ML17086A280
| ML17086A280 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1980 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP, DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8012120555 | |
| Download: ML17086A280 (16) | |
Text
ATTACHMENT 2 UNITED STATES OF AHERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY 'I~ilSS I ON ATONIC SAFETY AHO LICENSING BOARD Rob rt H. Lazo, Fsq., Cheirnen.
---Or. -Emvath~ -Luebke r-~r~ar--,---
Dr. Cadet H. Hend, ale.,
Hemmer In tha Yotter of DUKE POKER COHEN/Y (N)liam B. NcGu5re t/uclear Station, Units l and 2)
Docket Nns.
50-369-OL 50-370-OL November.25.
1980 NEfQRNDUH AttD ORDER REGARDING APPLICAttT'S HNION FOR SURGERY DISPOSlT30N On September 30, 1980, 'Duke Power Compergr (App15cant,) filed "Appl)-
cant's Notion for Svmnary Disposition Regarding Application for License Authorizing Fuel loading, Inftia1 Crit)cal<ty, Zero Power. Physics Test)ng end Low-Power Testing for NcGuire Un)t l; Request for Expedited Cons$ dere-l t$ on" (hereafter "Hotion for Suenary Dispnsit<on").
In its Hot)on fot'vtitary Disposition, Appl5cant loves the Atomic Safety and Dcensing Board (the Board) for sunrnary disposition.with respect to issuance of a license euthorizin9 fuel loading, 4nitfal criticality, zero power physics testing and low-power testing of Unit l of the Milliam B. HcGuire Nuclear Station.
In support of Its set<on, Applicant has 'a1so filed "Applicant's Nworandum 4n Support of its Hot)on for Svmery Disposition" and Statement of Naterial Facts as to Mhich Tham Is Hn Ganv5ne Issue Yo Be Heard".
All three dncv-rnents address the Carolina Environmental Study Group's (CESG) proposed
2 contentions relating to excessive generation'of hydrogen.
Answers to App)5cant's Yetkon for Suwori 05spos5t5on were f5led by 0
the NRC Staff (Staf
) and bg CESG on Novena?,. 19BO;
$ n the v$~ o the Staff. the aff5dav5t of Normen t.auben, which the Staff attached to 5
port5ng documents, bas5s for CESG's p
verthy of adjud1cat to authorize fueI 3t s answer, together ~5th App15cant's mot5on and sup-..
enonstrates that there 5s not a suff5c5ent factual posed contentions and that there are no issues of fact on at a hearing 'to cons5der the applkcat5on fot a license
\\
ad5ng and low-power testing for HcGu5re Un5t ).
On June 9, 1989, ESG eeved to reopen the record and add contentions rega&5ng the poss5 51<ty of excessive 4drogen Qenerat5on resulting from a TRl-type ace)dent.
CESG revised its mot5on on August 15. 1980.
See
."CESG's Yet5ons to dm5t New Content5ons and to Reopen the HcGu5re Operat5ng L5cense Hear5ng".
hted June 0, 19BO, and "CESG's Rev5sed Hot<on to Reopen the Operating L5cense Proceeding Hot5on; Not5on to Degas App15cant's Request for Fuel Loading, Etc., Rev5sed Content5ons" dated August 15, )SBD.
As Appl5cant notes 5n its Hot5on for Sunroary D5spos5t5on, "such content5ons are presently awa5tfng Board act5on as to their adefss5b515ty; the Soard Nest also decfde Kiether CESS has satfsf5ed the reopening standards of the Comnkss5on."
Appl5cant's Notion for Sugary D(spos5tkon, at l. 2.
-IThe or5'g5nal f515ng date for answers to App15cant's Yot5on for Sugary Dkspos5t5on was October Zl, 1980.
That date was extended by st5pulat5on of all part5es until October 28, 1980.
Thereafter, during a telephone conference between the parUes and the Board on Octobe~ 2B, 1980, the Board granted the request of the Staff and GESG for an extens5on of t5rre unt5) liovember 7 ~ )980, to f5le the5r answers to Appl5cant's Hot5on.
0 r
~
(i 'v
w 3 Accord)ngly, the Staff urges the Board to dismiss talons as a matter of law and to grant Applicant's position.
CESG's pi>posed conten" Notion %or Sugary 0<s-In its answer to Applicant's not(on, CESG does not dispute paragraphs 0
1, 2, 3, 6, 7, lo, 11, )2 and 76 of Appl)cant's Statement of Rater )al facts as to Vhfch There Is tio Genuine Issue To Be Heard".
Thus, Kth respect to three of the four phases of activities requested
$ n the low power operating license notion.- viz., fuel loading, initial criticality, 3/
and zero power physics testing, GESG does not dispute Applicant's stote-ment that even
$ n the unlikely event of a LOCA coupled with the complete failure or termination of the KCS, the extremely snN11 buildup of As-.
sion products resulting 4n little or no heat generation preclvdes ercess$ ve hydrogen generation.
Accordingly, as a matter of law, Applicant
$ s en-titled to a favorable decision regarding the first three of the four phases of activities requested
$n Its notion for a lower power ojerating license.
M)th regard to the low-power testing phase
($.e.,
up to five percent of full power).
CESS has set forth specific facts showing that there
$ s a genuine issue of fact.
Spec)fical'ly,
$t is accepted that there 4s a pos-sibility (however remote} that hydrogen 4n quantities exceeding 10 CFR 550.44 design bases could be generated during low power testing (Aff<dnv)t See "Applicant's Notion for License Authorizing Fuel Loading, lnkt<al Criticality, Zero Power physics Testing and Low Power Testing" dited hvgust l. 19SO.
C I'
of M. H. Rasfn).
For such fydrogen to be generated, there must be a LOCA, a faf1ure or premature operator temfnaUon of the ECCS, and failure to
~
restore coo15ng water to the reactor prfor..to generatfon of hydrogen (Id.).
Appl 5cant ne to operate and (2) actfon.
- Further.
coupled fifth the f a f1'f cool5ng hydrogen gererat to ntafns that (1) the KCCS will not faf1
$f called upon the KCCS wfll not be pretraturely termfnated by operator pplfcant. mfntafns that even in the event of a LOCA, flure of the ECCS> there fs sufffcfent time to assure ater to the core prfor.fo tn5t5atfon of stgntffcant CESG does no mfnfmum of'one houf t$on begfns after M. H. Ras5n).
How)
Su such true eusllj dfspute Applfcant's statement that there vrfll be a and ffve mfnutes (39DO seconds) untf1 hydrogen genera-postulated LOCA absent ECCS operat5on (Aff5dnvft of
- ver, CESG controverts the fact that operators wfll wfth-be able to restore sufffcfent flo~ of viater to the core to prevent uncovering of the core and potential hydrogen 9eneratfon and asset ts that electrfca1 power for.pump operation wfll not necessarfly be avaflable.
ln that event, accordfng to CESG, the contafnrent would be f5lied fifth fydrogen at the four percent level (the lour 15mft for self-propagatfng combvstfon) approxfnetely l8 hours after the onset of the LOCA (Mffdavft of Jesse f.. Rfley).
ln vfew of the above, the 8oard cannot rule as a setter of law that no genufne issue of IIterfal fact exfsts fifth respect to whether excessive amounts of hydrogen wfll be generated durfng lmt-pmer operatfons.
'G 7
4P ho
~
~
e Conclusion and Order Pursuant to the Comdsskon regulation 10 CFR 2.749, the Board eon-eludes on the basis of the record
$ n theyroceedfng that so far hq the activities regarding (1) fuel load)ng, (2) Initial crlUcalftg, and
{3) zero power physics testing are concerned, there
$ s no genuine Issue of any notarial fact and that Applicant 4s entlt'led as a netter of law to a decks.ion.gmnt ng t
Its mot$ on for sum@cry d$ spos<tton as to these three phases of the acUvftfes for ~Mch a license 4s requested.
