ML20071B782

Reply in Opposition to NRC 830208 Motion for 830310 Deadline for Spec of Scenario for Issue 8.Issue Should Be Reworded & Action Deferred on Scenario Spec Until Final Rule on Mark III Hydrogen Control Published.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20071B782
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	02/23/1983
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8303010098
Download: ML20071B782 (7)

Text

. . _ _

.i .;

FebruaryMK",JJf983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'83 FEB 28 A10:27 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

. 3::., s. . In the Matter of ) ' . . @;;.C

a. y,; ;

m .-

)

D'ocket Nos. 50-440

. jim.: s.-CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )'

j.j:& f,{ COMPANY, Et A1. g

) .

50-441 j fe r'.'- -

) (Operating License) .

,','f'b *J:;. .'j(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,-)

n

.4. Units 1 and 2)

) -

.. c )

y . . w, . . .

..a. ,;,-

• l

l OCRE RLPLY.TO NRC STAFF MOTION FOR A DEADLINE FOR THE.

SPECIFICATION'OF A SCENARIO:FOR ISSUE #8 AND MOTION FOR. '

THE RL' WORDING OF ISSUE #8 AND SPECIFICATION OF ' GUIDELINES . '

FOR ITS LITIGATION On February 8, 1983 the NRC , Staff filed a' motion requesting that the Licensing 7aard establish a March 10,.1983 deadline.by:

which Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy. ("OCRE") must identify with particulari'ty and basis a TMI-2 type accident scenario for-Perry necessary for the litigation of' Issue #8 in this proceeding.

See ALAB-675, 15 NRC 1105, 1115 (1982). 'OCRE opposes this motion because it is premature . (on several grounds) to require specification-

~

of'a scenario at this time.

First, OCRE believes that the Staff has incorrectly interpreted

~

• / the Appeal Board's guidance in ALAB-675. The Staff in its mot' ion 3 stat'es that the Appeal Board found that.the litigation of Issue #8 p "

a requires that one particular TMI-2 type LOCA scenario for Perry be

,nwo -

E

'O0 specified. The Staff also implies that the scenario is necessary.

to particularize OCRE's " vague, unparticularized hydrogen contention" h so as to meet the requirements of Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three

.bo

.O Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1), CLI-80-16, 11 NRC 674 (1980) j<

E ho ("TMI-l Restart" ) . This is untrue. The Licensing Board found that the criteria of TMI-l Restart had been met in admitting Issue #8; f DS63

I 9

the Appeal Board did not find fault with the Licensing Board's 1/

decision 7 The Appeal Board also indicated thatothe true purpose for specifying an accident scenario is not to comply with TMI-1 l Restart, but rather is'a more practical matter:

Different types of accidents, however,. result in different.

. rates and quantities of hydrogen generation. A given hydrogen- -

generating mechanism thus has obvious relevance to sthe.eificacy of.a hydrogeq control system. In order to litigate meaningfully' the adequacy of'such a system, a particular accident or accidents (plural] should be specified. (ALAB-675, slip op. at;17.)

However, the Licensing Board has found the Appeal Board's opinion to be open to interpretation as to the. purpose of'the accident scenario:

A possible interpretation of the Appeal Board's non-binding directions.to us is that we are adjudicating control-of hydrogen and are looking to hydrogen generation only 'as an indication of how much and how rapidly hydrogen would be generated. Another possible interpretation of the Appeal-Board's non-binding directions to us is that we must limit

our concerns to specific credible scenarios of a TMI-2 type . .

. . (W)e have not yet decided which of these views to take . . .

(December 23, 1983 Memorandum and Order (Concerning Discovery from Staff on Hydrogen Issue) at 4.)

OCRE believes that, as a prerequisite to the specification of 1

a scenario,

the Board should decide which of these views to take, 4

as this would put OCRE on notice of the burden it is expected to bear when specifying the scenar_o. OCRE can only agree to a date for,specifying the scenario if it knows with certainty what is expected of it.

_1/ The Staff has implied that the Appeal Board did not approve of the Licensing Board's applic-tion of TMI-l Restart, but merely reserved its views for later. See transcript of the November 15, 1982 conference call at 7C3-764. Staff counsel has also, in conversations with the OCRE Representative, in-di~cated the Staff's belief that the Licensing Board's decision

'would be reversed on appeal, and that this possibility should preclude the litigation of Issue #8. OCRE would only say that (continued next page) i

, ,_, - - --- . . - - , - - , - ,n,,, , _ _ - - -- -, ._-. . . . , - , - , .

Even without'this difficulty, OCRE finds the March 10 deadline inappropriate for other reasons. The Staff req'uests that, by that date, OCRE " identify with particularity and basis a TMI-2 type LOCA scenario for Perry that OCRE contends would cause core damage, generation of large mmounts of hydrogen, hydrogen combustion, contain- '

ment breach or leakage and offsite doses greater than 10 CFR 100 values." (Staff Motion at 3. ) These requests ire again open to interpretation. E.g., what constitutes an adequate basis? .If the Staff finds any fault with the basis given, one can be sure that a 2/

motion for summary disposition would be forthcoming!

