ML20154H838

NRC Staff Response to Amended Contention of Atty General Jm Shannon on Notification Sys for Commonwealth of Ma.* ASLB Should Issue Order Admitting Atty General Amended Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20154H838
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/03/1988
From:	Berry G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
References
CON-#288-6358 OL-1, NUDOCS 8805260082
Download: ML20154H838 (11)

Text

b35F 05/03/88

. DOCMETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI liAY 18 P4 :55 DEFORE TH,E ATOMIC SAFETY Ab'D LICENSJHCr BO_ARD ,

uu H ,

U ? !. :

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et g. ) On-site Emergency Planning

) and Safety issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) ,

i NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO AMENDED CONTENTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON ON b'OTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR MASSACHUSETTS [

INTRODUCTION On April 15, 1988, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of

f/assachusetts filed an amendment to its late-filed contention challenging j l the adequacy of Applicants' program for notifying the populace within the l Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook emergency plannino rene in the i event of an emergency at the Seabrook Station. See Amended Contention }

Of Attorney General James M. Shannon On Notification System For  ;

Massachusetts (April 15,1966) (hereinafter "Amended Contention"). The f l

amended contention was timely filed by the AG pursuant to ALAB-883 O, which, inter alla, directed the Licensing Board to provide the Attorney Cencral a reasonable period in which to submit additional contentions or 1

[

3 1/ Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 a nd"F,'WLA B-883, 27 NRC~ (f-ebruary 3, 1988). On February  :

18, 1988, Applicants petitioned the Commission to review ALAB-883;  ;

the Commission has yet to act on Applicants' petition, however.

i 8805260002 080503 gDR ADOCK 05000443 01 PDR c

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

a to amend his admitted to challenge the adequacy of any alternative pubile notification arrangements proposed by Applicants. Id,. , s!!p op, at 19-20.

The AG's amended contention alleges that Applicants' current plan for notifying the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook emergency plannino rone -- the "Vehicular Alert Notification System (VANS)" -- is inadequate and thus falls to comply with the provision of 10 C.F.R. 8 50.47(b)(5) and Part 50, Appendix E, 6 IV(D)(3). Amended Contention at 2. According to the AG, the VANS is inadeauate in fcurteen separate respects (bases). Arrended Contention at 2-6. Additionally, the AG alleges that the "Airborne Alerting System" devised by Applicants to back up the VANS similarly is inadequate and lists five bases for his allegation.

For the reasons set forth b elow , the Staff does not oppose the admission cf the AC's amended contention. The contention satisfies the i recuirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) in that the contention is within the secpc of the proceeding and contains at least one proper factual basis.

1 See MississippiPower s I.lght Company (Crand Gulf Nuclear Station, i l

Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 474 (1973). As will be discussed f r

herein, not all of the proffered bases of the amended contention are proper, however. The Licensing Board, therefore, should exclude these

$ bases from litigation.

DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards Section 2.714(b) of the Commission's regulations requires that a [

contention and the bases for it be set forth with reasonable specificity.

10 C.F.R. ( 2.714(b). The purpose of the basis and specificity 4

1 1

s requirements is to provide generaf notice to opposing parties as te what they will have to defend against or oppose and to determine whether there is sufficient foundation to warrant further exploration of the <

contention. Eg Philadelphia, Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic P 'wer Station, Unlis 2 and 3), A LA B-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974);

Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), L B P-84 -1, 19 NRC 29, 34 (1984). To rreet this requirement, an intervenor must allege that an applicant has not complied with a specified regulatory requirercent or allege with particularity the existence of a substantial safety issue with respect to which the regulations are silent.

See Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-106, 16 NRC 1649, 1656 (1982). U Additionally, an intervenor is requirod to provide a reasoned explanation or "basis" for its contention. See Carolina Power and Llaht Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-62-119A,16 NRC 2069, 2070-71 (1982). In the following section, the Staff discuss es thole bases proffer <d by the AC in support of his contention which do not satisfy these requirements.

2. The AG's Amended Contention As noted earlier, Applicants propost to notify the residents in tne Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook emergency planning zone (EPZ) In the event of an emergency through the use of its Vehicular Alert 2/ A contention must be rejected where it (1) represents an attack on

~

statutory or regulatory requirements; (2) seeks to raise On issue beyond the scope of the proceeding; (3) deer not relate to the facility in question; or (4) raises an issue which is not concrete or i litigable. Seabrook, supra,16 NRC at 1035.

I

---,y--- _,e,..,.--., ,.w-ww .

,.--y

- ...,,w,,,----~-

n

.g.

Notification System ("VANS") . See Enclosure to Letter from George S.

Thomas, Vice-President, Public Service Company of New Hampshire to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cctrmission (Fecruary 26, 1988). The VANS "consists of truckbased strons that can bt, dicpatched from continuously manned staging areas . . . combined with fixed siren tone coverage from alrens located in New Hampshire near the Massachusetts border." M. at 2.- The VANS "will be backed up by an Airborne Alerting System which i essentiallo consists of an acoustical package carried by a helicopter based at Sr u ./ btation . " M. In his amended contention, the AG challenges cbility of the VANS and the Airborne Alerting System to provide the early notification and clear instruction to the affecteo population required by 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b)(5) and Part 50, Appendix E, 5 (IV(D)(3). The Steff's position on the AG's proffered bases is set forth below.

A. Vehicular Alert Notification System And Overlapping Fixed Siren Coverage 9 asis 1: The AG asserts that because of their height, locations, acoustic range and number, the VANS and the New Hampshire fixed sirens do not provide tone or message coverac, , for essentially 100 +

t percent of the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook EPZ at the sound pressure Icvel required by FEMA-Rep. 10. The Staff does not challenge the adequacy of this basis.

Basis 2: The AG assert that Applicants are prohibited by local laws from operating the six VANS staging areas and the VANS vehicles. I i

j The Staff opposes this basis as the AG has not identified any i

applicable laws and ordinances which prohibit the use of the VANS in an emergency, i

t l

l

Basis 3: The AG asserts that the VANS staging areas "are physically inaccessible to the VANS equipment." The Staff opposes

, this basis. The AG does not specify why the VANS staging areas are inaccessible to the VANS equipment.

Basis 4: The AG asserts that the VANS vehicles are inadequate for their intended use. The Staff does not challenge the adequacy of this basis.

Basis 5: The AG asserts that the time needed for driver alert, dispatch, route transit, setup and activation in accordance with NRC regulations will exceed 15 minutes for many of the VAL 3 vehicles in optimum weather conditions. The Staff does not chaitenge the i adequacy of this basis.

Dasis 6: The AG asserts that inclement weather conditions will Impece. extension of the sirens to their operational position, and their rotation, oscillation, and operation. The Staff opposes in this basis for lack cf specificity.

Basis 7: The AG asserts that at a "sound level of 134 dBC anyone

' within 100 feet of the siren during its operation will suffer severe hearing damage." The Staff does not challenge the adequacy of this 1 basis.

Basis 8: The AG asserts that because "of the large size of the 1

Intended dispersion angle (60 degrees), sound irregularitics will

~

occur within the coverage angles including gaps in sound coverage for certain areas. Moreover, the oscillation of the speaker assembly will cause gaps in coverage when the siren is used in its tone alert i mode . " The Staff does not challenge the adequacy of this basis, i

Basis 9: The AG asserts that listeners in areas where there is an 3

overlap from 2 or more sirens will experience severe echo conditions, rendering any voice message unintelligible. The Staff challenges the adequacy of this basis to the extent it is premised on the assumption that NUREG-0654 requires sirens to have "voice mode" capability. l NUREG-0654 imposes no such requirement.

See NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP-1, Rev.1 at 43-46 and Appendix 3.

Basis 10: The AG asserts that the VANS does not specify when and under what conditions the ter.e alert rrode or the message mode will be used. The Staff challenges the adequacy of this basis to the '

cxtent it is premised on the assumption that NUREC-0654 requires sirens to have "voice mode" capability. NUREG-0654 imposes no such requirement. See N URFG-0654 / FEM A REP-1 at 37-39 and i c Appendix 3.

Basis 11: The AG asserts that Insufficient drivers and backup j drivers will be stationed at the six VANS staging arcas to ensure 24

, hour availability of the system. Additionally, the AC asserts that l the system will work reliably, if at all, only when each vehicle is manned by at least two persons. The Staff challenges the adequacy

) of this basis as the AC does not specify why two or more personc

! are required to operate each VANS vehicle or why personnel should be stationed at the VANS staging areas on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> basis.

Basis 12: The AG asserts that the system will encounter a  ;

substantial failure rate because many drivers will be unwilling to l

acccmplish the assigned tasks during a real emergency. Inasmuch as

! the this issue (i .e. , the willingness of emergency personnel to l

_ ,_._._____,-_e

perform their assigned duties in the event of an actual emergency) has been litigated in the hearing conducted with respect to the New flampshire radiological emergency response plan, the Staff opposes this basis in the absence of a showing by the AC that special circumstances exist with respect to the VANS drivers such that the result reached on the issue in the hearings held on the New flampshire plan is not dispositive of the issue here.

