ML20235H701
| ML20235H701 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1987 |
| From: | Curran D HAMPTON, NH, HARMON & WEISS, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4492 OL, NUDOCS 8710010143 | |
| Download: ML20235H701 (11) | |
Text
f" YY Septembur 28, 1987 i
't967*
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD SEP 29 p5 60 hoh[ib$;,(, r![{p{J F
In the Matter of
)
Bu t,t.i Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL
)
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
OFFSITE EMERGENCY
)
PLANNING
)
NECNP'S, SAPL'S, TOWN OF HAMPTON'S, AND COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS' MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF HEARINGS WITH RESPECT TO CONTENTIONS INVOLVING TRANSPORTATION AVAILABILITY, RECEPTION CENTERS, AND RESPONSE PERSONNEL ADEOUACY
_ Introduction The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP"),
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League ("SAPL"), the Town of Hampton
)
("TOH"), and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (hereafter
" Interveners"), respectfully request the Licensing Board to suspend the litigation of certain contentions involving trans-portation availability, reception centers, and response personnel adequacy.
In the alternative, the parties request the Licensing Board to strike Applicants' testimony concerning these issues.
In their testimony, Applicants introduce information which substantially amends the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan ("RERP").
Before litigating these changes to the plans, the parties are entitled to be apprised of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's evaluation of those changes, and to respond to FEMA's findings.
In addition, with respect to the 1
issues of transportation availability and reception centers, the 1
8710010143 870920 PDR ADOCK 05000443 POR 3
O 1 50
, m r
. 5
! Interveners request an opportunity to conduct discovery on the
~ hanges to the plan before proceeding to hearings.
c I.
Factual Backaround-
~
1)
Personnel Resource Adequacy
^
In connection with. summary disposition motions filed in-March of 1987, Applicants submitted.a " Summary.of Personnel IR Resource Assessment for the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency
- q.,
Response Plan" (hereafter " Summary").- The Summary' purported to l
show, inter alia,.that Applicants had correctly determined the nudoer of emergency response personnel that will be needed. to
.4
-staff a response to an accident at Seabrook; and that the State of New Hampshire has sufficient personnel.to supplement or sub-a i
-stitute for the emergency response staffs of local governments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA") opposed Applicants' motion for summary disposition on the issue of the ah adequacy of personnel resources.
Based on the contents of the RERP, FEMA concluded in its position paper that the State has not demonstrated that it has adequate personnel resources to com-pensate for the non-participation" of local government personnel.
n
" Current FEMA Position on Admitted Contentions on New Hampshire w
Plans for Seabrook," (hereafter " FEMA Position Document"), filed June 5, 1987, at 2, 5,
22, 30, 40, and 60.
FEMA's Position Docu-ment did not include an evaluation of the Summary because the State of New Hampshire had not submitted the Summary to FEMA as j
J part of the ItERP " planning base."
E, 3
- f 3 W$
)
zo Er
)
l~
~, l-On September 11, 1987, the parties filed written testimony in this case.
Applicants' testimony included and extensively relied upon the Summary.
NECNP filed testimony which challenged the adequacy of the Summary.
FEMA stated in.its testimony that the Summary has now been submitted to it as part of the RERP, and that FEMA is in the pro-cess of' reviewing it.
Direct Testimony of Edward A. Thomas, et al.,'at 6.
FEMA did not state when it planned to issue its con-clusions about the Summary, but rather noted that such reviews generally take a minimum of 60 days.
Ids 2)
Transportation Availability The adequacy of bus and driver pairs to transport school children, transients, and other transit-dependent people, has been a contested issue throughout this proceeding.
In an appar-ent effort to address FEMA's and the Interveners' criticisms regarding the lack of bus drivers, Revision 2 of the RERP states A
that New Hampshire has entered into an agreement with the Team-sters Union for the purpose of providing an " Emergency Driver Pool" of 1,500 bus drivers for an evacuation.
RERP, Rev.
2, Vol..
4 at I-11.
j The parties conducted extensive discovery on the RERP's reliance on Teamsters for bus driving services, including taking the deposition of Teamsters' secretary David Laughton, who had signed the letter of agreement.
Interveners relied on the Laughton deposition in opposing Applicants' summary disposition motion on this issue and in preparing for trial.
i
. FEMA also opposed Applicants' motion for summary disposition of this issue.
In its Position Document, FEMA stated that "there are no details in the plans as to how the supplementary Team-sters' Local No. 633 bus drivers will be notified and coordinated j
with available buses, or, for that matter, how many Teamsters I
I will be released by their employers for emergency response duties."
FEMA Position Document at 47.
Applicants' prefiled testimony is completely inconsistent with the provisions of Revision 2 to the RERP.
Instead of the j
1,500 Teamsters identified in the RERP, the " Emergency Driver j
Pool" is now alleged to be composed of 196 New Hampshire National Guard, 168 state Department of Transportation personnel, and 48 Teamsters.
Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 2 at 13.
The parties have received no revisions to the RERP that show this change; nor did Applicants provide any prior notice that the change would be made.
Moreover, FEMA has not reviewed or issued a finding on this significant change to the RERP.
FEMA's testimony'on this issue assumes that Revision 2 of the RERP is still applicable and reiterates its Position Document of June 5 1987.
3)
Reception Centers The Applicants' testimony also makes comprehensive changes to the plans for host facilities, none of which have been sub-i mitted for reviewed by FEMA.
Among the many changes are the fol-1 lowing.
Applicants have raised their estimate of the number of people that must be treated at the reception centers <
Direct 9
. l Testimony No. 4 at 2.
As Applicants concede, this information is
" critical."
Id.
Applicants have also changed the staffing levels at the reception centers, as well as the staff organiza-tional structure and program for flow management.
Id.
at 9-17.
Decontamination procedures have also been restructured, now providing for the use of " buffer zone advisors."
Id.
at 15.
The plans have been changed to provide for separate emergency worker decontamination.
Idz at 6.
Applicants have also changed their plans for vehicle monitoring.
Idz at 11.
- Finally, Applicants now claim for the first time to be relying for staff-ing needs on a pool of fire department personnel from other com-munities -- but fail to identify those communities, describe the number of personnel available from each town, or to provide let-ters of agreement.
Revision 2 of the RERP has not been revised to reflect these extensive changes; accordingly, FEMA has not reviewed them.
Moreover, despite the fact that SAPL posed interrogatories asking Applicants to provide information on the number of individuals expected to report to decontamination centers and the number of DPHS supervisors that would be provided for the host communities, Applicants failed to update this information until their testimony was filed.
See Applicants' answers to SAPL inter-rogatories 32 and 37.
Araument NRC rules and the law of this case clearly require prior FEMA review of these critical changes in the RERP and a minimum
. of 30 days' opportunity thereafter for interveners to prepare their rebuttal testimony and/or cross-examination.
NRC regulations at 10 CFR S 50.47 (a) (2) give FEMA findings on the adequacy of offsite emergency planning the status of a
" rebuttable presumption."
These FEMA findings constitute the basis for the'NRC's own determinations as to whether its offsite z
o emergency planning regulations are satisfied.
Id.
FEMA findings must be "primarily" based on a review of the plans, although it may include other information "already avail-able" to FEMA.
10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(a) (2).
At the time the plans are noticed for hearing, they must include a description of their contents " sufficient to demonstrate that the plans provide rea-sonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the svent of an emergency."
10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Section III.
Thus, the NRC's regulatory scheme con-templates that emergency plans will be substantially completed at the time of litigation, and that emergency planning litigation, including' FEMA findings, will focus on the plans themselves rather than extraneous information.
Because FEMA's findings on the adequacy of emergency plans carry a " rebuttable presumption," the NRC requires that inter-venors must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to FEMA findings, both through cross-examination and the filing of their own affirmative testimony.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire.
et. al (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), ALAB-864, __ NRC __ (May 1, 1987), slip op. at 19-20.
In this emergency planning proceeding, P
--__._.-_--.__.-_a
I.
4 4 the Appeal Board has ordered that the deadline for filing prefiled testimony be set at no less than 30 days following a
" full" statement of FEMA's position on the issues under litiga-tion.
Idz at 21.
Applicants' presentation of direct testimony on the issues of personnel resources, transportation adequacy, and reception centers, frustrates this regulatory process and is inconsistent with the role given to FEMA under NRC rules.
Rather than amend the RERP and submit it to FEMA for further review, the Applicants have chosen to make fundamental changes to the plan through their testimony, thereby bypassing FEMA review.
Interveners are thereby wrongfully deprived of their right to evaluate and rebut FEMA's position or to use FEMA's findings to probe the Applicants' position on cross-examination.
Hearings on these issues must be postponed until "the plans are sufficiently devel-oped to support a conclusion that the state of emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protec-tive measures can and will be taken" for the New Hampshire sector of the EPZ, and Interveners have had a reasonable opportunity to assess the changes to the plans, FEMA's findings on those plans, and the staff's assessment of those findings.
Cincinnati Gas &
Electric Co. (William H.
Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
L:L_________-__.
y.
t.
, 'l;
@0, 769, 775 (1983), modifyina and affirmina n.f.
8549, 1580.1 1 rs:ptet to the issues of transportation "f ^ 5(,; @q'.; j (%
.m
.$ '<n
,'J'..
..o
.6
",a s.
Ccrption centers, the Interveners have been g
3.-.
- y..,9.
- Q ' g-f.: g p'7 ',
- 1...
Gd by the changes that Applicants have made to
, _. w 's c' '
~'
D '*'"' TlC koir testimony.
The Interveners focused their
- s
- s...,.
M9
. d,.. !P/T,Y dration of testimony on the contents of the
- c.7,. y.<
I~~
R9 bien superseded.
While Revision 2 of the f" l
gally on the alleged availability of 1,500
.0...1. g., 2y:,..,
Grvs bus driver pool, Applicants' testimony now y
.. :.cy gelicnce on the state Department of Transporta-r I
sal Gunrd.
Similarly, SAPL conducted discovery b.O
~. ac. :
- , q fGO3..
' f,7:
n l:3 2.....y,.
drt to evaluate the contents of the filed host
- 3.........tf?"M f.(ZG p g
> only to find, with the filing of Applicants'
- ono plans no longer represent the State's true
..g.
7 v,
. ;., y - -
Ml:
. (.;*,.
a.
cp ct to reception centers.
Before being
,...e s.,.
d to hearings on these issues, the Interveners 7 "P ' 7 h VM4f fXQaj Dy
,, y.,.. -..
3ditional discovery on the significant changes 4..v'ff..j,-
_1 by Applicants' testimony and to a fair W4
)]
- pera a case in response thereto.
. -))/.,
j r-1
.~.
'.]
1 I
4 -
]o g case, the Appeal Board ruled that FEMA's find-in final form.
In other respects, it affirmed sd's decision.
e J
on-j' 1, l l'
I' CONCLUSION In light of the fundamental and extensive' changes.to the RERP made:in Applicants' testimony -- changes which have not been reviewed by, FEMA, and many.of which come as'a surprise to the Interveners ~-- the Interveners request that the Licensing Board suspend licensing hearings with respect to the issues of trans-portation availability, response personnel adequacy, and recep-
~ tion centers.
Hearings on those issues should not resume until the New Hampshire RERP has been amended and submitted to FEMA for review, and the' parties have had an adequate opportunity to review and respond to FEMA's and/or the Staff's-position on the issues.
In the alternative, the Interveners move that the Licensing Board-strike those portions of the Applicants' testimony which contain changes that have not been reviewed by FEMA, and restrict the scope of the litigation to the facts con-tained in Revision 2 of the RERP and host community plans.
.1 Because these three issues are now' scheduled to be litigated early inLthe hearings (see letter from Sherwin E. Turk to-Licensing Board members, dated September 23, 1987), the Inter-i 1
1 L
.6.
'venors respectfully request that the Board give this motion expedited consideration.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of NECNP, SAPL, TOH, and the Commonwealth of Massa-chussetts, ane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009 (202) 328-3500 September 28, 1987 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 28, 1987, copies of this plead-ing were served by first-class mail or as otherwise indicated on the parties to the attached service list.
bM Wlane curran I
somitc.
3...
UhNYC W SEP 29 P5 30 SEAbOOK SERVICE LIST -- 0FFSITE LICENSIN6 20 ADD
^'
Ecnh,P00H) 9
~
W.n W.Sa%Chairsan North Haspton, NH 03826 i
Jic Safety and Licensing Best 2109 Pd J.P. Nadeau rSherwin E. Turk Esq.
> NRC TownofRye Office of General Counsel SandraGavutis Dington,D.C. 20555 155WashingtonRoad U.S.NRC RfD 1 Bor 1154 Rye, New Haspshire 03870 Washington, D.C. 20555 East tensington, NH 03827
> Jerry Harbour JicSafetyandLicensing Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairsan Charles P. Grahaa, Esq.
?d ~
CityHall BoardofSelectaen Mcfay,MurphyandGrahas
,NRC Newturyport,MA 01950 Newbury,MA 01950 100MainStreet
]ington,D.C. 20555 Asesbury, MA 01913 Alfred V. Sargent, Chairsan H.JosephFlynn.Esq.
stave Linencerger Board of Selecteen Office of General Counsel
)ic Safety and Licensing Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 FEMA
'd 500 0 Street S.W.
A by hew.;
NRC -
Senator Gordon J. Husphrer Washington,D.C. 20472 lington.0.C. 20555 U.S. Senate
- tyFederalErpress Washington,D.C. 20510 GeorgeDanaBisbee,Esq.
)icSafetyandLicensing (Attn.TosBurack)
GeoffreyM.Huntington, Esc.
4 Panel Office of the Attorney General rtRC SelectmenofNorthasDton State House Anner dngtor, D.C.
20555 Northaspton tiew Hasosnare Concord, NH 03301 03826 tic Safety ed Licensing AllenLaspert
>ei ioard hnel Senath"Gordon J. Huschrey CivilDefenseDirector NRC
! Eagle Square. Ste 507
.Townoftrentowooo engton, D.C.
20555 Concord,NH 03301 Exeter,NH 03833
@ ting and Service Michael Santosuosso, Chairsan Richard A. Haspe. Esq.
NRC BoardofSelectaen HaspeandMcNicholas ington,D.C. 20555 Jeweil Street, RFD i 2 35PleasantStreet South Haspton, NH 03842 Concord, NH 03301 Anne E. Gooisan 6ofSelectaen Judith H. Mirner, Esq.
GaryW.Holses,Esq.
@NewMarketRoad Silverglate,Gertner,etal'.
Holses&Ellis ts. WH 03842 88 Broad Street 47 Winnacunnent Road Boston,MA 02110 Haspton, NH 03842 DasS. Lord,Selectsan
. Hall--friendStreet Rep. Roberta C. Pevear WilliasArsstrong Bury,MA 01913 Orinkwater Road CivilDefenseDirector Haspton, Falls, NH 03844 10 Front Street Doughty fr?ter, NH 03833 PhillipAhrens.Esq.
Eket Street AssistantAttorneyGeneral Calvin A. Canney
)
2 south,NH 03301 Statehouse,Stationf6 City Manager Augusta, ME 04313 CityHall 3S.Sneider, Esquire 126DanielStreet i
stantAttorneyGeneral'
- Thesas 6. Dignan, Esq.
Portssouth,NH 03601 j
kburtonPlace,19thFloor R.l. Gad II, Esq.
m, MA 02108 Ropes & Gray Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
-l 225 Franklin Street Shaines t McEachern
{
2eyW.Inowles 80ston, M4 02110 P.O. Box 360 l
9ofSelectsen MaplewoodAve.
j for 710 Robert A. Backus Esq.
Portssouth, NH 03801 l
Backus Meyer & Soloson j
' e-111 Lovell Street Edward A. Thesas Manchester,NH 03105,
. ;]gy.