ML20207C007
| ML20207C007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1986 |
| From: | Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1989 OL, NUDOCS 8612300010 | |
| Download: ML20207C007 (25) | |
Text
.__
E 12/19/86 7
DOCKETED US'IRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO51 MISSION '86 DEC 23 P3 :02 i
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD1 ' t 4 m In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HA?1PSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444 ,OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Off-site Emergency Planning NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS ON NHRERP REVISION 2, FILED BY TOWN OF AMESBURY, TOWN OF KENSINGTON, SAPL AND NECNP On November 4,1986, the Licensing Board directed that contentions addrcesing Revision 2 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan ("NHRERP") should be filed by December 1, 1986. 1 Pursuant to the Board's Order, contentions addressing NHRERP Revision 2 were subsequently filed by the Town of Amesbury, E the Town of Kensington, I the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution l
-1/ " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Summary Disposition Motions of Applicants and State of New Hampshire and Establishing a Date for Filing of Late-Filed Contentions Arising Out of Revision 2 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan" (" Order"), dated .
November 4,1986, at 37.
-2/ " Town of Amesbury's Contentions of [ sic] NHRERP Volume 6, )
Scabrook Station Evacuation Time Study (Identified as Appendix E in '
Local Plans)" ("Amesbury"), dated November 28, 1986.
-3/ " Contentions of the Town of Kensington ('TOK') to New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan Revision 2" ("Kensington"),
dated November 26, 1986.
/
8612300010 861219 PDR G ADOCK 05000443 b(l PDR
v .
]
o (NECNP), I and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL). 5_/
Pursuant to the Board's scheduling order of December 4, 1986, 6_/ the NRC Staff hereby responds to these contentions on NHRERP Revision 2.
The Staff submits that certain of these contentions should be admitted to the extent set forth below.
DISCUSSION A. Town of Amesbury.
The Town of Amesbury has set forth a brief " General Discussion" of the five factors governing the admission of late-filed contentions, which it asserts favor the admission of its contentions (Amesbury, at 4-5). The Staff agrees with Amesbury that these factors favor the admission of its contentions. Accordingly, Amesbury's Revision 2 contentions should be admitted if they otherwise satisfy the basis , specificity and other requirements which pertain generally to the admission of contentions. U The Staff's views with respect to each of Amesbury's Revision 2 contentions are as follows. .
4/ "NECNP Contentions cn Revision 2 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plans" ("NECNP"), dated November 26, 1986.
l -5/ " Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Contentions on Revision 2 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan" ("S A PL") ,
dated November 26, 1986.
-6/ " Memorandum and Order Establishing Hearing Schedule (On Offsite Issues Raised by NHRERP)," dated December 4,1986, at 3.
7/ The general standards governing the admission of contentions in NRC proceedings were previously set forth by the Staff in our response to the contentions filed on the initial version of the NHRERP, and are incorporated by reference herein. See "NRC Staff's Response to Contentions Filed by Towns of Hampton3ampton
- (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED OF FF.XT PAGE) i l
p
. Amesbury Contention 1 The Town of Amesbury (TOA) contends that the NHRERP, Volume 6, Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study (hereinafter the KLD ETE) as served on the parties September 8,1986, violates 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2).
Response
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that Amesbury has failed to set forth a basis with sufficient specificity to permit the parties to recognize the issues sought to be litigated within this contention. In support of the contention, Amesbury asserts that the KLD ETE did not exist at the time of the February 1986 exercise, and that the exercise therefore has not been demonstrated to support a reasonable assurance finding under the Commission's regulations.
However, Amesbury fails to provide any indication as to the particular ETE-related matters which it contends were not sufficiently tested during the exercise, nor has it provided any indication as to how it believes the exercise results might have been affected if the KLD ETE (rather than the ETE previously incorporated in the plan) had been a part of the NHRERP at the time of the exercise. Accordingly, this contention should be rejected.
l l
l l
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Falls , Kensington, Rye and South Hampton, and by the Massachusetts Attorney General, NECNP and SAPL," dated March 14, 1986, at 3-8.
