ML20011F127
| ML20011F127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1990 |
| From: | Huntington G NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011F125 | List: |
| References | |
| ALAB-924, OL, NUDOCS 9003010190 | |
| Download: ML20011F127 (5) | |
Text
p#
i*
y Fobruary 16, 1990.
p
' UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN-before the-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
-PUBLIC~ SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 5--
)
50-444-OL (SeabrookcStation, Units l'and 2
)
Off-site Emergency
)
Planning Issues
)
STATE.0F NEW HAMPSHIRE'S COMMENTS REGARDING APPLICANTS'iRESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD ORDER OF JANUARY 11, 1990
-On' January 11,'1990, this Licensing Board requested the spartiesLto these proceedings "to advise the Board on.how to-proceed in."accordance with the directives of ALAB-924 and how (the parties)
-propose to participate.in theLresolution of the remanded
~~
issues."12 CN1 February-1,-1990, the Applicant respor.ded.to that Order and addressed each of1the four issues which ALAB-924 remanded
.to.the Licensing Board for'further consideration, and which are presently on appeal to the Commission.2 While the State of New
' Hampshire did not' respond to the Licensing Board's January' Order, it j
1
-now. finds that-it is necessary to address-certain statements made
- i 1?See Memorandum and Orcer (regaroing issues remanded in ALAB-924), (January 11, 1990) at 1.
2 See Applicants' Petition for Review of ALAB-924 (hov. 10, 1989),
~.7 and Intervenors' Petition for Review for ALAB-924 (Nov. 21, 1969).
-9003020190 900223 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G'
PDR 2
h I
x_
L i
.in the Applicants' February 1, 1990 pleading concerning the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response plan ("NHRERP").
In ALAB-924, the Appeal Board acknowledged that the-NHRERP provides for sheltering the general beach population in two very
~
limited circumstances: (1) when the' protective action option of sneltering will maximize cose reauctions in circumstances i
characterized by "a snore duration, nonparticulate (gaseous)' release that woula arrive at the'oeach within a relatively short time perica when, because of a substantial beach population, the evacuation time would be significantly larger than the exposure duration" (i.e. a limited puff release on a summer beach day); and (2) when physical impediments make evacuation impossible.3 The Applicant, without
-consultation with state officials, stated in its February 1, 1990-pleading, that the State of New Hampshire's October 13, 1988 Amendments to Revision 2 of the NHR<:? "[ eliminated) sheltering as an option under the first of the two circumstances contemplated by the Appeal Board."0 This conclusion is incorrect.
Specifically, the Applicant erred in inferring that the Octooer 1988 Amendments to NHRERP Volume 4, Appenaix F preclude sheltering ERPA-A in response to a general emergency classification.
See Affidavits of George Iverson and William 3 Public Service Company ot New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 ano 2), ALAB-924, 30-hRC (Nov.
7, 1989) (hereinafter "ALAB-924" and cited to the slip. opinion] at 50-51 and 59.
4 See Applicants' Response to Licensing Board Order of January 11, t
197U at 10.
O
gr.
. w, Wallace, February 16, 1990..While the procedures e... lined in the NHRERP (as amended in October 1988) clearly reflect New Hampshire's position that. evacuation is the preferred-protective action recommendation in nearly all circumstances, neither the October 1988 amendments nor any subsequent amendments to the NHRERP "eliminato' the shelter-in-place option from consideration by the State's decision makers in the first of the two limited circumstances citea by the Appeal. Board in ALA3-924 (i.e. a limited puff release on a summer beach day).
The State of-New Hampshire has adopted no. changes to.he NHRERP which foreclose the use of snelter-in-place as part of the plan, or which are inconsistent with testimony.by state officials before this Licensing Board in May of 1988.
Inceed, plan amendments i
made subsequent to the licensing proceedings reflect New Hampshire's position. stated in its filing of February 11, 1988 entitled hew Hampshire's Reponse to FEMA Supplemental Testimony (and' attached to Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 6 as Appendix 1), in prefiled testimony adopted at transcript page 10,020, ana in response'to intervenor questioning at transcript pages 10,210-11, 10,354, and 10,716.. The Applicants' conclusion that the October 1988 amendments
-substantively changed the NHRERP'so as to eliminate sheltra-r
. U: e does n'4 reflect.the State's interpretation-of its own plan.
Also addressec in ene Applicants' February 1, 1990 submission to this Board is the' Appeal Board's ruling that implementing detail is necessary with respect to tne protective action sheltering option when' physical impediments maka evacuation impossiole.5 o
J 5 Id. at 11.
r
+
- v. p o
~4-Specifically, Applicant states:
The onlyJimplementing detail that would be required-pursuant to ALAB-924, therefore, is to direct emergency response officials to broadcast an EBS message instructing.menb+;rs of the general ceach population to proceec immeaiately: to the nearest available fully-enclosed building and remain there.6
-While Rew Hampshire was consulted concerning this matter generally, the State does not concur with the final portion of the statement cited above.
The rererenced changes will direct emergency response
- officials to broadcast an EBS message instructing members of the I
general beacn population to shelter-in-place.
Finally, the Applicants' recent pleading states that: "With the existin3 Stone & Webster shelter survey as a reference, state decision makers can be confident that sufficient indoor space is available-[to accommodate sheltering requirements in the unlikely event this. protective. action option is implemented)."
The-State of New Hampshire has never acopted the findings or conclusions of'the Stone '&- tiebster snelter survey, and now reatfirms its position with l
respectLto-this issue as articulated by state officials in testimony before this Boaro at transcript page 10,707, 6 ye, j
i I
l 5'
f.:. ;
e:
t.
_5 F-Respectfully submitted,-
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOHN P. ARNOLD ATTORNEY GENERAL
/
1 h
f f
- Dated:
\\t on e d 1990 By:
( ^ @9(td _,'"Mnsth
{
Geoffrey M.
Hu Tngton;
'r Assistant Att rr,ey General.
Environmental rotection Bureau Office of the Attorney General 25 Cap!.tol Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Tel.
(603) 271-3679
.r
\\
r
).
e 7,
'I
,,