ML19332A821

Second Final Amended Contentions Re Util,York & Dauphin Counties' Emergency Plans.York Plan Evacuation Routes Not wind-dependent.Util Plan Unacceptable Due to Lack of Siren Warning Sys.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19332A821
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	09/08/1980
From:	Cunningham J NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP TMI STEERING COMMITTEE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8009180436
Download: ML19332A821 (30)

Text

v -

\\?Il

, 7 m 3 Dec m o W.i .. '- -

~ -

SEP C.T &

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  :- -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9N'd BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY ANP LICENSING BOARD  %'

In the Matter of:  :

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,  : Docket No. 50-289 et al.  :

TThriie Mile Island Nuclear  : Restart Station, Unit No.1)  :

p SECOND FINAL AMENDED CONTENTIONS OF NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP TMI 5IEERING COMMITTEE, ET AL. TO THE METROPOLITAN EDIS0N ERERGENCY PLAN; YORK COUNTY PROTECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR THE THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; AND OAUPHIN COUNTY FIXED NUCLEAR FACILITY INCIDENT RESPONSE PLAN CONTENTION NUMBER 3 Evacuation planning being done by the Metropolitan Edison Company; York County Commissioners; and Dauphin County Commissioners is inadequate to insure the safety of the public, particularly those persons who live within a five (5) mile radius of the nuclear power plant located at Three Mile Island, Pennsyl-vania. Operation of TMI Unit No. I should not be resumed until a plan is in place for the evacuation of the public in the maximum area which could be affected by an accident or incident and the plans submitted by the Metropolitan Edison Company, York County Commissioners, and Dauphin County Commissioners to that end are deficient as follows:

YORK COUNTY PLAN

1.Section VI, Concept of Coerations, Subsection 7(a) is deficient in that there is an assumption that notification by siren can be heard throughout Os  :

, 8009180 g 3 q llI i

Newberry Township and-surrounding communities. It is questionable at best whether this is, in fact, true in that at least in the York County Plan there is an _. assumption of one Civil Defense strcr. being in place in Newberry Township which does not exist. Oversights such as this may still exist within the Emergency Plan drafted by York County and verif.ication of all sirens must be required in order to insure at least minimum siren coverage of the county.-

Therefore, it is Intervenor's position that there are not sufficient numbers of Civil Defense warning sirens in place in the county in order to adequately insure that all members of the community are within hearing distance of a siren. It is Intervenor's contention that until the Emergency Plan specifi-cally states that a siren alert system is in place and that the warning emitted by the system can be heard at any point in the county surrounding the plant site, that the Emergency Plan as draf ted is unacceptable.

2.Section VI, Subsection 7(b). The York County Plan as drafted indicates that selective evacuation of pregnant women and pre-school children and their families would be effected upon order of the Governor. Again, the notification would be by a five (5) minute steady siren which cannot be assured will be heard in all points within the affected areas. Moreover, the Plan assumes that there will be appropriate EBS announcements followed by door-to-door notifica-tion which would be conducted by appropriate boroughs and townships. Again, the Intervenor raises the contention tha't the time factor required in order to recruit volunteers to man vehicles and the many miles of road which are located in the various rural. communities which would have to be traveled in order to ensure that notification of all members of the population of the impending

, emergency conditions would render the Plan as written inoperable. Moreover, it i

j is contended by the Intervenor that the selected evaluation notification is initially effected by the same type of notification that would be required in a i

+

2--

],

- _ _-, _c . . * ._ -..a.- - . ., ; , _ . . _ , . . , _ , ,_... _ .--

general evacuation.' Both evacuations are initiated by a five (5) minute steady siren tone, then followed by appopriate EBS announcements. It is Intervenor's contention that similarity and warning evacuation tones may lead to confusion on behalf of the public and that orderly evacuation of the affected areas could not be effected. Furthermore, this section of the York County Plan anticipates parents.and/or families evacuating the area will be able to pick up children at schools. This again would lead to confusion within the Plan in that if a selected evacuation was ordered and pre-school children were to be removed from the area, the Plan anticipates that action would be taken by school superinten-dents in the evacuation of the children from schools and that there may be interference or lack of effective execution of tt o Emergency Plan set forth for the school systems.

3.Section VI, Subsection 7(c). This section of the York County Plan is deficient in that it depends upon the York County Chamber of Commerce to notify and pass on the general evacuation information to business and industry. There is no assurance that the Chamber of Commerce has the necessary manpower, equipment, and training to pass on such information to the general public. For example, does the York County Chamber of Commerce possess necessary trunk lines to advise all industry within an affected area. What happens in the event that 1

telephone communications are jammed or overloaded and that notification of industries cannot be effected by the York County Chamber of Commerce. Further-more, does the York County Chamber of Ccm.erce and all industry within the possible affected area h' ave radio communication capabilities.

l The Plan is also defective in that it is anticipated that the Pennsyl-li vania National Guard will provide tow trucks and gasoline along evacuation

! routes; however, nowhere in the Plan does it indicate that the Pennsylvania ,

i National Guard has the necessary tow trucks and fuel trucks to effect such a I

i h

i  :

h l

plan. Finally, it's noted that there is no reaction time indicated in the Plan in order to assure thet such tow trucks and fuel trucks could even arrive within the evacuation area due to traffic flow on the interstates and access

~

highways.

Subsection (c) of this Plan also provides that a County Medical Officer will coordinate with the Pennsylvania Department of Health the distri-bution of thyroid blocking agents and other radiological health materials. The assumption is that these materials would be stored in an arer. in close proximity to the affected area without any assurance that such thyroic blocking agents and other radiological health materials are even available and could be de-livered to the Exit 6 area of I-83 within a timeframe that would be sufficient to effect the Plan. .

The Plan in Subsection (c) also assumes that homeboundt and invalids will be able to be transmitted by means of ambulance and bus and that indivi-duals with no transportation could request the same through local fire companies

'for bus pickup. The capabilities to effect such a plan within Newberry Township are non-existent. For example, Newberry Township has two ambulances that could be placed into service, assuming that a volunteer would operate the same.

Local communities surrounding the Newberry Township area include Goldsboro Borough and Lewisberry Borough, each borough having an ambulance to effect evacuation of their homebounds and invalids. It is submitted that within the 34 mile square area that encompasses Newberry Township and the boroughs of ,

I Lewisberry, Goldsboro and York Haven that fos.c (4) ambulances would not be l l

sufficient to evacuate homebounds and invalids. Moreover, transportation l

through local fire companies will be impossible, as local fire chiefs have  ;

indicated that they could not guarantee that any personnel could or would  !

effect such an evacuation service. Finally, it is submitted that if local  !

volunteer fire companies cannot assure manpower staffing during a general emergency situation, that they cannot be again counted upon to provide trans-portation to designated areas for bus pickup for those individuals who are without transportation.

The York County Plan in Section VI, Subsection (c) provides that posting of evacuation maps and semi-annual distribution of evacuation routes in local newspapers will be accomplished. It is submitted that there is no set designation of the responsibility for the effecting of this part of the Plan and it is Intervenor's contention that unless the Plan directs and places responsibility upon someone to effect this part of the Plan, the Plan is defective. Moreover,Section VI, Subsection (c)(4) provides that there will i i

be an exercise and training of emergency service forces to include at least one annual exercise conducted in connection with PEMA. It is submitted that this part of the Plan is deficient because it does not require mandatory participa-tion of all of the local emergency service forces. A most recent test conducted i-by PEMA in July of 1980 did not include the participation of a majority of the local townships and boroughs because the persons who would have been involved y

in that training exercise are volunteers and would not or could not obtain leave from their employers to participate in such a training exercise. It is contended that the Plan is still deficient in this area unless and until the ~

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through its police powers provides that those who are considered to be emergency service forces within the local boroughs and townships are given non-prejudicial paid leave time by their employers in order to participate in such an exercise.

I 4.Section VI, Subsection (d)(1) provides that, upon notification from t i

PEMA, the County Director will assemble and consult rith appropriate members of I

(

the county staff and elected officials. There does not seem to be included in l

{

• the Plan any means in whict to contact the local elected officials unless it is 1

the assumption that tnese officials would be contacted by telephone. It is Intervenor's contention that, in the event of an emergency situation at Three Mile Island, once the public has any notice or indication that something has occurred at THI, that the telephone linas will become overloaded and that ,

incoming calls to local officials will not be able to be effected. Moreover, the Plan does not indicate where local officials will assemble, how they will i know where to assemble and when to assemble and thus the Plan is still deemed I

i to be deficient.

5. Annex A of the York County Plan provides that the alternate E0C site will be the new Hanover Borough Building in Hanover, Pennsylvania. Intervenors again raise the contention that there still is no indication at this time that trunk lines have been laid for the transfer of the Emergency Operations Center to the Hanover location, and, as such, it renders the Plan inadequate.

6. Appendix 2,Section I, Subsection (d) of the York County Plan provides that the Emergency Manamagent Coordinator will insure that briefings are presented to the Commissioner and he will interpret displays and technical reports for the Commissioners. There is no statement in the Plan that the person occupying the position of Emergency Management Coordinator will have educational requirements sufficient to insure that he will be able to in terpret any displays of technical reports for the Commissioners. It is Intervenor's contention that unless the Emergency Management Coordinator is required to have an expertise in the area of nuclear science, he will be unable to sufficiently and accurately interpret the displays and technical reports for the Commission-ers and thus may leave the Commissioners who ultimately are responsible for the l safety and welfare of the people of York County uninformed or misinformed of actual events taking place at TMI.

I

7. Appendix 2,Section II, of the York County Plan provides that the Situation Analysis Group will receive reports of plant safety degradation, potential / actual radioactive release and radiation intensity. Again, there are no job requirements for persons who sit on a Situation Analysis Group to qualify them to make such reviews and, therefore, again, without qualified people to sit on such a group, their advice to the county's commissioners may be misinfomed and unenlightened which could again then lead to chaos and confusion. "

8. Appendix 2.Section III, of the York County Plan provides that the Assistant Director of Police Operations is responsible for the overall manage-ment of law and order, traffic control and security. In the cyknt the National Guard is ordered to assist local communities, it is questionabl.e whether the Assistant Director of Police Operations would be in a position to ritrect orders to a military organization as is assumed he would be in the York Ccunty Plan.

There seems to be no coordination between the National Guard chain of command and the chain of command in the operations group in Annex 2,Section III, and therefore, it is Intervenor's position that the Plan is deficient in that there is no stated area of responsibility concerning police operations, vis-a-vis the 3

National Guard.

9. Appendix 2 Section III, Subsection (g) of the York County Plan indicates that the Area Agency on Aging should develop a system to identify the

! homebound and invalid personnel that require special transportation needs and I

coordinate a cormlidated listing with the transportation group. Until and unless the Area Agency on Aging is directed to effect such a system, it is i

Intervenor's position that the York County Plan is deficient because, without I

such listing, there would be no way in which local communities could be assured i i

i that all invalids and homebound persons would be removed from an evacuation ,

i

area.

