ML20247B278
| ML20247B278 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1989 |
| From: | Fierce A MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8638 OL, NUDOCS 8905240073 | |
| Download: ML20247B278 (31) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. L1gS3C PH UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA-d NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION DOLKLIEf: U91W ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -Before the Administrative Judges:*89. mY 22 P4 :49 Ivan W. Smith, Chairman-Dr. Rit,hard F.-Cole YC. 'N ' Kenneth A.'McCollom him. ) 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 18, 1989 ) REPLY.0F THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO MASS AG'S MOTION TO ADMIT LATE-FILED CONTENTLON BASIS 1 On May 15,'1989, the Applicants filed their response ' to the motion # of the Massachusetts Attorney General (" Mass 2 AG") to admit a late-filed contention basis regarding the adequacy of parking space and the traffic management plan at the Beverly reception center. In their response the Applicants 1/ Applicant Response to Mass AG's Motion To Admit Late-Filed Contention Basis, May 15, 1989 (" Applicants' Response"). 2/ 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, May 9, 1989 (the " Motion"). i 8905240073 890518 ADOCK05000gg3 PDR G )
- 4.. y make three arguments why the motion should be denied:
.(1)'the same late-filed contention has already H been rejected'three times by this Board,- i including once for failure to meet the late-filed criteria; (2)'the contention again fails to meet the criteria for late-filed contentions; and (3) the contention attempts to resurrect issues l already litigated and decided in New Hampshire. l Applicants' Response at 1-2. None of these arguments has any. merit. I. This Contention / Basis Has Not Been Submitted Previously-And. Consequently. Has Never Been Reiected By The Board The Applicants have characterized the " thrust" of the l contention / basis sought to be filed here as " identical" to the issue raised in MAG Ex-18 Basis E. That exercise contention / basis, however, raises an issue which is completely different from the issue raised here, and each issue rests on a profoundly different analysis of what constitutes adequate facilities for the monitoring of individuals arriving at the reception centers. MAG Ex-18 Basis E stated as follows: E. The Exercise demonstrated a fundamental flaw because there is insufficient space at the reception centers to handle all the vehicles that would arrive there in the event of a wide-soread contaminating releLSe like the_one which was simulated for the Exercise. For example, the North Andover reception center, to which all of the Town of Amesbury was instructed to evacuate, has parking capacity in its " clean car" lot for at best 100 cars, leaving aisles between cars for then to exit. The parking lot for contaminated vehicles is considerably smaller. Many more vehicles would have needed to be parked in these lots if the Exercise had been a real emergency. (Emphasis supplied.) .4. 4 Initially, neither the Applicants nor the NRC Staff objected to the admission of this contention / basis, but in subsequently commenting on the significance of ALAB-903 on this contention the Staff (but not the Applicants) objected to this basis on the grounds that it did not meet the "significant revision" standard of that decision. (No one objected that the contention, if proved, would not' reflect the failure of an essential element of the plan.). In its Ruling cn1 June 1988 General Exercise Contentions (December 15, 1989), the Board withheld ruling on Basis E and instead afforded the Attorney General "an opportunity to revise his contention pleadings to address the Staff's argument." Ruling at 46. On January 3, 1989, the Mass AG submitted his additional comments # and A revisions regarding, inter alia, MAG Ex-18 Basis E. In those comments, the Mass AG noted that bases B and E of MAG Ex-18 " allege that in the' accident scenario tested, more people and . vehicles would have arrived at the reception centers for monitoring than ORO and the State of How Hampshire had the staff, equipment and parking space to receive and monitor within a 12-hour period." Mass AG's Additional Comments at 12 (emphasis supplied). Basis B described the " accident scenario tested" as one which resulted in "a clockwise sweeping plume that hit virtually every town in the EPZ." The Mass AG's view ] 1 1/ Additional Comments of the Massachusetts Attorney General on the Effects of ALAB-903 On His Exercise Contentions 8.C.1, 1 8.C.3, 18, and 21.C, January 3, 1989 (" Mass AG's Additional Comments"). 1
I was (and still is) that in the event of such a widespread radioactive release, so many people would seek monitoring -- far more than 207, of the population -- that monitoring staff, equipment, facilities and parking for evacuees available at reception centers pursuant to the NHRERP and SPMC would not be adequate to monitor, within 12 hours, all those who would seek monitoring. As to why this required a "significant revision," the Mass AG noted in his comments that "Itihe Exercise demonstrates that significant revisions must be made in both Elans [NHRERP and SPMC] includina orovisions not only for additional monitorina trailers and staff but also for additional reception centers as well to accommodate and monitor the number of individuals who would seek monitorina at the time of a radiological emergencv." Pursuant to the Board's invitation to the Mass AG to " revise" his contention pleadings to address the "significant revision" argument, the Mass AG sought leave in his Additional Comments to include the underlined sentence in MAG Ex-18. On January 13, 1989, in its Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Massachusetts Attorney General's Exercise Contentions 8.C.1, 8.C.3, 18, and 21.C), the Board construed the Mass AG's request to include the underlined sentence in Basis E, not as a revision addressed to the second part of the ALAB-903 test, but as a request to file a late-filed contention. The Board then denied the request for failing to address the five factors of Section 2.714(a). _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
