ML19332D795

Necnp,Seacoast Anti-Pollution League & Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Objection to Proposed No Significant Hazards Determination & Request for Hearing on Proposed Amend to Facility Low Power Ol.* Svc List Encl

ML19332D795
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/21/1989
From:	Curran D HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP., MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19332D779	List: ML19332D778 ML19332D791 ML19332D795
References
OL, NUDOCS 8912050244
Download: ML19332D795 (7)

Text

"

)

November 21,.1989 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• C UT 22 F?. :02

)

In the Matter of )

)

Public Service company of )

New llampshire, et al. ) Docket No. 50-443

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) )

)

)

NECNP'S SAPL'S AND MASSACIIUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OBJECTION TO PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERMINATION AND REQUEST FOR A IIEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SEADROOK'S IDW POWER OPERATING LICENSE Introduction On October 26, 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("NRC" or " Commission") published in the Federal Register a notice that it is considering the issuance of an amendment to the.

Seabrook low power operating license.1 Pursuant to the proposed amendment, Applicants would cross-connect the plant's Instrument Air System, outside containment, to the Containment Building Com-pressed Air System, which is located inside the containment.

The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, the Massa-chusetts Attorney General, and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (hereafter " Petitioners") hereby request a hearing on the pro-posed low power license, because it is is neither logical nor B912050244 091121 PDR ADOCK 05000443 O PDR 1

54 Fed. Reg. 43,634-36. The Federal Register notice is l Attachment 1 to "Intervenors' Motion to Reopen the Record and Admit Late-Filed Contention Regarding Proposed Amendment of Seabrook Operating License Application," dated November 17, 1989. That pleading and its four attachments are attached and incorporated herein.

i l

p '

justifiable on safety grounds.2 Petitioners also object to the

! NRC's determination that the proposed amendment poses no sig-nificant hazards, on the ground that it is not supported by an adequate analysis under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.92.

I. The No Significant Hazards Determination Is Unsupported By a valid Analysis.

In the October 26 notice, the NRC states that it has made a proposed determination that the request for amendment involves no signifcant hazards consideration. This is based on a finding, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.92, that " operation of the facility in" accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously

^

evaluated; or (3) ' involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety." As discussed in the " Joint Affidavit of Gregory C.

Minor and Steven C. Sholly Regarding New Hampshire Yankee's Sep-tember 21, 1989 Operating License Amendment Request (Plant Instrument Air Cross-Connect to Containment Building Air System, NYN-89116), dated November 17, 1989 (hereafter " Minor / Shelly 2 Petitioners, who are also Intervenors in the Seabrook full

, power operating license proceeding, believe that the proposed action is not properly characterized as a low power license amendment, but is in reality an amendment to the application for a full power license for Seabrook. Therefore, on November 17, 1989, they filed with the Licensing Board the attached motion to reopen the record and admit a late-filed contention challenging the proposed amendment to the application. The

! instant hearing request is being filed for the purpose of pro-tecting Petitioners' hearing rights in the event they are unable to obtain a hearing on this matter in the course of the full power operating license for Seabrook.

V e

[L Affidavit")3, New Hampshiro Yankee's analysis of whether these criteria are met is deficient because it fails to address the critical question of whether the proposed design change could increase the probability of accidents already reviewed or intro-duce new accidents not already reviewed; nor does NHY's applica-tion of September 21,_1989,4 provide sufficient information such that the NRC staff could independently evaluate these matters.

NHY's purported evaluation " utilizing the criteria specified in 5 50.92" is framed entirely in terms of the consequences of acci-dents, and provides no discussion of accident probabilities other than the unsupported statement that accident probabilities will not be affected. Such conclusory statements, with no stated underlying technical basis, cannot be accepted in lieu of an actual analysis. For example, NHY does not identify which acci-dents were evaluated (if any), their probability before and after the modification, or any other factor related to the probability of accidents and how they may be affected by the proposed design change. No basis is provided to accept NHY's conclusory state-ment that no significant changes in probability occur as a result j i

3 The Minor /Sholly Affidavit is Attachment 2 to "Intervenors' Motion to Reopen the Record and Admit Late-Filed Contention Regarding Proposed Amendment of Seabrook Operating License Application."

4 New Hampshire Yankee Letter No. NYN-89116, from Ted Feigenbaum to the NRC Document Control Desk, re: " Request for License i Amendment; Plant Instrument Air Cross-Connect to Containment Building Air System," Enclosure 2, at 1. NYN-89116 is Attach-l ment 3 to "Intervenors' Motion to Reopen the Record and Admit l Late-Filed Contention Regarding Proposed Amendment of Seabrook Operating License Application."

~

F v s

[.

f;[ ~4 -

of the proposed design change.5 II. Petitioners Are Entitled to a Prior Hearing on the Proposed Licenne Amendment.

As discussed above, NHY has failed to satisfy the criteria in 10 C.F.R. S 50.92 for the granting of an operating license amendment prior to hearing. Therefore, Petitioners request the NRC to hold a hearing on the proposed amendment before it is granted. As discussed below, Petitioners satisfy the NRC's criteria for admission of intervenors to NRC licensing proceed-ings.

A. Nature of Petitioners' right under the Act to be made party to the proceeding Petitioners are entitled 1) a hearing under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. S 2239(a), because they are parties whose interest in the safe operation of the Seabrook nuclear power plant may be affected by the issuance of the pro-posed license amendment.

B. Nature and extent of Petitioners' property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding ,

Petitioners represent Seabrook area residents with health, safety, financial and property interests that would be threatened by the unsafe design and operation of the Seabrook reactor. The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution is a non-profit educa-tional organization incorporated under the laws of Vermont, with some 450 members and supporting groups throughout New England, including the New Hampshire seacoast. The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League is a nonprofit corporation organized under New 5

Minor /Sholly Affidavit, par. 17.

g .-

I y -c-Hampshire law, with approximately 1,000 members who reside prin-cipally in the seacoast areas of New Hampshire and northeastern ,

Massachutts. The Massachusetts Attorney Genercl represents the interests of all Massachusetts citizens, including the thousands >

who live in the general vicinity of the Seabrook reactor. All of the Petitioners have been active intervenors in the Seabrook .

licensing case since the early 1970's.

C. Possible effect of any order which may be entered in ,

the proceeding on the petitioners' interest ,

The proposed amendment would affect Petitioners' interest in the safe operation of Seabrook by exacerbating the potential for containment leakage without an apparent compensating benefits.6 Moreover, the proposed amendment is so illogical as to raise questions about NHY's ability to evaluate and resolve safety and design problems at Seabrook.

Petitioners's concerns about the illogic and poor safety justification for the proposed amendment are detailed in the Minor /Sholly Affidavit at pars. 8-19. In summary, while the alleged purpose of the cross-connect is to provide greater reliability during full-power operation, the application states that the air-operated valve in the cross-connect line will be closed during Modes 1-4, which are the operational modes.7 Thus, .

6 As stated in the FSAR, "[ajdditional containment penetrations and containment isolation valves introduce additional unnecessary potential pathways for radioactive leakage follow-ing a postulated accident." FSAR at 7.1-23, Attachment 4 to i

"Intervenors' Motion to Reopen the Record and Admit Late-Filed L Contention Regarding Proposed Arendment of Seabrook Operating l License Application."

7 Minor /Sholly Affidavit, pars. 11-14.

- - ~ --,

me 1 p -- * '

k .'

f the cross-connect will only be operable when.the plant is shut down.

1

.Moreover,'the application is not supported by an adequate- '

safety analysis. First, it fails to address the crucial question of whether the proposed design change could-increase the prob-ability of accidents already reviewed or introduce new accidents not already reviewed; nor does'the request provide sufficient i

information such that the NRC staff could independently evaluate these matters.8 The application also fails to evaluate systems interactions questions that are raised by the cross-connect.9 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should rescind-its proposed no significant hazards determination and grant a prior hearing to Petitioners on the proposed operating license amend- l l

ment.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of Pet tioners,

( vsgj _

ane Curran i HARMON, CURRAN & TOUSLEY l 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite-430 i Washington, D.C. 20009 l (202) 328-3500 November 21, 1989 l

1 l

l .

1 i

i l~

l i

8 Minor /Sholly Affidavit, par. 17. )

9 Id 2, par. 18.

1 i

pg V l gy , y h SEAllROOK SERVICE LIST l f.

b Mrs. Anne IL Goodman . Paul McEachern, Esq.

MJ. Pa1 Bollwerk, Chair . Board of Selectmen Shaines & McEachern J.P. Nadeau

Atomic Safety & Ucensing 13-15 New Market Road P.O. Dox 360 Town of Rye

' Appell floard .

Durham, Nil 03&l2. Maplewocv3 Avenue .

155 Washington Road

. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. - Portsmouth, N1103801 *G ."*l ] RfeQegljampshire 03870 t Washington, D.C, 20553 Stanley W. Knowles -

~ Doard of Selectmen Sandra Gavutis f floward A. Wilber P.O. Box 710 RFD 1. Ibx 1154 ' r

- Atomic Safety and Licensing i NorthIlampton, Nil 03826 East Kensington, N110082F ,

1 Appeal Board ,4 .' !!y overnight delmry _

= U.S. NRC ,

Judith 11. Mancr, Esq. 'nomas G. Dignan, Esq. >

' Washington, D.C 20555 Silverglate, Ocrtner, ee at R.K. Gad II, Esq.

88 Broad Street Ropes & Gray MAlan S. Rosenthal . Boston,MA 02110 One International Plaec i Atomic Safety and ucensing . Boston, MA 02110 2624 i Appeal Board Senator Gordon J. Ilumphrey US NRC _ _

U.S. Senate . .

Robert A. Backus, Esq

- Washington, D.C 20555 Washington, D.C 20510 ' Dackus, Meyer & Solomon

- (Attn. Tom Durack)  !!! Lowell Street 4 tva; W. Smith, Chairman Manchester, Nil 03105 Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Senator Gordon J. liumphrey

.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Eagle Square, Ste 507 'Mitti A. Young. Esq.

1 Washington, D.C 20555 ' Concord, Nil 03301 EdwinJ Reis Esq.

Office of the General Counsel

. *Dr. Richard F. Cole Gary W. Ilotmes, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commsn Ilotmes & Ellis . Washington,DC 20535

U.S.

Atomic Safety N:elear andCommission Regulatory ucensing Board . 47 Winnacunnent Road Wasnington, D.C 20555 . llampton, N1103812 11. Joseph Flynn, Esq.

Office of General Counsel f Kenneth A. McCollom William Armstrong = ' FEMA Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board . Civil Defense Director 500 C Street S.W, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Front Street Washington, D.C. 24472 l

Washington, D.C 20555 ' Exeter, N1103833 George Dana Disbee, Esq.

Robert R. Pierce, Esq . Calvin A.Canney . Geoffrey M. lluntington, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board City Manager Office of the AttorneyGeneral U.S. Nuc! car Regulatory Commission City llall State llouse Annex Washington, D.C 20535 - 126 Daniel Street Concord, Nil 03301 Porn. mouth, N1103801

? Atomic Safety and Licensing ^ Richard A. Itampe, Esq.

I

~ Appeal Board Panel - Edward A.Domas llampe and McNicholas i5 .U1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission FEMA 35 Pleasant Stree

' Washington.D.C 20555 442 J.W. McCormack (POCll) Concord,' N11 03301 Boston,MA 02109 Atomic Safety and !) censing .

R. Scott liiU Whilton

' Iloard Panet Alfred V.Sargent, Chairman Lagoulis, Clark,Ilill-Whihon

- US Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Board of Selectmen and McGuire Washington, D.C. 20555 Town of Salisbury, MA O!950 79 State Street l Newburyport,MA 01950

,' Docketing and Service Branch Rep. Suzanne Dreiseth U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' Town of flampton Falls Diana Sidebotham Washington, D.C 20555 Drinkwater Road RFD # 2 Dox 1260 llampton Falls, N1103&l4 Putney,VT 05146

Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Board of Selectmen Phillip Ahrens, Esq. Richard Donovan -

Lft  ; Jewell Street, RFD # 2 Assistant Attorney General FEMA South flampton Nil 03&l2 State llouse, Station #6 442 J.W. McCormack (POCll)

Augusta,ME G1333 Doston,MA 02109 hne Doughty SAPL Allen Lampert John Traficonte. Esquire 5 Market Street Civil Defense Director Assistant Attorney General

= Portsmouth. Nil 03801 Town of Drentowood 1 Ashburton Place,19th I'loor Exeter, Nil 03833 Boston, MA 02108 Ashod N. Aminan, Esq.

145 South Main Street P.O. Box 38 Dradford, MA 01835

.