ML20236X199
| ML20236X199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1987 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Bernthal F, Roberts T, Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4982 ALAB-879, OL-1, NUDOCS 8712090045 | |
| Download: ML20236X199 (8) | |
Text
_
i :
. UNITED STATES-OF' AMERICA DOCKETED a
~ USHRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~
before:the Commission-17 DEC -7 P3
- 2Lj COMMISSIONERS:
OFRCE 0f HIJ O,*J'f.
DOCKDIMi a S1*v:Cf.
~
Lando W. Zech,-Jr. Chairman-BRARCH:
Thomas M.-Roberts.
Frederick M. Bernthal Kenneth M. Carr Kenneth C.-Rogers-In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-443-OL-l
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANYLOF
)
(Onsite Emergency Planning NEW' HAMPSHIRE, et al
)
and Safety Issues)
).
(Seabrook' Station, Unit.1)
)
~ SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S PETITION FOR REVIEW' OF ALAB-879
'NOW-COMES the Seacoast L Anti-Pollution ~ League (SAPL).and petitions ' pursuant-to.110 CFR' S2.786 that the Commission review that portion of ALAB-879' directed to SAPL's contention regarding.
1 ithe' adequacy'of the EPZ sirens as evidenced by a test-of the
' sirens in East Kingston, New Hampshire on January 31, 1987.
SAPL holds that the decision in ALAB-879 is erroneous with respect to important questions of fact, law and policy.
LA.
Summary of Decision of Which Review is Soucht The Appeal Board issued its final decision regarding SAPL's February 6, 1987 contention and motion to admit late-filed y
contention, reopen the record on on-site emergency planning and condition the issuance of a license up to 5% of rated power on i
G OS03
+
A g
. Applicants' compliance with 10 CFR 550.47 (b) (s), on November 20, 1987.
The Appeal Board affirmed the decision set forth in the Licensing Board's March 23 memorandum and order that neither~the siren test nor the judicial decision brought to the Board's attention in SAPL's contention gave rise to a significant safety issue.
SAPL had argued in its contention, which was supported by affidavit, thtt the failure of the East Kingston sirens to operate properly during a test in January brought into question the reliability, aduibility and intelligibility of the EPZ-wide siren system.
SAPL's contention also pointed to a January 22, 1987 Superior Court decision in a suit brought by the Towns of Rye and Hampton Falls that found Public Service Company of New Hampshire's siren system illegal and ordered the removal of the sirens.
At oral argument on July 24, 1987, the Appeal Board suggested that another test of the sirens be performed this coming winter.
Negotiations under the leadership of the NRC staff were undertaken to try to reach agreement among the parties as to test procedures and appropriate climatic conditions for said test.
SAPL held the view:
- 1) that the tests should be held throughout the EPZ 2), en-compass the public address mode of sirens and 3) be scheduled not more than five days in advance.
The Appeal Board agreed with SAPL only as to point 3, but further stated that the premature selection for a test date by Applicants and Staff did not provide the Appeal Board with a legal predicate for requiring reopening of the record to entertain SAPL's contention i.e. the Appeal Board could not find a significant safety issue requiring reopening of
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
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 SAPL joined in on October 1.
The Commonwealth filed a memorandum on this matter on October 2.
The Appeal Board found that only one point had substance and that that did not warrant a reopening of the record.
As to the Superior Court decision, the Appeal Board decided that, because the decision was under appeal to the New Hampshire l
Supreme Court, the concern raised by SAPL as to the legality of the system was premature.
B.
Statement of Matters of Fact and Law Raised by this l
l Petition SAPL raised the mattere of fact and law in this petition first in its February 6, 1987 contention with accompanying affidavit. 1/ SAPL stated that the siren system does not meet the legal requirement at 10 CFR S50.47 (b) (6). The Commission in its Statement of Consideration accompanying 10 CFR S50.47(d) explicitly stated that compliance with the public alerting and notification requirements are prerequisites for fuel loading and low power testing. 2/
The special attention paid by the Commission in consideration of its low power licensing regulation 1/ Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Contention and Motion to Admit Late-Filed Contention, Reopen the Record on On-Site Emergency Planning, and Condition the Issuance of a License Up to 5% Rated Power on Applicants' Compliance with 10 CPR 550.47 (b) (s).
2/ 47 Fed. Ee. 30232, at 30234, Col 1 (July 13, 1982)
---.__m.-.-...m_____.____
i
- )
{
underscored the safety significance of an adequate system of I
i
- public alerting and notification even at that level of plant q
operation.
SAPL again raised its argun.ents of law and fact in its appeal brief filed May 4, 1987 and again on oral argument before the j
l Appeal Board on July 24, 1987. 3/
SAPL detailed its position on the proposed siren test in a Memorandum dated October 1, 1987.
j 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 wi}1 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 is undertaken, the prudent presumption should be.nat the sirens are not adequate for public alerting and notificecion and that therefore a significant safety question remal.s.
The Appeal Board's decision, in short, is at odds with th' agency's long standing assertion that nuclear safety is a first, last and a permanent consideration in any decisions" concerning licensing.
Power Reactor Development Corp. v.
Electricians, 367 U.S. 396 at 402 (1961).
It is also contrary to
[
the requirement of 10 CFR S2.731 which provides that as to all i
{
3/ SAPL does not have the transcript and hence is unable to cite to particular pages.
.g.
si c 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 means1of.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.
Furthermore, the legal requirement at 10 CFR 550.47 (b) (6) is not met.
The Commission wisely decided in 1982 that the 10 CFR 550. 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 compliant, notification and alerting system] of the applicants emergency plan have been reviewed by NRC should assure the public that, for low power testinq and fuel loading, adequate protective 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 review of emergency preparedness at full q
power." 5/
]
4/
47 Fed. Rec. 30232, at 30234, emphasis added.
5/. Ibid. at 30232 l
-~__
+... -
j.
There was:_also the~ concern stated'that~the Commission'ought l
. to be concerend'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-i-
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..&_Solom6n Dated December 1, 1987
/ "W J
Robier,,t 'A. Backuf 116 4owell Street Manchester, NH 6/
Ibid.
i l..
I
-a-_----
. - - ~- -. _ -.. _ _ _. - _ _. - _ -. _
00LKETED UbkHC 87 KC -7 P3 :42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above angfgrggoin.g JEeacoast 00CKEliNG A SU<VICI.
Anti-Pollution League's Petition for Review of ALAS Wf9" was mailed this date, first class mail, postage prepaif, to,-all names
/.- /
\\
'O' on the attached service list.
d f //f -z /
/
Robeit A. Backus 1
l l
l l
i
[
~
i L
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND SERVICE LIST i
.j l
a 3
Joseph Flynn, Asst.Gn.Cnsl,Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Chrmn*
. Thomas Dignan, Esq.*
Fed. Emerg. Mgmt. Agcy.
U.S. NRC Ropes & Gray.
500 C.St. So. West Washington, D.C.
20555 225 Franklin St.
Washington, D.C.
20472 Boston, MA 03110 Docketing-& Serv. Sec.4 Office'of Selectmen Thomas M. Roberts
- Office of the Secre Town of Hampton Falls U.S.
NRC U.S. NRC Hampton Falls, N.H. 03844 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
205f Jane Doughty Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.*
Kenneth Rogers Office of Exec. Legl. Dr.
U.S. NRC M rket Street U.S. NRC Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
- 2055a, Pcrtsmouth, N.H.
033k Maynard Yoang, Chairma Phillip Ahrens, Esc.
Frederick N. Bernthal Boad o, SelecMen Asst. Atty. General U.S. NRC 10 Central Road State House Sta. #6 Washington, D.C.
20555 Augusta,.ME 04333 Rye., N. H.
03870 George Dana Bisbee,.Es Carol Sneider, Esq.
Kenneth M. Carr A
rney General s %
Office of the Atty. Gen.
U.S. NRC State of New Hampshire One Ashburton Place 19 F1.
Washincton, D.C.
20555 Boston, MA 02108 Concord, N.H.
03301 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Paul McEachern, Esq.
William S. Lord New Hampshire Civil Def.
Matthew Brock, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Hampe & McNicholas 25 Maplewood Ave.
Town Hall - Friend St.
35 Pleasant St.
P.O. Box 360 Amesbury, MA 01913 Concord, N.H.
03301 Portsmouth, N.H.
03801 Diane Curran, Esq.
Sandra Gavutis Rep. Roberta Pevear Hamon & Weiss Town of Kensington Town of Hampton Falls 20001 S Street, NN
- 43G Drinkwater Road Bo 1154 Washington, D.C.
20009 East Kingston, N.H.
03$
Hampton Falls, N.H.
03844 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Edward Thomas Mr. Robert Harrison Silver 7 ate, Gertner, FEMA Pres. & CEO 1
Baker, Fire, Good & Mizner 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
PSNH G8 Broad E tteet Boston, MA 02109 P.O. Box 330 Boston, MA 02110 Manchester, N.H.
031 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Howard A. Wilber Gary J. Edles Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Atanic Safety and Licenc' Appeal Panel Appeal Panel Acceal Panel US NPC US NPC U[NBC Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Admin Judge Sheldon J. Wolfe Dr. Ermeth A. Luehke Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomir: Safety and Licensing 5500 Friendsh'io Blvd.
Atanic Safety and Licen i ___ Boarc Panel M$b,lpiQ g d m Board Panel
'