ML20054M925
| ML20054M925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1982 |
| From: | Goldberg S, Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054M926 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207150149 | |
| Download: ML20054M925 (5) | |
Text
F 7/14/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-454
)
50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON THE PLEADINGS I.
INTRODUCTION On June 4,1982, the Staff filed a motion for surmary disposition of all DAARE/ SAFE contentions except Contention 1 and limited portions of Contention 3.
On June 7,1982, the Applicant filed a motion for sumary disposition of all DAARE/ SAFE contentions except Contention 9(c). The Staff supports the Applicant's motion for the reasons provided in the Staff's June 4 motion, and accompanying affidavits, and for the further reasons provided in the attached Staff affidavits on contentions 1, 3(e) and 9(a).
II. DISCUSSION Contenti1nj Contention 1 alleges that the Applicant's record of noncompliance demonstrates that it lacks the technical ability and commitment to operate Byron safely and in conformance with NRC requirements.
Material facts numbered 1-5,10 and 12-16, pleaded in the Applicant's summary disposition motion on Contention 1, are not open to dispute. The DEUCVATED ORIGINAL hD Certified By yL OC O
O 4
G PDR d
o' Staff neither agrees nor disagrees with the remaining facts, which represent largely opinion. See Staff Affidavits of William L. Fourney and James R. Creed on Contention 1.
The Applicant's performance has been improving over the past few years and the Applicant has been responsive to NRC Staff positions.
H.at2,5-6,9-10. The NRC has not identified any systematic corporate policies or attitudes which would lead the Staff to believe that noncom-pliances at one CECO site will cause similar problems at other CECO sites, notably Byron. M.at2-6.
In addition, CECO plants have reportable occurrences at a rate only slightly higher than other Region III reactors, and the number of abnormal occurrences the Comission has determined arose from events at CECO facilities is not disproportionate to those involving other utilities nationwide. M. at 8.
Finally, CECO's performance record compares favorably with other nuclear licensees and applicants both regionally and nationally. H.at6. Therefore, the Staff fully agrees with the Applicant's ultimate position that the utility possesses both the technical ability and comitment to operate Byron safely and in conformance with NRC requirements. H.at2-10.
Contention 3(e)
Contention 3(e) alleges, in part, that, in the event evacuation is required in a radiological emergency, the Applicant has no plans to deal with weather-dependent worst case analysis. The Staff did not seek summary disposition of this aspect of the contention. The Staff concurs in the Applicant's motion for summary disposition of this issue with some qualification. See attached affidavit of Monte P. Phillips.
Contrary to the assertion ir contention 3(e), under the Applicant's emergency plan, weather conditiors are factored into a determination whether to recommend evacuation. The decision to evacuate also incorporates an assessment as to whether evacuation can be completed before the release significantly reaches the affected areas. To perform this assessment, the Applicant utilizes an evacuation time estimate.
Phillips affidavit at 2.
The Staff believes that there are shortcomings in the Applicant's present evacuation time estimate 5 which the Applicant has committed to appropriately revise in August 1982.
[d. Thus, although the Applicant has plans to deal with worst-case weather evacuation planning, there is an ingredient in the decisional process which requires improvement.
Contention 9(a)
Contention 9(a) evinces a concern over pipe and valve damage as a result of postulated water hammer problems.
It is argued that the similarity of plant equipment, management, and operator training programs between Zion, where water hammer events have occurred, and Byron raise serious questions about safe Byron operation.
For the reasons explained in the affidavit of Aleck Serkiz, which accompanied the Staff summary disposition motion, this contention is without merit and the material facts pertinent thereto were not open to dispute.
The Applicant's summary disposition motion on Contention 9(a) contained information regarding a probable water hammer event at the KRSK0 nuclear plant in Yugoslavia in 1981, which employs the same type of steam generator utilized at Byron,with which the Staff affiant was unadvised.
See Supplemental Affidavit of Aleck W. Serkiz on DAARE/ SAFE T
),
Contention 9(a). The Staff does not presently have enough information about the KRSK0 event to ascertain its relative significance or applicability to Byron. Jd. at 2.
Such information has been requested from the Applicant and Westinghouse. J d..
With the exception of one event, neither the U.S. water hammer events nor the KRSK0 event have i
resulted in failure of the pressure boundary and no U.S. events have entailed a release of radioactivity. Id.
l The adequacy of the existing water hammer protection features will be verified during preoperational testing. Jd.at2-3. The intent 4
evidenced in the Applicant's affidavit of Leslie A. Bowen to provide instrumentation for detection of steam pocket formation, and for alerting the operators, appears a prudent step for identifying potential conditions which might result in a water hammer event. Jd.at3.
Pending its completed KRSK0 evaluation, the Staff has not identified a need for requiring any additional measures beyond those already noted in the Byron SER. Jd. Therefore, with the possible exception of a potential is' sue regarding the applicability of (and corrective measures for) the KRSK0 event to Byron, the Staff and Applicant summary disposito,
papers demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to contention 9(a).
i J
n-,
- - + -
_,,,-_.--.----n-
_=
),
III. CONCLUSION The Staff supports the Applicant's June 7 sumary disposition motir.n in its entirety with the above qualifications.
4 Respectfully submitted, N
Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff i
un Counsel for NRC Staff i
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 14th day of July,1982.
i
\\
f i
l r
...,,n
-