ML20215B288

Answer to New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Contentions on Rev 2 to State of Nh State & Local Radiological Emergency Response Plans.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20215B288
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/10/1986
From:	Selleck K PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#486-1846 OL, NUDOCS 8612120104
Download: ML20215B288 (10)

Text

-

t i

.1 M6 000KETED Dated: December 10, 19ggiRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '86 DEC 11 P2 :20 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cfr.~

00Ci ! u before the h ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL

) Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues

)

)

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO NECNP'S CONTENTIONS ON REVISION 2 OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE AND LOCAL RADIOLOGICAL EMEkGENCY RESPONSE PLANS INTRODUCTION In the introductory section of its contentions statement to which this answer responds, NECNP purports, on page 2, to reiterate its Motion for Reconsideration and Response to Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of November 4, 1986.

Prescinding from the propriety of NECNP's action, Applicante incorporate by reference their answer in opposition to the f

motion dated and filed on December 2, 1986.

%2%O 0

l i

JSo3 L

5 CONTENTIONS Amendments to Contention RERP-8 NECNP Contention RERP-8 states:

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

$ 50.47(a)(1), in that the plans do not provide reasonable assurance that sheltering is an " adequate protective measure" for Seabrook. Nor do the plans provide adequate criteria for the choice batween protective measures, as required by 6 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654, 6 II.J.10.m.

NECNP Contention RERP-8 was admitted by the Board in its Memorandum and Order of April 29, 1986 pp. 58-59 on the strength of the first two (a) and (b), of some four, (a) -(d) bases advanced by NECNP. Bases (c) and (d) were found by the Board to be beyond regulatory requirements. Id. NECNP has somewhat but not materially restated its paragraph (a) basis in regard to NHRERP Revision 2. In recognition of the Board's ruling on the contention, Applicants do not oppose admission of a restatement of NECNP Amended Contention RERP 8 on the basis of its restatement of paragraph (a).

Applicants, however, do oppose the admission of an " Amended Contention 8" on the bases of paragraphs (d) through (f) as set out in NECNP's instant pleading. These bases (d)-(f) offer but a running criticism of the plan covering some six pages (7-13) in the context of what NECNP believes an overall plan ought to contain. For the most part, the

e narrative remains aloof from the protective action regulatory requirements of 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1);

$ 50.47(b)(1),(4) and (10) and by the regulatory guide NUREG 0654 9 II.J. No effort is devoted to specifying a particular basis for the contention in these paragraphs (d) through (f).

Amendments to Contention NHLP-6 NECNP's initial Contention NHLP-6 alleged:

The local emergency plans do not provide for an adequate range of protective actions 10 C.F.R.

S 50.47(b)(10) because they contain inadequate means of relocation and other protection for those with special needs, those without private i transportation, school children, or persons i confined to institutions or elsewhere for health l or other reasons. Moreover, the resources available to the towns for these purposes are inadequate to provide reasonable assurance that the public will be protected in the event of an r accident.

l The contention as initially stated was admitted by the Board without opposition. See ASLB Memorandum and Order, April 29, 1986, p. 69. But only the first of the bases for allowance of the initial Contention NHLP-6 is realleged as supporting the proposed Amended Contention here. The remainder of the bases are asserted to be substituted entirely for the earlier ones, although the new bases are also characterized, somewhat contradictorily, as modifying or supplementing those in the February 24, 1986 filing. See NECNP Contention p. 13, n. 4.

t NECNP's asserted bases for Amendment Contention NHLP-6 (apart from paragraph (a) pointing out the inadequacy of supplying a single telephone number to call for all those without private transportation who need relocation assistance) do not challenge the RERP plans as inadequate but in paragraphs (b) through (e) postulate that a particular aspect of a plan for a particular town may not work in a given situation. NECNP thereby suggests the presence of an across the board RERP Revision 2 deficiency with regard to all of the EPZ cities and towns. These so-called bases (b) through (e) provide no specificity for the proposed Ameaded Contention.

Admission of Amended Contention NHLP-6 ougnt to be limited to the asserted basis set forth in paragraph (a).

NECNP Contention HP-1 The host plans for Manchester, Dover, Salem, and Rochester, do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR Sections 50.47(a), 50.47(b)(8), (10), (11), and (13) or NUREG-0695, [ sic.] Sections J.12 and K.5.6.

NECNP contends, "(a) that NUREG-0695 [ sic.] requires that the personnel and equipment at relocation centers should be capable of monitoring within about a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period all residents and transients in the plume exposure EP arriving at relocation centers. Section J.12"; (b) that the equipment and human resources at each host facility is inadequate to register and monitor arriving evacuees from the plume exposed EPZ; (c) that the plan does not assure

e that everyone evacuated from the EPZ will go to a reception area, which will allow for a public hazard in the form of radiologically contaminated people and vehicles to go unchecked throughout New Hampshire, other states and to Canada; (d) that the plan does not adequately accommodate decontamination needs of hospital patients and nursing home residents and provide treatment for the injured and internally contaminated beyond referring them to med4 cal authorities; (e) there is no demonstration that the Red Cross has the capability to feed, shelter and clothe evacuees; (f) that there is no evidence of food and clothing stockpiles; and (g) there are no p:rovisions for an interchange of registration rosters by the host centers.

Applicants oppose the admission of NECNP Contention HP-1 for reason that it is without sufficient basis and poses an impermissible challenge to Commission regulations. The contention with little more than lip service to regulations and regulatory guides sets out in great detail what NECNP considers evacuee policy should be. The contention asserts that all evacuees of whatever condition should be required to go to relocation centers to be monitored and decontaminated to prevent the spread of contamination to North America and to be attended there as to every need.

Neither the Commission's regulations nor its regulatory guidance call for the funneling to and the holding of all evacuees at relocation centers nor in the manner suggested.

6 Knowledge of the limitations of the regulatory scope in these premises should come as no surprise. Similar, albeit less comprehensive contentions, have already been rejected by the Board in this proceeding. See, Memorandum and Order of April 29, 1986 rejecting: NECNP Contention NHLP-13, at 77; SAPL Contention 3, at 81-82; and SAPL Contention 4, at 82-83.

Adoption of Hampton Contentions NECLP in the final section of its contention statement declares that it incorporates by reference and that it adopts the contentions on Revision 2 of NHRERP filed by the Town of Hampton on October 31, 1986. This practice, subject to Board approval, enjoys some precedent in this proceeding; 16 NRC 1029 at 1083 (1982), but see this Board's Memorandum and Order of April 29, 1986 at 26. In any event, Applicants incorporate by reference their "...Ansuer (In opposition] To

-Contentions of the Town of Hampton to New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Plan Revision 2." dated and filed November 14, 1986.

Applicants, in light of their opposition to the Town of Hampton contentions, take no position on NECNP's asserted belief in its contention statement that it will make a substantial contribution to the record by participating in the litigation of Hampton's contentions. However, contrary to NECNP's position on the Hampton contentions, those 1

l

9 t

contentions, if admitted at all, must be limited to the Hampton portion of NHRERP Revision 2. Hampton has elected from the outset not to offer contentions which run to the entire EPZ but to limit its contentions to the Hampton portions of'the NHRERP. NHRERP Revision 2 offers no element of good cause for expanding the contentions at this stage of the proceeding. With Board approval, NECNP could be permitted to join in the Hampton contentions which run to the town. But it would be inappropriate to admit the Hampton contentions as separate litigable contentions on behalf of both Hampton and NECNP.

Respectfully submitted, fO R . g)

Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.

R. K. Gad III Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for Applicants 6

k DXKEILE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 'JSNRC I, Kathryn A. Selleck, one of the Applicants herein, hereby certify thatattorneys for the on December ~066,[EC 10, 1 11 P2 :20 I made service of the within document by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to (gy, ; m , ,

7, y where indicated, by depositing in the United States maikTC#1["U 1. : fr."rr first class postage paid, addressed to): M ANCH Administrative Judge Helen Hoyt, Robert Carrigg, Chairman Chairperson, Atomic Safety and Board of Selectmen Licensing Board Panel Town Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atlantic Avenue Commission North Hampton, NH 03862 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Diane Curran, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 430 Commission 2001 S Street, N.W.

East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20009 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the. Attorney General East West Towers Building 25 Capitol Street 4350 East West Highway Concord, NH 03301-6397 Bethesda, MD 20814

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Tenth Floor 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555

s 1 l

.h '

I Philip Ahrens, Esquire. Mr. J. P. Nadeau  !

Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road

~ General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 i

. Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General i Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor P.O. Box 360 Boston, MA 02108 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801

• Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S. Senate Chairman of the Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn: Tom Burack) Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950

• Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter J. Matthews One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 g ..

A Mr. Ed Thomas Judith H. Mizner,. Esquire FEMA, Region I Silverglate, Gertner, Baker, 442 John W. McCormack Post Fine, Good & Mizner Office and Court House 88 Broad Street Post Office Square Boston, MA 02110 Boston, MA 02109 Charles P. Graham,~ Esquire McKay, Murphy and Graham 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913 p6 Kathryn A. Selleck

(*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail.)

~ , - - - - , - -- - - - - - - ,