ML20236N950

Memorandum & Order.* Discussions Will Be Initiated by Staff W/Other Interested Parties Re Onsite Emergency Planning & Safety Issues & Rept Will Be Submitted Prior to 870901. Served on 870731

ML20236N950
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/30/1987
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#387-4168 OL-1, NUDOCS 8708120163
Download: ML20236N950 (5)

Text

_ _ - - _ _ _ _ -

j 1

e//4fP 1

DMr TEr.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL B A UL 30 P4 :04 l

Administrative Judges:

[([.

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman July 30, 1987 Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wilber SERVED JUL 311987

)

In the Matter of ) {

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) 50-444-OL-1

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Onsite Emergency Planning ~

and 2) ) and Safety Issues)

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before us are the several appeals taken from the Licensing Board's March 25, 1987 partial initial decision1 authorizing the issuance of a license for low-power -

operation (up to five percent of rated power) of the Seabrook nuclear facility on the New Hampshire seacoast. As noted in our opinion on the applications for a stay pendente lite of that decision, two of the claims presented on those appeals challenge the Licensing Board's rejection in separate interlocutory orders of two late-filed contentions concerning the adequacy of siren sound levels in certain portions of the Seabrook plume exposure pathway emergency 1

LBP-87-10, 25 NRC .

ALAB-865, 25 NRC (May 8, 1987).

8708120163 070730 PDR ADOCK 05000443 S o 7L' o PDR

2-planning zone. One of those contentions, sponsored by the intervenor Attorney General of Massachusetts, focused upon the sirens installed in the Town of'Merrimac in that l

Commonwealth. The other, put forward by intervenor Seacoast  !

Anti-Pollution League (SAPL), was addressed to the sirens in the: Town of East Kingston, New Hampshire.

In denying the sought stay relief, we determined, inter i

alia, that there had not been a sufficient showing of a likelihood of. success on the merits of the attack'upon the Licensing Board's disposition of the siren contentions.4 But this determination (based wholly upon the content of the Attorney General's stay application) did not serve to deprive either the Attorney General or SAPL of the opportunity to press that attack anew in their appellate briefs and at oral argument. Both of those parties availed themselves of that opportunity.

Based to a large extent upon the disclosures at oral l argument, we have reached certain conclusions that are appropriately announced now rather than held for inclusion 3

Id. at (slip opinion at 18 et seq.).

4 Ibid.

5 In seeking a stay, SAPL did not discuss the matter of the rejection of its own siren contention but, rather, i

adopted the arguments that had been advanced in the Attorney General's stay application with regard to both siren contentions.

L . . _ _ _ _ _ _

3 in our later decision on all of the other issues presented by the appeals:

1. With respect to the Merrimac sirens, the single area of present concern relates to the measurements of ambient background noise levels -- an important element in ascertaining whether the sirens satisfy the acceptability standards of the NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) .0 Compliance with NRC/ FEMA standards day be achieved by assuring that siren sound pressure levels exceed by 10. decibels the average measured summer daytime ambient sound pressure levels. Tests were originally conducted in January and, then, again, in March. At argument, we were told that another set of measurements will be taken next month. As appears to be recognized by the Attorney General (as well as his adversaries), this event may well have a decided bearing upon any possible warrant for litigation in connection with the Merrimac sirens. Accordingly, once those measurements have been acquired, the applicants are to furnish them forthwith to both the other parties and this Board, together with a full description of the method employed in taking the measurements. Upon receipt of this information, the NRC staff shall (and any other party may)

See ALAB-865, supra, 25 NRC at (slip opinion at 22).

r:

l 4 file comments with us addressed to the acceptability of the methodology employed and the results reached.7 These comments shall be placed in the mail no later than the fifteenth day following the date upon which the applicants file and serve the information. The applicants are to advise us promptly if, for some reason, the measurements are not taken, as planned, in August.

2. Turning to the East Kingston sirens, the dispute as to their adequacy arose from the conduct of a test last January. According to SAPL, that test demonstrated that the sirens would not produce the required sound level. The staff's rejoinder, in the form of an affidavit, was that the test had not been properly performed. The staff nonetheless appeared to acknowledge that the sirens had failed to perform as intended; heavy snow, driving wind and subsequently falling temperatures had reduced the efficiency of the sirens and their activation antennae. But corrective i

action is underway. Such corrective action is planned for l 1

l l

7 In this connection, we earlier concluded, see i ALAB-865, supra, 25 NRC at (slip opinion at 23 n.48 and accompanying text) , and the Attorney General explicitly conceded at argument, that ambient background noise level justifiably can be measured in either the full or the one-third octave band containing the predominant tone of the ,

i sirens used. App. Tr. 76. The Attorney General nonetheless requested an opportunity to comment further on the  !

methodology chosen to conduct any future test. See App. Tr.

146.

5 all sirens and activation antennae within the Seabrook alert and notification system.

In the circumstances, it seems quite apparent that this matter is susceptible of resolution without the need for litigation. More particularly, as no party appears to disagree, the sensible course is to conduct another test during the coming winter. Obviously, it will be most helpful if there is also agreement with regard to the test procedures that.should ba utilized and the appropriate climatic conditions for the conduct of the test. To this end, the staff is to initiate discussions with the other l parties interested in this matter (SAPL, the applicants and (possibly) the Attorney General) and to submit a report to us as to the outcome of those discussions. That report, which is to be filed on or before September 1, 1987, should set forth the areas of agreement, and, if any, the points of disagreement.

i It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 0..Lshd4 C. J Qn Sh'oemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board

_ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ __--____-__________ - _ -