Because of the uncertainty as to what constitutes an adequate basis for the scenario, OCRE would want to conduct a thorough investi-gation of all available information before identifying the scenario.

OCRE does not now possess all such information. OCRE has requested a great many documents from the Public Document Room, but of course-it takes time for such requests to he filled. OCRE also suspects that a visit to the PDR will be necessary, but this will not be possible until late March.

Furthermore, OCRE has uncovered the attached Staff memorandum which indicates that the Staff's answers to OCRE's Sixth Set of Inter-rogatories and the Board Questions may have been censored. OCRE has

_1/ continued.

if.it is improper for the Licensing Board to take the simple j

and harmless action of retaining jurisdiction over NEPA issues pending judicial review of the Commission's policy statement on psychological stress (see January 24, 1983 Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration: Psychological Stress) ) , 'then it is certainly improper to preclude the litigation of an important issue like hydrogen control based on possible future and speculative actions of the Appeal Board.

_2/ (see next page)

l-

, -4 filed a Freedom of Information Act Request to obtain the draft answers referred to in the memorandum. It.again takes time before the items requested are received.

OCRE would also question whether the specification of a scenario at this time is really mecessary to assure the orderly progress' of 3/-

the proceeding 77as the Staff states at p. 3 of its motion. OCRE suspects that Issue #8 will not be ready for litigation in the fore-seeable future and that Applicants, not OCRE, control'the progress of Issue #8. In fact, delay in the specification of a scenario may be i

beneficial. The Staff, in its answer to OCRE Interrogatory 6-9, states that a final rule on hydrogen control could be expected in May of this year. By waiting for this final rule, the Licensing Board could avoid the tortuous' process of litigating the credibility of a TMI-2 type accident scenario for Perry, since Issue #8 then would not involve a challenge to 10 CFR 50.44, but rather would concern the Applicants' degree of compliance with the new regulation.

t 2/ The Board has suggested (see Staff notes on the December 9, 1982 conference call at 3) that summary disposition may be sought after the scenario is defined. That'the Staff has rather strin-gent views on the adequacy of a contention's basis is shown by its position that reliance on studies performed by Sandia National Laboratories is not a sufficient basis for Issue #9 (see NRC Staff Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue #9, dated January 14, 1983.).

3/. Any delay in the progress of Issue #8 can be attributed to the The attached memorandum indicates that Staff members

~~

Staff.

were actually preparing answers to OCRE's Sixth Set of Inter-rogatories before Staff counsel objected to them. Given that situation, the Staff's vigorous and lengthy objections to answering those interrogatories seem rather puzzling.

V

-5, In summary, OCRE finds the March 10 deadline for specifying a scenario to be unacceptable. Furthermore, it is improper to expect OCRE to specify a scenario until the Licensing Board sets some guide-lines for this scenario and for the litigation of the issue in generalf as suggested strongly by the Appeal Board in ALAB4675 (slip op. at 21 and footnote 13 at p. 19). Therefore, OCRE moves that the Licensing Board:

1. Reword Issue #8, since the current wording does not accurately reflect the scope of the issue, OCRE proposes the following wording:

Applicant has not demonstrated that, given an. accident entailing the generation of large amcunts of hydrogen, the

• combustible gas control measures to e implemented at Perry can accomodate large amounts of hyd igen without a rupture of the containment and a release o# .ubstantial quantities of radioactivity into the environme: :.

. 2r Defer any action on the specification of a scenario until after i the final rule on hydrogen control in the Mark III containment.

is published (see proposed rule, 46 Fed. Reg. 62281, December 1

23, 1981.)

3. Determine whether a scenario is still necessary after the issuance of the final rule, and, if so, set the following guidelines for its specification:

.< (a) the purpose of the scenario, i.e., to fulfill the requirements of TMI-l Restart or to meaningfully litigate (as to rate r:d quantity of hydrogen production) the adequacy of Applicants' hydrogen control measures; (b) what a "TMI-2 type" accident is; (c) Nhat the Licensing Board considers to be a credible scenario I.e., is there a; numerical probability used for defining

1

- [,V

, ' I' .

" credible," and if so, what is' its legal or regulatory basis?

(d) what constitutes an acceptable basis for an accident scenario?

I.e., does the Licensing Board expect OCRE to perform a probability risk assessment for Perry?

Respectfully submitted,

. . a+ f Ub Susan L. Hiatt

+ - . ,~

OCRE Representative

- 8275 Munson Rd.

Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 O

e i .

1 O

W *-

1. ~' ,

L ,, ,

NRC Ptm

• ATTACHMENT PRC System LB#1 Rdg.

