ML20081D634
| ML20081D634 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1983 |
| From: | Shotwell J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081D621 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8311010278 | |
| Download: ML20081D634 (26) | |
Text
'
r 00LKETED USNRC STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,83 G i 31 A11 :18 ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0FFCE OF SECRH BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES:
GCCXETinL A SEloc Helen F.(Hoyt, Chairman BM Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Jerry Harbour
)
Ir. the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-443-OL PCELIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
October 26, 1983
)
ATTORNEY GENERAL BELLOTTI'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND i
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE NECNP CONTENTIONS III.12 and 13 Pur'suant to 10 C.F.R.
S2.754, Attorney General Bellotti hereby files his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law r elative to NECNP Contentions III.12 and 13, the only contentions on which he participated at the August hearings.
In reviewing the transcripts of the hearing sessions, we have' noted a number of errors which will be the subject of a separate motion.
We note now, however, that Exhibit 2 to the Applicants' Direct Testimony, containing their full evacuation time study, was-never included in the transcript.
(The original study as contained in the FSAR. was included in the tr ar.s c r ipt instead.)
De are unable at this point, therefore,
- c provide official cites for Exhibit 2 and relevant portions 4
8311010278 831026 PDR ADDCK O j
T
~..
. thereof and simply cite to the pages of the Exhibit as it was filed with the Board and served on the parties prior to the hearing.
In addition to addressing the two items remaining for litigation under NECNP Contentions III.12 and 13 as redrafted by the Board -- namely, summer adverse weather evacuation times and simultaneous beach area evacuation times -- these proposed findings'and conclusions address the issue of " preparation time. " Motions have been filed by Attorney General Bellotti and others for reconsideration of the Board's summary dismissal of NEC:;P III.12 and 13 t.o the extent they challenged the Applicants' failure to consider preparation time.
The Applicants have argued that, while the basis which the Board gave for its summary dismissal on this point was in error, that result can be upheld on the ground that the issue of preparation time was not covered by the original contention.
See Applicants' Response to " Motion of Attorney General Francis.
X.
Bellotti for Leave to File Responses to the Answers of the Staff and Applicants to His Motion for Reconsideration of Board Ruling on Preparation Time," [ hereinafter, " Applicants' Response"], at 7.
That assertion is incorrect, for NECNP Contentions III.12 and 13 as submitted included a general challenge to the accuracy of the Applicants' evacuation time es tima tes and did not. purport to specify all respects in which
- hey were inaccurate.
. Moreover, as the Applicants themselves adknowledge, NECNP
~
submitted an expert affidavit in opposition to the motion for sunmary dismissal'specifically raising the preparation time issue.
Applicants' counsel now attempt to refute that expert testincny through their own " testimony" that preparation time is ecvered by the Applicants' estimates.1/
However, the Applicants offered no counter-af fidavit at the time the summary dispcsition motion was before the Board and there is no basis wha soever fer the Board to grant summary disposition on the issue.
S/
The Applicants have suggested, in the alternative, that the Scard reverse its order striking certain testimony offered by Attcrney General Bellotti at the August hearings on the I
1/
The passage which they cite from the FSAR in fact confirms that preparation time is not included, for it indicates that i
the estimates are from the start of the actual evacuation.
See -
Applicants' Response, at 9, n.7.
2/
Mcr do the Applicants get any mileage out of the alleged failure by NECNp to supplement answers to interrogatories to in:;ade the preparation time issue or specifically to mention it in their Statement of Material Disputed Facts.
See Applicants' Response, at 7-9.
There being no deadline for supplementation of the interrogatory responses, NECNP was under nc coligation to do so prior to the action on the summary disposition ction.
Furthermore, NECNP's expert affidavit clearly indicated its concern on that issue and the Applicants sere in a position to respond to it at that time.
NECNP's 5:stetent cf Material Disputed Facts simply contained the general ~ assertion that _the Applicants ' estimates were
- nac
- urate anc failed to provide information needed by ce:ision-nakers.
