ML20154A002
| ML20154A002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1988 |
| From: | Lewald G, Selleck K PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#388-7015 OL, NUDOCS 8809120014 | |
| Download: ML20154A002 (30) | |
Text
.y 70/1T i i
DOCKETED U;NRC August 31, 1988 T8 SEP -6 P4 :46 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ';, ( _
before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-site Emergency
) Planning Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' REPLY TO PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF OTHER PARTIES ON SHELTER CONTENTIONS Applicants' reply to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ("Mass AG"), New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP"), and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League ("SAPL") (hereinafter collectively "intervenors") is in two parts: the first responds to intervenors' general citation to and reliance upon the testimony and previous position of Edward A. Thomas, and the second section responds to particular intervenors' proposed findings which do not state the evidence correctly.
8809120014 080031 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 PDR
)?$bOI
0 I. Intervenors' Unwarranted Use of Thomas Position and Testimony.
In their proposed findings, intervenors cite and rely on the testimony and previous position of Mr. Edward A. Thomas, formerly the Chairman of the Regional Assistance Committee
("RAC") of the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"),
Region I.1 Intervenors' general purpose citations to and reliance on the previous Thomas position are without warrant because no witness edopted that position or attempted to defend it on cross-examination. Intervenors' reliance on Thomas's actual testimony is also misplaced. Thomas's testimony was not credible for the reasons set out below and those proposed findings which would rely on his veracity should be rejected.
A. Intervenors' Unwarranted Citation to Previous Thomas Position In June 1987 FEMA filed a statement of its position on shelter contentions and three months later refiled the statement as prefiled testimony naming Thomas as the only witness to defend it. (That two-page statement is hereinafter referr6d to as the "Thomas position"). The Thomas position was never adopted by anyone under oath, and 1 Egg, e . q .. , ("NECNP's] Proposed Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law" dated August 12, 1988, at 53-56; "(Mass AG's]
Proposed Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law on Sheltering Contentions" dated August 15, 1988, at 1; "(SAPL's) Proposed l Findings of Fact, Rulings of Law and Conclusions of Fact on Issues Related to Sheltering and Protection of the Beach Population" dated August 10, 1988, at 1. Despite the reforence on page one of Mass AG's filing, Town of Hampton did not file proposed findings of fact.
)
no one ever attempted to defend it on cross-examination. It was appended to Mass AG Ex. 35 which was adnitted only "for the limited purpose of demonstrating the basis or the reasons for FEMA's evolution of its position," Ir2 12862, and not for the truth of any of its statements or for any purpose independent of its place in the evolution of FEMA's position.
Moreover, Thomas does not purport to have a technical background or technical expertise and so would not have been competent to sponsor the testimony even if it had been offered. Staff Ex. 3, Post Ir2 11747 at it Iri 11951-52, 12136-37. Moreover, Thomas himself partially recanted his position. Tr2 12769-70, 12774-75, 13098, 13832.2 FEMA eventually rejected the Thomas position and submitted other testimony by other witnesses as the FEMA position on the shelter contentions. FEMA Dir., Post II2 13968. Intervenors repeatedly and without any warrant cite to the Thomas position as if it had some independent evidentiary status.3 It does not.
B. Intervenors' Unwarranted Reliance on Thomas Testimony Intervenors have proposed findings which would rely on Thomas's credibility. This section does not address those proposed findings in particular, but sets forth examples of 2 At Irx 13841, Thomas recanted part of his recant.
3 Sag, e.a., SAPL Proposed Conclusions of Fact n.3 10.3.1, 10.3.14, NECNP Proposed Findings of Fact 29, 56-61, 71, 79, 147, 148, 149, 154.
i
_3
his lack of credibility which show that his testimony on all points is not to be credited.
As to Concurrence of the RAC. When he first appeared as a witness under oath in these proceedings, Thomas presented testimony as to the "collegial process" of the RAC in the development of FEMA's position on contentions, including shelter contentions. Ir2 3102-06, 5096-99. Thomas's "collegial process" testimony, written in advance and offered into evidence as true, presented the FEMA position as though it had been concurred in and supported by the RAC. IIz 3088; Post Irx 3088 at 4. But it was not. Thomas's testimony on this matter was flatly contradicted by the testimony of other witnesses. The RAC did not agree with the Thomas position.
Ir2 11901, 12038-39, 12042. Thomas admitted to the RAC that he was ignorant of any of the technical aspects of nuclear power operation, and that in this regard he depended upon the technical expertise of the RAC members, Staff Ex. 3, Post Irz 11747 at 1; 11951-52 but he ignored their expertise on the beach shelter issue; 1A2 also Ir2 3141-42 ("Q. All right, and you had the full, as you said, the full benefit of the views of the members present at that meeting, prior to the filing of the testimony, including the view of the NRC? A.
(Thomas) Yes, Sir.") Nevertheless, his testimony gave the appearance that he had the concurrence and backing of the RAC for his position. Egg, e,c., Ir2 3124-26, 3140-42, 3147-48, 3102, 3104, 5101, 5103, 5113.
I . . _ .
r Thomas also maintained he had RAC support for his shelter position wLsn he wrote his letter of explanation to the State of New Hampshire. In his explanatory letter to Richard H. Strome, Director of the New Hampshire office of Emergency Management, Applicants' Ex. 39, at 2-3, Thomas wrote:
"The current FEMA position is largely based upon the FEMA and Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) reviews which were previously provided to you. The portion of the current FEMA position dealing with the beach population is based on a thorough analysis by FEMA and the RAC."
Thomas's statements to the State of New Hampshire and his testimony before this Board failed to disclose the lack of RAC backing for his position and the fact that the RAC would not support his views. Ena Ir2 11909-11. Indeed, as Thomas finally admitted on June 14, 1988, before the filing of his position in September 1987, and before he testified under oath before this Board, he had known "the RAC in not with us on this one." Tr2 13607-08.
As to the Significance of the Seabrook Containment. The RAC's position on the beach shelter issue was favorable to ;
the Applicants and the State of New Hampshire except for ;
readily solvable concerns.4 Ir2 3116-17, 3162. Thomas testified that the RAC's positive position relied "very, very heavily", Ir2 3114, on certain information provided by the 4 The phrase "beach shelter issue" encompasses the matters raised in the shelter cententions NECNP RERP-8, SAPL 16, and TOH VIII. The "readily solvable concerns" were minor points rot addressed in this litigation. ;
NRC about Seabrook containment features. Ir2 3115, 3159-60.
But in fact the RAC did not rely on that information. Ir2 11850-51, 11882. Thomas himself could not have relied on information about the Seabrook containment, as he was not conversant with these technical issues. Staff Ex. 3, Post Ir2 11747 at 1; Ir2 11951-52, 12136-37. Furthermore, Dr.
Robert J. Bores, RAC member representing the NRC and author of the memorandum providing information about the Seabrook containment, explained to Thomas that such information had no bearing on the RAC shelter position and also explained why it could not have any bearing. Ir2 11926-27, 11888. Indeed, that "removing any probability discussions (or assuming the probability of a serious accident was 1), the plans still met the regulations, NUREG-0654 criteria, and provided reasonable assurance." Staff Ex. 2, Post Irz 11744 at 5. Mr. William Lazarus, Emergency Planning Chief, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I, also explained to Thomas that containment features bear on the probability of accidents and not on the adequacy of the State of New Hampshire's plans for responding to an accident. Staff Ex. 3, Post Irt '11747 at 1.
As to Events at the July 31, 1987 RAC Meeting. Thomas testified that he could not remember anyone calling for a vote of the RAC on the beach shelter issue at the July 31, 1987 RAC meeting, that he did not recall an NRC representative requesting that a vote be taken. Ir2 5106-07.
Thomas recalled no vote, Irz 3123, 5106-07, 5111, 5113, l i
F formal or informal, on the beach shelter issue; he recalled no show of hands. Ir2 5106. Thomas did recall the RAC concurring that it needed more information. Tr2 3123, 5106, 5113.
In fact, Lazarus specifically requested Thomas to take a poll of the RAC on the beach shelter issue; Thomas refused.
Tr2 11953; Staff Ex. 2, Post Irx 11744 at 5; Staff Ex. 3, Post Ir2 11747 at 1. At that refusal, Lazarus himself polled the RAC and the RAC informally voted by a show of hands. Irz 11953-56; Staff Ex. 3, Post Ir2 11747 at 1-2. The hands showed that all RAC members except FEMA agreed with the NRC on the beach shelter issue. Irz 11956; Staff Ex. 2, Post IIA 11744 at 5; Staff Ex. 3, Post Ir2 11747 at 1-2. Only Thomas suggested the need for more information, Ir2 11989; the RAC members did not concur. Irz 12039-4.1.
As to Input of the RAC on Thomas's Position. Thomas testified to the effect that the RAC did not discuss the specific wording of the Thomas position before June 4, 1987, Irz 5101, 3111, but that the issue had been extensiveJy discussed, and that he had the benefit of discussions with individual RAC members before his position was first filed, Irz 3115, 3141-42. In fact, the issue had been extensively discuesea, but the RAC's position favored Applicants, II2 11853, 11900-01, 11904. After the publication of the Thomas position on June 4, 1987, Thomas once again had the benefit of knowing that the RAC disagreed with his position, but O
O l
again he disregarded it. Tr2 12221-22, 12511-13, 11961-63; I Staff Ex. 2, Post Ir2 11744 at 5; Staff Ex. 3, Post Ir2 11747 at 2.
As to Reasonable Assurance. Thomas testified that the difference between the RAC's position and the Thomas position was the NRC's withdrawing of the containment features information. II2 3170, 3159-60. In fact, the difference between the RAC's view and Thomas's did not have to do with any withdrawn information at all, but with Thomas's version of the meaning of "reasonable assurance." Staff Ex. 2, Post Ir2 11744 at 5; Ir2 11959. Thomas disagreed with the NRC on the meaning of "reasonable assurance". Idi As to Seabrook as a "Spec 3al Case". In the context of beach population issues, Ir2 13375 et sea., Thomas testified that a specific section of FEMA DEP-3 described Seabrook as a "special case" arid that he had been and remained greatly influenced by that supposed description. Iri 13384-85, 13392. In fact however, the section cited by Thon.as had nothing whatsoever to do with shelter or beach population issues. Mass AG Ex. 48 at 10.5 Instead, it described Seabrook as a "special case" only because of the efforts made to incorporate the input of state and local officials in 5 Mass AG Ex. 48, admitted at Ir2 14256 for the limited purpose "to show that it was used by Mr. Thomas and used by FEMA . . . how it was used and how it was understood and how it was employed," Iri 13388, and "that (it) was a base point of departure . . . by which the agency could make reference to some ccncerns that it highlighted as early as 1981," Irx 13389.
O FEMA's independent ETE assessment. Id2 Thus Thomas mischaracterized FEMA REP-3 even as he testified from it.
II. Particular Intervenor Proposed Findings Which Do Not State the Evidence Correctiv.
Applicants address herein only the more significant errors in the proposed findings of intervenors which do not state the record evidence in this proceeding correctly.
A. NECNP Proposed Findings
- 34. Neither Applicants' witnesses nor FEMA witnesses use "significant dose reduction" as a standard for protective action decisionmaking. The standard utilized and upon which the NHRERP is premised, Aco. Dir. No. 6, 2211 II2 10022 at 4, is "maximum dose savings."
- 35. The NHRERP does not anticipate situations where sheltering would be ordered for the general transient beach population. It anticipates that the beach population would be advised to leave the beach or to evacuate the beach area at early stages of an emergency. Ir2 10059. Specific provisions have been, or will be, made for sheltering for the portion of the beach population without their own means of j
transportation until transportation assistance can be provided. These latter provisions differ from, and go beyond, the "shelter in place" provisions of the NHRERP.
ADD. Dir. No. 6, Post Ir2 10022 at 20-21.
- 36. New Hampshire has committed to adopt measures for sheltering the transportation dependent beach population
I '
while they wait for transportation assistance. Aco. Dir. No.
1, Post Tri 10222 at 20-12 and Appendix 1, page 10 of 47; and FEMA has found that, to some degree, that has already been done. Tri 14252.
- 40. FEMA's testimony is to the contrary. Implementing detail for sheltering for the general transient beach population is not necessary or desirable because it is an extremely limited option. Shelter in place provisions of the NHRERP are adequate. Ir2 14252-254.
- 56. Applicants' witnesses testified that NUREG-0654 does not require consideration of particular accidents or accident sequences in developing emergency plans. IIz 10759.
- 59. The "basic facts and the statement of the relevant parameters" referred to and identified in NECNP 55 and 56 have not been admitted in evidence for the truth of the matters contained.
- 90. The FEMA prefiled testimony of January 23, 1988 has not been admitted in evidence for the truth of the matters contained.
123. NECNP has proposed a finding that Thomas was subject to intimidation by Applicants' counsel, in that:
"(Thomas) was told, through FEMA counsel, that there would be blood on tae floor if he didn't change his testimony", citing a letter from Messrs. Brock, Backus, and Olesky, counsel for the several intervenors, of November 12, 1987, and he was told that there had been threats to refer his testimony to L
attorneys in Massachusetts. First of all, the letter referred to has absolutely no evidentiary value. Moreover, Thomas denies that he was intimidated by any of these events so as to cause a change in his cenclusions. The only effect was to make him "incredibly [ sic) cautious" in giving his testimony. Ir2 13643. The proposed finding is devoid of relevancy to the record of these proceedings.
B. SAPL Proposed Findings 10.1.3. Wilkerson's opinions about the Seabrook beach population were disallowed by the Board as to the truth of the matters contained. Ir2 13534.
10.1.8. Peterson clarified the discussion among FEMA officials reference on January 13, 1988 as that of not reaching a conclusion until further discussion and consensus encued. Ir2 12990.
10.1.19. Applicants' witnesses effectively adopted Attachment 3 of Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 6. Ir2 10687-88. The State of New Hampshire has declined to adopt or incorporate it into the NHRERP. Ir2 10707.
10.1.20. The State of New Hampshire has proposed to amend the NHRERP to include implementing details for sheltering the transportation dependent transient beach population awaiting evacuation transportation. Apo. Dir. No.
1, Post Ir2 10022, Appendix 1, page 10 of 47. These amendments include specifically designed EBS messages and identification of structures for this segment of the
population. The NHRERP has been amended to include an EBS message advising the transportation dependent transient beach population to shelter and which provides for identification of shelter locations for this segment of the population.
Aco. Ex. 5, Vol. 4, Appendix G.
10.1.61. Thomas actually was testifying to working with Attorney Chan of NRC on the FEMA position that resulted from the April 15, 1987 RAC meeting where it was decided that NUREG-0654 elements J.9 and J.10.m were met relying on the Bores 1 memorandum. Discussions at that meeting included the availability of Dr. Bores to sponsor FEMA testimony. Thomas did not testify that he worked with Attorney Chan on preparing the June 4, 1987 FEMA position on NHRERP contentions. II2 13513.
10.1.83. William R. Cumming's testimony was in reference to NHREP.P, Revision 2, Volume 6 (August 1986), II2
! 14060. It does not refer to the ETEs as set out in Aco. Dir.
No. 7, Post Tr. 5621 and Aco. Dir. No. 6, Post II2 10022.
The note referred to in SAPL's finding at 6.1.6 should read
! "it would take 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes, according to Table 10-l 9 of Volume 6, to get (the last) car just 3 to 4 blocks off the beach" if that proposed finding is to be regarded as a
! representation of Volume 6.
10.1.86. The proposed finding omits the third condition i
t contained in Ano. Dir. No. 6, Post II2 10022, Appendix 1 at 8 of 47 entitled Transients Without Transportation.
l
10.1.91. Dennis S. Mileti also testified that there are no empirical studies to the contrary. Irz 10138.
10.3.2. This conclusion is refuted by FEMA's and Applicants' testimony. Irz 14252-253; Aco. Dir. No. 6, Post Itz 10022, Appendix 1, page 10 of 47; Aco. Ex. 5, Volume 4, Appendix G.
C. Mass AG Proposed Findings 10.1.6. Mass AG's recitation of the conditior.s under which the State of New Hampshire would consider sheltering for beach transients omits the circumstances of shelter for beach transients without transportation when evacuation is the protective action recommendation.
10.1.7. Contrary to Mass AG's ascertion, the issue presented by the contentions is whether shelter is an 1
available protective action for the beach population, not when sheltering would achieve the most effective maxinum dose reduction or to what extent the circumstances are very limited.
10.1.8. Applicants' witnesses agreed with the State of New Hampshire response to Mass AG Interrogatory No. 9 to the extent that the interrogatory quoted thu Manual of Protective Actions Guides, U.S. EPA, p. 129, and to the extent that the same paragraph from which the quote was taken also states "sheltering which can be implemented quickly in this case may afford a greater dose savings than evacuation, if evacuation cannot be completed prior to release." Applicanto' witness L
Anthony M. Callendrello also testified that "a puff release is a release that is difficult to determine the duration of in advance unless you've got a control venting of the plant . . . " and that "I think I would be biased more towards recommending evacuation if you just don't know how long a release is going to be." Ir2 10374.
10.1.10. Applicants' testimony at Irz 10212-13 did not refer to "rapidly developing, severe accidents" or to "fast-developing accidents involving a large scale release of radioactivity", but it simply acknowledged what NUREG-0654 says. At Ir2 10224, Applicants' testimony again simply acknowledged what NUREG-0654 says. At Iri 10399, callendrello agreed that "fast paced, serious accidents" are within the planning spectrum of NUREG-0654, and that such accidents could be less than "worst case accidents." At Ir2 10402, MacDonald testified that "fast paced, serious accidents" are part of the spectrum for which planning is required. Contrary to Mass AG's suggestion, NUREG-0654 does not require consideration of particular accidents or accident sequences in developing emergency plans. Neither the Applicants nor the State of New Hampshire considered particular accident sequences in developing emergency plans.
Ir2 10759-60.
10.1.11. Mass AG's assertion is inaccurate.
Applicants' witness James A. MacDonald testified that emergency plans under NUREG-06S4 guidelines are to address an L
entire spectrum of accidents. Ir2 10402. MacDonald did not agree, for example, that the most serious accidents are fast releases of one or two hours' duration. Ir2 10333.
10.1.14. FEMA's witness Joseph Keller testified at Irz 14241 that "in the end of the spectrum there are some accidents, which if they occur, could result in early health effects . . . and that primarily comes from the ground shine component." This was in the context of explaining that, because of the uncertainties, it is better to evacuate people within two to three miles "basically automatically." Irz 14255-256.* Keller finished the sentence Mass AG partly quoted with the conclusion "and that's immediate evacuation."
10.1.15. Contrary to Macs AG's assertion, at Ir2 10401 MacDonald did a2t define "fast paced, serious accidents" as "accidents comparable to PWR-1 through PWR-5 accidents of WASH-1400." Those were Mass AG's representative's words.
MacDonald testified that he considers these accidents as worst case accidents which "are a significant portion in 1
terms of potential circumstances, but at the very end of the (planning) spect rum. "
10.1.22. Mass AG misquoted Keller's testimony at II2 14245-246. Keller actually testified that "in order to have serious health -- early health effects that the release had to start . . . fairly quickly."
10.1.23. The testimony represented by Mass AG as uncontradicted was in fact contradicted by Applicants' and 1
1
- i FEMA testimony. Applicants' testimony placed PWR-1 through 5 accident sequences at the very end of the planning spectrum.
10.1.25-26. Applicants' witnesses and FEMA's Witness testified that the two factors - time to release and duration of release - are very uncertain and unlikely to be known prior to the event. Egg, e.a., FEMA Dir., Post Ir2 13968 at
- 9. Applicants' witness Callendrello, during the same line of questioning, cautioned that the conditions postulated by Mass AG's representative are difficult to determine unless they result from controlled venting. IIz 10375.
10.1.29. Mass AG inaccurately characterizes Keller's testimony at II2 14197-97. Keller agreed, in general, with the postulate of NECNP counsel that "evacuation must beain before or shortly after a release for it to reduce the risk to the public substantially." (emphasis added)
Subsequently, Keller qualified his agreem9nt with the postulate by testifying that risk reduction is not under FEMA's purview. tit 14197.
10.1.31. Applicants' testimon'y controverted the statement that accidents with warning times of one to two hours account for a significant portion of the accidents for which offsite protective actions would be warranted.
Applicants' witnesses testified that such conditions are at the very end of the planning spectrum. At none of the I
transcript citations, Ir2 10330-33, 10345, 10409-10, did i
Applicants' witnesses testify that, considering a l
~
hypothetical accident with relatively short warning times and the plume traveling toward the beach, the majority of beach-goers would not be able to clear the beach prior to plume arrival. Their testimony was to the effect that, given that the plume arrival time assumptions of Mass AG's hypothetical example would exceed evacuation time estimates for the beach population, the entire population would not, or may not, be evacuated prior to plume arrival. Mass AG's desired conclusion is not supported by the other citations he offered. The Goble et al. Dir., Post II2 10963 at 10 does not support the conclusion that a plume would reach the beach area within three to four hours after the onset of accident conditions, assuming one to two hours warning time. That testimony says only that a popular beach araa is located less than two miles from the reactor. The Adler testimony, Adler Dir., Post Ir2 10911, F39ure 1, is unconnected to the postulated scenario of Mass AG's proposed finding. Adler asserted that about one half of the vehicles involved in a voluntary evacuation after a beach closing announcement would remain within a three mile radius after three to four hours.
FEMA has rejected the Baldwin analysis as an incorrect interpretation of the ETEs. TI2 14169.
10.1.34. John Bonds testified that there is no assumption with regard to any fixed quantity of time whatsoever that would be afforded by precautionary measures.
Ir2 10245. Callendrello testified that the purpose of an L
Alert classification, where precautionary measures for the beach may be taken is in itself anticipatory and intended to bring offsite response organizations to a standby status.
The State of New Hampshire has taken that one step further where it may begin to take actions that will expedite later protective actions if they should be needed. There is no assumption made beyond that which is already built into the definition of an Alert. Tr2 10244.
10.1.35. Callendrello testified that the half hour time frame from onset of conditions to release is a NUREG-0654 planning assumption that could possibly be applied to an Alert or an Unusual Event classification. Ir2 10311.
10.1.36. Applicants' witnesses testified only that an accident could start off classified as a General Emergency.
They did not testify that precautionary measures would not be employed or that they could not provide additional time to i
- evacuate. II2 10333.
10.1.38. Applicants' witnesses testified that if an
, accident commences as a General Emergency there are procedures in place for immediate notification of the public by the New Hampshire State Police if that were necessary.
l Ir2 10436, NHRERP, Volume 4B, State Police Communications I
( Procedures, provide for the flexibility to get the most 1
appropriate message aired in a timely manner for the spectrum of accident conditions. These procedures include the case when a severe situation is developing rapidly prior to t
organizations being able to fully staff or assess the situation. ado. Dir. No. 6, Post Ir2 10022, at 18. State Police Communications Center Procedures include instructions in the event the initial notification from the utility is a General Emergency. If the NHOEM cannot be contacted within 10 minutes, the State Police Shift Supervisor is instructed to contact the RCDC to activate sirens and, between May 15 and September 15, to broadcast the beach closing message on designated *seach siren public address systems. The State Police shift Supervisor is then instructed to contact the EBS statior, WOKQ, and initiate broadcast of the pre-recorded General Emergency message. ADD. Ex. No. 5, Volume 4B, State Police Communications Center Procedures.
10.1.40. The testimony of the State of New Hampshire witnesses cited at Post Irx 10377 is neither inconsistent nor contradictory. It is a State of New Hampshire response to Mass AG Interrogatory No. 9. The interrogatory itself contained a quote from the Manual of Protective Action Guides, US, EPA, p. 129 which includes the term "particulates". The State of New Hampshire did not even use the term in its response to the interrogatory.
10.1.46. FEMA testimony at FEMA Dir., Post Ir2 13968 at 10 reached no conclusion about the significance of dose reduction that would be achieved by sheltering nor about the prevalence of "unwinterized" shelters in the New Hampshire beach areas. It concluded only that sheltering followed by I
evacuation is likely to be a less effective means of achieving dose reduction than evacuation alone, attributing the difference to the ground shine component.
10.1.48. Keller testified that in answering to Mass AG counsel's hypothetical, fast breaking, serious accident there were many unknown parameters, such as plume location, plume width and other unknowns, that lead to a generalized conclusion that there would be some dose savings for that one part of the accident spectrum. TI2 14195.
10.1.50. Keller did not testify "that he could conceive"'of a number of accident scenarios, even those involving a ground shine component, for which sheltering would be a preferred protective response for the summer beach pcpulation". He actually testified that given enough time and parameters, such as times and relative fractions, he could construct a scenario whereby the dose would be less for shelter first, then evacuation. II2 14231. In fact he subsequently testified that given the many unknowns and uncertainties of a severe accident scenario, the prudent decision for people within two to three miles of the site is
, ovacuation. II2 14239-241. II2 14255-56.
10.1.56. What is proposed as the most considered treatment of the issue regarding the uncertainties of a release is in fact muddled miscomprehension. It is an engineering impossibility that "the reactor vessel melts through the core" thereby signaling an imminent release l
l l
depending on whether or not containment holds. Uncertainty is hardly relieved by Goble's conclusion that "you won't know which of those things will happen once you enter into core melt", Irt 11663.
10.1.57. Goble gave no testimony to the effect that in situations where containment does not hold there would not be sufficient time to evacuate the beach. Ir2 11664.
10.1.58. Goble's tqstimony included no statement to the effect that evacuation times at this site would preclude at least a significant portion of the population from evacuating prior to plume arrival. Ir2 11664.
10.1.60. FEMA testimony, FEMA Dir., Post II2 13968 at 10, actually discussed dose reduction involving ground shine that would result from immediate evacuation. The testimony said, "In the extremely rare casa wnere the evacuation routes coincide with the plume path, an estimate of the dose reduction can be mado". Because of dispersion and dilution, the dose rate decreases with distance.
10.1.61. At none of the transcript citations does Goble testify that "inhalation of particulates could be a major contributor to total dose". In fact, when asked whether it is true that the greatest significance of the iodine release would be with respect to the inhalation dose, Goble responded nn. Irt 11623.
10.1.63. MacDonald's testimony at Ir2 10484 was not contradicted by either FEMA's or Goble's testimony. In fact,
( .
the FEMA testimony is misrepresented. The testimony said that ground shine dose could notentially be the major contributor to total dose. FEMA Dir., Post II 13968 at 10.
10.1.64. In none of the testimony cited does any witness concede "that it is quite unlikely that people could sit in their cars in the beach area for two hours on a hot summer day with the windows closed". State of New Hampshire and Applicant's witnesses certainly did not agree that the person inside the car would be apt to get particles on his or her skin. Tr2 10467.
10.1.67. A more accurate representation of Keller's testimony is that "dose reduction greater than those to be derived from a ' shelter first-evacuate later' concept can be obtained by movements of the population relatively short distances even in the extremely unlikely case where the plume track and the evacuation routes coincide". Nowhere in the cited transcript does Keller say that this proposition assumes that by evacuation the population, or some significant portion of the population will be able to move somo distance further away from the reactor prior to plume passage. The ETE testimony of Applicants' witness cited at II4 5715-16 and Ir2 6714-715 does not support the assertion that the vast portion of total evacuation time for each car will be spent in the beach area nor that at some points the evacuation routes will bring cars closer to the reactor.
t _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _-__ __
_ _1
O 10.1.88. Bonds testified that with respect to the New Hampshire beach areas north of Great Boar's Head the shelter-in-place concept still applies. Transients without access to indoor locations would be expected to evacuate. Ir2 10204.
Richard Strome testified that the beaches north of Great Boar's Head are not the larger beaches in the area. They generally carry a much smaller beach population and do not require the kind of specific attention given the heavily populated beach area in Hampton Beach. The provisions are located in the planning documents to handle that population.
There is certainly provision in the plan to get information to people in North Hampton and Rye. Ir2 10203. Strome further testified that the planning documents provide guidelines for action. There is subjectivity involved in the decisionmaking process that allows decision makers to exercise precautionary measures in the area north of Great Boar's Head. Ir2 10199.
10.1.90. Cumming testified for FEMA that implementing i
detail exists in the NHRERP for the transportation dependent beach transients. Where the plan calls for sheltering the rest of the beach transients, that is a different factor.
Where the plan calls for ad hoc sheltering in place for the full beach transient population, that is adequate. Ir2 14252-253. This testimony is consistent with McLoughlin's testimony that the NHRERP is adequate with respect to NUREG-0654 planning critoria J-9 and J-10.m in that the probable L -
incidence of P.he requirement of shelter for other than the transportation dependent beach transients is not very significant.
10.1.91. The State of New Hampshire has proposed to amend the NHRERP to include implementing details for sheltering the transportation dependent transient beach population. Aco. Dir. No. 6, Post Irx 10022, Appendix 1, page 10 of 47. These include specifically designed EBS messages and identification of structures for this segment of the population.
10.1.94. Goble testified that the sheltering criteria he espouses were not drawn from any literature or any recognized source and nowhere in his testimony at Irz 11327-328 does he identify Dr. Mileti as a source for any of these criteria.
10.1.98. The NHRERP has been amended to include an EBS message advising the transportation dependent transient beach population to shelter and provides for identification of shelter locations for this segment of the population.
10.1.99. Callendrello testified that there are provisions for training DRED personnel, including lifeguards, to respond to a radiological emergency. Ir2 10570.
10.1.106. Evdokimoff testified that the 459 cottages that he inspected externally were not selected randomly and that he made no measurements during the survey. Irx 11342-343.
L
l i
10.1.123. The only error established in the record at Irx 10618-631 was the inclusion of 2886 square feet of space that had been torn down out of a total of 110,000 square feet of space which comprises the Hampton Beach Casino. II2 10625.
