ML20214G504
| ML20214G504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1987 |
| From: | Harbour J, Hoyt H, Linenberger G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | HAMPTON, NH, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3498 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8705270086 | |
| Download: ML20214G504 (71) | |
Text
.o[ 8 4
DOCKETEP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: OFFICE GF U. dr Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson 00CXE g" 'g' h'Ei Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour SERVED MAY 191987 In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443-0L 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (ASLBPNo. 82-471-02-OL) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, et_ a_1_. (Offsite Emergency Planning)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) May 18, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Providing Basis for and Revision to Board's Rulings on Contentions on Revision 2 of NHRERP)
In our Memorandum and Order of February 18, 1987 this Board announced its rulings on each of the contentions filed by five parties to this proceeding, addressing Revision 2 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan. The following Memorandum provides the basis for the Board's rulings. The legal standards for admissibility of contentions are described in our Memorandum and Order of November 17, 1982, LBP-82-16, 16 NRC 1649, 1654-56 (1982). On reconsideration, we revise parts of our February 18, 1987 Order (at 2-3) in respect to admissibility o# certain bases of Town of Hampton's (T0H's) Contentions III, IV, and VI alleged in T0H's Memoranda dated October 31, and November 19, 1986, and bases of NECNP Contention NHLP-6.
QS2gg$k [30 p G
3 50 V
0" 0
Town of Amesbury (T0A) Contentions Town of Amesbury's Contentions of NHRERP Volume 6 Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study (Identified as Appendix E in Local Plans), dated November 28, 1986.
Applicants' Answer to Town of Amesbury's Contentions of NHRERP Volume 6, Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study (Identified as Appendix E in Local Plans), dated December 10, 1986.
NRC Staff's Response to Contentions on NHRERP Revision 2, Filad by Town of Amesbury, Town of Kensington, SAPL and NECNP, dated December 19, 1986.
Town of Amesbury's Reply to Applicants' Answers to T0A Contentions, dated December 2;,1986.
Town of Amesbury's Reply to Staff's Answers to T0A Contentions, dated December 26, 1986.
Response of Attorney General Francis X. Belotti to Applicants' Answers to Town.of Amesbury's Contentions Nos. 7 and 8 and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Contention No. 36 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, dated December 26, 1986.
l i
I l
l . ., .
4 In advance of ruling on'the admissibility of T0A's eight contentions, all of which address aspects of the KLD Evacuation Time Study ("ETE"), the Board examines T0A's showing in regard to the timeliness of its intervention petition. T0A asserts it had good cause because the KLD ETE document was institutionally unavailable for filing of contentions prior to September 8,1986. Board records indicate that TOA, along with other parties to this proceeding, was served with this ,
document on June 13, 1986 (Ltr., William B. Derrickson, PSNH, to H. R.
Denton, NRC, dated June 13, 1986, with certified statement of service).
Thus, more than five months elapsed before TOA elected to file contentions on the document. Considering the elapsed time and the brevity of T0A's contentions, its claim (at 4) that "much time and consultation was required for a proper evaluation of this complex document" provides good cause is not substantiated. This finding is particularly supported by T0A's reliance upon our " order of April 29, 1986, addressing Hampton Contention III"I (T0A's Reply to Applicants, at 1), demonstrating that T0A had been alerted to ETE issues well in advance of its receipt of the updated version of the document. Clearly T0A's contentions do not arise from new matters solely contained in 1
Both Hampton and SAPL have filed timely challenges to ETE documents in this proceeding. When submitting TOH Revised Contention III on May 23,1986, T0H based its allegations on a then-unassembled, but substantially identical, version of the KLD ETE, the last " progress report" of which it received from Applicants on or about April 28, 1986. Amesbury could have filed timely contentions in respect to the KLD ETE in the same time frame but failed to do so.
Pevision 2 of the NHRERP (see Board Memorandum and Order, dated November 4,1986, at 37 n.10).
The facts that the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is participating in this proceeding and filed a response (supra) in support of T0A's contentions, and that SAPL, which presumably represents the interests of its members residing in Massachusetts, has submitted an admissible contention (SAPt. No. 31) challenging the KLD ETE, controvert T0A's claim that no other party is directly representing the interests of residents of Massachusetts with respect to the facts and issues proffered by the KLD ETE (T0A Contentions, at 5). Thus TOA has not shown that its interest will not be represented by existing parties.
TOA asserts that since the number of contentions admitted before this Board are very few compared to the number initially filed, then the admission of T0A's contentions should not greatly broaden the issues nor delay the proceedings. T0A does not explain what bearing, if any, the number of admitted-versus-submitted contentions has on the question of whether litigation of T0A's contentions would broaden the issues or delay the proceedings. T0A has not shown that the fifth factor should weigh in its favor.
T0A indicates that it would introduce testimony of a named expert witness to substantiate its contentions, if admitted, thus meeting the
.. _. . .=_
l
.t requirement of the third factor of Section 2.714(a) for late filed petitions. We also find that the second factor weighs in T0A's favor in that other means are not available to protect T0A's interest. However, in balancing the five factors, we find that TOA has not shown good cause for late filing, and the fourth and fifth factors also weigh against our granting T0A's petition to intervene, and the petition is denied.
In their response to T0A's contentions, Applicants do not address T0A's showing of good cause for late filing. Instead,- they continue to take the position that the only ETE subject to litigation in an operating license proceeding is that furnished by the Applicants, and that it has already been litigated. The discussion of our ruling on Applicants' position in this regard is presented elsewhere in this Memorandum (seeinfra,SAPLContention31).
The Staff, without further discussion, agrees with Amesbury that balancing of the five factors governing the admission of late filed contentions favor the admission of T0A's contentions. Staff's Response at 2. However, the Staff opposes admission of T0A's contentions on three grounds: in T0A Cententions 1, 2, 6, and 8, petitioner has failed to set forth a basis with sufficient specificity to permit the parties to recognize the issues sought to be litigated; in T0A Contentions 3, 4, and 5, T0A has failed to provide any factual basis to support its assertions; and that TOA Contentions 7 and 8 do not present proper matters for litigation in connection with the adequacy of the New
4 Hampshire RERP. The' Staff also found that Amesbury's " Additional Bases
'f for Contentions 1-8" (Amesbury's Contentions at 3-4) consist entirely of bald assertions that various aspects of the KLD ETE are deficient, and lack any factual allegations in their support. Thus, Staff's conclusions that each of Amesbury's cententions should be rejected are not affected by T0A's additional bases.
T0A's reply to the Staff's objections claims its contentions meet the reasonable specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 and that the Staff would have T0A provide the actual data that it would introduce as evidentiary. testimony. In regard to Staff's objections to TOA Contentions 7 and 8, TOA asserts that because the clear-times estimates in the KLD ETE rely on Massachusetts aspects and roles in the plans being filled, the proof of its adequacy demands that all aspects of the KLD ETE be litigated at this time.
1 The Massachusetts Attorney General responded to that part of f
Applicants' objection to T0A Contentions 7 and 8 (and to SAPL Contention 36) where Applicants state that no litigable issue is raised I by these contentions in light of the Commission's " realism" decision (Long Island Lightino ro. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22 (1986). The Massachusetts Attorney General repeats that, because actions taken by personnel in official positions in Massachusetts must be relied upon in evaluating the adequacy of the NHRERP, and in light of the fact of the Commonwealth's current refusal 1
_. _ _ , - - . . . , . _ . _ _ _ . . . ~ , _ . . . . . , . , _ _ _ _ . . . _. -, . . _ . _ . _ . . . . _
E to participate in emergency planning, contentions relating to Massachusetts' non-participation must be litigated when raised against the adequacy of the NHRERP.
The Board agrees with the Staff's objections, and even if T0A met the late filing requirements of Section 2.714(a), which it does not, none of T0A's contentions is admissible. In respect to the Massachusetts Attorney General's arguments, the Board knows of no legal impairment, within its jurisdiction, to the Commonwealth's refusal to plan to protect its citizens in the event of an emergency at Seabrook; neither do we find any reason, within our jurisdiction, to accept for litigation those contentions based only on Massachusetts' refusal that allege an impact on New Hampshire's RERPs. T0A's contentions go to alleged deficiencies in Massachusetts' planning, not to the sufficiency of the KLD ETE as it applies to planning for a range of protective actions expressed in the New Hampshire emergency plans.
For the reasons stated above, T0A's Contentions 1 through 8 are i rejected.
I l
l
[
8-
- Town of Hampton (TOH) Contentions-(See Appendix for Text of Admitted Contentions)
Memorandum on 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1) and Revised Contention III of the l Town of Hampton to Evacuation Time Estimate Report by KLD Associates.
Inc., May 23, 1986.
Applicants' Response (to TOH Revised Contention III), June 5,1986.
NRC Staff's Response (to TOH Revised Contention III), June 12, 1986.
Memorandum on 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) and Contentions of the Town of Hampton to New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan Revision 2, October 31, 1986.
Applicants' Response (to TOH Revision 2 Contentions), November 14, 1986.
~ NRC Staff's Response (to TOH Revision 2 Contentions), November 17, 1986.
Town of Hampton Supplement to Hemorandum on 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1) and Contentions of the Town of Hampton to New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan Revision 2 (TON First Supplement), November 19, 1986.
t
,-w- . , ,-,-r ,---,r.z e - -- - ,,r - , , , . , - .- - - . ,--,.--,,--,--r, ,-, . , - - , - - - , . -- e-,---- v,w.,-,-
Town of Hampton Second Supplement to Memorandum on 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1) and Contentions of the Town of Hampton to New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan Revision 2 (TON Second Supplement),
November 26, 1986.
Applicants' Response (to TON First Supplement) December 1,1986.
NRC Staff's Response (to T0H First and Second Supplements), December 5, 1986.
Applicants' Response (to TOH Second Supplement), December 10, 1986.
Town of Hampton Reply to Appif cants' and Staff's Responses to Town of Hampton Contentions, December 23, 1986.
TOH Contentions I, II, V, VII and IX. Hampton realleges and would incorporate its Contentions I, II, V, and VII in its Memorandum on Contentions (at 9) without providing any additional bases in support thereof. Because we previously have refected these contentions in our Memorandum and Order of May 22,1986(at4-6),andT0Hsuppliesnonew bases in their support, we need not rule on them again.
l
\
l
. - - - . - - - , , - - = - - -
- 10 -
TOH Revised Contention III. Hampton timely filed its first Revised Contention III on May 23, 1986 within a month of. its receipt of the final Progress Report on the KLD ETE study.2 Subsequently, a second TOH Revised Contention III was submitted with T0H's Revision 2 contentions on October 31, 1986. In it. TOH reasserts and incorporates the bases previously alleged in its May 23, 1986 submittal, and adds further bases, under the following headings:
(A) Population Estimates, (B) Weather Conditions,
'(C) Road Capacities, ,
(D) ETE Preparation Time, (E) Growth, I
(F) Choice of Host Locations.
Additionally TOH sought on November 19, 1986 to supplement Basis (C) to TOH Revised Contention III, alleging that upon [ future] receipt of discovery it " anticipates that additional unreasonable assumptions, unsupported data and other flaws and defects in the KLD ETE will be apparent," and TOH enumerated eight such items that it expects will become apparent. By footnote, TOH incorporates its previously filed i
2 An earlier version of this contention, addressing a different ETE study, was rejected as premature by this Board's Orders of April 1, and April 29, 1986.
4 4
+-, - - , , , . - - -. --
. , . . , , , -- .,_,_.,,,.wn-,~.,.,---,-.---.....__,-w-----.---.,,.._-,------.-,-.-.,-,=e-. -- --.n.
- ~
r Memorandum on 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(1) to justify late filing of its I
supplement. TOH First Supplement, at 2-3.
l Applicants, in their June 5,1986 Response to T0H Revised Contention III, oppose admission of the contention on three grounds.
First, they incorporate their previous argument that the Applicants' ETE, already litigated, is the only ETE litigable under NRC regulations (The So-Called " Multiple ETEs" Issue, April 11,1986, at 6-8). Second, the Applicants maintain that since the Board has already litigated one ETE, at a minimum the petitioner should be required to demonstrate that there are differences between the KLD ETE and the one already litigated i that are sufficient in scope and size to justify a second ETE hearing, t This, according to Applicants, has not been attempted by TON. Third, Applicants argue that TOH Revised Contention III seeks to turn the ETE l into something that it is not. Citing NUREG-0654, at 4-1, Applicants state that an ETE is a tool to be utilized by decisionmakers in recosnanding protective actions, not a document whose function is to i
provide " reasonable assurance" that adequate protective measures will be .
' taken or that adequate facilities, equipment or personnel will be i
available. Applicants conclude if a contention of this nature is admitted it must be reframed to raise the issue of the value of the ETE
! as a decisionmaker's tool, and the present contention should be rejected.
f
. _ _ _ _ __ . . . ~ _ ._ . _ _ . . _ ___ __ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Applicants again raise (and expand) their first objection, above, .
in their November 14, 1986 Response to TON Revision 2 Contentions in regard to T0H's second revised Contention III. In their December 1_,
1986 Response to TOH First Supplement, Applicants hold that the i additional bases advanced by TOH do nothing to cure those aspects of Revised Contention III to which Applicants previously objected.
In~1ts responses to T0H's filings, the Staff does not oppose admission of T0H's first or second Revised Contention III, provided its litigation is limited to the specific bases offered by the Town in support thereof. Staff Responses dated June 12, 1986 and November 17 1986. Without further explanation, the Staff, in its June 12th Response at 3 n.5, states that while it does not disagree with Applicants' i
assertion as to the intended use of the ETE (see supra) and would not oppose a rewriting of the contention in the manner suggested by l Applicants (j_d.), Staff nonetheless does not share Applicants' view that the contention is defective. ,
In the Staff's Response to TOH First and Second Supplements (at 2-3), the Staff states that it believes the additional basis provided to T0H Revised Contention III in T0H's First Supplement is i
sufficiently specific to pentit admission of this issue for litigation, notwithstanding Hampton's assertion that it intends to " flesh out" this issue in conducting discovery. j l
1 l l
Hampton addresses the five factors in 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a) in regard to its late filing of contentions in each of its three pleadings, dated May 23, October 31, and November 19, 1986. With respect to TOH Revised Contention III, we find that the May 23rd pleading was filed promptly after receipt of the new information contained in the final XLD
! ETE progress reports served on the parties at the end of April, and that the contention was based solely on information contained in the then-newly-available reports. Hampton supplemented its information on the five factors in its later filings, and on balancing the five factors, we find that Hampton has met the Section 2.714 requirements for late filing of its revised contentions, including TOH Revised i
Contention III.
As to Applicants' arguments that the ETE study prepared for the State of New Hampshire is not litigable, because only the Applicants' ETE is explicitly required by regulation and has been litigated, we find I
that the actual ETE to be utilized in offsite emergency planning is litigable in this proceeding. Both the Applicants' and the State's plans are required to utilize ETEs, and submittal of an ETE by the Applicants does not necessarily satisfy the provision in 10 C.F.R. 150.47(b)(10) that the offsite plans must meet the required standard.
We present a fuller explication of this finding, infra (at SAPL Revised Centention 31; see also Staff's Response to T0H Contention III, March 14, 1986, Attachment at TOH 5-11).
In T0H's Contentions on Revision 2 (October 31,1986), TOH advances
)
a second Revised Contention III supported by numerous revised bases which largely, if not entirely, duplicate the issues raised in the )
Town's May 23rd pleading. While TOH seeks to incorporate the previously asserted bases along with the newly proffered ones, T0H provides no indication as to which of the earlier issues are modified or replaced by j the revised bases. Thus we reject TOH's attempt to incorporate the May 23rd bases in its October 31 contention on the ground that the Town has failed to provide sufficient notice to opposing parties of just what it intends to litigate in respect to the previous bases.
We further reject T0H's supplemental Basis (C)7, advanced in its November 19, 1986 pleading, for lack of requisite specificity. Hampton, i_n, n haec verba, states that "[u]pon receipt of discovery, the Town of Hampton anticipates that additional unreasonable assumptions, unsupported data, and other flaws and defects in the KLD ETE will become apparent," and goes on to list its anticipations. Hampton has had six months to examine the KLD ETE documents and to frame properly the issues it seeks to litigate. Generalized contentions are not to be admitted and subsequently " fleshed out" during discovery. Duke Power Company, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460, 467(1982).
l I
We reject Applicants' assertions in their June 5th Response to TOH Revised Contention III that the contention should be rejected unless l 4
i -
r petitioner demonstrates significant differences between the State's and Applicants' already-litigated ETE, or that if admitted it must be reframed-to raise the issues of the value of the ETE as a decisionmaker's tool. The contention and the bases in T0H's October 31st pleading are sufficiently concrete and specific to warrant admission of the contention. The factual correctness of T0H's asserted bases will be properly determined through litigation.
Accordingly, T0H Revised Contention III is admitted for litigation, as limited to those supporting bases proffered in TOH's Contentions on NHRERP Revision 2 dated October 31, 1986.
T0H Revised Contention IV. In its Memorandum on NHRERP Revision 2 Contentions (October 31,1986), TOH amends its Revised Contention IV asserting inadequate provisions for emergency equipment, inadequate demonstration that protective responses can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency, and failure to correct deficiencies apparent from the emergency exercise, as required by 10 C.F.R. ( 50.47[b](1),
(8),(10),and(14). In addition to realleging and incorporating the bases of its earlier T0H Revised Contention IV, submitted on April 14,
l 1986,3 Hampton asserts further bases in support of this contention under five headings:
4 (A) Emergency Resources and Equipment, (B) Emergency Exercise.
(C) Special Needs Population, (D) Compensatory Plan, (E) Transit Dependent Individuals.
i T0H seeks to amend further its Revised Contention IV in its "First Supplement" dated November 19, 1986 by alleging, under Basis (B), that absent a coordinated emergency exercise with Massachusetts communities, no showing that reasonable assurance of protection to the entire EPZ, a
including the Town of Hampton, can be made.
In their Response to T0H Contentions, Applicants object to a'dmission of this contention on several grounds. First, Applicants state that the new wording expands the scope of the contention to cover the entire EPZ, not just the Town of Hampton, without supplying good cause for this type of change. Applicants additionally state that the scope is enlarged by not restricting the new centention to the problems of evacuation, and adds the concept of " adequate response" and an 3 In our Memorandum and Order dated May 22, 1986, this Board accepted !
T0H's first Revised Contention IV (April 14, 1986) as a !
4 substitution for the original version of T0H Contention IV.
I l
17 -
allegation concerning failure to correct deficiencies during the
~
exercise. Applicants' position is that only ~ the last of these revisions can be said to arise solely out of Revision 2 of the NHRERP. Applicants further allege that TOH is attempting to insert issues dismissed by sunnary disposition in our Memorandum and Order dated November 4,1986 (re special needs survey), at 15-17, and, without citation, _ the issue of individual bus drivers having to sign letters of agreement.
The Staff, in its Response to TOH Contentions, does not oppose -
admission of this revision of TOH Revised Contention IV, but does object to admission of Bases (D)1 and (D)3 (TON Contentions at 21-22 and 22-23, respectively). These bases address the issues of non-participation of Hampton school officials, and individual bus drivers having to sign letters of agreement. The Staff states that these two issues could have been raised earlier and TOH has failed to demonstrate good cause for raising them for the first time in response to NHRERP Revision 2 (Staff Response to TOH Contentions, at 4 n.6 ).
In its reply to Applicants' and Staff's responses to its contentions (December 23,1986), TOH seeks to support its assertion that
' letters of agreement are required with individual bus drivers by citing i
l l
i
-- ,14 - ,e ,.._-n- ----w-- - , - - - - - . ,. <----m---------.~-,r- ..- ,v,-. -----r-. ,- - - + --- -
an earlier-submitted contention4 raising the same issue with respect to local school teachers and officials (TOH Reply at 3), and that it could not reasonably have been expected to raise the issue of identifying
. comunitted bus drivers earlier because the State had advised that
.Revision 1 of the NHRERP would be superseded by Revision 2 on June 3, 1986(id.). TOH asserts that the Applicants' objections to TOH Revised Contention IV are vague and without merit, and that the State NHRERP modified the original plans by assigning buses and drivers to all EPZ towns from the same pool. T0H addresses Applicants' objection to deficiencies in the Special Needs Survey by alleging that the State's raising of the estimate of special needs persons by 50 percent above the numbers derived from the survey is an admission by the State that the 4
survey is inadequate (id. at 4). TOH states that at no time did Applicants obtain sumary disposition against TOH on the Special Needs Survey issue.5 i
This Board has previously held that there is no regulatory. basis for the assertion that letters of agreement are required with individual bus drivers, teachers or voluntary workers (see eg., our Memorandum and i
l' 4 T0H Revised Contention VI was admitted by our Memorandum and Order dated May 22, 1986. T0H's cited pleading of April 11,1986(at3
, n.3) was served on April 14, 1986.
The Board does not recall that T0H ever had an admitted contention on the Special Needs Survey issue.
4 l
Order dated April 29, 1986, at 32, 33). Such agreements or signatures, as appropriate, may be required of certain organizations or authorities providing services. Accordingly, we reject that portion of Basis (A) that alleges that agreement letters with individual members of the Teamster's Union are required (TOH Revision 2 Contentions at 19), and all of Basis (D)3 (jd_. at 22-23). We so revise our Order of February 18,1987 (at 3) in regard to letter agreements with the Teamsters Union individual members.
In regard to Applicants' objection that the issue in Basis (C) of this contention, the Special Needs Survey, was dismissed by sumary disposition, we find that TOH raises no new basis for asserting it here, and T0H's Reply (at 4) only raises again its argument that, by increasing its estimate by 50 percent over the survey results, the State has discredited its own survey of transportation requirements for special needs persons. Our reasons for granting sumary disposition of other parties' contentions, with respect. to the adequacy of the Special Needs Survey, in our November 4,1986 Memorandum and Order (at 14-17) apply here. Accordingly, Basis (C) of TOH Revised Contention IV is rejected, and we so revise our Order of February 18, 1987 to reflect rejection of this proffered basis.
For the reason given in respect to the Comonwealth of Massachusetts' response to Applicants' objection to TOA Contentions 7 l
and 8 (supra at 6-7), we reject that part of T0H's Second Supplement l
t t
t
-. - .,-w, , , , , , - - , - ----,,,-r.v. , , - , . - , , ---~ - , < ,n - - -
alleging impact of deficiencies in Massachusetts' planning upon T0H Emergency Exercise.
We reject TOH's prayer to adopt contentions filed by SAPL on NHRERP Revision 2 for the same reasons for which we rejected T0H's Contention IX which sought to adopt SAPL's contentions filed on a previous version of the NHRERP. Accordingly, T0H's Second Supplement (November 26,1986) is dismissed. Board Memorandum and ~0rder,- May 22, 1986.
T0H's allegations in regard to the Emergency Exercise Basis (A), in f
part, and Basis (B), TOH Revised Contention IV are admissible to the extent that they are based on the State of New Hampshire's Response Actions to the RAC Review (August 1986) as cited by TOH, and that they allege uncorrected deficiencies in NHRERP Revision 2. While evaluations in the FEMA Final Exercise Assessment (June 2, 1986) may provide added foundation for such assertions, T0H has not shown good cause for late filing of contentions on the earlier Final Exercise Assessment, itself.
We found T0H's pleadings unclear with respect to this latter point.
Because of substantial changes in the scope of the contention, as asserted by the Applicants in their Response to T0H Revision 2 Contentions, and because of considerable overlap and apparent duplication of issues alleged in the bases of T0H's NHRERP Revision 2 Contentions (October 31,1986), the Board does not permit TOH to
4 l
I t
i reassert and adopt the previously admitted version (April 14,1986)of TOH Revised Contention IV, or the earlier bases proffered in support thereof. Accordingly, the amended version of TOH Revised Contention IV (October 31,1986) and the bases which we have accepted herein are acceptable substitutions for the previously submitted version.
In sununary, TOH Revised Contention IV (October 31,1986)is admitted, as limited to the bases offered by TOH, as follows:
Basis (A), Emergency Resources and Equipment: (A)1and(A)2 admitted; (A)3 admitted, except for assertion that Letter Agreements are required with individual Teamsters Union members who volunteer to drive.
Basis (B), Emergency Exercise: Allegations of uncorrected deficiencies in NHRERP from FEMA Final Exercise Assessment, admitted, except conclusionary assertion of applicability of February 1986 exercise to actual evacuation. Supplementary Basis (B) preffered November 19,1986 (at 3-4) is rejected in its entirety.
Basis (C), Special Needs Population: rejected in its entirety.
Basis (D),CompensatoryPlan: (D)1and(D)2 admitted;(D)3 rejected.
t Basis (E), Transit Dependent Individuals: admitted.
l l
\
TOH Revised Contention VI. TOH rephrases its Revised Contention VI in its October 31, 1986 submittal to address Revision 2 of the NHRERP, and apparently to add 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b)(10) as a regulatory basis.
1 T0H would reallege prior versions of the contentions and the factual bases offered in its support and add further bases in support of its revised contention.0 The contention asserts failure to demonstrate that adequate personnel are available to respond or to augment their initial response on a continuous basis in the event of a radiological emergency.
4 The factual bases allege inadequacies in T0H's emergency response plan and the State of New Hampshire's compensatory plan. The revised bases assert that:
(A) The Hampton Police department of 24 full-time officers does not have sufficient personnel to perform all its assigned duties. This essentially repeats the original Basis (A) but does not address training and experience of the 50 seasonal "special officers" alleged to be inadequate in the original TOH Contention VI.
(B) State Police Troop A, with only 35 troopers and 44 officers, does not have sufficient personnel even for access control duties, and, hence, cannot provide officers to assist 6 TOH Contention VI was originally admitted by Board Memoranda and Orders dated April 1 and April 29, 1986. In our subsequent Order dated Pay 22, 1986 we accepted, for substitution, the revised language for the original Hampton VI (submitted April 14,1986)and ddmitted the revised Contention.
l l
l l
l
-t I
municipalities in performing other duties as assigned to the State Police in Revision 2. This basis is substantially the
' same as alleged in Basis (H) of T0H's (first) Revised Contention VI, submitted April 14, 1986.
(C) 1. It is unclear where additional transportation for transporting transients out of the EPZ may be obtained.
- 2. Revision 2 fails to specify what personnel is available to insure an adequate pool for insuring 24-hour staffing of all town departments during an emergency.
- 3. Most members of the Public Works Department are not trained for, and have no experience in, traffic control management. This realleges Basis (C) in the original TOH Contention VI.
- 4. There is no showing that the Rockingham County Sheriff's ,
Department has adequate manpower to carry out its duties J (as described at Vol.18, p. II-16a).
J
- 5. There are no letter agreements with Hampton school
! personnel.
4 I
In their response to TOH Revision 2 Contentions, dated November 14, l
1986, the Applicants object to this contention because, as now worded, it " runs to the whole NHRERP and is not confined to the TOH portion
- thereof."
i 4
a
--%- .c -
, - . _ - . , , , - - - - . ~ _ , . , _ - . . , , _ _ , , , , , , , , , _ _ , , ,
, .-.,_,,y-- ,,,,,g .m.. w.--, . , , . , .-,,, , , , , , - _ , . 7-, ., ,
4 The Staff does not oppose admission of the revised contention, except for Basis (C) items, which Staff asserts could have been raised i
earlier and the Town has failed to demonstrate good cause for raising the issues for the first time in response to NHRERP Revision 2. Staff Response to T0H Contentions November 17, 1986, at 5.
1 4
In its December 23, 1986 Reply to Applicants' and Staff Responses (at 5), T0H asserts that the Applicants' objection is vague and offers
- no grounds to reject this contention. TON also points out that the Staff had failed to consider that substantially identical issues were raised by the Town in its earlier-filed contentions. TON cites portions of its November 1985 and April 11[14],1986 submittals to show that certain of the issues had been previously raised.
We agree with TOH and the Staff in regard to the admissibility of l the revised contention and Bases (A) and (B) as proffered in T0H's Memorandum on NHRERP Revision 2 Contentions (October 31,1986).
However, in regard to subparts (C)1 and (C)4, TOH has failed to allege with sufficient specificity any precise issues it seeks to litigate. We I further find that there is no regulatory basis for subpart (C)5 that seeks to litigate the absence of letters of agreement with individual personnel in the Hampton schools. Such agreement letters may be required of certain organizations or authorities providing services, but are not required of individual employees or persons who collectively ,
i l
form a work force performing emergency activities (see supra, TOH Revised Contention IV).
Accordingly, the substitute wording in T0H's October 31, 1986 submittal for TOH Revised Contention VI, as limited to Bases (A), (B),
-(C)2 and (C)3, is admitted for litigation. Our Order of February 18 .
1987 is modified to reflect the admission of Basis subparts (C)2 and (C)3ofthiscontention.
TOH Revised Contention VIII. In its Memorandum on NHRERP 1 Revision.2 Contentions (October 31,1986), TOH amends its Revised.
Contention VIII to assert that " Revision 2 fails to provide adequate i
emergency equipment, facilities, or personnel to support an emergency response and fails'to demonstrate that adequate protective responses can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency. 10 C.F.R. 650.47(1)(8)(10)[ sic]." TOH realleges and seeks to incorporate bases previously set forth in its pleadings in respect to this contention filed in November 1985 and April 1986.7 TOH seeks to allege further 7 TOH Contention VIII asserting inadequacy as a protective response of evacuation, only, of the Hampton Beach population, without
' provisions for sheltering, as filed on February 21, 1986, was
- admitted by this Board in our Memoranda and Orders of April 1, and April 29,1986. T0H Revised Contention VIII, filed April 14, 1986, substantially the same as Contention VIII, was admitted, except for TOH's footnote 1 at 9, by our Memorandum and Order dated May 22, 1986(at5).
bases related to the time assumed by the State for loading 40 residents
-of the Seacoast Health Center onto a bus, and State reliance on an unspecified "techcical assessment" as a basis for or-dering the. staff and residents of the Health Center to shelter while the general population evacuates, notwithstanding the increased threat of radiolog; cal exposure to the residents.
Applicants object chiefly on the grounds that the addition of allegations of inadequacy of equipment and personnel could have been ,
made earlier and are not based solely upon Revision 2 of the NHRERP, and Revision 2 does not supply any. good cause for so adding these aspects to the contention. Applicants' Answer to TOH Revision 2 Contentions, at 6-7.
i The Staff, in its response (at 6), does not oppose admission of the amended contention, if limited to the specific bases offered in its
. support and as further limited to the issues identified by the Board in its Memorandum and Order of April 29, 1986. The Staff (id., n.9) also p refers to its Response on the admissibility of this contention filed on March 14, 1986.
4 In its response to Applicants' objection, TOH asserts that the contention substantially concerns the FEMA final exercise assessment, June 2, 1986, and "RAC Review." August 1986, which outline certain deficiencies directly relevant to the Hampton Seacoast Health Center,
- - ~ , -
-w-m~-rm -e,. -
-n , , , - - , . - , _ , ,. - y .- .---- ----- . , , w.,e
and since the State has indicated that a purpose of Revision 2 would be to correct those deficiencies, but failed to do so, T0H could not be expected to file contentions on these issues until receipt cf Revision 2. TOH Reply to Applicants' and Staff Responses to T0H Contentions, at 6.
The problems that the Board finds with this contention, and with T0H's reply, are that (a) the basis alleging absurdity of the State's assumption of how long it may take to load a certain number of elderly or infirm persons on a bus is not within the scope of the contention, even as reworded, and (b) the basis alleging reliance upon an unspecified " technical assessment" to order staff and residents of the Home to shelter while the general population evacuates is overly vague and does not assert specifically what TOH seeks to litigate.
Accordingly, the Board admits the amended T0H Revised Contention VIII, but as limited to the previously admitted issues i
identified in our Memorandum and Order dated April 29, 1986.
l Town of Kensington Contentions l
(See Appendix for Text of Admitted Contentions)
Contentions of the Town of Kensingten (TOK) to New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan Revision 2, dated November 26, l
1986.
Applicants' Answer to Contentions of the Town of Kensington to New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan Revision 2, dated December 10, 1986.
NRC Staff's Response to Contentions on NHRERP Revision 2, filed by Town of Amesbury, Town of Kensington, SAPL and NECNP, dated December 19, 1986.
Town of Kensington's Response to Applicants' Answer to Contentions of the Town of Kensington to New Hampshire Radiological Response Plan Revision 2, dated December 13, 1986.
TOK Revised Contention 2. Essentially this contention alleges that the notification procedure for the town's emergency response organization is inadequate in that it depends upon notification through the Rockingham County dispatch. The revised basis for this contention, in its entirety, states: "TOK" will no longer be using Rockingham County dispatch as of the end of 1986.
The Applicants' answer points out that in our Memorandum and Order ruling on motions for sumary disposition (dated November 4,1986), we had limited TCK's contention 2 to a demonstration that the purchased communications package has been or is available for installation in the Kensington EOC. Applicants also state that tte revised contention (basis) pleads no issue. Applicants urge denial.
29 -
In its response, the Staff does not oppose Kensington's revised basis as to the means by which the town will receive notification of an emergency.
Kensington's response to Applicants' answer reasserts the Town's earlier position that there is no showing that the communications equipment for the Kensington EOC exists.
We admit this revised contention for litigation only on the revised basis alleging, albeit somewhat cryptically, that the NHRERP Revision 2 incorrectly describes the means by which Kensington will receive notification of an emergency.
l I
TOK Contention 3. Kensington reasserted and incorporated its earlier contention 3 but provided no additional information to support it, or its basis, which we rejected as premature on the grounds that it would better be addressed in connection with ETE issues.
Both the Applicants and the Staff, in their answers, point to the absence of any new basis provided by Kensington in relation to NHRERP Revision 2 and urge that TOK Contention 3 be rejected.
Because it fails to allege failure to meet any regulatory requirement or safety issue, with any requisite specificity, TOK Contention 3 is rejected.
TOK Revised Contention 4. This contention alleges that the Kensington Elementary School, which is currently proposed as a shelter, is _ inadequate as a shelter during a radiological emergency due to the fact that there are no interior rooms, no basement, and all ~ classrooms I have a wall of windows.
We agree with Applicants and Staff that this revised contention reasserts the previously admitted TOK Contention 4 and its basis.
Accordingly. TOK Revised Contention 4 is admitted.
4 TOK Revised Contention 6. Kensington provides additional basis in support of its earlier admitted Contention 4 that asserts absence of letters of agreement in the NHRERP with private organizations providing
- towing and transportation resources. The revised basis specifically challenges the adequacy of local tow or snow removal companies, such as Midway Excavators, based on its experience with Midway Excavators during a snow storm of November 19, 1986 and on Kensington's assertion of a change in service by Midway Excavators to provide snow removat service only on State roads. Such alleged changes cause Kensington to challenge the existence of the State's back-up resources and the adequacy of any resources the State purports to have.
i Neither Applicants nor Staff oppose admission of TOK Revised I Contention 6 as limited to the bases provided, and as previously limited by this Board upon admission of TOK Contention 6. Accordingly TOK
L*. -
Revised Contention 6 is' admitted, bct as limited to the adequacy of snow removal services provided in NHRERP Revision 2. Kensington's re-allegation of insufficiency of letters of agreement with transportation companies and bus drivers is overly vague and lacking in specificity.
TOK Revised Contention 10.- The thrust of this contention is that-provisions for communications between TOK and contiguous state / local governments within the plume exposure pathway EPZ are inadequate because communications equipment purchased for the Town is not installed and no Town official has directed that its installation be halted nor has the Town ever refused equipment.
The Applicants respond that the revised contention raises the same matters as the earlier TOK Contention 10 which, after admission, was partially dismissed on a motion for summary disposition, except for the-need for a demonstration that the purchased communication package has been or is available for installation. Applicants urge that the Revised TOK Contention 10 be excluded.
The Staff does not oppose admission of the revised contention as 1
limited to the specific bases proffered, i.e., that the Town has not elected to accept only a portion of this equipment, nor has the Town ever refused equipment.
Kensington's assertion of the Town's apparent willingness to accept the communications equipment are relevant to the need for a demonstration that the connunications package has been or is available for installation in the Kensington E0C. Accordingly, TOK Revised Contention 10, as limited to these specific bases, is admitted.
TOK Contention 13. Kensington reasserts and . incorporates its earlier contention 13 and its supporting bases which we previously had rejected for failure to specify any regulatory requirement. Board Order dated April 29, 1986.
Both the Applicants and Staff, in their answers, point to the absence of any new basis provided by Kensington in support of this contention and urge that it be rejected. We agree.
Accordingly, we again reject TOK Contention 13 for failure to specify any regulatory requirement.
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) Contentions (See Appendix for Text of Admitted Contentions)
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Contentions on Revision 2 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, November 26, 1986.
s .
Applicants' Answer to Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Contentions on
. Revision 2 of the New Hampshire Radiological. Emergency Response Plan, December 10, 1986.
NRC Staff's Response to Contentions on NHRERP Revision 2 Filed by Town of Amesbury. Town of Kensington, SAPL, and NECNP, December 19, 1986.
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Responses to Applicants' and Staff's Answers to SAPL's Contentions on Revision 2 of the NHRERP, December 23, 1986.
SAPL Revised Contention 7. SAPL amends the basis for this contention that alleges inadequacy of radiological. monitoring and decontamination personnel and facilities at reception centers by asserting that (1) there are no letters of agreement committing host community personnel to perfonn these functions; (2) there are no letters of agreement securing the reception center facilities contemplated for.
use; (3) the number of host community primary reception centers is now I
fewer than previously planned because of the deletion of Nashua and Durham centers, which will increase the burden of monitoring and decontamination at the remaining centers. SAPL further questions the capability to decontaminate the decontamination centers and alleges (4) that dilution of waste water generated at the centers, rather than storage and disposal of radiological wastes, could lead to a public l
l i
4 risk. Finally SAPL comments on the number of supervisory personnel available at the centers but asserts no litigable issue in this regard.
1 The Applicants respond that this Board, in our Memorandum and Order of November 4,1986, dismissed those parts of this contention "in regard to the issues of monitoring emergency workers and the adequacy of arrangements in the RERPs for disposal of low level radioactive waste from decontaminated (sic) activities," and that the Board had found that verifying the assignment of specific workers to monitor emergency workers could be delegated to the Staff. Applicants also state that the need for letters of agreement committing host communities had been rejected in our Memorandum and Order of May 21, 1986 (at 6-7). The Applicants do not oppose admission of those portions of Reasserted Contention 7 which remain extant from the Board's rulings. However, Applicants fail to specify those bases they would deem extant and admissible, i
The Staff does not oppose admission of the revision of this contention, except to the extent that it would require " letters of agreement committing the host community personnel" to monitor and decontaminate evacuees. The Staff also cites our previous rejection of a related assertion, in connection with SAPL Contention 15, that letters of agreement should be required for provision of individual host community personnel (citing Memorandum and Order, May 21, 1986, at 7-8).
SAPL's response addresses the agreement letters issue by reasserting 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." SAPL, however, still fails to point to any specific services which it believes must be addressed by letters of agreement. Apparently SAPL continues to hold that letters of agreement are required with local communities or host communities, and has not identified any other organizations which it believes should be required to execute agreements. See our holdings on SAPL Contention 15, infra.
Thus we reject the first two revised bases to this contention, because SAPL has not identified specific activities or organizations requiring letters of agreement. The additional two bases that we can discern, i.e., the possible impact of fewer centers on the capability to monitor and decontaminate evacuees and emergency workers, and the alleged risk from dilution (instead of collection and disposal) of waste-water from decontamination activities are admitted.
i SAPL Amended Contentions 8 and 8A. These contentions allege that t
the State and local plans, and that the New Hampshire Compensatory i
Plans, respectively, fail to meet requirements that there be adequate manpower and 24-hour per day emergency response, including 24-hour per day manning of connunications links.
SAPL amends Contention 8 by adding to it the basis sections c and d of Contention 8A. SAPL further incorporates basis section b of Contention 8A into Contention 8.
1 SAPL provides additional basis amendments to Contentions 8 and 8A (SAPLContentions, Revision 2,at20-22).
Subject to the limitation contained in our Memorandum and Order of May 21,1986 (at 6) with respect to letters of agreement requirements, neither Applicants nor Staff objects to the amended SAPL Contentions 8 and 8A. We accordingly admit them, subject to the Ifmitations above.
SAPL Redrafted Contention 15. SAPL reasserts its Contention 15 alleging certain deficiencies in letters of agreement and amends the bases contained in its filing of April 8,1986 (SAPL's Third Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene).
Applicants, in their response, do not oppose admission of Redrafted SAPL Contention 15 with the limitations as imposed with respect to nonopposition to SAPL Contention 8A and that letter agreements be limited to the provider of services not the recipients, and that they not be required of individuals collectively supplying a labor force or activity.
t
- 4 The Staff, in its response, does not oppose the revision of this -
contention which was admitted in part by the Board's Order of May 21, l
. 1986..
n We reaffim our holdings with respect to the admissibil.ity of SAPL Contention 15 and the limitations with respect to its bases as expressed in our Memorandum and Order on Late Filed Contentions of SAPL, dated May 21, 1986. Separate letters of agreement are not required for the recipients of services (as opposed to the providers) nor for individuals i
who collectively supply a labor force or activity. Nor are separate letters of agreement required for response organizations where response functions are covered by laws, regulations or executive orders.
l . Principal response organizations are in this latter category. I NUREG-0654, i II.A.3, and App. 5, at 5-1. Accordingly, the amended bases of SAPL's Redrafted Contention 15 are admitted subject to the prior limitations we imposed on admissibility of this contention.
SAPL Amended Contention 16. This contention alleging certain J
! inadequate provisions for sheltering of various segments of the populace 4
isamendedbySAPLbydeletingthesecond(basisstatement)paragraphof page 20 of its February 21, 1986 filing and replacing it with the following:
Though an evaluation of the sheltering adequacy of some of the buildings housing special facilities appears at Table 2.6-3 of Vol.1 of the NHRERP Rev. 2, there is no information given with regard to schools and day care centers.
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff objects to this amendment.
SAPL Amended Contention 16 is admitted.
SAPL Revised Contention 18. SAPL restates its contention alleging
~
I miscalculation of the numbers of non-auto-owning public and the 1 consequent numbers of buses required to transport such persons as specified in the NHRERP Revision 2, and asserts new bases for the I contention. A similar SAPL Contention 18 was dismissed by this Board (Memorandum and Order dated November 4,1986) on Applicants' motion for sunnary disposition.
The Applicants respond that SAPL has not advanced appropriate i
grounds for revision of this contention in light of our previous dismissal on the basis that the contention called for " extraordinary -
4 measures" not required by NRC regulations.
i i
F- The Staff does not oppose this revised contention, if limited to i
i the specific bases offered in its support. Further, the Staff states that the Board's prior finding of a requirement for " extraordinary measures" in the dismissed contention bears no reasonable relationship to the contention in its present fonn.
d In its response SAPL essentially agrees with the Staff.
E
)
i
In its bases statements SAPL adverts to changes from the November 1985 NHRERP to the NHRERP Revision 2 in the calculations of the population of non-auto-owning persons and the numbers of required buses.
The Board rejects this aspect of SAPL's revised bases on the grounds that the issues alleged in the contention pertain to the adequacy of the
! present NHRERP Revision 2, and calculations, results, and procedures in previous versions are immaterial. Except for this limitation, SAPL Revised Contention 18 with its revised bases is admitted.
SAPL Contention 25. SAPL reasserts its Contention 25 and the basis therefor set forth in its February 21, 1986 filing, and amends its basis. This contention alleges inadequate provisions for protecting mobility-impaired persons. This contention was partially dismissed by this Board on Applicants' motion for summary disposition (insofar as it asserted inadequate procedures for identifying persons with special needs).
Applicants oppose " readmission" of this contention on the grounds that SAPL is objecting without any authority in the rules to our previous dismissal and that SAPL is merely enlarging the basis of a dismissed contention, j
The Staff does not oppose admission of this contention, if limited to the specific bases presently offered by SAPL in its support.
1 I
- , - . . . . - - - - . ~,n. , , . . - - . - . - - - - - - _ , - - - - - . . ------,_---.c.
,.,,,,n-.w,,,,,,_,_, ,,_._ , , , . - - , _ - ..,,.r__,,_,-,_ -,v.--, , -, . - - .
In responding to Applicants' opposition to admissibility, SAPL answers that the contention was always broader than the identification issue and encompassed the adequacy of all other necessary provisions for assisting those whose mobility is impaired.
't We admit SAPL Contention 25 as limited to the specific bases offered by SAPL in its November 26, 1986 pleading that assert deficiencies in the NHRERP Revision 2.
SAPL Revised Contention 31. SAPL reasserts its previously submitted Contention 31, with minor revisions to make it applicable to the NHRERP Revision 2 version of the evacuation time estimate (ETE) report.8 SAPL states that it reasserts and incorporates the previous
! bases, except as those bases are modified in the revised bases submitted. Twenty numbered revised bases asserting certain defects with respect to the Revision 2 ETE report sre provided.
SAPL provides no indication as to which of the original bases may or may not have been modified by the revised bases, or which of the original bases, if any, may be applicable to NHRERP Revision 2.
8 Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study, State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Revision 2. Vol. 6 i (identified as Appendix E in local plans), August 1986.
- y.
- 4--, w..7+ py. ..e ,-,.-,,,.yy ,wg_.ww,.-.%,,e-m._ - - ,am.-eq.m v *r e m - pm-w- * *- 7 *-*'W- * ' - +
7 r 7.g,wys,wwC=ye-e'7---=e---t** ew-----Nw
.t i
- 1
- The Applicants continue to maintain that the ETE study prepared for I the State of New Hampshire is not litigable in these proceedings because a only the Applicants' ETEs are required by NRC regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. E, 6 IV) and those ETEs were prepared in connection with 7
Applicants' radiological emergency response plans and were litigated ,
- during'the August 1983 hearings.
i h The Staff does not oppose admission of this contention, limited to l the specific bases proffered in support, except as to SAPL's assertions 4
- that sensitivity tests are needed as to certain matters contained in l
basis statements number 10 and number 16. According to the Staff, these assertions constitute nothing more than SAPL's views as to what should
~
[
i
! go into an ETE, without providing any supporting basis as to the' types 1
j of parameters to be included or the effect the parameters would have on I the ETEs.
l
! SAPL answers the Applicants' objection to the admissibility of this I
i contention by stating that this Board had agreed with the Staff's j position in deferring a ruling on admissibility of a similar contention, Hampton III, in our Memorandum and Order of April 29, 1986. SAPL then proceeds to cite the Staff's reasoning on litigability of the contention challenging the State's ETEs as presented in "NRC Staff's Response to ;
l Contentions Filed by Towns of Hampton, Hampton Falls, Kensington, Rye, i
l and South Hampton, and by the Massachusetts Attorney General, NECNP and i
SAPL," dated March 14, 1986. SAPL answers the Staff objection as to l
l L r i
L , _ .- _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _. . _ _ _ _ _
V requirements for sensitivity studies by asserting (re basis #10) that SAPL believes that the assumption that all evacuees choose the optimum route to their destination should be tested, and (re basis #16) that the effect of one or more major road blockages should be tested. SAPL assumes the result of such " tests" would be lengthening of the ETEs.
The Board finds these arguments do not meet the Staff's objections as to the parameters that SAPL wants tested and, therefore, SAPL is simply attempting to insert its views as to how ETEs should be derived, without any basis therefor.
The Staff's March 14, 1986 response in regard to Hampton Contention III (s_upra, Attaciment at Hampton at 5-11) does, indeed, present substantial legal arguments that contentions meeting the basis and specift.ity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 and challenging a State agency's ETEs prepared for use by state and local organizations are litigable, even if Applicants have prepared and submitted ETEs pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 9 IV.9 In sumary, the Staff's arguments, which we adopt, point out that 10 C.F.R. Il 50.33(g) and 50.34(b)(6)(v) require operating license 9
At the prehearing conference on March 26, 1986, we required the Applicants, and permitted other parties, to brief the Board on this subject. The Staff referred to its March 14, 1986 response to contentions in this regard, and elected not to file another brief.
Tr. 2328-30.
1
1 applicants to submit radiological emergency response plans of their own as well as those of State and local government entities within the plume exposure pathway EPZ, and that pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b)(10) both the onsite and offsite emergency plans must meet the following standard:
(10) a range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. . Guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are developed and in place. . . .
Guidance as to the means for complying with these regulatory requirements and those of Section IV, Appendix E to Part 50 is contained in NUREG-0654.
These provisions make it clear that both the Appifcants' and the State's plans are to contain evacuation time estimates. The submittal of an ETE by the Applicant as part of its plan does not necessarily-satisfy the provision that an ETE is also to be submitted as part of the offsite plans. Offsite authorities are expected to designate an ETE because they, like the Applicants, are responsible for formulating appropriate protective action reconsnendations pursuant to
' Section 50.47(b)(10) based in pa.t upon an ETE. In the Seabrook offsite plans prepared by the State of New ..ampshire, the State has chosen to use its own ETE prepared for it by KLD Associates. Inc. instead of the
! study compiled for the Applicants.
i
4 t
44 r
10 Thus, the Applicants' reliance (Response at 3) upon Diablo Canyon to argue that the State has gone beyond the requirements of the Comission's regulations in preparing its own ETEs is ill-founded. In Diablo Canyon the joint intervenors and the Governor sought to impose C
state emergency planning zones beyond the areas specified in the Comission's regulations. At Seabrook, the State is utilizing ETEs pursuant to the Comission's regulations, and the ETEs have been prepared pursuant to Comission guidance, so far as we can determine at this point. Hence, challenges as to whether the State's ETEs meet the Comission't regulatory requirements, and which otherwise meet the basis and specificity requirements, may present litigable issues. Applicants do not address the basis and specificity requirements of SAPL Revised Contention 31 in their response.
SAPL Revised Contention 31 is admitted, limited to the specific ,
bases proffered by SAPL in its support, except as to bases 10 and 16, which are denied for lack of requisite specificity.
SAPL Contention 33. SAPL contends that there is no showing that NHRERP Rev. 2 provides adequately for the registration and monitoring of evacuees seeking assistance at reception centers within about a 12-hour 10 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-781, 20 NRC 819, 829-32 (1984).
l
-s period. As a basis SAPL points to the reduction in number of host connunities from six to four, resulting in a lessening of the municipal resources that can be drawn upon to assist the evacuating population.
It further asserts that " reasonable assurance has not been demonstrated that any significant fraction of the sununer midweek population of 142,929 estimated in these plans for the New Hampshire portion of the EPZ could be assured the requisite assistance in the specified time."
Applicants respond that this contention is in essence a restatement of SAPL Contention 3, previously rejected by th Board, that alleged a regulatory requirement for the relocation centers to be able to provide for all evacuees who leave the EPZ.
