ML20205F264

Atty General Jm Shannon Motion for Partial Summary Disposition on Toh Revised Contention Viii & Sapl Contention 16.* Motion Should Be Granted & Finding Should Be Found in Favor of Intervenors.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20205F264
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/25/1987
From:	Sneider C MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Harbour J, Hoyt H, Linenberger G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#187-2927 OL, NUDOCS 8703310127
Download: ML20205F264 (13)

Text

j.S

, Nf77 DOCMETED' USNRC.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .g7 g gg *j j7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GFFICE OF EECRETARY Before Administrative Judges: DOCKETING A SLPVICE Helen F.-Hoyt, Chairperson BEANCH Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Jerry Harbour

)

In the Matter of ) ,

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket Nos.

HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) 50-443/444-OL (Seabrook Station,-Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-Site EP)

) March 25, 1987

)

ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ON TOH REVISED CONTENTION VIII AND SAPL CONTENTION 16 Attorney General James M. Shannon pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

S 2.749 hereby moves the Board to grant partial summary

~

disposition in favor of the intervenors on ToH Revised Contention XVIII and SAPL Contention 16. In essence, both these contentions provide, in part, that the NHRERP, Revision 2, fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be implemented with respect to the seasonal beach population, because there are no provisions in the RERP for sheltering the beach population, and because the RERP has not developed a range of protective actions for 8703310127 870325

{DR ADOCK 05000443 PDR .

gjQ]

e 6

that population as required by 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(10). The Attorney General contends that there is no issue of fact with

~

respect to this issue of.whether the NHRERP, Revision 2, provides for sheltering of the seasonal beachrpopulation and that as a matter of law this issue must be decided in the intervenors favor.

ToH Revised Contention VIII reads: -

Revision 2 fails to provide adequate emergency equipment, facilities, or personnel to support an emergency response and fails to demonstrate that adequate protective responses can be implemented in the event of a radiological emergency.

50.47(b)(1)(8)(10).

One of the stated bases of ToH Revised VIII, is:

Basis: In preparing the Hampton RERP, the State relies upon a " shelter-in-place" concept as a

" valuable protective action" [in] that it can be implemented quickly, usually in a matter of minutes." RERP, pgs. II-25, 26. The Hampton RERP acknowledges, however, that " sheltering may not be considered as a protective action on Hampton Beach during the summer." RERP, pg. II-25. The plan thereby fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate and immediate protection measures will be available to the thousands of beachgoers in the event of emergency. Under its RERP, therefore, the Town is required to rely upon evacuation as the sole means of avoiding radiological exposure to large segments of the population. Since a " major portion" of radioactive material may be released within one hour of the initiating event, NUREG, pg. 17, and present estimates indicate ~

evacuation could take up to seven and one-half hours, RERP, II-32, RERP measures for evacuation are a wholly inadequate protective response to meet an emergency.

SAPL Contention 16 provides:

The New Hampshire State and local plans do not make adequate provisions for the sheltering of various segments of the populace in the EPZ and f

b therefore the plans fail to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(a)(1),

S 50.47(b)(1) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.a. and m.

The basis of SAPL_ Contention 16 provides in pertinent part:

Basis: 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(10) requires that a range of protective actions be developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ. NUREG-0654 requires that there_be maps of shelter areas and the inclusion of the bases for the choice of recommended protective actions from the plume exposure pathway during emergency conditions.

NUREG-0654 II.J.10.m. specifies that the expected level of_ protection to be afforded in residential and other units must be evaluated.

The New Hampshire State and local plans fail to meet thesefrequirements because there are no provisions for sheltering the population in the beach area and no provisions for the sheltering of the-population in the many camping areas in the EPZ. In a quickly developing accident with anticipated fast release of short duration, sheltering could be the only realistic protective action that could be implemented.

Evacuation of all transients is supposed to be carried out, according to the plans, if an evacuation is ordered. There is, however, no realistic description as to how this can be done. Given the current status of these plans and the lack of availability of sheltering capability for large segments of the population, a reasonable level of assurance that adequate protective measures will be available for transients in beach or camping areas has simply not been attained.

The NHRERP provides that "New Hampshire will rely on two protective actions for limiting the direct exposure of the general public within the Plume Exposure EPZ. These are sheltering and evacuation." Vol 1, S 2.6.5, at 2.6-4. There can be no dispute, however, that NHRERP, Revision 2, makes no provision for sheltering the summer beach population. The plan expressly provides that: " Sheltering may not be considered a e

n

. feasible protective action on the seacoast beaches during the summer." NHRERP, Rev. 2, Vol. 1, S 2.65 at 2.6-7; Seabrook RERP, Vol. 16 at II-31; North Hampton RERP, Vol. 19 at II-26; Rye RERP, Vol. 20 at II-26. See also, Hampton RERP, Vol. 18 at II-26 (" Sheltering may not be considered as'a protective action on Hampton Beach during the summer."). The State of New Hampshire has stated in response to interrogatories propounded by the Massachusetts Attorney General that "The RERP provides at.Section 2.6.5 (at 2.6-6) that the transient population, which includes the transient beach population, should, when sheltering is recommended, leave the EPZ." The State of New Hampshire's Responses to Attorney General James M. Shannon's Off-Site EP Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, dated March 18, 1987, at p. 32 (Response to Interrogatory No. 75). There is only one very limited exception to this provision noted by the State, which is:

"should a limited number of the transient population not have

~ access to means to evacuate, they may be requested to take shelter at the locations they are visiting. . . . Id.

(emphasis added).

Although the NHRERP provides that "[e]xcept for the institutionalized population, sheltering and evacuation will be implemented on a municipality-by-municipality basis in New Hampshire," Vol. 1, S 2.6.5, at 2.6-7, this is not the case for the seacoast beach population. The beach populations will be directed to evacuate even in the event of a General Emergency t

n -

, - . , , ,, - - - ~

6-in which the remainder of the population in the municipality is advised to shelter. See Vol. 4, Appendix G, at G-25, G-28; Vol. 4,-Appendix F, at.F-ll; Vol. 4A, Appendix U at U-ll. See also, Vol. 18 at II-26, Vol. 16 at II-31, Vol 20 at II-26. The seasonal-beach population will be directed to evacuate even in those cases where projected evacuation doses are higher than projected sheltering doses calculated for the general population. See Vols. 4A, App. U; Vol. 1 at 2.6-25, 2.6-26; Vol. 4, App. G. In fact, persons on Seabrook and Hampton beaches will be directed to evacuate even Sefore projected off-site doses have been calculated and recommended protective actions for the general population have been determined. See Vol. 4A, App. U; Vol. 1 at 2.5-1, 2.6-25; 2.6-29; Vol. 4, App.

G.

Since there can be no factual dispute, therefore, that sheltering will not be considered as a protective action for the seasonal beach population, the only issue to be determined with respect to the above-cited bases of ToH Revised Contention VIII and SAPL Contention 16 is whether reliance upon evacuation alone as a protective response action for this population provides " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken . . . ." 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1). This issue may be disposed of as a matter of law in favor of the intervenors.

Section 50.47(b)(10) requires, in pertinent part, that,

"[a] range of protective actions have been developed for the

'g_

plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public" (emphasis added) and that "[g]uidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are developed and in place." As one licensing board has noted, "[t]he principal protective actions which might be taken are evacuation, sheltering and thyroid prophylaxis. Other protective actions include use of respiratory equipment and protective clothing." Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-39, 15 NRC 1163, 1184 (1982).

NUREG-0654 provides that "[f]or the plume exposure pathway, l

shelter and/or evacuation would likely be the principal '

immediate protective actions to be recommended for the public. . . .The ability to best reduce potential exposure under the specific conditions during the course of an accident should determine the appropriate response." NUREG-0654, I.D.a at p. 9.

The New Hampshire RERP clearly does not provide a range of protective actions for the seasonal beach population within the Seabrook plume exposure EPZ; it provides only one response option for that population--evacuation. Thus, there cannot be reasonable assurance that this only available response can satisfy the requirement of NUREG-0654 that the recommended response be the one that is able to "best reduce potential exposure under the specific conditions." Indeed, the NHRERP's provision to evacuate the seasonal beach population even when c

+

evacuation doses are projected to be higher than sheltering doses virtually ensures that for some accident scenarios the protective action best able to reduce exposure--sheltering--will not be recommended.

Moreover, the Section 50.47(a)(1) requirement, that there be " reasonable assurance of adequate protective measures," by its own terms mandates that the NHRERP provide more than one response option. As the San Onofre licensing board noted, there can often be constraints, such as " inadequate lead time due to the imminence of the passage of a plume, or . . . severe weather-conditions," which would make sheltering (or some other protective action) a preferred alternative to evacution.

Southern California Edison Company, supra at 1184. See also Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point, Units 2 and 3)

LBP-83-68, 18 NRC 811, 990-91 (1983). This reasoning applies with even greater force to the instant case where, as stated in the basis to ToH Revised Contention VIII, one must assume that "a ' major portion' of radioactive material may be released within one hour of the initiating event, NUREG-0654, pg. 17, and present estimates indicate evacuation could take up to seven and one-half hours, RERP, II-32." See also NHRERP, Rev.

2, Vol. 6; Vol. 4, App. F. Under such circumstances, to rely on evacuation as the sole protective response is completely inadequate.

Therefore, the Board should grant this motion for partial summary disposition on Hampton Revised Contention VIII and SAPL

))

3-contention 16 and should enter a' finding in favor of~the intervenors.

Respectfully submitted, JAMES.M. SHANNON-Attorney General By: Llk -

1L' O d- L -

Carol S. Sneider Donald S. Bronstein Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Protection Division Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, Room 1902 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2265 Dated: March 25, 1987-

.4-d'.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

1. NHRERP, Rev. 2 generally relies on two protective actions, sheltering and evacuation, for limiting the direct exposure of the general public within the Seabrook Station Plume Exposure EPA.

2. Revision 2 of NHRERP provides that " sheltering may not be considered a feasible protective action on the seacoast beaches during the summer."

3. NHRERP, Rev. 2 provides that the seacoast beach population will be directed to evacuate even in the event of a General Emergency in which the remainder of the general pcoulation in a municipality in which a beach is located will be instructed to shelter.

4. In accordance with NHRERP, Revision 2, the seasonal beach population will be directed to evacuate even in those cases where, for the general population, projected evacuation doses are calculated to be higher than projected sheltering doses.

5. The NHRERP, Rev. 2 makes no provision for sheltering the seasonal beach population, except for those persons on the beaches who have to means of evacuating.

6. Evacuation Time Estimates provided in the NHRERP, Revision 2, indicate that evacuation if the beaches within the Seabrook plume exposure EPZ could take up to seven and a half hours.

it'8

)k UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WP NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gp3:33

) f0C TtG 5 In the Matter of ) BRAHUI

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL HAMPSHIRE,-ET AL. )

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Carol S. Sneider, hereby certify that on March 25, 1987 I made service of the within document, by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, by first class-mail, or as indicated by an asterisk, by Federal Express mail, to:

• Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson *Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Third Floor Mailroom Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814

• Dr. Jerry Harbour *Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building Tenth Floor 4350 East West Highway 7735 Old Georgetown Road Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814

• H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.

• Stephen E. Merrill Assistant General Counsel Attorney General Office of General Counsel George Dana Bisbee Federal Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General Agency Office of the Attorney General 500 C Street, S.W. 25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 03301

t

.=

a';

• Docketing and Service Paul A. Fritzsche, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Public-Advocate Commission ' State House Station 112 Washington, DC. 20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Roberta C. Pevear Ms. Diana P. Randall State. Representative 70 Collins Street Town of Hampton Falls Seabrook, NH 03874 Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq.

Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box.516 Washington, DC 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, DC 20555 Paul McEachern, Esq. J. P. Nadeau Matthew T. Brock, Esq. Board of Selectmen Shaines & McEachern 10 Central Road 25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH 03870 P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Mr. Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall Rte. 107 126 Daniel Street E. Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angelo Machiros, Chairman U.S. Senate Board of Selectmen Washington, DC 20510 25 High Road (Attn: Tom Burack) Newbury, MA 10950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter J. Matthews 1 Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Donald E. Chick Mr. William Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913

'e o

Brentwood Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq.

RFD Dalton Road Holmes & Ellis Brentwood, NH 03833 47 Winnacunnet Road

. Hampton, NH 03841 Philip Ahrens, Esq. Diane Curran, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Harmon & Weiss Department of the Attorney Suite 430 General 2001 S Street, N.W.

State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 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 i Town of Exeter Jewell Street, RFD 2 10 Front Street South Hampton, NH 03827 Exeter, NH 03833 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 Allen Lampert Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson Civil Defense Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Town of Brentwood Board Panel 20 Franklin Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, DC 20555 Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Charles P. Graham, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board McKay, Murphy & Graham U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Old Post Office Square Commission 100 Main Street East West Towers Building Amesbury, MA 01913 4350 East West Highway Third Floor Mailroom Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.

Silvergate, Gertner, Baker, Fine, Good & Mizner 88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02110

'ss Rep. Edward.J. Markey, Chairman U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy Conservation-and Power Room-H2-316 House Office Building Annex No. 2 Washington, DC 20515 Attn: Linda Correia

'N h\,gs k 5

- ) h ( C' k.

Carol S. Sneider Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Dated: March 25, 1987