ML20206C195

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Reply to Applicant & Staff Responses to Sapl Contentions on June 1988 Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl

ML20206C195
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/18/1988
From:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#488-7464 OL, NUDOCS 8811160153
Download: ML20206C195 (13)

Text

- -- ______ ._

7 g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA py ggig)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U 9.H AIOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

• E8 DCT 20 P3 :45 Before Administrative Judgest Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Gus tave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Jerry Harbour In the Matter of ) Docke t Nos. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )

0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al ) (Of fsite Emergency Planning)

)

(Seabrook Station, )

Units 1 and 2 ) Oc tobe r 18, 1988 SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUfl0N LEAGUE'S REPLY TO APPLICANTS' AND STAFF'S RESPONSES TO SAPL'S CONTENTIONS ON THE JUNE 19S8 GRADED EXERCISE Now comes the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and replies to the Applicants' S1ptember 28, 1988 and the Staf f's October 13, 1988 responses to SAPL's Contentions on the June 1988 exercise of the radiological emergency response plans for Seabrook Station.

Applicants argue for the proposition that, since no deficiencies were f ound by FEMA, all exercise contentions should be rejected as a matter of law as a logical consequence of argutents esde by the Massachusetts Attorney Generat. Examination of the Applicants' argument reveals that it does not support its own proposition.

First of all, Applicants concede in the first sentence of their r.rgument that contentiens addressed to scope issues are not touched by their argument and are sdmissible. Then Applicants go on to note that ;1 ass Ag did not argue that FEMA findings do not constitute a rebuttable presumption as to the adequacy of state and local plans. Therefore, Applicants' argument does not even touch exercise contentions going to the exercise of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP).

The core of Applicants' argument is that, if the Mass AG's argueent that q 8811160153 081018 PDR ADOCK 05000443 f[)h C PDR a

l l

j l

l FEMA's findings do not apply to utility plans is accepted, since only FEMA I looked at suf ficient portions of the exercise, there is no basis for NRC l

findings on utility plans. From that, according to Applicaes, follows that  ;

i litigation of the exercise is wholly precluded. The Applicants' conclusion is l a non sequitur.

, Responses to Specific Responses to Contentious SAPL EX-1 0 Applicarets state thet they do net "in the main" object to SAPL EX-1, but r

'l they believe that Basis A would imply a requirement that the exercist be held [

1  :

I when area schools are in session. The Staff also objects to ' isis A and argues  !

> t

) that schools do not have to be in session during the exercise. SAPL's basis f I

statement was not to insist that schools have to be in sessica but to point out  !

that: 1) the extent of school simulation was, as in 1986, hampered by the f act

l. that schools were not in session and 2) that no compensating arrangements were l made in view of that fact to allow for a suf ficient scope ci test of the

! school's capability to ef f ect an orderly evac'sation. [

'l 1

4 Applicants further press an objection "with regard to those contentions raising minor, ad hoc, or readily correctsble matters" that SAPL did not allege that its complain *.s about the exercise rise to the level of fundamental flaws.

i t i None of SAPL's contentions raise only minor matters, but instead raise i 1 (

fundamental flaws or inadequacies. In each contention, SAPL has cited 10 CFR l

! [

50.47(a)(1) to assert that an overall finding of reasonable assurance of  !

4 l adequate public protection could not be made because of the fundamental fisws [

I J

pointed out in the statements of basis f or each of the contenticas.

i i P

SAPL EX-2 l I

Neither the Applicants nor the Staf f object to the admission of this [

J.

contention. [

t I

4 0 i

l

? .

i

.I

-SAPL EX-3 In ce6ponse to Applicants" objection, SAPL EX-3 does address a fundamental flaw in the plan. Most bus drivers, ambulance drivers and local town personnel have not been trained in dosimetry equipmen't or exposure control procedures and this indicates that there is a fundamental f1au in the process through which these personnel are trained. This probica appears to have grown more severe since the February 1986 exercise, indicating an intractable training delivery problem that simple ad hoc measures cannot be expected to address.