Accord-gangly, 4t
$ s hereby ordered that Applicant's motion for sunn@ry dkspos1-t$on fs granted
$ n part so as d
5 t s as to permit.the Comnfssion,'.0f
$t des)res.
to issue a license au or z ng ue th l l g feel lcadlnp, fnltfa'I cr<tfcal<ty and zen power physics testing of RcGu(re Unft l.
~
The Board believes that
$t has been clear'ly denenstrated that there
$ s a genuine issue as to ma to material facts, regarding the issue. of hydrogen
~ d)cated by CESS w$tk respect M the application generation sought to be e~u ca for a license av or z ng th 5
low power testing et a sexism of five percent of fvll power.
c u re.
H G
$re.4s
- a. thin-shelled reactor, and the hydrogen issue
$s related to 'the pressure capabk'lite of the contafnm nt structure, The Board 4s of the op$ n$ on that current studies by the Applicant and by the 1IRC on this topic re a
o l te t CESG's concerns.
Me vill hear evidence on this issue.
App can s
14 t'ot<on fot sumnary disposition regarding low power test-Ing
$ s denied.
r
~tI~
The parties are directed to confer regarding a proposed schedule lead-ing to the corn>en to th comnencement of an evidentiary hear ng to th comnen '$ n on the issue of the generation
V C.
~ C>>
1'
v,V
~
y'
~
. 'T ~
C I
of excessive amounts of hydrogen during 1ox power testing operations and to submit such proposed schedule to the Board by December 15, )980.
In its ttovem r 7. 19BO, rep1y to Applicant's not[on for suraaary 1t$ on CESG h s advanced boo additional contentions (Contentions 5
dtspos further contentions by December 15, 3980.-
and 6).
Applicant nd Staff are directed to respond to CESS's proposed It $ s so ORDE EO.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAfETY AND l.IGENSIHG BOARD Rob rt N. Lbto a
Doted et Bethesda.
iary1and.
th$ s 25th day of No, ember. l9M.
V
.r
V /
- 'A ~
gf UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
Units 1 and 2
)
)
Diablo Canyon Site
)
)
Docket No.50-27S Docket. No. 50-323 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document(s) of Pacific Gas and Electric Company has (have) been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
2055S Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg C/o Nancy Culver 192 Luneta Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Public Utilities Commission of the State of California 5246 State Building 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Mrs. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93449 Mr. Frederick Eissler Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Mrs. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 John Phillips, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Drive Los Angeles, California 90067 David F. Fleischa'ker, Esq.
1735 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 709 Washington, D. C. 20006 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell 6 Wilmer 3100 Valley Ban'k Center
- Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Bruce Norton, Esq.
- Norton, Bur'ke, Berry & Junck 3216 North Third Street Suite 300 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
H, t
'f
~
rd
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn.:
Docketing and Service Section William J. Olmstead, Esq.
Charles Barth, Esq.
Edward G. Ketchen, Esq.
Lucinda Low Swartz, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director BETH 042 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
2 0555 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Christopher Hanbac'k, Esq.
Hill, Christopher 6 Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Byron S. Georgiou, Esq.
Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary Governor's Office State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Joseph M. Hendrie, Commissioner Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Peter A. Bradford, Commissioner John F. Ahearne, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Richard B. Hubbard MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K
San Jose, California 95125 Harry M. Willis, Esq.
W. Andrew Baldwin, Esq.
Seymour 6 Willis 601 California Street Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108 Mr. Carl Neiberger Tele ram Tribune P.
O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93402 i ip A.
rane, Jr.
Atto ney Pacif'c Gas and Electric Company December 18, 1980
f c
r+
4 l