ML20125A510
| ML20125A510 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1975 |
| From: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Heineman R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212080375 | |
| Download: ML20125A510 (1) | |
Text
T.
[
I DISTRIBUTION
$Q=1Q3 NDock" Aug 35 197 5 ORB #2 Reading Subject File l
'I I
Robert E. lleineman, Director, Division of Technical Review, NRR I
TECilNICAL ASSISTANCI; IWQUliST NO. Ordl-2-179 Plant Name: Monticello Docket Nu::ber:
50-263 Dranch Code: ORB-2 l'roject Manager:
D. C. Iluckley (7403)
Technical T,cview Branch.
Reactor Systems Branch Requested Completion Date: January 5.1976
}
Description of Request.
Pleaso }'rovide suitable written testimony with regard to the Minnesota rollution Control Agency's (MPCA) ATWS contention on the Monticello f acility i
1 which the Licensing board formally admitted on August T,, 1975. A copy of the Order is enclosed.
4 Your testimony should include an evaluation of the licensee's proposed fix and the schedule for imple-mentation of the required design modifications.
I Please identify the individual assigned to provide testimony on this issue.
i i
Original Signod by'J DennisL.Ziemann]
Dennis 1i71cLann, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Lecctor Licensing Enclosure-Memorandtra and Order by ASLB dtd. 8/5/75 cc w/ enclosure:
T. M. Novak cc w/o enclosure:
K. R. Coller T. J. Carter R. M. Diggs g
B. C. Buckley
,h S. A. Varga g% L.I
_ R,,L RB. _
- bRB_f2 o, r.c.,
.u.....>
.BCB ek e :al DLZiemann
. 81.Ell15
.8/kil5 o r. +
Forse AEC.)lt (Rev. 9-3)) AECM 0140 W u. e. sovanawant oneuvine oerisse tops.eae..ee 9212000375 750825 i
PDR ADOCK 05000263 l
p PDR
_a
Q
~
w.
AN
,.1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLl'AR ltrGULATORY COMMISSION on... d *1 \\*.'l.7.'
g owy De fore _t he At omic Sa fet y and Licensing Board
- g. I ch j
s In the Matter of
)
)
NOllTilERN STATUS POWER COMPANY )
Doche t No. 50-203
)
(Monticello Nuclear
)
Generating plant, Unit 1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDEll MPCA's Motion Concerning Anticipated Transients Without Scram On May 7, 1975, during a hearing session in the above-captloned proceeding, Intervonor Minnesota pollution Control Agency (MPCA) ifled with the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) and parties a document entitled
Submtssion of Addi tional Contentions."
The contentions raised therein related to the Applicant's analysis of the consequences of anticipated plant transients in the event i
of a postulated tailure to scram.
At the request of the l
Board, MPCA filed a reframed contention in the form of a "Subniission of Itevised Addi tional Contention" (hereafter, Contention C.1) on May 14, 1975.
In response to the
~
requests of the parties on May 15, 1975 (Tr. 1817), the Board agreed to defer its ruling on MpCA's motion to admit Contention C.1, in order to permit all parties to have the opportunity to file written Icgal arguments. Thereafter, 4
o p g.,(^) W
2 on.luiu. 2, 1975, Nort hern St a tes power Company, (the i
Applicant) and the N'uclear Itegulatory Commission Staff (the Stati) each filed a response to MPCA's submission of the additional contention.
In addit J on MPCA filed a memo-4 randum of law dated June 3, 1975.
By way of background, it is to be noted that one of MPCA's contentions in this proceeding (Contention 11-33) was admitted as a challenge to the appropriateness of the staff assertions of low probability of Class 9 accidents as set forth in the F,inal Environmental Statement.
Pur-suant to an agreement between counsel for the Staff and MpCA,
'the Staff's prepared testimony on Contention 11-33 was limi ted to consideration of two kinds of Class 9 accidents, pressure vessel failure and anticipated transients without scram (ATWS).
