ML20235Y883
| ML20235Y883 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1987 |
| From: | Sneider C HAMPTON, NH, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235Y869 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8707270092 | |
| Download: ML20235Y883 (16) | |
Text
,
.i A
I'0CKE Tir.
- ." m C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,87 J!121 P2 :28 11UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
Before Administrative Judges:
Helen F.
Hoyt, Chairperson Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour
)
In the matter of
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
(Off-site EP)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
July 17, 1987
)
)
CONTENTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M.
- SHANNON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE (SAPL), NEW ENGLAND i
COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION (NECNP) AND TOWN OF HAMPTON AND JOINT MOTION TO ADMIT LATE-FILED COtJTENTION Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon, Interveners Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL), New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) and the Town of Hampton (ToH) hereby jointly submit the enclosed late-filed contention in this proceeding and move, for the reasons set forth belcw, that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admit this contention concerning the decision of the City of Manchester not to participate in the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency P.esponse Plan (NHRERP) as a " host community."
l 870727009207[h43 l
I 1.
Satisfaction of Late-Piled Contention Standard.
A.
Good cause, if any, l
for failure to file on time.
The Attorney General and interveners SAPL, NECNP and ToH satisfy this standard because "no adequately based contention could have been filed earlier."
Philadelphia Electric Company, (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-806, 21 NRC 1183, 1190 (1985).
The City of Manchester, by its Board of Mayor and Aldermen, voted on June 2, 1987 to reject a recommendation that it become a host community in the event of an accident at Seabrook.
At that time, the Board also determined to reconsider the matter of being a host community at its meeting to be held on July 6, 1987.
At the meeting held en July 6, 1987, the Board did not reconsider its June 2nd vote.1/
Moreover, the Attorney General and interveners just recently obtained the minutes from the Board's June 2nd meeting.
Those minutes are dated June 11, 1987 and apparently did not exist prior to that date.
Therefore, the interveners are filing this contention concerning Manchester's decision not to participate in the NHRERP as a host community at the very earliest opportunity.
1/
It is the understanding of the interveners that the Board may reconsider its vote of June 2nd at some later date.
However, in the interest of preventing unnecessary delay, the interveners have chosen not to await these further questionable developments and to file this contention now in order that the other parties may be apprised of this issue at the earliest opportunity.._-__________________________a
l 0
B.
Availability of Other Means to Protect Petitioner's Interest.
There is no other means other than by the filing of this late-filed contention by which the Attorney General, SAPL, NECNP and ToH can assure that this issue of the impact of Manchester's decision not to participate as a host community can be raised.
As a result of Manchester's decision, aspects of the NHRERP are now inaccurate.
Reliance on erroneous planning assumptions threatens regulatory compliance and could certainly have a detrimental effect on emergency response.
Indeed, the Commission has recently held that an emergency plan that " contained obsolete and wrong information" was not a bona fide plan.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC CLI-87-03 at 8 (1987).
Moreover, inasmuch as the effect of Manchester's decision is that thousands of persons from Brentwood, East Kingston, Exeter, Kensington, Newfields, Stratham and Hampton Beach may have no reception center to report to in the event of an accident at Seabrook, this contention raises an important safety issue which cannot otherwise be adequately addressed.
C.
10 CFR 2,714(a)(1)(iii).
Extent to Which Petitioner Can Contribute to Cc"elopment of a Sound Record.
The Attorney General and interveners have raised an important but narrow factual question regarding the adequacy and accuracy of the New Hampshire Emergency Response Plan in - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
l
!M),,
i M ::
^U
/
n' q/
light [ofManchestor'ssfdec'itsionnottoparticipateas'ahost l
\\
community.
The parties would examine as potential witnesses City Aldermen, and local' officials that could testify as to'the i
ramifications.of the City's decision.
- Moreover, g
,1]r.-Thomas Adler, an expert ~ witness on evacuation time estimates retained by the Attorney General, would testify on i
l
' the effect of Manchester's decision upon the accuracy of the evacuatl ion time study contained'in' Volume'6 of the NHRERP, and i
tne interveners would retain other expert witnesses to testify on :the inadequacy of - the NHRERP provisions for monitoring and
" decontamination. facilities in light'of this new development..
D.
Extent to Which
~~
Other Parties Will Represent Petitioner's Interest.
No'other pa:ty has raised this issue before the Board.
o Furthermore, no other party can represent the interests of the Massachusetts' Attorney General or interveners SAPL, NECNP and
\\
\\
ToH'oalthis issue.
As a host community, Manchester was to have assumed various responsibilities _ including decontamination and monitoring, and providing food and medical assistance to evacuees, which would include large numbers of Massachusetts, as well as New Hampshire, citizens since, pursuant to the NHRERP, Hampton Beach transients are assigned to report to Manchester as their host community. I
\\ '
C
{
l E.
Broadening and Delay of Proceedings.
l Admission of this late-filed contention would only minimally broaden or delay the ongoing proceedings.
SAPL Contentions 33 and 7, already admitted for hearing, deal with virtually this very same issue of the sufficiency of registration, monitoring and decontamination facilities due to the deletion in Revision 2 of the NHRERP of Nashua and Durham as reception centers.
Admission of this late-filed contention would merely broaden the factual bases of these two aduitted contentions so as to include the fact that Manchester will also not be participating as a host community, and to address the fact that the'NHRERP does not currently designate any alternatives to the use of Manchester as a reception center, and to address the impact of this new development on the NHRERP's evacuation time estimates.
CONTENTION:
The NHRERP, Rev.
2, does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station contrary to the requirements of 10 C.P.R.S 50.47(a)(1),
and 10 C.F.R.
SS 50.47(b)(1), (6), (7), (8), (10) and (12),
i because the City of Manchester, which the NHRERP lists as the relocation center for evacuees from Brentwood, East Kingston, Exeter, Kensington, Hampton Reach, Newfields and Stratham, has voted not to participate as a host community or relocation j - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
O center and has voted not to accept equipment necessary for emergency response functions, and because no alternative relocation center has been provided in the plan.
In addition, the NHRERP, Rev.
2, does not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
SS 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(1), (6), (7), (8), (10) and (12),
because even if the City of Manchester was to reconsider its decision not to participate in the RERP as a host community, the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency has stated that Manchester vill not serve as a relocation center for evacuees from Hampton Beach and no alternative relocation center for Hampton Beach evacuees is provided in the NHRERP.
{
BASES:
The NHRERP, Rev.
2, provides that the City of Manchester, New Hampshire, will serve as the host community for evacuees from Brentwood, East Kingston, Exeter, Kensington, Hampton Beach, Newfields, and Stratham, New Hampshire.
See Vol. 36, " Host Plan for City of Manchester, New Hampshire," at I-1.
Specifically, the Manchester Host Plan designates the Memorial High School as a reception center and fourteen other j
l schools in ::anchester as shelters.
On July 2, 1987, the City of Manchester, by its Board of Mayor and Aldermen, voted not to j
i "act as host community in the event of an accident at the Seabrook plant" and not to accept an offer from the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency of $146,500 for radios and other communication and emergency response equipment.
)
l l
l 1,
l t
1
i I
On July 3, 1987, at a meeting to discuss what Manchester's1 role as a1 host community would be should the City' reconsider its July 2nd vote, the.New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency informed citizens of Manchester that evacuees from Hampton Beach would in no event be instructed to report to reception l
facilities in the City of Manchester,. contrary to the express provision of the NHRERP.
As a result of the decision of the City of Manchester not to participate as host community and not to accept money for emergency communication and other emergency response equipment, and the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency's determination not~
to use.the City of Manchester as a relocation center for Hampton Beach transients, NHRERP, Rev.
2, is deficient in the following enumerated respects:
(a) Contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47(b)(1) and NUREG-0654, SS II.A.1-3, the NHRERP fails to accurately assign responsibility for host community emergency response, because it designates the City of Manchester as a host community when that city has determined that it will not serve as a host community, and because it designates Manchester as the host community for Hampton Beach transients when NHCDA has stated that it will not instruct transients from Hampton Beach to report to Manchester.