4-At the Prehearing. Conference in Boston on. January 18, 1989, the Mass AG sought clarification from the Board of the reasons q why Basis E (along witn' Basis B) was being' rejected. Tr. ) 15288-15294. The Board's answer was twofold: First, the Board stated that, apart from the reference to reception centers in-i the underlined sentence rejected by the Board, the " emphasis" of Basis B "is the number of personnel and equipment which we believe was a readily correctable problem," Tr. 15332,.and i . Basis E similarly alleged merely "just a parking lot problem," Tr. 15341. Secondly, recognizing that Bases B and E sought to q use the widespread radioactive release that occurred during the exercise to challenge.the "overall capacity of reception centers, including facilities, personnel, equipment and everything, to monitor the expected population," the Board stated that this aspect of the contention. challenged the 20% planning basis which the Board had confirmed in its P.I.D. on the NHRERP; so that aspect was tes judicata and the Board no i longer had jurisdiction to address it further. Tr. 15332-15336. ) This review of the procedural history demonstrates that MAG l Ex-18, Basis E was construed to be an entirely different contention than the one sought to be filed here: A. MAG Ex-19 Basis B was a direct challenge to the 20% planning basis incorporated into the SPMC. The proposed basis 1 is not such a challenge; it asserts that Rithin the 20% planning basis the Applicants have now estimated that a greater number of people can be expected to arrive to be monitored at 1.
its Beverly reception center, but the Applicants have not done anything to adjust that reception center's parking space or the traffic handling staff and procedures there to accommodate this increase. As a result, the basis asserts, a " bottleneck" in the monito';ing process "now occurs outside the monitoring trailers in the parking lots," and this " bottleneck" will prevent the ORO from monitoring the 20% of the population now expected to arrive within 12 hours. B. This is not an Exercise contention; so the ALAB-903 standards do not apply to this basis as they did to MAG Fx-18 Basis E. Although the Mass AG still asserts that the corrections needed will be "significant" in that there is a need for additional parking space which does not appear to be available at the Beverly Reception Center, and additional traffic handling plans and staffing are required, this view is just as irrelevant to the admission of this " plan" contention as is the view that those corrections are not "significant." I What is relevant is that a regulatory standard -- 10 C.F.R. S50.47(b)(10); NUREG-0654 II.J.12 -- cannot be met. Beyond this, the only question is whether the proposed basis meets the standard tests for the admission of a late-filed contention. I As with MAG Ex-18 Basis E, the Applicants have not objected to { this basis on the ground that it fails to meet the basis and specificity requirements. They do object, however, on the ground that it does not meet the "five factors test" of Section 2.714(a)(1). .6-
. ~. e' II. 'The Five-Factors Test Has-Been Met In their Response, the Applicants argue that all of the -five factors of Section 2.714(a)(1) weigh against admission of the late-filed contention / basis.. Their. arguments fail for the following reasons: A. Good Cause Has Been Shown Applicants argue that the Mass AG has no good cause to file this contention / basis now because, given information previously available to him about the Applicants' monitoring lor.d calculations,.he could have filed this basis monthsfago. This argument fails for the following reasons: 'l.. Applicants are not correct in claiming that in its P.I.D. this Board spelled out "the formula" to be used in calculating the anticipated monitoring load for reception centers. Applicants' Response at 5 (emphasis supplied). A careful reading of the P.I.D. reveals that all the Board did there was to find that the methodology used by the State of New Hampshire to calculate each host community load was an acceptable methodology. Paragraph 5.19 of the P.I.D. describes the mathematical model New Hampshire had used; it does not recuire the use of that model. Even the Applicants must not believe that this specific mathematical model is the only way l to calculate the 20% load; they themselves have used a different formula in their testimony. See Applicants No. 17 at 4. Thus, there is no basis for the argument that "as early as December 30, 1988, Mass AG knew or should have known what the. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _
s t anticipated monitoring load.of each reception center would be." As far-as the Mass AG knew, any calculations -- even a straight 0.20-X (population) as the SPMC contained -- might be found to be acceptable to the Board.A# 2. Applicants are also incorrect in arguing that. documents provided to the Mass AG in late January 1989 provided all the information necessary to draft the contention / basis at issue here. The key document was not attached to the Applicants' motion, and it is attached here as Exhibit A. (Applicants Erhibit A simply put the Mass AG on notice that this document was generally available at the Seabrook Station ~ discovery room.) It is an ambiguous NHY internal planning ~ memorandum from one D. Bovino to one D. Tailleart, dated January 13, 1989, addressing "
Subject:
Options For Monitoring Evacuees." The memo first describes meetings held on January 5-6, 1989 "to discuss some monitoring options." It then describes a " workshop" held on January 11, 1989, to " discuss the various planning concept changes and monitoring options." Bovino Memorandum at 4. The memorandum ends with a list, labeled " Action Items," of what appear to be task assignments. The Mass AG did receive this memo and read it carefully. It indicates that all sorts of planning options for monitoring / A/ This is not to say that the Mass AG agrees that simply calculating 20% of the population in this fashion provides an t - appropriate method of calculating the "20% load." If the Applicants revert to this methodology, we will continue to challenge it as inappropriate as we are now under JI-56 as admitted..
A decon operations were'being considered, explored, evaluated, calculated,. recalculated, developed and checked. It clearly indicated that some people of unknown authority inside NHY were considering various options for monitoring / decontamination. The document reads very much like an in-house deliberative process document rather than an announcement to'the outside world that key decisions have been made. Soon after receiving it the Mass AG, knowing full well the obligation he.had to.use all due diligence, sought to explore what this planning process memorandum meant. Within two or three days after receiving this memorandum, on or about February 3, 1989, Assistant Attorney General Allan Fierce called Kathryn Selleck, one of I Applicants' counsel, and sought information on what the then current state of Applicants' planning was. Mr. Fierce pointed out that the memorandum itself was then a few weeks old and that each of'the due dates for the " Action Items". listed in it had passed. He asked specifically for copies of all the documents that had been produced in response to the Action Items. Ms. Selleck indicated she would check with her clients and call Mr. Fierce back. When she called back that day or the 1 next, she informed Mr. Fierce that.there were as yet no such documents, not a single one! Mr. Fierce questioned this, again noting that all the due dates for the Action Items had passed. 'l 1 He asked Ms. Selleck how he could find out what the current state of NHY planning was for monitoring /decon. Ms. Selleck's only response was that the January 13 Bovino memo was all there was at that time. 4 l ._ _ ~
) This sequence of events left the Mass AG in substantial doubt about where the Applicants' planning process l for monitoring /decon was heading. It appeared to have suddenly ceased or been interrupted. No further information or documents on this topic were provided by the Applicants in j q February, March, or April until the Applicants distributed l Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 on April 18, 1989. ) i If the Applicants had intended to put the Mass AG on i notice back in February as to their then current planning for monitoring /decon, they could have done so in a clear-cut way. The l Mass AG exercised due diligence in seeking to learn what j i exactly was going on, but the effort led nowhere. The Mass AG is many things, but he is not a fortune teller. He cannot be q held to have failed to exercise due diligence by failing to decifer to the halting " signals" that Applicants were sending 1 in such a confusing way. j l 3. Applicants argue that the testimony of Dr. Colin I J. High, filed by the Mass AG on April 10, 1989, somehow indicates that by at least that date the Mass AG knew that the Applicants were going to be using new (higher) monitoring-load calculations. The Mass AG knew no such thing. Dr. Higi. had I been provided all information available on monitoring loads, including the Board's p.I.D. and the confusing Bovino memorandum. The methodology he used may have been derived from I the p.I.D., as he states at page 3 of his testimony, but this _ __ _
[ i*? 4 i ,. { 1 J does not imply that he or the Mass AG knew with any certainty I l that theLApplicants themselves had actually decided to adopt a j higher' load themselves.. 4. Applicants have focussed too narrowly on only one premise of the late-filed contention, i.e., that Applicants, as indicated by their Testimony No. 17, are now relying on-a higher " load" calculation for Beverly. A separate-and necessary premise which gives rise to this new contention / basis is that Applicants have not as yet announced that they in fact intend to and can enhance the parking capacity and their staff in Beverly to deal with the increased vehicles in order to assure that all people expected at Beverly can be monitored within about 12 hours. The Bovino memo indicated that this was being looked into. See " Action Item" for G. Taibi on p. 4 of-Bovino Memorandum. But Mr. Fierce's February 3' request for Taibi's follow-up. documents (which were "due" 1/31/89) received' only a "none yet available" response. Until the Mass AG has had an opportunity to learn what Applicants have elected to do about both (1) the " load" and (2) the parking / staffing requirements to accommodate that " load," it cannot be faulted for undue delay in filing a sufficiently specific contention / basis. Even now, however, after formally acknowledging on page 1 of their Testimony No. 17 that a "more detailed" evaluation of monitoring " load" had been performed, the l _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- or
. Applicants provided only the following vague statement about ~ the state of their planning for' additional parking, staff, and' plans needed to accommodate the additional people expected in i Beverly: The facility, equipment and personnel additions i that resulted from this analysis will be reflected in a future revision of the SpMC Implementing procedures (Ip) 2.9 [ Radiological-Monitoring / Decontamination), 3.4 [ Monitoring Trailer Activation and Deactivation] and 3.5 [ Reception Center Activation and Operation]. It is not at all clear from this statement whether the Applicants have yet assessed what these " additions" are. It appears to the Mass AG that the Applicants may be trying to avoid having the Beverly parking / staffing issues addressed in this litigation because they know that they pose great difficulties for them. The Mass AG cannot exercise due diligence and wait any tonger for the Applicants to announce what their revised plans for parking / staffing in Beverly are; so we are filing this contention /ba'.is now. If anything, the basis is being filed early, not late, as the Applicants' plans for parking and staff to assist in parking and. directing vehicles have vet to be announced. In sum, as to the " Good Cause" factor, the Mass AG has exercised diligence on this issue and has acted as promptly as l can reasonably be expected under the confusing circumstances generated by the Applicants. This factor weighs in favor of the Attorney General. ] ) i
- 1..;
B. Availability of Other Means The Applicants' argument as to-this factor is ~ meritless. The "means"' referred to in this factor are those i which exist within the litigation process. 1 C. Sound Record 'l pages 4-6 of the Mass AG's motion contain a reasonably detailed outline of the testimony Dr. Adler will present if ] this contention is admitted. The Board-is very familiar with Dr. Adler and his credentials a transportation planner. Egg 'i Dr. Adler's resume, Attachment 1 to his NHRERp' testimony, fol. Tr. 7181. To add further detail, Dr. Adler wil'1 assess the number of vehicles which can park in the lots at the Beverly Reception Center and calculate, based on other information ) i available,.the turnover rate of vehicles in those lots. Based. on this turnover rate, he will provide reasonable estimates of the number of vehicles (and consequently peoole) which can be-processed through this facility in a 12-hour period. Based on these assessments, Dr. Adler concludes that it will take over l 2 13 hours to monitor all those the Applicants now expect to arrive at the reception center. D. petitioner's Interest Will Not Be Represented By Existino Parties The Applicants do not argue that the Mass AG's interests here will be represented by other parties to this litiaation. I
I l E. Broaden Issues /Delav Proceedings Adding one more basis to one contention, given the large number of contentions / bases being litigated at this time, will broaden the issues and extend these proceedings only i marginally. Dr. Adler's testimony can be filed in time, as can any rebuttal from the Applicants, for any cross examination to be folded into the ongoing schedule with little or no delay l resulting. III. The New Basis Does Not Raite Sub-Issues _ precluded By The Doctrine Of Res Judicata: And Even If The Board _liQlds Otherwise. The Main Contention / Basis Still Survives The simple answer to the Applicants' argument that two sub-issues raised in the late-filed contention / basis are precluded from further litigatian by the doctrine of Les judicata is that neither of these issues was " adjudged" in the sense required for res iudicata to preclude litigation of an issue. San Public Service Company of New Hampshirg, (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-3, 29 NRC 51, 56 (1989). The i P.I.D. paragraphs the Applicants point to -- 9.29 and 9.130 -- l did not specifically adjudge and resolve these issues. It also appears that only the "2.3 vs. 2.6" issue was " litigated" in 1 the sense required by the doctrine. This is not to say that i the Mass AG seeks to "re-litigate" this issue; he does not. The evidence presented previously is sufficient for the Board to rule on this issue now in the context of this contention / basis. (We do note that the reference in the contention / basis to "2.2" evacuating residents per vehicle is a typo and should read "2.3.") _i Even if the Board finds that the doctrine precludes. j litigation of these'sub-issues, it is clear that the -{ contention / bases sought to be filed here does not rely on them entirely, and it still stands without them. The basis asserts, j i first,.that_using the Applicants' own-20% calculation, the 1 Beverly parking, etc., is inadequate. The basis goes on to assert, however, that "the problem is even worse" becau, that calculation underestimates both the number of cars used by the permanent residents and the number of vehicles arriving. l belonging to the transient beach population. If the "even worse" aspect of the basis is stricken, the basis itself still survives as a challenge based on the Applicants own estimates. Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON l ATTORNEY GENERAL I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS By: Allan R. Fierce Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 l (617) 727-2200 DATED: May 18, '1989 1483n t_____
l n a i ri SEP <!8901'.1 New Hampshire Yankee Division Puenc seMee of New Hampshh INTRA COMPANY BUSINESS MEMO Subject OPTIONS FOR MOF TORING EVACUEES From D. BOVINO gtrict Date JANUARY 13, 1989 To D. TAILLEART Reference Based on recent discussions concerning the capabilities of the SPMC Reception Centers, meetings were held on Thursday, January 5, 1989 and Friday, January 6,1989, to discuss some monitoring options. The meet g - were attended by the following: g B. Aidikoff J. Bisson T. Callendrello R. Thompson J. Baer G. Taibi D. Bovino R. Cotter N, _eiwer (1/6 on1 PLANNING In light of the recent NH PID, it seems that the LILCO ALAB 905 decision was not supported by our Licensing Board and that a monitoring capability j of 20% was determined to be adequate. To support this position, however, licensing is requesting that the following concepts be added to the SPMC: ) Concept #1: Reception Centers for the first 12 hours will monitor those individuals requiring Congregate Care. Af ter that period, other members of the general public who wish to be monitored may come to one of the facilities. Concept #2: For the general public during the first 12 hours, direct them to take showers at their receiving location (i.e., friends, relatives). Further, however, the NH PID has very specific impacts on the planning seen by our board in NH for monitoring the 20% in tha SPMC. Specifically, the calculated number of evacuees requiring monitoring has been detennined by different methodologies for the two plans. The NH PID sets out the speci- ) fic calculational method that the board has accepted. Based on this, the same methodology was applied to the SPMC population figures and is provided l as Attachment 1. M/SS6396