The Staff's testimony on ATWS was considered during the evidentiary hearing in this proceeding on May G and 7, 1975.
As noted above. MPCA's motion to introduce additional ATWS f
cont entions was presented during.the course of the eviden-tiary hearing on May 7, 1975.
Contention C.
l', as. revised is as follows:
l i
i-I e
s
~
e g
,-e-,
=
I
~
'[
3 t
l The Monticollo plant, as it is currently engi-neored and operated, does not conform to the Staff's i
safoty objective with regard to the probability of ATWS.
Thorofore, the plant should be modified so as to reduce the probability of such incidents.
The basis for the contention is stated to be tho following:
(1)
" Supplemental Testimony of Nucicar Regulatory Commission Staff on Contention Il-33," particularly pp. 3 and 92.
(2)
" Technical Report on Anticipated Transients Wit hout Scram f or Water-Cooled Ranctors " WASit-1270, which
~
is referenced in the Supplemental Testimony and was served on the parties niong with the Supplemental Testimony.
(3) Cross-examination of Staff witnesses (Tr. at j
1043-1040).
(4)
Anticipated Transients.Without Scram: Study i
for the Monticello Generating Plant," NEDO-20846 (5)
Letter of April 1, 1975, from'L.O. Mayor, Manager of Nuclear Support Services, Northern States Power Company, to A, Giambusso. Director, Division of Reactor Licensing, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In its response, Applicant requests that the Board reject Contention C.1 because it is overly vague as. well j
i f
as being-prematuro.
With regard to the latter, Applicant argues that WASII-1270 makes it clear that for.the Monticello I
i e---
s r--c'4 vi r<&-r-*
"*w--=v-"-5--*=
-'4 w-
- -y e
-v tv* - - - ' - - *
=
e---v+--*-Fwo-tw+--'e'-+t-~~-***
'-e-'
- w'w**w'r*
+
a, l
j 7
j 4
4 f
plant (and others in its category), "the Stall's position t o its safety objective is to be delormined by the as Sta'fr on an individual case basis," and that the Staff cvaluation which has not yet been donc for Monticello, l
will take f rom four to six months to complete.
I The Staff supports the admiusion of MPCA's Contention C. I as an issue in controversy in this proceeding and for urgos the lloard to find that MPCA has shown good cause i
\\
the nontimely filing of the contention.
' ~
The sufficiency of Contention C.1 must be measured anninst the requirements bf 10 CFR 92.714 of the Commis-j sion's Itules~or Practico.
In accordance with $2.714(a), the contention must be stated with reasonable specificity and l
with some basis provided.
Northern States Power Company (Prairic Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
'ALA3-107, RAI-73-3 at 188, 194 (March 29, 1973).
If the 1111ng is nontimely, tne petitioner must also make a substan-i lial showing of good cause for failure t'o file on time.
he believe that Contention C.1-is c1carly stated wit.h reasonabic specificity and with sufficient basis provided.
(See:
Virginia Electric and Power' Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-146, RAI-73-9 at G31, 633 (September 14, 1973);
Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 5
4
'~
+
g
,s
,~
-y
.----,-,w--.
v
~-
i
(
l tinlis 1 and 2) ALAH-136, ilAl-73-7 at 487, 489 (July 12, 1973)).
In order to determine whether MpCA has shown good cause for the lato filing of the revised contention, it is necessary to consider the history of the ATWS matter as it relates to the d
Monticello plant.
In September,1973 the Staff issued a " Technical iteport
]
on Anticipated Transients without Scrart. (ATWS) for Water-Cooled power Reactors", WASil-1270.
This Iteport established d
.tbree categories (A, B, and C) of nuclear power roactors and
)
prescribed " prog' rams of impicmentation" with respect to ATWS cons iderat ions f or each category.
