ML20205M092
Text
-
't f
~
Dated:
March 25,.1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY-OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
Planning Issues
)
)
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON TOWN OF HAMPTON REVISED CONTENTION IV Pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.749, on the basis of the facts set forth in the Affidavit of Richard H. Strome (TOH IV),
and the Affidavit of Edward B.
Lieberman, and for the reasons set forth below, Applicants move the Board to enter an order granting summary disposition in Applicants's favor with respect to Town of Hampton (TOH) Revised Contention No. IV.
%[O DO p
G J
4
l s
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION Town of Hampton Revised Contention No. IV reads as follows:
Revision 2 fails to provide for adequate emergency equipment, fails to demonstrate that adequate protective responses can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency, and fails'to correct deficiencies in emergency response capabilities apparent from the emergency exercise.
10 CFR $ 50.47(1)(8)(10)(14) [ sic]
The Board admitted this contention with the following limitations:
Admitted [:] TOH revised Contention IV to Revision 2.
(Limited to matters raised by NHRERP Revision 2.
Board rejects bases concerning letters of agreement for implementation of State's Compensatory Plan - bases (D)3 Comensatory Plan -
pages 22-23 of TOH Memorandum 10/31/86 and bases (B) Emergency Exercises of TOH Memorandum 11/19/86.
Memorandum and Order of February 18, 1987 at 3.
The asserted bases of the contention are:
(a)
Inadequate buses or Emergency Medical Service Vehicles (bus / driver pairs).
(b)
RERP Rev. 2 does not correct exercise deficiencies.
(c)
The special needs annual survey did not adequately identify special needs persons.
(d)
Bus routes are inadequate for the transit of dependent persons.
These asserted bases are disproved.
As more fully set'forth
' 1
..._a
a t
in the Affidavit of. Richard H. Strome (TOH Revised Contention IV):
(a)
Adequate bus / driver pairs are being identified to meet transportation needs.
(b)
Adequste emergency medical ambulance services are being identified for handicapped general public and institutionalized persons.
(c)
An increase by 50% of special needs populations identified by the survey is provided to over-allow for transportion needs.
(d)
Mobility impaired are identified and lists maintained prior to an emergency.
Adequate transportion has been identified for the transit of dependent transients (bus routes or rider sharing).
KLD estimates only 2% of transients would require transportation assistance.
It is Applicants' position that Basis 3 in " Contentions of the Town of Hampton to Radiological Emergency Response Plan for the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire, November, 1985" filed on February 21, 1986, and Basis (E) in." Contentions of the Town of Hampton to Revised Radiological Emergency Response Plan and to Compensatory Plan for-the' Town.of Hampton, New Hampshire" filed on April 14, 1986, have been rejected by the Board.
These two bases are drafted on the mistaken assumption that Nashua is the reception location for the Town of Hampton.
In NHRERP Revision 2 the reception location is the Dover High School in Dover.
NHRERP Vol.
6, Table 8-1 on
- p. 8-2.
The Board limited Contention IV to " matters raised' by NHRERP Revision 2."
Memorandum and Order, supra, at 3..
O The two asserted bases 3 and (E) are not matters raised by NHRERP Revision 2 since they are grounded on inaccurate information not to be found in Revision 2.
If, however, Applicants' position on this issue is not sustained, Applicants submit herewith the Affidavit of Edward B.
Lieberman (TOH Revised Contention IV), which disposes of the asserted bases 3 and (E).
In essence, Mr. Lieberman's Affidavit demonstrates that it is reasonable to anticipate that buses entering the EPZ following an order to evacuate should not be hindered and should be able to travel along at-grade primary highways at an average of 40 mph and access-controlled highways at an average of 50 mph.
Affidavit of Edward Lieberman at 11 2-4.
By their attorneys, f
Thoma's G. "I7fgnan, Jr.
R.
K. Gad III Kathryn A.
Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617)423-6100
L STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE (TOH REVISED CONTENTION IV) 1.
The Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) Evaluation of State Response in NHRERP, Revision 2 (8/86, p. 74-b of 134), states that there are adequate means of relocation.
2.
In NHRERP Volume 4, Appendix I, the totals of 574 buses and 510 drivers are accurate and consistent with the numbers committed to in the letters of agreement.
Only a total of 515-buses and drivers are actually needed.
NHRERP Vol. 2, App.
I, p.
I-3.
A letter of agreement has been executed with Local 633 of the Teamsters whereby they agree to supply up to 1,500 drivers.
Letters of agreement with owners are being obtained permitting the mobilization of these drivers by the union.
3.
Section IV.F (Public Works Director Procedure) of the Town of Hampton Radiological Emergency Response Plan (TOH RERP), Volume 18, contains a detailed listing of Hampton's specific bus requirements.
Hampton has an estimated bus need of 83 buses.
4.
Appendix I to Volume 2, of the New Hampshire RERP incorporated TOH's requirements into a summary listing of specific transportation resource requirements for the entire State of New Hampshire.
Currently, a total of 515 buses is j
required, including all school buses, special needs buses, and coach buses.
5.
Volume 5 of the New Hampshire RERP contains letters of agreement with bus and ambulance companies, Teamsters Local No. 633 of New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire School Transportation Association.
Together, these organizations provide transportation resources in excess of the numbers required in Appendix I-to Volume 2.
6.
Volume 4, Appendix I (p. I-8), entitled Transportation Resource Requirements, and Volume 2, Appendix I (p. I-3), are both being revised to indicate an updated requirement for 515 total buses.
This is less than the 574 buses currently available through letters of agreement.
7.
The Teamsters Local No. 633 of New Hampshire has agreed to provide drivers for evacuation transportation activities from within its membership ranks.
A letter of agreement to that effect is contained in Volume 5, Revision 2,
of the NHRERP.
8.
Notification and coordination of Teamsters as backup drivers will be addressed in a procedure, currently under development by NHCDA.
9.
Volume 5 contains letters of agreement with bus companies for the use of buses in excess of total New Hampshire Plume Exposure EPZ requirements.
Revision 2 to the NHRERP contains a new concept for the acquisition and utilization of all buses; including the use of pre-established bus routes.
This is described in Volume 1 (NHRERP Parts 1.0 through 7.0), Section 2.6 (pp. 2.6-11 -.
1 through 2.6-11b), and is incorporated in both State.and local procedures.
10.
The availability of adequate EMS or ambulance service is sufficient to respond to all New Hampshire EPZ needs.
Volume 5 centains letters of agreement which make available'approximately 39 ambulances.
This is in excess of.
l the total vehicle needs for New Hampshire of approximately 36 ambulances, as listed in the IFO Resource Coordinator's procedure - Volume 4, Section 18, Attachment 18B (" Local ~
Transportation Worksheets").
A list of ambulance providers and number of ambulances is also provided in Volume 4,
)
Appendix I (Section 2).
Section 3 to Appendix I summarizes transportation resource requirements with respect.to the i
individual towns.
11.
Revision 2 to the NHRERP has modified the resportse of emergency medical services by providing for their notification (and possible mobilization) at the Alert l
l Emergency Classification Level (ECL).
12.
Volume 6 (Seabrook Station Evacuation-Time Study, or Evacuation Time Estimate, "ETE"), Section 2 (p. 2-1),
states that with few exceptions, people at the beach have i-l access to a vehicle.
13.
For those who may not have access to their vehicle ij' at the time of an emergency, and also those: summertime employees (discussed above), and additional 50% of individual bus capacity (except school requirements) has i
1 ;-
1 i
,e
,-m,,
w
~~s-
's
- r=
-- ~'-
m'ti"'
, e
,.g,,,. - -,,
y----v
~,,.y--
.,,,--,-,>--w w
\\ been arranged in order to provide for the effective evacuation.
In addition to this excess bus capacity, they can also evacuate by ridesharing.
Volume 1, Section 2.6 (p.
2.6-11b) states, "Any additional unanticipated bus needs will be coordinated through the town IFO Local Liaison".
Volume 18 (Hampton RERP),Section IV.F, Public Works Director, has him "[d]etermine what type of transportation assistance is needed by individuals who telephone the EOC to make requests.
Refer to Attachment 2."
(Section IV.F) is entitled " Requests for Transportation Assistance", and consists of a questionnaire which obtains i
the details of the need for transportation assistance from a caller, and either dircats the caller to a bus route or determines which type of special transportation assistance.
should be provided.
14.
A sufficient number of backup buses will be provided for in a future revision to the NHRERP.
This will consist of having buses, which originate from outside the EPZ, returning to their Staging Area after transporting persons to the Reception Center.
They originally received dosimetry at the Staging Area when they were initially mobilized.
Buses originating from within the EPZ, which will not have dosimetry, will remain at the Reception Center to provide transportation to host facilities, if necessary.
Buses will not be used for either of the above if they are contaminated. s
15.
An adequate procedure for identifying persons with-special needs exists.
16.
Cooperation and participation of Hampton school-officials consists of working with New Hampshire State Officials in providing emergency response service and-
^
assistance to the Town of Hampton public and private
. schools.
Letters of agreement are not-required with the "public" schools.
- Also,
- the ASLB's February 18, 1987 Memorandum and Order, SAPL Contention 15 was admitted, yet was limited with respect to letters of agreement; i.e.,
2 recipients of services are not required to have' letters of agreement.
Hampton school officials are recipients of emergency services (e.g., buses) and therefore, are not required to be included in letters of agreement.
[In addition, separate emergency plans and procedures exist with the School Administrative Units (SAU) and with each individual school.]
School officials are also named in Volume 18,Section IV.K, School Superintendent - SAU #21),
pp. IV-53 through IV-57.
17.
The State of New Hampshire will provide adequate I
personnel to supplement local law enforcement personnel, in establishing access control points, in.the event of a local manpower shortage or as a result of non-participation.
1 18.
FEMA's Final Exercise Assessment.(dated February.
26, 1986) states in Section 2.1.5 (p. 46) that numerous 3,
v.
l 1
e I_
other State Agencies are available to provide any additional manpower or equipment.
19.
The August, 1986 RAC Evaluation of State Response, for Revision 2 to the NHRERP, indicated (Section I, p. 82 of 134), an overall rating of " adequate" in response to the State statement that, " State police in conjunction with local police will man access control points in and around the EPZ."
20.
The August 1986 RAC Evaluation of State Response (p. 73 of 134, Item 3), states that the concept of pre-designated bus routes is " adequate".
Evacuation of mobility-imprired residents is handled individually using additional transportation resources.
Appendix G (Emergency Broadcast System Activation), contains in Attachment 2, EBS Sample Messages.
Messages "F" (General Emergency -
Sheltering and Evacuation) and "G" (General Emergency -
Evacuation), both contain a prevision for notifying the transit-dependent what time buses will begin traveling the pre-established bus routes (pp. G-32 and G-37/38, respectively).
i 21.
Volume 6, pages 11-19 and 11-20 of the NHRERP provides a detailed description of elapsed time from the time buses leave a point of origin to a local transportation area.
22.
Little impedance to vehicles entering the EPZ 4
following an order to evacuate would be anticipated due to
i i
the following reanons (also listed in Volume 6, pg. 11-19 and 11-20):
23.
Volume 6, pages 11-19 and 11-20 of the NHRERP provides a detailed description of inbound travel time.
This section indicates that little impedance to vehicles entering the EPZ following an order to evacuate would be anticipated due to the following reasons:
a.
The first buses will not depart their points of l
origin until approximately 30 minutes following the order to evacuate.
b.
Some 70% of returning commuters will have reached their homes within the EPZ one hour following the evacuation order, and therefore will not be contributing to inbound traffic flow.
(See also Vol. 6, Figure 11-1).
c.
Other inbound traffic would be limited due to discouraged entry via EBS and other media messages, and by people's concern over the potential risk to their health and
- safety, d.
Access control points established at the perimeter of the evacuated area would also discourage non-essential inbound traffic.
24.
For the above reasons, it is reasonable to anticipate that incoming buses along at-grade primary highways (e.g.,
Route 1) may average 40 mph and those that travel along access-controlled highways may average 50 mph. 1
-