ML20140B168

Expresses Opposition to Radiological Emergency Response Plan.Plan Inadequate & Makes No Serious Attempt to Evacuate Endangered Citizenry

ML20140B168
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/29/1985
From:	Janetos D, Anthony Palmer, Jacqwan Walker HAMPTON, NH
To:	Sununu J NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
References
CON-#186-809 OL, NUDOCS 8601230471
Download: ML20140B168 (2)

Text

. .

o , _ . _ .

.. ., io .

hj' ]own ofNamplo~n

, .. #r ommo ..

ms z l I

- g

'86 3 21 P4 :10 x

350/l2 Ynn/GerSarj! -

1636 -1966 October 29, 1985 Honorable John Sununu

..( ~ Q h3 '0 l--

Governor'sOffe'c U$ k9 bY' b 2"* .b O 900 State House Concord, New Hampshire 03301

Dear Governor Sununu:

The undersigned members of the Hampton Board of Selectmen wish to state their reservations about the adequacy of the Radiological Emergency Response Plan. These reservations were publicly presented at a meeting of the Board on October 3,1985, a meeting scheduled between new members of'ue Board and local department heads, but which was attended by officials from New Hampshire Civil Defense.

Our original questions about de plan concerned population estimates.

We understand dat the figure of 85,000 peak population has been revised to 110,000, a move in the right direction but still lower than traffic counts and local business figures indicate. Perhaps our best comment on the population figures is that they can only be an estimate and they will vary widely from day to day, especially on sunrner utekends.

Other problems remain. Very serious are the estimates of the number of personnel required to effect an orderly' evacuation. Each of our department heads agreed that he lacks suf ficient manpower to carry out the plan, but each has been told.to request additional help from the State.

Such advice appears to have been given to each town in the zone; obviously there will not be enough workers to go around. As a collary to the numbers required, there are no provisions tot securita lor workers' homes and families nor does there seem to be provision for specialized equipment ouer uan dosimeters. It is unclear if the count on dosimeters is a State total cr a town by town total, as our radiological officer said uat he could obtain all the equipment needed in a matter of a few hours. Is more protective apparatus, such as suits or gloves or breathing apparatus, needed?

Another serious consideration is the lack of communication and coordination in moving school children out of the area. On October 3 the statement was made that Civil Defense is working wiu school officials; B601230471 851029 DR ADOCK 05 j3 136 I.)hmmunnet L4 %nyton, Year knydire 0%n Jel co3-n6 6766 'Q$0b

' ,; -d; . .

~

. .....~.. ..

" * - l

,

• October 19, 1985 *

\

Honorable John Sununu s

'Page Two .,

i out ' local superktendent had received a copy of the plan de previous day.

l There are many problems; num6er of bu4es available (for .16 towns),

availability of sufficient 6ss driver 4, traffic problem 4 caused by *p' 1 parents tryhg to get to schools to pick up their own children, formal signed agreements with bus companies. An added problem win buses is -

the. number of non-auto ownkg residents who would need transportation,

> and vacationers who are at he beach without automobiles.

}

There seem to be severe inconsistencies in the amount af wa~rning '

time available to accomplish evacuation. Can commanities rely'on d e i

18-hour figure that was presented h August as the time we would have to act? The maximum figure given to move the population out (7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> l

'and 40 minutes) is given for a sumner population on a bad weather day;,

j may we suggest that a sunner population on a very hot Sunday is'likely '

i to be larger and pose potentially more traffic problems, both' with

! overheated cars and tempers?

Y l

R are not qualified to connent on the adequacy of most buildings on '

Hampton Beach for sheltering, if that should be de preferred action. +

1 Howver, the plan completely ignores that there may bcuousands of *

beach goers clad only in bathug suits during a radiological 4ccident. .

i.

} Last and vitally important is the problem of roads leadhg out of j Hampton. The Church Street access to Route 51 and thence to Route 101 is inadequate for the " normal" non-panicked popalation. Route 1 is alreadycuer-loadedwithdailywintertraffic. All towns in the area

, will rely on these routes to get to 1-95; it simply cannot be done safetyorquickly. Nuclear plant owners and regulators have known for over six years that evacuation plans would be necessary; durhg dat time no l seriouswork has been done on Seacoast roads nor do there seem to be .

plans to improve these roads significantly.

in conclusion, his plan seems to be written primarily to justify '

.J the requirement that a plan exist rather than to make a serious attempt to evacuate an endangered citizentry. We have touched on what seem to

, us, to be primary and basic weaknesses. Added to these is the general

distrust of our citizens towards the owners of the plant, occasioned by j bconsistencies between promises made and results delivered during the

construction process.

& would respectfully urge that you consider not approving uis l plan; but if you must, that you do with the understandhg dat you are i opposing ut reconnendation of the majority of the Hampton Board of

Selectmen. Thank you for your consideration.

1

~

cc: Richard Strome W Y.t.3AV AI"Ctatl o

Gerarid Coogan l William Cahill. ..~ U,. .D ^ "'

'Rcbert Fre.ston John R. Walker V

tate resentatives  ;

• 6 x Ansell W. Palme ,

l be*MG $. >>.L & c ) . Y Dona R. Janet .i

___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __