ML20093L411

Response to Applicant Reply to Response Re Spec of Credible Scenario Under Issue 8.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20093L411
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	10/15/1984
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20093L408	List: ML20093L405 ML20093L411
References
OL, NUDOCS 8410180567
Download: ML20093L411 (4)

Text

-

• e ,,am-s-..+. ,, , , 7; y n pe- ~~w. .l l '.0ctobet.15, 1984

.dNIhEDSTATESOFAMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION F

l*- Before the Atomic Safeiv and Licensing Board

' CCQ In~the Matter of ) USahfIO

)

CLEVELAND ELECORIC ILLUMINACING .)

COMPANY, Et A1. ) Docket Nos.50-44_ 5B44'-QI18 gg6

. - o ) (Operating Licpnse) "

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) .

Units 1 and 2) - occ;[jjg'c sj q,;h, l}

OCRE RESPONSE.TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO OCRE. RESPONSE

, REGARDING SPECIFICATION OF A CREDIBLE SCENARIO UNDER ISSUE #8 l

In their reply to the response of Intervenor Ohio Citizens for Responsible' Energy ("OCRE") to their Motion for Specification I .

L of a Credible Accident Scenario Under Issue #8,. Applicants claim i

j that OCRE's arguments on the applicability of Metropolitan Edison V .

l (TMI-l Restart) , CLI-80-16, 11 NRC 674 (1980) to this proceeding are "without legal basis," citing Pacific Gas and E[ectric Co.

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units'l and 2), ALAB-728, "

l 17 NRC 777, 805 (1983). The use of CLI-80-16 is appropriate for i

Diablo Canyon, a' PWR with a large dry containment for which the NRC Staff apparently will require no further hydrogen control measures. The use of CLI-80-16 in such a manner as to preclude the litigation of hydrogen control at Perry,-however, is plainly illegal, as this would violate :ne Atomic Energy Act by denying .

the right to a hearin'g on an issue material to the iicensing of PNPP.

See Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, Case #82-2053, May 25, 1984 (DC Cir), which Applicants do not controvert.

Applican'ts 'also assert that the application of. SECY-83-357 would require the dismissal of Issue #8, as the scheduling section 8410180567 841015 gDRADOCK 05000440 PDR

l c 2..

}

ofLthat draft final rule would allow two years for-the implementation of its requirements. ~When proposing SECY-83-357 as1the standard for. litigation of Issue #8, OCRE meant that theLcriteria for the

~

hydrogen control system, not the proposed. scheduling, be made

- centrolling. See p. 4 of.OCRE's Response, dated October 3, 1984.

The Staff:has now made hydrogen' control for degraded core accidents 1/

a licensing condition for Perry.'~ Applicants are presently

~

attempting-to meet these requirements. To dismiss the contention,.

which can be litigated (and must be resolved to the Staff's satisfaction) before Unit 1 can operate, because the draft final-2/

A rule would all'ow a longer time is both foolish and illegal!~

Finally, Applicants apparently'believe that OCRE in its response was trying to submit a new contention based on.SECY-83-357, This is manifestly untrue. What OCRE suggested was that a standard be adopted that would save time and effort, focus on the real issues, and eliminate the-confusion and inaction (resulting-from Staff and Applicant attempts to have this issue dismissed) which have marred the consideration of Issue #8. No new contention is proffered here, Issue #8 is the same raw as it has always really been: that Applicants' hydrogen control system is insufficient.to prevent breach of the Perry containment from the combustion of hydrogen

-gas generated in a degraded core accident. When first admitting

this issue, the Licensing Board worded it in terms of recombiner 1

1/ .See NUREG-0887, SSER 4, Feb. 1984, p. 1-9, Section 1.11, Item (5) which states that information is required from Applicants on hydrogen control before fuel load of Unit 1.

2/. This move is illegal on two grounds: (1) it would remove from the hearing'an issueHof material fact, cotnrary to UCS v. NRC, supra; (2) it is - tantamount to referring a contested issue to the Staff for resolution, which is prohibited by Consolidated Edison (Indian Point Unit 2), CLI-74-23, 7 AEC 947, 981 (1974) and numerous other decisions.

j' ,.

n ,_ -,

I-j.

F . .

[ adequacy,;as.this was the only hydrogen control measure proposed h by Applicants at'that time. In ALAB-675, the Appeal Board, noting that Applicants' hydrogen control system will now rely principally on a distributed igniter system, stated that "the Licensing' Board should determine applicants' present plans in this regard and the effect'this will.have on the contention here at issue." ALAB-675, slip op. at 20-21. In February 1983 OCRE sought the rewording of this issue to better reflect this reality. (OCRE'stmotion was deferred by the Board pending issuance of the final hydrogen rule )

By stating that it is OCRE's contention that Applicants cannot meet the standards of SECY-83-357 (OCRE Response at 4) , OCRE was again suggesting rewording of the issue to fit the facts and the evaluation standards. In no way does.this mean that OCRE is sub-mitting a new contention; to' claim that it is now necessary to supply " basis, specificity, and justification for late filing under 10 CFR 2.714" (Applicants' Reply at 3, footnote 5) is simply ridiculous.

Respectfully submitted, aW Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rd.

Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 O

e

i 1

. .~f

' I

.i . '

g i I' -l.

m CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE- e. ]

'This.is'to certi'fy that copies of the foregoing were served by depos&t in the U.S. Ma'l first class, postage prepaid, this

/mP' day of Cb e,. , 1984 to those on the service list b,elow. ..

e. . .',  ;

4ceW D.

Susan L. Hiatt SERVICE LIST Peter B. .Bloch, Chairman Terry Lodge, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 618 N. Michigan St.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Suite 105 Washington,'D.C. 20555 , ,

Toledo, OH 43624 Dr. Jerry R..Kline Atomic Safety.& Licensing Board.

U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission

- ~

i.

Was'hington,'D.C. 20555 ,

Mr..Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety &. Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Colleen P. Woodhead, Esq. ,

Office of the' Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, D.C. 20555

~

Jay.Silberg, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge '

1800 M Street, NW

. Washington, D.C. 20036 Docketing & Service Branch 4

.Offi'ce of'the Secretary U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory., Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic. Safety.&, Licensing. Appeal.Bo'ard Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Washington,-D.C. 20555

<