ML20247F138
| ML20247F138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1989 |
| From: | Traficonte J HAMPTON, NH, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8641 CLI-89-08, CLI-89-8, OL-1, NUDOCS 8905300010 | |
| Download: ML20247F138 (13) | |
Text
__-
6; p wa
- , u gg;
.j
'C" '
' kg,
{f t C?BD f
gy2219BB*"rt UNITED STATES of~ AMERICA y,%E; Men '//
- .3 before~the l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ctCY-MO y
)
LIn the' Matter of
)
U
'PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 OF1NEW HAMPSHIRE, et'al.
(["
.(Seabrook Station, Units.1-
.)-
50-444-OL-1
- )
(Onsite Emergency and 2)
)
Planning and Safety
)
Issues)
-May 22,.1989 INTERVENERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLI-89-08
'AND RENEWED MOTION FOR A STAY OF THE ISSUANCE OF A' LOW POWER LICENSE IN LIGHT OF THE PRESENT'AND ONGOING
' LITIGATION OF AN ISSUE MATERIAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF A.
LOW POWER LICENSE IN THE FULL POWER PROCEEDING INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.771, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (" Mass AG") on behalf of himself and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League'("SAPL"), the New
,4 England Coalition Against Nuclear Pollu' ion ("NECNP") and the t
Town of Hampton, New Hampshire (together the " Interveners")
. files this petition for reconsideration of CLI-89-08 denying
~
the Interveners' request for a stay pending appeal of the issuance of a low power license to the Seabrook Applicants.
As
' set forth in detail below the basis for this further request seeking to have the Commission stay its licensing decision is that there exists at present in the full power proceeding 8905300010 890522 ADOCK 0500 3
{DR 73 i
1
1 s.
[
before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.a contested-issue that is' material and relevant to the issuance of a.Iow power l'
license.
As such; any low power licensing' decision must wait
~
uponsa decision on the merits of this issue.
10 CFR-S 50.57(c).1#
r I
ARGIIMENI
- 1. In. amending its regulations.regarding the absence of any need for an in-place and functioning public notification system prior to the issuance of a low power license, the Commission s4et forth-with specificity those offsite aspects of the Applicants' onsite' plan that are material and relevant to the
. issuance of a.. low power license:
Review of applicant's emergency plans will include the following standards with offsite aspects:
(5) Adequate methods, systems, and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use onsite.
10 CFR 50.47(d)(5). 53' Fed. Reg. 36955, 36960 (September 23, 1988).
The Commission stated in response to a public comment that:
The wording change in the proposed rule was not intended to change current NRC staff practice of reviewing licensee onsite plans to ausure they meet the intent of $50.47(b)(9) and 1/
Interveners request a further housekeeping stay of one week to permit the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.771 (b) to receive responses to this motion for reconsideration from tra Applicants and Staff..-_-_- __ _ _ _ -
mN
+
.t Planning Standard I of NUREG-0654 prior to issuance of an operating license limited to fuel loading and low power testing'.
Id. at'36958.(response to Comment 11)(emphasis added).
2.
On September 21, 1988 the Mass AG; timely filed before the Smith Board-its contentions arising out of the June 1988' full participation exercise.
That exercise had tested the capabilities of the Applicant's onsite emergency staff.and the adequacy and the implementation capability of the Applicants' onsite plan.. Mass AG's exercise contention EX-19 allegeo
'.a t a fundamental flaw in the onsite plan had been revealed by the June 1988 exercise.
(The contention is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.)
<Specifically, the contention alleged that the protective action recommendations made to the various offsite response organizations lby the Applicants' onsite personnel were
. inappropriate because, inter alia, the Applicants' method or system fo'r. assessing the actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological accident was itself flawed. (Ene Basis:D.)
Thus, this contention put at issue in the offsite proceeding the' adequacy of a particular offsite aspect of the Applicants' onsite plan, an offsite aspect that the Commission
..has itself identified as material and relevant to the issuance uf.a low power license.
(The contention was filed September 21, 1988 and the amendment to 10 CFR 50.47(d) expressly making the issue relevant to a low power license became effective l3 October 24, 1988).
On December 15, 1988, the Smith Board
[Is i
e.
x l
admitted thisl contention in relevant part.
To date, testimony
'has been filed by the Mass AG, the Applicants and.the NRC Staff g
specifically addressing the adequacy of the accident assessment-p and dose projection methodology in use onsite as part of the l
Applicants' onsite. plan.
No. Licensing Board decision on this l
contention has been reached.
(Because the issue involves L
onsiin licensee planning FEMA made no findings and no rebuttable presumption therefore exists.)
3.
As-is clear from the testimony of the NRC Staff on this contention, the Staff uses the onsite exercise as an opportunity to test and evaluate the accident assessment methods and systems in the onsite plan.
Not only did the' Staff do so with regard to the June 1988 exercise but it had followed this procedure during two previous annual.onsite exercises.
Q.18.
Are you generally familiar with the METPAC computer model?
A.18. (Bores)
Yes.
The METPAC computer model is an atmospheric dispersion and dose assessment model developed for use in emergency planning by the Applicants; specifically, METPAC may be described as a variable trajectory, segmented plume model.
The NRC Staff reviewed and accepted the use of METPAC during an Emergency Response Implementation Appraisal conducted in March, 1986; the NRC Staff's findings are documented in Inspection Report No. 50-443/86-18, issued May 15, 1986.
The NRC Staff han observed and evaluated the Applicants' use of METpAC in three annual exercises, including the June 1988 Exercise.
In one of those exercises, held in February 1986, i
members of the NRC Staff participated as players and compared METPAC dose projections with the projections obtained through use of the NRC's dose projection model (IRDAM); the results were favorable. -
6 NRC Staff Testimony filed April 28, 1989 at 22-23.
Sea also the Staff's Seabrook Station SER, NUREG-0896 (Supplement 1, April 1983) at 13-9 discussing planning Standard I and the accident assessment dispersion computer model that "will be available".
As a result of the June 1988 exercise and the contentions filed and admitted into litigation, the adequacy of the Applicants' methods and systems for assessing the actual and potential consequences of a radiological accident is now a contested issue.
4.
The Commission should stay issuance of a low power license until a decision has been reached on all contested issues that are material and relevant to the issuance of that license as determined by the Commission.
10 CFR S50.57(a) and (c).
TIMELLUESS OF THIS RENEWED __ MOTION Interveners anticipate that the Applicants as well as the Commission may be inclined to respond to this renewed request by focussing on the delay in bringing these matters to the attention of the Commission.
In response, the Mass AG states as follows:
- 1. Although the Smith Board has jurisdiction at this point over the offsite proceeding and the full power license, it does not have and has not had jurisdiction over the issuance of the low power license.
For this reason, Interveners simply did not
- 9' recognize until a careful reading of CLI-89-8 that issues i
i ma'terial to low power licensing.in fact may be litigated before I
the full. power Licensing Board.
In CLI-89-8 the Commission i
stated that if the Interveners were to prevail on the claim
-that the June 1988 onsite exercise contention'was wrongly rejected, the contention could be admitted and litigated before the full power Boa'rd. J11p Opinion at 11.
Having considered this. discussion carefully, the Mass AG reviewed the contentions already admitted before the Smith Board and discovered that a material and' relevant issue for low power licensing had already been admitted for litigation in the full power proceeding.
This motion was filed immediately upon this discovery.
- 2. There is no harm to any party as' a consequence of the
~ delay in presenting the-basis for this renewed motign for a stay.
The-actions that form the basis for this motion have already been taken.
The matter is presently being litigated.
As'a consequence, the Commission is unable to make all necessary findings pursuant to S 50.57(a) for the issuance of a low power license.
The Interveners are simply calling the Commission's attention to the fact that the issuance of a low power license in the face of pending litigation on a contested l
issue that is material and relevant to that license would be in violation of the Commission's own rules and regulations.
The
~
Commission pursuant to S 50.57 (a) has an independent 1
obligation to ensure that all findings necessary for issuance _ _ - _.. _.
a-y v:, 4
. ?qi.'
- 5.
.~
of an operating' license including a license to operate at low power;have been made..
4
- 3. 'No benefit has' inured to the Interveners as a result of any~ delay in bringing this matter to the attention of the Commission.
Obviously,.had the Interveners and the Mass AG discovered earlier that the issues that had been admitted for litigation before the Smith Board were also material and g
relevant to the issuance of a low power license (even though i
' that. Board does not have jurisdiction over'that license) they would have at that point raised the matter to the Commission (which n'ow has jurisdiction over that license).
Moreover, the Applicants (and the NRC Staff) have been on notice since December 15, 1988-that these issues have been admitted in the full power proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL By:
2
[
b J... Traficonte ef, Nuclear Safety Unit O e Ashburton Place oston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 DATED: May 22, 1989 i _ _
X i
y
< MAG,EX-19 The Exercise revealed a fundamental flaw in the Seabrook Station Radiological Plan and Emergency Response Procedures in that during the Exercise the licensee's personnel did not issue appropriate protective action recommendations ("P_ARs")
to the NNY offsite Response Orginhisation the State of New Hampshire, or the State of Maine, as requ, ired by 10 CFR 5 50.47(b) (10), and the guidance set forth in NUREG-0654, 5 II.J.7. 'anE NUREG-0396.
l This licensee failing, coupled'with the high degree of reliance placed by NNY's ORO, the State of New Hampshire, and the State of Maine on the PARS provided by the licensee, precludes a finding that there is reasonable assurance that protective measures for the public can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at,Seabrook Station.
Exercise results which individually or collectively form the basis for this contention include the following:
A.
As described in detail in MAG EX-19 (incorporated herein by reference), the PARS issued by NNY's ORO were not appropriate in numerous respects.
These PARS were exactly those which were being recommended by the licensee at that time, and the ORO relied on these licensee PARS almost totally.
B.
The PARS' issued by the State of New Hampshire were also inappropriate in many respects, including the following:
1.
While evacuation of Seabrook, Hampton, Hampton Falls, Kensington, South Hampton, ard North Hampton was recommended to the public at about 2:30 p.m.,
people in ERPA F (Brentwood, East Kensington, Exeter, Kingston, Newfields, and Newton) were.not recommended to evacuate until almost 5:00 p.m'.
Given the size of the release, the potential for increased releases Iodines and Cesium if filters degraded or failed, and the uncertain and unfavorable meteorological conditions (particularly regarding wind speeds, wind direction, and the likelihood-of precipitation),
this ERPA should have been recommended to evacuate sooner.
1 EXHIBIT 1
~ )
.As a result,, thousands of residents in this ERPA who could have safely evacuated earlier were hit by the plume; and
- 2..The residents of Stratham Greenland, New Castle, Rye, and Portsmouth were never a,dvised to evacuate but were advised to shelter.
i Unfortunately, later that evening the plume passed over all of these communities with the possible exception of New Castle.
As a result of these inappropriate PARS, the chances were significantly increased that people in these areas would have received dosages in excess of PAGs.
These PARS issued by New Naapshire were exactly those PARS recommended t; it by the licensee at that time, and state officials placed great reliance on them.
C.
The State of Maine issued no PARE to evacuate or shelter any of its towns during the Exercise.
- Indeed, because they relied totally on the licensee 8s PARS, Maine was unaware that:an evacuation and/or sheltering PAR needed to be issued for Kittery, Maine, and perhaps other towns as well.
Tne licensee's failure to make such a PAR for Maine -- i.e.,
to extend a PAR to those just beyond the northern border of the EPS -- had serious consequences because by about 8:20 p.m. on Day 1 of the Exercise, the plume reached Kittery and passed directly over it carrying sizeable concentrations of radioactivity.
Prior to that point the same factors noted above at 8 should have prompted the licenses to issue at least a sheltering and probably an evacuation PAR for that The failure to do so significantly increased the area.
likelihood that people in this part of Maine would have received dosages in excess of PAGs.
NUREG-0654 does not excuse the licenses from recommending protective actions outside'the EPS when necessary.
To the contrary, NUREG-0654 implies that this will happen as a matter of course and uses this as a justification for requiring detailed planning only out to about 10 miles.
AaB NUREG-0654
- p. 12.
Beyond 10 miles, ad' hoc protective actions can pe,rhaps be effective, but only if the state officials in charge have been advised by the Licenses that such actions are recommended.
A In all the instances described above, the licensee's inappropriate PARS were derived from its METPAC computer model.
It appears from what happened during the Exercise
~
that this model has some fundamental flaws that cause it to fail to take into proper ccLnsideJr tion all known facts as well as existing uncon sinties in the generation of PARS.
{
It, among other things, fails to adequately consider ETEs, weather uncertainties including wind speed and directional chanWET,"Thd~ reynge conditions.
In recommending PARS to offsite officials, "Aicensee personnel in the EOF merely passed on copies of the METPAC print-outs without offering any guidance on how much reliance the PARS contained therein should'be given.
4, i
b b
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA T
.g g
g6Y h before the g
('#
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket No.(s) 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL,
)
50-444-OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
(On-site Emergency Planning
)
and Safety Issues)
)
May 22, 1989 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John Traficonte, hereby certify that on May 22, 1989, I made service of the within INTERVENERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLI-89-08 AND RENEWED MOTION FOR A STAY OF THE ISSUANCE OF A LOW POWER LICENSE IN LIGHT OF THE PRESENT AND ONGOING LITIGATION OF AN ISSUE MATERIAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF A LOW POWER LICENSE IN THE FULL POWER PROCEEDING, by First Class Mail and by FAX, as indicated by (*),to:
- Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Chairman
- Thomas M.
Roberts, Commissioner U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission Commission One White Flint North One White Flint North
)
11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike
.Rockville, MD 20852 Rockville, MD 20852
- Kenneth M. Carr, Commissioner
- James R4 LJrtiss, Commissioner U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission Commission One White Flint North One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Rockville, MD 20852 l
(
l l
1
4.
- Kenneth'C. Rogers, Comm'ssioner
- William C.
Parler, Esquire i
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory General Counsel Commission Office of the General Counsel l
One White Flint North One White Flint North i
11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike l
Rockville, MD 20852 Rockville, MD 20852
- Marjorie Nordlinger, Esquire Administrative Judge Emmeth A.
Office of the General Counsel Luebke One White Flint North 4515 Willard Avenue 11555 Rockville Pike Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Rockville, MD 20852 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel Appeal Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Thomas S. Moore
- Docket-ing and Service Atomic Safety & Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Panel Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission East West Towers Building
)
4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Robert R.
Pierce, Esq.
- Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
l Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd.
Ropes & Gray U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 225 Franklin Street Commission Boston, MA 02110 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 H.
Joseph Flynn, Esq.
- Gregory C.
Berry, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Office of General Counsel Commission 4
Federal Emergency Management Office of the General Counsel Agency 15th Floor 500 C Street, S.W.
11555 Rockville Pike Washington, DC 20472 Rockville, MD 20852
Atomic Safety & Licensing-
- Robert A. Backus, _Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory-116 Lowell Street Commission P.O.
BcA 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market St.reet Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Barbara St. Andre, Esq.
Murphy & Graham Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
s 33 Low Street 77 Franklin Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
R.
Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
79 State Street Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton 2nd Floor
& McGuire Newburyport, MA 01950 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950
- Dianne Curran, Esq.
Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Harmon, Curran, & Towsley 145 South Main Street Suite 430 P.O.
Box 38 2001 S Street, N.W.
Bradford, MA 01835 Washington, DC Senator GorJsn J.
Humphrey Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey U.S.
Senate 1 Eagle Square, Suite 507 Washington, DC 20510 Concord, NH 03301 (Attn: Tom Burack)
(Attn: Herb Boynton)
George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Department of the Attorney 25 Capitol Street General Concord, NH 03301 Augusta, ME 04333 John H.
Frye, III Alternate James H Carpenter, Alternate Chairman Technical Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear and Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington-DC 20555 l
fLi t
Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Calvin A. Canney j
Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall Rte. 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Richard A.
Hampe, Esq.
Holmes & Ellis Hampe & McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03842 Concord, NH 03301 Robert Carrigg, Chairman J.P.
Nadeau Board of Selectmen Selectmen's Office Town Office 10 Central Road Atlantic Avenue Rye, NH 03870 North Hampton, NH 03862 William S.
Lord Sheldon J. Wolfe Board of Selectmen 1110 Wimbledon Drive Town Hall - Friend Street McLean, VA 22101
{
Amesbury, MA 01913
- Paul McEachern, Esq.
Shains & McEachern 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O.
Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Aa.
Jfn'traficonte Gief, Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED:
May 22, 1989 1
m___._...___
.A