ML20234C687

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Supplemental Memorandum of Atty General Jm Shannon in Support of Motion to Admit late-filed Contention & Reopen Record.* Applicant Combination of Overlapping Siren Coverage & 19 Minute Helicopter Alerting Run Insufficient
ML20234C687
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 12/31/1987
From: Jonas S
MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML20234C688 List:
References
CON-#188-5289 OL-1, NUDOCS 8801060296
Download: ML20234C687 (7)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _____________.__ __ ___ __ 

 , *52ff 00LMETEE-33NRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                                                                                            '88 JE -5 N0:55 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL bog gg g g g g g DOCKEliNG & Sf i'VICf.

Administrative Judges BRANCn Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Howard A. Wilber 

                                                                                                                            )                         Docket Nos.

In the Matter of ) 50-443 OL-1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, - - - -et al., ) 

                                                                                                                            )                          (On-Site (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)                                                     )                         Emergency Planning
                                                                                                                            )                         Issues)
                                                                                                                            )                         December 31, 1987 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ADMIT LATE-FILED CONTENTION                                                                                                                                                      \

AND REOPEN THE RECORD INTRODUCTION 1 The Applicants have now provided some information about their airborne alerting system for Newburyport in the form of an Affidavit of Louis C. Sutherland ("Sutherland Affidavit") and an Alternate Alerting System Design Description for the City of Newburyport, Massachusetts (" Report").1/ The l Applicants claim that they have met the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S50.47(b)(5) with a combination of overlapping siren l 1/ This system is an alternative to the pole-mounted siren system previously in place. An updated affidavit of the Mayor of bewburyport, indicating that the sirens have been dismantled and removed, is attached as Exhibit 1. Affidavit of Peter J. Matthews, 13. 8801060296 871231 e PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR 09 l L --- - ----------- _ ____

4 coverage and a single, 19 minute helicopter alerting run. However, this analysis ignores, much less satisfies, critical operational requirements, proceeds from faulty assumptions and will not work even on its own terms. ARGUMENT A. The Airborne System Does Not Meet NRC And FEMA Requirements For Alerting Systems. Even allowing the erroneous assumption that the Applicants' system can and will work as proposed, it does not meet NRC and FEMA requirements. NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 at 3-3 states that one of the " minimum acceptable design objectives" for the system is the "[cjapability for providing both an alert signal and an informational or instructional message to the , population on an area-wide basis throughout the 10 mile EPZ, within 15 minutes" (emphasis added). See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. E IVD(3). Moreover, the siren signal must be "a 3 to 5 minute steady signal . . . and capable of repetition." NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 at 3-12. Of course, informational messages are the primary means for advising the public of a radiological emergency. Id. at 3-2. The reason the NRC and FEMA require an initial and lengthy alert signal is clear and sensible. The public must be put in

the position, immediately prior to the dissemination of the 1

message, to hear and understand the message and its significance, particularly where the message itself is

c relatively brief. Id.M The system offered by the Applicants, even ignoring its fundamental problems, would not meet the regulatory i requirements. It would not provide coverage within 15 minutes l (would require 19 minutes); would not both sound a siren and issue a message (could do only one or the other); and would not sound the siren for the required 3 to 5 minutes (the duration would be between 18 and 80 seconds). See Report at 7, 9; Sutherland Affidavit at 3, 4. Therefore, on its face, the system fails. The record must be reopened and the late-filed contention litigated. B. The Airborne System Will Not Be Sufficient Because The Overlapping Siren Coverage Does Not Exist. As the Applicants recognize, a critical assumption on which the viability of their system is based is that 60% of the area of Newburyport will be acoustically covered by existing sirens in neighboring communities. Applicants' Opposition to Motion of Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Reopen the Record and Admit Late-Filed Contention (" Applicants' Opposition") at 5; Report at 3, 17. Those sirens were located in Amesbury, Newbury, Salisbury and West Newbury. Report at 4. 2/ Therefore, the NRC and FEMA should recognize that without an alerting signal, a substantial portion of the targeted population in Newburyport is unlikely to be prepared to hear, to hear, or to comprehend the two approximately 11 second voice messages. See Report at 9. Of course, even if prepared to receive the message from the outset, many Newburyport residents will hear only one full message and fractions of two others. As the Applicants pointed out'to this Board, Applicants' { 

                                                                                                                                                        -{

Opposition at n.6,.the United States Court of Appeals for'the j First Circuit recently issued a decision of great significance for siren coverage in the-Massachusetts portion of the EPZ. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire v. Town of West Newbury, F.2d (No. 87-1395) (1st Cir. December 16, 1987). The First Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court denying PSNH a preliminary injunction against West Newbury removing the sirens in its town. All of the other towns in the. Massachusetts portion of the EPZ had been awaiting the First Circuit decision before proceeding with action on the sirens in those towns. Immediately after the decision, the { towns asked PSNH to remove its sirens or they would be removed by the towns themselves. See letters attached hereto as Exhibit 2. As a result, PSNH sent a letter to each one of the towns indicating that it would no longer rely on the sirens for Seabrook Emergency planning purposes. See letter attached hereto as Exhibit 3.3/ 3/ SA-1, one of the overlapping sirens, was located on the Salisbury Beach State Reservation. It was erected by the Applicants under a Special Use Permit issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management ("DEM"). Under the terms of the permit, it expired on october 31, 1987. See permit attached hereto as Exhibit 4. It has not been renewed. See letters attached hereto as Exhibit 5. On December 17, 1987, PSNH filed suit against DEM in U.S. District Court in Boston seeking a declaratory judgment that a hearing should have been held before the decision was made not to renew j the permit. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire v. Department j of Environmental Management, Civil Action No. 87-3012-K (D. Maas., filed December 17, 1987). PSNH did not seek a temporary { restraining order or a preliminary injunction. The siren was dismantled and removed on December 19, 1987. { 

                                                                                                                                                          )

N i In. v' .or t , the overlapping coverage which greatly diminished the I area to be covered by the helicopter, does not exist. C. The-Air'Dorne System Itself Suffers From Intractable Problems. Even ignoring its failure to meet NRC and FEMA requirements and its erroneous assumption, the system will not work. First, the Applicants theorize that acceptable weather conditions will exist 94.8% of the time. Report at 11. .That figure is apparently based only on ceiling and visibility conditions and does not account for other meteorological conditions relevant to helicopter operations, such as high winds or icing. Report, 

                            ~

Reference 11. Moreover, the occurrence data from which this figure is derived.is between 20 and 8 years old. Id. Second, the Applicants unfairly rely on field tests performed by Wyle Laboratories at Seabrook on November 4 and 5, 1987. The Attorney General initially filed his motion to reopen the record on Newburyport with the Licensing Board on September 21, 1987. Notwithstanding that demonstrated interest in the issue and any alternative public notification system, the Applicants did not notify the Attorney General of the tests. Affidavit of Stephen A. Jonas, attached as Exhibit 6,

12. The Attorney General's office learned of the tests the day they were scheduled and immediately called the Applicants' counsel and requested that they be postponed and that the Attorney General's expert be permitted to attend the tests.

_ _i

9 Id. at:953, 4, 5. The Applicants did_not act on either request, effectively excluding the Attorney General and his expert from the tests. Id. at 16. Under the circumstances, it would be unfair to permit the Applicants now to rely on the results of the tests. Moreover, based on the observations of a witness, the tests may well have been=a failure. Affidavit of Karen Stapelfeldt attached hereto as Exhibit 7, 17. During an extended portion of the tests, the helicopter-mounted sirens gave off only loud electric statici with occasional words detectable through the hissing sound. Id. Perhaps for that reason, the Applicants have not directly stated the results of the tests. Rather they have made " predictions" of the system's capabilities and effectiveness "[b]ased upon analyses of test data." Report at 8. Whichever party bearn the burden of proof on these issues, the Applicants' airborne alerting system will not work, a significant safety issue has been raised and a materially different result in the licensing proceedings would have been i likely.had the Newburyport siren issue been considered initially.1/ 4/ Once again, the Applicants' prefer to pass this off as an Issue of siren audibility and operability " properly left to staff oversight." Applicants' opposition at 4. The issue here is one of siren availability and the adequacy of an alternative system. As the Appeal Board suggested in Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1076, 1105 (1983), these are matters not properly left to staff oversight.

L. 1 I l . CONCLUSION The motion to admit late-filed contention and reopen the record should be granted. JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

                                  -l-      ff           - - .

Stephen A. J.9nas Assistant At'torney General Deputy Chief Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-4878 DATED: December 31, 1987 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20234C687&oldid=3194588"