ML20010J621

Reply Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law to Intervenor & NRC Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20010J621
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	10/02/1981
From:	Knotts J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8110060266
Download: ML20010J621 (14)

Text

_- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

s .

e. .

Octc n 2 - 33 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  !

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [

fu Ccw ,

t , M '

BEFORE THE ATOMIC EAFETY AND LICENSING BOm OCT 5 1 p*

• I~

c::

In the Matter of:

%c f t

SOUTH CARO' LINA ELECTRIC & )

?

[

. GAS COMPANY, et' 'al . ) s / in L ,,

) Docket No. 50-395;OL (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear )

Station, Unit 1) J .

APPLICANTS' REPLY TO (1) "INTERVENOR'S FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS" AND (2) "NPC STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION 3 OF

_ .. . .._ .. LAW IN THE FORM OF A PARTIAL INITIAL ~ DECISION"'

Applicants, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. S2.754, submit the following reply findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. Intervenor's Contention'A-2

1. In his proposed findings and cenclusions on financial matters, Intervenor does not dispute the ability of Applicants to recover in' t'h'eir rates the costs related to the Summer facility, .

including decommissioning costs. Rather, Intervenor's basic contention in his proposed findings concerns the ratemaking method for funding decommissioning. Intervenor. argues that the NRC should require the funded reserve method rather than the negative net salvage method proposed by Applicants and approved as reason-able by Staff. The NRC, however, lacks jurisdiction to specify a funding method for decommissioning, and even if it did have such authority, Applicants' proposed negative net salvage method is reasonable. (See full discussion of this issue in pa_agraphs 40, 56, 57 and 58 of Applicants' proposed findings and conclusions.)

8110060266 811002 PDR ADOCK 05000395 n5 O W /

O PDR 3

-  ! - 2. Equally witho~ut merit are Intervenor's contentions regarding Cli the ' impact of' inflation on decommissioning costs, (2) premature decommissioning assuming a TMI-2 accident, and (3) whether ratepzyers at or after tM useful life of the nuclear facility would be unfairly burdened by the negative net salvage method. Applicants fully answered these contentions, respectively, in paragraph 30; paragraphs 44, 45, 46, 59 and 60; and paragraphs 41 and 58 of its proposed finfings and conclusions.

3. Staff properly concluded that Applicants' financial plans meet the requirements of 550.33(f) and Appendix c of the NEC's repulitions." (Staff proposed findings and conclusions,.

pp. 4-12.) Relying primarily on the testimony of its witness, 1/

James O. Petersen, Staff explicitly and correedy supported the net salvage method.

'1/ As Applicants summarized in paragraph 40 of its findings, Mr. Petersen testified that:

, -- Negative net salvage, which is widely used, was a valid .

method here (Tr. 2703);

I

-- The NRC regulations presently do not require any specific method for decommissioning, but the NRC is studyAng the matter (Tr. 2704);

-- Speaking generically and not as to the present case, a funded approach provides greater financial assurance than an unfunded method (Tr. 2740);

-- Nevertheless, Applicants do not need the. greater assurance i of the funded approach; in fact, a funded approach would

not necessarily provide greater assurance because of the South ~ Carolina Public Service Comuission's close,regulatirn of SCE&G's financial affairs (Tr. 274 0,, 2710) .

In its proposed findings, Staff adduced most of these points in supporting the negative net. salvage method.

4 1

4. The only rep'ly Applicants wish to make on Staff's proposed findings on Contention A-2 concerns Staff's reference ,

at page 11, footnote 6 to Mr. Petersen's testimony (at Tr. 2732-33) to the ef,fect that the negative' net' salvage method may not place the cost of decommissioning exclusively on current rate-payers. Although the matter is not central to the decision, we i

note Applicants' disagreement with.this view'and refer to paragraph 41 of our proposed findings and the references there given for erhat we believe is the better view based on standard ratemaking princi-ples. Under an unfunded approach, future. ratepayers would not have paid'for the facilities built with reduced external financing through use of decommissioning proceeds. When such facilities are used in turn to secure indebtedness incurred to obtain the cash for decommissioning, the future ratepayer starts paying the capital costs associated with the facilities which are currently benefitting him and which he would have begun paying for earli.e,r_had not the internally generated dacommissioning funds be n temporarily invested in the facilities.

II. Intervenor's Contention ~A-9

5. Intervenor Bursey's proposed findings on contention l

A-9 comprise the equivalent of one page of text, and, by way of l

references to the record, direct the Board generally to one exhibit (via one direct and one indirect reference to Intervenor's Exhibit 1, which is NRC Inspection Report 79-35) and specifically to two separate p, ages of the transcript. Despite the brevity of Intervenor's proposed findings and the paucity of his refer-ences, we feel obliged to address the lack of merit in his

_(.

arguments in light of the entire record, which is reviewed in paragraphs 117-179 of Applicants' Proposed Findings.

6. The overall thrust of Intervenor's argument is th.at because some welds were'not performed correctli.in the first instance, that such' problems, even' though systematically i

corrected and detected by SCE&G, reflect " quality control" "substantially below NRC standards" and "rais5s a rea50nable doubt as to the ultimate' integrity of thousands of safety re-lated welds". Intervenor urges tha~t the Board refuse to issue an operating license or, failing that, that the Applicant be rest'ricfedTo operating at 5% power for six months to ensure the integrity of safety related welds. There is no basis for the inferences the Intervenor would have the Board draw nor for the relief he requests.

~

7. Two general observr.tions are in order before we

. proceed to a brief discussion of the specific points in Inter-venor's ar,qument. First, it is evident that the Intervenor misapprehends the goal of the pertinent NRC licensing and regu- ,

latory requirements. That goal, insof ar~ as is relevart here, is l to provide a high degree of assurance that the plant, as con-structed, will meet applicable regulatory requirements and approved design criteria which in turn are intended to provide a high degree t

of assuraace of system integrity 5 1 proper functioning. Thus 1

the primary gc;l should be to assure that .what ought to have been done has be'en done, if not the first time, then the second or subsequent time. The~ inference to be drawn from the tecord here is that there were systems in place to det?.ct deficient work, 4

evaluate deficiencies, and prescribe and verify any necessary corrective actions and that these systems functioned quite well.

SCE&G freely admitted that a number of mistakes were made. The Company witnesses emphasized that mistakes were identified and corrected and that root causes were sought and rectified; the paramount objectives were safety and reliability. (Crews' prepared testimony 6-9 and Nauman, passim and, generally paragraphs 137-142 of Applicants' Proposed Findings.)

In other words, the Board should be less concerned with the fact

~

that deficiencies in substantial numbers were uncovered by Appl!-

. cants (larcely on-their own iniative but in some cases upon inves-tigation of allegations by construction workers) than with whether the record reflects that systems were in place and effective to detect deficiencies with a high degree of success, to assure that any needed corrective actions were identified and taken, and tLat possible symptomatic manifestations of the problem or trend were duly investigated. The Board inquired at some length into the systems Ap licants had in place to detect trends in deficiencies and problems that might be common to a number of components or I

symptomatic of related problems. (Paragraphs 137-142' of Appli-l cants' Proposed Findings)

8. The other general observation regarding Intervenor's arguments is that they involve a logic-defying leap from j evidence that there were some first line failures to perform in 1

a satisfactory manner (a leap which ignores the rest of the pertinent record which is replete with documentation of i

I deficiencies detected, investigated, evaluated and corrected, i

without a single instance in the record where corrective action l

was needed but not taken or where SCE&G' failed to respond appropriately to a detected problem -- See Staff Proposed. Findings 4

at 28-451.to the conclusion that the potential for significant 1.atent defects affecting safety is so high as to warrant denial or conditioning of the' ' license. The vast weight of the evidence is contrary to Intervenor's argument and supports a high degree of assurance thnt construction problems were systematically identified, investigated, evaluated and corrected as required.

