ML20080P937

Reply Opposing Applicant Objection to Seacoast Anti- Pollution League Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.Applicant Objections W/O Merit.Contentions Should Be Admitted

ML20080P937
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/07/1983
From:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20080P929	List: ML20080P924 ML20080P937 ML20080P945 ML20080P960 ML20080P968 ML20080P986 ML20080Q002
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8310120111
Download: ML20080P937 (7)

Text

--

FI LED:Oc togggMEfED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO\\1\\11SSION

'83 OCT 11 A10:22 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CFil:E OF SECRL :.-

00CXEimG & SEp,<;:'

In the matter of:

BRANCH PUBLIC SERVICE CO\\1PANY OF Docket Nos.

50-443 OL N EW !! AMP SH IRE, et al 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

SAPL'S REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO SAPL'S SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE The following constitutes SAPL's reply to objections raised by Applicants concerning SAPL's local emergency planning contentions.

S AP L LP-2 The Applicants object to this contention of the basis that it

" assumes the need" f or not i f ying the public through the use of mobile public address units.

SAPL makes no such assumption.

The plans state flatly that "The Public Alerting System (consisting of sirens, tone-activated radios, and mobile public-address units) will be used to initiate Public Notification."

(emphasis added.)

S.ince the plans expressly include the use of mobile P-A units as a means of achieving pub'lic notification, it is essential that they ind~icate who will be responsible for operation of the equipment.

(See Basis, S AP L LP-2. )

SAPL LP-4 SAPL's contention LP-4 is phrased as follows:

8310120111 831007 PDR ADOCK 05000443 g

PDR

The plans are insuf ficient to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency as required by 10 C. F. R.

650.47 (a) (1) in that the plans are incomplete.

Specifically, the plans make no provisions for an evacuation of persons institutionally confined.

Applicants at tack the content ion on the basis that it " assumes that evacuation is always necessary for persons institutionally confined".

It suggests substitution of the word " protection" for the word " evacuation" in the second sentence.

SAPL stands on the contention as submitted.

The contention makes n'o such assumption.

Regardless of whether an evacuation is "always" necessary, i t may in f ac t b_e necessa rv "to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective means can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency".

10 C.F.R f50.47 (a) (1).

Therefore, Applicants have as much of a responsibility to provide for the timely evacuation of institutionalized persons as it does for other members of the general public.

(Note:

If, in the event this Board rejects SAPL's posi t ion on this wording, SAPL i s willing

.to accept the Applicant's phrasing alternative.

The safety of institutionalized persons is too important to be dismissed merely due to wording discrepancies in the contention.)

" SAP L LP-6 The Applicants point out that NUREG-0654 Rev.

1, J112. only requ i res moni tor i ng of evacuees "wi th in abou t a twe lve hour per iod".

~

SAPL is wil1ing to amend the second sentence of the contention

~

to read as follows: *

.:=-...

SAPL LP-6 Specifically, the plans

'should include a

description of the equipment and personnel required to monitor within about a twelve hour period all residents and t ransients in the plume EPZ arriving at relocation centers.

SAP L LP-11 Applicants object to this content ion solely on what they perceive as the lack of a legal basis.

"There is no regulatory requirement that the plans themselves discuss or analyze behavioral

. variations among members of the public."

(See Applicant's Response, pg. 5.)

SAPL mi s takenly omi t t ed ref erence to the requi rement s found at NUREG-0654, Rev.

1, App. IV B (pgs. 4-10).

We attempted to cure that omission in our statement of Errata filed September 15th.

Clearly, NUREG-0654 requires discussion of behavioral variation, particularly in regard to peak populations.

Regardless of the scope or extent of NUREG-0654, however, SAPL believes that some examination concerning behavior is essential if this Board is to make the requisite " adequacy" findings under 10 C.F.R. 650.47 (a) (1).

As stated in the Basis (See SAP L ' s Local Plan Contentions, pgs.

11 et seq.),

the available literature demonstrates the appropriate nature of behavioral variation as a proper subject f or content ions in these proceedings.

Moreover, this issue is of great importance to SAPL, and it is prepared to submit direct testimony on the impact of behavioral variat ion on protective

response, fWe therefore urge the Board to allow the contention as worded.

~ - - - - _. _ _

9 SAPL LP-12 For the same reasons as those set forth above, SAPL stands on LP-12 as submi t t ed. The Applicants' sole objection here states that "public' officials will do their duty".

First, this argument is inappropriate for determining the admi ssibili ty o f the content ion, bu t rather more su i table f or summary disposition.

Second, even if the " presumption" e,xists in this instance, it is irrelevant to this contention. The wording concerns

" emergency personnel",

which wi11 include many volunteer and contractor employees, none of which can be deemed to be "public officials" since they are not elected by the public.

Examples are volunteer firemen and ambulance drivers.

Therefore, the Applicant s objection to this contention should be rejected.

SAPL LP-14 SAPL stands on this contention along with its accompanying statement of basis as submitted.

SAPL LP-15 Again, the Applicants objection to thi s conten t ion is un timely since i t questions the factual assertions made by the contention.

~

.Further, the Applicant seems to be suggesting that the contention is.~ improper because it makes an assertion of fact.

This objection makes no sense at all since virtually all contentions make asser t ions of f act.

If there were no assertions of f act, there would be nothing to adjudicate in these proceedings.

Finally, the Applicant suggests the contention should be o

rejected because there is no express regulatory requirement for

_4

-.i-.-

--i

~

.bi li ngual no t i f ica t ion and communica t ion. The absence of an express requirement on this matter does not preclude the admissibility of the contention.

Under the regu la t ions,

the Applicant bears the burden of proving capability to establish

prompt, e f f e.e t i v e notification of the public in the event of a radiological emergency.

it i s SAPL's position that a considerably large segment of that public will be unable to comprehend English not i ficat ion. The meri ts of this assertion are irrelevant to the admissibility of the

)

contention at this time.

S AP L LP-16 4

SAPL stands on this contention and its accompanying basis as 4

originally submitted.

S AP L LP - 17 The Applicant objects to SAPL LP-17 to the extent that i t repea ts concerns articulated in SAPL LP-5.

Therefore, SAPL amends the contention as follows:

SAPL LP-17 i

The-plans are inadequate because they do not sufficiently calculate the time required for evacuation, the impact of inclement weather

.during evacuation procedure =, or the need for alternative routes.

As the Applicant has not objected to these concerns, it should have no problem with this rewording.

SAP L - LP-19 Applicant s object to this content ion on the basis that there is no. regulatory requirement for an examination of flooding in local eme rgency p lans. Applicants object ion here is mi splaced, since there.:

~

is a clear regulatory requirement that the plans discuss the impact of inclement weather during evacuation procedures.

Flooding is a d i rec t resu lt o f inc lemen t wea ther, and SAPL LP-19 i s merely f ocus ing on a specific aspect of inclement weather which is known to be of particular importance to the seacoast area.

Consequently, the contention should be admitted.

SAP L LP-2 0 The Applican t s imp ly tha t t he i ssue o f i nsu f f ici en t f uel supp lies for private auto evacuation is somehow res judicata from Phase 1 of these proceedings.

This is not the case.

No direct testimony was received on this point, and only limited cross-examination was conducted in this general area.

Consequently, the issue was an ext r emely co lla t era l one, and has not been foreclosed as the proper basis for a contention at this time.

S AP L LP - 21 Applicanis object to the con ten t ion because i t i s "argumenta t ive and wordy".

Therefore, SAPL is willing to amend the contention.to read as follows:

"SAPL LP-21 SAPL contends that all local plans should require that emergency response personnel be notified of any emergency in advance of news releases to the public.

Failure to a l l'ow f o r l e ad t i me w i l l result in non-dedicated telephone lines to county dispatchers, f i re, and po lice depar tment s being tied up with publie inguiries concerning the incident."

S AP L LP-2 3 The Applicants are under the impression that the issue of time estimates for the local plans is somehow res judicata due to li t igation.

.~.

conducted in Phase 1 of these hearings. This is not the case.

Phase 1 of these proceedings concerned evacuation time estimates included 1

in the Applicants' FSAR, not the estimates which will be used in l

conjunction with the evacuation plans at the State and local level.

l The " Final Draf t of Appendix E Emergency Planning Zone Evacuat ion Time S tudy--Seabrook Nuclear Power S t a t ion, Seabrook, New ilampshi re" was submitted by FEMA to the NRC on September 7, 1983.

This is not the s tudy subj ect to lit igat ion at the hearings in August, but rather is the document which provides the required evacuation time estimates for the State and local emergency preparedness plans.

Therefore, the Applican t s ' objec t ion i s wi t hou t mer i t, and t he con tent ion should be admitted.

i Respectfu1ly submitted,

<a Seacoast Anti-Pollu'. ion League

)

By its attorneys, BACKUS, SilEA & MEYER i

<k By:

Robe r t 'A.

BLekus 116 Lowell St.,

Box 516 Manchester, N.H.

03105 Tel:

(603) 668-7272 October 7, 1983 4'

t-s f "

/1 g

j y

w *

/

i