ML20236V234
| ML20236V234 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1987 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4934 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8712040175 | |
| Download: ML20236V234 (9) | |
Text
- - _ _
gqpl
\\
r.
OgMfTED BD 11/25/87 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'07 WV 27 P3:50 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
,pggy ;;-
Docyt; w; Before Administrative Judges:
,a.,.
Ivan W. Smith, Chainnan Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour SERVED NOV 3 01987 In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-0L PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
(ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, g al.
)
(Offsite Emergency Planning)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
November 25, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Attached for service upon the parties is a November 19, 1987 statement of the Honorable Robert C. Smith, United States Congressman from New Hampshire to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Congressman Smith's statement is placed upon the public record of this proceeding.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD k
Ivan W. Smith, Chainnan ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland November 25, 1987
!PJ nas Bl!!![p v
4 50 a
u wasmNotom omcE
'a.
ROIERT C. SMITH 4
ist DistmCT NEW MAMPSWRE
$ CANNON BUI o CouMITTEES.
. (2021 225 5456 pggg [
g Mgh Mgg SCIENCE ANo TECHNOLOGY o,staict omets AL STREE7
. VETERANS' AFFAIRS 3{coMM JBashington, EC 20513
" *g";",7 "g,"'"
i603 742 4404 Statement of Representative Robert C. Smith (NH-1)
- 'Ils'"1E"/"'
'o o"
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety s
and Licensing Board Hearings on
~Ew AugsmRE Toto EE ~uvua New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan
' * *258'"
November 19, 1987 Summary As a resident and representative of New Hampshire, U.S. Congressman H
Robert C. Smith and his First Congressional District constituency are directly affected by emergency planning for the Seabrook nuclear power plant 3
located in Seabrook, New Hampshire.
Representative Smith's interest in i
submitting written testimony for consideration by the Atomic Safety and l
Licensing Board (ASLB) is based on his desire to ensure protection of the i
rights, welfare, and safety of New Hampshire citizens.
The Seabrook plant has been held to the highest standard of any nuclear plant in the United States, and Representative Smith believes it is probably the safest nuclear power plant ever built in the country as a result.
Throughout-its construction and during the on-site emergency preparedness proceedings, the Seabrook plant has successfully met increasingly stringent licensing and safety standards.
Now in the last stages of the licensing process, the applicant and the State of New Hampshire have before them the greatest challenge encountered
]
to-date in the licensing process.
In short, there are unique emergency preparedness needs which must be met in off-site emergency plans developed for the New Hampshire Seacoast area.
In this respect, among the preparedness issues the ASLB must give I
special attention to in its review of the New Hampshire radiological emergency response plan (RERP), Representative Smith views emergency planning for the summertime tourist population and the beach areas as perhaps the most challenging ensergency planning aspect.
Representative Smith believes that a fair and open hearing process which emphasizes public safety must include consideration of testimony by people whose safety is the subject of the hearings. As well as placing written comments submitted by New Hampshire citizens in the public record of the hearing, Representative Smith believes the ASLB should include these comments in the formal evidentiary record, in order that citizen input can be examined in the event ofin appeal of the Board's ruling.
Additional recommendations by Smith include consideration of proposed highway improvements to reduce evacuation time estimates (ETEs); ensuring accurate measures to identify and transport special needs populations; and consideration given to closing the plant during summer months pending
A resolution of beach population sheltering and evacuation issues.
Seabrook Unit 1 is complete. The New England region, one of the fastest-growing in the country, needs energy for its future.
Representative Smith believes that the Seabrook plant can and will provide that energy, at such time as adequate protection for New Hampshire residents is achieved.
i
.= _ - -.
% Let me first extend my appreciation once again to Douglas Scamman, Speaker of the New Hampshire House and William Bartlett, President of the.
. Senate, for opening the State House to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
I am pleased to be able to provide the Board with testimony for these hearings to assess the radiological emergency response plan (RERP) submitted by the State of New Hampshire for the 17 New Hampshire communities in the Seabrook plant's evacuation planning zone (EPZ).