It is the expert affidavit accompanying that filingL which specified the inaccuracies, including the failure te a: count for preparation time.
_4 preparation time issue and consider that testimony as well as testimony elicited on cross-examination in ruling on whether the Applicants have properly considered the phenomenon of i
preparation time.
The Applicants have agreed to waive their right to cross-examine Professor Herr on his testimony on this issue in an effort to obviate the need for further hearings, i
~
See Applicants' Response, at 9-11, and particularly p.ll, n.9.
Actorney' General Bellotti agrees that cross-examination was a
allowed at the August hearing on the preparation time issue.
4 While Professor Herr's proferred testimony on the point was, due to the Board's prior summary disposition order, directed at the validity of the Applicants' beach area estimate, we feel t
that the significance of his testimony for the Applicants' cntire time study is suf ficiently obvious (and supported by testimony of the Applicant and Staff witnesses at the hearing) that we are in agreement with the Applicants' alternative suggestion that Professor Herr's testimony now be admitted and the issue considered ripe.for decision.
Accordingly, we have included herein proposed findings and conclusions on the Applicants' failure properly to address the preparation time phenomenon in their evacuation time study generally.
We caution that, even if the Board does not decide
~
to accept Protessor Herr's testimony and address the preparation time issue generally, testimony elicited on cr:ss-examination of other witnesses demonstrates that the
~
3 Applicants' beach area estimate is unreliable because of their failure properly to consider this element of overall evacuation tire.
The findings and conclucions herein, while drafted to apply to all of the Applicants' estimates, are equally i
applicable to the simultaneous beach area estimate in particular.
~
FINDINGS OF FACT 1.
The evacuation time estimates provided by the 1
Applicants in Appendix C to the Seabrook Station Radiological Energency Plan contained in the FSAR [ hereinafter, " Appendix i
C"] fail to include any estimate of the time for evacuating during summer adverse weather conditions.
See Appendix C.
See also App,. Dir., Post Tr. 1016, at 18-19; Direct Testimony of Dr. Urbanik, Post Tr. 1304, at 2.
2.
The evacuation time estimates provided by the Applicants in Appendix C fail to include any estimate for simultaneous evacuation or the full plume exposure pathway EPZ or simultaneous evacuation of the beach areas lying northeast tc south-southeast of the site.
See Appendix C.
See also App,.
Cir., Post Tr. 1016, at 18-19.
3.
In response to the Board's order of June 30, 1983, declining sumcarily to dismiss NECNP Contentions III.12 and i
- II.13 to the extent they challenged the Applicants' failure to j
provide a summer adverse weather estimate, the-Applicants prepared for'the first time an evacuation time estimate for l
si ultaneous evacuation of.the entire EPZ under a_ peak weekend I
a
, ]
population adverse weather scenario.
AEE. Dir., Post Tr. 1016, at 19, n.2.
That estimate was first provided to the Board in J
the Applicants' Di' rect Testimony.
Tr. 1035; Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Urbanik, Post Tr. 1304, at 2.
4.
In Exhibit 2 to their Direct Testimony, Applicants l
provided to the Board for the first time evacuation time estimates for simultaneous evacuation of the entire EPZ.
AEE-Dir., Post Tr. 1016, at 18-19 and 19, n.2; Tr. 1034-35.
Those i
i estimates were the first ever submitted to the Board which reflect simultaneous evacuation of the beach areas lying q
northeast to south-southeast of the site.
$33. Dir., Post Tr.
1016, at 20.; Tr. 1036 - 1037; Rebuttal Testimony of Dr.
Urbanik, Post Tr. 1304, at 1.
5.
Applicants now estimate that it will take 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and 5 minutes to evacuate the beach areas lying northeast to south-southeast of the site on a summer weekend in fair 1
weather.
Agg. Dir., Post Tr. 1016, a t 19 -2 0.
)
6.
Applicants now estimate that it will take 9, hours and 15 minutes to evacuate the entire EPZ on a summer weekend in adverse' weather.
Agg. Dir., Post Tr. 1016, at 20.
7.
There are two purposes served by the evacuation time estimates which the Commission requires applicants to prepare.
Thus, the estimates-are required as a tool-both for emergency planners and protective action decision-makers.
Tr. 1C78-79, i
1305; Rebuttal Testimony.of Dr. Urbanik, Post Tr. 1304, at 2.
l l 8.
Evacuation time estimates, prepared by applicants must provide a sufficient data base to aid a realistic assessment of the options and allow for informed protective action decisions.
Tr. 1307-1312; Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Urbanik, Post Tr. 1304, at 2.
9.
The Applicants' evacuation time estimates are not es timates which could be used by decision-makers at the time of an emergency.
Tr. 1106-07, 1329.
10.
Only after the various evacuation time studies that have been prepared are reviewed, experieaces of local officials considered, and detailed local plans prepared can the evacuation time estimates which the Commission requires for use by decision-makers at the time of an emergency be developed.
Tr. 1325, 1328-29.
11.
The Applicants' evacuation time estimates are optimistic and depend implicitly on attaining a high level of efficiency in utilization of the available transportation network.
Tr. 1316-17, 1321, 1383.
12.
In the absence of plans for traf fic management and control, there is no assurance that evacuees will make the route choices assumed by the Applicants.
Tr. 1373.
13.
There is no assurance that evacuees will make the route choices assumed by the Applicants because their model, in accounting for driver choices at intersections, presumes knowledge of traffic concitions along the entirety of the next
l
. link as defined by the model, a presumption which is not necessarily accurate and which is clearly less accurate for ncnresidents (such' as the beach population) than residents.
1 Tr.
1041-42.
14.
The combination of peak populations and summer adverse weather is not at all unrealistic.
Testimony of Philip B.
Herr, Post Tr. 1196, at 3; Rebuttal Testimony of Philip B.
Herr, Post Tr. 1196, at A.03 - A.05; Tr. 1092-93.
15.
Rain is not the only forseeable summer adverse weather condition.
Tr. 1403.
16.
Fog and rain reduce travel speeds and road capacity through reducing visibility and reducing braking ef fectiveness.
Fog can render roadways impassable.
Flooding reduces travel speeds and can render roadways impassable.
Testimony of Philip B.
Herr, Post Tr. 1196, at 3-5; Testimony of Rober t Mark, Post Tr.1190, at 8 ; Tr.1091-9 2, 1409.
17.
There is a continuum of effect on roadway capacity fron adverse weather conditions.
Tr. 1091-92; Testimony of Philip B. Herr, Post Tr. 1196, at 3-5.
18.
The only summer adverse weather condition which the Applicants have. examined is the relatively benign one of fog or rain reducing road capacities by 30%.
Worse conditions are cc only observed at Seabrook, including flooding of one or i
4
. =cre egress roads, a contingency'not even mentioned by the Applicants in their study.
Rebuttal Testimony of Philip B.
Herr, post Tr. 1196, at A.06; Testimony of Robert Mark, Post Tr. 1190, at 8.
19.
Flooding is a critical contingency at Seabrook.
Hampton Beach, Seabrook Beach, and Salisbury Beach are all developed on barrier beaches separated from the mainland, except at the north of Hampton Beach, by either rivers or wide marshes.
Only four roads, three on fill just higher than marsh level, provide connections between those three beaches and the ma inl ar.d.
Flooding in the area is a coastal phenomenon, asscciated not only with rain but also with wind and tide such that any time wind, tide, and even a relatively small amount of rain coincide there can be water on the roads very quickly.
At least once or twice a year roads in the Hampton Beach area are floeded.
Occasionally they are rendered impassable and, on one occasicn in 1978, they remained impassable for two days.
Floeding as an interdicting possibility in the Seabrook area is corroborated by FEMA Flood Hazard Maps.