I I
gr- ~ . .
p
. Amesbury Contention 2 The TOA contends that the KLD ETE violates the planning standards of NUREG 0654, Appendix 4, II-A. -
Response
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention, concerning the accuracy of the permanent population estimates contained in the KLD ETE, on the grounds that Amesbury has failed to set forth a basis with specificity as required by 10 C.F.R. I 2.714. While Amesbury identifies a long list of population estimates which it contends are inaccurate, it has provided absolutely no facts or bases in support of this bald assertion.
Accordingly, the contention should be rejected.
Amesbury Contention 3 I
The TOA contends that the KLD ETE violates the planning standards of NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, II-B .
Response
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention, concerning the accuracy of the KLD transient population estimates. Amesbury has failed to identify the particular population estimates which it contends are inaccurate, nor has it provided any basis to support its assertion in this regard. Accordingly, the contention should be rejected.
Amesbury Contention 4 The TOA contends that the KLD ETE violates the planning standards of NUREG-0654, Appendix 4 II-C.
Response
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention, concerning the population estimate [s] for special facilities, for the reasons set forth in response to Amesbury Contention 3, supra.
.l
Amesbury Gontention 5 The TOA contends that the KLD ETE violates the planning standards of NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, II-C.
Response =
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention, concerning the means of transportation for special facilities populations, for the reasons set forth in response to Amesbury Contention 3, supra.
Amesbury Contention 6 The TOA contends that the KLD ETE violates 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) .
Response
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention, concerning the fact that the KLD ETE did not exist at the time of the February 1986 exercise, for the reasons set forth in response to Amesbury Contention 1, supra.
Amesbury Contention 7 The TOA contends that the KLD ETE violates 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1), and that primary responsibilities by State and local organizations have [not] been properly assigned or established , and that there are no provisions for response on a continuous basis.
Response
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention, concerning the KLD ETE's assignment of resnonsibilities to Massachusetts personnel and the availability of " personnel, cones, traffic guides and equipment" within the Messachusetts portion of the EPZ. While this matter is set forth with sufficient specificity and would normally be admissible for litigation, it is
E o
, not a proper matter for litigation in connection with the adequacy of the New Hampshire RERP. Rather, we believe that the matters framed for litigation within this contention should be litigated in connection with any emergency response plans for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ that may be submitted in the future.
Amesbury Contention 8 The TOA contends that the KLD ETE violates 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10) which calls for a range of protective actions within the plume er.posure EPZ.
Response
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention, concerning the non-existence of the KLD ETE at tl e time of the February 1986 exercise, and the assignment of responsibilities to Massachusetts personnel, for the reasons set forth in response to Amesbury Contentions 1 and 7, supra.
Amesbury's " Additional Bases for Contentions 1-8" In addition to the statements provided by Amesbury in support of each of its individual contentions, Amesbury has set forth a one-page discussion of " additional bases" which assertedly support the admission of all its contentions ( Amesbury, at 3-4). The Staff submits that this discussion fails to alter the non-admissibility of Amesbury's contentions, in that (a) it is unclear how the discussion relates to any particular contention, and (b) the "erMitional bases" consist entirely of vague or bald assertions that various aspects of the KLD ETE are deficient, without providing any specific factual allegation (basis) in support of those assertions. Accordingly, the Staff's conclusions concerning the non-admissibility of Amesbury's contentions are not affected by
[
t
- ----- _ _ , - - . - . - - . -,-_-.-__,__.-_..r y , . - ~ - - , - -
. Amesbury's' " additional bases". For these reasons, each of Amesbury's NIIRERP Revision 2 contentions should be rejected.
B. Town of Kensington -'-
The Town of Kensington has set forth a brief general discussion of the late filing criteria (Kensington, at [ unnumbered] 1-3), in support of four revised and two previously rejected contentions. With respect to Contentions 3 and 13 (filed on February 24, 1986 and rejected by the Board in Orders dated April 1 and 29, 1986), Kensington has failed to demonstrate good cause for the re-filing of these contentions at this time, nor has it set forth any additional bases to support the admission of these two contentions. Accordingly, Kensington's attempt to reassert these two contentions should be rejected.
