ML20245J742
| ML20245J742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1989 |
| From: | Renn O CLARK UNIV., WORCESTER, MA, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#389-8837 OL, NUDOCS 8907030144 | |
| Download: ML20245J742 (44) | |
Text
_-_- -_- -
gv37 i
gryIID COMHL5NNDOW9
.Ho 1, ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '89 JJN 29 P4 :14 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD"'
DDi i '.a l Before the Administrative Judges: "' ~
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, -ET_AL. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) June 26, 1089
)
TESTIMONY OF ORTWIN RENN ON BEHALF OF JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, CONCERNING JI-56 AND TRANSIT TIME THROUGH RECEPTION CENTERS Department of the Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Public Protection Bureau One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 l
(617) 727-2200 .*
hog OA gDN b90626500f[
T
}
l l
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges:
- Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom ;
l
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL f PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP) f OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) {
}
(Sedbrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) June 26, 1989 1
) j l
TESTIMONY OF ORTWIN RENN ON BEHALF OF !
JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR I THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, CONCERNING !
JI-56 AND TRANSIT TIME THROUGH RECEPTION CENTERS l
SUMMARY
OF TESTIMONY This testimony is being filed in. response to the Supplement '
to Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 (Reception Center Parking). In that testimony the Applicants present a calculation of the number of parking spaces they believe will i
beneeded[ateachofthetwoOROreceptioncentersinorderto achieve a flow rate of 918 evacuees / hour through monitoring trailers at each center. One of the factors included in this calculation is the time (on average) it takes a carload of evacuees to pass through a reception center. Applicants' i
I
- e
-a_ - _ - - ---~_- __ h
Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 describes the results of a " facility j l stay time'"' study undertaken by the Applicants to estimate this i
time. Dr. Renn has evaluated this study and found that the Applicants' estimate of " stay time" in the reception centers is unrealistically short. Although the Applicants have included no extra time in their calculations for waiting lines, Dr.
Renn's calculations show that waiting in lines will be I inevitable. Also, the Applicants have failed to include in their " stay time" any time whatsoever for a number of activities likely to be undertaken by significant percentages- (
of the evacuees, including the time necessary to wait for other members of one's group.who are being decontaminated, to visit the Message Center, to visit the Rendezvous Coordinator's table, and to visit the bathroom. In his opinion, the average \ i stay time for each carload cannot be less than 25 minutes and, '
depending on 'the length of the lines that form, will likely be ;
much longer.
i 0.1. Would you please describe your background and qualifications? I A.1. A copy of my resume is attached to this testimony as {
Attachment "A".
Q.2 ; What is the subject of this testimony? !
A.2. One of the critical issues facing those engaged in offsite emergency planning for Seabrook concerns the adequacy b
of the two Massachusetts reception centers (in Beverly and North Andover) to handle the influx of evacuees who in the case
of an emergency-would arrive seeking to be monitored for potential radioactive contamination, to coordinate a family reunion,'or to receive a referral to a congregate care center if needed. I have been advised that one of the " evaluation criteria" established by.the Federal Emergency f*nagement Agency (" FEMA") and the Nuclear Regulatory Com.hission ("NRC")
is that the personnel and equipment available shall be capable or monitoring within about a 12-hour period all residents and transients in the EPZ arriving at the reception centers. Since each of the two designated reception centers has a limited number of parking spaces and 18 monitoring stations, one issue facing planners is whether the cars in those lots can and will turn over rapidly enough to keep the 18 monitoring stations operating at full capacity over a 12-hour period.
In the Supplement to Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 (Reception Center Parking), the Applicants set forth their analysis of this issue. That analysis depends upon, among other factors, the time it would take for a carload of evacuees, after arriving at the reception center, to travel through the monitoring trailers and the entire reception center facility. The Applicants' analysis contains an attachment which sets forth'their average " facility stay. time" estimates based ons?Walkthrough" time tests they conducted at each receptio benterinMay1989.
The Department of the Attorney General has asked me to review these " facility stay time" estimates and the l "walkthrough" time tests on which they are based. ,
'I
_ - - - _ _ _ - - i
Q.3. In undertaking this review, what materials have you examined?
A.3. To conduct this review, I have examined the Supplement to Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 and a New Hampshire Yankee ("NHY") document (SEP 892072), referenced in the attachment to that testimony, which describes (1) these time tests and (2) Applicants' assessment of the time involved in completing the left side of the registration form. I also reviewed another NHY document, SEP 892119, dated May 31, 1989, which evaluates the number of registration stations needed at each reception center. I have also reviewed the portions of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities ("SPMC") which pertain to the Reception Centers. I further understand that those plans are to be revised to provide for 18 monitoring stations at each center and that the reception center registration and congregate care referral functions are to be combined so that there will be five (5) registration / congregate care referral tables in each reception center, each table staffed with one worker.
Q.4. How did the Applicants conduct their facility stay time study and what did they find?
A.4.c The New Hampshire Yankee document (SEP 892072) indicateNethat the Applicants' " facility stay time" estimates were based on tests with randomly selected site personnel. On May 24, a test was conducted to determine the required length of time needed to complete the left side of the Reception '
Center Registration / Lodging form. On May 25, 1989, a test was
conducted to determine the time associated with the process of personne1' transit within each of the two ORO Reception Conter-facilities. For the first test, the average response time was I
81 seconds (1.35 minutes). For the second test, the average I response times for the general population arriving in personal vehicles were as follows:
Table 1: Average Transit Time Estimates Type of Population Reception Centers Beverly North Andover j s l General Population (Vehicles) 6.55 Min. 7.7 Min.
(393 sec.) (463 sec.)
These time estimates do not include the times the Applicants estimate it will take to frisk a vehicle for j 1
contamination (60 sec.), to process a person through a j monitoring trailer (70 sec.), or to register or engage in other activities in the Reception Centers. They include only the sum l of the times to (1) drive from the traffic control entry point i
to the vehicle monitoring area, (2) drive to the parking area !
and park, (3) walk to the monitoring entrance and sign in there, (4) walk from the monitoring trailer exit to the reception? center registration table, (5) walk from the reception center registration area back to the parked vehicle, and (6) drive to the traffic control exit point.
0.5. Have the Applicants asserted what they.believe the l total facility stay times are for each' reception center? ',
i
^
l
A.S. Yes. In Attachment A to the Supplement to Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 the Applicants calculate a total facility stay time for each Reception Center by adding to these transit time estimates noted above their time estimates for vehicle frisking (60 seconds), monitoring trailer processing (70 seconds), and Reception Center registration (300 seconds). (In using this registration time--300 seconds--rather than the 81 seconds to fill out the left side of the registration form, the Applicants claim that the total registration time is overstated.) The totals for each Reception Center arrived at in Attachment A to the Supplement to No. 17 are 823 seconds (13 minutes, 43 seconds) for Beverly and 893 seconds (14 minutes, 53 seconds) for North Andover.
Page 3 of this attachment, which shows Applicants' totals, is attached hereto at "B".
Q.6. In your opinion, are these times realistic?
A.6. No. In my professional opinion these total time estimates for each reception center art unrealistically short, and I would expect people to stay in the reception centers for much longer time periods.
' Waiting lines will be inevitable since the time j
- N-periodssfger monitoring people are shorter than for registration. In addition, activities such as using the bathrooms, asking for information about other family members, or waiting for members of one's group w.ho are being ,
decontaminated are not included in the time estimates provided l
l
- - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J
by New Hampshire Yankee. Unfortunately there is no empirical data available on behavioral issues and timing with respect to receptio'n centers, which serve-diverse functions such as-decontamination, registration, and information exchange.
Therefore, the following paragraphs are based mainly on .
professional judgment.
Q.7. Why do you hold the opinion that waiting lines must be anticipated?
A.7. Waiting lines are to be expected if different activities during a series of activities require different times to accomplish them. In accordance with queuing theory,
~
waiting lines can be avoided if people enter the activities at the same rate as they pass through them. In addition, the most time consuming activity should be placed first so that waiting lines in between the activities can be avoided.
People arriving at the reception centers will first pass through the monitoring stations and then line up for regist~ ration. If both activities roughly consume the same amount of time and if the. total time to complete both activities does.not exceed the time for people coming into the center, waiting lines will not be a-problem. Unfortunately w
both con'ditions are not met.
According to New Hampshire Yankee, 51 evacuees can be processed through one monitoring station'in one hour. At this rate, since there are to be-18 monitoring stations at each' reception center, 918 evacuees can be processed through'the- '
monitoring trailers each hour at each reception center. If people are monitored at this rate, 15 or 16 evacuees will be exiting the monitoring trailers each minute.
These evacuees then go inside the reception center i
building and walk over to one of the five Registration /
Congregate Care tables, where each individual or group which )
constitutes a " registration unit" is asked to fill out the left f
side of the Registration / Lodging form. -( Apparently a
.)
" registration unit" is one or more people arriving together in !
the same vehicle.) It is this phase of the registration process--filling out the left side of the form--which the
-Applicants have tested and found takes 81 seconds on average. !
I I have no quarrel with this limited determination, but I note !
that this does not complete the registration process for any !
EPZ residents. It appears from the SPMC's procedures at I.P. I 3.5, 55.2.5(C)(2), that Part 4 of the right side of the form is completed also for all EPZ residents, even if they plan to stay with friends or relatives rather than in a congregate care center. This is apparently the way the ORO keeps track of where all resident evacuees have gone. In fact, the staff person at the Rendezvous table relies on this information for all evacuees in order to accomplish his/her mission of providing information on where evacuees have gone. See I.P.
3.5, 55.2,4(E).
Thus, it appears that after filling out the left side, of the form, evacuee groups are asked whether they have a place to stay. If so, they are directed to indicate where they will
4 be staying by filling out Part 4 on the right side of the form. For evacuees who indicate that they have no place to stay (and for all who are "not sure" they have a place, since there are no telephones available for them to use to call and "make sure"), the registrar fills out the right side of the form with the name, address, and phone number of a congregate care center referral. Directions are then provided on how to get to the congregate care facility.
It is quite likely that many evacuees will question the registrar about the infrastructure of the care center, the nature of the rooms, and the services provided there. The members of each evacuee group may wish to discuss their options-among themselves. The NHY documents I have reviewed do not specify the average time it will take to complete this second phase of the registration / lodging activity (after filling out i the ~Imit,
- side of the form). NHY has sought to be l
" conservative" and claims that 300 seconds for both phases of this registration / lodging process "tends to overstate" the combined time. See Page 3 of Attachment A to Supplement to Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 (attached herete at i "B"). tk> analysis of the actual time is provided, however, so Applicants. offer no clue whether the time is "overstat.ed" by 30 seconds or 3 minutes.
For my. analysis here, I have sought to use an estimate of this total registration time which is not
" overstated." In my opinion it is reasonable to assume that if
a there are no lines present a minimum time for inquiring about
~
1 congregate care, discussing it with one's family, signing up for it, and receiving the necessary directions will be at least 2 minutes. More realistically the average time spent will be 1 about 2 minutes and 30 seconds. For those individuals who will stay with friends or relatives, it is reasonable to assume that, since it takes 81 seconds on average to fill out the left side of the Registration / Lodging form,.it will take about _4_0 seconds on average to fill out the Part 4 on the right side.
Thus, with no lines, I estimate the following average times to complete the registration / lodging process:
Those staying with friends / relatives: 81 sec. + 40 sec.'=
120 sec.
Those needing a cong. care referral: .
81 sec. + 150 sec.
1
= 231 sec. i Next I have sought to make a realistic assessment of what percent of the evacuees will fal1~into each of these categories.
Clearly, not everyone will be in need of a referral to temporary housing. A recent study on evacuation following a chlorine release in Mississippi concluded that 40 percent of,the evacuees arriving at a reception center were in needof5.fhublicsheltersincetheyhadnowhereelsetogo.
r (P. Duclos et al. 1987, p. 288.) In a recent review by Sorensen and Mileti, the authors concluded that the number of i i
people using official shelters in an eme,rgency varies between 6 and 36 percent of the total evacuating population. (Sorensen
i and Mileti 1988, p. 205.) In my opinion, based on this data, prudent planners should plan on having at least 25% of the resident population come seeking congregate' care referrals.
Here, however, the Applicants are estimating that only 20% of the' Massachusetts EPZ resident population (and some transients) would arrive at the reception centers, even for scenarios where the entire Massachusetts EPZ has evacuated. Because it appears that, apart from monitoring / decontamination, the primary reason.
people go to the ORO reception centers is to obtain a referral to temporary housing, a very high percentage of those who do arrive at the reception centers may be seeking a congregate care referral. If the entire Massachusetts EPZ resident population were evacuated and only 16%'needed temporary shelter, then 80% of those non-transients arriving at the reception centers may need a referral to congregate care. l Of course, some of those arriving may be transient visitors to the EPZ. None of those in this group should need congregate care. The Applicants' calculations of monitoring trailer loads for the summertime, as noted in their Testimony No. 17 and NHY document SEP 892119, indicate.that of the 9,360 pcopic expscted .:-
to arrive at the monitoring trailers at the i i
..% l Beverly Reception Center in the summer, 22% (2,083) are i
expected to be transients. (No transients are expected in the '
offseason there.) The-Applicants' calculations for North Andover indicate that no transients ars-expected to arrive '
there in either the summer season or the offseason.
1 l,
i!
J
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ .J
For my purposes here, I will estimate that 80% of the EPZ residents who show up at the reception centers will seek a congregate care referral. If the entire Massachusetts EPZ is evacuated, and only 20% of the residente go to reception centers, and only 80% of those seek a congregate care referral, then only 16% of the EPZ residents would be seeking congregate care. Given the data noted above from experienced emergencies, this falls within the range of experienced usage.
Thus, in Beverly in the summer, where 78% of those arriving are expected to be residents, 62% (.78 x .80) of all of those arriving will be seeking congregate care referrals.
In the offseason there, and year-round in North Andover (no transients), 80% of those arriving will be seeking congregate care.
Thus, in Beverly in the summer, there are really three (3) registration types, each of which will take a different time on average to complete the registration / lodging form:
22% Transients 81 seconds to fill out the left side only 16% Residents, no referral needed 81 seconds + 40 seconds to fill out the richt
",', side = 121 seconds 62% Residents, referral needad 81 seconds + 150 seconds to complete referral process = 231 seconds From this an average time to' complete the -
registration / lodging process for a single registration unit can be computed for Beverly of 180 seconds (exactly 3 full minutes).
For North Andover, the average time for this function j is computed from the following two registration types:
20% Residents, no referral needed 121 seconds 80% Residents, referral needed .231 seconds and the average time is 209 seconds (3 minutes and 29 seconds).
According to the Applicants' testimony describing the Beverly and North Andover reception centers, each center will have five (5) registration / congregate care tables, each staffed with or.e worker. If each table processes one registration unit at a time, and all five are in operation, then during the summer the Beverly tables can process 1.7 units / minute (5 units /180 seconds = 1.7 units /60 seconds). The North Andover tables can process 1.4 units / minute (5 units /209 seconds is 1.4 units /60 seconds).
Ass.uming one registration per car (although it is likely to be somewhat higher depending on the extent of " ride sharing" which occurs), the number of evacuees who can be processed per minute at the registration / lodging tables can be calculated by multiplying by the number of people per car.
Applic&nts estimate that transients' vehicles will have 2.4 people /cag:whilepermanentresidents' vehicles will have 2.6 people pe'r car. In the summer in Beverly, where 22% of those arriving are expected by the Applicants to be transients, there will be on average 2.56 people per car. In North Andover in the summer and effseason, the average is 2.6 (no transients ~
expected). Thus, in Beverly in the summer (2.56 x 1.7) 4.4 people can be processed at the registration / lodging tables each minute. In North Andover, (2.6 x 1.4) 3.6 people per minute can be processed at these tables.
f As a result of this calculation, one can conclude that if the monitoring trailers are processing at capacity (918 l
- t evacuees / hour), and if each table processes only one !
J registration unit at a time, more than three times as many {
people per minute (15 or 16) will be exiting the monitoring 3
1 trailers than will be registering per minute (4.4 or 3.6). In i this situation, waiting lines are the inevitable consequence.
Under the simplifying assumption that the flow of people into each center occurs at a constant rate (an assumption that provides more optimistic time estimates since temporary crowding and/or underutilization of facilities are ;
avoided) the disproportion between the number of people leaving the monitoring trailers and the number of people passing through registration adds up to substantial waiting periods that are proportional to the time duration of the evacuation.
Let us first consider the case that 16 r.ople pass through the Beverly monitoring trailer each minute, i.e., the stations'are used atlth,s maximum. capacity, and that 1.7 registration units (4.4 people) can pass through registration in one minute.
Table 2. lists the average waiting times.
m 7
TABLE 2 Waiting Lines (Beverly) at Registration / Lodging Tables (Processing one registration unit at a time at each table, with 16 people per minute arriving from monitoring trailer and the five tables together processing 1.7 registration unite per minute)
Time Arrival at Passing Through Waiting waiting Time after. Registration Registration in Line For Last l (cumulative) (cumulative) . Person in Line 1 Min. 16 4.4 11.6 2 Min. 36 Sec.
2 Min. 32 8.8 23.2 5 Min. 12 Sec.
3 Min. 48 13.2 34.8 8 Min.
30 Min. 480 132.0 348.0 80 Min.
1 j
1 1 Hr. 960 264.0 696.0 160 Min. I I
2 Hr. 1920 528.0 1392.0 320 Min. l 4 Hr. 3840 1056.0 2784.0 640 Min.
1 8 Hr. 7680 2112.0 5568.0 1280 Min. I 1
i The calculations in Table 2 illustrate clearly that we may encounter waiting periods of several hours for people to register. If this happens, a tremendous " traffic jam" of people would be the consequence. Although we can assume that most people are willing to cooperate and stay calm in an emergency l situation (Sorensen et al. 1987), waiting periods of several hours are likely to create anger and frustration.
Crossing lines, arguing with the reception center coordinator, refusing to fill out the registration form, and other forms of complaints can be expected. It is obvious that such behavior will further slow down the process of registration, if it can be accomplished at all under such. conditions.
During the cross-examination of the Applicants' panel
[ on reception centers, the claim was made that each registrar could handle up to six registration units at the same time.
According to this proposal, registration forms would be handed out to'each registration unit upon its arrival at the registration desk, and table spaces are available for six persons to fill out the forms simultaneously and converse with the registrar.
Such parallel processing of those filling out the forms would speed up the process and impede the formation of waiting lines.
Without doubt, such an arrangement can save time, but it is wrong to assume that one can just multiply the number of people who fill out the form simultaneously with the average time calculated for each individual filling out the form.
Instead the time duration for parallel processing of filling out forms is calculated by adding 1/3 of the time to process a single individual for each additional individual processed in parallel.
The process of handing out the forms, checking and .
{
collecting them and responding to personal questions is still !
done individually regardless of how many people participate in pacallel processing.
These activities under the conditions of parallel proceseing actually increase the time it takes for one person to complete the form since people have to fill out the i form on their own without immediate help available. ;
The overall procrasing time (and the time spent by ;
the registrar per registration unit) is decreased, however. ,
I While considerable time savings occur for the inclusion of the i
l
i second and third persons in the parallel processing effort, from then on only a couple of seconds can be saved by processing more people (registration units) at once, as can be se.en in Table 3.
TABLE 3 Times Estimates for Registration with Parallel Processing No. of people Registration Overall time spent by in parallel Time Registrar per household processing (cumulative) unit 1 180 180 2 240 120 3 300 100 4 360 90 5 420 84 6 480 80 But even if we assume that such parallel processing is feasible and that our optimistic time allocations (cutting down two-thirds of the individual time period for registration) I are true, evacuees will still face waiting lines.
If we make the same calculations as we have done in 1
the case'of single processing, we can estimate the number of people passing through Beverly's registration tables each minute as a function of the number of people involved in the parallel processing queue.1/ Table 4 shows the average '
1/ The formula for calculating the number of persons passing through registration is 50 divided by (t divided by d) times h, where t is the average passing time for each individual, d the number of desks for registration, and h the number of people in each household, s sm-
, g, .,.
d '
-number.of people for the diff' e rent variations of parallel processing and the average waiting periods:for:each of these cases after!30. minutes, one hour, and four hours.
LT?.BLE 4' Waiting Lines'for Different Models of Parallel Processing No. of people Number of-people- Average waiting periods in parallel passing through. for last person in line:
processing registration 30-Min 1 Hr :4: Hrs 1 4.4 -80 Min 160 Min 640 Min-2 6.4 59 Min 118 Min :472 Min-3 7.7 32 Min 64 Min 256' Min 4 8.5 26 Min 52 Min 208 Min 5 9.1 23 Min 46 Min 184 Min 6 9.6 20 Min 40 Min 160 Min The Table shows that parallel processing. alleviates some of the waiting but that it still~ leads to considerable waiting lines in front of the registration / lodging desks.2/-
If we use the New Hampshire Yankee estimate of.six people filling.out the registration / lodging form simultaneously, we=
would have a waiting period of 160 minutes afta four:(4) hours. . If we assume that each table is processing.6 persons 2/ The formula to calculate the number of people in the waiting line is:
X=(m times a) minus (m times (a minus b))
where a,is the number of people arriving at the station per-time-unit, b the maximum capacity of the station per time' unit, .
and m the time unit.' This formula is only. valid if the flow of.
incoming people is constant and for time periods including multiple time units.
i 1
(registration units) at once and there is a constant flow of 1 l
l incoming persons at a rate of 16 people per minute over a '
12-hour period, the average waiting time would be 320 minutes.
For this reason alone, I do not believe that the Applicants
" facility stay time" estimates are realistic.
Q.8. Are there any other reasons you have for your opinion that the " stay times" will be longer than Applicants have estimated?
A.8. Yes. Not included in the time estimates of New Hampshire Yankee is the average time needed to de-contaminate persons that respond positively to the radiation monitors.
This average time depends, of course, on the type of accident, the location of the people when the accident occurred, and many 1
other situational variables which affect both the percentage of the incoming persons who have been contaminated and the extent of their contamination. But the monitoring rate tests that New Hampshire Yankee has conducted to determine the 70 second l l monitoring rate imply a planning bases that 20 percent of the population would need decontamination. (I have been advised that the Applicants are relying on monitoring rate tests j conducted during the June 1988 Exercise to justify their claim j that individuals can be monitored at a rate of 70 seconds per
. I person. In those tests, approximately 20% of the simulated evacuees were " contaminated" with Coleman mantles.) I will adopt that 20% planning basis here for consistency. In other words, of the 16 people monitored each minute, 3.2 would be found to have some contamination.
i
i 4
- l
'The. calculation of average time duration for decontamination relies on the type of remedial action necessary I In to remove radioactive particles from the clothing and body.
severe cases, the affected person needs to' undress, shower, and re-dress (putting on new clothing). This will take about 30 minutes. In other cases, dry cleaning of contaminated clothes For' or washing away contaminated particles may be sufficient.
this calculation here, I will assume that the time required is 10 minutes, on average, from the time an evacuee is sent to the decontamination section of the trailer until he/she exits the trailer after the decontamination process.
Although only 20 percent may be affected by decontamination, it is more than likely that the members of the family or party with whom the contaminated person has been' travelling would wait at the trailer until the decontamination process is completed. It is hard to imagine that a family would move on to registration and leave one family member behind, .in particular in a case where that person may be intimidated by the prospect of being harmed by radiation.
For this calculation, I am also desuming that there is a greater probability that if one person in a vehicle is found contaminated, the others in the vehicle will also be In this regard, I have assumed that found to be contaminated. '
(1) there is an 80% probability that the total registration unit is contaminated if one person in that unit is found contaminated; (2) there is a 10% probability that two persons in one registration unit (2.56 people in Beverly) are o FC -
1 J
I contaminated if one person is contaminated; and (3) there is a ;
10% probability that only one person in a registration unit is contaminated. 'I also am assuming that two persons can be decontaminated at the same time.
My calculations are set forth in Attachment C. They l reveal that on average 131 seconds needs to be added to an .
individual's facility stay time to account for time spent undergoing decontamination efforts or waiting for a member of j one's party who is undergoing decontamination. The average time added to each registration unit's facility stay time is j l
168 seconds. '
0.9. Are there other reasons for your opinion that the !
Applicants' facility stay time estimates are not realistic? '
A.9. Yes. In addition to the neglect of waiting lines and l the exclusion of decontamination, the' estimated time periods for i i
completing all the necessary activities in the reception center i appear overly optimistic. First, all the time measurements were conducted with employees of New Hampshire Yankee. One can expect that people employed there are familiar with emergency i
procedures generally and are motivated to complete the ;
necessary activities in a shorter time period than randomly selected citizens. Second, each groite of - rest persons was I accompanied by a knowledgeable' observer / recorder who probably l knew the local conditions of the reception center and automatically guided the test persons in the right direction.
Third, the test did not include a realistic simulation of the '
situation that can be expected in a real emergency. The place ;
E was not crowded, people were not' disoriented or dis;ressed, and none of the test persons was' tired or exhausted due to the long y evacuation procedure. Although it'is known from the' literature on behavior in emergency situations that most people ~do not panic or overreact in a disaster (Sorensen et al.'1987), itfis still'likely that some people might feel intimidated by.the monitoring process or become distressed in searching fortlost family members. All these activities consume a considerable.
time and may cause delays for others who are patiently waiting in line.
But the' unrealistic test conditions are not the only problem with the estimates of the New Hamsphire Yankee study.
The study incorporates only one sequence of activities: walking from the parking lot to the monitoring trailer, from there into the reception center building, and then back to the parking lot. Even if the time estimates for this Walk were calculated under realistic conditions, they entail only a fraction of the total time' period that people will spend in the reception center. Not included in the estimates are such simple things as going to the bathroom. After spending several hours in cars and after going through a-traumatic experience'of evacuation, it is almost a physical necessity to'use the bathroom and refresh oneself. It is unlikely that people will stop en route to use a bathroom before they depart the EPZ since they want to leave the EPZ as fast as possible. It would be prudent in my >
opinion- to expect at least 80 percent of the incoming persons to use,a bathroom or portable toi.let at the reception center. l
If we estimate an average of 3 minutes for each visit to the bathroom, we would need- around 38 bathroom facilities to accomodate.all people and to. avoid waiting lines (under the assumption of 16 people arriving each[ minute and 80 percent of them in need of a bathroom). The number of bathrooms and mobile toilet facilities.in the reception centers were not specified in our documents, but it is likely that this many are not going to be installed. Therefore, we can expect: waiting lines. If we assume 20 bathroom facilities, we would have lines of a total of 279 persons after.30 minutes and more than 1,000 persons after three hours. Such long lines may cause
' people to look for bathroom. facilities outside of the reception center, but lines will be constantly re-formed as soon as the lines become smaller. It is difficult to estimate how much time people will spend in waiting lines to use-the bathroom facilities, but we can estimate a minimum of 40 minutes for people standing in line.