s, L Licensing is requesting that the following concepts be added to.the SPMC: { Concept #3: l Planning for monitoring capabilities will be based on the popula-tion figures of 8667 plus 1152 special facility personnel monitored in their vehicles for North Andover and 10,610 plus.2155 special facility personne1' monitored in their vehicles for Beverly. j Concept #4: Planning' for parking, vehicle monitoring, registration and. l Reception Center staff also be based on the calculational methods provided in the NH PID and the population figures provided for Concept #3. Concept #5:.To supplement the decon capabilities at the Reception Centers, Lowell University, which has 270 showers, be used and planned for. OPTIONS ON MONITORING There exists several options for the SPMC to augment the current monitoring capabilities, as follows: 1. Increase the number of stations currently'available at our Reception Centers. To implement this option, it is estimated that North Andover may require-1 additional station and Beverly would require 4 stations based on the revised calculations. In the NHRERP'it was the. highest number of stations needed at l one facility which were applied to all 4 host communities therefore. both North Andover and Beverly may require 4 additional stations. All the necessary equipment and personnel to support these stations would be required as well as flow path changes and possibly re-positioning of the current trailer at Beverly. 2. Monitoring schools at the host facility. j This option is in effect creating a new Reception Center. The calculated number of evacuees requiring monitoring for these facilities would be 10,790 persons at Holy Cross College. thi's would require approximately 18 stations at~ Holy Cross.Using the~ cu The required number of stations for North Andover and Beverly, however, would still need to be augmented in this scenario as the sunrner population figures would then be the determining calculation. 3. Monitoring persons in their cars at a check point. To implement this option, it would be necessary to: a) Determine the adequate number of check points. b) Pre-select the location of the check points. c) Provide equipment to support monitoring at each of the check points, d) Provide personnel to man each check point. C/SS6396.1
C A major consideration to this option is its viability in inclement weather (i.e., hurricane initiating conditions). Further, staffing would require a shorter shift period, and therefore more personnel, as a 12 hour shift in the winter or rain with no shelter provisions would certainly be viewed as a hardship. 4. Adding a new Reception Center or consider using Lowell University as an overflow monitoring and decon fx111ty. The creation of a new Reception Center for the required additional stations using current planned equipment and the revised calculations would require all the necessary oersonnel, equipment (possibly one more trailer), facility use agreements and procedures to support its operation. This creates approximately the same number of monitoring stations but distributed over 3 facilities. Other benefits for issues of parking and the size of the queue into the facil1Nes may be offered in this option. However,~ the public information raaterial recently distributed will not be consistent in concept. 5. Using different monitoring equipment. To date, the most viabic alternative to equipment are portal monitors which allows a processing tiw of approximately 15 seconds per persen. Based on the IPM-7 instruments used onsite, it was calculated (see ) that the following number of Frisk Booth type monitors would be required at each Reception Center to monitor maximum number of evacuees in a'12 hour period. N. Andover - 8667 evacuees 3 Frisking Booth Monitors Beverly - 10,610 evacuees 4 Frisking Booth Monitors The use of the IPM-7 Gas Flow Proportional Counter or equivalent frisk booth type monitoring instrument would greatly reduce the number of personnel i required to staff the monitoring trailers and greatly reduce monitoring Drawbacks of using this instrument are initial costs, (about $35,000 j times. per unit) plus cost to retrofit the trailers and Operating Costs which include a continuous flow of counting gas through the instrument and weekly calibrations. The typical nas bottles used onsite, feed 2 units and last approximately 10 days. The esite maintenance includes daily checks and weekly calibrations. This schedule, however, may be adjusted for E-planning use. Additionally, there are several other frisking booth type monitors available which could be locked at for cost, sensitivity and speed. In discussiert with Chuck Martin at Pilgrim Station, they are currently using a proto-type Eberline PPM-1 plastic scintillation type portal monitor. They assume 12 seconds per evacuees and the cost of each unit is about $10,500. Using this information, it was calculated that we would need 3 monitors for both North Andover and Beverly. (See Attachment 3). mwansw a.
An additional consideration with this option is that we would be consistent with what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is currently using at another site. OTHER IMPACTS With each of the monitoring options, the impact of the revised planning basis on v3hicle monitoring, additional parking, Reception Center Staff and registra-tion requirements needs to be addressed in the planning. CONCLUSION To discuss the various planning concept changes and monitoring options, a workshop was held January 11, 1989. Attendees included: P. Stroup S. Everett B. Boyd T. Ca11endre11o D. Ta111eart G. Taibi M. Lewis D. Bovino B. Aidikoff it was detennined that while Licensing may include Concepts #1 and 2 presented above in their preparation of testimony, no plan change is required at this time. Furthennere, Concepts #3, 4 and 5 will be incorporated resulting in the adoption of the revised numbers for evacuees requiring monitoring at the Reception Centers and that the number of stations currently available will be increased (Monitoring Option #1). ACTION ITEMS D. Bovino: Recalculated special facility monitoring numbers using vehicle moni-toring time (s) provided by B. Aidikoff. (See Attachment 1 ) G. Taibi: Calculate and document the required number of vehicle monitoring, parking, Reception Center Staff and registration requirements, based on the new evacuees figures. (Due 1/13/89) McCormack/ Detennine the capability to install 4 additional stations at each Ta111eart: Reception Center. (Due 1/19/89) I. Turner: Develcp an outline of a plan for Lowell University's use as a supplemental decon facility. For now plan is to be of sufficient detail to support testimony preparation, (i.e., who to call, space provisions). (General info due to licensing 1/31/89) G. Taibi: Provide to D. Bovino first draft of letter to Lows 11 University explaining its use as a supplemental decon facility. (Due 1/13/89) B. Aidikoff: Check with M11etti re: public perception of telling people to shnver at reception location. cc: P. Stroup J. Ellis B. Boyd T. Grew R. McCormack T. Callendrello B. Aidikoff
l l I ATTACHMENT 1 DETERMINATION OF THE NUMBER OF EVACUEES TO BE MONITORED AT EACH RECEPTION CENTER Assumptions: (1) The towns of Amesbury, Merrimac and West Newbury go to North Andover; the towns of Salisbury, Newbury and Newburyport go to Beverly. (2) Peak Population Numbers were obtained from SPMC, Table 3.6-1. (3) Special Facility (Non-school), school and day care population numbers were obtained using the 12/88 Red Line of Appendix M. Surrrnary sheet is attached. (4) Special Facility evacuees, by procedure, are monitored in their vehicles and do not get processed through the monitcring trailers. (5) The Transit Dependent pcDulation figures were obtained from NHRERP, Vol. 6, ETE, Table 11-7. (6) Beach transient population figure was determined using data provided by E. Lieberman based on the 1987 cerial survey. See attached. An assumed factor of 50% was provided by B. Aidikoff. Calculations: . Key to Acronyms: TD - Transit Depende.it Population SF - Special Facility Populations (Non-School) 'S - Schools Populations ) DC - Day Care Populations j BT - Beach Transients l ) ERC - Evacuees to be Monitored at Reception Center (except SF pop.) l l Scenarie #1 - Winter l Applicable to North Andover and Beverly. I 20% x [ Peak Winter Pop - TD - SF - S - DC] plus 100% TO + 100% S + 100% DC = ERC plus 100% SF monitored in their vehicles. l M/SS6396.4
Scenario #2 -~Sunner A. - Applicable to North Andover due to no beach transients and peak population is midweek. 20% x [ Peak Summer Pop - TD - SF - DC) plus 100% TO~+ 100% DC = ERC plus 100% SF' monitored in their vehicles. B.. Applicable to Beverly due to a beach transient population and peak popula-20% x [ Peak Summer Population - TD - SF - 50% BT] plus 100% TD = ERC plus 100% SF monitored in their vehicles. Results: l Scenario #1 - Winter l North Andover = 20% x [21,974 - 730 - 1152 - 4145 - 753] plus 730 + 4145 + 753 = 8666.8 plus 1152 special facility personnel monitored in their vehicles. Beverly = 20% x [28,619 - 754 - 2155 - 5358 - 534] plus 754 + 5358 + 534 = 10,603.6 plus 2155 special facility personnel monitored in their vehicles. I Scenario #2 - Summer l North Andover = 20% x [30,068 - 730 - 1152 - 753] plus 730 + 753 = 6969.6 plus 1152 special facility personnel monitored in their vehicles. Beverly = 20% x [55,728 - 754 - 2155 - 4217] i plus 754 = 10,474.4 plus 2155 special facility personnel monitored in their vehicles. M/SS6396.5
l I-Conclu.s t ons: ' Assuming the following: 3600 sec/hr j 70 sec/ person frisk = 51 person per hour with current equipment 51 person per hour x 12 hours = 612 persons per 12 hours at one station. Therefore, using the highest calculated number for each Reception Center, which turns out to be the winter scenario: North Andover = 8667 i 612 -= 14.2 stations or 15 stations Beverly = 10,610 612 = 17.3 stations or 18 stations For the special facility populations at each Reception Center, there are 4 monitors assigned and 12 hours (or 720 mins.) in which to complete the moni-toring in the vehicles. Per B. Aidikoff, it takes approximately 1 minute to monitor an individual in a vehicle regardless of vehicle type.
- of SF monitors = # of evacuees x # min:.. Der evacuee desired time (mins.)
North Andover = 1152 x 1 720 = 1.6 or 2 monitors Beverly' = 2155 x 1 720 = 2.9 or 3 monitors The currently planned 4 monitors per Reception Center for the special faci-lity evacuees 1s seemingly adequate. M/SS6396.6
d'
SUMMARY
OF SPECIAL POPULATION FIGURES (Taken from the 12/88 Red Line of Appendix M) Soecial Facilities (Non-Schools) \\ North Andover Beverly SF - Ames 818 SF - N 262 SF - Merri 103 SF - Npt 1218 SF - WN 0 SF - Sal 185 H - Ames 63 H - Npt 156 SNI - Ames 110 SNI - N 44 SNI - Merri 38 SNI - Npt 193 SNI - WN 20 SNI - Sal 97 j Total 1152 Total 2155 Schools North Andover 8everly Ames 2288 N 2059 Herri 498 Npt 2730 WN 1359 Sal 569 Total 4145 Total 5358 Day Cares North Andover Beverly Ames 518 N 74 Herri 63 i Npt 374 WN 172 Sal _86 Total 753 Total 534 ) i \\ M/SS6396.7
l knendment 5 TA8LE 3.6-1 MAXIMUM EVACUATING POPULATION i Peak Population Permanent Suntner Sunrner Residents Midweek Weekend Host Ccmunity of North Andover Amesbury 14,258 Herrimac 19,359 17.454 4,420 West Newbury 6,079 5,242 _3.296 TOTAL g g 21,974 30.068 26,829 o Host Comunity of Beverly Salisbury 6,726 Newburyport 18,919 22,3h2 16,414 Newbury 23,481 22,077 5.479 TOTAL 10,476 11,349 28,619 52.876 55,728 TOTAL MASSACHUSETTS EPZ 50,593 82,944 82,557 NOTES: Numbers are derived from the Seabrook Station Evacuation Time S Traffic Management Plan Update, August 12, 1986, KLD Associates, Inc. and from the data compiled through the aerial survey of seacoast areas in Massachusetts and New Hampshire conducted July 18, 1987 by Avis Airmen of Braintree, Massachusetts. These figures are subject to update as part of-the continuous planning process. i 1 of 1 Revision 0 o
n. [, p i ( Table.11-7. Estimated Transit Requirements 1 1 1 A-1 i Bus People No. of Pass. Trips Total Buses Requiring Bus Per Per Bus Re-community Transit Routes Route Routa Iring cuired 'Amesbury 521 7 89 3 21 18 Merrimac' 145 2 87 3 6 5 Newbury 194 4 58 2 8 7 Newburyport. 388 5 93 3 15 13 Salisbury 172 5 41 2 10 9 West Newbury 64 3 26 1 3 3 Brentwood 63 2 38 2 4 3 East Kingston 30 0 18 1 1 1 Exeter 291 4 87 3 12 12 Greenland 187 3 75 3 9 7 Hampton 219 .8 33 2 16 8 Hampton Falls 62 3 25 1 3 3 Kensington 41 2 25 1 2 2 [ Kingston 63 0 15 1 5 5 \\ New Castle-60 1 60 2 2 2 Newfields 30 2 18 1 2 2 Newton 144 3 58 2 6 6 North Hampton 65 3 26 1 3 3 Portsmouth 638 7 109 4 28 22 Rye 64 5 15 1 5 5 Seabrook 172 4 52 2 8 6 -South Hampton 57 2 34 2 4 4 Strathan 63 4 19 1 4 4 TOTA 13: 3733 177 150 column Ernianatien Column Exulapation 1 From column 6 of Table 11-6 4 Col. 3/30 2 Given by State CDA's 5 Col. 2 x Col. 4 3 1.2 x Col. 1/ Col. 2 6 1.2 x Col. 1 /36, but 1 no. of routes Notes: The Town of Exeter will use four pick-up locations, rather than four bus routes. The Town of East Kingston will pick up people at their (* i homes. The Town of Newton and Seuth Hampton are provided ( more buses than required in order to limit transit ETE.
!i\\ ii1 8 t \\i iI j' jj\\k!!;!! l!\\ !ii!- ~ 1' ? iI r v e 5_ G p H 6 9_ 3 7 8 0 9 0 8 n 0 4 3 8 4 8 o 4 7 9 9 1 3 4 8 5 9 i e 2 9 t a 9 6 5 s / / 6 / 1 6 r 1 lu / / / e p / / / p 7 9 o 2 8 7 9 8 6 6 P 9 1 9 0 2 5 9 7 3 8 7 9 1 2 7 3 2 1 4 1 2 7 5 4 7 3 1 8 2 8 s t SA n E e i RA sn H ar CA d t E n 5 6 d B as 8 4 9 8 3 5 8 3 a 1 n t 9 4 9 2 R _ y sn 3 9 1 O r ee 5 2 2 2 1 8 4 6 1 1 s F o ei 8, t 7 2 n 2 e f g ys / / N oye on / 1 / / / / / / o y O bt l a ,) n a pr I 7 2 '4 p T weCmT l i 8 9 A ol E 8 0 w6 8 L dcn 9 5 2 6 3 5 0 e 6 2 m 7 9 1 1 U ki o 5 5 9 5 r P ahi 1 1 O eet s 5 2 n 2 P rV a t 2 o f B l n K u e s A p d n E 5 o i P 8 P s 7 o 8 9 e 0 5 2 5 rs 0 6 1 2 2 1 D 1 R 2 4 2 5 7 1 e 4 5 3 4 1 N / A 7 9 p 8 S 9 4 T 1 2 N U f O o C y E c L n C a I p N s u E k e V al c ec 5 3 c 2 o D Pi 8 2 4 0 8 6 0 5 9 5 6 4 8 0 0 3 N h 4 1 e 0 6, 5 7 1 E f e l M oV 4 1 8 c 1 8 2 6 2 2 EE rd / / i / / / / / / / h W eo e bi D mr 7 9 v 6 9 0 5 2 8 4 E ue 8 9 9 e T NP 9 8 1 4 0 5 0 7 g 1 1 1 0 9 3, 3 A a 1 M 1 4 r 6 3 9 3 3 I e T v S a E na no des' as ) hI h bt h h t S t n t y u r ne t ue r oe o od ol o St N i i S w N u t s o h o h n ae a dR dt cR c o l r ey n nr a a t u rt a. ao y ed e p pr Ai l y) Bn B m oo l p r k a a Pf n srh sy u o n n H hu I uc I r b o oh o kh cm bi u s r t t t h ac ao mww eb D Lo uto s e I O 3D p t 2D l
I ATTACHMENT 2' DETERMINATION OF REQUIRED NUMBER OF FRISK BOOTH TY TO MONITOR EVACUEES AT BEVERLY AND NORTH ANDOYER Assumptions: (1) Assume 5 seconds 'in' and 5 seconds 'out' of the mcnitor. (Note: the 5 seconds 'out' would overtap to the next eva-cuees 'in' time, therefore, only allow for 5 second tran-sition per evacuee.) (2) Assume 4 second turning time while being counted. (It is necessary to turn around to count the back.) (3) Assume 6-seconds counting time based on onsite counting times. Calculation: Total ceanting time = 15 seconds per evacuee =.25 min./ evacuee
- mins.
- Portal Monitors required = i evacuees x # evacuees desired time (mins.)
North Andover: Maximum evacute load = 8667 Desired time = 12 hours = 720 mins. 8667 x.25 mins./ evac. = 720 mins. 3.0 or 3 Frisk Booth Monitors = Beverly: Maximant evacues lead = 10,610 Desire time = 12 hours = 720 mins, 10,610 x.25 mins./ evac. = 720 mins. l = 3.7 or 4 Frisk Booth Monitors M/SS6396.8
.4 I l ATTACHMENT.3 DETERMINATION OF REQUIRED NUMBER OF PLASTIC SCINTILLATION TYPE PORTAL MONITORS 1 Calculation: Total counting time = 12 seconds per evacuee =.2 mins./evactee
- mins.
- Portal Monitors Required = # evacuees x # evacuees destred time (mins.)
North Andover: Maximum evacuee load = 8667 Desired time = 12 hours = 720 mins. 8667 x.2 = ~ 720 = 2.4 or 3 Portal Monitors Beverly: Maximum evacute load = 10,610 Desired time = 12 hours = 720 mins. 10,610 x.2 = 720 = 2.9 or 3 Portal Monitors M/SS6396.9
1 l I l ..,)h$I" 'N l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI-ON l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '89 MAY 22 P4 :49 Before the Administrative Judges: gg Xf 00CKi! C - Ivan W. Smith, Chairman FI AHi ' Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom ) In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL I ) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP) OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, _E T_ _A _L. ) ) (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) May 19, 1989 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Allan R. Pierce, hereby certify that on May 19, 1989, ! made service of the within REPLY OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO MASS AG'S MOTIOt! TO ADMIT LATE-FILED CONTENTION BASIS by first class mail or by delivering in hand (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 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 l m
- .)'
Ti
- Robert R. Pierce, Esq.
- Thomas 13. Dignan, Jr.,
Esq.- I Atomic' Safety.& Licensing Board Katherine Selleck, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray East West Towers Building ~ One International Place 4350LEast West' Highway Boston, MA 02110 Bethesda, MD-20814 '*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. 7 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 Newburyport, 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 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. Senato uordon J. Humphrey U.S. Senate One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Washington, DC 20510 concord, NH 03301 (Attn:~ Tom Burack) (Attn: Herb Boynton) l' l
p.c y 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 s 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 t e, Allan R. Fierce Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General-One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED: May 19, 1989 1. J}}