ML20054C671

Response Opposing Applicant Motion for Certification of Hydrogen Control Contention.No Showing Made That Public Interest Will Suffer.Contention as Admitted Has Nothing to Do W/Subj Matter of Proposed Rule.Proof of Svc Encl

ML20054C671
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	04/15/1982
From:	Wilt D SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE, WILT, D.D.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204210484
Download: ML20054C671 (8)

Text

- . . .. . -

F 1 Uh1TE.D STATf.S OF AM.E:(ICA NUCLLAR CGULATORY CO;1:11SSIO.M

,f ._,5,, .,

} defore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Anneal Board

in the Matter of j

Docket Nos. 50-440-OL Cleveland ilectric Illuminating -01.

Co., et al (Perry Nuclear Pouer Plant, to h.

Units 1 and 2) p\ /

s G

Sunflower /siliance Inc., et al Response b..  ;,'~'f . . ' ' p  ;

to Annlicant's tiotion for Directed g g %F ;g ) I Certification { }$ h i ,, $8t o VtrJM'{.s (..

W 20 t N

s  !

'b n

/h di .- I w,g \'/

s

/ =

I Sunflower Alliance Inc., et al intends by this filing to respon i 9 2

Applicant's Motion for Directed Certification and urges that the Atomic

{

Safety and Licensing Appeal Board deny Applicant's Motion.1 The history

=

w of this nat ter is sufficiently set out in the Licensing Bor.rd's orcer E di and need not be repeated nere. Also see OCRL's response to Applicant's E llotion for Directed Certification.

I.

^pplicant's ifave Not Met Tne s t a r..u: rd For Di rected

".=

=

! 5 Certification.

1 Em Applicant's have wholl. failed to conply witr ucir burden to j

g establish taat tais instante is a case for directe- certification. The E

=

bd

} Licensin Ei s Board's action ia nde.itting a new contention dealing with i

hydrogen control is not h a

a situation where directed artification applies. ex:

The Appeal Hoard has neither the time nor the abilits to reviou all the

w c;

interlocatory procedural orders that licensing boat.:s issue during the i

course of a year. Public Service Co. of Indiana, Itu ( Marble lit ad ]=.

u

\ =

LDv Q _Nuc lear Ge nern t i nt' SLntion, l'ni t s I and 2), 5 bhC 7: 7, 766 ( l '3 7 7 ) .

e m a_ Q3 i e0 -

f OO u.z OdO 1 . 3:;

CDg j u ==:l Counsel for Sunflower .llianc e vi sites to res; and to the Board's

~

e Order dated April 2, 1982. Initially, Counsel w.a t. g

% requestir., a bri.: ised that a letter extension of time vas sufficient.'obviously, Counsel 95

ed <

OJ erred. No intent to subvert the rulcs of this Bonn. ..s intended. Leconuly, [

the letter was sent prior to Counsel 's receivinc no..fic ation of the men.L er- "

$o- ship of the

~$o Appeal Board Panel. Counsel had no int (ntion of caa sing of ftnst +

to anf merber of the Panel cnd a polo;;i ze s .

i Further, strict standards have been established tt be followed by parties steking directed certification. There must be sere showing that either tne public interest vill suffer or that some unusu,al telay or e>: pense will be encountered. Public Service Co. of Net Hamnshire '5enbrook Station, Units 1 and 2), 1 NRC ~78, 483, l. LAB-271, (1975). At n; point in Applicant's

otion is there any reference to how the public interest vill suffer c'y tne admitting of Contention E. Applicant's inter + st is not necessarily .e public interest. Nor does Applicant address tre : .estion of del ay. Rather, the entire Motion is an attack on the Licensing i:nrd and the manner in i

.ich the Licensing Board is carrying out its dut;es. Applicant's disagreement ith the Licensing Board is not sufficient to ,ustify directed certifics; ion.