Excluding the waiting time, we have to add the time duration that people spend in the bathroom to the individual facility stay time estimate. Therefore, we have to include an average of 2 minutes and 24 seconds for each person ~( 0 .8 times 3 minutes)~. Assuming that a registratic unit (2.56 people in Beverly)-stands in line at a single portable toilet and visits it one after another, the registration unit will add 369 seconds to its average facility stay time. '
Another reception center activity that many people would like to engage in is to use public phones to reach ~
relatives or friends. perry. notes-in his review of empirical
data on sheltering that while most planning handbooks emphasize l
that the public should be discouraged from using the telephones in an emergency, this rule is systematically violated in real emergencies (Perry 1985, p. 149). People in an emergency want to tell others that they safely escaped from the accident; they may ask for shelter; and they may inquire of the whereabouts of relatives or friends who live in the EPZ. According to the testimony of the Applicants' panel on the ORO reception centers, public phones will not be available in the reception centers. Although this decision may save time in terms of average stay time, it w_11 definitely aggravate the climate in the reception centers and lead to frustration and anger.
People will demand that the phones on .he desks of the staff be used for urgent telephone calls and witl probably insist on informing those relatives or friends whose homes they want to go for shelter. People will probably complain about the lack of telephones and seek to discuss this issue with the reception personnel. There is no way to estimate the additional stay time for such " urgent" telephone calls or for discussions about the lack of phones in the building.
Also, families with school-aged children will certainly use the service of the Rendezvous Coordinator in order to find out whether their children were brought directly from school and where they can be picked up. According to the plan, only one Rendezvous Coordinator is assigned to this task in each reception center.
In addition, the Rendezvous Coordinator will help families that were separated in the course of the emergency to coordinate their efforts to rewrite. As more than 60 percent of all married women in Massachusetts are working outside of the home, it is very lixely that many family members will arrive separately at the reception center. The Rendezvous Coordinator has the task to tell one part of the family where to find the other part(s). The literature on emergency planning has shown that this function of a reception center is most vital for the success of the evacuation and that it will
, be used extensively (Perry 1985, p. 152).
8sadasrovt The n:;_e .vu umm m. Coordinator will have to perform two separate ongoing tasks: (1) filing all new registration forms from the registra. tion / lodging tables, the school buses,.
and the special facility buses; and (2) responding to requests for information from evacuees. I estimate that on average it will take the Rendezvous Coordinator 2 minutes from the time he/she receives one request to the time he/she is ready to cespond to the_next. In the two minute period, he/she would search the file for the name(s)-requested, answer a few- j questions, do some additional riling of new forms, and return the forms'previously located to the file. My calcule'. ions of i the additional time which should be added to both an individual's average stay time and a registration unit's average stay time are, contained in Attachment D. I note, however, that'.
I waiting lines are very likely to form at the Rendezvous J l
Coordinator's table; so these time estimates in Attachment D, l which contain nu waiting time, are unrealistically short.
_____ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ - - _ - _ --- - - _ _ _ _ _ _- ___ - - _ - _ - -- -- - - ~
There is one other important service which is offered in each reception center--the Message Center. See I.P. 3.5, 55.2.4(E). Evacuees who want to leave a message for other evacuees may do so there. Message forms are available to be filled out by evacuees, and the completed forms are filed alphabetically by the' recipient's name'. The two workers at this desk file and retrieve the messages and log each message filed on a log sheet. All log sheets are posted so that evacuees can check to see if there are any messages for them.
Evacuees will have to walk to this table, examine all log sheets to see if there are messages there for them, gain a worker's attention, ask for their messages (if any), fill out a message form for each message they may wish to leave, gain a.
worker's attention again, and hand in the messages to be left.
I would estimate that on average this process _ takes at least 2 minutes. My calculations of the additional stay time which should be added to both the average individual stay time and the registration unit average times appears in Attachment "E".
This does not include any time for waiting in lines, which are ]
likely to occur here too.
Q.10. What is your conclusion about the average stay times I for individuals and groups (i.e., carloads) who arrive at the reception centers.
I i A .10 . . The New Hampshire Yankee time estimates for the l average passage through the reception centers are unrealistic and partial. These estimates do not take into account the , !
l conditions of the reception centers in an emergency; they l neglect the high probability of waiting lines; and they ignore a number of the most obvious activities of evacuees during their !
I i
- )
i l
stay in the reception center. Thus the Applicants' time !
estimates need to be re-calculated and adjtsted to a probable behavioral scenario.
If all the waiting times are ignored, the average time estimate per person at each center have to be adjusted by l
taking into account the activities that were not included in j the New Hampshire Yankee document.
)
Table 5 list these 1 i
1 estimates for individuals in the first column. The additional L.mes to be added to each registration unit's (i.e., carload's) 6 average facility stay time estimate is shown in the second l'
I column.
TABLE 5 Additional time segments to be added to the average a individual and registration unit time estimates for passing j through the reception centers without including waiting j time periods.
Activity Individual Average Registration Unit Average Time Estimates Time Estimates Bev. And. Bev. And.
Registration 70 70 180 180 Decontamination 131 131 168 168 Bathroom 144 144 369 369 nondo:Vous Coordinator 18 25 47 63 Message Desk 22 28 56 72 Sum 385 398 820 852 4
I e
A registration unit could theoretically save some time by dividing the tasks and conducting the different activities para 11ely. During registration, one person could use the bathroom; during the time one member of the unit spends at the message dest, another member of the party can make the.
inquiry at the desk of the Rendezvous Coordinator. Such an optimal time allocation is rather unlikely, but certainly possible. Using.an optimal strategy, each unit could save on average up to 328. seconds in the case of Beverly and 360 seconds in the case of North ~Andover.
In the same spirit, it does not make sense to add
- all the expected waiting times since the members of a party may each decide to stand in different lines as a means to minimize their stay time. In any event, all members have to wait at least the 320 minutes (on average) before the head of the group has advanced to the head of the line and filled out the 'I registration form. As 80 percent of all heads of the registration units will also need to use the bathroom facility, .q there is an 80 percent chance that the waiting period will be i
even longer. If any member of the group elects to use the services of the Rendezvous Coordinator or the Message Center, j the overall waiting period could be 16 or even 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />. I do !
I not claim that people would actually stand that long in line, i because they may perceive the situation to be intolerable and decide'to leave the center. But in my opinion, even under ,
l realistic behavioral assumptions, waiting lines of 30-100 people will form in front of each offered service. Depending on the l i
14 1 1
I time duration of each of these. services, waiting; periods will-range from 28 minutes'to 90 minutes. This estimate applies'to _l I
both~ reception centers.
LQ.ll. In yourLopinion, Dr. Renn,-would it'be. prudent to estimate a' realistic. facility to stay time for'each carload !
. arriving at either reception center of less than'25 minutes? i A.11. No. Even using the Applicants' walking and monitoring times for the " General Population" (shown in ll
, Attachment B'to this testimony), but substituting for the 300- 1 I
i second registration the " sum" of the average times noted for
]
registration units in Table 5, I can tabulate a time for Beverly of 1,343' seconds (22 minutes,-23 seconds) and for' North Andover of 1,445 seconds-(24 minutes,;5 seconds). Because these times include no time for waiting in any lines, I do'not-believe that using less than a 25 minute facility stay time per carload would be a prudent. estimate at either' reception center.
Q.12. What references have you cited-for'this testimony?
A.12. I'have cited the following:
P. Duclos, L.. Sanderson, F.E. Thompson, B. .Bracklin, and S. Binder, " Community Evacuation Following a Chlorine Release, Mississippi," Disasters', Vol. 11, No. 4 (1987); 286 R.W. Perry, Comprehensive' Emergency Management:
Evacuating Threatened Populations, Contemporary R Studies in Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 3 .i (Greenwich: 1985)- )
J.H. Sorensen and.D.S. Mileti, " Warning and. 1 Evacuation: Answering Some Ba. sic Question," >
Industrial Crisis-Quarterly, Vol. 2-(1988(i 195, )
1 J.H. Sorensen, B.M. Vogt and D.S. Mileti,, -
Evacuation: An Assessment of Planning ~and-Research, < ;
Report of Oak: Ridge National Laboratory.(ORNL-6376;4 i Gak Ridge 1987) l l 1 .
. . . l l Q.13. Does this conclude your testimony?
1 A.13. . Yes,Eit does.
1 f
l i
'l i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ~ l 1
Before the Administrative Judges:
.Ivan W. Smith, Chairman l
Dr. Richard.F. Cole i
.Kenneth A. McCollom '
l
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
). 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY. ) (Off-Site'EP)
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) June 26, 1989
)
ATTACHMENTS TO TESTIMONY OF ORTWIN RENN ON BEHALF OF l JAMES M. SHANNON,' ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, CONCERNING l JI-56 AND TRANSIT TIME THROUGH RECEPTION CENTERS i
I l
1 l
I l
Department of the Attorney General '!
l Nuclear Safety Unit' Public Pr.otection Bureau One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 '
(617) 727-2200 ' '
l.
1 ATTACILMENT A Curriculum Vitae December 1988 ORTWIN RENN I
Clark University Five Baldwin Road Center for Technology, Leicester, MA 01524 Environment and (508) 892-4476 Development (CENTED) 950 Main Street Worcester, MA 01610 (508) 793-7686 i EDUCATION 1980: Ph.D. in Social Psychology at Cologne University, j School of Economics and Social Sciences, FRG (
(summa' cum laude) 1977: Master Degree (Diploma) in' Sociology and Economics at the School cf Economics and Social' Sciences, Cologne University, FRG (with honors) 1970- Undergraduate and Graduate Studies of Sociology 1977: and Economics at Cologne University (School of Economics and Social Sciences) 1969- Undergraduate Studies in Journalism and Business l 1974: Administration at Cologne University and the College for Journalism and Communication'in Rodenkirchen (FRG) 1970: High school graduation in West Germany (Abitur) J 1
1969: High school graduation at Wheaton (Illinois) as a Foreign Exchange Student (American Field Service)
EE2 FEES $21Ak_CAREES Since September 1988: Acting Director of the Center for Technology, Environment, and Development (CENTED), -I Clark University, Worcester j Since September 1986: Associate Professor of Environment, !
l Technology, and Society (ETS), Clark University l 1981-1986: Head of the Research Unit " Man and Technology" ,
within the Program Group " Technology and Society" of j the Nuclear Research Center, Julich, FRG l
o ORTWIN RENN Page 2 1978-1981:- Research Associate in the Program Group " Nuclear Energy and the Environment" of the Nuclear Research Center, Julich,'FRG 1977-1978: Head of the Conference Management Office at the Nuclear Research Center, Julich, FRG .
1976-1977: ' Journalist at the Public Information Office of the Nuclear Research Center, Julich, FRG 1974-1976: -Part Time High School Teaching at Kerpen State
-High School, FRG PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Since 1988:'. Member of the Panel on Environmental Standard Setting of.the German Academy of Sciences at West Berlin (FRG)
Since 1988: Member of the International Committee for Energy and the Public of the World Energy Conference (Headquarters in London, UK)
Since 1987: Member of the Scientific Advisory Counceil for the' German Research Institute for Societal Development in Mannheim, FRG Since 1984: Member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Reidel Publishing Company for the Book Series on
" technology, Risk, and Society" 1981-1986: Lecturer at the University of Stuttgart, FRG, for Technology, Energy Systems, and Society 1981-1986: Independent Staff Member of the Institute for Applied Social Psychology in Dusseldorf, FRG (Private Consulting Company) 1984-1986: Scientific Consultant and Moderator for the TV Series " Arguments" of the National TV Broadcasting Company, Hamburg, FRG 1980-1986: Consultant of the " Joint Risk Assessment Group" of.the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and ,
the International Institute for Applied Systems ,
Analysis (IIASA), Vienna, Austria i
4
, 1 i
+
ORTWIN RENN Page 4 I
i l
1980-1986: International Surveys on Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power and Other Energy Systems (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna) 1979-1981: Socioeconomic Impacts of a " Soft" Energy Systems (Nuclear Research Center, Julich) 1979-1981: German Attitudes Towards Energy Systems (Nuclear Research Center, Julich) 1978-1980: The Perception of Technological Risks (Nuclear ,
Research Center, Julich)
CURRENT RESEARCH PROJECTS (PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR)
I 1988-1990: The Social Amplification of Risk (National Science Foundation) 1988-1989: Citizens Participation in Sludge Management (New l Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) '
1988-1989: Decision Analytic Tools for Standard Setting 1 (German Academy of Sciences, West Berlin) !
1988-1989: Risk Communication and Management in the Aftermath of Chernobyl (Non-funded Research Activity) 1988: Trust and Credibility for Risk Communication !
(Nuclear Research Center, Julich) '
CURRENT RESEARCH PROJECTS (ASSOCIATE INVESTIGATOR) 1988-1990: Values in the Transfer of Hazardous Technologies (National Science Fodndation) i 1987-1989: Social Impact and Risk Assessment of High Level Nu'elear Wast (Mountain West for the State of Nevada) 1987-1988: An Alternative Evacuation Plan for Severe Nuclear Accidents at Three Mile Island (Public Health Fund of Pennsylvania) l SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANT FOR -
German Academy of Gciences at Berlin (FRG)
World Energy' Conference, London (UK) :
Institute for Societal Development, Mannheim (FRG)
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ---- ------ -- - - - -a
I l
f i
1 l
ORTWIN RENN Page 3
)
i 1982-1986: Member of the Editorial Board for the Book Series on " Technology and Social Change" of the High f i
Tech Publishing Company, Munich, FRG
{
1983-1985: Official German Delegate of the Versailles "Workinc Group on Public Acceptance of New Techno1c gies", London, UK PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS Risk analysis and risk perception Technology assessment and evaluation j Technology and social change l Attitudes and values toward environment and technology f Policy and decision analysis '
Environmental impact assessment So'cial impact assessment Public participation and involvement l
Energy systems and energy policies '
Social movements PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS 1
International Sociological Association !
International Society for Risk Analysis 1 Society for Human Judgment and Decision Making Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Soziologie (German Sociological Association)
COMPLETED RESEARCH PROJECTS 1987-1988: Sheltering in a Nuclear Emergency of the Seabrook Power Plant (Attorney General of Massachusetts) 1985-1986: Air Quality Standards and Regulatory Styles in West Germany and the United States (German Marshall Funds et al.)
1985-1986: Social Prospects of Light Technologies and Other Information Technologies (European Community, FAST Program) ,
1982-1985: Social Impact Analysis of Energy Systems (German Ministry for Research and Technology)
.ORTWIN RENN Page 5 l
International Atomic Energy Auth7rity, Vienna (Austria)
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg (Austria) ;
Commission of the European Community, Brussels (Belgium)
Ministry for Science and Technology, Bonn (FRG) ;
ORGANIZATION OR CHAIRING OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES i Member of the Organizing Committee of the International i Workshop 1988 on Risk Communication, Julich, October 17-20, l
\
Co-Chairman of the session " Social Amplification" at the Annual Conference of the Society for Risk Analysis in Houston, November 1-4, 1987 I Chairman of the session "Public Acceptance", BATAN Seminar on Nuclear Energy October.6-10, 1986 and Planning, Djakarta (Indonesir.),
l
- Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the First-International Conference on Risk Assessment of Chemicals and Nuclear September 22-26, 1986 Materials, Guildford, UK, !
i Co-Director of the NATO Advanced Study Seminar and t'he Rockefeller University for an Expert Workshop on Expert 25-29, August Judgment 1986and Expert Systems, Porto (Portugal),
Scientific Chairman for the Session on Individualistic versus Structuralistic Theories of Social Change, World 1986 Congress of Sociology, New Dehli, August 18-24, Scientific Chairman for the International Workshop on Decision 5-6, 1983 Analysis and Participation, Julich, September Scientific Chairman for the International Workshop on Energy and Society, Bonn, January 20, 1982 Member of the' Scientific Organizing Committee for the i International Bielefeld, Status Seminar on Risk Research, November 24-25, 1980 O
.]
-4 I
I ORTWIN R 4N Page 6 COURSES TAUGHT AT CLARK UNIVERSITY Introductory Case Studies in Environment, Technology,.and- J Society'(Undergraduate Course)' '
Economic Prosperity and. Environmental Qualif;y-(Undergraduate Course) l Values'in Technology and Art (Undergraduate Course in Combination with the Art. History Department) 0 Risk Perception (Graduate Course) 1 Technology Assessment (Graduate, Course)' j Decision Analysis for Environmental Problems (Graduate-Course)
Hazard Management-(Graduate Course)
Involvement in the Global Studies Program'for High and Middle School Teachers sponsored'by the' Commonwealth i of Massachusetts (Member of the Governing Board and Lecturer at the Summer Institute for Teachers) ?j
.j Involvement in the Peace Study Program of Clark University-MANUSCRIPTS. MODERATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SCIENTIFIC TV PROGRAMS i Renn, O. Stirbt der Wald? Ursachen und Losungsvorschlage fur die Waldschaden-(Causes and potential remedies for .;
forest damages in the Federal Republic of Germany) NDR .l National Broadcasting, Channel 3. Program Series:
Arguments,-June 5, 1986, 10-12 p.m. (Script and i Program Structuring)
Renn~ri O. Von.Atomen, Chips und-Menschen. Brauchen wir die ;
Technik?- (Atoms, Chips, and Humans. Do-We Need More 4 Technology?) SFB Berlin, Channel 3. Program Series:
Berliner Platz, July 27, 1985, 9-11 p.m.- ; !
(Participation in Expert. Panel)
Renn, O. Die Zukunft der Arbeitsgesellschaft. (The Future ,
of Work in Modern Society) NDR Broadcasting, Channel
3'. Series: Arguments, March 19, 1986, 10-12 p.m.
(Script / Moderation)
a-I l
~ 1 ATTACHMENT B j (FROM ATTACHMENT'A TO SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICANTS' REBUTTAL' TESTIMONY NO. 17) i i
1.
1 For General Population
- 1 Beverly' North Andov(l vehicle to initial monitoring 22.sec. 29 sec. !
vehicle frisk 60 sec. 60 sec. '
park and walk to monitoring-trailer 228 sec. '203 sec.
processing through monitoring. trailer 70 sec. 70 sec.
walk into Reception Center 17'sec. 48'sec. !
. register at Reception Center 300 sec.* 300 sec. !
(registrar area) ,
return to parked-vehicle 92 sec.- 132 sec. .)
drive to exit 34 sec. 51 sec. -i TOTALS (.229 hrs.) -(.248 hrs.)
i
- 2. For School or Transit Dependent-Populations 1 (populations'that arrive by bus and go through monitoringLtrailer)!;
1 vehicle to initial monitoring 22 sec. 29 sec.- i vehicle frisk' 120 sec. 120 sec.- 1 park, off-load and walk to i
monitoring trailer. 237 sec.** 236 sec.
perform monitoring 180 sec.*** 180 sec.
return to vehicle load bus and exit 264'sec. 289 sec.- j TOTALS (.229 hrs.)- (.237 hrs.) :
i For the purpose of this calculation, a registration time of.5 minute is used since it tends to overstate the registration time _and hencel the parking space needed.
Timetto load and off-load buses is based on an average of 45 u
passengers:per bus at a 4 second headway per person or 45 x 4z sec.1 180 sec. .(See. Volume 6 of the NHRERP, page 11-21.)
- Average bus load is 45 45/18 monitors equals 2.5 person / monitor 0 1.2 min. =-3.0 min. (180 sec.)
(
- - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ . ~ - _ - - - . - _ - - - - . - _ :-_---. __ . - - - _. - -- _ _ _ _ . _ . . - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - - - - _ _ . . . . .
i ATTACHMENT C DECONTAMINATION RELATED TIME ESTIMATES .-
1 i
- j. Assumptions: a) 20 percent need contamination ;
b) 4 Minutes l minimum time requirement: !
a c) maximum time requirement: 30 Minutes d) median time requirement: 10 Minutes e) The unit to which the contaminated person !
belongs to would wait until s/he is done f) 80 percent probability that the total unit !
is contaminated if one person in that unit ~ !
is contaminated, 10 percent probability,that j two persons in one unit'are contaminated if one person is contaminated, 10 percent l
. probability that only one person in a unit- 1 is contaminated l
g) Two persons can be de-contaminated at the I same time i
1 i Calculations: a) Number of people who will wait at the :
trailer: 16 per minute times .2 = 3.2
+0.1 times 1.56 + 0.1 times 2.56 = 3.5 b) Average time period to add on each individual: .22 times li0 Minutes = 2.19 Minutes = 131 Seconds on average per person c) Average time period to add on each unit: 0.2 w times (0.8 times 10 Minutes times 2.56) =
. 4.1 Minutes divided by 2 (parallel processing) + 0.2 times (0.1 times 10 times 1.56) divided by 1.5 (paralell processing) +
0.2 times (0.1 Limes 10 times 2.56) = 2.8 =
168 Sec.
Because of two decontamination places inside the trailer, two members of each unit could
, be processed simultaneously. Although i
queuing theory would suggest that one cannot cut the tina in half, we assume a 50 percent reduction-for the unit time estimate through,,
aarallel processing.
1 1 .
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ~
1 t
f ATTACHMENT D i ESTIMATES OF AVERAGE TIME SPENT l WITH RENDEZVOUS COORDINATOR
\
.g Assumptions:
f.
~
l km ) -Beverly: no school children 2 f (summer) transients do not need service transients are 22 percent of total incoming ,
persons '
50 percent of all residents need service.
- average service'1asts 2 minutes i , flow of 16 persons per minute
. I b) Andover: 20 percent of residents have school aged children no transient population j 50 percent of all' residents need service 1 average' service lasts 2 minutes l For perople with school aged children',. service-lasts 2 minutes and 30 seconds-flow of 16 persons / minute Calculations:
a) Beverly: Percentage of units requiring service 39 percent = 2.4 units a minute adds 47 seconds on each unit (averaged over all) adds 18 seconds on each individual (averaged) b) Andover: Percentage of units requiring 2 minute service; )
40 percent = 2.4 units a minute adds 48 seconds on each unit +
percentage of units requiring 2.5 minute service 10 percent = 0.64 units
, adds 15 seconds on average unit Sum per average unit is 63 second per unit Sum per average individual is 25 seconds Q f 1 m b 5
+
I
.i
< ~o'
'q s
'i
, ATTACHMENT E.
4 ADDITION 1X) AVERAGE STAY TIME FOR USE OF
-l MESSAGE CENTER
.i 1 1 j As's ump t'ijns': i j
a) Bevekly: 22 percent of transient. population-i 0 percent of transients'would use message center 60 percent'of residen*s'~unibtwould use message-center j j Average time spent at message. center is 2 Minur>es.
i f
b)l~Andover: 60 percent of all units would use; message center-
. Average time spent is 2 Minutes 1
Calculations: i j
. a) Beverly: (0.47 times 16) divided by 2.56 =,2.93 per minute 0.47 times 2 Minutes = 56 seconds (per unit)
Individual time estimate: 22-seconds 'l
, b) Andover: (0.60 times,16) divided by 2.56 = 3.75 per minute 0.60 times.2 Minutes = 72 seconds per unit' Individual time estimate:. 28 seconds a j
s I l ~
t f -
1 1
i g-s- 4'
? 'b ' il
- s. : '
Y
- y .l
- 1
- i l 1
- 1.
- f
.t i
a
-e
- a nt i.ED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges
- .. .; l
!{}-
o w.
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC S".dVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP)
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) June 27, 1989
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Allan R. Flerce, hereby certify that on June 27, 1989, I made service of the within TESTIMONY OF ORTWIN RENN ON BEHALF OF JAMES M.
SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, CONCERNING CONTENTION JI-56 AND TIME THROUGH RECEPTION CENTERS by first class mail and in hand as indicated by (*) and on June 26, 1989 a copy was sent by telefax as indicated by (**) to:
- Ivan W. Smith,, Chairman *Kenneth A. McCollom Atomic SafetyL& Licensing Board 1107 W. Knapp St.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Stillwater, OK 74075 Commission East West Towers Building Docketing and Service 4350 East West Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, MD 20814 Commission Washington, DC 20555
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety & Licensing Board ;
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 L____________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r-d-
4
- Robert R. Pierce, Esq. ** Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Katherine Selleck, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission- Ropes & Gray East West Towers Building One International Place 4350 East West.ylghway Boston, MA 02110 Bethesda, MD l') M 4 ll
- H. Joseph Flynr., Esq... *Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1 Office of General Counsel Commission Federal Emergency Management Office of the General Counsel-
)
Agency 15th Floor 500 C Street, S.W. 11555 Rockville Pike "
Washington, DC 20472 Rockville, MD 20852' ;
Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Appeal Board Backus, Meyer-& Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 f
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Jane Doughty U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seacoast Anti-Pollution : League - I Washington, DC 20555 5 Market Street j Portsmouth, NH 03801- l Charles P. Graham, Esq. Barbara St. Andre, Esq.
Murphy & Graham Kopelman~& Paige, P.C.
33 Low Street 77 Franklin Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Judith H. Mizner, Esq. R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
79 State. Street Lagoulis,1 Hill-Whilton 2nd Floor'- & Rotondi .l Newburyport, MA 01950 79 State Street '
Newburyport, MA 01950 )
Dianne Curran, Esq. Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Harmon, Curran, & Towsley 145 South Main Street Suite 430 P.O. Box 38 l 2001 S Street', N.W. Bradford, MA 01835 :
Washington, DCs -20008 'i L n + ... !
Senator Gordon:J. Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphrey i
U.S. Senate One Eagle Square, Suite'507 Washington, DC 20510 Concord, NH 03301' (Attn: Tom Burack) (Attn: Herb Boynton) .
i
V, s; . ;
4 John P. Arnold, Attorney General Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
Office of the Attorney. General Assistant Attorney General' 25 Capitol-Street Department.of the Attorney Concord, NH.03301 General Augusta, ME 04333 William S. Lord Board of Selectmen Richard Donovan.
Town Hall - Friend Street FEMA' Region 10 Amesbury, MA 01913 130 228th Street, S.W.
Federal Regional Center Bothell, WA 98021-9796 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL Albaf M AYEan R. F1'erce Assistant' Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED: June 27, 1989 1
j
_ .i i
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - . - - - - . - -