ML20059C502
| ML20059C502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1990 |
| From: | Johari Moore NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#390-10788 90-601-01-OLA-5, 90-601-1-OLA-5, LBP-90-24, OLA-5, NUDOCS 9009050097 | |
| Download: ML20059C502 (13) | |
Text
._
. 9 777
'i August 31, 1990-t DOCKETED-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING Bgp pp ;73 3
Docket N$dl'50 251' OLA 5 In the Matter of
)
)
)
Fl.ORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
)
Technical Specifications-COMPANY
)
Replacement
)
(Turkey Point hant, tinits 3
)
' ASLBP No. 90 601-01-OLA-5 and4) d NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER OF JULY 17.1990-I. INTRODUCTION On July 17, 1990, the Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) designated to preside over the above-captioned proceeding issued an order dismissing Petitioner, the Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (NEAP) from this license amendment proceeding for lack of standing. Florida Power and Light Company (Turkey
~
1
' Point Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP 90-24, (slip op) -(July 17, 1990). In its Order, the Licensing Board requested that the Staff and Applicant comment on whether any of the issues which the Licensing ~ Board had previously admitted as contentions in the proceeding should be treated as sua sponte issues. Id. at 1012. For the reasons set forth
- below, the Staff submits that none of the admitted issues should be treated as sua sponte issues.
II. BACKGROUND On December 5,1989, the Commission published a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for Hearing in the Federal Register concerning 9009050097 900831 PDR ADOCK 05000250 q
O POR p
v 8:
j I.,
an application by Florida Power and Ught Company (Applicant) for amendments to its
' operating licenses for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. These amendments would allow the replacement of the current custom technical specifications with new technical specifications based on the Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse-designed reactors. " Florida Power and Ught Co.; Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to.
j Facility Operating Ucense and Opportunity for Hearing,"
54 Fed. Reg. l50295' l
(December 5,1989).
A.
petition for-leave to intervene was filed by i
Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. on his own behalf and on behalf of NEAP. ' Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene," (December 27,1989). Both the Applicant and Staff agreed that Mr. Saporito possessed the requisite individual standing to intervene i
in this proceeding, based on his employment in the Miami area. " Applicant's Response to Amended Petition to Intervene," at 6 (March 16,1990); "NRC Staff Response to Petitioners' Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene," at 7-10 (March 19,1990). In u
l-l
- addition, the Staff and Applicant agreed that NEAP, through Mr. Saporito, possessed the requisite standing to intervene as an organization. Id, L
On April 1,1990, Mr. Saporito filed a motion to withdraw from the proceeding-in which he stated that he no longer wished his individual standing to form the basis for NEAP's standing to intervene in this proceeding.
" Notice of Withdrawal from
- Proceeding," (April 1,1990). On April 24, 1990, the Ucensing Board issued an_ order requesting that, in light of Mr. Saporito's withdrawal motion, NEAP file a statement of at least one member of the organization with sufficient information for the Ucensing Board and other parties to determine whether NEAP had another basis for its organizational standing. Florida Power and Light Company (Turkey Point Plant, Units i
J j
e ti,
3 and 4), Memorandum and Order, (unpublished) at 810 (April 24,1990). Mr. Saporito filed his response to the Licensing Board's Order on May 5,1990. " NEAP's Response to the ASLB's Memorandum and Order," (May 5,1990). The Applicant and the Staff filed their responses on May 17,~ 1990 and May 24,1990, respectively. " Applicant's Reply to NEAP's' Response to the ASLB's Memorandum and Order," (May 17,1990); "NRC Staff's Reply to NEAP's Response to Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of 1
April 24,1990," (May 24,1990).
On June 15,1990,' the Licensing Board issued an order granting NEAP party status contingent upon the filing of a statement by Mr. Saporito setting forth his willingness to have NEAP represent him. Florida Power and Light Company (Turkey-Point Plant, Units 3 and '4), LBP-90-16, 31 NRC 509, 512-514 (1990). The Licensing -
Board found that the statement of a member provided by NEAP was insufficient to form the basis for NEAP'S standing.
31 NRC at 514.
Mr. Saporito filed the requisite statement. "Intervenor's Statement to Represent," (June 20, 1990). In addition, the i
Licensing Board admitted three of NEAP's proposed contentions. 31 NRC at 538 The-Applicant filed a Motion for reconsideration of the Licensing Board's ruling on NEAP's standing based on a material change in circumstances with respect to
' Mr. Saporito's employment. " Applicant's Motion for Reconsideration and Dismissal of
[
L Petition to Intervene," (June 22, 1990). The Staff supported Applicant's motion. "NRC 1
Staff Response to Applicant's Motion for Reconsideration," (July 12,1990). Mr. Saporito opposed the motion. " Response of Nuclear Energy Accountability Project and Thomas J. Saporito to Florida Power and Light's Motion for Reconsideration and Dismissal of Petition to Intervene," (July 10, 1990). On July 17, 1990, the Licensing 1
w
1 i,1 j
5 f
4 Board granted Applicant's motion and dismissed NEAP from the proceeding for lack of standing.
Florida Power and Light Company. (Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4),
LBP 90-24, (slip op.) (July 17, 1990). In its Order the Licensing Board also requested that the Staff comment on whether the admitted = issues should be examined by the-Licensing Board pursuant to its sua sponte authority. Id. at 11-14.
Applicant was requeted to comment on the Staff's response. Id. at 11-12,14. - On July 25, 1990,-
NEAP filed a notice of appeal of the Licensing Board's Order. " Notice of Appeal,"
(July 25,1990).
III. DISCUSSION A. The Licensing Loard Should Not Treat the Admitted Issues.as Sua Sponte Issues -
because it 12cks Jurisdiction to do so.
The question of the Licensing Board's jurisdiction to raise sua sponte issues at this stage of the proceeding is a complex one. Since a license amendment does not require a mandatory hearing, a hearing would be held only if there is an intervenor and a valid contention. See, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Section 189a, 42 U.S.C.
I 2239 (1988); see also,10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b). In the instant case, although the Licensing Board initially admitted NEAP as an intervenor and accepted three contentions, the
-Board reconsidered its rming and denied the Petitioner intervention for lack of standing.
LBP-90-24, slip op, at 13-14. As discussed above, NEAP has appealed the Licensing Board's ruling on NEAP's standing.
Once a notice of appeal has been filed, the Licensing Board Irises juncdiction over the issue being appealed.
Georgia Power Company, et al. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-859, 25 NRC 23, 27 (1937). Here, since there are no other intervenors, the disposition of the
, r x
n-
.5-4
- standing issue is controlling with respect to the continuation of the proceeding and consequently, the authority of the Ucensing Board to raise matters under its sua sponte power. Thus, at present, the Ucensing Board has lost jurisdiction over the standing issue and the substanti're issues raised by the Intervenor, unless and until reversed by the Appeal Board.
4 If the Ucensing Board's decision is ultimately affirmed, the proceeding would be.
over and the contentions would not be litigated. The issues would then be uncontested, l
L and their disposition would be the responsibility of the Staff. See, Public Service of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 854, 24 NRC 783, 790-91 (1986); Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. (Indian Point, Units 1,2 and 3) ALAB-319, 3 NRC 188,190 (1976).. Petitioner would also have the option of raising those and any other issues to the Staff pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
i However, if the Ucensing Board's ruling is reversed, NEAP would be admitted as a party to the proceeding, and the three contentions which have already been admitted by the Ucensing Board would either be resolved on summary disposition or would be litigated, without the need to raise them as sua sponte matters. Therefore, the status of the-admitted contentious is inextricably linked to the fate of the issue of standing. In light of this link, at least at this time, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ucensing Board to make any ruling as to whether these admitted contentions raise serious safety issues requiring sua sponte review.
B. Even If the Ucensing Board Determines that It has Jurisdiction to Raise Sua Sponte Issues at this Stage of the Proceeding, the Issues in question are not Serious Safety Issues reauiring Sua Sponte Treatment The Ucensing Board's authority to raise sua sponte issues is confined to those
e l
h$.
.s.
\\
3 issues which it determines are serious safety, environmental, or common defense' and l
^
security issues. 10 C.F.R. I 2.760a.
The Staff has reviewed the issues admitted in this proceeding as set forth in Petitioner's proposed Contentions 11,14, and 30. The results
- of the Staff's review are set forth in the Safety Evaluation accompanying the amendments which are the subjects of this proceeding.' The Staff has concluded that none of the
~ issues raise a serious safety, environmental or common defense and security issue.
2 Contention 11 states, in pertinent part:
The RTS relaxes the CTS because MODE Applicability is explicitly defined for each Surveillance Requirement and forced MODE reductions required by Action statements will, for the most part, stop with the first Mode beyond the LCO requirement.
31 NRC at 527. The Licensing Board found this contention admissible due to the lack
-in the Applicant's analysis of consideration of the effect on plant risks of the change'in mode reduction requirements. The Licensing Board's discussion focused on the mode reduction requirement changes with respect to the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS). Id.
L As a general matter, the Staff has concluded that mode reduction beyond the -
mode where certain equipment which has entered a Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO), but is unnecessary, adds little to the safety of the reactor. " Safety Evaluation by L
l the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment No.137 to Facility l The Staff issued these amendments and the accompanying Safety Evaluation on August 28,1990. They were provided to the Board by Staff Counsel by [[letter::L-90-287, Corrected Rev 1 to Special Rept:On 900527,discovered That nonsafety-related Standby Feedwater Pumps Unavailable for Plant.Caused by Failure of Valve Stem Bushing Resulting from Overstress of Bushing.Replacement Bushing Mfg Onsite|letter dated August 29,1990]].
2 The first two parts of every contention are the same, and do not present any
=
issues. Therefore, they will not be quoted here.
ly
i y
~
~
i o
Operating Ucense No. DPR 31 and Amendment No.132 to Facility Operating Ucense i
I No. DPR-41 Florida Power and Ught Company Turkey Point Unit Nos. 3 and 4 Docket j
Nos. 50-250 and 50-251," (August 28,1990) at 28 [ Hereinafter Safety Evaluation.] As the Staff points out,' the Applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) analysis has determined the various combinations of equipment, reactor power and coolant conditions which allow a plant to function safely. Operation within the limits of these combinations
[(
is assured by specification of applicable modes, and by the technical specifications.
Therefore, the mode reduction requirements in the RTS require the plant to go to a i
mode in'which the plant is designed to accommodate accidents and transiems without i
the inoperable system or component. See Id.
Specifically with respect to the example of the ECCS referred to by the Ucensing Board, the RTS at TS 3/4.5.2 applies the principle of mode reduction to the mode where it is not necessary to satisfy all the operability requirements for the ECCS. The Staff b concluded that the CTS are unnecessarily restrictive in this area. With respect to this particular system, there is a technical specification which applies in Mode 4 only.
Consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications, the specification requires less than t
fully operable redundant equipment because of the stable condition of the reactor and the limited core cooling requirements. Id. at 29. With further degradation of the system, a reduction to Mode 5 would be required. See Safety Evaluation at 29. Since h
the plant is designed to accommodate accidents and transients without a fully redundant i
l ll ECCS in Mode 4,.there would not be a significant increase in safety by requiring a D
L further reduction to Mode 5 in every case where the ECCS is not fully operable. For
~
these reasons, the Staff does not believe that this contention presents a serious safety L
x ja
)
l 8
3 issue warranting _ treatment by the Licensing Board as a sua sponte issue. See Safety
Evaluation at 29.
Contention 14 states, in pertinent part:
l Specifically, the amendments would change the CTS at Specification 1
- 3/4.1.2.2. (1) The RTS relaxes the safety margins existing in the' CTS whereas-in the' RTS a borie acid pump is only required to be operable.
when its associated flow path is required to be operable.
(2) the allowed outage time for a boric acid pump is relaxed from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
(3) The RTS do not require cold shutdown of the plant for a period of 102 hours0.00118 days <br />0.0283 hours <br />1.686508e-4 weeks <br />3.8811e-5 months <br /> after the loss of the boric acid pump or.the boric acid flow
- path.
(4) The RTS include an explicit Action time for restcring operability a
of-the boric acid flow path which ultimately can result in a lapse of 174 hours0.00201 days <br />0.0483 hours <br />2.876984e-4 weeks <br />6.6207e-5 months <br /> before the plant is required.to be placed in cold shutdown -
]
(5) The 'RTS ' provide for an explicit Action restriction which addresses an event where both the boric acid source and the normal flow 4
path through the regenerative heat exchanger is inoperable.
I 31 NRC at.528. The Licensing Board admitted this contention for a limited purpose.
Although the Licensing Board agreed that Petitioner had not established a genuine issue of fact concerning the majority of the contention, the Board was concerned about-language in the Applicant's no significant hazards analysis which indicated that it would be possible to lose the ability to change modes during the extended time in hot standby.
The Licensing Board admitted the contention solely for the purpose of gaining an explanation of this statement. Id. at 529. For the reasons discussed below and set forth in more detail in the Staff's Safety Evaluation, this issue is not a serious safety issue -
warranting sua sponte treatment by the Licensing Board.
The Staff has determined that even if a loss of both of the flow paths required i
. i i
i,
by RTS 3.1.2.2 were to occur, there are two additional methods by which borated water-could be added to the reactor coolant system to compensate for shrinkage while reducing the operational mode. Safety Evaluation at 29. An alternate flow path is available for the addition of borated water by using the Chemical and Volume Control System
.(CVCS), in addition, a second flow path for the addition of borated water is available by using the safety injection pumps taking suction from the refueling water storage tank.
Id. The Staff has determined that the time available to reach hot shutdown would be ample for the addition of borated water using these alternate methods. - Thus, it is the Staff's conclusion that mode reduction capability during hot standby would not be lost by the technical specification changes, and that this contention does not present a serious safety issue. Id. at 30. Therefore, there is no issue warranting sua sponte treatment by the Licensing Board.
Contention 30 states in pertinent part:
Specifically, the amendments would change the CT. S at specification 3/4.4.1.1 The RTS relaxes the allowed outage time for a Reactor Coolant Loop in Mode 1 from one hour to six hours.
31 NRC at 532. The Licensing Board's concern centered around a lack of analysis of two-loop operation even for six hours. Id. at 533 534. The Turkey Point Units are three-loop plants. Based on the information contained in the Staff's Safety Evaluation, the Staff concludes that this issue is not one which warrants sua sponte treatment by the Licensing Board.
The six hours set forth in this contention is not an allowed outage time, but rather a time within which the applicant must bring the reactor to hot standby The Staff has adopted this six-hour time limit in both the Standard Technical Specifications and in the
nq
~
'i
[
10..
4 technical specifications for specific plants as an appropriate time in which to reach hot standby in a controlled and orderly manner, thereby reducing the potential for challenges to safety systems and initiation of plant transients.- Safety Evaluation at 30. An allowed '
=!
outage time, on the other hand, is the time within which a remedial action must be
(
completed in order to allow continued operation. The technical specification which is the subject of this contention does not provide for remedial action and continued operation.1d. The Staff has determined that the action statement which is the subject of this contention would not generally be entered if the reactor is at power levels above 45 percent. The reason for this is that there are several diverse trip functions which
'would automatically trip the reactor if a reactor coolant-loop were lost. Each reactor coolant loop accounts for one-third of the reactor's cooling requirements at full power.
Therefore, although two-loop operation ~ has not been fully analyzed for long term operation, there would be enough cooling available to meet the reactor's requirements
.i below 45 percent of rated power. In addition, there are diverse trip functions which also protect the reactor below 45 percent power. Id. Therefore, the Staff concludes that this contention does not raise a serious safety issue. Id. Based on the above, there is no J
serious safety issue presented by this contention warranting Licensing Board sua sponte review.
In summary, the Staff has considered the issues raised by the three contentions u
which the Licensing Board admitted as matters in controversy in this proceeding. The l
Staff has concluded that there is no technical basis for concluding that these contentions i
L raise serious safety coucerns. Therefore, these contentions do not raise serious safety, environmental or common defense and security issues which would warrant the adoption 1
I l
l
..c
' S.
of these contentions by the Ucensing Board as sua sponte issues.
IV. CONCLUSION
~
For the Reasons set forth above, the Licensing Board should refrain from raising these issues sua sponte.
Respectfully submitted:
T.'LG~lD Q /}/a M.
I
.Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 31st day of August,1990..
i e
i r
U UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Mc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEEORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO18tl%uG 31 P2 :23 -
criscr M ncit1APv in the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50 250iOEAh54 4 SLvtCF ANcn
)
50 251 OLA&
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
)
COMPANY
)
Technical Specifications -
)
Replacement (Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4
)
Facility Operating Licenses
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTION RESPONSE TO LICENSING E
BOARD'S ORDER OF JULY 17, 1990" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail,- first class, or as indicated-
- by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's' internal mall system,:this 31st day of August,1990:
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman
- Elizabeth B. Johnson
. Administrative Judge' Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Oak Ridge National Laboratory Board Panel P.O. Box 2008, Bethel Valley Road
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Building 3500, Mail Stop 6010 Washington, D.C. 20555 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Dr. George C. Anderson Steven P. Frantz, Esq.
Adm!nistrative Judge Harold F. Reis, Esq.
7719 Ridge Drive,- N.E.
Newman & Holtzinger Seattle,.WA 98115 1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington,- D.C. 20036 John T. Butler, Esq.
Steel, Hector & Davis.
Atomic Safety and Licensing 4000 Southeast Financial Center Board Panel (1)*
Miami, FL 33131-2398 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Nuclear Energy Accountability Adjudicatory File (2)*
Project Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 129 Board Jupiter, FL 33468 0129 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l
=t e
2-
~ Office of the Secretary (2)*-
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal-
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel (5)* '
L Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attni -Docketing & Service Section Washington, DC 20555 Stewart Ebneter' -
F Regiora.1 Administrator USNIL Region II 101 Marietta St., N.W.
j
. Suite 2900 i
Atlanta, GA 30303 I
'f T 5 /T @;f] M.C.R Janice E. Moore-Counsel for NRC Staff i
L B
i
.I V
r i
i
+
.v
-