(b) Contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
l S 50.47(b)(1),(5) and (8) and NUREG-0654, SS II.A.4, H.3, H.4, H.10 and E.2, there is no assurance without Manchester's _ __-____
' participation in-the RERP and.without its acceptance of equipment, that procedures will_be'in place for alerting, notifying and mobilizina emergency response personnel in Manchester and that designated reception facilities in Manchester will have adequate staffing _and equipment to support the emergency response on a continuous 24-hour basis.
Furthermore, there is no assurance that other host communities designated in the NHRERP, Rev.
2, would have sufficient staffing and equipment to compensate for Manchester's nonparticipation.
(c). Contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. SS 50.47(6) and (8) and NUREG-0654, SS II.F.1, 2 and 3, there is no assurance without Manchester's participation in the RERP and without its acceptance of the communication equipment deemed necessary by the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency that adequate provisions and equipment for emergency communication will.be in place in Manchester in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station.
(d) Contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
SS 50.47(b)(5), (7) and (10) and NUREG-0654, SS II.E.5, E.7, G.1, G.2, and J.10a, there is no assurance that persons in Brentwood, East Kingston, Exeter, Kensington, Hampton Beach, Newfields and Stratham will receive proper instruction with respect to which host community they should report to in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station:
I (1) because the public information materials, maps of relocation centers and EBS messages contained.in NHRERP, Rev.
2,. provide that such persons are to report to Manchester when Manchester has voted not to participate; and (2) because New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency has stated it will not instruct.
Hampton Beach evacuees.to report to Manchester despite the RERP's provisions to the contrary.
(e) Contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)
(10) and NUREG-0654, SS'II.J.8, J.10.i, J.10.1, and J.10.n, there is no assurance that the NHRERP's evacuation time estimates are accurate.
The KLD evacuation time estimates contained'in the NHRERP, Vol.
6, assume that a significant portion of the EPZ will be evacuating to Manchester.
Studies
. performed by experts retained by the Attorney General indicate that these time estimates may be considerably altered even_in the event that only a portion of the population that the RERP now assumes will drive to Manchester, drive elsewhere.
Without i
Manchester's participation in the RERP as a host community, there can be no assurance that those people whom the RERP now assumes will drive to Manchester will do so and therefore no assurance that the Volume 6 ETEs are accurate and that protective action decisionmaking will be based on reliable data.
(f) Contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
l SS 50.47(b)(8) and (10) and NUREG-0654, SS II.J.10.h, and J.12, there is no assurance without Manchester's participation in the t__
l RERP that there will be adequate facilities, Staff and equipment for registration and radiological monitoring of all persons reporting to reception centers in the event of an 1
accident at Seabrook Station.
There is no assurance that if l
l Manchester does not participate that the other relocation centers designated in the NHRERP could compensate for Manchester's lack of participation such that all persons reporting to these centers could be monitored within about a 12-hour period, or that other alternative facilities to Manchester could be found.
In addition, there is no assurance that evacuees from Hampton Beach will be instructed, as appropriate in an emergency, to report to Manchester or any other relocation center for monitoring or other emergency services and, therefore, there is no assurance that adequate protective measures will be taken with respect to Hampton Beach evacuees.
Furthermore, as a result of the City of Manchester's having been told by New Hampshire Civil Defense that it will not serve as a relocatior. center for Hampton Beach evacuees, there is no assurance that Manchester or any other relocation center will have the capability in place to monitor and register the evacuees from Hampton Beach within about a 12-hour period.
(g) Contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. SS 50.47(b)
(11) and NUREG-0654, SS II.K.3 and K.5.b, there is no assurance without Manchester's participation as a host community that there will be facilities, personnel or equipment in Manchester _
I l
a to provide radiological decontamination of personnel, supplies, wounds, instruments and equipment and waste disposal as provided in the RERP, Vol. 36 at Appendix B, or that any other reception center designated in the RERp will have sufficient personnel facilities and equipment to compensate for the lack of the decontamination facilities that were to have been provided by the City of Manchester.
(h) Contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)
(12) and NUREG-0654, SS II.L.1 and L.4, there is no assurance that adequate arrangements will be made for medical services for contaminated individuals.
