ML20063J318

Response to Applicant 820802 Objections to New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 820723 Supplemental Filing on Emergency Planning Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20063J318
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/31/1982
From:	Curran D, Curran P, Jordan W HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20063J218	List: ML20063J216 ML20063J227 ML20063J318
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8209020355
Download: ML20063J318 (9)

Text

i

. August 31, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, _e t _a l . , ) 50-444 OL Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2) )

)

NECNP'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO NECNP'S SUPPLEMENTAL FILING ON EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS On July 23, 1982, NECNP submitted to the Board a Supplemental Filing on Emergency Planning Contentions, to which the Applicants replied on August 2, 1982. This Reply was the first substantive response by the Applicants to any of NECNP's emergency planning contentions. NECNP responds here to the Applicants' objections.

For brevity's sake, we have limited our response to those issues raised by the Applicants which were not already dealt with in our Caly 23 filing. We refer the Board and the parties to both our filings for the full documentation of our contentions.

Contention 1. Applicants argue that NUREG-0654 does not have the force of regulation, and that therefore NECNP may not argue for compliance with its criteria. They are incorrect. 10 CFR 50.47 (b) incorporates the criteria of NUREG-0654. Under that regulation, the " standards" for onsite and offsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors "are addressed by specific criteria in NUREG-0654." 10 CFR

50. 47 (b) , fn 1.

8209020355 820831 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR

2 Contention 2. Applicants do not object to this contention.

Contention 3. Applicants assert that a recently published rule, which states that emergency preparedness exercises need not be completed before licensing, eliminates the requirement of training for unit shift supervisors alleged by NECNP.

See 47 F.R. 30232, July 13, 1982. However, the preamble to the new rule states that it is intended to affect only the requirement for a successful exercise before licensing, and not "the substantive emergency planning issues now being litigated in license hearings." 47 F.R. at 30233. The requirement of

50. 47 (b) (15 ) that radiological emergency response training be provided to "those who may be called on to assist in an emergency" is one of those substantive requirements which "are unchanged by the rule changes and do not, in themselves, require a successful exercise." 47 F.R. at 30233. NECNP's contention does not cite the Applicants for failure to conduct emergency response drills, but for failure to provide for training such supervisors to respond to the special decisionmaking demands of emergencies. Although training might include drills, it has many other elements which may be litigated in this licensing proceeding. Moreover, any drills that are needed for training but that do not constitute full emergency preparedness exercises are unaffected by the rule change and may be litigated.

, 3 Contention 4. NECNP's contention regarding the bounds of the Emergency Planning Zone and our position on the requirements of the regulations are thoroughly supported and briefed in our Supplemental Filing on Emergency Planning Contentions of July 23, 1982. Applicants' arguments ignore the requirements of the regulations and do not require response.

Contention 5. The Applicants misconstrue NECNP's fifth contention, that beyond design basis accidents must be considered in the emergency plan, as a challenge to the suitability of the Seabrook site. The challenge is rather to the failure of the emergency plan itself to reflect any consideration of beyond design basis events, either in the delineation of the Emergency Planning Zone or the institution of measures to respond to such a massive accident. Further, the Applicants' references to the " low population zone" and 25 rem doses are inapposite. Part 100 relates to reactor siting, not compliance with the emergency planning requirements of Part 50.

The Commission acknowledged the significance of serious "beyond design basis" accidents by taking them into account in developing the 10 and 50 mile EPZ starting points. Accordingly, such accidents must be considered in determining the precise size and shape of such EPZs.

Contention 6. Applicants do not object to this contention.

Contention 7. The Applicants object to NECNP's assertion of Applicants' apparent nonconformance with a Regulatory Guide as a basis for its contention that Applicants' accident

4 monitoring equipment does not meet the emergency planning regulations. As we have stated before, Regulatory Guides, although not enforceable as regulations, establish acceptable means for complying with NRC regulations. Therefore, failure to meet Regulatory Guide provisions provides factual basis for a contention that the regulations which they implement have not been complied with. See the introduction to NECNP's Reply to the Responses by the Applicants and the NRC Staff to NECNP's Contentions, filed June 17, 1982.

Contention 8. Contrary to the Applicants' objection, NECNP has provided a thorough and detailed basis for this contention. This basis supports NECNP's assertion that automatic systems to monitor and plot radiological effects are the minimum measures necessary to provide " adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition."

10 CFR 50.47 (b) (9) . NECNP is not barred, as Applicants argue, from asserting its own judgment regarding what constitutes

" adequate" monitoring capacity, just as Applicants added no impermissible legal significance to 50.47 (b) (9) in exercising their own judgment on what to present in the FSAR as satisfaction of the regulation. Doubtless, Applicants would agree with our legal position that " adequate" means that monitoring methods and equipment must reliably provide accurate information for all potentially affected areas surrounding the plant in all reasonably forseeable weather conditions.

4 Contention 9. Applicants make the same objection to Contention 9 as to Contention 8, i.e., that NECNP improperly  !

asserts a legal position as to what NRC regulations require.

NECNP is certainly asserting a legal requirement when it states that the Applicants must submit and justify a dose assessment j model. This requirement is found in NUREG-0654 at Appendix 2,

pages 2 2-5, and supported by 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (9) and

Appendix E to Part 50. NECNP's other " legal assertions" are also based in the regulations, and in fact. According to NUREG-j 0654, the model designed to produce refined estimates for the duration of the release must consider " variations in time 4

and space of the parameters affecting transport and diffusion.

. . ." NECNP asserts that as a matter of fact, heated releases i constitute one of the variables affecting transport and diffusion 1

a of radioactivity which must be considered in order to satisfy 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (9) 's requirement of " adequate" radiological i

monitoring capability. As stated in the basis of this contention, NECNP's argument that the computer used for making dose assessments should have an independent backup power source to be " adequate" j under 50.47 (b) (9) is grounded in the fact that otherwise, a loss

of power would require tedious and unreliable manual calculations.

?

Contention 10. Applicants contend that NECNP has not stated sufficient basis for its contention that the emergency i plan does not provide for early notification and clear instructions to the local populace, as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b) (5) .

Applicants also fault NECNP for not indicating how the Applicants'

! proposal is inadequate under the regulations. The inadequacy

. G is plainly documented in the Applicants' Radiological Emergency Plan, which states that notification systems for the areas around seabrook Station have yet to be " investigated." Emergency Plan at 11.2. The Applicants have failed to take even the first steps to satisfy the regulation. This alone constitutes sufficient basis for the contention.

Contentions 11 and 12. Applicants do not object to these contentions.

Contention 13. Applicants attempt to dismiss NECNP's contention, which calls for consideration in the evacuation time estimates of adverse weather conditions that could develop on a busy summer weekend, by noting that beachgoers will have

~

left the beach by the time the weather becomes a hazard to evacuation. In our experience, however, sudden summer thunder-showers often catch beachgoers on the beach; and in any event, adverse weather conditions could certainly arise in the three or four hours evacuation time estimated by the Applicants.

Furthermore, even if the beaches themselves are emptied because of inclement weather, the evacuation of beachside hotels and summer cottages will nevertheless be hampered by adverse weather conditions.

Contention 14. Applicants object to this contention on the ground that it assumes "some set limit on the amount of radiation exposure that any individual may receive under any set of circumstances." NECNP makes no such assumption. Rather, the contention challenges the plan's failure to in any way meet "the overall objective of emergency response plans,"

. 7 which is "to provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of Protcctive Action Guides." NUREG-0654 at 5.

Ultimately, the Board must judge what exposure levels can be tolerated in light of the requirement that the emergency plan provide " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency." It is NECNP's position that the Applicants' emergency plan cannot provide such an assurance, given the risk of massive and severe contamination following a radiation release.

Contention 15. Applicants object that this contention is without basis, and that in order to obtain " baseline data" for monitoring of radiation effects, it would have to "give everyone in the EPZ a physical examination." This assertion is absurd.

Any number of health surveys could be used, and data may be readily available from local health officials, hospitals, and physicians. In any event, the means for obtaining the data are irrelevant to whether the contention should be admitted.

The basis for this contention is sufficiently stated, both in our July 23 filing and in our filing of April 21.

Respectfully submitted,

^% /

William S. J5? dan, III h

Diane Curran Dated: August 31, 1982 HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 Counsel for NECNP

. . v CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the MOTION DY NECNP FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO NECNP'S SUPPLEMENTAL FILING ON EMERGENCY PLANNING and NECNP'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO NECNP'S SUPPLEMENTAL FILING ON EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 31st day of August, 3982.-

Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

• Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke

• Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Atomic Safety and Licensing Coastal Chamber of Commerce Board Panel 209 Winnacunnet Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, D.C. 20555 Phillip Ahrens, Esq.

Dr. Jerry Harbour Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensin9 Department of the Attorney Board Panel General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Augusta, ME 04333 Washington, D.C. 20955 Rcbert A. Backus, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing 111 Lowell Street Board Panel P.O. Box 516 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Manchester e NH 03105 Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert L. Chiesa, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Appeal Board Panel Dunn, & Kohls U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 95 Market Street -

Wa sh ing ton , D.C. 20555 Manchester, NH 03101 Lynn Chong ** Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.

Cooperative Members for Responsible Ropes and Gray Investment 225 Franklin Street Box 65 ' Boston, MA 02110 Plymouth, NH 03264 Ms. Patti Jacobson Rep. Nicholas J. Costello 3 Orange Street Whitehall Road Newburyport, MA 01950 l Amesbury, MA 01913 E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.

Donald L. Herzberg, M.D. Assistant Attorney General George Margolis, M.D. Office of the Atty. General Hitchcock Hospital 208 State House Annex Hanover, NH 03755 Concord, NH 03301 L

~ .

• Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.

Robert G. Perlis, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Edward J. McDermott, Esq.

Sanders and McDermott Professional Association "

408 Lafayette Road Hampton, NH 03842 Mr. Robert F. Preston 226 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, N!! 03842 ,

Wilfred H. Sanders, Jr., Esq.

Sanders and McDermott Professional Association 408 Lafayette Road llamp ton , NH 03842 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Ms. Elizabeth H. Weinhold 3 Godf rey Avenue Hampton, NH 03842 i

i l

• By hand

• • By Federal Express ,r) l N

~'~)l%J l,bta v Diane Curran l

l

. _ . _ _. . _ . , _ _ ._ _ _ _ , ,