10.1.128. Goble admitted on cross examination that he was not saying that structures with 0.9 dose reduction factor for cloud shielding offers less shielding than no protection at all. He also admitted that the Aldrich reference of Goble et al Dir., Post II2 10963 at 67 was using a weekly average based on the types of structures in which people are normally located.
10.1.129. Applicants' witnesses testified that the stateneat in question referred strictly to the purpose of the first St.c.ne and Webster Shelter Study, March 1986, which was to ident.tv structures with shielding comparable to masonry structures. The first study was done as a scoping document for an arrangement then being undertaken between New Hampshire Yankee and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Ir2 10607-610.
10.1.138. Callendrello further testified that if no shelter were available the dose saving principle would inad to a decision to evacuate. Ir2 10758.
10.1.145. Mileti also testified that there is much empirical evidence that suggests that the hypothesis offered in this statement is the only prudent hypothesis any L
scientist could offer. Ir2 10050. The lack of empirical i
evidence to tc- contrary supports Mileti's confidence in that conclusion. Ir2 10138.
10.1.147-148. The surveys were inconsistent and showed different responses with respect to the same properties. Th .2 Mass AG survey contained a built-in bias in that it identified the survey as being conducted for the Massachusects Attorney General. See Applicants' Proposed Findings 10.1.59 and 10.1.60.
10.1.59. Mileti further testified that such a hypothetical does not tra scend to emergency planning for nuclear power plants. Ir2 10132.
10.1.137. It is illogical to conclude that the percentage of buildings with reduction factors less than 0.9 or air exchange rates greater than 2 per hour would be relatively high when there is no reference in the record to l
any number.
10.1.163-164. Eckere offered that the response to the motel / hotel owner's survey instrument was very low in number (10) and therefore does not qualify for statistical analysis !
] or as a basis for drawing conclusions. Goble et 11. Dir.,
Post II2 10963 at 66. Applicants do not concede that hotel :
and motel rooms comprise the vast majority of the potential j shelter space. No party established this as a fact. IIs 11639.
10.1.172-178. See Applicants' Propos9d Finding 10.1. 8. I I
1 4
4
t, s-i 10.1.184. The NHRERP's protective action decisionmaking provisions conform to U.S. Environmental Protective Agency i guidance as required by NUREG-0654, II., J.9. ADD. Dir. No.
6, Post TIA 10022 at 1.
Respectfully submitted, f
Kr ial G.- Dignan, Jr.
'Th @as Gedrge H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100
)
P
-l i
i
[
f
[I.,( k I[ [
fw 18 EP -6 P4 :46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KathrynA.Selleck,oneoftheattorneyst%
Applicantsherein,herebycertifythatonAugust31[,*$the,;,
..i.i 1988F?I made service of the within document by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to (or, where indicated, by depositing in the United States mail, first class postage paid, addressed to):
Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Robert Carrigg, Chairman Chairman, Atomic Safety and Board'of Selectmen -
Licensing Board Panel Town Office ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atlantic Avenue '
Commission North Hampton, NH 03862 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway ,
Bethesda, MD 20814 Judge Gustave A. Linenberger Diane Curran, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire '
Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 430 Commission 2001 S Street, N.W.
East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20009 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 l
Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General East West Towers Buildit.g 25 Capitol Street 4350 East West Highway concord, NH 03301-6397 Bethesda, MD 20814 I
Adjudicatory File Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of General Counsel Board Panel Docket (2 copies) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building One White Flint North, 15th Fl.
4350 East West Highway 11555 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20814 Rockville, MD 20852
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 516 ;
Commission Manchester, NH 03 U!i Washington, DC 20556
4 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Sulectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney 25 Maplewood Avenue General P.O. Box 360 One Ashburton Place, 19th Fl.
Portsmouth, NH 03801 Boston, MA 02108 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney
. Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD t - Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire U.S. Senate Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Washington, DC 20510 Whilton & McGuire (Attn: Tom Burack) 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter J. Matthews One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attnt Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F. Pow. as, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire Office of General Counsel Murphy and Graham Federal Emergency Management 33 Low Street Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 L
O Mr. Ed Thomas Judith H. Mizner, Esquire FEMA, Region I 79 State Street, 2nd Floor 442 John W. McCormack Post Newburyport, MA 01950 office and Court House Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire Leonard Kopelman, Esquire 376 Main Street .. pelman & Paige, P.C.
Haverhill, MA 01830 77 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110
'/ /#d ,
Ifa t')) t y n A . S611eck
(*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail) 1