The Staff does not oppose admission of this contention, pointing to SAPL's more limited basis than used in the rejected SAPL Contention 3, i.e., provision for "all evacuees seeking assistance" within the designated time frame.
We agree with the Staff's assessment of SAPL's limitation of the basis, and SAPL Contention 33 is admitted. However, the Board notes that this contention overlaps SAPL Revised Contention 7, as admitted, supra.
i SA.?L Contention 34. In this contention, SAPL alleges that State i
and local plans do not meet the requirements that there be maps showing l
l population distribution'around the facility. As bases, SAPL asserts inaccuracies in the permanent and resident population estimates used in the NHRERP Revision 2, and thus that the population maps are inaccurate.
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff oppose admissibility of this contention.
SAPL Contention 34 is admitted as limited to the stated bases.
SAPL Contention 35. In this contention, SAPL complains that public information material does not instruct the public to go to reception centers for monitoring if there is any danger that they have been.in the plume exposure area.
The Applicants oppose on the grounds that the contention does not arise out of NHRERP Revision 2, and that there is no regulatory requirement or regulatory guide of tenor set forth in the contention, hence the contention is beyond regulatory requirements.
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that the purported deficiencies do not appear to have occurred for the first time in the NHRERP Revision 2 and SAPL has failed to demonstrate good cause for not raising this issue sooner.
l l
SAPL answers that the Revision 2 language now more than heretofore predisposes evacuees against going to reception centers, and argues that it has provided sufficient specificity and basis which arises from Revision 2 to support previously rejected SAPL Contention 23 that alleged absence of public information materials.
We agree with the Applicants and the Staff. SAPL Contention 35 is denied as untimely and lacking in specificity. It merely presents SAPL's views of what it believes should be in the public information materials.
SAPL Contention 36. SAPL asserts that there is no current legal basis or written agreement providing for cooperation of the Salisbury, Massachusetts Police with the New Hampshire Emergency Response Organization although New Hampshire plans rely upon response actions by the Salisbury Police. SAPL's basis relies upon the " fact" that Massachusetts has withdrawn from planning.
The Applicants oppose on the ground that the contention is not litigable in light of the decision on " realism" handed down by the
' Commission in Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station),
CLI-86-13,24NRC22(1986), since the contention is based on Massachusetts' announced refusal to plan.
l i
f
The Staff does not oppose admission of this contention concerning hew Hampshire's reliance on services to be performed by the Salisbury, Massachusetts Police Department, as contained in the plans of Hampton and Seabrook.
SAPL responds to the Applicants' opposition by stating that it (SAPL) does not accept the assumption that the Shoreham argument is applicable in this instance, and even if it were, "the Consission
. remanded the matter back to the Licensing Board to make findings with regard to the efficacy of the response."
This is' essentially a restatement of SAPL Contention 2 which was submitted by SAPL on February 21, 1986 and which was rejected by us in our Memorandum and Order dated April 1,1986. What SAPL wants to litigate is the effect of Massachusetts' announced withdrawal of its emergency planning on New Hampshire emergency response plans.
SAPL's attempt to raise this issue again fails on two grounds.
Firstly, Massachusetts' plans, or cessation of planning if that is the case, is unrelated to issuance of Revision 2 of the NHRERP and SAPL has made no showing that the Seabrook RERP's asserted reliance upon actions to be taken by the Salisbury Policy Department could not have been raised earlier. Thus, the contention is untimely. Secondly, the reasons we held for rejecting SAPL Contention 2 apply here as well.
From the record before us we still cannot determine what the ultimate
1:
cooperation between the State and local officials will be. While we cannot agree that the decision on " realism" handed down by the Comission necessarily precludes litigation of this contention as asserted by the Applicants (suora, CLI-86-13), neither has SAPL provided the basis for doing so.
SAPL Contention 36 is rejected.
SAPL Contention 37. SAPL contends that an adequate number of emergency vehicles is not provided for in NHRERP Revision 2 and that there is no reasonable assurance that effective use of the vehicles will be possible in view of a potential outgoing flow of evacuating traffic and a significant lack of drivers. As bases SAPL cites a reduction of the number of buses to be provided in Revision 2 (below the November 1985 version of the NHRERP) and in the projected need for buses in the City of Portsmouth. SAPL further asserts potential difficulties, due to congested traffic, in moving buses from the OMNE Mall staging area in Portsmouth to the towns of Seabrook and Hampton, citing inadequate provision for traffic control personnel (in State Police Troop A.
Hampton and Hampton Falls Police Departments) and unruly driver behavior amongst the outgoing evacuees. SAPL further asserts that sufficient drivers are not provided for in Revision 2 of the NHRERP since letter:
of agreement in Volume 5 show a total of 574 buses and 510 drivers, and demonstrate a total of 445 bus-and-driver pairs for a local-plan
l --
i' 50 -
I requirement of a need for 482 buses, though the State plan shows a need for only 444 buses for those communities.
The Applicants object to the admission of this contention for the ;
lack of specificity. ,
1 i The Staff does not oppose admission of this contention concerning j the availability of evacuation vehicles and drivers for persons i
I. requiring transport assistance and the liklthood that transport vehicles I
will be able to traverse the EPZ in order to reach their designated l
areas in the event of in emergency.
Comparisons between the November 1985 version and Revision 2 of the ;
NHRERP do not provide adequate basis or specificity for a contention ,
asserting that the respective numbers shown in Revision 2 is at issue. ;
However, the Board finds that adequate specificity to support SAPL i i
l Contention 37 is present in the remaining bases provided by SAPI., and as
! I i outlined in our sunnery above, and this contention is admitted as j'
I limited to those bases.
New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) Contentions (See Appendix for Text of Admitted Contentions) t NECNP Contentions on Revision 2 of the New Hampshire State and Local i
Radiological Emergency Response Plans, dated November 26, 1986. r I
i
s Applicants' Answer to NECNP's Contentions on Revision 2 of the New Hampshire State and Local Radiological Emergency Response Plans, dated December 10, 1986.
NRC Staff's Response to Contentions on NHRERP Revision 2 Filed by Town of Amesbury, Town of Kensington, SAPL and NECNP, dated December 19, 1986.
The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Reply to Applicants' Answer to NECNP's Contentions on Revision 2 of the New Hampshire State and Local Radiological Emergency Response Plans, dated December 19, 1986.
NECNP Reply to NRC Staff's Response to NECNP's Contentions on the New Hampshire State and Local Radiological Emergency Response Plans, dated December 31, 1986.
NECNP Contention RERP-8. This contention was admitted by this Board's Orders of April 1,1986 and April 29, 1986. In the latter Order welimitedthecontentiontoNECNP'sstatedbases(a)and(b),and rejectedprofferedbases(c)and(d).
NECNP's amendment to this contention amends slightly the previously admitted basis (a) and proffers new bases (d), (e), and (f) in support of the contention. The contention, not amended, challenges the adequacy
of sheltering as a protective action, as provided for in the State and local emergency plans.
Applicants answer that they do not oppose the restatement of basis paragraph (a), but that they do oppose the newly proffered bases (d) through(f). Applicants state that bases (d) - (f) offer but a running criticism of the plan covering six pages, in the context of what NECNP believes an overall plan ought to contain. Applicants conclude that NECNP has devoted no effort to specifying a particular basis for the contention in bases statements (d) through (f).
The Staff, in its response, does not oppose NECNP's modification of the bases for this contention.
NECNP replies to the Applicants' objection to the bases (d) through (f) on grounds of a lack of specificity, that the three bases are specific and they cite the pages in the emergency plan which support NECNP's position. NECNP further states that the bases are grounded in regulatory requirements, despite Applicants' claim to the contrary. In support of its statements above, NECNP asserts that guidelines for making protective action decisions are incomplete, confusing, and time-consuming to implement (basis d), that the decision making criteria are based on considerations that are inconsistent, unrelated to pubite safety, or unsupported by facts (basis e), and (in basis f) that a range of protective actions for emergency workers and the public "would
'.~
9 reasonably include a scenario in which sheltering was ordered for a period, and followed by an order to evacuate so that the sheltered population would not receive excessive doses as a result of staying in the contaminated EPZ for a prolonged period. The RERP contains no criteria for deciding at what point it is appropriate to order the evacuation of sheltered people." NECNP's Reply to Applicants, at 2-3.
The Board finds that the newly proffered basis statements (d), (e) and (f) to this contention are based on NECNP's concept of what it believes the plans should contain with regard to decision making in connection with protective actions and the guidelines and criteria provided. NECNP cites regulatory requirements, erects its own standards of adequacy, and proceeds to " demonstrate" that its standards are not met by the emergency plan. We find that NECNP fails to provide concrete, particular issues grounded in regulatory bases that it seeks to litigate. Accordingly, bases (d), (e) and (f) of NECNP Contention RERP-8 are rejected.
NECNP Contention RERP-8 is admitted as limited to the amended (i.e., substituted) basis (a)(NECNPRevision2 Contentions,at7)and the previously admitted basis (b) (NECNP Contentions, February 24, 1986, at12-13).
NECNP Contention NHLP-6. This is a broadly worded contention challenging the adequacy of local plans, and adequacy of local emergency
resources, to provide means of relocation and other protection for (1) r persons with special needs, (2) persons without private transportation,
- (3) school children, or (4) persons confined to institutions or elsewhere.
NECNP substitutes five basis paragraphs (a - e) to replace entirely the basis originally supplied in its contention submitted February 24, ,
1986. Basis (a) is taken verbatim from the first nine lines of its February 24th filing and addresses the problems it perceives to exist with the telephone request-for-assistance procedures for persons who have no private transportation residing in the Towns of Exeter and Rye.
In basis (b) NECNP asserts its reasons for challenging the procedures whereby residents requiring transportation will have to report to the nearest bus route pick-up point. ,
In basis (c) NECNP asserts that in the case of Hampton, there are conflicting provisions between Vol.18 at II-29 and Vol. 4B as to where school buses will go and from whom they will receive directions in the evacuation of students.
In basis (d) NECNP asserts that the cumbersome process of coordinating and dispatching school buses by the State of New Hampshire invites confusion and delay and will not provide adequate protection to the evacuees who will rely on the school buses.
i
-- - ..-- - . - , _ . . ...-----... , , .,,-.-... -. __._ ,_,, -,,- . .,,, ,_. , , . _ , - , _ . . _ , . _ _ , . , _ , - - c,.
t
- 55 -
4 NECNP raises certain other questions regarding availability of school buses and drivers in basis paragraph (e). Its questions go to the numbers of drivers available to receive the same assignments that they normally fill in their regular bus driving activities, and whether buses that are on the road during the day will be reachable in an emergency because many of the buses assertedly do not have radios.
NECNP also points out that many drivers have second jobs, live far from the bus company, or are unreachable in between runs.
Except for the previously admitted basis (a), the Applicants oppose admission of all the proffered amended bases on the grounds that they do not challenge the plans as inadequate but postulate that a particular aspect of a plan for a particular town may not work in a given situation, and that the postulated situations do not suggest, with I
sufficient specificity, the presence of an across-the-board deficiency with respect to all of the EPZ cities and towns. Applicants assert, h therefore, that amended bases (b) through (e) are inadmissible.
f 4
The Staff does not oppose NECNP's modification of the bases for this contention, as limited to the specific examples cited by NECNP.
- NECNP replies to Applicants' answer essentially by asserting that the examples cited in its supporting bases (b), (d) and (e) to this l contention demonstrate that the state and local plans are deficient and do not relate to just a single town. In regard to basis (c), NECNP n
,e-. - - ,-- ,c , ,, , , , , , . ,. , - - - . - - . , , , , . . , , , , , , , , , , , , - . , ,..-.,,..----,a,
t additionally asserts existence of a conflict between the Hampton plan and the State plan.
The Board agrees generally with the Applicants on the character of NECNP's proffered new bases, but does not come to the same conclusion.
The new bases (b), (c), and (d) offer sufficiently specific bases to support certain issues raised in the contention, but NECNP cannot broadly _ extend the examples cited to any or all other unspecified towns or examples. To do so would be an attempt to flesh out a general contention during litigation and simply does not provide other parties sufficient notice of what they must oppose or defend against in regard to this broadly worded contention (Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach-4 Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974)). In regard to NECNP's proffered basis (e), the Board cannot find a sufficiently specific allegation that NECNP seeks to litigate.
Rather, NECNP_'s complaints go to operational problems it believes may a arise in the course of supplying school buses and drivers without asserting why it believes the problems to be insurmountable or, if they do occur, why the problems might present significant public health or safety concerns.
Accordingly, new bases (b) through (d) to NECNP contention NHLP-6 are admitted, but as limited to the specific examples provided in the basis statements. The amendation (shortening) of previously admitted t
basis (a)isaccepted.
g m- * ,,,y,,-,,,,,,-..--,,w+--,-y---+,-,,,wew.----m- - - , ,, ,- , . - , .-
. o, NECNP Contention HP-1. In this new contention NECNP raises, for the first time, the assertion that host consnunity plans do not meet certain regulatory requirements. The contention reads:
The host plans for Manchester, Dover, Salem, and Rochester, do not meet the(10),
50.47(b)(8), requirements of 10 (11), and (13), CFR Sections[ sic or NUREG-0695 50.47(a)),
Sections J.12 and K.5.b.
The Board assumes that NECNP -intended to rely on NUREG-0654, if II.J.12 and II.K.5.b, which provide certain guidance on the standards and evaluation criteria for meeting requirements of 10 C.F.R.
Il 50.47(b)(10) and 50.47(b)(11), respectively. (NUREG-0695. pertains to Materials License SNM-1265 and is unrelated to this proceeding.)
NECNP proffers nine basis statements in support of the contention wherein it asserts:
(a) That the four relocation centers do not meet the requirements of NUREG-0654 Section J.12 that requires that the personnel and equipment at relocation centers should be capable of monitoring within about a 12-hour period all residents and transients in the plume exposure EPZ arriving at relocation centers; (b) That the human resources according to the host plans are inadequate because all provide for 94 staff members regardless of the size of the populations each center is planned to servet (c) That the plans do not assume that everyone evacuated from the EPZ will go to a reception area for monitoring and decontamination, with
the result that contaminated people and vehicles will go to other areas I
unchecked, thus causing a public radiation hazard; (d) That the plan does not adequately accommodate decontamination needs of evacuated hospital patients.and nursing home residents; (e) That it is not clear that injured contaminated evacuees or internally contaminated evacuees will be accommodated by the plans; (f) That there is no explanation in the plan of how the host facilities coordinator will identify personnel who may provide emergency medical treatment on site, or where such personnel will be found; !
(g) That despite the letter of agreement with the American Red Cross, there is-no demonstration of a Red Cross capability to provide for feeding, clothing, and sheltering all evacuees who have those needs; (h) That it is not clear if adequate food and clothing is stockpiled, or that the Red Cross will be able to gather its resources to provide for further food and clothing; and (i) That the plans do not contain a system for interchange of registration rosters between host facilities to facilitate . reuniting of families that are split up during an evacuation; NECNP maintains that such a system will be necessary to maintain order.
The Applicants oppose admission on the grounds that this contention is without sufficient basis and poses an impermissible challenge to Commission regulations. They state that the contention sets out in detail what NECNP considers evacuee policy should be, but with little more than lip service to regulations and regulatory guides. In j
t particular, Applicants state that neither regulations nor regulatory guidance provide for funneling all evacuees to host facility monitoring and decontamination centers to prevent the spread of contamination to North America and to provide for their every need in the manner suggested by NECNP. Applicants cite this Board's previous rejection of similar, but less comprehensive contentions in our Memorandum and Order of April 29, 1986; i.e., NECNP Contention NHLP-13, at 77; SAPL Contention 3, at 81-82; and SAPL Contention 4, at 82-83.
The Staff does not oppose 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 Contentions at 21, 5 c);II (b) that evacuees at the relocation centers are likely to abandon the centers prior to being monitored and decantaminated (id_. at 18-19); and (c) that relocation 11 Staff's n.20 (at 17) cited also in reference to the instant centention, states:
A recent decision by the Appeal Board provides a significant l
j interpretation of NUREG-0654, 5 II.J.12, in which it held that
> provisions must be made for monitoring and decontaminating all evacuees from the EPZ who may seek such assistance, not just
( for-those evacuees who may seek assistance in finding shelter.
l l
Long Island Lichting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, l Unit 1), ALAB-E55, 24 NRC (December 12, 1986) (slip op.
at 17-18). The Appeal Board left open the question of what percentage of the EPZ population should be expected to seek radiological monitoring and decontamination assistance, as a matter appropriate for evidentiary proof in the proceeding l (id, at 18); FEMA testimony submitted in that proceeding l slipported a reception center utilization factor of 20%.
C
- GO -
- centers should be required to communicate lists of registered evacuees with other host facilities (f_d. at 23, 9 i).- As to the first and last of the objections recited above, Staff states that they represent nothing more than NECNP's personal views as to what applicable policy ought to be and are not supported by applicable regulatory requirements or guidance. The Staff views the second NECNP assertion to which it objects as consisting of nothing more than unsupported speculation.
NECNP answers the Applicants' objections that (1) the contention
- has no basis and (2) goes beyond NRC regulations, essentially by stating that the regulatory basis is provided in the contention itself which assertedly details the factual support for NECNP's concerns and cites to 4
- the host plans by page. NECNP further states that it has reasserted the contention to preserve its right of appeal in view of the fact that this Board had previously rejected a similar contention. According to NECNP this path was chosen "[b]ecause the Board had also earlier declared that it was postponing litigation of the host plans until further changes were made . . . . 12 12 NECNP Contention NHLP-13 asserting an argument similar to that in bases (a) and (c) of the instant contention, but with fewer particulars, was rejected for lack of basis in our Memorandum and i
- Order of April 27, 1986, at 77. The more general contention on lack of host connunity plans, NHLP-12 was rejected as premature (id,.at76).
~,.--..,..,,,.,,-_.,,,,-,,_-,_y,,-----
- , ~ - - - - , , - . , . . ~ , _ . - - . . - y.
t
'NECNP disagrees with the Staff's three objections to certain bases for this contention (supra) and states that at least two of them represent reasonable assertions under the general requirement that there be reasonable assurance that adequate measures can and will be taken in .
the event of a radiological emergency (i.e., under Section 50.47(a)).
The Board finds that proffered bases (a) and (c) for this '
contention are predicated upon NECNP's belief that monitoring and
! ~ decontamination facilities at the host reception centers must be capable of handling the entire evacuating population within about twelve hours, rather than those arriving at the relocation centers, a lesser number.
NECNP is unequivocal in its interpretation in this regard. As we previously ruled in rejecting SAPL Contention 3, and NECNP Contention NHLP-13 (Board Order of April 29, 1986, at 81-82 and 77), we find no regulatory requirement that relocation centers be able to provide-for
- all evacuees who leave the EPZ or that there is any requirement that an evacuee must go to a relocation' center. (See also the Staff's first objection (supra) to this contention.)
Proffered basis (b) to this contention fails in that it asserts no violation of regulatory requirements or any inadequacy leading to a safety concern. Instead it merely points out that staffing levels are the same for the four relocation centers; hence it lacks any regulatory basis.
1
-~.4----,-- -w -, ,_-..,.,m ._. ,-.,-.,,--,.,.,,,,_-..-y, - - - , . . . , , - . , . , .
2 Proffered bases (d) through (i) relate to the ability of the host centers to provide certain services to persons who will, or may, evacuate the EPZ in the event of a radiological emergency. In its answer to Applicants' objections (at 6) NECNP, without any specificity, attempts to relate these criticisms of the host plans to the adequacy of the State's plan for " recovery" from an accident under 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(13). However, these bases reflect NECNP's view of what ought to be contained in the host community plans, not what the plans are required to contain. While NECNP cites regulatory requirements in the body of the contention and cites to pages (but not in all instances) in the host plan where NECNP takes issue with what it finds there, NECNP provides no clear nexus between its assertions of inadequacy and applicable regulations or regulatory guidance.
NECNP Contention HP-1 is rejected for lack of basis and specificity.
Adoption of Hampton Contentions. NECNP seeks to incorporate and ddopt the Contentions on Revision 2 of the NHRERP raised by the Town of Hampton in its filing dated October 31, 1986. NECNP further states that Hampton's contentions raise issues that affect the entire EPZ and that NECNP has a broad interest in litigating the contentions as they relate to the entire emergency planning zone. NECNP Contentions at 23-24.
t Applicants have no objection to NECNP's joining in Hampton's surviving contentions if limited to the Hampton portions of the NHRERP Revision 2, but states that it would be inappropriate to admit-the Hampton contentions as separate litigable contentions on behalf of both Hampton and NECNP. Applicants' Answer at 6-7.
