ML20205P391

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Contention RERP-8,Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contention Number 16 & Town of Hampton Contention Viii.*
ML20205P391
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
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: ... further results
References
OL, NUDOCS 8704030254
Download: ML20205P391 (6)
v • d • e


Text

_ __ _

n.

4 Dated: March 25, 1987.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Offsite Emergency and 2) ) Planning Issues)

)

)

)

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF NECNP CONTENTION RERP-8, SAPL CONTENTION NO. 16, AND TOWN OF HAMPTON CONTENTION VIII The Applicants, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.749, on the basis of the facts set forth in the Affidavit of Richard H. Strome on Sheltering, ("Strome Affidavit") the Affidavit of William T. Wallace on Sheltering, ("Wallace Affidavit") and the Affidavit of Anthony M. Callendrello on SWEC Shelter Study,("Callendrello Affidavit") and for the reasons set forth below, hereby move the Board to enter an order granting summary disposition in favor of the Applicants with respect to New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) Contention RERP-8, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League G704030254 870325 PDR O ADOCK 05000443 PDR

l l

(SAPL) Contention No. 16, and Town of Hampton (TOH)

Contention VIII.

REASONS WHY THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED NECNP Contention RERP-8 reads as follows:

"The New Hampshire RERP does not provide a

' reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of radiological emergency,' as required by 10 C.F.R.

. 50.47(a)(1),in that the plan does not provide reasonable assurance that sheltering is an

' adequate protective measure' for Seabrook. Nor does the plan provide adequate criteria for the choice between protective measures, as required by 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.m."

SAPL Contention 16 reads as follows:

"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 therefore the plans fail to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.a. and m."

TOH Contention VIII reads as follows:

" 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. 10 CFR 50.47(1)(8)(10)." i It is clear from that Statement of basis given with respect to TOH VIII, that this contention, like NECNP RERP-8 and SAPL 16, raises the issue of whether there have been appropriate provisions made for sheltering.

As articulated, the contentions seem to assume that the only protective action contemplated for certain segments of the population is sheltering. However, as even a cursory

reading of the Wallace and Strome Affidavits will reveal sheltering is simply one possible protective action which may be utilized. In addition it is to be remembered that any protective action or group of protective actions bein,g i

considered do not have to be shown to achieve any particular i level of protection or certain dose saving under any given set of circumstances. As the Commission has recently stated:

"The existing emergency planning regulation does not require that plans achieve any pre-established minimum dose savings in the event of an accident.

For example, approved emergency plans with full State and local governmental cooperation have highly variable evacuation time estimates ranging from several hours to over ten hours and the projected dose savings for such plans would vary widely. Thus the regulation is inherently variable in effect and there are no bright-line, mandatory minimum projected does savings or evacuation time limits which could be viewed as performance standards for emergency plans in the existing regulations." Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State and/or Local Governments Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning 52 Fed.

Reg. 6980, 6982 (March 6, 1987).

It is upon the foregoing principles that NHRERP Rev. 2 l

is based, Strome Aff. 13, and when these principles are i i

kept squarely in mind, it becomes apparent that the three contentions at bar are wholly without merit. As is apparent from the Strome Affidavit, decisional criteria have been developed for making choices among available protective actions including sheltering. Strome Aff. 11 4, 7. In addition, the plans describe adequate means for notifying i

O the public as to the protective action being invoked.

Strome Aff. 11 5, 6. While the preferred protective action for the transient populations is evacuation, Strome Aff.

1 11, in the ovent that there was an early release, the State is fully prepared to order a " shelter-in-place" protective action. Strome Aff. 1 10. In addition, sheltering in place will be the preferred protective action for those in the institutionalized population such as hospitalized or nursing home patients and those in jail.

Wallace Aff. 1 8.

In addition to all of the foregoing, the Applicants have had a study done to determ'ne i whether or not there is available in the Towns of Seabrook and Hampton public and private places of shelter adequate to accommodate the peak l

beach population. Callendrello Aff. passim. It is clear ,

1 that such shelter is available and will provide ground shielding factors of .1 to .4 and cloud shielding factors from .3 to .8. Id. 11 6, 8.

To sum up: NHRERP Rev. 2 has been premised on the concept that a number of protective actions should be made .

l available to be utilized either in isolation or in ,

combination to achieve the maximum dose savings reasonably l possible; criteria for selection of the appropriate response, including sheltering, have been developed; a shelter study has been done which can serve as a further tool to decision makers in selecting the actions to be

1 I

followed in any given circumstance and confirms the i i

existence of sufficient shelter capacity if needed for the beach populations in Hampton and Seabrook.

By their attorneys, M s G'. Di g n, Jr.

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

1

4 o

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE

1. The NHRERP I,ev. 2 and the Local plans contained therein are all premised on the basic concept that any one or a combination of protective responses will be taken to achieve the maximum dose savings reasonably possible.
2. NHRERP Rev. 2 contains decisional criteria by which the appropriate decision makers can determine which or what combination of protective actions should best be employed given the situation at hand.
3. There exist in place systems for notifying the public as to the protective actions which have been selected.
4. In the event of a early release, the concept of shelter in place may be selected in circumstances when that action would result in the maximum dose savings reasonably possible, and adequate plans have been made for notifying the public when this alternative has been selected.

i

5. Although evacuation of the beach population is the preferred alternative, sheltering is not precluded.
6. The Applicants have had a Shelter Study done which  ;

reveals that there is adequate shelter for the beach populations in the Towns of Hampton and Seabrook should that alternative be selected.

r s

i

. _.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20205P391&oldid=3019273"