ML17209A475
| ML17209A475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1980 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ALAB-603, CLI-80-41, NUDOCS 8012240144 | |
| Download: ML17209A475 (14) | |
Text
REGULATORY RMATION DISTRIBUTION SY (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:8012240144 DOC ~ DATE: 80/12/12 NOTARIZED:
NO FACIL:50-389 St. Lucie Plant~
Unit 2~ Florida Power 8 Light Co.
AUTH,NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION CHILKQ8 ~ J.
Office of the Secretary of the Commission RECIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION F 1 ori da Power 8 Light Co.
S UBJECT:
Memorandum L order deciding to reconsider generic aspects of ALAS-603 8, affirming license amendments re operation during station blackout
~ NRC brief due in 30 days L reply briefs in 50 days.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
D$ 02S COPIES RECEIVED: LTR ENCL SIZE:
TITLE: Non - Antitrust Issuances NOTES:
DOCKET 05000389 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME CTION:
RUSMBROOKrM~
NTERNAL-ASLAP I8E GELD,BLANTON PUBLIC AFFAIRS XTERNAL: LPDR COPIES LT R
ENCL 1
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME BIRKELg R.
ASLB NRC PDR OGC F ILC NSIC LT R
ENCL 1
COPIES TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR
'FC ENCL 18
rt iy t
l!
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cci%rsgr5IRRs:
,,-- JohÃ. Aheapne, Chairman
=Vict@ Gilinsky
-""Jose@1 M. Hendrie
~
Peter-A. Bradford In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit 2)
)
)
V
"/g~.
Docket No. 50-389 MEMORANDUM'AND ORDER (CLI-80-41 )
The Commission has decided to reconsider its previous determination not to review the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in ALAB-603.
Upon reconsideration, the Commission has determined to exercise its authority to review on its own motion certain implications of ALAB-603.
The reasons for this decision and the issues for review are discussed below.
In ALAB-603, the Appeal Board found that the total loss of on-site and off-site AC power (station blackout) must be considered a design basis event for St.
Lucie, Unit 2.
This conclusion was based on calculations which showed that the probability of station blackout could exceed some threshold values in the Standard Review Plan that are used by the staff to aid in its determination as to whether or not protective measures are needed for certain off-site hazards.
Consequently, the Board directed that the applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report must include an assessment demonstrating the plant's ability to operate through such an event, and a detailed training program for station operation during a blackout transient g 5' W
e >l~
and for the restoration of AC power.
No party petitioned for Commission r'eview of that decision.
On October 14,
- 1980, the time expired for Commission sua
~s onte review of ALAB-603. 1/
Subsequently, on November 10, 1980, the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) responded to the Chairman's request for further information on the status of Task Action Plan A-44-Station Blackout (TAP A-44).
That response included a memorandum from the Director, Division of Systems and Reliability
- Research, to the Director, NRR.
Q2 That memorandum alerted the Commission to certain staff positions which had not been presented in the staff's filings before the Appeal Board and the Commission.
These staff positions raise important generic issues regarding the impact of the Appeal Board s decision on the regula-tory process.
As a result, Commissioner Hendrie requested the Commission to reconsider the decision not to review ALAB-603. 3/
The ability to reconsider is inherent in the ability to decide in the first instance.
~Tru 'illo v. General Electric Com an 621 F.2d
- 1084, 1086 (10 Cir.
1980), Albertsbn V:* FCC, 182 F.2d 397, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1950).
Because judicial review of final Commission orders is governed by the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C.
- 2347, the Commission has 60 days in which to reconsider an otherwise final decision.
American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Frei ht, 397 U.S.
- 523, 540 (1970),
Pan American
~P1..91P.,2.2999,1(.C.C1.19 Reconsideration is at the discretion of the Commission.
United States v.
gl The Commission's time to consider whether to take review had been extended to permit the parties to respond to Commissioner Hendrie's Memorandum to Counsel for the Parti'es disclosing his prior involvement with St. Lucie, Unit No. 2.
g2 Copies of these memoranda have been served on the parties.
g3 The'parties were notifi'ed ofthis~request by letter of December 1, 1980.
V Pierce Auto Frei ht Lines, 327 U.S.
- 515, 535 (1940).
The situation described above supports the Commission s exercise of that discretion.
Staff views, which suggest that ALAB-603 could have serious affects on the regulatory process, have come to the Commission's attention only after expiration of the time set forth in the regulations for Commission sua
~s ante review
.These staff views present serious generic policy matters requiring Commission consideration.
Accordingly, the Commission has decided to reconsider its previous determination not to review ALAB-603.
Upon reconsideration, the Commission has decided to review the generic aspects of ALAB-603 specified below.+
The Commission affirms the license amendments which the Appeal Board ordered for the St. Lucie, Unit No.
2 con-struction permit.
These conditions are appropriate interim requirements which should provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to public health and safety pending completion of TAP-A-44.
However, the Commission does wish to review the following generic issues in ALAB-603:
(1)
Mhat are the generic implications of using the threshold probabilities in Section 2.2.3 of the Standard Review Plan as guidelines in determining the design basis events+ to be used for plant design and operation?
(2)
Granting the need for protective measures against loss of all AC power for some reasonable period of time, is designation of station blackout as a
design basis event the appropriate regulatory framework in which to consider such measures pending completion of the staff generic study TAP-A-44?
Chairman Ahearne would have preferred not to review ALAB-603 but to address the generic issues separately.
- However, he joins in the action ordered here.'.
~
s See, for instance, the discussion in ALAB-603, p. 3, of design basis events.
The parties to the review proceeding shall be the permittee Florida Power and Light Company, the Intervenors, and the NRC staff.
The staff shall file its H
brief no later than 30 days after the date of this Order.
The other parties may file briefs by the same date.
Reply briefs may be filed no later than 50 days after the date of this Order.
In addition, because of the generic nature of the issues on review in this proceeding, the Commission invites other persons to address either or both of these issues by submitting briefs no later than 50 days after the date of this Order.
It is so ORDERED.
c>
C jP,B R<Gy Cy P~i
-'~
C~r!
++*++
Dated at Mashingtoh, D.C.
this /'2.
day of December, 1980.
For the Commiss n
J SAMUEL J.
ILK Secretary of th Commission I7 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
John F. Ahearne, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Joseph'M.
Hendrie Peter A. Bradford il(8
)
In the Matter of
)
)
FLORIDA POHER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(St.. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit 2)
)
)
Docket No. 50-389 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-80-41)
The Commission has decided to reconsider its previous determination not to review the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in ALAB-603.
Upon reconsideration, the Commission has determined to exercise its authority to review on its own motion certain implications of ALAB-603.
The reasons for this decision and the issues for review are discussed below.
I.
In ALAB-603, the Appeal Board found that the total loss of on-site and off-site AC power (station blackout) must be considered a design basis event for St.
r Lucie, Unit 2.
This conclusion was based on calculations which showed that the probability of station blackout could exceed some threshold values in the Standard Review Plan that are used by the staff to aid in its'etermination as to whether or not protective measures are needed for certain off-site hazards.
Consequently, the Board directed that the applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report must include an assessment demonstrating the plant's ability to operate through such an event, and a detailed training program for station operation during a blackout transient
and for the restoration of AC power.
No party petitioned for Commission r'eview of that decision.
On October 14, 1980, the time expired for Commission sua
~s onte review of ALAB-603. 1/
Subsequently, on November 10, 1980, the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) responded to the Chairman's request for further information on the status of Task Action Plan A-44-Station Blackout (TAP A-44).
That response included a memorandum from the Director, Division of Systems and Reliability
- Research, to the Director, NRR.
g2 That memorandum alerted the Commission to certain staff positions which had not been presented in the staff's filings before the Appeal Board and the Commission.
These staff positions raise important generic issues regarding the impact of the Appeal Board's decision on the regula-tory process.
As a result, Commissioner Hendrie requested the Commission to reconsider the decision not to review ALAB-603.
Q3 The ability to reconsider is inherent 'in the ability to decide in the first instance
~Tru 'illo v. General Electric Com an 62'I p.2d 1 084, 1 086 (I 0 Cir 1980), Albertson V. FCC, 182 F.2d 397, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1950).
Because judicial review of final Commissi'on orders is governed by the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C.
- 2347, the Commission has 60 days in which to reconsider an otherwise final decision.
9 American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Frei ht, 397 U.S.
- 523, 540 (1970),
Pan American C..dd19.,22.d99,142.2.91.1939.
Reconsideration is at the discretion of the Commission.
United States v.
gl The Commission's time to consider whether to take review had been extended to permit the parties to respond to Commissi'oner Hendrie's Memorandum to Counsel for the Parties dtsclosing his prior involvement with St. Lucie,,Unit No. 2.
g2 Copies of these memoranda have been served on the parties.
g3 The parties were notified of'thisrrequest by letter of December 1, 1980.
Pierce Auto Frei ht Lines, 327 U.S. 515, 535 (l940).
The situation described above supports the Commission s exercise of that discretion.
Staff views, which suggest that ALAB-603 could have serious affects on the regulatory process, have come=to the Commission's attention only after expiration of the time set forth in the regulations for Commission sua
~s onte review.
These staff views present serious generic policy matters requiring Commission consideration.
Accordingly, the Commission has decided to reconsider its previous determination not to review ALAB-603.
Upon reconsideration, the Commission has. decided to review the generic aspects of ALAB-603 specified below.j The Commission affirms the license amendments which the Appeal Board 'ordered for the St. Lucie, Unit No.
2 con-struction permit.
These conditions are appropriate interim requirements which should provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to public health and safety pending completion'f TAP-A-44.
However, the Commission does wish to review the following generic,.issues in ALAB-603:
(l)
What are the generic implications of using the threshold probabilities in Section 2.2.3 of the Standard Review Plan as guidelines in determining the design basis events+ to be used for plant design and operation?
(2)
Granting the need for protective measures against loss of all AC power for some reasonable period of time, is designation of station blackout as a
design basis event the appropriate regulatory framework in which to consider such measures pending completion of the staff generic study TAP-A-44?
4/
g5 Chairman Ahearne would have preferred not to review ALAB-603 but to address the generic issues separately.
- However, he joins in the action ordered here...
See, for instance, the discussion in ALAB-603, p. 3, of design basis events.
The parties to the review proceeding shall be the permittee Florida Power and Light Company, the Intervenors, and the NRC staff.,
The staff shall file its brief no later than 30 days after the date of this Order.
The other parties may file briefs by the same date.
Reply briefs may be filed no later than 50 days after the date of this Order.
In addition, because of the generic nature of the issues on review in this proceeding, the Commission invites other persons to address either or both of these issues by submitting briefs no later than 50 days after the date of this Order.
It i's so ORDERED.
~8 REDO Wp0 C'y h
0o rp
+0 For the Commiss
(
J SAMUEL J.
ILK Secretary of th Commission Dated at Mashingtoh, D.C.
this /'2.
. day of December, 1980.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Ma'tter of
)
)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY.
)
(St. ?,ucie Plant, Unit No. 2)
)
)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-389 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accoradance vith the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Washington D.
C. this day ofM
>m 19K~
Offic of the Secretary of the Commission
UNITED STATES OF &KRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of J
)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-389 SERVICE LIST Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor of Nuclear Engineering The University of Arizona
- Tucson, Arizona 85721 Dr. Fran'k F. Hooper School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Jack R.
- Newman, Esq.
Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad
& Toll ':,'::;;,':,',
1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
McCarthy, Steel, Hector
& David First National Bank Building, 14th Flr.
Miami, Florida 33131 Martin Harold Hodder, Esq.
1130 Northeast 86th Street Miami, Florida 33138 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Michael C. 'Farrar, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Florida Power
& Light Company ATMi'Dr. Robert E. Uhrig, V. Pres.
Advanced Systems
& Technology P.O.
Box 529100 Miami, Florida 33152 C
I Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boqrd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission" Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr.
W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555