ML20045E252
| ML20045E252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1980 |
| From: | Hanrahan E NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A409 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-029, SECY-A-80-29, NUDOCS 9307010296 | |
| Download: ML20045E252 (8) | |
Text
wwsum NUCLEAR REGULATORY CoMMIS$lON ADJUDICJTORY IT.EM CO N SENT C A LE N D A R ITEM secy-A-80-29 March 3,1980
?
I To:
The Commissioners EdwardJ.Hanrahan, Director,OP[
From:
Leonard Bickwit, Jr., General Counsel.d,
Subject:
Certifications to the Cocmission by the Licensing Board in the Three Mile Island Unit I restart proceeding -- Docket No. 50-289 Discussion:
On January 4,1980, the TMI Unit 1 Licensing Board,
certified two questions to the Commission pursuant.
to 10 CFR 2.758(d):
1.
Whether the provisions of 10 CFR 50.44 should be waived or exceptions made thereto in this.
proceeding where a prima facie showing has-been made,under.10 CFR 2.758 that hydrogenc gas generation during "the TMI-2 ' accident was well in excess of the amounti sp'ecified 'under 10 CFR 50144 'Ws'1"-deslyh' bssii-for' ths"p'o'st-accident combustion gas control system for TMI-1.
2.
Whether post-accident hydrogen gas control-should be an issue in this proceeding where post-accident hydrogen gas control was per-ceived to be a serious problem and was in fa:
a problem during the TMI-2 accident.
The Board's request for guidance on these issues results from a petition filed with the Board by-Stephen Sho11, an intervenor in the proceeding, 7
requesting that 10 CFR'50.44 not be applied in the TMI adjudication because its application will not serve the purposes for which it was adopted.
CONTACTS:
Bill Travers, OPE 4-3295 Information in this record was deleted Trip'Rothschild, OGC in accordance with thepedom of information
' Martin Malsch, OGC Act, exem ions 4-1465 F0IA-1-WA 9307010296 930317 PDR FOIA GILINSK92-436 PDR 7 ' 7%
m r
TheLComm'issioners 12-f 3
10 'CFR 2.758(d) provides that if a party-to an.
initial licensing proceeding ~ 1/ files a petition e
with the-Board requesting that a Commission regul:l tion be. waived. with respect : to that proceeding, t?,
presiding-officer. after revie' wing any responsesi the petition filed by..other participan_ts, shall.
determine whether a. grima facie case has been-established.that-the regulation would not' serve
~
i the. purposes'for which.itLwas adopted.
If the:
presiding of ficer finds that 'such a showing, has *,
been made, he.isirequired to certify the question to the Commission.
Af ter receiving the Sholly petition,- Metropolitan Edison requested that'if the Board certified to'th' Commission the -issue whether the regulation'shoulci be waived, it should also certify-the underlying -
issue of whether hydrogen control is within the-scope of the TMI. proceeding.. Metropolitan Edison ~7 asserts that the. Commission in its August - 9,L1979, t Order and Notice of' Hearing intentionally excludec!
from. the TMI proceeding the issues raised by.' the petitioner.
Technical and Regulatory Background-7 7
.._ = -; 7 - ~ ~
1_.,_i ;'._.._.. __.
i
~
~
~~
$ m.j1h 3 [ 3 ? 2 R Y f -? : &_TW$T ^ -
i e
3 P
.. j l
1/
..L.
Tho Commissioners 4
^
e i
t P
i e
~
^
~
... 2. :; c = 1 = ; 7 m
l.....
=
. r y : 3.. n. g y g g ; g. y, 5......
t...
c, u..
?
/ L i
Views of ' the. Parties on the Certifie'd' Issues Intervenor Steven C. Shollyffiled a contention wit:
I the Licensing Board asserting that:
the production of. hydrogen in the reactor.
core - from clad metal-water reactions' follow. [
ing a LOCA poses an unacceptably.high risk.
of catastrophic failure of the reactor pressure vessel and the reactor containment',
with ~ the ' subsequent release-of.a substantial.,
t f
-e
C The Commissioners 5
portion of the core inventory into the environment.
Ittis further contended that until a safe and reliable means for eliminating hydrogen gas from the contain-ment is installed at Unit.1, and is pro-vided with suitable redundancy.as required by GDC 41, restart of Unit 1 poses a risk i
to public health and safety and'must be denied.
Shortly thereaf ter, Mr. Sholly, following an NRC.
staff suggestion, filed a petition with' the Board:
requesting that 10 CFR 50.44 not_be applied in the TMI proceeding.
Mr. Sholly argued _ that a review o:D the facts associated with the Unit 2 accident-demonstrated thatJfar more than.five percent ofltht!
zircalloy metal in the core reacted with' water to form hydrogen, and therefore it is inappropriate tc?
apply the five percent. rule concerning the design basis for hydrogen control systems.
Petitioner does not recommend a percent figure for hydrogen-generation which should be considered as the desigt;'
basis for' a hydrogen control system, but suggests that at a minimum, the licensee should be required.
to include in the hydrogen gas control system design basis that percentage of clad metal-which reacted during the Unit 2 accident, plus whatever incremental ametintgould be expectedeto:-haverbeeni generated had cthe'r~e' beeniedear-fulhinventory ef;-
fis sion _ product's'J '.Petitioh'e'r -alsold'ssetts tha~t thU Licensee should be required to demonstrate prior.tci restart that any proposed hydrogen gas control system for Unit-1 be ehle to successfully control :;
hydrogen gas concentrations below the limit of.
combustion.for the length of time such control may" be necessary and that the system is able to provid,
reasonable assurance of meeting this level of control in the event of a single active -failure' of a recombiner unit or other such hydrogen control system.
Mr. Sholly argues that while' hydrogen gas control 1 is a generic issue, it should be adjudicated in ;th, Unit 1-licensing proceeding because the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident made clear there is a specific.problemLat Unit.1._ He assertsithat because of the uncertain-nature of when a' rule-making proceeding could be' initiated:and: completed' the best means to assure the issue will be-resolve before TM! Unit 1 is allowed to resume operation it to waive.10 CFR 50.44 and permit the hydrogen control issue to be adjudicated in' the Three Mile '
Island Unit 1 proceeding.
t
The Commissioners 6
i Metropolitan Edison takes the position thatintend the h the Commission did not issue to be litigated in the TMI proceeding.
Met Ed notes that although the Commission gave explici directions to the Licensing Board on issues which ;
it should address in the hearing it did not mentiol the hydrogen control issue.
It further notes that the NRC Lesson's Learned Task Force recommended that the subject of post-accident hydrogen gas'. e control be handled through rulemaking.
Metro-politan Edison agrees with that recommendation stating that the issue is generic, likely to affec numerous licensees and plants, and that-there is -
presently no clear consensus as to the appropriate technical approach.
The NRC staff believes that the Commission should
, resolve the hydrogen control question through generic rulemaking, and not treat THI-1 different from other operating reactors with respect'to the issue.
The Staff notes, however, that the Commis-sion has not yet issued a notice of proposed rule-making and that the Commission is not legally.
precluded from adjudicating the issue in the TMI-1 Proceeding.
Subsequent to the staff submission, OGC has been orally.. advised' by'.'the: staff-. that a proposed rule will be submitted to the Commission in approxi-mately one month.
The staff will recommend that the rule, if approved by the Commission, be made final on an interim basis and that it become effective 30 days af ter publication in the Federal Register.
The Federal Register notice would solicit public-comments and the Commission would subsequently modify the rule, as necessary.
/
t i
t.
The Comissioners 8
1 4
L B.
Proceed by adjudication-Petitioners suggest th~at because special' circum-stances exist, 10 CFRJ 0.44 should be waived for
' the TMI proceeding.
.:....i='
I-.b Y -
-[.
s k a. - - -.-
~
_.y,-
_..,uu, px T?:- :tYCWT w t-1 RTy-yffypt.m :;t 2.nm$n~2ct*'Mi*n CT, % "-' ' t '
- Av ' O ' ~Q
. _. _:...u u.+...:.-
sob 5
r
-Recomendation:
OPE and OGC recomend.that
<v i
I I:,
i i
The Commissioners 9
V f
f[ b Edward
. Hanrahan Director, OPE
.3.-
A I L \\ __t ;[s N,
Leonard Bickwit, Jr.f General Counsel Attachcent:
Draft Order Comissioners' coments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretar.
by c.o.b. Tuesday, March 18, 1980.
Comission Staff Offi~ce coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT
- March 11,1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for. analytical review and coment,-
' the Comissioners and.the Secretariat should _be. apprised of when coments may be: expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of March 24, 1980.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Comission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBtJTION
_,. [
Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Secretariat
4
. 1 1
'n J
t I
e s
i s
e
?
e Attachment i
s 8
1-a t
- 6 I
+4
.