ML20210E386
| ML20210E386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1987 |
| From: | Anderson F IDEAS & INFORMATION, INC., SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210E360 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8702100294 | |
| Download: ML20210E386 (14) | |
Text
-
s :-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos.
) 50-443/444-OL
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) (On-Site EP and
)
HAMPSHIRE ET. AL. ) Safety Issues)
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 )
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF FREDERICK H. ANDERSON, JR.
- 1. My name is Frederick H. Anderson, Jr. I have in the past served as Assistant Civil Defense Director, Public Information Director and Assistant Transportation Coordinator for the Town of South Har, ton, New Hampshire with regard to its Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Seabrook Station.
In addition I am a reporter for the Town Crier newspaper in South Hampton.
I am also President of Ideas + Information, Inc., a marketing research firm in Exeter, New Hampshire.
- 2. The Town of South Hampton is located within the ten-mile plume exposure EPZ of the Seabrook nuclear plant. South Hampton abuts East Kingston, New Hampshire.
- 3. East Kingston held its first audible test of its emergency notification sirens January 31, 1987, and, representing the Town Crier I observed this test, primarily from inside the East Kingston EOC.
When I arrived members of the East Kingston Fire and Police departments were being sent to eight locations within the town to monitor a test of the sirens. Four of the teams were sent to the four siren locations (EK-1 to 4) and the other four were to determine how well the sirens could be heard in other parts of the town.
- 5. As the first phase of the test,a vocal announcement, warning that a test was to be made, was to occur using the voice capability of the sirens. Rockingham County Dispatch attempted to make such an announcement remotely from their EOC in Brentwood, NH using their B702100294 870206 PDR ADOCK 05000443 1 0 PDR
PAGE TWO OF TWO radio system, but none of those people in the field reported being able to hear anything from the sirens.
- 6. An attempt was then made to set off the sirens remotely from Rockingham County Dispatch, as would be the case in the event of an emergency at Seabrook. Only one of the sirens (EK-4) on Exeter Road, was reported to be working.
- 7. Robert Fairbanks, Emergency Management Coordinator in East Kingston, tried to reach Rockingham County Dispatch by radio and was unable to.,
Mr. Fairbanks then decided to try to operate the sirens directly from the EOC. Using the Whelan console, he was able to activate three of the four sirens using a " Wail" sound. EK-2 still did not operate.
Next Fairbanks activated the " attack" siren sound. Again only three of the four sirens worked.
- 8. I went outside the EOC while a siren was going off. East Kingston Fire Chief David Conte said that he hadn't yet heard a noise that would get him out of a house.
- 9. A maintenance crew from New Hampshire Yankee, with a rented cherry picker truck, which was stationed in front of the EOC, was sent to try to repair siren EK-2. EK-2 was activated locally by the NHY technicians at the siren. Mr. Fairbanks cancelled a test from Rockingham Dispatch because they were working on the siren.
- 10. Toward the end of the test, Mr. Fairbanks tried to make an announcement from the EOC over the sirens. The person at siren EK-3 reported the transmission was " scratchy" and the person at airen EK-2 reported it was " unintelligible." None of the other six monitoring locations reported being able to hear the voice transmission.
fFrederick H.h Anderson,
}l -.
-f Jr'. N
- Then personally appeared the above named Frederick H. Anderson, Jr. and made oath that the above statements by him subscribed are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Before me 4/4DF/6' t' Notary Public
! Dated: My commission expires /c 2/g[37 97 2
e A4xb.uk A New Hampshire Yankee i g ,une ,,. i,..
iff!i;
. ear heighbors .
u ,I p ;
j ! would like to share with you some important information on Seattock Station and i .{ its alert and notification systes, liiI Construction of seabrook Station will soon be complete. Af ter receiving a lew.
, power operating Itcense, New Hampshire Tankee will load nuclear fuel into the 8eabrook reactor. The next step will be a settes of new-power tests at up to five i 'Il I' i percent of its notaal capacity.
l Setore low-pe=et testind can be done at a s deleet power plant, the federal govern.
sent requires that the plant have in place a prompt notificatten syntes for nearby areas.
,pa. . , i U h, I(, An accident at Seabrook is entremely unlikely. The plant has been built and tested
.-- te stritt quality and safety standards. and the teactor containeent b611 ding is T'?N wp the strengest in the United States. However. if there were an incide*,t at leabrook that could affect the public, the notification system would be used te alert you.
7, please take a eccent new to read about this systes and share this infettatica with
- 7. pour fanitys e
I. If thete should be an emergency at Seabrook Station that could ef fect the public in any way. warning sirens in your area would sake a steady g three*te-five sinute signal.
[$$ 2. If you heat this signal, you should turn on yout radie. Emergency breadrante st!! tell you what is happening and what te do. S tay ing
- i. tuned to the tedio eight be all you would need to do. Or. you might h e, ( be told to take other actions.
e w e" 3. please do not use your telephone except for a personal energency.
The thene lifies may be needed for official business. If ycu can de y&g l
- ae se witheut using your phone, please check to see if your neighbors have hestd and enderstood the emergency sessage.
As seabrook soves eleset to runntra above five percent power. and to fu11 eparation, you will receive note matettals on emergeftty notification and response plane for your area. In the meantime, if you have questions about this letter, please call the f o!! ewing nor. emergency number between 8:10 a.s. and 4:00 p.es (603) 474 2154 Thank you.
gineerely.
- * *' l L,.f *~
h T.e,r r..t.try..terarpa ....g.ncy pr.p.r..n.se 3 ,, a7i g
= s 1 J5 ?J
- 4lfE < Ne. Hempinue vaa6ee D . s.ea of Pvtl.a le.ne et New He<-esane po s,. W tee w Nu me's
A A W ,4 8
. C
[*% k UNITED STATES 00~;K':T tiUP.EER M PROD. & UTIL FAC.V.V.I
,$, j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
a y jr ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL M,4 W ASHtN GTON. D.C. 20555 U %
....a / ,
June 9, 1986 *'
g Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino r spl ~
Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts ; .-- '
Commissioner James K. Asselstine Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal ;U
.. shx[lF.
'f . j' Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr. V
Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:
The May 16, 1986 letter to you from the Shearon Harris SERVED JUN pgp (SH) operating license board (SH letter), expressing a generic concern about the adequacy of FEMA standards for .
Judging nuclear power plant sirens, came to our attention last week during the Annual Meeting of the ASLBP. We are writing to express our endorsement of the position taken by the SH board and to bring to your attention concerns that we have as a result of matters discussed in the SH letter.
As members of the board that heard the Indian Point Special Proceeding, we are concerned that the~ authors of NUREG/CR-2655, PNL 4226, which was cited on p. 2 of the Shearon Harris letter, predicted that on a winter night with snow the sirens at Indian Point would alert only 53% of the residents in the EPZ. The SH letter pointed out on p. 3 that the record developed in the SH proceeding showed that the estimates in NUREG/CR-2655, PNL 4226 are probably low by 10-20 percentage points. With the upper value from this range added to the Indian Point statistic, the sirens would be projected to alert only 73% of the residents on a winter night with snow. We agree with the SH board that such a level of alerting "cannot reasonably be viewed as satisfying the ' essentially 100%' regulatory requirement" adopted by the Commission.
I We call to your attention that in the Indian Point (IP) proceeding we found that 4,642 persons liveTwitEin T 75 miles of the IP site. 18 NRC 811, 873 (1983). This zone is well within the 2-mile distance within which lethal exposures resulting from a severe accident at IP would probably occur, according to NRC testimony. Id., at 868. If we assume only 73% of these close-in EPZ resTdents were alerted by sirens, and we perform the same adjustment for self-alerting described in the SH letter, we obtain a total alerting projection of only 83%, well below the regulatory requirement of the Commission. Such a low percentage of alerting within 1.25 miles of the IP site could result in more than 700 i unalerted persons who could be exposed to a lethal radiation
~
"][.
June 9, 1986
/ dose. Moreover, as the IP record shows, snow falling through a radiation plume can result in hot spots downwind from the point of release, which could significantly increase the chance of early health effects. Id., at 981. Obviously, a delay in evacuation by persons who were not alerted by the early notification would increase the risk of their experiencing s,uch exposure.
- In our Recommendations to the Commission, issued on October 24, 1983, we found that the effect of severe winter storms on evacuation had been given insufficient consideration in the emergency planning for IP. Id., at 981. ,
At the time we wrote those recommendations, we were unaware '
of the alerting rate estimated by NUREG/CR-2655, PNL-4226 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 Commission consider such a requirement now.
We have another serious concern to bring to your attention..namely, the failure of the Staff to bring NUREG/CR-2655, PNL-4226 to our attention during the IP proceeding. The manuscript for NUREG/CR-2655 was completed in February, 1982, and the document was published in September, 1982. The IP board heard testimony on emergency planning in the spring of 1983, and the record was not closed until April 29, 1983. 18 NRC 811, 841-42 (1983). Commission Question 4 in the IP proceeoing specifically asked:
What improvements in the level of emergency planning can
! be expected in the near future, and on what time
- schedule, and are there other specific offsite emergency procedures that are feasible and should be taken to protect the public?
In view of that question and the extensive testimony taken with respect to emergency planning at IP, as well as the 4 Commission's then existing policy with regard to board
! notifications , we believe that it was incumbent on the Staff to bring NUREG/CR-2655 to our attention. Certainly the McGuire doctrine, which has been dealt with in a number of Hecisions, makes it clear that any matter that is " relevant and material" to an issue being adjudicated by a Licensing or Appeal Board must be provided to that Board. Duke Power Co. -
(William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 anH 2TT ALAB-143, 6 AEC 623, 625-26 (1973); Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and YTT AEKF;7VI, 2 NRC 404, i
I 1
J
- - , --, .-,...---v~,-- ----,-.-------n,-. . - - . , - - - - , - - . - . . . - -----.n-..--- - - - - - - , - - - - - , - . - - . . - - -
LI[
June 9, 1986
.)
408-12 (1975); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397, 406 n. 26 (1976); Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, UnTts 1, 2, a 3), ALKE!E77, 15 NRC 1387, 1394 (1982); MetroDolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I), XEAH 77T- 19 RRC 1350, 1357-60 (1984); Houston Lighting & Power Co. (South Texas Project,' Units 1 & 2), LIFET-6, 21 NRC 447 (1985). In light of this precedent, of the significance of the results of NUREG/CR-2655 to emergency planning at IP, and of the fact that emergency planning was litigated in the IP proceeding many months after NUREG/CR-2655 was issued, we believe Staff's failure to bring this matter to the Board's attention, when viewed even in the most favorable light, to be a serious oversight. .
Respectfully submitted.
LI N Ur. Uscar H. Paris C/] '
7/Q.c FredericE g A% .;
C '
ahv cc: M. Malsch, Acting General Counsel S. Chilk, Secretary /
Indian Point Service List 9
- m. . . z .; . . - .
~
l3 . A A +c-
, TriE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE .
ROCKINGHAM, SS -
~
HD TUPSRIOR..f0l!?.T 0 Mil? Q -s,e$n us07-
W M ORCOURT
- PL kn' V.
- No. 86 34
~
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY-0F N.H.
- I <
. ORDER The Plaintiff, Town of Rye, brought this action .for declaratory relief against the Defendant, Public Service Company of New s
l Hampshire, seeking an order allowing it to revoke certain pole g
licenses it. granted the Defendant to install poles on toun-caintained i
l rights-of-way and, further, seeking the re= oval of certain poles installed within the town limits on state-maintained highuays under l . licenses issued by the state. The Toun of Ha=pton Falls has intervened likewise seeking the removal of poles located in the town l
on state-maintained highways. On November 26, 1986, this Court determined that the State of New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT) was a necessary party for the resolution of this dispute and ordered the DOT to file responsive pleadings.
! .The Defendant, Public Service, is the controlling partner in the construction of the Seabrook Huclear Power Station. As such, it is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Cocaission to develop a means of l evacuation and response to potential catastrophes at the plant.
l i
I
?lo. 36-E-34 Page No. 2 As part of its plan for evacuation and response, the Defendant has installed a system for public notification consisting of a series _of sirens placed on poles located in several New Hampshire seacoast coc= unities, including the Plaintiff Touns. The poles are approximately 60 feet in height (as opposed to a standard utility pole 33 feet in heig'$t) and attached to the top of the poles is a 500 pound siren /public address system. This is the sole use of the pole; it is used for no other purpose.
In November of 1985, the Defendant, through its Manager of duelear Projects, notified the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Rye of its intent to place these poles and sirens in different areas of the town. The selectmen cade it clear by appropriate response that it was their intention to resist any such attempt.
Notwithstanding their insistence that they vould not cooperate by permitting the poles for these purposes, the Selectmen, on September 10, 1934, pursuant to R.S.A. 231:161 I(a), granted applications for pole permits submitted by the Defendant to the Town Clerk on July 9, 1984 for this purpose. It is the contention of the town selectmen that they were not aware that these poles were to be used for anything other than the transmission of electric pouer despite the fact that the Defendant's agent had indicated to the select =cn that they would be seeking pole licenses for this purpose.
u__________. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
Uo. 86-E-34 Pago No. 3 Pursuant to these licenses and licenses granted by the DOT purportedly under the authority of R.S.A. 231:160 et sec., the Defendant has installed a number of poles with sirens throughout the Town of Rye on town-maintained highways end state-caintained highuays. The Defendant has likewise installed a series of poles on state-maintained highways located in the Town of Hampton Falls pursuant to licenses obtained from the DOT.
The ultimate issue to be determined is whether R.S.A. 231:160 e; sec., authorizes the towns and/or the State to issue pole licenses for t'.te erection of poles for purposes related solely to this siren warning systen. The Defendant and the DOT caintain that said statutes are to be interpreted to include this purpose while the Plaintiff and intervenor maintain that this use is not consistent with the language or intent of the statute.
The authority to erect poles on the highuays of the State is found in R.S.A. 231:160 which reads as follous:
" Authority to Erect. Telegraph, television, telephone, electric light and electric pouer poles and structure, and underground conduits and cables, with their respective attachments and appurtenances may be erected, installed and caintained in any public highways and the necessary and proper wires and cable may be supported on such poles and structures or carried across or placed under any such highway by any person, copartnership or corporation as provided in this subdivision and not otherwise."
Thus, any pole erected on the highuays of the State cust be used within the parameters of this statute. Therefore, any license granted for the erection of a pole for the purpose outside of these paraceters is null and void.
. No . 86-E-34 Page No. 4 The legislature, through this statute, has listed those uses or purposes for which poles may be erected (the statute does not list the types of companies which may erect poles as the State contends) .
The list includes " telegraph, television, telephone, electric light and electric power poles . . .," a very specific and limited enumeration.
It is a well-established principle of statutory construction that "the expression of one thing in a statute implies the exclusion of another" In Re Gamble, 113 U.H. 771, 777 (1978); See also Vaillancourt v. Concord General Mutual Insurance Comnanv, 117 N.H.
43-(1977); 2A J. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory construction, Section 47.23-24 (4th ed. C. Sands 1973).
In this case, the legislature has provided a very specific and limited enumeration of uses for which poles may be erected on public highways. The statute contains no terms indicating the non-exclusivity of this list; such as "such as ...," "like ..." or
" including but not limited to ..." Therefore, applying the above-stated principle of statutory construction, this Court must conclude that the lestslature did not intend to allow the erection of poles by utility conpanies for any purpose the company may see fit, but only for those purposes listed. Thus, the licenses granted the Defendant by the Town of Rye and the State Department of Transportation for the erection of poles for a system of public notification were granted without statutory authority and are, therefore, null and void.
(
, ; 3o. a6-E-34 Page No. 5 Accordingly, the poles erected pursuant to these licenses were erected uithout authority.
This position is further supported by the legislative history of R.S.A. 231:160. The statute has been amended a number of times since its passage in 1881 to accoccodate technological innovations and the needs of society. These innovations include telephones, television, electric lights and electric pouer. Each time the legislature has specifically anended the statute to provide for these innovations and has specifically listed that particular innovatica as a permissable use for utility poles. The legislature could have used broad language in providing for future innovations or societal needs but has chose, instcad, to provide specifically
- for each neu use. Obviously, then, it is the role of the legislature to accoccodate these neu uses and not the role of this Court.
Even assuming arcuendo, the list was not intended by the legislature to be enclusive, these poles and the use to which they have been put are not within the general nature of the types of uses designated in the statute. Excluding electric light poles, the poles designated in the statute are all utility poles; that is, they are all ecployed to provide some direct service to the public. They all transmit some service to the hemeowner. The Defendant argues that these poles do relate to the transcission of electricity. This relationship, however, is far too attenuated. In fact, the purpose to which these poles are put is far too novel to have been contemplated by the legislature in this statute.
No. 86-E-34 Page No. 6 Finally, these siren /public address systems can hardly be termed appurtenances. Webster defines an appurtenance as "a subordinate part of adjunct: accessory obj ect," Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1974). It's obvious that the sole purpose of these poles is the siren / public address system. They are, therefore, not subordinate or adjunct parts, but the only feature of these poles.
Defendant has cited in its Supplemental Memorandum of Law the case of Vernet, et al v. Exeter, 123 N.il. ,(decided December 30, 1986 for the proposition that municipalities cannot exercise veto power over the State's performance of its statutorily mandated functions. It contends that, by challenging the applicability of RSA 231:160 et seq., the plaintiff Touns are, in effect, seeking to exercise local authority to prohibit the State from implementing a nuclear emergency response plan as it is obliged to do under RSA 107-A, et sec and RSA 107-B et sec. This argument is without merit, however, as, in any event, it is not the State, but the defendant company which is taking the action the towns seek to enjoin.
In short, the State is not, in authoriting the erection of the poles by the Defendant, exercising a function statutorily mandated. It is, rather, relying on the legislative authority of RSA 231:160 et sec, which, for the reasons given herein does not authorize the erection of poles for this purpose.
For the foregoing reason, the Defendant is ordered to cause the
. .~ 't *Nc. 86-E-34 "Page No. 7 removal of these poles and-the siren /public address systems at its
~
sole expense within 30 days of the date hereof.
So Ordered.
January.20, 1987 y Wa1ter W /hesiding Justice f f e
y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND SERVICE LIST Jose Asst.Gn.Cnsl. Helen Hoyt. Chm.
Fcd. ph Flynn[gmt.
Emerg. 1 Agcy.
- Thomas Dignan, Esq.*
Adan. Judge Ropes & Gray 500 C.St. So. West Atomic Safety & Lic Brd.
Washington, DC 20472 USNRC 225 Franklin St.
Boston , AIA 02110 Washington, DC 20555 Office of Selectmen Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Town of Hampton Falls Admin. Judge Docketing & Serv. Sec.
Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Lic Brd. Office of the Secretar; USNRC USNRC Washington, DC Washington, DC 20555 20555 Shenvin E. Turk, Esq.
Gustave A. Linanberger* Jane Doughty Office of Exec. Legl. Dr.
USNRC Admin Judge SAPL Wahsington, DC 20 __ Atomic Safety & Lic. Brd. 5 Market Street USNRC Portsmouth, NH 03S01 Washington, DC 20555 Phillip Ahrens, Esq. Paul McEachern, Esq.
Asst. Atty. General George Cana Bisbee, Esq.
Matthew Brock, Esq. Attorney General's OFF.
State House, Sta. #6 25 Maplewood Ave.
Augusta, ME 04.333 State of New Hampshire P.O. Box 360 Concord, NH 03301 Portsmuth, hE 03S01 Carol Sneider, Esq. , Asst. AG Diane Curran, Esq.
One Ashburton Place, William S. Lord 19th Floor Harmon, Weiss Board of Selectmen Bocton, MA 02108 20001 S Street hv Suite 430 Town Hall-Friend St.
Washington, DC 20009 Amesbury, MA 01913 Richard A. Ha@ e, Esq. Maynard Young, Chaimun New Hampshire Civil De4ense Sandra Gauvutis Board of Select:mn Town of Kingston Agency 10 Central Road Harpe & McNicholas Box 1154 Rye, h3 03870 East Kensington, MI 03827 35 Pleasant St.
Concord, Mi 03301 Judith H. Mizner, Esc. Edward Thomas Mr. Robert Harrison Silverglate, Gertner, FEM Pres. & Chief Exec. Officer Bak:r, Fine, Gccd & Mizner 442 J.W. McCormack (PCCH) PSCO 88 Broad Street Boston, au 02109 P.O. Box 330 Boston, MA 02110 Manchester, Mi 03105 Gary W. Hcmes, Esq. Roberta Pevear Holmes & Ellis Atanic Safet and Licensing 47 Winnacunnet Road State Rep.-Toun of Harpt Falls Aopeal Panel
- Hampton, Mi 03842 Drinkwater Road USNBC Hanpron Falls, NH 03844 Washington, DC 20555 Sheldon J. Wolf, Esq. Chmn Charles P. Grahan, Esq.
Administrative Judge McKay, Murphy-and Graham Atanic Safety and Lic. Brd. 100 Main Street USNBC Amesbury,1% 01913 Washington, DC 20555