JAN 121983 MRushbrook JStefano Docket Hos.: 50-440 ,

and 50-441 L .

i MEMORANDUM FOR: T. P. Speis, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety, DSI W. R. Houston, Assistant Director for Radiation Protectior , dst J. P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components and Structures

,N Engineering, DE FROM:

• B. J. Youngblood, Chief, Licensing Branch Ho.1, DL

?

THRU: T'homas M. Hovak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL

SUBJECT:

PERRY LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER DIRECTING STAFF TO RESPOND TO 00RE'S INTERROGATORIES AND BOARD QUESTIONS ON ISSUE #8 (HYDROGEN CONTROL)

In a Memorandum and Order dated December 23, 1982 (cooy enclosed), the Licensing

' Board in the ~ Perry OL-oroceeding directed the staff to respond to: (1) OCRE's 6th '

Set _of Interrogatories to staff dated September 13,1982; and (2) five Board cuestions at page 8 of the Order. , O Although the staff had earlier prepared draft answers to many of OCRE's interrogatories, those answers should be reviewed and updated as necessary in licht of the Board's Order, and in light of the Applicant's answers to OCRE's interrogatories on Issue #8 (see the Board Order at page 9). It should be under-

' stood that staff persons are not required to perform studies or make calculations in oroviding responses, but to only provide information that already exists.

A meeting was convened on January 4,1983 by the oroject manager (J. Stefano) with those staff persons from RSB, CSB, SEB and AEB who had provided earlier draft responses to the OCRE interrogatories. The five Board questions were also dis-cussed. Conies of the Board Order and the Applicant's responses to DCRE inter-rogatories on Issue #8 were provided.to the staff at the meeting. In discussing the draft responses, guidance was provided by the Perry Attorney (Mack Cutchin) as to the scope and focus of the expected staff responses.

It had been understood by the proje t manager that AEB would be ' preparing responses to the Board's questions; howec , in subsequent conversations with the AEB staff, the project manager was advised that CSB and RSB should be addressing the Board's questions since they relate to responses being prepared in response to OCRE's interrogatories and because the Board's cuestions relate to work that was performed by CSB and RSB'for TMI-2. We are committed to provide the Perry Attorney your approved staff responses to the OCRE and the Board questions (with the required l I (net > ,.......................l....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

pe > .. ,,nmnnn,1 .,n m .. . . . . . . . . . . . .................. .................... .....................

y , ,, APDR ADOCK 05000440 r PDR im m oo.ee, rac.i 1

. cm OFFICIAL RECORD COPY e-

. . ./

.m 1% /

. ./

/ ~

JAN 121983 i

.f' staff affidavits) not later than COB, Tuesday, February 1,1983. Based on this

/ cortnitment, OELD has advised the Board that it will receive our responses by .

February 4, 1983. It is therefore requested that the project manager be advised which organization will be responding to the' Board's questions.

, As a means of ensuring that we' can meet our comitments to OELD (and ultimately.

the Board), it is urged that drafts of staff responses'be made available for consultation with the oroject manager and the Perry Attorney.by January 21, 1983.

Your continued support of the Perry project will be most appreciated and your

. immediate attention to this request is urged. ,

B. J. Youngblood, Chief i3 Licensing Branch No.1 l ,

Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated I cc w/ encl.: D. Eisenhut

, R. Mattson R. Vollmer E. Christenbury W. Butler J. Hulman D. Sheron F. Schauer J. Gray J. Cutchin, IV 1

e, k'

, @FFICE) D. .D. . . .L.7. . .i.D.L..:.. .f. . .. .... ,.A.. .

. . . ..'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... ..............e d ak

$UCNAME) g$.te ,9 f.a.no./.1. 9 9...

J.Y.o,...n..og.o..o. T.

9 .. y . .... .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

or> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

rm: roau m o5 33 r acu em OFFICIAL RECORD COPY .sm. m-s

.. r SE D CERTIFICATE OF. SERVICE ETC This is to certify that copies of the foregoing OCRE QO gn y NRC STAFF MOTION FOR A DEADLINE FOR THE SPECIFICATIOQ3OMTE EENMO FOR ISSUE #8 AND MOTION FOR THE REWORDING OF ISSUE #8 AND SPECIFICATION OF GUIDELINES FOR.ITSJLITIGATION were served hy deposit in thetUaS. * ~

Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this .52L.e> day of Februhrp' big N'-

l'9'83 to those on the service list below.

W Y- ,

Susan L. Hiatt SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Daniel D. Wilt, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board P.O. Box 08159

'UJS..' Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Cleveland, OH 4410e Was,hington, D.C. 20555

?,'-

Dr.. Jerry R. Kline

• Ato.mic,. Safety & Licensing Board -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Atomic Safety & Licensing Boa'rd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. 20555 Do.cketing & Service Section

! Office of the Secretary i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. 20555 l

l James M. Cutchin, IV Esq.

l l

- Office of the Executiv,e Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Jay Silberg, Esq.

1800-M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

, ._- _