ML20077P167

Contentions on Radiological Emergency Response Plan. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20077P167
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/09/1983
From:	Holmes G, Randall D HOLMES & ELLIS, SEABROOK, NH
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20077P158	List: ML20077P153 ML20077P167
References
NUDOCS 8309130310
Download: ML20077P167 (16)

Text

.-

s. ..

00CKETE0 s U5N.1C

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 SEP 12 Pi :21 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C TE C?

' ~--

U. L PE 'S '

T , LL .

• ' "l

. . )

In The Matter Of: )

Public Service Company of ) Docket Nos. 50-443 New Hampshire et al ) 50-444

'(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 )

)

TOWN OF SEABROOK -- CONTENTIONS ON.THE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN

. The-Town of Seabrook, designated as an interested municipality, hereby submits the following contentions to the Radiological Emergency Response Plan prepared for the Town.

1. The local emergency plans are based upon inaccurate or misleading infor-mation and thus cannot assure that the public will be protected in the event of a radiological emergency.

Basis: According to.a report by Alan M. Voorhees & Assoc. prepared for the NRC (hereinafter the Voorhees Report), local officials feel that the numer-ical strength of the police. forces as stated in the local plan is invalid. One example is the Seabrook plan, which assigns significant responsibilities to a Deputy Fire Chief and to a RADEF Officer. There are no such persons or positions.

Similarly, plan references to population size are misleading, as in Seabrook, which reflects a mean seasonal peak population of 33,683, when there can be

. 30,000_ people on the beach on a busy summer day.

i

2. The local emergency response plan for Seabrook, which is within the plume exposure emergency planning zone does not assure that "each principal response l

B309130310 830909 i PDR ADOCK 05000443 PDR O

t.

" ._2 e 4.. .. ,

. g , ..;

o-2 organization has'staf f' to resp ond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis," 10 C.F.R. ~ 8. 50.47(b)(1), in the following respects:

a. : There is no assurance that necessary. police and fire department personnel will be reachable or capable of responding promptly in the event of a radiological l emergency.

r

. Basis: According'to the Voorhees Report, at any given time, much of the-

~

' police force and fire department will be unreachable or out of the area, and thus incapable ~of responding'promptly_to an emergency. There are only twelve full time firemen in Seabrook. In addition, the. utility has solicited fire depart-ment employees co go to'the site.and assist during an emergency. Thus, they and anygpolicemen who respond to'this solicitation will be unavailable to.

fulfill their~ responsibilities under the plan.

b. -Under the local plans, the highway departments are responsible for

. assuring a successful, smooth evacuation by clearing roads of ,now, etailed cars, 9

and, accidents and otherwise assuring that the roadways remain open for evacuation.

The local highway departments do not have sufficient personnel or resources to

, fulfill' these responsibilities, and the common arrangements for ad hoc assist-ance by private ' contractors are -insufficient to assure _ that these responsibilities

~ 'will be met.

Basis: Seabrook-has only _ntae people in the highway department. There is no assurance that the_ private firms will be available in the event of an emer-gency. 'On their face, these resources are inadequate to perform the tasks

~

assigned to highway department personnel. In addition, the road agent is to report to the EOC during an emergency, so he may be delayed or unable to perform his-evacuation route maintenance. responsibilities. Moreover, the highway agent ihas stated that he has reviewed both the tasks required in the plan and he has 7

W.j ._ j ~~ ' , , . , . . = , .. ,

. 3

' concluded thatithe resources and arrangements to obtain private assistance are

inadequate-to assure that.the responsibilities will be met in the event of an

~ -

emergency.

c.. Under the plans, the local fire department is responsible for such tasks as' assisting in monitoring the evacuation, for decontamination of affected

. individuals, operating and maintaining the EOC or the public alert system (PAS),

and-assessing emergency transportation needs. The Seabrook Fire Department does not have sufficient personnel or resources to fulfill these responsibilities.

Basis: Seabrook has only twelve full time firemen, with twenty-three on call, and-the utility has solicited fire department personnel'to assist at the site in;the event.of an emergency, so they may not be available to full their

. plan responsibilities. To the extent that the plan relies'upon volunteers, there~is no assureance that the personnel will be reached or available in the event of an emergency. Even if the volunteers respond, however, the personnel

'and resources will be inadequate to perform their tasks. Moreover, the fire chief-in Seabrook has reviewed the tasks for which the fire department is responsible and has stated that-his resource's are inadequate to meet those respons'ibilities. 'And the'Voorhees Report indicates that officials have stated concern over the insufficient number of tiremen.

I' d. There is no assurance that local emergency response personnel will be reachable or that they will be able to respond soon enough to assure protection lof the public health and safety.

Basis: The Selectmen are given a great deal of responsibility under the response plan, yet they are only part-time officials who may have.other full time jobs outside the Town. Also, the positions of Selectmen, being an elected L

L '_

[ ._ s% *

• 4 position,11s continually changing from year to year and the ability to learn and train for the responsibilities under the plan is seriously jeopardized.

A-good. example is shown'in the Seabrook plan where Walter Randall is listed as Selectman several times-in the' emergency procedure-section. He has

' resigned'as Selectman and has been replaced by anather person.

e. 'The Seabrook plan does not provide for adequate backups or alternates for impo,rtant positions'in'the event that assigned personnel are not available.

Basis: In Seabrook, there are no alternatives listed in any of the posi-tions other than police chief. Unless alternatives are specified, the emergency response may break down if any key personnel are unavailable. Moreover, alter-natives must be identified toLassure that each organization is capable of providing. twenty-four hour per day emergency resperse. NUREG-0654.

3. The local emergency response plan for the Town of Seabrook does not adequately provideEfor " notification, by the licensee, of State and local _

response organizations and for notification of emergency response. personnel by all organizations," 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(5), in the following respects:

a. Provision for notification of the town emergency response organizations l and emergency response personnel is inadequate in that it does not assure nat l-L key personnel can be reached since in most cases key personnel are contacted by telephone, which will be unreliable in the event of an accident. Back-up provisions.for. radio contact are also insufficient because they cannot assure that the personnel can be reached. In each instance, there must be a dedicated

. telephone line from the initial contact point to locations where the relevant key personnel will definitely be available.

~- m, - - . . - ,,+.--,-e-. - --,_,u , , - , ,-,,~a-- - , , . , - - - - , - - y - , ---

-5 '

l y ~

a /

.[f' L:- -. ,

~ Basis: -In'Seabrook,[theLonly communications link between the Police

. .. ~ . . ~

, _ JDispat'cher.and'some' key-personnel;isiby undedicated. telephone line. -The~accd-

dent;at Three'Mileilsland demonstrated that

an' emergency will very quickly y resulttin jammed { telephone lines'such that non-dedicat'ed lines cannot be relied-

+

'uponifor essential emergency response communication.

L4. ~ Procedures to provide early notification and clear instruction to the L populace 'within the ' plume exposure pathway EPZ,- 10 0.F.R. ' 50.47(b)(5) , are s finadequate in that:

1."iTheLprimary means of notifying the public, the:public alert system -

L(PAS), which'is to-consist.of sirens, mobile public-address systems, and tone

. activated radios, has not Jyet been designed, so that it cannot possibly support

alfinding of

compliance with this. requirement.- Among other things, it is impossible to determine the range ~.or effectiveness of the equipment =that will

[be' employed,'to determine whether the sirens will be installed in appropriate

~

locations:or provide.adequateicoverage under all conditions,' including adverse weather.

2. -There has been no attempt by any of~the emergency response organizations 1to determinecor, establish the time required for notifying and providing-prompt

instruc'tions to the: public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ. NUREG-0654 at <45. - ,

t 3. .The plansLdo not. provide for bilingual messages for the large numbers .

=of French-speaking. individuals who are often in the area in lar'ge numbers.

