ML19254E420
| ML19254E420 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1979 |
| From: | Damon E NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-44FR41483, RULE-PR-50, TASK-OS, TASK-SD-906-1 NUDOCS 7911010069 | |
| Download: ML19254E420 (1) | |
Text
g' l j.
/
TuNr D)R.4$' "
THE STATE OF NEW H.OIPSHIRE j
DEPT'TY ATTORNEY CLNERAL h)
CRECORY H. $MITH g
. gCg) g i i
\\ *Q Q
g
~ I'.M f[
A.nisTANT ATTORNEYS ATTORNEii ij3 CENERAL
,sd'
\\f ARK H. PUTTER W##
THO4t A5 8 % INGATE 4NNE R. CLtRKE JOHN T. P 4PP u
!ETTREY R. COHLN ED% %RD N D010%
\\
V P 4LL w. HOULi J Of Li L MORR!$
%1LBUR 4. GL 4HN. lit
\\tARTIN R. JL% INS PETIR %. HEED PET ER %. MOM L4L RICH nRD 5. \\fcN OILRA SET 5Y $. % ESTG ATE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL i C
)
kELER ENNE L C%C%IN ST 6TE Hot'SE 6.%%E%. 2W%e #
DEBOR 4H J. COOPER 3 OPITot. STREET
@gg NiD."i fRs$tt m'co* D ' M ' " ""' " 1
>3 "'
/
f EDW 4RD %. 5TEh tRT. Jr.
.I rh6
%ILLLOt 5. ROBERTS yN STI4EN J.\\letCUTTE s
O October 11, 1979 l"lj g'\\
Do1D %. JORD 4N wiD u HARRic sN
\\
e;d@ p v,'ssj Sanuel J. Chilk, Secretary 3
s
"~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cer:nission Was 11 :gton, DC 20555 Re.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et,al.
Seabrook Station. Units 1 and 2 Dockets Nos. 50-a33, 50-una Cear Mr. Chilk:
Enclosed is a copy of the position the Artorney General's Office Ms submitted in connection with a Request for Show
,Causc Order filed by the Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leap 2e.
It is ceing submitted to Mr. Denton's office inasmuch as the Nuclear Regulatory Comission is treating the matter under 10 Ca 2.206, ht it is also appropriate to submit it to you in connection with the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the
" Adequacy and Acceptance of Emergency Planning Arcund Nuclear Facilities" described in W a 41483 (July 17,1979).
Although the position concentrates on the matter of evacuation and does not exhaustively detail all the necessary elements of emergency planni.g, it is relevant to the request for ccmT.ents contained in the Advance Notice.
Sincerely ycurs, C.)
h.
Qh Edward N. Damon Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division END/md 7911010 O(3 128!
053 f
..,s,.
.,n~__~._
e.,,
u_,
.. s,s,
o kmencess Drwsaan 0011.71.M*5 Annerw w.
wg. '"? wee 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d
(No, A
7 \\6 N y #3 aum TO:
DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTCR REGULATION ll, gc11 RE:
CONSTRUCTION PERMITS CPPR-135 d % s#
s CPPR-136 S
M JS
/
- /,9 y In the Matter of
)
)
?J3LIC SERVIC2 CCMPANY OF
)
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
Dockets Nos.
50-W3
)
50-444 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
STATEMENT OF POSITION h'ITH RESPECT TO THE SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S RECUEST FOR SHOW CAUSE CRDER DA~ED MAY 2, 1979 1.
The Office of the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire has participated in past NRC Licensing Soard ar5\\ Appeals Board t
proceedirgs 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 Preposed Nuclear Power Plant at Seabrook Shculd Not Be Suspended or Revoked," dated May 2,1979.
The Office continues to be very much concerned abcut the issue because the matter of evacuation, and emergency planning in general, respecting the Seabrook nuclear pcwer plant site is as impcrtant 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-1283 154
1,
t 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 respcc. ding to nuclear accidents at Seabr:ok must be prepared and tested by the applicant and State and local gover = ental auth:rities 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, uut perhaps especially so at Seabrook because of the particular characteristics of the site's environs, this matter deserves' immediate attention.
3.
Before effective amerge.nc/ plans can be drafted, certain decisions have to be made concerning the standards to be achieved.
Under present practice, the b'uclear Regulatory Commission (h3C) t has established a checklist of necessary elements of State emergency O.ans (see STREG 75/111) against which the 52C judges whether specific emergency plans qualify for NRC " concurrence.'
In addition, however, the h2C, under the proposed amendment to Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 (see 43 FR 37475 (August 23, 1973)),
must decermine:
(a) the ' emergency protective action criteria" it intends to apply with respect to a particular site, (b) the features of emer;;;ency planning measures considered necessary, and (c) the area for which emergency planning measures, including evacuation must be considered.
In the case of the Seabrook nuclear power plant, determination of these particular maners at the earliest possible date is necessary for all parties and 1283 955
3 particularlf for the State, both in the context of the licensing process and in the govermental efforts to prepare emergency plans.
f4.
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 cer= unities wibin a ten-mile radius of the Seabrook site in updating their emcr ' ancy plans and developing plans for evacuation in the event of an accident at Seabroo.< and is consistent wth the recc....endations in SUREG OW, " Planning Bases for the Development cf State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Suppe.r: of Light Water Suelear Power Plants.'
5.
In view of the results of the vast 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 raist any questions concerning the validity of the construction permits. However, it is important.
to provide a fort:m for consideration and determination of these matters.
If such determinations can be made within a reasonable ti.ro by addressing them i.nediately upon the applicant's filing of an application for an operating license, then the operating permit proceedings are the proper forum.
If not, then the NRC should provide an alternative foru.m.
6.
Although Appendix E to Part 50 in its present fcrm does no require the applicant for an operating permit to include ts part of the Final Safety Analysis Repor: (FSAR) the details'
? the 1285 156 wem-eemme-
-6w--
e 4wqg wm
&---F--
s
4_
emergency plans and their implementation, the applicant must, of course, submit sufficient information "to demenstrate that the plans provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency to protect public health and safer / and prevent damage to property,' including agreements reached wid gover= ental agencies for early warni.g of the public and protective meosures such as evacuation.
See 10 CFR Part 50, ?ppendix E, III,17-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 thculd 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 re g lations Appendix E ter 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 ER 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 Decer:ter 6,1974 and prepared by Nilbur Smith & Associates (Applicant's Ex. =8, Licensing Board Transcript, June 5,19 75, 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 1281 ')S7 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 State and local emergency planners engaged in an effort which, although independen; in some respects of the applicant's respons'k""#as in the licensing process under current regulation, is essential if the government's emergency plans and the applicant's FSAR, taken together, are to provide the degree of assurance that Appendix E demands.
S.
In summary, this Office requests thar the SRC:
A.
Make the determinarions required under the proposed amendment to Appendix E,10 CFR Part 50 (see 'a3 Federal Register 37'475 (August 23, 1978)) as described in Paragraphs 2, 3 and '4 above, as soon as possible; S.
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 appropriare to fulfD1 the NRC's responsibility of protecting the health and safety of the public against radiation hazards ('42 USC 2012; 2021).
Respectfully submin ed, STA E OF NEW HAMPSMIRE
- homas D. Rath, Attorney General f
m
)
4
[N'C' /l sh
[I. i a" f r t By:
L-a t Date:
./
Edward N. Damon Assistant Anorney General Environmental Protection Division
} 2 b 3
') 5..O.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Statement of Position with Respect to the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Recuest for Show Cause Order Dated May 2,1979, was mailed on October 12, 1979, pestage prepaid, first class, to the following:
Atcmic Safety and Licensing 3 card Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co:nnission Washington, D. C.
20555 Lawrence Brenner, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccrc:nission Washington, D. C.
20555 Karin P. Sheldon, Esquire
~
Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss Suite 500 1025 15th Street, N. W.
98i %
Washington, D. C.
20005
/
Laurie Burt, Esquire f/
gi h
, g13
- 6 Assistant Attorney General r_
~
One Ashburton Place qd y Boston, Massachusetts 02108 1
g.
ey#
i Themas G. Dignan, Jr., Esquire e)
Ropes & Gray g
225 Franklin Street
' Boston, Massachusetts 02110 t
Robert A. Backus, Esquire O'Neill Backus Spielman 116 Lowell Street Marsester, New Hampshire 03105 Docket and Service Station U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccranission Office of the Secretary Washing on, D. C.
20535
[b A~h b,
dwi,b Edward S. Damon 1283
'J59 6.--~
-amme w*
w p+pw e, y
.ge
+mwwh og
--p.
+ g N
--'=+ew-