ML20006D320
| ML20006D320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1990 |
| From: | Backus R, Curran D, Traficonte J BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP., MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#190-9805 ALAB-924, LBP-88-32, LBP-89-33, OL, NUDOCS 9002120361 | |
| Download: ML20006D320 (41) | |
Text
>
7 . - ..
gs
% f '
, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION TN .1 ** $
/,.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 8 ,
g
_(> .A[
Before Administrative Judges:
G. Paul Bollwerk. III, Chairinan
"~
' Alan S. Rosenthal Howard A. Wilber
)-
In the' Matter of' ) Docket'Nos. 50-443-OL-
) 50-444-OL
-PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )
, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. )
)
(Seabrook Station,, Units 1 and 2) .) February 6, 1990
)
EMERGENCY MOTION-OF THE INTERVENORS: 1 (1).TO CLARIFY THE STATUS OF THE APPEAL OF LBP-89-33 1
'AND (2) TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON THE NHRERP i AS TO THE NEED FOR SHELTERING'IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES i b
n !
INTRODUCTION L
L The-Massachusetts Attorney General (" Mass AG"), the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and the New England Coalition On l
Nuclear Pollution (the "Intervenors") received the Applicants'
. February 1 Response to the Licensing Board Order of January 11, 1 \
f 1990 on February 2, 1990. This pleading is attachad hereto as Exhibit 1. Certain representations in this pleading re-quire a response by the Mass. AG to this Board. Specifically, the
$ Applicants assert that the Licensing Board's November 20 H
" explanation" (LBP-89-33) concerning ALAB-924's remanded issues was itself either never appealed, or if appealed, the Intervenors' claims of error were never briefed to this Board.
9002120361 900206 9' PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR 0)
L j
,'t. ,
- s
. .j g Further,: astoundingly, the Applicants.now assert-ISI thA first ting that an October'10, 1988' plan revision to the NHRERP effectively eliminated sheltering as a protective measure option for what was called in ALAB-924 at 50' Condition (1): -
.those circumstances in which sheltering for the general beach:
' population.would maximize dose savings. The Intervenors move l
'in response for permission to clarify.and have this Board ,
F - .
J
' confirm that there has been no failure to seek review of 2 LBP-89-33 by the Intervenors. Further, Intervenors move to l t
reopen the record on the NHRERP in light of the Applicants'
- February 1, 1990-disclosure-of the meaning of'the October 1988 plan revision. If the. plan is now to be interpreted as represented by the Applicants to the Smith Board, even under those circumstances when sheltering the beach population would {
.be the dose-minimizing strategy an found by the Smith Board And- ;
uoheld 2D appeal in ALAB-924, sheltering nonetheless would H2t be recommended. Thus, new evidence--the October 1988 plan i
. changes as interpreted as of February:1, 1990--should be ;
considered in determining whether the NHRERP makes the most effective use of sheltering and otherwise contains protective action decision criteria which maximize dose savings under the f circumstances of the Seabrook site. The Intervenors move to ;
L reopen the record to have this Board consider this "new" NHRERP -
revision. Further they seek summary disposition on the NHRERP sheltering contentions based on the principles of rag iudicata.
E
)
i y !
~ I. INTERVENORS HAVE PAESERVED THEIR RIGHT TO APPEAL LBP-89-33 !
AND HAVE OTHERWISE EXHAUSTED ALL INTRA-AGENCY APPELLhTE j OPPORTUNITIES AVAIIABLE TO DATE TO CHALLENGE LBP-89-33 !
The Applicants assert thatt j t !
LBP-89-33 is now the law of the case, subject only :
to ana nuonte-Appeal Board review. This is so '
because two Intervanors, NECNP and SAPL, never. filed l a Notice of Appeal with respect to LBP-89-33, and l the remaining intervenors never sought an extension ;
of time to brief their appeals with respect to that decision. Thus, there is no appellate challenge to ,
Exhibit 1 at 3, n.6. This statement is simply wrong. ;
- 1. First, the Applicants no doubt make this assertion because they. intend to argue, if and when necessary, to the Court of Appeals (before whom appeal of the Smith Board's November 9 licensing action is now pending) that Intervenors did not preserve their appellato rights regarding LBP-89-33 and ,
that, therefore, based on principles of exhaustion of L administrative remedies, they can not claim error in the !
p Licensing Board'n disposition of the ALAB-924 remand.
- 2. In facty Applicants' statements are based on a L fundament.al misunderstanding of the nature of Intervenors' efforts to have the Licensing Board's errors regarding the ALAB-924 remand corrected. As this Board is aware, on November U >
13, Intervenors filed a notion to revoke the November 9 licensing action on the grounds, inter alia, that the Smith
" Board had violated the letter and spirit of the mandate of ALAB-924. This November 13 motion for mandatory relief was filed pursuant to this Board's jurisdiction over LBP-88-32 and Intervenors' appeal thereof. On November 16, the Commission '
l.
l~
'j took jurisdiction over this motion away from this Board l 1
indicating that it would rule on this motion. On November 20, j J
the Smith Board issued LBP-89-33. On November 22, the Mass AG )
noticed the appeal of LBP-89-32 and also specifically noted that he was appealing LBP-89-33. On December 1, the Intervenors then supplemented their mandamus motion before the commission to include a discussion of the errors made by the Board in LBP-89-33 as further support for mandatory relief.
Then, on January 24, 1990, the Mass AG (and other Intervenors) filed briefs on LBP-89-32, excluding from these briefs the legal errors already briefed at length on December 1 in support i of the mandamus petitions pending before the Commission. At }
l-2 of his January 24 Brief on Appeal of LBP-89-32, the Mass AG noted the absence of any briefing on the issues surrounding the ,
disposition of the remanded issues and stated:
The Mass AG believes those errors entitle Intervenors
- to mandatory relief revoking the November 9 license authorization. The merits of Intervenors' motions for such mandatory relief are presently pending before the commission, j
- 3. Applicants' rotion that LBP-89-33 has never been f challenged by the Intervenors in briefs is a remarkable misreading of this record. Mandamus, of courso, is an abnellate remedy available to enforce the mandate of a superior tribunal when it has been disobeyed. Mandamus can lie A1 AD alternative to appeal and error if the disobedient tribunal's ,
order is otherwise final and reviewable. On November 13, Intervenors sought mandatory relief as a form of appellate remedy for the Smith Board's contravention of ALAB-924 (which had issued on review of LBP-88-32). That mandamus remedy was
~~ - -
I
. l (and is) available as part of the ongoing appeal of the New Hampshire decision and was available on November 13 notwithstanding the fact that no appeal of LBP-89-32 had been filed at that time. After the commission took jurisdiction f over the Intervenors' mandamus away from this Board on November i 16, all claims that the dirnosition gi ihm AIAB-924 remand by thm Smith Board MAE 1D error X1ER De lonaer kgigIt thin Board. ;
This is the case whether those claims are part of the ,
cotAinuation of Intervenors' appeal of LBP-88-32 (the November !
13 Motion) or are part of Intervenors' appeal of LBP-89-32 (the December 1 Supplemental Motion). Indeed, Intervenors !
supplemented their mandamus with the clear errors committed by :
the Smith Board in LBP-89-33 (which of course simply
" explained" the errors actually committed in and by LBP-89-32).M Thus, the Intervenors have briefed the errors If It was actually unnecessary for the Mass AG to separately identify LBP-89-33 in his November 22 Notice of Appeal. SAPL and NECUP by noticing an appeal of LBP-89-32 also, in effect, ,
were appealing all post-facto " explanations" for this licensing .
action. The alternative proposed by the Applicants would :
result-in either a final and acoealabig decision being noticed for appeal and the lengthy serias of post-facto " explanations" that issue afterward not being considered as part of that decision or if each later decision is appealed separately each would become a separate decision on appeal needing to be ,
consolidated with the first. But then how and why was the first decision " final" and " reviewable" if the later-issued
" explanations" are necessary to it? The procedural morass arises because of the inherent intellectual confusion of the Smith Board which issued a " final" and " reviewable" decision on November 9 (beginning the immediate effectiveness review, for example) and then a lengthy series of " post-final" decisions.
Intervenors were under no obligation to file separate notices '
of-appeal each time as each post-facto " explanation" must be deemed (if it is to be even considered at all) part of the
" final" and " reviewable" decision issued in LBP-89-32.
Regarding the exquisite procedural complexity that results when a Board first decides to license and only later decides how and why, gag Intervenors' January 22 Brief on Appeal of LBP-89-38 at 4-13.
_. 5 "
i
'. . l i
4 )
in LBP-89-33 and that decision has been challenged 1g the inll )
extent Ragsible before thia agency.
Apparently, the Applicants understand some of this and yet l
they assert that the Mass AG should have sought "an extension l
of time to brief (his) appeals" with respect to LBP-89-33 and f i
the disposition of the remanded issues. . Exhibit 1 at 3 n.6. !
But this Board after November 16, 1989 did not have appellate ;
jurisdiction over the disposition of the ALAB-924 remand and i LBP-89-33. Moreover, Intervenors had already briefed these issues on December 1. So, it is simply incoherent to assert that Intervenors should have asked for more times 1) to brief issues he (with other Intervenors) had already briefed; and 2) ,
to put these briefs before a Board which no longer had jurisdiction.
Of course, in the event the commission grants the -
Intervenors' November 17 Motion for Reconsideration and returns ;
the mandamus. claims -- asserted after November 22 pursuant to 1 I
appeal of both LBP-88-30 And LBP-89-32 -- to this Board, then this Board can proceed to determine whether the Smith Board disobeyed its mandate.2/ In that event, the commission would 2/ For example, this Board could then decide the not-very-difficult question whether ALAB-924 was disobeyed when the Smith Board asserted (LBP-89-33 at 4) that ALAB-924 did D21 impact on the "requisits findings of reasonable assurance of public safety" even though ALAB-924 held that the NHRERP was not an approvable plan and no reasonable assurance finding could be made without sheltering detail. ALAB-924 at 68, n.194 and gag.gg cited therein. Indeed, no terribly difficult analysis is needed to determine the necessity 12I A mandamus when one compares LBP-88-32, 28 NRC at 769-770 with ALAB-924 at 60-61, 63-64 and then with LBP-89-33 at 29-33.
t
t j
e-be returning to this Board the mandamus motions in their i I
present posture with LBP-89-33 fully briefed. It was in this ]
l' sense and in light of these circumstances that the_ Mass AG on p January 24 asserted to this Board that he had not briefed these remand issues again and that the merits of his challenge to the )
disposition of the ALAB-924 remand in LBP-89-32 and LBP-89-33
- was before the Commission, i
- 4. Because of the potential importance of any argument t that might later be made concerning the oxhaustion of administrative remedies regarding this all-important error ;
which Intervenors are seeking to have the Court of Appeals review, the Mass AG moves that this Board clarify the present posture of Intervenor efforts to seek intra-agency appellate review of the errors in the disposition of the ALAB-924 remand and issue an order that states:
A. Intervenors, (SAPL, NECNP and the Mass AG) did timely file Notices of Appeal of LBP-89-32. The Mass AG expressly referenced LBP-89-33 in his Notice of -
Appeal. SAPL and NECNP are deemed to have appealed ,
LBP-89-33 when they noticed the appeal of LBP-89-32 on November 22, 1989. Indeed, their notices of appeal were filed 2 days after LBP-89-33 issued.
B. Intervenors, (SAPL, NECNP and the Mass AG) have timely briefed the errors they claim the Smith Board committed in its disposition of the ALAB-924 remand.
Intervenors were under no obligation on January 24 to ,
file briefs with this Appeal Board which repeated what they had already argued to the Commission and were under no obligation to seek an extension of time from 1 this Board in which to file or refile such briefs. As of November 16, 1989, the Commission and not thin Board had jurisdiction over these claims of error.
4 II. THIS BOARD SHOULit IMMEDIATELY REOPEN THE RECORD ON THE NHRERP AND GRANT INTERVENORS
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON THE SHELTERING CONTENTIONS.
A. Background 1
l This Board is intimately familiar with the issues J l
surrounding sheltering as a protective action in the NHRERP for i the general beach population at Seabrook. ALAB-924 at 47-69. ,
In brief outline, in earlier versions of the NHRERP, it was stated that " sheltering may not be considered a feasible j protective action on the seacoast beach during the summer."
NHRERP, 52.6.5. In response to FEMA's concerns about the l absenes of adequate concideration or exploration of a sheltering option, the State of New Hampshire between approximately September 1987 and October 1988 determined that sheltering for the general beach population would be appropriate in certain circumstances. Egg App. Direct Testimony No. 6 at 19-20 and Appendix 1 at 7-8, ff. Tr. 10022.
At the hearings on the NHRERP in May and June 1988, witnesses j for the Applicants and the State of New Hampshire asserted that certain changes2 / to the NHRERP indicated that there would i
t 1/ Attached as Attachment II to Appendix 1 (beginning 42 of
- 47) of the Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 6, ff. Tr. 10022, ;
were proposed modifications to the protective action decision criteria in the NHRERP. Egg Alag Attachment 1 to App's Direct Testimony No. 6 (1-35). These proposals were as of April 27,
.1988, the date of the testimony, which was received on May 2, 1988. These changes were not mede before the record closed in June 1988. At'18.14uof LBP-88-32, the Smith Board noted that
- revisiens would be made in the NHRERP reflecting the proposals litigated. ;
+"m
~*
l
- be 2 different sets of circumstances or conditions when sheltering would be recommended for the general beach populations (1) if sheltering is the dose minimizing protective action; and (2) if there are physical constraints on evacuation.
ALAB-924 at 50, citina record at notes 133-136. Condition (1) was represented to include a certain kind of release for which it was asserted sheltering would be the dose minimizing action. ALAB-924 at 50-51. Egg also 52 at notes 140-142 and.
accompanying text. FEMA's Keller reviewed the proposed sheltering option and found it appropriate at this site "not to i
shelter the summer beach population excent in very limited
~ circumstances." Amended Testimony of Cumming/Keller, ff. Tr.
13,968 at 11 (emphasis supplied). of course, those limited circumstances are the same identified as Conditions (1) and (2) above.
