ML16340B576
| ML16340B576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1981 |
| From: | Bradley Jones NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104070556 | |
| Download: ML16340B576 (26) | |
Text
$/(/8l UNITEfl STATES OF At1FRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COt1tlISSIOl'EFORE THE ATOt!IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD rgg/~
~ted In the Matter of'
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COt1PAHY
)
(Diab1o Canyon aloclear power ?lant I
Unit Hos.
1 and 2)
)
Docket Hos 50-275 O.L 50-3 3 O.L.
HRC STAFF MOTION FOR SUtht1ARY DISPOSITION OF GOVERI<OR BROIJH'S SUBJECTS INTRODUCTION The NRC Staff hereby moves for summary disposition of Governor w
Brown's subjects pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
52w749. 'he Staff submits that the attached Staff affidavits, supporting documents and the Safety Evaluation in this matter demonstrate that there are no factual issues requiring adjudication. and that dismissal of the Governor Brown's subjects is warranted as a matter of law, A discussion of the operative legal principles underlying summary disposition follows.
SUtht1ARY DISPOSITION PROCEDURES The Commission's regulations provide that summary disposition of a matter at issue can be obtained on the pleadings if the moving papers demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to a favorable decision as a matter of law.
10 C. F.R.
y2.749(d).
1/
The admitted subjects are:
Subject 3 (emergency planning); Subject 13 (water level indicator); Subject 14 (safety and relief valve testing).
Admitted subjects are reproduced in attached affidavits.
~ @~a.'i ~
.,"+y"XQ<
xiPi 14&
~>~q-r-'lJ tl i1 The summary disposition procedures set forth in 10 C,F.R.
52.749 are analogous to the summary judgment procedures contained in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Alabama Power Com an (Joseph ti.
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAS-182, 7
AEC 210, 217 (1974).
The use of summary di sposi tion has been encouraged by the Commi ssi on and the Appeal Board to eliminate litigation over contentions for which an intervenor has failed to establish the existence of a genuine issJe.
See, ~e..
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1
8 2), CLI-73-12, 6
AEC 241 (1973) aff'd sub nom BPI v.
Atomic Ener Commission, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1974);
Houston Li htino and Power Co. (Aliens Creek Iluclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 550-51
( 1980).
Although the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of fact is upon the moving party, and the record will be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, "a party opposing the notion...must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact."
10 C.F.R, 92.749(b); Vir inia Electric and Power Co.
(North Anna Nuclear Power
- Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, ll NRC 451, 453
( 1980).
"f1ere allegations or denials" will not suffice.
Id.
~Parr,
~su ra, n.
2, 6
NRC at 754; Gulf States Utilities Co, (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-10, 1
NRC 246, 248 (1975).
Any statement of material fact(s) required by 10 C.F.R. 52.749(a) which is uncontroverted is deemed to be admitted.
10 C.F.R. 5.2.749(a);
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
2/
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., et al. (Perry Nuclear Power
- Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAS-443, 6
NRC 741, 753-54 (1977).
1 A
(Stanislaus Nuclear Project, IJnit No. 1), LBP-77-45,,
6 NRC 159, 163 (1977).
Fina1ly, to draw on federal
- practice, the Supreme Court has pointed out that Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit plaintiffs to get to a jury on tne basis of the allegations in th complaints coupled witn the hope that something can be developed at trial in the waif of evidence to support the allegations.
First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co.,
391 U.S.
- 253, 389-90
( 1968).
Similarly, a plaintiff may not defeat a motion for summary judgment on tne hope that on cross-examination the defendants will contradict their respective affidavits.
The Staff notes that the Governor has specifically stated during discovery that he plans to proceed by cross-examination and has identified no one who plans to testify on behalf of Governor Brown.
Response
of Governor Edmund G.
Brown, Jr. to a(RC Staff Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories, March 16, 1981.
To permit trial on such a basis would nullify the salutary purpose of Rule 56 which permits the elimination of unnecessary and costly litigation l
where no genuine issues exist.
- See, Orvis v. Brickman, 95 F.
Supp.
- 605, 607 (1951), aff'd, 196 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1952), cited a
rovin 1
in River Bend,
~su ra 1
NRC at 248.
In light of these principles, and for the reasons set forth below, the Staff urges the Board to grant summary disposition of all of Governor Brown's subjects. If the Board is unable to grant summary disposition of these subjects in their entirety, summary disposition should be granted
0
4 on any portions of such subjects as to whicn there is no genuine issue of isaterial fact, Haterial Facts As To h'hich There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard A.
Emer enc Plannino 1.
Item III.A. 2 of NUREG-0737 states that a nuclear facility shall upgrade its emergency plans to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a
radiological emergency.
The criteria to meet this requirenent is in NUREG-0654.
?.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(~GSE) filed a revision to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Fmergency Plan.
Af idavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
3.
NRC reviewed the Applicant's revised Emergency Plan against the sixteen Planning Standards in Part II of the "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency
Response
Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants."
- Rev, 1,
November 1980. Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
4.
The sixteen standards in NUREG-0654 are the same requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.47, Final Regulations on Emergency
- Planning, August 18, 1980.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
3/
Section 2.749 a) authorizes a "decision by the presiding officer in that party's movant's] favor as to all or any part of the matters involved in the proceeding."
See Public Services Company of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-77-46, 7
NRC 167 (1977~Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse (nuclear Power Station),
LBP-73-30, 6
AEC 691, 699 (1973).
5.
The NRC Staff review is contained in an Emergency Preparedness Evaluation Report which is awaiting publication.
Af idavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
6.
The Federal Emergency i'ianagement Agency (FENA) will issue a
finding as to whether Diablo Canyon's State and local emergency response plans are adequate and capable of being implemented for full power operation.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached),
7.
NRC requested PGGE to provide an analysis on tne effects of earthqual;e on their emergency plans to insure availability o personn 1
and equipment to the sites.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
8.
Stone and Webster, a contractor, will issue a report in tray of 1981 on the impact of earthqual:es on the emergency plans of the utility and of offsite authorities.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
9.
The Emergency plans will be revised to include Stone and Webster's report. Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
10.
PGSE has made commitments to upgrade the meteorological program in an alert and notification system and in a public information program. Affidavit of John P.
Sears (attached).
11.
PG8 E's upgraded meteorological program meets the milestones 1,2 and 3 of NUREG-0737, III.A.2 and NUPEG-0654, Appendix 2, Rev.
1 criteria.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
12.
PGSE is expected to install an alert and notification system in Hay of 1981.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
13.
PGE E is planning to implement the public information program by hand-delivering a public information document to residences
within 10 miles of the sito in June of 1981, by inserting a condensed version of the public information document into the utility's mailing of bills and'y arranging for a page of emergency instructions in the local pnone book which will be distributed in October of 1981.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
14.
The NRC Staff review has concluded that the Applicant's Emergency Plan provid s
an adequate planning basis for an acceptable state of emergency preparedness and will meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50 and Appendix E after PG8 E has revised their emergency plan in accordance with their commitments, Affidavit of John R,
Sears
{attached).
15.
Item III.A.1.2 of NUREG-0737 requires the establishment of a Technical Support Center, Emergency Operations Facility and
'an Operational Support Center at a time to be determined.'6.
Diablo Canyon's permanent Technical Support Center is 99'omplete.
A Progress report is in the Safety Evaluation Repor t, Supplement Nos.
10 and 12.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
17.
Diablo Canyon's temporary Emergency Operation Facility is operational.
A Progress report is in the Safety Evaluation Report No, 12, Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
18.
Diablo Canyon's security building serves as the onsite Operational Support Center.
Safety Evaluation Report, Supplement Nos.
10 and 12.
19.
NRC Staff concludes the Applicant is satisfactorily responding to Item III.A.1.2 of NUREG-0737.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears
.attached).
t, 20.
NPC Staff has reviewed the San Luis Obispo County Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Evacuation
- Plan, approved by the County Board of Supervisors December 22, 1976.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
21.
Any accident occurring during low power testing would release a fraction of the existing fission product inventory at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility (DCNF).
Joint Intervenors'esponse to VRC Staff's Request for Admissions, March 16, 1981 and Resoonse of Governor Edmund G.
Brown, Jr., to NRC Staff Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories, March 16, 1981.
22.
The licensee's present emergency plan requires pronpt notification of the county governments surrounding the DCNF of any releases"from that facility.
Response
of Governor Edmund G.
Brown, Jr.,
to the NRC Staff Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories, March 16, 23.
The present State and local emergency plans for DCNF are still in full force and effect.
Letter from Crane (PGKE) to Miraglia (NRC) dated March 12,
- 1981, see.
24.
FEMA has made a finding that the present emergency plans at Diablo Canyon adequately protect the public health and safety for the purposes of low power tes ing.
(Memorandum for Harold R.
Denton and John M. McConnell from FEMA/NRC Steering Committee, see.)
25.
Based on the material facts set forth in A. 1-24 above and the supporting affidavit and documents attached to this motion, the Sta f contends that no material issue of fact remains and holding o
an evidentiary hearing would serve no useful purpose.
The Staff maintains tnat the above material facts demonstrate
.both compliance with the
t.
applicable t(UREA-0737 positions and adequate protection of the public health and safety.
The Staff, therefore, requests summary disposition in tne Staff's favor on Governor Brown's Subject 3.
8.
Water Level Indicator 1.
Mater level in the reactor may be deduced by post-event analysis of available dates.
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached),
2.
The core exit thermocou'ples displays at Tt'iI extended only to 700'F.
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached).
3.
For Diablo Canyon, the core exit thermocouples displays extend to 1650', well above the 1200'F level which would be a clear arid definitive indication of inadequate core cooling.
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached).
4.
Core exit thermocouples provide an indication of the fluid temperature above the core.
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached).
5.
The core exit thermocouples are actually distributed over the full core at 65 radial locations and provide an indication o
superheat when the two phase froth level drops below the top of the core.
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached).
6.
Since the most di rect measure of inadequate core cooling is fuel temperature, measurement of the temperature of fluid existing fron the fuel provides a signal which is directly and closely associated with the parameter of interest.
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached).
7.
Mater level indication is no more direct a measure of inadequate core cooling than the indicator from core exit thermocouples.
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached).
>I
B.
Regulation 10 C.F.R. 50.55a(h) applies only to protection systems.
Reactor water level instrumentation would be used or monitoring and operator actions only and would not provide input to protective systems.
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached).
9.
Procedures have been developed for Diablo Canyon to allow the operator to recognize inadequate core cooling by monitoring the core exit thermocouples readouts.
Affidavits of Laurence Phillips and Samuel mackay-I (attached).
10.
NUREG-0737 section II.F.2 provide the require:nents for Instrumentation for Detection of inadequate core cooling.
NUREG-0737, p.
II.F.2-1.
11.
NUREG-0737 section II.F.2 requires an unambiguous easy-to-interpret indication of inadequate core cooling.
NUREG-0737, p.
II.F.2-'1.
'12, NUREG-0737 section II.F.2 requires procedures be developed to use in interpreting the information from instrumentation used to indicate inadequate core cooling.
- p. II,F.2-1.
13.
Based on the material facts set forth in 8 1-12 above, and the supporting affidavits and documents attached to this motion, the Staff contends that no material issue of fact remains on this issue and nolding of an evidentiary hearing would serve no purpose.
The Staff naintains that the above material facts demonstrate both compliance with the applicable NUREG-0737 positions and adequate protection of the public health and safety.
The Staff, therefore, requests summary disposition in the Staff's favor on Governor Brown's Subject 13.
l.
The standards which the applicant must meet to comply with GDC 1, 14; 15 and 30 as regards safety and relief valves are:
a)
Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.9. 1 "Dynanic Testing and Analyses of Systems, Components, and Equipment" b)
SRP 3.9.3 "ASHE Code Class 1,
2 and 3.
Components, Component Supports, and Core Support Structures" c)
Regulatory Guide 1.48 "Design limits and loading combinations for seismic category 1 fluid systems" d)
Regulatory Guide 1.68 "Preoperational and Initial Startup Test Programs for Water Cooled Power Reactors" e)
Regulatory Guide 1.45 "Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Leakage Detection Systems" f)
The applicable sections of Appendix B,
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (Attached).
2.
Diablo Canyon meets all the above requirements except that relief and safety valves at Diablo Canyon have not been verified in tha.
the tests performed to date did not cover loadings which result from transition flow or solid fluid flow.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
3.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is conducting a testing program to address relief and safety valve operability which will address loadings resulting from transition flow and solid fluid flow. Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
4.
PG&E has committed to participating in the EPRI testing program.
Affidavit of Edgar Henusinger (attached).
5.
There is adequate assurance that all requirements of NUREG-0578 will be met for Diablo Canyon.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
6, The present schedule indicates FPRI testing will be completed by July 1, 1981.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemiiinger (attached).
7.
There is no evidence that the relief and safety valves at Diablo Canyon will not operate properly during the'anticipated transients which produce transition flow and solid fluid flow.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
8.
The safety valves at Diablo Canyon were designed and tested in accordance with the applicable edition and addenda of Section III of ASf1E Boiler and Pressure vessel code.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
9.
Safety and relief valves have been designed to be functional after exposure to the maximum anticipated seismic event for Diablo Canyon.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
10.
The safety valve relieving capacity has been provided so that the pressure limitation specified in Article 9 of the AS11E Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code will be maintained under all of the system transients or accidents postulated to occur.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
11.
The power operated relief valve is a pilot operated valve and does not replace a code required safety valve nor is it analyzed as contributing to the Code required relieving capacity for the reactor coolant system.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemninger (attached).
12.
Core uncovery will not occur even if all three PORV's remained completely open at Diablo Canyon.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
13.
Sensors will be installed at Diablo Canyon at the PORV discnarge and will allow the operator to determine if te PORV is open or shut.
Affidavit of Edgar Henminger (attached).
14.
Small break LOCA emergency procedures have been approved by the NRC and require the PORV block valves be closed early in a
LOCA after the PORV has opened to relief excess pressure.
Affidavit of Edgar Hem,linger (attached) 15.
The PORV and PORV block valves are all powered from emergency power sources and therefore meet short tern lessons learned in item 2. 1. 1 of NUREG- 0578.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
1G.
Primary system PORV block valves are not used for normal shutdown of a pressurized water reactor.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
17.
Safety valves are to be used at Diablo Canyon for overpressure protection.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
18.
There are three safety valves in the primary system at Diablo Canyon.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemninger (attached).
19.
NUREG-0737, section II.D. 1 requires relief and safety valves be tested by July 1, 1981 and that EPRI generic testing be completed by July 1, 1981.
NUREG-0737, p.
11.0. 1-3.
20.
NUREG-0737, section II.D. 1 requires block valves be tested by July 1, 1982.
- p. II.D.1-3.
4 21.
Based on the material facts set forth in C 1-20 above and the supporting affidavits and documents attached to this motion, the Staff contends that no material issue of fact remains on this issue and holding of an evidentiary hearing would serve no useful purpose.
The Staff maintains that the above material facts denonstrate both compliance with the applicable NUREG-0737 positions and adequate protection of the public health and safety.
The Staff, therefore, requests sumnary disposition in the Staff's favor on Governor Brown's Subject 14.
CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion the Staff believes it is clear that conducting of an evidentiary proceeding would serve no useful purpose on the admitted subjects.
The only issues remaining only involves legal or policy questions on which the Board has the ability to rule without an evidentiary proceeding.
The conduct of hearings on these issues would only serve as an unnecessary delay in the licensing of the plant.
Therefore, the present issues are appropriate for summary disposition and the Staff urges the Board to dismiss Governor Brown's Subjects 3,
13, and
- 14. from this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, Bradley l<. Jones Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Haryland this 1st day of April, 1981.
I 6