ML20070A164

Memorandum of Intervenors on Remanded Sheltering Issues.* Intervenor Believes Present Record Does Not Contain Sufficient Evidence on Issues for Finding of Reasonable Assurance Re ALAB-939.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20070A164
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/10/1991
From:	Curran D, Greer L HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP., MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
References
CON-#191-11296 ALAB-939, OL, NUDOCS 9101170162
Download: ML20070A164 (10)

Text

i i //L%

PUC h[ i[(.

DoNitC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JM 11 P1 :07 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ct!<. m, .,7, _

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINC BOARD M !"R ocm, Os -

Before the Administrative Judges ,

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman i Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollon In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET h.L. )

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) January 10, 1991

) ,

MEMORANDUM OF THE INTERVENORS ON THE REMANDED SHELTERING ISSUES i In ALAB-939 M the Appeal Board romanded to the Licensing Board three issues concerning the sheltering provisions of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan ("NHRERP"). The Appeal Board directed that the Licensing Board ensure that the record contains support for distinguishing between those non-transportation-dependent beachgoers aircady within a building, who will be directed to shelter and all other beachgoers who will be I directed to go to their cars and evacuate. Additionally, the Licensing Board was directed to ensure that the record is clear J/ Public Service ConDany of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-939, 32 NRC 165 (1990).

9101170162 910110 PDR C.

ADOCK 05000443 PDR ,

g)

i as to whether there is a nood to distinguish between suitable and unsuitable shelters relative to the " shelter in place" option now described by the state of New Hampshire. Finally, the Licensing Board was directed to ensure that any EBS/ beach population message makes clear the steps that all members of the beach population are to take in the event that a " shelter in place" option is recommended. In turn, the Licensing Board i

directed that parties wishing to participate in the resolution of those issues submit memoranda on them. The Massachusetts l Attorney General and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("the Intervenors") submit the following views in response to the directive of the Licensing Board.

1. The record does not contain an adequately supported explanation for distinguishing between the portion of the beach population who will be directed to remain within shelters and those who will be directed to go to their cars and evacuate.

In the procoodings on the NHRERP lt was established that the purpose of protective action recommendations was to affect maximum dose reduction.2/ It follows that sheltering, as opposed to evacuation, will be the chosen protective action when it is determined that it will maxinize dose savings.

Sinco the evidence indicatos that cars afford virtually no sheltering factor,2/ those beachgoers who will be evacuating in response to a " shelter in place" protective action L/ Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 6 at 19.

2/ Tr. 10112

i

! . I il

' recommendation, will not be achieving the intended maximum dose-savings.

While it is foreseeable that the evacuation time for that portion of the beach population will be somewhat shorter-than would exist if there was a evacuation of the general population, there is still- the likelihood that that portion of sie beach population would be subject to dose for an extended A review of the cvidence in the NHRERP-

~

period of time.

proceeding on.ETE's shows that traveling the first couple of miles off the beaches would take a considerable amount of time in a summer day-time evacuation because of the limited egress from the beaches. That limited egress will exist even in situations in which the general population.is not being 4

evacuated.

The present record does not reflect any calculation as to the lovellof dose that will be recieved by the evacuating portion of the beach population under the present ,

Hghgltgg.{n.plgggM option. Therefore, there is no way to know whether the shelter-in-place is achieving maximum dose savings for the-evacuating beachgoers. .Without such a calculation for an evacuation during a " shelter-in-place"" option, there is no

-way.to know whether that portion of the beach population is receiving maximum dose reduction or whether another. type of PAR might be more appropriate under condition (1). 'Under.the present posture of the record, apart from a few persons who-evacuateL-quickly, there is no assurance that the rest of the evacuating 1 beach population will achieve any greater dose reduction'than if they remained.on-the beach.

-3 .

I 1

1 This is of particular concern since one of the asserted l 1

virtues of sheltering as a protective action response is that 1 it can be impicmented quickly.S/ Therefore, it is foreseeable that sheltering nay be the preferred protective action recommendation in those situations where a fast response time is required. However, while one portion of the beach population is implementing that response inside buildings, a substantial portion of tho over 23,000 visitors to Hampton Beach on busy beach days will be trying to evacuate. While doubtlessly the time that it will take for such an evacuation will be shorter than under circumstances in which there is a evacuation of the general population, such an evacuation will be hindered by the lack of traffic control personnel. Traffic control personnel will not be called upon to man traffic control points during a " shelter in place" protective action under the NHRERP.E!

As ALAB-939, and the portions of the NHRERP record cited therein, make cicar, at the time of the NHRERP hearings the

" shelter-in-place" option did not contemplate an evacuation of ,

a significant portion of the beach population under condition (1). Hence, there was no evidence was introduced on that situation, nor were the Intervonors given an opportunity to challenge the appropriateness of that version of the

" shelter-in-place" option.

A/ Applicant Direct Testimony No. 6, Appendix 1 at 4.

1/ Id. l 4-l

2. It is difficult to fathom why the now version of the

" shelter-in-place" option would obviate the nood to make sure that the buildings used for sheltering the beach population actually provide suitable sheltering. Such a consideration would appear to be requisite for whatever sheltering scenario is envisioned. If there to be assurance that the persons sheltering actually attain the projected doso savings that the sholtoring PAR contemplates, it is necessary to ascertain with l

the buildings actually afford shelter.

The purpose of sheltering is to afford protection from radiological exposure. To protect transpr7tation dependent transients from exposure in the reason they are to be sheltored while they are awaiting the arrival of buses rather than simply standing outsido at a bus stop under the NHRERP. Since the record reflects that Now Hampshire officials contemplate that there are some buildings in the beach area that are unsuitable for sholtoring a portion of the beach population under one scenario, thoro is no logical reason to simply assuno that the buildings will be suitablo under other conditions. In any event, thoro is certainly nothing in the record to support such a supposition.

3. The present record does not evidenco assurance that all members of the beach population will know what steps to l

take in the event of a shelter-in-place recommendation. First, there is the obvious point that recently developed EDS messages are not part of the existing record in this matter. Secondly, the Intervonors have not had any opportunity to challenge the

adequacy of such messages. Third, any EBS messages that purport to address the distinctions in the various portions of the beach population as they are to respond under the present version of the " shelter-in-place" option, could noc have been evidenced at the time of the original NHRERP hearings because the state of New Hampshire's interpretation of the

" shelter-in-place" option has changed so radically since the j time of the original hearings.

The refinement of an EBS nessage under the present l " shelter-in-place" option is going to be difficult because of the variety of situations it will have to address. Apart from I that portion of the beach population who are already in a building where they can shelter, there are a number of

• variables that will have to be addressed including: what does the beachgoer who has driven to the beach from his beach cottage up the road dos or what does the beachgoer who has walked a mile to the beach do? Given the number of benchgoers ,

who stay at locations proximate to the beaches, but not right on them, there is the potential or a great deal of confusion under the " shelter-in-place" option unless there is a very detailed EBS that addresses a variety of types of beachgoers.

On the other hand, any EBS nessage that is detailed' enough to address all types of beachgoers may become so long that it is 1

l impractical.

CONCLUSION The Intervenors maintain that since the present record in the case does not address any of the issues remanded by the

i *  ;

I

! j j-i' Appeal Board, the Licensing Board should set a schedule for l t

j holding a hearing on the-remanded issues, and should permit the j parties a reasonable amount of time to engage in_ discovery to f prepare for that hearing. - Since as ALAB 039 makes clear, the present version of the " shelter-in-place" option is or recent -)

vintage, the-Intervenors did not have an opportunity to l

challenge it in-the prior NHRERP hearings. Because the present l

record does not contain evidence on the outstanding-issues, L

there is not a sufficient basis for a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protection measures can be taken in the event of an emergency M i

! Respectfully submitted, l NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON JAMES M.-SHANNON- ,

NUCLEAR POWER ATTORNEY GENERAL--

hw $% N .

! liiane Curran, Esq$ IAslie Greer -

~

Harmon, Curran & Towsley. Assistant Attorney General Suite 430 Nuclear Safety Unit

'2001 S Street, N.W.- One Ashburton Place Washington, DC 20008 Boston, Massachusetts 02108

-617-727-2200 Date: January 10, 1991 1967n ff_ The Intervenors state that this filing which protects their l right to pursue additional 1 intra-agency proceedings.in the Seabrook licensing action reflects no intention or purpose to elect to continue such intra-agency participation in derogation of their rights to have final action reviewed by- the cogn:.zant Court of Appeals. The Intervenors file this memorandum only to

'- ensure that no argument will lie at any later date that they failed-to exhaust administrative remedies.

?

7 l

.- - - . - . . . . . . , _ . , . . , _ - - , _ . . . ,m.-- - ._.____,,-._..-.,.___..,_.-..-._.....__._,_.-_....._.,.m...

, i 1

UNITED STATES'OF. AMERICA l l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00(hllED

! U5NRC l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges: '91 JAN 11 P1bO8 Ivan W. Smith, Chairman , van or q c,u its <

Dr. Richard F. Cole- boCKL10m %VM I i*Ala Kenneth A. McCollom

)

In the Matter of_ ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) '

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, RT AL. )

)-

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) January'10, 1991

.)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

I, Leslie Greer, hereby certify that on January 10, 1991, I made i

service of the within MEMORANDUM OF THE INTERVENORS ON THE REMANDED SHELTERING ISSUES by Federal Express as indicated by (*), by hand as indicated by (**), and b'/ first class mail to

• Ivan W.-Smith, Chairman *Kenneth A McCollom .

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1107 W. Knapp St.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Stillwater, OK 74075 Commission East West Towers Building *Decketing and Service 4350: East West Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, MD 20814 Commission 11555-Rockville Pike Rockville,-MD: 20852

• Dr. Richard F. Cole Paul McEachern, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Shaines & McEachern-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 Maplewood Avenue East West Towers Building. -P.fo. Box 360 4350 East West? Highway. Portsmouth, NH 03801--

Bethesda, MD 20514-4 i

trg e vere- --rc w 5 ge c g ee u re--emi-- r T ' - * >r e--y ee esw w eir s-- ag e- r- w r+e - - v. w t y ev--.4 m e w -, =-r e . w a---rt - -w= v-ww"-==r+am w s w +=+w - - n e .--e=-=*--

i Robert R. Pierce, Esq. ** Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.1/

atomic Safety & Licensing Board Katherine Selleck, Esq.

L.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray East host Towers Building one International Place  !

4350 East West Highway Boston, MA 02110 Bethesda, MD 20814 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. *Mitzi A. Young, Esq.

Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory office of General Counsel Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency Office of the General Counsel 500 C Street, S.W. 15th Floor Washington, DC 20472 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq.

Appeal Board Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Jane Doughty U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Washington, DC 20555 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Charles P. Graham, Esq. Barbara St. Andre, Esq.

Murphy & Graham Kopelman & Paige, P.C.

33 Low Street 77 Franklin Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Judith H. Hizner, Esq. R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.

79 State Street Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton 2nd Floor & Rotondi Newburyport, MA 01950 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Diane. Curran, Esq. Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.

Harmon, curran, & Towsley 145 South Main Street Suite 430 P.O. Box 38 2001 S Street, N.W. Bradford, MA 01835 Washington, DC 20008 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphrey

, U.S. Senate One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Washington, DC 20510 Concord, NH 03301 (Attn Tom Burack) (Attnt Herb Boynton) l i

Hand delivery was made on January 11, 1991'by 10:00am l

1/

l John P. Arnold, Attorney General Phillip Ahrens, Esq.

Office of the Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Department of the Attorney concord, NH 03301 General 1 Augusta, ME 04333 Jack Dolan George Iverson, Director Federal Emergency Management N.H. Office of Emergency Agency Management Region 1 State House Office Park South J.W. McCormack Post Of fice & 107 Pleasant Street 1 courthouse Building, Room 442 Concord, NH 03301 l Boston, MA 02109 1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JAMES M. SRANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL I Leslie Greer h

Assistant Attorney General e Department of the Attorney General one Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED: January 10, 1991 4=-