ML20247M338
| ML20247M338 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1989 |
| From: | Lisa Clark NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#389-9204 OL, NUDOCS 8909250194 | |
| Download: ML20247M338 (13) | |
Text
-
qy9
?!
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'89 SEP 22 Ali :45 BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEAdbOARD i
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE g al.
)
Off-site Emergency Planning
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
\\
e NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF AUGUST 30, 1989 AND COMMENTS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SAPL Lisa B. Clark Counsel for NRC Staff September 20, 1989 hDR DD K Ob 43 G
PDR i.
't
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD r
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
Off-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
I t
NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON APPLICANT 5' RESPONSE TO APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF AUGUST 30, 1989~AND COMMENTS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SAPL Lisa B. Clark Counsel for NRC Staff September 20, 1989 S
_--------__--.--_m.--___._.m__
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD, In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, el al.
)
Off-site Emergency Planning
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF AUGUST 30, 1989 AND COMMENTS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SAPL In the Appeal Board's order of August 30, 1989, Applicants were directed to submit a filing setting forth the numerical population figures for the values used in the mathematical model adopted by the Licensing Board to determine the evacuee 'oad for registration centers and radiation monitoring and decontamination facilities. Applicants were also directed to describe the calculations or assumptions from which the figures were derived. Interveners and the NRC Staff were invited to file comments.
Applicants provided the requested information in their response of September 7,1989.1/ In that filing, Applicants provided citations to the portions of the record from which the population figures were obtained as well as descriptions of the calculations which were used to arrive at those figures.
1/
Applicants' Response to Appeal Board Order of August 30, 1989,
~
September 7, 1989.
In contrast, the Massachusetts Attorney General (MAG) and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) submitted responses _/ in which they advanced 2
unsupported reasoning in an attempt to raise arguments which were, or should have been, made before the Licensing Board. Those issues are not before this Board on appeal and therefore should be rejected.
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (North Coast Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1),
ALAB-648, 14 NRC 34 (1981); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-828, 23 NRC 13, 20 (1986); Georgia Power Co.
(Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-872, 26 NRC 127, 133 (1987).
In his first issue, the MAG argues that the Licensing Board erred in concluding that the number of expected evacuee arrivals was properly determined under a 25% planning basis. MAG Comments at 1-2, 3-5.
This argument is wrong. The Licensing Board utilized a 20% planning basis, deeming it both reasonable and adequately supported in the record.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units I and
- 2) LBP-88-32, 28 NRC 667, 714-15 (1989). The Licensing Board recognized that as a result of using "the largest number of evacuees expected at any one center... the planning base turns out to be about 25% of all evacuees." 28 NRC at 701.
In doing this the Licensing Board recognized l-that the number of evacuees arriving at each center would be different, 2/
Comments of Massachusetts Atto ney General on Applicants' Response to Appeal Board Order of August 30, 1989, September 15,1989(MAG Comments); SAPL Response in Accordance With Appeal Board Order of l
August 30, 1989, September 15, 1989.
(SAPL Comments).
j l
_ - _ _ _ _ but the staff at each center would be the same as the number of staff at the reception center receiving the most evacuees.
28 NRC at 704-705.
Aside from the fact that the Intervenor's argument is specious, it is being made by the MAG for the first time.
Indeed, the Licensing Board decided to accept the 20% planning standard since it was unchallenged by any competent evidence in the record.
I d_.
It is entirely inappropriate for any party to raise a new factual issue at this point in this proceeding, particularly in the guise of an explanation of the rationale of the Licensing Board's decision.
In the second issue, MAG Comments at 2, 5-12; SAPL Comments Interveners again do not provide information to aid in an understanding of the mathematical model utilized by the Applicants, but instead attempt to raise new issues which were not appealed and are not pertinent to this Appeal Board's inquiries. E Interveners particularly confuse the matter by claiming, without any understandable explanation, that their model 1
shows that the Applicants have underestimated the number of beach transients who will be directed to go to the Manchester reception center.
In reality, Interveners are simply ignoring the fact that the northern portion of the beach transients in Hampton are to go to the closer Dover L
center. See App. Exh 5, N.H. Radiological Response Plan, Vol. 6, App. J, J-1 & J-6.
-3/
For example, MAG erroneously asserts that all of the peak population estimates are substantially vehicle-based and can be reproduced using traffic demand data. MAG Comments at 6.
In fact, this is only true for transient populations.
Estimates for the permanent resident population are derived from actual population data.
_ The transients at Hampton Beach, which is located south of Great Boars Head, are to go to the Manchester reception center, while the population of Hampton located north of Great Boars Head is directed to the Dover reception center.
Id. As the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development Map & Vacation Guide (Attachment 1) shows, l
Hampton contains two beach communities, Hampton Beach State Park and Hampton proper. The transients from Hampton have been properly counted under the Dover reception center in Applicants' Response. They are also properly directed to go to the Dover center in the Public Information Calendar referenced by the Mass AG and SAPL. SI In his third issue (MAG Comments at 2-3, 12), the MAG invites the
~
Appeal Board to determine the actual percentage of the evacuating population which can be monitored under the plan using 1988 permanent resident estimates. MAG Comments at 12. According to the MAG, the 1988 estimates are uncontradicted and reflect a 4.3% increase over the estimates set forth by the Applicants. Assuming this to be accurate, this would only yield an additional 20% of the 4.3% increase of persons to be monitored. Such an insignificant point hardly warrants reexamination by the Appeal Board.
In his fourth issue (MAG Comments 3, 12-19) the MAG seeks to reargue an issue which was fully aired before the Licensing Board: the beach 4/
While the distinction may not be delineated as clearly as one might
~
wish in the public information materials or EBS messages, this can be remedied by simple revisions. Thus, the Interveners have identified at most a matter which can be readily corrected through minor changes in public information materials and messages, not a fundamental flaw in the plan.
"m a- _ _ _. _ - - _--__ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
_. vehicle and person populations.
In its discussion of that issue, the Licensing Board explained how it calculated the nuinber of vehicles in the beach areas on a given day using Applicants' estimate of the number of I
parked vehicles. 28 NRC at 801. The Board also specifically found that 31,000 was the reasonably expectable peak occupancy for the beach communities. Id. at 802.
MAG's discussion is not only confusing but misleading. For example, MAG implies that the Applicants have interchanged the two PPV (person per vehicle) numbers in order to obtain lower person populations totals for purposes such as staffing.
In reality, this would be impossible since the PPV values apply to different populations: 2.4 PPV applies to transients.
App. Dir. No. 7. H. Tr. 5622 at 16-17, while 2.6 PPV applies to permanent residents. App. Ex.5. Vol. 6 at 2-5.
MAG further argues that the Board a
made contradictory findings by approving calculations which were premised on either the 2.6 or the 2.4 value. This is incorrect in light of the fact that the two values apply to different populations. Nevertheless, the MAG uses this premise for changing the PPV value to 2.85 (which MAG unsuccessfully proposed to the Licensing Board) to make new calculations based on a peak vehicle count of 39,000, a number well above that used by the Licensing Board. Obviously, MAG's calculations are an attempt to once again argue the beach population issue and are not germane to the questions put fourth in the Appeal Board order of August 30, 1989.
For the reasons discussed. MAG's comments should be disregarded as nonresponsive. Instead of assisting the Appeal Board, MAG has attempted to confuse matters and to introduce new issues. MAG's attempt to raise
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ new appellate issues in the guise of a response to the August 30,1989 order should not be countenanced.
Respectfully submitted, 20 Lisa B. Clark Counsel for NRC Staff l
Dated at Rockville, Maryland l
this 20th day of September 1989 l
.m.
. (page 1 of 2)
- !: :. : l :-
.... :" i ' ' '! " - ' ^ ' '* ^ ^ * " ' - -
- a&r- ~ - - - -
,14 l
^
1 4
72.6s 4 2
rr xrI
'3 y nyrrear 72, j L 5sv.w L 2uv.uvsee t 1987 NEW HAMPSHIRE Map & Vacation Guide 1
'"'***"7 D**
O information Centers qd ' =
Limited Access Highway G] Safety Rest Areas a Picnic Area B.
U.S. Routes Picnic Areas (with toilets) a y
Primary State Highway
- Fire Lookout Stations
- Fish Hatchenes j
Secondary State Highway l
Port of Entry Local Roads
% Airports with Scheduled Service A Other Airports Colleges & Universities Local Mileages
- Points of Interest 7
Covered Bndges
,,,,_ 3 unpaved K p,y,o' ~'*'
y DownhillSki Areas
& Cross Country Ski Areas Proposed,,,,
1 t
constNn' 2 4 Gott Courses Q New Hampshire Parklands Approximate Population of Cities, Towns and Places il o Less than 1,000 9 1,000 to 5,000 0 5,000 to 10,000 e 10,000 to 25,000 D
O e Greater than 25,000 f
@ State Capital M Urban Areas b
E-10 0
10
'MI
?
W 10 0
10 JKM M E M # E = Y ac YarY mcucEnm HARTNETT HOUSE o
FREEPORT. MAINE (4032 cmmr1. t*-
Hampshire O
(.
x y
f i
- l. f'
\\
O v
+y
-[
9 e
I g
.e
. InSe
,a
. ;- 1 3
' e2 1
5
)
s k
f N
ns l East Bamngton
~'?-
y See pry
~
kfQ
?
Y
-%E York Vnage
,, 2 ;:p ur niN4 l
/
10[J g-
)S T~~~
so'
).*;f; See Inse:
)~
A Na 2B '1 y JeWinarket
' 0' F W' P'
~
i OA7 STAR ^
51 BatsG 2
W rw3 NTH COOu 'GE
_ 93,5 pcys,
i i
- MAN'SOh Srsrg psgs N DW'Od aNs b
g A Au tS SA%DS STATE PA Rh y
Eb Rt MARBOR 57 ATE PARS s
j
,1 pg' 8
n Esisi -
~
lRye M S
E Rg Beach osi,5 Un
[L., !
~
i, en ww E
<3 Ham n
3 iso
Toi?'
3 r
os I
u G ea' Ekes me P
.ast 1
Y N' N '
l W
3v"py _1 Ooky* %%2""'
- 7. '- i 4 J "
a f 2) sc
.~,.
hh f
..k
. I
- 't
Q'Ei! '
UNITED STATES CF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SEP 22 A11 '45 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOA In the Matter of
)
1 Docket Nos. 50-4'43 OL'.
50-444 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEWHAMPSHIRE,etal.
)
Off-site Emergency Planning
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF AUGUST 30, 1989 AND COMMENTS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SAPL" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the "pilowing by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail' system, this 20th day of September 1989:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman (2)*
H. J. Flynn, Esq, Administrative Judge Assistant General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Boaro Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Washington, DC 20555 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 Richard F. Cole
- Administrative Judge Calvin A. Canney Atomic Safety and Licensing Board City Hall U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 126 Daniel Street l
Washington, DC 20555 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Kenneth A. McCollom John Traficonte, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General 1107 West Knapp Street Office of the Attorney General Stillwater, OK 74075 One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Diane Curran, Esq.
Harmon, Curran & Tousley Geoffrey Huntington, Esq.
2001 S Street, NW Assistant Attorney General Suite 430 Office of the Attorney General Washington, DC 20009 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General i
Office of the Attorney General
)
State House Station Augusta, ME 04333
L
, Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Peter J. Matthews, Mayor Backus, Meyer & Solomon City Hall 116 Lowell Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Manchester, NH 03106 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Paul McEachern, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Shaines & McEachern 13-15 Newmarket Road 25 Maplewood Avenue Durham, NH 03824 P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey United States Senate Charles P. Graham, Esq.
531 Hart Senate Office Building McKay, Murphy & Graham Washington, DC 20510 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Barbara J. Saint Andre Esq.
Kopelman & Paige P.C.
Sandra Gavutis, Chairman 77 Franklin Street Board of Selectmen Boston, MA 02110 RFD #1, Box 1154 Kensington, NH 03827 Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Board of Selectmen William S. Lord South Hampton, NH 03827 Board of Selectmen Town Hall - Friend Street Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Amesbury, MA 01913 Town Counsel for Merrimac 145 South Main Street R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
P.O. Box 38 Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton Bradford, MA 01835
& McGuire 79 State Street Richard R. Donovan Newburyport,. MA 01950 Federal Regional Center Federal Emergency Management Agency Allen Lampert 130 228th Street, S.W.
Civil Defense Director Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Town of Brentwood 20 Franklin P.obert R. Pierce, Esq.*
Exeter, NH 03833 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel William Armstrong U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Civil Defense Director Washington, D.C.
20555 Town of Exeter 10 Front Street Tho':as G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Exeter, NH 03833 kobert K. Gad, III, Esq.
Ropes & Gray Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
One International Place Holmes & Ellis Boston, MA 02110 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842
l l 'J. P. Nadeau Ms. Suzanne Breiseth Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen 10 Central Street Town of Hampton Falls Rye. NH 03870 Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
79 State Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Newburyport, MA 01950 Board (1)*
U.S.- Nuclear Regulatory Comission Robert Carrigg Washington, DC 20555 Board of Selectmen Town Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Atlantic Avenue Appeal Panel (8)*-
North Hampton, NH 03862 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Samuel J. Chilk Office of the Secretary Docketing and Service Section*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l/)&
Lisa B. Clark
~J Counsel for NRC Staff August 29, 1989
)
I 1
i
)
e