ML20214P482

Brief in Support of Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Onsite Emergency Planning & Safety Issues. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20214P482
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/26/1986
From:	Perlis R, Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20214P447	List: ML20214P444 ML20214P463 ML20214P482
References
OL-1, NUDOCS 8612040234
Download: ML20214P482 (12)

Text

.- .- - - = - - .

,S 11/26/86 x

00CKETED

. USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'86 DEC -1 A10:43 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g_g GCCr. ,

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444 OL-1

) On-site Emergency Planning ,

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) and Safety Issues NRC STAFF BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. INTRODUCTION Evidentiary hearings were first held in this proceeding in August 1983. On November 4,1985, the Licensing Board reopened the record to receive supplemental evidence on three outstanding contentions (NECNP I.D.2, NECNP III.1, and New IIampshire 20). The Board also indicated it

would take evidence on New Hampshire Contention 10 if it was not

. informally resolved by the parties. Applicants' Proposed Findings,

! 11 13, 22.

Reopened evidentiary hearings were held from September 30 through October 3,1986, during which time the Board took evidence on the three issues (other than offsite emergency planning issues) remaining in this proceeding. These issues involved the time durations for environmental qualification of electrical equipment (NECNP Contention I.B.2); the adequacy of the Seabrook emergency classification and action level (EAL) scheme (NECNP Contention III.1 and New Hampshire Contention 20); and the deferral of improvements to the Seabrook safety parameter display 1

eta 2oggyggaagga 0

-- . _ _ _ . . . _ _ ~ . _ . _ . , _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ - - _ . , , - _ _ . _ .

s system (SAPL Supplemental Contention 6, which replaced New Hampshire Contention 10). Applicants' Proposed Findings, 11 23-25.

For the reasons presented below and in the NRC Staff Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted herewith, the Staff submits that these issues should be resolved in favor of authorizing plant ,

operation and the Board should enter an order accordingly.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT The testimony offered by Applicants and Staff on this contention i

(NECNP Contention I.B.2) demonstrated that the Applicants have specified the time durations for the environmental qualification of electrical equipment important to safety at Seabrook in accordance with applicable Commission regulations and regulatory guidance, contrary to the NECNP's assertion. Witnesses were presented on this issue by Applicants and Staff at the hearings held in 1983 and 1986. No witnesses were presented by NECNP, who sought to prove its case entirely through cross-examination.

l The regulatory standards for .the environmental qualification of electrical equipment important to safety are set forth in 10 C.F.R.

Part 50, Appendix A, GDC 4, and in 10 C.F.R. I 50.49. Regulatory l guidance is provided in NUREG-0588, Revision 1, and Reg. Guide 1.89, Revision 1, of wnich the Board took official notice. Staff Proposed Findings , 11 3-4. The Applicants have specified the qualified life for all such electrical equipment, including the pre-accident , accident, and post-accident time durations. Id., 11 5-6. The Applicants demonstrated to the Staff's satisfaction that these time durations meet or exceed the

i operability times provided for in applicable regulatory guidance. M.,11 7-12, 16. The Staff's conclusion was based upon its review of the Applicants' submitttals and the results of its on-site EQ audit. .Id., if 12-16.

NECNP conducted cross-examination of the Applicants and Staff's witnesses. This cross-examination generally sought to prove that the Applicants' representations and the Staff's conclusions are unreliable.

The evidence, however, simply does not support NECNP's assertions.1_/

Rather than recite the cross-examination testimony at length, the Staff refers to and incorporates the relevant portions of our Proposed Findings herein. See Id., 11 13-15, 17-29. Based upon the evidence presented, the Staff submits that the Board should resolve this contention in favor of Applicants.

III. EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION AND ACTION LEVELS Both NECNP and New Hampshire raised contentions challenging the adequacy of the Seabrook emergency classification and action level (EAL) scheme. The contentions are reprinted in full in the attached Staff Proposed Findings at i 31. During hearings held in 1983, both NECNP 1_/ NECNP unsuccessfully sought to introduce two reports prepared by Sandia National Laboratories under contract to the NRC, identifed as NECNP Proposed Exhibits 2 and 3. See Staff Proposed Findings, at i 19, n.4. These proposed exhibits were properly excluded by the Board, for lack of a proper sponsoring witness who could submit to cross-examination on their contents. Tr. 471-72. See generally Duke Power Co. (William D. McGuire Nuclear Station , Units 1 and 2), ALAB-669, 15 NRC <53, 477 (1982). In any event, the Board permitted NECNP to conduct unlimited cross-examination of the Applicants' and Staff's witnesses based upon these two documents, and no prejudice may be said to have resulted from their exclusion from evidence. See Tr. 472-73. Compare, ALAB-669, supra,15 NRC at 478.

i and New Hampshire engaged in active cross-examination on these contentions. At that time , the Seabrook EAL scheme was incomplete.

Staff Proposed Findings at 11 41-42. At the reopened hearing in 1986, the testimony indicated that the EAL scheme is now complete and has been reviewed and found acceptable by the NRC Staff. M.at1142-48.

Neither New Hampshire nor NECNP engaged in cross-examination on this issue at the reopened hearing; nor did either party file proposed findings of fact on the issue. The uncontroverted evidence of record indicates that Applicants have developed an acceptable emergency action level and classification scheme that complies with the applicable requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 50.47 and Part 50, Appendix E. M. at T 48.

It is unclear whether either New Hampshire or NECNP continues to pursue this contention. EI To the extent that Board findings are required , the Staff submits that the findings of fact on this issue submitted by the Staff (%S 31-48) and by Applicants (ff 27-43) provide ampic and uncontroverted justification for resolution of this issue in favor of authorizing plant operation.

IV. SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM On July 25, 1986, Applicants filed a motion for summary disposition of SAPL Supplemental Contention 6 which challenged the adequacy of the

-2/ If the issue is no longer in controversy, the appropriate findings thereon should be made by the NRC Staff. Philadelphia Electric Co.

(Limerick Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAD-830, 23 NItC 59, 60 (1986).

4

. +

, . - - , . , , - - - - ,-.,--.-_.,.,--rr.---

. - , . - , - _ , , , , - . . . . - - - - - . . - . - . . . - - . - . , - . _ . - - . , . , , , - - - - - - , , . - . - . - - - - - - - ~ -

, i

'. ~5-Seabrook control room design review and the safety parameter display system (SPDS). The Staff filed a response in support of Applicants' motion on August 18, 1986. Insofar as the SPDS was concerned, the Staff had identified six deficiencies in the course of its review, along with five additional open items. 3_/ Eckenrode Affidavit attached to Staff Response, 1 15. The Staff nonetheless took the position that the deficiencies and open items did not pose a threat to the safe operation of the plant, that a complete SPDS is not a requirement for initial licensing, and that final resolution of the 11 items for which corrective action may be warranted could be deferred until the completion of the filat refueling outage. Staff Response at 12-14.

The Licensing Board granted Applicants' motion in part, and sum-marily disposed of that portion of SAPL's contention dealing with the Seabrook control room design review. Elemorandum and Order of September 15, 1986, LBP-86-30, SHp op. at 18. The Board, however, did not grant summary disposition of the SPDS issue. Although the Board found that SAPL had never identified any safety problems that might arise in deferring corrective actions with respect to the SPDS until the first refueling outage (M., Slip op. at 16), the Board set for hearing the question of whether, in light of the 11 iteme identified by the Staff for possible corrective action, "there is reasonable assurance that, in deferring improvements to the SPDS until the first refueling outage, the

-3/ The rix deficiencies and five open items are listed in Staff Proposed Findings, f 55.

4 Safety of the population in the immediate vicinity of the plant will be protected." d., at 19.

The Staff continues to believe that the Licensing Board erred in not granting summary disposition of the SPDS portion of SAPL Supplement 6.

At no time in this proceeding has SAPL ever provided any factual basis to challenge the Staff conclusion that deferral of the resolution of the 11 items identified by the Staff could safely await the completion of the first refueling outage.

In any event, the Board was quite clear in LBP-86-30 that the only issue for hearing with respect to the SPDS would be whether the Staff conclusion that any corrective actions could safely wait untti the completion of the first refueling outage was factually correct. In its brief filed in support of its proposed findings, SAPL seems to argue that, as a matter of law , completion of the SPDS is required prior to initial licensing. SAPL Brief at 2-4. This argument fails for a number of reasons. First, it is not at all responsive to the issue identified by the Board in LBP-86-30. If SAPL wished to file a motion for reconsideration of the Board's Order, it should have filed a motion in a more timely fashion.

Second, it is settled law that an agency's interpretation of its regulations is controlling unless clearly erroneous. Tele-Media Corp.

v. FCC, 607 F.2d 402 (D.C. Cir. 1983). There is nothing in NUREG-0737 which dictates that a completed SPDS is a prercquisite to initial licensing, and the Staff has consistently interpreted item I.D.2 of NUREG-0737 to the contrary. Eckenrode, ff. Tr. 822 at 3. In fact, not only has the Staff applied a consistent policy of not treating the l

l

completed implementation of an SPDS as a precondition to initial licensing, the testimony established that there is not a single plant in the country with an SPDS that has received final approval from the Staff. See Staff Proposed Findings at f 59. Accordingly, SAPL's suggestion that a completed SPDS is required as a matter of law prior to initial licensing should be rejected.

In reviewing the other findings submitted by the parties, the Board must keep in mind the standard established in LBP-86-30. The issue is not whether the SPDS now fully complies with the requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, but rather whether completion of the cor-rective actions with respect to the 11 items identified by the Staff may be safely deferred until the completion of the first refueling outage.

Throughout their proposed findings, SAPL and Massachusetts argue that the 11 items should be resolved. The Staff does not disagree. But the focus must remain on the safety ramifications of deferring resolution until the completion of the first refueling outage.

In assessing the effect on safety of deferring resolution of the 11 items , certain factors relevant to all the items must be kept in mind.

Seabrook does have a useful, operational (alheit incomplete) SPDS which i

does a good job of providing a general picture of safety. While the Seabrook SPDS will aid operators, no operator actions are taken at the SPDS or based upon information developed at the SPDS. The absence of an SPDS would not adversely affect the ability of operators to rapidly and reliably determinn plant status; operators would be alerted to abnormal conditions through normal control room instrumentation and alarms.

Finally, all the information to be provided by the SPDS is already 4

[

,----<e ~,r.---.r-~,-o. , -,.--_,-,-,._,-,,n... _ . _ _ , , , . , -.------n,_ - , _ , , ,

available elsewhere in the control room, and the operators are supposed to take protective actions based only upon information obtained from non-SPDS instrumentation. Staff Proposed Findings at 60-61.

In our Proposed Findings (at ff 62-72), we examine the lack of safety significance of each of the 11 items. Without repeating that material herein, the Staff submits that the evidence presented before the lloard amply demonstrates that deferral of these items of noncompliance until completion of the first refueling outage will not adversely affect the public health and safety.

V. CONCLUSION For the reasons presented above and in the attached NRC Staff Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Staff submits that Contentions NECNP I.B.2, NECNP III.1, New Hampshire 20, and SAPL Supplemental 6 should all be resolved in favor of authorizing operation of the Seabrook facility. Because resolution of these matters w_

4 .

resolves all issues in controversy other than offsite emergency planning issues, the Board should grant that portion of Applicants' motion of June 17, 1986 that requested this Board to authorize issuance of an operating license for Seabrook Unit 1, limited to 5% of rated power.

See 10 CFR II 50.47(d) and 50.57(c).

Respectfully submitted, f obtr$ 6. (fr lI3 Robert G. Perlis '

Counsel for NRC Staff hdid ' (

Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day of November,1986 x

v .n... .

o 8

0 4

00U.E lil

' cr. "WC .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY TOMMISSION '86 DEC -1 A10 :43 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA %N .

? ? ;.t:c" n[I In the Matter of ) .

) i '

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE,~~et al. ) 50-444 OL-1

)

(Seabn>ok Station, Units 1 and 2) ) On-Site Emergency Planning and Safety Issues CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC Staff Pronosed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" and "NRC Staff Brief in Support of Its Procosed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" in the above. captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk (*) by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 26th day of November, 1986.

Sheldon Wolfe, Esq., Chairman

• Administrative Judge Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke' Administrative Judge .;;;

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour

• Administrative Judge Ms. Carol Sneider, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Washington, D.C. 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Beverly Hollingworth Stephen E. Merrill

• 209 Winnacunnet Reed Attorney General Hampton, NH 03842 George Dans Bisbee Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Office of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street RFD 1 Box 1154 Concord, NH 03301-6397 Kensington, NH 03827 Richard A. Hampe, Esq. .

New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency 107 Pleasant Street Concord, N!! 03301 g D 4

• Calvin A. Canney, City Manager Allen Lampert City Hall Civil Defense Director 126 Daniel Street Town of Brentwood 4 Portsmouth, NH 03801 20 FrankHn Street Exeter, NH 03833 Roberta C. Pevear State Representative Angie Machiros, Chairman Town of Hampton Falls Board of Selectmen Drinkwater Road 25 High Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Newbury, MA 09150 Mr. Robert J. Harrison Charles P. Graham, Esq.

President and Chief Executive Officer McKay, Murphy and Graham Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 100 Main Street P.O. Box 330 Amesbury, MA 01913 Manchester, NH 03105 Diane Curran, Esq.

Pobert A. Backus, Esq. Harmon & Weiss Backus, Meyer & Solomon 2001 S Street, N.W.

116 Lowell Street Suite 430 Manchester, NH 03106 Washington, D.C. 20009 Edward A. Thomas Philip Ahrens, Esq.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistant Attorney General 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH) Office of the Attorney General Eoston, MA 02109 State House Station, #6 Augusta, ME 04333 H.J. Flynn, Esq. Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Ropes a Gray Federal Emergency Management Agency 225 Franklin Street 500 C Street, S.W. Boston, MA 02110 Washington, D.C. 20472 Jane Doughty Atomic Safety and Licensing Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Board

• 5 Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, N!! 03801 Washington, D.C. 20555 l Atomic Safety and Licensing Paul McEachern, Esq.

Appeal Panel

• Matthew T. Brock, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comminnion Shaines & McEachern Washington, D.C. 20555 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 t

s Docketing and Service Section* William Armstrong Office of the Secretary Civil Defense Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Town of Exeter Washington, D.C. 20555 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Maynard L. Young, Chairman l Board of Selectmen Peter J. Matthews, Mayor l

10 Central Road City Hall l Rye, NH 03870 Newburyport, MA 09150 f.!!chael Santosuosso, Chairman William S. Lord Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen South Hampton, NH 03827 Town Hall - Friend Street i

Amesbury, MA 01913 i l l

<  !.tr. Robert Ccrrigg, Chairman Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman  !

l Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen I Town Ofnce 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 0386::

R. K. Gad III, Esq. Gary W. Holmes, Esq.

Ropes a Gray Holmes & Ellis 225 Franklin Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Boston, F1A 02110 Hampton, NH 03842 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.

Silverglate, Gertner, Baker Fine and Good

, 88 Broad Street l Boston, MA 02110 vb Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney i

g- ---__--__y -

. . . , _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - , _ _ - - , ---m. .---- - ,-, ,e.--- . _ , - - - , . . . - - - .,,_y . , - . _ ,y.-- , , ___e--,_