(Id_., Appendix A), Monticel1Lo i
in11s within Category C, applicable-to plants for which neither l
the Contmission's Safety Evaluation lleport nor the Advisory Committee on lleactor Safeguard's lleport at the construction permit stage identified ATWS as a matter under review.
For 1
Category C plants the Staff required submission by October 1, 1774 of analyses of ATWS consequences and* reviews of reactor shutdown system design.
Thereafter, the Staff would determine i
the need for plant changes on "an individuni case basis".
(Id., p. 90).
4 '
d I
j-
~
v v
,--,r,-y
.y..,. -
,r,-o, y...u-y-.,..w..
-r
+-*C----.-*
n
-r-+w+-yw
--we--*-e-v-+-r-t w-+
+-+wi em-
m.
i pursuant to WASH-1270, the Applicant submitted on October 1, 1974,a review of the design of Monticello's reactor protection system (NEDO-20G35, " Evaluation Report--
I Common Mode Failure Vulnerability of Reactor Protection System Instrumentation for the Monticello Nuclear Generat-l j
and was granted an extension until April 1, ing Station")
i On April 1, 1975 to file its analysis of ATWS consequences.
filed this analysis in a document i
1975, the Applicant entitled " Anticipated Transients Without Scram Study for I
the Monticello Nuclear Generating plant" (NEDO-2084 6).
l its revised contention is based upon MPCA states that the Applicant's April 1, 1975 submittal on ATWS consequences and the testimony (including the coverir.g lett er thereto) i the recently completed hearing session.
of Staff witnesses at In NEDO-20846 the Applicant's vendor (General Electric) clearly states that "... if a serious ATWS event is postu-2 lated,. the conditions could exceed the Gcueral Electric i
guidelines without plant changes". (p.3)
For that reason, continues, "... minimal plant modifications are I
G. E.
considered in this analysis".
G.E.
then proceeds to enumer-4 ate the follovire plant modifications:
recirculation pump t in, and modification of the Automatic trip, feedwater pumn Depressurization Syeier*,
l'he Staff concluded after revi.w-e ing NEDO-2084G that "... the analysis submitted was not for i
the facility presently constituted.
It was for.a hypo-i l
l l
~
L.
-.1.
i;
n
)
7 t
thetical facility." (Tr. 1054) The report does not, there-fore, comply with the requirements set forth in WASil-1270, L.o., an analysis of ATWS consequences based on existing a
Monticello configuration.
(Appendix A, particularly pp. 89-90)
A further conflict betwoon the Staff and Applicant regarding ATWS was revealed in the April 1, 1975 submittal and t he Staf f's response thereto at the recent hearing.
The Applicant, despite its recognition that plant changes will be necessary to accommodate serious ATWS events,
v concludes in its covering letter (p. 2) that "... we do not believe backfitting of Monticello is presently warranted."
i Responding to that conclusion a Staff witness stated that i
"... the letter does not agree with the present Regulatory Staff position that backfitting is required for the Monticello facility." (Tr. 1143)
't is apparent, therefore, that MPC,A could not have P:.w e Applicant's position on whether backfitting is r.
unti.' it received, at the same time as the Staff, the ~ i.1 1,
1975 report.
Nor could MPCA have known the i
Staff's position on backfitting until it heard the testimony i
of the Staff at the recent hearing session.
I'
{
i 1
1 l
1-
8 Section 2.714 of 10 CFR establishes a standard for admission of nontimely filings.
That standard requires a petitioner to make "a substantini showing of good cause" to justif y the lateness of his/her actions.
Four factors are set out, to which the Board must give special consid-eratton.
They are:
(1) The availability of other means whereby the pet i tioner's int erest will be protected.
(2)
The. extent to which the petitioner's participa tion may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(3)
The extent to which petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(4)
The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
While it is true that WASH-1270 has been available for some one and one-half years, its application to this pro-
[
i ceeding and to this plant was finally established only in t he St af f's t estimony on MPCA Contention 11-33, served on the parties in late February, 1975.
Further, it was not until the receipt of the Applicant's April 1, 1975 letter transmitting NEDO-20846, that MPCA became aware that the l
l Applicant's position on this issue was in such fundamental conflict with that of the Staff.
Until that time, MPCA l
might have determined that the Applicant and the Staff I
l could come to agreement as to the appropriate retrofit for i
s.
w
,e_
n
2 4
4 m_.
4
- -. - ~.
a..--
i 9
Monticello, thereby negating the necessity _for the Board to consider this matter, Finally, it was not until MPCA's cross-examination of Staff witnesses during the recent evidentiary session in this proceeding, that the conflict between the Applicant and the Staff became direct and obvious, and theref ore became an issue to which MPCA could legitimately and appropriately respond.
in view of the above, the question of tardiness does not arise, MPCA has acted as expeditiously as possible in an effort to bring the issue before the Board as soon as its scope and details became clear to MPCA.
An examination of the factors cited in 10 CFR 2.714 shows that MPCA's contention Col should be admitted as an issue in this proceeding, l
There are no other means by which the safety of the l
Monticello plant in the event of an ATWS and the extent of the consequences of such an event can be considered fully and publicly before an impartial tribunal such as this Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board.
With regard to whether MPCA's participation on this issue may. assist in develop-
)
ing a sound record, had MPCA not raised this issue, there-would be no record at all.
Similarly, one cannot conclude that as to MPCA's interest in the matter of ATWS events and l
I h
n
- 9 q
~
.........u....
10 their consequences can be adequately represented by
" existing parties,"
While there is an obvious conflict if between the Applicant and the Staff on this issue, MpCA's contention is not admitted, there will be consid-eration of this issue before the Doard, but no party will represent MPCA's position.
The Appeal Board has provided some guidance as to the extent to which delay in the proceeding should preclude
' consideration of new issues.
In considering a motion to reopen the record, the Appeal Board in the Matter of Vermont Yankee _ Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-271, ALAB-124, RAI-73-5, 358 at 3G5, said:
l In this same vein, the applicant has suggested that the effect of granting the rotion to reopen would be to permit i ntervenors tm.scize as a justification for reopening a hoaring,
- upon, every 1ctter which the staff, in the exorcise of i ts continuing regulatory responsibility, sends to an applicant.
Thus, according to the applicant, an intervenor would be abic to prevent indefinitely the termination of the proceeding and the rendition of an initial decision authorizing the issuance of an operating license.
O l
i m
v
.,,-w
,,m.-ew c-~-,
e-
,b y-
~re
..-e.
..a n
11 We cannot accept the applicant's unstated premise that the desirability of completing the hearing outweighs the need to resolve potentially serious sa fety mat ters.
This is so even though the staff believes that the matters raised by a 1ctter do not warrant consideration in the hearing but instead can be handled by the staff outside the hearing process.
The intervenors have every right, in presenting contentions for consideration, to rely upon consequential safety matters brought t o light by the staf f's technical experts.
In short, delay in the issuance of an operating license attributable to an intervenor's ability to present to a licensing board legitimate contentions based on serious salcty problems uncovered by the stal f would est ablish not that the licensing system is being frustrated, but that it is working properly.
Any delay in such a-situation would be fairly attrib-utable not.to the intervenors but to the non-readiness of the facility for operation.
Delay in the issuance of 1he license is entirely appropriate -- indeed, in that circumstance.
mandated (Emphasis added.)
The facts giving rise to this decision are closely analogous to the extant situation and the decision should be dispositive of any argument based on delay.
As in the Vermont Yankee decision, the intervenor, here MPCA, has raised before the Board a serious safety question.
Indeed, an argument based on delay ~is even weaker in this proceeding since the record in this proceeding has not been closed, so any inconvenience or prejudice attendant to s
admission of the contention is surely less than it would have been in the Vermont Yankee setting.
q 12
~~
More general guidance as to the standard which the
/
Board must use has also been provided by the Commission.