Tr. 1250; Testimony of Philip B. Herr, Post Tr. 1196, at 5; Testimony of Robert Mark,
?c st Or. 1190, at 8; Rebuttal Testimony of Philip B. Herr, Pos: Cr. 1196, at A.06 and Exhibits A-D.
2C.
The Applicants have provided no estimates reflecting any:n ng less than peak population in' combination with summer adcerse weather.
Tr. 1093-94..
e -.
. 21.
The Applicants have conducted no studies to establish and cannot state the relationship between reduction in roadway capacity due to adverse summer weather and increase in evacuation times.
Tr. 1120-21.
22.
In preparing their summer adverse weather estimates, the Applicants made no inquiries of local officials as to the ef fects they may have observed of adverse conditions on roadways ~in the area.
Tr. 1071.
23.
Professor Herr has extensive experience in emergency response planning, both generally and for areas surrounding nuclear facilities, in transportation and traffic planning, in analyzing computer evacuation simulations, and in preparing development schemes and designing response systems and hazard avoidance systems and strategies to account for meteorological ph eno.mena, in particular flooding.
He further has extensive familiarity with the Seabrook area.
Professor Herr's opinions on the matters before the Board are, therefore, entitled to great weight.
Testimony of Philip B. Herr, Post Tr. 1196, at 2-3 and Exhibit A; Tr. 1198, 1246, 1251-52; 1257.
24.
Where the expert opinions offered at trial conflict, Pr ofessor Herr 's opinions are entitled to the greatest weight because of his ore extensive familiarity with the Seabrook ar ea, because o f Mr. MacDonald 's employment relationship with Yankee Atomic and admitted bias on the issues before the Board, hecause of Mr. Merlino's pecuniary interest in the outcome of
. the proceeding and former employment relationship with Yankee Atenic, and because of Dr. Urbanik's evasiveness and hostile attitude under cross-examination.
Tr. 1018-1026.
25.
Evacuation time estimates, to be useful tools for emergency planners and protective action decision-makers, must Ocnsider the possibility that one or all of the roads separ ating Hampton Beach, Seabrook Beach, and Salisbury Beach fron the ' mainland may be flooded when evacuation is being attempted.
Testimony of Philip B. Herr, Post Tr. 1196, at 5.
26.
The Applicants' estimate for summertime adverse wea:her. conditions is unreliable because they have not explored the ef fect on that evacuation time of the loss of power which can accompany adverse weather and disable notification, cc anunications, and traffic control systems.
Testimony of Philip B. Herr, Post Tr. 1196, at 3.
27.
The Applicants' estimate for summertime adverse weather conditions is inadequate and fails to provide infercation needed by emergency planners because they failed to nake selections of effects along a continuum in order to demcnstrate the sensitivity of evacuation times in the area to s e a th e r.
Tr. 1211.
25.
It is important1for emergency planners and protective action decision-makers to have reliable estimates of the time required to evacuate simultaneously the beaches from northeast t0 south-southeast of the~Seabrook site because a protective
7
. acticn order is likely to include beaches both north and south of the site, regardless of projected wind direction.
Testimony of Philip B. Herr, Post. Tr. 1196, at 5.
29.
The Applicants' evacuation time study did not take i..to effect in any way the possible or probable occurrence of accidents or vehicles running out of gas.
Tr. 1085-86, 1100.
30.
Accidents can occur and vehicles can run out of gas during evacuations.
Tr. 1114.
ll.
The computer model employed by the Applicants' censultants in preparing their evacuation time study is capable of assessing the impact of traffic accidents on evacuation times.
Tr. 1099.
32.
There is literature which provides statistical data on the frequency of accidents on freeways and the length of delay
)
associated therewith.
Tr. 1115-16.
33.
There are two expressways in the vicinity of the Seabrook site.
Tr. 1117.
34.
The Applicants' consultants did not engage in any discussions with local officials about typical locations of traffic accidents or delay time associated therewith.
Tr. 1100.
35.
There are only four egress routes from Hampton Beach, 5eatrook Beach, and Salisbury Beach to the mainland.
Testimony
- f Philip B.
Herr, Post.Tr. 1196, at 5.
36.
In preparing evacuation time ~ estimates, consideration ust he given to the impact of peak populations, including
W 13-behavioral aspects and, in particular, behavioral response to any attempts at nonradial dispersion.
Tr. 1332-33, 1389-90.
37.The Applicants' consultants have limited knowledge regarding driver behavior during evacuations, but admit that a correlation may well exist between the length of an evacuation and breakdown in driver discipline.
Tr. 1098, 1104.
38.
Some people become very emotional during evacuations and disobey traf fic controls.
Testimony of Robert Mark, Post Tr. 1190, at 7-8.
39.
The Applicants' evacuation time study assumes normal traffic controls are obeyed and traffic lanes used in the ccncentional manner, regardless of the length of the ev acua tion.
Tr. 1101, 1104.
40.
The Applicants' evacuation time study does not account fcr the effect on evacuation times of non-evacuating traffic, including work-to-home travel, trips by emergency vehicles, and trips in preparation for evacuation.
The Applicants have not determined the numbers of vehicles which are likely to be invclved in such travel or quantified the effect of those trips Or. evacuation times.
Tr. 1101-1104.
41.
An actual experience with evacuation of Hampton Beach descnstrates that the Applicants' simultaneous beach area estimate of approximately six hours is understated.
In 1977, it tack approximately 3-1/2 hours to evacuate just 7,000 people f r :r the Hampton Beach area in the evening.
The Applicants
. estimate, however, that it will-take less than double that time to evacuate 40,000 transient vehicles, together with the permanent population within ten miles, on a summer weekend.
Testimony of Robert Mark, Post Tr.1190, at 7; Exhibit 2 to Applicants' Direct Testimony, at 2 2-6 and Figure 6.
42.
The evacuation time study commissioned by-the NRC indicates that the Applicants' estimates are optimistic, for it arrived at estimater 60-84% higher than those of the Applicants.
Tr. 1330, 1365.
43.
The NRC's evacuation study used higher population figures than did the Applicants' study.
Tr. 1331.
44.
Comparisons between the Applicants' estimated evacuation times and those estimated in the study for the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency (the Maguire Study) reveal disparities of as much as 47%.
And there are disparities between the Applicants' study and the study commissioned by the NRC (the PNL study) as great as 180%, and between the PNL and Maguire studies as great as 90%.
Testimony of Philip B. Herr, Post Tr. 1196, at 12.
- 45. The NRC Staff's consultants estimate that it will take apprcximately 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to evacuate the entire EPZ on a summer weekend in adverse weather.
Tr. 1413.
46.
Evacuation time for Seabrook could be as high as 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
Tr. 1365.
-a y
. 47.
The wide variances in evacuation time estimates as developed by the Applicants and by others, including the NRC's consultants and th'e New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency, give evidence that the predictive ability of the Applicants' simulation is too poor to be relied upon as a planning and management aid.
48.
The evacuation time estimates for Seabrook are the longest that the NRC Staff's expert is aware of, with the exception of estimates which are in his opinion conservative.
Tr. 1356, 1454.
49.
In preparing evacuation time estimates, estimates must be made_ of the time required to evacuate those dependent on public transportation.
Tr. 1332.
50.
The Applicants' evacuation time study does not contain estimates of the time required to evacuate those dependent on public transportation.
See Appendix C; Exhibit 2.
51.
The Applicants, in arriving at their evacuation time estimates, did not account for preparation time, either by separately computing the maximum time required for that component of evacuation time and adding it to the other components or by developing distribution functions for that stage of evacuation, but rather relied on loading rates as a surrogate for preparation time.
Tr. 1038, 1044, 1047; Exhibit 2, at 5 5-3.
i
. 52.
While the Applicants' consultants admit that there is a spectrum of time required for people to prepare to evacuate, they have not arrived at distribution functions reflecting that spectrum.
Tr. 1052-54.
53.
The Applicants' consultants have not consulted with 1ccal officials about the preparation time phenomenon. That is the tanner in which they would either estimate maximum preparation time or arrive at a distribution function for that 4
ccnpenent of evacuation time.
Tr. 1047-48.
54.
The Applicants' consultants purport to have conducted a sensitivity analysis in an effort to assess whether, in their op i.. ion, they should account for preparation time -- either by
=eans of a maximum time estimate for that component or a distribution function.
Tr. 1054-55.
No such analysis is centained in Appendix C or Exhibit 2 and none has been made available to the Board or parties for review.
See Appendix C; Exhibit 2.
55.
Families visiting Hampton Beach typically split up in all directions, with parents doing one thing and children ano th e r.
It may take family members a considerable length of ti.e to locate each'other for.an evacuation.
Some people will
=ake trips in their cars looking for family members.
Testimony of ?cl;ce Chief Rober t Mark, Post Tr.1190, at 8.
55.
Applicants' use of a constant vehicle loading. rate of j
- c rehicles per minute per node (summer weekdays for major i
l
. em:loyers being the only exception) is an unsupportable cversimplification of the mobilization or preparation time phenomenon.
Rebuttal Testimony of Philip B. Herr, Post Tr.
1196, at A.08.
57.
Applicants' analysis implies faster loading onto the r.e: work than would result from analysis of the actual preparation phenomenon.
Studies of preparation time at other I
sites ha~ve resulted in median preparation times which are triple the mean time imputed by the Applicants' 20 vehicle per h0tr loading rate.
Rebuttal Testimony of Philip E. Herr, Post T r. 119 6, a t A.08.
58.
Preparation times vary for different areas and jacgcents must be made about the characteristics of particular areas in estimating those times.
Tr. 1313.
59.
If ninety-five percent of the people on the beach would take more than 15 or 20 minutes to prepare to evacuate then, in the opinion of the Staff's witness, the Applicants' beach area estimates would be unduly low.
The Staff's witness has no knowledge as to the percentage of beachgoers at S.eabrook whc would take longer than that ceriod in preparation.
Tr.
1314-15.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW l.
The Applicants are required to provide _an analysis of
- ..e time recuired to evacuate various' sectors and distances
. within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for transient and permanent populations.
10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Section I */.
See also NUREG-0654/ FEMA-Rep-1, Rev. 1: " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,"
i l
November, 1980, [ hereinafter, " NUREG -0 6 5 4 "]
at 61, Criterion J.S.
[The criteria of NUREG-0654 are expressly incorporated into the Commisison's regulations at 10 C.F.R.
S50.4 7 (b), n.1 and Appendix E,Section IV, n.4.]
2.
Evacuation time estimates are required for simultaneous eracuation of the entire plume exposure pathway EPZ.
NCREG -0 6 5 4, App. 4, at 4-4.
3.
Both normal and adverse weather conditions must be analyzed.
NUREG-0654, App.
4, at 4-6.
4.
The adverse weather frequency used in the analysis must be identified and must be severe enough to define the sensitivity of the analysis to the selected events.
N C REG -0 6 5 4, App. 4, a t 4 - 6.
5.
In the case of a northern site with a high summer tcurist population, applicants should consider summer adverse weather conditions, such as rain, flooding or fog.
NUREG-0654, Ap p. 4, a t 4 -7.
6.. Evacuation time is composed of several components, each I
of which mus t be. estimated -in. order to determine the total svacuaticn time.
NUREG-0654, App.
4, at 4-6.
l
. 7.
The time required for per, sons to prepare to evacuate is one of the components of evacuation time which must be computed.
In doing so, applicants can either compute the maximum time required for preparation and add that to the j
maximum time required for each of the other components or they can develop distribution functions for the various evacuation time components and combine them.
When distribution functions are used, estimates are made of the likelihood that each stage in an evacuation sequence will be accomplished within a given i
period of time, which conditional probabilities depend upon complction of the preceding stage.
Some of the distribution functions must be based on the judgment of the estimators.
Where distribution functions are used, the following 4
requirements apply:
computation of the joint distribution functions of evacuation times must be made; distribution functions for notificaiton of the various categories of the evacuee population must be developed, the distribution functions for the action stages after notification must predict what fractior of the population will complete a particular action within a given span of time; there must be separate distributions for auto-owning. households, school population, and transit dependent populations and the percentage of the population as a function of time must be reported.
NUREG-0654, App.
4, at 4-7, 4-8, and 4-10.
. 8.
Applicants must estimate the time required to evacuate persons dependent on public transport.
NUREG-0654, App. 4, at 4
4-9.
9.
In arriving at evacuation time estimates for peak populations, applicants must take behavioral considerations into account.
NUREG-0654, App. 4, at 4-10.
10.
The Applicants' estimate of the time required to evacuate the EPZ on a summer weekend in adverse weather
[ hereinafter, the " adverse weather estimate"] and its estimate of the time required to evacuate simultaneously the entire EPZ, and thus the beach areas lying northeast to south-southeast of the site, on a summer weekend in fair weather [ hereinafter, the
" beach area estimate") do not satisfy the Commission's requirements because they could not be used by decision-makers at the time of an emergency.
The estimates are optimistic and depend implicitly upon attaining a high level of efficiency in utilization of the available transportation network.
Especially given the existence of a number of evacuation time studies having wide disparities, it is only after the various studies are reviewed, experiences of local officials considered, and detailed local plans prepared that the evacuation time estimates which the Commission requires for use by decision-cakers at the time of an emergency ~can be developed.
11.
The Applicants' adverse weather estimate of nine hours and fifteen minutes is unreliable and fails to provide a
~ sufficient data base for emergency planners and protective action decision-makers because they have not examined the effect on evacuation times of interdiction of one or more of the fcur egress routes from the beach areas to the mainland due to ficoding, they have not explored the effect on evacuation tire cf the loss of power which can accompany adverse weather and disable notification, communications, and traffic control systens, they have not made selections of effects along a continuum in order to demonstrate the sensitivity of evacuation tires in the area to weather, they have provided no summer adverse weather estimates for populations other than the peak weekend population, and they have not accounted for the effect of vehicles running out of gas during such a slow-moving evacuation.
12.
The Applicants' beach area estimate is unreliable and fails to provide a sufficient data base for emergency planners and protective action decision-makers because they failed to account for the effect on evacuation times of acidents or vehicles running out of gas on one or more of the four egress routes from the beach area, despite the existence of data sources on the location and frequency of accidents and delay times associated therewith.
12.
The Applicants' beach area and adverse weather estima es are unreliable because there has been no censideration cf evacuee behavioral response, including
4 l
l f breakdowns in driver discipline due to the length of the evacuation, despite local experience with driver disobedience of traffic controls during evacuation and the unusual length of the evacuation times for this site, j
14.
The Applicants' beach area estimate is an unreliable tool for emergency planners and protective action' decision-makers because it does not account for the effect on evacuation time of non-evacuating traffic.
15.
The Applicants' beach area estimate is unreliable as a planning and management aid because it is grossly inconsistent i
with an actual experience with evacuation of Hampton Beach and with estimates prepared for the NRC and the New Hampshire Civil j
Defense Agency.
Professor Herr's experience driving in the beach area one day does not in any way confirm either of the Applicants' estimates, since he was not involved in an j
evacuation where all persons in the area were attempting to i~
travel at once.
16.
The Applicants' beach area estimate. fails to provide.
required information in that it fails to estimate the time i
required to evacuate transients dependent on public transportation.
17.
The Applicants' evacuation time: study does not' satisfy.
Commission requirements because it does not account for.
preparation time in either of the two manners permitted by.
Even if NUREG-0654 had not: been incorporated into
l
.. the Commission's regulationo, the Applicants have supplied no basis for a conclusion that its requirements should not be applied here since' the sensitivity analysis which they purport to have conducted has never been submitted to the Board or parties for review.
Respectfully submitted, f
FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI ATTORNEY GENERAL By:
- - a -IV/A h "_g J7 NN SHOTWELL V '
istant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2265 Dated:
October-26, 1983 i
J 4
v
t
)
s tit:
- 7. m CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'83 00131 All UB I, Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire, counsel for Massachuset,ts, Attorney General Francis X.
Bellotti, hereby certify that on.fOctobe'p126i-J1983, made service of the Attorney General Bellotti's Motibi"pdiucorrection of I
Transcript and Attorney General Bellotti's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Re NECNP Contentions III.12 and 13 by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to the parties named below:
Helen Hoyt, Chairperson
- Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Coastal Chamber of Commerce U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 209 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
Atomic Safety and Licensing William S. Jordan, III, Esquire 4
Board Panel Diane Curran Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Edward L. Cross, Jr.,
Esquire Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dana Bisbee, Esquire Washington, DC 20555
' Assistant Attorney General Of fice of the Attorney General 208 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Roy P.
Lessy*
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deputy Assistant Chief U.S.
Washington, DC 20555 Hearing Counsel U. S.N. R.C.
7735 Old Georgetown Road l
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Guard Call - X27505
- By Express Mail l
l
)
\\
. = _. _.
f v
Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A.
Ba cku s, Esquire Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Dr. Mauray Tye Assistant Attorney General Sun Valley Association Department of the Attorney 209 Summer Street General Haverhill, MA 01830 Augusta, ME. 04333 David R.
Lewis
- Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.,
Esquire **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert K.
Gad, III, Esquire Board Panel Ropes & Gray U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 225 Franklin Street Rm. E/W-439 Boston, MA 02110 Washington, DC 20555 Charles Cross, Esquire Ms. Olive L. Tash Shaines, Madrigan, & McEachern Designated Representative of 25 Maplewood Avenue the Town of Brentwood P.O.
Box 366 R.F.D.
1, Dalton Road Portsmouth, NH 03801 Brentwood, NH 03833 Roberta C.
Pevear Edward F. Meany Designated Representative of Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton Falls the Town of Rye Drinkwater Road 155 Washington Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Calvin A.
Canney Designated Representative of City Manager the Town of Kensington City Hall RFD 1 126 Daniel Street East Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Richard E.
Sullivan Jane Doughty Town Hall Field Director Newburyport, MA 01950 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801-Docketing and Service Section i
Of fice of. the Secretary U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, DC 20555 1
-*By Express Mail
- By Hand. Delivery on 10/27/83 l
. I e'
Brian P. Cassidy Representative Nicholas J.
Costel Regional Counsel 1st Essex District FEMA Region 1 Whitehall Road John W. McCormack Post Office Amesbury, MA 01913
& Courthouse Boston, MA 02109 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Diana P.
Randall Newbury Board of Selectmen 70 Collins Street Town of Newbury, MA 01950 Seabrook, NH 03874 Patrick J. McKeon Anne Verge, Chairperson Chairman of Selectmen, Rye, Board of Selectmen New Hampshire Town Hall 10 Central Road South Hampton, NH 03842 Rye, NH 03870 Donald E. Chick Maynard B.
Pear.on Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter 40 Monroe Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 New Hampshire 03833 Selectmen of North Hampton Mr. Daniel Girard Town of North Hampton Civil Defense Director New Hampshire 03862 25 Washington Street Salisbury, MA 01930 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey 1 Pillsbury Street U.S.
Senate Concord, NH 03302 Washington, D.C.
20510 (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
(Attn:
Tom Burack)
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, this 26th day of October, 1983.
~~ ] i,/
-r '..- *._. O...
Jo Ann Shotwell Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau One Ashburton-Place Boston, MA 02108 l
1 l