ML20212C988

Responses to Applicant & Staff Answers to Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Rev 2 of State of Nh Radiological Emergency Response Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20212C988
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/23/1986
From:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#486-2038 OL, NUDOCS 8612310250
Download: ML20212C988 (11)

Text

.

hQ ,I

. ,j'q.,x) i

,. e

(

Filed: 1986 De,cember 23, 0CLKETEd  ;

'USHPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION K OECi e30 P1:07 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

.  ; LF T,< : ,

<< v UGU i; i In the matter of: i ff PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket No.< ,!0-44 OL k / ,

NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL \

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) Offsite Emerg acy' Planning

& Safety Iscuer SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S .

RESPONSES TO APPLICANTS' AND STAFF'S ANShERS t TO SAPL'S CONTENTIONS ON REVISION 2 OF THE NHMERP t

i 4

On December 10, 1986, Applicants filed " Applicant,s* Answer to Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Contentions on Revision J'of the v

, s.-

New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan" and on December '

I 19, 1986, the NRC Staff filed "NRC Staff's Response to Contentions on NHRERP Revision 2, Filed by Town of Amesbury, Town of Kensington, SAPL and NECNP." Herein follows the response of the Seacoast'.\nt i-

~'

Pollution League to Applicants' and Staff's r e s,po n s e s .  !

Applicants took no position as to whether th,e balancinq of the 3 ,

five factors at 10 CFR 62.714 would favor the admission'of SAPL's 1 i NilRERP Revision 2 contentions and the Staff took the position that' SAPL's discussion demonstrated, "on balance, that those f actors f avor the admission of SAPL's NilRERP Revision 2 Contentions."

SAPL's specific discussion of the responses 'to each of lis own contentions and the contentions of the Towa of flampton, adouted in 7 s

SAPL's November 26, 1986 filing, follows:

7 8612310250 861223 PDR ADOCK 05000443 '

G pop t

Revised SAPL Contention No. 31 Applicants once again revive their old argument that the only Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) that must be litigated in this proceeding is that which was prepared by the Applicants and litigated in 1983. In ruling on the admissibility of Hampton Contention III in its Memorandum and Order of April 29, 1986, the Board acknowledged that Applicants had made that argument, i.e., that NRC regulations require only the ETE prepared by Applicants, but then the Board stated that it was in agreement with the Staff's position on the issue that the Board should await the submission of a new ETE by the State and then afford the Town an opportunity to withdraw or revise the contention. In setting forth i ts pos i t ion on the admiss ibili ty of Hampton Contention III, the Staff stated as follows:

These provisions make it clear that both the licensees and the State cnd local plans are to contain an evacuation time estimate. While a single ETE is normally submitted by an Applicant on behal f of i tself and the of f s ite authori t ies, the submittal of an ETE by an Applicant as par t of its onsite plan does not satisfy the provision that an ETE is also to be submitted as part of the of fsite plans, without providing some other means of sat isfying f ederal regulations. This is no mere technicality.

As not ed in appendix 4 to NUREG-0654 (at 4-1) " . . . the evacuat ion t ime estimates will be used by those emergency response personnel charged with recommending and deciding on protective actions dur ing an emergency. . . " In sum, of f site authorit les 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.1 Further, the Staff stated in pertinent part in a footnote to Staff's Response:

1. "NRC Staff's Response to Contentions Filed by Towns of Hampton, Hampton Falls, Kensington, Rye and South Hampton, and by the

, Massachusetts Attorney General, dECNP and SAPL" dated 3/14/86.

. t

-1 *

. .,_ s

{

-As to the Applicant's.cocond apparent belief, plainly, this Board must look at the, reality of the situation, and must consider the offsite authoritles' ETE if it is different'from the ETE to be utilized by the Applicants.2 ,

u The'refore, in agreeing with _the Staf f, the Board has found that the ETE adopted by the of fsite authorities is, to borrow Applicant's expression, " fair game" for litig'ation. SAPL's Contention No. 31 and the revisions contained in Revised SAPL Contention No. 31 ought to be admitted for litigation in this, proceeding.

The Staff in its December 19, 1986 - response has remained consistent with its prior position in not opposing.the admission of this contention overall, but the Staff does oppose SAPL's position

\

l that sensitivity tests are needed. The Staff stated: "In this 4

regard, SAPL falls 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'ETS's." The two basis points in which SAPL stated that sensitivity tests should be done were #'s 10 and 16. SAPL believes that the assumption that all evacuees choose the optimum route to their destination should be

'tes ted (#10) and SAPL also holds that the ef f ect of one or more major road blockages should be tested (#16). SAPL would have assumed that it would be clear that the effect SAPL would expect as a result of i

testing'the assumptions are that ETE's are lengthened when the data are treated more' realistically and account for the impact of less than optimum directional choices by evacuees and the possibility of road blockages, t

i

2. Id.

1 L

Reasserted SAPL Contention No. 7 SAPL has no quarrel with the Applicants' recitation of Board rulings with regard to SAPL Contention No. 7 with respect to this contention, except with regard to the Board's ruling on the necessity of letters of agreement with host communities. (SAPL believes the Applicants meant to ref er to pp. 7-8 of the ASLB Memorandum and Order of May 21, 1986 rather than pp. 6-7. ) This Board statement was made in the context of a ruling on Redraf ted SAPL Contention No. 15. SAPL has made explicit in the basis of Contention No. 7 that host communities are to be providers of specific emergency services, and that therefore there must be specific agreements with the providers of these specific services to meet the " reasonable assurance" standard set forth at 10 CFR 550.47(a)(1).3 SAPL believes that the above discussion also answers the Staf f's concerns. SAPL would further add that it is not an intervenor's burden to show that sufficient numbers of host community personnel will not be available, though that showing has been made by NECNP.4 Rather, it is the Applicants' burden to show that suf ficient. personnel will be available. That showing has not been made.

Reasserted Contentions Nos. 8 and 8A Neither Applicants nor the Staff oppose admissions of these contentions. (SAPL reserves its right to challenge at the appropriate

3. In its Memorandum and Order of May 21, 1986 at p. 8, the Board states: "Let ters of agreement are required of providers of speci fic services.

4. SEE NECNP Con t en t ion No. HP-1 in "NECNP Content ions on Revis ion 2 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plans" dated November 26, 1986.

~ _- -

time findings that drivers and other individual providers of emergency services are not required to sign letters of agreement.)

Redrafted SAPL Contention No. 15 Neither Applicants nor the Staff oppose admission of these contentions. (SAPL reserves its right to challenge at the appropriate time findings that drivers and other individual providers of emergency services are not required to sign letters of agreement.)

Reasserted SAPL Contention No. 16 Neither Applicants nor the Staff oppose admission of this contention.

Revised SAPL Contention No. 18 Applicants assert that SAPL has advanced "no appropriate grounds" for the revision of this contention. To the contrary, SAPL has cited the vast reduction in the number of buses now claimed in the Rev. 2 NHRERP to be sufficient to evacuate the EPZ and the over four-fold reduction of the estimate of individuals who are non-auto owning. The Applicants assert that the Board in i ts Memorandum and Order of November 4,1986 dismissed the contention. The contention was only dismissed insofar as it asserts that adequate procedures for identifying persons with special needs do not exist. That the

" adequate procedures" have resulted in such a gross miscalculation l might suggest to the Board that the " adequate procedures" have been misapplied in the Rev. 2 plans. The Staf f does not oppose admission of this revised contention and agrees that the new bases supplied

! make the Board's prior finding with regard to this issue inapplicable to the bases supplied in this contention on the Revision 2 plans.

l i

, c . - - .

-.--r _ _, . . . _ _ _ , - - . . . - . - . _ . - .__ -. _..,y , - , . , . - _ . - , - , - , . _ -

l Reasserted SAPL Contention No. 25 The Applicants oppose admission of this contention and the Staf f does not. The Applicants claim that the Board in its Memorandum and Order of November 4, 1986 dismissed this contention. As with Contention No.18 described above, this Board dismissed the contention only insof ar as it asserted that adequate procedures for identifying persons with special needs do not exist. The contention was always broader than the issue of identification and also encompassed the adequacy of all other necessary provisions for assisting those whose mobility is impaired. The Staf f has recognized that this contention on the Revision 2 plans raises issues sufficiently different from those cited in the Board's prior ruling as to render that ruling inapplicable to this contention.

