ML20151P265

New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Contentions on Seabrook Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* W/Svc List

ML20151P265
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/13/1988
From:	Curran D HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#288-6124 OL, NUDOCS 8804260124
Download: ML20151P265 (10)

Text

-

idIEEk

, 412Y catstico April 13, 1988 U9EC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 NT 19 P5 :30 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Croce -

y 00CEi T.y. , j' In the Matter of )

'4-

)

Public Service Company of )

New Hampshire, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL

) 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) OFFSITE EMERGENCY

) PLANNING

)

NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S CONTENTIONS ON THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP")

submits the following contentions regarding Applicants' Seabrook Plan for the Massachusetts Communities ("SPMC"). These conten-tions invoke the provisions of 10 CFR 5 50.47, as well as the recent amendments to 5 50.47(c) regarding the consideration of utility-sponsored emergency plans. Consistent with the Commis-sion's description of the staged manner in which utility plans are to be litigated, we have divided the contentions into three parts.

The first part of NECNP's contentions addresses the feasibility of emergency planning for the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone ("EPZ"). In a brief before the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the NRC has stated through its General Counsel that Nothing in the NRC's rule precludes a state or local government from arguing to the NRC that adequate emer-gency planning at a particular site is inherently impossible. However, the law gives the NRC the authority to decide whether that argument is valid in a particular case. If the NRC decides that emergency

, planning at a particular site is not inherently l impossible, then it must go on to decide whether the 8804260124 880413 ,

PDR G

ADOCK 05000443 PDR 'lt)C.I

-2 -

utility's emergency plan provides reasonable assurance of adequate protection in an accident. i Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission, Nos. 87-2032, 87-2033, 88-1121, Brief for Respondents ,

at 38-39. Thus, the contention raised in Part I must be liti-gated before the Licensing Board may proceed to address the ade-quacy of the SPMC.

When and if the issues raised in Contentelon 1 are resolved P in Applicants' favor, the amendments to the emergency planning [

2 regulations for review of utility-sponsored plans also con-template that as a threshold matter, Applicants must distinguish between those requirements of 5 50.47(b) it is attempting to ful- .

fill, and those requirements for which it seeks "due allowance" because it is unable to meet them and has designed compensatory measures. 10 CFR S 50.47 (c) (1) (iii) . As demonstrated in Part II of NECNP's contentions, Applicants have failed to identify which portions of 5 50.47(b) it is unable to meet or to specifically identify the compensatory measures addressed to those require-ments. Because Applicants have bypassed this essential step, we have no idea for what elements of noncompliance Applicants seek "due allowance" from the Licensing Board. Applicants must meet l this requirement before the parties can litigate the adequacy of compensatory measures in tho SPMC.

l 1

' It is NECNP's position that, consistent with their burden of proof in this proceeding, Applicants should be required to make i

the threshold showing described above before the parties are i

1 .

required to submit contentions on the SPMC. Nevertheless, in Part III of these contentions, NECNP challenges the adequacy of the plan under 5 50.47 (c) (1) . However, without a clear idea of what regulatory provisions are at issue here, we are placed in the position of taking shots in the dark. Our right to a rational and meaningful proceeding is thereby abridged. We therefore request that the Board dispose of the preliminary issues raised in Parts I and II before proceeding to the litiga-tion of contentions regarding the substance of the SPMC.

CONTENTIONS Part I Contention 1 Due to the unique features of the Seabrook Emer-gency Planning Zone ("EPZ"), adequate emergency planning for the Seabrook EPZ is inherently impossible. Therefore Applicants can-not satisfy 10 CFR S 50.47(a).

Basiqi The Massachusetts sector of the EPZ includes resort communities on a barrier beach that is populated by thousands of people during the summer months. These beachgoers include thou-sands of day-trippers as well as summer residents. Because of the limited roadways exiting the beach, evacuation during the summer could take many hours. In fact, Applicants estimate that evacuation times during a rainstorm on a peak summer weekend could take as much as 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. Implementing Procedure ("IP")

2.5, Attachment 4. Moreover, sheltering facilities in these resort communities are fundamentally inadequate. First, many

people would have access only to unwinterized buildings, which provide little protection from radiation. The protection afforded by sheltering in these structures would be less than that afforded by a normal wood frame house.1 second, even if adequate shelters were available, they would not be reasonably accessible in an orderly, planned fashion to the thousands of transients who may be unfamiliar with the area and not understand where they should shelter. In addition, the SPMC contains no description of shelters that would be available to the transient population. Thus, in a fast-breaking release, the thousands of people would be unable to leave quickly or find adequate shelter from the radioactive plume.

Part II Contention 2 Applicants have failed to identify those portions of the SPMC for which they invoke the provisions of 10 CFR 5 i 50. 47 (c) (1) .

