ML20205N700

Applicant Motion for Summary on Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Contention 34).* Motion Based on Listed Reasons & Eb Lieberman Affidavit.Statement of Matl Facts Not in Dispute Encl

ML20205N700
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/25/1987
From:	Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20205L804	List: ML20205L800 ML20205L934 ML20205M010 ML20205M052 ML20205M092 ML20205M107 ML20205M158 ML20205M198 ML20205M215 ML20205M233 ML20205M646 ML20205M707 ML20205M737 ML20205M753 ML20205M769 ML20205M806 ML20205M871 ML20205M893 ML20205M947 ML20205M981 ML20205N007 ML20205N027 ML20205N064 ML20205N084 ML20205N088 ML20205N112 ML20205N191 ML20205N214 ML20205N234 ML20205N239 ML20205N263 ML20205N267 ML20205N270 ML20205N277 ML20205N282 ML20205N288 ML20205N291 ML20205N296 ML20205N301 ML20205N305 ML20205N311 ML20205N560 ML20205N700 ML20205N814 ML20205N927 ML20205N971 ML20205N977 ML20205P026 ML20205P088 ML20205P126 ... further results
References
RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 OL, NUDOCS 8704030087
Download: ML20205N700 (5)

Text

, _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _

- :w

?} f

x y,

,a Dated: March:25,~1987-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

}. before the

l. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

.)

l In the Matter of )

) . .

l PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL

)- Off-site Emergency

! (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues

( )

)

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

LON i ' SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE (CONTENTION ~NO. 34) i I

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.749, on the basis of the hffidavit of Edward B. Lieberman (SAPL 34), and for the reasons set ,

forth below, Applicants move the Board.to enter an order granting summary disposition in favor of Applicants w'ith; i respect to Seacoast Anti-Pollution-League (SAPL) Contention No. 34.

i-

! REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION

^

SAPL Contention No. 34 reads as follows:

l The New Hampshire State and local plans

do not meet the requirement that there be maps showing the population i distribution around the facility as required at NUREG-0654 J.10.b and

Appendix 4. Therefore, there is no

reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can'and'will be i.

1 s O

6 7

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1) and 50.47(b)(10).

The Affidavit of Edward B. Lieberman filed herewith makes clear that (a) the figures cited in SAPL Contention No. 34 in reference to Table 1 of the local RERP plans are not accurate, (b) population estimates.used in the KLD ETE are based on locally-provided 1985 population figures, with compounded annual rates based on State data for the years 1980 and 1985, and (c) projected 1986 population estimates based on 1984 population estimates provided by the New Hampshire Office of State Planning confirm the validity of those estimates provided by local-sources.

By their attorneys, Th W G.'Dign'a g Jr.

R. K. Gad III Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 l

1 l

l I

1

-6 Y

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE  ;

i i

1. The SAPL Contention No. 34 argues that population figures in Revision 2 of the NHRERP are erroneous. It presents, as a basis for this contention, data which has been presented in prior reports published either by the NRC or previous versions of the NHRERP, which indicate a higher population.

2. The contention references Table 1 of Revision 2 of the NHRERP plans with regard to resident summer weekend and summer midweek populations. It is assumed that this refers to Table 1 of the local RERP plans, entitled " Population of Municipalities Wholly or Partially Within 10 Miles of Seabrook Station." These estimates were culled from information available in Sections 2, 5 and 6 of Volume 6 of ,

the NHRERP.

3. Paragraph 1 of this contention states that "Rev. 2 has reduced this peak number to 142,529 for a summer weekend and 142,929 for summer midweek." This is false. The peak summer weekend population for the New Hampshire towns totals 142,569; the total peak summer midweek population totals 139,929, per Table 1 of the NHRERP local plans.

4. Paragraph 2 of this contention states that " Table 1 in the Rev. 2 plans show the total EPZ peak population for 1986 at summer midweek at 229,726 . . . and the peak summer weekend population at 231,292." These figures are also

J.{

i false. The peak summer weekend population.for the EPZ totals 228,292, and the peak summer midweek population for the EPZ totals 225,726.

5. Population estimates utilized by the ETE were derived from locally-procured Town Clerk estimates in early 1985 based on local. census activities. Compounded annual rates were calculated using State data for the years 1980 and 1985 and are listed at pg. 2-9, Vol. 6. The 1984 population estimates of the New Hampshire towns as provided by the New Hampshire Office of State Planning were also projected to 1986 using the most recent annual growth rate for each town. These estimates are listed on p. E-11, and act to confirm as valid those population estimates provided by the local sources.

6. This contention states the "(t)he area along the coast . . . can be expected to have grown at a rate faster than the country wide average." This statement provides no basis of fact other than an expectation provided by this intervenor. In fact, information regarding local " traffic counts and local business figures" were sought from the Town of Hampton and Chamber of Commerce of Hampton Beach and KLD was informed that no such traffic counts or person counts exist.

7. This contention finds fault with the ETE estimated population by comparing the total estimated EPZ population based on current 1985 local population figures with an a

1 c-estimated 1983 population figure which was developed in 1982. This provides no basis for contention since no conclusion may be made as to the extent current population should exceed an estimate of population.four years dated.

8. The listed figure indicating the estimated peak summer midweek population for the Town of Hampton within Volume 18 was inadvertently mistyped. The current plan has been corrected to replace the figure "34,337" with the figure "31,337." Copies of the corrected page are on file with the NHCDA.

9. Peak population estimates utilized in the ETE represent the total population which may be within a particular town at any one time. The ETE figures may therefore, differ considerably from cumulative traffic counts or local business figures, which may reflect activity over a duration of time.

10. No empirical basis is provided'to support the Intervenor's point of view. The KLD plan details the sources of all population and vehicle estimates. All of the sources are empirical, arising from direct observation from extensive survey results, or from the files of the 23 town clerks.

-