The Manchester Host Plan contains guidelines for handling contaminated, injured persons, including guidelines for the provision of medical services and referrals.
Vol. 36 at II-10, II-15.
Pursuant to the plan, the City was to have had " primary responsibility" for local medical support.
Vol. 36 at I-13a, Table 2.
Without Manchester's participation, there can be no assurance that adequate medical support or arrangements for medical services will be provided to those persons for whom the NHRERP designates Manchester as the host community.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON Attorney General h
c A
By:
Carol S.
Sneider Allan R.
Fierce Assistant Attorneys General Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, Room 1902 Boston MA 02108 (617) i27-2265 The undersigned further says that she is authorized to submit this contention and joint motion on behalf of the following named interveners.
Respectfully submitted, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND TOWN OF HAMPTON b'
O~
'\\ '
By:
Authorized Repr'1 3entative Dated:
July 17, 1987 i ________________________
4 l
l 4
j 30! *f. i U j
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "N
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 JUL 21 P2 :28 j
)
c r:
In the Matter of
)
[;cd 1
)
w1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
Carol S. Sneider, hereby certify that on July 20, 1987 I made service of the within documents, by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, by first class mail, or as indicated by an asterisk, by Federal Express mail, to:
- Helen F.
Hoyt, Chairperson
- Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Third Floor Mailroom Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
- Dr.
Jerry Harbour
- Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building Tenth Floor 4350 East West Highway 7735 Old Georgetown Road Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
- H.
Joseph Flynn, Esq.
- Stephen E.
Merrill Assistant General Counsel Attorney General Office of General Counsel George Dana Bisbee Federal Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General Agency Office of the Attorney General 500 C Street, S.W.
25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 03301
(
i
- Docketing and Service Paul A.
Fritzsche, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Public Advocate Commission State House Station 112 Washington, DC.
20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Roberta C.
Pevear Diana P.
Randall State Representative 70 Collins Street Town of Hampton Falls Seabrook, NH 03874 Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market Street Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Paul McEachern, Esq.
J.
P.
Nadeau Matthew T.
Brock, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Shaines & McEachern 10 Central Road 25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH 03870 P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Calvin A.
Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall Rte. 107 126 Daniel Street E.
Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Angelo Machiros, Chairman U.S.
Senate Board of Selectmen Washington, DC 20510 25 High Read (Attn: Tom Burack)
Newbury, MA 10950 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Peter J.
Matthews 1 Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall j
(Attn: Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Donald E.
Chick William Lord l
i Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913 l ___-____________a
s Brentwood Board of Selectmen Gary W.
Holmes, Esq.
RFD Dalton Road Holmes & Ellis Brentwood, NH 03833 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Harmon & Weiss Department of the Attorney Suite 430 General 2001 S Street, N.W.
State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333
- Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
Richard A.
Hampe, Esq.
R.K. Gad III, Esq.
Hampe & McNicholas Ropes & Gray 35 Pleasant Street 225 Franklin Street Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02110 Beverly Hollingworth
- Edward A.
Thomas 209 Winnacunnet Road Federal Emergency Management Hampton, NH 03842 Agency 442 J.W.
McCormack (POCH)
Boston, MA 02109 William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Jewell Street, RFD 2 10 Front Street South Hampton, NH 03827 Exeter, NH 03833 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Anne E. Goodman, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 Allen Lampert Sheldon J.
Wolfe, Chairperson Civil Defense Director Atomic 3afety and Licensing Town of Brentwood Board Panel 20 Franklin Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Charles P.
Graham, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board McKaf, Murphy & Graham U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Old Post Office Square Commission 100 Main Street East West Towers Building Amesbury, MA 01913 4350 East West Highway Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Judith H.
Mizner, Esq.
Silvergate, Gertner, Baker, Fine, Good & Mizner 88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02110 _.__________________D
f.
4 4
Rep. Edward J.
Markey, Chairman U.S.
House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Room H2-316 House Office Building Annex No. 2 Washington, DC 20515 httn:
Linda Correia k$-
Ck.Ah Carol S.
Sneider Assistant Attorney General Dated:
July 17, 1987 i 1