I Basis: 'The basis for this contention is the nonexistence of the essential information in the local plan as well as the underlying requirement for an ade-quate notification system. An additional basis is local experience with the

~

4

,,?,, - , , ~ , , , . . . _ . - - . , , . - _ _ i. . , ~.,,_-..,...m--..m... - _ . . ..-. . _ . . . . . ~ . _ . . ~ . - , . - . . , . . , . _ . . _ , - - - - - - -

6

,, s Userious language b'arrier, which is.so. serious that many people in the area cannot' read a menu or. order a meal, much less respond to an emergency notifica-tion.

The local plan does not adequately assure protection of the public health 5.

and safety' in that they make no provision for -dealing with the serious language barrier faced by the large numbers of non-English speaking people often in the area and the' difficulties that arise from that language barrier. The 1anguage barrier creates behavior problems that would seriously hamper the

~

emergency response, rendering an orderly and safe evacuation impossible.

At a minimum, all relevant communications and informational material must Jbe in both English and French. Emergency response personnel who may have to deal

-witir ncn-English speaking people must be fluent in French, and all such person-

.nel must'be trained in handling t'he behavioral difficulties that may arise as a result of the language. barrier.

Basis: In order to assure that people are adequately protected through sheltering, evacuation, or any other means that is found to be required, it is

.necessary to communicate with them and to obtain.their cooperation. Experience with French speaking visitors indicates that many do not understand English well enough to understand communications in English, and that this difficulty often gives rise.to fear and hostility that would' seriously hamper an emergency response effort. This is particularly important since many French speaking visitors. arrive in the area in buses, which leave during the day, and have

.no; independent-means of transportation. Thus, they depend entirely upon guid-ance and actual-transportation provided by the emergency response personnel.

NUREG-0654 requires that evacuation time estimates consider behavior, but the

~

local plan,' including any evacuation time estimates contained within them, do not do so.

L

'^

o . _

7~

6. The'16 cal plan fails to demonstrate the existence of adequate provi-

'sions'for " prompt communications among irincipal response organizations to emergency personnel and to 'the public",10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(6), in that:

l '. The. emergency communications development. plan is not yet complete in Seabrook.

2. Nondedicated telephone links relied upon for communication are inade-queate.

3. Plans do not include adequate provisions for communication with non-English speaking people who may oe in'the area.

Basis: The basis of this contention.is the fact that the plans states that the emergency communications plan is incomplete. 'In addition, the Town relies heavily upon nondedicated telephone' lines for crucial communications between

-the EOC and such crucial organizations as the schools, the Rockingham County Dispatch, the police department, the New Hampshire State Patrol, and the Emergency Broadcast System.

7. . The local emergency plan does not provide for an adequate range of

-protective actions,'10 C.F.R. 8 50.47(b)(10), because it contains no means of relocation or other protection for those with special needs, those without private transportation, school children, or persons confined to institutions or elsewhere for health or other reasons. Moreover, the resources now available to the Town for these purposes are inadequate to provide a reasonable assurance that the public will be protected in the event of an accident.

Basis: The basis for this contention is the absence from the plan of any such provisions, coupled with the regulatory requirement to develop an adequate I

protection in.the event of a radiological emergency. The plan contains no l I

I

, : :W- ,n. -

+- ,

3 -

8

'DJ >

c 5

7

. : specifics'concerning the actions ~that will~be taken'or the resources avail-lable.'for those actions. lRather'..it simply states that internal procedures,will

., -eventually be developed to deal with i this problem-and that transportation-

~

deficiencies:will be=taken care ~of. 'In.many" cases there is a telephone' number

to call;for.those without private. transportation who need. relocation assist-ance.--Such'a provision is inadequate not-only because of the vulnerability of

, ~ telephone systems in the. event of~an emergency, but because even if the telephone works :there is no: assurance that'the assistance will be available to all who

.need it. ,

' In addition,.there are not.enough~ school buses available to allow evacua-

-tion with"in'a: reasonable. time. 1[n Seabrook, the children go to schools in many (other towns. The school buses are-provided by'a private company in shifts, but z

therelis no-priority plan forcu'se of the buses, or the number-of shifts that

. will.be nee'ded.in the' event of an evacuation.