10. Appendix 2,Section III, Subsection (i) provides that it will be anticipated that the Pennsylvania State Police would be prepared to support York County disaster operations in the event of an incident at the TMI nuclear facility. Moreover, it indicates that the Pennsylvania State Police would coordinate with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for the placement of temporary signs in support of evacuation area security. It is important to note that there is no formulated and stated plan for the involvement of the Pennsylvania State Police in the event of an incident at TMI. It is also anticipated in-the Plan that there would be the placement of some sort of temporary signs to support the evacuation of the area; however, there is no statement that such temporary signs presently exist or that they would be existing at a time of need. It is therefore contended that the York County Plan is deficient because it does not state the exact assignment of the Pennsylvania State Police in connection with. all other support groups in York County.

11. Appendix A, Annex A, Situation Analysis Group, of the York County Flan provides that it will support the State Bureau of Rad. Health with available personnel and equipment and that in the event of a general evacuation on request it will support fire and mass care operations with monitors for decon-taminations. Nowhere in the Plan does it state that the Situation Analysis Group will have the necessary equipment required in order to support the Various bureaus and fire and mass care operations with the necessary equipment monitors for decontamination operations.

12. Appendix 3, Annex A, providing for police operations in a selective

evacuation and a general evacuation provides that the police would support and l assist in notification and, on request, that police operations provide fire and l

police support for traffic control and security. It is submitted that support and assist in notification and support for traffic control and security are mutually exclusive operations. It is Intervenor's contention that police in local communities cannot be asked to both support traffic control and security and, at the same time, support and assist in the notification of area residents of the impending dangers and evacuation no'tification in the ' event of an incident at TMI.

13. Appendix .3, Annex A, Health Medical Operations, provides that that group would be prepared to assist the State Department of Health in the distri-

bution of thyroid blocking and other radiological health materials. Nowhere in i

the Plan is it stated that these materials are readily available and until and unless the Plan specifically designates that these materials are located within the York County area, it is Intervenor's contention that the Plan is deficient.

14. Annex B of the York County Plan indicates that the order of notifica-tion from York County is to executive group members and then to local coordina-tors within the risk area with priority to those nearest the facility, then to a

school superintendents and then to Emergency Operations Center staff.

4 Nowhere

} in the Plan is it indicated how these people would be notified of the impending emergency. Intervenors again raise the issue that in the event of an incident at TMI, members of these organizations should be able to be reached without dependence upon telephone communications. Until and unless it is indicated that these individuals can be contacted without dependence upon telephone communications, the plan is deficient.

15. Annex C of the York County Plan is deficient in that its total concept

, of operations is based upon tone-coded siren control and that nowhere in the f

l Plan is it stated that all individuals are within hearing distance of the

sirens located within a 20-mi',e radius of the TMI nuclear plant. Moreover, the

! I l Plan provides as a backup or supplementary system to the siren system that I

_g.

s ~ ~ ,, g , , - . , . e - ,-,- ---- ,-..nn--,- - , , - - - - , - - - -

police and fire vehicles would travel throughout the communities and again it is raised that the townships, boroughs and municipalities located within the 20-mile radius of the TMI nuclear facility do not have the necessary commitments of manpower to effect such a plan. Therefore, it is Intervenor's position that the York County Plan remains deficient.

16. Annex 0,Section V, provides that the concept of operation will be effected by the regular communications staff augmented by " qualified volunteers" as required. The Plan also indicated that amateur radio will be relied upon in the event of an incident at TMI nuclear facility. There is no assurance that any amateur radio operators have agreed to participate in such an operation or that each school district has had an operator assigned to it to coordinate the i utilization of school buses. Moreover, there is no definition of who is a i

qualified volunteer in the event that volunteers are required to be used by the communications staff. Finally, the concept of operations in this section provides that RACES would provide interim communications at the Hanover site until full communications capability could be restored. It is Intervenor's position that the Hanover site must be placed in an immediate ready condition in order to effectively serve as an alternate site for emergency operations control. It is Intervenor's position that until and unless the Hanover site is placed in a ready condition, that the Plan remains deficient. Furthennore, Subsection VI of this particular section provides that the common carrier

(

system within the Emergency Operations Center is the 911 system, of which 49 out of 79 emergency telephone trunk lines are committed. Furthermore, 6 of the

lines are standby rumor-control lines, leaving 24 emergency telephone trunk

' j lines for those areas not contained within the 911 system. The Newberry Township, Fairview Township, Goldsborough and Lewisberry areas are without 911

, service. It is Intervenor's contention that, in the event of an incident at t

' ~

1 the TMI nuclear facility, the telephone grid system would become so overloaded during'such an incident that the making of a phone call to the remaining 24 committed lines at the Emergency Operations Center would be difficult if not impossible. Therefore, it is claimed that this part of the Plan also is 1

deficient in that there are not enough emergency trunk lines available for all residents within the 20-mile radius zone of TMI with a special emphasis on

, those areas in York County which are closest to the nuclear power facility.

l

16. Annex E of the York County Plan, Subsection III, providd that the i local Emergency Management Director are responsible for the distribution of printed handout material to the populace within their respective municipalities.

The Plan is defective in this area in that there is no set timetable for the

distribution of said materials to the local Elnergency Management Directors, and, likewise, there are no provisions within the Plan as to how local Emergency Management Directors are going to distribute the information to the local popul ace. Again, it is submitted that, in the event of an incident at tne TMI nuclear facility, local volunteers will not be able to be counted upon to effect such distribution and that without some other means of distributing the materials, local Emergency Management Directors will be impotent to effect such ,

a Plan. The same problem arf ses in Section K of this area in that the Public

Infomation Officer is responsible for the posting in all public areas, parks, etc. of public infomation and evacuation instrt.ctions for transient popula-tions.

