ML20210E634
| ML20210E634 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1987 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2465 OL, NUDOCS 8702100333 | |
| Download: ML20210E634 (8) | |
Text
-
pf5:
Filed:
February 6, 19EfhE0 s
UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOAk b
In the matter of:
50-443 OL I[([Y d b PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket No.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET-AL (Seabrook Station, Unit 1)
Offsite Emergency Planning
& Safety Issues Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Second Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Applicant's Petition Under 10 CFR 0 2.758 and 10 CFR % 50.47(c)
For Reduction in the Size of the Seabrook Station Plume Exposure EPZ Under Date of January 27, SAPL filed its Brief Opposing the Applicants' Petition to reduce the size of the Seabrook Station plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).
SAPL was unable to complete briefing all the arguments it desired to present by the Board's deadline date, and on January 29, 1987 filed its First Suppl emen t al Br i e f.
At th is t ime, SAPL of f ers its Second Supplemental Brief in Opposition to the Applicant's Petition.
SAPL's January 27 th Br i ef, and at tached af f idavi t s, demons t ra t ed l
l that a prima facie case for a 10 CFR 62.758 waiver had not been i
i established either as a mat ter of law or on the basis of the af fidavits i
.)
i' s ubmi t t ed by t he appl i can t s.
It f ur ther demons t rated that no showing l
l for a specific exemption under either 950.47(c)(1) or $50.12(a) had been made.
I 8702100333 870206 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
PDR j) So3
[l.
SAPL's First Supplemental Brief went on to demons trate that the i
Applicants' attempt to seek relief under 650.47(c)(1) was, on its
- face, insufficient since that section had no application to the particular regulations f rom which the Applicants are seeking relief.
SAPL now files this Second Supplemental Bricf to demonstrate that the Applicants' Petition actually seeks, not merely a tenfold reduction in the Seabrook Station Plume EPZ'(which would be a 99
. percent reduction of the area of the EPZ), but in f act the Applicants are,. seeking to eliminate virtually all offsite emergency planning requirements for Seabrook, and that no basis for a 2.758 waiver of t rie Commi s s i on 's o f f s i t e 'eme r gen cy pl a nn i ng has been made.
I.
A One Mile Seabrook EPZ Would Eliminate Virtually All Offsite Planning.
Applicants' Petition is cast in terms of seeking a reduction of the generic ten mile EPZ for Seabrook Station to a one mile EPZ. However, in f act what the Applicants seek is the elimination of any meaningful offsite planning whatsoever.
There is attached to this Second Supplemental Brief a map showing the site environs with radial distances f rom one to five miles. This map was provided by the Applicants, through a consultant, Wilbur Smith & Associates, as par t of a s tudy ent itled " Roadway Network and Evacuation Study, Seabrook, New Hampshire, December 1984".
The document was Exhibit 8 in the construction permit proceeding.
It will be noted that the one mile radius from the Seabrook reactor does not even extend to the nearest highway, U.
S.
Route 1 or La f ayet te Road, except for one spot to the west and slightly north of the site, where the one mile circle appears to just touch the centerline of the highway for a brief distance.
A one mile EPZ does l
not therefore even extend to the plant's main gate, which is on Route 1, but slightly. south of the point where the one mile circle touches Route 1.
Thus, a one mile EPZ would as a practical matter eliminate all offsite emergency planning at Seabrook.
At the time of the construction permit, Seabrook was to have a.
3,000 foot exclusion zone (See 3 NRC at 863), and a one and a half mile low population zone (LPZ).
On appeal, the one and a half mile LPZ was subsequently reduced by the Appeal Board to one and a quarter mile New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v.
NRC 852 F2d 87 (1st Cir. 1978).
ALAB-422.
Now it is proposed to have an EPZ even smaller than the old, since disavowed, LPZ for Seabrook.
The proposed EPZ would, as the attached map shows, actual y add little more area than that already encompassed within the plant's f enced in boundary, and to the extent that it would cover more territory, the territory would almost entirely consist of tidal marshes, streams, and mud flats.
To authorize an EPZ smaller than the LPZ would thus be an astounding result, because the LPZ itself was based upon certain anticipated deses, (and doses higher than the Protective Action Guide " Trigger i
Doses" for protective action), at the LPZ boundary, in the event of l
a design basis accident.
