ML20083L472

Motion to Readmit Contentions Re Severe Accidents,Control Room Design Deficiencies & Lack of Financial Qualifications. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20083L472
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	04/12/1984
From:	Guild R CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP, GUILD, R., PALMETTO ALLIANCE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
INTRV-840412, NUDOCS 8404170261
Download: ML20083L472 (10)

Text

.Mh UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!?'ISSIO!!

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A'iD LICENSI!;G BOARD 5 APR 16 p2*I3 M7h79s,,..

In the Matter of )

}

DocketNos.50-4k DUKE POWER COMPA!Y, et al. 50-414

)

)

(Catawba Nuclear Station, ) April 12, 1984 Units 1 and 2) )

Pall!ETTO ALLIANCE AND CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CROUP MOTION TO READMIT CONTENTIONS REGARDING SEVERE ACCIDENTS, CONTROL ROOM DESIGN DEFICIENCIES A'!D LACK OF FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Sections 2.714(a)(1), 2.718, and 2.730 Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental Study Group hereby move to readmit and provide for the litigation of previously admitted contentions on the subjects of severe accidents, control room design deficiencies and lack of financial qualifications. Contentions on these subjects were previously filed by Intervenors pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714(a)(3)(b) and the Licensing Board's Order of November 5, 1981 providing for the time-ly submission of the contentions which Intervenors sought to have litigated in this proceeding. In that same pleading Intervenors sought the oppor-tunity to amend or expand that filing on the basis of information not then known to Intervenors. This motion is advanced now on the basis, in part, of such new information, as well as on the basis of subsequent changes in applicable law and regulation.

1. SEVERE ACCIDENTS In their December, 1981 filins Palmetto and CESG advanced four conten-tions on the subject of severe accidents at the Catawba Nuclear Station:

8404170261 040412 PDR ADOCK 05000413 0 PDR Mo3

Palmetto Alliance contentions No. 5, 9 and 31 (CESC 2). In the Board's March 5, 1982 Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Conference), pp. 27-28 the Board rejected the contentions on the basis of the failure of Intervenors to advance a site specific " serious and credibic accident scenario," and the December 23, 1981 proposed commission rule, 46 F.R. 62281 on the subject of hydrogen control measures. In their March 31, 1982 Responses And Objections To Order Following Prehearing Con-ference, Palmetto and CESG advanced a series of " plainly credible, Catawba specific, accident scenarios," pp. 5-10: 1. offsite power failure; 2. ATWS;

3. fatigue failure of the reactor pressure vessel; and 4. stud bolt failure.

By Order of July 8. 1982 this Board sought comments by Applicants and NRC Staff with respect to Intervenors posited scenarios. Finally, the Board re-viewed these scenarios and confirmed its rejection of these contentions in its Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Second Prehear-ing Conference) of December 1, 1982 16 NRC 1791 at 1807 et seq. The Board, there, rejected the capitalized stud bolt failure scenario on the grounds of, res judicata, as having been previously litigated by CESG. With respect to the other three scenarios,'the Board noted that the NRC Staff supported ad-mission of these as sufficiently specific for litigation, but rejected their admission on the grounds of the pending rulemaking:

The basic criterion is safety -- is there a substantial safety reason for litigating the generic issue as the rulemaking progresses?

In some cases, such as TMI Restart, such litigation probably should be allowed if it' appears that the facility in question.may be li-censed to operate before the rulemaking can be completed.- In such a case, litigation may be'necessary as a predicate for acquired safety findings. In other cases, however, it may become apparent that the rulemaking will be completed well before the facility can be licensed to operate. In that kind of case there would normally be no safety justification for litigating the generic issues, and strong resource management reasons not to litigata. . . . it now appears that a final rule would be adopted in the next.several months (fn 8: January or February, 1983.) Civen the present status of this proceeding, no operating licenses for Catawba are likely to issue before some time in 1984, a year or more after the final rule. Thus we see no safety justification for litigating the Intervenors' hydrogen scenarios in this case, and we are rejecting them as proposed contentions.

Id., 16 NRC at 1809-1810.

Subsequent developments make cicar that the premise underlying this Board's rejection of Intervenors' hydrogen control accident scenarios is no longer viable, and more recent information makes clear that the serious safety issues involved in the adequacy of hydrogen control measures and the ef fects of hydrogen burns on safety equipnent must be resolved through litigation in this proceeding prior to licensing the Catawba Station. The hydrogen control issue has been denominated unresolved safety issue A-48.

Its status and application to Catawba as of February, 1983 is described at pages C-22 and 23 of the Safety Evaluation Report, NUREC-0954. The Staff, there, reflects the unresolved character of the pending proposed rulemaking and its conclusion that interim measures are satisfactory at Catawba in the meantime. Of course. Intervenors disagree and seek to litigate the adequacy of such measures through the vehicle of the contentions and accident scenar-ios submitted. In its Aqua Book, " Unresolved Safety Issues Summary," NUREC 0606, Vol. 5, No. 4 (November 18, 1983) the NRC Staff projects a scheduled completion for unresolved safety issue A-48 of June 30, 1985. There, the Staff described the problem as follows:

postulated reactor accidents which result in a degraded or melted core can result in generation and release to the containment of large quantities of hydrogen. The hydrogen is formed from the reac-tion of the zirconium fuel cladding with steam at high temperature and/or by radiolysis of water. Experience gained from the TMI-2 accident indicates that we may want to require more specific design provisions for handling larger hydrogen releases than currently re-quired by the regulations, particularly for smaller, low pressure containment designs.

Id., at p. 38.

l Finally, the most recent Board Notification No.84-057 of April 2, 1984, reficcts the potentially troubling results of ongoing technical studies by Sandia National Laboratory of likely excessive temperature effects on safety equipment under several postulated hydrogen ignition accident scenarios in ice condensor containments. Such an effect would likely exacerbate accident scenarios by degrading the operability of such engineered safety features as containment recirculation fans and spray systems as well as the other components.

In light of these regulatory developments including the matters in-cluded in the referenced Board Notification as further basis Palmetto and CESG seek readmission and an opportunity to litigate the plainly credibic accident scenarios in order to establish our earlier claims that Applicants have not established reasonable assurance that the Catawba Station can op-erate safely.

2. CONTROL ROOM DESIGN DEFICIENCIES In its March 5, 1982 Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Conference), at pp. 23-24 this Board initially admitted a portion of Palmetto Alliance control room design contention No. 22 condi-tioned upon later detail after submission of further licensing documents re-flecting Applicants' control room design review. Subsequently, in light of the Appeal Board's rejection of the device of conditional admission of con-t en t ior.s . this Board determined to reject, rather that defer rulings on these

[

. control room design issues observing that new information contained in docu-ments not yet available might prov'ide a later basis for more specific conten-l tions. Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Second Pre-hearing Conference) 16 NRC at 1795-6. The basis for such specific contentions has recently been provided by Applicants and the NRC Staff.

By letter of March 9, 1984. Thomas M. Novak. Assistant Director for Licensing, of the NRC Staff transmits for review and comment to Applicants a Preliminary Draft Safety Evaluation Report for the detailed control room design review at Catawba Unit 1. There the Staff expresses its conclusions as to App 11 cants' satisfaction of the nine requirements of Supplement I to NUREG 0727. While expressing general satisfaction with Applicants'ef forts to meet the requirements of these standards for control room design, the Staff expresses questions regarding the scheduling of impicmentation and the verification of corrective actions until the end of the first refueling outage after fuel load licensing. It is on the basis of this analysis that Intervenors seek the readmission of previously filed contentions challenging the adequacy of Applicants' control room design.

Palmetto and CESG offer the following revised contention for litigation:

Applicants have failed to demonstrate reasonable assurance that the Catawba Nuclear Station can operate safely since they have failed to adequately meet regulatory requirements for the correc-tion of Human Engineering Deficiencies (HED's) in the Catawba control room design and instrumentation in the absence of suffi-cient attention to the interaction of human factors and efficiency of operation considerations. As reflected in the " Human Engineering Factors Engineering Branch - Detailed Control Room Design Review For Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 1." transmitted by cover letter of March 9,1984, Applicants have f ailed to demonstrate the justifica-tion for delaying correction of identified human engineering de-ficiencies until the end of the firse. refueling outage, and have failed to provide adequate verification that the implemented cor-rective actions in fact resolved identified identified human en-gineering deficiencies. 11.,

3 pp. 14-15.

Palmetto and CESG submit that this revised control room design deficien-cy contention should be admitted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1) on the grounds that the balancing of the five factors warrants its admission for litigation. First, good cause is established by the contention's depend-ence on a licensing analysis by the NRC Staff available to Intervenors for less than one month. It is this " Preliminary Draft SER" which first iden-

\

tifies the scheduling and corrective action deficiencies in Applicants' control room design review. Second and fourth, as is commonly the case, the interest of petitioners can only be adequately protected by their own representation in this proceeding in support of this issue. While the NRC Staff can cease to represent the public interest outside this proceeding, petitioners' interest is best protected by their own efforts. Third, petitioners identified this issue of inadequate control room design as one of concern to them at the very earliest. We stand ready, now, to assist this Board in developing a sound record for decision on this important safe-ty issue. Palmetto and CESG ask the Board to note the effectiveness of the participation by their representatives and counsel in this and other proceedings on the basis of which this Board should conclude that they may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. Fifth, while the introduction of a new issue, inevitably will expand the proceeding and require time for resolution Palmetto and CESG submit that such a commit-ment of time and resources is well founded to resolve such an important safety issue. Furthermore, the Staf f itself observes that resolution of the scheduling and corrective action deficiencies in Applicants' control room design review program must precede licensing authorization. Thus, a commit-ment to litigation of this contention could not only be productive but a necessary predicate to reasonable assurance of safe operation. On the fore-going basis Palmetto and CESG ask that the revised control room design defi-ciency contention be admitted for litigation. Intervenors are prepared to commit their time and resources to the identification of expert technical assistance to support their litigation of this contention.

3. LACK OF FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS.

By its March 5, 1982 Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Conference) this Board conditionally admitted Palmetto Alliance contention No. 24 questioning the financial qualifications of the small municipal and cooperative owners of the Catawba facility. Icl . at p .

24. However, upon reconsideration as sought by Applicants and the NRC Staff the Board determined to dismiss Palmetto contentions Nos. 24 and 25 relating to financial qualifications and decomissioning on the basis of the subsequently adopted new Commission rule barring consideration of such con-tentions, 47 F.R. 13750. Memorandum and Order (Overruling Objections Follow-ing Prehearing Conference, Denying Requests For Referral To The Appeal Board. In Addressing Certain Related Questions) at p. 2, July 8, 1982.

On February 7, 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Dis-trict of Columbia Circuit struck down the Commission attempt to climinate the financial qualifications requirements in licensing proceedings. New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. Nucicar Regulatory Commission.

No. 82-1581 (February 7, 1984). It is the position of Palmetto and CESG that in the absence of a valid rule barring our previously filed financial qualifications contention these matters should be readmitted for litigation in this proceeding at this time. While we are aware of proposals by the Conmission to reinstinne rulemaking in an effort to remedy the evidentiary deficiencies identified by the Court of Appeals, we urge that the proper course for this Board is to admit and litigate issue of financial qualifi-cations in this proceeding at this time. Palmetto and CESC would be pre-pared to demonstrate that the lack of financial qualification of the small municipal systems which are co-owners of this facility will likely adversely affect the safe operation and shutdown of the Catawba facility.

1

On the foregoing basis, Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environstntal Study Group request that this Board admit the above contentions for liti-gation in this proceeding at the present time.

]

Robert Guild /

2135 Devine Street Columbia, S.C. 29205 (803)254-8132 Attorney for Palmetto Alliance Jesse Riley Carolina Environmental Study Group April 12, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Dg* ET,,ED 9"

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN0aROA 16 P2:13

" " }

Docket 1N6ff $D4&iBETAF

) vLlA d "

'RVICf' DUKE. POWER COMPANY, et al. )

)

(Catawba Nuclear Station. )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of PALMETTO ALLIANCE AND CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP MOTION TO READMIT CONTENTIONS REGARDING SEVERE ACCIDENTS, CONTROL ROOM DESIGN DEFICIENCEIS AND LACK OF FINANCIAL QUALI-FICATIONS in the above captioned matter have been served upon the follow-ing by deposit in the United States mail this 12th day of April, 1984.

James L. Kelley, Chairman Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General Panel State of South Carolina U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 11549 Washington, D.C. 20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Dr. Paul W. Purdom Jesse L. Riley 235 Columbia Drive 854 Henley Place Decatur, Georgia 30030 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Dr. Richard F. Foster John Clewett Esq.

P.O. Box 4263 236 Tenth Street S.E.

Sunriver, Oregon 97702 Washington, D.C. .20003 Chairman George E.~ Johnson, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Board Panel Legal Director U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman J. Michael McCarry, III Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Anne W. Cottingham, Esq.

Appeal Board . . Bishop. Liberman, Cook, Purcell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - & Reynolds Washington, D.C. 20555 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

r Don R. Willard Mecklenburg County William L. Clements Department of Environmental Docketing and Service Section llealth U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 Blythe Boulevard Washington D.C. 20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 Spence Perry, Esq.

Karen E. Long Associate General Counsel Assistant Attorney General Federal Emergency Management N.C. Department of Justice Agency Room 840 P.O. Box 629 500 C Street, S.W.

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Washington, D.C. 20472

<d ]L bf RolMrt Guild l'%{

_J