ML20043C786
| ML20043C786 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1990 |
| From: | Flynn H, Mcpheters L Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10417 ALAB-924, OL, NUDOCS 9006060174 | |
| Download: ML20043C786 (11) | |
Text
'
- r.
}f)l//7 DOCKETED USNPC b
% AN -1 P 4 :08 i
gricE OF Si.CiiElARY May 30,.1990 BacAElluti a MSV!CI.
bii ANC h-
]
f NU ORY C IS ION L
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD' JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN
{
JUDGE RICHARD F.. COLE-i JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM
[
)
In the Matter of
)
r
)
l Public Service Co. of New Hampshire,
)
Docket No. 50-443-OL et al.
)
50-444-OL 3
)
Offsite Emergency-(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
Planning Issues t
)
)'
MEMORANDUM OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REGARDING RESOLUTION OF ALAB-924 ISSUES The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),-through'its-undersigned counsel,: pursuant to the directions! contained:in the~ Board's Notice of l
Prehearing Conference of May 4, 1990, respectfully submits the following-c memorandum regarding resolution of the remaining. issues presented in the j
Board's Memorandum and Order of May 3, 1990 (LEP-90-12).
As discussed in detail below, FEMA agrees with the' Board's reading of the NHRERP and supports the Board's approach for resolution of the outstanding issues.
[)
I.
Issues Regarding Letters of Agreement and the 1986 Special Needs Survey I
~l FEMA takes no position on the.' Board's disposition in LBP-90-12 of the l
remanded issues regarding letters of agreement and the 1986 Special Needs l
l' l
Survey.
ADOCK OSOOg (
9006060174 900530 DR p
l-w
'C-A
- ((
'x,
- , >f)
II, Issues Regarding Advanced Life Support System Patients
..\\
l The issues regarding advanced life support (ALS) patients arise in the
~
context of evacuation planning for special facilityLpopulations. Expert medical evidence'would seem to be required on the first and second points raised by the-Board (LBP-90-12, p. 23), i.e. how long does it take to efficiently prepare an ALS patient for-transportation,Jand whether preparation-at an early initiating conditisn is medically appropriate.
As to the third point raised by the Board--the number of NLS patients and their location--this would seem to be an uncomplicated issue.of fact susceptible of resolution by stipulation.- The fourth issue is the effect of uncertainties in the IEEs' on the medical decision to evacuate, which would seem to require resolution by 6
~
the attending physician, since the determination as to patient health status as suitable for the rigors of-transportation may have: to' be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
FEMA suggests that'the physician making <the. decision would weigh the risk ~of exposure to radiation.if the ALS patient is not moved-
~
against the danger to the patient (independent of: radiation exposure)'if he or she is moved. FEMA further suggests that the estimated evacuation time'is not l
a factor in this decision and therefore uncertainties in the ETEs are 1
l l
immaterial.
(
L i.
i l
Memorandum of the Federal Emergency Management Agoncy Regarding Resolution of ALAB-924 Issues - p. 2.
j
\\
9
{
1 III.
Issues Regarding Sheltering FD4A agrees with the Board's analysis in LBP-90-12 of the sheltering issues remanded by ALAB-924, and agrees with the Board's approach for resolving those issues.
FEMA also agrees with the Board's disposition of the Intervenors' motions to reopen the record on the issue of sheltering the beach population.
In response to the Board's specific request in its Notice of Prehearing Conference, p.2., FDM offers the following comments on the-Board's y
analysis of and approach for resolving the sheltering issues as. set forth in
]
A.
Conditinnj In FEMA's view, the Board correctly understands the shelter-in-place concept of the New Hampshire Radiological Eme~jency Response Plan (NHRERP),
which is the only concept of shelter utilized in the NHRERP. As the Board correctly notes, the implementation of shelter-in-place would call for~
immediate evacuation of all of the summer beach day trippers with their own transportation and without access to shelter.. FEMA agrees with the Board's
-- l statement that the " essential point" of access to shelter "is-that there would be no time or confusion barrier between the persons to be sheltered and their
]
i sheltering."
(LBP-90-12, p. 24) According to the shelter-in-place concept of i
the NHRERP, (1) people in buildings [or those who may elect to enter buildings-i immediately without direction from emergency management officials) would utilize those buildings as shelter, and (2) everyone else is expected to i
evacuate.
In its review and approval of the NHRERP'in December 1988, FEMA's j
understanding of the shelter-in-place concept was precisely that as expressed l
by the Board.
Memorandum of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Regarding
.j Resolution of ALAB-924 Issues - p. 3.
}:
i
i The Board correctly understands the technical testimony presented by FEMA through its witness Mr. Joseph Keller.
(LBP-90-12) pp. 26-28)
It is_
extremely unlikely that decisionmakers would know in advance with strong confidence that all of the elements comprising Condition 1 are present and will remain present throughout the emergency.and also that there is no potential for later evacuation of the area.
It.is therefore extremely unlikely that shelter-in-place would ever be called for as a protective t
action.
It-is New Hampshire's position'and also FEMA's understanding that the NHRERP does not preclude shelter-in-place as a protective action in the extremely unlikely event that Condition 1 occurs.
q Under the shelter-in-place concept, transients with transportation and i
without access to shelter would be directed-to evacuate in the vehicles:in d
which they arrived. The Board referred to FEMA's submission to the Appeal l
Board of February 16, 1990, in which FEMA stated that the only implementing l
detail it required related to the small' number of transients without transportation.
That implementing detail has;been provided in the-NHRERP, and-as of December 1988 FEMA found the NHRERP to be fully adequate.
LBP-90-12, pp. 47-48 n.-57, citing FEMA Response, February 16, 1990, pp. 4-5 n. 2.
FEMA therefore is in full agreement with the Board's finding-that any requirement for further implementing detail e.g.,
identification of suitable buildings and EBS messages) in the plan for Condition 1.would be inconsistent.
with the-intent of.the NHRERP.
(LBP-90-12, pp. 44-45) q Memorandum of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Regarding Resolution of ALAB-924 Issues - p. 4.
k
B.
Condition 2 FEMA agreos with the Board's ane. lysis regarding Condition 2 (physical-impediments to evacuation). As does the Board, FEMA finds it virtually impossible to envision circumstances occurring in which there would be a coincidence of a large transient beach population and physical impediments to evacuation, i.e. fog, snow, hazardous road ~and bridge conditions for} highway 1
[
construction.
(LBP-90-12, p. 45)
FEMA notes that common sense and-logic would dictate that inclement weather would discourage persons from visiting the beach areas and that large beach populations will occur when the weather is good and the means to get to the beaches exist (e,g., roads are not obstructed).
In other words, large beach populations occur'with good weather i
and the meanc to travel on the local access roads; and small or no beach populations occur with any of those adverse conditions or when the roads are obstructed.
FEMA's understanding of the NHRERP is that the'NHRERP does not provide for any form of " actual sheltering." FEMA, like the Board, "cannot. identify.
NHRERP provisions for actual sheltering under condition-(2), or under a hybrid P
condition."
(LBP-90-12, p. 52) PEMA shares the Board's view that the Appeal Board may have believed "that sheltering for the besch population, nhile very
. improbable, is a far more likely response than, in fact, it is under the M EERP. "
(LBp-90-12, pp. 52-53). Moreover, FEMA shares the, Licensing Board's concern regarding how to implement a requirement for providing intelligible information to the transient beach population to implement " actual sheltering" (LBP-90-12), which in any event, as noted above, is not called for in the 3
NHRERP.
Memorandum of the Federal Emergenr.y Management Agency Regarding Resolution of ALAB-924 Issues - p. 5.
.i te
e l
l PEMA notes that federal guidance and NRC case law do not call for planners-to assume that a radiolog:aal emergency will occur simultaneously with infrequent natural phenomena.. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.:(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units-1 and 2), CLI-84-12, 20 NRC 249 (1984).-' Therefore FEMA did not expect New Hampshire to plan for the vanishingly improbable circumstances of all eight evacuation routes for the beach areas being simultaneously blocked with no possibility of impediment removal. FEMA-
~
believes that conditions which would make vehicular traffic impossible on all=
-j eight evacuation routes from the beach ~ areas fall into the category of infrequent _ natural phenomena.
FEMA's guidance does not require offsite h
l radiological emergency plans to consider such improbable occurrences:-
_l therefore, planning for such conditions is beyond the scope of federal requirements.
Because the NHRERP does not provide for " actual sheltering," FEMA did not
[
require any implementing detail (e.g., identification of suitable buildings ar.d EBS messages) and found the plan to be adequate based on-that
-i understanding. While the NHRERP does.not contain any provision for actual
)
sheltering, the fact that New Hatpshire emergency management officials might 2
not foreswear the option to make ad hoc responses outside of the plan if unforeseen circumstances presented themselves did not, in FEMA's view, require l
implementing detail for any such-ad hoc responses. extraneous to the plan. ' An
-ad hoc response by definition and logic is something outside the plan.
i FEMA found the scope of planning of the NHRERP to be adequate based in.
part on an extension of the rationale in NRC case law holding that appropriate emergency planning does not require specific provisions for particular accident scenarios. As the Commission has stated:
Memorandum of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Regarding Resolution of ALAB-924 Issues - p. 6.
e Since a range of accidents with widely differing offsite consequences can be postulated, the regulation does not depend on the assumption that a In fact, no specific particular type-of accident may or will. occur.
. accident sequences should be specified because each accident could have different consequences both in nature and degree....
The regulation-
...The emphasis is on prudent risk reduction measures.
does not require dedication of resources to handle every possible accident
=The concept of the regulation is that there should that can be imagined.
be-core planning with sufficient planning flexibility to develop a reasonable ad hoc response to those very serious low probability accidents ~
which could affect the general public.
et al., (San'Onofre Nuclear Generating Southern' California Edison Company, Station), CLI-83-10,17 NRC 528, 533 (1983), rev'd in part on other grounds, GUARD v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C.Cir. 1985)'
[ emphasis'added}, cited in Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook To.
Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-90-02 (March 1, 1990), slip op, at 28-29.
answer the question posed by the Board at LBP-90-12, p. 52, it has been FEMA's I-position in its review of the NHRERP and of other offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans rgdi to require implementing details for potential ad hoc protective action recommendations (PARS) outside the core planning.
~
i basis of NUREG-0654 and specific provisions of the' plan.
Some permutations or combinations of events that involve highly improbable facts-are not precluded.
from ad hoc consideration by emergency responders during an actual event.
There is no sound emergency planning. reason to attempt to preclude such remote
?
considerations.
,\\
i -.
I i
Memorandum of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Regarding
-Resolution of ALAB-924 Issues - p. 7.
11 4
t..-
_t
'III.
FEMA's Participation in the' Resolution of These Issues s
I FEMA counsel will attend the prehearing conference scheduled before the l
Board in Concord on June 5, 1990, and will be available for any subsequent proceedings set by the Board.
Respectfully. submitted,
/
H. Joseph Flynn n
h -vLkt hiDC4 YC l$%
Linda Huber McPheters For the Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
i
' Washington, D.C.-20472 (202) 646-4102 I
1
-i Memorandum of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Regarding Resolution of ALAB-924 Issues - p. 8.
~
e l.
4 COLKE1ED USHRC-May 30, 1990 1X) JUN -1 P 4 :08 UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pyrict OF SECRETARY-00CKEllHG L $EHVICI.
IIR ANCH' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM
)
In the Matter of
)
l
)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire,
)
Docket No. 50-443-OL et'a1.
)
- 50-444-OL
)
Offsite Emergency.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2).
)
planning Issues
]
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Memorandum'of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Regarding Resolution of ALAB-924 Issues have been 4
served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, on May 30, 1990, j
and by rapifax. transmission to the persons indicated by an asterisk-on May 30, 1990.
Administrative Judge
-Administrative' Judge-1 G. Paul Bollwerk, III Thomas S. Moore,1 Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety.and Licensing Appeal Board Board i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C; 20555 Administrative Judge
- Administrative Law Judge Howard A. Wilber.
Ivan W. Smith,' Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-Board
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. ashington, D.C. 20555 W
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i Washington, D.C. 20555 l
- Administrative Judge
- Administrative Judge J
Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 l
'1 1
l
-.)
L
.o t
Administrative Judge Robert R. Pierce, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board James H. Carpenter U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-Washington, D.C. 20555 '
Mitzi A. Young, Attorney
- Edwin J..Reis, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.
' Ropes & Gray Harmon, Curran & Tousley One International Place 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 Boston, MA.02110-Washington, D.C. 20009-
' t
- Paul McEachern, Esq.
- Robert A. Backus, Esq.
3 Shaines & McEachern Backus, Meyer & Solomon 25 Maplewood Avenue, P.O. Box 360 116 Lowell Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Manchester, NH 03106 Judith A. Mizner Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Counsel for Newburyport Holmes & Ellis 79 State Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Newburyport, MA 01950 Hampton, NH 03842 Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esq.
Jane Doherty
' Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
3 Market Street 77 Franklin Street
'Portsmouth, NH 03801 Boston, MA 02110 Jack Dolan Ashod N. Amirlan, Esq.
145 South Main St., P.O. Box 38 Federal Emergency. Management Agency 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
Bradford, MA 01830 Boston, MA 02109
' Suzanne Breiseth
- Geoffrey Huntington, Esq.
Board of Selectmen l
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General' Town'of-Hampton Falls Drinkwater Road 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 i
- John Traficonte, Esq.
Chief, Nuclear Safety Unit l
Office of the Attorney General l
One Ashburton Place, 19th floor l
Boston MA 02108 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Peter J. Brann, Esq.
Assistant' Attorney General Hampe & McNicholas Office of the Attorney General 35 Pleasant Street Concord, ta! 03301 State House Station, #6 Augusta, ME 04333 Certificate of Service, May 30, 1990, p. 2.
.D
I
=.;
g Allen Lampert William Armstrong Civil Defense Director Civil Defense Director Town of Brentwood Town of Exeter 20 Franklin Street 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Exeter, NH 03833 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD #1 - Box 1154 City Hall I
Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street-Portsmouth, NH 03801 i
Anne Goodman, Chairman William S. Lord Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen-13-15 Newmarket Road Town Hall - Friend Street i
Durham, NH 03824 Amesbury, MA 01913 Michael Santosuosso R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton & McGuire South Hampton, NH 03827 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950~
Stanley W. Knowles, Chairman Nornan C. Katner Board of Selectmen Superintendent of Schools P.O. Box 710 School Administrative. Unit No. 21
\\
North Hampton, NH 03862 Alumni Drive Hampton,'NH 03842-Sandra F. Mitchell The HonoraMe I
j Civil Defense Director Gordon J. Humphrey Town of Kensington ATTN:
Janet Colt Box 10 RR1 United States Senate East Kingston, NH 03827 Washington, D.C. 20510 l
l deo hl< LW Vic(*ltuno LINDA HUBER MCPHETERS Federal Emergency Management Agency
.)
500 C Street, S.W.,= Room 840 g
Washington, D.C. 20472 (202) 646-3941 Dated: May 30, 1990 i
i Certificate of Service, May 30, 1990, p. 3.