ML20058A497
| ML20058A497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1981 |
| From: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058A382 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436, TASK-AIA, TASK-SE SECY-81-300, NUDOCS 8110290078 | |
| Download: ML20058A497 (7) | |
Text
..
4 ga anew
..C4
..'X SECY-81-300
[d f i y May 12, 1981 f
...../
s-ADJUDICATORY ISSUE (Affirmation) r For:
The Commissioners t
Leonard Bickwit, Jr., General Counsel From:
Subject:
DUKE POWER'S REQUEST FOR WAIVER, EXCEPTION OR EXEMPTION FROM THE FULL PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX B TO.10 CFR PART 2 Facility:
William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
i Discussion:
On March 26, 1981, Duke Power Company, the applicant in the operating license proceeding for McGuire Units 1 & 2, filed with the Licensing l
Board and. simultaneously with the Commission a request for a waiver, exception or exemption from the full provisions of Appendix B to Part 2 of i
Commission regulations.
The purpose of the request was to speed up licensing time for McGuire by elim-inating all or some of the 80 days required for l
Appeal Board and Commission stay consideration t
under Appendix B.
By Memorandum and Order of May 1, 1981, the Licensing Board certified the matter directly to the Commission.
A Supplemental Initial
+
Decision by the Licensing Board is expected within i
the next few weeks so prompt consideration of this i
issue by the Commission is necessary.
1.
Background of McGuire Licensing Proceeding i
On May 30, 1974, Duke Power Company filed with the
[
B110290078 930412 NRC an application for a license to operate the e
clear Stadon, Ms I ad 2.
j ONIN am
-436 PDR On October 1, 1974, the Licensing Board granted
Contact:
Patricia R. Davis, OGC, 43224 SECY NOTE:
This paper is identical to the advance copies distributed t ;
li..':.c z v
, ;c,,,
Ad t 7
OGC on May 11, 1981.
l h $;]((
o, t,._
-.+,..
a
..... o
'~
FOIA-fhIS6
]O p3 ra ta [,u.
- jm ;
~:w.
Wa>o
~w n
,= n w,
7 o
2 4
I Carolina Environmental Study Group's - (CESG's)
)
petition to intervene in the licensing proceedings.
?
By stipulation the parties to the proceeding agreed that the following matters were the sole issues in controversy:
"(1) need for power; (2) cost-benefit analysis of alternative generation; (3) seismology; j
(4) stud-bolts; (5) financial qualifications; and I
(6) solar power."
9 NRC 491.
After extensive hearings, the Licensing Board issued an Initial-I Decision April 18, 1979, resolving all contested issues in f avor of issuance of a full power, full l
term operating license..
However, the Licensing Board stayed the effectiveness of the Initial Decision "pending issu-ance of a supplement to the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report addressing the significance of -
i any applicable unresolved generic safety issues."
i 9 NRC at 547-8.
Because of this stay, the Appeal Board treated the i
Initial Decision as interlocutory and ordered that the time for filing exceptions (and for Appeal i
Board sua sponte review) not commence to run until Li af ter the Licensing Board had lif ted the stay.
-l Accordingly, the six stipulated issues remain t
matters in controversy.
The staff's supplement to the SER was issued in May 1980, and on May 30, 1980, Applicant moved the Licensing Board to terminate the stay.
l On June 9, 1980, CESG moved to reopen the proceed-ing and to add contentions regarding hydrogen generation resulting from a TMI-type accident.
j The Licensing Board granted the.atervenor's i
motion to reopen the full term licensing proceed-
)
ings on November 25, 1980.
The'four contentions at issue as stated by intervenor in its motion to reopen are as follows:
(1) Contention 1 - _The licensee has not demonstrated that, in the event of a loss of coolant accident at McGuire:
(a) i substantial quantities of hydrogen (in excess of 1
the design basis of 10 CFR S 50.44) will not be g enerated; and (b) that, in the event of such generation, the hydrogen will not combust; and (c)-
that, in the event of such generation and combus-tion, the containment has the ability to withstand pressure below or above the containment design pressure, thereby preventing releases of off-site
e 3
4 i
3 radiation in excess of Part 100 guideline values.
(2) Contention 2 -- Neither licensee nor NRC staff has demonstrated that a McGuire ice containment will not breach as the result of the rapid combus-tion of quantities of hydrogen which a dry contain-ment would withstand.
(3) Contention 3 -- Neither licensee nor NRC staf f has demonstrated that the emergency planning radius of 10 miles is sufficient for protecting the public from the radioactive releases of a low pressure, ice condenser contain-ment ruptured by a hydrogen explosion.
(4)
Contention 4 -- Licensee and NRC planning do not provide for crisis relocation which would be required as a result of containment breach and radioactive particle release.
Anticipating delay in the McGuire schedule for commercial operation which would be caused by reopening the licensing proceeding, applicant filed a motion, on August 1, 1980, requesting issuance of a license authorizing fuel loading, initial criticality, zero-power physics testing and low-power testing for Unit 1.
CESG filed a response opposing applicant's motion except for fuel loading and zero-power testing on August 15, 1980 and asked the Board for permission to add Contentions 5 and 6 (which deal with Class 9 accidents) to the reopened proceeding.
On February 13, 1981, the Board denied CESG's motion to add contentions, and on April 20, 1981, the Board denied CESG's motion to certify or refer the matter to the Commission.
By Memorandum and Order of November 25, 1980, the Licensing Board concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact with regard to (1) fuel leading, (2) initial criticality, and (3) zero-power physics testing and partially granted appli-cant's motion for summary disposition.
This paved the way for the Commission to review the partial grant under Appendix B of Part 2 and, on January 23, 1981, to authorize NRR to issue a license authoriz-ing fuel loading, initial criticality and zero-power physics testing of McGuire Unit 1.
The Board denied the motion as to low-power testing.
There has already been, therefore, Appendix B review of this case to this extent.
The evidentiary hearing portion of the reopened proceeding concluded on March 19 after fifteen days of hearings.
A supplemental initial decision is expected in the next few weeks.
e 4
i On March 30, 1981 applicant filed with the Licens-ing Board and with the Commission the instant Request for Waiver, Exception or Exemption from the Full Provisions of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2 which is the subject of this paper.
Staff filed an answer in support of applicant's request CESG filed an answer opposing it.
The Licensing Board in a Memorandum and Order of May 1,1981 certified the matter directly to the Commission.
The Commission must now determine whether to grant or deny applicant's request.
~1/
\\
U I
F 1
I 6
s I
i f
'The Licensing Board found that petitioner had demonstrated a prime facie case of special circum-stances but of fered no supporting reasons.
Duke Power's petition is now before the Commission.
Petitioner asserts that Appendix B should be waived in this proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) that this is a reopened proceeding and for this reason applicant is entitled to as expeditious a conclusion to the proceeding as is possibles (2) that there is a serious need for a full power license to meet this summer's peak demand; (3) that the subject matter of the reopened proceeding, hydrogen generation in an ice condenser containment, is the only issue and is well known to the Commis-sion because of its review of'Sequoyah; and (4) that McGuire is in a unique position relative to the impact of Appendix B because the Licensing Board had issued, but stayed, an Initial Decision authorizing operating licenses for McGuire prior to the adoption of Appendix B.
Petitioner asserts that for these reasons the application of Appendix B will not serve the purposes for which Appendix B was adopted ~ and will delay the operation of the McGuire Units for purely procedural ~ reasons.
CESG opposes applicant's request on all of the above grounds.
Staf f supports applicant's request, but only on the ground of similarity of McGuire to Sequoyah; Staff's response makes no mention of applicant's three other arguments.
i 1
- o.
\\
7 b.
_Special~ circumstances at McGuire Appendix-B to Part 2 of the Commission's regulations.
was adopted in the af termath of Three Mile Island j
to provide increased Commission oversight of the licensing process.
The Commission suspended section 2.764 of the regulations (the immediate eff ectiveness rule) and adopted Appendix B review so that it could assure itself that issuance of a_
license would not "(1) Create novel safety issues in light of the Three Mile Island Accident; or (2)'
prejudice review of significant safety or environ-mental issues."
10 CFR Appendix B to Part 2.
The smmission adopted the Appendix B stay approach-
"because it achieves the objective of increased i
Commission supervision of licensing actions while (1) avoiding undue delay and duplication of effort' by adjudicators and parties; and (2) allowing the commission maximum flexibility in terms of deciding whether, in light of its other responsibilities, particular proceedings or issues warrant its early intercession or can appropriately be lef t to the ordinary adjudicatory processes."
44 FR 65050, November 9, 1979.
. i
[ e have examined t
[
4 6
l
i 11
/h Recommendations:
k 3
~~ -
\\
C-e 1
s
%s Leonard Bickwit, Jr(
General Counsel Comissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesday, May 27, 1981.
Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT May 19,1981, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it recuires additional time for analytical ~
review and comment, the Commissioners an< 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 June.1, 1981.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Comission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Secretariat