ML20236A505

Pretrial Brief of FEMA on Seabrook Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Lists Areas Where FEMA Will Not Offer Testimony,Including Implementability of Seabrook Plan,Evacuation Time Estimates & Other Legal Issues

ML20236A505
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/07/1989
From:	Flynn H, Mcpheters L Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20236A508	List: ML20236A505 ML20236A509
References
CON-#189-8245 OL, NUDOCS 8903170293
Download: ML20236A505 (9)

Text

, .

K DOLKEiED triNF C March 7, 1989 29 tW1 -8 P2 :42 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (Q!E U U L F '..

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD' JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-443-OL Public Service Coo of New ) 50-444-OL Hampshire, gt al. ) Offsite Emergency

) Planning Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) )

_)

PRETRIAL BRIEF OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ON THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUl;ITIES PURPOSE OF THE TESTIMONY The testimony which the Federal Emergency Management Agency has filed for the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC) phase of these hearings incorporates by reference the Review and Evaluation of the SPMC transmitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December 14, 1988. The judgments expressed in that Review and Evaluation are the opinions which FEMA offers on the aamitted SPMC Contentions. Since copies of the Review and Evaluation of the SPMC were served on the parties at about the same time it was transmitted to NRC, they are already aware that that document does not address a number of issues raised in the contentions.

One of the issues in this hearing is whether FEMA judges the efficacy of offsite plans in the sense of attempting to measure 8903170293 890307 PDR G

ADOCK 05000443 PDR bojl

_____________-___________-______a

the extent to which the plan achieves dose savings or lessens -

evacuation times. FEMA does not interpret its plan reviews to sorve that purpose. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has clearly stated that, while its emergency planning requirements do not require that an adequate plan achieve a preset minimum radiation dose saving or a minimum evacuation time for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone in the event of a serious accident, they do attempt to achieve reasonable and feasible dose reductions under the circumstances. Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22, 30 (1986).

FEMA understands the Interveners' position to be that the SPMC is unacceptable because the residual risk (i.e., the risk not mitigated by the plan) is too great. FEMA has not quantified or otherwise evaluated that risk since it is clear that to make such a judgment would put FEMA in the position of deciding whether the risk was acceptable or whether the site for the nuclear power plant was acceptable. The nature of FEMA's judgment on the adequacy of an offsite plan is whether it complies with NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP 1, Rev. 1 (or NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP 1, Rev. 1, Supp. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Supp. 1"), in the case of offsite plans sponsored by utility companies). When FEMA identifies important opportunities for additional dose savings through prudent and reasonable enhancements of the plan, they will also be addressed in the plan review.

NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP 1, Rev. 1 and Supp. 1 have been  ;

l i

FEMA Pretrial Brief, SPMC, page 2.

1 1

j

L developed jointly by NRC and FEMA and they represent the two agencies' collective position on what thorough offsite radiological emergency planning ought to include. A FEMA finding l

of reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken to protect the public in the event of an accident at a l

nuclear power plant is based, in part, on evaluation of offsite plans against NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP 1, Rev. 1 and, in part, on the evaluation of exercises of those plans. FEMA approaches plan review from the point of view that a plan which complies with NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP 1, Rev. 1 or Supp. 1 will make reasonable provision for the required protective measures.

SUMMARY

OF FEMA TESTIMONY FEMA has submitted consolidated findings to NRC on the adequacy of offsite radiological emergency response planning at the Seabrook site. The findings were based on reviews of offsite plans submitted by the States of New Hampshire and Maine and by New Hampshire Yankee and evaluation of the graded exercise held at the site in June 1988. The overall conclusion on the SPMC is that, once the Seabrook alert and notification system for the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) is installed and operable, the SPMC will be adequate to protect the health and safety of the public living within the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook EPZ by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook.

FEMA Pretrial Brief, SPMC, page 3.

The. Review'and Evaluation of the SPMC conveys FEMA's substantive testimony on planning issues raised by the admitted SPMC contentions. A chart showing generally where contentions are l addressed in the Review and Evaluation of the SPMC is attached to this brief as Attachment A.

There are three main areas on which FEMA is not offering l

testimony: 1) implementability of the SPMC, which will be addressed in the phase of the hearing dealing with the June 1988  ;

exercise, 2) Evacuation Time Estimates, on which the NRC is expected to offer a witness, and 3) legal issues, such as the effect of bankruptcy on executory letters of agreement or the effect of Massachusetts zoning laws on the availability of the Haverhill Staging Area.

Respectfully submitted, H.[40S p FLY [

Ma LINDA HUBER McPHETERS A4<de hcf/tdao<0 Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20472 Telephone (202) 646-4105 FEMA Pretrial Brief, SPMC, page 4.

h1 i

- ATTACHMENT A, PAGE 1.0F 5 FEMA takes the position that FEMA's position on the contentions is expressed, to the extent possible, in-the FEMA Review and Evaluation of k.

the SPMC, dated December 1988..

CONTENTION REVIEW / EVAL. SPMC I. EVACUATION PROCESS I.A. INACCURATE AND UNREALISTIC ETE's JI 1 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 16, 1989.

JI 2 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 16, 1989.

JI 3 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 16, 1989.

I.B. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN JI 4 FEMA will not provide testimony.

JI 5 FEMA will not provide testimony.

