ML20091E409

Expresses Position That Util Should Not Be Granted Extension of Time to Conduct full-scale Emergency Preparedness Exercise Until at Least 841130.Request Does Not Meet Public Interest Std of 10CFR50.12(a)

ML20091E409
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	05/31/1984
From:	Holt J, Posner P ALLIANCE TO CLOSE INDIAN POINT, PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, NEW YORK
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8406010232
Download: ML20091E409 (6)

Text

________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

<' 1

. . , NEWyORk PUbbC NERESTMtESEARCb Q ROUp,.MC.

[ .L 9 Murray Street

• N.Y., N.Y.10007 e (212)

%. - c., -

%. m - c e _ -

d4 MY 31 P3:15

?nn ce nu, .

"CC% QHJ & $rj>.n efMNCH Commissioners United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

1984 Emergency Preparedness Exercise Schedule p Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 r.

Dear Sirs:

In a letter dated April 9, 1984, the New York Power Authority and Con Edison requested "a one time extension of...

time to conduct another full-scale emergency preparedness exerciso at the Indian Point sito until at least November 30, 1984." It is our position that the Indian Point licon-sees should NOT be granted an exemption from 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Part IV F.1.a. which currently requires "a full scale exercise...at a frequency which will enable cach Stato and local governmont within the plumo exposarc EPZ to parti-cipate in at least one full-scale exercing per year..."

The Exemption Request Does Not Meet the Public Interest Standard of 10 CFR 50.12(a) 10 CFR 50.12(a) provides: "The Ccmmission may...

grant such exemptions frcm the requirements of the regulations in this part as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and so-curity and are otherwise in the public interest."

In this case, the only defensible public interest d standard would be the requirements of the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50, Appendix E. Part IV F. Since "the public interest standard is a stringent one," (Project Management Corporation, Clinch River Breeder Reactor, 16 NRC 412 at 426, 1982), if the licensees cannot meet the standard of the proposed rule, then there is no justification for exemption from the existing rule.

The proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Part IV, f.2.b. requires that "each licensoo at each sito shall...

include in its annual exercise (i) annual full participation by local government Agencies (ii) annual full or partial par-ticipation by States within the plume exposure EPZs." Proposed M06010232 840531  %'

> PM ACMK 05000247 R g PDR

1 l

1 - - _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ . _ . ,

Part IV, F.3. provides an exception "if FEMA recommends and  !

NRC makes a finding that all major elements in the emergency ]

plans were performed satisfactorily during the exercise and that another exercise is not needed for up to 2 years..."

Since deficiencies that were noted in the March 9, 1983 full scale exercise at Indian Point Unit 2 have not

been corrected, the licensees do not meet this standard, and there is no basis for the recommendation or the finding required by the proposed rule to justify the exemption re-quested by the Indian Point licensees.

1) The " Post Exercise Assessment, March 9, 1983 Exercise of the Radiological Emergency Response Plans of New York State and Westchester, Rockland, Orange and Putnam Counties for the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station, April 14, 1983" SCHEDULE FOR CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES, pp. 64-79, indicates many deficiencies that are repeated ("R") in the 1983 exercise

-after having been identifi=.1 in the 1982 exercise. The receated deficiencies are in four major areas: public education and' information,. radiological exposure control, training and equipment, and communications.

The " Post Exercise Assessment, August 24-25, 1983, Exercise of the State of New York Radiological Emergency Res-ponse Interim Plan for Implementing Compensating Measures for Rockland County for the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station, September 26, 1983" SCHEDULE FOR CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES, pp. 42-48, again identifies many items in the areas of training, public education and information, radiological exposure control, and communications which remain incomplete, not observed, or undetermined. (See also September 26, 1983

" Post Exercise Assessment," pp. vii, viii, 17, 19, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34 :nd Summary of Deficiencies, pp. 38-41)

2) FEMA Region II Director Frank Petrone's cover letters to Dave McLaughlin (FEMA Deputy Associate Director, State and Local Programs and Support) of. September 2:1, 1983 (transmitting the " Post Drill Assessment, August 23, 1983, Federal Emergency Management Agency Observed Drill of the Westchester County Bus Evacuation Procedures for the Indidn' Point Nuclear Power Station,-September 15, 1983") and September 28 (transmitting the September 26, 1983 " Post Exer-cise Assessment") each refer to the fact that deficiencies

" identified in the December 16,'1982 Update Report no longer exist".with no mention of the deficiencies identified in the March 9,-1983 exercise.

