ML20058K761
| ML20058K761 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1990 |
| From: | Cole R, Mccollom K, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| CON-#390-10573 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, ALAB-924, ALAB-932, LBP-90-12, LBP-90-20, OL, NUDOCS 9007110154 | |
| Download: ML20058K761 (18) | |
Text
O O
i
.adTE90-20 UbHKC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOf90 3 27 P2 :20 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO D, g
.,,; y UCCEP% 4 9 hv:( 0 Before Administrative Judgest pRucy Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole 4GRVS) JUN 17 M.'.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Hos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, at al.
50-444-OL (Seabrook Station, (Offsite Emergency Units 1 and 2)
Planning)
ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL June 27, 1990 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Followina Prehearina conforgnGA)
Backaround On June 5, 1990, pursuant to notice,I the Licensing Board conducted a prehearing conference to consider the resolution of certain issues pending before it.
The issues relate to (1) time estimates for preparing non-ambulatory patients on advanced life support systems in the Seabrook emergency planning zone for evacuation and (2) shelter for visitors to the Seabrook area beaches when, in the face of a 1Notice of Prehearing Conference, May 4, 1990 (published at 55 Fed. Reg. 19686, May 10, 1990).
h 71 3
ysn
e i prognosis of decreasing ability to mitigate a radiological emergency at the Seabrook Station, evacuation of beach visitors is not possible because of physical impediments to evacuation such as weather and highway conditions.
These issues are among those remanded to the Licensing Board by a decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in ALAB-924, 30 NRC 331 (1989).2 In addition, ALAB-932, issued May 31, 1990, remanded a requirement that the Licensees " incorporate within the appropriate ETE calculations the number of vehicles hidden from aerial observation."
E11R 99. at 88-89.
The remanded ETE issue was also discussed at the prehearing conference.
The Attorney General of Massachusetts represented himself and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution.
Also participating were the Licensees, the NRC Staff, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the State of New Hampshire.
Advanced Life Suonort Patiento In LBP-90-12 the Board identified candidate ALS patient issues to be resolved.
Slip gg, at 23.
They include the 2These issues were discussed in detail in LBP-90-12, Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Certain Remanded and Referred Issues) (May 3, 1990), 31 NRC The second issue, impediments to evacuation, relates to " condition (2)"
for sheltering as discussed in ALAB-924 and LBP-90-12.
I l
1 I
l following issues set out by the Appeal Board in ALAB-924, by
{
1 the Commission in CLI-90-03, and respective subissues i
identified by this Board:
(1)
How long does it take to efficiently prepare an ALS patient for transportation?
(2) would preparation of patients at an early initiating condition, gig., declaration of an alert, or at an order to evacuate, be medically appropriate?
(3)
How many ALS patients are there in the EP37 Where are the ALS patients?
7 only at Exeter and Portsmouth Hospitals?
(4)
Would uncertainties in the times available to prepare ALS patients for evacuation produce ETEs that are too inaccurate to be useful in the selection of protective action options?
The Board also noted Intervenors' argument that ALAB-924 (30 NRC at 352'n.71) requires a finding.that the NHRERP is inadequate in the absence of individualized special facility planning.
We ruled that the cited footnote requires nothing of that sort.
Rather, it is an observation by the Appeal Board as to a use to be made of any correction in the estimated preparation time for ALS patients.
LBP-90-12, gliD 29 at 23.
The parties explained to the Board that issue (4),
could be un'erstood to relate to ETEs for the entire d
- suora, Emergency Response Planning Area (ERPA).
Alternatively, it could be understood to relate to the ETEs for the ALS l-l patients on a facility-specific basis.
A consensus emerged that the issue should be framed in the context that ETEs for l
l l
l l
ALS patients are useful for selecting the appropriate protective action for them.
In defining issue (4) the Board had no thought that ETEs for an entire ERPA would be determined by the ETEs for ALS patients in the event the former do not envelop the latter.
Rather the information would be available to anyone finding it useful, and it is more likely that hospital personnel would use ETEs for ALS patients.
Tr. 28,412-23.
Moreover, to the extent that ETEs for ALS patients are useful to the medical personnel at specific hospitals, Intervenors' demand that "cach special facility shall be treated on an individual basis" tends to be satisfied.3 In any event, the Board does not foreclose further consideration of protective action options for specific facilities with ALS patients in the forthcoming summary disposition process.
Tr. 28,426.4 The Board set a schedule for the consideration of summary disposition pleadings on the ALS issues.
Only the Licenseen intend to file such a motion, but the NRC Staff 3Tr. 28,421-22.
See ALAB-924, 30 NRC at 352 n.71.
'Intervenors agree that the four issues set out above, and as discussed at the conference, are adequate in scope to cover their concerns providing that the Board's discussion of the ALS issue in LBP-89-33 (30 NRC 656, 667-70, does not control the outcome.
Tr. 28,433-35.
Also we understand that the Intervenors are still pursuing the fifth issue, 12e., whether "each facility shall be treated on an individual basis."
The Board will decide the issues based upon ALAB-924, CLI-90-03, the existing record, and the record developed in the remanded proceeding.
l
. may participate in the process by supporti.g Licensees' notion.
Tr. 28,441.
Licensees will file their motion by June 26, 1990.
NRC Staff will file any supporting pleading by July 17.
However, the NRC Staff will notify Intervenors by July 10 whether it intends to file anything.
In the event the NRC Staff notifies Intervenors on July 10 that it does not intend to file a pleading, Intervenors will file their answer to Licensees' motion by July 24.
However, if the NRC Staff files a pleading, Intervenors will file their answer to both pleadings by July 31, 1990.
Shelterina Following the issuance of LBP-90-12, the State of New Hampshire provided further information concerning any provisions of the NHRERP for " actual sheltering" of the summer beach population under condition (2).5 The State explained that it agrees with this Board's analysis of the condition (2) scenario as set out in L3P-90-12 and that:
In this vein, New Hampshire retains the shelter-in-place concept as an option not precluded under the condition 2 scenario so that emergency management 5Memorandum of the State of New Hampshire Regarding Licensing Board Consideration of Remanded Issues, May 31, 1990.
In the memorandum to this Board, the State incorporated its advice to the Appeal Board on the sheltering issue:
Comments of the State of New Hampshire Regarding NHRERP Sheltering and LBP-90-12, May 28, 1990.
Our references are to the May 28 Comments.
i i
_, i officials may have a starting point if faced with an unforeseen neta to identify some ad hoc protective response outside of the olan.
With that said, however, the State reiterates that the NHRERP does not provide for " actual sheltering" as a planned response to Condition 2; nor should emergency planners be required to amend the plan to include such a provision given that the probability for occurrence is but a fleeting glimmer, greater in size in the context of litigation than in reality.
(Emphasis in original.)
Comments at 3.
At the prehearing conference, the condition (2) sheltering issue, af defined by the Licensino Board, evaporated.
The Intervenors agree with this Board's analysis of the condition (2) scenario in LDP-90-12.
Tr. 28,328, 28,329-30.
That scenario would occur when weather and roadway conditions attract a large beach population followed without notice by weather and roadway conditions preventing evacuation.
We stated that such a situation is very difficult to envision.
LBP-90-12, slip 99 at 45, 53.
Indeed, Intervenors state that such a scenario is absurd; that, following reductio ad absurdu.m reasoning, the NHRERP and the remanded issue before the Board clearly contemplated another scenario as condition (2).
Tr. 28,330.
Instead of weather and roadway conditions, Intervenors assert that the aspect of condition (2) remaining in controversy pertains to local conditions of population density and distribution deemed to he constraints on evacuation.
Intervenors rely upon earlier editions of the
- NHRERP which group " population oensity and distribution" with weather and roadway conditions among the local constraining conditions to be considered in protective action decisionmaking.6 Intervenors' view of condition (2) very closely resembles condition (1) as the issue was addressed by the Appeal Board Indeed, (Applicants' emergency planners) could conceive of only one situation in which (sheltering) would be applicable under condition (1) to achieve a " maximum dose reduction":
a short duration, nonparticulate (gaaeous) release that would arrive at the beach within a relatively short time period when, because of a substantial beach population the evacuation time would be significantly longer than the exposure duration.
ALAB-924, 30 NHC at 364.
As can be seen, Intervenors' own account of its version of condition (2), "large beach populations with very long evacuation times" (Tr. 28,330), is precisely one of the essential elements referred to by the Appeal Board in defining the condi,'clon (1) issue as cited above.
Intervenors concede as much, acknowledging that their view of condition (2) "really collapses into condition (1)."
Tr. 28,331-32.
Intervenors' construction of condition (2) is one of its own making.
It finds no support in the Partial Initial
' Memorandum Of Intervenors In response To Licensing Board Order of May 4, 1990, May 29, 1990, at 11, Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2.
Tr. 28,330-32.
i
l Decision on the NHRERP (LBP-88-32), in LBP-88-3, or in ALAB-924.
In fact, in (efining the three conditions for sheltering the Appebl Board specifically noted that
" Planning officials consider ' physical' impediments under condition (2) to include fog, snow, hazardous road and bridge conditions, and highway construction."
Id., 30 NRC st 364 n.133.
The ultimate point of Intervenors' argument, we infer, is that the NHRERP, despite all that the State of New Hampshire and FEMA have said to the contrary, does in fact contain provisions for actual sheltering of the general beach population.
Therefore, their argument goes, pursuant to the remand order, the plan must therefore provide appropriate implementing detail.
In essence, Intervenors are disputing the Board's decision in LBP-90-12 denying their motions to reopen the record on the sheltering issues.
In any event, even the slim reed upon which their araumont depends has snapped.
The NHRERP now omits population density as one of the evacuation constraints, leaving only natural weather and manmade roadway impediments
-- as Intervenors now acknowledge.
Tr. 28,333-35.7 7The plan amendment referred to in the cited colloquy apparently related to a February 1990 amendment to Revision 3 of the NHRERP.
Comoare'Section 6.4, Vol. 8/Rev.3 attached as Exhibit 2 to Intervenors' Memorandum of May 29, 1990, with Section 6.4, Vol. 8/Rev. 3 2/90, transmitted by a letter from Ted C. Feigenbaum, New Hampshire Yankee, to USNRC, dated February 5, 1990.
The term " population density and distribution" appears in the Exhibit 2 version but does l
. Tho / Ope 31 Board has not ruled that the NHRERP mugLt pr; ovide for t.h?'.tering the general beach population.
Rather the discussion in ALAB-924 assumed that actual sheltering of that population was a part of the plan.
Specifically the Appeal Board stated that ".
we find that (implementing) measures are required so long as sheltering for.the beach population is a protective action option under the NHRERP."
It is now clear-that there is no provision in the NHRERP for actually sheltering the general beach population other than the " shelter-in-place" concept.
Accordingly, we conclude that the remanded sheltering issue has been resolved.
No further proceeding on the sheltering issue is planned.
In addition, because of the clarification provided by the State of New Hampshire and FEMA concerning the provisions of the plan, this Board no longer requires guidance from the Appeal Board as requested in LBP-90-12, Elin gn, at 53-55.
We recommend that the respective referrals, having since been accepted by the Appeal Board, be vaaated.
Interim Protective Measures In the Memorandum Supplementing LBP-88-32,8 this Board accepted ALAB-924 as being based upon a valid construction not appear in the February 1990 version.
8LBP-89-33, 30 NRC 656 (November 20, 1989),
i
- 'e i
10 -
of the NHRERP.
We represented that the concerns expressed by the Appeal Board in the remand decision could be resolved prior to the arrival of large beach populations in July 1990..
30 NRC at 671-72.
In its immediate effectiveness review of LBP-89-32, authorizing the Seabrook operating license, the Commission noted that representation and stated that incorporation of implementing detail would not be especially difficult or time consuming.'
ALAB-924 is still the law of this proceeding and this Board remains subject to its directives.
We have determined that no sheltering issues remain for litigation before us, and that the remand order has now been satisfied.
However the integrity of the NRC hearing process requires, in our view, interim measures to assure that the substantive intent of ALAB-924 and CLI-90-03 not be thwarted pending review of our respective decisions on appeal.
Therefore we invited and received the voluntary cooperation of the State of New Hampshire, FEMA, Licensees, and the NRC Staff to assure that a protective action decision to shelter the general summer beach population can be made and implemented if, against all real probability, actual sheltering is required to achieve maximum dose savings for that population.
The State of New Hampshire will assure that its protective action decisionmakers are all currently trained
'CLI-90-03, 31 NRC 219, 247-48 (1990).
,n, iiisiuns n
mim imienun m
ii-wymmi--.
- --ume
--i--
. in the subtleties and nuances of the benefits to be gained or lost _in selecting a sheltering option for the general beach population.
Such assurance will also demonstrate that the New' Hampshire decisionmakers are fully informed with respect to the sheltering issues litigated in this proceeding.
The State agreed to submit its documentation to FEMA by June 13.
FEMA agreed to submit its assessment of the State's readiness to the NRC by June 20 and the NRC Staff agreed to respond to FEMA's assessment and forward the resulting package back to New Hampshire with service on the parties by June 22.
Tr. 28,388-89, 28,392-93, 28,399-403, 28,407-08.
This h7s been accomplished.10 Licensees have committed to prepare an interim plan and EBS. message to implement the sheltering option when evacuation of the general summer beach population is impossible because of physical impediments.
The interim plan and EBS message will become a part of the Seabrook Station onsite plan and will be held in readiness to offer to the State of New Hampshire if required.
Tr. 28,388, AUSee Letter from Mitzie A.
Young, Counsel for NRC Staff to Members of the Licensing Board, June 22, 1990, enclosing (1) letter from Grant C.
Peterson, Associate Director, FEMA, to James M. Taylor, NRC EDO, June 19, 1990, and (2) letter from George L.
Iverson, Director, New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management, to Richard H.
Strome, Director, FEMA Region One, June 14, 1990.
New Hampshire and FEMA have made a very strong and effective response to the Licensing Board's proposal.
l
! 28,393, 28,408-09.
The NRC Staff has agreed to review Licensees' interim plan.
Tr. 28,399.
Licensees will submit the interim plan to the NRC Staff no later than June 26.11 Licensees' obligation under this commitment will expire on September 15, 1990.
ETEs And Hidden Vehicles ALAB-932, issued May 31, 1990, 31 NRC remanded a l
requirement that the Licensing Board direct the Licensees to
" incorporate within the appropriate ETE calculations the number of vehicles hidden from aerial observation, as set forth in the Board's findings in 1 9.120 of its decision."
S112 2p. at 88-89.
In our Finding 9.120 we found, as the Appeal Board noted, that, on a reasonably busy beach day, about 2,000 vehicles would not be observable "in vertical aerial photos because they are in under building parking areas, garages.
and carports."
We then added the 2000 vehicles to the 30,800 thought to-be present in other observations to arrive at a total of 32,800 vehicles likely to be present in the beach areas on July.18, 1987.
28 NRC 667, 801.
IIThe Board did not set a date for Licensees' compliance at the prehearing conference.
Counsel for Licensees committed to the June 26 date by telephone on June 21, 1990.
. Then, in Finding 9.122 (id. at 802), without i
explanation, we accepted 31,000 vehicles, the number advanced by the Staff, as the appropriate number of vehicles for a reasonably expectable peak occupancy in arr!cting at
_the appropriate ETE.
The Appeal Board held that the unexplained exclusion-of the 2000 vehicles must be rectified
-- thus the remand order.
ALAB-832, EliR 29 at 88.
The Licensing Board acknowledges that its findings on this issue were, at best, incomplete.
At the prehearing~ conference Licensees proposed the remand order be resolved by the issuance of an order directing the Licensees to complete a set of IDYNEV runs and arrive at a final position on the ETEs by August 15, 1990.
We would also direct the NRC Staff to assure that the ETEs are in conformity with the Appeal Board's order.
Licensees then would expect that the result would be incorporated into the NHRERP and the SPMC in January 1991.
Tr. 28,445-47.
The Licensing Board believed that mstter was not urgent and the schedule was satisfactory.
By dividing the additional number of cars by the known clearance rate, it can already be predicted that the change in the ETE will be about 30
t
- 14 minutes if all 2000 vehicle are placed into the run.12 The l
Board approved Licensees' proposal.
Tr. 28,449.13 Conclusion The sheltering issue remanded by ALAB-924 is resolved.
A schedule has been set to examine the ALS-Patient issue under the summary disposition provisions of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.749.
The ETE issue regarding hidden vehicles at the beach has been resolved with the matter left to the NRC Staff to 12The Licensing Board has a lingering concern that simply adding 2000 vehicles to the IDYNEV run will overstate the increase to the ETE.
First, in our Finding 9.120 we misstated the record in referring to the aerial photos as
" vertical."
They are not.
These are very sophisticated cameras.
A stereoptical effect is produced.
Because of the acute camera angles, vehicles in carports and overhangs such as motel parking lots, can be seen and were counted.
That type of covered parking is common at the beach.
Tr. 7514.
This effect can be seen in the Avis Airmap photos.
Applicants' Exhibits 3 A-E.
LBP-88-32 failed to account for this phenomenon even though Staff's credible witness, Dr. Urbanik, explained it.
Tr. 7513-14.
- Moreover, our findings did not, but should have, addressed whether all of the hidden vehicles would be driven away during an evacuation.
The r '
-id order stated that applicants must incorporate.he hidden vehicles "within the acoropriate ETE calculations." (Emphasis supplied).
Clearly the purpose of the remand directive is to achieve readily attainable accuracy, and should not be read to require an unreasoned addition of 2000 vehicles to the IDYNEV model.
13Because there was very little notice that the remanded ETE issue would be considered at the June 5, 1990 prehearing conference, the Board's approval of the proposal was r.ubject to any objections raised by Intervenors within ten aays.
