ML20195B710

Memorandum Responding to Town of Hampton Revised Contention III Re Kld Assoc,Inc Evacuation Time Estimate Rept.Revised Contention Should Not Be Deemed late-filed,per 10CFR2.714. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20195B710
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/23/1986
From:	Brock M, Mceachern P HAMPTON, NH, SHAINES & MCEACHERN
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20195B706	List: ML20195B702 ML20195B710
References
OL, NUDOCS 8605290505
Download: ML20195B710 (15)

Text

e .

NEtATED CORRESPONDLF%4 x ,

l UNITED STATES AMERICA ,

l 'l . . I, NUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION{ '; -

before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

~- l In the matter of:

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. : 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE and 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

MEMORANDUM ON 10 CFR S2.714 (a) (1)

AND REVISED CONTENTION III OF THE TOWN OF HAMPTON IQ EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATE FEPORT EX XLD ASSOCIATES, INCL INTRODUCTION The Town of Hampton submits that the Hampton Revised Contention III on the KLD Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Study filed herewith should not be deemed " late filed." See NRC Staff Response to Hampton Contention III. In anticipation of Applicant's objection on this issue, however, the Town addresses the late filed requirements of 10 CPR S2.714 (a) (1) .

TOWN OF HAMPTON MEMORANDUM JE SUPPORT QE " LATE FILED" REVISED CONTENTION III 9994 Cun. On or about February 22, 1986, the Town of Hampton filed with this Board Contentions of the Town of Hampton to Radiological Emergency Response Plan f or the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire, November 1985. Town of Hampton Contention III enumerated certain deficiencies in the Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Study prepared by C.E. Maguire, Inc., which then constituted a portion of the 1

8605290505 860523

$DR ADOCK 05000443 PDR SH AINES M ADRIGAN & Mc EACHE RN P=<wtsschat as.coatch P4teaPttwCODevfNOG P O 180s W POMitMOUTH hw OW9

\

l State RERP. At the prehearing conference on March 25 and 26, 1986, however, the State confirmed its intention to delete the Maguire report Ifrom the State RERP and to substitute the ETE prepared by KLD Associates, Inc. The State further represented that the KLD ETE would lbecompletedonoraboutMay1, 1986.

Apparently, based upon these representations by the State, this Board, by Order dated April 29, 1986, held "that any consideration of the admissibility of Hampton Contention III is premature."

On or about April 28, 1986, the State provided the Town of Hampton with KLD Progress Report 47 which apparently represents the last report of the KLD ETE. See May 5, 1986 letter of New Hampshire Attorney General. KLD Progress Reports #1 - #6 were previously provided to the Town. It is therefore undisputed that the State of New Hampshire, through its late filing of major revisions to the State RERP, plainly prevented the Town of Hampton f rom filing contentions on the State ETE within the time f rame originally established by this Board. The Town therefore has good cause for " late filing" Hampton Revised Contention III.

Other Mgang in EIgiggi PetitigngIsl IntereRI. A substantial portion of the KLD ETE is directed toward the problems poned by evacuation of the beach population.. Since the Town of Hampton has the largest peak summer population of any town within the EPZ, the KLD ETE i raises substantial saiety questions and concerns for Hampton of ficials, I

who are uniquely qualified to assess the deficiencies in the ETE.

Other participants to this proceeding, without knowledge of local i 2

$H AINf 5 M ADRIG AN & Mc E ACHE R N Poos t uo%ai suociat o%

J9 asart e noon avfNut P O soon wo pos t wov i e+ % >. r F

I i

g i

conditions, equipment, and personnel in Hampton, theref ore cannot be

! expected to f ully and adequately protect the Town's interest in this j case.

t Ez12D1 2p Whish E e t i t i o n e r s Can C o n t r i bnig 19 D e v e lDPESDI 21 2 EsspId. At the summer hearing, the Town will present testimony by G1; u Eastman, Chairman, Hampton Board of Selectmen; Dona Janetos, Vice Chairman, Hampton Board of Selectmen; Robert Mark, Hampton Police Chief; Philip Richards, Hampton Town Manager; and other Hampton of ficials on traf fic and road conditions within the Town, lack of adequate and/or trained personnel to carry out assigned duties under the KLD ETE, lack of sheltering for Town residents and transients, and other issues as set forth in the Basis to Revised Hampton Contention III. The Town believes this evidence is essential to this Board to determine whether the State RERP cannot provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to the Hampton population, and to transients within the Town, in the event of radiological emergency.

The Exteni Ts Whish Dihar Enriins Hill Present 2211119D212' Interest. This f actor is " closely related" to the second f actor set f orth in 52.714 (a) (1). In the matter of Commonweath Edison Company (Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-456, 50-457, 42486 at p.4, and the Town of Hampton therefore believes it has fully and adequately addressed this factor as set forth above.

The Extent 19 Which ihn E211119nnID1 EAI11s19a119D Will Broaden ths .IngMan pl Delay thR EISS22d1Ds. The Town of Hampton's Revised Contention III should not delay these proceedings. The Town has 3

SH A6NE S M ADRIC. AN f) Mc E ACH E RN - Poor t sve%ai associa.os ta Mart twoon Avt No t P O Hot W Poe tWOt;T w Nw(um

i 1

I

{

already provided detailed objections to the State's original ETE l prepared by the Maguire Corporation within the filing deadline established by the Board. Since these issues have now been rendered moot by the State's substitution of the KLD ETE, Hampton's Revised Contention III, which addresses substantially identifical deficiencies within the KLD ETE, should not delay these proceedings beyond the time required to address Hampton's original, and timely filed, contentions on the State ETE.

HAMPTON REVISED CONTENTION III The Evacuation Time Estimate Study (ETE) prepared by KLD Associates, Inc., and incorpor'ated into the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP), is based upon inaccurate f actual data and unreasonable or misleading assumptions and thereby fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can be implemented, or that adequate facilities, equipment, or personnel will be provided to the Town of Hampton in the event of radiological emergency. 10 CFR 550.47 (a) (1), 50.47 (b) (1) (10).

BASIS: The KLD ETE is based upon the following inaccurate, unreasonable, or misleading f acts or assumptions:

1. ,The KLD ETE unreasonably estimates vehicle counts within the EPZ, including beach areas, utilizing data obtained on only two weekends, and the intervening work week, in August, 1985. KLD Progress Report il (hereinafter KLD #1) Appendix E-13. KLD relies upon these limited vehicle counts as part of "the basis for computer analysis of 4

5H AINES M ADRIG AN & Mc EACHERN reestggio%at esoceano%

Ig esaPt 8 Woon svg Myt to Mou we . Pomf%wotstw Nw 01mem

an Evacuation Plan and computation of ETE." KLD #1, pp.5,6. KLD concedes, however, that this traffic data was gathered during a period of " occasional rain," KLD #1, p. 7 , "this period of time was not particularly appealing to beachgoers," KLD fl, Appendix E-13, "the data j will not reflect peak conditions". . . and there is "some uncertainty" j on the accuracy of the data. On its face, therefore, the KLD ETE i

' admits to an inadequate factual base to provide reasonable projections for traffic counts and movements during an evacuation within the EPZ, and particularly the beach areas. Additionally, since even this limited data was obtained by KLD during poor beach weather, it must be assumed that KLD's vehicle counts, -and theref ore ETE ' projections, are l

i unreasonably low.

2. The KLD ETE unreasonably relies upon a telephone survey to l

estimate the time required f or notification of an emergency, elapsed times to commence evacuation trips, and the total population to be evacuated from the EPZ. KLD #1, p.7, KLD #2, p.9. Those persons surveyed constitute less than one percent of the individuals residing within the EPZ, KLD #1, Appendix F-6, there is absolutely no showing by KLD that this minimal percentage of residents is in any way representative of the EPZ population as a whole, and therefore the telephone survey represents an inadequate f actual base f rom which to make these ETE projections. For example, while KLD concedes that "we know of no survey which has accumulated empirical information describing the rate at which notification inf ormation is received,"

KLD # 2, p.7, it nevertheless baldly claims that the telephone survey 5

s,+ m u w m m a u a ac m . ..c,,s 4s.,.. a. ~

iA petit MMC avf%ut P O RST V( - P'se *

• m j en u t> in^'

can provide "a reasonable estimate of a notification time f rame." KLD i

1. 2, p.7. The Town suggests, however, that limited information obtained by telephone f rom an apparently nonrepresentative segment of the EPZ l popula tion is wholly inadequate to make these significant ETE projections. Based upon the admitted deficiencies in its data base, therefore, the KLD ETE necessarily fails to provide reasonable assurance on the accuracy of these ETE estimates.

3. The KLD ETE computes the number of vehicles to be evacuated from the beach areas merely by counting parking spaces and parking capacity. KLD # 1, p.15, 2 0. The KLD ETE theref ore f ails to account for the virtual bumper to bumper traffic that routinely, and continually, travels through the beach areas during the summer. These vehicles in transit represent not only a significant additional number of vehicles to be evacuated, but also present a substantial impediment to all parked vehicles attempting to leave the EPZ. See also KLD #1, Appendix E-4, 5; KLD # 2, p.9.

4. The KLD ETE erroneously assumes that local officials, including police and fire department personnel, will be available to implement the State evacuation plan. KLD #2, p.4 0. Since the Town of Hampton has stated it does not intend to provide this assistance or implement the State RERP, the KLD ETE fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate personnel are available to implement the evacuation plan. Additionally, even assuming that the State could timely provide an equivalent number of State personnel to fulfill these local functions, the KLD ETE recognizes that local personnel are 6

,es snamcs uaomcas a uccacscas . ..o,..sc~.< ..sO<,

,% waP4 (WOOD Ab g %e ( PO 905 W-

• PO*'5 mod" hH 0

• l l

i juniquely qualified to determine potential traffic problems and l bottlenecks, which may not be readily apparent to State personnel l unf amiliar with the local area.

KLD #2, p.4 0.

l 5. The KLD ETE unreasonably assumes that 151 " traffic guides" i

l will be available to implement traf fic control procedures during an i

l evacuaton, including 25 f or the Town of Hampton. KLD # 4, p.ll. The i

KLD ETE wholly fails, however, to demonstrate the availability of these substantial number of trained traffic personnel. Additionally, since State Police Troop A has only 31 troopers available for evacuation traffic control throughout the entire EPZ, it is unreasonable to expect that the State can adequately and promptly supplement these personnel deficiencies, particularly in view of the substantial additional duties

p. 2 8, and l imposed on Troop A for overall traf fic surveillance, KLD #7, as specified in the State Compensatory Plan. See Compensatory Plan, Troop A New Hampshire State Police, Emergency Response Procedures, p.2.

The KLD ETE further unreasonably assumes the availability of an additional 27 New Hampshire " traffic guides" to regulate access control posts on the perimeter of the EPZ to restrict traffic entrance into the EPZ during an evacuation. KLD # 6, p.13. As set f orth above, there is no showing that in f act these trained personnel will be available to j perform these specified duties.

I i 6. The KLD ETE unreasonably assumes that adequate equipment and personnel will be available to plow roads and driveways, and to assure that evacuation routes remain passable, if evacuation is required during a snowstorm. KLD #2, p.19, 24. For example, KLD incorrectly l

7 snam s uaomcas a v< r acor as . P.-,.es ~ - 10.

7% Mart S WOOn &% f he { P O flOm ne s ' PON%MOyvp No C up. -

j assumes that the time to plow the driveways during an evacuation is identical to the time required f or snow clearance under non-emergency

, conditions. The ETE therefore unreasonably fails to account for

evacuation traf fic congestion which must impede or prohibit a plow truck from reaching certain homes on roads, and unreasonably f ails to consider that a substantial number of those private individuals i perf orming snowplow services may elect to promptly evacuate the EPZ rather than complete their routes.

7. The KLD ETE unreasonably assumes that buses will encounter "little impedance" when entering the EPZ to evacuate schools and those without priva te ' vehicles. KLD #7, p.17. This assumption is unsupportable. For example, the State RERP.provides that the i

Timberlane Bus Company of Salem, New Hampshire shall provide 35 buses to evacuate the Town of Hampton during a radiological emergency. These Timberlane buses, however, would be required to maneuver through thousands of evacuating vehicles headed for the " host" communities of Manchester and Salem. KLD #4, Appendix J. It can only be reasonably anticipated that a substantial number of these buses would be greatly i

delayed, if not prohibited, from reaching the EPZ against the evacuation traffic flow. The KLD ETE further unreasonably assumes that evacuation buses traveling to the EPZ could travel 40 miles per hour on "at-grade primary highways," such as Route 1, and 50 miles per hour on access controlled roads. KLD #7, p.17. Anyone familiar with the routine bumper to bumper traffic on Route 1 during the year, and particularly the summer months, however, would recognize these 8

$H AiNES M ADRiG AN & Mc t ACHE RN r-ort s&c' a a < s< ,r e o.

s maat t woc m ave +.r P o nne wr postwot 4 a. - w

l l

estimates as wholly unrealistic. While recognizing that buses and vans l evacuating special f acilities "will be embedded within the overall l

! traf fic streams evacuating the EPZ," KLD #7, p.19, the ETE further unreasonably f ails to account f or the additional and substantial impact of these emergency vehicles, often traveling against the flow of traffic, in delaying the overall evacuation of vehicles f rom the EPZ.

KLD # 2, p.9. Further, the KLD ETE unreasonably calculates the time within which buses may travel evacuation routes to pick up passengers by assuming that all buses will travel with the flow of evacuating traf fic KLD #7, p.18. It must be assumed, however, that many of these buses will be required, albeit unsuccessf ully, to travel Against the flow of traffic to reach designated pickup locations. The ETE's calculations that buses may theref ore be expected to travel through evacuation traffic and to reach and load passengers at special f acilities within 40 minutes is plainly unrealistic. KLD 47, p.18.

8. The KLD ETE unreasonably relies upon inadequate data to compute the number of persons to be evacuated f rom the EPZ in the event of radiological emergency. First, KLD computes overall population figures based upon a " compromise estimate" of 2.8 persons per vehicle, although KLD concedes that it lacks " definitive data" on this issue.

KLD # 2, p.9. Second, as previously discussed, KLD relies upon a telephone survey of less than one percent of EPZ residents, without any determination that this sample is representative, to compute the number of residents and transients without private transportation. Third, KLD concedes that it has made no computations with respect to populations 9

%H AiNF*b M ADRIG AN & Me t ACHE RN **m t sson.% aggociat.oa.

. . n, w. r wmn oo. r e n e' e e-= 'omm *

• r sa-

i i

I

(

I l of special f acilities or private citizens with medical needs located within the EPZ. KLD #7, p.l. Fourth, KLD f ails to include within its a

population estimates the substantial number of individuals traveling through the EPZ, including the beach areas, at the time notification of an emergency may be given. KLD # 2, p.9. Accordingly, on its face, the i

KLD ETE lacks adequate data to compute the number of individuals or vehicles to be evacuated f rom the EPZ during an emergency. Without such reasonably adequate data, therefore, KLD's computations regarding time estimates to complete evacuation must seriously be called into question.

For reasons set forth above, the KLD ETE fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can or will be implemented in the event of radiological emergency.

Dated: May 23, 1986 Respectfu ly submitted SHAINES M E CHF,RN By:

Paul McEachern By: ,

Matthew T. Brock Attorneys for the Town of Hampton,NH l

10 l

5H AINE $ M ADmG AN A Mc I ACHE RN * =c e r u>oa.4 awoc a' *

.A heart [Wg03 att4 f P O 880* 4c PO# ' S 4'0' ' ** #d ** C i m'

i i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

} BEFORE. Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i

In the matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. 50-444 OL I

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

CERTIFICATE Qf SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Memorandum on 10 CFR 52.714 (a)(1) and Revised Contention III of the Town of Hampton to Evacuation Time Estimate Report by T.L D Associates, Inc. in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail .on this 23rd day' of May,1986.

Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building 4th Floor 4350 East West Highway Bethesdia, MD 20814 Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i

1 SH AINES M ADRIGAN A Mc[ ACHERN Prost em%et a%Ocabo%

24 partswoODAvghet P o not wo . Poptguovite kee p )V'

i Beverly llollingworth i209 Winnacunnet Road

!Ilampton,NH 03842 i Sandra Gavutis, Chairman l Board of Selectmen RFD 1 Box 1154 l Route 107 lKensington,NH 03827 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Carol S. Snieder Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 -

Stephen E. Merrill Attorney General George Dana Bisbee Office of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Concord NH 03301-6397 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.

New llampshire Civil Defense Agency 35 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Calvin A. Canney, City Manager City IIall 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, Nil 03801 Roberta C. Pevear State Representative Town of flampton Falls Drinkwater Road flampton Falls, Nil 03844 2

s a m os u 4on.c,*~ a ca.c n c n ~ . ..o.f..eN._ ...o< ..n

'9 WAP!$WCCO .blNs f PO mot ie ^ pen *guo ;t w Ns e lam

I 2

Robert A. Backus, Esq.

1 Backus, Meyer & Solomon 4 116 Lowell Street i

Manchester, NH 03106 Edward A. Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency l 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH) i Boston, MA 02109 i

H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.

I Assistant General Counsel

!FederalEmergencyManagementAgency 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20472 Jane Doughty Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington,D.C. 20555 i

l Allen Lampert Civil Defense Director Town of Brentwood 20 Franklin Street Exeter, NH 03833 Angie Machiros, Chairman Board of Selectmen 25 High Road Newbury, MA 01950 Jerard A. Croteau, Constable 82 Beach Road P.O. Box 5501 Salisbury, MA '01950 Diane Curran, Esq.

Harmon & Weiss 2001 S Street, N.W.

Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 3

t SH A4Nrs M ADRtG AN a Me t AC HE RN *aosisms*. aswc ate -

.%M4Pt F W(.OO &Df % L P (? POR 4 PO # ' 9 8AO M A" 0 4M '

n I

Philip Ahrens, Esq.

! Assistant Attorney General

' Office of the Attorney General State House Station, #6 Augusta, ME 04333 l Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

! Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docket and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i J.P. Nadeau, Esq.

Selectmen's Representative Board of Selectmen

10 Central Road l Rye, NH 03870 Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Board of Selectmen South Hampton, NH 01913 Stanley W. Knowles, Chairman Board of Selectmen &

P.O. Box 710 North Hampton, NH 03862 William Armstrong

' Civil Defense Director Town of Exeter 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Peter J. Matthews, Mayor City Hall Newburyport, MA 01950 i

t' l

4 ss.,s r s v annic..s a ua nc si a s . .~ ,-~. .ss. < .. ..os

.h 48..] I W(VTf1 . b f N #, [ .(' PO8 4' POWiE %'Ot : f > NHf'i."

William s. Lord Board of Selectmen Town Hall - Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Board of Selectmen

! 13-15 Newmarket Road Durham, NH 03824 lGaryW. Holmes,Esq.

j Holmes & Ellis 47 Winnacunnet Road l Hampton, NH 03842 i

Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tenth Floor

, 7735 Old Georgetown Road

, Bethesda, MD 20814 l

! Dated: May 23, 1986 Matthew T. Brock, Esq.

l 5

l e

S H A t N( $ M AD 64,G A *4 A V - f A C h [ p % - e s efts * ** mr s ' c%

= epa ri r %g r e s t A1 I e r en;s .s e P rer vs uo '- 8."( ice -