ML20080G694

Motion for Reconsideration of Partial Summary Disposition of New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Contention Re Evacuation Time Estimates

ML20080G694
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/15/1983
From:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20080G695	List: ML20080G694 ML20080G711 ML20083J950
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309200326
Download: ML20080G694 (2)

Text

utva c;> oawwnmNS FILED: 1983 September 15(KETer C0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI SSlON BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR NI d I Of SW: Us in the mat ter of:

h I % Q E?v:r:

g PUBLIC SERVICE COMP-ANY OF Docket Sos. 50-443 OL N EW H AMP Sil l RE , et al 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2) r SAPL'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PARTI AL SU21ARY DISPOSITION OF NECNP'S CONTENTION ON EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES SAPL moves f or reconsiderat ion of the Or' der issued by this Cour t on June 30, 1983 insofar as it granted partial summary disposition on NECNP's evacuation time estimcte contention.

First, SAPL believes the Board was in error in relying on the l anguage o f NUREG-0 6 54--FEMA REP-1 (see Rev. 0) in i ts determinat ion of whether notification times should be included in evacuation time estimates. As recently' pointed out by the Appeals Board, the Staff has been utilizing the updated Rev. 1 version of NUREG-0654 as the criteria against which to measure the Applicant's emergency plan.

See Seabrook Safety Evaluation Report (SER), 013.3 (Supp. No. 1, April, 19 83 ) a t.13-15. See a lso ALAB-7 37, 18 NRC (1983) (Slip.

Op. at 11, August 26, 1983).

Second, the Board alleged in its opinion that both versions of the document s suppor t i ts pos i t ion, s ince al though the lat ter version omits an explanatory phrase rejecting the inclusion of notification times, there was "no indication that the NRC intended to change the requirement". (See Order, pg.'11.) As pointed out by the Appeals Board, that conclusion is without merit.

8309200326 830915 PDR ADDCK 05000443 O PDR

One clear indication of the Commission's intent in this regard is the expanded nature of Appendix 4 of Rev. 1. The mandatory inclusion of both notification and preparation times in evacuation time estimates is clearly indicated by Appendix 4, Table 2; IIV.B.

and Figure 2. The document 's explanat ion of both the sequential and distribution functi.on methodologies for time estimate calculation reveals that the time regeired for not i f ica t ion of evacuee populat ions is in f act an important component of the overgli calculat ion. Further, not if icat ion and prepara t ion t imes are included among the component s l'i s t ed in NUREG/CR-2504, " CLEAR (Calculates L_ogical Evacuation a_nd Response): A Generic Transporation Network Model for the Calculation of Evacuation Time Estimates" (March, 1982). SAPL agrees with the Appeals Board observation that the changes from Rev. 02 Rev. I were indeed, deliberate, and that the current standards under Rev. I require careful calculation of notification and preparation times as components of the total evacuation time estimate.

For the reasons set forth above, SAPL prays that this Board reverse its position on the notification and preparation time issue as it relates to the NECNP contention, and allow full litigation of this issue.

Respectfully submitted, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League By its attorneys, BACKUS, SHEA or MEYER By: p

, llcrtie r t A. Backus

'116 Lowell St., Box 516 Manchester, N.H. 03105 Tel: (603) 668-7272 s