The Licensing Board in December 1988 approved the NHRERP L
i based on the use of sheltering as a protective action for the general population in these limited circumstances.A/
Although this Board then reversed the Smith Board regarding the need for sheltering detail, it affirmed the Board regarding l A/ Intervenors argued (and continue to argue) that: 1) j sheltering is underutilized for the beaches in light of the long ETEs and 2) comparative efficacy of protective actions cannot be determined in the absence of dose comparisons which were excluded when proffered.
L L :
! l
l e
i i
the appropriateness of limiting sheltering to these identified f conditions in November 1989. ALAB-924 at 50-58. Indeed, at oral argument in July 1989 this Board (Judge Rosenthal) {
explored at some length the precise circumstances under which sheltering is considered by New Hampshire as the dose minimizing protective action. Tr. of oral Argument, July 27, !
1989 at 15-17. l JUDGE ROSENTHAL: Well, accepting for the moment that [
thesis, your opponents argue quite vigorously that the ;
plan deals with the sheltering alternative. And I would like your response to that. . . . (88) >
MR. DIGNAN: (Condition) (n) umber one is, I use the example [
of the " puff release", and I mean the true puff release. I don't mean the one you have to predict in advance, because that's pretty difficult. But >
technical people tell me it is possible you could have an accident situation develop where you had a pressurization situation and fou would have a planned -
release: you would know you're going to release, or '
how long you're going to release and you could reach a decision, a rational decision as an emergency planner 1 at that point to shelter instead of evacuate because ;
you would know your duration. You would know the type of release you're going to get and so forth and so ,
on. That's item (or condition) number one.
JUDGE ROSENTHAL: Well, now here is item number one: now let's say that you have this puff release and we're
( invoking number one. . . . What does the plan do with respect to sheltering. '
! MR. DIGNAN: .New Hampshire is all sheltering-in-place;
! that's what the plan.- And the shelter-in-place concent in laid out in the plan. . . . (90-91)
L B. Amendment and Revision of the NHRERP l
Applicants and the State of New Hampshire represented to the Smith Board in sworn testimony that the NHRERP would be updated and revised to reflect the changes in protective action criteria. As noted above, at 18.14 of LBP-88-32, the Smith 10 -
1 swn-g
l l
Board noted that revisions would be made in the decision j criteria reflecting changes proposed in Attachment 1 to the 1
' Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 6, ff. Tr. 10022 (to be :
distinguished from Attachments I and II to Appendix 1 to that
{
l same testimony). At 18.20 the Board notedt i NKRERP is being updated to reference the emergency ;
classification and plant conditions under which I precautionary and protective action recommendations would ,
be made. App. Dir. No. 6, ff. Tr. 10022, at 11-12, ;
Attachment 2. ;
Indeed, the FEMA's approval of the plan on which the Smith l Board then relied, is predicated on the identification of those circumstances, albeit limited, when sheltering would be employed as the protective action for the general beach population. Ena Appendix 1 to Applicants Direct Testimony No.
6 at page 1 of 47 (Strome quoting FEMA's January 25, 1988 ;
position). These circumstances were identified in the testimony and representations were made that the NHRERP would be or was being 9pdated to reflect these circumstances. In fact, the Smith Board made these revisions into a license condition i
(IJssuance of an operating license for Seabrook Station shall be subject to the satisfaction of the following conditionst (b) The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in consultation with the (FEMA), shall verify that the NHRERD revisions committed to by the State of New Hampshire, as discussed herein, have been made.
LBP-88-32 at 110.4 In October 1988, the NHRERP was amended, ostensibly in compliance with the representations made during the hearings.
t
.. t s .
In December 1988, LBP-88-32 issued with its holding regarding the circumstances in which sheltering would be recommended. In -
July 1989, oral argument before this Board was held as noted i
( 1 above. In November 1989, this Board issued ALAB-924 reversing l t
the Smith Board regarding the need for sheltering detail. On :
January 11, 1990 the Board for the first time sought guidance _
from the parties as to how to proceed to resolve the remanded ,
e issues. Then on February 1, 1990 for the first time the l Applicants asserted that plan changes in October 1988 actually eliminated shelterina for the aeneral beach noculation under Condition (1) as discussed abovel Since only Condition (2) is ,
left, say the Applicants, and the beach population by I definition is small under these conditions,E/ there is nothing left to resolve regarding the absence of sheltering detail. Egg Exhibit 1 at 8-12.5/ Thus, in an attempt to 5/ Intervenors do not question here the accuracy of Applicants' characterization of Condition (2). That is a matter for the Smith Board. The elimination of condition (1),
however, is a matter not remanded to the Smith Board. Egg infra, f/ Applicants identify Step IV.B.4 (General haergency) as the key change made in October 1988 that apparently put the Board and the parties on notice that the State of New Hampshire was not going to update the NHRERP as it represented that it would during the hearings and as the Board required with a license condition regarding the use of sheltering. Attached as Exhibit 2 hereto are the relevant pages from the October 1988 revisions to Appendix U to Volume 4A of the NHRERP. (Appendix F to Volume 4 and Appendix U to Volume 4A are virtually identical.)
Certainly, these pages do Dnt assert or state that even under ,
those_ limited circumstances when sheltering is dose minimizing (like the " puff release") evacuation is always oreferred.
Obviously, the Board and parties read the October 1988 revision in light of the representations made by the witnesses for the Applicants and the State of New Hampshire regarding the appropriate conditions for sheltering the general beach population.
m i
a l
eliminate the blatant errors the Smith Board made in finding
" reasonable assurance" without sheltering detail in place (in ]
express contradiction to ALAB-924) and in denying Intervenors' their orelicensina hearing rights regarding sheltering detail, the Appl 3 cants'now simply assert for the first time that since October 1986 sheltering has net been the recommended protective !
l action under the NHRERP even when, as Applicants' counsel described it at oral argument in July 1989, technical conditions make sheltering the dose-minimizing action! Thus, the NMRERP has essentially been returned to that state where it had started in 1985 and 1986 in which sheltering the general ,
beach population is simply not considered feasible or implementable!
C. Motion to Reccan This Record and For Summary Discosition.
Under normal adjudicatory conditions it seams obvious that Applicants would be and should be estopped from asserting that the NHRERP was amended in October 1988 as represented by them -
l l for the first time in February 1990. However, emergency l planning is not a static but an ongoing process. If the NHRERP has been changed as Applicante represent and sheltering for i
Condition (1) has been eliminated, then based on the record developed during the New Hampshire proceeding concerning the '
dose minimizing aspects of sheltering in certain circumstances, and the holdings of the Smith Board and this Board, the effect ,
i ,
l L
-w - , , - , , , , _ - - - . ., . , , , _ - - . , ,.
3 f :*
V I ..
i of that change in AD inadequate ElRD not in comoliance with the- ,
rggulations because the orotective actions nrovided therein do not maximize dose savinas in certain circummtances. Thus, Intervenors move to reopen the record on the NHRERP regarding :
the sheltering contentions (NECNP/RERP-8, SAPL-16 and TOH-VIII) and to have this Board review new evidence not available before '
February 2, 1990; y11. the October 1988 NHRERP revisions as now
-interpreted by the Applicants.
- 1. Jurisdiction This Board has jurisdiction over LBP-88-32. In ALAB-924, r
certain issues were remanded to the Smith Board. Regarding ,
sheltering detail, this Board stated:
(T]he Licensing Board should have required that the same implementation actions that are being taken for the beach population without transportation under sheltering condition (3) be i taken for the entire beach population under conditions (1) and (2). Therefore, we remand the matter for appropriate corrective action by the Licensing Board.
ALAB-924 at 68. From this it is clear that this Board held .
e that implementing detail is necessary for conditions (1) and (2). Thur, if the record must now be reopened regarding the adequacy of the NHRERP in the absence of sheltering as the protective action for condition (1) then this Board and not the Smith Board has jurisdiction over this matter. Obviously, the Smith Board is not free to violate the mandate of ALAB-924 and
.~6 , --
, - - . - - - - - - , _ .- _ _ _ . - -._______.m_
3"~
K -
.r now find that sheltering is D2% DecessArg for Condition (1).2/
[ 2. Timeliness As discussed above, thers was no reason for the Board and the parties to read the October 1988 revisions as anythirig other than the revisions and updates promised in the. State of New Hampshire's and Applicants' sworn testimony in May and June, 1988.. The Applicants did not amend their proposed findings on sheltering after October 1988 (filed on July 15, 1988) from which much of the Board's decision is taken. Thus, at Applicants' PF 10.3.41 (at 19 of the July 15, 1988 filing) the condit'ans for sheltering the general beach population are ,
set out. The Applicants did not alert the Board that this proposed finding was-no longer accurate after october 1988.
Thus, although the State of New Hampshire is not estopped or otherwise prevented from changing its plan (or now disclosing ;
that it had earlier changed its plan), on the narrow issue of timeliness, tne Applicants Ara estooped fro's asserting that Intervenors were on notice as of October 1988 concertaing the .
1 2/ Even though Applicants' representations about the October 1, 1988 revision and the elimination of Condit.on (1) fly ,
directly in the face of what they represented to the Smith j Board in 1988 and'what that Board expressly found in LBP-88-32,- j they now seek literally by magic to have that Board simply l reverse itself and eliminate the need for sheltering. Of L course, the Smith Board is constrained on this isrue by the af firmance in ALAB-924 of its earliar holding in LBP-86-32 L regarding the circumstances in which sheltering is' ;
l appropriate. An affirmance on appeal on an issue is just as l h much a " mandate" on remand of a linked issue as a reversal. In l any event, the remand back to the Smith Board did Det includo i
! the authority to decide whether sheltering should be or would L l be appropriate and therefore necessary for Condition (1). ]
L
1r !
. a meaning and significance of these earlier changes.E/ l
- 3. Safety Sianificance This Board has already held that the absence of .)
sheltering detail for those conditions in the NMRERP in which ;
sheltering is appropriate prevents the reasonable assurance ;
finding.EI ALAB-924 at 68, n.194, And cases cited therein.
It follows that if sheltering is no longor to be relied upon at l'
all in those very circumstances in which it was established and held to be the appropriate dose minimizing protective action, i
then this deficiency too prevents a reasonable assurance finding and is safety significant. ALAB-924 at 58 n.164 A/ Of course, had Intervenors moved to reopen the record in ,
October 1988, the Applicants and the State of New Hampshire :
could easily have asserted that the October revisions were l precisely what were described in the May and June 1988
. testimony. This is because nothing in the October 1988 revision is expressly inconsistent with still retainina sheltering for Condition (1). Obviously, the Board read the revisions the same way when it received them before it issued LBP-83-32 and nonetheless proceeded to adopt the Applicants'
, findings on the conditions for which sheltering is appropriate.
- ('
g/ Intervenors believe that if there is a planning deficiency in the NHRERP which prevents the reasonable assurance finding, i then if this deficiency is discovered and asserted after the ,
record has cloced, it is of sufficient safety significance to l uerit reopening-the record under $2.734. The alternative is lf , absurd: a deficiency sufficient to prevent the 50.47 (a) (1) finding and preclude licensing until remedied is somehow n21 suftscient to reopen a closed record if established after
, So licensing. Of course, if the record is reopened after a license authorization but before that license has been made *
< e.ffective by the lifting of the 52.734 immediate effectiveness stay, that authorization is stayed as a matter of law until the materjal issues now reopened are adjudicated and then any 93 deficiencies found are-corrected. Such a procedural posture is distinct from the record being reopened after a license has become effectiva.
i
,. (
(noting that although sheltering is not par 33 required by the l
" range" requirement of 50.47 (b)(10) or by the "adeqoste f f
protection" underpinings of 50.47 (a) (1) , it is required when l found appropriate by planners based upon " site-specific ,
circumstances"). !
- 4. Materially Different Result !
Had the Smith Board and this Board been apprised of [
the meaning of the October 1988 update of the NHRERP it is .
quite obvious that that evidence would have likely affected the disposition of Intervenors' claims that sheltering is -
underutilized for the general beach population at Seabrook. As ,
this Board noted: .
Intervenors' central concern is whether confining ,
sheltering to such a limited use under the plan is, in accordance with the first condition specified in the ,
NHRERP, the most effective use of this protective ,
action option to achieve maximum dose reductions.
ALAB-924 at 51. If the use were even further limited -- not
{
even to be used when as set forth in condition (1) it is dose-minimizing for the population -- Intervenors would have l prevailed'on this issue for the very reasons this Board ruled against them. Egg ALAB-924 at 51-58.
- 5. Affidavit Recuirement Intervenors rely in support of their motion to reopen on the February 1, 1990 uncontradicted representation by the Applicants regarding the meaning of the October 1988 NHRERP update and those portions of the record of the NHRERP proceeding cited by the Smith Board and this Board in which -
17 -
. . - _ _ _ _ __ ___ m -_._- _ . - - _ . . . _ . -
. . . , _ ._ - . . _ ~ , .
i
. I sworn testimony was-received regarding the conditions under l which sheltering the beach population would be the dose minimizing strategy. ALAB-924 at 51 at notes 135 and 136 and accompanying text; 52, notes 141 and 142 and accompanying i l
text. LBP-88-32 at 18.70. Egg also Tr. 14231. :
- 6. Summary Disoosition As discussed above, the material change in the NHRERP disclosed for the first time on February 1, 1990 supports the f
t reopening of the record on the NHRERP. Moreover, summary i
disposition is appropriate in light of the principles of rag -
judicata.1E/ Thus, based on the same adjudicated facts as found by the Licensing Board and this Board regarding the ;
appropriateness of sheltering for condition (1), Intervenors ;
are entitled to summary disposition on their sheltering l
l contentions as a matter of law.
