ML20054L494
| ML20054L494 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1982 |
| From: | Lessy R, Perlis R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054L484 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207080175 | |
| Download: ML20054L494 (33) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i 07/01/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et _a_l_.
50-444 OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF TO SUPPLEMENTS TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE OF C0ASTAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, "LYNN CHONG ET AL AND C0-0P MEMBERS FOR RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT," REFILED AND SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS OF NECNP, AMENDED CONTENTIONS OF SUN VALLEY AND OF NEW HAMPSHIRE I. INTRODUCTION On May 28, 1982, this Board issued its " Memorandum and Order Setting Special Prehearing Conference." That Order afforded six petitioners whose contentions had not been previously considered by the Board an opportunity to file supplements to their petitions to intervene by June 17, 1982. All such petitioners filed supplements with the exception of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Town of South Hampton, both of which had previously filed contentions. Petitioner "Lynn Chong et al" also filed contentions as did the State of New Hampshire. The Staff hereby responds to these filings in accordance with paragraph 3 of the ,
aforementioned Order.
i -
, AE51 m TE!F ORIGINAL
, .. cert m w r7_ g /6 / _'\
8207090175 820701 '\ \
PDR ADOCK 05000443 / Rd'7 C PDR
w '
7 x - ',
, ,- - 3
,. - ~
- 1 w ' ,
- 2.- ,
< t*
II. DISCUSSION A. Petition of Coastal Chamber of Comerce of New Hampshire By timely petiticn dated November 18, 1981, the Coastal-Chamber of Commerce of New' Hampshire (" Coastal") filed a. petition to intervene in this proceedi.og. >IA ils petition, Coastal expressed a specific interest ir.:theedergencyplanningaspectofthisproceeding.1/ At'that ' time, '
the Staff opposedf the pMition or, thh grounds'that Coastal had failed to iMentif9'its member businesse's ' and show th'st it f s- auth'br'ized to, a ..- ,
representtbose-businessesinthisproceedinj. By Memorandum and. Order -
. . ,; ~
dated March 12, 1982, this Licensirg , Board directed petitjoners,to -
submit ,
< ., , ,m contentions by April 6,1982. Coastal filed'no~cohtent. ions? althoughla
-f ? ~
representative did appear Stih'e Special Prehearing Conference. Shortly ~,
y ..
' ~~. ,
- r "
~ '
thereafter, or,'May 12, 1982, Coastal filed'c9ntenTions -in this, pro ' , j ~ yc
,z'
~ ,,. .
z.y - ,.:
ceeding, together with the " Affidavit' o'f BeiO0lyA. Ho}1ingsw'o'rth." , -
In the affidavf t, the affiant states that s'ho resides approximately 1.wo i ' . , .
,' miles from the proposed Seabropk Nuclear PCwef Rianj/, 'is a gdmberdf- 7
~ , , , ,? p, , ~w ---
y Coastal', and has been duly-authorized to represent / tne interes'tbof that ,s !
e
/
t . . ~
- x .
l organizat, ton in this, proceeding;, How';ver, by pleadingidpted ;1une 8, ,
'. , - ~' / ~ v c. # -
i . 1982, Coast R revped its co,ntentions. ThtRamentied petitionWith' the '
-- ,s , /' ,,.u., +,', '-
^
c ' affidavit a's* previously'descriped > appear's'to'sht isf/ th'e " interest"~ .
.,/ .
, . ;; . . ~ ' : q
^' '
or standing requiremen,t> of 10 C.F.R. @ 2.714(a),' in that ... - -
- . ~
/ .
j Mrs. HoUinga< orth's., affidavit has established that she resides '
f O
[
~
. 7.
. .. - ?
l 1/ See "NRC Staff Response-To Petitions To Intervene And Requests For Hearing By Sun Valley Association, Contal D 35ber Of Commerce Of <
l ,
New Hampshire . . ." p. 9_(December 7,19)1).,3 . ,
, ss .
- . s
% A h .F
'r d
( ~
r , , . ,-
=.'
\ ., _
7 u, d l e
- N ,
~, . ,J- p e g
- 's
?
,'y',,
- ~
.Qd
approximately two miles from the proposed Seabrook Nuclear power plant
' and has been authorized to represent the interests of the Coastal Chamber of Commerce. Coastal has not listed its individual members who are being represented'by Mrs. Hollingsworth, and the Staff recomends that this be required in writing prior to or at the July 15-16 prehearing conference.
Intervention, however, is not established until Coastal has satisfied the "one good contention rule" of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b). See also Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 424 (1973); Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372 (1973). Accordingly, the proffered contentions will now be examined.
Coastal-1 (1 & 2)
In this contention Coastal charges:
The Applicant has failed to comply with the Commission requirements that an emergency plan must be adequate and capable of being implemented and therefore has failed to provide reasonable as-surance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency.
10 C.F.R. 50.54(a)(1), (2); 10 C.F.R. 50.34(b)(u)(v).
The Staff objects to this contention as failing to satisfy the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714. The only bases for the contention are the conclusionary statements of petitioner that Applicants' emergency plan is not reasonable, that the plan does not adequately protect the resident and transient population, and that a feasibility study has not been prepared. But we are not told the reasons _
for these assertions. The basis for the contention references no regula-tory require'ments with respect to which there is alleged noncompliance.
o Moreover, the specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 are not
' satisfied in the contention itself, in that we are not told how Coastal believes Applicants' plan is inadequate or wha' t section or sections of the plan are deficient. While it is true that the Applicants' plan must be implementable, Coastal has not pointed to a single provision of the plan that is inadequate in its view. For these reasons, the Staff opposes admission of this contention.
Coastal-3 In this contention it is alleged:
The Applicant has failed to comply with stata and local government off-site emergency plans.
10 C.F.R. 50.33(g), Appendix E III. There is no indication that the emergency plan will coordinate with state and local off-site plans. The Applicant has failed to submit state and local emergency plan agreements as required by NUREG-0654, Appendix 3.
This contention basically challenges the offsite emergency plans for Seabrook. Those plans have not yet been developed. Any contention challenging their adequacy is speculative and premature. For instance, Coastal alleges that Applicant "has failed to comply with state and local government off-site emergency plans." We are not told by Coastal how Applicant fails to comply with those plans, nor could we be until the plans are developed At that time, Coastal will have the opportunity to subnit specific contentions dealing with the offsite plans. Insofar as the contention refers to inadequacies in Applicant's plan, Coastal provides no specificity whatsoever. The contention should be rejected at I
this time.
l l
, Coastal 4 & 5 In both Contentions 4 and 5, Coastal mixe's its complaints concerning offsite and onsite emergency planning protective measures in the event of an accident at Seabrook. Specifically, it is alleged in Contention 5, that " Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate onsite and offsite protective measures in the event of an emergency . . ." As to the offsite issues, Coastal states in its basis that ". . . the Emergency Plan does not contain any offsite preparedness plans of State or local emergency response organizations." (Coastal Petition, p. 7).
That is because such plans have not yet been submitted. Accordingly, the Staff objects to this portion nf Contention 5, i.e., the alleged inadequacy of State and local plans, until such plans are submitted, as being both speculative and premature. Contentions relating to the alleged inadequacy of such plans may be promptly framed once Coastal has had an opportunity to examine such plans.
As to Coastal's objections to Applicants' onsite plans, Coastal has not referenced a single section of the Plan which it contends is inadequate, although portions of the FSAR dealing with medical service are mentioned in the basis of the contention. Therefore, the Staff objects to Coastal's Contention 5 regarding Applicant's Emergency Plan on.
the grounds of lack of specificity until Coastal restates its contention in terms of the specifics of the Plan to which it is objecting.
In Contention 4, Coastal alleges that Applicants' emergency clas-
! sification and action scheme fails to comply with the applicable regulations, Here a few specific references are made to the Plan, and :
i i
1 l
l Coastal has formulated its objections to the plan with a little more
' specificity. The Staff believes that this contention is admissible for discovery purposes (and the Staff takes the same position with respect to flew Hampshire Contention 20 from which this Contention was apparently extracted).
Coastal 6 In this contention, which is lifted in substantial part from New Hampshire's Contention 22, the Applicants' 10 and 50 mile radius (see 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47) for the Emergency Planning Zones ("EPZ") are challenged. In its original responses to both New Hampshire 22 (Staff filing of April 21, 1982, p. 21) and to Massachusetts Contention II (Staff filing of May 19, 1982, pp. 23-24), the Staff explained its objection to what amount to generic challenges to the Comission's EPZ regulations (10 C.F.R. ll 50.33(g), 50.47 (c)(2)). Insofar as the bases for this contention purport to relate specifically to Seabrook, the Staff comments as follows:
The first basis is that the 10 mile EPZ "does not account adequately for jurisdictional boundaries." However, not one example is given of how the 10-mile EPZ fails to account adequately for jurisdictional boundaries. The Staff therefore objects to this contention as lacking specificity. This can however be remedied by an appropriate amendment, with leave of the Licensing Board, by providing specific examples of how the plan fails to account adequately for jurisdictional boundaries.
l The second basis for this contention is that the 10 mile EPZ fails to consider ". . unique factors . . . such as rural-urban mix, ;
i l
l
' automobile ownership, ownership of campers, vans and second homes, available public transportation, . . . etc." However, it is not clear how such factors rel6te to the designation of the 10 mile EPZ, and Coastal does not explain this allegation. The Staff therefore opposes the contention as lacking both specificity and adequate basis.
Coastal 7A Radioactive Monitoring This contention, and its basis, were taken verbatim from Contention 7 of the State of New Hampshire (" Amendment And Supplement To The Petition For Leave To Intervene And Request For Hearing Of The State Of New Hampshire And Gregory H. Smith, Attorney General") (April 5,1982). Inasmuch as theStaffdidnotopposeNewHampshire'sContention7,2/ the Staff also does not oppose this contention.
Coastal 7B " Control Room Design" This contention (and its basis) was also copied from New Hampshire's Contention 10 (April 5, 1982). Accordingly, the Staff' takes the same position as it did with respect to that contention.5/ In particular, the
~2/ See " Response Of The NRC Staff To ' Amended Petitions' Of SAPL, New Hampshire, And Sun Valley" p.17 (April 21,1982).
-3/ See " Response of the NRC Staff to " Amended Petitions of SAPL, New Hampshire, and Sun Valley," pp.17-18 (April 21,1982).
l
Staff objects to the first paragraph of the contention concerning in-
'strumentation in the control room as failing to meet the specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. % 2.714. Specifically, petitioner (s) have not specified the ' variables and systems for which they contend instru-mentation is inadequate. The Staff would not, however, object to the second and third paragraphs of the contention to the extent that petitioner (s) are alleging that the Seabrook control room does not comply with the provisions of NUREGs-0700 and 0737 and GDC19-22, providing Coastal can specify what in the control room is not in compliance with provisions of referenced documents and design criteria.
Because Coastal has now proffered at least one good contention (Coastal 4 & 7), the Staff does not oppose Coastal's admission as an intervenor in this proceeding, provided that Coastal provide a list of members being represented by Mrs. Hollingsworth at the July 15-16 pre-hearing conference.
B. "Lynn Chong et al and Co-op Members for Responsible Investment" On May 25, 1982 "Lynn Chong et al and Co-op members for Responsible Investment" ("CMRI), a petitioner for intervention status that neither appeared at the Special Prehearing Conference held May 5-6, 1982 nor filed contentions in response to the Board's " Memorandum And Order Setting Special Prehearing Conference" (March 12,1982), filed eight contentions.
By way of background, CMRI originally petitioned to intervene in this proceeding on November 14, 1981. The Staff opposed the standing of l
9_ '
these petitionersE on the grounds that: (1) CMRI's assertion of being I
'a part-owner of the proposed Seabrook facility is not sufficient to confer standing to intervene,N and the allegation of generalized hann to be shared by a large class of citizens as opposed to a distinct and i palpable harm to petitioners was also insufficient to demonstrate standing. Transnuclear Inc., CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977). The Applicants also opposed the standing of petitioners, relying exclusively on Detroit Edison Q.,7NRC473(1978).
CMRI never acted to cure these deficiencies or otherwise amend its petition to intervene. If CMRI has not satisfied the standing re-quirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a), then its proposed contentions need not be further considered. However, inasmuch as the standing of CMRI has not been ruled upon, the Staff will briefly examine CMRI's " renewed contentions." If, however the Board determines that CMRI lacks standing, the contentions need not be individually ruled upon.
By its pleading of May 25, 1982, CMRI acts upon the belief that it could file contentions up to May 25, 1982. Under the ' Board's Order of itarch 12, 1982, contentions had to be filed by thirty days prior to the May 5,1982 Special Prehearing Conference. CMRI failed to file con-tentions by that date. Moreover CMRI was not one of the petitioners
-4/ See "NRC Staff Response To Petitions To Intervene And Request For Hearing By Sun Valley Association, Coastal Chamber Of Commerce Of New Hampshire, Co-op Members For Responsible Investment . . . "
pp. 10 et. seq. (December 7, 1981).
-5/ See Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2),
XEXB-470, 7 NRC 473, 475 (1978); see also "NRC Staff Response . . ."
supra , note 4, pp.10-12. I
authorized by the Board to file supplements to its petitions to intervene
~for the upcoming July 15-16th prehearing conference. Its current con-tentions must therefore be regarded as late-filed contentions. 10 C.F.R.
% 2.714(b) provides that additional time for filing contentions may be granted by the Licensing Board by balancing the following factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1):
(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time; (ii) The availability of other means to protect the petitioner's interest; (iii) The extent to which petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in the developing of a sound record; (iv) The extent to which petitioner's interest may be represented by other parties; (v) The extent to which petitioner's participation will broaden or the issues or delay the proceeding.
Since CMRI has made no effort to explain its failure to file contentions on time, it does not appear, based on the information at hand, that good cause for the late filing has been established. Since petitioner did not appear at the Special Prehearing Conference, nor did it explain its late filing of contentions, the Staff has no basis to conclude that petitioner's participation would assist in the development of a sound record. Since none of petitioner's proffered contentions appear to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. % 2.714_. it also does not appear that petitioner's participation will assist the Licensing Board.
Turning briefly to the contentions, in Contention 1, petitioner is concerned with the " guarantee of safe removal of local and summer ,
residents, summer tourists, and migrant workers in the event of a nuclear ,,
i accident" but does not particularize its concerns in that regard.
Moreover, no basis is given for the contention, other than a generalized reference to the due process clause of the Constitution. The Staff objects to this contention as failing to meet both the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714.
Contention 2 is not really a contention, but a reference to an apparent inquiry by the New Hampshire Governor concerning the quality of construction at Seabrook. Contention 3 is a general criticism of the Commission's "ALARA policy." Such a generalized a'ttack on the Commission's regulations or policies is prohibited in an individual licensing proceeding. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).
Contention 4 concerns discharges from high-voltage transmission lines but there is no basis given for this contention and no showing as to whether the alleged discharges would affect petitioner. Contentions 5 through 8 appear to concern Applicants' financial qualifications questions, the litigation of which is barred from operating license proceedings. See 47 l Fed. Reg. 13750 (March 31, 1982).
[
Accordingly, the Staff believes that CMRI has failed to satisfy both the interest and standing requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714 as well as the "one good contention rule" of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(b). For these reasons, the Staff believes that CMRI's petition should be denied.
Finally, even though intervention as a matter of right has not been l established, there also appears to be no basis for the Licensing Board to ,
grant discretionary intervention status to CMRI under Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-76-77, l
4 NRC 610 (1976), as there is no basis for the Licensing Board to conclude,
~ inter alia, that CMRI would either assist in the development of a sound record, or that CMRI has an appropriate interest in the proceeding that would be greatly affected by the proceeding.
C. Sun Valley's Contentions In a filing dated June 15, 1982, Sun Valley Association (SVA) amended its contentions by striking all its contentions submitted on April 13, 1982, and substituting therefor two new contentions. The Staff responds to ~hese new contentions as follows:
SVA 1. The Seabrook Station off-site emergency planning does not comply with applicable provisions of 10 C.F.R. Section 50.47, 10 C.F.R. Section 50, Appendix E, and NUREG-0654.
- As the Staff has made clear in its other filings, the Staff does not object to offsite planning as a subject for contentions. The Staff does take the position, however, that any such contentions must specify the alleged inadequacies in the offsite plans that the petitioner seeks to litigate. Since the off-site plans are not yet availa'ble, SVA Contention 1 is premature at this time, but may be promptly framed once such plans have been submitted.
SVA 2. Off-site emergency planning based upon existing egress routes cannot reasonably ensure the safe removal of the local populace in the event of a
' nuclear accident. The cornerstone of an evacuation plan which might be deemed adequate under the ap-plicable regulations would be the construction of a new highway linking the Hampton Beach-Seabrook Beach area with the Interstate Highway System.
This contention is without sufficient basis, in that SVA neither identifies the evacuation routes planned to be used by emergency k l
n- --,,
planners, gives any reason why these routes are inadequate, nor explains 1.
why, if the egress routes are inadequate, the resolution of the problem necessarily lies with the construction of a new highway from the Hampton Beach-Seabrook Beach area to the existing Interstate Highway System. It should also be noted that the Commission's emergency planning rules require that "the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47(a)(1) (emphasis added); see also 10 C.F.R.-Q 50.47(b)(10).
Nowhere in the rules does it state that evacuation must be the protective measure taken. Again, the Staff notes that the offsite plans for Seabrook are not yet developed. If these plans call for protective measures other than evacuation, SVA Contention 2 in its present form would not be a proper contention. This is yet another reason why contentions alleging inadequacies in offsite planning should await the development of offsite plans.
D. NECNP's Supplemental Contentions As part of its filing of June 17, NECNP submitted two supplemental contentions, numbered IV and V. For each contention, NECNP addressed the standards of 10 C.F.R. @ 2.714(a)(1) and contends that good cause exists for the late filing and that, on balance, the five factors enumerated in 5 2.714(a)(1) favor admission. The Staff agrees that the contentions should not be dismissed as untimely, as the first sup-plemental contention is based upon a notice of abnormal occurrences recently published by the NRC in the Federal Register, and the second C l
supplemental contention is based upon a recent Court of Appeals decision.
~We discuss the merits of each supplemental contention below.
NECNP IV. Blockage of Coolant Flow to Safety-Related Systems and Components by Buildup of Biological Organisms The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention.
NECNP V. Cost-Benefit Analysis In this contention, NECNP seeks to relitigate the environmental cost-benefit for analysis in light of the recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit questioning the accuracy of the Commission's S-3 Table (10 C.F.R. 5 51.20(e)). See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Comission,
- p.
- No. 74-1586 ( April 27,1982). The Comission is expected to issue a Statement of Policy during the early phases of this proceeding which is expected to address the effect of this decision upon ongoing licensing proceedings. The Staff suggests that the Board's consideration of this proposed contention be deferred to await the issuance-of the Commission's Statement.
F. Response of the NRC Staff to New Hampshire's Refiled Contentions 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14 NH Refiled-6: Environmental Qualification of Safety Related Equipment In this refiled contention, New Hampshire has made no attempt to overcome the Staff's primary objection to the original contention, that New Hampshire has not identified the particular equipment, or even the categories of equipment that are alleged not to be environmentally -;
~
qualified. In the absence of such specificity, the Staff continues to
' object to this contention as not meeting the specificty requirements of 10 C.F.R. % 2.714.
NH Refiled-7: Instrumentation The " refiled contention" is precisely the same as New Hampshire's original contention . New Hampshire has made no attempt to incorporate the comments, either oral or written, of the opposing parties to this contention. Hence, the NRC Staff continues to object to this contention as failing to meet both the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714.
NH Refiled-12: Quality Assurance Inasmuch as New Hampshire has not attempted to meet the Staff's objections to this contention by providing specific instances in its contention for litigation of alleged improper functioning of the QA program, the Staff continues to object to this contention as failing to meet the specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 and for vagueness.
