ML20052H865
| ML20052H865 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/19/1982 |
| From: | Lessy R, Perlis R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8205240092 | |
| Download: ML20052H865 (27) | |
Text
O' 05/19/82 i
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 GL NEW HAMPSHIRE _et _al.
).
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF TO CONTENTIONS FILED BY NEW ENGLAND C0ALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
- 1. INTRODUCTION The NRC Staff herewith files its response to the contentions filed by petitioners, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP")
and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (also a petitioner under 10 C.F.R.
% 2.714). This will complete the response of the NRC Staff to all proposed contentions filed to date by various petitioners to this proceeding in accordance with the discussions between the Licensing Board and the parties and petitioners in this proceeding at the Special Prehearing Conference held May 6-7, 1982. The Staff understands that the timing of the filing of these contentions by petitioners will be discussed at the next prehearing conference which the Board indicated may be held in early July,1982. The Staff has previously delineated the applicable legal standards governing both the admissibility of contentions 1/ and the
--1/
See "Responsa of the NRC Staff to ' Amended Petitions' of SAPL, New Hampshire, and Sun Valley", pp. 2-6 (April 21, 1982).
DESIGNATED ORI6! W
' fsaw
/
Cortified 3'/
=~
8205240092 820519
$ C f r I(
PDR ADOCK 05000443 70 C
1A.
'N timeliness of the filed contentions.2/
II. DISCUSSION A.
CONTENTIONS FILED BY NECNP NECNP CONTENTION I-A.1 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT In this contention, NECNP has discussed a number of topics and secondary sources relating to the environmental qualification of electrical equipment but has not stated a precise litigable contention in accordance with the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714. The Staff would not object to the phrasing of a contention to the effect that "the Applicant has not complied with General Design Criterion ("GDC") 4 of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A in accordance with CLI-80-21,S/ with respect to the environmental qualification of electrical equipment" provided that NECNP can specify which particular electrical equipment it alleges is not qualified.
In the absence of such required specificity, the Staff objects to this contention.
--2/
See " Response of the NRC Staff to Motion By NECNP For Clarification UT~ Schedule For Filing Contentions Or For An Extension of Time" (April 19,1982); " Response Of The NRC Staff To Applicant's Motion To Strike The Notice Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts Of Non-Receipt Of Order Setting Special Prehearing Conference" (April 28, 1982).
3/
" Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action"; CLI-80-21, 11 NRC 521 (1980).
NECNP CONTENTION I-A.2 ELECTRIC VALVE OPERATION In this proposed contention, NECNP has listed a specific category of electrical equipment which NECNP contends must be environmentally qualified.
If NECNP follows the Staff suggestion with respect to needed specificity for its general contention regarding environmental qualification of electrical equipment (NECNP Contention I-A.1), then this proposed contention will be subsumed within NECNP contention I-A.1.
If NECNP does not provide the needed specificity for contention I-A.1, the Staff while continuing to oppose the admission of that contention, would not object to this contention provided the contention is specific and limited to the question of whether Applicants have complied with GDC 4 in accordance with CLI-80-21 with respect to environmental qualification of the electrical valve operators installed inside the containment. The Staff, however, objects to a contention seeking to litigate the environmental qualification of such electrical equipment in excess of the requirements in CLI-80-21 as having no sound regulatory base.
NECNP CONTENTION 1-A.3 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPf1ENT INSIDE THE CONTAINMENT TO WITHSTAND THE EFFECTS OF HYDR 0 GEN RELEASE This proposed contention may also be regarded as a specific aspect of NECNP proposed Contention I-A.l.
This contention alleges that in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident, hydrogen may be generated which may disable electrical equipment inside the containment. However, the Commission has determined that such a contention would be litigable only upon a showing that there is a credible scenario for the generation of hydrogen in excess of the 10 C.F.R. % 50.44 design basis.
O,
\\
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Station, Unit 1),
In the absence of the demonstration of such a scenario, the contention should be rejected. See also 46 Fed.
Reg, 58484 (December 2, 1981).
NECNP CONTENTION I-B.1 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION - MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT - STEAM DUMP VALVES, TURBINE VALVES, AND THE STEAM DUMP CONTROL SYSTEM In this contention, NECNP conolains that the Applicant has not satisfied GDC 4 with respect to the environmental qualification of "all systems that may be required to renove heat from the steam generators during an accident, eg., steam dump valves, turbine valves, and the steam dump control system." NECNP also contends that "this omission also violates GDC 3... " While the environmental qualification of certain mechanical equipment can form the basis of a proper contention, the valve and system in NECNP contention I-B.1 are not required by regulation to be so qualified, although as NECNP indicates, the scope of the environmental qualification envelope is being reviewed. Moreover, NECNP has not attempted to explain the asserted applicability of GDC 3, which concerns fire protection, to this contention. Therefore, in the absence of a change in the regulations, the proffered contention fails to meet the basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714.
NECNP CONTENTION 1-B.2 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION - MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT - TIME DURATIONS In this contention, NECNP alleges that the Applicant has not satisfied the requirenents of GDC 4 because the FSAR does not give time durations
for the qualification of safety-related mechanical equipment. The Staff objects to admission of this contention as framed, because GDC 4 contains no provision that time durations for such equipment must be given. As NECNP provides no other basis for this contention, or support for its argument that time duration must be discussed, the contention should be rejected unless and until it is amended by NECNP.
NECNP CONTENTION I-C ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF EMERGENCY FEEDWATER PUMP HOUSE HVAC In this contention, NECNP contends that the Applicants' entire heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems for the emergency feedwater pump house must be environmentally qualified. NECNP, however, appears to recognize that portions of that system are to be environmentally qualified in accordance with NRC requirements.
It is, however, NECNP's belief that "the entire system and its function must be environmentally qualified." NECNP, however, neither proffers a regulatory base for its belief, nor does it cite an applicable regulation or Commission decision to support it. Accordingly, the Staff objects to this contention as not meeting the basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. s 2.714. See also Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.
(Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station),
ALAB-161, 6 AEC 1003 (1973).
NECNP CONTENTION 1-D TESTING 0F EQUIPMENT 1.
NECNP Contention I-D.1 alleges: "The Applicant has not complied with GDC 1 as implemented by Regulatopy Guide 1.150, requiring ultrasonic testing of reactor vessel welds during preservice and inservice
'N examinations." The Staff objects to the present wording of the contention in that it implies that Applicant must abide by the provisions of a regulatory guide.
It is settled that regulatory guides are "not regulations per set and are not entitled to be treated as such; they need not be followed by applicants and they do not purport to represent that set forth the only satisfactory method of meeting a specific regulatory requirement. Methods and solutions oifferent from those set out in the guides will be acceptable if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance of the
... license...." Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 772-73 (1977). The Staff would not however object to a reworded contention alleging that Applicants' program for testing reactor vessel welds-does not comply with the requirements of General Design Criterion 1, if the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. % 2.714 are otherwise satisfied.
2.
In NECNP Contention I-D.2, it is asserted that Applicants have not complied with GDC 21 as implemented by Regulatory Guide 1.22, concerning periodic testing of protection system actuation functions.
In furtherance of the contention, NECNP lists twelve specific safety j
functions in which it is alleged that " applicant does not plan to test at powe r. " The Staff objects to the wording of Contention I-D.2, inasmuch as the contention is based solely upon compliance with a Regulatory Guide. River Bend supra. The Staff would not object however to a properly framed contention alleging that Applicants' program for testing the twelve
I %
functions identified by NECNP on page 15 of its Petition does not comply with the requirements of General Design Criterion 21.
l 3.
In NECNP Contention I-D.3, it is alleged that Applicants' leakage detection system will not be tested as required by GDC 21, as implemented by Regulatory Guide 1.22.
The Staff objects to Contention I-D.3 because as written it requires compliance with a Regulatory Guide. However, the Staff would not object to an otherwise properly worded contention that requires compliance with GDC 21.
4.
In NECNP Contention I-D.4, it is alleged that " Applicant has not complied with the terms of Regulatory Guide 1.118, Rev. 2, requiring periodic testing of electric power and protection systems." The Staff objects to the admission of this contention. As previously noted, applicants need not comply with regulatory guides. NECNP has not identified in this contention any regulatory requirement such as a regulation or GDC which it alleges the application fails to meet. H.
GDC-18. The contention should therefore be rejected.
NECNP CONTENTION I-E REACTOR COOLANT PUMP FLYWHEEL INTEGRITY For the reasons stated above, the Staff objects to this contention insofar as it a;) pears to raise Regulatory Guide 1.14 to the level of the Commission's Regulations. The Staff would not object to the admission of an otherwise properly worded contention that alleges the design,
'N inspection, and testing of the reactor coolant pump flywheel do not comply with General Design Criterion 4.
NECNP CONTENTION 1-F DIESEL GENERATOR QUALIFICATION In this contention, NECNP alleges that the " Load Capability Qualification" test for the Seabrook diesel generator was performed accordirig to the requirements of IEEE 387-1977 instead of IEE 323-1974 and for that reason does not comply with Regulatory Guide 1.9.
As stated previously, compliance with Regulatory Guides by applicants is not mandatory. NECNP points to no regulatory requirement in this contention, nor does it attempt to explain the basis for its view that compliance with IEEE 387-1977 is unacceptable under NRC requirements. This contention should therefore be rejected.
NECNP CONTENTION 1-G PRESSURE INSTRUMENT RELIABILITY The Reactor Cooling System wide range pressure instruments for the Seabrook facility cannot be relied upon for accurate information, and thus may lead to inappropriate operator actions jeopardizing the cooling of the reactor. The pressure instruments therefore do not provide the requisite reasonable assurance of safe operation of the plant.
The Staff does not object to this contention as lacking the requisite basis for a litigable contention; however, the language of the contention, as drafted, is highly conclusory and no basis for such conclusions is shown. Applicant in its response at p. 5 would reword the Contention to read as follows:
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.
The Staff would accept such rewording if the following phrase were added, "due to ambiguities in their accuracy which could result in inappropriate operator actions or premature or late tripping of RCS pumps during the course of a small break loss-of-coolant accident." The Contention, reworded in such a manner, would appear to be acceptable for admission for discovery at this point of the proceeding.
NECNP CONTENTION 1-H DECAY HEAT REMOVAL In this contention, NECNP argues that Applicants' heat exchanger capacity is insufficient. As basis, NECNP points out that one of the lessons learned from Three Mile Island was the need to expand and improve heat exchanger capacity. However, NECNP points to no violation of any regulatory requirement, nor does it allege that the heat exchanger capacity at Seabrook threatens the public health and safety.
NECNP merely alleges that "[t]he principle of expanded and improved heat removal capacity is violated by the reduction in size of the heat exchanger capacity for Seabrook."
(NECNP Supplemental Petition, p. 24).
This " principle" is merely NECNP's view of what the Commission's regulations should be, and has no regulatory basis.
Cf. GDC-34. The contention should therefore be rejected.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-77, 14 NRC 325, 332 (1981).
NECNP CONTENTION I-I INADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR ACHIEVING COLD SHUTDOWN In this contention, NECNP contends that Seabrook is not capable of being brought to cold shutdown in event of an accident, and that " Applicant has
failed to demonstrate that all systems, structures, and components necessary to bring the facility to cold shut down" have either been environmentally qualified or meet the applicable General Design Criteria.
The Staff objects to this contention on the ground that it fails to meet the specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714.
In order for this contention to be litigable, NECNP must delineate with specificity which
" systems, structures, and components important to safety" it contends fail to meet specific General Design Criteria. Until that is done, the Staff opposes admission of this contention.
NECNP CONTEtlTION I-J SECURITY PLAN In this contention NECNP makes the blanket charge "... that the Seabrook reactors are seriously vulnerable to industrial sabotage by virtue of their design and that the Applicant's security plan is inadequate to prevent actions of industrial sabotage at Seabrook that would threaten the public health and safety."
(NECNP Supplemental Petition, p. 27). However, NECNP states that it has not reviewed the plan, but that NECNP consultant Robert Pollard is available to review it.
The litigation of such matters is governed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-410, 5NRC1398(1977).O NECNP's bald assertion that the security plan is inadequate to protect the public health and safety without reviewing the
-4/
See also id., ALAB-592, 11 NRC 744 (1980); id., CLI-80-24, 11 NRC 77F TlWO]-
N plan, clearly fails to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714. Before a proper contention may be framed, however, NECNP must first demonstrate to the Licensing Board that it has an expert or experts, "who have been shown to possess the technical competence necessary to evaluate the portions of the plan which they may be shown. Any other course would contravene the requirement that access be afforded only to ' persons properly and directly concerned' (10 C.F.R. 9 2.790(b)(S)). See also Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702."
Diablo Canyon, supra, 5 NRC at 1404.
In that regard, the Appeal Board further stated:
In the latter connection, it is noteworthy that when an expert is challenged (as in voir dire examination), the party sponsoring the witness has the burden of demonstrating his expertise.
5 NRC at 1405.
Although NECNP has apparently obtained the assistance of Robert Pollard, the Staff is not aware that Mr. Pollard has been previously qualified as an expert in this area.
In any event, NECNP must first demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that Mr. Pollard has the requisite expertise.
In addition, there is a question of a protective order. As the Appeal Board stated in Diablo Canyon, supra:
If and to the extent released, the plan may-and in most circumstances probably should-be subject to a protective order.
See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.790(e) and % 2.740(c).
In considering a protective order, it is a material consideration whether the recipient of the information is likely to abide by such an order.
If it is demonstrated that a particular l
individual is unlikely-to do so, the Licensing Board i
might be justified in not permitting such individual to gain access to the information.
l 5 NRC at 1404 (footnote omitted).
i l
l t
'N Therefore, the Staff opposes the present contention of NECNP pending resolution of the matters above discussed.
NECNP CONTENTION I-K INSTRUMENTATION FOR MONITORING ACCIDENTS In this contention, NECNP alleges that Applicant's Post-Accident Monitoring ("PAM") Instrumentation does not satisfy GDC 13,19, and 64.
However, NECNP realizes that Applicant has not yet selected such PAM instrumentation.
Until such selection is made, the contention is speculative and premature. Accordingly, the Staff opposes this contention.
NECNP CONTENTION I-L PORV FLOW DETECTION In this contention, NECNP alleges that the PORV Flow Detection Monitoring System "is inadequate to protect the public health and safety and fails to comply with the minimum requirements of the NRC." The Staff objects to this contention on the ground of inadequate basis. No regulation or GDC is referenced in the basis of this contention.
NUREG-0578, "TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force Status Report and Short-Term Recommendations" (July 1979), is quoted from by NECNP, but that document has been superseded for the litigation of TMI requirements for new operating license requirements by NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements."
(November 19801 See generally "Further Commission Guidance For Power Reactor Operating Licenses - Revised Statement of i
N Policy". 45 Fed. Reg. 85236 (December 24,1980). Accordingly, the Staff opposes admission of this centention on the ground of inadequate basis.
i NECNP CONTENTION I-li FIRE PROTECTION In this contention, NECNP contends that Applicants' fire protection system does not satisfy GDC 3 as implemented by Regulatory Guide 1.120 and the Commission's decision in Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-80-21, 11 NRC 521 (1980). The Staff would not object to a contention to the effect that " Applicants' Fire Protection System does not meet the requirements of GDC 3 as interpreted by the Commission in CLI-80-21," provided that NECNP also meets the specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 by specifying what particular aspects of the Seabrook fire protection system fail to meet NRC requirements.
In the absence of such required specificity, the Staff objects to NECNP's proffered contention.
flECNP CONTENTION I-N SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM The Applicant has not submitted a complete solid waste management plan for radioactive waste as required by GDC 60 and implemented by Reg. Guide 1.143.
The Staff opposes the admission of the contention as drafted, in that General Design Criteria 60 speaks to the design of a suitable means in i
each nuclear power unit to manage radioactive waste in solid form, but does not extend to the preparation of a complete solid waste management plan.
However, the Staff would not object to a Contention restated, as proposed by Applicant in its response at p. 6, stating: "NECNP contends that the Seabrook design does not include means to handle radioactive i
'N solid waste produced during normal reactor operation," if the following phrase is added at the end of the proposed rewording: "as required by GDC 60."
NECNP CONTENTION I-0 EMERGENCY FEEDWATER 1.
In Contention I-0.1, NECNP charges that "[t]he Seabrook design must be revised to provide an emergency feedwater system that is single failure-proof with respect to a rupture of the high-energy piping in the discharge header." Nowhere does NECNP point to a regulatory requirement that requires Applicant to make the design change requested by NECNP.
Once again, NECNP is simply seeking to impose on the Applicants its view of what the regulatory requirement should be. The contention must therefore be rejected.
2.
In NECNP Contention I-D.2, NECNP alleges that "[t]he Seabrook design must be revised to provide an emergency feedwater system that complies with GDC 17 with respect to the high-energy piping-in the discharge header." The Staff would have no objection to the litigation of a contention which provided, "the emergency feedwater system does not comply with GDC 17 in that a break in the common discharge header between valve 65 and valve 125, coupled with a loss of offsite power would result in a loss of feedwater to all steam generators" subject to one clarification. That clarification would be that NECNP specify the nature and duration of the " loss of offsite power" with respect to which it is concerned.
N NECNP CONTENTION I-P HUMAN ENGINEERING In this contention, NECNP charges that "the location of [a 0-2300 F multipoint] recorder on the back of the control panel consitututes poor human engineering that would detract from the operator's ability to take prompt, correct actions in the event of an accident." Here again, NECNP addresses no regulatory requirement, but is merely seeking to impose its view of what regulatory policies ought to be. The contention should therefore be rejected as lacking an adequate regulatory base.
NECNP CONTENTION I-Q SYSTEMS INTERACTION This contention is virtually identical to New Hampshire Contention 2.
The Staff opposes it on the same grounds it set forth in its response to New Hampshire Contention 2.
See " Response of the NRC Staff to Amended Petions of SAPL, New Hamnshire, and Sun Valley" at 12-13.
In summary, the proposed contention is defective for two reasons. First, the petitioners have not identified any statutory or regulatory basis to establish that 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A requires the analysis requested by petitioners. Secondly, no special circumstances have been identified, nor have any specific interactions been identified to form the basis of a proper contention.
NFCNP CONTENTION I-R HYDROGEN CONTROL SYSTEM The design of the hydrogen control system at Seabrook is inadequate to protect the public safety in that it would protect against the hydrogen produced by a metal water reaction involving only 1.5% of the fuel cladding. FSAR 1.8-3.
This contention impliedly alleges that in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident, the metal-water eaction of the zirconium cladding may generate
hydrogen in excess of the design basis set forth in 10 C.F.R % 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 would be litigable only upon a prior showing that there is a credible scenario for the generation of hydrogen in excess of the 5 50.44 design basis. Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Station, Unit 1), CLI-80-16, 11 NRC 674 (1980); see also Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-675, 15 NRC (May 17, 1982) (Slip Op. pp. 16-21). However, absent the prior identification of such a scenario by NECNP herein, this Contention should be rejected. See also 46 Fed. Reg. 58484 (December 2,1981).
CONTENTION I-S LOOSE-PARTS DETECTION SYSTEM The Applicant has not yet designed or developed a loose-parts detection system for the reactor's primary system, and therefore does not satisfy Criteria 1 and 13 of Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, 10 C.F.R. 50.36, or 10 C.F.R 20.1(c), as implemented by Regulatory Guide 1.133, and does not provide an adequate alternative to satisfy the requirements.
Design and development of a loose-parts detection system for the reactor's primary system is not a regulatory requirement of the Nuclear Regulatory Connission and, specifically, is not discussed in, or required i
by,10 C.F.R % 50.36 or 6 20.1, cited by NECNP. Under the Appeal Board's decision in River Bend, supra, p. 6, Applicants should either comply with the provisions of the Regulatory Guide or provide an adequate alternative. As long as it is clear that compliance with the Regulatory Guide is not mandatory, the Staff would not object to the acceptance of this contention for purposes of discovery.
'N NECNP CONTENTION I-T STEAM GENERATORS The Applicant has not demonstrated that the Seabrook steam generators are capable of resisting degradation or that the new Model F Westinghouse generators have been designed to solve the degradation problem and maintain their accident scenario such as the accident which occurred at Ginna on January 25, 1982.
This contention, as drafted, should be rejected as vague and lacking in the specificity and basis required by 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714. The stated basis for the contention references problems with Westinghouse steam generators which have occurred at Indian Point Unit 2, San Onofre Unit 1 and Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
The final paragraph of the stated basis at p. 48 of NECNP's Supplemental Petition references the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. None of the plants mentior,ed in the stated basis for this contention incorporated the Model F Westinghouse steam generators which will be used at the Seabrook Nuclear Units. The contention, as arafted, is too vague and lacking in specificity to litigate and, accordingly, should be excluded by the Licensing Board.
NECNP CONTENTION 1-U TURBINE MISSILES The Staff does not object to the admission of a contention which states that the Applicant has not complied with GDC 4 of Append'x A of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, providing NECNP can also allege with specificity in what ways GDC 4 has not been complied with at Seabrook.
In the absence of such specificity, the Staff opposes the admission of this contention.
NECNP CONTENTION 1-V INSERVICE INSPECTION OF STEAM GENERATOR TUBES The Applicant has not demonstrated that it meets General Design Criteria 14, 15, 31 and 32 of Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 50,
N as implemented by Regulatory Guide 1.83, in order adequately to reduce the probability and consequences of steam generator tube failures through periodic in-service inspection for early detection of defects and deterioration. Nor has the Applicant developed an adequate alternative program for in-service inspection of steam generator tubes.
This contention, related to Contention I-T, is unsupported by any specific basis, as required by 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714.
In the contention, NECNP argues that Applicants have not complied with certain General Design Criteria as implemented by Regulatory Guide 1.83.
While it is true that compliance with a Regulatory Guide is not mandatory, River Bend supra, p. 6, here, as NECNP indicates, Applicants have stated in the FSAR that the inspection program will be performed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.82, Rev. 1. NECNP appears to be arguing that compliance with the Regulatory Guide would not satisfy NECNP. NECNP has made no showing that Applicants, by complying with the Regulatory Guide, will not meet the applicable GDC. Accordingly, the Staff opposes this contention as lacking basis.
NECNP CONTENTION I-W SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT The Applicant has not demonstrated that it has adequately assured the seismic qualification of electrical equipment at Seabrook, as required by Criterion III, " Design Control" of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 and implemented by Regulatory Guide 1.100, Rev. 1.
The Applicant also has not shown that it has developed an adequate alternative method of seismically qualifying electrical equipment.
The Staff would not object to the litigation of a contention to the effect that "the Applicant has not demonstrated that the seismic qualification of electrical equipment at Seabrook is in compliance with
l N Criterion III of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50," provided NECNP specifies which electrical equipment it believes is not qualified.
In the absence of such required specificity, the Staff would object to the admission of this contention.
NECNP CONTENTION II QUALITY ASSURANCE ("QA")
1.
In NECNP Contention II-A.1, NECNP contends that the Seabrook QA program has been too narrow in scope, applying only to items considered
" safety-related" rather than to the category of "important to safety" which NECNP contends is broader. The licensing bcard presiding over the construction permit application found that Applicant's quality assurance program met NRC requirenents. LBP-76-26, 3 NRC 857, at 866-67 (June 29, 1976). As NECNP was a party to that proceeding, in the absence of either "significant supervening developments having a possible material bearing upon previously ajudicated issues" or "the presence of some unusual factors having special public interest implications," it is estopped from raising the issue in the operating license proceeding. Alabama Power Co.
(Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 216; remanded on other grounds CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203 (1974). Accordingly, the Staff opposes NECNP Contention II-A.1.
2.
In NECNP Contention II-A.?, NECNP contends that the Applicant has failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R., Appendix B with respect to the QA and Quality Control Program ("QC") program at Seabrook. NECNP l
alleges that the QA/QC program has been pervasively inadequate so that "there is no assurance that the plant has been designed or constructed in accordance with applicable requirements." NECNP alleges that a complete audit of all design and QA documentation, a reinspection, and an appropriate engineering analysis is required. The Staff opposes tne contention as framed.
While there are substantial problems in attempting to relitigate design issues at the OL stage as indicated with respect to NECNP's proposed contention II-A, the Staff believes a proper contention could be litigated to the effect that " Applicant's QA/QC program has not operated in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, such that a complete independent audit of all QA documentation, a complete physical reinspection of the plant, and a thorough engineering analysis of all aspects of the plant that cannot now be inspected are required".
In the bases for this contention, NECNP lists thirteen examples to support its contention, based upon reports from the Office of Inspection and Enforcement of the NRC Staff. However, NECNP states that it does not want to be limited to these thirteen areas. NECNP Supplemental Petition, p. 61.
In order for the Licensing Board, as well as the parties, to have adequate notice of the scope of this contention, the Staff position is that the contention must be sn limited at this time, subject to appropriate and timely amendment by NECNP, subject to response by the other parties.
1
~
3.
In NECNP Contention II-B., NECNP contends that the Seabrook QA program for operations fails to comply with either Appendix B to
N 10 C.F.R. Part 50 or 10 C.F.R. 66 50.34(b)(6)(ii) in five specific areas.
A separate basis is given for each, and the Staff believes that it would be efficient to treat each area as a separate sub-contention.
The Staff's position is that sub-contention II-B.3 (independence of the QA organization) and II-B.5 (number of qualified QA/QC personnel) are acceptable and meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714 and are therefore acceptable for admission for discovery purposes.
As to Contention II-B.1, NECNP states that the FSAR fails to address "each of the criteria in Appendix B" but as a basis refers only to Section 17.2.
It should not be the obligation of the Staff (or the Applicant) to speculate as to which sections of the FSAR NECNP deems inadequate. Accordingly, the Staff would not oppose a contention limited to whether Section 17.2 of the FSAR adequately addresses the criteria in Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
If NECNP wishes to specify any other provision of the FSAR which it deems inadequate, it can seek to amend this sub-contention.
As to Contention II-B.2, the Staff believes this contention, concerning the scope of the QA program for operations, fails to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714. Specifically, the Staff believes that the basis, which is only one sentence, is l
inadequate in that we are not specifically advised of the alleged i
deficiencies of the Seabrook QA program for operations in light of the i
GDC 1, or other regulatory requirements. NECNP alleges that a comparison can be made between the Seabrook QA program and GDC 1, but fails to
N inform the parties or the Board as to the results of that comparison.
Accordingly, the Staff opposes the admission of this contention.
As to Contention II-B.4, concerning replacement materials, parts and the reinspection of repaired or reworked structures, NECNP has failed to satisfy either the basis or specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714. NECNP complains that the FSAR contains no discussion of QA for maintenance and repairs, but fails to point to a regulatory require, ment to support this. Accordingly, the Staff opposes this contention as lacking basis.
NECNP CONTENTION III EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION This contention generally addresses the adequacy of Applicant's emergency plan. As the Staff stated in its response to the contentions raised by New Hampshire (Response of the NRC Staff to Amended Petitions of SAPL, New Hampshire, and Sun Valley, p. 21), the Staff does not object to an emergency planning contention provided that the proponent of the contention specifies the areas in which it contends the emergency planning fails to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements.
While NECNP's Contention III is fatally broad as worded, the Staff notes that NECNP has included a list of specific allegations under its
" specification and basis" section. Some of these allegations may const;tute acceptable contentions, while others lack specificity and/or t
basis Its present contention, however, does not meet the specificity requifyent of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 and must be rejected.
e
?
4 T
N B.
CONTENTIONS FILED BY COMf10NWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS The Commonwealth of Massachusetts submitted four contentions, all addressed to the matter of emergency planning. The NRC Staff responds to these contentions as follows:
CONTENTION MASSACHUSETTS-I Applicants have failed to submit, as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 50.33(g), radiological emergency response plans of state and local governmental entities within the plume exposure pathway or ingestion pathway Emergency Planning Zones, including plans of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its municipalities.
This contention does no more than state the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 50.33(g).
In its basis, Massachusetts states:
Given that state and local emergency response plans have not yet been prepared or submitted, the Commonwealth is unable at this time to prepare contentions which relate in any way to those plans or to the relationship between onsite and offsite plans. The Commonwealth reserves the right to revise its contentions to address such particulars when state and local plans have been submitted.
Massachusetts Supplement at 3.
l j
The Staff agrees that contentions relating to offsite planning are premature at this point, and for this reason opposes the admi sion of this contention.
l l
CONTENTI0t1 MASSACHUSETTS-II l
The Applicants have failed to account for local emergency response needs and capabilities in l
l l
i
'N establishing boundaries for the plume exposur.e pathway and ingestion pathway EPZ's for Seabrook Station, as required by 10 C.F.R. 6 50.33(g) and
$ 50.47(c)(2).
This contention challenges the EPZ boundaries selected by Applicant.
As indicated in the basis supplied with the contention, the Commission has provided that " generally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power plants shall consist of an area about 10 miles (16 km) in radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ shall consist of an area about 50 miles (80 km) in radius."
10C.F.R.6550.33(g),50.47(c)(2). While these boundaries are not inflexible, Massachusetts has not supplied any reason to support its apparent belief they are inappropriate for Seabrook.
In the absence of such a showing, the contention must be rejected.
See Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Station Unit 1).
" Memorandum and Order Confirming Rulings Made at the Conference of Parties" (Unpublished)
(March 15,1982),pp.24-25. The contention should also be rejected because, in the absence of a suitable explanation as to why the boundaries are inappropriate for Seabrook, the contention fails to meet the basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. % 2.714.
CONTENTION MASSACHUSETTS-III There is no basis for the NRC to find, as required by 10 C.F.R. % 50.47(a)(1), that the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness for the Seabrook Station provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
and
N CONTENTION MASSACHUSETTS-IV The Applicants' Emergency Plan does not satisfy the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b) or provice the information required by 10 C.F.R., Appendix E.
Both of these contentions address generally the adequacy of emergency planning at Seabrook.
As the Staff has previously indicated, insofar as these contentions address offsite planning, they are premature at this point. As the Staff stated in its response to NECNP Contention III, the Staff does not object to the admission of contentions challenging the adequacy of emergency planning provided that the contentions specify the alleged inadequacies. Until Massachusetts provides such specification, its Contention III and IV should be rejected as faili n to meet the specificity and basis requirements 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the NRC Staff opposes the admission of NECNP contentions I-A.1, I-A.2, I-A.3, I-B.1, I-B.2, I-C, I-D.4, I-F,
' H, I-I, I-J, I-K, I-L, I-M, 1-0.1, I-P, I-Q, I-R, I-T, I-U, I-V, I-W, II-A.1, II-B.2, II-B.4, and III. The NRC Staff also opposes the ad-mission of Massachusetts' contentions I-IV.
Respectfully submitted, Roy P. Le Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethasda, Maryland this 19th day of May, 1982
N 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 TO CONTENTIONS FILED BY NEW ENGLAND C0ALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 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 19th day of May, 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 Commission 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 Amesbury, MA 01913 E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Beverly Hollingworth Environmental Protection Division 7 A Street Office of the Attorney General Hampton Beach, NH 03842 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301
N 2-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 Ms. Patti Jacobson Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
3 Orange Street Assistant Attorney General Newburyport, MA 01950 State House Station #6 Augusta, ME 04333 Docketing and Service Section*
Donald L. Herzberger, MD Office of the Secretary Hitchcock Hospital U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hanover, NH 03755 Washington, D.C.
20555 Edward J. McDermott, Esq.
Wilfred L. Sanders, Esq.
Sanders and McDermott Sanders and McDennott 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. NJclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Panel
- Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Robert L. Chiesa, Esq.
Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn &
& Kohls 95 Market Street Manchester, NH 03101 W
Ro9 P. Lessy V Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel