ML20151A836

Reply of Town of West Newbury to Responses of Applicant & NRC Staff to Intervenors Contentions Re Seabrook Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20151A836
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/17/1988
From:	Mizner J WEST NEWBURY, MA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#388-6747 OL, NUDOCS 8807200136
Download: ML20151A836 (8)

Text

r "

ff_ .

June 17, jB8 c'YOb

y.  %

UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA gggp(6,

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DoCKEUNG &

ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BOARD g W j $ eg[cn g D Vto In thn Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket No. 50-444-OL NEW IIAMPSilIRE, g_t; a_1. ) (Of f-site EP)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 )

)

REPLY OF Tile TOWN OF WEST NEWBURY TO RESPONSES OF THE APPLICANT AND Tile NRC STAFF TO INTERVENORS' CONTENTIONS CONCERNING Tile SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACilUSETTS COMMUNITIES The Town of West Newbury files the following replies to the responses of the applicant and the NRC staff to the Town of West

'Newbury's contentions:

Reply Concernina Contention 1.

The Town maintains that the contention, together with the statedibasis, which.may be incorporated as part of the contention, provides sufficient specificity to afford the other parties suff.icient notice of the issue which the Town seeks to litigate. Insofar as the applicant and the staff oppose the contention on the ground that it fails to set forth a proper basis for challenging the rebuttable presumption of 10 CFR sec.

50.47 (c) (1) (iii) (B) , the Town adopts and refers to the Reply of the Massachusetts Attorney General concerning its first six contentions, filed this date.

Esolv Concernino Contention 2.

Insofar as the applicant and the staff oppose the contention on the ground that it fails to set forth a proper basis for 8807200136 080617 -

ADOCK 05000443 pg PDR G PDR;

e; '

challenging the rebuttable presumption of 10 CFR sec.

50. 4 7 (c) (1) (iii) (B) , the Town adopts and refers to the Reply of the Massachusetts Attorney General concerning its first six contentions, filed this date.

Reolv Concernina Contention 3.

Mode 1 of the SPMC does require the participation of local officials. Thus the position of the applicants and the staff that notification of the selectmen or any other officials is not necessary to implement the SPMC is ill-founded.

Reolv Concernina Contention 4.

Since the SPMC makes no provisions for New Hampshire Yankee ORO involvement in snow removal, this is plainly an area where local response is necessary. Given the New England weather, the possibility that a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station requiring immediate evacuation of the Town could occur during or immediately after a major snow storm cannot be ignored in determining whether the SPMC provides a basis for the findings of adequacy required by 10 CFR sec. 50. 47 (a) , (b) or (c) (1) . In this contention, the Town challenges the assumption of NUREG-0654 I.D.l.c that assumes that local officials will have the resources sufficient to implement snow removal in the event of an emergency at Seabrook Station requiring an immediate evacuation of the entire Town during or after a major snowstorm. A town-wide immediate evacuation is an emergency far different from any the Town has faced in the past or is reasonably likely to have to  :

I l

face in the future absent a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station requiring such an evacuation. Thus, the issue is not whether the Town has "a problem of its own making" with snow r e m o v a ') (applicant's response, p.239), but whether the SPMC is deficient in that it fails to make adequate provisions for onow removal in the absence of the Town's ability to do so using its best efforts and, thereby, fails to meet the requirements of 10 1

CFR sec. 50. 47 (a) , (b) or (c) (1) .

Reolv Concernino Contention 5.

The Town of West Newbury was not a party to the hearings concerning the NHRERP, and should not be precluded from raising issues concerning the Seabrook ETE in these proceedings to which it is a party. The conclusion of the applicant that a more than 100% increase in the estimated number of vehicles would not cause any'mean'ingful alteration in ETE's is simply an unsupported conclusion which does not obviate the need to litigate the issue the Town seeks to litigate in this contention.

Renly ConcerD_ina Contention 6.

The Town of West Newbury was not a party to the onsite proceedinga and should not be precluded from litigating the adequacy of the notification system, which is also an essential 1

component of offsite response measures.

Roolv Concernino Contention 7.

Notwithstanding the applicant's assertion that the "SPMC does not depend upon the personnel and resources of governmental l l

l

4_

entities for implementation" (applicant's response, p.243), Mode t.

1 of the SPMC does require the participation of governmental entitles. Therefore the last sentence of contention 7 should remain.

The staff contends that basis 2.C is inadequate for failure to describe the critical intersections at which significant traffic congestion can reasonably be assumed should evacuation be required. While this may be viewed as an issue.for discovery, the Town would clarify that basis as follows: Those intersections include the intersections of the Page School driveways and Route 113, Stewart St. and Route 113, the Children's Castle driveway and Route 113, Bridge St. and Route 113, Coffin St. and Route 113, Garden St. and Route 113 and Crane Neck St. and Route 113.

Reply Concernina Contention 8.

The Town maintains that the contention, together with the stated bases, which may be incorporated as part of the contention, provides sufficient specificity to afford the other parties sufficient notice of the issues which the Town seeks to litigate.

Both the applicant and the staff contend that the bases lack sufficient particularity. While this may be viewed as an issue for discovery, the Town would clarify those bases as follows:

1) As to basis 1: The roads subject to flooding include part of River Road (including the area from Worth's Lane to Coffin Street); part of Ash Street (including the aree # rom

- Middle Street to Montclair Road) ; the lower ends of Church and Bridge Streets near the Rocxs Village Bridge. Part of Ash Street between. Middle Street and Montclair Road is also of' .. closed in-the winter due to snow. Roads that may be rendered impassable to ,

regular vehicles due to snow and ice include Illsley Hill Road, Montclair Road and Gunner's Hill.

2) As to basis 2: The Town of West Newbury was not a party to the hearings concerning the NHRERP, and should not be precluded from raising the issue of the adequacy of the SPMC to identify an adequate.ne/.ns of dealing with disabled vehicles.

Moreover, this is an issue that involves examination of the specific roads in this area, and not New Hampshire.

3) As to bases 3, 4, 5, and 6: Critical traffic areas and critical points and intersections include the intersections of the Page School driveways and Route 113, Stewart St. and Route 113, the Children's Castle driveway and Route 113, Bridge St. and Route 113, Coffin St. and Route 113, Garden St. and Route 113 and Crane Neck St. and Route 113. Traffic sensitive areas include the above-mentioned areas and the six traffic control points in West Newbury delineated in the plan. Roads in West Newbury include the above-mentioned roads.

4) As to basis 7: Evacuation bus routes means the routes delineated in Amendment 5 to the SPMC, Appendix J as the Wout Newbury Evacuation Bus Routes.

5) As to basis 8: The resources lacking include busses, drivers and traffic control personnel.

Basis 9 concerns the issue of snow removal. See reply concerning contention 4.

Basis 11 concerns the issue of the adequacy of Town i resources. Since Mode 1 of the SPMC does depend on the use of governmental personnel and resources, it does raise a litigable issue.

Reply Concernina Contention 9.

The Town of West Newbury was not a party to the hearings concerning the NHRERP, and should not be precluded from raising issues concerning the ability of emergency vehicles t9 enter West Newbury against the flow of outgoing traffic in the proceeding to 4

which it is a party. Moreover, this is not simply a generic human behavior problem, but is related to the particular road structure and capacity of local roads.

This contention also concerns the adequacy of Town y

resources. Since Mode 1 of the SPMC does depend on the use of governmental personnel and resources, it does raise a litigable issue in this regard as well.

Respectfully submitted, Town of West Newbury, By its attorney, Qc #Np.-

Judith H. Mizner 79 State Street, 2nd floor Newburyport, MA 01950 (617) 462-0505 Dated: June 17, 1988 4

i

i ,

I, Judith H. Mizner, Counsel for the Town of West Newbury i the above-entitled action, hereby certify that I have caused' jEh of the enclosed documents to be served upon the persons aE lie addresses listed below, by first class, postage prepaid, mail and by Federal Express, postage prepaid, mail to thosgg nS5P20 P5 :53 which have been marked with an asterisk.

. 6FF ICr. ur ut,n t i An Y 00CKETING & SEAVICf.

BRANCW Ondmin. Judge Ivan W. Smith

• Judge Gustave A. Linenberger,'Jr.

Chairman, Atomic Sa'fety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 ODr. Jerry Harbour

• Docketing and Sevice Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 OThomas G. Dignan, Esq. A.S.L.A.B. Panel Ropes and Gray U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 225 Franklin Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Boston, MA 02110 Diane Curran, Esq. Stephen B. Herrill, Esq.

Harmon & Weiss Attorney General Suite 430 Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20009 Concord, NH 03301 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Robert A. Backus, Esq.

Office of General Counsel NRC 116 Lowell Street 15th Floor, 1 White Flint North P.O. Box 516 Rockville, MD. 20852 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esq. Paul McEachern, Esq.

Asst. Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Office,of the Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Augusta, ME 04333 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Sandra Guvutis The Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey Chairman United States Senate Board of. Selectmen Washington, D.C. 20510 Kensington, NH 03827 Mr. Thomas Powers H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.

Town Manager Office of General Counsel Town of Exeter Federal Emergency Management Agency Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, D.C. 20%72 1

l

- - ~

e- ,,o

[ -Gary llolmes, Esq. Stephen Jonas,'Esq.

11olmes & . Ells Assistant Attorney General 4 7 Winnacunnet Road Office of the Attorney General llamp ton , NH 03841 Boston., MA 02108 Mr. Calvin'A. Canney Charles P. Graham,.Esq.

City Manager Murphy.and Graham City !!all 33 Low Street Po r tsmou th ,' Nil 03801 Newburyport, MA 01950 Barbara Saint Andre, Esq. Mr. William Lord Kopelman & Paige Selectman 77 Franklin Street Board of Selectmen Boston, MA 02110 Amesbury, MA 01913 Brentwood Boa'id of Selectmen Richard A. Hampe, Esq.

RFD Dalton Road Hampe & McNicholas Brentwood, NH 03833 3 5 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301

'Mr. Ed Thomas R. Scott Ilill-whilton, Esq.

FEMA Region I Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton 44 2 McCormick P.O. Building & McGuire Boston, MA 02109 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Robert Carrig, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town Office-North flampton, Nil 03862 Signed under seal this / 7 "' day of June, 1988.

& /h 1/G- J Eud i th 11. Mizher 2