ML20071C776
| ML20071C776 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1983 |
| From: | Gad R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071C771 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8303080089 | |
| Download: ML20071C776 (7) | |
Text
.
Filcd: Frabruary 28, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
I (CD
(
aY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pd WWa before the
?
- ]
?SR O 7 WS3 > b ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD }
bI g-
,,..y, r-cm.
pc
\\;A-
-r - c,.<:
/.,
- s. _. /
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 & 2)
)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWERS TO "NECNP MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS BY APPLICANTS TO NECNP THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES ON CONTENTIONS I.A.2, I.B.1, I.B.2 AND I.C" Pursuant to 10 CFR $$ 2.730(c) and 2.740(f), the Applicants' hereby answer the "NECNP Motion to Compel Answers by Applicants to NECNP Third Set of Interrogatories on Contentions I.A.2, I.B.1, I.B.2 and I.C" served upon them by NECNP on February 16, 1983.
Interrogatory No. 7 By this interrogator'y, NECNP asked the Applicants to decribe a certain process "in detail."
The process
-J 0
8303080089 830228 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0
w referred to, however, is an ongoing, evolutionary process the commenc.ement of which long antedated the drafting of word one on the Seabrook construction permit application: namely, the~ decision making process
?
by which determinations have been made as to which equipment is " safety related" and which is not.
t Bearing in mind that the term safety-related means being necessary to the performance of certain functions 7
(see 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A), to a certain extent the question of what equipment and systems in any nuclear power reactor are safety-related is generic.
/
Likewise, the question of what systems and equipment in a particular manufacturer's PWR are safety-related is also to a certain extent generic to that manufacturer.
These generic propositions necessarily serve as starting points; they may, as well, survive as ultimate l
conclusions, at.least as to some systems.
- Finally,
-j ' when the process begins of designing a partcular I
reactor, the question of whether certain equipment snd systems are safety-related is obvious; one needs, for example, no detailed analysis or study to conclude that.
the reactor pressure vessel meets this test.
.,6.--+..
-_-__m,,,s...
g
As the design process progresses, the engineers have before them both the emerging design and whether particular pieces have theretofore been considered safety-related.
Should someone feel an item not so considered should be, or that an item considered safety-related is not, then the question is reconsidered -- and potentially it is considered and reconsidered each time an engineer contemplates each component of the plant.
There is no way this process can be described "in detail" beyond noting that at each point (or, perhaps more accurately, continuously) the thought prccess involves a comparison of the function of the equipment or system in question and the definition of what constitutes safety-related as provided by the regulations.
As a result of the nature of the process that NECNP wanted decribed, therefore, an answer in more " detail" was not possible -- nor, indeed, could answer such
" detailed" answer be meaningful.
No doubt the engineers could descr4'
-- in as much detail as might be desired -- why 1
.2 e v,rticular item is or is not considered safety >relatec, if a more precise question were posed.
The Applicants would be happy to explain /
why any particular itm is or is not considered safety-related, if NECNP will specify what it has in mind; and the Applicants did answer the only specific aspect contained in the interrogatory, namely, whether a probabilistic risk assessment was used as a part of the safety-related decisionmaking syllogism.
Beyond this, however, no further " detail" to this question, as framed, was.or is possible; the difficulty, we submit, lies with the question and not with the answer.
Interrogatory No. 17 There is a condition precedent that must be met by one who insists on a "yes" or "no" answer to a question: he must propound a question susceptible of a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
This interrogatory asked a question about inspection an'd maintenance durations of a long list of items, framed, however, in terms that implied -- contrary to fact -- that a single such duration applied to all the items on the list.
The fact of the matter, as the Applicants' answer reflects, is that different durations apply, depending on the different recommendations of the different manufacturers of the different items.
_4_
An interpretational problem does, however, now seem obvious with respect to this interrogatory.
The Applicants interpreted " yearly" to equate with
" periodic," in which case no answer to sub-part (a) beyond that given was called for.
NECNP, however, appears to have meant " yearly" to mean precisely
" calling for a period equal to or less than 365.25 days."
Given this interpretation, a further answer to sub-part (a) is called for, which the Applicants will supply as quickly as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
(
1 l
.h.
Thomas G.
D nan, Jr.
R.
K.
Gad I
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Telephone:
423-6100 Dated:
February 28, 1983
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
Robert K. Gad III, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on February 28, 1983, I made service of the within " Applicants' Answers to 'NECNP Motion to Compel Answers by Applicants to NECNP Third Set of Interrogatories on Contentions I.A.2, I.B.1, I.B.2 and I.C'"
by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Atomic Safety and Licensing Coastal Chamoer of Commerce Board Panel 209 Winnacunnet Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20555 1
Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke William S.
Jordan, III, Esquire I
Atomic Safety and Licensing Harmon & Weiss Board Panel 1725 I Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 506 Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20006 Dr. Jerry Harbour E. Tupper Kinder, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 208 State House Annex Washington, DC 20555 Concord, NH 03301 Atomic Safety and Licensing Roy P.
- Lessy, Jr., Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, PC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Robert A. Backus, Esquire Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington,- DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 )
r_._____-__..___.
_.______m
Philip Ahrens, Esquire Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Assistant Attorney General.
Sanders and McDermott Department of the Attorney Professional Association General 408 Lafayette Road Augusta, ME 04333 Hampton, NH 03842 i
David L.
Lewis Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of the Attorney General Rm. E/W-439 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Mr. John B.
Tanzer Ms. Olive L. Tash Designated Representative of Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton the Town of Brentwood 5 Morningside Drive R.F.D.
1, Dalton Road Hampton, NH 03842 Brentwood, NH 03833 Roberta C.
Pevear Edward F. Meany Designated Representative of Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton Falls the Town of Rye Drinkwater Road 155 Washington Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis*
Calvin A. Canney Designated Representative of City Manager the Town of Kensington City Hall RED 1 126 Daniel Street East Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Patrick J. McKeon Selectmen's Office 10 Central Road Rye, NH 03870
\\
(
Robert K.
Gad I
'. _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _