ML20154D985

Atty General Reply to Responses of Applicants & NRC Staff to Amended Contention of Atty General.* Responses Limited in Challenges & Do Not Object to Admission of Amended Contention.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20154D985
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/16/1988
From:	Jonas S MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#288-6251 OL-1, NUDOCS 8805200049
Download: ML20154D985 (10)

Text

% 2s/

Ut1ITED STATES OF AMERICA 00LtETED NUrlEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U5NFC ATOMIC SAFETY A!1D LICENSIt1G BOARD TB MY 17 P6 :14 Before Administrative Judges:

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman ,yg g .

Emmeth A. Luebke 00cc , i. , , jn Jetty Hatbuur to

) Docket tios. 50-443-OL-1 In the Matter of ) 50-444-OL-1

)

pUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) (Onsite Emergency Planning f1EW HAMPSHIRE, tit 511.m ) and Safety Issues)

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

) May 16, 1988 ATTORt1EY GEllERAL'S REPLY TO RESPOt1SES OF APPLICANTS A?1D 11RC STAFF TO AMENDED _CORIERIl0lLQE_AIIORNEY GENERAL Pursuant to this Board's Memorandum and Order of March 25, 1988, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

("Mass. A.G.") submits the following reply to the responses of the Applicants and the 11RC Staff to the Amended Contention Of The Attorney General For The Commonw3alth of Massachusetts On Notification System For Massachusetts.

As an initial matter, the Board should note that the responses are limited in their challenges. They do not object to the admiss:on of the ame: ded contention, nor do they object to the majority of bases applicable to the VAllS system.

Specifically, neither the Applicants nor the 11RC Staff oppose the admission of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 14 of the vat 1S bases, yhh $DO R pf[

G y'P

6-

'.. j i

e-  ;

In addition, the Applicants do not challenge either paragraph 6 i t or the first sentence of paragraph 11 of the VANS bases.  !

AIRBQRNE_ALERUNG SYSTEtt  !

The Applicants and NRC Staff seek to have all of the bases 1 i with respect to the Airborne Alerting System rejected as lackang 3 i i regulatory basis. They' contend that there is no regulatory

! requirement for a backup system or that the system be capable of j i ,

i operating within a certain period of time. I

' i However, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 point to fundamental defects (

i i I

j in the airborne alerting system which prevent it from working at

. 1 f all. Those paragraphs do not rely on any particular NRC f

t. i regulation or standard with respect to time of completion of  ;

i 4 notification. The Applicants seek a finding that they have i  !

l complied with 10 C.F.R. S50.47(b)(5) in part based on this backup  !

4 [

i system. Therefore, they have opened up litigation over the i i

adequacy and operability of that system. See Consolidated _Edisan J

Co. of New York (Indian point, Unit 2), LBp-83-68, 18 NRC 811, j 938-940 (1983)(Licensing Board instructs NRC and FEMA to report .

. i f on route altering procedures as backup for siren system). These l i

j allegations should be admitted and litigated. l j The cases cited by the Applicants and Staff do not support {

i I

j the proposition that contentions relating to backup notification  ;

); systems should not be admitted. In both cases, the Licensing i

i i  ;

Boards fully litigated contentions over the backup plans and a

f

{ indeed made specific findings on the adequacy of those systems. l 1 o a i 2_ ,

4 i

i i

}

i

4 4

Long Island Lightina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LUP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 758-759 (1985); Kan s.a S_U S.5_&_E l e c t r i c Cux (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-26, 20 NRC 53, 67 (1984).

Paragraph 2 should be admitted notwithstanding its reliance on regulatory time standards. The two cases relied on by the Applicants for the proposition that backup systems need not meet specific time limits are inapposite here. In both Kansas _ Gas and LILCQ, the primary system was a fixed siren system, the most widely accepted and used early notification system. The VANS system relied on by the Applicants is a hybrid, not discussed in either NUREG-0654 or FEMA-REP-10. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the primary VANS system, the Board should find that the Airborne Alerting System must be scrutinized, even as a backup system, to a greater extent here than if it were a backup for a fixed siren system. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply the time limits in those documents and in 10 C.F.R. part 50 App.

E(IV) to the airborne system.

The Applicants claim that paragraph 5 attempts to relitigate human behavior issues fully litigated before the board in the New Hampshire RERP phase of the off-site hearings. However, a ruling has not issued on that phase of the case. If the ruling is favorable to the Intervenors on behavioral issues, it may well have estoppel effect in these proceedings. Unless and unti' the issue is resolved adversely to the Intervenors, the basis is appropriate.

YAllSESIEM The Applicants and NRC Staff first object to paragraphs 2 and 3, claiming that without identified staging areas or preselected acoustic locations there is no basis for these two paragraphs.

With respect to pargraph 2, at least the local zoning by-laws for Amesbury, Massachusetts would prohibit the operation of the VANS system at any locations in Amesbury. More specificity can be provided on these legal prohibitions unce the Applicants disclose the acoustic locat ans and staging areas. Withholding of this information apparently is designed to force the Mass. A.G. to meet the late-filed contention standard for any additional contentions or bases made necessary by the disclosure of this information. The information is within the Applicants' control and bases should not be striken because they have elected not to release that information.

The Staff objects to paragraph 6 as lacking specificity. The 1

specificity requirement exists only to ensure that adequate notice is provided as to what must be defended against. Illinois i Power com (Clinton Power Station, Unit 1), LBp-81-61, 14 NRC 1735, 1737 (1981). There is no need to detail evidence in support of an allegation, lioluiLLQILld9htiD2_h_EQHe r Co . (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 547-48 (1980). Here the basis is very specific -- certain enumerated weather conditions (snow, icy and extreme cold condi; ions) will impede the operation of the system in certain identified ways (extention of the cranes, rotation and operation of the sirens and operation of the sirens themselves). Notice is more than ample. The Staff's objection is meritiess.

