ML20059M666
| ML20059M666 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1990 |
| From: | Hagins E NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#490-10862 ALAB-924, ALAB-939, LBP-89-32, LBP-89-33, LBP-90-12, OL, NUDOCS 9010050169 | |
| Download: ML20059M666 (33) | |
Text
. --r -
t L a . r.t h d
. 1 ;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ggg.11ED N NUCLEAR REGULATORi COMMISSION USNRC
. 1 L
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICET. SING APPEAL BOARD. 1
'90 SEP 28_ A9 :35:
Administrative Judges:
G. Paul' Bollwerk, III, Chairman September k,$dhdh h k l
Alan S.--Rosenthal ( ALAB-939 ) i?K ANCH Howard A. Wilber 7 '
8ERNED SEP 28 E90 +
)
l , In the Matter of ) '
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, gt al. ) 50-444-OL ,
) (Offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) Planning Issues) and 2) )
)
John Traficonte, Boston, Massachusetts, and Diane ,
curran,-Washington, D.C., for the intervenors Attorney General of Massachusetts and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. -
Geoffrey M. Huntinaton, Concord, New Hampshire, for-intervenor State of New Hampshire. l Thomas G. Dianan. Jr. , _ Georae H. Lewald, Kathryn A.
Selleck, and Jeffrey P. Trout, Boston, Massachusetts, for the applicants Public Service +
Company of New Hampshire, 31 31 Mitzi A. Youna for the" Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' staff. ,
H. Joseoh Flynn and Linda Huber McPheters for the-Federal Emergency Management Agency. '
L MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING REFERRED OUESTIONS In LBP-90-12,1 the Licensing Board addressed several matters arising out of its consideration of four issues E concerning the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response m
[, Plan (NHRERP) that we remanded for further proceedings in p
L 31 NRC 427 (1990).
~
9010050169 900928 i PDR ADOCK 05000443 y O PDR 0
L L
.) 5 l _. __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ,
-,,, ,3 2-ALAB-92 4 . 2 ;Among the issues discussed was the adequacy of ,
the NHRERP's: provisions for sheltering-the substantial populace that during the summer regularly utilizes-the Atlantic Ocean beaches in New Hampshire near the Seabrook-Station. As part of its determination relative to the beach sheltering issue, the Licensing Board referred two questions y to us for our consideration, as well as requested guidance on several other matters. In this memorandum, we provide [
our views regarding- the questions referred by the Licensing Board.3 I. Background -
Because of the proximity of the Seabrook Station to the popular seaside beaches in New Hampshire, the question of what action will be taken, in the event of a radiological -
emergency, to provide protection for those who utilize the ;
beaches during the summer has been one of the more ardently d
2 30 NRC 331 (1989), Detitions for review cendiD9 3
Shortly after its decision in LBP-90-12, the .
Licensing Board issued an additional determination in which it declared that the remanded sheltering issue had been
" resolved" and recommended to us that the referred questions be vacated. LBP-90-20, 31 NRC 581, 585 (1990). In an order dated July 2, 1990, we invited the parties to provide comments on the Licensing Board's recommendation. The staff
^,
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) filed comments in support of the recommendation, while intervenors Massachusetts Attorney General-(MassAG) and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) opposed the suggestion. Because the issues remanded by ALAB-924 remain
.pending with the Board, in the interests of administrative efficiency and avoiding undue delay and expense for the parties relative to the remanded issues, we have decided to act onlthe already. accepted referrals.
Nlf'.
e%. ,
Mq -3 contested issues in this proceeding. As we noted inLALAB-924, early beach closure and evacuation of the beach-population are the State of New Hampshire's.praferred protective action options for the beach population.' We also observed,-however, that State (and utility) emergency.
planning officials have not totally ruled out the use of sheltering as a protective measure for the beach population.5 The questions now pending'before us concern how and to what extent tk.is option would be carried out.
As is described in the NHRERP, "(s)heltering involves remaining inside, closing all doors and windows, turning off all ventilation systems utilizing air drawn from outside, extinguishing all unnecessary combustion, and sealing, to the extent possible, all other access to the outdoor air."
To utilize sheltering as a protew.ive action option, planning officials have created a concept dubbed " shelter-in-place."7 As described in the plan, to implement this protective action option:
Those at home are to shelter at home; those at work or school are to be sheltered in the workplace or. school
' ALAB-924, 30 NRC at 363.
5 Id. at 363-64
' NHRERP, Vol. 1, at 2.6-4. Unless otherwise indicated, all citations in this decision to the NHRERP are to Revision 2 issued in August 1986. The NHRERP was admitted into evidence in this proceeding as Applicants'
,, Exhibit 5.
7 NHRERP, Vol. 1, at 2.6-6.
I'
l 4 i building.. Transients located indoors or i in private-homes will-be-asked to ,
shelter at the locations they are visiting ifsthis is feasible. ,
Transients'without access to an indoor i location will be advised to evacuate as i quickly as possible inLtheir'own ,
vehicles (i.e. the vehicles in which ?
they arrived)
In addition, referring to the population that frequents the- N New Hampshire ocean beaches during the summer months, a .
panel of State and utility emergency planning officials -
testified before the Licensing Board that utilizing .
"(s)heltering as a protective action option for this segment of the population would be considered in only a very limited: ,
number of circumstances characterized by one or more of the i
following' conditions": 1) when "it would be the most i effective-option in achieving maximum dose reduction"; 2) when there are physical impediments to evacuation; and 3) when evacuation is recommended for the beach population and ,
j there are individuals without. transportation who are ;
awaiting transportation assistance.' As we describe in somewhat more detail infra, the Licensing Board questions 4
referred to us in LBP-90-12 concern the use of this sheltering option under condition (1). .
