ML20205P645

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition on Town of Hampton Contention Number Iii.* Motion Based on Listed Reasons & Eb Lieberman,Rh Strome & Ds Mileti Affidavits.Statement of Matl Facts Not in Dispute Encl
ML20205P645
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/25/1987
From: Dignan T
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20205L804 List: ... further results
References
OL, NUDOCS 8704030333
Download: ML20205P645 (8)
v • d • e


Text

r

. ?. s g

6 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 CONTENTION NO. III Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.749, on the basis of the facts set forth in the " Affidavit of Edward B. Lieberman (TOH III)",

" Affidavit of Richard H. Strome (TCH III"), the Affidavits of Dennis S. Mileti entitled: "The General Character of Public Behavior in Emergencies", " Voluntary Public Evacuation " and

" Emergency Worker Role Abandonment," and for the reasons set I

forth below, Applicants move the Board to enter an order  !

granting summary disposition in favor of the Applicants with respect to Town of Hampton (TOH) Contention No. III.

l l

i 1

0704030333 PDR 870325 G ADOCK 05000443 i PDR -

f

a n

REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS MOTION The revised TOH Contention III asserts:

The Evacuation Time Estimate Study (ETE) prepared by KLD Associates, Inc., Revision 2, Volume 6, _is based upon inaccurate and biased factual data and unreasonable or-misleading assumptions, fails to comply with NRC regulations, and fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken, or that adequate facilities, equipment, or personnel will be provided to the Town of Hampton, in the event of.

radiological emergency. 10 CFR $ 50.47(a)(1), (b)(1)(10);

j NUREG-0654, Appendix 4.

l The TOH revised Contention III to Revision 2 was admitted on February 18, 1987, limited only to the basis expressed on 10/31/86 and 11/19/86.

The affidavit of Edward B. Lieberman filed herewith makes clear that (a) permanent and transient populations for the TOH are adequately accounted for within the ETE, Volume 6 of the NHRERP; (b) the ETE adequately accounts for meteorological conditions, road capacities, and estimates of the number of plume EPZ vehicles; (c) the ETE provides for-reasontble and.

supported ETE " preparation times"; (d) there is no regulatory .

requirement to project into the future when formulating ETE;.

(e) both permanent and transient populations will have adequate access.to information regarding appropriate evacuation routes; (f) traffic control measures and " light" traffic are adequately considered within the ETE; and (g) the ETE appropriately I

provides for. incoming bus speeds and' traffic' impediments.

e.

i The affidavit of Richard H. Strome also filed herewith makes clear that (a) letters of agreement with 16 towing companies are found in' Volume 5, Rev. 2; (b) the NHRERP adequately provides for the establishment of access and traffic control points; 4

(c) the ETE as Volume 6 of the NHRERP will be periodically.

reviewed and revised as necessary; (d) the public information e

program provides multiple means for distributing evacuation l information to-permanent and transient populations;L(e) there i are no provisions in the NHRERP for TCP or ACP personnel to question each driver; and (f) strip maps will be made available for emergency transportation vehicle drivers.

The affidavits of Dennis S. Mileti make clear that (a) (Affidavit One, "The General Character of Public Behavior-in Emergencies", pp. 13-16) an evacuating public would push vehicle impediments out of the way; and that accidents during emergency evacuations are no more frequent than during non-emergency times, (b) (Affidavit Two), " Voluntary Public Evacuation",.pp.

10-14) voluntary evacuation would not exceed 25% of the 10-mile population surrounding the Zone of recommended evacuation during a nuclear plant emergency, and (c) "the functioning of emergency organizations'is not hampered by failure of emergency workers (such as snowplow operators or traffic control personnel, as.

identified within this Contention) to perform their jobs" (Affidavit Three, " Emergency Worker Role Abandonment").

, 4

,, 1 -m , . . - . - . . - . - . ...,4 __ -,- , .

0-In addition to the accompanying affidavits:

1. Contention basis B references the RAC Review, August 1986,Section VI, pp. 7 and 12, which state that the ETE " fails to respond to RAC concerns regarding wind changes which may require contingencies for the redirection of evacuation vehicles" out of its contextual setting. This statement thus is misleading in that comment 6 found on p. 7 of this document is concerned with contingenices that exist for a local transportion center which may be within the plume, and comment 17 on p. 12 is with regard to the pre-staging of buses. (The response to this comment contains caution regarding premature staging of ,

1 transportion resources in the event wind changes direction). As such, this basis has no merit.

2. Basis C.7, Element g, regarding sensitivity tests, l should be considered for summary dispositon in light of the Board's limited acceptance of SAPL-31 with regard to this same 1

issue, i.e., bases 10 and 16 regarding additional sensitivity l runs.

By their attorneys, L #

- ~

Tho'M g nan, Jr.

R. K. Gad III Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes and Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

1. NHRERP-Rev. 2 evacuation time estimates within the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone are reported in Vol. 6 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Revision 2. Also see Vol. 2, Appendix F.
2. An evacuation times assessment study.as found in Vol. 6 is prepared in conjunction with a Radiological Emergency Response Plan for the sole purpose to place EPZ evacuation time estimates in the hands of emergency response personnel' charged with recommending and deciding on protective actions to be taken
during a radiological emergency.
3. No fixed limits or standards are prescribed for evacuation ETE by NRC regulation or regulatory guides.
4. NUREG 0654 has established accepted procedures and methodologies for conducting evacuation times assessment studies and how these might be presented, all of which is set forth in NUREG 0654 Appendix 4, pp. 4-1 through 4-16.
5. The KLD ETE study, as reported in:NHRERP Vol. 6, conforms to NUREG Appendix A guidelines as follows:
a. Introductory materials called for.in Section I of Appendix A including Site Location and EPZ identification, are found in Vol. 6, pp. 1-1 to 1-8 including political subdivision highway and geographical location maps which appear in Figs. 1-2 at-1-6, and 1-7. Also see Vol. 6, Appendix K.

3 y.- -

4 s

b. General assumption and the methodology employed'(NUREG 0654 Appendix A Section IB and IC)-are identified in Vol. 6, Section 1.3, pp. 1-10, Appendix F and G, Section 1-3, p. 1-12, Appendix C-1, and pp. 4-12 a .

through 4-15. Methods for estimating population appear in Vol. 6, Sections 1.3, 2 and 5.

c. Demand Estimation to provide an estimate of the number of people and/or vehicles to be evacuated in categories-of "A. Permanent Residents", "B. Transient Populations" and "C. Special Facilities Population" as called-for in Appendix 4,Section II are found in Vol. 6, Section 2, pp. 2-1 through 2-27 including Figs. 2-1 through 2-12 and Tables 2-1 through 2-3, Table 11-7, Appendices F, G, H.
d. Section IID sub area evacuation time estimate requirements of Appendix 4 (p. 4-4) appear in-Vol. 6 in 1

Tables 10-4 through 10-7. Fig. 10-1 shows sub area boundaries while maintaining undivided densely populated areas (see Appendix 4, pp. 4-4.) Population and vehicle data by sector is. displayed in Figs. 10-5 4

l through 10-9b, and Figs. 2-4 through 2-11. Population maps by evacuation area as specified under planning i

element J.10.b are found in Vol. 6, Figs. 2-4 through 2-12 and 10-4 through.10.96.

e. Traffic Capacity information in'the detail called-for in Section III of Appendix 4 including A.'" Evacuation-i

e i

Roadway Network" appears in Vol. 6, Section 3, pp. 3-1 through 3-14, Appendices I, K, L; also see Fig. 1-3 for a demonstration of evacuation based on radial disperson. (Appendix A 4B Road Segment Characteristics need be given only if roadway segments are not uniform.)

f. Section 4 of NUREG 0654 Appendix 4 establishes a

" Reporting Format" and a Specification of the Methodology for computing total evacuation time. A summary of evacuation times is presented in Vol. 6 Tables 10-a-d which are presented in the format recommended (Vol. 6, p. 10-70). Table 10-l'(p. 10-2) describes ten evacuation scenarios and the text accompanying the table pp. 10-12 through 10-18 indicates the critical assumptions which underlie the i

time estimates, day versus night, workday versus weekend. See Table 5-4 for peak transient versus off-peak and evacuation of adjacent sectors versus non-evacuation.

g. The relative significance of alternative assumptions in the preceding paragraph which Appendix 4 IVA requires be addressed "especially with regard to time dependent traffic loading of the segments of the evacuation roadway network is covered in Vol. 6 Appendices M and N.

I i

~ s-t-

h. Specification of the method for computing total evacuation time is set out in Vol. 6, Fig. 2-1, Section 4, Table 4-2, Fig. 4-2, Fig. 11-1 and Figs. 10-4a through 10-j. Results of calculations of on-road travel-and delay times are found in Figs. 10-2a through-10-2g.
6. NHRERP, Vol. 1, p. 3.3-3 requires that "[ alt least annually, the Director of NHCDA will direct that a plan review is performed to ensure that.the plan reflects current emergency preparedness status . . . ."
7. The Director of NHCDA, concomitant with Vol. 1, 3.3-3, is committed to review the NHRERP Vol. 6 ETE, at least. annually and to revise the ETE, as required, to reflect the result of changes in the evacuation route network, EPZ demography, notification and other matters of significance.

i

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20205P645&oldid=3019095"