ML20069G492
| ML20069G492 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1983 |
| From: | Bisbee G NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20069G449 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303250166 | |
| Download: ML20069G492 (4) | |
Text
..
~
4 fAm -
,*,e _- -.-...s.,'
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l'.
E.'
' ? ;j 3 Before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the natter of:
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 11EU IIAMPSIIIRE)
Docket Mos.:
)
and
)
50-444 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
1
)
liarch 23, 1983 TIIE STATE OF MEU IIAMPS!! IRE'S A11 SUER IN OPPOSITION TO TIIE APPLICANT'S NINETEENTH MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION (CONTENTION SAPL SUPP. III)
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S2.749, the State of Neu Ilanpshire hereby ansvers the Applicant 's !!otion f or Sunnary Disposition on Contention SAPL Supp. III, and opposes such notion.
As grounds therefore Neu Ilanpshire states that there renain genuine issues of fact in dispute and that, as a natter of lav, the Applicant is not entitled to sunnary disposition on this contention.
Contention SAPL Supp. III asserts broadly that the requirements i
of the NRC June 13, 1980 Policy Statenent (45 Fed. Reg. 40101) have not be.en. net.
SAPL naintains, inter alia, that the Final Enviro nental Statenent (FES) does not include a proper accident l
1 8303250166 830323 PDR ADOCK 05000443 C
cons,equence analysis, the Staff used invalid assunptions, and that the FES does not adequately consider the uncertainty bounds of the risk analysis and certain potential internal causes of accidents.
Through disc,overy on this contention, New Hampshire has focused on another requirement of the June 13, 1980 Policy Statement which the Staff has not properly considered.
In the Policy Statement, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission specifically expressed its intent that the Staff identify cases that might warrant early consideration of either i
additional features or other actions which would prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious j
accidents.
45 Fed. Reg. at 40103.
l The Staff in SS.9 of the FES did not adequately consider any additional features or actions which might mitigate the consequences of a release to the liquid pathway or the air, despite its own assertions relative to the uncertainty factor in assessing accident probabilities and the known consequences of a serious accident.
The Staff assumes that measures to interdict the transport of radioactive contaminants through air or liquid pathways can be developed when the need arises.
Heu Hanpshire maintains, however, i
that the effectiveness of any such mitigation schemes will be enhanced by studying how the possible measures that could be taken before, or at the time of, a serious accident.
i i
Because the staff has not yet complied with this requirement of l
i c
e
-,.m_.
. the,URC Policy Statement of June 13, 1980, Applicant's liineteenth Motion for Summary Disposition must be denied.
Respectfully submitted, THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GREGORY H. SMITH ATTORNEY GENERAL By:
George LJ Attorney (ana Bisbee Environmental Protection Division Office of Attorney General State House Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 603-271-3678 Dated:
March 23, 1983 l
3 I
l
?
E e-
+
ei l
i STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO UHICH THERE IS DISPUTE 1.
In light of the uncertainty bounds on the quantitative assessment of environmental and health impact ranging from a factor of 10 to 100 and given the potential consequences of a Class 9 accident, possible measures to interdict the transport of radioactive contaminants through air or liquid pathways should be studied now, and not after an accident occurs.
. 2.
Until the Staff has properly considered this issue and identified " additional features or other actions which would prevent or mitigate" the consequences of a serious.
accident, it will not have fully complied with the June 13, 1980 NRC Policy Statement, 45 Fed. Reg. at 40103.
l s
(
l I
l l
l
. ~..