Basis: The regulations for review of utility-sponsored plans require Applicants to show either that deficiencies result-l ing from nonparticipation by the state and local governments of I

Massachusetts are not significant for Seabrook, that adequate interim compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons to permit Seabrook to i

1 See FEMA Profiled Testimony in hearings on New Hampshire plan, dated September 11, 1987, at global 59-60.

l operate. 10 CFR $ 50.47 (c) (1) . Applicants have apparently

- invoked only the second part of this test, stating that the SPMC is intended to compensate for the lack of State and local govern-ment participation in emergency planning at Seabrook. SPMC at 1.1-1. However, Applicants have failed to identify "those ele-ments" of regulatory compliance "for which state and local non-participation makes compliance infeasible" and the specific measures that are "designed to compensate for any deficiencies resulting from state and/or local nonparticipation." 10 CFR S

50. 47 (c) (1) (iii) ( A) , (B) , Moreover, for those elements of 9 50.47(b) with which they do not comply, Applicants must show that the noncompliance "is wholly or substantially the result of the non-participation of state and/or local governments." S I 50.47 (c) (1) (ii) . In short, it is impossible to determine the standard (s) which Applicants seek to fulfill through submission of the SpMC. Absent a specific identification of what portionc of the plan are addressed to what standards, Applicants have not I satisfied the requirements for invoking the provisions of S l 50.47(c),

i Part III Contention 3 Applicants have not met the requirements of 10 CFR E 50.47 (a) (1) to provide a "reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Radiological emergency" at Seabrook because they have failed to show what emergency response measures will be taken by the Massa-

e chusetts state and local governments in the event that Mode 1 of the SPMC is followed.

Basis: Section _50.47 (c) (1) (iii) (B) contains the presump-tions that-a) "state and local government officials will exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the pub-lic", and b) where an applicant's inability to comply with 5 50.47(b) results wholly or partially from the nonparticipation of state and local governments, that in the' event of an actual Radiological emergency state and local officials would "generally follow" the utility plan. The SPMC establishes two alternative

, "modes" for the Massachusetts state and local governments to fol-low. Mode 1, called the "Standby mode," contemplates that Applicants will provide only resources -- i.e. equipment, buses,

, ambulances, personnel, etc. -- to the state and/or local govern -

ments.2 SPMC at 3.1-2. Aside from broadly describing the emer-gency response functions of each state agency, however (SPMC, S

]

2.2), the SPMC does not contain any blueprint for state and local

) government agencies to follow in undertaking primary responsibil-i ity for the emergency response. The plan describes emergency response functions for the New Hampshire Offsite Response Organi-zation ("ORO") rather than state or local governments. The means by which the state and local governments are thus presumed to 2 SPMC at 3.1-2. Mode 2, which contemplates that the state will authorize Applicants to carry out all or part of the emer-gency response, is discussed in Contention 4.

7 a

"follow" the SPMC in Mode 1 consists only of using Applicants' resources in carrying out an ad hos response. The mere provision of resources to support an unplanned emergency response does not i adequately compensate for the etate and local governments' lack of preparedness to respond to an accident at Seabrook.

Contention 4 To the extent that Mode 2 of the SPMC contemplates the substitution of Applicants for state and local governments in carrying out an emergency response, it violates the emergency planning rule and Massachusetts state law. Moreover, to the extent that it contemplates integration of the utility's func-tions with state and local emergency response functions, it does not compensate adequately for the lack of preparedness of state and local officials to respond to a Radiological emergency at Seabrock.

Basis: The SPMC contemplates that under "Mode 2,"

Applicants will "assume responsibility on behalf of the State / locals (upon authorization by the State) for implementation of the entire emergency response or integrating specific portions thereof." SPMC at 3.1-2. To the extent that Mode 2 con-templates the substitution of Applicants for state and local gov-ernments in carrying out an emergency response, it violates the emergency planning rule and Massachusetts state law. Mode 2 con-flicts with the basic premise of the amendments to S 50.47(c) (1),

which acknowledges that a utility is without legal authority to exercise the police powers that inhere in state governments.

. ~

Indeed, as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts points out in its Contention 6, Applicants cannot lawfully be authorized to exercise the state's police powers.3 Moreover, to the extert that it contemplates the integration of state / local emergency response functions with those of the ORO, the SPMC is hopelessly cumbersome and confusing. The SPMC does not provide a mechanism by which the state and local govern-ments can swiftly and efficiently interact with ORO officials to mount a timely and adequate response to an accident. This results from the cumbersome communication and coordination prob-lems created by the parallel existence of government and ORO emergency response organizations. Each counterpart of the state and local response organization must take the time-consuming steps of communicating and coordinating its efforts with a counterpart in the ORO organization. For each function, the parties must take the time-consuming steps of agreeing on divi-sions of rer,ponsibilities and all of the accompanying logistics, including communication and sharing of equipment and personnel.

