ML20010J557
| ML20010J557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1981 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | JOINT INTERVENORS - WATERFORD, LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110050340 | |
| Download: ML20010J557 (4) | |
Text
__-
S k,
4 N
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Decggg3 q
(6 USq:
0 th c:0_
2 1937,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
- ,~ ~,,$, i keta.y y
C::
Before Administrative Judges:
025/#""
7 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman
'b Dr. Walter H. Jordan N '6 I b Or. Harry Foreman SERVED OCT 11981 In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY )
Docket No.
62 (Waterford Steam Electric
)
Septe 3.
I?]/
)
1~ %
Station, Unit 3)
)
'[
/ph '3 V/
(.
GCT 21937w (Granting Applicant's Motion To Dismiss., D W @ ro MEMORANDUM AND ORDER w
Joint Intervenors' Contention 28) kSJTsh MEMORANDUM On August 21, 1981, pursuant to 10.C.'F.R. 52.730, Applicant filed a Motion to Dismiss Joint Intervenors' Contention 28 (Hydrogen Control).1/
Joint Intervenors (Save Our Wetlands, Inc. and the 4
Oystershell Alliance, Inc.) did not respond.
On September 10, 1981, the NRC Staff filed a Response in opposition to the instant motion.
The concerns raised by the Joint Intervenors in Contention 28. which were particularized in their answers of April 24, 1980 to Applicant's 4
0 95$
I
-1/
Contention 28 reads as follows:
Applicant has not presently provided adequate plans which demonstrate how it will 1) prevent the creation and accumulation of free hydrogen from forming in the primary system during a Neclear Emergency; 2) alleviate the accumulation of dangerous quantities of hydrogen within the containment.
8110050340 810930 PDR ADOCK 05000382 O
. interrogatories served on February 19, 1980, 2/ will be considered generically by the Commission pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled " Interim Requirements Related to Hydrogen Control and Certain Degraded Core Considerations".
45 Fed. Reg.~65,466 (1980) 3/. Further, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled
" Consideration of Degraded or Melted Cores in Safety Regulation" which reflects that consideration will be given to whether systems for controlling combustion of hydrogen should be incorporated into containment design.
45 Fed. Reg. 65,474 (1980).
This being so, we are precluded from accepting
(
in this proceeding a contention which is (or is about to become) the subject of general rulemaking by the Commission. Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974).
We note that, while both Applicant and Staff agree that 2_/
The Joint Intervenors answered Applicant's interrogatory 28-3 as follows:
28-3 Section 6.2.5 of the FSAR* does not adequately provide plans for the elimination of dangerous hydrogen quantities in the following areas:
(1)
Containment Hydrogen Indication 2.1.9 of " Discussion of Lessons Learned Short Term Reouirements."
(2)
Dedicated H Control Penetrations 2.1.5a of the 2
same reference.
(3)
The Combustible Gas Control System is designed to control a 4% cladding reaction [FS/R 6.2.5.3(b)].
This gives an error factor of 5 over the accident design level of 10 C.F.R. 50.46(3).
However, Three Mile Island, Unit 2 suffered cladding failure of 44*-63* (Kemeny Commission Report, page 30'.
The CGCS is underdesigned, therefore by an order of magnitude.
-3/
The Commission's propo' sed interim rule covers and discusses each of Joint Intervenors' areas of concern - accidert ;nonitoring instrumenta-tion at 45 Fed. Reg. 65,470-71; dedicated hy6rogen control renetra-tions at page 65,468; and the percentage of cladding reaction at pages 65,466-67.
these specific concerns will be addressed generically by the Com-mission, the Staff argues that the Potomac Electric Power Company decision cannot properly serve as a basis for dismissing Contention 28 because (a) the Applicant still has an obligation to comply with 10 C.F.R. s50.44 and (b) this Board has a duty to make a finding as to such compliance.
We do not understand this argument.
As reflected, supra, Contention 28 does not contend that Applicant has not complied or will not comply with the requirements of the existing 50.44.
Further, we agree with the Applicant that the exception made by the Commission in Metropolitan Edison Co.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), CLI-80-16,11 NRC 674 (1980) "is inapplicable here because Contention 28 does not even approach the specific allega-tions that, according to the Commission, are necessary to litigate the hydrogen control issue under Part 100" ( Applicant's Motion, p. 4).
In the Metropolitan Edison Co. decision at page 675, the Commission stated that "Under Part 100, hydrogen control measures beyond those raquired by 10 C.F.R. 50.44 would be required if it is determined that there is a credible loss-of-coolant accident scenario entailing hydrogen genera-tion, hydrogen combustion, containment breach or leaking, and offsite radiation doses in excess of Part 100 guideline values".
In light of our discussion above and especially in light of footnote 2 above, we fail to understand why it is not clear'to the Staff that the contention l
does not seek to litigate the likelihood of releases under 10 C.F.R.
P art 100.
~
.- =_. -... - -
. :o l
ORDER t
For the foregoing reasons, it is this 30th day of September 1981 ORDERED That Applicant's Motion To Dir,miss Joint Intervenors' Contention 28 is granted, and.the Contention is dismissed.
Judges Jordan and Foreman concur.
i FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND i
LICENSING BOARD M bOM Sheldon J. W fe 8
ADMINISTRATI[vi JUDGE
}
]
?
O
..,_,---...,~..-,-n.,
. _..,, _ _ _, -,, -.. - -. -., - -. -,. -.. _..., ~.,,,... _,
.-..-.,,-~..,.,,,.en,w.,-,,,
..n..
.n c.,,