ML20024C185
| ML20024C185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1983 |
| From: | Dignan T, Gad R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307120379 | |
| Download: ML20024C185 (7) | |
Text
.:qs '
i k
4
\\
'k x
fx.c
\\'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. GS3
!i
't R
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T1\\
301 h-
,;U e <.
' O ' [,/;/
\\q.A before the s' :
e v.:30
,Q ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '
/
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket Nos. 50-443
~ HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
1
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO NECNP CONTENTIONS ON.THE NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIOLOG: CAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN, VOLUME I CONTENTION No. 1 NECNP Proposed Contention No. 1 is:
"The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency
-Response Plan violates 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47(a)(1) and NUREG-0654 in that it does not include detailed procedures for implementing the plan."
NECNP relies upon NUREG-0654, 1 II.P.7. as the basis for this contention; that item provides:
"Each plan shall contain as an appendix listing, by title, procedures required to implement the plan. The listing shall include the section(s) of the plan to be implemented by each procedure."
B307120379 830711 PDR ADDCK 05000443 g
PDR 3:603
m+
h The plan itself need only contain the index.
It is not required to include " detailed procedures."
Thus, the contention is without regulatory basis.
Contention No. 2 NECNP Proposed Contention No. 2 is:
"The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan does not support the
' reasonable assurance' finding required by 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1) in that it relies on local emergency response plans that do not exist."
In the basis for this contention, NECNP recites that local plan: are a legal. prerequisite to the status plan.
This is not so.
However, this conclusion is not within the four corners of the contention itself and therefore no objection is made.
Contention No. 3 NECNP Proposed Contention No. 3 is:
"The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan violates 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47(b)(3) as implemented by NUREG-0654 at II.C.l.b in that the state has not specifically identified areas in which it requires federal assistance; nor has it made arrangements to obtain that assistance; nor has it stated the expected time of arrival of Federal asistance.[ sic} at the Seabrook site or EPZ."
NUREG-0654 9 II.C.l.b provides:
"To assure that arrangements for requesting and effectively using assistance resources have been made, that arrangements for State and local staffing of the operators near-site Emergency.
4 Operations Faciity have been mado, and that other organizations capable of augmenting the planned response lave been identified.
"1.
Each State and operator shall riake arrangements for support with the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) Regional Coordinating Office responsible for implementing the DOE Radiological Assistance Plan (RAF) an,d the Interagency Radiological Assistance Plan (IRAP) as follows:
b.
make arrangements for using RAP /IRAP resources (teams and equipment); and No requirements such as NECNP alleges appear from the regulation.
Contentions 4-9 No objection is made to Nos. 4-9 as framed.
Contention No. 10 NECNP Proposed contention No. 10 provides:
"The New Hampshire RERP does not provide a
' 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. 1 50.47(a)(1), in that the plan does not provide reasonable assurance that sheltering is an ' adequate protective measure' for Seabrook."
Sheltering is by definition an " adequate protective-measure."
The thrust of NECNP's contention-seems to be that there are insufficient criteria for determining when to adopt sheltering as the preferred alternative to evacuation.
N,
If so, the contention should be rewritten to state this.
As framed it makes no sense.
Contention No.-11 NECNP Proposed Contention No. 11 is:
"The New Hampshire RERP violates 10 C.F.R. 550.47(a)(1) and 50.47(b)(10) in that its evacuation time estimates do not provide a reasonable assurance that the public can be nafely evacuated during a readioliagicaltemergency.
NECNP also incorporates by reference Contentions III. (12) and III.(13), which challenge the Applicants' evacuation time estimates."
It is now settled that there is no requirement in Appendix E that an applicant demonstrate that any given area can be evacuated in any given time; the only issue is whether or not the plan creates as sufficient a scenario as is reasonably possible.
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
(Zimmer Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-727, 17 NRC 2
CCH Nuc. Reg. Rptr. 1 30,783 at p.
30,787 (May 2, 1983).
Thus, this contention is without. regulatory basis.
r_
'O~
h-t Contention Nos. 12 No objection is made to Nos. 12 and 13 as framed.
Res e tfully u mitted,,
i L
2 Thomas G./Dignan, Jr.
t R.
K.
Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 4
O em.
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
R.
K.
Gad III, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on July 5, 1983, I made service of the within Applicants' Response to NECNP Contentions on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Volume I by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Diana P.
Randall Atomic Safety and Licensing 70 Collins Street Board Panel Seabrook, NH 03874 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke William S.
Jordan, III, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Harmon & Weiss
' Board Panel 1725 I Street, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory.
Suite 506 Commission Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour G.
Dana Bisbee, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Office of the Attorney General U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 208 State House Annex Commission Concord, NH 03301 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Roy P.
- Lessy, Jr.,
Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory P.O.
Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555 Philip Ahrens, Esquire
- Anne Verge, Chairperson Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Department of the Attorney Town HL11 General South Hampton, NH Augu sta, ME 04333
~-
o 9-David R. Lewis, Esquire Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Department of the Attorney General Commission One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Rm. E/W-439 Boston, MA 02108 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. John B.
Tanzer Ms. Olive L.
Tash-Designated Representative of Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton the Town of Brentwood 5 Morningside Drive R.F.D.
1, Dalton Road Hampton, NH 03842 Brentwood,.NH 03833 Ms. Roberta C. Pevear Mr. Patrick J. McKeon Designated Representative of Selectmen's Office the Town of Hampton Falls 10 Central Road Drinkwater Road Rye, NH 03870 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Designated. Representative of City Manager the Town of Kensington City Hall RFD 1 126 Daniel Street East Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S.
Senate Chairman of the Washington, D.C.
20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn:
Tom Burack)
Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator Gorden J. Humphrey Mr. Richard E.
Sullivan 1 Pillsbury Street Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Donald E.
Chick Mr. Maynard B. Pearson Town Manager 40 Monroe Street Town of Exeter Amesbury, MA 01913 IO Front Street Exeter, NH 03833
\\.
(
d R.
K. Gad 4 I l
t !
f
___..___..___._._______.______.__.______________.__._____________________________________________________.__._.____________._.____;