Ilith respect to the four revised contentions, Kensington's discussion of the five factors is generally sufficient to demonstrate that, on balance, those contentions should be admitted if they otherwise satisfy the basis, specificity and other requirements pertaining to the admission of contentions in NRC proceedings. 8_/ The Staff's views with respect to each of these revised contentions are ns follows.
i 8/ Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Staff notes that it never i received formal service of Kensington's NHRERP Revision 2 conten-tions , and only indirectly received a copy thereof on December 16 through the NRC's computerized " RIDS" system . While the Staff here waives any objection to Kensington's failure to make proper i service of these contentions, the Staff may well move to strike or seek other relief upon any improper service of pleadings in the future.
i l
- - - - , - - ,.,,..---,...___..,--..,m- - - - - - - . , - , , , - . , - - - - , . - - - - - , - - , - - - - - - , - , , - , - , - - - _ - - < , -
. Kensington" Revised Contention 2 The NHRERP, Revision 2 for "TOK" does not provide for adequate notification, by the licensee, of State and local response organizations, and for notification of emergency response personnel by organizations, as required by 10 CFR - 50.47(b)(5). Provision for notification of the town emergency response organization is inadequate in that it depends upon notification through the Rockingham County dispatch.
Response
In support of this contention, Kensington states that the Town "will no longer be using the Rockingham County dispatch as of the end of 1986." (Kensington, at [ unnumbered] 4). In light of this assertion, the Staff does not oppose the revision of this contention, as to the means by which Kensington will recieve notification of an cmergency.
Kensington Revised Contention 4 The NIIRERP, Revision 2 for "TOK" does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, as required by 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), because the Kensington Elementary School provides inadequate radiological protection.
Response
The Staff does not oppose the revision of this previously admitted contention, which now reflects the existence of NHRERP Revision 2 and the particular shelter which is the subject of the contention.
Kensington Revised Contention 6 The NHRERP, Revision 2 for "TOK" does not provide adequate arrangements for effectively using assistance and resources as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3)
, because there are not appropriate letters of agreement
! to identify support organizations and other facilities which are to provide assistance.
I i
I
. . 1
Response
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this revised contention, limited to the specific bases proffered by Kensington in its support. The Staff notes that this contention *was previously admitted in part by the Board in its Orders of April 1 and 29,1986. In our view, Kensington's present revision of the contention does not exceed the scope of the contention as it was admitted at that time.
Kensington Revised Contention 20 The NIIRERP, Revision 2 for "TOK" does not provide for communications with contiguous State / local governments within the plume exposure pathway EPZ, as required by 10 CFR 50.47 App. E, E.(9)(a),
because provisions for communications with the State government are inadequate.
Response
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this revised contention, limited to the specific bases proffered by Kensington in its support.
This contention was admitted by the Board's Orders of April 1 and 29, 1986 and summary disposition was granted, in part, by the Board's Order of November 4,1986, "except for the need for a demonstration that the purchased communication package has been or is avalleble for installation in Kensington EOC." (Order, at 33). Kensington's present assertions that the Town has not " elected to accept only a portion of this equipment," and that it "has never refused equipment," relate to this issue, and are appropriate for litigation within the scope of the contention j as modified by the Board's Order of November 4,1986.
I ,
, C. Seacoa'st Anti-Pollution League SAPL has set forth a discussion of the five factors governing the admission of late-filed contentions (SAPL at 3-6), which demonstrates, on balance , that those factors favor the admission of SAPL's NHRERP Revision 2 contentions. Accordingly, the admission of those contentions should be evaluated in light of the basis , specificity and other requirements which pertain generally to the admission of contentions under 10 C.F.R. I 2.714.
As a preliminary matter, we note that SAPL realleges many of its previously filed contentions, and that it expressly reasserts "all points made in the original statements of basis" for those contentions, "except where expressly amended or deleted" (SAPL at 2). In this regard, the Staff relies upon its prior responses to SAPL's contentions. Further, to the extent that the Boar. has already ruled upon these contentions or upon particular basis statements offered in their support, those rulings continue in full force and effect, and no reason exists why the Board should reexamine those prior rulings. 8I -
In addition, SAPL here asserts (at pp. 2-3) that it joins in and adopts four contentions filed by the Town of Hampton on October 31, 1986 (Hampton Revised Contentions III, IV, VI and VIII). The Staff does not
-9/ Nonetheless, the Board should reexamine SAPL's prior statements of basis for Contention 31, upon which the Board has not yet ruled.
The Board's ruling on that contention appropriately should consider both SAPL's current and former statements of basis in support thereof.
F .
- f. .
. oppose the 'co-sponsorship of those contentions by SAPL, but incorporates by reference our response thereto, f!!ed on November 17, 1986. E I The Staff's views as to the admissibility of each of SAPL's Revision 2 contentions are as follows. -
SAPL Revised Contention 31 The evacuation time estimate report, as described in Volume 6 of NIIRERP Rev. 2 does not meet the require-ments of 10 CFR 550.47(a)(1), 550.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.2, II.J.10 i, 10 h , and 10 1, and Appendix 4 because it falls to account properly for the number of vehicles that would be evacuating the EPZ; relies in part upon unsupported assumptions; relies in part upon potentially biased input data; does not rely upon an extensive enough empirical base; relies upon traffic control personnel not shown to be available; does not appropriately account for travel impediments such an flooding, snow, for and icing of roadways; does not account for the effect of driver disobedience on evacuation time estimates (ETE's); does not appro-priately den) with topographical features; does not deal realistically with the transport of transit dependent persons; in some instances overestimates rondway capacity and, for all of these reasons, underestimates the amount of time it would take to evacuate the EPZ and its subparts " Regions") under the various scenarios analyzed.
~
10/ "NRC Staff's Response to Town of Ilampton's l'!cmorandum on 10 CFR 92.714(a)(1) and Contentions on NilRERP Revision 2," filed November 17,198C.
11/ As recited here, the wording of SAPL Contention 31 is the same as the wording of this contention as filed by SAPL on May 15, 1986, except thnt it (a) corrects two typographical errors; (b) substitutes a reference to NiiRERP Revision 2 in lieu of the prior reference to KLD irogress Reports 1-7; and (c) substitutes the phrase, "does not appropriately deal with topographient features" in lieu of the phrase, "does not include topographical maps."
Response
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention, limited to the specific bases proffered by SAPL in its support E except as to SAPL'r essertion that " sensitivity' tests" are needed as to certain matters (see SAPL f 10, at p.13; and T 16, at p.15). In this regard, SAPf.
fails to state what types of parameters or values it contends should be included in these tests, or the effect SAPL believes these parameters would have upon the ETEs. Further, these assertions constitute nothing
, more than SAPL's views as to what should go into an ETE, without providing any basis in support thereof. Accordingly, these assertions should be excluded from the litigation of this contention.
SAPL Contention 7 The New Hampshire State and local plans fail to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 550.47(b)(11),
150.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 K.5.b. and !!.J.12 because there has been no showing that the means of radiological decontamination of evacuee or emergency personnel, wounds, supplies and equipment have been established. Further, there has not been a clear showin that adequate means for waste disposal exist. gf
~
12/ As indicated above, this contention was previously filed by SAPL on May 15,1986 (supported by different banis statements), and has not yet been ruled upon by the Board.
~
13/ This revision of Contention 7 retains the wording of the contention as it was filed on May 15, 1986, except that the current iteration includes a reference to 10 C.F.R. f 50.47(b)(10). The Staff's initial response to this contention noted that the reference to I 50.47(b)(11) was inappropriate, and observed that it would be more proper to refer to I 50.47(b)(10).
- p. . . ,
Response
The Staff does not oppose the revision of this contention, I I except -
to the extent that it would require " letters of agreement committing the host community personnel" to monitor and decontaminate evaevec:, (SAPL at 17). While SAPL may be concerned about the availability of trained personnel to pcrform these duties at the reception centers, it has not provided any basis to support its s.pparent belief that sufficient numbers of host community personnel will not be available, or that letters of agreement for such individuals are required. Further, the Board has previously rejected a related assertion , in connection with SAPL Contention 15 . concerning a vague assertion that " letters of agreement with host communities" should be obtained. b In other respects, however, the Staff does not oppose the revision of this contention.
SAPL Contention _ _8 The New Hampshire State and local plans fall to meet the requirements that there be adequate manpower and 24-hour per day emergency response, including 24-hour per day manning of communications links, as required by 10 CFR 550.47(s)(1), ISO.47(b)(1), ISO.47(b)(2),
and NUREG-0654 II. A.1.e, II. A.4, and II.F.1.a.
_ Response
'"hc Staff does not oppose the revision of this contention, which was previously ndultted by the Board's Orders of April 1 and 29,1986, 14/ This contention was previously admitted by the Board in its Orders of April I and 29, 1986 (at pp. 85-86), although corteln limited issues weto Inter cycluded from the !!tigation of this contention by the Board's Order of November 4,1986 (at 25-26).
15/ "h!cmorandum and Order
~--
(Ituling on Late-Filed Contentions of Seaconst Anti-Pollution League)," dated hlay 21, 1986, at 7-8.
, SAPL Contehtfon 8A The New Ilampshire Compensatory Plan falls to meet the requirements that there be adequate manpower and 24-hour per day emergency response, including 24-hour per day manning of communications links, as required by 10 CFR 550.47(a)(1), 850 (b)(1), NUREG-0654 II. A.1.e, II. A.4, and II.F.1.a.
Response
The Staff does not oppose the revision of this contention, which was previously admitted by the Board's Order of May 21, 1986.
SAPL Contention 15 The letters of agreement that have been submitted by the N.H. Civil Defense Agency in Volume 5 of the State plan fall to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 550.47(c)(1), 150.47(b)(1), 850.47(b)(3),
850.47(b)(12), Appendix E.II.B. and NUREG-0654 II. A. 3. , II.C.4., and II. P. 4. because they do not demonstrate that adequate arrangements for requesting and effectively using assistance resources have been made, that the emergency responsibilities of the various supporting organizations have been specifically established, that each principal response organfration has staff to respond or to augment its initial response on a continuous basis, or that agreements are being reviewed and certified to be current on an annual basis as is required.
Reanonse The Staff does not oppose the revision of this contention, which was admitted in pert by the Board's Order of May 21, 1986.
SAPL Contention 16 The New llampahlre State and local plans do not make adequate provisions for the sheltering of various segments of the populace in the EPZ and therefore the
~
16/ We note that the wording of SAPh Contention 8A mirrors the wording of SAPL Contention 8, except that the compensatory Plan is addcased in lieu of the State and local plans, and a reference to 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b)(2) has been deleted.
r-
. plans fall to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 550.47(s)(1), 550.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.a and m.
Response
The Staff does not oppose the revision of this contention, which was admitted by the Board's Orders of April 1 and 29,1986.
SAPL Centention 18 The NifRERP Rev. 2 significantly miscalculates the numbers of non-auto owning population for the 17 New Hampshire local communities. No buses are provided in the plans for the individuals who are not accounted for due to these miscalculations. Therefore, these plans fall to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 550.47(a)(1),
550,47(h)(8), NUREG-0654 II.J.10.g and NUREG-0654 Appendix 4, p. 4-3.
Response
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this revised contention, limited to the specific bases offered in its support.
The Staff notes that this contention was initially admitted by the Board's Orders of Apr!! I cod 29, 1986, and was later dismissed on Applicants' motion for summary disposition (Order of November 4,1086, at 14-17). In its current submission, SAPL provides new bases which totally replace SAPL's previous basis statements. While the Ucard's Order dismissing this contention accepted Applicants' argument that it called for
" extraordinary measures" not required by the Commission's regulations, contrary to Applicants' apparent belief, b t he Board's prior finding 17/ " Applicants' Answer to Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Contentions on Itevision 2 of the New Ilampshire 1(adiololrical I:mergency !!csponse Plan," dated December 10, 1986 (" Applicants' Response to SAPL"),
at 8.
I Je bears no reasonable relationship to the contention in its present form.
Accordingly, the Staff does not oppose the admission of this revised contention.
SAPL Contention 25 The New Hampshire State and local radiological emer-gency response plans do not reasonably assure that the public health and safety will adequately be protected because the provisions for protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to tuch factors as institutional or other confinement are patently lacking.
Therefore, the plant do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR $50.47(c)(1), 150.47(b)(0) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10 d.
Response
The Ftsff does not oppose the admission of this contention, limited to the specific bases presently offered by SAPL in its support.