3) Mr. Petrone's cover letter to Mr. McLaughlin dated April 14, 1983-(transmitting the " Post Exercise Assess-ment" of-the March 9, 1983 exercise) states:

~ * * * ' *

,- , e , , s .ameoom~-

se

? -

z - . - - _ . c - _.:. 2 -. - . _ _ - _ _.

"As to Rockland County, a judgement on ade-quacy will not be able to be made until the.

County plan is developed and exercised with full County participation."

.To date, a Rockland County plan has not been developed or exercised, and Rockland County has never fully participated in'an exercise.

"As for Westchester County, a judgement of

.c adequacy.will_not;be able_to be made until the _ _ _ _

transportation plan is revised based upon com-pletion of sufficient action items in the 2~

TSPG proposal."'

'The TSPG (Transportation Study Pladhini" Group) ~ proposal ~

~ ~

has not been presented, and NO action items' based on it are complete.

4) .The proposed;NRC rule requires a showing that i "all major elements in the emergency plan were performed .;

i. satisfactorily during the-exercise" (emphasis added) meaning the' annual exercise referred to in 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Part IV, F.2.b. Since the " Post Exercise. Assessment" of the March 9, 1983 exercise, FEMA has made no representation con-cerning the status of "all major' elements." The September 29, 1983, letter from Dave McLaughlin to William Dircks quoted by the licensees in their: exemption request, concluding that l "an adequate-levelaof radiological emergency preparedness;has been demonstrated"* referred merely to efforts to correct de-ficiencies, and cannot, for the purpose'of the proposed rule, be related back to apply to the annual exercise, since the

-August activities did NOT exercise the " integrated capability to adequately access (sic)_,and respond to an accident at,a commercial nuclear power plant" -(emphasis added) (Proposed . .

i rule,:10 CFR-50 AppendixJE,_Part IV, F.2.b. fn. 6, 48 FR 33310),'

nor did they test;"a major portion .of- the basic elements existing within emergency. preparedness' plans.and. organizations...(in-

{ .cluding). mobilization.of State and' local personnel and resource-l adequate to. verify the~ capability to respond to an accident scenario requiring response." (NUREG 0654,cPlanning Standard.N, Evaluation Criteria 1.)

l

'~

The-bus-drill of~ August:23 did'not address FEMA's major. criticism of the transportation. plan, which.was the pos- .

• In any case, this summary. assessment by Mr. McLaughlin is i  : contradicted by,the: actual findings in the texts of FEMA's Post Exercise l Assessments:: deficiencies remain.in the public

< education-and information programsi' radiological l exposure con-trol (primarily because of-inadequate distribution of appropriate-dosimetry)l,- trainingf(especially. in docimetry and transportation /:

evacuation' procedures), Land: communications. '

f

?

W.

v , j,

. :<_.___ . . ,-- . . a. , . -__ . _ , _ , . _

9 -

sible non-response of bus drivers in adequate numbers to car-ry out an evacuation. The August 24-25 exercise of the New York' State RER Interim Plan was not the equivalent of an annual exercise and did not address the central issue of Rockland County participation.

The. Indian Point Licensees Do Not Meet the

" Exigent Circumstances" Standard for Exemption NRC policy and case law require that exemptions be granted sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances.

"We regard this method-as extraordinary... Parties should re-sort to this method of relief only in the presence of exigent 4

circumstances, such as emergency situations in which time is of the essence and relief from the licensing board is impossible or highly unlikely." (WPPSS Nuclear Project #3 and #5, CLI-77-ll, 5 NRC 716 at 723, 1977.) While the Commission was speaking in the' context of exemption'from construction permit requirements, the same reasoning should apply to operational ' issues.

The licensee & argument that "the State of.New York and Rockland County are in the~ process of preparing revisions to the_Rockland County plan for submittal to FEMA" does not-I rise to the level of " exigent circumstances." Postponing the annual exercise until November, 1984, in the hopes that Rockland County will have developed and be prepared to exercise 4 its own plan is unrealistic in view of the repeated slippage in emergency planning deadlines.at Indian Point. If it is true that "the radiological emergency response plans remain operational" as the licensees claim in their request letter, then the licensees and_the off-site response agencies should be fully prepared at any point in time to exercise the plans.

