ML19337A196
| ML19337A196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1980 |
| From: | Ketchen E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009090241 | |
| Download: ML19337A196 (11) | |
Text
3 September 4, 1980 s-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY Docket Hos. 50-369 50-370 (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE T0 "CESG'S REVISED MOTION TO RE0 PEN THE OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING; MOTION TO DENY APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR FUEL LOADIt'G, ETC., AND REVI5ED CONTENTIONS" I.
INTRODUCTION
-0n August 15, 1980, Carolina Environmental Study Group ("CESG") filed a
. Revised Motion to reopen the McGuire hearing record to consider contentions related to the matter of hydrogen-generation control arising out of the Three Mile Island 2 (TMI-2) accident. Prior to this, on July 29, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) had granted CESG ten (10) days to submit a revised motion meeting the requirements for reopening a record, and to reframe its contentions in accordance with the guidance recently.provided by the Commission for taking TMI-2 related issues into account in operating license proceedings.M 1/
. Duke Power Company (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
Memorandum and Order, Slip Op. (July 29,1980).
In previous proceedings in this case, the Licensing Board issued an Initial Decision on April 19, 1979 (i.e., LBP-79-13, 9 NRC 489 (1979)) but stayed the effectiveness of -
the Initial Decision "until further order by the Board following the issuance of a Supplement to the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report addressing the signficance of any unresolved generic safety issues."
Ibid at 547-48.
SER, Supplement 3, which addressed the significance of the unresolved safety issues as they relate to the McGuire facili-ties, was oublished in May,- 1980. Based on issuance of SER, Supple-
. ment 3, on May 30,1980, Duke Power Company (" Applicant") filed a motion to terminate the stay of the Initial Decision. Duke's motion to lift' the stay and the NRC Staff and CESG responses are pending before the Licensing Board.
~
8009090 N #
g
^
CESG's revised motion (1) discusses the requirements for reopening a record, (2) submits proposed contentions related to hydrogen generation control, and (3) requests the Licensing Board to deny Applicant's request for authori-zation to load fuel and conduct low power testing under NT0L requirements.2_/
-For *.ae reasons set forth below the NRC Staff believes the Licensing Board should defer ruling on CESG's Revised Motion -with respect to hydrogen genera-tion control matters until resolution of a motion.for reconsideration now pending before the Commission in Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit NO.1), Docket No. 50-289 SP (Restart). With respect to Applicant's request for authorization to load fuel and conduct low power testing pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57 and the Commissions' NT0L require-ments, the Staff filed its response on August 15, 1980. See the "NRC Staff Response to ' Applicant's Motion For License Auhorizing Fuel Loading, Initial Criticality, Zero Power Physics Testing and Low Power Testing' (August 1, 1980)." The Staff believes that its August 15, 1980 response adequately addresses the CESG Revised Motion and that no further reply on this aspect is necessary.
2f _
NTOL refers to the "near-tenn operating license" provisions specified in NUREG-0694, "TMI Related Requirements for New Operating Licenses."
'(June 1980).
These requirements are set forth in "Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses; Statement of Policy,"
(45 Fed. Reg. 49738; ~ June 20,- 1980).
e
.' II.
DISCUSSION A.
Motion to Reopen the Record And CESG Proposed Contention 1.
3 As we stated in our previous response f of July 3,1978 to the CESG request of June 9,1980 to reopen the McGuire record, a licensing board has the discretion to reopen a record if: (1) the motion is timely; (2) addresses significant safety (or environmental) issues; and (3) might have required a different result to be reached if the newly proffered material had been con-sideredinitially.O With respect to the first criterion for reopening a record, the NRC Staff
~
does not oppose CESG's Revised Motion on timeliness grounds.N With respect to the second criterion, significance,b CESG's motion addresses safety issues involving hydroge.n generation control that could arise out of y
"NRC Staff Response to: (1) Carolina Environmental Study Group's (CESG)
Motion to Admit New Contentions and Reopen the McGuire Operating License Hearing and (2) Duke Power Company's (Duke or Applicant) Motion To Temi-nate the Stay of Initial Decision (June 9,1980)" (July 3,1980), at 6-8.
y Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-598, Slip op. (June 24,1980) at 4 (and cases cited);
Vennont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vennont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523-24 (1973).
.y-See:
"NRC' Response to:
(1) Carolina Environmental Study Group's (CESG)
Motion to Admit New Contentions and Reopen the McGuire Operating License Hearing and (2)..." July 3,1980, at 6.
~
p Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-598,. Slip op. (June 24,1980), at 4.
Accord,:
Vermont Yankee-Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523 (1973).
4
+
4..
a TMI-2 type accident.
CESG's basis for its motion to reopen is that analy-ses conducted since the.TMI-2 accident demonstrate that the Commission and others recognize that the question of hydrogen generation control arising out of the TMI-2 accident is a significant one. We agree.
