ML20043C292
| ML20043C292 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1990 |
| From: | Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10404 LBP-90-12, OL, NUDOCS 9006050018 | |
| Download: ML20043C292 (10) | |
Text
e
^ ~
m
.. -f
.p
(
May 30, 1990 00CKETCD USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 90 MY 30 PS :35 i
BEFORE-THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g qcg g gcgggfj v q
00;Kr!uG A % ~'M.
SL& 9 Y
'In the Matter of Docket Nos, 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, g a_1.
Offsite Emergency Planning
- (SeabrookStation, Units 1and2)
-1 I
NRC STAFF ADVICE TO LICENSING BOARD REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF REMAND ISSUES
.I INTRODUCTION
,[
On May 3, 1990, the Licensing Board in the above-captioned proceeding issued a-Memorandum and Order that resolved, in part, certain issues
- pending before L it.
LBP-90-12, 31 NRC (May 3, 1990). O That Order l
s also identified matters for' further proceedings ' relating to (a)the m
evacuation time estimates ~. for advanced life support (ALS) patients and j
'(b) sheltering of the transient beach population.
LBP-90-12, at In j
a " Notice of. Prehearing Conference" (unpublished) issued on May 4,1990,
[
the Board stated that it would conduct a prehearing conference- (1) to consider further identification of the issues in.the proceeding, (2) to 1/
The Licensing Coard in LBP-89-32, 30 NRC 375 (1989), and LBP-89-33,
-30 NRC 656 (1989), nad previously concluded that the pendency of four issues remanded concerning its partial initial decision on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP), LBP-88-32, 28 NRC 667 (1988), and motions to reopen' did not preclude the immediate issuance of the Seabrook' operating license.
In CLI-90-03, 31NRC12-13(1990), the Commission ruled that the issues remanded in ALAB-924 were not significant for license issuance and were appropriate for post-license consideration by either the Licensing Board or the Staff, as may be appropriate.
p$ hob
['
W'
s s
-.3 2
hA consider methods by which the issues should be resolved. (3)'to set a schedule for resolving the issues, and (4) to resolve any other procedural matter relevantito the issues.- In= accordance with the Board's direction-
- that. each party intending to participate in the resolution of the issues advisei the BoardL how the issues should be resolved and how that party intends to participate, the Staff-provides this response. E DISCUSSION A.
ALS Patient Issues-In'LBP-90-12, slip op at 23, the Board concluded that the following matters needed to be addressed in regard to the the remanded issue concerning the adequacy of evacuation time estimates for ALS patients:
(1) The ' time-it takes to prepare an ALS patient for evacuation; (2)Whether preparation-of ALS patients for evacuation at an early initiating condition would be medically appropriate; (3) The number of ALS patients in the EPZ and their location; and (4) Whether uncertainties in-the times available to prepare ALS patients for evacuation would produce ETEs that are not useful in the selection of protective 6ction options.
The issues identified by the Board are appropriate for consideration and could be resolved without the need for further hearings by means of (a) party stipulations concerning ALS patient numbers and locations and (b) affidavits in support of a motion for summary disposition under 10 C.F.R. f 2.749, from qualified medical or other experts knowld]eable 2/
The Staff generally joins in the views of FEMA filed on May 30, 1990
~
and provides these additional comments.
m
.3
-3.
4 in matters identified. E The Staff will participate in the resolution of this matter, to-the extent summary disposition is not granted, and would a
probably sponsor testimony concerning the evacuation time l aspects of1the issues raised (e.g., the.effect of the uncertainties identified on the usefulnessofETEs). The Board should establish a schedule for the prompt consideration of this matter..
B.
Sheltering and Sheltering Procedure _s The Licensing Board correctly ruled that the only sheltering provided for in the NHRERP.was the " shelter-in-place" concept under which the
" transient ' day trippers' on the beach in summer without immediate access to shelter," would be directed to evacuate.
Slip op, at 25.
The NHRERP defines the shelter-in-place concept as follows:
Transients located indoors or in private homes will be asked to-shelter at the locations -they are visiting if this is feasible.
Transients.without access to an indoor location will be advised to evacuate as'quickly as possible in their own vehicles (i.e.,
the vehicles. in which they arrived).
[T]ransportation-dependent transients will be accommodated in temporary public shelters located in the beach areas until
' state-provided transportation resources arrive.
- NHRERP, Vol. 1/Rev. 3 (2/90) at 2.6-8; NHRERP, Vol.1/Rev.2 (10/88) at 2.6.6; See Applicants' Dir. Test. No. 6, ff. 'Tr.10,022, at App.1,
- p. 4.
Other sheltering is not provided for in the NHRERP.
In-the opinion of the
- Staff, the Board discussion of the shelter-in-place option (n, LBP-90-12,- slip op. at 24-28, 35-38) is 3/
The Staff's reading of the fourth issue differs from FEMA's (see FEMA _ Response. at 2) in that the question would appear to relate to the usefulness of the ETE estimates for decisionmaking at the New Hampshire Emergency Operations Center rather than whether physicians at the affected facilities would decide to evacuate ALS patients.
1 I
y 4-
- 5 correct.
The Board may, on the - Lasis of the record in this ' proceeding (and ' any updates in plan provisions or EBS messages since the 1988 hearings on the NHRERP that become part of the record), conclude that the
- plan -contains adequate details to implement the shelter-in-place protective action.
Both the Licensing and Appeal Board agree that sheltering would rarely be chosen as. a protective action.
See ALAB-924, 30 NRC ' at 366-67; LBP-88-32 at it 8.39, 8.60-8.69.
The Licensing Board e
further felt that sheltering would be even a "far more rare event than the already rare event contemplated by the Appeal Board."
LBP-90-12, at 52.
The NHRERP already provides both the physical means for notifying the heach population of a recommendation to shelter-in-place and appropriate mechanisms for determining when that protective action reconnendation should be issued.
See, e.g., LBP-88-32 at tt 8.22-8.26.
The Licensing Board concluded
- that, because NHRERP's
" shelter-in-place" concept provides for the immediate evacuation of the transient beach population with their own transportation, the Appeal Board's directive to identify shelter for persons scheduled to be evacuated in any accident scenario "would be without purpose."
Slip op, at 44-45, 52.
The Staff agrees that no implementation detail need be i
provided for condition. (1).
Given the fact that the shelter-in-place ecocept calls for those without access to "' alter to evacuate and the Licensing Board has referred its ruling that no implementation detail is
[
needed for condition (1), the Licensing Board should not further consider
- implementing detail for this condition absent a ruling by the Appeal Board to the contrary, i
t
-- u.-----
.e-v
~
m
'.a. e 4
The Board further indicated that it was not clear from the record in the' proceeding or the filing of New Hampshire whether sheltering as provided in the NHRERP (sheltering-in-place) would ever be recommended where roads are impassable (condition (2)) and that New Hampshire and FEMA could clarify this issue.
LBP-90-12, slip op, at 47-53.
The Staff believes that the Board is correct that the likelihood that the general beach population will actually be directed to shelter is very remote and that no implementation detail is warranted.
Jd. at 52-53.
Implementing detail to address such a low probability event as the j
simultaneous occurrence of impassable roads and large beach tmoulations need not be included in the NHRERP as emergency plans provide prudent risk reduction measures" which are to be sufficiently flexible to enable the development of a reasonable ad hoc response to very serious low probability events.
Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10,17 NRC 528, 533 (1983),
rev'd and remanded on other groundj, GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C.
Cir. 1985); see f'acific Gas & Dettric Co. (Diablo Canyon Wclear Power Plant. Units 1 and2), CL1-84-12, 20 NRC 249, 251-52 (1984), aff'd, San Luis Obispo Mothers for {yiap v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1305 4i. (D.C.
Cir.1984), reaf firmed upon reh'a en b_anc, 789 7.2d 2.6, 36-44 (1984). M 4
j a
4/
The Staff recognizes that this position is at odds with the Ap: peal Board's view in ALAB-924, but believes this position is nonetheless consistent with sound emergency planning principlec.
Appeal Bnbrd action on the questions referred to it by the Licerising Board may resolve this issue.
l I...........
mm_
p,.
I F..
1 L*
,6-1 j
If further proceedings are held to clarify the record evidence or plan procedures concerning sheltering-in-place, the Staff will participate in the resolution of those matters at hearing or in response to motions for summary disposition, as appropriate.
1
SUMMARY
The Staff believes the Board correctly framed the issues to be considered in the proceeding.
Issues regarding ALS patient numbers and location should be amenable to resolution by stipulation.
Other issues concerning the time estimates for preparing non-ambulatory ALS patients would appear to be susceptible to summary disposition based on affidavits
+
from' qualified experts.
Assuming this Board's rulings concerning sheltering-in-place are upheld, El it would appear that any consideration of the finer details of that protective action for the day tripper beach population under condition (2) could be accomplished by motions for summary disposition or stipulation and need not be considered in a hearing.
}/
The Licensing Board asked the Appeal Board (slip op, at 54-55) fer further guidance on:
(1) Whether New Hampshire must be pressed to e>pressly renounce sheltering or to provide more implementing detail, I
in light of its view that sheltering is a "vanishingly small I
protective action choice under the NHRERP;" (2)The nature of NHRERP for the general beach population; (ght be contained in the sheltering implementation details which mi L
- 3) Whether the Licensing L
Board may exercise its discretion to resolve any remaining uncertainties concerning finer details that still exist in regard to sheltering; (4) Whether the Licensing Board correctly concluded that the NHRERP does not provide for the actual sheltering of beach L
transients with transportation where physical evacuation is possible; and that no sheltering detail need be provided for that case; and (5) Whether the sheltering requirements for beach transients without transportation differ from those for the general transient beach population.
l-l.
l
7 Because the issues to be considered are narrow, and assuming the
-AppealBoardagreeswiththePeard'srulingsreferredinLBP-90-12,El the Board should set a schedule which provides 30 days for the parties to file
-summary disposition motions concerning the narrow issues identified; and, if necessary following.a ruling on such motions, a short period for the filing of proposed testimony on the remaining issues.
This should enable the prompt resolution'of these issues.
Respectfully submitted.
i
. Young Cou el for NRC Staff Deted at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of May, 1990 6/
While the Staff does not believe that the proceeding should be held in abeyance pending an Appeal Board ruling on the matters referred to it, the Licensing Board might have to adjust the issue or schedule in this proceeding as a result of any Appeal Board ruling.
I
E 9
OXhtiLD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
% MAY 30 PS :35-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f'-
In the Matter of
)
[0CNbNGhkINN['
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OlMNCH PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
-)
Off-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ADVICE TO LICENSING BOARD REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF REMAND ISSUES" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, as indicated by double asterisks, by express mail, this 30th day of May 1990:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman (2)*
Peter Brann, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistent Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State House Station 6 Washington, DC 20555 Augusta. ME 04333 Richard F. Cole
- John Traficonte. Esq.**
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Kenneth A. McCollom**
Geoffrey Huntington, Esq.**
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General 1107 West Knapp Street Office of the Attorney General Stillwater, OK 74075 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.**
Robert K. Gad, III Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.**
Ropes & Gray Harmon, Curran & Tousley One International Place 2001 S Street, NW Boston, MA 02110-2624 Suite 430 f
Washington, DC 20009 1
v
a.
F
(-
~2-Robert A.'Backus, Esq.**
Jack Dolan Backus, Meyer & Solomon Federal Emergency Management Agency 116 Lowell Street Region I Manchester, NH 03106 J.W. McCormack Post Office &
Courthouse Building, Room 442
(
Boston, MA 02109 H. J. Flynn, Esq.
Judith H. Mirner, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel 79 State Street Federal Emergency Management Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Robert Carrigg, Chairman i
Board of Selectmen Paul McEachern, Esq.**
Town Office Shaines & McEachern Atlantic Avenue 25 Maplewood Avenue North Hampton, NH 03862 i
P.O.' Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chainnan Board of Selectmen George Hahn, Esq.
13-15 Newmarket Road Attorney for the Examiner Durham, NH 03824 Hahn & Hesson j
350 Sth Ave, Suite 3700 Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey New York, NY 10118 United States Senate 531 Hart Senate Office Building l
R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Washington, DC 20510 l
Suzanne P. Egan Esq.
i Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton
& Rotondi Richard R. Donovan 79 State Street Federal Emergency Management Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, S.W.
Allen Lampert Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Civil Defense Director Tcwn of Brentwood Peter J. Matthews, Mayor 20 Franklin City Hall Exeter, NH 03833 Newburyport, MA 01950 William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso Chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter, NH 03833 South Hampton, NH 03827 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Town Counsel for Merrimac i
Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
145 South Main Street Holmes & Ellis P.O. Box 38 47 Winnacunnet Road Bradford, MA 01835 Hampton, NH 03842 Barbara J. Saint Andre. Esq.
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
Town Counsel 101 Arch Street Boston, MA 02110 I
l
l';
- ai
3
I Ms. Suzanne Breiseth George Iverson, Director Board of Selectmen NH Office of Emergency Management Town of Harrpton Falls State House Office Park South Drinkwater Road 107 Pleasant Street Hampton Falls, NH 03B44 Concord, NH 03301 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert R. Pierce. Esq.*
Board Panel (1)*
l Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 _
Office of the Secretary (2)*
I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety.and Licensing Washington, DC 20555 Appeal Panel (6)*
Attn:
Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington DC 20555 i
N Mitzi A. ' Young
/
V Counssi for NRC Staff L
t 6
L L
-.