ML20082A651

Requests Record Be Made of Author Objections to Manner in Which Judge Hoyt Conducted Selection of Speakers for 831031 Public Hearing

ML20082A651
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/04/1983
From:	Pevear R NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8311180209
Download: ML20082A651 (8)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ ._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

f O'

, [ eg o. J State-af NemI$ampsltre i um

. "vc

%._~ gj'.

~

.- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES . ,

'83 NOV 17 All:32 CONCORD Drinkwater R55E.li 7,5!VJ.

• Hampton Falls","kU.liddic[

03044 Govembar 4, 1983 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 In re: Docket w50-443 and 950-444 Seabrook Nuclear Plant Public Hearint, Seabrook, N.H., 8/31/83 Gentlemen:

As an elected member of the N.H. House of Representatives serving in my third two-year term representing the Towns of Hampton Falls and Hampton, both located adjacent to the Scabrook Nuclear Power Pla.it, I ask that you make the follo. ting a matter o:. record in the above-listed Licensing Hearing:

On 8/19/83, at the Hearing in Dover, I advised David R. Lewis, Ad-ministrative Assistant to the Board, that I intended to speak at one of the Public Hearings, and asked whether or not it was neces-sary for me to put this request in writing. Mr. Lewis advised me that it was not necessary to put it in writing, and that I would be allowed to speak at whichever hearing I chose.

At the end of the Hearing which Judge Hoyt called later for Dover on 8/31/83, I reminded Ju'dge Hoyt that I wished to speak in Sea-brook that evening. She asked me if I were " speaking for the Town" at Seabrook. I replied that one of the Selectmen from Hampton Falls would be speaking, also but that I had put my name on the lis t and I wished to speak. It was my understanding that I was one of four people who had indicated my intention to speak in ad-vance.

8311180209 831104 pDR ADOCK 05000 4 0

h

/\ -

s O

.._;, .ashic.; an, J.C. 11/ 4/63 l

1 0.. ne evei..'; of 3/31/L3, after seven people had spoken, and  !

nereone uas c ill taking names from the public who wished to cpaak, I urote a note to Judge Hoyt and passed it to that person, for delivery to Judge Hoyt, asking whether or not I was going to

._ ; allowed to speak.

According to a recording .;hich I made that night, I was finally allowed to speak as the 13th person.

This is to advise that I, not only as an elected representative of

'ce people of the area, but as a member of the public residing with-in less ,than tuo miles of the nuclear plant, and as the Civil Defense Director of the Town of Hampton Falls, object to the manner in which Judge Hoyt conducted this so-called public hearing.

I enclose a copy of my statement presented when I was finally allowed to speak.

Very truly yours,

, MW Re . Roberta C. Pevear (R)

Dietrict al7 Hampton Falls /Hampton Enc.

cc: Docketing and Service Branch

S TATEMENT OF REP. ROBERTA C. PEVEAR (Hampton Falls /Hampton) - 8,31/83 F*JBLIC HEARING, SEABROOK FIRE STATION - DOCKET ,iSC-443 and 450-444 _

Madam Chairman, Member's of the Board, I address you tonight as a member of the N.H. House of Representatives, representing Hampton and Hampton. Falls, two towns abutting the Scabrook Nuclear power plant, and as Civil Defense Director for the town of Hampton Falls.

This is the 4th time I have addressed representatives of the NRC in person, to set forth the legitimate concerns of my constituents. I have, also, done so many times in writing.

de have not, to date, had a reply to our concerns as residents, voters and taxpayers.

On 12/2/81, a panel of HRC " experts" held a " hearing" in this same room. At that time, I asked a question which we have been asking since 1977: "within how many minutes could we, the citizens of this area abutting the Seabrook nuclear plant, be contaminated from a nuclear ac-cident". None of the panel members would answer our question. However, during the " break", Dr. Robert Bores gave me the answer of 30 minutes.

NUREG-0396, " Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants", an NRC Report dated December, 1978, page 19 states: "The planning basis for the time dependence of a release is expressed as a range of time values in which to implement protective action. This range of values prior to the start of a major release is of the order of one-half hour to several hours. The subsequent time period over which radioactive material may be expected to be released is of the order of one-half hour (short-term release) to a few days (continuous release). Table 2 summarizes the Task Force guidance on the time of the release.

The time available for action is strongly related to the time con-sumed in notification that conditions exist that could cause a major release or that a major release is occurring. Development and periodic testing of procedures for rapid notification are encouraged."

I have attached copies of pages 19, 20 and 21 to my statement.

This is not the only NRC document, however, which states we could be contaminated within 30 minutes.

In view of this NRC conclusion, it is obvious that the residents of this area cannot hope to be evacuated in a " timely" nanner.

The location of this plant with its area population is contrary to all present thinking on the siting of nuclear plants. The Hampton Falls Lincoln Akerman School is less than a mile-and-a-half from the plant.

The Chart," Table 2 - Guidance on Initiation and Duration of Release", on Page 20, shows " Time from the initiating event to start of atmospheric release"as 1/2 hour to one day- and " Travel time for release to ex-posure point (time af ter release)" as 5 milesin 1/2 to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 10 miles in 1 to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.

e STATEXE!;T OF REP. RCE ERTA C . PEVEAR (llampton Falls /liampton) - 8/31/83 PUBLIC liEARII;G, SEAPRCOM FIRE STATION - DOCKET a50-443 and =50-444

. -Page 2-Prior to TMI, we were told an accident would never happen, although the Insurance Industry believed, and still believes, otherwise. These are the people who make their living calculating risks, and they will not insure the public for the risks associated with the private nuclear industry.

When the statement is made that an accident will never happen at S e abrook, please bear in mind that the Titanic only sank once.

O

.~ ,

N U R E G-0396 EPA 520/178-016

! PLANNING BASIS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS J IN SUPPORT OF ,

LIGHT WATER NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

A Report Prepared by a U. C. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and

' U. S. Environmenta! Protection Agency Task Force on Emergency Planning l

l H. E. Collins' B. K. Grimes *

• l ' Co Chairmen of Task Force F. Galpin * *

• l Senior EPA Representative l

i Manuscript Completed: November 1978 i Date Published: December 1978 i

.1

' Office of State Programs

,- 2 t

• Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

U.S -uclear Regulatory Commission

?, Washington, D.C. 20555 f,y " *Of fice of Radiation Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1

6L j j) Wash'ingtnn, D. C. 20460

4

,',rl

o e

of high concentrations should be available since NRC regulations (1'4) require early notification of offsite authorities for major releases of radioactive material. The warning time could be somewhat different for reactors with different containment characteristics than those analyzed in the Reactor Safety Study. The range of times, however, is judged suitably representative for the purpose of developing emergency plans. Shorter release initiation times are typically associated with design basis events of much smaller potential consequences or with the more severe Reactor Safety Study accident sequences.

8  :

The planning basis for the time dependence of a release is expressed as a range of time values in which to implement protective action.

This range of values prior to the start of a' major release is of

the order of one-half hour to several h.ours. The subsequent time i period over which radioactive material may be expected to be released i

i is of the order of one-half hour (short-term release) to a few days l (continuous release). Table 2 summarizes the Task Force guidance on the time of the release.

The time available for action is strongly related to the time f

j consumed in notification that conditions exist that could cause a major release or that i major release is occurring. Devel opment and periodic testing of procedures for rapid notification are encouraged.

4

~--

, -~m azamngg.g.4 g.qct7- .

A Table'2 - Guidance on -Initiation and Duration of Release

_..___________- 1 Time from the initiating event

-to start of atmospheric release 0.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to one day

-Time period over which radioactive material may be continuously 0.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to several days released Time at which major portion of release may occur 0.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to 1 day after start of release Travel time for release to exposure point (time after release) 5 miles - - 0.5 to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 10 miles - - 1 to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> i

D.

Radiological Characteristics of Releases To specify the characteristics of monitoring instrumentation,* develop decisional aids to estimate projected doses, and' identify critical exposure modes, planners will need information on the characteristics of potential radioactivity releases. For atmospheric releases from nuclear power facilities, three dominant exposure modes have been identified. These are (1) whole body (bone marrow) exposure from external gamma radiation and from ingestion of radioactive material; (2) thyroid exposure from inh 61ation or ingestion of radiodines; and

• An interagency Tash Force on Emergency Instrumentation (offsite) is now preparing guidancet7) on the type and qdantity of instruments needed l for the various exposure pathways. Federal agencies represented on the 1 Instrumentation Task Force include NRC, EPA, DCPA, HEW, and DOE.

- ~ ~ ~ .- + _.g - .. ,...,,,. ... i

(3) exposure of other organs (e.g. , lung) fran inhalation or ingestion of radioactive materials. Any of these exposure modes could dominate (i.e., result in the largest exposures) depending upon the relative quantities of various isotopes released.

Radioactive materials produced in the operation of nuclear reactors include fission products and transuranics generated within the fuel material itself and activation products generated by neutron exposure of the structural and other materials within and immediately around the reactor core. The fission products consist of a very f

i large number of different kinds of isotopes (nuclides), almost all i

of which are initially radioactive. The amounts of these fission i

products and their potential for escape from their normal places f of confinement represent the dominant potential for consequences to the public. Radioactive fission products exist in a variety of l

i Virtually all j physical and chen.ical forms of varied volatility.

s activation products and transuranics exist as non-volatile solids.

f 5

The characteristics of these materials shows quite clearly that

} >

i the potential for releases to the environment decreases dramatically

}

(1) gaseous materials; (2) volatile solids; and 3 in this order:

b (3) non-volatile solids. For this reason, guidance for source f

terms representing hypothetical fission product activity within k

I J

a J

.-Z.. . - . / ** d , J .

.-]' ,$

"TC _ n e f=rt.,% V 6p g in g Q { g . g / g ---

,