ML20136E633

Memorandum & Order Informing That Pending Appeals of Sunflower Alliance & Ocre Will Be Decided Based on Briefs Supplemented by Memoranda Re Listed Questions on Hydrogen Control.Served on 860106

ML20136E633
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	01/03/1986
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE
References
CON-#186-667 OL, NUDOCS 8601070080
Download: ML20136E633 (4)

Text

=

n.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEALBOARd;',{;iED g Administrative Judges:

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman J nu yi,Af9%i Dr. W. Reed Johnson Howard A. Wilber h L

) SEWED JAN -61996 In the Matter of )

)

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos. 50-440 OL COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441 OL

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER By December 10, 1985 order, we vacated our prior order scheduling oral argument for December 19, 1985 in Bethesda, '

Maryland on the pending appeals of intervenors Sunflower Alliance (Sunflower) and Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (OCRE) in this operating license proceeding. We did so because the serious illness of a family member precluded both Sunflower's counsel and OCRE's representative from appearing to present argument on the appointed date. For his part, Sunflower's counsel indicated that his client would waive oral argument. Although OCRE's representative stated that she desired to present oral argument if at all possible, she informed our counsel in a telephone l conversation during the week of December 16 that her l

availability during January remained in substantial doubt because of her family situation.

i 8601070000 860103 ADOCK 05000440 PDR

! C PDR 3SD P

r . _ - . .-

2 In NRC appellate practice, the presentation of oral argument is not a matter of right. Rather, the determina-tion whether an oral argument should be held in a particular

. case before us is committed to our discretion. 10 CFR 2.763; 10.CFR Part 2, Appendix A,Section IX (e) . In the exercise of that discretion, we may appropriately take into

- account the extent to which oral argument might be expected to assist our decision on the issues at hand.

With this factor in mind, as well as the consideration that fairness to all parties dictates that the intervenors' appeals be decided seasonably, we have reviewed with care the material before us in connection with those appeals. On the basis of that review, we have concluded that in substantial.measureithe issues presented by the appeals have been sufficiently briefed to enable us to reach an informed judgment on them without the benefit of additional discussion by the parties. We have further determined that the few questions ' that remain open following our examination of the briefs and the Licensing Board record do not require exploration at an oral argument but, instead, can be treated adequately in supplemental written memoranda.

i t Accordingly, we will decide the pending appeals on the briefs, supplemented by memoranda addressed to the following questions:

1. Effective February 25, 1985, the Commission amended its hydrogen control rule to require, among other things,

+

3 improved hydrogen control capability for boiling water reactors with a Mark III containment (e . g . Perry). 10 CFR 50.44. In the case of such a facility, the amount of hydrogen to be controlled must be equivalent to the quantity generated by a metal-water reaction involving 75 percent of the cladding surrounding the active fuel region (excluding the cladding surrounding the plenum volume). No accident scenarios that would result in such hydrogen production are specified, but the rule states that scenarios accepted by the NRC staff "must be accompanied by sufficient supporting justification to show that they describe the behavior of the reactor system during and following an accident resulting in a degraded core." 10 CPR 50.44 (c) (3) (vi) (B) (3) . In light of this directive, was it proper for the Licensing Board, in connection with its assessment of the applicants' prelimi-nary hydrogen control analysis, to admit and to consider evidence concerning assumptions related to specific details of the accident, such as containment spray availability, station blackou'_, and the operability of the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System? If not, does the rule nevertheless require the applicants' final analysis to include a determination with respect to the appropriateness of such assumptions?

2. Taking into account your answer to Question 1, as well as the requirement of section 50.44 (c) (3) (vi) (B) (5) (i) that containment structural integrity must be maintained

(

l 4

i l-throughout the hydrogen generation and control scenario, i

what is the justification for the applicants' and the staff's reliance on an analysis that apparently requires the operation of the containment spray system as a heat removal device in order to maintain containment integrity? Given

( this requirement, does not the containment spray become a s necessary part of the hydrogen control system and hence fall l

l within the scope of the new hydrogen rule? See LBP-85-35, 22 NRC 514, 542 (1985).

l The memoranda shall be filed and served by January 21, l

1986. Because neither of the questions is directed to the emergency planning issues raised by the Sunflower appeal, that party need not respond.

It is so ORDERED.I l

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD i

i I

l L . an oema er j Sec tary to the i

Appeal Board l

F:

1 Also now before us is OCRE's December 12, 1985 Motion to Reopen the Record and to Submit New Contentions. We will decide that motion in a separate order.

. - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .