ML20236M554
| ML20236M554 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1998 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236M475 | List: |
| References | |
| 98-746-05-LA, 98-746-5-LA, LA, NUDOCS 9807140124 | |
| Download: ML20236M554 (6) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judges:
B.
Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman Dr. Charles N. Kelber Dr. Linda W.
Little In the Matter of
)
)
North Atlantic Energy
)
Service Corporation
)
) Docket No. 50-443 Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1
)
) ASLBP No. 98-746-05-LA Rockingham County, New Hampshire
)
)
l MEMORANDUM OF LAW SUBMITTED BY SAPL AND NECNP TN SUPPORT OF JOINTLY FILED CONTENTIONS 2 TIIROUGH 4 l
NAESCO, in its " Answer to Supplemental Petition for Hearing" of July 2,1998, takes the position that only contentions related to decreased frequency of steam generator inspections should be considered relevant or admissible. The Petitioners' contentions 2 through 4 do not involve the narrow issue of steam generator inspection frequency. Nonetheless, the Petitioners strongly object to NAESCO's attempt to limit the relevance of the present exemption request to steam generator issues, and in support of this position submit this Memorandum of Law.
THE IEQUESTED EXEMPTION IS IN SUBSTANCE FOR 24 MONTH REFUELING, NOT FOR DECREASED STEAM GENERATOR INSPECTIONS.
The NAESCO exemption request is described in the Federal Register as a revision to the Seabrook Technical Specifications, regarding steam generator inservice inspections and reactor coolant system leakage "to accommodate fuel cycles of up to 24 months with respect to the 1
9807140124 900709
~
PDR ADOCK 05000443
/ o v h r v qw, PDR
allowed time between steam generator inservice inspections." The request is described by NAESCO, it its cover letter from Mr. Ted C. Feigenbaum as "the second submittal in a planned series of License Amendment Requests which propose changes to the Seabrook Station Technical Specifications to accommodate fuel cycles of up top 24 months."
From this, it is absolutely clear that the intent of the present request is to permit Seabrook to operate for a two year period before refueling, and the means to this goalis to revise the 1
technical specifications in a series of requests, including this one. There is no independent reason to extend the steam generator inspections other than to permit two year operational runs.
To permit the licensee to do this in small incremental requests, without ever affording the NRC an opportunity to evaluate the overall change from l8 month to 24 month fueling would be a classic i
example of segmentation, and would impair the NRC's ability (and avoid its responsibility) to l
l provide necessary safety analysis and review of a major operational change.
l SEGMENTATION OF A PROJECTED CHANGE IS CONTRARY TO LAW SAPL and NECNP are not aware of any decided NRC adjudicatory decision in which the issue of segmentation by means of a series of ficense amendment requests has been discussed.
However, the issue is very well understood by federal agencies, including NRC, in the context of the National Environmental Policy Act, (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.) Under the extensive case law on applying NEPA's requirement for an integrated and comprehensive review of" major federal actions" that may have an impact on the environment, it is clear that an agency may not avoid an
~ overall review of a project by dealing with the projects in " segments." See Named Individual Members of San Antonio Conservation Soc. v. Texas Highway Deot. 446 F.2d 1013 (5* Cir.
1971) cert. denied, 406 U.S. 933; Scientists' Institute for Public Information. Inc. v. Atomic 2-
Energy Commission. 481 F.2d 1079 (D.C. Cir.1973).
In flusauehanna Vallev Alliance v. Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor. 619 F.2d 231 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied,449 U.S.1096 (1981), the citizen's organization challenged an attempt to build and operate a decontamination system to process radioactive water accumulated in the TMI accident. The organization claimed that the NRC violated NEPA by authorizing construction before completion of an EIS. The organization claimed that the NRC fragmented its decision making by delaying a final decision on how it would resolve the water disposal problem until after private parties had been permitted to expend a lot of money on construction. The Court said " segmentation of a large or cumulative project into smaller components in order to avoid designating the project as a major federal action has been held to be unlawful."
Susauehanna Valley,619 F.2d at 240.
In City of Rochester v. United States Postal Serv.,541 F.2d 967,972 (2*8 Cir,1976), the court wrote that "[t]o permit noncomprehensive consideration of a project divisible into smaller parts, each of which taken alone does not have a significant impact, but which taken as a whole has cumulative significant impact, would provide a clear loophole to NEPA."
In Fritioson v. Alexander. 772 F.2d 1225 (5* Cir.1985), the Court said that proposed actions with potential cumulative significance requires a comprehensive EIS; when deciding whether to do EIS for a single action, NEPA mandates consideration ofimpacts from actions that are not yet proposed and from actions, past, present, or future, that are not themselves subject to the requirements ofNEPA. See also Northwest Resource Information Center. Inc. v. National Marine Fisheies Service. 56 F.3d 1060 (9* Cir.1995)(EIS required for connected, cumulative actions).
3-
In the federal highway context, one of the criteria in determining whether a project can be l
regarded as a " stand alone," is whether the project has " independent utility or independent
)
significance... " Indian Lgpkout Allianqs v. Volpe. 477 F.2d 11 (8thCir.1973). It is certainly
}
clear that the current exemption request, in regard to the steam generator inspection schedule, has j
l no independent utility or significance. The sole purpose of requesting less frequent steam generator inspections is to make possible the planned move to 24 month cycling.
Today, the inspections for the steam generators, like those for the emergency diesel generators and the hydrogen recombiner system, among others, are required at 18 month intervals, the current refueling cycle. However, in the future, as a part of the planned " series of requests" of l
l which the current exemption is a part, all of these surveillance will occur at 24 month intervals to l
accommodate a two year operational run. The intended change is to the current operational regime, and it is this change which must be evaluated against the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92 to l
l determine whether there is in fact a "significant hazards consideration."
SEGtvENTATION OF A PROJECTED CHANGE i
IS NEITHER SAFETY CONSERVATIVE NOR SOUND POLICY i
In addition, it is a fact that the systems that make up a nuclear power plant are not discrete or independent of each other. One of the most feared accident scenarios is the " interfacing loss of coolant accident." This is an accident, like the Three Mile Island event of1979, that is the result of multiple failures of systems acting on each other in unanticipated ways. The change to 24 month refueling admittedly involves changes to numerous technical specification requirements.
j Those changes must be reviewed in a comprehensive, integrated and overall manner. This l
obligation cannot be defeated by the licensee's decision, with no rational basis, to get to the [
i
overall intended change by making a series of segmented requests.
i In the current exemption request,98-03, the staff states that, "the extension of the current surveillance intervals to accommodate a 24 month fuel cycle will not sienificantiv degrade the l
ability, the availability or the reliability of the steam generators to perform their intended safety l
function." 63 FR at p. 25113. In the prior request, a similar conclusion is made regarding another change to N Technical Specifications "to support phased implementation of 24 month fuel cycle 4
l surveillance interval extensions." 63 FR at p.19974. However, there is no indicaticn of any I
analysis of the combined or synergistic effects of the changes. Because the request is actually part i
1 and parcel of a planned change to extending the authorized operational run of Seabrook, the Board should admit contentions 2 through 4, which rabe concerns about the planned change.
j l
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Board should reject the NAESCO argument that all contentions not focused solely on steam generator inspection frequency are inadmissible. Since the parpose of the present exemption is to make a major operational change to the facility, that change can only be sufficiently analyzed through a review of the issues raised in the Petitioner's Contentions 2 through 4 which the staff has not to date evaluated.
Respectfully submitted, l
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League l
New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution l
By the Law offices of Joshua Gordon and l
Backus, Meyer, Solomon, Rood & Branch l
1
( !
l
i i
a i
i l
DATED: 'TlV4esff BY: /
/
AI,.
/4(obert A. Backus 116 Lowell Street, P. O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105
)
(603) 668-7272 j
i l
a l
}
l 1 t