ML20151N637

Memorandum & Order - Part II (Ruling on Contentions on Plant Plan for Massachusetts Communities).* Served on 880729

ML20151N637
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/29/1988
From:	Harbour J, Linenberger G, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#388-6824 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8808090055
Download: ML20151N637 (62)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - .

fh -

, LB 7/29/88 I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA tt NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARfE8 JLt 29 P2 :41 Lefore Administrative Judges: .;r s e,.

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman 000 0 . .3  !

Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Ui' A1 -

Dr. Jerry Marbour i SGVED JU(,29193g In the Matter of ) Docket Nos, 50-443-OL -

) 50-444-OL

• PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) (ASLBP No. 8 2 -4 71-02 -OL)

NEW MAMPSHIRE, it al. ) (Offsite Emergency .

) Planning)

(Seabrook Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

, ) July 29, 1988 i MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - PART II (Ruling on contenti7ns on the Seabrook Plan For Massachusetts communities) '

I. BACKGROUND In Part I of this Order, issued July 22, 1988, the Board ruled on the contentions on the Seabrook Plan for the i Massachusetts Communities (SPMC) proffered by the Attorney i

General of Massachusetts (Mass AG), New England Coalition on Nuclee.r Pollution (NECNP) , and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL). Also in Part I we established legal and evidentiary guidelines for the adjudication of the SPMC proceeding. In this part we rule on the contentions submitted by all othe; pavties and petitioners

Town of Amesbury, City of Haverhill, City of Newburyport, Town of 8808090055 880729 -

DR ADOCK 0]hi3 , p 0

3S

r Newbury, Town of Morrimac, Town of Salisbury, and Town of West Newbury.

In anticipation of these rulings, the Eoard, on July 20, 1988, directed the parties and participants, or their respective representatives, to attend a prehearing conference on August 3 and 4, 1988 in Boston, Massachusetts.

II. CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF AMESBURY (TOA)

TOA Contention No. 1 The SPMC fails to demonstrate that each principal response organization has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis, fails to provide for an adequate number of available manned emergency vehicles, and otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, in violation of 10 CFR 50.47 (a) (1) , 50. 47 (b) (1) , 50. 47 (b) (3) ,

50. 47 (b) (6) , 50. 4 5 (b) (8) , NUREG-0654-FEMA-REP-1, REV. 1 (heroinufter "NUREG-0654") II.A.1.e, II.A.3, II.A.4, II.C.4, and II.F.1.a.

TOA Contention 1 al'.eges, in substance, that many letters of agreement (LOAs) proffered in support of the SPMC are facially inadequater that many "emergency personnel" deemed available under the LOAs will not in fact respond to an actual emergency; and that the SPMC, as structured, will likely result in accidents and delays, even to those who actually do attempt to respond. Amesbury Reply at 3.

Applicants object on the grounds that LOAs are not required to constitute contracts, and that separate LOA are not required for individuals who collectively provide a k

[

. . I 4

i labor force or activity, for recipients, rather than providers, of services, nor for response organizations whose  ;

functions are covered by laws, regulations or executive  ;

orders, citing this Board's Order of May 18, 1987, at 17.

a Applicants further object to the basis statement regarding  !

traffic delays, as having been litigated in the NHRERP phase of the hearings. Applicants object to the "hopelessly l

t general" phrase attached to this, and all other Amesbury i l

contentions, that adds "and otherwise fails to provide  !

l l reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can l and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency,  ;

l

)

in violation of (50.47 . . . and NUREG-0654 . . .). "  :

I i, However, Applicants offer a proposed rewording of the I l

contention, derived from Basis A, to which tney do not l objects  !

l  !

I 1 There are no Letters of Agreement with certain service l l providers, [i.e., protected information). l l  !

The Staff does not oppose admission of this contention (

to the extent that it questions the adequacy of the number l

, t j of manned emergency vehicles, and urgos that the contention (

be limited to the bases identifying LOAs which are only .

l

, proposed but not executed and those specifically listed LoAs j.

l .

l that for service providers are alleged to be missing (Basis .

l l A). The Staff also avers that the actual availability of [

r

individuals to perform emergency services, and how they will [

i r I

1 I i

1 i

i

_ . ~ . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . , _ _ ._

-4 -

be located, notified and deployed (first sentence of Basis B) are proper subjects for litigation. The Staff agrees I

with Applicants that speculation in Basis B concerning traffic delays due to encounters between some incoming individuals and outgoing evacuation traffic or queues at the EPZ perimeter was litigated earlier; the Staff urges that those bases, themselves, have no basis and that that portion of the contention relying on those bases should not be admitted. The Staff also objects to the overly vague reference that the SPMC "otherwise faiis to provide . . .

as failing to put other parties on notice as to the issues which they would be required to litigate within the scope of the contention.

In regard to the LOAs, Amesbury defends on the basis of Applicants' admission in their Response (at 170-171) that LOAs must provide assurance that the resources identified will in fact be available in an emergency, and since this contention denies that is the case, this basic issue of fact must be resolved through litigation on the merits.

Amesbury replies that the Staff's and Applicants' reliance on prior litigation of ETE issues is misplaced. The town cites in the SPMC asserted provisions that (a) mandate traffic queues (at the EPZ perimeter), (b) traffic-related safety concerns posed by inadequate traffic control devices, and (c) unrealistic staff assignments none of which were litigated for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ.

Amesbury's reply (4 n.2) to the objections to the portion of this (and other) contentions which states ". . .

and otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance" should be understood as anticipating efforts by the Staff and Applicants to improperly limit Amesbury to litigating only those examples of SPMC deficiencies specifically identified in Amesbury contentions. The Board, however, does not accept this overly broad wording because it overshoots the understanding that Amesbury proffers. It simply is too broad to put the opposing parties sufficiently on notice as to what they will have to defend against or oppose.

Philadolehia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3),

ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974).

We are not persuaded by the objections that the matters raised by Amesbury in regard to "mandated traffic queues at the EPZ perimeter, inadequate traffic control devices on evacuation routes and unrealistic staff assignments" (that affect the interests of Amesbury) have been litigated in the NHRERP phase of this proceeding. However, separate LOAs are n21 required for individuals who collectively provide a labor force or activity, for recipients as opposed to providers of services, nor for response organizations whose functions are covered by laws, regulations or executive orders. Allegations to the contrary wi 1 not be litigated

.fSee our Memorandum and Order of May 18, 1987, at 17).

e We admit TOA Contention 1 except for the third assertion "(The SPMC) . . . otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can

and will be taken in the event of a radiological I emergency . . .

" and except for the limitations on the

, requirements for LOAs as cited in the paragraph above.

R Contention No. 2 The SPMC fails to establish a system for disseninating I

to the public appropriate information to respond to an emergency, fails to establish tuo administrative and

physical means for providing prompt instructions to the public, fails to demonstrate that there is an adequate legal basis for the actions to be taken by emergency response personnel and otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, in violation

, of 10 CFR 50.47 (a) (1) , 50. 47 (b) (1) , 50. 47 (b) (5) , NUREG-0654 II.A.2.b, II.E.5 and II.E.6.

This contention, in substance, ergues that the 1 decision-making process set forth in the SPMC will result in unreasonable delay, and will preclude prompt notification or implementation of protective action recommendations (PARS) i by the public, regardless of, and even assuming, the "best  !

I efforts" by state and local officials and utility employees.

I Amesbury Reply at 6. 5 Applicants oppose much of this contention because ,

(1) it assumes non-cooperation by the Commonwealth; (2) it raises the Commonwealth's failure to participate as a fault L of the SPMC; and (3) insofar as the Commonwealth's failure 4 >

(

I

O 1

to plan may necessarily result in more time spent on coordinating EBS messages or PARS, the SPMC is accorded due allowance under 10 C.F.R. 50.47 (c) (1) (iii) . Applicants would not object to a contention alleging:

The SPMC is deficient in permitting and relying on ad has preparation of EBS messages.

The Staff does not oppose admission of Basis B. It objects to Basis A on the grounds that it contravenes the "best ef forts" presumption of Section 50.47(c) (1) (iii) . The Staff opposes Basis C on the grounds (a) that there is no averment that ad has messages will be used; and (b) the allegation that the effect of ad has messages on public response would be shadow evacuation, abeirant driver behavior role conflict among emergency response personnel i  !

and other human behaviors is speculative, overly broad and previously litigated.

Amesbury's defense of Basis A is summarized above by its description of the thrust of the contention. It defends i Basis C essentially by repeating the speculations from the basis and claining that the Staff's objection is "disingenuous".

We disagree with the Staff's arguments that Basis A contravenes the "best efforts" presumption of the new rule.

While the Applicants may be accorded an allowance for failure of state and local governments to participate, we

)

road TOA Contention 2 as challenging the adequacy of the SPMC procedures for preparing and implementing ad h22 messages. We find Basis C to be speculative as to the claimed effect of ineffective EBS nessages, and the generic human factor effects specified have been previously litigated in the NHRERP phase of this proceeding.

4 Accordingly we admit the contention, except for the overly broad ". . . otherwise fails to provide . . . " assertion (see TOA Contention 1) and as limitad to Bases A and B.

l TOA Contention No. 3 The SPMC fails to make adequate provisions for prompt communications among principle response organizations, emergency personnel and the public, fails to specifically establish the emergency responsibilities of the various supporting organizations, and otherwise fails to provide rearsnable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at reabrook Station in violation of 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1),  !

( 50. 4 7 (b) (1) , 50.47 (b) (6) , NUREG-0654 II.A and II.F.

1 t 1 i l

As was the case with TOA Contentions 1 and 2, the Board I

rejects at the outset that part of contention 3 that asserts that the SPMC "otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance . . . . " in that we find that allegation impossibly broad. Therefore, there are two rather simple aspects of Contention 3 surviving: (1) failure to provide ,

for prompt communications among principal response  ;

i organizations, emergency personnel, and the public; and (2), l L

failure to establish the responsibilities of the supporting organizations.

The proffered bases for contention 3, however, have little relevance to the contention itself. Rather than specifying how the SPMC is deficient in prompt communications and in establishing responsibilities, the '

most favorable inference to the town that we can draw is [

H that the bases are intended to address the consequences of the unidentified deficiencies. For example, the bases speak of the lack of preparedness, training, and experience of ,

1 responding officials; acoustical overlap of sirens; the potential for conflicting recommendations for protective actions; and the divergent views of the respective governors. Snippets of the bases could stand alone as

, con':entions if properly supported by bases of their own, but we have not been able to identify any adequately supported contention from TOA Contention 3 and its bases. The contention is, therefore, rejected, i j

IQA Concention No. 4 '

The SPMC fails to provide for adequate personnel or l resources to implement the SPMC, including a comprehensive i

traffic management plan, fails to provide for appropriate means of relocation for the public, and otherwise fails to i provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a l radiological emergency at Seabrook Station in violation of 10 CFR 50.47 (a) (1) , 50. 47 (b) (1) , 50. 47 (b) (8) , 50. 4 7 (b) (10) ,

NUREG-0654 II.A and II.J.10. ,

! +

! i l .

i

)

This contentien is supported by 17 bases (A-Q) and several sub-bases, many of which are contentions in themselves. The various bases are treated seriatim, be).ow.

Basis 4.A. Applicants oppose, but their opposition I F

goes to the merits of the basis. Staff opposes Basis 4.A(2) i on the grounds that it does not specifically suggest that any delays in deploynont of buses would sig:iiticantly af fect i the ETE. We disagree. Staff does not cppose Basis 4.A(1).

Basis 4.A is admitted.

Basis 4.B. Applicants i;pposa on the grounds that the SPMC does not require town police to serve as traffic

+

a 4

guides, that Amesbury's generalized assertion that 16 guides sre insufficient for the town lacks specificity, and since  ;

town police are not relied upon in the SPMC, Amesbury's assertion that its police would have substantial other l duties not provided for in the SFMC lacks basis; that is, J

i the SPMC assumes that police officers would perform their i

duties as they usually would. The Staff opposes on similar

' l I

grounds, i Amesbury replies that the traffic guide requirements 1

were determined by its Chief of Police and that the needs i l

are a proper issue for litigation. The town further replies (

i that the SPMC (at 2.2-1 2.2-5) relies upon local responses

{

of the towns and claims that the emergency response resources of the communities are available during an l i

i emergency, thus raising a factual dispute.  ;

l'  !

(

i 1

l

O

~

As to the town's claim that more intersections need to  ;

! be staffed, we egree that this assertion does not provide  !

adequate specificity.' Except for this assertion, Basis 4.B is admitted.

Hasis 4.C. Neither Applicants nor Staff would oppose this basis if limited to training of traffic guides and SPMC instructors. Amesbury replies that the contention raises t

the overall issue of training and experience to perform emergency response functions by NHY employees. Basis 4 C is j admitted to the extent it raises training and experience

! issues cognizable under the stated regulatory basis of ToA  !

Contention 4.  ;

j Basis 4.D. Staff opposes admission on the grounds that j the stafi' of facilities such es schools, nursing homes and other special facilities are not considered to be emergency '

l workers and they are assumed to perform their duties, and i that there is no requirement that the SPMC provide personnel +

to perform those duties, citing Long Island Lichtino Co.

(Shcreham Unit 1), 21 NRC 644, at 834-35 (1985). Applicants i agree. The Staff also states, "Except for the lack of f

procedures and plan to implement the PARS, the basis 4

i discussed at 2.D.(2) (sic) of Amesbury's Contention 4 is not l clearly articulated and does not fut the other parties on

" l i notice . . . Response at 70-71. The Applicants do not '

address the alleged lack of procedures and plans to l I

, implement the PARS. l s

Amesbury replies that Staff does not oppose admission of the alleged lack of adequate procedures or plans to implement PARS for special needs facilities. In respect to the objections based on lack of a requirement that the SPMC provido personnel to assist special facilities, Amesbury merely repeats its assertion that the necessary plans, procedures and personnel for special needs populations represents a key issue in emergency planning.

We admit Basis 4.D as limited to the portion of Sub-basis 4.D(2) alleging that "(t]here is no plan in the SPMC as to how the PARS will be implemented" (for special needs facilities).

Basis 4.r. We read this basis as alleging that the SPMC is deficient in that "supporting plans" which purportedly include PAR plans for a number of special facilities are missing from the SPMC, and that to the extent "draft" generic plans have been provided they lack specificity and improperly assume special facility employees will carry out emergency response functions. As we understand it, this basis is subsumed by Basis 4.D. The alleged absence of PAR plans for special facilities will be litigated under that basis and the assumption that employees of special facilities are emergency workers fails for lack of regulatory basis. Basis 4.E is rejected.

Bases 4.F. and 4.G. Applicants and staff object to admission of these bases on the grounds that an assertion

that local officials w.i.ll not perform their duties to protect citizens in time of emergency contravenes Section

50. 47 (c) (1) (iii) of the rules, and that role conflict, an aspect of human behavior, has been generically litigated in the NHRERT phase of the hearings.

Amesbury replies that the SPMC differs from the NHRERP in that it is a utility plan that has been specifically disavowed by the Commonwealth as inadequate, and that the plans in the SPMC differ markedly from such plans addressed in NHRERP litigation. Amesbury also asserts that its defense on the "follow-the-utility-plan" in TOA Centention 2 l applies here.

We find that Amesbury's distinctions between the SPMC t

l and the NHRERP, even if true, have no bearing on whether the  ;

I '

human factors issues have been litigated previously in'chis proceeding. Amesbury provides no rtesons to indicate why the human factors issues would be any different for persons i I in Massachusttts than in New Hampshire. As tc the I  ;

performance of local government officials, the commission l

] has made it clear that we may not litigato the issue of  :

whether they will or will not respond. The contention is  ;

predicated upon the humsn behavior of those local go'ernment

(

officials, not upon whether they will follow the SPMC.  !

t Bases 4.F and 4.G. accordingly are rejected.  !

Dasis 4.H. Bas,is 4.H to this contention is admitted to ,

the extent that it challenges the experience and training of }

i

,-__-----_-_mmm.

. I i bus drivers to perform during an emergency, and to the extent that othnr private citizens such as teachers and health care staff have agreed to be available to drive in an omergency.

< L Basis dal. (SPMC assumes Standard law enforcement, -

fire and rescuo needs, and snow removal) Basia 4.I is rejected because it challenges the "best efforts"

presumption and it lacks bases in that the SPMC is not l required to provide for routine governmental services.

2 Amesbury may participate in litigating MAG Contention 70 which raises a questien of State Police readiness and their expected response in a radiological emergency (sea Part I of this Order, at 96-97). l Basis 4.J. We agree with the Staff and admit the pcrtion of Basis 4.J. which concerns the Traffic Management  !

l Plan for the Town of Amesbury to the extent that it relies on bcttlenecks, chokepoints, and the need for additional traffic management identified in the basis statement. ,

Basis 4.K. (Traffic Control Point (TCP) at  !

intersection of I-95 and Route 110) To the extent not i already litigated in the !!HRERP phase of this proceeding, Basis 4.K to this contention is admitted.

Bases 4.L and 4.M. The Applicants and Staff generally  !

do not oppose admission of these bases. Bases 4.L and 4.M r

to TOA Contention 4 are admitted.  ;

i l

l i

i

Basis 4.N. (Route 110) We agree with Staff's objection that no reason is given to support the assertion -

that restricted lane access or other special considerations 1

are necessary to accommodate evacuation and incoming l traffic. Amesbury's assertion does not providt- sufficient  ;

I specificity and represents its version of what the SPMC f

ought to include, not what is required. Basis 4.11 is

. rejected.

Basis 4.0. (Traffic Guide training and famili.trity with local conditions) Boels 4.0. is admitted, absent ,

] objection by the Applicants.

Basis 4.P. (Zoning ordinance violations) The portion i of this basis referring to sirens is rejected on "

jurisdictional grounds laan MAG Contention 19, Part I, at l

j 39; SAPL Contention 9, id. at 126). Amesbury's assertion that a bus transfer point would violate local zoning L

)

ordinances violates the "best efforts" presumption during an [

t F

) emergency, local officials would not prohibit use of a [

, vehicle transfer point because it would not pass muster J

f

, under a residential zoning ordinance. Amesbury's argument l t

that the contention is litigable because the plan must  ;

comport with all applicable laws, does not carry (see SAPL j Contention 6, id. at 122). Basis 4.P is rejected. I J 1 Basis 4.0. We agree with the Staff that this basis,

]

! itself a contention, lacks basis in asserting that the l l public will receive radiation doses at least as great as if I i I I

, I i i I

i I

e 1 the SPMC were ignored entirely, or if emergency response were solely ad h22 Basis 4.Q is rejected. .

Except for the overly broad assertion that the  !

SPMC ". . . otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance" 1 pee TOA Cont -

1, supra), TOA Contention 4 is admitted as limited to t. ' ases admitted above.

[

TOA Contention No. 5 The SPMC fails to prov.ido reasonably adequate methods  ;

for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency, fails to establish adequate guidelines for the choice of protective actions -

during an emergency, fails to provide adequate bases for the choice of recommended protective actions and otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective ,

measures can and will be taken in the event of a radialogical emergency, in violation of 10 CFR 50.47(a) (1),

50. 4 7 (b) (9) , 50. 47 (b) (10) , and NUREG-0654 II.I., II.J.9 and II.J.10.

i Applicants urge that TOA contention 5 be rejected as lacking basis. The Staff claims that the contention is  !

speculative and lacks basis, and further that it constitutes {

an attack on the regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Para. IV.D.3; Section 50.47(e)).

Amesbury posits the situation where, under the SPMC, [

the protective action recommendation (PAR) would be changed  ;

l from evacuation to shelter in order to maximize dose l i

savings, but that once evacuation is underway, evacuees will continue to evacuate. Amesbury concludes that the early

• Thus, according to the dose projections are inadequate.

contention, the SPMC's preferred PAR evacuation, based upon inadequate informatien, would irretrievably commit the l public to a protective response, whether or not that PAR a

4 presents the public with the maximum achievable dose savings under the circumstances. Contentions at 17-19. Amesbury, l however, does not assert that the posited circumstances art.

j contemplated in the SPMC. In fact, it asserts in its Reply (at 23) that "the SPMC fails to provide any plan or implemer. ting procedures for modification or alteration of PARS". Nor does Amesbury assert that the Applicants' early dose projections are inadequate.

We agree with the Applicants and the Staff that TOA Cons.ation 5 is speculative and without basis. Accordingly, it is rejected.

TOA Contention No. 6 The 3PMC fails to provide for a range of protective actions for the public, including the beach population, and otherwise dails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an actual emergency in violation of 10 CFR

50. 47 (a) (1) , 50. 47 (b) (10) , and NUREG-0654 II.J.9, II.J.10.

Applicants oppose on the grounds that this contention is a "rerun" of the proposition that there is a requirement for some minimum level of dose savings, and provide the familiar citations. Staff opposes admission on the grounds that it lacks lhe requisite specificity and basis. It says that there is no basis provided for the conclusion that

there are no shelters that would provide meaningful dose savings, or for the assertion that thousands of people could be unable to evacuate during an emergency.

Amesbury replies that the Staff proceeds to argue the merits at the contention stage, and, in response to the Applicants' objection, that no assertion of a requirement for some minimum dose savings or for a minimum ETE is included in the contention.

With elimination of the impossibly broad assertion that the SPMC "otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate measures can and will be taken . . . " the issue remaining is that "[t]he SPMC fails to provide for a range of protective actions for the public, including the beach population". Amesbury'a defense that the constraints of the Seabrook site would preclude either option (evacuation or sheltering) as an effective PAR, or as a means to reduce done to the public, particularly the beach population, is a statement that planning is impossible. We agree with the opposing parties that TOA Contention 6 lacka requisite specificity and basis (or constitutes an attack on the regulations). Egg SAPL Contention 10, Part I, at 6

127-30. TOA Contention / is rejected.

III. PETITIOli OF CITY OF HAVERHILL By a pleading dated March 30, 1988 the City of Haverhill, Massachusetts petitioned to participate in the

i l . t

[

proceeding as an interested municipality pursuant to 10 F

C.F.R. 2.715(c). There are no objections to the March 30 request. Leave is granted to Haverhill to participate accordingly.

l However, on April 4, 1988, Haverhill submitted two f

r contentions opposed by the Applicants and Staff:

The Emergency Respor.se Plan does not consider Haverhill in its evacuation plan even though a portion of Haverhill is within the ten (10) mile limit. The City of Haverhill with I a population of 50,000 demands to be included in the i Emergency Response Plan. No provisions have been made for evacuation of schools, nursing homes, hospitals and day care  :

l centers or for any other related facility. Said facilities are located in close proximity to the (ten) 10 miles.

, i Also, note that Public Service of New Hampshire intends  !

to use the Massachusetts Electric Facility on Water Street l' for a staging area. The City of Haverhill has obtained a temporary injunction in the Massachusetts Superior Court  ;

prohibiting said facility from being used as a staging area.  ;

I i

is we understand Haverhill's position, it demands to be included in the emergency planning for the plume EPZ while simultaneously and overtly interfering with that same planning. The two contentions are contradictory. Whatever 1

basis Haverhill has for each contention neutralizes the t

basis for the other. Therefore there ib no basis for i

either.  ;

Furthermore, even when considered independently, the  !

contentions would fail. The first contention (demanding to be included in the plume EPZ) merely seeks an adjustment on  !

safety grounds to the size of t.he EPZ. As such it is a

4 challenge to the emergency planning rule. Lena Island l Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Unit 1), CLI-87-12, 26 NRC 383, 395 (1987). j t

The second contention is simply a statement of fact, now outdated, concerning the temporary injunction against  !

the use of a Haverhill facility as a staging area without l any explanation of the significance of that fact to the  :

emergency planning regulations. We have already twice f

addressed the Haverhill staging-area matter in MAG  :

Conter. tion 67 and SAPL Contention 2. Haverhill, as an interested municipality, may participate in the litigation of those contentions, but Haverhill's April 4 contentions are rejected for the reasons stated.

On June 16, 1988, Haverhill submitted fourteen [

i "Detailed contentions" on the SPHC, some two months after l the April 13 due date for such contentions. The intervention regulation, 10 C.F.R. 2. 714 (a) (1) , requires a balancing of five factors in determining .thether late-filed contentions may be admitted:

(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.

(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.

(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonsbly be expected to ass,st in developing a sound record.

(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.

. l (v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.

Haverhill did not even mention the five factors in its '

late pleading, nor did it reply to the NRC Staff and the l

Applicants when they objected to the fourteen contentions on the ground of lateness and other grounds. The Board is not  ;

avTre of any good cause for the late filing, nor do we have any reason to infer that Haverhill might assist in l

developing a sound record.

f The Massachusetts Attorney General and other Intervenors have contentions covering some areas of concern i to Haverhill. Other Haverhill concerns, special to that i city's interest, relate to the demand that the city be f

included in the plume EPZ, and, as we ruled above, such l l

contentions are not acceptable. On balance, we believe that i Haverhill's interests can be represented by existing l

parties, especially with Haverhill having status as an interested municipality. Therefore, we score factor (iv) I against admitting the late-filed contentions.

Adding the late-filed contentions to the proceeding (assuming that they were otherwise acceptable for i

litigation) would broaden and delay the proceeding.

(

The Board weighs all five factors against accepting the L late-filed contentions and rejects them. Since Haverhill f has been admitted as a participant under Section 2.715(c), l I

l

l and since none of its contentions are accepted, before the hearing Haverhill must indicato specifically the subject i i

j matters (from among the admitted contentions) as to which it  !

wishna to participate.  !

1 -

h IV. PETITION OF THE TOWN OF MERRIMAC '

i The Town of Merrimac, Massachusetts submitted a  :

t petition to participate in the SPMC proceeding as an (

interested municipality. The petition is unopposed and is [

granted. Merrimac has no contentions. Therefore it must indicate in advance of the hearing which of the subject i mattert from among the admitted contentions it wishes to {

participate in.

l f

I

[

f I

i t

i l

V. CONTENTIONS OF THE CITY OF NEWBURYPORT (CON)  !

i i

In the summary introducing its contentions, the City of l

Newburyport speaks only to what it perceives to be f deficiencies in the SPMC that are said to be impediments to i I its implementation. All of Newburyport's ten contentions l l

l address facets of this underlying theme. Hence, wo infer l that, but for these perceived deficiencies, Newburyport i would adopt the SPMC. None of the contentions specifies any planning standards that are alleged not to have been met. i I

l 1 CON Contention No. 1  !

! TRAFFIC CONTROL POINTS (TCP 's) - Several major [

l intersections that would be essential to a safe and i l coordinated ovacuation have been omitted from the plans.

l l Additionally, modified TCP's (Blocking of street ends in i l congested areas to help direct the flow of traffic) are not  ;

included at all. Some of the potential trouble spots are as l follows:  ;

r State and High Streets - This is a crucial and,  !

perhaps, the busiest intersection in the City. It is also  !

the point of passage for four out of the five Dus Routes  !

cited in the plars. l l

Merrinac Street. Moslev Avenue and Scoffard Street {

- This is another major intersection servicing the North End of the City and Rt. 495. Its or.ission creates the possibility of panic and confusion for almost half of the City's population. It also creates a potontial "choke-point" as these three major thoroughfares merge into I a narrow, two lane road that spans a suspension bridge of (

questionable integrity (the oldest such bridge in the United i States).

Low Street. Foute i and Pond Street - This is a lighted intersection with several najor routes converging at j this point. This intersection has the potential for najor traffic flow and thus creates the possibility of backing traffic into designated TCP's.

l I l

l o ,

l.  !

I l

i This contention (with no separately stated bases) j addresses Traffic Control Points (TCP's) needed at "several h major intersection," of which three specific intersections are identified. With respect to those three specific intersections, Applicants and Staff would have us accept the l contention, but aver that its basis supports only the three j

identified intersections. We agree. 3 I

contention 1 is accepted, limited to the three  !

i intersections identified. l i

i coli contention tio. 2 IriADEOUATE TCP PERSOlitiEL AtID EQUIPMEtiT - All TCP's (

listed in the plan do not account for impedance, traffic i I

volume, breakdowns, panic, speed of approaching vehicles nor i adjacent topography (open park hg lots, b' ,,d corners and  ;

pass-throughs). There is no ec)rdination of TCP's to major {

institutional canters (Schools, hospitals, etc.) or  !

establishment of special TCP's an relationship to these }

centers. This is particularly tcoblematic to the city of >

liewburyport as the High School, back Middle School, Anna f Jacques Hospital as well as several elderly housing [

complexes are all located within a quarter mile of each j other. Hence, the required number of personnel to ,

effectively monitor and control these areas as well as the  ;

arount of the equipment tbarricades, cones, etc.) that is  ;

necessary for securing such intersections is grossly  !

inadequate. Additionally, there needs to be perhaps as many t as eight to ten new TCP's. This conbined with the i deficiencies at the presea.t TCP's would nean that perhaps as i nany as ten times the nunber of personnel and equipment j would be necessary to adequately cover the City of  !

tiewburypo rt .  !

f r

Addressing personnel and equipment needed to operato l the TCP's deemed important by !!ewburyport, the contention faults the adequacy of the STMC-designated TCP'c and points t

f

j I

to the need for additional TCP's at points not designated.

Applicants and Staff aver that the basis of the contention  !

does not support a challenge to the adequacy of TCP's beyond those identified in the SPMC, although the Staff would permit the three TCP locations identified by the contention j to be litigated. Whereas we have not searched the SPMC to f i

determine whether the three named locations are included in it, our analysis of the contention concurs with that of i l

Applicants and Staff. t l

Contention 2 is accepted as limited to the three TCP i

locations identified in the contention and to those l

established by the SFMC.

I CON Contention No. 3 i

, TRANSIT _ DEPENDENT _'JIDIVIDUALS - The five pre-designated bus routes that have b'..en included in the plan for the City f of Newburyport are designed to expedite the retrieval of (

transit dependent individuals as opposed to door to door pick-up. However, these bus routes will have, in fact, the 5 opposite effect of actually prolonging the evacuation of I transit dependent persons. This vill occur because the bus [

route assignments follow along the heaviest traveled roads [

l in the City, which will already be congested with evacuees. [

l Five out of the six bus routes cross through a major r I intersection with no TCP in place. And because the routes  !

l are circuitous in design and by-pass all the major [

l concentrations of the population, it will then be necessary  :

for transit dependent persons, including the mobility- i l impaired, to leave their hoces and to locate the pre-  !

designated bus routes during a radiological emergency. This '

I will require those persons to remain outdoors and to be l subject to increased radiological exposure. Additionally, ,

this method of circulating buses significantly reduces the l reliability of actually acceeplishing the retrieval of these {

individuals and increases the potential for a broad spectrun  !

of the populace (elderly, non-aebulatory, etc.) to be left tehind.

I l

l

l The adequacy of the SPMC's proposed bus evacuation f

routes for transit dependent people in the city of

! Newburyport is challenged by this contention (which has no separacely stated bases), which can be rea] to allege that j door-to-door pickup of such people is preferable. Further, {

q the contention, without specificity, states that use of the j

] SPMC designated bus routes will result in increased I t

radiation exposure of these individuals.  !

Without telling us why, .\pplicants propose a rewording

i of the contention without which they would have us re,tect [

! it. Staff would have us accept the contention so long as the consideration of increased exposure ir omitted, which f l Staff considers to be speculativo.

l The Board concludes that the contention represents a [

\

pernissible factual challenge to the SPMC. We see no need i l

l to address the question of whether door-to-door pickup is  !

I I

! the only acceptable alternative that Newburyport wishes to j i

l have considered. As to the question of increased radiation [

l exposure, we find that allegation to lack the requisite .

specificity and we reject it. Centention 3 is accepted,  !

i excluding the consideration of increased radiation exposure. [

4 .

.I

) CON Contentien No. 4 i (

r i EUS ROUTE CIRCUI.ATION EPROPS - Pre-designated bus f

{ routes el and e5 include in their route assignments, return j trips that go the wrong way down a najor one way street ,

j (State Street) in the plan. This is further complicated by i I

the lack of any TCP's at the intersection of State Street t

i 4

l l

l

r

• I

[

f I

and High Street and at the intersection of Water Street and l State Street. It is likely that because this thoroughfare  ;

is utilized by area residents as a primary route out of the ,

City and that there are numerous in-feed streets from the  !

Central Business District, the North End and the South End, that lower State Street will be extremely congested with  !

ovacuees and returning buses could not be directed through i the grain of traffic under any circumstances. j i

Stating that there are errors in two specifically I l

identified bus routes designated in the SPMC, the contention i t

explains these errors and points to their seriousness, which j is said to be coepounded by the lack of traffic control f points at two named intersections. l l

The Board reads this as further particularization of I 1

l CON Contention 3, above. We conclude that there is no l

I justification for its being separately considered. It is to l be combined with accepted contention 3 an1 litigated therewith.

l t

CON Contention No. 5 l

l I

COMMUNICATIONS - The plan refers to TCP personnel (Traffic Guide Procedures J-2 #13) utilizing connercial telephone for the reporting of dosimetry readings. In six out of the seven TCP's identified in the report, there are no public telephones available. Additionally TCP personnel leaving an assignment to ncke such a telephone call would  ;

severely overtax the linited nunber of TCP personnel [

referred to in the plan.  ;

t This contention faults the SFMC for requiring personnel  ;

I that man traffic control points to use concercial telephones  !

l to communicate dosimetry results. It states that at six of f I

the seven SFMC designated traffic control points there are j i

t I

l I

t no public telephones available, thus taxing personnel l

resources. I Applicants and Staff would have us admit the contention  !

only to the extent that it challenges the adequacy of means [

of communica*;ing desinetry readings. We agree and accept the contention with that limitation. f Con Contention No. 6 s

ROAD CREW PREPARATIONS - There a : .3 provisions in the i

! plan for the storage and staging of 'l- Nuipment (cones, ,

i lights and barricades), so that they x,.ad be readily

available during the advent of a radiological emergency. I

! Furthermore, there are no provisions for the transportation

! of TCP equipment to dtsignated areas. There is no identification of trucks or other transports to transfer s such equipment nor is there any identification of procedur-  !

for establishing TCp's during an evacuation that will nest I likely a4 ready be in progress by the populace, once notification has been given. {:

The SpMC is faulted for not providing adequate resources needed to set up and operate traffic control f points. We interpret the contention as being broader in i scope than accepted contention 2, above, and a permissible

?  ?

j challenge to the SPMC. Becat"- of its apparently broader  !

scope, we reject Applicants' suggestion that it be I L considered as subsumed by CO!! Contention 2. Conr.istent with Staff's response, Contention 6 is accepted. k i

j CON Contention No. 7 i

1 TRANSFER POINT INADEOUACIES - There are several j physical inadequacAeri with the identified Transfer Point in i i

f i t

! l

_ _ _ __ _ ___ - -__-_ - _____ _--__ -___ __- _ _________- ______ __ __.____ __ _ _ __ . - _ . b

the plan. First and foremost, it is located in a floodplain along the banks of the Merrimac River and as such is subject to periodic flooding and severe tidal conditions. Secondly, it is primarily an electrical sub-station for the Massachusetts Electric company and as such is not suitable for the safe sheltering or even staging of large numbers of people. And thirdly, it offers poor visibility and turning access for buses coming into and out of the facility.

The SPMC identified Transfer Point for Newburyport is said to be inadequate for three specifically stated reasons.

Staff would have us accept the contention. Applicants propose tLat it be reworded, without telling us why.

Finding no fault with the contention as worded, we reject Applicants' proposal. Contention 7 is accepted.

CON Contention No. 8 l

j HLHBURYPORT'S PLUM ISLAND POPULATION - Under the present plan, the Newburyport end of Plum Island (representing between 5% to 15% of the City's population, depending on the season) comes uader the Newbury plan. This constitutes an abrogation of the city's responsibility for its residents and prevents the City from assuring the safety and well being of its populace. The city would want any plan to incorporate all of its residents including, and particularly, those on Plun Island. This wculd mean that the Newburyport plan must be amended to accommodate the Plum Island population (both peak and non-peak periods) into its evacuation with all the ettendant resource adjustments -

that is, additional TCP's, bus routes, etc.

This contention states that the Newburyport portion of Plum Island should be in the Newburyport plan rather than under the plan for Newbury. The Board soon the contention as criticizint there Plum Island evacuation planning lies within the SPI' rather than as a challenge to the adequacy

of the SPMC regarding the evacuation of people on Plum Island. No particularized basis is given as to why such a designation is improper.

Applicants and Staff would have us reject the contention because there are no requirements to support such a redesignation of planning responsibilities. We agree.

Contention 8 is rejected.

An alternate interpretation of CON Contention 8 is that the city wishes to participate in the Seabrook radiological emergency planning as it affects its citizens. Applicants are under a continuing responsibility to accept such cooperation. If we have understood Newburyport accurately, it should communicate its intentions directly to Applicants' counsel.

CON Cont.ontion No. 9 1

1 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION DEVICES - The plan refers to the emergency warning s'l stem (sirens) that Newburyport has in place. This is erroneous information, in that, the City dismantled and removed four out of seven sirens, that are referred to in the plan, last fall. None of the remaining

! sirens are capable of voice activation and hence would not be suitable for giving evacuation instructions. City 1,

ordinances also prohibit the use of mobile sound trucks (see i Section XI - Performance Standards). Hence references in

! Appendix N of plan as to the ongoing maintenance and testing

of such warning devices are erroneous as well.

i i

Contention 9 goes to the notification of people within the Seabrook plume exposure EPZ. Applicants and Staff stato I

i l

l i

l 1

that it is a matter outside of this Board's jurisdiction.

We agree; accordingly the contention is rejected.

CON Contention No. 10 OVERALL COMMAND AND CONTROL - The plan inaccurately states the Board of Selectmen (SIC, City Council) have the overall Command and Control in terms of jurisdiction during an amergency. Under the present charter and form of government, the Mayor has the Overall Command and control and may authorize Protective Response Procedures. The plan also inaccurately lists the Mayor of Newburyport as Peter S.

Matthews.

Absent opposition of Applicants and Staff to the admission of this contention, and having none ourselves, the Board accepts Contention 10.

VI. CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF NEWBURY (TON)

The Town of Newbury has submitted twelve contentions alleging numerous inadequacies and errors that impede the implementation of the SPMC. Non-compliances with specific planning standards and regulations are cited in support of these allegations.

TON Contention No. 1 The Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities

("SPMC") does not meet the requirement that there must be a reasonable means of evacuation and relocation as required by NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, J.10.g and J.10.i. Therefore, there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47 (a) (1) and (a) (2) , (b) (1) , (b) (2) and (b) (10) .

Alleging non-compliance of the SPMC with cited portions of NUREG-0654, the contention is supported by ten separately stated bases, most of which have several sub-parts. The contention and its bases all address the management of evacuation traffic, including roadway inadequacies.

Applicants characterize the contention as prolix and too broad; they proceed to categorize each basis as though it were a separate contention, recommending that some be admitted, some be reworded to qualify for admission, and sera be rejected for various reasons. The Staff also states that the contention ic too broad, notes that several bases resemble contentions, and addresses each of the bases.

The Town of Newbury disagrees with the "too broad" characterization on the ground that there are sufficient details to provide specificity to the contention. We agree, and reject that assertion of Applicants and Staff. However, certain bases we reject because they treat topics previously litigated for which we are not given acceptable reasons as to why the previous litigation is inadequate. There are three such topics: human behavior, amount of travel speed reduction to accommodate adverse weather, and stalled vehicles.

Contention 1, with its complex of bases, is accepted with the exception of those bases dealing with the three topics identified above.

TON Contention No. 2 The SPMC fails to adequately identify the emergency equipment available for use in implementing the plan. The SPMC thus fails to provide a reasonable assurance that adequate equipment is provided and maintained as required by NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.H.

Applicants and Staff would have us admit the contention, excluding Basis c. Newbury does not comment.

Contention 2 is accepted, excluding Basis c.

TON Contention No. 3 The SPMC does not meet the requirement that there must be a means of protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired as required by NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.J.10.d.

Applicants and Staff do not object to the contention so long as it is understood to relate to transportation resources available to the schools and special facilities of Newbury identified in the SPMC. Newbury does not comment.

Contention 3 is accepted with the limitations proposed by Applicants and Staff.

TON Contention No. 4 The SPMC fails to adequately project traffic capabilities of evacuation routes under emergency I conditions. The SPMC accordingly fails to conform to the requirements of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.J.10.1.

Applicants and Staff appose this contention for the same reasons: there is no requjrement that the SPMC

)

• l

- 34 -

)

identify subaldiary evacuation routes, and the topic of l

"traffic capabilities" (read by those parties to mean roadway capacities) has been litigated previously.

Newbury does not comment on the first objection; as to the second, TON does not give adequate reasons why the prior litigation of roadway capacities is inapplicable.

For the reasons given by Applicants an Staff, the Board rejects Contention 4.

TON Contention No. 5 The SPMC fails to adequately identify the means of dealing with potential impediments to the use of evacuation routes and thus fails to conform to the requirements of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, 11.J.10.k.

The contention addresses snow, flooding, and stalled 4

vehicles as impediments to the use of evacuation routes, which impediments are inadequately accounted for by the SPMC. The one separately stated basis discusses these impediments and the lack of adequate snow removal and tow truck equipment.

Applicants and Staff respond that snow removal is the responsibility of local government, but that tow truck unavailability is an acceptable basis. We agree.

Contention 5 is accepted but limited to tow truck availability. We note, however, that tow truck availability is the topic of accepted MAG Contention 73 1see Part I of this Memorandum and Order at page 98). Newbury is directed

l .

to consider consolidation with MAG 73-and be prepared to discuss this at the prehearing conference.

i TON Contention Nqu_1 '

The SPMC does not meet the requirement that there be maps showing the population distribution around the facility as required by NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.J.10.b.

Therefore, there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken pursuant to 10 CFR

50. 47 (a) (1) and (b) (10) .

Applicants and Staff do not oppose this contention, nor do we. Contention 6 is accepted.

i TON Contention No. 7 l

The SPMC fails to provide a means of notifying all t segments of the transient and resident population of Newbury and the Refuge as required by NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, <

J.10.c and 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (5) and (7).

This contention addrosces the adequacy of the prompt alert and notification system for Newbury. Applicants and Staff oppose it for the reason that it comprises a matter .

before the Onsite Board and is not within our jurisdiction. l Newbury attempts to rebut this but offers no acceptable  !

argument that supports our taking jurisdiction. Contention 7 is rejected.

l TON Contention No. 8 l

The SPMC's Newbury evacuation bus transfer point is not permitted under applicable zoning laws. Accordingly, the t f

E ' I _ _ _ - _ - _ _ ___ . - - _ - . _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - . _ - _ _ _ .___________ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ __

SPMC failo to adequately provide a means of relocation as required by NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, J.10.g.

Stating that the SPMC proposed Newbury bus transfer point is in an area not zoned for such an activity, the contention thus challenges the SPMC. Applicants and Staff oppose the contention for the reason that to deny the use of the transfer point to support evacuation in an emergency is contrary to the "best efforts" irrobuttable presumption of the modified emergency planning rule.

Wo interpret Newbury's reply as stating that town officials will not permit such an illegal activity, thus abrogating the best efforts presumption. The Board reminds Newbury that the Statement of Considerations accompanying the changes to the emergency planning rule instructs licensing boards to reject such a claim. 52 Fed. Reg. 42078, 42082 (1987); gas also Part I of this Memorandum and Order at page 8. Contention 8 is rejected.

TON Contention No. 9 The SPMC fails to provide a reasonable assurance that adoquate protectivo measures can and will be taken in the event of an omorgency in that it does not provide reasonable assurance that sheltering is an adequato protectivo measure for Seabrook or provido adequato critoria for the choico between sheltering, ovacuation or other protectivo measures, as required by CFR 50.47 (b) (10) and NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, J.10.b. Nor does the SPMC includo expected total protection afforded in residences or other sheltors as required by NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, J.10.m.

Applicants and Staff oppose the contention because its one separately stated basis fails to support it adequately.

Newbury's reply disagrees, stating that the basis gives adequate notice as to what must be defended. Newbury misses the point in that matters identified in the basis are in part conclusional and in part have-been covered in prior litigation, no acceptable reasons being given as to why that prior litigation is unacceptable here. Contention 9 is rejected.

TON Contention No. 10 The SPMC fails to adequately provide a means of protecting persons whose mobility may be impaired and, accordingly, does not provide a reasonable assurance that a j range of protective actions have been developed for the  ;

j public as required by 10 CPR 50.47 (b) (10) .

l Applicants oppose the contention because it does not identify the Newbury day care facilities the evacuation of which Newbury says is omitted by the SPMC. Staff would have us accept the contention.

Newbury replies that Applicants have adequate notice as to what the day care facility issue is. We do not know whether the alleged omission is inadvertent, nor do we need to know. The existence of such facilities we take as a given, and a factual dispute exists.

Contention 10 is admitted over Applicants' objection.

TON Contention No. 11 The SPMC fails to provide that adequate measures can and will taken to protect the public in the Town of Newbury '

as the SPMC relies upon the erroneous assumption that the Town of Newbury will, and has adequate sources to, implement the SPMC, The SPMC thus fails to conform to the requirements of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.J.9 and 10.a.c.d.e.g.i.j. (sic) and k. There is accordingly no I

basis by which to conclude that adequate protective measures can and will be taken as required by 10 CFR 50.47(a) and the SPMC fails to meet the planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b).

Applicants and St aff oppose the contention for the reason that they interpret it to say that TON mistakenly ,

perceives the SPMC to rely upon Newbury's implementation of it. Both cite the SPMC to rebut that perception and to L

support their opposition to Basis A of this contention.

Basis A, and the responses to it raise the familiar factual issue common to most of the Intervenors' petitions, 123., whether or not the SPMC relies upon local government i i officials. The basis is accepted pending the Board's resolution of disputes of this nature.

The Applicants and Staff misread Basis B as alleging that Newbury officials will refuse to implement or foll>w 4

l the SPMC, but the plain language of the basis clearly l indicates that the officials will exercise their best efforts. We accept Basis B as meaning that the Newbury l officials are unfamiliar with the SPMC. We do not accept any implications in the basis that the officials will refuse -

1 I to acquiro sufficient knowledge in the plan to enable them [

1  ;

I l t

to follow it in the event of a raciological emergency. Such a refusal is inconsistent with the regulations and with Newoury's own statement that its officials will axercise its best efforts.

As to Newbury's allegation that any response will be ad hng, the Board refers Newbury to its ruling on MAG Contention 3 (Part I at 20) where we ruled that simple assertions of an ad has response to an emergency is of no value.

TON Content'on 11 with Basis A is accepted. Basis B, limited to the statement, "Newbury officials in command and control of emergency functions are unfamiliar with the contents of the SPMC," is also accepted.

4 TON Contention No. 12

]

The SPMC fails to adequately meet the requirement of 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (5) in that it does not provide adequate

procedures for notifying local response organizations. The SPMC also fails to conform to the requirements of i NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.E.8 and II.F.1 which, i respectively, require provisions for coordinating response

] messages with local governments and for communicating with j local governments within the emergency planning zone.

I This contention, having one separately stated basis, is

! opposed by Staff and Applicants because there is no support for Newbury's statement that the SPMC requires communication and coordination with Howbury's selectmen. Their oppositions appeal to specifics of the SPMC and invoke the 1

l i

i

- -_. ~. . - . .

3 merits of a factual dispute, in which we do not involve ourselves. i Newbury's reply does not help us. it points to snow removal as an example of how the SPMC relies upon municipal assistance for its implementation, and repeats the challenge l f

( to the adequacy of the plan.  !

Nevertheless, a factual dispute remains, and Contention l

12 is admitted over the objections of Applicants and Staff.  :

2 l

VII. CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF SALISBURY (TOS)

TOS Contention No. 1 '

! The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can be taken to protect the public in the Town of -

Salisbury as it fails to provide any reasonable assurance that timely notice will be received by any member of the '

i executive board of the Town of Salisbury, in the event of an .

} incident requiring local response, and failing such timely  !

j notice the plan sets forth no assurance that local resources  !

will be mebilized or timely authority will be given for the applicants implementation of the plan. -

i Staff and Applicants oppose the contention for lack of f I

l an adequate basis. Galisbury states that timely 4

l j implementation of the SPMC will not occur because the plan i I

f makes no provision for notification of its executive board j i  ;

but is silent as to why the current provisions of the plan '

are inoperable or improper. Hence Staff considers the t

]

. t l contention to be speculative with respect to the f i

i -

i I

l

consequences of not notifying the executive board. We concur, ar.1 the contJntion is rejected.

TOS Contention No. 2 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury as it fails to provide for a local E.O.C.

, in the Town of Salisbury for coordination and' dispatch of I

Salisbury O.R.O. personnel, thus enhancing the likelihood of

, an uncoordinated and ineffective response in the critical

! high traffic areas of the town.

The contention faults the SPMC for not providing for a local emergency operation center (EOC) to dispatch and coordinate the town's response personnel, resulting in ineffective efforts in critical high traffic areas. Staff and Applicants oppose the contention hecause it lacks an adequate basis. Staff particularizes this shortcoming by noting that the contention is silent as to the need for an additional EOC and any specifics regarding the existence and location of high traffic areas.

The Board has quite similar objections to the contention and rejects it.

TOS Contention No. 3 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury as it fails to establish any reasonable basis from which it may be assumed that the offsite response organization will be sufficiently equipped and replenished to continue 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> operations for a protracted period within the Town of Salisbury.

I i

. l Applicants and Staff oppose the contentien as lacking

, an adequately specific basis for the inability of the offsite response organization to function effectively.

Staff further characterizes the contention as being too r vague to permit meaningful litigation. The Beard finds this vagueness and lack af basis prohibitive of focused litigation; the contention is rejected.

TOS Contention No d The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adsguate measures can and will be taken to protect the publ;.c in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to conform to NUREG 0654 11.J.10.a. as it depicts non-existent roads in the Town of Salisbury as evacuation routes which routing would in numerous instances strand motorists and complicate the overall traffic flow from the area in the event of an evacuation.

Applicants oppose the contention for not identifying the non-existent roads depicted by the SPMC, and state that given such identification they would not oppose it. Staff would have us admit the contention, limited to the alleged SPMC deficiency. That said deficiency will result in stranded motorists, as stated by the contention, is viewed by the Staff as speculative.

The Board concludes that a litigable issue of fact exists and accepts the contention limited to the alleged deficiency in the SPMC.

TOS Contention No. 5 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of salisbury because the Utility's plan relies upon seasonally unpassable, one lane, dirt roads as evacuation routes and alternative routes, for which roads the plan does not provice traffic guides or tow crews or any other mechanism for the control of traffic along such roads in the event of evacuation.

Applicants oppose this contention for the reason that it does not identify the sub-standard and seasonally unpassable roads relied upon in the SPMC for which traffic control resources are said to be lacking. The Staff does 4

not oppose the contention to the extent of the allegation that such roads are designated by the SPMC; but Staff says that the traffic control resources part of the contention i has no foundation in the regulations or in NUREG-0654 and l

should not be admitted.

i l The Board concludes that the contention is acceptable i

as limited to challenging the SPMC's alleged reliance ". . .

upon seasonally unpassable, one lane, dirt roads as evacuation routes and alternate routes . . . .

l l TOS Contention No. 6 '

1 f

i The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate  !

measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the  ;

, Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to i i

provide for the dispatch of sufficient numbers of traffic j guides and supplies along major evacuation routes and at  !

major intersections in the Town of Salisbury particularly at

', the Salisbury Transfer Point and at points on Beach road j where traffic becomes restricted to fewer travel lanes, 1

1 1  !

I

1

- 44 -

which failure would. promote disorder and delay in evacuation of the beach areas of the town.

Staff and Applicants oppose this contention as lacking reasonable specificity. However, Applicants propose a restatement of the contention (limited to the Salisbury Transfer Point and Beach Road considerations) which they do

! not oppose. Except for the considerations noted by J.

Applicants, the Board finds the contention to be too vague and speculative for litigation. We accept the contention

reworded and restricted in accordance with Applicants'

! proposed modification, namely, The SPMC assig.*.s too few traffic guides and j insufficient equipment to the Salisbury Transfer Point and to those points along Beach Road where travel lane i

reductions occur.

TOS Contention No. 7 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate

! measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the i

Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to

! compensate for emergency personnel vehicle parking at transfer points and other traffic sensitive areas in the town where any parked vehicles would impede evacuating 3

traffic and cause critical dolay in evacuating populated i areas of the town.

t

! Stating that the contention lacks sufficient detail as 1

l to what is being placed in issue, Staff and Applicants l oppose its admission. As with Contention 6, above, however,

) Applicants propoco a cowording that restricts the ccope of i

i

.m

the contention to emergency personnel vehicle parking at transfer points, which Applicants do not oppose. Staff's objection includes the consideration that such parking by emergency personnel is not likely to be done in a manner that will impede evacuation, nor does the contention include a basis for believing otherwise.

Our own analysis parallels that of Staff and we reject Contention 7 in its entirety.

TOS Contention No. 8 The SPMC falls to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the plan provides for bus turn around locations at transfer points and other locations I' within the town where there is insufficient width of roadway l to turn a bus and where no traffic guides have been assigned I to assist bus turn arounds thus enhancing the possibility that the populations to be served by buses may not in fact be removed in the event of an evacuation as well as adding to traffic difficulties and evacuation times within the town.

i Focusing on inadequate bus turnaround space and lack of

(

l traffic guides to assist buses, the contention is opposed by i

Applicants and Staff, with Applicants again proposing modifications to the contention wording to make it acceptable. Staff finds no basis, stated or otherwiso, that would require the SPMC to provide mitigation of any of the conditions about which the contention complains. tior does the Board. We reject TOS Contention 8.

i

. i g TOS Contention No. 9 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to provide any compensatory measures for south bound evacuating traffic on U.S. Route 1 which may be substantially impeded

, by closure of the Gillis Bridge for the passage of boats,  !

F and as U.S. Route 1 is the major south bound evacuation  !

I route from the most populated area of the town and delay on j this route is likely to have a severe ripple effect along  :

major routes to the north and east of the bridge.

i Applicants' only response is to suggest a rewording of j the contention, which rewording, we presume, would make the 1

I i contention acceptable. Staff opposes the contention as l being speculative and lacking basis and specificity. Staff I i

I states that Salisbury offers no reason for presuming that i i the Gillis Bridge will be opened during evacuation usage of

! Route 1 and no basis for the presumption that opening of the i

bridge will have such an adverso impact on evacuation as to 1 i j require compensatory measures. Likewise, the alleged .

1 (

l adverse ripple offect upon other evacuation routes is  ;

! speculative.

l  !

j We concur with Staff's assessment of the defects of the j contention, which defects wo do not find to be cured by i

Applicants' proposed rewording. Contention 9 is rejected.

! I J TOS Contention No. 10 3 I

i t

l The'SPMC fails to provido assurancos that adequato I measures can and will be taken to protect the public in tho l Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to

{ provide traffic control at critical points on Route llo in [

f i

___ J

Salisbury where eastbound emergency traffic is likely to be obstructed by westbound traffic entering from side streets j and attempting to travel against the planned flow of l traffic. t E

Applicants and Staff oppose the contention for two ,

' f reasons: the alleged critical points are not identified; L

and, the allegation of drivers not following traffic control i

recommendations is a previously litigated human behavior f

issue, with na justification given for its relitigation. )

We oppose the contention for the same reasons; TOS i l Contention 10 is rejected.

i 4

i TOS Contention No. 11  ;

3  !

i The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate neasures can and will be taken to protect the public in the i Town of Salisbury because the plan fails to provide any reasonable basis from which the assumption may be safely drawn that contracted support organizations will be able, at <

4 any time of day and at any time of year, to provide the contracted resources in sufficient quantity and in time to carry out the plan in a fashion that provides adequate  !

protection to the public.

l l

i The contention faults the SPMC for not providing a  !

basis of assurance that contracted support organizations l will be able to provide needed resources. Applicants and I

Staff oppose the contention, The Board finds no grounds in {

f the contention to nupport this allegation, nor any f regulatory or guidance documentation from which to conclude that the SPMC is flawed in this respect. The contention is )

) rejected.

i j [

i, l d

)

i f

TOS Contention No. 12 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to provide for reasonable primary and backup communication to transfer point dispatchers from Special Vehicle dispatchers and in certain locations there exists no reasonable back up telephone communication to transfer point dispatchers who ,

according to the plan direct buses to continue routes in the 1 area or travel to e reception area, and without such backup communication critical information regarding bus dependent local populations may never be received by transfer point dispathcors (sic). Bus dependent persons left behind would require additional compensatory resources which are not provided for in the plan.

Staff and Applicants oppose the contention, but Applicants will accept a rewording of a limited portion of the contention which they propose. The Board finds no regulatory or guidance documentation that speaks to the communication needs between transfer point personnel and special vehicle dispatchers, alleged by the contention to be a deficiency in the SPMC. Consequent alleged adverse implications are at best speculative. The contention is rejected.

TOS Contention No. 13 The SPMC fails to provide assurancas that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to provide for protective measures for possibly hundreds of commercial and pleasure boaters on the Merrimac River all or great numbers of whom may be confined to the river basin by frequently occurring conditions of wind and tide, without adequate dockage and transportation ashore.

3

Applicants would have the Board reword the contention to leave out the specified factual predicates. Instead we accept the' contention as submitted, but place upon Salisbury the burden of proceeding with evidence on the numbers of boaters and the entrapping conditions alleged.

TOS Contention No. 14 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to p.otect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to conform to NUREG 0654 ll.J in that it depicts bus routes through a flooding marsh in the Town of Salisbury that is impassible depending upon weather and tido.

The Board accepts TOS Contention 14 over the Applicants' objection, provided that the town promptly specifies the bus routes referred to.

TOS Contention No. 15 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequata measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility plan fails to provide for an adequate equipment inventory, in particular blinking i

light cones, to be maintained at the staging area, and therefore, fails to provide for adequate measures to protect the public.

TOS Contention 15 is accepted and limited to blinking-light cones.  ;

I,CS Contention No. 16 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the l

e i

Town of Salisbury because the Utility's Plan provides that special populations evacuated via buses are to be instructed to bring sufficient belongings for several days, yet the delays occasioned by this instruction and the space consumed on each bus for such belongings has not been compensated for in the Utility's Plan.

Applicants have no objection to this contention. The Staff's objection reveals that the Staff has misunderstood the thrust of the contention. The contention simply alleges an inconsistency in the SPMC. The contention is accepted.

TOS Contention No. 17 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to '

provide for traffic congestion caused by tractor trailers 4

stuck at the B & M Railroad Bridge over Lafayette Road in j Salisbury where trucks diverted alor.g this road will find the clearance too low for passage and cause north-south traffic obstruction.

Applicants do not object. Contrary to the Staff's objection, the contention is specific. Uncertainties may be resolved by discovery. TOS Contention 17 is accepted.

TOS Contention No. 18 1

The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan Transfer Point Summary table provides an unrealistically low estimated passenger demand for all bus routes in Salisbury wholly failing to accommodate transient and seasonal populations of the Town of Salisbury and thus fails to provide for adequate i

measures to protect such populations.

There are no objectionst the contention is accepted.

i J

TOS Contention No. 19 The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to provide for notification to bus dependent populations as to the arrival times of buses in different areas of the town and thus creates the potential for elevated radiological exposure to persons walking and waiting for buses at out of doors locations within the town.

Applicants do not object. The Staff argues that the contention lacks basis because it failed to consider portions of the SPMC. This is a factual issue and the contention is accepted. However, Salisbury must reconsider the contention to determine whether it still believes that it is valid.

l TOS Contention No. 20 )

The SPMC fails to provide assurances that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to conform to NUREG 0654 11.J as it fails to accurately depict the width (in lanes) available for inbound and outbound traffic on the entire length of Beach Road in Salisbury and thus fails to compensate for the inadequate space for emergency transportation eastbound on Bcach Road.

Applicants do not oppose this contention. The Staff objection has merit in that specifying the width of an evacuation roadway is too minor a detail to require under NUREG-0654 II.J.10.k. Perhaps Salisbury intended to allege that the roadway widths are materially and inaccurately depicted in the SPMC. Wo don't know, in part, because wo

have not roscarched the SPMC. If the latter is the caso, we nevertheless reject the contention for failure to be clear, but we expect Applicants to correct any errors in the SpMC repcrted in Intervenor contentions.

I TOS Contention No. 21 The SPMC . tails to provido assurances that adequato ,

measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the i Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to provido adequato measures to protect the public in the event of a snow storm emergency as it fails to identify necessary resourcos for expedited snow removal and additional buses necessary to componsate for snow bound passenger cars.

This ubiquitous snow-removal contention is rejected.

Soo MAG Contention 30.

TOS Contention No. 22 The SPMC fails to provido assurancos that adoquate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the Town of Salisbury because the Utility's plan fails to provido adequato and rollable neans to acquiro "p to dato

]

local weathor conditions and wind information at various l altitudos inmediately above the E.P.Z. from which ovacuation l 1

prioritier are presumably to be dotormined.

i l Sinco the contention doon not reveal how such weather ,

, information would be useful, the contention is rejected.

I IQS Contention No. 21 [

The SpMC fails to provido assurances that adequato  !

i measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the ,

Town of Salisbury becauso the Utility's plan relion upon the assunption that local governmonts havo the adequato resourcos to implomont the Utility's Plan, which assumption 1

4

i .

is rebutted and fails as a matter of fact in the case of the manpower and equipment resources available to the Town of Salisbury, because Salisbury does not now have nor.is it likely to acquire sufficient policemen, firemen, public works employees, or civil defense employees to effectively implement, oversee, or participate in a safe evacuation of {

i the entire town.

l This is another dispute about what the SPMC does or I does not assume with respect to local government }

i participation. Therefore the contention is accepted pending i further guidance from the Board about resolvins. matters where there is no genuine issue of fact.

TOS Amended contentions On June 17, 1988 Salisbury submitted amended I contentions addressed to the Applicants' April 26 responses to the original Salisbury contentions. Generally the I t

amended contentions undertake to provide bases and  !

i specificity missing in the original contentions. In other cases the amended contentions expand upon or argue for the l

original contentions. l Tia Board has accepted specificity and explanations l promptly provided in other Intervonors' replies to objections. But, in this instance, Salisbury is very lato 1 in its efforts. Moreover Salisbury does not even acknowledge that its amended contentions are late. tior does the town mention the five factors under lo c.F.R.  ;

l

2. 714 (a) (1) to be appliod when lato-filed contentions are

}

{

r l

l a---------_-.. ..---,~~n,--...,., ,.---,-.-...,--.:

considered, as we discuss above respecting the similar situation with Haverhill. Moreover, contrary to Salisbury's certificate of service, the members of the Board were not served with the late pleading, which was not discovered until the Board had arrived at determinations on the original 23 contentions.

Considering all of the factors, Salisbury is not entitled, as a matter of right, to have its late contentions remedy defects in the original contentions, and the late contentions are rejected. The Board has also reviewed the late pleading to determine whether, as a matter of discretion, any of our rulings on Salisbury's original contentions should be changed, and we find no reason for any

change.

i j VIII. CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF l WEST NEWBURY l I TOWN Contention No. 1 I

1 1

The plan fails to provide a reasonable basis for a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective a measures can and will be taken as required by 10 C.F.R. sec. '

50.47(a) and fails to meet the planning .. 4dards of 10 3

C.F.R. sec. 50.47(b) and NUREG-0654 FEMA REP-1 Rev. 1 Supp. ,

1 (hereinafter referred to as "NUREC-0654"). I TOWN Contention 1 is similar to MAG Centention 1. It I

, is rejected because it lacks specificity. To the extent l

l i i l

l l

that it is an umbrella legal contention, our ruling on MAG Contention 1 provides adequate guidance to West Newbury.

l TOWN Contention No. 2 1

4 .

4 The permissive presumption of 10 C.F.R.

j sec. 50. 4 7 (c) (iii) , providing that "it may be presumed that in the event of an actual radiological emergency state and j local officials.would generally follow the utility plan" should not be applied to the plan submitted by the applicant. Accordingly, there is no support for the findings of adequacy required by 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.47(a),

(b), or (c) (1) .

TOWN Contention 2 is too broad to place Applicants and a

the other parties on notice as to the issue West Newbury

seeks to litigate. The contention is therefore rejected.

i l We infer fror. West Newbury's reference to MAG Contentions 1 through 6 (West Newbury reply at 2) that this contention is

) intended to be a threshold contention. If so, our rulings on MAG Contentions 1 through 6 provide adequate guidance.

I l TOWN Contention No. 3 l

The plan fails to adequately meet the requirements of 3 10 CFR sec. 50.47 (b) (5) requiring procedures for j notification of local response organizations, NUREG-0654

) II.E.8 requiring provisions for coordinating emergency i response messages with participating and non-participating l local governments, and NUREG-0654 II.F.1.b requiring

provisions for communications with local governments within

the Emergency planning Zone.

The Applicants and the Staff object to the con *.ention i

l on the ground that it mischaracterizes the SPMC. There is,

t therefore, a factual issue on the merits of Contention 3, which is accepted.

IQWN Contention No. 4  :

The assumption of NUREG-0654 I.D.1.c. is erroneous as  !

applied to the Town of West Newbury. Accordingly, there is  ;

no support for the findings of adequacy required by 10 C.F.R. sec. 5 0. 4'/ ( a ) , (b), or (c) (1) .

t One of the bases for Contention 4 is the familiar I

snow-removal problem asserted coveral times by other i i

Inte rvenors . The Board rejects that basis for tuo samo i 1

j reasons we rejected MAG Contention 30.

j The other basis asserts that the town has inadequato i resources to offectively implomont or participato in an  !

evacuation. Staff and Applicants make a factual response to i j the basis, thus raising a factual issue. TOWN Contention 4, without the snow-removal basis (second paragraph), is  !

l accepted.

i j TOWN Contention No. 5 '

L I

1 The plan fails to adequatoly corply with the I requirements of NUREG-0654 TEMI-REP-1 Rev. 1, II.J.8. and l NUREG-0654 II.J.10.1.  !

i l

Wost Newbury raises throo factual bases for tho l 3

l contention. The first is a clained inaccuracy in the town l

t population ostinato -- 3,296 instead of the correct figuro l l

l

- 57 -

of 3,405. The differe.':ce is too insignificant to form a bacis.

The second pertains to a SPMC vehicle estimate of 1,26R compared to the allegedly accurate figure of 2,844.

This is a significant difference, but there must be a ready elplanation for the disparity. To avoid litigation of this number, Applicants may correct it, and report the correct figura to West Newbury who, as a condition of participating i

in the proceeding, is bound to accept it, unless there is reason to reject it. If a factual dispute remains, the parties shall report that matter to the Board.

l The third basis complains that transit-dapendent persons within West Newbury were not included in the respective table in the SPMC. Applicants reply that this "failure" is a detail to be left to the Staff. Better yet, Applicants should resolve the detail and demonstrate the l

l resolution to West Newbury. TOWN Contention 5 is rejected 1

I rubject to being revised if a factual dispute survives the I

i actions directed by the Board.

TOWN Contention No. 6 l

The plan fails to provido a reasonable basis for a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken as required by 10 C.F.R. sec.

50.47(a) and fails to meet the planning standards of 10 C.P.R. sec. 50. 4 7 (b) (5) and (6) in that procedures to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway EP2, and provisions for prompt communications among principle response organizations to the public, as required by 10 CFR

sec. 50.47 (b) (5) and (6), the NUREG-0654 II.E.6 and II.J.9 and 10 are inadequate.

The prompt notificatica system is not within the jurisdiction of this Board. Therefore Contention 6 is rejected, i

TOWN Contention No. 7 The plan fails to provide a reasonable basis for a finding of reasonable assurance ' hat adequate protective measures can and will be taken as required by 10 CFR sec.

50.47(a) and fails to meet the planning standards of 10 CFR sec. 50. 47 (b) (8) and (10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.d and "

II.J.10.g in that the plan does not provide for an adequate range of protective actions and contains inadequate means of relocation er means for protecting those with special needs, those without private transportation, schoolchildren, or persons confined to institutions or elsewhere for health or other reasons. Moreover, the resources available to the towns for those purposes are inadequate to provide a reasonable assurance that the public will be protected in the event of an accident.

l Applicants would accept the contention except for its last sentence. But the objection to that sentence is simply a factual challenge. The resolution of simple factual issues such as this one, frequently raised by Applicants, l Will be addressed by the Board during the prehearing l l

conference. In the meantime, the contention is accept. t as ,

i stated by the town.

l The Staff objects to that portion of Basis 2.C. which  !

does not specify the unidentified critical intersections except for those along the evacuation route for the northern part of the town. We agree with the Staff, but the town's l

- gg . -

prompt reply specifies the routes. Contention 7 with all bases is accept,a.

TOWN Contention No. 8 The plan fails to provide a reasonable basis for a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken as required by 10 CFR sec.

50.47(a) and fails to meet the planning standards of 10 CFR sec. 50.47 (b) (1) (8) and (10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.g and II.J.10.k in that the plan does not provide for an adequate range of protective actions and contains inadequate means of relocation and ider.tification of and means for dealing with potential impediments to use of evacuation routes and contingency measures.

Both Applicants and Staff object to the contention itself as being overly broad, and address the twelve bases as though they were separate contentions. Since some of the bases support the contention, we accept Contention 8 but

! limit it to the bases we approve below.

Basis 1 is accepted over Staff's objection. Applicants would have us rewrite the contention to be broader, but Applicants' suggestion would not improve the basis. West Newbury supplied additional specification in its reply. The '

basis is accepted as presented by the town.

i Basis 2 is the generic broken-down-car issue, previously litigated. Applicants and Staff correctly agree to litigate the contention as one alleging that there are insufficient towing vehicles under the Letters of Agreement.

As proposed by Applicants and Staff, the basis is accepted.

Basos 3 through 6 lack specificity. West Newbury offers some specificity in its reply. As specified in the reply these four bases are accepted.

Basis 7 is rejected because it provides no basis for the proposition that traffic guides are needed for the management of evacuation bus routes. The attempt to specify the basis in the reply misses the point. The defect is not cured.

Basis 8 states, without explanation, that support organizations under Letters of Agreement may not be able to provido the respective services. The town's reply doesn't help. The contention is rejected.

Basis 9 is another snow-removal allegation which does not state a litigable clain. It is rojected. Ens, eig.,

Board's ruling on MAG Contention 30.

Applicants and Staff propose that Basis 10 be restructured to allege that there are lasufficient busos assigned under the SPMC for the evacuation of transportation-dependent persons in West Newbury. We agree.

However, Basis 10 explains why this is so. Basis 10 as originally submitted and the version offered by Applicants and Staff arc both accepted as an expanded Basis 10. We disagree with the Staff's objection to Basis 10 relating to dose reduction.

Basis 11 again alleges that the town lacks adequate emergency resources to effectively implement and perticipate

1 in an evacuation. West Newbury alleges the identical facts three times in its pleadings, but in support of slightly different contentions. See TOWN Contention 4. The basis is accepted but should be consolidated.

Basis 12 is accepted, but limited to the specified ,

equipment--blinking light cones.

TOWN Contention No. 9 The plan fails to provide reasonable assurance of adequate public protection because an adequate number of emergency vehicl-ss are not provided for in the plans. Nor is there any assurance that effectiva use of those vehicles will be possible in view of a potential outgoing flow of evacuating traffic and a significant lack of drivers.

Therefore, these plans do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR sec. 50. 4 7 (a) (1) , 50. 4 7 (b) (3) , (8) and (10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.d, II.J.10.g, and II.J.10.k.

Both Applicants and Staff object to the reference to "outgoing flow of evacuation traffic" in the contention as a previously litigated human-behavior issue. We disagree.

I Basis 2 once again, in a slightly different context, alleges that the town does not have enough emergency vehicles for use in an evacuation, and once again Applicants raise a factual challenge to the basis. Once again we direct that the allegation, nv matter what the context, be '

organized so that it is pleaded and litigated no more than once.

TOWN Contention 9 with all its bases is accepted. I

- 62 -

e TOWri contention flo. 10 The plan fails to provide for adequate dissemination of information to the public regarding how they will be notified and what their actions should be in an emergency as required by 10 CFR sec. 50. 47 (b) (7) and tiUREG-0654 FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, II.G.1 and 2.

ticither Applicants or Staf f object to Contention 10.

Powever, Applicants responded with a very simple factual explanation. West flowbury did not mention Applicants' explanation in its reply. We deem TOW!! Contention 10 to be withdrawn.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 7

ff L' t y [Lo- c. s Je'rry Harbour ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE e

c '

/

(s' s /i

- lL- G %w b%

Gudtave A. Linenberger, Jr.

ADMINISTRATIVE ' JUDGE

,f/////, - fj/,il\',

Ivan W. S6ith, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland July 29, 1988