With respect to the third criterion for reopening a record 2/ the McGuire Licensing Board might have reached a different result in the McGuire operating license proceeding if the matters raised in CESG's Revised Motion had been brought before it initially. However, resolving the third criterion with respect to CESG's Revised Motion depends on whether there is a triable issue of fact. Thus, as stated in Vermont Yankee, ALAB-138,
"... even thougn a matter is timely raised and involves signifi-cant safety considerations, no reopening of the evidentiary hearing will be required if the affidavits submitted in response to the motion demonstrate that there is no genuine unresolved issue of fact, i.e., if the undisputed facts establish that the apparently significant safety issue does not exist, has been resolved, or for some other reason will have no effect upon the outcome of the 1
proceeding."
As-discussed below, the above factors cannot be adequately addressed without resolution of matters now pending before the Commission on a motion for 8
reconsideration of CLI-80-16 / in the TMI-1 Restart proceeding.
]/-
Diablo Canyon, ALAB-589, at 4.
Accord: Vermont Yankee, ALAB-138, at 523-24.
8/
Metropolitan Edison Company-(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1).. Docket No. 50-289 (Restart), Memorandum and Order, CLI-80-16 (May 16,1980), at 2.
i-i-
On _ January 4,1980, the TMI-l Board certified to the Commission two questions,-
i.e.:
(1) whether the provision of 10 C.F.R. 50.44 should be waived pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.758 and (2) whether post-accident hydrogen gas control should be an issue in the TMI-l Restart proceeding.
In CLI-80-16, the Commission declined to waive the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 50.44.U The Commission pointed out that it is planning a general rulemaking on the question of possible safety features to deal with degraded core conditions and that 10 C.F.R. 50.44 should remain in place pending the more deliberate and considered rulemaking.E On 'the second issue, however, the Commission held that the hydrogen generation control issue can be litigated under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 100.
The TMI-l Restart Licensing Board described the Commission's ruling as follows:
" Emphasizing that the assumptions of hydrogen generation under 10 C.F.R. 650.44 are dependent upon ECCS design as opposed to actual ECCS operation, the Commission's Order authorizes litigation of the likelihood of an accident generating hydrogen in quantities exceeding 10 C.F.R. 950.44 design bases, the likelihood of such hydrogen combusting, and the ability of the containment to withstand pressures beyond containment design pressure. The Commission also noted that a critical issue in the chain of circumstances under consideration would be th with the ECCS operation."gikelihood of an operator interfering
~ 9/
CLI-80-16, at 2, 4.
10] CLI-80-16, at 2.
11/ Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), Memorandum and Order on Hydrogen Control Contention (May 30, 1980) at 1-2.
l 1
'After the Commission's ' decision in CLI-80-16, in its Memorandum and Order of May 30,1980 the THI-1 Restart Licensing Board stated:
"Three intenenors have submitted contentions relating to post-accident hydrogen: Mr. Sholly, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York (ANGRY). The board authorized discovery on the hydrogen control contentions,-
but their acceptance or rejection as issues for litigation is still pending.1_2/
2 Major elements of Mr. Sholly's Contention 11 may be litigated as a Part 100 issue. and in accordance with the standards of the Com-mission's May 16 Order. However we have redrafted Sholly's Con-tention 11 to bring it into alignment with the Commission's Order and to accommodate the views of the board members.1_3/
Accordingly the board accepts Sholly Contention 11, as we have redraf ted it...14f On June 4,1980 the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), an intenenor in the TMI-l Restart proceeding, moved the Commission to reconsider its decision in CLI-80-16.E On June 24, 1980,- for reasons different from those advanced by UCS, the Licensee (Metropolitan Edison Company) joined UCS in its request.N 1_2/
Ibid., at 2-3.
2 13/ Id., at 4.
14f I_d., at 4-5.
15/ " Union of Concerned Scientists' Motion for Reconsideration of CLI-80-16" (June 4, 1980).
16/ " Licensee's Response to UCS' Motion for Reconsideration CLI-80-16" (June 24,1980), 'at 1.
' On June 17, 1980,E the TMI-1 Restart Licensing Board granted a UCS request to suspend the effectiveness of the Restart Licensing Board's May 30, 1980 Memorandum and Order (that accepted " Revised Sholly Contention 11") until the Commission rules upon UCS' motion for reconsideration of CLI-80-16.
.This motion is yet pending.
CESG proposed Contention 15 is' identical to the TMI-1 Restart Board's
" Revised Sholly Contention 11" which involves the subject matter of the UCS motion for reconsideration of CLI-80-16.
Any Commission pronouncement with respect to CLI-80-16 will likely affect the acceptability of the TMI-1
" Revised Sholly Contention 11," and the nature of the issue to be considered in the TMI-1 Restart procee' ding.
In McGuire, these same hydrogen generation control matters would likely be similarly affected by any Commission pro-nouncement on treatment of hydrogen generation control.. Thus, the concerns-about hydrogen generation control, as described in SECY-80-107, SECY-80-107A, and SECY-80-107B, and pointed to by CESG in its revised motion, although significant, may be dealt with by the Commission on the basis of the UCS motion for reconsideration of CLI-80-16 in such a way that the present status of the McGuire operating license proceeding might not be affected.,
Thus, there could be no triable issue of fact requiring the McGuire record M. Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.-1), Docket No. 50-289 SP (Restart), Memorandum and Order (June 17 1980) 18/ CESG' Revised ' Motion, at 21.
8 19f.' CESG Revised Motion, at 3.
to reopened. At the very least, the Commission may give further guidance on
-how hydrogen generation' control issues are to be treated. Accordingly, we believe that the Licensing Board should defer a ruling on CESG's Revised Motion until the Commission speaks further on the hydrogen generation control subject.
B.
CESG Contentions 2-4.E CESG's proposed Contention 2 in our view is simply a restatement of part 3 of CESG's proposed Contention 1, and as such, need not be separately addressed. b -
_YDT CESG's proposed Contentions 3 and 4 are:
Neither licensee nor NRC staff has demonstrated that the emergency planning radius of 10 miles is sufficient for protecting the public from the radioactive releases of a low pressure, ice condenser containment ruptured by a hydrogen explosion.
Contention 4 Licensee and NRC planning do not provide for crisis relocation which would be required as a result of containment breach and radioactive particle release.
21/ CESG's proposed Contention 1(3) states:
1 The licensee has not demonstrated that, in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident at McGuire:
3.
that, in the event of. such generation and combustion, the contain-ment'has the ability to withstand pressure below or above the containment design pressure, thereby preventing release of off-site radiation in excess of Part 100 guideline values.
CESG's proposed Contention 2 states:
Contention'2 Neither licensee nor NRC staff has demonstrated that a McGuire ice containment will not breach as the result of the rapid
. combustion of quantities of hydrogen which a dry containment would withstand.
_g_
CESG proposed Contentions 3 (Emergency Planning Radius ~ Sufficiency) and 4 (Crises Relocation) are merely succeeding steps in the hydrogen generation scenario that CESG propounds.
Resolution of these contentions are neces-sarily dependent on occurrence of the events described in CESG proposed Contention 1, and Contention 2.
Accordingly, consideration of CESG's pro-posed Contentions 3 and 4 should also be deferred pending the outcome of any Commission reconsideration of CLI-80-16 on hydrogen generation control,
^
since CESG's Contentions 3 and 4 are dependent in part on how CESG's pro-posed Contention 1 with respect to hydrogen generation control is resolved.
CONCLUSION For the. foregoing reasons, the Staff recommends that the Licensing Board should defer ruling on CESG's motion to reopen the record, and further, that it should defer ruling on the scope of CESG's proposed contentions 1-4 until the Commission rules on the motion to reconsider CLI-80-16.
Further, after the issuance of any guidance by the Commission, prior to ruling on CESG's Revised Motion, the parties should be given the opportunity to address how any. additional rulings made by the Commission affect the McGuire proceedings.
We suggest that fifteen (15) days for the parties to file simultaneous replies should oe sufficient without an opportunity for replies unless the Licensing Board deems such replies warranted.
Thereafter, the Licensing Board should rule on CESG's Revised Motion.
w e-10 -
In order lto expedite'that ' proceeding in the event 'the McGuire operating license record.might have-to be reopened.the NRC Staff will, in the interim, respond to any reasonable informal discovery requests in the subject areas identified by CESG's? proposed contentions.
Respectfully submitted, i.
4',
t
'M..0-. -
Edward G. Ketchen Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of September,1980
.I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-369
)
50-370 (William B. McGuire Nuclear
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO 'CEfG'S REVISED MOTION TO RE0 PEN THE OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING; MOTION TO DENY APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR FUEL LOADING, ETC., AND REVISED CONTENTIONS'", dated Sept?mber 4, 1980, 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 through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 4th day of September, 1980:
- Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Carolina Environmental Study Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 854 Henley Place Washington, D. C.
20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207
- Dr. Emeth A. Luebke
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 j
Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Director
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Bodega Marine Lab of California Appeal Board P.O. Box 247 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Bodega Bay, California 94923 Washington, D. C.
20555 J. Michae.1 McGarry. III, Esq..
- Secretary Debevoise & Liberman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
ATTN:
Chief, Docketing & Service Br.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20555 William Larry Porter, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company P.O. Box 2178
)
/
422' South Church Street y
//.e
'e AL,-
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 s "-
AW Edward G. Ketchen Counsel for NRC Staff 4