ML20080Q032
| ML20080Q032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1983 |
| From: | Shotwell J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080Q025 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8310120151 | |
| Download: ML20080Q032 (10) | |
Text
..
4 000KETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCD1ISSION
'83 OCT 11 A10:42 ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES:
[0C T (i Helen F.
Hoyt, Chairman ERANC$i Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke j
Dr. Jerry Harbour I
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
(Seabrook Station,7nTts 1 and 2)
)
October 7, 1983
)
l ANSWER OF ATTORNEY GENERAL FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI TO THE STAFF'S AND APPLICANTS' RESPONSES TO HIS CONTENTION RELATIVE TO EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR THE NEW HAMPSHIRE BEACH COMMUNITIES On September 9, 1983, Attorney General Bellotti submitted a single contention relating to the local emergency plans for the coastai New Hampshire communities within the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone.
On September 20 and September 26, respectively, the Applicants and the Staf f filed their responses to that contention.
Attorney General Bellotti hereby responds to the Applicant and Staff positions as set forth in those pleadings.
l Odh0!oo8$3 PDR
. Applicants have not, in fact, responded to Attorney General Bellotti's contention at all.
They write that "[i]f the contention is..." such and such, then there is no legal basis for it.
See Applicants' Response to the Contention of Attorney General Francis X.
Bellotti Relative to Emergency Planning for the New Hampshire Beach Communities, filed September 20, 1983, at 2.
However, they have not even attempted to demonstrate that the contention as submitted or the bases therefor stand for the proposition which they find objectionable.
The short answer to Applicants ' objection is that their hypothetical contention is not what Attorney General Bellotti has submitted and their objection to their own hypothetical contention is, therefore, utterly irrelevant.
The NRC Staff has similarly not objected to the contention itself, but rather to something it perceives the contention "might suggest" -- namely, "that evacuation must be able to prevent the occurrence of early deaths in order for the emergency response plan to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency," see NRC Staff Response to Contention of Attorney General Francis X.
Bellotti Relative to Emergency Planning for the New Hampshire Beach Communities, filed September 26, 1983 [ hereinafter, "Staf f 's Response"], at 5, or as restated in a subsequent letter to this office from I
. Mr. Patterson, dated October 3, 1983, that " protective measures at Seabrook cannot be found adequate unless evacuation is shown to provide complete protection under all circumstances...".
While disagreeing that the contention implies either of these things, we have attempted to redraft the contention to satisfy the Staff's concern.
Having been unable to do so readily, and so as to avoid extended negotiations over the wording of the contention, we hereby stipulate that it is not Attorney General
'Bellotti's contention that evacuation must be able to prevent the occurrence of early deaths in order for the emergency response plan to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency or that protective measures at Seabrook cannot be found adequate unless evacuation is shown to provide complete protection under all circumstances.
That stipulation cures the Staff's concern as to the perceived implications of the contention.
l It should be noted that the Staff's concern on this score was not properly raised as an objection to admission of the contention.
The relevant inquiry at this stage is simply whether the contention states a violation of a regulatory requirement and it clearly does so.
Fear that certain evidence or arguments not set forth in the contention or its bases might later be proferred in support of it is not a proper basis for contesting admission of a contention into the proceeding.
. Nor is the lack of an established " threshold number of unacceptable deaths or injuries" in Commission regulations basis for rejection of this contention.
See Staff's Response, at 5, n.l.
Commission regulations require that there be
" reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and I
will be taken in the event of a radiological 4Aergency."
l l
10 C.F.R. $50.47(a)(1).
While it is true that the Commission has not further defined what constitutes " adequate protection,"
l it does not follow that a contention challenging the level of l
procection accorded in a given instance is inadmissible.
What follows, rather, is that any such contention is admissible and l
l it is then up to the Board to determine whether the level of protection provided is adequate.
The Staff's position is, in~
effect, that because the Commission has not further defined its requirement there is no requirement to be challenged.
The Staff's position further seeks greater specificity in an intervenor's statement of the regulatory requirement violated 1
l than the Commission has given in setting the regulatory requirement, an impossible request.
In the basis to our contention, we present evidence that evacuation within the times currently estimated will, under l
typical meteorological conditions, subject as many as 15,000 beachgoers to doses which can lead to death in a matter of days.
It is Attorney General Bellotti's contention that an t
. emergency plan which relies solely on evacuation and sheltering as the two possible protective options, which cannot at present prevent 15,000 beachgoers fron being exposed to early death doses by means of evacuation even under typical meteorological conditions, and which contains no plans or provisions for sheltering the beach population does not provide adequate protection for that population.
The Staff's attempted rewording of the contention inappropriately narrows it to one which has already been admitted to the proceeding -- namely, Massachusetts contention IV.E challenging the fact that there are no plans or provisions for sheltering the summer beach population or seasonal residents whose homes provide inadequate shielding.
This contention addresses the broader requirement that the plan provide " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken" to protect the beach population.
Since there has, to date, been no examination of the availability of adequate sheltering for the beach population, the contention cannot be so limited with respect to the possible means for providing adequate protection.
Other potential means for assuring adequate protection include improvements in traffic management or control or improvements in the evacuation network to decrease evacuation times, examination of alternative protective options such as evacuation by foot, and
O imposition of a license condition prohibiting operation of the facility during the summer months.
Again, the Commission's regulation is not restrictive in terms of the means by which adequate protection must be provided and the Bcard and parties to the proceeding cannot, therefore, be restricted to sheltering as the sole means for providing the necessary protection.
In reviewing the Staff's Response, we have determined that the phrase "under currently estimated evacuation times" should be added to the contention to clarify that it is not any evacuation which leads to the indicated results, but evacuation within the times currently estimated.
That qualification is clear from the basis of the contention, but should probably be clarified in the contention itself.
(See redraft below.)
In their redraf t of the contention the Staf f has, without explanation, attempted to further define the meteorological conditions to which we are referring.
See Staf f 's Response, at 5.
Since all meteorological conditions to which we may refer in testimony are not covered by Tables 1 and 2 in the bases to our contention, we do not accept the Staff's proposed redrafting on this point.
We have, however, redraf ted the contention ourselves to provide the requested specificity and to provide the clarification mentioned above with respect to evacuation times, as follows:
l
- ~,-
e
e
- 9 The draft radiological emergency response plans for the Towns of Seabrook, Hampton, North Hampton, and Rye do not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the Seabrook Station, as required by 10 C.F.R.
$50.47(a)(1), because in the event of a severe accident on a summer weekend some or all of the beach area transient populations within those communities cannot, under currently estimated evacuation times and many plausible meteorological conditions (i.e.,
Pasquill Stability Classes A - F; wind speeds of 4,2 m./sec., 2 m./sec., 4 m./sec.
and )>6 m./sec., including wind shifts due to time-varying conditions; and rain) be protected by means of evacuation even from early death and because there are not adequate plans or provisions for sheltering the beach area transients within those communities.
It is our intent through this redraft to obviate the need for any later amendment to the contention to address meteorological conditions, as proposed by the Staff in its letter of October 3, 1983.
Respectfully submitted, FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI ATTORNEY GENERAL A
.4 4 By:
~
Jo' Ann Shotwell Adri'stant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2265
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 00j TEC I, Co Ann Shotwell, Esquire, counsel for Massachu%$t($J4qt g
General Francis X. Bellotti, hereby certify that on October 7,
. 8 J, I
=afe service of the Motion of Attorney General Bellogti Fgr Summary Cisposition on Massachusetts Contentions I, II, III, 03httfTk 'andk.hd$IV.
G, SAIL Contention 5 and NECNP Contentions 3, 4,
5, 7,
12, Relative to Energency Planning For the State of New Hampshire and the Answer of Attorney General Bellotti to the Staff's and Applicants' Responses to his Contention Relative to Emergency Planning for the New Hampshire Beach CO:= unities by = ailing' copies thereof, postage prepaid, to the parties na:ed below:
Helen Hoyt, Chairperson
- Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Atcmic Safety and Licensing Coastal Chamber of Commerce Ecard Panel 209 Winnacunnet Road U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Erneth A. Luebke*
William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Atcmic Safety and Licensing Diane Curran Scard Panel Harmon & Weiss
'U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Dr. Cerry Harbour
- Edward L.
- Cross, Jr.,
Esquire
- Arcsic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Dana Bisbee, Esquire U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 of fice of the Attorney General 208 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Atesic Safety and Licensing Appeal Roy P.
Lessy*
Board Panel Deputy Assistant Chief U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hearing Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U.S.N.R.C.
7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Guard Call - X27505
- Ey Express Mail
=-
Atcric Safety and Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esquire Icard Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S.
Naclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Dr. Mauray Tye Assistant Attorney General Sun Valley Association CePart=ent of the Attorney 209 Summer Street General Haverhill, MA 01830 Augusta, ME 04333 David R. Lewis
- Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.,
Esquire **
Atcmic Safety and Licensing Robert K. Gad, III, Esquire l
Hoard Panel Ropes & Gray U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 225 Franklin Street Rs. E/W-439 Boston, MA 02110 Washington,.DC 20555 Charles Cross, Esquire Ms. Olive L. Tash Shaines, Madrigan, & McEachern Designated Representative of 25 Maplewood Avenue the Town of Brentwood P.C.
Box 366 R.F.D.
1, Dalton Road Ports =ou th, NH 03801 Brentwood, NH 03833 Roberta C.
Pevear Edward F. Meany Designated Representative of Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton Falls the Town of Rye Drinkwater Road 155 Washington Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Rye, NH 03870 Krs. Sandra Gavutis Calvin A. Canney Designated Representative of City Manager the Tcwn of Kensington City Hall RFC 1 126 Daniel Street East Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Patrick J. McKeon Jane Doughty Selectmen's Of fice Field Director 10 Central Road Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Rye, 53 03870 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Richard E.
Sullivan, Mayor Docketing and Service Section Town Hall Office of the Secretary Newburyport, MA 01950 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- 3v Excress Mail
~
- i3y Hand Delivery on 10/11/83 i --
. - -, ~
Srian P.
Cassidy**
Representative Nicholas J.
Costellc Regicnal Counsel 1st Essex District FIMA Esgion 1 Whitehall Road John W. McCormack Post Office Amesbury, MA 01913
& Ccur thous e Boston, MA 02109 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Diana P.
Randall Newbury Board of Selectmen 70 Collins Street Town of Newbury, MA 01950 Seabrook, NH 03874 Patrick J. McKeon Anne Verge, Chairperson Chaircan of Selectmen, Rye, Board of Selectmen 1;ew Hampshire Town Hall 13 Central Road South Hampton, NH 03842 Rye, N3 03870 Donald E. Chick Maynard B.
Pearson Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter 40 Monroe Street 10 Frcat Street Amesbury, MA 01913 New Ea=pshire 03833 Selectmen of North Hampton Mr. Daniel Girard Town of North Hampton Civil Defense Director New Earpshire 03862 25 Washington Street Salisbury, MA 01930 Sena cr Gordon J.
Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 1 Fillsbury Street U.S.
Senate Concord, NH 03302 Washington, D.C.
20510 (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
(Attn:
Tom Burack)
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, this 7th day of October, 1983.
Y Uo Ann Shotwelf' Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108
- *Ey Eand Delivery on 10/11/83