ML20043E456

Licensee Memorandum Re Questions Referred in LBP-90-12.* Suggests That ASLB Correct in Suggesting That Aslab Erred in Equating Condition 3 W/Conditions 1 & 2.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20043E456
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/07/1990
From:	Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#290-10445 ALAB-924, LBP-90-12, OL, NUDOCS 9006130017
Download: ML20043E456 (9)

Text

m d'

4 000KETED USNRC Jyne 7 1990 TO JW -$ P4 :22 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg g

v0ChiiM. Si "Vif1 before the i : :. n -

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD l

In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, at al.

50-444-OL 1

(Seabrook Statica, Units 1 (Offsite Emergency and 2)

Planning Issues)

LICENSEE 58 MEMORANDUM WITE' RESPECT TO QUESTIONS REFERRED IN LEP-90-12 In paragraph 4 of an Order issued on May 18, 1990, this I

Appeal Board stated:

"The questions referred by the Licensing Board in LBP-90-12, 31-NRC at (slip opinion at 55) are accepted for our consideration at this time.

The memoranda of I

all parties on those questions shall be i

served and filed in sufficient time to ensure I

their receipt by this Board and the concerned parties (by rapidfax or otherwise) no latgr than noon on Friday. June 8.

1990."

(

(Emphases in original).'

L i

I l

'The order was very specific to restrict the contemplated memoranda to the two questions which appear on p.55 of the slip l

opinion in the paragraph numbered 4.

It is our understanding that this Appeal Board was not seeking the views of the parties as to the numbered paragraphs appearing on Pages 53-54 of the slip opinion of LBP-90-12 wherein the Licensing Board seeks guidance of this Appeal Board on certain matters.

It is the 1

Licensees' view that the first paragraph should be answered by an I

ItEF90 12.$5 i

9006130017 900607 1D )

ADOCK0000p3 4g PDR o

j

L*

i

]

i i

The first question to be addressed is whether the Licensing Board was correct in the conclusions it reached as to the need for implementing detail if there is an ordar to shelter, 1 3.,

" shelter-in-place" in condition (1).

Condition (1) ist "if sheltering is the most effective option in achieving maximum dose reduction, based on EPA protective action guides of 1 yem whole body dose and 5 rem thyroid dose;"

This is the scenario where a protective action recommendation is made based upon a completely predictable " puff release" without 3

other provisions of NHRERP having already initiated a beach closure or evacuation.'

With respect to this situation, the Licensing Board reasoned i

that under shelter-in-place, which is thh 2D12 type of sheltering recognized in the NHRERP, shelters have already been delineated i

for the 2% without transportation, and everyone else is either to remain inside where they are, go inside a shelter to which they have access, or evacuate in their own transportation if they do not have access to shelter.

Thus, says the Licens.ing Board, agreement with the Licensing Board that actual sheltering of the general beach population is "a vanishingly improbable protective action choice under the NHRERP," and that, therefore, the State should not be pressed to either renounce it or amend the plan to include implementing detail.

Such an answer would appear to moot 4

the questions asked in the following paragraphs 2 and 3 on Page 54.

2LBP-90-12, slip op. at 26.

32.tg LBP-88-22, 28 NRC at 754-55.

'LBP-90-12 at 27; II. 10,417. 1.

r-there is no need for any further implementing detail, because everyone is accounted for under the terms of the plan as it now stands.

The transients with transportation and without access to shelter will still evacuate.

The logic of the situation is inescapable.

There simply is no further detail needed.

Thus the Appeal board should uphold the Licensing Board's finding.

i The second ruling referred is the ruling:

"that the sheltering requirements for beach transients without transportation differ from the general transient beach population,"5 As this Appeal Board is aware from the Petition for Review filed-by the Licensees with respect to ALAB-924, the Licensees respectfully disagree with this Appeal Board's equation of the sheltering concept for the transients without transportation and those with transportation.

The shelter-in-place concept, which is the nnly shelter option that has ever appeared in NHRERP from its inception with respect to any segment of the population, has always assumed that those without access to shelter but with transportation would evacuate upon an ord9r to " shelter," 1.A.,

i shelter-in-place.

As the state has repeatedly indicated,' and both this Appeal Boardi and the Licensing Board 8 have recognized,

$LBP-90-12 at 55.

'E.g., Comments of the State of new Hameshire Recardina NHRERP Shelterina and LBP-90-12 at 2 (May 28, 1990).

t IE.g., LBP-BB-3,2, 28 NRC at 759.

"E.g., ALAB-932 Slip Op. at 87.. _..,.. _

g evacuation is the preferred protective action for the beach population.

There is an identifiable portion (2%) of the beach population which consists of persons who were " dropped off" and, therefore, are in the area without their own means of J

transportation.

It is assumed that in the case of an order to evacuate, some of these people may not be able to ride share and thus would have to be evacuated by buses.

In this situation, it is important to designate specific locations for individuals to wait to ensure that they would be close to the route over which an svacuation bus would travel.

In addition, it was recognized i

that some dose savings could possibly be accomplished if these people waited for the bus in a building (shelter) rather than outside.

Thus detail was included in the plan in order to assure that, as part of the beach evacuation implementation, these individuals who had no transportation of their own, and could not manage to ride share, (a) knew where to go to catch a bus and (b) could wait for the bus inside.

Since evacuation of the beach is the preferred protective action and sheltering transients without transportation is a planned adjunct to beach evacuation, implementing detail including designation of shelters was included for this small_ group, similarly, if the order were ever to shelter, i.e.,

" shelter-in-place," this same group would include within it some people who were not "inside" at the time of the order, did not have " access" to shelter, and, by definition they would be without transportation.

Thus on a " shelter" order, this portion. -.

~

of that transient group without transportation would go to the designated shelters.

This Appeal Board simply did not recognize that under the shelter-in-place concept those transients with transportation who were not already inside and who did not have access to shelter were being instructed to leave.

It is possible that this Appeal Board was led into this error by certain language in Applicants' Direct testimony, which in hindsight, is susceptible of two readings.

In ALaB-924, this Appeal Board states:

"In the event of an emergency in which the general transient beach population would be sheltered, voice instructions would be given over the existing audible alert system directing beachgoers to fi buildings near the beach."pd shelter in 1

(

As a basis for that statsnent, this Appeal Board cited page 20 of Applicants' Direct No. 6.

The language on that page relied upon is, apparently, the following:

"For implementation of this protective action option under any of the three conditions, New Hampshire decisionmakers will rely on the mechanisms now in place, or to be put in place, in the NHRERP for recommending shelter to the public whether on the beach or any place else.

These mechanisms include rapid assessment of accident conditions; activation of the public alert system, which include the beach public address system; and e

EBS announcements.

It is expected that l

people will comply with EBS announcements to take shelter and that owners / operators of public access facilities will make their facilities available for this very limited i

purpose."

'ALAB-924, 30 NRC at 368. _

l-4 i

J Apparently this Appeal Board read the last sentence of the above quoted portion of the testimony as meaning that all beachgoers i

would be directed "to find shelter in buildings near the l

beach.""

This is not what was meant.

What was meant is that i

owners / operators of public access facilities would make their facilities available for "the very limited purpose" of

~

implementing shelter-in-place 1.a., letting people who were 1

already in the establishment stay there upon a shelter order.

In retrospect it could have been said more clearly, but the intent and meaning of that language was not to depart from the basic rule that those not already inside, and without ready access to shelter but with transportation should get in their transportation and leave.

For the forgoing reasons, we respectfully suggest, that the Licensing Board is correct in suggesting that this Appeal Board erred in equating condition (3) with conditions (1) and (2).

Respectfully submitted, e"

s Tnomas G.

Dianan-3r-George H. Lewald

~,

Kathryn A. Selleck Jeffrey P. Trout Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, MA 02110-2624 (617) 951-7000 counsel for Applicants "Id.

E DOCKETED USNRC

'90 JUN -8 P4 :23 i

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i

G ' 50f of SECiiETAhY I, Thomas G. Dignan,Jr.,oneoftheaNdk Licenseesherein,herebycertifythatonJune"(h"1990,'!NFthe 7,

I made service of the within document by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to (or, where indicated, by depositing in the United States mail, first class postage paid, addressed to):

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Mr. Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Fifth Floor Fifth Floor 4350 East-West Highway 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Thomas S. Moore Mr. Richard R.

Donovan Atomic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency Management Appeal Panel Agency i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Federal Regional Center Commission 130 228th Street, S.W.

i Fifth Floor Bothell,,.Mashington 98021-9796 4350 East-West Highway I

l.

Bethesda, MD 20814 l

l Administrative Judge Ivan W.

H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire i

Smith, Chairman, Atomic Safety Office of General Counsel and Licensing Board Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency i

Commission 500 C Street, S.W.

f East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20472 4350 East West Highway 1

Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Richard F.

Gary W. Holmes, Esquire j

Cole Holmes & Ells Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 47 Winnacunnet Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, NH 03842 East West Towers Building I

4350 East West Highway j

Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Kenneth A.

Judith H. Mizner, Esquire l

McCollom 79 State Street, 2nd Floor l

1107 West Knapp Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Stillwater, OK 74075 l

l l-i

??{

,6 I

r GeorgeLDana Bisbee, Esquire Robert R. Pierce, Esquire Associate Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing

.i

. Office of'the Attorney General Board 25-Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i

E Concord, NH 03301-6397 Commission t

East West ' lowers Building 4350 East West. Highway Bethesda, MD 20814-Mitzi A. Young, Esquire Diane Curran, Esquire Edwin J. Reis, Esquire Andrea C.

Ferster, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Harmon, Curran & Tousley U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 430 One White Flint North, 15th F1.

2001 S Street, N.W.

11555 Rockville Pike Washington, DC 20009 Rockville, MD 20852 Adj.udicatory T1.le Robert A.

Backus, Esquire Atomic Safv4 and-Licensing 116 Lowell Street Board Par.cl Docket (2 c:y.ica)

P.O.

Box 516 5

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Manchester, NH 03105 Commission-East West Towers Building l

4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD.,2G&l4

.s L

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Suzanne P.

Egan, City Solicitor Appeal Panel Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Rotondi p

Commission 79 State Street l

Mail Stop EWW-529 Newburyport, MA 01950 Washington, DC 20555 Philip Ahrens, Esquire John Traficonte, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General-Department of the Attorney Department of the Attorney General.

General Augusta, ME 04333 One Ashburton Place, 19th F1.

Boston, MA 02108 Paul McEachern, Esquire Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esquire l

Shaines & McEachern Kopelman and Paige, P.C.

L 25 Maplewood Avenue 101 Arch Street P.O. Box 360 Boston, MA 02110 Portsmouth, NH 03801 l.

R.

Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &

145 South Main Street Rotondi P.O.

Box 38 79 State Street Bradford, MA 01835 Newburyport, MA 01950 :

s

• Senator Gordon J. Humphrey

• Senator Gordon J. Humphrey U.S. Senate One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Washington, DC 20510 Concord, NH 03301 (Attn:

Tom Burack)

(Attn:

Herb Boynton) 7 G.

Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman George Iverson, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing N.H. Office of Emergency Appeal Panel Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State House Office Park South Fifth Floor 107 Pleasant Street 4350 East-West Highway concord, NH 03301 Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Jack Dolan Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I J.W. McCormack Post Office &

Courthouse Building, Room 442 Boston, MA 02109 Th6 mas G. Dignan,

(*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail.)

s..

--