ML20205N544
| ML20205N544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1986 |
| From: | Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| References | |
| CON-#286-982 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8605020177 | |
| Download: ML20205N544 (102) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j cf.U{fr ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N
Before Administrative Judges: .
APR 3g PT :26 Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson prg , m Emeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour -
00cfil;;/.~ ~ayy_
g jggg </q In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-0L
) 50-444-0L PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-0L) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. (Offsite Emergency Planning)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) April 29, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER N (Ruling on Contentions and Establishing Date and Location for Hearing)
In the Memorandum and Order of April 1, 1986, this Board announced its rulings on each of contentions on the New Hampshire Offsite Emergency Plans filed by eight parties to this proceeding. The following Memorandum provides the basis for the Board's ruling. The legal standards for admissibility of contentions are described in our Memorandum and Order of November 17, 1982, LBP-82-16, 16 NRC 1649, 1654-56 (1982).
TOWN OF HAMPTON (Filed February 18,1986)
Hampton Contention I The State of New Hampshire violated FEMA regulations by denying the Town of Hampton the opportunity to prepare its own Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP), by failing to engage in integrated emergency planning with affected local units of government, and by failing to address substantial safety concerns raised by town officials on the inadequacy of the Hampton RERP prepared by the State. NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, pgs. 19-24 (hereinafter NUREG).
8605020177 860429 PDR ADOCK 05000443 -
G F ',
y' ~)
&) \' ,-
2 The thrust of Hampton's contention here is that while the State emergency plan was being prepared the State of New Hampshire " ignored" the local officials and prevented the Town from preparing its own Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP) thus in Hampton's opinion the State violated FEMA regulations.
The Applicants in their response of March 51986 oppose the admission of the contention pointing out that the State law controls as to who does the planning in New Hampshire.
The State of New Hampshire in its response of March 6,1986 also opposes the contention stating that the ". . . issues relating to ddequacy of the planning process are irrelevant to the issue . . . as to whether the plan itself satisfies Federal requirement."
The NRC Staff in its responses of March 14, 1986 also opposes maintaining that the process of how the State developed its plan is not an appropriate issue for litigation in this proceeding.
The Board agrees. The question that we must look to for answers is whether there is a plan which will permit this Board to find reasonable .
assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be implemented in a radiological emergency at the Seabrook Generating Station. We need not and, indeed will not, be drawn into disputes between local and state governments as to how plans were developed. We subscribe to the concept of Emergency Planning Zones as outlined in NUREG-0654 for implementation among the Federal, State and local governments. But we cannot force cooperation among governments where it does not exist either willingly or is negative by design. What we do urge upon the parties is to enter
~ ~ '
W 3
into cooperation on emergency planning which aids this Board to ensure that all protective measures for the public benefit have been explored and evaluated. As the Staff has noted lan integrated approach to emergency planning and preparedness is preferred and is most likely to f provide the best protection of the public health and safety in the event of a radiological emergency.
Hampton I is rejected.
4 Hampton Contention II I-The State of New Hampshire violated State law by denying the Town of Hampton the right to prepare
]
the Town any substantial input into the Hampton RERP prepared by the State. New Hampshire Revised 4 Statutes Annotated, 107 - B(1).
The Town of Hampton in this contention alleges ~that the State violated New Hampshire law.
The Applicants, NRC Staff and State of New Hampshire oppose on grounds that ne litigable issue is presented.
t The Board agrees. The Contention is Hampton Contention I stated f again.
l Hampton II is rejected.
I 1
Staff Response at 3-4.
l
4
< Hampton Contention III The Evacuation Time Study for the Hampton RERP is based upon faulty assumptions and inaccurate factual data and thereby fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective actions can be implementeo, or that adequate facilities and equipment will be provided, in the event of radiological emergency.
10 CFR 5 50.47(8), (10).
The Town of Hampttr basis t ir this contention is the Evacuation Time Study prepared by Cor.eito, Lomasnky and DeNapoli Inc. in association with C.E. Maguire, Inc. in March 1984, and after referred to as the Maguire Report.
The Applicants oppose the contention relying upon their interpretation that NRC regulation require only the ETE prepared by Applicants.
The Staff finds the basis and specificity requirements setisfied but recommends that the contentien not be admitted in view o# a new ETE study to be submitted by the State of New Hamprhire.2 The Staff suggests that a better use of resources would be to wait until the State submits the new ETE and at that time afford the Town an opportunity to withdraw cr revise the contention based on the new study.
2 April 1,1986, New Hampshire Attorney General Report nn ,tatus of NHRERP, page 2. The new evacuation time study sponsored by the c
Commonwealth of Massachusetts in cooperation with State of New Hampshire, the so-called KLD Report, is still expected to be completed by the first week in May 1986 . . . The New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency will select in early May an evacuation time study to include in the RERP as Vol. 6
5 The Board agrees with the Staff. Accordingly, we find that any consideration of the admissibility of Hampton Contention III is premature.
Hampton Contention IV The Hamptor RERP fails to provide adequate emergency
- equipment to support an evacuation in the event of radiological emergency. 10 CFR % 50.47(8).
The Town of Hampton citas as its basis the inadequateness in the numbers of vehicles needed to support an evacuation, as reflected in three agreements with transportation companies; lack of transportation ,
for non-owning residents and transits; and no reasonable assurance of contrcl of access to evacuated areas by vehicles.
Neither Applicants nor NRC Staff has objection to this contention.
Hampton Contention IV is admitted.
i Hampton Contention V u
The Hampton RERP fails to provide reasonable assurance that evacuation procedures appropriate to the locale can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency. 10 CFR % 50.47(10).
The Town of Hampton has four bases: roads are inadequate; two lane roads may be easily blocked by accident or breakdown; Route 1 is crowded during summer months; and wind direction or adverse weather could direct the plume exposure tSward the evacuation centers.
The Applicants find that there is no requirement for new roads; the blocked roads were litigated in early ETE litigation in this proceeding;
r.
6 ,
and the lack of any regulatory requirement that alternative evacuatior, be included in the plan for evacuation centers.
The Staff would accept the contention but limit it to the assertion that the present road system does not permit a reasonable assurance finding to the extent that the contention c'eals with adequacy of ETE it should be deferred.
The Board agrees with Applicants that there is no regulatory requirement which makes necessary new roads when an existing system may not provide as rapidly as desired evacuation. The consideration of a timely manner of evacuation must be frwned against all relevant conditions prevailing in the specific locality. All factors such as nature of population, available transportation, geography, etc. must be considered and the roadway condition is but one of the whole list of possibilities in selection of an evacuation route.
The issue of an alternative evacuation center under certain meterological conditions is not a regulatory requirement.
Hampton Contention V is rejected.
Hampton Contention VI The Hampton RERP fails to demonstrate that local personnel are available to respond and to augment their initial response on a continuous basis in the '
event of radiological e.nergency. 10 CFR % 50.47(b)(1).
The Town of Hampton frames its basis in terms of lack of personnel to implement evacuation requirements for traffic control and other responsibilities placed on Town by RERP.
_.- . . . . .. =
}
9 7
Neither Applicants nor Staff opposes this contention.
Hampton Contention VI is admitted.
Hampton Contention VII
, Hampton RERP exercis6s are inadequate to permit a
- reasonable evaluation of major portions of the Town of Hampton's emer ency response capabilities.
10 CFR % 50.47(14 .
The Town of Hampton asserts that there must be a RERP exercise in which-the Town participates but that since the Town did not have
" meaningful" impact it will not participate in such an exercise and FEMA should decline to approve an RERP for Hampton for an absence of local participation.
Applicants and Staff oppose since approval of a Town plan is not required.
The Board agrees. This petty Catch 22 denial of its cooperation in ensuring the best possible RERP for its citizens cannot be permitted to be given serious litigation posture amounting to a veto.
Hampton Contention VII is rejected.
I 1
l l
8 Hampton Contention VIII 3 The Hampton RERP fails to provide for adequate emergency facilities to support an emergency response. 10 CFR % 50.47(b)(10).
The Town of Hampton asserts that present estimates of evacuation time is put at seven and one-half hours thus not permitting beachgoers protection since adequate provisions have not been made for use of sheltering as a protective response.
The Applicants oppose. The Staff does not.
The Board agrees that the cor.tention should be admitted, as expressed by the Staff, because this contention addresses only the adequacy of provisions for protective measures that may be recommended in an emergency.
Hampton Contention VIII is acmitted.
TOWN OF HAMpTON FALLS (Filed February 21,1986)
, Hampton Falls Contention 1 The Hampton Falls RERP fails to provide reasonable assurance or to comply with 10 CFR Q 50.47(a)(2)
, because it is not a local plan, but is a plan prepared for the town by New Hampshire Civil Defense, or its contractor, and which will not be implemented.
3 In citing authority for its contention, the framer of this contention incorrectly cited 10 CFR % 50.47(8). As the Staff has noted, the availability of sheltering as a within the scope of 10 CFR Q 50.47(b)(10) (protective action isprotective re The Board corrects the error.
E
9 Hampton Falls asserts its basis that the local plan for Hampton Falls is in fact the State of New Hampshire Civil Defense plan and Hampton Falls has no plan. Further, Hampton Falls will not implement the State's civil defense plan.
The State of New Hampshire through its Attorney-General disputes Hampton Falls' assertion that local government must approve their plan and cites the case of Vernet, et al. v. Town of Exeter, Rockingham County Superior Court, No. 86-E-06 (February 14,1986) in which the New Hampshire Court squarely held that there is no state requirement for town appreval of radiological emergency response plan.
The Staff opposes that part of the contention asserting that the l
plan is without merit because it was not prepared by the Town--a requirement not found in NRC regulations. As the Staff notes, the adequacy and implementability of the plan are matters which can be assured without regard to the identity of the plan's sponsor.
The Board agrees that the sole litigable issue here is whether the emergency plan of Hampton Falls will be implemented. If the Town of Hampton Falls pursues its course of action then it must be demonstrated on this record that some emergency plan, probably that contained in Appendix L of the NHRERP-New Hampshire Compensatory Plan will provide
- - the reasonable assurance for the necessary finding of this Board. The Board does not accept the Town of Hampton Falls apparent veto action by denial of a plan when there is in fact a State plan which we will require to be shown as providing the reasonable assurance required by 10 CFR Q 50.47(a). The Board believes (as does the Staff) that Applicants
, - . ,v..- -n -, - - -- . ---- ----.,.,,..-,.,,,-,.-,,--,,--e - - -,,-,-,
m-- , - .
10 should be able to demonstrate on summary disposition that some plan, probably the New Hampshire Compensatory Plan can and will be implemented. Further, the Board prefers to dispose of this issue without expending resources cf the various parties in non-productive litigation not directed at insuring the best possible emergency plan for the Town.
~
Hampton Falls Contention 1 is admitted, but limited to issue of whether a Hampton Falls plan can and will be implemented.
Hampton Falls Contention 2 The plan designated as Hampton Falls fails to provide reasonable assurance since it cannot provide for continuous 24-hour operation for a protracted period, of local responsibilities, as required by NUREG-0654, A.4.
The Town of Hampton Falls basis is the lack of Town emergency response personnel to provide a 24-hour per day manning capability and that there are no other resources to meet the response tasks required.
The Applicants oppose and assert that the availability of town emergency personnel is a political decision made by the Town. The stated facts are not sufficient to raise a litigable issue.
The Staff does not oppose and finds that the ,ivailability of emergency response personnel is within the scope of 10 CFR 6 50.47.
The Board accepts Hampton Falls 2 for litigation. The record in this proceeding must reflect that the need to supplement the Town's 24-hour manning or staffing capability has been satisfied and appropriate compensatory measures are addressed.
11 Hampton Falls Contention 2 is admitted.
Hamoton Falls Contention 3 The RERP developed for (not by) the Town of Hampton Falls fails to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 9 50.47(a)(1) and 9 50.47(b)(8) and NUREG-0654 Planning Standard H, II H.3. and II H.4. because the location of the Emergency Operations Center (E0C) designated in the Hampton Falls' plan, that is, the Fire Station, is not that recognized by the town as the location of the E0C. The Fire Station is not deemed adequate as an E0C by the Town and therefore it will not be activated and staffed as described in the plan.
The Town of Hampton Falls states that it has not designated the Fire Station as the Emergency Operations Center (E0C) for the Town but has established the Town Hall as the center. Further, the Town will not staff the E0C named for it in a plan which it has not recognized.
Further, the Town states as a basis the lack of adequate emergency equipment "in the Town." i The Applicants oppose on grounds (1) that the contention is a reassertion of the fact that the Town has not adopted the State Civil Defense Plan for it and (2) that equipment called for in the plans is not in place in the Town. The latter, the Applicants state, need not be installed but only the plan must provide for the equipment as opposed to requiring it to be in place.
The Staff does not oppose asserting that 10 CFR $ 50.47(b)(8) requires that adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergency response are provided and maintained. Further, the Staff
12 notes that the E0C must be demonstrated to be adequate and have available the necessary equipment.
The Board, however, has elected to reject this contention and in doing so notes that this contention is similar to South Hampton Contention 6. The Board directs that the questions of the adequacy of both the Hampton Falls and South Hampton E0Cs and their equipment be litigated at the same time. The question of whether an alternative EOC may be designated by the State of New Hampshire and whether the necessary equipment will be supplied to an E0C, are matters which will be addressed by the parties during litigation of the contention on the merits.
Hampton Falls Contention 3 is rejected.
Hampton Fall Contention 4 The Hampton Falls RERP does not adequately meet the requirements of 10 CFR % 50.47(a)(1),
5 50.47(b)(5), 5 50.47(b)(6) and NUREG-0654 planning standard E Because there are no mutually agreeable bases for notification of response organizations and much of the comunications equipment referred to in the Hampton Falls RERP is nonexistent.
The Town of Hampton Falls states its basis for this contention is a challenge to the notification of its Fire Chief and his designation in the State plan as the person with primary responsibility for activation of the public alerting system. Further, the Town rejects that the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen should be in charge of emergency operations for the Town.
13 The Applicants find that this contention should be rejected because the Town in refusing to accept designations of their named officials should not be heard when they have not offered an alternative means to those designated by the State Civil Defense Agency.
The Staff does not oppose. The extent that compensatory measures are taken by the State is an appropriate issue for litigation.
The Board agrees that the record must reflect those compensatory measures and the availability of necessary communications equipment for use in notifying emergency response personnel. Again, this Board will not litigate that Hampton Falls (as in the case of the Town of Hampton) withheld approval of the State plan. If the Town of Hampton Falls refuses any plan or plans, the Board's responsibility, in assembling a record to base its predictive findings on, is to look at and test those other compensatory measures which will ensure the public safety in event of a radiological emergency.
Hampton Falls Contention 4 is admitted but limited to compensatory measures and equipment.
TOWN OF KENSINGTON (Filed February 24,1986)
Kensington Contention 1 The December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for the Town of Kensington does not assure that "each principal response organization has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis, as required by 10 CFR $ 50.47(b)(1), because there are not alternates in several of the key emergency response positions and other departments are inadequately
14 staffed to respond to an emergency as outlined in the plan. ..
The Town of Kensington asserts that it does not have available emergency response personnel. For example, it notes that it needs alternates for several key positions because the principals frequently work outside the Town; that its voluntary fire department personnel is not reachable or capable of responding; and in general the Town's private contractors are for an unspecified reason " insufficient."
The Applicants oppose. Applicants take the position that the Selectmen of Kensington have the power to cure all of the ills complained about.
The Staff does not oppose and states that to the er. tent to which the currently designated officials and organizations will be available to perform the various functions assigned to them by the emergency plan is a matter which may be addressed in litigation on the merits.
The Board agrees that the matter should be litigated on its merits.
In accepting the contention, however, it should be understood that subject matter for litigation is only the availability of emergency response personnel. The litany of why Kensington's own personnel is not available is not a proper subject; but the matter of emergency response personnel to perform the necessary function is.
Kensington Contention 1 is admitted.
15 Kensington Contention 2 The Kensington emergency response plan does not provide for adequate " notification, by the licensee, of State and local response organizations and for notification of emergency response per-sonnel 5 50.47(bby) (5).
organizations, as notification Provision for required by of 10the CFR town emergency response organization is inadequate in that it depends upon notification through the Rockingham County dispatch and does nut assure that the contact person will be available or can be reached in the event of a nuclear emergency. In each instance, there must be direct contact between the site and the town, and there must be a dedicated telephone line to a location where an individual will always be on duty to receive the communication and then take action.
The Town of Kensington offers as its basis that the notification sequence is from Rockingham County to the Kensington Fire dispatch who may not be designated fire dispatcher or even trained in notification procedures. There is no mention .n the stated basi,s as to a " dedicated telephone line" but the Town does state the need for delegation of duty to one individual to function as the notification link for the Town of Kensington.
The Applicants find no basis except that there may be a need for training in communication procedures beyond the designated Fire Chief.
The Staff does not oppose the contention.
The Board admits the contention. The Board cannot assume that the State will amend the plans. Our clear duty is to ensure that proper emergency notification procedures are in place that permit the Board to make its finding that reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
I
1 16 s
Notification of responsible emergency response organizations are the first and most essential steps in implementing the process.
Kensington Contention 2 is admitted.
Kensington Contention 3 The December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for the Town of Ker.sington does not provide rea-sonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, as required by 10 CFR 6 50.47(a)(1).
Kensington offers the basis of NUREG-0654 II J.10.a as requiring alternative routes in event of inclement weataer, high traffic density, or specific radiological conditions.
The Applicants oppose on grounds there is no such requirement in NUREG-0654 and that agency regulations does not require it as well.
The Staff believes that the issue of the ability to accomplish an i evacuation of Kensington using only the designated routes would better be addressed in connection with ETE issues.
\
The Board agrees with the Staff.
Accordingly, Kensington Contention \3 is rejected as premature.
i Kensington Contention 4 i
j The December 1985 draft,' radiological emergency response plan for the Tdwn of Kensington does
. not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emerger.cy at Seabrook Station, as required by 10 CFR $ 50.47(a)(1),
i because some existing structures which are proposed shelters provide inadequate radiological i protection.
i
17 The Town argues that there are no shelter area maps in the
~
Kensington plan and that the elementary school building is inadequate because of the building configuration.
The Applicants oppose stating that the school building is not inadequate because it lacks a basement or interior rooms. The determining factor is the air exchange preclusion ability.
The Staff does not oppose.
The Board admits the contention. The Applicants are required to make their showing on the record since these are facts clearly going to the merits. The Board cautions the litigants that the matter of shelter surveys or maps has been stricken from the contention as originally proffered.
Kensington Contention 4 is admitted. i Kensington Contention 5 The December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for the Town of Kensington does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures c n and will be taken in the event of a radiolcgical emergency at Seabrook Station, as required by 10 CFR Q 50.47(a)(1), because principal organizations (State and Local) involved in emergency response for the site have not seen or reviewed the Evacuation Time Estimates Within the Plums Exposure Pathway.
The Town of Kensington asserts that the Evacuation Time Estimates have not been reviewed because they have not been submitted.
18 Applicants again argue that these estimates are not required with offsite emergency plans and therefore the contention should be excluded.
NRC Staff offers no objection but proposes that contention be deferred. ,
The Board agrees ,that the contention should be rejected as premature.
The Town of Kensington Contention b is rejected as premature.
Kensington Contention 6 The December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for the Town of Kensington does not provide adequate arrangements and resources as requiredfor byeffectively using(assistance 10 CFR 9 50.47 b)(3) because there are not appropriate letters of agreement to identify and support organizations and other facilities which are to provide assistance.
Kensington states that NUREG-0654 II C.4 requires identity of certain organizations to be relied on in an emergency to provide assistance and that letters of agreement have not been identified and are necessary from wrecker companies, bus drivers, teachers, City of Manchester, New Hampshire, Governor of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency, New Hampshire Division of Public Health, New 6
Hampshire State Police, New Hampshire Department,of Safety, New Hampshire Bureau of Emergency Medical Services, New Hampshite' Division of Human Services, or New Hampshire Yankee. ,
r e
Applicants agree that for some organizations such as bus companies f
letters of agreement are necessary. In the case of gove'ramental employees or organizations there is no requirement and none is required 4
19 from the applicant whose on-site emergency plans demonstrate their commitment. The Applicants oppose the contention.
NRC Staff does not oppose so far as the contention goes to letters of agreement for private towing and transportation resources or for letters of agreement with State organizations or officials within the context of Federal guidance. Staff cites NUREG-0654 II.A.3. The Staff opposes admission of the contenti i on to the extent it requires such letters from teachers because it is unclear what role the Town believes individual teachers are required to perform, or why the letters are needed in lieu of school disaster plans or agreements with school systems or principals.
The Board admits the contention insofar as it requires a demonstration on the record of identity of organizations or individuals providing emergency assistance and tilat letters of agreement have been obtained or will be obtained within a stated reasonable period of time from private towing and transportation resources. The Board rejects that there is any need that teachers, governmental organizations or officials execute letters of agreement to perfonn their statutory required duties. Further, the Board disagrees with the Staff that the adequacy of the commitments of such governmental organizations or officials should be addressed in this litigation. To test the efficiency of these organizations and individuals is a political issae and not appropriate for litigation on the emergency planning for a radiological emergency. We also find that the Staff has correctly excluded teachers from requirement for individual letters of agreement L
1 20 to perfonn their duties. The purpose of these letters of agreement is to ensure that nuclear facilities, organizations or individuals have been identified "which can be relied upon in an emergency to provide assistance." It is not intended, nor will it be used as a mechanism for
, some sort of referendum.
Kensington Contention 6 is admitted as limited above.
Kensington Conte,ntion 7 i The December 1985 draft radiological emergency 1 response plan for the Town of Kensington does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective actions have been developed for emergency workers end the public, as required by 10 CFR 5 50.47(b)(10),
,i because there are no provisions for the use of radioprotective drugs or respiratory equipment for emergency workers and institutionalized persons within the plume exposure.
4 Kensington finds no provision for use of radioprotective drugs for 4
emergency workers and institutionalized persons has been provided and the Town asserts that any emergency workers will not be protected without these radioprotective drugs.
Neither Applicants nor Staff opposes.
The Board admits the contention but limits the requirement to emergency workers and institutionalized persons and rejects "or other j persons" as stated in Town's contention.
t 4
Tr. 2227
. ~ . , . . , , , . - . _, - - ~ , . - - -
21 F
Kensington Contention 7 is admitted.
Kensington Contention 8 The December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for the Town of Kensington does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can &nd will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, as required by 10 CFR 6 50.47(a)(1), because eva:uation time estimates are based on mean peak populations as opposed to peak populations.
The Town basis is that ETE be based on mean peak populations and not peak populations.
Applicants oppose because the Commission's general guidance 1. hat no specific scenarios are required to be planned for and that " worst cases" are not the planning model.
The Staff urges deferral.
The Board finds that this is ar.other of the premature contentions and will reject it at this time.
Kensington Contention 8 is rejected as premature.
Kensington Contention 9 The December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for the Town of Kensington does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, as required by 10 CFR $ 50.47(a)(1),
because notification sirens are set at such a high level they will cause potential damage to the hearing of those closest to them.
22 Kensington states its basis under 10 CFR 5 50.47(a)(1) because notification sirens are set at such a high level they will cause potential damage to the hearing of those closest to them.
Applicants assert that NUREG-0654 Appendix 3, C.3 does not specify a rating for the siren but that it provides that the sound levels received by sny member of the public should be lower than 123db.
NRC Staff finds no basis and opposes the contention.
The Board agrees that there is no oasis for this contention.
Further, we note that Kensington has misquoted the guidance in NUREG-0654 which states: "The maximum sound levels received by any member of the public should be lower than 123 db, the level which may cause discomfort to individuals." (Emphasis supplied.)
Kensington Contention 9 is rejected.
Kensington Contention 10 The December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for tne Town of Kensington does not provide for cormwnications with contiguous State / local governinents within the plume exposure pathway EPZ, as required by 10 CFR
% S0.47 App. E, E.(9)(a), because provisions for comunications with the State government are inadequate.
Kensington states that the emergency communications between the State and local governments are inadequate because there is one telephone located on the ground floor of the E0C, while the command post is located on the second floor.
23 Applicants oppose the contention because the local plans provide for appropriate communication capability by a number of radio frequencies used by police, fire and Civil Defense.
NRC Staff does not oppose provided it is limited to the specific
" basis" stated in support.
The Board agrees that the contention should be accepted with limitation to the specific basis stated by Kensington in its filed contentions.
Kensington Contention 10 is accepted.
Kensington Contention 11 The December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for the Town of Kensington does not provide for communications with Federal emergency response organizations as required by 10 CFR 5 50.47 App. E, E(9)(b), because there are no provisions for communications with Federal emergency response organizations.
Kensington Contention 11 withdrawn at Prehearing Conference (Tr.
2230-31).
i Kensington Contention 12 The December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for the Town of Kensington does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at ,
Seabrook Station, as required by 10 CFR 9 50.47(a)(1), because there is no description of means for registering and monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers in host areas.
24 Kensington offers as its basis failure of local plan to provide for monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers for a 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period with monitoring to extend to all residents and transients arriving at these relocation centers.
Applicants oppose asserting that there is no requirement that such registration or monitoring be in the local Kensington plan nor does the Town have any responsibility for such registration and monitoring. The location of such items is in the New Hampshire Plan for Manchester as host conrnunity.
Staff also opposes.
The Board agrees with the opponents. Registration and monitoring are provided for in the Manchester local plan, pp.11-12 through 15.
Kensington Contention 12 is rejected.
Kensington Contention 13 The December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for the Town of Kensington does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, as required by 10 CFR $ 50.47(a)(1),
because there are inadequate provisions for notifying and locating all segments of the transient and resident populations.
Kensington asserts that adequate protective measures cannot be taken because all segments of the transient and resident population will not be notified. There is no running log of all t ansients and no provision for rounding up all transits in the Town. Transportation for
25 transients to a suitable location for sheltering is not provided. In summary the Town finds that the level of detail in the Town plan is considered inadequate.
Applicants oppose in stating that there is no connection between what is stated as the basis of the contention and the matter of notification for residents of the Town who might require assistance in avacuating.
- NRC Staff would litigate the " level of details for compiling a list of Kensington residents requiring evacuation by special vehicle or requiring physical help but opposes litigation of the need for a running log of transients because there is no requirement for such in agency regulations.
The Board finds that the contention lacks any regulatory requirement. Notification is the subject of admitted Kensington Contention 2. The " level of detail" basis is too imprecise.
Kensington Contention 13 is rejected.
Kensington Contentions 14 and 15 The December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for the Town of Kensington does not provide arrangements for requesting and effectively using assistance resources regarding the transpor-tation of contaminated victims to medical support facilities as required by 10 CFR f [50.47](b)(3).
The December 1985 draft radiological emergency response plan for the Town of Kensington does not contain accurate or adequate emergency equipment to support the emergency response as required by 10 CFR Q 50.47(b)(8).
26 Kensington Contentions 14 and 15 were withdrawn at Prehearing Conference (Tr. 2232).
Kensington Contention 16 The Town of Kensington joins the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League in the following contentions filed by them and incorporates them herein by reference: Seacoast Anti-Pollution contention numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25.
The Town of Kensington states no basis for the contention.
The Applicants take no position; Staff qualifies its opposition by stating that Kensington fails to assert any matter not already identified in SAPL's contention. Staff does not oppose co-sponsorship of SAPL's contentions by Kensington.
Kensington Contention 16 is rejected in that it fails to assert any new litigable issues.
TOWN OF RYE (Filed February 20,1986)
Rye Contention 1 The Draft Radiological Emergency Response Plan for the Town of Rye does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the Seabrook Station, as required by 10 CFR % 50.47(a)(1), because in the event of an accident that would release a radioactive plume on Rye, the plan fails to reasonably recognize or provide for typical situations of increased transient population and traffic conditions in Rye between May 1 and September 1 every year, when Rye's beach and shore roads are jammed with people and traffic that frequently moves
27 at a snail's pace; and because the plan fails to reasonably recognize or provide for typical situations of hazardous driving conditions in and all around Rye between December 1 and April 15 every year, when the width of roadways are narrowed by snow, icy conditions can occur instantaneously, fog can reduce visibility to inches, and traffic predictably moves at a snail's pace.
Rye asserts that the RERP for Rye does not meet a catalog of requirements contained in NUREG-0654. It appears Rye finds inadequacies in the Rye plan in such matters as seasonal impassability of roads; inadequate ETE for the transient population; a need for a " rapid and coordinated" response to any possible emergency at Seabrook; and identity of serious traffic congestion locations.
Applicants oppose because the proposed contention is devoid of specification. It appears that Rye is implying that the constrt.ction of roadways might be required before an operating license could issue, for example. In any event, Applicants state Rye has not offered a hint of the scenario that Rye contends should have been considered. The second part of the contention appears to challenge the value employed in the State ETEs as an average occupancy rate for evacuating vehicles. The third basis appears to be that Rye must be afforded a means of evacuating rapidly in "any possible emergency and this, Applicants say is not the requirement. The fourth basis is that ETE are required to consider congestion on local roadways but applicant says there is no assertion that the ETEs do not.
The NRC Staff also opposes and describes the contention as a
" kitchen sink" of evacuation concerns.
28 The Board agrees that this contention does not state with any degree of specificity a basis for litigation. By its broad brush approach, Rye has failed to identify a single litigable issue.
Rye Contention 1 is rejected.
Rye Contention 2 The proposed Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Rye is unworkable because of the lack of provisions for any means of protecting the safety of Rye's special needs populations. Rye has at least four (4) major special needs groups, not including special needs people living at home, for which no provisions are made in the plan; and, while the plan attempts to make provision for Rye's special needs facilities (5 schools), nevertheless, those provisions are inadequate particularly with regard to transportation and sheltering.
Rye offers as it basis what is described as special needs population including "the Isles of Shoals," Rannie Webster Nursing and Elderly Home, commercial fishing industry and transient pleasure boaters. Rye further wants consideration for letters of agreement with school bus drivers and teachers as well as some unintelligible consideration of time estimates "of various sectors and identification of and means of dealing with impediments to evacuation."
Applicants oppose stating that three of the special needs groups are subjects of the general population. The Isle of Shoals is not in the EPZ; transient pleasure boaters are not unique to Rye which has no responsibility for the group whose notification comes thrcugh the U.S.
Coast Guard; and the commercial fishing industry is just another of the groups within the general pub 11c. The Applicants concede that the
29 nursing home has been " overlooked." But the rest of the grounds fail to state any basis for litigation.
The Staff also opposes except to the extent that the contention addresses the needs of the Rannie Webster Nursing and Elderly Home.
The Board agrees. The only clearly articulated need is for the Rannie Webster Home. We believe that upon a showing by the State of New Hampshire that the omission in the State plan has been cured by inclusion of this home in the appropriate section, a motion for summary judgment will eliminate the need for further litigation. We admit the contention awaiting further pleadings.
Rye Contention 2 is admitted (limited to Rannie Webster Nursing and
't Elderly Home).
Rye Contention 3 The proposed plan for Rye violates the most basic state and federal constitutional rights of all its citizens and was prepared contrary to the State of New Hampshire's enabling statutes.
Selectmen sworn to the duties of their offices are required to uphold the constitution of this State and that of this great county of America. One half of the first twelve articles of New Hampshire's constitution speak in one fashion or another to every member of a communities [ sic] right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property. Those constitutional " rights" are not considered to have been " bestowed" by those provisions, but rather are recognized as "among the natural and inherent rights of all humankind."
Furthermore, New Hampshire's enabling Legislation requires that emergency response plans be prepared in cooperation with the local communities knowledgeable participation - and even if that had been done, such legislation is subsequent and subordinate to con-
30 stitutional rights and is rightfully limited thereby.
For these reasons the entire emergency response plan proposed for Rye is invalid and should be declared void and of no effect.
Rye cited, without connection to the text of its contention, a lengthy recitation of its State constitution's bill of rights and State statutes.
Applicants oppose stating that in the Rye cited references t:1ere is no Federal Government requirement that towns must adopt the plans that apply to them.
NRC Staff also opposes stating that the contention does not raise an issue appropriate for litigation in this proceeding. The Staff has stated opposition to similar contentions of the Town of Hampton, Hampton Contentions I and II.
The State of New Hampshire opposes as well finding no litigable basis.
The Board rejects the contention. As we have stated before in this Memorandum, the Board's responsibilities lie elsewhere.
Rye Contention 3 is rejected, s
Rye Contention 4 The emergency response plan proposed for Rye makes no provisions for adequate protective measures that would reasonably assure the health, welfare and safety of all Rye citizens who may be exposed to radioactive releases emitting from the Seabrook Station in situations not regarded as major disasters requiring evacuation, or in situations of major disaster where evacuation procedures are activated but which for any reasons are either not sufficiently implemented or are' prevented from expected completion. Rye has no
31 hospitalization or decontamination facilities and is served solely by a small, voluntary ambulance corps which does not have sufficient equipment or medical aid supplies that would be necessary to render etergercy medical treatment to any more than a handful of people.
Rye apparently seeks to have a designated storage place for the "radioprotective drugs" in the Town of Rye. Further, the Town states it does not have manpower to administer such either physically or technically.
Applicants and Staff oppose. .
The Board does not find that there is a clear and focused basis in the arguments Rye has given. The basis is simply lacking in any reasonably specific articulation.
Rye Contention 4 is rejected.
TOWN OF SOUTH HAMPTON (Filed February 21,1986)
South Hampton Contention 1 The RERP for South Hampton fails to provide
" reasonable assurance" because, contrary to NUREG-0654 A.3, the plan includes no written agreements referring to the concept of operations or signatures.
South Hampton states no basis but merely notes no agreements exists with the Town's teachers or voluntary Town workers.5 5
South Hampton has also stated in its basis that the September 1984 draft plan had a signature page for its RERP but none was found in (Footnote Continued)
32 Applicants state South Hampcon should specify the deficiencies.
State of New Hampshire finds that Scuth dampton 1 and 3 do not set forth a regulatory basis.
The NRC Staff opposes to tne extent the contertion deals with individual teachers or voluntary Town workers. Staff does not oppose the need of written agreemente or signature pages for 1ccal agencies having an emergency response .oie within the EPZ as specified in NUREG-0654 II.A.3.
The Board agrees with the Staff that the contention be admitted but i limited to local agencies which have an emergency respense role within the EPZ.
South Hampton Contention 1 is admitted.
South Hampton Contention 2 The RERP for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance because, contrary to NUREG-0654 A.4, the town lacks the capacity for twenty-four hour continuous operation for a necessary protracted period after declaration of an emergency.
Although the Applicants opposed the contention as modified above, it does eliminate part of the problem as to whether the Town lacks (Footnote Continued) the current RERP. The Town of South Hampton and other parties are cautioned that when such omissions are noted the Board expects that the party finding it exercise basic self-help by requesting of the issuing agent that the missing document be replaced. This Board will not serve as a conduit for the parties on such petty matters.
33 personnel for a twenty-four hour continuous operation by limiting it to after declaration of an emergency. Applicants' other grounds appear to ,
go to the merits.
Staff does not oppose.
The Board admits the contention as modified to provide "for twenty-four hour continuous operation for a necessary protracted period after declaration of an emergency."
South Hampton Contention 2 is admitted (as modified).
South Hampton Contention 3 The RERP for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance because, contrary to NUREG-0654 C.4, it contains no letters of agreement from transportation companies and Midway Excavators.
Applicants oppose as having no basis. However, by the above modification most of Applicants' arguments have been mooted.
NRC Staff does not oppose except as the letters of agreement should be provided for " facilities, organizations or individuals which can be relied upon in an emergency to provide assistance."
The Board in its modifications has eliminated the need for letters of agreement from police officers, firemen, school teachers and other emergency workers. The remaining issues concern the agreements with transportation companies and Midway Excavators.
South Hampton Contention 3 is admitted (limited os to agreements with transportation companies and Midway Excavators).
34 South Hampton Contention 4 The RERP for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance because, contrary to NUREG-0654 E.5, reliance on a commercial FM radio station WOKQ, for follow-up information, is inadequate.
South Hampton states as its basis that exclusive reliance for the Emergency Broadcast System is placed on a single FM station which will be inadequate and in event of a " power outage" some households and campers would not have a working FM radio.
Applicants oppose stating that the contention lacks basis.
NRC Staff opposes also on a lack of basis. Further, the Staff refers to section 2-1-13 of the NHRERP which indicates that "the satellite stations and their frequencies will be identified in the Emergency Public Information Booklet to be distributed to the public."
The Board agrees that this contention should be rejected because it does not state a basis. However, the New Hampshire framers of the NHRERP shall be required to ensure that the listing of the stations in the information booklet can and will be done before the litigation of the New Hampshire offsite emergency plans is concluded.
South Hampton Contention 4 is rejected.
South Hampton Contention 5 The RERP for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance because contrary to NUREG-0654 E.7, the plan does not contain draft public messages.
l l
35 South Hampton states that "some communication instruction must be made available from Town officials and from the special facilities, Barnard School and Tewksbury Pond Campground."
The Applicants, in opposition, note that under the New Hampshire plans it is the State and not the Town that is responsible for publication of instructions. Drafts of messages for broadcast are found in NHRERP App. B. The messages to the organizations indicate in the basis will be to pass along the protective action recommendations of the State officials. The Barnard School, Tewksbury Pond Campground, and South Hampton local plan (App. F) do not require prepared scripts.
NRC Staff does not object to inclusion of draft messages in the State plan. But the Staff does oppose (a) comunication instruction, and (b) this instruction for the special facilities, Barnard School and Tewksbury Pond Campground.
The Board finds no basis for this contention.
South Hampton Contention 5 is rejected.
South Hampton Contention 6 The RERP for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance because, contrary to NUREG-0654 H.3, the town of South Hampton does not have an E0C capable for use in directing and controlling response functions.
The basis described by the Town is lack of an adequate E0C location and equipment, including a generator and two-way radio equipment.
Applicants would accept the litigation of the Emergency Operations Center but finds the basis offered by South Hampton as inadequate to 1
36 support admission because (1) the Town itself hasn't selected this EOC, and (2) that the equipment described is not yet in place.
NRC Staff does not oppose and finds that these are matters which may be explored during discovery.
The Board agrees that a positive identification of the equipment and its availability is an appropriate issue for litigation. We believe that this concern should be addressed at the discovery stage. The Board does accept the adequacy of the Town E0C as an appropriate issue for litigation.
South Hampton Contention 6 is admitted.
South Hampton Contention 7 The RERP for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance because contrary to NUREG-0654 J.10.a there has been no provision made for sheltering residents at the Tewksbury Pond Campground, despite a peak population of 1,500.
Basis offered by South Hampton is a challenge to adequacy of sheltering of the Tewksbury Pond Campground residents and the adequacy of sheltering facilities.
Applicants oppose, finding the contention vague.
Staff does not oppose the contention.
The Board rejects this contention. Whether sheltering facilities
' ~
arE physically adequate is not an appropriate subject for litigation.
What is valuable to decisionmakers is to know what facilities, if any, are available on which to base decisions to shelter or or evacuate in order to reduce inhalation doses during potential passage of airborne 4
.., __ _ , _- , _ _...___._,-,.m ,,. . - . . - ,
37 radioactivity. This knowledge does not require litigation. Even if there were no sheltering facilities of any kind at a campground, we would not condition the issuance of a license upon construction of a snelter since such action to do so is not the articulated intent of the Commission.
There is no provision in 10 CFR 5 50.47 Part 50, Appendix E, NUREG-0654 or Annex E which requires individualized evaluation of buildings to determine their adequacy for sheltering. The ability of decisionmakers to choose a protective action would not be enhanced because of the individual protective value of a building. An evaluation of the protection afforded by a structure at the campground would not make the structure more suitable or affect the choice of a sheltering option. The protective action recommendations to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency--shelter vs. evacuation--is based on the prognosis for the accident, time constraints and existing conditions.
South Hampton Contention 7 is rejected.
South Hampton Contention 8 The RERP for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance because, contrary to NUREG-0654 J.10,d. it fails to provide for adequate transportation arrangements for the evacuation of mobility-impaired individuals (subject to institutional or other confinement) and that adegaate arrangements have not been made to identify and transport persons who do not own an automobile.
38 South Hampton in its basis seeks to litigate transportation needs for various special needs persons not covered by regulatory requirement and the need to evacuate these persons in one single roundup.
The Applicants oppose the contention as vague.
NRC Staff opposes except to the extent of the two bases: (1) arrangements are inadequate for transportation of mobility impaired individuals (subject to institutional or other confinement), and (2) adequate arrangments have not been made to identify and transport persons who do not own an automobile.
The Bodrd has accepted the two bases suggested by the Staff and specifically rejects all others.
South Hampton Contention 8 is accepted (limited to mobility impaired individuals and transport dependent persons).
South Hampton , Contention 9 The South Hampton RERP lacks reasonable assurance because, contrary to NUREG-0654 J.10.H and J.12.,
the Nashua Public Works facility will lack adequate shelter for all potential evacuees, and will lack adequate medical and decontamination facilities.
South Hampton states that "means" for insuring a list of concerns such as decontamination of " emergency personnel" and equipment cannot be assured because the New Hampshire State Department of Public Health Service (DPHS) "may" be inaccessible, lack necessary personnel, and i
South Hampton locals have not been trained in DPHS procedures.
l l
+ , ,-% - e___ _% ..- ..-,q...
39 Applicants oppose because the contention is too speculative and raises no issue about the adequacy of the South Hampton local plan.
Staff also opposes because contention (1) does not provide support for its allegation that the center will be inadequate; (2) unclear what is meant by DPHS being inaccessible and lack necessary personnel; and (3) that South Hampton local personnel has not been trained in DPHS procedures.
The Board agrees with the Applicants and Staff that this contention should be rejected. What appears to the Board is South Hampton has simply listed concerns without regard to regulatory requirements.
Although these matters may be of interest to South Hampton, this Board is not the appropriate forum. If South Hampton feels that New Hampshire's DPHS has flaws, such as failure to train Town personnel, than the remedy must be sought through State processes. h'e can only litigate and direct any needed solutions for matters which have a regulatory requirement.
South Hampton Contention 9 is rejected.
South Hampton Contention 10 The South Hampton RERP fails to provide " reasonable assurance" in that, contrary to NUitEG-0654 0.1. on page 75, local personnel have not received adequate training. This is based on lack of staff to fill positions, lack of equipment, and other considerations.
South Hampton offers no basis.
Applicants oppose; Staff opposes.
Board rejects because of lack of any basis.
40 South Hampton Contention 10 is rejected.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (Filed February 21, 1986)
Mass. A.G. Contention The draft radiological emergency response plans for the Towns of Seabrook, Hampton, North Hampton, and Rye do not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the Seabrook Station, as required by 10 CFR 6 50.47(a)(1),
because in the event of a severe accident on a summer weekend some or all of the beach area transient populations within those comunities cannot under many plausible meteorological conditions be protected by means of evacuation even from early death and because there are not adequate plans or provisions for sheltering the beach area transients within those communities.
The Commonwealth filed on February 21, 1986 its contention as originally submitted on September 9, 1983.6 The thrust of the 6
The Board notes that the Commonwealth's introduction on February 21, 1986 refiled its earlier contention from 1983 but stated that since the first submission additional bases had been provided.
Massachusetts went on to describe actions taken by some New Hampshire towns in not implementing the Neu Hampshire State Plan and a " FEMA report" totally lacking in any identification as the
" additional bases." (Although described in the text as Exhibit C
" Planning Milestones" attributed to FEMA it is marked Exhibit E).
We have not considered these " additional bases" as anything more than a repetition of the bases from other intervenors' contentions.
Further, it should be noted that many of these same bases have been rejected elsewhere in this Memorandum and Order. The Applicant's "Probabilistic Safety Assessment" (PSA) has also not been accepted l as additional basis. There is no regulatory basis requiring that
! we litigate the accident sequences contained in the PSA. This new
" basis" is not a basis but the Commonwealth's attempt ta foster its (Footnote Continued)
I k_
41 contention is that there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken to protect Massachusetts' citizens on New Hampshire beaches at the time of an accident as required by 10 CFR $ 50.47(a)(1). Massachusetts Contention at 3 (February 21, 1986).
The Applicants submitted their response on March 5, 1986 and the Staff followed with its response on March 14, 1986.
At the Prehearing Conference on March 26, 1986 (Tr. 2328) the Board ordered simultaneous additional briefs on the Commonwealth's contention.
The Applicants filed their brief on April 11, 1986 and the Commonwealth filed on April 16, 1986 after a telephone request of an extension was granted. The Staff elected not to file an additional brief.
The Applicants' additional brief relied on their earlier position that the Comonwealth had sought to require the Applicants to demonstrate that the emergency plan was capable of assuring that no potential for injury to the general public exists. This, Applicants state, is contrary to the principle that " absolute protection of the public against all radiation doses cannot be guaranteed and is not required for all possible accident scenarios. Citing Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 782 (1985). Applicants also maintained that the regulation did not require that a particular level of protection was to be attained.
(Footnote Continued) belief that protective actions must be developed which assure that any particular level of radiological dose consequences do not occur in the event of an accident.
42 The NRC Staff maintained that the Commenwealth presented a litigable contention only in so far that adequate plans and provisions for sheltering of coastal beach populations in Seabrook, Hampton, North Hampton and Rye have not been provided.
The State of New Hampshire in its response of March 6,1986 found that there was no regulatory basis for the Commonwealth's contention in that the protective actions of evacuation and sheltering must ensure complete protection to the transit beach population under all circumstances.
A written Answer dated March 24, 1986 of the Commonwealth was received at the Prehearing Conference on March 25, 1986. Although not requested of the Commonwealth by the Board, we have considered it in the interest of having before us all pleadings and positions of the parties.
The Commonwealth states in replying to both the Staff and Applicants positions that the contention be limited or not admitted because there is no regulatory requirement:
The short answer to these objections is that the Massachusetts Attorney General is not contending that emergency plans must assume absolute protection under all circumstances or even that the protective action of evacuation must be completed within any particular amount of time. Nor is the Attorney General contending . . . that one must plan for a worse case accident. . . What the Attorney General does contend is that, pursuant to the Commission's regulations, emergency response plans must provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in response to a full spectrum of possible accident sequences, and that the New Hampshire plans fail to meet this standing because they provide virtually no assurance that adequate protective measures can or will be taken in the event of a severe accident at
43 the Seabrook power plant on a sumer weekend.
The same rejection by Massachusetts occurred at the Prehearing Conference on March 26, 1986 (Tr. 2254-59).
The Brief of the Attorney General of the Comonwealth of Massachusetts dated April 16, 1986 makes two points: (1) the contention states a violation of a regulatory standard with reasonable specificity,
~
and (2) that the contention relative to the sumer beach populations raises an important issue of emergency planning and is properly before this Board.
We do not agree with the Comonwealth although we find that the positions taken by Massachusetts are well defined by the brief of April 16, 1986. The Comonwealth's interpretation of emergency planning is not in accord w!*.h the Comission's Statement of Consideration, Emergency Planning, 45 Fed. Reg,. 55402 (August 19,1980). There the Comission, after the TMI event, adoptea emergency planning regulations with the avowed purpose of bolstering the siting and engineered design features by requiring protective measures to be taken in the course of an accident. It was the Commission's intent, as this Board understands these regulations, that the Comission wants to ensure that the means and procedures will be in place or will be within reasonable time, to assess the course of an accident and its potential severity, ". . . that appropriate authorities will be notified promptly and protective actions in response to actual or anticipated condition can and will be taken."
There are two protective actions that can be taken: shelter or
---w ,, ,- - - , - v , - , - - - - - - - -------,,p--,, ---
em-~w4 w- 4
44 evacuate. Some conbination of these two actions is also an option depending upon conditions.
The Commission has nowhere required a zero risk standard. Indeed, one of the basic principles of the NRC regulations is to promote emergency plans that have the flexibility to ensure response to a wide spectrum of accidents. Massachusetts would have each of the responses within the range cf protective responses provide absolute assurance that protective measures can and will be taken. Rather, we believe that the Commission's intent for emergency planning is to provide that any one or combination of responses within the range of protective responses will provide reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be taken.
The Board further notes that section of NUREG-0654 I, D dealing with Planning Basis which provides the overall objective of emergency response plans is to provide dose savings (and in some cases inmediate life saving) for a spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of Protective Action Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because each accident could have different consequences, both in nature and degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood. The NRC/ EPA Task Force did not attempt to define a single accident sequence or even a limited i
45 number of sequences. Rather, it identified the bounds of the parameters, based upon knowledge of the potential consequences, timing, and release characteristics of a spectrum of accidents. Although the selected planning basis is independent of specific accident sequences, a number of accident descriptions were considered in the development of the guidance, including the core melt accident release categories of the Reactor Safety Study.
As the Staff maintained, particular postulated accidents are inappropriate for litigation under our regulatiors. We quote, with approval, the Staff's statement in its response of March 14, 1986 that "the basic goal of emergency planning is achievement of maximum dose savings in a radiological emergency. Toward this end, the Commission requires that reasonable estimates be provided as to the time in which an evacuation may be accomplished under different conditions, for use by responsible authorities in formulating their protective action reconinendations. There is no regulatory basis, however, to support the Massachusetts Attorney General's apparent belief that protective actions must be developed which assure that any particular level of radiological dose consequences do not occur in the event of an accident." Staff Response, March 14, 1986, at 3-4; citing Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
(William Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-727,17 NRC 760, 770 (1983).
The Board rejects the contention on grounds that it does not state a violation of a regulatory basis. We :o not need to reach the issue of whether the contention, relative to the summer beach population, raises
46 "an important issue of emergency planning.," We do, however, specifically reject that part of Applicants' argument as to whether the beach population's adequate protection was an issue to be litigated at the siting, r.ot the emergency planning stage. It is, indeed, the duty of this Board to reach predictive findings that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency for the general public prior to issuance of a license to operate. .
Massachusetts Attorney General Contention is rejected.
I
_T e
./
f ,
s l
m . , . . , , , , -. ,% w a y- - , - - - - < -w, , -- - , --
47 NEW ENGLAND C0ALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION (NECNP)
(Filed February 24, 1986)
NECNP Contention RERP-1 The New Hampshire Raciological Emergency Response Plan
.("RERP") does not support the " reasonable assurance" finding recuired by 10 CFR $ 50.47(a)(1) in that it relies for imple-mentation of the plans on local governments that have not approved or adopted the plans and that have refused to par-ticipate in the testing of the plans.
NECNP Contention NHLP-1 There is no reasonable assurance that the New Hampshire local emergency plans can and will be implemented during a radio-logical emergency because the plans have not been formally adopted by the local governments and because a number of communities have objected to the contents of the plans and have refused to participate in an exercise of the plans.
These contentions are essentially duplicates7 and are treated here as a single contention.
The Applicants oppose admission of this contention or, the grounds that there is no requirement for formal approval of plans as a matter of NRC regulation, particularly not for formal approval by any particular entity; hence it raises no litigable issue. Further, they point out that responsibility for preparation of emergency plans relating to local cities and towns in New Hampshire reposes in the civil defense and emargency planning authority of the Governor and Civil Defense Agency.
N.H.R.S.A. 107-B:1. The NRC requires emergency plans for the local 7
NECNP provided no additional basis for its contention NHLP-1, but referred to the basis for its contention RERP-1 (NECNP Contentions at 17).
48 areas, but whether these are to be promulgated by the State, county or town is not a matter of Commission concern. Appls. Response to NECNP Contentions et 12-15.
The Staff opposes admission of this conter. tion to the extent it asserts (a) that certain town plans are invalid because the towns have not " adopted or approved" the plans or have declared the plans to be unacceptable; and (b) that " reasonable assurance" is lacking because certain towns have refused to participate in the February 1986 test exercise. They point out that there is no NRC regulatory basis for the first assertion and that adequacy and implementability of the plans are matters that can be assessed without regard to the identity of the sponsors. Staff Respense to NECNP Contentions at 1-2.
As to the second assertion concerning non-participation of towns in the exercise, the Staff indicates that while 10 CFR 9 50.47(b)(14) requires the conduct of periodic exercises to evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities, NUREG-0654, 9 II N assigns responsibility for the conduct of exercises to the licensee, State and local organizations. Whatever effect a town's non-participation may have had on the adequacy of the February exercise is a question of fact outside the scope of this contention, and is speculative. Id. at 2.
The Staff does not oppose admission of the contention to the extent that it asserts that local governments which are relied upon to imr.lement the plans have indicated that they will not do so. Id. at 1.
The State of New Hampshire opposed admission of this contention on the grounds that it presents no litigable issue because it relates only
49 to.the way in which the plans were developed, not to the adequacy of the plans themselves. Further, New Hampshire invited the Board's attention to a recent case (Vernet, et al. v. Town of Exeter, Rockingham County Superior Court, No. 86-E-06 (February 14,1986)) where the Court held that there is no state reouirement for town approval of the radiological emergency response plans. NH Response at 3.
During the March 25, 1986 Prehearing Conference, NECNP said it would like to amend the wording of this contention to meet the Staff's objections. The amended contention would read:
The New Harapshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan does 4 not support the reasonable assurance finding required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1) in that there is no reasonable assurance that the local governments relied on to implement the plans can or will carry them out.
l NECNP stated that the basis for the amended contention would be the same as for the original con?.ention RERP-1. Tr. 2110.
The Board finds neither NRC regulations nor guidance contained in NUREG-0654 require that Radiological Emergency Response Plans prepared for towns pursuant to 10 CFR % 50.47 be adopted or approved or even implemented by the towns themselves, so long as the preparation and implementation of the plans is accomplished by some (state or local governmental) entity with authority to do sc. NRC and FEMA guidance i
recognizes that integrated emergency planning affords the best protection for the health and safety of the public (NUREG-0654, at 23),
but adequacy and implementability of the plans are matters that can be
!, assessed without regard to the identity of the plans' sponsors.
.,- ,y. __,.__,___-__....m, . - . , _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ , _ ,
50 The State of New Hampshire asserts that there is no State requirement for town approval of radiological emergency response plans.
and cite a recent Court holding to that effect (Vernet, et al., supra).
This Board has no jurisdiction over disputes between the State and its local governmental bodies.
Whether some town governments have adopted or approved their local emergency plans, or not, presents no litigable issue for this Board to decide.
If towns' and localities' refusal to participate in planning or implementation of their local radiological emergency plans is not litigable, neither is their refusal to participate in the February 26, 1986 exercise intended to test those plans. Adequacy of that exercise will be judged on the performance of those participating, including those performing compensatory functions for those who might have participated, but did not. Adequacy of the plans being exercised is not dependent upon absence of those who chose not to participate, but rather upon performance of those who did. Hence, the second allegatiori of the contention is mere speculation about the results of the February 26, 1986 exercise.
The amended wording of this contention supplied at the Prehearing Conference (supra) may have met the Staff's objections to the original contention, but it presents a colorably different issue; i.e., that there is no reasonable assurance that the local governments relied on to implement the plans can or will carry them out. However, the original basis provided, which is also that relied upon to support the amended
51 contention, is directed to those town governments that have not adopted plans or that voted not to participate in the February 26, 1986 exercise. Thus the amended contention must fail on the same grounds as the original; i.e., there is no indication that those town governments will be relied upon to implement the plans.
NECNP Contentions RERP-1 and NHLP-1 are rejected as presenting no litigable issue; they lack the requisite specific bases.
NECNP Contention RERP-2 The New Hampshire RERP violates 10 CFR Q 50.47(b)(3) as implemented by NUREG-0654 at 9 II.C.1.b in that the state has not specifically identified all areas in which it requires federal assistance or the extent of its needs; nor has it made arrangements to obtain that assistance; nor has it stated the expected time of arrival of Federal assistance at the Seabrook site or EPZ.
The Applicants oppose admission of this contention on the grounds that it is " hopelessly vague and manifestly without basis," stating that there is nothing in the State RERP or in NECNP's basis statement to supply a basis for litigating the question of an obstacle with regard to agreements with the U. S. Coast Guard or Federal Aviation Administration. The Applicants also assert that NECNP has misread State RERP section 1.4.4 as a vague reference to other types of support that may be required. Appls. Response to NECNP Contentions at 16-19.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention. The 4
Staff believes that the extent to which the State plan satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR Q 50.47(b)(3) (and NUREG-0654, 9 II.C.1), and the extent to which the State may subsequently revise its plan to provide e-w , - , - a- , - _ ,, _, ---
52 more specific information as to e .y required Federal assistance, are matters that may be addressed in litigation on the merits of the ,
contention. Staff Response to NECNP Contentions at 3.
The Board agrees with the Staff and NECNP Contention RERP-2 is admitted as to the extent to which it addresses required Federal assistance to the State.
NECNP Contention RERP-3 The State of New Hampshire RERP does not satisfy the require-ments of 10 CFR 9 50.47(b)(7), Appendix E, 9 IV.D.2, and NUREG-0654 in that it does not adequately provide that infor-mation will be raade available to the adult transient popula-tion within the EPZ regarding how they will be notified and what their initial actions should be in an emergency.
Four basis statements, (a) through (d)0 were proffered in support of this contention.
The Applicants opposed admission of this contention on the grounds that sufficient bases, including regulatory bases, were not presented.
Except for bases (c) durability of posters and (d) French language pre-emergency information, the Staff opposed admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis and constitutes nothing more than a generalization of the intervenor's view of what applicable policies ought to be.
8 Our Memorandum and Order Admitting and Rejecting Contentions, dated April 1, 1986, mistakenly indicated that basis "3e" was included among those rejected. There is na basis statement "e" for NECNP Contention RERP-3.
53 In the Board's view, basis (c) durability of posters, also lacks any basis; hence we admit NECNP Contention RERP-3 only as it is supported by basis (d), French language requirements for pre-emergency information. The asserted significant proportion of French-speaking visitors likely to be in the area provides adequate basis for litigating this aspect of the pre-emergency information requirements under 10 CFR
% 50.47(b)(7) and Appendix E, 9 IV.D.2.
Basis statement (d) reads:
Although a significant proportion of suniner tourists in the Seabrook area are French-speaking Canadians, the RERP does not provide for any form of bilingual public instructions.
As discussed below, bilingual emergency announcements are alleged to be required in NECNP Contention RERP-4, part (d). That part is to be incorporated in part (d) of this contention by adding "and emergency announcements" to the end of the basis statement, supra. The regulatory bases of NECNP Contention RERP-3 are amended to include 10 CFR 9 50.47(b)(5) and Appendix E, 5 IV.D.3 as specified in RERP-4, below.
NECNP Contention RERP-4 The New Hampshire RERP violates 10 CFR % 50.47(b)(5) in that it fails to establish adequate means to provide early notifi-cation and clear instructions to the populace within the plume exposure EPZ. In this respect, the RERP also violates Part IV.0.2 and 3 of Appendix E to Part 50, NUREG-0654 Sections E.5, 6, and 7.
Of five basis statements (parts) to this contention submitted, NECNP withdrew parts (a), (c) and (e) indicating that it would resubmit contentions on the siren system after receiving the Final Design Report l_
54 on the public alert and notification system (which has now been published and distributed to the parties). Tr. 2118-19 (Curran); see also NECNP Response to Objections, March 25, 1986.
Part (b) of the contention asserts that absence of coordination between New Hampshire and Massachusetts on the alert systems may cause conflict, cause confusion, and threaten the public health and safety.
This part lacks specificity as to how this would " threaten" health and safety and lacks any basis for its requirement.
Part (d) of the contention asserts that the State plan does not provide for bilingual (French as well as English) emergency announcements. This aspect is similar to part (d) of NECNP Contention RERP-3, supra, with which it will be combined.
In summary, parts (a), (c) and (e) of NECNP Contention RERP-4 were withdrawn, part (b) is rejected, and part (d) is combir.ed with part 'd) of NECNP Contention RERP-3. No litigable part of NECNP Contention l
RERP-4 remains.
NECfG Contention RERP-5 The.New Hampshire state and local emergency response plans do not comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 9 50.47(b)(5),
6 IV.D.3 of Appendix E to Part 50, or NUREG-0654, 5 II.E.6, in that the audible alert systems on which they rely cannot be depended upon to provide prompt notification to the public in an emergency.
The essence of this contention is found in the proffered basis statement. It asserts that, to the extent that the alert and notification system relies upon AC power, it cannot be relied upon
55 because over half of the accidents at Seabrook leading to a significant radioactive release (as interpreted by NECNP from the Seabrook Station Probat'ilistic Safety Assessment of December 1983) would involve a loss of offsite power. Therefore the sirens and any other notification devices dependent upon offsite power are likely to be disabled and rendered useless in an emergency. NECNP Contentions at 8-9.
The Staff opposed admission on the grounds that loss of offsite power at the Seabrook Station is not necessarily equivalent to loss of electrical power at other locations in the EPZ, much less throughout the EPZ. The Staff furthe, pointed out that petitioner has provided no reason as to why a notification system employing sirens and. tone-alert radios, approved in NUREG-0654, Appendix 3, is any less reliable than 4
for EPZ's surrounding other nuclear plants. Staff Response to NECNP Contentions at 6. We agree.
The Applicants suggested this contention be excluded without 4
prejudice pending distribution of the siren study (which has now occurred). Appls. Response to NECNP Contentions at 27.
NECNP cited the siren report (Final Design Report, Seabrook Station Public Alert and Notification System at 20) in its Response to Objections as stating that (a) 133 of 140 sirens will be battery operated, with standby capacity of several weeks or full sound output of one-half hour, and (b) tone-alert radios will have backup power in the event of emergency, but oces not state the capacity of the batteries.
NECNP continues to assert that adequate backup capacity must be
56 demonstrated for the seven remaining sirens and the tone-alert radios.
NECNP Response to Objections, March 24, 1986, at 7.
This contention lacks regulatory basis in that backup alert and notification systems are not required by NRC regulations nor are they recommended in NUREG-0654, 6 II.E.6. See Kansas Gas & Electric Co.
(Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-26, 20 NRC 53, 67 (1984). The contention also suffers from a faulty factual basis in that loss of offsite power at the Seabrook Station is not the same as loss of electrical power at the siren locations, and petitioner failed to show any nexus between loss of power at the seven sirens and the Probabilistic Safety Assessment study assumptions. Petitioner also failed to address testing and maintenance procedures and to suggest why they would not identify and correct power supply problems that might occur in the sirens or tore-alert radios.
NECNP Contention RERP-5 is rejected for lack of basis.
NECNP Contention RERP-6 J
The siren system relied on by the New y , shire RERP for early notification will not provide adequ:- r.ight-time warning to manyindividualswhoa.easleepirM[orsandwhowillnotbe -
able to hear the sirens. 7 se state cannot provide the _ .:a rear c- .. .
. W otification that is required by 1 (5) ana 5 IV.D.3 of Appendix E to Part 50., ,
Applicants oppose this contention on the grounds that it.i? c ,
NNWMd@DfEYYYM3$cYijiiIifeTiN I , ;a Qsert. n systems. They do not go so far as petitioner would infer in its Response to Objections (supra, at 7-8); i.e., that the criteria are
57 considered to be the equivalent of NRC regulations, and hence they may not be challenged. Rather, the plain language of Applicants' objection is that "[i]f the siren study shows that the system meets the FEMA acceptance criteria, the plan is acceptable regardless of whether NECNP thinks those criteria are insufficient."
The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the ground that it lacks bases. NECNP has provided no reason to believe that the sirens will be ineffective at night, but asserts only that "it is not clear" whether the sirens will be heard at night. The Staff asserts that the siren sound levels at Seabrook are set considerably higher than I
those at Shearon Harris, where this issue first surfaced. While this '
could be inferred from petitioner's own wording, NECNP clarified their position to some extent in their Response to Objections (id,. at 8).
The principal basis that NECNP proffers for this contention is that it is currently under litigation in the Shearon Harris proceeding, and that Licensirg Board has written to the Commission suggesting that
- night-time siren notification may pose a generic safety problem for nuclear power plants. While this Board neither agrees nor disagrees with the course taken by the Shearon Harris Board, we are not bound by their ongoing actions on this issue.
At the March 25, 1986 Prehearing Conference, NECNP suggested that it would be more appropriate to defer this contention until (EC#his' had a chance to have an expert evaluate the siren study and determine whether this is also a serious issue for Seabrook. Tr. 2121 (Curran).
J w - - -. r-. r , , .y,. . , . _ - --4 , , . - - - - - - - - . , , , -m, ,mm. , r ----.-,-w- - , - --
-.7 -- y-
i l
l 1
58 l The frct remains that petitioner has not provided any reason to believe that the siren system design for the Seabrook Station will be ineffective at night. Therefore NECNP Contention RERP-6 is rejected for lack of a reasonably specific basis.9 NECNP Contention RERP-7 This contention was withdrawn at the March 25, 1986 Prehearing Conference. Tr. 2123 (Curran); NECNP Response to Objections, supra, at 8.
NECNP Contention RERP-8 Neither the flew Hampshire RERP nor the local plans provide a
" reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency,"
as required by 10 CFR % 50.47(a)(1), in that the plans do not provide reasonable assurance that sheltering is an " adequate protective measure" for Seabrook. Nor do the plans provide adequate criterM Sr the choice between protective measures, as required by .47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654, 5 II.J.10.m.
This contention was reworded as shown above to include NECNP Contention NHLP-7, infra, which duplicated NECNP Contention RERP-8.
NECNP Response to Objections, supra, at 9; Tr. 2123-24 (Curran).
9 In an earlier Memorandum and Order in this proceeding, this Board concluded that a statement of basis "must either allege with particularity that an applicant is not complying with a specified regulation, or allege with particularity the existence and detail of a substantial safety issue on which the regulations are silent."
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrock Statinn, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-106, 16 NRC 1649, 1656 (1982).
59 The Staff does not oppose admission of this contention.
The Applicants oppose admission on the ground that NECNP's generalized assertion (,f inadequacy of sheltering fails to provide adequate notice of what is to be litigated.
The Board concludes that bases (a) and (b) meet the requirements of reasonable specificity, but that bases (c) and (d)10 are not founded on regulatory requirecents.
NECNP Contention RERP-8 is admitted as limited to the assertions in
, bases (a) and (b).
NECNP Contention RERP-9 The New Hampshire RERP violates 10 CFR ll 50.47(a)(1),
50.47(bM10) ane l NUREG 0654, 6 II.J.10, because it does not include evacuation time estie.ates.
1 This contention is rejected as premature, without prejudice to
- submission or resubmission of contentions specifically addressed to an b evacuation time estimates (ETE) study which the Board determines to be litigable.11 10 Due to typographical error, the last two bases were both lettered "c." The last basis should be lettered "d." NECNP Contentions at 13. ,
11 The Applicants previously submitted 4 preliminary ETE Report; two contentions with respect to that report were litigated during the hearings that ended in August 1983. Since that time the States of New Hampshire and Massachusetts have contracted for another Evacuation Time Study (ETS), the results of which they may atilize in their planning, rather than those of the Applicants' ETE study.
(Footnote Continued)
60 NECNP Contention RERP-10 The New' Hampshire RERP violates 10 CFR % 50.47(b)(9) in that it fails to demonstrate that ' adequate methods, systems, and equipment for assessing and moni+0 ring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use."
Six basis specifications (a through f) were proffered in support of this contention. Two sections, (c) and (f), were withdrawn. Tr. 2141 (Curran); NECNP Response to Objections at 11.
Applicants opposed adnission of all parts of this contention on grounds that the alleged deficiencies in the plans did not exist or that the items cited were not required. Appis. Response to NECNP Contentions at 34-38.
- The Staff opposed sections (c) and (f) but did not oppose admission of this contention to the extent that it relieo upon the other bases averred. We agree.
The Board admits NECNP Cuntention RERP-10 as limited to basis items (a),(b),(d).,and(e).
l
, i (Footnote Continued)
The Board has requested legal briefs an the litigability of the ETS study. e ee discussion, Tr. 2124-40. Two briefs were filed:
Applicants' Brief of April 11, 1986 with Respect to (1) the Massachusette Attorney General Contention, and (2) the so-called "Multipit ETES" Issue and the Town of Hampton's Brief of Ap il 11, 1986, The State Evacuation Time Estimate Study Presents a Litigable Issue for the ASLB.
/
61 NECNP Contention RERP-11 The New Hampshire RERP violates 10 CFR % 50.47(b)(12) in that it does not provide adequate arrangements for medical services for contaminated injured individuals.
The Applicants and Staff object to the admission of this contention on the grounds that it flies in the face of the Commission's Statement of Policy, " Emergency Planning," 50 Fed. Reg. 20892 (May 21, 1985),
issued in response to the Guard I2 decision. The Statement of Policy limits litigation concerning arrangements for medical services for contaminated injured members of the public to the question of whether the plans provide a list of existing medical facilities identified for treatment of contaminated injured individuals. A commitment from the Applicants to comply fully with the Comnission's forthcoming response to the Guard decision is also required.13 Clearly, NECNP does not limit their contention to the question of whether a list of existing medical facilities identified for treatment of contamins76h injured individuals is contained in the emergency plan.
They flatly state "The Commission is wrong." NECNP Response to Objections at 13.
d 12 Guard v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
13 Applicants furnished a copy of their comitment letter which was bound into the transcript on March 26, 1986 (ff. Tr. 2353).
62 NECNP is wrong to assume that this Board would allow litigation of this contention beyond the scope delineated in the Statement of Policy, which is fully binding on this Board.
NECNP Contention RERP-11 is rejected.
NECNP Contention RERP-12 The New Hampshire RERP does not provide for radioprotective drugs for institutionalized persons within the EPZ, as required by NUREG-0654, 5 II.J.10.e. Nor does it consider the circumstances under which radioprotective drugs should be administered to the general public, as required by 9 II.J.10.f.
The Applicants originally opposed admission of this contention (Appls. Response to NECNP Contentions at 39), but later withdrew their opposition insofar as it goes to institutionalized persons (Tr. 2146).
The Board amends the contention here to include emergency workers (see i NECNP Contention NHLP-8, infra).
The Staff similarly does not oppose admission to the extent the contention addresses the provision of radioprotective drugs to institutionalized persons (Staff Response to NECNP Contentions at 12).
The Staff notes that the determination as to whether KI should be made available to the general public is a matter within the State's discretion and is not required by either the NRC or FEMA l Staff's Response to Kensington Contentions at 5, n.4). We agree.
NECNP Contention RERP-12 is admitted as limited only to provision of radioprotective drugs for institutionalized persons and emergency i workers within the EPZ.
i i
63 NECNP Contention NHLP-1 This contention duplicates NECNP Contention RERP-1 and both are rejected. See ruling on NECNP Contention RERP-1, supra.
NECNP Contention NHLP-2 The local emergency response plans for New Hampshire communi-ties within the plume exposure emergency planning zone do not assure that "each principal response organization has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis." 10 CFR $ 50.47(b)(1), in the following respects:
- a. The police forces for the towns surrounding Seabrook do not have sufficient personnel or resources to carry out
> their responsibilities under the plan.
- b. There is no assurance that necessary police and fire department personnel will be reachable or capable of responding promptly in the event of a radiological emergency.
- c. There is no assurance that emergency response personnel can be relied on to fulfill their responsibilities under the emergency plans. . .
- d. The plans contain no demonstratior, that private companies or individuals who will be depended on to assist in an emergency will actually be able, conunitted and willing to perform those functions,
- e. All members of each emergency response organization should be surveyed to determine whether they intend to stay in the EPZ to implement the plan during an emergency. (Withdrawn)
~~
- f. Under the local plans, the highway departments are responsible for assuring a successful, smooth evacuation by clearing roads of snow, stalled cars, and accidents and otherwise assuring that the roadways remain open for evacuation. The local highway departments do not have sufficient personnel or resources to fulfill these responsibilities, and the common arrangements for ad hoc -
assistance by private contractors are insufficient to assure that these responsibilities will be met.
64
- g. Under the plans, the local fire departments are respon-sible for such tasks as assisting in monitoring the evacuation, for decontamination of affected individuals, operating and maintaining the E0C or the public alert system (PAS), and assessing emergency transportation needs. The local fire departments do not have sufficient personnel or resources to fulfill these responsibilities.
- h. There is no assurance that local emergency response personnel will be reachable or that they will be able to respond soon enough to assure protection of the public health and safety.
- 1. The local plans do not provide for adequate backups or alternates for important positions in the event that
- - - - . assigned personnel are not available.
J. Many of the posts crucial to an effective emergency response have not yet been filled.
Each of the ten parts or sub-contentions above is supported by an individual proffered statement of bases. No party objected to admission of parts (a), (f), (g), (h), (i), or (j). Part (e) was withdrawn at the Prehearing Conference.
Applicants oppose admission of part (b) of this contention on the ground that the bases assert potential communications and availability problems with police officers and fire department personnel that stem from the fact that many of these persons are employed part time (Appls.
Response to NECNP Contentions at 43) [and live some distance away]. We agree that the proffered basis for part (b) fails to raise any litigable issue. These circumstances of employment and residence of the personnel are .not abnormal and petitioner has not prcvided a sufficiently specific basis to suggest they cannot be contacted in an emergency or that they will not be able to respond in sufficient numbers. Part (b) of NECNP Contention NHLP-2 is rejected for lack of basis.
+ - - ~ - - , - . - .
,.-,7., c - - - %- ------.----- - - - - < , e- .e g-
65 Applicants oppose admission of part (c) of NECNP Contention NHLP-2 for the same reasons that they opposa part (e), which petitioner withdrew. A generalized assertion that emergency response personnel will abandon their stations and ignore their duties offers nothing litigable. M.at43,45. We agree.
While part (c) of this contention does not allege that an attitude and intentions survey must be conducted, as did part (e), inferentially it asserts that we should predict the same general attitudes and intentions through litigation. Part (c) of NECNP Contention NHLP-2 is rejected for lack of specificity of basis.
The following parts, or sub-contentions, of NECNP Contention NHLP-2 are admitted: (a), (d), (f),14 (g), (h), (i), and (j). Parts (b) and (c) are rejected. (Part (e) was withdrawn at the Prehearing Conference (Tr. 2149).)
NECNP Contention NHLP-3 The local emergency response plans for the New Hampshire towns surrounding Seabrook do not adequately provide for "notifica-4 tion, by the licensee, of State and local response organiza-tions and for notification of emergency response personnel by all organizations," as required by 10 CFR 5 50.47(b)(5), in the following respects:
- a. Provision for notification and communication by Public Service Co. with the town emergency response i
14 In our Memorandum and Order Admitting and Rejecting Contentions, dated April 1, 1986, this Board mistakenly indicated that part (f) is rejected. Our Order should have indicated that part (f) of NECNP Contention NHLP-2 is admitted.
66 organizations is inadequate in that it depends upon notification through the county dispatch and does not assure that the contact person will be available or can be reached in the event of a nuclear emergency.
- b. (Withdrawn).
Subcontention (b) and the final allegation in subcontention (a) of this contention were withdrawn at the Prehearing Conference on March 25, 1986. Tr. 2154-55; NECNP Response to Objections at 17-18.
Applicants' objections to the remaining portion of the contention go largely to the merits of the issue.
The Board admits NECNP Contention NHLP-3 to the extent not withdrawn by petitioner and as limited to the bases shown in basis statement (a) above.
NECNP Contention NHLP-4 o
Prbcedures to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway EPZ, 10 CFR
$ 50.47(b)(5), are inadequate.
As originally submitted, the basis statement of this contention contained four parts: (a), (c), (d) and (e). Part (b) had been left out as a typographical error, part (a) was withdrawn, and part (d) alleging the lack of bilingual notification and communication is incorporated into Contention NHLP-5.15 Tr. 2155, 2157; NECNP Response to Objections at 18-19.
15 The Board has combined and incorporated admissible bilingual (Footnote Continued)
67 Both the Applicants and Staff oppose admission of part (c) on the ground that there is no regulatory basis that requires emergency response organizations to detern.ine or establish (or to verify) the time required for notifying and providing prompt instructions to the public.
The Staff also asserts that part (c) is overly vague. Appls. Response to NECNP Contentions at 52; Staff Response to NECNP Contentions at 17.
We agree. NECNP's response failed to show any nexus between regulatory requirements and the factual assertions of part (c).
NECNP Contention NHLP-4 is admitted as limited to notification of persons with special notification needs as specified in part (e) of the basis statement.
NECNP Contention NHLP-5 The local plans do not adequately assure protection of the
- public health and safety in that they make no provision for dealing with the serious language barrier faced by the large numbers of non-English speaking people often in the area and the difficulties that arise from that language barrier. The language barrier creates behavior problems that would seri- r ously hamper the emergency response, rendering an orderly and safe evacuation impossible.
4 At a minimum, all relevant communications and informational material must be in both English and French. Emergency response personnel who may have to deal with non-English speaking people must be fluent in French, and all such per-sonnel must be trained in handling the behavioral difficulties that may arise as a result of the language barrier.
(Footnote Continued) notification and communication issues alleged in several NECNP contentions, including NHLP-4 and NHLP-5, in NECNP Contention i RERP-3, supra.
68 This contention duplicates, and goes beyond, several other NECNP contentions on the issues of notification and communication requirements for non-English speaking visitors from Canada. Whether relevant informational material and notification communications and instructions must be in both French and English is litigable,16 based on the assertion of the presence of significantly large numbers of non-English speaking visitors to the Seabrook EPZ area from Canada.
The Staff opposed admission of this contention to the extent that unspecified " behavioral problems" or " behavioral difficulties" will arise from the language barrier. The Staff regarded the anecdotal examples given by NECNP of actions by two French-speaking families as failing to provide a reasonable representation of what might occur in the event of a radiological emergency, and concluded that this aspect of the contention lacks basis and is overly vague. NECNP's assertion in its Response to Objections (at 20) that these incidents are concrete factual examples that support its contention is rejected.
Applicants, in their Response to NECNP Contentions (at 53-54 and 20-23) opposed admission of the contention but did not address the
" behavioral aspects." In its oral response at the Prehearing Conference, NECNP did not address the " behavioral aspects" of this 16 Such admissible issues are incorporated in another NECNP contention, RERP-3, supra. 10 CFR 65 50.47(b)(5), (6) and (7);
Appendix E to Part 50, s6 0.1, 2 and 3.
J
, - . -- -- ,m y- . ., .--y- -r -- - -- , - ,,,-,.--.,,-..~,,---n-c--w.e.,---..r--.-%- .~.r-- -
-+s# m- - - - yy - -w,-- - -
69 contention, but rested on its Response to Objections to NECNP Contention i
RERP-3. Tr. 2157 (NHLP-5), 2117-18 (RERP-3).
NECNP Contention NHLP-5 is rejected for lack of basis.
NECNP Contention NHLP-6 The local emergency plans do not provide for an adequate range of protective actions, 10 CFR 9 50.47(b)(10), because they contain inadequate means of relocation or other protection for those with special needs, those without private transporta-tion, school children, or persons confined to institutions or elsewhere for health or other reasons. Moreover, the re-sources available to the towns for these purposes are inade-quate to provide a reasonable assurance that the public will l be protected in the event of an accident.
4 No party opposed admission of this contention. NECNP Contention NHLP-6 is admitted.
NECNP Contention NHLP-7.
This contention was withdrawn and Contention RERP-8, supra, whicn it largely duplicates, was reworded to encompass both the State and local plans. NECNP Response to Objections at 20; Tr. 2157.
NECNP Contention NHLP-8 The local plans fail to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 9 50.47(b)(10) in that:
- a. The local plans do not adequately provide for the use of radioprotective drugs for emergency workers or institutionalized persons whose immediate evacuation may not be feasible.
- b. The plans do not include a description of the methods by which decisions for administrating [ sic] radioprotective drugs to the general population are made during an
70 emergency and the predetermined conditions under which such drugs may be used.
Subpart (c) of this contention was withdrawn by the petitioner.
NECNP Response to Objections at 20, n.4.
This contention, in large part, duplicates NECNP Contention RERP-12, but on its face, this contention applies to the local plans.
While the Applicants indicated that they would not oppose NECNP Contention RERP-12 insofar as it went to institutionalized persons, or to institutionalized persons and emergency workers in other contentions (Tr. 2146 (Gad)), they opposed this contention on the grounds that, inter alia, such distribution is not a local responsibility, citing the New Hampshire NHRERP, % 2.7.3.
Because it appears that neither the Staff nor the Applicant would oppose litigating the substance of part (a) of this contention under a contention on the State RERP, part (a) is rejected here but incorporated in NECNP Contention RERP-12, which is amended to include both institutionalized persons and emergency workers.
Part (b) of this contention, which pertains to administering radioactive protective drugs to the general public is rejected for the reason stated for rejecting the same aspect of NECNP Contention RERP-12, supra.
NECNP Contention NHLP-9 The current state of emergency planning and preparedness does not permit a finding of reasonable assurance that if an
71 evacuation is necessary, it can be carried out in a manner that will assure protection of the public health and safety in that:
- a. The consequences of an accident at Seabrook are such that evacuation must be completed promptly in order to avoid unacceptable damage to the public health and safety.
- b. Both local conditions and aspects of the emergency plans will result in families being scattered in various areas.
The families will clog the evacuation routes and disrupt the evacuation by attempting to reunite before proceeding to evacuate.
- c. There is no assurance that those responsible for driving the various busses and other forms of mass transportation will actually do so, rather than first assuring the safety of their own families or leaving the area altogether.
- d. Many of the primary potential evacuation routes are prone to serious flooding, which has not been taken into account in the local plans or in the evacuation time estimates contained within those plans.
- e. The local plans do not adequately account for the crowds at the Seabrook dog track.
- f. Many of the evacuation routes are narrow and would be blocked by an accident or a stalled car, and those roads and the available traffic control personnel cannot handle both the traffic that will come from surrounding towns as well as the traffic generated by the town itself.
- g. Gasoline supplies and availability are limited such that many of the vehicles that run low can be expected to run out, thereby clogging the narrow evacuation routes and hindering the evacuation,
- h. (Withdrawn.)
- 1. " Driver anarchy." (Basis, sans contention, was provided.)
This contention contains seven subcontentions, (a through g), each with its separate basis statement proffered in support, and an eighth basis statement (1) without a subcontention. Petitiener withdrew a
72 ninth subcontention (h) during the March 25, 1986 Prehearing Conference (Tr. 2160; NECNP Response to Objections at 23).
Applicants oppose admission of all aspects of this contention (Appls. Response to NECNP Contentions at 59-64), while the Staff opposes parts (a) and (1). Staff Response to NECNP Contentions at 22. The Staff also notes that parts (b), (d), (e), (f), and (g) essenttally raise ETE issues (id.), the consideration of admissibility of which might appropriately be deferred until the litigability questions n nertaining to the State's ETS are resolved and a litigable ETE or ETS is determined to have been included in the plans and distributed to the parties. To these ETE-related issues, the Board would add part (i), as well.
In arguing that subcontention (a) of this contention lacks any regulatory basis, the Staff parses this subcontenti::n into three assertions or issues that NECNP seeks to litigate: consequences of specific accident sequences, the assertion that an evacuation must be completed within a short period of time, and that this is necessary to avoid " unacceptable" exposure to radiation. d .
I_d The Staff goes on to argue that no requirements for any of the assertions or issues sought to be litigated exist in Comission regulations or statements, or in NUREG-0654. Id. at 23-24. We agree.
The Applicants object to part (a) of this contention on grounds similar to those of the Staff; i.e., that there is no " performance requirement" for emergency planning or no " unacceptable radiation
73 exposure" contained in the Commission's regulations. Appis. Response to NECNP Contentions at 59-60.
NECNP's response that by arguing as above, "[t]he Staff and Applicants apparently consider that the operation of the Seabrook pl6nt is a given, and [that] the Licensing Board must approve any plans that show a reasonable effort to cope with the serious evacuation and sheltering problems posed by the site" (NECNP Response to Objections at 22) is unfounded in law, policy or logic.
Guiding principles of emergency planning, well-founded on the guidance of NUREG-0654 and, in turn, on Commission regulations, that were recently stated by the Shoreham Licensing Board are applicable here. These principles are:
The purpose of emergency planning is to achieve dose savings to the general public in the event that radioactive material is accidentally released off site. There is no minimum standard of public radiation dose which must be met in emergency planning.
Absolute protection of the public against all radiation i doses cannot be guaranteed and is not required for all possible accident scenarios.
The emergency response plan should not be developed for any specific preconceived accident sequence. It should instead be framed to cope with a spectrum of accident possibilities including the worst accidents.
There is no standard time required to be met for evacuation in a radiological emergency. Estimates are necessary to determine accurately the actual time required for evacuation. These estimates are needed to aid in protective action decisionmaking.
No massive investment of resources (stockpiling of supplies or construction of hospitals) are required for emergency planning. We will apply a practical standard of efficiency of utilization of existing resources (such as i
74 roadways and manpower) in evaluating the acceptability o'f the evacuation plan.
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 782 (1985).
Subcontention (a) of NECNP Contention NHLP-9 is rejected on the ground that it lacks any regulatory basis.
Part (c) of NECNP Contention NHLP-9 partially overlaps part (d) of NHLP-2 (bus company letters of agreement) which was admitted (see Tr. 2153), but alleges the same sort of predicted unwillingness of individuals to respond during an emergency as was alleged in part (c) of NHLP-2, which was rejected, supra. Compare NECNP Contentions at 21-22 and 39-40.
Part (c) of NECNP Contention NHLP-9 is rejected for the same reasons as given for part (c) of NECNP Contention NHLP-2.
Parts (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (i) of Contention NHLP-9 raise ETE issues and are rejected here without prejudice pending completion and distribution of a litigable ETE report. Se_e_, supra, NECNP Contention RERP-9.
NECNP Contention NHLP-10 The local plans do not contain adequate arrangement for medical services for contaminated injured individuals. 10 CFR
$ 50.47(b)(12) and NUREG-0654, 5 II.L.
- a. The towns within the EPZ do not have sufficient ambulences or emergency medical equipment to care for contaminated injured individuals.
- b. In addition to contaminated injured individuals, the towns must evacuate hospitals, convalescent homes and the
75 ncnambulatory residential population, many of which must be transported by emergency medical vehicles. The plans do not demonstrate that there are sufficient numbers of emergency vehicles to meet the needs of the communities.
Both the Applicants and Staff opposed admission of this contention on the grounds that it was an impermissible attack on the regulations in the context of 10 CFR 9 50.47(b)(12) concerning required arrangements for contaminated injured individuals. Appis. Response to NECNP Contentions at 65; Staff Response to NECNP Contentions at 26.
In response to the oojections, NECNP reworded Contention NHLP-10 and submitted it as two contentions (NHLP-10 and NHLP-14). The reworded NHLP-10 simply combined the general statement and part (a) of the original contention, above, into a single statement supported by'the original basis (a). NECNP Contentions at 44; NECHP Response to Objections at 24-25; Tr. 2161-64. The newly offered NECNP Contention NHLP-14 will be addressed in turn, infra.
NECNP Contention NHLP-10, as reworded, is rejected as an impermissible attack on the regulations for the reasons discussed more fully, supra, in conjunction with NECNP Contention RERP-11.
NECNP Contention NHLP-11 The New Hampshire local plans fail to take into consideration the effects of loss of offsite power on the ability of local governments to take adequate protective measures in the event of an emergency.
This contention is a restatement of NECNP Contention RERP-5 but in terms of the local, rather than State, plans. The fundamental basis
76 relied on is an asserted high correlation between loss of offsite power and core melt accidents. NECNP Contentions at 45.
Applicants and Staff oppose admission on the same grounds as for RERP-5, i.e., that loss of offsite power to Seabrook Station is not the same as loss of electrical power to any or all parts of the surrounding area. Appls. Response to NECNP Contentions at 66; Staff Response to NECNP Contentions at 27.
Petitioner relies on statements in the testimony of Phillip B. Herr submitted to this Board on July 15, 1983 as support for the proffered basis. This portion of testimony by Mr. Herr (ff. Tr.1196, at 4) was stricken (Tr. 1169, lines 18-20; Tr. 1171, lines 7-10).
4 NECNP Contention NHLP-11 is rejected on the ground that it lacks basis. See, supra, RERP-5.
NECNP Contention NHLP-12 The host plans are insufficient to provide for the registering and monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers.
Because of changes in designation of host communities and i
concomitant changes in the host community plans that will be shortly forthcoming, contentions on these plans are premature.
I Tr. 2165-67, 2304, 2309-10.
Accordingly, NECNP Contention NHLP-12 is rejected without prejudice pending revision and distribution of the Seabrook area host community emergency response plans.
i i
l
77 NECNP Contention NHLP-13 The host plans do not provide assurance that evacuees from the Seabrook EPZ will be monitored and will be decontaminated if necessary. The plans thus pose a threat that evacuees will carry radiological contamination into other areas of the state and even into other states and Canada.
The Applicants and Staff oppose 6dmission of this contention on the ground that there is no regulatory requirement for monitoring all evacuees in the event of a radiological emergency. According to the Staff the contention lacks basis, poses an impermissible challenge to Consnission regulations, and constitutes nothing more than NECNP's view of what applicable poi:cy ought to be. Staff Response to NECNP Contentions at 28.
NECNP cites no regulatory basis for the contention in its submittals.
NECNP Contention NHLP-13 is rejected for lack of basis.
NECNP Contention NHLP-14 The local plans do not demonstrate that there are sufficient numbers of vehicles to evacuate hospitals, convalescent homes, and the nonambulatory residential population, many of whom must be transported by emergency medical vehicles, 10 CFR
$ 50.47(b)(8), NUREG-0654, 6 II.J.10.d.
The basis is the same as for contention NHLP-10(b). NECNP Response to Objections at 24-25; NECNP Contentions ht 44-45 (for basis NHLP-10(b)).
This contention was submitted as a new contention during the Prehearing Conference on March 25, 1986 (Tr. 2164). Neither the
78 Applicants nor the Staff had had sufficient time to review the contention to comment on its admissibility (Tr. 2163).
As submitted this contention does not provide sufficient information as to how 10 CFR $ 50.47(b)(8) requirements for emergency facilities and equipment are deficient. Planning Standard H in NUREG-0654 (at 52-55) that addresses Sectica 50.47(b)(8) requirements 1
does not speak of ambulances or other vehicles for evacuating those who are mobility impaired.Section II.J.10.d of NUREG-0654 addrerses protective response requirements of State and 1 scal organizations generally, but does not specify the nieans of protective response.
Contention NHLP-6, supra, addresses response in regard to persons with special needs.
NECNP Contention NHLP-14 is rejected for lack of specificity in that there is no clear nexus between the facts asserted and the pertinent regulations. Also the last sentence of the applicable basis (NHLP-10(b)) depends upon the aspect of " contaminated injured individuals," objections to which led to the reformulation of this contentien from NHLP-10.
l
79 SEAC0AST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE (SAPL)I7 (Filed February 21, 1986)
SAPL Contention 1 The New Hampshire state and local radiological emergency response plans fail to-provide " reasonable assurance" because they do not set out how emergency vehicles (buses, vans and EMS vehicles) will be able to make their way into the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) to their respective destinations against a potential outgoing flow of evacuating vehicles.
No route maps are provided from the locations from which the buses, etc. are traveling to their destinations in the EPZ. Therefore, thne plans do not meet the requirements et 10 CFR % 50.47(a)(1),
4 6 50.47(b)(3) and NUREG-0614 II.J.10.K.
The thrust of this contention is that the time neeoid for the various emergency vehicles to perform an evacuation of portions of the population raises an ETE issue sim'lar to that of Hampton III.
Applicants oppose because of lack of a stated basis.
Staff recommends that the centention be deferred because it raises an ETE issue. ,
The Board egrees that this contention deals primarily with an ETE issue and dismisses it because it is premature, lhe Rcard has been advised that a final report - a compilation of the six progress reports 17 We note the Staff footnote 1 in its Responst of March 14, 1986 to SAPL. The Board rejects SAPL's attempt to add to its stated contentions, a catchall contention that it stated is, sues apply to "all seventeen of the submitted town plans eycept where rated."
Basic acceptable pleading p*actice requires more, The purpose of the specificity equirement is to put the parties on notice as to what they must defend against or oppose. SAPL would broaden its issue without bothering to specify some reasonable way why each 7
plan or portion of a plan is inadequate.
80 already issued - will be made by May 1,1986. Letter from New Hampshire Assistant Attorney General Bisbee dated April 7, 1986.
SAPL Contention 1 is rejected (as premature).
SAPL Contention 2 Contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 9 50.47(a)(1),
! 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV.A.8. and IV.D.3., and NUREG-0654 II.A.2.a and b, II.A.3 and II.E.1 and 3., the responsibilities, authorities ar.d concept of operations between the State of New Hampshire and the State of Massachusetts in ordering any protective action have not been sufficiently defined nor set forth in a written agreement.
SAPL maintains that because the EPZ covers two states a written agreement between the two governors is required to ensure that there will be accord between the officials on the protective actions ordered.
Applicants oppose; no regulatory requirement for such agreement exis ts .
Staff does not oppose the contention and relies on NUREG-0654, at i 23-24 where this guideline provides that State and local government plans should not be developed in a vacuum or in isolation from one
- another.
i The Board agrees that there should be the kind of coordinated
. manner that the Staten of North Carolina and South Carolina exhibited in the Duke Power case in which a representative would be in each other's command post during an emergency (Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-37, 20 NRC 933). But the Massachusetts' l plan has not been issued and, indeed, this Board has the Commonwealth l
i
81 before it only in tmposition to New Hampshire plans. From the record before us, this Board cannot determine what the ultimate cooperation broadly hinted at in the NUREG guideline will be, when established. We do, however, find that SAPL's cited authority of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, IV.D.3. goes to prompt notification by the licensee to the State and local authorities within 15 minutes after an emergency and not the cooperation between governmental entities. This provision goes on to require that licensee must demonstrate that the State and local officials have the capability to make this emergency known to the public. Nothing in our examination of these notification procedures appears to require a written agreement between the State / local officials and certainly not to extend such a requirement to the governors of sovereign states.
SAPL Contention 2 is rejected.
SAPL Contention 3 The New Hampshire State and host comunity plans do not provide for sufficient capacity in the New l
Hampshire cennunity reception centers for registration and monitoring within about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> all residents and j transients arriving at the relocation centers. There-fore, the New Hampshire State, local and host plans do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 6 50.57(a)(1),
5 50.47(b)(8), 9 50.47(b)(9), 9 50.47(b)(10),
5 50.47(b)(12) and NUREG-0654 II.J.12.
SAPL states its basis as the need of relocation centers to monitor
! persons arriving at a center and the centers to be staffed with personnel and equipment to provide this service for SAPL's estimate of 191,849 persons for all 17 towns. SAPL stated that the capacity for l
l
82 mass care shelters in local plans is for only 45,087 persons. This intervenor then calls for estimates to be provided for the numbers of evacuees who can be registered and monitored within any given time frame at these facilities.
Applicants oppose stating that "an estimating exercise would be a waste of time."
Staff does not oppose in so far as the contention questions the adequacy of the relocation centers for evacuees who choose to use them.
The Board finds no regulatory requirement for relocation centers to be able to provide for all evacuees who leave the EPZ. Indeed, there is no requirement that one go to a center. What positive results could be expected in providing for estimates of how many may go to these centers is wholly without merit. The requirement is that the centers will be established, staffed, and equipped whether one or all evacuees choose to use them.
SAPL Contention 3 is rejected.
SAPL Contention 4 The New Hampshire, State, local and host community plans fail to meet in adequate fashion the require-ments that provisions be made for medical treatment of contaminated injured individuals as set forth at 10 CFR 5 50.47(b)(12) and NUREG-0654 II.L.1. at L.3.
SAPL asserts that medical facilities listed in the State plan are inadeqbr.te fm treating radiation accident patients.
Applicants oppose.
83 Staff also opposes except to the extent that Applicants be required to assert compliance with the Commission's recent policy statement with respect to 10 CFR 5 50.47(b)(12).
At the Prehearing Conference on March 26, 1986, the Applicants inscrted in the transcript a copy of a letter from John DeVincentis, PSNH, Director of Engineering and Licensing to Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director, NRC, dated March 12, 1986, committing the Applicants to full compliance with the Commission's Interim Guidance on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 5 50.47(b)(12). (ff. Tr. 2353.)
SAPL Contention 4 is rejected.
SAPL Contention 5 i
The New Hampshire State and local plans are deficient in that they do not ensure that there will be adequate personnel or the timely arrival of personnel trained in radiological monitoring in the plume exposure EPZ following a release of radiation from Seabrook Station. Neither is there assurance that monitoring can be carried on for the required time frame. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 5 50.47(a)(1), 5 50.47(b)(1), 5 50.47(b)(8),
5 50.47(b)(9), and NUREG-0654 II.I.7, I.8 and 1.11 and II.A.4. are not met.
SAPL offers as its basis the lack of sufficient field monitor ~.bg teans staffed for contingent twenty-four hour basis and that the field monitoring required by the regulations will not timely commence after release of radiation. SAPL further states that the State personnel charged with accident assessment, the New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, cannot be deployed to the various monitoring locations for one and one-half hours after the radiological release. SAPL finds
84 that the emergency plans imply that there will be no offsite ground sampling data collected on which to base protective action recommendation. The training that SAPL speaks about is that in radiological monitoring (Tr. 2088).
Applicants oppose because the field monitoring does not provide input for protective action decisionmaking.
NRC Staff does not oppose.
The Board admits SAPL Cor'antion 5.
SAPL Contention 6 The New Hampshire State and local plans do not meet the requirement that there be maps showing popula-tion distribution around the nuclear facility as required at NUREG-0654 J.10.b.
SAPL Contention 6 was withdrawn at Prehearing Conference on March 25, 1986 (Tr. 2089).
SAPL Contention 7 The New Hampshire State and local plans fails to meet the requirements of 10 CrR $ 50.47(b)(11) and NUREG-0654 K.5.b. because there has been no showing that the means of radiological decontamination of emergency personnel, wounds, supplies and equipment have been established. Further, there has not been a clear showing that adequate means for waste disposal exist.
SAPL bases this contention on the assertion that the decontamination facilities and supplies for emergency workers and the general public are inadequate in that the facilities do not have sufficient showering capacity for the numbers of people to be dealt with t
85 and decontamination means for equipment. There would not be medical facilities for emergency workers because the available medical facilities "are likely to be' overburdened in a radiological emergency if there are irrge numbers of evacuees," thus failing to provide emergency workers treatment for "their contaminated wounds." In addition, SAPL also complains that provisions for " waste disposal" are grossly inadequate. What SAPL requires is that the name, location, capabilities and " licensed status" where decontaminated materials would be accepted (Tr. 2091).
Applicants oppose on grounds that the facilities are described in the State and local plans and the decontamination procedures are in fact in Appendix F of the DPHS procedures.
NRC Staff does not oppose. However, the Staff does note that SAPL has again miscited the regulations and that the appropriate citation for the contention is 10 CFR 5 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.12.
The Board admits SAPL Contention 7.
SAPL Contention 8 The New Hampshire State and local plans fail to meet the requirements that there be adequate manpower and 24-hour per day emergency response, including 24-hour per day manning of communications links, as required by 10 CFR 5 50.47(a)(1), 5 50.47(b)(1),
5 50.47(b)(2), and NUREG-0554 II.A.I.e, II.A.4. and II.F.1.a.
SAPL finds that there are not enough personnel at both the State and local levels to ensure an effective and continuous emergency response effort to protect the public health and safety. Specifically
86 mentioned by SAPL are named functions not adequately covered in the State and local plans (pp. 9-11 of SAPL Petition of February 21,1986).
Applicants and Staff have no opposition to the contention.
The Board admits SAPL Contention 8.
?
SAPL Contentica 9 The New Hampshire State plan and the local plans for Seabrook, Exeter and Kingston fail to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency because these plans are incomplete. Therefore, they do not satisfy the requirement of 10 CFR 5 50.47(a)(1), NUREG-0654 II.J.8 and II.J.10,1.
SAPL complained on February 21, 1986 that Volumes. 5, 7, and
. Appendix E (ETS) in Volume 6 have not been provided.
Applicants oppose; Staff does not.
The Board rejects SAPL Contention 9. See Tr. 2092-93; 2290-2306.
SAPL Contention 10 The New Hampshire State plan fails to meet the requirements set out at 10 CFR 6 50.47(b)(16) and NUREG-0654 II.P.3, II.P.4., II.P.S. and II.P.10.
c because all of the lists of names for the l Seabrook Station EPZ local communities listed in Appendix K of the state plan are seriously outdated.
3APL finds the list of names in Appendix K are outdated.
Applicants oppose; Staff does not.
L The Board finds that New Hampshire Assistant Attorney General Bisbee at the Prehearing Conference stated that one of the pages was missing from Appendix K (Tr. 2300). We believe that Appendix X of the i
l l
1
87 Division of Public Health Services procedure - Volume 4 of the plan -
will be completed and, we reject SAPL Contention 10 based on the representations of the New Hampshire State Assistant Attorney General that the missing page will be forthcoming.
SAPL Contention 11 The New Hampshire State and Local radiological emergency response plans fail to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 9 50.47(a)(1), 5 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.9. in that the Protective Action
'iuides shown in Table 4 of each of the local plans have no clear technical bases.
SAPL Contention 11 was withdrawn at Prehearing Conference on March 25, 1986 (Tr. 2094).
SAPL Contention 12 The plans are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Specifically the plans do not analyze or account for behavioral variations among members of the public in the event of a radiological emergency. Such considerations are required by 10 CFR 6 50.47(a)(1) as interpreted by NURE9-0654 App. 4 IV B. (p.4-10).
