ML20055G721

NRC Staff Response to Aslab 900622 Memorandum & Order.* Advises of Sufficient Personnel at Facility to Properly Care for Children,Regardless of Availability of EPZ Teachers at School Host Facility

ML20055G721
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/13/1990
From:	Chan E NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML20055G722	List: ML20055G721
References
CON-#390-10635 ALAB-932, CLI-86-13, LBP-89-32, LBP-89-33, OL, NUDOCS 9007240107
Download: ML20055G721 (15)

Text

1. . -., 3

' 20$35 .

- - 1 i

DOCKETED USNitC ,

UNITED ~ STATES OF AMERIC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI ON M II O BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL' BQ2 RA

.4

p ,

'In the Matter of )

Docket Nos. 50-443 OL

' ) ,

t 1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50 444 OL . . , -

.NEW HAMPSHIRE, s.1 Al. Off site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

i 1

-]

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPEAL BOARD'S-JUNE 22,1990 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER  :

4 I

J f

L i

Elaine L Chan Counsel for NRC Staff  !

'x July 13,1990

.6 1

9007240107 900713 PDR ADOCK 0500 3 h[

t ti TABLE OF CONTENTS i

I. INTR ODU CTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . 1 II. DISCU S SION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-A. The Commission's Realism Rule Must Be Considered In Answering The Questions y_ Propounded By The Appeal Board . . . -. . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. Personnel Available To Care For And Supervise Children At The Holy Cross College Host Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . _. .

5 C. The Availability of EPZ School Teachers At The School Host Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 o III. CONCULSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

':0 -

4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COURT CASES page Mntenehusetts v. United States. 856 F.2d 378 (1st Cir.1988) . . . . . . . . . . 3

, ADMINISTRATWE DECISIONS 1.one 1sinnd Lichtinn Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CO 87 5, 25 NRC 884 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.one Island Lichtine Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CO 8613, 24 NRC 22 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,9 Pubile Senice Co. of New P=nshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CL .90 03, 31 NRC 219 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Pubile Senice Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), hiemorandum and Order June 22,1990 (unpublished) , . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,2,10,11 Public Senice Co. of New Hamnshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB432. 31 NPC (hiny 30,1990) . . . . . . . 10 Public Senice Co. of New Hamnshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1. and 2), LBP 89J33, 30 NRC 656 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . 10,11 Public Service Co. of New Hamnshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP 89 32, 30 NRC 375 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . passim Public Senice Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook .

Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP 89 8, 29 NRC 193 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 STATUTES -

hiassachusetts Civil Defense Act,1950 hiass. Acts 639 . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , 4 REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. i 2.764 (g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , ,,,,,,,gn

,. 10 C.F.R. t 50.47(a)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , y 10 C.F.R. t 50.47(c)(1)(iii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,4,7 MISCELLANEOUS 52 Fed. Reg. 42078 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,10

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,11 Al. ) Off site Emergency Planning ,

) '

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPEAL BOARD'S JUNE 22.1990 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1

1. INTRODUCTION In its June 22, 1990 Memorandum and Order, in connection with its review of LBP 89 32,30 NRC 375 (1989), the Appeal Board requested a supplemental memoranda from the Applicants and the NRC Staff addressing the following questions.

1. Is there existing evidence of record on the matter of the capability of the American Red Cross, in the absence of accompanying teachers, to care for '

and supervise at the Holy Cross CollegeV in excess of 10,000 students and daycare/ nursery children until such time as they are reunited with their parents and guardians? If so, what is the nature of the evidence and does it support a finding that such capability exists?

u The premise that the school host facility, at Holy Cross College, would be staffed ,

by the American Red Cross (ARC) is wrong. The SPMC, as litigated, does not anticipate that the ARC will be present at Holy Cross College nor does it rely on the ARC to provide any staff to assist organizations at the host school facility, i hence, there is no evidentiary record on the matter of the Red Cross' capability in this capacity. Sir Attached Affidavit of Richard W. Donovan, dated July 3, 1990 (" Donovan Affidavit") at i 13. Rather, only the congregate care centers are operated and staffed by the American Red Cross. See Dono,an Affidavit at T 14; April 18,1990 Appeal Board transcript at 92. For this reason the Staff addresses the question of the adequacy of staff at the host facility, which appears to be the principal thrust of the Appeal Board's questions. ,

l

2-

2. If there is no or insufficient evidence of record to establish that it is unnecessary for hiassachusetts teachers to serve as bus escorts, how should we deal with the concerns expressed in ALAB 932 with respect to the likelihood that teachers will accept such a role? Should we put those concerns to one side and, if so, on what basl>7 If those concerns cannot

, ?roperly be disregarded, should we remand the proceeding to the IJcensing .

3 card with instructions to explore further the question of the resources to '

be available at Holy Cross College (i.e., whether those resources will be 4 sufficient to obviate the presence of teachers at the facility)? Or, alternatively, should we direct the applicants to supplement the Red Cross- i supplied personnel at Holy Cross College with sufficient individuals, perhaps from within their own hiassachusetts emergency response organization, to )

ensure the proper care and supervision of the students? >

hiemorandum and Order, June 22,1990 at 910.

II DISCUSSION A. The Commission's Realism Rule hiust Be Considered in Answering The Ouestions l Propounded By The Appeal Board.

The SPhiC was developed without the participation of the Commonwealth of hiassachusetts, its local governments and the public schools located in the hiassachusetts l

portion of the Seabrook plume EPZ, Donovan Affidavit at 14. In the context of the '

matter raised by the Appeal Board, consideration of the realism doctrine embodied in

]

the November 3,1987 amendment to 10 C.F.R, 6 50,47(c)(1)(iii), is appropriate. The amendment provided in relevant part:

In making its determination of the adequacy of a utility i recognize the reality that in an actual emergency, state andplan, localthe NRC will l government officials will exercise their best efforts to protect the health and i safety of the public. The NRC will determine the adequacy of the expected response, in combination with the utility's compensatmg measures, on a case by case basis, subject to the following guidance. In addressing the

.. circumstances where applicant's inability to comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section is wholly or substantially the result of non-participation of state and/or local governments, it may be presumed that  !

, in the event of an actual radiological emergency state and local officials would generally follow the utility plan.

i

1 l

3-In its Statement of Consideration for the issuance of the

• Realism Rule

• the Commission l l

. instructed licensing boards that they *should not hesitate to reject any claim that state '

and local officials will refuse to act to safeguard the health and safety of the public in an actual emergency," adding that two hundred years of American history have amply l

demonstrated this to be true, 52 Fed. Reg. 42078,42082. In I.ong Island Ughting Co. J (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI 8613, 24 NRC 22, 29 n.9, the 1

Commission stated that even where state and local officials

• deny they ever would or could cooperate with [a utility) cither before or even during an accident," the NRC

• simply cannot accept these statements at face value.F The Court of Appeals, in Massachusetts v. United States. 856 F.2d 378 (1st Cir, 1988), in reviewing the Realism Rule" and its underlying

• realism doctrine" stated:

That state and local governments have refused to participate in eniergency alanning, or have indicated a belief that such planning is inherently '

mpossible in a particular plant location, does not indleate how these governments would respond in an actual emergency. It is hardly unreasonable for the NRC to predict that state and local governments, notwithstanding their misgivings about the ade their opposition to a particular plant location,would, in quacy the event of ofa an utility plan or actual emergency at a plant they were lawfully obligated to coexist with, follow the only existing emergency plan. This prediction is supported by common sense, and also by the uncontested fact - part of the administrative  ;

record of this rule - that state and loen! governments prefer a planned ,

emergency response to an ad hoc response. Sec 52 Fed, Reg. 42082 (1987).

856 F.2d at 383.

Thus, it is plain that under the Commission's regulations it must be conclusively L

l, presumed that in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook

• state and local l

l F In Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI 87 5, 25 NRC 884, 887 80 (1987), the Commission recognized that the American Red Cross, under its Congressional charter, is mandated to provide aid in radiological or other emergencies.