The Staf f appears to have misunderstood that part of SAPL's contention about "local town person:.el" not having been trained in dosimetry. SAPL's contention goes only to local town c=crgency personnel and not to those local town residents without an official role in the emergency response organizacion.

SAPL EX-4 The Staf f has no objection to the admission of this contention.

In response to Applicants' objection, SAPL states that this contention raises an issue as to the scope of the exercise as only two sampling teams were exercised. The exercise did not demonstrate that additional properly trained teams exist and are available to be deployed. The second issue raised in the contention basis is the adequacy of training of the teams. That 50% of the teams exercised did not at this late date have adequate training in their jobs is indicative of a fundamental inadequacy in the traiutng process.

SAPL EX-5 Applicants are wrong in their reply because there is a requirement f or pre-licensing exercise of the capability to neet the requirceents of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) that there be adequate arrangements for nedical services for i

h 1

contaminated injured individuals. FEMA Exercise Objective # 24 states that

• there should be a demonstration of "the adequacy of medical facilities, equipment, procedures and personnel for handling contaminated, injured or exposed individuals." The pre-licensing exercise should encompass all major observable elements of the plan. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear  :

Power Station), ALAB-900, 27 NRC , slip op, at 26 (September 20, 1988).  :

SAPL is arguing that the scope of the test at each of the !!S-1 hospitals was }

not sufficient to test the capability of those facilities to treat "contaminated inju'.ed individuals" as defined in FEMA Guidance Memorandum MS-1.

The Staf t does not object to litigation of thn scope of the exercise at I the participating hospitals. The Staff does object to litigation of the f adequacy of the training of the hospital staf f. SAPL takes the position that i since the personnel in both hospitals had virtus11y identical gaps in their [

I knowled E e base about their functions, that this indicar.es a potentially }

t fundamental problem with the training that is being given.

SAPL EX-6 Neither the App 1tcants nor the Staf f object to the admission of this contention.

SAPL E{-7 Applicants have no objection to che admission of this contention.

The Staf f opposes that part of the contention that is premised on the fact that the Hillside Junior liigh School was not used as a decontamination f acility during the exercise. SAPL agrees that Applicants need test only the major observable portions of the plan in a manner that cobilizes personnel in suf ficient numbers to verify their ability to respond to an accident. However, SApL does not agree that elimination of a major portion of the emergency

y' response capability from the exercise, i.e. the ability to open, staff and manage the' facility for the monitoring and decontamination ot' emardency workers, meets the applicable standard et 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E IV.F.1.

l SAPL EX-8 Applicants and Staff have no objection to the admicsion of this contention.

i. ,

l However, Appliennts state that any order admitting this ceatention should make cicar that the issue of augmenting DPilS Reception Center .4 ting with National Guardsmen is a planning issue that has already been litigated and is l

not an er.ercise issut. The Applicants are incorrect on this score for several reascns. The NHRERP does not provide for National Guardscen augmenting DPHS l

staf fing nor was such a provision included in Applicants' direct testimony or in Applicants' findings. Further, the testimony at Tr. 4892 made no claim that the National Guard could fill in the DPHS Supervisor and Radiological Health Technical Advisor (RHTA) positions. Notwithstanding all that, the capability to use National Guardsmen in these positions should have been exercised if l

l indeed it is part of the revised planning to use personnel in this manner. The exercise showed the Reception Center to be understaf fed and no compensating measures were taken to rectify the situation.

The Staf f also takes the position that the suf ficiency of personnel and compensatory personnel has already been litigated. However, SAPL has had no opportunity to litigate the evidence f rom the exercise that these personnel could not in f act be provided.

SAPL EX-9 The Applicants object to this contention because they state th;t the basis does not cupport the wording of the conter. tion. The Staf f decs not oppose the admission of this contention except insof ar as it alleges that the exercise of l

I t

. I 4

t i

the NitRERP failed to demonstrate the 4 ility to "monitor, understand or use

[

! ECL's . " The Staff believes that this statement is overbroad. SAPL believes r that the basis of the contention supps ets this language in the specific instances cited. SAPL ihowed, for exa ple, that the Rockingham County Dispatch  !

i Center (RCDC) did not properly "monit. r* the changes in accident status and i I

hence did not "use" the information properly by prov* ding it to the towns as j f

would have been appropriate. The issue is not simply one of "notification [

i delay" as Applicanta assert, but is instead the broader and more fundamental

{

issue of emergency response personnel comprehouding the importance of I

transmitting this'inf ormation as quickly as possible. [

I i

SAPL EX-10 i

Both the Applicants and the Staff oppose the admission 4APL EX-10.

The most recent TEMA Guidance Memorandum, EX-3, dated February 26, 1988, lists

'I t

36 exercise of ,ectives broken down into 3 groups A, B, and C. Objective # 36  !

t states as followst I I

\

Demonstrate the ability to carry out emergency }

response functions (i.e. , activate EOC's, mobilize i staff that report to the EOC's, establish communications i linkages and complete telephone call down) during an unannounced of f-hours drill or exercise.

in ALAB-900, the Appeal Board stated that the provision at 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, IV.F.1

"... requires a pre-license exarcise to be

' full participation.' This means that all the major observable portions of the onsite and offsite plans' must be testad in that pre-license exercise; the FEMA Objectives can serve as guidance in determining what the major observable elements are."

Long Isisnd Lighting Co. (Shoreham Suelear Power Station) ALA E-900, 27 SRC , slip, op, at 25-26 (Sep tembe r 20, 1988)

7

-1 In other words, all the FEMA objectives, including # 36, must be tested in the f pre-licensing exercise. That this has not done constitutes a major flaw in the f acope of the exercise. l l

SAPL EX-11 (Due to oversiE ht or typographical error, the citation to {

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E. IV.D.3. was omitted. It should bi :

e.dded.) l Both Applicants and Staff object to the admission of this contention.

f Both risunderstand the point of SAPL's contention. SAPL is not stating that i Applicants did not meet the 13 minute time requirement for siren activation f ollowing the arrival at a decision to authorize a protective action  !

recommendation. SAPL is asserting that an excessive r, mount of time was taken i f

up in arriving at protective action decisions. Applicant are plainly wrong when they state that there is no regulatory requirement f or proept decision- ,

I making. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, IV.D.3. states that L "The licensee shall demonstrate that the State / local f officials have the capability to make a public j l notification decision promptly on being inf ormed  ;

l by the licensee of an emergency condition."

F Though there is no quantitative standard as to what constitutes "promptly", f f

there is a qualitative standard that the public have reasonable assurance that l I t they can be adequately protected. There is no reasonable assurance when i

j I

1 excessive time is wasted arriving at decisions that should be arrived at [

i i

t quickly. FEMA Guidance Memorandum AN-1 states at p. I-5 that: '

During exer.:ises, decision-making tine should be l available to offsite officials. Ilovever, it will bc  :

incumbent upon the exercise evaluators to determine  !

if the time required by of f site of ficials to make l i

protective action rscommendations is excessive i and would resvit in the public being placed at risk. {

t l

The examples SAPL has cited in its contention basis constitute excessive i time lags that would have rubjected the public to undue risk.

1 L

r l [

. .. l 1

i SAPL EX-12_

l Applicants reply to this contention that the c.econd sentence deals with

['

l l matters that they claim are minor, aJ hoc ant' r:adily correc table by additional l training and sould not rise to the level of funda: rental flaws. Applicants perception betra;'s a f ailure to understand the complexitics of running an j adequate monitoring :nd decontamination facility. There is little carcin for 1

l error if the f acility is to be kapt in a state where contaninstion is kept in L i

delimited areas, as is absolutely essential if the facility is to have any l l i j mitigative ef fect on public radiation exposure. The exercise demonstrated a fundamental and intractable set of inadequacies that will not readily be eliminated and would quickly have led to contamination getting into areas where l's would have destroyed the ef fectiveness of the Reception Center l

facility. The insufficiency of personnel, the disarray and confusioc evidenced i o r l in the ef f orts to run the centers and the problem of inadequate information and I l

referral support services from the state are serious, fundamental and foundational flaws which are not susceptibic of correction on an ad hoe basis. I j.