4 As we noted in ALAB-924, State and utility planning officials indicated that they could conceive of only one a
Ibid.
' Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 6 (Sheltering), fol.
Tr. 10,022, at 19-20. ,
t
' '~ ~ ~
r,
- a. ..
^
. h 5-situation under condition (1) in which sheltering would be l 2
utilized.for the beach population -- a short duration, l l nonparticulate (ge.seous) release arriving atithe 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." In agreement with the Licensing Board, we found that there was an appropriate technical basis for the NHRERP planning judgment that use of a sheltering option for the beach population could be so limited."
In addition, however, several intervenors raised the issue of the appropriate implementing measures for the
! sheltering option. The direct testimony-of-State and
- applicant planning officials concerning sheltering indicated that,.
(f]or 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 oriany place else. These mechanisms include rapid assessment of eccident conditions; activation of the public alert system, which include the beach public address system; and EBS ((emergency broadcast system)) announcements. It is expected that people will comply with EBS.
announcements to take shelter and that owners / operators of public access facilities will make their facilities
" ALAB-924, 30 NRC at 364.
" Id. at 364-66.
< :.; 9 .4 , f 6
availabl purpose.g for this very limited l
Further, ascpart_of its analysis concerning the sheltering ,
option,. applicants conducted a survey of private and-public beach-properties to establish sheltering capacity in i t
relation to the entire beach population.u State planners .
recognized the existence of this applicant-sponsored-survey,
- also known as the " Stone and Webster survey," which !
purportedly shows there is substantial suitable shelter t space in the beach area." In their direct testimony, state planning officials indicated that while.they would employ the survey to assist them in identifying public buildings to ;
be utilized by the two percent of the beach population who are without transportation and, in the event of an r
evacuation, are to be provided shelter under condition (3)
L as they await evacuation transportation, at that time they l
L did not intend to incorporate the study into the NHRERP or j rely upon it as a planning basis."
The Licensing Board accepted this determination not to L
utilize the sheltering study or to engage in other 1:
activities intended to implement the sheltering option, essentially on the ground that there was a low probability l
l 12 Applicants' Direct Testimony No.
6, at 20.
" Ees id. Attach. 3.
" Id. at 21.
U Id. at 22.
+ t
... ,,n 7' ,
thattthe_ sheltering _ option would ever be implemented." We. y disagreed. Pointing to the fact that, for sheltering-under_
. condition (3), State planners had committed themselves to-identify specific shelter locations and to provide ,
appropriate EBS messages, we remanded the matter for such implementing actions for conditions (1) and (2) as well -- >
i.e., to " include designating in the'NMRERP which shelters on the ' wurvey list are suitable and available. for use in carrying out the protective action contemplated in sheltering conditions (1) and (2)."" 1 As a result of our remand of this and other matters, on January _11, 1990, the Licensing Board requested that the parties provide it with comments on how to proceed to resolve the remanded issues." In their comments, referring .
to a revision to the NHRERP provided to the Licensing Board ,
by New Hampshire counsel in a letter dated October 13, 1988, l
- applicants declared that "[t]he effect of the change-is to I
el'iminate sheltering as an option under the first of the two circumstances contemplated by the Appeal Board.. Since sheltering is no longer;a. planned protective action option- ;
under-those circumstances, no implementing detail is i
i I
l
" Egg LBP-88-32, 28 NRC 667, 769 (1988).
" ALAB-924, 30 NRC at 372.
~
" Licensing Board Memorandum and Order of January 11, 1990, at 1 (unpublished).
/
l-
... ,~.
j 8 i required in that case."" In response to this declaration, )
on February 6 intervenors Massachusetts Attorney Generalt j l
(MassAG), the New England Coalition on' Nuclear Pollution 'l (NECNP), and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) filed !
with us a joint motion to reopen the record on the need for I sheltering under condition (1). According to intervenors, .
applicants'-declaration was a "new" interpretation.of the ,
condition (1) sheltering option that raised questions about ]
I the efficacy-of the NHRERP's utilization of this protective action . 20 The State of New Hampshire also responded to the applicants' comments, arserting that, contrary to applicants' representation, the October 1988 amendments had not removed the shelter-in-place option as a possible
" Applicants' Response to Licensing Board Order of January 11, 1990 (Feb. 1, 1990) at 10. At the time we
-issued-ALAB-924,_we were unaware of this October 1988 letter, which was also cited for the first time by the Licensing Board in LBP-89-33, 30 NRC 656, 672 & n.18-(1989),
appeals pendina, the Board decision discussing why our remand in ALAB-924 did not preclude full-power authorization for the Seabrook Station. This letter, which was-addressed to the Licensing-Board, indicated that it was being provided to the " Service List." Nonetheless, a copy of the letter (which was not served directly on this Board) apparently was L never provided for the official docket of this proceeding.
h: We thus did not receive a copy and, it not being referenced by. the parties . cur a part of the record relative to intervenors' appeals from-LBP-88-32, we were unaware of the
^
document prior to the issuance of LBP-89-33. In response to :
ou'r inqu'ry about the letter subsequent to LBP-89-33, the Office of the Secretary included it and the accompanying i attachments in the docket of this proceeding.
l
! . 20' Emergency Motion of Intervenors: (1) to Clarify the l Status of the Appeal of LBP-89-33 and (2) to Reopen the Record on the NHRERP as to the Need for Sheltering in Certain Circumstances (Feb. 6, 1990) at 2-3.
h z .
.. . ; .- )
i 9 :
protective action: response under condition (1) .- 'At the -;
same time, in a response-to the intervenors' motion to reopen the record, the Federal Emergency Managament-Agency (FEMA) also asserted that. applicants' representation j concerning condition (1) was incorrect,-adding the caveat .i that "there'is no provision or instruction in the NHRERP for l the transient beach population to attempt to find a nearby buildirig and enter. it. "22 Reacting to these filings, intervenors MassAG, NECNP, and SAPL filed a second motion to reopen the record.23 In an unpublished order dated March-1, {
1990, we concluded.that, because the ALAB-924 remand on the sheltering issue was before the Licensing Board, it likewise was the appropriate forum to deal with the motions'to reopen the record, and we thus referred both motions to the. Board.
It is against,this backdrop that the Licensing Board 21 State of -New Hampshire's Comments Regarding Applicants' Response.to Licensing Board Order of January 11, 1990 (Feb. 16, 1990)~at'2.
22 Response of:[ FEMA) to Emergency Motion of'the Intervenors to Reopen the Record as to the Need"for Sheltering in Certain Circumstances (Feb. 16, 1990) at 5.
The FEMA response to the motion to reopen was accompanied by- ,
a petition for leave to file, which we referred to the Licensing Board-along with the motion to reopen. Appeal Board Order of March 1, 1990, at 2 n.4 (unpublished).
Although the Licensing Board apparently never acted formally ,
.upon the. petition, it-did consider the FEMA response in !
making its determination in LBP-90-12, 31 NRC at 442 &
n.42.
23 Emergency Motion of the Intervenors to Reopen the-Record, for Summary' Disposition as to the Need for :
Sheltering in Certain Circumstances and for License <
Revocation (Feb. 28, 1990).
,, _. .,ou, , . . . , . . , . . . . . -n.,. 4
L t
10.
issued'itsidetermination in LBP-90-12, which included the R referral of the two questions concerning the sheltering option >for condition <(1) that are now before us=.- The Board- -
1 o declared that, "(w) hen emergency planning officials test'ified about ' sheltering' as the protective action under l I
discussion, they were not always asked to explain the nuances of_that option."I' It went on to observe that, as:a
. consequence, "those examining the record, but not in'itiated to the plan, might not have understood that the recognized implementation of the sheltering option is to ' shelter-in-i place', i.e., almost all summer-beach day trippers evacuate . "25 Further, the Board referred to the Commission's observation in its March 1, 1990 decision on immediate effectiveness for full-power' authorization for Seabrook that, with respect to the sheltering issue, "[i)f changes to the plan are intended,_or if the parties believe that the Licensing Board, Appeal Board,-or Commission misconstrued the intent of the plan, then. appropriate motions should be filed."26 The Licensing Board therefore "believe[d] that it should freely discuss.what it perceives 1
L 24 LBP-90-12, 31 NRC at 440.
25 Ibid.
26 CLI-90-3, 31 NRC 219, 245 n.39 (1990), petitions for review cendina sub nom. Massachusetts v. NRC, Nos. 90-1132, 90-1218 (D.C. Cir. argued Sept. 18, 1990).
i
11 to be misconstructions _by the Appeal Board on the intent of the plan. "27 In undertaking this task,_although providing no specific references to the plan or to the testimony of-applicant or State witnesses, the Licensing Board declared:
When New Hampshire emergency officials speak of " sheltering" as a protective action for 1he beach !
population (or elsewhere for that j
matter), they do net mean that everyone'
_goes to shelter.- Quite the contrary, they mean " shelter-in-place" which,-in turn, means that the persons receiving.
the instruction to shelter remain where they are if they are already at a sheltered place -- house, school, workplace, wherever. The distinction-between persons already at shelter and persons with access to shelter'is-blurred. The essential point is that there would be no time'or confusion barrier between the persons to be :
g sheltered and-their sheltering. (
The case that has driven this !
litigation, of course, concerns a large number of transient " day trippers" on the beach in-summer without'immediate i access to-shelter. Those' people are D2% !
directed:to seek shelter ~when the order !
to; shelter-in-place is implemented. l They,are directed to evacuate in the I cars _ they came in.28 -
With this explanation, the Licensing Board concluded that because "New Hampshire's ' shelter-in-place' concept under f condition (1) provides for the immediate evacuation of the general transient beach population with transportation . . .
, i
.i 27 LBP-90-12, 31 NRC at 441 n.38.
28 Id. at 439 (emphasis in original).
(
1 !
p :."
I. '
4 ,
12
'the directive in ALAB-924 to identify suitable- shelter for that group under condition (1) would be without purpose.
Implementing detail would be inconsistent with the intent.of the NHRERP.""
Finding that this interpretation is not in accord with.
ALAB-924, the Licensing Board referred-its ruling to us. In addition, reiterating its conclusion.first expressed in LBP-l 89-33 (the Board's explanation concerning the.effect of the ALAB-924 remand upon the full-power license authorization granted in LBP-89-32) that there is no logical nexus between the principal purpose of going to_public shelters under.
condition (3) and the purpose of actual sheltering under conditions -(l) and (2),30 the Board declared it would
" implement ALAB-924 to require only that the 98% transient l I
population with transportation must have identified and adequate shelter available to them if actual sheltering ,
1 remains an option for that group in the NHRERP."3I Declaring that this ruling did not comport with ALAB-924, the Doard referred it to us as well.32 )
(
Because of their central importance to-the sheltering _ j, issue remand, in an unpublished order dated May 18, 1990, we accepted the referred questions and permitted.the parties to
" Id. at 449.
30 E g LBP-89-33, 30 NRC at 672. 1 3' LBP-90-12, 31 NRC at 448 n.51.
32
' Ibid.
i
+ ,n 1
1 13 '
A .
provide their_ views-on-the questions.33 Memoranda were ]
v t filed by intervenors.MassAG, NECNP, and the State.of New i Hampshire;, by applicants, and by the-NRC staff. FEMA also made a submission."
In their response, intervenors maintain that the Licensing Board's interpretation of the NHRERP provisions e '
regarding sheltering is of "recent vintage," as is demonstrated by its failure to put forth such a description in discussing the sheltering option in either LBP-88-32 or LBP-89-33. They also assert that a pheltering option for l the ninety-eight percent.of the transient _ beach population ,
with transportation is necessary to ensure that appropriate !
protection will be provided to that populace in the event of _;
the " puff release" that otherwise would trigger the NHRERP sheltering option under condition ~(1). The staff.and the ,
applicants essentially agree with the Licensing Board's .
l
(.
33
. Appeal Board' Order of May_IB, 1990, at 2 l
(unpublished).'
- The FEMA' memorandum was accompanied by a motion'for leave to file. This motion was supported by the staff in a-June filing and was not opposed by any party. We grant.
FEMA's motion for leave to file and consider its memorandum, s Intervenor SAPL also submitted a memorandum concerning y the referred questions. - The same day SAPL's memorandum was filed, we issued ALAB-934, 32 NRC 1-(1990),'in which.we affirmed the Licensing' Board's dismissal:of SAPL from further participation with respect to the issues remanded by ALAB-924. SAPL's submission'concerning the referred questions (which makes-essentially the same arguments as are
- put forth. by_ intervenors MassAG and NECNP) relates directly to a matter romanded by ALAB-924. We thus have not-considered SAPL's filing. t l'
1
4 .
1 i
14 analysis. The Stata also agrees with the Licensing Board, asserting that the." shelter-in-place" option for condition o (1) " simply envisions that people-already in buildings.or who may access buildings without delay or direction from I emergency management officials will utilize those buildings as shelter, and others will be expected to evacuate."35 FEMA takes the same position, describing the " shelter-in-place" concept as "(1) people already in buildings [or who ,
may elect to enter buildings immediately without direction from emergency management officials] would utilize those -;
buildings as shelter, and.(2) everyone else is expected to evacuate.""
i II. Analysis The Licensing Board and the parties-are correct that s
our determination in ' ALAB-024 concerning .the need for implementing measures-was based on the premise that, in L
response to emerge. icy 1 conditions falling within the ambit of condition.(1), che State contemplated directing the beach 1
L population, whether with or without their own' ,
E l' L transportation, to seek shelter in buildings near the beach area. ' Upwards of 50,000 people could be involved in such a. .;
i protective action on a_ peak summer weekend at the New .
l-y 35 Comments.of the State of New Hampshire Regarding L NHRERP Sheltering and LBP-90-12 (May 28, 1990) at 2.-
" Memorandum of [ FEMA] Regarding LBP-90-12 (May 30, 1 1990) at 2 (bracketed material in original).
'i 8' . .
i 'I d
15 1
Hampshihe beaches.37 In the circumstances, it seems- .I
- l apparent, as the commission observed, that,. "so long as I sheltering remains a-potential, albeit unlikely, emergency 1
response' option for the beach population, the NHRERP should ~
contain. directions as to how this choice is practicably' to be carried out."" j n
In ALAB-924, we pointed out that " planning efforts are intended to make emergency response officials aware of the benefits and constraints associated with their actions, thereby-providing them with the information necessary to ;
make informed protective action decisions."3" Certainly, crafting practical directions for carrying out a protective.
action option that could well involve guiding nearly 50,000-people toward beachfront shelter requires that planners have 1
adequate information about the benefits and constraints of< '
that' action.
Indeed, our directive-in ALAB-924 that: State planners designate which beach area shelters are " suitable and ,
aval'lable" for use was intended to address, among other things, concerns recognized by the State's own planners regarding the benefits and constraints of a' sheltering ,
- option for the-beach area population. After acknowledging that State planning officials intended to review the Stone 37 Bee ALAB-924, 30 NRC at 368.
38 CLI-90-3, 31 NRC at 248.
3' ALAD-924, 30 NRC at'370 (footnote omitted).
i w **~ e 16
]
o and Webster shelter study in order to reach a conclusion ;
I' aboutiwhich beach area buildings would and would not be "available," John D. Bonds, the Assistant Director for Plannings of the Division of Public Health Services of the State Department of Health and Human Services, in responding to a question about how " beach area transients" would know !
which buildings to shelter in, indicated there might have to be a determination about the acceptability of buildings (e.g., whether particular buildings would be suitable in terms ofLthe. protection they would afford). Also, Mr. Bonds observed that, in the event some buildings in the survey were found not to be suitable, this would raise'the
" logical" issue of how to designate which buildings are
" acceptable" as shelter and'which are not. our directive, which addressed similar concerns, thus was in accord with steps that New Hampshire planners themselves acknowledged 1
'O Egg Tr. 10,757. Questioning this Board's direction that the_ shelters utilizedLfor condition,(1) must be designate d as is done under the NHRERP for those toi be utilized for the transient-dependent population for condition'(3), the Licensing Board asserted that there is no
" logical nexus" supporting such a requirement because the purposes are different. Egg LBP-90-12, 31 NRC at 448 n.51. ;
According to the' Licensing Board, individual shelters must !
be designated under condition (3) so that people.can !
identify them as shelters while waiting to be evacuated.
The Board overlooks the fact.that the designation of a building as a shelter serves another important purpose that may be applicable to condition (1) sheltering as well. It reflects a judgment about the building's suitability for use as a shelter, a consideration that could be germane regardless'of whether the building-is being used as a bus stop. Comparo Tr. 10,206-07 witn Tr. 10,756-57.
'l Egg-Tr. 10,757.
7
.s~ .
U
{
.c 17: :
might be taken'for' practical implementation of a sheltering. -l 1
option.
Nevertheless, our conclusion about sheltering the E entire beach- population under condition (1)z and the need for-sheltering implementation for such-a protective action was -j not an attempt on our part'to impose upon State officials f the requirement that they in fact adopt sheltering as a protective action for the entire beach population. Rather, itLreflected our understanding of_the measures State officials themselves contemplated utilizing, based upon our review of (1) the' provisions of the NHRERP; '(2) the adjudicatory record as it reflected the views of applicant, State, and ! FEMA officials concerning sheltering for-the beach population under the NHRERP; and (3) the arguments of
. the parties during their written and oral presentations regarding intervenort appeals of LBP-88-32.
As we have earlier noted, in LBP-90-12.the Licensing
. Board suggests that one= properly'" initiated" with the plan ,
-- as opposed to being familiar with the adjudicatory record 4
here -- would arrive at the conclusion that sheltering for the entire beach population was not contemplated under.the 42 Although'the Licensing Board declared, on the basis of the Stone and Webster survey, that there was adequate ,
shelter for.the general b2ach population, sgg LBP-88-32, 26 NRC at 771, this' determination did not account for the fact that State planners, who will be responsible for determining ,
whether and-when to utilize a shelter as a protective '
action, had not made a determination about what criteria would be acceptable for shelter and whether the shelter identified in the survey met those criteria.
t s
, ;, p n,..
$ j't qn 't-r- _
1,.
, 'NHRERP for condition'(1). Putting aside the: fact-that, in-the context'of an' adjudicatory challenge to the plan,.the -l hearing record, and particularly the testimony of planning i officials, becomes the focal poir.t for " initiation" into the I plan's meaning and purpose, the plan here provides, at1best, J an enigmatic picture of the planners' intent as far as l sheltering for the general beach-population under condition '
(1) is concerned. Specifically, while it contains the passage quoted above giving a general description of the
" shelter-in-place" concept,'3 it nonetheless fails to provide any-detailed explanation about what is meant by.
" access to suitable shelters," an element that is critical in the' context of the beach population.
The plan does state that one of the main reasons 4
sheltering is a valuable protective action option io that.
"it can be implemented quickly, -usually in a matter of Even with this emphasis on implementation time, !
. minute s '. ""
however, nothing on the face of the' plan forecloses 4
utilizing the sheltering option.for'the general beach population. Indeed, the beaches in' question generally are >
' located a short distance from commercial and other buildings.
t in beachfront communities that potentially could serve as j
'3 See suora note 8 and accompanying text.
" E.o., NHRERP (Town of Seabrook), Vol. 16, at II-30; id. (Town of Hampton), Vol. 18, at II-26.
. _ i ! _ _ _ _ _.__ _ __ _ _ __ __ - - - . . . _ . ._ _
Y 19 shelters.'5 Moreover, adding to the-plan's ambiguity _.
concerning how the sheltering option for the beach population-is to be utilized is the fact that it' offers only the explanation that an EBS message "will include, but is- 1 not limited to: . . . (2) Special instructions for transients,' campers, etc., including.the location of public shelter, if aoolicable."" Again, this provides no concrete
-indication that sheltering of the general' beach population has, in fact, been ruled out of the plan.
Given~the state of the plan, the adjudicatory record t
thus takes on particular importance.in resolving the issue, as. raised by the referred questions, of what is intended'to constitute." sheltering" for a response under condition (1). ;
As we have noted, the Licensing Board found the problem.with the record to be that "when. emergency planning officials testified about ' sheltering' as'the protective action under-discussion, they were not always asked to explain the nuances of that option."'7 Contrary to the Licensing-Board's suggestion, however, we find that in their testimony I H 4 h before the Board, the planning officials provided L
'I Ega Corrected Testimony of Robert L. Goble, Ortwin !
l Renn, Robert T. Eckert, and Victor N. Evdokinoff on Behalf ;i L of the [MassAG) on Sheltering Contentions, fol. Tr. 10,963, L . at 73 (most shelters in beach area are in walking distance H of less than 15 minutes).
'" E.G., NHRERP (Town of Seabrook) , Vol 16, at II-30 to l
L 31 (emphasis supplied); id. (Town of Hampton) , Vol 18, at l
II-26 to 27 (came).
'7 7 LBP-90-12, 31 MRC at 440.
l-(.-
1
t .
s i,
d4 20 ,
explanations concerning the plan that manifestly: support sthe . :
conclusion that, at least at the time thev testified, State planners had under serious consideration the potential utilization of sheltering for the entire beach population s for condition (1). ,
i In response to various intervenor questions about whether sheltering would be recommended for the entire besch population and whether there would be emergency broadcast-system messages directing the entire beach population to. ;
shelter, senior planning officials for-the State and'the applicants made it clear that a recommendation to shelter
- 3. the entire beach population under condition'(1), and. an EBS t
message to that effect, were part of that protective action. ;
option. For example, during questioning about the withdrawal-of draft EBS messages, in response to an inquiry
.about-whether, under conditions (1) and (2), officials.
acting pursuant to the plan would consider recommending that the entire beach population be sheltere1, Anthony M..
Callendrello, then Emergency Planning-Manager for New Hampshire Yankee, confirmed."[t] hat is correct."ca ;
Similarly, when questioned about whether there were ;
circumstances in which he would recommend sheltering for the
. entire beach population under conditions (1) .and (2) ,
L i L Richard H. Strome, Director ~of the New Hampshire office of
- Emergency Management, stated.that, while not the " preferred
'8 Tr. 10,069.
l
s -
i
'M i. n j 1
- s 21- (
option," the use of sheltering was " conceivable."" Other ;
s illustrati'ons of this type abound,50 with one of.the'most-telling being additional testimony by Mr. Bonds, in which he describes the derivation of the " shelter-in-place" concept-used'in the plan and its relation to the b'each population, a
After noting that the designation of major public $
buildings for sheltering was considered an alternative to the shelter-in-place concept'in which "you seek shelter indoors rather than go through the process of identifying ~i major' structures," Mr. Bonds went on to explain in response to questioning by counsel for the MassAG: 3 I think we're all familiar with the ,,
radiation symbol that you find affixed' to various post offices and what not that survives from a period of 20, 30-some years'ago,.the fallout' shelter' i concept. Public shelters: school;. major locat ins; stock and so on. That's-the public shelter concept in my mind.
We did not adopt that shelter concept because in order to use it -
you've got-to pick people up, out-of their homes as well as off the beaches,
.out of their work place, out of schools, every place else and move them to another location. If you're going to move them, keep them moving. 1 Shelter-in-place was adopted as a J much simpler process that says, you-stay where you are. Now, in dealing with the I
3 ;. beach population we chose not to
~
identify them as a separate subset. .I Everybody else shelter-in-place; you
" Tr.-10,061-62.
4 50 Sag Tr. 10,064-67, 10,101, 10,179, 10,183, 10,192-93, 10,715-16.
l 1 .
1
' ~
m ,
y... >< .
1 I.' '
lt
> h 1" 1 22- <
n, . .
~
11 ? folks, big public structures again, big
- W. _public_ shelters. Again,_if you're going _ ;
- . to have_to move them, keep them moving.
y, ,
Q- So_what I gather.from what you're saying is that, it would take some time to shelter the beach population or it
.would require some movement on'their part and_some time to get themt into .;
, shelters?- 1 A (Bonds) If you were using the big ;
public shelter process. The state.has-L chosen not to use the big:public shelter ,
process because.it's a very complicated-process. You've got to move-them,-
m you've-got to stop them,1you've got to j
e F get them indoors. It's a very-e complicated-process. If'al? you have to- l do is get them moving and. keep them j moving outside of the zone for-the i o majority of the' time, the maximum dose
& savings.is going to be realized through ,
evacuation. For that range of.
inciden(ts), to1the extent that they-
, exist at all :in which sheltering might 1 be'the recommendation,'then the dose e,t savings for the pcpulation:is going to ;
be realized by~ moving:them not to major public shelter some' place else, you don't'want to take.that time, that- '
j
, exposure time, you justLwant to simply getsthem indoors,'go ins'ide. Not go' j
g inside three blocks down the road or a half mile down the road at the1 junior .
- high school, go inside. You want,to !
s reduce the exposure period.
Q Well, where'are the people on the i beach suppose-to go inside?-
L; f
A (Bonds) If we're talking about'the transportation-dependentetransients-they i will go to where we discussed before.
L' If the recommendation should'be to _,
L' ,
. shelter for the entire beach pooulation and everybody else. the-recommendation f"y will be to ao indoors.
Q And where are you assuming that would. .
be for the betch population?
t-1 lc l
-- t 12 t 1
..~ .
23 1
A (Bonds) About the same place they y= would go indoors if a cloudburst happened, if it started to rain, across the street where all the buildings, the shops, the material that's there.
Q Well, sometimes when there's a cloudburst people just get into their cars and leave the area, don't they?
A (Bonds) That's true and we can't --
we're not going to stop people from doing that, and we just can't possibly stop people from leaving, if they want to leave rather than shelter.
Q There is a difference between a cloudburst and getting people inside, shelters -- for the purpose of sheltering them from radiation, wouldn't you agree?
A (Bonds) I think you misunderstand me. If we recommend that the person go indoors they're not going to stand there and say, how, where, what, why. Ihm messace is coina to be cretty obvious that they are in some dancer and they need to ao inside.
If they're capable of making the decision, if I stand here I'm going to get wet, I want to go inside, I as a planner, I'm assuming they're also able to say, I'm in some danger, it they say go inside I'm going to be protected.
They will have the ability to come to that understanding and move inside.'
Mr. Bcads' testimony thus makes clear that, at that time of his testimony, the planners contemplated that under condition (1), as opposed to condition (3), sheltering could be a protective option for the entire beach population (or at least a very substantial portior of that population) and M
Tr. 10,550-53 (emphasis supplied).
E 1
, s' .
- l s , j 24 that emergency messages would direct the beach population to i go inside to obtain protection. Further, and contrary to the Licensing Board's apparent view, we think the record ,
also makes manifest that at the time they testified it was the Understanding of FEMA officials that the State had not ruled out sheltering for the entire beach population, which in turn could warrant development of implementing details.52 ;
Pinally, this same point -- that the State was I contemplating sheltering for the entire beach population under condition (1) -- was presented to us during oral !
argument in July 1989. With counsel for the NRC staff and FEMA present, in response to a question concerning what the NHRERP plan reflected regarding sheltering for the beach population, counsel for applicants explained that "what their plan reflects is exactly what I said and that is, {
should you use this -- well, in any of the situation (s),
either one and three, you use this method. The methodology will be to announce a shelter-in-place and the theory is .
people who are not inside will go to the nearest place they can and shelter."53 This statement, which wac essentially-corroborated by counsel for the staff," clearly reflects the view that condition (1) sheltering welld encompass the entire beach population, not just those already in 52 Tr. 13,184, 14,219-20, 14,252-53.
53 App. Tr. 92-93.
" Egg App. Tr. 143-44.
1 L
.i
.' . . ' ,r i I
25 ] i 4 beachfront buildings. Nothing in the briefs of the staff or l n
applicants suggests anything to the contrary.55 Thus, our conclusion in ALAB-924 that the State contemplated that the condition (1) protective action option for sheltering the beach population could include all (or l essentially all) of that population was one that was reasonable and supported by the record. Be that as it may, the recent post-remand filings by the State make it apparent that this is not now the State's plan. Instead, ,
interpreting the " shelter-in-place" option's proviso that
" access to an indoor location" means actually being indoors, !
the State now avers that what is contemplated for the ,
55 The same can be said for the applicants' petition for Commission review of ALAB-924. Aga Applicants' Petition e for Review of ALAB-924 (Nov. 10, 1989) at 9-9.
By the same token, although the Licensing Board now declares that, under the State's " shelter-in-place" option,
- it is apparont that implementing detail is inconsistent with the NHRERP oecause under condition (1) the general beach -
population is to evacuate, LBP-90-12, 31 NRC at 449, this straightforward and unequivocal explanation does not itself '
appear entirely consistent with the Board's December 1988 partial initial decision on this subject. Instead, in ,
dismissing the need for implementing detail for the general beach population (the so-called 98%), the Board relied upon the low probability that sheltering would be utilized and uncertainties about the benefits of using shelter at all.
t Ec.g LBP-88-32, 28 NRC at 769-70. Moreover, the Board provided an extended discussion concerning the amount of i sheltering needed for the entire beach population, not :
simply the two porcent (approximately 500) who will need ,
shelter because they are without transportation. S12 id. at !
770-72. So too, in its November 1989 explanation concerning the effectiveness of its licensing authorization determination, the Board's explication provides no hint of the rationale it now provides in LBP-90-12. San LBP-89-33, ,
30 NRC at 670-72.
t
.' 4' [
- ? j i
26 ,
i general beach population is that under condition (1), those beachgoers who have their own transportation will be directed to employ sheltering as a protective action option j only if they are already in a building.. Everyone else in l.
the beach area with transportatien will be advised to go to i l
their vehicles and to evacuate (although they may of their l
own volition and without direction from emergency management l officials elect to enter a building in the immediate t'
vicinity).5' i
As we have previously indicated, it was not the intent of our remand in ALAB-924 to direct planning officials to !
adopt sheltering of the general beach population as a protective action and we do not do so now. Further, in response to the Licensing Board's question concerning the need for implementing detail relative to the available i e
shelter in the New Hampshire beach area, we agree that the l need for such detail has for all practical purposes been vitiated, given the State's post-remand assertions concerning the intended scope of the sheltering option under r
condition (1). It seems apparent that a protective action 5' FEMA states that this was its understanding of the State's plan at the time it approved the NHRERP in December 1988. FEMA Memorandum at 2. Assuming this is correct,- ,
which is not apparent from FEMA's evaluation of the plan's provisions regarding the beach population, gan App. Exh.
43D, at 78-83 (FEMA Review and Evaluation of the State of ,
New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan for .
Seabrook Station (Dec. 1988)), FEMA's approval was not part of the record before the Licensing Board at the time the Board's decision was made.
r e?
t 2?
whereby the beachgoers remain inside or, if not inside, return to their cars and begin to evacuate can be carried-out without the type of implementing details that we had previously envisioned would be necessary if the entire beach population was to be directed to shelter in buildings near the beach area.
This does not, however, and the matter with respect to our remand of the sheltering issue. The Licensing Board acknowledges that events subsequent to our decision in ALAB-924 have served to reveal " confusion" between the State and applicants concerning some " finer details" of the state's planning for the general beach population and requests that we afford it greater discretion to resolve "any remaining uncertainties."57 This observation has substantial merit.
In light of the State's post-remand filings clarifying the existing adjudicatory record concerning the scope and details of the sheltering option for the transient beach population under condition (1), in the context of the intervenors' challenges to the adequacy of the sheltering option for the general beach population, we find it incumbent upon the Licensing Board to ensure that, as a consequence of evidence previously submitted by applicants in the course of the hearing, several related matters are clarified. First, because the evidence presented by applicants indicates that automobiles are assigned no ,
57 LBP-90-12, 31 NRC at 454.
s o' '.
f 28 ;
cloudshine sheltering value by planners,58 the Board should a
ensure that the record contains an adequately supported ,
explanation for distinguishing between those nontransportation-dependent beachgoers aircady within a ,
building, who will be directed to shelter, and all other l i
beachgoers, who will be directed to go to their cars and f evacuate, in terms of condition (1)'s purpose of utilizing ,
sheltering for " achieving maximum dose reduction."" In addition, given the testimony by New Hampshire emergency 1 planning officials suggesting the need to distinguish ;
between suitable and unsuitable shelter," the Licensing -l Board should ensure that the record is clear as to whether ,
such measures are necessary relative to the " shelter-in- f place" option as now described by the state. Finally, given t applicants' evidence acknowledging the central importance of quality emergency notification messages, the Licensing Board should ensure-that any EBS/ beach public address message proposed for use relative to condition (1) makes clear the steps that all members of the beach population are to take in the event that a " shelter-in-place," as now 58 SEA Tr. 10,112; App. Exh. 34, at 34 (Table 10). ,
" Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 6, at 19; Est LBP- )
88-32, 28 NRC at 759 (choice of protective action will be based upon maximizing dose savings to beach population as a whole).
" Egg supra notes 40-41 and accompanying text. 1
Egg Tr. 10,048-49. Egg also AIAB-932, 31 NRC 371, l 395-96 (1990).
l
r:- -
t ,o' i j
29 described by the State, is recommended. Whether any of ;
these matters requires additional submissions from the !
parties in a matter we leave to the initial judgment of the Licensing Board." .
I It is so ORDERED. !
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD l
m Se4L . Md Eleanor E. Hagi :
Secretarytothqel Appeal Board 1
i h
" Because the peak beach season has ended and does not i
begin again until June 1991, nothing in this memoran@lm now affords a ground for rescinding the authorization for the -
l Seabrook operating license. Egg 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47 (c) (1) .
1
,. 4 l
t UNITED STA7El DF AQERICA I NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMIS$10N In the Matter of 1 I I !
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 0F NEW l Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL !
HAMFSHIRE, ET AL. 1 (Seatrook Station, Units 1 and 2) I I ;
I !
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE :
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Al MhD (RE: REFERRED 00EST'll i have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, arcept ;
as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712. ;
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge '
O. Paul Bollwerk, !!! Thomas S. Moore, Chatraen Atoalc Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal (
Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission ,
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 !
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge .
Howard A. Wilber Alan S. Rosenthal i Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal '
Board Board l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Law Judge Adainistrative Judge :
Ivan W. Salth, Chairman Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atoalc Safety and Licensing Board i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comalsalon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Robert R. Pierce, Esquire Administrative Judge i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kenneth A. McColloa U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission !!07 West knapp Street .
Weshington, DC 20555 Stillwater, OK 74075
.i Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Mit:1 A. Young Office of the General Counsel Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, DC 20555 '
t
-- - -n--- . - - , ,-, -,-,v , -- -, - -
f l
Socket No.(s)S0-443/444-OL i AB M60 (RE: REFERRED QUEST'$)
l I
J i
Diane Curran, Esq. Thomas S. Dionan, Jr., Esc. ;
Harson, Curran & Tousley Ropes 6 Gray '
2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 One International Place l Washington, DC 20009 Boston, MA 02110 l
Robert A. Backus, Esc. Paul McEachern Esc. !
Backus, Meyer b Solomon Shaines 6 McEachern
!!6 Lowell Street 25 Maplewood Avenue, P.O. Box 360 Manchester, NH 03106 Portsmouth, NH 03001 Gary W. Holmes, Esq. Judith H. Mirner, Esq.
Holmes 6 Ells Counsel for West Newbury 47 Winnacunnet Road 79 State Street Hampton, NH 03042 Newburyport, MA 01950 Barbara J. Saint Andre Esq. !
Suzanne P. Egan Counsel for Amesbury, Newburyport i City Solicitor b Balisbury Lagoulis, Hill-Wilton and Rotonet 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. Astrian, Esq. '
5 Market Street 145 South Main Street, P.O. Box 30 Portsmouth, NH 03901 Bradford, MA 01030 l George !verson, Director George W. Watson, Esq.
N. H. Office of Energency Management Federal Energency Management Agency State House Office Park South 5 Street, 6.W.
107 Pleasant Street L- Jton, DC 20472 Concord,, NH 03301 Jack Dolan Secrge D. Bisbee, Esq.
Federal Energency Management Agency Assistant Attorney Beneral 442 J.W. McCormack (PDCH) Office of the Attorney General '
Boston, MA 02109 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 i
I
Decket No.(sl50-443/444-0L al M60 (RE: REFERRED OUEST'S)
Peul A. Frit sche, Esq. Susanne Breiseth Office of the Public Advocate Board of Selectaen State House Station 112 Town of Haspton Falls Augusta, ME 04333 Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03044 Leslie Greer, Esq. Peter J. Brann, Esq.
Nuclear Safety Unit !
Assistant Attorney General ;
Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney Beneral One Ashburton Place State House Station, 46 i Boston, MA 02108 Augusta, ME 04333 j Allen Lasport Willias Armstrong i Civil Defense Director Civil Defense Director i Town of Brentwood Town of Exeter a 20 Franklin Street 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03B33 Exeter, NH 03033 i i
Anne Goodean, Chairman -
Board of Selectmen Michael Santosuosso, Chairean ,
13-15 Newaarket Road Board of Selectmen I Durhaai NH 03024 South Hampton, NH 03027 ,
?
R. Scott Hill-Whitton, Esq. Stanley W. Knowles, Chairsan Lageulls. Hill-Whilton & Rotondi Board of Selectmen 79 State' Street P.O. Box 710 i Newburyport,, MA 01950 North Hampton, NH 03862 ,
i Norman C. Katner Sandra F. Mitchell Superintendent of Schools Civil Def ense Director !
School Administrative Unit No. 21 Town of Kensington Alumni Drive Box 10, RR1 Haepton, NH 03042 East Kingston, NH 03B27 1
The Honorable !
Beverly Hollingworth Sordon J. Huaphrey ;
209 Winnacunnet Road ATTN Janet Colt 1 Hampton, NH 03042 United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 1
l J
l e
. ~ . . - . _ - . . . - _ ,- . .-..~ . . _ -
Docket No.(s)50 443/444 0L AB M60 (RE: REFERRED QUEST'St i
n The Honorable Michael C. Sinclair Nicholas Marvoules Greystone Energency Management ATTN Michael Greenstein Associates 70 Washington Street 13 Suseer Street Sales, MA 01970 Hillsboro, NH 03244 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 28 day of September 1990
- --- ?v II d f. h -................
Officg of the Secretary of the Consission I
i l
.