ML20028B215
| ML20028B215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1982 |
| From: | Gallo J, Thornton P CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028B209 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8211300175 | |
| Download: ML20028B215 (7) | |
Text
<
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
)
APPLICATION OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY FOR A STAY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS, PENDING APPEAL, OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S DECISION CONCERNING CRITICALITY Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.788, Consumers Power Company
(" Licensee") hereby files its application for a stay of the effectiveness of the partial initial decision concerning criticality issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board") on October 29, 1982, pending appeal of the decision to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
Section 2.788 (e) lists four factors that must be con-sidered in determining whether to grant a stay:
(1) whether the moving party has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits; (2) whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted; (3) whether the granting of a stay would harm other parties; and (4) where the public interest lies.
These factors are addressed in order in the paragraphs numbered 2 through 5 below.
1.
On October 29, 1982, the Licensing Board entered its Initial Decision (Concerning Neutron Multiplication Factor),
in which it ordered Licensee to amend its application for a license amendment allowing expansion of the spent fuel pool capacity at Big Rock Point.
The amendment must be filed within 60 days of the October 29 Order and must include an 821130O'1i5' E52[ 5 24 ~
~'
PDR ADOCK 05000155 l
0 PDR e
analysis demonstrating that the neutron multiplication factor (or "k-effective") in the Big Rock spent fuel pool will not exceed 0.95 "under any conditions," including the condition in which the water is assumed to boil off from the pool.
The Licensing Board reasoned that the limitation of k-effective to 0.95, contained in Commission guidance, should be
" rigorously applied" to all conditions in spent fuel pools, including the condition in which all pool water is assumed to boil away (Order at 22, 15).
Moreover, the Board concluded that it would not be proper to consider the makeup water line to the pool, which if reliable would prevent such boil-off, in mitigation of this requirement (Order at 15).
2.
On November 16, 1982, Licensee filed its exceptions to the Licensing Board's decision with the Appeal Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2. 762 (a).
Licensee's position is that the Licensing Board committed a plain error of law.
There is no legal requirement that k-effective not exceed 0.95 in a spent fuel pool; the only requirement is that there be reasonable assurance that a criticality excursion will not occur in the pool (10 C.F.R.
S 50. 57 (a) (3) (i) ; 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 62).
NRC Staff guidance implementing this requirement, which contains the 0.95 guideline,does not specify the loss-of-pool-water accident as an accident to be postulated in performing criticality calculations for a spent fuel pool (Standard Review Plan, NOREG-0800, dated July.
1981, S 9.1.2; NRC Branch Technical Position entitled "rc Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications", attached to a letter of April 14, 1978 from Brian K. Grimes to all power reactor licensees).
On the contrary, the loss-of-water scenario is treated in the Commission's regulations under General Design Criterion 61 of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A.
Specifically, Criterion 61 states that fuel storage systems shall be de-signed "to prevent significant reduction in fuel storage coolant inventory under accident conditions."
Thus, systems are to be designed with sufficient reliability to assure reasonably that loss-of-water accidents will not occur.
NRC Staff guidance interpreting this regulation expressly provides that a permanent fuel-pool-coolant makeup system, with suitable redundancy or backup, is an acceptable method for satisfying this Criterion (NRC Regulatory Guide 1.13, Revision 1, supra).
The Licensing Board has therefore improperly expanded the reach of General Design Criterion 62, which contains the regulatory treatment of criticality, to include an accident considered under General Design Criterion 61, while at the same time refusing to consider the engineered safety feature prescribed for preventing that accident under applicable guidance.
Furthermore, the Licensing Board's refusal to consider the makeup line as an appropriate engineered safety system designed to prevent significant water loss in the storage pool is contrary to the general regulatory treatment of engineered safety features in 10 C.F.R. Part 100 and Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
Finally, even if it were appropriate to consider loss of pool water in performing criticality calculations, the applicable limitation on k-effective would be 0.98, not 0.95 (Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, July 1981, S 9. 9.1).
3.
Licensee is threatened with irreparable injury unless a stay pending appeal be granted of the effectivuness i
of the Licensing Board's Order that Licensee amend its application within 60 days.
Compliance with tde Licensing Board's Order would entail p,erformance of'a lebgthy and ex-pensive study which the Licensee believes l$ wholly unnecessary.
Licensee has therefore exercised its right of appeal.
Unless
~
i a stay of the Order be granted, however, Licensee will have exercised this right at its peril.
License estimates that the appeal will consume at least four months, a period con-t siderably in excess of the 60-day period of the Licensing Board's mandate.
If the Appeal Board should uphol4 thh Licensing Board's decision, the time for compliance would have i
elapsed and determination of the appeal would automatically result in denial of the license amendment application.
Licensee should not be faced with the dilemna of complying with the Licensing Board's Order or of exercising its right s
of appeal only on peril of denial of the entire license amendment application.
4.
No harm would accrue to any other party from a grant of the stay requested.
The criticality issue cannot be decided in Licensee's favor unless GJther the Appeal Board overrules the October 29 Order of N's 4 icensing. Board or the Licensee complies with the Licety.n;, c,rd's mandate.
Denial of the stay would afford no protection to any cognizable interest of any other party.
4 5.
No question involving the public interest, an distinguished from the threat of irreparable injury to
, l i
Licensee's interest, is implicated in this application for a stay.
Grant of tb stay would have no impact on the public health and safety.
Consideration of all of the four factors clearly shows that the Licensee's application for a stay should be i lj granted.
Respectfully submitted, rbt(k RIko
/PT U
Joseph Gallo 1
Peter Thornton Two of the attorneys for Consumers Power Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 840 Washington, D.C.
20036 ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 1
DATED:
November 24, 1982 i
s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN Tile MATTER OF
)
)
Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
(Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modification)
Big Rock Point Nuclear
)
Power Plant
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of APPLICATION OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY FOR A STAY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS, PENDING APPEAL, OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S DECISION CONCERNING CRITICALITY and MOTION OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF ORDER INSTANTER were served on all persons listed below by deposit in the United States mail, first-class postage pre-paid or by Federal Express overnight delivery, this 24th day of November, 1982.
Peter B.
Bloch, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 1
Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Docketing and Service Section Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 L
o e
Richard J. Goddard, Esquire Judd Bacon, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff Consumers Power Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 212 West Michigan Avenue Commission Jackson,ftichigan 49201 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Richard G. Bachmann, Esquire Ms. Christa-Maria Counsel for NRC Staff Route 2, Box 108C U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Jim Mills Route 2, Box 108 Herbert Semmel, Esquire Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Urban Law Institute Antioch School of Law Ms. JoAnne Bier 2633 16th Street, N.W.
204 Clinton Washington, D.C.
20555 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Mr. John O'Neill, II Route 2, Box 44 Maple City, Michigan 49664 l
l w
( fik ]W %
Peter Thornton l
l
-