ML20054H609

Supplemental Contentions.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054H609
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/17/1982
From:	Curran D, Jordan W HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20054H599	List: ML20054H598 ML20054H602 ML20054H609
References
NUDOCS 8206240258
Download: ML20054H609 (10)

Text

. .

I u f f'If9G UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

j BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i

.1 l )

2 In the Matter of )

3 )

PUBLIC SERVICE COMP ANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE , ) Docket Nos . 50-443 et al., ) 50-444

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

i )

i NECNP 'S SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS Introduction 1

Since its original contentions were filed, NECNP has become aware of new information which has an important bearing on the i

resolution of safety and environmental issues in the Seabrook licensing proceeding . We have theref6re framed new contentions i regarding these issues . As we discuss for each separate contention, i we believe they meet the Commission's standards for late-filed 3

contentions outlined in 10 CFR 2.714 (a)(1) . These are numbered in sequence following our original contentions.

l 1

IV. Blockage of Coolant Flow to Safety-Related Systems and Compon ents by Buildup of Biological Organisms.

The Applicant must establish a surveillance and maintenance program for the prevention of the accumulation of mollusks, other aquatic organisms, and debris in cooling systems in order to satisfy the requirements of GDC 4, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, I

and 39, which require the maintenance and inspection of reactor cooling.systemr. The design, construc tion , and proposed l.

operation of Seabrook fail to satisfy these requirements.

8206240258 820617 t

PDR 0

ADOCK 05000443 PM

Basis : On May 19, 1982, the Commission published in the Federal Register a notice of abnormal occurrences at a number of nuclear reactors around the country. 47 FR 21653. The notice described the accumulation of asiatic clams, mussels, and other aquatic organisms in reactor cooling systems which had hitherto .gone unno ticed . At one reactor, Brunswick Unit One, blockage of coolant flow paths resulted in the " total loss of both redundant trains of the residual heat removal system. "

47 FR at 21653.

Noting that the dissipation of hel.t to the environment is an essential safety function, the Commission found that blockage of coolan t systems by biological organisms and debris could cause "possible degradation of the heat transfer capabilities of redundant safety systems to the point where system function is lost . " Id.

at 21655.

The abnormal occurrences at the six reactors showed that

" preventive measures and methods of detecting gradual degradation have been inadequate in certain areas to preclude the occurrence . "

Id. The licensees in each case agreed to improve design features l

and detection techniques to prevent f uture significan t fouling.

The Seabrook reactor uses ocean water for cooling and is t

par ticularly susceptible to fouling by aquatic organisms. The fouling does not occur only in the intake pipes of reactors .

(

l Organisms may find their way into the entire cooling system and even into the heat e xchang er s . Id. at 21654. In addition, the buildup of fouling organisms or corrosion products on piping walls, alt houg h not severe enough to block water flow during normal operation, could be dislodged by seismic activity and " collect in equipment bearing or

seal coolers blocking the cooling water flow. " Id . Because it is particularly vulnerable to intrusion by aquatic organisms, the sea-brook plant should be equipped with a maintenance and inspection program adequate to prevent the kind of degradation which current measures obviously do not achieve.

Justification of late filing : NECNP contends that the balancing test established in 10 CFR 2.714 weighs in f avor of admission of this contention for the following reasons. First, NECNP has good cause for this late filing. The Commission published the notice of ab-normal occurrenccs in the Federal Register on May 19, 1982, after the deadline for filing of con tentions . NECNP had no previous know-ledge that this severe problem existed. Seco nd , there is no other

- means by which this issue can be dealt with. Although the En-vir onme ntal Protection Agency might have some jurisdiction over the means used to cleanse the intake pipe , only the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can impose requirements on the Applican t to maintain pipes in a debris-free condition and to keep the accumula-tion of fouling organisms under surveillance. If NECNP is not I

allowed to litigate this issue in the operating license proceeding, it will lose any opportunity to seek stricter safety measures from the Applicant in this r egard . Third, NECNP is a serious participant

! in this licensing proceeding , and we hope to assist in the develop men t of a sound record through the use of cross-examination i and e xper t witn es se s . Fourth, we are aware of no other par ty that has raised this specific issue, and therefore our interest c annot be represented by anyone else. Even if there were l

ano ther par ty who h ad r aised this issue, NECNP main tains that it is a distinct organiz ation with its own goals and purposes which are not necessarily the same as those of other organizations par t icip ati ng in this proceeding. Finally, NECNP does not believe the litigation of this issue will substantially delay this proceeding .

It is possible for the Appl ic an t to take some action based on in-formation currently available ; whatever additional time is required for discovery and exposition of the issue at the hearing is not apprecia-ble compared to the severity of the safety problem which it presents.

NECMP con te nds that the possibility that aquatic organisms may foul Seabrook cooling systems, as they have at other plants, and cause the loss of coolant, is too significan t an issue to be passed over by this Boar d .

V. NEPA Cost-Benefit Analysis The evaluation of costs and benefits under NEP A which, at the construction permit s tag e , w as found to weight in f avor of completing the Seabrook f acility, was inaccurate in that the costs associated I

with the back end of the nuclear f uel cycle were not given suf ficient consideration. The Table S-3 Rule, used by the Commission in its cos t /be nefi t analysis to assess the costs associated with the re-processing, storage and disposal of spent fuel and other nuclear wastes was recently invalidated by the D.C. Circuit i

bec ause they fail to allow for proper consideration of the uncer tainties concerning the long-term isolation

! of high-level and transuranic wastes , and because they fail to allow for proper consideration of the health , socioeconomic and cumulative effects of f uel-cycle activity.

l f Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear R egu l a to rv l Commission, No. 74-1586 (April 27, 1982), Slip op. at 11-12.

l

When an earlier S-3 Table was invalidated by the same court, the Appeal Board halted construction of the Seabrook plant based on the invalidity of the cost-benefit analysis. Public Service Comp an y o f New Hamps hire (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-349, 4 NRC 235, 271 (1976). Now the cost-benefit balance must be restruck once again, considering fully the costs associated with the back end of the fuel cycle. NECNP contends that the costs of the project f ar outweigh the benefits to be afforded, and that therefore NEP A requires either complete abandonment of the Seabrook facility or the substitution of less costly alternatives. In any event, an operating license may not be issued for the Seabr ook facility in the absence of a valid Environmental Impact Statement addressing the back end of the fuel cycle.

Basis : The National Environmental Policy Act requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement for every major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, which includes a discussion "any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented . " 42 U.S.C. 4332 (C). In the case of licensing nuclear power plants , adverse impacts include the impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle. Vermont Yank ee Nuclear Power Corp.

v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 539 (1978).

The Cour t of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently invalidated the S-3 Table, used by the NRC in the Seabrook construction permit proceeding to give values to the costs associated with the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The Court found the rule j to be invalid in that it failed to account for uncer tainties regarding L

the safe long-term disposal of nuclear wastes , and because it did not include consideration of health, socioeconomic, or cumulative effects. The court 's rejection o f the S-3 Table thus nullifies the original cost-benefit analysis done for the Seabrook facility and returns Seabrook to the point at which the Appeal Board h alt ed con str uction in 1978. In light of this development, the original analysis must be done again, incorporating valid and complete information concerning the back end of the fuel cycle. NECNP believes that for several reasons, a new cost-benefit analysis for the Seabrook facility would yield dif ferent results from the original analysis. The original S-3 Table gave virtually no significance to the long-term effects of nuclear wastes ; and the interim rule accorded virtually no weight to it. A reevaluation of the costs of the fuel cycle, incorporating the " uncertainties " of the fuel cycle, would sig-nifican tly add to the cost side of the equation. This is particularly signific an t in the case of Unit 2, which was only 9% complete in Augu s t of 1981. Moreover, there are other f actors which have come to lig ht over the years since the construction permit was issued and which would substantially change the balance of a new cost-benefi t equ ation . Most notably, the need for power factored into the original equation is now known to be much lower. The New England Power Pool, of which the Public Service Company of New Hampshire is a p ar t , expects to have an energy reserve of 42% this winter .

Justification for late filing : NECNP contenus that this contention should be admitted under the balancing test of 10 CFR 2.714. The Court 's decision was not handed down un til almost a week after NECNP

filed its original contentions; hence there was no way that NECNP could have filed it e ar lier . The NRC licensing proceeding is the only available forum for the litigation of this NEP A claim , g iving NECNP no other means of protecting its interest in a sound NEP A Analysis. NECNP hopes to call on its consultants and expert witnesses in the li tigation of this claim, and thereby make a significant contribution to the development of a sound record.

To our knowledge no other party has filed a similar contention.

NECNP does not expect the litigation of this issue to broaden the scope of this proceeding or delay it appreciably, as the mechanism for per forming a cost -benefit analysis is already in place, and the only changes which must be made involve the substitution of new information in the cost-benefit equation. A sound cost-benefit analysis is one of the cornerstones of a NEP A evaluation , and the Seabrook operating license decision cannot be allowed to rest on an analysis whose basis has been adjudged f aulty and misleading .

Respectfully submitted, William S. Jordan, III Diane J . Curr an liarmon & Weiss 1725 I street N .W .

Suite 506 Was ning ton , D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 Counsel for New England Coalition Nuclear Pollution

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t

' )

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket Nos. 50-443 HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444 i )

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

) .

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE i

Notice is hereby given that the undersigned appears in this proceeding on behalf of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution.

Addrecs: HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.

) Suitc'506 r Washington, D.C. 20006 Tclephone: (202) 833-9070' Admissions: Supreme Court of Michigan District of Columbia Court of Appealc U.S. District Court for the District of Colmnbia U.S. Court of Appealc for the Dictrict of Columbia Circuit

! Party represented: New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Respectfully submit +ed,

William S.. Jordan, III DATED

June 17, 1982 i

w-- g-- w-- n - ~ g-y% 3m, p - - , -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Diane Curran, hereby certify that on June 17, 1982, copies of NECNP's Response to Replies of the Applicant and the NRC Staff to NECNP's Contentions and NECNP's Supplemental contentions were mailed first class, postage pre-paid, or delivered by other means as specified below to:

• Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

• Dr. Emmeth A. LueLke Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Atomic Safety and Licensing Coastal Chamber of Commerce Board: Pan 61 209 Winnacunnet Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, D.C. 20555 Phillip Ahrens, Esq.

• Dr. Oscar H. Paris Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of the Attorney Board Panel General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Augusta, ME 04333 Washington, D.C. 20S55 Robert A. Backus, Esq.

• Atomic Safety and Licensing 111 Lowell Street Board Panel P.O. Box 516 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert L. Chiesa, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Appeal Board Panel Dunn, & Kohls U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 95 Market Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Manchester, NH 03101 Lynn Chong ** Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.

Cooperative Members for Responsible Ropes and Gray Investment 225 Franklin Street Box 65 Boston, MA 02110 Plymouth, NH 03264 Ms. Patti Jacobson Rep. Nicholas J. Costello 3 Orange Street Whitehall Road Newburyport, MA 01950 Amesbury, MA 01913 E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.

Donald L. Herzberg, M.D. Assistant Attorney General George Margolis, M.D. Office of the Atty. General Hitchcock Hospital 208 State House Annex Hanover, NH 03755 Concord, NH 03301

G .

• Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.

Rob e r t G . Perlis, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Edward J. McDermott, Esq.

Sanilers and McDermott Professional Association 408 Lafayette Road flam:pton, NIX 03842 Mr. Robert F. Preston 226 Winnacunnet Road Ilampton, N!! 03842 Wilf red II. Sanders, Jr., Esq.

Sanders and McDermott Professional Association 408 Enfayette Road

!!anpton, Nil 03842 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esq.

Ast;istant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Ms. Elizabeth 11. Weinhold 3 Godfrey Avenue Hrimpton, NII 03842 l

[

l

• By hand

'* By Federal Express Q n- .

Diane Curran

!