Basis 13: The AC asserts that the VANS system with its airborne system is "extremely expensive" and not in the orcinary course of Applicants' business and thus requires approval of the bankruptcy court. No adequate basis is provided for these statements. Nor is there any support for the statement that the Bankruptcy Court will be called upori or has jurisdiction to rule on issues concerning low power testing. Acoltionally, the basis calls into question App!! cants' financial qualification, a subject beyond the jurisdiction of the Board in the absence of a walver or exception to 10 C.F.R. 6 50.33(f) and 50.57(a)(4). As of this date, the Commission has not granted such a waiver or exception. Consequently, this basis should be rejected because it represents an impermissible collateral attack o r. the Commission's regulations. See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758(a).

f Basis In: The AG asserts that Applicants "have not identified the equipment to be used for remote activation of the VANS strens and therefore, no conclusion can be recebed concerning the reliability of the equiprtent . " The Staff does challenge the adecuacy of this basis.

l l

l L

B. Airborne Alert _ System The AG also challenges the Applicants' proposed use of the Airborne Alerting System. The AG lists five reasons why the system does not meet regulatory requirements. Assuming arguendo that the reasons proffered by the AC are valid, that fact would not establish the existence of a regulatory violation. The Airborne Alert System is a backup system to the primary VANS system. See Letter From George S. Thomas To U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, supra, at 2. NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP-1 "does not reculre that backup procedures be set forth in err.ergency plans." Kansa_s Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Cenerating Station, Unit 11, LB P-8 4-2 6, 20 NRC 53, 67 (1984). All of the A C's challenges to the backup Airborno Alert System, there fore ,

should be rejected.

CONCLUSION The Board should issue an order admittino the Attorney General's amended contention in accordance with the views set forth in this response, spectfully submitted Gregor y Alan i Counse or FF.C Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland I this 3rci day of May 1988

Do!Mir UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'88 MY 18 PS :02 BEFOR,E THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 66C$ iW. $llj BdANCH in the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PllRLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et ,al,. ) On-site Emeroency Planning

) and Safety isst (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies cf "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO AMENDED CONTENTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON ON NOTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR MASSACHUSETTS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States rrall, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mall system, this 3rd day of May 1988.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Boa rd

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington. DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour

• Docketing and Service Section*

Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

Administrative Judge Robert K. Gad, lil, Esq.

5500 Friendship Boulevard Ropes & Gray Apartment 1923N 225 Franklin Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing H. J. Flynn, Esq.

Appeal Panel

• Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC 20555 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472

4 l

s l Philip Ahren, Esq. Calvin A. Canney Assistant Attorney General City Hall Office of the Attorney General 126 Daniel Street State House Station Portsmouth, NH 03801 Augusta, ME 04333 Mr. Angle Machiros, Chairman Carol S. Snelaer, Esq. Board of Selectmen Assist 6nt Attorney General 25 High Road Office of the Attorney General Newbury, MA 09150 One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 George Dana Disbee, Esq. Allen Lampert Assistent Attorney General Civl! Defense Director Office of the Attorney General Town of Brentwood 25 Capitol Str6et 20 Franklin Concord, NH 03301 Exeter, NH 03833 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. William Armstrong Diane Curran, Esq. Civil Defense Director Parrten & Weiss Town oF Exeter 2001 S Street, NW 10 Front Street Sultc 430 Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, DC 20009 Robert A. Backus, Esq. Gary W. Holrr.es, Esq.

Backus, Meyer & Solomon Holmes & Ellis 116 Lowell Street 47 Winnacunnet Road t/archester, NH 03106 Hampton, NH 03842 Paul McEachern, Esq. J. P. Nadesu Matthew T. Brock, Esq. Board of Selectmen  !

Shbines & McEachern 10 Central Street 25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH 03870 P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.

Charles P. Graham, Esq. Silverglate, Gertner, Baker, McKay, Murphy & Graham Fine & Good 100 Main Street 88 Board Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Boston, MA 02110 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Robert Carrigg, Chairman Board of Sefectmen Board of Selectmen RFD #1, Box 1154 Town Of0ce Kensington, NH 03827 Atlantic Avenue North Hampton, NH 03870 William S. Lord Peter J. Matthews, Meyor Board of Selectmen City Hall  !

Town Hall - Friend Street Newburyport, MN 09150 Amesbury, MA 01913 i

i

6 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Board of Selectmen Roard of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Read South Hampton, NH 03827 Durham, NH 033214 >

Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey Ashod N. Amirlan, Esq. ,

United States Senate Town Counsel for Merrimac 531 Hart Senate Office Building 376 Main Street Washington, DC 20510 Haverhill, MA 08130 l '

)

f Greycry (ran (3erry ' -

f Counsci ar NHC Staff l

1 J

I l

r i

i