ML20106G321

Reply to Applicant Response to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 850122 Motion to Reword Issue 8 Re Hydrogen Control.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20106G321
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	02/11/1985
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20106F890	List: ML20106F889 ML20106G321
References
OL, NUDOCS 8502140340
Download: ML20106G321 (10)

Text

m

'e s:

February 11, 1985

.e.x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sefore the Atomic Sofety and Licensing Board

{-Ja

.In the Motter of

• 0'~ FEB

)

)

S

)

Docket Nos. 50-4 O /A7g

~ iTHE'CLEVEt1ND ELECTRIC

)

? ~3Cc f50,441 OL

. ILLUMINATING CO. ET AL.

~ )

' M, ; f y g, -

~

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,

)

n.[ju'-

)

Units 1 and 2)

OCREtREPLY TO APPLICANT 5' Resp 0NSE w.-

TO OCRE MOTION TO REWOPO ISSUE M8

. - ~

__ _._ _. l 4

j This brief is in response to.the'new information and arguments containee in. Applicon'es ' response (filed February 6.

-1985).to'OCRE's'Jonuary 22, 1985 Motion to-Reword Issue'N8.

JApplicants claim that the implementation provisions of the Commission's:new degraded core hydrogen control rule preclude-e-

the-consideration of onyc hydrogen control matters other thon'the preliminary analysis required in '10 CFR 50,44 (c) (3) (vii)'(B).

7 Appiicants state that the rule ' places significant' discretion y,

~ stoff-to determine what-fconstitutes o satisfactory with?the l

preliminary onalysis.* -Applicants further. claim thatUthe.

? p r e l i m i n'o r y analysis ' only ex te'nds : to porographI (c) (3) (iv) ( A).'

h ondithatlthe-Commission-' intended to exclude" the: requirements t

n:

, i e,~

f oi Norographs '(c) (3) (iv) (B), :(V ), and (Vi).

Applicants' 1

' Response f ot 6-7.

at

'LikeLProcrustes, Applicants have stretched the rule to fit ve

-their?own,* interpretative bed., ;The new rule is not o'model of.

me O' Ed

- clarity:en.this.Pointi-however,,a careful reading will yield-o.

' conclusion Just;the-opposite.ofDApplicants.-

Porograph

~ "

disprA*M

'=%=79

-f@

99--*

g

,y-.

-.w..

,ua~

' "=

(c) (3) (vii).(B). requires OL oppliconts to comply with porograph (c) (3) (iv) ( A) before exceeding 5% power.

The lotter porograph require 5 ~ o hydrogen control system,, Justified by a suitable-i:

program of experiment and onolysis, capable of handling the Lamount orihydrogen generated from o 75% metal-woter reaction without loss of containment structural integrity, Porograph (vi) (B) delineotes further requirements for the.

analysis.of"the hydrogen control' system, which it is to support.

Bosically, this section reiterates the' requirements Of

_Poro9Pophs (iv) and (v),

i.e.,

that o 75% metal water reoccion x

Lbe postulotede that containment integrity be maintoined, and r

t

that. equipment' survivability be demonstrated...Porograph (vii) (B) s tates' that a complete final analysistis not.necessary-

.for"'c.stafffdetermination that the_ plant con operate safely ct 9u11 power'provided'that a satisfactory'. preliminary analysis is l

g.

homple'ted before full power operation.

7.. _

'It-is clear'that the 'onalysis' mentioned in por'ograph-(iv) ( A) -is lthe same.05-the_'onalysis': of : Porogroph C(Vi) f and ' the f

' c o m p l e't e final analysis' o'r porograph :(Dii) (B).

It isinot 7-cleor' exactly'what the preliminary analysi's must encompass, butJ

+

i..

... t 1

.it.is. logical to assume'thatLit is onfincomplete version 1of'the

,3IE

• itinal"onalysis, cov'ering-the'some; subjects, but-not necessarily; ito;the some degree.:

E.9...Perhaps final experimentalxcesults

+

migdt'nothbe=needed for.the preliminary analysis, but some-J

.7

(.

' Justification'should be given for: believing-that the experiments'

~

wi11 confirm 1thenonalyticol conclusions..

2

.,_.-._m.._._2._,.

._-.n~_.__._~.

r a

t

l

_3 i

There is no evidence that the r*eliminary analysis is to be F

limited to paragraph (iv) ( A) and excludes the requirements of Poro9rophs (iv) (B), (v), and (vi), os Applicants claim.

Rother, it-is clear that-the analysis of porograph (iv) ( A) is coupled to

.those'in porographs (iv) (B) ~ ond (V) and that these together ore the-Some 05 th0t in porograph (vi),

Applicants' assertion that they need not' comply in any fashion to the requirements of paragraphs (iv) (B)', -(v), and (vi) is clearly false.

Applicants co,rrectly state that the rule Places great discretion'with the staff to determine what is on adequate, preliminary analysis.

However, in a contested proceeding, the

.'s t o f f is ndt the trier of focks the Licensing Board is.

The stoff's views are no more. binding on the Board ~ than are those of Lony other party, as the staff is just another party,. Vermont yonkee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yonke? Nuclear Power Station). ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 532 (1973): Consolidated' Edison (Indian Point Nuclear.. Generating Station, Units 2 S'3), ALAB-04,13 NRC 1.6 (1976): Southern Colirornio Edison (San Onofre-

~

~

. Nuclear Generating station, 2 S 3), ALAB-260, 1.NRC 383. 389

g

.(1975).

No acceptance-criterio or,other regulatory guidance hos ye,t Ebeen' developed by.the staff,'ond evenm ir it'were ovoilable, i t' would not kHP binding--on'the Board.

Porter Coun' y Chopter of-the ir oak uairon Leocue or Americo v.'AEC, 633 F2d 1011 (1976) (and-

/

. mony ' AppeoirBoard -decisions,.. AL AB-229, -217, -216, -188, -179, a.

'and -444)...Thus, the adequacy or, Applicants preliminary i

.....a.

_ ~ -...

w

_4-analysis is o mother for the Licensing Board to decide.

The Boord may rind this onolysis so deficient that power opePotiOU must be denied until on acceptable complete final analysis is provided.

Applicants' assertion that no requirements or the rule other than the preliminary analysis neec be met prior to OL issuonce is circular reasoning, os the time and criterio for OL issuance are mothers entirely within the control of the Licensing Board.

Indeed, the Licensing Board even has the authority, pursuant to the brood cose management "oWers of 10 CFR 2.718, to direct the Stort in setting the schedule for the complete rinol b)Orrshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power onelysis.

Plants), ALAB-489, O NRC 194, 208-(1978).

'CD3ecisionmaking Within the Commission should be both

• sound and timely.'

If this is to be achieved, the boards and storf must coordinate their operutions.'

8 NRC at 203.

'CIn.the3 obsence of ony rigid scheduling criterio by statute or' regulation,Cthe3 responsibility for scheduling lies With the licensing boards.

Cond3 although entitled to recognition, the convenience or the litigants cannot be deemed dispositive on scheduling matters.

The poromount-consideration ~is Where the broader public lies.'

8 NRC at 208, citing potomoc Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-277, 1 NRC 539 (1975).- Clearly the broader public interest lies in having a full and complete record of.the adequacy of all racets of Appliconts' hydrogen control system 1,. N o t'e also that the times given in pordgraph (vii) for submitting and setting schedules for complionce ore maximum times, which th" Poord may st.orten for good cause.

10 CFR 2.71l.

- m,.j a

..for 0. sound, decision before the, Perry facility operates.

