ML20246H242
| ML20246H242 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1989 |
| From: | Brock M MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8596 OL, NUDOCS 8905160045 | |
| Download: ML20246H242 (13) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _
'fh CCCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UMi%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'89 MY 12 P2:52 b, fore the Administrative Judges:
Er.
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 _A_L.
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
May 9, 1989 j
)
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE-FILED CONTENTION BASIS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF PARKING SPACE J
AND THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AT THE BEVERLY RECEPTION CENTER The Massachusetts Attorney General hereby moves that he be allowed to file the attached additional basis to JI-56, a contention which challenges, ir.cer alia, the equipment and I
facilities for radiological monitoring of the general public.
The additional basis that Mass AG seeks to litigate asserts that, given the anticipated time for evacuees to be processed through the Beverly reception center, the limited parking space available for evacuee vehicles at this facility, and the SPMC's current plans for traffic flow in and out of the center, the Beverly Reception Center is not adequate to accommodate the significantly increased number of persons who the Applicants now boo 5160045 890507 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
PDR ib
))$
l h.
i 1
claim, in Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 (Radiological Monitoring Process) April 18, 1989, are anticipated to arrive there for monitoring.
Applicants cannot meet their own planning basis, or FEMA guidance, for 12-hour monitoring.
9ee Plan, 03.5.8, NUREG 0654 FEMA REP-1, Rev. 1, II.j.12.
Applicants also have an inadequate traffic management plan for evacuees at the Beverly Center and otherwise do not provide adequate protection to the public.
The balance of the five factors specified in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a) favor the admission of this late-filed contention basis.
1.
Good Cause l
As the Commission has noted, "this first factor is a crucial element in the analysis of whether a late filed l
contention should be admitted."
Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 244 (1986).
Under date of April 18, 1989, Applicants' prefiled APPLICANTS' REBUTTAL TESTIMONY NO. 17 (Radiological Monitoring Process)
(" testimony").
In the testimony, Applicants for the first time advised the Mass AG that:
The two Monitoring Trailers were initially designed with a capacity to accommodate 20% of the peak population in the Massachusetts p ~ tion of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) which in 6.2 x 82,944 (SPMC, Table 1.3-1) or 16,589 individt e is.
Subsequently, a more detailed evaluation which focused on the expected number of evacuees, or " load",
arriving at each Reception Center was performed.
The approach taken for this evaluation used logic similar to that detailed in the Atomic Safety and Licensing
1 s
L Board's December 30, 1988, Partial Initial Decision on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (LBP-88-32).
The #acility, equipment and personnel l
additions that resulted from this analysis will be -
reflected in a future revision of the SPMC l
Implementing Procedures (IP) 2.9, 3.4 and 3.5.
The evaluation examined the evacuee loads expected during summer months and off-season months for each Reception Center.
The results are detailed f
below.
The largest value for the anticipated evacuee l
loads was selected as the planning basis for each Reception Center.
(Emphasis Supplied.)
Testimony pp 1,2.
Applicants thereby admit to a fundamental change in the planning basis, and revision to the SPMC, for the " expected number of evacuees, or ' load', arriving at each reception center".
Testimony p.
1.
Applicants' modified planning basis now substantially increases the expected number of evacuees at the reception. center in Beverly beyond that previously contemplated in the SPMC.
Infra.
Due to such constraints as the limited parking facilities at the Beverly Center, and the failure to provide an adequate traffic management plan for the Center, Applicants will not be capable of monitoring within a reasonable time all residents and transients in the plume exposure EPZ arriving at the Beverly Center.
Applicants now cannot meet their own planning basis, 03.5.8, or FEMA regulatory guidance for monitoring all evacuees within a 12-hour period.
See NUREG 0654 FEMA-Rep 1, Rev. 1, II.j.12.
Mass AG has been extensively involved in litigation of the SPMC, argument on the on-site exercise contention, low power issues, and comment upon FEMA's interim rulemaking, since the
i date Applicants first disclosed their amended planning basis for evacuees on April 18, 1989.
Nevertheless, Mass AG has consulted with its expert, Dr. Thomas J.
Adler, and has prepared and filed Basis D, within 21 days of Applicants' disclosure.
Mass AG could not reasonably have filed its amended basis previously, and has demonstrated " good cause" to support the filing as of this date.
2.
Availability of Other Means To Protect MAG Interest No other party has raised the issues presented by Basis D, the proposed Additional Basis to JI-56, and no other means exist to raise these material safety issues for review and decision by the Board.
Accordingly, this factor, and the fourth factor (i.e.,
the extent to which petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties) weigh in favor of Mass AG.
3.
Development of a Sound Record The adequacy of Applicants' monitoring process, based l
l upon a planning basis of 8,300 evacuees at the Beverly center, has already served as the basis for FEMA findings and testinony.
- See, e.g., T.19136-19138.
By rejecting its prior planning basis, and substantially increasing the number of 1
anticipated evacuees who will seek monitoring at the Beverly Center, Applicants have rendered irrelevant FEMA's finding of adequacy, and have created an incomplete record, on the monitoring issue.
l
_4_
E f
I Under the amended planning basis, Applicants now assume l
10,712 evacuees (a 29% increase off season) or 9,360 evacuees (a i
13% increase in summer) will arrive at the Beverly reception I
i I
center.
Due to limited parking space at the Beverly center, the l
logistical problems associated with processing a substantial increase of vehicles in this limited area, and an inadequate I
}
traffic management plan, Applicants will take at least 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> j
i to complete the monitoring process.
As described in Basis D, j
i Applicants' addition of four more monitoring stations does i
nothing to cure these parking and logistical problems.
Applicants have done nothing to solve the monitoring delays associated with the traffic bottlenecks at the Center as a consequence of increased evacuee vehicle " load".
In addition, Applicants, through a new methodology, have calculated an evacuee planning basis for reception centers that still substantially undercounts the vehicles that will arrive at the Beverly Center in an actual emergency.
This undercounting flows, in part, from Applicants' reliance upon an inadequate number of vehicles to be used by permanent residents for evacuation and from an unreasonably low estimate of beach area vehicles that will arrive at the reception centers, see Testimony p.
4.
This new and erroneous methodology for calculating evacuee vehicles at the Beverly Center was first presented in Applicants' April 18 testimony. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _. _. ___ _
On behalf of the Mass AG, Dr. Thomas J. Adler will i
testify in support of the issues raised in Basis D.
As a prior witness in these proceedings, Dr. Adler's expertise in traffic management and ETE issues is known to the Board and the carries.
4.
Broadening of Issues and Delay Basis D addresses issues already introduced by Applicants into tne litigation through their April 18 filing and therefore will not broaden the issues or unduly delay the proceedings.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JAMES M.
SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL
\\;d <
Matthew T.
Brock ~
Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED:
May 9, 1989 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i i
l 1
1 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL BASIS TO JI-56 l
1 Contention The SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate t
procedures, personnel, equipment and facilities for radiological monitoring and decontamination of general public evacuees, i
emergency workers anc special facility evacuees (e.g. nursing home residents) have been established.
Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR S50.47(a)(1), S50.47(b)(8), 550.47(b)(10),
S50.47(b)(ll) and NUREG 0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1 II.H.4, II.J.10.d, II.J.12, II, K.5.a and K.S.b have not been met.
D.
The overall monitoring capability at the Beverly Reception Center is not adequate to reasonably protect the evacuees expected to arrive at the center in a radiological emergency.
Given (1) the size of the parking lots and the inadequate traffic management plan at the Beverly reception center, (2) the increased number of evacuees the Applicants now expect to arrive there using a "20% methodology of the type approved by the Licensing Board in the NH Partial Initial Decision", and (3) the time it will take evacuees to pass through the entire facility (i.e.,
park, be monitored, go through the Reception Center, return to vehicles, and leave parking area), Applicants cannot complete monitoring of evacuees within a reasonable time and will take at least 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> to monitor all those persons who are anticipated to arrive at the
Beverly reception cent er.
The rate of vehicle turnover in the parking areas will not be great enough to keep the 18 monitoring stations busy continuously monitoring evacuees tecause a
" bottleneck" in the monitoring process now occurs outside the monitoring trailer in tne parking lots.
This bottleneck har been created because in Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 (Radiological Monitoring Process), filed April 18, 1984, the Applicants announced that they have re-evaluated the expected number of evacuees, or " load", arriving at each reception
{
center.
Applicants' No. 17 at 1.
As a result of this evaluation, they now anticipate that a significantly greater number of people will arrive at the Beverly reception center for monitoring.
Whereas the SPMC anticipated monitoring 8,300 evacuees within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> at each of its two monitoring trailers (one in Beverly and one in North Andover), see SPMC, 53.5.3, p.
3.5-8, and 55.2.4, p.
