ML20027D608
| ML20027D608 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1982 |
| From: | Cutchin J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027D609 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8211080155 | |
| Download: ML20027D608 (5) | |
Text
,
e
?
11/5/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!411SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY ~AND LICENSING BOARD In the,1latter of CLEVELAliDELECTRICILLUf11N4 TING Docket No. 50-4'40 01, '
50-441 OL-(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1and2)
)
NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF ISSUE NO. 4 I.
INTRODUCTION The NRC Staff moves the Licensing Board, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.749 of the Commission',s Rules of Practice, for submary disposition in its favor of Issue #4 which states that:
The safety of Applicant's emergency core cooling system has not been demtnstrated with appropriate experimental data because a full scale 30 degree sector steam test has not beer.
performed.
As grounds for its motion, the Staff asserts that the attached affidavit of S.B. Sun and the other papers filed in this proceeding demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to Issue #4 and that the Staff is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law.
II. DISCUSSION The Commission's Rules of Practice provide that summary disposition of any' matter involved in an operating license proceeding shall be granted if the moving papers, together with the other papers filed in the proceeding, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material M
8211080155 821105
~
DE31cnATED OR PDR ADOCK 05000440 G
PDR egrtified 37
(
4 l-4
.- 2,,
.2 fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.
The use of summary disposition has been encouraged by the Commission and the Appeal Board to avoid unnecessar'y hearings on contentions for which an intervenor has failed to establish the existence of a genuine. issue of material fact.
E.g., Sta'tement of*
Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 457' (1981) and Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Huclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 550-551 (1980). A material fact is one that may affect the' outcome of the litigation.
Mutual Fund Investors Inc. v. Putnam Mtnagement Co., 553 F.2,d 620, 624 (9th Cir.1977).
When a motion for summary disposition is made ar.d supported by affidavit, a party opposing the motion inay not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer but must set forth specific facts such as would be udmissible in evidence that show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
10 CFR 2.749(b). All material facts set fo.*th in the statement of material facts required to be served by the moving party will be dewed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of material facts required to be served by the oppcting party.
10 CFR 2.749(a). Any answers supporting or opposing a motion for summary disposition must be served within twenty (20) days after i
l service of the motion.
,I_d.
If no answer properly showing the existence d
of a genuine issue of material fact is filed, the decision sought by the moving party, if properly supported, shall be rendered.
l
~
s a
?
- ~
The Staff submits that the attached affidavit and statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine issue to be heard, together with the other papers filed.in this proceeding, demonstrate
- that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to Issde #4 and that the Staff is entitled to a decision in its f.avor a'.s a matter of law.
III. CONCLUSION The Staff's motion for summary disposition of Issue #4 should be granted.
Respectfully submitt,ed, e.
" Z-C w
James !4. Cutchin, IV
, Counsel for f1RC Staff Dated at Bethesda,flaryland this 5th day cf flovember, 1982 i
,m__
.a
.g
.2 STATEMEftT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO MHICH THERE IS It0 gel 4UltiE ISSUE TO BE HEARD 1.
The Licensing Board admitted ' Issue #4 because a full-scale 30-degree-sector steam test " appears to be required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix K Part I, 5 D6" and Applicant's FSAR indicates. that'.
no such test has been performed. LBP-81-24,14 tiRC 175, 215-216(1981).
2.
Appendix K to 10 CFR 50 does not specifically require that a full-scale 30-degree-sector steam test be performed. Appendix K only specifies that during spray cooling "[f]ollowing the blowdown period [in a loss-of-coolant accident] convective heat transfer
[for BWR fuel rods] sh'all be calculated using coefficients based on appropriate experimental data".'Section I.D.6 of Appendix K to 10 CFR 50.
3.
General Electric has confirmed by testing that if the flow rate through a BWR fuel assembly is approximately one gallon per minute a heat transfer coefficient of the magnitude assumed in the GE ECCS Evaluation Model will be achieved. AffidavitofS.B. Sun (Affidavit) at 56.
4.
GE also has conducted tests, including 30-degree-sector steam tests, that confirm that the spray flow rates through the fuel assemblies in a BWR/6 core will be sufficient to achieve the convective heat transfer coefficients assumed in the GE ECCS Evaluation liode. Affidavit at SS 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
5.
Experimental data show that, even if none of the core spray water flows past the fuel rods, (i.e., if all of the core spray water
2-bypasses the fuel rods) the steam flowing past the fuel rods would
' provide significantly greater convective cooling of the fuel rods than is assumed in the GE ECCS Evaluation Model, and thus that the distribution of the spray flow for Perry is not a valid safety cdncern.
Affidavit at 5 13.
~
6.
Even though neither specifically required by Appendix K to 10 CFR 50 nor necessary to confirm the convectiv~e heat transfer coefficients assumed in the GE ECCS Evaluation' Model, full-scale 30-degree-sector steam tests have been performed for a simulated BWR/6 core. Affidavit at 11 9 and 10.
e 9
I e
9
.-n
-, - - - - -