ML20043E469
| ML20043E469 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1990 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10443 CLI-90-06, OL, NUDOCS 9006130030 | |
| Download: ML20043E469 (12) | |
Text
/4U3 i
. b l:LD bNEC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
% JA -8 P12 :20 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hhgh,h'f;I/]
COMMISSIONERS Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman g a sp Thomas M. Roberts Kenneth C. Rogers James R. Curtiss g g,g g' -
Forrest J. Remick 1
)
In the Matter of
)
)
4 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, II AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Unita 1 and 2)
)
Offsite Emergency Planning
)
ORDER i
CLI-90-06 By order of April 2, 1990, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board referred to us for initial action "Intervenors' Metion to Reopen the Record and Mmit Late-Filed Contention Regarding Defective Rosemount Transmitters" (the motion), filed by intervenors Massachusetts Attorney General, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (collectively "Intervenors") and dated February 27, 1990.1 Intervenors seek to reopen the closed record of this proceeding on the grant of an operating license for the Seabrook nuclear reactor to litigate a contention relating to the use at that facility of the specified transmitters whose function is to measure pressure and differential pressure in nuclear power plant ISee Public Service Comoany of New Hamnshire, (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-930, 31 NRC _ (1990).
9006130030 900600 ADOCK ODOOf, 3
gg p p PDR o
y a
I I
l i
safety systems.
We decide today, as we discuss below, that the t
requested reopening is not warranted.
1.
The Appropriate Forum for Consideretion of the Motion The proposed contention challenged the adequacy of Applicants' response to the possible presence of certain defects in Rosemount transmitters which had been made known by the manufacturer and subsequently addressed by staff notices as a matter of general information and interest.
The motion was originally addressed to the Appeal Board.2 oppositions were j
filed by the applicants for the Seabrook license (Applicants) and the NRC staff (Staff) which each asserted that the Appeal Board lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion.
Notwithstanding the Appeal Board's subsequent disagreement with Applicants and staff and its ruling that it had authority to decide the motion, the Appeal Board determined, with one member dissenting, that the i
motion was more appropriately to be sent to us.
This was so, said the Appeal Board, in that Intervenors seek to raise a new issue directed to the safety of plant operation and it had been over a year since the Appeal Board had before it on appeal any issue connected with plant safety.
In the circumstances where the contention lacked any " reasonable nexus" to subject matter remai.ning before the Appeal Board and where the Licensing Board had before it only remanded emergency planning issues (ALAB-930 2At the Appeal Board's request the motion was supplemented by a discussion of jurisdiction.,
L
l i
slip op. at 6), the Appeal Board believed the matter was appropriate for original consideration by the commission, which j
"...as the ultimate overseer of this extended proceeding is i
interested in how the motion is handled." 142, at 7.
Whether the Appeal Board majority is correct that the better way to serve the commission's interest is referral rather than decision, as urged by the dissenting member, is a matter we need not and do not reach today.
We have said that we would consider, separate from the Seabrook proceeding, the desirability of additional guidance regarding reopening motions filed very late in the adjudicatory process.
(Public service Comoany of New Hamoshira, CLI-90-3 slip op. at 56.)
As part of that consideration we may wish to reach the question whether guidance is required with respect to the appropriate forum for initial consideration of technical issues lacking nexus to matters before either of our subordinate panels.
The Commission accepts the instant referral because avoidance of further delay is a sufficient reason hers to address this matter on the merits.
2.
Decision on Whether to Reopen
- a. Positions of the Parties Intervenors challenge "the adequacy of measures taken
~
by Applicants to assure that faulty Rosemount Transmitters will not cause, contribute to, or fail to operate during an accident at Seabrook."
Motion at 1.
The contention is based on an NRC..-
information notice of a series of reported failures of specified
\\
models of Rosemount transmitters and on subsequent staff issuances, and in essence challenges the effectiveness of Applicants' compliance with the NRC staff industry-wide program
)
to respond to the potential failure of Rosemount transmitters.
i
)
Intervenors also claim that unusual hasard will result from circumstances at Seabrook in that seabrook power ascension will cause special stress that will increase Seabrook's vulnerability to the Rosemount transmitter problem.
Both Applicants and Staff argue that Intervenors have f
not satisfied the commission's three criteria to reopen a closed proceeding.3 3Section 2.734(a) provides as followa A motion to reopen a closed record to consider additional evidence will not be granted unless the following critaries are satisfied (1) The motion must be timely, except that an exceptionally grave issue may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presented.
(2) The motion must address a signiLicant safety or environmental issue.
(3) The motion must demonstrate that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially.
Because there was no earlier contention on Rosemount transmitters, the standards for a late-filed contention must balance in favor of Intervenors as well.
See 20 C.F.R.
S 2.734 (d) and S 2.714 (a).
-4 l
i
- b. Analysis First, the motion is not timely because Intervenors did not act promptly after the relevant information became available.
- Egg, e.g., Duke Power Co, (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-17, 17 NRC 1041, 1048-50 (1983).
For at least 10 months before filing the reopening motion and new contention, Intervenors had available to them public information both that there was concern about failure problems with Roskmount transmitters and that Rosemount transmitters were installed in Seabrook.
NRC Staff Response in Opposition, March 14, 1990 at 5-6.
Egg NRC Inspection Report dated Jan.
9, 1990 (Attachment C to Applicant's Answer to intervenor's Metion to Reopen and enclosure at :.8-19).
They were on notice for some seven weeks before filing of actions Applictnts had taken and had planned to take with respect to the Rosemount transmitters.
Even were we to t
assume, as we do net, that the January 29, 1990 NRC bulletin was necessary to their contention, they could and should have moved l
more promptly than a full four weeks thereafter, especially given l
that the record had long since closed and the Commission's l
immediate effectiveness decision was expected imminently.
The Commission cannot overemphasize the obligation of Intervenors to raise contentions at the earliest possible time.
The Commission reasonably demands that contsntions filed after the hearing is underway -- let alone concluded -- be filed promptly af ter receipt of the information needed to frame these contentions.
Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire, (Seabrook Station, Units i._
)
l j
1 and 2, CLI-39-8, 29 NRC 399, 314, citing Duke Power Co., suora.
see also, Public Service connany of New Hannshire, ALAB-918, 29 I
NRC 473, 482 (settled that promptness is required) and idt at 27 (citing cases).8 More importantly, our review of the affidavits provided by the parties makes it clear that a significant safety issue is not presented by Intervenors' reopening motion.
Intervenors have not reported any new information that staff has failed to consider, but simply have argued that harsher measures should be taken than Staff has considered necessary.
While undeniably the Rosemount transmitters perform safety functions and thus have safety significance, on the basis of the materials before us we cannot find that Intervenors have provided any reason to believe that the matter is not already being addressed satisfactorily by the Staff and the Applicants.
For example, Intervenors have raised the possibility that the problem could be more pervasive if in addition to the suspect Model 1153 and 1154 transmitters, there are Model 1151 or 1152 Rosemount transmitters or if Rosemount elements were sold to other manufacturers for inclusion in transmitters sold under their label rather than Rosemount's.
See Minor affidavit at 6 Par. 14.
But in contradiction of the possibility raised by Intervenors, the sworn evidence is that there are no 1151 or 1152
~
'Intervanorn gave no explanation of their lack of promptness from the time that public information was available.
Thus, as parties pointed out, Intervenors failed to show good cause for late-filing. --
-~_
I transmitters utilized in any safety or anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) system at the Seabrook site.
Egg NRC Staff Response, Affidavit of Jerry L. Mauck at 4.
Nor are there any transmitters with sensing cells manufactured by Rosemount and the body supplied from another manufacturing source utilized in any safety or ATWS system at
[
Seabrook. I,d Intervenors express concern that the startup program may " stress" the plant.
However, it has not been shown and we are not aware of any reason to believe that the transmitters themselves will be subject to pressures significantly different from those normally encountered during operation.
Thus the startup program is not likely to increase the likelihood of transmitter failure over that already considered by placing l
unusual' pressures, forces, environments and the like on them.
As a generic matter, the staff has decided that the expectable normal failure rate of the transmitters is not a safety risk.
No more is being permitted at Seabrook than at nuclear plants t
nationwide.
Thus, contrary to Intervenors' position, their showing i
fails to present an actual "significant safety issue".
This is so because they have not adduced sufficiently persuasive evidence at the threshold to create a reasonable belief that the t
s Applicant's program and continuing compliance with the Staff-
' Applicants have, among other things, identified any l
inservice transmitters from the manufacturer-identified high failure fraction lots and found only one.
That one showed no t
prescribed enhanced surveillance program will be insufficient to provide the requisite assurance of plant safety.
In these circumstances we find that the action was not timely, does not address an issue of safety significance, and failed to demonstrate that a materially different result would i
have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially.
Thus reopening the hearing is not justified under the three relevant criteria, and we need not belabor this opinion with findings under the late-filed contention evle.
It is s.o ORDERED.
For the Commission,'
J I w t
f k
,[
j SAMUE4 J. CHfLE Secretary of the Commission
% # 4,** p>
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of June, 1990 signs of defect, but nonetheless, Applicants' affiant represented u Aer oath that it would be replaced by March 14, 1990.
SAA App'icants' Response Affidavit of Bruce E. Bouchel at 4 Par.
5.
Spare transmitters from those lots were returned for replacement of the sensing modules.
& St Par.
6.
Applicants have also completed calibration checks and have replaced the sole transmitter that exhibited any symptoms of a potential fill-oil loss. 1 at 14 Par. 30.
' Commissioner Remick abstained on this action. _. _
D
i UNITED STATES CF AMERICA NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMIS$10N in the Patter of I
PUBLIC EERV!CE COMPANY OF NEW l
Docket No.(s) 50-443/444 OL HAMPfHIRE, Et AL.
I (f eatrcok Station Units ! and 2)
I i
CERilFICAtt 0F SERVICE
! hereby certify that ceDies of the foregoing COMM. ORDER (CL1-90 61 6/8/90 have been served upon the following cersons by U.S. sail, first class, except as other=1st noted and in accorcance alth the recuirteents of 10 C F R S e c. 2. 712.
Acainistrative Jucce Adelnistrative Judge G. Faul follwert. !!!
thomas 6. Moore, Chairman Atomac lafety and ' icensino ADDeal Atomic $4fety and Licensth: ADDeal w
fearc Ecara V.6. Nuclear Feculatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Cemettlion Wethtneten. CC l05!!
Wathincten, CC 20555 Administratsve Judoe 3
80= art A.
Waleer Administrative Law Judoe Atomi Safety anc Licenstne Acces!
Ivan W.
Seith, Chairman t
Board Atoriac Esf ety and Licensanc teard j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.E. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washincten, CC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 i
Acmanistrative Judge Robert R. Pierce. Escu!re Richere F.
Cols Atomic Safety and Licensing board Atomic Safety and Licentino Boere U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nutlear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washincton, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Edwin J. Rets, Esc.
I Lenneth A.
McCollem Office of the General Counsel 1807 West Knapp Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccastssion Stillwater, OK 74075 Washincton, DC 20555 Mitri A.
young Diane Curran, Esc.
att:raev Harmen. Curran 6 tcucity Office of the General Counsel 2001 6 Street, N.W.i Butte 430 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20009
- ashirgton, DC 20555
Docket No.(s)$0-443/444-OL C0rM. ORDEk (CL1-90 6) 6/9/90 Thomas 6. Dignan, Jr.. Esc.
Robert A. Backus, Esc.
Acces t Bray lackus, Meyer 6 Bolosen One International Plate
!!6 Lomell Street totton, MA 02110 Manchester, NH 03106 Paul McE6thern Esc.
Gary W. Holees, Esc.
Shaines 6 McEachern Helses 6 Ells 25 Maplewooc Avenue. P.O. Box 360 47 Winnocunnet Road Portsecuth, NH 03801 Hampton, NH 03942 Judith H. Minner. Esc.
Suzanne P. Egan Counsel 4or West Newourv City Bolicitor 79 State Street Lagounts. Hill Wilton and Rotonet Newturycort, MA Ole 50 79 State Street Nemourypert, MA 01950 Batbara J. Saint Andre. Esc.
Counsel 4or Amesbury, Newburycort Jane Doughty, Director 6 Salisbury Beacoast Anti-Pollution League Kopelman and Fance, P.C.
3 Market Street 101 Arch Street Pertsmouth, NH 03S01 Bo6toni MA 02110 Gecrge Iverson Director Ashed N. Amtrian, Esc.
N. H. Office of Emergency Menacement 145 South Mann Street. P.O. Fox 30 State House Office Park South trac 4 ore. MA 01630 l
107 Pleasant Street Concordi, NH 03301 3eorce W.
Watson, Esc.
Jack Delan Feeeral Energency Management Acency Federal Esercency Management Agency
(
500 C Street, S.W.
442 J.W. McCormack (POCH) l Washington, DC 20472 Boston, MA 02109 George D. Bisbee, Esq.
Paul A. Fritische Esq.
1 Assistant Attorney General Office of the Public Adverste Office et the Attorney General State House Station 112 25 Capstol Street Augusta ME 04333 Concord. NH 03301
'l
+,
' Doc 6 et No. (s)50-443/ dad-OL e
<a COMM. ORDER (CLI-90-6) 6/8/90 Suzanne Bretseth John Traficonte Esc.
Board of Selectmen Chief. Nuclear Safety Unit Town of Heepton Falls Office of the Attorney 6eneral Drinkwater Road One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Hampton Falls, NH 0384a Boston, MA 02108 Peter J. Brann, Esc.
Allen Lampert Assistant Attorney General Civil Defense Director Office of the Attorney General Town of Brentwood State House Station, #6 20 Franklin Street Augusta, ME 04333 Exeter, NH 03033 William Armstrono Anne Goodman, Chairman Civil Defense Directer Board ei Selectmen Town of Exeter 13-15 Newmarket Roao 10 Front Street Durham, NH 03024 Exeter, NH 03B33 R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esc.
Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Laqoulis, Hill-Whilton & Rotondt Board of Selectmen 79 State Street South Hampton, NH 03027 Newburyport,, MA 01950 Stanley W..Knowles, Chateman Norman C. Katner Board of Selectmen Superintendent of Schools P.O. Box 710-School Administrative Unit No. 21 North Hampton, NH 03662 Alumni Drive Hampton, NH 03842 Sandra F. Mitchell Civil Defense Director Beverly Hollingworth Town of Kensington 209 Winnacunnet Road Box 10. RR)
Hampton, NH 03042 East Kingston, NH 03027 The-Honorable The Honorable.
9ercen J. Humphrey Nicholas Marvoules ATTN Janet Cott ATTN Michael Greenstein l
United States Senate 70 Washington Street Washington, DC 20510 Salem, MA 01970
(_ :.
p ;;:-
i Docket;No.(s)S0-443/444-OL COMM. ORDER (CL1-00-6)
F, i-
- 6/8/90 Dated at Rockville, Md. this
/
.n B day of-June-1990 1
g aitt;e ;rt;ri;;;;;;;rarit; 3;;;i;;t;o i
4, h
T e
r 1
't l
l>
.j
[:
l-i 1
I I
1
.