The Staff opposes NECNP's adoption of the Town of Hampton's contentions filed'on'0ctober 31, 1986, because, it states, NECNP seeks to broaden those contentions substantially by rendering them applicable to all of the New Hampshire emergency plans rather than just the plan for the Town of Hampton. Adoption of the Hampton contentions in the manner proposed by-NECNP is unsupported by any demonstration of basis as required by-10 C.F.R. I 2.714.
- NECNP responds that it believes that it may be necessary to adopt Hampton's contentions in order to litigate them if the Commission adopts a recently proposed rule that would prevent parties from filing proposed findings or appeals on contentions they did not sponsor. NECNP avers that it does not seek to broaden Hampton's contentions, but to litigate l
those limited to the Hampton portions of the emergency plans, as well as l
those, such as Hampton contentions III and IV that NECNP states are related to emergency planning in the entire Seabrook EPZ. NECNP would agree to seek joinder of Hampton's contentions if such joinder assured full rights of litigation. NECNP Replies to Staff (at 4-5) and Applicants (at6-7).
t 1
- -. - , _ _ _ . _ . . . . _,_,,,..m-__,,,,,_,,._m...m
This Board cannot decide prospectively what the possible effect of a proposed Commission Rule on a party to this proceeding might be.
NECNP has provided no demonstrable basis for incorporating and adopting the Town of Hampton's contentions in the manner proposed by NECNP, and
.such adoption would broaden the proceeding impermissibly. Accordingly, NECNP's request to incorporate and adopt the Town of Hampton's contentions is denied. 13 ORDER
- 1. The Board's reasons for its rulings on admissibility of NHRERP Revision 2 Contentions, as provided in our Memorandum and Order dated February 18, 1987, are provided herein.
- 2. For the reasons given above, our Order dated February 18, 1987 is revised to reflect the following changes:
- a. TOH Revised Contention III -- Supplemental Basis (C)7 expressed in supplemental filing dated November 19, 1986 is rejected.
13 This denial does not affect NECNP's right to participate in the litigation of another party's contentions under current Comission rules and regulations.
t
- b. TOH Revised Contention IV -- Allegation in Basis (A)3 that individual Teamsters' Union drivers must sign lettersofagreementisrejected; Basis (C)isrejected.
- c. T0H Revised Contention VI -- Bases (C)2 and (C)3 are admitted.
- d. NECNP Contention NHLP-6 -- New Bases b, c, and d are admitted, amendation of basis a is accepted.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Wf Jer#y Hartystar W
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
& 9w Gus ave A. Linenb , Jr.
NISTRATIVE J
~
---/ . r to C Helen F. Hoyt ChairpFfsop ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Issued at Bethesda, Maryland this 18th day.of May, 1987.
Attachment:
APPENDIX:
TEXT OF ADMITTED CONTENTIONS RULED ON IN THIS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
. ._. .. .- . _ . - _ - . ~ . _ ____ _ _ ._. _ _ - . .
e t.
APPENDIX TEXT OF ADMITTED CONTENTIONS RULED ON IN THIS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TOWN OF HAMPTON (T0H) ADMITTED CONTENTIONS TOH Revised Contention III to Revision 2:
The Evacuation Time Estimate Study (ETE) prepared by KLD Associates, Inc., Revision 2, Volume 6, is based upon inaccurate and biased factual data and unreasonable or misleading assumptions, fails to comply with NRC regulations, and fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken, or that adequate facilities, equipment, or personnel will be provided to the Town of Hampton, in the event of radiological emergency. 10 CFR 5 50.47(a)(1), (b)(1)(10); NUREG-0654, App.4.
TOH Revised Contention IV to Revision 2:
Revision 2 fails to provide for adequate emergency equipment, fails to demonstrate that adequate protective responses can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency, and fails to correct deficiencies in emergency response capabilities apparent from the emergency exercise. 10 CFR 550.47(1)(8)(10)(14).
TOH Revised Contention VI to Revision 2:
Revision 2 fails 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 CFR l 50.47(b)(1)(10).
TOH Revised Contention VIII to Revision 2:
Revision 2 fails to provide adequate emergency equipment, facilities, or personnel to support an emergency response and fails to demonstrate that adequate protective responses can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency, 10 CFR i50.47(1)(8)(10).
e s TOWNOFKENSINGTON(TOK)ADMITTEDCONTENTIONS TOK Revised Contention 2:
The NHRERP, Revision 2 for "T0K" does not provide for adequate
" notification, by the Itcensee, of State and local response organizations, and for notification of emergency response personnel i 50.47(b)(5by) organizations,
. Provision as required for notification by 10 of the CFR town emergency response organization is inadequate in that it depends upon notification through the Rockingham County dispatch.
TOK Revised Contention 4:
The NHRERP, 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 i 50.47(a)(1), because the Kensington Elementary School provides inadequate radiological protection.
TOK 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 5 50.47(b)(3) because there are not appropriate letters of agreement to identify support organizations and other facilities which are to provide assistance.
TOK Revised Contention 10:
The NHRERP, 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 9 50.47 App. E.E.(9)(a), because provisions for communications with the State government are inadequate.
SEACOASTANTI-POLLUTIONLEAGUE(SAPL)ADMITTEDCONTENTIONS SAPL Contention 7:
I The New Hampshire State and local plans fail to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 5 50.47(b)(11), 5 50.47(b)(10) and l
9 t
NUREG-0654 K.5.b. and II.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 showing that adequate means for waste disposal exist.
SAPL Contention 8:
The New Hampshire State and local plans fail to meet the requirements that there be adequate manpower and 24-hour per day emergency response, including 24-hour per day manning of comunications links, as required by 10 CFR 6 50.47(a)(1),
5 50.47(b)(1), 6 50.47(b)(2), and NUREG-0654 II.A.I.e, II.A.4.
and II.F.1.a.
SAPL Contention 8A:
The New Hampshire Compensatory Plan fails 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 6 50.47(a)(1),
5 50.47(b)(1), NUREG-0654 II.A.1.e., II.A.4., and II.F.1.a.
Redrafted 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 fail to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 6 50.47(a)(1), 9 50.47(b)(1),
5 50.47(b)(3), 5 50.47(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 i
been specifically established, that each principal response organization has staff to respond or to augment its initial response on a continuous basis, or that agreements are being j reviewed and certified to be current on an annual basis as is l
required.
SAPL Contention 16:
! The New Hampshire State and local plans do not make adequate provisions for the sheltering of various segments of the populace in the EPZ and therefore the plans fail to meet the l
requirements of 10 CFR 9 50.47(a)(1), 5 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.a. and m.
I
.-~- . - . _ . -.- - . - . . .- - - .
SAPL Contention 18: !
( The NHRERP Rev. 2 significantly miscalculates the numbers of l
' 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 fails to meet the requirements of 10 CFR i 50.47(a)(1), 5 50.47(b)(8),
NUREG-0654 II.J.10.g. and NUREG-0654 Appendix 4, p. 4-3.
SAPL deletes the original statement of basis since the numbers cited therein have since been modified in NHRERP Rev. 2. '
SAPL Contention 25:
! The New Hampshire State and local radiological emergency i
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 such factors as institutional or other confinement are patently lacking. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 6 50.47(a)(plans do not meet the1),950.47(
NUREG-0654 II.J.10.d.
i Revised SAPL Contention 31:-
I The evacuation time estimate report, as described in Volume 6 of NHRERP Rev. 2 does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR l
~
l50.47(a)(1),550.47(b)(10)andNUREG-0654II.J.2, i
II.J.10 i,10 h and 101, and Appendix 4 because it fails to account properly for the number of vehicles that would be
'i 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 as flooding, snow, fog and icing of roadways; does not account for the effect of driver disobedience on
' evacuation time estimates (ETE's); does not appropriately deal with topographical features; does not deal realistically with the transport of transit dependent persons; in some instances overestimates roadway capacity and, for all of these reasons.
. underestimates the amount of time it would take to evacuate theEPZanditssubparts(" Regions")underthevarious scenarios analyzed.
1
)
i
.I?
l SAPL Contention 33:
Contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR $ 50.47(a)(1),
l 50.47(b)(8), 5 50.47(b)(9), li 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 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.
SAPL Contention 34:
4
- The New Hampshire State and local plans do not meet the requirement that there be maps showing the population distribution around the facility as required at NUREG-0654 J.10.b. and Appendix 4. Therefore, there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken pursuant to 10 CFR l 50.47(a)(1) and i 50.47(b)(10).
1 SAPL Contention 37:
The NHRERP Rev. 2 fails to provide reasonable assurance of adequate public protection because an adequate number of-emergency vehicles are not provided for in the plans and further there is no assurance that effective use of these vehicles will be possible in view of a potential outgoing flow of evacuating traffic and a significant lack of-drivers.
i Therefore, these plans do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR
% 50.47(a)(1), 5 50.47(b)(3), 9 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.g. and II.J.10.k.
3 NEW ENGLAND C0ALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION (NECNP) ADMITTED CONTENTIONS i
NECNP has amended the bases of the following contentions which f
previously were admitted by our Memoranda and Orders dated April 1 and April 29, 1986:
NECNP Contention RERP-8 Neither the New Hampshire RERP nor the local plans provide a
" reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency,"
as required by 10 CFR 9 50.47(a)(1), in that the plans do not provide reasonable assurance that sheltering is an " adequate i
i l l t
i 1
- - . _ __.. _ . _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . , . . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . .._ . _ ~ -
L I'
protective measure" for Seabrook. Nor do the plans provide adequate criteria for the choice between protective measures,.
as required by 5 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-065(, 5 II.J.10.m.
This contention was reworded as shown above to include NECNP Contention NHLP-7, which duplicated NECNP Contention RERP-8.
NECNP Contention NHLP-6:
The local emergency plans do not provide for an adequate range of protective actions,10 CFR 6 50.47(b)(10), because they .~
contain inadequate means of relocation or other protection for those with special needs, those without private transportation, school children, or persons confined to institutions or elsewhere for health or other reasons.
Moreover, the resources available to the towns for these purposes are inadequate to provide a reasonable assurance that the public will be protected in the event of an accident.