ML20235R499
| ML20235R499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1987 |
| From: | Selleck K PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4557 OL, NUDOCS 8710080077 | |
| Download: ML20235R499 (13) | |
Text
.
c:y ]357 l A
'Septemb 1987
'87 OCT -5 P4 :46 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0FFlC[ Cf ggcj;gj v NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONDUCKEIPU 4 5U'VlfI efWlCH before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, e_t al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
(Offsite Emergency and 2)
)
Planning Issues)
)
i APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON, NEW ENGIAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE AND TOWN OF HAMPTON TO POSTPONE HEARING ON SHELTERING CONTENTIONS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STRIKE APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY ON SHELTERING THE BEACH POPULATION Under date of September 29, 1987, the Attorney General l
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mass AG), on behalf of i
i himself and three other interveners, has filed a " Motion to Postp5qne Hearina on Shelterina Contentions or. In the l
Alternative, to Strike Applicants' Testimony on Shelterina l
Beach Pooulation."
The thrust of the motion is that Mass AG and the other interveners are " surprised" that the testimony of the Applicants filed in this matter asserts that it is possible to shelter the Beach population.
This surprise is l
l alleged even though Mass AG acknowledges that he was placed on notice through what he calls a "self serving" answer to an 8710000077 870930 I
p0$
PDR ADOCK 05000443 0
PDR.
l 1
-___a
f.
3 t' lt interrogatory that it was Applicants' position that sheltering of the Beach population is not an impossibility or a protective action precluded by the NHRERP.
This answer was, incidentally, given on March 18, 1987.
More to the i
point, while Mass AG included in his motion one of the many responses filed by the Applicants to interrogatories on June l
4, 1987, he failed to attach certain others which reveal not 1
only that the Applicants made clear their position as to the viability of sheltering the beach population, but also make clear, from the questions asked, that Mass AG was fully aware of that position.
The interrogatories and their responses are attached hereto.
Interrogatory 43 asked if the Applicants contended that sheltering could be accomplished at all beaches on a peak day and the answer was in the affirmative.
In interrogatory 44 the inquiry was how sheltering instructions would be given to the beach population and the answer was that it would be done via the EBS.
We disclosed the existence of the then extant shelter j
study and details concerning its authorship and methodology in response to interrogatories 45 and 49, and, as revealed from the latter answer the study had been served on all l
parties prior to that date.
It is true that that study did l
not include all 0.9 shelter as does the current one, but the
)
i current one was given to Mass AG as soon as it was generated.
i On March 25, 1987, there was filed in this proceeding an affidavit of the Director of the New Hampshire Civil Defense 2
l 1
J
,-t:
iV Agency.1 Paragraphs 10 and 11 of that affidavit read as
'follows:
l "10.
New Hampshire employs.the " shelter-in-place" concept as a valuable protective measure'that can be implemented quickly, usually in minutes, after'an.early offsite. release of.
radioactivity.
This is an immediate
. measure that provides.for sheltering at the location in which the sheltering instruction is received.
Under the broadest scope of possible scenarios',
housina alona the beach will orovide shelter with a minimum dose reduction factor (DRF) of 0.9.
Section 2.6.5 of the NHRERP. Table 2.6-4 establishes that even wood frame structures with no basement afford a dose reduction factor of 0.9...
"11.
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), shelterina is j
not orecluded." (Emphases added).
i l
For Mass AG and the other interveners to claim that.they are i
surprised by the Applicants' position on sheltering the beach population in the face of the foregoing is nonsensical.
Even if there were surprise, however, it could not possibly rise to the level of a due' process violation as interveners claim since the sheltering issues are next to last to be heard and in all probabily a whole month and most likely two will have elapsed since the filing and before they are heard.
Mass AG's motion further flies in the face of NRC i
i 1 AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD H.
STROME ON SHELTERING (March 25, 1987) j 3
i j
i 1
1 i
precedent.
The law is clear that changes will occur during, and as a result of, the hearing process.
.we have held many times in this proceeding and elsewhere that, while the overall concept and essential elements must be described, a plan need not be formally approved by the pertinent organizations or even final before a reasonable assurance finding can be made.
[ Citing cases]
A fortiori, a olan can be chanced durina the hearina orocess without the crior aooroval of FEMA and other interested entities."
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-863, 25 NRC
, CCH Nuc. Reg. Rep, Par. 31,013 at p.
32,204 (April 17, 1987).
(Emphasis
{
added).
l 1
The interveners' reliance on ALAB-864 issued May 1, 1987 i
in this proceeding is equally misplaced.
Therein the Appeal Board was concerned with the fact that the Licensing Board
)
had ruled that rebuttal testimony would not be allowed and i
I this would preclude the interveners (and the Applicants for
)
that matter) from having any opportunity to use affirmative testimony to rebut the rebuttable presumption of the FEMA findings.
Here FEMA's position is in its canned direct testimony.
It was taken without reference to the Applicants' prefiled testimony.
There is no unfavorable presumption against the interveners extant.
Indeed, in the area under attack, the Applicants are in the position of overcoming FEMA positions that are in favor of that espoused by the interveners.
l 4
- 4:
n CONCLUSION The motion should be denied.
By their attorneys,
/IA TEomis'G.'Dignan, Jr.
George H.
Lewald Kathryn A.
Selleck' Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 i
\\
l 1
l l
1 1
I r
5 c
J
e
\\'
l NASS ATTORNEY GENERAL SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES TO THE APPLICANTS 43.
Do you contend that, at 2:00 p.m., on a peak summer weekend day when beaches are at or near capacity, that sheltering of the entire transient summer beach population can be effectuated at all beaches within the Seabrook Station plume exposure EPZ7
RESPONSE
Yes.
l l
l L/253CC.43
-~
9 n'
MASS ATTORNEY GENERAL SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES TO THE APPLICANTS If the entire transient summer beach population is directed to shelter 44.