'" LThe :la'ck' off special transportation- arrangements is particularly important Ebecause of the large' numbers-of elderlyfpersons in the area, particularly in

adult mobile home/ parks:andEthe large numbe'rs of one-car families where one spouse and dhildren:are at home without transportation during the day..

~

8. The plan does'not'contain adequate' guidelines for the choice of cprotective actions or/information on 'which the choice of protective actions

'could'b'e based in the event of an emergency. 10 C.F.R. 8 50.47(b)(10).

g Basis: The Seabrook plan contains no information concerning the effective-

. ness of various ' protective actions in potential accident situations. In particular, :the) plan provides no basis for judging the effectiveness of shelt-

ering as a protective action. There is no information concerning the ability s

~e,-,..,-.-.,,,,,.,r,-.-- - , , , . , _ , - , _ - ,

i

. : 9 .

.of the various. types of structures to provide shelter against radiation expos-

-ure, the conditions under which some structures would be acceptable and others would not, or the conditions under which sheltering must be abandoned in favor Lof evacuation. There is also no assessment of the ability shelter those with-out easy access to any form of shelter, particularly transients in recreation areas and on the beaches.

9. The local. plan fails to meet the. requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 50.47'(b)

-(10) in that:

1. It contains no maps of evacuation routes, predictions of the time required for evacuation, location of relocation centers or chelter areas, all of which.are essential-for an adequate emergency plan.

' 2. ~It does not make adequeate provision for notifying and providing follow-up information to those segments of the population that are in recreation areas or otherwise without easy access to television or radio.

3. There has been no attempt to estimate or project traffic capacities for different routes-for evacuation under various conditions and in various seasons. ,

4. The plan fails to designate any traffic or access points for trdffic control'. Thus, it is not possible to determine either whether the traffic control plan is sufficient, and it is,not possible to determine the number of personnel needed to implement the plan.

5. ~The plan does not adequately provide for registering o'r monitoring of evacuees.

Basis: The basis for this contention is the underlying regulatory require-ment the provisions of NUREG-0654, particularly II. J-10, and the absence from the local plan of the information described in the contention.

L

_;- -ley -

10. ~The ocalplandoesnotadeduahelyprovidefor(r;equestingand.

effectively using assistance resources, incluain'giprivate resources as well s

.the~ resources of other governmental _ entities. 10 C.F' R. 8 50.47(b)(3) .

Basis: Although the plan provides that the town may seck outside assist-ance'for various purposes, including' transportation and material deficiencies, there has been no assessment of the scope and extent of aid that may be needed, nor-are,there any explicit written agreements to confirm the arrangement and the availability of resources. Although the town will rely upon the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency to fulfill many of these needs, there are no specific agreements to that effect, and there has been no deliniation of how the agency

-will fulfill this role. According to the Voorhees Report,.the local officials do not view reliance upon mutual aid agreements with surrounding localities to be of any use because all localities will be facing the same difficulties and will'be unable to provide the-requested assistance.

11. The local plan does not fulfill the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 8 50.47 (b)(7)-in that it does not identify "the principa'l points of contact with the news media for dissemination of information during And emergency," including the physical location or locations for such contact.

Basis: The basis for this contention is the'regulatdry provision and the fact that the points of contact have not yet been established, coupled with the fact that the town's plan calls for identifying these points during the emergency.

12. The current state of emergency planning and preparedness do not permit a finding'of reasonable assurance that if an evacuation is necessary it can be carried out in a manner that will assure protection of the public health and safety in that both local conditions and aspects of the emergency plan will

m ,

fy 7

+ '

..,y _ i' ,

11 ,

~

j _ .

~.

m 91 <

' result:.in_famikiesbeing.'scatteredin.various-areas. The' families will~ clog-7the evacuation routesiand disrupt the. evacuation by attempting to reunite before

- _ proceeding to evacuate. -

Bas'is: There are-many,different' actividies in the recre'ational areas, m

' _' including = staying s

. on the .. beach, swimming, -shops, and the like. Families often 7 split up to pursue'their: separate. interests, agreeing to rendevouz later.

Parentsiwill:not.' depart without gathering their families together. lIn addition,

'the,chiidren' attend school's'throughout the area, often.with relocation centers.

4

, ~different.from those thatltheir parents would be sent.to. This may cause much

. Jconfusioniand: panic. -Parents can reasonably be expected to attempt to pick up itheir' children from the' schools,:or to return to the EPZffrom the relocation-

< center.when their children'do not show up, although this would disrupt an orderly evacuation..

l2'.; The: local p1'ans.and-their evacuation time estimates do not adequestely

. account for the-crowds atethe'Seabrook dog ~ track.

Basis: :There may be as many as five:thousand.at an event at the Seabrook

" " ' ~

dog track at'the~same time as there is a large crowd at the beaches. The dog

~

track' crowd would? hamper evacuation, particularly along Route 107, where it is b ' of tenJ nearly impossible eventto get out of a local driveway during heavy b

-traffic.' ~

- 3. : Many'of the evacuation routes are narrow and would be blocked by an L

-  ; accident1 or.a stalled car.

(. -

-Basis: Route 286 is'a two lane road where the shoulder is commonly used t

by traffic'during busy periods. Since there is no place for a car to go if

~

there is an accident or breakdown, it would clog either the shoulder of the e

L.s..

. s 12 I

.d

-roadway. .Thehoadalsosuffersfromtwoseriousbottlenecksatbridgeswhere three lanes funnel into less-than-two. Police traffic control is necessary at

the intersection of Route 286'and lA'..along the shoulder of 286,-and at the

~ intersection of Route 286 and Washington Street.

~

Similar problems exist with respect to many evacuation routes.

-4. In order to assure a safe,' prompt, and orderly evacuation in case one

~

is ultimately called for,'the' emergency plans must provide for notification of all emergency response personnel and implementation of traffic control measures

- before or' coincident.with any public announcement of an event at the reactor that f' alls into any of the emergency action levels.

l Basis: The. experience _at Three Mile Island demonstrated that public evacuation will begin soon after an announcement of an unusual condition at'the reactor,: even when the . utility and the Commission are attempting to assure the

-public:that the reactor poses no danger. Under these plans, this premature evacuation would occur.before traffic. control measures were in place, clogging

' the' evacuation routes and making.it difficult for traffic control personnel to reach the control points'and implement the ' controls, thereby delaying or

~

preventing. implementation of the' controls and significantly hindering.the evacuation.

5.1 The$Seabrook plan has no host community so that evacueas will have no idea where to go, no assurance that they will be able to rendevouz with their families and' loved-ones,'and the evacuation will be chaotic.

s. ' Basis- 'According to the town's plan. there is no host community. In fact, nDurham, New Hampshire' refused to serve as a host community for Kensington. This s

0

} , , ,wc-;, v, , ,e, 4- ee- - -, ,w..,-%+ -,--,v.wv v--. .--r-- -v-w = e+-- -m= -~-e* -v-*- t- ea<

L. #-

13 l-

! indicates that;not only will surrounding communities not be helpful they may 1be-hostileitoEevacuees whom they see as contaminated and whom they do not want to have: in their midst.

H . 6. J The. emergency plan'.does not.adequeately account-for poor driver behav-

_1or..which can'be expected'to hamper a safe and orderly evacuation.

Basis: .Any orderly evacuation depends upon the public being willing to

'_l respond.to traffic controls and other directions by public officials. Under ordinary circumstances, drivers. consistently disobey such controls, with the result being gridlockiin downtown rush hour situations and near collapse of automobile transportation networks. . These driving h'abits arise from the determination.of the. driver to as'sure his.or her own advantage regardless of the damage'to others or to the good of all. The presence of only a few such drivers'would: seriously hamper an evacuation by disrupting traffic controls

~

and increasing the liklihood of automobile accidents.

13. The local plan does.not contain adequate arrangements for medical

services. for: contaminated. injured individuals. 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(12) in that:

L1. - In manyl instance's the ' towns rely on hospitials that are either within

~ the plume exposure emergency planning zone or.in Boston.~-

-Basis: !The Seabrook plan provides for care for ill or injured persons who.are suspected or known to be contaminated at the Portsmouth Hospital, the-

~

Exeter HospitalLand Brigham and Womans Hospital. The first two hospitals are located'within the plume exposure emergency, planning zone and can reasonable

be expected.to.close down and transfer'its own patients and staff somewhere

~

'els'e during_an emergency. The_Brigham and. Womans: Hospital is located over

_ fifty miles awap in-Boston and transportation to this remote 1.ocation with

a

, 14-attendant traffic' congestion and delay would seriously jeopardize the effect-iveness.of this plan.

Respectfully submitted.

TOWN OF SEABROOK By Its Attorneys-HOLMES.& ELLS

/, f Septembgr 9 1983 By: (12t_/ & !. $

Gag W. Imes' 47 Wint cunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842 (603) 926-6162 Interested' Municipality Representative for the Town of Seabrook

. $/M W f%dW Diana L.-Randall O

e e

k' I -

r ,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Nf/50 I certify that on September 9, 1983, copies of CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF SEABROOK CONCERNING THE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY EVACUATION RESPONSE PLAf8)eWP 12 P1 served by first-class mail or as otherwise indicated on the following:

~

• Helen Hoyt, Esq. ' Chairperson Robert A. Backus, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 111 Lowell Street [CCb[hvY"-

s m cs Panel . Manchester NH 03105 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.

R.K. Gad, III, Esq.

• Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Ropes and Gray l Administrative Judge 225 Franklin St.

- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Boston MA 02110 U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Comission Washington DC 20555 Dr. Mauray Tye, President Sun Valley Association

• Dr. Jerry Harbour 209 Summer Street Administrative Judge Haverhill, MA 01830 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.

Washington DC 20555 Robert G. Perlis, Esq.

William F. Patterson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Executive Panel Legal Director l'

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Washington DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Anne Verge,' Chair Board Panel Board of Selectmen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Town Hall South Hampton NH 03842

~

Washington DC 20555

• Docketing and Service Jo Ann Shotwell, Esq.

.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington DC 20555 Department of the Attorney General 1 Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Town Manager's Office Boston MA 02108 Town Hall - Friend St.

. Amesbury MA 01913 . John B. Tanzer Town of Hamoton Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman 5 Morningside Drive

. Board of Selectmen Hampton NH 03842 Town of Newbury Newbury MA 09150 Edward F. Meany Town of Rye

- Rep. Roberta C. Pevear 155 Washington Road Drinkwater Road Rye NH 03870 Hampton Falls NH 03844 David R. Lewis, Esq.

Phillip Ahrens, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

. Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State House, Station #6 Washington DC 20555 Augusta ME 04333

F .

9 1

Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor Letty Hett, Selectman City Hall Town of Brentwood-Newburyport MA 0.1950 RFD Dalton Road

. Brentwood NH 03833 Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman -

Board of Selectmen Sandra Gavutis Town of Salisbury MA 01960 Town of Kensington RFD 1 Diana P. Randall East Kensington NH 03827 70 Collins Street Seabrook NH 03874 Diana P. Sidebotham R.F.D. 2 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Putney.VT 05346 U.S. Senate Washington DC 20510 Donald E. Chick (Attn: Tom Burack) Town Manager 10 Front Street Selectmen of_ North Hampton Exeter NH 03833 Town of North.Hampton New Hampshire 03862 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey l Pillsbury Street George Dana Bisbee, Esq. Concord NH 03301 Edward L. Cross, Jr., Esq. -(Attn: Herb Boynton)

Asst' Attorney Generals State House Annex Concord NH 03301-Eric N. Small Administrative Assistant

• Express Mail 9

.