ML20214T049
| ML20214T049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1986 |
| From: | Curran D HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214S976 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-1, NUDOCS 8612080460 | |
| Download: ML20214T049 (13) | |
Text
. ,
y .
00LKETED December 4, 1986 U #
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~86 DEC -5 Pl2:35 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD GFFV:E :) 5; J. ; 1 00C/Ei ni . .t.-/mi
_____________________________________ guyy
)
In the Matter of )
)
Public Service Company of )
New Hampshire, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-1
) 50-444 OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1& 2) ) ONSITE EMERGENCY
) PLANNING & TECHNICAL
_____________________________________) ISSUES NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS AND TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO NECNP'S PROPOSED FINDINGS introduction On November 26, 1986, the NRC Staff filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with respect to NECNP Contention I.B.2. The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NBCNP")
hereby responds to those proposed findings.
Applicants also filed a reply to NECNP's Proposed Findings on December 1, 1986. NECNP responds below to Applicants' argu-ment that the scope of NECNP Contention I.B.2 is limited solely to whether Applicants have specified the time duration for which safety equipment is qualified, and does not cover the question of whether those specifications are adequately supported.
I. Response to NRC Staff Proposed Findings A. As discussed in NECNP's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, par. 9-10, Applicants claim that' Anaconda SkV ptA20;ggggegggggga G
. . i single conductor power cable [ Equipment Qualification File No.
113-01-01] is qualified for a post-accident duration of one year.
This claim is based on the manufacturer's qualification test of single conductor cable that is allegedly-" exactly similar" to the single conductor of the multiple conductor cable used at Seabrook. In its Proposed Findings the NRC Staff claims that
"[w]hile the term ' exactly similar' is somewhat ambiguous, the two cable types are sufficiently similar for environmental qualification purposes such that the test results adequately represent the test results that may be expected for the Anaconda SkV cable at Seabrorsk." par. 19. In support of this assertion, the Staff cites the following statement by Applicants' witness Woodward:
I feel that the -- both the tested cable and the cable sup-plied from the Anaconda Company are similar within the bounds of environmental qualification to say that the test report adequately represents the equipment sup-plied to Seabrook, and it's a representative test of that equipment.
Tr. 369. The Staff also cites the testimony of NRC Staff witness Walker, who stated that equipment could be qualified by similarity. Tr. 503-04.
NECNP has no quarrel with the proposition that safety equip-ment may be qualified by comparison with tested equipment. How-ever, that comparison must be supported by an analysis that is documented in the qualification file. 10 CFR secs. 50.49(f),
l
(j). A general statement by the manufacturer that components are
" exactly similar" does not meet these requirements; nor does a statement by the principal reviewer that he feels the components are sufficiently similar to support a finding of qualification.
In the absence of such a documented analysis, this equipment can-not be considered to be qualified.
B. With respect to ITT Suprenant Instrument Cable [EQ File No, 113-19-01], the NRC Staff claims that NECNP attempted to demonstrate that "the manufacturer's reason for not testing the RG-58 coaxial cable was based only upon economic considerations, and that no other valid reason existed for not conducting the test." par. 20. This is only a partial characterization of NECNP's claims with respect to this cable. Equally important as the manufacturer's motivation for failing to test the RG-58 coaxial cable is the manufacturer's failure to document the similarities between the cables; and Applicants' failure to determine whether the cable was actually similar enough to the tested cable to support a claim of qualification for the alleged duration. As with the cable discussed in paragraph A. above, the I
manufacturer's and Applicants' failure to either test the cable or provide technical documentation of its similarity to tested enble violates the environmental qualification rule and prevents this cable from being considered qualified.
The NRC Staff also asserts that "[t]here was no evidence to dispute the manufacturer's determination that the tested cables are representative of the cable types used at Seabrook." par.
- 21. The relevant inquiry, however, is whether Applicants' equip-ment qualification file contains any analysis or documentation of the similarities between the cable. As demonstrated during NECNP's cross-examination of Applicants' witness, no such docu-mentation exists in the file. The " independent" review allegedly performed by Applicants [See Staff's Proposed Findings, par. 21]
yielded no further documentation of similarity other than the manufacturer's original statement that the cable was similar to tested cable. See Tr. at 380-82.
C. In its Proposed Findings at pars. 20-24, NECNP asserts that Applicants downgraded Instrument Hack MM-IR-12 from safety grade to non-safety grade rather than relocating it. The NRC Staff asserts that "[t}he Applicants' EQ file contains supporting document'ation justifying this change." NRC Staff Proposed Find-ings, par. 23. As demonstrated on cross-examination, however, the Applicants' file contains only a record that the change was approved, without any explanation of the rationale for the change. Tr.at 391, NECNP Proposed Findings, par. 23. Thus, the EQ file cannot be said to contain documentation that justifies the change.
-m..._._ _- . __ _ _ . . . .. _ i
D. In par. 72 of its Proposed Findings, NECNP alleges that Applicants violated NUREG-0588, secs. 2.1(2) and 2.2(5) in failing to test 300 volt instrument cable [EQ File No. 13-20-01]
for submergence. NUREG-0588 sec. 2.1(2) states that the NRC Staff will not accept analysis in lieu of qualification test data unless a) testing of the component is impractical due to size limitations and b) partial type test data is provided to support l
the analytical assumptions and conclusions reached. NUREG-0588 par. 2.2(5) further requires that:
Equipment should be located above flood level or pro-tected against submergence by locating the equipment in qualified watertight enclosures. Where equipment is located in watertight enclosures, qualification by test or analysis should be used to demonstrate the adequacy of such protection. Where equipment could be sub-merged, it should be identified and demonstrated to be qualified by test for the duration required.
As the NRC Staff asserts in its Proposed Findings, NRC Staff wit-ness Walker stated that environmental qualification for sub-mergence may be shown either by submergence testing or by a demonstration that the equipment in question can be operated in a submerged condition. NRC Staff Proposed Findings, par. 25; Tr.
at 501, 504-05. However, Mr. Walker's testimony contradicts the clear language of NUREG-0588, sec. 2.2(5), which states that potentially submerged equipment not covered by watertight en-
[
- .- . ~ .
closures should be qualified by test for the duration required.1 Nor did Mr. Walker testify that sec. 2.2(5) was waived in this case; or that the NRC Staff determined that submergence testing was impractical as per sec. 2.1. In fact, there appeared to be no practical impediment whatsoever to submergence testing. See NECNP Proposed Findings, par. 27.
It should be remembered that the NRC Staff's approval of Ap-plicants' environmental qualification program is based in part on a finding of compliance with NUREG-0588. Tr. at 501. Compliance with NUREG-0588 is also required by the NRC's environmental qualification rule, 10 CFR sec. 50.49. See NRC Proposed Find-ings, par. 4; NECNP Brief in Support of Proposed Findings at 3-4.
It is NECNP's position that departure from NUREG-0588 is not authorized by 10 CFR sec. 50.49. It is clear that the Staff has not enforced the Commission's standards for environmental qualification. Even if the Board were to find that the NRC Staff could approve departures from compliance with the guidance of NUREG-0588, those departures must be documented and justified.
That has not been done here.
E. In its Proposed Findings at pars. 26-29, the NRC Staff attempts to demonstrate that the deletion of a pressure test for 1 Mr. Walker agreed that the third sentence of 2.2(5) refers to equipment that is not surrounded by watertight enclosures.
Tr. at 505.
- _ . . . . . , n. _ ___ _ o m m ,, - .
an oil riser devi e associated with Transamerica Delaval Level Transmitters [EQ File No. 174-15-01] and the improper installa-tion of the device do not demonstrate that the equipment is un-qualified. Given the multiple errors and defects in Applicants' attempts to qualify the level transmitters, the NRC Staff's con-clusion is not supported by the record.
Even if it could be concluded that the riser device was properly installed and inspected, however, the NRC Staff fails to refute the following important points established in NECNP's Pro-posed Findings: a) Applicants failed to qualify the level transmitters entirely by test, as required by NUREG-0588 [NECNP Proposed Findings, pars. 31-33, 74]; b) there is no practical impediment to qualification of the level transmitters by sub-mergence, as demonstrated by the fact that Applicants submitted the components to a 30-minute qualification test [Id.]; c) no particular' inspection and maintenance program is described in the EQ File for the level transmitters. Id., par. 75.
It should be noted that these level transmitters were found to be unqualified for more than a 30-minute submergence test.
Given the fact that the integrity of the oil riser is intended to compensate for the Applicants' inability to qualify the level transmitters by testing, Applicants' failure to demonstrate the requisite degree of care, attention or accuracy in installing the component, or to develop and document a specific maintenance and 4
- _ ., .,, . .. . . . . . .. . - _ . . , - - = -
. - , . . , - . - , ,,,. ~.,4
inspection program, must prevent this Board from finding that the level transmitters meet the Commission's environmental qualifica-
. tion standard. Moreover, Applicants' attempt to circumvent the Commission's environmental qualification requirements with a jerry-rigged device that is poorly conceived and installed raises serious questions about the overall quality of Applicants' en-vironmental qualification programs.
F. In par. 13 of its Proposed Findings, the NRC Staff states that when it conducted an audit of Applicants' equipment qualification files, the Applicants' environmental qualification program was "substantially complete at that time, sufficient to permit the audit to be conducted." However, the hearing record shows otherwise. As discussed in NECNP's Proposed Findings at pars. 63-65 and 84, the audit followed closely a review of Ap-plicants' environmental qualification program that showed numerous deficiencies. The significant proportion of incomplete or deficient equipment qualification files discovered in the audit only confirms that the audit was premature, and did not serve the intended purpose of an audit, which is to confirm the adequacy of a program that has been substantially completed.
II. Response to Applicants Regarding Scope of Contention I.B.2 In their reply to NECNP's Proposed Findings of Fact and Con-clusions of Law, dated December 1, 1986, Applicants contend that the scope of the litigation of NECNP Contention I.B.2 must be
- - , . . . . - , , . m . .m- .-r- - v. %
limited to the exact wording of NECNP Contention I.B.2, i.e.,
whether Applicants have specified the duration of environmental qualification for safety equipment at Seabrook.a According to Applicants, NECNP goes beyond the scope of Contention I.B.2 by inquiry into the basis for Applicants' assertions that equipment is qualified for a particular duration.
Applicants' argument is without merit. The scope of NECNP's i
contention necessarily includes the question of whether there is adequate basis for Applicants' assertions regarding qualification times. It should be noted that at the time this contention was filed, Applicants had not specified post-accident qualification times for safety components in their FSAR. Obviously, it would i
have been absurd for NECNP to challenge the basis for qualifica-l tton times that had not even been alleged.a 1
2 NECNP Contention I.B.2 is worded as follows: -
1 l
The Applicant [s] ha[ve) not satisfied the requirements of GDC 4 that all equipment important to safety be en-vironmentally qualified because [they have] not specified the time duration over which the equipment is qualified.
1 Applicants submitted to the NRC a list of equipment qualified
( for the post-accident duration of one year only days before the i 1983 henring, and NECNP did not receive the list until after the
, hearing. 1-Tr. at 973-74.
L- -__-_- _ _ . - . _ ..,m,.. .._ . . ._W
l
. . j I
During the three years that elapsed between the 1983 hear-
)
ings and Applicants' notion to close the hearing record, Ap- '
plicants submitted a substantial quantity of additional material regarding equipment qualification times, including numerous i
Oualification Evaluation Worksheets that listed qualification times for each safety component. Applicants served these addi-tional materials on the parties, in conformance with the Licens-q ing Board's order of November 4, 1985.
On June 17, 1986, Applicants submitted a motion to close the hearing record on technical and onsite emergency planning issues, J
along with an application for authorization to operate at low power. In response to Applicants' notion, NECNP reviewed Ap-plicants' submittals to the NRC and identified its concerns regarding equipment qualification times as represented in those submittals. Those concerns centered around the basis for alleged qualification times for equipment that might be submerged during an accident, and the accuracy and completeness of the equipment qualification files that purport to document the basis for the qualification times. In responding to Applicants' notion, NECNP i
gave numerous examples of the issues that it wished to litigate regarding qualification times. See NECNP's Opposition to Ap-plicants' Motion for Partial Initial Decision Authorizing Low Power Operations dated July 2, 1986, at 18-20.
i l
i a-*+*- - t % en tv
- f d 3 6. 1?~ h1 . e *o 9. t) e F*_*-
Applicants thus had ample notice of the issues that NECNP wished to explore in hearings on qualification times. This is not a case where the intervenor has failed to attempt to clarify or expand the ambit of its contention. See Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-836, 23 NRC 479, 505 (1986), cited in Applicants' Reply at 5. It could not be plainer that, based on information submitted by Ap-plicants after the 1983 hearing, NECNP's concerns now go beyond the question of whether Applicants have specified qualification times at all, to whether there is an adequate basis for Ap-plicants' representations. This issue can reasonably.be consid-cred to fall within the scope of NECNP Contention I.B.2. If Ap-plicants believe that NECNP's concerns exceed the scope of Con-tention I.B.2, they should have objected at the time that NECNP put them on notice. Because no objection was heard then, no ob-jection can fairly be entertained at this late hour.
espectfully submitted, Diane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009
-(202) 328-3500 December 4, 1986 om,, na . ., _. - . .sm - -- . . , e .- e so n y g n 7-o w
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [
I certify that on December 4, 1986, copies of NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF PROF 66EEEC -5 R2:35 FINDINGS AND TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO NECNP'S PROPOSED FINDINGS and NECNP'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF PROPOSED PLICANTS' REPLY TO NECNP'S PROPOSED FINDINGS FINDINGS were AND TO fP- #'
following by first-class mail or as otherwise indicated: served oh0 kh j $3, f E'WM
- Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Rep. Roberta C. Pevear Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Drinkwater Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, Falls, NH 03844 Washington, D.C. 20555 Phillip Ahrens. Esq.
- Dr. Jerry Harbour Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State House, Station # 6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Augusta, ME 04333 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke R.K. Gad II, Esq.
\tomic Safety and Licensing Board Ropes & Gray U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 225 Franklin Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 111 Lowell Street Washingto.'., D.C. 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
- Robert G. Perlis, Esq.
Hoard Panel Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Washington, D.C. 20555 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Board of Selectmen Mrs. Anne E. Goodman Newbury, MA 01950 Board of Selectmen 13-15 New Market Road H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Durham, NH 03842 Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency William S. Lord, Selectman 500 C Street S.W.
Town Hall -- Friend Street Washington, D.C. 20472 Amesbury, MA 01913 George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Jane Doughty Stephen E. Merrill, Esq.
SAPL Office of the Attorney General 5 Market Street State House Annex Portsmouth, NH 03801 Concord, NH 03301 m - o. ..,.,..m - . . . _.m _ ,.. . . . . . . u e . . . ,. 7 .,. ,, _ 7 . . . ; .. .
Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Allen Lampert Assistant Attorney General Civil Defense Director Department of the Attorney General Town of Brentowood 1 Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Exeter, NH 03833 Boston, MA 02108 Stanley W. Knowles Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Hampe and McNicholas P.O. Box 710 35 Pleasant Street North Hampton, NH 03826 Concord, NH 03301 J.P. Nadeau, Selectman Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Town of Rye Holmes & Ellis 155 Washington Road 47 Winnacunnent Road Hye, New Hampshire 03870 Hampton, NH 03842 Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor William Armstrong City Hall Civil Defense Director Newburyport, MA 01950 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Board of Selectmen Calvin A. Canney Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 City Manager City Hall Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 126 Daniel Street U.S. Senate Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, D.C. 20510 (Attn. Tom Burack) Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
Shaines & McEachern Selectmen of Northampton P.O. Box 360 Northampton, New Hampshire 03826 Maplewood Ave.
Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 1 Pillsbury Street Sandra Gavutis Concord, NH 03301 Town of Kensington RFD 1 Box 1154 Town of South Hampton East Kensington, NH 03827 P.O. Box 10 East Kingston, NH 03827 -
Diane Curran
- By Hand
- By Federal Express I
m m,,~.. w -> a.. c e m m ~ - -'~~r t. _ '
' t L _ __