ML20030B893
| ML20030B893 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1981 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108250127 | |
| Download: ML20030B893 (13) | |
Text
.
UNIIED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BE' ORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of i
)
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS
)
Docket No. 50-395 COMPANY (Virgil C. Sunuaer Nuclear Station. )
Unit 1)
)
5, I. $
.\\
N l Y!k 2
L
/). Vf b/
cn W
NRC STAFF SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FUR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff
(
M 5
August 21, 1981
/
If/
H l
8108250127 810821 1 PDR ADOCK 05000395"
[
O
. _.. __.. P DR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS
)
Docket No. 50-395 COMPANY (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, )
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION I
l Steven C. Saldberg Counsel for NRC Staff l
August 21, 1981
-n
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING Ar9EAL BOARD In the Matter of SUUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS
)
Docket No. 50-395 COMPANY (Virgil C. Sur.ner Nuclear Station, )
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DIRECTED LERTIFICATION 1.
INTRODUCTION On August 7, 1981, the NRC Staff filed a motion, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. i 2.718(i), seeking directed certification of the Licensing Board's determination to retain independent consultants to review and testify upon seismic issues. That determination was made without a thorough explanation of the exceptional circumstances necessitating such a course of action. The sole explanation for the Board's action was provided in comnents by the Board Chairman at Tr. 3790-800.
The Staff contended that, by declining to aO"rd the parties a prior opportunity to offer clarifying testimony upon the matters of concern to the Board, the Board's action was in contravention of the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 1
- 2. Appendix A, 9 V(f)(1), (g)(1) and pertinent decisional t.uthority.
1 On August 10, 1981, the Appeal Board requested the Licensing Board to provide a full explanation of the reasons why the Licensing Board believes it nccessary to seek the assistance of independent consultants.
The Licensing Board filed a Memorandum in response to the request on August 13, 1981. By Order of the same date, the Appeal Board established a schedule for responses to the Staff motion and provided the Staff with the opportunity to file a supplement to its motion to addr2ss the
, i contents of the Licensing Board Memorandum. The Staff supplemental position in that regard follows.
II. DISCUSSION Mec,xcade:., the Licensing Board stated that the full In ii.3 explanation for its action is contained in remarks made by the Board Chairman on the record on July 17, 1981 which the Staff referred to in its motion. E The Board further indicated that its stated concerns did not derive from the sufficiency of the Staff testimony, but rather According from perceived inadequacies in the Staff seismic review itself.
to the Board, such a matter was not susceptible to " correction" through further Staff testimony. U The Staff disagrees.
The Licensing Board's Memorandum fails to provide an adequate The information presented in justification for its unprecedented action.
the cited portions of the transcript does not provide a reasonable basis From from which to conclude that the Staff seismic review was inadequate.
all that has be2n disclosed to date, the Board seems more intent on getting outside consultants to characterize or " critique" E he Staff review than it t
is in understanding from the Staff the complete scope of its review.
Implicit in the Board's argument that it cannot successfully pursue its concerns over the Staff review with the Staff is a supposition that if it posed the same question to the Staff that it seeks to pose to its independent consultants, This is whol y unfounded. The Staff it could not get a satisfactory answer.
remains ready, willing and able to address these and other concerns the Board may have relative to its review in this matter.
_f/
See Staff me, ion at 2 and 6.
y Licensing Board Memorandum at 2.
y Id. at 3.
l l
L In the first place, in the cited portion of the record, the Board Chairman stated that his three areas of concern about reservoir-induced seismicity (namely, magnitude, acceleration or g values, and the application of response spectra) became apparent "merely from looking at the SER" (Tr. 3790). The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and supplement thereto (SSER), in relevant part, constituted tne Staff case-in-chief on These documents were published in February,1981 and Contention 4.
April, 1981, respectively. The Board did not express any particular concern over the scope of the Staff seismic review before the hearing.
Nor did the Board specify its particular concern in that regard during the testimony of the Staff seismic panel. These concerns were not articulated until the final week of scheduled hearings, weeks after the panel had been e.cused. The Staff cannot answer questions it is not asked.
Honetheless, acknowledging that he had "not reviewed the testimony" (Tr. 3790), the Board Chairman asserted that the Board had some concerns relative to the Staff review of the issue which it wanted independent The Board Chairman stated at the outset of his consultants to explore.
remarks on the record that he "did not care to have the Staff come on now and give a further explanation of what they did" (Tr. 3791).
If the Board has questions about the substance of the Staff review, it should As the Staff pose those questions to the Staff, not some outside entity.
l noted in its certification motion, the Staff seismic review was conducted over more than a two year period. The entirety of the Staff review, i
including all the information considered prior to arriving at positions (into which category some of the items raised by the Board fall), cannot l
possibly be fully incorporated into an SER.
l r
~
. However, the Staff is not being given the opportunity to answer the Board questions about its review. Rather, the Board intends to solicit outside consultants, in fact, to " critique" O aspects of the Staff revies. The Secrd would apparently then permit the Staff to The Staff takes
" respond" b to any positions the consultants might take.
issue with the clear implication in the Board Chairman's remarks that Staff cannot be trusted to present independent, unbiased information for the Board's decision.
(Tr. 3792). The Commission expects the Staff, and the Staff is prepared, to provide an independent evaluation of the proposals of an applicant, to independently ascertain whether such proposals comply with regulatory requiremenu, and to so advise the licensing board in this That is precisely what the Staff did in this proceeding. Any regard.
conclusion by the Board that the Staff would ignore pertinent data or information which is potentially adverse to the Staff's position is wholly unfounded and is not supported by the record.
In turn, the Board Chairman's comments in this regard provide no justification for the extraordinary action of procuring outside Board consultants.
In addition, a prejudgment without good cause, by a board member that the Staff would be less then candid with the board regarding such matters with the consequence that the " Staff's concern for its position" would prevail over truth, is completely unacceptable if an impartial adjudication is l
to be rendered.
A licensing board should not be in the posture of generating its own testimony solely to test the validity of uncontroverted testimony given by y
Licensing Board Memorandum at 3.
5)
Id. at 2.
9
-E-As 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A V(f)(1) indicates, "As to the parties.
matters pertaining to radiological health and safety which are not in controversy, Boards are neither required nor expected to duplicate the review already perfonaed by the Staff and the ACRS, and they are authorized to rely upon the testimony of the Staff, the Applicant and the conclusions of the ACRS which are not controverted by any parties."
While there was a wide range of opinions expressed before the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and in testimony at these hearings on reservoir-induced seismicity, in the final analysis, the Applicant, Staff and ACRS agreed on the adequacy of the Summer seismic No legitimate purpose in searching for additional viewpoints on one or more facets of this analysis is evident.
While the Staff disagrees with the Board's assessment of its review, the adequacy of the Staff review is not at issue in this See_ 10 C.F.R. Part 2 Appendix A 9V.(f)(1). While Appendix A proceeding.
sV is literally applicable to CP proceedings,Section VIII indicates that sections I-VII of Appendix A apply to operating license proceedings, SectionV.(f)(1)standsinmarked except as the context requires otherwise.
contrast to section V.(f)(2). The latter section specifically provides that in uncontested CP cases the Board's role includes determining whether No such role is conferred on the Board the Staff's review has been adequate.
In fact, in contested cases by the provisions of Section V.(f)(1).
that section specifically authorizes Boards to rely on Staff and Applicant The Applicant has.
testimony and ACRS conclusions which are not controverted.
As relevant to the technical the burden of proof on the contested issues.
See Staff certification motion at 7-8.
y
. issue underlying this request for certification, the resolution of a In particular contention turns on the weight of the evidence of record.
the present case, the evidence is undisputed that the seismic design is adequate.
assuning that an inadequate Staff review would warrant the Eve :
retention of outside consultants, the Board's explanation is it. sufficient,.
To illustrate, the Board's first concern is over the manner in which acceleration values for postulated reservoir-induced events were derived.
(Tr. 3790).
In this regard, the Board questions whether the Brune model was the best model available to use in this situation (Tr. 3791-2).
- However, the Board never inquired of the F*1ff as to the appropriateness or appli-cability of the Brune model. The Board questions the soundness of the g values actually derived (Tr. 3793) and submits that such questions are While this may have been raised "just from the fact of the SER" (Tr. 3793).
the case at the time the SER was written, it was not the case at the time the See, e.g., SSER, 6s3.7.2, 18 (item 1); Knight, Tr. 1059,70, SSER was issued.
The Board, in its expression of concerns, also questions 1084, 1087, 1105.
whether the Staff is familiar with artain dates contained in a particular publication (Tr. 3793) or the work of a particular individual (Tr. 3794).
However, the Board never asked the Staff whether it was familiar with the publication in question or the work of the specified individual.
Another expressed Board concern is how the Staff can reconcile its position on the magnitude of the maximum reservoir-induced event (M =4 z
with that of the ACRS (M =5.0) (Tr. 3746). Although the Staff iias made 7
it clear that it adheres to its position on this matter, at the recommendation of the ACRS it has assessed the ability of the plant'to safely withstand ground accelerations which might accompany a higher magnitude event. U In the same context, the Board expresses concern over the Staff position on the probability that the reservoir-induced event could exceed a local magnitude 4.5 (Tr. 3798). Questions in this regard i
were asked and answered by the Staff (See_ Knight, Tr. 1174-75). The j
f Board did nct pursue this matter further.
i j
Finally, the Board queries whether the Staff had received and considered a recent USGS raport on the Jenkinsville accelograms (Tr.
l The 3799), yet the Board never posed that question to the Staff.
Applicant testified that the data froia this report was used in its seismic analysis which the Staff favorably reviewed (See McGuire Tr.
3809).
The Board indicates that it plans to call "ACRS consultants" E and USGS members Fletcher, Boore and/or Joyner.
Presumably, the ACRS Dr.
consultants alluded to by the Board are Drs. Trifunac and Luco.
Trifunac, as previously noted, U was a seismic consultant to the ACRS in He did not this case and his report to the ACRS is a matter of record.
dissent from the favorable ACRS letter of March 18, 1981. Dr. Luco did not serve as an ACRS consultant for this case nor did he provide an In any event, neither opinion to the ACRS, either orally or in writing.
Dr. Trifunac nor Dr. Luco are noted experts on reservoir-induced i
)
seismicity.
See Staff certification motion at 7-8; See also Knight, Tr.
regarding the Staff position on its general obligation to 2/
_1169-1173 address ACRS recommendations.
8/
Memorandum at 2.
y Staff certificatica motion at 3.
Mr. Fletcher is apparently being solicited to discuss stress drop calculations at the Monticelio Reservoir. The Board states that, in addition to being the subject of considerable testimony, these calculations are a " critical" element in the Staff's position. This is not true. This data was not critical to the formulation of the Staff position on reservoir-induced events (e.g., Sobel, Tr. 1126-27).
It was only critical to one member of the Staff with a differtit view on one aspect of the Staff position. 3S/ While the Staff would have thought tha; Mr. Fletcher's calculations and their impact were fairly well explored on the record, at least Mr. Fletcher is being called upon to testify on a matter in which he had some prior involvement, unlike the case with Drs. Boore or Joyner. Whatever the experience of these latter individuals, they are,5eing asked to form a position in a relatively short time period on aspects of the Staff review conducted over a two year period.
Further, with no disrespect intended, neither of these individuals are noted experts in the field of reservoir-induced seismicity.
In short, the value of the analyses and opinions that might reasonably be expected from the outside consultants the Licensing Board intends to call is questionable in view of the particular expertise of those consultants and the time available to them for performing their analysis.
Perhaps more importantly, discussions between the Staff and USGS at several levels indicate that both the designated USGS witnesses and their i
10/ See Staff certification motion at 7.
-a
-w
=
t
9-management regard the Board's action as an unwarranted imposition and disruptive of that agency's wcrk. The Staff did contract with the USGS to assist in one facet of the Staff's review. USGS has fulfilled thatobligation.13/ The Board's action has placed an unnecessary strain on NRC-USGS relations and could, if such actions became a pattern, have a deleterious effect on the valued and otherwise cooperative relationship between the USGS and NRC.
In summary, it is the Staff's view that the Board's explanation at the cited transcript pages provides a wholly inadequate explanation of the basis upon which the Board proposes to take the extraordinary action of calling upon independent consultants. There is scant explanation as to why the Board believes the Staff's evaluation to be inadequate and no sufficient explanation as to why the Board has not sought to resolve its concerns through questioning of the Staff.
Beyond this, the Board's sole explanation at the cited transcript pages provides no information as to the procedure by which the outside consultants will be selected and informed as to the nature of their evaluation or how they are to go about performing it. There is no 1
I
(
indication as to whether, or what kind of, interaction between the Nor outside consultants and Staff and Applicant experts will take place.
is there an indication of the schedule for the selection of the outside consultants, the length of time contemplated for their evaluation or when and in what form their evaluation will be presented. The Board's calling l
of outside consultants promises to entail delay in resolving the seismic l
30, 1980 letter report, Appendix E to SER, and See December 11/
sponsoring testimony of Mr. Robert H. Morris and Dr. Gregory S.
John.
(
l l
design issues in this proceeding, since, of necessity, those consultants must be selected, advised as to what they are to evaluate, perfonn their evaluation and present the results thereof, all on an as yet undefined Only then, under the Board's contemplation, would the other schedule.
Such delay parties be given the opportunity to provide their views.
could be obviated, (as could the poter*:ial impact on Staff resources) in large part, by allowing the Staff to move forward with an explanation as to the scope and methods of its review in response to the Board's Concerns.
CONCLUSION The Staff intends to file supplemental testimony addressing the concerns expressed by the Board on the record on or about September 15, The Staff believes that this will clarify for the Board the scope 1981.
For the reasons given above, along with those of the Staff review.
expressed in the directed certific~ tion motion, the Staff requests the a
Appeal Board to instruct the Licensing Board to review the testimony and evidence of record and to refrain from the retention of outside consul thereafter unless it can demonstrate that it is essential to do so in f
order to render a decision on Contention 4.
Respectfully submitted.
I
'( j 7
tev n C. Gol erg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21st day of August,1981.
l L
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-395
)l SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS I
COMPANY Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been in the United States mail, first class or, served on the following by deposit as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mall system, this 21st day of August, 198I:
George Fischer, Esq.
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Vice President and General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
Board P.O. Box 764 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Dr. John H. Buck Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal S.C. Attorney General's Office Board P.O. Box 11549 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Mr. John Ruoff Christine N. Kohn P.O. Box 96 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Jenkinsville, S.C.
29065 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Brett Allen Bursey Washington, D.C.
20555 Route 1, Box 93-C Little Mountain, S.C.
29076 Herbert Gross e, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Joseph B. Knotts, Esq.
Panel Debevoise & Liberman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormiission 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- Washington, D.C.
20036 I
Dr. Frank F. Hooper Randolph R. Mahan, Esq.
School of Natural Resources S.C. Electric & Gas Company i
I University of Michigan P.O. Box 764 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Columbia, S.C.
29218 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 9
i
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- In addition, three (3) copies were hand-delivered to the Appeal Board members at their offices on August 21, 1981.
_ Y
'5 se R. Gray! /
1 for NRE/Staf oun i
.