ML20244C254

Applicant Objection in Nature of Motion in Limine to Admission Into Evidence of Testimony of G Thompson,Rl Goble & J Beyea on Behalf of Atty General for Commonwealth of Ma on Contentions Re Adequacy Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20244C254
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/10/1989
From:	Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#289-8448 OL, NUDOCS 8904200113
Download: ML20244C254 (10)

Text

gne-- -

1

• 00CKETED

' ' U%RC April 10, 1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $9 APR 14 P152 4, -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g;g , , l

. bGCi Tw-before the <1 1

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the~ Matter of' )

)

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

_ )

,(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Offsite Emergency j and_2) ) Planning Issues)

)

APPLICANTS' OBJECTIGN IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION l

IN LIMINE TO THE ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF

' TESTIMONY OF:DR. GORDON THOMPSON, DR. ROBERT L. GOBLE, l

I AND DR. JAN-BEYEA ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ON CONTENTIONS s .

REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE SPMC The Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (MAG) has. filed certain proposed testimony entitled: " Testimony of Dr. Gordon Thomoson, Dr. Robert L.

-Goble. and Dr. Jan Bevea on Behalf of the Attorney Gener,al for The Commonwealth of Massachusetts on Contentions Reaardina the Adeauacy of the FEMC" (the Testimony). The Applicants object to the admission of the Testimony into l

evidence for the reasons set forth below.

I Despite a dissertation specifically included to state that the Testimony is different than the so-called "Sholly" 1

890410 dh T kh05000443 PDR p

.i

(, . .

i

. testimony excluded during the NHRERP phase of the hearings, Test at 9-11,1 the fact is that the Testimony suffers from I the same infirmities as "Sholly" as is: illustrated by the .

following. described portions thereof.

At PageL16 of.the Testimony, the following statement-appears:

"We do not accept that the objective of an emergency plan for the Seabrook plant, or for any other. nuclear plant should be simply to achieve an unspecified level of

__' dose savinas ' . d' (Emphases added).

At Page 43 of.the Testimony it is said:

"A single measure of effectiveness such  !

as ' dose savings' is not adequate to characterize emergency preparedness."

On Page 44 of the Testimony, it is stated that " Tables 4 through 6 and Figures 1 through 3 summarize the results of our. assessment." It should be noted that the " assessment" is the heart of the Testimony, everything else being mere wrapping paper. If one'looks at these Tables and Figures, j l-one finds that.in each case save 1,2 what is portrayed in either numerical (in the case of the tables) or graphic (in I

b ~ the case of the figures) form is a comparison between what 1 One cannot help but wonder why the need for this conclusory effort to distinguish the two pieces unless even the authors themselves knew that most readers might not readily glean any difference.

2 Table 3 is simply a table showing indoor inhalation doses under various time and " air change" assumptions.

s-

,2 e

are called " strategies" including " evacuation strategies"

' denominated El, E2, E3, and E4 and " sheltering strategies" denominated S1, S2, S3, and S4.

At Pages 26-27 the various " strategies" are described.

Strategy E2 is described as corresponding "to the evacuation currently envisioned in the SPMC." Test. at 26. Strategies 1

~

E3 and E4 are then described as follows:

"The third (E3) represents evacuation conducted with a rapidity typical of that anticipated at a aeneric olapt site. The fourth-(E4) represents evacuation situations in'which plume arrival overlaps evacuation but there is no entrapment of the population. These strategies are hereafter referred to as . . . ' generic' evacuation and

'ceneric evacuation with difficulties,'

respectively'." Id. (Emphases added).

Strategy S2 is described as representing "a type of sheltering which might be' contemplated if the SPMC were modified to provide for implementing this kind of response."

Test at 26. As to S3 and S4, it is stated:

"Our third and fourth sheltering strategies may be considered the

' generic' sheltering strategies. The third strategy (S3) represents the degree of sheltering which is achievable in the basements of typical houses in the Northeast region including much residential housing in the Massachusetts EPZ. Hereafter, we refer to this as our

' shelter equivalent to wood frame buildings with basements' strategy. Our fourth strategy (S4) represents a better quality of shelter, achievable in medium-sized office apartment or industrial buildings of masonry construction. This 4

't e

strategy is hereafter referred to as the

' good shelter' case." Test at 27.

(Emphasis.added).

Each of these statements make clear that the Testimony is an attempt to compare the SPMC at the Seabrook site with what would happen at another " generic site" and also an attempt to take the position that'the goal of the emergency plan. regulations is to do something other than, or in addition to, obthining reasonable and achievable dose savings. This simply is not permissible in NRC proceedings as evidenced by the following authorities:

"Our emergency planning requirements do not require that an adequate plan achieve a preset minimum radiation dose saving or a minimum evacuation time for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone in the event of a serious accident.

Rather, they attempt to achieve reasonable and feasible dose reduction under the circumstances; what may be reasonable or feasible for one plant site may not be for another." Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22, 36 (1986). (Emphasis added)

'The existing emergency planning i (Jegulation] does 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 mandatory minimum projected dose savings or

u 4

evacuation time limits which could be viewed as performance standards for emergency plans in the existing Moreover the dose savings  !

regulations.

achieved by implementation of an  ;

emergency plan under adverse conditions, e.a., during or following heavy snow, could be substantially less than under perfect conditions. This variability is consistent with a concept or approach to emergency planning and preparedness chat is flexible rather than rigid."

Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State and/or Local Governments Decline To cooperate in offsite Emergency Planning (Proposed Rule), 52 Fed. Reg. 6980, 6982 (March 6, 1987).

"[T]he acceptability of a plan for one plant is not measured against plans for other nuclear plants." Evaluation of the Adequacy of Off-Site Emergancy Planning i for Nuclear Power Plants at the Operating License Stage Where State and/or Local l Governments Decline to Participate in Off-Site Emergency Planning (Final Rule) 52 Fed. Reg 4207L, 42084 (Nov. 3, 1987).

Such an interpretation would be contrary to NRC practice, under which emergency plans are evaluated for adequacy without reference to numerical dose reductions which might be accomplished, and without comoarina them to other emeraency olans l

! real or hvoothetical. The final rule makes clear that every emergency plan is to be evaluated for adequacy on its own i

I merits, without reference to, specific dose reductions which might be accomplished under the plan or the I

capabilities of any other plan. Id. at 42085.

l l

Prescinding from the problem discussed above, there is another flaw in the Testimony wh; h requires its rejection.

l

-i .

At Page 27 of the Testimony, it is also stated:

" Preparation for implementing strategies-equivalent to E3 and E4 would involve increasing the mobility of the beach population. Increased mobility could be achieved through_ measures such as the buildina of new roads, or by limiting the L number of people who are permitted to visit the beaches." (Emphasis added).

Further it is stated: ,

"The S3 and S4 strategies could be made l available by~the construction of special-nurpose shelters or the improvement of existing structures. Alternatively access to the beach could be limited so that the beach population never exceeded the capacity of existing shelter space in the relevant category." Test. at 28. ,

(Emphasis added).

From the foregoing, it is apparent that the authors of the Testimony are advocating the construction of major ,

buildings or the restriction of access to the beaches at all times. However, it has long been the law that NRC regulations do not require the taking of extraordinary measures such as the cons +ruction of major buildings or even j the restricting of access to public facilities just to deal l 1: with nuclear power plant accidents. See, Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528, 533 (1983).

I

1 CONCLUSION The Testimony should be excluded.

Respectfully submitted,

.i M

- </

Thomas G. '. Diyidin, Jr.

George H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck .

Jeffrey P. Trout i Jay Bradford Smith  !

Geoffrey C.-Cook Ropes & Gray One International-Place Boston, MA 02110-2624 (617) 951-7000 Counsel for Applicants i

1

avy

<v CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.gg )pa14 p1 52 I ., Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on April 10, 1989, I J made service of the within document by mailing copies? . , , , .

thereof, postage prepaid, to: WU" ,<.ut' Admlmistrative Judge Ivan W. Smith, Administrative Judge Peter B.

Chairman Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety snd Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC '20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Richard F. Dr. Jerry Harbour Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Kenneth A. Administrative Judge Emmeth A.

McCollom Luebke 1107 West Knapp Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Stillwater, OK 74075 Board Apartment 1923N 5500 Friendship Boulevard Chevy Chase, MD 20815 James H. Carpenter, Alternate Robert R. Pierce, Esquire Technical Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Adjudicatory File Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Docket (2 copies) Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105

F' i c =

Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau I Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office {

Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road '

General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire John Traficonte, Esquire l Shaines & McEachern Assistant Attorney General 1 25 Maplewood Avenue Department of the Attorney P.O. Box 360 General Portsmouth, NH 03801 One Ashburton Place, 19th Flr.

Boston, MA 02108 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 R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire U.S. Senate Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &

Washington, DC 20510 Rotondi (Attn: Tom Burack) 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Leonard Kopelman, Esquire One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Kopelman & Paige, P.C. ,

Concord, NH 03301 77 Franklin Street (Attn: Herb Boynton) Boston, MA 02110 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 l

l Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire j Off).ce of General Counsel Murphy and Graham l

Federal Emergency Management 33 Low Street Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas l 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03842 Concord, NH 03301 l

1 l

O Mr. Richard R. Donovan Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Federal Emergency Management 79 State Street, 2nd Floor Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, S.W.

Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire Robert Carrigg, Chairman 145 South Main Street Board of Selectmen P.O. Box 38 Town Office, Atlantic Avenue Bradford, MA 01835 North Hampton, NH 03862 John P. Arnold, Esquire Diane Curran, Esquire Attorney General Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Harmon, Curran & Tousley Assistant Attorney General suite 430 Office of the Attorney General 2001 S Street, N.W.

25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20009 j

Concord, NH 03301-6397 Thoma(G.frtJnan,Jr.

l  !

1 1

l

_ __ _-_A