Otherwise they are in violation of 10 CFR 50.47 and a June exercise would reveal the weaknesses and areas-of non-compliance.

Th'is Exemption Request Involves Safety Issues l The' Project Management Corporation, Clinch River Breeder Reactor decision emphasizes the. fact that the exemption was.

, granted because the Commission was convinced'that no safety L issues were involved: " grant of this exemption cannot endanger j life or property or the common defense and security...(since it) does not include any safety related work," and "does-not involve safety related construction." .(16 NRC 412 at 419) .

Commissioner Asselstine's separate views also stressed the fact that no-safety related. activity.was involved as the basis for the decision.- l l

This request for'an exemption is decidedly different.

Radiological emergency planning'at Indian l Point is the bottom.

line safety measure for residents of-the most' densely. populated region of tne country-and a crucial element in-the " defense

- in depth"' concept of. nuclear safety.- Any defect in radiolgical.

emergency planning:in this area will la magnified by the pop 1 .

1

., . , .m - ,4 ,._,._;,, , ,-. . _ , , , .__s,_

I

, l

^

.:.--_==---.-__ __-

l I

ulation pressures. Experience in the Indian Point vicinity has shown that State and local-government agencies require intensive pre-exercise rehearsals to prepare for their_responsi-bilities during the actual annual exercise. This indicates that officials are.notsable to maintain a constant state of preparedness, but must be retrained at the time of'the equip- sched- l uled annual exercise, and must rush around borrowing  !

- ment, putting it in place on loan, distributing last minute supplies,-recalibrating equipment, etc. The fact that New l York State. performed in an exercise of.the Radiological  ;

Emergency Preparedness Plans at the Nine Mile Point /Fitz-Patrick site on September 28, 1983, does' not demonstrate"

- - ~ ~ - - -

the State's ability to implement the Indian Point site. specific

- portion of the plans, and is irrelevant to the response' pre-paredness of_the_ Indian Point licensees and the local gov-ernments which have primary responsibilities in radiological emergencies at Indian Point.

Therefore, any delay in conducting the 1984 annual exercise is a significant safety issue which adversely affects the public interest and is contrary to 10 CFR 50.12 (b) (4) .

_ Pre-Exercise Activities i

The State, the counties, and-the licensees should now be fully engaged.in pre-exercise activities in accordance with i the " Milestones for Exercise Preparation" contained in FEMA Guidance Memorandum 17, Rev. 1, Technological Hazards. An exercise scenario, which has been modified and completed after meetings with FEMA and NRC regional staff should have been de-veloped and. submitted at the latest by May 5, 35 days before the June 9 exercise date. -Furthermore, even before requesting an exemption,-the licensees should have submitted " exercise

objectives" developed jointly with the State in accordance with the " Milestones" which' calls for this submission 75' days prior to an annual exercise and 120 days prior to a-biennial exercise.

p If these :proparations are_ not well underway, the clear implication is that the licensees-are presuming or have been-assured 'that the Commission _ decision'on this exemption request will-be favorable and licensees _are in-violation of the existing requirementsfof 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Part IV, F.

By applying.for an exempti on 30. days'after_the anniver-sary'of-the lastl full-scale' exercise at Indian Point, and only-60 days prior to the expiration .date'of the Staff's 15-month-year *:the. licensees have embarked on a_ transparent' attempt ~to

'back'the Commission into a corner. .For, if:the Commission were i

J Jto deny _the exemption,_there would:not be time for.the licensees

'to. follow'the planning milestones.for a full-scale. exercise

(

3*Although,-in any case, we.can find no' legal justification for' y c

theistaffsto allow this'three month." grace; period."

- 4 j1 f f (

a _ .-,- w .- -

,, . .. . - . , - - . , -- ..w'- - - - --

1

. 1 with State and County participation prior to the June 9 l deadline. . Granting this extension would be tantamount l to sanctioning the licensees' attempt to give the Commission no alternative but to grant the exemption.

ldA Joan Holt i

Project Director New York Publ'ic Interest -- - _ _._

Research Group i

Pat Posner Representative Alliance to Close Indian Point To COMMISSIONERS:

Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman.

Victor Gilinsky Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal Dated: May 31, 1984 New York. City

.s 4

4 4

9 s

7

.=

..{~..

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _