ML20212K716
| ML20212K716 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1987 |
| From: | Brock M, Mceachern P HAMPTON, NH, SHAINES & MCEACHERN |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2290 OL, NUDOCS 8701290161 | |
| Download: ML20212K716 (16) | |
Text
__ _________ _ _ _ - - _ _
21fd d
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
00CKETED DEf0RE THE_ ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD UWC
'87 Jm 27 P4 :13
{
In the matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket No. 50-443-OLT NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al 50-444-OL Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 TOWN OF_HAMPTON_ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT'S PETITION TO REDUCE EPZ I
o PROCEDURAL
SUMMARY
/
On December 19, 1986, the Town of Hampton was served with copies l
of Applicant's Petition requesting a reduction of the EPZ from 10 l
miles to one mile.1 On December 23, 1986, this Board established a deadline of January 27, 1987 for filing objections and opposing affidavits to Applicant's Petition.
I i
l The Town of Hampton, and other Intervenors to this proceeding, objected to the Board's January 27 deadline as grossly inadequate to l
permit meaningful review, comment, or evaluation of Applicant's Petition.2 1
See SEELICANT'S PETITION UNDER 10_CFR Q 758 AND 10 CEE l
SSL31ls1_WITH RESPECT _TQ THE REGULATIONS REOUIRING PLANNING FOR A PLUME _EXEDSUBE_PATEWAY_EMEEGENCY_ELANNING_20NE IN EXCESS _QF A ONE MILE _EADIUE.
2 See TOWN.OF llAMPTON OBJECTION _AND MOTION TO__RECONSIDIE_SCBEDULE l
OE_bEELlCANT'S PETITION, December 24, 1986; SAPL OBJECTION AND MOTION _
EDB_EECDESIDEBATION OF ASLB ORDER OF DECEMBER 23, 1986, December 24, 1986; ATTDENEY_GENEBAL FRANCIS X._ BELLMTI.'S__ OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR BECDNSJDEBATION_.OF DECEMBER 2 3,_. 1 9 8 6 - ORDER SETTIEG_SEEDULE_EDR l
8EELICANT).S_EETITION, December 30, 1986; and NEW_ ENGLAND _CDALITION ON l
NUCLEAE_EDLLUTION!S_0BJICTION TO AND MOTIDN_EDE_EECDESIDEBATION_Of.
pg1290161 G70126 ADOCK 05000443 l
g PDR
,,.),
By MEM9BbEDUM_bSD_ ORDER dOtCd JCnuary 7, 1987, thic Board rejected Intervenor requests for reconsideration of the January 27 deadline for responding to Applicant's Petition.
Inte~rvenors have appealed that decision.3 without waiving any rights or issues raised by Intervenors' appeal, including a right to further time to respond to Applicant's Petition, the right to a full adjudicatory hearing on the merits of Applicant's Petition, and the right to have this Board review Applicant's Petition in accordance with the appropriate standard of proof as established by the Commission's regulations, the Town of flampton hereby responds to Applicant's Petition in compliance with this Board's January 7 ORDER.
EDB20BB_DE lD HILE.EE2_ RULE To obtain a waiver or exception under 52.758, Applicant must demonstrate that application of the 10 mile EPZ rule to Seabr ok Station would not serve the purposes for which that rule was adopted.
S2.758(b).
Accordingly, Applicant's Petition to reduce Seabrook's EPZ to one mile must be reviewed against the Commission's purpose in l
mandating a generic 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone for all nuclear power plants.
l l
~
i LICENS1RG_DDARDlS_MEMORANDUfLAND_DEDER OF DECEMBER 21. 14R 6, dated December 31, 1986.
3 Intervenors NECNP, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Town of Itampton and SAPL's joint appeal of the Licensing Board's supplemental Memorandum and Order of January 7, 1987.
2 t, H A 74( 5 V A [')tf
(', A >e % V ( A f 9 4 Q $4 64 r=.s e m#
.e, e
(
- $4
...m...
l i.
In rc:ponco to thJ cccid:nt ct Thrco Milo Icicnd, th C:mmiccicn authorized an independent study to review, and make recommendations, t
on emergency planning for nuclear facilities.4 The Special Inquiry Group concluded i
i Evacuation must be considered as an independent (emphasis in report) means of ection for citizens living neer a nuclear,. ant, over and ghoyo the engineered safety systems designed to mitigate an accident and to prevent releases.
In the case of siting " distance" should be regarded as the ultimate defense-in-depth barrier protecting those who live near nuclear plants.
Itil_Specini Inquiry _ReppIt, p. 132 (Emphasis supplied).
In promulgating the final rule which mandated a 10 mile EPZ, the h
h Commission itacif recognized the need, addreceed by the Special 0
g Inquiry Group, that emergency planning for a 10 mile EPZ serves as an independent protection to the public, in addition to engineered safety l
l features.
As the Commission reacted to the accident at Three Mile Island it became clear that the protection provided by citing and engineer design features must be bolstrInd by the ability to take protective measures during the cource of an accident.
The accident also showed clearly that on site conditions and actions, cycn_lf_they_.dn not.cauce significant_DLL_Dkts_IDdlDlD9kcal canarquencca, will affect the way the various state and local entitles react to protect the public from any dangers ancociated with the I,
7 TilREE_ti1LE_lSLAND, Yslume.1, ILSepolt_to_thc_ComminoloncIn_ond3 l
thn_Public, Mitchell Rogovin, Director, Nuclear Regulatory Commincion Special Inquiry Group, January 1980 (hereinafter TMI special Inquiry I
Report).
3
.o.....-..,-,~......
La A 6A a y f
e f
e a i sy
- t6q 4
s
cccid:nt.
45 Fed. R:g. 55402, 55403 (Auguat 19, 1980) (Emphasis supplied).
The Commission notes that the regulatory basis for adoption of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) i concept is the Commission's decision to have a conservative amargency planning policy in additioD in_the.conservatiam inherent in the defense in denth_nhilosophy... (Emphasis supplied)
These distances (10 mile plume EPZ and 50 mile ingestion EPZ) are considered large enough to provide a response base that would support activity outside the planning zone should this ever be needed.
45 Fed. Reg. at 55406 (August 19, 1980)
The Commission's statement of purpose for establishing a 10 mile EPZ therefore recognizes that:
1.
Engineered safety systems alone are nat adequate to protect the public health and safety; 1
l 2.
Engineered safety systems must be " bolstered" by emergency planning for a generic 10 mile EPZ, as an independent level of protection to the public, 3.
A generic 10 mile EPZ providen a minimum acceptable "responne base" to ensure that adequate personnel and equipment may be available to promptly respond to an emergency, and 4.
Even annuming an accident doen not "cause significant off site radiological consequencen," a radiological emergency rainen 4
l l
.......,,. ~.,.. -..........
e gesc.twe4 > ag e %; e > ' i mi t e e - 6
- i=
- w +-
a, a..
- se.
t substcntial off sito hoolth cnd ocfoty concorns for tha public, which i
must be addressed through adequate emergency planning.
BIBITE_DE_AEELICAFL'E 2ETITION l
To state the Commission's purpose in establishing a 10 mile EPZ is to recognize that Applicant's petition would violate that purpose, l
would provide unrealistic and inadequate emergency planning for the i
public, and would pose an unreasonable risk to the public health and l
safety.
l
}
First, following Three Mile Island, the Commission reasonably i
i concluded that exclusive reliance upon engineered safety systems, t
- {
without more, would not provide reasonable assurance of adequate i
I protection to the public safety.
By adopting a " defense-in-depth" 1
philosophy through establishement of a 10 mile EPE, therefore, 45 Fed.
f 1:
Reg. at 55406, supra, the Commission ensured that emergency planning t
would provide a separata level of protection to the public.
t 4
j Applicant's proffered claim of the enhanced safety of seabrook l
Station's containment structure is therefore irrelevant as a basis for l
obtaining relief under 52.758.
Clearly the Commission mandated a 10 l
mile EP2 to provide independent protection to the public, Applicant's i
Petition would eliminate this protection and Applicant thereby would j
j contravene the Commission's purpose in establishing a 10 mile EP2.
j i
i i
i 5
l
~
l l
{
.. u. o 4 4... o, t w...
.r,...,..........
..... _... ~. _ -......., _
S:ctnd, Appliccnt'c petitlen r00to up:n a folco prcmiso th t NUREG-0396 serves as the final expression of Commission purpose for establishing a 10 mile EPZ.5 Indeed, NUREG-0396 was published in December 1978, prior to Three Mile Island.
The 10 mile EPZ regulation, howeve'r, was established "as the Commission reacted to the accident at Three Mile Island."
45 Fed.
Reg. at 55403.
Accordingly, the premises and conclusions in NUREG-0396, published in adyanta of the TMI accident, necessarily could not include any information or conclusions derived by the Commission, or its aut3?rized Special Inquiry Group, from an investigation of that accident.
It is therefore unreasonable to assume that NUREG-0396 repeccento a final statement of Commission policy on the purpose and basin for establishment of a 10 mile EPZ.
That purpose should rather I
be gleaned from the expreon statements of the Commission, and its i
Special Inquiry Group, which advocate emergency planning an an independent means of public protection, beyond engineered safety systemn.
By focusing solely on NUREG-0396, Applicant's Petition therefore fails to addreno, and contravence, the fundamental icoconn of TMI, that a 10 mile EPZ procento a minimum level of emergency
{
planning protection to the public.
i j
Third, even if Applicant were correct that NUREG-0396 represents a final statement of Comminnion purpone for the 10 mile EPZ rule,
~
5 NUREG-0396; EPA 520/1-78-016
" Planning basis for the development of ntate and local government radiological emergency renponse plano in support of light water nucicar power plants," December, 1978 (hereafter cited an "NUREG-0396."
6 i
v, 4,, - v u n. a.,,, e a c e..,,,
..,,,,, w.
4.e s,,, n.
.A
Appliccnt'c P:tition wsuld centrov n2 that purp:22.
l I;
Applicant's Petition is based on a claim that protective action l
guide (PAG) dosage levels set forth in NUREG-0396 could be satisfied i
i with a one mile EPZ, in view of Seabrook Station's purported enhanced
)
containment structure.
Applicant ignores the express statements in l
l NUREG-0396 that l
The nature of PAGs is such that they cannot be l
used to assure that a given level of exposure to individuals in the population is prevented..
l this does not mean, however, that doses above PAG l
1evels can be prevented or that Emergency Response i
Plans should have as their objective preventing doses above PAG levels.
Furthermore, PAGs represent only trigger levels and are not intended l
to represent acceptable dose levels.
PAGs are I
tools to be used as a decision aid in the actual response situation.
NUREG-0396 at p. 4.
(Emphasis supplied).
i i
I l
l Accordingly, even prior to the TMI accident, it was clearly recognized that PAGs could not serve as a reasonably accurate basis for emergency planning, but merely represented a " tool" or "ald" in implementing appropriate protective responses during an emergency.
NUREG-0396 acknowledges the inherently imprecise nature of PAGs.
This Board should reject Applicant's efforts to obtain exemption from the 10 mile EPZ requirement based upon such an imprecise planning tool.
l l
Fourth, Applicant's Petition recognizes that NUREG-0396 recommends a 10 mile EPZ since l
Detailed planning within 10 miles would provide a substantial base for expansion of response efforts i
l 7
f
%H A>NG % V AO6ht. A% A Y, [ AChi PN o,- po, W.
si a e. *
- ea.
li in tha sv0nt that this provcd n:ca:scry.
