ML17083A836
| ML17083A836 | |
| 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 |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340B572 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104070456 | |
| Download: ML17083A836 (32) | |
Text
g.'('/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA cf I I I '0
<<Pig's;,
@re),.~
8 op 198)~ p In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power ~lant
)
Unit Nos.
1 and 2)
)
Docket Nos.
50-275 O.L.
50-323 O.L, NRC STAFF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF JOINT INTERVENORS CONTENTIONS INTRODUCTION The NRC Staff hereby moves for summary disposition o
Joint Intervenors contentions pursuant to 10 C.c.R.
52.749.
The 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 Joint Intervenors contentions is warranted as a matter of law.
A discussion of the operative legal principles underlying summary disposition follows.
SUMMARY
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.P,.
52.749(d).
1/
The admitted contentions are:
Contentions 4 and 5 (emergency planning); Contention 11 (pressurizer heaters power supply); contention 13 (water level indicator); contention 24 (safety and relief valve testing).
Admitted contentions are reproduced in attached affidavits.
0 4g
~r e'~-'Q p-,iNi )gj.il~
~
l r>
~ T~-.m~
ii J
The summary disposition procedures set forth in 10 C.F.R. 52.749 are analogous to the summary judgnent procedures contained in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Alabama Power Com an (Joseph I'i.
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7
AEC 210, 217 (1974).
The use of summary disposition has been encouraged by the Commission and the Appeal Board to elininate litigation over contentions or which an intervenor has failed to establish the existence of a oenuine issue.
See, e.o.,
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island iiuclear Generating Pla~t, Units 1
II 2), CLI-73-12, 6
AEC 241 {1973) aff'd sub nom BPI Y.
E i l, 02
.2 'l41... l.
97 and Power Co. (Aliens Creek Nuclear 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.c.R.
g2.749(b);
Vir inia Electric and Power Co.
{North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451, 453
( 1980).
"Here allegations or denials" will not suffice.
Id.
~Parr,
~su ra, n.
P.,
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 act{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.
(Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit No. 1), LBP-77-45, 6
NR" 159, 163 C eve and E ectesc, 1.
uminating Co., et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units' and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 753-54 (1977).
LV l
1
( 197;).
The Staff notes the Joint Intervenors to date have only made mere allegations, having failed during discovery to identify any witnesses they will present on the admitted contentions.
Joint Intervenors
Response
to NRC Interrogatories, tiarch 16, 1981.
Finally, to draw on federal
- practice, the Supreme Court has pointed oui that Ru
~ e 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not per~i t plaintiffs to get to a jury on the basis of the allegations in the comp',aints coupled with the hope that something can be developed at trial ia the way of evidence to sijpport the allegations.
First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co.,
391 U.S.
- 253, 389-90 (1968).
'imilarly, a olaintiff may not defeat a motion for summary judgment nr the hope that on cross-examination the defendants will contradict their respec ive affidavits.
To permit trial on such a basis would nullify the salutary purpose of Rule 56 which permits the elimination of unnecessary
~nd costly litigation where no genuine issues exist.
- See, Orvis v.
- Brickman, 95 F.
Supp.
- 605, 607 (1951), aff'd, 196 F.2d 762 (O.C. Cir.
1982), 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 Joint intervenors contentions.
If the Board is unable to grant summary disposition of these contentions in their entirety, summary disposition should be granted on any portions of such contentions as to which there is no genuine issue of material fact.
3/
Section 2.749 a
authorizes a "decision by the presiding officer in that party's movant'sj favor as to all or any part of the chatters 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).
4 Material Facts As To l!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 tnat adequato protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a
radiological emergency.
The criteria to meet tnis requirenent is in
'v'UREG-0554.
2.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG8 E) filed a revision to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Emergency
~lan. Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attacned).
3.
NRC reviewed the Applicant's revised Emergency Plan against the sixteen Planning Standards in Part I I of the "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency
Response
Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants."
NUREG-0654, 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).
5.
The NRC Staff review is contained in an Emergency Preparedness Evaluation Report which is awaiting publication.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
6.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency
( FEMA) 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).
P'
?.
HRC requested PG&E to provide an analysis on the effects of earthquake on their emergency plans to insure availability of personnel and eauipment to the sites.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
8.
Stone and Webste~,
a contracto~, will issue a report in t1ay of 1981 on the impact of earthquakes on the emergency plans of the utility and of offsite authori ties.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
9.
The Emergency plans will be revised to include Stone and llebster's report. Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
10.
PG&E has made comni tmer,ts to upgrade the meteorological program in an alert and notification system and in a public in ornation program. Affidavit of John P.
Sears (attached).
11.
PG&E's upgraded aeteorological program meets the milestones 1,2 and 3 of NUREG-0737, I I I. A. 2 and NUREG-0654, Appendix ",
Rev 1
criteria.
Affidavit of John R. Sears (attached).
12.
PG&i is expected to install an alert and notification systen in Hay of 1981.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
13.
PG&E is planning to implement the public information program by hand-delivering a public information document to residences within 10 miles of the si te in June of 1981, by inserting a condensed version of the public information document into the utility's mailing of hills and by arranging for a page of emergency instructions in the local phone book which will be distributed in October of 1981.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
14.
The-5RC Staff review has concluded that the Applicant's Emergency Plan provides an adequate planning basis for an acceptable
P'
state of emergency preparedness and will meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50 and Appendix E after PGRE 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 Cente~,
Emergency Operations Facility and an Operational Support Center at a time to be determined.
15.
Diablo Canyon's permanent Technical Support Center is 99':
comp'let A Progress report is in the Safety Evaluation Report, Suppl ~cot Nos.
10 and 12.
Affidavit of John R.
Sears (attached).
1~.
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 flos.
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).
20.
NRC 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 NRC Staff's Request for Admissions, March 16, 1981 and
Response
of
Governor Edmund G. Brown, )r., to NRC Staff Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories, triarch 16, 1981.
22.
The licensee's present emergency plan requires prompt notification of the county governments surrounding the DC')F of any releases from that facili".g.
Response
of Governor Edmund G.
Brown, Jr.,
to the NRC Staff Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories, Var ch 16, 1981.
23.
The present State and local emergency plans for OCllF are still in full force and effect.
Letter from Crane (PGSE) to I~iraolia (HRC) date," i'!arch 12,
- 1981, see Attachment 2.
24.
FEt!A has made a finding that the present emergency p';ans at Diablo Canyon adequately protect the public health and sa ety for the purposes of low power testing.
(tiemorandum for Harold R.
Denton and John ll. t1cConnell from FEHA/NRC Steering Conmittee, 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 Staff contends that no material issue of fact remains and holding of an evidentiary hearing would serve no useful purpose.
The Staff maintains 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 Joint Intervenors'ontentions 4 and 5.
S.
Mater Level Indicator l.
Mater level in the reactor may be deduced by post-event analysis of available dates.
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached).
2.
The core exit thermocouples displays at Tt!I extended only to 700"".
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached).
3.
F'r Diablo Canyon, the core exi t thermocouples disolays extend to 1650', well above the 1200'F level which would he a clear and 3efinitive indication of inadequate core cooling.
Affidavit of Laurence P"lllllps (9.tached).
4, Core exit thermocouples provide an indication of the fluid temperature above the core.
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached).
5.
The core exi: thermocouples are actually distributed over the full core at 65 radial locations and provide an indication of superheat when the two phase froth level drops below the top of the core.
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached).
6.
Since the most direct measure of inadequate core cooling is fuel temperature, measureisent 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.
Water level indication is no more direct 'a measure o.'nadequate core cooling than the indicator from core exit thermocouples.
Affidavit of Laurence Phillips (attached).
8.
Regulation 10 C. F.R.
50.55a(h) applies only to protection systems.
Reactor water level instrumentation would be used for 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 recogn-'ze inadequate core cooling by monitoring the core exit thermocouples readouts.
Affidavits of Laurence Phillips and Sanuel t1ac I;ay-I (a ttached) 10.
NUR=G-0737 section I I. F.2 provide the requirements for Instru::;entation for Detection of inadequate core cooling.
NUREG-0737, p.
I(.F.Z-'..
ll.
NUR=G-0737 section II.F.2 requires an unambiguous easy-to-interpret indication of inadequate core cooling.
NUREG-0737, p.
II.F.2-1.
12.
NUR=G-0737 section II.F.2 requires procedures be developed to use in interpr ting the information from instrumentation used to indicate inadequate core cooling.
- p. II.F.2-1.
13.
Based on the material facts set forth in B 1-12 above, and the supporting affidavits and documents attacned 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 purpose.
The Staff i~aintains that the above material facts demonstrate both conpliance 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 ioint intervenors contention 13.
1.
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 "Dynamic Testing and Analyses of Systems, Components, and Equipment"
b)
SRP 3.9.3 "AStiE Code Class 1,
P. and 3.
Components, Component Supports, and Core Support Structures" c)
Regulatory Guide 1.48 "Design linits and loading combinations for seismic category 1 fluid systems" d)
Regulatory Guide 1.68 "Preoperational and Initial Startup Test Programs for '(ater Cooled Power Reactors" e)
Regulatory Guide 1.45 "Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Leal:age Detection Syste"..s" f)
The applicable sections of Appendix B,
10 C.~.R.
550.
Affid~vit of Edgar Hemminger (Attached).
2.
Diablo Canyon meets all the above requirements excent that relief and safety valves at Diablo Canyon have not been verified in that the tests performed to da e did not cover loadings which result from transition flow or solid fluid flow.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemninger
{attached).
3.
The Ele"tric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is conducting a tes.ing program to address relief and safety valve operability which w'.ll address loadings resulting from transition flow and solid fluid flow. Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
4.
PGSE has committed,to participating in the EPRI testing program.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemninger (attached).
5.
There is adequate assurance that all requirements of NUREG-0578 will be met for Diablo Canyon.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemninger (attached).
6.
The present schedule indicates EPRI testing will be completed by July 1, 1981.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemninger (attached).
I 7.
There is no evidence that the relief and safety valves at Diablo Canyon r~i11 not operate properly during tne anticipated transients which produce transition flow and solid fluid flow.
Affidavit of Edgar Heiiminger (a ttached).
8.
The safety valves at Diablo Canyon were designed and tested in accordance with the applicable edition and addenda of Se".ion III of AS'1E Boilei and Pressure vessel code.
Affidavit of Edgar Henminger (attached).
9.
Sa,ety and relief valv s have been designed to be functional after exposure to the maximum anticipated seisnic event for Diablo Canyon.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attacned).
10.
The safety valve relieving capacity has been provided so that the pr ssure limitation specified in Article 9 of the AS'iE 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 valv is a pilot operated valv 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 Hemminger (attached).
12.
Core uncovery will not occur even if all three PORV's rei~ained completely open.at Diablo Canyon.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger
{attached).
13.
Sensors will be installe9 at Diablo Canyon at the PORV discharge and will. allow the operator to determine if te PORV 'is open or
~ shut.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
ke
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 rel ief excess pressure.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached) 15.
The PORV and PORV block valves are all powered from emergency power sources and therefore meet short term lessons learned in item 2. 1. 1 of NUR.:G-0578.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
16.
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 Hemninger (attached).
18.
There are three safety valves in the primary system at Diablo Canyon.
Affidavit of Edgar Hemminger (attached).
19.
NUREG-0737, section II.D. 1 requires relief and safety valves be tested by July 1, 1981 and that EPRI generic testing he completed by July 1, 1981.
- p. II.D.1-3.
20.
NUREG-0737, section II.D. 1 requires block valves he tested by July 1, 1982.
- p. II.D.1-3.
21.
Based on the material fac'ts set forth in C 1-20 above and the supporting affidavi ts 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 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 joint intervenors contention 24.
13-D.
Pressuri zer Heaters 1.
Applicant,
- PGSE, must demonstrate that the capacity, capability, and reliability of the onsite emergency power system given the addition of the Pressurizer Heaters.
Affidavit of Robert Fitzpatrick (attached).
2.
The pressurizer heaters are a resistive load.
Affidavit of Robert Fitzpatrick (attached).
3.
If the heaters are energized by the diesel generators they will be automatically tripped upon occurrence of an SIAS (safety injection actuation signal).
Affidavit of Robert Fitzpatrick (attached).
4.
The circuit breakers used to interface the motive and control power to the heaters from the emergency buses are safety grade.
Affidavit of Robert Fitzpatrick (attached).
5.
The safety grade circuit breakers are devices used to trip the heaters upon SIAS.
Affidavit of Robert Fitzpatrick (attached).
6.
The pressurizer heaters in Diablo Canyon design can be supplied from offsite power sources when available and two of the four pressurizer heater groups can be transferred to emergency power sources.
Affidavit of Robert Fitzpatrick (attached).
7.
Each heater group is comprised of seven 69 kw heaters (483 kw total).
Affidavit of Robert Fitzpatrick (attached).
8.
Fach of the two selected pressurizer heater groups has access to only one Class IE diesel generator and their controls are likewise supplied from separate safety grade DC power supplies.
Affidavit of Robert. Fj tzqatrick (attached).
A
9.
Energizing of three of the seven heaters (207 kw) the group will be more then adequate to fulfill the calculated minimum heater requirement of 150 kw.
Affidavit of Robert Fitzpatrick (attached).
10.
PGKE has procedures and training of operators on when and how required heaters should be connected to emergency buses.
(These procedures are discussed in the affidavits of Robert Fitzpatrick and
.">amual Mackay-II, and attachements thereto).
11.
Section II.E.3. 1 of NUREG-0737 sets out the requirevients relating to the emergency power supply for pressurizer heaters.
WUREG-073/,
p.
I I.E.3.1-1.
12.
Based on the material facts set forth in D 1-11 above and the supporting affidavits and documents attached to this motion, the Staff contends that no material issue of fact remains and holding of an evidentiary hearing would serve no useful purpose.
The Staff maintains that the above material facts demonstrate both compliance with the applicable HUREG-0737 positions and adequate protection of the public health and safety.
The Staff therefore requests summary disposition in the Staff's favor on joint intervenors contention 11.
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 contentions.
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 disposi tion and
the Staff urges the Board to dismiss Joint Intervenors contentions 4, 5, 11, 13, and 24 from this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, Bradley 1~.
Jones Counsel for HRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, tiaryland this 1st day of April, 1981.
1
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN R.
SEARS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
'J>
, e4 X I