ML20234F548
| ML20234F548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1987 |
| From: | Eric Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234F494 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8707080253 | |
| Download: ML20234F548 (13) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
i
)
In The Matter of:
)
Docket No. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL Public Service Co. of New Hampshire,
)
Off-Site Emergency et al.
)
Planning Issues
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD A. THOMAS IN OPPOSITION TO CERTAIN MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION l
3$
I 1, Edward A. Thomas, under oath, do state that the following is true:
l 1.
I am the Division Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division of Region I of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
As such, one of my responsibilities is the management of FEMA's Radiological l
Emergency Planning Program in New England.
2.
I also serve as the Chairman of the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC), an interagency committee established pursuant to 44 C.F.R., Part 350.
3.
Since 1981, I have been responsible for leading and coordinating 1
the FEMA and RAC reviews and evaluations of State and local radiological emergency planning and preparedness in FEMA Region I (comprising the six.
Q70 Boys 397o,99 l
c ADOCK 05000AA3 PDR
state New England area).
In this regard, I have reviewed or supervised the review of the radiological emergency response plans of numerous State and local jurisdictions within the New England area, and participated in observing or evaluating the conduct of more than 20 radiological emergency l
preparedness exercises in FEMA Region 1.
l 4
FEMA and the RAC have reviewed the plans submitted by the State of New Hampshire designed to protect the public in the event of an accident at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
These reviews were performed under my direction by FEMA staff, consultants to FEMA, members of the RAC and other federal employees who assisted the RAC members.
5.
On February 26, 1986, FEMA observed an exercise of New Hampshire's l
plans to protect the public in the event of an accident at Seabrook. The final report of the evaluation of that exeercise was completed on June 2, l
1986, and mailed to the State of New Hampshire on June 6, 1986.
l I
l 6.
I have read and am familiar with the emergency planning contentions i
which are the subject of Motions for Summary Disposition filed in June 1987, j
by the Applicant, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, j
and the Town of Hampton.
I 7.
As set forth more particularly below, FEMA opposes certain of these Motions for Summary Disposition either because FEMA and the RAC require additional information to complete their review of the issues 1
contained therein or because the FEMA and RAC review has not yet been l
completed.
l l
8.
Based on the continuing review by FEMA and the RAC of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plans, as well as the State's Compensatory Plan and revisions to the plans, and the evaluation of the I
emergency planning exercise conducted on February 26, 1986, FEMA and the RAC have identified certain unresolved issues of material fact pertinent to the Motions for Summary Disposition mentioned above and instances where FEMA believes additional information is required prior to its reaching a j
conclusion on the adequacy of the New Hampshire State Plans to protect the l
i public in the event of an accident at Seabrook Station.
See 10 C.F.R. Q 50.47 (a)(2).
In the following paragraphs, I have related these to specific motions and have offered FEMA's basis for urging that these motions not be granted.
9.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) opposes the Motion for Partial Summary Disposition on Contentions Hampton VIII, SAPL-16 and NECNP RERP-8 filed by Attorney General James A. Shannon of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (MASS AG), which deal with the issue of sheltering tran-sient beach populations in the summertime.
In its June 4,1987 filing to the Board, Appendix A (Current FEMA Position on Admitted Contentions on New Hampshire Plans for Seabrock). FEMA found that New Hampshire planning did not adequately provide for shelter of thousands of beach-goers in a f ast breaking accident, where sheltering would be the only effective pro-l
tective action.
It should be noted, however, that FEMA's June 4 position does not constitute a " finding" within the context of 44 CFR 350, FEMA's procedures for reasonable assurance findings. The FEMA position was intended to fulfill the Board's requirement that the Agency provide the parties to the legal proceedings with our current position.
I FEMA will consider any additional facts submitted by the State of New Hampshire prior to filing its testimony concerning measures to adequately otect the beach population. Similarly, FEMA will consider any facts pre-sented by NRC technical experts which demonstrate that the Seabrook site offers substantially different accident character,tstics with respect to potential accident release times / duration / probability than those used as a standard basis for reasonable assurance. The enclosed June 11, 1987 letter f rom me to Richard H. Strome of the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency discusses this point.
j l
l t
- 10. FFMA opposes the Town of Hampton's Motion for Summary Disposition regarding Town of Hampton Contention-IV for the reason that there are unresolved issues of material f act about (a) the extent to which the plans submitted by the State of New Hampshire for the protection of the public 1
l in the event of an accident at the Seabrook Station would be hampered by l
1 the unavailability or unwillingness of teachers to carry out roles assumed by the plans since the plans depend upon many persons other than teachers i
alone and (b) whether the State of New Hampshire's Compensatory Plan is adequate to provide personnel to fill the roles of local personnel who j
i I
\\
will be unavailable or unwilling to participate in the executipn of the I
i plan.
- 11. FEMA opposes the Town of Hampton's Motion for Summary Disposition regarding Town of Hampton Contention VI for the reason that there are unresolved issues of material fact about (a) the extent to which the plans submitted by the State of New Hampshire for the protection of the public in the event of an acciuent at the Seabrook Station would be hampered by i
the unavailability or unwillingness of teachers to carry out roles assumed ay the plans since the plans depend upon many persons other than teachers alone and (b) whether the State of New Hampshire's Compensatory Plan is adequate to provide personnel to fill the roles of local personnel who will be unavailable or unwilling to participate in the execution of the plan.
l l
- 12. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition regarding SAPL Contention 15 dealing with Letters of Agreement for the reason that FEMA has not yet received assurances that the employers of the drivers nominally made available by a Letter of Agreement with the Teamsters Union will be willing to allow them to leave their jobs to respond to an emergency.
Additionally, FEMA has not received certain Letters of Agreement referenced in Host Plans as being available in Volume 5 of the NHRERP, but were not present (see pgs. 62-63 of Appendix A, FEMA Position dated June 4, 1987).
- 13. FEMA opposes the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition regard-1 l
ing NECNP Contention NHLP-6 for the reason that the State,of New Hampshire has not fully documented th'e pairings of available buses and bus driver:,
The Applicants' Motion is supported by reference to a Letter of Agreement with the Teamsters Union.
However, FEMA has not yet received assurances that the employers of the drivers nominally made available by that Letter of Agreement will be willing to allow them to leave their jobs to respond to an emergency.
- 14. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition regarding Town of South Hampton Contention-8 for the reason that it does not have enough information on which to base a conclusion.
In the December 15, 1986, FEMA /RAC review of the Compensatory Plan, FEMA and the RAC withheld judgment until the resource assessment study was completed. A personnel resources assessment study was served on FEMA by the Applicants on April 10, 1987, but FEMA will not review this document because it was not submitted in accordance I
with the requirements of 44 C.F.R., Part 350. Until the Resource Assessment Study is submitted to FEMA under the Part 350 process, FEMA and the RAC cannot complete their assessment of the adequacy of compensatory resources.
- 15. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition regarding SAPL Contention-18 for the reason that the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC), which FEMA chairs, has noted a discrepancy between the New Hampshire l
Civil Defense Agency (NHCDA) special needs survey and a telephone survey conducted by KLD Associates in connection with its ETE study.
In their _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
I I
review of December 15, 1586, FEMA and tne RAC requested additional informa-1 tion from the State of New Hampshire to resolve or explain the discrepancy.
- 16. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition regarding SAPL Contention-25 for the reason that a Letter of Agreement with Clipper Honic Affiliates, which the applicants cite in cupport of their motion, has not yet been submitted to FEMA.
l
- 17. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition regarding l
Town of Kensington Contention-6 for the reason that the applicants' motion is supported by reference to a Letter of Agreement with tne Teamsters Union.
f l
However, FEMA has not yet received assurances that the employers of tne drivers nominally made available by that letter of agreement will be willirq eo to allow them to leave their jobs to respond to an emergency.
{
l
- 18. FEMA opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition regarding Town of South Hampton Contention-3 for the reason that the applicants' motion is supported by reference to a Letter of Agreement with the Teamsters Union.
1 However, FEMA has not yet received assurances that the employers of the l
drivers nominally made available by that letter of agreement will be willing to allow them to leave their jobs to respond to an emergency.
- 19. FEMA opposes Ap.nlicants' Motion for Summary Disposition regarding NECNP Contention NHLP-4 for the reason that it is not clear from the New Hampshire Radiole.gical Deergency Response Plan how hearing impaired l
l
~
individuals will receive further instructions once they are alerted to an emergency by a visible signal from their tone alert radios, (see l
comment for Crituia E.5 on pgs. 24-25 of the Dec.1986 RAC Review of N.H. State Plan).
- 20. FEMA opposes the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition regarding Town of Hampton Falls Contention-4 for the reason that the Applicants' motion f ails to address the Board's concern, as expressed on page 12 of its June 10, 1987 Memorandum and Order ruling on motions for summary disposition, regarding whether Hampton Falls's communicatier.s equipment needs will be compensated by NHCDA.
21.
For the reasons set forth above, FEMA believes that it would be inappropriate for the Motions for Summary Disposition referred to in paragraphs 9 through 20 to be granted.
Enclosure J#
Edward A. Thomas I
Subscribed and sworn to before me, the undersigned Notary Public, in theCountyofSuffolk, commonwealth of Massachusetts this /fPday of bA 1987.
