ML20052B799
| ML20052B799 | |
| 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 8205030587 | |
| Download: ML20052B799 (7) | |
Text
e
'e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,,
~s, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIGIISSI J f[
k',,
1 yc. mpg.q before the s
b c.Y O 1962 5 g I gU
[IbN$$%Wr ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI!!G BOARD
\\
Ex 7
)
D b-In the Matter of
)
)
PUB 11C SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NSW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND FURTHER STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE Under date of April 20, 1982, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) has filed a " Supplement to the Petition for Leave to Intervene and Further Statement of Contentions" (SAPL Supp.).
Applicants herein respond thereto as follows:
Supplemental Contention No. 1 SAPL's first Supplemental Contention is:
"The Applicant has not established reasonable assurance that the safety systems of the pro-posed plant can withstand a worst case accident analysis because of interactions with components presently classified as non-safety, contrary to the requirement of 10 C.F.R. Part 50." SAPL Supp.
at 1.
The entire stated " basis" for this contention is:
.the known potential for interaction of safety and non-safety related components has occurred, for example, at the accident at Three Mile Island."
0500 90ff 820 50 3 0 frs7
i
=
=
The purpose of the " basis" requirement set forth in i
10 CFR $ 2.714 is, inter alia, to assure that the issues to 1be litigated in NRC proceedings are concrete and to put the Applicants on notice "so that they will know at least gener-I l
ally what they will have to defend against or oppose".
f Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Botton Atomic Power Station,
[
Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974).
The above l
quoted contention and statement of basis are classic viola-j tions of the Peach Bottom principal.
We are unadvised as to:
1.
Which " safety systems" are being talked about.
" worst case accident"1/ is being talked 2.
What about.
An Applicant is not required to de-sign against all conceivable accidents by any regulation.
t 3.
We are unadvised as to what non-safety "com-ponents" we are talking about.
4.
"10 CFR Part 50" is not the most explicit legal reference one can imagine in this context.
5.
And we are vnadvised on what logic SAPL j
equates TMI-2 with Seabrook; indeed we are unadvised how Seabrook's particular design fails to comply with regulations in any particular i
The contention should be excluded as vague and without f
- basis, Supplemental Contention No. 2 SAPL's Supplemental Contention No. 2 is:
"The applicant has not provided assurance that safety related equipment will be able to per-form adequately in an accident environment over 1/We assume the hardware can withstand " analysis", and assume SAPL refers-to performance dL-ing some undefined accident.
j f.
,w n-.
..,n
- -, - - - - - -,, -. ~ - -.. - - - - - - - - -
,----g
--y n
.<v.
.an,
- .m
.-.2 a
A-
+
- + -
&+A
-.2.u.4.
4
...A i
N the projected lifetime of the plant".
SAPL Supp. at 1 This is as vague and unspecific as the first con-tention, and the basis, quoted below, does not sharpen the issue one bit.
"The basis of this contention is the need for all safety related equipment to be able to by Appendixes A, B (Cri-operateasrequirepGandKofPart50.
(see teria III and XI)_2 also 10 C.F.R. 50.55a)
Without a demonstra-tion of safety equipment can operate in con-formity with these criteria, and in a manner assuring the public health and safety in an accident environment, the standards required to be met by 10 C.F.R. 50.40 cannot be met, particularly in light of the potential for impaired functioning of safety related equip-ment as it ages in a radioactive environment.
(See the report of the Reactor Safety Research Review Group, September 1981)."
I We are wholly unadvised on what basis SAPL makes these state-ments as to Seabrook's design.
One cannot simply make, for example, a sweeping statement that all safety related equip-ment fails to comply with 10 C.F.R. 50, App. A (the General Design Criteria) and satisfy the require:nent of specificity in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714.
The contention should be excluded.
4 Supplemental Contention No. 3 By its third contention SAPL seeks to raise the issue of compliance with the Commission's Interim Policy Statement of June 13, 1980.
Without accepting all of SAPL's statements as to what the statement does and does not require, Applicants would have no objection to admission into litigation of a contention worded as follows:
l
! 10 C.F.R. 50 $$ III and IX deal with quality assurance in design and procurement document control not operation of equipment.
b t
"The applicable requirements of the Commission's Interim Policy Statement issued June 13, 1980, 45 Fed. Reg. 40101 on Nuclear Power Plant Acci-dent Considerations Under the National Environ-mental Policy Act of 1969 have not been met."
Supplemental Contention Noe. 4 and 5 By these contentions SAPL seeks to raise the issues of Financial Qualifications and Need for Power both of which may not be gone into in light of recent amendments to the Commis-sion's Regulations.
47 Fed. Reg. 12940 (March 26, 1982);
47 Fed. Reg. 13750 (March 31, 1982).
Both contentions should be excluded.
When,as and if SAPL files a proper pleading under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758 as it indicates it might to obtain an ex-ception to the new regulations, the Applicants will respond to it.
Supplemental Contention No. 6 1
SAPL adopts by reference contentions of New Hampshire and its Attorney General Nos. 4-10 and 12-16.
If the Board decides to permit this procedure, but see TVA (Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-76-10, 3 NRC 200, 216 (1976),
the Applicants rely upon their responses to these contentions as set forth in " Applicants' Response to the Amendment and l
l Supplement to the Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing of the State of New Hampshire and Gregory H. Smith, Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire."-
l
[ !
r N
i Conclusion SAPL Supplemental Contentions Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 should be excluded.
Contention No. 3 shoald be excluded as written although Applicants concede that a properly worded contention with respect to that subject matter would be admissible.
As to Contention 6 we respond as set forth in the text above.
Respectfully submitted,
/s Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
/s R. K. Gad III
/s Ropes & Gray Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
R. K. Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Counsel for Applicants 1
April 26, 1982 1
4 I
i i
I y-w y--.
,,n
~,-w y
v
t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for the hpplicants 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 St' ate 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 P. 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 1725 I Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20006
a s
Donald L. Herzberg, M.D.
Ms. Patti Jacobson George Margolis, M.D.
3 Orange Street Hitchcock Hospital Newburyport, MA 01950 Hanover, NH 03755 i
Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Sanders and McDermott Professional Association 408 Lafayette Road I
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 Atcmic 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.
Dignan, Jr.
Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.