ML20207K923

New England Coalition on Nuclear Power (Necnp) Reply to NRC Staff Response to Necnp Contentions on State of Nh & Local Radiological Response Plans.*

ML20207K923
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/31/1986
From:	Curran D HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20207K837	List: ML20207K834 ML20207K923 ML20207K992
References
OL, NUDOCS 8701090562
Download: ML20207K923 (5)

Text

. -

. 1 2

December 31, 1986 00LFETED UmBC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,87 JM -5 P3 :08 BEFCRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0FFik C "

GCC&G .%J? s

) n act.

In the Ma tter of )

4

)

! Public Service Company of )

New Hampshire, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL

) 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) OFFSITE EMERGENCY

) PLANNING

)

NECNP REPLY TO NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO NECNP'S l CONTENTIONS ON THE NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE AND LOCAL RADIOLCGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS

ntroduction On December 19, 1986, the NRC Staf f filed a response to the j '!e w England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's ( "NECNP's") conten-

_ ions on Revision 2 to the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan. The NRC Staf f states that a balancing of the five f actors governing the admission of late-filed contentions favors the admission of NECNP's contentions on Revision 2, to the extent that they are otherwise admi'ssible under the NRC's standards.

The NRC Staff's specific objections to NECNP's contentions are 9

discussed below.

Amendments to Contention RERP-8 The Staff states that it does not oppose the admission of these amendments.

Amendments to Contention NHLP-6 The Staff states that it does not oppose the modification of this contention, " limited to the specific examples provided by NECNP in its support." NECNP agrees that the scope of the contention is limited to the premise 8701090562 861231 PDR ADOCK 05000443' O PDR ,

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

. I

, contained in each statement of basis; however, to restrict the contention to each specific example would be absurd and unwar-ranted. Fo r example, in support of its assertion in basis para-graph (a) that telephone systems may be overloaded by requests for assistance by people without transportation, NECNP cites the population figures for people without transportation in Exeter and Rye. These are examples that illustrate and support NECNP's

premise. They are not intended to represent all towns whose tel-i ephone circuits may be overloaded. It is not necessary to pro-vide population statistics for each town in the EPZ in order to

] give Applicants sufficient notice of the nature of NECNP's con-cern regarding this issue.

Similarly, basis paragraph (b) illustrates the confusion 4

i regarding pupil transportation measures by citing conflicting i

i provisions in the State REPP and the plan for Hampton. Although only the town of Hampton is cited as an example, this conflict exists between the State plan and virtually all of the local plans. The contention, as defined in this basis' paragraph, is limited to the confusion in the plans over whhre buses will go i

and from whom they will receive directions. It is not limited to the issue of confusion between the State and the town of Hampton.

Contention HP-1 This contention relates to th,e adequacy of

host facilities for the Seabrook Emergency Planning ' Zone. The NRC Staf f does not oppose this contention in most respects, but i '

offers objections to three aspects of the contention. First, the I NRC Staff objects to basis paragraph (c), which faults the plan for failing to assure that everyone evacuated from the EPZ will l

i i , , . . . _ - , _ . - _ . - _ . . . . _ - _ . . _ . . - . - - . , _ _ .,_ _ . . _ . , , - . - , _ . , - , , . . . _ . . , ~ . . . _ , , - - _,

. , l go to a reception center. The Staf f asserts that this contenten-tion represents only NECNP's " personal views as to what applicable policy ought to be. " To the contrary, this contention is grounded in the NRC's requirement that there be a reasonable assurance that " adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." It is emininently reasonable to expect the State of New Hampshire to protect its population and the population of other states and Canada against radiological contamination by evacuees during a radiological emergency.

The NRC Staf f also objects to basis paragraph (a), to the extent that it asserts that evacuees who cannot be monitored and decontaminated within a relatively short time may become dis-couraged and leave the decontamination centers, thus spreading their contamination elsewhere. The Staff claims that this asser-tion constitutes " unsupported speculation." NECNP disagrees strongly with this characterization. It is very reasonable to infer that tired and frightened people will not wait indefinitely to receive treatment at decdntamination centers, but will instead leave and attempt to care for themselves or find relatives or friends _to care for them.

Fi nally , the NRC Staff asserts that basis paragraph (i),

which challenges the host plans for a lack of any system to com-municate lists of registered evacuees among the host facilities, lacks regulatory and factual basis. Again, the regulatory basis for this contention is the requirement that there be a reasonable i assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken

l .

duritig a radiological emergency. It is teaconable to infer that host facilities will become chaotic and difficult to administer l if there is not some systematic means for reuniting families that may become separated during an evacuation, especially-since l parents and school children may be evacuated to different cen-l ters. The contention has both regulatory and f actual basis, i

Adoption of Hampton Contentions The NRC Staff opposes NECNP's adoption of contentions filed by the Town of Hampton, on the ground that NECNP " seeks to broaden those contentions sub-I stantially be rendering them applicable to all of the New Hampshire plans rather than just the plan for the Town of Hamp-ton." NRC St af f Re sponse at 21. The Staff misunderstands NECNP's position. NECNP does not seek to broaden the contentions filed by the Town of Hampton. NECNP takes particular interest in the Hampton contentions that relate to emergency planning for the entire Seabrook EPZ , such as Contentions III and IV. However, NECNP also wishes to litigate those contentions pertaining only to Hamp ton, because of Hampton's significant population and loca-tion in the EPZ .

• As discussed in NECNP's Reply to Applicants' Answer to NECNP's Contentions on Revision 2, filed December 19,1986, NECNP has adopted Hampton's contentions for the purpose of preserving its right to cross-examine witnesses and file proposed findings on those contentions. Although Applicants objected to NECNP's adoption of Hampton's contentions as separate contentions of its l own, they did not object to NECNP's joinder of Harpton's conten-tions. Be ca u se it appears that NECNP's interests will be served -

l 4

. , 1 as adequately by the joinder of Hampton's contentions as their adoption, NECNP acceded to Applicants' suggestion and modified its request to seek joinder of Hampton's contentions. We note that the NRC Staff has not opposed a similar attempt by SAPL to "co-sponsor" Hamp ton's contentions.

Respectf ully submitted, ane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" St reet N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D. C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 December 31, 1986 1

g I k

O