ML20028A441
| ML20028A441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1982 |
| From: | Gallo J, Thornton P CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028A442 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8211220167 | |
| Download: ML20028A441 (5) | |
Text
fiI 11/16/82 DOCKETED UM.FC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'82 NT/19 P1 :41 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
(Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
)
MOTION OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY FOR IMMECIATE APPEAL FROM INITIAL DECISION CONCERNING CRITICALITY Consumers Power Company
(" Licensee") hereby moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ' (" Appeal Board")
to entertain immediately Licensee's appeal from the Initial Decision (Concerning Neutron Multiplication Factor) entered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board") on October 29, 1982.1I In support of this motion, Licensee states as follows:
1.
The Licensing Board has issued four partial initial decisions in this proceeding, determining the majority of the issues that were fully litigated at hearings held in Boyne Falls, Michigan in June 1982.
At least seven outstan-ding issues remain to be litigated and further hearings for this purpose are expected to occur in the first quarter of 1983 with a final decision being issued about June 1983.
1/
Based on this appeal, Licensee will apply to the Licensing Board for a stay of its October 29, 1982 Order within the next few days.
8211220167 821116 PDR ADOCK 05000155 O
PDR D$Db
F 0 2.
On October 4, 1982 the Appeal Board declined to entertain an appeal by Intervenors Christa-Maria, et al.,
from one of the Licensing Board's partial initial decisions until the last decision should have been served.
The rationale of the Appeal Board's Order was that piecemeal partial decisions would not be an efficient use of administrative resources.
Licensee does not challenge the correctness of the Appeal Board's Order, however, as the Appeal Board recognized in Consumers Poster Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ' ALAB-10 6, 6 AEC 182, 187 (1973), special circumstances may warra'nt reviewing one issue in an initial decision in advance of the others.
3.
In this case, special circumstances exist that warrant immediate review of the Licensing Board's decision on the criticality issue.
The Licensing Board has ordered Licensee to amend its application for a license amendment allowing expansion of the spent fuel pool capacity at Big Rock Point.
The amendment, to be filed within 60 days of the date i
of the Licensing Board's October 29 Order, must include an analysis demonstrating that the neutron multiplication factor in its spent fuel pool will not exceed 0.95 "under any condi-tions," including the condition in which the water is assumed to boil off from the pool.
Licensee maintains that it was an error of law for the Licensing Board to impose such a require-l ment.
In conformity with Commission guidance, Licensee is installing a remotely activated makeup line to the storage
. pool to prevent significant reduction in the coolant level.
Yet the Licensing Board refused to consider this engineered safety feature in imposing the requirement appealed from.
The Licensing Board's ruling upsets the well-settled regulatory principle of accepting engineered safety features as a means for meeting the requirements of the Commission's regulations.
4.
The Licensing Board, assuming that the Appeal Board does not grant immediate consideration of the instant appeal, would likely dismiss the license amendment application immediately upon learning of Licensee's unwillingness to comply with the October 29 Order.
This action seems the most likely scenario since the Licensing Board's order is tanta-mount to denial of the license amendment and it seems reaso-nable to expect the Licensing Board to dismiss the case rather than to determine all remaining issues and then deny the l
license amendment.
A dismissal of the case would necessarily i
halt consideration of the remaining issues to be litigated before the Licensing Board pending the outcome of the appeal.
A successful appeal would result in a remand to the Licensing j
Board with the case resuming on all remaining issues at that time.
Licensee estimates that an appeal will consume at least four monthe.
This delay will be avoided if the Appeal Board grants immediate consideration of the appeal in parallel with I
the Licensing Board's ongoing consideration of the remaining issues for litigation.
t l
l
- - - - ~, ~
..., - _ ~
.. _ ~. -.. - - _
b - l S.
The Licensing Board's October 29, 1982 Order places Licensee in a dilemma unless it can obtain immediate 4
review.
It must either undertake a lengthy and expensive study,2/ one which the Licensee believes is wholly unneces-sary, or endure at least four months of unnecessary litigation delay.
Such delay would extend the period during which l
Licensee remains without the ability to accommodate full-core offload in the spent fuel pool ~and remains in jeopardy of i
j shutdown because a required in-service inspection of the l
reactor vessel and related components cannot be performed unless the entire core is unloaded.SI Only immediate review i
of the criticality decision by the Appeal Board, enabling it i
to hear this appeal in parallel with the Licensing Board's consideration of the issues remaining for adjudication can i
avoid this inevitable and significant prejudice to Licensee's i
interests.
l l
t 2/
Dr. Kim, Licensee's witness, testified that such a study t
l would take at least 3 or 4 months.
Tr. 2093.
l l
3/
See affidavit of David J. VandeWalle attached to l
Licensee's May 5, 1982 " Motion To Supplement Reply To Motion For Time Extension."
A copy is attached for the Appeal Board's convenience.
-S-For the foregoing reasons, the Licensee's motion should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
%u J gp/Joyeph 'Gallo r
Peter Thornton Attorneys for Consumers Power Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 840 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 833-9730 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza l
Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 Dated:
November 16, 1982 i
L l
l l
l l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
()
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
) Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
) (Spent Fuel Pool
)- Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID J.
VANDEWALLE i
District of Columbia: ss:
I, David J.
VandeWalle, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, do state as follows:
1.
I am currently employed by Consumers Power Company as Nuclear Licensing Administrator.
I have the responsibility within the company for all Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing activities.
2.
I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering and Master of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Prior to joining Consumers Power Company in November, 1976, I spent over three years at Westinghouse Electric Corporation-l l
Pressurized Water Reactor Systems Division (PWRSD) in Monroe-l ville, Pennsylvania. At PWRSD, I was involved in safety analyses of the reactor core and the nuclear steam supply system.
My duties included the preparation of accident and transient analyses for Chapter 15 of the Final Safety Analysis t'
kJ
.O_] OS ) AG E M-
- i Reports for new nuclear power plants, as well as safety analyses for operating plant reload fuel. Also included was the development of functional design criteria for reactor protection systems and engineered safety features.
3.
At Consumers Power Company, my duties include maintaining both formal and informal lines of communication with the NRC, interpreting regulatory guidance and developing Company positions on the guidance, tracking progress toward the meeting of commitments made to the NRC, maintaining all nuclear plant and material licenses, and evaluating and making final determinations of reportability under 10 C.F.R. Part 21, " Reporting of Defects and Non-Compliance."
4.
The purpose of this affidavit is to explain the
(
urgency of Consumers Power Company's request to expand fuel storage capability at Big Rock Point and to point out that further delays in the licensing proceedidgs could jeopardize continued plant operation.
)
5.
The spent fuel pool at the Big Rock Point Plant will accommodate storage of 193 spent fuel assemblies.
Of these 193 storage locations, 132 are presently occupied with spent fuel bundles.
The remaining 61 unoccupied locations are inadequate to accept a full core off-load of 84 spent fuel assemblies. Thus, without storage locations being added to the pool in the form of additional spent fuel racks,
\\.
i
{]-
there will be inadequate storage capacity to allow for a full core off-load during the next scheduled refueling outage.
6.
The ability to accommodate a full core off-load in the spent fuel pool is a matter of importance to plant operation, even thought it is not a safety requirement.
The necessity to unload the entire reactor core may come about during either a planned or unplanned outage when access to areas normally obstructed by the core is required in order
~
to perform maintenance activities such as inservice inspection of the reactor vessel or repairs to the reactor components.
Without sufficient storage capacity, an unplanned outage could become unpredictably long or required inspections
('
could be delayed until the necessary storage locations become available.
7.
The next required inspection of the Big Rock Point reactor vessel is scheduled to be conducted during the next refueling outage.
This inspection is required by Part 50.55a of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
10 C.F.R. 50.55a requires owners of nuclear power plants to implement an Inservice Inspection Program based on Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
The Big Rock Point Inservice Inspection Program is currently abiding by the 1977 Edition with Addenda through Summer of 1978 of Section XI.
Table IWB-2500-1 (categories B-A, B-D and B-E)
~
_4-
[],
of Section XI requires that once in every ten-year interval, inspections must be completed on internal reactor vessel components such as nozzle and shell welds.
The Inservice Inspection which is scheduled for the next refueling outage will be the last opportunity during the current ten-year interval for Consumers Power Company to perform the required inspection of reactor vessel components.
In addition, because the ultrasonic inspection techniques that are available require removal of all 'of the fuel in order to inspect the vessel, additional spent fuel storage locations will be required in order to perform the inspection.
If additional spent fuel storage locations are not available at the next refueling outage, the reactor will have to remain shutdown until the additional storage locations are made available.
8.
Based on reactor physics calculations performed by our Reactor Engineering Departnant, the Big Rock Point Plant could enter the next refueling outage as early as March 15, 1983.
This date is based upon a reactor startup date of April 29, 1982, and a desian core energy output of 5.52 gigawatt days per ton of fuel which equates to 287 days of 1
operation at 208 megawatts-thermal followed by 34 days of coastdown after all of the control rods have been withdrawn from the core.
k.
- {]\\
9.
I have been advised by counsel that if the hearings, which are presently scheduled during the first part of June, are postponed beyond June 16, it would be likely that the Licensing Board would reschedule the hearings after Labor Day because of Mr. O'Neill's concerns with his restaurant business during the summer months.
Based on this assumption, counsel also provided me with the following hearing scenario and schedule:
(a) Sept. 14, 1982 Hearings commence.
(b) Sept. 24, 1982 Hearings end.
(c) Nov. 18, 1982 Findings of fact and conclusions of law sub-mitted by all parties (55 days), including briefs on NEPA issues.
b.
(d ) Dec. 18, 1982 Adverse ASLB ruling on NEPA issues.
(e) March 18, 1983 Complete environmental impact statement exercise or preparation of testi-many on alternatives pursuant to Section 102 (2 ) (E ).
(f) March 31, 1983 Commence second phase of hearings regarding NEPA issues.
(g) Apr. 3, 1983 Complete second phase hearings.
(h) May 27, 1983 Findings of fact, etc.,
submitted.
(i) June 27, 1983 30 days contingency for time extension delays requested by the parties, c
w'
e p t
(j ) Aug. 13, 1983 Favorable initial ASLB decision on all issues.
(k ) Aug. 18, 1983 License amendment issued by NRC Staff.
I was further advised by counsel that if the hearings were completed by June 16, 1982, the license amendment would issue, assuming the emaining assumptions were unchanged, by May 14, 1983.
10.
On the basis of the foregoing, I conclude that a delay in the hearings until after Labor Day could cause the refueling outage to be unnecessarily extended by as much as
(
three months.
fst)li OMU] Y i
i Subscribedjnd sworn to before me this SO day of May, 1982.
.. l1 M,
o Notarg Public
/
M; C~amm Expires Jaq 1,1937 k
(
l l
\\
__