ML20214N087

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Board 870218 & 0518 Orders.* Board Rejected Two Revised Bases for Contention 7.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20214N087
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/27/1987
From:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#287-3539 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8706020058
Download: ML20214N087 (8)

Text

. __ _ _. __ _ _ .. _. _ . , _ _ _ ,

. g DOCKET NUMBER /

PROD. & UTIL. FAC

/NI[dI

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCMETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .g g g In the Matter of. ) Docket No. 50-4f-OL

) 0FFIEE F .i #;

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (ASLBP No. 82-471-62%f)3 3 ^ 'D ML OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 9.t 31,. ) (Offsite Emergency Planni'nk)#

)

(Seabrook Station, Unit 1) )

SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD 'S FEBRUARY 18, 1987 AND MAY 18, 1987 ORDERS On February. 18, 1987, the Board issued its rulings on contentions on the Revision 2 New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan and stated that a Memorandum which would provide the bases for those rulings would " follow shortly." - The Board stated

! that it would not accept any motion concerning its rulings prior to issuance of the Memorandum explaining their bases. On-May 18, 7 1987, that Memorandum providing those bases was issued. SAPL herein responds to the Board 's rulings and requests reconsideration of them as follows:

SAPL Revised Contention 7 The Board rejected two of the revised bases for the contention, i.e. 1) that there are no letters of agreement i

i- committing host community personnel to perform monitoring 4

8706020058 870527" '

PDR ADOCK 05000443 i G PDR; _

L j)So3

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

2

,and decontamination functions and 2) that there are no letters of agreement securing the reception center facilities contemplated for use for these functions. The Board asserts that SAPL has not identified specific activities or organizations requiring letters of agreement. The specific activities, which SAPL assumed would be plainly understood and which SAPL did mention in its contention, are the monitoring and decontamination of evacuees.

It is plainly contemplated under the host plans that host community personnel are to provide those monitorino and decontamination services. If Applicants were to stipulate that i l

those services would not be provided, then indeed those would not l be litigable issues and those portions of the contention could be summarily disposed of. l The organizations to provide the letter agreements should be those expected to provide the f acilities and services. The governments of the towns and cities which are expected to provide the personnel, f acilities and services should sign letters of I

agreement. The fire departments in each community should also enter into letters of agreement since those are the organizations l

from which the monitoring personnel are to be drawn. The principals of schools that are to serve as reception centers should also provide letters of agreement to ensure that those facilities will indeed be available. SAPL has already clearly stated in the contention's basis that letters of agreement should commit host community personnel to perform the designated functions and should secure the reception center facilities.

SAPL Amended Contentions 8 and 8A SAPL reserves its right to challenge later the Board 's ruling in its May 21, 1986 Memorandum and Order that letters of agreement are not required of individual bus drivers.

SAPL Redrafted Contention 15 SAPL reserves its right to challenge later the Board 's ruling that letters of agreement are not required of individuals who collectively supply a labor force or activity. SAPL does not object to the ruling that " providers" rather than " recipients" of services are required to sign letters of agreement. SAPL would, however, define providers of services as those who take a role in carrying out the protective actions under the plans, such as school teachers, health care workers and day care center operators.

SAPL Pevised Contention 18 SAPL objects to the Board 's rejection of any comparison between previous versions of the plan in regard to population estimates and numbers of buses and the current NHRERP Revision 2.

It is enlightening in assessing the validity of current estimates to compare them with previous estimates. The methodology and assumptions underlying both sets of eatimates can only help in ascertaining the true situation.

SAPL Contention 2_5 SAPL has no problem with the Board 's ruling on the admiccibility of this contention as long as it is understood that the specific examples of Exeter Hospital, the Seacoast Health

4 Center and O'Brien' Ambulance were cited as indicators of a pervasive problem broadly affecting the treatment of such facilities' evacuation problems throughout the Seabrook EPZ. It would have been unnecessarily burdensome for SAPL to cite each and every f acility housing mobility impaired individuals in the basis of the contention. To have done so would have necessitated that the basis go on for many pages. The examples cited are representative of problems regarding transport of the mobility impaired.

SAPL Revised Contention 31 SAPL objects to the Board 's ruling at footnote 2 of its February 18, 1987 order that the Board need not consider further SAPL's May 15, 1986 bases for SAPL Contention 31. The Board 's May 18,1987 Memorandum and Order states that "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 Rev. 2." That is simply incorrect. SAPL in its November 26, 1986 filing incorporated all of the May 15, 1986 SAPL Contention No. 31's

bases and said that: "Any modifications needed in regard to that incorporated basis to make it applicable to the Rev. 2 KLD Report are dealt with below." In the basis statements below SAPL indicated where numbers had changed from the prior version of the ETE. As an example, at basis point #14 SAPL stated , "The revised KLD report now estimates the time for loading passengers at special facilities at 45 minutes (vol . 6, p . 11-21) . " This

- 7 . . - - --- , . . - , , -- . - . - , - . - ~

.5 statement and others like it indicated where there were changes

'from the prior draft.

3, LTOH Revised Contention III (which SAPL joined in and adopted on November 26, 1986) .

