ML20151P308

Intervenor Exhibit I-State-39,consisting of Re Supplemental Testimony of D Mcloughlin,Ea Thomas & WR Cumming on Behalf of FEMA on Sheltering/Beach Population Issues

ML20151P308
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/26/1988
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Flynn H Federal Emergency Management Agency
References
OL-I-STATE-039, OL-I-STATE-39, NUDOCS 8808090313
Download: ML20151P308 (3)

Text

h' 60 - &~S/VW- of 8

'^ p no UNITED STATES YYU

% [gk

![' 3 mn}o, i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION mgr

,3f j ,i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 U:M C v)

I o

%, j a

'88 JUL 19 P6 :04 FEB 181988 Wl,5 l%j{'

k Jf w m \

H. Joserb Flynn, Esquire 0 NY Assistant General Counsel Federal Energency Management Agency k NM 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20472 in the Matter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.

1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)  ;

Docket Nos. 50-4,43, 50-444 (Offsite Emergency Planning) l

Dear Vr. Flynn:

l This is to con firm the NRC S ta ff's understandina of the "Supplemental Testin:cny of Dave McLcughlin, Edward A. Thomas, and

~

l Filliam R. Currming on Behalf of the Federal Emerger.cy Management Agency on Sheltering / Reach Population issues," filed on January 25, 1988 i As I incicated in the Licensing Board's telephone conference call (m") held on January 27, 1988, the Staff views the testimony as indicating, in l essence, that FEMA takes the following position:

FEMA cannot conclude that the NHRERP is adequate with respect to Ithe] beach population until it is clear that the State of New Hampshire has considered the use of sheltering for the transient beach population and explains what use, if any, it intends to make of shel te ring . This latter point should not be interpreted to mean that FEMA has imposed a requirement that sheltering be available. If the State of New Hampshire Intends not to employ sheltering for the transient beach population (which is not presently clear from the NHPERP), than FEMA expects the State to develop the rationale for such a choice and provide it to FEt.'A for review.

(Tr. 9054-55, quoting from page 2 of the Supplemental Testimony). As I further stated, "In essence, the Staff reads FEMA's testimony as being an interim position in which they are anticipating that further work could be done by the State along the lines suggested in this testimony, and after that work is dor.c that it would be submitted to FEMA for review and a determination" (Tr. 9055). I note that you have agreed with my characterization of FEMA's testimony (Tr. 9057).

f)

V As you know, the NRC Staff has not yet taken a formal position in the hearings with respect to the adequacy of measures in the NHRERP for protection of the seasonal beach populations. The Staff is in the process 8808090313 880526 PDR ADOCK 05000443 g PDR

I Y ',1 8- . ,

l l l 1

I O l 1

l l

l O

mn vr 5 f S

,O f: e V , l I

\

hbm 3- (/)It N F>

.w 1:

e b I B c.' ~

h' c i:

$ ..= a -.

Af ebf i

Np M% s.I ,' - 1 I

h),l, .

-s e3

,- i 3 - ( , ~. -  ;

,m  ;

se >),x 2

!u  ! .9  !

e  !

O I

• • i 4

e a p

i  !

. {

b} of determining whether to take a position on this matter independent of F Et,' A . Any decision made by the Staff in this regard will be based upon our reading of FEMA's position, as set forth above, which we understand governs any other statements in the Supplemental Testimony (such as in Sections 111 and IV thereof), which may be susceptible to a different interpretation.

I wish to note certain adoitional matters in connection with the Supplernental Testimony. Fii'st, the testimony, at page 4, states that FEt/A is persuaded "that the NPC interprets its own regulations not to require sheltering for all segments of the EPZ." As ycu know, authoritative interpretations o' NRC regulations may be rendered only by the Commission or its General Counsel. However, I wish to confirm that the NPC Staff interprets the regulaticns in the manner you have stated i.e., that the NRC's emergency plannirg regulations do not require that sheltering be provided for all accidents, at all times anc at all locations within the pl .;me exposure pathway emergency plannino zone (EPZ). Stated dif fer :ntly , the Staff views the regulations as not requiring that there be a range of protective actions that includes both sheltering and evacuation options, for all accidents at all times and at all locatiors within the EPZ. This interpretation is censistent with established Federal practice in approving emergency plans for other commercial nuclear power plants, and may be relied upon by FEMA in its evaluation of the NHRERP.

t O

uj Second, the Su pplerrental Testimeny appea rs to describe sorrewhat inaccurately the position expressed by Dr. Bores at the January 1988 RAC meeting. The testimony, at page 5, indicates that Dr. Bores ex p rt.s sed the viev' that the guidance of NUREG-0654 "applies to the entire spectrum of accidents, to the entire population of the EPZ, all of the time ," and that the NRC believed "FEMA's posliion on the summer beach population was too narrowly focused. " I have been informed by Dr. Bores that he expressed his position somewhat differently, as follows:

that the guidance of NUREG-0654 applies generally to the entire spectrum of accidents and the entire population all of the time, but that emergency plans need not include a range of protective measures that includes both sheltering and evacuation for every postulated accident scenario and every segment of the population, all of the time.

Very truly yours, l l sh Y Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney cc: Service List l O

. _