ML20206M353

Town of Hampton Answer Opposing Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition (Toh Iv).* Inadequate Buses or Emergency Medical Svc Vehicles Exist.Rev 2 to Radiological Emergency Response Plan Does Not Correct Deficiencies

ML20206M353
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/15/1987
From:	Brock M, Mceachern P HAMPTON, NH, SHAINES & MCEACHERN
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20206M356	List: ML20206M353 ML20206M558 ML20206M707 ML20206M776 ML20206M815 ML20206M838 ML20206M864
References
CON-#287-3138 OL, NUDOCS 8704200092
Download: ML20206M353 (7)

Text

' 3/ 3 r' l

l Dated:

April 15,19 87 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ok, 7re g

before the 1

Pd :37 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD KET kr;h{p{lk{~

BRANCH

)

In the Matter of

)

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

)

Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.

)

50-444-OL

)

Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

Planning Issues

)

l

)

TOWN OF HAMPTON ANSWER OPPOSING APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION (TOH IV)

Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.749, the Town of Hampton submits this ANSWER OPPOSING APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION (TOH IV) and, on the basis of the Af fidavits of Ann Hutchinson, Alan Luloff, Thomas J. Adler, Glen French, Herbert Moyer, Donald J. Ziegler, and Dona R. Janetos, and for the reasons set forth below, the Town of Hampton requests this Board to DENY Applicants' Motion f or Summary Disposition on Town of Hampton Revised Contention IV.

REASONS f_QE DENYING.TJig MOTION:

The admitted bases for Town of Hampton Revised Contention IV may be summarized as follows:

8704200092 870415 PDR ADOCK 05000443 O

PDR

\\

O30 i

s._s.m._~.._._..._._._...

te l

t I

i A.

Inadequate buses or emergency medical service vehicles 3 (bus / driver pairs).

B.

RERP Rev. 2 does not correct exercise deficiencies.

C.

The special needs annual survey did not adequately identify special needs persons.

D.

Bus routes are inadequate for the transient or transit of dependent persons.

E.

The NHRERP makes no provision to compensate for the non-participation of private citizens assigned duties under the plan, including EPZ teachers and health care staff.

F.

The State lacks adequate law enforcement personnel to supple-ment or compensate for the non-participation of local police personnel.

As set forth in the Town of Hamptons' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE, these bases are fully supported by Affidavit; by the regional assistance committee (RAC) evaluation of State response in NHRERP, Rev. 2 (8-86); FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/ 2/ 86; and by the terms of the NHRERP.

Applicant also claims that basis three in " CONTENTIONS OF THE l

TOWN OF HAMPTON TO RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE, November 1985" (2/21/86) and basis E in

" CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF HAMPTON TO REVISED RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN AND TO COMPENSATORY PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE", (4/14/ 86), which were previously admitted for litigation i

2 i

1 sH AINES & McE ACHERN - ortsse 6 associate ano.%ces

4 I

i i

j by this Board, have now, according to Applicant, "been rejected by the Board".

Applicant argues that at the time of the filing of these I

contentions, the NHRERP called f or Nashua as the host community for Hampton which, under Revision 2,

has been changed to Dover.

Notwithstanding Applicants' claim that the prior contentions were

" grounded" in the f act that Nashua served as host community, that fact is peripheral and irrelevant to the principal th rust of the admitted contention and bases which Applicant now seeks to avoid in litigation.

By those bases, the Town of Hampton has raised a significant and reasonable claim that evacuating traffic from the EPZ will pose a substantial impediment to buses and other emergency vehicles I

attempting to enter the EPZ to carry out their NHRERP functions.

Adler Affidavit.

Whether the host community is Nashua, Dover, or any other community outside the EPZ, a strong likelihood of traffic congestion and road block posed by the conflicting travel paths of on-coming and out-going vehicles is highly relevant and a significant obstacle to prompt evacuation.

Adler Affidavit.

Applicants' Motion on Town of Hampton Revised Contention IV should be DENIED.

Respective,17 submitted,

,/

Town of,H'ampton By Its/A orney SHAIRES & McE ER P

/ v P ul McEachern Dated:

April 15, 1987

" NC% -

Matthew T. Brock' 3

l SH AINES & McE ACHERN -==orusso.a associavo. ar-o-we,

0 I

STATEMENT QE MATERIAL PACTS J.H DISPUTE (TOHIV) l 1.

The regional assistance committee (RAC) evaluation of State l

response in NHRERP, Revision 2 ( 8-86, Sec.

J.10. g ( 5 ) states " bus requirements are well in excess of the number'of bus company drivers that have agreed to drive.

it is evident that the teamsters would have to provide additional drivers in the event of a complete evacuation of EPZ".

RAC has therefore concluded that the NHRERP f ails to demonstrate adequate bus / driver pairs to implement the NHRERP in the event of an emergency.

2.

Applicant has not obtained letters of agreement with bus company owners permitting teamsters to drive buses during an eme rgency.

Applicant Statement of Material Fact As To Which There Is No Dispute, par.

2.

Even assuming adequate drivers, ther efore, there is no showing by Applicant that adequate buses will be available to drive.

3.

There is no notification or coordination plan in effect by which the teamsters may reasonably be made available to drive the buses located at various bus companies throughout the State.

Een Strome Affidavit (TOH Revised Contention IV) par. 8.

Even assuming adequate numbers of buses and of drivers, there is no pl an to coordinate these resources into bus / driver pairs necessary to imple-ment the NHRERP.

FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6 / 2/ 86, p. 39.

4.

Hampton's estimated bus needs, and the needs of other EPZ

towns,

.a r e presently not known since Applicant is relying upon unreasonably low population figures, particulariy those concerning the i

SH AINES & McEACHERN. paorasso.46 associato anom=ses as manswooo avenus.p o aos aso poetsmowin== oseo,

1 l

l l

beach, transient, transit dependent, and special needs populations.

j Luloff Affidavit, p.

2; French Af fidavit.

5.

The buses and drivers promised by letter agreement f rom area bus companies represent a theoretical maximum and substantially overstate the number of buses and drivers that actually will be available in the event of emergency.

FEMA, final exercise assessment i

6/2/ 86, App. I at P. 233; Hutchinson Af fidavit.

Applicant has there-i fore f ailed to demonstrate adequate bus / driver pairs can and will be available to implement the NHRERP.

6.

The 1,500 teamsters referenced in the letter agreement with the State of'New Hampshire merely state the number of teamsters located within the State.

The New Hampshire teamsters have never voted to implement the NHRERP in the event of emergency, no survey has been conducted demonstrating that the teamsters would in fact implement the NHRERP, and the letter agreement itself makes no reference to radiological emergency.

On its f ace, therefore, the letter agreement is deficient, and, as a matter of fact, is unsupportable as a basis for predictive findings that adequate drivers will be available to implement the NHRERP.

7.

The EMS or Ambulance Service Vehicles identified in the NHRERP are not adequate since these numbers are based on unreasonably low population estimates, contradictory information and "very large differences in special needs survey estimates".

Since RAC " reviewers do not now have enough information to judge the accuracy or priority" 5

l i

l s.,~ c s. c c.c c o ~.

...e<.

j

O e

i of the State's special needs estimates, necessarily Applicant cannot e

demonstrate that adequate EMS or ambulance vehicles are available to i

impl ement the NHRERP.

Egg RAC Review ( 8/ 86) Sec. J.10.g ( 5).

l I

8.

The " additional fifty percent of individual bus capacity" allocated by the State "f or those who may not have access to their vehicle at the time of an emergency", Egg Applicants' Statement of l l

Material Facts par. 13,

"i s relatively meaningless because bus resources and requirements, accounting for probable bus loading, are l

not given".

RAC review ( 8/ 86 ) Se c. J.10.g (7) ( A).

RAC has therefore concluded that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate l

reserve or backup buses to implement the NHRERP.

t 9.

The Applicant has f ailed to utilize an adequate procedure f or identifying persons with special needs.

Egg Lulof f Af fidavit.

RAC itself has pointed to "very large differences in special needs survey estimates" obtained by the Applicant, and theref ore has reasonably called into question the figures relied on by Applicant in allocating personnel and transportation resources.

RAC ( 8/ 86 ) Sec. J.10.g ( 5 ).

Preliminary research indicates Applicant has substantially undercoun-l l

ted special needs populations.

Lulof f Af fidavit, p. 2.

i 10.

Virtually all Hampton school teachers, and other EPZ teachers, will not implement the NHRERP in the event of emergency due to their overriding duties to their f amilies.

Egg Ziegler Affidavit;'

Town of Hampton Motion for Summary Disposition, including Moyer l

Af fidavit and Petition of EPZ teachers.

The State lacks adequate l

personnel to supplement or compensate f or the non-participation of a

6 l

SH AIN ES & Mc E ACHE RN -==orssoo.a. associato, a*on=rvs as waa a=oco avra.va s o aos seo aontsmou

= osso,

s v

3 i

I private citizens, including EPZ teachers and health care staff, in the l

event of emergency.

Vol. 2, App. G, p. G-2; Moyer Af fidavit.

l 11.

The State of New Hampshire lacks adequate personnel to i

j supplement local law enforcement personnel in the event of a local manpower shortage or as a result of non-participation.

Egg Janetos l.

Af fidavit; Strome Af fidavit re: TOH Revised Contention VI, par. 2 (3 to 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> lapse before supplemental State Police, beyond those l

available in Troop A, can implement NHRERP).

Lack of such adequate i

personnel will substantially lengthen ETE.

Adler Affidavit.

12.

Emergency vehicles entering the EPZ will encounter substan-tial impedance from evacuation traffic.

Egg Adler Affidavit.

i l

Emergency vehicles entering the EPZ will be required to travel at substantially lower speeds than the 40 MPH on at grade primary roads and 50 MPH on access controlled highways as alleged by Applicant.

Egg Adler Affidavit.

i l

7 l

i SH AINES & McEACHERN + peorassma6 assocave evemevs I

as mans = coo aveanit eo som s.o so=*smovm m ossos