ML20206T061

Applicants Response to Atty General Jm Shannon Motion for Partial Summary Disposition on Town of Hampton Revised Contention Viii & Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contention 16.* Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20206T061
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/10/1987
From:	Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20206S995	List: ML20206S990 ML20206T061 ML20206T143
References
OL, NUDOCS 8704230108
Download: ML20206T061 (9)

Text

r

?

+

ISCKETED USNRC 1C/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0FFICE CT SECFi.TARY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKETg3pEin'iCI.

before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) '

)

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

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

) Issues)

)

)

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SilANNON'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ON TOH REVISED CONTENTION VIII AND SAPL CONTENTION 16 Under date of March 25, 1987, the Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has filed'a motion for partial s ui:nc a dir, position with respect to TOH Revised Contention VIII and SAPL Contention 16 ( AG Na ti on ) . One of the difficulties with the AG Motion is that it is not a model of precision as to precisely what issue it wants disposed of l

in summary fashion. Presumably the issue as to which the motion is directed is set forth on page 2 of the AG Motion, whereat it is stated:

"The Attorney General contends that there is no issue of fact with respect to this issue of whether DO O g3 DR l

r e

s.

the NHRERP, Revision 2, provides for sheltering of the seasonal beach population and that as a matter of law this issue must be decided in intervenors favor."

As we understand it the motion is based upon the statements in NHRERP that: " Sheltering may not be considered a feasible protective action on the seacoast beaches during the summer."

AG Nation at 3-4, quoting NHRERP, Rev. 2, Vol. 1. Sec. 2,65 at 2.6-7; Seabrook RERP, Vol. 16 at II-31; North Hampton REREP, Vol 19 at II-26; Rye RERP, Vol. 20 at II-26. (Emphasis supplied). This sentence is then transmuted in the AG Motion to a statement that sheltering will not be considered a feasible protective action during the summer, and then the conclusion is reached that since the only protective action for the ber.ch population is evacuation, this somehow runs afoul of an alleged requirement of the regulations that a

" range" of protective actions be available to members of the beach population. AG Nation at 6-8.

For the reasons set forth below, the Applicants believe the AG Motion should be denied.

ARGUMENT The AG Motion is wrong on its factual premises as well as its law. To begin with, the plan does not say that sheltering will never be considered an option for the beach population. It says it may not in the summer. And even in the 2

h.

summer, it may well be the best option in certain circumstances. For example if an accident occurred at the same time as it was a cool rainy night on the beach and only three people and a dog were there, sheltering might well be the way to go. This is a deliberately chosen extreme example to underline the fact that the Attorney General continues to argue that the only thing that NHRERP should be designed to respond to is a major accident on a sunny Fourth of July.

This is not all it is supposed to do under the regulations.

On a hot sunny Fourth of July if a major accident occurred, there is little doubt that the preferred alternative for the beach population would be a prompt evacuation even before there was a determination that an offsite release would occur at all. And this is what the NHRERP calls for. Indeed it presupposes closing the beaches well before there is a dete.aination that an offsite release will occur. However, as stated by The Director of The New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency:

"Although evacuation of the beach areas is the preferred protective action during the limited times when beach areas can be expected to have high seasonal population (and is, in fact, the protective measure for which specific plans have been developed), sheltering ,

is not precluded." A ffida vi t of Richard H. Strome on Sheltering, para. 11 (March 25, 1987).

3

4 In addition, the A ffida vi t of An thony H. Callendrello on SWEC Shelter Study filed in connection with the Applicants Summary Disposition Motions on March 25, 1987, demonstrates that a shelter study of the relevant area shows that there is, in fact, adequate shelter available for the peak summer beach.

populations. In short the factual premises for the AG Motion simply do not exist Turning now to the legal theory which underpins the AG Motion, it is equally without foundation. The regulations require that a " range" of protective actions for"the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public."

10 CFR 50.47(b)(10). It is the zone, the workers (plural) and the public for which a " range" must be developed. This does not mean that there has to be a number of protective actions for each individual in the zone, or who is a worker, or who is a member of the public. And none of the authorities cited by the Attorney General say to the contrary.

The real thrust of this motion is to once again resurrect the theory that the various Attorneys General of Massachusetts have long tried to assert in this proceeding i.e., that there is some certain " level" of protection or dose reduction which must be demonstrated to be achievable before a plan can be acceptable. However the Commission has made clear on numerous occasions that this is not the case. As recently 4

t as March 6, 1987, the Commission stated:

"The existing emergency planning regulations does (sic) not require that plans achieve any preestablished 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 mandatorv minimum pro.iected dose savings or evacuation time limits which could be viewed as performance standards for emergene.v plans in the existing regulation.

Moreover, the dose savings achieved by implementation of an emergency plan under adverse conditions, e.g., during or following heavy snow , could be substantially less than under perfect conditions. This variability is consistent with a concept ar approach to emergency planning and preparedness that is flexible rather than rigid." Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where Sta te and/or Local Governments Decline to Coopera te in Emergency planning, Proposed Rule, 52 Fed. Reg. 6980, 6982 (March 6, 1987) (emphasis supplied).

In that same document the Commission reiterated what it termed " consistent and repeated" pronouncements "that the 5

t

1 .

fundamental philosophy or approach of emergency planning is to achieve reasonable and achievable dose reduction should an accident occur." Id. (Emphasis supplied). See also Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI 13, 24 NRC __, CCH Nuclear Reg Rep. Para. 30,975 at p.32,012 (1986); Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528, 533 (1983). And "what may be reasonable and feasible for one plant site may not be for another." CLI-86-13, supra at 32,012 The above-described utterances of the Commission admit of only one reading. The only obligation is to come up with the plan that is the best possible in the circumstances.

And if the circumstances are such that a " range" of options is not feasible for certain individuals, so be it.

CONCLUSION The motion should be denied.

A

}

_ - ws Thomas G. Dig Wn, Jr.

George H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for Applicants 6

O.

BGCKETED USNRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..

37 AR117 P2 50 I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on April 10, 1987 I made service of the within document by mailing copies %C bCbth. A thereof, postage prepaid, to: BRANCH Administrative Judge Helen Hoyt, Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire Chairperson Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing George Dana Bisbee, Esquire ,

Board Panel Assistant Attorney General l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Attorney General )

Commission 25 Capitol Street l Washington, DC 20555 Concord, NH 03301-6397 Judge Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l

Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 l Robert Carrigg, Chairman Diane Curran, Esquire Board of Selectmen Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire Town Office Harmon & Weiss Atlantic Avenue Suite 430 North Hampton, NH 03862 2001 S Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009 Atomic Safety and Licensing Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box SIE Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105

! Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333

{.

9 Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor P.O. Box 360 Boston, MA 02108 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S. Senate Chairman of the Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn: Tom Burack) Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter S. Matthews One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Ed Thomas Judith H. Mizner, Esquire FEMA, Region I Silverglate, Gertner, Baker 442 John W. McCormack Post Fine, Good & Mizner Office and Court House 88 Broad Street Post Office Square Boston, MA 02110 Boston, MA 02109

F e

.o Charles P. Graham, Esquire McKay, Murphy and Graham 100 Main Street Araesbury, MA _01913

/

as G.~ Di g Jr.

.