ML20071M548
| ML20071M548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1982 |
| From: | Locke R PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| LBP-81-21, NUDOCS 8209270168 | |
| Download: ML20071M548 (15) | |
Text
__
DOCKETED USNRC 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 52 9 24 NO N 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r -c; : -, y -
3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL
- BOARD:
4 5
In the Matter of Pacific Gas
)
and Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-275 6
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear
)
50-323 Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
7
)
8 Brief of Pacific Gas and Electric Company 9
Re Mootness of Low Power Contentions 10 11 12 In an Order issued September 2, 1982 the Board 13 requested the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing 14 the question whether issues presented in pending appeals 15 from the Licensing Board's low power decision (LBP-81-21, 14 16 NRC 107 (1981)) might be mooted by the Licensing Board's 17 August 31, 1982 initial decision on full power.
This brief 18 is Pacific Gas and Electric Company's ("PGandE") response to 19 that order.
However, we do note that the Commission has not acted on the Full Power de' cision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.764.
20 21 Additionally, Motion for Clarification of the August 31, 22 1982 Order is currently pending before T.he ASLB.
This 23 situation would appear to make an assessment of mootness of 24 low power contentions somewhat premature.
Notwithstanding that the Commission has not taken any action on the ASLB's 25 26 August 31, 1982 decision and that the Motion for 8209270168 820923 PDR ADOCK 05000 4,
o
1 Clarification is pending PGandE will identify those low 2
power issues which, assuming arguendo favorable action by 3
both, would appear to moot certain low-power issues on 4
' appeal.
Additionally, PGandE will identify low power issues 5
'which have been mooted by events other than the August 31, 6
1982 decision.
7 EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 8
9 Asnotedabove$oncetheCommissionhasactedupon
~
10 11 the Initial Decision pursuant to L0 CFR 2.764 and the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has authority to act, 12 then the low power emergency planning issues would appear to 13 14 be moot since both on-site and offsite emergency 15 preparations which conform to 10 CFR Part 50.33, 50.47 and 16 Appendix E requirements would be required.
However, the emergency planning contention advanced by intervenors at the 17 18 low-power hearing eppears also to have been mooted in major 19 respects by the occurrence of several events since the matter was briefed and submitted.
20 21 First, intervenors contended that 10 CFR Part 50 required that both on-site and off-site emergency planning 22 23 be in place and satie2y the requirements of 10 CFR 50.33, 24 50.47, and Appendix E for low-power operation.
However, the 25 Commission has, by a recent rule change, designated the 26 required emergency preparedness for fuel-load and low-power -_
1 testing (47 Fed. Reg. 30232, July 13, 1982).
In these 2
amendments to the emergency planning regulations, the 3
Commission stated that only a finding as to the adequacy of 4
on-site emergency planning and preparedness will be required 5
for fuel-load and low-power testing.
There is no similar 6
requirement for a determination on the adequacy of off-site 7
In reaching this conclusion, the 8
NRC, with concurrence of FEMA, stated that because the risks 9
and potential consequences of an accident occurring during 10 low-power testing are much smaller than during continuous 11 full-power operation, the fission product inventory is 12 smaller, since the reactor has been operated at a lower 13 power level for a short period of time.
Also, the available 14 time to take corrective or mitigating action is greater (at 15 least 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> longer).
16 The rule change also clarified that emergency 17 preparedness exercises are part of preoperational testing 18 and are not required prior to operation above 5% of rated 19 power.
With this clarification the intervenors arguments 20 concerning the alleged inability to implement the Sheriff's 21 evacuation plan and the overall lack of an officially 22 approved and implemented County Emergency Plan are no longer 23 meaningful.
24 Intervenors also contended that existing emergency 25 plans did not address inadequacies due to the complicating 26 effects of an earthquake on emergency planning.
This issue -
I has, in effect, been mooted by the Commission decision in 2
Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear 3
Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-81-33, 14 NRC 1091 4
'(1981).
There the Commission determined that the NRC's 5
current emergency planning regulations do not require consideration of the impacts on emergency planning of 6
7 earthquakes which cause or occur during an accidental 8
radiological release.
Instead, the Commission ruled that it would consider the question on a generic basis and determine 9
10 whether the regulations should be changed to address the 11 Potential impacts of a severe earthquake on emergency 12 Planning.
The Commission then directed the Licensing Board in that proceeding not to pursue the issue.
Similar 13 14 reasoning applies in this case.
15 RELIEF, BLOCK, AND SAFETY VALVE CONTENTION 16 17 18 In its February 13, 1981, Prehearing Conference 19 Order, the ASLB admitted a contention relating to Item II.D.1 of NUREG-0737 limited to whether the tests for the 20 21 block valves should be completed prior to fuel loading.
22 NUREG-0737, Item II.D.1, as revised by NRC staff paper SECY 23 81-491 and NRC letter dated September 29, 1981, requires 24 that PWR pressurizer safety, relief, and block valves be tested in the Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) 25 26 valve testing program, to demonstrate operability under _ _.
1 normal and design operating conditions.
In response to this 2
requirement, pressurizer safety, relief, and block valves representative of those at Diablo Canyon have been included 3
'i n t h e EPRI tests.
Results of the tests, which were 4
5 completed by March 1982, indicated that the Diablo Canyon valves will perform as required during operation and FSAR 6
accident conditions.
The results of these tests have been 7
documented in EPRI test reports, as identified in the 8
attached PGandE letters to the NRC, dated March 31, 1982, 9
10 and June 30, 1982.
Therefore, the requirements of Item II.D.1 of NUREG-0737 on testing to demonstrate valve 11 operability have been satisfied.
Furthermore the ASLB in 12 its Full Power Initial Decision determined that:
13
... on the basis of the entire record 14 relevant to this matter, that the PORV's and their associated block values and 15 instrumentation and controls are not required, with one single exception, by 16 the criteria in Section III.C.
of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 to be 17 qualified as safety grade.
The excep-
- tion, that of protection from low-tem-18 perature overpressurization, is ade-grade quately provided for by two safetyfound]
19 PORV systems.
The Board further [
that the PORV systems have been ade-20 l
quately
- designed, constructed and 21 tested. If l
Accordingly, no present controversy exists on this point and 22 the issue is now moot.
23 l
24 lll 25 26 1/
Initial Decision at 86.
(
Contentions Denied By The ASLB In Its 1
Prehearing Conference Order Of 2
February 13, 1981.
3 Various proposed contentions and subjects were 4
advanced by Joint Intervenors and Governor' Brown which were 5
6 disposed of by the Licensing Board in its February 13, 1981 7
Prehearing Conference Order.
Certain of these contentions which were rejected by the ASLB were also advanced in the a
9 full-power proceeding.
These contentions were again 10 rejected by the ASLB in its August 4, 1981 order and this Board affirmed the ASLB disposition of these contentions in 11 its December 11, 1981 Order.
The specific contentions are 12 as follows:
13 Low-Power Full-Power 14 Contentions Contentions 15 6 and 17 equivalent to 2 and 3 16 14 equivalent to 11 17 20 and 23 equivalent to 15 and 16 18 Since this Board has ruled that these full-power 19 20 contentions were properly rejected by the ASLB, a fortiori 21 the same contentions in the low-power proceeding must be considered to be subsumed in that decision and accordingly 22 23 rendered moot in the low-power appeal.
Finally, it is apparent that low power Contentions 24 25 1 and 2 have been mooted by the Commission's actions on 26 March 18, 1982 CLI NRC and April 22, 1982,.
1 CLI-82-7, 15 NRC 673 denying review of the seismic and 2
security issues respectively.
3 4
Respectfully submitted, 5
MALCOLM H. FURBUSH PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.
6 RICHARD F. LOCKE Pacific Gas and Electric Company 7
P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 8
(415) 781-4211 9
ARTHUR C. GEHR Snell & Wilmer 10 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 11 (602) 257-7288 12 BRUCE NORTON Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
13 3216 N. Third Street Suite 300 14 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 264-0033 15 Attorneys for 16 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 17 18 By F
Richard F. Locke 19 20 DATED:
September 23, 1982.
21 l
22 23 l
24 i
25 26 i
l 1 l l
r
flTTRC H,
itarch 31, 1982 tir. Frank J. Ilireglia, Jr., Chief Licensing Branch flo. 3 Division of Licensing Office of fluclear Peactor Regulation U. S. Iluclear Regulatory Connission Ifashington, D. C. 20555 Re: Docket flo. 275 Docket tio. 323 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2
Dear ifr. fliraglia:
!!UREG-0737, Iten II.D.1, as revised by t'r4 Staff paper SFCY 81 491 and firC Ictter dated Septer.ber 29, 1981, rec,uires that plant These reports nust specific reports he subnitted by April 1,1902.
provide prelininary confinnation of the adequacy of pressurizer safet and relief valves.
were specifically incorporated as a condition of the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 A partial response to the particular Lou Power License (DPP-76).
requirenent for prelininary confiruation was subnitted by P0andE on June This letter supplenents the June 29 subnittal and provides 29, 1981.
prelininary confirnatory information on the adequacy of the pressurfrer safety and relief valves in use at Diablo Canycn linits 1 and P.
