ML20235W225

Town of Amesbury Answer in Opposition to Applicant Motion for Vacation of Stay.* Motion Displays Lack of Good Faith by Offering Promises,Not Results.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20235W225
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/09/1987
From:	Lord W AMESBURY, MA
To:	NRC
References
CON-#487-4583 OL, NUDOCS 8710160080
Download: ML20235W225 (8)

Text

_ _ _ .

, 3; a y p g g.3 i , .,, a 3., s 3 ...< .,

1  : '- i. . r

,q"a ' aggEgD i

t

)

[yiffB 3ury

~

,... ) ~

y Board of Selectmen Y

if '

$.r'Essbury,MA 01913

.e . 3 PB 4 9() i

.I j g l BEFORE THE r UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r *: ,-

In the matter of ) Ocaket Nos. '60-443-OL '

3 ' f

) \ 50-444-OL ,

PU3L'C GERVICE COMPANY OF 's ) Onsite Emergency Planning N3W TWPSHIRE, e_t,, g. ) { d i J and

/ ) Offsite. Emergency Planning Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2 ) Sept 4mber 9, 1987 <

TOWN OF AMESBURY'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO

, . APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR VACATION Oth*-- STAY.

,  % 3 "t4 ,

As a matte: 'Nobp.o.11cy the Commission IAs stated it would entertain a s . )

" utility" plan fi.Me, absence of a 7mrernmental plan as required under i s, 10CF/e10.33(g).1 TOA's answer adh esses die threshold standards set by .

the Ccimtission, iUdt.I-87-02, that PSNH was to submit a " bona fide utility i

plan" and that adequare emergency planning is "at least 'in the realm of the possible".

t T/7. alr4 suggests that any ench' filf ng be subject to a " good

' , *A.

4 i , '  ! (

, ys faith $;analysiA t -) Since the beginning oqf utility $1ansdiscussions, a the Comission hasorepeatedly interjected the " good, faith" concept, and though N

the concept has not been formally inc1:v cd in the judgement criteria, it is a

f .

r apparent the Commission is seeking that assurance from the Applicants. a d '

\

1/ The TOA stands finn in its previously stated opposition to the Commission's

}'essible acceptance of a " utility" plan as fulfilling the requirements of 10 CFR 50.33(g). Additionally, dispite the NRC/ FEMA Memorandum of Understanding, a utiliey plan cannot fulfill the requirements for plan '

s

! submittal set down in 44'CFR  ;

350.

$ 0160000 870909 g ADOCK 05000443 PDR l

I n s.., M i

(2) l i l

BONA FIDE UTILITY PLAN.

The Commission has stated that a bona fide utility plan is "...one intended for. actual implementation an a utility emergency plan, ..."

a (CLI-87-03, at B) (emphasis addco).

Under sunnary review the TOA notes that the plan as filed is seriously deficient of numerous significant materials. The plan is virtually devoid of concrete agreements for transportation resources, medical providers and congregate care facilities.The ingestionpathway data appendix consists of i

3 pages. There are no provisions for recovery and reentry. The communications appendix is totally blacked-out. The only complete section cf the plan lists the number of pencils, magic markers and rolls of tape required at various operations centers. An incomplete plan can not be implemented and offers no assurance that protective measures can and will be taken.

Both CLI-87-02 and CLI-87-03 make it quite clear that any utility plan must contain the materials to support a license application under the regulations. Applicants have not made such a filing.

Applicants' Motion, at 12, cites the case of Philadelphia Electric Co.

( ALA3-808, 21 NRC 1595,, 1601) that "The plan need not be final..." to legitimize the glaring deficiencies. However, we are not addressing a governmental plan as in the cited case, but rather a " utility" plan. In this instance the citation is not relevent. Government plans have traditionally received the support, involvement and cooperation of many levels of administration from local to State to Federal. By that involvement both governmental entities and the general public have had the confidence that less than complete or inadequate areas would be, and could be, corrected.

No such evidence of an ability to complete or correct the subject filing has been demonstrated by the Applicants.

If the Applicants' filing is accepted , the Commission will be entering

r____ ._

(3)

, a virtually uncharted world of litigation. To date no utility plan has fully withstood the adjudicatory process resulting in final licensure, and thus any such plan demands the high'est level of completeness and quality prior to acceptance as fulfilling either policy or regualtion.

The absence of numerous appendices and date indicate that the Applicants have failed in their task. An incomplete utility plan, coupled with Applicants' mere promise of 'more to follow' is not a plan that can be implemented. Dispite Applicants' intentions, the plan does not meet the  !

Commission policy standard and is not a bona fide emergency plan.

PLANNING IN THE REALM OF THE POSSIBLE.

Even though the TOA has taken only a cursory view of Applicants' plan, the following examples of planning failures sh:w that adequate emergency planning for Seabrook is not in the realm of the possible.

3. Conflicting Evacuation Routes. Appendix d shows traffic patterns, control points and emergency bus routes. Traff.ic control point diagrams are taken directly from NHRERP, Vol. 6, the KLD ETE study. Those diagrams show exiting traffic patterns, including double lanes outbound where none normally exist. The new emergency bus routes use the same roads in the opposite direction, with no provisions for flow control over the entire routing system. Furthermore, the n:w bus routes criss-cross the evacuation routes with no additional provisions for traffic control. By this filing  !

the Evacuation Time Estimates have been amended in such a way that their reliability is now dramatically skewed, i

2. Failure to comply with contiguous jurisdictional planning standards as established in NUREG-0654. No mention .s made in Applicants' plan that evacuation routes from New Hampshire lead into Massachusetts. Traffic from NH will affect volume and flow in MA, changing traffic and access control point needs and responsibilities.

(4) i' l 3. Non-existant letters of agreement. Attempts to. hide.information

(-

by application under 10 CFR 2.790 strongly suggests that contracts for vendor services (buses, medical care, towing, etc.) do not actually exist.

- The purported letters of agreement are nothing more than illusory contracts providing no binding assurance that resources are available, or that those resources are sufficient to effect an adeqvate emergency response.

4. Plan violates 10 CFR .50.47(b) (5) . The entire communications -

appendix has been blacked-out (by application under 10 CFR 2.790). It is obvious by the lack of local emergency operations centers that there is no communications network in place, thus the re& son for the blacked-out data and resulting protection request. Applicants have not been able to fully compensate for absence of governmental' participation.

5. Plan violates 10 CFR 50.47(b) (6) . Provisions do not fully exist for prompt notification of the public. The siren alerting system in the

' City of Newburyport has been removed, and the system in Merrimac is in-complete. Applicants offer no alternative proposal to compensate for this gross deficiency.

6. Plan violates 10 CFR '50.47(b) (7) . Public information materials are merely drafts, devoid of specific information such as emergency phone, numbers and locations of medical and congregate care facilities. Clearly Applicants have.not made accommodations for such services, especially local emergency phone numbers, and have excluded this information because it does not exist.

7. Plan violates 10 CFR 50.47(b) (8) . Applicants have failed to provide any concrete proof that emergency facilities and equipment exist. The presence of blacked-out agreements are unacceptable " pledges" of compliance.

No information is available to substantiate the extent to which alleged facilities and equipment resources fulfill the standards of plan adequacy.

8. Plan violates 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (10) . Plans do not provide sufficient j

. 6 (5) information to establish that a range of protective measures.can be offered or carried out'through use of these plans.

9. Plan violates 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (12) . No evidence has been provided that such medical facilities exist, and if so, to what extent those facilities would be capable of handling contaminated injured persons.

10. Plan violates 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (13) . Plans include no specific measures to be taken to insure safe recovery and reentry of the affected zone.

11. The bus transfer area for Merrimac, located in Amesbury,.will not be usable since the location and its intended use is in violation of local zoning by-laws. The Amesbury Zoning By-law has no provisions for "use variances". This further substantiates that Applicants have not provided

-the necessary local. resources to'effect implementation of this plan; if Applicants had accomplished their goal, Herrimac's transfer area would be in Merrimac.

12. The most startling deficiency in Applicants' plan is the failure te provide for dose reduction during an accident. In fact, aspects of the plan actually-increase the probability of adverse dose consequences to members of the general public.' Bus routes for persons without private transportation carry passengers around the affected area for up to 2 3/4 hours before re-loading those riders at outdoor transfer points to begin evacuation to the reception centers. Bus routes, especially from Salisbury and Merrimac carry riders much closer to the plant before evacuation begins.

Some Merrimac and Haverhill residents will be moved from 10 miles away to

)

just over 5 miles from the plant. One Salisbury route carries people into I New Hampshire within 1 miles of the plant. Again one sees that Applicants do not have the necessary resources to carry out a safe emergency response.

Applicants have now offered the tenth version of a plan for Massachusetts.

The first nine versions were developed with the full cooperation of the i

Commonwealth and many local governments, Those plans were deemed to be i t - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ._.

(6) 1 i

i unworkable and the State ceased its involvement because emergency planning for Seabrook was not in the realm of the possible. The tenth version, proffered without any governmental assistance and solely reliant on private implementation falls woefully short of any prior planning efforts.

Conflicting evacuation routes, unidentified medical facilities, increased dose exposure and insufficient transportation resources establish the simple conclusion that the complexities surrounding Seabrook Station preclude any '

effective measures from being developed to assure adequate protection can be provided to the residents of the EPZ. Emergency planning for Seabrook is not in the realm of the possible. I GOOD FAITH.

It is obvious from the above discussion that Applicants have not displayed a good faith effort in the development and submittal of their compensatory plan for Massachusetts. The deliberate attempts to hide information by application under 10 CFR 2.790 exemplifies the cavalier attitude Applicants have toward the public, local and State government, and the Commission's standards. TOA finds it hard to believe that the name of a bus caompany or that of a medical facility can be construed as proprieary information. If in fact Applicants have not yet completed certain i portions of the plan, they have again displayed a lack of good faith by offering promises, not results.

It is the opinion of the Town of Amesbury that Applicants' Motion for Vacation of Stay should be denied.

For the own of Amesbury, I

l

• r_

William S. Lord Amesbury Board of Selectmen Town Hall - Friend St.

I Amesbury, MA 01913 (617) 388-0290

De(,KETED UbHP.C k...) ,

[Yinessury Board of Selectmen Tog $1}$)ij@i$idMA 01913 Tel. 388-03ONG4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William S. Iord, certify that TOWN OF AMESBURY'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR VACATION OF AY has been served on the attached list of parties, by Express Mail first-class mail, or in-hand, for receipt before the close of bue nese n September 9, 1987.

William S. Iord Amesbury Board of Selectmen SERVICE LIST Landt. W. Zech, Chairman Kenneth C. Enger:;

Thomac M. Roberts Kenneth M. Carr Frederick M. Bernthal J

U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commission 1717 11 St. , NW Washington, DC 20555 Allan S. Rosenthal Gary J. Edles

]

Iloward A. Wilber Atomic Safety Licensing Appeal Board 1717 11 St. , NW k Washington, DC 20555 )

i Sheldon J. Wolfe l Dr. Emmeth Luebke )

Atomic Safety Licensing Board l 1717 11 St. , NW Washington, DC 20555 I I l

l i N _- ____ ____ _ _ __ __

(~ Tv n*W' Smith, Chairman

! Atomic Sefsty Lic. Ocard Philip Ahrsns, E1q. Brsntwood Bd. cf Salictmen US.NRC.

Dept. of th3 Attornly Gensral RFD Daltan Rd.

Augusta, ME 04333. Br2ntwood, N!! 03833 WLhhington, ' DC 20555 Gustave Linenberger - Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Gary W. Holmes, Esq.

E Atomic Safety Lic. Board Board of Selectmen IIolmes & Ells US NRC RFD 1 - Box.1154 47 Winnacunnet Rd.

W chington, .DC ,20555 Kensington, Hl! 03827 Ilampton, NH 03842

. . . . 4~ .

-Dr. Jerry.Itarbour Matthew Brock, Esq. Mr. Edward Thomas Atomic Safety Lic. Board Shaines & McEachern FEMA - Region 1 US NRC P.O. Box 360 442 McCormack POCl!

W:2hington, DC 20555 Portsmouth, Nil 03801 Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 Atomic Safety & Licensing Senator Gordon Humphrey Michael Santasuosso Board Panel U.S. Senate Board of Selectmen l US NRC Washington, DC 20510 So. Ilampton,.NH 03827 W2chington, DC 20555 attn: Tom Burcak Atomic Safety & Licensing Senator Gordon Humphrey Charles P. Graham, Esq.

Appeal Board 1 Eagle Sq. - Suite 507 100 Main Street US NRC Concord, N!I 03301 Amesbury, MA 01913 W12hington, DC 20555 attn: lierb Boynton .

Dockating & Service Section II. Joseph Flynn Ms Jane Doughty Off. of the Secretary Off. of General Counsel SAPL "

US NRC FEMA 5 Market St.

W2thington, DC 20555 500 C ' S t. , SW Portsmouth, NII 03801 Washington, DC 20472.

Robsrt Carrigg Mr. J.P. Nadeau Roberta C. Pevear Bo:rd of Selectmen .

Selectmen's Office .. 27 Drinkwater Rd.

Town IIall 10 Central Rd. Hampton Falls, Nil 03844 No.. Hampton, Nil 03862 Rye, Nil 03870 Diana Curran, Esq. Carol S. Sneider, Esq. Richard A. Hampe ll:rmon & Weiss Off. of the Attorney Gen. Hampe & McNicholas 2001 S St. , NW - Suite 430 1 Ashburton Pl.- 19th F1. 35 Pleasant St.

Vashington, DC 30009 Boston, MA 02108 Concord, NH 03301 Georga Dana Bisbee, Esq. Calvin A. Canney Judith 11. Mizner, Esq.

Of f. of the Attorney General City Manager Silverglate,- Gertner et al 25 C2pitol St. 126 Daniel St. 88 Broad St.

Concord, N!! 03301 Portsmouth, Nil 03801 Boston, MA 02110 i

-Sh3rwin E. Turk, Esq. Mr. Angie Machiros Beverly llollingworth Off. of the Exec. Legal Dir. Board of Selectmen **

209 Winnacunnet Rd.  !

.US NRC Newbury, MA 01951 Itampton, Nil 03842 Washington, DC 20555' Robert A. Backus, Esq. Mayor Peter S. Matthews Thomas Dignan i P.O. Box 516 City Itall Ropes & Gray 116 Lowell St.  !

Newburyport, MA 01950 225 Franklin St.

Manchester, Nil 03105 .

Boston, MA 02110 a