Finally, to the extent that the state and local governments might assume responsibility for an accident response under Mode 2, there are no guidelines in the SPMC that are designed for state and local governments to follow. The Implementing Proce-l 3 Massachussetts' Contention 6 is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this contention.

l 1

,e l

dures for the SPMC are addressed to the management of the emer-gency response by the ORO, not state and local governments.

There is simply no plan for the governments to follow. In fact, the only way that the state and local governments could "follow" this plan would be to transfer their authority for managing the emergency response entirely to the ORO. This is not a viable option in light of the state and local governments' responsibil-ity to retain the police power for the protection of their citizens.

Thus, the result of any attempt by Massachusetts governments to "follow" the SPMC would be utter confusion. Given the high population density of the Seabrook EPZ and the relatively long times required to evacuate the area, there is no room for the l

confusion and delay that would arise if state and local govern-f ments attempted to implement the SPMC during a Radiological emer-j gency.

' Respectfully submitted,

\

Diane Curran

! H).RMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 l Washington, D.C. 20009 l

i (202) 328-3500 April 13, 1988 l

I certify that on April 13 1988, copies of the foregoing

! pleading were mailed first-clast or as otherwise indicated on the

! parties to the attached service li t.

L Diane Curran

. s  :

f h

SEABROOK SERVICE LIST - OFFSITE LICENSING BOARD i "Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Rye, New Hampshire 03870 U.S. NRC (POCH)

U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555 Boston,MA 02109 l Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor  !

C'ty Hall Mr. Angie Machiros, Sandra Gavutis  ;

"Dr. Jerry Harbour Newbvryport,MA 01950 Chairman RFD 1 Box 1154 i U.S. NRC - Town of Newbury East Kensington, Nil 03827 l Washington, D.C,20555 Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Town Hall,25 High Road Board of Selectmen Newbury,MA 01951 Charles P. Graham, Esq.

"Gustave Linenberger Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 McKay, Murphy and Graham U.S. NRC H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. 100 Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Senator Gordon J Humphrey Office of General Counsel Amesbury,MA 01913 U.S. Senate FEMA Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20510 500 C Street S.W.

Board Panel (Atta. Tom Burack) Washington, D.C. 2N72 U.S. NRC

• By hand Washington, D.C. 20555 Selectmen of Northampton George Dana Bisbee, Esq.

Northampton, New Harap- Geoffrey M. Huntington, Esq. " By Overnight Mail Atomic Safety and Licensing shire 03826 Office of the Attorney General Appeal Board Panel State House Annex U.S. NRC Senator Gordon J. liumphrey Concord,NH 03301 Washington, D.C. 20555 1 Eagle Square, Ste 507  %

Concord,NH 03301 Allen Lampert  %.T

r.

Docketing and Service Ci il Defense Director

[E.[

g c{$

U.S. NRC Michael Santosuosso, Town of Brentowood M

Washington, D.C. 20$55 Chairman Exeter,NH 03833 $W 4

$ h*:'

Board of Selectmen Mrs. Anne E, Goodman Jewell Street, RFD # 2 Richard A. Hampe, Esq. Yk 3 Board of Selectmen South flampton, NH 03842 Hampe and McNicholas y' y 1315 New Market Road 35 Pleasant Street

~ '

o Durham, Nil 03842 Judith H. Mizner, Esq. Concord, Nil 03301 Silmglate, Gertner, et al.

William S. Lord, Selectman 8' droad Street Gary W,liolmes, Esq.

Town liall- Friend Street Boston,MA 02110 Holmes & Ellis Amesbury,MA 01913 47 Winnacunnent Road i Rep. Roberta C. Pevear Hampton,NH 03S42

! Jane Doughty Drinkwater Road l SAPL Hampton, Falls, NH 03S44 'lliam Armstrong 5 Market Street 3 Defense Director

Portsmouth,NH 03801 Phillip Ahrens, Esq. 10 Front Street Assistant Attorney General Exeter,NH 03333 j

Carol S. Sneider, Esquire State House, Station # 6 Assistant Attorney General Augusta,ME N333 Cahin A. Canney 1 Ashburton Place,19th Floor City Manager l

Boston,MA 02108 "Thomas G. Dignan, Esq. City Hall R.K. Gad II, Esq. 126 Daniel Street l Stanley W. Knowles Ropes & Gray Portsmouth,NH 03801 i Board of Selectmen 225 Franklin Street

! P.O. Box 710 Boston, MA 02110 Matthew T. Brock, Esq.

Northifampton,NH 03826 Shaines & McEachern 1 Robert A. Backus, Esq. P.O. Box 3(4 J.P. Nedeau Backus, Meyer & Solomon Maplewood Ave.

1111owell Street Portsmou'h, NH 03801 Town of R)r 155 Washington Road Manchester,NH 03105 Edward A. Thomas "Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. FEMA Office of General Counsel 442 J.W. McCormack L