ML20052B354
| ML20052B354 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1982 |
| From: | Lessy R, Perlis R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204300323 | |
| Download: ML20052B354 (24) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
[
04/21/82
~
..f:S,-1p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9
~
t
- v,G 9
y g
a BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD of' 2
c D
In the Matter of M
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et _al.
)
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF T0 " AMENDED PETITIONS" 0F SAPL, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND SUN VALLEY I.
INTRODUCTION On March 12, 1982, this Board issued its " Memorandum And Order Setting Special Prehearing Conference" which required that " amended petitions to intervene" filed "in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.751a" be filed with the Board not later than April 6th, 1982.
Responses by the Applicant and Staff to such amendments are due, in accordance with the Board's Order, on April 21, 1982. Thereafter, the Staff received "pendments" setting forth proposed contentions from petitioners (1) Seacoast Anti-Pollution League ("SAPL") on April 5,1982; (2) the State of New Hampshire on April 5, 1982, and (3) Sun Valley Association on April 13, 1982. While the Staff herein responds in writing to these filings, the Staff requests the opportunity to also address these proffered contentions at the Special Prehearing Conference inasmuch as two of the three filings were received by the Staff over one-week late. Due to the fact that New Hampshire apparently served the 1)ESIGNATED ORIGIN E f,7),,u:
820430032K nt m a *>
r r,
s,
'lf
t Board, but not the other parties by express mail, it appears that New Hampshire's pleading may have been timely filed on the Board. However, the Staff requests, in addition, that this method of service be made an agenda item at the Special Prehearing Conference.
In responding to these pleadings, the Staff will first briefly summarize the applicable precedent with respect to the adequacy of contentions in an operating license proceeding.
Next, the Staff will discuss the petitions of SAPL, New Hampshire, and Sun Valley, seriatim below.
II.
DISCUSSION A.
Admissibility of Contentions in General In order for proposed contentions to be found admissible, they must fall within the scope of the issues set forth in the Notice of Hearing initiating the proceeding, and comply with requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) and applicable Commission case law.
Northern States Power Co.
(Prairie Island, Unit Nos. I and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188,194 (1973),
aff'd, BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.
1974); Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley, Unit No. 1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC l
243,245(1973).
10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) requires that a list of con-l tentions which intervenors seek to have litigated be filed along with the f
I I
k J
r-
-r-r
$4 3-bases for those contentions set forth with reasonable specificity.3/ The purposes of the bases requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 are (1) to assure that the contention in question does not suffer from any of the l
deficiencies enumerated in the Peach Bottom decision below, (2) to establish sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry of the subject matter in the proceeding and, (3) to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Peach Bottom, supra at 20.
From the standpoint of basis, it is unnecessary for the petition l
"to detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention." Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).
Furthermore, in examining the contentions and the bases therefor, a licensing board should not reach the merits of the contentions.
Duke Power Co.
l (Amendment To Materials License SNM-1773 - Transportation of Spent Fuel 1/
A contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's views of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).
l 0
4 From Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station),
ALAB-528, 9 NRC 146, 151 (1979); Peach Bottom, supra at 20; Grand Gulf, supra at 426.
Thus, at the petition stage, although petitioners need not establish the validity of their contentions and the bases therefore, it is incum-bent upon petitioners to set forth contentions and the bases therefor which are sufficiently detailed and specific to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible and that further inquiry is warranted, and to put the other parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against or oppose.
A noteworthy Appeal Board decision governing the admissibility of contentions is Houston Lighting and power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542 (1980).
In Allens Creek, the Appeal Board overturned the Licensing Board's rejection, in an unpublished Order,2/ of a contention alleging that a marine biomass farm would be environmentally preferable to the proposed Allens Creek facility. According to the Appeal Board, the Licensing Board erred in holding that as a requisite to putting into litigation the marine biomass alternative (and the Staff's failure to have considered it), the petitioner was required not merely to allege that the alternative would be environmentally preferable but also to explain why that is so.
11 NRC at 547. The Appeal Board held that the Licensing Board's holding could not be squared with its 1973 decision in Grand Gulf, ALAB-130, supra, and therefore, the teachings of Grand Gulf mandated reversal of the Licensing
-2/
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), Unpublished Order of March 10, 1980.
4 Board's determination.
More specifically, the Appeal Board stated that all that was required at the petition stage was that the petitioner:
... state his reasons (i.e., the basis) for his contention that the biomass alternative should receive additional consideration. That responsi-bility was sufficiently discharged by his references to Project Independence and his assertion respecting the environmental superiority of a marine biomass farm.
11 NRC at 548-549.
It is noteworthy that the Appeal Board's determination that the petitioner must be admitted to the proceeding on the strength of his contention:
does not carry with it any implication that we view the contention to be meritorious....
11 NRC at 549.
Moreover, the Appeal Board emphasized that whether the petitioner will be able to prove the assertions underlying the contention is quite beside the point at this preliminary stage of the proceeding.
11 NRC at 549. According to the Appeal Board, it does not follow that this contention will have to be taken up at the forthcoming evidentiary hearing on the Allens Creek application, since:
... the Section 2.749 summary disposition procedures provide, in reality as well as in theory, an efficacious means of avoiding unnecessary and possibly time-consuming hearinge on demonstrably insubstantial issues...
11 NRC at 550.
ALAB-590 did not purport to alter the existing precedent governing the admissibility of contentions.
Rather, it merely emphasized that in ruling on the admissibility of contentions, a licensing board is not to venture beyond the contention and its stated basis into the merits of the contention. All that a licensing board need determine is whether there is a basis for the contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Any a
. question concerning the validity of the contention or of its basis must be left for consideration when the merits of the controversy are reached, i.e., through summary disposition or in the evidentiary hearing.
B.
Contentions Sponsored By SAPL SAPL has timely filed four contentions which it proposed to be litigated in this operating license proceeding.
SAPL 1 SAPL's first proposed contention is:
" Emergency planning cannot reasonably assure that public health and safety will be protected at the Seabrook site." The asserted basis for the contention "is the unique character of the Seabrook site, being located on a barrier beach with a major concentration of unprotected population, either by closing or sheltering facilities, and with limited egress routes."
The Staff believes that this contention does not meet the require-ments of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b).
First, the proposed contention is vague, ambiguous, and fails to meet the specificity requirements of the con-trolling regulation. The phrase " major concentration of unprotected i
l population" is ambiguous and undefined. Moreover, no mention is made of what is actually meant by the phrase " closing or sheltering facilities."
Further, there is no explanation given as to what SAPL means by the term
" unique" to describe "the Seabrook site." Finally, the onsite emergency planning referenced by SAPL would only include Applicant and other personnel on the site of the Seabrook facility.
If SAPL intends to so limit the issue, then offsite considerations pertaining to the barrier beach would not be relevant.
It is therefore not clear what SAPL really
.. intends to litigate.
For these reasons, the Staff opposes the admission of this contention.
SAPL 2 SAPL's second proposed contention is:
The operation of the proposed condenser cooling system will have an unreasonable adverse affect on the quality of the aquatic environment.....
The Staff opposes admission of this contention because it is premature.
By its own pleading, SAPL recognizes that "... Applicant is, at this time, only considering abandoning the use of the [previously approved]
back-flushing, or thermal shock, to control bio-fouling...." (SAPL petition, p. 5). Moreover, if Applicants' considerations produce a change in its cooling system, that change must first be approved by EPA.
See Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point Unit No. 2), CLI-81-7, 13 NRC 448, 449 (1981); Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-78-1, NRC 1 (1978); aff'd sub. nom. NECNP v.
NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir.1978).
If Applicants were to first seek EPA approval, and if that approval were forthcoming and the change made with respect to the Seabrook facility, a viable contention could then be framed.
At this point, the proffered contention is speculative and premature, as well as ambiguous and should be rejected.
SAPL 3 SAPL's proposed contention 3 is:
The operation of the proposed nuclear plan [ sic]
will have an unreasonable adverse affect upon the economic well being of the seacoast area.
O
O The stated basis for this contention "is the nature of the site for the i
proposed facility, in the middle of New Hampshire's most heavily used J
recreational and tourist areas....
Incidents at nuclear plants receive wide publicity... [and] could have a devastating impact upon the economic well-being of the tourist industry in the area, a major factor in the economic health of the region."
(Petition, p. 5).
This argument was essentially litigated in the construction permit phase of this proceeding.
See Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-76-26, 3 NRC 857, 881-82 (1976). As a result, there are two separate grounds for the exclusion of this contention at the operating license stage. The first ground is that the environmental review at the operating license stage is, as a general matter, limited to a consideration of relevant information which has arisen since the authori-zation of the construction permit.
See 10 C.F.R. QQ 51.21, 51.23(e); see also Union of Concerned Scientists v. AEC, 499 F.2d 1069,1079 (D.C. Cir.
1974).
Thus, the Commission has barred reconsideration of matters at the OL stage which were considered at the construction permit stage absent significant new information or special policy considerations.
Alabana Power Co. (Farley Nuclear Puwer Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210. 216-(1974); remanded ort other grounds, CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203 (1974).
Similarly, absent new information, a second ground for excluding relitigation of such i
i
,. contention is on the basis of res iudicata and collateral estoppel.3_/
Accordingly, this proposed contention should be rejected.
SAPL 4 SAPL's proposed fourth contention is:
The decommissioning of the Seabrook plant, should it receive its operating permit [ sic] and actually operate, will have a major long-term negative impact on the health and well-being of the citizens in the area of the facility.
The asserted bases for this contention are the effect of the decommissioned site on tourist trade and questior.s regarding the financial capability of Applicants to safely decommission the facility.
The essence of this contention was litigated previously in the construction permit phase of this proceeding.
In the absence of significant new information, its relitigation is precluded both on juris-dictional and collateral estoppel grounds as was SAPL contention 3.
Moreover as to the financial qualification of the Applicants to implement a decommissioning plan, the Commission has acted to eliminate the con-sideration of such financial qualification issues at the operating license stage.
See 47 Fed. M. 13750 (March 31, 1982).
Therefore, SAPL's fourth contention should also be excluded.
Since none of SAPL's contentions are presently acceptable, SAPL should not be admitted as a party at this time.
-3/
Alabama Power Co, supra, 7 AEC 210, 216; Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), LBP-79-87,10 NRC 563 TT979), aff'd, ALAB-575, 11 NRC 14 (1980); Cleveland Electric
~
Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-81-24, 14 NRC 175 (1981); Florida Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2), Docket No. 50-389A, LBP NRC (December 11,1981).
--, 14 a
. C.
Proposed Contentions of the Sta+.e_ of New Hampshire The Staff will next examine the proposed contentions of New Hampshire.
NH-1.
Interim Reliability Action Program In its first contention the State of New Hampshire asserts:
A thorough, plant-specific interim reliability
. evaluation program using probabilistic risk assessment techniques to find risk dominant sequences, consider multiple failures and assess the reliability of systems which may be called upon to mitigate an accident, is necessary to assure that the Seabrook Plant safety review has considered the appropriate high-risk accident sequences to ensure compliance with 10 C.F.R. 50.46.
No statutory or regulatory basis is shown to establish that compliance with 10 C.F.R. 5 50.46, " Acceptance criteria for core cooling systems for light water nuclear power reactors" could only be met by providing the probabilistic risk assessment the State says should be performed.
Nothing in the regulation calls for that assessment. Nuclear plants are routinely licensed without such assessments.
Further the proposed contention does not set out any particular manner in which 10 C.F.R. 6 50.46 is not met by the failure to have such an assessment.O Thus the contention has no regulatory basis and may not be admitted into this proceeding. g: Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),-Docket No. 50-322-0L, " Memorandum and Order Confirming Rulings at Conference of Parties..." pp. 2-14 (March 15, 1981).
-4/
Th'e State of New Hampshire in setting out the basis of this contention also cites 10 C.F.R. %s 51.21 and 50.47 dealing with environmental reports and emergency plans.
Again no basis is set out to show why the-lack of plant-specific interim reliability program causes a violation of these regulations.
.. The accident at Three Mile Island does not of itself provide a basis for a contention.
In the Commission's " Statement of Policy; Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses," 12 NRC 654, 45 Fed. Reg. 85236 (1980), it stated:
Based upon its extensive review and consideration i
of the issues arising as a result of the Three Mile Island accident--a review that is still continuing
--the Commission has concluded that the list of TMI-related requirements for new operating licenses found in NUREG-0737 can provide a basis for responding to the TMI-2 accident. The Commission has decided that current operating license l
applications should be measured by the NRC staff against the regulations, as augmented by these requirements.
In general, the remaining items of the Action Plan should be addressed through the normal process for development and adoption of new requirements rather than through immediate imposition on pending applications.
The Commission believes the TMI-related operating license requirements list as derived from the process described above should be the principal l
basis for consideration of TMI-related issues in theadjudicatory[ process.Footnotesomitted]
l There are good reasons for this....
Insofar as the second category-supplementation of existing regulations-is concerned, the parties may challenge either the necessity for or sufficiency of such requirements.
It would be useful if the parties in taking a position on such requirements stated (a) the nexus of the issue to the TMI-2 i
accident. (b) the significance of the issue and, (c) any differences between the positions and the rationale underlying the Commission considerations of additional TMI-related requirements.
e a
. Item I.C.1 in NUREG-0737 is cited by the State in support of this contention.
This item involves the evaluation of procedures for 1
transients and accidents. Again there is no requirement that a reli.Sility program using probability risk assessments be performed to oevelop these procedures.
In accordance with the above policy statement, litigants may challenge the necessity or sufficiency of these requirements.
However, a basis must be provided for such a challenge and no such basis is provided for this contention.
Thus, it may not therefore be admitted.
See also 46 Fed. Reg. 54578 (November 2,1981);
46 Fed. Reg. 26491 (May 13, 1981).
e NH-2.
Systems Interaction This proposed contention alleges:
The' applicant has not performed an adequate analysis of systems interaction and thus, there is no assurance that the appropriate interactions, failure combinations and accident sequences have been considered in assessing the ability of the systems design to meet 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendix A.
This contention relates to both the consideration of the interaction of safety and non-safety systems and the interaction and multiple failure of safety systems.
There are systems and components pre-sently classified as non-safety related which can have an adverse effect on the integrity of the core because they can directly or indirectly affect temperature, pressure, flow, and/or reactivity.
The interaction between non-safety and safety systems may create demands on the safety systems that exceed their design basis. Not only must the applicant perform fully an analysis of systems interaction, but also it must identify all systems and components which can either cause or aggravate
.O an accident or can be called upon to mitigate an accident and thus should be classified as important to safety and required to meet all safety grade design criteria.
The State has not identified any statutory or regulatory basis to establish that 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A requires the analysis of system interaction sought here.5/ In Diablo Canyon, supra the inter-venors raised a similar contention involving systems interaction, the Board stated (14 NRC at 331):
... They [intervenor] then conclude that no license should be granted to Diablo Canyon until all adverse interactions between safety and non-safety systems are identified and remedied.
The Board is not aware of any requirement in the regulations for this kind of comprehensive study.
No special circumstances have been es-tablished by the Joint Intervenors, and no specific interactions have been identified.
Similarly here no special circumstances are established and no specific interactions have been identified to fo:. the basis of a proper contention.
But cf. Shoreham, supra, pp. 2-3.
NH-3.
Class 9 Accidents In this contention, New Hampshire alleges that Applicants have inadequately addressed the impact of a Class 9 accident in their 5/
Similarly, although 10 C.F.R. il 50.34 and 50.46 are cited in the
" Basis" for this proposed contention no basis is set out to conclude that those regulations were not met.
A
. I environmental report.5/ The sole bases given for the contention are the Applicants' reliance on the (allegedly discredited) methodology used in WASH-1400 and the bare statement that "the Environmental Report does not consider the impact of human factors on the probability of an event occu rence. "
N.H. Supp. at 12.
The bases given are totally inadequate to support the contention.
flew Hampshire does not address the requirements set forth in the Commission's Statement of Interim Policy dealing with Class 9 accidents.
See 45 Fed. RS. 40101 (June 13, 1980).
As to New Hampshire's charge that the WASH-1400 methodology has been discredited, the only discussion of WASH-1400 cited is the NRC Statement on Risk Assessment and the Reactor Safety Study Report (WASH-1400) in Light of the Risk Assessment Review Group Report, January 18,1979.1/ See N.H. Supp. at 11-12.
The Commission, in its statement cited by New Hampshire, noted that the Review Group Report "prais[ed] [ WASH-1400]'s general methodology." The assertion that the methodology has been discredited does not provide a
" specific" basis for a contention.
~6/
The State also reserves the right to amend this contention when the
" draft Environrt ital Impact Report" becomes available.
N.H. Supp.
at 11.
The Statf assumes from the discussion at pp.11-12 of flew Hampshire's Supplement that the State is here referring to the Staff's Draft Environmental Statement (" DES").
If that is indeed the case, the Staff agrees that any reference in the contention to the (as yet unavailable) DES would be premature.
7/
. As for Petitioner's simple assertion that human factors were not considered, the statement standing alone does not provide a sufficient basis for the offered contention. The contention must, therefore, be rejected.
t NH-4.
Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS)
This contention states that Applicants and the Staff have not demonstrated that the risk from an ATWS event is sufficiently reduced by interim measures to provide reasonable assurance that Seabrook can be safely operated prior to the resolution of the generic issue. The ATWS matter is presently before the Commission in the form of a rulemaking proceeding. 46 Fed. Reg. 57521 (Nov. 24, 1981).
The Commission has determined that "the likelihood of severe consequences arising from an ATWS event during the two to four year period required to implement a rule is acceptably small," in part because of interim steps taken to develop procedures and train operators to reduce the risk from an ATWS event.
46 Fed. Reg. at 57522.
New Hampshire has made no attempt in this contention to show that the interim operation of the Seabrook facility 1
will be in violation of any applicable Commission regulations. Conse-l quently, this contention must be rejected.
l l
NH-5.
Liquid Pathway Impact In this contention, New Hampshire charges that Applicants have not adequately considered the consequences of a core melt (Class 9) accident l
M
. resulting in releases of radiation and exposure to the public by the liquid pathway. As basis, New Hampshire contends that the FSAR does not deal with major releases (dilution is relied upon for minor releases) and that the Environmental Report did not study the liquid pathway because "it was believed... to be slower than atmospheric pathways, and thus not important."
N.H. Supp. at 16.
New Hampshire again does not allege a lack of compliance with the Commission's Interim Policy Statement on Class 9 accidents (see response to NH-3, supra).
Nor does it provide a basis for the view that special treatment of liquid pathways should be required for Seabrook. H. Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), CLI-79-9, 10 NRC 257 (1979).
This contention lacks basis and must be rejected.
NH-6.
Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Equipment The Staff objects to this contention challenging the environmental qualification of safety-related equipment, on the ground that New Hampshire has not identified the specific equipment challenged.
If this contention is admitted, the Staff points out that the equipment must meet the requirements set out in the Division of Operating Reactors' Guidelines established in November 1979 and NUREG-0588.
Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-80-21, 11 NRC 707, 710-11 (1980).
See also, 47 Fed. R_eg. 2876 (Proposed Additions to 10 C.F.R. Part 50)
(Jan. 20, 1982).
. NH-7.
Instrumentation The Staff objects to the admission of this contention unless New Hampshire specifies the variables and systems for which it contends instrumentation is inadequate.
NH-8.
Hydrogen Control System This contention alleges that in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident, hydrogen may be generated in excess of the design basis set forth in 10 C.F.R. s 50.44, resulting in off-site radiation releases exceeding the values established in 10 C.F.R. Part 100. The Commission has determined that such a contention is litigable upon a showing that there is a credible scenario for the generation of hydrogen in excess of the s 50.44 design basis. Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Station, Unit 1), CLI-80-16, 11 NRC 674 (1980).
In the absence of the identification of such a scena;io, the contention should be rejected.
See also 46 Fed. Reg. 58484 (Dec. 2, 1981).
NH-9.
Radioactivity Monitoring The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention, which specifically raised the question of whether the in-plant monitoring system is in conformity with the applicable provisions of NUREG-0737 and General Design Criteria 63 and 64.
NH-10.
Control Room Design This contention can be broken down into three parts. The first paragraph deals with adequate instrumentation being provided in the control room to comply with General Design Criterion 13.
The Staff believes this concern is covered by Contention 7, the admission of which I
. is discussed supra. The second paragraph states that a Detailed Control Room Design Review should be carried out in conformance with the guidelines of NUREGs-0700 and -0737; the third that the Seabrook control facility must be designed to comply with General Design Criteria 19-22.
To the extent that New Hampshire is alleging that the Seabrook control room does not comply with the provisions of NUREGs-0700 and -0737 and GDC 19-22, the Staff does not oppose the admission of the contention.
NH-11.
Deviation from Current Regulatory Practice In this contention, New Hampshire would require the Applicants and Staff to document deviations from current regulatory practices.
Nothing in the Commission's Regulations requires such documentation.
In the circumstances, "this contention is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's views of what applicable policies ought to be" and must be rejected.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-27, 14 NRC 325, 332 (1981); see also, Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Station, Units 2 and 3),
ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974), Shoreham, supra, at pp. 14-15.
NH-12. Quality Assurance The Staff has no objection to the admission of a contention addressing Applicants' quality assurance program. However, the Staff believes that, for litigation purposes, New Hampshire should be required to provide the specific instances where it alleges the quality assurance program functioned improperly during construction of the plant.
In the absence of such required specificity, the Staff objects to the admission of the contention as being vague and unsupported.
. NH-13. Operations Personnel Qualifications and Training The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention, but believes that New Hampshire should be required to specify the personnel categories for which it believes training has been or will be inadequate,8/ before this contention is accepted.
NH-14.
Reliable Operation Under On-Site Emergency Power This contention alleges that the Seabrook design does not adequately insure reliable operation in the event of loss of off-site power and a loss-of-coolent accident at the plant.
Presumably, the contention is concerned with the reliability of emergency diesel generators in such a situation.
However, New Hampshire provides no real basis for its alleged concern with diesel generator reliability.
In the absence of such a basis, the contention should be rejected.
NH-15.
Unresolved Safety Issues In this contention, New Hampshire alleges that the Applicants and Staff have not adequately addressed certain unresolved safety issues.
To support this contention, New Hampshire cites Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-491 (1978), and Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760 (1977). As both those cases make
[
8/
In its contention, New Hampshire lists 5 categories of personnel.
[
N.H. Supp. at 32.
If it wishes other personnel categories to be l
included in the contention, it should identify the categories as l
early as possible.
I a
l
,- clear, the Staff must review in its SER all unresolved safety problems which might have an impact on the operation of a facility. As the Staff has not yet issued its SER, this contention is premature and should not be admitted at this time.
NH-16.
Ultimate Heat Sink This contention de31s with the adequacy of the ultimate heat sink.
This issue was fully litigated during the Seabrook construction permit proceeding.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-76-26, 3 NRC 857, 877-78 (1976). As New Hampshire was a party to that proceeding, in the absence of new information it is estopped from raising the same issue in the operating license proceeding. Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Forley Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203 (1974).
NH-17.
Environmental Impact and NH-18.
Health and Environ, mental Monitoring Contention 18 charges that Applicants' surveillence and monitoring program for releases of radioactive material is inadequate. This issue was also fully litigated at the construction permit hearing (Seabrook, supra, LBP-76-26, 3 NRC at 877) and the contention should be rejected for the reasons given in response to contentions SAPL 3 and 4, and NH contention 16, supra.
Contention 17 also deals in part with a monitoring and surveillence program and, to that extent, should be rejected for the same reasons as Contention 18.
Contention 17 also l
. :ontains vague references to 10 C.F.R. QQ 51.20 and 51.26 and General Design Criteria 60-64.
No specific complaint is registered and no basis is provided.
For both of these reasons, Contention 17 should be rejected.
NH-19.
Financial Qualifications This contention addresses Applicants' financial qualifications to operate and shut down Seabrook. The Commission has recently changed its regulations to preclude the consideration of financial qualifications in operating license proceedings where public utilities are concerned.
See 47 Fed. Reg. 13750 (March 31, 1982), amending 10 C.F.R. s 50.33(f).
Consequently, this contention must be rejected.
NH-20-22.
Emergency Response Contentions In Contentions 20 and 21, New Hampshire raises a host of issues involving the on-site and off-site emergency plans.
In terms of off-site planning, any contentions raised would be premature at this point as off-site emergency plans have not yet been developed.
The Staff does not object to a contention alleging that the on-site emergency planning does not comply with the applicable provisions of 10 C.F.R 6 50.47, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, and NUREG-0654, provided that New Hampshire specifies the areas in which it contends the planning fails to comply with the applicable requirements.
Contention 22 challenges the 10 and 50 mile radius for emergency planning zones established in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47.
In the absence of a demonstration of special circumstances, those zones are the zones to be used in drawing up emergency plans. While New Hampshire makes vague
4 assertions that factors specific to Seabrook require different size planning zones, no specificity is provided that would justify carving an exception for Seabrook.
Contention 22 therefore must be rejected.
D.
Proposed Contentions of Sun Valley Association The Staff turns now to the contention filed by the Sun Valley Association ("SVA").
SVA filed three contentions, all dealing with emergency planning.
All three contentions consist of single sentences; none includes any explanation or basis. We deal with each contention seriatim.
SVA Contention 1 contends that "[t]here has yet to be formulated an evacuation plan which would, with reasonable certainty, secure the safe removal of the local populace in the event of a nuclear accident."
Beyond SVA's failure to supply a basis for this contention, the Staff notes that off-site emergency plans have not yet been developed and that this contention is therefore premature.
SVA Contention 2 is merely a restatement of the general provisions of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(a)(1) to the effect that an effective emergency plan l
l is required.
However, petitioner has failed to specify in what manner the I
(
regulation has not been met. The proposed contention does not present a litigable issue as framed, and must therefore be rejected.
l I
I e
+ SVA Contention 3 alleges that the cornerstone of an adequate evacuation plan should be the construction of a specified new highway.
As stated earlier, until off-site emergency plans are developed consideration of this contention would be premature. Moreover, SVA has provided no basis to support the bald assertion expressed in the contention.
The contention should be rejected.
III.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Staff opposes the admission of SAPL's Contentions 1-4, Sun Valley's Contentions 1-3, and New Hampshire Con-tentions 1-7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16-19, and 22. The Staff does not oppose-the admission for discovery purposes of New Hanpshire Contentions 8-9.
Subject to the comments herein, the Staff does not oppose the admission for discovery purposes of New Hampshire Contentions 10,13, and 21.
Respectfully submitted, bw 5 4r Roy P. Lessy,Gr.
Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel
'N Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21st day of April,1982 O
O
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et _al.
)
50-444 OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF T0 " AMENDED PETITIONS" 0F SAPL, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND SUN VALLEY in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 21st day of April, 1982.
Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Administrative Judge Paula Gold, Asst. Atty. General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Stephen M. Leonard, Asst. Attorney Panel Jo Ann Shotwell, Asst. Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20555 Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Lynn Chong Boston, MA 02108 Bill Corkum Gary McCool Nicholas J. Costello Box 65 1st Essex District Plymouth, NH 03264 Whitehall Road Aniesbury, MA 01913 E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Tomlin P. Kendrick Environmental Protection Division 822 Lafayette Road Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 596 State House Annex Hampton, NH 03842 Concord, NH 03301 William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
116 Lowell Street Harmon & Weiss P.O. Box 516 1725 I Street, N.W.
Manchester, NH 03105 Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006
. Rep. Arnie Wight Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
State of New Hampshire Assistant Attorney General House of Representatives State House Station #6 Concord, NH 03301 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul A. Fritzche, Esq.
Donald L. Herzberger, MD Public Advocate Hitchcock Hospital State House Station #12 Hanover, NH 03755 Augusta, ME 04333 Edward J. McDermott, Esq.
Wilfred L. Sanders, Esq.
Sanders and McDermott Sanders and McDermott 408 Lafayette Road 408 Lafayette Road Hampton, NH 03842 Hampton, NH 03842 Sen. Robert L. Preston Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
State of New Hampshire Senate Ropes & Gray Concord, NH 03301 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Panel
- Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Robert L. Chiesa, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section*
Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn &
Office of the Secretary
& Kohls U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 95 Market Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Manchester, NH 03101 Ms. Patti Jacobson 3 Orange Street Newburyport, MA 01950 i
Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff i
l l
l
&