~ -

4 officials will exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public*

10 C.F.R. 6 $0.47(c)(ill).F

- F In addition to the procedures and staff provided for in the Seabrook Plan for hiassachusetts Communities (SPhiC), the hiassachusetts Civil Defense Act (CDA),

1950 hiass. Acts 639, grants to the Governor extremely broad powers to act in all emergencies including radiological emergencies. The Governor is empowered by the legislature through the CDA to carry out all emergency functions necessary l

for the purpose of protecting the public peace, health, security, and safety in an emergency. CDA passim. The Licensing Board, in LBP 89 8, ruling on a motion for summary disposition, reviewed the CDA and the general powers and duties of the Governor in his direction of the civil defense. Sex Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP 89 8, 29 NRC 193,196 7 I (1989) (appeal arcued). Section 4 of the CDA gives the Governor " general ,

! direction and control of the civil defense agency" and the responsibility for 1

• carrying out the provisions of this act . . . and direct operational control over any and all parts of the civil defense functions within the commonwealth. . . . He may cooperate with the federal government, and with other states and private agencies in all matters pertaining to chil defense of the commonwealth and the nation . .

. [and) may delegate any administrative authority vested in him under this act . .

Section 5 of the CDA as amended in 1979 provides that whenever the accidental release of radiation from a nuclear power plant endangers the health and safety of the people of the Commonwealth, the Governor may issue a proclamation setting forth a state of emergency. After such a proclamation, the Governor, in the event of a disaster, may take possession of a broad array of land, bui dings, machinery, equipment, shias, aircraft, and even entire transportation systems for the better protection "of tie commonwealth or its inhabitants as intended under this act." CDA 6 5(b); Sci eabmok, S LBP 89 8 supra.

The CDA provides for the issuance of executive orders, general regulations, or instructions "to such person or such department or agency of the commonwealth" i as needed for the Governor to " exercise any power, authority or discretion"  !

conferred upon him by the Act, either under an actual proclamation of an i

emergency . . . or in reasonable anticipation thereof and preparation therefor." ,

CDA 6 8; Sag Seabrook. LBP 89 8, supla.

!' To the extent cooperation is requested by the Governor or the Director of Civil  ;

! Defense in radiological emergency response plans, Town employees, including school teachers are required to cooperate. CDA 6 20. This interpretation of the obligations of Town employees under the CDA was offered by counsel for the Town of Plymouth and concurred in by the General Counsel to Secretary Barry of the Executive Office of Public Safety. (Letter from Barbara J. Saint Andre to (continued...)

1

5- ,

B. Personnel Available To Care For And Supervise Children At The Holv Cross Collece Host Facility.

The first question propounded by the Appeal Board, although framed in terms of  ;

, American Red Cross personnel, essentially asks what evidence is contained in the record <

regarding personnel available to care for and wpervise children at the Holy Cross College host facility. Even without any teachers from the emergency planning zone, the SPhiC, the SPhiC Support Plan Holy Cross Host Facility Activation and Operation Plan i

("SP HFS l") and the SPhiC Support Plan for Massachusetts School Host Facility Plan l

(HFS"), indicate that the following personnel would be present at Holy Cross College: 4 l

l Personnel Number Source of Information NHYORO staff 33 SP HFS 1, Form SP HFS 1C Holy Cross College 8 SP HFS 1 Form SP HFS IC

- Bus drivers (schools) 182 SPhiC Appendix M Rev.1.A pp. M 1, M 107, and M 108 Bus drivers (daycare) 38 SPMC Appendix M Rev.1.A

p. M 1 l

Wheelchair van drivers 2 SPMC Appendix M Rev.1.A

p. M 1 I

F(... continued)

William Griffin, Executive Secretary, Plymouth, Massachusetts, dated December 30,1988; Memorandum from Charles.V. Barry, Secretary, Executive Office of Public Safety to Robert J. Boulay, Director, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency

. and Office of Emergency Preparedness, dated April 24, 1989.) Additional non-governmental resources also available to the Commonwealth through the Massachusetts Emergency Response Plan, are set out in LBP 89 32,30 NRC 375 at 533 34.

l l

6-Route guides (Holy Cross) 60V SPMC Appendix M Rev.1.A Other volunteersU Unknown SPMC Appendix M Rev.1.A

. Thus, FEMA found, based on its review of the two Holy Cross College support plans, tour of the designated facilities, interviews of appropriate staff and review of the SPMC that the arrangements for handling of Massachusetts school children in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook are adequate.F Donovan Affidavit at 117,9, 10,11, and 15.

Although the two Holy Cross College support plans were not introduced into evidence at the hearing, the affidavit of Richard W. Donovan, attached hereto, evidences that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reviewed these support plans y Route guides destined for other locations may also be assigned duties at Holy Cross College after completing other activities. SPMC Appendix M. Rev.1.A U State licensed daycare providers in ratios of one per six children would be expected to accompany and care for the children entrusted to them. SPMC Appendix M.

Rev.1.A. In addition, others are available to aid in the care of the chlldten. Sag generally Tr. 21322 30.

u FEMA relied on the realism doctrine in reviewing and approving the SPMC.

Donovan Affidavit at t 5. FEMA assumed that state and local officials who have declined to participate in emergency planning will exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public, cooperate with the NHYORO and follow the SPMC and have the resources sufficient to implement those portions of the SPMC where state and local response is necessary. M. FEMA assumed that the schools and daycare centers will either implement their own plans or follow the SPMC. M. at 6. The SPMC assumes that schools within the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook plume EPZ have both plans and arrangements to implement protective m tasures in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook. M. at 7. The SPMC contains provisions to notify schools and to notify, assess needs, provide transportation assistance (if required) and provide a designated host facility (Holy Cross College) for all public and private schools and daycare centers. M. The SPMC assumes that these organizations (schools and daycare centers) will utilize these SPMC arrangements for implementing protective measures in the event the organizations do not have their own arrangements. M. at t 7.

4

1 i

l 7

in conjunction with review of the SPhiC in determining that the arrangements for  :

handling hiassachusetts school children were adequate. Set 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(a)(2).

Mr. Donovan avers:

9. If an organization (school or day care center) accepts the offer of transportation assistance, the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization (NHYORO) will provide buses, bus drivers, and at least one route guide to transport students, children and school staff (if appropriate) to a reception center for monitoring and decontamination (if appropriate) and then to the Holy Cross College ,

where the organization is expected to allow parents and guardians to pick up their children.

10. FEMA reviewed two support plans related to the operation of the Holy Cross host facility, -.e., the " Holy Cross Host Facility Activation and Operations" Support Plan and the " Massachusetts School 1-iost Facility Plan College of Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts."

These plans describe the number of support staff for the fadlity, forms to be used by that staff and procedurer, to be used for such functions as registration and release of children, giving directions to parents concerning the location of children from individual communities, etc. .

11. . FEMA has visited the Holy Cross College location, toured the designated facilities and interviewed the appropriate staff. Holy -

Cross College staff are aware of their responsibilities regarding the setup and arrangement of the designated facilities for the use of the organizations (schools and day care centers).

Ett alSa Tr. 21340-45.

In addition to the personnel listed in the SPMC, the record evidences that there is a substantial pool of potential volunteer resources available to care for children at the Holy Cross College host facility. These include the staff and studet body of the college

, (Tr. 21329 30), and evacuated high school students who can assist in caring for younger children (Tr. 21322 23).- Further, under 10 C.F.R. i 50.47(c)(1)(iii) it is to be presumed' that state and local officials will " exercise their best efforts." It is therefore appropriate l ,

l.

l i

8 to presume that the state will use its best efforts to properly care for evacuated children and supply the necessary personnel to perform that task.

In sum, the evidence of record, the SPMC documents, and the presumption regarding the Commonwealth's "best efforts", together provide a reasonable basis to conclude that sufficient personnel will be available to supenise and care for children at Holy Cross College in the event of radiological emergency.

C. The Availabilltv Of EPZ School Teachers At The School Host Facilltv.

The SPMC assumes that Massachusetts schools and day care centers in the EPZ will utilize SPMC arrangements for implementing protective measures and does not specify a role for teachers in those EPZ organizations. Donovan Affidavit at TT 6 8.

FEMA has found the arrange'nents for handling Massachusetts school children to be adequate. Donovan Affidavit at T 15. Applicants' rebuttal testimony, however, sets forth Applicants' expectations that the schools' staff and teachers will remain with the  ;

evacuated children until they are released to their parents. Applicants' Rebuttal No. 6., -

ff. Tr. 21049, nt 22 25; Tr. 21319, 21326; Although not required, Applicants developed i supporting plans for all schools and special facilities, including daycare centers, which are l

fintended to facilitate the implementation of protective actions such as sheltering or evacuation within each facility by the staff and students / residents." Applicants' Rebuttal, spra, at 22. "Should an evacuation be recommended . . . facility staff will fulfill their l responsibilities to ensure that the patients / residents are safely boarded on evacuation vehicles, and supervised during and after transport to Reception Centers and/or host facilities." Id. The New Hampshire school teachers testifying for Intervenors uncierstood that they would be asked to accompany school children. Tr. 4014. Similarly, it is anticipated that Massachusetts teachers will to accompany students into the early stages

, 9 of congregate care. 30 NRC at 529. Applicants' testimony referred to the Licensing Board's New Hampshire decision and the role of teachers in assisting and supervising evacuees during transport. 'Their responsibilities, however, are not significantly different than those which existed prior to the emergency, and they are not called on to perform any extraordinary emergency actions." Applicants' Rebuttal, sura at 22 23.

A concern of the Appeal Board appears to be the possibility that in an actual emergency, if a significant number of teachers fall, for whatever reasons, to participate in a Seabrook emergency response, the school and daycare children will not be adequately stipervised during the evacuation process. As noted above in Section B, the SPMC provides adequate staffing for supervision of the children in an evacuation notwithstanding any lack of teacher participation. However, this concern is not supported by the record.F The record evidences that there is no known instance of teachers abandoning children in an emergency or falling to perform their emergency roles. Tr. 3967 (Intervenor witness, Moyer); Tr. 6625 (Applicants' expert, Mileti), in Shoreham, CLI 8613, 24 NRC 22, 29 n.9, the Commission particularly warned against accepting claims of non participation by state officials at face value, and instructed licensing boards in its Statement of Consideration accompanying the issuance of the Realism Rule, to reject claims of state or local officials that they will refuse to safeguard v Su generally, even MassAG witnesses Zeigler and Johnson in the New Hampshire phase of this hearing could only testify that a survey of public school teachers in the San Luis Obispo Coastal Unified School District near the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in California indicated that one third of the teachers in San Luis Obispo County believed that role conflict, including family obligations and concerns for personal safety, would prevent them from performing emergency work during a full scale evacuation. 7eigler and Johnson Testimony, ff. Tr. 7849, at 47-

50. Thus, even Intervenors' testimony would leave two thirds of the teachers to respond to the emergency.

l

10 -  !

the health and safety of the public in an actual emergency. 52 Fed. Reg 42078,42082. ,

The claims that so great a n',imber of teachers and administrators will not participate as to compromise the health and safety of the evacuated children, cannot be credited.

In its Order of June 22,1990 (at 2-4), the Appeal Board also repeated the concern expressed in ALAB 932,31 NRC (hfay 30,1990) that teachers might be less likely to assume the role of bus escort in hiassachusetts because the time and' distance of travel would be longer, and questioned whether there would be adequate supenision of the school children.F To reiterate, FEhiA has found the arrangement for handling school children to be adequate. Donovan Affidavit at i 15. However, it has been found that the children Eet on buses without the hands on assistance of teachers.F There is no evidence that the longer time and distance between the school and the  :

destination in hiassachusetts compared to New Hampshire is significant in determining whether teachers will ride the buses. There is no evidence that role strain and role abandonment are increased as a function of time and distance. Teachers requiring

& The Appeal Board in n 21, at II, of its hiernorandum and Order of June 22, 1990, noted that, alttioui;h the Commission concluded in the "immediate effectiveness" portion of CLI 90 3,31 NRC 219 (1990) that school children can be evacuated to Holy Cross College without teachers on school buses, under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.764(g), the Appeal Board could attach no weight to such immediate effectiveness determmations. However, in its ruling on the motions to stay LBP-89 32 in the adjudicatory portion of CLI 90 3, the Commission stated that: *Our discussion of litigated issues in our immediate effectiveness section is fully applicable here. That discussion indicates that Intervenors have certainly not made a strong showing that they are likely to prevail on the merits of further appeals."

u 31 NRC at 260. The weight to be given to these determinations in CLI 90 3 need i not be faced; as we have detailed, the documents submitted by Applicants, the l record and the presumptions created by the "best efforts" or realism rule provide l reasonable assurance that school children would be adequately cared for at Holy

) .

Cross College and on the school buses to that location.

1 F Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP.

89 33, 30 NRC 656, 6o0 (1989); Ett alEo, Tr. 3388 89.

l

11 -

transportation will be on the buses and those who volunteer because of concern for the welfare of their students are not likely to condition their degree of concern on the time required to fulfill this responsibility.W Sn LBP 89 33, 30 NRC 656, 660-61. The Ucensing Board in LBP-89 32 found that-4.22. During actual emergencies people abandon personal forms of identification and personal interests, and they identify with the entire human collective or community that is threatened. There is a dramatic decline in activities and behavior that run counter to the good of the collective and those that are based in individual or personal interests, and a dramatic increase in acts and behavior that bring people together and help one another. People respond by helping other human beings who are in need of help. This would include stopping to enable an evacuation bus to cross an intersection so it could pick up people in need of transportation. [ Appl.

Reb. No. 9) at 68-69.

30 NRC at 469 (1989). It further found that:

8.77 With the exception of assistance in sheltering techniques, we fm' d that the Attorney General's suggestion - that there would be a lack of helping behavior among fellow evacuees and between preemergency service providers and their preemergency charges in an emergency of this sort - is simply contradictory to established theory in disaster research.- First, many empirical studies on geological, climatological, and technological emergencies provide a vast data base about helping behavior. Second, emergencies comparable to an emergency at a nuclear facility such as Seabrook are, by definition and in reference to human behavior, extraordinary situations.

• Third, such emergencies change the priorities of ongoing social life and transform social goals, objectives, and identifications. People abandon

- personal forms of identification and personal interests, and they identify with the entire human collective or community that is threatened. One of many names given this phenomenon is the " therapeutic commurdty." The collective altruistic response of residents in and around San Francisco, Oakland, and Santa Cruz, California, following the recent earthquake that struck those areas is a current example of this phenomenon. Fourth, a consequence of these changes is that the threatened community experiences a dramatic decline in behavior that runs counter to the collective good and W The Licensing Board relied on the testimony of Mr. Strome, then New Hampshire's Director of Emergency Management, who explained that "whether or not teachers accompany schoolchildren in an evacuation depends upon whether they volunteer to do so in the discharge of their normal loco parentis responsibilities." LBP 33,30 NRC at 660.

l l

1

r 12 -

those that are based on individual or personal interests, and a dramatic increase in behavior that brings people together to help one another. Fifth,

, this

• shift" would undoubtedly occur in an emergency at Seabrook since it has occurred in every mass emergency of this sort studied by social scientists. In general, therefore, people m emergencies become concerned

• about the safety of others. Consequently, people _ check on the safety of others; communicate with friends, neighbors, and intimates; and offer help and provide assistance to each other, including those with physical or mental i impairments. Appl. Reb. No. 6, supra, at 47-48.

30 NRC at 530 31. Thus, the distance travelled and travel time should not materially affect teachers' decisions to accompany children on the buses to the host facilities. '

As previously detailed, regardless of whether a substantial number of teachers from the EPZ accompany the children to the school host facility, there would be sufficient personnel at the facility to properly care for the children. . The SPMC does not  ;

rely upon EPZ teachers to supervise the children at the host facility. Thus, there is no need for further Appeal Pourd direction in regard to the issue of whether the children will be cared for and supenited at Holy Cross College.

i III. CONCLUSION Although the American Red Cross does not provide staff for the school host facility under the provisions of the SPMC, there will be sufficient personnel to care for and supenise children who may be evacuated there, regardless of whether teachers from the EPZ serve as bus escorts. No further information is required to determine that the evacuated children will have adequate supervision and care, Respectfully submitted, L Elaine I. Chan

, Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Reckville, Maryland This 13th day of July,1990 1

\

--- ,