ML20235A816
| ML20235A816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1988 |
| From: | Dignan T, Dingan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5318 OL, NUDOCS 8801130052 | |
| Download: ML20235A816 (103) | |
Text
_ _ - -- __ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ .
.h$lf '
f ,
Dated: January 89} O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g g jj g.y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE 0i- SELM TA6 /
before the 00CKE11NG A SERV!CE BRANCH ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRB,-et al. ) (Off-site Emergency
) Planning Issues)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 )
and 2) )
)
MOTION FOR ORDER ( AND/OR SUBPOENAS)
REQUIRING ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF PARTICULAR NAMED NRC EMPLOYEES Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.720(h) (2), Applicants request that'this Board issue an order (and/or subpoenas in the forms submitted herewith) for the attendance and testimony of Robert J. Bores, Technical Assistant, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, Region I, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and William J. Lazarus, Emergency Preparedness Section Chief, Region I, Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the hearing in the above-captioned proceeding before this Board.
Section 2.720(h) (2) provides that:
the presiding officer may, upon a showing of exceptional circumstances, such as a case in which a particular named NRC employee has direct personal knowledge of a material fact not known to the witnesses made available by the Executive Director for Operations require the attendance and testimony of named NRC personnel.
88011300528!00 43 3 DR ADOCK O PDR gb0
The two above-named NRC personnel authored memoranda which were recently made available by counsel for the NRC, upon demand by the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. These documents are attached hereto as Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.*
The memoranda of Messrs. Bores'and Lazarus appear to be I
in conflict with certain testimony of FEMA's lead witness on various points.
The lead FEMA witness has testified that the position of
.the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) on the so-called
" beach shelter issue" in this proceeding had been favorable to the position of the Applicants except for readily solvable concerns, until certain information was " withdrawn" by one of the agencies represented on the RAC. II. 3114-17. That agency turned out,to be NRC. II. 3120 (answering question f posed at II. 3117).
l FEMA's lead witness described the " withdrawn" information as being information "which we had relied upon very, very heavily," II. 3114, in reaching the previous, and l favorable to Applicants, position on the beach shelter issue. ;
He further described it as "a chunk that we had used to reach i
., a collegial result in the RAC." II. 3115. FEMA's lead witness further described the substance of the " withdrawn" information as follows:
The two substantive memoranda are Enclosures 1 and 2 y to a covering memorandum which appears as the first page of Appendix A.
A (Thomas) The information which was provided and was later withdrawn, the details of that have already been served on the parties in this proceeding. There are two letters from Dr.
Robert J. Bores on behalf of the NRC. I believe the second letter is signed by his supervisor, T.
T. Martin, for him, but they are both from Dr.
Bores, that set for (sic) NRC's positions.
The difference in these was that, in the first position which was a substantial nart of the RAC consensus of all nine agencies talked to the essential fact, or talked to what was put forward as a fact that the times to a release, the probability of a release at Seabrook were much, much lower than envisaged in the appropriate sections of NUREG-0654. We often refer to that as the containment issue. The containment is just absolutely enormous. It's our understanding it's the strongest in the world. And that the times that are listed in NUREG for the initiation of a release, the duration of release, and even in fact the severity of the release are dramatically different for Seabrook than they are for ether sites. (emphasis added)
O Where did you get the information which you have just related about Seabrook containment?
A (Thomas) I am elaborating on the information which was provided by the NRC il Dr.
Bores' first letter which I think is dated February 18, 1987, or thereabouts.
Q And your testimony then, if I may paraphrase it, is that it was the information about the containment which was offered and later withdrawn?
A (Thomas) In essence, the -- yes, the basis of it is the containment and the implications of the containment were withdrawn, yes.
II. 3159-60.
He further testified:
Q Do I understand from our conversation this afternoon that had NRC not withdrawn this information you have referred to, that the FEMA position would not have changed?
l k
[Colloquyj THE WITNESS: (Thomas) Again, I'm sorry I can't give a simple' answer to you. Forgive me FEMA never developed -- as I understand your question, FEMA never developed a position-per.se as ,
an agency concerning the beach population other i than that which is articulated -- was first i articulated on June 4th. '
k What I had indicated to vou was that the "
recional aggistance committee, of which FEMA is a member, had reach.ed concruence on a cosition. it '
had not yet been adopted by FEMA, and that may be a source of misunderstanding to you formerly in your question. (emphasis added)
BY MR. DIGNAN:
Q All right. Let me ask the question this way. I understand you are being very precise.
If I have-heard yon correctly, had NRC not withdrawn this information, the RAC position, as far as you are aware, would have remained the same as it was bafore that withdrawals is that correct?
A (Thontan) Yes,.that is exactly ccrrect.
Q Now is it fair to say that in all likelihood had that occurred the FEMA position would have been that of the RAC?
[ Colloquy)
THE WITNESS: (Thomas) I'm chairman of the Region 1 RAC, not the head.
I think that is fair to say.
II. 3169-70.
On the other hand, Mr. Bores in his memorandum appears to state that the " withdrawn" information had no bearing upon the previously reached, favorable to Applicants, RAC position, and that the misapprehension (or misunderstanding) 4-
..: u- n-_a_--- a-----:m,,..a -----am--.t---s-w__--a-----a_-.---,~ax--xm-_--__ _ - - _ _------s----.-a-__ -------- - - - - - _ - - - - , - - - _ - < - _ _ - _ . _ _ - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - _ . - , , _ _ - - -
of FEMA's lead witness as to the importance of the
" withdrawn" information had been fully explained to FEMA's lead witness as early as April 15, 1987, well before the
" withdrawal" of the information:
- 5. On-April 15, 1987, FEMA I convened a RAC meeting to discuss this paper and to address any questions of the RAC members, FEMA I or the FEMA contractor on this paper. The meeting was attended by me, W. Lazarus and J.
Schumacher of the NRC; several FEMA staff including Mr. Thomas, J. Dolan, L. Robertson, B. Swiren, and K. Horak; R. Rospenda, ANL-contractor; P. Lutz, DOT; B. Keene, EPA:I; W.
Church, FDA; D. Nevitt, USDA; H. Fish, DOE; and two representatives of NOAA.
l l
Mr. Thomas stated that it was his understanding that the position of my paper was that the NH Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NH RERP) was gensrally adequate, except for the beach population, but with the added features, such as the strong r.ontainment, other safety systems, low probability of early radiological releases, etc., the NH RERP was also adequcte for the beach population. I addressed this ooint by savina that Mr. Thomas's understanding was incorrect. My paper states that the NH RERP was adequate in general, including for the beach population. The specific containment-l and plant features cited in my paper were in addition to and not necessary for, the NH RERP provisions making the plan adequate. The RAC accepted the above oosition, as representing their views on the beach issues. Minor changes were suggested by NOAA to reflect the possibility of recirculating a portion of a radiological plume over the beach area as a result of some sea breeze situations. They further indicated that such recirculation would result in huge dilutions of plume concentrations prior to the recirculation to the beach areas. (first and last emphasis supplied)
Because several representatives had some difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of one paragraph dealing with risk l
l I
I consequences, I suggested that I would revise the wording to clarify the intended meaning.
With above suggested changes and a slight modification to the ANL proposed RAC Review Spreadsheets (see memo 4/22/87, Rospenda to Ed Thomas (Attachment 10) and my letter to Ed Thomas dated 4/24/87 (Attachment 11), the RAC unanimously (including FEMA) adopted my position paper as their position paper relative to the beach issues. (See Draft FEMA testimony dated 5/6/87, citing the RAC position paper (undated) and wording from my paper (Attachment 12).) Mr. Thomas stated j that he felt very comfortable in supporting this position for the hearings.
- 6. Following the 4/15/87 RAC meeting, the ASLB issued its MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on April 22, 1987 relative to the denial of granting Public Service of New Hampshire a one-mile plume EPZ for Scabrook site. In addition, since the BNL
" containment studies" were still being reviewed by the NRC, the NRC staff recommended that I delete reference to the site specific plant and containment features in the paper which I had previously submitted to FEMA on
~
2/18/87. This recommendation was made because the referenced information was H2t the basis of the adequate finding for the beach population (See discussion on 4/15/87 RAC meeting.) and could result in unnecessary litigation on probability issues. As a res"It, the suggested revisions were made, rece /ed NRC staff concurrence, and were submitted to FEMA I on June 4, 1987 (Attachment 13). (emphasis in original)
Aobendix h, p. 2.
FEMA's lead witness has also testified as to certain events which occurred at a RAC meeting of July 30, 1987, held to discuss the FEMA position on the beach sheltering issue taken in an answer to an interrogatory of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which answer was filed under date of July 5, 1987, and has been filed essentially verbatim as FEMA's prefiled testimony herein on l
l
l the beach sheltering issue. In particular, FEMA's lead l witness has testified as follows as to the question of 1
whether any formal or informal votes were taken at the meeting and as to the natute of the " consensus" reached by the participants in that meeting on the beach sheltering
(
l 1ssue:
l Q Mr. Thomas, now after the position was published, you said the RAC then discussed the position, is that correct?
A (Thomas) Yes, sir, it is.
Q And in that discussion, was there any attempt to reach what you referred to earlier, as a consensus as to whether the RAC concurred in the position as published?
A (Thomas) Yes, sir, there was.
Q There was an attempt made, and was a consensus reached?
A (Thomaa) No, sir, it was not. (emphasis added)
Q Was a vote taken of any kind?
A (Thomas) No, sir, it was not. (emphasis added)
The decision was reached by the RAC, well, there was a decision reached by consensus, and I don't want to mislead you.
The decision reached by consensus was that we were not ready to decide the day of_the RAC meetino that FEMA was coina to ao back, lcok acain at the ,
documents, and look again at information that was I provideM to us by one of the Agencies that day and J think about some of the discussion topics that had I come up in the RAC, and revisit that issue, at some l later date. (emphasis added) )
I II. 3122-23. l l
s I
i Q Okay.
Did that NRC member, at that meeting, express disagreement with the position that FEMA had taken?
A (Thomas) Yes, sir.
Q Did any other member of the RAC express disagreement with the FEMA position?
A (Thomas) I c.m thinking.
Q Take your time.
(Pause.)
THE WITNESS (Thomas): I have to answer your cuestion as beina no. And let me be, but again, I don't want to mislead you. (emphasis added)
There were a lot of very pointed questions directed at FEMA. Disagreement, I would have to say, no. But there certainly were -- I don't want to be accused of misleading you -- there certainly were a number of RAC members who had a lot of questions in their mind that they felt needed to be resolved before they would endorse that position. (emphasis added)
Tr. 3124-25.
Q No, I said, anybody, but let's ha sure that the record is clear for both of our sakes.
The NRC member, in fact, did take the positian that the FEMA announced position, included or constituted a wrongful interpretation of NUREG 0654, is that correct? ;
A (Thomas) Again, let me think about that I for just a minute.
Q Fine.
A (Thomas) The answer to your question, is yes.
Q Did any other member of the RAC, understand that you have probably answered this, but I know that you want it clear as I do, did any h
other member of the RAC, take that same position with you?
A (Thomas) No , sir.
Q Did any other member of the RAC. Whether or not they took a cosition with you. indicate concurrence in the NRC cosition? (emphasis added)
A (Thomas) No, sir. (emphasis added)
Tr. 3126.
Q Mr. Thomas, was there any informal show of hands by the RAC, whether or not you asked for it?
A (Thomas) Not'to the best of my l recollection. (emphasis added)
The closest thina that I can remember anythina that would even resemble a show of hands was prior to adiournina the meetina we did have concurrence.
I don't -- I really don't think.it was a show of hands. That's not normally our way of doing business. That we would defer further consideration of the matter that was not an opportunity to reach consensus that day, and we'd have to think about it, and develon some additional materials for the RAC. and thina about it another time. (emphases added)
But I iust honestly don't recall any show of hands. (emphasis added)
Q Do you have any recollection of whether an NRC member of that RAC asked for a vote?
A (Thomas) My verv. verv strono recollection is that there was not a reauest for a vote. I certainly don't remember an NRC remember (sic) specifically askina for a vote. (emphasis added)
II. 5106-07.
JUDGE SMITH: Would it be that a particular agency on the RAC without any special interest or s
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ =
\
expertise in the issue at hand would say, well, we don't care, or something like that? Ycu know, we just have no position. Does that happen?
THE WITNESS: l (Thomas) That certainly would happen. An individual agency might. shrug, or an individual agency might say, well, we think that the i Department of Transportation knows a lot more about the (
Coast Guard and air exclusion zones and things like j that, so wn will defer to them, and that would be a form-of consensus.
Or an agency may say, well, obviously FF3A knows a lot more about emergency preparedness $
planning and beach sheltering, so we'll defer to l them. It would depend upon the particular context. !
l The beach shelter position was a little bit different than what had normally been done because 1 we had never finalized a RAC position. This was left up in the air in the most recent RAC review.
The RAC had acreed on a consensas oogitipn that, in ,
essence, that we iust didn't have enouah information to make a iudament. We just weren't sure whether or not this was a problem. That was the most recent and current RAC position on the j matter, and that can be seen in the RAC review I under J-10-M and J-9. (emphasis added)
The Board had asked us to develop a position )
on all of the contentions by early June, and based ]
upon the information we had at that time, we felt !
that FEMA had sufficient information to develop a 3 position even without full concurrence of the RAC.
We had enough information in front of us at that time. We had ample input. We have been talking 1 about this literally for years, and we developed a position, and then sent it out to the RAC members i after the position was developed. I Following that, we had a meeting July 30th, and I recall no reauests for a vote. The only consensus --
the closest thina to a vote was that we reached a l consensus we iust simolv weren't aoina to aet anywhere i that particular day, and that we were coina to have to I think about this some more and come back and hit at it !
another time. (emphasis added) j And we have not done that in the intervening period of time, because essentially all the FEMA resources that are available for this have been tied up in this hearing.
s 1
r Does that help Your ilonor understasid?
II. 5112.
Q All right, without making the Reporter going back that far, I will try it again.
My question to you is, sir, is it your testimony under oath, before this Board, that when you left the RAC meeting that we have been discussing, you had no way of knowing whether or not a maj ority of the RAC agreed with your position?
A (Thomas) No, that is not ny testimony.
Q All right, did you know whether a taajority of the RAC agreed with your position?
A (Thomas) As I have previously testified, and I testify here today, there were a fair number of RAC members whc he;d indi.cated that_gt least they ;
.were coino_to need to review the situat' ion and have more material gresented to them, before they could coppur in the cosition or the findinas that FEMA had made, that have been submitted as testimony or i vill be_ submitted as testimony in this uro'ceedina.
(emphasis added)
The -- what was clear to me, was that we had more work to do on this,.were the RAC to reach a consensus position one way or the other, or may I say, change the consensus positioC that had been reached as a part of the Pecember 1986 RAC review, which had left this as an area of unclarity and sort of a question mark in the RAC's mind.
II. 5110-19.
Q Mr. Thomas, my question is very simple.
Is it your testimony to this Board, that when you walked out of that RAC meeting, you, Ed Thomas, had no idea whether or not the majority of the RAC agreed with your position?
And I believe that you can answer that yes, or no,
3 I
I i
and then explain it any way that you would like.
s A (Thomas) I thought that I had already answered that, no, that is not my testimony.
.I Q All right. I
)
Is it your testimony that no show of hands or other objective demonstration of position had been by the members of the RAC before you left that room?
A (Thomas) No, that is not my testimony.
]
Q So then some sort of objective demonstration of position was taken by the members of the RAC before you left that room?
A (Thomas) Yes, that is my testimony.
Q Well, what was that objective demonstration?
A (Thomas) As best as I -- first of all, i the obiective demonstration concerned a consensus position _that we would not be able to reach a conclusion on 1he matter that day. And that we would have to defer consideration of this for another time. (emphasis added)
I do not believe that the objective demonstration of that consensus was by a show of hands. I don't recall,that. (emphasis added) !
What I recall instead, was the usual way that we proceed, which is for the chairman to state a position or one of the other members state a position and then determine if everyone is essentially in agreement with that.
I don't believe that it was by a show of hands, I believe that it was by people nodding their heads, or saying yes, or no. (emphasis added)
Q Mr. Thomas --
A (Thomas) Excuse me, please.
My testimony, sir, is that there was a consensus that was reached, that we would not be able to conclude the matter that day. (emphasis added)
-__--------._---u
J Q- Mr. Thomas, I am convinced that I am a j terrible interrogator.
I fully understand that a consensus was reached that no position would be taken that day. 4 i
My earlier questions to you were on the. i question of whether or not you understood whether a 1 majority of people agreed or disagreed with the .
position that. FEMA was espousing. I I understand that'you decided that no consensus could be reached that day. i My question to you, sir, is,'are you telling this j Board,. that when yott walked out of that RAC meeting, you had no means of knowing whether or not, in fact, that ] ;
day, a major.ity of the RAC agreed with the position that l FIMA was taking?
JUDGE SMITH: Whether you believe that that I question is a fair one or not, answer it, if you can.
l And FEMA will have all the opportunity that I
they want to explain why that is not the proper question to be asked. But nevertheless, for right now, answer it, if you can.
THE WITNESS (Thomas): Your Honor, perhaps I am missing something.
I thought that I had already answered that question twice.
JUDGE SMITH: Just try yes, or no, and then see if that might satisfy somebody?
MR. OLESKEY: He did, Your Honor, he said, no, twice.
JUDGE SMITH: Is that fact, is that the answer?
THE WITNESS (Thomas): Could I expound on it?
Let me say that no, that is not my testimony.
Rather, instead, what I am saying is that I had a sense, I and I had thought that I had said this, I had a sense that the laajority of the RAC had at least a lot of questions on the fella position. Certainly a majority of the members who were present there that day.
I
And the direct response to Mr. Dignan's question is, no, it is not my testimony that I did not know whether or not a majority of the people agreed with us.
It was auite clear to me, that a maiority of the oeople djd not acree with the FEMA position. (emphasis added)
As I said, at least thev thoucht that they needed a lot more information. (emphasis added)
JUDGE SMITH: Okay, if you have answered that way before, then you are entitled to an apology. I just simply did not hear it before.
THE WITNESS (Thomas): I apologize.
That was what I was trying to say. I am not trying -- I have tried to be as forthcoming as I can about this situation and we have nothing to hide, and I am not trying to hide anything.
Ir. 5120-23.
The foregoing should be contrasted with the statements of Messrs. Bores and Lazarus in their memoranda as to what occurred. Mr. Bores says:
- 9. On July 30, FEMA:I convened the RAC to discuss a number of items (7/2/87 memo from E. Thomas to RAC (Attachment 16) and agenda for 7/30/87 RAC meeting (Attachment 17)). NRC attendees were R. Bores, W. Lazarus and J. S6humacher; FEMA attendees included E. Thomas, J. Dolan, B. Swiren; FEMA contractor, R. Rospenda ( ANL) ;
DOE, H. Fish; DOT, P. Lutz; EPA, B. Keene; FDA, W. Church; and Dept. of Agriculture, D.
