ML20150C589
| ML20150C589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1988 |
| From: | Berry G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5853 OL-1, NUDOCS 8803210102 | |
| Download: ML20150C589 (9) | |
Text
_ _
Qfd 03/11/88 DOCKETED USNiiC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'88 HAR 18 A11:25
[g
,]Qg
DEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD fiRc e In the Matter of
)
}
Docket Nos. 50-443 01.-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et g.
)
On-site Emergency Planning
)
and Safety issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NECNP MOTION FOR RErnNSIDERATION OF THE BOAR _D'S DENIAL OF NECNP'S MOTION TO COMPEL lNTRODUCTION On February 17, 1988, the Licensing Board issued and order denying a motion filed by New England Ccalition On Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) requesting that Applicants be compelled to respond to certain interrogatories and produce documents concerning the subject of microbiologically induced corrosion
("MIC"). O The Board denied NECNP's motion on the ground that MIC was not within the scope of any admitteo contention and thus not relevant to any issue in the case.
See Memorandum and Order at 5.
On March 1, 1988, NECNP filed a motion requesting the Board to reconsider this determination, in its motion, NECNP argues that the scope of its contention (NECNP Contention IV) is broad enough to embrace the issue of microbiologically induced corrosion.
Motion at 2-0.
As explained below, NECNP Contention IV raises a
-1/
Memorandum and Order (Granting NECNP's Motion For Leave; Denying N6CNP's Motion To Compel)
(February 17, 1988)
(unpu blished).
k09@K05000443 2 880311 G
PDR W
concern only with respect to possible blockage of the flow of cooling water caused by the accumulation of mollusks, other aquatic organisms, and debris.
MIC does not raise the specter of cooling water blockage.
Therefore, the Board correctly denied NECNP's motion to compel discovery on this subject.
NECNP has presented no persuasive reasons demonstrating that the Board's determination was erroneous.
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration should be denied.
BACKGROUND NECNP Contention IV states-Blockace of Coolant Flow to Safety-Related Systems and Components by Buildup of Biological Organisms The Applicants 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, and 39, which require the maintenance and inspection of reactor cooling sy stems.
The
- design, construction, and proposed operation of Seabrook fall to satisfy these requirements.
(emphasis added).
The sole basis for NECNP's contention was a Federal Register notice i
l issued by the Commission en May 19, 1982 (47 Fed. Reg. 21653),
l concerning the "accumulation of asiatic clams, mussels, and other aquatic organisms in reactor cooling systems which had hitherto gone unnoticed."
Contention IV.
in that notice, the Commission stated that blockage of cooling systems by biological organisms could cause "possible degradation l
of the heat transfer capabilities of redundant safety systems to the point 1
where system function is lo st. "
Id.,
quoting 47 Fed. Reg. at 21655.
On December 23, 1987, NECNP served upon Applicants its "Second l
l Set of interrogatories and Recuest for tr.' Production of Documents on
NECNP Contention IV" In which it propounded several Interrogatories seeking information regarding microbiologically induced corrosion.
Applicants responded to NECNP's discovery requ -sts, but maintained that many of them were objectionable on the g rounc that the information concerning MIC was not relevant to the admitted. contention.
See Applicants' Response To NECNP's Second Set Of Interrogatories (January 14, 1988).
On January 25, 1988, NECNP moved to compel Applicants to respond, to which Applicants responded on February 2,1988.
NECNP filed a reply to Applicants' response on February 10, 1988.
I On February 17, 1988, the Board issued a decision denying NECNP's motion to compel discovery. 2_/
The Board reached this result because a careful reading of NECNP Contention IV revealed that its focus was on i
the potential for blockage of the Seabrook cooling system resulting from 1
the accu:aulation of aquatic organisms and debris.
See Memorandum and Order at 5-6.
The danger of blockage of cooling Water flow is not presented by microbiologically induced corrosion.
See Id. at 6.
On March 1,
- 1988, NECNP filed the instant motion for reconsideration.
DISCUSSION NECNP's motion must be denied because it rests entirely upon the l
proposition that Contention IV relates to concerns other than the blockage l
of cooling systems caused by the accumulation of aquatic organisms and l
l l
2/
See n.1, supra.
i l
l l
l
~
_y_
debris.
This proposition, however, is contradicted by the language of Contention IV itself:
The Applicants must establish a
surveillance and maintenance program for the prevention of the accumulation o'f ~
- mollusks, other aquatic organisras and debrTs ~ ~ln cooling systems...
NFCNP Contention IV (emphasis added).
There is nothing ambiguous about the thrust of this contention.
As the Board has noted, "it is clear to this Board from a reading of the contention that it is limited to asserting concerns that Applicants must establish a surveillance and maintenance program for the prevention of the accumulation of mollusks, cther aquatic organisms, and debris in Seabrook's cooling systems in order to satisfy certain General Design Criteria." Memorand_u_m and Order at 5 (emphasis in original).
The Appeal Board similarly understood NECNP's contention to be so limit ed.
