ML20236C215
| ML20236C215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1987 |
| From: | Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236C217 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4622 OL-1, NUDOCS 8710270060 | |
| Download: ML20236C215 (17) | |
Text
- - - -.
r.
ea f./6 2N DOCKETED UShRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '87. T,T 21 A9:4B -
I BEFORE THE COMMISSION (gh7$uhdhE[
BRANtM i
a In the Matter of -
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 d
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et-al.
)
On-site Emergency Planning
)
and Safety issues
' ~ -
(Seabrook. Station, Units 1 and 2
)
s I
~,'tR
- NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR VACATION OF STAY l
Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney l:
October 20, 1987 L[
e710270060 871020 ADOCK 0500 3
j gDR o
..f 6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION 4
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, g al.
)
On-site Emergency Planning
)
and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2
)
4
\\
6
)
i NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR-VACATION OF STAY j
1 Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney
(
October 20, 1987
l TABLE OF CCNTETS PAG (S)
I manct l ON...............................................
2 D I SO.6 S I O4.................................................
6 CONCLUS I CN.................................................
13
+
e t
5 4
s.
e
.________._______.4
r.
.. 3 l-1
[..
l 1
l L.
i.
TABLE OF AllTHORITIES PRE (S) l l
1 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Sta t ion), CLI-83-17, 17 PRC 103 2 (1983)....................
2 Pthlic Service Co. of New Hmpshire, (Seabrook Station, Uni ts 1 ard 2 ), CLI-87-02, 25 E 267 (1987).............. -
passim
)
1 Public Service Co. of New Hanpshire, (Seabrook Station,.
l lhits 1 and 2), CLI-87-03, 25 ffC (1987)..............
passim i
s Fbblic Service Co. of New Hanpshire, (Seabrook Station, D its 1 and 2 ), ALN3-875, 25 ffC (1987)...............
5,6,12 I
n ibblic Service Co. of New Hanpshire, (Seabrook Station, l
lhl ts 1 and 2 ), LBP-87-10, 25 tRC 177 (1987)...............
2 1
l dr mm_______.-_
f li UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION l
l In the Matter of
)
l
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
~ ~~
)
On-site Emergency Planning j
i l-(Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
and Safety issues i
l l
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO j
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR VACATION OF STAY
]
On. September 21, 1987, the Applicants filed a " Motion for Vacation of Stay" (" Motion"), in which they requested that the Commission llft its stay of the low power license for Seabrook Station, Unit 1.
In support of this request, the Applicants cited their September 18, 1987 filing. of a I
utility plan for Massachusetts portions of the Seabrook plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ), II which is asserted to satisfy the standards formulated by the Commission in CLI-87-02 and CLI-87-03. 2_/
For the reasons set forth below, the NRC Staff supports the Applicants' Motion and recommends that the stay be vacated.
I i
1/
"Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities" (SPMC), submitted by letter of September 18, 1987, from George S.
Thomas, Vice President-Nuclear Production, Public Service of New Hampshire, to Document Control Desk, USNRC.
2/
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook
- Station, Units 1 j
~~'
and 2), C LI-87-03, 25 NRC (slip op., June 11, 1987);
id.,
4 CLl-87-02, 25 NRC 267 (April 9,1987),
j l
J
- INTRODUCTION, l
On March 25, 1987, the Licensing Board issued its Partial Initial Decision ("PID"), authorizing issuance of a license to operate Seabrook Station, Unit 1, at up to 58 of rated poser, subject to a condition imposed with respect to an environmental qualification issue (PID, silp op.
at 66-67). 3_/
Ilowever, no low power !! cense could be issued, because the Commission had etayed issuance of the license on January 9, 1987, due to the absence of a properly docketed offsite emergency plan for Massachusetts portions of the EPZ. E On April 9,
1987, the Commission issued CLI-87-02, in which it decided as' a matter of regulatory policy to require the submission of an I
offsite plan for Massachusetts portions o,f the EPZ prior to issuance of a low power license (Id., 25 NRC at ' 270).
The Commission recited its q
observation in Shoreham 5I that the emergency planning issues there did not appear tu be " categorically unresolvable" (Id.), and Indicated that a low power license could be withheld "If it were established, beyond significant doubt, that there were truly insuperable obstacles to issuance of a license for operation at any substantial power level" (Id., at 271).
In this regard, the Commission observed (ld.):
The filing of an offsite plan makes possible at least a summary
- review, of the type we performed in Shoreham, to determine whether adequate emergency planning is at least in the realm of the possible.
Thus 3/
l 3/
Order, January 9,1987 (unpublished).
S/
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station),
I
~
CLl-83-17,17 NRC 1032 (1983).
i
Applicants must do at least this much before there can be any license issued.
Based upon these considerations, the Commission continued to stay the issuance of a low power license for Seabrook and, at the same time, provided an opportunity for the parties to respond to the Applicants'
" Suggestion of Mootness", which had just been filed in conjunction with their April 8, 1987 submittal of an " emergency plan" for Massachusetts.
In this regard, the Commission requested the parties' views as to whether that submittal satisfied the Commission's requirement in CLI-87-02 that there bc a state, local or utility plan for Massachusetts portions of the EPZ prior to issuance of a low power license for Seabrook. b On June 11, 1987, the Commission issued CLI-87-03, in which it determined that the Applicants' April 1987 filing of an " emergency plan" for Massachusetts failed to satisfy the requirements of CL1-87-02, and ruled that there can be no low power operation at Seabrook "unles's and until the Applicants file a bona fide utility offsite emergency plan for Massachusetts that satisfies the Commission's threshold requirements" (CLi-87-03, slip op. at 1).
As noted by the Commission, these threshold i
-6/
After the Commission had stayed issuance of the low power license, several additional stay requests, asserting further grounds for a I
stay, were filed before the Commission, which remain pending before the Comsission.
Responses to those stay requests have previously
-See (a) "NRC Staff's Response to Stay been filed by the Staff.
Applications Filed by SAPL, TfECNP, the Town of Hampton, and the Massachusetts Attorney General," dated June 8, 1987; (b) "NRC Staff's Response to Joint Motion for Leave to File A Supplement to Motions for Stay of Partial Initial Decision Filed by SAPL, Town of Hampton, and Attorney General Shannon", dated June 29,1987; and (c) "NRC Staff's Response to Interveners' Motion for Leave to File A Supplement to Their Applications for A Stay of Licensing Board
~
~
Order Authorizing Operation Up to Five Percent of Rated Power,"
dated August 17, 1987.
1 s 1
- u 1
-4__
requirements were -(1) that the Applicants must file a " bona fide" utility f
.p an, - and -(2) that-they. must demonstrate "on summary.. review that l
- adequate emergency planning is 'at least in the realm of the4 possible'"
j
. id., slip op. 'at 5).. The Commission held that the Applicants' April 1987 l
(
submittal failed to constitute a bona fide utility : plan, in that (a) it did not " provide measures to be taken by.the utility to. compensate' for the
~ bsence of governmental participation in einergency planning" (ld.), and a
(b) it was not a plan " intended. for actual implementation as a utility.
emergency. plan, and one intended to be subjected ;to Staff and FEMA l
review and litigation on that basis" (Id., at 6). 7I i
On September 18, 1987, the Appilcants submitted its Seabrook Plan for. Massachusetts communities (SPMC)
"for NRC Staff and FEMA review"; 0 on September 21, 1987, they filed a motion bef' re the o
Licensing Board requesting that a schedule for litigation of the SPMC be established; SI and on that date filed the InstarSt Motion, requesting that 7/
As' noted by the Commission, the Applicants' April' 1987 submittal 1
I consisted of nothingimore than a draft plan that had. previously been developed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for execution-by the state, with a new cover page stamped "For Information Only";
the submittal altogether lacked any measures to compensate for the lack of governmental participation in an emergency response.
CLl-87-03, slip op. at 7.
The Commission noted that the App!! cants' i
" realism" assertion "may play a. role in the ultimate decision on the acceptability" of the plan, but this assertion "cannot repair the void caused by the failure to submit a utility plan - that. reflects the l
utility's ' compensatory measures and efforts.to facilitate the state's 1
participation in the event of an emergen'cy" (ld., at 7 n.7).
j 8/
- Lettet from George S.
Thomas (PSNH) to NRC Document Control
~
Desk, dated September 18,1987, at 1.
1 L
9/
" A pp!' cants' Motion for Schedule for Litigation of Massachusetts
(
Plan," dated September 21, 1987.
~
l-rn
__.__.m.__
k h- ' the Commission vacate its. stay of the low power license.
Pursuant to' the
. Commission's scheduling Order of September 23, 1%7, answers In
~
opposition to the Appilcants' Motion were filed on October 9,1987, by the L' -
Massachusetts - Attorney
- General, the Town of Amesbury, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL), and 'New England Coalition on Nuclear e
Pollution (NECNP). $
On October 1,1987, the Appeal Board issued ALAB-875, affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part LB P.8'-10, authorizing the issuance of a license to operate Seabrool<, Unit 1, up 5 percent of rate power.
~.The ~ Appeal Board determined there that litigation of two contentions (inservice inspection of steam generator
- tubes, and accumulation of aquatic organisms and debris in the cooling system heat exchangers) had been improperly denied by the Licensing Board,'while a
. portion of a third contention (environmental qualification of RG-58 coaxial cable) had been resolved in Applicants' favor without sufficient basis.
The. Appeal Board directed that the two rejected contentions now be admitted for litigation, and directed the Licensing Board to reopen the record for further litigation of the Environmental qualification issue if that Board is unable to find further support in the existing record for its finding,
it further stated that if the stay imposed in CLl-87-02 is lifted 10/ See (1) " Town of. Amesbury's Answer in Opposition to Applicants'
~~
Mollon for Vacation of Stay," dated September 9 [ sic];
1987; (2) "New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Response to Applicants' Motion for Vacation of Stay," dated October 9, 1987:
(3) " Memorandum of Attorney General James M. Shannon and SAPL in Opposition -to Applicants' Motion for Vacation of Stay," dated October 9, 1987; (ii) Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Response to Applicants' Motion for Vacation of Stay," dated October 9, 1987.
l l
z-I
.u,
..A ' \\, t y
3' a-s a
ss y-4 T
i; i D 6-
'l 3
sq without. Commission guidtnce on whether a Jow power license may le q
s m
.l E
q{-
'.F
')
i g
Issued prior to the-compIM!on of the remand, the Licensing ifoard should j-
'" determine expeditious'y die appropriateness oPa renewai fiendente lite of i N o.
.s i
the low power authoHn.t!ori." ' AI.AB-875, ' slip op. at J49. hit further
.,3/
t provided that. if tlSc ques'tlon ks ahswered in the affirmative, 'ths order U
't.'
a t
i j
shalljnot become; effective for a period of ten days folicwlng the date of
)
v its service to enable 'any dissatisfied iparty to seek appellate relief."
Id.
w g
g at' 50 (footnote omitted).11/
N i
l
\\
t s
- x
(
DISCUSSION
.b "t" ~
, T he NRC Staff has,nrformed N summary review of 'the SPMC, in y -
i e,
s y
light of the threshold standards annomeeo\\' in CLI-87-02 and CLI-87-03. -
The. results of this summary review are set forth in the Affidavit cf a
5 z
Donald J. PerrottiIttached hereto.
The purpose o(f this review hs, gbeen 1
b 3 t
,s to evaluate the questions of g(1y whether the SPMC constitutes a ibonsl;
~
N 1
fide utility offsite emergency plan for Massachusetts"; and (2) whetht!r j
the SPMC " demonstrate [s] on summary review that adequate ch.iergency y % rs g
)
planning is 'at lecst in the realm of the possible '"
In clnnection with s
s the first of these' Issues, this sunnary review alr.o examined thaQuestighs 3
l
,y i
3 of, whether' the SPMC "provides measures to be taken bycthe utility to
\\
/,
compensate for tht.^ absen, ce of gohrnmental partic { pet;oq in emergency s
t,
.< ; \\ \\ \\
d t '
plaiir;ing.1" ymd whether the CoML is " intended for actual implementation s
1 as a utilit9,,q( nergency, pfan, and one intended to be subjected to Staff SA 3
\\
i e
5.i y
(q.
[
N N
s J+
Lil l The Appeal fRoard hlso retained jurisdiction over two issues involving s.
the testing of chiergmeh sirens, but indicated that those issues should not cause.a stay of a low-power license.
Id. at 49; n.104.
c'
~
I 6
i
\\
'\\
)
l
(
~
\\h
\\;
t y
1<.
't. ' '
( :
1 s
U
- 1..;
.c i
niid ' FEMA -~ review ' and litigation on' that basis" (CLI-87-03, slip op. at 5 and.6)'.
~
Based : upon' this summary review,. the Staff has concluded -that J.
(a) the SPMC appears to constitute a bona fide utility plan ' for Massachusetts, (b) the SPMC provides measures to be taken by the utility to' compensate for the absence of state and local governmental participation in emergency planning within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
(c) the-SPMC appears to be, Intended for actual implementation -as a utility emergency plan,. and In' tended to be subjected to Staff and FEMA review and litigation on that basis, and (d)'the SPMC demonstrates on summary. review that adequate emergency planning for Massachusetts portions of the Seabrook EPZ is "at least in the realm of the possible" (Perrotti Affidavit at 2).
As set forth in the attached Affidavit, the SPMC addresses the
' emergency planning standards of 10 CFR Part 50 and the guidance of 1
N U REG-0654.
The SPMC indicates that'lt was developed to be integrated and coordinated with the radiological emergency response plans promulgated by the State of New Hampshire for Seabrook and by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (currently in use for other nuclear power i
plants located in or near Massachusetts).
In the event of an emergency, the ' SPMC provides for full participation by New Hampshire and for varying' levels of Massachusetts state and local governmental participation.
The SPMC establishes an organization identified as the "New
' Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization" (NHY-ORO), which is to l provide compensatory personnel, resources and actions for Massachusetts portions of the -Seabrook EPZ (Id.).
The personnel of NHY-ORO and i
l
_ ____ _ ___j
V
{..
l
- L'*- their duties are described with respect to both the primary and the 1
l-support functions to be assumed when so authorized by the Governor of Massachusetts (Id. ).
The SPMC describes the response functions of federal, state, local, and private agencies.
The plan briefly describes the state's emergency response organization; functional interfaces with NHY-ORO are tabulated; and NHY-ORO counterparts to key positions within state and local organizations are shown.
Key positions in the NHY-ORO ~ are identified, along with a description of the various responsibilities for primary and support' response functions (Id., at 4).
i Tho SPMC provides a detailed description of the NHY-ORO structure.
]
The plan provides for two alternate shifts with a third shift as backup, except for an evacuation function which ls assumed to be performed over 4
l i
a relatively short period of time, for Lwhich one shift and a 20% backup is provided.
The plan describes the modes of operation for NHY-ORO from the standby mode (provide resources. only when the state actually responds) to Mode 3 (no response by state and local organizations) (Id.).
In a public meeting held on September 16, 1987, the App!! cants stated that they have completed their rocruiting of personnel to serve as i
emergency. response workers in NHY-ORO: 1,471 required positions have j
l been filled, and an additional 693 persons are available for assignment.
The positions which have been filled include 664 contracted emergency responders (e.g., bus drivers and tow truck drivers).
Training of A
NHY-ORO personnel is ongoing at this time; the Applicants indicated that training sessions began on September 14, 1987, and training for specific 1
positions is expected to be completed by October 23, 1987 (id., at 8).
n.
- The SPMC describes generally l the method for alerting, notifying and mobilizing NHY-ORO. personnel, and also addresses the potential l
notification of resident and transient members of..the general' public.
Notification and : ' mobilization steps are described for all emergency classification levels from Notification of Unusual Event through General.
Emergency.
At the-Site Area Emergency. classification. level, the NHY-ORO 'will recommend that ' Massachusetts notify the public; when authorized by the Commonwealth, NHY-ORO will notify the public through the public alert and ' notification system (ANS).
' Alternate notification
. provisions have been made in the event that NHY-ORO does not-receive authorization from the Commonwealth ' to notify the public through the established ANS (Id., at 5).
The plan describes various offsite emergency response ' facilities, including the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) which provides for.
overall command.and control; the State of New Hampshire's incident, Field Office (IFO); and NHY's Offsite Response Emergency-Operations Center
( EOC ).
The plan identifies areas within the EOC set aside for representatives of the Commonwealth ' of Massachusetts and the Federal government, and a Joint Media Center. The emergency response facilities I
are to be activated at an early stage; the EOC is to be activated upon the declaration of an Alert or higher classification.
Upon arrival at the EOC, the NHY-ORO Director will establish contact with the Seabrook EOF, the New Hampshire EOC and IFO, and the Governor of Massachusetts.
The plan also addresses Massachusetts and local emergency facilities,
. including the Massachusetts EOC, State Police and local EOC, although
i-e.;.
the plan-indicates that : Implementation of the SPMC does not rely on the use of these facilities -(id., at 6-7).
~
q The Appilcants h' ave Indicated that all emergency response facilities are located on company-owned property, are under contract, or are covered by a letter ' of agreement.
The number of such items as radios, dosimeters,.. ambulances, and tow trucks ~ exceed the Applicants' requirements. (Id., at 8).
The plan contains letters of agreement
( LOAs).
Some of the LOAs are missing information.
The Applicant has stated that it did not submitted this information because of a concern that there not be.any unwarranted Invasion of the privacy the individuals and organizations needed to implement the plan.
