ML20128K444
| ML20128K444 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1996 |
| From: | Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Bollwerk G, Kelber C, Lam P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#496-17970 96-717-02-OLA, 96-717-2-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9610110072 | |
| Download: ML20128K444 (5) | |
Text
'f7970 00CKETED usWPC SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE 4 e4mmemowie wcovomo amoressio=4L concomatione 2300 N STREET, N.W.
900 THIRD AVENUE WASHINGTON. D C. 20037-1128 NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10022-4728 (202) 663-8000 qg 0F F%,, y p q,i Ngggygacyp,,oaive (202 6 8007 00Ch-115 SOUTH UNION STREET September 11,1996
^'5 * ^"oa'^ v' ao '"'^ = '
'a' 2RNEST L, BLAKE. JR. F8C.
201 LIBERW STREET. S W (202) 663-6064 LEESBURG VIRGINIA 22075-2721 Administrative Judge G. Paul Bollwerk, Chairman Administrative Judge Dr. Peter S. Lam Administrative Judge Dr. Charles N. Kelber Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of GPU Nuclear Corporation (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station)
Docket No. 50-219-OL A: ASLBP No. 96-717-02-OL A Gentlemen:
By order dated September 5,1996, the Licensing Board ordered Petitioners to provide a report by September 9 concerning the status of their participation in this proceeding in light of GPU Nuclear's August 23,1996 letter, which had made available the results of certain analyses relating to the amendment application in this proceeding. The Licensing Board's order also per-mitted GPU Nuclear and the NRC Staff to respond by September 11. Pursuant to the Licensing Board's order, GPU Nuclear provides this response to the status report which Petitioners filed on September 9,1996.
Petitioners' status report identifies two areas that remain in question to them. First, with respect to GPU Nuclear's criticality analysis, Petitioners suggest that GPU Nuclear's assumption that all fuel is crushed together appears contradictory with the statement that the impact of the shield plug drop is not considered severe enough to significantly damage the rigid material of the cask. There is obviously no contradiction. The cask is the outer container in which the DSC is enclosed when it is in the spent fuel pool, and it is inconceivable that this massive cask, with its four-inch thick steel walls, would lose its integrity. However, because the shield plug might im-pact the top of some fuel assemblies within the DSC, GPU Nuclear has conservatively assumed for purposes of analysis that all the fuel in the DSC would be crushed together. Under this non-mechanistic assumption, the borated steel plates would be crushed together with the fuel, but they would not be ejected from the DSC, which would remain inside the cask.
9610110072 960911 PDR ADOCK 05000219 G
& Q3
,s 4
4 a
I i -
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTs & TROWBRIDGE j -
. m....,. c u,o..o..o,... om c o.,o.c o.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
September 11,1996 l
l Page 2 i
i GPU Nuclear took this approach because it is consistent with the approach utilized by the i
NRC in analyzing heavy load drops in NUREG-0612, at Q 2.2.4.2 (page 2-30) and Appendix A at 4.1 (page A-4). Specifically, Appendix A to NUREG-0612 states:
j In this neutronics analysis the licensee must demonstrate that the i
i fuel remains suberitical in the optimum crushed configuration. It is i
adequate to assume that the optimum configuration is with the rack i
crushed to uniformly reduce the separation between assemblies and the spacing between fuel pins uniformly reduced to maximize k,y.
j All boral and structural material may be assumed to remain in its i
original configuration relative to the fuel, and not forced out of the j
fuel array.
l These considerations are for boral racks but would apply equally to the DSC with borated stain-less steel plates.
e I,
Second, Petitioners assert that GPU Nuclear's analysis of the consequences of release of 3
fission gas from a shield plug is incomplete because it does not address radiological conse-7 quences to workers Petitioners are incorrect in stating that Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 ad-dresses workers, and point to nothing in 10 C.F.R. Part 20 that requires GPU Nuclear to perform an additional analysis of worker dose. GPU Nuclear protects workers from unnecessary expo-i sures by a very comprehensive and rigorous radiation protection program fully meeting Part 20 requirements including ALARA principles. During accident conditions, personnel access to the area in question would be strictly controlled and personnel would be monitored to assure that oc-cupational doses remain both within permissible limits and as low as reasonably achievable.
i j
Nor does it appear that Petitioners have any legitimate interest in the occupational expo-
?
sure issue. Petitioners do not have authority or standing to represent Oyster Creek workers; and while this would not necessarily preclude Petitioners from raising occupational exposures as an issue ifit also supported relief from the alleged injury to Petitioners' members (cf. Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-2,43 N.R.C. 61,70 (1996)), in this case there is no such indication. Indeed, it remains unclear what relief Petitioners seek in this proceeding.
Based on these comments, GPU Nuclear concludes that Petitioners do not have any real interest in withdrawing their intervention. Although Mr. Gunter represented during the prehear-ing conference that Petitioners might be satisfied by GPU Nuclear's analysis of the consequences of a hypothetical drop of the shield plug, Petitioners' additional comments in their status report suggest to us that Petitioners are unlikely to be satisfied by anything that GPUN provides.
s SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE
[
A Panthe nsusa shCLU0iNG PROFE SS#ON AL ConPon Af SON S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board September 11,1996 Page 3 Consequently, GPU Nuclear requests that the Licensing Board issue its ruling on Petitioners' standing and contention. GPU Nuclear notes that Petitioners' contention and basis are limited to the matters raised in the Supplemental Petition submitted July 18,1996, which has not been amended or expanded.
On a separate matter, I wish to take this opportunity to correct a statement I made during the prehearing conference which we have since learned was incorrect. At transcript page 110, in response to a reference by Mr. Gunter to the incident at Point Beach, I stated that the NUHOMS DSC does not have zine in its basket (im the steel array between fuel assemblies) and is not filled with borated water, ar.d further that the Point Beach incident is outside the scope of this amendment proceeding. While the statement concerning no borated water is correct, and further, this entire Point Beach issue certainly remains beyond the scope of the proceeding because it has nothing to do with a drop of the shield plug over the DSC in the spent fuel pool, GPU Nuclear has learned that there may be some zinc coating in the DSC. Even though the statement appears to be irrelevant and immaterial to the proceeding, I want to correct the record.
Sincerely, ML#qe' Ernest L. Blake Counsel for Licensee cc: Service List H1688-01 # DOCSDC1
e DOCKETED Sephbb1,1996 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
% SEP 13 P4 :01 j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF SECRETt RY BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINONERDG & SERV!CE odHCH In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-219-OLA GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION
)
(Tech. Spec. 5.3.1.B)
)
(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station)
)
ASLBP No. 96-717-02-OLA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached letter dated September 11,1996, were served upon the persons listed below by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this Ilth day of September,1996. Further, where indicated by an asterisk below, an additional copy was provided by facsimile or e-mail this same date.
- G. Paul Bollwerk, Chairman
- Dr. Peter S. Lam Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3 F23 Mail Stop T-3 F 23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 1
- Dr. Charles N. Kelber Adjudicatory File Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-3 F 23 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 l
~
s l
- Ann P. Ilodgdon, Esq.
- Paul Gunter Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office of the General Counsel 142416th Street, N.W., Suite 404 l
Mail Stop O-15 B 18 V/ashington, D.C. 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
- William decamp, Jr.
l Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch Docketing and Service Branch P.O. Box 243 Office of the Secretary Island Heights, New Jersey 08732 l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
- Deborah Katz Citizens Awareness Network P.O. Box 83 Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts 01370 A. $
Ernest L Blake 352366 01 / DOCSDCI l
l l
2 e,
,