In ruling that the Licensing Board had erred in rejecting the contention at the threshold, the Appeal Board stated:
l l
[T]he contention exter Js more broadly to the possible degradation of the heat removal capability of cooling water systems at Seabrook as a result of the accumulation of marine
~
l oraanisms or_ debris.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-875, 26 NRC slip op. at 19 (October 1, 1987) (emphasis added).
The conclusion that Contention IV is limited to a concern with blockage of cooling systems caused by the accumulation of aquatic organisms and debris is further buttressed by the Federal Register notice referenced by NECNP as the basis for the contention.
The term "microbiologically induced corrosion" is not once mentioned in the notice nor is the subject discussed.
See 47 Fed. Reg. 2153-56.
Rather, a cursory reading of the notice reveals that the Commission's purpose in issuing the notice was to alert the public that the "heat transfer capabilities in some safety-related and non-safety-related cooling systems were degraded by unanticipated blockage of the coolant flow paths," the principal cause of which was a "buildup of biological organisms," such as Asiatic clams and mussels.
Id. at 21653.
It is clear from the notice that the Commission was concerned with a possible blockage of coolant flow caused by the accumulation of mussels, Asiatic clams, other aquatic organisms, and aebris inside cooli.ig systems.
The primary danger posed by microbiologically hduced corrosion, however, is not coohng water flow blockage but rather cooling water leakage resulting from degradation of the exterior walls of pipes, in view of these considerations, NECNP's egument that its contention encompasses the subject of microbiologically induced corrosion, when the contention is based entirely on a document that does not even mention the term, much less discusses the subject, The Board correctly concluded that the question of strains cre ullty.
microbiologically induced corrosion was beyond the scope of Contention IV.
Nothing in NECNP's motion to compel indicates that this conclusion 1
-3/
Since it is apparent from the text of NECNP Contention IV that the focus of the contention is the possible flow blockage of cooling water, it is unnecessary for the. Board to consider the Lost hoc interpretation of the contention offered by N E C N P's a f fiant,
Dr. James Bryers.
Dr. Bryers opinion as to what NECNP intended I
by its contention offered ain'est six years after the contention was l
first proffered is entitled to little, if any, weight.
As explained l
above, the best evidence of what the contention means are the terms l
of the contention itself and the Federal Register notice which formed I
the basis for it.
l l
was w rong.
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration should be denied. E L.
CONCLUSION NECNP'S motion for reconsideration should be denied, sectfully submitted, h
f k
er g n
e Counsel I 3r N, C Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 11th day of March 1988 4/
Should NECNP desire to pursue its concern over MIC, the proper ccurse is for NECNP to follow the procedures set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(1) governing amended and late-filed contentions, l
00LKEiED USCC
.g g 18 mt :25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OUICt. J iEWI AC 00CKEi g y Ei'VICI-REFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ROARD In the Matter of
.)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
I On-site Emergency Planning
-~
)
and Safety issues (Seabrook Station, Units i and 2
)
CERTIFICATE OF SEFNICE_
i hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NECNP MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD'S DENIAL OF NECNP'S MOTION TO COMPEL" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 11th dey of Arch 1988.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative.'udge Board
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Docketing and Service Section*
Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Bor.rd U.S. Nuc: ear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Administrative Judge Robert K. Cad, Ill, Esq.
l 5500 Friendship Boulevard Ropes t, Gray Apartment 1923N 225 Franklin Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing H. J. Flynn, Esq.
Appeal Panel
- Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC 20555 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472
Philip Ahren, Esq.
Calvin A. Canney Assistant Attorney General City Hail Office of the Attorney General 126 Daniel Street State House Station Portsmouth, NH 03801 Augusta, ME 00333 Mr. Angle Machiros, Chairman Carol S. Sneider, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Assistant Attorney General 25 High Road Office of the Attorney General Newbury, MA 09150 One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Allen Lampert Assistant Attorney General Civil Defense Director l
Office of the Attorney General Town of Brentwood 1
25 Capitol Street 20 Franklin l
Concord, NH 03301 Exeter, NH 03833 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
William Armstrong i
Diane Curran, Esq.
Civil Defense Director Harmon & Weiss Town oF Exeter 2001 S Street, NW 10 Front Street l
Suite 430 Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, DC 20009 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Holmes & Ellis 116 Lowell Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Manchester, NH 03106 Hampton, NH 03842 Paul McEachern, Esq.
J. P. Nadeau Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
Board of Selectmen l
Shalnes & McFachern 10 Central Street l
25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH 03870 P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
l Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Silverglate, Gertner, Baker, i
McKay, Murphy & Graham Fine S Good 100 Main Street 88 Board Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Boston, MA 02110 Sandra Cavutis, Chairman Robert Carrigg, Chairman Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen RFD #1, Box 1154 Town Office Kensington, NH 03827 Atlantic Avenue North 11ampton, NH 03870 1
l l
t
Willism S. Lord Peter J. Matthews, Mayor Boa-d of Selectmen City Hall Town Hall - Friend Street Newburyport, MN 09150 Amesbury, MA 01913
' Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Road South Hampton, NH 03827 Durham, NH 03824 Hon. Cordon J. Humphrey l
United States Senate 531 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 0
Awshb%
1 Cregorypdan J3&ry l.
Counsel (for NGC Staff l
i i
t l
{
1 I
l l
l