ML20207P754
| ML20207P754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1987 |
| From: | Curran D, Ferster A HARMON & WEISS, PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207P749 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-1, NUDOCS 8701200165 | |
| Download: ML20207P754 (8) | |
Text
,_
i January 9, 19027KETED USilRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO3RD JAN 15 A11:41 GFfD ~ Sit T
)
00C.C i,1 ~ :
Q W H In the Ma tter of
)
)
Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 5 0-4 43 OL-1
)
5 0-44 4 OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
ONSITE EMERGENCY
)
PLANNING & TECHNICAL
)
ISSUES INTERVENORS' JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION AUTHORIZING LOW POWER OPERATION Introduction On June 17, 1986, Applicants filed a motion requesting the Licensing Board to, inter alia, issue a partial initial decision authorizing the operation of Seabrook Unit 1 up to and including 5% of rated power.
The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP"),
Seacoast An ti-Pollu tion League ("SAPL"), and Commonwealth of Massachussetts filed oppositions to Applicants' motion.
Those parties (hereaf ter referred to as "Intervenors") now seek by this motion to supplement their responses with new and relevant information which demonstrates that the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission ("NRC" or " Commission") Staf f now intends to reopen tech-nical issues that were formerly considered to be resolved.
In light of the Staff's doubts as to the adequacy of the Seabrook operating license application, the Licensing Board and the Direc-tor of Nuclear Reactor Regulation lack sufficient basis for the C701200165 870109 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
i findings tnat are required by 10 C.F.R. S 50.57(a) as a prerequi-site to the issuance of a low power license.
Statement of Facts On December 19, 1986, Applicants filed with the offsite Licensing Board a " Petition Under 10 CFR S 2.758 and 10 CFR S 50.47(c) With Respect to the Regulations Requiring Planning for a Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone in Excess of a One-Mile Radius."
The petition sought a reduction in the radius of the Seabrook plume exposure emergency planning zone ("EPZ")
from ten to one mile.
The petition was based in part on Applicants' claim that "special circums tances" make the Seabrook' reactor an unusually safe reactor.
Petition at 2.
According to the Boston Globe, the filing of the petition has caused the NRC Staff to reconsider whether it should have issued a number of regulatory exemptions that have been granted to Applicants; and whether more safety measures are needed to justify Applicants' bid for a smaller EPZ.
Larry Tye, "Seabrook may need improvements, says NRC safety of ficial," Boston Globe, December 23, 1986.1 The Globe quoted Vincent Noonan, a senior NRC of ficial with oversight responsibility for the Seabrook i
plant, as saying that "we need to address where we want this utility to do better than the average plant."
According to Mr.
Noonan, the NRC "probably would ask Seabrook to do things we might not expect other plants to do."
Id.
t 1
The article is attached as an exhibit to this filing.
i Mr. Noonan also stated that the NRC Sta f f intends to review "everything" on which it-had granted waivers to Applicants.
Mr.
Noonan stated that the NRC had waived some testing requirements based on hardship to Applicants; however, in light of Applicants' current claims to have built "the safest nuclear power plant in the world," the Staff's reasoning might change.
Id.
According to Mr. Noonan, " Based on the old way of doing business these tests are not necessary but they probably would be if you had a 1-mile emergency planning zone."
Id.
Argument MRC regulations require that, Prior to taking any action on [a motion for an operat-ing license authorizing low power operation] which any party opposes, the presiding officer.shall make find-ings on the matters specified in paragraph (a) of [10 C.F.R.
S 50.57] as to which there is a controversy, in the form of an initial decision with respect to the contested activity sought to be authorized.
The Direc-tor of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will make findings on all other matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
10 C. F. R. S 50.57(c).
The findings required by paragraph (a) include, inter alia, determinations that "the facility will oper-ate in conformity with the [ Atomic Energy] Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission;" and that "[ t] here is rea-sonable assurance that (i) the activities authorized by the oper-ating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public...."
The only findings regarding regulatory compliance that are specifically excluded from this licensing determination are those findings that relate to the
. adequacy of offsite emergency planning.
10 C. F. R.
S 50.47(d).
Thus, with the exception of offsite emergency planning issues, the NEC regulations require the Licensing Board and the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to find compliance with all regulatory requirements before issuing an operating license authorizing low power operation. They must also find that the plant can operate with a reasonable assurance of safety.
As discussed in the Boston Globe article, the Staff now questions whether some technical features of the Seabrook plant are safe enough to support Public Service Company of New Hampshire's application to operate the Seabrook plant with a one-mile emergency zone.
As a result of the NRC Staf f's decision to re-examine its prior review of the Seabrook license application, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is no longer in a position to make findings of regulatory compliance and a rea-sonable assurance of safe operation on all noncontested issues, as required by 10 C. F. R.
S 50.57(a).
Moreover, the Staf f's new review may lead intervenors to contest resulting technical determinations or changes in the operating license application before the Licensing Board.
To the extent that those issues are material to the issuance of an oper-ating license for Seabrook, the parties are entitled to litigate them before the Licensing Board grants any operating license for Seabrook.
Union of Concerned Scientists v.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 735 F.2d 1435, 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984),
r 1
, cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 815 (1985).
Thus, the issuance of a low power license for Seabrook would be premature until the Staf f has completed its re-evaluation of Applicants' operating license application, and the parties have had an opportunity for a hear-ing on any material issues.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, in addition to those already sub-mitted by the Intervenors, Applicants' motion for an operating license authorizing operation of the Seabrook nuclear power plant at low power should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, h
Diane Cu r Andrea C.
Ferster HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009 (202) 328-3500 I certify that Harmon & Weiss is authorized to file this pleading on behalf of the Intervenors named e,
(
l.7-_
/
Diane Curran January 9, 1987
r'
~
_20$mE postos ntaw R'NOW DECE%tHER "4 tW O
s1eabrook may need unprovements, says' t
--i q
se e
.dy farry Tye
.. i L Sa et o
Icla Globe Staf f "We will co back and re-look at The Seabrook nuclear power The report lists several areas plant probably would have to where Seabrook was granted everything we cranted watvers on." Noonan said.
%,e mtcht mane expensite improvements to
" waivers" from NRC require.
chance our mind. Based on the old its safety systems before it would ments that it test key safety sys.
way of doind busmess tnese ttsts tse allowed to shnnk its evacua-tems. It av's the NRC' cranted the are not necessary but they pron-tion zene, a semor federal safety waivers twcause compliance with ably would tv !! you had a 1-mtle off;;tal said yesterday.
the runes "would result in hard.
emerceneppiannme zorr.
Seabroo4 said last week that it ship cr unusual difficulttes with.
Juacmc trum the NRC_3 Ja!v can cat by with a smaller evacua-out a romnensattnq increase in safety report. tnose cnarc-s cout 1 tnn zcne because it is safer than the levet of qualtty and safety."
tr extrnsive. It said tnat to (crn-otner reactors, so "we ned to ad-In one case. Seabrook was al.
pit with testinc requiremant2.
Crass wr.ere we want this ut!!:ty t3 lowed to forgo testing wc!ds on Yann would have to r -:esten a do teetter than the averace plant."
pipes in the containment, buticmc s:cmt: cant numter cf piant sya-
= a:d Vmtent Noonan, wno over-that surrcunds the plant. One rea.
temi ot,tain suf ficient replace-m s &abrook safety revtews at son fcr tha c.semot:on ts that the mer.t components ara renear tha tr e.'.uclear Re:;ulatory Commis-pi; e imes "are normally empty
~
preservr e exammation ct ther and are rmu: red t", tunction enty component. ' It adaed tha' even
- Hon, "We prooably would ask Sea-in tne umtxe:v event r a maior alter the recesten e!! orts.co nplete trook to co thincs we m!cht not loss 51 te,raant actment or a mam comtmance with the pres-rvre tv rst xt cther piants to do." he add-steam 1:ne t)reak." the report sa:d.
amtnauon rmurrements proc b.:.
ed m an interview.
Int *.tary beth Gentleman, as-rnutd not te acmeved.
'ecnan sa:d Scabrook already s:stant
-c reta ry c.f enercy said Yann-e mecman John IF tv comme unc-r he:cntened scru-tnat we cuestion wnetner testmd pires ind t:rm at the NRC treause of its b:d rmutrements should tr watved Icr said saat mat tnat tr7' My md cther snownt were t.+ r* duct its evacuattern zone trom-systems (nat woisl1 tr u'et in tr-an1 evmuate.: tr: ore trev were Z.in:es around the plant to I event c! a maior accioen!
. tne mstaue 2 ano niner, cmtre 1 t"sts m i. The anoucatten is so romch-N R r. r-w>rt succesi s.rabroos were run an-r mstauauto:.w, ar t ated it will tane until tre enc of may te e arttne torners.
wonan s succestion tnat ecut;"
.;anuary just to assemble
'a T n- ~: ate s concern o "het:'ht.
ment may ner: ut:cradum. Este srrecu:e nuti:ntnc wnat we have ener nv Naorum s request tar a said, "That n ennrety smause.
E oc to support cr reject the sub-1 mta e mercenrv-ptannmc zone.
%"t#8h3V"I"*"3'""" " *""'
natt.l " he said.
s r.- sa :r rrraust-t nat c:<t " pre-ha Fid'ns New ilamoshire Y a n Kee.
sumes tr.e plant nas an extraorm-w nicn runs beacrook, says it was nar:i. htch quahty r,t r onstrue tnrred to ask for the smalier zone ttch " T he state 'vtli hire a noctear wnen Gov. Dukakts of Massachu-encmeer to stuav the waiver re-
'< !ts announced Sept. 20 tnat ha cuests esautnext in the Jaty report we.uiu not participate in an evacu-aione witn others tne guant may a::On plan. Dukakts said it would nave Leen f, ranted. Gentleman te smoosstble to move people safe-said.
ly A 1-mile zone would exclude Nor, nan defended letting Sea-the stx Massachusetts towns that brrok cut of certain safety tests, are part c.f the current 1(i mile savtnc. "Over the years we just founo s ou didn't have to do everv-zone.
The NRC is not the only one thinc 'line the regulations called crittcally evalualing Seabrcok's for.~
walvers usually are based bid.
on the hardsntp of cetting a work-The commonwealth of Mass-man in there to run the test."
achusetts the towns of Ames-But the NRC offt(tal said that bury. Mass.. and flampton. N.lf..
reasontnq mtcht chance now that and two enytrcnmental groups -
Scabrook is claiming to hase the all crttles of the plant - yesterday
" safest nuclear power plant in the asked the five NRC commissioners world." Yankee ofitetals sa!.t fast in oversee directly the review of week that their containment is so Seabrook's application. The re-strone and other safety systems
& normally would be handled are so reliable that people outside
-s,
f brst by an agency licensing board..
a 1-mtle radius could not be hurt l
then by the commissioners.
- d by radtation released after an ac-The Massachusetts Energy rident.
14,*
pol!cv Office also has launched an inveittgation of the plant and is worried atnut a safety evaluation remt t'rcoared by the NRC in j
L
._.m___.__.
4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE COLMEicp Y
I certify that on January 9,1987, copies of INTERVENORS' JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION AUTHORIZING LOW POWER OPERATIdB @gpj$ p;IMI motion for leave to file thereof were served on the following by first-class mail or as otherwise indicated:
0Frgr,
00Chliid -' W ct ih t
- Sheldon J.
Wo l f e, Chairman Re p. Ro ber ta C.
Pevear pfg i
Atomic Sa fety and Licensing Board Drinkwater Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hamp ton, Fa lls, NH 03844 Washington, D.C.
20555 Phillip Ah rens, Es q.
- Dr. Je r ry Ha r bour Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State House, Station # 6 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Augusta, ME 04333 Washington, D.C.
20555
- *Th oma s G. Dignan, Es q.
- Dr.
Emmeth A.
Luebke R.K. Gad II, Es q.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ropes & Gray U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 225 Franklin Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Sa fety and Licensing Board 09bert A.
Ba ck u s, Es q.
Panel Backus, Me yer & Solomon U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 111 Lowell Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Appeal
- Ro ber t G.
Perlis, Es q.
Board Panel Sherwin E. Tu r k, Es q.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of the Executive Legal Washington, D.C.
20555 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cocketing and Se rvice Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Angie Machiros, Ch airman Board of Selectmen Mrs. An ne E. Goodman Newbury, MA 01950 Board of Selectmen 13-15 New Ma r ket Ro ad H. Joseph Flynn, Es q.
Durham, NH 03842 Of fice of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency William S.
Lo r d, Se lec tman 500 C St reet S.W.
Town Hall -- Fr iend Street Washington, D.C.
20472 Amesbury, MA 01913 George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Jane Doughty Stephen E. Me r r ill, Esq.
SAPL Of fice of the Attorney General 5 Market Street State House Annex Portsmouth, NH 03801 Concord, NH 03301
V,.'
..o A. Ca rol S. Sneider, Es quire
_ Allen Lampert Assistant Attorney General Civil Defense Director Department of the Attorney General Town of Brentowood 1 Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Exeter, NH 03833 Boston, MA 02108 Stanley W.
Knowles Richard A.
Hampe, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Hampe and McNicholas P.O.
Bo x 710 35 Pleasant Street No r th Hamp ton, NH 03826 Concord, NH 03301 J.P.
Nadeau, Se lec tman Gary W.
Ho lme s, Es q.
Town of Rye Holmes & Ellis 155 Washington Road 47 Winnacunnent Road Rye, New Hamp shire 03870 Hampton, NH 03842 Richard E.
Sullivan, Mayor William Arms trong City Hall Civil Defense Director Newburyport, MA 01950 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Alfred V.
Sargent, Chairman Board of Selectmen Calvin A.
Ca nney Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 City Manager City Hall Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey 126 Daniel Street U.S.
Senate Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, D.C.
20510 (Attn. Tom Burack)
Ma tthew T.
Brock, Esq.
Shaines & McEachern Selectmen of Northampton P.O.
Bo x 3 60 Northampton, New Hampshire 03826 Ma plewood Ave.
Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J.
Hump h rey 1 Pillsbury Street Sandra Gavutis Concord, NH 03301 Town of Kensington j
RFD 1 Box 1154 Town of South Hampton East Kensington, NH 03827 P.O.
Bo x 10 East Kingston, NH 03827
[
9 Diane Curran By Hand
- By Federal Express e
I
.