ML20094E420

Reply to Applicant & NRC Responses to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 840706 Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue 6 Re Automated Liquid Control Sys.W/Svc List

ML20094E420
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	08/03/1984
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20094E406	List: ML20094E402 ML20094E420
References
OL, NUDOCS 8408090202
Download: ML20094E420 (9)

Text

-

F

~

Adigust 3,'l984 UNITED STATES OF A.". ERICA

~

NUCLEAR REGULA. TORY COMMISSION

,Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

~

In the Matter of. )

).

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC 4 ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos. 50-440 lCOAPANY, Et Al'. ) 50-441

- o ) (Operatin'g License)

T (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

JUnits 1 and 2) '

) -

-) _. .. . . . _ . . .

L e-mf:.- a m.~ m.

n .. s .

,, .z.

OCRE ' REPLY 'IO APPLICAhT AND NFC S'IAFF RESPONSES 'IO OCRS'S

. FMION FOR SEMARY- DISPOSITION OF ISSUE N3. 6 .

I. Introduction On July 6,1984 Intervenor Ohio Citizens for Repsonsible Energy ("OCRE")

filsd a notion for sumary disposition in its favor of Issue #6 which states:

~ Applicant should install an autarated standby liquid control system to mitigate.the consequences of an anticipated transient without scram.

- 'Ihe basis ;for the sumary disposition notica -is the Comission's new A'IWS rule, 10 CFR.50.62, specificallyJsection (c)(4), which requires an automated SICS

~

p' , Sfor BWRs granted a construction permit prior to July 25,.'1984 that have been ,,

4-s ,

designed and built to'. include that , feature. ,;

i  :. .

m y: .

Applicants and; Staff have filed;their responses. -See Applicants' E '

s r L ]

p Answer in Opposition to OCRE Motion for Sumary Dispositi6n s s of 3Issde s

No. 6 s 1 .4 > , a .. , .,

~ .

.  ; (" Applicants' - Answer") , dates July 30, 1984,,a@ NRC; Staff Response. V to - OCaE's xg<l

~

1 0 _

1Motien for,Sumary Dispositioh of. . .%

Issue #6 (" Stiff Response"); als,o dated 4* m (July 30,:1984; Surprisingly, both Staff and-Applicants oppose OCBE's Motion, '.*

J g

3 h^  : claiming.that the peiry facility has not been designed and built to include 3 the s . .c  % - a s autmated SICS.. Bechuse these reJhsses.t i 'ndorporate flawed logic and inaccurate s

~

.r. ll <

s. U .% n

• information' and fail hyt' thq sta$darkfor replies to sumaty' disposition

. w 3 y qyam. '

w

~

motions, their argumenGshosid be rejested:and CCRE!s' Motion granted. s

' . y.

, s- -

_ ~

• . . .; x 7.,u ; ,

• Q

% m, ~

• V*

• g ' My  %.s , ,

s  ; 8408090202 840803 +

, J

="

'~

• - * ,.-~ -

k  ?!- PDRJADOCK 05000440 C 4 :0~ h ._ i

~

Ji,. gy

. g. J. .. V"~ ' ~

14 - -

e- ~ M S *-Q}PDR .

gj

-a. : 4.u ... ,

,v ,

. LII. . Standards .for Peplies to Strmary Disposition Fbtions M It first must be recalled that strmary disposition is encouraged to Lresolve issues in the. Comission's licensing proceedings. Northern States Poaer

.00. f (Prairie ' Island. Nuclear Generating Plant Units 1 &' 2) , CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241

- (1973) . - See also the Comission's Statement of Policy on the Conduct of Licensing Proceedings,' CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452 (1981), where, -in subpart III. G, the use of W.,n.- - -

.sumary disposition is encouraged "on issues where there is no genuine issue of

' material fact so that evidentiary hearing turn is not unnecessarily devoted to

'such issues" (13 NRC 457) .

%e opponent of a sumary disposition notion cannot singly rely on Tallegation and denials; rather, the answer Wst set forth specific facts shcwing there is a genuine issue of fact. Virginia Electric and Pwer Co. (North Anna Power ' Station Units 1 & 2), AIAB-584,11 NBC 451, 453 (1980) . Also, an opponent

, to a summary disposition notion nust file a separate, short and concise statenent of. naterial facts in response to the notion, as required by 10 CFR 2.749(a) and

-by the Board's January. 28, 1983 Menorandum and Order (Reconsideration: OmH ty Assurance) slip op. at 3.

- On the latter point the Staff Response utterly fails and should therefore be~ rejected. And,:although Applicants have included the required statenent of

.natarial facts, there is no neans by which to shw that they are indeed fact,ual.

