ML20070U762

Response in Opposition to NRC 830114 Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue 9.NRC Failed to Meet Burden of Proof.Issue of Environ Qualification within ASLB Jurisdiction.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20070U762
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	02/07/1983
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:
Shared Package
ML20070U765	List: ML20070U762 ML20070U779
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8302140009
Download: ML20070U762 (9)

Text

, , . . .e RELATED CORRESPONDENCIr February 7, 1983

@,CK'~TED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION *83 FEB -9 pig 39

'~

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ,.

, ji.:. \ .

In the Matter of )

)~

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos. 50-440 COMPANY, ej al. ) 50-441

) (OL)'

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units.1 and 2) )

OCRE RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF-ISSUE #9 On January 14, 1983, the Nhc Staff filed its motion for summary disposition of Issue #9 in this proceeding, which states:

Appiicant has not demonstrated that the exposure of polymers to radiation durin6 the prolonged operating

! history of Perry would not cause unsafe conditions to occur.

As basis for its motion, the Staff submitted the affidavit of James E. Kennedy and a final rule on environmental qualification 4

• of electrical equipment, which the Staff claims precludes the consideration of Issue #9 in this proceeding. For the reasons 1

~~ set forth celow, Intervenor Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy

("0CRE") finds that the Staff's motion must be denied.

OChE has in. previous filings delineated the legal standards for summary disposition and thus will not repes t them herein.

It will suffice to say, nowever,_that the burden of proof in a motion for summary disposition is upon the movant. The 8302140009 830207 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0 PDR g

facts Sin this case clearly show that tne Staff has not met its ourden.

The Staff's first complaint is that OChE has failed to provide the " greater specificity as to the basis for believing that particular wires or other locations are potentially dan-gerous" required by the Licensing Board in its July 12, 1982 Memorandum and Order (LBP-82-53, 16 Nhc ). This is mani-festly untrue. OChE has, in its responses to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to OCRE (which appeared to be specifically designed to elicit such information), identified particular locations (and the basis for their identification) which have radiation levels exceeding those inducing polymer degradation at the Savannah River Plant (the instance studied intensively by Sandia ifational Lacoratories) and particular components (including electrical cables oy type, function, and plant system) using the polymers implicated by the Sandia research. OCRE has I not identified every particular wire in the Perry plant which may be subject to degradation for two reasons: (1) particular-ization to that level would be an extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming task prooably requiring the use of computerized systems; (2) such particularization is neither a necessary nor an efficient means of litigating Issue #9, since the use of the l

_1/ Staff in footnote 1 at p. 2 of its motion notes that such All of the facts cited

! facts must be in evidentiary form.

oy OCRE are in evidentiary form, in that they are based upon answers to interrogatories, documents o'otained through dis-covery and referenced in answers to interrogatories, or NhC l

documents, of wnich it is appropriate for the Licensing Board to take official notice. See Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-74-22, 7 AEC 659, 667 (1974).

, _3 I

suspect polymers in radiation environments at PNPP is so wide- -

spread that logic dictates that the issue be' pursued on a more i

~ !

generic basis, e.g., oy component or polymer type.

The Staff has not. explained why OCHE's discovery responses were not sufficient. The basis for Issue #9 is the work conducted on polymer degradation Dy Sandia National Laboratories. OCRE '

has identified all documents of which it is aware pertaining to these studies. These documents thoroughly describe and explain the research conducted and the conclusions and implications-drawn therefrom. The Staff has not even addressed any faults or deficiencies it nas found in this research, perhaps becuase it has found none. It is the Staff, not OCRE, which has taken a broad and vague approach to Issue #9.

The Staff's second argument is that the Commission hks hpproved a final rule on environmental qualification of electrical equipment which supposedly precludes the consideration of Issue #9.

This argument fails on several grounds. First, Issue #9 is not limited to eledtrical equipment, but includes mechanical equip-ment utilizing polymers as well, as Applicants apparently recog-nize. Applicants have, in an updated response to OCRE's Inter-rogatory 3-4, supplied an extensive list of polymers (and equip-ment utilizing them) used in PNPP. A portion of this list is

! included in OCRE's supplemental responses to Applicants' Second l

Set of Interrogatories, filed simultaneously with this brief.

The Board should note that among the items Applicants have

' identified are seals, gaskets, 0-rings, seats, and tubing used in purely mechanical components such as valves. Theref ore , the issuance of a rule concerning electrical equipment does not i

mandate tne dismissal of Issue #9, which includes but is no.t limited to clectrical equipment.

The Staff is reliance on the new rule 10 CFR 50.49 (see . _

48 Fed. Reg. 2729, January 21, 1983) for precluding the litigation of Issue #9 is primarily cased on the premise that since Applicants need not complete qualification of electrical equipment until March 31,1985 (and provisions for extending tnis deadline in-definitely are contained in 10 CFA 50.49(g)),. any issue con-cerning environmental qualification of electrical equipment will be beyond the Licensing Board's jurisdiction. This is not totally true. The Staff nas conveniently ignored 10 CFR 50.49(i),

which requires applicants for operating licenpes to be granted on or after Feoruary 22, 1983 but before November 30, 1985 to perform an ahalysis to ensure that the plant can be operated safely pending completion of equipment qualification. The analysis must be submitted prior to tne granting of the license. Since Perry Unit 1 falls into this time frame for the granting of an operating licensing, Applicants must submit this analysis before i a license is granted. dence, the issue of environmental qualifica-tion of electrical equipment is indeed within the Board's juris-i diction.

~

The Staff also claims that Issue #9 is an impermissible challenge to 10 CFR 50.49(e)(5) because this new rule permits accelerated aging of equipment. However, 10 CFR 50.49(e)(4)

)

requires radiation dose-rate effects to be included in the 1

equipment qualification program. 10 CFR 50.49(e)(7) also requires such programs to consider synergistic effects. The

' Sandia studies, on which Issue #9 is based, identified strong

l dose-rate and synergistic effects relating to radiation-induced polymer degration. Therefore, Applicants must design an equip-ment qualification program which will consider these effects.

If Applicants choose accelerated aging in qualifying equipment by test, tney will have to demonstrate that these effects have been incorporated. If Applicants cnoose to qualify equipment by analysis, this analysis must also meet the requirements of 10 CPR 50.49(e). Tne true issue at stake here is whether Ap-plicants will comply with the NnC's regulations in their design of an equipment qualification program. The degree of compliance witn regulations is always litigable in licensing proceedings.

Issue #9 thus in no way challenges 10 CPR 50.49.

Finally, the Staff, relying on the submitted affidavit, concludes that there is reasonable assurance that exposure of polymers to radiation at PHPP will not cause ubsafe conditions to occur. The only possible basis for this conclusion is that Applicants have committed to follow Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revi-sion 2 in developing maintenance / surveillance programs to detect polymer degradation at PNPP. Applicknts have not yet submitted any such programs. To dismiss Issue #9 on the hope that Applicants' yet-to-oe-suomitted maintenance / surveillance programs will be a cure-all for any deficiencies in their equipment qualification program is _ not ohly illogical and contrary to NRC regulations out also is tantamount to delegating an important issue to the Staff for resolution. This is prohibited by Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),

ALAd-298, 2 NRC 730, 737 (1975).

Moreover, the Staff's unsupported assertion that polymer degradation will not cause unsafe conditions at Perry is rem-iniscent of the Staff's use of unsupported assertions in its , ,

attempt to seek summary disposition of Issue #3. The Licensing Board rejected the Staff's attempt, stating that:

(S)taff's conclusion is not bWtressed by supporting facts and reasons and does not negate the existence of a genuine issue of fact. Even at trial, were we to accept such unsupported staff statements we would be abrogating our responsibility as judges and substituting the staff's judgement for our own. On ultimate issues of fact, we must see the evidence from which to reach our own in-dependent conclusions. (December 22, 1982 Nemorandum and Order on Summary Disposition at 9.)