Recently, the Appeal Board has consistent'.) ',11cwed the followin o standard in ruling on Motions for Directed Certi:::ation:

...almost without exception in ret:nt times we have undertaken discretionary intulocutory review only where the ruling below either (1) threatened the party adversely affected by it .:1 : - immediate and serious irreparable impact . 1:5, as a practical natter could not be alleviated ) Icter rpper.1 or (2) affected the bcsic structer- of t he prc-ceeding in r pervasive or enus a2 mner. Puret

! Sound Power and Light Co.(Skacit '

.clenr Power

! Project, Units 1 and 2), 10 NRC 692, 694, ALAB-572 (1979). Also see Public Servic+ Electric 6 Cas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generatinc station, Unit 1),

1 ALAB-568 (1980) l

. Applicant has wholly f ailed to meet these test s. ne obvious disagreement l

l between the Licensing Board and Applicant does nct meet the criteria

. established by the Appeal Board for direcbed certification. lience, the Appeal Board may deny the Motion without further consideration.

l II. Douglas Point Applicant's entire case is based on the decision known as Potomac i Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 1

! i),6AEC79(1974). Applicant's argue that Douclic Point read in conjunction with the proposed rule in 45 F.R. 622:1 (1961) " Interim

. Requirements Kelated to Hydrogen Control" prohibit the Licensing Board from hearing Sunflower's Contention. This is simply not the ; as .

First, the Co .-ission did not expressly pronibit Licensir; 8 card's .

f rom hearing contentions on hydrogen control in 45 F.R. 622b'. (1981).

There is nothing in the proposed rule which suggests this. Tre underlying theme in Dounlas Point is that if the Commission expressly fcrbids a licensing board from hearing a contention the licensing boarc nu s t obey.

Thus, Douglas Point is not controlling in this instance. T he ;on. mission knows full well that there are pending licensing proceedings. The Commission kno.is full well that hydrogen control is an important conccrr. Had the Commission intended that licensing boards refrr.in from the issue of hydrogen control, presumably it would have said so.

Second, the contention is not an attack on 10 CFR 50.-- ec au se this regulation is not applicable to Mr.rk III containwonts. T :s, the Licensing Board below is not precluded fron the issue by th- only regulation currently in effect.

Finally, let us luck at the contention:

opplicant has not demonstrated that the na n a s. .

operation of two reconbiners in each of the 12erry units is adequate to assure t h r.t larce naoants of hydrogen can be safely .ccomodattu

.ithout a rupture of the contain.xnt e.nd e release of substantial qucntities of radio-activity into the environment.

• 1 b e contention asks the question w:' ether Applicant 's current ;1:n for the installation of tuo recombiners is adequate to .a c c omod a t e arge a:.ount s of hydrogen. The propesed rule deals with an entirel different concern. The rule nav require the installation of hydrogen c. trol systen.s adequate to accou,odate an runount of Scdrogen eq ive. lent to t-  ; generated frna the re,ction of 75% of the fuel cl.'dding eith water tit :at the loss of containment integrity. The proposed rule de:.ls with contc. ent integrity which properly is a generic issue. The ad:ai t tee. cont ent i o - . iti

the adequacy of two recombiners per unit. This is not a generic issue.

The contention deals in specifics ar.J deal s with issues specific to the Ferry plant. Thus, the characteristics of the Ferry plant r.nd its four recombiners are at issue not the issue of contcinment integrity.

Regardless of the method of hy dro;;en generation, the contention aks whether the recombiners will work. !;UREG/CR-1501 discusses the ability of recombiners to operate efficiently:

... recon.biners are meant to handle lou H concentrations, such as those resulting from the radiolyficde-composition of water. For metal-vater reactions, they are inadequate... pg 12.

...recombiners are used in of f-ps sy st ems in B'., R ' s ; there have been explosions in these systems... pt; 49.

...at h, concentrations c.b ove 4'., the recon b :.crs becore 3n ignition so;rce... pg 115 Regulatory Guide 1.7 at page 1. 7 '. s t a t e s :

...H., recombiners beve limited flou rete of 100 -

150 cfm; thus an inordinately large nm..ber culd be needed...(note: Perry has tuo recor.biners/ unit, with flou rate of 100 c fm.)

tidC Staff states at 46 F.R. 62282:

... control nethods tnct do not involve burning provide protection for v.ider spectrum of n cidents than do those that involve burning, decombiners involve a controlled burn...

General Electric Co. in connection uitn its presentation included in SECY-e0-107/. admit s that recombiners are impractical for significnnt H #"'""*

2 Sunflower urges that Douclas Point is siirply inapplicicle. The Licensing Board is not on . frolic of fts own. Tr.e rule set forth in Doupirs Point is inapplierble becc.use the Commission itself has not closed off Licensing Boards. Finally, the contention as adt.itted has nothing to do with the subject natter of the proposed rule.

Applicant also relies upon ancra ento 1unicinal Utilitv District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), AL/d3-655, 14 NRC 799 (1981) and South Carolina Electric 6 Gas Co.( Virgil G. Sumrer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), A1.AB-663, 14 URC , slip op. (1961). Sunmer, op cit., is

if f

not applicable. In Summer, the Licensing Board ignored an order issued to at bar, the Licensing k;

it from its superior, the /.ppeal Bonrd. In the case Board is not violating an express order directed to it by the Appeal Saard or the Commission. The Rancho Seco decision is not applicable either beci-use of its exclusive reliance on Dourlas Point which itself is not applicable.

The issue of the efficiency of recombiners is not involved in the pt;oposed rule making. For these reasons, Sunflower 'lliance urges that

. l Dou;;1 a s Point , regardless af uhether it i s good l a'.-1, simpl. is not applicable.

III . TMI- 11 N RC 67t. , CLI-EO-Io Applicant Ignores the fact that this contention has been expressly authorized by the Commission it self in the TF.I-Restart case, cited above.

!!ydrogen control can be litigated under 10 CFR Part 100. (Obviously, under these circumstances, Dauplas Point and R:1ncho seco lose all semblence of authority). 10 CFR 100,13, among other things, pe rni t s licensing bontds to consider the follo.;ing fcctors:

...(n) characteristics of reactor oesign and pro-posed operntion including:...(2) the e:; tent to thich cencrally accepted engineering standards are applied to the design of the renctor; (3) the c:: Lent to which the reactor incorporates uni pe or unusual f eature s 5..ving c significant becring on the prohnbilit y or c onsequenec :, of ,cciurntal relerses of radicactive anteri.ls; () the s fety features that are to be engineered i nt.o the fccility nne those barriers ti ct must be breached - > -

result of an accident before a release of rn_io-active material to the enviro:n ent can occur.

The contention as f riaed clearly f ails into the IU CFR Part 103 guidelines. The contention is whether t.hc tuo recombiners per unit can cope uith hydrogen. Clearly, the se are design and engineering considerations because if the tuo recou5iners per unfL can't cope 1:i t h

&J the hydrogen then there is c signiftecnt eng

n , ring a 'e

. will result in a relense of radioactive toriils into ti e environ-T.e n t .

~6-1 -

The Licensing Bocrd clearly ncted within its authority under Part 100

, cnd within the authority granted to it by the Commission. Applicant dis-cgrees. This c:ntire proceeding is premised on this disagreer.ent. Naturally, the Applicant has the right to disagree uith tbn Licensing Board. But, the Applicant does not have the right to bring this disagreenent to the nttention of the /.ppeal Board at this time. _-

_IV. Late Filed Contentions Applicant's argument concerning late filing is without merit. f. s b

I i L

/.pplicant admits, the Licensing Board granted Sunflouer the right to r.

renew its hydrogen contention at a E later time at the prehearing con-  :-

ference.

Secondly, the issue of good cause is one for the Licensing Board as the Appeal Board has ruled time and time again. Public Service Co of j 2 Indinna Inc. O'.nrblehead Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), 5'NRC =

767, 768 (1977). N.

The Licensing Board has plenary authority over questions .

of Icte filed contentions. ..

Peach Botton /tomic Pover Station, Unit s 2 & 3),

ALaB-389 (1977) yz V. Credibility Issue bZ It is quite clear that to litigate hydrogen mitigation, Sunflower must I 1 .::..

set forth a cr< dible accident $$

l scenario under 10 CFR Part 100. ':etronolitnn it.

2:1 Edison Co. (Three I;ile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), 11 NdC 674.

[.;

(19c0). Also see Duke Po:.:er Co. (_illin, R. McGuire Nuclear :,t n t i on , -

l'ni t s 1 & 2) , /L .12-669, slip op, at 13. Y Perry uses v Mark III containment. Its design pressure is 15 psi.

Ench containment structure has a volume of 1,400,00 cubic feet. Ir. . R has about twice as much ::f rcoalun cladding as a P .it, ..

so there is a greater potential for large amount s of 112 to be produced. The net al-water reaction itself releases Le,t, thus further aggcevnting the nccident.(tenperature increase of lOUO degrees C possible, hUEG/CR-1561, pp,. 37) . h,"d rogen proi.ac t ion f ro a act c.1-v ater reac ti on oc c urs at an e:.ponentini r.te.

L .ru . t.ount s of . . , c e n !# p n.J u c s , i .

. s r, *

, . , _ . . . . _ - . , , . - , . - v.- -

,._m._. . _ , . - . . _

v _

-._____.r__. _. - - , _ - _ _ _ . _ , - _ . - . . . _ , , _ . - , - _ .

~

1.iEh these facts in mind and keeping in mind the manual operation of the recombiners, Sunflower believes that it has set forth a credible accident sequence. Credible has not been defined. The Jppeal Board did review in great detail a sequence of events in I;cGuire, op cit. The issue of " credible" must of necessity be determined on a case by c se basis. The Licensing Board helieved that Sunflower hed met this test. The Appeal Board ought not traper eith the Licensing horird determination absent some ccr.:pelling reason.

1.pplicant has not provided us with that reason.

For these reasons, Sunflouer urges that the I,otion for Directed Certification be denied.

Re s pe c t f u l l:, submitted,

,e ... , ,

/ / /

\ lk v., h' \ / I G ! LX~ ~

D,tniel D. . i yt , _sq.

.l.t torne; for Sunflorer illirnce Inc, ct al 7301 Chippeva Hu.

Brechsville, Ohio Glal

(:16) 320-2350 Proof of Servic<>

The undersi;;ned certi fie s that a copy of the f ore;;oi ng orief has 7 ,-

been sent to all persons listed on tbc attached wrvice list on this (,we da. of *,pril, 1982.

,f, -m i  ; ,,/ / .

k.

^

a  ;;: t- ~ / j )

Vaniel D ',il t ,( E sq .

/ t t orne:. for Sunflower Alliance Inc, et el

1 s

SERVICE LIST  :

r Peter B. Bloch, Chairman t Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Susan Hiatt  :

Nuclear Regulatory Commission OCRE Interim Representative 8275 Munson Rd. lp kashington, D.C. 20555 Msntor, Ohio 44060 6 Dr. Jerry R. Kline $

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Jay Silberg, Esq. [

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street N.W. g hash'ington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 g

R Terry Lodge, Esq.

Frederick J. Shon 915 Spitzer Building [

i i

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Toledo, Ohio 43604 E Nuclear Regulatory Commission [

bashington, D.C. 20555 b.

Donald T. Ezzone, Esq. t:

sg Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Assistant Prosecuting Attorney is Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board 105 Center St. iE Painesville, Ohio 44077 Nuclear Regulatory Commission ((

Washington, D.C. 20555 77 John G. Cardinal, Esq. *

/-!

Dr. John H. Buck Prosecuting Attorney g. _

. Ashtabula County Court House Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Jefferson, Ohio 44047 Fi l Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, D.C. 20555 E-Gary J. Edles nii Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission [ih Washington, D.C. 20555 fiff l Docketing & Service Section I

Office of the Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission h

a~

Washington, D.C. 20555

?

ss James H. Thessin, Esq.

Legal Department h!

Nuclear Regulatory Commission . ll1 Washington, D.C. 20555 lf..

l

=

m

=,

=_;

b._b

.:.a.

l bY

=.'

2-2 l

.=

l

__