SAPL objects to the Board 's rejection of TOH's incorporation of the bases from its contention filed on May 23, 1986. It is unf air to the parties to throw out wholesale contentions which have previously been admitted as litigable issues. It is the Applicants ' burden to seek summary disposition of issues which may no. longer be matters of f act in dispute. The Board should not do the Applicants ' job. Further, SAPL objects to the Board 's rejection to TOH's Supplemental Basis (c) 7 filed on November 19, 1986. TOH set forth with roasonable specificity in its supplement to its contention a number of the apparent problems with the KLD ETE. If, as in this matter, there is a complex document which can only be fully understood following an opportunity for discovery, it must in f airness to the intervening party be allowed that the contention be set out as specifically as possible given what it is known without discovery. TOH has met its burden for providing

" reasonable" specifity. It would be unreasonable to have expected more under the circumstances.

SAPL Contention 35 SAPL objects to the rejection of this contention as untimely and lacking in specificity. It is of the utmost public safety importance that potentially contaminated individuals seek out radiological monitoring services to be sure that they have not

- .~ -- .

m-,,,- __ ,,_ _ . _ _ . ,, - . . _ . _ , - - - - _ -

, e 6

been contaminated.

As the Af fidavit of Donald L. Herzberg , dated June 6,1986 and filed earlier in this proceeding states:

"The only means of determining whether an otherwise uninjured person has been contaminated with radioactivity is to monitor that individual with .a radiation detector or survey instrument. Understanding that this is the only means of determining whether or not a person who otherwise appears well has been contaminated, is essential to develop-ing an appropriate emergency response program for radiation release accidents. Nowhere in the material presented by Public Service Company of New Hampshire does this realization seem apparent."

Further, the RAC Review of the State of New Hampshire l

Radiological Emergency Eesponse Plan for Seabrook states at E 7 l that: "It is recommended that the messages specifically direct evacuees to go to Reception Centers for monitoring in the case of r

a contaminating accident."

The public information messages f ail to do this and the l public cannot be deemed adequately protected absent such critically important instructions.

SAPL Contention 36 SAPL objects to the Board 's rejection of this contention related to reliance on actions by the Salisbury, Massachusetts police for implementation of the NHRERP. Until the publication of Revision 2, there was no indication that the Salisbury,

l l

7 Massachusetts police were to be relied upon to help implement the plans for New Hampshire communities. SAPL's contention was timely filed following receipt of Revision 2. The Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did not announce that state's withdrawal from planning until September 20, 1986. SAPL's Contention 2 filed in February 1986 dealt with the issues of responsibilities, authorities and the concept of operations between the two states under an assumption that both states were participating. SAPL Contention 36 rests on a different basis which ought now be litigated. SAPL agrees with the Board that the decision on " realism" handed down by the Commission (Lona Island Lichtino Co (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) , CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22 (1986)), does not preclude litigation of this contention.

Respectfully submitted, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League By its Attorney

, BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON DATED: May 27,1987 PDBERT A. BACKUS

/116 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03105 603-668-7272 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above " Seacoast Anti-Pollution League'c Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Board 's February 18, 1987 and May 18, 1987 Orders" was sent this date, first class mail, postage prepaid to all those listed on the attached service list.

, _W f- f oV S' Robbrt A.' Backus V

. -: e : CERTIFICATE OF S'ERVICE AND SERVICE.' LIST Helen Hoyt. Chm.

• Thomas Dignan, Esq.*

. Jose Fed. ph FlynnElgmt Emerg.- ' Asst.Gn.Cnsl.

. - Agcy . Admn. Judge *

. Ropes & Gray 500 C.St. So. West Atomic Safety & Lic Brd. 225 Franklin St.

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

• Docketing & Serv.. Sec.

Town of Hampton Falls Admin. Judge Office of the-Secretar)

Hampton Falls, NH.03844- ' Atomic Safety & Lic Brd. USNRC USNRC Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Sherxin E. Turk, Esq. W Dr. Gustave A. Linenberger

• Jane Doughty Office of Exec. Le gl . Dr . Admin Judge SAPL.

USNRC Atomic Safety & Lic. Brd. 5 Market Street Washington, D.C. 20555 USNRC Portsmouth, NH 03S01 Washington, DC 20555 Phillip Ahrens, Esq.

Paul McEachern, Esq. Ceorge Dana Bisbee, Esq.

Asst. Atty. General Matthew Bruck, Esq. Attorney General's OFF State House, Sta. F6 25 Mapleucod Ave. State of New Hampshire Augusta,'ME- 04333 P.O. Bo.s 3G0 Concord, NH 03301 Portsnouth, NH 03801 1

Carol Sneider, Esq., Asst.AG Diane Curran, Esq, William S. Lord One Ashburton Place. Harmon, Weiss Board of Selectmen 19th Floor 20001 S Street NW Suite 430 Town Hall-Friend St.

-Boston, MA 02108 Washington, DC 20009 Amesbury, MA 01913 Richard A. Hange. Esq. Maynard Young, Chaiman Sandra Gavutis New Han;: shire Civil Dhense Ecard of Selectmen Toun of Kensington Agency 10 Central Road Box 1154

.Harpe & McNicholas Rye, NH 03870 East Kingston, N.H. 0383 35 Pleasant Concord, NH St 0$301 Judith H. Mizner, Esc. Edward Tnenns Mr. Robert Harrison FDIA Pres, & Chief Exec. Offices Silve glate, Gertner,'

-Baker, Fine, Gcod & Mizner 442 J.W. McCorn:ack (PCCH) PSCO E88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02109 P.O. Box 330

Boston, in 02110 Manchester, NH 03105 Rcberta Pevear State Rep.-Toun of Ha pt Falls Drinkanter Road Ha:rpton Falls, NH 03S44 l

._'