The SPMC describes various accident assessment capabilities. and responsibilities; the.
methods for developing protective ' action l
recommendations; the monitoring and decontamination needs of the general public; and offslte monitoring and laboratory support for analysis of
- \\
environmental samples.
The SPMC provides that NHY-ORO wl;l consider recommending precautionary protective actions at the Alert classification i
level and will recommend protective actions at Site Area Emergency or l
1 General Emergency classification levels (ld., at 5-6).
The plan describes various protective measures, including public evacuation, and addresses i
persons needing special assistance, special facilities, beach populations and transients.. The plan addresses resources, traffic control, re-entry, I
population exposure estimates, and monitoring / decontamination ( PAGs).
l l
The plan incorporates the EPA's Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs) l (Id., at 6).
\\-
The SPMC contains procedures intended to implement the plan.
instructions are provided; responsibliltles are assigned; and check lists, precautions and - prerequisites are included (Id., at 8).
The SPMC describes ~ the NHY-ORO training program, and provides a matrix for NHY-ORO' members showing the specific training which they require.. The -
plan ' provides that training and information sessions will be offered to state and local emergency response per:,onnel and other support organi-i j
zations,
including state agencies, communication ' and transportation l
personnel, reception center and decontamination. personnel, and special
]
facilities and local support staff (Id., at 7).
In addition, " table-tops" i
l and other drills and exercises are described; and the Applicants have j
indicated an Interest in having a FEMA graded exercise of the SPMC in e.arly 1988 (ld., at 7, 9).
j l
I Based upon the above considerations, the Staff has concluded that the SPMC is a bona-fide utility plan; that it appears to be intended for
- actual ' implementation by the Applicants if necessary; that it provides measures to be taken by the Appilcants to compensate for the absence of
]
- governmental participation in an emergency response; and that it is intended for review by the NRC and FEMA, and for litigation on that basis {ld., at 9).
With respect to the question of whether the SPMC demonstrates that emergency planning for Massachusetts portions of the Seabrook EPZ "Is at R
least in the realm of the possible", the Staff has similarly reached an affirmative conclusion (Id.).
In this regard, it should be noted that no indication has been provided by the Applicants to suggest that they possess the
" legal authority" to implement their plan,
and legal l
authority problems simliar to those which arose in the Shoreham proceeding may well pertain here.
However, if the Applicants' " realism"'
assertion is accepted, as the Commission suggested might be appropriate in reaching an ultimate decision as to the acceptability of the Appilcants' utility plan (CLI-87-03, slip op, at 7 n.7), the Commission may conclude that the SPMC demonstrates that emergency planning for Massachusetts portions of the Seabrook EPZ "is at least in the realm of the possible."
Finally, even though the SPMC satisfies the threshold requirements of-CLi-87-02 and C Li-87-03, the Commission's stay of low power licensing is presently moot and should be vacated in light of the Appeal Board's decision in ALAB-875. EI As the Commission is aware, in that decision the Appeal Board affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part, the Licensing. Boa rd's Partial Initial Decision of March 25, 1987, requiring further litigation of certain issues.
It is unclear as yet what effect the Appeal Board's decision will have upon low
]
1 power ilcensing, and the Appeal Board decilned to state to what extent the remanded issues are relevant to low power operation (although it noted that the Commission may decide to examine whether the remand should stand in the way of low power operation in deciding whether to l
grant the Applicants' pending motion to vacate the stay (ALAB-875, silp I
op at 49 n.103)). E However, in light of this decision, it is apparent l
12/ Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook
- Station, Units 1
~
i and 2), ALAB-875, 26 NRC _ (slip op., October 1,1987).
l 13/ As we have stated,
in the event the stay is lifted without Commission guidance on this issue prior to completion of the remand, l
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 1 f
l
Ai
' that no. low power 'llcense may be issued for Seabrook in the absence of a prior determination that the remanded issues do not impact upon the public health and safety associated low power operation.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and in the' attached Affidavit of l
' Donald J. Perrotti, the Commission should vacate the existing stay of low i
power operation.
Respectfully submitted, i
C E.TM-i Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory
' Trial Attorney j
i i
i Dated at Bethesda, Maryland
{
this 20th day of October,1987
)
1 1
1 i
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) i I
the Appeal Board directed the Licensing Board "to determine expeditiously the appropriateness of a renewal 3endente lite of the l-low-power authorization contained in the Marc 1 25 deciiT6n.
In
^
I-making that determination, the Licensing Board was directed to consider such factors as the bearing of the remanded issues upon low-power operation and the then status of the resolution of those issues." ALAB-875, slip op. at 49).
1 i
l