ML20207C404
| ML20207C404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1986 |
| From: | Brock M, Mceachern P HAMPTON, NH, SHAINES & MCEACHERN |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-2009 OL, NUDOCS 8612300138 | |
| Download: ML20207C404 (19) | |
Text
r
.2069' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0%'30 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE T11Ll ATOMIC SAFETY M LICENSING BbR CC M"'
In the matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket No.
50-443-OL NEW 11AMPSIIIRE, et al 50-444-OL Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 TOWN E IIAMPTON REPLY 20 APPLICANTS' E STAFF RESPONSES TO TOWN E IIAMPTON CONTENTIDflS NOW COMES the Town of flampton, pursuant to this Board's order of December 4,1986, and replies to the responses of the Applicant and Staf f to the contentions of the Town of Ilampton submitted to this Board on Revipion 2 of the New llampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan A.
REVISED CONTENTION III The evacuation time estimate study (ETE) prepared by KLD Associates, Inc., Revision 2, Volume 6 is based upon inadequate and biased factual data and unreasonable or misleading assumptions, fails to comply with NRC regulations, and f ails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken, or that adequate facilities, equipment, or personnel w ill be provided to the Town of flampton in the event of radiological emergency.
10 CPR Section 5 0.4 7 (a ) (1),
(b) (1) (10);
New Reg.- 0654 App. 4.
ISEE MEMORANDUM ON 10 CPR SECTION 2.714(a)(1) AND CONTENTIONS OF Tile TOWN OP llAMPTON TO NEW liAMPSIIIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN REVISION 2, FILED OCTOBER 31, 1986; TOWN OP llAMPTON SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM ON 10 CPR SECTION 2.714(a)(1) AND CONTENTIONS OF TIIE TOWN OP llAMPTON TO NEW llAMPSilIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PL AN REVISION 2, FILED NOVEMBER 19, 1986; AND TOWN OP llAMPTON SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM ON 10 CPR SECTION 2.714(a)(1) AND CONTENTIONS OF TIIE TOWN OP ll AM PTON TO NEW ll AM PSilIRE RADIOLOGICAL E M ERG ENCY RESPONSE PLAN REVISION 2, FILED NOVEMBER 26 1986.
0612300130 861222 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0
FDR c503 SH AINE S & Mc E ACHE PtN. en.ws.
mas a.=m.aten eene..
- a. m am s e.mn, a ve w.
p o so sea enet.=ng.,
es.n.
The Staf f does not oppose admission of thin revised contention "provided its litigation is limited to the spacific bases of fered by the Town in suppor t thereof."
See NRC staf f's response to Town of Ilampton's Memorandum on 10 CPR Section 2.714(a)(1) and contentions on MIRERP revision 2 dated November 17, 1986.
The Appl icant claims that Revised Contention III should be excluded solely on grounds that "all that NRC regulations require is the preparation of ETES by Applicants".
See Applicants' Answer to Contentionu of the Town of flampton to New flampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan Revision 2 dated November 14, 1986 at pg. 3.
This argument was previously submitted by Applicant to this Board, the NRC staff specifically recommended that Appl icants' tion was unsupported by law and should be rejected by the Board, gosi-and this Board agreed with the staff.
See MEMORANDUM IN ORDER dated April 29,19 86 at pgs. 4 and 5.
Por reasons previously advanced by the NRC staff, this Board should again reject applicant's argument and admit revised Contention III for litigation before this Board.
B.
REVISED CONTENTION IV Revision 2 fails to, prov ide adequate emergency equipment, f ails to demonstrate that adequate protective responses can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency, and f ails to correct deficiencies in emergency response ca? abilities apparent f rom the emergency exercise.
10 CPR Sect:.on 50.47 (b) (1) (8) (10) (14).
Contention IV was previously admitted for litigation by order of this Board dated April 29, 1986.
Generally, the Staf f does not oppose admission of the Revised Contention IV " limited to the matters raised by N!!RERP Revisions".
The Staff's objections to admission are limited to those issues raised by the Town in Revised Contention IV concerning a lack of letter agreements in the NilRERP with school teachers and bus drivers.
See Staff response, 11/17/86, page 4 note 6.
The basis f or the Staf f's objection is that "the Town has f ailed to demonstrate good cause for not raising those matters earlier, f ollowing publication of NIIRERP revision 1".
Note 6 Supra.
2 See NRC Staf f's Response to Contentions filed by Towns of flampton, llampton Palls, Kensington, Rye and South flampton and by the Massachusetts Attorney General, NECNP and SAPL dated 3/14/86 at pgs.
5-11, attached hereto.
2 SH AINE 9 4 Mc E ACHFMN
- pn.eeeennes a.ein.a,=ps ae,<m=e ve e, nam e e,.. o a ve s us s e sus sao er,mesmew = s een
The Staf f overlooks, however, that the Town previously raised a lack of letter agreemencs with Hampton school teachers as a signif1-3 cant deficiency of the NHRERP Additionaly, with respect to the Town's issue concerning a lack of letter agreen.ents with bus drivers, the NHRERP under Revision 2 altered the original method for allocating evacuation buses to the Town of Hampton.
Previously, two specific bus companies were identi-fled and could be readily contacted, to provide service to the Town in the event of an emergency.
Under Revision 2 the State relies upon a bus pool where buses will be assigned to Hampton on an adhoc basis.
Necessarily this represents a substantial change f rom the original plan and the issue of identifying individual bus drivers who are in f act committed to providing bus service in the event of evpcuation thereby becomes a new and significant issue for litigation.
The Applicant objects to admission of the entire revised Conton-tion IV on grounds "this expands the contention to cover the whole NilRERP rather than the TOli portion thereof".
Applicants' answers to contentions of the Town of Hampton to NHRERP Revision 2 dated November 14, 1986 at pg. 5.
The Applicant proceeds to object that Revised Contention IV "does not restrict the concept of inadequate equipment to the problem of evacuation, adds the concept of " adequate response" and adds the allegation about f ailure to correct deficiencies observed during the exercise.
Only the last of these 3 additions can be said to arise solely out of Revision 2".
Applicant response at supra, at pg. 5.
Applicants objections are vague and without merit.
If Appli-cants objection includes the f act that the Town of flampton has now addressed, through revised Contention IV, the total number of buses and bus drivers required for evacuation, rather than focusing only on those buses and drivers f or llampton, this change has been necessitated by changes in the NilRERP.
As previously discussed, the NilRERP has 3 See CONTENTIONS OF Tile TOWN OP llAMPTON TO REVISE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN AND TO COMPENSATORY PLAN FOR TIIE TOWN OF
!!AMPTON, NEW llAMPSilIRE dated April 11, 1986 at pg. 7.
"(No letters of agreement have boon filed indicating any willingness on the part of these individuals)(local school officials) to participate in, or accept responsibility f or, thenc mandated responsibilities under the compensatory plan".
4The Town could not reasonably be expected to raise this issue f ollowing receipt of Revision 1 since the State had already advised Revision 2 and did not consti-that Revision 1 would be superceded by/06 letter of Richard Strome, tute the operative NIIRERP.
Esc 6/3 NitCOA, to llenty Vickens, FEMA.
3 i
ena me o a we acnr ns.....................
......,...m.
...e..
modified the original plan and now assigns evacuation buses on an adhoc basis.
Necessarily this change has required Hampton to focus on the broader allocation of buses and drivers since all towns will be sharing from the same pool.
Applicant seeks to exclude that portion of revised Contention IV which addresses deficiences in the special needs population survey for the Town, revised Contention IV, Page 20, on grounds this Board has previously addressed this issue through summary disposition in its November 4, 1986 order.
See Order at pga. 16 and 17.
Appl ica nt s overlook the fact that the State itself has now admitted the inadequacy of its own survey since it increased by 50% the transporta-tion allocation f or the special needs populations f or all towns, in view of the "small sample sizes" received f rom each community.
RAC review August, 1986 Section VI, Page 6.
As the RAC pointed out, h ow ever, no statistical justification has been provided by the state for this 50% increase.
jita, RAC review, August, 1986,Section IV, Page 6 and discussion in Revised Contention IV, Page 21.
Accordingly, through its discussions with the RAC, the state has now wholly discredited its own survey and the Strome af fidavit which formed the basis for the Board's summary disposition ruling in its November 4, 1986 Order.
The Town would also point out that the staf f previously, and correctly, opposed summary disposition on the SAPL and NECNP contentions addressing special needs populations.
At no time, however, did the Applicant ever obtain summary disposition against the Tsyn si llamoton on this issue.
The Town has therefore timely and properly raised all issues set f orth in Revised Contention IV.
The contention should therefore be admitted for litigation.
C.
REVISED CONTENTION yl f'
" Revision 2 failn to demonstrate that adequate personnel are available to respond, or to augment their initial response on a continuous basis, in the event of radiological emergency.
10 CPR Section 50.47 (b) (1) (10)."
This Board previously admitted for litigation Hampton Contentions VI by order of April 29, 1986.
L
[
t 4
l s><a m e e a w r ac e c a s.....,...........~,.
Generally, the staf f does not oppose admission of the revisions to Contention VI presently proffered by the Town.
See staf f response, Supra., at page 5.
The staf f's only objection is limited to that portion of revised Contention VI which primarily addresses the exces-sive duties assigned to llampton of ficials under the NHRERP.
See Staff response, supIA,
- p. 5 Note 8.
The Staf f claims these issues were raised for the first time by the Town in response to Revision 2.
The Staff has thereby failed to consider that substantially identical issues wgre raised by the Town in earlier contentions filed with this Board.
Applicant opposes admission of the entire revised Contention VI on grounds the contention "now runs to the whole NilRERP and is not confined to the TOH portion thereof".
Applicant response, supra., at page 6.
Beyond this vague objection, Applicant of f ers no grounds to reject the contention.
Appl ica n t s' objection ignores the fact that deficiencies in personnel directing the evacuation, whether from within or without the llampton Town Limits, obviously and substantially impact on whether llampton residents can evacuate the EPZ with reasonable promptneon and safety.
SSoc CONTENTIONS OF Tile TOWN OP llAMPTON TO RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN POR Tile TOWN OP llAMPTON, NEW llAMPSilIRE NOVEMBER 1985, CONTENTION VI, PAGES 10 AND 11. (e.g.) " Plainly the limited Staf f of 17 in the Public Works Department who are f amiliar with highway and transportation problema are wholly inadequate to ensure the transpor-tation of the thousands of individuals who may be located on the beach at the time evacuation in impicmented, even assuming this was the sole function to be performed by the department in the event of radiologi-cal emergency.
The additional and subatantial dution of the department to canvan the town and direct evacuation of special needs individuala, familien, vacationers and other non auto individuals merely underscores the groan inadequacy of local public works personnel to meet their responsibilition under the RERP.
See CONTENTIONS OF Ti!E TOWN OP !!AMPTON TO REVISED RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PL AN AND TO COMPENSATORY PLAN POR Tile TOWN OP llAMPTON, NEW liAMPSilIRE dated April 11,19 86 at pga. 5-7. (eg.) Under the revised llampton RERP, the dution and responoibilitico of the Town Manager and the Town Civil Defence Director have been expanded...
accordingly, the emergency administrative responnibilition placed upon the ningic individual for the Town of flampton are wholly unreasonabic and far exceed the abilition of one percon, however capable."
5 BH AINF S A W F AC HE HN
.a ee...a.
..==..ma. mew.,
Revised Contention VI otherwise speaks for itself, the issues are timely raised and the Revised Contention should be admitted for liti-i gation.
i D.
REVISED CONTENTION VIII l
Revision 2 fails to provide adequate emergency, equipment, facilities, or personnel to support an emergency response and f ails to demonst rate that adequate protective responses can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency.
10 CFR Section 50.47 (b) (1) (8) (10).
Hampton Contention VIII was previously admitted by this Board for litigation under order of April 29, 1986.
The staff does not oppose admission of the revisions to Contention VIII presently offered by the Town.
Appl icant objects to admission of the entire revised Contention
- VIII, although the basis for objection remains vague.
The Town again relies upon the language of the contention as drafted.
The Contention substantially concerns the FEMA, final exercise assessment, 6/2/86 and i
RAC Review August 1986, which outline certain deficiencies directly relevant to the llampton Scacoast Ilealth center.
Since the state indicated that Revision 2 would be draf ted to correct these deficien-cies, See Strome letter supra., yet f ailed to do so, the Town could not be expected to file contentions on those issues until receipt of Revision 2, and promptly did so thereafter.
Revised Contention VIII should be admitted for litigation.
l E.
IIAMPTON SUPPLEMENTS TO REVISED CONTENTIONS flampton filed suppicments to its revised contentions. g86, the Town of On November 19, 1986, and again on November 26, i The Staff does not oppose admission of flampton Supplement to l
Revised Contention III.
See staf f response 12/5/86 at pg. 2.
The l
l 0
Soc TOWN OP llAMPTON SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM ON 10 CPR Section l
2.714 (a)(1) filed November 19,19 86 ; AND CONTENTIONS OF Tile TOWN OF IIAMPTON TO NEW llAMPSilIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN RLVISION l
2; SEE ALSO TOWN OP llAMPTON SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM ON 10 CPR SECTION 2.714 (a)(1) filed November 26, 1986.
6 s.4 a m a e a w. c ac >< a em........................
1 Staff does object, however, to admission of that portion of the Hampton Supplement on Revised Contention VI which alleges that the Emergency Exercise was deficient since the exercise was not coordi-nated with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Town suggests that lack of a coordinated exercise cannot support predictive findings of reasonable assurance of protection to the population.
See NUREG -
06 54 pgs.19-2 4.
The Town further states that all issues regarding the emergency exercise could not reasonably be expected to be raised until Intervenors were in receipt of FEMA and RAC exercise reviews.
With respect to the Staff's objection to Hampton's second supple-ment, which adopts and incorporates the contentions of SAPL and NECNP on Revision 2, necessarily the Town could not file the supplement sooner since the subject SAPL and NECNP contentions had not yet been filed with the Board.
The town f urther stntes that there is no legal basis for denying Hampton the right to join in and fully participate in the litigation of contentions filed by other intervenors to this proceeding.
The staff has attempted to impose a burdeg upon Hampton which does not exist in law.
10 CFR Section 2.715 (c)
Dated:
December 22, 1986 Respectf ully submittted, SHAINES & McEACHERN Attorneys for the Town of Hampton l
l By:
I8 PduY~McE6chern By:
m Mhtthew T. Brock i
7 Applicant has wholly failed to of fer any specific reason for its objection to the Town'u prof erred supplemento and the objections i
chould therefore be disminsed out of hand.
7 t
l
....,~.. m..c,,,~. _..........,_......
l 5-
/
/
plans for the Seabrook Station.
The Town of Hampton has neither asserted nor provided reason to believe that the emergency plan submitted for the Town is invalid or incapable of being implemented.
(
/
While such a showing could, conceivably, have been made by demon-Yp strating that a court of general jurisdiction has so ruled or by a prima l
L,
[
facie showing that specific statutory provisions render the plan invalid, no such demonstration has been made by the Tow Rather, the sole authority cited by the Town is a statutory provision which indicates that the State Civil Defense Agency "shall in cooperation with affected local units of government, initiate and carry out a nuclear emergency response plan".
This provision, on its face, simply does not provide support for the Town's assertion that the State has violated New Hampshire law or that the Town's emergency plan cannot be implemented under State law. O Accordingly, this contention should be rejected.
Hampton Contention III The Evacuation Time Study for the Hampton RERP is based upon faulty assumptions and inaccurate factual date and thereby fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective actions can be imp'emented, or that adequate facilities and equipment will be provided,
in the event of radiological emergency.
10 CFR, Section 50.47(8), (10).
On the contrary, the Attorney General for the State of New 4/
llampshire, Environmental Protection Bureau, has cited authority for
~~
the proposition that the State's planning procesa la consistent with New Plampshire law.
See Vernet v. Town of_ Exeter, Rockingham County Superior Court, Ko. 56-E-04 (Feb.14, 1986), appended to
~
"The State of New llampshire's Response to contentions Filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Towns of Rye,
- NECNP, Hampton, South Hampton, Kensington, and Hampton Falls on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan" ("New Ilampshire Response"), filed March 6,1986.
/
Staff Response This contention satisfies the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 82.714 and, in other circumstances, would be admlasible.
However, the Staff recommends that this contention be deferred for the present time, in light of the fact the State of New Hampshire has stated
- study, that it will soon submit a new evacuation time estimate (ETE) prepared by KLD Associates, which it intends to incorporate in the offsite emergency plans in lieu of the ETE upon which it had previously relied 5,/ The reasons for this recommendation are as follows.
10 C.F.R. II 50.33(g) and 50.34(b)(6)(v) require operating license appilcants to submit radiological emergency response plans of their own, as well as those "of State and local governmental entitles... that are wholly or partially within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10), both the onsite and
' Zone (EPZ)."
1 offsite emergency plans must meet the following standardt 1
(10) a range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for Guidelines for emergency workers and the public.
the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are developed and l
in place....
l 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix E I IV further provides thats The Staff has been informed that the KLD study is expected to be completed this month, and that approval by the State of New 5/
Hampshire could be rendered soon thereafter.
The State has l
acknowledged that it intends to utilise the KLD materials "to supercede the previous ETE studies prepared by CLD " and that "the adoption of the KLD work by New Hampshire leads to some l
short-term inconsistencies in planning documents.... based upon the earlier CLD work."
Letter from Richard H. Strome (Director, Hampshire Civil Defense Agency),
to Henry O.
Vickers New 18, 1986.
r (Regional Director, FEMA Region 1), dated February l
i i
ei
. 4
/ The nuclear power reactor operating license applicant shall also provide an analysis of the time required to evacuate and for taking other protective actions for various sectors and distances within the plume e1posure pa ay EPZ for transient and permanent populations.
Guidance as to the means for complying with these regulatory requirements is contained in NUREG-0854.
Guidance criteria for complianfo tith planning' standard (b)(10), recited above, are provided, in part,]In NUREG-0654, ' Sections II.J.8 and II.J.10, as follows:
s
,') evacuation within8. Each licenseV's plan shall contain time estimates for the plume exposure EPZ.
These jahall be Jg accordance with Appendix 4
,1 y,
10! 'The organlaution's plans to implement protective measures for the plume exposure pathway shall r f,ic' lude:
eee 9
(If, Time en.tinistes for evacuation of various sectors and distances based on a dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditions) for the plume cxposure pathway planning sone (See Appendix 4).... gmergency p.
Responsibility', for compliance with criterion !!.J.8 is assigned to the licensees howkver, reapensibility for compliance with criterion !!.J.10 is if assigned to the State, add local governments.
Sej NUREG-0654, at 61 and 1
- 63. '
r M
J [.
8i With resp. set to construction permit applicants,10 C.F.R. Part 50, l,
~,
Appendix 11, I !!.0 requires applicants to submit a " preliminary
analysis" of' the tfme required to conduct an evacuation, " noting major impedime.its to'the evacuation or taking of protective actions."
JJ Appendix 4 to NUMEO-0654, entitled " Evacuation Time Estimates Within the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone,"
provides more specific guidance as to "what shall be included in an avacuation timen assesament study and how it might be presented."
T f
8-i These provisions make it clear that both the licensee's and the State and local plans are to contain an evacuation' time estimate. While a single ETE is normally submitted by an applicant on be' half of itself and the s
offsite authorities, the submittal of an ETE byf a applicant as part of its onsite plan does not satisfy the provision tSat an ETE is also to be submitted as part of the effsite plans, ' '
without ' providing some other means of satisfying federal regulations. This is no mere technicality. As noted in Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654 (at 4-1):
"... the evacuation time
' estimates will be used by those emergency response personnel charged-
' with recommending and deciding on protective actions during an emergency...."
In sum, offsit'e authorities are expected to designate an ETE because they (like the Applicant) are responsible for formulating appropriate protective action recommendations which, of necessity, would rely in part upon an ETE.
The Applicants note that Commission regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E) specifically require applicants to submit an ETE, and include no specific requirement that offsite authorities submit an ETE.
The Applicants argue that no such requirement exists, apparently relying on a principle of construction that "expressio unius est exclusio alterius"
.s l
I 8/
NUREG-0654, Appendix 4,
states that "[a] review of the draft submittal by the principal organizations (State'and local) involved'in emergency response for the site shall be solicited and comments resulting from such review included with the submittal."
I d_., at 4-10.
't o"*
-p_
(expression of one thing is the exclusion of another). U However, that argument ignores the fact that 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b)(10) requires that a range of protective actions be developed, and that " guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal 3
- guidance" be developed and in place.
As set forth in relevant Federal guidance (NUREG-0654, 5 II.J.(10)(1)), compliance with the regulatory requirement 'ststed in 5 50.47(b)(10) may be demonstrated, in part, by the provision of an ETE in the offsite plans; in the absence of ar. ETE, eq.
the affected organizations must demonstrate some alternate means of
(
4 A
1 k
9/
" Applicants' Response to Off-Site Contentions Submitted by Town of
~~
Hampton (New Hampshire State and Local Plans)"
(" Response to Hampton") ds2ted March 5, 1986, at 13-14.
The Applicants contend that "while New Hampshire may determine to employ its own ETEs, this Board is limited to litigation of matters required by the L
Commission's regulations."
(id., at 13.)
Further, they assert that l
they have already submitted iin ETE as part of their on-site plan, and that the only ' ETE that is " fair game for litigation in these proceedings is the set that has already been litigated" (Id., at 15; I
emphasis added).
l Two conclusions may be drawn frorn the Applicants' argument.
First, the Applicants apparently believe it doesn't matter that they i
and the State may rely on different ETEs in formulating protective l
action recommendations during an cmergency; and, second, the Applicants apparently believe that the litigation of ETE issues in this proceeding need have no relation to the ETE which would actually be utilized in an emergency.
The first of these apparent beliefs ignores the fact that reliance by responsible authorities on different, possibly inconsistent, ETEs may result in inappropriate or untimely protective actions being taken during an emergency; this result is plainly inconsistent with NRC/ FEMA guidance that integrated emergency planning provides the best protection of the public health and safety in an emergency.
As to the Applicants' second apparent
- belief, plainly, this Board must look at the reality of the situation, and must consider the offsite authorities' ETE if it is different from the ETE to be utilized by the Applicants.
I
=
l
/ compliance with the regulations. E Accordingly, the Applicants' reliance on Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAD-781, 20 NRC 819, 829-33 (1984), is misplaced. N While Hampton Contention III satisfies the basis and specificity requi:ements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714 and otherwise sets forth an admissible issue for litigation, certain procedural questions arise in light of the State's avowed intention to submit a new ETE within the next few weeks, following its completion by KLD Associates.
Under normal NRC practice, contentions which challenge the current deficiency of an application (and which are otherwise admissible) should be admitted; the contention need not anticipate the contents of a document that has not yet been filed.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-98, 16 NRC 1459, 1469 (1982).
If the application is 10/ It sho M be noted that the Commission's emergency planning regulations provide broad regulatory parameters, and do not purport
~
to specify particular requirements as to which compliance must be demonstrated.
The adequacy of onsite and offsite emergency planning is evaluated in accordance with whether the more specific guidance contained in NUREG-0654 is satisfied; where NUREG-0654 is not satisfied, the affected organizations must demonstrate some l
nlternative means of compliance with the regulations.
-11/ In addition, l'. may be argued that a contention is admissible as long as it asserts that the " reasonable assurance" standard established by 10 C.F.R.
I 50.47(a) has not been satisfied, for one or another specific reason.
Cf. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station,
Units 1 and 2), LBT 82-116, 16 NRC 1937,1946 (1982) (contention about a matter not addressed in a specific rule is admissible if it alleges a significant safety problem under 10 C.F.R.
I 50.57(a)(3)
(failure to provide reasonable assurance of safe operation)); Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-82-106,16 NRC 1649,1656 (1982), citin Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power tation). ALAB-161, 6 AEC 1003 (1973) (where the regulations are silent on a particular matter and that matter is in contention, compliance with the regulations is not by itself sufficient to satisfy an applicant's burden of proof).
J
- /.
- II -
amended following the admission of a contention -- either by the submis-sion of a missing document or by revision of an existing document -- the previously-admitted contention can be amended or promptly disposed of by summary disposition or stipulation.
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1049-50 (1983).
In this case, however, the new ETE is expected to be submitted within a matter of weeks. The Staff believes it would be inappropriate to admit a contention for litigation (and to proceed to discovery on it), only to have that effort promptly negated by the submission of the new ETE.
1 Accordingly, the Staff suggests that a better, more efficient use of reso'urces would be provided by deferring the admission of this contention until the State submits its new ETE.
At that time, the Town should be afforded an opportunity to withdraw or revise its contention, in light of the new study.
In this way, any offsite ETE litigation would proceed in a more orderly and logical manner, b l
.I l
-12/ The Staff does not suggest that litigation of the State's ETE must, l
necessarily, take place as part of the offsite emergency planning i
litigation.
Such a determination would require the filing of l
admissible offsite ETE contentions and will depend in part, on what the Applicants do following the submission of the KLD time study.
The Applicants may well adopt the KLD work as part of their on-site plan, although this is not certain.
If the Applicants should adopt l
the KLD ETE, the record in the onsite phase of this proceeding could, conceivably, be affected.
Alternatively, if the Applicants do not adopt the KLD ETE, and onsite and offsite officials plan to l
utilize different ETEs in arriving at protective action recommen-l dations d.. ring an etr.ergency, other issues could, conceivably, arise for litigation.
See 10 C.F.R. S 50.33(g).
t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C0CKE UT NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION usNPC l
l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE *EEIEf M84 I4l In the matter of cr n'? ~
00 c n t r....^
'L PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443:OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of TOWN _OF HAMPTON REPLY TO APPLICANTEl AND STAFF RERPONSES TO TOWN OF HAMPTON CONTENTIONS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, or as otherwise indicated, on this 23rd day of December, 1986.-
Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building Fourth Floor 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
(
SH AINES M ADRIGAN & Mc EACHERN - ** cwt sscN4 as*.ocuY ow
- S wari twooo ast% E p o ec's w poevsvoumvow
..,..,.., -.. -,,, - - -..,,.. ~,...
.-n,-,,
e I
t i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman Board of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Road Durham, NH 03842 William S. Lord, Selectman Town Hall Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Jane Doughty Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Rep. Roberta C. Pevear Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03644 Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State House Station 6 Augusta, MS 04333 Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
R.K. Gad II, Esq.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon 111 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03105 Robert G. Perlis, Esq.
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tenth Floor 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda MD 20814 l
2 SH AtNES M ADRIG AN & Mc EACHERN - enore sa em asw o n ca.
% wart I wocen asf %t E w o (90= w POetwo.
- w
% +. ( + t
I Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Board of Selectmen Newbury, MA 01950 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20472 George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Stephen E. Merrill, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Carol S. Sneider, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Stanley W. Knowles Board of Selectmen P.O. Box 710 North Hampton, NH 03826 J.P.'Nadeau, Selectman Town of Rye 155 Washington Road Rye, NH 03870 Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor City Hall Newburyport, MA 01950 Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey U.S. Senate Washington, D.C.
20510 (Attn. Tom Burack)
Michael Santosuosso, Chairmen Board of Selectmen Jewell Street RFD 2 South Hampton, NH 03842 3
SP AINES M ADRIG AN & McEACHERN eaoa rsscNat associar eN
- %eaPL E WOOO *st NVE P O ROu Ve POR ts n*OLN Ne C'V$
e i
i Allen Lampert Civil Defense Director Town of Brentwood Exeter, NH 03833 I
Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Hampe and McNicholas 35 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301
. Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Holmes & Ellis 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842 William Armstrong Civil Defense Director 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Calvin A. Canney City Manager City Hall 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH '03801 Edward A. Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
Boston, MA 02109 Sandra Gavutis Town of Kensington RFD 1, Box 1154 East Kensington, NH 03827 Charles P. Graham, Esq.
McKay, Murphy & Graham 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913 4
sea.~ts v40mcas a vccacsta~ - oc..sses < ssoc..ros
? wari t 6000 asE Nt 1 P O F*Om me rooTsvogt+4 Nw cww
---,-n._.n-
- - - ~,,,,,
s
-Diane Curran, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss 2001'S Street N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009-1125 D w' s
h' C
Matthew T. Brock 4
L 5
ss4mos u omc4~ a ucracutan - ~~rsso~~
ss**"c'
- g yaptgwooo Avf Not F 0 Bo* 40 PO' 's *O'
- N *' * *
.,.r
-. - - - -., - - -.., - -