The Applicants oppose admission of this contention on the ground that there is no requirement in NRC regulations that emergency planners should somehow address panic on the part of individuals during a
[
88 I0 radiological eme"gency. They point to NRC adjudications finding that objective historical evidence indicates no panic during evacuations, and that the assumption of orderly evacuation is warranted and appropriate.
Appls. Response to SAPL Contentions at 22-23.
The Staff does not oppose admission and states that the NRC determinations in other proceedings referred to by the Applicants indicate that these were determinations of fact, not of law, and that the Boards in those other proceedings had, by hearing those contentions, determined that they raised legally admissible issues. Staff Response to SAPL Contentions at 10, n. 7.
This Board does not suggest that findings in other NRC cases have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in this proceeding; neither have we examined the arguments, pro and con, that led to the determination that similar contentions were admissible in other NRC proceedings.
The sole legal basis cited by SAPL as supporting admission of this contention is "10 CFR z 50.47(a)(1) as interpreted by NUREG-0654 App. 4 IV B. (p. 4-10)." Sa tion SC.47(a)(1) of the NRC regulations contains the general requirement th:t the NRC must make a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate measures can and w!11 be taken in the event of a 10 Philadelahia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-35-14, 21 NRC 1219, 1254; Carolina Power and Light Co.
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), LBP-85-27A, 22 NRC 207, 229 ff(1985).
89 19 radiological emergency. The cited paragraph on page 4-10 of Appendix 4 of NUREG-0654 provides guidance on acceptable methodology for analyzing evacuation times of, specifically, special facilities. The applicable sentence reads:
Consideration shall be given to the impact of peak populations including behavioral aspects.
It is this Board's view, first, that the cited sentence applies to peak populations of special facilities discussed in this part of Appendix 4, such as industrial plants, hospitals, schools, etc., and second, that the " behavioral aspects" alluded to are exemplified by the reference, earlier in the same paragraph, to some people delaying their own evacuation to shut down industrial facilities. While this part of NUREG-0654 is not a model of clarity we see nothing in section IV.B of Appendix 4 to compel consideration of psychological research, tendencies of the general public "to ignore official instructions," or the
" phenomenon of denial." NUREG-0654, App. 4,Section IV.D, pp. 4-7 through 4-10. Thirdly, NUREG-0654 provides guidance to those persons and agencies preparirg and reviewing radiological emergency response plans, ar.d it does not have the force of a regulation. SAPL has clearly failed to show how its allegations relate to guidance in the sentence relied upon from NUREG-0654 or how that sentence relates to 10 CFR Q 19 i
The paragraph begins on p. 4-9.
l l
l l
1
90
-50.47(a)(1) in any way other than as it is stated in the document; i.e.,
to making time estimates for evacuation of special facilities.
In sum, we find no legal requirement to admit this contention.
Accordingly, SAPL Contention 12 is rejected for lack of basis.
SAPL Contention 13 The plans are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency as required by 10 CFR 5 50.47(a)(1).
Specifically, the plans neither discuss nor account for behavioral variations among designated emergency personnel that would impair or extinguish the ability to implement the plans.
The Applicants maintain that this contention alleging that emergency workers, public workers and ter.chers will not do their duty should be excluded because it is wholly lacking in specifics. Appis.
Response to SAPL Contentions at 24.
The Staff, on the other hand, does not oppose the contention so long as it is limited within the context of the specific basis provided in support of the contention (i.e. school bus drivers, firemen, teachers l
and principals). Staff Response to SAPL Contentions at 10.
I This contention is similar to the preceding contention, SAPL-12, in j
that it alleges that emergency plans for the Seabrook area must include consideration of " behavioral variations," but among designated emergency l
i I
l
91 20 personnel rather than among members of the general public. No legal basis other than the general " reasonable assurance finding" of 10 CFR 9 50.47(a)(1) was asserted. SAPL Contention at 16-17; Tr. 2096-98.
SAPL Contention 13 is rejected as lacking any legal basis. The broad assertion thac emergency plans should include consideration of refusal of public officials, officers and volunteer workers to perform their duties only reflects the petitioner's view of what policy ought to be, rather than what is required.
SAPL Contention 14 .
Procedures to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway EPZ required by 10 CFR 9 50.47(b)(5) are
., inadequate in that the plans do not provide for bilingual messages for the large numbers of French-speaking individuals who are often in the area in large numbers.
The Applicants oppose this contention on the general grounds that the reference to " local experience" is not enough and suggest that the Board can officially notice that the majority of French-Canadians are bilingual. More cogently, they point out that requiring fluent French-speaking emergency workers would require extraordinary efforts that go 'oeyond NRC requirements. Appls. Response to SAPL Contentions at 24-25. We agree only with the last point.
20 This contention is nearly identical to subcontention (c) of NECNP Contention NHLP-2. We also-found that NECNP Subcontention 2(a) offered nothing litigable. See, supra, at 65.
94 SAPL Contention 17 The New Hampshire State and local plans fail to make adequate provisions for prompt comunications among principal response organizations to emergency personnel and to the public. Therefore, the plans do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(1),
5 50.47(b)(5) and (b)(6) and NUREG-0654 Planning Standard F.
Applicants oppose admission of this contention because they aver that, in reality, it is a contention that the commercial telephone system may not be reliable for comunicating during an emergency.
Appls. Response to SAPL Contention at 27.
The Staff dees not n pose admission of this contention. Staff Response to SAPL Conten sons at 12.
SAPL has made a sa isfactory showing that it has provided factual bases which correspond to t 9 requirements in the stated legal bases with one exception. SAPL has not shown that there is a requirement in NRC regulations for comunication among non-emergency (general public) individuals or organizations or between members of the general public and emergency organizations for the purpose of calling for transport assistance. Portions of the basis that aver such requirements are rejected as lacking basis.
Except as limited above, SAPL Contention 17 is admitted.
SAPL Contention 18 The local New Hampshire comunity plans of Brentwood, Exeter, Portsmouth, Seabrook and New Castle significantly miscalculated the numbers of non-auto owning population based on the percentages of non-auto owning population
- - - . _ - - - _ _ .-- -~
95 given in each of the above-stated plans. No buses are provided in the plans for the individuals who are not accounted for due to these miscalculations.
Therefore, these plans fail to meet the require-ments of 10 CFR g 50.47(a)(1), 5 50.47(b)(8),
NUREG-0654 II.J.10.g and NUREG-0654 Appendix 4,
- p. 4-3.
Applicants state that this contention is based on false premises, and argue that SAPL's arithmetic is incorrectly based on numbers of households, not on numbers of transit-dependent individuals. Appls.
Response to SAPL Contentions at 28.
The Staff does not oppose admission of the contention. Staff Response to SAPL Contentions at 12.
Validity of SAPL's calculations of the number of transit-dependent individuals in the towns cited in the contention is a matter of proof.
SAPL Contention 18 is admitted.
SAPL Contention 19 The plans are inadequate because they fail to address the impacts of egress route flooding, excessive snow accumulation, fog, rain and icing of roadways upon an orderly evacuation. The plans cannot reasonably assure that adequate measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiolo emergency, as required by 10 CFR Q 50.47(a)gical (1),
without addressing the excessive snow, fog, flooding and icing issues. NUREG-0654 II.J.10K requires that the identification of and means for dealing with potential impediments to use of evacuation routes be addressed.
Because this contention raises an ETE issue, it is rejected as premature pending completion and distribution of an ETE study determined to be litigable. See, supra, NECNP Contention RERP-9 for explanation.
96 SAPL Contention 20 The State and local plans fail to assure that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the health and safety of the public in the event of a radio-logical emergency as mandated by 10 CFR 9 50.47(a)(1) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.k. Specifically, the plans fail to address the impact of limited gasoline supplies within the EPZ upon an orderly evacuation.
NUREG-0654 II.J.10.k. requires that contingency measures for dealing with impediments to use of the evacuation routes be developed.
Applicants oppose admission of this contention on the grounds that SAPL has provided basis for the assertion that gasoline supplies are limited, and that any cars that should stall can be pushed off the road.
Appls. Response to SAPL Contentions at 30.
The Staff does not oppose admission of this contention to the extent it addresses a need for agreements for tow trucks, or the effect of stalled cars on evacuation routes. Staff Response to SAPL Contentions at 13.
We agree with the Applicants that petitioner has failed to provide adequate premise for asserting that gasoline supplies in the Seabrook area are limited. In response to questions on this assertion at the Prenearing Conference SAPL responded:
What we did with that is come up with some idea on the number of cars that might potentially run out of gas if you just took some certain per-centage of the number of cars that are anticipated to be evacuated. That's all we have at this time.
l.
i SAPL's statement is insufficient to show any nexus between the averred factual basis of " limited fuel supplies" and any regulatory requirement or significant safety concern.
l t
97 SAPL Contention 20 is rejected for lack of basis.
SAPL Contention 21 The plans do not provide for the equipping of the evacuation vehicles with two-way radios so that the emergency personnel involved are kept completely informed of changing conditions. The plans do not designate alternate evacuation routes to be used by contracted transportation companies in the event that reasonably foreseeable occurrences (i.e. wind shift, precipitation, traffic breakdowns) necessitate a change in the primary evacuation route during an evacuation. The plans, therefore, do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 5 50.47(a)(1), (b)(5), (b)(6) and NUREG_0654 F.1.e and E.2.
SAPL states that the emergency plans do not provide a means for communications with vehicles engaged in an evacuation once the vehicles are enroute out of the EPZ. This intervenor does, however, acknowledge that there is a communication network in place to interface with state field units and local medical units. Further, SAPL finds that there is a lack of alternate evacuation routes. If all vehicles were equipped with two way radios and alternate routes were established in the plans there would be the most efficacious evacuation for vehicles.
Applicants oppose; Staff does not.
The Board finds no regulatory requirement for two-way radios for
" buses and other modes of transportation" used to evacuate " school children, hospitals patients, etc." However desirable it may be for communications to be available for enroute vehicles, there is no requirement.
l l
i
98 Designation of alternative evacuation routes likewise has no regulatory bases. Indeed, the evacuation routes in the plans utilize the existing highway system.
SAPL Contention 21 is rejected.
SAPL Contention 22 The Seabrook Station 10 mile EPZ radius is not sufficiently large to provide reasonable assurance that the public and will be protected in the event of a radiological emergency. Onshore winds are frequently strong enough to cause a drifting effect which could expose people outside the present EPZ to a radioactive plume. Yet, individuals beyond 10 miles would receive no warning to shelter and would not be in a position to effect a timely evacuation given the likelihood that evacuation routes (I-95, Route 1) would be filled to capacity. There has been no study to traffic geographics beyond the 10-mile zone. Therefore, the New Hampshire State and local RERP's do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 6 50.47(a)(1) and 6 50.47(c)(2).
SAPL proposes in this contention an extension of the EPZ beyond the 10 mile radius from the Seabrook Station. SAPL maintains that the existing EPZ was based on a one year study and to assess wind characteristics adequately, data must be complied over an unspecified period of time.
Applicants oppose; Staff opposes on grounds tnat it constitutes an impermissible challenge to Commission regulations.
The Board agrees.
SAPL Contention 22 is rejected.
99 SAPL Contention 23 The New Hampshire State and local RERP's do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 9 50.47(a)(1),
5 50.47(b)(7) and NUREG-0654 II.G.1 and its subsections because no samples of the material that is to be disseminated to the public to inform them of how they will be notified and what their actions should be in an emergency are provided in the plans.
SAPL maintains that samples of public information on notice and what their initial actions should be in an emergency are not contained in the plan.
Applicants oppose because of a lack of specificity. NRC Staff does not oppose.
The Board rejects the contention. There must be some showing by SAPL wherein there are deficiencies. We disagree with the Staff that litigation may satisfy SAPL's concern on the merits of the contention.
The Board, however, believes that an intervenor must frame its issue so that ali parties are on notice as to what matters require a hearing.
The contention exercise is not a matter of running an issue up the flag pole to see who will salute. Conversely, what matters will require litigation must be specific enough to sharply focus testimony so that no parties' resources are needlessly expended.
SAPL Contention 23 is rejected.
SAPL Contention 24 The State and local RERP's do not adequately address the methods for protecting the public from consumption of contaminated food and water which originate within the 50 mile ingestion pathway EPZ. Therefore, the l State and local plans fail to meet the requirements i
I
,, . - . . --- e .-- - - - - - - - -..--# -
. ~
100 of 10 CFR 5 50.47(a)(1), 9 50.47(c)(2) and NUREG-0654 II.J.11.
The Board has accepted, in part, Staff's position to delay consideration of this contertion to await developments on emergency plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In accord with our handling of these matters elsewhere in this Memorandum, we have rejected SAPL Contention 24 as premature.
SAPL Contention 25 The New Hampsnire State and local radiological emergency response plans do not reasonably assure that the public health and safety will adequately be protected because the provisions for protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as institutional or other confinement are patently lacking. Therefore, the plans do not meet the require-ments of 10 CFR Q 50.47(a)(1), 5 50.47(b)(8) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.d.
SAPL finds lack of identification of the special needs population around Seabrook. The group of mobility impaired institutionalized persons is not identified. Transportation services have not been established and letters of agreement with ambulance services obtained.
There must be agreements for the transport services confirmed in writing in advance, adequate manpower assigned and emergency medical services given advance knowledge of routes to reach affected homes and institutions.
Applicants oppose; Staff does not.
SAPL Contention 25 is admitted.
101 Establishing Date and Location for Hearing The date for commencement of the hearings has been changed on motion of the Board. So much of our order of January 17, 1986 providing for hearings to commence on July 21, 1986 is vacated. The Board hearings will be hald beginning August 4-8, 1986 and August 11-15, 1986.
The hearings will begin each day at 9:30 a.m. (EDT) and will be held at:
Howard Johnson's Lodge Interstate Traffic Circle Salons A and B Portsmouth, NH 03801 All parties are notified that the Board is prepared to extend the hearings, if needed, or to close the hearings before August 15, 1986 if testimony, cross-examination and rebuttal is completed prior to August
- 15. Parties are expected to present the Board with agreed upon presentation of the evidence. The Board directs the NRC Staff to serve in a leadership role for the compilation of that list. Although cross-examination plans will not be ordered, the Board does require of each of the parties in opposition to cne or more parts of the emergency plans to advise the Board by July 21, 1986 whether they will present evidence or conduct their case by cross-examination. If opposition parties intend to present witnesses, the expected testimony of these witnesses will be served on the Board and parties for in-hand delivery by close of Business on July 21, 1986
102 d
IT IS 50 ORDERED.
9 FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE ING BOARD h
l -h Administrative Judge Rhlen F. Hoyt, Chairperson jf
.f D 9 {/W v
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland,
'this 29th day of April,1986.
9 9
I
, _ _ . _ - - .. -