The Applicants' and NRC Staff's objection to paragraphs 9 and 10 is also meritless. The Applicants claim that the VANS system will be used or at least spable for use in the message mode.

Ece NYN-88025 at 2, 4, 6; NYN-88042 at Q.7-1. Indeed, the Applicants' FEMA-rep-10 design report at 2-6 indicates that messages will be used in the Massachusetts beach areas. Because the Applicants contemplate its use, paragraph 9 dealing with the problems of severe echo conditions for overlapping sound coverage is perfectly appropriate, relevant and admissable.

The first sentence of paragraph 11 (which the Applicants do not challenge) asserts that the Applicants have not committed the personnel at the appropriate locations to ensure that the system will work on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> basis. The staff objects that the Mass l A.G. has not indicated "why personnel should be stationed at the VANS staging areas on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> basis." The simple answer is that the system must be operable 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day (NUREG-0654, App.

3, 3-5) and its operation depends on the extremely rapid deployment of VANS vehicles from the staging areas. S.ee FEMA-rep-10 Design Report, Table 2-2. The second sentence of paragraph 11 makes the equally unassailable allegation that the tasks which must be performed for each vehicle particularly after

it reaches its preselected location will be reliably accomplished  ;

only if two people are assigned to each vehicle.

With respect to paragraph 12, addressing the behavioral issues arising from this system, the objection fails for the same reasons the objection to paragraph 5 on the airborne system fails.

JAMES M. SHA!1!10ti ATTORt1EY GEt1ERAL 4

COMMOt1 WEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS c

""Stephen A. 'Jonas  !

Assistant Attorney General Deputy Chief Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-4878 Dated: May 16, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA uYy(c ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 18 MY 17 P6:14

) May 16, 1?p8 In the Matter of )

)

h0b'NOMANCn b[

P11RLIC SFRVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket No.(s) 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) 50-444-Oh-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Onsite Emergency Planning

) and Safety Issues)

_ _ _ _ __ )

CERIIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen A. Jonas, hereby certify that on May 16, 1988, I made service of the ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REPLY TO RESPONSES OF APPLICANTS AND NRC STAFF TO AMENDED CONTENTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, by first class mail, or as indicated by an asterisk by Federal Fxpress to:

Ivan Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 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 Dr. Jerry Harbour Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of General Counsel Commission 15th Floor East West Towers Building 11555 Rockville Pike 4350 East West Highway Rockville, MD 20852 Bethesda, MD 20814

h . I

%k' 4

..  ?

~

H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. Stephen E. Merrill l Assistant General Counsel Attorney General  !

Office of General Counsel George Dana Bisbee  !

Federal Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General [

Agency Office of the Attorney General i

500 C Street, S.W. 25 Capitol Street  !

Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 03301 l

" Docketing and Service Paul A. Fritzsche, Esq.

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Public Advocate (

, Commission State House Station 112  !

Washington, DC. 20555 Augusta, ME 04333  ;

Roberta C. Pevear Diana P. Randall  !

State Representative 70 Collins Street  !

i Town of Hampton Falls Seabrook, NH 03874  !

Drinkwater Road l Hampton Falls, NH 03844  !

Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq.

! Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon l

] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street '

i Commission P.O. Box 516 I

Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 i i

• Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty 2

Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League ;

j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market Street l Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801  !

], Washington, DC 20555 Paul McEachern, Esq. J. P. Nadeau  !

Matthew T. Brock, Esq. Board of Selectmen  !

Shaines & McEachern 10 Central Road I 25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH 03870  ;

j P.O. Box 360 [

Portsmouth, NH 03801 t

i Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Calvin A. Canney  ;

Board of Selectmen City Manager i c RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall i

Rte. 107 126 Daniel Street I

E. Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801  !

Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Angelo Machitos, Chairman  ;

U.S. Senate Board of Selectmen '

Washington, DC 20510 i 25 High Road (Attn: Tom Burack) Newbury, MA 10950 l I i j Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Edward G. Molin  ;

i 1 Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor i Concord, NH 03301 City Hall l (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950  !

l

I i

9 o

9 Donald E. Chick William Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913 Drentwood Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq.

RFD Dalton Road Holmes & Ellis Brentwood, NH 03833 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 Philip Ahrens, Esq. Diane Curran, Fsq.

Assistant Attorney General Harmon & Weiss ,

Department of the Attorney Suite 430 '

General 2001 S Street, N.W.

State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333 Thomas G. Dignan, Esq. Richard A. Hampe, Esq.

R.K. Gad III, Esq. Hampe & McNicholas Ropes & Gray 35 Pleasant Street 225 Franklin Street Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02110 Beverly Hollingworth Edward A. Thomas 209 Winnacunnet Road Federal Emergency Management i Hampton, NH 03842 Agency 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)

Boston, MA 02109 William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman t Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Jewell Street, RFD 2 10 Front Street South Hampton, NH 03827 Exeter, NH 03833 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Anne E. Goodman, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 Allen Lampert Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson Civil Defense Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Town of Brentwood Board Panel 20 Franklin Streat U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Exeter, NJ 03833 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Charles P. Graham, Esq.

5500 Friendship Boulevard McKay, Murphy & Graham ,

Apartment 1923 Old Post Office Square i' Chevy Chase, MD 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913 L

I

7 i

o Judith H. Mir.ner, Esq.

Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton F1 McGuire 79 State Street 11ewburypott, MA 01950 pr/

• l . - - .

.. + J/

Stephen A. Jonas Assistant Attorney General Deputy Chief Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, PA 02108-1698 (617) 727-4878 Dated: May 16, 1988