10 CFR 0100.11(a)(2).1 The concept behind establishing a generic plume EPZ of "about i
10 mi l es",
by constrast, was to provide " dose savings" (and in some l
j cases immediate lifesaving) for a spect rum of accidents, that could l
1.
The LPZ doses, according to 6100.11(a)(2), were that a person at l
the boundary would not receive, during the entire plume passage, j
more than 25 rem whole body or 300 rem to the thyroid.
The PAG higher limi t " trigger" levels for taking protect ive act ion are 5 rem whole body, or 25 rem to the thyroid. 1 y.
produce of f s i te doses in excess of Protect ive Act ion Guides (PAGs)."
NUREG-0654, Page 6.
If a one.and a quarter mile LPZ was necessary to establish the limits for which protective actions could be taken f or a design basis accident,. It surely.must follow, as night follows day, that a one mile EPZ is inadequate for the worse than design basis accidents which the EPZ concept was created to, at least in part, address.
II.
Since the Applicants' Petition would, as a practical
- matter, eliminate all offsite emergency planning at Seabrook, the issue under a 02.758 waiver petition is not only whether the purpose for which the generic EPZ was established would be disserved, but also whether the purpose for requiring any of f site emergency planning would be disserved.
Applicants' Petition presumes that the issue is whether the shrinking of the plume EPZ is appropriate because of their claim that a ten mile EPZ is "not necessary" at Seabrook due to Its claimed unique design features.
The real issue, however, is whether all requirements for of fsite emergency planning should be waived because it.is claimed by the Applicants to be "not necessary".
Indeed, even this does not state the real issue.
As SAPL's original brief and the briefs of the other intervenors have all demonstrated, the " sole ground" for a waiver of a regulation is that f
application of the regulation, in this case the offsite emergency planning regulations, 650.47(a)(b), and (c)(2) would not serve the purpose for which the rule or regulation was adopted.
l l l I
l l
l
S g;.
Correctly stated, the issue raised by Applicants' Petition answers i tsel f.
How could one conclude that application of the Commission's regulations requiring offsite emergency planning will not achieve the purpose of those regulations, which is:
"To provide dose savings, (and in some cases immediate lifesaving) for a spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of Protective Action Guides."
NUREG-0654, Page 6.
The proposition advanced by the Applicants is thus absurd.
(Its absurdity is demonstrated, in f act, by the Applicants having agreed to continue funding emergency planning by the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency out to a distance of 10 miles by means of the proposed " contract" with that agency, forwarded to this Board wi th the New Hampshire Attorney General's response to the Applicants' Petition.
This is a concession by the Applicants that 10 mile emergency planning does not disserve the enhancement of nuclear safetyor"dosesavings.")
CONCLUSION The issue raised by the Applicants' Petition, correctly stated, is that t he en t i r e of f s i t e eme rgency pl ann i ng r equ i r emen t s of t he Commi ss ion 's regulations can be dispensed with at Seabrook because emergency planning at Seabrook will not achieve " dose savengs" in the event of an accident, i
including accidents that may be more severe than the so-called design basis accident.
No such showing has been made by Applicants, regardless of the definit ion
. of "pr ima f acie case" one may choose.2 The Applicants' Petition should be dismissed promptly, finally, and with prejudice.
2.
SAPL of course joins with the Staff, the Massachusetts Attorney General, and the other intervenors in urging that the prima facie definition offered by the Board is inadequate as a matter of law.,
_ _ ~. _ _ -.
Respretfully submitted
.I Seccoast Anti-Pollution Lecgue By its attorney, BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON b
,W ) '4 - gg._.
Ropeet A.
Backus
/P. O.
Box 516 116 Lowell Street Manchester, N.H.
03105 6 - 272 DATE:
February 6, 1987 I hereby certify that a copy of the within Second Supplemental to SAPL's Brief in Opposition to Applicants' Petition Under 10 CFR 62.758 and 10 CFR 650.47(c) For Reduction in the Size of the Seabrook Station Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ has been sent this date, first class, postage prepaid, to all parties on the attached service list.
f-fg
,/
- }[f /W~ ^
Robert A.
Backus b
4
}
I i
- U{i.f5&;G.
1-O k
HAMPTON 4
gg E X G T E A s,
f
.,4,.
- h6 yg_
y
~
~
3 h _.
~ _ _
y
]$
t,
's 3,
j
~~_
t
,f
[
j
$ y[. 8 )
VA/
7
'j f
H_.A M P? O N
(
s-mi "2
r* A 5
4 MPTC S..,
s e )f,
4 J
- M 2
-- m
?>
s f
]
f f
'A
[]
- %gj
(.._,s j.~.
l If h
b 0#
% 3,,
I
' ~ ~ ',-
.1.;
p
. g*
^^
' ' ' ~ ~ ~.
SC JTH
^
'l s
HAM 3TCN t<y]
\\
-?,
~
l Y
s
-y
[
y w
=.
a.
9
(
$*1
x
/
4
/
~
l
- g y
o j
e p,%
^
s i
h$
<p, 4
-p s
(
f w
j\\
f,.
Y e
.*f7 (IA y
- c.,o; \\
+
?
\\
h
- hh'
%...,. a
=
- y q
..S,i m,.
r' w L. I 5 BUR Y r
\\
t z
f
- ' s %
','g
+]
_Q l
[
[,
ho s
gp s,\\
\\
3N
/.
h J
}
\\'N;r,
.a s
y fd) y
~ s w a u., v a e s N
._n -
PEDESTRIAN EVACUATION OF BEACH AREA TIME = 1 HOUR r
SEABROOK NEW HAMPSHIRE ua. w u FIGURE A-15 l
i
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND SERVICE LIST Jose Asst.Gn.Cnsl.
Helen Hoyt. Chm.
Fsd. ph Flynndgmt. Agcy.
Aden. Judge Ropes & Gray Thomas Dignan, Esq. *
- Emerg, 500 C.St. So. West Atomic Safety & Lic Brd.
225 Franklin St.
-Washington, DC 20472 USNRC Boston, MA 02110 Washington, DC 20555 Office of Selectmen Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Town of Hampton Falls Admin. Judge Docketing & Serv. Sec.
Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Lic Brd.
Office of the Secretar3 USNRC USNRC Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 hegdn E. M, M.
Office of Exec. Legl. Dr.
Gustave K. Linen b e rg e r
5 Market Street USNRC Portsmouth, NH 03S01 Washington, DC 20555 Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
Paul McEachern, Esq.
Ceorge Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Asst. Atty. General Matthew Brock, Esq.
Attorney General's OFF.
State House, Sta. #6 25 Mapleucod Ave.
State of New Hampshire Augusta, ME 04333 P.O. Box 360 Concord, NH 03301 Portscouth, hE 03801 Carol Sneider, Esq., Asst. AG Diane Curran, Esq.
William S. Iord One Ashburton Place, Harmon, Weiss Board of Selectmen 19th Floor 20001 S Street NW Suite 430 Town Hall-Friend St.
Boston, MA 02108 Washington, DC 20009 Amesbury, 314 01913 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Maynard Young, Chainmn Sandra Gauvutis New Hanpshire Civil De2ense Board of Selectnen Town of Kingston Agency 10 Central Road Box 1154 Harpe & McNicholas Rye, h3 03870 East Kensington, NH 03827 35 Pleasant St.
toncord, hTi 03301 Judith H. Mizner, Esc.
Edward Thorns Mr. Robert Harrison Silverglate, Gertner,'
FBIA Pres. & Chief Exec. Officer Bak:r, Fine, Good & Mizner 442 J.W. McConmck (POCH)
PSCD 88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02109 P.O. Box 330 Boston, MA 02110 Manchester, NH 03105 Gary W. Hcraes, Esq.
Roberta Pevear Holmes & Ellis Atcmic Safet and Licensing 47 Winnacunnet Road State Rep.-Town of Ha.gt Falls Appeal Panel
- Drinkwater Road USNBC Hampton, NH 03842 Hanpton Falls, NH 03844 Washington, DC 20555 Sheldon J. Wolf, Esq. Chmn Charles P. Grahan, Esq.
Administrative Judge McKay, Murphy-and Graham Atcmic Safety and Lic. Brd, 100 Main Street USNBC Amesbury, MA 01913 Washington, DC 20555