PGandE has pursued resolution of the requirenents of Itcn II.D.1 of fl0P.EG-0737 through direct participation in the Electric Power T.esearch Institute's ("EPRI") valves test progran. This progran was specifically established to obtain test data to support pressurizer safety and relief Test data and interin reports received to date fron valve operability.
EPRI have been reviewed and forn the basis for this subnittal.
4 e
G y--,
fir. Frank J. Iliraglia, Jr. !! art:h 31,1982 There are three pressurizer power operated relief valves in each unit at Diablo Canyon. These are 20,000 series valves nanufactured by ifasoneflan International.
In addition, there are three pressurizer safety. valves in each unit at Diablo Canyon. These are 11odel HB-CP-06 size 6ft6 safety valves with loop seal internals nanufactured by Crosby Valve and Gage Conpany. Relief and safety valves representative of the ones at Diablo Canyon have been tested by EPRI in test configurations sinflar to that of the actual pressurizer configuration at Diablo Canyon.
The fluid conditions for testing of these representative valves, while not specifically addressed in the Diablo Canyon Safety Analysis Report, were identified by lfestinghouse and are contained in the Fluid i
Conditions Justification Report (" Valve Inlet Fluid Conditions for l
Pressurizer Safety and Relief Yalves in Ifestinghouse-Designed Plants,"
j~
EPRI P.esearch Project V102-10, Phase C, Interin Deport, Decenber 1981).
The fluid conditions for testing were selected on the basis of enveloping l
those conditions for plants, such as Dioblo Canyon, utilizing the sane
('
valve type.
The test conditions included stean, stean-to-nater transition, water, and pre-load conditions.
Specific infon ation related to there tests is docunented in the following EPP.I reports (descriptive titles):
1.
Discharge Piping Load !!odel Report 2.
Safety and Relief Valve Test Report 3.
Test Condition Justificatis n Report 4.
!!SSS Vendor Plant Condition report 5.
Valve Selection / Justification report It is expected that the above reports will be issued by EPRI by April 1, 1982 and util be transnitted to the I RC by David Hoffnan of Consuners l
Power Conpany, on behalf of the participating PilR Utilities in the EPPI Progran, as part of the April 1,1982 prelininary !?RC subnittal I
I requirenent. Based on our review of available infomation, we have concluded that the Diablo Canyon safety and relief valves are adequately represented in the EPRI test progran, and that the test conditions envelope the range of expected operating and accident conditions for Diablo Canyon.
The tests conducted on the power operated relief valves representative of those at Diablo Canyon have confimed that these valves opened and closed on denand, and that they suffered no danage that would preclude future operation. The tests on the safety valves representative of those at Diablo Canyon showed that these valves opened and closed.
l However, certain concerns were identified on the operability of these safety valves under specific conditions. The applicability to Diablo Canyot of these test conditions is being reviewed as part of a systen (inlet and downstrean piping and the valves) perfomance review, both by PGandE and the Westinghouse Duners Group, for both relief and safety valves.
l l
Mr. Frank J. Hiraglia, Jr. March 31,1982 Clarification of any concerns and any inpact on plant performance is expected prior to the July 1,1982 date specified by Iten II.D.1 of HilREG-0737, as revised by NP.C letter dated September 29, 1981, for subnittal of associated piping and support evaluations. PGandE will provide such a subnittal as required.
Very truly yours, Philip A. Crane, Jr.
e E
l l
Arram. oV PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 9'
t
~
June 30, 1982 Mr. Frank Miraglia, Jr., Chief I
Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re Docket No. 50-275, OL-DPR-76 Docket No. 50-323 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Dear Mr. Miraglia EUREG-0737, Item II.D.1, as revised by NRC Staff paper SECY 81-491 and NRC letter dated September 29, 1981, requires that plant specific reports be submitted by July 1, 1982 to document pressurizer block valve qualification for pressurized water reactors (PWRs).
The requirements of Item II.D.1, through SECY 81-491, were specifically incorporated as a condition of the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Low Power License (DPR-76).
This letter constitutes PGandE's plant specific l
response on the pressurizar block valves for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2.
PGandE has pursued resolution of the requirements of Item II.D.1 of NUREG-0737 through direct participation in the Electric Power Research Institute ("EPRI") valve test program.
This program was specifically established to obtain test data to support pressurizer safety and relief valve operability.
Bowever, block valve testing was also performed by EPRI in conjunction with this program.
l In response to the requirement of Item II.D.1 on block valve qualification, EPRI issued a report entitled "EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program, PORV Block Valve Information Package,"
dated May 1982.
The report documents information relating to the performance of block valves in PWR plants.
This report was l
submitted to the NRC on June 1, 1982 by R. C. Youngdahl of Consumers Power Company on behalf of the participating PWR utilities, including PGandE.
1
f June 30, 1982 Mr. Frank Miraglia, Jr.
Page 2
)
i t
There are three pressuriser block valves in each unit at Diablo Canyon.
They are model B10-30548-13MS gate valves manu-factured by Velan Engineering Company.
A Velan block valve representative of the valves at Diablo Canyon has been tested by EPRI in configurations representative of the actual pressurizar configuration at Diablo Canyon 4 Details of the test conditions are included in the EPRI report.
PGandE has evaluated the EPRI report and determined that, although some minor differences exist between the test conditions and Diablo Canyon, the differences are insignificant and the information included in the report is applicable to Diablo Canyon.
Further, PGandE has determined that the EPRI tests adequately demonstrate the operability of the Velan block valves utilized at Therefore, we consider that the requirement of Diablo Canyon.
NUREG-0737, Item II.D.1, as well as the Unit 1 Low Power License condition regarding block valve qualification for Diablo Canyon has been satisfied.
Very truly yours,
/s/ J. O. Schuyler J. O. SCHUYLER Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of June, 1982.
/s/ Nancy J. Lemaster gggg Nancy J. Lemaster, Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.
My commission expires April 14, 1986.
Robert Ohlbach Philip A. Crane, Jr.
Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company BY
/s/ Philin A.
Crane. Jr.
Philip A.~ Crane, Jr.
w,+
w--~,-
w-w-
-m-<--
r-m--s v---
O O
Mr. Frank Miraglia, Jr.
June 30, 1982
- ' Fage 3 1
cca W. Bilanin, EPRI
~
W. Gangloff, Westinghouse Service List I
(
l t
1 1
l l
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-275 PACIEIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-323
)
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
)
Units Nos. 1 and 2
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document (s) of Pacific Gas and Electric company has (have) been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
John F. Wolf Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Chairman 1760 Alisal Street Atomic Safety & Licensing Board San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street Judge Glenn O. Bright San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Atomic Safety and Licensiag Board U.S. Nuclear P.egulatory Commission John Phillips, Esq.*
Washington, D.C. 20555 Joel Reynolds, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Judge Jerry R. Kline Interest Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 10951 W. Pico Boulevard -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20555 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg David F. Fleischaker, Ecq.
c/o Nancy Culver P.O. Box 1178 192 Luneta C;ive Oklahoma City, OK 73101 San Luis Geispo, CA 93401 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Janice E.
Kerr, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer Public Utilities Commission of 3100 Valley Bank Center l
the State of California Phoenix, AZ 85073 5246 State Building 350 McAllister Street Bruce Norton, Esq.
San Francisco, CA 94102 Norton, Burke, Berry
& French, P.C.
Mrs. Raye Fleming 3216 N. Third St.,
St'e. 300 l
1920 Mattie Road Phoenix, AZ 85012-2699 Shell Beach, CA 93449 I
- By Courier
i l
Mr. Frederick Eissler Chairman f
Scenic Shoreline Preservation Atomic Safety and Licensing Conference, Inc.
Board Panel 4623 More Mesa Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman Judge Thomas S. Moore
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Judge W. Reed Johnson
- Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Attn:
Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Section Washington, D.C. 20555 Bradley W. Jones, Esq.
Judge John H. Buck
- Office of Executive Legal Director Atomic Safety and Licensing BETH 402 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Commissioner Nunzio J. Palladino MHB Technical Associates Chairman 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn San Jose, CA 95125 1717 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Carl Neiberger Telegram Tribune Commissioner John F. Ahearne P.O. Box 112 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Luis Obispo, CA 93402 1717 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Christopher B. Hanback, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, 1717 H Street N.W.
Christopher & Phillips Washington, D.C. 20555 1900 M Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Commissioner James K. Asselstine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bryon S. Georgiou, Esq.
1717 H Street N.W.
Legal Affairs Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 Governor's Office State capitol Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Sacramento, CA 95814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street N.W.
Washi gton, D.C. 20555 s
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Date:
- By Courier