SAPL Contention No. 33 Applicants oppose and the Staff does not oppose admission of this contention. As tne Staff has noted, this contention only goes to the limited, admissible issue of whether there will be adequate decontamination and reception facilities "for all evacuees seeking assistance." The Applicants misstate the basis of the contention and then attack it on the basis of their own misstatement.

SAPL Contention No. 34 Neither the Applicant nor the Staff oppose admission of this contentlon.

SAPL Contention No. 35 Applicants and Staff oppose admission of this contention on grounds that it raises issues that could have been raised prior to the appearance of Revision 2 of the NHRERP. SAPL holds that the modifications in the language of the public information now more

9 =

than heret'ofore predispose evacuees against going to reception centers. The language about pets, for example, was not in the prior public 'informat ion mat er ial . An elderly woman in Nor th Hampton, New Hampshire has told SAPL that she would prefer to die at home with her golden retriever rather than evacuate during a radiological emergency if she were not allowed to bring the dog along. Any individual like this woman would likely be discouraged f rom seeking ass is tance at the hos t communi ty f acili t ies. The importance of being monitored must be impressed upon the public if there is to be reasonable assurance that adequate protect ive measures will be taken.

Further, SAPL raised the issue that there was no public information material in its February 21, 1986 filing in Contention No. 23. That contention was rejected for lack of specificity. The Board further rejected Redraf ted Content' ion No. 23 on the first draf t of the public information materials for lack of specificity. SAPL believes it has provided sufficient specificity and basis in this contention, which arises from the new Revision 2 draft of the public information materials.

SAPL Contention No. 36 The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention.

The Applicants cite the " realism" argument handed down by the Commission in Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-86-13, 24 NRC (July 24, 1986). Even if one were to accept the assumption that the Shoreham argument is applicable in this instance, which SAPL does not, the Commission remanded the matter back to the Licensing Board to make findings with regard to the efficacy of the response.

. i SAPL Contention No. 37 The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention concerning the availability of evacuation vehicles, drivers for persons requiring transport assistance and the likelihood that evacuation vehicles will be able to reach their destinations in an emergency. The Applicants attack the contention for lack of specificity. Roughly three pages of a specific statement of basis was provide'd with this contention. Specific numbers of buses and drivers were cited, along with other specifics about locations and destinations of buses. The Applicants' claim of lack of specificity is wholly without merit.

Revised Hampton Contention III to Revision 2 SAPL's response to Applicants is the same as that at Revised Contention No. 31 above. The Staff does not oppose admission of this contention.

Revised Hampton Contention IV to Revision 2 The Staf f does not oppose admission of this contention, except for the portions of the bases concerning letters of agreement for Implementation of the State's compensatory plan. The Staff says that the Town of Hampton, and by ref erence SAPL, have not es tablished good cause for not having raised these matters earlier fellowing publication of Revision 1. SAPL has earlier argued and will argue again that at the time of service of Revision 1, it was made apparent to the parties that there would be a Revision 2. Since the parties had no way of knowing in advance which sections of Revision 1 might l be mooted by Revision 2, it made no sense to file contentions at j that time. To hold the decision not to file content ions on Revi s ion I

l

\

,. . = _ - - - - - _ _ _ - _ - - _ - - _ .

,s I as prej udicial to any par ty is patently unf air. This Board cannot require that intervenors squander resources on f ruitless litigation of issues that could foreseeably be rendered moot.

Further, SAPL has raised the issue of let ters of agreement under the plans at an ear 1ier time.5 Applicants complain that the Town of Hampton does not restrict the concept of inadequate equipment to the problem of evacuation and adds the concept of " adequate response" when these matters could have been alleged prior to the appearance of Revision 2. SAPL would

- hold that the concept of adequate response was implicit in the contention as originally framed. Further, there is a fundamental lack of equity to the Applicants' position that they are free to bolster their case by revising their plans whenever they wish while at the same time arguing that i ntervenors cannot improve their case by rewording their contentions, especially in view of the fact that the regulations clearly place the burden of proof on Applicants.

Revised Hampton Contention VI to Revision 2 The Staff does not oppose this contention. The Applicants oppose it because they state that the contention now runs to the whole NHRERP. SAPL believes that the whole NHRERP, insofar as it af f ects the emergency response for the Town of Hampton, falls fairly within the purview of this contention.

Revised Hampton Contention VIII to Revision 2 The Staff does not oppose this contention as limited to i ts specific-bases and to issues identified by the Board's Memorandum

5. " Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Third Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene" dated April 8, 1986.

_g_

l

-i 49--t-v-F+- r- y pemer w----r-y p.,m-- -- q,--.e--w-m -- .*m--m. gme ev-ey -

.- 1 and Order of April 29, 1986. Applicants again complain that the wording " Revision 2" expands the wording of the contentions. SAPL would again hold that the whole NHRERP f alls fairly within the purview of this contention insofar as it affects the emergency response for the Town of Hampton, that the concept of an adequate response was implicit in the content ion as originally framed and that adding

" equipment" and " personnel" to the statement of deficiencies does not render this contention inadmissible.

Respectfully submitted, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE By its attorney, BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON

. / .j'

. g l}obstt A.' Baekus P. O. Box 516 116 Lowell Street Manchester, N.H. 03105 Tel: (603) 668-7272 DATE: December 23, 1986 I hereby cert if y that a copy of the wi thin SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S RESPONSES TO APPLICANTS' AND STAFF'S ANSWERS TO SAPL'S CONTENTIONS ON REVISION 2 OF THE NHRERP has been sent this date, first class, postage prepaid, to those listed on the attached service list.

c . E' l' Robert 'A. Backus

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

." ~

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND SERVICE LIST Joseph Flynn Asst.Gn.Cnsl. Helen Hoyt. Chm.

• Thomas Dignan, Esq.*

Fcd. Emerg, dgmt. Agcy. Admn. Judge Ropes & Gray 500 C.St. So. West Atomic Safety & Lic Brd. 225 Franklin St.

Washington, DC 20472 USNRC Boston, MA 02110 Washington, DC 20555 Office of Selectmen Dr. Jerry Harbour

• Docketing & Serv. Sec.

• Town of Hampton Falls Admin. Judge Office of the Secretary Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Lic Brd. USNRC USNRC Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555

• • '" ' 9' Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke

• Jane Doughty Office of Exec. Legl. Dr. Admin Judge SAPL RC Atomic Safety & Lic. Brd. 5 Market Street Wahsington, DC 20555 USNRC Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Phillip Ahrens, Esq. Paul McEachern, Esq. George Dana Bisbee, Esq.

Asst. Atty. General Matthew Bruck, Esq. Attorney General's OFF.

State House, Sta. #6 25 Maplewood Ave. State of New Hampshire Augusta, ME 04333 P.O. Box 360 Concord, NH 03301 Portsnouth, NH 03801 Carol Sneider, Esq. , Asst. AG Diane Curran, Esq. William S. lord One Ashburton Place, Ilarmon , Weiss Board of Selectmen 19th Floor 20001 S Street NW Suite 430 Town Hall-Friend St.

Boston, MA 02108 Washington, DC 20009 Amesbury, MA 01913 Richard A. Hampe, Esq. Maynard Young, Chairnnn Sandra Gauvutis New Hampshire Civil Delense Board of Selectmen Town of Kingston Agency 10 Central Road Box 1154 Ilampe & McNicholas Rye, NH 03870 East Kensington, NH 03827 35 Pleasant St.

Concord, NH 03301 Judith H. Mizner, Esq. Edward 'Ihomas Mr. Robert Harrison Silverglate, Gertner, FEMA Pres. & Chief Exec. Officer Baker, Fine, Good & Mizner 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH) PSCO 88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02109 P.O. Box 330 Boston,IR 02110 Manchester, NH 03105 Roberta Pevear State Rep.-Town of Hanpt Falls Drinlcmter Road Hanpton Falls, NH 03844