Its order of September 29, 1972, in Matter of Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) has long provided a precedent for Licensing floa rds in considering new issues.
The Commission said:
We note our longstanding practice of permit ting amendments to petitions to intervene for good cause shown.
Unless special considerations dictate otherwise in specific circumstances, information appearing in previous]v unavail-new able documents would general) v constitute good cause for amendment, assuming of course that the request to amend is expeditiously presented and is otherwise proper.
Such determinations rest in the sound discretion of the Licensing Board.
(Emphasis added.)
t As noted earlier, MPCA's Contention C.1 is based on documents and information available only shortly before the motion to add the contention was made.
Therefore, according to the Commission's standard, MPCA has made a Jully satisfactory showing of " good cause" for its filing of Contention C.1 at this-point in the proceeding.
Because the issue raises a serious safety question, - any possible delay in the -issuance of - Monticallo's full term operating license due to admission'of this contention is entirely l
l appropriate -- indeed, mandated.
Accordingly, MPCA's motion 1
is granted and Contention C.1 is admitted as an issue in j
this proceeding.
- +
e
- c..
13 Appendix I Impicmentation At Monticello During the course of the hearing the Commission issued a new regulation, Appendix I to 10 CFR 50.
Inasmuch as many of MpCA's contentions were directed at quantities of radioactive effluents released by the Monticello plant and the attendent health effects, the Board asked the parties for guidance as to how the new regulation should be applied in this proceed-ing.
Oral arguments were heard on two occasions during the recently concluded session of the hearing.
Counsel for Applicant argued that with the adoption"of Appendix I, the Intervenor's contentions dealing with "as low as practicable" were mooted; and that the hearing should be concluded without those contentions.
He pointed out that under Appendix 1, j
the Applicant had a choice of options. (1) The Appendix I, 4
Section II guides could be met by the plant or (2) the Appli-I 4
cant could demonstrate that the radioactive emission from the plant would be kept "as low as practicable" as provided in Sec.
I.
The Board was advised that Applicant-was not prepared to state which option it would choose at this time.
Further Applicant has until June 4, 1976 to submit its proposal f or meeting Appendix I guides.
MPCA argued that whether the present contentions are moot depends upon the option chosen by the Applicant.
Therefore, counsel for MPCA moved for 1
--es-3
,.y
i 14 permission to submit new contentions and suggested that the record be held open until the Applicant has submitted its g
proposal for complying with Appendix I, so that at that time its contentions or MpCA would be in a position to revise
}
The NRC Staf f counsel is of the choose to withdraw them.
opinion that~ present contentions are moot, but urges that the record be held open'and that MpCA be given an opportunity to submit revised contentions.
We The Board has carefully weighed all arguments.
consider that compliance with Appendix I is an important issue and is the heart of the MPCA's contentions.
However we do not believe that a requirement for the presentation of further testimony would be productive prior to the receipt of Applicant's proposal for implementation.
Therefore, the Board has determined to hold the record open in this proceed-until resolution of the Appendix I issue is possible.
- ing, The Board notes that the Staff has agreed to keep the l.
Intervenors advised during the coming months. while revised technical specifications are being considered.and a final The Board position document is prepared by the NRC S taf f.
urges all parties to work together in an attempt to reach a If at stipulation concerning the Intervenor's contentions.
any time it becomes apparent to any party that such an k
\\
r m-a-y y
15 unreement is not possible, or that the Applicant's proposal f or complying wit h Appendix I is not satisfactory to either the Staf f or Intervonors, we will entertain a motion for reconvening the hearing for the receipt of_further evidenco on this issue.
FOR Tile ATO.'.11C SAFETY AND 3
LICENSING BOARD M[
Robert M.
Lazo
'j Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of August, 1975.
I w