ML20212R624
| ML20212R624 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1987 |
| From: | Perlis R NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212R626 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2359 OL-1, NUDOCS 8702030010 | |
| Download: ML20212R624 (4) | |
Text
W 2 3 5 f' 01/29/87 DCLKETED UNC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 87 JAN 30 P4 :28 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
']
BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUPLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL-01 NEW !!AMPSIIIRE, et al.
)
On-site Emergency Planning
)
and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MASSACIIUSETTS' MOTIOP TO ADMIT LATE-FILED CONTENTION I.
INTRODUCTION On January 12, 1987, Massachusetts filed a motion to admit a Icte-filed contention raising the issue of early notification to the town of Merrimac, P!assachusetts in the event of an emergency at Scabrook.
fiassachusetts also requested additional related relief in its motion,
including reopening of the record in the on-site phase of this proceeding to hear the contention, and the conditioning of a license for operation not in excess of 5% of rated power on Applicants' compffance with 10 CFR
$50.47(b)(5). 1I Accompanying the motion are a contentien esserting that Applicants have failed to establish any means te provide early notification i
~1/
That Section provides:
(5) Procedures have been established for notification, by.the licenrec, of State and local response organizations and for notification of emerFency personnel by all organizations; the content of initial and fcilotoup messages to response organizations and the public has been established; tend means to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone have been established.
l I
0 8702030010 870229
{DR ADOCK 05000443 PDR l
r O
~
_3 and clear instruction to residents of the, town of Merrimac, and an Affidavit from Ronald R. Jordan, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen of Merrimac, which purportedly provides the basis for the contention.
The Staff herein responds to Massachusetts' motion; for the reasons presented below, the Staff submits that the motion should be denied.
II.
ARGUMENT Massachusetts' motion, and the contention upon which it is based, are premised upon the asserticn that there are no operable emergency alert and notification sirens in the town of Merrimac.
According to Massachusetts, the Applicants intcnded to install three sirens in Merrimac.
According to the Affidavit of Mr. Jordan, one of the three sirens has not been installed.
Jordan Affidevit, f 5.
As to the other two sirens, Mr. Jordan states that the Town has refused to issue any wiring permits to allow the s!rens to be hooked up to the Town's electrical system, that the sirens have not been hooked up to the system, and therefore the sirens are incapable of operation.
Id. at if 6-7.
Thus the contention asserts that the Applicants heve failed to comply with S50.47(b)(5) because they have failed to establish "any administrative or physical means to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway located within the Town of Merrimac, Massachusetts." Motion at 7.
The contention must be rejected, and the motion denied, because the factual basis provided for the contention is erroneous.
As demonstrated in the attached Affidavit of Antone Cerne, the NRC Senior Ecsident Inspector at the Seabrook site, there are in fact two operable sirens L
I E located in ?!crrimac. Although the nirens have not been booked up to the electrical grid, they have been equipped with hatteries and have been found to be operable.
Cerne Affidavit, TV 4-5.
The Applicants have also provided an analysis to demonstrate that the planned third siren is not needed to notify the public; according to the cnalysis, the two operable sirens can produce noise levels of at least 10 decibels above normal (the standard accepted by FEMA and the HI!C) in all of Pierrimac.
Id. at V 6.
While Mr. Jordan tray be correct in his statement that none of the rirens are connected to the electrical grid, his deduction therefrom that the sirens "are therefore [not) capable of operation" (Jordan Affidavit, f 7) is baselens and unsupported by any reasoning in his affidavit, and, as Mr. Cerne's Affidavit demonstrates, is factually incorrect.
For the reasons presented in the Cerne Affidavit, it is clear that the contention's factual premise is fundamentally in error; the Town of Merrimac is equipped with an operable early notification system.
The l
contention must therefore be rejected.
Because the contention must be rejected, the Staff does not deem it necessary to examine whether Massachusetts has satisfied the standards for late-filed contentions or for i
reopening the record. O i
i
-2/
The Staff would note in this regard, however, that Massachusetts l
has not provided a clear explanation of why this contention could not have been filed sooner.
According to Mr. Jordan's Affidavit, the Town of Merrimac took steps back in May and June of 1986 to l
prevent the installation of the sirens.
See Jordan Affidavit at 113, 4, and 6.
It would appear that the contention could have been filed l
at that time.
Instead, Massachusetts filed the contention seven l
months later.
Under these circumstances, a
more detailed l
explanation of the timeliness of the contention would seem to be in order.
L.
f t III.
CONCLUSION As demonstrated above, the contentien upon which the motion relies is based upon the erroneous assumption that, without connection to the electric grid, the sirens in Merrimac eco not be operable.
In fact, the sirenn are operable.
The contention has an incorrect factual basis and must be rejected.
Because the contention is invalid, the motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Robert G. Perlis Counsel for MRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of January,1987 l
l
._