3 at a time when beaches are at or near capacity. please state:
How long it would take to accomplish sheltering of the entire a.
transient population:
b.
What, if any, instructions would be given to the transient beach population:
In what manner and by what instrumentation, (e.g., by sirens in c.
voice mode, bullhorns, etc) would instructions to shelter be given to the beach populetion.
RESPONSE
i No time estimate for implementation of sheltering has been done a.
because such an estimate is not required by regulations and planning guidance.
It is normally assumed that sheltering can be implemented faster than evacuation.
b.
General sheltering instructions are contained in NHRERP, Volume 4 Appendix G.
In accordance with Appendix G, these instruction may be modified to provide specific instructions to any segment of the population.
l I
i Instruction to shelter would be given to the beach population via c.
EBS.
i L/253CC.44
________________-______a
I
- '{
i NASS ATTORNEY GENERAL SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES TO THE APPLICANTS Please provide separately for each beach area in the Seabrook Station 45.
plume exposure EPZ. the sheltering capacity in the beach area for the transient population.
RESPONSE
l The sheltering capacity for the transient population in each New Hampshire I
beach area in the Seabrook Station plume exposure EPZ (with shelters having a minimal shielding factor of.8 for cloud shielding and.4 for ground shielding) is provided in "A Study to Identify Potential Shelter in the Beach Areas near Seabrook Station" performed for New Hampshire Yankee.by Stor.e & Webster Engineering Corporation in March 1986.
This study has been served on the parties to this proceeding, i
i j
l l
I L/253CC.45
)
l
)
(
MASS ATTORNEY GENERAL 1
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERA00ATORIES TO THE APPLICANTS 1
I 49.
With respect to the Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. study, dated l
Narch, 1986, and entitled "A Study to Identify Potential Shelters in the Beach
)
l Areas Near Seabrook Station," please:
q identify the person (s) who performed such study:
a, b.
state whether the person (s) who performed such study visited every
{
shelter identified in the study:
.I
(
c.
state whether the person (s) who performed the study consulted with l
all, or some, of the owners of the identified potential shelters.
l or with their agents, and if only some of the owners were con-1 suited with, state for which shelters the owners were, or were not, consulted with:
d.
state whether the owners of all the potential shelters identified in the study all agreed to provide the space indicated in the.
study for the sheltering of transients. and if they did not all so agree, please indicate:
1 1.
how many owners did agree, 2.
identify the shelters for which those owners did agree:
e, state, as precisely as possible, the manner in which the sheltering capacity of each identified shelter was determined (e.g., by viewing the exterior of the building, by viewing the interior of the building, by talking with the owner, etc);
1 f.
state, as precisely as possible, the manner and procedure employed
{
to determine the dose reduction factor of each identified shelter, j
RESPONSE
l l
a.
The study was performed by Donald W. Bell. Senior Nuclear Technology Engineer Carolyn Burns. Nuclear Technology Scientist.
Wu-Hung Peng, Nuclear Technology Engineer and Certified Health Physicist, and Nader Sarivar-Sadri, Senior Nuclear Technology Scientist, of the Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation.
(
b.
The study at page 3 says that each building was visually inspected.
At page 4, the study says "Each potential shelter listed was visited by a health physicist who estimated structure-1 specific cloud and ground shielding factors" L/253CC.49 l
t,'
k
RESPONSE
(continued) c.
Owners of potential shelters were not consulted, d.
It was not the purpose of the study to obtain agreements from owners of structures that were evaluated; therefore, none were
- obtained,
-As noted in the study, shelter capacity was determined by deriving e,
available floor space from tax assessment cards and from visual inspection of the structures.
f.
Page 4 of the study notes that the health physicist estimated the shielding factors using reference 3 as a guide.
Reference 3-is identified on page 8 of the study.
(
l'
[
l i
l L/253CC 49.1
_ _ = _.
t
.c i
DOCKETED U5NRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'I, Kathryn A. Selleck,oneoftheattorneysfor)$e
~
. Applicants herein, hereby certify that on September 30, 1987, I made service of the within document by depo F F C 'IAPY p' M O-copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for d to (or, where indicated, by depositing in the United Sta mail, first class postage paid,' addressed to):
Administrative Judge Ivan W.
Robert Carrigg, Chairman
. Smith, Chairman, Atomic Safety Board of Selectmen j
and Licensing Board Panel Town Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atlantic Avenue j
Commission-North Hampton, NH 03862 j
East West Towers Building l
' 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 I
Judge Gustave A.
Linenberger Diane Curran, Esquire j
Atomic Safety and Licensing.
Andrea C.
Ferster, Esquire i
Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 430 Commission 2001 S Street, N.W.
East' West Towers Building Washington, DC 20009 4350 East West Highway Beth'esda, MD 20814 1
Dr. Jerry Harbour.
Stephen E. Merrill Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General East West Towers Building 25 Capitol Street 4350 East West Highway Concord, NH 03301-6397 q
Bethesda, MD 20814 i
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 Commission East West Towers Building Tenth Floor 4350 East West Highway 7735 Old Georgetown Road l
Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O.
Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105
{
Washington, DC 20555
)
1 i
1 l
I:.
p.
p V
l Philip Ahrens,-Esquire Mr.
J.
P. Nadeau p
Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office L
Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 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 Route 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 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 J.
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 1
Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 _
l l
l
)
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 Charles P.
Graham, Esquire l
McKay, Murphy and Graham 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913 A
/
Ra' thy'yn A. Ss11eck v
(*= Ordinary U.S.
First Class Mail.)
i l
'l l
l )
I l