I The Staf f does not oppose the admission of the contention to the extent l I

that it is premised on the inability to ef f ectively manage the decontaminatier 1

, activities but does oppose litigaticn of the activities of the DPHS staff at t l I the State EOC because they state that SAPL provided no basis for that part of [

i the centention. There is support for the contention in the FEMA Exercise  !

Report, which states that the DPHS staff did not show familiarity with their I i

responsibilities under the Radiological licalth Screening Program.  !

S APL EX-13 The Applicants object to SAPL EX-13 tecause they state that the regulations do not require the actual transport of hospital and special ,

l (

i

[

1 i

_ . _ . . _ . - , - _ _ _ , - _ _ _ _-__,___...J

. . L i

9 I

facility residents to other facilities and their receipt by those facilitiew.

However, the capability to effect the transportation of those residents should have been demonstrated in the exercise and was not. FEMA Exercise Objective #

i 18 reads:

Demonstrate the ability and resources necessary to implement appropriate Protective Actions for the impacted permanent and transient plume EPZ population L (including transit-depender.t persons, special needs populations, hanuicapped persons and ins'.itutionalized '

persons).

Turther, TEMA Exerc;se Objective # 16 requirus the demonstration of the ability }

to make decisions in regard to administration of K1 to institutionalized 1

persons. This also was not demonstrated,  !

t The Staf f argues that the running of the bus routes to nursing homes and

{

hospitals over the course of the exercise met the requirements. This was not l the case. Mont of the bus routes were run out of sequence and in private  !

I passenger vehicles, which provided virtually no test of the capability to j marshall the requisite numbers of vehicles and drivers to respond in a timely f ashio.i during the course of an actual radiological emerEency. Further, the Staf f does not explain why the dettsions about administering KI to institutionalized persons could not have been esde even though no actual administration of the substance would have needed to occur.

l The FEMA Report was silent on the subject of whether or not and, if so, how satisf actorily the two mini-scenarios to test the bus bed conversion capability were run. Even if two scenarios were carried out, the scope of the test was too narrow to he meaningf ul.

Finally. there was no test of the capabilat, of host facilitie.1 to receive, monitor or decontaminate special f ac;' ' ty evacuees. Within the ambit of FEMA Objectives # 21 and 22, these capabilites should have been l

l t

O *

• 4 10 demons tra ted. Special facility evacuees cre evacuees and there is no language in the regulations which excludes reasonable assurance of their protection from tonsideration.

i SAPL EX-14 L

Applicants and Staff both oppose adnission of this contention based on an improper interpre tatian of the regulations. The contention does not attack the Commission's regulations since it is not staticg that pre-emergency planning needs to extend beyond 10 miles. Instead, the contention is pointing out a fundanental flaw in the state of planning revealed by the exercise.

NUREC-0654 explicitly states at p.12 that the plume exposure EPZ of about a 10 mile radius was based primarily on a conticeration, inter alia, that:

"detailed planning within 10 miles would provide i

a substantial base for expansion of response

! efforts in the event that this proved necessary."

No capability for an expansion of response was shown even though the scenario would clearly have called for such an expanded response.

Even setting aside the issue of whether the capability of an aJ hoc expansion of response beyond ten miles was shown, ':he communities within the 10 i

a mile zone were not properly protected due to the failure to order the evacuation of ERPA G, as is pointed out in the contention's basis. Neither the Applicants nor the Staff advance any arguments as to why this portion of the l contention should tut be admitted.

kespectfully rubmitted, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League By its Attorneys, BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON By: /MI Aobe r t' A . 'B acku s', Esq.

116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, N.H. 03105 (603) 668-7272

~

i : '.

• L * -

• $ (U 20 P 3 :45 DATED: 19/18/88 qrs! -  :- .

I hereby certify that copies of the within SEACOAST AKtMtU8 5"l LEAGUE'S REPLY TO APPt.ICANTS' AND STAFF'S RESPONSES TO SAPL'S COSTENTIONS ON THE JUNE 1988 GRADED EXERCISE have been furnished by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached service l'et.

/

~ ,r,f A $f / d -

4cbe'rt A. Backus, tsq.

lven W. Smith, Chailu n 8:berta Pewar 7 barns Dignan, Esquire Atanic Safety aM Licensing State Fopresentative Popes & Gray Board Town of Hrpton Ibils 225 Franklin Street UcS. rg Drinkwater Foad Ibston, in 02110 WasMngton, tc 20555 Hr pton Falls, tH 03844 Dr. Jerry Harbour Docketing & Service Sec. Jane tetr;hty Atcrnic Safety aM Licensing office of the Secretary sqq, Doard U.S. !GC 5 thrket Street i U.S. Imc lus).ington, DC 20555 Portsrouth,1st 03301 Washington, CC 20555 L

office of Selectmm 01stavo A. Linenberger George tuna Bisbee, Esglir Tom of !!a.gton Falls Atcenic fafety and Liecnsir9 AttcIney General's Office I Fa.va ralls,121 03344 M State of 1:ew Hrpshire t U.S. !K Cen:crd, !N 03301  ;

lushington, CC 2055 l

i

$ i i Ashed N. Anirian, Es7 aire Joseph Flynn, Asst. Gen. Cnsl. Sandra Cavutis t Assistant City Solicitor Ted. Derg. n;-t, Ag:y, g .n of 1Av i.v m  !

376 P.lin Street 500 C Street si Box 1154  :

Haverhill, In 01830 lushington, DC 20472 rast Kensirgten, tal 03827i l

4 [

I Carol Sneider, Esquire Sherwin E. n:rk, Esq2 ire Charles P. Graha:n, Esqaire f Assistant Attorney Ccncral Office of F.Ncc. legal Dr. n-yay, }@y and Grahs:n j one Ashbunon Place U S IGC 100 rain Street i 19th rioor lushingten, CC 20555 Anasbury, in 01913 j Ibsten, FR 02103 R. 5:ctt flill-ihilton, Esqaire Jalith H. P.izner, Espaht Willia a S. Icztl, Selectam t 79 State Street 79 State Street un }t311 ,

thburyport, 5"n 01950 thtraryport, !n 01950 Friend Street i A esbury, tn 01913 L l

I Diane C0rran, Esquire Paul leern, EsTaire Scrutcr Corden J. Htqhrey f Harron, Curran & Tousley Patthew Brcck, Esquire U.S. Senate j

20001 S Street !N 25 rapitAcad Avenue Washington, tc 20510 l I Suite 430 P.O. Box 360 Attn Janet Coit '

l Washington, tc 20009 Ports cutF,!M 03801 l 1

J, P. tudesu fen cf R/e 155 Washington Reed R/e, tal 03870 ,

r I

i Mjtriicatcrf File Atm.ic Safety a.M Licensing B:ard Panel U. S. 1.7C l

tushington, tc 20$55 1 h t

Richard R. Dorcvan ma ,

Tederal P.egistr/ Center 130 229th street, SW Ecthell,ta 98021-9796 l I Robert R. Pierce, Esquire Ato:1c Safety and Licensing Board Fanel +

U. 5. !;RC k'ashington, DC 20555 g r

I James 11. Carpenter, Alt. l l

Tech, tkrter I

! Atm.ic Safety ard  ;

l Licensing Dcard i U.S. h7C Washin7 ten, DC 20555 F John 11. Trye, III, Alt.

Chaimm [

Atcmic Safety a.M Licensing Board U.S . 1.7C (

Washington, IC 20555  :

t l

I l

1

,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _  :