Tr. 28,450.
None were raised.
4 assure compliance with the intent of the remand order in t
ALAB-932.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD dsju RichYfd F.
Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Hein,.D H. D 'Ce/her hy lW Gyt Kenneth A. McCollom ADMIN RATIVE JUDGE f
/W 4f/
V Ivan W.
Sm'itti, criairman-ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland June 27, 1990
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'In the Matter of i
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW l
Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL HAMFSHIRE, ET AL.
(Seatrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
I i
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing.LB h60 LBP-90-20 (FOLLOWING..)
have Deen served upon the followinc persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accorcance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
Administrative JudQe Administrative JudQe G. Paul Bollwerk, !!!
Thomas S. Moore.-Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety anc Licenstna Appeal Boarc Board U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Weshington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Howere A. Wilber Administrative Law Judoe Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Board Atomic Saf ety and licensing Boaro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissten U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C:mmission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Robert R. Pierce, Esautre Ricnarc F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensino board i:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Boare U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission U.S. Nuclear ReQulatory Commission Washington, DC. 20555 Washinoton, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Alan S. Rosenthal Kenneth A.
McCollom Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
!!07 West Knapp Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stillwater, OK 74075 Washingten, DC 20555 Edwin J. Reis, Esc.
Mitzi A.
Youno Office of the General Counsel Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Ccemission Washington, DC 20555
Docket No (sl50-443/444-OL:
LB Mk0 LBP-90-20 (FOLLOWING..)
Diane Curran, Eso.
Thesas 6. Dignan, Jr., Esc.
Harmon, Curran & Tousley Ropes G Gray 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 One-International Place Washington, DC 20009 Boston, MA 02110 Rocert A. Backus, Esq.
Paul McEachern, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Shatnes & McEachern 116 Lowell Street 25 Maplewood Avenue, P.O. Box 360 Manchester, NH 03106 Portsmouth, NH 03001 Gary W.
Holmes, Esc.
Judith H.
Mirner, Esc.
Holmes % Ells Counsel for West Newbury 47 Wannacunnet Road 79 State Street Hampton, NH 0!842 Newburyport, MA 01950 Barbara J. Saint Andre. Esc.
Suzanne F. Egan Counsel for Amesbury, Newburyport City-Solicitor
& Salisbury Lagoulis, Hill-Wilton and Rotondt Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
79 State Street 101 Arch Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Jane Doughty. Director Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Ashed N.
Amirian, Eso.
5 Market Street 145 South Main Street, P.O. Box 30 Portsmouth, NH 03S01 Bradford, MA 01030 George
!verson, Director George W.
Watson, Esq.
N. H. Office of Emergency Management Federal Emergency Management Acency State House Office Park South 500 C Street,'S.W.
107 Pleasant Street Washington, DC 20472 Concord,, NH 03301 Jack-Dolan George D. Bisbee, Eso.
Federal Emergency Management Age cy Assistant Attorney General 4A2 J.W. McCormack (PDCH)
Office of the Attorney General Boston, MA 02109 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301
Docket No.(s)50 443/444-OL LB Mt0 LBP-90-20 (FOLLOWINS..)
Suzanne Brelseth John Traficonte, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Chief. Nuclear Safety Unit Town of Hampton Falls Office of the Attorney General Drinkwater Road One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Hampton Falls, NH 03044 Boston, MA 02108 Peter-J. Brann, Esq.
Allen Lampert Assistant Attorney General Civil Defense Director Office of the Attorney General Town of Brentwood State House Station. #6 20 Franklin Street Augusta, ME 04333 Exeter, NH 03033 William Armstrong Anne Goocean, Chairman Civil Defense Director Boarc of Selectmen Town of Exeter 13-15 Newmarket Road 10 Front Street Durham, NH 03824 Exeter, NH 03B33 R. Scott Hill-Whiltoni Esq.
Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton & Rotondi Board of Selectmen 79 State Street South Hampton, NH 03027 Newburyport,, MA 01950.
Stanley W. Knowles, Chairman Norman C. Katner Board'of Selectmen Superintendent of Schools
.P.O.
Box 710 School Administrative Unit No. 21 North Hampton, NH 03862 Alumnt Drive Hampton, NH 03042 Sandra F. Mitchell The Honorable Civil Defense Director Gordon J. Humphrey Town of Kensington ATTN Janet Coit Box 10. RR1 United States Senate East Kingston, NH 03027 Washington, DC 20510 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 27 day ci-June 1990 Ufiii~ "of'the Secretir~~y~oi~ih~e'Co$$Ii$i'en
~