The Staff notes that, like SAPL Contention 18 discussed above, this contention was initially admitted by the Board's Orders of April 1 and 29, 1986, and was later dismissed on Appilcants' motion for summary disposition (Order of November 4,1CPC, at 14-17). Ilowever, SAPL now provides new bases in support of the contention, which satisfy the requirements governing the admissibility of contentions. As presently stated, the contentica raires issues different from those which were cited by the Hoard in dismissing this contention, and the Board's prior ruling dismissing the contention bears no relationship to the contention in its prcrent form. Accordingly, the Staff does not oppose the admission of this revised contention.
PAPL Contention 33 Contrary to the requirements of 10 CFH $50.47(c)(1),
150.47(b)(8), 850.47(b)(9), 150.47(b)(10) and
l>
o ;
IftJREG-0854 II.J.12, there is no showing that NHRERP Rev. 2 provides adequately for the registration and monitoring of evacuees at reception centers within about a 12-hour period.
Response
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention, concerning the availability of decontamination and reception facilities for i "all evacuees seeking assistance" (SAPL, at 29), _f . e . , for those EPZ evacuees who choose to utilize the decontamination and reception centers.
Contrary to Applicants' apparent belief, El this contention does not assert that the reception centers must be able to accommodate all evacuees !
from the EPZ. EI Rather, it raises a more limited, admissible issue, consistent with the language of NUREG-0654, 0 !!.J.12. EI i 1_00 / See Applicants' Response to SAPL, at 9. ,
~
19/ As the Applicants observe. the Board has previously rejected a related contention, SAPL Contention 3. (Applicants' Response to SAPL, at 9). The Applicants err, however, in assertinF that the Instant contention raises an impermissible issue and that it should be rejected on the grounds that there is no " regulatory requirement for relocation centers to be able to provide for all evacuees who leave l the EPZ" (id.). No such issue is raised by the contention, and the Applicants' reliance on these grounds for rejecting the contention is simply misplaced. (
20/ A recent deciolon by the Appeal Hoard provides e sigmificant t
interpretation of NUREG-0654, O!!.J.12, in which it held thet !
provisions must be made for monitoring and decontaminating all evacuees frort the EPZ who may seek such assistance, not just for 1 thoue evacuees who may seek assistance in f!nding shelter.
Long taland Lightin Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ;
ALAB-555, 24 (December 12, 1986) (slip op. At 17-18). t The Appeal Board leff"~open the question of what porcentage of the EPZ population should ho expected to seek radiological monitoring and decontamination assistance, as a matter appropriate for ,
ovidentiary pmof in the proceeding (_id., at 18): FEMA testimony ;
submitted in that proceeding supportei!" a reception center utili- !
sation factor of 201.
i
SAPL Contehtlon 34 The New Hampshire State anr1 local plans do not meet the requirements that there be maps showing the population distribution around the facility as required at NUREG-0654 .T.10.b and Appendix 4. Therefore, there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken pursuant to 10 CFR 950.47(a)(1) and 150.47(b)(10).
Response
The Staff doce not oppose the admission of this contention, as to alleged inaccuracies in the permanent and transient population estimates utilized in NHRFRP Revision 2.
SAPL Contention 35 N!!RERP Rev. 2 does not meet the requirements of 10 CPR 150.47(a)(1), 150.47(b)(7), 850.47(b)(9),
150.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 !!.G.1 (and its nubsections) and II.J.12 because the public Information material does not instruct the public to go to reception centers for monitoring if there is any danger they have been in the plume exposure aren. ;
Responnee The htaff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that the purported deficiencica in the informationn! materials do not appear to have occurred for the first timo in Revlalon 2 to the NHRERP, and SAPL han failed to demonntrato good cause for not raising this lasuo sooner.
SAPT, Contention 36 The authorftles (legal bases), responsibilities and concept of operationa betecen the Town of Salisbury, Massachusetts and the State of New llampshiro 1:mergency Response Organi::ation has not been act forth in a written agreement or in any way assured though the New llampshire plans rely upon responso actions by the Snllabury Police. This la contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 550.47(a)(1), 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E. Sections !!.A.8 and NUREG-0054 A.2.b. , !!. A.3 and II.E.1.
w .
i l-Response
- The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention, concerning New Hampshire's relfance on services to be performed by the Salisbury, ltlassachusetts police department, as contained in the plans for the towns of Ilampton and Seabrook.
SAPL Contention 37 The N!!RERP Rev. 2 feita to provide reasonable assurance of adequato public protection because an adequate number of emergency vehicles are not provided for in the plans and further there la no assurance that effective ute of these vehicles will be possible in view of a potential outgoing flow of evacuating traffic and a significant lack of drivers.
Therefore, thern plans do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 850.47(a)(1), 150.47(b)(3), 150.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.g. and II.J.10.k.
Response
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention ,
concerning the availability of evacuation vehicles and drivers for persons requiring tranrport anslatance, and the !!kelihood that trant: port vehicles will be able to traverse the RPZ fn order to reach their designated areas in the ovent of an emergency.
D. New England Coalltfon on Nuclear Pollution NUCNP nets forth a detailed discunston of the five factors governing the admission of late-filed contentione, which, on balanen, favors the adminston of itu !!evision 2 cententions. Accordingly, those contentions nhould be admitted to the extent that they satinfy the basis, speelfielty and other requirements for the admission of contentionn in NRC adjudi-l l
o catory proceedings. The Staff's views with respect to the admissibility of each of NECNP's Revision 2 contentions are as follows.
NECNP Amendments to Contention RERP-8 This contention, concerning the adequacy of sheltering provisions in the plans, was admitted by the Board's Orders of April 1 and 29,1986, as to basis items (a) and (b). MECNP here seeks to amend the bases for this contention, by making a slight modification to basis itsni (a), and by providing new basis items (d), (e) and (f) (NECNP, at 7-13). The Staff rioes not oppose NECNP's modification of the bases for the contention.
NECNP Amendments to Contention NHLP-8 This contention was admitted in its entirety by the Board's Orders of April 1 and 20,1986, without opposition by other parties. NECNP now seeks to amend the bases for the contention, by revising baals item (a),
and by proposing new basis itemn (b) through (c) to repince all other prior basis statements (NECNP, at 13-17). The Staff does not oppose NECNP's modification of this contention, limited to the specific examples provided by NECNP in its support.
NECNP Contention HP-1 Tho host plans for Manchester. Dover, Salem , and Rochester, do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR Sections 50.47(a), 50.47(b)(8), (10), (11), and (13),
or NUREG-0695 (sic) Sections J.12 and K.5.b.
Response
'ihe Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention, except to the extent that NECNP's basis asserts (a) that all evacuees of the EPZ should be required to proceed to relocation centers to be monitored and decontaminated (NECNP at 21, f c) (b) that evacueen at the relocation centers are likely to abanden the centorn prior to being monitored and
decontaminated (id., at 18-19); and (c) that relocation centers should be required to communicate lists of registered evacuees with other host facilities (id. , at 23,1 i).
The first of these assertione,- as to the need to require all evacuees to go to the relocation centers, constitutes nothing more than NECNP's personal views as to what applicable policy ought to be, and is not supported by applicable regulatory requirements or guidance. See NtJREG-0054. I !!.J.12 ("the personnel and equipraent available should be capable of monitoring within about a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period all residents and transients in the plume exposure EPZ arriving at relocation centers")
(emphasis added). 2,1/ The third assertion, concerning the need for communication among relocation centers of lists of the EPZ evacuees utilizing their services, similarly constituten NFCNP's personal views as to what applicable policy ought to be, and is not supported by regulatory or factual basis. As to the second assertion, concerning the evacuees' potential abandonment of relocation centers due to dcInys in processing, NFCNP's assertions consist of nothing riore than unsupported speculation.
Accordingly, these portions of the contention should be rejected.
NECNP's Adoption of linmpton Contentions NECNP socks to adopt the Town of !!ampton's contentions filed on October 31,1000 (NEC P, at 23-24). Ilowever, NECNP seeks to broaden those contentions substantially by rendering them applicable to all of the New flampshire emergency plans rather than jur,t the plan for the Town of
!!ampton. The Staff opposes NECNP's adoption of this contention in the 21/ Hee n. 20, supra.
-.,r --
4 -
1 I
rr.anner probosed by NECNP, on the grounds that it is unsupported by any demonstration of basis as required by 10 C.F.R. 12.714. In addition , the Staff incorporaten by reference our prior response to llampton's Revision 2 contentions, f!!ed on November 17, 1986 (see n. 10, supra) .
CONCLUSION The Staff suhrnits that certain of the NilHERP Revision 2 contentions filed by tho Town of Amesbury, the Town of Kensington, SAPL and NECNP should be admitted to the eFlent set forth above, llespectfully submitted,
[w b Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th dey of December,1986 i
0-O D0L HrIFI UNITED STATE 8 OF APfERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'86 DEC 23 P3 :02 BEFORE THE ATOMIC BAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E0'Ci ' m '. "Ii in the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUDLIC NERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL NEW HAMPS!!!RE, el al,. ) Off-site Emergency
) Planning Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 )
CERTIFICATE OF FERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS ON NHRERP HEVISION 2 FILED BY TOWN OF AMESRURY, TOWN OF MENSINOTON, SAPL AND NECNP" in the above-captioned poceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mall, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mall system, or an indicated by double anterisks, by express mn!!, this 19th day of December,1986.
llelen Hoyt. Esq. , Chairman
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. . ferry Harbour
- Ms. Carol Sneider, Esq.**
Administrative Judre Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney Oeneral U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commlanton One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Beverly llollingworth Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
209 Winnacunnet Road New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency llampton, NII 03842 107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Sandra Oavutta, Chairman" Calvin A. Canney, City Manager Board of Selectmen City Hall RFD 1 Rox 1154 120 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, Nil 03801
G Stephen E. Eferrill Paul BicEachern, Esq."
Attorney General Matthew T. Drock, Esq.
Ocorge Dana Diabee" Shnines a McEachern Assistant Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Office of the Attorney General P.O. Dox 360 25 Capitol Street Portsmouth, Nil 03801 Concord, NII 03301 Roberta C. Povent Angle Machiros, Chairman State Representative Doard of Selectmen Town of !!ampton Falls 25 Illgh Pond Drinkwater Road Newbury, MA 00150 llampton ralls, Nil 03844 Allen Lampert Mr. Robert J. Ilarrison Civil Defense Director President and Chief Executivo Officer Town of Drentwood Public Service Co. of New llampshire 20 Franklin Street P.O. Dox 330 Exeter, NH 03833 Manchester, Nil 03105 Charles P. Ornham, Esq. Robert A. Unckus, Esq."
Meliny, Murphy and Graham Hackus, Meyer & Solomon 100 Main Street 116 Lowell Street Amesbury, MA 01013 Manchester, Nil 03100 Diane Curran Eng.** Philip Ahren, Esq.
Ilarmon & Welsa Assistant Attorney General ,
20018 Street, NW Offlee of the Attorney General Suite 430 State !!ouse Station #6 Washington, DC 20000 Augusta, ME 04333 Edward A. Thomas" Thomas 0. Dignan Jr., Eng."
Federal Emergency Managemont Agency Ropen & Gray 442 J.F. McCormsek (POCil) 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02100 Poston, MA 02110 II.J. Flynn, Esq. William Armstrong Anslutant General Counsel Civil Defense Director redernt Emergency Manngemont Agency Town of Exeter 500 C Street, SW 10 Front Street WashinFton, DC 20472 Exeter, Nil 03833 Atomic Safety and Lleeneing Atomic Snfety and Licensing Appeal Panel
- Ilonrd' U.S. liucionr Regulatory Commission 11.8. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss!on hushington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
I o
Jane Doughty" Docketing and Service section*
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Office of the Secretary 5 Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisalon Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Maynard L. Young, Chairman William 8. Lord **
Board of Selectmen --
Board of 8electmen 10 Central Road Town Hall - Friend Street South Hampton, NH 03287 Amesbury, MA 01913 Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Peter J. Matthews, Mayot-Hoard of Selectmen City ifall 11outh Hampton, NH 03287 Newburyport, MN 09150 f.fr. Robert Carrigg, Chairman Judith H. Misner, Esq.
Board of Molectmen S!!verglate, Certner, Haker Town Office Fine and Good Atlantic Avenun 88 Broad Street North flampton, NH 03862 Hoston, MA 02110 R. K. Und !!!, Esq. Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Ropen a Gray Board of Selectmen 225 Franklin Street 13-15 Newmarket Road Hoston, MN 02110 Durham, Nil 03824 Cary W. Holmes, Eng.
Ifolmen & Ellis 47 Winnacunnet Road llampton, Hil 03842 ll44M /
10ierwin z. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney l
l
- ___