ML19350C925
| ML19350C925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1981 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350C926 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104100328 | |
| Download: ML19350C925 (4) | |
Text
C f71 4
to g
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA b
/ lpg 9
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)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR LICENSE AUTHORIZING OPERATION UP TO AND INCLUDING 35 PERCENT RATED POWER AND NRC STAFF MOTION FOR
^
LEAVE TO RESPOND TO CESG'S REPLY THERET0 On March 24, 1981, Duke Power Company (applicant) filed a motion for a license authorizing operations up to and including 35 percent. rated power operations, citing 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57(c) as the regulatory framework for such motion.
The motion cites testimony of witness Muench for the proposition that at 35 percent rated power a TMI type accident, generating sufficient hydrogen to threaten containment, cannot occur.
The staff raises no objection to applicant's motion. The staff also requests leave to respond to objections raised by CESG's reply to applicant's motion.
II.
BACKGROUND As a result of previous hearings in this proceeding, the Licensing Board issued an Initial Decision on April 19, 1979,-1/ deciding all matters raised in issue in this proceeding prior thereto, in favor of the issuance of a full power operating license for both Units 1 and 2 of the McGuire if Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
810.4100 MT b
y
-+nn
2-7
's Station.
However, the Licensing Board 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 significance of any tmresolved generic safety issues " 9 NRC 489, at 547-48. SER, Supplement 3, which addressed the significance of the unre-solved safety issues as they re' late to the McGuire facilities, was published in May,1980. All that remains of the issues raised prior to April 1979 is for the Board to terminate the stay of its Initial Decision with respect to such issues.
On fiovember 25, 1980, the Licensing Board granted the motion of Carolina Environmental Study Group (CESG) to reopen the McGuire hearing record to consider four new contentions, all related to hydrogen generation control arising out of the TF11-2 accident.2_/ and on the same day granted applicant's motion for a low power license to the extent of authorizing fuel loading,
' initial criticality, and zero power testing.3] The hearings relating to the hydrogen generation and control issues commenced February 24, 1981, and were completed on March 19, 1981.
The applicant's motion under 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c) for a license authorizing operation up to 35 percent of rated power was filed March 24, 1981.
2]
" Memorandum and Order Regarding CESG's Motion to Reopen Record,"
(unpublished).
3/
" Memorandum and Order Regarding Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposi-tion" (unpublished). This Memorandum and Order denied applicant's request with respect to low power testing at up to 5% of full power.
4/
The record remaining open for the limited issue of providing the staff with an opportunity to supplement the record, if needed, on questions relating to the potential for pyrolysis and combustion of polyurenthane insulating material. Staff information was submitted on March 27, 1981.
4
III. NRC'S STAFF ANSWER TO APPLICANT'S MOTION Applicant's motion for operation at 35 percent of rated power is made pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57(c).
That section provides:
An applicant may, in a case where a hearing is held in connection with a pending proceeding... make a motion in writing... for an operting license authorizing low power testing (operatirn at not more than 1. percent of full power for the purpose of testing the facility) 7.nd further operation short of full power operation. Action on such motion by the presiding officer shall be taken with due regard to the_ rights of the parties to the pro-ceedings, including the right of any party to be heard to the extent that his contentions are relevant to the activity to be authorized, prior to taking any action on such a motion which any party opposes, the presiding officer shall make findings on the matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section as to which there is a con-troversy, in the form of an initial decision with respect to the contested activity sought to be authorized. The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will make findings on all other matters.... [1]f no party opposes the motion, the presiding officer will issue an order pursuant to 5 2.730(e)... authorizing the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to make appropriate findings on the matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section and to issue a license for the requested operation.
Thus, i0 C.F.R. 6 50.57(c) provides a simple two-stage approach to low power testing and other partial power licenses during the pendency of a hearing.
If no party objects, the Board simply issues an order authorizing the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to make appropriate findings with respect to the issuance of the requested license.
If a party objects,
the Board then is to make findings with respect to those contentions, rele-vant to the activity requested to be authorized, which are placed in contro-versy with respect to the motion by the objection. With respect to all other matters covered by 10 C.F.R. I 50.57(a), the Director of Nuclear l
Reactor Regulation is authorized to make findings.
As noted above, all issues have already been decided by the Licensing Board in this case except for the four contentions related to hydrogen generation and control admitted in connection with the reopened proceeding on November 25, 1980. Thus, if an objection is interposed, the Board is required only to decide the issues raised in connection with such contentions to the extent relevant to the requested partial power operation. With respect to all other issues, only a termination of its stay with respect to such issues is needed.
The staff does not object to the applicant's motion and interposes no issues which must be decided by the Licensing Board in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c).
IV. NRC STAFF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESP 0t19 TO CESG REPLY TO APPLICANT'S MOTI0il By reply, dated April 2,1981, CESG opposed applicant's motion.
CESG's reply asserts that certain CESG contentions are relevant to the partial power authorization request by the applicant. The NitC staff requests leave 1
to respond by April 17, 1981, to CESG's position.
Respectfully submitted.
\\
m g.
~s
//M') /
y, J
Joseph F./6t! nto founsel' for ?lRC Staf s JU Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 08th day of April,1981 5/
Provided that the ordering clause be modified to reflect the reopened status of the proceeding and the provisions of Appendix B to 10 C.F.P,.
Part 2 (unless waived or otherwise modified).
See "NRC Staff Response to (1) Carolina Environmental Study Group's (CESG) Motion to Admit New Contentions and Reopen the McGuire Opera-l ting License Hearing and (2) Duke Power Comrany's (Duke or Applicant) j Motion to Terminate the Stay of Initial Derision" dated July 10, 1980.
~
- __