New Hampshire suggests that this contention should be admitted in its present state ". . . so as to permit discovery Sg! and litigation, if necessary of the issue . . ." (Amended Contentions, p. 17). This can be construed as an admission by New Hampshire that it lacks the specifics for framing a proper contention as required by the Commission's regu-lations. Quality Assurance programs cover a broad range of types of construction practices, many construction crafts, and materials. A ,
contention this vague, if admitted, and litigated, would require the broadest pos'sible range of testimony, without real joinder of issue, but
with real opportunity for substantial delay in the hearing process. The Staff believes that before New Hampshire can be permitted to litigate this contention, rather than engage in a discovery fishing expedition, it shouldberhquiredtospecifywhatitisabouttheQAsystemthatit wishes to litigate. Specifics can be obtained by reviewing current IEE reports, and Staff and Applicant documents pertaining to this proceeding.
NH Refiled-13: Operations Personnel Qualifications and Training In the refiled contention, New Hampshire has now pointed to some specific sections of NUREG-0737 with reference to which it alleges that operations personnel have not been adequately trained. New Hampshire asserts that five specific operations personnel "and all other operations personnel" have not been demonstrated by the Applicant to have been qualified and trained in accordance with the specific items of NUREG-0737.
The Staff does not object to the contention if it is limited to the five categories of personnel listed; such a listing is sufficiently specific both as to personnel and regulatory basis for litigation. The Staff, however, objects to inclusion in the contention of the phrase "and all other operations personnel," as being obviously vague and without basis.
NH Refiled-14: Reliable Operation Under On-Site Emergency Power In this contention, New Hampshire has merely rearranged the material included in its prior contention without providing additional information. Tne Staff would not object to this contention if New Hampshire were to specify in what manner the onsite power system fails to __
meet the enumerated General Design Criteria or Appendix A. In the
v absence of providing this information, the Staff continues to object to
~this contention.
F. Staff Comments on "NECNP's Reply To The Responses By The Applicent And The NRC Staff to NECNP's Contentions On June 17, NECNP filed a lengthy reply to the responses filed by the Applicant and Staff to NECNP's contentions filed on April 21.
The Staff is unable to determine whether this filing is a " Supplement to Petition to Intervene" or is otherwise covered by Paragraph 3 of the Board's May 28 Memorandum and Order Setting Second Special Prehearing Conference. However, insofar as the Staff position reflected in ,its May 19 response to NECNP's contentions has changed in light of NECNP's newfiling,5/ the Staff submits the following comments so that the parties and the Board may be apprised of the Staff's position before the contentions are discussed at the next prehearing conference.
NECNP Refiled-I.A.1: Environmental Qualification The Staff originally objected to this contention.on the grounds that a precise litigable contention in accordance with the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. % 2.714 had not been formulated.
The Staff furthermore suggested a proposed rewording of the contention that NECNP did not accept.
-6/ The Staff notes in this connection that NECNP has reworded many of its contentions in its latest filing. ,
W
The Staff continues to object to this contention. A precise
~
litigable contention has not been framed. NECNPnowarguesU that the Comission in Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuciear Station, Un t No. 1), CLI-80-21, 11 NRC 705 (1980), does not incorporate the lessons of Three Mile Island to its decision concerning environmental qualification of electrical components. What the Comission stated in CLI-80-21 is:
In this order we have not attempted to apply the lessons of Three Mile Island to environmental qualification. This issue is addressed in the NRC Action Plan [NUREG-0737]. 11 NRC at 716.
The TMI Action Plan, NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements" does not require the action requested by NECNP in this contention. As to this proposal by NECNP which would impose requirements beyond that required by the regulations, and other similar proposals by NECNP in the form of contentions, in "Further Comission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses," 45 Fed. R_eg.
e 85236 (December 24, 1980), the Commission decided that pending applications for operating licenses should be measured against the regulations as augmented by the TMI related requirements found in NUREG-0737. The Comission by Revised Statement of Policy also allowed previously forbidden challenges to the sufficiency of the supplementation to the regulations that is provided by the TMI Action Plan items in NUREG-0737. Compare 45 Fed. Reg. 85236 (December 24, 1980) with 45 Fed. Reg. 41738 (June 20, 1980). That Revised Statement of Policy does not, however, relieve a proponent of such a 7/ "NECNP's Reply To The Responses By The Applicant And The NRC Staff U To NECNP's Contention," p. 2 (June 17, 1982) (hereafter NECNP reply).
contention of the burden of demonstrating that compliance with the Commission's regulations, as supplemented, is not a sufficient basis upon which to grant a license. See Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee Nucl6ar Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-161, 6 AEC 1003 (1973), aff'd.
sub. nom. Citizens for Safe Power v. NRC, 524 F.2d 1291 (D.C. Cir.1975).
NECNP has not met that burden here. The Staft continues to object to this contention.
NECNP Contention 1-A.2: Electric Valve Operation.
As stated in the Staff response to NECNP's original conter. tion, the Staff does not object to a contention limited to the question of whether Applicants have complied with GDC4 in accordance with CLI-80-21 with respect to the environmental qualification of the electric valve operators installed inside the containment. The Staff, however, continues to object to a contention seeking to litigate the environmental qualification of such electrical equipment in excess of those set forth in CLI-80-21, and therefore objects to any further requirements imposed.by NECNP's reworded contention. See also the Staff response to NECNP Contention 1-A.1, supra.
NECNP Contention I.A.3: Environmental Qualification-Hydrogen Burns The Staff continues to object to this contention. The pendency of a proposed rule on hydrogen control does not now provide an adequate basis for this contention.
NECNP I-B.1: Environmental Qualification of Mechanical Equipment ,
The Staff does not object to the reworded contention on page 6 of ;
NECNP's Reply.
NECNP I-B.2: Duration of Environmental Qualification
'I NECNP's Reply has satisfied the Staff's objection to this contention.
NECNP I-C: Environmental Qualification -- Emergency Feedwater Pumphouse HVAC NECNP in its response has satisfied the Staff's objection to the contention's basis. NECNP in its Reply points out that it does not yet know which components in the emergency feedwater pumphouse HVAC are not qualified, but has pointed to the cables in the emergency feedwater pump-house HVAC as not being environmentally qualified. The Staff would admit this contention for discovery purposes only, subject to later specification by NECNP of exactly which components it wishes to allege must be environ-mentally qualified.
NECNP I-D: Testing of Equipment In response to the Staff's earlier objections, NECNP has reworded contentions I-D.1, I-D.2, I-D.3, and I-D.4. The Staff does not object to the contentions as reworded.
NECNP I-F: Diesel Generator Qualification The Staff does not object to this contention as reworded.
NECNP I-G: Pressure Instrument Reliability
~
The Staff does not object to this contention as reworded.
k
/
l
NECHP I-H: Decay Heat Removal Capacity 5
The NRC Staff continues to object to this contention as being without the requisite basis. NUREG-0705 is now cited, but there is no showing that the reference applies to inadequacies in the size of the heat exchanges at Seabrook (as opposed to its design pressure), and the size of the heat exchanger is the focus of this proposed contention.
NECNP I-I: Inadequate Provisions for Achieving Cold Shutdown
~
The Staff continues to object to this contention as worded on the groundthatthesfecificityrequirementsof10C.F.R.%2.714havenot been satisfied. If, as appears from NECNP's Reply, NECNP's real con-tention is that the Applicant must identify and environmentally qualify one path to cold shutdown as per I&E Bulletin 79-01B, Supp. 3, a specific contention to that effect should be submitted by NECNP, with leave of the Licensing Board.
NECNP I-K: Instrumentation The Staff does not object to NECNP's second proposal set forth at pages 15-16 of its Reply, to the effect that it will withdraw this con-tention now, if it is permitted to refile a contention once Applicant has selected its instrumentation. The Staff recommends that the Licensing Board require NECNP to submit the contention within twenty-one days of its receipt of the information on Applicant's instrumentation selection.
NEChP I-L: PORV Flow Detection ,,
The StNff no longer objects to this contention, as NECNP has now provided an adequate basis.
b NECNP I-M: Fire Protection i
The Staff accepts this contention as reworded, provided that the contention is' limited to the components and systems listed on pages 17-18 of NECNP's Reply.
NECNP I-N: Solid Waste Disposal The Staff does not object to this contention as reworded by NECNP pursuant to Applicant's suggestion, and the Staff's amendment thereto.
NECNP I-0: Emergency Feedwater I-0.1. NECNP still has not pointed to any regulatory re-quirement for the design change it seeks to impose. The Staff position remains unchanged in opposing this contention.
I-0.2. The Staff accepts NECNP's rewording of Contention I-0.2.
NECNP I-P: Human Engineering The Staff position remains unchanged. NECNP still provides no basis
- for this contention. While NECNP in its Reply points to a requirement in NUREG-0737 requiring licensees to perform control room design reviews to identify "significant problems," there is no showing by NECNP as to why e
G W
L
'the location of the multipoint recorder might constitute such a "significant problem."
NECNP I-Q: Systems Interaction The Staff continues to oppose this contention on the ground of vagueness. If NECNP is currently unable to particularize its objections to the systems interaction analysis, as ar. unresolved safety question, the Staff will be addressing this matter in its SER. NECNP can refile this contention if it has problems with the discussion of this matter in the Staff's SER.
NECNP I-R: Hydrogen Control System The Staff stands by its original position. NECNP argues that the Commission's McGuire decision (CLI-81-15, 14 NRC 1) marked a shift in policy from the Commission's decision in TMI (CLI-80-16, 11 NRC 674) regarding hydrogen control. This is simply not the case. Nothing in CLI-81-15 indicates disapproval by the Commission of those standards, while the separate statements of Chairman Hendrie and of Comissioners Gilinsky and Bradford make evident that the Commission was not changing the position it took in CLI-80-16. See 14 NRC at 4-11.
NECNP has submitted what it alleges is a " credible scenario" for the generation of hydrogen releases pursuant to Metropolitan Edison Co.
(Three Mile Island Station, Unit 1), CLI-80-16, 11 NRC 674 (1980). The .
scenario submitted by NECNP.is similar to the scenario proposed by
intervenors in Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. (Perry
~~ Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-675, 14 NRC (May 17, 1982, Slip Op. at pp. 5-6). In addition to alleging the Perry scenario, N'ECNP has now alleged "a TMI-2 type LOCA with similar or equivalent hydrogen generation and explosion potential" and "possible operator error that could delay the initiation of the hydrogen control system (NECNP Reply, pp. 25-26). This would appear to satisfy the
" credible scenario" requirements of CLI 80-16.
Although the Staff accepts NECNP's scenario for litigation purposes, the Staff does not agree with NECNP that the Board should focus on the issue of hydrogen control without first focusing on the issue of hydrogen generation. For NECNP to prevail on the merits of this contention, the Board must find that the hydrogen generation scenario is in fact credible, that hydrogen control measures will not be successful, and that offsite releases will exceed the guideline values of 10 C.F.R. Part 100. Thus while the Staff maintains its position with respect to NECNP's original contention, the Staff does not oppose the admission for discovery purposes of NECNP's alternate contention and hydrogen scenario, as discussed above.
NECNP I-S: Loose Parts Detection System t
l The Staff would not object to the admission of this contention if the last line of the contention were modified to state "g does not pro-vide an adequate alternative to satisfy the requirements."
l l
i
NECNP I-T: Steam Generators The Staff continues to firmly believe that this contention lacks basis and specificity, and is speculative. If it is nonetheless admitted for discovery 'over the Staff's objections, NECNP should be required at some future date to provide specifics and bases therefor that relate to the Model F steam generator.
NECNP I-U: Turbine Missiles The Staff does not oppose the admission of this refiled contention.
NECNP I-V: In-Service Inspection of Steam Generator Tubes The Staff continues to object to this contention as the specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 have not been satisfied. In the reworded contention, NECP; fails to give any specificity as to how the inspection program is inadequate. In the absence of such specificity, the parties are not put on notice as to how the multifarious GDC cited are not complied with.
NECNP I-W: Seismic Qualification of Electrical Equipment NECNP's rewording of this contention cures one of the Staff's two original objections to its admission. However, NECNP still has not specified any individual components, but rests instead on the assertion that the entire program is inadequate. The Staff would not oppose the admission of the reworded contention, provided that it is clearly under- _
stood that if the program itself is found adequate, NECNP would be pre-cluded from litigating the adequacy cf the qualification of individual components.
l NECNP II-A.1: Quality Assurance: Construction QA Program The Staff continues to oppose this contention for the reasons stated in its prior response. Furthermore, the Staff believes that NECNP has failed to d'monstrate d either significant supervenir.g developments on previously litigated issues or unusual factors having special public interest implications that would override the previous finding by the Licensing Board below that Applicant's QA program ', net NRC requirements.
See Alabama Power Co. (Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 216; remanded on other grounds, CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203 (1974).
NECNP II-A.2:
The Staff maintains its original position as regards the ad-missibility of this contention. The Staff continues to believe that the contention should be limited to the specific alleged failures of the QA program. NECNP appears to admit that it has no additional information.
If NECNP learns of additional information through the discovery process, the Commission's rules provide an avenue for the addition of these matters to the hearing process.
NECNP II-B.1 The Staff accepts the rewording of Contention II-B.1 as being in accord with its position on the matter.
NECNP II-B.2: ..
The Staff continues to object to this contention only inasmuch as .
NECNP refuse's to give a complete list of the items it contends were
improperly excluded from the QA program. Without such specificity, liti-
~
gation of this contention will be unfocused.
NECNP II-B.'4:
The Staff continues to object to this contention as lacking a regulatory basis.
NECNP III: Emergency Planning The Staff agrees with the basic structure of NECNP's Contention III as restructured in its Reply, wherein each of the' sixteen items in the contention would be regarded as separate subparts. However, each such subpart must be separately examined for specificity and basis.
- 1. Emergency Classification and Action Surface The Staff believes that basis and specificity of this contention is satisfactory.
- 2. Emergency Action Levels / Classification This subpart lacks any basis, and needs some additional specificity.
Accordingly, the Staff objects to it.
- 3. Simultaneous Failures at Both Units This subpart lacks any basis, and the Staff therefore opposes it.
- 4. Training of Unit Shift Supervisor .
The Staff believes that this subpart is satisfactory. .
\'
1
- 5. Inadequate Plume EPZ The Staff reiterates its general objection to contentions such as this which amount to generic challenges to the Commission's EPZ requirement . See p. 6, supra. In addition, the Staff offers the following comments:
(a) Meteorology - No basis is given for this subpart which is s s
phrased in terms of what " Applicant should do." The Staff therefore
, s ,
objects to it. '
t
~
(b) Access Routes - This subpart completely lacks any speci-ficity relating to access roads at Seabrook.
(c) Population Characteristics - This subpart has nothing to si do with the size of the EPZ.
.s (d) Evacuation Shadow - The Staff objects,to this subpart as o .
lacking specificity for Seabrook.
, n .
- 6. Consideration of "Beyond Design Basis Accidents of the EPZ" -
~ '
The Staff objects to this contention as being an impermissible i
m generic challenge to the delineation of an EPZ. See 10 C.F.R. ~
62.758(a). '
1 I
l
f
. ( 1 t
\
. c :
- 7. Offsite Plans of State and Local Governments I' This subpart is premature, as such plans are not available at this time. Once these plans are available, contentions may be fr$med with respect to 'them.
l i l
- 8. Incomplete Monitoring of Accident Sequences The Staff opposes this subpart as lackknp both basis and specificity
\
as an emergency planning (sub) contention.
N.
- 9. Radiological Monitoring
, L NECNP has already . submitted a contention in this crea, Contention I-K. T* '- 'obpart lacks both basis and specificity.
g s s C10. Dose Assessment Mod 31 ,
The first two sent'ences\hf this subpart appear acceptable as.a
. contention,howeDe the_ final sentence as to a backup power source has no basis, and the Staff,therefore objects to it. ,
- 11. Early Notification'&nd Clear Instructions to Loca] Populace The first two sentences of this subpart are acceptable as a e conten$ionfordiscoverypurposes.,Theremainipaclaimscompletelylack ,
. s basis, and the Staff therefore objects to such parts. '
.c l
l 12. Shelterina .
' ~
t l This subpart, refers to offsite planning which is within the re- ,,
j .sponsibilityofFsMA. Ti1d Sta#f there(ore objects to +his subpart as.
lackingspecificity, basis,andbein,gprempt$rb'atthis[ time.
s ..
% c \
m t I
- g. %
~
i (
\w
7 ,
- . . . . , . i -
,..h ,'l :[ /
~
' ' ~
-- - 30 ' .'
1'
< ,?'
-' / !.-a-
- 15. Evacd'a t f or-Time Estimate .
~
U The Staff objects to' this subpart as: lacking any basis et this time, as well as being prenature.
- 14. Preliminary Evacuation Time Estimate _s_
The Staff objects to this subpart as lacking any basis.
- 15. Evacuation of EPZ - Exposure to Radiation The thoughts in this subpart meander considerably. The Staff there-fore suggests that NECNP resubmit this in the form of a contention. In the absence of such resubmittal, the Staff objects to this subpart.
- 16. Health Affects - Acquisition of Baseline Data The Staff objects to this subpart as lacking basis and specificity.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the NRC Staff opposes the inter-vention petition of "Lynn Chong et al and Co-op Members For Responsible Investment as failing to satisfy the interest and standing requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714a. The Staff does not oppose the intervention petitior of Coastal Chamber of Commerce of New Hampshire, subject to the proviso that Coastal provide in writing a listing of members being represented in this proceeding.
For the reasons also stated above, the Staff opposes the admission of the following contentions: Coastal Chamber of Commerce 1-3, 5-6, 7B; Lynn Chqng et al (CMRI) 1-8; Sun Valley Association 1-2; NECNP :
Supplemental Contention 2; NECNP refiled Contentions I.A.1-I. A.3, I-H, h I -I, I-0, I-Q, I-R, I-T, I-V, II.A.1, II.B.2, II.B.4; and New Hampshire refiled Contentions 6, 7, 12 and 14. The Staff also does not oppose the admission o'f the following contentions: Coastal Chamber of Commerce 4, 7A; NECNP Supplemental Contention 1, NECNP refiled contentions
! I.B.1-I.B.2, I-D, I-F, I-G, I-L, I-N, I-P, I-V and II.B.1; and New i Hampshire refiled Coitention 13.
Respectfully submitted, r Roy P. Lessy b Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel p, / [ k Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 1st day of July, 1982. e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter.of .
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and ?) CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC_E I hereby certify that copies of " RESPONSE OF THE N'RC STAFF TO SUPPLE-MENTS TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE OF C0ASTAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 'LYNN CH0NG ET AL AND C0-0P MEMBERS FOR RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT,' REFILED AND SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS OF NECNP, AMENDED CONTENTIONS OF SUN VALLEY AND OF NEW HAMPSHIRE" 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, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 1st day of July, 1982: Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Jo Ann Shotwell, Asst. Attorney Administrative Judge Office of the Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Environmental Protection Division Panel One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Boston, MA 02108 Washington, D.C. 20555 Beverly Hollingworth 7 A Street Lynn Chong Hampton Beach, NH 03842 Bill Corkum Gary McCool Nicholas J. Costello Box 65 1st Essex District Plymouth, NH 03264 Whitehall Road Amesbury, MA 01913 E. Tupper Kinder, Esq. .
Assistant Attorney General Robert L. Chiesa, Esq. Environmental Protection Division Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn . Office of the Attorney General & Kohls - State House Annex 95 Market Street Concord, NH 03301 Manchester, NH 03101 9 , -
~ 1; William S. Jordan, III, Esq. Robert A. Backus, Esq. Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. 116 Lowell Street Hamon & Weiss P.O. Box 516 1725 I Street, N.W. Manchester, NH 03105 Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Ms. Patti Jacobson Phillip Ahrens, Esq. 3 Orange Street Assistant Attorney General Newburyport, MA 01950 State House Station #6 Augusta, ME 04333 Docketing and Service Section* Donald L. Herzberger, MD Office of the Secretary Hitchcock Hospital U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Hanover, NH 03755 Washington, D.C. 20555 Edward J. McDermott, Esq. Wilfred L. Sanders, Esq. Ann C. Thompson, Esq. Lawrence M. Edelman, Esq. Sanders and McDemott Sanders and McDermott 408 Lafayette Road 408 Lafayette Road Hampton, NH 03842 Hampton, NH 03842 Sen. Robert L. Preston Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. , Esq. State of New Hampshire Senate Ropes & Gray Concord, NH 03301 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Panel
- Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Roy P. Lessy /J Deputy Assis(/nt Chief __
Hearing Counsel
.}}