ML19253B706

Statement of Position Re Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 790502 Request for Show Cause Order.Requests That NRC Require Preparation & Testing of Emergency Plans Before Either Unit Placed Into Operation.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19253B706
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/11/1979
From:	Damon E NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
To:
Shared Package
ML19253B705	List: ML19253B704 ML19253B706
References
NUDOCS 7910170305
Download: ML19253B706 (6)

Text

, .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hTCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10: DIRECTOR OF bdCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RE: CONSTRUCTION PERMITS CPPR-135 .

CPPR-136 In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF )

NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) Dockets Nos. 5 0-4143 3 50-W4 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

)

STATEMENT OF POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SEAC0AST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S REQUEST FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER DATED MAY 2 1979

1. The Office of the Attorney General of the State of New HE.mpshire has participated in past NRC Licensing Board and Appeals Board proceedings respecting the issue of evacuation and emergency planning which the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) raises in support of its " Request for an Order to Show Cause Why Construction Permits for the Proposed Nuclear Power Plant at Seaarook Should Not Be Suspended or Revoked," dated May 2, 1979.

The Office continues to be very much concerned about the issue because the matter of evacuation, and emergency plannirg in general, respecting the Seabrook nuclear power plant site is as important and serious now as it was during the hearings respecting the applications for construction permits. Recent events, such as the Lewis critique of the Rasmussen findings on reactor safety and the accident at Three Mile Island, under-

,7910170 3OE 1150 357 G

. score the point that emergency planning for both onsite and offsite areas can never be treated as windowdressing for the degree of protection of public health and safety which is afforded by engineered safeguards.

2. Consequently, firm and effective emergency plans, including sufficiently detailed evacuation plans, for responding to nuclear accidents a t Seabrook must be prepared and tested by the applicant and State and local governmental authorities before the Seabrook units are placed in operation. Because such plans do not presently exist and because preparation of such plans is a large undertaking in any case, but perhaps especially so at Seabrook because of the particular characteristics of the site's environs, this matter deserves immediate attention.

3. Before effective emergency plans can be drafted, certain decisions have to be made concerning the standards to be achieved.

Under present practice, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has established a checklist of necessary elements of State emergency plans (see NUREG 75/111) against which the NRC judges whether specific emergency plans qualify for NRC " concurrence."

In addition, however, the NRC, under the proposed amendment to Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 (see 43 FR 37475 (August 23, 1978)),

must determine: (a) the " emergency protective action criteria" it intends to apply with respect to a particular site, (b) the features of emergency planning measures considered necessary, and (c) the area for which energency planning measures, including evacuation must be considered. In the case of the Seabrook nuclear power plant, determination of these particular matters at the earliest possible date is necessary for all parties and 1150 558

.3-particularly for the State, both in the context of the licensing process and in the govermental efforts to prepare emergency plans.

I4. The emergency planning area at Seabrook for evacuation purposes should have a radius of at least ten (10) miles unless it is determined that a greater distance is warranted. This radius is consistent with Governor Gallen's request that the State Civil Defense Agency assist local communities within a ten-mile radius of the Seabrook site in updating their emergency plans and developing plans for evacuation in the event of an accident at Seabrook and is consistent with the recomendations in NUREG 0396, " Planning Bases for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants."

5. In view of the results of the past administrative and judicial proceedings and decisions in the Seabrook case regarding the site suitability question, we do not see, in general, that determination of these matters raise any questions concerning the validity of the construction permits. However, it is important to provide a forum for consideration and determination of these matters. If such determinations can be made within a reasonable time by addressing them immediately upon the applicant's filing of an application for an operating l'icense, then the operating permit proceedings are the proper forum. If not, then the NRC should provide an alternative forum.

6. Although Appendix E to Part 50 in its present. form does not s

require the applicant for an operating permit to include as part of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) the " details" of th

_y_

emergency plans and their implementation, the applic.nt must, of course, submit sufficient information "to demonstrate that the plans provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can and will be raken in the event of an emergency to protect public health and safety and prevent damage to property," including agreements reached with governmental agencies for early warning of the public and protective measures such as evacuation. See 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, III, IV-D. For this standard to be satisfied in the case of Seabrook, NRC " concurrence" in the State emergency plan should at least be obtained and the applicant should at least be required to demonstrate a method of evacuation of the area within the 10 mile radius suggested above which will most effectively minimize the potential radiation exposures from an accident and ensure that such exposures are within acceptable protective action criteria should evacuation become necessary.

7. If the NRC does not agree that under present regulations Appendix E to Part 50 establishes such a standard, such regulations as would establish such a standard for Seabrook should~be made in accordance with the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the " Adequacy and Acceptance of Emergency Planning Around Nuclear Facilities" described in 44 FR 41483 (July 17,1979) . Although the applicant has already presented in connection with its application for construction permits a " Roadway Network and Evacuation Study" dated December 6,1974 and prepared by Wilbur Smith & Associates (Applicant's Ex. 28, Licensing Board Transcript, June 5,1975, pp. 2488-89) dealing with evacuation within a five-mile radius of the Seabrook site, we believe that additional analysis of evacuation methods beyond the five-mile area, and a detailed i150 360

-5 description of the assumptions on which the study is based, is necessary for an operating permit to be granted. Not only would such further analysis seem to be a benefit to the applicant, but also the results of such further analysis will provide important assistance to Stat.' and local emergency planners engaged in an effort which, although independent in some respects of the applicant's responsibilities in the licensing process under current regulation, is essential if the goverment's emergency plans and the applicant's FSAR, taken together, are to provide the degree of assurance that Appendix E demands.

8. In sumary, this Office requests that th 2 NRC:

A. Make the determinations required under the proposed amendment to Appendix E,10 CFR Part 50 (see 43 Federal Register 37475 (August 23, 1978)) as described in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 above, as soon as possible; B. Require the preparation and testing of emergency plans, including evacuation plans, for both onsite and offsite areas at Seabrook as more fully described in Paragraphs 2, 6 and 7 hereof, before either of the Seabrook units are placed in operation; and C. Make such other orders as may be appropriate to fulfill the NRC's responsibility of protecting the health and safety of the public against radiation hazards (42 USC 2012; 2021;.

Respectfully submitced, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Thomas D. Rath, Attorney General

)  %

Date: b[ '

' ' /f /hhf By:

(at . . ' Milic t

/ Edward N. Damon. ,

Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division 1150 361

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Statement of Position with Respect to the Seacoast Anti-Pollution Lea,'ae's Request for Show Cause Order Dated May 2,1979, was mailed on October 12, 1979, postage prepaid, first class, to the following:

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coninission Washington, D. C. 20555 Lawrence Brenner, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20S55 Karin P. Sheldon, Esquire Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss Suite 500 1025 15th Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005 Laurie Burt, Esquire Assistant Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. , Esquire Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Robert A. Packus, Esquire O'Neill Backus Spielman 116 Lowell Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Docket and Service Station U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20555 r'.

f, Ah . dM b Edward N. Damon 1150 362