ML20034C805
| ML20034C805 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1990 |
| From: | Cole R, Mccollom K, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10329 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, ALAB-924, LBP-90-12, OL, NUDOCS 9005150068 | |
| Download: ML20034C805 (60) | |
Text
,
Y t-
- I' LBP-90-1 M LICD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNHC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W
-4 A8 :00.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND-LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative' Judges:
QFrfCF 0; 3gtgg7fjv.
]
uGCXiTING A Wylc[
t I
Ivan-M Smith, Chairman 0HANLH Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom ElRD MAY -4 090 In the Matter of 1
PUBLIC SERVICE' COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, at al.
,50-444-OL
- i (Seabrook Station, (Offsite Emergency _
Units 1 and 2)
Planning)
ASLBP No. 182-471-02-OL i
May.3, 1990 l
i MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l
(Ruling on Certain Remanded and Referred Issues)
INTRODUCTION'
- l In ALAB-924, 30?NRC 331 (1989), the Appeal. Board l
remanded four issues to this Board concerning:
(1) Letters of Agreement, (2) the 1986 Special Needs Survey, (3)
' ~ ~
Evacuatiori Tirde" Estimates f 5r > AUanced Life Support :
~
Patients, and (4) Implementation of:the. Sheltering: Option.1 Also, in an unpublished order. dated March 1, 1990, the Appeal Board referred ~to this Board two Intervenor mot' ions,_
4 j
IThe remanded issues were on' review from the. partial initial decision on the New Hampshire Radiological-Emergency.
Response Plan, LBP-88-32, 28 NRC 667 (1988).
51%h l
p
I s-i '
dated February 6 and 28, 1990, to reopen the record on sheltering issues.-
In the following order the Board:
1.-
Grants leave to the Intervenor Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) to withdraw from the-proceeding'
'before-this Board; 2.
Dismisses, as abandoned by SAPL, the Letters of i
Agreement and Special Needs Survey issues.
The Board also rules that, in any event, these issues have been resolved'on the merits; 3.
Finds that SAPL created the corpus of the Advanced Life Support Patient issue during'its appeal, and to that extent, SAPL has abandonedLit.
However the. issue now has'a
-life independent of SAPL.
Therefore the Board provides for its further resolution; 4.
Denies Intervenors' motions to reopen the' record ~on the issue of sheltering the beach population; and 5..
Provides for further resolution of.the; sheltering
" ihsu~e as 'rema~nded 'by 'A' LAB-924.
Th' Board also reEers e
certain rulings to, and-seeks further guidance from the Appeal Board on the remanded sheltering issue.
GENERAL BACKGROUND ALAB-924 and.our subsequent actions spawned a very large number of pleadings before this Board, the Appeal Board, the Commission, and the D.C.
Circuit Court of
P L.-
._-3.-
Appeals.
But, for-the purposes of today's order, it'is L
sufficient that we review only a relatively few of the i
events following ALAB-924.
Soon af ter ALAB-924 was_ rendered, we issued the partial y
initial decision on-the Seabrook Plan for the Massachusetts l
l Communities wherein we authorized the issuance of a full power operating license for-the Seabrook Station.
We noted there that ALAB-924 and the pendencyoof other issues did not preclude the immediate issuance of the operating license and we stated that we would explain our reasons for that-conclusion later.2 The explanation was published on November 20, 1989.3-On January 11, 1990, in an unpublished order, we invited interested parties to advise the Board on how to proceed in accordance with ALAB-924 and to report how the parties l
propose to participate.
SAPL promptly informed the Board by letter that the Board should not expect SAPL'to have an interest in further
~
proceedings before.the Board.'
On that account Applicants moved to dismiss as abandoned the remanded issues, 1 through
~
I 3,
supra, which, according to Applicants, depended upon SAPL 2
i LBP-89-32, 30 NRC 375, 650 n.87 (November 9, 1989).
'3Memorandum supplementing LBP-89-32.
LBP-89-33, 30 NRC 656 (November 20, 1989).
' Letter Robert A.
Backus, Esq., to Members of Board, January 19, 1990, enclosing opening statement of SAPL.
t
l ci l'
-4
-Contentions 15, 18.and 25.5 The NRC Staff supported Applicants' motion.'
SAPL opposed the motion but-confirmed formally that it would not participate in the remanded proceeding unless the license = authorization. contained in LBP-89-32 is reversed or vacated.7 Other Intervenars also
. opposed the motion to' dismiss the remanded issues.s l
l On February 1 Applicants also responded to the Board's order of January 11.
They' focused on'the remanded issue of-implementing the sheltering option for the' general = beach population.
According to Applicants, an October 1988 revision to the NHRERP eliminated sheltering-(in "ERPA A")
'as an option under.the first of two situations contemplated by the Appeal Board.'
That action ultimately added a new dimension to the controversy concerning shelt'ering the' beach population and brought into question certain pranises of the'
~
remanded issue.
Therefore we treat.the background of the 5Applicants' Motion to Dismiss Abandoned Remand 1 Issues, January 2,6,,1990
'NRC Staff's Response to Applicants' Motion to Dismiss Certain Remanded Issues, February 12, 1990.
7 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Objection ~to Applicants' Motion of January 26, 1990, February 1, 1990.-
sIntervenors' Opposition To Applicants' January 26 Motion To Dismiss Abandoned Remand Issues, February'7,-1990.
' Applicants' Response to Licensing Board Order'of January.11, 1990, at 10, February'1, 1990.
.ERPA A'is the Emergency Response Planning Area (ERPA) within a 2-mile radius of the Seabrook Station and includes the Seabrook and Hampton beaches.
j
i
-e' sheltering issues separately and in connection with our opinion on that matter below.
L The Commission addressed all four issues remanded by ALAB-924 in'its Memorandum and Order permitting the Director 1
of NRR to issue the license authorized by LBP-89-32.
CLI '
90-03, 31.NRC.
, March 1, 1990.
j DISCUSSION SAPL's Contentions First, as to'SAPL's participation in the proceeding l
before us, we note that its early notice to the Board was to the effect that it would not participate on any; issue not related to licensing.10 The effect of the Commission's order of March 1 authorizing the license was to foreclose the condition upon which SAPL would have participated.ll We therefore grant leave to SAPL to. withdraw and-dismiss l
SAPL from the proceeding before this Board.-
App]icants move for the dismissal of the Letters of l
AgreemeNtis' sue, based.upon SAPL Contention 15, Special Needs Survey issue, based upon SAPL Contentions 18 and 25, and=the Advanced Life Support Patient issue, based upon SAPL Contention 25.
The motion is founded upon SAPL's refusal to 10E g., SAPL's February 1 Objections to' Applicants motion..
Il See letter from Mitzi A.
Young, OGC, to Appeal Board, April 26, 1990 (Operating License issued).
i i
Y participate in the proceeding before us, and according to Applicants,-the issues have been abandoned.
Motion to Dismiss, n.5, supra.
The NRC Staff supports the motion for the same ~ reason.12 SAPL, however, protests that'its respective-contentions have now become issues with a life of their own based upon i
public health and safety considerations.
SAPL Objection, n.7, supra, at 2.. SAPL cannot have it-both ways.
Having declined.to assist the Board in resolving the remanded issues, it-has-no voice in how others should resolve-them.
i SAPL.has abandoned the issues' based upon its-contentions.-
However,.Intervenors, New England Coalition on Nuclear-Pollution (NECNP) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
argue that they had,.before January 19, 1990, already adopted those issues.13 Their arguments' depend upon' J
unilateral actions long after the contention-admitting stage of the proceeding and-even after the trial-stage.
In fact i
. ",.. adoption" depends upon an asserted-right to appeal on the j
all issues-in the proceeding, opposition at 3.
The Appeal Board, in Houston Lichtina & Power Co.
(South Texas Project, Units 1 and-2),'ALAB-799, 21 NRC 360',
12NRC Staff's Response To Applicants'-Motion To Dismiss Certain Remanded Issues, February 12, 1990.
13Intervenors' Opposition To Applicants' January 26 i
Motion To Dismiss Abandoned Remand Issues, February 7, 1990.
1 l
ll
J i
I i'
1 1
382 (1985), addressed a situation similar to the-one before j
i us:
j i
h Under:NRC procedure, however, (the withdrawal of an intervenor in a case) does serve to remove,the t
i withdrawing party's contentions from litigation; (Footnote citing Clinch River.-ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383,
~
391-92 (1976)).
The Commission has made it clear, in this regard, that the mere acceptance of contentions _at' r
the threshold stage does not turnlthemTintoicognizable-E issues for litigation independent of their: sponsoring.
intervenor [ Footnote citing Comanche' Peak, CLI-81-36,:
14 NRC 1111, 1113 (1981)).
e Nor does the Commonwealth's avowed status as an:
" interested State" avail to it any specialJpower to pick up issues dropped by other intervenors.
If it wishes to have-
[
l-issues heard in an NRC proceeding it "must observe the procedural requirements applicable-to other. participants."
[
Gulf States Utility ComDADY (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 768-69.
We also understand the Intervenors to argue'that their appeal from LBP-88-32', even though not expressly on the issues covered by SAPL's contentions, somehow cloaks them 4
wi_th par.ty_ status.as to all issues appealed'and_ remanded.
[
That argument is not convincing.
Their citation to'recent rule changes (54 Fed. Reg. 3316, 3317 (August 11, 1989))
does not support their statement that-"each intervenor had-the right to appeal on all issues in the proceeding" at the time their appeals were filed.
Opposition at.3.
But even i
assuming such a right, the fact is that NECNP and the Commonwealth did not appeal the partial initial decision 1
i s
,n
.+
=
a
--a
w
1 1
i respecting SAPL contentions as far as we can glean from
-their pleadings.
i We rule,: therefore, that SAPL took with: it the issues l
L pertaining to' Letters of Agreement 1and the 1986 Special i
Needs Survey-when it withdrew from'the proceeding before us,.
