ML20246E870
| ML20246E870 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1989 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#389-9088 OL, NUDOCS 8908300047 | |
| Download: ML20246E870 (10) | |
Text
-
0 g
000KETED UPM August 21,'1989 89 AUG 25 A9 52 UNITED - STATES: OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cg; g
DDC K!. i t.
BEPORE THE COMMISSIONERS:
Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman Thomas M. Roberts Kenneth C. Rogers James R. Curtiss "b '
)
Docket No. 50-443/444 In the Matter of
)
)
(Emergency Planning PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
and Safety Issues).
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
)
(Seabrook Station, Unit ~1
)
)
RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO APPLICANTS' APPLICATION FOR AN-EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF 10 CPR, PART 50, APPENDIX E, SECTION IV.P.1 NOW COMES thc Seacoast Anti-Pollution League'(SAPL) and objects to the Applicants' Exemption Application filed under date of August 11, 1989.
SAPL respectfully urges the following:
(1) that the Commission should not rule on the exemption request or, alternatively, (2) that the exemption request should be denied.
l BACKGROUND The Exemption Recuest.
The Seabrook Applicants once again L
request an exemption from NRC regulations.
(Previously, the Applicants attempted to shrink the Seabrook plume EPZ from ten miles to one mile.
This was denied.
l dh 8908300047 090821 r$
{DR ADOCKOSOOOg3 j
1
.However, Applicants have been the beneficiary of numerous prior
-NRC rule changes and exemptions including the 1984 rule changes.
eliminating'need for power hearings at operating license i
proceedings,'and financial qualifications review, as well as the 1987 rule change regarding. utility-sponsored emergency plans, and the 1988 rule change eliminating the requirement for a public alert and notification system for Icw power testing authorization.)
The present exemption request would permit the Applicants to eliminate the required on-site emergency plan exercise within one year of full power. operation.
The Applicants claim to have two bases for the exemption:
(1) that.the exercise is unnecessary because' prior exercises have demonstrated that they have sufficient on-site emergency capability; and (2) that the exercise may generate litigation that might prevent them from obtaining a license within their desired time period; i.e., prior to the requirement for another full scale exercise, including off-site participation.
RESPONSE AND OBJECTION 1.
The Commission should not rule on the exemption recuest.
I The Commission should not interject itself into this
~
licensing adjudication.
The only reason suggested for it to do so is "because the issue presented hereby can ultimately only be resolved by the Commission itse3 f."
(Applicants' Exemption Application, page 2.),.
go
- r This is a truism _that can be applied to any licensing issue.-
It provides-no: warrant for the Commission to undertake exclusive control over matters properly and_normally entrusted in the'fIrst instanceLto the licensing and appeal ~ board panels assigned to.this-matter.
Moreover, in an ongoing adjudicatory: proceeding, before.a presently sitting licensing. board, which has emergency planning
' issues'sub iudice, the Commission's rules plainly contemplate that any challenge to the application tosone'of its regulations will be made by means of a waiver petition pursuant'to 10 CFR 52.758, which is required to be brought, in the first instance, to the licensing board in question.
(This is the procedure these Applicants' themselves used in attempting to shrink the Seabrook EPZ.).Only if the licensing board determines that the petition for a waiver nakes out a prima f acie case does the Commission then make:the ultimate decision on whether.the extraordinary step of waiving a Commission regulation is appropriate.
See LBP 87-12, supra.
2.
It7 reauest should be denied.
The response of the Massachusetts Attorney General dated August'21, 1989 and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, thoroughly document the lack of proper basis for granting the exemption request; and SAPL joins in those responses.
In addition, SAPL is not impressed with the Applicants' claim that:
"Over half of these members [Seabrook Station Emergency _- _ _ _
t
6 4
'i L.
Response Organization personnel] participated in.one of the th'ree graded exercises and about one quarter have participated in.two."
(Application, page 4.)
Clearly, even on the Applicants' representations, something in the order of half'of the ERO members-have not participated in any graded exercise, and 75. percent have not participated in two.
Moreover, as Mass AG and NECNP point out, the results of'those exercise;s as establishing the qualification and capability of those who did participate is certainly disputed.. In fact, these ' exercises presented solid ground for challenging the adequacy of their training, judgment, technical qualifications and performance.
The Massachusetts Attorney General further described problems in plant personne1' performance during and following the Natural Circulation Test on June 22, 1989.
SAPL would point also to
-Inspection Report No. 50-443/87-25 dated December 30, 1987 in which.the performance during the partial participation exercise held on December 16, 1987 is described.
At Section 3.1 of that report it is noted that the Shift Superintendent in the Simulator control room failed to classify the loss of both trains of the Radiation Monitoring System as an Unusual Event until prompted by the Lead Controller.
With regard to the Applicants' claim.that their exemption application deserves favorable consideration because of the Applicants' financial circumstances, or the alleged need for power, SAPL would point out that in LBP 87-12, in which the --.
a-__
L Seabrook Licensing Board denied the petition to shrink the emergency planning zone to one mile, the Board stated as follows:
The Board has no difficulty with accepting Applicants' theory that Seabrook is a valuable energy resource.
But that does not relieve the Board of its responsibility to make its finding that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at this valuable energy resource.
We also reject the argument that limiting a completed plant to low power operation is an unnecessary and unjustifiable economic burden.
The regulations are quite clear--the plant must have an acceptable Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP) prior to goina full power.
(Slip Opinion at 8)
In short, the Applicants simply advance an inadmissible and unacceptable argument in attempting to influence the members of the Commission by reference to their claim of a need for power, or their own financial circumstances.
Finally, even if the Commission were at liberty to accept this argument, which it plainly is not, the attempt to support it by reference to the declaration of James D. Watkins, Secretary of Energy, which was filed by the Commissior 1.2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts v.
NRC, DC Cir. Nos.
89-1306, et al.) is untenable since that affidavit contains material misstatements of fact, and therefore, should not be relied upon by the Commission.
There is attached to this response and objection, a true copy of an artic'-
from the Manchester Union Leader of May 24, 1989, in which the Manager of Public Information for the New England Power Pool specifically took issue with certain statements made by the l l
l
V 6..
3 y
f r
Secretary of Energy in his declaration, and which have not been disputed.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Commission should decline to rule on the Applicants' Application for an Exemption or, alternatively, should promptly deny the requested exemption.
Respectfully submitted, Seacoast Anti-Pollution. League By its Attorneys, BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON y,/
' O,'/
,/ '
By:
Robert A. Backus, Esquire 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 (603) 668-7272 August 21, 1989 I hereby. certify that copies of the foregoing Response and Objection to Applicants' Application for an Exemption from the Requirement of 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix E,Section IV.F.1 have been forwarded this day to all parties listed on the attached service-list.
., s/
Robert A. Backus, Esquire -
--m
,v a m, m e u.
w w, g,w n,..< mg
.4%.5$c.w&M, g h Mh@F1 N. d }Ag& M a
m
~
w
?.
n
~J Qp mwksm A m
mmm MANCHESTE R, N.H., WE DN ESD AY, MAY 24,1989 TEL. 668-4321 30 CENTS 2
u_M UfqP;$;f m
' Power Pool:
d n& ~/-
Blackouts L
MASM Not Likely
%&mwsg%
7 g' \\
Disagiess With Engrgy Secretary M $ $w~N:M%2 Y
h,. %w.f ee w 4
f
-u
- ggy, g
,j.g;y.:;;g g g'.
ByJOIIN DiSTASO.
manager of public information
- 9pMQ w ?
- C.O.dNM.J'-4%y.
Union Leader Staff for NEPOOL, told The Union NQ
.. GA.u'J.:.M[C,u."g Q,0 y f% %:t
^4 56'~"
The New England Power Pool Leader.
1*
yesterday took issue with the The power pool, which distrib-U f3. secretary, utes electricity
. y;j -u4 of energy's de-through all six g
scription in ~ a" hh 5*),$h/...,kQ;pc. ' ' _'.'
, " n -
ppffjpg gjggggggg.
New' England 7
,..f sworn court-
- states for about qgv y y.y. m_.e
..;, ~
filed affidavit hgye "peye7 100 utilities, in
~ ' ' '
of key points fact has never
~ st the Squalus [ foils'.on June 13,'1939. The sub,
' about the re-happBR6d JR the -
in _its history to the surface then sank ogoln e moment later. it was gion's power imisslaned.
f (AP File) situation last gjggg7.I, Ol'MB been forced by an.
energy 4 4. ~"
year and out-POlferpOOl.n.
shortage to,im-
"y look for this pose rolling c
summer.
- William Sheperdson blackouts - its Suld've, Made' Profit
> kins,inanaf0:
m 1:'r
gency step -
radquarters, very' expensive executive stair and an davit filed in federal court said Sheperdson.
d "extraor-execssively elaborate headquarters bttild-supporting low-power testing NEPOOL describes rolling ses," accord-ing "
for the Seabrook nuclear power blackouts as an emergency pro-Sales at each of Erin Food's 28 plant, contended that New En cedure which would be institut-in Food as Burger Kings,23 of them in New gland energy shortageslast year, ed in a time of severe energy a top heavy, llampshire, average $1.4 million annually, were so severe that the region shortage. Its member utilities suffered repeated " rolling l would berequiredto temporari-40 percent ahead of the national average of
) NICE
$1 million each, the report states. Fran blackouts."
~
ly cut oft service to groups of chise sales totaued 538.4 minion in nscai
- "I have to say, as a spokesman customers on a rotating basis so
' year 1988, and $39.4 million in fiscal 1989.
for the power pool, that's not: that no one group would be out O[78L
, Erin Food Services has forced into (true," William Sheperdson., BLACEOUTS Page20
~
f,3. -. ; ' ',,claimH;they,by seven insurance firms that
. bankruptcy
~., 7 ' '. :
"r_
.,,,,..m are L
'-~~T"4 y.~.
- g,2; Cam rgm' owed 7$6T 'million~ inw1mTii; ' Ch..,
- ,- Ontegmengww.x ;a LOS.Ing Ro.x,,.e,mStruggle?
.. g
- a ash""p"s"K'lM!rref "*[$,
w.er-d ne,ioo n, trol bf the company May 1, aSc$s were nding Uy EATilh WILIIELM.
-~
b orney Dav ampany's and Mur' ray's findnce or accusg p BElJING (AP)- One million k gtertwined that
, fhmt oft a quick teorgani-people Jn Beijing and tens of G
ti of the,compan,ywas unlikely. '
-very wall
' marched yesterday to de_m9n'rt_ ' _L______f[C____
thousands in oiher elties 5
jhE'b $
I ' 0 *: 5,.
_J Page39
~
EDD pray:rs. They cre nof forgot. ; Ost, concentrat'e on only one ish Mim to get me out?" he'l S
ten." -
'T thing," he recalled. " Keep told the chaplain.
0 Y,
3
. XEtoup of
~
BLACKOUTS 9 '
1" af, "sie'a
[L
.q d ter to casel,
.--s.
' (Continuedfrom Page Onc)
=i
~
-n 4 leidership of electricity for a, prolonged' ed term for rolling blackouts, cur when we have already ask'Jl:
c ocrat, Rep. period.
"It's not true."
for a!! of these other procedures.-
uas, said in TheyDould lie controlled Sheperdson agreed that the and wejust know that if welose*a :
f ay, "If the blackouts, according to NE. region's energy picture is tight. generating unit, we won't 19'-
nerated by POOL, as opposed to blackouts And he noted that NEPOOL has able to cover it and it wouki nd if the which occur as a result of a long supported commercial bring down the whole systemb icludes tilat disturbances such as a transmis. operation for Seabrook.
Sheperdson said.
as violated sion line failure or transformer
. But, said Sheperdson, as for NEPOOL would then, for in!
I think he fit es.
rolling blackouts, "It hEis never stance, ask Public Service Co. ef he speaker Also known in the utility happened in the history of the New Hampshire to institute.:
- e'll have to industry as load shedding, they power pool."
rolling blackouts in its serview would be used only to protect Watkins' use of the term area. PSNH would presumabif.
4 consider. against a widespread failure of ' brownouts'is also troublesome respond by shutting off certant'
.he Kansas the entire New England system, to the power pool, Sheperdson blocks of its customer area f41-
. has come said Sheperdson, said.
relatively short periods of thre" n Republi.
Energy Department spokes-
"It's not a publicly accurate - perhaps an hour - and there n as a close man Chris Balsbaugh said NE-term because it makes you think rotating the blackout to anothe~r, area.
POOL's definition "may. be a your lights are going to get o minimize different interpretation" than dimmer," said Sheperdson.
At the same time, a utility hf ist Wright, that of the department.
lie said 10 times last year Massachusetts, or Connectictiti accepting To support the secretary, she NEPOOL instituted 5 percent or both,would be doing the samu '
rom a Fort cited two Massachusetts black-voltage reductions in specific thing.
g uith a direct outs last summer.
areas of the region - though Although Watkins said similan The first was on June 26,1988, none was region-wide, emergency procedures wi!L when 149,500 customers on Cape.
Sheperdson said that some probably become necessary thiQ en.
Cod lost power for 4% hours people, particularly the media, S.ummer, Sheperdson said," Bet after lightning struck a trans-call the voltage reductions heve it or not the outlook for thig I
mission line at a switching " brownouts." IIis trou.ble with summeris somewhat better thap station.
the term, he said, is that it last summer. '
M
.The second was the loss of implies an uncontrollable event.
We are sdll a very tigtiti fgOf - power by 6,000 customers in when in fact they were planned power system. But it look somewhat better than the pasC '
- ikely would Boste on Aug.13 and 14,1988. brownouts.
ue a ruling A news article attributed tue two summers."..
Q "I*
er October loss to overheated cables and da a, as e a that kn
- " EN
. mber.
utility engineered voltage re ~
announce. ductions.
a,,lso used the colloquial term D
brownouts" as a substitute for mance.
ngs on the Balsbaugh also cited two gen-p;anned s.oltage reductions.
Ile said that this summ'ers
- 4 and exer-uine rolling blackouts in the egan March ' northeast - one in New York Voltage reductions are among planned outages will only takg
- to continue City and one in northwestern eight specific actions NEPOOL 80 to 100 megawatts of Neg institutes at times ofhigh energy England's 24.000-megawatt cK-use to prevent emergency situa. pacity out of action, a figure;,
New York state. Neither area is served by the New England
- ,arook plant Power Pool nor would be direct-tions.
lower than in past years.
ly served by Seabrook.
At least one of NEPOOL's "Right now," Sheperdson-
'arly three eight "special operating proce. said,"aswe plan forthesummer,:
dns idle. A The Watkins afudavit was
- rt could al-filed at the U.S. Circuit Court of dures" were implemented 37 we don't expect to go into' ng to begm Appeals in the District ofColum-times during 1988 when energy voltage reduction. Of course, it, lation plans bia, which is weighing Seabrook demand was especially high.
could happen if the weather is-
>ved before opponents' request for an emer-Besides the 10 voltage reduc. extraordinarilyhot orifwe have'
<erate com-gency stay of the Nuclear Regu-tions, NEPOOL called for the an unexpected outage of a power-latory Commission's approval issuance of public appeals for plant."
earings and last week of low-power testing conservation eight times, but liberations, for Seabrook, never on a region-wide basis.
Cheshire Board Sets :
ird in Dece.
"During the past year,in fact,"
It also brought all available approved the secretary states, New En-fossil-fbcl (coal and oil) genera-Building Dedication -
- =
.ms.
gland suffered repeated ' brow-tors to maximum output 23 ed its own nouts' and rolling 'bfackouts,' times, made emergency power KEENE - The Cheshire.
setts com-and similar emergency proce-purchases from systems outside County Commissioners hatc<
zone after dures will probably again be-of New England 29 times, re. scheduled an open house to; r, Michael come necessary as soon as this quested voluntary cutbacks by dedicatethenewCounty Admin ;
ile them.IIe summer."
large electricity users 18 times, istration Building at 33 West St.,7 acuation of "I don't know what he meant. and called on interruptible ser. Keene, for Sunday, June 4, from;;
ommunities by that statement " said She-vice contracts with large elec. I f e 3 p.m.
!d be feasi-perdson, "but if he meant load tricity users 15 times.
' the public is invited to atten'dA shedding," the industry-accept-Rolling blackouts "would oc. tf e ceremony and reception. ~j 4. ~
?
4
,s.
s.
. 3..#<
i..
,g I
I
'8 4
4 4
4
..L
,,4 1
, g a g
g g
g g
g g
g g
g b
{,
l m.:.V 4_;< = b -
L LPitzr'B,' Bloch,-Chairman John Traficante, Esquire
-Thomas G. Dignan, Esquire
' Atomic Safety and
- Assistant Attorney-General Jeffrey:P. Trout, Esquire ELicensing Board; One Ashburton Place-R5bi T Gray i
ne n e m i na acq '
E gt g g g 110 [2624 a ngton, DC-' 20555:
os o 02108 p
b
- t rr m. _ av '.-
~
Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor b[
l Dr. Jerry Harbour
'9"'#*
r AtomiciSafety and City Hall-Licensing Board
'Newburyport,-MA 01950 0
"S eet N
.US NRC l
Suite 430 tWashington, DC 20555 Washington,,DC '20009
\\
i,x Dr.-Emmeth A. Luebke Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Gregory A. Berry, Esquire
'4515 W111ard' Ave.
Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel' Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Town of Salisbury US NRC
-Massachusetts 01950 Washington, DC 20555-Atomic Safety 6. Licensing Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman
^
Board. Panel U.S. Senate US NRC-Washington, DC 20510 Town 1
Washington, DC 20555
-(Attn. Janet Coit).
25 High Street Newbury,'MA 01951 Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Geoffrey M. Huntington, Esq..
-Appeal Board Panel 70 State Street Office of Attorney General' US NRC' Newburyport, MA 01950 State House Annex
-Washington, DC. 20555 Concord, NH 03301 Docketing and Service Suzanne Breiseth Richard A. Hampe. Esquire US NRC.
Office of Salectmen Hampe and McNicholas Washington, DC 20555 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 35 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301
' Jane Doughty-Phillip Ahrens, Esquire Pani McEachern, Esquire SAPL:
Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern
'5 Market Street State House P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Station #6 Maplewood Avenue Augusta, ME 04333 Portsmouth, NH 03801
-i
w.
l+g.. p,.
V
.+
L.'
S:ndra G:vutin Kenneth M. Carr, Commissioner l
RFD 1, Box 1154 U. S. NRC
{
E:st Kensington, NR 03827 Washington, DC 20555 l
)
' Charles P. Graham, Esquire Thomas N. Roberts, Murphy 6 Graham Commissioner 33 Low Street-U.S. NRC Newburyport, MA 01950 Washington, DC 20555 James.R. Curtiss, Thomas S. Moore Commissioner U.S. NRC U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 l
Alen S. Rosenthal, Chairman U.S. NRC.
Washington, DC 20555-Howard A. Vilber U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555 Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner U.S. NRC washington, DC 20555
_ _ _ - - - - _.