JI 6 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 22, 1989.

I.C. TRANSIT DEPENDENT JI.7 FEMA will not provide testimony JI 8 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 17, 1989.

II. PERSONNEL AND TRAINING JI 9 FEMA will not present testimony.

JI 10 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 17, 1989.

JI 11 A 4, pp. 13 JI 12 A 2.a, pp. 10-11 &

A 4, pp. 13 _

JI 13 A 2.a, pp. 10-11 &

O 4, pp.95-100 Note: Bases B,C, and D modified by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.

JI 14 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.

JI 15 FEMA will not present testimony.

V

,j! ,

. Si ATTACEMENT A, PAGE 2'OF 5 III. PAR GENERATION JI 16 Withdrawn by Stipulation' dated February 7, 1989.

JI 17 J 9, pp. 56-58 &

J 10.m, pp. 69-70 JI 18 J 9, pp. 56-58 &

J 10.m, pp. 69-70 Note: Basis J withdrawn by MAG in " Answers and Responses of the-Massachusetts Attorney General to the Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for Production concerning JI 1-26" dated December 19,.

1 88 at 87.

JI 19 J.9, pp. 56-58 JI 20 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 16, 1989.

JI 21 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 16, 1989.

JI 22 FEMA will not present testimony.

JI 23 A 3, pp. 12 JI 24 A 2.a, pp. 10-11 JI 25 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.

JI 26 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.

IV. COMMUNICATIONS / NOTIFICATION JI 27 A 2.a, pp. 10-11 &

A 3, pp. 12 JI 23 Withdrawn by MAG Notice dated December 19, 1988.

JI 29 Withdrawn by MAG Notice dated December 19, 1988. i I

JI 30 F 1. a-e, pp. 29-34 JI 31 F 1. a-e, pp. 29-34 j JI 32 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.

JI 33 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.

JI 34 F 1, a-e, pp. 29-34 &

E 2, p. 23 Note: Bases A,B & D withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.

f-L -_ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - -

l.N is I

3 l

f

. ATTACHMENT-A, PAGE 3'OF 5 JI 35 'E 5,Epp. 27,.&

>E 8, pp. 28 JI 36' G 3, pp. 39, &

G14.a, pp. 40-41 JI 37 Withdrawn by MAG Notice dated December 19, 1989.

JI 38 G 4.c, pp. 42 JI.39 G 1, pp. 36-38, G 2, pp. 38, &

-Appendix A & B, pp.

Al-A29 & B1-B23 tf JI 40 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.

V. LEGAL ISSUES JI 41 FEMA will not provide testimony.

JI 42 FEMA will not provide testimony.

JI 43 FEMA will not provide testimony.

JI 44A Applicants prevailed on summary disposition motion (2/16/89' Memorandum and Order).

JI 44B Applicants prevailed on summary disposition motion (2/16/89 Memorandum and Order).

VI. PROTECTIVE ACTIONS FOR PARTICULAR POPULATIONS JI 45 J 9, pp. 56-58, J 10.d, pp. 60-62, & J 10.g pp. 64-65 Note: Bases C & D withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.

JI 46 J 9, pp. 56-58, J 10.d, pp. 60-62, & J 10.g pp. 64-65 Note: Basis G withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.

JI 47 J 9, pp. 56-58, J 10.d, pp. 60-62, & J 10.g 64-65 Note: Basis B withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.  ;

L 4

-ATTACHMENT'A, PAGE 4-OF 5:

JI 48 G 2, pp.-3'~8-39, J 9, pp. 56-58, J 10.d, pp. 60-62, & J 10. g , -

pp.164-65 JI 49 J 9, pp. 56-58, J.10.d, pp. 60-62, & J 10.g, pp. 64-65 Note: Basis E modified by Stipulation dated February'7, 1989.

lJI 50 J 9, pp.~56-58, J 10.d, pp. 60-62, & J 10.g, PP. 64-65.

Note: Bases E & F withdrawn. Basis N withdrawn except for dosimetry by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.

VII. EVACUATION EOUIPMENT AND FACILITIES JI 51 J 10.h, pp. 65-66 JI 52 Withdrawn by Stipulation dated February 7, 1989.

JI 53 FEMA will not present testimony.'

JI 54 A 1.a, pp. 5 JI 55 C 4, pp. 17-18, J 10.d, pp. 60-62, J 10.g, pp.

64-65, & J 10.k, pp. 67 JI 56 H 4, pp. 44-45, H 7, pp. 46, H 10, pp. 46-47, & J 12, pp. 72-74 JI 57 C 4, pp. 17-18, &

K 5.b, pp. 78-79 JI 58 A 4, pp. 13, C 4, pp. 18-19, &D4, pp. 20-21 JI 59 FEMA will not present testimony.

JI 60 H 11, pp. 47 &

J 10.K,, pp.67-68

f

+

j: ,2

-ATTACHMENT'A,- .PAGE 5.0F 5 VIII. COORDINATION OF GOVERNMENTAL RESOURCES'AND RESPONSE.

JI'61- .A 1.b, pp. 6-7, &

J 9, pp. 56-58 JI 62 A 1.b, pp. 6-7,:&

J 9, pp. 56-58

-JI.63 A 1.b, pp.-6-7, &

J 9, pp. 56-58 I

. _ - _ _ __ . _ - - - _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ -