ML20054B725
| ML20054B725 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1982 |
| From: | Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054B726 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204190136 | |
| Download: ML20054B725 (7) | |
Text
r i
.t 04/12/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMt11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT C0f1PANY
)
Docket No. 50-382 0
<n
)
e (Waterford Stean Electric Station, )
s O
9 Unit 3)
)
tyg 51 9
.l 3 82A
- t NPC STAFF'S ANSWER IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S 3
%ufad%er t10 TION FOR RECONSTDERATION OF MARCH 18, 1982 4
MEMORANDUti AND ORDER RAISING SUA SPONTE ISSUE CA
'*C f"
/
On March 26, 1982, Applicant Louisiana Power & Light Company
("Applicart") filed its " Motion for Reconsideration of March 18, 1982 Menorandum and Order Raising Sua Sponte Issue" (" Motion").I/ For the
-1/
Pursuant to 10 CFR 55 2.710 and 2.730(c), since the Applicant's Motior was served by hand, the Answer of NRC Staff (" Staff") to the Applicant's Motion is due on or before April 12, 1982. While Counsel for the Staff voluntarily undertook to file this Answer by April 7,1982, if possible, in order to accommodate the Joint Intervenors and facilitate a timely decision by the Licensing Board, (Tr. at 1824-25,1827-28), upon finding that not to be possible, on April 7, 1982, he telephoned Counsel for Applicant and Joint Intervenors and so advised them.
Counsel for Joint Intervenors stated that, for other reasons, he was withdrawing his request that he be pernitted to file a responsive pleading af ter he had received the Staff's Answer. Counsel for both Applicant and Joint Intervenors stated that they had no ob,iection to the Staff's filing of this Answer on April 12, 1982, the date upon which Joint Intervenors' response to Applicant's Motion is due, and authorized Counsel for the Staff to so advise the Licensing Board.
Counsel for the Staff telephoned the Chairman of the Licensing Bnard and advised him of these facts; the Chairman then authorized the Staff to file e
this Answer on or before April 12, 1982. On April 12, 1982, the Staff learned that the Joint Intervenors had determined that they will not be filing a brief in response to the Applicant's Motion, and that they take no position with respect to the Licensing Board's reconsideration of its Memorandum and Order.
Du.TK! Aim T
- 8204190136 820412 PDR ADOCK 05000382
!?;orny,,,
.f)-(3 G
pop p.
/ W j 5e(
. reasons set forth below and in the Affidavit attached hereto and incor-porated by reference herein,2# the Staff supports the Applicant's Motion and recomends that the Licensing Board reconsider and reverse its deci-sion to adopt as a sua sponte issue the matters raised in the Licensing Board's Memorandun and Order dated March 18, 1982.
DISCUSSION Pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.760a, the presiding officer (here, the Licensing Board Chairman) is empowered to raise a matter as an issue in an operating license (0L) proceeding only where he has determined "that a serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security natter exists". I Unlike a construction permit proceeding, where a hearing is mandatory and the Licensing Board must decide "all matters related to the possible granting of the permit," the Licensing Board at the OL stage "ordinerily passes only upon contested matters." Consoli-dated Edison Co. (Indian Point, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-319, 3 NRC 188, 190 (1976). While the Licensing Board does possess sua sponte authority at the OL stage, "[t]his pcwer is... to be exercised sparingly; an operating license board is neither reauired nor expected to pass upon all l
l
~~2/
Attached hereto is the "Affic'avit of Richard Lobel, Brian Sheron and Ashok C. Thadani Concerning Feed and Bleed and Emergency Feedwater System Reliability"(" Affidavit"), dated April 9,1982.
-3/
The presiding officer's sua sponte authority derives from the Comission's decision in Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3), CLI-74-28, 8 AEC 7 (1974). As 2
stated therein, this power "should be exercised sparingly end utilized only in extraordinary circumstances where a Board concludes that a serious safety or environmental issue remains" (id., 8 AEC at 9).
f 1 the iters which the Staff must consider and resolve before it approves thelicense"(M.).
The Commission has recently provided further guidance as to when the Licensing Board's sua sponte authority should be exercised.
In Texas Utilities Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Stean Electric Station, Units I and 2), CLI-81-24, 14 NRC 614 (1981), the Comission noted that the Licensing Board had adopted as sua sponte issues the contentions raised by an intervenor who had since withdrawn from the proceeding, which were "related to issues which the Staff is still reviewing" (id., at 615).
The Connission directed the Licensing Board to describe the "particular factors beyond the mere pendency of staff review upon which it bases its determination of the existence of a serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter" (M.).
l After the Licensing Board in Comanche Peak responded to the Connission's order, the Comission concluded that the Licensing Board "ha(d) not set forth a sufficient justification supporting its retention of the contentions at issue under 10 CFR l 2.760a," and directed the Licensing Board to dismiss the issues from the proceeding.
Texas Utilities Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Stean Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-36, 14 NRC (Dec. 29, 1981) (slip opinion, at 5).
The Comission rejected, inter alia, the Licensing Board's rationale that its sua sponte adoption of outstanding safety issues not yet resolved by the Staff would enable it to better monitor the resolu-tion of those issues and " prevent then fran getting lost in the shuffle of 40 open items subject to slippage" (id_., at 2).
The Conmission i
f b
t observed that "taken to its logical conclusion, the Board's position i
could lead to the routine supervision of the staff's safety review until such time as the Board could evaluate the adequacy of the results of that review" (H., at 3), a course of action which was re.iected by the Commission (M.).O An application of these principles to the matters raised by the Licensing Board in its Memorandum and Order of March 18, 1982, leads the Staff to believe that these matters do not warrant the exercise of the Licensing Board's sua sjonte authority. As set forth in the Affidavit attached hereto, the Staff has calculated the reliability of the Waterford Unit 3 Emergercy Feedwater Systen (EFWS) and has estinated that its failure following a small loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and other limiting events is less than 4 x 10-5/D (Demand), within an uncer-tainty range of a factor of 10 (Affidavit, at 3). A combination of the demand failure probability with the estimated initiating frequency of 0.12/RY (Reactor Year) for the three events considered results in a core-melt estimate of 5 x 10-6/RY, which is in the range of core nelt estinates for similar events calculated for the PWR reference plants in WASH-1400(M.).
From a risk standpoint, the potential effect of these sequences at Waterford Unit 3 is in the range of core melt estinates previously calculated, without reliance on any feed and bleed capability (id., at 3-4).
-4/
A different course of action might be appropriate in a construction permit proceeding, where the Licensing Board is reoufred to deter-mine whether the Staff's review "has been adequate." See, le..,
Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 766, 774 (1977).
, The Staff has considered various factors in assessing the adequacy of the Waterford Unit 3 EFWS (i_d., at 4). The Staff's review of these and other factors has led the Staff to conclude that the Waterford Unit 3 EFWS design satisfies applicable Commission requirements (j_d.).
In addition, the Staff has reviewed the changes in and additional reovirenents for auxiliary feed water systens, such as the Waterford Unit 3 EFWS, following the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TflI-2).
The Staff's review of these modifications has led it to conclude that EFWS reliability has been increased following the THI-2 accident (jd.,
at 4-5).
Further, the Staff has reviewed the reliability estimates contained in the nenorandum fron F. Rowsome and J. Murphy to R. Tedesco, dated Ja nua ry 29, 1982, as well as ORNL report CR-2497, which are apparently a source of concern for the Licensing Board (Memorandum and Order, at 2).
The Staff's review of these documents has led it to conclude thet the Waterford Unit 3 EFWS is more reliable than would seem to be suggested by the Rowsome and fiurphy memorandum (Affidavit, at 5-7); in the Sta'f's view, the Waterford Unit 3 EFWS is subject to a demand failure prcbability of less than 10" per demand (id., at 7).
In consideration of all of these factors, the Staff has concluded that a feed and bleed capability is not necessary as a back-up systen to the Waterford Unit 3 EFWS (jd., at 7). The Staff has noted, however, that it is considering the need and advisability of providing a rapid depressurization capability in Combustion Engineering (CE) systems, for reasons not related to the question of EFWS reliability (jd., at 7-8).
The Staff's evaluation of these other natters is ongoing at this time,
I t and requests for information have been submitted to CE as well as to the WaterfordandSanOnofreapplicants(jd.,at8). The Staff has kept the ACRS advised as to the status of its evaluation, and the ACRS has indicated its view that while this evaluation should be conducted expe-ditiously, its resolution should not now be a condition for operation of System 80 plants at full power or of plants having similar features (i_d., at 8-9); rather, the ACRS has indicated that, in its view, the d
need for future hardware or procedural changes should be contingent upon the results of the Staff's evaluation (id., at 9).
Based upon the Staff's review of the issues raised by the Licensing set forth above and in the attached Affidavit, the Staff
- Board, as does not believe that those issues raise a serious safety concern.
In its Mencrandum and Order, the Licensing Board noted that:
[T]he NRC Staff is continuing its evaluation of this issue and will issue a supplement to the Waterford SER. At this time, however, we cannot presune that this issue will be resolved to the Board's satis-faction.
We must raise this issue sua sponte.
In the Staff's view, this rationale for the Licensing Board's adoption of the issue, sua sponte, fails to provide adequate justification for concluding that a serious safety matter exists. The SER supplement will address the need for a rapid depressurization capability for reascns beyond the question of EFWS reliability,5_/ and, as noted above, the Staff believes that a serious safety matter is not raised by the Waterford Unit 3 EFWS design as it relates to the lack of a feed and bleed capability.
For the reasons set forth in Texas Utilities 5/
See the discussion supra, at 5-6.
, Generatino Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-81-36, 14 NRC (1981), the Staff believes that the matter raised by the Licensing Board as a sua sponte issue should be dismissed from the proceeding.
As noted by the Commission, "the assertion of a board's sua spont'e authority to monitor or otherwise manage the course of a proceeding is not an appropriate use of this power granted licensing boards" (id., at 3).
CONCLUSION For the reascns set forth above, the Staff supports the Applicant's Motion and recomnends that the Licensing Board reconsider and reverse its decision to raise as a sua sponte issue the matters identified in the Licensing Board's flemorandun and Order dated March 18, 1982.
Respectfully submitted, dheet*U { k i
Sherwin E. Turk l
Counsel for NRC Staff l
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of April,1982.
2 1
- _ _