Applicant's Petition, p. 20, citing NUREG-0654.
6 Applicant's claim that a one mile EPZ would permit adequate and 1
appropriate protective responses beyond the EPZ in the event of radiological emergency is wholly unrealistic and borders on the absurd.
Applicant's Petition would eliminate from emergency planning the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the tens of thousands of summer tourists and beachgoers in the Town of Hampton, located less than 2 miles from Seabrook Station.
Accordingly, if evacuation were required from Seabrook, Applicent would have this Board believe that the tens of thousands of beachgoers within Hampton could be adequately and promptly evacuated on a "ad hoc" basis.
It is only realistic to assume that, if the sirens go off, these thousands of individuals would immediately seek to remove themselves from the area, most driving private vehicles, and would promptly render the narrow roadways around Seabrook impassable.
Similarly, of those individuals able to drive away from Seabrook, many would likely exit into Massachusetts, which is located approximately two miles away.
- Again, Applicant would have this Board believe that a major evacuation from a potentially life-threatening emergency could appropriately be handled on an ad hoc basis with the Commonwealth.
This Board should draw the line and deny Applicant the opportunity to engage in further flights of fancy that such ad hoc planning would in fact provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to the public health and safety.
8 so.se s viom<m. ve r ac.m ~.... um -
8 @ # P'. $ W@.7) S e $ "f' I
- O MI 3F P P(M ' % 4*tJ1
'I*
\\ b (.' iD '
Fifth, Applicent would hcvs this Board roturn to tha pro-TMI period when the Commission permitted essentially ad hoc emergency l
planning on a site specific basis.
Ad hoc emergency planning should be rejected since, if accepted, Applicant's Petition would trigger a deluge of petitions from other nuclear facilities, each trumpeting its own " unique" safety features, as a means to avoid the Commission's mandatory health and safety regulations.
In essence Applicant seeks a generic rule change, that emegency planning be conducted on a site specific basis.
Applicant's request must therefore be addressed through rule making rather than a request for waiver under S2.758.
See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) CLI-7440, 8 AEC 809, 814-15, clarified CLI-74-43, 8 AEC 826 (1974); Cleveland Electric Illuminating Power Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and II), LBP-81-57,14 NRC 1037,1038-39 j
(1981).
Additionally, following the TMI accident, the Commission considered and rejected ad hoc emergency planning in favor of a generic 10 mile EPZ "large enough to provide a response base that would support activity outside the planning zone should this ever be needed."
45 Fed. Reg.
at 55406, supra.
As further discussed in NUREG-0396 A principal aim in establishing EPZs is to foster a breadth, versatility and flexibility in response preparation and capabilities in a systematic manner.
From the standpoint of general emergency planning guidance, emergency planning needs seem l
to be best served by adopting uniform Emergency Planning Zones for initial planning studies for all light water reactors.
NUREG-3096 at p. III-8 (emphasis supplied).
9 SH A'Nf'S V AD$hG AN 8 *A.E ACHE PN r em t = w + si as is. ?o%
e
- wae9 e w.xo a,t ste P n nos +
priat w m.n
- r,w 4
.n--
. !!s I!
The Commission has.therefore considered and rejected ad hoc, site specific Emergency Planning Zones for nuclear facilities.
This Board should similarly reject Applicant's Petition.
(yfMER COMPRLLING REASOES In a final argument to obtain relief from the Commission's 10 mile EPZ rule, Applicant claims that "other compelling reasons" require that Seabrook Station be permitted an exemption.
This Board should state clearly that legitimate health and safety regulations are not for sale.
Regardless of any economic harm purportedly suffered by Applicant, that harm provides no basia either in fact or law for authorizing a waiver from valid safety regulations.
See Toledo __ Edison company (David-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units I, II and III),
ALAB-385, 5 NRC 621 (1977).
CONCLUSION Applicant's Petition to reduce the EPZ from 10 miles to one mile representsablatantattemptto'compromisethepublicjafetyin violation of Commission emergency planning regulations.
The Commission acknowledged that certain nuclear facilities might be unable to operate for failure to comply with these more stringent, post TMI safety standards.
The Commission recognizes there is a possibility that the operation of some reactors may be affected by this rule (emergency planning) through inaction of state and local governments or an inability to comply with these rules.
45 Fed.
Reg.'at 55404 (August 19, 1980).
10 swas v40 moas a vaace m.,w
..mcm,-
- U AP. ( MM,d 4 f %i (
.O MOR w e' PO. f S* *O,4= 8.P O W 4
Ii Applicant's Petition represents an admission that Applicant cannot satisfy the health and safety regulations of the Commission.
That failure'on Applicant's part, however, provides no basis in law to provide Applicant a waiver or exemption from the Commission's overriding public safety regulations.
Applicant's Petition should be denied.
Dated:
January 26, 1987 Respectfully submitted THE TOWN OF HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE By Its Attorneys SHAINES A McEACHERN
\\
) f'"'/
\\
/)
i By _ 6m m.
Paul McEachern
{
(
im x
'~
By ' Matthew T. Brock ' '
c 11 i
$>t AINf'S V ADmG. N A % f ACHf RN
- rr
- t < t oN at af we 'a tr%
- warigwcwcat%.t r.ieen ie r mattv& ter
- c-
, a e,
- v
l 09f[{'JO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 JAN 27 P4 :13 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETE.?iND LICENSING BQ&EQ In the matter of
[g[zg[,; 1 nif PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NCW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of TOWN OF HAMPTON MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLTCANJT'S PETITION TO REDUCE EPZ in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, or as otherwise indicated, on this 26th day of January, 1987.
- Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building Fourth Floor 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
- Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board a
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
=
s
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
.
- Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
- 20555 Mrs.. Anne E. Goodman Board of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Road
+-
Durham, NH 03842 William S. Lord, Selectman Town Hall Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Jane Doughty-Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801' Rep. Roberta C. Pevear.
Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of_the Attorney General State House-Station 6 Augusta, ME 04333
- Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
R.K. Gad II, Esq.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon 111 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03105
- Robert G. Perlis, Esq.
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tenth Floor 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda MD 20814 a
2
Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Board of Selectmen Newbury, MA 01950-
- H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20472
- George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Stephen E. Merrill, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General State House Annex Concord, NH 03301
- Carol S. Sneider, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Stanley W. Knowles Board of Selectmen P.O. Box 710 North Hampton, NH 03826 J.P. Nadeau, Selectman Town of Rye 155 Washington Road Rye, NH 03870 Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor City = Hall Newburyport, MA 01950 Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town of Salisbury, MA 01950
, Senator Gordon J. Humphrey U.S. Senate Washington, D.C.
20510 (Attn. Tom Burack)
Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Board of Selectmen Jewell Street RFD 2 South Hampton, NH 03842 3
Allen Lampert Civil Defense Director Town of Brentwood Exeter, NH 03833 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Hampe and'McNicholas 35 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Holmes & Ellis 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842 William Armstrong Civil Defense Director 10 Front Street Exeter, NH.03833 Calvin A. Canney City Manager City Hall 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801
- Edward A. Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
Boston, MA' 02109 Sandra Gavutis Town of Kensington RFD 1, Box 1154 East Kensington, NH 03827 Charles P. Graham, Esq.
McKay, Murphy & Graham 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913 4
n.
- Diane' Curran, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss 2001 S Street N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009-1125 O
k Matthew T. Brock SHAINES & McEACHERN P.O. Box 360 25 Maplewood Avenue.
Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801
- By Federal Express i'
l i
l-5
,.