ML20082B453

Reply Opposing Applicant & NRC Responses to New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Contentions Re State of Nh Evacuation Time Study Estimates.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20082B453
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/16/1983
From:	Curran D, Jordan W, Jordan W HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8311210194
Download: ML20082B453 (13)

Text

_._. _ -_ -_ . _ _ ._ _ _ . _ - . _ - _

\' ,

v November 16, kC

.Y b 5 5 1 8 N j :b y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gng pg . .

^ CN E T::ia 5 s g '. <

l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION R:Mi9 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i '

)

Public Service Company of New )

Hampshire, et al. ) Docket Nos.

i ) 50-443, -444 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

NECNP REPLY TO RESPONSES BY APPLICANTS AND NRC STAFF TO NECNP CONTENTIONS ON NEW HAMPSHIRE EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES On October 28, 1983, both Applicants and Staff filed responses to NECNP's contentions on the New Hampshire-Evacuation Time Study. Applicants make a general objection to the litigability of the evacuation time estimates (ETEs), and both Applicants and Staff object to various specific elements i of the contentions.

General Objection Applicants make a general claim that the New Hampshire

, Evacuation Time Study is not litigable, because NRC regulations l

L require submission of evacuation time estimates only by license l

l applicants. ,

I Applicants are incorrect. -Pursuant to_NUREG-0654, 5 J.10.1,.both state and local plans for' implementing protective actions must include:

. Time estimates for evacuation of various sectors and i

Y?'

B311210194 831116 PDR ADOCK 05000443 ,i g PDR *

.SS O3

O distances based on a dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditions) for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (See Appendix 4

[" Evacuation Time Estimates Within the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone"])1 This provision implements NRC regulation 10 C.F.R. S 5 0. 4 7 ( b ) (10 ) , which require that:

A range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the.public. Guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency consistent with Federal guidance, are developed and in place ...

New Hampshire's estimates of evacuation times in the EPZ will be a critical tool for emergency response personnel in l In their response to SAPL's contentions on the New Hampshire evacuation time study (filed November 10, 1983), Applicants argue that NUREG-0654 requires that evacuation time estimates be included in implementing procedures only, and thus are not litigable pursuant to the Appeal Board's decision. in Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),

A LAB-7 3 2, 17 NRC 1076, 110 6-07 (1983 ) . NECNP has already briefed our position that offsite implementing procedtres are fully litigable. (See "NECNP Reply to Responses by Applicants and NRC Staff to NECNP Contentions on New Hampshire Emergency Response Procedures," dated September 23, 1983) In any event, 5 J.10.1 does not refer to implementing procedures but to plans for implementing protective measures. The' evacuation' time estimates provide critical guidance for the choice of protective actions, as required by 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b) (10) .

Thus, they are not administrative details, but fundamental elements of the offsite plans subject to litigation in-licensing hearings.

l choosing protective measures.2 Therefore, the validity of the evacuation time study is highly relevant to this proceeding.

NECNP responds to the Applicants' and Staff's specific objections to the contentions below.

Specific Contentions

1. This contention charges that the New Hampshire ETEs rely incorrectly on the assumption that all persons instructed to evacuate will evacuate. Applicants oppose admission of the contention on the ground that this phenomenon is accounted for by the study's consideration of " mobilization time." The study also assumes that people within the EPZ will go home first to await further inctructions or to begin mobilization for evacuation.

Applictnts' argument that " mobilization time" is equivalent to the time needed by families to reunite goes to the merits of the contention, not whether there is a reasonable basis for it. Such an argument should be reserved for summary judgment.

NECNP has provided a reasonable basis for the contention sufficient to allow its admission.

In any event, the study's consideration of mobilization time is inadequate on its face to account for the phenomenon of families attempting to reuni'r- abr' ore evacua ting . For example, the study does rot assume that parents will attempt to retrieve 2 Applicants' evacuation time study will certainly not be of much help to emergency personnel, as it is concededly a '

" preliminary" study based on hypothetical evacuation routes, not the routes actually to be used in an evacuation.

their children from school before evacuating, but rather that the school children will be evacuated directly from schools in buses. (II-14) Therefore, it does not account for the congestion and delays caused by automobile traf fic at the schools. This congestion will not only delay automobiles, but may prevent or delay schools buses in approaching or leaving the schools.

Moreover, although the study includes a graph demonstrating mobilization times for transients, no discussion is included of the basis for the graph. Reunions of transient f amilies may be difficult or impossible, as they will have no home base to gather at, and must search for each other in areas that may be heavily congested with traffic. The study does not include consideration of this phenomenon.

The Staff does not oppose this contention if it is limited to the issue of families reuniting and parents picking up school children prior to evacuating. NECNP agrees to this limitation. For clarity's sake, we reword the contention as follows:

1. The New Hampshire evacuation time estimates (ETEs) are inaccurate and overly optimistic in that they are based on an assumption that all persons instructed to evacuate will evacuate. The ETEs do not take into account the f act that many f amily members will not leave the EPZ unless and until they are reunited. Nor do they take into account the actions that families will take to reunite, including the retrieval from school of children; and the effects of these actions upon the evacuation.

2. Contention 2 challenges the ETEs for their assumption l l

l

. 1 l

l j that public transportation will be.available to those who need it. Applicants oppose admission of this contention on the

{ ground that public transportation involves only a "small" number of persons and drivers. Again, Applicants address the merits of the contention rather than the sufficiency of the basis. Such an assertion should be reserved for a summary ,

judgment motion.

Notwithstanding the inappropriateness of Applicants' objection, they are also incorrect on the merits. Applicants 1

have either misread the tables they cite, or their concept of size and significance is strangely distorted. According to Table 13 in Section IV, the total transportation needs of the New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook EPZ amount to 504 buses, s

158 emergency medical services vehicles, and 40 vans. .That adds up to 702 vehicles for which drivers must be found. These j vehicles are expected to evacuate over 20,000 people. (S III, Tables 7 and 9) Considering the doubts of local officials as to the commitment by drivers to perform this service, it is j extremely important to obtain some assurance that the drivers can be relied upon.

Applicants claim that NECNP must overcome a presumption of regularity, i.e. that public. transportation drivers will -

perform their functions, in order to gain admission.of this contention. The-presumption is absolutely without foundation with respect to the highly ' dangerous and frightening atmosphere of'a radiological emergency. If this presumption is

._ . _ _ _. -_ _ . . . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ ~ ___ _ _ _ . . - _

nonetheless invoked, it should not function as a bar to admissibility, but as an evidentiary standard after the contention is admitted. The FEMA study cited by NECNP provides at least enough basis to raise questions about the reliability of the drivers to allow NECNP the opportunity to submit evidence overcoming the presumption.

As a result of discussions between NECNP and the NRC Staff, NCENP is authorized to state that the Staff has withdrawn its

! objection to this contention.

l

3. This contention faults the evacuation time study for failure to consider severe adverse weather conditions, such as flooding. Applicants oppose admission of the contention on the ground that the study presumes reduced roadway capacity for-winter snow storms and summer rain and fog conditions. The study does not, however, account for extremely severe weather conditions such as blizzards and northeasters. -Nor does it account for flooding, which may make roadways completely impassable or add to the delays caused by severe rain, snow, and/or wind. Applicants would have NECNP supply the " missing link" of proving that the ETEs-would actually be larger 'if these severe weather conditions were considered. It'is not 4

NECNP's responsibility to prove this; rather, the evacuation l

time study should acknowledge consideration of the effects and state whether or not the ETEs were affected.

l Applicants also complain that NECNP cannot rely for. basis

! on the testimony submitted by Hampton Police -Chief Mark in the

4 August hearing because Chief Mark is not qualified to give j expert testimony on evacuation time estimates. Applicants' objection is misplaced. NECNP has not relied on Chief Mark as an expert on evacuation time estimates, but as a person whose long experience with performing public services under various weather conditions provides a reasonable basis for this contention. In any event, it is not necessary to qualify a witness to establish a reasonable bacis for a contention, but rather to provi.de reasonably reliable information. This NECNP has done. Chief Mark's testimony provides a f actual basis for the contention that severe weather conditions such as flooding do occur in the Seabrook EPZ. The evacuation time study itself provides the information that these conditions are not included in the ETEs.

The Staff would not object to a contention limited to the effects of flooding. Flooding is often a major consequence of severe weather conditions;- however, NECNP cannot agree to this limitation, since there are other severe weather conditions, such as blizzards and hurricanes, for which the study does not account. The Applicants' FSAR, for example, notes that the Seabrook area experiences tropical storms and hurricanes resulting in heavy rains and high tides (at 2.3-3); intense winter storms known as " northeasters", which can bring ice and l .

heavy rains (FSAR at 2.3-1); and high winds (FSAR at 2.3-4

.5) All of these examples provide a further basis for the l

I

i application of this contention to matters other than simply flooding. NECNP is willing to incorporate these conditions into the contention as follows:

The New Hampshire ETEs are incomplete in that they do not account for the effects of severe adverse weather conditions in the Seabrook EPZ, such as flooding, blizzards, hurricanes, tropical storms, northeasters, and high winds; and their effects such as high tides, heavy rains, and ice storms.

4. Applicants believe this contention would be admissible i

"if the subject of the state's evacuation time estimates were litigable." This subject is discussed above at pages 1 - 2.

The NRC Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention.

5. This contention asserts that the ETEs do not adequately i

account for road conditions impeding traffic flow or vulnerable to blockage. Applicants oppose the contention on the ground I

that the evacuation time study did analyze and quantify the capacities of the links. The sections of the study cited by Applicants, however, contain only generalized statements that various roadway characteristics were considered in the computer model. There is no description of what those conditions are.

Applicants charge that NECNP is going on a " fishing expedition" with this contention. Certainly, without any kind of description of the actual roadway conditions in the study, 4

NECNP can do no more than conclude from the -low figures derived

! for evacuation times that these f actors must not have been adequately considered.

l

The NRC Staff seeks more specific information on the roadway characteristics of Routes 101 and 286. Although NECNP believes that the contention and basis as written satisfy 10 C.F .R. S 2.714, we add the f ollowing information to the basis.

With regard to Route 101, the narrow and twisting part lies between Exeter and Raymond. The. part of Route 286 that may hamper evacuation lies between Seabrook beach and Route 1 in Salisbury.

6. Contention 6 asserts that the ETEs are deficient in that they do not account for blockage of evacuation routes 1

caused by vehicles running out of gas. Applicants oppose admission of the contention. Applicants do not challenge NECNP's assertion that gasoline supplies in the Seabrook area are limited, and that therefore many of the vehicles running low on gas can be expected to run out in an evacuation.

Rather, they assert that the contention is deficient because NECNP has not demonstrated that this phenomenon would actually increase the evacuation times. Such proof is not necessary for the admission of this contention. NECNP has provided a basis l for the proposition that the lack of gasoline supplies in the Seabrook area will be a problem during an evacuation, and has shown that the possibility is not considered in the evacuation

time study. It is now Applicants' burden to demonstrate that this flaw in-the study would, as Applicants contend, make no significant difference in the ETEs. Applicants would l

l

improperly shift the burden of proof on this contention to N ECNP . The Board should reject the attempt and admit the contention.

The NRC Staff would not object to a contention limited to the lack of gasoline supplies along Route 51. As the NRC concedes, however, the contention also cites the lack of gasoline in the Hampton Beach area. Therefore, NECNP would agree to a contention limited to the effects on the evacuation time estimates due to the limited gasoline supplies in Hampton Beach and along Route 51.

For the sake of clarity, we reword the contention as follows:

6. The New Hampshire ETEs are inaccurate and overly optimistic in that they do not account for blockage of evacuation routes caused by vehicles running out of gas. Gasoline supplies and availability in Hampton Beach and along Route 51 are limited, such that many of the vehicles that run low will not be able to refuel, and will thus clog the narrow evacuation routes and hinder the evacuation.

7. Contention 7 states that the ETEs are inaccurate and overly optimistic in that they assume that traffic rules and controls will be obeyed. Applicants acknowledge that the evacuation time study assumes lawful behavior by drivers but 1

would have NECNP prove that the evacuation time estimates would be greater if the study had assumed unlawful driver behavior.

It does not take a computer to discover that undisciplined and chaotic driver behavior can cause accidents and seriously l impede the flow of traf fic. Moreover, traffic movement may be

3 impeded when police officers assigned to directing traffic must discipline traffic violators and thus are not be able to devote their entire attention to their responsibilities. NECNP has thus provided sufficient basis for the admission of this contention.

Applicants' objection to Contention 7 constitutes yet another attempt to shif t the burden of proof to NECNP after NECNP has provided a reasonable basis for challenging this aspect of the ETEs. For the same reasons discussed above, it must be rejected.

The Staf f would not object to the admission of this contention if it were limited to the issue of driver behavior raised in its basis. NECNP agrees to that limitation. We therefore incorporate the basis into the body of the contention.

8. Applicants would not object to the admission of this contention if the Board finds the New Hampshire ETEs to be admissible. The Staff also agrees to the admission of Contention 8.

spectfull ubmitted, i 2 - s D1 p C,rr i

illiam S. Jo an, III HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Jtreet, N.W.

Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 November 16, 1983 (202) 833-9070 3The evacuation time study assumes that major traf fic control points will be occupied and that traffic control personnel will direct vehicles along evacuation routes. (II-3)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 16, 1983, copies of NECNP REPLY TO RESPONSES BY APPLICANTS AND NRC STAFF TO NECNP CONTENTIONS ON NEW HAMPSHIRE EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES were served on the following by first-class mail or as otherwise indicated:

Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairperson Rep. Roberta C. Pevear Atomic Saf tey and Licensing Board Drinkwater Road Panel Hampton Falls, NH 03844 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke '

Phillip Ahrens, Esq.

Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Saftey and Licensing Board State House, Station #6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Augusta, ME 04333 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Robert A. Backus, Esq.

Administrative Judge 111 Lowell Street Atomic Saf tey and Licensing Board Manchester, NH 03105 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Thomas G. Dignan, Esq. ,

Panel R. K. Gad, III, Esq.

U .S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes and Gray Washington, DC 20555 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Dr. Mauray Tye, President Board Panel Sun Valley Asociation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 209 Summer Street Washington, DC 20555 Haverhill, MA 01830 Docketing and Service Roy P. Lessy, Jr. Esq.

U .S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission William F. Patterson, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Executive Legal Director Town Manager's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Town Hall - Friend St. Commission i

Amesbury, MA 01913 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Angie Machiros Anne Verge, Chair Chairman Board of Selectman-Board of Selectmen Town Hall Newbury, MA 09150 South Hampton, NH 03842 1

I

a ,

Jo Ann Shotwell, Esq. George Dana Bisbee, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Edward L. Cross, Jr., Esq.

Department of the Attorney Asst. Atty. Generals General State House Annex 1 Ashburton Place,19th Floor Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02108 John B. Tanzer Letty Hett, Selectman Town of Hampton Town of Brentwood 5 Morningside Drive RFD Dalton Road Hampton, NH 03842 Brentwood, NH 03833 ,

Edward F. Meany Sandra Gavutis Town of Rye Town of Kensington 155 Washington Road RFD 1 Rye, NH 03870 East Kensington, NH 03827 Carole F. Kagan, Esq. Diana P. Sidebotham Atomic Safety and Licensing Board R.F.D'.2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Putney, VT 05346 Washington, DC 20555 Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor Donald E. Chick '

City Hall Town Manager -

Newburyport, MA 01950 10 Front Street Exeter, NH. 03833 Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Brian P. Cassidy, Esq.

Board of Selectmen FEMA Region I Town of Salisbury, MA. 01950 J.W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse Boston, MA. 0 2109 Diana P. Randall '

70 Collins Street '

Seabrook, NH. 03874 ,

Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphrhyr U.S. Senate 1 Pillsbury Street

Washington, D.C. 20510 Concord, NH 03301 (Attn: T o. durack) (Atta: Herb Boynton) -

l Selectmen of Northampton Calvin A. Canney

! Town of Northampton City Manager New Hampshire 03862 City Hall ,

126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 1

7 .

Diane Curran s'

/

- - - ,, -