5.2-7, Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No.
l 17 indicates that the Applicants now expect to monitor 10,712 l
l people in the offseason and 9,360 people in the summer at the Beverly reception center monitoring trailers.
Id. at 5.
An additional 2,118 people from the special needs group, special facilities, and hospitals are to be monitored in their vehicles at the Beverly reception center.
Id.
To accommodate these additional people, who will need to be monitored in a 12-hour period in conformance with the planning basis, 3.5-8, and as consistent with NUREG 0654 II.J.12, the Applicants state that - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
they will be adding four (4) additional monitoring locations at each reception center.
The increase from 8,300 to 10,712 off-ceason evacuees to be monitored in the Beverly trailers amounts to a 29% increase.
Even in the summer, the increase from 8,300 to 9,360 people amounts to almost a 13% increase.
Given the amount of time it will take to process evacuees and their vehicles and those in buses at the Beverly facility under an inadequate traffic plan, (i.e.,
to park their vehicles and buses, be monitored, perhaps be decontaminated, registered, pass through the reception center, and return to their cars and buses, and to be directed out of the parking areas) the turnover rate of the vehicles in the parking areas will not permit 20% of the population, calculated in the fashion Applicants have now calculated it, to park their vehicles and be monitored within a reasonable time.
It will take at least 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> to complete this task, even if the full extent of the " controlled" vehicle parking area is used for parking.
When the majority of cars i
arriving are " clean" and therefore park in the " clean" vehicles parking area, the " controlled" vehicle parking area will not be utilized to the full extent, and the total time it will take to park and process all arriving evacuees through the entire facility will be increased even further.
Applicants have also failed to provide adequate plans or personnel to manage the 1
increased vehicle traffic.
Although the Applicants cannot meer their own 12-hour monitoring requirement in the planning basis using their own 20% population calculations, or meet FEMA l ~
guidance for 12-hour monitoring, the problem is even worse _
l because that calculation underestimates the number of cars used by the permanent residents who are evacuating.
Applicants us0 the incorrect multiplier of 2.6 permanent residents per vehicle.
Using.the correct multiplier of 2.2 evacuating residents per vehicle, derived from the survey conducted for the Mass AG in 1987, one finds that the number of permanent resident vehicles is significantly larger than that calculated by the Applicants.
Also, the Applicants have misestimated the percentage of the beach area vehicles that would arrive at the Beverly reception center by including only 50% of the transient oeach population in their new 1
20% calculation.
See Applicants' No. 17 at 4.
The correct percentage of the Massachusetts transient beach population which should be included in the calculation is at least 80%.
- This, too, means that additional vehicles will be arriving that Applicants have not calculated, and will further, and unreasonably, increase monitoring time.
Applicants therefore have failed to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken for the monitoring of evacuees at the Beverly Reception Area.
(
p.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3% P
E' l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
(
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD T9 MAY 12 P2 :52 Before the Administrative Judges:
Gn.m Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Dam g ; ".
r~
Dr. Richard F.
Cole Kenneth A.
McCollom
)
i 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)
)
May 9, 1989
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
Matthew T.
Brock, hereby certify that on May 9, 1989, I made service of the within MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE-FILED CONTENTION BASIS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF PARKING SPACE AND THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AT THE BEVERLY RECEPTION CENTER by first class mail, by Federal Express as indicated by
(*),
and by telefax as indicated by (**)
to:
- Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman
- Kenneth A.
McCollom Atomic Safety & 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
- 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. Highway Boston, MA 02110 dethesda, MD 20614
- H.
Joseph Flynn, Esq.
- Sherwin E.
Turk, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 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 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Jane Doughty U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Washington, DC 20555 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Charles P.
Graham, Esq.
Barbara St. Andre, Esq.
Murphy & Graham Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
33 Low Street 77 Franklin Street Nesburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Judith H.
Mizner, Esq.
R.
Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
79 State Street Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton
'2nd Floor
& Rotondi Newburyport, MA 01950 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 i
Dianne Curran, Esq.
Ashod N.
Amirian, Esq.
Harmon, Curran, & Towsley 145 South Main Street Suite 430 P.O.
Box 38 2001 S Street, N.W.
Bradford, MA 01835 Washington, DC 20008 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey U.S.
Senate One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Washington, DC 20510 Concord, NH 03301 (Attn: Tom Burack)
(Attn: Herb Boynton) 1 I
I l 1
~
l 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 q
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 s.
@u
~~
( '3 Matthew T.
Brock
~
Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED:
May 9, 1989
> - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -