ML20149H692

Memorandum & Order (Granting New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution for Leave,Denying New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Motion to Compel).* New England Coalition Motion to File Reply Granted.Served on 880218

ML20149H692
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/17/1988
From:	Harbour J, Luebke E, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
References
CON-#188-5613 88-558-01-OLR, 88-558-1-OLR, OL-1-R, NUDOCS 8802220059
Download: ML20149H692 (8)

Text

. . . - . _ - - - - . . - . ..

,' 54/3 00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION 88 FEB 18 N1:26 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: [0CkTNGIS$klC[

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman BRANCH Emeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour t SERVED FEB 1 8 1988

) Docket Nos. 50-443-0L-1-R '

In the Matter of 50-444-OL-1-R PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (On-SiteEmergencyPlanning 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, g a_1. ) and Safety Issues)

)

) (ASLBPNo. 88-558-01-0LR)

(Seabrook Station, Units I and 2) )

) February 17, 1988 l

HEMORANDUM AND ORDER I (Granting NECNP's Motion For Leave; l Denying NECNP's Motion to Compel) l t

MEMORANDUM j l

I. Background NECNP submitted its second set of interrogatories on December 23, 1987 with respect to its Contention IV,1 and on January 14, 1988 the  !

1 1

NECNP Contention IV reads as follows:

Blockage of Coolant Flow to Safety-Related Systems and l Components by Buildup of Biological Organisms i The Applicant 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 (FootnoteContinued) 8802220059 880217 PDR ADOCK 05000443 Q PDR

}')

V n;. 5 g; Applicants submitted their responses. On January 25, 1988, NECNP filed a Motibn to Compel Applicants to Respond to NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on Contention IV.' On February 2, 1988, Applicants filed a Response. On February 10, 1988, NECNP filed a Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Applicants' Response, to which was attached the Reply.

(Footnote Continued) requirements of GDC 4, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, and 39, which require the maintenance and inspection of reactor cooling systems. The design, construction, and proposed operation of Seabrook fail to satisfy these requirements.

Basis: On May 19, 1982, the Comission published in the Federal Register a notice of abnormal occurrences at a number of nuclear reactors around the country.

47 FR 21653. The notice described the accumulation of asiatic clams, mussels, and other aquatic organisms in reactor cooling systems which had hitherto gone unnoticed.

At one reactor, Brunswick Unit One, blockage of coolant flow paths resulted in the ' total loss of both redundant trains of the residual heat removal system.' 47 FR at 21653.

Noting that the dissipation of heat to the environment ]

is an essential safety function, the Comission found i that blockage of coolant systems by biological organisms and debris could cause 'possible degradation of the heat transfer capabilities of redundant safety systems to the ,

point where system function is lost.' id.at21655. l The abnormal occurrences at the six reactors showed that ' preventive measures and methods of detecting gradual degradation have been inadequate in certain areas to preclude the occurrence.' Id. The licensees in each case agreed to improve desigii features and detection techniques to prevent future significant fouling.

(FootnoteContinued)

-- -- - -- -. - - -- , _--I

I II. Discussion 2 NECNP argues that microbiological 1y induced corrosion (MIC) is within the scope of Contention IV. First, although the term "biofouling" is not contained in the contention, NECNP asserts that that tenn is a broad concept that encompasses several different types of fouling, including fouling by bivalves and other aquatic organisms, and (FootnoteContinued)

The Seabrook reactor uses ocean water for cooling and is particularly susceptible to fouling by aquatic organisms. The fouling does not occur only in the intake pipes of reactors. Organisms may find their way into the entire cooling system and even into the heat exchangers.

Id. at 21654. In addition, the buildup of fouling Brganisms or corrosion products on piping walls, although not severe enough to block water ficw during nonnal operation, could be dislodged by seismic activity and

' collect in equipment bearing or seal coolers blocking the cooling water flow.' Id. Because it is particularly vulnerable to intrusion by7quatic organisms, the Seabrook plant should be equipped with a maintenance and inspection program adequate to prevent the kind of degradation which current measures obviously do not achieve.

2 In its Motion to Compel, NECNP notes that, while objecting to interrogatories regarding microbiological 1y induced corrosion (MIC) because such a matter was not within the scope of Contention IV, Applicants, without waiving this objection, nonetheless answered those interrogatories in their Responses of January 14, 1988.

Thus, while observing that a motion to compel is not needed, NECNP suggests that the Board resolve this matter before the parties devote substantial resources to developing evidence on this issue.

We note in passing that the sole issue is whether MIC is within the scope of Contention IV. While NECNP argues that interrogatories directed to circulating water systems are within the scope of the contention and must be answered and while Applicants argues that only cooling systems are within the scope of the contention, we .

need not address these arguments because our resolution of the MIC issue is dispositive.

I also includes fouling by microbiological organisms and the by-product or damage caused by that process, such as sedimentation, corrosion, and degradation of piping and related equipment. NECNP alleges that MIC is one of the types of biofouling encompassed by this contention, and therefore that Applicants cannot be permitted to avoid litigating this relevant, contested issue based on legalistic objections about the technical wording of the contention. In support of this argument, NECNP cites an NRC-sponsored study, NUREG/CR-4724 (1986) which states that .

1 "Fouling of all types has often been referred to as ' debris' in l inspection and maintenance programs" and defines "fouling" as including "bivalve fouling, microbiological fouling, sedimentation and corrosion." f (Motion at 10). Second, in light of a sentence contained in the basis of the contention,3 NECNP asserts that the contention was intended to address the form of biofouling that corrodes the outside of pipes, as well as the form of fouling by aquatic organism that blocks intake 3

This sentence reads as follows:

In addition, the buildup of fouling organisms or corrosion products on piping walls, although not severe enough to block water flow during normal operation, could be dislodged by seismic activity and ' collect in equipment bearing or seal coolers blocking the cooling water flow. '

See n. 1, supra.

l' structures . (Motionat10-11). Third, it refers to a Sumary Report prepared by the Applicants in 1978 which stated that films (condenser slime) composed of some of these organisms, other than mussels and barnacles, may impede heat transfer in heat exchange systems, and then cites NUREG/CR-4724 (1986) for the statement that this slime also causes the growth of sulfur-reducing bacteria, which acts as "an aggressive corrosive agent that has caused through-wall pitting in mild steel condenser tubing in as little as six weeks. (Motion at 12-13).

Before discussing NECNP's arguments, 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 progran for the preven'.lon of the accumulation of mollusks, other aquatic organisms, and debris in Seabrook's cooling systems in order to satisfy certain General Design Criteria. Indeed, in determining that this contention should b.ive been admitted at the threshold as an issue in controversy in 1982 .'nd in remanding that contention for litigation, the 1

Appeal Board repeatediy stated that the contention spoke to the possible j l

degradation of the heat removal capability of cooling water systems at I l

Seabrook as a result of the accumulation of marine organisms or debris, ALAB-875, 26 NRC __ (Octcber 1,1987) slip op, at 19). It is well )

settled that a party is bcnnd by the literal terms of its own contention. Qarolina Power and Licht Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear  !

Power Plant), ALAB-852, 24 HRC 532, 545 (1986). Although NECNP recognizes that while Intervenors may be bound by the literal tems of their contentions for some purposes, it urges that this principle is

certainly not applicable in determining the scope of discovery. We do not accept that argument because, as here, where the Appeal Board detennined that this contention should be admitted, discovery can relate only to those matters identified by it. See 10 C.F.R. s2.740(b)(1).

We find NECNP's first argument to be without merit. One can only infer that NECNP is arguing that, because NUREG/CR-4724 defines "fouling" as including corrosion, its intent in using the word "fouling" in the contention was to include MIC. In that NUREG/CR-4724 was issued some four years after Contention IV was proposed, we cannot accept NECNP's "now" intent as being its "then" (1982) intent. That its concern with corrosion, resulting from biofouling by microbiological organisms which in turn allegedly resulted in leaks and degradation of safety-related equipment, is of recent origin is evidenced also at page 6 and footnote 6 of NECNP's Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Applicants' and NRC Staff's Briefs Regarding Low Power Operations dated January 14, 1988.

We conclude that NECNP's second argument is without merit. The sentence contained in the basis for the contention (see n. 3, supra) merely reflects a concem that a buildup of corrosion products on piping walls could be dislodged by scismic activity and, in collecting, could block the cooling water flow. NECK? concedes that tne contention does not expressly call this corrosive form of fouling by its technical term, f microbiological 1y induced corrosion, but allega this form of biofouling is within the scope of the contention. It relies once again upon NUREG/CR-4724 for a definitior, that MIC is a form of "under-sediment i

1

i corrosion" that can be biologically induced by the breakdown of organic matter, and for the statement therein that MIC is of particular concarn to the utility industry because it has caused through-wall pitting of condenser tubes in a matter of weeks. This argument, like the first argument, must fail in seeking to expand the scope of the contention by reliance upon a document that did not exist at the time Contention IV was submitted.

NECNP's third argument, like the first and second arguments, must fail in seeking to expand the scope of the contention by reliance upon NUREG/CR-4724 which did not exist at the time Contention IV was submitted.

In light of our discussion, above, it is clear that, without leave having been sought from the Board and granted, it is impermissible for an intervenor to attempt to amend his contentions or to advance new bases for them which could have been submitted earlier. Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-565, 10 NRC 521, 523 n. 11 (1979).

ORDER

1. NECNP's Motion to File a Reply dated February 10, 1988 i s granted.

2. NECNP's Motion to Compel dated January 25, 1988 is denied.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEMSING BOARD S (2)M Sheldon J. @l fe , Chii nnan ADMINISTRATINE JUDGE Jerfy/ Harbour M[

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE L0-Enneth A. Luebke ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Paryland this 17th day of February,1988.

i l

l

_