ML20084G089

Motion for Summary Disposition of Phase I Low Power Testing. No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Util Entitled to Favorable Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20084G089
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/04/1984
From:	LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20084G056	List: ML20084G051 ML20084G066 ML20084G072 ML20084G089
References
NUDOCS 8405070064
Download: ML20084G089 (16)

Text

__.

LILCO, M3y 4, 1984

.? '

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docy)fD USt Before the Commission 84 ggy c l20 In the Matter of ldG%'g'!p, fe c

[Qf7 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-4

) (Low Power)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ON PHASE I LOW POWER TESTING On March 20, 1984, LILCO filed its Supplemental Motion for Low Power Operating License which requested the approval of a li-cense to conduct four phases of low power testing. LILCO hereby renews its March 20 motion and, pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.749, seeks summary disposition with respect to Phase I of the low power testing program.

I. Basis for Summary Disposition Phase I fuel load and precriticality testing involve both fuel loading and core verification prior to the reactor's going critical. See attached Statement of Material Facts, Material Facts 1, S. Initial core loading involves the placement of fuel bundles in specified locations within the reactor vessel. Materi-al Fact 2. The following testing is associated with initial core loading:

O DR ADO DR O

i (a) water chemistry surveillance testing (b) control rod drive stroke time and friction tests l (c) installation, calibration, and utilization of i special startup neutron instrumentation )

(d) core verification instrument operability check Material Fact 3. Following placement of the fuel in the vessel, the following testing must be conducted:

(a) local power range monitor (LPRM) sensitivity data (b) zero power radiation survey for background readings (c) recirculation system instrument calibration checks (d) control rod drive scran time testing (e) cold main steam isolation valve (MSIV) timing Material Fact 4.

For these precriticality activities, diesel generators are not necessary to satisfy the Commission's regulations. The neces-sity for diesel generators at full power derives from GDC 17, which states in pertinent part:

An onsite electric power system and an offsite electric power system shall be pro-vided to permit functioning of structures, systems, and components important to safety.

The safety function for each system (assumina the other system is not functioning, shall be to provide sufficient capacity and capability to assure that (1) specified acceptable fuel design limits and design conditions of the reactor coolant pressure boundary are not ex-ceeded as a result of anticipated operational occurrences and (2) the core is cooled and containment integrity and other vital

0 functions are maintained in the event of pos-tulated accidents.

10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 17 (emphasis added). In other words, the onsite AC power source must be of sufficient ca-pacity to assure the performance of the specified safety func-tions.

During Phase I fuel loading and precriticality testing, there are no fission products in the core and no decay heat. Therefore, core cooling is not required and, with no fission product invento-ry, fission product releases are not possible. Material Fact 7.

In fact, during Phase I activities, most of the anticipated opera-tional occurrences and postulated accidents covered in Chapter 15 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) simply could not occur.

Even those Chapter 15 events that are possible would have no im-pact on public health and safety, if they were in fact to occur.

Material Facts 6-8. Because no core cooling is required during Phase I, no AC power, either onsite or offsite, is needed. Mate-rial Fact 9.

The license LILCO seeks with respect to Phase I testing (fuel load and precriticality testing) is identical to the low power ap-proval recently authorized by the Commission for the Diablo Canyon

plant. As the Commission noted in that decision

l

, The risk to public health and safety from fuel loading and pre-criticality testing )

is extremely low since no self-sustaining nu-  !

clear chain reaction will take place under the terms of the license and therefore no ra-dioactive fission products will be produced.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-83-27, 18 NRC 1146 slip op. at 5 (November 8, 1983). Indeed, fuel loading and precriticality testing present no significant safety issue. Id. at 6.

The rationale for the Commission's grant of a license to Diablo Canyon applies with even greater force with respect to Shoreham. At the time the Commission granted Diablo Canyon a low power testing license, quality assurance litigation concerning Diablo Canyon was still ongoing. In contrast, Shoreham has al-ready been the subject of a lengthy, favorable Partial Initial De-cision on all safety issues except those concerning those its ex-isting diesel generators. See Lono Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) LBP-83-57, 18 NRC 445 (1983) (Opin-ion) and unpublished Board Findings of Fact and Appendices. Since there is no need for diesel generators or any AC power during Phase I, the assurance of no risk to public health and safety from i Phase I activities is even greater at Shoreham than at Diablo Can-yon because all quality assurance issues at Shoreham have been fa-vorably resolved.

i II. Conclusion During fuel loading and precriticality testing conducted dur-ing Phase I low power testing, no AC power is required to perform the safety functions specified in GDC 17. For the above stated reasons, LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of LILCO's Supple-mental Motion for Low Power Operating License for Phase I low power testing should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY W67 -

' Robert M. 'Rolf e # /[

Anthony F. Earley, Jr.

Jessine A. Monaghan Hunton & Williams Post Office Box 1535 .

Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 4, 1984

. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD ON PHASE I LOW POWER TESTING The following is the statement of material facts as to which LILCO contends there is no genuine issue to be heard concerning Phase I low power testing:1/

1. Phase I Fuel Loading and Precriticality Testing involves placing fuel in the reactor vessel and conducting tests of reactor systems and support systems. Gunther, Tr. 201-02; Notaro Affida-vit at 1 6.

2. Initial core loading involves the placement of 560 fuel bundles in specified locations within the reactor vessel. Id.

3. The following testing is associated with initial core loading:

(a) water chemistry surveillance testing (b) control rod drive stroke time and friction tests (c) installation, calibration, and utilization of spe-Cial startup neutron instrumentation (d) core verification instrument operability check 1/ These facts appear in the record in the affidavits filed with LILCO's Supplemental Motion for Low Power License dated March 20 and in the testimony of the seven witnesses who testified on April 24 and 25 before the Licensing Board. Since these documents are readily available, copies have not been at-tached. Facts also appear in an affidavit of Wayne W. Hodges, dated April 4, 1984, which is attached.

Gunther, Tr. 202; Notaro Affidavit at 1 6.

4. Following placement of fuel in the vessel tests are per-formed to verify the operability of systems. This precriticality testing includes the following:

(a) local power range monitor (LPRM) sensitivity data (b) zero power radiation survey for background readings (c) recirculation system instrument to calibration check (d) control rod drive scram time testing (e) cold main steam isolation valves (MSIV) timing Gunther, Tr. 202; Notaro Affidavit at 1 7.

5. During all of the activities in Phase I, the reactor will remain at essentially ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure. The reactor will not be taken critical. Any increase

~

in temperature beyond ambient conditions will be due only to ex-ternal heat sources such as recirculation pump heat. There will be no heat generation in the core. Rao, et-al., Tr. 279; Sherwood Affidavit at 1 7; Hodges Affidavit at 1 3.

6. Of the 38 accident or transient events addressed in FSAR Chapter 15, 18 of the events could not occur during Phase I be-cause.of the operating conditions of the plant. An additional 6 events could physically occur, but given the plant conditions, would not cause the phenomena of interest in the Chapter 15. safety-analysis. The remaining 14 events could possibly occur, although l

l l

4

4 occurrence is highly unlikely given the plant conditions. The po-  !

tential consequences of these 14 events would be trivial. Rao, et al., Tr. 279-84; Sherwood Affidavit at 11 8-11; Hodges Affida-vit at 1 4.

7. During Phase I fuel loading and precriticality testing, there are no fission products in the core and no decay heat ex-ists. Therefore, core cooling is not required. In addition, with no fission product inventory, there are no fission product re-leases possible. Rao, et al., Tr. 283-84; Sherwood Affidavit at 1 11; Hodges Affidavit at 1 4.

8. Even a loss of coolant accident would have no conse-quences during Phase I since no core cooling is required. No fis-sion products exists and therefore no decay heat is available to heat up the core. The fuel simply would not be challenged even by a complete drain down of the reactor vessel for an unlimited peri-od of time. Rao, et al., Tr. 284; Sherwood Affidavit at 1 9; Hodges Affidavit at 1 4.

9. No core cooling is required during Phase I and, there-fore, no AC power is necessary during Phase I to cool the core.

Rao, et al., Tr. 285; Sherwood Affidavit at 1 13; Hodges Affidavit at 1 3.

l s

9 .

I - -

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, ) Docket No. 50-322 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) )

AFFIDAVIT OF MARVIN W. H90GES CONCERNING THE SUPPLEMENTAL .soiTON FOR LOW POWER OPERATION, PHASE I AND 11, A N REHAM I, Marvin W. (Wayne) Hodges, being duly sworn, state as follows:

1. I am a Section Leader in the Reactor Systems Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached.

's x

2. Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) filed a Supplemental Motion for Low Power Operating License dated March 20,1984; 'In that motion, LILC0 proposed a phased program for low power operation at Shoreham. The four phases proposed are: -

a) Phase I: fuel load and pracriticality testing, l b) Phase II: cold criticality testing, ,

c) Phase III: heatup and low power testing to rdted pressure / temperature conditions -y (approximately 1% rated power); and d) Phase IV:-'lowpower. testing (1-5% rated,p.pr) l to em

t$

f e

The purpose of this affidavit is to address the impact on the health and safety of the public of operation in Phases I and II.

3. In Phase I, fuel loading and precriticality testing, the reactor will not be taken critical. There will be no heat generation in the core. There will be no fission products. Because there will have been no power generation and, consequently, no decay heat, there will be no need for cooling systems to remove decay heat.

4. In its supplemental motion, LILC0 examined the 38 accident and transient events addressed in Chapter 15 of the FSAR. I have reviewed the 38 transients and accidents listed and I agree with LILC0 that many of the events could not occur because of the operating conditions of the plant (e.g., a turbine trip or a load rejection transient cannot occur when the turbine is not in operation and there is no load on the generator). Of the events that could occur (e.g., loss of AC power), there are no safety concerns because of the absence of power generation.

5. Phase II, cold criticality testing, will involve testing in the power range of .0001% to .001% of rated power at essentially ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure. -Because of the low power level and the limited duration of testing, fission product inventory and decay heat will be very low.

o -

l

( .I l  !

i l

l

6. As for Phase I, many of the Phase II transients and accident analyzed in Chapter 15 of the FSAR cannot occur. For-those transients and accident which can occur, other than a loss-of-coolant accident, core cooling can be achieved, even '

~

without AC power, us s'the existing core water inventory and passive heat loss to the environment.'Therefore, th$re would be no l

threat to the health and safety of the public. '

-i .

7. Because of the low pressure conditions, it is not reasonabl'e to ,

postulatealoss-of-coolantaccidentduringPh'aie'sIandII y operation. The NRC normally postulates : breaks only in high energy ' '

lines; for Phases I cnd II, there are no high energy lines. , ,9 However, even if a loss-of-cocYa'nt accident should occur during Phase II operation, there is hienty of time available for restoring offsite power should onsite power not be available.  ;

e l

/

'! z

8. If a loss-of-ccolant accident should occur during Phase II , . _,,

4

testing, LILCOIstates that there would be time'on'the order of s t ,,- .

~

' months available\to restore mab-ug' y4ter_for< core cooling. At the f.

!, -J ,

i decay heat levels which wouid erji,st under these conditions,' hest- j

.- a __

~.

transfer to the environment wolld remov'e p a'sienificant fraction of.i

,- ~i.  :-i i ,, , , .

fo

.s the decay heat. However, even'if no heat tre$sfer' from the fuel g, , .,

? 2.' +

~

~',

rods is assumed and equilibrium fissior. froducts are assumed (i.e.,  :

,l

C, '

, di .

^'f i '_ _ _y

^

y, ,

I f 4 j -

I j/ i/

, <** ' 74 '

k/ d e, d,(;

-  ? .?

3

~

j + 'k_ '

L - '

4: 9

f

.4 inifinite operation at .001% power), then more than 9 days are available to restore cooling prior to exceeding a temperature of 2200*F. Therefore, even assuming the unavailability of onsite

, power sources, there is a high probability of restoring AC power and cooling the core.

4 I ,/ Y. u Marvin W. (Wayne) Hodges Subscribed and sworn to before me this dd day of April,1984.

YNs > h. u cOJ>

/Notary Public )

My Connission Expires- /f / /d 1

i

. ~. .

a 4

Marvin W. (Wayne) Hodges Professional Qualifications Reactor Systems Branch Division of Systems Integration U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission I am employed es a Section Leader in Section B of the Reactor Systems Branch, DSI.

I graduated from Auburn University with a Mechanical Engineering Degree in 1965. I received a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Auburn University in 1967. I am a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Maryland (#13446).

In my present work assignment at the NRC, I supervise the work of 6 graduate engineers; my section is responsible for the review of primary and safety systems for BWRs. I have served as principal reviewer in the area of boiling water reactor systems. I have also participated in the review of analytical models use in the licensing evaluations of boiling water reactors and I have the technical review responsibility. for many of the modifications and analyses being implemented on boiling water reactors post the Three Mile Island, Unit-2 accident.

l As a member of the Bulletin and Orders Task Force which was formed after the TMI-2 accident, I was responsible for the review of the capability of BWR systems to cope with loss of fetdwater transient and small break loss-of-coolant accidents.

a I have also served at the NRC as a reviewer in the Analysis Branch of the NRC in the area of thermal-hydraulic performance of the reactor core. I served as a consultant to the RES representative to the program management group for the BWR Blowdown / Emergency Core Cooling Program.

Prior to joining the NRC staff in March,1974, I was employed by E. I.

DuPont at the Savannah River Laboratory as a research engineer. At SRL, I conducted hydraulic and heat transfer testing to support operation of the reactors at the Savannah River Plant. I also performed safety limit l

calculations and participated in the development of analytical models for use in transient analyses at Savannah River. My tenure at SRL was from June 1967 to March 1974.

From September 1965 to June 1967, while in graduate school, I taught courses in thermodynamics, statics, mechanical engineering measurements, l computer programming and assisted in a course in the history of engineering. During the summer of 1966, I worked at the Savannah River Laboratory doing hydraulic testing.

l e a

LILCO, M y 4, 1984 i

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 (Low Power)

I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition on Phase I Low Power Testing, Motion for Summary Disposition on Phase II Low Power Testing, and Comments in Response to the Commission's Order of April 30, 1984 were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, by hand as indicated by an asterisk, or by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks:

Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino* Commissioner J. K. Asselstine*

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissione'r F. M. Bernthal* Commissioner Victor Gilinsky*

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts

• Judge Marshall E. Miller

• U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Atomic Safety and l Commission Licensing Board 1717 H Street, N.W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Ccmmission 4350 East-West Highway Judge Glenn O. Bright

• Fourth Floor (North Tower)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Judge Elizabeth B.. Johnson **

Commission Oak Ridge National Laboratory 4350 East-West Highway P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Fourth Floor (North Tower) Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 20814 Bethesda, Maryland

, n , - -.

/

E l

l Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.* Edwin J. Reis, Esq.*

Atomic Safety and Licensing Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. ,

Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Maryland National Bank Building 4350 East-West Highway 7735 Old Georgetown Road Fourth Floor (North Tower) Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 The Honorable Peter Cohalan Fabian Palomino, Esq.** Suffolk County Executive Special Counsel to the County Executive / Legislative Governor Building Executive Chamber, Room 229 Veteran's Memorial Highway State Capitol Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12224 James Dougherty, Esq.

Alan R. Dynner, Esq.* 3045 Porter Street Herbert H. Brown, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20008 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christpher & Phillips Docket and Service Branch (3) 1900 M Street, N.W. Office of the Secretary 8th Floor U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20036 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jay Dunkleberger, Esq.

New York State Energy Office Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.

Agency Building 2 Suffolk County Attorney Empire State Plaza H. Lee Dennison Building Albany, New York 12223 Veterans Memorial Highway Mr. Martin Suubert c/o Congressman William Carney 1113 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 kkW ./ Vb /

/

(/

Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 4, 1984 l

l

.