ML20064C844

Submission Supporting Contentions on Questions 3 & 4 Formulated by ASLB 820423 Memorandum & Order.Original Contentions Supported by Substantial Factual Bases Are Not Abandoned.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20064C844
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/28/1982
From:	Holt J PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, NEW YORK
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8301040493
Download: ML20064C844 (4)

Text

'

a ,

4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION catgELEO BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD T3 JM -3 N1 :23 utTAH In the Matter of ) ,(d;Oins is SE8Vict

) 3 RANCH CONSOLIDATED EDIS0N COMPANY OF NEW YORK ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP (Indian Point Unit 2) ) 50-286 SP

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ) December 28, 1982 (Indian Point Unit 3) )

NYPIRG SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS ON QUESTIONS 3 & 4 FORMULATED BY BOARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF APRIL 23, 1982 On December 2, UCS/NYPIRG filed CONTENTIONS OF JOINT INTERVENORS UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS AND NEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP (hereinafter, CONTENTIONS.) Those contentions, along with contentions filed by seven other intervenor groups, were considered and reformulated by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in its Memorandum and Order of April 23, 1982.

The Board had before it contentions, objections to contentions, and responses to objections to contentions in making its determination as to which specific formulations would be admitted for litigation. The Board said, "We have deliberately avoided specifying detailed factual basis in our for-mulation of contentions because this is an investigative proceeding. Our responsibility, as we see it, is to bring to light all factual information which may assist materially in answering the Commission's questions."

In its order CLI-82-15 of July 27, 1982, the Com:nission halted the proceedings in order to direct the Board on reformulation of contentions, notwithstanding the time and effort which had already been spent in that endeavor. The Board on November 15, 1982, directed the parties to " transmit in writing, assurances of continued support of their subsumed contentions and the basis thereof, or alternatively, their intentions to abandon them."

' 8301040493 821228 PDR ADOCK 05000247 G PDR - 03 -

NYPIRG c'ontinues to support our " subsumed contentions" as refl6cted in the Order of April 23. In reviewing that document and our submissions, we have concluded that nothing has happened in the intervening months which would necessitate abandoning any of our original contentions which were supported by substantial factual bases. We refer the Board to our original CONTENTIONS.

We are aware that documents have been submitted by the State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group in an effort to correct the five significant deficiencies noted by FEMA, but it is NYPIRG's position that intthe' absence of the following information to date, none of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 have been met:

1) Complete copies of revised plans and procedures

2) The results of surveys, acceptance testing and other documentation showing that a) the public has heard and understood the significance of the siren alert system b) the public has received, read, understood and remembered in-formation in the brochure, " Indian Point, Emergency Planning, and You" c) the "special arrangements" for reaching non-English speaking populations with emergency planning information have been successful _

3) Letters of agreement, memoranda of understanding, and mutual aid agreements f rom emergency response organizations, including local governments

4) Evidence that the special needs populations have been identified and provided with sufficient information and assistance to assure a timely emergency response

5) Assurance that all aspects of the plan have been tested and that def,1ciencies noted by local officials, emergency personnel, and residents have been corrected to their satisfaction Since all of the Commissioners and FEMA rely heavily on the exercise process in making their assessment of the adequacy of emergency planning and preparedness, NYPIRG proposes that the Board formulate a question and invite testimony from all parties regarding the adequacy of the exercise and the results of the exercise as a measure of preparedness. Alternatively, NYPIRG proposes the following contentions:

I. The exercise process is not an adequate basis for determining aspects of emergency response capability for an accident at Indian Point.

i I

l

i BASES

1. The exercise ~does not test the workability of most emergency procedures which would directly involve the public.

2. The exercise does not test most procedures requiring notification and

, mobilization of emergency workers.

3. The exercise does not give a realistic basis for estimating critical time frames.

4. The exercise does not test the planning concept of using buses to evacuate school children and the transportation dependent population in a "two wave" evacuation scenario.

5. The exercise fails to simulate the surprise and stress conditions of a nuclear accident.

6. In.an exercise, all participating personnel are well rehearsed and know ahead of time what to expect.

7. The exercise fails to demonstrate the effectiveness of back-up communications systems and second shift staffing capability for reliefoof emergency workers.

8. The exercise does not test the communication or response capability of of ficials and personnel in New York City and other potentially affected local governments, which may respond on an ad hoc basis.

9. The exercise does not test the efficacy of any system for distribution of potassium iodide to emergency workers

10. The exercise does not demonstrate the capacity or effectiveness of the sheltering response option.

This is not meant to be an all inclusive list of reasons why the exercise is insufficient to assess real emergency response preparedness, but are factual illustrations of why some other evaluation criteria should be used. Therefore NYPIRG proposes another contention related to Commission question 4:

l II. Letters of agreement, memoranda of understanding, and mutual aid agreements signed by the responsible local officials and by the emergency workers them-selves should be the determining criteria in evaluating emergency response capability.

BASIS This contention is supported by the pre-filed testimony of witnesses sponsored by intervenors and by the interested states.

Joan Holt New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.

9 Murr y Street New Y k, New rk 10007

<_ vs v 'k f

bl

-.r-- .- .-

- - - . . - - , - - - - , -- - - . . - - - - ,.m- --

- -. ~ ~ ~ ---

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COfHISSION -

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP (Indian Point Unit 2) ) 50-286 SP

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK )

(Indian Point Unit 3) )

Certificate of Service 1 hereby certify that copies of:

NYPIRG SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS FORMULATED BY BOARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF APRIL 23, 1982 have been served on the official muumum service list for the above captioned proceeding by depositing in the United States mail, first class, this 28 day of December ,1982.

Lu

.v

(

Holt 3

York Public Interest Group, Inc.

9 Murray Street New York, New York 10007