/
M-An Notary Public
'/
jMyCommissionExpires:
I w' /f93 l
h; i Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 1 J.W. McCormsek Post Ornce end Coun House i
Boston, Massachuse is 02109 l
l JE I i 1987 Mr. Richard H. Strome Director, New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency State Office Park South Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Dear Mr. Strome:
This is written as a follow-up to our conversation on June 5, 1987, l
concerning the document " CURRENT FEMA POSITION ON ADMITTED CONTENTIONS ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PLANS FOR SEABROOK."
(Hereinafter called Current FEMA Position.)
This document was developed as a part of FEMA's responses to interrogatories in the Seabrook Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) proceedings.
Our discussion primarily related to that portion of the Current FEMA Position dealing with the beach population which is found at pp. 38-39 and enclosed with this letter.
Before further discussing that particular section, it might be worthwhile to quickly review the history of this filing.
The Current FEMA Position was developed as the result of several actions including the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLB) made May 1, 1987, and the subsequent Memorandum and Order issued by the ASLB on May 4, 1987.
These actions included a specific request that FEMA develop and file a position on the contentions admitted for litigation in the Seabrook proceedings by June 5, 1987.
The Current FEMA position is, therefore, provided pursuant to the FEMA / Nuclear Regulatory I
Commission Memorandum of Understanding cited in 44 CFR 350, l
Section 350.3(e).
However, the Current FEMA Position should not be viewed as a formal " finding" by FEMA under 44 CFR 350.
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.
The issue of protecting the beach population has been an item of discussion between FEMA, the State of New Hampshire, and the applicant for several years.
Our position is based on the guidance provided by NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1 applied to the Seabrook site.
We believe that our concern about the protection of the beach population revolves around some rather unusual circumstances which may be unique to Seabrook.
Demographically, a substantial portion of the peak summer population in the area travel to the beach each day.
Unlike other sites we have reviewed, these daily visitors are not identified with a temporary residence or public facility.
c-_____________--_.
- _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ = -.-
s I In addition, many cf the summer residences in the area are unwinterized and therefore afford less shelter in the event of an accident than that circumstances dramatically impactfound in insulated bui' dings.
These primary protective measures, evacuation and shelter.the acceptability of the two I
specifically, the information provided to FEMA indicates that More l
evacuation from the beaches would require approximately 3.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />.
Evacuation time estimates are not l
required to meet some specific standard.
The availability of shelter as an option in the more fast-breaking scenarios is considered to mitigate the need for some hard time objective for evacuation.
However, in this case the sheltering option is also clouded by the absence of sheltering for what is even in the more favorable estimates smounts to
{
effective shelter for many others.several thousand individuals and the abs Thus, the information provided on evacuation and sheltering compounded one another in a manner of individuals that might be involved.
I might add that these numbers apparently hold not simply for the worst-case accident, but for a number of lesser scenarios.
A number of options have been mentioned over the past years which may alter the case as we understand it.
In addition to our own discussions on the subject, a wide variety of sources have proposed alternatives which include sheltering, of the plant, and alternative evacuation routes. seasonal operation sheltering is an alternative, we doubt Although public or private facilities would be acceptable.if the use of existing The solution to the problem may be a variety of alternatives due to the complexity of the issue.
However, if the facts set forth in the paragraphs numbered 1-3 of page 39 of the current TEMA position are shown to be incorrect or are modified, then our position will be subject to review and modification as necessary.
FEMA will, modifications to the New Hampshire emergency plans for Se i
which might the beach population. impact evacuation time estimates or the sheltering of assumptions made about Any modifications of the standard accident probability, release times, duration and schedule for the plant come under the purview of the NRC.as we3 hearing for Seabrook. FEMA will soon be developing its testimony for the Septemb is this hearing board that will make the firstGiven the expected sequence of eve licensing related evaluation of the New Hampshire plan.
It would be very useful to all parties to the Seabrook proceeding if you could tell us prior to our filing testimony: (a) set forth in the Current if the facts we have discussed and FEMA Position are incorrect; (b) if the State of New Hampshire is considering steps which might change these facts, and (c) to exercise options that would change the facts.if you are aware of intention IC)
~
We would, of course, be happy to meet with you as New Hampshire continues to explore its options.
I hope that all of uscan continue work together to resolve this issue and achieve our mutual commitment to public safety.
Sincerely, L Bi nede t
Edward A. Thomas Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division l
l 4
4 e
ae.
NECNP CONTENTION RERP-S Hampshire RERP does not provide a " reasonable assurance The New adequate prmtective measures can and will be taken in the event of a that 50.47(a)(1). in that radiological emergency," as required by 10 C.F.R.
the plan does not provide reasonable assurance that sheltering is an
" adequate protective measure" for Seabrook.
Nor does the plan provide adequate criteria for the choice between protective measures, as required by 5 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654. 5 II.J.10.tn.
FWA RESPONSE to Revised Town of Hanoton Contention VIII to Revision 2 (of the New Hamosnare RCRP f or Seabrook), SAPL Contention 16, and NEGP Contention i
RERF-8 These three contentions all deal with what is fundamentally the sane issue: protection frcn a radiological release for beach-going population at Seabrook who do not have ready access to any ef fective form of sheltering.
j Ris group includes both ". day-trippers to the beach and those persons who only have access to unwinteri ad or other types of construction which will offer a lesser degree of protection than that offered by standard residential or ccreercial buildings.
I This issue has been of great concern to FEFA from our Backcround earliest detailed involvement with the preparation of plans and the achieve-ment of a level of emergency preparedness which would achieve our regulatory standard set for that 44 CFR 350.5 of adequately protecting the public health and safety by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency at the Seabrook Naclear Power Plant.
In December 1985 the State of thw Hampshire submitted plans for protecting the public in the event of an accident at Seabrook to FD4A for review pur-suant to 44 CFR 350. Rose plans were forwarded for review by the Begional Assistance Comittee (RAC), an interagency group established pursuant to 44 CFR 350 to both assist state and local government in the develo;rnent of radiological emergency response plans and to evaluate the adequacy of such plans. Ch December 31,1985, FEK4, as chair of the RAC, requested that the nenbers of the PAC (as well as the other FEMA staff who were reviewing the thw Hampshire Plans) irrediately focus on the issue of the protection of beach population and the occupants of unwinterized acecrmodations. Ris menorandum is attached as Appendix C to this response to interrogatories.
Since the time of our December 31, 1985, mercrandum FD4A Position on the sub]ect of the protection of the public on and near the beaches around Seabrcok, the State of thw Hampshire has refined and !metoved its emergency plans and subnitted a detailed Evacuation Time Enimate which sheds a considerable amount of light on this issue. h e fiets relevant to understanding this issue are that:
I
..________ - _ _ a
i 39.
?TDC:o CCEL'TICE: R '. c-8 (Cont. )
(1) We primary guidance document used by FD% and the PAC in reviewing off-s ite emergency plans is NURD3-0654, FD% PIP-1, Rev.1, a document jointly developed by FD% and the NRC. Rat guidance document indicates on p.13 that "(t)he range of times between the onset of accident conditions and the start of a major release is of the order of one-half hour to several hours". n is statement is further clarified on p.17, Table 2 to indicate that (a) the major portion of a release may occur in a time period ranging frczn as little as one-half hour to one day af ter the release begins and (b) that the travel time of the release to exposure point can range frcm one-half hour to two hours at five miles, and one hour to four hours at ten miles.
(2) on peak smmer days there are thousands of beachgoers in the Seabrook EPZ in areas beginning approximately 1.7 miles from the plant. he current New nampshire plans contemplate evacuating the many thousands of beachgoers who have access to no adequate shelter as a protective action in the event of an accident at Seabrook.
We understand that the plans contain no consideration of sheltering the " day trippers" because on sunmer days when there are a large number of these people, it is not possible to find reasonably accessible shelter for them. D ere are an additional number of persons who would be in or have access only to shelter in unwinter-ized cottages and motel rooms. D e protecticn afforded by sheltering in these structures will definitely be less than that afforded by a nomal wood frame house s (3) ne Evacuation Time Estimate for the Seabrook EP2 subnitted by the
,e State of New Ha pshire indicates at pp.10-1 et.sec. that in good weather when the beaches are at 60 to 100 percent of capacity it will take three and one-half hours to clear the beaches, and a total of from four hours and fifty minutes to five hours and fifty minutes to evacuate all the population on the beaches from the EP2.
In scne situations such as sudden bad weather follcwing a peak smmer day, the total evacuation time for portions of the EPZ range up to seven hours and fifty minutes.
merefore, using the standard guidance for the initiation and duration of radiological releases, and the currer,t New Hampshire RERP including ETE, it appears that thousands of people could be unable to leave during an accident at Seabrook involving a major release of radioactivity without adequate shelter for as much as the entire duration of that release.
Therefore, until these issues are resolved even if all the other inadequacies and deficiencies cited in the PAC Reviews of the New Hanpshire Plans, and the Review of the Exercise of these plans were to be corrected, FDR would not be able to conclude that the New Hanpshire State and local plans to protect the public in the event of an accident at the Seabrook Nuclear Ibwer Plant are adequate to meet our regulatory standard that such plans
' adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reasonable cssurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the ovent of a radiological emergency."
(See, 44 CFR 350.S(b)).
I n