Nevitt. Dept. of Commerce (NOAA) was not represented.
After discussing the other items on the agenda, E. Thomas apologized for not consulting the RAC prior to pre-filing the testimony on June 5, 1987, but said there wasn't time to do so and still meet the filing deadline. He further explained that FEMA, not FEMA:I had taken the position that the NH plans were not adequate to protect the beach population because the "NRC had changed their ,
position" in revising their response to his 12/31/85 memorandum. He said the plant specific items removed from the position paper
I by the NRC in its 6/4/87 revision were crucial to a FEMA finding of adequacy. In the discussion that ensued, the DOT representative stated to Mr. Thomas. "You have a problem!"
Then. "We have a oroblem that we need to come tocether on." He said that whether or not the ppner discussed the specific olant features did not chance the facts of the construction.
He felt that the olans were adeauate and the best he had reviewed. Similar responses were provided by DOE, EPA and HHS. DOT also questioned the "high" numbers of beach goers that were supposed to use the beaches in the summer. He stated that on three separate weekends he traveled the full length of the beaches and observed only a few hundred people on the beaches on each occasion. Egg representatives reiterated that the basis of the position caper rested on the features of the NH olans and not on the olant features.
The NH plans were adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the beach population could be protected given a serious accident at Seabrook Station. In effect, 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.
Mr. Thomas then stated that FEMA's measure _gf
" reasonable assurance" dif fered from tilat_p_f 4 the NRC and from that stated in the FEMA /NRC response to the Dianan memo. (emphases added)
Mr. Lazarus asked Mr. Thomas to take a RAC vote on the succort of RAC for the creviousiv adopted position paper. Mr. Thomas declined to do so. Mr. Lazarus then colled the RAC membership. Each of the acencigs represented.,
with the exception of FEMA and their contractor. indicated that they succorted the previously adopted position as modified by mv June 4. 1987 letter. (emphasis added)
Mr. Thomas stated that the contractor (ANL) would provide some alternative wording proposals to the RAC membership for both the position paper and the FEMA pre-filed position. He said the RAC would then have another opportunity to comment on them and reconvene for resolution of the beach issue.
The meeting was then ended.
Anoendix A at pp. 3-4.
Mr. Lazarus says:
The second meeting was held on July 30, 1987 to discuss the issue in light of the changes to the NRC RAC comments. The same RAC members were in attendance less the NOAA representatives. At this meeting Mr. Thomas clearly cointed out that he was ionorant of any of the technical aspects of nuclear power, indicating that he depended upon the technical expertise of the RAC members. The elimination of reference to site specific design features appeared to be particularly troublesome to Ed Thomas. Durina the meetino I Dointed out that elimination of the site soecific information reaardina_ plant desian featurec should have no bearina on a findina of adecuacy for the Plan because those features only imoacted the probability of an accident. Since emergency plans must provide for protection from a .
spectrum of accidents without regard to their !
probability, that we must assume that an accident happens and then determine whether the plans provide reasonable assurance of protection. On the issue of sheltering, which was discussed at length, I pointed out that f sheltering only provides about a 10% reduction in dose for a fast breaking accident, and would not be depended upon for protection in a severe fast breaking accident, which was the scenario which appeared to be Ed Thomas' principle concern. I then asked Mr. Thomas to poll the RAC members to determine whether they felt that the New Hampshire RERP orovide reasonable assurance that beach Doculation would be protected. He declined, so I asked for a show of hands for my own information.
All those cresent excent FEMA indicated that they found the olans to be adeauate with resoect to the beach coeulation (apoarently acreeina that reliance on shelterina for the beach oooulation in the case of a serious release was not anoropriate). At that point Mr. Thoman indicated that he was tired and wanted to adjourn the meeting. He would take into account our discussions and have the FEMA contractor rework the RAC position on the issue and send it out for comment. With that in mind the meeting was adjourned. He did not follow up on his commitment to provide a
_-u-____._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
k revised position to the RAC for review and comment and instead drafted'his own input, largely ignoring the RAC comments from the meeting. (emphases added)
Appendix B at pp. 2-3.
It is to be noted that in the first of the two last-above-quoted items, Mr. Bores states that FEMA's lead witness has apparently taken the position with the RAC that " FEMA's measure of ' reasonable assurance' differed from that of NRC."
It appears from these memoranda that Messrs. Bores and Lazarus have unique personal knowledge of facts beari;ig upon the development of FEMA's position on the beach shelter issues, the events at RAC meetings, and the bases, underlying the original, favorable to Applicants, position of the RAC and the subsequent negative position submitted in FEMA's prefiled testimony. Testimony on these matters is directly relevant to the question of whether the rebuttable presumption accorded a FEMA position should be allowed to stand with respect to the beach shelter issue.
CONCLUSION I
An order (and, if the Board deems necessary, subpoenac in the form attached hereto) should issue directing Messrs.
Bores and Lazarus to appear and testify as to the following matters:
- 1. The importance of the so-called " withdrawn" i
information to the original, favorable to Applicants, )
position taken by the RAC on the so-called beach sheltering I
issue. l
- 2. The time at which the importance, or lack thereof, of.the so-called " withdrawn" information was explained to l
FEMA's lead witness and the RAC (and the position as to its importance'taken at RAC meetings by the various members of the RAC).
- 3. The events which occurred at the RAC meeting of July 30, 1987, in particular the question of votes taken formally or informally as to the so-called beach sheltering issue and l the form of " consensus" reached at the meeting.
- 4. Any statements made by FEMA's lead witness as to the compatibility of FEMA's position as to what constitutes
" reasonable assurance" with NRC's position. !
- 5. Any statements made by FEMA's lead witness as to his technical competence to judge the importance of the so-called
" withdrawn" information to the original, favorable to Applicants, RAC position.
By their attorneys, hv Thomas G.eDtVti5n, Jr.
George H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 f
1 hitch 9tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v
i i
In the matter of: Public Service Company of j New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
> DOCKET NO. 50-4 4 3-OL 50-444-OL TO Robert J. Bores (Offsite Emergency Planning Technical Assistant Issues) i Division of Radiation Safety and * !
Safeguards NRC Region I i YO U ARE H EREBY COM M AN D ED to a ppear . .. . . ... . ............. ..... ............ .... .........
in the city of .. ..... . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o n th e.... . .. .. . .. day of.. .... . . . .. . ....I9.........at....... . .......... 0' clock i M.
to testify on behalf of . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
in the above entitled action and bring with you the documeat(s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD LY i
i ATTORNEY FOR , ..19... . . I
)i l
TELEPHONE j l
l 10 C.F.R. 2.720 (f) onsusing ofpcar or. of he is unwansasse, the On monon made promptiv. and m any ewnt Communon may (l) quenN or modify the anb~
of or befoN the nme specified in the subpoena poena if it is unnssonable or neuires evidence for complannte by the peraen to whom the sub- not nievent to any matter m Lanur. or (2) con-poenn is dsretted. and on notice to the party at denon densat of the monon on lust and nanonable l
- ose nnstance the subporne mes issued. the trenu.
RETURN ON SERVICE Received this * .ibpoena a t............. .......... .......................................................on
....................................andon........................at........................................... j served i t o n the w i thin na med .... . .. . .. . . ... .... . .. .. . . . . .. .. ... .. ... . .. .. .. .... ... .. .... ... .... ... . . {
by delivering a copy to h..... and tendering to h... . the fee for one day's i
attendance and the mileage allow rd by law.1 D a t ed .. . . . . . ... ... . . . ... . . .. .. . . . . I 9.. . . BY.....................................................
Service Fees Tra v el .. ... .. . ... . . .. . . . . . S Services....... ......... . ... S To 1s 1. . . .. ... . .. . .. .... .. . . 5 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a ................ ...........this.... .........................
da y o f.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ,1 9 . . .. . . . .
/
NOTE - Affidavit required only if service is made by a person other than a United States Marshal or his deputy.
A Fees and matere need not be tendered to the warness upon sernce of a subporose & in behalf of the Unteed Sures or en officer or neancy thereof, 28 USC 182J
Unitch 9tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C
In the matter of: Public Service Company of New ifampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
> DOCKET NO. 50-4 4 3-OL 50-444-OL TO William J. Lazarus . (Offsite Emergency Planning Emergency Preparedness Section Chief NRC Region I d Issues)
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
in the city of . .. . . . . . .. .
cn the.... . . . . .. day of.. . . . . . ... .I 9.. ..... ..at... . . .. ... . 0' clock 1 M.
to testify on behalf of . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
in the above entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
BY ORDER OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY ATTORNEY FOR
.19.. .-
TELIPilONE 10 C.F.R. 2.720 (f) pres ding oftscer or. If he is unvaaabse, the On monon made promptly. and In any esent Ccmmssnon may (1) quash or mod.'fy the sub-at or before the vsme spresised in the subpoena poena of it t,s unrrawnabbt or requires evedence
[tw complance by the person to whom the sub -
not relevant to en v matter en assur. or (2) con-poena is dwrcled and on nortti to the party at donon denal of the monon on lust and reawnable manone anstance the subcorna mes esturd, the terms
1 RETURN ON SERVICE Re ceived t his s u bpoena a t .. ...... .. ..... . ... . . . .. .. .. .. ... . .. ..... .... . .. .. .. . . . ....... . ... ..........o n j ..................................andon............................at................................................
served i t o n the w i thin na med .. ....... .... ............ . .. . .. .......... ...... ..... ..... ........ ....... .... .
l by delivering a copy to h..... and tendering to h..... the fee for one day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law.2 D a t ed .. .. ......... .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . I 9. .. . . BY....................................................
1 l
l Service Fees :
Tra vel .. .... .. ... ..... .. ... . 5 Fervices.. ... .............. S l
To ta I... .. . ...... ........ .. . S 1 Subscribed and sw orn to before me. a ................... .........this......... ........ ...........
da y o T. ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . I 9. . .. . . .
/
1 NOTE - Affidaiit required only if senice is made by a person other than a United States !
Marshal or his deputy.
l l
1 I
A Fres and mikage nord not be tendered to the wstness upon servuce of a subpoena tanued in behstf of the Untred States or an officer or neney therwof. 28 USC 2823
-____.--____________-.--______J
pm anou
/ jo, UNITED STATES
! " 3 ,. c (' ,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION <
- / e REGloN 1 o, [ $31 PARK AVENUE
%, ...../ KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 OCT 15 138'l pet:0RANDUM FOR: Shemin E. Turk, Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney, OGC FROM: Robert J. Bores Technical Assistant, DRSS, Region I
SUBJECT:
SEAER00K BEACH POPULATION ISSUES As you have requested I have prepared a sumary of my involvement in the above issues and in particular the RAC meetings dealing with those issues. My l summary entitled "The Seabrook NH Beach Population Issues" with its attach- .
ments is Enclosure 1 to this memo. Mr. William Lazarus has provided his l summary with respect to the RAC meetings as Enclosure 2. Mr. John Schumacher also attended those meetings and may be able to provide his recollections on them sometime later. Enclosure 3 provides some excerpts from NRC testimony for the October 6,1986 Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Hearing ~
on Seabrook Licensing Issues (Questions 2, 14 and 15). This may also be of some use to you.
It should be noted that I have not provided you copies of my detailed coments ,
as proviced to the RAC on the New Hampshire state and local plans. Those comments probably constituted about 60 to 75% of the coments received from - ,
all the RAC members and the contractor and were adopted by RAC about 90 to 95%
of the time. ,,
't Robert J. Bores Technical Assistant Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated
R. BORES TECH ASSIST WT DRSS, REGION I THE SEABROOK NH BEACH F0PULATION ISSUE
- 1. The Seabrook beach population issue was raised years ago during the construction phase of the Secbrook Station project. When the offsite plans for the site were first submitted to FEMA by New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for technical review in 1982, FEMA:I and the technical reviewers (several RAC members including me and the FEMA contractor) were sensitive to beach population concerns. In revisions to the New Hampshire state and locci plans for tne Seabrook site, New Hampshire addressed each identified concern and with very few, if any exceptions, those concerns were resolved.
- 2. On 12/31/85 in a memorandum to the RAC (Attachment 1), Edaard Thomas of FEMA:I asked the RAC members to individually address the adequacy of the plans to protect the transient beach population and those persons who occupied unwinterized accommodations in the Seabrook beach areas.
Several RAC members responded to this memo. The NRC attempted to respond generically to the requirements of emergency planning and interpretations thereof in the letter of June 18, 1986 from Ed Christenbury, NRC, to Spence Perry, FEMA, confirming the NRC and FEMA positions relative to the "Dignan Memorandum" (Attachment 2). (See also letter from Edward Thomas te Robert Boulay (Massachusetts) deted July 9, 1986 (Attachment 3) and meno from Spence Perry to Edward Thomas dated June 25, 1986 (Attachment
- 4) confiming the FEMA position.)
- 3. Since the Christenbury letter was generic and did not address the specific beach issues in the Thomas memo of 12/31/85, FEMA:I felt it needed more specific information from the NRC RAC member. To satisfy this apparent need, 1 volunteered to address these issues. In addition I was again assigned as the NRC RAC representative for the Seabrook site.
(See memoranoum from W. Lazarus, NRC:I to Edward Thomas, FEMA:1, dated 1/16/87, Attachment 5 end Attachment 6. RAC Membership for Region I). I generated a puition paper addressing the issues raised in the 12/31/85 Thomas menio, discussing the basic requirements, the guidance, the submitted plans, RAC's comments on those plans, site features and general conclusions on those issues. This position paper received limited NRC:1 review anc underwent minor revisions as a result. FEMA:I asked for and received an opportunity to review the document before submission. Minor word changes were made in two paragraphs to accomodate the FEMA suggestions. The position paper was transmitted to FEMA in a letter dated 2/18/87 from rce (R. Bores) to Edward Thomas (Attachment 7).
ENCLOSURE 1
2 R. BORES TECH ASSISTANT ORSS, REGION 1
- 4. In a memorandum to the RAC dated March 2,1987 Mr. Thomas requested comments on my paper as well as on other submitted RAC positions on the beach issues. My respcnse (Attachment 8) and that of ANL (At";achment 9) were reviewed at the subsequent meeting on April 15, 1987.
- 5. On April 15, 1987, FEMA I convened a RAC meeting to discuss this paper and to address any questions of the RAC members, FEMA 1 or the FEMA cuntractor en this paper. The meeting was attended by me, W. Lazarus and J. Schumacher of the NRC; several FEMA staff including Mr. Thomas, J.
Dolan, L. Robertson, B. Swiren and K. Horak; R. Rospenda, ANL-cont-actor; P. Lutz, DOT; B. Keene, EPA:I; W. Church, FDA; D. Nevitt, USDA; H. Fish, DOE; and two representatives of NOAA.
Mr. Thomas stated that it was his understanding that the position of my paper was that the NH Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NH RERP) was generally adequate, except for the beach population, but with the added features, such as the strong containn,ent, other safety systems, low probability of early radiological releases, etc., the NH RERP was also adequate for the beach populaticn. I addressed this point by saying that Mr. Thomas's understanding was incorrect. My paper states that the NH RERP was adequate in general, including for the beach population. The specific certainment and plant features cited in my paper were h eccition to and not necessary for, the NH RERP provisions making the pian adequate. The RAC accepted the above position, as representing their views on the beach issues. Minor changes were suggested by NOAA to reflect the possibility of recirculating a portion of a radiological plume over the beach area as a result of some sea breeze situations.
They further indicated that such recirculation would result in huge dilutions of plume concentrations prior to the recirculation to the beach areas.
Because several representatives had some difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of one paragraph dealing with risk consequences I suggested that I would revise the wording to clarify the intended meaning. With above suggested changes and a slight modification to the ANL proposed RAC Review Spreadsheets (see memo 4/22/87, Rospenda to Ed Thomas (Attachment 10) and my letter to Ed Thomas dated 4/24/87 (Attachment 11), the F,AC unanimously (including FEMA) adopted my position paper as their position paper relative to the beach issues. (See Draft FEMA testimony dated 5/6/87, citing the RAC position paper (undated) and wording from my paper (Attachment 12).) Mr. Thomas stated that he felt very comfortable in supporting this position for the hearings.
l l
l 3 R. BORES TECH ASSISTANT DRSS, REGION I
- 6. Following the 4/15/87 RAC meeting, the ASLB issued its MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on April 22, 1987 relative to the denial of granting Public Service of New Hampshire a one-mile plume EPZ for Seabrook site. In addition, l
l since the BNL " containment studies" were still being reviewed by the NRC, the NRC staff recommended that I delete reference to the site specific l plant and containment features in the paper which I had previously submitted to FEMA on 2/18/87. This recommendation was made because the referenced information was not the basis of the adequate finding for the beach population (See discussion on 4/15/87 RAC meeting.) and could result in unnecessary litigation on probability issues. As a result, the suggesteo revisions were made, received NRC staff co9currence, and were submitted to FEMA I on June 4, 1987 (Attachment 13).
- 7. On June 5,1987, FEMA pre-filed testimony in response to NECNP Contention RERP-8, in which, on pages 38 and 39 of that document FEMA took the position that FEMA was unable to conclude that the NH RERP and local plans were adequate "to protect the public in the event of an accident at
$eabrook Nuclear Power" and to provide " reasonable assurance tnat appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency." (Attachment 14 1s a revision of the June 5, 1987 filing with minor revisions.)
- 8. In a letter to Richard Strome (New Hampshire), Mr. Thomas discusses the FEVA filing, stating that the " Current FEMA Position is largely based upon the FEMA and the Regional Assistance Connittee (RAC) reviews which were previously provided to you. The position of the Current FEMA Position dealing with the beach population is based on a thorough analysis by FEMA and the RAC. (Attachment 15)
- 9. On July 30 FEMA:I convened the RAC to discuss a number of items (7/2/87 meno from E. Thomas to RAC (Attachment 16) and agenda for 7/30/87 RAC meeting (Attachment 17)). NRC attendees were R. Bores, W. Lazarus and J.
Schumacher; FEMA attendees included E. Thomas, J. Dolan, B. Swiren; FEMA l contractor, R. Rospenda (ANL); DOE, H. Fish; 00T P. Lutz; EPA, B. Veene; l FDA, W. Church; and Dept. of Agriculture. D. Nevitt. Dept. of Commerce l (NOAA) was not represented.
Af ter discussing the other items on the agenda, E. Thomas apologized for not consulting the RAC prior to pre-filing the testimony on June 5, 1987, but said there wasn't time to do 50 and still meet the filing deadline.
He further explained that FEMA, not FEMA:I had taken the position that the NH plans were not adequate to protect the beach population because the "NRC had changed their position" in revising their response to his 12/31/85 memorandum. He said the plant specific items removed from the position paper by the NRC in its 6/4/87 revision were crucial to a FEVA finding of adequacy. In the discussion that ensued, the 00T representa-tive stated to Mr. Thomas, "You have a problem!" Then, "We have a problem that we need to come together on." He said that whether or not the paper discussed the specific plant features did not change the facts of the construction. He felt that the plans were adequate and the best he had reviewed. Similar responses were provided by DOE, EPA and 1
. 4 R. BORES '
l TECH ASSISTANT l DRSS, REGION !
HHS. DOT also questioned the "high" numbers of beach goers that were supposed to use the beaches in the summer. He stated that on three separate weekends he traveled the full length of the beaches and observed only a few hunared people on the beaches on each occasion. NRC represen-tatives reiterated that the basis of the position paper rested on the features of the NH plans and not on the plant features. The hH plans were adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the beach population could be protected given a serious accident at Seabrook Station. In effect, removing any probability discussions (or assuming the probability of a serious accident was 1), the plans still net the regulations, NUREG 0654 criteria, and provided reasonable assurance. Mr. Thomas then stated e that FEMA's measure of " reasonable assurance" differed from that of the NRC and from that stated in the FEMA /hRC response to the Dignan memo.
- j Mr. Lazcrus asked Mr. Thomas to take a RAC vote on the support of RAC for the previously adopted position paper. Mr. Thomas declined to do so.
Mr. Lazarus then polled the RAC membership. Each of the agencies represented, with the exception of FEMA and their contractor, indicated i that they suoportea the previously adopted position as modified by my June 4, 1987 letter.
Mr. Thomas stated that the contractor (ANL) would provide some alterna-tive wording proposals to the RAC membership for both the position paper and the FEMA pre-filed position. He said the RAC would then have another opportunity to comment on them and reconvene for resolution of the beach issue. The meeting was then ended. ,
- 10. On August 12, 1987, at a meeting in Concord, NH, I asked the ANL contractor about the proposed wording changes which Mr. Thomas had directed the contractor to prepare. The contractor stated that those changes were prepared ano sent to FEMA:I on 8/7/87. As of this date (10/14/87) those changes have not been forwarded to the RAC. ,
Robert J. Bores 10/13/87 Attachments: As stated a
i
~
. :O %
t FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY John W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse Boston, Masse.chusetts 02109 gMMc4p {
INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM DATE: December 31. 1985 NUMBER- R1-TH-85-28 MEMORANDUM FOR: Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC)
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Task Force (REP)
/
( FROM: Edward A. Thomas, Division Chief l l " Natural & Technological Hazards
SUBJECT:
Seabrook Emergency Plans ,
We have all known for years that the state and local plans to protect the public in the event of an accident at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant must include special attention to several factors which are unique (at least in magnitude) to the Seabrook area. By now, all of you should have received the formal submittal from the State of New Hampshire of the off-site emer-gency plans for Seabrook. As we indicated in the transmittal memo, portions of the plan have not yet been developed and, therefore, were not included in the package sent to you. Therefore, some of the special, quasi-unique factors which affect Seabrook, such as the impact of the road network on evacuation times, cannot be addressed by the RAC at this time. However, the state and local plans do indicate what steps the state proposes to take with respect to the vital area of sheltering and evacuating the beach population.
At the earliest possible time in the RAC review process, I propose that we focus in on the beach population to determine if special technical assistance
- from the RAC may be needed to assist state and local governments refine their plans to protect this group. It appears to us that when w discuss beach population, we are talking about two different groups: (a) the transient beach population, and (b) summer residents who inhabit unwinterized accom-modations on or near the beach A. The Transient Beach Population The transient beach population is that group who make day trips to the beaches near Seabrook by auto, bus, or other means of locomotion. This pop-ulation has no identified place of shelter other than any vehicle in which they may have arrived at the beach. The emergency plans submitted by the State of New Hampshire essentially indicate that this population will be protected in the event of an accident at Seabrook by closing the beaches at the earliest sign that a serious emergency is developing, and encouraging the transient beach population to leave the area. Those beachgoers who have nearby shelter would be encouraged to seek the shelter or evacuate as con-ditions at the plant dictated. The consulting firm of KLD Associates is in i
)
l c .
.Z.
the process of developing revised evacuation time estimates for all popula-tion groups in the Seabrook EPZ. We do not now have an estimate for how long it would take to evacuate the beach population in an accident either when everyone else in the area was told to take shelter, or when the entire EPZ was ordered to evacuate, or any combination of evacuations in between these extremes. However, for the sake of discussion, we believe that it is reasonable to assume for the present that the beach population would be out in the open, or in vehicles close to the center of the EPZ for several hours af ter the earliest indication that an accident was in progress.
Issue Based on the RAC's knowledge of the accepted literature in the fields of accident sequences, source terms, and the health effects of radiation, is the current planning acceptable or nearly acceptable? Before you can answer, do you require more precise information on the times that the tran-sient beach population would be in the open, or in a vehicle? If we have advice for the state and local governments on this matter, I believe that we should make it known as soon as possible. If we need additional infor-mation to deal with the issue, we should let them know now.
B. Occupants of Unwinterized Accommodations A number of people associated with the Seabrook emergency plans process have suggested that special attention needed to be paid to occupants of the many unwinterized cottages, motel rooms, and camp grounds in the Seabrook EPZ. These people believe that the normal assumptions we make about the protective effects of sheltering are not valid for structures which are:
(a) not designed to resist air intrusion, and/or (b) which have a very small protective factor because of the slight mass of the structure.
Issue 1
If the RAC believes that this is an issue which sould be covered in the emergency plans, we should raise it now to afford the state / local governments tine to quantify the problem and to plan to deal with it. Finally, if we have any other preliminary connents on the emergency plans, we probably should make them known to the state / local governments as soon as possible. We would be particularly interested in passing on any indication that you have as to whether the plans are in adequate shape for a full-scale exercise at the end of February as is currently planned.
We request that you respond to this memorandum within fourteen days.
After the responses are in, we will call a meeting of the RAC to formulate a position on these matters.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
3
- g.,, ,
! rce a4 .- E s ., n/
,g UNITED 5TATEs op gp y g g es, y,, y 9 8[ .
e Nt/CLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION LA W ASHINGToN D. C. 20666 .
)
h
- \o.... [ June 18,1986 f/wfC7 g l cc: J. Allan J. Gutierrez R. Starostecki Spence W. Perry, Acting General -
- 8. Kane Counsel S. Ebneter Federal Emergency Management Agency 8. Johnston Room 840 T. M n '
500 C Street, S.W.
R. Bellamy Wasnington, D.C. 20472 B. l.azarus 6/24/86-TEM In the Matter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. ~~
(Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2)
Dochet Nos. 50-443 OL and 50-444 OL
Dear Mr. Perry:
In response to a request made by Edward Thomas of FDIA Region I, we have evaluated, in conjunction with Joseph Flynn cf your ofGee, an undated memorandum prepared by Thomas Dignan of Ropes and Orsy on '
behk1f of the applicants for the Seabrook nuclear plant ("Dignan Memorandum", a copy of which is attached Attachment A). Our ovaluation is set forth in the following discussion.gs The Dignan Merriorandum addresses what are described as "three misconcep-tions" pertaining to offsite emergency planning for the Seabrook nuclear plant, and concludes that they are " false as matter of law" (Dignan Memorandum at 1). These purported " misconceptions" are as follows:
A. That the plans must be shown to guarantee that no adverse effects on the public health and safety will occur no matter what kind of accident occurs at Seabrook.
B. That it must be demonstrated that the plans will assure that all persons located in the Emergency Planning Zone or some certain portion of it can be evacuated in some certain time.
- In particular, there have been assertions that the plans must assure the sheltering or evacuation of j persons from the beaches in approximately 1/2 i I
hour.
i!
I lt should be noted, however, that under the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR I 50.3, only written regulatory interpretations provided by the General l Counsel will be recognized as binding upon the Commission. I 1
5 r
\
/ l Epence Perrr. Esq.
- 4. Accidents involving early releases are within the Commission's emergency planning basis, however, the regulations do not specify a time within which the recommended protec,tive actions are to be completed.
Sincerely, Edward 8. Christenb[ l Director and Chief Hearing Counsel Enclosure cc: J. Taylor ;
E. Jordan T. Murley I
4 i
l i
i
(
,% # \
/
FA .
J \i
)
1 )
l i
l
)
I 1
l i
\
l i
i l
I I _________________A
1 -
p .
t
- AW' r1 A. ;
t Federal Emergency Management Agency 1
, '. Region ! J.W. McCormack Post Omce and Court House 3 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 July 9,1986 Mr. Robert J. Boulay State Dnergency Manage < tent Director Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency ard Office of Drergency Preparedness c_,
P.O. Box 1496 F 400 Worcester Road g Framingha:n, Massachusetts 01701 .
cn.
Dear Mr. Boulay:
w
~
EE Tn::.as Dignan, Counsel for the New Ha.pshire Yankee Service Cc::pany of New Ecpshire.
s A copy of that merrotardum is enciesed.
The enclosed letter from the Nuclear Regulatory Cer=nission analyzing the i Dignan tremo was developed in close coordination with FEMA ard represents the cottoined views of both NBC ard F&A.
We have you apolcgi:e questier.s. for the chlay in res;ording to your re;mst.
Please call if Sin:erel , ,
/
ex w Edward A. Thcras Chief Natural ard Technological Hazards Division E.. closures cc: Richard Strcrne Terry Harpster
- CEE Y
I' J Ju6P N ">
/P4W l.fCd X l
t t
t
i
} EC .
['Y, '
Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 204 72 AWf
,ny 25lH5 i
MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward A. Thomas, Chief ,
Natur 1 and T chnological Hazards Olvision
, on ! .
FRCH: ,n W. ,
Acting Gene I Counsel
SUBJECT:
Offsite Emergency Planning at Seabrook Station- '
In ycur meEcranden of January 23. 1986 to Joseon flynn, you cccmunicated the request of Robert Boulay, Civil Defense Director for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review and comment upon a' memorandum of i law prepare by Themas Dignan, Counsel for Public Service Company of New Hamoshire. In his memorandum, Mr. Dignan addressed what he considered to be three mistenceptions abcut offsite emergency res;cnse planning as it relates to the SeacrocA Statten.
I recently received a letter frcm Ed.ard Christer.:.:ry. Direct r and Chief !
Hearing Counsel, Office of the Esecutive Legal Director (CELD) of NRC, which rescends to your recuest. A ccpy of that letter is attached. The legal discussion in that letter reflects the combined views of our respective offices. I concur in Mr. Christer. bury's analysis of the Dignan memorandum. { '
~
Attachment l
)
1 1
( [j
- l. u. m m
~~
)
5 3
January to, 1987 MEMORANDUM VOR: Ec ars A. Thomas. Chairman., Regional Assistance Comenttee (RAC). FEMA Region 1 FROM: Williae J. Lazarus, Chief. Esergency Preparedness Section, NRC Region i
SUBJECT:
ASSIGNMENT OF NRC RAC MEMBERS FOR SITES IN FEMA REGION !
Effective insediately, the following persons are assigned NRC RAC review responsibilities for nuclear power plants located within FEMA Region 1:
Seabrook Mr. Robert Bores FTS 408-1213 or (215) 337-5213 All other sites Mr. John Schumacher FTS 480-1342 or (215) 337-5342 If you have any questions, or are at any time unable to contact either Mr.
Beres or Mr. Schusacher, please feel free to contact se at FTS 488-1200 or (215) 337-5208.
?
Willias J. [ rus hief, Emergency Preparedness Section NRC Region 1 bec:
T. Martin {
R. Bellary R. Bores J. Schumacher E. Fox P. Lohaus E. Jordan S. Schwart:
E. Podolak
}
k Attadd &
Federal Emergency Management Agency Region ! J.W. McCormack Post Office and Coun House Boston, Mair,achusetti O2109 January 27, 1987 HEMORANDUM FOR: State Emergency Management Directors Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC) '
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Task Force (REP) ,
FROM: Edward A. Thomas
' RAC Chairman [
SUBJECT:
Assignment of NRC C Members Attached please find an updated Regional Assistance Comitte (RAC) i listing. We have been advised by the NRC the following persons are assigned NRC RAC review responsibilities for nuclear power plants located within FEMA Region I.
Seabrook Dr. Robert Bores FTS: 488-1213 or (215) 337-5213 All Other Sites Mr. John Schumacher FTS: 488-1342 or (215) 337-5342 If you have questions, please call Betty Dionne - FTS: 223-9562 Attachmart l
q t
Janua ry 27, 1987 FEMA REGION 1 Regional Assistance Comittee Members Committee Member Supervisor / Director Mr. Paul Lutz Rear Admiral Robert Johanson Regional Emergency Transportation Rep Commander Capt. John Foster Williams Coast Guard Bldg. 1st Coast Guard District i 408 Atlantic Ave. Capt~. J.F. Williams Coast Guard Bldg.
Boston, MA. 02210-2209 408 Atlantic Ave.
FTS: 8-223-8451 Boston, MA 02210 COMM: 617/223-8451 24 HR: 617/223-8555 Coast Guard Duty Officer Mr. Byron Keene Mr. Louis Gitto. Of rector U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Management Division 2312 JFK Federal Building U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Boston, MA 02203 (23rd Floor) 2203 JFK Federal Building FTS: 8-835-3234 Boston, MA 02203 COMM: 617/565-3234 Mr. Warren Churcn Mr. David Field Regional Radiological Health Representative Director U.S. Food & Drug Administration State Programs Branch 585 Comercial St. 585 Comercial St.
Boston, MA 02109 Bostori, MA 02109 FTS: 8-835-4718 COMM: 617/565-4718 John Stepp Mr. . Edward J. Montminy U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services Regional Health Administrator Public Health Service Representative Public Health Division 1 1401 JFK Federal Bldg. (14th Floor) 1401 JFK Federal Building )'
Boston, MA 02203 Boston, MA 02203 FTS: 8-835-1469 COMM: 617/C65-1469 4 Jophn Schumacher Thomas Murley Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;tegional Administrator Region I Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Ave. 631 Park Ave.
King of Prussia, PA 19406 king of Prussia, PA 19406 FTS: 488-1342 24 HR: 215/337-5000 COMM: (215) 337-5342 Robert Bores (Seabrook) Thomas Murley Nuclear Regulatory Comission Regional Administrator 631 Park Ave. Nuclear Regulatory Comission K1ng of Prussia, PA 19406 631 Park Ave. !
FTS: 8-488-1213 FAX: 488-1135 (50 seconds) King of Prussia, PA 19406 l 488-1323 (verification)
FTS: 8/488-1000 COMM: 215/337-5213 l
l I
I i
) Committee Member (
Supervisor / Director (Dorothy Nevitt/ Bob Conley/Cheryl Malina/ Mr. George E. Bickerton Anna Hart) Director Office of Emergency Planning l USDA - FSIS-PP Office of Emergency Planning l USDA - FSIS-PP 14th & Independence Ave., S.W.
?
Room 2940 - South Bldg. 14th & Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250 Room 2940 - South Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20250 FTS: 8/475-3683 F AX: 8/447-2682 FTS: 8/447-2791 (USDA Plum Island, NY USDA Washington Contact for REP
Contact:
R.T. Tornblom, Supyr.
Safety Specialist George E. Bickerton, Supvr/Dir.
Office of Emergency Planning Plum Island Greenport, NYAnimal 11944 Disease Center (Box 848) USDA - FSIS-PP FTS: 8-649 9204 14th & Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250 24 Hr: 8-649-9248/9253) FTS: 8-475-3683 Mr. Herbert G. Fish U.S. Department of Energy Ted Dobry Princeton Area Office Chief, Public Safety Section P.O. Box 102 Princeton, NJ 08542- U.S.. Dept. of Energy Office of Environment Tel: FTS 8-340-3700 (3708) Routing Symbol EV 131 (Brookhaven: 8-666-3427) Washington, DC 20545 '
(NY Support Office 8-212-620-3608) FTS : 8-233-5434 (FAX: 8-340-2032) COMM: 301-353-5434 (PREFERRED MAILING ADDRESS:
56 Mountainview Road Millburn, NJ 07041)
William P. Patterson Bruce Blanchard U.S. Department of the Interior Director Regional Environmental Office 1500 Custom House Office of Environmental Project Review l 165 State St.
l Boston, MA 02109 Office of the Secretary Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 FTS: 223-5517 or 223-5104 ;
HOME: 617/527-4180 COMM: 202/343-3891 '
FTS: 343-3891 (See Other Side)
q
)-
1 Dept. of Commerce - NOAA/W5 j-Mr. Stanley Wasserman Mr. Richard P. Augulis Division Chief Director Meterological Services Division -National Weather Service NWS Eastern Region Eastern Region Headquarters 585 Stewart Avenue 585 Stewart Avenue Garden City, N.Y. 11530 Garden City. NY 11530 FTS: 8-649-5454 COMH: 8-516/228-5401 COMM: 8-516/228-5454 FTS: 8-649-5401 REP TASK FORCE Ktn Horak - Public Relations -
FEMA Don Connors - American Red Cross - FEMA Tom 'daldwin - ANL s Mr. Thomas E. Baldwin Argonne National Laboratory 277 Main St.
2nd Floor {
~
Port Washington, NY 11050 Comm: (516) 883-0030 i
.. N AE e
- , ': \
c .-vn
)
__________--_---.-,, , 7 i
/- UNITED sfATES j h NUCLEAR REoVLATORY COMMisslOW .
) s ! remon s un pAsa avenus wens or azussiA, e:NNsv6vAnsA usu 1 TER 181987 d V W+*[
Edward A. Thomas, Chainnan
) Regional Assistance Comittee 3 Federal Emergency Management Agency John W.
Boston, McConnack Post Office and Court House Massachusetts 02102
Dear Mr omas:
i
Reference:
Yopr meto of December 31,1985 relative to the beach populations in the Seabrook area As requested, I am responding to your memo regarding the adequacy of the New Hampshire RERP relative to the protection of the beach population. My response is based on Revision 2 of the NH RERP; the RAC/ contractor comments on including the Seabrook Evacuation Time Study; the analyses of specific Seabro Station features; emergency and my professional knowledge and judgement related to The bases of spy opinion that the plans are or will be (
adequate concerns)(preparedness.
contingent on completion of actions by New Hampshire to resolve RAC to protect the beach population (both the beach transient group and those this who inhabit unwinterized accommodations) are provided in the Enclosure t correspondence.
Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact me at 488-1213. FTS response. I would be happy to meet with you and/or the RAC to discuss my Robert Bores, Technical Assistant Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/ enc 1:
W. 1.azarus, RI l
l 1 1
1
)
PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BEACH POPULATIONS BACXGROUND (2), which state that except as provided in 10 CFR 5 licunsing of a facility for operation up to 55 of rated power), no operat 3 'eicense for a. nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding i the NRC that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protec )
base its finding on a review of the FEMA The findings NRC will and de whether state &nd local emergency plans are adequata and whether there is j reasonable assurance that they can be implemented, and on the NRC assessm the adequacy and implevontability of the licensee's onsita emergency plans p The FEMA emergency finding is primarily based on the review of the state gr,d local plans.
in considering implemented. whether Paragrcph b there is reasonable assurance that th of 10 CFR 50.47 requires that the onsite and offsitestandards.
planning energency respons(e) plans for nuclear power reacto Ervrgency Response Plans and Preparedness in Su was issoed to provide a cormon reference and guidance Iberu for state and local governments and licensees in the development of emergency response plans and 1: preparedness for response to a radiological energency and y for preparedness.
and FEMA, NRC cod other federal agencies for use in the review of those plan The planning basis adopted by NRC and FEMA for emergency preparedness a nuclear power plants was taken from NUREG 0396/ EPA 520/1-78-016, ' P Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants".
objective of the emergency response plans is to provide'The overall dose savings (and in some cases, innediate life savings) for a spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of the PAGs" (h0 REG 0654).
it attempted to identify the boundarthat the planning basis range from tr of potential accident consequences, y parameters based on available knowledgra teristics (source term). timing of releases, and release charac-PAGs do not equate with loss of life or even a health hazard.It should
~
The PAGs were intended Tor use by protective action decision makers in arriving at a balanc between radiation constraints to that action.risk and that of taking a protective action in the absence o Enclosure i
j
~~'
- ' ' **l^8WI bd **
[ - e 5
8, E f REGION I 631 4 ARM AVENUE
) M198Q OF PRUSSt a., EE NN$v4. VAN 8 A 19804
- ee.**
- /A?,16 1987
/ {},5 '
Mr. Edward A. Thomas, Chairman Regionel Assistance Comittee Federal Emergency Management Agency 442 John Boston, W. McCormack Post Office and Court House Massachusetts 02109 6
Dear . Thomas:
1
Reference:
RAC Coments on Transient Beach Population for Seabrook Station 1987 memorandam and provide the following general coments There appear to be no issues that have not been addressed in some detail.
All issues raised appear to have been adequately addre: sed in subsequent revisions of the New Hampshire State and local plans.
There appear to be adequate bases and information now available for aRAC/
rea. FEMA to make a finding or resolve the istues kept open in this The scheduled sneeting should ;;rovide the forum for any additional discussions that may be oesirable by RAC/ FEMA to resolve / address any outstanding concerns.
Sincerely, s
Robert . Bores Technical Assistant Division of Radiation Safety l and Safeguards Cc:
W. Lazarus, D!
i l
i
)
1
)
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORAT0i(Y l 97oo south CAss MENUE, AACC'NE, ILLINol$ 60439 TELEPHONE 312/971-7643 bf ES I April 14,1987
/} (( 7 i
l Mr. Jack Dolan
} Tederal Emerger.cy Management Agency l Room 482 ,
) J.W. NcCormack Post Office and Courthouse l
Boston, MA 02109 l l i I \
Dear Jack:
I In response to Edward Thomas,3/2/87 memorandum, we have reviewed the RAC responses to Thomas 12/31/85 'nemorandum concerning the transient beach population j and have the following comments:
It appears that final resolution on the adequacy of planning for the beach population is dependent on the receipt and review of information from the State of New Hampshire on the number of transients who would need transportation duritig an evacuation. {
1 Page 3 of enclosure to R. Bores'(NRC) letter dated 2/18/87. The comment that
,% element J.10.d has been left "open" by the RAC is not consistent with the RAC 7 review spreadsheets.
/
b =
Page 4 of enclosure to R. Bores letter dated 2/18/87. The comment for t
,.}I t element J.10.k that the RAC had "one additiona.1 recommendation" is not i
y 4p , consistent with the RAC review spreadsheets.
kk fpg Q) f =thatPage A have
....* resources of been enclosure to R.transportation prov!dsd .... for providing Bores' letter dat Item #4 Indicates for those j 3, ( without veh!cles c..." However, es indicated in comment 617 of the RAC review i
' o!' the ETE, the estimates of persons requiring transli provided in the ETE !
represent only estimates of permanent res! dents who require transit and do not g
V p include the transient beach population, I
f/ If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ccntact tue.
{
Sincerely,
\ fWJ c wML l Robert E. Rospenda j Energy and Environmental Systems Division i
RER:may l cc: E. Thomas (FEMA-Region !)
{
M. Lawless (FEM A-HQ)
T. Baldwin (ANL)
E. Bsrtram (ANL) i M. Slagh (ANL)
I ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
' M 070o '.',00T,4 CAss AVEMJE, AA00PNE, ILLINOls 60439 TELE W 312/972-7643 April 17,1987 Mr. Edward A. Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency j Room 462 J.W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse Boston, MA 02109
Dear Ed:
!a accordance with your request after the RAC meeting in Boston 4-15-87, I have prepared draft revisions to the RAC review of the New Hampshire State and local plans for Seabrook. These draft revisions are enclosed and reflect the RAC's conclusion that the plans (Rev. 2) adequately treet the beach population issue.
In order to expedite ilnal review, and to clear;y show where changes are being proposed, I have purposely left the changes in hand-written form on marked-up copies of the original pages. The proposed changes are shown on the following two enclosures:
Enciws - 1. Revisions to RAC review of State plan elements J.9 and J.10.m (Section I, pages 64, 86 and 87); and local EPZ plan element J.9 (Section Il page 17).
Enclosure 2. Addition to page 8 of enclosure to R. Bores letter dated 2-18-87.
(Note: Although the RAC had discussed several possible additional changes to the wording of Individual conclusions on page 10, it is my understanding that these would not be made pending additional review by R. Bores.)
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
, Q $& ?, /_
. Robert E. Rospenda
, S, J r Energy and Environmental Systems Division
{
J 41,r RER may Enclosures (1 and 2) cc: R. Bores (NRC) j M. Lawless (FEM A-HQ) !
K. Bertram (ANL) l T. Baldwin (ANL) i U.S. DEPART 4 NT of ENE M Y T)4E UNivCR$1TY oF DilCAGo
.____u___,_,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ - _ . , - - - . , - , , - , - - - ----._--n.- - , - -- -
G
). ' .
l e
)
i
$/>
s R
w; J
4 l
0 1
9 e,.- .. . . .
_ _ . _ . . . _ - ~ .. - ~ ~ ~~ e v. -~
) -
4 1
t Y
bl + Nj:
n ..
ma y{,3[f y
si d iw#
y
-g.u a <,r
, i se s s ie= V3 T=b g %
' $ s
'N
- 1) I g
- CA 3
) ) ) t}pgl 4V 1r"i$k A, ! s a e),a t:
1
,43 2
k *hi 1 f t4 * ! 4 u 1 u 4 *' i
- $?g$> bhb Ll'Y 7 ' [] 4 th kN a' te n't W
ti h*gjQ< \ 4 441! 3
)y ,y :p 4 bf
} }
4 w' u
t(
s 3
kd4 c ,14 7 t 3 I Ib 8 ) sR d a .t* 4 1.t b}4 ny 4 1
.A l
1 l
A . ,
1
)
9
)
= ,
e i
E a,
s I
3 [f
- i E e 5
I i
i
b 7]jjEf3 41 -
bEIjs 4: -
ft6]1}E !] ' !!J!2 i git n
[
bE l f,c i = -
I
{j'{"!
r
- 33, jilf'I !
g II,qis(
jr i 1,; I 1a2,aI '12,2
= 1 :s t a !
3 -
' ! 24r2 i i
Ii 1s ll!Y'I r(('ig'ille'}[I,ht
.. a 5l]N i? J llill-I i p'd { i ! J!llinitzll!
ij t!i-Ill l 1 ;
e:lllh o I at a' J
= gl . :";Cf.!:
it p ltE 'tivst l l l85"t aj: : j a
. lgl 5 i El'a l t Ih L
" i Ilj !]gli'li ,
5 isE b I f,1 I
! }' I
,4;d, i . l It.g hiv!!.;l3 in ,cg;,, i ,
"l870'd < -
silu == 2n 6 1 112
- jji .
fi 41 I5:! !;i 1..
,j,11 r
{
} 55 8j I! ;
I 5.12] I8 la .Ej!"l 55: 'limi 4l j s ,! .j ~2!! .
f 3 I i l
i lj {2 ~I..j's'i}l 6 I-X :! !
13 .} ul }g !
. .: f : 1 ili 501I:l ilsl slfill ljss!-Ill! !
1 G a y : .. _.
5 . _. _ .
l
g <g
) = ],,;El, il .=
g
. 1, .
l
.3}is 9 I e w I > mo , i 3 i tm 'i 1 s 5 '
) - %
- - i v4
! .I .
.1 e {
i l , ' y i E .
.I
-l .
.. , i. g , ,.
.. r .=
la II5 -
= , .-
y =1 - gi, 5 i i Y1
~
aj t ! - - y 5l 5 :
!) Il1 I-l 1
n , .i- - m . .w. I - y......., Elj sg 333g
.'.,',-l I;i 1
1 2.ijilii lta.us !:. . .. . n. .1 . 1 >f. gg 7 2 I g5 g I j
\
f 2, . . 3*1 3 3ga
. ;,.. 1 E, :- .
' : - l E
1: g' 5 y g.::;I :E ll'k h]s l 1 [it
.In- I.firI~j lI l li .
y . i I N"I T b 8 d t. 3 t A 3 E I _ I g
- U N'III.M 1
- i I
l 1
/
^
a _ E ! ) i g ji-js: sis}= . I I 3 .
.T j O -
, 4:: - _,L r 'Ip!N !p T t i
! a_
I
=l m .
hy 1 '& g . 13 ( , k j i d%}* 1 i es.e W
,l
., .settel d
.. -es3.=3*
r ligli -
-mijn rps r 8 .I~i ;injr[jssun ir prunir 3I I s gj fi[ll l } !II:
!!! !lljIh ('!' 2i I!
! l']{i 1 hh!
iH q }litira,t II$ { Ifl' 21l b,I i 2 t 81' ,ilOf' !. ; jus
!aljie 4 p .
t[~3 E I I b1.IIM{f;h.h]ipi I t ! g I#3II
'Ilih!'N..i; 12 4 3 !b
Nj'j]Ilpyjj!!j{l3
!g
*j Ile y m :11 Ilnb2 ollilliII [11hnlltlil {'illTli in !! .
1 i
. i w ,,- w .., . . ... . . ..
m . -= = >
., ~. .
.3 4 h *l::I'; . * ~;
.I 3I,b!~$ i{Ii
~
'e.!.';.':'6'
~
st
! , 1 i1 ,. h s .: . "'
s** @. I-ij}l. B. .
.c 7.7.y.~-;;.
. }, .
l b$ E : A': '. , ; '. . i 23'! !!1h I II.: 1 ~.2 : ! : l 5$
=. .
I (g 1 s*** ta .
. 91 M-371?W PT
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \
't i )
t ,. e .
,, 1s ' .
I. SE , g .
~
I E . 2 '. . . . . . ,. . .. o . e I *
. 1 g .
- 7~;, y..?.n:..+
- , . . .; . . . e.
1 K 4
', ,. .*I,.
g*..'
..t'.. ..
.,%.',9..
*'6
' .'* .3' .. e, f, ** ).". *y.., *, . <
*.,,*g*,'.,.
,.4 ,.
- ;l* ' s'
- V, .. +' , .
r. e. t , '5 ., . *s . , '. . '. 1*. ',/ *4.%,i>?*e , '* 'om
- w r i. .
l '. s - l
".*,,' ~*)'
?'?:* :' ..v,e l
,e 8 ', .e .
t .
; , e
Al asi 5 - ) s L
))}s 5t:
01 h) y a8 u uf31}. 5 g - 1 IF9,s.j$i s ji a ili , { _ [fmr' 2 fj' I
, g ,se n o ]
).
t jl~u 'El ' ll {} j i 3 15 d! b;:pI, L ) i I 3 I ; ,. Asl IMhlfhf Iz! 1 : " I{l-8
.glIl l 1
il v
~
; .,..,..,. , ... .r.y .. pf
-f,,! ,
f lj U f mil l 3 1N . i .: .: i y all5 l*j .! 3 lrllul 8"j lifli! i!!v!f Ij I i [g_i ; i a--=-- EgE [ ; .i f f f f f . l': i 5E if i s 1 f Di.iiii J'iigii ;Ib ' Ii gg 5 I ffifibiiii i-' A'a a' 4 jl g . , I i,fif:f;ffi fi
-i ! =n !
a g y; I . e-i-s- - 3 w.:wfi tlititilitt"i 5 sI1 m . - w ,.. .
. . .; . ../: . .< ?.
m . - -,, - i,-, l g*3 13!2 ; yz ys
~ ,..: s i 2 n
'.".'....~;.
.T
.~ !.l 5 g \ :
{ 2.1~ . . a!;)sy g;- g ! :. .: ... .;...
} ,
g
;}lI.!;}. si - l*1l 1
, '.R* ~;:-
%I63,I f *: **I
, i ..
3 s
-} j2'!2g { . .y = ,3 . i y . : :
3
- r3: 3 .: .3 d.i s .! !Ilid i d l.i.i '
g g
, . YI %0 *$II.M .
, . :. (.
~
- _ _ _ _ _____-.m _____-___--_ __...___ . _ . _ _ . - - _. ]
f ARGONNE NATIO2L LABORATORY stoo south CAss AVENUE, ARGo*NE, ILLINols 6o439 TELEPHONE 312/972-7643 April 22,1987 Mr. Edward A. Temas Federal Emergene-j Managernent Agency Room 462 J.W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse Boston, MA 021?O
Dear Ed:
As requeated by Jack Dolan on .4/22/87, we have prepared additional draft revisions to the RAC review of the New Hampshire State and local plans for Seabrook. These draft revisions are enclosed and reflect suggested changes by Bob Bores (NRC) to the revisions previously transmitted with our letter dated 4/17/87. These changes deal with the beach population issue. In order to clearly show where changes are being ' proposed, we have again purposely left the changes in hand-written form. The most recent changes, suggested by Bob Bores, are indicated by brackets. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert E. Rospenda Energy and Environmental Systems Division RER may Enclosures (1 and 2) cc: R. Bores (NRC) M. Lawless (FEM A-HQ) E. Bertram (ANL) T. Be.ldwin (ANL) U.S. DEPARn(NT or ENERGY THE UNtVER$1TY of CHICAGO l
UNITED STATE 5 , [j.* a.g .4,, NUCLEAR REoVLATORY COMMtssiON i .1 g,**+// *
. , , .", :L', ,. . .
.,~ .. ........ ~~, m .~,. .... ENcidSO/W 2 u 1 e ser .
Ecward A. Thomas. Chairman
; Regional Assistance Committee Federal Emergency Management Agency John W. McCormack post Office and Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02102
Dear Mr omas:
I
Reference:
Your memo of December 31, 1985 relative to the beach populations in the Seabrook area As requestod, I am responoing to your memo regarding the adequacy of the New Hampshire RERP relative to the protection of the beach population. My response is based on Revision 2 of the NH RERP; the RAC/ contractor corrents on it, including the Seabrook Evacuation Time Study; the analyses of specific Seabrook Station features; and my professional knowledge and judgement related to emi rgency preparedness. The bases of my opinion that the plans are or will be a6.quate (contingent on completion of actions by New Hampshire to resolve RAC concerns) to protect the beach population (both the beach transient group and those who inhabit unwinterized accorredations) are provided in the Enclosure to this correspondence. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact me at FTS 488-1213. I would be happy to meet with you and/or the RAC to discuss my response. , Robert Bores, Technical Assistant Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/ enc 1: W. Lazarus, RI l l
' " 6 WWu gg I
)-
"M l 1 y
I t I f g . cs(..% 9 m> V
-- .__ ,_ --------.n_,_.._
7;
~
/
rr 44 ei
<t in n .
D 4 *4'j ia N , , C '7 4
- 8) 4ks [
tr..
-a Niq+4 D asp 1 ged +4
%([}
$$E w Yblhf Y*h'\
sq %}jj p 'tj $ Pl'E is{4}A4
*&s 1nt14> a e! ti id
*u q " r !'l Ltt L s!! a> 4 r b j43 9
,4ef st 4% s 'e n ;4
)k At *44 sIIb t >
s Q $4 h j 1 Q a m M 2 3g, r $ <}4 0,hm a v D tt i
l l A G
) .
t
) -
9 9 # 6 8 e e i l EI 3* e E I
~ 2 8 s
E o
$.H
> an*
2 . I 4 6
? -
e t
- a .
t . . i l ,.' , . . ;.-
. . . , - * [.".'.,8,*'.",',.
.s .
OO g* l ,
, e
< R.
a. O eg t e l I i
g ; 9
.- y_+.
111 % _.:-)i-dl - llsiis W ,, [1
; , n ,,
4 ui.
;_ g% iq IUlil hp!;t; q d D i + ,,j i I
! ti u
?*$ i-l ~l- j'>lg i'!IjijI .,:yp'Illq(glLn '!
f21l!ll y t i calk,L 1a
,4 if{}llitulillim!
a i n 1
,l .=er.:
I,I_
$E ' eri m i
*g,s i 1l'l8i 'g I
! ltd
!!i 3 i J 1
!{pgI El' l gh iii 11 11
(
}Q{Q 0
!]{ili
!f'8$[f i
1 hi ptuIail t,i
'i.;j!!jnl3 1
,g Jilm "l,$IZ% < -
gi!n == 2nzi ]:j!2 i ' 1 A kl $! e!!!.
] jipl 'I .llili 11;11 i :
si' n l!! il: I'ite
,i i i j 11: 12 11 a
asis! t 2-
-I f y j ]ij, ..
1 11 ill i i 1 e!' !{i{};IIl,Iiili ' n.cIl:t ils .s,t fill .ijiiij l .i t
,7:E. T, 5
m__ - - _. _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ __ _ _ ___._
.g
[. g I .
) i g
p }sl.- = g.. -
,lslis -
O 1 - i yn y, A. . i i
> s n E L
O t.? i4 ' t
=
g es m' f E U ' V E. . e E
~
i e i D . i. g y 2 .
,1 ..,..,.
15 , gli - 3 g , n1a ~ 3 1
~
*I 3 IE3 i.
svi EI8 . ] EW 5 I
=2 5 s yI l1 ii e
E E4 I 2 i* (!) e,9mbe99FJ , (V ) 8,.a b.py
- i (li t-i s.itissi 1131 .
':* y: -
i E b '25 l ,2-, 1s 3 1 1:12 i. 1
- -l is e
2 3.21:3E-
? 5-II <!]2 l -is { :1 1
( 1 i
.-i.
- 3
- =*:.11)).
i!!{: Ali!}i!!
,~u ; 5 l
_y ;.p__ _ . . . . . ; ._ .. . . .m _ -
' ,lil, ;il,- Q -
u al - - 1 - Alf - siis ut ) . 7 L . g t sung ' i jJM I j[ . II i 1[ run ('. J.j !,: ;[l[ 4 J-
.{[w. a . e I
~
A ,k vr 4
=I .;;C.!:
4 g , li i
*!!li .! tirllp:;'9 i .aj0d q];uinirb;; ;1iw',jlfjtidaiiire l
!!3 3 1h1lis!lipI'jili j
~ij;{'s 1 6
- l b}jjii! '
,i
!!'j'i! l?I!(l!;fiv1!.!'{jl'Il
>h"i]8lja- i 8li! }
*g~ sigieli,! p;n, le 11H mdij i .
l$ j $ljd "I !
.i.y ,i jl!Nl!l,yn'IIIlN. i. > ! 'jl;1lil>N
- :,ifn p put!o,,ilnt=a,, .p,ul,,.illpl!
w, _sul <
=
1 "l,;'0::::
. i
- -t.:as
' sf 5"g ,
1 1. tas
~
,t, s i
i;,s.,[jis h - i 11!:!jgi ...d
- li'!!1!,j : 1 l -iL.20.
ei 3 :- E ill:g:ial!!1 E
>=u l vi3 1 1 j
E
' - - . , _ ,i- - , - - - - - - - , , . . - - , - , . . , _n _---
~ '
)
S y-g e 6 0 % 0 4
.i 11 0
ra ey ' a E3 Ia k. i
~
E a. 2 2 a I a if e i 9 l l l
g q e]2 s )
. i i}s}: -
L I i*
% $' (
gl'i=, c% 44 n ,
~
i p gi a,v J,i 11 I
; ,e.iy p, in
' lig p
= hb ]g] j f b I' gg.d .
l I lk{l I <!h} l
-l .
v..,< r,.us. ?]h.EsEId.j ^O
,3 p$ =!
lE ) sli
- : i 1)ll, .
!' .I i 3.3 13 h, 2 3 I! . s isiiff .-
I: 3 1d i ifft# _ = = 6 u =i P1 ttj I ! I _I g
- 1244d44 Ij
!$i i i
.jr.: inn gj s ,$s 3 li.i.i.i.f.i Lij
\ y3 a =I h un a .= .=nnat - s. h
*i. ! il g g 3; 3. l1?hti$h$$=
-t-a-s- -m 4 - 1' g gi tlitiliti!ti e oli ,
e h1 m . - w ,..: m ..... - 1 111 11!^ i ti!! ' ;
! I j . -}' liij I
Ij2[j:- $1I2 3 l I l i! 3]isl ! f 1-r1.~lli ! ' 2 3 2 z2 ] l 'i' .i 115 1 i j i,1
! 1!!,.I: 12 y.
I l {s ,3 :f?2!8I 3 i e
* '[1jj s.W,!!.i.jl.,!
. j{}.?!?
- i. .i .i iu .
- 5
. e-r
- f. ~ .
u - ,, ,, m , i
~
' NVcLEAA PsGULATORY Commission
. , , , .?.* ** '. -
g***** .. . .. ....... .., ~ ~,.. , .. enc /6SD/tE 2 Jdi181967 < Edward A. Thomas, Chairman Regional Assistance Ccm ittee s Federal Imergency Managerent Agency John W. McCormack Post OfJice and Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02102 Dear Mr omas
Reference:
Your memo of December 31,1985 relative to the beach popuistions in the Seabrook ares i, j As requested,1 am respo-ding to your remo regarding the adequacy of the New Hampshire RIRP relative to the protettion cf the beach population, is based on Revision 2 of the MH R&RP; the RAC/ contractor coments ca it,My response including the Seabrook Evacuation Time Study; the analyses of specific Seabrook Station features; and ry professional knowledge and judgement related to emergency preparedness. The bases of my opinion that the plans are or will be adequste (contingent on coepletion of actions by New Hampshire to resolve RAC concerns) to protect the besch population (both th' s beach transtant group and those who this correspondence. inhabit unwinterized accomodetions) ' " are provided in the inclosure to Should you have any questions concernf ag the above, please contact me at FT5 488-1213. response. 1 would be happy to meet with you and/or the RAC to discuss my
, s Robert Bo es, fechnical Assistant Division of Radiation Safety ..
and Safeguards I [nclosure: As Stated i j cc w/encli , i W. Lazarus, RI ' i _ _ , __ sam _ - - - - - ~ - - - ~ ~ ^ ~ - - - ' - _ _ _ _ __ . . _ _ _ . - - - - -- -- - - - - - - ~ - - ~ - ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~
) . .
a
. 74e. Jeg Jreese mudd 1/4 d'/**/ts
- N Nh ?
f wpp reo/rev/r/*/ h beNJ IM&
.. plyn gee,r I ? '
porv%n*{ I lt is also noted that when la e, seasonal beach crowds are likely to be present (on hot and sunny days , the typf cal wind patterm is from the offshore, i cooler surface to the onshore, warmer surfaces of the land masses, Tpis esens j W nearby beach areas when the beaches are most heavily to the jpopulated. 1 0!SCUS$10N er//ree 3 The foregoing discussions have indicated that th'e current NH plans meet or wil) meet the criteria of NUREG C654 in a generic sense. Specific and detailed precedures have been provided to assure early notification and evacuation of the beach pcM1ation can be effected should the plant status appear to be threatening. The review of these plans and procedures do not indicate the presence of concerns or situations involving the beach populations which warrant unique solution or provisions beyond those already incorporated. The beaches themselves are nearly two bites from the station at their closest approa ch. This distance provides for dispersion and dilution of the plume as well as additional plume travel time for a plume to reach ths beach area from the site. Additionally, because of the sea breeze $ttuaticns normally associated with ses coast areas, the wind direction w111 be normally on shore, f.e., toward the plant, rather than off shore from the plant to the shore) during hot, sunny days when the beaches are Itkely to be most populaiad. The analyzed severe accident scenarios (core melt with early containment failure) indicate that the major portion of the dose to the affected population from such an event is due to exposure to deposited radioactive materials on the ground surfaces rather than from the passing'ptume. The risk / consequence codes generally used (CRAC models or MACC$) all assume that the population is esposed to this ground deposition for 24 hours af ter the arrival of the first portion of the plume and to any additional plumes orsr that area. In other words, the codet assume that no protective actions are implemented for 24-hours after the t release reaches the beach (or other areas of interest). In view of the let plans for beach closure and access control as early as the Alert classification; the cited "neglfgible probability of prompt containment failure" at $eabrook and low consequence / low probability of serious containment bypass sequences; the plume travel time to the beach areas and the relatively short (2 to 4 hours) time esticated to clear the beaches, it appears that risks to the beach populattoo are a sr.all fraction of the cited risks in NUREE 0396 for this distance. Thus, even if there were a prompt, severe, contaminating release and a portion of the beach population were caught in or under the plume for two hours during tQ; evacuation process, their exposure to deposited l radioactivity would only be approstmately 2/24 or less than one. tenth of the code assumed dose. In addition. they would be avoiding any additional esposure ! to the plume (s) after leaving this area. 1 i i . l 1
)
[psarc, o
*, UMTED STATES l' ,
i NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
;;o p ' , -j REGION I 631 P ARK AVENUE
%, ,o KING OF PRV$$1A, PENN$YLVANIA 19406 APR24 gggy Mr. Edward A. Thomas, Chairinan Regional Assistance Comittee h[e /I Federal Emergency Management Agency
? 442 John W. McComack Post Office & Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Dear Thomas:
Reference:
Coments Related to RAC Meeting on Beach issues j ) I l l l On April 22 and 23, 1987, I had telephone discussions with Jack Dolan of your staff regarding some clarifications. Bob Rospende of ANL is providing some l changes as discussed on April 22, 1987. Below is a suggested addition as - discussed with Jack Dolan on April 23, 1987, which may help in understanding the teminology related to risks. The following sentence should be inserted on p. 7 of the enclosure to rny { February 18, 1987 rnemo on this subject, at the end of the second paragraph, ! following "Using the RSS assumptions, the hew Hampshire Yankee and BNL studies I indicated that a severe accident at Seabroor Station posed a public health risk at about two miles from the station that was essentially the same magnitude as considered in NUREG 0396 at 10 miles from a nuclear plant." Add:
"That is, since public health risk is inversely related to public safety, the level of safety for a person living two miles from Seabrook Station is !
essentially tne same as the level of safety considered in tiUREG 0396 for a person living 10 miles from a nuclear plant." ; l Should you have any questions, please contact ce at FTS ABS-E213.
- 1 at~r :
Robert . Bores i Technical Assistant Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards 1 cc: f W. Lazarus, RI R. Rc:penda, ANL l f
m .c .-.s .me ) .
~
PW:h-07 '87 14:38 ID:F.OtE PATL LRE TEL C 312-972-7919 at?? Pei AW '2 ' & ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION TELECOMMUNICATION MESSAGE
&Jm[.iT-)
Date: Tota _ 1Pages: . I FROM: g rg w maa of (NR)97P?49 k '~~ fh
', l l $/11. e- . - -
...,..a ,
g - m Atfarkv 1-M9a.ve/ - COMMEh75: w_.. l '
{. my-07 'e7 24:3a len:R33eE MTL LAB TEL NO:312-m-7819 n177 P03 Drsf 3/6/87
~
} REY 15ED TOWN 0f BANPMN CONTENTION YlII M REV1510N 3 jJyA Ressse FEMA has addressed the Town of Hampton Revised Contention V10 and its basis of inadequg.te protective actions for the beach populatlan by applying Planning Standa.1 J (Evaluation Crlterls J.9, J.10.a. J.10.g and J.10.m) la FEMA-REP-1. ! The December 16, 1988 RAC review of the State and munfelpai plans, the amended portions of the RAC review dated , and the RAC position ryst on the beach population issue transmitted to the Stata of New Harnpohlte dated reflect FEMA's views on this !ssue. SpeelfleaDy, FEMA % review comments 6n the New Hampshire State plan on this !ssue are provided on pages 64,74, 88,37,88, and 91 of Sectiva !. FEMA % review comments on the munlefpal plens on this lasus are provided on page 17 of Section II. FEMA % revlaw comments on the Evaeustion Time Eattmate (ETN on this !ssue are provided on page 4 of Section VL _ _ s
.. w. . :.;: .u - ., t r<l :i ITEMA te!!ed upon =the followinc documents e
In f.ormtag
- . ;. its,.conclus!.ons on this,
;j-; -
issue Revision 2 to the Hampton plang Revlslon 2 to the New Hampshire State plan; and the Applicant's Motion for Summary rv.spoeltlon of the Town of Hampton Revloed Contention VIII dated March 26,1987. As indicated in the December ll,1986 RAC rerlow (page 44, Section D, datarmination of the adeqvacy of protective responses for the beach population remained open pending final review by the RAC of planned protective measures, and pending receipt of information from the state on the number of translents who would need transportation during an evaeustion. The RAC has recenUy concluded (see RAC pcattien paper dated ) that the beach population can be appropriately protected by implementing provisions of the current (Rev. 2) New Hampshire emergency plans and that there appears to be no unique problem relative to the beach population that has. net been adequately addressed.
) . my-r '87 14:39 ID:#WG)dE t4TL LAB TEL to:312-9~h-7819 0177 P03 Qiampton VI!!) Draft S/8/87 The bues for the RAC's conclusion on the beech populatton issue are provided in I
the position paper transmitted from FDtA to the State of New Hampshire on May _, 1987. Work on this poeltlon paper was initiated by a 12-31-85 memorandum from the RAC Chairman to the RAC members requesting their review and comments on the adequacy of plans for protecting the beach population (14., the translent beach l populatlon, and summer residents who inhabit unw!nterised aceommodat!ons on or near the beach), end the possible need for special protective actions to protect the beach ) popula!!on. Wrltten comments in respose to the memorandum were received by the RAC Chairman during 1988 and 1987. A special meeting of the RAC was convened in April 1987 to review all comments and, If poss!ble, to arrive at a unified positio,n on whether the plans were adequate or inadequate to protect the beach population. On the basis of this revlaw, the RAC resolvec inat, contingent vu Ltw vvmyl tloa # aatles by tne bit.te 50 resolve tite vLI.e4 RAC 4engerna with the Kew Hampshire and IneAl plana. l _. , - . _.1. . u . . .; . . . . .. . . l lll ll l
- a .,10 . - allmissuessas inst tho.hnoah OM 110tlillsfliird. 7 I
I _ . Jnistless alliis nativitsi 5Methat thfar lilnM TW IHIMlGY $4't th'--- --
. .tn.t.. ..P IIUnDC 00C1 and the Intnnt af thakVF remilatinMin thh Arts, y Tne rouowmg coumuersuv= . ....--. ., -... .. I I . I si uomiu lwu ..tativs is the houvli pvpulation' {
.... II l .I ll IlI glll l}tlJl]f' $$ll gllll[jl generleally
- Special proylalons for bemen populations in plsve ,
a No identifled problems requiring unique ce unaddressed solutions
- Provisions for early warning of beach populations
- Adequate transportation resources available for those needing pubito transit i
1
__ r$:w-07 ' B7 a 4 : 40 iC.I W /> + E K M L Lcs ). 7EL @ 312-97b7819 a177 PO4
-(Hamp%on Vl!!)
- Draft $/6/87 Beaches are nearly two miles from station affordlag delay in plume
) arrival and d!!vtlon and dispersion of plume Sea breezes would tend to keep pittmo from travellog directly toward beach when beaches aire most populated )
- ETEs for beaches are relatively small 7 Containment at Seabrook is very . strong peebahtlity of prompt containment failurs is negliglble
)
- Coctatoment bypass is un!!kely to cause severe offrite problems Site speelfle studies for 8eabrook Indicate risks at two mfles are
, comparable to NUREO 0396 analyzed risks at 10 m!!as
' Reasonable assurance" does not equate with 'aboolute safety,"[.o.,
guarantee of no exposures or exposures above the FAQs. The above are described in further detali in the RAC poeltlon pape? 1ransmitted to the State of New Hampshire on May .,1947. Although the RAC has.tesobed p-oonclusion on the benehpopulatlettlsaye,dhe.r, : l RAC silU awalts rece!pt of information from the State of Naw Hampshire on the number of trar.slents who would need transportation during an evacuation. The State Plan (E l Volume 8, Table 11-4) presently prov! des estimates of permanent residents who would require transportation, but does not include estimates for transients requiring transportation (RAC review, Section VI, comment 17, page 4). Although the number of trsaslents without trartsportation is expected to be smaB acft well within the available transportation resources (RAC review, Beetion I, page 74) ide' ntified in the plan, this informhtlon has not yet been provlded to FEMA. l l B6:ause of the potentially large seasonal beach population, speela3 precautionary protective kctions for the beach population have been established by the State of New Hampshire (New Hengshire Plan, NHCDA Proceduras, Append!z F), including early I precautionary avacuation. The usa of pub!!c buildings for sheltering of transients without
r%Y-07 ' 87 14 : 41 lorr F 4 t* E te h Lsts TEL to:312-972-7819 c177 F95 (EstaMon VIII) Draft 8/6/87 ) transportation may be 11plemented on an 'ad hoc" basis (RAC forlew, Section 1,
, age . .
As indleated in the RAC posit!pn paper on ~the beach pgulation Iseue, prorMons 4 ) have been ma64 in the plans to consider closing the beaches or restricting puollo access 7 to the beach at the Alert emergency classification. At this classiftention level, no offsite setton would be ordinarily warranted tumtaet the public, but Its consideration Geesbiu or ymset of?h%r r/ &@ ourts kr%r3 3 mere wown provice additional time to clear thepseh, just in case the situation X worsens. Even at the Site Area Emergency classification, oes would ordinarily espect that offs!te protective settons would not be necessary to protect the pubtle. As noted in ; the State plan (page 2.1-13) precautionary protective actions for the beach population will be considered during the period of heaviest beach una, from May 15 through September 15. Details on the early precautionary protective actlons for the beach population, including precautionary evacuatten, are provided in the Stats plan pacedures ( (NHCDA Frocedures, Appendix F). . ;. ; . The use of 4arly-precautionary proteetlye actions.such as. beach Alostag and.a.= . avacuation are not the sale means for prottetton of the beach population. The' beach # - population is, in effect, also protected by the unusually strong containment system at the Seabrook Station. As indicated in the RAC posillon paper on the beach population laspe, i Brookhaven National laboratory (BNL) reviewed analysse pe//ormed by the Appiloant and performed ad6itional analyses of the systems and features of Seabrook Station. BNL i eoncluded that (t)here is negligible probability of prompt sontalament failure (at k Beabrook). Fa!!ure during the first few hours after core melt is also unlikely and the timing of overpressure failure (of containment)is very long compared to the R88. Most eore melt ateldents would tm effectively mitigated by containment spray operation. BNL rev!ews of containtnent bypass accident scenktios also indicated trat signifleant j t releasas from such socidents were alse not likely in the first hours after a severe aceldent. # i 9
R _ - - ---~~ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~ ~ r h 07 *67 14:41 JL:JAZer6 tuf t L4 (Hompton V&ll) TEL to: 312-975-7619
#177 P06 Draft 8/8/87 !
\
The RAC position paper further ind! cates that, in view of the Ne ampshire plans for beach clostde and access control as early as the Alert {cla
%glfglble on, the cited pebab!!!ty of prompt contelnment fatture" at Seabrook 7 I and l consequence / low probability of serious containment bypus ravel f sega time to the beach areu and the relatively short (2 to -4 hours) ti i me estimated to clear the beaches, it appars that risks to the beach population are cia small f raction of the ofssd states le NilflYr Milt fan thin dlatanan 1
\
lilillif filill{ 1818881 III I 3134188 Thun nunn if thann unna e nanmnt sava ' IIill Ill!I 888llllll15 MM 831$hlil AlildlIlhl plume foe two house dusing the otrootistion omness, eposited thals avpns rad!oactivlty would 9nly be apprv41m6tely 2/24 or less e code thaa one-te anumso cose. In acc1519n.10ty W9WQ Pt SY91QtDE Sny Memonaa to sne exposure plume (s) after leaving this area. FEMA Response (Further Basts) ' FEMA has addressed the Town of Hampton Revised and its Contention V e further buis of inadequat' protective ntions for residenfs~of-the:Seac ~' oast Tlealth Center by appiying'Plannirig 5tandards H and J.10.g J.10.m) in FEMA-REP-1.
., . , J1.(Evaluation The December 15,1986 RAC review of the State and muntelpal plan s reflects FEMA's views on this issue.
Speelfically, FEMA's review comments on the New Hampshire State plan on this issue are provided oneetion , p3ges 1. 47,74 and FEMA's review commonts on the muntelpal plans on this lasue are pro e on page 19 of Eeetion II. FEMA 4 revicw comments on the State o Compensatory Plan s issue are provloed on pages 8 and 8 of Cection IV (Compensatory Plan subsection issue FEMA relled on the following documents in forming its conclusions oc this Revision 3 to the Hampton plan) Revision 2 to the )and New Hamp6 the Applicanti Motion for Summnry Disposition pofonthe Revised Town of Ham { t Contention VIII dated March 25,1987, i f k i _ - _ - - - - - - - - 1
) my-c7
- E7 14: 42 ID:W h fE MTL L4B TEL N0:312-9~2-7819 #177 Fe7 (Hampton Vill) Draft 8/8/87 On the bas!s of the RAC review of Revision 2 of the Bate and municipal plana,
) - FEMA has not yet received sufficient information to have assurance that the residents of the Beacout Health Center will be properly evacuated in a timely manner in the event of ( a redlologleal emergency if Hampton does not implement the emergency response plan. 81 nee Hampton has Indloated that it will not participate in the planning and response to an accident at the Seabrook 8tation, it is necessary to deternrine the State's abutty to tmplement compensatory measures for the Town of Hampton ad to, therefore, provids for evacuation for the residents of the Beacoast Health Center. The Hampton plan (page 11-30) thdicates tnat in the sient of the evacuation of speelal facilltles (such as ti.a Beneoast Health Center), the Hampton rubile Works Director will coordinate transportation servlees. However, if the Town of Hampton does not participate in the implemerstetton of its response plan, the State will assume responsib'ility for coordinating the provlston of transportation resources for the evacuation of the residents of tht Beacont Mrs1th Center. The concept of operations for the 8 tete's compensatory measures.ls proylded in Appendiz O cf the State Flar. As, .m ind!cated in this appendix and in the NHCDA Procedwes (Yohame46.of State Plan) V a .:... . municipality is unable to respond to the err,ergency, an IFO bocal Llatoon w!!! be ass!gGed I to coordinate the provision of transportation resourc64 for erseuttion. Although the RAC had no commetts on the adequacy of this plan concept per se,'the RAC has questioned the adequacy of the numbers of 1.oeal Lla! son perses to be assigned and the adequacy of .evallable communications rescurces available to implement his aspect of the compensat9ry plan. These items (NUREO elements H,4 and H.11, pages 8 SM 8 of Beetion IV RAC comments en Compensatory Plan) were left open by the RAC pending provision of additional supporting information by the State 11ds information has rot yet been pecvided to FAWA. Relative to the speela! fac!!!tles plans themselves (i.e., those included as Appendix F of the multicipal plans),( : !d;d pk FEMA eoncludes that the health x f
) m Y-07 '87 14:43 ID:ARD&E MTL LAB TEL N): 312-972-7819 u m pe8 Of ampton VIU) Draft 5/8/87 } care facility speclaj plans, including that for the Beacoast Health Center, have been adequately revised and now contain adequately detaued procedures for evacuatlon and relocation of patients (RAC revlaw, Section 1, page 47). Although there are att11 ) numerous Inconsistencies in the plan in bus needs est! mates, a!! estimates Indicate that overall the number of buses provided for in the letters of agreement are adequate and I that additional transportation resources available from other organizations provide a i ( !arge redundancy of resources (RAC revlow, Section 1, page 74). ' The bus board!ng time of 10 minutes for residents of speelal faell!tles is provided in the State Plan Evacuation Time Estimate study, page 11-11. The RAC had no comment on thls rey! sed estimated bus boarding time. In regard to sheltering residents of the Seacoast Esalth Center, the State indicates that sheltering is the preferred protective setton. FEMA concludes that the plans have been adequately revised to take into account the sheltering protection factors for speelal fac111tles, including the Seacoast Health Center. A special tabulation of specific protection factors for each of the '-faellities, inclueng the 8esecast ' Health " Center, is present in Table 2.6-3 of the State plan (RAC review, Beetlon I, page 6f). Me" ~ ' ~ RAC revlew (Section I, page 88) Indicates that the flow dlagram in the State plan (Fig. ; 2.6-7) now properly reflects the deelslon-making process for the sleetion between sheltering and evacuation, and that the treatment of institutional! sed persons is now I adequately detailed. l
f$Y-07 '87 14:44 !D:W h fE FAT 1. LAB EL tC 3Gg7gg gg besN 5+17 SAPL CONTENTION 16 FEMA Respocas FEMA has addressed sal'L Contention 18 arid its basis that plans do not make adequate provisions for the sheltering of various segments of the populace in the EPZ by applying Planning Standard J (Evaluttlen Criterla J.9, J.10.t, J.10.d, J.10.m) In FEMA- - REP-1. The December 15,1986 RAC review of the State and local plans, the amended portions of the RAC revlow dated _ . and the RAC position paper or. the beach population issue transmitted to the State of New Hampshire dated , reflect FEM A's vlews on this issue. Specifically, FEMA's review comments on the New Hampshire State plan on this issue are provided on pages 64, 87, 87, 84, Sir and 91 of Section 1. F2M A% review comments on the municipal plans or. this 1* sue are prov!ded on page 17 of Section 11.
~
FEMA relied on 'the follow:ng documents in fortning~ lts eonclusiche on thle Issues Revision 2 t'o the Now Hampehire State and loont plarm ar.d the Appilcant's Motlos'" for Summary Disposition of ~8AFL Contention 18 dated March SE,1987. FEMA does not yet have all information to be prow!ded by the state. As indicated in the December 15,1988 RAC revies! (page 64, Doction D, determination of the adequacy of protective responses for the beach population remained open pending final reytew 'by the RAC of planned protectivs mtasures, and pending receipt of information from the state on the number of translents who would need transportattoa l during an evacuation. The RAC has recertly concluded bee RAC position paper dated ) that the beach population can be isopropelately protected by implementing provisions of the current (Rev. 2) New Hampshire emergeisey plans and that there appears to be no un!que problem relative to the beach population that has not been 0 adequately addressed. The % for the RAC's conclusion on the beach population issue
- l l
l
my-07 's? 14:44 m:6CENE MTL LAB TEL to:312-972-7819 217? P10 pm 4) p,e r+n are provided in the pos!tfon paper trans:nitted from FEMA to the State of New ; Hampshire on May ,1987. Deta!!s on how this position paper was developed, and a discussion on the key considerations used by the RAC in arriving at its conclusion are previded in the FEMA respofnse to Revised Town of Hamfpton Contention Y111. ( I Although the RAC has reach 1rd a conclusion on the beach population issue, the RAC still awatts receipt of information from the State of New Hampshire on the nuniber of translents who would need transportation during an evacuation. Although the number of j translents without transportation is expected to be small, this Information has not yet been provided to FEMA. This also app!!as to NUREG element 2.10.m as indicated by the RAC review comments on page 87 of RAC review Beetion L l State Plan Section 2.6.5 Indicates that New Hampshlie relles on two protective 1 actions for!!miting the direct exposure of the general public wSthln the Plume Exposure
]
1 EPZ. These two protective actions are sheltering and evacuation (State plan, pa;e 2.6-l 4). The deelslon whether to shelter or evacuate is based on several varlables, including l dose reduction factors due to shelteiln~g'(State Plan, page 2.0-gt).' Sheltering een apply - - to the permanent Pes! dent population,'foetitut!onsilledd persons,'thWansientr.'" "* 9 -' State Plan Section 2.6.5 (page 2.6-6) Indicates that New Hampshire employs the
" Shelter-in-Place" concept if sheltering is the chosen protective sotton. The plan indicates that "those at home are to shelter at home; thoes at work or school are to be sheltered in the workplace or school building"(State Plan page 2.8-4). As Indleated in the RAC revlew comments (Section 1, page 64) on the State ptan, the use of publie shelters is not proposed during a Seabrook Station emergency. The only exception is the possible use of public buildings for shelters for translents without transportation.
Translents with transportation and "without access to en Indoor 19eation " including thoes at beaches and at campgrounds, will be advised to evacuate la their own vehicles. The use of public build!ngs for sheltering of translents without transportation is neceptable since the translents without transportation are expected to be a very small number. '!he 2. _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ -_- - _ _ - - -- I
rOY-07.'97 44:#3 ID:AR334E MTL LAB TEL N):312-972-7819' s177 Pia ($dN* b) pryh*1447 ,
]i plan (p. 3.8-8) states that 9ub11e bulldtrgs may be set up and opend as shelters for s,e.. . .d .
i Because of the potentially large seasons! beach populatbn, specla! precautionary y protective actions for the beach populat!on have been estab!!ahed by the State of New Hampshire (New Hampshire Plan, NHCDA Procedures, Appedtz F), including early precautionary evacuation. The use of put!!c buudings for sheltering of transients w!thout transportation may be implemented on an "ad hoc" basis (RAC review: Section I, page f 64). As noted above, the use of pubtle shelters le not preposed during a Seabrook f Station emergency. As noted in the State plan (/ age 3.1-13), precautionary protective y < b setton such as early closing and evacuation of the beaches will be considered during the period of heavlest beach use, from May 15 throuth September 15. The use of precautionary protective actions are not the sole means for protection of trans!ents such as visitore to beaches and campgrounds. ney are, in effect, also protected by the unusually strong containment system at the Seabrook Station. This is deserfted in in the RAC position paper on the beach population lasue trarwmitted to the 8 tate on May
,,1981, and is also summarlsed in the FEMA response to Revised Town of nampton contenuon vsaa. anewueu m us vue.lva of u n11.11A. y.4.t.itit, of y.w-rt aantaininent failure at Beobrook.
In engand in shnitnalna sesittents of snanfal faallittet erh rs hryidtah Illimity 8 , .,
...J J.11., tl. OL.L. l..J)..t.. that aksisselay is the peef ensed poeteetina matinn wwwe u. y.e. ..w u. . u== w..,... w . .L ,L. L , . L . .J., l.1, . . . l. . .! l .
tate into account tne sneltering protection factors for spesle! favt11tl (KAC review, I 5.vtiva I, y.a. ST). A .y.wid tablatlan af spestfle pretasHe fastass fes each of the
..uu u y.. ... ..... ... . v. ~ .. . . .. ... , ...... ., m . ....
1 1 1. . . Iil I 11 1 11 I il t E. I 11 fil i filla (7)g. 2.M) now properly reflects the decision-making process for the election between
.. - . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ ----._u. .- --_-_-_--.____-__--_---a
N Y-0? 'B7 ID:W h fE t4TL LAB (f)fb /$,)14:46 TEL PO:312-973-7319 a "r? P M o:er A2*t7 sheltering and evacuation, and that the treatment of institutloaalized is now adequately deta!!ad.
- The State Indicates that the tabulstion of speelfle abattering protection factors referenced above (Table 2.6-3 of State Plan) is only for special faell!tles such as health care facilltles and ja!!s for which independent determinations of appropriate protective actions are made during an emergency (see Sta,te response on page 91 of RAC review Section !). The State indleates that "other types of specla! feetitles such as schools and day care centers will follow the protective action recommendations prescribed for the gsneral population." The State centinues that the
- protective setton recommendation process ut!!!ses conservative sheltering protect!on factors for general population dectston-making." Bection 2.6.5 of the State Plan now includes a generic external sheltering factors table which shows the levels of protection that can be expected from verlous building types in the EPZ (Table 2.6-4, page 2.610 of the State Plan).
;- s e s: M : 's si s t ^' k < ; . 9:ggd s g y.;,.- 5 .(^
r.,,-c.- w :a;a m m +. m u s. m.3 ;_a3 om m brar4 S-6~F? AMENDED NECNP CONTENTION RZRF-4 FEMA Response PEMA has addressed NECNP Contention RERP-8, and its basis that there le no reasonable assurance that sheltering la an adequate protective inessure for all members of the pub!!c who may need it, by applying Planning Standard J (Evaluation Celterta J.9, J.10.a. J.10.d, J.10.m) 1n FEMA-REP-1. The December 18, 1986 RAC review of the State plan, the amended portions of the RAC review dated , and the RAC position paper en the beach population 1 lasue transmitted to the State of New Hampsh!re w!th FEMA letter dated re- ; 1 S y g Tin tf Af., . l. .. . .. Lt.!J !s a u t . Cy s elflotlly, PTillefa epism espannanta on thn Unm 1 Il l' fil ll 111I II till lillil Ill IIlllliti II IIflIQ ll fi II ll Il IM ll Of Section I. l l rzmA relieo on tne sonowing oocuments in normmg na uunwusivns vu une l l
!asuer Revision 2 to the New Hampshire State plang .and.ibe Applicant's Motion for,,,_ i liin m asti Tilse es!!.lso Bf Eff Wilfontanilan If fist litfAA Virahfi IMI . ,
- +. ..
1 i e,m a uves uv 6 y v . n. . . .u un e. m . s v.. . o v. v . lJ.J 1,, J. . L L. L, tli L. ! noted later in this resDonAP, th!A m!utng InfnrmAtInn Conalsta of the nutLbit of tratJltnis who would nood tpantportatinn dming an avenustinn State Plan section 2.6.5 Indientes that New Hsmpshire celles on two protactive actions for limiting the direct exposurs af the general public within the Plume Exposure EPZ. These two protective actions are sheltering and evnetation (8tati Plan, page 2.5-4). The deelston whether to shelter or evacuate is based ou several variables, including dose reduction factors due to sheltering (State Plan, page 2A 29). Sheltering can apply to the permanent resident population, institutional!:sd persons, and trans!ents. 2 tate Plan section 2.6.5 (page 2.5 6) indicates that New Hampshir6 employs the
" Shelter-in Place" concept if shelter!ng is the chosen proteettys action. The plan
/
7 nAv-07 '87 14:47 IDWJ4E MTL LAB TEL PC: 322-9"'2-78a9 giv7 pi4 l (A4CNP ~468P4 DeaH F6+7 l Indicates that "those at home are to shelter at home; those at work or school are to be f sheltered in the workplace or school building" (State Plan page 3.6-8). As indicated in the RAC rev!ew comments (Section I, ps.ge 64) on the State ple.n, the use of pub!!c shelters is not proposed during a Beabrook Station emergeney, The only exception la the I possible use of public buildings for shelters for transients without transportatlen. ' Transients with transportation and *without access to an Indoor location" will be advised to evacuate in their own vehicles. The use of public bu!! dings for sheltering of translents t without transportation is acceptable since the transients without transportation are expected to be a very small number. The plan (p. 2.6-8) states that *Public buildings may be set up and opened as shelters for trarialents, on an ad hoe bas!s". As ind!cated in the December 15, 1988 RAC tsview (page 64, Section I), determination of the adequacy of protective responses for the beach population remained open pending final review by the RAC of planned protective measures, and pending receipt of informstlon from the state on the number of transients who would need transportation during an evacuation. The RAC has recently eencluded that the beach - . population can be appropriately protected by implementing providona.of the current k m :- - (Rev. 2) New Hampshire emergency plans and that there appears to be no unique problem l relative to the beach population that has not been adequately addressed. The bases for
)
the RAC% conclusion on the beach population tasue are provided la the position paper 1 transmitted from FEMA to the State of New Hampshire on May .1947. Deta!!s on 1 bow this position paper was developed, and a discussion on the key considerations used by the RAC in arriving at its conclusion ete provided in the FEMA response to Revised Town of Hampton contention V111. Although the RAC has reached a conclus!on on the beach populationissu% @ g b[e RAC still awalta rece!pt of Information from the State of New Hampshire on the number of transients who would need transportation during an eyecuation. Although the number of trans!ents without transportation Is expected to be small, this information
- 7. ]
J
rcr-07 *B7 14:4 ID:M3l">cE t&TL LAB in m:32p.97p_7 egg y $Wh ASA/* 0)9 m.77 g
. Des 6'$,4 97 has not yet been provided to FEMA. Th!s alto app!!ss to NtIREO element J.10.m as
) indicated by the RAC review comments on page 87 of RAC review Section I. Because of the potentially large seasonal beach populatlen, spdialprecauttottary protsettve sections for the beach populstfen have been estab!!sbed by the State of New h Hampshire (h'ew Hempshire Plan, NHCDA Procedures, Appendia F), including early precautionary evacuation. The use of pubtle build!ngs for shelterittg of tra?4!ents without transportation may be implemented on an "ad hoc" baz!s (RAC review, Section I, page ) 64). As noted above, the use of pubile shelters !s not proposed during a Seabrook 8tation emergency. As noted in the State plan (psge 2.1-13), precautionary protective ( actions such as early closing and avacuat!on of the beaches willbe considered during the f perlod of heavlast beach use, from May 15 through Septemt,er 25. The use of precautionary protective actions are not the sole means for protection of translents such as visitors to besches and campgrounds. They are, in effect, also protected by tjw ' , unusually strong containment system at the Seabrook Station. Th!s is described fri detaff in the RAC position paper on the beach populat!on Issue transmitted to the State on May
,1987, and ts also sammarized in the FEMA response to Revised "bwn of Hampton Contention VIII. Included !s a discussion of the negligible probability of prompt containment failure at Seabrook. -
In regard to sheltering res! dents of special fact!!ttee, the State indloates that sheltering 1s the preferred protective metion (State Plan page S.f-7). FEMA concludes that the plans have been adequately revised to take into account the aholtering protection factors for speelsl facilities (RAC review, Section I, page 87). A speelal tabulation of speelfic protection factors for each of the feo!!!tles is present in f Table 2.6-3 of the 8 tate plan (RAC review, Section I, page M). The RAC teview i (Beetion 1, page t&) Ind! cates that the flow diagram in the State plan (Fig. 8.8 T) now properly reflee's the declatun-m=Mug pruuvem for t1= elevtloo tmtwe.o st=ltering and 3 l
MAY-07 ' M 14:49 ID: ADD +E MTL LAB TEL 14: 312-9'2-7819 5177 P ) - [ptcyp-AMP.9) DCW >%*47 *
= i l
evacuation, and that the treetment of institutionalized pensons is now adequately j ) detalled. The State indleates that the tabulation of speelfle sheltering protect!on factors
)
I referenced above Cable 2.6-3 of State Plan) is only for speelaJ fac!11tles such as health i ) care facilities and Jalls for which Independent determinations of appropriate protective I actions are made during an emergency (see State response on page 91 of RAC review Section D. The State Indicates that "other types of special factitles such as schools and j ) day care centers wt!! follow the protective action recommendations prescribed for the general population." The State continues that the " protective action recommendation process ut!!!ses conservative sheltering protection factors for general population I decision-making." 8ection 2.6.5 of the State Plan now tachdes a generle external ? sheltering factors table whteh shows the levels of protection that can be expected from I various building types in the EPZ (Table 2.6-4, page 2.6-10 of the State Plan). l l l I l l i 1 1
)
/
[ /j.* *8 sg[*.
-[' y , j' j 8
UNIT ED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
# REGION I t
83t PA Ax AvtNut )
%,....,/ niNo os PAussia.etNNsvivANtA suas
/f O JUN 0 4 gggy i Edward A. Thomas, Chairinan Regional Assistance Comittee Federal Emergency Management Agency John W. McCormack Post Office and Court House
) Boston, Massachusetts 02102
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Reference:
RAC Coments on Transient Beach Population for Seabrook Station ) Subsequent to our April 15, 1987 meeting of the Regional Assistance Cocynittee on the above subject, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its HEMORANDUM AND ORDER on April ??, 1987 relative to the Public Service Company of New Hampshire petition for a one-mile plume emergency planning zone. In that document, the Board concluded that the current studies provided by the applicant did not provide a prima facie showing to warrant the granting of the one-mile plume Ep2 petition. The Board deliberately left open the possibility of granting the petition if convincing inforination'is subsequently provided. Even though the beach population issues differ substantially from the above litigation, because of it and because the NRC staff has not yet coinpleted its review of all issues in the Seabrook and "BNL' studies, I recomend that the RAC not reference these studies or specific contents in our present consid-eration of the beach population issues. With that in mind, I am proposing reviseo sections for the RAC report. These proposed revisions involve pages seven through ten. For your convenience, a clean, rewritten copy of the RAC position paper incorporating these revisions is enclosed. Should you have any questions concernin5 the above, please contact me at FTS 488-1213. response. I would be very happy to meet with yot, and/or the RAC to discuss my Robert J. Bores Technical Assistant Civision of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated \ bec w/ enc 1: W. Russell J. Allan J. Gutierrez I W. Kane I W. Johnston T. Martin R. Bel, lamy R. Bores
1 1 ) - I I BACXGROUND PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BEACH POPULA The requirements (2), which for emergency state that except as provided preparedness in 10 CFR 50.47(d) stem free 10 licensing of a facility for operation up to 51 of rated power (relattve to 5 license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a findi the NRC that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protec e by base its finding on a review of the FEMA The NRC willfindings whether state and reasonable assurance that local emergency they can be implementedplans are adequate and wheth o I
).
theFEMA The adequacy findin and implementability of the licensee',sns.onsite eme emergency plans.g is primarily based on the review of the state and local j in considering implemented. Paragraphwhether b there is reasonable assurance th ans can be planning erergency ofrespons(e) offsitestandards. 10 CFR 50.47 requires that the onsite and plans for nuclear power r i 1 NUREG 0654/TEMA-REP 1, ' Criteria for Preparation and Evalu cal of Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Suppc>rt Nucl was issued to provide a corron reference and guidance source for state a , local goverrrents and licensees in the development of emergency response plans and preparedness for response to a radiological emerg for preparedness. and FEMA, NRC and other federal agencies for use in the review o nuclear pcwer plants was taken from NUREG 0396/ EPA Basis for the Development of State and 1ocal Gcvernmen/178-016, " Planning t Radiolo Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants' gical Emergen objective of the emergency response plans is to provide
'The overall dose saving some cases,1 mediate life savings) for a _spectrus of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of the PAGs" (huRIG 0654).
it attempted to identify the boundarthat the planning NUREG 0396 intended basis range fro n of potential accident consequences, y parareters based on available knowledge teristics (source ters). timing of releases, and release charac-PAGs do not equate with loss of life or even a health hazard.It s The PAGs were between radiation risk and that of taking ofa protec constraints to that action. M
@W Je g j g Enclosure
~
A& l1 UNITED STATES T AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIEIINE COMMISSICN BEORE 'IHE A'IOMIC SAFETI AND LICmSING DOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
Public Service Co. of New Ha@ shire, ) et al. Ibcket No. 50-443-OL
)
50-444 OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) Offsite Emergency
) Planning Issues
)
FEMA PRE-FILED TESTIKNI parties to this proceeding its prefiled testinony on contentions New Hanpshire Radiological Emergercy Response Plan. FEMA notes, for the record, that its review of issues addressed therein is ongoing. q / J.n
? -
A i
,w ' KG. ,
H. Joseph Plynn ' Assistant' General Counsel Federal Emetgency Management Agency Washington, D.C. September 11, 1987 _____-- - - " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ^ ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . - - - - - . - - . - - - - - - - -
) ' UNITED STATES T AMERICA
. NUCLEAR RI.IAJIAE)IU COMMISSICN l
) BE/CPE 'INE AK)MIC SAFE.Tl AND LICENSING BOARD
)
Ir. the Matter of )
)
- g. Public Service Co. of New Hanpshire, )
et al. Docket No. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL
) offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) Planning Issues
)
) DIRIX:T TESTI!ON T EDWUO A. 'DIOMAS, EDWARD A. TAN 2 MAN, AND BRJCE J. SWIREN CN 'IHE NEW HAMP911RE RADIOIDGICAL EMEMENCY 2ESPCNSE PIAN PREDiTED CN BEHAIF T 'IHE FEDERAL D'IEENCY MANAGDENT AGENCY
'Ibe wit.nesses 65an the Federal Emergency Management Agency REMA) is sponsoring on the admitted contentions having to do with the New Hanpshitt Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP) in the Event of an Accident at Seabrook Station are Edward A. Thomas, Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I Boston, Massachusetts Edward A. Tanzman Energy ard Environmental Programs Attorney Energy and Environmental Systems Division )
1 Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, Illinois j and i Bruce J. Swiren I Dnergency Management Specialist Natural and Technological Hazards Division Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I I Bostan, Massachusetts 4 i l l
. )
our Statements of Professional Qualifications are attached to this Direct Testinony and are incorporated herein by refereaoe. I In general, the purpose of our testimony is to address the admitted ) contentions and supporting bases. As explained below, our testinony is limited to certain contentions and bases. As noted in'the Statement of position, the Nuclear Regulatory Ccrimission (NRC) is Sponsoring the ) testinony of Dr. Thert:as Urbanik on certain contentions having to do with the validity of Evacuation Time Estimates, and so FDM is not sponsoring testinony on those contentions, namely: ) Wrvised Hanpton Contention III to Revision 2 Revised Hanpton Contention VI to Revision 2, Basis A (Rev.1) SAPL Contention 18 SAP (, Revised Contention 31 SAPL Contention 34 SAPL Contention 37 i . Peta considers its statement about the transient beach population largely to inxlve mattars of policy. Edv'ard A. Thcnas is the FEMA official in Region I who is responsible for explaining, applying, and I j carrying out FD%'s policies as they apply to the Radiological Emergency i Preparedness Program. For this reason, Mr. Thomas is the single witness as to thcse contentions having to do with the lack of shelter for the transient beach pcpulation, nanely: Revised Haupton Contention VIII to Revision 2 SAPL Contention 16 NECNP Contention'RERP-8 During the period of time when Bruce Swiren was enployed by HMM Associates, he worked on obtaining revised or renewed 14tters of Agreenent M = W L = '= n -- - ~_ . 4
}
) . fran hospitals, ambulan;e companies, towing canpanies, and bus companies. In ) t.,rder to avoid even the possibility of the appearan of a conflict of interests, i Mr. Swiren has renoved himself as a witness on contentions and bases having to do with these letters of agreement and the determination of the number of ) Teamsters to be made available by their employers in the event of an emergency. For this reason, Edward A. Thanas and Edward A. Tanzman will testify on those contentions and bases, namely: Revised Ha @ ton Contention IV ) South Hampton Contention 3; Bases 1, A, B, C, E, ard Further Bases A.I. , A.2. , and B Town of Kensington Contention 6 NECNP Contention NHLP-2, Basis D NEINP Contention NHLP-6, Bases d and e and HP-1-e SAPL Contention 15
> SAPL Contention 25 All three of us will address the remaining admitted contentions and bases. ,
he attached document entitled " Current FD% Position on Admitted Con-I tentions on New Hanpshire Plans for Seabrook" (hereinaf ter referTed to as the " Statement of Position"), dated June 4,1987, has previously i been made a part of the record of this case. That Statenant of Position was atte.ded as Appendix A to the Response of the Federal Emergency i Managenent Agency to Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon's Off-Site Emergency Preparedness Interrogatories and Request for Ptoduction of Docunents to FDR (Set No. 2) and is bettin identified as Exhibit A. We larguage of the contentions and their bases is set forth in that Statement of Position and so is not repeated herein. Exhibit B to this testinony, entitlod " Current FEMA Position on South Ha@ ton Contention 8 and NIX 2iP Contention NHLP-4", and dated June 26, 1987, is a supplement to FEMA's Statement of Position and is also a part of the record of this case. I
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . b
I y - .- .. I i l l Exhibit C is a' copy of a letter dated August 7,1987 frtn H. Joseph Flynn ' j l to Thorras G. Dignan, Jr. It reflects FEMA's position on the issues discussed j
, 1 therein. We individually incorporate by reference those portions of Exhibit A, I
\. I B, and C which are pertinent to our respective testinony. j i The positions which FEMA has taken on the NHRERP, the exercise of the NHRERP, and the contentions which this Atcmic Safety and Licensirg Board i 1
has admitted were arrived at through a collegial process of review by FEMA's ] Regional Office in Bcston, consultation with FEMA's Regional Assistance \
. V Ccmdttee (RAC) ard Argonne National Laboratory, and review by FDiA's 4
. 1 State and I.ccal Programs and Support Directorate in Washington, D.C. l 1
ne RAC is an interagency ccrmittee constituted in each of the 10 stardard { 1 Federal regions pursuant to 44 C.F.R. @351. ne crrnittee is ccrposed J of representatives of FD%, the NRC, the Envitormental Protection Agency, ,
. l the Department of Energy, the Departmnt of Health and Human Services, I the Departtent of Transport.ation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Ccmmerce and the Department of Interior.
FD% and the RAC have prcvided ccrments on New Hampshire draf t planning for Seabrook dating back to suinissions in 1982. However, the current plan, which is under litigation, dates back to 1985. In Decerber,1985, the State of New Harpshire submitted the NHRERP (Revision 0) to FD4A. New Harpshire sul:mitted i l extensive changes to the NHRERP (Revision 0, Supplemcnt 1) in February,1986, 1 which included:
- 1. Volume 5 NHRERP, " Letters of Agreement in Su;3r>rt of the NHRERP";
- 2. Volume 7 NMRERP, "Seabrook Station Alert and Notification System Design Report";
)
- 3. Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Study materials (Progress Report.s Nos.1-6) frcm KLD Associates;
)
) 4. Fevised procedures for the New Ha@ shire Departnent of )
Resources and Economic Development; ) 5, Ccrpensatory Plan outlining the means used by the Stat'e to j protect citir. ens in towns within the Seabrook EPZ when ' municipal govenments cannot or will not carry out tasks assigned by the local plan, ard; [ 6. Draf t public information traterial. l l The February,1986, revisions were served on the parties on March 11, 1986. We State of New Hanpshire filed additional plan changes in April,1986, (Revision 0, Supplement 2 of the NHRERP) consisting of the following:
- 1. KLD Progress Report No. 7;
- 2. A revision to the Department of Public Health and Safety (DPHS)
) Procedures, including replacement and new appendices to the DPPS Procedures;
- 3. Rockingham County Ccrnplex procedures, includirrj those for the Rockingham County Nursing Hcrne, Pockingham County Jail Faciiity and Rockingham County Dispatch Center; and 1
- 4. Procedures for the decontamination of persoruxil at the Fanchester Decontamination Center, along with Appendix F to these procedures.
A full-scale exercise of the INRERP was conducted en February 26, 1986. During the first several tronths of 1986, FDtA ard the RAC were involved in extensive reviews of the Decenter NKPIRP (Revision 0), the February revisions (Supplements 1 and 2 to Revision 0), anS the February exercise. In April, 1986, FEMA sent the following cbcune7ts to the State of New Hanpshire:
- 1. FD%'s report of the deficiencies observed during the Febru-ary 26, 1986, exercise of the state ud local plans to protect the public in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook;
- 2. Final Draf t Report of the Exercise of the energency plans for Seabrook held February 26, 1986;
- 3. Final review by the RAC of the state and local plans subnitted by New Hanpshire in Decenter,1985; ard
- 4. Draf t RAC Review of the state and local plans sutrrdtted by New Hampshire in February,1986.
%ese documents have been served on the parties to this pcoceeding.
w-- _1 1 1 { On June 3,1986, the State filed another revision of the NHPIRP (Re-vision 1) responding to the eccrients of the RAC conceming the plan and the exercise of the plan. We ETE Study prepared by KLD Associates, 1
)
which had recently been released in a final draft, was incorporated into ) the NHRERP at that time. On June 23 aM 24,1986, the RAC met with representatives of the State of New Ha;rpshire and the Applicant and explained in further datail the concems l identified in the doewrents described abcne. On September 8,1986, the State I i I of New Harpshire submitted another revision of the NHRERP (Revision 2, dated { 1 August,1986) addressing the concems identified by the RAC. FD% sutnitted l l the f D'A/RAC Review of Revision 2 of the state and local plans to the State of New Harpshire on Decenber 12, 1986. his document is the basis for nost of the l l p::sitions taken by FDM in this licensing proceeding and has also been served { on all the parties.
)
on April 15 aM July 2,1987, the NRC filed FDR's p3sitions on the parties' I various Motions for Sunmary Dis;osition of Contentions. On June 4,1987, FD% filed its Statement of Position as part of a response to Interrogatories from the parties. Bis reflectr FDR's current pcsition, even though the State of New Hag:chire suinitted a Sumsty of Personnel Pesource Assess:ent for the New Har:pshire Radiological Diertjency Response Plan in late Aug st,1987, and additional information in early September. he review perioJ for material which a state sutnits to FDR as part of a radiological emergency response plan is rormally at least 60 days. These materials are not reflected in this testinony principally because ) they were not received early enough to have been reviewed by FD% aM the FAC and because the State of New Haqshire has Mvised FD% that the material suinitted in Septer:ber is not part of the NHRERP. I
ew 4
.. . 38.
e NECNP CONTENTION RERP-8 The New Hampshire RERP does not provide a " reasonable assurance - that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a
- radiological emergency." as required by 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1), in that the plan does not provide reasonable assurance that sheltering is an g-
" adequate protective measure" for Seabrook. Nor does the plan provide adequate criteria for the choice between protective measures, as required by I $0.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654. I !!.J.10.m.
N e h
-[ FD4A RESPONSE to Revised Tcwn of Hanpton Contention VIII to Revision 2 (of the New Hampshire RERP for Seabrook) , SAPL Contention 16, and NECNP Contention p RERP-8 - -
o e These three contentions all deal with what is fundamentally the sane issues protection from a radiological release for beach-going population " at Seabrook who do not have ready access to any effective form of sheltering. This group includes both " day-trippers to the beach and those persons who only have access to unwinterized or other types of construction which will offer a lesser degree of protection than that offered by standard residential or ccmnercial buildings. ; Backcround - This issue has been of great concern to FEMA from our earliest detailed involvement with the preparation.of plans and the achieve- o 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 providirs reasonable assurance that appropriate 7 protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. - In December 1985 the State of New Hampshire submitted plans for protecting the public in the event of an accident at Seabrook to FEMA for review pur-suant to 44 CFR 350. ' hose plans were fo varded for review by the Regional Assistance Conrnittee (RAC), an interagency group established pursuant to 44 CFR 350 to both assist state and local governnent in the development of radiological emergency response plans and to evaluate the adequacy of such plans. 01 December 31, 1985, FD%, as chair of the RAC, requested that the members of the RAC (as well as the other TD% staf t who were reviewing the New Rampshire Plans) innediately focus on the issue of the protection of beach population and the occupants of unwinterized awuciations. 'this menorandum is attached as Apperdix C to this response to interrogatories. TD4A Position - Since the tine of our Deconber 31, 1985, menorandtru on the subject of the protection of the public on and near the beaches around Seabrook, the State of New Hampshire has refined and improved its mergency plans and sutraitted a detailed Evacuation Time Estimate which sheds a considerable anount cf light on this issue. The facts relevant
~
i - .: to understanding this issue are that:
4
, .h A y# 'Y ) d 19.
- j. j m cortarIou a_ to ,g (Cont.), " fjp s,_,,,_ _ _
i , ,--
'g .. (1) he primary guidance document used by FD% and the RAC in reviewinq l 3 3 off-s ite emergency plans is NURIG-0654, FD% REP-1, Sev.1, a 'j-
{ 2
) ,/. docanent . jointly developed by FD% and the NRC. Rat guidance ,,,i g )
4 ,'j ,*7 document indicates on p.13 that "(t)ha range of times between a7 g j cf the onset of accident conditions and the start of a major release ', {
- y. ,..' in of the order of one-half hoer to several hours". nis staternent 6 "*
j j 4 is further clarified on p.17, Table 2 to indicate that (a) the >(. j "f f' major portion of a release may occur in a time per..:d rang;ng
)
0 frm as little as one-half hour to one day af ter the releasa <MI'~ ",
"_P c. , begins.ard (b) that the travel tims of the release to egosure > 6.1C i
. /' , " ./ point can rarge from one-half hour to two hours at five miles, gg,,:g_4 i and one hour to four hours at ten miles.
Q(#y/,#4 ' _j , . %vw p&.2. t y a W' . ((g v , q' q ( 2 ) Cn peak sumner days there are thousands of beachgoers in the -
)
g,f 3 r f Seabrook EP2 in areas beginning approximately 1.7 miles from i2
-3l',Y)) / .
the plant. We current New Hampshire plar a contemplate evacuating thCrnapnousands ef beachgoers who have access to no adequate f (~ 1 #,,p h", P sheltTr as a protective action in the event of an accident at Seabmok. 6 We understand that the plans contain no consideration of shelterir.g
' @f',7g /, the ' day trippers" because on starrcer dhys when there are a lage '
~
number of thesc people, it is not possible to find reasonably e-Tf" '-; l accessible sholter for them. Mere are an additional rnanbar of persons who would be in or have access only to shelter in unwinter-ized cott. ages and notel rocms. We protsetion afforded by , shelterity afforded by ain these nomal structures wood will
. frame houss. definitely t
be less than thatjg' g .. (3) he Evacuation Time Estimate for the Seabmok EP2 submitted by the hp State of New Hampshire indicates at pp.10-1 el.sec. that in goed 4 weather when the beaches are at 60 to 100 percent of capacity it g, AJ- M will take three and or.e-half hours to clear the beaches, and a spa, & l total of from four hours and fifty minutes five hcurs ard 'gg i l fifty minutes to evacuate all the populetion on the beaches frem I the EP2. In sm e situations such as sudden - wetther followirg a peak smmer day, the total evacuatien tirae or portions of the EP2 rarge up to seven hours and fitty minutes. Berefore, usire the standard guidance for the initiation and dnration ' / j, of radiological releases, atrthe c0frent New Ha@uhire RERP including ETE, D it appears that thousands of people could be unable to leave durirn an accident at Seabrook involvirn a major release of radioactivity without adequate shelter for as much as the entire duration of that release. ' herefore, until these issues are resolved even if all the other inadequacies and deficiencies cited in the MC Reviews of the New Ha@ shire Plans, and the Review of the Exercise of these plans were to be corrected, WAA would not be able to conclude that the New Ha@ shire State and local plans to I protect the public in the event of an accident at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant are adequate to meet our regulatory standard that such plans
" adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reasonable assuranew that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency." (see, 44 CFR 350.S(b)).
I l
~ . l
( $ & W W "~Q =c- y .a_ A R T'?cu ric: - - - - --
~
_ _ - - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ J
yag 08:40 rFC EAST 'tJEST-v1
- +0 002 -
) ,; P 3 7arerirr mMrgency manage 002 ment Agency ;,82 Region 1 J.W. McCormuk Feet Omct and Couri Howw Boeten, Munchuwiss 02100 [ 1
/'g 3
Mr. Richard L Strom Director, New Harpshire Civil
' (k) Vg\l !
.Y Defense Agency -
State Office park South : g ,( ) concord, new Rampshire 03301 h4M 1 7 Dear Mr. Stroms e l this is written as a follow-up to our conversation on June 5, 1981, concerning the document "CORRENT FEMA P051TICH CN ADMITTOD CONTENTIONS ON MEM HAMFSHIRE PLAN 5 FOR SEABROCK.' (Hereinafter called Current FEMA Position.) This docutaent was developed as a ) part of F3MA's respons24 f safety and Licensing Doste (ASLB)to interrogatories proceedings, in the Seabrook Atomic I primarily reisted to that portion of the current FEMA our discussion Position dealing with the enclosed with this letter.beacA population which it found at pp. 3fc39 and } ( sofore further discussing that partzcular section, it might be $ worthwhile to quickly review the history of this filing. The l Current FEMA Posit 16n was developed as the In uit of several setionsBoard Appeal including (AsLR) 1,he decision of the Atoric Safety and Licensing 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 11tigati90 in the seabrook proceedings by J9ne 5, 1987. The current TEMA position is, therefore, provided pursuant to the FEMA / Nuclear Regulatory I l commission Memorandum of Understanding cited in 44 CFR 330, . ' section 350.3(e). However, the Cur. rant FEMA Position should not be viewed as a O Ima3
- finding
- ty TEMA under' 44 CFR 330.
The current YEMA Fosition is largely basefs upon the FT,WA and Regional Assistence committee (RAC) reviews which were previously provided to you. with the beach population is based on 4 thorough analysis by FE and the RAC. The issoe of protecting the beach population hos been an item of discussion betwetn FEMA, the Stute of New Hampshire, and the applicant for several years. Our position is based to the on the guidance Seabrook site.provided by NUREG-0654, FEMA = rep-1 applied j We believe that our eencern chout the protection of the beach population esy be unique revolves to Wesbrook.around come rather unusual circusetances which of the day. peak summer population in the area travel to the htoch eschDemog Unlike other sites we have reviewed, these daily visitors are not identified with a temporary residence or public facility. l l i I l I
~. . p.as I
1 - enwinterisad and thereforeEn adddtion, many of circumstances dramatically residenr0s in the area arethat iaccident
)
afford less uildings. 1helterthan These in thean ev I specifically, the information evacuation end sheltera.f e provlio dprioa More the two t evacuation from Evapuation tide estimates ~mre not standard the beaches to FZMA would re that indicates ( fast-brea. quire approximately 3.5 hours. required ) king scenarios is considered sons hard time objective for evacuati to meet some toThe specificava for wrist isthe sheltering oPtien ison. also mitigate cl Noeever the need fornop effective shelter for many othersseveral amounts to ence of apparently th Thus inisviduols that might be unded involveden o,ne evecussio numbers apparently hold not staply 2 mightfor add that these 1r. a m anothtr but for a number of lesser os. scenari the worst = case accident, 5 may alter the case os we understA number of jo discussions on the subject andoned it. over the past years which of the plantsproposed, alternatives which In addition include to our shown a' wide variety ofl sources have eltering,. seasons) sheltering ~1s an alternative \ \ public or private far111 ties,would we doubt if the use.cf axisting band alt Althoughoperation < ( e acceptable. to the complexity ofue.the y be issThe a var solution to the prob in the paragrapha numbered 1-3 of pHowever,iety of alt i positionwill position arebeshown subj to be incorrect age 39 o of the current TEMAif th FEMA will, therefore,ect be to review willing to r and are modified, modjficatithan our redifications which night impact to theevaNew Natapshire on as necessary. ! arrange for the review of any the beach population. cuation tire seertency estimates - plansor forthSeabrook !
. assumptions made Anyabout modifAcetions accident of release the standeard ti sheltering of probability, as well at the impact d mes duration and schedals for the plant come under the pue to any, I FEMA will soon be deve urview of the HRC.
hearing is this hearing forboard seabrook. that will mak lopinc its testimony for evaluation all parties to of thethe New Hampshire seabr n. pla events, it i e the first licensing relatedIt j set forth in the Current these factaState of New Nappshire (a) if the factsTEMA we have discusell is consid Feaitito our filin us prior 1 i and (c on are incorrecta (b) sed and if the to exercise, options)that wouldif you are aware cf iering steps which change the facts.ntentions of anyone else l 4
~.. _.._ ___ ,___.
%i$f.., dif ..- -. ICi?"psm to. m2 om v.o* -
) 3 we would, of course, be happy to meet with you as New Hampshire ) continues to explore its options. I hope that all of un can continue work together to resolve this issue and achieve our mutual commitment to public safety, sincerely, E i. W Edward A. Thomas chief I Natural and Technological Nasards Division i i
)
l l l _-_--___________._____.___m.
1
\
) 301 492 7285 i
" l 9 f . 2 S . .. RhEgggtW \
' *G N2 W~ \
p, p3 - FICMPJ.DHTXHTION RERP.8 ) \ that adeguate protective measures canThe New Ham ( the plan doesprovide netredlelefical andematgeAcy."
..wit! te taken sa tsquired in the even by it !
- adequate prote4tive measun*tsamonable atswance that .
St.4?fa)(1), in tMt \ fc0 Seabrook. ) sdee9 by ate criteria i 88.4f(b)(15) and for the c.hedce Ibetwee NUREG-04G4. Nor does thesheltering to na
!! J 1tn protective meas
{
' .. .a. as regufrud
\
Igm ArsPONst to Revloed ' town ut Mangten Coate pa ) the New Hmpehf.he WICY SeaDtneg \ g6 API, W ntion tentVTII Io UWC,Revisten afd ( d S2g
\
tenYion \ issues these three contentions all deal with wh 3 st Seabrook who do not have ready accetas toprotectio$ this groJp includes both
- day-tripper eac W ng pnpulation have accews of pr to unwinterised any offactive form of sheltering.
A lesser degrw s to the or other teach end t thcae persons vto { ' carnarcial buildings.otectionypes than of that conat.metien offend by which will offer stnCard ro i \ s_at* cround e dsr.tial or ! earliest sment of a dotaKed irwolveran:t level of emergency pre with sta prepar- rtra cur thic 15 we ha health and tafety by 5 ofpmiding s adequatelyreasonsblstandard protecting the reculatory publi se c amargency at the seabrook e assurance Mucisar that appropriate ant. e event of a radic kgical Power Plprote the public in the event suant to 44 CFR 350. c of an ac i6In tooerter 1985 the.~ stat j ar9 shin sutasitted plaro for prote . Assistaree Ctemittee (RACh Those plansent at were sembrook focwarded an intera tofor FEMArevi fee reviw pur ct1Ng l radiolo CrR 350 to both amnist otate end local pur1auant to 44ew I lb gency gecup established l plane. gical 33, (h Deesmber emergerr,y 1988 response goverrnent in theplans develognent andofto entuate t . i the morbers of the SAC (as we,ll as thrim e as ch i ' the few Nacipahiru Piarte) famediatel a r of t?e RAC. nquested thategeecy of such memorandon is attached y focus on as the issue of the Appendix C protectio to thiscf ; i FEMA Position - r 6ed accowoodatione. Th on the sub response to interrogatories. ie sround sea $ct brook Since the time oFhhe of our Decenber protmetion of tia lhts,memoran&sa 31 public on and I i amargency plans ,and outnitted a edetaiWd and Evthe nechos igrowd its state of Mmw othods a considerable amount oft lienhthis assue. time htimats t#tleh acuetion 1 l understanding 0 this laaum are thatsg 1 i The facts relevant ; i 6 \ ! \ f \
- ~~ ~
- JUN 19 '87 08249 P01
,.. a x w m ec m - n m m : -
F aa 17CP CterWZ31 M19*8 (Cont.) n
' (11
'the primary guidance doewment used by PDE and the RAC i off-s ite ocergency piene is NLTdG-0$$4, FD% MEP-1, 1, Ray,n a revievirg doceent jointly developed by FDW and the NRCo het guidance doement indicatee on p.13 that " t)he rarge of tirnee between the onset of eccident conditions W ar(8 the Atart of a mejor relea is of the order of one+411 hour to several houre'. e is further clarified on p.17, Table 3 ito indicate that (e) thehis statment major portion of a release nely coeur f.n a tiam peried ranging frts aa little as onchit hour to one day after the release !
point can range fran one-half hour to two hours . and one hour to four hours at ten miles. (2) og 4 suome days there are thousaMs of M re la the the p1 Rat. 22 in creas beginning appreintely 1.Tmiles free sea ecok the many thousands of beacThe current New Ha@6 hire plane contemp
~2
- shelter as a protective act on in the event of anet who have soones to no a ngw-QLg gg#5 the " day trippers" becawee on swear da a whe j WM woessible shelter for them,nueer of these people. At is not possi le to find ,
there are an addittensi tu24r af persons taed cottages whoaM scald not41be in or have accesa only to shelter in urerinter= ra:ma. De protection afforded by i shelterirq in these structures will definitely be leen than that i efforded ir/ a rermal wecd free house. / (M me tvacuation time Estimate for the seabrook EF2 eeutnitted by th State of New Harpshire irdicates at pp.10-1 et.see. that in gesdv weatter when the beaches h*H h=*are*aat 60 to 100 percent of aapacity # it will take gras.arvf ana total of fsta four hours and fifty mitwtes to five hours _and'h-- M, ** wh fitty p3. the minutes to evacuate all the population an the boedse trun - In ecma sithetions ex.h as swedert bed weather follating a pes,k suener day, the total evecuation time for portions of the WI range up to seven hours and fitty minutes. Therefore, using the stardard gu of radiological releases, afd the cur,1dygtier,,tM rent New initiation and duration accident at Seabronk involving a major relsame of adeguate shelter fr.e as such tas the entire duration of that rebase$st ard deficiencies cited in the RAc Reviews of the New the Poview of the skercise of tJese plane were to be me: Teoted, FIDE usu14 ict be able to conclude that the New Hampshire State and local plans to ; protect the public in the event of an acci66nt at the OHhr6ek haclear , 70wer F1&ht are adegate to meet our regulatocy standard inhet eush plan
' adequately ptotset the public health and e4fety by prge 1
usurance that appropriate peotective usaeures can he taken reasonente event of a ndioingical meergency." (33 44 CFR 350.5(h)). faite in the s
! i
_,w---" ' ' ' _ _ _ _ - - - - - - ~ ' " - ' - - -
1 o .x l
~ ,
~~ ~
Federal Emergency Management Agency
@ I J.W.Boeton, McCormack Pom Ofra and Court House Massachusetts 02109 i
)
/ !d July 2,1987 Vf50PA.T13M FOR:
Pegional Assistarce Ccrr-jttee (RAC) I PMiological Dwrgency Preparedness Task Force FROM: Ebard A. Themas gr j
' RAC Chairman -
SLtBJECT: ! RAC Review of F Se f-Initiated Review of Pilgrim NPS D2 1 i Please no later review than July the10, attached J987. FDiA self-initiata$ review and submit your coments i
*Ihere are four docenents attached:
- a. Memo to Dave Metrughlin, FD4A Hea$ quarters b.
FDiA's NPS G2 Draf t interim Findirg on Diergency Preparedness in the Pilgrim ' c.
- d. FEMA's Draft Analysis on the July 15,1986, . Pilgrim Petition i FD4A's Draf t Ccmments on the Reprt to the Governor Please p'Jan discuss on attendirg a RAC neetirg here at 10:00 A.M. on July the followirg 30,1987, to I
a.
- b. Massachusetts Prcposal to f;xpard the Pilgrim NPS EP2 A
theRevised Charge inRAC NRC'sPosition Position on the Seabrook Beach Menorandum As a Result I c.
'Ihe Final Version of FINA's Self-Initiated Review of the Pilgrin t@S DZ.
Your cooperation is very much appreciated. Please call Ja$. *xlan .at FT5 223-95(2 f f yoe rK+1 any assistana. i j i l
[ _ AGENDA For ~ RAC MEETING ) JULY 30, 1987 - 10:00 A.M. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: .
"I , . Status Reports *
\
) , 1. v
/ 'M '
- Up-date t g RAC on status of "350" process for and Maine. ermont, New Hampshire '
GP)lp?R*l2. Status of " Annual Letters of Certification" from all New England States.
' AtC Q P f( f kiss 4. '
) 3. O Review of Maine-taaling Ingestion Pathway Plan for Seabrook Station a. e. Argonne Coments y
.) 4.- Up-date on Pilgrim Nuclear Power Stations - '#
/# 'U"' $ N#C' ## #$
) Wil. Coming Workload g -
b S. (Le Seabrook Station He fags Dates (see attached schedule). , .y o 6. Possibility of necessity for RAC support during Seabrook Hearings. J
) 7.
If New Hampshire submits or up-dates their plans it will require RAC assistance. l i 8. If Utility submits Massachusetts plans for Seabrook Station it will require RAC assistance. l 9. ( L60 t MM) l Possibility and Rowe. of revised Massachusetts Plans for Pilgrim, Vermont . Yankee
~ ~ ~
pd b'f" -, 10. 80m Possibility N 2, of RAC Review of Utility submission for Pilgrim. 1 r J%4 k & %& a ) ) +111. Issues for Meetings G - \
\
7 l
- 11. Pilgrim EPZ Expansion. ~ 3 f p t f1 /I
- 12. Maine Yankee EPZ Expansion.
->j j. I l h3 Main T M Ingestion Plan Revieg D C gI +
14 Seabrook Beach Population. yf- a j
>y lA f ,
)
- g pc 7" ci,rhy,yj st >
1 1 e pe^ \ a j
+
t ! OCT 15 ;gi i HEMORANDUM FORr S. TURK, 06C l FROM: W. 1.AZARUS, EF SECTION CHIEFS NRC REGION 1
SUBJECT:
'BACXGROUND CQNCERNING RECENT FEMA 1 aAC MEETINGS C0dCERN!NS SEABROOK BEACH POPULATION ISSUES J attended two RAC meetings in the past few months in FEMA Region I that were Lalled by Mr. Ed Thomas, the RAC Chairman to address the issue Cf the adequacy f' uf the New Hampshire HERP for the prote: tion of ther so-called " Sea *#cok beach '
l -' population". Tt.e first meeting was held on April 15, 1967. To the best of'ay recollection all of the principal RAC members (DOE, EPA, DOT, DOA, and HNS) w ere present,'plus two representatives from NOAA,'as the discussions were to inclNde meteorological aspects of plume dispersion and expected wind and L ueataer patterns typica.1 of the Seabrook beach areas during the summer months. l (I am technically not the RAC member for the NRC, however I have been Working closely with Bob Bores, (who is the of ficial NRC ' ;gion I RAC member f or Seabrock) on this issue and felt it appropriate to attend the RAC meetings). l ) During the April 15th meeting, Bob Bores' submittal regarding the adequar.y of i t h e f> w Hampshir e Pl ars for the beach T)anulation was the main subject for discussion. Af ter a discussion of the various aspects of the NH Plan (early closure of the beaches, and the capability to make PA announcements from the j plant control room on the beach sirens to provide protective action l retemmendstions for fast breaking accidents), the beach meteorology, and Bob f Bores' submittal, it apprared that the RAC agreed that the Plan was adequate. Subsequent to that meeting Bob Bores' redrafted his submittal in consultation j with NRR and DGC to remove any reference to Seabrook site specific design l f ea t ur es (dout'l e cont ai nment , etc.). The second meeting was held on July 30, l 1987 to discuss the issue in light of the thenges to the NRC RAC comments. ! ) The same RAC members were in attendance less the NOAA representatives. At I this meeting Mr. Thomas clearly pointed out that he was ignorant of ary of the technical aspects of nuclear power, indicating that he depended upon the technical expertise of the RAC members. The elimination cf reference to site specific design features appeared to be particularly troublesome to Ed Thomas. During the meeting I ' pointed out that elimination of the site spe:ific information regarding plant design features should have no bearing on , s finding of acequacy f or the Plan because those 4eatures only impacted the ) o r ob a b i l i t y.' t,f a n accident. Since emergency plans must provide for protection from a spectrum of accidents without regard to their probability, that we must assume that an accident happens and then determine whether the plans provide reasonable assurance of protection. On the issue of sheltering, which was discussed at length, I po(nted out that sheltering only provides about a 10% l reduction in dose for a fast breaking accident, and would not be depended upon ! for protection in a severe fast breaking accident, which was the scenario l which appeared to be Ed Thomas' principle concern. I then asked Mr. Thomas to ] poll the RAC members to determine whether they felt that the New Hampshire RERP provide reasonable assurance that beach population would be protected. He declined, so I aske.1 for a show of hands for my own information. All those l l ENCLOSURE 2 j
ff, OCT 1.5 1987 - j present except FEMA indicated that they found the plans to be adequate with I respect to the beach population (apparently agreeing that reliance.on. sheltering.for the bea:h population in the case of a nerlous reldtse was r.ct appropriate). At that point Mr. 1homas indicated that he was tired and wanted. to adjourn the meeting. He would take int 0 account our discussions and have the FEMA contractor rework. the RAC position on the issue and send it out f or )- comment. With that in. mind the meeting was adjourned. He did not f ollcw up on his commitment to provide e revised position tb the RAC for review and comment'and instead drafted his own input, largely ignoring the RAC comments from the' meeting. ) O M-W. arus / Em rgency Phi aredness- ) Section Chief ) ) ) ? l l l ENCLOSURE 2 j i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
y 00CHETED USNRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,
~ ~
I, Tholaas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on January p y1998a;I.. p , made service of the within document by depositing RRifeisG, nuevs;[ thcreof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery toB(6t/t 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. l East West _ Towers Building Washington, DC 20009 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD '20814 Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill l 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 Building 25 Capitol Street 4350 East West Highway Concord, NH 03301-6397 Bethesda, MD 20814 Atomic Safety and Licensing Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire ) Board Panel Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory East West Towers Building- Commission 4350 East West Highway 15th Floor Bethesda, MD 20814 11555 Rockville Pike 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 03105 Washington, DC 20555 l
l
i )- I Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office ) Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 I Augusta, ME 04333 l l Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire I Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General 2 Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney 25 Maplewood Avenue General P.O. Box 360 One Ashburton Place, 19th Flr. Portsmouth, NH 03801 Boston, MA 02108 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney )- Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros l' U.S. Senate Chairman of the Poard of ;
Washington, DC 20510 Selectmen (Attn: Tom Burack)- Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter.J. Matthews
) One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord . Town Manager Board of Selectmen -j ) Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street ! 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen ) Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road ) Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 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 I l 1,
t ) Mr. Ed Thomas Judith H. Mizner, Esquire FEMA, Region I Silverglato, Gertner, Baker, 442 John W. McCormack Post Fine, Good & Mizner ) Office and Court House 88 Broad Street Post Office Square Boston, MA 02110 { Boston, MA 02109 Charles P. Graham, Esquire McKay, Murphy and Graham ) 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913 [ [M )
#f Thomas' G..Mphan, Jr.
1 (*= ordinary U.S. First Class Mail) ! ) I ) ) ) i
)
l 1 l 1 )
) - _ _ _ _ _ _}}