ML20054C666
| ML20054C666 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1982 |
| From: | Dignan T, Gad R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204210478 | |
| Download: ML20054C666 (12) | |
Text
..
s Dr :-
E? C ' 10 (p,-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
l
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
)
We g
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE AMENDM I
AND SUPPLEMENT TO THE PETITION F.p REC 21N_
g LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUESC' F LL' HEARING OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSH,RE APR 2 019825 AND GREGORY H. SMITH, ATTORNEY GENER us am mm1
~
OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE \\
E7" U
\\ ')'
7 s/
On March 12, 1982, the Board issued a Memorandum er Setting Special Prehearing Conference (" Order").
This Order required the filing of amended petitions by April 6, 1982.
On April 5, 1982, the State and Attorney General of New Hampshire (hereafter col]ectively referred to as "New Hampshire") filed an " Amendment and Supplement to the Petition for Leave to Inter-vene and Request for Hearing" (hereafter cited N.H. Supp.).
Therein New Hampshire set out twenty-one contentions it seeks to have admitted to litigation in this operating license proceed-ing.
As contemplated by the Order, the Applicants hereby respond to, and set out their position with respect to the admissibility y)$Cl3 of, each of New Hampshire's contentions.
/!
8204210478 820415 DR ADOCK 05000
1.
Interim Reliability Evaluation Program By this contention, New Hampshire asserts that a probabilis-tic risk assessment (PRA) must be done for Seabrook.
It is noted in the basis statement that the Applicants are conducting a PRA for this facility.
It is true that a PRA is being done for Seabrook at Appli-cants' request and expense.
It is equally true that neither any regulation of the NRC nor NUREG-0737 require a PRA as a prerequi-site to the issuance of an operating license for Seabrook.
It is long settled that an operating license applicant need do no more than demonstrate compliance with the regulations.
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALAB-161, 6 AEC 1003 (1973), aff'd, CLI-74-2, 7 AEC 2, aff'd sub nom.
Citizens for Safe Power v. NRC, 524 F.2d 1291 (D.C. cir. 1975);
NRC Policy Statement, 45 F.R. 41738 (June 20, 1980).
The contention should be excluded.
2.
Systems Interaction By this contention New Hampshire seeks to require the Applicants to do a comprehensive analysis of systems interaction.
There is no such requirement in either NUREG-0737 or the regula-tions.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-81-27, 14 NRC 325, 331 (1981).
1 The contention should therefore be excluded..
3 Class 9 Accidents Here New Hampshire contends:
"The applicant has not presented, contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 51.20(a), (d), a complete assessment of the risks posed by operation of Seabrook."
N.H.
Supp. at 11.
The argument is that the Environmental Report does not adequately address Class 9 accidents because the discussion therein "is based in large part on the Wash. 1400 methodology which has been rejected".
Id.. at 12.
No citation is given for this statement because none can be.
The methodology (as opposed to certain numerical conclusions) of WASH-1400 has not been rejected by che Commission.
Prescinding from all of the foregoing, the fact is that the degree to which so-called " Class 9" accidents must be discussed in environmental reports or environmental impact statements is set out in the Commission's Interim Policy Statement of June 13, 1980.
New Hampshire in its statement of contentions makes no mention of this statement and instead attempts to freight on to the contention New Hampshire's own views of what the law should be.
The contention as framed should be rejected.
4.
Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS)
ATWS is presently the subject of a rulemaking proceeding and alternative proposed rules have been published for comment.
46 Fed. Reg. 57521 (Nov. 24, 1981).
Licensing Boards should not accept in individual licensing proceedings contentions which are i
1 j
l.
j (or are about to become) the subject of general rulemaking by 4
l the Commission.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho i
Seco Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-655, 14 NRC 799, 816 (1981); Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974).
The contention should be excluded.
i I
i 5.
Liquid Pathway Impact I
1 l
New Hampshire contends that there has been inadequate consid-
.l eration given to the consequences of a core melt (Class 9) acci-i dent which could cause a release of radioactivity by the liquid pathway.
It is contended that such analysis might reveal the need for a " core catcher" or other device to contain a melted core, New Hampshire points to no regulation, and there is none, which 3
requires plants of the Seabrook vintage to have such devices.
'I The contention should be excluded.
6.
Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Equipment Again, New Hampshire in its statement of contention seeks to freight its interpretation of various regulations on to the proceeding.
We suggest that this contention should be reworded to state:
"The design of Seabrook Units 1 and 2 does not comply with applicable provisions of DOR Guidelines and NUREG-0588."
Applicants would have no objection to a contention so worded 3
being admitted into litigation.
The suggested wording complies with the rulings of the Commission in Petition for Remedial '
t i
l 1
l Action, CLI-80-21, 11 NRC 707, 711-12 (1980).
See also State-l ment on Proposed Rule, 47 Fed. Reg. 2867 (Jan. 20, 1982).
}
Nos. 7-10 As Contentions Nos. 7-10, New Hampshire lists a number of i
technical contentions, all of which, if stripped of editorializing j
and conclusions, appear to be proper.
Applicants would have no objection to the admittance of these contentions if worded as follows:
7.
The Seabrook Station instrumentation is not in accord with the app /licable provisions of GDC 13 and NUREG-0737.=
8.
The Seabrook Station design does not comply l
with applicable provisions of 10 CFR 5 50.44.
9 The Seabrook Station in-plant monitoring i
system is not in conformity with GDC j
Nos. 63 and 64 or applicable provisions of NUREG-0737.
l 10.
The Seabrook Station Control Room Design does not comply with applicable provisions of NUREG-0737 and GDC 19-22.
11.
Deviation From Current Regulatory Practice There is no regulation which requires an applicant or the Staff to document deviations from current regulatory practice.
1/ It is not required that the Applicants comply with regulatory guides.
E.g., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-179, 7 AEC 174 at n.27 l
(1974); Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America v. AEc, 533 F.2d 1011 (7th cir. 197o).
- Thus, the reworded issue does not refer to Reg. Guide 1 97.
i l -. - - -
O Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-27, 14 NRC 325, 331-32 (1981).
The conten-tion should be excluded.
12.
Quality Assurance The Applicants would have no objection to the admission of the following contention:
"The Seabrook Quality Assurance Program does not comply with 10 CFR 50, App.
B."
13.
Operations Personnel Qualifications and Training Again, instead of a direct statement of a contention, New Hampshire editoria11zes to the point where it is not clear what exactly its contention is.
We suggest the contention being made is:
"The Seabrook training programs for operations personnel do not comply with applicable provisions of NUREG-0737."
If that is the contention, Applicants do not object to its admission into the proceeding.
14.
Reliable Operation Under On-Site Emergency Power New Hampshire contends that:
"The Seabrook design does not adequately insure reliable operation in the event of loss of off-site power and a LOCA at the plant."
It is next claimed that the NRC Staff has " recognized a generic unresolved safety problem" having to do with alleged "unreliability of emergency on-site diesel generators at pressurized water reactors of the
~ _ = _ -
i' t
1 i
Seabrook type."
And finally, we are told the FSAR does not indicate compliance with GDC 2, 4, 5 and 50, none of which deal with electric power systems as do GDC 17 and 18, which the FSAR 4
does indicate compliance with.
FSAR, p. 8.1-3 l
This contention gives the Applicants no idea in what particu-i l
lars the diesels are unreliable.
The basis is nothing but a set of statements as to what the generators should do and what will happen if they do not do it.
Nothing is stated in the way of a
facts as to what is supposedly wrong with the Seabrook diesels.
The contention should be excluded.
i i
15.
Unresolved Safety Issues 1
The concept of unresolved safety issues has nothing to do with Applicants.
Pursuant to the decisions of Appeal Boards in i
ALAB-444 / and ALAB-4913/ the NRC Staff has certain obligations 2
i l
to deal satisfactorily with these issues in the Safety Evalu-ation Report (SER).
This makes sense because these issues are i
by definition " unresolved" by the Staff not the applicant.
Since i
the SER is not out, this contention is premature and should be excluded at this time.
)
2/ Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
i 6 NRC 760 (1977).
I 3/ Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1. 2), ALAB-491, 8 NRC 245 (1978).
l ;
~
16.
Ultimate Heat Sink The issue of the design of Seabrook Station's ultimate heat sink was litigated to a conclusion in favor of the present design in the construction permit hearing.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-76-26, 3 NRC 857, 877-78 (1976).
"[A]n operating license proceeding should not be utilized to rehash issues al. ready ventilated and resolved at the construction permit stage."
Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203 (1974).
New Hampshire was a party to the prior proceeding and no change in cir-cumstances has occurred which would provide a basis for relitiga-ting this issue.S./
Such being the case, classic principles of collateral estoppel apply.
See Houston Lighting and Power Co.
(South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), LBP-79-87, 10 NRC 563 (1979),
affirmed summarily, ALAB-575, 11 NRC 14 (1980).
The contention should be excluded.
17.
Environmental Impact Despite its title, this contention is in reality a conten-tion that the design of the radiation monitoring system is inade-quate.
This too was litigated to a conclusion favorable to the Applicants at the construction permit hearing.
Public Service Co.
-4/ New Hampshire alleges that the Seabrook ultimate heat sink does not comply with Reg. Guide 1.27.
As noted earlier, n.1, supra, Reg. Guides are not regulations and compliance therewith need not be demonstrated.
_ _ - -. = _ _ _
l L
}
of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-76-26, 3 NRC 857, 877 (1976).
For the same reasons as set forth with
)
respect to Contention No. 16, Contention No. 17 should also be excluded.
4 18.
Health and Environmental Monitoring This is a more detailed contention raising the same issue as raised in No.17 and should be excluded fc. L'ae same reasons.
19 Financial Qualifications Financial Qualifications are no longer an issue in utility operating license proceedings.
10 CFR S 50.33(f), as amended by a
47 Fed. Reg. 13750 (March 31, 1982).
20-22.
Emergency Planning Issues l
~
New Hampshire, with a lot of editorializing and' conclusions i
as to what the regulations require, seeks to raise a whole laundry list of emergency planning contentions.
What is required is com-1
)
pliance with the regulations.
We suggest that a single conten-1 i
tion be admitted which is:
i "The Seabrook Station emergency planning does not comply with applicable provisions of 10 CFR S 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, App.
E."
I i _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _..
L CONCLUSION Contentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 should be excluded.
Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 20-22 should be excluded unless recast as herein indicated.
Respectfully submitted, Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
R.
K.
Gad III Ropes & Gray Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
R. K. Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 April 15, 1982 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for the applicants herein, hereby certify that en April 15, 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 Techno1cgy P.C.
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 522 Lafayette Road 206 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, NE 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 P.
Lessy, Jr., Esquire Augusta, ME 04333 Office of the Executive Legal Director Jo /.nn Shotwell, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20555 Environmental Protuction 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 Bosten, MA 02108 Washington, D.C.
20555 William S.
Jordan, III, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Harmon & Weiss Board Fanel 1725 I Street, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20006
4 Donald L. Herzberg, M.D.
Ms. Patti Jacobson George Margolis, M.D.
3 Orange Street' Hitchecck Hospital Newburyport, MA 01950 Hanover, NH 03755 Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Sanders and McDermott Professional Association 403 Lafayette Road Hampton, NH 03842 Robert L.
Chiesa, Esquire Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls 95 Marke: Street Manchester, NH 03101 Eep. ::icholas J.
Costello Whitehall Road Amestury, MA 01913 Cooperative Members for Responsible Investment 3cX 65 Flyncuth, HH 03264 Heler Hoyt, Chairperson Atomic Safety and Licensing Ecard Fanel U.S.
':uclear Regulatory Commission dashington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard Panel U.S. : uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Oscar H.
Paris Atcaic Safety and Licensing Scard Fanel U.S.
- uelear ReEulatory Ccmmission Washington, D.C.
20555 Thomas G..Dignan, Jr.
Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.