ML20210E355

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contention & Motion to Admit late-filed Contention,Reopen Record on Onsite Emergency Planning & Condition Issuance of License Up to 5% of Rated Power on Applicants Compliance w/10CFR50.47(b)(5).*

ML20210E355
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/06/1987
From:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20210E360	List: ML20210E355 ML20210E386
References
CON-#187-2466 OL, NUDOCS 8702100287
Download: ML20210E355 (9)

Text

a. ..

.1 .

2h-Filed: February &cgygg7 U?iRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 87 FEB -9 A10:44

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CFFP' CocC. .

Before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter.of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443-OL //Y-0 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) On-Site Issues SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S CONTENTION AND MOTION TO ADMIT LATE-FILED CONTENTION, REOPEN THE RECORD ON ON-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING, AND CONDITION THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE UP TO 5% OF RATED POWER ON APPLICANTS' COMPLIANCE WITH 10 CFR 950.47(b)(5)

The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League submits herewith the following late-filed contention and moves pursuant to 02.734 that the Licensing Board reopen the record in the on-site emergency planning and safety phase of this proceeding to litigate this con t en t ion r ega r di ng compl iance by Appl i cant s ' wi t h t he Commis s ion's regulations at 10 CFR at 950.47(b)(5), specifically, whether Applicants have demonst rated that the means exist to provide adequate early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway EPZ. SAPL further moves that no decision that may authorize the issuance of an operating license up to 5% of rated power be issued until this contention is resolved in such a manner as to provide for adequate notification to the public as 8702100287 PDR C

870206 ~

\

ADOCK 05000443 PDR h

\

^, -b' required by the regulations. Alternatively, SAPL moves that any issuance of _a low power license condition the issuance of such license upon Applicants' compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5).

1. Satisfaction of the Five-Part Test f or Admiss ion of Late-Filed Contentions at 92.714(a)(1)  !

SAPL's contention No. 38 meets the five-part test set forth at (2.714(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations for the reasons set forth below.

A. Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time SAPL did not file this contention earlier because, prior to the test of the East Kingston sirens on January 31, 1987, SAPL had no site specific empirical basis upon which to found the assertion that the siren system as a whole would not provide reasonable assurance of prompt notification and clear instruction to the populace.1 SAPL was aware of the Superior Court's finding in regard to the legality of the installation of the poles, but SAPL had planned to await the outcome of the def endant's (PSNhi's) Supreme Court appeal of the decision before acting to file a contention. It has now become clear that, even should the utility succeed in having the Superior Court decision overturned on appeal, the mere existence of the siren system in the EPZ does not ensure its adequate operability and compliance with the standards set forth in t he Commi s s ion 's

1. The Massachuset ts At torney General filed a contention on January 12, 1987 pertaining to a deficiency in the public alerting system for the Town of Merrimac, Massachusetts. SAPL agrees with the Massachuset ts At torney General that the absence of sirens is a serious matter.

l

regulations. Theref ore, SAPL. sat is fies this s tandard s ince "no adequately based contention could have been filed earlier" which addressed the adequacy of the public aler ting sys tem as a whole.

Philadelphia Electric Comapny, (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-806, 21 NRC 1183, 1190'(1985).

B. Availability of other means to protect petitioner's interest No other party to this proceeding has filed such a broad-based contention including the issues of the reliability of operation of the siren system and its legality and there is therefore no other means of assuring that the public alert and notification system will be in place and be brought into compliance with the Commiss ion's regulat ions in .t imely f ashion other than through the filing of this contention.

C. Extent to which petitioner can contribute to development of a sound record SAPL can bring as a-witness Frederick H. Anderson, Jr. to testify to the f acts set forth in his Af fidavit attached hereto. SAPL is further looking into the possibility of securing an expert witness who could testify as to the issues pertaining to the audibility and intelligibility of public alerting systems.

t .

D. Extent to which other parties will represent petitioner's interest As stated above at B, no other party has raised as broad-based a contention dealing with both the reliability of operation of the siren system or its legality. NECNP had cer tain issues related to the power supply for the systems and its audibility, but all of NECNP's contentions related to the siren system have since been dismissed. Now that there is actual test evidence of the system's lack of reliability, audibility and intelligibility, it is of vital interest to SAPL to have these issues adjudicated. SAPL's interests will not be represented save through this contention.

E. Broadening and delay of proceedings The admission of this contention at this time will necessarily result in broadening and delay of the proceedings since the record will have to be reopened. Ilowever, this effect is more than offset by the extraordinary public safety significance of the issues raised by this contention and the clear requirement that certain off-site elements of the Applicant's emergency plans, including compliance with 150.47(b)(5), be reviewed " prior to issuing an operating license authorizing low-power testing and fuel loading." 47 Fed. Reg. 30232, at 30234, Col. 1 (July 13, 1982).

Indeed, Applicant's Director of Emergency Preparedness has conceded that "Before low power testing can be done at a nuclear power plant , the f ederal government requires

.. _ J

F.~ . .

d

'that the plant have in place a prompt notification system for i

nearby areas." (See Attachment A, let t er of Terry Harps ter of June 27, 1987.)

1 1.- Satisfaction of Criteria for Reopening Records in Formal Licensing Proceedings at 62.734.

A. Pursuant to 02.734 the following criteria are satisfied:

1) Timeliness The filing of this contention is timely-for the reasons set forth above in the discussion of the satisf action of the 92.714(a)(1) requirement for a showing of good cause, if any, for failure to file on time. In the discussion of the final rule on the criteria for reopening records in licensing proceedings, the Commission noted that this timeliness requirement overlaps the first o f the 42.714(a)(1) cr i t er ia. 51 Fed. Reg. 19535, at 19538, Col. 1 (May 30, 1986).

r.

2) Significant Safety or Environmental Issue The issue of public notification and alerting is significant to public safety. Without appropriate warning to the public, there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken pursuant to 050.47(a)(1). Applicants may try to argue that public alerting and notification is not a safety concern at power levels less than 5% of rated capacity.

Such an nrgument is Iacking merit because the Commission has explicitly stated that this is a requirement for fuel loading and low power testing. 47 Fed. Reg. 30232, supra.

i

3) Materially different result Had the empirical = evidence of the lack of reliability and the issue _of the legality'of the siren system been brought earlier before this Board, SAPL believes that this Board would have been obligated to inquire further into these mat ters and could not have made its initial licensing determination in favor of the Applicants.

B) Affidavit This motion is accompanied by the Affidavit of Frederick H. Anderson, Jr. Mr. Anderson is .a competent individual with knowledge of the facts set forth in his affidavit.

SAPL Contention No. 38 ,

Applicants have not complied with the provisions of 10 CFR 050.47(b)(5) and Appendix E, llV, D.1 and 3 and Part 50 of the i Commission's regulat ions and NUREG-0654 !!.E.6 and Appendix 3 because the siren system for public alerting and ins truction is unreliable, not properly audible, and does not convey properly intelligible messages and does not, therefore, ensure prompt alerting and notification of the pubtic. Furthermore, the installation of the i siren system has been f ound illegal by a New flampshire Superior Court, i  !

Basis NRC regulations require that operating license applicants demonstrate that "means to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone have been es tablished." 10 CFR QS0.47(b)(5).

Further, the design objective of the notification system is "to have the capability to essentially complete the initial notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes." Appendix E QiV D.3. Addi t ionally, the not i ficat ion sys t em mus t assure " direct coverage" of essent ially 100% of the populat ion within 5 miles of the site and assure 100% coverage within 45 minutes of the ent ire plume exposure EPZ. NUREG-0654 II.E.6 and Appendix 3.

A recent test of sirens in the Town of East Kingston, New flampshire raises sertous questions concerning the ability of the presently ins talled siren system in the Seabrook EPZ to ef f ect timely and intelligible alerting and notification cf the public. As described in the attached Affidavit of Frederick H. Anderson, Jr.,

an attempt to carry out a voice notification remotely from the Rockingham County Dispatch in Brentwood, N.li, failed. Secondly, the attempt to activate the sirens from the same location resulted in only one of the sirens working. The activation of the sirens from the Eas t Kings ton EOC tha t followed s t ill was flawed by an inoperable siren. Further, the audibility of the sirens in terms of their ability to alert eltIzens in their homes was questioned by a local official. Though a New llampshire Yankee maintenance crew was able to get the inoperable siren to go off, the succeeding voice

• O announcemen t - f rom - t he local EOC wa s not heard at s ix' moni tor ing -

locations and was scratchy and' unintelligible at the two locations where heard.

The_ test raises the issues of 1) the reliability of the siren system; 2) the audibility of the siren system; and 3) the intelligibility of messages broadcast over the system. It is entirely possible that the existing winter weather conditions of ice and snow may have been a factor in the system failures. Indeed, two of the judges who served as members of the Board in the Indian Point Special Proceedings wrote to the Commission and expressed serious concerns.

about public alerting on winter nights with snow. (See Attachment B, let ter of Dr. Oscar H. Paris and Frederick J. Shon, June 9,1986. )

They stated:

At the time we wrote those recommendations, we were unaware of the alerting rate estimated by NUREG/CR-2655, PNL-4 2 26 for a snowy winter night at IP. Had we been made aware of that report before we made our findings in the IP proceeding, we would have recommended that the Commission require that a second, backup system for prompt alerting, such as tone alert radios, be provided in the Indian Point EPZ. We urge that the Commi ss ion consider such a requirement now. M.

Whatever the reason, whether snow and ice were factors or not, the sirens are not reliable, are sometimes inaudible, and the messages broadcast over them are not clear enough to ensure that adequate public alerting and notification can be carried out.

Additionally, there is the issue of the legality of the siren system as presently installed in the Seabrook Station EPZ. A j udge in Rockingham County Superior Court on January 22, 1987 found against Public Service Company of New flampshire in a suit brought by the Town of Rye seeking removal of the siren poles. The Town of flampton Falls was a co-plaintiff in the proceeding. PSNil was ordered to cause the

. l l

removal of the poles and siren /public address systems within 30 days of the date of the decision. Rockingham Superior Court, No. 86-E-

34. (Copy of decision appended as Attachment C.)

For these reasons, the public alerting and notification requirements 10 CFR 650.47(b)(5) and Appendix E flV, D1 and 3 are not met in the Seabrook Station plume exposure pathway EPZ. It follows that there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook as required by 650.47(a)(1).

Respectfully submitted, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE By its attorney, BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON

, <,'. , . 1'ks..'..

f Robert A. Backus P. O. Box 516 -

116 Lowell Street Manchester, N.H. 03105 Tel: (603) 668-7272 DATE: February 6, 1987 I hereby cer t i f y that a copy of the wi thin SEACOAST ANT 1-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S CON TENTION AND MOrlON TO ADMIT LATE-FILED CONTENTION, REOPEN THE RECORD ON ON-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING, AND CONDITION THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE UP TO 5%

OF RATED POWER ON APPLICANTS' COMPLI ANCE WITil 10 CFR 150.47(b)(5 ). has been sent this date, firs t class, pos tage prepald, to all par t ies on the at tached service list.

j . -:'7L.-6, y

.r -

Robert A, Backus

.g.