ML20140E733
| ML20140E733 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1986 |
| From: | Sneider C MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140E725 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8603280149 | |
| Download: ML20140E733 (11) | |
Text
-.
DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES'OF A I
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY'CO I
ATOMIC SAFETY ~AND LICENSING BOARD OFFICE 0r :ta
- BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVEDQf6bgJ,[ T I Helen F. Hoyt, Chairman Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Dr. Jerry-Harbour
)
In the matter'of
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444-OL
~
NEN HAMPSHIRE, et al.
~)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
(Off-Site EP)
)
' March 24, 1986 ANSWER OF ATTORNEY GENERAL FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI.TO THE STAFFS', APPLICANTS' AND STATE OF NEd HAMPSHIRE'S RESPONSES TO HIS CONTENTION RELATIVE TO EMERGENCY ~
PLANNING FOR.THE NEW HAMPSHIRE BEACH COMMUNITIES On February 21, 1986, Attorney General Bellotti submitted a single contention relating to the local emergen'cy plans-for the coastal New Hampshire communities within the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone.
On' March 5, March 6 and March 14, respectively, the Applicants, State of New Hampshire and the Staff filed their responses to that contention. -AttorneyJGeneral Bellotti hereby responds to the Applicants, State of New Hampshire, and 4
Staf f positions as set forth in those pl'eadings.
The State of New Hampshire objects to the admission of Attorney General Bellotti's contention "to the extent that
[the] contention asserts that the protective actionslaf sta "*868 8I8S!h3 O
6 evacuation -and sheltering must ensure' complete protection to 1-the transient beach population under1all circumstances.
-See, the State of New Hampshire's Response to Contentions Filed by NECNP, the Commonwealth of Massachusets, the Towns of Rye, Hampton, South Hampton, Kensington and Hampton Falls on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, dated March 6, 1986, at 5.
The Applicants and Staff similarly posit as their a
i major. basis for either limiting or not admitting the Attorney General's sole contention that, "neither the Commission's
^
regulations nor NUREG-0654 requires that absolute assurance of radiological safety be provided in the event of an emergency or i
that evacuations be completed in any particular time frame."
See, NRC Staff's Response to Contentions Filed By State.of i
Massachusetts Attorney General ~ Francis X.
Bellotti, dated March 14, 1986, [ hereinafter " Staff's Response"], at 3.
See also, Applicants' Response to Off-Site EP Contentions Submitted by l
Massachusetts Attorney General, dated March 5, 1986 i
(hereinafter " Applicants' Response".], at ~14.
The short answer to tnese objections is that the Massachusetts Attorney General i
is.not contending that emergency plans must assure absolute protection under all circumstances or even that the protective action of evacuation must ce completed within any particular amount of time.
Nor is the Attorney General contending, Das the Applicants' response to our contention suggests, that one must plan'only for a worst case accident.
See : Applicants ' Response at 2-3.
j.
1
,>o O
What.tne Attorney _ General does contend is that, pursuant ~to the-Commissio!1's regulations, emergency response plans must provide reasonable-assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in response to a full. spectrum of.
possible accident sequences, and that the New Hampshire plans fail to meet this standard because they provide virtually no assurance that adequate protective measures can or will be '
taken in the event of a severe accident at the Seabrook power plant on a summer weekend.
There can be no basis, then, for not admitting Attorney General Bellotti's contention to this proceeding.
The relevant inquiry at this stage i.s simply whether the contention states a violation of.a regulatory requirement with reasonable specificity and this it clearly does.
The Staff and Applicant would r.everthel'ess argue that the-contention is not admissible, as is, for the simple reason that the Commission has never established a precise level of protection which emergency plans must meet.
It does not
' follow, however, that just because there is no absolute level protection required for emergency plans, that no standard at o.
l-all exists agains't which protective response actions must be l
judged.
See Applicants' Response at 15; Staff's Response at 3-4.
Commission regulations require that there be " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency."
S 50.47(a)(1).
Thus,-there~is a' standard, a level of.
protection, which must be satisfied.
To say otherwise, would 4
ce to disregard the plain meaning of the regulation which requires " adequate protection."
Cf. Guard v. NRC, 753 F.2d
.1144, 1149 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
The fact that the Commission has not particularized that-standard by establishing a " threshold number of unacceptable deaths or injuries" or otherwise.further defined what constitutes " adequate protection," does not mean i
that a contention challenging.the level of protection accorded in a given instance is inadmissible.
It means, rather, that any such contention is admissible and it is then up t' the Board to determine whether the level of protection provided is adequate, thus meeting the regulatory standard.
j In the basis to our contention, we present. evidence that evacuation within the times currently estimated will, under typical meteorological conditions, subject thousands of beachgoers to doses which can laad to death in a matter of days.
It is Attorney General bellotti's contention that an emergency plan which relies solely on evacuation and sheltering i
'as the two possible protective options which cannot at present~
prevent thousands of beachgoers from being exposed to early death does by means of evacuation even under typical-meteorological conditions, and which contains no plans or i
i provisions for sheltering the beach population does not provide adequate protection for that population.
1 f
d 4
4-t
, _., = _ _, - -,. _ - -..........
While the Staff concedes that-Attorney General Bellotti's contention should be admitted to this' proceeding, they seek to limit that contention by limiting the evidence which the I
Attorney General may_ introduce in support of'its contention.
See Staff's. Response at 2.
Yet, fear that certain evidence or arguments might-be proferred in support of a contention is not a proper basis for limiting the admissibility of'a contention.
i The issue of'what evidence may-be introduced is just not a relevant inquiry at this stage in the proceedings.
Moreover,-
the fact that the Commission has not further. defined what constitutes " adequate protection" means that the Board should not be able-to limit the type of evidence admissible on this point.
While it may be the case that in a typical licensing proceeding it would be unnecessary to look.at dose consequences of particular accidents to determine the adequacy of the provided protective response actions, Attorney General Bellotti intends to introduce evidence in support of its contention which will show that, primarily due to the large summer beach
~
population, the situation at the Seabrook plant.is unique; that emergency response measures which might be perfectly adequate to protect the populations surrounding the average nuclear power plant are simply not adequate to protect the summer beach population near the Seabrook plant.
The Attorney General thus seeks to introduce relevant evidence on this very serious issue e
i concerning the ability of the New Hampshire Plan's emergency response measures to. provide adequate protection for the beach population.
The admissibility of such relevant evidence should certainly not be limited at this-stage.
The staff also attempts to inappropriately narrow Attorney General Bellotti's contention to the sole issue of whether the New Hampshire Plan makes adequate provision for sheltering the summer' beach population.
Our contention, however, is intended
~to address 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 1
cannot be so limited with respect to the possible means for i
providing. adequate protection.
Other potential means for assuring adequate protection include improvementu in traffic management or control or improvements in the evacuation network to decrease evacuation times, examination of alternative l
protective options such as evacuation by foot, and 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 Board and parties to the proceeding cannot, therefore, be restricted to sheltering as the sole means for providing the necessary protection.
-s-
., ~. - - _ _ _. -.
e 1
The only remaining objection to our contention, not yet addressed, is the Applicants' objection, that the issues raised by our contention should have been litigated at the siting stage.
We agree with the Applicants, in part.
Unfortunately this was not possible to do.
The Applicants received their construction permit before the Commission's current emergency i
j planning regulations, requiring evacuation planning for the area within ten miles around a nuclear. power plant, were in 1
effect.
When these emergency planning regulations did~become-effective, Attorney General Bellotti supported the Seacoast i
Anti-pollution League.["SAPL"] in seeking an Order to Show cause why the construction permit for the Seabrook nuclear power plant should not be suspended or revoked.
- See, i
Memorandum of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Support of 1
I Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Request for an Order to Show Cause dated June 30, 1980, dated March 13, 1981.
In that i
proceeding, we sought to have determined the feasibility of 1
I evacuating the population within ten miles around the Seabrook
- l 1
plant.
The Applicants argued, however, and the Commission ruled, that
+
the issue of evacuability was one to be decided at a
the licensing stage.
See SAPL v. NRC, 690 P.2d-1025 (D.C. Cir.
1980).
The Applicants, then, would place the Attorney General k
in a " Catch-22" type of situation, in which this important i
1 issue over the adequacy of the New Hampshire plans' protect'ive i
responses may never be heard.
That position is simply i
I J
i if'
k 4
e untenuous. - As the court affirmed in SAPL, the issue of whether
~
1 adequate protection responses can and will be implemented with respect to the summer beach population near the Seabrook nuclear power plant is an issue of emergency planning properly before the Licensing Board at this time.
SAPL v. NRC, supra at 1030.
i Respectfully submitted, FRANCIS X.
BELLOTTI ATTORNEY GENERAL By:
[s Xsn
.' TJ r I l Carol S.
Sneider Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Department of the Attorney General One Ashburten Place, Room 1902 1
't Boston, MA 02108 i
March.2'4, 1986
~
t t
t i
i t
i
)
I i
e 8-i v.
,-m
.. _.,.. ~.... _ _
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ffRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T6 MR 27 R2:10 In the Matter of
)
)
Dockethkh)gh0,,64I3/444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
)
BRANCH (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Carol S.
Sneider hereby certify that on March 24,.1986 I'made service of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Administrative Judge Dr. Emneth A.
Luebke Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Robert G.
Perlis, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Sherwin E.
Turk, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Legal Conmission Director Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C.
20555 Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Stephen E.
Merrill, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Attorney General Office of General Counsel George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Federal Energency Management Assistant Attorney General Agency Office of the Attorney General 500 C Street, S.W.
25 Capitol Street Washington, D.C.
20472 Concord, NH 03301 Docketing and Service Paul A.
Fritische, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Public Advocate Commission State House Station 112 Washington, D.C.
20555 Augusta, Maine 04333
r b
Roberta C.
Pevear Ms. Diana P.
Randall State Representative 70 Collins Street Town of Hampton Falls Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A.
Backus, E s q '.
Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, D.C.
20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market Street Commission.
Portsmouth, NH- 03801 Washington, D.C.
20555 Paul McEachern, Esq.
Maynard L. Young, Chairman Shaines & McEachern Board of Selectmen 25 Maplewood Avenue 10 Central Road P.O.
Box 360 Rye, New Hampshire 03870 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Ms. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A.
Canney The Town of Kensington City Manager RFD 1 City Hall E.
Kingston, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Mr. Angelo Machitos U.S.
Senate Chairman of the Washington, D.C.
20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn: Tom Burack) 25 High Street Newbury, Massachusetts 01950 Senator Gordon J.
Ilumph rey Mr. Peter J.
Matthews 1 Pillsbury Street Mayor Concord, NII 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Donald E.
Chick Town Manager's Office Town Manager Town Ifall Town of Exeter Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 Brentwood Board of Selectmen Gary W.
Holmes, Esq.
RFD Dalton Road Holmes & Ellis Brentwood, NH 03833 47 Winnacunnet Road llampton, NH 03841
r o
Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Harmon & Weiss Department of the Attorney 2001 S Street, N.U.
General Washington, D.C.
20009 State House Station #6 Augusta, Maine 04333 Thomas G.
Dignan, Esq.
Richard A.
Hampe, Esq.
R.K.
Gad III, Esq.
Hampe & McNicholas Ropes & Gray 35 Pleasant Street 225 Franklin Street Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02110 Beverly Hollingworth Edward A.
Thomas 209 Winnacunnet Road Federal Emergency Management Hampton, NH 03842 Agency 442 J.W.
McCormack (POCH)
Boston, MA 02109 William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter South Hampton, NH 03827 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Stanley W.
Knowles, Chairman Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen P.O.
Box 710 13-15 Newmarket Roaa North Hampton, NH 03862 Durham, NH 03824 Allen Lampert Administrative Judge Sheldon Civil Defense Director J. Wolfe, Chairman Town of Brentwood Atomic Safety and Licensing 20 Franklin Street Board Panel Exeter, NH 03833 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C.
20555 Anne Verge, Chairperson Board of Selectnen Town Hall South Hampton, NH 03S27 Carol S.
Sneider Assistant Attorney General
__ _____ ________________ - -_ _______-__-________ - -_-___,