensing loston, MA 02109 loard J.P. Nadeau rShermin E. Turk. Esq.
U.S. NRC Town of Rye Office of General Counsel Sandra Gavutis Washington,D.C. 20555 155 Washington Road U.S.NRC RfD 180 1154 Rye, New Haspshire 03870 Washington,D.C. 20555 East tensington, NH 03827
- Dr. Jerry Hartour Atcetc Safety and Licensing Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairsan CharlesP.Grahaa.Esq.
Icard CityHell BoardofSelecteen Mctay, Murphy and Grahae U.S. NRC Newburyport, MA 01950 Nentury, MA 01950 100 Main Street Washingtcn,D.C. 20555 Asestery, MA 01913 Alfred V. Sargent. Chairsan M.JosephFlynn,Esq.
% sta a lire cerger BoardofSelectaen OfficeofGeneralCcunsel Alcalc Safety an1 Licensing ICan of Salisbury, MA 01950 FEMA loard 500 C Street S.W.
- By hand U.S. i:RC Senatcr Gordon J. Husonrey Washington. D.C.
20472 hashingtcn. 0.C.
20555 U.S. Senate
- 8vFederalEspress Wasningten. D.C.
20510 4 M earge Dana listee. E!q.
attelt 7al8tv ind licensing (Attn. ICs 6urack)
Geoffrey M. Nuntington. Eso.
Board Fanei 9f fice of the Attorney General U.S. sRC Selecteen of Northasotcn tate House Anner rasningtcn. 3.C.
20555 Nortt.aeoten.,ew maasntre Concord. NH H301
- 326 Attstc safere 01 Licensing allenLaspert A
- ceu soar 3 enes
!enatcr Gar:cn J. Hueonrey Civil etense 01 rector
't.. GC 1 Esqle 5:uare. Ste 507 fc.n or 8rentcwoos annington, D.C.
00555 Ccnccr2 W 03301 Ereter..W 0:333 00cketing and Service Michael Santcsuosso. Chairsan Richaro A. Haece. Esq.
U.S. MC Ecard of Selecteen PasceandMcNicnolas tasningten. L 20555 Je ell Street RFD I 2 05 Pleasant Street l
South Haeoten,.W 03342 Concord,ad 03301 Crs. Anne E. nocean toard of Selensen Jadtth H. Mizner, Esq.
Gary W. Holees. Esq.
I 13-15 New Mar at Road Silverstate.Gertner,etal.
Holaes & Ellis l
'Durhas. NH OU42 68 Broad Street 47 Winnacunnent Road 80ston,MA 02110 Haspton,MH 03842 WilliasS. Lor 1.Selectean icwn 8a11 -- Friend 5treet Rep. Roberta C. Pevear WilliasArestrong Asesbury. MA i!913 Orinkwater Roac CivilDefenseDirector Haspton, Falls, NH 03844 10 Front Street Jane Doughty Ereter,NH 03833 SAFL PhillipAhrens,Esq.
~
$ Market Street Assistant Attorney General CalvinA.Canney Portsecuth. NH 03301 State House, Station f 6 Cit) Manager Augusta ME 04333 CityHall Carol S. Sneifer. Esquire 126 Daniel Street AssistantAttorneyGeneral stihesas G. Dignan, Esq.
Portseouth, NH 03801 1AshburtonP!ce,19thFloor R.I. Gad II. Esq.
80ston, MA 02:09 Ropes & Gray Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
225FranklinStreet Shaines & McEachern Stanley W. faciles loston, MA 02110 P.O. lor 360 loard of Selectmen MaplewoodAve.
A
^~
P.O. 301 710 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Portseouth, NH 03801 ST Iackus, Meyer & Soloson
[
111 Lowel! Stred EdwardA.Thosas
- s... f M. 9,; -N;L Manchester, lel 03105 FEMA 1
-. - za
.