ML20030C442
| ML20030C442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1981 |
| From: | Blake E LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108260111 | |
| Download: ML20030C442 (9) | |
Text
W 4s I
t cr" ll V
Ga UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AUG 2 41981 >
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{.
Docketing & Smict Branch g
i D
-4 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-382 I
)
(Waterford Steam Electric.
)
(JE'(g;'
4 Station, Unit 3)
)
k
\\
~
i nU{
~
4 IS8/g APPLICANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS { O JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 28' d'%g (HYDROGEN CONTROL)
Lj J
4 p
l Louisiana Power & Light Company
(" Applicant")
moves i
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bce-d pursuant to section 2.730 of the Commissicn's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R.
S 2.730, fer an order dismissing Joint Intervenors ' Contention 28, whic'a makes the i
following allegations:
28.
Applicant has not presently provided adequate plans which demonstrata how it will
- 1) prevent the creation and accumulatien of free hydrogen from forming in the primary e stem during a Nuclear Emergency; 2) aller a the accumulation of dangerous quantitiae hydrogen l
within the containment.
As shown below, the issues raised by this contention have now become the subject of a general rulemaking by the Nuclear Regulatcry Commission.
Accordingly, under the rule of Potomac Electric Power I
Co., (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 A.E.C.
79 (1974), these issues cannot be litigated in this individual operating license proceeding.
Q 81092605.11 810821 ^
f O[
DR ADOCK 05000 8
By agreement of the parties, the time for filing contentions related to the accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 ("TMI-2") was extended until after issuance of the Final Report of the NRC Lessons Learned Task Force.
See ASLB Order of September 12, 1979, at 9.
On December 10, 1979, Joint Intervenors served their additional TMI-related contentions, including Contention 28.
On December 26, 1979, Applicant served its Response To Joint Intervenors' Additional Contentions, which took the following position on Contention 28:
Applicant is aware that the Final Report of the Lessons Learned Task Force (pp. 2-6 and A-14,
- 15) recommends a new rulemaking proceeding which, among other things, would re-examine hydrogen control measures.
If the Commission adopts this recommendation, Applicant believes that the rulemaking proceeding rather than this hearing should be the forum for resolution of this generic item.
Applicant's Response, at 2.
Accordingly, Applicant stated that it " reserves the right at a later date to move to strike Contention 28 Applicant's Response, at 1.
On January ll, 1980, the Board issued an Order noting Applicant's reservation of rights and admitting Contention 28 as an l
issue in controversy.
l On October 2, 1980, the NRC published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled " Interim Requirements Related to Hydrogen Control and Certain Degraded Core Considerations."
45 Fed. Reg. 65,466 (1980).
The proposed rule recognizes the magni-tude of hydrogen generated during the coursa of the TMI-2 accident and proposes a series of measures involving hydrogen generation and management, hydrogen control penetrations, hydrogen recombiner capacity, and reactor coolant system venting.
On the same day, the NRC also published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled " Consideration of Degraded or Melted Cores in Safety Regulation."
45 Fed. Reg. 65,474 (1980).
One of the matters to be considered in this long-term rulemaking is the issue of hydrogen control:
7.
Should the NRC require incorporation into containment design, systems for controlling combustion of hydrogen?
Do you favor methods of control that suppress combustion or do you favor controlled burning?
If you favor suppres-sion of combustion, what techniques would you recommend and should they vary as a function of the design capability of current containments?
If you favor controlled burning, do you recommend open flames, spark plugs, catalytic combustors, or some other means?
What percent of zirconium oxida-tion in the core and at what rate would you design for?
Would you respond differently for different reactor or containment types?
If so, what dif-ferences wauld you recommend?
45 Fed. Reg. at 65,476.
All of the issues raised by Joint Intervenorc' Contention 28 fall squarely within the scope of the NRC's generic rulemaking pro-ceeding on hydrogen control.
This is demonstrated by Joint Inter-l Vei'.o rs ' answers to Applicant's interrogatories relating to Contention 28.
For example, Interrogatory No. 28-3, served February 29, 1980, asked Joint Intervenors to specify in what way Applicant's hydrogen control plans are inadequate.
On April 24, 1980, Joint Intervenors gave the following answer:
28-3 Section 6. 2.5 of the FSAR does not j
adequately provide plans for the elimination of l
dangerous hydrogen quantities in the following areas:
(1)
Containment Hydrogen Indication 2.1.9 of " Discussion of Lessons Learned Short Tezm Req uirements. "
(2)
Dedicated H Control Penetrations 2.1.5a 2
of the same reference.
i (3)
The Combustible Gas Control System is designed to control a 4% cladding reaction (FSAR
- 6. 2. 5. 3 (b) ].
This gives an error factor of 5 over the accident design level of 10 CFR 50.46 (3).
However, Three Mile Island, Unit 2 suffered cladding i
failure of 44 -63*
(Kemeny Commission Report, page 30).
The CGCS is underdesigned, therefore, by an order of magnitude.
Each of these three areas is covered and discussed in the NRC's pro-posed rule.
Instrumentation is addressed in depth at 45 Fed. Reg.
65,470-71; dedicated hydrogen control penetrations are discussed at page 65,468; and the percentage of cladding reaction is covered at pages 65,466-67.
Thus, Contention 28 is subject to the established NRC rule that " licensing boards should not accept in individual licensing pro-coedings contentions which are (or are about to become) the subject of general rulemaking by the Commission. "
Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-218, 8 A.E.C. 79, 85 (1974). /
From the standpvint of consis-tency and administrative economy, generic consideration of such
- /
A possible exception to this rule was identified by the NRC in a decision arising out of the TMI-l restart proceeding before the proposed hydrogen control regulations had been promulgated.
Metropoli-tan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-80-16, 11 N.R.C. 674 (1980).
There, the NRC rejected an intervenor's attempt to challenge directly the then-existing hydrogen generation assumptions in 10 C.F.R. S 50.44.
However, the Commission also held that the issue c f hydrogen control theoretically could be litigated under 10 C.F.R. Part 100 if a credible loss-of-coolant accident scenario would lead to hyd to-I gen generation, hydrogen combustion, a containment breach or leaking, and of fsite radiation doses in excess of Part 100 guideline values, 11 N.R.C.
at 675.
This exception is inapplicable here because Contention 28 does not even approar 5 the specific allegations that, according to the Commission, are necessary to litigate the hydrogen control issue under Part 100. -
generic issues is clearly the sensible approach, and it is an apcroach that has been approved by the courts.
See Union of Con-cerned Scientists v. AEC, 499 F.2d 1069, 1081-82 (D.C. Cir. 1974);
Ecology Action v. AEC, 492 F.2d 998, 1002 (2d Cir. 1974).
Certainly it makes no sense for licensing boards to be establishing varying standards for hydrogen management and control in individual licensing proceedings, while at the same time the Commission itself is in the process of formulating generic standards on the same issues in a gercral rulemaking proceeding.
As the Appeal Board put it in the Potomac Clectric case, " [o] ur considera-tion in adjudicatory proceedings of issues presently to be taken up by the Commission in rulemaking would be, to say the least, a wasteful duplication of ef fort. "
8 A.E.C. at 85.
Moreover, the interests of the intervenors are protected because they may parti-cipate and make their views known in the general rulemaking pro-ceeding.
In fact, as the court pointed out in Ecology Action, the resolution of common issues in a generic rulemaking proceeding should " benefit all parties, particularly the poorly-financed environmental groups."
492 F.2d at 1002.
Thus if Joint Interv?nors believe that certain minimum requirements should be prescribed in the area of hydrogen control, they may make an appropriate demon-l l
stration directly to the NRC in the generic rulemaking proceeding.
If their ideas are accepted, then the NRC can put them into effect not only fcr Waterford 3, but also for the nuclear power generating industry as a whole.
l 5-1
Finally, the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report ("SER")
on Waterford 3, issued on July 9, 1981 (NUREG-0787), lends further support to this motion.
The SER discusses the hydrogen generation experience at TMI-2 and the generic rulemaking on hydrogen control initiated by the NRC on October 2, 1980.
SER, at C-18 and C-19.
The Staff stated with respect to hydrogen control that "pending resolution of this unresolved safety issue and the rulemaking proceeding on hydrogen generation, we have concluded that the Waterford 3 plant can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public."
Id. at C-19.
In light of the Staff's SER and under all the circumstances, it plainly would be both inefficient and inconsistent with Potomac Electric to continue litigating Joint Intervenors' Contention 28 in the face of the NRC's generic rulemaking on hydrogen control.
Contention 28 therefore should be dismissed.
DATED:
August 21, 1981.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 BY:
,k Ernest L.
Blake, Jr'.
I James B.
Hamlin Counsel for Applicant Louisiana Power & Light Company UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric
)
S ta tion, Unit 3)
)
ORDER Louisiana Power & Light Company
(" Applicant") has moved pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.730 for an order dismissing Joint Intervenors' Contention 28, which alleges:
28.
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 Nuclear Emergency; 2) alleviate the accumulation of dangerous quantities of hydrogen within the containment.
Having considered the papers filed in support of Applicant's motion and the papers filed in opposition to the motion by Joint Intervenors, the Court concluden that the issues raised by contention 28 have oecome the subject of a general rulemaking proceeding by the Commission.
See 45 Fed. Reg. 65,466 (1980).
Accordingly, Contention 28 is not a proper subject for litigation in this individual operating license proceeding.
Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 A.E.C. 79, 85 (1974).
Applicant's motion is therefore granted, and Joint Intervenors' l
Contention 28 is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
DATED:
Chairman
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit 3)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that true copies of " Applicant's Motion To Dismiss Joint Intervenors' Contention 28 (Hydrogen Control)"
were served by United States mail, postage prepaid, this 21st day of August, 1981, upon those persons on the attached Service List.
James 3.' Hamlin f
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit 3)
)
SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Lyman L. Jones, Jr.,
Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and Gillespie & Jones Licensing Board Suite 201 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1420 Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commission Metairie, Louisiana 70005 Washington, D.C.
20555 Stephen M.
Irving, Esquire Dr. Harry Foreman Louisiana Consumers League, Inc.
Director, Center for 535 No. 6th Street Population Studies Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 Box 395, Mayo University of Minnesota Luke B.
Fontana Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 824 Esplanade Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 Dr. Walter H.
Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Atomic Safety and Licensing Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Commission Office of the Executive Washington, D.C.
20555 Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi.=sion Docketing and Service Section (3)
Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
.