10 - CFR ' 50. 44 (c) (3) (vii) (D) lists the factors the Staff (and in-o coniested' proceeding, the Boo'rd, in accordonce with ALAb-If89).must'take ~inko'occount When setting the final schedule for compliance with the hydrogen control rule.

These factors

' include the status of efforts to comply-with the rule, the impacts of the sched'ule on other safety modifications, and the'

~ Commission's obJeetive that compliance be achieved without undue delay.

Given that Appliconts have been foced with this. issue for;3: years, and.that they are, port of the Hydrogen Control-

.0wners Group,.which.is: sponsoring research ~on o generic basis

~

cfor.the. Purpose of suppor ting -Mark.'III l licensing,-it is not unreasonable'to. expect; Applicants to' submit' k

io substantially. complete analysis'for the' Board's consideration-ot-the :heoring,- Such oIschedule~is consiskent with the-

~

l Commission's geol or prompticoma*;ionce.

':To'rollow Applicants'? suggestion would be.to defer this

' issue-to the Stoff~for post-heoring' resolution. -Suchiociion-is i

expressiy' prohibited byJNRC precedent.

The" Commission hoso

~

stateh:

iw LA5/cigeneral proposition,, issues Should be dealt'.withfin:the.

[heorings,ond notl1'ef"t'over for(later-(ond'possibly more.

~

,C 9 iinformal) resolution..;.

the mechanism'or-post-heoring:

-icesolu tioni mus t Lno t.ibe employed *;to:~cbvia te the,bosic findings 4

- pr.erequisi te ^ to a an.' opera ting. license ' - l including-c' reasonable !

os surance 'tha tf'the. f acility. ' con be, opera ted without-endangering khe' health.and safetygor.:the public.u 10 CFR150.57. 'In short,~

~

the ' post-heoring' opproach?Whould be# employed sparingly and

'on1'yfin clear. cases.o -In'doubtfulfcases,.:.the matter should be.

! resolved in'on;odversary fromework? prior to nissuonce of

. licenses. reopening henrings;ir;necessary.

j;.

7.

D

E s

' Consolidated-Edison (Indian Point, Unit 2), CLI-74-23, 7 AEC 951-52 (1974),. citing Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beoch

' Unit 2), CLI-73-4, 6 AEC 6 (1973).

See also Cleveland Electric Illuminoting Co. (Perry 1 62), ALAB-298. 2 NRC 730, 736-7 (1975)

'(o boord connot delegate its obligotions to the starr.

the I board's dutie's cannot be fulfilled by the stoff, however conscientious its work may be)

Washington Public Power supply system (Honford Unit 2),'ALAB-113, 6 AEC 251, 252 (1973) (it was

-incumbent upon the licensing boord to determine for itself at least whether, statutory prerequisites for the issuance of the permit-hod.been.rulfilleds that determination could not rightly be 1,

.left to the-starr): Publie Service Co. of-Indiono (ftarble : Hill),

A L A B - 4'6 1, 7 NRC 313, 318 (1978)s Commonweoith Edison (Byron Station Unitsc.1 and 2), LBP-84-2, 19 NRC 36, 210-12 (1984).

Removing this' is sue (or any facet thereof).f rom the hearing would also violate Section 189-or the Atomic Energy Act by

~,

This removing on issue material to the licensing' decision.

. situation is. entirely analogous:to.thot in Onion 3r ' Concerned Scientists'v. NRC, Cose No.- 82-2053 (DC Cdr. May24, 1984),

,b

' cert.' denied __ U.S.___,'whichivocated the Commission: rule

-providing that o' licensing.boardineed not' consider the results or emergency-planning.excercises before authorizing o rull' power g

- o p e r a t i n g ' 1'i c e n s e.

The: Court he'1d that the NRC may not deny o

heoringjen on. issue material to issuance of on operating s s

-license.

~7-The UOS decision oppears related to the principle of Indion point and similar decisions concerning post-heoring resolution of on issue by the staff.

It is clear that Congress exempted froni formal hearing procedures decisions resting solely on inspections, tests, or elections.

5 USC 554(o) (3).

Such mothers might be oppropriate for post-heoring resolution by the staff.

But, when the decision involves o centrol decisionmaker's consideration and Weighing of m o tiy other persons' observations and first hond Experiences, questions of credibility, conflicts, and sufficiency surface and the ordinary reasons for requiring a hearing come into the picture.

Slip op.

or 27.

t Obviously the odequacy of Appliconts' hydrogen control system is not determined by simple tests or inspections, but involves Judgement by centrol decisionmak,ers. ~This is precisely the type of issue'that must be resolved by the adverserial adjudicatory process.

Applicants oiso attack OCRE*s updated interrogatory responses os

'a selectiv, discussion of bits and pieces of information' providing 'no explanation of Why Applicants Will be unable to meet' the new rule.

On the contrary. 0CRE*s updated response outlines grove deficiencies in Applicants' hydrogen control system and supporting program of experiment and onolysis.

The responses are self-explonatory, and are intended to fulfil OCRE>s obligation to update discovery responses.

It

e

. s.

~ ~ ~ ~ -.

-,c._..,...

u 4.

v,

's to that.the information provided was responsive must.beirecolled information on the use of

' Applicants' interrogatory seeking system (including containment

~ igniters as a hydrogen control 2

-integrity now claim to be survivability), matters Applicants

and equipment beyond the

'& cope of Issue.MS.

in preparing the some' selectivity'Was excercised While to interrogatories are

responses, this is necessary,-os onswers merely brood statements complete in;themselves and'not tol be c that the'information' sought is to be found in a moss of ondl2),

Edison-(Byron station, Units 1 documents.

Commonwealth ALAB-678, 15'NRC 1400-(1982).

In any event, OCRE's analysis is

'no more selective than Applicants' onalysis will be.'

.q_

f.. -. L _._ _

some of-the deficiencies' u,,

Applicants fi,.011y complain.'that i-OCRE in its updated interrogatory response.oppear to

.coised by challenge the new' rule,-os the= rule does not require automatic actuation or'o-backup power' supply ~for hydrogen control systems.

Applicants'. response ot 8,.(n.210.- ' The Commission simplyfchose these features-on o generic basis for all.Mork no t. to reciuire IIIsiond.iceicondensers.- ~Nothing. prevents-ony licensee from odding-lthese' features. Voluntarily.

Nothing prevents onlicensing

~

these modificationt to be mode,-if the

! board from, ordering '

t X

recordiincony.,porticular cose indicates that-they. ore necessary.

s

~

4

~W'-*

7 jt

? W ~

W-g i+ M.

,.,.mww.7-w.

..Q.y,;.

u J

_)

w._c

+::

e 9

Respectfully submitted, Susan L.

Hiott OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rd.

hantor. OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 o

e 1

I

i.

j

~

l f

r

1 J

l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

,?

This is to certi'fy that copies of the foregoing were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this

// F4 day of 6044uer y 1986 to those on the.

service list b,elow.

q)

'.. +

t

=

AA

~

Sus ~an L.

Hiatt

~

?

SERVICE LIST

-~

~

I JAMES P. GLEASON, CHAIRMAN Terry Lodge, Esq.

ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOAAD 618 N. Michigan St.

513 GILHOURE DR.

Suite 105 SILVER SPRING, MD 2090-I Toledo, OH 43624 3,

Dr. Jerry'R..Kline Atomic Safety..& Licen. sing Board.

U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission-i WasEington,"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 N

Jay.Silberg, E'sq.

i Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge 1

1800 M Street, NW l.

. Washington, D.C.

20036

{j o

Docketing'& Service Branch

.Offi'ce of'the Secretary U.S., Nuclear Regulatory. Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Atomic. Safety.&, Licensing. Appeal.Bo'ard Panel U.S. duclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 i

I

,