ML20214T178
| ML20214T178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1986 |
| From: | Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1782 OL-1, NUDOCS 8612080510 | |
| Download: ML20214T178 (11) | |
Text
_
- (77L DOCKETED U'iNPC 26 DEC -5 A11
- 54 Dated:
December 1, 1986 gr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA iHK NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
l
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL-1
)
(On-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
Planning and Safety
)
Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' REPLY TO PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND BRIEFS OF MASS. AG, SAPL AND NECNP A.
Reply to Mass. AG and SAPL The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mass. AG) and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) have filed proposed findings and rulings and briefs only with respect to Contention SAPL-Supp.
6.
With respect to this contention, both of these parties proceed from at least two erroneous premises.
To begin with, each argues on the basis that the issue remaining in the case, is, whether, as a matter of law, the 8612090510 861201 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
PDR n
i SPDS must be " complete" (complete being defined as fully in compliance with the Staff's present views of what a complete SPDS should contain).
See Mass. AG Br. at 2-3; SAPL. at 4.
Assuming this issue ever was in the case, (a proposition which is by no meane clear), that issue was gone as of the time the Board issued its decision granting partial summary disposition of this contention.
ASLB Mem. and ord.
(unpublished) (Sept. 15,1986).
After that decision, the only issue left was, assuming the existence of the deficiencies enumerated by the Staff (which the Staff itself is content to have corrected by the first refueling outage),
was there still reasonable assurance that the safety of the public in the immediate vicinity of the plant would be protected.
Id. at 19.
The issue of whether the SDPS must be " complete" (i.e. in full conformance with the Staff
" position) has been ruled upon.
It is a narrower issue that remains.
The second erroneous premise which underlies the arguments of Mass. AG and SAPL is the concept that NUREG-0737 Supp.
1.
is a regulation which must be met prior to operation, and failure to do so requires. denial of a license.
NUREG-0737 Supp.
1, like all regulatory quides, is only that.
Regulatory Guides are not regulations of the Commission.
E.g. Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 772 (1977).
I -
! 'a l-Starting from these erroneous premises Mass. AG and SAPL then proceed to argue for the proposition that unless a SPDS is in total conformity with the Staff's current position sa to necessary features, no license may issue.
This is not the law.
Indeed, even NUREG-0737. Supp. 1 does not supply
~
l any basis for such a ruling.
NUREG-0737, Supp. 1 assumes
)
l that operations will take riace prior to full compliance, requiring only that a schedule for implementation be formulated and agreed to by the NRC's Plant Project Manager.
Letter Eisenhut to Licenses etc. enclosing NUREG-0737 Supp. 1 (Dec. 17, 1982) at 2.
l The fact is that the SPDS issue at Seabrook is a non-issue.
SAPL and Mass. AG in their voluminous filings raise not one fact to rebut the proposition that none of the
" deficiencies" will have a meaningful effect upon operator reactions and response time in an accident situation.
Tr.
986-89.
In light of this, the entire theory of the proponents of SAPL Supp. 6 is easily, and should be, rejected.
B.
Reply to NECNP NECNP's basis for seeking a negative finding on the Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment (E.Q.)
issue consists of a long recitation of the legal history of a
E.Q. NECNP Br. at 1-8, and then a listing of'four specific alleged deficiencies in the Applicant E.Q. program:
1.
Alleged inadequate test sequences for submerged equipment 2.
Alleged incomplete documentation of qualification methodology 3.
Alleged failure to provide adequte descriptions and analyses in support of qualifications by comparison 4.
Installation instructions that are allegedly inconsistent with a component's environmental qualification design.
NECNP Br. 9.
This is then followed by a general allegation (without record citations at all) of a " pattern of wide-ranging and repetitious deficiencies revealed in this hearing record" and " systemic and pervasive '.
noncompliance with the NRC's environmental qualification requirements."
Id.
None of the allegations, even if they were true, have anything to do with the issue here involved.
The only contention in this proceeding is a contention that the applicants "have not specified the time duration over which the equipment is qualified."
NECNP Contention I.B.2.
NECNP wants now to expand that contention to an audit of the files to see if the program was (a) correctly designed and (b) correctly carried out.
These may be legitimate operating license issues under a properly framed contention, but they are not relevant issues under the one E.Q. contention extant
_4_
a in this case.
Here the contention as worded raised only the issue of whether or not the time durations have been specified, and even NECNP, by its silence on the question, appears to admit they have been.
NECNP is stuck with the words of its own contention.
Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 709 (1985); Id. ALAB 836, 23 NRC 479, 505 (1986).
It is to late to change it now.
And in any event, the allegations are unsupported, as seen below.
1.
Alleged Inadequate Test Sequences For Submerged Equipment This allegation is based on alleged inadequacy in the testing of 300 volt instrument cable and a level transmitter.
With respect to the 300 volt cable, it was subjected to 100 days of severe testing after being thermally aged to end of life and subjected to 2.2 x 10' rads of radiation; in addition, it was subjected to temperatures, chemical assault and pressures all in excess of anything it will ever see in an accident in the plant; it was then submerged in an autoclave for one hour and little, if any, degradation of insulation was observed.
Tr.
397-404.
All of this is more than adequate testing.
The allegation with respect to the level transmitter is based unon the omission of an originally scheduled pressure test and substitution of a visual inspection for leak tightness. _. _ - - - -. _ -.
3 Tr. 454.
NECNP offers no evidence or even argument that the visual inspection was somehow inadequate.
2.
Incomplete Documentation Of Qualifications Methodology This allegation is based on NECNP's views of what the degree of detail in an equipment qualification file has to be.
For example, the words " exactly similar" which does not mean the "same" should, according to NECNP, be accompanied in the file by an explanation of whatever differences exist, even though the witness said the phrase means "similar within the bounds of environmental qualification."
Tr. 369.
A similar argument for detailed comparison is made with reference to coaxial cable.
See NECNP Prop. Find., 11 11-19.
NECNP wants downgrades in operability codes included in E.Q. files.
NECNP Prop. Find., 11 20-24, 28-29.
These records are kept, but not as part of the E.Q. files.
See Tr. 392.
Indeed, the Staff does not consider absence from the file of information in the Applicants' possession a significant defiency under any circumstances.
Tr. 703.
Much is made of a clerical error where "no" instead of "yes" was checked in an E.Q. worksheet, Tr. 446, NECNP Prop. Find.
1 30 and the failure to give a full explanation in the E.Q.
files of the reason why the pressure test on the level transmitter was eliminated is again excoriated.
See supra.
0 One clerical error and NECNP's personal views as to the detail required to be in an E.Q. file hardly amount to a case of " incomplete documentation."
3.
Failure To Provide Adequate Descriptions And Analyses In Support Of Qualification By Comparison This is simply a rerun of the insufficient detail argument.
NECNP wants the E.Q. file to contain every detail of difference where tests of similar equipment, ac opposed to identical equipment, are relied upon.
No such list of detail is needed or required.
4.
Installation Instructions That Are Inconsistent With A Component's Environmental Qualification Design This entire charge is based upon the history of the installation of the level transmitter described earlier.
It admittedly is not "as built" in conformity with certain drawings.
However, the uncontrovertible evidence is that this has no effect on environmental qualification in the opinion of Mr. Woodard, an opinion based upon numbers derived from a walkdown evaluation of the plant "as built."
Tr. 457.
In light of the foregoing, even were they relevant to the contention at issue, which they are not, NECNP's charges 7-
.-e--
,,--,,.n,
..-_.,,,.,-n-,,,
.v,,-
a of " wide ranging and repetitious deficiencies" and " systemic and pervasive noncompliance" ring extremely hollow.
CONCLUSION Given the lack of any proposed findings from the opposition on the Emergency Action Level (EAL) contentions:
NECNP III.1 and NH-20, these matters are no longer even contested.
The filings with respect to SAPL Supp. 6 (SPDS) and NECNP I.B.2 (E.Q.) provide no substance for a finding of validity of those contentions.
An initial decision authorizing issuance of the requested 5% license should issue.
Respectfully submicted, Thomas G.' DignafifJr.
R. K. Gad III 1
Kathryn A Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for Applicants 4
0 00LKETEP UiNPC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE one of the attorneys SEE Obe-5 N154 '
I, Thomas G.
- Dignan, Jr.,
Applicants herein, hereby certify that on December 1,
- 1986, I made service of the within document by depositing 06 p,ies3g..an -
thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for deliveryotpu(or,;, nim where indicated, by depositing in the United States mailPAMM first class postage paid, addressed to):
Administrative Judge Sheldon J.
Robert Carrigg, Chairman Wolfe, Esq., Chairman, Atomic Board of Selectmen Safety and Licensing Board Panel Town Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atlantic Avenue Commission North Hampton, NH 03862 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Diane Curran, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing' Andrea C.
Ferster, Esquire Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 430 Commission 2001 S Street, N.W.
East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20009 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General East West Towers Building 25 Capitol Street 4350 East West Highway Concord, NH 03301-6397 Bethesda, MD 20814
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Tenth Floor 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105
_. _. _. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - - - - - - ~,
t O
Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S.
Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor P.O.
Box 360 Boston, MA 02108 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RED 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S.
Senate Chairman of the Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn:
Tom Burack)
Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter J. Matthews 1 Pillsbury Street Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F.
Powers, III Mr. William S.
Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen 4
Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton' Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquiro Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 i
4 P 1
. W
s
-o Mr. Ed Thomas Judith H. Mizner, Esquire FEMA, Region I Silverglate, Gertner, Baker, 442 John W. McCormack Post Fine, Good & Mizner Office and Court House 88 Broad Street Post Office Square Boston, MA 02110 Boston, MA 02109 Charles P. Graham, Esquire McKay, Murphy and Graham 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913
'W 2 /dd d T omas'G. D g (tf, Jr.
(*= Ordinary U.S.
First Class Mail.)
t l - _
_