ML20212P600
| ML20212P600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1986 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-542, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 OL-1, NUDOCS 8609030204 | |
| Download: ML20212P600 (10) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
{4A Filed: August 26gtht$g0 USNitC UNITED STATES OF AMERIC'A86 SEP -2 P3 :01 NUCLEAll REGULATORY CONI \\11SSION before the
[0C d.*'-
c,u; ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINO BOARD in the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443-Olel NEW llAMPSilIRE, ET AL 50-444-OL.-l (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
On-Site Emergency Planning & Safety issues SAPL'S ANSWEll TO NitC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MorlON FOlt Sum 1ARY DISPOSITION OF CONTENrlON SAPL SUPP. fi On August 18, 1986, the NRC Staff rerponded to a Motion for Summary Disposition that was filed by the Applicants on July 25, 1986.
Applicants' Motion sought summary disposition of SAPL Supp.
6, which reads:
The Seabrook Station control room design does not comply wi th general des ign cri toria 19 through 22 and 10 C.F.R.,
PAlti 50, Appendix A, and NUllEG-0737, Item I.D.
1 and I.D.
2.
SAPL responded in opposition to Applicants' Motion on August 4,
1986, elting two reasons:
- 1) that the Motion was ffled out of time and 2) that the Motion failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to SAPL Supp. 6.
A.
Applicants' Motion Was Filed Out of Time The NitC Staff's reply of August 18,,
1986 failed to address at all the timeliness issue.
10 C.F.it. 62.749 states that, " Motions 0609030204 060020 PDH ADUCK 05000443 0
pan O So 3
l shall be filed within such time as may be fixed by the presiding i
officer." There has been no t ime set in this proceeding for motions i
for summary disposition except that es tablished by the Board's Order l
of September 13, 1982.
The deadline for filing such motions was set at February 12, 1983.
The Applicants tnerefore had no right to file their motion and SAPL's rights would be unfairly and improperly l
violated were this motion to be entertained by the Board.
SAPL has recently become aware that there is a proposed rule which would 1
change the procedures in the hearing process to allow filing of summary disposition motions at any time.
Sco 51 Federal Register l
l at 24365.
The public comment period for that proposed change is still in offeet and it would be both contrary to law and the public interest to de facto implement such a change prior to completion of a fair public comment process.
SAPL Intends to oppose the rule change proposed with regard to summary disposition and would also hold that it is patently unfair to change the rules midstream in a proceeding already in progress.
SAPL would hold that proceedings in progress ought to be grandfathered under the existing rules, in any event, existing rules have to be adhered to. Tha t t he Commi s s ion is seeking to change its rules to allow that summary disposition motions could be filed at any time points up the fact that that is clearly not an allowable procedure now.
B.
The Timing of implementation is WIthin the Scope of the Original Contentlon.
The NitC Staff, in suppor t I ng Appl loan t s ' Motton for Summary Disposition of SAPL Supp.
6, tries to assert that SAPL is seeking to expand the scope of the contention to raise timing issues.
The i
Staff's logic is faulty, and if applied to all other contentions raised in this proceeding, would reduce the ent ire proceeding to an l
absurdity.
The Staff asserts that the timing of implementatlon of the requirements cited in SAPL Supp.
6 was not raised in the contentlon.
SAPL would respond that the timing of implementatlon of any of the other requirements alleged not met in any other contention is not explicitly stated.
For example, it is clear that emergency planning should not be deferred until 3 years after licensing.
It is understood that the parties are alleging that these requirements are to be met prior to licensing.
After all, that is what this is all about, it is a licensing proceeding.
Even if, however, SAPL were to accept the Staff's logic for this one contentlon, SAPL would have had a very good reason for not raising the timing of implementation issue earlier, to wit, SAPL did not know prior to receipt of portions of SSER Supplement No.
4, served by the NRC Staf f with its Fif th Monthly Status Report of June 4,
1986, and the receipt of Draft License NPF-56 served June 29, 1986, that the Applicants were going to be allowed to def er complet ton o f tas ks requ i red by NUREG-0737, I. D.1 and I. D. 2.
The Staf f asserts that "no challenge has ever been made to the material submitted."
SAPL clearly challenged the material in SSER Supplement No. 4, and the non-inclusion of parameter displays on the SPDS ment ioned in SilN-987, in Seacoas t Ant I-PolIut ton League's Obj oct lon to Mot lon to Wi t hdraw Cont en t ion Nil-10 filed on June 19, 1986. -
C.
Detailed Control Room Design Review.
The Staff provides in its Response a foreshortened version of l
the elements required in a control room design review.
According to NUREG-0737, Supplement No.
1, review shall consist of:
(l)
The establishment of a qualified muttidlsciptInary J
review team and a review program incorporating accepted human engineering principles.
(ii)
The use of function and task analysis (that had been
(
used as tiie basis for developing emergency operating procedures Technical Guidelines and plant specific emergency operating procedures) to identify control room operator tasks and information and control l
requirements during emergency operations.
This analysis has multiple purposes and should also serve as the basis for developing training and staf fing needs and verifying SPDS parameters.
(111)
A comparison of the display and control requirements j
with a control room inventory to identify missing l
~
displays and controls.
(iv)
A control room survey to identify deviations from accepted human f actors principles.
This survey will include, among other
- things, an assessment of the control room layout, the usefulness of audible and visual alarm systmos, (sic) the information recording and recall capability, and the control room environment.
l Emphasis Added l
It shall also:
Assess which human engineering discrepaneles are significant and should be corrected.
Select design improvements that will correct those discrepaneles.
Improvements that can be accomplished with an enhancement program (paint-tape-label) should be done promptly.
Verify that each selected design improvement will provide the necessary correct lon, and can be int roduced in the control room without creating any unacceptable human engineering l
discrepancies because of signifIcant contr(bution to increased risk, unreviewed sa f ety ques t ions, or situations in which a temporary reduction in safety could occur.
Improvements that i
are introduced should be coordinated with changes resulting f rom other improvement programs such as SPDS, operator training, new instrumentation (Reg. Guide 1.97, Rev. 2), and upgraded emergency operating procedures.
l l
7 The Staf f opines that the reviews pertaining to the DCRDR that Applicants have not yet completed are "!!mited in nature and are low priority items from a standpoint of control room design."
SAPL disagrees, and this raises an issue of fact to be determined at a hearing. The Staf f asserts that "no human engineering discrepaneles were found" in the review of cont rol room furnishings in the simulator.
SAPL has inf ormation to the ef f ect that the telephones in the control room are not in the same location as those in the simulator.
In one locat ion or the other at minimum, the phones were not in the optimum location f rom a human f actors standpoint when the Staf f visited the site in late June of this year.
SAPL considers those phones to be a key factor in the emergency notification scheme and therefore important to safety.
SAPL believes that reviews of the storage of operator protective equipment, the control room environment and control room f urnishings may raise safety issues even though, as the Staf f asserts" none are readily apparent."
It is important that the reviews be completed lest some heretofore unreviewed condition becomes, a t an inoppor tune t ime, readily apparent as a sa f ety problem.
SAPL notes that the Appliennts, in their Augus t 22, 1986 response to SAPL's Interrogatories, s tate that a final review of cont rol room furnishings has now been performed and that resolutions for " minor" llEDS will be implemented before initial criticality.
SAPL holds that this is an appropriate step by the Applicants and believes that the Staff should review the Applicants' actions in regard to this matter.
Appileants also state in answer to SAPL Interrogatory #13 that resolutions of IlEDS related to operator protective equipment and omergency equipment storage will be resolved prior to initial -
criticality.
They say in answer to SAPL interrogatory #9, however, that there is not going to be any operator protective equipment because the ventilation system maintains control room habitability under all conditions.
SAPL intends to seek clarification of this seeming inconsistency and believes that the Staff should review the Applicants' actions in regard to this matter as well.
The Staff also dismisses the importance of the color coding discrepancy on the Video Alarm System (VAS).
The Staff does not address the deferral of banding of indicators, which was discussed j
as one of SAPL's concerns in its June-19, 1986 pleading at 5.
SAPL holds that there is no justification for deferral of items such as these which would enhance the ability of control room operators to prevent or cope with accidents by providing them bet ter information.
Applicants now indicate in response to interrogatories that they intend to correct the color-related ilEDs in the VAS prfor to initial criticality.
SAPL believes that this is appropriate and that the Staf f should review this action.
Applicants argue against banding indicators until the plant has run at full power. SAPL would argue that banding of all indicators ought to be done now. Adjustments could be made later on those particular instruments where the actual running values depart from expected values.
The issue in dispute in regard to all of the above matters is whether or not there is justification for deferral of completion of required actions.
SAPL holds that there is not.
N UllEG- 0 7 3 7, Supplement No. I was issued in December of 1982.
Applicants have had ample time to bring the facility into compliance with the i
l requirements.
Public safety should not be compromised as a
consequence of Applicants' failure to meet schedule.
D.
Safety Parameter Dispiql System (SPDS).
Af fidavit of Richard J. Eckenrode, dated August 18, 1986 states at item 12 that, "the Staff has concluded that the Applicants' SPDS does not yet comply with NUREG-0737, Supplement 1,
and will accordingly condition the license to require that final compliance be demonst rated before res tart f ollowing the firs t ref ueling o atage."
NUREG-0737, Supplement No. 1, was issued under memo of Darrell G.
Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR on December 17, 1982.
Mr. Eisenhut's memo stated that the NRC aroject manager and licensee were to reach an agreement for a final implementation 4
schedule for the requirements, which was to be furnished no later than April 15, 1983.
The Introduction to NUREG-0737, Supplement No. I states that "The implementation dates will then be formalized into an enforceable document."
It further states, "the proposal to formalize implementation dates in an enforceable document reflects the level of importance which the NRC Staff attributes to the requirements."
According to Mr. Eckenrode, PSNH hac originally proposed a June 30, 1986 implementation date for the Seabrook SPDS, which the Staf f found to be acceptable.
However, a letter from Public Service of New Hampshire, SBN-499, dated August 14, 1986 stated " Verification and Validation of the SPDS will be accomplished by December 1983, at which time operator training will be initiated and a NRC post-implementation review can begin." - _ _ _
i
O e
The Staf f's response to Applicants' Motion lists certain of the specific requirements for SPDS in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737.
In addition to those mentioned by the Staff, also included are the following statements:
Although the SPDS will be operated during normal operations, the principal purpose and function of the SPDS is to aid the control room personnel during abnormal and emergency conditions in determining the safety status of the plant and assessing whether abnormal conditions warrant corrective action by operators to avoid a degraded core.
Prompt implementation of an SPDS can provide an important contribution to plant safety.
The minimum information to be provided shall be sufficient to provide information to plant operators about:
(i)
Reactivity control (ii)
Reactor core cooling and heat removal from the primary system (iii)
Reactor coolant system integrity (iv)
Radioactivity control (v)
Containment conditions The Staff asserts that while it cannot conlude that the SPDS complies wi th NUREG-0737, Supplement No. I at this t ime, it does not believe that this noncompliance presents "a serious safety problem at Seabrook."
SAPL holds that it should not pose any kind of a safety problem, serious or less so.
There is, in SAPL's view, no j ustifiable reason why the Applicants have f ailed to comply with the I.D.2 requirements of NUREG-0737.
The commi tmen t by t he Appl ican t s to have the SPDS installed and in compliance with the requirements by either December 1983 or June 30, 1986 has not been met.
The NRC should take the enforcement action of disallowing licensure of _-
Seabrook Station for operation'at any level pending completion of items needed to bring the facility into full compliance.
Respectfully submitted, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE By Its Attorneys, BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON
/f~
/
" /s/S 6 /w Aobert A.
Backus P. O.
Box 516 Manchester, NH (603)668-7272 i hereby cert if y that copies of the above have been sent firs t-class postage prepaid to all parties on the service list.
)_
/
8,Y/&
W
/
pobe'rt A.
Backus
_g.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND SERVICE LIST Jose Asst.Gn.Cnsl.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chrn.*
Thomas Dignan, Esq.4 Fed. ph Flynn[gmt.
Emerg. 1 Agcy.
Admn. Judge Ropes _&. Gray 500 C.St. So. West Atomic Safety & Lic Brd.
225 Franklin St.
Washington, DC 20472 USNRC Boston, 11A 02110 Washington, DC 20555 Office of Selectmen Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Docketing & Serv. Sec. c Town of Hampton Falls Admin. Judge Office of the Secretary Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Lic Brd.
USNRC USNRC Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
' Shenvin E. Turk, Esq.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke *'
Jane Doughty Office of Exec. Legl. Dr.
Admin Judge SApL USNRC Atomic Safety & Lic. Brd.
5 Alarket Street Wahsington, DC 205__
USNRC Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
Paul licEachern, Esq.
George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Asst. Atty. General 5!atthew Brock,' Esq.
Attorney General's OFF.
State House, Sta. #6 25 Maplewood Ave.
State of New Hamps.iire
' Augusta, 1!E 04333 P.O. Box 360 Concord, NH 03301-Portsnouth, NH 03801 Carol Sneider, Esq., Asst.AG Diane Curran, Esq.
William S. Iord One Ashburton Place, Harmon, Weiss Board of Selectmen 19th Floor 20001 S Street NW Suite 430 Town Hall-Friend St.
Boston, 3!A 02108 Washington, DC 20009 Amesbury, AIA 01913 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
5!aynard Young, Chairman Sandra Gauvutis New Hampshire Civil Delense Board of Selectmen Town of Kingston
- Agency 10 Central Road Box 1154 Hanpe & IIcNicholas Rye, NH 03870 East Kensington, NH 03827 35 Pleasant St.
Loncord, NH 03301 Edunrd Thomas IIr. Pcbert Harrison FBIA Pres, & Chief Exec. Officer-442 J.W. AlcCormack (pOCH)
PSCO Boston,11A 02109 P.O. Box 330 IIanchester, NH 03105 Poberta Pevear State Rep.-Town of Haupt Falls Drinkwnter Road Hanpton Falls, NH 03844
- Federal Expressed L