- 7. Exneditious Consideratior; The representations made by the Applicants in their February 1, 1990 pleading are remarkable and indeed
( astounding. The NHRERP has been approved 11/ ,
12/ Again: the State of New Hampshire and the Applicants are free to change the plan (or now disclose that the plan was :
l changed). However, on principles of rag iudicata the L
=inadecuacy of the NHRERP in light of this change is established. Thus, without further evidence in the record that would support this change and permit the holding of LBP-88-32 and ALAB-924 in this regard to be modified, the absence of sheltering for Condition (1) is a deficiency precluding the -
reasonable assurance finding. >
11/ Intervenors ignore the conundrum that it was also disapproved by this Board on November 7 regarding a related but legally distinct issue. ;
-' .I i
, 1 by the Smith Board on November 9, 1989, based on an apparent and understandable failure to comprehend the significance of )
plan changes made in october 1988. As is now clear, the NHRERP is RQt AD adequate ElAD And hAR Det been adequate since October ]
1988. As this Board is aware, the Commission is nearing the and of its immediate effectiveness review which may lead to j plant operation. This motion should be entertained immediately i 1
and ruled upon so that the Commission can be apprised about the 4
significance of those changes. Obviously, if Intervenors are now entitled as a natter of law to have the record reopened, this should occur before operations would actually begin so j that any deficiencies would be corrected beforehand.12/ !
CONCLUS.LQH For all the reasons set forth above, this Board should:
- 1. Issue an order declaring the status of Intervenors' l i
' efforts ?,o appeal LBP-89-33 and the disposition of the remanded issues by the Smith Board as set out above; 12/ Applicants and the NRC Staff may urge the Board to refer -
. this motion to the Commission. That would be an inappropriate disposition for the following reasons: 1) this Board has appellate jurisdiction over LBP-88-32 and the record on the NHRERP - it has lost jurisdiction only over the disposition of the remanded issues in LBP-89-32 (and LBP-89-33) as that disposition supports a mandamus for violation of ALAB-924; 2) the integrity of thig Board's adjudicative processes are at issue in this motion; and 3) the commission has not taken review of ALAB-924 and otherwise has not put the NHRERP record before it.
19 -
--c-e , - -r- --. - - - - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _
l r 'I i
- .. - j
- o. 2. Grant expeditious consideration of Intervenors' notion to reopen the record on the NHRERP; l,
- 3. Grant Intervenors' Motion to Roopen that record in the j
. particulars as set out abover and l
- 4. Grant Intervenors' M tion for Summary Disposition on the present inadequacy of the protective action decision criteria in the NHRERP. !
i Respectfully submitted, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
- NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON JAMES M. SHANNON i NUCIEAR POWER ATTORNEY GENERAL ;
W f2A N R*/ Y '
hn Traficdnte
~
Diane Curran, Esq. '"
Harmon, Curran, & Towsley hief, Nuclear Safety Unit Suite 430 One Ashburton Place 2001 S Street, N.W. Boston, MA 02108 Washington, DC- 20008 (617) 727-2200 SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE QYY VJ ffY '
i Robert Backus, Esq. ,
Backus, Meyer, & Solomon 116 Lowell Street -
P.O. Lox 516 Manchester, NH 03106 Dated:- February 6, 1990 !
l
[ l p
L .'
~ -
14J M" '"yf '" +- 'Y v%ag .:-
- !i,'; ,
.v_ s f.
bh 'k <
f
'.v.,'- . \, \ ' b
- l1 '
b ~ , , ^<,_
t i
.i
{
1
.s i
I 1
l l
4
- (
.{
i
/
EXHIBIT 1 n
+
g-
? <
g.
- 3. .
)
4' b
Cu Vfg -
- .U .
}'
?x n
e
. WYWa
i February 1, 1990 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLPAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY.AND LICENSING BOARD :
(
<h
) i In the Matter of )
) )
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL ,
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL t
) Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues l
)
. )
APPLICANTS 8 RESPONSE TO LICENSING !
BOARD ORDER OF JANUkRY 11. 1990 ,
On January 11, 1990, this Board issued an order asking the parties'still interested in participating in these proceedings' "to advise the Board on how to proceed in accordance with the directives of ALAB-924 and i;ow (the f parties) propose to participate in the resolucion of the ;
i remanded issues The Board also required the Applicants to ,
! ?
V ,
l
' O By letter of January 19, 1990, the Seacoast Anti- i Pollution League advised the Board and parties that it did not
.have "the least interest whatsoever in any further proceedings ;
before the Board." Egg Aeolicants' Motion to Dismiss Abandoned ,
Romand Issues (Jan. 26, 1990) (hereinafter " Motion to Dismiss") ,
at Exhibit 1.
2 Memorandum and Order (Recardina Issues Remanded in ALAB-1111 (Jan. 11,-1990) at 1.
l s . ; z._
l l
-e i
" confirm their commitment respecting transportation needs for i certain special facilitian "in Rye and Exeter."3 The portions of ALAB-924 remanding four issues to the
_ {
Licensing Board for further consideration are presently on f appeal to the compf s.s.lon.' It was and r'emmins tEh Aeolicants' nosition, as ernressed in their Petition for f Review thereof, that ALAB-924 was in error and should be l revormed as to those issues. A ruling by the Commission on i that petition may wholly eliminate any further need for this Board to address these matters in any way. Thus, Applicants )
1 respectfully suggest, the Licensing Board may wish to defer further action on the remanded issues until the Commission a has spoken. In the'meantime, however, Applicants respond to the Board's directions herein.
A. Romand Issues
( 1. LOAs for Teachers Ridina Evacuation Buses In ALAB-924, the Appeal Board asked that this Board i
j " resolve the existing inconsistency in its interpretations of I
l the role of school personnel in an evacuation and determine '
l' 6
L i
3 Id. at 2.
i Egg Anolicants' Petition for Review of ALAB-924 (Nov. 10, l 1989). The Intervanors have appealed other portions of the decision. Intervenors' Petition for Review of ALAB-924 (Nov. 21, '
1989).
I l
\ u A
i whether any LOAs should be obtained from schoo1~ personnel."5 ;
The Licensing Board already has resolved that perceived inconsistency, in its Memorandum of November 20, 1989.6 Therein the Licensing Board explained that the inconsistency l i
arose from the use of similar terms in dealing with two i e
otherwise distinct areas of controversy.I The Board went on .
to clarify that LOAs are not required for evacuating teachers l because: (1) they would be acting as " individuals who j collectively supply a labor force or activity;"8 (2) some l teachers would be using the buses for their own evacuation, ,
i and thus "would in every sense be recipients of that evacuation service;"' (3) the school as a whole, of which the teachers are an integral part, are recipients of evacuation ,
5 Public Service Comcany of New Hameshire (Seabrook /
Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-924, 30 NRC 7, 1989)
(hereinafter "ALAB-924" and-cited to the sIIp.(Nov. opinion) at 11.
' Public Service Comnany of New Hameshire (Seabrook Etation, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-33, 30 NRC 1989) -
[ hereinafter "LBP-89-33" and cited to the sIIp(Nov. 20, In opinion). '
this connection, it should be noted that LBP-89-33 is now the law of the case, subject only to gna sponte Appeal Board review.
This is so because two intervenors, NECNP and SAPL, never filed a notice of appeal with respect to LBP-89-33, and the remaining intervenors never sought an extension of time to brief their appeals with respect to that decision. Thus there is no appellate challenge to LBP-89-33. ,
I Id. at 9-10.
s Id. at 10 Id. at 11.
. f i
)
j services;" and (4) the weight of the evidence is that
" teachers as a group will not abandon students needing their ;
care."" !
I The Board having responded to the Appeal Board's request, no further proceedings on this issue are required. q Moreover, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League ("SAPL"),
sponsor of the contention under which the issue arose, has :
i refused to participate in any further proceedings.12 For l that reason too, no further action on this issue is warranted. ,
f
- 2. Sufficiency of the 1986 NHCDA Snecial Needs Survey :
In ALAB-924, the Appeal Board " remand (ed) the matter of the sufficiency of the 1986 Special Needs Survey for further consideration by the Licensing Board."u The Appeal Board ;
did so because it concluded that at least some issues of f
1
" In part because they collectively are service Id.
recipients, LOAs are not required for the schools themselves. ,
See Lena Island Liahtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, t Unit 1), LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 856-58 (1985).
" LBP-89-83 at 11; asA R132 id. at 8-9. Moreover, the l
Board noted that teacher participation is not essential to the planned evacuation of the school children. Id. at 8; 331 also ,
Tr. 3356-57. Even if no school personnel participated, the children would be under the supervision of the bus drivers while being evacuated, 323., Tr. 3388-89, and of reception conter persennel and/or volunteers appointed by the Reception Center ,
Manager after evacuation. App. Ex. 5, Vol. 4B, App. B at B-1, B-3, B-4; App. Dir. No. 4, ff. II. 4740 at 10; II. 4960-65; App.
Dir. No. 7, ff. II. 5622 at 126.
12 Egg Motion to Dismiss.
" ALAD-924 at 19.
l l
=
,. q e
.c material fact existed in spite of Applicants' motion for summary disposition of the survey issues.
Responding to the Appeal Board's directive, this Board I made a further careful review of "the factors that 1 sad the i Appeal Board to reverse the grant of partial summary disposition, the pleadings of the parties in support and in j opposition to Applicants' Motion, and the information .l subsequently developed and reflected in the record of the New .
Hampshire portion of this proceeding."'8 on the basis of' {
that review, the Board concluded that "the focus of SAPL's i identified concerns regarding the adequacy of the 1986 l Special Survey is to fine-tune and broaden rather than ?
replace'the methodology employed by the NHCDA to identify special needs populations," and that "the survey deficiencies identified by SAPL, even if ultimately found to i
be meritorious, are either of no merit or are amenable to relatively simple and timely correction."'I f After issuance of the Licensing Board's memorandum containing the above analysis of this remanded issue, SAPL j Id. at 16. As the Appeal Board appears to concede, just what those surviving issues are is not yet clear, since SAPL has failed to identify them. 3,gt 14. at n. 40.
15 LBP-89-33 at 16.
- 14. at 21-22. ,
'I Id. at 17.
O l:
withdrew from participation in any further proceedings."
1
-Since SAPL is the sponsor of the underlying contention and
' the sole advocate of this issue," its withdrawal eliminates l
l the need for any further proceedings.#8
" Egg Motion to Dismiss at Exhibit 1. i 1
" The Board noted, LBP-89-33 at 14 n. 7, that NECNP addressed-an arguably similar issue, as to identification and notification of hearing-impaired individuals, under NHLP ,
Contention 4. However, when NHLP-4 went to hearing for trial, j Applicants and NECNP stipulated to a resolution of the l contention, and it was withdrawn by NECNP. Egg II. 8853 and j stipulation ff. II. 8853. j 20 Had SAPL not withdrawn, Applicants would have proposed i proceeding along the following lines: l a) It first would have been necessary to determine what specific factual issues remain to be litigated, SAPL's Statement I of Material Facts as to Which SAPL Contends that SAPL Contentiong 18 and 25 Raise Genuine Issues as to Identification of Those with '
Soecial Needs (June 9, 1986), Attachment A hereto, defines the maximum scope of the issues to have been litigated. However, while the Appeal Board held that some of these issues survived, it is also clear that at least some of them did not survive Applicants' summary disposition motion. Hence Applicants would have proposed that Applicants and SAPL each file, within ten.(10) days of the issuance of the Board's scheduling order on the remanded issues, a brief identifying the specific issues from Attachment A which have been disposed of and those which survived the May 1986 motion for summary disposition.
b) It is also clear that developments on the record --
including the SPMC-Exercise record -- may have disposed of all of the issues that ALAB-924 suggests survived summary disposition in 1986. Hence Applicants would have proposed that, in the briefs described above, the Applicants and SAPL also indicate which issues have been resolved, in whole or in part, by subsequent developments already on the record.
c) Finally, since 1986 two additional surveys have been conducted by the New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management (NHOEM), and the survey has been suitably " fine-tuned" and
" broadened". Hence, should the Board have found, after consideration of the above-referenced briefs, that some subset of P
- 61 R
)
r
- j
- 3. Loadina Time for ALE Patients Based upon a perceived inconsistency in certain plan language,21 and on testimony by SAPL witness Pilot which it characterized as being "without apparent contradiction,"22 q l
the Appeal Board remanded for further consideration "the issue of-(whether) preparation time has received appropriate consideration as a factor in deriving ETEs for (advanced- +
)
life-support patients)."" !
It is undisputed on the record that the only ALS patients in the New Hampshire EPZ are in the two EPZ hospitals .24 In its memorandum on ALAB-924, the Licensing -
Board reviewed the record in detail, clarified a few mis-
]
citations which may have misled the Appeal Board, and demonstrated that loading time for ALS patients in fact is 1 already accounted for in the evacuation time estimates."
" The Licensing Board then went on to note that: -
issues still remained to be resolved, Applicants would have ,
proposed to resolve them by means of a motion for summary disposition which would have placed these new facts before the !
Board.
l .
21 ALAB-924 at 26. 4 22 -
Id. at 25.
" Id. at 26-27.
II. 4295. SAPL's appeal, too, was limited to "the time 24 it would take to load hosoital patients." Seacoast Anti-y Pollution Leacue's Brief on Acceal of the Partial Initial
" Decision on the NHRERP LBP-88-31, at 41 (March 21, 1989).
" LBP-89-33 at 24-29.
i
i p;
"Some' improvement could be made in the NHRERP by I i
requiring an amendment to the plan (or town plans) to provide for instructions to the staff of special.
facilities to prepara ALS patients for transportation at the order to evacuate. Moreover, any confusion over. ,
the distinction between preparing special-needs persons i in anticipation of arriving transportation, and I assembling them can be readily resolved. This type of 1 improvement does not require any significant revision !
to the NMRERP and it: can be readily accomplished by the ApplicantsandtheStateandverifp'edbytheNRCStaff during the post licensing period."
Applicants have :ensulted with the-State of New Hampshire, ,
and hereby commit to have the language clarifications j suggested above by the Board made, subject to Staff oversight as indicated. Accordingly, no further proceedings on this
' issue are required. ]
Moreover, SAPL was the sponsor and sole advocate of
- this issue as well. Thus SAPL's refusal to participate 87 constitutes an additional reason why no further further l 5
proceedings need occur on this issue.
- 4. Imolementina Detail for Shelterina of General Beach Poculation In ALAB-924, the Appeal Board held-that implementing ;
detail was required for the general beach population (as ,
opposed to the estimated 2 percent of the beach population without vehicles) "12 12DE AA sheltering for the beach population is a protective action option under the NHRERP."2s 26
- 14. at 29.
27 Egg Motion to Dismiss.
- 8 ALAB-924 at 59 (emphasis added). P k
p g
The Appeal Board contemplated that the plan would provide for sheltering that general beach population in only two limited i i
circumstances: (1) when sheltering would maximize dose -
reductions, because of "a short duration, nonparticulate (gaseous) release that would arrive at the beach within a relativsly short time period when, because of a substantial j beach population, the evacuation time would be significantly larger than the exposure duration" (ima, a limited puff j release on a summer beach day) andt (2) when physical ;
impediments make evacuation impossible." .
During the hearings on the NHRERP, FEMA took the ,
position, through its witness Joseph Keller, that evacuation (when physically possibic) would always be the preferable protective action for the seabrook beach population in light- ,
of, inter alia, the uncertainties of release composition and duration,.the effects of groundshine, and the poor quality of -
the shelter available in the Seabrook beach area.30 This FEMA position was vigorously contested by the Intervenors, both at trial and on appeal, and was upheld by both the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board.31 In October 1988, the NHRERP, Rev. 2, Vol. 4, Appendix F was revised to conform to 1 the FEMA position that was litigated (and subsequently
- Id. at 50-51, 59.
i 3'
Id. at 52-55. !
31 Id. at 55-58.
l l
j
. ~ ~ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ .- _.
~7
!S a: 9 i a !
+
t
?
. upheld):' 'at step.IV.B.4 (General Emergency) it is jf recommended to evacuate ERPA A, hh approximate two-mile i radius that includes Mampton and Seabrook beaches, based on a ,
declaration of 8. General Emergency subject only to 4
constraints to evacuation. This revision to bring the plan 1.
into conformity with the FEMA position was served on the Board and parties on October 13, 1988.32 The effect of the E
change.is toJeliminate sheltering as an option under the .
first'of the two circumstances contemplated-by the Appeal Board. Since-sheltering is no longer a planned protective action option under those circumstances, no implementing detail is required in that case.
Thus there remains only the issue of implementing ,
detail for the second circumstance, 123. when evacuation is physicelly impossible, for example because a blizzard has l
' blocked ~all roads or a tidal' wave has destroyed a13 bridges.33 The amount of implementing detail necessary.in
+
such circumstances would be minimal: with the roads blocked i
or tha bridges out, emergency response officials would need s, very little additional information in order to arrive at an U " accurate picture of the [ shelter) option's overall benefits 33 333 Letter of G..Huntington, Assistant Attorney General L of New Hampshire, to-Chairman I.. Smith, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, October 13, 1988, and enclosures-thereto.
l 33 Ita., conditions not normally conducive to large beach L populations.
1
?
l h
, '? ,
.q
, 7:; ,
PT j
. l 1
and limitations"1vis-a-vis a'non-existent evacuation ]
rr; ; option." - Likewise, the amount of detail needed is limited 'l I' by the fact, specifically~ recognized by.the Appeal Board,
' that the types of shelter available to the general beach population is so "down in the dirt in the error band, it's q
~ trivial."35
-The only implementing detail that would be required pursuant to ALAB-924, therefore, is to direct emergency ;
" response' officials to, in those extremely unlikely circumstances that.a physical impediment to evacuation exists, broadcast an EBS message instructing the members of the general. beach: population to proceed immediately to the ,
nearest avail'able fully-enclosed building and remain there."
Applicants have consulted with the State of New Hampshire, and hereby commit.to have this change made. With the existing Stone & Webster shelter survey as a reference, state decision makers can be confident that sufficient indoor space
.is available.37 This change is minor and can be
" ALAB-924 at 64.
33 Id. at 57.
~
" directing beachgoers to the nearest available building is consistent with the NHRERP's existing shelter-in-place approach. Egg Public Service Comoany of New HamnshiIg (Seabrook Stat'nn, Units 1 and 2), LBP-88-32, 2B NRC 667, 758 (1988). ,
37 Id. at 771-72.
All the buildings listed in the survey are " suitable", ALAB-924 at 68, in the sense'that they possess theEminimal .9 drf which the Appeal Board recognized was all that
.was available. Id. nt 56. Beachgoers would be directed to go
!L ,
, - .- . . - . ~ . - . . . . . .
a d
.y k,
i L : accomplished under Staff oversight. Accordingly, no further proceedings on this issue are required.
.f B.- -Transportation Commitments- ,
g ,
Applicants hereby confirm that the NHRERP provides for ,
- "the. transportation needs of'special facilities based upon .
maximum ~ facility capacity . ...
in'the cases of the Webster l 7
facility'in Rye, New Hampshire, and the Exeter Healthcare
' facility in Exeter, New Hampshire."38 Specifically,
.-The-Webster facility. staff has, in recent discussions, indicated thht their maximum Capacity is 69 patients, broken down as 5 Category 2, 27 Category ,
r 3, and 37 Category 4 patients. The NHRERP commits 1 ,
evac-bed bus,-1 school bus, and 1 coach' bus to the- :
facility, with 6 Category 2 spaces, 48 Category-3 spaces,3' and 36 Category 4 spaces, or a total of 90 spaces for a. maximum of 69. riders.
The Exeter Health Care facility has indicated that its maximum capacity is 115 patients, broken down as 58 Category 2, 36 Category 3, and 21 Category 4 patients. The NHRERP commits 6 evac-bed and 1 coach bus W the facility, with 58 Category 2 and 64 l
- only to underline "available" buildings, i a. those standing and enterable.
38 - Id. at 70-71.
3' Also useable for Category 4 patients. l l
l 1
, =
. ,]
Ec j-<4.l
- y.
"~,'.
Y -: ". ) -(
- _ d'
'b
. ,' I:
~
Category 3'O spaces,.or a total.of 122 spaces-for'a -)
. i
- maximum of-115, riders.
t e
Respectfully submitted,. I s-n j f\ffsh n@, + Thomas G.-Dignan, Jr. ,
George H.:Lewald- i ii Jeffrey P. Trout Jay Bradford Smith =
Geoffrey C. Cook-William L. Parker Ropes &_ Gray ~
One International Place ,
-e Boston,-MA 02110-2624' "
(617) 951-7000 .
i
,i I
I
/
19 f
1 l' 1 1'
l' ,
5 I t l
is. .' 1 t
i t
'O Egg suora note 39.
l lp , .
>-.. , s
, ~[
+-1 n+o ., .
n new gepe. . p
. n, nvr n1 w --- -- - -- unw we-
't s
g a 4
r- y,
,. s..
i A
r
.,s..,s::
e.
O, p[.'D-'
r
,.5 Id'. -
':4-:s e 4
&^ :.
49 A
s
- t
- i. 4 RP EXHIBIT 2 n
k
(.
t sf .
c' a.5- :
W-
- g. .
3-w, .
gh '
[t r
p:
t 4
. j x
w I
'el --
7.'.
k-V i p;
p-b.
1: 1 ,
A 1
h, k
- f. '.
- . 1
[{' f' .-I.
6
.i
~
77 - .
1
- -?
p:
- t o
- ~
4 . General, Emergency 1 l
~
- a. . Initiating conditions i
y : c 'All conditions
.]
\
NOTE 1
' Protective action recommendations will be provided i
.,~
l 2: '
. ~
7 by the utility's.mergency response organization based ,
on emergency classification level or plant status in ;
accordance with Attachment A.
ll 2 5 ,
- b. Actions -)
(1)- Advise NH local EOCs, Massachusetts EOC and NHY ORO ~!
of Governor's declaration of state of emergency.
(2) Recommend evacuation of ERPA A, including Hampton and s
" ' Seabrook beaches, subj ect to contraints of Attachment C and proceed to Step 4.
2 ;
NOTE Complete Step 3 only if constraints of Attachment C exist. ,
.2 L (3) Advise the Department of Resources and Economic Development to close beaches and state park areas In l Hampton and Seabrook from Ocean Boulevard and Great l~
L Boar's Head to the North and Route 286 and Ocean Boulevard to the South, l
i Vol. 4A- U-8 Rev. 2 10/88
.e l .
1 l; , , , , - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,y ; c-,
- Qh
- ;n
+ y D ,"
- (4) Advise = State Police to establish access' control and p traffic control points for affected areas. Refer to c '
l 2-the Traffic Management Manual for identification of points in the affected area.
Ik, (5). Advise the Hampton. Hampton Falls and Seabrook Police l l'-
2 Departments to establish traffic' control-points in accordance with the Traffic Management. Manual.
G .
(6) Advise Department'HHS to activate Reception Centers, at Salem and Manchester. Advise DPHSLto activate n Decontamination Centers at. activated Reception Centers. ,
(7) Prepare the appropriate EBS Message, in accordance-with Append..x G. for release. Activate EBS and.
authorize broadcast.
(8) New Hampshire sirens will be activated. :}
-(9) After releasing EBS message. provide a copy to Media Center at Newington Town Hal1~.
(10) Consider extending protective actions to other areas of the EPZ-based on procedures at Step III.
Protective Action Decisions for the General Public, ,
and using Figure 1A and update information regarding: -!
2
. :f (a) Meteorological Conditions (b) Radiological Assessment ,
j 1
)
1 Vol.-4A ')- Rev. 2 10/88
-t f ik i cio -, .__._ _ . _-
"~'
, ,_ a. .
Isi"
- i
. O i,
4 p?$D, ]
. 9 M l 4
1 (c) -'ocal Conditions (Attachment C1 ,
i
( d )' Emergency Response Organization Status
, a (e) Plant Conditions- >
s Y. FIGURESi A .'
FIGURE 1A Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet B.
FIGURE IB Special Facility Protective Action korksheet C.
FIGURE-2 Map of Emergency Response Plann2ng Areas (ERPA) .
D.
FIGURE 2A ' Evacuation Scenarios E. FIGURE 3 ETE Values i
E. FIGURE 4 Protecth' Action Recommendation Guidance Charts l2 G.
' i Figure 4A Special' Facility Protective Action Recommencation Guidance Charts ,
H. FIGURE 5' Special Facility Sheltering' Factors '
V I '. ATTACHMENTS ATTACl! MENT A Plant-Status Information and Protective Action. '
Recommendations 2
ATTACHMENT B Access Control Points for New Hampshire EPZ
%TTACHMENT C Emergency Organization Status and Local Conditions i
-Vol. 4A U-10 Rev. 2 2/88
+
[ b .h E ,
+
c-4
~
g 2 i J
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ g g, l NUCLEAR REGULATORY = COMMISSION '
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAR R -
yt% ' ] JP Before: Administrative Judges:
G. Paul Bollwerk iII, Chairman Alan S. %osenthal g] '\ O ,
Howard A. Wilber i
)-
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL ,!
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, IT AL. )
-)
T(Seabrook Station,. Units 1 and 2)
) February 6, 1990
) i y
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r
I, John Traficonte, hereby certify that on February 6, 1990,.
I made service of the enclosed EMERGENCY MOTION OF.THE INTERVENORS.1) TO CLARIFY THE STATUS.0F THE APPEAL OF LBP-89-33 i
ANDf2) TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON THE NHRERP AS TO THE NEED FOR SHELTERING'IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES via telefax as indicated by
(*), and by first class mail to:
.Ivan-W. Smith, Chairman Kenneth A. McCollom Atomic Safety &. Licensing Bohrd 1107 W. Knapp St.
U.S._ Nuclear Regulatory. Commission Stillwater, OK 74075 n East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD - 20814 '
Dr. Richard F. Cole Robert R. Pierce, Esq.
Atomic Safety-&-Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' East-West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
^
- h. .
b J
<. (
- Docketing and Service.
- Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray j Washington, DC 20555 One International Place l Boston, MA- 02110 ]
I
- Mitzi~A. Young, Esq. Phillip Ahrens, Esq. 1 Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Assistant Attorney General l .U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of the Attorney General ;
Office of the General Counsel Augusta, ME 04333 1 11555 Rockville Pike, 15th Floor I Rockville, MD 20852 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
- Atomic Safety & Licensing l Assistant General Counsel Appeal Board 1 Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Washington, DC 20555 l Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Robert A. Backus, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 116 Lowell Street Washington, DC 20555 P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03106 Jane Doughty Diane Curran, Esq.
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Harmon, Curran & Towsley '
LFive Market Street Suite 430 Portsmouth, NH 03801 2001 S Street N.W.
Barbara St. Andre, Esq. Judith Mizner, Esq.
Kopelman & Paige, P.C. 79 State Street 77 Franklin Street Second Floor
-Boston, MA 02110 Newburyport, MA 01950 ,
Charles P. Graham, Esq. R.-Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Murphy & Graham Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton & Rotondi
'33 Low Street 79 State Street-
.Newburyport, MA 01950 Newburyport, MA 01950 Ashod N..Amirian, Esq. Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 145: South Main Street U.S. Senate P.O. Box 38 Washington, DC 20510 Bradford, PU\ 01835 (Attn: Tom Burack)
Senator Gordon J. Humphrey John P. Arnold, Attorney General One' Eagle Square,. Suite 507 Office of-the Attorney General Concord, NH 03301 25 Capitol Street
'(Attn: Herb Boynton) Concord, NH 03301
- v Paul McEachern,'Esq.
Shaines & McEachern :
m 25 Maplewood Avenue, PO Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801
- G.-Paul'Bollwerk, Chairman-
- Alan S. Rosenthal i Atomic' Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,. D.C. 10555 Washington, D.C. 10555
, *Howard A. Wilber Jack Dolan Atomic Safety & Licensing Federal-Emergency Management Agency >
Appeal Board Region i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J.W. McCormack Post Office & ,
Washington, D.C. 10555 Courthouse Building, Room 442 !
Boston, MA 02109 George Iverson, Director ,
N.H. Office of Emergency Management I L State House Office Park South
! 107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL n Traficonte asistant Attorney General Chief, Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 1
Dated: February 6, 1990
-3 -
, , _ _ - - . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .