ML20052B779

Response to New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 820421 Supplemental Petition to Intervene,Setting Forth Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20052B779
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/26/1982
From:	Dignan T, Gad R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8205030557
Download: ML20052B779 (10)

Text

c' . *

?

• 7 ,,.,-._.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '02 TM 28 rm 97 e

before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE et al. )

) o (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) q)

) p

- REcggygq 1 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO NECNP .

D (Qyg -

SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR LEAVE #" bO2h 18  ;

TO INTERVENE g /

Introduction =

On April 21, 1982 the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) filed a Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene. This fil'ing is fifteen days later than ordered by the Board in its Special Prehearing Conference Order of March 12, 1982. As of this writing, so far as we are aware, no leave for late filing has been granted to NECNP. Our views on this situa-tion have already been presented in a prior document. It is a matter of the Board's discretion as to what sanctions should be imposed upon NECNP for the late filing.

In any event, Applicants respond to the merits of NECNP's contentions as follows: (

N hhO 82050806 6 7

p.

I.A.l. . If we read this contention correctly, NECNP is con-tending that Seabrook's electrical equipment should be required to be qualified to a higher standard than that required by GDC 4 7

as implemented by the DOR Guidelines and NUREG-0488 as required by the Commission in Petition for Emergency and Rehrdial Action, CLI-80-21, 11 NRC-521 (1980) (hereafter "CLI-80-21"). As a re-sult, the contention should be excluded as seeking to require the applicants to meet requirements more stringent than required by the regulations. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALAB-161, 6 AEC 1003 (hereafter "ALAB-161").

I.A.2. Insofar as this contention is that electric valve operators must be qualified to the extent required by applicable provisions of GDC-4 as implemented by applicable provisions of f the DOR Guidelines and NUREG-0588 as required by CLI-80-21, no objection is made. However, to the extent "more rigorous en-vironmental testing is required", the contention should-be ex-l cluded. ALAB-161.

I.A.3 There is no requirement in any regulation (including GDC-4) that electr.ical equipment inside the containment be quali-fled to " withstand the effects of a hydrogen release such as oc-i curred.at Three Mile, Island Unit 2. The Commission's regulations as to protection from events which could follow post accident H 2

^

buildup are set out in 10 CFR S 50.44. It is the prevention of fire that has been selected as the method to provide protection, l not qualification of equipment to withstand fire. The contention

should therefore be excluded as seeking more than the regulations require. ALAB-161.

I.B.l. By this contention NECNP seeks to have certain equipment heretofore not classified as important to safety so classified (thus requiring environmental qualification) on the basis of certain rethinking going on at NRC. No regulation of the Commission at present requires such equipment to be so classified.1! The contention should be rejected. ALAB-161.

I.B.2. No objection is made to this contention.

I.C. Here the contention is that more components of the Emergency Feedwater Pump House HVAC than already are should be safety related and environmentally qualified. What are so classified are Supply Fans, Dampers and Pneumatic Actuators and Supports for Cables and Raceways , FSAR Table 3.11(B)-1 Sheet 4 and the control switches, fan motors, relays, temperature switches and relays, monitor 31ghts and position switches. FSAR, App. 3H.

No basis is given for requiring more components to be so classi-fled and no more is required by the regulations. ALAB-161. The contention should be excluded.

I.D.l. By this contention, NECNP seeks to require the Ap-plicants to comply with a Reg. Guide as opposed to a regulation.

Reg. Guides are not regulations and are not entitled to be treated as such. E.g., Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 772 (1977). (ALAB-444). The contention should be excluded as seeking to require the Applicants to meet a standard higher than that set by the regulations. ALAB-161.

1/ We do not understand the reference to GDC-3 as requiring a reliable decay heat removal system. GDC-3 deals with Fire Pro-tection.

I.D.2. By this' contention NECNP once again seeks to make a Reg. Guide, as interpreted by NECNP,2/ a regulation. It should be rejected for the same reasons as set forth with respect to No. I.D.1.

I.D.3. This contention suffers-from the same infirmity as Nos. I.D.1 und I.D.2. In addition it is vague in that we are unadvised as to what specific components of the leakage detection l system in addition to the airborne radioactivity detector NECNP claims should be testable at full power in order to demonstrate compliance with GDC 21. The contention should be excluded.

I.D.4. By this contention NECNP seeks to turn Reg. Guide 1 1.118 Rev. 2 into a regulation. Indeed no regulation is even cited'with respect to this contention. It should be rejected.

ALAB 444; ALAB-161.

I.E. There is no regulation which requires compliance with Reg. Guide 1.14 in order to meet GDC-4 which is the premise of l

this contention. NECNP fails to explain why the information in the FSAR as to why post spin inspection is not required is in-adequate. NECNP simply states its view that Reg. Guide 1.14' must be completed with in every particular. Contentions in NRC practice are not admitted when they are vague or fail to put a j party on notice as to what it has to defend against. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),

ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974) (ALAB-216). The contention should be rejected.

2/ The interpretation, which is of dubious' validity at best, is j - that the Reg. Guide requires the systems listed to be tested at

- power.

n

, ,,,J-... ~ . _ . - s _ , .-, .-y' .

. a I.F. Again NECNP. seeks to raise a Reg. Guide to the status of a regulation. ALAB-444. In addition NECNP's bases lack

. specificity as we are uninformed as to which particular aspects of IEEE 323-1974 NECNP deems it necessary to require compliance with and why compliance therewith would provide any meaningful increment in safety. ALAB-216.

I.G. Applicants have no objection to this contention if

. . stripped of conclusions and reworded to state "NECNP contends that there is not reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be protected in light of the RCS wide range pressure instruments being utilized at Seabrook."

I.H. There is no regulation of the Commission which re-

! quires the design change NECNP seeks to impose through this con-tention. It should therefore be excluded. ALAB-161.

I.I. Again NECNP is seeking to have a Reg. Guide treated as a regulation. The contention to the extent it does so should  ;

l be excluded. ALAB-4'4 4 . NECNP lists a group of GDC's it claims  !

are not complied with. However,as stated the contention is wholly unspecific. NECNP must state what particular systems, Structures or components it claims are required to, and do not, j conform to these criteria in order to meet the specificity re-quirement of 10 CFR $ 2.714. ALAB-216.

t j I.J. As things stand now, NECNP does not have a good con .

l tention. It has not seen the security plan and it is " guessing".

i This is no fault of NECNP's. When, as and if NECNP satisfies the Board that it.has a qualified person willing to comply with an appropriate protective order to examine the plan; and if it 1

l then 13 in a position to frame a, specific contention, the Board can then take the matter up.

I.K. Again NECNP has at this time no basis for the con-tention made. -NECNP can file a late filed contention i

once.the PAM instrumentation is selected.

.I.L. This contention as framed has no basis in the regu-

.lations as they now stand. It should be excluded. ALAB-161.

I.M. Applicants have no objection to a contention as fol-

lows

NECNP contends that Applicants Fire Prohibition System does not meet the requirements of GDC-3 as interpreted by the Commission.

I.N. Applicants have no objection to a contention that:

"NECNP contends that the Seabrook design does not include means to handle radioactive solid waste produced during normal reactor GDC-60.

operation ".

i I.O.l. The design change contended for by NECNP is not i required by any regulation. The EFS common discharge heater is

^

not pressurized during normal operation and is therefor not high .

or moderate energy piping. FSAR at 6.8-3 The contention should be excluded. ALAB-161.

! I.O.2. This contention should be excluded for the same reasons as set forth with respect to No. I.O.l.

I.P. No regulation of the Commission is cited for the propo-  ;

sition contended for. The contention should be excluded. ALAB-161.

I I.Q. This contention has no basis in the regulations. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),_LBP-81-27, 14NRC 325, 331 (1981). The contention should be excluded.

1

l I.R. HECNP has failed to comply with the requirements laid down in Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Sta-tion, Unit No. 1), CLI-80-16, 11 NRC 674 (1980) in order to raise this contention. It should therefore be excluded. As indicated in its response to New Hampshire, Applicants have no objection to a contention based in 10 CFR S 50.44.

I.S. The contention is based upon a Reg. Guide not a regu-lation and should be excluded. ALAB-444.

I.T. NECNP has stated no specific basis for the contention.

There are sweeping statements about steam generator tube integrity and a reference to Ginna which does not have Model F Steam Genera-tor. The contention should be excluded.

I.U. NECNP again seeks to raise a Reg. Guide to the status of a regulation. The contention should be excluded. ALAB-444.

I.V. Again NECNP seeks to raise a Reg. Guide to the status of a regulation. The contention should be excluded. ALAB-444.

I.W. Again NEC'NP seeks to raise a Reg Guide to the status of a regulation. The contention should be excluded. ALAB-444.

II.A.l. The adequacy of the Seabrook Quality Assurance Plan for Design and Construction was open for litigation at the Con-Ltruction Permit Stage and was found to be adequate by the Licens-ing Board, Public Service Company of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2), LBP-76-26, 3 NRC 857, 865-66 (1976). NECNP was a party to that proceeding and is now barred from raising the issue by the doctrines of repose. Houston Lighting & Power Co.

(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-27, 10 NRC 563 (1979),

affirmed 01 opinion below, ALAB-575, 11 NRC 14 (1980) and cases there cited.

l l

II.A.2. If we understand this contention correctly it too )

seeks to litigate the Seabrook QA program for construction and design and as noted in connection with No. II.A.1 it is not open to litigation here. IF NECNP's contention is that ongoing Q.A. at the site is bad, it should file a request under 10 CFR S 2.206. This Board does not sit to police construction Q.A.

II.B. Applicants do not object to contention.

III. NECNP has submitted an emergency planning contention one-half page in length and a " specification and basis" of some 12 pages in length. Applicants have already stated they have no objections to an emergency planning contention framed in terms of the regulations and without rhetoric which freights upon the regulations certain parties' views as to what the regulations do, or should, say. NECNP's wording should be rejected in favor of a contention worded as indicated above.

CONCLUSION The myriad NECNP contentions should be dealt with as set forth above. Due to NECNP's tardiness in submitting these con-tentions, the Applicants may seek at the special prehearing con-ference leave of the Board to expand, contract or alter the re-sponses set out above upon further reflection and consultation.

Respectfully submitted, s/ Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.

s/ R. K. Gad III s/ Ropes & Gray I

Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.

R. K. Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for Applicants April 26, 1982 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for the applicants herein, hereby certify that on April 26, 1982 I made service of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:

Robert A. Backus, Esquire Mr. Arnie Wight, Chairman 116 Lowell Street House Science and Technology P.O. Box 516 Committee Manchester, NH 03105 House of Representatives Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Tomlin P. Kendrick Executive Director E. Tupper Kinder, Esquire Coastal Chamber of Commerce Assistant Attorney General of New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General 822 Lafayette Road 208 State House Annex P.O. Box 596 Concord, NH 03301 Hampton, NH 03842 Mr. Robert F. Preston Paul A. Fritzsche, Esquire 226 Winnacunnet Road General Counsel. Hampton, NH 03842 Public Advocate State House Station 112 Wilfred L. Sanders, Jr., Esquire Augusta, ME 04333 Sanders and McDermott Professional Association Philip Ahrens, Esquire 408 Lafayette Road Assistant Attorney General Hampton,.NH 03842 Department of the Attorney General Roy F. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Augusta, ME 04333 Office of the Executive Legal Director Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20555 Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of the Attorney General Board Panel One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boston, MA 02108 Washington, D.C. 20555 William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Harmon & Weiss Board Panel I

1725 I. Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C.

.20006 l

\

1 l

r f

L

,~ ., eI 6 .e Donald L. Herzberg, M.D. Ms. Patti Jacobson George Margolis, M.D. 3 orange street Hitchcock Hospital Newburyport, MA 01950 Hanover, NH 03755 Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Sanders and McDermott.

Professional Association 408 Lafayette Road Hampton, NH 03842 Robert L. Chiesa, Esquire Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls 95 Market Street Manchester, NH 03101 Rep. Nicholas J. Costello Whitehall Road Amesbury, MA 01913 Cooperative Members for Responsible Investment Box 65 Plymouth, NH 03264 Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. : Paris Atomic Safety-and' Licensing Board. Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 s/ Thomas G. Dicnan. Jr.

Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.

2