ML20153D109

OL Case:Offsite Emergency Planning Issues.* Forwards Second Corrected Page 12 to New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law

ML20153D109
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/24/1988
From:	Curran D HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	Harbour J, Linenberger G, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#388-6972 OL, NUDOCS 8809020044
Download: ML20153D109 (2)

Text

.

7M O~

/ 00CKETNUMBER

'~a" t UTIL FRC.

wgp g-M 00t.KE. I,[LO

' umik HARMON 8e WEISS 2001 S STREET. N.W. e

{ f '.00 SulTE 430 WASHINGTON, D.C. cooos uns GALL MeoREcvY H ARMON h IICh D -- TE(.CPHONE ELLYN R. WEISS DOCKf TiG A Eoar bie.aseo DIAN E CURRAN bSAbb" DEAN R. ToUSLEy ANDAEAc,pgggygg August 24, 1988 Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Jerry Harbour Gustave Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Seabrook operating license case:

offsite emercency olannina issues

Dear Administrative Judges:

On August 19, we sent you a corrected page 12 of NECNP's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed August 12, 1988. We have since discovered that in making the correc-tion, we inadvertently added another error by deleting page references on line 8. I am enclosing copies of a second cor-rected page 12. Copies have also been sent to the parties. We regret any inconvenience caused by our error.

I am also sending a floppy disk containing NECNP's Proposed Findings. .

Sincerely, Diane Curran Enclosure

'~

8809020044 080824 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 PDR

.bSO3

,/

25. There are at least two other issues related;torthe standard by which the adequacy of public protection should be judged which are raised by this case. These are 1) whether com-pliance with the elements of the joint guidance document NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP-1 should result in an "automatic" finding under 40 CFR S 350.5(b) that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective action can and will be taken and (discussed more fully below at paras. 135-140) 2) whether the "range of protective actions" called for in 10 CFR S 50.47 (b) (10) and 40 CFR S 350. 5 (a) (10) can be met in a case where there-is only one protec-tive action - evacuation. It will suffice for now to observe that, as with the basic "take the site as is" issue discussed above, in both of these cases FEMA has also changed its previous views in the course of the Seabrook litigation from positions unfavorable to the Applicant to positions favorable to the Applicant. Ese Tr. 14091-92; Tr.14088. The general course of this proceeding does support a reasonable inference that a stan-dard (or standards) for judging the adequacy of public protection has been "backfit" to meet the exigencies of the Seabrook case.

26. There are certain other curious aspects of the standard favored by Applicants which lead us to doubt its correctness.

First, it would require less to be achieved in actually reducing public risk by reducing accident doses in precisely these cases where demographic and geographic factors inc. case the inherent level of public risk. There is no serious dispute that the Seabrook site poses at least a set of special "challenges" due to

- , _ . ,