ML20054E657
| ML20054E657 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1982 |
| From: | Dignan T, Gad R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054E658 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206140038 | |
| Download: ML20054E657 (11) | |
Text
..
- :i T "3
- 'Yi UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
l In the Matter of
)
l
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
)
APPLICANTS' REPLY TO AMENDED CONTFNTIONS OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND GREGORY H.
l SMITH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE l
Under date of May 24, 1982 the State of New Hampshire and Gregory H.
Smith, Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire (hereafter collectively "New Hampshire") filed a set of Amended Contentions purportedly in conformity with an oral directive of this Board.
The applicants respond l
thereto as follows:
b B206140038 820607 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0
r 1.
Interim Reliability Evaluation Program and Systems Interaction New Hampshire has copied essentially verbatim a contention admitted by the Licensing Board in the Shoreham proceeding.1 New Hampshire characterizes its contention as being one which " combines the State's original contentions 1 and 2."
Prescinding from the fact that it is " stretching" to say the new New Hampshire contention is a combination of the original Nos. 1 and 2 filed by New Hampshire, it is still the position of the Applicants that the contentien should not be admitted.
With all due deference to the Shoreham Licenaang Board, its memorandum is devoid of any persuasive demonstration that this conter. tion is litigable under current NRC regulations.
Indeed, one'other Licensing Board has flatly ruled that the need for systems interaction analysis is not properly an issue in NRC licensing proceedings.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-27, 14 NRC 325, 331 (1981).
We therefore urge the Board to reject this contention in this proceeding.
1.
Memorandum and Order Confirming Rulings Made at the Conference of Parties, Dkt. 50-322-06, 50-322-CPA (Mar. 15, 1982) (hereafter cited "Shoreham") at p. 12.
If the Board should decide to admit the contention, however, the Board should, as did the Shoreham Board, place the burden of going forward on the intervenor, not the Applicant.2 3.
Class 9 Accidents New Hampshire asks that the following contention be admitted:
"The requirements of NUREG 0737, Item I.C.1 and the Commission's Interim Policy Statement issued June 13, 1980, 45 Fed.
Reg. 40101, on Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the Nuclear Energy Power (sic) Act of 1969 have not been met."
We fail to see what Item I.C.1 of NUREG 0737 has to do with the NEPA policy statement cf June 13, 1980.
The Applicants' restatement of SAPL No. 3 does not incorporate any NUREG-0737 items.
4.
Anticipated Transients Without SCRAM (ATWS)
New Hampshire reasserts its original contention No. 4
~
and its basis.
It then adds an argument that the Shoreham prehearing conference order, n.1 supra, is authority for-admitting the contention.
However, the New Hampshire l
contention is not the same as the contention admitted in Shoreham and the difference is one of substance.
In 2.
Shoreham at 13-14.
1.
Shoreham the admitted contention is framed in terms of a lack of a specific item (automatically initiated redundant SLCS) as the basis for saying CDC 20 was not met.
Here New Hampshire seeks to litigate a highly unspecific contention that risk from ATWS has not been sufficiently reduced by interim measures.
Indeed the generalized type of contention New Hampshire has filed was not admitted in Shoreham.
Compare Shoreham at 15 with id. at 19.
5.
Liquid Pathwav Impact New Hampshire has restated its original contention in essence to allege generally non-compliance with the Interim Policy Statement of June 13, 1980, 45 Fed. Reg. 40101.
However, after this generalized statement of the contention, there follows a basis which reveals what issue New Hampshire is really trying to raise which is whether or not Seatrook should be required to have a core catcher.3 As we pointed out with reference to the initial N.H. No.
5, New Hampshire points to no regulation, and we are aware of none, which requires core catchers for Seabrook vintage plants.
I l
l 3.
New Hampshire also refers to safety systems to flood l
runaway reactor cores with cooling water.
It is not clear what New Hampshire ir talking about.
The ECCS is designed to flood a core which is in danger of uncovering or has l
uncovered.
Without further definition of "run away core" or
" safety system" this much of the contention basis is simply I
unfathomable.
t i
f i
l,
l 6.
Environmental Qualification of Safety Related Equipment As stated, the contention is bereft of any definition of what specific equipment New Hampshire is contending is (a) safety related and (b) fails to comply with the varicas regulations cited.
The contention should be excluded.
7.
Instrumentation We are unadvised as to what particular instrumentation New Hampshire claims is not in compliance with GDC-13 and NUREG 0737 and why.
Until we are so advised, the contention is vague and inadmissible for that reason.
8.
Hydrogen Control System New Hampshire reasserts its original contention No. 8 and the basis therefore.
This contention argues for imposition of requirements an excess of those set out in 10 CER 5 50.44.
This contention can' be made only if the putative intervenor makes a showing that there is a credible l
scenario for the generation of hydrogen in excess of the 10 CFR $ 50.44 design basis.
Metropolitan Edison Co.
(Three Mile Island Station, Unit 1), CLI-80-16, 11 NRC 674 (1980).
New Hampshire hac made no such showing.
The contention should be rejected.
9.
Radioactivity Monitoring No objection is made to this contention.
10.
Control Room Design No objection is made to this contention.._
11.
Deviation From Current Regulatory Practice New Hampshire reasserts N.H. No. 11 and its basis.
The Applicants rely upon their opposition previously filed in response.
12.
Quality Assurance New Hampshire has rephrased its quality assurance contention to read as follows:
"The Applicant has failed to establish and execute a quality assurance / quality control program which adheres to*the criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R.,
Part 50, Appendix B".
(Emphasis added)
The quality assurance issue which is litigable in an operating license proceeding does not include " execution" in any respect.
This is so because the operational QA program is not " executed" until operation begins.
New Hampshire continues to try to shoehorn into this hearing the issue of whether the CP QA program was properly executed.
That is not a proper subject of inquiry here.
If New Hampshire truly believes that the construction QA program is not being properly executed, its remedy is to petition the Commission's Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under 10 CFR $ 2.206.
As phrased, the amended contention should be rejected.
l i..
r
+
13.
Operations, Personnel Qualifications and Training The Applicants have no objection to the amended contention if the words "and all other" are removed.
New Hampshire should either drop this language or further specify who they are talking about.
14.
Reliable Operation Under On-Site Emergency Power New Hampshire has reworded this contention but it is still lacking in basis.
We are told, for example, that:
"In order to insure reliable operation, the diesel generator system must be supplied with high reliability controls and monitoring instrumentation for temperature and pressure, for its cooling water system and engine lubrication system."
We can agree with that as well as the goodness of God, Mother and Apple Pie, but we are unadvised in what respect, if any, Seabrook's controls supposedly fail the standard set.
This contention is no more than a vague generality based upon a marshland of non specifics.
It should be excluded as vague and lacking specificity.
15.
Unresolved Safety Issues New Hampshire reasserts its original contention No. 15 and the basis therefor.
The Applicants rely upon their original opposition.
16.
Ultimate Heat Sink New Hampshire has withdrawn this contention.
17.
Environmental Impact, and 18.
Health and Environmental Monitoring New Hampshire reasserts its original contentions Nos. 17 and 18.
New Hampshire now acknowledges that these issues deal with the adequacy off site radiation monitoring which was litigated to a conclusion in favor of the Applicants in the CP hearing.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-76-26, 3 NRC 857, 877 (1976).
To avoid this, New Hampshire argues that, since the CP proceeding, Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 has been added to the regulations and thus the issues of off site radiation monitoring can be relitigated.
In fact, Appendix I was added May 5, 1975 effective June 4, 1975, 40 Fed. Reg. 19439, over one year before the Seabrook Initial Lacision at the CP stage, and Seabrook was subject to its provisions under 10 CFR 50, App. I $ V.A.
Thus the premise for New Hampshire's argument is wrong.
20.
Financial Qualifications New Hampshire reasserts its financial qualifications contention.
It must be excluded.
10 CFR $ 50.33(f) as amended by 47 Fed. Reg. 13750 (March 31, 1982).
i-
- .-.... -. - - = - -..-.. --.- - -. -.
20-22 Emergency Planning Issues New Hampshire reasserts its emergency planning issues.
Applicants rely on their previous response thereto.
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 (617) 423-6100 June 7, 1982 E
_g.
k
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for the applicants herein, hereby certify that on June 7, 1982, I made service of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Cooperative Members for Atomic Safety and Licensing Responsible Investment Board Panel Box 65 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plymouth, NH 03264 Washington, DC 20555 Rep. Nicholas J. Costello Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Whitehall Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Amesbury, MA 01913 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Donald L.,Herzberg, M.D.
Washington, DC 20555 George Margolis, M.D.
Hitchcock Hospital Dr. Oscar H Paris Hanover, NH 03755 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Rep. Beverly Hollingworth U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coastal Chamber of Commerce Washington, DC 20555 209 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Ms. Patti Jacobson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 Orange Street Washington, DC 20555 Newburyport, MA 01950 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Assistant Attorney General E. Tupper Kinder, Esquire Department of the Attorney Assistant Attorney General General Office of the Attorney General Augusta, ME 04333 208 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Robert A. Backus, Esquire 116 Lowell Street Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 516 Office of the Executive Legal Manchester, NH 03105 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissiot Robert L. Chiesa, Esquire Washington, DC 20555 Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls 95 Market Street Manchester, NH 03101
Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Sanders'and McDermott Professional Association 408 Lafayette Road Hampton, NH 03842 Mr. :iobert F. Preston 22/ Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842 Wilfred L. Sanders, Jr., Esquire Sanders and McDermott Professional Association 408 Lafayette Road Hampton, NH 03842 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bc.reau Department of the I.ttorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Bostoh, MA 02108 s/ Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
.