ML20236E040

Opposes Approval of State of Nh Emergency Evacuation Plan for Plant.Author Finds Plan Ineffective When Traffic Along Coastline Exists.Served on 871027

ML20236E040
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/15/1987
From:	Costello N MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#487-4691 OL, NUDOCS 8710290035
Download: ML20236E040 (2)

Text

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

. y Nk a s

h COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 00CMETED USNRC MASSACHUSETTS SENATE ,

l STATE HOUSE. BOSTON 02l33 f0 fh SECU tab"NERav ^** lCHAIRMAN)

^

SENATOR NICHOLAS J. COSTELLO BR Ne U"""EtoEE"/filAa".

THIRD ESSEX DISTRICT COMMERCE AND CM ROOM 217. S TATE HOUSE AO RtCULTU R E l TEL. 7221604 SPECIAL COMMIS$10N$r SMALL DU$1 NESS INCU8ATORS SHELLFISH INDUSTRY (CHAIAMANI TOUR 16M (VICE CHAIRMAN)

October 15, 1987 l

Honorable Ivan Smith, Chairman l United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: New Hampshire Emergency Evacuation Plan for Seabrook Station Docket Nos. 50-443-OL/50-444-OL (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL Offsite Emergency Planning)

Dear Judge Smith:

As a State Senator representing 5 of the 6 Massachusetts communities within the ten mile radius of the Seabrook Station, I am compelled to bring to your attention my strong opposition to the proposed evacuation plans for the state of New Hampshire currently under your review.

Given the demographics of this northeast coastal region surrounding the plant's site, the New Hampshire Emergency Evacuation Plan is of critical importance to the health and safety of the citizens of Massachusetts. As I am not a legal intervenor in this case and not a citizen of New Hampshire, I am barred from appearing before you to present public testimony at the Concord hearings. Thus, I speak through Massachusetts Attorney General James Shannon who provided testimony to your Committee and I rely on this written pres entation.

On any given summer day, thousands of Massachusetts residents crowd the beaches along the New Hampshire coastline. Seabrook Beach is a favorite vacation spot for many of the residents in my district. As such, the plans which would ultimately have to provide for their safety should an accident occur at Seabrook Station is justifiably of importance to them and to me. Given this fact, I have reflected upon the New Hampshire plan and its ability to provide this security.

Knowing the roads in these communities and having travelled them only too often during congested summer traffic, I am convinced that no plan can escape the inevitable obstacle that such traffic would 8710290035 871015 PDR ADOCK 05000443 o PDR THIRD ESSEX D! STRICT: METHUEN. HAVERHILL. NORTH ANDOVER. GRoVELAND.

WEST NEWBURY. MERRIMAC. AMESBURY. NEWBURYPORT ANo SALISBURY y

J . e present. I can anticipate the inability to access equipment and

-mobilize personnel which would result from these conditions.

Obstacles such as these, clearly derived from common sense, present insurmountable problems and seriously affect the viability of the New Hampshire plan. These conditions cannot be overlooked or taken lightly. They are real. ,

In addition, the realistic ability to inform, educate and control an entire population of vacationers visiting from areas throughout New England is virtually none. Plans on paper can never anticipate or completely provide for the reactio,ns of people during a crisis situ-ation.

Therefore, I take this opportunity to be recorded in strong opposition l to the approval of the New' Hampshire Emergency Evacuation plan for

.Seabrook Station.'I ask that in your review you look beyond the l olan before you on paper to the people, the communities and the con-  !

di i ns that would be confronted if an accident occurs at Seabrook.

i arel ,

f1 .

- / ,

N[CHOLAS J. '

ELLO State Senator NJC/amt cc: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

l l

l 1  !

I~ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -