ML20043G095
| ML20043G095 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1990 |
| From: | Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10457 LBP-88-32, LBP-90-12, OL, NUDOCS 9006190047 | |
| Download: ML20043G095 (14) | |
Text
_
,f0 Ty UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'90 a 11 A10:23 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOA @cr eg etcjeg7ggy DocMETiggli<vici.
In the Matter of
'l Docket Nos. 50-443 -()v/
ll PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF l
50-444 NEW HAMPSHIRE, g M.
ll Off-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
'))
NRC STAFF MEMORANDUM REGARDING QUESTIONS REFERRED IN LBP-90-12 Mitzi A. Young Counsel for NRC Staff f
d June 8, 1990 Ok Oo$d00000!43
} s07
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
Off-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) i NRC STAFF MEMORANDUM REGARDING QUESTIONS REFERRED IN LBP-90-12 l
i f
Mitzi A. Young Counsel for NRC Staff I
June 8, 1990 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
Offsite Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF MEMORANDUM REGARDING QUESTIONS REFERRED IN LBP-90-12 INTRODUCTION On May 3, 1990, the Licensing Board in the above-captioned proceeding issued a Memorandum and Order that resolved, in part, the issues pending before it.
LBP-90-12, 31 NRC (May 3,1990).
That Order identified matters for further proceedings relating to (a) the evacuation time estimates for advanced life support patients and (b) sheltering of the transient beach population.
LBP-90-12, slip op, at 22-23, 41-55.
With regard to the sheltering issue, the Board referred certain rulings to the Appeal Board and requested that Appeal Board provide guidance concerning certain questions posed by the Board.
14.at53-55.
In an Order dated May 18, 1990 (unpublished), the Appeal Board ruled that "[t]he questions referred by the Licensing Board in LBP-90-12, 31, NRC at (slipopinion at 55) are accepted for our consideration at this time" and established a deadline for the submission of " memoranda of all parties on those questions."
May 18 Order at 2.
The Staff addresses the two matters referred by the Licensing Board (slip op, at 55) first, and then comments
-2 on the balance of the matters on which the Licensing Board sought this l
Board's guidance.
DISCUSSION A.
Whether the Licensing Board correctly concluded that the NHRERP does l
not provide for the actual sheltering of beach transients with transportation where physical evacuation is possible; and that no sheltering detail need be provided for that case (slip op. at 55).
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; see j_d at 24-28, 35-38.
The NHRERP defines the shelter-in-place concept as follows:
i 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.,
l the vehicles in which they arrived).
... [T]ransportation-i 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) l 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.
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 I
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.
3-The State of New Hampshire and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have both filed pleadings emphasizing that the only sheltering provided for in the NHRERP is the " shelter-in-place" concept whereby the general transient beach population with their own transportation and without immediate access to shelter would be directed toevacuateinthevehiclesinwhichtheyarrived.1/ The NHRERP does not provide for the actual sheltering of these people.
NH Memorandum at 1-3; FEMA Memorandum at 2-3.
FEMA and the State of New Hampshire further conclude that, inasmuch as sheltering is not provided for these people, no implementing detail is required. M.
The Massachusetts Attorney General also recognized at the hearing below that actual sheltering was not to be provided for the general beach population, but that they were to be advised to evacuate if they did not have access to an indoor location.
Goble Panel, ff. Tr 10,963, at 18-19, l
21.
After quoting the provisions for shelter-in-place (NHRERP, i
Vol. 1/Rev.2, at 2.6-6), his expert testified that the plan provided that "under all circumstances evacuation of Hampton and Seabrook beaches would I
be recommended." M.at18.
Further, he stated that "the NHRERP does not provide any planning for sheltering the beach population."
M. at 21.
Thus, the Licensing Board's analysis of the issue concerning the need to provide implementing detail for sheltering under condition (1) is l'
-1/
Comments of the State of New Hampshire Regarding Sheltering and LBP-90-12, May 28, 1990, at 1-3 ("NH Memorandum"); Memorandum of Feferal Emergency Management Agency Regarding LBP-90-12, May 30,1990
("FEMAMemorandum"),at2-3.
correct since those who are in shelter or can readily enter shelter need no instructions and all others are to evacuate.
The NHRERP already provides both the physical means for notifying the beach population of a recommendation to shelter-in-place and appropriate mechanisms for determining when that protective action recommendation should be issued.
See,e.g.,LBP-88-32,28NRC667,755-56[118.22-8.26]
(1988).
Given that (a) actual sheltering of the general beach population is not a part of the NKRERP, (b) the general beach transient population with their own transportation are expected to evacuate under condition (1), and (c) beach transients who are not transit-dependent would not need instructions to arrive at shelters which they have access to (i.e., buildings which they are already in or nearby at the time of a condition (1) emergency), 2/ the Appeal Board should conclude that no further implementation detail is needed.
2/
As FEMA notes, " people already in buildings [or who may elect to l
~
enter buildings immediately without direction from emergency management officials] would utilize those buildings as shelter."
FEMA Memorandum at 2.
The State of New Hampshire similarly points out that under the NHRERP:
[P]eople already in buildings or who may have access to buildings without delay or directions from emergency management officials will utilize those buildings as shelter, and others will be expected to evacuate.
This shelter-in-place concept constitutes a
significantly different protective action recomendation than one calling for " actual sheltering" of the population at specific locations....
= -
l
. 4 2
B.
Whether the sheltering requirements for beach transients without transportation differ from those for the general transient beach population (slip op, at 55).
As is clear from the plan provision cited above, only those beach transients without transportation (estimated to be two percent of the 3/
transient beach population) will be directed to temporary public shelters in beach areas until state-provided transportation resources arrive.
As the Licensing Board noted, trensit dependent beach transients "must go to identified public shelters so tnat they can be sheltered on a bus route while waiting to be evacuated by bus."
LBP-90-12, at 42 n.51.
However, the general beach population that has transportation (except for people who are already indoors or elect to immediately enter a building during a radiological emergency without direction from emergency response officials) are expected to evacuate.
See FEMA Memorandum at 2.
Thus, the Board correctly concluded that the sheltering requirements for beach transients without trar spcrtation differ from those for the general beach population, l
l l
C.
Whether, in the event that the Licensing Board is correct that l
" actual sheltering of the general beach population is a vanishingly small protective action choice under the NHRERP," New Hampshire must l
be pressed to expressly " renounce that choice or to amend the NHRERP to include implementing detail fer some type of sheltering" (slip op at 53-54).
The Licensing Board and the 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 11 8.39, 8.60-8.69.
The Licensing Board further felt that l
3/
SeeALAB-924,30NRC331,368(1989).
I
l o.
actual sheltering, in contrast to " sheltering-in-place," would be even a "far more rare event than the already rare event contemplated by the Appeal Board." LBP-90-12, at 52.
While the Board questioned whether the physical impediments to evacuation could ever exist so as to call for the " sheltering-in-place" protective action under condition (2), LBP-90-12, slip op, at 50-53, the State of New Hampshire has stated that the shelter-in-place option "is not precluded under the Condition (2) scenario" but would be a starting point for emergency officials if they are " faced with an unforseen (sic) need to identify some ad hoc protective response outside of the plan."
NH Memorandum at 3; see also FEMA Memorandum at 5-6. O As pointed out in conncetion to condition (1), no further implementing procedures need be provided for sheltering under the " shelter-in-place" protective action since only those already in shelters or who have immcdiate access to shelter are to shelter and all others are to evacuate.
The Staff believes that the Board is correct that the likelihood that there would be actual sheltering of the general beach population under condition (2) is very remote.
This protective action is not provided for in the NHRERP and no implementation detail is warranted.
See LBP-90-12, 4/
The attorney for the Intervenors conceded at a pre-hearing conference
~
on June 5,1990, that he would contemplate no condition where the subject beaches would be crowded and physical impediments could exist, so as to fulfill the predicates needed for condition (2).
(The Staff cannot now provide a proper transcript citation as it has not yet received the transcript of that prehearing conference.
It will supply such a citation when the transcript is received.)
o !
at 50-53. 5/
The Staff finds no fault with New Hampshire's suggestion that should actual sheltering become necessary in ways that cannot now be
- imagined, such sheltering could be done on an ad hoc basis under condition (2).
Implementing detail to address such a low probability event as an accident necessitating protective actions for the public, the siinultaneous occurrence of physical impediments on every evacuation route and large beach populations need not be included in the NHRERP.
- Rather, 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 and3),
CL1-83-10,17 NRC 528, 533 (1983), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir.1985); see Pacific Gas & Electric Q. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-84-12, 20 NRC
- 249, 251-52 (1984),
aff'd, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1305-09 (D.C. Cir. 1984), _ reaffirmed upon reh's en banc, 789 F.2d 26, 36-44 (1984).
In view of the fact that sheltering of the general beach population is not provided for in any provision of the NHRERP, except to the extent those individuals may already be indoors or enter a building on their own L
volition without any direction from emergency response officials, no i
l
-5/
FEMA and New Hampshire also emphasize that the NHRERP need not provide for the "vanishingly improbable circumstance of all eight evacuation routes for the beach areas being simultaneously blocked with no possibility of impediment removal,"
FEMA Memorandum at 5 and that such an event at the same time as large beach populations are present is "a fleeting glimmer, greater in size in the context of litigation than in reality," NH Memorandum at 3.
1 1
0
- reason exists to press New Hampshire to amend the NHRERP.
Similarly, New Hampshire should not be pressed to renounce sheltering as a possible protective action since New Hampshire officials should retain the flexibility to take such action or some other action on an ad hoc basis, in the remote event the need arises.
D.
Assuming the State would accept a revision to the NHRERP which designates " sufficient and suitable sheltering from the Stone and Webster survey," what sheltering implementation details might be 4
contained in the NHRERP for the general beach population (slip op, at 54).
As it reiterated most recently on February 16, 1990, 6/ the State will not rely on the Stone and Webster survey.
Moreover, the NHRERP's shelter-in-place concept provides for the evacuation rather than actual sheltering of the general beach population.
While some beach transients with access to shelter may enter or remain in buildings under this protective action, such " sheltering" could be accomplished without the need for additional implementation details.
l l
E.
Whether the Licensing Board may exercise its discretion to resolve any remaining uncertainties concerning finer details that still exist in regard to sheltering (slip op. at 54-55).
The Board should be given the discretion, on the basis of the record i
in this proceeding (and any updates in plan provisions or EBS messages l
since the 1988 hearings on the NHRERP that become part of the record), to l.
resolve any uncertainties in the plan concerning the slalter-in-place 6/
State of New Hampshire's Coments Regarding Applicants' Response to Licensing Board Order of January 11, 1990, dated February 16, 1990,
~
I at 4.
l l
I i
7
.g 4 -
protective action. While the Staff agrees with the State of New Hampshire and FEMA that no implementirig detail is needed to effectuate this option, the Board could clarify any minor ambiguities in the plan in consultation with the State of New Hampshire and the parties.
i n
SUMMARY
The Appeal Board - should affirm the Licensing Board's rulings regarding the sheltering-in-place concept, conclude that no further implementing detail is necessary to implement this protective action option, and give'the Board discretion to resolve minor uncertainties in the plan.
f Respectf 11y submitted, Mitzi A, oung '
Couns(forNRCS ff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 8th day of June,1990 9
D DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL OA In the Matter of Off!CEOfSECRE M Docket Nos. IId4's$d'c'Q "V'"
I S
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 MEMORANDUM REGARDING QUESTIONS REFERRED IN LBP-90-12" 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 Comission's l
internal mail system, or, as indicated by double asterisks, by -facsimile transmission, or, as indicated by triple asterisks, by express mail, this 8th day of June 1990:
IvanW. Smith, Chairman (2)*
Peter Brann, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General.
1 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 l
Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 l
Kenneth A. McCollom***
Geoffrey Huntington, Esq.**
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General l-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.**
l Ropes & Gray Harmon, Curran & Tousley L
One International Place 2001 S Street, NW l
Boston, MA 02110-2624 Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009 i
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 i
Boston, MA 02109 H. J. Flynn, Esq.
Judith H. Mizner, 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 Board of Selectmen Paul McEachern, Esq.***
Town Office Shaines & McEachern Atlantic Avenue 25 Maplewood Avenue North Hampton, NH 03862 l
P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Board of Selectmen L
George Hahn, Esq.
13-15 Newmarket Road L
Attorney for the Examiner Durham, NH 03824 I
Hahn & Hesson l
350 Sth Ave, Suite 3700 Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey New York, NY 10118 United States Senate 531 Hart Senate Office Building R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Washington, DC 20510 Suzanne P. Egan, Esq.
l-Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton L
& Rotondi Richard R. Donovan i
79 State Street Federal Emergency Management Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 Federcl Regional Center 1
130 228th Street, S.W.
Allen Lampert Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Civil Defense Director Town 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 l
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
Re.
Ms. Suzanne Breiseth George-Iverson, Director Board of Selectmen NH Office of Emergency Management
' Town of Hampton Falls State House Office Park South Drinkwater Road 107 Pleasant Street Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Concord, NH 03301 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert R. Pierce, Esq
- BoardPanel(1)*
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 i
V.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission a
Washington, DC 20555 OfficeoftheSecretary(2)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20555 AppealPanel(6)*
Attn:
Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
,y g "Mit(i A' Young F
f CounTel for NRC Staff i
l l
l l
l l
-