L In addition, the'Intervenors have not'provided any 3
useful advice to this Board as to how the issues. remanded by-ALAB-924 should be resolved...Their response to.our
' invitation-was simply that we must conduct evidentiary hearings.l' Their reply to Applicants' advice on the, issues added argument but not assistance.15.Furthermore, as we.
discuss-below, we believe that the concerns identified by the Appeal Board with respect to those' issues have been resolved on the merits.
-i
~
Letters Oif Aareement t
With respect to the Letters of Agreement issue, Intervenors seek to relitigate the entire : issue.- They provide no analysis of our discussion of that' issue in LBP-89-33.
The Board rules that the remanded LOA matter has been resolved 'by the discussion in LBP-89-33 l(30 NRC at 659-L 62).
We plan nothing further with respect to that issue.
I4Response of the Massachusetts Attorney General and i
NECNP To Board Order of January 11, 1990, at-5-6.
15Intervenors' Reply To The Applicants' Response To Licensing Board Order.Of January 11, 1990, 1
February 12, 1990.
-9 1986 Soecial Needs1 Survey
- A's to the 1986 SpecialLNeeds Survey,.the Appeal Board found that "there (were) issues of material fact relating to the survey," the litigation of which was not properly preclu'ded=by-application of the' Commission's San onofre
" extraordinary measures" rule.I' ALAB-924, 30 NRC at 347.
On remand, Intervenors argue that the/ Appeal Board's conclusion that the presence of disputed material facts regarding the 1986 survey requires /the conduct of-an l
evidentiary hearing to resolve these-disputes.
For the reasons set out below, we believe that SAPL's objections to the Special Needs Survey were andLare' subject to summary' disposition' based on the record before the Licensing Board in 1986.
We do not believe that the. Appeal Board's characterization of SAPL's 1986 concerns as " material facts" was intended to-(nor could it)' deprive this Board of authority to enter an otherwise appropriate order summarily resolving the dispute on' remand.17.Rather, we read ALAB--
I'For a. summary of-the Applicants' 1986 Special Needs Survey and SAPL's concerns regarding that survey, see LBP-89-33, 30 NRC at 662-67.
17Egg Fablic Service Co. of New Hamoshire-(Seabrook l
Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-78-14, 7 NRC 952, 961 n.9 (1978)
(on remand, a Licensing Board has the authority to enter any appropriate order in connection with the remanded i
proceeding).
I i
l u
. ~..
t r
924 as concluding that the apparent existence of: disputed j
material' facts regarding the methodology and structure of the 1986 Special Needs Survey was not overcome by the
" extraordinary measures" rationale initially advanced by the Licensing Board.
This.being the case, even if the issue had
- I
~
not been abandoned,.we would not be required to engage in a meaningless hearing should we conclude that none of the~
1 L
-facts SAPL desired to litigate materially impact on the l
specific issue before1us -- whether the 1986 survey was adequate for planning purposes under the commission's
-emergency-planning requirements.
.In its 1986 Statement'of Material Facts, SAPL asserted
~
that five material facts remained in dispute regarding the-1986 survey.18 Taken together, these asserted material-facts focused on the survey's methodology (including its frequency, timing and dissemination. approach)-and design.l' We find that none of SAPL's five' identified concerns are, in fact, material to a resolution oflSAPL-18 and SAPL-25 to.the
~
extent those contentions argued that adequate procedures to identify special transportation needs individuals exist.
While cast in terms of specific factual deficiencies, the gravamen of SAPL's identified material facts.on the survey's frequency and dissemination methodology was that an 18Egg Applicants' Response to. Licensing Board Order of January 11, 1990 (February 1, 1990), Attachment A.
l'Eeg LBP-89-33, 30 NRC at 663.
1 i
J T
_4, ;
i annual, mail survey. based on utility.customerJ11sts was l
inadequate as a matter of law. 'Without assertions of EPZ-specificfcharacteristics requiring.a different outcome, such l
generic challenges do not present material' facts requiring an evidentiary hearing. -While perhaps not.the most exact or exhaustive of all-possible research techniques, surveys'of i
theLtype at issue here are an acceptable and, adequate approach under1the Commission's emergency planning-requirements.
Egg Philadelohia Electric Co.
(Limerick.
r Generating Station, Units l'and 2), ALAB-836, 23 NRC 479, 487 (1986).20 Similar'ly,-SAPL's identified concerns as to:the structure and wording of the survey form clearly do not j
require an evidentiaryLhearing.
In response to.almost i
identical challenges in Limerick, the Appeal Board itself needed no reference to the: evidentiary record to find the Limerick survey form adequate.
~
We have examined the survey in question.
[ci.tation omitted}.
Although.it could have..been, l
designed to be more " attention-grabbing," it is l
adequately drafted to elicit.the desired response.
I' t
L l
20As an aspect of its identified factual deficiencies in the 1986 survey dissemination methodology, SAPL also asserted.that the> Applicants' survey should-have been accompanied by a public announcement program.
Statement of l
Material Facts at Item 2.
As we noted in'LBP-89-33, a public announcement program was conducted-in connection with the 1986 survey.
30 NRC at 665 n.11.
We further' note that--
the Appeal Board in Limerick found a program similar to that employed by the Applicants here to be an adequate supplement to-the potential under-inclusiveness of a mail survey.
Limerick, 23 NRC at 488.
i
i 12 '
That is, a recipient needed to do nothina unless a j
member of the household.has a transportation or other'special problem.
If'that is the case,_one i
simply checked the appropriate boxes and returned the form'in the postage paid envelope-provided-(W)e think this. questionnaire reasonably.
served the purpose for which it was intended --
identification of those with no transportation.
available in'an emergency.
Limerick, 23 NRC at-488 n.10 (emphasis in original).
As did the Appeal Board in Limerick, we find the 1986 survey > form j
" reasonably served the purpose forLwhich it was intended,"-
R and that SAPL identified no disputed fact in 1986 or:in:
response to our invitation for comment.that undercuts this-conclusion.
Finally, SAPL identified the timing of the; survey 1as a material fact requiring hearing.
In support,-it argued that the 1986 survey, conducted initially in March 1986 (and-presumcbly repeated every March),.was inadequate because it.
- failed to include the transient summer population'.21 210n the question of timing, we note that the relative L
planning value between a summer survey and a spring survey
. is.a c, lose; question.. The. purpose.of any. transportation.
needs survey is twofold:
(1) - needs assessment. and (2) resource allocation.. While a summer survey would likely set the upper limits'of the potential transportation needs, such information would be of.little value in making resource
- allocation plans since the exact number, need'and_ location of such individuals would varyLover time, perhapsaweekly.
On the other hand, while a.springtsurvey would likely be of more value in developing resourceJallocation' plans, it would l
not, aus SAPL points out, include summer transients who might need such special transportation assistance.
I In any case, the goal of.any summer survey would be-to
-identify a-rather unique group of transients:
those who had special transportation resources available to reach the EPZ and presumably plan to have such resources available to l
l t
m..
m
-._...-m
.A-..
~
,r,,,
y e
y 1
However, having found the. methodology and design ~of the i
i survey to be adequate as a matter of law and accepting SAPL's proposition that the survey should be sent during the i
summer months (ita., the period of the highest potential concentration of special needs-individuals), no hearing would be necessary on this point even if we had not dismissed SAPL-18 and SAPL-25 as abandoned..
In our view, l
questions such as these fall squarely within the category'of l --
implementation matters that can properly,beLleft t'o the NRC staff.
Had it-become necessary to resolve SAPL's " timing" fact,'the most we would have required wouldibe for the Applicants' to schedule and conduct their annual special needs survey during the summer months of July-through August of each year, leaving to the' Staff theJresponsibility to j
l ensure implementation of such a condition.-
Because.no valid 1
contention remains to support such a requirement, we impose none here.
leave the EPZ but who do not have such. resources available to them, either personally or as part of another population group, during their short-term stay in the EPZ.. As we suggested in LBP-89-33, because we deal here with transient' special transportation needs individuals who are a subset of a subset of the transient summer population and in the absence of any information suggesting otherwise, we believe 4 -
it unlikely that any additional summer special needs individuals will overwhelm the transportation needs presently available under the NHRERP -- 150% of the identified needs based on the spring survey.
N m-..
- 14 2
Advanced Life Suncort Patients We do not dismiss the remanded issue of the effect that 4
the time to prepare-ALS patients for evacuation would have
'f upon' evacuation time estimates for these. patients.
The issue remanded'to the_ Licensing Board-was distinct from.the contentions-SAPL litigated.
Therefore the issue was not SAPL's to' abandon. ~As we1 explain below, partly because of-3 SAPL's inaccurate characterization of the issue (purportedly based upon SAPL contentions) in its brief on appeal from-l LBP-88-32,-a new matter was decided by the Appeal Board.
The Commissionlin CLI-90-03 expressed its own, new concerns about problems which may attend the protective action choices for ALS patients.. We have, therefore, an issue which must be resolved-regardless of SAPL's withdrawal.
We examine the genesis and development of the remande'd issue to explainLwhy we conclude below,that issue'is what the Appeal i
Board and Commission say it is, nothing more.
Germane _to th.e di.scussion..of _the.ALS issue.are SAPL's original contentions in this proceeding.
SAPL Contentions-r 8, 8A and115 raised issues concerning special facility manpower and transportation resources.
However, they are inapplicable;to the ALS issue as remanded.
SAPL Contention r
25 states:
. provisions for protecting those persons whose mobility'may be impaired due.to such factors as s
L
~
i
- 15'-
N.
i institutional or. other confinement are patently : lacking."22 l
-However, the basis for this contention reveals that the contention was concerned with issues other than evacuation I
v times:
the identification of the mobility impaired; letters-
.of agreement with service providers; and adequate manpower l
and transportation resources among service providers. 101 at 30.
The Board admitted the contention on those 1ssues.23 1.
SAPL Contention 25 was later revised,. readmitted and limited L
.to the bases provided.in.another SAPL pleading dated.
November 26, 1986,-n.25, infra.24-The revised bases again raised issues other than evacuation times: ' letters of agreement with host hospital facilities; discriminatory treatment of patients 55 years and older in the Exeter-1 Hospital RERP; letters of agreement with ambulaned providers; and the identification 1of special needs i
~
patients.25 22
_Seacoa_st Anti-Pollution League's Second. Supplemental 1 Pe'tition for Leave to Intervene (with Attached Contentions),
February 21, 1986, at 29.
23Memorandum and. Order (Ruling on Contentions and Establishing'Date and Location for' Hearing)., unpublished,
- April 29, 1986, at 100.
24 Memorandum and Order.(Ruling on Contentions -
L Revision 2 NHRERP), unpublished, February 18, 1987, at 5;
(
Memorandum and Order-(Providing Basis for and' Revision to l
Board's Rulings on Contentions on Revision 21of NHRERP),-
(
unpublished, May 18, 1987, at 39-40.
t l
25Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Contentions on Revision 2 of the NHRERP, November 26, 1986, at 27-29.
1
- 16'-
{
i SAPL Contention'31 alleged:that the Applicants' l
l evacuation time estimate study "does not deal realistically 3
with the transport of transit dependentL persons."26
-However, the basis for the contention failed to specify how the time estimates were defective.
SAPL merely repeated-l that the-time estimates-for special facility patients'were "very unrealistic."' Id.-at 10.
Asiwe discuss below, while l.
[
this contention could have been-the basis'for an. attack on the NHRERP's ETE assumptions forfspecial facilities,1 nowhere L
in the evidentiary hearing record do.we find SAPL.to have mounted such an attack.
L Testimony concerning special facility. advanced life
~
1 support patients first came to light.during the evidentiary hearings on the NHRERP when SAPL adduced.the " Rebuttal Testimony of Joan Pilot on Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions No. 25, and Nos. 8 and 8A, and'SAPL. Redrafted l
Contention 15."
More to the' point, Mrs. Pilot's testimony contained the.following questions and answers:
.~
- 4) What is the purpose of your testimony?
l My testimony is to address issues rel'ated to.
ambulance transport including numbers of people per ambulance, the need for.ambulancesffor nursing.
home patients, and the availability-of drivers.
- 5) In your experience, how many Advanced Life Support-(ALS) patients can be transported per ambulance?.
26Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Fourth Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene (May 15,'1986), at 5-6.
~
6-y--
w m
.In my. opinion, only,one ALS patient can be transported per ambulance.because.of the complex nature of the care-that has.to be provided.
I 4
need to.have'a nurse accompanying the-patient because during the trip only a_ nurse.can administer medications under a written physician's order.
ALS patients often have numerous-intravenous lines (the range is from 1-11) and a nurse is required to monitor those.
As a-practical matter, it can take;from 28 minutes to an hour to move the patient from the hospital bed to the ambulance stretcher.' Additionally, copies of.the~ patient's medical records can take. time to gather.together; but they absolutely;have to go with the patient so that the receiving hospital will know:what kind.of care:is. required..
Pilot Reb.,.ff. Tr. 7670, at 1-2.
At the end of the NHRERP; portion of the evidentiary
' hearing, SAPL filed its proposed findings of-fact-and conclusions of law divided, pursuant to Board order,'into general-subject categories..One~(Section Four), entitled
" Transportation Availability and= Support Services.(Special-Needs)," contained a direct reference to Mrs. Pilot's I
statement concerning ALS patients:
Witness Joan Pilot testified that it takes from 28 minutes to one hour to move =an advanced: life.
support _pa_ti.ent from.a. hospital bed'to the.__ a
~~ '-
~
stretcher in the.same room. lIt is-not possible-to i
l prepare in advance to expedite the~ transport of suchLpatients except to prepare their: paper work.
Moving lines, oxygen connections, tubes'and the P
consumingprocess.gpmacomplicatedrandtime like make' moving-t r
l-l'
- This statement was part of a lengthy _ proposed finding 1
(SAPL PF 4.1.6.) alleging that New Hampshire nursing home 27 SAPL's Proposed Findings of Fact, Rulings of Law and Conclusions of Fact (May 9, 1988).
l
w patients required ambulance transportation instead of bed bus transportation during an evacuation.
As it happened, Mrs. Pilot's statement is;not offered for adoption in the
" Conclusions of Fact" section of SAPL's pleading.
Indeed l
the only proposed conclusion of fact that bears'any reference to.Mrs. Pilct's testimony is SAPL Proposed Finding 4.3.2. which. states in-part:
i Therefore, the Board-finds that the allotment of n2 ambulances for nursing homes constitutes a very serious deficiency in the NHRERP.su cannotpossiblybe'deemedadequate.ppthatit 7l Even more telling of the purpose of Mrs. Pilot's testimony is the fact that SAPL offered a proposed finding-I (6.1.26) ' in'Section 6 of - its pleading- (Evacuation Time Estimates) attacking the NHRERP evacuation time' assumptions for ambulatory nursing home patients that wereto,be evacuated by bus.
Id. at 83.
Nowhere in this section did
-1 SAPL cite to Mrs. Pilot's testimony or mount.a challenge to
(
the evacuation times for non-ambulatory hospital. patients.
. l
' fherewas'no'~ reason'forother' par'~ies,'intheirkroposed
~
~
t findings, to consider Mrs.-Pilot's testimony in isolation l
from the issue being litigated -- transportation availability and support services.
In Section 4 of LBP-88-32,-devoted.to " Transportation Availability and Support Services," the Board made several-1
-i 2814. at 50-51.
l
I
.I
-t a
j.
4 L
- l findings concerning health care (special) facilities.
Among those findings, one, Tinding 4.40, discredited the testimony of Ms. Maureen Barrows, who had, in the course of her testimony regarding the adequacy of transportation services, supported her assertions with a reference to NHRERP i
assumptions concerning the time it would take to load-i ambulatory nursing home patients into evacuation vehicles.
.The Board discredited her. testimony because she based her attack on NHRERP assumptions for ambulatory patients, who would not be in bed awaiting transportation, on.the-basis of:
a time toct she had conducted using a bed-ridden non-f ambulatory patient.
As the Board stated in its findings:
. Intervenors' assumptions concerning evacuation times for each nursing home-patient' a
fail to adequately reflect-the evacuation. time assumptions of the NHRERP.. The plan assumes that patients are at the loading point wheni transportation arrives'(NHRERP,.Vol.-6,-at.11-12)(sic), not in their beds awaiting pickup as Intervenors argue.
Barrows Dir. ff. Tr. 4405,' at 2-3.
LBP-88-32, suora, 28 NRC at 699.29 5APL filed its Brief on Appeal of LBP-88 4 5'i5 which it '
~
characterized the Board's ruling on Mrs. Barrow's testimony as follows:
The Board also discounts Intervenor testimony as to the time it would take:to load hospital i
j patients onto emergency vehicles.
(PID 4.40, p.
29Mrs. Barrows testified on cross-examination that in an emergency Rockingham Nursing Home patients would not be:
in their beds awaiting transportation, but1instead, would be' l
placed in mobile lounge chairs for movement.
Tr. 4469-70.
I i
i 66)
The Board-assumes that patients would-be at
.the loading point, not in their beds when emergency transportation arrives.
Again,-the.
Board failed to consider the Pilot testimony.
Mrs. Pilot said that it is not possible to expedite advanced life support patients except to prepare their: paperwork 1and that-it takes from 28 minutes to one hour to move such a patient from bed to stretcher in the same room.
Lines, oxygen:
connections,. tubes and the like make the procagg i
complicated and time consuming.
(Tr. 7674-76).
l Our Finding 4.40 never addressed evacuation-times for non-ambulatory hosoital patients'because that issue was not litigated.
The Board had cited only those NHRERP-
]
assumptions concerning. ambulatory nursina home patients, and-then not in the context of ETEs.31 i
SAPL had raised a new issue on appeal. -Neither Applicants nor the NRC Staff challenged this move, leaving the Appeal Board-to conclude that new issue was not 1'
l disputed.
In that light, the Appeal Board found'that:
1 Intervenors' witness Joan Pilot testified,Lwithout apparent contradiction, (that ALS patients;could not be prepared for evacuation) before the arrival-of the-evacuation vehicle-[ footnote omitted).
In l
dismissing SAPL's challenge concerning evacuation l,_ _..
.. - -~ --~
30SAPL's Brief on Appeal of the Partial Initial Decision on the NHRERP LBP-88-32-(March 21, 1989), at 41-42.
33SAPL demonstrated in its filing of May 15, 1986, (SAPL Fourth Supplemental Petition, supra, at 10) and;again-in its filing of November 26, 1986 (SAPL's Contentions,
- supra, at 14-15) that it was cognizant of;the.: distinction between the two evacuation time assumptions for' ambulatory-L and non-ambulatory patients.
SAPL'even noted'in its basis l'
for Contention 31 that "the time ~for loading non-ambulatory passengers into ambulances is estimated 1at 0.67 hours7.75463e-4 days <br />0.0186 hours <br />1.107804e-4 weeks <br />2.54935e-5 months <br />."
SAPL's Fourth Supplemental Petition, suora,'at 10.
SAPL is i
therefore without excuse'for confusing these two-issues.
i
h c.
times for special facilities, however, the Licensing Board stated that "[t]he plan assumes that patients are at the loading point when transportation: arrives (citation omitted), not in their beds awaiting pickup as Intervenors argue.-
L
-[ footnote omitted).
The Board's statement, l
-however, is inconsistent with the direction given in;the individual emergency plans for New Hampshire EPZ towns that patients / residents;of' f
special facilities will be assembled an-(not before) the evacuation-vehicles arrive (footnote 3
L omitted).
If, as these plans suggest,; assembly-.
begins only when the-evacuation-vehicles arrive,-
l then the preparation time factor highlighted by Hs. Pilot seemingly has not been considered'as r
part of the present planning basis for ETEs (citation omitted).
ALAB-924, supra, 30 NRC at 351.
The. matter was remanded to i
this. Board with the instruction "to resolve this deficiency."
Id. at 352.
l Our own writir.gs on the subject may have contributed:to the confusing state of the record.
~Mrs. Pilot's testimony-cited above, as that testimony-was ultimately; interpreted, was beyond the scope of the contention it purported to support.
Our respective Finding 4.40, although accurate, l
~
was similarly beyond the scope of the. issue being addressed.
Moreover, when we explained the safety significance,of the
' ~ ' ~
~
L remanded issue in LBP-89-33, we alluded to evacuation times for special facilities although that' issue had not been l
l litigated by SAPL.32 Consequently there was no indication'to the Commission from either board or, as far as we have observed, from any.
32 l
Memorandum Supplementing LBP-89-32, supra, 30 NRC l
656, 667.
- {
-o l 1
party that the ALS issue had been born'to a life of-its'own
)
post hearing.
As a-result-the commission analyzed the remanded issue as a portion of a broader ETE issue even-though it was not litigated as.such before the Licensing Board and decided by=it.33 At the outset of its decision on its immediate effectiveness review, the Commission explained that its review under 10 C.F.R.
S 2'.764, "is largely' informal, relying on the existing record and parties' written comments, and it is without prejudice to later adjudicatory:
resolution of issues still in' controversy."
Slip:op. at 3.-
r Therefore, in a narrow sense, CLI-90-03-contains no
- r instructions to the NRC adjudicating boards;and participating parties on how to perform under the remand.
Nevertheless-accepting the ALS issue as remanded, the Commission's discussion of the issue provides useful guidance to the proper identification of1 matters of concern.34 Accordingly the Board sees the following ALS issues to be resolved.
They include issues set-out inJALAB-924,-in l
l l
33Memorandum.and Order, CLI-90-03, 31 NRC
, slip.
op, at 29-36, 34We very carefully limit the advice of CLI-90-03 to the identification of issues to be addressed under the
=
remand, not to the resolution of any issues still in controversy.
See 10 C.F.R.
S 2.764(g).
'i
}
+
e s
--v.
23 -
CLI-90-03, and respective subissues identified by this Boards (1)
How long does it take to efficiently prepare an ALS patient for transportation?
(2)
Would preparation of l
patients at an early initiating condition, hg., da,elaration of an alert, or at an order to evacuate, be medically appropriate?
(3)
How many ALS patients are there in the EPZ?
Where are the ALS patients?
Only at Exeter and Portsmouth Hospitals?
(4)
Would uncertainties in the times available to prepare ALS patients for evacuation produce ETEs thsc are too inaccurate to be useful in the selection cf protective action options?
Finally, the Board notes Intervenors' argument that ALAB-924 (30 NRC at 352 n.71) requires a finding that the NHRERP is inadequate in the absence of individualized special f acility planning.35 The cited footnote requiress nothing of that sort.
I*. is simply an observation by the o
Appeal Board as to a use to be made of any correction in the estimated preparation time for ALS-patients..
351ntervenors' Reply to Applicants' Response to Licensing Board Order of January 11, 1989, supra, n.15, at ?.
~
!.1 Shelterina Issues overview I
The Appeal Board remanded certain sheltering issuen to this Board with the admonition that, notwithstanding the low i
probability of employing sheltering as a protective action 1
for the transient beach population, so long as' sheltering remains an option under the NHRERP, respective implementing I
measures are required.
30 NRC at 368.
j
~
At the outset, much of the concern underlying the Appeal Board's remand and thr subsequent events leading to the motions to reopen tac record can be traced to the language of the plan, not its intent.
Therefore we first review some fundamentala of the NHRERP on sheltering.
When New Hampshire emergency officials speak of
" sheltering" as a protective action for the beach population (or elsewhere for that matter), they do D21 mean that F
everyone goes to shelter.
Quite the contrary, they mean "shelt.er-in-place".yhich,.in turn,.means that.the. persons receiving the instruction to shelter remain where they are if they are already at a sheltered place -- house, school, work place, wherever.
The distinction between persons already at shelter and persons with access to shelter is
]
blurred.
The essential point is that there would be no time r
or confusion barrier between the persons to be sheltered and their sheltering.
l
The case that has driven this litigation, of course, concerns a large number of transient " day trippers" on the j
beach in summer without immediate access to shelter.
Those people are net directed to seek shelter when the order to shelter-in-place is implemented.
They are directed to evacuate in the cars they came in.
The very few who have no transportation of their own and are not offered rides, go to' indicated public shelters and wait to be evacuated.
In our discussion below we often refer to " actual sheltering" to distinguish from " sheltering-in-place" in that the latter term also means immediate evacuation for many.
When emergency planning officials testified about
" sheltering" as the protective action under discussion, they I
were not always asked to explain the nuances of that option.
Therefore those examining the record, but not. initiated to the plan, might not have understood that the recognized implementation of the sheltering option is to " shelter-in-place", 123., almost all summer beach day trippers evacuate.
Also,'irirea'ingthe NHRERf, one must be aware tha't the.
d
" shelter-in-place" concept is also designed to provide for the non-beach portions of Seabrook EPZ, for all seasons and weather, and other variables.
An official description of the shelter-in-place concept is set out at 35, infIA.
Essential to any reasoned discussion of the sheltering option is an understanding of the three broad conditions under which sheltering would be considered.
The Licensing
(
Board and the Appeal Board used similar terms, both derived from Applicants' testimony. -The Appeal Board was succinct; sheltering would be the choice (1) if sheltering is the most effective option in achieving maximum dose reduction, based upon EPA protective action guides of 1-rem whole body dose and 5 rem thyroid dose;
( 2 )'
if there are " physical" impediments to evacuation; (3) if an evacuation is recommended, while a beachgoer without his or her own' means of transportation is await $
transportation assictance.*pp 133 San Applicants' Direct Testimony No.
6, at 19-20; id. App.
1, at 7-8.
Planning efficials consider " physical" impediments under condition (2) to include fog, snow, hazardous road and bridge conditions, and highway construction.
Tr. 10,721.
ALAB-924, 30 HRC 363-64.36 It is also useful to review the rare circumstances that must all prevail before condition.(1),would apply 3' Parenthetically, we note that a commonly cited abbreviated version of condition (1), as exemplified' above, is facially a non-sequitur.
Maximum dose reductions and EPA protective action guides are different concepts.
- However, the meaning lost in shortening the description of Condition (1) is not a part of the confusion underlying the matter before us.
(1)
The release must be non-particulate (gaseous) and of short duration.
This is most often referred to as a I
" puff" release.
(2)
The release must be predicted to arrive at the beach within a relatively short time period, when, because 1
of a large beach population the evacuation time would be significantly longer than the exposure duration.
The purpose is to avoid a situation in which a sheltered population would be exposed or reexposed to radioactive particulates deposited on the. ground (groundshine) during.
i their subsequent, postrelease evacuation.
l (3) There cannot have been an earlier order for beach l
closing or evacuation.
l (4)
And most important of all, emergency decisionmakers must believe in advance with strona confidence that all of the several elements calling for actual sheltering are and will remain present throughout tne emergency.
se' stress the las't eleme'nt'bIeca'se,in an"important and'
~
~
u undisturbed finding, the Licensing Board found the testimony
, of Mr. Keller on this issue to be very convincing.
The uncertainties attendant to a consideration of sheltering are very great, the potential benefits of sheltering are small.
LBP-88-32, 28 NRC at 768, citina Keller at Tr. 14241-44. Eng alEg ALAB-924, 30 NRC at 364, 366.
As we note below, under what might be termed a hybrid condition (1-2) (the potential r
i
e remains for a later evacuation of the beach area), even
" shelter-in-place" would not be the preferred. option, as provided by the october 1988 amendments to the NHRERp.37 This Board addresses the referred motions and the remanded sheltering issue together in this general discussion because the motion to reopen cannot be decided on grounds independent of, or consistent with, essential factual predicates to ALAB-924.38 Motions To Recoen Record As noted above, in their filing of February 1, Applicants maintained that an October 1988 revision to the NHRERP eliminated sheltering for the beach population (in "ERPA A") as an option under condition (1).
Applicants draw this conclusion from a provision in the NHRERP, Rev.
2, Vol.
4, Appendix F, that piovides, at step IV.B.4 (General Emergency), a recommendation to evacuate "ERPA A" subject
~
~
37New H'ampshirei s comments,' affidavits, infri,'n.41.
~~ '
~
3*In the immediate effectiveness decision of March 1, the Commission was apparently sensitive to the potential for confusion on this issue.
7t provided a mechanism to correct the record:
"If changes to the plan are intended, or if the parties believe that the Licensing Board, Appeal Board, or the Commission misconstrued the intent of the LNHRERP) plan, then appropriate motions should be filed."
Slap op. at 38 n.29.
To focus the opportunity to assure an accurate record, the Licensing Board believes it should freely discuss what it perceives to be misconstructions by-the Appeal Board on the intent of the plan.
Similarly, we
~
believe that it is the responsibility of the parties to challenge this Board's findings if corrections are required.
i e
l only to restraints to evacuation.
Applicants reasoned that, in that case, there would be no implementing detail required under condition (1), and, accordingly, that aspect of the remanded issue would be resolved.
Also according.to Applicants, implementing detail under condition (2) could be easily prescribed by the NRC Staff outside the hearing process.3' On February 6, the Intervenors filed with the Appeal Board a motion to reopen the record on the NHRERP, "in light of Applicants' February 1, 1990 disclosure of the meaning of the October 1988 plan revision. "40 This is the first of.the two Intervenors' motions referred to us.
Applicants' comments also evoked responses from the State of New Hampshire, whose emergency planning officials disagree with Applicants' reading of the October 1988 plan i
amendments with respect to both conditions.'1 FEMA joined the dispute by offering an e,xplanation of the 1988 amendments which differed from both Applicants' 3'N.9, supra.
40Emergency Motion of The Intervenors:
(1) To Clarify The Status Of The Appeal of LBP-89-33 And (2) To Reopen The Record on the NHRERP As To The Need For Sheltering In Certain Circumstances, February 6, 1990.
'1State of New Hampshire's Comments Regarding Applicants' Response to Licensing Board Order of January 11, 1990, February 16,1990 attaching affidavits of George L.
Iverson, Director, Office of Emergency Planning, and Dr. William Wallace, Director, Division of Public Health Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
1 3
interpretation and Intervenors' characterization of Applicants' interpretation.42 In essence the State of New Hampshire and FEMA seem to explain that sheltering, as those entities define the term, was not, as Applicants then believed, eliminated as a planned option in ERPA A'.
Applicants were forewarned that New Hampshire intended to file comments on the meaning of the October 1988 amendments and, in anticipation, acceded to the States' interpretation of its own plan.
New Hampshire's comments and Applicants' acquiescence were filed the same day, February 16 1990.43 When Applicants rescinded their earlier interpretation of the effect of the October 1988 revision to the NHRERP the entire foundation of Intervenors' February 6 motion to reopen collapsed.
Intervenors failed to withdraw that motion which we now deem mooted.
In any event,-on February 28, Intervenors filed a superseding motion to reopen the record on sheltering issues.
This time the 42Response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency To Emergency Motion Of The Intervenors To Reopen The Record As To The Need For Sheltering In Certain Circumstances, February 16, 1990.
Applicants' Response to Emergency Motion of Intervenors:
(1) To Clarify The Status Of The Appeal of LBP-89-33 And (2) To Reopen The Record on the NHRERP As To The Need For Sheltering In Certain Circumstar.ces, February 16, 1990 (filed with the Appeal. Board).
Also on February-16, Applicants filed " Applicants' Advice To 4
Licensing Board Re Erroneous. Statements In Applicants' Response To Licensing Board Order of January 11, 1990."
i
l motion was grounded factually ont (1) New Hampshire's
(
comments on Applicants' misinterpretation, (2) Applicants' retraction, (3) NRC Staff comments on those circumstances,"
l and (4) FEMA's February 16 Response to Intervenors' first motion.
The February 28 pleading is the second motion referred to this Board by the Appeal' Board's order of j
f March 1.
1 Turning now to the merits of their motion, the Intervenors' case on the sheltering issue rests upon the simple proposition that, where once the NHRERP, under
[
I condition (1), provided for actual sheltering of the entire beach population, that option has now been eliminated except for those already in shelters.
Nevertheless, their argument goes, the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board had approved a plan where actual sheltering of the entire beach population was always the protective action under condition (1).
Second Motion at 2.45 "NRC Staff's Response t.o " Emergency Motion..Of the Intervenorst-(1) To Clarify The Status of The Appeal of-LDP-89-33 And (2) To Reopen The Record on the NHRERP As To The Need For Sheltering In Certain Circumstances," February l
23, 1990.
45 Intervenors state that the relief sought by the motion is based upon perceived changes relating to condition l
(1).
Second Motion at 2.
The general theme of the motion relates to condition (1).
However in a few instances
^
Intervenors allude to perceived changes relating to condition (2).
Eig., id. at 10, 12.
The ultimate relief sought, summary judgment, wculd somehow apply to both conditions, (1) and (2).
Id. at 15.
This is a product of careless draftsmanship.
Condition (2) seems to be thrown-into the discussion as an afterthought without any analysis.
t
,e-
I i
1 Moreover, according to Intervenors, FEMA approved a plan where sheltering would never be ordered under_ condition j
(1), again except for those already in shelter.
Therefore, according to Intervenors, there is a fundamental discrepancy between the NHRERP, as reviewed by the Boards and the plan i
i perceived and approved by FEMA.
Consequently.the' requisite FEMA finding under 10 C.F.R. $ 50.47(a)(2) is lacking.
Id.
Intervenors' factual case rests upon the Applicants' i
disavowal of their earlier construction of the October 1988 amendments and the responses by-the State of New Hampshire, 5
i FEMA and the NRC Staff to the first motion to reopen.
i Intervenors also quote testimony from the NHRERP hearing.
Second Motion at 3-4.
Standards for Recoenina the Record In recent months this Board has frequently addressed the standards for reopening a closed record in NRC proceedings. The parties are thorotaghly familiar with these standards."' Mo'tions to reopen a reco'rd 5re~g'ov'er'ned by
'~
~
^
10 C.F.R. S 2.734.47 r
We limit our consideration of the motion to condition (1).
I "Icg., Memorandum and Order denying Intervenors' motion to admit low-power testing contentions or to reopen the record.
LBP-89-28, 30 NRC 271, 283 (1989).
t
'7As pertinent:
i (a)
A motion to reopen a closed record to i
consider additional evidence will not be granted v
l'
-w
~~
9 i-We begin the analysis of the present motion mindful of the now familiar guidance of ALAB-915, 29 NRC 427, 432 (1989).
The Appeal Board statedt unless the following criteria are satisfied:
(1)
The motion must be timely, except that an exceptionally grave issue may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presented.
==
(2)
The motion must address a significant safety or environmental
=
issue.
(3)
The motion must demonstrate that a materially different result would
=
be or would have been likely had the m
newly proffered evidence been considered initially.
=
(b)
The motion must be accompanied by one or more affidavits which set forth the factual and/or technical bases for the novant's claim that the criteria of paragraph (a) of this section have been satisfied.
Affidavits must be given by competent individuals with knowledge of the facts alleged, or by experts in the disciplines appropriate to the issues raised.
Evidence contained in affidavits must meet the admissibility standards set forth in S 2.743(c).
with a specifi.iteria must be, separately. addressed, Each of the cr
~
~
~
c explanation of why it has been met.
Where multiple allegations are involved, the movant must identify with particularity each issue it seeks to litigate and specify the factual and/or technical bases which it believes support the claim that this issue meets the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section.
(d)
A motion to reopen which relates to a contention not previously in controversy among the parties must also satisfy the requirements for nontimely contentions in S 2.714 (a) (1) (1) through (v).
f
'r (T)he commission expects its adjudicatory Boards l
to enforce section 2.734 requirements rigorously -
ita., to reject out-of-hand reopening motions that do not meet those requirements within their four corners.
l Also, the accompanying affidavits and supporting material must be tantamount to evidence, and in. excess of the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R.
j S 2.714(b).
Lono Island Liahtina comoany (Shoreham Nuclear
^
Power' Station, Unit 1), CLI-89-1, 29 NRC 89, 93-94 (1989).
Timeliness As noted at the outset,-New Hampshire employs the
" shelter-in-place" concept.
Revision 2 of the NHRERP was served upon the Board and parties-sometime prior to the beginning of the evidentiary hearings in October 1987.
At least as early as August 1986, Revision 2 described
" shelter-in-place" almost exactly as the Board and parties have come to understand that concept during and after the
!!HRERP hearings..NHRERP, V,ol 1,,2.6-6,.Rev.,2,_8/86.
Tho z
1986 version of the " shelter-in-place" concept has not significantly changed with respect to the 98 percent of the beach transients with their own transportation -- the population at issue in the motion.
On February 11, 1988, Richard Strome, then Director of the New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management, responded to FEMA's concerns about New Hampshire's rationale for the y
)
use, or nonuse, of the sheltering option for the beach population.
He explained in detail, once again, how the
" shelter-in-place" concept would be implemented:
New Hampshire employs the " Shelter-in-Place"~
concept.
This-provides for sheltering at the l
location in which the sheltering instruction is 1
received.
Those at home are to shelter at home; those at work or school are to be sheltered in the workplace or school building.
Transients located ir.4oors or in private-homes will be asked to shesiter at the locations they are visiting if this is feasible.
Transients without access to an-i indoor location will be advised to evacuate as quickly as possible in their own vehicles ULA.,
the vehicles in which they arrived).
Departing transients will be advised to close the' windows of their vehicles and use recirculating air until they have cleared the area subject to radiation, t
l If necessary, transients without transportation may seek directions to a nearby public building from local emergency workers.
(NHRERP Vol 1,
+
- p. 2.6-6.)
Mr. Strome also offered a thorough, well reasoned and convincing rationale for the " shelter-in-place" concept.
In particular:
Implicit in adopting this position are three key factors.
First, the State wanted a sheltering concept that was uncomplicated and manageable.
The shelter-in-place concept.. meets.this criterion.
Second, the State wanted a sheltering concept that it could rely upon to be implemented quickly.
The shelter-in-place concept meets this criterion;-a sheltering concept that requires the movement of people to a remote shelter location may not.
Third, the State feels that if a release.of radiation warranted movement of the public, they are much more likely to be afforded meaningful dose reductions by moving out of the EPZ than by moving to a shelter within the EPZ.
This is the case since the members of the public would be, in effect, " evacuating" to a shelter.
This action would require forming family groups or social units prior to moving, deciding whether.to seek shelter or evacuate spontaneously, choosing-a mode
' i of transportation (ixa., walk or ride), seeking a destination (lug., home or shelter), and undertaking the physical movement.
Furthermore, since sheltering is a.tamporary protective action, those that sought public shelter would be faced with the prospect of assuming some dose while seeking shelter, more while. sheltering, and even more during a subsequent evacuation.-
Such considerations dissuade the state from.considering the movement of large numbers of people'to public shelters as a primary protective action for beach transients, given that evacuation is seen.as providing dose savings in nearly all accident.
scenarios.
+
This position does not preclude the State from considering and selecting sheltering as a protective action for the beach population.
Nevertheless, evacuation is a much more likely protective action decision during the summer months when some beach transients cannot shelter in place, but-must leave or move to public shelters.
Applicants' Direct Testimony No.
6, ff. Tr. 10020, Appendix 1, at 4-5.
Therefore, even prior to February 1988, Intervenors had already long been informed that New Hampshire's " shelter-in-place" concept contemplated evacuating, not actually sheltering, bea9h transients with transportation but without
-" ~ ~
immedi~ ate' acce'sn to shelters.
Upon being'seEved 51th New Hampshire's February 1988 response to FEMA, Intervenors were reminded of that fact and were provided with a detailed rationale.
The concept was explained again in Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 6, April 27, 1988, ff. Tr. 10200, at 18-21 (received in evidence May 2, 1988) and in the Appendix thereto, from which we cited above.
If that were not I
.. i enough, the Licensing Board restated the concept, and l
approved it in Finding 8.35, LBP-80-32, 28 NRC-at 758, where an entire section was dedicated to the " Shelter-in-Place" concept employed by the State.
Id.
Curiously, Intervenors' skip our Finding 8.35 purporting to believe that our decision on the matter began in the next Finding, 8.36.
Second Motion at 8.
In fact Intervenors' pleading is devoid of any analysis of the
" shelter-in-place" option despite the controlling importance of that concept.4s Applicants ~and Staff have pointed to other instances when the concept was made known l
to Intervenors, but the point has been made -- Intervenors i
have known about the shelter-in-place concept and the rationale for it for at least two years.
1 Intervenors depend upon a few instances where witnesses i
nay not have used the term " sheltering" carefully or completely enough.
Tr. 10068-69 (Callendrello); Tr. 10421 (Bonds, Strome); Tr. 14219-21, 14252 (Cumming)~; Tr. 13184
~
(McLougElin).
Indeed, the Bon'ds testimony cibed 1y esIntervenors also state that the Licensing Board ruled and imposed conditions that the NHRERP would provide for l
sheltering the entire beach population.- They cite to our Findings 8.14, 8.20, and 10.4(b) from LBP-88-32 for that proposition.
Second Motion at 2.
Their statement simply is not true, t
In a portion of the reccrd cited by Intervenors, Dr.
David McLoughlin, FEMA Deputy Associate Director for State and Local Programs and Support, seemed to testify at one point that the so-called 98 percent transient beach population would be sheltered even under condition (1).
f
.. 'l Intervenors demonstrates that " shelter-in-place" is a term I
of art, well understood by the experts and the parties, but l
possibly confusing out-of context.
Second Motion at 6, citina Tr. 10134-35 (Bonds).
The Board concludes that the Intervenors have had i
early, frequent, detailed and accurate information that the NHRERP would employ the " shelter-in-place" concept.
Their i
failure to deal with that fact convinces the Board that the j
m6 tion was not submitted in good faith.
They knew that the notion was not well grounded in fact.
That reason alone is sufficient grounds for denying the motion.
The motion is not timely; it is very late.
Therefore j
we may not consider the motion unless it raises an extremely
(
grave issue.
It does not.
Again, the motion fails on that t
account alone.
However, as has become the practice in NRC proceedings, we address some of the other criteria under l
10 C.F.R.
S 2.734 even though further discussion is unnecessary to the disposition of the motion.
l Tr. 13184.
But an examination of the transcript following Intervenors' citation demonstrates that he was uncertain about the premise of the questioning.
Tr. 13185-91.
In any event, the Washington-based FEMA panel testified as in discovery about the evolution of FEMA's position in sheltering and were specifically not expected to be prepared to defend FEMA's substantive position on the merits.
E2g.,
Tr. 13188.
See also LBP-88-32, 28 NRC at 774.
l l
Safety Sionificance i
After a thorough evaluation of the poor protection 1
afforded by sheltering at the Seabrook beach area, the
)
Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's findings concerning the " efficacy of the NHRERP planning basis for limited sheltering."
30 NRC at 367.
Intervenors lost on l
the safety issue before us and'before the Appeal-Board.
The matter was returned to us on the technical basis that implementing detail for sheltering is required notwithstanding the low probability of its choice as a
{
protective action so long as it remains a part of the NHRERP.
Id. at 368-69.
No safety issue is presented by the motion.
(
Other Elements of 10 C.F.R.
C 2.734 Intervenors have not demonstrated that a materially l
different result would have been likely had the proffered l
evidence,been considered initially..They..haventt demonstrated that the previous result was incorrect.
Their motion, once again, has no supporting affidavit and that defect alone would be fatal to the motion.
With respect to the five factors to be considered for nontimely issues under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714 (a) (1) (i) through (v), Intervenors obviously cannot prevail.
The reasons for our finding that the issue was not timely raised, also i
5
~n--
- l..
foreclose any finding of good cause for late filing.
We i
need not address all of the factors for weighing a nontimely contention, because the motion fails on other, multiple r
r grounds.
j But one more element deserves to be mentionedt Under factor (iii), te what extent would the Intervenors' l
participation in a reopened proceeding reasonably be expected to assist in the development of a sound record?
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts would seek to explain to the State of New Hampshire how that neighbor should define and implement its plans for sheltering while the Commonwealth refuses to plan for any such protection for its own citizens.
That bodes ill for any constructive. help from the Massachusetts Attorney General.
SAPL would not assist in developing a sound record on the issue because the issue does not present a license-blocking opportunity.
That leaves NECNP alone among the moving Intervenors, but the l
l motion does not explain how the Coalition would make any
~
contribution tthe record.
Accord'ingly we I'nd that. factor
~
^
i
~ ~' ""
o (iii) should'also weigh against reopening the record.
The aspects of the motion seeking summary disposition and revocation of the license are frivolous.
Intervenors' motion to reopen the record is denied.
i s
B l
l I.-
l q
i l
Remanded Shelterina Issues 1
Backuround i
The Appeal Board remanded the sheltering issues to this l
Board with the direction that implementing measures for sheltering the general beach population are required.
l 30 NRC at 368.
Within that general direction the remand order provides several specifics:
(1)
The remand covers both conditions (1) and (2).
l EA2., 14. at 368, 370, 373.
(2)
The same implementing procedures must be taken for t
the entire beach population under conditions (1) and (2) as for the population without transportation, condition (3).
l l
Id. at 272-73.
The Appeal Board noted that, if an evacuation is recommended, the transient beach population i
without transportation will be directed to identified public shelter derived from the Stone and Webster Survey.
Id. at 368.50 Therefore the general transient beach population must also.have identified shelters.if shelterina is.
recommended.51 50The Appeal Board cited Applicants Direct Testimony No.
6, ff. Tr. 10020, at 21.
An appropriate EBS message will instruct persons on the beach without transportation to
(
go to public shelters to await assistance in the event evacuation of the beach is recommended.
These shelters will be selected from a pool of such shelters identified in the Stone and Webster survey. Id.
51In this Board's Memorandum Supplementing LBp-89-32, we explained that the sheltering needs for those under condition (3) differ from the needs of those with a
=
42 -
(3)
Planning officials must designate in the NHRERP which shelters on the Stone and Webster list are suitable and available to shelter the general transient beach population.
Id. at 372. 52 There can be no doubt the Appeal Board meant that specific shelters aust be identified, building by building, for the general transient beach population.
ALAB-924 correctly citesSection II.J.10 of NUREG-0654 as requiring maps showing. shelter areas.
In addition, according to the Appeal Board, such map transportation.
Under condition (3) those without transportation must go to -identified public shelters so that they can be sheltered on a bus route while waiting to be evacuated by bus.
The general transient beach population, those with transportation, will evacuate in their own vehicles.
They do not need shelter and need not wait along bus routes.
30 NRC at 672 There is no logical nexus between the principal purpose of going to public shelter under condition 3 and the purpose for actual sheltering
- under_ any other co.ndition..Accordingly, unless directed to.
the contrary, we implement ALAB-924 to require only that the 98 percent transient population with transportation must have identified and adequate sheltering available to them if actual sheltering remains an option for that group in the NHRERP.
Since this interpretation does not comport with the remand order, it is referred to the Appeal Board.
"Now Hampshire emergency planners have not, and do not intend to incorporate the Stone and Webster survey into the NHRERP or rely upon it as a planning basis for sheltering
(
the total beach population, as the Appeal Board specifically-acknowledged.
Id. at 3 6 8.
Apparently fully cognizant of the significance of the survey in the remanded issue, the State of New Hampshire reaffirmed its position with respect to that survey in its comments.
1 1
l
}
- i l.
preparation " requires efforts to identify and to designate available, suitable shelter."
30 NRC at 372.53 l
(4)
When the potential shelters have been identified r
and designated, the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board will address any intervenor concerns relative to the
" adequacy" (which we infer means " suitability") of that shelter.
Id. at 373.
(5)
In addition to a specific awareness of the extent of sheltering that is available, the NHRERP must also contain "an understanding of how the sheltering would be accomplished."
Id. at 371.
In particular there must be a means for notifying all segments of the transient and resident population.
Id. at 372, citina NUREG-0654, Criterion II.J.10.a,c.
53In the immediate effectiveness review the Commission agreed with the Appeal Board that, so long as sheltering remains a potential, though unlikely, option for'the beach population, the "NHRERP should contain directions as to how this choice is to be practicably carried out."
However, the Commis_sion seems to differ wi.th the Appeal Board _on.the latter's requirement that NHRERP identify specific available and suitable shelter.
According to the Commission:
l Such directions should include identification of the location of sufficient available shelter together with the means to notify the beach population as to where this shelter is located.
CLI-90-03, 31 NRC slip op. at 43.
Indeed the Commission envisioned that, given the Stone and Webster survey, incorporating implementing detail into the NHRERP would not be difficult or time-consuming.
Id.
Thus it seems that the Commission would not extend the guidance of NUREG-0654, II.J.IO, which requires only maps showing shelter areas.
But see CLI-90-03, slip op. at 43 n.45.
l t
6
In sum, we understand the Appeal Board to direct that sufficient adequate (121., suitable) shelters must be identified and designated as to location.
In addition, but in an unspecified manner, implementation must include the means to notify and to move the general transient beach population to those shelters.
Id. at 371-72.
Discussion ALAB-924 is express in many of its terms.
We are not invited to explain our respective sheltering findings in LBP-88-32, or to resolve that issue within-our discretion as was the case with the other remanded issues.
The Appeal Board has told us in inflexible terms most of what we must do with respect to implementing a sheltering option, and we now continue our efforts to do them.
The only discretion permitted by the remand is that.this Board and parties may fashion the method of notifying the general transient beach population how to get to the designated suitable shelters
" ~~
~
and as'sure tha't'they get t'h'ere.
^
~
In the preceding section we explained that New Hempshire's " shelter-in-place" concept under condition (1) provides for the immediate evacuation of the general transient beach population with transportation.
Therefore the directive in ALAB-924 to identify suitable shelter-for that group under condition (1) would be without purpose.
Implementing detail would be inconsistent with the intent of 1
l i.
the NHRERP.
Since this finding is not in acccrd with ALAB-924, we refer the finding to the Appeal Board.
However, since ALAB-924 also covers sheltering under condition (2) (physical impediments to evacuation),
sheltering for the same population remains in issue.
Presumably sheltering must be designated, and examined for suitability for use under condition (2).
Also there must be l
implementing detail respecting the notification and transfer of the beach population not already at shelters.
f i
The coincidence of a large transient beach population with physical impediments to evacuation -
" fog, snow, hazardous road and bridge conditions (or) highway construction" -- is difficult for this Board to envision.
Possibly weather conditions could have attracted large numbers of day trippers to the beach and, without sufficient warning, changed so severely as to preclude evacuation at t
that moment.
But so long as the potential remains for a later evacuation, the State of New Hampshire states that it will not ev'en recom' mend shelter'-in-place.
' ~ ~ '
~
Nor can this Board envision the type of road construction or hazardous road or bridge condition that would have provided access to the beaches by a large day tripper population but would soon thereafter create a.
physical impediment to prompt evacuation.
Again, if the road conditions afford the potential for later evacuation, sheltering will not be recommended.
. l f
Assuming, as we must, that AIAB-924 nevertheless requires sheltering under condition (2), we could not draw l
from the record or from our own concepts how sheltering could be implemented in a practical manner and consistent with AIAB-924.
We sought the advice of the parties in our January 11 memorandum.
Applicants responded with what we thought to be the q
only practical solution:
" Broadcast an EBS message instructing members of the general beach population to proceed immediately to the nearest available fully-enclosed building and remain there."
Applicants believed that such advice was consistent with the NHRERP " shelter-in-place" approach, and (incorrectly) believed that State would agree to such a change in the NHRERP.54 The State of New Hampshire rejected Applicants' 1
suggestion.
Inctead the State steadfastly, but cryptically l
insisted that the " referenced changes will direct emergency response officials to broadcast an EBS message instructing
~
Eembers of'the general' beacii populat' ion to shelter-in-clace" (emphasis in original).55 l
While it seems that New Hampshire had committed to-l making some new change in the'NHRERP, it'is not clear
~
exactly what that change is.
It has not redefined " shelter-1:
5' Applicants' Response at 11 n.36.
55New Hampshire's Comments, supra, at 11 n.41.
r i
4
1 f -
in-place."
Apparently, then, even during an impediment to t
evacuation (condition (2)), beach transients without f
immediate access to shelter and with transportation will be ordered to evacuate.
This and other questions need further
{
resolution, as we discuss below.
i FEMA did not respond to the Licensing Board's invitation to advise us with respect to our duties under ALAB-924.
Rather, it advised the Appeal Board about the
'I
" shelter-in-place" concept.
FEMA also explained to the Appeal Board that, other than the " shelter-in-place" concept, there never was any provision in the NHRERP for t
sheltering any segment of the population.
And under the
" shelter-in-place" option, the transient beach population
[
with transportation are D21 instructed to find a nearby building for shelter.
Moreover, according to FEMA, the i
NHRERP places no reliance on the Stone and Webster survey.56 Of course the Appeal Board already knew and noted that the State did not intend to incorporate the Stone and Webster survey into the NHRERP.
' FEMA offered $[ advice to this Board about how to comply with ALAB-924, other than to suggest that the matter has no safety significance in the context of the Intervenors' notion to reopen the record.57 56 FEMA Response, February 16, 1990, supra, at 5 n.42.
87Opposition of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Emergency Motion of the Intervenors To Reopen the Record, For Summary Disposition As To The Need For Sheltering In Certain Circumstances And For License Revocation, March 28, i
C t
'I i
~ 48 -
On February 1 the NRC Staff responded to the Licensing Board's invitation-with the advice that the Board s'hould avait possible Commission guidance on how to proceed on the i
remanded issues.
The Staff believes that the Appeal Board had misapplied the NRC standards in passing on the l
sheltering (and other issues) remanded in ALAB-924.
But in i
any event, according to the NRC Staff, the sheltering issues can be left for " Staff and/or FEMA verification."I' The Staff's advice is not helpful.
The Commission has not provided adjudicative guidance concerning our responsibilities under ALAB-924, nor may this Board ignore ALAB-924 in the expectation that the Commission will intercede.
ALAB-924, by its terms, requires specific i
e action, including providing an opportunity for Intervenors to present their concerns about the adequacy of the i
t cheltering.
ALAB-924 does not permit a delegation to the l
Staff or to FEMA.
The Staff did not provide any advice as to how to carry out the specific directives of ALAB-924.
T 1990.
FEMA's testimony that the sheltering option needs implementing detail was an important consideration underlying the remanded issue.
FEMA explains that the implementing detail it required related to transients-without transportation, itg., designation of public shelter and appropriate EBS message. In that context, FEMA has found the NHRERP to be fully adequate with regard to implementing
~
detail -- and that is still its position. -FEMA Response, February 16, 1990, n.42, at 4-5.
58NRC Staff Further Response to January 11 Board Order, l
February 1, 1990, at 2 n.5.
i
- i In reply to Applicants' Response to our order of January 11, Intervenors argue simply that ALAB-924 must be obeyed, including implementation under condition (2), but i
they gies no hint as to how we may flesh out the plan with l
details of moving the affected population into the sheltering.8' We recognize however that Intervanors have
."*.o obligation to do more than assert whatever rights ALAB-924 granted them.
In sum, the Board has received little or no encouragement from Applicants, FEMA or the NRC Staff on how to proceed to comply with the Appeal Board's specific directives.
The State of New Hampshire, in fact, seems to discourage any attempt to force additional implementing detail into the NHRERP.
Its comments portend an outright refusal to comply with the directives of ALAB-924 -- but perhaps not.
Some portions of the States' comments are quite clear.
Others, however, are enigmatic as exemplified
~
by ana'lyzing and compasing parsgraphs 5 and 6 of identical ~
~
~
~
I portions of the respective affidavits of the Emergency t
Management Director, Mr. Iverson, and the Public Health Director, Dr. Wallace:
4.
Where implementation of protective action f
is deemed appropriate (itg. - a prognosis of-3 decreasing ability to mitigate the emergency at 59 Intervenors' Reply, February 12, 1990, supra, n.15, at 7-10.
P 1
i '
t the plant) evacuation is preferred and generally t
will be the selected protective action option.
Sam NHRERP Rev.
3, 2/90, Vol.
1, p. 2.6-11.
5.
The October 1988 amendments to the NHRERP confirmed the procedures underlying this protective action option by eliminating-a shelter-in-place recommendation for ERPA-A whenever the potential remains for a later evacuation of the beach area.
6.
The planned protective action for ERPA-A in the event of declaration of a General Emergency is evacuation.
However, the option of recommending shelter-in-place for ERPA-A was not precluded by the amendments to the NHRERP in october 1988 or in any. subsequent amendments or revisions.
The shelter-in-place option remains for the so-called " puff release" scenario, and may also be exercised when physical impediments make evacuation impossible.
7.
The shelter-in-place option is affirmed by the provisions of the NHRERP whicht (a) permit consideration of a recommendation of shelter-in--
t place of ERPA-A in the event of a release of radioactive material at the Site Area Emergency (NHRERP Rev. 3, Vol.
8, Sec.
7, p. 6.1-7) ; and (b) allow for recommending shelter-in place of ERPAs other than ERPA-A at the General Emergency (NHRERP Rev.
3, Vol.
8, p. 6.1-8).
We cannot identify any expressed circumstance where New Hampshire decisionmakers would actually send the general I
~
~
tran'sient beach po'pul'ation with tr'nsportaElon'to shelter.
a But neither can we rule out that action.
Under condition (2) (impediments to evacuation) the " shelter-in-place" option "may" also be exercised, as noted in paragraph 6 of l
L the affidavits.
And, as already noted, " shelter-in-place" will not be recommended in the beach area whenever the potential remains for a later evacuation.
Paragraph-S.
Each of these statements invites questions.
.--,--.,y
.,e
-e y
-- t '
In distinct contrast to the clear full language of New-llampshire's February '.988 comments to FEMA, the State's recent statements seem designed especially. to avoid saying l
too much.
We sense that the State sees,itself in a
~
difficult situation.
In cooperation with Applicants and FEMA, the State has
=
been competent,s unstinting, and highly successful-- in 'its
-efforts to provide to its citizens the best possible i
radiological emergency planning.
At the same time the' State L
y has had' to keep one eye on the-Seabrook litigation.
The l
a
{
State remained silent following ALAB-924 althoughLit is now-l c
apparent that it disagrees with much of the Appeal Board's-approach.
It was not until the State saw the need: to disavow Applicarss' conception of the sheltering provisions of the W61RERP that it stepped back ' into the proceeding. - It-has stated over and over that evacuation is the preferred protective action in nearly all circumstances.
l If in f act actual sheltering of 'the ' general transient i
beach population would never be the protective action, the issue remanded by ALAB-924 is resolved -- no implementing s
5 detail for sheltering is needed.
But, the State-faces.a dilemma.
Should the NHRERP state in so many words that
.l actus'. sheltering must never, never be the protective choice S
for the general transient beach population?. Should not the State, coverned by humans who recognize their own
?
fallibility, allow for an unforeseen event where sheltering i
A
- - - - - - " - - - " " ^ ' ^ ^ ^ - ^ - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ' ^
s that population just might avoid doses.
Should not informed human intervention into the provisions of the NHRERP be i
available as an ad has protective response?
operators of a nuclear power plant would not categorically be prevented-from applying trained judgment ad has when faced with~a i
transient beyond plant operating procedures and experience.
But if the State were to expressly reserve the potential
-benefits of an ad has sheltering choice, would FEMA and NRC regulators require. implementing detail?
And how would the
- planner detail how to implement sheltering-for the i
unforeseeable-event?
In any. event, the close examination of the record following the remand has revealed that actual sheltering of o
the general transient = beach population with transportation would be a far more rare-event than'the already rare event contemplated by the Appeal Board.
Actual sheltering would
.g not be the option under condition-(1).
We'cannot identify.
NHRERP provisions for actual sheltering under condition (2),
~ ~ ' ~~
~'
'~ ~~ ~
or'und'e'r a hybrld c'ondition.
Despite the Appeal Board's requirement'for sheltering detail notwithstanding its low probability, we do not read ALAB-924 as mandating emergency pre-planning for all po',sible emergency responses divorced from any consideration of'the probabilities underlying the particular event or series of events leading up to that response.
As noted, the Appeal Board's rejection appears to beJbased on a belief i
.y 1
53 -
-r that sheltering for.the beach population,.while very improbable,L is a far more likely response than, in fact, it is under-the NHRERP.. Moreover'the Commission has already
(
held that emergency planners need not specifically consider the complicating effects of some.possible but-low probability evants.
Eggt Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany
[
(Diablo Canyon l Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and~2),-CLI 12,-20 NRC'249 (1984).(While emergency planning.should consider frequently occurring natural phenomena, earthquakes _
i I
of sufficient size to disrupt emergencyLresponse at facility are so infrequent that specific consideration--is not warranted).
In our view, alltof the; physical impediments.
underlying condition (2) will operate.to severely restrict the size of the day tripper beach population:to be' evacuated-or sheltered, and some (gtg., a' massive, fast-developing summer snow storm; sudden road or bridge collapse; area-wide impenetrable mid-afternoon summer fog) approach the edge of reasonable possibility necessitating specific.
i
~
~
~"'
~
H~~
~
consid' stion'by emergency 31 ann'ers.
e The Licensing Board would welcome further guidance from.
the Appeal' Board'0 in the'following areas:-
(1)
If the Appeal Board agrees with our view that actual sheltering of the general beach population.is a i
soff. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Appeal Board Request For i
i Clarification From the Commission,' April 17, 1990 (unpublished).
I t
vanishingly improbable protective action-choice under the NHRERP, must we continue to press the State of New Hampshire either to' renounce >that choice or to amend the NHRERP to-include implementing detail-for some type of sheltering.
(2)
Assuming, contrary to its_ expressed views,- that
~
the State would accept into the.NHRERP-the specific designation of sufficient and suitable -sheltering from the
~
Stone and' Webster survey, the problem' remains as how to' use_
that informatio'.1 for an estimated 50 thousand day trippers et the beaches."
None of the potential participants have provided any advice.
This Board cannot envision how that-1 aspect of the remand could be implemented.
If the Appeal Board has an= approach in mind, it would be helpful if it.
wou.id share its ideas.
(3)
At minimum, ALAB-924. has served to reveal conf asion between the State and the Licensees. 'The Licensees' disavowal of its earlier construction of the
~
Octooer 1988 amendments seemed.to be more of a half-hearted
- I
_ deference to the State rather than a true recanting.
While it has become even more clear that there is no significant safety issue respecting the. general transient beach population, there is still undesirable and unnecessary uncertainty about some finer details; Alternatively, then, the. Appeal Board might consider supplementing ALAB-924 by l
"A1AB-924, 30 NRC at 368- (estimate for the peak summertime weekend days).
... ~ -
. - -_ ~--
t
- 55 l*
providing greater' discretion to the Licensing Board'to i
l resolve any remaining uncertainties.
(4)
We refer, to the Appeal Board our: finding above 4
L that the NHRERP,does not provide.for actual sheltering of l
i the general beach population-with transportation under t
condition (1), and that, with respect.to'that condition,'no-implementing detail for actual sheltering is required.
We
~
also refer.our ruling that_the sheltering requirements for beach transients without transportation differ from'the general-transients beach' population, n.51, supra.
t CONCLUSION Pending further guidance from the Appeal-Board-this l
Board will proceed-without delay to comply with the provisions of the remand order with respect to condition (2).
The order dismissing SAPL from the remanded proceeding-is appealable.
The' disposition of 'the Let't'ers of AgreemedE~and 1986.
Special Needs Survey as explained above, terminatesJour.
consideration of those issues.
Applicants have confirmed that the NHRERP provides for-
"the transportation needs of special facilities based upon maximum facility capacity-.
in the case of Webster 4
4
--r-~.
--56--
facility in Rye New Hampshire, and the-Exeter Healthcare facility in'Exeter, New Hampshire.62 In a forthcoming order.the parties or-their counsel will be directed to attend a prehearing conference.to provide for the further resolution of the issues regarding-Advanced Life Support patients and Sheltering,the Beach-Population.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
Richard F. Cole-ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
-l
}
.f W
Kenneth A.-McCollom ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
/
\\
2- - --
f h/
d'Z Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE. LAW-JUDGE I
Bethesda, Maryland
-l 62ALAB-924 directed this Board to take appropriate zI steps to ensure that the referenced transportation needs are i
met.
30 NRC at 374.
We: directed the Applicants to ensure that a respective commitment made in Applicants' testimony-had been. honored.
LBP-89-33, 30 NRC at 657 n.1.
Applicants j
reported their' compliance in their response to;the Board's order of January 11,-1990.
See Response at 12-13.
l
o.
g-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-WUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of 1-l PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW' I
Docket No.(s) 50-443/444e0L HAMPSHIRE. ET AL.
t (Seabrook Station.- Units t-and 2)
I I
I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 herebv certify that cooles of the f oregoing LB MEMO-& ORDER (LBP-90-12) have been served unen the followino persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of.10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
Admir.istrative Judoe
- Administrative Judge-G. Paul Bollwerk. !!!
Thomas S." Moore, Chairman
.l Atemic Safety ano Licensing Appeal Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Appeal
~
Board Board 1
j U.S. Nuclear Reculatorv' Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Washington. DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 l
1 Administrative Judge l{
Howard A. Wilber Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Apoeal Ivan W.. Smith, Chairman I
Board Atomic Safety and1 Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Reculatorv Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatcrv Commission i
Washinoton. DC 20555 Washincton. DC 20555 Administrative Judoe Administrative' Judge j
Richard F. Cole Kenneth A.' 'McCollom Atomic Safety and Licensino Board Atomic Safety-and Licensino Board U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
-~ ~
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~Admi ni s t r at i ve f Judg'e' " ~
~
~
i Robert R. Pierce. Escuire James H. Carpenter-i Atomic Saf ety and Licensino Board Alternate-Technical Member i
U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l
Edwin J. Reis. Eso.
Mitzi A.' Young l
Office of the General Counsel Attornev U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Office of the General Counsel Washinoten. DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, DC 20555 I
(-
\\
l 1
Docket No.(s)50-443/444EOL LB MEMO & ORDER (LBP-90-12)
Diane Curran. Esc.
Thomas 6. Dignan, Jr., Esc.
Harmon. Curran & Tousley Ropes & Gray--
2001 S Street. N.W.
Suite 430 One' International' Place Washington, DC 20009 Boston..MA 02110 Robert A. Backus. Esc.
Paul
- McEschern, Esc.
Backus. Never-t Solomon
-Shatnes & McEachern 116.Lowell Street-25 Maplewood Avenue. P.O. Box 360 Manchester. NH 03106 Portsmouth. NH 03801-Garv W. Holmes. Esc.
Judith H. Mirner Holmes & Ells Counsel for Newburyport 47 Winnatunnet Road 79 State-Street Hampton. NH 03842 Newburyport. MA 01950
)
Suzanne P. Egan BarbaraLJ. Saint Andre--
.j City Solicitor Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
J Lagoulis, Hill-Wilton and Rotondi Town Counsel 79_ State Street 101 Arch Street Newburyport. MA 01950 Boston, MA_ 02110
~
Jane Doherty Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leaoue Ashed N.JAmirian, Esc.
5 Market Street 145 South Main Street. P.O. Box 38 Portsmouth NH 03001 Bradford, MA 01830-1 q
..,c Georce Iverson. Director George W. Watson. Esc.
^
N. H. Office of Emeroency Manacement Federal Emergencv'Mcnagement Acency State House Office Park South
-500 C Street. S.W.
107 Pleasant Street Washington, DC 20472 j
Concord,, NH 03301 Jack Dolan Beerge D. Bisbee. Esc.
Faderal Emergency Manacement Agency Assistant Attorney General 442 J.W. McCormack (PDCH)
Office of the Attorney General Boston, MA 02109 25 Caoitol Street Concord, NH 03301 a
o r
I J
r
-i Docket No.(s)50 443/444 OL LB MEMO 6 ORDER (LBP-90-12) 1 i
Suzanne Breiseth John Traficonte. Esc.
' Board of. Selectmen Chief. NucleartSafetv Unit Town of Hanoton Falls Office of the Attornev Beneral' s
Drinkwater Road One Ashburton Place. 19th Floor.
Haeoton Falls. NH 03944 Boston, MA 02100 t
-t Peter J. Brann. Esc.
-A!!sn Lampert Assistant Attornev 6eneral Civil Defense Director
(
Office of the Attorney General Town of Brentwood State House Station. #6 20 Franklin Street Augusta. ME 04333 Exeter. NHL 03833' William Armstrong Anne Goodman. Chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter 13-15 Newmarket Road, 10 Front Street Durham..NH- 03824 Exeter NH 03B33
-Hill-Whilton.Escuire-R. Scott Michael Santosuosso Chairman Lagoulis, Mill-Whilton & McGuire~
i Board of Selectmen 79 State Stieet South Hampton, NH 03927 Newburyport.
MA 01950-i Stanlev W.
Knowles. Chanrman Norman C.>Katner Board of Selectmen Superintendent'of Schools i
P.O. Box 710 School Administrative Unit No. 21 North Hampton. NH 03862 Aluent Drive Hampton, NH 03942 Sandra F. Mitchell The Honorable Civil Defense Director Goroon-J. Humenrev Town of Kensington ATTN Janet Colt Box 10. RR1 United States Senate East Kingston, NH 03027 Washington. DC 20510 t
i l
l l
(
O f D A'l I
'f'.
H Crtt M'Y d I
9i$$ C
.qv y
- 9 4
,>_ ~ - ' *
~
!