ML20078G005

Answer Opposing Limerick Ecology Action Respec of Contention I-41 Re Exacerbation of Accidents.Contention Lacks Basis & Specificity.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20078G005
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	10/06/1983
From:	Wetterhahn M PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20078F982	List: ML20078F980 ML20078F985 ML20078F993 ML20078F998 ML20078G005
References
NUDOCS 8310110292
Download: ML20078G005 (11)

Text

. ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

Philadelphia Electric Company , Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

o APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION'S RESPECIFICATION OF CONTENTION I-41 i

N Preliminary Statement On September 28, 1983, Limerick Ecology Action (" LEA")

submitted a respecification of Contention I-41 entitled

" Exacerbation of Accidents." It is essentially the same contention filed by LEA on April 12, 1983 with the addition of a quotation from the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Iimerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0991 (August 1983) ("SER").

In its Memorandum and Order Confirming Schedules Established During Prehearing Conference (May 16, 1983) i (slip op, at 8), the Licensing Board stated that this j contention could be respecified and refiled at an appropriate time after the Staff's analyses of these issues as applied to Limerick became available. In its Memorandum and Order Shortening Schedule for Answers to Respecification i

of LEA Contention I-41 (October 3, 1983) (slip op, at 1),

the Board directed that Applicant's ,

answer to this B310110292 831006

PDR ADOCK 05000352 G PDR

contention be received by the NRC Staff by October 7, 1983 and by the Board and LEA by October 11, 1983.

Argument Applicant opposes admission of respecitied Contention I-41. Applicant submits that the Staff's analysis of Unresolved Safety Issues ," USI") A-17 and A-47, the subject of this contention, meets the requirements of North Annal!

in that the Staff's perception of the naturp and extent of the relationship between each significant unbesolved generic safety question and the operation of the reactor under scrutiny has been adequately analyzed and discussed in the SER. The Staff's presentation is a reasonable discussion of the considerations which led it to the conclusion that an operating license can be issued even if the generic issues remain unresolved. The discussion of the matters in the SER is more than simply boilerplate, as alleged by LEA.

It is Applicant's position that adherence to the Commission's current licensing requirements assures that systems interaction has been adequately taken into account in the facility design. The Commission has explicitly stated that the Staff shculd continue to use contormance to l_/ Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-491, 8 NRC 245, 248 n.6 (1978). .

i l

4 regulatory requirements as the exclusive licensing basis for nuclear power plants.2/

In assessing the adequacy of the proposed contention against the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S2.714, it must be t

recognized that the nature of the action plan tor USI A-17 is different thaa most USI's in that it seeks to identify undetected problems rather than solve a specific problem.3_/

LEA has failed to identify any sys$ ems interaction that has not been considered and, additionally, has failed to identify any structure, system, or component that is o

improperly classified. Thus, this contention would place the Applicant and Staff in the position of having to prove the negative, i.e., that there are no undiscovered system interactions of importance.

This contention must be viewed against the state of the Limerick applicucion. There is sufficient information in 4 the docket that, consistent with the requirements of CatawbaA! LEA should have alleged specific structures, systems or components it believed to be improperly 2/ Policy Statement on Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants, 48 Fed. Reg. 10772 (March 14, 1983).

~

3/ Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) , LBP-83-57 (September 21, 1983) (slip op. at 162).

4/ Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC (June 30, 1983).

1

classified, or systems interactions not properly considered.

Further, LEA should have identified, with particularity, the nature of such alleged inadequacies. The existence of a specific Probabilistic Risk Assessment (including the original Probabilistic Risk Assessment as supplemented by the Se'ere Accident Risk Assessment (" SARA")) for the Limerick Station, which utilizes a sophisticated fault tree and event tree methodology,,5_/ creates an obligation on the part of an intervenor to submit more than a general allegation of inadequacy., The SARA analysis included a fire hazards and flooding analysis. A complete fire hazards study was also separately conducted.b Furthermore, analyses of such items as high energy line breaks,7/ TMI-2 implications,b studies of the potential for, and ef fects of, both internal and external missiles,E analysis of heavy loads E and analysis of failure of all nonseismic 5/ These trees, which include proprietary material, were made available to LEA during informal discovery.

-6/ Fire Protection Evaluation Report. This report is a part of the application for an operating license.

7/ FSAR Section 3.6. See also Response to Question 410.16.

8) FSAR Section 1.13.

9/ FSAR 53.5.

-10/ See submittals dated June 18, 1981, September 22, 1981, April 2, 1982 and January 31, 1981 in response to NRC Letter dated December 22, 1980.

Category I equipmentE/ provide assurance that system interactions have been adequately considered at Limerick.

When viewed against this background, the Staff's analysis of USI A-17 is substantive, informative and fulfills the requirements of North Anna. Even if LEA's general complaint that the Staff's treatment of systems interaction might be applicable to any other plant were correct, that fact alone does not raise a litigable issue.

It merely amou ts to LEA's acknowledgement that the Commission's handling of these issues is consistent and that no particular problem has been identified at Limerick. In short, LEA has wholly failed to satisfy the requirements of specificity and bases in proposing this contention.

With regard to Subsection (b) of Contention I-41, there is no discussion whatsoever regarding any inadequacy in the Staff's presentation regarding USI A-47 appearing on pages C-14 through C-16 of the Staff SER, nor is any specificity or bases provided for this portion of the contention.

The Commission's precedents regarding contentions raising such generic issues are clear that this lack of specificity and bases is fatal. In the Clinton proceeding, the Licensing Board rejected practically the same contention M/ See Response to Question 410.78.

on systems interaction.S/ Moreover, in the Diablo Canyon proceeding, the Appeal Board affirmed a determination by the Licensing Board that there is no "rcquirement in the regulations" for a system interaction analysis.E/ Relying upon this holding, the Licensing Board in the Seabrook proceeding likewise agreed that intervenor "has not identified any statutory or regulatory basis to establish that 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A requires analysis of systems interactfion. "

Inn addition to lacking any regulatory basis, the proposed contention lacks bases and specificity. In rejecting a like contention in Catawba, the Board ruled:

LIntervenor] makes no attempt to establish a nexus between the undefined systems interation problems encountered at other reactors and Catawba, to M/ Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station, Unit No.

1) , LBP-82-103, 16 NRC 1603, 1608 (1982). The Board cited and relied upon the Appeal Board decisions in Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760 (1977) and North Anna, supra. See also Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclsar Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-739, 18 NRC (September 7, 1983) (slip op. at 8, n.8);

Jersey Central Power and Light Company (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-645, 13 NRC 1024 (1981).

M/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-27, 14 NRC 325, 331 (1981), aft'd, ALAB-728, 17 NRC (May 18, 1983)

(slip op at 57-59).

14/ Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) , LBP-82-76, 16 NRC 1029, 1034 (1982), recon. denied, LBP-82-106, 16 NRC 1649, 1658 (1982).

l

. -7_

identify the specific systems of concern, or to postulate the kind of impact that might endanger the safety and health of the general public.

Consequently, this contention is much too vague to be admitted and is disallowed.15/

Similarly, in the Shearon Harris proceeding, the Licensing Board rejected a contention which failed "to identify specific problems or particular systems that might interact,

, and to postulate the possible consequences as a basis. "E!

Thus, even if LEA did not have to meet the special e requirements tor raising a generic issue, its mere allusion to possible problems is too vague to be admissible. E 15/ Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-16, 15 NRC 566, 586 (1982), recon.

denied, LBP-82-51, 16 NRC 167, 173 (1982).

16/ Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket No. 50-400-OL,

" Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Conference)" (September 22, 1982)

(slip op. at 37).

E.g., Carolina Power and Light Company (H.B. Robinson M/ Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2), Docket No. 50-261-OLA,

" Memorandum and Order (Report on Special Prehearing Conference Held Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.751a)" (April 12, 1983) (slip op. at 25-26).

- 8-Conclusion hor the foregoing reasons, respecified contention I-41 should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

m

~

Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicant

' October 6, 1983 s

W g _-

W,

, 9 f

e O

b m

I a-t w.,..--.e- .,-.,-,v.- ..-~.y .. , -.,.,_.-w-~ ,g,,.,rm-.,,m---,.,n-.r,r ,,.r.~,,m .v -v,~.-y---a. e n., , - -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter ot )

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies ot:

1. Applicant's Notification of Transmittal of Additional Material Regarding Limerick Ecology Action's Contention I-42;

2. Applicant's Answer to Limerick' Ecology Action's Respecification of Contention I-41;

3. Letter to Docketing and Service Section enclosing

" Affidavit of Vincent S. Boyer, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power, Philadelphia Electric Company";

4. Applicant's Answer to Motions to Reword Contentions I-62 and V-4;

5. Applicant's Answer to Friends of the Earth Petition for Extension of Time and Scheduling of Evidentiary Hearings After January 1, 1984 and Motion to Dismiss Contentions V-3a and V-3b or, Alternatively, for Other Sanctions, all dated October 6, 1983 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 6th day of October, 1983:

Judge Lawrence Brenner (2) Docketing ano Osrvice Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 WasPington, D.C. 20555

• Hand Delivery

• Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq. Elaine I.

Judge Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Chan, Esq. Counsel for NRC Board Staff Office of the Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Legal Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington: D.C. 20555

• Judge Peter A. Morris Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Philadelphia Electric Company Appeal Panel ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Vice President &

Commission General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Mr. Frank R. Romano David Wersan, Esq. Consumer 61 Forest Avenue Assistant Advocate Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Office of Consumer Advocate 1425 Strawberry Square Mr. Robert L. Anthony Harrisburg, PA 17120 Friends of the Earth of the Delawr.re Valley Steven P. Hershey, Esq.

P. O. Box 186 Community Legal 103 Vernon Lane Services, Inc.

Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 Law Center North Central Beury Bldg.

Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 3701 North Broad Street 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, PA 19140 Philadelphia, PA 19149 Angus Love, Esq.

• • Judith A. Dorsey, Esq. 101 East Main Street 1315 Walnut Street Norristown, PA 19401 Suite 1632 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Mr. Joseph H. White, III 8 North Warner Avenue Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 Brose and Postwistilo 1101 Building Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

lith & Northampton Streets Sugarman & Denworth Suite Easton, PA 18042 510 North American Building 121 South Broad Street Jacqueline I. Ruttenberg Philadelphia, PA 19107 Keysteon Alliance 3700 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104

• Hand Delivery

• • Federal Express i

Thomas Y. Au, Esq. Assistant Director, Pennsylvania Counsel Commonwealth of Emergency Management Agency Pennsylvania Basement, Transportation DER and Safety Building 505 Executive House Harrisburg, PA 17120 P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Martha W. Bush, Esq.

Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.

Thomas Gerusky, Director City of Philadelphia Bureau of Radiation Municipal Services Bldg.

Protection 15th and JFK Blvd.

Department at Environmental Philadelphia, PA 19107 Resources 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg. Spence W. Perry, Esq.

Third and Locust Streets Associate General Counsel Harrisburg, PA 17120 Federal Emergency Management Agency Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq. 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20472 Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Zori G. Ferkin Assistant Counsel Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Governor's Energy Council P.O. Box 8010 1625 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17105

/l l//

16 -

M4rk C. Wetterhahn