As-the Board is well aware, the most recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) technical review awarded the Seabrook facility high marks for plant construction, quality assurance, and on-site emergency preparedness. The focus of New Hampshire citizens' demand for high standards of safety in the licensing process for the plant has shifted to the off-site emergency preparedness issues that are the primary topic of the ASLB proceedings and my comments which follow.
The role of off-site emergency planning in nuclear power plant licensing has grown significantly more important and complex over the last eight years as a result of lessons learned from the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in 1979.
I believe Congress took the prudent and necessary course in passing the legislation (P.L.96-295) that has brought us together in these proceedings, as it made operating licenses for nuclear power plants absolutely dependent upon an NRC finding that emergejcy plans can and will protect public health and safety.
In New Hampshire, off-site emergency planning was initiated with 1981 passage of RSA 107:B with the State Emergency Response Agency as the lead agency. The New Hampshire RERP was exercised in February, 1986, and reviewed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
In its critique, FEMA cited >henomenal progress made by the State since 1981 and the high quality of tie state and utility Emergency Operations facilities.
FEMA also praised the radiological health monitoring and assessment component of the New Hampshire RERP. Since the February 1986 drill, the State Emergency Planning Agency has continued to up-date and improve the RERP pursuant to FEMA regulations (44 CFR 350.9) requiring that aspects found deficient during the 1986 exercise be corrected before the State can win FEMA approval of the plan.
I recently joined my New Hampshire Congressional Delegation colleagues in sending a letter to FEMA Director Julius Becton, expressing strong support for the role of the Agency in the ASLB hearings. With its assigned expertise in emergency preparedness, the full and objective participation of FEMA has been, and remains, critical to those of us aggressively advocating public health and safety concerns in the licensing process.
Turning to the matter of participation of those citizens whose health and safety is the focus of these proceedings, as you recall, I petitioned the Board in August,1987, to allow oral testimony from the general public j
)
a
, during these quasi-judicial hearings. However, with limited exception, this request-to allow oral public testimony has been denied. The Board instead ruled that written comment from the public would be admitted into the public record on these proceedings, separate from the evidentiary record. The Board's Memorandum Concerning Public Appearances At Hearing, outlines how public comment will be used to identify additionaT~ areas w)ere the evidentiary record shoirld be developed.
First, a valuable opportunity to foster a spirit of cooperation with the New Hampshire people is lost to the Board with these decisions.
Moreover, in the event that the Board's recommendation on these proceedings is appealed by participating parties, citizens' comments used by the Board to expand the evidentiary record will be reviewed in the appeal only if they are part of the evidentiary record itself.
Local citizens that live near the Seabrook plant have valuable knowledge to share with the Board about the highway system, traffic conditions, and the capabilities of their towns. The State of New Hampshire's future is at issue in these proceedings and the New Hampshire people deserve a process that emphasizes their safety and that is fair and open to them. The most recent opportunity that the general public had to testify.before the Board on off-site emergency planning issues, other than through their elected officials, was back in 1985.
I believe continued public involvement is crucial because confidence in the federal licensing process carries over into confidence in the Seabrook plant itself. This kind of assurance is gained when people can participate at every available opportunity in the licensing process. When the is called into question, then the objectivity of the licensing process. lose faith in the federal agency opposite is true and people begin to responsible for carrying out the process. That hurts all of us.
Moving on to the specific planning issues raised in the hearings, again, public safety must be the sole focus.of the Board's deliberations.
Certainly there are other factors that carry weight in the total Seabrook equation, including strong public sentiment, both pro and con, for the plant. Economic factors include the effect of the plant on ratepayers, the
$1 million a day in interest payments alone accruing as the plant sits complete but idle and the uncertain financial status of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, the Seabrook plant's largest owner. These are important issues.
I simply and honestly believe that they have no place in these hearings in what is so clearly a safety decision. That decision is whether the New Hampshire RERP can adequately protect the public in the event of a radiological emergency.
I might add that emergency plans for other, operating nuclear power plants in this country have been used to protect communities in the case of hurricanes and chemical spills.
As you probably know, the Seabrook plant has been held to the highest standard.of any nuclear plant in the United States, and I believe it is
m
! probably the safest nuclear power plant ever built in the country (or even the world) as a result. Throughout its construction and during the on-site emergency preparedness proceedings, the Seabrook plant has successfully met or exceeded increasingly stringent licensing and safety standards.
Nevertheless, off-site emergency planning for the New Hampshire Seacoast area is perceived to pose unique emergency planning uncertainties.
The New Hampshire Seacoast is a major summer vacation area, with several miles of public beaches within the EPZ, and on a weekend in July it can take hours for day trippers to leave the Seacoast area. The State of New Hampshire has made great and responsible strides in planning for the 17 New Hampshire communities, however, many 1ccal citizens continue to honestly believe that the area cannot be safely evacuated during the peak of the summer tourist season.
For example, in July, the Hampton, New Hampshire, Police Association voted the plans to be " totally unrealistic, unworkable, and insupportable."
Moreover, in a survey of over 300 teachers in 15 schools in the Seacoast, only 7% said they would cooperate with the plan. The State of Massachusetts refused to submit emergency plans for the six towns in Massachusetts that lie within the emergency planning zone (EPZ) for Seabrook.
Finally, the towns of Hampton, North Hampton, Hampton Falls, Kensington, and Rye have indicated that they will not actively participate in the planning and response for a possible accident at the Seabrook plant.
I am impressed by the intensity of the arguments about aspects which There have been may be unique to emergency planning for the Seabrook plant.
some excellent points raised. That is why I joined my fellow New Hampshire Delegation colleagues in a letter to Chairman Zech dated November 3rd, stating our view that public confidence would be best served if the NRC delay low-power testing at the Seabrook plant untti we have some indication that emergency planning issues can be resolved.
In my view, this approach makes sense in getting the plant on line.
I am aware that technically, from a low-power safety standpoint, the NRC can approve low power testing before off-site plans are approved. However, as NRC approval of emergency plans is required for a full-power license, it seems logical in getting the plant on line to resolve public concern and doubts about emergency planning issues first, and then proceed with low This is prudent to me also from a financial standpoint, that power testing.
the costs incurred at the plant not be unnecessarily increased further until we know that public safety considerations involved can and will be resolved.
While the applicant understandably sees a low power license as another step to be met in the process, and although I consider the two situations to be very different, nonetheless the Shoreham plant received its low power license in July,1985, and has yet to win full power approval because of its In Shoreham's case, rather than own set of emergency planning concerns.
helping to get the plant on line, it seems low power testing approval served i
i
-_---___.__m.._..___
d
. to anger citizens that the NRC had not ret,olved evacuation issues first.
It would be unfortunate, I believe, for this to happen to Seabrook.
FEMA, as I believe you know from its staff, also recognizes that special attention to sheltering for the beach areas and summer residents who inhabit unwinterized accommodations on or near the beach is needed.
In an earlier effort to accommodate these kind of concerns, Seabrook owners f
voluntarily offered to shut down Seabrook Station during the summer months pending an independent study of sheltering issues and options. Although this offer has never been withdrawn, its positive implications for emergency planning in the area have not been thoroughly explored. While it is not a panacea for every issue before the Board, I believe it may be valuable in alleviating many of the New Hampshire emergency planning concerns expressed by FEMA and citizens in their testimony.
Seabrook Station is in the First Congressional District, and my constituents and I are directly affected by proposed off-site emergency
~ planning for the plant. My interest in this aspect of the licensing process is based on my desire to ensure the protection of the rights, welfare, and safety of New Hampshire citizens.
In closing, in my capacity as an elected official I would like to present a series of recommendations for consideration to the Board. These include:
Ensuring that special needs populations are accurately identified and proper transportation provisions have been made, including nursing home residents, school children, people without transportation means, and large public gathering areas such as campgrounds and the Seabrook Greyhound Park.
Assurance of necessary support provisions for reception centers in the host cities of Manchester, Rochester, Dover and Salem. This includes adequate equipment, personnel and training to support monitoring and decontamination i
operations for the anticipated number of evacuee arrivals in a 12-hour period. For examnle, although Manchester firefighters have been trained to work with radiation detection equipment, the president of Firefighters Local 856 has cited several tasks listed in the Letter of Agreement with the City of Manchester in which city firefighters need training.
Affirmation that adequate personnel will be made available by the state to compensate for both the non-participation and limited availability of emergency response personnel in local communities, including alternates and I
second shift responsibilities.
In poring over the hundreds of requirements and provisions, the Board should pay particular attention to logistics such as having plenty of readable and accurate maps on hand to distribute to transportation personnel.
The realistic ability of the road network in the Seacoast to accommodate population demands during New Hampshire's four seasons and various weather contingencies is a major factor in how rapidly an evacuation could be t
~c
. completed.
I support highway system improvements which will provide incremental reductions in evacuation time estimates out to 10 miles.
These proceedings should be a dynamic process in which citizen's comments are included in the evidentiary record.
It seems to me that an accurate and complete overview of the issues cannot be reached in your deliberations if public comment is considered exclusive from, and less than, technical emergency planning experts. The Board has a new opportunity to demonstrate the importance it places on public participation in the licensing process by including written testimony received from the public in the formal evidentiary record of testimony and incorporating suggestions from these people on how the RERP can be improved in the Board's recommendations.
Until such time as adequate sheltering can be provided and evacuation issues can be resolved, I am recommending that the Board consider a formalization of the applicant's longstanding sumer shutdown proposal pending an independent review of summer population issues for the purpose of establishing recommendations on how these issues may be resolved. As part of such a formalized agreement, the applicant would have to consent to implement the independent recommendations.
It is my understanding that the evacuation time estimates would change considerably under the summer shutdown scenario and there is less potential for any off-site consequences.
In my opinion, the summer shutdown proposal that the applicant has previously indicated its willingness to comply with would make workable many of the more difficult emergency planning aspects before FEMA and the Board.
In practice, it would allow the Seabrook plant to operate for, at most, 10 months of the year until such time as adequate sheltering or other emergency planning recommendations were in place that resolved the beach population issues.
As I outlined above, because of my concern about resolution of evacuation safety issues I requested, with the New Hampshire Delegation, that the NRC defer low power licensing until such time as these matters were resolved.
A formalization of the applicant's longstanding, summer shutdown offer, for example from July to Labor Day for a period of 3 to 5 years, would address the concerns I have mentioned in my testimony with moving forward on low-power testing of the plant.
It is unlikely that this would pose an unworkable hardship to the operation of the plant, or the applicant would not have made this offer when it did two years ago.
In my opinion, while it is not a panacea for all of the emergency planning issues before the Board, bringing the applicant's summer shutdown proposal back to the table would by and large address the main stumbling block of the New Hampshire RERP, providing for the safety of summer beach populations. The applicant would then be able to proceed
3'
,/ l toward full-power with this as a condition of licensing.
Let me reiterate an important point I made with my New Hampshire Delegation colleagues t a letter to Julius Becton, Director of FEMA.
That is, safety and public confidence and the law require a workable evacuation plan be in place before the Seabrook plant goes on line. The importance of these hearings is their' focus on the factual evidence of the New Hampshire RERP's ability to protect the public. Their purpose is to gather a record that instills public confidence that adequate planning provisions have been 1
i made. The impact of that record will play a significant role in determining public confidence in Seabrook's operation.
I believe that several of the emergency planning issues which I have outlined in my testimony certainly may be unique to New Hampshire. They are not unresolvable, however, and I have made recommendations in this regard to the Board.
Importantly, they have to be resolved by the Board in such a way that public safety is not perceived to be compromised for the sake of putting the plant on line. My interest in the Seabrook plant and in these proceedings has always been, and remains, bringing the Seabrook plant on line in a common sense manner with utmost consideration given to compliance with federal safety standards.
I believe that is what the majority of New Hampshire citizens expect of this process.
- Signed, Robert C. Smith, M.C.
l
.- __.__._____._._.___ _ _ _