17. Annex F,Section II, of the Plan is inconsistent with Appendix 2, Subsection III, Subsection A in that the Assistant Director of Police Operations is stated to be responsible for all management of law and order, .affic control and security, whereas Annex F provides that the Pennsylvania State j Police is responsible for coordinating law enforcement and traffic control and l l 1

i

- , . . - - . . , - , . - . - - - - . , , , - . _ - , . . . . . - -n , . , - - , . , . -

the Pennsylvania National Guard is responsible for providing security for the evacuated areas ~. Intervenor is of the position that until and unless the order of command is sufficiently, adequately and clearly stated, their lies the possibility in the Plan for mass chaos and confusion with regard to who is responsible for police services. The Plan is deficient until it states in a succinct and clear manner who will be responsible for giving direct orders to the Pennsylvania State Police, the sheriff in local police departments, and the Pennsylvania National Guard in the event there is an incident at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility.

18. Annex G of the York County Plan is deficient in that it assumes that local fire companies will have sufficient manpower to effect emergency opera-tions procedures as outlined in the Plan. As is previously been pointed out by the Intervenor, there is usually insufficient staffing of the individual fire companies to assure that all residents in rural areas would be notified of an incident at the TMI nuclear facility because of the number of miles of road located in each township. The Plan also contains a concept that the county would distribute radiological monitoring equipment to individual fire companics to be monitored by the fire company personnel. There is no. indication in the Plan that volunteer firemen have been trained to operate such equipment and there is no assurance that such equipment is presently located within the county for distribution. Until these deficiencies are resolved, it is Interve-nor's position that the Plan is deficient.

19. Appendix I of the York County Plan regarding warning is deficient in that it assumes that local fire companies will be able to alert all members of a rural connunity by direct notification such as knocking on doors. There is absolutely no conceivable way in which individual direct notification can be

made in Newberry Township because of the number of residents versus the number j i

i

of volunteer firemen and it is submitted that the same conditions exist in all local municipalities located within the 20 mile radius of the TMI nuclear facility. Therefore, until and unless a system is designed that can adequately insure that a substantial majority of the population can be notified of an incident at TMI, the Plan is deficient.

20. Annex H of the York County Plan provides in its general concept of operations that evacuation routings would be inherently dependent upon climatic conditions, time factors involved, etc. The Plan also provides that residents would be evacuated on major interstates and state highways. There is no mention as to the condition of the access roads to these major arteries and it 1

j is submitted that evacuation generally is dependent upon climatic conditions j and the conditions of the access roads within the individual townships and local communities. Access roads within Newberry Townsnip vary from a 20 to a

26 foot width and it is Intervenor's contention that in the event of an evacua-I tion, traffic flow on these access roads could quickly become terminated as a result of the vehicles running out of gas or being involved in auto accidents i

for which there would be no way in which to remedy the situation. Moreover, in 4

ice and snow conditions, it is submitted that these access roads which are located in generally hilly areas would be generally impassable and, therefore, there would be no access to the evacuation routes. Until and unless the j evacuation Plan provides for a means to assure that access roads will be passable during a general evacuation, it is submitted that the Plan is de-ficient.

21. Annex K of the York County Plan provides for the transportation of a

various individuals out of the evacuation area. Intervenor's contention in this area fa that there is no direct stated coordination of plans between YATA,

local school districts, the Baltimore . Transit System, and the Pennsylvania and

, d ,

l I

(

l

9 l

l Maryland Railroad Company. The Plan as set forth in the concept of operation indicates that total coordination of the system will be left to the county l Transportation Coordinator who will establish a system, but it doesn't identify wnen he will establish a system to identify priority use of transportation

resources. Moreover, it states that any buses without missions would report to the Vo-Tech school loca'ted 'in York and be dispatched from that point. There is

, no provision for the refueling for any of the buses in any particular area and l

l there is no guarantee that school buses driven by volunteer drivers would be l willing to return to a risk area. Furthermore, the transportation area of the l

l York County Plan has totally disregarded the initial fi,e hour plan which had l been included in the initial evacuation plan. Nowhere in this Plan does it l

l appear that transportation could be effected in any set time period and, therefore, this section again, by implication, contains the realistic admission that, regardless of whether school was in session, the evacuation plan would be inoperable and unrealistic. Until and unless the Plan shows exact designation of buses, commitment by bus companies to react within set stated times and letters of agreement between the surrounding school districts and the York County Commissioners with regard to assurances of delivery of local school buses, the Plan will remain deficient.

22. Annex L of the York County Plan provides for resource requirements which, it is assumed, would set forth what 'would be required to set the whole evacuation plan of York County into operation with regard to manpower, equipment i and other resources. The Plan as of this date remains under development in this area and until and unless the Plan is completely finalized, it is Interve-i l nor's contention that the Plan is deficient.  !

l j 23. Annex M of the York County Plan providing for military support states

! that the Pennsylvania National Guard will enter into active duty upon an order

of the Governor. Moreover, they will respond to any individual local political subdivision's needs upon request of the local political subdivision for aid.

The Plan does not state with any specificity whether the Guardsmen will be protected by radiation-proof equipment, under whose orders and directions they will remain during their encampment in a local political subdivision, and when they will arrive in the local political subdivision after requested to do so.

Until and unless these deficiencies are rectified, it is Intervenor's contention that the Emergency Plan is deficient.

24. Annex N, Subsection VII, Subsection G provides for certain duties and responsibilities for a County Director and these duties and responsibilities conflict directly with those of the Emergency Management Coordinator. Speci fi-cally, this section provides that the County Director shall provide appropriate notice of infomation received and emergency actions taken and proposed to the York County Police and Fire Departments, other eschelons and emergency opera-tional chains, and local news media for emergency public infomation and news announcements, whereas, Appendix II provides that the Public Infomation Officer is. responsible for the issuance of official infomation, advice and instructions from the county to the public. This conflict renders the Plan deficient.

25. The York County Plan provides for the decontamination of personnel and vehicles and Subsection C of that Plan provides that all vehicles passing through a designated raception center will be decontaminated and also that all vehicles that will be on major routes leaving the county will be decontaminated.

