ML20198E293

Fourth Supplemental Petition of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing

ML20198E293
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/15/1986
From:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#286-257 OL, NUDOCS 8605270331
Download: ML20198E293 (12)

Text

,e Filed: May 15, 1986 ~ ~N s

,2 3'  ;

s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OO6A

,M?tas T before the /Qf h, '

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Sui /H -

In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSilIRE, et al 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) (Off-Site EP)

SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S FOURTil SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Pursuant to 10 CFR 92.714(b), the Seacoas t Ant i-Pollut ion League (SAPL) submits the foilowing contention regarding evacuation time estimates for litigation in this proceeding. This contention is based upon the Progress Reports Nos.1-7 prepared for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness by KLD Associates, Inc. By l e t t e r o f May 5, 1985, the State of New ilampshire, by its Attorney General, reported on the status of the New llampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, including the status of Volume 6 of the NilRERP. The State of New Hampshire noted that the evacuat ion time es t imate to be incorporated in the NilRERP consists of seven progress reports submitted by KLD.

The State of New flampshire also noted that KLD has prepared a final evacuation t ime repor t which is a compilat ion of the progress repor ts, 3

hh AD a

3350 3 i o

which will soon be submitted to FEMA and served on the Board and parties.

Notwithstanding the fact that there is an additional document yet to appear, SAPL hereby submits a contention on the KLD Progress Reports now in hand.

Though SAPL does not consider this contention late-filed, especially in view of the absence of a Board order advising parties when contentions on the evaluation time estimate are due, SAPL will nonetheless discuss below the reasons why SAPL's contention passes the five-part test set forth at 10 CFR 62.714(a)(1):1 A. Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time SAPL received on Apr il 10, 1986, a l e t t er of Apr il 9, 1986 f rom William A. Derrickson, PS Nil , to li.R. Denton, NRC, which let ter served also to transmi t KLD Progress Repor t No. 6 to the Board and parties. Included therewi th and at tached to Progress Report No. 6 was a letter dated April 4, 1986 by Richard II .

Strome, Director, New llampshire Civil Defense Agency to Henry G. Vickers, Regional Director, FEMA, which stated that the Evacuation Time Estimate prepared by KLD Associates, Inc. was f ormally submi t ted as par t of the NilRERP. Progress Report No.

6 was referred to as the " sixth and final Progress Report" in that letter. The fact that KLD Progress Reports No. 1-6 would be formally submitted was also mentioned in an April 7, 1986 letter to State of New flampshire, Attorney General to

1. SAPL takes the position that the Apr il 24, 1986 determination by the Commission in Braidwood, that contentions on late-submitted materials by the Applicants should be treated as late-filed, is arbitrary and capacious. SAPL reserves its right to challenge this decision.

1 J. DeVincentis. SAPL did not , however, have in its possession

\

KLD Progress Report No. 6 until April 10, 1986. Subsequently, a letter of April 25, 1986 from George S. Thomas, PSNil t o II . R.

Denton, NRC, which transmitted a seventh KLD Progress Report, was served on all parties. A status report from State of New ilampshire, Attorney General of May 5, 1986 which followed-thereaf ter made it clear that indeed the seventh progress repo*t would too be incorporated into Volume 6 of the NIIRERP.

SAPL has good cause for so-called late filing because, unt il receipt of the N.fl. At torney General's let ter dated Apr il 7, 1986, SAPL had no way of knowing which evacuation time estimate study the State of New ilampshire would adopt. SAPL did not receive the s ixth par t of the KLD s tudy unt il Apr il 10.

SAPL is filing its contention on the State's acopted ETE as expedit iously as possible, especially in view of the f act that the seventh part of the ETE did not come into SAPL's possession until April 28, 1986. SAPL believes that it is indeed filing earlier than ought be expected in view of the late receipt of materials to which SAPL had no other way to gain access.

B. Availability of other means to protect petitioner's interest SAPL has no other means to protect its interest than to 1itigate the evacuation time estimate which has been adopted by the S ta t e o f New llampsh i re. This is particularly true in view of the fact that the Board rej ected as premature on April 29, 1986 certain of SAPL's contentions of February 21, 1986

because of the then non-exis tence of an ETE (See SAPL Contentions No. I and 19).

C. Extent to which petitioner can contribute to development of a sound record SAPL contributed to the development of the record with respect to the Applicants' ETE back in 1983. SAPL expects at minimum to participate in like manner to examine the soundness of the assumptions upon which the ETE adopted by the State of New llampsh i re is based. SAPL cannot yet assert with absolute certitude whether or not SAPL will sponsor any witnesses.

D. The 'xtent to which other parties will represent petitioners' interest To SAPL's knowledge, no other party to this proceeding has yet submitted a contention on the KLD study. It is apparent from prior-filed contentions that certain municipalities in this proceeding have an interest in evacuation times (see, for example, llampton Con tent ion III and Kensington Contention 3),

but SAPL's interests extend more broadly to all of the municipali t ies wi thin the Seabrook EPZ. NECNP also appears to have an interest in ETE issues (see, for example, NFCNP Contention RERP-9), but as of yet, NECNP has not filed a contention which addresses the issues SAPL raises in its Contention No. 31. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that any other party will represent SAPL's interest in this matter.

4_

E. Broadening and delay of proceeding SAPL does not believe that this Board m auld possibly suppor t a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiole;ical emergency at Seabrook absent examination of the validity of the evacuat ion t ime es t imate s tudy to be relied upon to support the NilRERP. SAPL believes its litigation will assist the Board in conducting a more expeditious review of the ETE documents.

Therefore, SAPL does not believe that its litigation would broaden or delay the proceedings beyond the point where it would be broadened or delayed by the exercise of the Board's duty to review these matters.

Ilere follows SAPL's Content ion No. 31 and suppor t ing bas is :

SAPL Contention No. 31 The evacuation time estimate report, as described in Progress Repor t Nos.1-7 by KLD Associat es, Inc. , does not meet the requirements o f 10 CFR 150. 47 (a )( 1 ), Q S O . 47 ( b)(10 ) and NUREG-0654 I I .J. 2, I I .J .10 i, 10 h and 10 1, and Appendix 4 because i t f ails to account properly for the number of vehicles that would be evacuating the EPZ; relles in part upon unsuppor ted assumpt ions; relies in part upon potentially biased input data; does not rely upon an extensive enough empirical base; relys upon traf fic control personnel not shown to be available; does not appropriately account for travel impediments such as flooding, snow, fog and icing of roadways; does not acount for the ef f ect of driver disobedience on evacuat ion t ime es t imates (ETE's);

does not include topographical maps; does not deal realistically i

with the transport of transit dependent persons; in some instances overestimates roadway capacity and, for all of these reasons, underestimates the amount of time it would take to evacuate the EPZ and its subparts (" Regions") under the various scenarios analyzed.

Basis:

The Progress Reports, Nos. 1-7, which report the methodology and results of the ev&cuation time estimate study performed by KLD Associates,Inc. (referred to hereinafter as the "KLD study") fails to account properly for the numbers of vehicles that would be evacuating the EPZ in the event of a radiological emergency. As a specific example of the failure to account properly for the numbers of vehicles, t he KLD s t udy counted the number of vehicles that could be parked in the beach areas but never accounted for the f act that there is a population of vehicles at any time that is milling around in the road network in addit ion to the cars in parking spaces. These moving vehicles cons t i tute a s igni ficant addi t ional burden to roadway capacity.

The KLD study also relies in part upon unsupported assumptions. An example is the assumption that police and emergency workers will have been mobilized prior to the onset of major congestion associated with the evacuation. (Progress Report No. 1, DEMAND ESTIMATION, at 12.) Another is the assumpt ion that only 25 percent of the inland populat ion outside the five mile area evacuates contrary to instructions. (See Progress Report 3, at 9;) .

a n .

+

The KLD study also relies in part upon potentially biased input data. In arriving at a percentage of filled parking spaces at retail establishments, the KLD s t udy uses an es t ima t e (40%) supplied by the " applicant." The KLD study then goes on to say: " Adoption of the estimate of 40 percent occupancy

-appears to be prudent, in the absense of other empirical

, evidence." (Progress Repor t No.1, Manuf actur ing and Indus t r ial Employment, at 31.)

This brings SAPL to the next point, that the KLD study does not rely upon an extensive enough empirical base. KLD commenced i ts wor k on Augus t 21, 1985 and the only direct beach traf fle data KLD has collected was done for KLD by a subcontractor on the weekends of August 14 and August 31 (Labor Day weekend) and the mid-week per iod in-between. The weather was, according to the KLD study "not particularly appealing to beach-goers."

(See Progress Report No. 1, Appendix E, at E-13.) As another

~

example, there were no empirical data to support the estimates of preparat ion t ime for exit ing the beach area (Progress Repor t No. 2, TRIP GENERATION TIME, Distribution 4B, at 13).

The KLD s tudy est imates are based upon an assumpt ion that personnel can be found to serve as traffic guides at Traffic Control Posts (TCP). The number of guides assumed can be found in Progress Repor t No. 4 in Tables 23 and 24. The total is 154 local and interstate guides. Additional traffic guides are assumed at Access Control Posts (ACP). Roughly 60 of these, guides are assumed (see Progress Report No. 6, Appendix L).

Thus far the NilRERP does not support a finding that there are.

the numbers of guides necessary to perform the New Hampshire share of these functions.

The KLD report does not appropriately account for travel impediments such as flooding, excessive snow, fog and icing of roadways. In its treatment of estimation of highway capacity, the KLD report estimates a reduction of approximately 17% for rain and 30% for inclement winter weather. Free flow speeds are reduced 20% for rain and 30% for winter. (See Progress Report 1, ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY, at 40.) These estimates of highway capacity reductions are too optimistic (i.e., the percent reductions are not high enough) for many plausible conditions. Under evacuation conditions it would be exceedingly difficult for snow removal work to be carried out efficiently. Further, there is no discussion of provisions to be made to route traf fic to dif ferent parts of the road network in the event of impassibility due to flooding. Parts of Route 51 and Ocean Boulevard are subject to flooding, as they were during severe winter storms during the winter of 1978-79. Route 286 and Route 1A have been closed at various times in the past near Brown's Fish Market in Hampton due to conditions of flooding. The road leading off of Plum Island, Newburyport, is also subject to flooding. The KLD study further underes t imates tr ip generat ion t imes dur ing inclement weather.

The KLD s tudy assumes a range of 15 minutes to 150 minutes under' conditions of heavy snowfall. (See Progress Report No. 3, ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME, at 24.) This past winter, heavy snowf all was preceded a number of t imes by f reezing rain, which made it very difficult to clear the windows of vehicles

left parked outside. The KLD report does not discuss this issue. It also assumes that the residents who have contracted services for snow removal will be served in the event of an evacuation. This is a tenuous assumption at best. The KLD study states "A general consensus is that their efforts (at snow removal) are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours." What then?

The KLD study does not say.

The KLD study does not at all account for the effect of dr iver disobedience on evacuat ion t ime es t imates (ETE's). State Senator Robert Preston told SAPL's Field Director that one of

- his cons t i tuents, otherwise law-abiding, had inf ormed him that she intends to carry a gun in any evacuation situation to ensure that there are no impediments to getting her children out of danger. Though only a small segment of the population may be thinking in this vein, even a small number of individuals could make traffic control impossible. Even less dramatic driver disobedience, such as driving through traffic cones, could

,' create major problems for the . scheme of traffic control contemplated in .the KLD study. To assume that none of this will occur is very unrealistic.

The KLD fails to include maps identifying topographical features as is speci f ied at Appendix 4 of NUREG-0654 at p.4-1.

3 Though the relief of t h'e seacoast area is relatively flat as t

l compared to some ar eas , topographical f eatures should have been

_-m_. ~ - - _ . . _ . - _ . . _ _ , . . _ . , . _ _ . - - - , . , - - - . , . . - - , , , _m._,

examined to be certain that no effect would accrue to time estimates as a result of them.

The KLD study has a number of credibility problems as regards its provisions for transport of transit-dependent persons (See Progress Report No. 7.) and the time estimates therefor. Some of the problems are as follows: the expectat ion that elderly transit-dependent persons can walk to bus routes and s tand outdoors until buses travel along the routes to rescue them; the expectation that 62% of buses could be mobilized within I hour, particularly if the evacuation order is issued in off-business hours; the expectation that buses entering the EPZ will be able to average about 40 MPH along at-grade primary highways and 50 MPH along access-cont: olled highways; and that only ' roughly 3% of the total population in the EPZ would constitute the ambulatory population requiring rides.

Further, the KLD study fails to address adequately the problems of transport ing the mobility-impaired and special needs populations, both those in and apart from special facilities.

The KLD report estimates the total time to load passengers on buses at special facilities at approximately 40 minutes (see Progress Repor t No. 7 at 18). The t ime f or loading non-ambula tory passengers into ambulances is estimated at 0.67 hours7.75463e-4 days <br />0.0186 hours <br />1.107804e-4 weeks <br />2.54935e-5 months <br />. (See Progress Report No. 7 at 22.) These estimates are very unrealistic. Further, no estimates of the number of non-ambulatory persons -outside of special f acilit ies is to be found i n t h e KLD s t tidy.

The KLD study has overestimated the capacity of certain  !

roads and intersect ions. For example, Route l A N/S is class i f ied i 1

as a: Medium" design road (See KLD Progress Report No. 1, ESTIMATION OF HIGI!WAY CAPACITY, p. 46). Route 1A N/S is in some places very narrow, has a steep grade along at least one section and winds along certain sections. It has at at least two points almost right angle turns. It should be treated as a low design road. The t raf f ic f rom the beach area of flampton is to get off the beach by turning left on either Highland Ave.

or Church St. and then t raveling wes tbound on Rt. 51. Alternate routes for the beach population all involve travel north on Route 1A with left turns at either 101C, 101D, South Road or Washington Road. The capacities of Highland Ave. and Church St. will very quickly be overwhelmed so that people will need to go north on lA in large numbers. The overestimate of the capacity of Route lA therefore can have very serious implications for the accuracy of the ETE.

For all of the above-entitled reasons, SAPL asserts that the KLD study encompassing Progress Report Nos. 1-7 fails to provide a basis for a finding that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protect ive measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station.

i l

i l

r l ^

i I

. .o Respectfully submitted, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE By its attorney, BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON

/

e rJr'A'. ~Bire k d s

. O. Box 516 l'16 Lowell Street Manchester, N.H. 03105 Tel: (603) 668-7272 DATE: May 15 1986 I hereby cer t i f y tha t a copy of the wi th in FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE has been sent this date, first class, postage prepaid, to all counsel of record, opposing couns 1 g

'l A /s, Robert' A 6Ba~kus c

, . -/

5 L

w 4

i D'

p' o.

E.

1 r ', .

1 e e J

_, .,-.-y_z