The Licensing Board, not the Staff, is the Commission's i primary fact-finding trionnal (Northern -Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), ALAB-303, 2 NRC 858, 867 (1975)). The Staff aEain ignores this fact and seeks to supplant the Board's judgement with its own. By requesting

! summary disposition of this important issue, the Staff is attempting to deprive the Board of the right, through the adjudicatory pro-cess, to independently determine the truth. For this and all of the above reasons, the Staff's motion for summary disposition i

of Issue #9 must be denied.

l -- Respectfully submitted, Susan L. diatt OCRE hepresentative 8275 Munson Rd.

l Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158

+

STATEMENT OF MATEdIAL FACTS PERTAINING TC JSSUE #9

1. Issue #9 in this proceeding states:

Applicant has not demonstrated that the exposure of ~

t polymers to radiation during the prolonged operating ~!

history of Perry would not cause unsafe. conditions to occur. (LBP-82-53, 16 NRC )

2. Issue #9 is based on research conducted by Sandia National Laboratories (documented in NUREG/CR-2156, NUREG/CR-2157, NUREG/CH-2553, and NUREG/CR-2877), which was prompted by the discovery of severely embrittled electrical cable in-sulation at the Savannah River Plant at radiation levels fkr below those generally thou6ht to cause that degree of degradation (NUREG/CR-2877 at 13 and NUREG/CR-2156 at 8-9).

~

3. nesearchers at Sandia have found strong dose-rate effects influencing the degradation of the following polymers: . .;

polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, crosslinked polyolefin, ethylene propylene rubber, chloroprene rubber, and chloro-

! sulfonated polyethylene. Specifically, the amount of degrada-tion of these polymers is more severe under the low dose-rate exposures characteristic of natural aging conditions than-under the high dose-rate exposures utilized for agin6 simula-tions (NUREG/CR-2157 at 19).

4. Researchers at Sandia have found strong synergistic effects l

influencing the degradation of polyethylene and polyvinyl-l chloride. Specifically, exposure of these polymers to t

radiation and elevated temperature (either simultaneously i

or sequentially, in the order: radiation followed by elevated temperature) caused more deterioration than either condition i alone. Similar synergistic effects have been found in some l etnyleno propylene polymers. (NUREG/CR-2156 at 9; NUREG/CR-l - _ - .-- - _ . - - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _

t 2553 at lii)

5. Applicants are utilizing in PNPP safety-relat'ed equipment

. t and components using polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, crosslinked polyolefin, ethylene propylene rubber, chloro-prene rubber, and enlorosulfonated polyethylene as seals,

! gkskets, 0-rings, tubing, and insulation or jacketing on electrical cable. (Applicants 8 Answers to OCRE Interrogatory _

3-4 and OCRE's Responses to Applicants' Second Set of Inter-rogatories to OCHE)

6. 10 CFR 50.49(e)(4) and (7) requires Applicants to desi 6n a program for the qualification of electrical equipment con-sidering dose-rate and synergistic effects.

7. 10 CFR 50.49(i) requires Applicants to submit, before they receive un operating license for PHPP, an analysis showing that the plant can operate safely pending completion of equipment qualification. 10 CFR 50.49(g) includes the pro-

! vision for indefinite extensions-of the deadline for the completion of environmental qualification of. equipment.

'

• Thus, PNPP could operate for some time without completing equipment qualification. Since this time period could be .

1cngthy enough to result in equipment d6Eradation, it is likely that the analysis required by 10 CFR 50.49(i) will have to address long-term equipment qualification.

8. Applicants' maintenance / surveillance program for' detecting deterioration of equipment is in thd developmental stages

( Applicants' Answer to OCdE Interrogatory 8-5). The adequacy of this program therefore cannot ;be'-determined at this time.

I m , - - , - - , . , -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  :.rPI i

This is to certify that copies of the foreL'oi%0feEB !59 SPONCE TO ITnC STAFF MOTION FOR SUMMAhY DISPOSITION UP were served by den sit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this day of February 1983 to those on the. service ~ ~

list oelow. g .; g g "'~

$ ~2M suskn L. Hiatt SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Daniel D. Wilt, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board p,o,. Box 08159' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Cleve' land, OH 44108 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety & Licensing Board -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. 20555 tomic ek*yIk,5NnsingBoard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. 20555 James M. Cutenin, IV, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n l Jay Silberg, Esq.

1800 M Street, N.W.

-Washington, D.C. 20036 atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission uashington, D.C. 20555

- -