The inclusion of this in the Emergency Plan of York County renders the Plan

! deficient and inoperable. It is Intervenor's position that, by decontaminating vehicles and personnel at the designated locations as set forth 'in the Plan .

t will only cause the projected traffic flows to be severely diminished as a  !

l l

t l result of the decontamination. The Plan is deficient also because there is no projection as to the number of cars that would be able to travel on the evacua-tion rcutes after the initial jam-up occurs at the decontamination routes. In other words, the decontamination areas will provide a bottleneck for the evacuation of area residents out of risk areas that will effectively render the evacuation plan inoperable. Unless the decontamination points are removed to some other point besides the major evacuation arteries, it is submitted that the Plan is thficient.

26. Anm 0 of the Emergency Plan is deficient in that the concept of operations division does not require mandatory preparation of local plans for emergency notification of bus drivers and the organization of mobilization of transportation necessary to meet the needs of evacuating their student popula-tions. Moreover, the Plan does not include any direction or plan to the local school superintendents as to rerouting their buses for general evacuation of local residents. For example, in an emergency, is a principal of Fishing Creek Elamentary School to send a bus to the Vo-Tech School fcr rerouting while area residents wait for transportation? Until and unless there is some type of

, generalized plan for each school district as to the rerouting of school vehicles not in tsd for removal of school population, the Plan will remain deficient.

27. ArMex R of the York County Plan does not provide for any evacuation of domestic farm animals and until and unless the Plan does provide for a plan of l

evacuation, the Plan remains deficient. Domestic fann animals cannot be left for any period of time without human care and attention and, therefore, it is assumed that farmers who have such U rge inrestments in livestock will not leave their investment unattenGc w, mp, they are left at risk. Moreover, I

l the agricultural part of the Yor>. County # tan provides that the County Emergency f Management Agency Director will charge and distribute dosimeters for agricul- I l tural personnel who are required to enter the designated 'isk area but does not i

(

state who will provide the dosimeters and who will interpret the dosimeter readings. Until and unless these two facits of the York County Plan are remedied, it is Intervenor's contention that the Plan remains deficient.

28. Intervenors reallege and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein, contentions 38(4),(5),(6),(7),(8),(9),(10),(11),(12),

(13), (15), (16), (17), (18), and (21). These contentions are still valid in light'of the new Plan sut,mitted by the York County Commissioners.

29. Nowhere in the York County Plan does there exist a catalog of the tow trucks available for use in York County. Until and unless a catalog of the tow

, trucks available for use is attached to the Plan, the Plan remains deficient.

30. The Evacuation plan contained in the York Ccunty Plan does not contain any sensitivity analysis or differentiation between the time of day, the seasons of the year or weather conditions at the time of the evacuation. In light of these deficiencies, it is Intervenor's contention that the Plan is deficient.

31. The mass evacuation centers contained in the York County P1an do not state that the centers have auxillary backup electrical power and heating plants in the event that they are placed into use. It is Intervenor's conten-tion that, without such auxillary power and heating systems, that the Plan is deficient in that evacuees would arrive either at a darkened or cold evacuation center.

32. The York County Plan contains only one EBS station, that being WSBA in York, Pennsylvania, and lists no other secondary station in the event that WSBA loses power or in some other way is placed out of operation. It is Intervenor's centention that the Plan is deficient in that a secondary EBS station is not included in the Plan. '

! 33. The York County Plan does not contain any treasury or source of I i

i l

financing in the event that an emergency is declared and payment to be made.

It is a general assumption, apparently on behalf of the Plan, that the county treasury can be invaded by the Commissioners for use during an emergency; however, it is Intervenor's position that a set emergency fund should be in place and stated within the Plan so that there would have to be no indecision as to the legality of withdrawing funds in the event of an emergency situation for ad hoc expenses.

34. The York County Plan has no provision in its population calculations for periods of time during the day when most people are working and outside of the area, during the day when there may be an increase in population because of industries located within the areas, or during summer periods when many indivi-duals may be on vacation or there would be an influx of individuals coming into the area to vacation. Without that type of population differential tables, it is Intervenor's contention that the Plan is deficient.

35. The York County Plan provides that the American Red Cross would provide for distribution of certain foodstuffs, clothing, and other personal articles. There is no mention in the Plan whether the Red Cross would have at its disposal the estimated foodstuffs required to feed the evacuated population, the cots needed for-the sheltered area and the evacuation centers. Until and unless the Plan contains the statement that these items are in storage and available for distribution, it is Intervenor's position that the Plan remains l deficient. .

.36. The York County Plan provides that there would be care provided for victims of radiation exposure; however, there is no statement that there are l supplies on hand for radiation care or that there are sufficient numbers of l l supplies on hand to take care of a large mass evacuation in the event that I

i there was a radiation leak. It is Intervenor's contention that, in order to i

i

i provide sufficient medical care for the populace at risk, it is necessary that the Plan contain statements that inventories are available and are presently in pl ace. Without such statement, the Plan remains defective.

37. The York County Plan contains.no time sequence for the removal of the eg sed at-risk population. There is only assumption that there would be adequate time in which to remove all individuals; however, there is no estimate as to the number of hours that would be required to effect a selective evacua-l tion or a general evacuation. Moreover, there is attached to the York County Plan an estimate of the number of vehicles per hour that coul'd be handled by various major arteries and access roads; however, there appears to be a conflict in the estimates in that urban roads with parking are estimated to handle at least 1,700 cars per hour whereas major arteries could only handle 1,300 per j hour and it is submitted that such a gross distortion renders the Plan deficient, Furthemore, there is absolutely no hard-core statistical data to back up the calculations relied upon in the York County Plan.

38. The York County Plan contains a thin staffing of all emergency coordi-4 nators and does not list any substitutes in the event that an emergency coordinator is ill, on vacation or otherwise indisposed. Without substi-tutes or standby emergency coordinators, the Plan is defective.

~

39. The ' York County Plan does not state how mar.y businesses are located in risk areas and what the population of those businesses are during working hours. Without this infomation, it would be impossible to detemine the number of hours that would be required to effect a general evacuation in the j event one was ordered. Therefore, it is Intervenor's position that i.he Plan I remains defective.

i i  !

40. . As a general overall comment, evacuation rou;ss as set forth are not w'ind-dependent, and, therefore, in the event of an evacuation, wind direction f

is'a factor that would be required to be taken into consideration in order to fomulate an effective evacuation plan. The Plan as set forth does not provide for this factor and, as such, persons evacuating the evacuation areas may be directed into a potentially more hazardous situation in the manner in which they are routed.

METROPOLITAN EDISON EMERGENCY PLAN, REVISION 2

1. Section 4.5.2 provides that off-site authorities would provide certain services in the event of an emergency situation. The Plan does indicate that there are agreements between the various personnel, organizations and agencies listed in this section; however, the agreements of most local fire companies only indicate that certain manpower is available and certain pieces of equipment are available. Morever, it appears as though somebody produced documents for the local fire companies to sign, which would indicate the amount of manpower and resources available to each one of the fire companies who signed such an agreement. The agreements with the fire companies do not state that they know exactly what will be expected of them in an emergency situation. Without a sound contractual understanding in place, it is questionable that during a crisis situation off-site authorities will know exactly what is expected of them. Detailed understandings should be drawn between the local police, firefighting authorities and the State Police and 'other off-site authorities and agencies in order to ensure orderly support in the event of an emergency. .

2 The absence of such documentation and understanding between Metropolitan Edison Company and off-site authorities creates a deficiency in the Emergency Plan.

l 2. Section 4.5.1.1 (2)(a) provides that the Shift Supervisor shall, in the event of any abnomal or emergency situation, assume certain responsibili- -

ti es. The two major responsibilities that, according to the Plan, the Shift l Supervisor will have are to initiate immediate appropriate actions and implement i

j

N proper procedures to avert the emergency and, at the same time, contact and notify the appropriate off-site emergency response organization and agencies.

It is Intervenor's position that to require a Shift Supervisor to perfom all these functions is to place too many responsibilities with one individual. It is Intervenor's contention that there should be a split of responsibilities with regard to this item to ensure both prompt action with regard to the event and prompt notification of the proper off-site emergency response organizations.

3. Section 4.5.1.3 (1)(c)(d) states that the Emergency Director shall provide liaison communication with county, state and federal governments to ensure that notification and reports to these agencies are made in a timely manner and that he will communicate with off-site emergency support organiza-tions. It is Intervenor's contention that this part of the Plan which is critical to the coordination of all emergency activities does not state with -

specificity the exact timeframe in which-notification and communication is to be made with off-site emergency support organizations and agencies. It is Intervenor's position that this is critical in order to ensure that licensee reports and communicates any abnomal and emergency condition to the respective organizations in a truly timely fashion. The Emergency Plan as now drafted leaves too much discretion with the Emergency Director with regard to the contacting of these off-site agencies.

4. Section 4.5.3.2 of the Emerancy P1an indicates that with respect to the 10 mile E.P.Z., the five counties identified in this section have prepared emergency plans that are coordinated with the State Disaster Operations Plan and with the TMI Emergency Plan as well. It is Intervenor's contention that 4

this obviously cannot be the case, since revision #2 of this Plan is dated l June,1980 and that the county plans sti.1 are not adopted as final drafts.

I  !

Moreover, a review of the Dauphin County and York County P1ans incicate there l

m is absolutely no referencing to the TMI Emergency Plan and that, in fact, it oppears as though the county plans were written independently of the TMI i

Emergency Plan. All plans .tust inter-coordinate in order to ensure that all parties participating in the emergency will know what is expected of them.

There is no provision.in the Emergency Plan for the distribution and updates of the TMI Emergency Plen and, based upon these deficiencies, the Emergency Plan as now written is inadequate.

5. Section 4.5.4 of the Emergency Plan anticipates that the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency will conduct and participate in annual training exercises that involve state, county and local government agencies and that the testing of communications, radiological monitoring instrumentation and warning systems will be conducted. It is Intervenor's contention that at the present l time, such communications, radiological monitoring instrumentation and warning systems are either not in place within the surrounding communities or are.not being maintained by operators within surrounding local communities. The Plan does not indicate who is responsible for the purchasing of communication, radiological monitoring instrumentation and warning systems and, furthermore, who is responsible for the maintaining of this equipment. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did begin a radiological monitoring effort; however, since local

d. monitoring readers were instructed as to how to read the monitors, the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania has not been soliciting their readings and/or following up to detennine whether the readings are being made by thereaders. Is this burden to be shouldered by the local community, the county, the state government' i

i or the licensee? It is Intervenor's contention that while emergency plans may, l in theory, set forth a plan .of training, it cannot realistically be put in I I i l action because the Plan assumes placement of communications systems, radiologi I '

cal monitoring instruments and warning systems. It is Intervenor's positian {

I i

s

that until such systems are in place, it is detennined who is responsible for the equipment's maintenance and monitoring and who is to burden the cost of the placement and maintenance of such systems, the Plan is inadequate and unaccep-table.

6. Section 4.6.5.1 (2) of the Emergency Plan provides that the responsibi-lity for actions to protect persons in the off-site areas rests with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency shall be the agency with which the responsibility rests for the placing, in effect, of protective options such as evacuation, sheltering and thyroid prophylaxis. The same section indicates that in the event of a general emer-f gency, precautionary measures may be taken such as sheltering, evacuation and evacuation of certain sectors based upon wind spe'ed and direction. It is again Intervenor's contention that this particular section of the Emergency Plan providing for the precautionary measures cited have not been coordinated with local county plans to any measurable extent. For example, in the county plans, there is no indication of how the counties would instruct its local Civil Defense Directors to evacuate only certain sectors within a community instead of Mthin radial distances of the Three Mile Island nuclear facility. This is again only but one example of a lack of coordination between the Emergency Plan and the various county plans and it is Intervenor's position that this lack of coordination is symptomatic of the entire Emergency Plan as it is now written.

The Emergency Plan submitted by the licensee should encompass a total coordina-tion of all Emergency Plans formulated by federal, state and county agencies.

This lack of coordination creates a deficiency which has to be remedied.

l 7. Section 4.6.7.1 of the Emergency Plan deals with early warnings and infonnation for transient areas. It is Intervenor's position that the methods

' l depended upon in the Emergency Plan to warn the population at risk, are, at the

! l r

I __ _ _ . . _ , . _ _ .

present time, not in' place. For example, section 2 of this particular section of the Emergency Plhn states that a siren alert system could be activated by

counties.in order to warn the por,ulace of impending danger. As has been indicated earlier in Intervenor's contention with regard to Emergency Planning, t

.ere are not enough Civil Defense warning sirens in order to adequately ensure that all members of.the community are within hearing distance of the siren.

e Moreover, section 5 of this subsection of the Emergency Plan indicates that 4

vehicles with loudspeakers could be dispatched to broadcast warning enessages.-

The problem with this approach is that it would take time to get volunteers to man the vehicles and, secondly, there are many miles of road which would have to 2

be traveled in order to ensure that all members of the populace were informed of the impending emergency condition. It is Intervenor's contention that until the Emergency Plan specifically states that a siren alert system is in place and that the warning emitted by the siren alerts could be heard at any point in the county surrounding the plant site, the Emergency Plan as now drafted is unacceptable.

DAUPHIN COUNTY FIXED NUCLEAR FACILITY INCIDENT RESPONSE PLAN

1. The Dauphin County Plan, in Section V, makes the assumption that persons evacuated from a risk area will only have to remain outside of the risk

.; area for a period of three (3) days and that adequate lead time will be avail-able to implement the provisions of the Plan. It is Intervenor's contention that a plan based upon these assumptions is inadequate based upon past experi-ence. In the past it has been recognized that a five (5) day selective evacua-tion was ordered by the Governor of Pennsylvania and that basing an assumption i i ,

upon a-three (3) day sheltering is a defect within the Plan itself. Mo reover,  !'

i l

l there is no definition as to adequate " lead time" and whether or not a defini-

• a

tion of that ters would mean a short period of time or a relatively long period of time, and until or unless the term is specifically defined, the Plan is deemed to be inadequate.

2. Appendix 2 of Annex E of the Dauphin County Plan lists Dauphin County Local Emergency Preparedness Directors and Coordinators; however, those coordi-nators do not list any substitutes in the eve *. of an emergency. If these individuals cannot Le reached at the telephone numbars listed, it would lead to confusion within their particular areas of responsibility. Therefore, until and unless substitutes are listed as local emergency coordinators, it is Intervenor's position that the Plan is deficient.

3. Appendix 3, Annex E of the Dauphin County Plan indicates that approxi-mately 65 people will be notified in the event of an emergency. It indicates that notification of these people will be by radio whenever possible and then l by telephone. Nowhere in the Plan is it indicated that the individuals listed l have radios which are compatible with that of the County E.0.C. Moreover, there's no indication that the frequencies to be used for communicating with these individuals would be free of any outside disturbance. Therefore, until and unless it is indicated in the County Plan that these individuals have compatible radio equipment and that frequencies are being used that are rela-tively free from any other type of traffic, it is Intervenor's position that the P1an remains defective.

4. Appendix 4 of Annex E of the Dauphin County Plan provides that the alternate E.0.C. office will be located in the Millersburg Borough Building.

Nowhere in the Plan is it indicated that the Millersburg Borough Building is presently in an emergency readiness condition. In short, the Plan does not i

{ indicate whether, as a matter of fact, the Millersburg Borough Building can accomodate the requirements of the E.0.C. with regard to telephone trunk lines,

radio communications, and other E.0.C. requirements. Until and unless this infomation can be verified, it is Intervenor's position that the Plan is inadequate and deficient.

5. Appendix 5 of the Dauphin County Plan provides that alert warnings will be initiated through siren activation. Again, this part of the Plan makes a broad base assumption that the populace within the county can hear the sirens

, at all locations and it is Intervenor's position that this is not true.

Therefore, until and unless a sufficient number of sirens are placed throughout the county area at locations that will ensure that the total populace of the county is within hearing distance of the sirens, the Plan will remain deficient.

6. Appendix C of Annex E of the Dauphin County P1an provides that the American Red Cross, military unit assignments, fire and ambulance units, and police units will be assigned various frequencies for radio operations and will have various radio equipment at their disposal . Nowhere in the Plan is it indicated that there is an existence presently of the equipment necessary to operate on the indicated frequencies or that if the equipment is presently available, that it is being maintained. Moreover, the Plan as written indi-cated that the police only have two frequencies on which to operate in the event of an emergency. Furthermore, fire, ambulance, Red Cross and military units will all share the same frequency and it is submitted that in the event of an emergency, the traffic on those frequencie's v.ill cancel effective ccm-munication among all of the groups. Therefore, until and unless it is stated l that each of these units has its own frequency for operation and that there are l l

sufficient number of frequencies in order to ensure effective operations, the '

Plan is deficient. Moreover, until and unless the Plan indicates that there is I

j an existence of compatible equipment in order to effect this part of the Plan and that there is a responsibility for maintena.t

e of the equipment, it is Intervenor's position that the Plan remains inadequate.

i l ,

L . -

I

b

7. Appendix 8, Attachment 8-i, indicates that there are local pickup points for individuals who are without transportation. There is no indication within the Emergency Plan as now drafted that there will be police protection for people waiting at the pick"up points in order to ensure security. Moreover, the pickup points as listed do not ensure that individuals who assemble at these points will be sheltered for their protection under some type of cover.

Until or unless it is assured that there will be police protection provided and that sheltering will be provided, the P1an is deemed inadequate.

8. Appendix 8, Attachment 8-2 of the Dauphin County Plan provides that local municipalities shall provide one personal lead vehicles to the E.0.C.-

Reception Area from the Staging Area. The problem with this particular part of the Plan is that there is no designation of who will be the person to lead vehicles to the E.O.C.-Reception - Area. Moreover, there is a candid admission that there is the chance that municipalities will hijack vehicles intended for other communities. Until and unless there is some type of security provided for incoming and outgoing units,. the Plan shall remain deficient. Moreover, there is no provision in this Plan to provide for refueling of the incoming buses and ambulances and until L.d unless there is some indication of how refueling is going to take place, there is the risk that incoming buses and ambulances would run out of fuel and be rendered useless.

9. Appendix 9 of the Dauphin County Plan regarding police policy and 1

, procedures during relocation indicates that when evacuation is ordered, units will proceed to pre-designated stations. The Plan does not indicate where the j i pre-designated stations are located and how the chain of command will operate in the event of relocation of local police departments and their interaction  ;

g l with National Guard units arriving to provide additional manpower to local l departments. Until and unless a definite chain of aommand is stated and the i

l

relationship between civil police departments and the National Guard regarding chain of command is documented, it is Intervenos position that the Plan is deficient.

9. Appendix 12 of Annex E of the Dauphin Co Anty P1an provides that during school hours, upon receipt of a condition yellow alert, school districts shall begin returning school students to their homes. Moreoser, the Plan continues, that in the event parents are not home, children shall be returned to one pickup point as listed in the Appendix. There is an exception to this rule ir.dicated in the Plan. It is Intervenor's contention that the Pian is defi-cient because it first of all allows the busing of the children during a condition yelbw situation. It is Intervenor's contention that a much more sensible approach to this problem would be to bus all the children to a pre-designated area outside of the 20 mile E.P.Z. and allow parents in an orderly fashion'to pick their children up if a condition yellow alert does not change.

There is a potential, as the Plan is now written, that in the middle of busing childrenaome during a condition yellow situation that the situation could degrade to a condition red situation and there woul.d be no means of notifying the bus drivers of the change in situation and tha change in the school policy plan under a condition red emergency situation. . Finally, Section J of this part of the Plan indicates that evacuation plans of the various school districts will be on file with the County Emergency Preparedness Agency. It is Interve-nor's contention that the plans of the school districts shoulo mandatorily be on file and reviewed periodically by the County Emergency Preparedness Agency.

Until or 'unless this deficiency is cor:ected, it is Intervenor's position.that !

the Plan is defective.

! 10.- Appendix 13 of Annex E of the Dauphin County P1an indicates that there

! are approximately 4,000 long-tem patients that would require relocation in the i

i i

.. ~

event of a general evacuation. The Appendix also includes a listing of hospi-tals that would be amenable to accepting long-term patients in the event of an emergency. While the Plan. indicates the total number of beds available at hospitals, there is no statement as to the number of beds which would be available on an average at any set time. Until and unless the Plan indicates i

the number of possible available beds that could be afforded to Dauphin County in the event of an emergency, it is submitted that the Plan is deficient.

11. Appendix 14 of Annex E indicates that within a 5 mile radius there are 24,426 individuals who would require evacuation from the area and there is an assumption-made that 50*. of the individuals would require sheltering. The -

total number of positions available for shel'tering in the Plan equal 6,800.

There is an obvious deficiency in the number of sheltering site positions available within the C9unty Plan and until and unless there can be some type of acceptable levels of sheltering, the Plan will remain deficient. Moreover, it is Intervenor's position that there is an error in the addition that appears within this Appendix concerning the total capacity of the shelters and that the

figure of 7,625 is in error. Furthermore, it is Intervenor's position that

, until and unless the Plan of Dauphin County indicates that there are auxillary emergency power systems located in each one of the sheltering systems and emergency auxillary heating systems at such sheltering locations, the Plan will remain deficient.

FOX, FARR & CUNNINGHAM i

+ ,e ..-

.f By: .J d ?

Joroan D. Gunningnam, Esquire l 2320 North Second Street

. Harrisburg, Pennsyl vania 17110 l

717/238-6570 ,'

Attorney for Newberry Township TMI Steering Committee Date: September 8, 1980 l

}

UNITED STATE.5 0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:  :

METROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY,  : Docket No. 50-289 et al .  :

IThTe'e Mile Island Nuclear  : Restart Station, Unit No.1)  :

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Second Final Amended Conten-tions was mailed First Class, postage prepaid, this 8th day of September,1980, to the following:

Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: Chief, Docketing Service Section

$\ O fi Ivan W. Smith, Chairman N 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ( ',

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission \\

Washington, D. C. 20555 97 ,_

~~

'c \ , T.

Dr. Walter H. Jordan 'd tec#+]

881 West Guter Drive Oakridge, Tenn. 37830

9) ^* .-.t*

ag /

Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive

\(f' . . !"

Raleigh, N. C. 27612 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 James A. Tourtellotte l' Office of Executive Legal Director I

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 l

,.-m _

l

/

n# ,

x'

• Jorcan D. Sunningnam, Esquire  ;

/

i

-