ML20234C001
| ML20234C001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1987 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234B977 | List: |
| References | |
| ALAB-879, OL, NUDOCS 8801060073 | |
| Download: ML20234C001 (9) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY CCMMISSION before the Commission COMMISSIONERS:
Lando W. Zech, Jr. Chairman Thomas M. Roberts Frederick M. Bernthal Kenneth M. Carr Kenneth C. Rogers In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-443-OL
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
(Cnsite Emergency Planning NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al'
)
and Safety Issues)
)
(Seabrook Station, Unit 1)
)
SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-87 9 NOW COMES the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) and petitions pursuant to 10 CFR S2.786 that the Commission review
. that portion of ALAB-879 directed to SAPL's contention regarding the adequacy of the EPZ sirens as evidenced by a test of the sirens in East Kingston, New Hampshire on January 31, 1987.
SAPL iholds that the decision in ALAB-879 is erroneous with respect' to important questions of fact, law and pclicy.
A.
Summarv of Decision of which Feview is Soucht The Appeal Board issued its final decision regarding SAPL's February 6,1987 contention and motion to admit late-filed contention, reopen the record en on-site emergency planning and condition the issuance of a license up to 5% of rated power on 8801060073 871222 ADOCK05000gg3 PDR 0
r v
r r
s
,. Applicants' cogpliance with ICr CFR 550.47(b) (5), on November 20, 1987.
The Appeal Board affirmed the decision se fcyth in the Licensing Board's March 23 memorandum and ceder that neither the siren test nor the judicial decision brought to the Board's attention in DA?L's contention gave Lite to a significant safety issue.
SAPL had argued in its contention, which was suppoated by i
i affidavit, that the failure of the East Kingcton sirens to operate l
. properly dur:[ng a test in January brought int'o question the reliability, audibility and intelligibf?.ity of the EPZ-wide siren systed.
SAPL's contention also pointed to a January 22, 1987
- Superior court decision in a suit brought by the Tcwns of Rye and Hampton Falls that found Public Service Company cf New Hampshire's s
siren _ system illegal and ordered the removal of th'e.si rens.
As cral argument on July 24, 1987, the nppeal Beard suggested 1
th,at another test of the sirens be performed this coming winter.
Negotiations under the leadership of thd NP.C staff were undertaken to try tc teach agreement among the parties as to test procedures SAPL held the and appropriate climatic condit'icns for said test.
view:
- 1) that the tests should be held throughou: the EPZ 2), en-compass the public address mode of sirens'and 3f be scheduled not more than five days in advance.
The Appeal Board agreed with SAPL
)
cnly as to point 3, but further stated that the premature I
select'or for a -test date by Applicants and Staf.f did not provide i
e dhe appeal Board with a legal predicate for requi-ing reopening of r
the record to entertain SAPL's contention i.e. the Appeal Board could not find a significant saf ety issue requiring recpening of j
a l
l I
the record.
The Attorney General's office for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts raised certain objections to the test procedures in a letter dated September 22, which SAFL jcined in en October 1.
The Commonwealth filed a memorandum en this mat:er on October 2.
.The Appeal Eoard found that only one pein: had substance and that
.that did not warrant a reopening of the record.
As to the Superior Court decision, Obe Appeal Board decided that, because the decision was under appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the concern raised by SA?L as to the legality of the system was premature.
B.
Statement of Matters of Fact er.d Law Falsed by this Petition SAPL raised the matters of fact and law in this petition first in its February 6, 1987 contention with accompanying the affidavit. 1/ SAPL stated that the siran system aces not meet lege.1 requirement at 10 CFR 550.47(b) (3). The Comnissien in its Statement of Consideration accompanying 10 CFR 550.47 (d) explicitly stated that compliance wi:: :.:e public alerting and notification requirements are prerequisi:ss for fuel loading and low power testing. 2/
The special attanzion paid by the Commission in consideration of its los pcwer licensing regulation 1/ Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Contention and Motion tc Admit Late-Filed Contention, Reopen the Reccrd cn Cn-Site Emergency Planning, and Condition the Issuance cf a License Up to 5% F.ated Power on Applicants' Compliance with 10 CFR 550.47(b)(5).
2/ 47 Eedz Ee. 30232, at 30234, col 1 (July 13, 1982) l l
l I
\\
i !
_4_
underscored the safety significance of an' adequate system of public alerting and notification even at that level of plant l-operation.
I SAPL again raised its arguments of law and fact in its appeal i
l brief filed May 4, 1987 and again on oral argument before the Appeal Board on July 24, 1987. 3/
SAPL detailed its position on the proposed siren test in a Memorandum dated October 1, 1987.
C.
The Appeal Board's Decision Was In Error The Appeal Board erred in finding that the East Kingston siren test did not raise a significant safety question as to the reliability and audibility of the sirens in the entire EPZ and the intelligibility of the public address mode of the sirens in the EPZ locations where that mode is to be employed.
The NRC staff's affidavit that the test procedures used were improper and that corrective measures will be undertaken supports only speculation that more appropriate test measures and corrective measures will achieve a better result than shown by the East Kingston test.
Until an entire EPZ wide test is undertaken, the prudent presumption should be that the sirens are not adequate for public alerting and notification and that therefore a significant safety question remains.
The Appeal Board's decision, in short, is at odds with the agency's long standing assertion that nuclear safety last and a permanent consideration in any decisions" is a "first, concerning licensing.
Power Reactor Development Coro. v.
Electricians, 367 U.S. 396 at 402 (1961).
It is also contrary to the requirement of 10 CFR S2.732 which provides that as to all 3/ SAPL does not have the transcript and hence is unable to cite to particular pages.
b controverted issues, it is the Applicant which which bears the burden of proof, unless the presiding officer otherwise orders.
Further, the fact that the siren system in the EPZ has been found illegal.should be grounds for non-licensure, notwithstanding the fact that the decision is under appeal.
It is a present fact that the sirens have been found illegal.
That the decision may be overturned or that Applicants may find alternate means of public alerting and notification are matters of speculation and not a sufficient basis for licensure.
D.
The Commission Should Exercise Review _
The Commission should exercise review because the present factual circumstances are such that there is no sound basis for assuming the adequacy or legality of the siren system.
is Furthermore, the legal requirement at 10 CFR 550.47(b)(5)
The Commission wisely decided in 1982 that the 10 CFR not met.
5 50. 47 (b) ( 5) requirements should be met prior to low power licensure in order to provide public confidence in the safety systems prior to the initiation of nuclear operation.
The Commission stated then in regard to the offsite elements of planning required for low power:
" Knowing that the above elements [an effective, and of the compliant, notification and alerting system]
applicants emergency plan have been reviewed by NRC should assure the public that, for low power testino and fuel loading, adequate p;otective measures could and would be taken in the event of an accident." 4/
The Commission also said in focusing on risks associated with low power operation that:
...the Commission does not alter the high standards applicable to the r:aview of emergency preparedness at full power."-5/
4/
47 Fed. Req. 30232, at 30234, emphasis added.
5/
Ibid. at 30232
- -There was also the concern stated that the Commission ought to be concerned about credibility:
...the Commission should take pains to avoid even the appearance of relaxing safety standards." 6/
The Commission's statements in 1982 reflected a sound public policy approach and that approach should be maintained at this time.
If this policy is now to be upheld, the Appeal Board's decision in ALAB-879 ought to be reversed.
Respectfully submitted Seacoast Anti-Pollution League By its Attorneys Backus, Meyer & Solomon Dated December 1, 1987 Robert A. Backus 116 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 6/
Ibid.
Y v
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the-above and foregoing " Seacoast l
Anti-Pollution League's Petition for - Review of ALAB-879" was l
I mailed this date, first class mail, postage prepaid, to all names on the' attached service list.
Robert A.,Backus i
l 4
i i
i a
l l
l I
l
4-Kennsth M. Carr.
Howard A. Wilber Judith H. Mi:nnr, Esquire Nuclear Rsgulatory Comm Atomic Safety and Licensing Silvarglate, Gertner, Bake Washington, DC 20555 Appeal Panel Fine, Good & Mizner USNRC 88 Broad Street-Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02110 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Mr. Ed Thomas -
Mr. William S. Lord Atomic Safety & Licensing FEMA, Region I Board of Selectmen Appeal Panel 442 John W. McCormack Post Town Hall - Friend Street USNRC Office and Court House Amesbury, MA 01913 Washington, DC 20555 Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 Gary J. Edles Robert Carrigg, Chairman Brentwood Board of Select:
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board of Selectmen RFD Dalton Road Appeal Panel Town Office Brentwood, NH 03833 USNRC Atlantic Avenue Washington, DC 20555 North Hampton. NH 03862 Administrative Judge Sheldon Diane Curran, ? squire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire J. Wolfe, Esquire, Chairman Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire Hampe and McNicholas Atomic Safety & Licensing Harmon & Weiss 35 Pleasant Street Board Panel 2001 S Street, N.W.
Concord, NH 03301 USNRC Washington, DC 20009 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. E=meth A. Luebke Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III-Charles P. Graham, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Town Manager McKay, Murphy and Graham Board Panel Town of Exeter 100 Main Street USNRC 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Washington, DC 20555 Exeter, NH 03833 Thomas M. Roberts H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Dr. Jerry Harbour.
Nuclear Regulatory Commision office of General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensir Washington, DC 20535 Federal Emergency Management Board Panel 500 C Street, S.W.
USNRC Washington, DC 20472 Washington, DC 20555 Frederick M. Bernthal' Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensi-Nuclear Regulatory Co=mision Holmes & Ells Board Panel-Washington, DC 20555 47 Winnacunnet Road USNRC Hampton, NH 03841 Washington, DC 20555 L
J
c-------.
t AtomicLSafety and Licsusing
, Sherwin E. Turk, Esquira Office of tha Executiva Legal fAppssi'Bosrd Panal Director USNRC Washington,.DC 20555 USNRC Washington, DC 20555 Philip!Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office 10 Central Road Department of the Attorney Rye, NH 03870 General Augusta, NE 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th F1 Shaines & McEachern Boston, MA 02108 25 Maplewood Avenue PO Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mr. Calvin A Canney Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RfD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Kensington, NH 03827 126. Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie.bchiros N
Chairman of the Board of US Senate I
Washington, DC' 20510 Selectmen (Attention: Tom Burack)
Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Mr. Peter S. Mac' thews
' Senator Gordon J Humphrey One Eagle Square, Suite 507-Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall
( Attention: Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire
~ Attorney General' George Dana'Bisbee, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney Gener.
25 Capitol St'reet Concord, NH. 03301-6397
-~
.