Applicants' ba]d assertions are not buttressed by affidavit, exhibit or any

- other basis' whatsoever. 'lhus, their answer falls into the category of nere Y  ; allegations and' denials, which must be rejected.

-Nor is.there a genuine issue of fact here, even if the Board were to consider the deficient replies of Applicants and Staff. 'Ihe Li nsing Amrd has ruled that a " genuine issue of material fact" must be one in which there is

, ' enough doubt to warrant holding a hearing to resolve the issue. thnorandum and

p q_ _ _ _ . _ _ . . - .

v. *~

1 I

Order of August 9,1983 (Sumary Disposition of Turbine Missile Issue), slip 1

. op. at 8. -

l 7here can be no doubt what the A'IES rule states. 10 CFR 50.62(c)(4) requires autmation of the SILS if a BWR facility has been clesigned and built to

/ include this feature. However, "this is a matter within the control of Applicants.

Irdeed, a CP holder could easily evade this requirenent by simply not building tbe pIant with an autanated SICS, even if the design called for autmation.

As is shown below, this is precisely what has happened, here.

Applicants clahn that Perry has not already been designed and built to include 'an autmated SICS. Of course it has .not. PNPP Unit 1 is far from

' finished; Applicants' latest esthnate for the canpletion of Unit 1 is late 1985.

[ Applicants have conceded' that Unit 2 may never be finished. See the news article "CEI Seeks $1 Billion. ' Cushion' for Perry", provided to the Board and parties by OCRE in its July 7,1984 letter. Even the SICS is not canpleted.

In their supplemental Answers to Interrogatories on Issues 6, 8, and 15, dated February 29,1984, . Applicants state in reply to Interrogatory. 6-13 (p. 5) that SIIS installation in Unit 1 is 80% complete, and 10% complete in Unit 2.

su Whether or not. the Perry SICS is autanated is within~ Applicants' control.

It is also'within the cantrol of the Licensing Board.

j' III. Applicants' Disregard for the Public Interest F-

'Jhe Licensing Board has stated that the hearing process is a way of r tEi.ing e the.public health and safety' and not just a sterile adversary process

(July 26,1984 Memorandun and Order (Particularization of Emergency Planning

-Contention)', p. 2). Nowhere is the public safety more important than in the consideration of the risks of A'1HS. 'lhe Board is certainly aware of the lsignificant risks of A'IWS in BWRs. Fran NUREG-0460 to the final A'IWS rule

~

~automaticn of the SILS is seen as reducing this risk substantially. Unfortunately, W - - -

w;.w_; ww_1 . . ., .,

.s

,J,

• P p '

.. ] _4_. ,

}

7-

--1 Applicants have continually resisted this safety improvement. They have g ---giadmission of the contention,. resisted discovery, sought dismissal of

' F; the issue pending issuance of the final A7WS nile, and, finally, they seek to evade the' mandate.of the rule by building the Perry facility,in such a manner Jas!to. escape its requirements. 'Certainly the Ccenission would not want its V zogulations so easily ciretzwented.'

W'.1 & & ; m z Indeed,

~

~

e - +-to continue the Board's " Jungle metapnor" (July 26, 1984 1

Memorandun and Order. at 4), it is fair to say that Applicants have been n stalking the ATNS rule like prey in the jungle. Documents obtained by OCRE through discovery, and attached hereto, demcostrate that Applicants have D achmilv sought-to avoid reducing the risk to. the public frcxn AWS.

' Exhibitil is a letter dated August 9,1982 from H.L. Hrenda and H.A.

' Putre' of.GI to R.C. Mitchell of General Electric. The letter states that

' the' automatic. SICS designed for Perry.should be replaced by manual initiation L~

iif allmed by the final ATWS rule. The uncertainty in the initiation

, mechanism puvLE:d Applicants..to request that their requested changes not be s

made priorfto delivery. Rather, the changes.were to be made on-site in the event that manual SICS . initiation is allowed by the Ccmnission's A7WS regulation.

[- Since no one.could know for certain what form the ATWS. rule would take until the Camissioners voted en'it, it is reasonable to infer that no such modifications 6- occurred until-recently, if at all. Thus, if Applicants are modifying the SICS Jh - ' for nanual. initiation, this action is clearly undertaken for the express purpose of evading the Comnission's intent to' reduce the risk of ATWS.

Exhibits 2-and 3, further correspondence between 2 and Applicants, discuss

the' costs :(in man-hours) of changing the T-supolied automatic SICS to manual.

These man-hour . estimates case grave doub't on the truthfulness of Applicants'

• a=aartion .that it would cost them money to autcrnate the SICS.

79 e

_ip*. .

~ IV. Conclusions Applicantsown correspondence with GE, their NSSS vendor, denenstrates that the' true,' GE-supplied design of the SICS is autmatic; hcwever, Applicants Ldesired the option <(which requires modificaticn of the as-shipped equiment)

of manual initiation if allowed by the final A'BG rule. 'Ihus, contrary to Applicants' assertions,. the PNPP SICS is designed to include autmatic initiation,

.a.

n. . . ufiCis hbeing built in aLun. Gum viiG1 Ulis design, it is duc to Applicantc' deliberateictions to avoid cmpliance with the ANS rule. 'Ibe bottcm line is that Applicants are willing to imperil the public to save the cost of a hypothetical' cvent (inadvertant SICS actuaticn, which has no adverse public health consequences) ..Ihis reprehensible behavior should.not be rewarded by the Li nsing Board.

'Ihe ccmpelling health and safety interests due to AWS risks demand

that Applicants be ordered.to acr: ply with the Ccmnission's regulations. In

- addition, Applicant and Staff replies to OCRE's suninary. disposition notion are so procedurally deficient that granting OCRE's notion is. required. Nor should

~

iApplicants be permitted to supplement what should have been an adequate response

, with their own surmary. disposition motion, as .they have prmised. 'Ihe facts

.are sufficient,to grant OCRE's motion; no doubt exists to. justify a hearing Ecn the matter, and the overriding public interest demands that OCRE's sumary Mvsition notion.be prcmptly granted.

cz - Respectfully submitted, MI -

Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rd.

Mentor, CH 44060 (216) 255-3158

$- n, e . . - . . ~ . - . .

p.-y- *

&z

.. r .

~ P.O. box 97 5 F E R fly, OHIO 4t.cB1 s T EL EPHoN E (216) 2ES-s777 E ADD REES- to CENTER RC A Serving The Best Lc:a: ion in the Ne:ior

[

( August 9, 1982 PY-CEI/ GEN-598 .,

Mr. R.-C. Mitchell Project Manager

. General Electric Co. g y ( g l"J" [

1.- - - 175 Curtner Avenue m-Re: PNPP Units #1 and #2 Quotation No. 149A Request for Modification

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

I -As previously discussed,to prevent inadvertent injections of boron into the reactor vessel, it has been determined that the automatic SLCS initiation and 1RWCU isolation provided by rhe subject quote should be replaced by a canual

~

initiation system. Because of uncertainty.concerning the final ATWS mitigation system requirements, this change should not be incorporated on the prnels prior to-delivery. The manual initiation system design should detail the changes required to the panels, so that these changes can be made at the site in the event manual initiation of the SLCS is allowed by the final ATWS rule, or if no rule is issued prior to startup of the Perry plant.

The manual initiation design should include an'nunciators to ensure the operator

" 'isLinformed of.th! event and is able to determine the necessity for SLCS initiation and'RWCU' isolation, within the 120-second period available. The operator will make this determination based on the APRM readings, after the 25-second delay associated with'ARI. operation. Since the SLCS initiation /RWCU isolation time has not been changed, no further plant analysis ~ should be required.

To support licensing schedules, it is requested that this design be completed and issued by. September 15, 1982. Additional manhours should be provided by T&M estimate by August 23, 1982. General Electric is authorized to proceed on this l design s'ubject to approval of the estimated manhours.

f Very truly yours,

[. ,

H. L. Hrenda Responsible Eni;ineer he HLH/1w

,_m, H. A. Putre Senior Engineer cc: lETLBuzzelliJ -R230 "

D.R. Green - W225 4L.SJWUbu - U250

~

7 :. a_ .. .- - -

E0 l:f/ ' Y b h h h G E N E R A L hj E l.E C T R I C nucteiR eoweR SYSTEMS DIVISION

'~ENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY.175 CURTNER AVE., SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95125 MC.392, (408) 925-2755 Io August 31, 1982 Responds'to: PY-CEI/ GEN-598

-PY-GFN/rFT-1722 INFORMATION 7 . -

RECElVED

Mr. H. A. Putre IfX l4 iS (T 2.

-Cleveland Electric lluminating Co. StP - 21982 P.O. Box 84-10 Center Road Perry, OH 44081 oocuo[0ff,,

SUBJECT:

MANHOUR ESTIMATE FOR SLCS INITIATION MODIFICATION.

The reference letter requested GEN to proceed on design of the change in the--ATWS package to replace automatic-by manual initiation of SLCS. As requested therein, our estimate for the effort involved is five-hundred twelve (512) manhours. l 8

h

We are proceeding to prepare a modification kit which includes specifi- t cation of'all the document revisions that will be needed. No document

revisions will be made;. however, and design of ATWS including _ automatic

' initiation will continue. - ~ ~

As indicated when this information was given by telecon to Mr. Hrenda on August'30, 1982, we expect to complete issuance of nod kit documentation i

/ by October 1,1982 and to deliver advance copies of it shortly thereafter.  !

t

n. .

Very truly yours,

~

i

<, f* f y l. t ROM: DOC. CON. TROL VDATE: 9/g I R. C. Mitchell COPIES TO.W#rg;f] -

Project Manager i MW O Perry Huclear Power Plant ' i

,K & fAo D l

RCM:hmm/D08316 " d

-:MJJM<t%isvu >

cc: P.- B. Gudikunst \ALnc/ k /fg <

J. J. Larsen U

1 l:

I W.- F. Miotti b

e

f. l . .q-I ., 4 C  :*

d.?-

u. ,

, .1

'.' (

y i

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPT.NY

_ P.O. BOX 97 m . PERRY. CHIO 44c81 m TEL EPHON E (216) 259-3737 m ADDRESS-10 CENTER ROAD

^

l F ,

Serving The Best Location in the Nation l PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ANo KAISE R EN GIN EE RS, IN C.

September 16, 1982 FY-CEI/ GEN-617 RECEIVFD SEP Z U 1982 Mr. R.-C. Mitchell p=+

w.

. 2 G r.eral Electric Company ~ '

175 [Curtner Avenue k'M/6/T 3 San Jose, CA'95125 Re: Perry Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Manhour Estimate for SLCS Initiation Modification Dnar Mr. Mitchell:

'The manhour estimate and completion date provided by your letter GEN /CEI-1722, for modifications to the A"'RS package to allow the incorporation of manual initiation Gf SLCS injection, are considered acceptable. Based on conversations with Mr. E. C.

Wood, it is understood that this estimate includes the modification kit documents n:cessary to incorporate the changes af ter equipment delivery, but does not include revisions to the Perry ATWS analysis report, NEDE- 25518.

R; visions-to the analysis report has been estimated to require 120 canhours. An

. cdoitional estimate of 100 manhours and 70 NBU of computer time has been provided

. f.:r the. performance of a sensitivity study.'to investigate the effects of different SLCS injection times.

The estimate for revisions to the analysis report is acceptable and this work should ba performed. Performance of the sensitivj.ty study is not required at this time.

Very truly yours, R. L. Brenda Responsible Engineer krY E. A. Putre Senior Engineer

'BLH/iv-

.. . R. reen

.{ Senio Project Engineer C3i J. E. Barros'- S120'. ~

'. [.c.' '~

• E. C. WiiY dn X TW2..J. 'E.

E. .M. . Buzzelli - R230 c

..'. 7.

~ '

>l'r. 6 M ile @ /41.2/SP-MI.[

~

[l ^l h *

t. g

,l

.I .i

i j

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .. .

G This'is to'certi'fy.that copies _of the foregoing were served by

.first class, postage prepaid, this y

deposit'in 4 #~ the day.ofU.S. Mail Av < v r ~,f- ,1984- to those on the

~

service list below. U i.

M M Susan L. Hiatt ww. .__~_.

~

w A SERVICE. LIST 9

Peter-B. Bloch, Chairman Terry Lodge, Esq.

ntomic,Sa'fety &_ Licensing Board 618 N . Michigan St.

1U.'S.' Nuclear Regulatory Comm. ~

Suite 105

- -:e .'

(Washington,-D.C.. 20555 .  !

.i Toledo, OH 43624

.-Dr.; Jerry R. Kline -

. Atomic Safety.&.Licen. sing Board-.

i U.S., Nuclear. Regulatory Commission

.' Washington j', D . C . 20555 ,

.Mr..'Glenn O. Bright .

O .-

~Atomicf. Safety-&. Licensing Board

^U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A. . ~ -

Washington, D.C. L20555-A7

• :. Colleen P. Woodhead, Esq.

v . Office..of the' Executive _ Legal Director IU f

.-U.S . -Nuclear Regulatory Commission ..

[> -

Washington,.D.C. 2 0555 '

Jay [Silberg.,. Esq.- _

t .

.7 Shaw', Pittman; Potts, & Trowbridge  ::

j.

- . _ 1800TM1 Street, NW

. Washington, D.C._ 20036 - .

};

i

(* , Docketing & Service Branch E

.Offi'ce

of'the Secretary .

~.

U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission

~

- Washin,gton, -D ;C.

~

20555

~

- Atomic; Safety.&, Licensing Appeal. Board Panel

~

U.S.' Nuclear. Regulatory _ Commission n .  !

74 - '. l Washington,- D.C. 20555 5

__....,_.i( _ _ ._ _ ,_

- - - - - --- , ,__