There is simply no record basis supporting the inference which Intervenor would have the Board draw. The Board should decline t'3 d'eny 7 or' condition the license as requested.

~

A discussion of the Intervenor's specific points follows.

9. Intervenor argues that because the allegations of a former construction worker, the NRC investigation of which is reported in NRC Inspection Report 79-35, Interrenor Exhibit 1, 2/

' vere taken seriously and to some extent confirmed,- one should infer; that;there are other (extra-record) instances which have not been brought to the Board's attention but which would persuade the Board of the existence of significant quality problems affecting ultimate safety. The Intervenor had his opportunity to -

bring evidence before the Board. On the evidence produced by him and the other parties, there is to be found absolutely no support for 'the proposition that significant quality problems remain uncorrected. (In addition to Applicants' Proposed Findings 117-179, 2/ Intervenor is selective in his use of the record; what was confirmed was not only the' existence of problems but suitable corrective action. (Staff Proposed Findings, paragraphs 42-43 and references given'.)

O

I l

See Staff's Proposed Findings '33-44w) Contrary to the analogy l used by Intervenor (which ~may be,' loosely translated as "where there is smoke there are rea~sonable grounds to suspect fire"),

what this . record reflects is that CCE&G worked very hard at detecting " smoke", every possible ~ source of " fire" was investi-gated whenever " smoke" was observed, the " fire" put out, and the

~

conditions whj ch gave rise 'to the' '" fire" were corracted.

10. Intervenor asserts that Applicants had serious difficulties adhering to code and " dismissed" the problem as a generic shortcoming not peculiar to the Summer facility, citing Tr. 1414, 5525 and Allegation H in Intervenor's Fahibit 1.

! It is far from an accurate characterization of the record to say that Applicants dismissed the socket weld problem as a generic shortcoming or otherwise. Far from dismissing the problem, the record reflects that Applicants were the first to detect the potential problem, diligently investigated it, and resolved it.

(Applicants [; Proposed Findings at paragraphs 157-169 and Staff Proposed Findings 42-43).

11. Finally, Intervcaor argues that the allegations of Mr. Crider (as referred t3 in Allegations A and H in Inspection Report 79-35, Intervenor s Exhibit 1) affect "over 15,000 welds".

He also argues (with ut record citation) that there was consis-tent testimony before the Board "about faulty welding and haphazard quality control" and asserts that these factors raise "a reason-able doubt as to the ultimate integrity of thousands of safety related welds". We have dealt with the premises of this argu-ment above. ,It need be added here only that the record reflects l

that Applicants reinspected about 14,000 potentially affected welds, and added weld material (App'licants ' Proposed Findings ,

36, 42-41) in a conservative fashion.

I'II. Intervenor's'ContentionX-50 10.. In his proposed findings, Intervenor relies cn Dr. Morgan's statement 02r. 24891 to theeffect that it,some respects Applicants have chosen values that would tend to depreciate risk rather than exaggerate risk. The word "exag-gerate" was a curious cho~ ice of words on Dr. Morgan's part.

C.ertainly it_ is not the function of the Final Environmental Statement or of the Board in considering the other evidence material to the Intervanor's contention to exaggerate the i residual risks of reactor operation and the supporting fuel cycle within regulatory limits from the particular standpoint of health effects on humans. It'has, however, been the practice to state conservatively what health effects might be, that is, health effscts estimates by the NRC have tenCed more toward

" upper bound" effects than "best estimate" effects. That there are hypotheses which would undoubtedly result in higher estimates of ultimate possible effects is not the same .hing as saying that those hypotheses have been supported on this record or even have received reasonably widespread acceptance either in the scien-l tif'ic community at large or in particular by the authoritative standard-se.tting (or risk assessment) bodies. It may be useful to very briefly recapitulate some of the pertinent evidence.

Dr. Hamilton claimed to be conservative and to have stated 9

. - _ . - _ . . . . , -_..-__,,_.--,,,.___--,__,___,.,-..,_,_.,,___,,__mm,. . . - _ _ , , - , , , . m.,_m . _ _ . . , , - - -- -.

,9-likely upper bounds of risk ~at, for example, page two of his prefiled testimony and in his testimony on the health effects of 4

radon from uranium mining and milling. It is difficult to see how he can be chargad with " depreciating" the risk since he used widely accepted risk estimators and conservative assumptions. An upper bound estimate is likely to overstate rather than understate risk, but it is a distortion to say ite claimed to he~e further exaggerated the risk.

13. With regard tc, .tntervenor's further (recurring) argument chat both Applicant and Staff witnesses obscured both the methods by which they reached the results and the-" bottom line", Dr. Hamilton's testimony explained clearly how he used the linear hypothesis and why that use is conservative ~ (g. ,

Tr. 2327). His prefiled testimony on radon and his testimony at the hearing 'Tr. 2334-35) likewise explicitly delineated bcth the methodology of risk estimation employed and the resulting estimated risks.

Likewise Dr. Branagan gave the derivation of his estimates (from BEIR I, BEIR III and UNSCEAR)

(Tr. 2326; 3727-28).

]4. Next the Intervenor argues in his proposed findings that the Applicants (without citation) and the Staff's witness admitted that there was no major disagreement on a total rar.ge of. health effects (citing Tr. 3833). The Intervenor has simply misinterpreted Applicants' Proposed Findings, paragraph 226.

And see Tr. 3822-25, where Dr. Branagan made, clear that Dr. Morgan's risk estimates for both cancers and genetic effects were outside the widely accepted values relied upon in the FES and in his

(Branagan's1 testimony. (See Applicants' Proposed Findings at paragraphs 226-242 and, espec~ially Tr. 1644-45, 1655, 1658-59.)

15. Further, the Intervenor argues that the' Applicants

' and Staff did not refute Dr. Morgan's 35 fatalities, 70 fatal cancers and 1700 genetic disorders (Tr. 24941. This is simply not the case. See e.g.,,Branagan at Tr. 3825-28 and additional references given by NRC Staff in paragraph'55'of their proposed findings.

16. W xt the Intervenor argues ~ that there is a contra-diction between Dr. Hamilton't., estimates and Dr. Barker's statemeis That there will be no~ measurab'le health impact on man.

There is no contradiction. Dr. Hamilton gave statistical pro-jections of residual risk health effects conservatively based on a linear hypothesis. As he pointed out at numerous places in his testimony, this.effect, when compared to spontan-eously occuring or otherwise caused (eM . natural backgroand) cancersthe}numberisproportionatelyverysnali. Dr. Barker's statement is completely consistent w.ith the well known fact that ir populations at large it is impossible to discern which if any

(

individuals incurred cancers due to which causes. And since the effect is so small when compared to cancers arising otherwise, it is impossible to observe the effects of low doses of low LET .

rad,iation at low dose rates. That does not sr.y that the projected l effect is zero, but only that it cannot be measured. What the t

statist.ical projection of upper bound health, effects based on t.he l linear hypothesis says is that, assuming the affect of low LET radiation at low dose rates is proportional to the effect observed l

9

at very large dosesuand dose rates, and ignoring any possible repair mechanism, then the estimated (but not measurable or obser'.3ble or discernable by cause) effect on the. population as a'whole.may be up to that given. One need only contrast (as did Dr. Hamilton in his prepared testimony) the population doses from natural background exposure to doses from the fuel cycle t

and reactor operation in order to realize that, for purposes of observation, the projected upper bound effect of the reactor and the fuel cycle is swallowed up.

17. In concluding, the Intervenor again urges that the

~1pplicint'has deipreciated the risks and misrepresented them. The short answer to this recurring theme in Intervenor's proposed findingr on Contention A10 is that both Applicants and Staff used generally accepted risk estimators specifically endorsed by the i

Commission (Staff Proposed Findings at paragraph 46) which tend j to give a conservative (i.e., more likely overstated tha.n under-l stated) estimaLc of residual ^(i~.e. , despite compliance with

~

regulations) health effects. The estimates given by Intervenor, on the other hand, appear to have been idiosyncratic to his witness l Dr. Morgan; in no case was respectable scientific authority given .

l

! to support Dr. Morgan's estimates where they were very much outside the range disclosed in the FES and in the testimony (See e.g. Staff proposed findings, paragraph 56 and footnote 10). Indeed, Dr. Morgan admitted that his values are higher than those,.given in BEIR I, BEIR III, UNSCEAR, and ICRP Reports. ,

(Tr. 16 4 7-164 9 ) .

18. The remainder of the Intervenor's argument is empty rhetoric, invoking " democratic principles" as against the l

~ ,-

" profit making corporations", .As amply' documented in the record, the vast weight of scientific opinion supports the estimates given by Applicants and Staff as conservative.

' CONCLUSIO_ N For the foregoing reasons, the Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of the Intervenor should be rejected as not ,

ipported by the weight of the evidence, and the Proposed Findingt; and Conclusions of Apt licants should be adopted as amply supported by the record. Applicants have no objection to the proposed findings,and conclusions of the NRC Staff except as specifically noted herein~.

R ctfully submitted, S

Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.

~

Donal'd K. Dankner DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 SeJenteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Applicants OF COUNSEu:

Randolph Mahan General Attorney Souch Carolina Electric &

Gas Company P.O. Box 764 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 O

Q 0

- .v__., , , _ . . . . _ _ . _ - _ _ , _ _ . , . _ . . _ _ . _ . . . , _ , . . , . . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ . _ _ , . _ . .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In'the Matter of:

SOUTH CAROLINA El3CTRIC'& ) Decket No. 50-395 OL GAS COMPANY and )

)

SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICC .) ,

AUTHORITY )

)

(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear )

Station) )

usxil7ICATE OF SERVICE I-hereby-certify that copies of " Applicants' Reply to (1)

'Intervenor's Finding of Facts and Conclusions' and (2) "NRC Staff Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusicns of Law in the Form of a Partial Initial Decision'" in the above captioned matters, were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 2nd day of October, 1981.

Herbert Grossman, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm3 ssion Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 George Fischer, Esq.

Dr. Frank ~F. Hooper Vice President and Group School of Natural Resources Executive- Legal Affairs l

University of Michigan South Carolina Electric &

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Gas Company Post Office Box 764 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Columbia, riouth Carolina Member, Atomic Safety and '

29202 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatt,ry Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.

Commission Office of the Executive War.hington, D.C. 20555 Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chair: nan, Atomic Safety and Lice sing Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Brett Allen mursey 20555

~

Washington, D.C. Route 1, Box 93-C Little Mountain, S.C. 29076 e

---ec--,- mas--- s -p e e v . .r-is--s-w-. vvu-*-e1 -r-e-%e-h ee - e e 'm-v--e--N---we-ree**-W=m"-wminew-we7ws=- ge-'w-t-sv' w yT r- t v m w w w-w==rmMwar--wyr* * ' ' c r' wii ewr----Wv-e-w-wwe- ^

o . .. . 2-Mr. Chase R. Stephens John C. Ruoff Docketing and Service Section Post Office Bo.5 96 office of the Secretary Jenkinsville, S.C. 29065 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert Guild, Esq.

Washington, D.C.- 20555 314 Pall Mall Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General South Carolina Attorney General's Office -

P.O. Box 11549 Columba.a, South Carolina 29211 r

Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.

f 9

e a

e **

• e

{

r l

l l .'

. _ _ . . . _ . _ ~ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ . - - -

._