ML20215F904
| ML20215F904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1986 |
| From: | Curran D NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215F908 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1970 OL, NUDOCS 8612240109 | |
| Download: ML20215F904 (7) | |
Text
, y.
a--
e
/9 70 December 19, 1986 DOCXETED USHRC l
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 16 EC 22 P4 :25 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD GFFICE C' COCdEijy i y
)
!p
~
i In the Matter of
)
)
Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL l
).
50-444 OL l
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
OFFSITE EMERGENCY
)
PLANNING
)
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 Amendments to NECNP Contention BERP-8 This contention chal-lenges the adequacy of sheltering in the Seabrook Emergency Plan-ning Zone.
Applicants object to the bases specified in para-craphs (d) through ( f) of this amended contention.
Applicants first claim, without example or explanation, that NECNP f ails to specify a particular basis for the contention.
This objection is difficult to understand, given the f act that the contention is supported by three specific bases that give examples of NECNP's concerns and cite the pages of the plan which support NECNP's position.
This objection should be rejected as meritless.
i Applicants also claim that the bases for Contention RERP-8 are not grounded in regulatory requirements.
Fo r the reasons discussed below, Applicants are wrong.
Paragraph (d) challenges the adequacy of guidance for pro-tective action decisionmaking under the New Hampshire Padiologi-cal Emergency Pesponse Plan ("RERP").
NRC regulations at 10 CFR yd*Toa000?
gy03 0
1 t
j 1
4.
S 50.47(b) (10) require that emergency plans contain " guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency."
10 CFR S 50.47(b) (4) also requires the establishment of an emergency action level system on which the State can rely in making pro-tective action decisions.
Implicit in these standards is the requirement that the State should have in place a mechanism for quickly and effectively deciding how to respond to given accident conditions, so that it can provide early and prompt notification to the public.
See NUREG-0654 at 1-3.
NECNP has demonstrated that these guidelines are not adequate to support a reasoned choice of protective actions because they are incomplete, confus-ing, and time-consuming to implement.
Paragraph (e) demonstrates numerous respects in which the EERP's protective action decisionmaking criteria are based on considerations that are inconsistent, unrelated to public safety, or unsupported by facts.
It should be clear that in order to provide a reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be protected in the event of a radiological emergency, the protective action decisionmaking criteria required by 10 CFR S 5 0. 4 7( b) (10) should be rational, consistent, and supported by facts.
Paragraph (f) challenges the RERP's failure to anticipate or provide criteria for combining the strategies of sheltering and evacuation.
10 CPR S 50.47(b) (10) requires the State to plan a
" range" of protective actions for emergency workers and the pub-i
r-
. lic.
Such a range of actions would 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 radiation 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.
Amendments to Centention NHLP-6 Applicants do not object to the admission of this contention with respect to the issues identified in paragraph (a) of the basis.
Their objection to paragraphs (b) through (e) appears to be that NECNP's concerns relate to problems in a few towns that do not amount to a deficiency in Revision 2 of the RERP.
The objection is unfounded.
All of the bases of this contention relate to the adequacy of the state and local plans for coping with special transportation needs.
Paragraph (b) describes', problems with the bua pick-up system that has now been prescribed for all EPZ tcwns.
Those problems do not relate to a particular town, but are common'to all EPZ residents.
Paragraph (c) demonstrates that the state and local plans are not consistent with regard to their plans for the transportation of school children.
NECNP showed that Hampton's plan conflicted with the State RERP.
The problem is not restricted to Hampton, however, and appears to exist for all towns.
See, e.g., Vol. 2 6 (Exeter) a t II-31, Vol. 2 0 ( Rye) a t II-28, Vol. 19 (North Hampton) a t I I-2 6, and Vol. 16
-w
. (Seabrook) a t I I-3 4, all of which contain virtually the same lan-guage with respect to busing of school children.
Paragraph (d) relates to the inefficient, c'onfusing and time-consuming nature of the State's plan for the coordination of transportation of school children.
This does not relate to a single town, as Applicants suggest, but is a broad plan for the entire EPZ.
NECNP has provided specific examples of the way in which this plan is inadequate to provide a reasonable assurance that school children will be adequately protected during a radiological emer-i gency.
Finally, paragraph (e) asserts a general problem regard-ing the availability of bus drivers and buses during an evacua-tion.
This affects the State's ability to carry out the pupil transportation measures that are described in Revision 2.
By no means can it be characterized as a description of a "particular town" in a "given situation."
Applicants' Answer at 4.
Applicants' objection to this contention is without basis in law or fact.
Contention HP-1 This contention challenges the adequacy of host plans for reception of evacuees from the New Hampshire EPZ.
Applicants make a broad attack on the contention, claiming that it is without sufficient basis and goes beyond the scope of the NRC's regulatory requirements.
Like Applicants' previous attacks on the basis for NECNP's contentions, Applicants' claim that this contention has no basis is utterly refuted by the contention itself, which details the factual support for NECNP's concerns and cites to the host plans by page.
1
3 c
5-Applicants' claim that this contention goes beyond the scope of the NRC's regulations is also without merit.
NECNP's claim in basis paragraph (a) that the relocation centers cannot monitor evacuees within a 12-hour period is tied directly to NUREG-0654, S S J.12.
NECNP also claims in basis paragraph (b) that the relocation centers are inadequately staffed to protect the public health and safety.
The Applicants' argument that the adequacy of staffing for an emergency response is an issue that goes beyond the scope of NRC regulations is patently absurd.
Basis paragraph (c) asserts that the host plans do not assure that everyone evacuated from the EPZ will go to a recep-tion area.
Because of the contamination hazard posed by the exodus of thousands of people from the EPZ, NECNP contends that this constitutes a failure to provide adequate protection to the public health and safety.
We are aware, as Applicants point out, that a contention similar to this one was prev.iously rejected by the Board.
Because the Board had also earlier declared that it was postponing litigation of the host plans until further changes were made, NECNP reasserted this contention in order'to preserve its right to appeal this issue.
Basis paragraphs (d) through ( i) relate to the ability of the host centers to provide such services as decontamination of evacuated hospital patients and nursing home residents, the ade-quacy of measures for referring contaminated injured individuals to medical services, the adequacy of measures for identifying
6-emergency medical personnel, the Red Cross' capability to f ulfill its commitment to feed, clothe, and shelter all who need it, the adequacy of the food and clothing supply on hand, and the ade-quacy of the registration system for evacuees.
All of these issues relate to the question of whether the State can provide adequate protection of the public health and safety after an evacuation has been ordered.
They also raise questions about the adequacy of the State's plan for " recovery" from an accident under 10 CFR S 50.4 7( b) (13).
If the State cannot maintain orderly host facilities in which evacuees are quickly and effi-ciently monitored to detect radiation, decontaminated if neces-sary, and provided with essential requirements until they can return to their homes, the State cannot be said to provide a rea-sonable assurance that their health and safety will be protected.
Adoption of Hampton Contentions In its November 26 filing, NECNP sought to adopt the conten-tions of the Town of Hampton.
Applicants appear to object only to the admission of the Hampton contentions as separate conten-tions for both NECNP and Hampton.1 NECNP's goal in adopting 1
Applicants question the basis for NECNP's request, alleging that Hampton's contentions relate only to the Town of Hampton, and that therefore they assert no broader concerns that NECNP might wish to protect.
On the contrary, many of Hampton's con-tentions challenge the adequacy of planning for the entire Emer-gency Planning Zone.
- See, e.g.,
Hampton's Revised Contentions III and IV to Revision 2.
Even those contentions which relate only to Hampton are of interest to NECNP, however, because of Hampton's significant population and location in the EPZ.
- 1 1
4
,.. - - Hampton's contentions is to guarantee for itself the right to i
submit testimony, conduct cross-examination, file proposed find-ings, and appeal any ruling on those contentions.
NECNP believes that it may be necessary to adopt these 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.
See " Rules of Prac-tice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings -- Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process," 51 Fed. Reg. 2 4,365 at 24,3 68 (July 3, 1986).
Applicants do not appear to oppose NECNP's joining of Hamp-ton's contentions.
Assuming that such joinder would assure NECNP a reasonable opportunity to present testimony, cross-examine wit-nesses, file proposed findings, and take an appeal of the Board's ruling on Hampton's contentions, NECNP agrees to that suggestion.
Respectfully submitted, W
^
Diane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D. C.
20009 (202) 328-3500 December 19, 1986
-- _