ML20215N612
| ML20215N612 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1986 |
| From: | Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1372 OL-1, NUDOCS 8611070073 | |
| Download: ML20215N612 (9) | |
Text
4 j31k a
.31 Dated:
October 30,T$94EV -3 PS :11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[0di D NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL-1
)
Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
Planning Issues
)
)
APPLICANTS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER Introduction This brief parallels the format utilized in the Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Proposed Form-of Order filed herewith.
Its purpose is to address the various legal and factual issues in summary
-form and to provide justification for the making by the Board of the rulings and findings proposed by the Applicants.
8611070073 861030
{DR ADOCK 05000 3
),JC
4 0
I.
THE PROPOSED PROCEDURAL HISTORY FINDINGS'ARE APPROPRIATE TO THE DECISION AND, WE BELIEVE, UNCONTESTED The Applicants have included as Paragraphs 1-26 of the Applicants Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Proposed Form of Order (hereafter cited " App. Prop.") a procedural history of the proceeding.
We believe these proposed findings are appropriate to the decision inasmuch as they demonstrate the resolution of all contentions filed
~
with respect to "onsite" matters which must be resolved prior to authorization of low-power operation.
Therefore, we urge inclusion of App. Prop. 1 1 - 26 in the Partial Initial Decision.
II.
CONTENTIONS NECNP III.1 AND NH CLASSIFICATION SCHEME AND EMERGENCY ACTION LEVELS App. Prop. 1 27-43 deal with NECNP Contention III.1 and NH Contention 20 both of which raised the issue of whether the onsite emergency action plan contains an appropriate energency classification and action level scheme.
The Commission's Regulations, 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(4), require that the onsite emergency plan contain "a standard emergency classification and action level scheme".
Guidance as to the items necessary for inclusion in such a scheme is found in
" Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological
" ergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants."
NUREG-0654, FEMA Rep-1, Appendix 1.
! l l
-9 :
Compliance with NUREG-0654, at least in the absence of any evidence to the contrary,' constitutes compliance with the emergency planning regulations of the Commission.
See Louisiana ~ Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1076, 1094 (1983).
Well-qualified' witnesses on behalf of the Applicants and the Staff have testified that_the Seabrook. Emergency Action Levels are complete and that all necessary example events listed in NUREG-0654'are satisfactorily addressed.
App.
~
Prop. 11 38, 40.
Not only has no direct evidence been offered to contradict this testimony, but also the testimony was admitted by stipulation and not even cross-examined.
Tr. 485-87, 489.
In reality these contentions are no longer contested.
III. CONTENTION NECNP I.B.2-ELECTRICAL. EQUIPMENT ENVIRON-MENTAL QUALIFICATION TIME DURATION NECNP Contention I.B.2.
is narrow in scope and reads as
.follows:
"The Applicant has not satisfied the requirements of.GDC 4 that all equipment important to safety be environmentally qualified because it has not specified time duration over which the equipment is-qualified."
The contention as framed is limited to an assertion that time durations are not specified.
As was made crystal clear in both'the 1983 Seabrook hearings and the 1986 Seabrook i
i l
4 hearings, time durations have been specified and demonstrated to be appropriate.
Time durations for purposes of environmental qualification of electrical equipment are generally analyzed in two segments.
The first segment is the time for which the equipment is qualified to perform in a normal (pre-accident) environment.
App. Prop..1 47.
In the case of Seabrook the pre-accident qualification time is the life of the plant, or, if that is impossible, for a shorter period, upon the passage of which-the equipment must be replaced or requalified.
App. Prop. 1 48.
This aspect of environmental qualification is not challenged-in this record.
The second aspect of environmental qualifications-is the time period during which equipment is qualified to perform in the harsh (post-accident) environment.
App. Prop. 1 47.
The Applicants have selected as the generic standard one year.
App. Prop. 1 49.
The Staff believes that-a conservative generic standard'is 100 days. Id.
There was no evidence offered to the contrary and a finding that the standard applied by the Applicants (one year) is wholly justified.
The record in this case demonstrates clearly that Applicants have identified all equipment which must be environmentally qualified.
App. Prop. 1 50.
Only nine items turned out not to be qualifiable in the harch -
t (post-accident) environment for one year.
App. Prop. 1 51.
Engineering analyses have been done with respect to each of those items which demonstrate that each of these items is qualified for a time longer than the actual required post-accident operability duration in the harshest environment it will face.
App. Prop. 1 52.
No evidence was
, offered which contradicts the conclusions reached in these analyses.
Indeed, intervenors confined themselves to cross-examination of the Applicants' and Staff witnesses.
A review of this cross-examination reveals that virtually none of it was directed at the only issue litigable under this contention, i.e.,
whether time durations had been specified.
IV.
CONTENTION SAPL SUPP. 6 (FORMERLY NH-10) (AS MODIFIED BY THE RULING ON
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION)
After this Board's ruling granting partial summary disposition with respect to Contention SAPL Supp.
6, only a single issue remained for litigation.
That issue was whether or not, assuming certain additions and corrections suggested by Staff were not made to the Seabrook Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) until.the first refueling outage would there still be reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public in the immediate vicinity of the facility would be protected.
Some 14 separate items were involved.
Untraversed and unimpeached testimony in the record reveals that three items 5-
Ai.
l have already been corrected, App. Prop. 1 63; for another item, a compensatory display will be utilized, App. Prop.
1.59; in five cases the information is readily available at other locations in the control room, App. Prop. 11 60, 61, 62, which is manned by three operators at all times; three items simply involve better methodology not a deficiency, App. Prop. 11 66-68; and two items involve calculations and tests which can only be done after low-power operation commences, App. Prop. 11 69-70.
Finally, it is uncontroverted that the absence of any or all of the eleven items not yet. included will not effect operator response time in an accident situation.
App. Prop.
1 71.
V.
FORM OF ORDER The first paragraph of the form of order, App. Prop.
1 73, is adapted from the order in Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),LBP-84-24, 19 NRC 1418, 1485 (1984).
The second paragraph App. Prop. 1 74 is the standard language on effectiveness and appeal Respectfully submitted, 4
/
~
ThoWCf. Digff, Jr.
R.
K. Gad III Kathryn A.
Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for Applicants...
?,
"0' ME i[ r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Wie I, Thomas G.
- Dignan, Jr.,
one of the attorneys fogethg Applicants herein, hereby certify that on October 30, %ey -3 P5 :11 I made service of the within document by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery %Frior, where indicated, by depositing in the United States dETl;,T?
first class postage. paid, addressed to):
WUii 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
,n.-
e
~ - - _. -.
t
- 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.
i 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 RFD 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 i
Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 j
Exeter, lui 03833 H.
Joseph Flynn,-Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel
-RED Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management
-Brentwood, NH.03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 I
Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas l
47.Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 9
+w r
m
-w,
_.,,,-.r.
., - - - ~.,..
-,n,,,.-_y
- 4
- t 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
~X d d-r#P
~Th6 mas Gf9!Fighan, Jr.
(*= Ordinary U.S.
First Class Mail.)
9 e _
__.__.