ML022260114
| ML022260114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/2002 |
| From: | James Heck NRC/OGC |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| +adjud/rulemjr200506, 50-369-LR, 50-370-LR, 50-413-LR, 50-414-LR, ALSBP 02-794-01-LR, RAS 4737 | |
| Download: ML022260114 (12) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RAS 4737 DOCKETED 08/13/02 BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION ) Docket Nos. 50-369, 370, 413 and 414
)
(McGuire Units 1 and 2, and )
Catawba, Units 1 and 2) )
)
NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-02-17 Jared K. Heck Counsel for NRC Staff August 12, 2002
August 12, 2002 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION ) Docket Nos. 50-369, 370, 413 and 414
)
(McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, )
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) )
NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-02-17 INTRODUCTION On July 23, 2002, the Commission issued a Memorandum and Order, CLI-02-17 (Memorandum and Order), which affirmed in part and reversed in part a ruling by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) in this proceeding admitting BREDL/NIRS Contention 2. On July 29, 2002, the Board held a telephone conference with the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff), Duke Energy Corporation (Duke), the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) to discuss, inter alia, the meaning of CLI-02-17 as it relates to the scope of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2. Subsequently, on August 2, 2002, Duke filed its Motion for Clarification of Memorandum and Order CLI-02-17 (Motion for Clarification). The Staff hereby submits its response to Dukes Motion for Clarification.
BACKGROUND BREDL/NIRS Contention 2, as admitted, challenges the completeness of Dukes severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis in its license renewal application. The contention provides:
The Duke SAMA analysis is incomplete, and insufficient to mitigate severe accidents, in that it fails to include information from NUREG/CR-6427.
See Memorandum and Order at 6, 17. The study referred to in the contention, NUREG/CR-6427, Assessment of the DCH [Direct Containment Heating] Issue for Plants with Ice Condenser Containments, was completed in April, 2000, by Sandia National Laboratories.1 The Sandia study found significantly higher conditional containment failure probabilities (CCFPs) during station blackout (SBO) events for plants with ice condenser containments than had been previously reported. At the time the contention was initially admitted by the Board, see Duke Energy Corp.
(McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-02-04, 55 NRC 49 (2002), Duke had not addressed the findings of the Sandia study in its application.
After the Board admitted BREDL/NIRS Contention 2, Duke submitted a supplemental SAMA analysis that incorporated the higher CCFPs reported in the Sandia study.2 By doing so, Duke was able to calculate the change in risk reduction and estimated benefits that resulted from using the Sandia study values. This information was used by the Staff in the preparation of its draft supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs) for Catawba and McGuire, which show the range of risk reduction and estimated benefits achievable using either the CCFPs from Dukes initial SAMA analysis or the CCFPs from the Sandia study.3 1
Hereafter, the Staff refers to NUREG/CR-6427 as the Sandia study.
2 See Letter from M.S. Tuckman to NRC, Response to Requests for Additional Information in Support of the Staff Review of the Application to Renew the Facility Operating Licenses of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2" at 8 (January 31, 2002); Letter from M.S. Tuckman to NRC, Response to Requests for Additional Information in Support of the Staff Review of the Application to Renew the Facility Operating Licenses of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2" at 7 (February 1, 2002).
This supplemental SAMA analysis was submitted in response to requests for additional information from the Staff.
3 See NUREG-1437, Supplement 8, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, (May 2002) at 5-28, Table 5-8; NUREG-1437, Supplement 9, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, (May 2002) at 5-27, Table 5-7.
Prior to the issuance of CLI-02-17, both Duke and the Staff expressed their view that BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 had been rendered moot by Dukes supplemental SAMA analysis.4 The Board initially indicated agreement during an April 29, 2002, telephone conference with the parties but did not definitively resolve the issue, instead allowing BREDL and NIRS an opportunity to amend their contention in order to avoid the mootness question. See Tr. at 874, 897, 914; Order (Addressing Matters Discussed at April 29, 2002, Telephone Conference and Scheduling June 18, 2002, Telephone Conference) (May 13, 2002). Late-filed amended contentions and responses were subsequently filed before the Board.5 During the Boards July 29, 2002, telephone conference, which was scheduled for argument regarding the admissibility of the late-filed amended contentions, the Board discussed the implications of CLI-02-17 for the proceedings before it. Throughout the telephone conference, substantial disagreement surfaced between the parties and the Board regarding the scope of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 as interpreted by the Commission. In the Boards view, BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 (as interpreted by the Commission) raised questions about the adequacy of Dukes SAMA analysis and which set of CCFPs were better, those used by Duke in its initial SAMA analysis, or those used in the Sandia study. See Tr. at 1070, 1080-82, 1094, 1102, 1105-06, 1109-11, 1116, 1119, 1123-25. The Staff disagreed with the Boards construction, maintaining its prior 4
See, e.g. Official Transcript of Proceedings at 871, 877 (stating Dukes position that its responses to the Staffs requests for additional information effectively mooted the contention);
NRC Staffs Answer to Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Leagues and Nuclear Information and Resource Services Amended Contention 2, (June 10, 2002) at 7-8 (stating the Staffs position that Dukes responses to the Staffs requests for additional information mooted the contention).
5 See Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Leagues and Nuclear Information and Resource Services Amended Contention 2, (May 20, 2002); Response of Duke Energy Corporation to Proposed Late-Filed Contentions, (June 10, 2002); NRC Staffs Answer to Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Leagues and Nuclear Information and Resource Services Amended Contention 2, (June 10, 2002); Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Leagues and Nuclear Information and Resource Services Reply to Responses to Amended Contention 2 With Respect to the Issue of Timeliness, (June 14, 2002).
position that BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 is limited in scope and focuses solely on the failure to include information from the Sandia study in Dukes SAMA analysis. See Tr. at 1103-04.
Ultimately, the Board set a schedule for discovery between Duke and the intervenors, concluding that it could not entertain a motion for summary disposition on the mootness question until evidence regarding which CCFPs were better has been gathered. See Tr. at 1082, 1138, 1144.
During discussions between Duke and the Board regarding the proper scope of discovery, various views surfaced between members of the Board regarding the Commissions characterization of the Sandia studys findings on SBO frequency. See Tr. at 1091-96. Duke also expressed disagreement with the Commissions characterization. Id. As more fully explained below, the Staff also believes that the Commission made a technical mistake in its characterization of the Sandia studys findings on SBO frequency.
In order to ensure an orderly an efficient resolution of these proceedings, and in order to avoid any confusion of important technical facts, the Staff supports Dukes request for clarification from the Commission in the two respects: (1) that the findings in the Sandia study relied up on by the Commission in CLI-02-17 concerned containment failure probability rather than SBO frequency; and (2) that the scope of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 is limited to a determination of whether or not Duke incorporated the CCFPs from the Sandia study in its license renewal application.
DISCUSSION
- 1. Characterization of the Sandia Studys Findings Regarding SBO Frequency On page nine of CLI-02-17, the Commission stated:
The Sandia study. . . concluded that previous cost-benefit studies may not have justified additional hydrogen control measures because those studies viewed the probability of station blackout as only a small fraction of core damage frequency.
The Sandia study went on to find significantly higher station blackout frequencies and consequently, higher probabilities of containment failure, particularly for the McGuire station.
(Footnotes omitted, emphasis added). During the Boards July 29, 2002, prehearing teleconference with the parties, Duke took the position that the Commission made a technical mistake in this statement. See Tr. at 1091-96. The Board expressed internal disagreement on this issue, however, which may have important implications regarding the scope of current proceedings (especially discovery). See id.
The Staff agrees with Duke that the Commissions above-referenced statement is not technically accurate. The frequency of SBO events that lead to core damage is calculated through a level 1 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). The Sandia study included no new analyses and made no findings regarding core damage frequency. Instead, it simply assumed that core damage would occur at the frequency predicted in each ice condenser licensees individual plant examination and focused on containment failure probabilities, which were calculated through a simplified containment event tree similar to that used in a level 2 PRA. See Sandia study at xvi-xvii,
- 29. Because the core damage frequencies assumed in the Sandia study were incorporated from calculations performed during the individual plant examination process for plants such as Catawba and McGuire, see id., the study made no findings regarding the frequency of core damage or station blackout. Clarification from the Commission is necessary on this point to avoid confusion of important technical issues and to properly define which portions of Dukes SAMA analysis are considered to be within the scope of the contention.6
- 2. Characterization of the Scope of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 During the July 29, 2002, prehearing teleconference, the Board repeatedly expressed the view that, in light of CLI-02-17, BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 raised questions about which set of CCFPs were better for use in Dukes SAMA analysis, the plant-specific CCFPs used in Dukes initial SAMA analysis, or those used by the Sandia study. See Tr. at 1070, 1080-82, 1094, 1102, 6
The Board also suggested that clarification regarding this issue may be necessary. See Tr. at 1093.
1105-06, 1109-11, 1116, 1119, 1123-25. The Board concluded that it could not decide whether Dukes supplemental SAMA analysis, when read in conjunction with the Staffs draft SEISs, rendered BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 moot because the Board had yet to determine which set of values were better. See Tr. at 1082. By so construing CLI-02-17, the Board concluded that a motion for summary disposition regarding the mootness of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 would be premature at this stage, and decided instead to go forward with discovery on the admitted contention. See, e.g., Tr. at 1138 (proposing a conference after 60 days of discovery to determine whether issues are ripe for summary disposition).
In the Staffs view, the Boards construction of CLI-02-17 expands the scope of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 beyond that intended by the Commission. In the text of CLI-02-17, the Commission took a very limited view of the contentions scope, focusing on the completeness of Dukes SAMA analysis. For example, in finding the contention admissible, the Commission stated that the petitioners have done enough to raise a question about the adequacy of the probability figures used in Dukes SAMA analyses, namely, whether they should have incorporated or otherwise acknowledged information from the Sandia study. Memorandum and Order at 9. On page 10, the Commission states, This contention raises a question about whether information from the Sandia study should have been utilized or otherwise addressed in Dukes SAMA analysis.
Finally, in its summary of CLI-02-17, the Commission states that BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 is admissible only insofar as it raises the question whether the values from the Sandia study should have been utilized. . . Id. at 17.
These statements focus on Dukes responsibility to utilize, incorporate, or otherwise address the CCFPs from the Sandia study in its own SAMA analysis. Thus, the resolution of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 requires no more than a formal finding by the Board that Duke has in fact utilized, incorporated, or addressed the CCFPs of the Sandia study into its supplemental SAMA analysis in a manner that allows for meaningful comparison with the risk reduction calculated under Dukes
initial SAMA analysis, which used plant-specific CCFPs. In the Staffs view, this can best be accomplished through a motion for summary disposition, and discovery is not necessary, given the evidence already available (Dukes supplemental SAMA analysis and the Staffs draft SEISs). The language of CLI-02-17 supports the Staffs view:
Duke argues that the contention has now become moot because, in responses to staff RAIs, Duke has now addressed the Sandia study. Moreover, after Dukes appeal was filed, the NRC staff issued draft SEISs for McGuire and Catawba that also take into account the containment failure probabilities from the Sandia Study.
Because they address the Sandia study results, the draft SEISs may - indeed largely appear to - render moot the contentions first concern: the SAMA analysiss failure to include information from the Sandia study. The Commission believes, however, that whether the contention is moot is a factual question best addressed by the Licensing Board in the first instance, perhaps in response to a summary disposition motion.
Memorandum and Order at 13-14 (internal footnotes and quotations omitted).
Although the Staff believes the Commissions Memorandum and Order is unambiguous on this point, clarification is necessary given the confusion of the Board and parties due to certain language in other parts of the Commissions Memorandum and Order.7 Specifically, the following language in CLI-02-17 has led to confusion regarding the scope of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2:
Duke is correct in stressing that its own data may represent the best assumptions and frequencies to use in the SAMA cost-benefit analysis. The Board fully acknowledged as much, both in its decision and at the prehearing conference. But the Board nonetheless found that a sufficient question had been raised about the SAMA analyses failure to address or otherwise acknowledge results from the Sandia study. Whether the SAMA analysis in fact should have addressed the study was a question for the merits, the Board held. We cannot say that the Boards view is unreasonable. It did not resolve the merits questions whether the Sandia studys assumptions reflected better estimates than Dukes or whether Dukes SAMA analysis should have addressed the study.
Memorandum and Order at 11-12 (emphasis added). In the Boards view, the italicized language above suggests that the resolution of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 requires some finding regarding which values are better. See Tr. at 1105. In the Staffs view, the Commission was only 7
During the July 29, 2002, telephone conference, the Board itself suggested that clarification from the Commission would assist in the resolution of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2. See Tr. at 1129.
summarizing the course of the proceedings prior to the Boards admission of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 in the above quoted passage. In doing so, the Commission simply noted that the Board never reached, nor was required to reach, the question of which values were better in its ruling on the admissibility of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2. This statement is nothing more than a summary of the procedural posture of the case on appeal before the Commission.
To read the passage quoted above as implying that BREDL/NIRS Contention 2 requires a finding that one set of CCFPs is better than another before the contention can be resolved leads to an unreasonable result. If such a construction prevails, discovery and litigation will commence on an issue that is completely irrelevant to the central issue posed by the contention: the completeness of Dukes SAMA analysis. If a formal factual finding is made that Duke has incorporated the CCFPs of the Sandia study in its supplemental SAMA analysis, or that the Staff has addressed the Sandia study in its SEISs, then it does not matter which value set is considered better because the entire purpose of the SAMA analytical process is simply to ensure that any plant changes - in hardware, procedures, or training - that have a potential for significantly improving severe accident safety performance are identified and assessed. Memorandum and Order at 5. Once this goal has been met, any argument about which of the two approaches taken is better is simply irrelevant.8 Finally, allowing discovery and litigation on the issue of which CCFPs are better would implicate one of the central issues currently being explored through Generic Safety Issue (GSI) 189, which the Commission has noted addresses issues separate from this license renewal proceeding. Memorandum and Order at 17. Litigation of issues central to GSI-189 would cause confusion, delay, and could lead to inconsistent results regarding the appropriate form of hydrogen 8
Even if one set of CCFPs can be proven to be better, no relief would be possible for the intervenors. The only conceivable relief would be to require Duke to incorporate the Sandia CCFPs into its SAMA analysis, which Duke has already done.
control at ice condensers during station blackout events. In order to avoid such outcomes, clarification is needed from the Commission regarding the scope of BREDL/NIRS Contention 2.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Staff supports Dukes Motion for Clarification.
Respectfully Submitted,
/RA/
Jared K. Heck Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland This 12th day of August, 2002.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION ) Docket Nos. 50-369, 370, 413 and 414
)
(McGuire Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2, and )
Catawba Nuclear Station )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-02-17" 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 (*), by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions internal mail system; as indicated by two asterisks (**), by electronic mail, this 12th day of August, 2002.
Ann Marshall Young, Chair**
- Lester S. Rubenstein**
- Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 (E-mail: AMY@nrc.gov) (E-mail: Lesrrr@msn.com)
Charles N. Kelber**
- Office of the Secretary**
- Administrative Judge ATTN: Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 (E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: CNK@nrc.gov)
Diane Curran, Esq.**
Office of Commission Appellate Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg Adjudication**
- 1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20036 Mail Stop: O-16C1 (E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com)
Washington, D.C. 20555 Mary Olson**
Paul Gunter** Southeast Director of NIRS Nuclear Information and Resource Service P.O. Box 7586 1424 16th St. N.W. Asheville, NC 20882 Suite 404 (E-mail: nirs.se@mindspring.com)
Washington, D.C. 20026 (E-mail: pgunter@nirs.org)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel*
David A. Repka, Esq.** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Anne W. Cottingham, Esq.** T-3F23 Winston & Strawn Washington, D.C. 20555 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 Donald J. Moniak**
(E-mail: drepka@winston.com P.O. Box 3487 acotting@winston.com) Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Aiken, S.C. 29802 Ms. Janet Zeller** (E-mail: donmoniak@earthlink.net)
P.O. Box 88 Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Raju Goyal**
Glendale Springs, N.C. 28629 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (E-mail: BREDL@skybest.com) Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555 Lisa F. Vaughn, Esq.** (E-mail: RXG5@nrc.gov)
Legal Dept. (PBO5E)
Duke Energy Corporation 422 So. Church St.
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 (E-mail: lfVaughn@duke-energy.com)
Jesse Riley**
854 Henley Place Charlotte, NC 28207 (E-mail: Jlr2020@aol.com)
/RA/
Jared K. Heck Counsel for NRC Staff